is computed under paragraph 40(2)(b) or (c). 4. Under subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii), a loss on a disposition of personal-use property, other than listed personal property, is deemed to be nil. [...] This part of the bulletin indicates that a gain might be considered a capital gain - not income. However, you don't get to book a loss as a capital loss. This is the first hint that your book sale - which is actually an exempt capital loss - shouldn't go on your tax return unless it's one of the \"\"listed\"\" items: LISTED PERSONAL PROPERTY 7. Listed personal property is defined in paragraph 54(e) to mean personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any (a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art, (b) jewellery, (c) rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book, (d) stamp, or (e) coin. So unless you're selling rare books, the disposition (sale) of them is essentially exempt as income, regardless of whether you sold it at a profit or at a loss. If it is rare, then you might be able to consider it a capital loss, which doesn't help you much unless you had other capital gains, but you can carry over capital losses to future years. There's also a newer IT related to hobbies and \"\"collecting\"\" items, IT-334R2. This one says: 11. In order for any activity or pursuit to be regarded as a source of income, there must be a reasonable expectation of profit. Where such an expectation does not exist (as is the case with most hobbies), neither amounts received nor expenses incurred are included in the income computation for tax purposes and any excess of expenses over receipts is a personal or living expense, the deduction of which is denied by paragraph 18(1)(h). On the other hand, if the hobby or pastime results in receipts of revenue in excess of expenses, that fact is a strong indication that the hobby is a venture with an expectation of profit; if so, the net income may be taxable as income from a business. The current version of IT-504, Visual Artists and Writers, discusses the concept of \"\"a reasonable expectation of profit\"\" in greater detail. Where a hobby consists of collecting personal-use property or listed personal property, dispositions should be accounted for as described in the current version of IT-332, Personal-Use Property. (emphasis mine) In other words, if it's not the type of thing where you'd make a tax deduction when you bought it in the first place, then you clearly don't need to report it as income when you sell it. Just to be absolutely clear here: The fact that you are selling them at a loss is not actually what's important here. What's important is that, if the books aren't collectibles, then you would have had no expectation of profit. If you did have that expectation then you could have made a tax deduction when you first purchased them. So in this case, it is probably not necessary for you to report the income; however, for the benefit of other readers, in some cases you might need to report it under \"\"other income\"\" or book it as a capital gain/loss, depending on what those personal items are and whether or not you made a net profit.\"","\"You can exclude up to $250000 ($500000 for married filing jointly) of capital gains on property which was your primary residence for at least 2 years within the 5 years preceding the sale. This is called \"\"Section 121 exclusion\"\". See the IRS publication 523 for more details. Gains is the difference between your cost basis (money you paid for the property) and the proceeds (money you got when you sold it). Note that the amounts you deducted for depreciation (or were allowed to deduct during the period the condo was a rental, even if you chose not to) will be taxed at a special rate of 25% - this is called \"\"depreciation recapture\"\", and is discussed in the IRS publication 544.\"","Your question is best asked of a tax expert, not random people on the internet. Such an expert will help you ask the right questions. For example you did not point out the country or state in which you live. That matters. First point is that you will not pay tax on 60K, its expensive to transact real estate, so your net proceeds will be closer to 40K. Also you can probably the deduct the costs of improvements. You implied that you really like this rental property. If that is the case, why would you sell...ever? This home could be a central part of your financial independence plan. So keep it until you die. IIRC when it passes to your heirs, a new cost basis is formed thereby not passing the tax burden onto them. (Assuming the property is located in the US.)","No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge).","If the items you sold are items you previously bought for a higher price, the money you get selling them is not income, as you are taking a loss. However, you cannot deduct such losses. If you sell anything for more than what you paid for, the difference is a gain and is taxable. See this IRS web site for the explanation: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/tax-tips-for-online-auction-sellers","\"Yes, you're correct and yes they will. Note that it will be considered as \"\"sale\"\" with gains being taxable income to you.\"","The money you will be bringing to the US will be classified as your own money, and will not be taxable. The proceeds from the sale are taxable to you, probably as capital gains. The fact that you kept the proceeds out of the US is irrelevant for that purpose (it is relevant for FBAR/FATCA etc). Since you had no basis in the property, all the proceeds are taxable to you at the time of the sale and should be reported on your tax return.","For case 1, there is no tax due as you sold the book for less than your cost basis. If you had sold for more than $100, then you would have had a profit. For case 2, that depends on the value of the gift card with respect to the value of your fare. Most likely that gift card is less than the cost of the fare. And in that case it would generally be treated as a reduction in the purchase price. The same way that rebates and cash back on credit card are treated. Note if for some reason a 1099 was generated that would change the situation and you would need to consult a tax professional. Since that would indicate that the other party to the transaction had a different view of the situation.","\"I doubt it. In the States you would only owe tax if you sold such an item at a profit. \"\"garage sales\"\" aren't taxable as they are nearly always common household items and sale is more about clearing out one's attic/garage than about profit. Keep in mind, if I pay for a book, and immediately sell it for the same price, there's no tax due, why would tax be due if I sell for a loss?\"","\"In general, insurance payouts you receive in compensation for damage to your vehicle are not taxable income (see for instance this Nolo page). However, I don't see how that is related to your three bullet points about how your sister should buy her car. You can transfer the money to her in any way that's convenient to both of you. Whether the dealership will accept cash is something you'll have to ask them about, but my impression is most dealers are eager to accept cash. As long as the car you are getting from her is not worth substantially more than the $8500 you're giving her, I don't see that you'll be in trouble income-tax-wise. As mentioned in the question you linked to, you can give each other up to $14k per year tax-free. So if you give her a $8500 and she gives you a car worth roughly the same amount, no problem. If you actually do it as a sale, even better, since then the only amount that will count as a gift to either of you is whatever one party gets above and beyond the fair value of the car. (That is, if the car is worth $10000 but she sells it to you for $8500, she effectively gave you a gift of $1500 in car value. If it's worth $7000 but she sells it to you for $8500, you gave her a gift of $1500 in cash.) As Rocky pointed out in a comment, if you do a sale it may be subject to sales tax depending on what state you're in. In practice it is very common for people to not deal with sales tax in informal transactions like this between family members, but you do owe it if your state's laws require it, and the state could theoretically come after you for it. Another edit: I see from your comment you are in Michigan. According to this page from the Michigan Secretary of State, \"\"no tax is due if you purchase a vehicle from an immediate family member\"\". So you would not owe sales tax if you do it as a sale.\"","You cannot do a like-kind (Sec. 1031) exchange for personal property, only for business/investment property. Since you said that you traded in your personal car - no like-kind exchange is possible. Also, since the new car doesn't belong to you - you didn't actually perform any exchange. You sold your old car, but you didn't buy a new one. If Turbo-Tax suggests you to fill the exchange form - you must have entered something wrong to make it think there was an exchange. Check your entries again, specifically - check if you entered that you purchased a new car instead of the old one, since you didn't. See an example of where to start looking here.","When you sell your primary residence, you are required to capitalize any loss or gain at that point; you do not carry over your loss or gain (as you might in an investment property). As such, the timing of the purchase of the next house is not relevant in this discussion: you gained however much you gained already. This changed from the other (rollover) method in 1997 (see this bankrate article for more details.) However, as discussed in IRS Tax Topic 701, you can exclude up to $250,000 (single or filing separately) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) of gain if it is your primary residence and meets a few requirements (mostly, that you owned it for at least 2 years in the past 5 years, and similarly used it as your main home for at least 2 years of the past 5 years). So given you reported 25% gain, as long as your house is under a million dollars or so, you're fine (and if it's over a million dollars, you probably should be paying a CPA for this stuff). For California state tax, it looks like it is the same (see this Turbotax forum answer for a good explanation and links to this California Franchise Tax Board guide which confirms it: For sale or exchanges after May 6, 1997, federal law allows an exclusion of gain on the sale of a personal residence in the amount of $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly). The taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence as a principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years before the sale. California conforms to this provision. However, California taxpayers who served in the Peace Corps during the 5 year period ending on the date of the sale may reduce the 2 year period by the period of service, not to exceed 18 months.","\"Short Answer: You're going to end up paying taxes on it. Despite the home being your primary residence, you don't meet the ownership test, and it isn't noted that you have had a change in employment, health, or other unforeseen circumstances that are \"\"forcing\"\" you to sell. Otherwise, you could qualify for a reduced maximum exclusion that might allow you to walk away without owing taxes, or with a reduced tax bill. You can't even do a 1031 exchange to re-invest into a new primary residence. You should check with a tax professional to see what adjustments you can make to the cost basis of the property to minimize your reported net profits. During the 5-year period prior to the sale, you must have: These periods do not necessarily have to coincide (You don't to live in it as your main house for 2 consecutive years, just 2 years worth of time of the last 5).\"","What you are looking for is a 1031 exchange. https://www.irs.gov/uac/like-kind-exchanges-under-irc-code-section-1031 Whenever you sell business or investment property and you have a gain, you generally have to pay tax on the gain at the time of sale. IRC Section 1031 provides an exception and allows you to postpone paying tax on the gain if you reinvest the proceeds in similar property as part of a qualifying like-kind exchange. Gain deferred in a like-kind exchange under IRC Section 1031 is tax-deferred, but it is not tax-free. You may also sell your house for bitcoin and record the sales price on the deed with an equal or lesser amount that you bought it for.","\"If you sell an asset for more than you paid for it, the excess amount realized is called a capital gain and is generally considered a form of income for tax purposes. Generally, one pays income tax on realized capital gains, unless the sale is exempt—such as the sale of one's principal residence. Capital gains tax can also be avoided or deferred by holding assets in a tax-advantaged investment account like a TFSA or RRSP. When taxable, the effective income tax rate on capital gains income is half the normal rate due to the capital gains inclusion rate. Capital gains income is generally not considered to be employment, \"\"earned\"\", or \"\"working\"\" income. However, individuals who, say, trade stocks frequently and earn a substantial portion of their income that way may have their gains considered employment income and subject to regular income tax instead of the better rate. I suggest you contact Service Canada and ask them about the impact of a one-time sale of personal property that would result in a realized capital gain. While you would owe income tax on the capital gain, it might not have any impact on your disability benefits, because it would not be earned or employment income. You should also check with your private insurer; they may also consider the sale a capital gain and not employment income, however, only they would be able to tell you for sure whether it would have any possible effect on your benefits.\"","Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.","If you are in the United States, Real Estate gains are taxed as capital gains 15% currently but will go up in 2011. You may be able to exclude $250,000 filing single (500k married filing jointly) if you have lived in the condo 2 out of the last 5 years. See IRS Publication 523 for more information. You are only taxed on the profit from the sale. If you paid $100,000 and you sell it for $125,000 you would owe capital gains tax on $25,000 if you don't meet the conditions in IRS Publication 523.","Using US tax code, given that your profits are less than 250K, given that you lived in that home over two years, then yes the 150K is tax free. That is your money in the US. Note: I won't get into all of the specifics but basically you need to live somewhere 2 years. You get 250K per person, up to 500K. Most enhancements count as money towards the home. So most/all of your 12k should be discounted. However there is a lot of fine print in this and a lot of interpretation on what is normal upkeep and what is an enhancement.","You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.","Your capital gain is about $40K, which (assuming your total income is under $250K) is taxed at 15% long term capital gains rate. Additional depreciation recapture of approximately $5K is taxed at 25%. So this gives us rough estimate of $7250 tax. This is Federal tax, AZ rates are somewhere between 2% and 4%, so you'll be looking at some $1.6K additional tax to AZ. If you have accumulated rental losses or other expenses, it will lower the total amount of your gain (and, accordingly, the taxes). This is all very rough estimates, and you shouldn't rely on this but verify on your own or with a professional. I suggest using professional services because while being costly, they will probably save you more in taxes than you'll have to pay them because of the knowledge of what exactly of your expenses can be deducted and how to calculate the cost basis correctly. (edit from JoeT - the home exclusion requires occupancy for 2 of prior 5 years. For the OP, the prorated $125k exclusion 'might' cover the gain, it depends when the increase in value occurred, if the gain was during the time rented, it's taxable, I believe.)","How much Federal Capital Gains, NYS Income tax and local tax should I expect to pay? You're going to net about 2.4 millions of dollars. Federal long term capital gains tax is 20% (plus 3.8% medicare), NYS is 8.82%. Does it make sense to investigate the tax benefits of financing the sale for the buyer? Yes. Have your tax adviser check the options for you (financing, instalment, etc), especially if you have no other US-sourced income. Tax treaties are also something your tax adviser should be looking at. Be sure your tax adviser is properly licensed in New York as either EA, CPA or Attorney. Don't do anything without a proper tax advice.","It doesn't go on Schedule E at all, it goes on form 4797. The fridge should have been depreciated, over 5 years. If you sold it after 5 years, all the proceeds are taxable income taxed as depreciation recapture (25% rate) up to the allowable depreciation (your original cost basis), above which it is taxable capital gain. Whether you actually have depreciated it or not, it is really your problem, IRS doesn't care. So if 5 years of ownership passed - just write it all as taxable income on the form 4797. Otherwise, allowable depreciation prorated (and you can still amend forms 3 years back to get at least part of it). The new fridge should also be depreciated over the 5 years of its expected useful life. See form 4562. Talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for details.","You bought a rental property in 2001. Hopefully you paid fair value else other issues come into play. Say you paid $120K. You said you have been taking depreciation, which for residential real estate is taken over 27.5 years, so you are about halfway through. Since you don't depreciate land, you may have taken a total $50K so far. With no improvements, and no transaction costs, you have $50K in depreciation recapture, taxed at a maximum 25% (or your lower, marginal rate) and a cap gain of the 5-10K you mentioned. Either can be offset by losses you've been carrying forward if you suffered large stock losses at some point.","AS PER IRS PUBLICATION: Question: Is money received from the sale of inherited property considered taxable income? Answer: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: For information on the FMV of inherited property on the date of the decedent’s death, contact the executor of the decedent’s estate. Also, note that in 2015, Congress passed a new law that, under certain circumstances, requires an executor to provide a statement identifying the FMV of certain inherited property to the individual receiving that property. Check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040), Capital Gains and Losses, and on Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets: Under the new law passed by Congress in 2015, an accuracy-related penalty may apply if an individual reporting the sale of certain inherited property uses a basis in excess of that property’s final value for federal estate tax purposes. Again, check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. For estates of decedents who died in 2010, basis is generally determined as described above. However, the executor of a decedent who died in 2010 may elect out of the estate tax rules for 2010 and use the modified carryover of basis rules. Under this special election, the basis of property inherited from a decedent who died during 2010 is generally the lesser of: Under this special election for estates of decedents who died in 2010, the executor of the decedent’s estate may increase the basis of certain property that beneficiaries acquire from a decedent by up to $1.3 million (plus certain unused built-in losses and loss carryovers, if applicable), but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor may also increase the basis of certain property that the surviving spouse acquires from a decedent by up to an additional $3 million, but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor of the decedent’s estate is required to provide a statement to all heirs listing the decedent’s basis in the property, the FMV of the property on the date of the decedent’s death, and the additional basis allocated to the property. Contact the executor to determine what the basis of the asset is. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040) and on Form 8949, as described above. Additional Information:","This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.","Ditto Rocky. Also: Break the sale up over several tax years so that you don't have a spike in your income pushing you into a higher tax bracket. Don't sell it until you retire, when you're probably in a lower tax bracket. (If you're 20, this may be impractical.) Get some other deductions, like medical expenses, charity, etc. Failing that, maybe a couple of other ideas that neither of us thought of, I think the real answer is: suck it up and pay the taxes. If there was a way to reduce your taxes just by checking the right box on a tax form or some such, everybody would do it and the government wouldn't collect any taxes.","\"And my CPA is saying no way, it will cost me many thousands in taxes and doesn't make any sense. I'd think so too. It looks like it converts from capitol gains at 14% to something else at about 35% Can be, if your gain under the Sec.1231 rules is classified as depreciation recapture. But, perhaps the buyers will be saving this way? Not your problem even if they were, which they aren't. I would not do something my CPA says \"\"no-way\"\" about. I sometimes prefer not doing some things my CPA says \"\"it may fly\"\" because I'm defensive when it comes to taxes, but if your CPA is not willing to sign something off - don't do it. Ever.\"","Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.","Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. There is risk in exchanging this (known) property for another (unknown) property. That risk may be more than $9000 worth of risk. Tax considerations are important, but most important is that your investments make money. If you intend to continue as a landlord, you had better be sure you are finding a better deal elsewhere if you are going to trade this property up. I should also mention that you have a 5 year window in which you need to have lived in the home for 2 years. You have time and might be able to sell for a higher price if you wait a little longer.","This will be a complex issue and you will need to sit down with a professional to work through the issues: When the house was put up for rent the initial year tax forms should have required that the value of the house/property be calculated. This number was then used for depreciation of the house. This was made more complex based on any capital improvements. If the house wasn't the first he owned, then capital gains might have been rolled over from previous houses which adds a layer of complexity. Any capital improvements while the house was a rental will also have to be resolved because those were also depreciated since they were placed in service. The deprecation will be recaptured and will be a part of the calculation. You have nowhere near enough info to make a calculation at this time.","\"Please Note: Before taking any steps towards a transaction involving possible capital gains tax exclusions, please consult your CPA, attorney or tax advisor. I am not a CPA or Tax Advisor. Since you have only lived in it 11 months, you don't meet the \"\"use test\"\" for full exclusion. However, even if you haven't lived in it that long, you may be able to exclude some of the gains due to a \"\"unforeseen circumstance\"\", not just because you wanted to move. You say you are \"\"ready for a change\"\" and so that means it's an arbitrary decision, not a forced one. To calculate the partial exclusion, take the number of months you lived there before the sale and divide it by 24. (11/24 = 0.45). So for an unmarried person, you can exclude up to $250,000. Multiply that by .45 and you get $112,500. If your profit after everything is taken out is only $35,000 then you can exclude that from capital gains because it is less than $112,500. All that being said, you will need documentation in case you get audited. For more information, see IRS Publication 551, Basis of Assets, and look for the section on real property. See also this IRS Tax Topic on Sale of Your Home\"","First the good news: based on the time involved, and the amount of potential profits; you will not owe any tax on the sale of the house no matter which option you pick. Now the details. When determining if there are any capital gains the IRS cares about the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. The amount of the loan, the final balance of the loan, or the lack of loan don't factor into the calculation. To complicate matters the government does factor into the equation any improvements you have made to the house (like a new deck) and the cost of buying and selling the house (real estate agents). If a single person has less than 250K in capital gains and has used the house as their main residence for 2 of the the previous 5 years their tax is zero. For a couple the tax free gain is $500K. For your situation since the sale price is less than $250K, the capital gains will also be less than $250K. You do have one potential area of concern. If the house is worth significantly more than $150K, the government could claim that the difference between what you charged your parents and what you could have charged was a gift. Assuming that there are no other factors that you didn't include in the original question it would appear that you will not face any taxes. Regarding your two options, neither will impact the taxes. Though draining your savings or investments could make it difficult to meet an emergency during the time between the sending of the $95K to the mortgage company and the closing on the deal with your parents. If the money came from retirement account it could have an even greater impact on your taxes and retirement situation.","\"I would suggest reading through page 1 of the Arizona Nonresident form instructions at the web address below: https://www.azdor.gov/Portals/0/ADOR-forms/TY2015/10100/10177_inst.pdf To quote: \"\"You are subject to Arizona income tax on all income derived from Arizona sources. If you are in this state for a temporary or transitory purpose or did not live in Arizona but received income from sources within Arizona during 2015, you are subject to Arizona tax. Income from Arizona sources includes the following: ...the sale of Arizona real estate...\"\"\"","\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"","\"I'm going to look just at purchase price. Essentially, you can't always claim the whole of the purchase price (or 95% your case) in the year (the accounting period) of purchase, but you get a percentage of the value of the car each year, called writing down allowance, which is a capital allowance. It is similar to depreciation, but based on HRMC's own formula. In fact, it seems you probably can claim 95% of the purchase price, because the value is less than £1000. The logic is a bit involved, but I hope you can understand it. You could also claim simplified expenses instead, which is just based on a rate per mile, but you can't claim both. Note, by year I mean whatever your account period is. This could be the normal financial year, but you would probably have a better idea about this. See The HMRC webpage on this for more details. The big idea is that you record the value of any assets you are claiming writing down allowance on in one of a number of pools, that attract the same rate of writing down allowance, so you don't need to record the value of each asset separately. They are similar to accounts in accounting, so they have an opening balance, and closing balance. If you use an asset for personal use, it needs a pool to itself. HRMC call that a single asset pool. So, to start with, look at the Business Cars section, and look at the Rates for Cars section, to determine the rate you can claim. Each one links to a further article, which gives more detail if you need it. Your car is almost certainly in the special rate category. Special rate is 8% a year, main rate is 18%, and First year allowance is essentially 100%. Then, you look at the Work out what you can claim article. That talks you through the steps. I'll go through your example. You would have a pool for your car, which would end the account period before you bought the vehicle at zero (step 1). You then add the value of the car in the period you bought it (Step 2). You would reduce the value of the pool if you dispose of it in the same year (Step 3). Because the car is worth less than £1,000 (see the section on \"\"If you have £1,000 or less in your pool\"\"), you would normally be able to claim the whole value of the pool (the value of the car) in the first accounting period, and reduce the value of the pool to zero. As you use the car for personal use, you only claim 95% of the value, but still reduce the pool to zero. See the section on \"\"Items you use outside your business\"\". This £1000 is adjusted if your accounting period lasts more or less than 12 months. Once the pool is down to zero that it you don't need to think about it any more for tax purposes, apart from if you are claiming other motoring expenses, or if you sell it. It gets more complicated if the car is more expensive. I'll go through an example for a car worth £2,000. Then, after Step 3, on the year of purchase, you would reduce the value of the pool by 8%, and claim 95% of the reduction. This would be a 160 reduction, and 95%*160 = 152 claim, leaving the value of 1860 in the pool. You then follow the same steps for the next year, start with 1840 in the pool, reduce the value by 8%, then claim 95% of the reduction. This continues until you sell or dispose of the car (Step 3), or the value of the pool is 1000 or less, then you claim all of it in that year. Selling the car, or disposing of the car is discussed in the Capital allowances when you sell an asset article. The basic idea is that if you have already reduced the value of the pool to zero, the price you sell the car for is added you your profits for that year (See \"\"If you originally claimed 100% of the item\"\"), if you still have anything in the pool, you reduce the value of the pool by the sale value, and if it reduces to below zero (to -£200, say), you add that amount (£200, in this case), to your profits. If the value is above zero, you keep applying writing down allowances. In your case, that seems to just means if you sell the car in the same year you buy it, you claim the difference (or 95% of it) as writing down allowance, and if you do it later, you claim the purchase price in the year of purchase, and add 95% of the sale price to your profits in the year you sell it. I'm a bit unclear about starting \"\"to use it outside your business\"\", which doesn't seem to apply if you use it outside the business to start with. You can claim simplified expenses for vehicles, if you are a sole trader or partner, but not if you claim capital allowances (such as writing down allowances) on them, or you include a separate expense in your accounts for motoring expenses. It's a flat rate of 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that, for cars, and 24p a mile for motorcycles. See the HRMC page on Simplifed Mileage expenses for details. For any vehicle you decide to either claim capital allowances claim running costs separately, or claim simplified mileage expenses, and \"\"Once you use the flat rates for a vehicle, you must continue to do so as long as you use that vehicle for your business.you have to stick with that decision for that vehicle\"\". In your case, it seems you can claim 95% of the purchase price in the accounting period you buy it, and if you sell it you add 95% of the sale price to your profits in that accounting period. It gets more complicated if you have a car worth more than £1000, adjusted for the length of the accounting period. Also, if you change how you use it, consult the page on selling selling an asset, as you may have disposed of it. You can also use simplified mileage expenses, but then you can't claim capital allowances, or claim running costs separately for that car. I hope that makes sense, please comment if not, and I'll try to adjust the explanation.\"","Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.","\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"","If significant amounts are involved, that would be a good time to consult a tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state). Generally, sale of a business is an ordinary income and you can only deduct tangible expenses, as Joe said. That would be laptops, bills, expenses per receipt, of course they must all be directly attributable to the business. You will need to be able to show that the laptops has only been used in business, recapture depreciation, etc. Same with all the rest of the expenses. If you're incorporated (i.e.: you hold this software under an S-Corp), then you're selling stocks, not business, and the tax treatment may be different, but I'm guessing this is not the case for you.","(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!","Yes you need to pay Capital Gains tax in India. Further transfer of money out of India from Ordinary account requires some formalities / paperwork. A CA should be able to guide you.","You need a lawyer and a tax accountant for a sale like this. They will be able to tell you if the proceeds are taxed as income (most likely) or capital gains and will help you structure the deal. How you spend the proceeds will not make a difference, although if it's a large amount and you plan to donate some to charity, you may be able to save on your total tax liability by creating a donor advised fund. Keep in mind the broker is mostly interested in his commission and not about making the best deal for you. Get an attorney with experience in business sales.","Kentucky property tax is assessed as of the owner on January 1 of each calendar year. In April you should be notified of what KY considers you to owe them, and you have a two week period in May to appeal those decisions (though it appears that you can only appeal Real property tax assessments). The final tax bill is then sent to you in the fall, by October, and you have until the end of the year to pay the bill. See Kentucky Property Tax Calendar Overview for more details. Thus, if you owned the car on Jan 1 2016, then you should owe personal property tax on it for 2016 due in the fall. You may not have owed the tax paid in November, if it was indeed personal property tax, unless the seller was asking you to recompense them for the tax they paid in 2015. Note that property tax is separate and distinct from usage tax, the 6% tax for vehicles paid at purchase date (once and only once).","Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.","The transaction will be taxable in India. You will have to pay Capital Gains tax. I am assuming that you purchased the house while you were Indian Resident for tax purposes. As such its needs more paper work to get the money back to US. Consult a CA in India who will help with the paperwork. You haven't mentioned your tax status in US, one you update it, someone will post a US tax aspects of the transaction.","I realize this is a dated question, but for anyone interested in this subject please be aware of the availability of IRC § 1235 and capital gain treatment for the sale of patents. When the holder of a patent transfers all substantial rights to an unrelated person, it can qualify for long-term capital gain treatment. That can be a meaningful tax savings relative to ordinary income treatment. There are a number of specific provisions and requirements to access § 1235. The holder must be the creator or someone unrelated (and not the creator's employer) who purchased the patent from the creator. The holder must transfer all substantial rights to the patent (not a licensing), or sell an undivided portion of all substantial rights (partial sale, again not a license). The benefit of § 1235 is that long-term treatment will apply even for patents with holding periods under 1 year. Other rules and permutations of course also apply. Those who fail § 1235 may still qualify their assets as capital under § 1221 or § 1231. A patent held by its creator will often qualify as a capital asset. It may not make any sense to sell your business as a whole, particularly if all a purchaser wants is a patent or group of patents. Of course, if the patent was held by its creator in a single-member LLC or other disregarded entity sold to a buyer, then the tax treatment is still treated as the sale of a long-term capital asset.","\"You uncle is liable to pay \"\"Capital-Gains\"\" tax. Essentially the sale price less of cost would be treated as gains. The gains are taxed at 10% without indexation and 20% with Indexation. The capital gains tax can be avoided if your uncle invests the gains into specified \"\"Infrastructure bonds\"\" or buys another property within a period of 3 years. The funds need to be kept in a separate \"\"Capital Gains\"\" account and not a regular savings account till you buy another property within 3 years.\"","To focus on your question.. pay it off then trade in. The reason is because say you just have 14k laying around and buy a car for 14k, you must pay 14k plus tax. If you are in one of the states that allows the tax break, then trading the 14k valued vehicle in for a 14k vehicle will nullify your sales tax. As per your question, if you traded the car in at 7k, you would then owe 7k plus tax. You only have 7k..so how would you pay for the tax and why would you want to? Pay off the car and you'll have 14k of tax free off any car.","The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.","Residents of Canada must pay Canadian income tax on their worldwide income (source: Wikipedia). However, there is a tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada; I haven't read it, but my guess is that it will allow you to claim a tax credit in Canada for the capital gains tax you have paid to the U.S.","Is the remaining amount tax free? As in, if the amount shown (which I can sell) on etrade is $5000 then if I sell the entire shares will my bank account be increased by $5000? The stocks they sell are withholding. So let's say you had $7000 of stock and they sold $2000 for taxes. That leaves you with $5000. But the actual taxes paid might be more or less than $2000. They go in the same bucket as the rest of your withholding. If too much is withheld, you get a refund. Too little and you owe them. Way too little and you have to pay penalties. At the end of the year, you will show $7000 as income and $2000 as withheld for taxes from that transaction. You may also have a capital gain if the stock increases in price. They do not generally withhold on stock sales, as they don't necessarily know what was your gain and what was your loss. You usually have to handle that yourself. The main point that I wanted to make is that the sale is not tax free. It's just that you already had tax withheld. It may or may not be enough.","An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.","\"Payment gateways such as Square do not normally withhold tax. It is up to you to pay the appropriate tax at tax time. That having been said, Square does report your payments to the IRS on a form 1099-K if your payments are large enough. According to Square, you'll get a 1099-K from them if your total payments for the year add up to $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. Whether or not they report on a 1099-K, you are required to pay the appropriate taxes on your income. So now the question becomes, \"\"Do I have to pay income tax on the proceeds from my garage sale?\"\" And the answer to that question is usually not. When you sell something that you previously purchased, if you sell it for more than you paid for it, you have a capital gain and need to pay tax on that. However, generally you sell things in a garage sale at a loss, meaning that there is no tax due. If you make more than $20,000 at your garage sale and the IRS gets a 1099-K, the IRS might be curious as to how you did that with no capital gain. So if you sell any big ticket items (a bulldozer, for example), you should keep a record of what you paid for it, so you can show the loss to the IRS in the event of an audit.\"","If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.","\"In simple terms, it is a business operation when it becomes a profit-making enterprise. It is a grey area, but there is a difference between selling occasional personal items on eBay and selling for profit. I would imagine the sort of considerations HM Revenue & Customs would take into account are the size of your turnover, the extent to which you are both buying and selling, and whether you are clearly specialising in one particular commodity as opposed of disposing of unwanted presents or clearing the loft. http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/When-does-eBay-selling-become-taxable-/10000000004494855/g.html I don't believe that you selling your personal camera gear will be taxable, but as the link says, it is a grey area. They also recommend to do this It's far better than having to deal with an investigation a few years down the line. When it comes to completing your tax return, there is a section which is headed \"\"other income\"\", and it is here where you will enter the net earnings from the web business. \"\"Net\"\" here means your additional income, less all expenses associated with it. If you are still worried I would always encourage people to take a cautious approach and discuss their position with HMRC via its helpline on 08454 915 4515.\"","It will definitely be added to your AGI, but not necessarily bump your ordinary income tax bracket. You will have to use the Capital Gains Computation worksheet (that uses the general Tax Computation Worksheet) to figure out your tax liability. You might also be subject to the AMT. See the instructions to form 1040, line 44 (page 38) and line 45.","IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value. You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.","Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.","Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.","I'm assuming you're in the United States for this. I highly recommend getting a CPA to help you navigate the tax implications. Likely, you'll pay taxes as a sole proprietor, on top of any other income you made. Hopefully you kept good records because you'll be essentially paying for the profits, but you'll need to show the revenue and expenditures that you had. If you have any capital expenditures you may be able ton amortize them. But again, definitely hire a professional to help you, it will be well worth the cost.","\"Believe it or not, unless you directly contact an accountant with experience in this field or a lawyer, you may have a tough time getting a direct answer from a reputable source. The reason is two fold. First, legally defining in-game assets is exceptionally difficult from a legal/taxation stand point. Who really owns this data? You or the company that has built the MMO and manages the servers containing all of the data? You can buy-and-sell what is effectively \"\"data\"\" on their servers but the truth is, they own the code, the servers, the data, your access rights, etc. and at any point in time could terminate everything within their systems. This would render the value of your accounts worthless! As such, most countries have overwhelmingly avoided the taxation of in-game \"\"inventory\"\" because it's not really definable. Instead, in game goods are only taxed when they are exchanged for local currency. This is considered a general sale. There may be tax codes in your region for the sale of \"\"digital goods\"\". Otherwise, it should be taxed as sale a standard good with no special stipulations. The bottom line is that you shouldn't expect to find much reliable information on this topic, on the internet. Law's haven't been welled defined, regarding in-game content worth and taxing of sales and if you want to know how you should pay your taxes on these transactions, you need to talk to a good accountant, a lawyer or both.\"","\"Property sold at profit is taxed at capital gains rate (if you held it for more than a year, which you have based on your previous question). Thus deferring salary won't change the taxable amount or the tax rate on the property. It may save you the 3% difference on the salary, but I don't know how significant can that be. The 25% depreciation recapture rate (or whatever the current percentage is) is preset by your depreciation and cannot be changed, so you'll have to pay that first. Whatever is left above it is capital gains and will be taxed at discounted rates (20% IIRC). You need to make sure that you deduct everything, and capitalize everything else (all the non-deductible expenses and losses with regards to the property). For example, if you remodeled - its added to your basis (reduces the gains). If you did significant improvements and changes - the same. If you installed new appliances and carpets - they're depreciated faster (you can appropriate part of the sale proceeds to these and thus reduce the actual property related gain). Also, you need to see what gain you have on the land - the land cannot be depreciated, so all the gain on it is capital gain. Your CPA will help you investigating these, and maybe other ways to reduce your tax bill. Do make sure to have proper documentation and proofs for all your claims, don't make things up and don't allow your CPA \"\"cut corners\"\". It may cost you dearly on audit.\"","The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html","As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.","\"The $100,000 is taxed separately as \"\"ordinary income\"\". The $350,000 is taxed at long-term capital gains of 15%. Capital gains is not taxed at 20% until $415,050. Even though $100,000 + 350,000 = $450,000, only $350,000 can be taxed at capital gains. The total ordinary income tax burden will be $31,986 if single, in California. Caveat: By creating a holdings corporation (C-corp), you can section 351 that $100,000 into the C-corp for tax deferment, which won't be taxed until you take money from the corporation. Since you will hold 100% of the voting stock, all distributions will be considered pro rata. Additionally, you can issue yourself a dividend under the rules of 26 USC §§243-246 (a greather-than-80% shareholder who receives a dividend can write-off 100% of said dividend). As long as that dividend doesn't trigger §§1.243-246 of The Regulations by keeping the distribution just under 10% of E&P i.e. $10,000. Wages are deductible against basis so pay yourself $35,000 and keep $55,000 in the corporation and you can decrease the total liabilities down to $22,000 from $31,000, which includes the CA franchise tax. You don't have to pay yourself any money out a corporation to use the money.\"","Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.","\"Is this legal? Why not? But you might have trouble deducting losses on your taxes, especially if you sell to someone related to you in some way (which is indeed what you're doing). See the added portion below regarding dealing with \"\"related person\"\" (which a sibling is). The state of Maryland has a transfer/recordation tax of 1.5% for each, the buyer and seller. Would this be computed on the appraised or sale value? You should check with the State. In California property taxes are assessed based on sale value, but if the sale value is bogus the assessors have the right to recalculate. Since you're selling to family, the assessors will likely to intervene and set a more close to \"\"fair market\"\" value on the transaction, but again - check the local law. Will this pose any problem if the buyer needs financing? Likely, banks will be suspicious.Since you're giving a discount to your sibling, it will likely not cause a problem for financing. If it was an unrelated person getting such a discount, it would likely to have raised some questions. Would I be able to deduct a capital loss on my tax return? As I said - it may be a problem. If the transaction is between related people - likely not. Otherwise - not sure. Check with a professional tax adviser (EA or CPA licensed in Maryland). You mentioned in the comment that the buyer is a sibling. IRS Publication 544 has a list of what is considered \"\"related person\"\", and that includes siblings. So the short answer is NO, you will not be able to deduct the loss. The tax treatment is not trivial in this case, and I suggest to have a professional tax adviser guide you on how to proceed. Here's the definition of \"\"related person\"\" from the IRS pub. 544: Members of a family, including only brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, spouse, ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.), and lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.). An individual and a corporation if the individual directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. Two corporations that are members of the same controlled group as defined in section 267(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. A trust fiduciary and a corporation if the trust or the grantor of the trust directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. A grantor and fiduciary, and the fiduciary and beneficiary, of any trust. Fiduciaries of two different trusts, and the fiduciary and beneficiary of two different trusts, if the same person is the grantor of both trusts. A tax-exempt educational or charitable organization and a person who directly or indirectly controls the organization, or a member of that person's family. A corporation and a partnership if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership. Two S corporations if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. Two corporations, one of which is an S corporation, if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. An executor and a beneficiary of an estate unless the sale or exchange is in satisfaction of a pecuniary bequest. Two partnerships if the same persons directly or indirectly own more than 50% of the capital interests or profits interests in both partnerships. A person and a partnership if the person directly or indirectly owns more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership.\"","It would be better for you to sell yourself and pay capital gains tax than to transfer to your parents and pay the gift tax. Also, sham transfer (you transfer to your mother only so that she could sell and transfer back to you without you paying taxes) will be probably categorized as tax evasion, which is a criminal offense that could lead to your deportation. What the US should or should not claim you can take to your congressman, but the fact is that the US does claim tax on capital gains even if you bought the asset before becoming US tax resident, and that's the current law.","1) You parents will have to pay tax on the gain as it wasn't their primary home. You don’t pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply: As I look at it, it is your parents are the ones who own the property and they will have to pay on £60000. But as you say you pay part of the mortgage, I would go to a tax advisor/accountant to confirm if they will only pay on the £15000. I couldn't find any guidance on that matter on gov.uk 2) Inheritance tax will not be levied on it as it is below £325000, but tax will be levied on £325000, less £3000 annual gift allowance. Two articles for further information - GOV.UK's Tax when you sell your home Money.co.UK's Gifting money to your children: FAQs","Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.","\"http://www.nadaguides.com/ and http://www.kbb.com/ and http://www.edmunds.com/ are the leading sites to check vehicle values. Also, great how to at: http://www.ehow.com/how_2003079_sell-used-car-california.html Where to sell? You could sell it in your local newspaper classified, small auto newsprint mags/publications, Craigslist, ebay, or just put a sign in the window. The advertising method is up to you. You could also trade the car in to a dealer if you purchase another vehicle from a dealer if they offer that option. (Trade-In's generally bring in less money than private sales as a general rule). Some car places will do consignment requests to help you sell your car. However, they will normally take a percentage of the sale as payment for this service. What paperwork? If you own your car, you should have the title in hand. There are instructions on title on how to sign it over to another person. If you have a loan through a bank, the bank would have this title and you would need to express your interest in selling the property to the bank and work out the details with them. You do not hand over a title to anyone until full payment is made and the property will become theirs. Beyond the title, you will need to fill out a release of liability or report of sale form for the state. Titles have a portion you can mail in or you can fill it out online. This is to report the sale to the state to release liability from your name. You will also need to create a \"\"bill of sale\"\" between you and the buyer. There are many examples online or you can just create your own. You really need just a statement saying I release all interest of the vehicle and no warranty implied to this person with the VIN of the car, model, make, year, the buyers name and signature, and the sellers name and signature. This is your contract with the seller and they use this when they go to register the car in their name. Maintenance Disclosure? This is completely up to the seller on what they want to disclose. You are selling a used car and the buyer should know that. Vehicles with detailed records sell for more money and buyers are more interested in cars that have history records. This is where buyers should be the most careful, so the more records and history you can show, the better they will feel about the purchase. I believe you should share everything you know and any information about the history of the car. The more positive information you can prove/share, the more money or chance of sale you could have. Most money? First, clean the car out. I am amazed at the amount of people that try to sell a car and don't even bother to clean it out. A detail job would be great to get. You are trying to sell it, so you want it to look the best. Next, I would fix anything minor and cheap to fix. The less things wrong can mean more money. Back to your maintenance question, you will want to show how you have maintained the car. People might also ask for a carfax report to prove its clean history. Irresponsible and deceiving people tend to leave out important details in a car history like accidents, flood damage, or having re-built titles. You want to give the most information you can. Do not lie about any detail. Though, this can be a little tough when you are a 2nd or 3rd owner of a car and do not know about the original owners.\"","\"I'm not 100% certain on boats, since they aren't typically sold for a gain, but the tax base of an asset is typically the cost of the asset plus the cost of any improvements, so your $15,000 gain looks right (check with a CPA to be certain, though, if you can). Your \"\"cost basis\"\" would be $50,000 + $25,000 = $75,000, and your net gain would be $90,000 - $75,000 = $15,000. The result is the same, but the arithmetic is organized a little differently. I am fairly confident you cannot include your time in the \"\"cost of improvements\"\". If you incorporated and \"\"paid yourself\"\" for the time, then the payment would be considered income (and taxed), if it was even allowed. Depending on your tax bracket that may be a WORSE option for you. You can look at it this way - you only pay the tax on the $15k gain versus paying someone else $15k to do the labor.\"","Gold is classified as a collectible so the gain rates are as follows: So you'd report a gain of $100 or $1,000 , depending on which coin you sold.","\"This is what this sounds like to me: https://www.thebalance.com/having-a-garage-sale-or-yard-sale-what-to-do-first-399030 also: http://blogs.hrblock.com/2012/07/25/garage-sale-money-does-the-irs-need-to-know/ Selling a personal item at a loss is generally not a taxable event. You cannot report it as a loss, and the IRS can't tax a transaction like that. If you really want to include these as sales as part of your LLC, you'll probably have to pay tax if you list it as income. I'm just confused as to why you'd want to do that, if you know that you're selling these particular items at a loss, and you also know that you have no documentation for them. I just wouldn't report anything you sold at a loss and treat it as \"\"garage sale items\"\" separate from your business.\"","Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.","No Tax would have been deducted at the time of purchase/sale of shares. You would yourself be required to compute your tax liability and then pay taxes to the govt. In case the shares sold were held for less than 1 year - 15% tax on capital gains would be levied. In case the shares sold were held for more than 1 year - No Tax would be levied and the income earned would be tax free. PS: No Tax is levied at the time of purchase of shares and Tax is only applicable at the time of sale of shares.","You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.","You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.","You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.","Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.","You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).","As your is a very specific case, please get an advice of CA. It should not cost you much and make it easier. The sale of agriculture land is taxable in certain conditions and exempt from tax in other cases. Sale of agricultural land is subject to capital gains tax. But there are certain exemptions under Section 54B, subject to conditions, which are as follows: If deemed taxable, you can avail indexation, ie the price at which you grandfather got [the date when he inherited it as per indexation] and pay 10% on the difference. If the price is not known, you can take the govt prescribed rate. As there is a large deposit in your fathers account, there can be tax queries and need to be answered. Technically there is no tax liable even if your grandfather gifts the money to your father. More details at http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130401/jsp/business/story_16733007.jsp and http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/publications/4_compute_your_capital_gains/chapter2.asp","The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.","\"In short Yes, your father needs to pay tax. Please consult a CA so that he can advice you better. In your father's case at the time of purchase it was agricultural land. However at the time of sale, it seems it was Urban, N.A. Land. A C.A. would advice you the exact exemptions and gains. If it was agricultural land at the time of selling, the Section 54B: \"\"Exemption from Capital Gains on transfer of Agricultural Lands in certain cases\"\" would be applicable if your Dad was doing agricultural activity on this land, and after selling has purchased a similar land.\"","That seems to indicate that you can in fact depreciate a vehicle given to you? Section 1015 discusses the calculation of basis for gifted property, it says nothing about depreciation. Personal property cannot be depreciated for tax purposes unless it is used for business purposes. So unless you drive your car as part of your sole-proprietor business, you cannot depreciate it, be it a gift or a car you purchased yourself. If you can depreciate the car, then sec. 1015 is used to calculate the basis for the depreciation.","You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.","As someone who's currently shopping for some winter wheels and has the raised blood pressure to go with that, I've got a few suggestions as to what would make me pick up the phone and call your or email you if you're advertising a vehicle. Keep in mind that if you're willing to deal with the additional hassle, you'll normally get the most money for a used car if you sell it privately. If it is worth the additional effort though is both a matter of judgement and if you're willing to put up with strange people like me :). Depending on the value of the vehicle and its rarity/desirability, you're looking at newspaper ads (probably won't get you much of a response these days), craigslist, Autotrader and similar, and last but not least, ebay. If you're trying to sell something that's easy to find because there are five at every street corner (think beige minivan), skip ebay. If it's worth below 5k-6k, I wouldn't bother with places where you have to pay to advertise, which leaves CL for the cheap stuff - that said, I'd still stick it on CL if it's advertised in other places. Heck, it's free after all. The figure out what sort of money you're asking for. Check the resources like KBB.com and have a look at your local CL for similar vehicles. Out here, certain types of vehicles (for example, Jeeps) sell quickly and often above even KBB.com. A little market research will help you come up with a good price. Just don't do things like asking a massively inflated price for a vehicle because you paid $x five years ago. All this shows that you have no idea what your vehicle is worth. Oh, and I'd always work out what the minimum I'd take is - leave yourself some haggle room but don't undersell the vehicle. Once you know where you advertise and for how much, pull together the basic facts for your vehicles and the points that would make it stand out. Basic facts about the car should include engine size, type of transmission, if it's AWD (where applicable), mileage. Color I can see on the pictures, but it's nice to include that, too. If you have service records, recently replaced a big ticket item (think transmission or similar) or had a very recent service, especially a big one where you had a timing belt and waterpump changed, mention it. Don't say the vehicle has a new engine if that was put in 100k miles ago, that's nice to mention but it's not new. If nobody's ever smoked in it, mention it. If it's got other outstanding features (super low mileage, summer only use etc) make sure to mention it that, too. Next, if it's got any faults that you know of - especially obvious ones - disclose them. People like me will most likely find the leaking shock absorber and the rust holes in the floor anyway, and it makes a much better impression if you do tell us about them beforehand. Trying to tell someone that your banana-shaped car that looks like the Blue Man Group used it for practise is actually pristine and accident-free isn't going to go down very well. Next, pull together the paperwork - make sure you've got the title (if there is a lien on the title, check with the lienholder before advertising the car so you know their procedure for releasing the title), any maintenance records you have, manuals, receipts etc. If the vehicle has a salvage title, try to find out why and mention it in the ad. I've just had a comedian phone me while I was driving to see his vehicle and leave a message that he didn't have a title and didn't seem to be willing to bother to get one, either. Obviously that put me in the right frame of mind, given that it was a 200 mile round trip. So don't do it - if you can't get a title, the schmuck you sold it to will have even less of a chance of getting one. And given that you are in California, a lot of people (including myself) react really badly to three years' worth of back registration, missing smog, expired registrations on something I'd expect to test drive etc. Essentially anything that would stop a potential cash buyer to drive it away on the spot. Next, clean the car - you know, the five years' of accumulated McD wrappers and inch thick layer of dirt (I'm only partially kidding, I've seem some pretty horrible stuff recently). Spend the two hours it takes to clean it or pay to have it valeted or detailed. Clean, shiny cars sell a lot better than a rolling recycling container. Oh, and last - make the effort take some decent photos. The more the merrier, shot in daylight (no photographing a black car after sunset) and if there is any damage, an additional photo or two showing the damage would be nice. Stick the on photobucket or similar and put the links in your craigslist ad so you don't restrict yourself to the microscopic photos that you normally get on there. As to payment, I'd either take cash, meet the buyer at his bank where he draws out a cashiers check in front of your eyes, or, well, cash. No Kauri shells, deeds on bridges in Brooklyn or anything else. Be prepared to take a deposit - a lot of buyers aren't willing to wander around with ten large ones in the back pocket to go look at a car - and spell out exactly how long the deposit is good for. I also tend to make them non-refundable (buyer doesn't pick up the car within the negotiated timeframe, you keep the deposit as 'damages' for not being able to sell it to another cash buyer). Check your DMV's website as to what exactly you need to do once you sold the car. Here in Nevada it's the buyer's problem on how to move it as you keep the plates, but I know in California the regular plates (not personal ones IIRC) stay with the vehicle and I think you need to inform the DMV that you sold the vehicle. I'd also keep a record of who I sold a vehicle to (name, address from his drivers license, license number etc) just in case they run a few red lights and accumulate a few grands' worth of parking tickets.","If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.","Yes. This income would be reported on schedule SE. Normally, you will not owe any tax if the amount is less than $400. Practically, $100 in a garage sale is not why the IRS created the form SE. I wouldn't lose sleep over keeping track of small cash sales over the course of a year. However, if you have the information I'm not going to tell you not to report it."],"string":"[\n \"I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses. See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph. The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510. This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price. Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use. But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle. That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax. Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year. (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.) However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both. See Tax Topic 503. So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year. Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return. Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not.\",\n \"You continue with this form. The fact that the trade in value is less than market value doesn't mean that you don't have taxable income from the sale. Since you depreciated the car before selling it, you need to compare the trade in value not to the market value, but to your cost basis, which may be lower.\",\n \"\\\"While you'd need to pay tax if you realized a capital gain on the sale of your car, you generally can't deduct any loss arising from the sale of \\\"\\\"personal use property\\\"\\\". Cars are personal use property. Refer to Canada Revenue Agency – Personal-use property losses. Quote: [...] if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property. This is because if a property depreciates through personal use, the resulting loss on its disposition is a personal expense. There are some exceptions. Read up at the source links.\\\"\",\n \"If the income is more than the value on the 1099-MISC - then yes. Depending on how long you've held the car, the difference would be short term/long term capital gain. You cannot deduct loss, though, since it is a personal property and not investment.\",\n \"That's tricky, actually. First, as the section 1015 that you've referred to in your other question says - you take the lowest of the fair market value or the actual donor basis. Why is it important? Consider these examples: So, if the relative bought you a brand new car and you're the first title holder (i.e.: the relative paid, but the car was registered directly to you) - you can argue that the basis is the actual money paid. In essence you got a money gift that you used to purchase the car. If however the relative bought the car, took the title, and then drove it 5 miles to your house and signed the title over to you - the IRS can argue that the car basis is the FMV, which is lower because it is now a used car that you got. You're the second owner. That may be a significant difference, just by driving off the lot, the car can lose 10-15% of its value. If you got a car that's used, and the donor gives it to you - your basis is the fair market value (unless its higher than the donor's basis - in which case you get the donor's basis). You always get the lowest basis for losses (and depreciation is akin to a loss). Now consider the situation when your relative is a business owner and used the car for business. He didn't take the depreciation, but he was entitled to. IRS can argue that the fact that he didn't take is irrelevant and reduce the donor's basis by the allowable depreciation. That may bring your loss basis to below the FMV. I suggest you take it to a tax professional licensed in your state who will check all the facts and circumstances of your situation. Your relative might be slapped with a gift tax as well, if the car FMV is above certain amount (currently the exemption is $14000).\",\n \"Sorry, no, any time you sell for a profit you owe tax.\",\n \"The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at\",\n \"How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).\",\n \"You normally only pay taxes on the difference between the sale price and the cost basis of the asset. In your example, you would probably pay taxes on the $10 difference, not the full sale price of $110. If you paid a commission, however, you would be taxed on your gain minus the commission you paid. Since you held the asset for less than a year, you wouldn't pay the long-term capital gains rate of 20%; you'd be taxed on the capital gain as if it were ordinary income, which depends on your federal income tax bracket. Also, littleadv makes a good point about the implications of buying the asset with after-tax funds too, so that's another part of the equation to consider as well.\",\n \"\\\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \\\"\\\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\\\"\\\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\\\"\",\n \"You receive a 1099-misc for the value of the car. You claim that as income (even though you received goods rather than cash). When you sell the car, it would be much like selling any posession, and would cause no tax consequence unless the sale price was much different than the value... When you sell the car, you may have received more or less than the value of the car (likely less). If you sold it for more, then you might need to claim the additional money as income (perhaps short term capital gains). If you sold it for less, but to a friend or relative, then you might think you could claim a loss, but the tax collector would just claim that you had given them a gift, and attempt to collect the tax from them. Contest winners often have the frustration that they are taxed at the full value of the item(s) won, even though they would not value the item at that amount. And contest prizes often do not sell for the full value stated on the 1099, and often for much less. Marginal tax rates were higher prior to Reagan, and when a contest winner would sell an item for 80% of the value, they often paid most of the proceeds to taxes.\",\n \"Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.\",\n \"\\\"Books would be considered Personal-Use Property according to Canada's income tax laws. The most detailed IT I was able to find is IT-332R, which says: GAINS AND LOSSES 3. A gain on the disposition of personal-use property is normally a capital gain within the meaning of paragraph 39(1)(a). Where the property is a principal residence, the gain > is computed under paragraph 40(2)(b) or (c). 4. Under subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii), a loss on a disposition of personal-use property, other than listed personal property, is deemed to be nil. [...] This part of the bulletin indicates that a gain might be considered a capital gain - not income. However, you don't get to book a loss as a capital loss. This is the first hint that your book sale - which is actually an exempt capital loss - shouldn't go on your tax return unless it's one of the \\\"\\\"listed\\\"\\\" items: LISTED PERSONAL PROPERTY 7. Listed personal property is defined in paragraph 54(e) to mean personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any (a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art, (b) jewellery, (c) rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book, (d) stamp, or (e) coin. So unless you're selling rare books, the disposition (sale) of them is essentially exempt as income, regardless of whether you sold it at a profit or at a loss. If it is rare, then you might be able to consider it a capital loss, which doesn't help you much unless you had other capital gains, but you can carry over capital losses to future years. There's also a newer IT related to hobbies and \\\"\\\"collecting\\\"\\\" items, IT-334R2. This one says: 11. In order for any activity or pursuit to be regarded as a source of income, there must be a reasonable expectation of profit. Where such an expectation does not exist (as is the case with most hobbies), neither amounts received nor expenses incurred are included in the income computation for tax purposes and any excess of expenses over receipts is a personal or living expense, the deduction of which is denied by paragraph 18(1)(h). On the other hand, if the hobby or pastime results in receipts of revenue in excess of expenses, that fact is a strong indication that the hobby is a venture with an expectation of profit; if so, the net income may be taxable as income from a business. The current version of IT-504, Visual Artists and Writers, discusses the concept of \\\"\\\"a reasonable expectation of profit\\\"\\\" in greater detail. Where a hobby consists of collecting personal-use property or listed personal property, dispositions should be accounted for as described in the current version of IT-332, Personal-Use Property. (emphasis mine) In other words, if it's not the type of thing where you'd make a tax deduction when you bought it in the first place, then you clearly don't need to report it as income when you sell it. Just to be absolutely clear here: The fact that you are selling them at a loss is not actually what's important here. What's important is that, if the books aren't collectibles, then you would have had no expectation of profit. If you did have that expectation then you could have made a tax deduction when you first purchased them. So in this case, it is probably not necessary for you to report the income; however, for the benefit of other readers, in some cases you might need to report it under \\\"\\\"other income\\\"\\\" or book it as a capital gain/loss, depending on what those personal items are and whether or not you made a net profit.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You can exclude up to $250000 ($500000 for married filing jointly) of capital gains on property which was your primary residence for at least 2 years within the 5 years preceding the sale. This is called \\\"\\\"Section 121 exclusion\\\"\\\". See the IRS publication 523 for more details. Gains is the difference between your cost basis (money you paid for the property) and the proceeds (money you got when you sold it). Note that the amounts you deducted for depreciation (or were allowed to deduct during the period the condo was a rental, even if you chose not to) will be taxed at a special rate of 25% - this is called \\\"\\\"depreciation recapture\\\"\\\", and is discussed in the IRS publication 544.\\\"\",\n \"Your question is best asked of a tax expert, not random people on the internet. Such an expert will help you ask the right questions. For example you did not point out the country or state in which you live. That matters. First point is that you will not pay tax on 60K, its expensive to transact real estate, so your net proceeds will be closer to 40K. Also you can probably the deduct the costs of improvements. You implied that you really like this rental property. If that is the case, why would you sell...ever? This home could be a central part of your financial independence plan. So keep it until you die. IIRC when it passes to your heirs, a new cost basis is formed thereby not passing the tax burden onto them. (Assuming the property is located in the US.)\",\n \"No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge).\",\n \"If the items you sold are items you previously bought for a higher price, the money you get selling them is not income, as you are taking a loss. However, you cannot deduct such losses. If you sell anything for more than what you paid for, the difference is a gain and is taxable. See this IRS web site for the explanation: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/tax-tips-for-online-auction-sellers\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you're correct and yes they will. Note that it will be considered as \\\"\\\"sale\\\"\\\" with gains being taxable income to you.\\\"\",\n \"The money you will be bringing to the US will be classified as your own money, and will not be taxable. The proceeds from the sale are taxable to you, probably as capital gains. The fact that you kept the proceeds out of the US is irrelevant for that purpose (it is relevant for FBAR/FATCA etc). Since you had no basis in the property, all the proceeds are taxable to you at the time of the sale and should be reported on your tax return.\",\n \"For case 1, there is no tax due as you sold the book for less than your cost basis. If you had sold for more than $100, then you would have had a profit. For case 2, that depends on the value of the gift card with respect to the value of your fare. Most likely that gift card is less than the cost of the fare. And in that case it would generally be treated as a reduction in the purchase price. The same way that rebates and cash back on credit card are treated. Note if for some reason a 1099 was generated that would change the situation and you would need to consult a tax professional. Since that would indicate that the other party to the transaction had a different view of the situation.\",\n \"\\\"I doubt it. In the States you would only owe tax if you sold such an item at a profit. \\\"\\\"garage sales\\\"\\\" aren't taxable as they are nearly always common household items and sale is more about clearing out one's attic/garage than about profit. Keep in mind, if I pay for a book, and immediately sell it for the same price, there's no tax due, why would tax be due if I sell for a loss?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In general, insurance payouts you receive in compensation for damage to your vehicle are not taxable income (see for instance this Nolo page). However, I don't see how that is related to your three bullet points about how your sister should buy her car. You can transfer the money to her in any way that's convenient to both of you. Whether the dealership will accept cash is something you'll have to ask them about, but my impression is most dealers are eager to accept cash. As long as the car you are getting from her is not worth substantially more than the $8500 you're giving her, I don't see that you'll be in trouble income-tax-wise. As mentioned in the question you linked to, you can give each other up to $14k per year tax-free. So if you give her a $8500 and she gives you a car worth roughly the same amount, no problem. If you actually do it as a sale, even better, since then the only amount that will count as a gift to either of you is whatever one party gets above and beyond the fair value of the car. (That is, if the car is worth $10000 but she sells it to you for $8500, she effectively gave you a gift of $1500 in car value. If it's worth $7000 but she sells it to you for $8500, you gave her a gift of $1500 in cash.) As Rocky pointed out in a comment, if you do a sale it may be subject to sales tax depending on what state you're in. In practice it is very common for people to not deal with sales tax in informal transactions like this between family members, but you do owe it if your state's laws require it, and the state could theoretically come after you for it. Another edit: I see from your comment you are in Michigan. According to this page from the Michigan Secretary of State, \\\"\\\"no tax is due if you purchase a vehicle from an immediate family member\\\"\\\". So you would not owe sales tax if you do it as a sale.\\\"\",\n \"You cannot do a like-kind (Sec. 1031) exchange for personal property, only for business/investment property. Since you said that you traded in your personal car - no like-kind exchange is possible. Also, since the new car doesn't belong to you - you didn't actually perform any exchange. You sold your old car, but you didn't buy a new one. If Turbo-Tax suggests you to fill the exchange form - you must have entered something wrong to make it think there was an exchange. Check your entries again, specifically - check if you entered that you purchased a new car instead of the old one, since you didn't. See an example of where to start looking here.\",\n \"When you sell your primary residence, you are required to capitalize any loss or gain at that point; you do not carry over your loss or gain (as you might in an investment property). As such, the timing of the purchase of the next house is not relevant in this discussion: you gained however much you gained already. This changed from the other (rollover) method in 1997 (see this bankrate article for more details.) However, as discussed in IRS Tax Topic 701, you can exclude up to $250,000 (single or filing separately) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) of gain if it is your primary residence and meets a few requirements (mostly, that you owned it for at least 2 years in the past 5 years, and similarly used it as your main home for at least 2 years of the past 5 years). So given you reported 25% gain, as long as your house is under a million dollars or so, you're fine (and if it's over a million dollars, you probably should be paying a CPA for this stuff). For California state tax, it looks like it is the same (see this Turbotax forum answer for a good explanation and links to this California Franchise Tax Board guide which confirms it: For sale or exchanges after May 6, 1997, federal law allows an exclusion of gain on the sale of a personal residence in the amount of $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly). The taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence as a principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years before the sale. California conforms to this provision. However, California taxpayers who served in the Peace Corps during the 5 year period ending on the date of the sale may reduce the 2 year period by the period of service, not to exceed 18 months.\",\n \"\\\"Short Answer: You're going to end up paying taxes on it. Despite the home being your primary residence, you don't meet the ownership test, and it isn't noted that you have had a change in employment, health, or other unforeseen circumstances that are \\\"\\\"forcing\\\"\\\" you to sell. Otherwise, you could qualify for a reduced maximum exclusion that might allow you to walk away without owing taxes, or with a reduced tax bill. You can't even do a 1031 exchange to re-invest into a new primary residence. You should check with a tax professional to see what adjustments you can make to the cost basis of the property to minimize your reported net profits. During the 5-year period prior to the sale, you must have: These periods do not necessarily have to coincide (You don't to live in it as your main house for 2 consecutive years, just 2 years worth of time of the last 5).\\\"\",\n \"What you are looking for is a 1031 exchange. https://www.irs.gov/uac/like-kind-exchanges-under-irc-code-section-1031 Whenever you sell business or investment property and you have a gain, you generally have to pay tax on the gain at the time of sale. IRC Section 1031 provides an exception and allows you to postpone paying tax on the gain if you reinvest the proceeds in similar property as part of a qualifying like-kind exchange. Gain deferred in a like-kind exchange under IRC Section 1031 is tax-deferred, but it is not tax-free. You may also sell your house for bitcoin and record the sales price on the deed with an equal or lesser amount that you bought it for.\",\n \"\\\"If you sell an asset for more than you paid for it, the excess amount realized is called a capital gain and is generally considered a form of income for tax purposes. Generally, one pays income tax on realized capital gains, unless the sale is exempt—such as the sale of one's principal residence. Capital gains tax can also be avoided or deferred by holding assets in a tax-advantaged investment account like a TFSA or RRSP. When taxable, the effective income tax rate on capital gains income is half the normal rate due to the capital gains inclusion rate. Capital gains income is generally not considered to be employment, \\\"\\\"earned\\\"\\\", or \\\"\\\"working\\\"\\\" income. However, individuals who, say, trade stocks frequently and earn a substantial portion of their income that way may have their gains considered employment income and subject to regular income tax instead of the better rate. I suggest you contact Service Canada and ask them about the impact of a one-time sale of personal property that would result in a realized capital gain. While you would owe income tax on the capital gain, it might not have any impact on your disability benefits, because it would not be earned or employment income. You should also check with your private insurer; they may also consider the sale a capital gain and not employment income, however, only they would be able to tell you for sure whether it would have any possible effect on your benefits.\\\"\",\n \"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.\",\n \"If you are in the United States, Real Estate gains are taxed as capital gains 15% currently but will go up in 2011. You may be able to exclude $250,000 filing single (500k married filing jointly) if you have lived in the condo 2 out of the last 5 years. See IRS Publication 523 for more information. You are only taxed on the profit from the sale. If you paid $100,000 and you sell it for $125,000 you would owe capital gains tax on $25,000 if you don't meet the conditions in IRS Publication 523.\",\n \"Using US tax code, given that your profits are less than 250K, given that you lived in that home over two years, then yes the 150K is tax free. That is your money in the US. Note: I won't get into all of the specifics but basically you need to live somewhere 2 years. You get 250K per person, up to 500K. Most enhancements count as money towards the home. So most/all of your 12k should be discounted. However there is a lot of fine print in this and a lot of interpretation on what is normal upkeep and what is an enhancement.\",\n \"You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.\",\n \"Your capital gain is about $40K, which (assuming your total income is under $250K) is taxed at 15% long term capital gains rate. Additional depreciation recapture of approximately $5K is taxed at 25%. So this gives us rough estimate of $7250 tax. This is Federal tax, AZ rates are somewhere between 2% and 4%, so you'll be looking at some $1.6K additional tax to AZ. If you have accumulated rental losses or other expenses, it will lower the total amount of your gain (and, accordingly, the taxes). This is all very rough estimates, and you shouldn't rely on this but verify on your own or with a professional. I suggest using professional services because while being costly, they will probably save you more in taxes than you'll have to pay them because of the knowledge of what exactly of your expenses can be deducted and how to calculate the cost basis correctly. (edit from JoeT - the home exclusion requires occupancy for 2 of prior 5 years. For the OP, the prorated $125k exclusion 'might' cover the gain, it depends when the increase in value occurred, if the gain was during the time rented, it's taxable, I believe.)\",\n \"How much Federal Capital Gains, NYS Income tax and local tax should I expect to pay? You're going to net about 2.4 millions of dollars. Federal long term capital gains tax is 20% (plus 3.8% medicare), NYS is 8.82%. Does it make sense to investigate the tax benefits of financing the sale for the buyer? Yes. Have your tax adviser check the options for you (financing, instalment, etc), especially if you have no other US-sourced income. Tax treaties are also something your tax adviser should be looking at. Be sure your tax adviser is properly licensed in New York as either EA, CPA or Attorney. Don't do anything without a proper tax advice.\",\n \"It doesn't go on Schedule E at all, it goes on form 4797. The fridge should have been depreciated, over 5 years. If you sold it after 5 years, all the proceeds are taxable income taxed as depreciation recapture (25% rate) up to the allowable depreciation (your original cost basis), above which it is taxable capital gain. Whether you actually have depreciated it or not, it is really your problem, IRS doesn't care. So if 5 years of ownership passed - just write it all as taxable income on the form 4797. Otherwise, allowable depreciation prorated (and you can still amend forms 3 years back to get at least part of it). The new fridge should also be depreciated over the 5 years of its expected useful life. See form 4562. Talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for details.\",\n \"You bought a rental property in 2001. Hopefully you paid fair value else other issues come into play. Say you paid $120K. You said you have been taking depreciation, which for residential real estate is taken over 27.5 years, so you are about halfway through. Since you don't depreciate land, you may have taken a total $50K so far. With no improvements, and no transaction costs, you have $50K in depreciation recapture, taxed at a maximum 25% (or your lower, marginal rate) and a cap gain of the 5-10K you mentioned. Either can be offset by losses you've been carrying forward if you suffered large stock losses at some point.\",\n \"AS PER IRS PUBLICATION: Question: Is money received from the sale of inherited property considered taxable income? Answer: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: For information on the FMV of inherited property on the date of the decedent’s death, contact the executor of the decedent’s estate. Also, note that in 2015, Congress passed a new law that, under certain circumstances, requires an executor to provide a statement identifying the FMV of certain inherited property to the individual receiving that property. Check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040), Capital Gains and Losses, and on Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets: Under the new law passed by Congress in 2015, an accuracy-related penalty may apply if an individual reporting the sale of certain inherited property uses a basis in excess of that property’s final value for federal estate tax purposes. Again, check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. For estates of decedents who died in 2010, basis is generally determined as described above. However, the executor of a decedent who died in 2010 may elect out of the estate tax rules for 2010 and use the modified carryover of basis rules. Under this special election, the basis of property inherited from a decedent who died during 2010 is generally the lesser of: Under this special election for estates of decedents who died in 2010, the executor of the decedent’s estate may increase the basis of certain property that beneficiaries acquire from a decedent by up to $1.3 million (plus certain unused built-in losses and loss carryovers, if applicable), but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor may also increase the basis of certain property that the surviving spouse acquires from a decedent by up to an additional $3 million, but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor of the decedent’s estate is required to provide a statement to all heirs listing the decedent’s basis in the property, the FMV of the property on the date of the decedent’s death, and the additional basis allocated to the property. Contact the executor to determine what the basis of the asset is. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040) and on Form 8949, as described above. Additional Information:\",\n \"This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.\",\n \"Ditto Rocky. Also: Break the sale up over several tax years so that you don't have a spike in your income pushing you into a higher tax bracket. Don't sell it until you retire, when you're probably in a lower tax bracket. (If you're 20, this may be impractical.) Get some other deductions, like medical expenses, charity, etc. Failing that, maybe a couple of other ideas that neither of us thought of, I think the real answer is: suck it up and pay the taxes. If there was a way to reduce your taxes just by checking the right box on a tax form or some such, everybody would do it and the government wouldn't collect any taxes.\",\n \"\\\"And my CPA is saying no way, it will cost me many thousands in taxes and doesn't make any sense. I'd think so too. It looks like it converts from capitol gains at 14% to something else at about 35% Can be, if your gain under the Sec.1231 rules is classified as depreciation recapture. But, perhaps the buyers will be saving this way? Not your problem even if they were, which they aren't. I would not do something my CPA says \\\"\\\"no-way\\\"\\\" about. I sometimes prefer not doing some things my CPA says \\\"\\\"it may fly\\\"\\\" because I'm defensive when it comes to taxes, but if your CPA is not willing to sign something off - don't do it. Ever.\\\"\",\n \"Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.\",\n \"Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. There is risk in exchanging this (known) property for another (unknown) property. That risk may be more than $9000 worth of risk. Tax considerations are important, but most important is that your investments make money. If you intend to continue as a landlord, you had better be sure you are finding a better deal elsewhere if you are going to trade this property up. I should also mention that you have a 5 year window in which you need to have lived in the home for 2 years. You have time and might be able to sell for a higher price if you wait a little longer.\",\n \"This will be a complex issue and you will need to sit down with a professional to work through the issues: When the house was put up for rent the initial year tax forms should have required that the value of the house/property be calculated. This number was then used for depreciation of the house. This was made more complex based on any capital improvements. If the house wasn't the first he owned, then capital gains might have been rolled over from previous houses which adds a layer of complexity. Any capital improvements while the house was a rental will also have to be resolved because those were also depreciated since they were placed in service. The deprecation will be recaptured and will be a part of the calculation. You have nowhere near enough info to make a calculation at this time.\",\n \"\\\"Please Note: Before taking any steps towards a transaction involving possible capital gains tax exclusions, please consult your CPA, attorney or tax advisor. I am not a CPA or Tax Advisor. Since you have only lived in it 11 months, you don't meet the \\\"\\\"use test\\\"\\\" for full exclusion. However, even if you haven't lived in it that long, you may be able to exclude some of the gains due to a \\\"\\\"unforeseen circumstance\\\"\\\", not just because you wanted to move. You say you are \\\"\\\"ready for a change\\\"\\\" and so that means it's an arbitrary decision, not a forced one. To calculate the partial exclusion, take the number of months you lived there before the sale and divide it by 24. (11/24 = 0.45). So for an unmarried person, you can exclude up to $250,000. Multiply that by .45 and you get $112,500. If your profit after everything is taken out is only $35,000 then you can exclude that from capital gains because it is less than $112,500. All that being said, you will need documentation in case you get audited. For more information, see IRS Publication 551, Basis of Assets, and look for the section on real property. See also this IRS Tax Topic on Sale of Your Home\\\"\",\n \"First the good news: based on the time involved, and the amount of potential profits; you will not owe any tax on the sale of the house no matter which option you pick. Now the details. When determining if there are any capital gains the IRS cares about the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. The amount of the loan, the final balance of the loan, or the lack of loan don't factor into the calculation. To complicate matters the government does factor into the equation any improvements you have made to the house (like a new deck) and the cost of buying and selling the house (real estate agents). If a single person has less than 250K in capital gains and has used the house as their main residence for 2 of the the previous 5 years their tax is zero. For a couple the tax free gain is $500K. For your situation since the sale price is less than $250K, the capital gains will also be less than $250K. You do have one potential area of concern. If the house is worth significantly more than $150K, the government could claim that the difference between what you charged your parents and what you could have charged was a gift. Assuming that there are no other factors that you didn't include in the original question it would appear that you will not face any taxes. Regarding your two options, neither will impact the taxes. Though draining your savings or investments could make it difficult to meet an emergency during the time between the sending of the $95K to the mortgage company and the closing on the deal with your parents. If the money came from retirement account it could have an even greater impact on your taxes and retirement situation.\",\n \"\\\"I would suggest reading through page 1 of the Arizona Nonresident form instructions at the web address below: https://www.azdor.gov/Portals/0/ADOR-forms/TY2015/10100/10177_inst.pdf To quote: \\\"\\\"You are subject to Arizona income tax on all income derived from Arizona sources. If you are in this state for a temporary or transitory purpose or did not live in Arizona but received income from sources within Arizona during 2015, you are subject to Arizona tax. Income from Arizona sources includes the following: ...the sale of Arizona real estate...\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \\\"\\\"otherwise\\\"\\\" is substantial and far-ranging.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm going to look just at purchase price. Essentially, you can't always claim the whole of the purchase price (or 95% your case) in the year (the accounting period) of purchase, but you get a percentage of the value of the car each year, called writing down allowance, which is a capital allowance. It is similar to depreciation, but based on HRMC's own formula. In fact, it seems you probably can claim 95% of the purchase price, because the value is less than £1000. The logic is a bit involved, but I hope you can understand it. You could also claim simplified expenses instead, which is just based on a rate per mile, but you can't claim both. Note, by year I mean whatever your account period is. This could be the normal financial year, but you would probably have a better idea about this. See The HMRC webpage on this for more details. The big idea is that you record the value of any assets you are claiming writing down allowance on in one of a number of pools, that attract the same rate of writing down allowance, so you don't need to record the value of each asset separately. They are similar to accounts in accounting, so they have an opening balance, and closing balance. If you use an asset for personal use, it needs a pool to itself. HRMC call that a single asset pool. So, to start with, look at the Business Cars section, and look at the Rates for Cars section, to determine the rate you can claim. Each one links to a further article, which gives more detail if you need it. Your car is almost certainly in the special rate category. Special rate is 8% a year, main rate is 18%, and First year allowance is essentially 100%. Then, you look at the Work out what you can claim article. That talks you through the steps. I'll go through your example. You would have a pool for your car, which would end the account period before you bought the vehicle at zero (step 1). You then add the value of the car in the period you bought it (Step 2). You would reduce the value of the pool if you dispose of it in the same year (Step 3). Because the car is worth less than £1,000 (see the section on \\\"\\\"If you have £1,000 or less in your pool\\\"\\\"), you would normally be able to claim the whole value of the pool (the value of the car) in the first accounting period, and reduce the value of the pool to zero. As you use the car for personal use, you only claim 95% of the value, but still reduce the pool to zero. See the section on \\\"\\\"Items you use outside your business\\\"\\\". This £1000 is adjusted if your accounting period lasts more or less than 12 months. Once the pool is down to zero that it you don't need to think about it any more for tax purposes, apart from if you are claiming other motoring expenses, or if you sell it. It gets more complicated if the car is more expensive. I'll go through an example for a car worth £2,000. Then, after Step 3, on the year of purchase, you would reduce the value of the pool by 8%, and claim 95% of the reduction. This would be a 160 reduction, and 95%*160 = 152 claim, leaving the value of 1860 in the pool. You then follow the same steps for the next year, start with 1840 in the pool, reduce the value by 8%, then claim 95% of the reduction. This continues until you sell or dispose of the car (Step 3), or the value of the pool is 1000 or less, then you claim all of it in that year. Selling the car, or disposing of the car is discussed in the Capital allowances when you sell an asset article. The basic idea is that if you have already reduced the value of the pool to zero, the price you sell the car for is added you your profits for that year (See \\\"\\\"If you originally claimed 100% of the item\\\"\\\"), if you still have anything in the pool, you reduce the value of the pool by the sale value, and if it reduces to below zero (to -£200, say), you add that amount (£200, in this case), to your profits. If the value is above zero, you keep applying writing down allowances. In your case, that seems to just means if you sell the car in the same year you buy it, you claim the difference (or 95% of it) as writing down allowance, and if you do it later, you claim the purchase price in the year of purchase, and add 95% of the sale price to your profits in the year you sell it. I'm a bit unclear about starting \\\"\\\"to use it outside your business\\\"\\\", which doesn't seem to apply if you use it outside the business to start with. You can claim simplified expenses for vehicles, if you are a sole trader or partner, but not if you claim capital allowances (such as writing down allowances) on them, or you include a separate expense in your accounts for motoring expenses. It's a flat rate of 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that, for cars, and 24p a mile for motorcycles. See the HRMC page on Simplifed Mileage expenses for details. For any vehicle you decide to either claim capital allowances claim running costs separately, or claim simplified mileage expenses, and \\\"\\\"Once you use the flat rates for a vehicle, you must continue to do so as long as you use that vehicle for your business.you have to stick with that decision for that vehicle\\\"\\\". In your case, it seems you can claim 95% of the purchase price in the accounting period you buy it, and if you sell it you add 95% of the sale price to your profits in that accounting period. It gets more complicated if you have a car worth more than £1000, adjusted for the length of the accounting period. Also, if you change how you use it, consult the page on selling selling an asset, as you may have disposed of it. You can also use simplified mileage expenses, but then you can't claim capital allowances, or claim running costs separately for that car. I hope that makes sense, please comment if not, and I'll try to adjust the explanation.\\\"\",\n \"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.\",\n \"\\\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \\\"\\\"Consult a professional.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"If significant amounts are involved, that would be a good time to consult a tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state). Generally, sale of a business is an ordinary income and you can only deduct tangible expenses, as Joe said. That would be laptops, bills, expenses per receipt, of course they must all be directly attributable to the business. You will need to be able to show that the laptops has only been used in business, recapture depreciation, etc. Same with all the rest of the expenses. If you're incorporated (i.e.: you hold this software under an S-Corp), then you're selling stocks, not business, and the tax treatment may be different, but I'm guessing this is not the case for you.\",\n \"(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!\",\n \"Yes you need to pay Capital Gains tax in India. Further transfer of money out of India from Ordinary account requires some formalities / paperwork. A CA should be able to guide you.\",\n \"You need a lawyer and a tax accountant for a sale like this. They will be able to tell you if the proceeds are taxed as income (most likely) or capital gains and will help you structure the deal. How you spend the proceeds will not make a difference, although if it's a large amount and you plan to donate some to charity, you may be able to save on your total tax liability by creating a donor advised fund. Keep in mind the broker is mostly interested in his commission and not about making the best deal for you. Get an attorney with experience in business sales.\",\n \"Kentucky property tax is assessed as of the owner on January 1 of each calendar year. In April you should be notified of what KY considers you to owe them, and you have a two week period in May to appeal those decisions (though it appears that you can only appeal Real property tax assessments). The final tax bill is then sent to you in the fall, by October, and you have until the end of the year to pay the bill. See Kentucky Property Tax Calendar Overview for more details. Thus, if you owned the car on Jan 1 2016, then you should owe personal property tax on it for 2016 due in the fall. You may not have owed the tax paid in November, if it was indeed personal property tax, unless the seller was asking you to recompense them for the tax they paid in 2015. Note that property tax is separate and distinct from usage tax, the 6% tax for vehicles paid at purchase date (once and only once).\",\n \"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.\",\n \"The transaction will be taxable in India. You will have to pay Capital Gains tax. I am assuming that you purchased the house while you were Indian Resident for tax purposes. As such its needs more paper work to get the money back to US. Consult a CA in India who will help with the paperwork. You haven't mentioned your tax status in US, one you update it, someone will post a US tax aspects of the transaction.\",\n \"I realize this is a dated question, but for anyone interested in this subject please be aware of the availability of IRC § 1235 and capital gain treatment for the sale of patents. When the holder of a patent transfers all substantial rights to an unrelated person, it can qualify for long-term capital gain treatment. That can be a meaningful tax savings relative to ordinary income treatment. There are a number of specific provisions and requirements to access § 1235. The holder must be the creator or someone unrelated (and not the creator's employer) who purchased the patent from the creator. The holder must transfer all substantial rights to the patent (not a licensing), or sell an undivided portion of all substantial rights (partial sale, again not a license). The benefit of § 1235 is that long-term treatment will apply even for patents with holding periods under 1 year. Other rules and permutations of course also apply. Those who fail § 1235 may still qualify their assets as capital under § 1221 or § 1231. A patent held by its creator will often qualify as a capital asset. It may not make any sense to sell your business as a whole, particularly if all a purchaser wants is a patent or group of patents. Of course, if the patent was held by its creator in a single-member LLC or other disregarded entity sold to a buyer, then the tax treatment is still treated as the sale of a long-term capital asset.\",\n \"\\\"You uncle is liable to pay \\\"\\\"Capital-Gains\\\"\\\" tax. Essentially the sale price less of cost would be treated as gains. The gains are taxed at 10% without indexation and 20% with Indexation. The capital gains tax can be avoided if your uncle invests the gains into specified \\\"\\\"Infrastructure bonds\\\"\\\" or buys another property within a period of 3 years. The funds need to be kept in a separate \\\"\\\"Capital Gains\\\"\\\" account and not a regular savings account till you buy another property within 3 years.\\\"\",\n \"To focus on your question.. pay it off then trade in. The reason is because say you just have 14k laying around and buy a car for 14k, you must pay 14k plus tax. If you are in one of the states that allows the tax break, then trading the 14k valued vehicle in for a 14k vehicle will nullify your sales tax. As per your question, if you traded the car in at 7k, you would then owe 7k plus tax. You only have 7k..so how would you pay for the tax and why would you want to? Pay off the car and you'll have 14k of tax free off any car.\",\n \"The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.\",\n \"Residents of Canada must pay Canadian income tax on their worldwide income (source: Wikipedia). However, there is a tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada; I haven't read it, but my guess is that it will allow you to claim a tax credit in Canada for the capital gains tax you have paid to the U.S.\",\n \"Is the remaining amount tax free? As in, if the amount shown (which I can sell) on etrade is $5000 then if I sell the entire shares will my bank account be increased by $5000? The stocks they sell are withholding. So let's say you had $7000 of stock and they sold $2000 for taxes. That leaves you with $5000. But the actual taxes paid might be more or less than $2000. They go in the same bucket as the rest of your withholding. If too much is withheld, you get a refund. Too little and you owe them. Way too little and you have to pay penalties. At the end of the year, you will show $7000 as income and $2000 as withheld for taxes from that transaction. You may also have a capital gain if the stock increases in price. They do not generally withhold on stock sales, as they don't necessarily know what was your gain and what was your loss. You usually have to handle that yourself. The main point that I wanted to make is that the sale is not tax free. It's just that you already had tax withheld. It may or may not be enough.\",\n \"An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.\",\n \"\\\"Payment gateways such as Square do not normally withhold tax. It is up to you to pay the appropriate tax at tax time. That having been said, Square does report your payments to the IRS on a form 1099-K if your payments are large enough. According to Square, you'll get a 1099-K from them if your total payments for the year add up to $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. Whether or not they report on a 1099-K, you are required to pay the appropriate taxes on your income. So now the question becomes, \\\"\\\"Do I have to pay income tax on the proceeds from my garage sale?\\\"\\\" And the answer to that question is usually not. When you sell something that you previously purchased, if you sell it for more than you paid for it, you have a capital gain and need to pay tax on that. However, generally you sell things in a garage sale at a loss, meaning that there is no tax due. If you make more than $20,000 at your garage sale and the IRS gets a 1099-K, the IRS might be curious as to how you did that with no capital gain. So if you sell any big ticket items (a bulldozer, for example), you should keep a record of what you paid for it, so you can show the loss to the IRS in the event of an audit.\\\"\",\n \"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.\",\n \"\\\"In simple terms, it is a business operation when it becomes a profit-making enterprise. It is a grey area, but there is a difference between selling occasional personal items on eBay and selling for profit. I would imagine the sort of considerations HM Revenue & Customs would take into account are the size of your turnover, the extent to which you are both buying and selling, and whether you are clearly specialising in one particular commodity as opposed of disposing of unwanted presents or clearing the loft. http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/When-does-eBay-selling-become-taxable-/10000000004494855/g.html I don't believe that you selling your personal camera gear will be taxable, but as the link says, it is a grey area. They also recommend to do this It's far better than having to deal with an investigation a few years down the line. When it comes to completing your tax return, there is a section which is headed \\\"\\\"other income\\\"\\\", and it is here where you will enter the net earnings from the web business. \\\"\\\"Net\\\"\\\" here means your additional income, less all expenses associated with it. If you are still worried I would always encourage people to take a cautious approach and discuss their position with HMRC via its helpline on 08454 915 4515.\\\"\",\n \"It will definitely be added to your AGI, but not necessarily bump your ordinary income tax bracket. You will have to use the Capital Gains Computation worksheet (that uses the general Tax Computation Worksheet) to figure out your tax liability. You might also be subject to the AMT. See the instructions to form 1040, line 44 (page 38) and line 45.\",\n \"IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value. You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.\",\n \"Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.\",\n \"Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.\",\n \"I'm assuming you're in the United States for this. I highly recommend getting a CPA to help you navigate the tax implications. Likely, you'll pay taxes as a sole proprietor, on top of any other income you made. Hopefully you kept good records because you'll be essentially paying for the profits, but you'll need to show the revenue and expenditures that you had. If you have any capital expenditures you may be able ton amortize them. But again, definitely hire a professional to help you, it will be well worth the cost.\",\n \"\\\"Believe it or not, unless you directly contact an accountant with experience in this field or a lawyer, you may have a tough time getting a direct answer from a reputable source. The reason is two fold. First, legally defining in-game assets is exceptionally difficult from a legal/taxation stand point. Who really owns this data? You or the company that has built the MMO and manages the servers containing all of the data? You can buy-and-sell what is effectively \\\"\\\"data\\\"\\\" on their servers but the truth is, they own the code, the servers, the data, your access rights, etc. and at any point in time could terminate everything within their systems. This would render the value of your accounts worthless! As such, most countries have overwhelmingly avoided the taxation of in-game \\\"\\\"inventory\\\"\\\" because it's not really definable. Instead, in game goods are only taxed when they are exchanged for local currency. This is considered a general sale. There may be tax codes in your region for the sale of \\\"\\\"digital goods\\\"\\\". Otherwise, it should be taxed as sale a standard good with no special stipulations. The bottom line is that you shouldn't expect to find much reliable information on this topic, on the internet. Law's haven't been welled defined, regarding in-game content worth and taxing of sales and if you want to know how you should pay your taxes on these transactions, you need to talk to a good accountant, a lawyer or both.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Property sold at profit is taxed at capital gains rate (if you held it for more than a year, which you have based on your previous question). Thus deferring salary won't change the taxable amount or the tax rate on the property. It may save you the 3% difference on the salary, but I don't know how significant can that be. The 25% depreciation recapture rate (or whatever the current percentage is) is preset by your depreciation and cannot be changed, so you'll have to pay that first. Whatever is left above it is capital gains and will be taxed at discounted rates (20% IIRC). You need to make sure that you deduct everything, and capitalize everything else (all the non-deductible expenses and losses with regards to the property). For example, if you remodeled - its added to your basis (reduces the gains). If you did significant improvements and changes - the same. If you installed new appliances and carpets - they're depreciated faster (you can appropriate part of the sale proceeds to these and thus reduce the actual property related gain). Also, you need to see what gain you have on the land - the land cannot be depreciated, so all the gain on it is capital gain. Your CPA will help you investigating these, and maybe other ways to reduce your tax bill. Do make sure to have proper documentation and proofs for all your claims, don't make things up and don't allow your CPA \\\"\\\"cut corners\\\"\\\". It may cost you dearly on audit.\\\"\",\n \"The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html\",\n \"As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.\",\n \"\\\"The $100,000 is taxed separately as \\\"\\\"ordinary income\\\"\\\". The $350,000 is taxed at long-term capital gains of 15%. Capital gains is not taxed at 20% until $415,050. Even though $100,000 + 350,000 = $450,000, only $350,000 can be taxed at capital gains. The total ordinary income tax burden will be $31,986 if single, in California. Caveat: By creating a holdings corporation (C-corp), you can section 351 that $100,000 into the C-corp for tax deferment, which won't be taxed until you take money from the corporation. Since you will hold 100% of the voting stock, all distributions will be considered pro rata. Additionally, you can issue yourself a dividend under the rules of 26 USC §§243-246 (a greather-than-80% shareholder who receives a dividend can write-off 100% of said dividend). As long as that dividend doesn't trigger §§1.243-246 of The Regulations by keeping the distribution just under 10% of E&P i.e. $10,000. Wages are deductible against basis so pay yourself $35,000 and keep $55,000 in the corporation and you can decrease the total liabilities down to $22,000 from $31,000, which includes the CA franchise tax. You don't have to pay yourself any money out a corporation to use the money.\\\"\",\n \"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.\",\n \"\\\"Is this legal? Why not? But you might have trouble deducting losses on your taxes, especially if you sell to someone related to you in some way (which is indeed what you're doing). See the added portion below regarding dealing with \\\"\\\"related person\\\"\\\" (which a sibling is). The state of Maryland has a transfer/recordation tax of 1.5% for each, the buyer and seller. Would this be computed on the appraised or sale value? You should check with the State. In California property taxes are assessed based on sale value, but if the sale value is bogus the assessors have the right to recalculate. Since you're selling to family, the assessors will likely to intervene and set a more close to \\\"\\\"fair market\\\"\\\" value on the transaction, but again - check the local law. Will this pose any problem if the buyer needs financing? Likely, banks will be suspicious.Since you're giving a discount to your sibling, it will likely not cause a problem for financing. If it was an unrelated person getting such a discount, it would likely to have raised some questions. Would I be able to deduct a capital loss on my tax return? As I said - it may be a problem. If the transaction is between related people - likely not. Otherwise - not sure. Check with a professional tax adviser (EA or CPA licensed in Maryland). You mentioned in the comment that the buyer is a sibling. IRS Publication 544 has a list of what is considered \\\"\\\"related person\\\"\\\", and that includes siblings. So the short answer is NO, you will not be able to deduct the loss. The tax treatment is not trivial in this case, and I suggest to have a professional tax adviser guide you on how to proceed. Here's the definition of \\\"\\\"related person\\\"\\\" from the IRS pub. 544: Members of a family, including only brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, spouse, ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.), and lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.). An individual and a corporation if the individual directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. Two corporations that are members of the same controlled group as defined in section 267(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. A trust fiduciary and a corporation if the trust or the grantor of the trust directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. A grantor and fiduciary, and the fiduciary and beneficiary, of any trust. Fiduciaries of two different trusts, and the fiduciary and beneficiary of two different trusts, if the same person is the grantor of both trusts. A tax-exempt educational or charitable organization and a person who directly or indirectly controls the organization, or a member of that person's family. A corporation and a partnership if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership. Two S corporations if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. Two corporations, one of which is an S corporation, if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. An executor and a beneficiary of an estate unless the sale or exchange is in satisfaction of a pecuniary bequest. Two partnerships if the same persons directly or indirectly own more than 50% of the capital interests or profits interests in both partnerships. A person and a partnership if the person directly or indirectly owns more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership.\\\"\",\n \"It would be better for you to sell yourself and pay capital gains tax than to transfer to your parents and pay the gift tax. Also, sham transfer (you transfer to your mother only so that she could sell and transfer back to you without you paying taxes) will be probably categorized as tax evasion, which is a criminal offense that could lead to your deportation. What the US should or should not claim you can take to your congressman, but the fact is that the US does claim tax on capital gains even if you bought the asset before becoming US tax resident, and that's the current law.\",\n \"1) You parents will have to pay tax on the gain as it wasn't their primary home. You don’t pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply: As I look at it, it is your parents are the ones who own the property and they will have to pay on £60000. But as you say you pay part of the mortgage, I would go to a tax advisor/accountant to confirm if they will only pay on the £15000. I couldn't find any guidance on that matter on gov.uk 2) Inheritance tax will not be levied on it as it is below £325000, but tax will be levied on £325000, less £3000 annual gift allowance. Two articles for further information - GOV.UK's Tax when you sell your home Money.co.UK's Gifting money to your children: FAQs\",\n \"Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.\",\n \"\\\"http://www.nadaguides.com/ and http://www.kbb.com/ and http://www.edmunds.com/ are the leading sites to check vehicle values. Also, great how to at: http://www.ehow.com/how_2003079_sell-used-car-california.html Where to sell? You could sell it in your local newspaper classified, small auto newsprint mags/publications, Craigslist, ebay, or just put a sign in the window. The advertising method is up to you. You could also trade the car in to a dealer if you purchase another vehicle from a dealer if they offer that option. (Trade-In's generally bring in less money than private sales as a general rule). Some car places will do consignment requests to help you sell your car. However, they will normally take a percentage of the sale as payment for this service. What paperwork? If you own your car, you should have the title in hand. There are instructions on title on how to sign it over to another person. If you have a loan through a bank, the bank would have this title and you would need to express your interest in selling the property to the bank and work out the details with them. You do not hand over a title to anyone until full payment is made and the property will become theirs. Beyond the title, you will need to fill out a release of liability or report of sale form for the state. Titles have a portion you can mail in or you can fill it out online. This is to report the sale to the state to release liability from your name. You will also need to create a \\\"\\\"bill of sale\\\"\\\" between you and the buyer. There are many examples online or you can just create your own. You really need just a statement saying I release all interest of the vehicle and no warranty implied to this person with the VIN of the car, model, make, year, the buyers name and signature, and the sellers name and signature. This is your contract with the seller and they use this when they go to register the car in their name. Maintenance Disclosure? This is completely up to the seller on what they want to disclose. You are selling a used car and the buyer should know that. Vehicles with detailed records sell for more money and buyers are more interested in cars that have history records. This is where buyers should be the most careful, so the more records and history you can show, the better they will feel about the purchase. I believe you should share everything you know and any information about the history of the car. The more positive information you can prove/share, the more money or chance of sale you could have. Most money? First, clean the car out. I am amazed at the amount of people that try to sell a car and don't even bother to clean it out. A detail job would be great to get. You are trying to sell it, so you want it to look the best. Next, I would fix anything minor and cheap to fix. The less things wrong can mean more money. Back to your maintenance question, you will want to show how you have maintained the car. People might also ask for a carfax report to prove its clean history. Irresponsible and deceiving people tend to leave out important details in a car history like accidents, flood damage, or having re-built titles. You want to give the most information you can. Do not lie about any detail. Though, this can be a little tough when you are a 2nd or 3rd owner of a car and do not know about the original owners.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm not 100% certain on boats, since they aren't typically sold for a gain, but the tax base of an asset is typically the cost of the asset plus the cost of any improvements, so your $15,000 gain looks right (check with a CPA to be certain, though, if you can). Your \\\"\\\"cost basis\\\"\\\" would be $50,000 + $25,000 = $75,000, and your net gain would be $90,000 - $75,000 = $15,000. The result is the same, but the arithmetic is organized a little differently. I am fairly confident you cannot include your time in the \\\"\\\"cost of improvements\\\"\\\". If you incorporated and \\\"\\\"paid yourself\\\"\\\" for the time, then the payment would be considered income (and taxed), if it was even allowed. Depending on your tax bracket that may be a WORSE option for you. You can look at it this way - you only pay the tax on the $15k gain versus paying someone else $15k to do the labor.\\\"\",\n \"Gold is classified as a collectible so the gain rates are as follows: So you'd report a gain of $100 or $1,000 , depending on which coin you sold.\",\n \"\\\"This is what this sounds like to me: https://www.thebalance.com/having-a-garage-sale-or-yard-sale-what-to-do-first-399030 also: http://blogs.hrblock.com/2012/07/25/garage-sale-money-does-the-irs-need-to-know/ Selling a personal item at a loss is generally not a taxable event. You cannot report it as a loss, and the IRS can't tax a transaction like that. If you really want to include these as sales as part of your LLC, you'll probably have to pay tax if you list it as income. I'm just confused as to why you'd want to do that, if you know that you're selling these particular items at a loss, and you also know that you have no documentation for them. I just wouldn't report anything you sold at a loss and treat it as \\\"\\\"garage sale items\\\"\\\" separate from your business.\\\"\",\n \"Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.\",\n \"No Tax would have been deducted at the time of purchase/sale of shares. You would yourself be required to compute your tax liability and then pay taxes to the govt. In case the shares sold were held for less than 1 year - 15% tax on capital gains would be levied. In case the shares sold were held for more than 1 year - No Tax would be levied and the income earned would be tax free. PS: No Tax is levied at the time of purchase of shares and Tax is only applicable at the time of sale of shares.\",\n \"You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.\",\n \"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.\",\n \"You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.\",\n \"Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.\",\n \"You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).\",\n \"As your is a very specific case, please get an advice of CA. It should not cost you much and make it easier. The sale of agriculture land is taxable in certain conditions and exempt from tax in other cases. Sale of agricultural land is subject to capital gains tax. But there are certain exemptions under Section 54B, subject to conditions, which are as follows: If deemed taxable, you can avail indexation, ie the price at which you grandfather got [the date when he inherited it as per indexation] and pay 10% on the difference. If the price is not known, you can take the govt prescribed rate. As there is a large deposit in your fathers account, there can be tax queries and need to be answered. Technically there is no tax liable even if your grandfather gifts the money to your father. More details at http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130401/jsp/business/story_16733007.jsp and http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/publications/4_compute_your_capital_gains/chapter2.asp\",\n \"The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.\",\n \"\\\"In short Yes, your father needs to pay tax. Please consult a CA so that he can advice you better. In your father's case at the time of purchase it was agricultural land. However at the time of sale, it seems it was Urban, N.A. Land. A C.A. would advice you the exact exemptions and gains. If it was agricultural land at the time of selling, the Section 54B: \\\"\\\"Exemption from Capital Gains on transfer of Agricultural Lands in certain cases\\\"\\\" would be applicable if your Dad was doing agricultural activity on this land, and after selling has purchased a similar land.\\\"\",\n \"That seems to indicate that you can in fact depreciate a vehicle given to you? Section 1015 discusses the calculation of basis for gifted property, it says nothing about depreciation. Personal property cannot be depreciated for tax purposes unless it is used for business purposes. So unless you drive your car as part of your sole-proprietor business, you cannot depreciate it, be it a gift or a car you purchased yourself. If you can depreciate the car, then sec. 1015 is used to calculate the basis for the depreciation.\",\n \"You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.\",\n \"As someone who's currently shopping for some winter wheels and has the raised blood pressure to go with that, I've got a few suggestions as to what would make me pick up the phone and call your or email you if you're advertising a vehicle. Keep in mind that if you're willing to deal with the additional hassle, you'll normally get the most money for a used car if you sell it privately. If it is worth the additional effort though is both a matter of judgement and if you're willing to put up with strange people like me :). Depending on the value of the vehicle and its rarity/desirability, you're looking at newspaper ads (probably won't get you much of a response these days), craigslist, Autotrader and similar, and last but not least, ebay. If you're trying to sell something that's easy to find because there are five at every street corner (think beige minivan), skip ebay. If it's worth below 5k-6k, I wouldn't bother with places where you have to pay to advertise, which leaves CL for the cheap stuff - that said, I'd still stick it on CL if it's advertised in other places. Heck, it's free after all. The figure out what sort of money you're asking for. Check the resources like KBB.com and have a look at your local CL for similar vehicles. Out here, certain types of vehicles (for example, Jeeps) sell quickly and often above even KBB.com. A little market research will help you come up with a good price. Just don't do things like asking a massively inflated price for a vehicle because you paid $x five years ago. All this shows that you have no idea what your vehicle is worth. Oh, and I'd always work out what the minimum I'd take is - leave yourself some haggle room but don't undersell the vehicle. Once you know where you advertise and for how much, pull together the basic facts for your vehicles and the points that would make it stand out. Basic facts about the car should include engine size, type of transmission, if it's AWD (where applicable), mileage. Color I can see on the pictures, but it's nice to include that, too. If you have service records, recently replaced a big ticket item (think transmission or similar) or had a very recent service, especially a big one where you had a timing belt and waterpump changed, mention it. Don't say the vehicle has a new engine if that was put in 100k miles ago, that's nice to mention but it's not new. If nobody's ever smoked in it, mention it. If it's got other outstanding features (super low mileage, summer only use etc) make sure to mention it that, too. Next, if it's got any faults that you know of - especially obvious ones - disclose them. People like me will most likely find the leaking shock absorber and the rust holes in the floor anyway, and it makes a much better impression if you do tell us about them beforehand. Trying to tell someone that your banana-shaped car that looks like the Blue Man Group used it for practise is actually pristine and accident-free isn't going to go down very well. Next, pull together the paperwork - make sure you've got the title (if there is a lien on the title, check with the lienholder before advertising the car so you know their procedure for releasing the title), any maintenance records you have, manuals, receipts etc. If the vehicle has a salvage title, try to find out why and mention it in the ad. I've just had a comedian phone me while I was driving to see his vehicle and leave a message that he didn't have a title and didn't seem to be willing to bother to get one, either. Obviously that put me in the right frame of mind, given that it was a 200 mile round trip. So don't do it - if you can't get a title, the schmuck you sold it to will have even less of a chance of getting one. And given that you are in California, a lot of people (including myself) react really badly to three years' worth of back registration, missing smog, expired registrations on something I'd expect to test drive etc. Essentially anything that would stop a potential cash buyer to drive it away on the spot. Next, clean the car - you know, the five years' of accumulated McD wrappers and inch thick layer of dirt (I'm only partially kidding, I've seem some pretty horrible stuff recently). Spend the two hours it takes to clean it or pay to have it valeted or detailed. Clean, shiny cars sell a lot better than a rolling recycling container. Oh, and last - make the effort take some decent photos. The more the merrier, shot in daylight (no photographing a black car after sunset) and if there is any damage, an additional photo or two showing the damage would be nice. Stick the on photobucket or similar and put the links in your craigslist ad so you don't restrict yourself to the microscopic photos that you normally get on there. As to payment, I'd either take cash, meet the buyer at his bank where he draws out a cashiers check in front of your eyes, or, well, cash. No Kauri shells, deeds on bridges in Brooklyn or anything else. Be prepared to take a deposit - a lot of buyers aren't willing to wander around with ten large ones in the back pocket to go look at a car - and spell out exactly how long the deposit is good for. I also tend to make them non-refundable (buyer doesn't pick up the car within the negotiated timeframe, you keep the deposit as 'damages' for not being able to sell it to another cash buyer). Check your DMV's website as to what exactly you need to do once you sold the car. Here in Nevada it's the buyer's problem on how to move it as you keep the plates, but I know in California the regular plates (not personal ones IIRC) stay with the vehicle and I think you need to inform the DMV that you sold the vehicle. I'd also keep a record of who I sold a vehicle to (name, address from his drivers license, license number etc) just in case they run a few red lights and accumulate a few grands' worth of parking tickets.\",\n \"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.\",\n \"Yes. This income would be reported on schedule SE. Normally, you will not owe any tax if the amount is less than $400. Practically, $100 in a garage sale is not why the IRS created the form SE. I wouldn't lose sleep over keeping track of small cash sales over the course of a year. However, if you have the information I'm not going to tell you not to report it.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses. See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph. The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510. This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price. Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use. But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle. That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax. Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year. (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.) However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both. See Tax Topic 503. So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year. Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return. Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not."],"string":"[\n \"I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses. See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph. The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510. This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price. Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use. But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle. That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax. Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year. (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.) However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both. See Tax Topic 503. So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year. Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return. Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":256,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"1284"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Tax consequences when foreign currency changes in value"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["342411"],"string":"[\n \"342411\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["342411","481601","11122","342903","385310","30654","221760","403948","8200","390252","424352","251385","442489","426960","465106","222694","30403","396323","475170","259602","211122","9353","207316","6543","549272","273209","169245","586455","185983","42942","465135","261101","557647","276408","152657","131382","125568","212312","17460","123287","322456","538843","192295","180581","526714","75410","43508","215437","42521","149305","44955","106024","367562","162467","292065","272944","5347","180500","496820","359405","83758","306800","407259","474512","183506","36341","382505","392313","454563","307477","459096","66039","522578","506368","173133","430868","98510","256261","540292","199785","239876","415309","568064","34139","589377","400631","128322","386941","303287","134794","437907","572523","154912","514970","451180","276334","163836","182374","443354","310326"],"string":"[\n \"342411\",\n \"481601\",\n \"11122\",\n \"342903\",\n \"385310\",\n \"30654\",\n \"221760\",\n \"403948\",\n \"8200\",\n \"390252\",\n \"424352\",\n \"251385\",\n \"442489\",\n \"426960\",\n \"465106\",\n \"222694\",\n \"30403\",\n \"396323\",\n \"475170\",\n \"259602\",\n \"211122\",\n \"9353\",\n \"207316\",\n \"6543\",\n \"549272\",\n \"273209\",\n \"169245\",\n \"586455\",\n \"185983\",\n \"42942\",\n \"465135\",\n \"261101\",\n \"557647\",\n \"276408\",\n \"152657\",\n \"131382\",\n \"125568\",\n \"212312\",\n \"17460\",\n \"123287\",\n \"322456\",\n \"538843\",\n \"192295\",\n \"180581\",\n \"526714\",\n \"75410\",\n \"43508\",\n \"215437\",\n \"42521\",\n \"149305\",\n \"44955\",\n \"106024\",\n \"367562\",\n \"162467\",\n \"292065\",\n \"272944\",\n \"5347\",\n \"180500\",\n \"496820\",\n \"359405\",\n \"83758\",\n \"306800\",\n \"407259\",\n \"474512\",\n \"183506\",\n \"36341\",\n \"382505\",\n \"392313\",\n \"454563\",\n \"307477\",\n \"459096\",\n \"66039\",\n \"522578\",\n \"506368\",\n \"173133\",\n \"430868\",\n \"98510\",\n \"256261\",\n \"540292\",\n \"199785\",\n \"239876\",\n \"415309\",\n \"568064\",\n \"34139\",\n \"589377\",\n \"400631\",\n \"128322\",\n \"386941\",\n \"303287\",\n \"134794\",\n \"437907\",\n \"572523\",\n \"154912\",\n \"514970\",\n \"451180\",\n \"276334\",\n \"163836\",\n \"182374\",\n \"443354\",\n \"310326\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.","In theory, when you obtained ownership of your USD cash as a Canadian resident [*resident for tax purposes, which is generally a quicker timeline than being resident for immigration purposes], it is considered to have been obtained by you for the CAD equivalent on that date. For example if you immigrated on Dec 31, 2016 and carried $10k USD with you, when the rate was ~1.35, then Canada deems you to have arrived with $13.5k CAD. If you converted that CAD to USD when the rate was 1.39, you would have received 13.9k CAD, [a gain of $400 to show as income on your tax return]. Receiving the foreign inheritances is a little more complex; those items when received may or may not have been taxable on that day. However whether or not they were taxable, you would calculate a further gain as above, if the fx rate gave you more CAD when you ultimately converted it. If the rate went the other way and you lost CAD-value, you may or may not be able to claim a loss. If it was a small loss, I wouldn't bother trying to claim it due to hassle. If it's a large loss, I would be very sure to research thoroughly before claiming, because something like that probably has a high chance of being audited.","\"Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred. The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first \"\"gain\"\" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain. This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year. Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it).\"","Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.","Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.","Huh. It appears it's only currencies in sterling that are fully exempt. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg12602 Government manuals are more detailed than .gov but still not perfect as it's HMRCs interpretation of legislation and has been overturned in the past. There is also another (old) article here about foreign currency transactions. https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2010/10/27/21191/currency-gains I have never come across forex capital gains in practice but I've learnt something today! Something to look out for in the UK as well I guess.","If you are exchanging money for travel then you should not have to pay any capital gains on any exchange that is in your favour. Exchanging currency for travel is different from trading currencies for an attempt at making profits.","If you hold this money in USD and spend it in the US as USD, then there is no tax liability or reporting requirement at all. You are not subject to any tax on foreign exchange gains and losses because you have not performed any foreign exchange. CRA says a foreign exchange gain or loss happens when the fx transaction occurs—not as the currency’s value fluctuates while on deposit - and since you are never performing an fx transaction, no such issues will arise. The CRA is not interested in how you spend your money, only the money that you earn. The only possible tax liability that would arise in the circumstances that you describe would be the tax liability arising from interest earned while the cash in on deposit. If this interest exceeds the threshold of reportability, then your bank will issue you with a T-slip to be included in your tax return.","Capital is an Asset. Decreasing value of capital is the decreasing value of an asset. When you buy the forex asset * DR Forex Asset * CR Cash When you sell * DR Cash * CR Forex Asset The difference is now accounted for Here is how: Gains (and losses) are modifications to your financial position (Balance sheet). At the end of the period you take your financial performance (Profit and Loss) and put it into your balance sheet under equity. Meaning that afterwards your balance sheet is better or worse off (Because you made more money = more cash or lost it, whatever). You are wanting to make an income account to reflect the forex revaluation so at the end of the period it is reflected in profit then pushed into your balance sheet. Capital gains directly affect your balance sheet because they increase/decrease your cash and your asset in the journal entry itself (When you buy and sell it). If making money this way is actually how you make you make an income it is possible to make an account for it. If you do this you periodically revalue the asset and write off the changes to the revaluation account. You would do something like *DR Asset *CR Forex Revaluation account; depending on the method you take. Businesses mostly do this because if the capital gains are their line of business they will be taxed on it like it is income. For simplicity just account for it when you buy and sell the assets (Because you as an individual will only recognise a profit/loss when you enter and exit). Its easier to think about income and expenses are extensions of equity. Income increases your equity, expenses decrease it. This is how they relate to the accounting formula (Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity)","I'll break it down into steps. Total gain/ loss for the whole thing is 5 CAD. You only have to worry about these calculations if you keep some USD and convert it at your leisure. Or if you have a US dollar in your wallet from your last vacation. Don't forget to subtract commissions (converted to CAD of course). *Some people just use an average exchange rate for the whole year, which you can also get from the BoC. ^There's $200 of tax free gains allowed for pure currency transactions. This allows small gains to be ignored.","If you make money in currency speculation (as in your example), that is a capital gain. A more complicated example is if you were to buy and then sell stocks on the mexican stock exchange. Your capital gain (or loss) would be the difference in value in US dollars of your stocks accounting for varying exchange rates. It's possible for the stocks to go down and for you to still have a capital gain, and vice versa.","\"If your friend is loaning you KRW which you are then converting to USD, then there are tax implications. This would be a Section 988 transaction so \"\"gains\"\" or \"\"losses\"\" made during repayment (partial or complete) due to fluctuations in exchange rate would be treated as ordinary gains or losses. For example, imagine you borrow 100,000 KRW and, at the time you borrow it, this is worth exactly 100,000 USD. At some future point, you repay 20,000 KRW. If the exchange rate at that point is such that 20,000 KRW is worth 15,000 USD, then the IRS sees that you have \"\"gained\"\" 5,000 USD in ordinary income. This is a particular concern if the loan is a mortgage and you refinance the mortgage at a moment in time with a more \"\"favorable\"\" exchange rate than the exchange rate when you first got the mortgage. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-988.asp for some additional discussion.\"","Now, I have kept this money and after interval of 6 month or year whenever the USD price go up, I do exchange with Indian currency and deposit in my account. Now do I have to pay Tax on this money? No you are not required to pay any tax as the income was accrued when your were NRI for tax purposes. The Foreign currency upto USD 2000 can be held by an individual without any time limit. i.e. you can convert then whenever you want. There is nothing that needs to be declared in Tax Returns.","\"Since you did not treat the house as a QBU, you have to use USD as your functional currency. To calculate capital gains, you need to calculate the USD value at the time of purchase using the exchange rate at the time of purchase and the USD value at the time of sale using the exchange rate at the time of sale. The capital gain / loss is then the difference between the two. This link describes it in more detail and provides some references: http://www.maximadvisors.com/2013/06/foreign-residence/ That link also discusses additional potential complications if you have a mortgage on the house. This link gives more detail on the court case referenced in the above link: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93F3d26.html The court cases references Rev. Rul 54-105. This link from the IRS has some details from that (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0303021.pdf): Rev. Rul. 54-105, 1954-1 C.B. 12, states that for purposes of determining gain, the basis and selling price of property acquired by a U.S. citizen living in a foreign country should be expressed in United States dollars at the rates of exchange prevailing as of the dates of purchase and sale of the property, respectively. The text of this implies it is for U.S. citizen is living in a foreign country, but the court case makes it clear that it also applies in your scenario (house purchased while living abroad but now residing in the US): Appellants agree that the 453,374 pounds received for their residence should be translated into U.S. dollars at the $1.82 exchange rate prevailing at the date of sale. They argue, however, that the 343,147 pound adjusted cost basis of the residence, consisting of the 297,500 pound purchase price and the 45,647 pounds paid for capital improvements, likewise should be expressed in U.S. dollar terms as of the date of the sale. Appellants correctly state that, viewed “in the foreign currency in which it was transacted,” the purchase generated a 110,227 pound gain as of the date of the sale, which translates to approximately $200,000 at the $1.82 per pound exchange rate. ... However fair and reasonable their argument may be, it amounts to an untenable attempt to convert their “functional currency” from the U.S. dollar to the pound sterling. ... Under I.R.C. § 985(b)(1), use of a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar is restricted to qualified business units (\"\"QBU\"\"s). ... appellants correctly assert that their residence was purchased “for a pound-denominated value” while they were “living and working in a pound-denominated economy,” ... And since appellants concede that the purchase and sale of their residence was not carried out by a QBU, the district court properly rejected their plea to treat the pound as their functional currency.\"","Yes, you still need to pay income tax on your capital gain regardless of whether you converted your USD proceeds back into CAD. When you calculate your gains for tax purposes, you'll need to convert all of your gains to Canadian dollars. Generally speaking, CRA will expect you to use a historical USD to CAD exchange rate published by the Bank of Canada. At that page, notice the remark at right: Are the Exchange Rates Shown Here Accepted by Canada Revenue Agency? Yes. The Agency accepts Bank of Canada exchange rates as the basis for calculations involving income and expenses that are denominated in foreign currencies.","No it's not, not until a disposition. Keep track of the CAD value on the day you receive the inheritance and get an average cost. Then every time you go to the US and spend some money, record the CAD value on the day you spend it. The difference is your profit or loss. There is no capital gain as long as you don't spend it. Now this may seem ridiculous, especially since none of this is reported to the CRA. They realize this and say the first $200 profit or loss is not taxable.","According to the answers to this question, you generally aren't taxed on gains until you sell the asset in question. None of those answered specifically for the U.K., so perhaps someone else will be able to weigh in on that. To apply those ideas to your question, yes your gains and losses are taxable. If you originally traded something worth $100 for the bitcoins, then when you converted back to dollars you received $200, you would have a $100 gain, simply on the foreign exchange trade. That is, this $100 of income is in addition to any income you made from your business (selling goods).","Would I have to pay some kind of capital gains tax? And if so, when? Converting Tax paid USD into CAD is not a taxable event. A taxable even will occur if you convert back the CAD into USD. If you receive interest on the CAD then the interest is also a taxable event. Also, is there any reason this is a terrible idea? That will only be known in future. Its like predicting that in future this will turn out to be advantageous, however it may turn out the other way.","\"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as \"\"mark to market\"\", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation.\"","I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.","In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).","How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).","Just a thought because this is a really good question: Would the buying and selling of blockchain based digital currency, using other blockchain based digital currencies, be subject to like kind treatment and exempt from capital gains until exchanged for a non-blockchain based good or service (or national currency) Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin to buy 100 monero. Monero's price and bitcoin's price then change to where the 100 monero are 3 bitcoins. The person gets their bitcoin back and has 66.67 monero remaining. This scenario could be: Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin at $1000 to buy 100 monero at $10. Bitcoin crashes 80% to $200 while monero crashes to only $6 per monero. $6 times 100 is $600 and if the person gets their bitcoin back (at $200 per bitcoi), they still lost money when measured in US Dollars if they move that bitcoin back to US dollars. In reading the IRS on bitcoin, they only care about the US dollar value of bitcoin or monero and in this example, the US dollar value is less. The person may have more bitcoins, but they still lost money if they sell.","Simply transferring money you own from overseas to Canada will not mean you need to pay tax on it. However if you sell property at a profit - I.e. sell it for more than you paid for it - you may have to pay tax on any gains. This is true whether or not you transfer the money to Canada. Calculating the amount is quite complicated. You might consider getting a tax expert.","The money you will be bringing to the US will be classified as your own money, and will not be taxable. The proceeds from the sale are taxable to you, probably as capital gains. The fact that you kept the proceeds out of the US is irrelevant for that purpose (it is relevant for FBAR/FATCA etc). Since you had no basis in the property, all the proceeds are taxable to you at the time of the sale and should be reported on your tax return.","There is a fourth option - pay those taxes. Depending on the amounts, it might be the easiest way - if you make 34.49 in interest, and pay 6 $ in taxes on it, and be done, that might not be worth any other effort. If the expected taxable amount is significant, moving (most of it) to index funds or other simply switching existing investments to ‘reinvest’ instead of ‘pay out in cash’ would be the best approach. Again, some smaller amounts in savings or checkings accounts are probably not worth any effort. Transferring the money to the US doesn’t save you taxes, as any interest would still be taxable. You have a risk to lose on the conversion back and forth (and a potential to gain - the exchange rate could go either way!), so if you are sure you go back, it’s not a good idea to move the money.","This loss would be unrealized and, assuming you're a cash-basis tax-payer, you would not be able to take a loss on your 2014 tax return. This is similar to if you held a stock that lost 50% of its value. You wouldn't be able to claim this loss until you finally sold it. The link that User58220 posted may come into play if you converted your UAH back to USD.","I don't think so in your case. Unless the account generates so much interest income that it became reportable (I don't know the exact limit, but I think it's in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars, you might get a 1099 form if it generates over $10 of interest income, but you don't have to file taxes if your overall income is too low anyways). The US does not typically tax assets, only income. There are some states (Florida is the only one I can think of) that has odd tax treatment of intangible assets, but I doubt that would apply in your case. If this were a large enough amount, usually over $10,000, it might trigger some reporting requirements (possibly by your home country).","Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5.","\"What about the escudo balance in my checking account in Cabo Verde? Are the escudos that I held for months or years, before eventually deciding to change to dollars, considered an investment? Don't know. You tell us. Investment defined as an activity taken to produce income. Did you put the money in the checking account with a full expectation of profits to be made from that? Or you only decided that it is an investment in retrospective, after the result is known, because it provides you more tax benefit? To me it sounds like you have two operating currencies and you're converting between them. Doesn't sound like an investment. Generally, from my experience, bank accounts are not considered investments (even savings accounts aren't). Once you deposit into a CD or bond or money market - you get a cash-equivalent which can be treated as an investment. But that's my personal understanding, if there are large amounts involved, I'd suggest talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA specializing on expats in your area. Pub 54 is really a reference for only the most trivial of the questions an expat may have. It doesn't even begin to describe the complexity of the monstrosity that is called \"\"The US Tax Code for Expats and Foreigners\"\".\"","\"After more searching for how the US might treat such an attempt to \"\"rollover\"\" the funds, I found this: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/am2008009.pdf So, it seems it is impossible to do without US tax consequences.\"","It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value. Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates). You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd. If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd. Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.","Depending on what software you use. It has to be reported as a foreign income and you can claim foreign tax paid as a foreign tax credit.","Please consult a tax advisor. You may be voilating the FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act] and can land into trouble. Further what you are doing can land up into various other acts as illegal including AML. Further if there is income generated by Indian citizen in India, he is still liable to pay tax, irrespective of whether you get the funds back into India. Edit: AML is Anti Money Laundering. Your transaction is sure to raise AML triggers as it looks like converting Black Money to White in round about way. Once the triggers are raised, RBI division will investigate further to verify what you are doing. If you are able to prove that this is a valid transaction, you would be OK on AML front. How will Income Tax Know? - If they don't know does not mean you are not liable for tax. - Any suspicious transactions would get investigated and sooner or later Income Tax would know about it and can cause a serious problem. - It is irrelevant where you have kept the money, if you have earned something, its taxable. For it not to be taxable you need to conduct this business differently. Please consult a tax adviser who will advice you on the tax-ability of this type of transaction.","It depends on the asset and the magnitude of the exchange rate change relative to the inflation rate. If it is a production asset, the prices can be expected to change relative to the changes in exchange rate regardless of magnitude, ceteris paribus. If it is a consumption asset, the prices of those assets will change with the net of the exchange rate change and inflation rate, but it can be a slow process since all of the possessions of the country becoming relatively poorer cannot immediately be shipped out and the need to exchange wants for goods will be resisted as long as possible.","If you move money - you don't need to pay any taxes. If the money was not there before and magically appeared at some point and now you want to move it - you'll have to explain a thing or two to the IRS and FinCEN. Generally, if you're a green card holder - you pay taxes on your worldwide income. So if you have a foreign account that earns interest - that interest is taxable to you in the US. In the year you earned it, not in the year you moved the money to the US. There are also reporting requirements (FBAR notably, and others). If you haven't filed FBAR with regards to the accounts which you now want to move, and especially if that also includes unreported income (interest and other) - you may find yourself in a very deep s#!t. Sorry, very deep troubles. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). A proper consultation is warranted, if you haven't had one already. You might need a tax attorney.","\"No, there are neither advantages nor disadvantages. I'll take on this question from an accounting standpoint. Financial statements, the tools at which the market determines (amongst other things) the value of a stock, are converted at year end to the home currency (see 1.1.3).If Company A has revenue of 100,000 USD and the conversion to EUR is .89, revenue in the European market will be reported as 89,000 EUR. These valuations, along with ratios, analysis, and \"\"expert\"\" opinions determine if a person should own shares in Company A. Now, if we're talking about comparing markets this is a entirely different question. Example: Should I buy stock of Company A, who is in the American market (as an European)? Should I buy stock of Company B, who is in the European market (as an American)? I would recommend this as additional level of diversification of your portfolio to inlcude possible large inflation of either the currency. The possible gains of this foreign exchange may be greater if one or the other currency becomes weak.\"","Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.","The value of a foreign stock is subject to fluctuations in the foreign currency value; this is not the case for domestic stocks.","This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.","\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \"\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\"\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \"\"mark to market accounting\"\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\"","What you are doing is barter trade. Most countries [if not all] would tax this on assumed fair value. There are instances where countries may relax this norm in border areas for a small amount. Barter is not just for gold – one can virtually do this for any goods, i.e. sell garments in exchange for oil, sell electronic chips in exchange for consumer goods, etc. Quite a few business would flourish doing this and not exchange currency at all, hence the need for government to tax on the [assumed / calculated / arrived/ derived] fair value. A word of caution: at times this may not be fair at all and may actually cost more than had one done a transaction using currency.","\"Yes, you effectively need to \"\"double count\"\" when shifting balances between foreign accounts.\"","Essentially imported goods from the country (in this case the US) that is improving against your local currency will become more expensive. For the most part, that is the only practical effect on you on an individual financial level.","An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.","To your first question: YES. Capital gains and losses on real-estate are treated differently than income. Note here for exact IRS standards. The IRS will not care about percentage change but historical (recorded) amounts. To your second question: NO Are you taxed when buying a new stock? No. But be sure to record the price paid for the house. Note here for more questions. *Always consult a CPA for tax advice on federal tax returns.","\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"","This is taxable in India. You need to declare the income and pay taxes accordingly","\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"","\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"","Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.","As the funds are Gift received from your parents, and your tax residency is US, as per US gift tax, there is no tax due from you for these funds.","I can only answer about the U.S. For question 2, I believe the answer is no. If you are a non-resident alien for tax purposes, then only income connected to the U.S. is reported as income on the tax return. Unless there were any non-deductible contributions to your pre-tax IRAs, when you convert to Roth IRA, the entire amount of the conversion is added to your income. So the tax consequence is the same as if you had that much additional U.S. income. If you are a non-resident alien with no other income in the U.S., then the income you have to report on your U.S. tax return will basically consist of the conversion. Non-resident aliens do not have a standard deduction. However, all people have a personal exemption. If we take 2013 as an example, the exemption is $3900 per person. We will assume that you will file as single or married filing separately (non-resident aliens cannot file as married filing jointly). The first $3900 of income is covered by the exemption, and is not counted in taxable income. For single and MFS, the next $8925 of income is taxed at 10%, then next $27325 of income is taxed at 15%, and so on. So if you convert less than the personal exemption amount every year ($3900 in 2013), then in theory you do not pay any taxes. If you convert a little bit more, then some of the conversion will be taxed at 10%, etc.","Canadian departure tax is implemented as a deemed sale gains proceeds taxation. Check here for details. What it means is that you're taxed on the difference between your FMV on the date of terminating residency and your Canadian cost basis (FMV when you acquired residency, or regular cost basis if you acquired the assets while being resident of Canada). It doesn't matter if you actually withdraw the money or not, it has no significance. You'll have to pay the tax either way.","The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.","\"Although there are occasional cases where simply moving money between countries results in a tax liability - for example a \"\"non-domiciled\"\" UK resident using the \"\"remittance basis\"\" - this is not the case in your situation. In general it would be extremely rare for non-residents of a country to be taxed on bringing money into that country, as it would be bad for tourism which most countries want to encourage. The requirement to declare large sums of money on entry is primarily so that the authorities can detect money laundering, rather than tax. Note that you will have to pay US tax on any interest you earn on that US bank account.\"","If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.","Is this money taxable in US? From what you described you're likely to have been a US tax resident. As such, you're taxed on your worldwide income. Foreign tax deferral schemes are not considered qualified under the US law (unless a treaty says otherwise), so you're liable for taxes on them now. Get a new tax adviser.","When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.","> Hence all businesses in the US, no matter what currency they make money in, have to buy USD to pay their taxes. So that means that means other currencies are valueless since X government doesn't see Y currency as a means of payment? Also, you don't buy so much as trade but potatoes potatos.","If you are a US resident (not necessarily citizen) then yes, you do have to pay capital gains taxes on any capital gains, including interest from assets oversees (like interest from a savings account). Additionally you have to report all your foreign bank accounts according to FATCA (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca).","If you are a non resident Indian, the income you earn and transfer to India is tax free in India. You can hold the funds in USD or convert then into INR, there is no tax implication.","\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"","\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \"\"recognition\"\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\"","Generally it is a taxable transaction. Basic principle of taxation everywhere is that the mean of payment doesn't matter. If the income is taxable - it is taxable regardless of the unit of currency you used. It can be a strawberry, a bitcoin, a gold nugget, or a dollar, it doesn't change a thing about how it is taxed. If you look at the United States tax code definition of taxable income, for example, you will find no mention whatsoever of any currency. Similarly with other tax laws I'm familiar with. I'm sure there's no such limitation in Australia.","The purpose of the transfer determines the taxability. If this is happening to frequent, it is advisable to keep proper records of the transaction so that if there is an enquiry from Tax authorities you can explain. Unless you explain the why the transfer is being made, I have put out some broad categories.","You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean.","non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.","If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.","Thanks for your reply! I presume then if I don't convert back (say I spend everything) then it's much the same. So my main consideration should be whether I think the currency will increase or decrease in my time away if I'm converting back","How can I correctly account for having money in different currencies, without currency transfers or currency fluctuations ending up as gains or losses? In my view, your spreadsheet should be in multiple currencies. i.e. if you have gained some in specific currency, make a note of it in that specific currency. If you have spent something in a specific currency, then make a note accordingly. You can use an additional column for reporting this in a neutral currency say GBP. If you are transferring the money from account of one currency to account of another; change the balances as appropriate with the actual conversion rate. If you need this record keeping for tax purposes, then get a proper advise from accountant.","The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.","Assuming your tax status in India is Non-Resident. The funds are deposited in an NRE account, there is nothing that needs to be done. If you have any income in India, then you would need to file a tax return.","I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.","Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.","If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.","There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.","And directly from IRS notice 2014-21 FAQ: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Q-6: Does a taxpayer have gain or loss upon an exchange of virtual currency for other property? A-6: Yes. If the fair market value of property received in exchange for virtual currency exceeds the taxpayer’s adjusted basis of the virtual currency, the taxpayer has taxable gain. The taxpayer has a loss if the fair market value of the property received is less than the adjusted basis of the virtual currency.… Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities? A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income.","Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.","Government's tax citizens and businesses in their currency. Earnings (even earnings in cryptocurrencies) are taxable income.","You are trying to predict the future currency fluctuations that can't be predicted. If you know for sure you are moving, convert it directly into Euros in near future rather than take a complicated route.","FBAR should be filed if total balance of all your foreign accounts is more than $10000 any time during the year (even if only for one day). My TurboTax handled that well last year, including filling the FBAR for me. Shouldn't be an issue, just don't forget to file it (not with your IRS package, it goes to a different place), if you need to. On the tax forms (1040 Schedule B, Part III) you should check a checkbox that you have a foreign bank account.","\"As long as the IRS treats bitcoin as property, then whenever you use bitcoin to buy anything you are supposed to consider the capital gain or capital loss. There is no \"\"until it's converted to fiat\"\". You are paying local sales tax and capital gains, or paying local sales tax and reporting capital loss. As long as you are consistent, you can use either the total cost basis, or individual lot purchases. The same as other property like stocks (except without stock specific regulations like wash-sale rules :D ). There are a lot of perks or unintentional loopholes for speculators, with the property designation. There are a lot of disadvantages for consumers trying to use it like a currency. Someone mixing investment and spending funds across addresses is going to have complicated tax issues, but fortunately the exchanges have records of purchase times and prices, which you can compare with the addresses you control. Do note, after that IRS guideline, another federal agency designated Bitcoin as a commodity, which is a subset of \"\"property\"\" with its own more favorable but different tax guidelines.\"","Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.","It would depend on whether it's considered capital gains or not. A brief Google search suggests that it is; this means you're only required to pay tax on it once it's traded for actual currency, goods, or services. It also means you get some nice tax advantages as long as you hold it for longer than a year.","\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \"\"shoot the jaywalker\"\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\"","Now i want to get this money in my new UK bank account, does this mean that gov will take taxes from this money as well. Yes that is income and you have to pay tax on that. But it might be a bit complicated than that, so I would ask you to call up HMRC or visit an accountant or maybe ask the finance people of your employer. Also one of my family members send us money every few months and will send to this bank from now on, does taxes also apply on this? See the HMRC page about capital gains tax on gifts: You won't have to pay Capital Gains Tax when you give a gift to your husband, wife or civil partner - as long as both of the following apply: It's useful to keep a note of what the asset cost you. Your spouse or civil partner may need this to work out their Capital Gains Tax when they dispose of the asset. Example: Mr B lives with his wife and gives her an antique table that he bought for £12,000 in 2003. Mrs B spends £500 restoring the table, eventually selling it for £20,000. Her total costs are £12,500 (£500 plus Mr B's original cost £12,000). Mrs B's gain is £7,500 (£20,000 less £12,500). When you make a gift to a family member or other person you're connected with, you'll need to work out the gain or loss. This doesn't apply to gifts you make to your spouse or civil partner. This also applies if you dispose of an asset to them in any other way - for example, you sell it to them for a low price. A 'connected person' in this context is someone such as your brother, sister, child, parent, grandparent, mother-in-law or business partner. Follow the link below for more information about connected people and Capital Gains Tax. You must get a valuation of the asset at the time you made the gift. Use this value in place of any amount you received for the asset to work out your gain or loss. If you gave the asset away, then of course the amount you received for it will be nothing. If you make a loss you can only deduct the loss from gains you make on gifts or other disposals to the same person.","To answer my own question, at least to the extent of my understanding. Here the IRS says that all income for a foreign person from a US-based company is taxable with 30%. Here the IRS says that this tax should be withhold at source by whomever pays you. In case there is a tax treaty with the country, the tax can even be waived in the US. Of course, if you don't declare it in your home country, the US bank could probably give information requested by the home country authorities. For the other two cases (when there's no US party involved) I can't find anything on the IRS website, which kind of make sense. If I am using an account in the US just to receive and send money shouldn't imply any tax. Thanks to @litteadv for pointing me into the right direction.","Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.","I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.","The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.","well, probably taxed a little. and taxed when they spend it, and taxed again when it is spent again. like fikirte said, this is foreign money. if the americans want access to it they have to make it easy. they've done it in the past http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/the-portfolio-interest-exemption-53348889 sorry there is a lack of sources in real english.","Depends on the countries and their rules about moving money across the border, but in this case that appears entirely reasonable. Of course it would be a gamble unless you can predict the future values of currency better than most folks; there is no guarantee that the exchange rate will move in any particular direction. I have no idea whether any tax is due on profit from currency arbitrage.","You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.","From India Tax point of view: Some one else may give the US tax treatment. Refer to this similar question what taxes I need to pay in India Capital Gains. My accountant never asked or reported the bought property in taxes- should he reported in taxes?Did he do wrong not reporting should I report the property in my next year taxes? If you mean in IT Returns, yes it should be declared. Can i bring the money back if needed? By Back if you mean repatriate to US, The capital portion would be Ease if the loan property was purchased or loan repaid from NRE. Else there is limit on the amount and paperwork. Consult a CA. If I rent the property instead of selling, do I have to report the income and what income? should I be filling taxes on the rental income in India or just in USA or both You are taxable for the rent and have to report it as income and pay taxes in India.","You only have to pay taxes when you convert to dollars. Most exchanges I think have to track their users and provide them with reports for tax purposes. Just holding bitcoin and watching it go up in value does not trigger a taxable event.","Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.","If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.","Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.","\"The short answer is that the exchange of the stock in exchange for the elimination of a debt is a taxable exchange, and gains or losses are possible for the stock investor as well as the bank. The somewhat longer answer is best summarized as noting that banks don't usually accept stocks as collateral, mostly because stock values are volatile and most banks are not equipped to monitor the risk involved but it is very much part of the business of stock brokers. In the USA, as a practical matter I only know of stock brokerages offering loans against stock as part of the standard services of a \"\"margin account\"\". You can get a margin account at any US stock broker. The stockholder can deposit their shares in the margin account and then borrow around 50% of the value, though that is a bit much to borrow and a lower amount would be safer from sudden demands for repayment in the form of margin calls. In a brokerage account I can not imagine a need to repay a margin loan if the stocks dividends plus capital appreciation rises in value faster than the margin loan rate creates interest charges... Trouble begins as the stock value goes down. When the value of the loan exceeds a certain percentage of the stock value, which can depend on the stock and the broker's policy but is also subject to federal rules like Regulation T, the broker can call in the loan and/or take initiative to sell the stock to repay the loan. Notice that this may result in a capital gain or loss, depending on the investor's tax basis which is usually the original cost of the stock. Of course, this sale affects the taxes of the investor irregardless of who gets the money.\""],"string":"[\n \"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.\",\n \"In theory, when you obtained ownership of your USD cash as a Canadian resident [*resident for tax purposes, which is generally a quicker timeline than being resident for immigration purposes], it is considered to have been obtained by you for the CAD equivalent on that date. For example if you immigrated on Dec 31, 2016 and carried $10k USD with you, when the rate was ~1.35, then Canada deems you to have arrived with $13.5k CAD. If you converted that CAD to USD when the rate was 1.39, you would have received 13.9k CAD, [a gain of $400 to show as income on your tax return]. Receiving the foreign inheritances is a little more complex; those items when received may or may not have been taxable on that day. However whether or not they were taxable, you would calculate a further gain as above, if the fx rate gave you more CAD when you ultimately converted it. If the rate went the other way and you lost CAD-value, you may or may not be able to claim a loss. If it was a small loss, I wouldn't bother trying to claim it due to hassle. If it's a large loss, I would be very sure to research thoroughly before claiming, because something like that probably has a high chance of being audited.\",\n \"\\\"Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred. The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first \\\"\\\"gain\\\"\\\" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain. This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year. Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it).\\\"\",\n \"Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.\",\n \"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.\",\n \"Huh. It appears it's only currencies in sterling that are fully exempt. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg12602 Government manuals are more detailed than .gov but still not perfect as it's HMRCs interpretation of legislation and has been overturned in the past. There is also another (old) article here about foreign currency transactions. https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2010/10/27/21191/currency-gains I have never come across forex capital gains in practice but I've learnt something today! Something to look out for in the UK as well I guess.\",\n \"If you are exchanging money for travel then you should not have to pay any capital gains on any exchange that is in your favour. Exchanging currency for travel is different from trading currencies for an attempt at making profits.\",\n \"If you hold this money in USD and spend it in the US as USD, then there is no tax liability or reporting requirement at all. You are not subject to any tax on foreign exchange gains and losses because you have not performed any foreign exchange. CRA says a foreign exchange gain or loss happens when the fx transaction occurs—not as the currency’s value fluctuates while on deposit - and since you are never performing an fx transaction, no such issues will arise. The CRA is not interested in how you spend your money, only the money that you earn. The only possible tax liability that would arise in the circumstances that you describe would be the tax liability arising from interest earned while the cash in on deposit. If this interest exceeds the threshold of reportability, then your bank will issue you with a T-slip to be included in your tax return.\",\n \"Capital is an Asset. Decreasing value of capital is the decreasing value of an asset. When you buy the forex asset * DR Forex Asset * CR Cash When you sell * DR Cash * CR Forex Asset The difference is now accounted for Here is how: Gains (and losses) are modifications to your financial position (Balance sheet). At the end of the period you take your financial performance (Profit and Loss) and put it into your balance sheet under equity. Meaning that afterwards your balance sheet is better or worse off (Because you made more money = more cash or lost it, whatever). You are wanting to make an income account to reflect the forex revaluation so at the end of the period it is reflected in profit then pushed into your balance sheet. Capital gains directly affect your balance sheet because they increase/decrease your cash and your asset in the journal entry itself (When you buy and sell it). If making money this way is actually how you make you make an income it is possible to make an account for it. If you do this you periodically revalue the asset and write off the changes to the revaluation account. You would do something like *DR Asset *CR Forex Revaluation account; depending on the method you take. Businesses mostly do this because if the capital gains are their line of business they will be taxed on it like it is income. For simplicity just account for it when you buy and sell the assets (Because you as an individual will only recognise a profit/loss when you enter and exit). Its easier to think about income and expenses are extensions of equity. Income increases your equity, expenses decrease it. This is how they relate to the accounting formula (Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity)\",\n \"I'll break it down into steps. Total gain/ loss for the whole thing is 5 CAD. You only have to worry about these calculations if you keep some USD and convert it at your leisure. Or if you have a US dollar in your wallet from your last vacation. Don't forget to subtract commissions (converted to CAD of course). *Some people just use an average exchange rate for the whole year, which you can also get from the BoC. ^There's $200 of tax free gains allowed for pure currency transactions. This allows small gains to be ignored.\",\n \"If you make money in currency speculation (as in your example), that is a capital gain. A more complicated example is if you were to buy and then sell stocks on the mexican stock exchange. Your capital gain (or loss) would be the difference in value in US dollars of your stocks accounting for varying exchange rates. It's possible for the stocks to go down and for you to still have a capital gain, and vice versa.\",\n \"\\\"If your friend is loaning you KRW which you are then converting to USD, then there are tax implications. This would be a Section 988 transaction so \\\"\\\"gains\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"losses\\\"\\\" made during repayment (partial or complete) due to fluctuations in exchange rate would be treated as ordinary gains or losses. For example, imagine you borrow 100,000 KRW and, at the time you borrow it, this is worth exactly 100,000 USD. At some future point, you repay 20,000 KRW. If the exchange rate at that point is such that 20,000 KRW is worth 15,000 USD, then the IRS sees that you have \\\"\\\"gained\\\"\\\" 5,000 USD in ordinary income. This is a particular concern if the loan is a mortgage and you refinance the mortgage at a moment in time with a more \\\"\\\"favorable\\\"\\\" exchange rate than the exchange rate when you first got the mortgage. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-988.asp for some additional discussion.\\\"\",\n \"Now, I have kept this money and after interval of 6 month or year whenever the USD price go up, I do exchange with Indian currency and deposit in my account. Now do I have to pay Tax on this money? No you are not required to pay any tax as the income was accrued when your were NRI for tax purposes. The Foreign currency upto USD 2000 can be held by an individual without any time limit. i.e. you can convert then whenever you want. There is nothing that needs to be declared in Tax Returns.\",\n \"\\\"Since you did not treat the house as a QBU, you have to use USD as your functional currency. To calculate capital gains, you need to calculate the USD value at the time of purchase using the exchange rate at the time of purchase and the USD value at the time of sale using the exchange rate at the time of sale. The capital gain / loss is then the difference between the two. This link describes it in more detail and provides some references: http://www.maximadvisors.com/2013/06/foreign-residence/ That link also discusses additional potential complications if you have a mortgage on the house. This link gives more detail on the court case referenced in the above link: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93F3d26.html The court cases references Rev. Rul 54-105. This link from the IRS has some details from that (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0303021.pdf): Rev. Rul. 54-105, 1954-1 C.B. 12, states that for purposes of determining gain, the basis and selling price of property acquired by a U.S. citizen living in a foreign country should be expressed in United States dollars at the rates of exchange prevailing as of the dates of purchase and sale of the property, respectively. The text of this implies it is for U.S. citizen is living in a foreign country, but the court case makes it clear that it also applies in your scenario (house purchased while living abroad but now residing in the US): Appellants agree that the 453,374 pounds received for their residence should be translated into U.S. dollars at the $1.82 exchange rate prevailing at the date of sale. They argue, however, that the 343,147 pound adjusted cost basis of the residence, consisting of the 297,500 pound purchase price and the 45,647 pounds paid for capital improvements, likewise should be expressed in U.S. dollar terms as of the date of the sale. Appellants correctly state that, viewed “in the foreign currency in which it was transacted,” the purchase generated a 110,227 pound gain as of the date of the sale, which translates to approximately $200,000 at the $1.82 per pound exchange rate. ... However fair and reasonable their argument may be, it amounts to an untenable attempt to convert their “functional currency” from the U.S. dollar to the pound sterling. ... Under I.R.C. § 985(b)(1), use of a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar is restricted to qualified business units (\\\"\\\"QBU\\\"\\\"s). ... appellants correctly assert that their residence was purchased “for a pound-denominated value” while they were “living and working in a pound-denominated economy,” ... And since appellants concede that the purchase and sale of their residence was not carried out by a QBU, the district court properly rejected their plea to treat the pound as their functional currency.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, you still need to pay income tax on your capital gain regardless of whether you converted your USD proceeds back into CAD. When you calculate your gains for tax purposes, you'll need to convert all of your gains to Canadian dollars. Generally speaking, CRA will expect you to use a historical USD to CAD exchange rate published by the Bank of Canada. At that page, notice the remark at right: Are the Exchange Rates Shown Here Accepted by Canada Revenue Agency? Yes. The Agency accepts Bank of Canada exchange rates as the basis for calculations involving income and expenses that are denominated in foreign currencies.\",\n \"No it's not, not until a disposition. Keep track of the CAD value on the day you receive the inheritance and get an average cost. Then every time you go to the US and spend some money, record the CAD value on the day you spend it. The difference is your profit or loss. There is no capital gain as long as you don't spend it. Now this may seem ridiculous, especially since none of this is reported to the CRA. They realize this and say the first $200 profit or loss is not taxable.\",\n \"According to the answers to this question, you generally aren't taxed on gains until you sell the asset in question. None of those answered specifically for the U.K., so perhaps someone else will be able to weigh in on that. To apply those ideas to your question, yes your gains and losses are taxable. If you originally traded something worth $100 for the bitcoins, then when you converted back to dollars you received $200, you would have a $100 gain, simply on the foreign exchange trade. That is, this $100 of income is in addition to any income you made from your business (selling goods).\",\n \"Would I have to pay some kind of capital gains tax? And if so, when? Converting Tax paid USD into CAD is not a taxable event. A taxable even will occur if you convert back the CAD into USD. If you receive interest on the CAD then the interest is also a taxable event. Also, is there any reason this is a terrible idea? That will only be known in future. Its like predicting that in future this will turn out to be advantageous, however it may turn out the other way.\",\n \"\\\"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as \\\"\\\"mark to market\\\"\\\", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation.\\\"\",\n \"I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.\",\n \"In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).\",\n \"How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).\",\n \"Just a thought because this is a really good question: Would the buying and selling of blockchain based digital currency, using other blockchain based digital currencies, be subject to like kind treatment and exempt from capital gains until exchanged for a non-blockchain based good or service (or national currency) Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin to buy 100 monero. Monero's price and bitcoin's price then change to where the 100 monero are 3 bitcoins. The person gets their bitcoin back and has 66.67 monero remaining. This scenario could be: Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin at $1000 to buy 100 monero at $10. Bitcoin crashes 80% to $200 while monero crashes to only $6 per monero. $6 times 100 is $600 and if the person gets their bitcoin back (at $200 per bitcoi), they still lost money when measured in US Dollars if they move that bitcoin back to US dollars. In reading the IRS on bitcoin, they only care about the US dollar value of bitcoin or monero and in this example, the US dollar value is less. The person may have more bitcoins, but they still lost money if they sell.\",\n \"Simply transferring money you own from overseas to Canada will not mean you need to pay tax on it. However if you sell property at a profit - I.e. sell it for more than you paid for it - you may have to pay tax on any gains. This is true whether or not you transfer the money to Canada. Calculating the amount is quite complicated. You might consider getting a tax expert.\",\n \"The money you will be bringing to the US will be classified as your own money, and will not be taxable. The proceeds from the sale are taxable to you, probably as capital gains. The fact that you kept the proceeds out of the US is irrelevant for that purpose (it is relevant for FBAR/FATCA etc). Since you had no basis in the property, all the proceeds are taxable to you at the time of the sale and should be reported on your tax return.\",\n \"There is a fourth option - pay those taxes. Depending on the amounts, it might be the easiest way - if you make 34.49 in interest, and pay 6 $ in taxes on it, and be done, that might not be worth any other effort. If the expected taxable amount is significant, moving (most of it) to index funds or other simply switching existing investments to ‘reinvest’ instead of ‘pay out in cash’ would be the best approach. Again, some smaller amounts in savings or checkings accounts are probably not worth any effort. Transferring the money to the US doesn’t save you taxes, as any interest would still be taxable. You have a risk to lose on the conversion back and forth (and a potential to gain - the exchange rate could go either way!), so if you are sure you go back, it’s not a good idea to move the money.\",\n \"This loss would be unrealized and, assuming you're a cash-basis tax-payer, you would not be able to take a loss on your 2014 tax return. This is similar to if you held a stock that lost 50% of its value. You wouldn't be able to claim this loss until you finally sold it. The link that User58220 posted may come into play if you converted your UAH back to USD.\",\n \"I don't think so in your case. Unless the account generates so much interest income that it became reportable (I don't know the exact limit, but I think it's in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars, you might get a 1099 form if it generates over $10 of interest income, but you don't have to file taxes if your overall income is too low anyways). The US does not typically tax assets, only income. There are some states (Florida is the only one I can think of) that has odd tax treatment of intangible assets, but I doubt that would apply in your case. If this were a large enough amount, usually over $10,000, it might trigger some reporting requirements (possibly by your home country).\",\n \"Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5.\",\n \"\\\"What about the escudo balance in my checking account in Cabo Verde? Are the escudos that I held for months or years, before eventually deciding to change to dollars, considered an investment? Don't know. You tell us. Investment defined as an activity taken to produce income. Did you put the money in the checking account with a full expectation of profits to be made from that? Or you only decided that it is an investment in retrospective, after the result is known, because it provides you more tax benefit? To me it sounds like you have two operating currencies and you're converting between them. Doesn't sound like an investment. Generally, from my experience, bank accounts are not considered investments (even savings accounts aren't). Once you deposit into a CD or bond or money market - you get a cash-equivalent which can be treated as an investment. But that's my personal understanding, if there are large amounts involved, I'd suggest talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA specializing on expats in your area. Pub 54 is really a reference for only the most trivial of the questions an expat may have. It doesn't even begin to describe the complexity of the monstrosity that is called \\\"\\\"The US Tax Code for Expats and Foreigners\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"After more searching for how the US might treat such an attempt to \\\"\\\"rollover\\\"\\\" the funds, I found this: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/am2008009.pdf So, it seems it is impossible to do without US tax consequences.\\\"\",\n \"It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value. Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates). You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd. If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd. Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.\",\n \"Depending on what software you use. It has to be reported as a foreign income and you can claim foreign tax paid as a foreign tax credit.\",\n \"Please consult a tax advisor. You may be voilating the FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act] and can land into trouble. Further what you are doing can land up into various other acts as illegal including AML. Further if there is income generated by Indian citizen in India, he is still liable to pay tax, irrespective of whether you get the funds back into India. Edit: AML is Anti Money Laundering. Your transaction is sure to raise AML triggers as it looks like converting Black Money to White in round about way. Once the triggers are raised, RBI division will investigate further to verify what you are doing. If you are able to prove that this is a valid transaction, you would be OK on AML front. How will Income Tax Know? - If they don't know does not mean you are not liable for tax. - Any suspicious transactions would get investigated and sooner or later Income Tax would know about it and can cause a serious problem. - It is irrelevant where you have kept the money, if you have earned something, its taxable. For it not to be taxable you need to conduct this business differently. Please consult a tax adviser who will advice you on the tax-ability of this type of transaction.\",\n \"It depends on the asset and the magnitude of the exchange rate change relative to the inflation rate. If it is a production asset, the prices can be expected to change relative to the changes in exchange rate regardless of magnitude, ceteris paribus. If it is a consumption asset, the prices of those assets will change with the net of the exchange rate change and inflation rate, but it can be a slow process since all of the possessions of the country becoming relatively poorer cannot immediately be shipped out and the need to exchange wants for goods will be resisted as long as possible.\",\n \"If you move money - you don't need to pay any taxes. If the money was not there before and magically appeared at some point and now you want to move it - you'll have to explain a thing or two to the IRS and FinCEN. Generally, if you're a green card holder - you pay taxes on your worldwide income. So if you have a foreign account that earns interest - that interest is taxable to you in the US. In the year you earned it, not in the year you moved the money to the US. There are also reporting requirements (FBAR notably, and others). If you haven't filed FBAR with regards to the accounts which you now want to move, and especially if that also includes unreported income (interest and other) - you may find yourself in a very deep s#!t. Sorry, very deep troubles. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). A proper consultation is warranted, if you haven't had one already. You might need a tax attorney.\",\n \"\\\"No, there are neither advantages nor disadvantages. I'll take on this question from an accounting standpoint. Financial statements, the tools at which the market determines (amongst other things) the value of a stock, are converted at year end to the home currency (see 1.1.3).If Company A has revenue of 100,000 USD and the conversion to EUR is .89, revenue in the European market will be reported as 89,000 EUR. These valuations, along with ratios, analysis, and \\\"\\\"expert\\\"\\\" opinions determine if a person should own shares in Company A. Now, if we're talking about comparing markets this is a entirely different question. Example: Should I buy stock of Company A, who is in the American market (as an European)? Should I buy stock of Company B, who is in the European market (as an American)? I would recommend this as additional level of diversification of your portfolio to inlcude possible large inflation of either the currency. The possible gains of this foreign exchange may be greater if one or the other currency becomes weak.\\\"\",\n \"Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.\",\n \"The value of a foreign stock is subject to fluctuations in the foreign currency value; this is not the case for domestic stocks.\",\n \"This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.\",\n \"\\\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \\\"\\\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\\\"\\\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \\\"\\\"mark to market accounting\\\"\\\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\\\"\",\n \"What you are doing is barter trade. Most countries [if not all] would tax this on assumed fair value. There are instances where countries may relax this norm in border areas for a small amount. Barter is not just for gold – one can virtually do this for any goods, i.e. sell garments in exchange for oil, sell electronic chips in exchange for consumer goods, etc. Quite a few business would flourish doing this and not exchange currency at all, hence the need for government to tax on the [assumed / calculated / arrived/ derived] fair value. A word of caution: at times this may not be fair at all and may actually cost more than had one done a transaction using currency.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you effectively need to \\\"\\\"double count\\\"\\\" when shifting balances between foreign accounts.\\\"\",\n \"Essentially imported goods from the country (in this case the US) that is improving against your local currency will become more expensive. For the most part, that is the only practical effect on you on an individual financial level.\",\n \"An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.\",\n \"To your first question: YES. Capital gains and losses on real-estate are treated differently than income. Note here for exact IRS standards. The IRS will not care about percentage change but historical (recorded) amounts. To your second question: NO Are you taxed when buying a new stock? No. But be sure to record the price paid for the house. Note here for more questions. *Always consult a CPA for tax advice on federal tax returns.\",\n \"\\\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \\\"\\\"tax home\\\"\\\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \\\"\\\"tax home\\\"\\\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\\\"\",\n \"This is taxable in India. You need to declare the income and pay taxes accordingly\",\n \"\\\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \\\"\\\"otherwise\\\"\\\" is substantial and far-ranging.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \\\"\\\"most property you own\\\"\\\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\\\"\",\n \"Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.\",\n \"As the funds are Gift received from your parents, and your tax residency is US, as per US gift tax, there is no tax due from you for these funds.\",\n \"I can only answer about the U.S. For question 2, I believe the answer is no. If you are a non-resident alien for tax purposes, then only income connected to the U.S. is reported as income on the tax return. Unless there were any non-deductible contributions to your pre-tax IRAs, when you convert to Roth IRA, the entire amount of the conversion is added to your income. So the tax consequence is the same as if you had that much additional U.S. income. If you are a non-resident alien with no other income in the U.S., then the income you have to report on your U.S. tax return will basically consist of the conversion. Non-resident aliens do not have a standard deduction. However, all people have a personal exemption. If we take 2013 as an example, the exemption is $3900 per person. We will assume that you will file as single or married filing separately (non-resident aliens cannot file as married filing jointly). The first $3900 of income is covered by the exemption, and is not counted in taxable income. For single and MFS, the next $8925 of income is taxed at 10%, then next $27325 of income is taxed at 15%, and so on. So if you convert less than the personal exemption amount every year ($3900 in 2013), then in theory you do not pay any taxes. If you convert a little bit more, then some of the conversion will be taxed at 10%, etc.\",\n \"Canadian departure tax is implemented as a deemed sale gains proceeds taxation. Check here for details. What it means is that you're taxed on the difference between your FMV on the date of terminating residency and your Canadian cost basis (FMV when you acquired residency, or regular cost basis if you acquired the assets while being resident of Canada). It doesn't matter if you actually withdraw the money or not, it has no significance. You'll have to pay the tax either way.\",\n \"The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.\",\n \"\\\"Although there are occasional cases where simply moving money between countries results in a tax liability - for example a \\\"\\\"non-domiciled\\\"\\\" UK resident using the \\\"\\\"remittance basis\\\"\\\" - this is not the case in your situation. In general it would be extremely rare for non-residents of a country to be taxed on bringing money into that country, as it would be bad for tourism which most countries want to encourage. The requirement to declare large sums of money on entry is primarily so that the authorities can detect money laundering, rather than tax. Note that you will have to pay US tax on any interest you earn on that US bank account.\\\"\",\n \"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.\",\n \"Is this money taxable in US? From what you described you're likely to have been a US tax resident. As such, you're taxed on your worldwide income. Foreign tax deferral schemes are not considered qualified under the US law (unless a treaty says otherwise), so you're liable for taxes on them now. Get a new tax adviser.\",\n \"When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.\",\n \"> Hence all businesses in the US, no matter what currency they make money in, have to buy USD to pay their taxes. So that means that means other currencies are valueless since X government doesn't see Y currency as a means of payment? Also, you don't buy so much as trade but potatoes potatos.\",\n \"If you are a US resident (not necessarily citizen) then yes, you do have to pay capital gains taxes on any capital gains, including interest from assets oversees (like interest from a savings account). Additionally you have to report all your foreign bank accounts according to FATCA (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca).\",\n \"If you are a non resident Indian, the income you earn and transfer to India is tax free in India. You can hold the funds in USD or convert then into INR, there is no tax implication.\",\n \"\\\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \\\"\\\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\\\"\\\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \\\"\\\"recognition\\\"\\\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\\\"\",\n \"Generally it is a taxable transaction. Basic principle of taxation everywhere is that the mean of payment doesn't matter. If the income is taxable - it is taxable regardless of the unit of currency you used. It can be a strawberry, a bitcoin, a gold nugget, or a dollar, it doesn't change a thing about how it is taxed. If you look at the United States tax code definition of taxable income, for example, you will find no mention whatsoever of any currency. Similarly with other tax laws I'm familiar with. I'm sure there's no such limitation in Australia.\",\n \"The purpose of the transfer determines the taxability. If this is happening to frequent, it is advisable to keep proper records of the transaction so that if there is an enquiry from Tax authorities you can explain. Unless you explain the why the transfer is being made, I have put out some broad categories.\",\n \"You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean.\",\n \"non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.\",\n \"If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.\",\n \"Thanks for your reply! I presume then if I don't convert back (say I spend everything) then it's much the same. So my main consideration should be whether I think the currency will increase or decrease in my time away if I'm converting back\",\n \"How can I correctly account for having money in different currencies, without currency transfers or currency fluctuations ending up as gains or losses? In my view, your spreadsheet should be in multiple currencies. i.e. if you have gained some in specific currency, make a note of it in that specific currency. If you have spent something in a specific currency, then make a note accordingly. You can use an additional column for reporting this in a neutral currency say GBP. If you are transferring the money from account of one currency to account of another; change the balances as appropriate with the actual conversion rate. If you need this record keeping for tax purposes, then get a proper advise from accountant.\",\n \"The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.\",\n \"Assuming your tax status in India is Non-Resident. The funds are deposited in an NRE account, there is nothing that needs to be done. If you have any income in India, then you would need to file a tax return.\",\n \"I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.\",\n \"Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.\",\n \"If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.\",\n \"There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.\",\n \"And directly from IRS notice 2014-21 FAQ: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Q-6: Does a taxpayer have gain or loss upon an exchange of virtual currency for other property? A-6: Yes. If the fair market value of property received in exchange for virtual currency exceeds the taxpayer’s adjusted basis of the virtual currency, the taxpayer has taxable gain. The taxpayer has a loss if the fair market value of the property received is less than the adjusted basis of the virtual currency.… Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities? A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income.\",\n \"Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.\",\n \"Government's tax citizens and businesses in their currency. Earnings (even earnings in cryptocurrencies) are taxable income.\",\n \"You are trying to predict the future currency fluctuations that can't be predicted. If you know for sure you are moving, convert it directly into Euros in near future rather than take a complicated route.\",\n \"FBAR should be filed if total balance of all your foreign accounts is more than $10000 any time during the year (even if only for one day). My TurboTax handled that well last year, including filling the FBAR for me. Shouldn't be an issue, just don't forget to file it (not with your IRS package, it goes to a different place), if you need to. On the tax forms (1040 Schedule B, Part III) you should check a checkbox that you have a foreign bank account.\",\n \"\\\"As long as the IRS treats bitcoin as property, then whenever you use bitcoin to buy anything you are supposed to consider the capital gain or capital loss. There is no \\\"\\\"until it's converted to fiat\\\"\\\". You are paying local sales tax and capital gains, or paying local sales tax and reporting capital loss. As long as you are consistent, you can use either the total cost basis, or individual lot purchases. The same as other property like stocks (except without stock specific regulations like wash-sale rules :D ). There are a lot of perks or unintentional loopholes for speculators, with the property designation. There are a lot of disadvantages for consumers trying to use it like a currency. Someone mixing investment and spending funds across addresses is going to have complicated tax issues, but fortunately the exchanges have records of purchase times and prices, which you can compare with the addresses you control. Do note, after that IRS guideline, another federal agency designated Bitcoin as a commodity, which is a subset of \\\"\\\"property\\\"\\\" with its own more favorable but different tax guidelines.\\\"\",\n \"Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.\",\n \"It would depend on whether it's considered capital gains or not. A brief Google search suggests that it is; this means you're only required to pay tax on it once it's traded for actual currency, goods, or services. It also means you get some nice tax advantages as long as you hold it for longer than a year.\",\n \"\\\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \\\"\\\"shoot the jaywalker\\\"\\\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\\\"\",\n \"Now i want to get this money in my new UK bank account, does this mean that gov will take taxes from this money as well. Yes that is income and you have to pay tax on that. But it might be a bit complicated than that, so I would ask you to call up HMRC or visit an accountant or maybe ask the finance people of your employer. Also one of my family members send us money every few months and will send to this bank from now on, does taxes also apply on this? See the HMRC page about capital gains tax on gifts: You won't have to pay Capital Gains Tax when you give a gift to your husband, wife or civil partner - as long as both of the following apply: It's useful to keep a note of what the asset cost you. Your spouse or civil partner may need this to work out their Capital Gains Tax when they dispose of the asset. Example: Mr B lives with his wife and gives her an antique table that he bought for £12,000 in 2003. Mrs B spends £500 restoring the table, eventually selling it for £20,000. Her total costs are £12,500 (£500 plus Mr B's original cost £12,000). Mrs B's gain is £7,500 (£20,000 less £12,500). When you make a gift to a family member or other person you're connected with, you'll need to work out the gain or loss. This doesn't apply to gifts you make to your spouse or civil partner. This also applies if you dispose of an asset to them in any other way - for example, you sell it to them for a low price. A 'connected person' in this context is someone such as your brother, sister, child, parent, grandparent, mother-in-law or business partner. Follow the link below for more information about connected people and Capital Gains Tax. You must get a valuation of the asset at the time you made the gift. Use this value in place of any amount you received for the asset to work out your gain or loss. If you gave the asset away, then of course the amount you received for it will be nothing. If you make a loss you can only deduct the loss from gains you make on gifts or other disposals to the same person.\",\n \"To answer my own question, at least to the extent of my understanding. Here the IRS says that all income for a foreign person from a US-based company is taxable with 30%. Here the IRS says that this tax should be withhold at source by whomever pays you. In case there is a tax treaty with the country, the tax can even be waived in the US. Of course, if you don't declare it in your home country, the US bank could probably give information requested by the home country authorities. For the other two cases (when there's no US party involved) I can't find anything on the IRS website, which kind of make sense. If I am using an account in the US just to receive and send money shouldn't imply any tax. Thanks to @litteadv for pointing me into the right direction.\",\n \"Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.\",\n \"I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.\",\n \"The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.\",\n \"well, probably taxed a little. and taxed when they spend it, and taxed again when it is spent again. like fikirte said, this is foreign money. if the americans want access to it they have to make it easy. they've done it in the past http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/the-portfolio-interest-exemption-53348889 sorry there is a lack of sources in real english.\",\n \"Depends on the countries and their rules about moving money across the border, but in this case that appears entirely reasonable. Of course it would be a gamble unless you can predict the future values of currency better than most folks; there is no guarantee that the exchange rate will move in any particular direction. I have no idea whether any tax is due on profit from currency arbitrage.\",\n \"You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.\",\n \"From India Tax point of view: Some one else may give the US tax treatment. Refer to this similar question what taxes I need to pay in India Capital Gains. My accountant never asked or reported the bought property in taxes- should he reported in taxes?Did he do wrong not reporting should I report the property in my next year taxes? If you mean in IT Returns, yes it should be declared. Can i bring the money back if needed? By Back if you mean repatriate to US, The capital portion would be Ease if the loan property was purchased or loan repaid from NRE. Else there is limit on the amount and paperwork. Consult a CA. If I rent the property instead of selling, do I have to report the income and what income? should I be filling taxes on the rental income in India or just in USA or both You are taxable for the rent and have to report it as income and pay taxes in India.\",\n \"You only have to pay taxes when you convert to dollars. Most exchanges I think have to track their users and provide them with reports for tax purposes. Just holding bitcoin and watching it go up in value does not trigger a taxable event.\",\n \"Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.\",\n \"If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.\",\n \"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.\",\n \"\\\"The short answer is that the exchange of the stock in exchange for the elimination of a debt is a taxable exchange, and gains or losses are possible for the stock investor as well as the bank. The somewhat longer answer is best summarized as noting that banks don't usually accept stocks as collateral, mostly because stock values are volatile and most banks are not equipped to monitor the risk involved but it is very much part of the business of stock brokers. In the USA, as a practical matter I only know of stock brokerages offering loans against stock as part of the standard services of a \\\"\\\"margin account\\\"\\\". You can get a margin account at any US stock broker. The stockholder can deposit their shares in the margin account and then borrow around 50% of the value, though that is a bit much to borrow and a lower amount would be safer from sudden demands for repayment in the form of margin calls. In a brokerage account I can not imagine a need to repay a margin loan if the stocks dividends plus capital appreciation rises in value faster than the margin loan rate creates interest charges... Trouble begins as the stock value goes down. When the value of the loan exceeds a certain percentage of the stock value, which can depend on the stock and the broker's policy but is also subject to federal rules like Regulation T, the broker can call in the loan and/or take initiative to sell the stock to repay the loan. Notice that this may result in a capital gain or loss, depending on the investor's tax basis which is usually the original cost of the stock. Of course, this sale affects the taxes of the investor irregardless of who gets the money.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial."],"string":"[\n \"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":257,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6262"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Help required on estimating SSA benefit amounts"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["34538","26799","390877"],"string":"[\n \"34538\",\n \"26799\",\n \"390877\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["390877","34538","498444","83338","451005","2648","511313","372847","298563","403514","5673","574386","136862","141464","143591","450765","450808","156499","260795","107520","26487","192585","3047","311442","532318","11274","491028","552303","506604","59843","578798","11192","480128","217222","107963","298427","435932","35188","341930","210130","230724","101180","391583","525053","430407","44448","295384","304479","357934","582864","127974","246453","42599","489376","332153","410395","12119","398078","370472","592680","241416","550642","20054","320362","28172","418871","463881","31019","502875","481475","95188","208989","302049","281495","358776","304153","16895","507917","495383","14111","194363","553480","84171","529927","131044","383102","81343","312405","543345","40821","214476","431504","538353","336950","554833","138487","125171","465283","186602","163946"],"string":"[\n \"390877\",\n \"34538\",\n \"498444\",\n \"83338\",\n \"451005\",\n \"2648\",\n \"511313\",\n \"372847\",\n \"298563\",\n \"403514\",\n \"5673\",\n \"574386\",\n \"136862\",\n \"141464\",\n \"143591\",\n \"450765\",\n \"450808\",\n \"156499\",\n \"260795\",\n \"107520\",\n \"26487\",\n \"192585\",\n \"3047\",\n \"311442\",\n \"532318\",\n \"11274\",\n \"491028\",\n \"552303\",\n \"506604\",\n \"59843\",\n \"578798\",\n \"11192\",\n \"480128\",\n \"217222\",\n \"107963\",\n \"298427\",\n \"435932\",\n \"35188\",\n \"341930\",\n \"210130\",\n \"230724\",\n \"101180\",\n \"391583\",\n \"525053\",\n \"430407\",\n \"44448\",\n \"295384\",\n \"304479\",\n \"357934\",\n \"582864\",\n \"127974\",\n \"246453\",\n \"42599\",\n \"489376\",\n \"332153\",\n \"410395\",\n \"12119\",\n \"398078\",\n \"370472\",\n \"592680\",\n \"241416\",\n \"550642\",\n \"20054\",\n \"320362\",\n \"28172\",\n \"418871\",\n \"463881\",\n \"31019\",\n \"502875\",\n \"481475\",\n \"95188\",\n \"208989\",\n \"302049\",\n \"281495\",\n \"358776\",\n \"304153\",\n \"16895\",\n \"507917\",\n \"495383\",\n \"14111\",\n \"194363\",\n \"553480\",\n \"84171\",\n \"529927\",\n \"131044\",\n \"383102\",\n \"81343\",\n \"312405\",\n \"543345\",\n \"40821\",\n \"214476\",\n \"431504\",\n \"538353\",\n \"336950\",\n \"554833\",\n \"138487\",\n \"125171\",\n \"465283\",\n \"186602\",\n \"163946\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["The social security administration has a webpage to get your Social Security estimate. It replaces the yearly estimate they used to mail everybody. It shows the amount you paid for social security and medicare and what they estimate you will receive at your retirement age. They also discuss disability benefits. Everybody should do this every year. Though it does take a few months to get the previous years numbers updated into the system. If you notice a problem with the money they think you paid into the system in a particular year, you can send them an old W-2 and get the numbers corrected.","\"Some details in case you are interested: Being a defined benefit kind of pension plan, the formula for your Social Security benefits isn't tied directly to FICA contributions, and I'm not aware of any calculator that performs an ROI based on FICA contributions. Rather, how much you'll get in retirement is based on your average indexed monthly earnings. Here's some information on the Social Security calculation from the Social Security Administration - Primary Insurance Amount (PIA): For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2013, or who dies in 2013 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of: (a) 90 percent of the first $791 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus (b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $791 and through $4,768, plus (c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,768. Here's an example. Of course, to calculate a benefit in the future, you'll need to calculate projected average indexed monthly earnings; more details here. You'll also need to make assumptions about what those bend points might be in the future. The average wage indexing values for calculating the AIME are available from the Social Security Administration's site, but future indexing values will also need to be projected based on an assumption about their inflation. You'll also need to project the Contribution and Benefit Base which limits the earnings used to calculate contributions and benefits. Also, the PIA calculation assumes benefits are taken at the normal retirement age. Calculating an early or late retirement factor is required to adjust benefits for another age. Then, whatever benefits you get will increase each year, because the benefit is increased based on annual changes in the cost of living. Performing the series of calculations by hand isn't my idea of fun, but implementing it as a spreadsheet (or a web page) and adding in some \"\"ROI based on FICA contributions\"\" calculations might be an interesting exercise if you are so inclined? For completeness sake, I'll mention that the SSA also provides source code for a Social Security Benefit Calculator.\"","There are two steps. First you take the age at retirement and annual benefit. Say it's $10,000/yr. You can easily look up the present value of a $10k/yr annuity starting at age X. (I used age 62, male, at Immediate Annuity. It calculates to be $147K. You then need to look at your current age and with a finance calculator calculate the annual deposits required to get to $147K by that age. What I can't tell you is what value to use as a cost of money until retiring. 4%? 6%? That's the larger unknown.","\"From the Social Security site, In the case of early retirement, a benefit is reduced 5/9 of one percent for each month before normal retirement age, up to 36 months. If the number of months exceeds 36, then the benefit is further reduced 5/12 of one percent per month. And for a delay past normal retirement age, there's an 8% per year increase in benefit for each year you delay. I believe the \"\"return it all\"\" option was discontinued. There's far too little information in your question for anyone to give a comprehensive answer. In general, one needs to look at a number of variables including their taxable income with and without the social security benefit as well as their health to determine the optimal SS start date.\"","The IRS has a calculator for this purpose.","I am in the process of writing an article about how to maximize one's Social Security benefits, or at least, how to start the analysis. This chart, from my friends at the Social Security office shows the advantage of waiting to take your benefit. In your case, you are getting $1525 at age 62. Now, if you wait 4 years, the benefit jumps to $2033 or $508/mo more. You would get no benefit for 4 years and draw down savings by $73,200, but would get $6,096/yr more from 64 on. Put it off until 70, and you'd have $2684/mo. At some point, your husband should apply for a spousal benefit (age 66 for him is what I suggest) and collect that for 4 years before moving to his own benefit if it's higher than that. Keep in mind, your generous pensions are likely to push you into having your social security benefit taxed, and my plan, above will give you time to draw down the 401(k) to help avoid or at least reduce this.","There are three numbers that matter in that calculation: 1) How much do you expect per month from in pension/social security/or other retirement programs? 2) At what age will each of you retire? 3) How long will each of you live? 4) What will your annual expenses be when you retire? Unfortunately #3 is the most important of the three and the hardest to know with any certainty.","For estimating your take home salary, I suggest using one of the many free salary calculators available over the Internet. I personally use PaycheckCity.com, but there are plenty of others available. To calculate your allowances for the US Federal tax, you can use the worksheet attached to the form W-4. Similar form (with a similar worksheet) is available for state taxes, on the Illinois Department of Revenue web site.","Answering this question is a great way to gauge how you're doing towards saving for retirement now. But of course what matters more than this snapshot in time is how much you contribute down the line. It may be wise to try to estimate how much you will want saved by the time you retire. Then try to calculate how much you would need to save in order to hit that mark.","\"How will contribution limits rise? Contribution limits are raised based on COLA. COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) is a number based on CPI (Consumer Price Index) which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The IRS publishes these limits annually and a simple search term to find them each year is \"\"415 limits\"\" because section 415 lists how much the various qualified plans can set aside each year. CPI is a heavily managed and very political number. It is the number that is cited when the media talks about \"\"inflation.\"\" Since it drives increases in salaries, deductions, Social Security and pension payments, there is very heavy pressure to keep the number smaller than it really is. My next step was to calculate how long that money will last One traditional rule-of-thumb is to withdraw 4% of your balance each year. Another alternative is to purchase annuities. While younger people think that annuities are horrible investments, they appeal to older people because they protect the annuitant from excessive risk of losing your capital. When you are 30, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have time to re-earn that money. When you are 60, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have very few years to recover that money. So an annuity pushes that risk onto insurance companies. If you think you will die in your 90s, then an annuity is going to be a good investment (the insurance company will be betting that you won't be living that long). I have a simple spreadsheet that I use to calculate estimated projected balances and compare them to actual performance. Don't forget that when you reach 50, the amount you can contribute goes up due to \"\"catch up contributions.\"\" There are 2 views of the same tab in this picture. There are 3 growth rates: pessimistic, nominal and optimistic. You can change the numbers to suit your own projections of future growth. Other tabs on this spreadsheet include measurements of actual performance by my 401k and IRA accounts. At the end of the year, I replace the numbers in columns F, G & H with the actual end-of-year dollar amounts. This way, future estimates do not get too far unhinged from reality. If you need more sophisticated planning, such as Monte Carlo analysis to attempt to cope with inflation, I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement. The book is aimed at younger engineers, so there is a bit more math than the average person would want.\"","\"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \"\"doobop\"\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\"","As Dilip commented, the Social Security web site is pretty comprehensive. Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI Income has the details you are looking for. It's a convoluted equation. You lose SSI at a pretty fast rate as earned income rises. The system is not kind to those who qualify for SSI but try to earn some money to cover their needs.","\"One common rule of thumb: you can probably get 4% or better returns on your investments ('\"\"typical market rate of return is 8%, derate to allow for inflation and off years). Figure out what kind of income you will want in retirement and divide by 0.04 to get the savings you need to accumulate to support that. This doesn't allow for the fact that your needs are also going to increase with inflation; you can make a guess at that and use an inflated needs estimate. Not sophisticated, not precise, but it's a quick and dirty ballpark estimate. And sometimes it's surprisingly close to what a proper model would say.\"","\"I'd encourage you to use rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope. Here are some ideas that could be useful: The problem with any kind of detailed calculations is the number of unknowns: There are some really complex calculators out there, for example see ESPlanner (http://www.esplanner.com/) (caution: horrible user interface, but seemed to work), that will include all kinds of factors and run monte carlo and the whole thing. But in my opinion, it's just as good or better to say save at least 15% of income until you have 25x what you spend, or some other such rule of thumb. Here's my little blog post on savings and investing fwiw: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Another note, there's sort of an \"\"ideology of how to live\"\" embedded in any retirement recommendation, and you might want to take the time to reflect on that and consciously choose. A book on this topic is Your Money or Your Life by Robin & Dominguez, http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766 which is a sort of radical \"\"you should save everything possible to achieve financial independence as early as possible\"\" argument. I didn't go for their plan, but I think it's thought-provoking. A newer book that may be more appealing is called The Number and it's about your question exactly. It's more designed to get you thinking, while Your Money or Your Life has a particular answer in mind. Both have some math and some rules of thumb, though they aren't focused on that. A kind of general takeaway from these books might be: first think about your expenses. What are you trying to accomplish in life, how would you like to spend your time? And then ask how much money you absolutely need to accomplish that, and focus on accomplishing your goals, spending your time (as much as you can) on what you'd like to spend it on. I'm contrasting this with a generic recommendation to save enough to spend 80% of your income in retirement, which embeds this idea that you should spend as much as possible every year, before and after you retire. Lots of people do like that idea, but it's not a law of the universe or something, it's just one popular approach.\"","There's a bit of working backwards that's required. This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)","...funds received for the month of death and later must be returned. If the estate is bankrupt, as near as I can tell, the SSA is out of luck. (This applies to payment apart from that covered above.) If you need advice on something other than retirement insurance, a comprehensive list of applicable statutes and rulings is here.","\"One way to do these sorts of calculations is to use the spreadsheet version of IRS form 1040 available here. This is provided by a private individual and is not an official IRS tool, but in practice it is usually accurate enough for these purposes. You may have to spend some time figuring out where to enter the info. However, if you enter your self-employment income on Schedule C, this spreadsheet will calculate the self-employment tax as well as the income tax. An advantage is that it is the full 1040, so you can also select the standard deduction and the number of exemptions you are entitled to, enter ordinary W-2 income, even capital gains, etc. Of course you can also make use of other tax software to do this, but in my experience the \"\"Excel 1040\"\" is more convenient, as most websites and tax-prep software tend to be structured in a linear fashion and are more cumbersome to update in an ad-hoc way for purposes like tax estimation. You can do whatever works for you, but I would recommend taking a look at the Excel 1040. It is a surprisingly useful tool.\"","There are a few methods you can use to estimate your taxes. On the results screen, the app will show you your estimated tax burden, your estimated withholding for the year, and your estimated overpayment/refund or shortfall/tax due. It may also have recommendations for you on how to adjust your W-4 (although, this late in the year, I think it only tells you to come back next year to reevaluate). Your state might also have income tax, and if you are curious about that, you can find the state tax form and estimate your state income tax as well. My guess is that you will be getting a refund this year, as you have only worked half of the year. But that is only a guess.","Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).","Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)","If you set a savings amount now and leave it totally fixed you're likely to massively undershoot or overshoot. What is more likely is that you will adjust either your savings or your retirement expectations as things go along. If it turns out you have $10M (2010 dollars) at age 50 perhaps you'll retire early, and if you have $10k perhaps you'll buckle down and work much longer or save much more. So I think what you are looking for is an assurance that if you budget to save x% of your salary over n years, and you get an after-inflation after-tax return of y% pa, you will eventually be able to retire on an income equivalent to z% of your working income. It's pretty easy to calculate that through a future-value formula. For instance, one set of values that works is saving 20% of income, 5% real return, 30 years = final income of 66% of working income. Or save half your income and within 14 years you can retire and keep spending the amount you were previously spending. Resist the temptation to crank up the assumed return until you get the value you want. I think it would be great hubris to try to make this very precise. Yes, probably you will get raises, of course there are taxes to take into account (probably higher while you're saving), inflation and returns will vary from year to year, et. You can guess at them. But they'll change, and there are bigger things that are unpredictable: your personal life, your health, the economic future of your career or industry. I reckon this simple formula is about as good as you will get.","\"By \"\"basic public pension\"\" I assume you mean Social Security, which is pretty much the only quasi-universal pension-like thing in the USA. If she has any other sort of pension (e.g., from a job) you'd need to get more specific info about that. As for Social Security, as described here: While you are working, your earnings will reduce your benefit amount only until you reach your full retirement age. According to the calculator on that site, if she is 65 now, her full retirement age would be 66, so if she retires after that age her SS benefit won't be reduced due to extra income. As described here, if she has considerable income apart from SS, she may have to pay taxes on her SS income. This would not reduce her income, but means the benefit of her extra blog income would be reduced. This page describes how to calculate your \"\"provisional income\"\" to determine whether SS benefits will be taxed. According to that page: If your provisional income is less than $25,000 for single or head-of-household returns, or $32,000 for joint returns, then your Social Security benefits will not be taxed. Based on the numbers you gave, this suggests she would not incur an SS tax. However, she should probably take a look at the Social Security retirement estimator and other tools on that site, if she hasn't already done so, to get a sense of what sort of income SS will be providing her. I'd suggest that she talk to a retirement planner and/or CPA to get a handle on what her finances would be like. At the least, she should find someone knowledgeable about Social Security policies and tax issues in the USA. As you say, you are unfamiliar with the way these matters work in the USA, so your ability to help her make financial decisions is limited.\"","I use paycheckcity.com and first punch in my paycheck and make sure it calculates within a few pennies the value of my actual paycheck. Then I fiddle with withholding values, etc. to see the effect of change. It has been very effective for me over the years.","The simplest way is just to compute how much money you'd have to have invested elsewhere to provide a comparable return. For example, if you assume a safe interest rate of 2.3% per year, you would need to have about $520,000 to get $1,000/month.","I read an amazing article on whenyou should take early and when you should wait. It really depends on your situation, but this article prodives information as well as examples. Hope it helps! http://customsites.yahoo.com/financiallyfit/finance/article-108227-3275-5-boost-your-social-security-benefits","\"I am in a similar situation and have recently found a planner who says a pension that pays $100/month is worth $18k in savings at retirement. I know that doesn't answer your question directly, but could could use a simple interest savings calculator (bank rate has one) to see how much of your income you would need to save over x period of time and deduct that from you the offer at your prospective employer to compare \"\"apples to apples\"\" However, I actually think the value of a pension at retirement is greater than listed above. To illustrate: So in this example my pension would seem to be valued at about $14,000 in salary for those 10 years.\"","\"One option is to look at the IRS Witholding Calculator - As George Marian notes, this is by no means a perfect way to \"\"estimate\"\" how much you'll owe. Other key questions for you to answer: There's no silver bullet here. The best you can do is to understand the key inputs into how your taxes are calculated, and then identify the most important tax deductions that you might take. Then pray that you haven't missed some nuance and use a tax program early in January to check your assumptions so you're not completely surprised when April rolls around. A final suggestion: do your own taxes using a website like TurboTax. Take the time to \"\"itemize\"\" your tax deductions just to learn what is tax deductible. You can figure out how the big parts of tax law works by just looking at what you could deduct in the future.\"","There's no magic. Usually these models set out to replace 60-65% of your gross income in retirement. For example, if you: You'll retire with about $850k. That will let you generate an income stream of around 55k for your expected lifespan. Is 15% the right answer for you? No idea -- it depends on what you want, how you invest, and what you can afford.","\"@duffbeer and @JoeTaxpayer give great answers, and you should probably accept one or the other, but I would like to recommend trying some of the online tools for Monte Carlo analysis. A Monte Carlo analysis is essentially plugging in a range of possible values (a probability function) for yearly values of pretty much anything involved in your financial life: salary growth, investment rate of return, expected life span, etc, etc, etc....and then running thousands of simulations on those values to give you the probability that your money will last until you die. It is basically a really souped up version of a \"\"what-if\"\" spreadsheet. A google search for \"\"monte carlo retirement planning\"\" may sound like a hilariously bad idea, but it lists some free tools that you might find interesting or useful. I myself have only used the product from Financial Engines quite a bit, but I believe that is only available through your employer. (If they offer it.)\"","If you have a relatively stable income and deductions you can get a fairly good estimate using last year's tax bill. Suppose you paid $12000 of actual taxes last year and you are paid once a month. If you plan to make a similar amount of money with similar deductions, you need each monthly paycheck to have $1000 of federal income taxes withheld. I go to a paycheck calculator and find the withholding required to make sure I have that amount withheld every paycheck.","All of your 401k income is taxable and no more than 85% of your SS income. You can use the worksheets in IRS: Publication 915 to determine what percentage of your SS is taxable. Just as with ordinary income, deductions/exemptions apply and not all that is taxable will be taxed. When you begin drawing SS you'll have the option to have taxes withheld at various rates, more convenient than quarterly estimated payments in my opinion.","Look at the left column. If you are disabled at age 62 or older and have worked for at least 10 years they you qualify for full disability benefits (which are generally less than retirement benefits). Outside of disability, one is only eligible for social security benefits at age 67 (unless you were born before 1960, in which case different rules apply), but you must have worked for at least 10 years to get full retirement benefits.","The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.","The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.","\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.aier.org/blog/social-security-cost-living-adjustment-likely-largest-2011) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > With inflation ticking upward in 2017, retirees are likely to see the largest cost-of-living adjustment in their Social Security benefits since 2011. > Our forecasted increase for the cost-of-living adjustment would add between $23 and $29 to the average Social Security beneficiary&#039;s monthly check, higher than any adjustment since 2011 but still below the average annual adjustment since 2011 of 2.3 percent. > The Social Security Administration calculates the cost-of-living adjustment using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/75k0hx/social_security_cost_of_living_adjustment_likely/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~225800 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **adjustment**^#1 **percent**^#2 **year**^#3 **CPI-W**^#4 **average**^#5\"","$3,679,163.80 I made these assumptions that you did not state: Then using Excel, we find that with a starting point of $3,679,163.80, we can achieve your goal. The formula for Yearly Budget is =G$1*((1.035)^(A3-2012)) and the formula for Money left at year end is =(D4/1.05)+C4 For 2067, enter $0 leftover, and for 2066, enter $397,988.47 leftover. G$1 is $60,000 G$2 is 0.05","\"I wrote Retirement Savings Ratio some time ago and 15% seemed the sweet spot. The 15% is 10% saved and 5% match, in my mind. The reason I link is to show a spreadsheet that shares my approach to the analysis. You list a huge number of things to think about, all great. I'm near Duff's view although I shoot for 20X final income so 4% of that is an 80% replacement. There's nothing magic about 80. If social security exists, it actually drops the required 80 from you to the 60 or so Duff lists, so we align. The 'problems' with my sheet - no one gets exact 3% raises for 43 years, so one can go in and change that, maybe higher early on, then slow it down. Returns are 8% every year, so one must go to the sheet or their own plan and reassess how they are doing each year. Disclosure - we are now at 14X our income with a goal of 25 to replace 100%. So we need a cumulative 80% growth (as in S&P at 2500) or the years of deposits to get there. I am nearing 50. Let me pick one of your questions - \"\"Your expenses go down at retirement, stay the same, or go up?\"\" - this is the $64K question. the 80% is an average guess. The general assumption is in this range. If we downsized right after the kid goes to college, we could retire on far less. So, to wrap up, online calculators and spreadsheets only go so far. Your questions are dead on. A planner should ask every one of these questions before assuming any ratio. Edit - on re-read I am blown away by the list of questions you have here. It's great. And it shows how there's risk no matter what.\"","There are online tax prep sites, H&R Block among them. You'll be able to enter your projected details, and do a 'what-if' type scenario by adding things that impact the return. You don't mention any Schedule A deductions. No mortgage? Planning to have money taken off the top to a 401(k)?","This is a present value calculation, which excel or any financial calculator can handle. N = 300 (months) %i = 5/12 or .05/12 depending on the program/calculator PMT = $5000 (the monthly payment) FV = 0 (you want to end at zero balance) This calculates a PV (present value of $855,300) Chad had it right, but used a calculator that didn't offer the PV function, so he guessed and changed numbers til the answer was clear. user379 makes a good point, but why start inflation calculations at 65, and not now? You look like you're in your 30's, so there's 30 years of inflation, and $60K/yr in today's value will need to be closer to $150K/yr, given about 30 years of 3% inflation.","The metric I prefer is net worth, minus the value of your home, then divide by your annual expenses. The house is subtracted because you need to live somewhere, so its worth isn't part of retirement savings. I divide by expenses to create result that really answers how close one is to being able to retire. The target is to have 25X your required spending gap. Note, as you close in on retirement, and social security is still in place, you can use it in your planning. If I were in my 20s or 30s today, I wouldn't use it in my numbers.","Probably the most accurate way is to just fill out your tax forms using numbers extrapolated from your current paycheck. If you don't typically itemize your deductions, you should be able to get pretty close.","Let's assume you have total year income I. The inflation rate is R and the growth rate is E every year. The contributed rate deducting 1.8% will be C = 0.982. So, for your account you'll have every year Let's assume you have annual income in 1000, then for years So, you'll deposit 40 000 and got at the end 129 023.60. But be careful, economic calculation for so long period could be very incaccurate because of the variation of the inflation rate, growth rate and various risks. The spreadsheet could be very useful. More accurate formula which assume that annual deposit grows only the half of the year. Thus, the result for 40 years will be 124 576.91.","Retirement calculation, in general, should be based on the amount of money needed per year/month and the expected life expectancy. Life expectancy, if calculated to 90 years (let's say) indicates that post retirement age (60 yrs.) your accumulated/invested money should generate adequate income to cover your expenses till 90 years. The problem in general is not how long you shall live but what would be your expected spending from retirement to end of life expectancy. The idea is at the minimum your investments should generate income that is inflation adjusted. One way to do this is to consider your monthly expense now i.e. the expense that is absolute minimum for carrying on (food, electricity, water, medicines, household consumables, car petrol, insurance, servicing, entertainment, newspaper etc.) this does not contain the amortizable liabilities (home loan, child's education, other debts). It is better to take this amount per family rather than per person and yearly rather than monthly (as we tend to miss a lot of yearly expenses). This amount that you need today will increase at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the average inflation. For example, if today you spend 100 per year in 7 years you will need to spend appx. 200 at 10% inflation. Now, your investments will not increase post your retirement, so your current investment needs to do two things (1) give you your yearly requirement (2) grow by a fixed amount so that next year it can give you CAGR adjusted returns. In general, this kind of investment grows by high net amounts initially and slowly the growth decrease. The above can be calculated by Net Present value (NPV) formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The key is to remember that the money that is invested when you retire should be able to give you inflation adjusted returns to cover your yearly expenses. How much money you need depends on your life style/expectation and how much return is received depends on the instruments that you invest on. As for your question above on the difference between the age of you and your spouse, it better to go with the consolidated family requirement and get an idea of how much investment is necessary and provision the same as soon as possible from your as well as your spouse's income. Hope this helps.- thanks","If you want to predict the, the easiest solution is to get hold of a copy of last year's tax forms and fill them in with estimated numbers. Odds are that none of the more complicated deductions will apply to you this first time around, so I'd suggest just using the federal 1040EZ, and your state's equivalent, for this purpose. If it turns out that you can claim anything more than the standard deduction, that would reduce your taxes, so this is leaning toward the safe side.","I am by no means an expert in this, but I did a little research and came across this page on the SSA site -- Can You Be Entitled To Benefits Retroactively? You may be entitled to monthly benefits retroactively for months before the month you filed an application for benefits. For example, full retirement age claims and survivor claims may be paid for up to six months retroactively. In certain cases, benefits involving disability up to 12 months may be paid retroactively. (This is not true of the special age 72 payments (see §§346-348), black lung benefits (see Chapter 22), medical insurance (see Chapter 24), or SSI (see Chapter 21).) SSA Handbook (emphasis mine) Based on this, it sounds like he may be mistaken. I recommend speaking to a SSA rep to get a solid answer on this though. Not everything on the internet is true.","http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm As a general rule of thumb on average you'll gain a similar amount of total money over time whether you start withdrawing early or not. Yes you get less money on each check, but you're also going to get more checks a whole since it's based on how long you live. I personally don't try and adjust how I manage my money based on what decisions the government MIGHT make, but I also am fairly young so don't quite have the heightened concerns regarding social security others might have. I've pretty much always lived and invested assuming it wasn't going to be there at all by the time I retire.","\"It depends on what kind of pension you get and your anticipated retirement income. If you have one of those nice defined benefit plans that pays 90% of your last 5 years' average salary annually, you might not want to bother with a separate RRSP and put your money into other use instead. While most Canadians should worry about not having enough to retire on, some might end up with too much and costing them in the form current purchases and entitlements to government retirement benefits. Figuring out how much you need for retirement is not trivial either. A lot of people talks about planning for needing 70% of what you made now as a way to preserve your lifestyle. Well, my opinion is that those type of generalization might work for the people in the middle of the income band and is too little for those in the low-income and possibly too much for those with high income. My own approach is estimate your retirement income requirement by listing out your anticipated expenses as if you were doing budget. I would agree that's not the best approach either (back to my comment about no one size fits all), but it's one that I feel most comfortable with. Once you have that figure, factor in what you think you will get from the government (OAS, CPP and etc) and you will have the amount of money you need for retirement. I will warn against using \"\"average life expectancy\"\" to forecast your retirement needs, 'cos 50% of the people will end up with extra money (not a bad problem) and the other 50% will run out of money (bad but very true problem) if you use that approach. Instead of going on and write an essay on this topic, I will simply say this - everyone's situation is different and, just like solving any other complex problems, you need to start with \"\"end\"\" in mind and work things backward, with a ton of different scenario to be able to cope with whatever curveballs life might throw at you. If you spend enough time in the library/bookstore looking through books on the topic of \"\"estate planning\"\" and \"\"retirement planning\"\", you will find people arguing back and fro on these topics - this is a sign that this is complex and no one has the one \"\"good\"\" answer for. Do a bit of reading by yourself and, if still unsure or just want to be sure, go spend the money and review your plan with a fee-only advisor. They will be able to provide another opinion on your situation after thoroughly studying your situation.\"","You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf","I've found the systems that seem to work. Firstly, you need to find how much money is required to pay for the withdrawals after retirement, while still accruing interest. I couldn't seem to do this with an equation, but this bit of javascript worked: yearsToLast: Number of years of yearly withdrawals yearlyWithdrawal: Amount to withdraw each year interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest Now that we have how much is required at the beginning of the retirement, to figure out how much to add yearly to hit this mark, you'd use: amount: Previously found required amount to reach interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest yearsSaving: Number of years saving till amount needs to be hit I hope this helps some other poor soul, because I could find squat on how to do this. Max","\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \"\"D\"\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \"\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\"\" that walks you through these calculations.\"","There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.","\"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that \"\"4\"\" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means \"\"don't tax 4 x $4050\"\" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions.\"","\"Note that mutual funds' quarterly/annual reports usually have this number. I generally just let my home-accounting software project my future net worth; its numbers agree well enough with those I've gotten from more \"\"professional\"\" sources such as monte-carlo modelling. (They'd agree better if I fed in all the details of my paycheck, but I don't feel like doing the work to keep that up to date.) I'm using Quicken, but I assume MS Money and other competitors have the same capability if you buy the appropriate version.\"","Your contributions that you've already made are made and done, and will not disappear. What the Windfall Elimination Provision does is make sure that people do not collect the subsidized low-income payments while also collecting a full pension. People who did not pay anything into SS are able to collect money - less, but still something - from the system. Prior to this provision, people on full pensions who were exempt from SS contributions (such as teachers in many places) were able to still collect those amounts (which were never earned through contributions) even though they had quite significant pensions; that led to subsidies being given to people that didn't have as much need for them, as opposed to the indigent people who did need them. In your case, earning for 20+ years and then presumably only earning a small pension, you may be affected by this, but not necessarily severely. First of all, you are limited in how much your total reduction is to the lesser of a bit over $400 ($413 in 2015) or half your pension amount per month; so if you earn a $200 in pension monthly, your SS benefits are reduced by $100 monthly at most. Second, your percentage (and total cap) is reduced if you have over 20 years of credited work at 62 by 10% per credited year, and if you hit 30 years it's eliminated. So if you have 25 years right now, your total reduction is more like $200 at most. You also have an option to keep earning via credited work. Do some part-time work or summer work, for example. Sell things online. Whatever you need to do in order to get more years of credited work such that you end up with 30 years at 62. That will then increase your benefits back to the full amount. This article published on Nasdaq's website explains how this works in detail, including tables of benefit reductions. And, log in to ssa.gov to check how many years of creditable coverage you have and to see if you can get to 30 years and avoid any issues with this at all.","“For example,” says the report, “75-year solvency could be achieved by raising taxes or reducing benefits for new recipients by about one-fifth if we started today. However, if policy makers wait until 2034, payroll taxes would have to be increased by nearly one third and it would be impossible to achieve solvency solely from reducing benefits for new beneficiaries.” Social Security was enacted in 1935. Medicare was enacted in 1965. Life expectancy at those times was 61 and 70, respectively. Today, average life expectancy is 80. Pushing the receipt age for these benefits makes the most sense and results in a two-fold savings, 1) benefits put into the system through additional payroll deduction and, 2) benefits are not taken out of the system.","If I get a prepaid debit card for the money I make do I have to report my earnings? How do I go about doing this? Yes you must report this. It doesn't matter if they put it in your bank account, or on a debit card, or cash under the table. You have to report the income. You can count on your employer reporting the income to the IRS. What is the limit I can make when it comes to working while on social security? The Social Security Administration has all sort of info regarding working and receiving benefits. The exact answer depends on the type of benefit (retirement, disability, survivor) and your age (pre-full retirement age, the year you reach retirement age, post retirement age) I would look at their website: http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm for examples: You can work while you receive Social Security retirement (or survivors) benefits. When you do, it could mean a higher benefit for you in the future. Each year we review the records for all working Social Security recipients. If your earnings for the prior year are higher than one of the years we used to compute your retirement benefit, we will recalculate your benefit amount. We pay the increase retroactive to January the year after you earned the money","\"I think the math is wrong. Note that in Scenario #1, you are only out of pocket $1000, while in Scenario #2, you are out of pocket $1250; the contribution and the tax you paid with respect to it. A better concept than tax rate is \"\"Retention Rate\"\". This is the fraction of your money that the Feds let you keep. And Growth Factor is the how much the investment grows. So In Scenario #1, you multiply $1000 by the investment Growth Factor and then by the retirement Retention Rate. And in Scenario #2, you multiply the same $1000 by the current Retention Rate and then by the Growth Factor. Since in your approximation, the two GFs are the same, there is no saving...\"","This is what I'm planning on. Retirement would be difficult, if not impossible, without the expected SS payments. In terms of current retirement planning, it's the difference between putting 20% of my income aside for retirement, and 35% of my income aside. It's one thing to keep the wealthy happy and tax free, it's another to deny 80% of the population something that they will have to have at some point.","According to this site: You can apply for German benefits at any U.S. Social Security office by completing application form SSA-2490. So have a look at this form and collect everything you need. But this site also says that you need to have at least 5 years of pay. Worker-Male or female-Benefits payable at: age 65 with 5 years of coverage... I have found the info of 5 years minimum also elsewhere. So I guess you do not get any money from the Rentenversicherung (i.e. from the normal job) and I doubt that they will change that in the future. You may receive some money from your time as a Beamter and after 5 years as a Beamter it would be quite some money. But on some other site it has the 5 year figure also for the Pension: Die Pension wird für Beamte und Richter nur dann gezahlt, wenn diese mindestens fünf Jahre im Dienst aktiv tätig waren. They have also numbers to call on the first site, so you may ask them.","I'll offer another answer, using different figures. Let's assume 6% is the rate of return you can expect. You are age 25, and plan to retire at age 65. If you have $0 and want $1M at retirement, you will need to put away $524.20/month, or $6,290.40/year, which is 15% of $41,936. So $41,936 is what you'd need to make per year in order to get to your target. You can calculate your own figures with a financial calculator: 480 months as your term (or, adjust this to your time horizon in months), .486755% as your interest (or, take your assumed interest rate + 1 to the 1/12th power and subtract 1 to convert to a monthly interest rate), 0 as your PV, and $1M as your FV; then solve for PMT.","You might like https://planwise.com/index.htm","If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.","See the Mortgage Professor's calculators (#3). Go to bankrate and look up rates so you know what to punch in to those calculators.","\"You'd need to talk with an attorney familiar with Social Security, or an appropriately qualified SSA representative to be sure - but all signs point to the idea that unfortunately Social Security does not work the way your father was told it would. And if he doesn't file to receive benefits the reality is actually much worse than \"\"throwing away free money\"\"! However, this is not due to a complete misunderstanding of the system! Social Security does work the way he thinks in some instances, just that the rules don't apply to his exact situation! First of all, retroactive benefits come in a few forms: File and suspend to get a lump only if you really need it - BEFORE the age of 70 only! In this method you apply for retirement, but you tell the SSA to suspend/delay your benefits. You are entitled to full lump sum of the payments you deferred...but at a cost of getting lower monthly benefits permanently (and that also lowers spousal and dependent children's benefits, too - if those could apply to your dad). But note that at the age of 70, Social Security will stop deferring the payments and start paying you the full maximum retirement benefit monthly, with no lump sum. This is a kind of emergency insurance policy for those who want to try to defer retirement benefits, but who want the opportunity to cash out and get the money they would have been getting \"\"just in case\"\". You can get up to 6 months of retroactive benefits, such as if you wait past your exact retirement age to apply for benefits. But no more: \"\"we cannot pay retroactive benefits for any month before you reached full retirement age or more than 6 months in the past\"\". As for after-death benefits, an estate can only get benefits that were already due to be paid, which generally means a person died and did not get their benefits for that month, so SSA can re-issue a check to the estate following these rules. But as a person cannot be due a lump sum payment after age 70 (for more than 6 months at most), the estate will only be able to get at most 1-6 months of payments (and 6 months is doubtful - you'll need to ask a lawyer if that much would even be possible). If your father was below 70 and wanted to file-and-suspend, the question of lump on death would be more complex and I don't know that answer - but once you are past 70 this doesn't matter any more as you aren't due a lump anymore. Given the above, we've established pretty clearly that if you don't claim your benefits within 6 months after age 70, any months of payment you would have gotten are just forfeited to the system. But if you claim the benefits and stick them in the bank, can they be taken? Well, if a lawsuit is really a worry, then yes these accumulated funds can required to pay a debt - but this potential for loss can be protected against without forfeiting the benefits entirely! This is not very common, but if your father doesn't need the money now he may be able to deposit some of the money into a special partially-lawsuit protected format of the Roth IRA (which has no age limits) as detailed here. If he never gets sued, that's OK - it's still his money! If he passes away, the value goes to his estate and does not disappear. And he doesn't forfeit any of his earned retirement benefits. Finally, I would like to share one last thing with you and your father. These benefits aren't free - he has been paying a portion of his paycheck for decades into Social Security, and now he is eligible for the maximum amount of benefits per month that he will qualify for - and if he wants to keep working he loses no benefit and the amount could potentially even go up. That's up to him. But not filing for benefits now will mean that all this money he's been paying in for decades will just be lost - they'll basically just be a tax he's paid out to other retirees. His estate (which means you kids) won't get any of it, either. That'd just be a waste for everyone involved. If you have continued doubts or questions, I wouldn't hesitate to consult a specialist lawyer or talk with the SSA directly to make sure this is all correct. It's his money, and he has earned his benefits for many years. I very much hope he gets to enjoy as much of them as he can!\"","You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.","\"You can simply use the previous year's tax liability as your basis for payments. Take the amount of tax you owed the previous year, divide by four, and use that amount for your estimated payments. As long as you're paying 100% of what you owed last year, you won't have any penalty. Except if your AGI is above a certain limit ($150k for married filing jointly in 2011), then you have to pay 110%. See IRS Pub 505 for details (general rule, special rule, under \"\"Higher Income Taxpayers\"\"). (H/T to @Dilip Sarwate for pointing out the 110% exception in a comment below.)\"","\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \"\"federal\"\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\"","Fairly straightforward to match the result from the calculator soup link. There is a formula to calculate n from the future value s (using natural logs) In Excel This was derived as shown To calculate n from the inflation-adjusted future value si requires using a solver since an algebraic formula cannot be formulated. As demonstrated Calculations done using Mathematica 7.","Your calculations look correct in that they will be withholding taxes at the full year income rate even though you will only have 1/3 of that income which will put you in a lower tax bracket. There are online sites where you can fill out a return for free. You can estimate your return by filling out a return using the numbers on your paystub (you will have to add in your last paystub manually). In regards to when you will get your refund check? I believe it comes within a month or so of filing.","I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.","The Windfall Elimination Provision will possibly reduce your benefits from Social Security depending on how much money you receive as a pension from the TRS. Money that is earned toward your TRS pension will not have payroll taxes withheld, so it will certainly not count toward the calculation of your Social Security retirement numbers. Beyond that, this page from the Social Security Administration will help you calculate the impact on what you'll receive.","\"It's not possible to determine whether you can \"\"expect a refund\"\" or whether you are claiming the right number of exemptions from the information given. If your wife were not working and you did not do independent contracting, then the answer would be much simpler. However, in this case, we must also factor in how much your contracting brings in (since you must pay income tax on that, as well as Medicare and, probably, Social Security), whether you are filing jointly or separately, and your wife's income from her business. There are also other factors such as whether you'll be claiming certain child care expenses, and certain tax credits which may phase out depending on your income. If you can accurately estimate your total household income for the year, and separate that into income from wages, contracting, and your wife's business, as well as your expenses for things like state and local income and property taxes, then you can make a very reasonable estimate about your total tax burden (including the self-employment taxes on your non-wage income) and then determine whether you are having enough tax withheld from your paycheck. Some people may find that they should have additional tax withheld to compensate for these expenses (see IRS W-4 Line #6).\"","\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \"\"safe harbor\"\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\"","Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.","If you are just starting out, my tactic would be to go way high and then consider any different play money. So guess $90 and when it comes in at $60, buy a new shirt or go on a date.","I wrote one to check against the N3 to N6 bonds: http://capitalmind.in/2011/03/sbi-bond-yield-calculator/ Things to note:","\"The translation scheme is detailed in IRS Publication 15, \"\"Employer's Tax Guide\"\". For the 2010 version, the information is in Section 16 on Page 37. There are two ways that employers can calculate the withheld tax amount: wage bracket and percentage. Alternatively, they can also use one of the methods defined in IRS Publication 15-A. I'll assume the person making $60k/yr with 10 allowances is paid monthly ($5000/period) and married. Using the wage bracket method, the amount withheld for federal taxes would be $83 per pay period. Using the percentage method, it would be $81.23 per pay period. I don't recommend that you use this information to determine how to fill out your W-4. The IRS provides a special online calculator for that purpose, which I have always found quite accurate. Note: \"\"allowances\"\" are not the same as \"\"dependents\"\"; \"\"allowances\"\" are a more realistic estimation of your tax deductions, taking into consideration much more than just your dependents.\"","\"As best as I can understand, your payout is based on your AIME, which is also capped at that same $118,500, so Trump's payout should also be equivalently small, exactly proportional to this cap Not sure what you want from Bernie here, but that is correct. Is it accurate to say that Trump will be paid by social security as though his actual income was $118,500, rather than his full income? Assuming Trump does pay that much (depends on how much of his income is actually subject to the FICA/SE tax), yes, it is accurate. However I believe what confuses you is the point Bernie Sanders made about people getting the same benefit while being rich. Bernie's point was that Trump and the likes don't need the social security income, while they're still getting it. Social Security is designed (at least theoretically) to be the safety net for people of age who cannot provide for themselves, thus it is not supposed to be \"\"you get what you paid\"\" system. This is a political discussion though. Social Security system, by definition, is based on a major principle of any socialist society: we as a group should support those who cannot support themselves. Thus, Bernie's point is that we shouldn't support Trump (and the likes) at all since they don't need that money. But they should still pay the tax to allow supporting those who do need, but cannot pay in.\"","These are the steps I'd follow: $200 today times (1.04)^10 = Cost in year 10. The 6 deposits of $20 will be one time value calculation with a resulting year 7 final value. You then must apply 10% for 3 years (1.1)^3 to get the 10th year result. You now have the shortfall. Divide that by the same (1.1)^3 to shift the present value to start of year 7. (this step might confuse you?) You are left with a problem needing 3 same deposits, a known rate, and desired FV. Solve from there. (Also, welcome from quant.SE. This site doesn't support LATEX, so I edited the image above.)","If you've already used TurboTax on your 2015 taxes, you can use the numbers TurboTax gave you as your reasonable estimate. Line 4 is your estimate of total tax liability for 2015. This would be line 63 of form 1040. This is Federal income tax only, not Social Security tax. Line 5 is the total of tax payments you made last year. You should be able to read this off your W-2 forms, Box 2. It corresponds to line 74 on the 1040. Line 6 is the difference between lines 4 and 5. You can't claim a refund on the extension, so if line 5 is more than line 4, enter 0. Otherwise, subtract line 5 from line 4, and enter it in line 6. This is the amount you should send in with the form to minimize any penalty due with your taxes later. The TurboTax software can generate this extension form automatically, I believe. Also, don't forget to give a copy of this extension form to your tax preparer. He will need to know the amount you sent in.","You can't get there from here. This isn't the right data. Consider the following five-year history: 2%, 16%, 32%, 14%, 1%. That would give a 13% average annual return. Now compare to -37%, 26%, 15%, 2%, 16%. That would give a 4% average annual return. Notice anything about those numbers? Two of them are in both series. This isn't an accident. The first set of five numbers are actual stock market returns from the last five years while the latter five start three years earlier. The critical thing is that five years of returns aren't enough. You'd need to know not just how you can handle a bull market but how you do in a bear market as well. Because there will be bear markets. Also consider whether average annual returns are what you want. Consider what actually happens in the second set of numbers: But if you had had a steady 4% return, you would have had a total return of 21%, not the 8% that would have really happened. The point being that calculating from averages gives misleading results. This gets even worse if you remove money from your principal for living expenses every year. The usual way to compensate for that is to do a 70% stock/30% bond mix (or 75%/25%) with five years of expenses in cash-equivalent savings. With cash-equivalents, you won't even keep up with inflation. The stock/bond mix might give you a 7% return after inflation. So the five years of expenses are more and more problematic as your nest egg shrinks. It's better to live off the interest if you can. You don't know how long you'll live or how the market will do. From there, it's just about how much risk you want to take. A current nest egg of twenty times expenses might be enough, but thirty times would be better. Since the 1970s, the stock market hasn't had a long bad patch relative to inflation. Maybe you could squeak through with ten. But if the 2020s are like the 1970s, you'd be in trouble.","\"There's a loophole that could enable you to have it both ways. Start taking it out as soon as you are eligible. e.g. at age 62. If you decide you want more, starting at age 65, you can \"\"start fresh\"\" (at a higher level) by repaying what you took out between ages 62-64 at face value. Essentially, you can take out an interest-free loan for those years. Or so the experts at Agora Financial have told me.\"","If you can still work or have income to support yourself, I would wait. contrary to some media reports, Social Security has enough money to cover full benefits for a number of years to come, and there are solutions that don't involve cutting payouts. And as mentioned before it is likely you'll be grandfathered in if there are cuts.","\"Your SSA payments are not IRA contributions, but they're actually a tax that is earmarked to the Social Security Trust Fund. As such, no, you don't have any \"\"contributions\"\" that can be refunded: you paid a tax, and in exchange for having paid that tax you will possibly later have a benefit. However, some foreign nationals are able to convey that benefit into their national savings plan. The Social Security Administration has a FAQ page on this particular subject. Unfortunately for you, Pakistan does not have a bilateral agreement according to their list, so you may be out of luck.\"","I found one such tool here: Point-to-Point Returns tool","\"I am pretty sure you could find a number of financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number, but the rule of thumb I like best is Save a dime of every dollar. 10% (Savings means save for retirement, not vacations.) Here is a nice article from radio personality Clark Howard with some adjustments based on your age: Saving for retirement later in life? If you're getting started saving for retirement later in life, the dime out of every dollar rule won't cut it for you. So for you, The Baltimore Sun has crunched the following numbers: Jayraj has a particularly good and just as simple bit of math. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/30751/91 Your retirement and financial planning should not end with a flat percentage. In fact, the chances that any simple math formula is adequate are very low. My percentages (or Jayraj's simple math) are only starting places. If you are at the point where you are asking \"\"where do I start\"\", starting with this super easy no-brainer approach is great because the key is starting and doing it.\"","\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"","I also prefer to crunch the numbers myself. Here are some resources:","I thought it was such a useful suggestion that I went ahead and created them. I'm sure you're not the only one who could derive some benefit from them, I know I will. http://www.investy.com/tools When I have some additional time, I will add the option for grace-periods, but for now I wanted to get them up so you could use the calculations as-is from the article. Enjoy. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of the site they are hosted on and I wrote the code for the calculators)","\"I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest \"\"check cashing\"\", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear. Those who have not been within the system of poverty and desperation often do not see just how many people actively work to encourage bad decision making, with big budgets, charm, charisma, and talent. The voices of reason, trying to act as beacons to call people to take care of themselves and their future, are all too easily drowned out in the roar of a smooth and enticing operation. I personally think this is one of the greatest contributions of the movement to build personal financial health and awareness, as so many great people find ever more effective ways of pointing out the myriad ways people try to bleed your money out of you with no real concern for your welfare. Looking out for your own well-being and not being taking in by the wide array of cons and bad deals is all too often fighting against a strong societal current - as I'm sure most of our regular contributors are all too aware! With increasing desperation often comes illegal maneuvers, often quite petty in nature. Those with substance abuse issues often start reselling drugs to others to try to cover lost income or \"\"get ahead\"\", with often debilitating results on long-term earning potential if they get caught (which can include cost barriers to higher education, even if they do turn their life around). I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date). As noted above, if homelessness occurs and becomes longstanding before that, the result is generally shortened lifespan and premature death. The other major issue of health is that preventative care - from simple dentistry to basic self-care, adequate sleep and rest, a safe place to rejuvenate - is often sacrificed in the scrambling to survive and limited budget. Those who develop chronic conditions which need regular care are more severely affected. Diabetic and injury-related limb loss, as one example, are far more likely for those without regular support resources - homeless, destitute, or otherwise. Other posters have done a great job in pointing out a number of the lesser-known governmental programs, so I won't list them again. I only note the important proviso that this may be quite a bit less in total than you think. Social Security on average pays retired workers $1300 a month. It was designed to avoid an all-too-common occurrence of simple starvation, rampant homelessness, and abject poverty among a large number of elderly. No guarantee is made that you won't have to leave your home, move away from your friends and family if you live in an expensive part of the country, etc. Some people get a bit more, some people get quite a bit less. And the loss of family and friend networks - especially to such at-risk groups - can be incredibly damaging. Note also that those financially desperate will be generally pushed to take retirement at the minimum age, even though benefits would be larger and more livable if they delayed their retirement. This is an additional cost of not having other sources of savings, which is not considered by many. Well, yes, many cannot retire whether they want to or not. I cannot find statistics on this specifically, but many are indeed just unable to financially retire without considerable loss. Social Security and other government plans help avoid the most desperate scenarios, but so many aspects of aging is not covered by insurance or affordable on the limited income that aging can be a cruel and lonely process for those with no other financial means. Those with no savings are not likely to be able to afford to regularly visit children and grandchildren, give gifts on holidays, go on cruises, enjoy the best assistive care, or afford new technological devices to assist their aging (especially those too new and experimental to be covered by the insurance plans they have). What's worse - but most people do not plan for either - is that diminished mental and physical capacity can render many people unable to navigate the system successfully. As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others. Share your budgeting strategies, your plans for the future, your gentle concerns, and give of your time and resources as generously as you can - within your own set budgets and ensuring your own financial well-being. And most of all - do not so easily give up on your family and friends, and count them as life-long hopeless ne'er-do-wells. Let's all strive to be good, kind, honest, and offer non-judgmental support and advice to the best of our ability to the people we care about. It is ultimately their choice - restricted by their own experiences and abilities - but need not be fate. People regularly disappoint, but sometimes they surprise and delight. Take care of yourself, and give others the best chance you can, too.\"","\"Interesting question. How is social security funded? The social security system works by using current payroll taxes as funding to pay benefits to retirees. Historically there was always more money coming in then what was being paid out in benefits. This changed at the beginning of March, 2010 when social security started paying out more than it was taking in (this article estimates the exact date to be around March 3 or March 4 - the chart below has the approximate date highlighted with the red circle). Due to the baby boomer generation it is estimated that social security will now be perpetually in the red unless changes are made. The recent reduction in payroll taxes will not help social security solvency. What was done with all the extra money social security collected over the last three decades? The Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) was required to purchase special-issue US government bonds with the excess funds. The SSTF was essentially purchasing US government debt with the excess funds. This allowed congress to spend the excess funds. The special-issue funds are different then normal US treasuries in that the SSTF can redeem special-issue bonds at face value at any time (even before maturity). The SSTF is currently holding $2.5 Trillion of these special-issue bonds as assets. What next? Hell if I know. The SSTF was a major purchaser of US debt over the last few decades (to the tune of $2.5 trillion). That changed in 2010. The SSTF is no longer purchasing US debt at the same time the US government is issuing record amounts of debt. The SSTF could begin redeeming its bonds to meet payment obligations. When it redeems the bonds the US treasury must cough up the funds. Where is it the US government going to get the money especially when it is currently borrowing money at record levels? I read many articles that say that we don't have to count SSTF bond holdings as debt since we owe it to ourselves. That always makes me chuckle. The US government owes the SSTF $2.5 Trillion. I'm not the US government so don't count me in the \"\"we\"\" part of \"\"we owe it to ourselves\"\". I'm also fairly certain I will never see a dime of social security so don't count me in the \"\"ourselves\"\" portion either. Charts were obtained from here.\"","When you enter your expected gross income into the worksheet - just enter $360000 and leave everything else as is. That should give you the right numbers. Same for State (form DE-4).","How much debt do you have? Do you have a mortgage? Car loans? At the very least depending on your state 25k will be subtracted So you're left with 75k Let me know so we can make that money work for you","The usual, but controversial, answer to this question is a 4% withdrawal rate. This means a net worth of ($5000 * 12 months ) / 4%, i.e., $1,500,000 If you want to play with the numbers, based on historical data, you can use the FIRECalc simulator.","Pete, 25 years of inflation looks like 100% to me with back of napkin math. $220K will feel like $110K. In today's dollars, can you live on $110K? (Plus whatever Social Security you'll get)? My concern from what you wrote, if I'm reading it correctly, is that you have this great income, but relatively low savings until now. From the recent question Building financial independence I offered a guide to savings as it compares to income. Even shifted 5 years for a later start, and scaled for a 70-75% replacement ratio, you should be at 2X (or $440K) by now. That's not a criticism, but an observation that you've been spending at a nice clip so far. The result is less saving, of course, but also a need for a higher replacement ratio. Last, a 10% return for the next 25 years may be optimistic. I'm not forecasting doom or gloom, just a more reasonable rate of return, and wouldn't plan to see higher than 7-8% for purposes of planning. If I am wrong, (and if so, we can both laugh all the way to the bank) you can always scale back savings in 10-15 years. Or retire earlier. Note: Pete's question asks about a 40 year old working till 65, but the comment below has him 48 and planning to work until 62. 14 years of $45K deposits total less than $700K. Even at 10%, it wouldn't grow to much more than $2M, let alone $5M.","Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result","Until you find a job, I would recommend doing nothing more than a bank checking account or a checking and savings account. Some alternatives, such as savings bonds, would be okay if you were perfectly sure you did not need the money in the next six months. Consider working for a place such as McDonald's in the meantime. Once you have stable employment, there are two paths you could take. The first is a bond fund. It would provide fair market returns for the time between now and the collection of social security. The second would be a traditional annuity. You have to be careful with them. If it sounds much better than what others are offering, it is probably a scam. Your interest in an annuity is that it will pay you money for as long as you live. If you live to be 105 you will still be getting payments. A bond fund would have run out of money long ago by that time. The biggest thing for you right now is getting to when Medicare takes over from private health. Looking for any job is important right now to preserve cash. Although I do not normally recommend annuities, I do with smaller amounts of cash. It is unlikely you will ever recover this sum again and the time remaining to save is very short. The greatest challenge with an annuity is regret. You can't get the money back once you have turned it into an income stream. On the other hand, it will last as long as you live. The only important caveat is that if you are in poor health, then the bond fund would be better for you because you may not live to be very old.","After some thought, I follow Dave Ramsey's advice because it's simple and I can do the math in my head - no online calculator needed. :) You need Life Insurance if someone depends on your income. You can replace your income with a single lump sum of 8-10 times your current income where those who need your income, can get roughly your salary each year from the life insurance proceeds.","Via www.socialsecurity.gov: As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted. These estimates reflect the intermediate assumptions of the Social Security Board of Trustees in their 2009 Annual Trustees Report. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been making similar estimates for several years that tend to be somewhat more optimistic than the trustees' estimates principally because CBO assumes faster growth in labor productivity and real earnings levels for the future. Doesn't seem too optimistic from the program itself. Also, it is true that recessions end, but in our current state of being trillions of dollars in debt, does it look like things are on the upswing?","Good news! It will be enough if you make the most important decision after retirement; that is, the decision to live within your means. With $220,000 per year in 2015 resources, will you live in the same size home in the same location as you do now? Or will you downsize a bit and move to a town with more reasonably priced homes and lower taxes? Apply the same thinking to all of your expenses. In my opinion, making the decision to live within your means is the biggest decision you can make going into retirement."],"string":"[\n \"The social security administration has a webpage to get your Social Security estimate. It replaces the yearly estimate they used to mail everybody. It shows the amount you paid for social security and medicare and what they estimate you will receive at your retirement age. They also discuss disability benefits. Everybody should do this every year. Though it does take a few months to get the previous years numbers updated into the system. If you notice a problem with the money they think you paid into the system in a particular year, you can send them an old W-2 and get the numbers corrected.\",\n \"\\\"Some details in case you are interested: Being a defined benefit kind of pension plan, the formula for your Social Security benefits isn't tied directly to FICA contributions, and I'm not aware of any calculator that performs an ROI based on FICA contributions. Rather, how much you'll get in retirement is based on your average indexed monthly earnings. Here's some information on the Social Security calculation from the Social Security Administration - Primary Insurance Amount (PIA): For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2013, or who dies in 2013 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of: (a) 90 percent of the first $791 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus (b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $791 and through $4,768, plus (c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,768. Here's an example. Of course, to calculate a benefit in the future, you'll need to calculate projected average indexed monthly earnings; more details here. You'll also need to make assumptions about what those bend points might be in the future. The average wage indexing values for calculating the AIME are available from the Social Security Administration's site, but future indexing values will also need to be projected based on an assumption about their inflation. You'll also need to project the Contribution and Benefit Base which limits the earnings used to calculate contributions and benefits. Also, the PIA calculation assumes benefits are taken at the normal retirement age. Calculating an early or late retirement factor is required to adjust benefits for another age. Then, whatever benefits you get will increase each year, because the benefit is increased based on annual changes in the cost of living. Performing the series of calculations by hand isn't my idea of fun, but implementing it as a spreadsheet (or a web page) and adding in some \\\"\\\"ROI based on FICA contributions\\\"\\\" calculations might be an interesting exercise if you are so inclined? For completeness sake, I'll mention that the SSA also provides source code for a Social Security Benefit Calculator.\\\"\",\n \"There are two steps. First you take the age at retirement and annual benefit. Say it's $10,000/yr. You can easily look up the present value of a $10k/yr annuity starting at age X. (I used age 62, male, at Immediate Annuity. It calculates to be $147K. You then need to look at your current age and with a finance calculator calculate the annual deposits required to get to $147K by that age. What I can't tell you is what value to use as a cost of money until retiring. 4%? 6%? That's the larger unknown.\",\n \"\\\"From the Social Security site, In the case of early retirement, a benefit is reduced 5/9 of one percent for each month before normal retirement age, up to 36 months. If the number of months exceeds 36, then the benefit is further reduced 5/12 of one percent per month. And for a delay past normal retirement age, there's an 8% per year increase in benefit for each year you delay. I believe the \\\"\\\"return it all\\\"\\\" option was discontinued. There's far too little information in your question for anyone to give a comprehensive answer. In general, one needs to look at a number of variables including their taxable income with and without the social security benefit as well as their health to determine the optimal SS start date.\\\"\",\n \"The IRS has a calculator for this purpose.\",\n \"I am in the process of writing an article about how to maximize one's Social Security benefits, or at least, how to start the analysis. This chart, from my friends at the Social Security office shows the advantage of waiting to take your benefit. In your case, you are getting $1525 at age 62. Now, if you wait 4 years, the benefit jumps to $2033 or $508/mo more. You would get no benefit for 4 years and draw down savings by $73,200, but would get $6,096/yr more from 64 on. Put it off until 70, and you'd have $2684/mo. At some point, your husband should apply for a spousal benefit (age 66 for him is what I suggest) and collect that for 4 years before moving to his own benefit if it's higher than that. Keep in mind, your generous pensions are likely to push you into having your social security benefit taxed, and my plan, above will give you time to draw down the 401(k) to help avoid or at least reduce this.\",\n \"There are three numbers that matter in that calculation: 1) How much do you expect per month from in pension/social security/or other retirement programs? 2) At what age will each of you retire? 3) How long will each of you live? 4) What will your annual expenses be when you retire? Unfortunately #3 is the most important of the three and the hardest to know with any certainty.\",\n \"For estimating your take home salary, I suggest using one of the many free salary calculators available over the Internet. I personally use PaycheckCity.com, but there are plenty of others available. To calculate your allowances for the US Federal tax, you can use the worksheet attached to the form W-4. Similar form (with a similar worksheet) is available for state taxes, on the Illinois Department of Revenue web site.\",\n \"Answering this question is a great way to gauge how you're doing towards saving for retirement now. But of course what matters more than this snapshot in time is how much you contribute down the line. It may be wise to try to estimate how much you will want saved by the time you retire. Then try to calculate how much you would need to save in order to hit that mark.\",\n \"\\\"How will contribution limits rise? Contribution limits are raised based on COLA. COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) is a number based on CPI (Consumer Price Index) which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The IRS publishes these limits annually and a simple search term to find them each year is \\\"\\\"415 limits\\\"\\\" because section 415 lists how much the various qualified plans can set aside each year. CPI is a heavily managed and very political number. It is the number that is cited when the media talks about \\\"\\\"inflation.\\\"\\\" Since it drives increases in salaries, deductions, Social Security and pension payments, there is very heavy pressure to keep the number smaller than it really is. My next step was to calculate how long that money will last One traditional rule-of-thumb is to withdraw 4% of your balance each year. Another alternative is to purchase annuities. While younger people think that annuities are horrible investments, they appeal to older people because they protect the annuitant from excessive risk of losing your capital. When you are 30, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have time to re-earn that money. When you are 60, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have very few years to recover that money. So an annuity pushes that risk onto insurance companies. If you think you will die in your 90s, then an annuity is going to be a good investment (the insurance company will be betting that you won't be living that long). I have a simple spreadsheet that I use to calculate estimated projected balances and compare them to actual performance. Don't forget that when you reach 50, the amount you can contribute goes up due to \\\"\\\"catch up contributions.\\\"\\\" There are 2 views of the same tab in this picture. There are 3 growth rates: pessimistic, nominal and optimistic. You can change the numbers to suit your own projections of future growth. Other tabs on this spreadsheet include measurements of actual performance by my 401k and IRA accounts. At the end of the year, I replace the numbers in columns F, G & H with the actual end-of-year dollar amounts. This way, future estimates do not get too far unhinged from reality. If you need more sophisticated planning, such as Monte Carlo analysis to attempt to cope with inflation, I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement. The book is aimed at younger engineers, so there is a bit more math than the average person would want.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \\\"\\\"doobop\\\"\\\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\\\"\",\n \"As Dilip commented, the Social Security web site is pretty comprehensive. Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI Income has the details you are looking for. It's a convoluted equation. You lose SSI at a pretty fast rate as earned income rises. The system is not kind to those who qualify for SSI but try to earn some money to cover their needs.\",\n \"\\\"One common rule of thumb: you can probably get 4% or better returns on your investments ('\\\"\\\"typical market rate of return is 8%, derate to allow for inflation and off years). Figure out what kind of income you will want in retirement and divide by 0.04 to get the savings you need to accumulate to support that. This doesn't allow for the fact that your needs are also going to increase with inflation; you can make a guess at that and use an inflated needs estimate. Not sophisticated, not precise, but it's a quick and dirty ballpark estimate. And sometimes it's surprisingly close to what a proper model would say.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'd encourage you to use rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope. Here are some ideas that could be useful: The problem with any kind of detailed calculations is the number of unknowns: There are some really complex calculators out there, for example see ESPlanner (http://www.esplanner.com/) (caution: horrible user interface, but seemed to work), that will include all kinds of factors and run monte carlo and the whole thing. But in my opinion, it's just as good or better to say save at least 15% of income until you have 25x what you spend, or some other such rule of thumb. Here's my little blog post on savings and investing fwiw: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Another note, there's sort of an \\\"\\\"ideology of how to live\\\"\\\" embedded in any retirement recommendation, and you might want to take the time to reflect on that and consciously choose. A book on this topic is Your Money or Your Life by Robin & Dominguez, http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766 which is a sort of radical \\\"\\\"you should save everything possible to achieve financial independence as early as possible\\\"\\\" argument. I didn't go for their plan, but I think it's thought-provoking. A newer book that may be more appealing is called The Number and it's about your question exactly. It's more designed to get you thinking, while Your Money or Your Life has a particular answer in mind. Both have some math and some rules of thumb, though they aren't focused on that. A kind of general takeaway from these books might be: first think about your expenses. What are you trying to accomplish in life, how would you like to spend your time? And then ask how much money you absolutely need to accomplish that, and focus on accomplishing your goals, spending your time (as much as you can) on what you'd like to spend it on. I'm contrasting this with a generic recommendation to save enough to spend 80% of your income in retirement, which embeds this idea that you should spend as much as possible every year, before and after you retire. Lots of people do like that idea, but it's not a law of the universe or something, it's just one popular approach.\\\"\",\n \"There's a bit of working backwards that's required. This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)\",\n \"...funds received for the month of death and later must be returned. If the estate is bankrupt, as near as I can tell, the SSA is out of luck. (This applies to payment apart from that covered above.) If you need advice on something other than retirement insurance, a comprehensive list of applicable statutes and rulings is here.\",\n \"\\\"One way to do these sorts of calculations is to use the spreadsheet version of IRS form 1040 available here. This is provided by a private individual and is not an official IRS tool, but in practice it is usually accurate enough for these purposes. You may have to spend some time figuring out where to enter the info. However, if you enter your self-employment income on Schedule C, this spreadsheet will calculate the self-employment tax as well as the income tax. An advantage is that it is the full 1040, so you can also select the standard deduction and the number of exemptions you are entitled to, enter ordinary W-2 income, even capital gains, etc. Of course you can also make use of other tax software to do this, but in my experience the \\\"\\\"Excel 1040\\\"\\\" is more convenient, as most websites and tax-prep software tend to be structured in a linear fashion and are more cumbersome to update in an ad-hoc way for purposes like tax estimation. You can do whatever works for you, but I would recommend taking a look at the Excel 1040. It is a surprisingly useful tool.\\\"\",\n \"There are a few methods you can use to estimate your taxes. On the results screen, the app will show you your estimated tax burden, your estimated withholding for the year, and your estimated overpayment/refund or shortfall/tax due. It may also have recommendations for you on how to adjust your W-4 (although, this late in the year, I think it only tells you to come back next year to reevaluate). Your state might also have income tax, and if you are curious about that, you can find the state tax form and estimate your state income tax as well. My guess is that you will be getting a refund this year, as you have only worked half of the year. But that is only a guess.\",\n \"Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).\",\n \"Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)\",\n \"If you set a savings amount now and leave it totally fixed you're likely to massively undershoot or overshoot. What is more likely is that you will adjust either your savings or your retirement expectations as things go along. If it turns out you have $10M (2010 dollars) at age 50 perhaps you'll retire early, and if you have $10k perhaps you'll buckle down and work much longer or save much more. So I think what you are looking for is an assurance that if you budget to save x% of your salary over n years, and you get an after-inflation after-tax return of y% pa, you will eventually be able to retire on an income equivalent to z% of your working income. It's pretty easy to calculate that through a future-value formula. For instance, one set of values that works is saving 20% of income, 5% real return, 30 years = final income of 66% of working income. Or save half your income and within 14 years you can retire and keep spending the amount you were previously spending. Resist the temptation to crank up the assumed return until you get the value you want. I think it would be great hubris to try to make this very precise. Yes, probably you will get raises, of course there are taxes to take into account (probably higher while you're saving), inflation and returns will vary from year to year, et. You can guess at them. But they'll change, and there are bigger things that are unpredictable: your personal life, your health, the economic future of your career or industry. I reckon this simple formula is about as good as you will get.\",\n \"\\\"By \\\"\\\"basic public pension\\\"\\\" I assume you mean Social Security, which is pretty much the only quasi-universal pension-like thing in the USA. If she has any other sort of pension (e.g., from a job) you'd need to get more specific info about that. As for Social Security, as described here: While you are working, your earnings will reduce your benefit amount only until you reach your full retirement age. According to the calculator on that site, if she is 65 now, her full retirement age would be 66, so if she retires after that age her SS benefit won't be reduced due to extra income. As described here, if she has considerable income apart from SS, she may have to pay taxes on her SS income. This would not reduce her income, but means the benefit of her extra blog income would be reduced. This page describes how to calculate your \\\"\\\"provisional income\\\"\\\" to determine whether SS benefits will be taxed. According to that page: If your provisional income is less than $25,000 for single or head-of-household returns, or $32,000 for joint returns, then your Social Security benefits will not be taxed. Based on the numbers you gave, this suggests she would not incur an SS tax. However, she should probably take a look at the Social Security retirement estimator and other tools on that site, if she hasn't already done so, to get a sense of what sort of income SS will be providing her. I'd suggest that she talk to a retirement planner and/or CPA to get a handle on what her finances would be like. At the least, she should find someone knowledgeable about Social Security policies and tax issues in the USA. As you say, you are unfamiliar with the way these matters work in the USA, so your ability to help her make financial decisions is limited.\\\"\",\n \"I use paycheckcity.com and first punch in my paycheck and make sure it calculates within a few pennies the value of my actual paycheck. Then I fiddle with withholding values, etc. to see the effect of change. It has been very effective for me over the years.\",\n \"The simplest way is just to compute how much money you'd have to have invested elsewhere to provide a comparable return. For example, if you assume a safe interest rate of 2.3% per year, you would need to have about $520,000 to get $1,000/month.\",\n \"I read an amazing article on whenyou should take early and when you should wait. It really depends on your situation, but this article prodives information as well as examples. Hope it helps! http://customsites.yahoo.com/financiallyfit/finance/article-108227-3275-5-boost-your-social-security-benefits\",\n \"\\\"I am in a similar situation and have recently found a planner who says a pension that pays $100/month is worth $18k in savings at retirement. I know that doesn't answer your question directly, but could could use a simple interest savings calculator (bank rate has one) to see how much of your income you would need to save over x period of time and deduct that from you the offer at your prospective employer to compare \\\"\\\"apples to apples\\\"\\\" However, I actually think the value of a pension at retirement is greater than listed above. To illustrate: So in this example my pension would seem to be valued at about $14,000 in salary for those 10 years.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"One option is to look at the IRS Witholding Calculator - As George Marian notes, this is by no means a perfect way to \\\"\\\"estimate\\\"\\\" how much you'll owe. Other key questions for you to answer: There's no silver bullet here. The best you can do is to understand the key inputs into how your taxes are calculated, and then identify the most important tax deductions that you might take. Then pray that you haven't missed some nuance and use a tax program early in January to check your assumptions so you're not completely surprised when April rolls around. A final suggestion: do your own taxes using a website like TurboTax. Take the time to \\\"\\\"itemize\\\"\\\" your tax deductions just to learn what is tax deductible. You can figure out how the big parts of tax law works by just looking at what you could deduct in the future.\\\"\",\n \"There's no magic. Usually these models set out to replace 60-65% of your gross income in retirement. For example, if you: You'll retire with about $850k. That will let you generate an income stream of around 55k for your expected lifespan. Is 15% the right answer for you? No idea -- it depends on what you want, how you invest, and what you can afford.\",\n \"\\\"@duffbeer and @JoeTaxpayer give great answers, and you should probably accept one or the other, but I would like to recommend trying some of the online tools for Monte Carlo analysis. A Monte Carlo analysis is essentially plugging in a range of possible values (a probability function) for yearly values of pretty much anything involved in your financial life: salary growth, investment rate of return, expected life span, etc, etc, etc....and then running thousands of simulations on those values to give you the probability that your money will last until you die. It is basically a really souped up version of a \\\"\\\"what-if\\\"\\\" spreadsheet. A google search for \\\"\\\"monte carlo retirement planning\\\"\\\" may sound like a hilariously bad idea, but it lists some free tools that you might find interesting or useful. I myself have only used the product from Financial Engines quite a bit, but I believe that is only available through your employer. (If they offer it.)\\\"\",\n \"If you have a relatively stable income and deductions you can get a fairly good estimate using last year's tax bill. Suppose you paid $12000 of actual taxes last year and you are paid once a month. If you plan to make a similar amount of money with similar deductions, you need each monthly paycheck to have $1000 of federal income taxes withheld. I go to a paycheck calculator and find the withholding required to make sure I have that amount withheld every paycheck.\",\n \"All of your 401k income is taxable and no more than 85% of your SS income. You can use the worksheets in IRS: Publication 915 to determine what percentage of your SS is taxable. Just as with ordinary income, deductions/exemptions apply and not all that is taxable will be taxed. When you begin drawing SS you'll have the option to have taxes withheld at various rates, more convenient than quarterly estimated payments in my opinion.\",\n \"Look at the left column. If you are disabled at age 62 or older and have worked for at least 10 years they you qualify for full disability benefits (which are generally less than retirement benefits). Outside of disability, one is only eligible for social security benefits at age 67 (unless you were born before 1960, in which case different rules apply), but you must have worked for at least 10 years to get full retirement benefits.\",\n \"The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.\",\n \"The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.\",\n \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.aier.org/blog/social-security-cost-living-adjustment-likely-largest-2011) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > With inflation ticking upward in 2017, retirees are likely to see the largest cost-of-living adjustment in their Social Security benefits since 2011. > Our forecasted increase for the cost-of-living adjustment would add between $23 and $29 to the average Social Security beneficiary&#039;s monthly check, higher than any adjustment since 2011 but still below the average annual adjustment since 2011 of 2.3 percent. > The Social Security Administration calculates the cost-of-living adjustment using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/75k0hx/social_security_cost_of_living_adjustment_likely/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~225800 tl;drs so far.\\\"\\\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \\\"\\\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\\\"\\\") | *Top* *keywords*: **adjustment**^#1 **percent**^#2 **year**^#3 **CPI-W**^#4 **average**^#5\\\"\",\n \"$3,679,163.80 I made these assumptions that you did not state: Then using Excel, we find that with a starting point of $3,679,163.80, we can achieve your goal. The formula for Yearly Budget is =G$1*((1.035)^(A3-2012)) and the formula for Money left at year end is =(D4/1.05)+C4 For 2067, enter $0 leftover, and for 2066, enter $397,988.47 leftover. G$1 is $60,000 G$2 is 0.05\",\n \"\\\"I wrote Retirement Savings Ratio some time ago and 15% seemed the sweet spot. The 15% is 10% saved and 5% match, in my mind. The reason I link is to show a spreadsheet that shares my approach to the analysis. You list a huge number of things to think about, all great. I'm near Duff's view although I shoot for 20X final income so 4% of that is an 80% replacement. There's nothing magic about 80. If social security exists, it actually drops the required 80 from you to the 60 or so Duff lists, so we align. The 'problems' with my sheet - no one gets exact 3% raises for 43 years, so one can go in and change that, maybe higher early on, then slow it down. Returns are 8% every year, so one must go to the sheet or their own plan and reassess how they are doing each year. Disclosure - we are now at 14X our income with a goal of 25 to replace 100%. So we need a cumulative 80% growth (as in S&P at 2500) or the years of deposits to get there. I am nearing 50. Let me pick one of your questions - \\\"\\\"Your expenses go down at retirement, stay the same, or go up?\\\"\\\" - this is the $64K question. the 80% is an average guess. The general assumption is in this range. If we downsized right after the kid goes to college, we could retire on far less. So, to wrap up, online calculators and spreadsheets only go so far. Your questions are dead on. A planner should ask every one of these questions before assuming any ratio. Edit - on re-read I am blown away by the list of questions you have here. It's great. And it shows how there's risk no matter what.\\\"\",\n \"There are online tax prep sites, H&R Block among them. You'll be able to enter your projected details, and do a 'what-if' type scenario by adding things that impact the return. You don't mention any Schedule A deductions. No mortgage? Planning to have money taken off the top to a 401(k)?\",\n \"This is a present value calculation, which excel or any financial calculator can handle. N = 300 (months) %i = 5/12 or .05/12 depending on the program/calculator PMT = $5000 (the monthly payment) FV = 0 (you want to end at zero balance) This calculates a PV (present value of $855,300) Chad had it right, but used a calculator that didn't offer the PV function, so he guessed and changed numbers til the answer was clear. user379 makes a good point, but why start inflation calculations at 65, and not now? You look like you're in your 30's, so there's 30 years of inflation, and $60K/yr in today's value will need to be closer to $150K/yr, given about 30 years of 3% inflation.\",\n \"The metric I prefer is net worth, minus the value of your home, then divide by your annual expenses. The house is subtracted because you need to live somewhere, so its worth isn't part of retirement savings. I divide by expenses to create result that really answers how close one is to being able to retire. The target is to have 25X your required spending gap. Note, as you close in on retirement, and social security is still in place, you can use it in your planning. If I were in my 20s or 30s today, I wouldn't use it in my numbers.\",\n \"Probably the most accurate way is to just fill out your tax forms using numbers extrapolated from your current paycheck. If you don't typically itemize your deductions, you should be able to get pretty close.\",\n \"Let's assume you have total year income I. The inflation rate is R and the growth rate is E every year. The contributed rate deducting 1.8% will be C = 0.982. So, for your account you'll have every year Let's assume you have annual income in 1000, then for years So, you'll deposit 40 000 and got at the end 129 023.60. But be careful, economic calculation for so long period could be very incaccurate because of the variation of the inflation rate, growth rate and various risks. The spreadsheet could be very useful. More accurate formula which assume that annual deposit grows only the half of the year. Thus, the result for 40 years will be 124 576.91.\",\n \"Retirement calculation, in general, should be based on the amount of money needed per year/month and the expected life expectancy. Life expectancy, if calculated to 90 years (let's say) indicates that post retirement age (60 yrs.) your accumulated/invested money should generate adequate income to cover your expenses till 90 years. The problem in general is not how long you shall live but what would be your expected spending from retirement to end of life expectancy. The idea is at the minimum your investments should generate income that is inflation adjusted. One way to do this is to consider your monthly expense now i.e. the expense that is absolute minimum for carrying on (food, electricity, water, medicines, household consumables, car petrol, insurance, servicing, entertainment, newspaper etc.) this does not contain the amortizable liabilities (home loan, child's education, other debts). It is better to take this amount per family rather than per person and yearly rather than monthly (as we tend to miss a lot of yearly expenses). This amount that you need today will increase at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the average inflation. For example, if today you spend 100 per year in 7 years you will need to spend appx. 200 at 10% inflation. Now, your investments will not increase post your retirement, so your current investment needs to do two things (1) give you your yearly requirement (2) grow by a fixed amount so that next year it can give you CAGR adjusted returns. In general, this kind of investment grows by high net amounts initially and slowly the growth decrease. The above can be calculated by Net Present value (NPV) formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The key is to remember that the money that is invested when you retire should be able to give you inflation adjusted returns to cover your yearly expenses. How much money you need depends on your life style/expectation and how much return is received depends on the instruments that you invest on. As for your question above on the difference between the age of you and your spouse, it better to go with the consolidated family requirement and get an idea of how much investment is necessary and provision the same as soon as possible from your as well as your spouse's income. Hope this helps.- thanks\",\n \"If you want to predict the, the easiest solution is to get hold of a copy of last year's tax forms and fill them in with estimated numbers. Odds are that none of the more complicated deductions will apply to you this first time around, so I'd suggest just using the federal 1040EZ, and your state's equivalent, for this purpose. If it turns out that you can claim anything more than the standard deduction, that would reduce your taxes, so this is leaning toward the safe side.\",\n \"I am by no means an expert in this, but I did a little research and came across this page on the SSA site -- Can You Be Entitled To Benefits Retroactively? You may be entitled to monthly benefits retroactively for months before the month you filed an application for benefits. For example, full retirement age claims and survivor claims may be paid for up to six months retroactively. In certain cases, benefits involving disability up to 12 months may be paid retroactively. (This is not true of the special age 72 payments (see §§346-348), black lung benefits (see Chapter 22), medical insurance (see Chapter 24), or SSI (see Chapter 21).) SSA Handbook (emphasis mine) Based on this, it sounds like he may be mistaken. I recommend speaking to a SSA rep to get a solid answer on this though. Not everything on the internet is true.\",\n \"http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm As a general rule of thumb on average you'll gain a similar amount of total money over time whether you start withdrawing early or not. Yes you get less money on each check, but you're also going to get more checks a whole since it's based on how long you live. I personally don't try and adjust how I manage my money based on what decisions the government MIGHT make, but I also am fairly young so don't quite have the heightened concerns regarding social security others might have. I've pretty much always lived and invested assuming it wasn't going to be there at all by the time I retire.\",\n \"\\\"It depends on what kind of pension you get and your anticipated retirement income. If you have one of those nice defined benefit plans that pays 90% of your last 5 years' average salary annually, you might not want to bother with a separate RRSP and put your money into other use instead. While most Canadians should worry about not having enough to retire on, some might end up with too much and costing them in the form current purchases and entitlements to government retirement benefits. Figuring out how much you need for retirement is not trivial either. A lot of people talks about planning for needing 70% of what you made now as a way to preserve your lifestyle. Well, my opinion is that those type of generalization might work for the people in the middle of the income band and is too little for those in the low-income and possibly too much for those with high income. My own approach is estimate your retirement income requirement by listing out your anticipated expenses as if you were doing budget. I would agree that's not the best approach either (back to my comment about no one size fits all), but it's one that I feel most comfortable with. Once you have that figure, factor in what you think you will get from the government (OAS, CPP and etc) and you will have the amount of money you need for retirement. I will warn against using \\\"\\\"average life expectancy\\\"\\\" to forecast your retirement needs, 'cos 50% of the people will end up with extra money (not a bad problem) and the other 50% will run out of money (bad but very true problem) if you use that approach. Instead of going on and write an essay on this topic, I will simply say this - everyone's situation is different and, just like solving any other complex problems, you need to start with \\\"\\\"end\\\"\\\" in mind and work things backward, with a ton of different scenario to be able to cope with whatever curveballs life might throw at you. If you spend enough time in the library/bookstore looking through books on the topic of \\\"\\\"estate planning\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"retirement planning\\\"\\\", you will find people arguing back and fro on these topics - this is a sign that this is complex and no one has the one \\\"\\\"good\\\"\\\" answer for. Do a bit of reading by yourself and, if still unsure or just want to be sure, go spend the money and review your plan with a fee-only advisor. They will be able to provide another opinion on your situation after thoroughly studying your situation.\\\"\",\n \"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf\",\n \"I've found the systems that seem to work. Firstly, you need to find how much money is required to pay for the withdrawals after retirement, while still accruing interest. I couldn't seem to do this with an equation, but this bit of javascript worked: yearsToLast: Number of years of yearly withdrawals yearlyWithdrawal: Amount to withdraw each year interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest Now that we have how much is required at the beginning of the retirement, to figure out how much to add yearly to hit this mark, you'd use: amount: Previously found required amount to reach interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest yearsSaving: Number of years saving till amount needs to be hit I hope this helps some other poor soul, because I could find squat on how to do this. Max\",\n \"\\\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \\\"\\\"D\\\"\\\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \\\"\\\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\\\"\\\" that walks you through these calculations.\\\"\",\n \"There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.\",\n \"\\\"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that \\\"\\\"4\\\"\\\" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means \\\"\\\"don't tax 4 x $4050\\\"\\\" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Note that mutual funds' quarterly/annual reports usually have this number. I generally just let my home-accounting software project my future net worth; its numbers agree well enough with those I've gotten from more \\\"\\\"professional\\\"\\\" sources such as monte-carlo modelling. (They'd agree better if I fed in all the details of my paycheck, but I don't feel like doing the work to keep that up to date.) I'm using Quicken, but I assume MS Money and other competitors have the same capability if you buy the appropriate version.\\\"\",\n \"Your contributions that you've already made are made and done, and will not disappear. What the Windfall Elimination Provision does is make sure that people do not collect the subsidized low-income payments while also collecting a full pension. People who did not pay anything into SS are able to collect money - less, but still something - from the system. Prior to this provision, people on full pensions who were exempt from SS contributions (such as teachers in many places) were able to still collect those amounts (which were never earned through contributions) even though they had quite significant pensions; that led to subsidies being given to people that didn't have as much need for them, as opposed to the indigent people who did need them. In your case, earning for 20+ years and then presumably only earning a small pension, you may be affected by this, but not necessarily severely. First of all, you are limited in how much your total reduction is to the lesser of a bit over $400 ($413 in 2015) or half your pension amount per month; so if you earn a $200 in pension monthly, your SS benefits are reduced by $100 monthly at most. Second, your percentage (and total cap) is reduced if you have over 20 years of credited work at 62 by 10% per credited year, and if you hit 30 years it's eliminated. So if you have 25 years right now, your total reduction is more like $200 at most. You also have an option to keep earning via credited work. Do some part-time work or summer work, for example. Sell things online. Whatever you need to do in order to get more years of credited work such that you end up with 30 years at 62. That will then increase your benefits back to the full amount. This article published on Nasdaq's website explains how this works in detail, including tables of benefit reductions. And, log in to ssa.gov to check how many years of creditable coverage you have and to see if you can get to 30 years and avoid any issues with this at all.\",\n \"“For example,” says the report, “75-year solvency could be achieved by raising taxes or reducing benefits for new recipients by about one-fifth if we started today. However, if policy makers wait until 2034, payroll taxes would have to be increased by nearly one third and it would be impossible to achieve solvency solely from reducing benefits for new beneficiaries.” Social Security was enacted in 1935. Medicare was enacted in 1965. Life expectancy at those times was 61 and 70, respectively. Today, average life expectancy is 80. Pushing the receipt age for these benefits makes the most sense and results in a two-fold savings, 1) benefits put into the system through additional payroll deduction and, 2) benefits are not taken out of the system.\",\n \"If I get a prepaid debit card for the money I make do I have to report my earnings? How do I go about doing this? Yes you must report this. It doesn't matter if they put it in your bank account, or on a debit card, or cash under the table. You have to report the income. You can count on your employer reporting the income to the IRS. What is the limit I can make when it comes to working while on social security? The Social Security Administration has all sort of info regarding working and receiving benefits. The exact answer depends on the type of benefit (retirement, disability, survivor) and your age (pre-full retirement age, the year you reach retirement age, post retirement age) I would look at their website: http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm for examples: You can work while you receive Social Security retirement (or survivors) benefits. When you do, it could mean a higher benefit for you in the future. Each year we review the records for all working Social Security recipients. If your earnings for the prior year are higher than one of the years we used to compute your retirement benefit, we will recalculate your benefit amount. We pay the increase retroactive to January the year after you earned the money\",\n \"\\\"I think the math is wrong. Note that in Scenario #1, you are only out of pocket $1000, while in Scenario #2, you are out of pocket $1250; the contribution and the tax you paid with respect to it. A better concept than tax rate is \\\"\\\"Retention Rate\\\"\\\". This is the fraction of your money that the Feds let you keep. And Growth Factor is the how much the investment grows. So In Scenario #1, you multiply $1000 by the investment Growth Factor and then by the retirement Retention Rate. And in Scenario #2, you multiply the same $1000 by the current Retention Rate and then by the Growth Factor. Since in your approximation, the two GFs are the same, there is no saving...\\\"\",\n \"This is what I'm planning on. Retirement would be difficult, if not impossible, without the expected SS payments. In terms of current retirement planning, it's the difference between putting 20% of my income aside for retirement, and 35% of my income aside. It's one thing to keep the wealthy happy and tax free, it's another to deny 80% of the population something that they will have to have at some point.\",\n \"According to this site: You can apply for German benefits at any U.S. Social Security office by completing application form SSA-2490. So have a look at this form and collect everything you need. But this site also says that you need to have at least 5 years of pay. Worker-Male or female-Benefits payable at: age 65 with 5 years of coverage... I have found the info of 5 years minimum also elsewhere. So I guess you do not get any money from the Rentenversicherung (i.e. from the normal job) and I doubt that they will change that in the future. You may receive some money from your time as a Beamter and after 5 years as a Beamter it would be quite some money. But on some other site it has the 5 year figure also for the Pension: Die Pension wird für Beamte und Richter nur dann gezahlt, wenn diese mindestens fünf Jahre im Dienst aktiv tätig waren. They have also numbers to call on the first site, so you may ask them.\",\n \"I'll offer another answer, using different figures. Let's assume 6% is the rate of return you can expect. You are age 25, and plan to retire at age 65. If you have $0 and want $1M at retirement, you will need to put away $524.20/month, or $6,290.40/year, which is 15% of $41,936. So $41,936 is what you'd need to make per year in order to get to your target. You can calculate your own figures with a financial calculator: 480 months as your term (or, adjust this to your time horizon in months), .486755% as your interest (or, take your assumed interest rate + 1 to the 1/12th power and subtract 1 to convert to a monthly interest rate), 0 as your PV, and $1M as your FV; then solve for PMT.\",\n \"You might like https://planwise.com/index.htm\",\n \"If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.\",\n \"See the Mortgage Professor's calculators (#3). Go to bankrate and look up rates so you know what to punch in to those calculators.\",\n \"\\\"You'd need to talk with an attorney familiar with Social Security, or an appropriately qualified SSA representative to be sure - but all signs point to the idea that unfortunately Social Security does not work the way your father was told it would. And if he doesn't file to receive benefits the reality is actually much worse than \\\"\\\"throwing away free money\\\"\\\"! However, this is not due to a complete misunderstanding of the system! Social Security does work the way he thinks in some instances, just that the rules don't apply to his exact situation! First of all, retroactive benefits come in a few forms: File and suspend to get a lump only if you really need it - BEFORE the age of 70 only! In this method you apply for retirement, but you tell the SSA to suspend/delay your benefits. You are entitled to full lump sum of the payments you deferred...but at a cost of getting lower monthly benefits permanently (and that also lowers spousal and dependent children's benefits, too - if those could apply to your dad). But note that at the age of 70, Social Security will stop deferring the payments and start paying you the full maximum retirement benefit monthly, with no lump sum. This is a kind of emergency insurance policy for those who want to try to defer retirement benefits, but who want the opportunity to cash out and get the money they would have been getting \\\"\\\"just in case\\\"\\\". You can get up to 6 months of retroactive benefits, such as if you wait past your exact retirement age to apply for benefits. But no more: \\\"\\\"we cannot pay retroactive benefits for any month before you reached full retirement age or more than 6 months in the past\\\"\\\". As for after-death benefits, an estate can only get benefits that were already due to be paid, which generally means a person died and did not get their benefits for that month, so SSA can re-issue a check to the estate following these rules. But as a person cannot be due a lump sum payment after age 70 (for more than 6 months at most), the estate will only be able to get at most 1-6 months of payments (and 6 months is doubtful - you'll need to ask a lawyer if that much would even be possible). If your father was below 70 and wanted to file-and-suspend, the question of lump on death would be more complex and I don't know that answer - but once you are past 70 this doesn't matter any more as you aren't due a lump anymore. Given the above, we've established pretty clearly that if you don't claim your benefits within 6 months after age 70, any months of payment you would have gotten are just forfeited to the system. But if you claim the benefits and stick them in the bank, can they be taken? Well, if a lawsuit is really a worry, then yes these accumulated funds can required to pay a debt - but this potential for loss can be protected against without forfeiting the benefits entirely! This is not very common, but if your father doesn't need the money now he may be able to deposit some of the money into a special partially-lawsuit protected format of the Roth IRA (which has no age limits) as detailed here. If he never gets sued, that's OK - it's still his money! If he passes away, the value goes to his estate and does not disappear. And he doesn't forfeit any of his earned retirement benefits. Finally, I would like to share one last thing with you and your father. These benefits aren't free - he has been paying a portion of his paycheck for decades into Social Security, and now he is eligible for the maximum amount of benefits per month that he will qualify for - and if he wants to keep working he loses no benefit and the amount could potentially even go up. That's up to him. But not filing for benefits now will mean that all this money he's been paying in for decades will just be lost - they'll basically just be a tax he's paid out to other retirees. His estate (which means you kids) won't get any of it, either. That'd just be a waste for everyone involved. If you have continued doubts or questions, I wouldn't hesitate to consult a specialist lawyer or talk with the SSA directly to make sure this is all correct. It's his money, and he has earned his benefits for many years. I very much hope he gets to enjoy as much of them as he can!\\\"\",\n \"You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.\",\n \"\\\"You can simply use the previous year's tax liability as your basis for payments. Take the amount of tax you owed the previous year, divide by four, and use that amount for your estimated payments. As long as you're paying 100% of what you owed last year, you won't have any penalty. Except if your AGI is above a certain limit ($150k for married filing jointly in 2011), then you have to pay 110%. See IRS Pub 505 for details (general rule, special rule, under \\\"\\\"Higher Income Taxpayers\\\"\\\"). (H/T to @Dilip Sarwate for pointing out the 110% exception in a comment below.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \\\"\\\"federal\\\"\\\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\\\"\",\n \"Fairly straightforward to match the result from the calculator soup link. There is a formula to calculate n from the future value s (using natural logs) In Excel This was derived as shown To calculate n from the inflation-adjusted future value si requires using a solver since an algebraic formula cannot be formulated. As demonstrated Calculations done using Mathematica 7.\",\n \"Your calculations look correct in that they will be withholding taxes at the full year income rate even though you will only have 1/3 of that income which will put you in a lower tax bracket. There are online sites where you can fill out a return for free. You can estimate your return by filling out a return using the numbers on your paystub (you will have to add in your last paystub manually). In regards to when you will get your refund check? I believe it comes within a month or so of filing.\",\n \"I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.\",\n \"The Windfall Elimination Provision will possibly reduce your benefits from Social Security depending on how much money you receive as a pension from the TRS. Money that is earned toward your TRS pension will not have payroll taxes withheld, so it will certainly not count toward the calculation of your Social Security retirement numbers. Beyond that, this page from the Social Security Administration will help you calculate the impact on what you'll receive.\",\n \"\\\"It's not possible to determine whether you can \\\"\\\"expect a refund\\\"\\\" or whether you are claiming the right number of exemptions from the information given. If your wife were not working and you did not do independent contracting, then the answer would be much simpler. However, in this case, we must also factor in how much your contracting brings in (since you must pay income tax on that, as well as Medicare and, probably, Social Security), whether you are filing jointly or separately, and your wife's income from her business. There are also other factors such as whether you'll be claiming certain child care expenses, and certain tax credits which may phase out depending on your income. If you can accurately estimate your total household income for the year, and separate that into income from wages, contracting, and your wife's business, as well as your expenses for things like state and local income and property taxes, then you can make a very reasonable estimate about your total tax burden (including the self-employment taxes on your non-wage income) and then determine whether you are having enough tax withheld from your paycheck. Some people may find that they should have additional tax withheld to compensate for these expenses (see IRS W-4 Line #6).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \\\"\\\"safe harbor\\\"\\\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\\\"\",\n \"Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.\",\n \"If you are just starting out, my tactic would be to go way high and then consider any different play money. So guess $90 and when it comes in at $60, buy a new shirt or go on a date.\",\n \"I wrote one to check against the N3 to N6 bonds: http://capitalmind.in/2011/03/sbi-bond-yield-calculator/ Things to note:\",\n \"\\\"The translation scheme is detailed in IRS Publication 15, \\\"\\\"Employer's Tax Guide\\\"\\\". For the 2010 version, the information is in Section 16 on Page 37. There are two ways that employers can calculate the withheld tax amount: wage bracket and percentage. Alternatively, they can also use one of the methods defined in IRS Publication 15-A. I'll assume the person making $60k/yr with 10 allowances is paid monthly ($5000/period) and married. Using the wage bracket method, the amount withheld for federal taxes would be $83 per pay period. Using the percentage method, it would be $81.23 per pay period. I don't recommend that you use this information to determine how to fill out your W-4. The IRS provides a special online calculator for that purpose, which I have always found quite accurate. Note: \\\"\\\"allowances\\\"\\\" are not the same as \\\"\\\"dependents\\\"\\\"; \\\"\\\"allowances\\\"\\\" are a more realistic estimation of your tax deductions, taking into consideration much more than just your dependents.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As best as I can understand, your payout is based on your AIME, which is also capped at that same $118,500, so Trump's payout should also be equivalently small, exactly proportional to this cap Not sure what you want from Bernie here, but that is correct. Is it accurate to say that Trump will be paid by social security as though his actual income was $118,500, rather than his full income? Assuming Trump does pay that much (depends on how much of his income is actually subject to the FICA/SE tax), yes, it is accurate. However I believe what confuses you is the point Bernie Sanders made about people getting the same benefit while being rich. Bernie's point was that Trump and the likes don't need the social security income, while they're still getting it. Social Security is designed (at least theoretically) to be the safety net for people of age who cannot provide for themselves, thus it is not supposed to be \\\"\\\"you get what you paid\\\"\\\" system. This is a political discussion though. Social Security system, by definition, is based on a major principle of any socialist society: we as a group should support those who cannot support themselves. Thus, Bernie's point is that we shouldn't support Trump (and the likes) at all since they don't need that money. But they should still pay the tax to allow supporting those who do need, but cannot pay in.\\\"\",\n \"These are the steps I'd follow: $200 today times (1.04)^10 = Cost in year 10. The 6 deposits of $20 will be one time value calculation with a resulting year 7 final value. You then must apply 10% for 3 years (1.1)^3 to get the 10th year result. You now have the shortfall. Divide that by the same (1.1)^3 to shift the present value to start of year 7. (this step might confuse you?) You are left with a problem needing 3 same deposits, a known rate, and desired FV. Solve from there. (Also, welcome from quant.SE. This site doesn't support LATEX, so I edited the image above.)\",\n \"If you've already used TurboTax on your 2015 taxes, you can use the numbers TurboTax gave you as your reasonable estimate. Line 4 is your estimate of total tax liability for 2015. This would be line 63 of form 1040. This is Federal income tax only, not Social Security tax. Line 5 is the total of tax payments you made last year. You should be able to read this off your W-2 forms, Box 2. It corresponds to line 74 on the 1040. Line 6 is the difference between lines 4 and 5. You can't claim a refund on the extension, so if line 5 is more than line 4, enter 0. Otherwise, subtract line 5 from line 4, and enter it in line 6. This is the amount you should send in with the form to minimize any penalty due with your taxes later. The TurboTax software can generate this extension form automatically, I believe. Also, don't forget to give a copy of this extension form to your tax preparer. He will need to know the amount you sent in.\",\n \"You can't get there from here. This isn't the right data. Consider the following five-year history: 2%, 16%, 32%, 14%, 1%. That would give a 13% average annual return. Now compare to -37%, 26%, 15%, 2%, 16%. That would give a 4% average annual return. Notice anything about those numbers? Two of them are in both series. This isn't an accident. The first set of five numbers are actual stock market returns from the last five years while the latter five start three years earlier. The critical thing is that five years of returns aren't enough. You'd need to know not just how you can handle a bull market but how you do in a bear market as well. Because there will be bear markets. Also consider whether average annual returns are what you want. Consider what actually happens in the second set of numbers: But if you had had a steady 4% return, you would have had a total return of 21%, not the 8% that would have really happened. The point being that calculating from averages gives misleading results. This gets even worse if you remove money from your principal for living expenses every year. The usual way to compensate for that is to do a 70% stock/30% bond mix (or 75%/25%) with five years of expenses in cash-equivalent savings. With cash-equivalents, you won't even keep up with inflation. The stock/bond mix might give you a 7% return after inflation. So the five years of expenses are more and more problematic as your nest egg shrinks. It's better to live off the interest if you can. You don't know how long you'll live or how the market will do. From there, it's just about how much risk you want to take. A current nest egg of twenty times expenses might be enough, but thirty times would be better. Since the 1970s, the stock market hasn't had a long bad patch relative to inflation. Maybe you could squeak through with ten. But if the 2020s are like the 1970s, you'd be in trouble.\",\n \"\\\"There's a loophole that could enable you to have it both ways. Start taking it out as soon as you are eligible. e.g. at age 62. If you decide you want more, starting at age 65, you can \\\"\\\"start fresh\\\"\\\" (at a higher level) by repaying what you took out between ages 62-64 at face value. Essentially, you can take out an interest-free loan for those years. Or so the experts at Agora Financial have told me.\\\"\",\n \"If you can still work or have income to support yourself, I would wait. contrary to some media reports, Social Security has enough money to cover full benefits for a number of years to come, and there are solutions that don't involve cutting payouts. And as mentioned before it is likely you'll be grandfathered in if there are cuts.\",\n \"\\\"Your SSA payments are not IRA contributions, but they're actually a tax that is earmarked to the Social Security Trust Fund. As such, no, you don't have any \\\"\\\"contributions\\\"\\\" that can be refunded: you paid a tax, and in exchange for having paid that tax you will possibly later have a benefit. However, some foreign nationals are able to convey that benefit into their national savings plan. The Social Security Administration has a FAQ page on this particular subject. Unfortunately for you, Pakistan does not have a bilateral agreement according to their list, so you may be out of luck.\\\"\",\n \"I found one such tool here: Point-to-Point Returns tool\",\n \"\\\"I am pretty sure you could find a number of financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number, but the rule of thumb I like best is Save a dime of every dollar. 10% (Savings means save for retirement, not vacations.) Here is a nice article from radio personality Clark Howard with some adjustments based on your age: Saving for retirement later in life? If you're getting started saving for retirement later in life, the dime out of every dollar rule won't cut it for you. So for you, The Baltimore Sun has crunched the following numbers: Jayraj has a particularly good and just as simple bit of math. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/30751/91 Your retirement and financial planning should not end with a flat percentage. In fact, the chances that any simple math formula is adequate are very low. My percentages (or Jayraj's simple math) are only starting places. If you are at the point where you are asking \\\"\\\"where do I start\\\"\\\", starting with this super easy no-brainer approach is great because the key is starting and doing it.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \\\"\\\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\\\"\\\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \\\"\\\"37 years at 20% savings rate\\\"\\\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\\\"\",\n \"I also prefer to crunch the numbers myself. Here are some resources:\",\n \"I thought it was such a useful suggestion that I went ahead and created them. I'm sure you're not the only one who could derive some benefit from them, I know I will. http://www.investy.com/tools When I have some additional time, I will add the option for grace-periods, but for now I wanted to get them up so you could use the calculations as-is from the article. Enjoy. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of the site they are hosted on and I wrote the code for the calculators)\",\n \"\\\"I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest \\\"\\\"check cashing\\\"\\\", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear. Those who have not been within the system of poverty and desperation often do not see just how many people actively work to encourage bad decision making, with big budgets, charm, charisma, and talent. The voices of reason, trying to act as beacons to call people to take care of themselves and their future, are all too easily drowned out in the roar of a smooth and enticing operation. I personally think this is one of the greatest contributions of the movement to build personal financial health and awareness, as so many great people find ever more effective ways of pointing out the myriad ways people try to bleed your money out of you with no real concern for your welfare. Looking out for your own well-being and not being taking in by the wide array of cons and bad deals is all too often fighting against a strong societal current - as I'm sure most of our regular contributors are all too aware! With increasing desperation often comes illegal maneuvers, often quite petty in nature. Those with substance abuse issues often start reselling drugs to others to try to cover lost income or \\\"\\\"get ahead\\\"\\\", with often debilitating results on long-term earning potential if they get caught (which can include cost barriers to higher education, even if they do turn their life around). I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date). As noted above, if homelessness occurs and becomes longstanding before that, the result is generally shortened lifespan and premature death. The other major issue of health is that preventative care - from simple dentistry to basic self-care, adequate sleep and rest, a safe place to rejuvenate - is often sacrificed in the scrambling to survive and limited budget. Those who develop chronic conditions which need regular care are more severely affected. Diabetic and injury-related limb loss, as one example, are far more likely for those without regular support resources - homeless, destitute, or otherwise. Other posters have done a great job in pointing out a number of the lesser-known governmental programs, so I won't list them again. I only note the important proviso that this may be quite a bit less in total than you think. Social Security on average pays retired workers $1300 a month. It was designed to avoid an all-too-common occurrence of simple starvation, rampant homelessness, and abject poverty among a large number of elderly. No guarantee is made that you won't have to leave your home, move away from your friends and family if you live in an expensive part of the country, etc. Some people get a bit more, some people get quite a bit less. And the loss of family and friend networks - especially to such at-risk groups - can be incredibly damaging. Note also that those financially desperate will be generally pushed to take retirement at the minimum age, even though benefits would be larger and more livable if they delayed their retirement. This is an additional cost of not having other sources of savings, which is not considered by many. Well, yes, many cannot retire whether they want to or not. I cannot find statistics on this specifically, but many are indeed just unable to financially retire without considerable loss. Social Security and other government plans help avoid the most desperate scenarios, but so many aspects of aging is not covered by insurance or affordable on the limited income that aging can be a cruel and lonely process for those with no other financial means. Those with no savings are not likely to be able to afford to regularly visit children and grandchildren, give gifts on holidays, go on cruises, enjoy the best assistive care, or afford new technological devices to assist their aging (especially those too new and experimental to be covered by the insurance plans they have). What's worse - but most people do not plan for either - is that diminished mental and physical capacity can render many people unable to navigate the system successfully. As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others. Share your budgeting strategies, your plans for the future, your gentle concerns, and give of your time and resources as generously as you can - within your own set budgets and ensuring your own financial well-being. And most of all - do not so easily give up on your family and friends, and count them as life-long hopeless ne'er-do-wells. Let's all strive to be good, kind, honest, and offer non-judgmental support and advice to the best of our ability to the people we care about. It is ultimately their choice - restricted by their own experiences and abilities - but need not be fate. People regularly disappoint, but sometimes they surprise and delight. Take care of yourself, and give others the best chance you can, too.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Interesting question. How is social security funded? The social security system works by using current payroll taxes as funding to pay benefits to retirees. Historically there was always more money coming in then what was being paid out in benefits. This changed at the beginning of March, 2010 when social security started paying out more than it was taking in (this article estimates the exact date to be around March 3 or March 4 - the chart below has the approximate date highlighted with the red circle). Due to the baby boomer generation it is estimated that social security will now be perpetually in the red unless changes are made. The recent reduction in payroll taxes will not help social security solvency. What was done with all the extra money social security collected over the last three decades? The Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) was required to purchase special-issue US government bonds with the excess funds. The SSTF was essentially purchasing US government debt with the excess funds. This allowed congress to spend the excess funds. The special-issue funds are different then normal US treasuries in that the SSTF can redeem special-issue bonds at face value at any time (even before maturity). The SSTF is currently holding $2.5 Trillion of these special-issue bonds as assets. What next? Hell if I know. The SSTF was a major purchaser of US debt over the last few decades (to the tune of $2.5 trillion). That changed in 2010. The SSTF is no longer purchasing US debt at the same time the US government is issuing record amounts of debt. The SSTF could begin redeeming its bonds to meet payment obligations. When it redeems the bonds the US treasury must cough up the funds. Where is it the US government going to get the money especially when it is currently borrowing money at record levels? I read many articles that say that we don't have to count SSTF bond holdings as debt since we owe it to ourselves. That always makes me chuckle. The US government owes the SSTF $2.5 Trillion. I'm not the US government so don't count me in the \\\"\\\"we\\\"\\\" part of \\\"\\\"we owe it to ourselves\\\"\\\". I'm also fairly certain I will never see a dime of social security so don't count me in the \\\"\\\"ourselves\\\"\\\" portion either. Charts were obtained from here.\\\"\",\n \"When you enter your expected gross income into the worksheet - just enter $360000 and leave everything else as is. That should give you the right numbers. Same for State (form DE-4).\",\n \"How much debt do you have? Do you have a mortgage? Car loans? At the very least depending on your state 25k will be subtracted So you're left with 75k Let me know so we can make that money work for you\",\n \"The usual, but controversial, answer to this question is a 4% withdrawal rate. This means a net worth of ($5000 * 12 months ) / 4%, i.e., $1,500,000 If you want to play with the numbers, based on historical data, you can use the FIRECalc simulator.\",\n \"Pete, 25 years of inflation looks like 100% to me with back of napkin math. $220K will feel like $110K. In today's dollars, can you live on $110K? (Plus whatever Social Security you'll get)? My concern from what you wrote, if I'm reading it correctly, is that you have this great income, but relatively low savings until now. From the recent question Building financial independence I offered a guide to savings as it compares to income. Even shifted 5 years for a later start, and scaled for a 70-75% replacement ratio, you should be at 2X (or $440K) by now. That's not a criticism, but an observation that you've been spending at a nice clip so far. The result is less saving, of course, but also a need for a higher replacement ratio. Last, a 10% return for the next 25 years may be optimistic. I'm not forecasting doom or gloom, just a more reasonable rate of return, and wouldn't plan to see higher than 7-8% for purposes of planning. If I am wrong, (and if so, we can both laugh all the way to the bank) you can always scale back savings in 10-15 years. Or retire earlier. Note: Pete's question asks about a 40 year old working till 65, but the comment below has him 48 and planning to work until 62. 14 years of $45K deposits total less than $700K. Even at 10%, it wouldn't grow to much more than $2M, let alone $5M.\",\n \"Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result\",\n \"Until you find a job, I would recommend doing nothing more than a bank checking account or a checking and savings account. Some alternatives, such as savings bonds, would be okay if you were perfectly sure you did not need the money in the next six months. Consider working for a place such as McDonald's in the meantime. Once you have stable employment, there are two paths you could take. The first is a bond fund. It would provide fair market returns for the time between now and the collection of social security. The second would be a traditional annuity. You have to be careful with them. If it sounds much better than what others are offering, it is probably a scam. Your interest in an annuity is that it will pay you money for as long as you live. If you live to be 105 you will still be getting payments. A bond fund would have run out of money long ago by that time. The biggest thing for you right now is getting to when Medicare takes over from private health. Looking for any job is important right now to preserve cash. Although I do not normally recommend annuities, I do with smaller amounts of cash. It is unlikely you will ever recover this sum again and the time remaining to save is very short. The greatest challenge with an annuity is regret. You can't get the money back once you have turned it into an income stream. On the other hand, it will last as long as you live. The only important caveat is that if you are in poor health, then the bond fund would be better for you because you may not live to be very old.\",\n \"After some thought, I follow Dave Ramsey's advice because it's simple and I can do the math in my head - no online calculator needed. :) You need Life Insurance if someone depends on your income. You can replace your income with a single lump sum of 8-10 times your current income where those who need your income, can get roughly your salary each year from the life insurance proceeds.\",\n \"Via www.socialsecurity.gov: As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted. These estimates reflect the intermediate assumptions of the Social Security Board of Trustees in their 2009 Annual Trustees Report. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been making similar estimates for several years that tend to be somewhat more optimistic than the trustees' estimates principally because CBO assumes faster growth in labor productivity and real earnings levels for the future. Doesn't seem too optimistic from the program itself. Also, it is true that recessions end, but in our current state of being trillions of dollars in debt, does it look like things are on the upswing?\",\n \"Good news! It will be enough if you make the most important decision after retirement; that is, the decision to live within your means. With $220,000 per year in 2015 resources, will you live in the same size home in the same location as you do now? Or will you downsize a bit and move to a town with more reasonably priced homes and lower taxes? Apply the same thinking to all of your expenses. In my opinion, making the decision to live within your means is the biggest decision you can make going into retirement.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Some details in case you are interested: Being a defined benefit kind of pension plan, the formula for your Social Security benefits isn't tied directly to FICA contributions, and I'm not aware of any calculator that performs an ROI based on FICA contributions. Rather, how much you'll get in retirement is based on your average indexed monthly earnings. Here's some information on the Social Security calculation from the Social Security Administration - Primary Insurance Amount (PIA): For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2013, or who dies in 2013 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of: (a) 90 percent of the first $791 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus (b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $791 and through $4,768, plus (c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,768. Here's an example. Of course, to calculate a benefit in the future, you'll need to calculate projected average indexed monthly earnings; more details here. You'll also need to make assumptions about what those bend points might be in the future. The average wage indexing values for calculating the AIME are available from the Social Security Administration's site, but future indexing values will also need to be projected based on an assumption about their inflation. You'll also need to project the Contribution and Benefit Base which limits the earnings used to calculate contributions and benefits. Also, the PIA calculation assumes benefits are taken at the normal retirement age. Calculating an early or late retirement factor is required to adjust benefits for another age. Then, whatever benefits you get will increase each year, because the benefit is increased based on annual changes in the cost of living. Performing the series of calculations by hand isn't my idea of fun, but implementing it as a spreadsheet (or a web page) and adding in some \"\"ROI based on FICA contributions\"\" calculations might be an interesting exercise if you are so inclined? For completeness sake, I'll mention that the SSA also provides source code for a Social Security Benefit Calculator.\"","There has been an abundance of articles in recent years which make it fairly clear that many participants in the Social Security system-- especially those who have started contributing recently, and going forward from that-- will experience negative rates of return. In other words, they will put in more than they will get out. Some examples of such articles: Time Magazine: But it is now official: Social Security is a lousy investment for the average worker. People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press. That AP piece, referenced by Time: People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. A piece which appeared in DailyFinance (includes a helpful graphic summary): 10 Myths About Social Security: Myth 4: Social Security Is a Good Deal for Today’s WorkersEven if there were no reduction in benefits or increase in taxes—an impossibility given Social Security’s looming financing shortfalls—Social Security is an extremely bad investment for most young workers. In fact, according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, most young workers will actually receive a negative return on their Social Security taxes— they will get less in benefits than they paid in taxes. Some studies indicate that a 30- year-old two-earner couple with average income will lose as much as $173,500. That actual loss does not even consider the opportunity cost, what workers might have earned if they had been able to invest their taxes in real assets that yield a positive return. In fact, a study by financial analyst William Shipman demonstrates that, if a 25-year-old worker were able to privately invest the money he or she currently pays in Social Security taxes, the worker would receive retirement benefits three to six times higher than under Social Security. Has that answered your question?","The social security administration has a webpage to get your Social Security estimate. It replaces the yearly estimate they used to mail everybody. It shows the amount you paid for social security and medicare and what they estimate you will receive at your retirement age. They also discuss disability benefits. Everybody should do this every year. Though it does take a few months to get the previous years numbers updated into the system. If you notice a problem with the money they think you paid into the system in a particular year, you can send them an old W-2 and get the numbers corrected."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Some details in case you are interested: Being a defined benefit kind of pension plan, the formula for your Social Security benefits isn't tied directly to FICA contributions, and I'm not aware of any calculator that performs an ROI based on FICA contributions. Rather, how much you'll get in retirement is based on your average indexed monthly earnings. Here's some information on the Social Security calculation from the Social Security Administration - Primary Insurance Amount (PIA): For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2013, or who dies in 2013 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of: (a) 90 percent of the first $791 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus (b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $791 and through $4,768, plus (c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,768. Here's an example. Of course, to calculate a benefit in the future, you'll need to calculate projected average indexed monthly earnings; more details here. You'll also need to make assumptions about what those bend points might be in the future. The average wage indexing values for calculating the AIME are available from the Social Security Administration's site, but future indexing values will also need to be projected based on an assumption about their inflation. You'll also need to project the Contribution and Benefit Base which limits the earnings used to calculate contributions and benefits. Also, the PIA calculation assumes benefits are taken at the normal retirement age. Calculating an early or late retirement factor is required to adjust benefits for another age. Then, whatever benefits you get will increase each year, because the benefit is increased based on annual changes in the cost of living. Performing the series of calculations by hand isn't my idea of fun, but implementing it as a spreadsheet (or a web page) and adding in some \\\"\\\"ROI based on FICA contributions\\\"\\\" calculations might be an interesting exercise if you are so inclined? For completeness sake, I'll mention that the SSA also provides source code for a Social Security Benefit Calculator.\\\"\",\n \"There has been an abundance of articles in recent years which make it fairly clear that many participants in the Social Security system-- especially those who have started contributing recently, and going forward from that-- will experience negative rates of return. In other words, they will put in more than they will get out. Some examples of such articles: Time Magazine: But it is now official: Social Security is a lousy investment for the average worker. People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press. That AP piece, referenced by Time: People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. A piece which appeared in DailyFinance (includes a helpful graphic summary): 10 Myths About Social Security: Myth 4: Social Security Is a Good Deal for Today’s WorkersEven if there were no reduction in benefits or increase in taxes—an impossibility given Social Security’s looming financing shortfalls—Social Security is an extremely bad investment for most young workers. In fact, according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, most young workers will actually receive a negative return on their Social Security taxes— they will get less in benefits than they paid in taxes. Some studies indicate that a 30- year-old two-earner couple with average income will lose as much as $173,500. That actual loss does not even consider the opportunity cost, what workers might have earned if they had been able to invest their taxes in real assets that yield a positive return. In fact, a study by financial analyst William Shipman demonstrates that, if a 25-year-old worker were able to privately invest the money he or she currently pays in Social Security taxes, the worker would receive retirement benefits three to six times higher than under Social Security. Has that answered your question?\",\n \"The social security administration has a webpage to get your Social Security estimate. It replaces the yearly estimate they used to mail everybody. It shows the amount you paid for social security and medicare and what they estimate you will receive at your retirement age. They also discuss disability benefits. Everybody should do this every year. Though it does take a few months to get the previous years numbers updated into the system. If you notice a problem with the money they think you paid into the system in a particular year, you can send them an old W-2 and get the numbers corrected.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":258,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3254"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Why do people buy US dollars on the black market?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["484891","443511","475756"],"string":"[\n \"484891\",\n \"443511\",\n \"475756\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["443511","475756","484891","177264","190347","161727","171228","227300","525056","255769","68975","124862","359405","254876","491225","575359","136860","254405","526270","97059","506818","183149","148454","345725","351805","402006","417509","76909","44492","176975","3366","372374","235322","42951","373853","292714","273478","395246","247542","447447","240996","310250","572523","117010","300948","248817","160625","508766","215708","14875","241631","90845","201183","166870","19618","595642","399234","138892","110360","478065","409403","362974","549773","76907","486418","482590","592251","313706","180972","343913","116921","232870","146478","42463","37662","26479","386909","106421","490113","324546","317667","393249","540451","435230","575495","167589","564828","499875","505763","52643","549556","389005","182195","202570","557550","568730","322456","183331","443683","506780"],"string":"[\n \"443511\",\n \"475756\",\n \"484891\",\n \"177264\",\n \"190347\",\n \"161727\",\n \"171228\",\n \"227300\",\n \"525056\",\n \"255769\",\n \"68975\",\n \"124862\",\n \"359405\",\n \"254876\",\n \"491225\",\n \"575359\",\n \"136860\",\n \"254405\",\n \"526270\",\n \"97059\",\n \"506818\",\n \"183149\",\n \"148454\",\n \"345725\",\n \"351805\",\n \"402006\",\n \"417509\",\n \"76909\",\n \"44492\",\n \"176975\",\n \"3366\",\n \"372374\",\n \"235322\",\n \"42951\",\n \"373853\",\n \"292714\",\n \"273478\",\n \"395246\",\n \"247542\",\n \"447447\",\n \"240996\",\n \"310250\",\n \"572523\",\n \"117010\",\n \"300948\",\n \"248817\",\n \"160625\",\n \"508766\",\n \"215708\",\n \"14875\",\n \"241631\",\n \"90845\",\n \"201183\",\n \"166870\",\n \"19618\",\n \"595642\",\n \"399234\",\n \"138892\",\n \"110360\",\n \"478065\",\n \"409403\",\n \"362974\",\n \"549773\",\n \"76907\",\n \"486418\",\n \"482590\",\n \"592251\",\n \"313706\",\n \"180972\",\n \"343913\",\n \"116921\",\n \"232870\",\n \"146478\",\n \"42463\",\n \"37662\",\n \"26479\",\n \"386909\",\n \"106421\",\n \"490113\",\n \"324546\",\n \"317667\",\n \"393249\",\n \"540451\",\n \"435230\",\n \"575495\",\n \"167589\",\n \"564828\",\n \"499875\",\n \"505763\",\n \"52643\",\n \"549556\",\n \"389005\",\n \"182195\",\n \"202570\",\n \"557550\",\n \"568730\",\n \"322456\",\n \"183331\",\n \"443683\",\n \"506780\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \"\"black\"\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\"","\"As a Venezuelan who used to buy USD, I believe there is not better explanation than the one given to someone who actually lives and works here in Venezuela. Back in 1998 when Hugo Chavez took the presidency, we had a good economy. Fast forward 10 years laters and you could see how poor management, corruption and communist measurements had wreaked havoc in our Economy. It was because most of the money (USD) coming in Venezuela were not invested here but instead, given away to \"\"pimp countries\"\" like Cuba. Remember, communism lasts while you have money. Back then we had an Oil Barrel going over 100$ and crazy amounts of money were coming in the country. However, little to no money was invested in the country itself. That is why some of the richest people with bank account in Swiss are Venezuelans who stole huge amounts of Oil Money. I know this is a lot to take in, but all of this led to Venezuelan economy being the worst in The American Continent and because there is not enough money inside the country to satisfy the inner market, people would pay overprice to have anything that is bought abroad. You have to consider that only a very small amount of people can actually buy USD here in Venezuela. Back in 2013 I was doing it, I could buy about 80 usd/month with my monthly income. However, nowdays that's nearly impossible for about 99% of Venezuelans. To Illustrate. Minimum wage = 10.000 bolivares / month Black market exchange rate (As of January 2016) = 900bs per 1usd 10.000/900 = 11,11 usd. <<< that is what about 50% of Venezuelans earn every month. That's why this happens: http://i.imgur.com/dPOC2e3.jpg The guy is holding a huge stack of money of the highest Venezuelan note, which he got from exchanging only 100 usd. I am a computer science engineer, the monthly income for someone like me is about 30.000 bolivares --- so that is about 34$ a month. oh dear! So finally, answering your question Q: Why do people buy USD even at this unfavorable rate? A: There are many reasons but being the main 2 the following 1.- Inflation in Venezuela is crazy high. The inflation from 2014-2015 was 241%. Which means that having The Venezuelan currency (Bolivares) in your bank account makes no sense... in two weeks you won't be able to buy half of the things you used to with the same amount of money. 2.- A huge amount of Venezuelans dream with living abroad (me included) why, you ask? well sir, it is certain that life in this country is not the best: I hope you can understand better why people in 3rd world countries and crappy economies buy USD even at an unfavorable rate. The last question was: Q: Why would Venezuela want to block the sale of dollars? A: Centralized currency management is an Economic Measure that should last 6 months tops. (This was Argentina's case in 2013) but at this point, reverting that would take quite a few years. However, Turukawa's wikipedia link explains that very well. Regards.\"","\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \"\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\"\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\"","\"I suspect that to \"\"make money\"\" it isn't enough to know the current value (\"\"high currency\"\"): to make money you'd need to know/guess/predict/bet on the future change in value: will the currency value go higher in the future? Or will it come down again? Or will it stay the same? Everybody knows the current value, so that by itself isn't enough knowledge to make money from. That said, if you know you're going to need American dollars in the future (if you have future expenses which need to be paid in American dollars), then now might be a good time to buy those dollars.\"","\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \"\"root value\"\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\"","Well, sure, why else would you buy them? Is it illegal now to accept money *from* PDVSA? Because I know my company does business with them, and if we are going to ship what we built for them, we need to see the money.","Weather events and aging infrastructure. Cash will buy gasoline, food and water when there is no power or telephone connectivity to process ATMs and credit cards.","Typically, the higher interest rates in local currency cover about the potential gain from the currency exchange rate change - if not, people would make money out of it. However, you only know this after the fact, so either way you are taking a risk. Depending on where the local economy goes, it is more secure to go with US$, or more risky. Your guess is as good as anyone. If you see a chance for a serious meltdown of the local economy, with 100+% inflation ratios and possibly new money, you are probably better off with US$. On the other hand, if the economy develops better than expected, you might have lost some percentage of gain. Generally, investing in a more stable currency gets you slightly less, but for less risk.","Devaluation is a relative term, so if you want to protect yourself against devaluation of your currency against dollars - just buy dollars. Inflation is something you cannot protect yourself against because it is something that describes the purchasing power of the money. You will still need to purchase, and usually with money. A side effect of inflation is usually devaluation against other currencies. So one of the ways to deal with inflation is not to keep the money in your currency over time, and only convert from a more stable currency when you need to make purchases. Another way is to invest in something tangible that can easily be sold (for example, jewelery and precious metals, but it has other risks). Re whats legal and illegal in your country - we don't really know because you didn't tell what country that is to begin with, but the usual channels like travelers' checks or bank transfer should work. Carrying large amounts of cash are usually either illegal or strictly regulated.","Transfer your savings to a dollar-based CD. Or even better, buy some gold on them.","Just because pricing isn't tracked, doesn't mean the dollar price is not backed up by oil (they are others factors involved, of course). But the very fact that OPEC, the worlds largest oil cartel, currently only trade in dollars, effectively means that everyone who wants oil needs dollars to buy it. Therefore, to function in modern global economy, dollars are always needed regardless of exchange rates or interest rates on bonds. In reality the amount debt the US has backed up against its currency wouldn't hold for any other country, apart from US, with its petrodollar status.","\"To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the \"\"real economy\"\" is to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to \"\"sit on\"\" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me.\"","> Hence all businesses in the US, no matter what currency they make money in, have to buy USD to pay their taxes. So that means that means other currencies are valueless since X government doesn't see Y currency as a means of payment? Also, you don't buy so much as trade but potatoes potatos.","It's already gone through a big correction, but another crash is a possibility. But if the US economy keeps eroding it's going to become more of a safe haven. Also Goldman Sachs sees it as an investment option, so that's a sign financial houses are interested (and not a good sign for the dollar).","You need wealth in order to have a sovereign wealth fund. The countries that do it are usually petro states such as Norway and Saudi Arabia. Since petrol is in dollars, they sell oil and get dollars. They need a way to then spend this money, hence the wealth fund.","First question: Any, probably all, of the above. Second question: The risk is that the currency will become worth less, or even worthless. Most will resort to the printing press (inflation) which will tank the currency's purchasing power. A different currency will have the same problem, but possibly less so than yours. Real estate is a good deal. So are eggs, if you were to ask a Weimar Germany farmer. People will always need food and shelter.","\"Generally speaking, so-called \"\"hard assets\"\" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a \"\"harder\"\" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors.\"","\"That oil is traded in USD makes for extra demand and thus a stronger dollar with more purchasing power. It's not really economics that are the issue though - many might argue a weakened dollar might help the US economy (cheaper exports). The real issue is power. These gold backed securities make it so that certain countries can get around US sanctions. Not to mention that controlling the currency that oil is traded in means the US can devalue their currency to gain an advantage in the event of a shortage. Also, because petroleum is traded in dollars, this means treasury bonds are a natural place to store wealth for oil producers. High demand for these bonds makes it cheap for the US government to borrow and easier to make interest payments thus making T-Bonds a \"\"safe\"\" asset.\"",">And a lot of people that have communist party wealth are afraid that there will be an uprising against them so they are preparing escape plans. My guess would be more along these lines (albeit maybe a bit less dramatic). There were a lot of dubious things that Party members did over the past hundred years to stash away cash for themselves. Siphoning off public resources, investing with them, and as long as the investments made money, keeping the results, for example, played a significant role in some of the complaints that farmers had about local officials. If they keep money in China, and there's some sort of fallout or charges that go through, my guess is that it's a lot easier to seize a corrupt official's resources. On the other hand, if you just bought a bunch of land in the US...that's a lot less easily-seizable and harder to immediately get ahold of for Chinese officials. There's also the more legit possibility that China quite arguably has a real estate bubble in investable real estate, and the result is that if you want to invest in land and reduce your risk to a bubble deflating, you want to do so overseas.","The dollar is the reserve currency of choice because the full faith and credit of the US is big, liquid, and stable compared to any currently-available alternative. The Euro and Yuan are big enough to displace the dollar (and maybe the Yen), but any fears about the dollar being subject to fickle whims of politics and policy are significantly worse with those options.","\"You are violating the Uncovered Interest Rate Parity. If Country A has interest rate of 4% and Country B has interest rate of 1%, Country B's expected exchange rate must appreciate by 3% compared to spot. The \"\"persistent pressure to further depreciate\"\" doesn't magically occur by decree of the supreme leader. If there is room for risk free profit, the entire Country B would deposit their money at Country A, since Country A has higher interest rate and \"\"appreciates\"\" as you said. The entire Country A will also borrow their money at Country B. The exception is Capital Control. Certain people are given the opportunity to get the risk free profit, and the others are prohibited from making those transactions, making UIP to not hold.\"","> Trade with who? Intra asia trade. China is worlds largest trading partner. (why would anybody in asia pay middle man, american banks, just to trade with themselves? Using Yuan is instant 1.5% saving.) Dollar is mainly for financial and trade with US based countries. Even euro is less hassle than using dollar by now for asian country.","Venezuela is a command economy, and one that isn't doing terribly well right now, with rampant inflation in the several hundred percent range. As such, they've tried to limit or eliminate exchanges between their currency and foreign currencies. Currently, they allow a limited amount of exchange at fixed rates (according to a Bloomberg article, those vary between 6.3, 13.5, and 200) for certain purchases, and then otherwise disallow exchange between the currencies. However, there is a black market (illegal in Venezuela, but legal in the US) which allows the price to float, and is much higher - 800 or so according to that article from last year. A recent Valuewalk article lists the black market rate at closer to 900, and slightly different official rates. It's worth a read as it explains the different official rates in detail: Currently there are four exchange rates: First is the official one, called CENCOEX, and which charges 6.30 bolivars to the dollar. It is only intended for the importation of food and medicine. The next two exchange rates are SICAD I (12 bolivars per dollar) and SICAD 2 (50 bolivars per dollar); they assign dollars to enterprises that import all other types of goods. Because of the fact that US dollars are limited, coupons are auctioned only sporadically; usually weekly in the case of SICAD 1 and daily for SICAD 2. However, due to the economic crisis, no dollars have been allocated for these foreign exchange transactions and there hasn’t been an auction since August 18, 2015. As of November 2015, the Venezuelan government held only $16 billion in foreign exchange reserves, the lowest level in over ten years, and an amount that will dry up completely in four years time at the current rate of depletion. The last and newest exchange rate is the SIMADI, currently at 200 bolivars per dollar. This rate is reserved for the purchase and sale of foreign currency to individuals and businesses.","\"Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your \"\"rarer\"\" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible.\"","\"They acquired the debt from the VZ Central Bank. Providing the Central Bank with dollars will help them control inflation. The argument against the deal is colossally stupid, and basically rests on the idea that the world community just needs to let VZ get as shitty and miserable as possible so the people will overthrow the government. Anything that eases the pain, like injecting US Dollars into the central bank, is therefore seen as \"\"propping up the government\"\"\"","I can see that dollars are more useful than Yuan (after all, in my example, Russia may wish to buy from countries other than China). What proportion of, say, international trade by Japan with countries other than the US is conducted in dollars?","\"No. Suppose you have 100 Canadian dollars and the exchange rate is 2 CAD = 1 USD. You use your 100 CAD to purchase 50 USD (in your bank account that is in USD). Some time later the Canadian dollar grows stronger, so that now 1 CAD = 1 USD. If you now withdraw your 50 USD and get Canadian dollars, you will receive 50 CAD. You have lost half your money. If you want to make money on currency exchange rates (which is a risky plan), you should buy the currency that is cheap (i.e., \"\"weak\"\"). If, say, oil is very cheap, you don't make money by selling oil; you buy it and sell it later when the price goes up. Likewise, if the Canadian dollar isn't worth much and the US dollar is, you should buy Canadian dollars, not US dollars, hoping to sell them later when the exchange rate is more favorable. See also this similar question.\"","I don't get the big deal. Someone has to buy it. And with Europe scaring people there's not much choice out there. Unless Americans start buying more or they restrict sales to citizens, this is going to keep going. At least someone wants them","Bitcoins are very liquid. They can be sold or spent very easily. And you don't depend on the banks being solvent to keep your Bitcoin funds, since you can keep them yourself in an offline wallet. I'm not sure what's the legality of Bitcoin in Russia, though.","\"Large multinationals who do business in multiple locales hedge even \"\"stable\"\" currencies like the Euro, Yen and Pound - because a 5-10% adverse move in an exchange rate is highly consequential to the bottom line. I doubt any of them are going to be doing significant amounts of business accepting a currency with a 400% annual range. And why should they? It's nothing more than another unit of payment - one with its own problems.\"","The best would be to spend the money in US dollars. Order something from eBay/Amazon, even for resale, or pay someone in the US for services that you don't care where they're coming from, etc.","\"More to the point, once you've gone through the trouble to accumulate a hoard of dollar balances, what *else* are you going to do with it? If you're not going to buy goods and services for sale in dollars, you may as well shift some of those dollar balances into an interest-bearing account, which is what \"\"buying US debt\"\" is.\"","Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.","Currency speculation is a very risky investment strategy. But when you are looking for which currency to denote your savings in, looking at the unit value is quite pointless. What is important is how stable the currency is in the long term. You certainly don't want a currency which is prone to inflation, because it means any savings denoted in that currency constantly lose purchasing power. Rather look for a currency which has a very low inflation rate or is even deflating. Another important consideration is how easy it is to exchange between your local currency and the currency you want to own. A fortune in some exotic currency is worth nothing when no local bank will exchange it into your local currency. The big reserve currencies like US Dollar, Euro, Pound Sterling and Japanes yen are usually safe bets, but there are regional differences which can be easily converted and which can't. When the political relations between your country and the countries which manage these currencies is unstable, this might change over night. To avoid these problems, rather invest into a diverse portfolio of commodities and/or stocks. The value of these kinds of investments will automatically adjust to inflation rate, so you won't need to worry about currency fluctuation.","This is bullshit. The US government requires taxes to be paid in USD. There's your intrinsic value. If you want to be compliant with the federal law, your business and you as an individual are required to convert assets or labor into USD to pay them.","Yes, if all my savings were in Euro, I would absolutely be converting everything to US dollars, and possibly some gold. You probably don't want to sit around with lots of Euros while watching the shit hit fan. Talk to your bank, possibly they can open a US dollar bank account in your own country for you. Definitely any bank that has an international presence, like HSBC, should be able to do this for you. And if not US dollars, British Pounds would also be another option.","The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60","Basically, all the same reasons you might not want to keep piles of your own country's cash, plus or minus the exchange rate question. Banks exist for good reasons. You probably want to use them unless you are explicitly playing the exchange rate game -- And if that's what you want, there are probably better ways to do it. If you need help not touching the money, CDs or other term accounts might give you enough disincentive. Or might not.","This is exactly what they are doing. Examples would be the BRICS trading bloc and the ASEAN equivalent. Along with the trade agreements that many countries have made with Iran, all of which completely bypass the American Dollar. America needs to recognize that for many countries in the world, dumping their excess reserves in US Treasury Bonds is not in their best interest any longer. Especially considering the fiscal situation in the US, and the policies that are used to manipulate bond rates. (These policies are cross aisle, this is not a political statement) American Imperial might is finite. Americans ignore this at their own peril. Edit: I would also add the regulatory and legal uncertainty in the US is also a problem. By that I mean things like MF Global, Peregrine Financial, Knight Capital among others.","\">However, they must be willing to accept it. If you attempt to pay them in USD, however, they can't refuse. And this is precisely the problem. People should be allowed to contract in whatever money they want to. If someone changes his mind and says \"\"oh I want the dollar-equivalent instead of Francs\"\", that change shouldn't be honored. Forcing people to accept dollars creates an artificial demand for dollars. >So why not start attempting to pay for things in semiconducters? If people voluntarily choose to, what's the problem?\"","If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.","Legal tender laws and capital gains tax mean that other commodities are at an unfair legal disadvantage to local fiat currency. In other words, governments are using taxes and regulations to manipulate the market and create artificial demand for the currency their central bank has a monopoly on the creation of.","well, probably taxed a little. and taxed when they spend it, and taxed again when it is spent again. like fikirte said, this is foreign money. if the americans want access to it they have to make it easy. they've done it in the past http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/the-portfolio-interest-exemption-53348889 sorry there is a lack of sources in real english.","\">Because selling gold and buying dollars has an effect on the market: it reduces the value of gold, and increases the value of dollars. Ah, but with all the business you'd do in gold, you'd constantly be increasing the value of gold. Think of it! I'm pretty sure that most people want to be paid in dollars not simply because of the fact that their taxes have to be paid in it, but because of it's universality. Not everyone has a use for a sack of barley, or a fish, or some gold dust. But you can buy whatever you want with an amount of dollars. >As the value of gold increases over time, the government taxes the increased value as \"\"capital gains tax\"\". It's only taxed at a 15.5% rate, IIRC. You'd probably come out ahead.\"","A lot of Chinese are buying U.S. property for the sake of diversifying. A lot of Chinese still have a the grass is greener on the other side mentality when it comes to the U.S. They know very little about how many people on the U.S. are on food stamps. And a lot of people that have communist party wealth are afraid that there will be an uprising against them so they are preparing escape plans. edit: I think it's likely that the elite here in the U.S. also have escape plans.","$USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD. Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs. So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would). No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services.","I always find this funny. How can government bonds be in attractive and currency be attractive? With monetary policy America guarantees that it can't default on debt. The only thing that can happen which breaks this is if the government prints itself out of debt. In which case not only will you bonds be worthless but so will your cash. So to all the investors with boats of cash, you are trading one problem for the same problem. The only difference is you can hold the second problem in your hands. Fools.","You can, and people do. More a Japanese thing than a US thing but I guess they've had super low interest rates for longer. Its called 'the carry trade' and is the reason the NZD is artificially high (which as an NZ exporter I find kinda annoying). Particularly popular with the so called 'japanese housewife' investor. It also causes the NZD to plunge every time the US stock market dips - because the NZD is held mostly as a moderately risky investment, not for trade purposes. Presumably in a down market hedge funds need to cash in their carry trades to cover margins or something? As another person said the primary risk is currency fluctuations. Unfortunately such currencies are highly volatile and tied to stock market volatility. tl;dr It'd be nice if you all quit treating my national currency as an investment opportunity - then i could get on with my business as an New Zealand exporter ;-)","I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.","You should be able to convert this officially. As per RBI regulation an individual can hold upto USD 2000 eq for an unlimited period of time. See the point 14 on RBI FAQ's for Fx.","\"Lmao so the fact that the government \"\"could possibly switch currency\"\" negates the current demand they create? The government creates a demand for USD. That alone is enough to say dollars have intrinsic value. Add to that the fact that there are trillions of dollars in outstanding government bonds that are required to be paid out in USD when they mature. Changing the currency would be considered a form of default by many and could have massive negative consequence far outweighing the benefits of the rapid adoption of blockchain. Even if they stopped issuing bonds today they would still have ones maturing until 2047. It's like saying bananas don't have monetary value because people might decide to stop buying them. Yeah, it's true they would lose value if that happened but as of today it's just not true\"","I don't see countries switching to the USD, I see countries moving away from it. The US has the largest peace time debt ever, is not being even close to fiscally responsible (approving ~4 trillion budget!) and is faced with 100 trillion in future commitments (social security, medicare) with a workforce (tax base) that is decreasing as the baby boomers retire. When the US cannot meet those obligations (and most experts agree there is no hope of that anymore) they will have to print money and devalue the currency.","Yes. But the question is do you want to have gold? If you are going to buy gold anyway, and if you can get a good conversion rate between USD:gold, then why not? If you are looking to use your earnings on things that you cannot buy using gold, then I'd recommend you take USD instead. Have fun!","\"US currency, today, can be used for useful things like selling a car, but there's nothing stopping you for trading it for something else. On edit; I've been thinking about this, and I think that the problem is that currency exists as a. edium to pay taxes. The usefulness of it for non-governmental transactions is a secondary benefit. However, without them full faith and credit ofma government somewhere the currency would be worthless. For example, see Zimbbwean currency or any non-convertible currency. *extra edit--altogether too many \"\"m's.\"\"\"","It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.","It's called carry-trade. They can borrow from governments that have 0% int rates, exchange it for dollars, and then buy u.s. treasuries. Japan would never ever raise their interest rates as their economy runs on keynesian fumes.","The other obvious suggestion I guess is to buy cheap stocks and bonds (maybe in a dollar denominated fund). If the US dollar rises you'd then get both the fund's US gains plus currency gains. However, no guarantee the US dollar will rise or when. Perhaps a more prudent approach is to simply diversify. Buy both domestic and foreign stocks and bonds. Rebalance regularly.","Mainly because I have it and you don't, I can make you do stuff for it because more of us perceive its value than bother about the paper you are holding. Picture if you will a moment in time, when the paper you are holding, represented the amount of gold you had at home, as time went by you spent all your gold and the amount the paper represented, became less and less and the amount of lunch you could buy with it became less and less. Today the day has arrived, that you have no gold left and what your paper represents is an empty coffer . . Move along . .people who can pay for their lunch are waiting and look, the paper they hold represents gold they have.","Less than 2 1/2% of all US currency actually exists. The rest is digital entries. In a financial crisis you'll need lots of rare cash. Twenty dollar bills are the best choice. Stash as many as you can afford to. Best to stash in a anchored security safe. And for goodness sakes, don't tell anyone.","Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant","Moronic question I'm sure. Listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast and they mentioned that the vast majority of financial transactions in China and even North Korea are denominated in US dollars. They go on to say that this means they HAVE to go through US banks giving the US tremendous leverage. Can someone explain this whole idea to me. 1. Why do transactions done in US dollars have to go through US banks? 2. Does that leverage the US has just come from our ability to prevent transactions from occurring if they are run through our banks?","Arguably, the only reason the US can print dollar without massive repercussions on devaluing it is because of it is the world's reserve currency, backed by oil. This has allowed to US to build the world's biggest and most powerful army because they can easily borrow money to fund it. Everyone needs oil for their economy, therefore everyone needs dollars...","Would it be a reasonable idea to open a savings account in an overseas bank? For the risks you mention, this may not be a good idea for individual. Note HNI / Companies routinely keep funds in various overseas account. For individual the amount of paperwork [reporting in US etc] and fees etc would be high. Plus in adverse conditions, access to this funds would still be stringent and restricted. Some of the other options you can try are Generally for the risks you mention, there is very little an individual can do except to take it if & when it comes.","One option is buying physical gold. I don't know about Irish law -- but from an economic standpoint, putting funds in foreign currencies would also be an option. You could look into buying shares in an ETF tracking foreign currency as an alternative to direct money exchange.","\"I still don't understand this \"\"analysis.\"\" Even when the US became the world's largest economy in 1880, the British Pound remained the reserve currency of choice until the 1950s, some seventy years later! Investors prefer stability and property rights and the US has both, especially when considering the alternatives, i.e. Euro tax takings on bank deposits in Cyprus. What about the yuan? China may have recently surpassed US economic power, but it is very likely in the midst of a massive credit bubble. China has also been fudging some of their numbers and in many cases, chooses not to keep economic records at all. The fact that many Chinese elites themselves are buying property in Vancouver and the US as a safe harbor also does not bode well for their systemic problems IMO. I'm sticking with the dollar for now.\"","Currencies don't have intrinsic value. Just because you have to pay taxes in USD does not mean it has intrinsic value. The government could theoretically switch currency every second, not that that will ever happen. But yes the USD is supported by the US government and that's like a safety net for the value of the USD. Bitcoin doesn't have a government accepting bitcoin in taxes (except maybe liberland or something) so BTC doesn't have that safenet. But with such a liquid market and millions of buyorders bitcoin doesn't really need a safenet. There will always be demand. I prefer a scarce currency with growing demand than an inflationary currency backed by a corrupt government that loses value over time.","Use other currencies, if available. I'm not familiar with the banking system in South Africa; if they haven't placed any currency freezes or restrictions, you might want to do this sooner than later. In full crises, like Russian and Ukraine, once the crisis worsened, they started limiting purchases of foreign currencies. PayPal might allow currency swaps (it implies that it does at the bottom of this page); if not, I know Uphold does. Short the currency Brokerage in the US allow us to short the US Dollar. If banks allow you to short the ZAR, you can always use that for protection. I looked at the interest rates in the ZAR to see how the central bank is offsetting this currency crisis - WOW - I'd be running, not walking toward the nearest exit. A USA analogy during the late 70s/early 80s would be Paul Volcker holding interest rates at 2.5%, thinking that would contain 10% inflation. Bitcoin Comes with significant risks itself, but if you use it as a temporary medium of exchange for swaps - like Uphold or with some bitcoin exchanges like BTC-e - you can get other currencies by converting to bitcoin then swapping for other assets. Bitcoin's strength is remitting and swapping; holding on to it is high risk. Commodities I think these are higher risk right now as part of the ZAR's problem is that it's heavily reliant on commodities. I looked at your stock market to see how well it's done, and I also see that it's done poorly too and I think the commodity bloodbath has something to do with that. If you know of any commodity that can stay stable during uncertainty, like food that doesn't expire, you can at least buy without worrying about costs rising in the future. I always joke that if hyperinflation happened in the United States, everyone would wish they lived in Utah.","Currently many countries (and non-government bodies) hold dollars to facilitate trade. If the dollar is no longer used in their trade, then they no longer have a reason to hold those dollars. If every other country starts to dump their dollar holdings into the world currency markets, the number of dollars floating around in those market would shoot up. The massive supply increase of dollars (we're assuming these other countries are holding massive amounts of dollars) would lead to a large drop in value of the dollar - lots more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Every purchase will become much more expensive for anyone still buying with dollars, including the American government trying to buy expensive military equipment - unless the US government also switches to using something else to purchase military supplies.","Yeah, I heard about that! That's virtually the same thing (in a different form) as a new currency as it's backed solely by the state's ability to uphold its value, but yes, given that it's trading for pennies on the dollar it's no surprise the USD is the primary currency there. It will be very interesting to see the policies that Mugabe's successor (his ex-wife or #2) puts in place. Either way I bet they fail, but hope they don't and actually make the necessary reforms to help the country succeed.","It could be a a way to preserve the value of your money, but depends upon various factors. If a country defaults, and it leads to hyper-inflation, by definition that means that money loses its purchasing power. In even simpler terms, it cannot buy as much tomorrow as I could today. Therefore people can be incented to either hoard physical goods, or other non-perishable items. Real-estate may well be such an item. If you are resident in the country, you have to live somewhere. It is possible that a landlord might try to raise rent beyond what your job is willing to pay. Of course, in a house, you might have a similar situation with utilities like electricity... Assuming some kind of re-stabilization of the economy and currency, even with several more zeros on the end, it is conceivable that the house would subsequently sell for an appropriately inflation adjusted amount, as other in-demand physical goods may. Lots of variables. Good Luck.","Because we need energy in the form of oil. If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves. Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?","\"Iraq is a US vassal/puppet state. I'm not sure what 500 South Vietnamese Dong were worth in 1972, but today the paper currency is worth $10 in mint condition. I'd suggest blackjack or craps as an alternate \"\"investment\"\".\"","Quite a lot of reasons but mostly supply and demand. Some areas of Africa are extremely remote and just don't have things there that some of the population now want. I would guess it won't be like this for much longer but right now it is and i have met plenty of people taking advantage of that fact.","The idea being that if / when the CAD recovers I could see a gain of ~30%. That is the big if, maybe the USD and CAD will return to their previous exchange rates, maybe the CAD will fall further, you just don't know. You should try to keep a diversified pool of investments, that may include some cash in various currencies but unless you think you will need the money in the next few years it should probablly be mostly in other things. If you do think you will need the money in the next few years it should probablly be in a currency that is stable relative to the things you are likely to need it for.","Traveller's cheques. That's exactly what they were intended for. Their usage has dropped a lot since everyone can use ATMs in foreign countries, but they still exist.","Perhaps the world does not like a Global economy dominated by a Fucking Moron, Perhaps the world does not see a future in a Jew dominated Fed that can print whatever it thinks sounds like fun and then lend it to the US treasury in an insurmountable mountain of debt. Gosh . . .isn't the FED supposed to be pretending to unwind all that 0 market valuation crap from 2008 ? I wonder if there are even any houses after a decade","I'm in Argentina and they limit the daily withdrawals to 1000 pesos a day (about $220). The gov't just put limits on withdrawing dollars here, which is how Argentines have typically saved their money. The people are NOT happy.","Further evidence that the love of money is the root of all evil. Money is useless if not transformed into something material. Apparently Americans are duped by the wealth effect. If their portfolio has high numbers they feel rich and impoverish themselves by spending more of their income even though it is just ink and paper unless transformed into something tangible. Fools. The hoarders of money must be afraid they would run out, expose they have no usefull skills and have to do actual work for a living.","\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"","At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.","Sure thing - Treasuries Bonds/Bills are what the US Gov uses to borrow. However it's slightly different than taking out a loan. It's basically an agreement to give (repay) a set sum of money at a certain time in the future in exchange for a sum of funding that's determined by market forces (supply & demand). The difference between today's price and the payment in the future is the interest. For example (completely made up numbers): - Today is 08/05/2017 - The government issues a bond that say it will pay who ever owns this bond $105 on 08/05/**2018** - The market decides that $105 from the US government paid a year from now is worth $100 today. In other words the US Government is borrowing for one year at a rate of 5% (105 - 100) / 100 = .05 = 5% Now consider Saudi Arabia's petroleum company, Aramco. Because petroleum is traded in dollars, when Aramco makes a sale, its paid in USD. Some of that is going to be reinvested into the company, some paid out in dividends to share holders but inevitably some of that will be saved someplace where it can make interest. Because treasuries are traded/issued in dollars and because Aramco's businesses deals primarily in dollars, treasuries are the natural place to store that savings, especially because the market considers them extremely safe. If they exchange the USD into the Saudi currency to store the money in Saudi assets, Aramco is subject to *exchange rate risk*. If the riyal depreciates relative to the dollar, Aramco will lose wealth on the exchange back to dollars when they go to move those funds back into their business. It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this. So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%. (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9% And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful.","Considering the historical political instability of your nation, real property may have higher risk than normal. In times of political strife, real estate plummets, precisely when the money's needed. At worst, the property may be seized by the next government. Also, keeping the money within the country is even more risky because bank accounts are normally looted by either the entering gov't or exiting one. The safest long run strategy with the most potential for your family is to get the money out into various stable nations with good history of protecting foreign investors such as Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong. Once out, the highest expected return can be expected from internationally diversified equities; however, it should be known that the value will be very variant year to year.","\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \"\"believe it is money\"\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\"","Not really practical... The real problem is getting the money into a form where you *can* invest it in something. It's not like E\\*Trade will let you FedEx them a briefcase of sequentially numbered hundreds and just credit your account, no questions asked. That **is** the hard part.","Money, like anything else, is subject to the demands of people. There are times when money is in high demand. This drives up its value. People in Japan want cash because they have an immediate need to buy emergency supplies as well as rebuild and replace damaged items. This is why the yen strengthened. This is probably why the market plummeted as people liquidated some of their stocks to get cash. The Bank Of Japan (BOJ) will not stand for a rising yen, however. It is pulling a Bernanke and printing yen in an effort to keep it weak.","Public debt and risk of currency devaluation are two very, very different things. Until the BRICS are able to buy commodities on a significant scale using a market basket of their own currencies, the USD will remain one of the (if not the) safest currencies in the world.","Dollars are bits you don't control. The banking system has your bits and they can charge you more bits to move your bits around. At any point, they could freeze your accounts and suddenly you have no bits. It's all designed to make it so you can't function in society without them controlling your bits.","Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)","Because people trade currency in exchange for goods and services. They can easily prevent competition by violent means or by having control of the market through market share. Price can be controlled by the threat of super low prices in order to drive out competing businesses.","> it makes US investments even better because the rate of return gets boosted higher. Except it doesn't. Do they really teach this? Does anyone have a link to textbook thinking on this subject, because that's a blatant lie and might explain why so many people understand the dynamics at work here completely wrong.","Petrodollars are specifically dollars earned from oil revenue. They are not synonymous with the US dollar. It should be clear that the US dollar is not backed by oil since we just recently witnessed the priced in US dollars drop precipitously while the US dollar gained against a basket of currencies.","This crisis just shows why the dollar has no chance in my lifetime of loding it's dominance. Russia is a major world player, were taking what seemed right steps to move forward economically, socially, politically. Yet this crisis shows the truth. Media controlled by the kremlin. Taking actions in other countries. No fear of economic hardships due to political issues. Who else could supplant the US dollar? China is in the same boat as Russia. Still not a free society. SO what's left? The Euro. But it's got a long way to go to show it can remain stable. Give it 50 years and get back to me.","why should i have to make something with my cash? i'll fuking hold it and face losing a few percentage of purchasing power. i'd rather have liquity in these peril times. besides, people that held cash in 2008 had a once in a life time buying opportunity when all assets fell 60-90%.","I think you are asking quite a few questions here; If you have Rs 10000, its better you get it converted in India before you leave. Most Banks and Exchange houses like Western Union would take Rupees and Give you USD. What do they do with USD, there are other who give them USD and need Rupees. They make a spread in this process. If you are getting a salary in USD in US, whenever you want to transfer money to India, the Banks or Remittance services like Western Union would take USD from your US Account and Transfter equivalent Money into your Bank Account in India in Rupees. They will tell the exchange rate applicable. Depending on why visa type & the duration you are going, your company should be able to tell you your tax liabilities in the US. Read similar questions here to get a general idea.","First, currencies are not an investment; they are a medium of exchange; that is, you use currency to buy goods and services and/or investments. The goods and services you intend to buy in your retirement are presumably going to be bought in your country; to buy these you will need your country's currency. The investments you intend to buy now require the currency of whatever country they are located in. If you want to buy shares in Microsoft you need USD; if you want shares in BHP-Billiton you need AUD or GBP (It is traded on two exchanges), if you want property in Kuwait you need KWD and if you want bonds in your country you need IDR. When you sell these later to buy the goods and services you were saving for you need to convert from whatever currency you get for selling them into whatever currency you need to buy. When you invest you are taking on risk for which you expect to be compensated for - the higher the risk you take the better the returns had better be because there is always the chance that they will be negative, right down to losing it all if you are unlucky. There is no 100% safe investment; if you want to make sure you get full value for your money spend it all right now! If you invest overseas then, in addition to all the other investment risks, you are adding currency risk as well. That is, the risk that when you redeem your investments the overseas currency will have fallen relative you your currency. One of the best ways of mitigating risk is diversification; which allows the same return at a lower risk (or a higher return at the same risk). A pure equity portfolio is not diversified across asset classes (hopefully it is diversified across the equities). Equities are a high risk-high yield class; particularly in a developing economy like Indonesia. If you are very young with a decades long investment horizon this may be OK but even then, a diversified portfolio will probably offer better rewards at the same risk. Diversifying into local cash, bonds and property with a little foreign equities, bonds and property will serve you better than worrying about the strength of the IDR. Oh, and pay a professional for some real advice rather than listening to strangers on the internet.",">We collectively agree that a dollar has a certain value. That's it. We believe in money. Welcome to the collective delusion of fiat currency. You mean 12 richest families in charge of FED make you think it has value? Once you realize this, you'll soon understand how is US's everlasting involvement in (provoking) wars across the globe financed, where from, and most importantly why. Once other nations exclude US dollar as a valid currency (India, Russia and China have already), US dollar is going to be less and less valuable until it's worth nothing (as it actually is all along as it has no leverage). Maybe we better rebel against an inevitable doom of US economy now when you can actually use it to buy other commodities than wait to use them as firestarters 10-20 years down the road.","\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \"\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\"\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \"\"mark to market accounting\"\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\"","\"Economics is not hard science. Economics is really just a study of what people do and why. The best book to read to understand why people protect their wealth when the government threatens it is \"\"[Human Action](http://mises.org/document/3250)\"\" by Ludwig von Mises. Check it out. It will answer all of your questions with a lot more logic than research. Economic research on macro subjects can prove any preconceived theorem, therefore it is worse than logic because it purports to \"\"prove\"\" what are, in the end, only opinions.\"","By the way, be nice to Mexicans. You might have to sneak into Mexico as illegal immigrant when dollar crashes and revolution follows an hyper inflation :) Don't be mad at me, be mad at your idiot and puppet politicians who are killing the American dream.","They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing. Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong. Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \\\"\\\"black\\\"\\\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As a Venezuelan who used to buy USD, I believe there is not better explanation than the one given to someone who actually lives and works here in Venezuela. Back in 1998 when Hugo Chavez took the presidency, we had a good economy. Fast forward 10 years laters and you could see how poor management, corruption and communist measurements had wreaked havoc in our Economy. It was because most of the money (USD) coming in Venezuela were not invested here but instead, given away to \\\"\\\"pimp countries\\\"\\\" like Cuba. Remember, communism lasts while you have money. Back then we had an Oil Barrel going over 100$ and crazy amounts of money were coming in the country. However, little to no money was invested in the country itself. That is why some of the richest people with bank account in Swiss are Venezuelans who stole huge amounts of Oil Money. I know this is a lot to take in, but all of this led to Venezuelan economy being the worst in The American Continent and because there is not enough money inside the country to satisfy the inner market, people would pay overprice to have anything that is bought abroad. You have to consider that only a very small amount of people can actually buy USD here in Venezuela. Back in 2013 I was doing it, I could buy about 80 usd/month with my monthly income. However, nowdays that's nearly impossible for about 99% of Venezuelans. To Illustrate. Minimum wage = 10.000 bolivares / month Black market exchange rate (As of January 2016) = 900bs per 1usd 10.000/900 = 11,11 usd. <<< that is what about 50% of Venezuelans earn every month. That's why this happens: http://i.imgur.com/dPOC2e3.jpg The guy is holding a huge stack of money of the highest Venezuelan note, which he got from exchanging only 100 usd. I am a computer science engineer, the monthly income for someone like me is about 30.000 bolivares --- so that is about 34$ a month. oh dear! So finally, answering your question Q: Why do people buy USD even at this unfavorable rate? A: There are many reasons but being the main 2 the following 1.- Inflation in Venezuela is crazy high. The inflation from 2014-2015 was 241%. Which means that having The Venezuelan currency (Bolivares) in your bank account makes no sense... in two weeks you won't be able to buy half of the things you used to with the same amount of money. 2.- A huge amount of Venezuelans dream with living abroad (me included) why, you ask? well sir, it is certain that life in this country is not the best: I hope you can understand better why people in 3rd world countries and crappy economies buy USD even at an unfavorable rate. The last question was: Q: Why would Venezuela want to block the sale of dollars? A: Centralized currency management is an Economic Measure that should last 6 months tops. (This was Argentina's case in 2013) but at this point, reverting that would take quite a few years. However, Turukawa's wikipedia link explains that very well. Regards.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \\\"\\\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\\\"\\\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I suspect that to \\\"\\\"make money\\\"\\\" it isn't enough to know the current value (\\\"\\\"high currency\\\"\\\"): to make money you'd need to know/guess/predict/bet on the future change in value: will the currency value go higher in the future? Or will it come down again? Or will it stay the same? Everybody knows the current value, so that by itself isn't enough knowledge to make money from. That said, if you know you're going to need American dollars in the future (if you have future expenses which need to be paid in American dollars), then now might be a good time to buy those dollars.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \\\"\\\"root value\\\"\\\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\\\"\",\n \"Well, sure, why else would you buy them? Is it illegal now to accept money *from* PDVSA? Because I know my company does business with them, and if we are going to ship what we built for them, we need to see the money.\",\n \"Weather events and aging infrastructure. Cash will buy gasoline, food and water when there is no power or telephone connectivity to process ATMs and credit cards.\",\n \"Typically, the higher interest rates in local currency cover about the potential gain from the currency exchange rate change - if not, people would make money out of it. However, you only know this after the fact, so either way you are taking a risk. Depending on where the local economy goes, it is more secure to go with US$, or more risky. Your guess is as good as anyone. If you see a chance for a serious meltdown of the local economy, with 100+% inflation ratios and possibly new money, you are probably better off with US$. On the other hand, if the economy develops better than expected, you might have lost some percentage of gain. Generally, investing in a more stable currency gets you slightly less, but for less risk.\",\n \"Devaluation is a relative term, so if you want to protect yourself against devaluation of your currency against dollars - just buy dollars. Inflation is something you cannot protect yourself against because it is something that describes the purchasing power of the money. You will still need to purchase, and usually with money. A side effect of inflation is usually devaluation against other currencies. So one of the ways to deal with inflation is not to keep the money in your currency over time, and only convert from a more stable currency when you need to make purchases. Another way is to invest in something tangible that can easily be sold (for example, jewelery and precious metals, but it has other risks). Re whats legal and illegal in your country - we don't really know because you didn't tell what country that is to begin with, but the usual channels like travelers' checks or bank transfer should work. Carrying large amounts of cash are usually either illegal or strictly regulated.\",\n \"Transfer your savings to a dollar-based CD. Or even better, buy some gold on them.\",\n \"Just because pricing isn't tracked, doesn't mean the dollar price is not backed up by oil (they are others factors involved, of course). But the very fact that OPEC, the worlds largest oil cartel, currently only trade in dollars, effectively means that everyone who wants oil needs dollars to buy it. Therefore, to function in modern global economy, dollars are always needed regardless of exchange rates or interest rates on bonds. In reality the amount debt the US has backed up against its currency wouldn't hold for any other country, apart from US, with its petrodollar status.\",\n \"\\\"To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the \\\"\\\"real economy\\\"\\\" is to \\\"\\\"lock in\\\"\\\" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to \\\"\\\"lock in\\\"\\\" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to \\\"\\\"sit on\\\"\\\" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me.\\\"\",\n \"> Hence all businesses in the US, no matter what currency they make money in, have to buy USD to pay their taxes. So that means that means other currencies are valueless since X government doesn't see Y currency as a means of payment? Also, you don't buy so much as trade but potatoes potatos.\",\n \"It's already gone through a big correction, but another crash is a possibility. But if the US economy keeps eroding it's going to become more of a safe haven. Also Goldman Sachs sees it as an investment option, so that's a sign financial houses are interested (and not a good sign for the dollar).\",\n \"You need wealth in order to have a sovereign wealth fund. The countries that do it are usually petro states such as Norway and Saudi Arabia. Since petrol is in dollars, they sell oil and get dollars. They need a way to then spend this money, hence the wealth fund.\",\n \"First question: Any, probably all, of the above. Second question: The risk is that the currency will become worth less, or even worthless. Most will resort to the printing press (inflation) which will tank the currency's purchasing power. A different currency will have the same problem, but possibly less so than yours. Real estate is a good deal. So are eggs, if you were to ask a Weimar Germany farmer. People will always need food and shelter.\",\n \"\\\"Generally speaking, so-called \\\"\\\"hard assets\\\"\\\" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a \\\"\\\"harder\\\"\\\" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"That oil is traded in USD makes for extra demand and thus a stronger dollar with more purchasing power. It's not really economics that are the issue though - many might argue a weakened dollar might help the US economy (cheaper exports). The real issue is power. These gold backed securities make it so that certain countries can get around US sanctions. Not to mention that controlling the currency that oil is traded in means the US can devalue their currency to gain an advantage in the event of a shortage. Also, because petroleum is traded in dollars, this means treasury bonds are a natural place to store wealth for oil producers. High demand for these bonds makes it cheap for the US government to borrow and easier to make interest payments thus making T-Bonds a \\\"\\\"safe\\\"\\\" asset.\\\"\",\n \">And a lot of people that have communist party wealth are afraid that there will be an uprising against them so they are preparing escape plans. My guess would be more along these lines (albeit maybe a bit less dramatic). There were a lot of dubious things that Party members did over the past hundred years to stash away cash for themselves. Siphoning off public resources, investing with them, and as long as the investments made money, keeping the results, for example, played a significant role in some of the complaints that farmers had about local officials. If they keep money in China, and there's some sort of fallout or charges that go through, my guess is that it's a lot easier to seize a corrupt official's resources. On the other hand, if you just bought a bunch of land in the US...that's a lot less easily-seizable and harder to immediately get ahold of for Chinese officials. There's also the more legit possibility that China quite arguably has a real estate bubble in investable real estate, and the result is that if you want to invest in land and reduce your risk to a bubble deflating, you want to do so overseas.\",\n \"The dollar is the reserve currency of choice because the full faith and credit of the US is big, liquid, and stable compared to any currently-available alternative. The Euro and Yuan are big enough to displace the dollar (and maybe the Yen), but any fears about the dollar being subject to fickle whims of politics and policy are significantly worse with those options.\",\n \"\\\"You are violating the Uncovered Interest Rate Parity. If Country A has interest rate of 4% and Country B has interest rate of 1%, Country B's expected exchange rate must appreciate by 3% compared to spot. The \\\"\\\"persistent pressure to further depreciate\\\"\\\" doesn't magically occur by decree of the supreme leader. If there is room for risk free profit, the entire Country B would deposit their money at Country A, since Country A has higher interest rate and \\\"\\\"appreciates\\\"\\\" as you said. The entire Country A will also borrow their money at Country B. The exception is Capital Control. Certain people are given the opportunity to get the risk free profit, and the others are prohibited from making those transactions, making UIP to not hold.\\\"\",\n \"> Trade with who? Intra asia trade. China is worlds largest trading partner. (why would anybody in asia pay middle man, american banks, just to trade with themselves? Using Yuan is instant 1.5% saving.) Dollar is mainly for financial and trade with US based countries. Even euro is less hassle than using dollar by now for asian country.\",\n \"Venezuela is a command economy, and one that isn't doing terribly well right now, with rampant inflation in the several hundred percent range. As such, they've tried to limit or eliminate exchanges between their currency and foreign currencies. Currently, they allow a limited amount of exchange at fixed rates (according to a Bloomberg article, those vary between 6.3, 13.5, and 200) for certain purchases, and then otherwise disallow exchange between the currencies. However, there is a black market (illegal in Venezuela, but legal in the US) which allows the price to float, and is much higher - 800 or so according to that article from last year. A recent Valuewalk article lists the black market rate at closer to 900, and slightly different official rates. It's worth a read as it explains the different official rates in detail: Currently there are four exchange rates: First is the official one, called CENCOEX, and which charges 6.30 bolivars to the dollar. It is only intended for the importation of food and medicine. The next two exchange rates are SICAD I (12 bolivars per dollar) and SICAD 2 (50 bolivars per dollar); they assign dollars to enterprises that import all other types of goods. Because of the fact that US dollars are limited, coupons are auctioned only sporadically; usually weekly in the case of SICAD 1 and daily for SICAD 2. However, due to the economic crisis, no dollars have been allocated for these foreign exchange transactions and there hasn’t been an auction since August 18, 2015. As of November 2015, the Venezuelan government held only $16 billion in foreign exchange reserves, the lowest level in over ten years, and an amount that will dry up completely in four years time at the current rate of depletion. The last and newest exchange rate is the SIMADI, currently at 200 bolivars per dollar. This rate is reserved for the purchase and sale of foreign currency to individuals and businesses.\",\n \"\\\"Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your \\\"\\\"rarer\\\"\\\" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"They acquired the debt from the VZ Central Bank. Providing the Central Bank with dollars will help them control inflation. The argument against the deal is colossally stupid, and basically rests on the idea that the world community just needs to let VZ get as shitty and miserable as possible so the people will overthrow the government. Anything that eases the pain, like injecting US Dollars into the central bank, is therefore seen as \\\"\\\"propping up the government\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"I can see that dollars are more useful than Yuan (after all, in my example, Russia may wish to buy from countries other than China). What proportion of, say, international trade by Japan with countries other than the US is conducted in dollars?\",\n \"\\\"No. Suppose you have 100 Canadian dollars and the exchange rate is 2 CAD = 1 USD. You use your 100 CAD to purchase 50 USD (in your bank account that is in USD). Some time later the Canadian dollar grows stronger, so that now 1 CAD = 1 USD. If you now withdraw your 50 USD and get Canadian dollars, you will receive 50 CAD. You have lost half your money. If you want to make money on currency exchange rates (which is a risky plan), you should buy the currency that is cheap (i.e., \\\"\\\"weak\\\"\\\"). If, say, oil is very cheap, you don't make money by selling oil; you buy it and sell it later when the price goes up. Likewise, if the Canadian dollar isn't worth much and the US dollar is, you should buy Canadian dollars, not US dollars, hoping to sell them later when the exchange rate is more favorable. See also this similar question.\\\"\",\n \"I don't get the big deal. Someone has to buy it. And with Europe scaring people there's not much choice out there. Unless Americans start buying more or they restrict sales to citizens, this is going to keep going. At least someone wants them\",\n \"Bitcoins are very liquid. They can be sold or spent very easily. And you don't depend on the banks being solvent to keep your Bitcoin funds, since you can keep them yourself in an offline wallet. I'm not sure what's the legality of Bitcoin in Russia, though.\",\n \"\\\"Large multinationals who do business in multiple locales hedge even \\\"\\\"stable\\\"\\\" currencies like the Euro, Yen and Pound - because a 5-10% adverse move in an exchange rate is highly consequential to the bottom line. I doubt any of them are going to be doing significant amounts of business accepting a currency with a 400% annual range. And why should they? It's nothing more than another unit of payment - one with its own problems.\\\"\",\n \"The best would be to spend the money in US dollars. Order something from eBay/Amazon, even for resale, or pay someone in the US for services that you don't care where they're coming from, etc.\",\n \"\\\"More to the point, once you've gone through the trouble to accumulate a hoard of dollar balances, what *else* are you going to do with it? If you're not going to buy goods and services for sale in dollars, you may as well shift some of those dollar balances into an interest-bearing account, which is what \\\"\\\"buying US debt\\\"\\\" is.\\\"\",\n \"Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.\",\n \"Currency speculation is a very risky investment strategy. But when you are looking for which currency to denote your savings in, looking at the unit value is quite pointless. What is important is how stable the currency is in the long term. You certainly don't want a currency which is prone to inflation, because it means any savings denoted in that currency constantly lose purchasing power. Rather look for a currency which has a very low inflation rate or is even deflating. Another important consideration is how easy it is to exchange between your local currency and the currency you want to own. A fortune in some exotic currency is worth nothing when no local bank will exchange it into your local currency. The big reserve currencies like US Dollar, Euro, Pound Sterling and Japanes yen are usually safe bets, but there are regional differences which can be easily converted and which can't. When the political relations between your country and the countries which manage these currencies is unstable, this might change over night. To avoid these problems, rather invest into a diverse portfolio of commodities and/or stocks. The value of these kinds of investments will automatically adjust to inflation rate, so you won't need to worry about currency fluctuation.\",\n \"This is bullshit. The US government requires taxes to be paid in USD. There's your intrinsic value. If you want to be compliant with the federal law, your business and you as an individual are required to convert assets or labor into USD to pay them.\",\n \"Yes, if all my savings were in Euro, I would absolutely be converting everything to US dollars, and possibly some gold. You probably don't want to sit around with lots of Euros while watching the shit hit fan. Talk to your bank, possibly they can open a US dollar bank account in your own country for you. Definitely any bank that has an international presence, like HSBC, should be able to do this for you. And if not US dollars, British Pounds would also be another option.\",\n \"The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60\",\n \"Basically, all the same reasons you might not want to keep piles of your own country's cash, plus or minus the exchange rate question. Banks exist for good reasons. You probably want to use them unless you are explicitly playing the exchange rate game -- And if that's what you want, there are probably better ways to do it. If you need help not touching the money, CDs or other term accounts might give you enough disincentive. Or might not.\",\n \"This is exactly what they are doing. Examples would be the BRICS trading bloc and the ASEAN equivalent. Along with the trade agreements that many countries have made with Iran, all of which completely bypass the American Dollar. America needs to recognize that for many countries in the world, dumping their excess reserves in US Treasury Bonds is not in their best interest any longer. Especially considering the fiscal situation in the US, and the policies that are used to manipulate bond rates. (These policies are cross aisle, this is not a political statement) American Imperial might is finite. Americans ignore this at their own peril. Edit: I would also add the regulatory and legal uncertainty in the US is also a problem. By that I mean things like MF Global, Peregrine Financial, Knight Capital among others.\",\n \"\\\">However, they must be willing to accept it. If you attempt to pay them in USD, however, they can't refuse. And this is precisely the problem. People should be allowed to contract in whatever money they want to. If someone changes his mind and says \\\"\\\"oh I want the dollar-equivalent instead of Francs\\\"\\\", that change shouldn't be honored. Forcing people to accept dollars creates an artificial demand for dollars. >So why not start attempting to pay for things in semiconducters? If people voluntarily choose to, what's the problem?\\\"\",\n \"If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.\",\n \"Legal tender laws and capital gains tax mean that other commodities are at an unfair legal disadvantage to local fiat currency. In other words, governments are using taxes and regulations to manipulate the market and create artificial demand for the currency their central bank has a monopoly on the creation of.\",\n \"well, probably taxed a little. and taxed when they spend it, and taxed again when it is spent again. like fikirte said, this is foreign money. if the americans want access to it they have to make it easy. they've done it in the past http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/the-portfolio-interest-exemption-53348889 sorry there is a lack of sources in real english.\",\n \"\\\">Because selling gold and buying dollars has an effect on the market: it reduces the value of gold, and increases the value of dollars. Ah, but with all the business you'd do in gold, you'd constantly be increasing the value of gold. Think of it! I'm pretty sure that most people want to be paid in dollars not simply because of the fact that their taxes have to be paid in it, but because of it's universality. Not everyone has a use for a sack of barley, or a fish, or some gold dust. But you can buy whatever you want with an amount of dollars. >As the value of gold increases over time, the government taxes the increased value as \\\"\\\"capital gains tax\\\"\\\". It's only taxed at a 15.5% rate, IIRC. You'd probably come out ahead.\\\"\",\n \"A lot of Chinese are buying U.S. property for the sake of diversifying. A lot of Chinese still have a the grass is greener on the other side mentality when it comes to the U.S. They know very little about how many people on the U.S. are on food stamps. And a lot of people that have communist party wealth are afraid that there will be an uprising against them so they are preparing escape plans. edit: I think it's likely that the elite here in the U.S. also have escape plans.\",\n \"$USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD. Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs. So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would). No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services.\",\n \"I always find this funny. How can government bonds be in attractive and currency be attractive? With monetary policy America guarantees that it can't default on debt. The only thing that can happen which breaks this is if the government prints itself out of debt. In which case not only will you bonds be worthless but so will your cash. So to all the investors with boats of cash, you are trading one problem for the same problem. The only difference is you can hold the second problem in your hands. Fools.\",\n \"You can, and people do. More a Japanese thing than a US thing but I guess they've had super low interest rates for longer. Its called 'the carry trade' and is the reason the NZD is artificially high (which as an NZ exporter I find kinda annoying). Particularly popular with the so called 'japanese housewife' investor. It also causes the NZD to plunge every time the US stock market dips - because the NZD is held mostly as a moderately risky investment, not for trade purposes. Presumably in a down market hedge funds need to cash in their carry trades to cover margins or something? As another person said the primary risk is currency fluctuations. Unfortunately such currencies are highly volatile and tied to stock market volatility. tl;dr It'd be nice if you all quit treating my national currency as an investment opportunity - then i could get on with my business as an New Zealand exporter ;-)\",\n \"I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.\",\n \"You should be able to convert this officially. As per RBI regulation an individual can hold upto USD 2000 eq for an unlimited period of time. See the point 14 on RBI FAQ's for Fx.\",\n \"\\\"Lmao so the fact that the government \\\"\\\"could possibly switch currency\\\"\\\" negates the current demand they create? The government creates a demand for USD. That alone is enough to say dollars have intrinsic value. Add to that the fact that there are trillions of dollars in outstanding government bonds that are required to be paid out in USD when they mature. Changing the currency would be considered a form of default by many and could have massive negative consequence far outweighing the benefits of the rapid adoption of blockchain. Even if they stopped issuing bonds today they would still have ones maturing until 2047. It's like saying bananas don't have monetary value because people might decide to stop buying them. Yeah, it's true they would lose value if that happened but as of today it's just not true\\\"\",\n \"I don't see countries switching to the USD, I see countries moving away from it. The US has the largest peace time debt ever, is not being even close to fiscally responsible (approving ~4 trillion budget!) and is faced with 100 trillion in future commitments (social security, medicare) with a workforce (tax base) that is decreasing as the baby boomers retire. When the US cannot meet those obligations (and most experts agree there is no hope of that anymore) they will have to print money and devalue the currency.\",\n \"Yes. But the question is do you want to have gold? If you are going to buy gold anyway, and if you can get a good conversion rate between USD:gold, then why not? If you are looking to use your earnings on things that you cannot buy using gold, then I'd recommend you take USD instead. Have fun!\",\n \"\\\"US currency, today, can be used for useful things like selling a car, but there's nothing stopping you for trading it for something else. On edit; I've been thinking about this, and I think that the problem is that currency exists as a. edium to pay taxes. The usefulness of it for non-governmental transactions is a secondary benefit. However, without them full faith and credit ofma government somewhere the currency would be worthless. For example, see Zimbbwean currency or any non-convertible currency. *extra edit--altogether too many \\\"\\\"m's.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.\",\n \"It's called carry-trade. They can borrow from governments that have 0% int rates, exchange it for dollars, and then buy u.s. treasuries. Japan would never ever raise their interest rates as their economy runs on keynesian fumes.\",\n \"The other obvious suggestion I guess is to buy cheap stocks and bonds (maybe in a dollar denominated fund). If the US dollar rises you'd then get both the fund's US gains plus currency gains. However, no guarantee the US dollar will rise or when. Perhaps a more prudent approach is to simply diversify. Buy both domestic and foreign stocks and bonds. Rebalance regularly.\",\n \"Mainly because I have it and you don't, I can make you do stuff for it because more of us perceive its value than bother about the paper you are holding. Picture if you will a moment in time, when the paper you are holding, represented the amount of gold you had at home, as time went by you spent all your gold and the amount the paper represented, became less and less and the amount of lunch you could buy with it became less and less. Today the day has arrived, that you have no gold left and what your paper represents is an empty coffer . . Move along . .people who can pay for their lunch are waiting and look, the paper they hold represents gold they have.\",\n \"Less than 2 1/2% of all US currency actually exists. The rest is digital entries. In a financial crisis you'll need lots of rare cash. Twenty dollar bills are the best choice. Stash as many as you can afford to. Best to stash in a anchored security safe. And for goodness sakes, don't tell anyone.\",\n \"Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant\",\n \"Moronic question I'm sure. Listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast and they mentioned that the vast majority of financial transactions in China and even North Korea are denominated in US dollars. They go on to say that this means they HAVE to go through US banks giving the US tremendous leverage. Can someone explain this whole idea to me. 1. Why do transactions done in US dollars have to go through US banks? 2. Does that leverage the US has just come from our ability to prevent transactions from occurring if they are run through our banks?\",\n \"Arguably, the only reason the US can print dollar without massive repercussions on devaluing it is because of it is the world's reserve currency, backed by oil. This has allowed to US to build the world's biggest and most powerful army because they can easily borrow money to fund it. Everyone needs oil for their economy, therefore everyone needs dollars...\",\n \"Would it be a reasonable idea to open a savings account in an overseas bank? For the risks you mention, this may not be a good idea for individual. Note HNI / Companies routinely keep funds in various overseas account. For individual the amount of paperwork [reporting in US etc] and fees etc would be high. Plus in adverse conditions, access to this funds would still be stringent and restricted. Some of the other options you can try are Generally for the risks you mention, there is very little an individual can do except to take it if & when it comes.\",\n \"One option is buying physical gold. I don't know about Irish law -- but from an economic standpoint, putting funds in foreign currencies would also be an option. You could look into buying shares in an ETF tracking foreign currency as an alternative to direct money exchange.\",\n \"\\\"I still don't understand this \\\"\\\"analysis.\\\"\\\" Even when the US became the world's largest economy in 1880, the British Pound remained the reserve currency of choice until the 1950s, some seventy years later! Investors prefer stability and property rights and the US has both, especially when considering the alternatives, i.e. Euro tax takings on bank deposits in Cyprus. What about the yuan? China may have recently surpassed US economic power, but it is very likely in the midst of a massive credit bubble. China has also been fudging some of their numbers and in many cases, chooses not to keep economic records at all. The fact that many Chinese elites themselves are buying property in Vancouver and the US as a safe harbor also does not bode well for their systemic problems IMO. I'm sticking with the dollar for now.\\\"\",\n \"Currencies don't have intrinsic value. Just because you have to pay taxes in USD does not mean it has intrinsic value. The government could theoretically switch currency every second, not that that will ever happen. But yes the USD is supported by the US government and that's like a safety net for the value of the USD. Bitcoin doesn't have a government accepting bitcoin in taxes (except maybe liberland or something) so BTC doesn't have that safenet. But with such a liquid market and millions of buyorders bitcoin doesn't really need a safenet. There will always be demand. I prefer a scarce currency with growing demand than an inflationary currency backed by a corrupt government that loses value over time.\",\n \"Use other currencies, if available. I'm not familiar with the banking system in South Africa; if they haven't placed any currency freezes or restrictions, you might want to do this sooner than later. In full crises, like Russian and Ukraine, once the crisis worsened, they started limiting purchases of foreign currencies. PayPal might allow currency swaps (it implies that it does at the bottom of this page); if not, I know Uphold does. Short the currency Brokerage in the US allow us to short the US Dollar. If banks allow you to short the ZAR, you can always use that for protection. I looked at the interest rates in the ZAR to see how the central bank is offsetting this currency crisis - WOW - I'd be running, not walking toward the nearest exit. A USA analogy during the late 70s/early 80s would be Paul Volcker holding interest rates at 2.5%, thinking that would contain 10% inflation. Bitcoin Comes with significant risks itself, but if you use it as a temporary medium of exchange for swaps - like Uphold or with some bitcoin exchanges like BTC-e - you can get other currencies by converting to bitcoin then swapping for other assets. Bitcoin's strength is remitting and swapping; holding on to it is high risk. Commodities I think these are higher risk right now as part of the ZAR's problem is that it's heavily reliant on commodities. I looked at your stock market to see how well it's done, and I also see that it's done poorly too and I think the commodity bloodbath has something to do with that. If you know of any commodity that can stay stable during uncertainty, like food that doesn't expire, you can at least buy without worrying about costs rising in the future. I always joke that if hyperinflation happened in the United States, everyone would wish they lived in Utah.\",\n \"Currently many countries (and non-government bodies) hold dollars to facilitate trade. If the dollar is no longer used in their trade, then they no longer have a reason to hold those dollars. If every other country starts to dump their dollar holdings into the world currency markets, the number of dollars floating around in those market would shoot up. The massive supply increase of dollars (we're assuming these other countries are holding massive amounts of dollars) would lead to a large drop in value of the dollar - lots more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Every purchase will become much more expensive for anyone still buying with dollars, including the American government trying to buy expensive military equipment - unless the US government also switches to using something else to purchase military supplies.\",\n \"Yeah, I heard about that! That's virtually the same thing (in a different form) as a new currency as it's backed solely by the state's ability to uphold its value, but yes, given that it's trading for pennies on the dollar it's no surprise the USD is the primary currency there. It will be very interesting to see the policies that Mugabe's successor (his ex-wife or #2) puts in place. Either way I bet they fail, but hope they don't and actually make the necessary reforms to help the country succeed.\",\n \"It could be a a way to preserve the value of your money, but depends upon various factors. If a country defaults, and it leads to hyper-inflation, by definition that means that money loses its purchasing power. In even simpler terms, it cannot buy as much tomorrow as I could today. Therefore people can be incented to either hoard physical goods, or other non-perishable items. Real-estate may well be such an item. If you are resident in the country, you have to live somewhere. It is possible that a landlord might try to raise rent beyond what your job is willing to pay. Of course, in a house, you might have a similar situation with utilities like electricity... Assuming some kind of re-stabilization of the economy and currency, even with several more zeros on the end, it is conceivable that the house would subsequently sell for an appropriately inflation adjusted amount, as other in-demand physical goods may. Lots of variables. Good Luck.\",\n \"Because we need energy in the form of oil. If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves. Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?\",\n \"\\\"Iraq is a US vassal/puppet state. I'm not sure what 500 South Vietnamese Dong were worth in 1972, but today the paper currency is worth $10 in mint condition. I'd suggest blackjack or craps as an alternate \\\"\\\"investment\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"Quite a lot of reasons but mostly supply and demand. Some areas of Africa are extremely remote and just don't have things there that some of the population now want. I would guess it won't be like this for much longer but right now it is and i have met plenty of people taking advantage of that fact.\",\n \"The idea being that if / when the CAD recovers I could see a gain of ~30%. That is the big if, maybe the USD and CAD will return to their previous exchange rates, maybe the CAD will fall further, you just don't know. You should try to keep a diversified pool of investments, that may include some cash in various currencies but unless you think you will need the money in the next few years it should probablly be mostly in other things. If you do think you will need the money in the next few years it should probablly be in a currency that is stable relative to the things you are likely to need it for.\",\n \"Traveller's cheques. That's exactly what they were intended for. Their usage has dropped a lot since everyone can use ATMs in foreign countries, but they still exist.\",\n \"Perhaps the world does not like a Global economy dominated by a Fucking Moron, Perhaps the world does not see a future in a Jew dominated Fed that can print whatever it thinks sounds like fun and then lend it to the US treasury in an insurmountable mountain of debt. Gosh . . .isn't the FED supposed to be pretending to unwind all that 0 market valuation crap from 2008 ? I wonder if there are even any houses after a decade\",\n \"I'm in Argentina and they limit the daily withdrawals to 1000 pesos a day (about $220). The gov't just put limits on withdrawing dollars here, which is how Argentines have typically saved their money. The people are NOT happy.\",\n \"Further evidence that the love of money is the root of all evil. Money is useless if not transformed into something material. Apparently Americans are duped by the wealth effect. If their portfolio has high numbers they feel rich and impoverish themselves by spending more of their income even though it is just ink and paper unless transformed into something tangible. Fools. The hoarders of money must be afraid they would run out, expose they have no usefull skills and have to do actual work for a living.\",\n \"\\\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \\\"\\\"weak\\\"\\\" and some \\\"\\\"strong\\\"\\\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\\\"\",\n \"At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.\",\n \"Sure thing - Treasuries Bonds/Bills are what the US Gov uses to borrow. However it's slightly different than taking out a loan. It's basically an agreement to give (repay) a set sum of money at a certain time in the future in exchange for a sum of funding that's determined by market forces (supply & demand). The difference between today's price and the payment in the future is the interest. For example (completely made up numbers): - Today is 08/05/2017 - The government issues a bond that say it will pay who ever owns this bond $105 on 08/05/**2018** - The market decides that $105 from the US government paid a year from now is worth $100 today. In other words the US Government is borrowing for one year at a rate of 5% (105 - 100) / 100 = .05 = 5% Now consider Saudi Arabia's petroleum company, Aramco. Because petroleum is traded in dollars, when Aramco makes a sale, its paid in USD. Some of that is going to be reinvested into the company, some paid out in dividends to share holders but inevitably some of that will be saved someplace where it can make interest. Because treasuries are traded/issued in dollars and because Aramco's businesses deals primarily in dollars, treasuries are the natural place to store that savings, especially because the market considers them extremely safe. If they exchange the USD into the Saudi currency to store the money in Saudi assets, Aramco is subject to *exchange rate risk*. If the riyal depreciates relative to the dollar, Aramco will lose wealth on the exchange back to dollars when they go to move those funds back into their business. It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this. So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%. (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9% And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful.\",\n \"Considering the historical political instability of your nation, real property may have higher risk than normal. In times of political strife, real estate plummets, precisely when the money's needed. At worst, the property may be seized by the next government. Also, keeping the money within the country is even more risky because bank accounts are normally looted by either the entering gov't or exiting one. The safest long run strategy with the most potential for your family is to get the money out into various stable nations with good history of protecting foreign investors such as Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong. Once out, the highest expected return can be expected from internationally diversified equities; however, it should be known that the value will be very variant year to year.\",\n \"\\\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \\\"\\\"believe it is money\\\"\\\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\\\"\",\n \"Not really practical... The real problem is getting the money into a form where you *can* invest it in something. It's not like E\\\\*Trade will let you FedEx them a briefcase of sequentially numbered hundreds and just credit your account, no questions asked. That **is** the hard part.\",\n \"Money, like anything else, is subject to the demands of people. There are times when money is in high demand. This drives up its value. People in Japan want cash because they have an immediate need to buy emergency supplies as well as rebuild and replace damaged items. This is why the yen strengthened. This is probably why the market plummeted as people liquidated some of their stocks to get cash. The Bank Of Japan (BOJ) will not stand for a rising yen, however. It is pulling a Bernanke and printing yen in an effort to keep it weak.\",\n \"Public debt and risk of currency devaluation are two very, very different things. Until the BRICS are able to buy commodities on a significant scale using a market basket of their own currencies, the USD will remain one of the (if not the) safest currencies in the world.\",\n \"Dollars are bits you don't control. The banking system has your bits and they can charge you more bits to move your bits around. At any point, they could freeze your accounts and suddenly you have no bits. It's all designed to make it so you can't function in society without them controlling your bits.\",\n \"Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)\",\n \"Because people trade currency in exchange for goods and services. They can easily prevent competition by violent means or by having control of the market through market share. Price can be controlled by the threat of super low prices in order to drive out competing businesses.\",\n \"> it makes US investments even better because the rate of return gets boosted higher. Except it doesn't. Do they really teach this? Does anyone have a link to textbook thinking on this subject, because that's a blatant lie and might explain why so many people understand the dynamics at work here completely wrong.\",\n \"Petrodollars are specifically dollars earned from oil revenue. They are not synonymous with the US dollar. It should be clear that the US dollar is not backed by oil since we just recently witnessed the priced in US dollars drop precipitously while the US dollar gained against a basket of currencies.\",\n \"This crisis just shows why the dollar has no chance in my lifetime of loding it's dominance. Russia is a major world player, were taking what seemed right steps to move forward economically, socially, politically. Yet this crisis shows the truth. Media controlled by the kremlin. Taking actions in other countries. No fear of economic hardships due to political issues. Who else could supplant the US dollar? China is in the same boat as Russia. Still not a free society. SO what's left? The Euro. But it's got a long way to go to show it can remain stable. Give it 50 years and get back to me.\",\n \"why should i have to make something with my cash? i'll fuking hold it and face losing a few percentage of purchasing power. i'd rather have liquity in these peril times. besides, people that held cash in 2008 had a once in a life time buying opportunity when all assets fell 60-90%.\",\n \"I think you are asking quite a few questions here; If you have Rs 10000, its better you get it converted in India before you leave. Most Banks and Exchange houses like Western Union would take Rupees and Give you USD. What do they do with USD, there are other who give them USD and need Rupees. They make a spread in this process. If you are getting a salary in USD in US, whenever you want to transfer money to India, the Banks or Remittance services like Western Union would take USD from your US Account and Transfter equivalent Money into your Bank Account in India in Rupees. They will tell the exchange rate applicable. Depending on why visa type & the duration you are going, your company should be able to tell you your tax liabilities in the US. Read similar questions here to get a general idea.\",\n \"First, currencies are not an investment; they are a medium of exchange; that is, you use currency to buy goods and services and/or investments. The goods and services you intend to buy in your retirement are presumably going to be bought in your country; to buy these you will need your country's currency. The investments you intend to buy now require the currency of whatever country they are located in. If you want to buy shares in Microsoft you need USD; if you want shares in BHP-Billiton you need AUD or GBP (It is traded on two exchanges), if you want property in Kuwait you need KWD and if you want bonds in your country you need IDR. When you sell these later to buy the goods and services you were saving for you need to convert from whatever currency you get for selling them into whatever currency you need to buy. When you invest you are taking on risk for which you expect to be compensated for - the higher the risk you take the better the returns had better be because there is always the chance that they will be negative, right down to losing it all if you are unlucky. There is no 100% safe investment; if you want to make sure you get full value for your money spend it all right now! If you invest overseas then, in addition to all the other investment risks, you are adding currency risk as well. That is, the risk that when you redeem your investments the overseas currency will have fallen relative you your currency. One of the best ways of mitigating risk is diversification; which allows the same return at a lower risk (or a higher return at the same risk). A pure equity portfolio is not diversified across asset classes (hopefully it is diversified across the equities). Equities are a high risk-high yield class; particularly in a developing economy like Indonesia. If you are very young with a decades long investment horizon this may be OK but even then, a diversified portfolio will probably offer better rewards at the same risk. Diversifying into local cash, bonds and property with a little foreign equities, bonds and property will serve you better than worrying about the strength of the IDR. Oh, and pay a professional for some real advice rather than listening to strangers on the internet.\",\n \">We collectively agree that a dollar has a certain value. That's it. We believe in money. Welcome to the collective delusion of fiat currency. You mean 12 richest families in charge of FED make you think it has value? Once you realize this, you'll soon understand how is US's everlasting involvement in (provoking) wars across the globe financed, where from, and most importantly why. Once other nations exclude US dollar as a valid currency (India, Russia and China have already), US dollar is going to be less and less valuable until it's worth nothing (as it actually is all along as it has no leverage). Maybe we better rebel against an inevitable doom of US economy now when you can actually use it to buy other commodities than wait to use them as firestarters 10-20 years down the road.\",\n \"\\\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \\\"\\\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\\\"\\\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \\\"\\\"mark to market accounting\\\"\\\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Economics is not hard science. Economics is really just a study of what people do and why. The best book to read to understand why people protect their wealth when the government threatens it is \\\"\\\"[Human Action](http://mises.org/document/3250)\\\"\\\" by Ludwig von Mises. Check it out. It will answer all of your questions with a lot more logic than research. Economic research on macro subjects can prove any preconceived theorem, therefore it is worse than logic because it purports to \\\"\\\"prove\\\"\\\" what are, in the end, only opinions.\\\"\",\n \"By the way, be nice to Mexicans. You might have to sneak into Mexico as illegal immigrant when dollar crashes and revolution follows an hyper inflation :) Don't be mad at me, be mad at your idiot and puppet politicians who are killing the American dream.\",\n \"They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing. Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong. Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \"\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\"\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\"","\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \"\"black\"\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\"","\"As a Venezuelan who used to buy USD, I believe there is not better explanation than the one given to someone who actually lives and works here in Venezuela. Back in 1998 when Hugo Chavez took the presidency, we had a good economy. Fast forward 10 years laters and you could see how poor management, corruption and communist measurements had wreaked havoc in our Economy. It was because most of the money (USD) coming in Venezuela were not invested here but instead, given away to \"\"pimp countries\"\" like Cuba. Remember, communism lasts while you have money. Back then we had an Oil Barrel going over 100$ and crazy amounts of money were coming in the country. However, little to no money was invested in the country itself. That is why some of the richest people with bank account in Swiss are Venezuelans who stole huge amounts of Oil Money. I know this is a lot to take in, but all of this led to Venezuelan economy being the worst in The American Continent and because there is not enough money inside the country to satisfy the inner market, people would pay overprice to have anything that is bought abroad. You have to consider that only a very small amount of people can actually buy USD here in Venezuela. Back in 2013 I was doing it, I could buy about 80 usd/month with my monthly income. However, nowdays that's nearly impossible for about 99% of Venezuelans. To Illustrate. Minimum wage = 10.000 bolivares / month Black market exchange rate (As of January 2016) = 900bs per 1usd 10.000/900 = 11,11 usd. <<< that is what about 50% of Venezuelans earn every month. That's why this happens: http://i.imgur.com/dPOC2e3.jpg The guy is holding a huge stack of money of the highest Venezuelan note, which he got from exchanging only 100 usd. I am a computer science engineer, the monthly income for someone like me is about 30.000 bolivares --- so that is about 34$ a month. oh dear! So finally, answering your question Q: Why do people buy USD even at this unfavorable rate? A: There are many reasons but being the main 2 the following 1.- Inflation in Venezuela is crazy high. The inflation from 2014-2015 was 241%. Which means that having The Venezuelan currency (Bolivares) in your bank account makes no sense... in two weeks you won't be able to buy half of the things you used to with the same amount of money. 2.- A huge amount of Venezuelans dream with living abroad (me included) why, you ask? well sir, it is certain that life in this country is not the best: I hope you can understand better why people in 3rd world countries and crappy economies buy USD even at an unfavorable rate. The last question was: Q: Why would Venezuela want to block the sale of dollars? A: Centralized currency management is an Economic Measure that should last 6 months tops. (This was Argentina's case in 2013) but at this point, reverting that would take quite a few years. However, Turukawa's wikipedia link explains that very well. Regards.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \\\"\\\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\\\"\\\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \\\"\\\"black\\\"\\\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As a Venezuelan who used to buy USD, I believe there is not better explanation than the one given to someone who actually lives and works here in Venezuela. Back in 1998 when Hugo Chavez took the presidency, we had a good economy. Fast forward 10 years laters and you could see how poor management, corruption and communist measurements had wreaked havoc in our Economy. It was because most of the money (USD) coming in Venezuela were not invested here but instead, given away to \\\"\\\"pimp countries\\\"\\\" like Cuba. Remember, communism lasts while you have money. Back then we had an Oil Barrel going over 100$ and crazy amounts of money were coming in the country. However, little to no money was invested in the country itself. That is why some of the richest people with bank account in Swiss are Venezuelans who stole huge amounts of Oil Money. I know this is a lot to take in, but all of this led to Venezuelan economy being the worst in The American Continent and because there is not enough money inside the country to satisfy the inner market, people would pay overprice to have anything that is bought abroad. You have to consider that only a very small amount of people can actually buy USD here in Venezuela. Back in 2013 I was doing it, I could buy about 80 usd/month with my monthly income. However, nowdays that's nearly impossible for about 99% of Venezuelans. To Illustrate. Minimum wage = 10.000 bolivares / month Black market exchange rate (As of January 2016) = 900bs per 1usd 10.000/900 = 11,11 usd. <<< that is what about 50% of Venezuelans earn every month. That's why this happens: http://i.imgur.com/dPOC2e3.jpg The guy is holding a huge stack of money of the highest Venezuelan note, which he got from exchanging only 100 usd. I am a computer science engineer, the monthly income for someone like me is about 30.000 bolivares --- so that is about 34$ a month. oh dear! So finally, answering your question Q: Why do people buy USD even at this unfavorable rate? A: There are many reasons but being the main 2 the following 1.- Inflation in Venezuela is crazy high. The inflation from 2014-2015 was 241%. Which means that having The Venezuelan currency (Bolivares) in your bank account makes no sense... in two weeks you won't be able to buy half of the things you used to with the same amount of money. 2.- A huge amount of Venezuelans dream with living abroad (me included) why, you ask? well sir, it is certain that life in this country is not the best: I hope you can understand better why people in 3rd world countries and crappy economies buy USD even at an unfavorable rate. The last question was: Q: Why would Venezuela want to block the sale of dollars? A: Centralized currency management is an Economic Measure that should last 6 months tops. (This was Argentina's case in 2013) but at this point, reverting that would take quite a few years. However, Turukawa's wikipedia link explains that very well. Regards.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":259,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"7124"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How come we can find stocks with a Price-to-Book ratio less than 1?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["74615","154725","558617","526110"],"string":"[\n \"74615\",\n \"154725\",\n \"558617\",\n \"526110\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["526110","7170","558617","157597","154725","256818","56405","237344","477426","15650","210268","161323","94591","204209","271001","590980","288551","598184","73995","421248","504243","184303","414940","546969","325669","583708","522040","518860","553450","447509","261415","247021","503740","220772","527230","4290","6369","301547","194319","354236","476859","514375","400620","555915","304918","442324","139654","412584","270573","472500","435125","349567","35500","538750","368738","241175","74615","535043","324377","291220","421371","283421","212988","355554","433905","448428","543606","210581","427726","482464","65235","186849","20335","556688","400614","386225","390817","152097","266672","464769","60495","334162","532171","182057","582313","350095","580920","153212","280111","33357","446877","278582","311345","69506","499269","457485","231677","429196","416732","466430"],"string":"[\n \"526110\",\n \"7170\",\n \"558617\",\n \"157597\",\n \"154725\",\n \"256818\",\n \"56405\",\n \"237344\",\n \"477426\",\n \"15650\",\n \"210268\",\n \"161323\",\n \"94591\",\n \"204209\",\n \"271001\",\n \"590980\",\n \"288551\",\n \"598184\",\n \"73995\",\n \"421248\",\n \"504243\",\n \"184303\",\n \"414940\",\n \"546969\",\n \"325669\",\n \"583708\",\n \"522040\",\n \"518860\",\n \"553450\",\n \"447509\",\n \"261415\",\n \"247021\",\n \"503740\",\n \"220772\",\n \"527230\",\n \"4290\",\n \"6369\",\n \"301547\",\n \"194319\",\n \"354236\",\n \"476859\",\n \"514375\",\n \"400620\",\n \"555915\",\n \"304918\",\n \"442324\",\n \"139654\",\n \"412584\",\n \"270573\",\n \"472500\",\n \"435125\",\n \"349567\",\n \"35500\",\n \"538750\",\n \"368738\",\n \"241175\",\n \"74615\",\n \"535043\",\n \"324377\",\n \"291220\",\n \"421371\",\n \"283421\",\n \"212988\",\n \"355554\",\n \"433905\",\n \"448428\",\n \"543606\",\n \"210581\",\n \"427726\",\n \"482464\",\n \"65235\",\n \"186849\",\n \"20335\",\n \"556688\",\n \"400614\",\n \"386225\",\n \"390817\",\n \"152097\",\n \"266672\",\n \"464769\",\n \"60495\",\n \"334162\",\n \"532171\",\n \"182057\",\n \"582313\",\n \"350095\",\n \"580920\",\n \"153212\",\n \"280111\",\n \"33357\",\n \"446877\",\n \"278582\",\n \"311345\",\n \"69506\",\n \"499269\",\n \"457485\",\n \"231677\",\n \"429196\",\n \"416732\",\n \"466430\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps","\"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"","Note that the formula for Price to Book ratio is: Stock Price / {[Total Assets - (Intangible Assets + Liabilities)] / Stock Outstanding} http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-to-bookratio.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/03/112603.asp There's a number of factors that could lead to a lower than 1. The primary reason, imho, could be the company is in a state of retiring stock with debt. The company is selling penny stocks (only to get people more interested in it's later development) which are inherently undervalued. There may be other reasons, but definitely check out both articles.","Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book Value–Sep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here.","A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;","To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings.","\"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary. They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life. If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million. However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future \"\"real\"\" earnings \"\"ie actual profit and loss on sales\"\" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely.\"","And the kind folk at Yahoo Finance came to the same conclusion. Keep in mind, book value for a company is like looking at my book value, all assets and liabilities, which is certainly important, but it ignores my earnings. BAC (Bank of America) has a book value of $20, but trades at $8. Some High Tech companies have negative book values, but are turning an ongoing profit, and trade for real money.","\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \"\"value\"\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \"\"book value\"\" is your compensation for a low \"\"interest\"\" rate.\"","The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.","A company's stock value is indicative of the market's collective belief of the future of the company. The relationship of between price and book value will vary according to the quality of the company, the category of stock, etc. In extreme cases, say Bank of America, the stock trades at a fraction of book, because BOA's books are a fantasy by most people's reckoning.","\"By definition, a downturn in the business cycle will push some companies into bankruptcy. What's worse, a downturn in the business cycle will trigger \"\"bankruptcy fears\"\" for a LOT of companies, far more than will suffer this fate. So the prices of MANY candidates go down to levels that reflect this fear. This aggregate impact produces the \"\"overreaction\"\" you're talking about. It's called \"\"fallacy of composition\"\"; some of these companies will go under, but not all. Then the prices of the survivors will bounce back strongly during the early stages of an upturn when it becomes clear which companies WON'T go bankrupt.\"","P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.","There are things that are clearly beyond me as well. Cash per share is $12.61 but the debt looks like $30 or so per share. I look at that, and the $22 negative book value and don't see where the shareholders are able to recoup anything.","Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.","\"When presenting negative P/E values, most brokers and equity analysts show them as \"\"n.m.\"\", which stands for not meaningful. I have never seen a P/E ratio of 0.\"","You are omitting how the company made 120 million in the previous year and may be facing a shrinking market and thus have poor future prospects. If the company is shrinking, what will the shares be worth down the road. Remember companies like AOL or Blackberry? There was a time they had big profits before things changed which is the part you aren't considering here. If the company has lost something big on its earnings, e.g. the oil wells it owned have run out of reserves or the patents on its key drugs have expired, then there could be the perception that the company won't be able to compete in the future to continue to deliver earnings. Some companies may well end up going broke as one could look at GM for a company that used to be one of the largest car companies in the world and yet it ended up going broke.","Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k. In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10. The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year. If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11. Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices. You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k. Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future. The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10. If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k). You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower. Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.","Well, yes it does, but just because the debt is trading at 80 cents on the dollar doesn't mean that the company can actually legally get away with paying only 80 cents on the dollar. They would have to come to an agreement with the debt holders first. And perhaps they could, but the more conservative approach is to use the book value of the debt. Or what about debt that's trading at a premium to its face value, because, say, interest rates have come down relative to the time the debt was issued? The amount that the conpany owes to the debt holders hasn't suddenly gone up.","Residential Construction at 362x, by the way. I'm going to hazard a guess here - Say XYZ corp trades at $100, and it's showing a normal earnings of $10 the last few years. Its industry falls on hard times, and while it makes enough to keep its doors open, profits fall to $1. The company itself is still sound, but the small earnings result in a high P/E. By the way, its book value is $110, and they have huge cash on the books along with real estate. I offer these details to show why the price doesn't drop like a rock. Now, biotech may be in a period of low reported earnings but with future results expected to justify the price. On one hand it may be an anomaly, with earnings due to rise, or it may be a bit of a bubble. An analyst for this sector should be able to comment if I'm on the right track.","There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.","Its not just Citi and BoFA, even Barclays, HSBC and other large Banks are trading below book value in markets they are listed. Are there particular assets that are causing these two banks to be valued lower relative to their book values than the other banks? There no particular assets. Given the current economic situation most Banks are not making good returns, i.e. expected returns of markets are around 10-12% and the returns getting generated are around 4-6%. The overall slow down in various segments as well as regulations in most countries mean that banks have to relook at the business model in short term and generate more revenue. The market believes that Banks may loose money faster and hence the negative outlook and the trading below the book value. Note Book Value is derived in ideal conditions, i.e. when the company is healthy. If any company were to sell the assets in distress, the actual funds raised would be quite a bit less than Book Value. Its also to be noted that typically Banks would not close out and hence Book Value to an extent is just an indicator. Or is it a residual loathing based on their being the biggest losers of 2008 that are still around today? The 2008 has gone past. This is more recent. If you look most of these banks were doing quite well till last year and had recovered substantially after 2008.","NAV is how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13. Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.","\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \"\"earnings\"\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \"\"free.\"\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\"\" meaning \"\"no future\"\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \"\"no past.\"\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\"","The company's value (which should be reflected in the share price) is not how much money it has in the bank, but something along the lines of 'how much money will it make between now and the end of times' (adjusted for time value of money and risk). So when you purchase a share of a company that has, say, little money in the bank, but expects to make 1M$ profit this year, 2M$ for the following 3 years, and say, nothing after, you are going to pay your fraction of 7M$ (minus some discount because of the risk involved). If now they announce that their profits were only 750k$, then people may think that the 2M$ are more likely to be 1.5M$, so the company's value would go to ~ 5M$. And with that, the market may perceive the company as more risky, because its profits deviated from what was expected, which in turn may reduce the company's value even further.","It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for? The only way to (on average) make good buy and sell decisions is to know about investing and trading (buy some books, I have 12), understand the businesses you propose to invest in and understand their market(s) (which may also mean understanding national and international economics somewhat).","\"The company was paying \"\"only\"\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \"\"too high,\"\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \"\"most\"\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \"\"stingy,\"\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\"","One reason that a bond can be significantly less than face value is because people are seeking better investments elsewhere, so for example if a bond doesn't mature for another 10 years, that 20% increase in face value isn't very attractive when compared to say leaving your money in the stock market for 10 years. Another reason could be that the credit-worthiness of the issuer has collapsed and people expect that there is a fairly good chance they are not going to make the payment. This could be what you would see if for example it was a one year time until maturity, but it has a value of 40% of the face value. There is a risk, because they can simply not pay. For example people who bought Greek bonds.","One problem is that P/E ratio only looks at the last announced earnings. Let's take your manufacturing plant with a P/E of 12.5. Then they announce a major problem that will hurt future earnings and the price drops in half. Now the P/E is 6.25. It looks great, but since there aren't any new earnings that reflect the problem, it's very misleading.","\"You are comparing \"\"market caps\"\" and \"\"enterprise value\"\". If the company has four billion dollars cash in the bank, then the value would be four billion plus whatever the business itself is worth as a business. If the business itself is only worth 400 million, then you would have 4.4bn market caps and 400 million enterprise value. The \"\"enterprise value\"\" is basically how much the business would be worth if it had no cash or no debt. These numbers would be a very unusual situation. It could happen for example if a big company has sold 90% of its business for cash. When you buy a share of the company, you get a tiny share of the business and you own a tiny share of the cash. This stock will very likely keep its value, but won't make much money. On the other hand, more common would be a company where the business is worth 4bn, but the company has also 4bn debt. So it is worth exactly zero. Market caps close to zero, but enterprise value $4bn, because you ignore the debt in the enterprise value. Edit: Sorry, got the \"\"enterprise value\"\" totally wrong, read millions instead of billions: Your numbers would mean that you have a huge, huge company with close to 440bn debt. Most likely someone made a mistake here. A \"\"normal\"\" situation would be say a company with a business that is worth $500 million, but they have $100 million debt, so market caps = $400 million but enterprise value = $500 million. PS. Yahoo has the same nonsense numbers on their UK site, and for other companies (I just checked Marks and Spencer's which apparently has an enterprise value of 800 billion pound with a totally ridiculous P/E ratio.\"","Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.","How is it possible that a publicly traded investment company's net asset value per share is higher than their share price? Wouldn't you (in theory) be able to buy the company and liquidate it to make a profit of (NAV/share - price/share)*number of shares, ignoring transaction costs and such? I realize that since part of their portfolio is in private equity, NAV is hard to calculate and hard to liquidate as well, but it doesn't really seem to make sense to me. Would love some input. The company I'm talking about in this instance is 180 Degree Capital Corp, but this isn't the first time I've seen this.","Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.","\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \"\"earnings smoothing\"\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \"\"interesting\"\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\"","Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel). If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy. The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.","P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.","Most penny stocks go to zero because most businesses fail. You stated in your original post that you were wondering specifically about companies with no assets. These are exactly the kind that fail and go to zero. There are many holes within the regulatory structure that allow for many accounting tricks in penny stock land. And even in areas that are adequately regulated, there will be few to no remedies for the optimistic penny stock shareholder speculator.","\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"","\"Yes, there are situations where a stock is a bad buy in spite of a low PE. PE ratio tells you the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. It does not consider: Imagine someone walked up to you and said, \"\"Do you want to buy a piece of my business? I'll sell you 1% of it for $1000. Last year the business earned $25000.\"\" A quick calculation shows a PE of 4 [$1000/($25000 *.01)]. Even though this PE is comparatively low, you wouldn't buy in without a lot more info. What kinds of things might you ask? PE is one tiny component of an informed investment decision.\"","\"> What's their performance been like in recent years? IIRC the last time they were able to pay a dividend was in 2000, so I'm gonna go with \"\"not great\"\". Thanks a lot for the effort, I didn't factor in tax at all, it makes more sense then. I still think it's an interesting concept that shares are worth less than what you \"\"get\"\" for them (according to their accountants, who knows what the value actually would be if you tried to sell whatever they own now), and I found basically nothing on google. The whole is usually more than the sum of its parts, not (significantly) less.\"","\"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? Such stock is typically considered \"\"distressed assets\"\". Technically, what drives it is what drives every stock - supply and demand. A more interesting question is of course, why would there be demand? First, who exerts the buying pressure on the stock? Typically, three types of entities: The largest ones are financial institutions specializing in distressed assets (frequently, alternatives specialists - hedge funds, private equity firms etc...). Usually, they invest in distressed debt or distressed preferred equity; but sometimes distressed equity as well. Why? We will discuss their motivations separately in this answer. Second one are existing equity holders. Why? Short answer, behavioral psychology and behavioral economics. Many investors - especially non-professionals - insist on holding distressed stocks due to variety of investment fallacies (sunk cost etc...); usually constructing elaborate theories of why and how the company and the stock will recover Sometimes, people who buy into penny stock scams, pump and dump schemes etc... Why? \"\"There's a sucker born every minute.\"\" - P.T. Barnum Let's find out why an investment professional would invest in distressed equity? First, the general process is always the same. Company's assets are used to pay off its liabilities; in accordance with applicable law. There are two ways this can be done - either through selling the company; OR through bankruptcy process. The liabilities are paid according to seniority. The seniority priorities rules are covered by 11 U.S. Code § 507 - Priorities A company in bankruptcy can have one of 2 outcomes: Buyout. Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity. For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future. The chances are, some buyer will buy it for a premium that includes those future profits; and that sale amount might possibly exceed the liabilities. Bankruptcy. The assets are sold and liabilities are covered according to priorities. In that case, the investors in distressed equity might be hoping that there are un-obvious assets whose value would also put the total assets above claimed liabilities. Additional possible beneficial factor is that unsecured debtors must file with the court in order to be paid; and the claim must be validated. Some might fail on either count; so total amount of liabilities might lessen once the bankruptcy process goes through. Assets Now, here's where things get interesting. Of course, companies have usual assets. Real estate, inventory, plants, cash, etc... These are all able to be sold to cover liabilities, and at first glance are possibly not enough to cover liabilities, leaving equity holders with nothing (and even that's not a certainty - bankruptcy is simply inability to service debt payments; and while it correlates to assetsliquid assets, not full asset valuation). But some assets are less sure, and are thus rarely included in such calculations. These may include: Chances of winning appeals if specific existing liabilities are results of litigation, e.g. tax appeals, court judgement appeals etc... Clawbacks and lawsuits against former executives, especially in cases where the company's financial distress resulted from executive malfeasance. I was personally involved in one such case as an equity holder, where the company assets were valued at $X; had liabilities of $X*2; but had a real possibility of winning about $X*3 in a lawsuit against former CEO accused of various malfeasance including fraud and insider trading. As such, the best case scenario was literally 100% profit on holding that distressed equity.\"","\"Yes, the price of a stock is what investors think the value of a stock is, which is not tied to profits or dividends by any rigid formula. But to say that therefore the price could be high even though the company is doing very poorly is hypothetically true, but unlikely in practice. Consider any other product. There is no fixed formula for the value of a used car, either. If everyone agreed that a rusting, 20-year old car that doesn't run is worth $100,000, then that's what it would sell for. But that's a pretty big \"\"if\"\" at the beginning of that sentence. If the car had been used in some hit TV show 20 years ago, or if it was owned by a celebrity, or some such special case, maybe a rusting old car really would sell for $100,000. Likewise, a stock might have a price higher than what one would predict from its dividends if some rich person wanted to buy that company because the brand name brings back nostalgic memories from his youth and so he drives the price up, etc. But the normal case is that, in the long term, the price of a stock tends to settle on a value proportional to the dividends that it pays. Or rather, and this is a big caveat, the dividends that investors expect it to pay in the future. And then adjusted for all sorts of other factors and special situations, like the value of the company if it was to be liquidated, etc.\"","\"Let's say you see a café. You're looking to buy a café so you walk into one and ask the manager how much profit he makes in a year. He says $N and you walk out and think to yourself, \"\"I'd be willing to pay $500,000 for this café.\"\" You arrange to meet again to discuss purchasing the business (and he's looking for someone to purchase it). You go into the store again the following day and the manager says, \"\"Sorry, I told you we make $N. I've checked the numbers and it's actually only $0.8N (20% lower than what you thought).\"\" Are you still willing to buy the café for $500,000 as well? No, of course you're not. I think that this is a sufficient analogy to public companies.\"","You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.","If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?","What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? The company's potential residual assets. When a company goes bankrupt it is required to sell its assets to pay off its debts. The funds raised from selling assets go to the following entities: The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. Depending on the amount of debt and the value of a company's assets, the common shareholders may receive some left over from liquidated assets. This would drive the stock price of a bankrupt company.","The value of a company is, simplified, the sum of the value of the equity and the value of the debt. There are some other things to add/subtract to that, but just think about those for now. You could also say the value of a company is the value of its assets, or more precisely the value of the net cash flows those assets will generate in the future. So let's say you want to start a company, so you want to buy some assets. Maybe you want to buy a $200 asset. Well, you only have $100, so you take out a loan (debt) for $100 for the remainder. You buy the asset and start generating income. Let's say after a month you get bored and decide to sell the company. Let's assume the value of the assets hasn't changed. Your equity is worth $100, and you find a buyer who is willing to pay $100 for your company. Great! Right? Well there's still the $100 loan you owe, so you have to pay that back. And suddenly you now have $0. So in fact, you should have negotiated $200 with the buyer, because that's what the assets are actually worth. Then you can pay back the loan and still have the $100 in equity you deserve. (Alternatively, you could have negotiated the buyer to assume responsibility for the loan; same outcome for you.) Did that help?","Would make sense that the higher liquidation cost and Transaction costs are driving the share price down. Higher liq and transaction means higher investors would require higher return, driving down the share price. The other possibilities I can think of off the top of my head, based on looking at the firm for five minutes 1) In transaction costs, did you include tax? Disclaimer: math below done on the back of the envelope in between meetings; So, NAV says they are at ~$75M. Liquidating that entire portfolio means about 22% capital gains tax rate. Which means after tax value is about $60M. Add in any fees you'd incur from trying to sell this stuff, and it's not unreasonable to assume you'll only get about $55M once all is said and done, which is pretty close to the actual market cap. If you have accounted for the above, consider ; 2) Bulk of their investments seem to be in private assets. Which implies that they have some discretion in how they mark the value of those investments. And, there is the chance that the market doesn't have confidence in these guys. What's their performance been like in recent years? Especially with a private asset portfolio, I'd be weary. If I was to invest in them, I'd want a higher return for the opaque portfolio.","What is cheap? A stock may fall from $20 per share to $10 per share, but it may have gone from making a $100M profit last year to a $100M loss this year. So now at $10 per share it may still be considered expensive. You need to be very careful when to consider that a stock is cheap or not, you'll have to look at more than just the share price.","\"Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a \"\"feast or famine\"\" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that.\"","\"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely \"\"make out\"\" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become \"\"mature.\"\" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer.\"","for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)","In finance, short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling assets, usually securities, that have been borrowed from a third party (usually a broker) with the intention of buying identical assets back at a later date to return to the lender. Remember your broker has to borrow it from somewhere, other clients or if they hold those specific stocks themselves. So if it isn't possible for them to lend you those stocks, they wouldn't. High P/E stocks would find more sellers than buyers, and if the broker has to deliver them, it would be a nightmare for him to deliver all those stocks, which he had lent you(others) back to whom he had borrowed from, as well as to people who had gone long(buy) when you went short(sell). And if every body is selling there is going to be a dearth of stocks to be borrowed from as everybody around is selling instead of buying.","\"Many people assume that if the price of something is $10 and they have 1,000 of that thing, they should expect to be able to sell them for something around $10,000. Such an assumption may hold much of the time, but it doesn't always. Worse, the cases where it fails to hold are often those where it would be relied upon most heavily. Such an assumption should thus be considered dangerous. In a liquid market, the quantity of a something that people would be willing to buy at something close to the market price will be large relative to the quantity that people would seek to sell in the short term. If at some moment in time one person in the market was willing to immediately buy 500 shares at $9.98 and another was willing to immediately buy 750 at $9.97, someone seeking to sell 1,000 shares could immediately receive $997.50 for them (selling 500 to the first person and 500 to the second, who would then be ready to buy 250 more from the first person who was willing to sell for $9.97). Such behavior would be in line with what many people's assumptions. In an illiquid market, however, the quantity of something that people would be willing to buy near market price could be surprisingly low. This is more often a problem in the marketplace of things like collectibles than of stocks, but the same thing can happen in the stock market. If there's one potential buyer for a stock who thinks it's overpriced but has potential and would be worth $9.50, but that person only has $950 to spend, and nobody else thinks the stock would be worth more than $0.02/share, then until people sold a total of 100 shares the price would be $9.50, but after that the price would drop instantly to $0.02. There would be no \"\"cushioning\"\" of the fall. If the person with 1,000 shares was first in line, he'd get to sell 100 shares for $950 to the aforementioned seller, but would be unable to get more than $18 for the remaining 900. A major danger with markets is that markets which are perceived as liquid attract people to the buying side, while those which are seen as illiquid repel people. The danger in the latter is obvious (having people flee a seemingly-illiquid market will reduce its liquidity further) but the former is just as bad. Having people flock to a market because of its perceived liquidity will increase its liquidity, but can also create a \"\"false price floor\"\", causing demand to appear much stronger than it actually is. Unless real demand increases to match the false price floor, the people who buy at the higher price will never be able to recoup their investment.\"","\"It depends on the definition of earnings. A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce \"\"earnings\"\" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred). It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues).\"","Can a company not bargain with a dying company for example and buy a falling stock at lower than market value? Of course. If the shareholders agree to it. But why would they, if the market value is higher, agree to sell to someone who offers less? If there's a compelling reason - it can happen. It might happen during a hostile takeover, for example. In the case of buying the company for more than market value, are the stocks bought for significantly more, or slightly more than the current market value? Again, depends on how valuable the shareholders think the company is. If the shareholders think that the company has a potential which has not yet affected the stock price, they'll want a higher premium (and they'd think that, otherwise why would they hold the stock?). How much higher? Depends on the bargaining abilities of the sides.","\"The VDE fund is an energy fund so this is a function of recent price changes in oil (and gas, coal, &c). For example. Lets say last year when oil was $100 per barrel a bunch of companies saw a good return and put $ 100 million into a bunch of leases, boreholes, pumps, &c to return $10 million per year, and the market says yeah, they're all together worth 100M. Now oil is less, maybe $40 per the link. These exploration companies don't have a lot of labor or variable costs; they are operationally profitable, may have \"\"use it or lose it\"\" leases or minimum pumping requirements for contract or engineering reasons. Lets say the cash flow is 7M so the market values them at 70M. They still have about 100M book value so here we are at .7 and I believe the scenario in the question. Nobody would invest in new capacity at this oil price. The well equipment could be repurposed but not the borehole or lease, so the best use is to continue pumping and value it on cash flow. If an individual well runs negative long enough and goes bust, either a different pumper will pay the minimum price that gives profitable cash flow, or that borehole that cost millions to dig is shut off and rendered valueless. The CNBC article says some explorers are playing games with debt to maintain yield, so there is that too. In the ETF, your bet is that the market is wrong and oil will go up, increasing future cash flows (or you like the current yield, taking on the risk that some of these oil explorers could go bust).\"","A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out","\"Buyouts are usually for more than the ORIGINAL value of a stock. That's because the price \"\"premium\"\" represents an incentive for holders to \"\"tender\"\" their shares to the would-be buyer. Sometimes in these situations, the stock price rises above the proposed buyout price, in anticipation of a higher takeover bid from a SECOND party (that may or may not materialize). To answer the other part of the question, does a bidder have a chance of taking over a dying company for less than the market price? That is a strategy sometimes referred to as a \"\"take under,\"\" and it has not been a notably successful strategy. That's because it goes against \"\"human nature\"\" (of the seller). \"\"Where there is life, there is hope.\"\" They would seldom accept a lower price for \"\"sure\"\" survival, when the market is telling them that they are worth a higher price. Very few people realize that the market may disappear tomorrow. Think of all the homeowners who won't cut their price, but insist on bids that meet recent \"\"comps.\"\" And if the company is really dying, the prospective buyer may be best served by waiting until it does, and then pick up the individual pieces at auction.\"","\"With debts exceeding assets by a billion dollars, this activity likely comes from penny stock speculators and \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemers. There is no rational expectation that the stock is even worth multiple pennies when the company is that far upside-down on its debts. Even if the debts could be restructured in a chapter 11, the equity shares would likely lose all of their value in the bankruptcy proceedings. Shareholders are at the bottom of the totem-pole when debts are being adjusted by the courts.\"","\"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what \"\"the market\"\" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is \"\"earnings per share\"\", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the \"\"price-earnings ratio\"\" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected \"\"yield\"\" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets. Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a \"\"book value\"\" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers.\"",">Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet. Yes, the book value of equity is not affected. However, when the market value experiences a steep decline, you find those that hold deposits begin moving them out of the bank. Investment fear and business fear tend to move together with financial institutions. That directly impacts the reserve requirements. >but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper Not when there is bankruptcy or solvency issues that become present. Obviously an investor wants to buy low and sell high, but if there is a substantial risk of bankruptcy, the common stockholder will demand a premium unattainable by most non-growth firms (i.e. biotech, tech, etc.). That is the issue with France. Liquidity issues stem from systemic risk, but those French banks also possess significant firm risk due to their exposure to sovereign debt. Once those banks mark all of their holdings to market, they will realize substantial losses. BNP recently recorded a nearly $1B write-down.","\"One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had \"\"priced in\"\" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!).\"","It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit. What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash.","\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \"\"Cap Rate\"\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\"","> Or are there multiple ways of buying a company? Yes, there are, and it would depend on your contextual definition of what it means to buy a business. If you were intending to acquire a company by being its majority shareholder (i.e. >50% equity stake), then you would have to buy over its shares from existing shareholders at a negotiated price (read: not necessarily book value) to attain the desired shareholding. However, buy a business could also refer to an asset purchase, where the target's fixed assets are bought by the acquirer, in which case the target equity might not necessarily be involved in the acquisition.","The satisfaction from gains packs less of an emotional impact than the fear of loss. It's very difficult for many people to overcome this fear, so when prices begin to fall, many investors sell to minimize their potential loss. This causes a further drop, which can lead to more selling as other investors reach their emotional threshold for loss. This emotion-based selling keeps the market inefficient in the short term. If there aren't enough value investors waiting to scoop up the stock at the new discount, it can stay undervalued for a long time.","The price of a shares reflects the expected future returns of that company. If it does not someone will notice and buy until it does. Look at this chart http://www.finanzen.net/chart/Arcandor (click on max), that's a former DAX company, so one of the largest german companys. Now it's bankrupt. Why do you think you are the only one who is going to notice? There are millions of people and even more computers, some a going to be smarter than you. Of course that does not happen to everyone but who knows. Is Volkswagen going to survive the current crisis? Probably. Is it coming back to former glory in the next half year? Who knows? Here comes the obvious solution: Don't buy single stocks, spread it out over many companies, some will shine, some will plument and you get the average. Oh that's an index, how convinent. Now if there were a way to save on all these transaction costs you're incurring...","While on the surface it may seem that the warrant you described is trading below intrinsic value, there are many reasons why that might not be the case. It's more likely that you are lacking information, than having identified a derivative instrument that the market has failed to reasonably price. For instance, might there be a conversion ratio on the warrants other than the 1:1 ratio that you seem to be assuming? Sometimes, warrant terms are such that multiple warrants are required to buy one share of stock. Consider: The conversion ratio is the number of warrants needed in order to buy (or sell) one investment unit. Therefore, if the conversion ratio to buy stock XYZ is 3:1, this means that the holder needs three warrants in order to purchase one share. Usually, if the conversion ratio is high, the price of the share will be low, and vice versa. (source) Conversion ratios are sometimes used so that warrants can be issued on a 1:1 basis to existing stockholders, but where the potential number of new shares to be issued is much less. Conversion ratio is just one such example that could lead to perceived mispricing, and there may be other restrictions on exercise. Warrants are not issued by an options exchange using standardized option contract terms, and so warrant terms vary considerably from issuer to issuer. Even series of warrants from the same issuer may have differing terms. Always look beyond any warrant quote to find a definitive source of the warrant's precise terms — and read those terms carefully before taking any position.","I'll give the credit to @Quid in the comments section of the question. You put out $10k, you got back $20k, that's a cash gain of $10k, how the asset was valued between your purchase and sale isn't relevant. From an accounting perspective, the company is the only party that is realizing the loss (as they have sold the asset for 40K less than par). You the buyer, only get to see the initial buy and sale of such capital asset. Example: A company purchases a car for $20,000 and after depreciation it is worth (book valued at) $2,000. It is then sold to a customer for $3,000. Does the customer realize a loss of $1,000? No. Does the company realize a gain of $1,000? Yes. Your bank analogy is flawed in two ways:","Stephen's answer is the 100% correct one made with the common Economics assumption, that people are rational. A company that never has paid dividends, is still worth something to people because of its potential to start paying dividends later and it is often better to grow now and payoff later. However, the actual answer is much more disapointing, because people are not rational and the stock market is no longer about investing in companies or earning dividends. Most of the value of a stock is for the same reason that gold, stamps, coins and bitcoins, and Australian houses are worth anything, that is, because enough people say it is worth something*. Even stocks that pay dividends, very few people buy it for dividends. They buy it because they believe someone else will be willing to buy it for slightly more, shortly after. Different traders have different timeframes, ranging from seconds to months. *Houses and stock are of course partially valuable due to the fundamentals, but the major reason they are purchased is just to resell at a profit.","Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important.","\"The textbook answer would be \"\"assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit\"\". A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing); or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more.\"","I didn't mean to imply that bankruptcy is a magical process. I was using that to clarify my use of conservative vs. aggressive. To be fair, I guess it can vary depending on your perspective. If you're taking the perspective of the debt-laden company, then yes, erring on the side of a higher value could be defined as aggressive. If you're taking the perspective of someone looking to acquire business, I would say erring on the side of a higher value is conservative. if the debt is trading at, say, $0.20 on the dollar, then yes, I can agree that the market value of the debt is likely more representative of the book value. I guess I wasn't thinking of that type of extreme example. A more common scenario I'd encounter would be a) the debt trading at maybe $0.95 on the dollar and b) taking the perspective of someone looking to invest in the equity, which is why I'd say that it's more conservative to use the higher value, which is the book value. So I'm persuaded that using market value of the debt can make sense in some cases, but I would still argue that the book value might make more sense in other cases.","You have to look at stocks just like you would look at smaller and more illiquid markets. Stock trade in auction markets. These are analogous to ebay or craigslist, just with more transparency and liquidity. There is no guarantee that a market will form for a particular stock, or that it will sustain. When a stock sells off, and there are no bids left, that means all of the existing bidder's limit orders got filled because someone sold at those prices. There is nothing fishy about that. It is likely that someone else wants to sell even more, but couldn't find any more bidders. If you put a bid you would likely get filled by the shareholder with a massive position looking for liquidity. You could also buy at the ask.","\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? It would fall to the lowest bid price, which could be $0.01 if someone had that bid in place. Here is an example which I happened to find online: Notice there are orders to buy at half the market price and lower... probably all the way down to pennies. If there were enough selling activity to fill all of those bids you see, then the market price would be the lowest bid on the screen. Alternatively, the bid orders could be pulled (cancelled), which would also let the price free-fall to the lowest bid even if there were few actual sellers. Bid-stuffing is what HFT (high frequency trading) algorithms sometimes do, which some say caused the Flash Crash of May 2010. The computers \"\"stuff\"\" bids into the order book, making it look like there is demand in order to trigger a market reaction, then they pull the bids to make the market fall. This sort of thing happens all the time and Nanex documents it http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrash/OngoingResearch.html Quote stuffing defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quote-stuffing.asp I remember the day of the Flash Crash very well. I found this video on youtube of CNBC at that time. Watch from the 5:00 min mark on the video as Jim Crammer talks about PG easily not being worth the price of the market at that time. He said \"\"Who cares?\"\", \"\"Its not a real price\"\", \"\"$49.25 bid for 50,000 shares if I were at my hedge fund.\"\" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86g4_w4j3jU You can value a stock how you want, but its only actually worth what someone will give you for it. More examples: Anadarko Petroleum, which as we noted in today's EOD post, lost $45 billion in market cap in 45 milliseconds (a collapse rate of $1 billion per millisecond), flash crashing from $90 all the way to an (allegedly illegal) stub quote of $0.01. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/how-last-second-flash-crash-pushed-sp-500-1667-1666 How 10,000 Contracts Crashed The Market: A Visual Deconstruction Of Last Night's E-Mini Flash Crash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-21/how-10000-contracts-crashed-market-visual-deconstruction-last-nights-e-mini-flash-cr Symantec Flash-Crash Destroys Over $1.5 Billion In Less Than A Second http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-30/symantec-flash-crash-destroys-over-15-billion-less-second This sort of thing happens so often, I don't pay much attention anymore.\"","The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.","How can they reduce the number of shares I hold? They may have purchased them. You don't say what stock it is, so we can only speculate. Let's say that the stock is called PENNY. So they may have taken your 1600 PENNY shares and renamed them to 1600 PENNYOLD shares. Then they created a new $5 PENNY share and gave you .2357 shares of that in exchange for your 1600 PENNYOLD shares. This suggests that your old shares were worth $1.1785 or less than a tenth of a cent each. As an example, MYLAN did this in 2015 as part of their tax inversion (moved official headquarters from the US to Europe). They did not change the number of shares at that time, but MYLAN is not a penny stock. This is the kind of thing that might happen in a bankruptcy. A reverse split (where they give you one share in exchange for more than one share) is also possible, although you received an odd amount for a reverse split. Usually those produce rounder numbers. A number like .2357 sounds more like a market price, as those can be bizarre.","Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.","No. The above calculation does not hold good. When financial statements are prepared they are prepared on a going concern basis, i.e. a business will run normally in the foreseeable future. Valuation of assets and liabilities is done according to this principle. When a bankruptcy takes places or a business closes down, immediately the valuation method will change. For assets, the realizable value will be more relevant. For example, if you hold 100 computers, in an normal situation, they will depreciated at the normal rate. Every year, some portion of the cost is written off as depreciation. When you actually go to sell these computers you are likely to realize much less than what is shown in the statement. Similarly, for a building, the actual realizable value may be more. For liabilities, they tend to increase in such situation. Hence just a plain computation can give you a very broad idea but the actual figure may be different.","Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.","Here is an example for you. We have a fictional company. It's called MoneyCorp. Its job is to own money, and that's all. Right now it owns $10,000. It doesn't do anything special with that $10,000 - it stores it in a bank account, and whenever it earns interest gives it to the shareholders as a dividend. Also, it doesn't have any expenses at all, and doesn't pay taxes, and is otherwise magic so that it doesn't have to worry about distractions from its mathematical perfection. There are 10,000 shares of MoneyCorp, each worth exactly $1. However, they may trade for more or less than $1 on the stock market, because it's a free market and people trading stock on the stock market can trade at whatever price two people agree on. Scenario 1. MoneyCorp wants to expand. They sell 90,000 shares for $1 each. The money goes in the same bank account at the same interest rate. Do the original shareholders see a change? No. 100,000 shares, $100,000, still $1/share. No problem. This is the ideal situation. Scenario 2: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for less than the current price, $0.50 each. Do the original shareholders lose out? YES. It now has something like $55,000 and 100,000 shares. Each share is now worth $0.55. The company has given away valuable equity to new shareholders. That's bad. Why didn't they get more money from those guys? Scenario 3: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for more than the current price, $2 each, because there's a lot of hype about its business. MoneyCorp now owns $190,000 in 100,000 shares and each share is worth $1.90. Existing shareholders win big! This is why a company would like to make its share offering at the highest price possible (think, Facebook IPO). Of course, the new shareholders may be disappointed. MoneyCorp is actually a lot like a real business! Actually, if you want to get down to it, MoneyCorp works very much like a money-market fund. The main difference between MoneyCorp and a random company on the stock market is that we know exactly how much money MoneyCorp is worth. You don't know that with a real business: sales may grow, sales may drop, input prices may rise and fall, and there's room for disagreement - that's why stock markets are as unpredictable as they are, so there's room for doubt when a company sells their stock at a price existing shareholders think is too cheap (or buys it at a price that is too expensive). Most companies raising capital will end up doing something close to scenario 1, the fair-prices-for-everyone scenario. Legally, if you own part of a company and they do something a Scenario-2 on you... you may be out of luck. Consider also: the other owners are probably hurt as much as you are. Only the new shareholders win. And unless the management approving the deal is somehow giving themselves a sweetheart deal, it'll be hard to demonstrate any malfeasance. As an individual, you probably won't file a lawsuit either, unless you own a very large stake in the company. Lawsuits are expensive. A big institutional investor or activist investor of some sort may file a suit if millions of dollars are at stake, but it'll be ugly at best. If there's nothing evil going on with the management, this is just one way that a company loses money from bad management. It's probably not the most important one to worry about.","\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"","\"> If the stock price goes down it wouldn't make sense that ABC had a higher dividend yield, so my argument was you have to make assume the stock price went down because it could have cost less for other reasons, but you don't have to assume the dividend yield which would make it a good investment. I'm not sure I understand your argument. The wording doesn't seem clear to me (\"\"you have to make assume\"\"? make assume? \"\"but you don't have to assume the dividend yield\"\" assume it what?) Dividend yield has a negative correlation with stock price. If price goes down, all else being equal, yield rises.\"","Imagine that I own 10% of a company, and yesterday my portion was valued at $1 Million, therefore the company is valued at $10 Million. Today the company accepts an offer to sell 1% of the company for $500 Thousand: now my portion is worth $5 Million, and company is worth $50 Million. The latest stock price sets the value of the company. If next week the news is all bad and the new investor sells their shares to somebody else for pennies on the dollar, the value of the company will drop accordingly.","\"What will happen if the stock price just continues to decline? Nothing. What would happen if folks just stop trading it? Nothing. What if the company goes private? Then they will have to buy you out based on some agreed upon price, as voted by the board and (potentially) approved by the shareholders. Depending on the corporation charter, the board may not be required to seek the shareholders' approval, but if the price the board agreed upon is unreasonable you can sue and prevent the transaction. How do they decide the fair value of the outstanding stocks? Through a process called \"\"valuation\"\", there are accounting firms which specialize in this area of public accounting.\"","Here are some significant factors affect the company stock price performance: Usually, profitability is known to the public through the financial statements; it won't be 100% accurate and people would also trade the stock with the price not matching to the true value of the firm. Still there are dozens of other various reasons exist. People are just not behaving as rational as what the textbook describes when they are trading and investing.","Why is the stock trading at only $5 per share? The share price is the perceived value of the company by people buying and selling the stock. Not the actual value of the company and all its assets. Generally if the company is not doing well, there is a perceived risk that it will burn out the money fast. There is a difference between its signed conditional sale and will get money and has got money. So in short, it's trading at $5 a share because the market doesn't feel like it's worth $12 per share. Quite a few believe there could be issues faced; i.e. it may not make the $12, or there will be additional obligations, i.e. employees may demand more layoff compensation, etc. or the distribution may take few years due to regulatory and legal hurdles. The only problem is the stock exchange states if the company has no core business, the stock will be suspended soon (hopefully they can release the $12 per share first). What will happen if I hold shares in the company, the stock gets suspended, and its sitting on $12 per share? Can it still distribute it out? Every country and stock markets have laid out procedures for de-listing a company and closing a company. The company can give $10 as say dividends and remaining later; or as part of the closure process, the company will distribute the balance among shareholders. This would be a long drawn process.","\"No. If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: \"\"During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.\"\" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company.\"","This can arise with very thinly traded stocks for large blocks of shares. If the market only has a few thousand dollars available at between 8.37 and 12.5 the price is largely meaningless for people who want to invest in hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars worth, as the quoted price can't get them anywhere near the number of shares they want. How liquid is the stock in question?","How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.","\"Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true. From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock. This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings. A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up. These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called \"\"growth\"\" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way.\"","Interestingly, the Staples doesn't own most of the land their stores operate on like its competitors. They opted for leases versus buying land during expansion to focus capex on other parts of the business. However, it leaves the company without a lot of land and therefore low relative book value. The value in Staples lies in their online B2B in a direct business model, though how much growth lies in physical paper and ink in a world of tablets and computers remains to be seen.","Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.","Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another","\"Check your math... \"\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\"\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\"","\"The only thing that makes a stock worthless is when the company goes out of business. Note that bankruptcy, by itself, does not mean the company is closing. It could successfully restructure its affairs and come out of bankruptcy with a better outlook. Being a small or unprofitable business may cause a company's to trade in the \"\"penny stock\"\" range, but there is still some value there. Since most dying companies will pass through the penny stock phase, you may be able to track down what you're looking for by finding companies who have been (or are about to be) delisted. Delisting is not death, it's just the point at which the company's shares no longer meet the qualifications to be traded on a particular exchange. If you find old stock certificates in your grandmother's sock drawer, they may be a treasure, or they may be worthless pieces of paper if the company changed its ownership and Grandma didn't know about it.\"","\"As @ApplePie pointed out in their answer, at any given time there is a finite amount of stock available in a company. One subtlety you may be missing is that there is always a price associated with an offer to buy shares. That is, you don't put in an order simply to buy 1 share of ABC, you put in an order to buy 1 share of ABC for $10. If no one is willing to sell a share of ABC for $10, then your order will go unfilled. This happens millions of times a day as traders try to figure the cheapest price they can get for a stock. Practically speaking, there is always a price at which people are willing to sell their shares. You can put in a market order for 1 share of ABC, which says essentially \"\"I want one share of ABC, and I will pay whatever the market deems to be the price\"\". Your broker will find you 1 share, but you may be very unhappy about the price you have to pay! While it's very rare for a market to have nobody willing to sell at any price, it occasionally happens that no one is willing to buy at any price. This causes a market crash, as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, when suddenly everyone became very suspicious of how much debt the major banks actually held, and for a few days, very few traders were willing to buy bank stocks at any price.\"","Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies. You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion.","This comment makes zero sense. No one values equities from the balance sheet, unless you're trying to justify why you'd invest in sears or something (i.e. b/s vastly understates market value of real estate holdings and you're hoping for a liquidity event). Certainly not a tech company or really anything as a going concern."],"string":"[\n \"Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps\",\n \"\\\"An answer can be found in my book, \\\"\\\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\\\"\\\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \\\"\\\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\\\"\\\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \\\"\\\"impaired,\\\"\\\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\\\"\",\n \"Note that the formula for Price to Book ratio is: Stock Price / {[Total Assets - (Intangible Assets + Liabilities)] / Stock Outstanding} http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-to-bookratio.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/03/112603.asp There's a number of factors that could lead to a lower than 1. The primary reason, imho, could be the company is in a state of retiring stock with debt. The company is selling penny stocks (only to get people more interested in it's later development) which are inherently undervalued. There may be other reasons, but definitely check out both articles.\",\n \"Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book Value–Sep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here.\",\n \"A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;\",\n \"To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings.\",\n \"\\\"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary. They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life. If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million. However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" earnings \\\"\\\"ie actual profit and loss on sales\\\"\\\" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely.\\\"\",\n \"And the kind folk at Yahoo Finance came to the same conclusion. Keep in mind, book value for a company is like looking at my book value, all assets and liabilities, which is certainly important, but it ignores my earnings. BAC (Bank of America) has a book value of $20, but trades at $8. Some High Tech companies have negative book values, but are turning an ongoing profit, and trade for real money.\",\n \"\\\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \\\"\\\"book value\\\"\\\" is your compensation for a low \\\"\\\"interest\\\"\\\" rate.\\\"\",\n \"The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.\",\n \"A company's stock value is indicative of the market's collective belief of the future of the company. The relationship of between price and book value will vary according to the quality of the company, the category of stock, etc. In extreme cases, say Bank of America, the stock trades at a fraction of book, because BOA's books are a fantasy by most people's reckoning.\",\n \"\\\"By definition, a downturn in the business cycle will push some companies into bankruptcy. What's worse, a downturn in the business cycle will trigger \\\"\\\"bankruptcy fears\\\"\\\" for a LOT of companies, far more than will suffer this fate. So the prices of MANY candidates go down to levels that reflect this fear. This aggregate impact produces the \\\"\\\"overreaction\\\"\\\" you're talking about. It's called \\\"\\\"fallacy of composition\\\"\\\"; some of these companies will go under, but not all. Then the prices of the survivors will bounce back strongly during the early stages of an upturn when it becomes clear which companies WON'T go bankrupt.\\\"\",\n \"P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.\",\n \"There are things that are clearly beyond me as well. Cash per share is $12.61 but the debt looks like $30 or so per share. I look at that, and the $22 negative book value and don't see where the shareholders are able to recoup anything.\",\n \"Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.\",\n \"\\\"When presenting negative P/E values, most brokers and equity analysts show them as \\\"\\\"n.m.\\\"\\\", which stands for not meaningful. I have never seen a P/E ratio of 0.\\\"\",\n \"You are omitting how the company made 120 million in the previous year and may be facing a shrinking market and thus have poor future prospects. If the company is shrinking, what will the shares be worth down the road. Remember companies like AOL or Blackberry? There was a time they had big profits before things changed which is the part you aren't considering here. If the company has lost something big on its earnings, e.g. the oil wells it owned have run out of reserves or the patents on its key drugs have expired, then there could be the perception that the company won't be able to compete in the future to continue to deliver earnings. Some companies may well end up going broke as one could look at GM for a company that used to be one of the largest car companies in the world and yet it ended up going broke.\",\n \"Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k. In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10. The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year. If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11. Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices. You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k. Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future. The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10. If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k). You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower. Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.\",\n \"Well, yes it does, but just because the debt is trading at 80 cents on the dollar doesn't mean that the company can actually legally get away with paying only 80 cents on the dollar. They would have to come to an agreement with the debt holders first. And perhaps they could, but the more conservative approach is to use the book value of the debt. Or what about debt that's trading at a premium to its face value, because, say, interest rates have come down relative to the time the debt was issued? The amount that the conpany owes to the debt holders hasn't suddenly gone up.\",\n \"Residential Construction at 362x, by the way. I'm going to hazard a guess here - Say XYZ corp trades at $100, and it's showing a normal earnings of $10 the last few years. Its industry falls on hard times, and while it makes enough to keep its doors open, profits fall to $1. The company itself is still sound, but the small earnings result in a high P/E. By the way, its book value is $110, and they have huge cash on the books along with real estate. I offer these details to show why the price doesn't drop like a rock. Now, biotech may be in a period of low reported earnings but with future results expected to justify the price. On one hand it may be an anomaly, with earnings due to rise, or it may be a bit of a bubble. An analyst for this sector should be able to comment if I'm on the right track.\",\n \"There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.\",\n \"Its not just Citi and BoFA, even Barclays, HSBC and other large Banks are trading below book value in markets they are listed. Are there particular assets that are causing these two banks to be valued lower relative to their book values than the other banks? There no particular assets. Given the current economic situation most Banks are not making good returns, i.e. expected returns of markets are around 10-12% and the returns getting generated are around 4-6%. The overall slow down in various segments as well as regulations in most countries mean that banks have to relook at the business model in short term and generate more revenue. The market believes that Banks may loose money faster and hence the negative outlook and the trading below the book value. Note Book Value is derived in ideal conditions, i.e. when the company is healthy. If any company were to sell the assets in distress, the actual funds raised would be quite a bit less than Book Value. Its also to be noted that typically Banks would not close out and hence Book Value to an extent is just an indicator. Or is it a residual loathing based on their being the biggest losers of 2008 that are still around today? The 2008 has gone past. This is more recent. If you look most of these banks were doing quite well till last year and had recovered substantially after 2008.\",\n \"NAV is how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13. Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.\",\n \"\\\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \\\"\\\"earnings\\\"\\\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \\\"\\\"free.\\\"\\\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\\\"\\\" meaning \\\"\\\"no future\\\"\\\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \\\"\\\"no past.\\\"\\\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\\\"\",\n \"The company's value (which should be reflected in the share price) is not how much money it has in the bank, but something along the lines of 'how much money will it make between now and the end of times' (adjusted for time value of money and risk). So when you purchase a share of a company that has, say, little money in the bank, but expects to make 1M$ profit this year, 2M$ for the following 3 years, and say, nothing after, you are going to pay your fraction of 7M$ (minus some discount because of the risk involved). If now they announce that their profits were only 750k$, then people may think that the 2M$ are more likely to be 1.5M$, so the company's value would go to ~ 5M$. And with that, the market may perceive the company as more risky, because its profits deviated from what was expected, which in turn may reduce the company's value even further.\",\n \"It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for? The only way to (on average) make good buy and sell decisions is to know about investing and trading (buy some books, I have 12), understand the businesses you propose to invest in and understand their market(s) (which may also mean understanding national and international economics somewhat).\",\n \"\\\"The company was paying \\\"\\\"only\\\"\\\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \\\"\\\"too high,\\\"\\\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \\\"\\\"most\\\"\\\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \\\"\\\"stingy,\\\"\\\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\\\"\",\n \"One reason that a bond can be significantly less than face value is because people are seeking better investments elsewhere, so for example if a bond doesn't mature for another 10 years, that 20% increase in face value isn't very attractive when compared to say leaving your money in the stock market for 10 years. Another reason could be that the credit-worthiness of the issuer has collapsed and people expect that there is a fairly good chance they are not going to make the payment. This could be what you would see if for example it was a one year time until maturity, but it has a value of 40% of the face value. There is a risk, because they can simply not pay. For example people who bought Greek bonds.\",\n \"One problem is that P/E ratio only looks at the last announced earnings. Let's take your manufacturing plant with a P/E of 12.5. Then they announce a major problem that will hurt future earnings and the price drops in half. Now the P/E is 6.25. It looks great, but since there aren't any new earnings that reflect the problem, it's very misleading.\",\n \"\\\"You are comparing \\\"\\\"market caps\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"enterprise value\\\"\\\". If the company has four billion dollars cash in the bank, then the value would be four billion plus whatever the business itself is worth as a business. If the business itself is only worth 400 million, then you would have 4.4bn market caps and 400 million enterprise value. The \\\"\\\"enterprise value\\\"\\\" is basically how much the business would be worth if it had no cash or no debt. These numbers would be a very unusual situation. It could happen for example if a big company has sold 90% of its business for cash. When you buy a share of the company, you get a tiny share of the business and you own a tiny share of the cash. This stock will very likely keep its value, but won't make much money. On the other hand, more common would be a company where the business is worth 4bn, but the company has also 4bn debt. So it is worth exactly zero. Market caps close to zero, but enterprise value $4bn, because you ignore the debt in the enterprise value. Edit: Sorry, got the \\\"\\\"enterprise value\\\"\\\" totally wrong, read millions instead of billions: Your numbers would mean that you have a huge, huge company with close to 440bn debt. Most likely someone made a mistake here. A \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" situation would be say a company with a business that is worth $500 million, but they have $100 million debt, so market caps = $400 million but enterprise value = $500 million. PS. Yahoo has the same nonsense numbers on their UK site, and for other companies (I just checked Marks and Spencer's which apparently has an enterprise value of 800 billion pound with a totally ridiculous P/E ratio.\\\"\",\n \"Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.\",\n \"How is it possible that a publicly traded investment company's net asset value per share is higher than their share price? Wouldn't you (in theory) be able to buy the company and liquidate it to make a profit of (NAV/share - price/share)*number of shares, ignoring transaction costs and such? I realize that since part of their portfolio is in private equity, NAV is hard to calculate and hard to liquidate as well, but it doesn't really seem to make sense to me. Would love some input. The company I'm talking about in this instance is 180 Degree Capital Corp, but this isn't the first time I've seen this.\",\n \"Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.\",\n \"\\\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \\\"\\\"earnings smoothing\\\"\\\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \\\"\\\"interesting\\\"\\\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\\\"\",\n \"Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel). If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy. The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.\",\n \"P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.\",\n \"Most penny stocks go to zero because most businesses fail. You stated in your original post that you were wondering specifically about companies with no assets. These are exactly the kind that fail and go to zero. There are many holes within the regulatory structure that allow for many accounting tricks in penny stock land. And even in areas that are adequately regulated, there will be few to no remedies for the optimistic penny stock shareholder speculator.\",\n \"\\\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \\\"\\\"sale\\\"\\\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \\\"\\\"appeared\\\"\\\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \\\"\\\"all risk\\\"\\\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes, there are situations where a stock is a bad buy in spite of a low PE. PE ratio tells you the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. It does not consider: Imagine someone walked up to you and said, \\\"\\\"Do you want to buy a piece of my business? I'll sell you 1% of it for $1000. Last year the business earned $25000.\\\"\\\" A quick calculation shows a PE of 4 [$1000/($25000 *.01)]. Even though this PE is comparatively low, you wouldn't buy in without a lot more info. What kinds of things might you ask? PE is one tiny component of an informed investment decision.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"> What's their performance been like in recent years? IIRC the last time they were able to pay a dividend was in 2000, so I'm gonna go with \\\"\\\"not great\\\"\\\". Thanks a lot for the effort, I didn't factor in tax at all, it makes more sense then. I still think it's an interesting concept that shares are worth less than what you \\\"\\\"get\\\"\\\" for them (according to their accountants, who knows what the value actually would be if you tried to sell whatever they own now), and I found basically nothing on google. The whole is usually more than the sum of its parts, not (significantly) less.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? Such stock is typically considered \\\"\\\"distressed assets\\\"\\\". Technically, what drives it is what drives every stock - supply and demand. A more interesting question is of course, why would there be demand? First, who exerts the buying pressure on the stock? Typically, three types of entities: The largest ones are financial institutions specializing in distressed assets (frequently, alternatives specialists - hedge funds, private equity firms etc...). Usually, they invest in distressed debt or distressed preferred equity; but sometimes distressed equity as well. Why? We will discuss their motivations separately in this answer. Second one are existing equity holders. Why? Short answer, behavioral psychology and behavioral economics. Many investors - especially non-professionals - insist on holding distressed stocks due to variety of investment fallacies (sunk cost etc...); usually constructing elaborate theories of why and how the company and the stock will recover Sometimes, people who buy into penny stock scams, pump and dump schemes etc... Why? \\\"\\\"There's a sucker born every minute.\\\"\\\" - P.T. Barnum Let's find out why an investment professional would invest in distressed equity? First, the general process is always the same. Company's assets are used to pay off its liabilities; in accordance with applicable law. There are two ways this can be done - either through selling the company; OR through bankruptcy process. The liabilities are paid according to seniority. The seniority priorities rules are covered by 11 U.S. Code § 507 - Priorities A company in bankruptcy can have one of 2 outcomes: Buyout. Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity. For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future. The chances are, some buyer will buy it for a premium that includes those future profits; and that sale amount might possibly exceed the liabilities. Bankruptcy. The assets are sold and liabilities are covered according to priorities. In that case, the investors in distressed equity might be hoping that there are un-obvious assets whose value would also put the total assets above claimed liabilities. Additional possible beneficial factor is that unsecured debtors must file with the court in order to be paid; and the claim must be validated. Some might fail on either count; so total amount of liabilities might lessen once the bankruptcy process goes through. Assets Now, here's where things get interesting. Of course, companies have usual assets. Real estate, inventory, plants, cash, etc... These are all able to be sold to cover liabilities, and at first glance are possibly not enough to cover liabilities, leaving equity holders with nothing (and even that's not a certainty - bankruptcy is simply inability to service debt payments; and while it correlates to assetsliquid assets, not full asset valuation). But some assets are less sure, and are thus rarely included in such calculations. These may include: Chances of winning appeals if specific existing liabilities are results of litigation, e.g. tax appeals, court judgement appeals etc... Clawbacks and lawsuits against former executives, especially in cases where the company's financial distress resulted from executive malfeasance. I was personally involved in one such case as an equity holder, where the company assets were valued at $X; had liabilities of $X*2; but had a real possibility of winning about $X*3 in a lawsuit against former CEO accused of various malfeasance including fraud and insider trading. As such, the best case scenario was literally 100% profit on holding that distressed equity.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes, the price of a stock is what investors think the value of a stock is, which is not tied to profits or dividends by any rigid formula. But to say that therefore the price could be high even though the company is doing very poorly is hypothetically true, but unlikely in practice. Consider any other product. There is no fixed formula for the value of a used car, either. If everyone agreed that a rusting, 20-year old car that doesn't run is worth $100,000, then that's what it would sell for. But that's a pretty big \\\"\\\"if\\\"\\\" at the beginning of that sentence. If the car had been used in some hit TV show 20 years ago, or if it was owned by a celebrity, or some such special case, maybe a rusting old car really would sell for $100,000. Likewise, a stock might have a price higher than what one would predict from its dividends if some rich person wanted to buy that company because the brand name brings back nostalgic memories from his youth and so he drives the price up, etc. But the normal case is that, in the long term, the price of a stock tends to settle on a value proportional to the dividends that it pays. Or rather, and this is a big caveat, the dividends that investors expect it to pay in the future. And then adjusted for all sorts of other factors and special situations, like the value of the company if it was to be liquidated, etc.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Let's say you see a café. You're looking to buy a café so you walk into one and ask the manager how much profit he makes in a year. He says $N and you walk out and think to yourself, \\\"\\\"I'd be willing to pay $500,000 for this café.\\\"\\\" You arrange to meet again to discuss purchasing the business (and he's looking for someone to purchase it). You go into the store again the following day and the manager says, \\\"\\\"Sorry, I told you we make $N. I've checked the numbers and it's actually only $0.8N (20% lower than what you thought).\\\"\\\" Are you still willing to buy the café for $500,000 as well? No, of course you're not. I think that this is a sufficient analogy to public companies.\\\"\",\n \"You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.\",\n \"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?\",\n \"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? The company's potential residual assets. When a company goes bankrupt it is required to sell its assets to pay off its debts. The funds raised from selling assets go to the following entities: The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. Depending on the amount of debt and the value of a company's assets, the common shareholders may receive some left over from liquidated assets. This would drive the stock price of a bankrupt company.\",\n \"The value of a company is, simplified, the sum of the value of the equity and the value of the debt. There are some other things to add/subtract to that, but just think about those for now. You could also say the value of a company is the value of its assets, or more precisely the value of the net cash flows those assets will generate in the future. So let's say you want to start a company, so you want to buy some assets. Maybe you want to buy a $200 asset. Well, you only have $100, so you take out a loan (debt) for $100 for the remainder. You buy the asset and start generating income. Let's say after a month you get bored and decide to sell the company. Let's assume the value of the assets hasn't changed. Your equity is worth $100, and you find a buyer who is willing to pay $100 for your company. Great! Right? Well there's still the $100 loan you owe, so you have to pay that back. And suddenly you now have $0. So in fact, you should have negotiated $200 with the buyer, because that's what the assets are actually worth. Then you can pay back the loan and still have the $100 in equity you deserve. (Alternatively, you could have negotiated the buyer to assume responsibility for the loan; same outcome for you.) Did that help?\",\n \"Would make sense that the higher liquidation cost and Transaction costs are driving the share price down. Higher liq and transaction means higher investors would require higher return, driving down the share price. The other possibilities I can think of off the top of my head, based on looking at the firm for five minutes 1) In transaction costs, did you include tax? Disclaimer: math below done on the back of the envelope in between meetings; So, NAV says they are at ~$75M. Liquidating that entire portfolio means about 22% capital gains tax rate. Which means after tax value is about $60M. Add in any fees you'd incur from trying to sell this stuff, and it's not unreasonable to assume you'll only get about $55M once all is said and done, which is pretty close to the actual market cap. If you have accounted for the above, consider ; 2) Bulk of their investments seem to be in private assets. Which implies that they have some discretion in how they mark the value of those investments. And, there is the chance that the market doesn't have confidence in these guys. What's their performance been like in recent years? Especially with a private asset portfolio, I'd be weary. If I was to invest in them, I'd want a higher return for the opaque portfolio.\",\n \"What is cheap? A stock may fall from $20 per share to $10 per share, but it may have gone from making a $100M profit last year to a $100M loss this year. So now at $10 per share it may still be considered expensive. You need to be very careful when to consider that a stock is cheap or not, you'll have to look at more than just the share price.\",\n \"\\\"Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a \\\"\\\"feast or famine\\\"\\\" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely \\\"\\\"make out\\\"\\\" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become \\\"\\\"mature.\\\"\\\" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer.\\\"\",\n \"for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)\",\n \"In finance, short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling assets, usually securities, that have been borrowed from a third party (usually a broker) with the intention of buying identical assets back at a later date to return to the lender. Remember your broker has to borrow it from somewhere, other clients or if they hold those specific stocks themselves. So if it isn't possible for them to lend you those stocks, they wouldn't. High P/E stocks would find more sellers than buyers, and if the broker has to deliver them, it would be a nightmare for him to deliver all those stocks, which he had lent you(others) back to whom he had borrowed from, as well as to people who had gone long(buy) when you went short(sell). And if every body is selling there is going to be a dearth of stocks to be borrowed from as everybody around is selling instead of buying.\",\n \"\\\"Many people assume that if the price of something is $10 and they have 1,000 of that thing, they should expect to be able to sell them for something around $10,000. Such an assumption may hold much of the time, but it doesn't always. Worse, the cases where it fails to hold are often those where it would be relied upon most heavily. Such an assumption should thus be considered dangerous. In a liquid market, the quantity of a something that people would be willing to buy at something close to the market price will be large relative to the quantity that people would seek to sell in the short term. If at some moment in time one person in the market was willing to immediately buy 500 shares at $9.98 and another was willing to immediately buy 750 at $9.97, someone seeking to sell 1,000 shares could immediately receive $997.50 for them (selling 500 to the first person and 500 to the second, who would then be ready to buy 250 more from the first person who was willing to sell for $9.97). Such behavior would be in line with what many people's assumptions. In an illiquid market, however, the quantity of something that people would be willing to buy near market price could be surprisingly low. This is more often a problem in the marketplace of things like collectibles than of stocks, but the same thing can happen in the stock market. If there's one potential buyer for a stock who thinks it's overpriced but has potential and would be worth $9.50, but that person only has $950 to spend, and nobody else thinks the stock would be worth more than $0.02/share, then until people sold a total of 100 shares the price would be $9.50, but after that the price would drop instantly to $0.02. There would be no \\\"\\\"cushioning\\\"\\\" of the fall. If the person with 1,000 shares was first in line, he'd get to sell 100 shares for $950 to the aforementioned seller, but would be unable to get more than $18 for the remaining 900. A major danger with markets is that markets which are perceived as liquid attract people to the buying side, while those which are seen as illiquid repel people. The danger in the latter is obvious (having people flee a seemingly-illiquid market will reduce its liquidity further) but the former is just as bad. Having people flock to a market because of its perceived liquidity will increase its liquidity, but can also create a \\\"\\\"false price floor\\\"\\\", causing demand to appear much stronger than it actually is. Unless real demand increases to match the false price floor, the people who buy at the higher price will never be able to recoup their investment.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It depends on the definition of earnings. A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce \\\"\\\"earnings\\\"\\\" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred). It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues).\\\"\",\n \"Can a company not bargain with a dying company for example and buy a falling stock at lower than market value? Of course. If the shareholders agree to it. But why would they, if the market value is higher, agree to sell to someone who offers less? If there's a compelling reason - it can happen. It might happen during a hostile takeover, for example. In the case of buying the company for more than market value, are the stocks bought for significantly more, or slightly more than the current market value? Again, depends on how valuable the shareholders think the company is. If the shareholders think that the company has a potential which has not yet affected the stock price, they'll want a higher premium (and they'd think that, otherwise why would they hold the stock?). How much higher? Depends on the bargaining abilities of the sides.\",\n \"\\\"The VDE fund is an energy fund so this is a function of recent price changes in oil (and gas, coal, &c). For example. Lets say last year when oil was $100 per barrel a bunch of companies saw a good return and put $ 100 million into a bunch of leases, boreholes, pumps, &c to return $10 million per year, and the market says yeah, they're all together worth 100M. Now oil is less, maybe $40 per the link. These exploration companies don't have a lot of labor or variable costs; they are operationally profitable, may have \\\"\\\"use it or lose it\\\"\\\" leases or minimum pumping requirements for contract or engineering reasons. Lets say the cash flow is 7M so the market values them at 70M. They still have about 100M book value so here we are at .7 and I believe the scenario in the question. Nobody would invest in new capacity at this oil price. The well equipment could be repurposed but not the borehole or lease, so the best use is to continue pumping and value it on cash flow. If an individual well runs negative long enough and goes bust, either a different pumper will pay the minimum price that gives profitable cash flow, or that borehole that cost millions to dig is shut off and rendered valueless. The CNBC article says some explorers are playing games with debt to maintain yield, so there is that too. In the ETF, your bet is that the market is wrong and oil will go up, increasing future cash flows (or you like the current yield, taking on the risk that some of these oil explorers could go bust).\\\"\",\n \"A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out\",\n \"\\\"Buyouts are usually for more than the ORIGINAL value of a stock. That's because the price \\\"\\\"premium\\\"\\\" represents an incentive for holders to \\\"\\\"tender\\\"\\\" their shares to the would-be buyer. Sometimes in these situations, the stock price rises above the proposed buyout price, in anticipation of a higher takeover bid from a SECOND party (that may or may not materialize). To answer the other part of the question, does a bidder have a chance of taking over a dying company for less than the market price? That is a strategy sometimes referred to as a \\\"\\\"take under,\\\"\\\" and it has not been a notably successful strategy. That's because it goes against \\\"\\\"human nature\\\"\\\" (of the seller). \\\"\\\"Where there is life, there is hope.\\\"\\\" They would seldom accept a lower price for \\\"\\\"sure\\\"\\\" survival, when the market is telling them that they are worth a higher price. Very few people realize that the market may disappear tomorrow. Think of all the homeowners who won't cut their price, but insist on bids that meet recent \\\"\\\"comps.\\\"\\\" And if the company is really dying, the prospective buyer may be best served by waiting until it does, and then pick up the individual pieces at auction.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"With debts exceeding assets by a billion dollars, this activity likely comes from penny stock speculators and \\\"\\\"pump and dump\\\"\\\" schemers. There is no rational expectation that the stock is even worth multiple pennies when the company is that far upside-down on its debts. Even if the debts could be restructured in a chapter 11, the equity shares would likely lose all of their value in the bankruptcy proceedings. Shareholders are at the bottom of the totem-pole when debts are being adjusted by the courts.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what \\\"\\\"the market\\\"\\\" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is \\\"\\\"earnings per share\\\"\\\", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the \\\"\\\"price-earnings ratio\\\"\\\" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected \\\"\\\"yield\\\"\\\" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets. Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a \\\"\\\"book value\\\"\\\" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers.\\\"\",\n \">Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet. Yes, the book value of equity is not affected. However, when the market value experiences a steep decline, you find those that hold deposits begin moving them out of the bank. Investment fear and business fear tend to move together with financial institutions. That directly impacts the reserve requirements. >but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper Not when there is bankruptcy or solvency issues that become present. Obviously an investor wants to buy low and sell high, but if there is a substantial risk of bankruptcy, the common stockholder will demand a premium unattainable by most non-growth firms (i.e. biotech, tech, etc.). That is the issue with France. Liquidity issues stem from systemic risk, but those French banks also possess significant firm risk due to their exposure to sovereign debt. Once those banks mark all of their holdings to market, they will realize substantial losses. BNP recently recorded a nearly $1B write-down.\",\n \"\\\"One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had \\\"\\\"priced in\\\"\\\" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!).\\\"\",\n \"It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit. What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \\\"\\\"Cap Rate\\\"\\\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\\\"\",\n \"> Or are there multiple ways of buying a company? Yes, there are, and it would depend on your contextual definition of what it means to buy a business. If you were intending to acquire a company by being its majority shareholder (i.e. >50% equity stake), then you would have to buy over its shares from existing shareholders at a negotiated price (read: not necessarily book value) to attain the desired shareholding. However, buy a business could also refer to an asset purchase, where the target's fixed assets are bought by the acquirer, in which case the target equity might not necessarily be involved in the acquisition.\",\n \"The satisfaction from gains packs less of an emotional impact than the fear of loss. It's very difficult for many people to overcome this fear, so when prices begin to fall, many investors sell to minimize their potential loss. This causes a further drop, which can lead to more selling as other investors reach their emotional threshold for loss. This emotion-based selling keeps the market inefficient in the short term. If there aren't enough value investors waiting to scoop up the stock at the new discount, it can stay undervalued for a long time.\",\n \"The price of a shares reflects the expected future returns of that company. If it does not someone will notice and buy until it does. Look at this chart http://www.finanzen.net/chart/Arcandor (click on max), that's a former DAX company, so one of the largest german companys. Now it's bankrupt. Why do you think you are the only one who is going to notice? There are millions of people and even more computers, some a going to be smarter than you. Of course that does not happen to everyone but who knows. Is Volkswagen going to survive the current crisis? Probably. Is it coming back to former glory in the next half year? Who knows? Here comes the obvious solution: Don't buy single stocks, spread it out over many companies, some will shine, some will plument and you get the average. Oh that's an index, how convinent. Now if there were a way to save on all these transaction costs you're incurring...\",\n \"While on the surface it may seem that the warrant you described is trading below intrinsic value, there are many reasons why that might not be the case. It's more likely that you are lacking information, than having identified a derivative instrument that the market has failed to reasonably price. For instance, might there be a conversion ratio on the warrants other than the 1:1 ratio that you seem to be assuming? Sometimes, warrant terms are such that multiple warrants are required to buy one share of stock. Consider: The conversion ratio is the number of warrants needed in order to buy (or sell) one investment unit. Therefore, if the conversion ratio to buy stock XYZ is 3:1, this means that the holder needs three warrants in order to purchase one share. Usually, if the conversion ratio is high, the price of the share will be low, and vice versa. (source) Conversion ratios are sometimes used so that warrants can be issued on a 1:1 basis to existing stockholders, but where the potential number of new shares to be issued is much less. Conversion ratio is just one such example that could lead to perceived mispricing, and there may be other restrictions on exercise. Warrants are not issued by an options exchange using standardized option contract terms, and so warrant terms vary considerably from issuer to issuer. Even series of warrants from the same issuer may have differing terms. Always look beyond any warrant quote to find a definitive source of the warrant's precise terms — and read those terms carefully before taking any position.\",\n \"I'll give the credit to @Quid in the comments section of the question. You put out $10k, you got back $20k, that's a cash gain of $10k, how the asset was valued between your purchase and sale isn't relevant. From an accounting perspective, the company is the only party that is realizing the loss (as they have sold the asset for 40K less than par). You the buyer, only get to see the initial buy and sale of such capital asset. Example: A company purchases a car for $20,000 and after depreciation it is worth (book valued at) $2,000. It is then sold to a customer for $3,000. Does the customer realize a loss of $1,000? No. Does the company realize a gain of $1,000? Yes. Your bank analogy is flawed in two ways:\",\n \"Stephen's answer is the 100% correct one made with the common Economics assumption, that people are rational. A company that never has paid dividends, is still worth something to people because of its potential to start paying dividends later and it is often better to grow now and payoff later. However, the actual answer is much more disapointing, because people are not rational and the stock market is no longer about investing in companies or earning dividends. Most of the value of a stock is for the same reason that gold, stamps, coins and bitcoins, and Australian houses are worth anything, that is, because enough people say it is worth something*. Even stocks that pay dividends, very few people buy it for dividends. They buy it because they believe someone else will be willing to buy it for slightly more, shortly after. Different traders have different timeframes, ranging from seconds to months. *Houses and stock are of course partially valuable due to the fundamentals, but the major reason they are purchased is just to resell at a profit.\",\n \"Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important.\",\n \"\\\"The textbook answer would be \\\"\\\"assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit\\\"\\\". A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing); or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more.\\\"\",\n \"I didn't mean to imply that bankruptcy is a magical process. I was using that to clarify my use of conservative vs. aggressive. To be fair, I guess it can vary depending on your perspective. If you're taking the perspective of the debt-laden company, then yes, erring on the side of a higher value could be defined as aggressive. If you're taking the perspective of someone looking to acquire business, I would say erring on the side of a higher value is conservative. if the debt is trading at, say, $0.20 on the dollar, then yes, I can agree that the market value of the debt is likely more representative of the book value. I guess I wasn't thinking of that type of extreme example. A more common scenario I'd encounter would be a) the debt trading at maybe $0.95 on the dollar and b) taking the perspective of someone looking to invest in the equity, which is why I'd say that it's more conservative to use the higher value, which is the book value. So I'm persuaded that using market value of the debt can make sense in some cases, but I would still argue that the book value might make more sense in other cases.\",\n \"You have to look at stocks just like you would look at smaller and more illiquid markets. Stock trade in auction markets. These are analogous to ebay or craigslist, just with more transparency and liquidity. There is no guarantee that a market will form for a particular stock, or that it will sustain. When a stock sells off, and there are no bids left, that means all of the existing bidder's limit orders got filled because someone sold at those prices. There is nothing fishy about that. It is likely that someone else wants to sell even more, but couldn't find any more bidders. If you put a bid you would likely get filled by the shareholder with a massive position looking for liquidity. You could also buy at the ask.\",\n \"\\\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? It would fall to the lowest bid price, which could be $0.01 if someone had that bid in place. Here is an example which I happened to find online: Notice there are orders to buy at half the market price and lower... probably all the way down to pennies. If there were enough selling activity to fill all of those bids you see, then the market price would be the lowest bid on the screen. Alternatively, the bid orders could be pulled (cancelled), which would also let the price free-fall to the lowest bid even if there were few actual sellers. Bid-stuffing is what HFT (high frequency trading) algorithms sometimes do, which some say caused the Flash Crash of May 2010. The computers \\\"\\\"stuff\\\"\\\" bids into the order book, making it look like there is demand in order to trigger a market reaction, then they pull the bids to make the market fall. This sort of thing happens all the time and Nanex documents it http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrash/OngoingResearch.html Quote stuffing defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quote-stuffing.asp I remember the day of the Flash Crash very well. I found this video on youtube of CNBC at that time. Watch from the 5:00 min mark on the video as Jim Crammer talks about PG easily not being worth the price of the market at that time. He said \\\"\\\"Who cares?\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Its not a real price\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"$49.25 bid for 50,000 shares if I were at my hedge fund.\\\"\\\" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86g4_w4j3jU You can value a stock how you want, but its only actually worth what someone will give you for it. More examples: Anadarko Petroleum, which as we noted in today's EOD post, lost $45 billion in market cap in 45 milliseconds (a collapse rate of $1 billion per millisecond), flash crashing from $90 all the way to an (allegedly illegal) stub quote of $0.01. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/how-last-second-flash-crash-pushed-sp-500-1667-1666 How 10,000 Contracts Crashed The Market: A Visual Deconstruction Of Last Night's E-Mini Flash Crash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-21/how-10000-contracts-crashed-market-visual-deconstruction-last-nights-e-mini-flash-cr Symantec Flash-Crash Destroys Over $1.5 Billion In Less Than A Second http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-30/symantec-flash-crash-destroys-over-15-billion-less-second This sort of thing happens so often, I don't pay much attention anymore.\\\"\",\n \"The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.\",\n \"How can they reduce the number of shares I hold? They may have purchased them. You don't say what stock it is, so we can only speculate. Let's say that the stock is called PENNY. So they may have taken your 1600 PENNY shares and renamed them to 1600 PENNYOLD shares. Then they created a new $5 PENNY share and gave you .2357 shares of that in exchange for your 1600 PENNYOLD shares. This suggests that your old shares were worth $1.1785 or less than a tenth of a cent each. As an example, MYLAN did this in 2015 as part of their tax inversion (moved official headquarters from the US to Europe). They did not change the number of shares at that time, but MYLAN is not a penny stock. This is the kind of thing that might happen in a bankruptcy. A reverse split (where they give you one share in exchange for more than one share) is also possible, although you received an odd amount for a reverse split. Usually those produce rounder numbers. A number like .2357 sounds more like a market price, as those can be bizarre.\",\n \"Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.\",\n \"No. The above calculation does not hold good. When financial statements are prepared they are prepared on a going concern basis, i.e. a business will run normally in the foreseeable future. Valuation of assets and liabilities is done according to this principle. When a bankruptcy takes places or a business closes down, immediately the valuation method will change. For assets, the realizable value will be more relevant. For example, if you hold 100 computers, in an normal situation, they will depreciated at the normal rate. Every year, some portion of the cost is written off as depreciation. When you actually go to sell these computers you are likely to realize much less than what is shown in the statement. Similarly, for a building, the actual realizable value may be more. For liabilities, they tend to increase in such situation. Hence just a plain computation can give you a very broad idea but the actual figure may be different.\",\n \"Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.\",\n \"Here is an example for you. We have a fictional company. It's called MoneyCorp. Its job is to own money, and that's all. Right now it owns $10,000. It doesn't do anything special with that $10,000 - it stores it in a bank account, and whenever it earns interest gives it to the shareholders as a dividend. Also, it doesn't have any expenses at all, and doesn't pay taxes, and is otherwise magic so that it doesn't have to worry about distractions from its mathematical perfection. There are 10,000 shares of MoneyCorp, each worth exactly $1. However, they may trade for more or less than $1 on the stock market, because it's a free market and people trading stock on the stock market can trade at whatever price two people agree on. Scenario 1. MoneyCorp wants to expand. They sell 90,000 shares for $1 each. The money goes in the same bank account at the same interest rate. Do the original shareholders see a change? No. 100,000 shares, $100,000, still $1/share. No problem. This is the ideal situation. Scenario 2: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for less than the current price, $0.50 each. Do the original shareholders lose out? YES. It now has something like $55,000 and 100,000 shares. Each share is now worth $0.55. The company has given away valuable equity to new shareholders. That's bad. Why didn't they get more money from those guys? Scenario 3: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for more than the current price, $2 each, because there's a lot of hype about its business. MoneyCorp now owns $190,000 in 100,000 shares and each share is worth $1.90. Existing shareholders win big! This is why a company would like to make its share offering at the highest price possible (think, Facebook IPO). Of course, the new shareholders may be disappointed. MoneyCorp is actually a lot like a real business! Actually, if you want to get down to it, MoneyCorp works very much like a money-market fund. The main difference between MoneyCorp and a random company on the stock market is that we know exactly how much money MoneyCorp is worth. You don't know that with a real business: sales may grow, sales may drop, input prices may rise and fall, and there's room for disagreement - that's why stock markets are as unpredictable as they are, so there's room for doubt when a company sells their stock at a price existing shareholders think is too cheap (or buys it at a price that is too expensive). Most companies raising capital will end up doing something close to scenario 1, the fair-prices-for-everyone scenario. Legally, if you own part of a company and they do something a Scenario-2 on you... you may be out of luck. Consider also: the other owners are probably hurt as much as you are. Only the new shareholders win. And unless the management approving the deal is somehow giving themselves a sweetheart deal, it'll be hard to demonstrate any malfeasance. As an individual, you probably won't file a lawsuit either, unless you own a very large stake in the company. Lawsuits are expensive. A big institutional investor or activist investor of some sort may file a suit if millions of dollars are at stake, but it'll be ugly at best. If there's nothing evil going on with the management, this is just one way that a company loses money from bad management. It's probably not the most important one to worry about.\",\n \"\\\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \\\"\\\"real value\\\"\\\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \\\"\\\"meaningful quantity\\\"\\\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"> If the stock price goes down it wouldn't make sense that ABC had a higher dividend yield, so my argument was you have to make assume the stock price went down because it could have cost less for other reasons, but you don't have to assume the dividend yield which would make it a good investment. I'm not sure I understand your argument. The wording doesn't seem clear to me (\\\"\\\"you have to make assume\\\"\\\"? make assume? \\\"\\\"but you don't have to assume the dividend yield\\\"\\\" assume it what?) Dividend yield has a negative correlation with stock price. If price goes down, all else being equal, yield rises.\\\"\",\n \"Imagine that I own 10% of a company, and yesterday my portion was valued at $1 Million, therefore the company is valued at $10 Million. Today the company accepts an offer to sell 1% of the company for $500 Thousand: now my portion is worth $5 Million, and company is worth $50 Million. The latest stock price sets the value of the company. If next week the news is all bad and the new investor sells their shares to somebody else for pennies on the dollar, the value of the company will drop accordingly.\",\n \"\\\"What will happen if the stock price just continues to decline? Nothing. What would happen if folks just stop trading it? Nothing. What if the company goes private? Then they will have to buy you out based on some agreed upon price, as voted by the board and (potentially) approved by the shareholders. Depending on the corporation charter, the board may not be required to seek the shareholders' approval, but if the price the board agreed upon is unreasonable you can sue and prevent the transaction. How do they decide the fair value of the outstanding stocks? Through a process called \\\"\\\"valuation\\\"\\\", there are accounting firms which specialize in this area of public accounting.\\\"\",\n \"Here are some significant factors affect the company stock price performance: Usually, profitability is known to the public through the financial statements; it won't be 100% accurate and people would also trade the stock with the price not matching to the true value of the firm. Still there are dozens of other various reasons exist. People are just not behaving as rational as what the textbook describes when they are trading and investing.\",\n \"Why is the stock trading at only $5 per share? The share price is the perceived value of the company by people buying and selling the stock. Not the actual value of the company and all its assets. Generally if the company is not doing well, there is a perceived risk that it will burn out the money fast. There is a difference between its signed conditional sale and will get money and has got money. So in short, it's trading at $5 a share because the market doesn't feel like it's worth $12 per share. Quite a few believe there could be issues faced; i.e. it may not make the $12, or there will be additional obligations, i.e. employees may demand more layoff compensation, etc. or the distribution may take few years due to regulatory and legal hurdles. The only problem is the stock exchange states if the company has no core business, the stock will be suspended soon (hopefully they can release the $12 per share first). What will happen if I hold shares in the company, the stock gets suspended, and its sitting on $12 per share? Can it still distribute it out? Every country and stock markets have laid out procedures for de-listing a company and closing a company. The company can give $10 as say dividends and remaining later; or as part of the closure process, the company will distribute the balance among shareholders. This would be a long drawn process.\",\n \"\\\"No. If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: \\\"\\\"During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.\\\"\\\" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company.\\\"\",\n \"This can arise with very thinly traded stocks for large blocks of shares. If the market only has a few thousand dollars available at between 8.37 and 12.5 the price is largely meaningless for people who want to invest in hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars worth, as the quoted price can't get them anywhere near the number of shares they want. How liquid is the stock in question?\",\n \"How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.\",\n \"\\\"Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true. From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock. This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings. A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up. These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called \\\"\\\"growth\\\"\\\" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way.\\\"\",\n \"Interestingly, the Staples doesn't own most of the land their stores operate on like its competitors. They opted for leases versus buying land during expansion to focus capex on other parts of the business. However, it leaves the company without a lot of land and therefore low relative book value. The value in Staples lies in their online B2B in a direct business model, though how much growth lies in physical paper and ink in a world of tablets and computers remains to be seen.\",\n \"Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.\",\n \"Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another\",\n \"\\\"Check your math... \\\"\\\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\\\"\\\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The only thing that makes a stock worthless is when the company goes out of business. Note that bankruptcy, by itself, does not mean the company is closing. It could successfully restructure its affairs and come out of bankruptcy with a better outlook. Being a small or unprofitable business may cause a company's to trade in the \\\"\\\"penny stock\\\"\\\" range, but there is still some value there. Since most dying companies will pass through the penny stock phase, you may be able to track down what you're looking for by finding companies who have been (or are about to be) delisted. Delisting is not death, it's just the point at which the company's shares no longer meet the qualifications to be traded on a particular exchange. If you find old stock certificates in your grandmother's sock drawer, they may be a treasure, or they may be worthless pieces of paper if the company changed its ownership and Grandma didn't know about it.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As @ApplePie pointed out in their answer, at any given time there is a finite amount of stock available in a company. One subtlety you may be missing is that there is always a price associated with an offer to buy shares. That is, you don't put in an order simply to buy 1 share of ABC, you put in an order to buy 1 share of ABC for $10. If no one is willing to sell a share of ABC for $10, then your order will go unfilled. This happens millions of times a day as traders try to figure the cheapest price they can get for a stock. Practically speaking, there is always a price at which people are willing to sell their shares. You can put in a market order for 1 share of ABC, which says essentially \\\"\\\"I want one share of ABC, and I will pay whatever the market deems to be the price\\\"\\\". Your broker will find you 1 share, but you may be very unhappy about the price you have to pay! While it's very rare for a market to have nobody willing to sell at any price, it occasionally happens that no one is willing to buy at any price. This causes a market crash, as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, when suddenly everyone became very suspicious of how much debt the major banks actually held, and for a few days, very few traders were willing to buy bank stocks at any price.\\\"\",\n \"Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies. You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion.\",\n \"This comment makes zero sense. No one values equities from the balance sheet, unless you're trying to justify why you'd invest in sears or something (i.e. b/s vastly understates market value of real estate holdings and you're hoping for a liquidity event). Certainly not a tech company or really anything as a going concern.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"The VDE fund is an energy fund so this is a function of recent price changes in oil (and gas, coal, &c). For example. Lets say last year when oil was $100 per barrel a bunch of companies saw a good return and put $ 100 million into a bunch of leases, boreholes, pumps, &c to return $10 million per year, and the market says yeah, they're all together worth 100M. Now oil is less, maybe $40 per the link. These exploration companies don't have a lot of labor or variable costs; they are operationally profitable, may have \"\"use it or lose it\"\" leases or minimum pumping requirements for contract or engineering reasons. Lets say the cash flow is 7M so the market values them at 70M. They still have about 100M book value so here we are at .7 and I believe the scenario in the question. Nobody would invest in new capacity at this oil price. The well equipment could be repurposed but not the borehole or lease, so the best use is to continue pumping and value it on cash flow. If an individual well runs negative long enough and goes bust, either a different pumper will pay the minimum price that gives profitable cash flow, or that borehole that cost millions to dig is shut off and rendered valueless. The CNBC article says some explorers are playing games with debt to maintain yield, so there is that too. In the ETF, your bet is that the market is wrong and oil will go up, increasing future cash flows (or you like the current yield, taking on the risk that some of these oil explorers could go bust).\"","A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;","Note that the formula for Price to Book ratio is: Stock Price / {[Total Assets - (Intangible Assets + Liabilities)] / Stock Outstanding} http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-to-bookratio.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/03/112603.asp There's a number of factors that could lead to a lower than 1. The primary reason, imho, could be the company is in a state of retiring stock with debt. The company is selling penny stocks (only to get people more interested in it's later development) which are inherently undervalued. There may be other reasons, but definitely check out both articles.","Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"The VDE fund is an energy fund so this is a function of recent price changes in oil (and gas, coal, &c). For example. Lets say last year when oil was $100 per barrel a bunch of companies saw a good return and put $ 100 million into a bunch of leases, boreholes, pumps, &c to return $10 million per year, and the market says yeah, they're all together worth 100M. Now oil is less, maybe $40 per the link. These exploration companies don't have a lot of labor or variable costs; they are operationally profitable, may have \\\"\\\"use it or lose it\\\"\\\" leases or minimum pumping requirements for contract or engineering reasons. Lets say the cash flow is 7M so the market values them at 70M. They still have about 100M book value so here we are at .7 and I believe the scenario in the question. Nobody would invest in new capacity at this oil price. The well equipment could be repurposed but not the borehole or lease, so the best use is to continue pumping and value it on cash flow. If an individual well runs negative long enough and goes bust, either a different pumper will pay the minimum price that gives profitable cash flow, or that borehole that cost millions to dig is shut off and rendered valueless. The CNBC article says some explorers are playing games with debt to maintain yield, so there is that too. In the ETF, your bet is that the market is wrong and oil will go up, increasing future cash flows (or you like the current yield, taking on the risk that some of these oil explorers could go bust).\\\"\",\n \"A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;\",\n \"Note that the formula for Price to Book ratio is: Stock Price / {[Total Assets - (Intangible Assets + Liabilities)] / Stock Outstanding} http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-to-bookratio.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/03/112603.asp There's a number of factors that could lead to a lower than 1. The primary reason, imho, could be the company is in a state of retiring stock with debt. The company is selling penny stocks (only to get people more interested in it's later development) which are inherently undervalued. There may be other reasons, but definitely check out both articles.\",\n \"Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":260,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"8947"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Can a Roth IRA be used as a savings account?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["455398","461592"],"string":"[\n \"455398\",\n \"461592\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["241161","89624","457634","59899","136879","466308","122638","20485","25814","461592","180293","561636","290322","218304","237336","214174","270818","158730","305855","211525","159197","484149","387338","461084","479769","545184","135079","101578","214901","340113","416633","232930","147502","335436","33714","19402","402509","146735","312212","140330","252373","335357","484683","380615","155318","455398","553031","194862","517723","47614","580612","290228","437453","354075","587727","527939","127134","130118","469311","1219","195515","590523","179408","119700","403103","138505","27495","53028","452870","150878","79009","113881","469853","2128","192292","570292","422952","176104","205783","112182","265231","491700","579644","196946","508219","125168","279121","393693","175968","294676","5778","32811","299690","330689","164672","592679","569528","162592","89868","151544"],"string":"[\n \"241161\",\n \"89624\",\n \"457634\",\n \"59899\",\n \"136879\",\n \"466308\",\n \"122638\",\n \"20485\",\n \"25814\",\n \"461592\",\n \"180293\",\n \"561636\",\n \"290322\",\n \"218304\",\n \"237336\",\n \"214174\",\n \"270818\",\n \"158730\",\n \"305855\",\n \"211525\",\n \"159197\",\n \"484149\",\n \"387338\",\n \"461084\",\n \"479769\",\n \"545184\",\n \"135079\",\n \"101578\",\n \"214901\",\n \"340113\",\n \"416633\",\n \"232930\",\n \"147502\",\n \"335436\",\n \"33714\",\n \"19402\",\n \"402509\",\n \"146735\",\n \"312212\",\n \"140330\",\n \"252373\",\n \"335357\",\n \"484683\",\n \"380615\",\n \"155318\",\n \"455398\",\n \"553031\",\n \"194862\",\n \"517723\",\n \"47614\",\n \"580612\",\n \"290228\",\n \"437453\",\n \"354075\",\n \"587727\",\n \"527939\",\n \"127134\",\n \"130118\",\n \"469311\",\n \"1219\",\n \"195515\",\n \"590523\",\n \"179408\",\n \"119700\",\n \"403103\",\n \"138505\",\n \"27495\",\n \"53028\",\n \"452870\",\n \"150878\",\n \"79009\",\n \"113881\",\n \"469853\",\n \"2128\",\n \"192292\",\n \"570292\",\n \"422952\",\n \"176104\",\n \"205783\",\n \"112182\",\n \"265231\",\n \"491700\",\n \"579644\",\n \"196946\",\n \"508219\",\n \"125168\",\n \"279121\",\n \"393693\",\n \"175968\",\n \"294676\",\n \"5778\",\n \"32811\",\n \"299690\",\n \"330689\",\n \"164672\",\n \"592679\",\n \"569528\",\n \"162592\",\n \"89868\",\n \"151544\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["A Roth IRA is intended for retirement. Before age 59.5 (I think), you can only withdraw the amount you deposited without penalty. It's great you're saving in a Roth, but you shouldn't put savings in there that you will need before you reach sufficient age. And since it's long-term, you can invest in things you expect to grow over the long term, like equities. You should keep emergency funds either in federally insured, extremely liquid accounts (bank savings) or money market funds (which aren't insured, but are close enough to zero-risk). Yes, the interest rates are terrible right now. But anything else would potentially leave you with insufficient funds in the event of, you know, an emergency.","It's a little extra hassle come tax-time if you have a distribution to account for, as you'd be required to file Form 8606. If you pay for tax-preparation the extra fees could easily wipe out any interest earned. Roth IRA savings accounts don't seem to earn much interest, so while you could come out slightly ahead with this approach, I don't think it's worth it. I prefer to keep a portion of my emergency fund in an online savings account (0.75% interest), and another portion in CD's (2.10% interest) through the same bank.","Generally, you have 60 days to return funds. If you've been stowing away money in to a Roth IRA and an emergency strikes you pull out contributions sufficient to tackle the emergency while leaving at least the earnings in there. You've never paid taxes on these earnings and the earnings will continue to grow tax free. If you've been stowing away money in a vanilla taxable account and an emergency strikes you pull out whatever amount to tackle the emergency. You've been paying taxes on the earnings all along but there's no paperwork. You can't replace the money in the Roth IRA (outside the 60 day limit except for some specific same year rules that you should iron out with your custodian) but you also haven't lost anything. Either way in the event of an emergency the funds are removed from an account, but in one case you haven't been paying taxes on gains. IF you want to go the route of a Roth IRA wrapper for your emergency fund you shouldn't be touching the funds for small events, tires for your car and the like. If your goal is to juice the tax free nature of the Roth IRA wrapper for as long as you can then repurpose the money for retirement if you never experienced an emergency with the understanding that you may have to gut the account in an emergency, that's fine. If you expect money to routinely come in and out of the account a Roth IRA is a horrible vehicle.","Why are you saving your emergency fund in a Roth-IRA? That type of fund should be for retirement. I know you can pull out your principal but that would mean in a crisis you will be destroying your retirement fund. Remember there is an annual limit, it could take years to replenish it if you have to pay for a big repair, or period of unemployment. The emergency fund should be kept in a very safe account. I would just keep in a high yeild account at a Credit Union","\"Wow. It's clear I'm outnumbered. When I'm approached with the question (and keep in mind, it's usually a couple data points and little else) \"\"I am getting started, with no other money do I fund a retirement or emergency account?\"\" I often suggest they put the funds into a Roth, in a money market fund, and treat it like an emergency account. If there's in fact an emergency, there's no penalty to withdraw the deposit and we're talking peanuts for interest today. With no emergency, two things could happen: A) As the account grows beyond what's needed for emergencies, the excess can be invested long term. B) As the investor earns more money and saves up enough to have a true emergency account separate from the IRA, the Roth can be fully invested long term. The 'Bad idea' stems from the view that one is using their Roth as an emergency account, which of course is bad. The subtle difference is one has no retirement savings and puts their Emergency account into the otherwise unused Roth. As time passes, they've protected more funds to grow tax free. In the end, the most important thing is whether the person is saving and not tapping for simple non-emergency things. I'd rather see a guy with $25K in his Roth and no other funds than to have $5000 in his bank account because every time it gets larger he feels compelled to spend it. My answer to Matt is to treat it for now as you intended, low risk, CD or cash (money market).\"","Why not just roll over part of your IRA to a bank? I don't know about Capital One, but Bank of America seems to offer a bank-based IRA. In broker-based IRAs, the closest that I've seen to a savings account is a money market fund. They often set those as the default investment until money is allocated to more specific funds. It is conceivably possible that a money market could lose money, but it has never happened.","You can use a Roth IRA for retirement and you can still withdraw all of your contributions at any time. You can also withdraw $10,000 worth of the earnings in your Roth IRA for a first-time home purchase. You can also withdraw for unreimbursed medical expenses and qualified education expenses. Full details are available in IRS publication 590. There is a limit of $5,500 for contributions in 2016 ($6,500 if you're over 50) as long as your adjusted gross income is below a certain level. You can still make a contribution for the previous tax year until the filing deadline (usually April 15).","Deposits are contributions. You deposit say, $5000, and over time you have $6000. The $5000 can be withdrawn any time with no issue. It's tracked via form 8606. With this in mind, I wrote an article The Roth Emergency Fund, suggesting that since one can withdraw deposits with no issue, the Roth can be used to hold emergency money.","If you are absolutely sure you will need the money in the next year or so I wouldn't do it just because of the hassle. If you think you might not need to use the money then I would go ahead and fund a Roth IRA for the simple reason that you can get your contributions (NOT earnings on those contributions.) back without paying any penalties if you do end up needing them. A good summary of the rationale can be found at My Money Blog's Roth IRA Contribution vs. Emergency Fund Savings","(To be clear, IRA accounts are just wrappers, and can contain a large variety of investments. I'm restricting myself to the usual setup of investment in the stock market.) So, let's say you have $5000 in savings, as an emergency fund. Of the top of my head, putting some of it into a Roth IRA could backfire in the following ways: The basic principle here is that the stock market is not a good place for storing your emergency cash, which needs to be secured against loss and immediately accessible. Once you're happy with your level of emergency cash, however, tax-advantaged investment accounts are a reasonable next step.","Yes sir, been there did that. Now a Roth account is considered income if you it pull out. It is your money and you have to report if you pull it out. FYI, open a savings account, and put it in that so if you need it this will not happen.","You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.","It doesn't matter if you aren't maxing out your IRA contributions anyway. If you are maxing out IRA contribution and you still have extra money to deposit then yes you better have all the money inevested, but if you aren't maxing out your contribution then it doesn't really mattter where you stick your emergency savings. But if you fall into money later you will be glad you put your emergency in a roth.","You may withdraw your contributions to a Roth IRA at any time for any reason without penalty. Any gains you withdraw may be subject to tax or penalties though, but there is a $10,000 exclusion (from the 10% penalty, not the taxes) for a first time home purchase.","Whether or not you can deposit to a Roth IRA, you are able to convert those deposits to A Roth account. In effect, you pay the tax going in (as with the regular brokerage account) but no tax on growth when withdrawn. The non-deductible IRA, on its own, holds little appeal, in comparison.","\"A Roth IRA is simply a tax-sheltered account that you deposit funds into, and then invest however you choose (within the limits of the firm you deposit the funds with). For example, you could open a Roth IRA account with Vanguard. You could then invest the $3000 by purchasing shares of VOO, which tracks the S&P 500 index and has a very low expense ratio (0.04 as of last time I checked). Fidelity has a similar option, or Schwab, or whatever brokerage firm you prefer. IRAs are basically just normal investment accounts, except they don't owe taxes until you withdraw them (and Roth don't even owe them then, though you paid taxes on the funds you deposit). They have some limitations regarding options trading and such, but if you're a novice investor just looking to do basic investments, you'll not notice. Then, your IRA would go up or down in value as the market went up or down in value. You do have some restrictions on when you can withdraw the funds; Roth IRA has fewer than a normal IRA, as you can withdraw the capital (the amount you deposited) without penalty, but the profits cannot be withdrawn until you're retirement age (I won't put an actual year, as I suspect that actual year will change by the time you're that old; but think 60s). The reason not to invest in an IRA is if you plan on using the money in the near future - even as an \"\"emergency fund\"\". You should have some money that is not invested aggressively, that is in something very safe and very accessible, for your emergency fund; and if you plan to buy a house or whatever with the funds, don't start an IRA. But if this is truly money you want to save for retirement, that's the best place to start. **Note, this is not investment advice, and you should do your own homework prior to making any investment. You can lose some or all of the value of your account while investing.\"","\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\"","This is a great idea and I can't think of any downside. The best part about it is in the future when you have built up your emergency fund beyond the maximum contributions to the Roth IRA, you can then move your Roth funds into a higher yielding investment. I might take it a step further. In addition to this, try to get a line of credit from your bank (with no annual fee). In case of emergency, you can decide if you want to take the money from your Roth or borrow from the line and pay some interest temporarily. Depending on the situation it may actually make sense to pay a little bit of interest and leave the money in the Roth, since over the long run the future earnings of that money could easily make you more than the interest you'll pay for (let's hope) a short amount of time. To really hit home why your idea is fantastic:","I think you're missing several key issues here. First for the facts: IRA contributions are $5500 a year maximum (currently, it changes with inflation), i.e.: you cannot deposit $10K in an IRA account in a single year. IRA withdrawals can only be made if you have something liquid in the IRA. You cannot withdraw from Lending Club IRA unless you manage to sell the notes currently held by you there. Roth IRA is funded with after-tax money, and you can withdraw your deposits in Roth IRA any time for any reason. No 10K limit there, only limited by what you deposited. However the main thing you're missing is this: You can withdraw up to $10K from your IRA for first home purchase without penalty. Pay attention: not without tax but without penalty. So what is the point in depositing $10k into IRA just to withdraw it the next year?","First, a Roth is funded with post tax money. The Roth IRA deposit will not offset any tax obligation you might have. The IRA is not an investment, it's an account with a specific set of tax rules that apply to it. If you don't have a brokerage account, I'd suggest you consider a broker that has an office nearby. Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard are 3 that I happen to have relationships with. Once the funds are deposited, you need to choose how to invest for the long term. The fact that I'd choose the lowest cost S&P ETF or mutual fund doesn't mean that's the ideal investment for you. You need to continue to do research to find the exact investment that matches your risk profile. By way of example, up until a few years ago, my wife and I were nearly 100% invested in stocks, mostly the S&P 500. When we retired, four years ago, I shifted a bit to be more conservative, closer to 80% stock 20% cash.",">I could be wrong but you will still get tax at 10% This isn't true for Roths. If I put 5k (post tax of course) money into a Roth 401k or a Roth IRA I can withdraw that 5k whenever I want penalty and tax free. Now lets say that 5k has grown to 7k and I take out all 7k the first 5k is penalty and tax free but the extra 2k is taxed (with the extra 10% penalty added on). So as long as you don't touch any growth in your roth accounts you can withdraw the principal amount with the same consequences you would experience if you were to take money out of your checking account at your bank. Also money in and IRA does not have to be invested it could be in a liquid position. Now a pre tax retirement account doesn't have the same luxury. If I stick 5k into a traditional IRA and it grows to 7k and I pull that money out the entire ammount gets taxed AND penalized (even the principal amount is subject the 10% penalty). Now if you do a Roth conversion (pre-tax to post-tax retirment account conversion) the principal ammount (the amount you paid taxes on) is still subject to the 10% penalty for 5 years. After the 5 years you can withdraw the converted ammount tax and penalty free (well you already paid the taxes) it would just be the growth that is subject to the penalty.","mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account. In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions. In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets. As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well. (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.)","With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.","Why shouldn't I just keep my money in the savings account and earn the same amount (both accounts have the same APY in this case)? I will assume that you are transferring money from your savings account into a Traditional IRA and deducting the contribution from your income. While you may think that the money that is being transferred is yours already -- it is sitting in your savings account, for Pete's sake! -- you are deducting that amount in getting to your taxable income, and so you are effectively contributing it from current income and not paying taxes on the amount contributed. So, consider the same amount of money sitting in your savings account versus the same amount of money sitting in your Traditional IRA account. While you will earn the same amount of interest in both accounts, you will have to pay taxes each year on the interest earned in the savings account. You might choose, as most people do, to not take money out of the savings account to pay theses taxes but just pay them from ready cash/checking account/current income etc., or these taxes might just reduce the refund that you will getting from the IRS and your State income tax authority, but in either case, you have paid taxes on the interest earned in your non-IRA savings account, and of course, long ago, you also paid taxes on the original amount in the non-IRA savings account. So, if you take any money out of the non-IRA savings account, you don't pay any taxes on the amount withdrawn except possibly for the interest earned from January 1 till the date of withdrawal (which you are paying from ready cash). On the other hand, consider the Traditional IRA. The original deposit was not taxed in the sense that you got a deduction (reduced tax or increased refund) when you made the contribution. The annual interest earned was not taxed each year either. So when you make a qualified withdrawal (after age 59.5 or by meeting one of the other exceptions allowing withdrawal before age 59.5), you are taking money on which you have not paid any taxes at all, and the IRS wants its cut. The money withdrawn is taxable income to you. Furthermore, the money withdrawn is not eligible for any kind of favorable treatment such as having it count as qualified dividends or as long-term capital gains even if your IRA was invested in stocks and the money in the account is all qualified dividends or long-term capital gains. If you make an unqualified withdrawal, you owe a penalty (technically named an excise tax) in addition to income tax on the amount withdrawn. If you are investing in a Roth IRA, you will not be getting a deduction when you make the contribution, and qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free, and so the answer is completely different from the above.","I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.","As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.","So you wouldn't really be using the IRA money for building the house, but for padding your savings? I would just leave the money in the IRA. Don't take it out just in the off-chance you need it, especially when you already have money in savings. If you want to replenish your savings do it by putting some of your income in there.","First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.","I would wait, and invest that money in a Roth IRA. Because taxes are paid on the contributions to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time, tax and penalty-free. In addition, you can withdraw contributions and earning to purchase your first home.","You can withdraw the contributions you made to Roth IRA tax free. Any withdrawals from Roth IRA count first towards the contributions, then conversions, and only then towards the gains which are taxable. You can also withdraw up to $10000 of the taxable portion penalty free (from either the Traditional IRA or the Roth IRA, or the combination of both) if it is applied towards the purchase of your first primary residence (i.e.: you don't own a place yet, and you're buying your first home, which will become your primary residence). That said, however, I cannot see how you can buy a $250K house. You didn't say anything about your income, but just the cash needed for the down-payment will essentially leave you naked and broke. Consider what happens if you have an emergency, out of a job for a couple of months, or something else of that kind. It is generally advised to have enough cash liquid savings to keep you afloat for at least half a year (including mortgage payments, necessities and whatever expenses you need to spend to get back on track - job searching, medical, moving, etc). It doesn't look like you're anywhere near that. Remember, many bankruptcies are happening because of the cash-flow problem, not the actual ability to repay debts on the long run.","\"You could put in in a Money Market Fund. These are designed to always be $1 per share, and not lose money. Of course, it still, very rarely, happens and is called \"\"breaking the buck\"\" when they do. Sounds like the high yield savings is the way to go. The rates will be the same as what you can get from a Money Market Fund, but you also have the added advantage that the account is FDIC insured. BTW, using a Roth as an emergency fund is a terrible idea. It is true that, since you already paid taxes on your contributions, you can withdraw those contributions without incurring penalties. However, you have to file paperwork to do it, and since it's not common, the IRA custodian is likely to screw it up. Plus, you have to keep track of what were contributions, and what was investment returns, to not run afoul of the penalties. And it will take time to do it, which you may not have in an emergency. Considering you're only looking at getting 1% interest anyway, there's no reason to use a Roth account as an emergency fund. You can set those same automatic deposits into a savings account.\"","Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.","I'll summarize here our discussion in the comments. First thing to remember is that you can only deposit up to $6K/year into the Roth IRA, you cannot seed it with some large amount (unless its a rollover). Second thing to remember is that you can only qualify 10K distribution for the home purchase. With that in mind, it seems that you'll have to have extremly high returns to make use of the maximum tax benefit (15-20% of the 10K). Non-qualified distributions will be taxed at ordinary income rates + 10% penalty, so if you can't qualify the distribution, instead of saving money on taxes, you'll end up paying twice as much as you would have without the IRA. Also, keep in mind that reporting of the distributions and justifying the qualifications might require assistance of a tax preparer, which will also reduce your savings. Bottom line, IMHO, you'll end up with a wash or very insignificant savings (compared to the magnitude of the home purchase costs) at best, which renders the whole thing kindof wastefull.","If I may echo the Roth comment - The Roth is a tax designation, not an end investment, so you still need to research and decide what's appropriate. I recommend the Roth for the long term investments, but keep in mind, even if you feel you may need to tap the Roth sooner than later, all deposits may be withdrawn at any time with no tax or penalty. Roth is great to store the emergency money for many if they aren't 100% sure they have enough cash to save for retirement. As you get further along, and see that you don't need it, change how it's invested to longer term, a mix of stocks (I prefer ETFs that mimic the S&P)","Putting money into a Roth IRA or 401(k) will save you money if your taxes this year will be lower than your taxes in retirement. See also the Wikipedia retirement-savings matrix.","There are no immediate tax-related benefits to putting money into a Roth IRA. You are investing after-tax money in the hope that the rules won't change and you'll be able to take out the money tax-free when you retire. Under current rules, you can take out your contributions at any time without penalties or taxes. You can't take out earnings without penalties until you retire. You said you don't have any debt (great!). So if you have cash that you don't have other uses for, and you don't mind possibly tying it up for a long time, you can put money into a Roth IRA. I'd argue that if you have, say, $25-50/month to put into long term savings, it's a good habit to start. When you move into a job that gives you more disposable income, you can increase this amount. The earlier you start, the lower the monthly amount you'll need to contribute towards a comfortable retirement. Once you get started putting a little bit away, you'll never miss it.","The Roth is the mirror image of the Pre-Tax (traditional) IRA. The latter gives you a tax break now, the deposits go in pre-tax, and are withdrawn at your rate in retirement. The former lets you squirrel that money away now, post-tax, but never pay tax again. For young folk the Roth is a great way to go. My 12 year old has a Roth account, and paid no tax since she has her own exemption. At your level, you are probably in the 10% bracket now. Imagine investing that money and at retirement finding it's grown 100X (very possible), if it were in a Roth, you'd have no tax due. As BST noted, you are always free to withdraw the deposit, so if you decide this wasn't money you could actually put away long term you still have an out.","Your question boils down to saving for a house or saving for retirement. Why not do both? If you invest in a Roth 401k or Roth IRA you can withdraw any contributions that are at least 5 years old without penalty (assuming you're willing to put off purchasing a little longer than your original 2-3 years). If you qualify as a first time home buyer (i.e. you haven't owned a home in at least 2 years) you can withdraw investment earnings as well if your distribution is earmarked towards the down payment and is no more than $10000. Although you won't be penalized for using investment earnings for a down payment you will still have to pay taxes on them. So this may be more appealing to someone that has enough contributions to avoid dipping into the investment earnings. The only other downside is that contributions to a Roth investment are not tax deductible like Traditional IRA and 401k contributions are. Instead, they grow tax free and distributions are tax free when you reach retirement age.","Both of the other posters have some really good points worth remembering about the stability/liquidity of a savings account and the often overlooked fact that you can withdraw any money you put in to a Roth IRA because it's already been taxed. I'm 28 and found myself in a similar situation as you about a year or so ago. I wanted a relatively liquid place that I could store and grow some money. CD's and Savings accounts just weren't getting a high enough rate to make a return work for me, especially with only a little money to start. I would highly suggest checking out a social lending platform like Prosper.com or Lendingclub.com. I use Prosper.com and this platform will give you some really nice benefits: Here's a good article that can explain more about it and get you started: http://www.financialsamurai.com/investing-in-peer-to-peer-lending-with-prosper-com/ just keep in mind that while there is some liquidity here (you can resell the notes you invest in) generally speaking expect to hold on to those notes for at least 3 years (your share of the paid principal gets paid out to you in addition to the interest each month.)","Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe.","\"Yes, it is possible to withdraw money from your Roth IRA before retirement (but I wouldn't necessarily advise you to do so.) Here's the good news, and the bad news: The good news: Unlike a traditional IRA, money contributed to a Roth IRA is done so on an after-tax basis, meaning you don't benefit from a tax deduction on contributions. So, the money you withdraw from your Roth IRA will not be taxed entirely as ordinary income. In fact, you are allowed to withdraw the amount of your original contributions (also known as basis) without any taxes or penalties. Let's imagine you originally deposited $9000 of that current $10K total value – then in such a case, $9000 could be withdrawn tax and penalty free. The bad news: When it comes to the investment earnings – the other $1000 in my example – it's a different story: Since you wouldn't be age 59 1/2 at the time of withdrawal, any money taken out beyond your original contributions would be considered a non-qualified withdrawal and subject to both ordinary income taxes plus a 10% early withdrawal penalty. Ouch! Perhaps you might want to restrict your withdrawal to your original contributions. I would imagine if you've had the account for such a short period of time that much or all of your account value is original contributions anyway. A good article about the rules for early IRA withdrawals is About.com's Tax Penalty for Early Distribution of Retirement Funds. Note: If your Roth IRA funds were the result of a rollover from another account type, other rules may apply. See Roth IRA (Wikipedia) for more detail; search for \"\"rollover\"\". Regarding the withdrawal process itself and the timing, you should check with your account custodian on how to proceed.\"","Your question indicates confusion regarding what an Individual Retirement Account (whether Roth or Traditional) is vs. the S&P 500, which is nothing but a list of stocks. IOW, it's perfectly reasonable to open a Roth IRA, put your $3000 in it, and then use that money to buy a mutual fund or ETF which tracks the S&P 500. In fact, it's ridiculously common... :)","You bring up a valid concern. IRAs are good retirement instruments as long as the rules don't change. History has shown that governments can change the rules regarding retirement accounts. As long as you have some of your retirement assets outside of an IRA I think IRAs are good ways to save for retirement. It's not possible to withdraw the money before retirement without penalty. Also, you will be penalized if you do not withdraw enough when you do retire.","401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not.","You are permitted to withdraw the deposits from the Roth with no tax or penalty any time. To Dilip's point, the Roth is a good place to keep the investment, and what you might consider is a 'self-directed' account. This type of IRA or Roth IRA permits a choice of investments that are not typically handled by banks or brokers, including Real Estate and the type of Angel investing you seem to be considering. Note - the rules are tough, you need to be very careful to not be self-dealing, or dealing with certain related parties.","Sounds like a bad idea. The IRA is built on the power of compounding. Removing contributions will hurt your retirement savings, and you will never be able to make that up. Instead, consider tax-free investments. State bonds, Federal bonds, municipal bonds, etc. For example, I invest in California muni bonds fund which gives me ~3-4% annual dividend income - completely tax free. In addition - there's capital appreciation of your fund holdings. There are risks, of course, for example rate changes will affect yields and capital appreciation, so consult with someone knowledgeable in this area (or ask another question here, for the basics). This will give you the same result as you're expecting from your Roth IRA trick, without damaging your retirement savings potential.","Your question seems like you don't understand what a Roth IRA is. A Roth IRA isn't an investment, per se. It is just a type of account that receives special tax treatment. Just like a checking and savings account are different at a bank, a ROTH IRA account is just flagged as such by a brokerage. It isn't an investment type, and there aren't really different ROTH IRA accounts. You can invest in just about anything inside that account so that is what you need to evaluate. One Roth IRA account is as good as any other.As to what to invest your money in inside a ROTH, that is a huge question and off-topic per the rules against specific investing advice.","the $5500 Roth IRA is not restricted to earned income, you can put whatever money you have tax free and gains free.","Roth IRAs divide your withdrawal into 3 categories: Contributions, Conversions, and Earnings. This is significant, because each have different tax consequences and the order of withdrawal is dictated by tax law. You can withdraw your contributions in less than 5 years for any reason (home buyer or not). You cannot withdraw your conversions or earnings without waiting 5 years unless you pay the 10% penalty. The home buyer exemption is only after the 5 years are met. Further detail found on the motley fool: home purchase exemption, distributions, early withdrawals.","If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.","\"1) Indeed, if referring to a Roth as the question is, you are right on. But - You can deposit to an Traditional IRA (TIRA). You just can't deduct it. You are then permitted to convert that to a Roth any time. Now, this would appear to negate income issues, right? Not so fast. When you convert, all TIRA accounts must be considered. In other words, when it comes to the TIRA, you only have One TIRA, the \"\"A\"\" actually standing for Arrangement, not account. That TIRA may then be spread over as many accounts as you have time to set up. So, if there is any pretax money and/or untaxed gain, it will be prorated and taxed based on your conversion amount. If any of this is not 110% clear, please comment and I will update the answer. No 401(k) at work? Note: I edited as my original wording misunderstood the response, and in turn, appeared a bit unkind. Not my intention.\"","\"Chris's answer is a great start. Keep in mind that when you withdraw from a Roth IRA, you \"\"shrink\"\" the size of the IRA (i.e. if the start up flourishes, you can't put the $10k you withdrew back, as you're limited to ~$5k in contributions per year). You may want to consider funding your startup with a credit card (ideally a balance transfer of $10k at 0% interest). If you need to, you can always pay your card off with your Roth balance, but if the startup takes off, your IRA is unharmed. (On a side note, I wouldn't feel comfortable quitting my job to do a startup with only $10k in savings, but to each his own!)\"","Being from the UK, I'd not heard of a Roth IRA, but it sounds very similar to our own ISA (Individual Savings Account). Having just looked it up, I couldn't believe the annual limit was so low: $5500! Still, you have to work within your jurisdiction's legal framework (or agitate for change?). I would definitely agree with Ben Miller's answer: you need different savings buckets for the different savings objectives you'll have throughout the different periods of your life. I, for instance, am now a parent of two young children. I am fortunate to be able to provide for them on multiple levels: I hope that's of some help.","Actually there has been lots of talk around using a TFSA (Tax Free Savings Account) in Canada for just that purpose. A TFSA allows you: This blog makes some good points about exactly that: The bestest thing about the TFSA is its flexibility. You can take money out of your TFSA at any time for any purpose, without losing the contribution room, which makes this account the number one choice for socking away an emergency fund. So even if you take money out in one year, you can put it back the next, without affecting that year’s $5,000 contribution limit.","\"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \"\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\"\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\"","\"The Roth vs not debate is irrelevant to the question. It doesn't matter where your emergency fund is kept, as long as it is liquid and safe. I said it before in an answer to another question: your emergency fund is not an investment -- it's your safety net This answer also says it well: an \"\"emergency fund\"\" is just that... for emergencies... NOT investment. While it \"\"hurts\"\" not to have your emergency money making more money... its MORE IMPORTANT to have quick access to it. So at TD Ameritrade, just park it in their FDIC deposit account. It will not earn any meaningful interest (at least until rates rise), but you'll be able to have access to it when you need it. Note that I would caution against putting it in a money market mutual fund. They're safer than many other investments, but they're not FDIC insured against loss and there is a potential for temporary loss of liquidity. In late 2008 when the credit markets collapsed, a lot of people suddenly became unemployed -- and needed access to their emergency funds. When Lehman Brothers went bust in September, the Reserve Primary Fund (with billions of dollars in their fund) \"\"broke the buck\"\" -- they lowered the price of shares below $1, meaning investors lost principal. The worst part is that investors were not as liquid as they wanted to be: the fund froze and it was hard to get money out. The lesson to take away from this is that one of the times you're likely to need access to your emergency fund is during a macroeconomic crisis. This is also the time when any investment that isn't guaranteed safe may potentially be (at least temporarily) unavailable or decline in value. Emergency funds should be 100% government insured. When you have your Roth funded to the point where there's extra money beyond the emergency fund, you can start investing in higher-yielding vehicles: stock or bond index ETFs would be a good start. But then that part of your Roth starts to look like a retirement account and not an emergency fund. If it were me, I'd open a Roth at a stable local bank and just keep it in their FDIC insured money market deposit account. Then if I wanted a slight boost, I might put the \"\"upper half\"\" of my emergency fund into short term CDs, but even CDs aren't worth much at the moment.\"","If the time horizon is 5 years, I don't think that playing games with Roth IRAs or investments is really productive. I'd look at an online savings account as a holding place for this money. EDIT: Another option is the US is Savings Bonds. The rates earned right now are poor (as of 04/2011 EE bonds earn 0.6% and I bonds yielded 0.37%), and there is an interest penalty if you redeem them in less than five years. But, they are not state taxable, and you can defer tax payments until you cash them.","I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments.","Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income.","You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.","Comparing retirement savings to ordinary investment is not an apples-to-apples comparison - retirement savings are savings for retirement - if you want to invest in things now and live off of (or reinvest) those earnings, then retirement accounts are not the right vehicle. That said, here are some benefits of the main types of retirement accounts: Benefits of a 401(k): Benefits of a tratitional IRA: Benefits of a ROTH 401(k): Benefits of a ROTH IRA: (the benefits above are not exhaustive, there are other benefits such as using a ROTH IRA for higher ed. expenses, etc. but those are the highlights) If you have a plan for how you hope to use the money now rather than later does it make sense to hold onto it? If your plan is meant to provide income at retirement, and earns returns higher than the returns plus matches and tax benefits you get from retirement accounts, then yes, it may make more sense, but those benefits are generally very hard to beat. Plus, having the money locked away in an account that is painful to tap can be a good thing - you're less tempted to use that money for foolish decisions (which everyone makes at some point).","Lets do the math (assuming a lot of stuff, like your interest rates and that you make the contribution at the beginning of the year, also your tax bracket at the withdrawal time frame.) 1.) Beginning of year 1 Roth Option $5k contribution Non Roth Option $5k contribution 2.) Beginning of year 2 Roth Option $5000 + $150 interest + 5K contribution = $10150 Non Roth Option $5000 + $75 interest + 5K contribution = $10075 3.) End of year 2 Buy a house! yay! Roth Option---before withdrawal account value = 10150+10150*.03=10454.5 after withdrawl (assuming 38% tax on earnings withdrawal (10%penalty + 28% income tax estimate.) = 10327.17 Non Roth Option = 10 226.125 So you are talking about a significant amount of paperwork to either 1.) Net yourself $100 toward the purchase 2.) Cost yourself $226 on the purchase but have $454.50 in your roth ira. I am not sure I would do that, but it might be worth it.","A Roth IRA is just an account wrapper. Inside a Roth IRA you can have a plain 0.1% savings account, or a brokerage account, or an annuity or whatever. There's no rate of return for a Roth IRA. That particular calculator seems to assume you'll be wrapping a brokerage account in a Roth IRA and investing in the stock market. Over a long period 6% is probably a reasonable rate of return considering the S&P 500 has returned about 7% over the last decade.","If you are going to be buying a house in 1-2 years, I would be putting my money into a short term holding area like a high interest (which isn't that high right now) or a CD (also low interest) because of your near-term need. I wouldn't use the Roth option for your down payment money. If you invest in something volatile (and stocks/mutual funds are very volatile in a 1-2 year term) I would consider it too risky for your need and time frame.","The primary advantage of an IRA or 401k is you get taxed effectively one time on the money (when you contribute for Roth, or when you withdraw for Traditional), whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account (on all the money when you contribute, plus on the earnings part when you withdraw). Of course, you have to be able to withdraw without penalty for it to be optimally advantageous. And you said you want to retire decades early, so that is probably not retirement age. However, withdrawing early does not necessarily mean you have a penalty. For example: you can withdraw contributions to a Roth IRA at any time without tax or penalty; Roth 401k can be rolled over into Roth IRA; other types of accounts can be converted to Roth IRA and the principal of the conversion can be withdrawn after 5 years without penalty.","Well, a couple things to keep in mind: Even if you have enough to meet the minimum initial amount, you need to have at least that much income in the year you make the contribution. You'll probably be best served saving up in a savings account so that by the time you have an income (and can thus make contributions), you have enough cash to meet the minimum initial contribution.","There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it.","\"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \"\"loophole\"\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\"","\"The IRA contribution limit is a limit on the total amount you can contribute to all of your Roth and traditional IRAs. It's not a per-account limit. (See here and here.) Once you've hit the contribution limit on one account, you've hit it on all of them. Even so, supposing you had a reason with try to take money out of one of the accounts, the answer to your question is \"\"sort of\"\". The limit is a limit on your gross contributions, not your net contributions. It is possible to withdraw Roth contributions if you do so before the tax filing deadline for that year, but you must also withdraw (and pay taxes on) any earnings accured during the time the money was in the Roth (see here). In addition, doing this may not be as simple as just taking the money out of your account; you should probably ask your bank about it and let them know you're \"\"undoing\"\" the contribution, since they may otherwise still record the amount as a real contribution and the withdrawal as unqualified early withdrawal (subject to penalties, etc.).\"","No, you cannot. If you withdraw everything from all your Roth IRA's and end up with less than the total basis - you can deduct the difference on your schedule A (at the time of the last withdrawal) as an itemized deduction (as misc. deductions with 2% AGI cap). Regular IRA's are pre-tax, you cannot deduct anything from them.","lol @ savings accounts. I don't use savings accounts. I just use checking for liquidity and invest everything else. Now if you have a job that prohibits trading on your own account that's understandable but if you have the knowledge might as well use it and make some $$$","Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids.","I would not suggest closing out your Roth IRA -- Couple of reasons for that - 1) Since you've been contributing to it for 15 years, your investments have probably grown, seen dividends, etc. If you close it out, you will owe taxes and be slapped with a 10% penalty on the growth (money you didn't contribute). That's quite a waste of hard earned money. 2) While your income may exceed the contribution limit of a Roth, you could do what's called a 'backdoor' Roth - which is really just converting your after tax contributions into an IRA into a Roth IRA. 3) Given the length of your contributions your Roth IRA is seasoned (5 years) This allows you to use up to 10k for your house if you chose. (Usually not an option people use) Other than that, consider paying off the student loans with the highest interest first.","If the IRA is costing you $100 a year, you should almost certainly transfer it to a cheaper provider, regardless of whether you're going to withdraw anything. You can transfer the IRA to another provider that doesn't charge you the fees. Or you can convert it to Roth and combine it with your existing Roth. Either way, you will keep all the money, and save $100 per year in the future. If you want to take money out of your retirement accounts, you should take it out of your Roth IRA, because you can withdraw contributions (i.e., up to the amount you contributed) from the Roth without tax or penalty. Whether you should withdraw anything from your retirement accounts is a different question. If you're already maxing out your Roth IRA, and you have sufficient retirement savings, you could just instead plow that $5500 into your student loans. (If you can afford it, of course, it'd be better to just pay the $7500 from your income and still contribute to the retirement accounts.) There's no reason to withdraw from retirement accounts to pay loans when you could just divert current income for that purpose instead.","The Roth IRA will provide no tax benefit to you if you are contributing after-tax money and then removing it immediately. Also there is more information on tax benefits for parents of disabled children (and a real phone number, I tried calling) at http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Benefits-for-Disabled-Taxpayers","One thing to keep in mind is that with Roth accounts, there are different withdrawal considerations based on your contributions. For example, you can withdraw Roth IRA contributions whenever you want in the future. However this really has nothing to do with your cost basis and purely to do with the contribution amount vs balance.","Five years is too short to be able to safely invest the money in any productive manner. You're saving, not investing. Part of the problem is that you don't have all the money right now, and you'll need to add to it over the next few years until you have enough for a down payment. See the notes under CDs and bonds below for why this is a problem. The universe of options: As for the Roth, as duffbeer703 said, I'm not sure it's worth the hassle and risk that you'll want the money sooner and be forced to wait. (E.g. you end up with enough money in 4.25 years for a house that you want but you have to wait 9 months to be able to tap the Roth.) As noted above, the yields are so low that the losses to taxes aren't really going to amount to much. On $10k you're looking at $150 max earnings, and losing maybe $40 of it to taxes (annually). So avoiding taxes won't shrink your time horizon by any meaningful amount. I'd just open a high yield savings account and start dumping money in. Keep an eye on shorter term (1yr) CD rates and if they go above the savings yield and the timing is right then take advantage of it.","Some banks and credit unions have IRA accounts. They pay interest like a savings account or a CD but they are an IRA. After the 15th you can roll them over into a IRA at one of the big investment companies so you can get invest in an index or Target Retirement Fund. But it is not too late. Opening an account at one of the big companies takes ten minutes (you need to know your social security number and your bank account info) they can pull it out of your bank account. I helped my kid do the same thing this week. We went on-line Tuesday night, and they pulled the money from his account on Thursday morning. Also know which type you want (Roth or regular) before you start. Also make sure you specify that the money is for 2013 not 2014.","\"Yes. I describe the Roth flavor as \"\"denser.\"\" For those with more money they wish to save this factor should be added to the mix. Of course you can save $16500 + 5000 (in an IRA) for $21500 total pretax if you wish (and are within the limits.)\"","\"Investopedia probably should change the wording to \"\"tax free\"\" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. \"\"Tax advantaged\"\" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases.\"","Yes, it's possible to withdraw money without penalty but you have to do it in a special way. For example you have to withdraw the same amount every year until you retire: Tapping Your IRA Penalty-Free as for unstable economy - you can trade many instruments in your IRA. you can do bonds, mutual funds, stocks, ETFs or just keep it in cash. Some do well in bad economy.","If by exempt, you're just referring to the fact that the income is less than your standard deduction and personal exemption, then yes, that money can be used to fund a Roth. Great time to do it. To be clear, in 2014 the limit for an under 50 year old, is $5500 ($6500 if 50 or older). Only earned income may be used for deposits. No interest, dividends, etc.","You can take out the contributions to your Roth tax and penalty free. That's the good thing. Anything above the amount you contributed that you withdraw early will cost you ordinary income tax (which is higher than capital gains tax) plus a 10 percent penalty on that amount. So if you have $15,000 in the account and $5,000 is gains and you withdraw $11,000, then you owe tax and penalty on $1,000. The penalty is 10% and your taxes (high taxes!) are added to that. Pretty bad deal. If you kept it in a normal account and paid capital gains tax, you just pay 15% (or whatever) on your gains and you get to offset income tax with your losses via tax loss harvesting. So back to your question: your idea works even better than you suggested if you only withdraw up to the amount that you contributed (you pay no tax!). Take out any of the gains and you will be penalized more than you would if you just paid capital gains on them. Leave those in until you are old enough to take them out penalty and tax free. To me, contributing to a Roth, making a bunch of gains on it, and withdrawing only the contribution part whenever you want seems to make good sense.","You do not have to wait 5 years from when a particular dollar was earned to withdraw it. To be a qualified distribution from a Roth IRA, A) the Roth IRA must have been opened for 5 years (which yours was), and B) you must be 59.5 years old, or meet one of the other exceptions (and $10,000 for a first-time home purchase is one of the exceptions). Since it is a qualified distribution, there is no tax or penalty.","\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\"","If you have the cash on hand to pay the tax on the amount you are transferring I recommend moving to a Roth IRA An IRA is tax-deferred. You put in pretax contributions in to an IRA, and you are taxed on that money (your contributions and interest earned) when you withdraw it at retirement, age 59 1/2. The idea being that you will be taking less out per year in your retirement years, putting you into a lower tax bracket. The major problem is most people draw out as much or more a year in their retirement years than when they were working. A Roth IRA grows tax free You put after tax contributions into a Roth IRA, you have paid taxes on the contributions, and you are never taxed on the growth. When you draw the money out at retirement you don't pay any income taxes on that money. Let me give you an example: For this example we will use the following information for both scenario: We will invest $400 per month for a total of $4800. The current maximum is $5000 if you are under 50 years old $400 dollars after taxes is $300 Invest $300 a month, at age 65 you have 3,529,432 You owe no taxes on this money, it doesn't matter how much you take out a year. $400 dollars a month is taken pretax out of your paycheck. Invest $400 per month, at age 65 you have $4,705,909 You owe taxes of 25% as you draw that out for at total tax of 1,176,477 4,705,909 - 1,176,477 = 3,529,432 cash in your pocket The problem is if you draw out more than $82,400 (current 2010 filing single) per year you will be pushed to a higher tax bracket and take more of your money away. If you decide to buy a vacation home and you take out $250,000 to pay for it, that's counted as income for that year any you will be in the 33% tax bracket. Even if you can keep yourself to a low income the government forces your hand and makes you draw out more money at age 70, based on their tables, forcing you into a higher tax bracket","From what these people are saying, it is impossible for you to put $5,500 in if it were a Roth though, because the money has to be taxed. You are correct that this is wrong. You can still put $5,500 in a Roth - the tax payment comes when you file, not when you make the investment. This is when the Roth is better than a Traditional IRA, when you can invest the max either way. Yes you get the tax break for the Traditional investment, and if you invest the tax savings you'll be in the same spot, all else being equal. If you only have a certain amount (after taxes) to invest, say $3,000 in a 25% marginal tax bracket, then it works out the same either way. You can either invest $3,000 in a Roth and let it grow tax free, or put $4,000 in a traditional IRA since you can deduct $1,000 (15%) from your taxes when you file. Then your tax-adjusted balance when you withdraw is the same, since you'll have a lot more (33% more in fact) in your traditional IRA but will have to pay tax on the withdrawals.","For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.","\"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \"\"save\"\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \"\"discretionary\"\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\"","If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.","IRA is an account. You can open as many as you want. What's limited is the contributions: you cannot deposit to the IRA (all of them combined) more than what you've earned during the year, or $5500 (for 2013), the lowest. There are also limits on how much you can deduct, depending on your income and availability of other retirement programs at your work. You can open as many IRAs as you want in your child's name, but if your child had only earned $500 this year - that's how much you can put in these accounts. Your wife and you share the earned income limit, so if your wife is not working, you can still contribute to the IRA in her name, based on your own earnings (i.e.: if you earned more than $11000 - you can contribute the maximum $5500 for each of you). The limits are for all the IRA combined, doesn't matter how many accounts you have, and how many of them are Roth.","\"No. A deposit to an IRA must be in cash. A conversion from traditional IRA to Roth can be \"\"in kind\"\" i.e. As a stock transfer. Last, any withdrawals can also be in stock or funds. IRS Publication 590, so important, it's now in 2 sections Part A and Part B, addresses IRA issues such as this as well as most others. By the way - now on page 7 - \"\"Contributions, except for rollover contributions, must be in cash.\"\"\"","\"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \"\"tax-free\"\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\"","The biggest problem is what happens when you make a withdrawal if an emergency occurs. If the money was a contribution from a past year, you will not be able to put those funds back into the fund until a later date. Assume the following scenario: The limits regarding maximum annual contribution and windows when you can contribute make this an inefficient way to operate the emergency fund/retirement fund. Retirement and emergency funds are both important. Don't co-mingle them, it leads to double counting the money when you guesstimate where you are regarding your financial goals.","You're young. Build a side business in your spare time. Invest in yourself. Fail a few times when you have some time to recover financially. Use the money that you would have let sit in some account and develop your skills, start up an LLC, and build up the capacity to get some real returns on your money. Be a rainmaker, not a Roth taker.","Yes. Savings accounts and CDs today pay almost nothing. They are not a way to grow your money for the future. They are a place to keep some spare cash for emergencies. I don't have such accounts any more. Personally, I generally keep about $2000 in my checking account for any sudden surprise expenses. Any other spare money I have I put into very safe mutual funds. They don't grow much either, but it's better than what I'd get on a savings account or CD.","Savings accounts with 8% APY? Unheard of these days. You're lucky if you find one at 1%. You should use checking and savings accounts only to hold an emergency fund (6 to 12 months of living expenses), or money that you will need in 2 years or so. The rest, invest in stocks and bonds.","Using the default values for age and retirement and only making the changes you specified in the question. assumed ROR: 6%, current tax rate: 25%, retirement tax rate: 15%, married, have an employer retirement plan. The results from the two calculators are: Traditional IRA: 631,341 IRA before taxes 536,640 IRA after taxes. Roth IRA: 631,341 Roth IRA 450,207 Taxable Savings where: Total taxable savings The total amount you would have accumulated by retirement in a taxable savings account. your question: The (Traditional) IRA After Taxes value is 6.3% higher than the (Roth) Taxable Savings amount. (Both had an equal gross amount.) Does that mean I should put my money in a tIRA instead of a Roth? My percentages don't match your percentages because you didn't specify the numbers you used. In any case the 450K number shows you what you would have if the money was not invested in an IRA or 401K. To decide between a Roth and a traditional IRA ignore the taxable savings number, that only shows what happens if you decide not not use a retirement account.","There are 3 account types your question discusses and each has its good/bad points. The above is a snapshot of these account types. IRAs have income restrictions that may disallow a deduction on the traditional, or any deposit to Roth, etc. If this does not address your question, please comment, and I'll edit for better clarity.","\"One problem with this plan is that the individual must have earned income to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you have an infant, unless she is the new Gerber baby or something like that, there is probably no legitimate way for her to earn income. If you own a business and have kids who are older, you can employ them to do work for you, but they must really do work and earn around the market rate for that work. Otherwise, it is unlikely that they will be able to earn enough to fund an IRA until they are teenagers. When they are old enough to work, you can \"\"match\"\" their earnings by contributing the same amount to a Roth IRA on their behalf, but this will not give you the amount of contributions and growth time that you were counting on.\""],"string":"[\n \"A Roth IRA is intended for retirement. Before age 59.5 (I think), you can only withdraw the amount you deposited without penalty. It's great you're saving in a Roth, but you shouldn't put savings in there that you will need before you reach sufficient age. And since it's long-term, you can invest in things you expect to grow over the long term, like equities. You should keep emergency funds either in federally insured, extremely liquid accounts (bank savings) or money market funds (which aren't insured, but are close enough to zero-risk). Yes, the interest rates are terrible right now. But anything else would potentially leave you with insufficient funds in the event of, you know, an emergency.\",\n \"It's a little extra hassle come tax-time if you have a distribution to account for, as you'd be required to file Form 8606. If you pay for tax-preparation the extra fees could easily wipe out any interest earned. Roth IRA savings accounts don't seem to earn much interest, so while you could come out slightly ahead with this approach, I don't think it's worth it. I prefer to keep a portion of my emergency fund in an online savings account (0.75% interest), and another portion in CD's (2.10% interest) through the same bank.\",\n \"Generally, you have 60 days to return funds. If you've been stowing away money in to a Roth IRA and an emergency strikes you pull out contributions sufficient to tackle the emergency while leaving at least the earnings in there. You've never paid taxes on these earnings and the earnings will continue to grow tax free. If you've been stowing away money in a vanilla taxable account and an emergency strikes you pull out whatever amount to tackle the emergency. You've been paying taxes on the earnings all along but there's no paperwork. You can't replace the money in the Roth IRA (outside the 60 day limit except for some specific same year rules that you should iron out with your custodian) but you also haven't lost anything. Either way in the event of an emergency the funds are removed from an account, but in one case you haven't been paying taxes on gains. IF you want to go the route of a Roth IRA wrapper for your emergency fund you shouldn't be touching the funds for small events, tires for your car and the like. If your goal is to juice the tax free nature of the Roth IRA wrapper for as long as you can then repurpose the money for retirement if you never experienced an emergency with the understanding that you may have to gut the account in an emergency, that's fine. If you expect money to routinely come in and out of the account a Roth IRA is a horrible vehicle.\",\n \"Why are you saving your emergency fund in a Roth-IRA? That type of fund should be for retirement. I know you can pull out your principal but that would mean in a crisis you will be destroying your retirement fund. Remember there is an annual limit, it could take years to replenish it if you have to pay for a big repair, or period of unemployment. The emergency fund should be kept in a very safe account. I would just keep in a high yeild account at a Credit Union\",\n \"\\\"Wow. It's clear I'm outnumbered. When I'm approached with the question (and keep in mind, it's usually a couple data points and little else) \\\"\\\"I am getting started, with no other money do I fund a retirement or emergency account?\\\"\\\" I often suggest they put the funds into a Roth, in a money market fund, and treat it like an emergency account. If there's in fact an emergency, there's no penalty to withdraw the deposit and we're talking peanuts for interest today. With no emergency, two things could happen: A) As the account grows beyond what's needed for emergencies, the excess can be invested long term. B) As the investor earns more money and saves up enough to have a true emergency account separate from the IRA, the Roth can be fully invested long term. The 'Bad idea' stems from the view that one is using their Roth as an emergency account, which of course is bad. The subtle difference is one has no retirement savings and puts their Emergency account into the otherwise unused Roth. As time passes, they've protected more funds to grow tax free. In the end, the most important thing is whether the person is saving and not tapping for simple non-emergency things. I'd rather see a guy with $25K in his Roth and no other funds than to have $5000 in his bank account because every time it gets larger he feels compelled to spend it. My answer to Matt is to treat it for now as you intended, low risk, CD or cash (money market).\\\"\",\n \"Why not just roll over part of your IRA to a bank? I don't know about Capital One, but Bank of America seems to offer a bank-based IRA. In broker-based IRAs, the closest that I've seen to a savings account is a money market fund. They often set those as the default investment until money is allocated to more specific funds. It is conceivably possible that a money market could lose money, but it has never happened.\",\n \"You can use a Roth IRA for retirement and you can still withdraw all of your contributions at any time. You can also withdraw $10,000 worth of the earnings in your Roth IRA for a first-time home purchase. You can also withdraw for unreimbursed medical expenses and qualified education expenses. Full details are available in IRS publication 590. There is a limit of $5,500 for contributions in 2016 ($6,500 if you're over 50) as long as your adjusted gross income is below a certain level. You can still make a contribution for the previous tax year until the filing deadline (usually April 15).\",\n \"Deposits are contributions. You deposit say, $5000, and over time you have $6000. The $5000 can be withdrawn any time with no issue. It's tracked via form 8606. With this in mind, I wrote an article The Roth Emergency Fund, suggesting that since one can withdraw deposits with no issue, the Roth can be used to hold emergency money.\",\n \"If you are absolutely sure you will need the money in the next year or so I wouldn't do it just because of the hassle. If you think you might not need to use the money then I would go ahead and fund a Roth IRA for the simple reason that you can get your contributions (NOT earnings on those contributions.) back without paying any penalties if you do end up needing them. A good summary of the rationale can be found at My Money Blog's Roth IRA Contribution vs. Emergency Fund Savings\",\n \"(To be clear, IRA accounts are just wrappers, and can contain a large variety of investments. I'm restricting myself to the usual setup of investment in the stock market.) So, let's say you have $5000 in savings, as an emergency fund. Of the top of my head, putting some of it into a Roth IRA could backfire in the following ways: The basic principle here is that the stock market is not a good place for storing your emergency cash, which needs to be secured against loss and immediately accessible. Once you're happy with your level of emergency cash, however, tax-advantaged investment accounts are a reasonable next step.\",\n \"Yes sir, been there did that. Now a Roth account is considered income if you it pull out. It is your money and you have to report if you pull it out. FYI, open a savings account, and put it in that so if you need it this will not happen.\",\n \"You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.\",\n \"It doesn't matter if you aren't maxing out your IRA contributions anyway. If you are maxing out IRA contribution and you still have extra money to deposit then yes you better have all the money inevested, but if you aren't maxing out your contribution then it doesn't really mattter where you stick your emergency savings. But if you fall into money later you will be glad you put your emergency in a roth.\",\n \"You may withdraw your contributions to a Roth IRA at any time for any reason without penalty. Any gains you withdraw may be subject to tax or penalties though, but there is a $10,000 exclusion (from the 10% penalty, not the taxes) for a first time home purchase.\",\n \"Whether or not you can deposit to a Roth IRA, you are able to convert those deposits to A Roth account. In effect, you pay the tax going in (as with the regular brokerage account) but no tax on growth when withdrawn. The non-deductible IRA, on its own, holds little appeal, in comparison.\",\n \"\\\"A Roth IRA is simply a tax-sheltered account that you deposit funds into, and then invest however you choose (within the limits of the firm you deposit the funds with). For example, you could open a Roth IRA account with Vanguard. You could then invest the $3000 by purchasing shares of VOO, which tracks the S&P 500 index and has a very low expense ratio (0.04 as of last time I checked). Fidelity has a similar option, or Schwab, or whatever brokerage firm you prefer. IRAs are basically just normal investment accounts, except they don't owe taxes until you withdraw them (and Roth don't even owe them then, though you paid taxes on the funds you deposit). They have some limitations regarding options trading and such, but if you're a novice investor just looking to do basic investments, you'll not notice. Then, your IRA would go up or down in value as the market went up or down in value. You do have some restrictions on when you can withdraw the funds; Roth IRA has fewer than a normal IRA, as you can withdraw the capital (the amount you deposited) without penalty, but the profits cannot be withdrawn until you're retirement age (I won't put an actual year, as I suspect that actual year will change by the time you're that old; but think 60s). The reason not to invest in an IRA is if you plan on using the money in the near future - even as an \\\"\\\"emergency fund\\\"\\\". You should have some money that is not invested aggressively, that is in something very safe and very accessible, for your emergency fund; and if you plan to buy a house or whatever with the funds, don't start an IRA. But if this is truly money you want to save for retirement, that's the best place to start. **Note, this is not investment advice, and you should do your own homework prior to making any investment. You can lose some or all of the value of your account while investing.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \\\"\\\"grow faster\\\"\\\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\\\"\",\n \"This is a great idea and I can't think of any downside. The best part about it is in the future when you have built up your emergency fund beyond the maximum contributions to the Roth IRA, you can then move your Roth funds into a higher yielding investment. I might take it a step further. In addition to this, try to get a line of credit from your bank (with no annual fee). In case of emergency, you can decide if you want to take the money from your Roth or borrow from the line and pay some interest temporarily. Depending on the situation it may actually make sense to pay a little bit of interest and leave the money in the Roth, since over the long run the future earnings of that money could easily make you more than the interest you'll pay for (let's hope) a short amount of time. To really hit home why your idea is fantastic:\",\n \"I think you're missing several key issues here. First for the facts: IRA contributions are $5500 a year maximum (currently, it changes with inflation), i.e.: you cannot deposit $10K in an IRA account in a single year. IRA withdrawals can only be made if you have something liquid in the IRA. You cannot withdraw from Lending Club IRA unless you manage to sell the notes currently held by you there. Roth IRA is funded with after-tax money, and you can withdraw your deposits in Roth IRA any time for any reason. No 10K limit there, only limited by what you deposited. However the main thing you're missing is this: You can withdraw up to $10K from your IRA for first home purchase without penalty. Pay attention: not without tax but without penalty. So what is the point in depositing $10k into IRA just to withdraw it the next year?\",\n \"First, a Roth is funded with post tax money. The Roth IRA deposit will not offset any tax obligation you might have. The IRA is not an investment, it's an account with a specific set of tax rules that apply to it. If you don't have a brokerage account, I'd suggest you consider a broker that has an office nearby. Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard are 3 that I happen to have relationships with. Once the funds are deposited, you need to choose how to invest for the long term. The fact that I'd choose the lowest cost S&P ETF or mutual fund doesn't mean that's the ideal investment for you. You need to continue to do research to find the exact investment that matches your risk profile. By way of example, up until a few years ago, my wife and I were nearly 100% invested in stocks, mostly the S&P 500. When we retired, four years ago, I shifted a bit to be more conservative, closer to 80% stock 20% cash.\",\n \">I could be wrong but you will still get tax at 10% This isn't true for Roths. If I put 5k (post tax of course) money into a Roth 401k or a Roth IRA I can withdraw that 5k whenever I want penalty and tax free. Now lets say that 5k has grown to 7k and I take out all 7k the first 5k is penalty and tax free but the extra 2k is taxed (with the extra 10% penalty added on). So as long as you don't touch any growth in your roth accounts you can withdraw the principal amount with the same consequences you would experience if you were to take money out of your checking account at your bank. Also money in and IRA does not have to be invested it could be in a liquid position. Now a pre tax retirement account doesn't have the same luxury. If I stick 5k into a traditional IRA and it grows to 7k and I pull that money out the entire ammount gets taxed AND penalized (even the principal amount is subject the 10% penalty). Now if you do a Roth conversion (pre-tax to post-tax retirment account conversion) the principal ammount (the amount you paid taxes on) is still subject to the 10% penalty for 5 years. After the 5 years you can withdraw the converted ammount tax and penalty free (well you already paid the taxes) it would just be the growth that is subject to the penalty.\",\n \"mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account. In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions. In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets. As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well. (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.)\",\n \"With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.\",\n \"Why shouldn't I just keep my money in the savings account and earn the same amount (both accounts have the same APY in this case)? I will assume that you are transferring money from your savings account into a Traditional IRA and deducting the contribution from your income. While you may think that the money that is being transferred is yours already -- it is sitting in your savings account, for Pete's sake! -- you are deducting that amount in getting to your taxable income, and so you are effectively contributing it from current income and not paying taxes on the amount contributed. So, consider the same amount of money sitting in your savings account versus the same amount of money sitting in your Traditional IRA account. While you will earn the same amount of interest in both accounts, you will have to pay taxes each year on the interest earned in the savings account. You might choose, as most people do, to not take money out of the savings account to pay theses taxes but just pay them from ready cash/checking account/current income etc., or these taxes might just reduce the refund that you will getting from the IRS and your State income tax authority, but in either case, you have paid taxes on the interest earned in your non-IRA savings account, and of course, long ago, you also paid taxes on the original amount in the non-IRA savings account. So, if you take any money out of the non-IRA savings account, you don't pay any taxes on the amount withdrawn except possibly for the interest earned from January 1 till the date of withdrawal (which you are paying from ready cash). On the other hand, consider the Traditional IRA. The original deposit was not taxed in the sense that you got a deduction (reduced tax or increased refund) when you made the contribution. The annual interest earned was not taxed each year either. So when you make a qualified withdrawal (after age 59.5 or by meeting one of the other exceptions allowing withdrawal before age 59.5), you are taking money on which you have not paid any taxes at all, and the IRS wants its cut. The money withdrawn is taxable income to you. Furthermore, the money withdrawn is not eligible for any kind of favorable treatment such as having it count as qualified dividends or as long-term capital gains even if your IRA was invested in stocks and the money in the account is all qualified dividends or long-term capital gains. If you make an unqualified withdrawal, you owe a penalty (technically named an excise tax) in addition to income tax on the amount withdrawn. If you are investing in a Roth IRA, you will not be getting a deduction when you make the contribution, and qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free, and so the answer is completely different from the above.\",\n \"I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.\",\n \"As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.\",\n \"So you wouldn't really be using the IRA money for building the house, but for padding your savings? I would just leave the money in the IRA. Don't take it out just in the off-chance you need it, especially when you already have money in savings. If you want to replenish your savings do it by putting some of your income in there.\",\n \"First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.\",\n \"I would wait, and invest that money in a Roth IRA. Because taxes are paid on the contributions to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time, tax and penalty-free. In addition, you can withdraw contributions and earning to purchase your first home.\",\n \"You can withdraw the contributions you made to Roth IRA tax free. Any withdrawals from Roth IRA count first towards the contributions, then conversions, and only then towards the gains which are taxable. You can also withdraw up to $10000 of the taxable portion penalty free (from either the Traditional IRA or the Roth IRA, or the combination of both) if it is applied towards the purchase of your first primary residence (i.e.: you don't own a place yet, and you're buying your first home, which will become your primary residence). That said, however, I cannot see how you can buy a $250K house. You didn't say anything about your income, but just the cash needed for the down-payment will essentially leave you naked and broke. Consider what happens if you have an emergency, out of a job for a couple of months, or something else of that kind. It is generally advised to have enough cash liquid savings to keep you afloat for at least half a year (including mortgage payments, necessities and whatever expenses you need to spend to get back on track - job searching, medical, moving, etc). It doesn't look like you're anywhere near that. Remember, many bankruptcies are happening because of the cash-flow problem, not the actual ability to repay debts on the long run.\",\n \"\\\"You could put in in a Money Market Fund. These are designed to always be $1 per share, and not lose money. Of course, it still, very rarely, happens and is called \\\"\\\"breaking the buck\\\"\\\" when they do. Sounds like the high yield savings is the way to go. The rates will be the same as what you can get from a Money Market Fund, but you also have the added advantage that the account is FDIC insured. BTW, using a Roth as an emergency fund is a terrible idea. It is true that, since you already paid taxes on your contributions, you can withdraw those contributions without incurring penalties. However, you have to file paperwork to do it, and since it's not common, the IRA custodian is likely to screw it up. Plus, you have to keep track of what were contributions, and what was investment returns, to not run afoul of the penalties. And it will take time to do it, which you may not have in an emergency. Considering you're only looking at getting 1% interest anyway, there's no reason to use a Roth account as an emergency fund. You can set those same automatic deposits into a savings account.\\\"\",\n \"Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.\",\n \"I'll summarize here our discussion in the comments. First thing to remember is that you can only deposit up to $6K/year into the Roth IRA, you cannot seed it with some large amount (unless its a rollover). Second thing to remember is that you can only qualify 10K distribution for the home purchase. With that in mind, it seems that you'll have to have extremly high returns to make use of the maximum tax benefit (15-20% of the 10K). Non-qualified distributions will be taxed at ordinary income rates + 10% penalty, so if you can't qualify the distribution, instead of saving money on taxes, you'll end up paying twice as much as you would have without the IRA. Also, keep in mind that reporting of the distributions and justifying the qualifications might require assistance of a tax preparer, which will also reduce your savings. Bottom line, IMHO, you'll end up with a wash or very insignificant savings (compared to the magnitude of the home purchase costs) at best, which renders the whole thing kindof wastefull.\",\n \"If I may echo the Roth comment - The Roth is a tax designation, not an end investment, so you still need to research and decide what's appropriate. I recommend the Roth for the long term investments, but keep in mind, even if you feel you may need to tap the Roth sooner than later, all deposits may be withdrawn at any time with no tax or penalty. Roth is great to store the emergency money for many if they aren't 100% sure they have enough cash to save for retirement. As you get further along, and see that you don't need it, change how it's invested to longer term, a mix of stocks (I prefer ETFs that mimic the S&P)\",\n \"Putting money into a Roth IRA or 401(k) will save you money if your taxes this year will be lower than your taxes in retirement. See also the Wikipedia retirement-savings matrix.\",\n \"There are no immediate tax-related benefits to putting money into a Roth IRA. You are investing after-tax money in the hope that the rules won't change and you'll be able to take out the money tax-free when you retire. Under current rules, you can take out your contributions at any time without penalties or taxes. You can't take out earnings without penalties until you retire. You said you don't have any debt (great!). So if you have cash that you don't have other uses for, and you don't mind possibly tying it up for a long time, you can put money into a Roth IRA. I'd argue that if you have, say, $25-50/month to put into long term savings, it's a good habit to start. When you move into a job that gives you more disposable income, you can increase this amount. The earlier you start, the lower the monthly amount you'll need to contribute towards a comfortable retirement. Once you get started putting a little bit away, you'll never miss it.\",\n \"The Roth is the mirror image of the Pre-Tax (traditional) IRA. The latter gives you a tax break now, the deposits go in pre-tax, and are withdrawn at your rate in retirement. The former lets you squirrel that money away now, post-tax, but never pay tax again. For young folk the Roth is a great way to go. My 12 year old has a Roth account, and paid no tax since she has her own exemption. At your level, you are probably in the 10% bracket now. Imagine investing that money and at retirement finding it's grown 100X (very possible), if it were in a Roth, you'd have no tax due. As BST noted, you are always free to withdraw the deposit, so if you decide this wasn't money you could actually put away long term you still have an out.\",\n \"Your question boils down to saving for a house or saving for retirement. Why not do both? If you invest in a Roth 401k or Roth IRA you can withdraw any contributions that are at least 5 years old without penalty (assuming you're willing to put off purchasing a little longer than your original 2-3 years). If you qualify as a first time home buyer (i.e. you haven't owned a home in at least 2 years) you can withdraw investment earnings as well if your distribution is earmarked towards the down payment and is no more than $10000. Although you won't be penalized for using investment earnings for a down payment you will still have to pay taxes on them. So this may be more appealing to someone that has enough contributions to avoid dipping into the investment earnings. The only other downside is that contributions to a Roth investment are not tax deductible like Traditional IRA and 401k contributions are. Instead, they grow tax free and distributions are tax free when you reach retirement age.\",\n \"Both of the other posters have some really good points worth remembering about the stability/liquidity of a savings account and the often overlooked fact that you can withdraw any money you put in to a Roth IRA because it's already been taxed. I'm 28 and found myself in a similar situation as you about a year or so ago. I wanted a relatively liquid place that I could store and grow some money. CD's and Savings accounts just weren't getting a high enough rate to make a return work for me, especially with only a little money to start. I would highly suggest checking out a social lending platform like Prosper.com or Lendingclub.com. I use Prosper.com and this platform will give you some really nice benefits: Here's a good article that can explain more about it and get you started: http://www.financialsamurai.com/investing-in-peer-to-peer-lending-with-prosper-com/ just keep in mind that while there is some liquidity here (you can resell the notes you invest in) generally speaking expect to hold on to those notes for at least 3 years (your share of the paid principal gets paid out to you in addition to the interest each month.)\",\n \"Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, it is possible to withdraw money from your Roth IRA before retirement (but I wouldn't necessarily advise you to do so.) Here's the good news, and the bad news: The good news: Unlike a traditional IRA, money contributed to a Roth IRA is done so on an after-tax basis, meaning you don't benefit from a tax deduction on contributions. So, the money you withdraw from your Roth IRA will not be taxed entirely as ordinary income. In fact, you are allowed to withdraw the amount of your original contributions (also known as basis) without any taxes or penalties. Let's imagine you originally deposited $9000 of that current $10K total value – then in such a case, $9000 could be withdrawn tax and penalty free. The bad news: When it comes to the investment earnings – the other $1000 in my example – it's a different story: Since you wouldn't be age 59 1/2 at the time of withdrawal, any money taken out beyond your original contributions would be considered a non-qualified withdrawal and subject to both ordinary income taxes plus a 10% early withdrawal penalty. Ouch! Perhaps you might want to restrict your withdrawal to your original contributions. I would imagine if you've had the account for such a short period of time that much or all of your account value is original contributions anyway. A good article about the rules for early IRA withdrawals is About.com's Tax Penalty for Early Distribution of Retirement Funds. Note: If your Roth IRA funds were the result of a rollover from another account type, other rules may apply. See Roth IRA (Wikipedia) for more detail; search for \\\"\\\"rollover\\\"\\\". Regarding the withdrawal process itself and the timing, you should check with your account custodian on how to proceed.\\\"\",\n \"Your question indicates confusion regarding what an Individual Retirement Account (whether Roth or Traditional) is vs. the S&P 500, which is nothing but a list of stocks. IOW, it's perfectly reasonable to open a Roth IRA, put your $3000 in it, and then use that money to buy a mutual fund or ETF which tracks the S&P 500. In fact, it's ridiculously common... :)\",\n \"You bring up a valid concern. IRAs are good retirement instruments as long as the rules don't change. History has shown that governments can change the rules regarding retirement accounts. As long as you have some of your retirement assets outside of an IRA I think IRAs are good ways to save for retirement. It's not possible to withdraw the money before retirement without penalty. Also, you will be penalized if you do not withdraw enough when you do retire.\",\n \"401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not.\",\n \"You are permitted to withdraw the deposits from the Roth with no tax or penalty any time. To Dilip's point, the Roth is a good place to keep the investment, and what you might consider is a 'self-directed' account. This type of IRA or Roth IRA permits a choice of investments that are not typically handled by banks or brokers, including Real Estate and the type of Angel investing you seem to be considering. Note - the rules are tough, you need to be very careful to not be self-dealing, or dealing with certain related parties.\",\n \"Sounds like a bad idea. The IRA is built on the power of compounding. Removing contributions will hurt your retirement savings, and you will never be able to make that up. Instead, consider tax-free investments. State bonds, Federal bonds, municipal bonds, etc. For example, I invest in California muni bonds fund which gives me ~3-4% annual dividend income - completely tax free. In addition - there's capital appreciation of your fund holdings. There are risks, of course, for example rate changes will affect yields and capital appreciation, so consult with someone knowledgeable in this area (or ask another question here, for the basics). This will give you the same result as you're expecting from your Roth IRA trick, without damaging your retirement savings potential.\",\n \"Your question seems like you don't understand what a Roth IRA is. A Roth IRA isn't an investment, per se. It is just a type of account that receives special tax treatment. Just like a checking and savings account are different at a bank, a ROTH IRA account is just flagged as such by a brokerage. It isn't an investment type, and there aren't really different ROTH IRA accounts. You can invest in just about anything inside that account so that is what you need to evaluate. One Roth IRA account is as good as any other.As to what to invest your money in inside a ROTH, that is a huge question and off-topic per the rules against specific investing advice.\",\n \"the $5500 Roth IRA is not restricted to earned income, you can put whatever money you have tax free and gains free.\",\n \"Roth IRAs divide your withdrawal into 3 categories: Contributions, Conversions, and Earnings. This is significant, because each have different tax consequences and the order of withdrawal is dictated by tax law. You can withdraw your contributions in less than 5 years for any reason (home buyer or not). You cannot withdraw your conversions or earnings without waiting 5 years unless you pay the 10% penalty. The home buyer exemption is only after the 5 years are met. Further detail found on the motley fool: home purchase exemption, distributions, early withdrawals.\",\n \"If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.\",\n \"\\\"1) Indeed, if referring to a Roth as the question is, you are right on. But - You can deposit to an Traditional IRA (TIRA). You just can't deduct it. You are then permitted to convert that to a Roth any time. Now, this would appear to negate income issues, right? Not so fast. When you convert, all TIRA accounts must be considered. In other words, when it comes to the TIRA, you only have One TIRA, the \\\"\\\"A\\\"\\\" actually standing for Arrangement, not account. That TIRA may then be spread over as many accounts as you have time to set up. So, if there is any pretax money and/or untaxed gain, it will be prorated and taxed based on your conversion amount. If any of this is not 110% clear, please comment and I will update the answer. No 401(k) at work? Note: I edited as my original wording misunderstood the response, and in turn, appeared a bit unkind. Not my intention.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Chris's answer is a great start. Keep in mind that when you withdraw from a Roth IRA, you \\\"\\\"shrink\\\"\\\" the size of the IRA (i.e. if the start up flourishes, you can't put the $10k you withdrew back, as you're limited to ~$5k in contributions per year). You may want to consider funding your startup with a credit card (ideally a balance transfer of $10k at 0% interest). If you need to, you can always pay your card off with your Roth balance, but if the startup takes off, your IRA is unharmed. (On a side note, I wouldn't feel comfortable quitting my job to do a startup with only $10k in savings, but to each his own!)\\\"\",\n \"Being from the UK, I'd not heard of a Roth IRA, but it sounds very similar to our own ISA (Individual Savings Account). Having just looked it up, I couldn't believe the annual limit was so low: $5500! Still, you have to work within your jurisdiction's legal framework (or agitate for change?). I would definitely agree with Ben Miller's answer: you need different savings buckets for the different savings objectives you'll have throughout the different periods of your life. I, for instance, am now a parent of two young children. I am fortunate to be able to provide for them on multiple levels: I hope that's of some help.\",\n \"Actually there has been lots of talk around using a TFSA (Tax Free Savings Account) in Canada for just that purpose. A TFSA allows you: This blog makes some good points about exactly that: The bestest thing about the TFSA is its flexibility. You can take money out of your TFSA at any time for any purpose, without losing the contribution room, which makes this account the number one choice for socking away an emergency fund. So even if you take money out in one year, you can put it back the next, without affecting that year’s $5,000 contribution limit.\",\n \"\\\"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \\\"\\\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\\\"\\\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The Roth vs not debate is irrelevant to the question. It doesn't matter where your emergency fund is kept, as long as it is liquid and safe. I said it before in an answer to another question: your emergency fund is not an investment -- it's your safety net This answer also says it well: an \\\"\\\"emergency fund\\\"\\\" is just that... for emergencies... NOT investment. While it \\\"\\\"hurts\\\"\\\" not to have your emergency money making more money... its MORE IMPORTANT to have quick access to it. So at TD Ameritrade, just park it in their FDIC deposit account. It will not earn any meaningful interest (at least until rates rise), but you'll be able to have access to it when you need it. Note that I would caution against putting it in a money market mutual fund. They're safer than many other investments, but they're not FDIC insured against loss and there is a potential for temporary loss of liquidity. In late 2008 when the credit markets collapsed, a lot of people suddenly became unemployed -- and needed access to their emergency funds. When Lehman Brothers went bust in September, the Reserve Primary Fund (with billions of dollars in their fund) \\\"\\\"broke the buck\\\"\\\" -- they lowered the price of shares below $1, meaning investors lost principal. The worst part is that investors were not as liquid as they wanted to be: the fund froze and it was hard to get money out. The lesson to take away from this is that one of the times you're likely to need access to your emergency fund is during a macroeconomic crisis. This is also the time when any investment that isn't guaranteed safe may potentially be (at least temporarily) unavailable or decline in value. Emergency funds should be 100% government insured. When you have your Roth funded to the point where there's extra money beyond the emergency fund, you can start investing in higher-yielding vehicles: stock or bond index ETFs would be a good start. But then that part of your Roth starts to look like a retirement account and not an emergency fund. If it were me, I'd open a Roth at a stable local bank and just keep it in their FDIC insured money market deposit account. Then if I wanted a slight boost, I might put the \\\"\\\"upper half\\\"\\\" of my emergency fund into short term CDs, but even CDs aren't worth much at the moment.\\\"\",\n \"If the time horizon is 5 years, I don't think that playing games with Roth IRAs or investments is really productive. I'd look at an online savings account as a holding place for this money. EDIT: Another option is the US is Savings Bonds. The rates earned right now are poor (as of 04/2011 EE bonds earn 0.6% and I bonds yielded 0.37%), and there is an interest penalty if you redeem them in less than five years. But, they are not state taxable, and you can defer tax payments until you cash them.\",\n \"I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments.\",\n \"Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income.\",\n \"You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.\",\n \"Comparing retirement savings to ordinary investment is not an apples-to-apples comparison - retirement savings are savings for retirement - if you want to invest in things now and live off of (or reinvest) those earnings, then retirement accounts are not the right vehicle. That said, here are some benefits of the main types of retirement accounts: Benefits of a 401(k): Benefits of a tratitional IRA: Benefits of a ROTH 401(k): Benefits of a ROTH IRA: (the benefits above are not exhaustive, there are other benefits such as using a ROTH IRA for higher ed. expenses, etc. but those are the highlights) If you have a plan for how you hope to use the money now rather than later does it make sense to hold onto it? If your plan is meant to provide income at retirement, and earns returns higher than the returns plus matches and tax benefits you get from retirement accounts, then yes, it may make more sense, but those benefits are generally very hard to beat. Plus, having the money locked away in an account that is painful to tap can be a good thing - you're less tempted to use that money for foolish decisions (which everyone makes at some point).\",\n \"Lets do the math (assuming a lot of stuff, like your interest rates and that you make the contribution at the beginning of the year, also your tax bracket at the withdrawal time frame.) 1.) Beginning of year 1 Roth Option $5k contribution Non Roth Option $5k contribution 2.) Beginning of year 2 Roth Option $5000 + $150 interest + 5K contribution = $10150 Non Roth Option $5000 + $75 interest + 5K contribution = $10075 3.) End of year 2 Buy a house! yay! Roth Option---before withdrawal account value = 10150+10150*.03=10454.5 after withdrawl (assuming 38% tax on earnings withdrawal (10%penalty + 28% income tax estimate.) = 10327.17 Non Roth Option = 10 226.125 So you are talking about a significant amount of paperwork to either 1.) Net yourself $100 toward the purchase 2.) Cost yourself $226 on the purchase but have $454.50 in your roth ira. I am not sure I would do that, but it might be worth it.\",\n \"A Roth IRA is just an account wrapper. Inside a Roth IRA you can have a plain 0.1% savings account, or a brokerage account, or an annuity or whatever. There's no rate of return for a Roth IRA. That particular calculator seems to assume you'll be wrapping a brokerage account in a Roth IRA and investing in the stock market. Over a long period 6% is probably a reasonable rate of return considering the S&P 500 has returned about 7% over the last decade.\",\n \"If you are going to be buying a house in 1-2 years, I would be putting my money into a short term holding area like a high interest (which isn't that high right now) or a CD (also low interest) because of your near-term need. I wouldn't use the Roth option for your down payment money. If you invest in something volatile (and stocks/mutual funds are very volatile in a 1-2 year term) I would consider it too risky for your need and time frame.\",\n \"The primary advantage of an IRA or 401k is you get taxed effectively one time on the money (when you contribute for Roth, or when you withdraw for Traditional), whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account (on all the money when you contribute, plus on the earnings part when you withdraw). Of course, you have to be able to withdraw without penalty for it to be optimally advantageous. And you said you want to retire decades early, so that is probably not retirement age. However, withdrawing early does not necessarily mean you have a penalty. For example: you can withdraw contributions to a Roth IRA at any time without tax or penalty; Roth 401k can be rolled over into Roth IRA; other types of accounts can be converted to Roth IRA and the principal of the conversion can be withdrawn after 5 years without penalty.\",\n \"Well, a couple things to keep in mind: Even if you have enough to meet the minimum initial amount, you need to have at least that much income in the year you make the contribution. You'll probably be best served saving up in a savings account so that by the time you have an income (and can thus make contributions), you have enough cash to meet the minimum initial contribution.\",\n \"There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it.\",\n \"\\\"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \\\"\\\"loophole\\\"\\\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The IRA contribution limit is a limit on the total amount you can contribute to all of your Roth and traditional IRAs. It's not a per-account limit. (See here and here.) Once you've hit the contribution limit on one account, you've hit it on all of them. Even so, supposing you had a reason with try to take money out of one of the accounts, the answer to your question is \\\"\\\"sort of\\\"\\\". The limit is a limit on your gross contributions, not your net contributions. It is possible to withdraw Roth contributions if you do so before the tax filing deadline for that year, but you must also withdraw (and pay taxes on) any earnings accured during the time the money was in the Roth (see here). In addition, doing this may not be as simple as just taking the money out of your account; you should probably ask your bank about it and let them know you're \\\"\\\"undoing\\\"\\\" the contribution, since they may otherwise still record the amount as a real contribution and the withdrawal as unqualified early withdrawal (subject to penalties, etc.).\\\"\",\n \"No, you cannot. If you withdraw everything from all your Roth IRA's and end up with less than the total basis - you can deduct the difference on your schedule A (at the time of the last withdrawal) as an itemized deduction (as misc. deductions with 2% AGI cap). Regular IRA's are pre-tax, you cannot deduct anything from them.\",\n \"lol @ savings accounts. I don't use savings accounts. I just use checking for liquidity and invest everything else. Now if you have a job that prohibits trading on your own account that's understandable but if you have the knowledge might as well use it and make some $$$\",\n \"Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids.\",\n \"I would not suggest closing out your Roth IRA -- Couple of reasons for that - 1) Since you've been contributing to it for 15 years, your investments have probably grown, seen dividends, etc. If you close it out, you will owe taxes and be slapped with a 10% penalty on the growth (money you didn't contribute). That's quite a waste of hard earned money. 2) While your income may exceed the contribution limit of a Roth, you could do what's called a 'backdoor' Roth - which is really just converting your after tax contributions into an IRA into a Roth IRA. 3) Given the length of your contributions your Roth IRA is seasoned (5 years) This allows you to use up to 10k for your house if you chose. (Usually not an option people use) Other than that, consider paying off the student loans with the highest interest first.\",\n \"If the IRA is costing you $100 a year, you should almost certainly transfer it to a cheaper provider, regardless of whether you're going to withdraw anything. You can transfer the IRA to another provider that doesn't charge you the fees. Or you can convert it to Roth and combine it with your existing Roth. Either way, you will keep all the money, and save $100 per year in the future. If you want to take money out of your retirement accounts, you should take it out of your Roth IRA, because you can withdraw contributions (i.e., up to the amount you contributed) from the Roth without tax or penalty. Whether you should withdraw anything from your retirement accounts is a different question. If you're already maxing out your Roth IRA, and you have sufficient retirement savings, you could just instead plow that $5500 into your student loans. (If you can afford it, of course, it'd be better to just pay the $7500 from your income and still contribute to the retirement accounts.) There's no reason to withdraw from retirement accounts to pay loans when you could just divert current income for that purpose instead.\",\n \"The Roth IRA will provide no tax benefit to you if you are contributing after-tax money and then removing it immediately. Also there is more information on tax benefits for parents of disabled children (and a real phone number, I tried calling) at http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Benefits-for-Disabled-Taxpayers\",\n \"One thing to keep in mind is that with Roth accounts, there are different withdrawal considerations based on your contributions. For example, you can withdraw Roth IRA contributions whenever you want in the future. However this really has nothing to do with your cost basis and purely to do with the contribution amount vs balance.\",\n \"Five years is too short to be able to safely invest the money in any productive manner. You're saving, not investing. Part of the problem is that you don't have all the money right now, and you'll need to add to it over the next few years until you have enough for a down payment. See the notes under CDs and bonds below for why this is a problem. The universe of options: As for the Roth, as duffbeer703 said, I'm not sure it's worth the hassle and risk that you'll want the money sooner and be forced to wait. (E.g. you end up with enough money in 4.25 years for a house that you want but you have to wait 9 months to be able to tap the Roth.) As noted above, the yields are so low that the losses to taxes aren't really going to amount to much. On $10k you're looking at $150 max earnings, and losing maybe $40 of it to taxes (annually). So avoiding taxes won't shrink your time horizon by any meaningful amount. I'd just open a high yield savings account and start dumping money in. Keep an eye on shorter term (1yr) CD rates and if they go above the savings yield and the timing is right then take advantage of it.\",\n \"Some banks and credit unions have IRA accounts. They pay interest like a savings account or a CD but they are an IRA. After the 15th you can roll them over into a IRA at one of the big investment companies so you can get invest in an index or Target Retirement Fund. But it is not too late. Opening an account at one of the big companies takes ten minutes (you need to know your social security number and your bank account info) they can pull it out of your bank account. I helped my kid do the same thing this week. We went on-line Tuesday night, and they pulled the money from his account on Thursday morning. Also know which type you want (Roth or regular) before you start. Also make sure you specify that the money is for 2013 not 2014.\",\n \"\\\"Yes. I describe the Roth flavor as \\\"\\\"denser.\\\"\\\" For those with more money they wish to save this factor should be added to the mix. Of course you can save $16500 + 5000 (in an IRA) for $21500 total pretax if you wish (and are within the limits.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Investopedia probably should change the wording to \\\"\\\"tax free\\\"\\\" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. \\\"\\\"Tax advantaged\\\"\\\" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, it's possible to withdraw money without penalty but you have to do it in a special way. For example you have to withdraw the same amount every year until you retire: Tapping Your IRA Penalty-Free as for unstable economy - you can trade many instruments in your IRA. you can do bonds, mutual funds, stocks, ETFs or just keep it in cash. Some do well in bad economy.\",\n \"If by exempt, you're just referring to the fact that the income is less than your standard deduction and personal exemption, then yes, that money can be used to fund a Roth. Great time to do it. To be clear, in 2014 the limit for an under 50 year old, is $5500 ($6500 if 50 or older). Only earned income may be used for deposits. No interest, dividends, etc.\",\n \"You can take out the contributions to your Roth tax and penalty free. That's the good thing. Anything above the amount you contributed that you withdraw early will cost you ordinary income tax (which is higher than capital gains tax) plus a 10 percent penalty on that amount. So if you have $15,000 in the account and $5,000 is gains and you withdraw $11,000, then you owe tax and penalty on $1,000. The penalty is 10% and your taxes (high taxes!) are added to that. Pretty bad deal. If you kept it in a normal account and paid capital gains tax, you just pay 15% (or whatever) on your gains and you get to offset income tax with your losses via tax loss harvesting. So back to your question: your idea works even better than you suggested if you only withdraw up to the amount that you contributed (you pay no tax!). Take out any of the gains and you will be penalized more than you would if you just paid capital gains on them. Leave those in until you are old enough to take them out penalty and tax free. To me, contributing to a Roth, making a bunch of gains on it, and withdrawing only the contribution part whenever you want seems to make good sense.\",\n \"You do not have to wait 5 years from when a particular dollar was earned to withdraw it. To be a qualified distribution from a Roth IRA, A) the Roth IRA must have been opened for 5 years (which yours was), and B) you must be 59.5 years old, or meet one of the other exceptions (and $10,000 for a first-time home purchase is one of the exceptions). Since it is a qualified distribution, there is no tax or penalty.\",\n \"\\\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \\\"\\\"tax deferral\\\"\\\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \\\"\\\"carrot\\\"\\\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \\\"\\\"post-tax deduction\\\"\\\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\\\"\",\n \"If you have the cash on hand to pay the tax on the amount you are transferring I recommend moving to a Roth IRA An IRA is tax-deferred. You put in pretax contributions in to an IRA, and you are taxed on that money (your contributions and interest earned) when you withdraw it at retirement, age 59 1/2. The idea being that you will be taking less out per year in your retirement years, putting you into a lower tax bracket. The major problem is most people draw out as much or more a year in their retirement years than when they were working. A Roth IRA grows tax free You put after tax contributions into a Roth IRA, you have paid taxes on the contributions, and you are never taxed on the growth. When you draw the money out at retirement you don't pay any income taxes on that money. Let me give you an example: For this example we will use the following information for both scenario: We will invest $400 per month for a total of $4800. The current maximum is $5000 if you are under 50 years old $400 dollars after taxes is $300 Invest $300 a month, at age 65 you have 3,529,432 You owe no taxes on this money, it doesn't matter how much you take out a year. $400 dollars a month is taken pretax out of your paycheck. Invest $400 per month, at age 65 you have $4,705,909 You owe taxes of 25% as you draw that out for at total tax of 1,176,477 4,705,909 - 1,176,477 = 3,529,432 cash in your pocket The problem is if you draw out more than $82,400 (current 2010 filing single) per year you will be pushed to a higher tax bracket and take more of your money away. If you decide to buy a vacation home and you take out $250,000 to pay for it, that's counted as income for that year any you will be in the 33% tax bracket. Even if you can keep yourself to a low income the government forces your hand and makes you draw out more money at age 70, based on their tables, forcing you into a higher tax bracket\",\n \"From what these people are saying, it is impossible for you to put $5,500 in if it were a Roth though, because the money has to be taxed. You are correct that this is wrong. You can still put $5,500 in a Roth - the tax payment comes when you file, not when you make the investment. This is when the Roth is better than a Traditional IRA, when you can invest the max either way. Yes you get the tax break for the Traditional investment, and if you invest the tax savings you'll be in the same spot, all else being equal. If you only have a certain amount (after taxes) to invest, say $3,000 in a 25% marginal tax bracket, then it works out the same either way. You can either invest $3,000 in a Roth and let it grow tax free, or put $4,000 in a traditional IRA since you can deduct $1,000 (15%) from your taxes when you file. Then your tax-adjusted balance when you withdraw is the same, since you'll have a lot more (33% more in fact) in your traditional IRA but will have to pay tax on the withdrawals.\",\n \"For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.\",\n \"\\\"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \\\"\\\"discretionary\\\"\\\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\\\"\",\n \"If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.\",\n \"IRA is an account. You can open as many as you want. What's limited is the contributions: you cannot deposit to the IRA (all of them combined) more than what you've earned during the year, or $5500 (for 2013), the lowest. There are also limits on how much you can deduct, depending on your income and availability of other retirement programs at your work. You can open as many IRAs as you want in your child's name, but if your child had only earned $500 this year - that's how much you can put in these accounts. Your wife and you share the earned income limit, so if your wife is not working, you can still contribute to the IRA in her name, based on your own earnings (i.e.: if you earned more than $11000 - you can contribute the maximum $5500 for each of you). The limits are for all the IRA combined, doesn't matter how many accounts you have, and how many of them are Roth.\",\n \"\\\"No. A deposit to an IRA must be in cash. A conversion from traditional IRA to Roth can be \\\"\\\"in kind\\\"\\\" i.e. As a stock transfer. Last, any withdrawals can also be in stock or funds. IRS Publication 590, so important, it's now in 2 sections Part A and Part B, addresses IRA issues such as this as well as most others. By the way - now on page 7 - \\\"\\\"Contributions, except for rollover contributions, must be in cash.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \\\"\\\"tax-free\\\"\\\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \\\"\\\"pay now or pay later.\\\"\\\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\\\"\",\n \"The biggest problem is what happens when you make a withdrawal if an emergency occurs. If the money was a contribution from a past year, you will not be able to put those funds back into the fund until a later date. Assume the following scenario: The limits regarding maximum annual contribution and windows when you can contribute make this an inefficient way to operate the emergency fund/retirement fund. Retirement and emergency funds are both important. Don't co-mingle them, it leads to double counting the money when you guesstimate where you are regarding your financial goals.\",\n \"You're young. Build a side business in your spare time. Invest in yourself. Fail a few times when you have some time to recover financially. Use the money that you would have let sit in some account and develop your skills, start up an LLC, and build up the capacity to get some real returns on your money. Be a rainmaker, not a Roth taker.\",\n \"Yes. Savings accounts and CDs today pay almost nothing. They are not a way to grow your money for the future. They are a place to keep some spare cash for emergencies. I don't have such accounts any more. Personally, I generally keep about $2000 in my checking account for any sudden surprise expenses. Any other spare money I have I put into very safe mutual funds. They don't grow much either, but it's better than what I'd get on a savings account or CD.\",\n \"Savings accounts with 8% APY? Unheard of these days. You're lucky if you find one at 1%. You should use checking and savings accounts only to hold an emergency fund (6 to 12 months of living expenses), or money that you will need in 2 years or so. The rest, invest in stocks and bonds.\",\n \"Using the default values for age and retirement and only making the changes you specified in the question. assumed ROR: 6%, current tax rate: 25%, retirement tax rate: 15%, married, have an employer retirement plan. The results from the two calculators are: Traditional IRA: 631,341 IRA before taxes 536,640 IRA after taxes. Roth IRA: 631,341 Roth IRA 450,207 Taxable Savings where: Total taxable savings The total amount you would have accumulated by retirement in a taxable savings account. your question: The (Traditional) IRA After Taxes value is 6.3% higher than the (Roth) Taxable Savings amount. (Both had an equal gross amount.) Does that mean I should put my money in a tIRA instead of a Roth? My percentages don't match your percentages because you didn't specify the numbers you used. In any case the 450K number shows you what you would have if the money was not invested in an IRA or 401K. To decide between a Roth and a traditional IRA ignore the taxable savings number, that only shows what happens if you decide not not use a retirement account.\",\n \"There are 3 account types your question discusses and each has its good/bad points. The above is a snapshot of these account types. IRAs have income restrictions that may disallow a deduction on the traditional, or any deposit to Roth, etc. If this does not address your question, please comment, and I'll edit for better clarity.\",\n \"\\\"One problem with this plan is that the individual must have earned income to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you have an infant, unless she is the new Gerber baby or something like that, there is probably no legitimate way for her to earn income. If you own a business and have kids who are older, you can employ them to do work for you, but they must really do work and earn around the market rate for that work. Otherwise, it is unlikely that they will be able to earn enough to fund an IRA until they are teenagers. When they are old enough to work, you can \\\"\\\"match\\\"\\\" their earnings by contributing the same amount to a Roth IRA on their behalf, but this will not give you the amount of contributions and growth time that you were counting on.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Sounds like a bad idea. The IRA is built on the power of compounding. Removing contributions will hurt your retirement savings, and you will never be able to make that up. Instead, consider tax-free investments. State bonds, Federal bonds, municipal bonds, etc. For example, I invest in California muni bonds fund which gives me ~3-4% annual dividend income - completely tax free. In addition - there's capital appreciation of your fund holdings. There are risks, of course, for example rate changes will affect yields and capital appreciation, so consult with someone knowledgeable in this area (or ask another question here, for the basics). This will give you the same result as you're expecting from your Roth IRA trick, without damaging your retirement savings potential.","(To be clear, IRA accounts are just wrappers, and can contain a large variety of investments. I'm restricting myself to the usual setup of investment in the stock market.) So, let's say you have $5000 in savings, as an emergency fund. Of the top of my head, putting some of it into a Roth IRA could backfire in the following ways: The basic principle here is that the stock market is not a good place for storing your emergency cash, which needs to be secured against loss and immediately accessible. Once you're happy with your level of emergency cash, however, tax-advantaged investment accounts are a reasonable next step."],"string":"[\n \"Sounds like a bad idea. The IRA is built on the power of compounding. Removing contributions will hurt your retirement savings, and you will never be able to make that up. Instead, consider tax-free investments. State bonds, Federal bonds, municipal bonds, etc. For example, I invest in California muni bonds fund which gives me ~3-4% annual dividend income - completely tax free. In addition - there's capital appreciation of your fund holdings. There are risks, of course, for example rate changes will affect yields and capital appreciation, so consult with someone knowledgeable in this area (or ask another question here, for the basics). This will give you the same result as you're expecting from your Roth IRA trick, without damaging your retirement savings potential.\",\n \"(To be clear, IRA accounts are just wrappers, and can contain a large variety of investments. I'm restricting myself to the usual setup of investment in the stock market.) So, let's say you have $5000 in savings, as an emergency fund. Of the top of my head, putting some of it into a Roth IRA could backfire in the following ways: The basic principle here is that the stock market is not a good place for storing your emergency cash, which needs to be secured against loss and immediately accessible. Once you're happy with your level of emergency cash, however, tax-advantaged investment accounts are a reasonable next step.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":261,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6800"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"I don't live in America. How can I buy IPO stock of newly listed companies in the United States?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["35191"],"string":"[\n \"35191\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["35191","99472","551809","478736","231814","47579","253024","113644","209493","460951","566028","540986","539418","117415","234851","288977","396985","177222","107215","409712","347560","406872","591436","15772","529402","94477","34318","51777","451729","253847","89351","322771","569257","239334","123030","522798","281423","553896","313919","48269","340210","319920","18349","480638","243115","447303","458635","57841","94336","433809","589625","433023","535340","480967","258563","144685","12027","526847","82283","68094","44461","404339","287019","411799","365465","77631","413672","311834","75762","410543","110608","531180","455168","564876","152286","464537","5347","229119","99943","468148","386173","508492","358154","361383","182658","102682","497344","241135","380241","27716","173562","461821","495417","410404","297421","581642","12268","28188","369266","149306"],"string":"[\n \"35191\",\n \"99472\",\n \"551809\",\n \"478736\",\n \"231814\",\n \"47579\",\n \"253024\",\n \"113644\",\n \"209493\",\n \"460951\",\n \"566028\",\n \"540986\",\n \"539418\",\n \"117415\",\n \"234851\",\n \"288977\",\n \"396985\",\n \"177222\",\n \"107215\",\n \"409712\",\n \"347560\",\n \"406872\",\n \"591436\",\n \"15772\",\n \"529402\",\n \"94477\",\n \"34318\",\n \"51777\",\n \"451729\",\n \"253847\",\n \"89351\",\n \"322771\",\n \"569257\",\n \"239334\",\n \"123030\",\n \"522798\",\n \"281423\",\n \"553896\",\n \"313919\",\n \"48269\",\n \"340210\",\n \"319920\",\n \"18349\",\n \"480638\",\n \"243115\",\n \"447303\",\n \"458635\",\n \"57841\",\n \"94336\",\n \"433809\",\n \"589625\",\n \"433023\",\n \"535340\",\n \"480967\",\n \"258563\",\n \"144685\",\n \"12027\",\n \"526847\",\n \"82283\",\n \"68094\",\n \"44461\",\n \"404339\",\n \"287019\",\n \"411799\",\n \"365465\",\n \"77631\",\n \"413672\",\n \"311834\",\n \"75762\",\n \"410543\",\n \"110608\",\n \"531180\",\n \"455168\",\n \"564876\",\n \"152286\",\n \"464537\",\n \"5347\",\n \"229119\",\n \"99943\",\n \"468148\",\n \"386173\",\n \"508492\",\n \"358154\",\n \"361383\",\n \"182658\",\n \"102682\",\n \"497344\",\n \"241135\",\n \"380241\",\n \"27716\",\n \"173562\",\n \"461821\",\n \"495417\",\n \"410404\",\n \"297421\",\n \"581642\",\n \"12268\",\n \"28188\",\n \"369266\",\n \"149306\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.","\"Check your broker's IPO list. Adding a new stock to a stock exchange is called \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\" (IPO), and most brokers have a list of upcoming IPO's in which their clients can participate.\"","Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.","There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website","It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf","It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms.","Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)","OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.","\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"","I personally am from Canada and use my local bank to trade stocks. Contact your local bank and they will tell you how to do it, since rules depend on country of residency. If you are not close to a bank, e-mail the major bank in the country of your residence.","As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.","Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process.","I have done this last year. Just open an account with an online brocker and buy a couple of Apple shares (6 I think, for 190$ each or something like that :) ). If this is just to test how stock exchange works, I think this is a good idea. I am also in Europe (France), and you'r right the charge to buy on NasDaq are quite expensive but still reasonnable. Hope this helps.","Not going to happen for Facebook since there will be too much demand and the order will go to the top clients of the underwriting investment banks. In general though, if you wanted a piece of a smaller IPO you'd just have to get in touch with a broker whose investment banking department is on the underwriting syndicate (say Merrill Lynch or Smith Barney) since IPOs often have a percentage that they allocate to retail clients (i.e. you) as well as institutional (i.e. hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds etc.). The more in demand the IPO the harder it is to get a piece.","You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.","Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.","The Greek Piraeus Bank offers such services for trading stocks in Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) and in addition 26 other markets including NASDAQ, NYSE and largest European ones (full list, in Greek). Same goes for Eurobank with a list of 17 international markets and the ability to trade bonds. BETA Securities has also an online platform, but I think it's only for ASE. Some other banks (like National Bank of Greece) do have similar online services, but are usually restricted to ASE.","I used to trade on Nasdaq using a US broker from the UK, you need a way to convert your money into US $s and have the cost of international money transfers. I don’t know if there are any laws in Turkey that will stop you using a US broker. You are also on your own if anything goes wrong, as the Turkish police will not be interested, and the US police will be very hard to deal with from Turkey. This all depends on Turkey not unplugging the internet on the day you wish to trade on!!! (I used tdameritrade, but it was a VERY long timer ago, as UK brokers are now as cheap, you should also consider UK based brokers as they will also let you trade outside of the USA.)","According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.","You can easily go to somebody like icici ask for the demat section and enable overseas stock trading.","You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.","\"I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A \"\"broker\"\" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are \"\"mortgage broker\"\" (for arranging home loans) and \"\"stockbroker\"\". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later.\"","You can purchase stock immediately in the open market on the day of the IPO when market opens. Below link gives you more information. http://finance.zacks.com/buy-ipo-stock-3903.html","You will likely need to open an account in another EU country, like a broker operating out of France, Britain or Germany, to get the best options. If you are comfortable using an english language site and interface, I highly recommend Interactive Brokers as they let you trade in many markets simultaneously, have simple currency conversion, and great tools. But, they are geared toward active traders so you might be better with a more retail oriented broker if you are new to trading stocks. There are many options. Here is a list to start with:","It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.","Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).","Any retail equity brokerage will give you access to the NYSE, and thus Facebook shares as they become available. However, it is important to note that you nor any retail investor will be able to purchase FB at the IPO prices ($33-38 IIRC). The only people who will be able to buy in at that price are the underwriting investment banks and major investors who have subscribed to the IPO. You, and all the other retail investors will only be able to buy in as those major investors offer shares on the secondary market. This being Facebook, there will probably be a significant premium over the IPO price, both due to demand and systemic underpricing of IPOs to encourage the opening 'pop'. So, if you're intent on buying in at the IPO, pay close attention as the date approaches. Look at how the recent big IPOs have performed (GRPN, LNKD come to mind). Know how much you're willing to commit and what price you want. However, no one is going to know what the opening market price will be come Friday morning. Be watching your financial data source / analysis of choice and be prepared to make a judgement.","The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.","Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.","While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets.","Interactive Brokers offers many foreign markets (19 countries) for US based investors. You can trade all these local markets within one universal account which is very convenient in my view. IB offering","You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.","You can open an account with HSBC and use InvestDirect - their online share trading service - to trade LSE-traded shares. https://investments.hsbc.co.uk/product/9/sharedealing","\"I have an account with ETrade. Earlier this week I got an offer to participate in the IPO proper (at the IPO price). If Charles Schwab doesn't give you the opportunity, that's a shortcoming of them as a brokerage firm; there are definitely ways for retail investors to invest in it, wise investment or no. (Okay, technically it wasn't an offer to participate, it was a notice that participation was possibly available, various securities-law disclaimers etc withstanding. \"\"This Web site is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. The offer is by prospectus only. This Web site contains a preliminary prospectus for each offering.\"\" etc etc).\"","Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]","There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck.","\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"","Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora.","NASDAQ provides a very good IPO calendar as well for US listings.","\"Yes and no. There are two primary ways to do this. The first is known as \"\"cross listing\"\". Basically, this means that shares are listed in the home country are the primary shares, but are also traded on secondary markets using mechanisms like ADRs or Globally Registered Shares. Examples of this method include Vodafone and Research in Motion. The second is \"\"dual listing\"\". This is when two corporations that function as a single business are listed in multiple places. Examples of this include Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. Usually companies choose this method for tax purposes when they merge or acquire an international company. Generally speaking, you can safely buy shares in whichever market makes sense to you.\"","You might what to check out Interactive Brokers. If your India stock is NSE listed they might be able to do it since they support trading on that exchange. I would talk to a customer service rep there first. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=exchanges&p=asia","Two methods: 1: Become really close friend with Marky. Probably have to take a bullet for him or something. 2: Become a major client of the investment bank that will launch the IPO (most likely Goldman), and the bank will offer you some shares before the IPO. In order to become a major client you probably have to spend several millions per year in transaction fee.","\"(Note: out of my depth here, but in case this helps...) While not a direct answer to your question, I'll point out that in the inverse situation - a U.S. investor who wants to buy individual stocks of companies headquartered outside US - you would buy ADRs, which are $-denominated \"\"wrapper\"\" stocks. They can be listed with one or multiple brokerages. One alternative I'd offer the person in my example would be, \"\"Are you really sure you want to directly buy individual stocks?\"\" One less targeted approach available in the US is to buy ETFs targeted for a given country (or region). Maybe there's something similar there in Asia that would eliminate the (somewhat) higher fees associated with trading foreign stocks.\"","Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.","Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.","For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose).","\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"","I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.","\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \"\"Depository Receipts\"\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \"\"Depository Receipts\"\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\"","You probably bought the cross listed WestJet stock. If you wanted to buy shares on the TSE, I'd suspect you'd have to find a way to open a brokerage account within Canada and then you'd be able to buy the shares. However, this could get complicated to some extent as there could be requirements of Canadian tax stuff like a Social Insurance Number that may require some paperwork. In addition, you'd have to review tax law of both countries to determine how to appropriately report to each country your income as there are various rules around that. TD Waterhouse would be the Canadian subsidiary of TD Ameritrade though I haven't tried to create a Canadian brokerage account.","Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.","Saxo Bank offers direct access to Athens Stock Exchange. Interactive Brokers is your next best bet, and as you probably already noticed, they do not have a free platform. They are open to US and non-US citizens. Although they do not currently have direct exposure to individual companies on the Athens Stock Exchange, the various european exchanges they do provide direct market access for will give a lot of exposure. There are a few Greek companies that trade on non-Greek stock exchanges, if you want exposure. There are also Greek ETFs which bundle several companies together or try to replicate Greek company indices.","\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"","\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"","Should do it through a limit auction book. Management and shareholders pre ipo submit sealed limit sell orders. Buyers submit sealed limit buy orders, nobody can see where the price is going. At 9AM, the price is calculated and whomever fills get filled and ta da everyone is trading at 9:30 when the market is open.","One other issue you may face is when the company announces poor financial results and begins to tank, you will not be able to sell until the US market open and could incur a lot of pain.","You don't have to go through an exchange. That wasn't the problem. It was that the people trading on them wouldn't be willing to take your offer. An exchange can't just list a company. They need that company's consent and the company need's the exchange's consent. I don't know if you're aware of this but that was also an entirely new disaster during Facebook's IPO. Computer glitches didn't help. What you're talking about is a called a secondary market, kind of. Stock exchanges offer those too, especially for options. That's the typical stock footage you see of guys on wall street yelling and screaming while throwing paper up in the air.","I had this problem when I finished my job in Canada in Sept 2013. You'll likely have to open the account in person in Canada, at least if you don't already have a relationship with a broker there. DO NOT go to Virtual Brokers. They told me that my US citizenship was no problem, but right before I left Canada to double check. It wasn't until I asked specifically which US states they were licensed in that they realized they were licensed in NO US STATES. They told me that they'd freeze my account when I left. I then moved my (former) pension to a locked-in RRSP at BMO. As of September 2010 BMO could handle residents of most US states, but it took some tooth pulling to get the list out of them. However, after I flew to the USA, BMO called to demand more ID. My account was frozen until I flew back to Canada in person just to show ID. Annoyed, I closed the BMO account and moved it to TD Waterhouse. TD waterhouse can handle accounts for residents of all the US states EXCEPT Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. (I only got the complete list of exceptions when I made my first trade, since the guys at the trading desk are much more knowledgeable about such things than the guys in the branch.) TD was extremely friendly about my USA citizenship/residence. (Many Canadian brokers simply won't accept US residents, at least as of the end of 2013.) Whichever broker you choose, BRING LOTS MORE ID than they require. Insist that they zerox it all. Make sure to include your social security card. You don't want them to demand more ID after you've left the country, like BMO did. They may even make such a move simply to get rid of US customers, because the FATCA is a pain for foreign banks.","I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.","Depending on your perspective of it, I can see reasons for and against this idea. Only with the benefit of hindsight can one say how wise or unwise it is to do so. Earlier in my career, I invested and lost it all. Understand if you do buy when would you be able to sell, do you have to have an account with the underwriter, what fees may there be in having such an account, and would there be restrictions on when you could sell.","\"Yes, you could buy a stock on the day of its IPO. I'm a college student, and I wonder if I can buy stock from a company right after it finishes its IPO? Yes, you can. However, unless you are friends or family of an employee, chances are you'll be paying a higher price than you think as there is generally a fair bit of hype on most IPOs that allows some people to \"\"flip them\"\" which means someone is buying at a higher price. If I am not allowed to buy its stocks immediately after they go on sell, how long do I have to wait? Generally I'd wait until the hype dies down as if you look at most historical IPOs the stock could be bought cheaper later but that's just my perspective. And also who are allowed to buy the stocks at the first minute they are on sell? Anyone but keep in mind that while an IPO may be priced at $x, the initial trades may be a few times that value and the stock may come down over time. Facebook could be an example to consider of a company that had an IPO at one price and then came down for a little while on its chart over the past couple of years.\"","I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.","For $100 you better just hold it in Mexico. The cost of opening an account could eat 10% or more of your capital easily, and that won't be able to buy enough shares of an ETF or similar investment to make it worthwhile.","Selftrade does list them. Not sure if you'll be able to sign up from the US though, particularly given the FATCA issues.","\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"","\"Usually the big institution that \"\"floats\"\" the stock on the market is the one to offer it to you. The IPO company doesn't sell the stock itself, the big investment bank does it for them. IPO's shareholders/employees are generally not allowed to sell their shares at the IPO until some time passes. Then you usually see the sleuth of selling.\"","\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \"\"X\"\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\"","Some brokerages will let you withdraw/deposit in multiple jurisdictions. e.g. I used to use Interactive Brokers. I could deposit/withdraw to US and UK bank accounts, in the appropriate currencies. It helps to have a brokerage that provides good rates on forex exchange also, and they were very good on the bid/ask spread. It was possible to get interbank rates plus a very low commission.","\"The fact that your shares are of a Canadian-listed corporation (as indicated in your comment reply) and that you are located in the United States (as indicated in your bio) is highly relevant to answering the question. The restriction for needing to be a \"\"qualified institutional buyer\"\" (QIB) arises from the parent company not having registered the spin-off company rights [options] or shares (yet?) for sale in the United States. Shares sold in the U.S. must either be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption. See SEC Fast Answers - Securities Act Rule 144. Quoting: Selling restricted or control securities in the marketplace can be a complicated process. This is because the sales are so close to the interests of the issuing company that the law might require them to be registered. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, all offers and sales of securities must be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption from the registration requirements. [...] There are regulations to follow and costs involved in such registration. Perhaps the rights [options] themselves won't ever be registered (as they have a very limited lifetime), while the listed shares might be? You could contact investor relations at the parent company for more detail. (If I guessed the company correctly, there's detail in this press release. Search the text for \"\"United States\"\".)\"","As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.","I don't know where your trade figures are from. ETrade, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, etc all have trading costs under 10 USD per share, so I'm not sure where your costs are coming from. I doubt currency conversion or anything like that will double the cost. As for your question, the answer is: It depends How much trading will you do? In what types of investments? For example, Schwab charges no commission on ETF purchases, but this is not an advantage if you wont buy ETFs. Consider minimums. Different brokers have different minimum cash balance/deposit requirements, so make sure you can meet those. It's true that you can get real time quotes anywhere, but consider the other services. For example, TD Ameritrade pools research reports for many publicly traded companies which are nice to read about what analysts have to say. Different brokers given different research tools, so read about offerings and see what's most useful to you. You can open different brokerage accounts, but it's much more convenient to have a one-stop place where you can do all you trading. Pick a broker which is low cost and offers a variety of investments as well as good customer support and a straightforward system.","You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.","\"Yes! What you are describing is an \"\"off-exchange\"\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\"","\"Yes, you can. You could either go through brokerages like Ameritrade or fund companies like Fidelity or Vanguard. Yes there are minimums depending on the fund where some retail funds may waive a minimum if you sign up for an \"\"Automatic Investment Plan\"\" and some of the lower cost funds may have higher initial investment as Vanguard's Admiral share class is different from Investor for example.\"","I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.","\"Short answer: No. Being connected is very helpful and there is no consequence by securities regulators against the investor by figuring out how to acquire pre-IPO stock. Long answer: Yes, you generally have to be an \"\"Accredited Investor\"\" which basically means you EARN over $200,000/yr yourself (or $300,000 joint) and have been doing so for several years and expect to continue doing so OR have at least 1 million dollars of net worth ( this is joint worth with you and spouse). The Securities Exchange Commission and FINRA have put a lot of effort into keeping most classes of people away from a long list of investments.\"","If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.","Market Watch has an IPO calender with details of upcoming IPOs that should provide most of the information you need.","I'd look into ShareBuilder. You can buy stocks for as low as $2 each, and there is no minimum funding level. You have to be carefull about selling though, as they will charge you $10 each time you want to sell a stock, regardless of how much of it you want to sell.","I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them.","It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.","Call the CBOE, the Chicago Board of Options Exchange I've requested options on several IPOs in the past. You mainly have to convince them that there is a market for them (or they won't be inclined to provide liquidity). The CBOE could talk to the company in question to help convince them, or the CBOE will just tell you when the options will begin trading. Oh yeah, sometimes they'll ask you who you work for, just try to avoid that question, they don't like to talk to individual/retail investors.","\"You can start investing with any amount. You can use the ShareBuilder account to purchase \"\"partial\"\" stocks through their automatic investment plan. Usually brokers don't sell parts of stock, and ShareBuilder is the only one allowing it IMHO using its own tricks. What they do basically is buy a stock and then divide it internally among several investors who bought it, while each of the investors doesn't really own it directly. That's perfect for investing small amounts and making first steps in investing.\"","Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.","First of all, you'll need a securities account. Nowadays, most large banks offer this as a standard product for all their customers, though it may require some extra paperwork. Then you need to buy shares in the ETF. This is indeed typically done through the stock market, but there are alternatives. Some banks will sell securities to you directly, but usually only those they create themselves (options and such). Some also offer ETF investment plans that allow you to buy shares for a fixed amount each month through the bank. In any case, the bank's online banking interface should support all these options. However, fees are an important consideration! With some banks, the securities account is free, others charge an annual fee. And the fees on stock market transactions and investment plans also vary considerably, so it could be worth it to consider some alternatives.","\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \"\"Dual\"\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\"","\"For equities, buy direct from the transfer agent. You have to buy one full share at a minimum but after that dividend reinvestment is free. There are others like share builder and foliofn that let you buy fractional shares. As the other poster said their roster is limited so you cannot buy every ETF out there. With your example of not wanting to spend $200 I agree with the others that you should invest in a mutual fund. Vanguard will have every index fund you need and can invest as little as $50, as long as you sign up for a systematic investment draft from your bank. Plus vanguard typically has the lowest fees in the industry. The most important thing is to start investing as soon as possible and as regular as possible. \"\"Pay yourself first\"\"\"","Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started.","You can do this via many online FOREX brokers. All you need to do is set up and fund an account with them and then trade via their online platform. Some examples of brokers that do this are:","If you want direct access trading that is very hard to get. However an active trading broker like interactive brokers, Trade station, or Light speed trading may be what you are looking for. If you have serious cash though value or income investing is better than trading which is pure speculation. I know that active trading can be exciting but it's also basically gambling when compared to research based long term investment. You can't fight the market makers, the guys on the dealer desks have way too many advantages over you. Just give this all some thought and see what you want to do.","One share costs the 202 $. You need to invest 3000 $ total at a minimum, meaning you have to buy some 14.9 shares at minimum. You should not worry about the exact number of shares, they are just to keep track, and you can buy every decimal part of them too. For example, if you invest now 5000 $, you will get 24.7525 shares. Next year, if they are for example worth 220 $ per share, you have a value of 24.7525 * 220 = 5445.55 $ It depends on the offering company, but that (a certain fixed amount per paycheck) is a typical way to invest (and a good way - you implictly take advantage of prices changing a bit - you buy more shares when the price is down and less when it's up). Probably you can make it an automated deduction from your checking account, or you send it every week/month/whenever. Good plan!","Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.","I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!","There are 2 primary ways to bet against a stock if you think it will decline. The first is to short sell shares of that stock the second is to buy put options (I would also add that selling naked call options would also be a bet against but I don't believe that is as common as the other 2 mentioned methods). The problem with short selling an IPO is that you first have to borrow the shares you are going to sell. Since the shares are privately held prior to the IPO that can be problematic. Even after the IPO you may have to wait a bit before shares become available to borrow. The problem with options (either buying puts or seeking naked calls) is similar. Options are traded on a different exchange than the stock and they have their own requirements that a stock must meet to have options traded. Both of these problems eventually correct themselves however, not in time for you to catch the initial fall you seem to be looking for.","If you have an account with a major bank they may trade an over the counter option with you. Just depends how much work you need to go through and how much you are planning on buying.","I am not sure what a Brazilian equivalent is but you could just do an ADR. Keep in mind that when you are investing in a foreign company there are certain currency risks that you may need to consider.","As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.","\"To trade stocks in India, you need a copy of your pan card, address proof(passport or driving license/electricity bill), income tax return (if you are trading futures & options and currencies), and a cancelled cheque from the bank. You will also need to sign across your recent photographs, and require various other forms from a brokerage house which need to be signed in the brokers presence. If your stock broker trusts you, and you have all these documents, then you CAN open a DEMAT account in India by signing and sending him all these documents. Otherwise you CANNOT, as every single form states that \"\"this particular document was signed in my presence\"\", and the stock broker needs to sign under that clause. Chances are, if you live abroad, no broker will ever trust you with any kind of margin, and therefore cannot make profits from you, so they will not agree to open your account.\"","A stock, bond or ETF is basically a commodity. Where you bought it does not really matter, and it has a value in USD only inasmuch as there is a current market price quoted at an American exchange. But nothing prevents you from turning around and selling it on a European exchange where it is also listed for an equivalent amount of EUR (arbitrage activities of investment banks ensure that the price will be equivalent in regard to the current exchange rate). In fact, this can be used as a cheap form of currency conversion. For blue chips at least this is trivial; exotic securities might not be listed in Europe. All you need is a broker who allows you to trade on European exchanges and hold an account denominated in EUR. If necessary, transfer your securities to a broker who does, which should not cost more than a nominal fee. Mutual funds are a different beast though; it might be possible to sell shares on an exchange anyway, or sell them back to the issuer for EUR. It depends. In any case, however, transferring 7 figure sums internationally can trigger all kinds of tax events and money laundering investigations. You really need to hire a financial advisor who has international investment experience for this kind of thing, not ask a web forum!","This is allowed somewhat infrequently. You can often purchase stocks through DRIPs which might have little or no commission. For example Duke Energy (DUK) runs their plan internally, so you are buying from them directly. There is no setup fee, or reinvestment fee. There is a fee to sell. Other companies might have someone else manage the DRIP but might subsidize some transaction costs giving you low cost to invest. Often DRIPs charge relatively large amounts to sell and they are not very nimble if trading is what you are after. You can also go to work for a company, and often they allow you to buy stock from them at a discount (around 15% discount is common). You can use a discount broker as well. TradeKing, which is not the lowest cost broker, allows buys and sells at 4.95 per trade. If trading 100 shares that is similar in cost to the DUK DRIP."],"string":"[\n \"First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.\",\n \"\\\"Check your broker's IPO list. Adding a new stock to a stock exchange is called \\\"\\\"Initial Public Offering\\\"\\\" (IPO), and most brokers have a list of upcoming IPO's in which their clients can participate.\\\"\",\n \"Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.\",\n \"There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website\",\n \"It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf\",\n \"It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms.\",\n \"Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)\",\n \"OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.\",\n \"\\\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \\\"\\\"small cap\\\"\\\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\\\"\",\n \"I personally am from Canada and use my local bank to trade stocks. Contact your local bank and they will tell you how to do it, since rules depend on country of residency. If you are not close to a bank, e-mail the major bank in the country of your residence.\",\n \"As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.\",\n \"Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process.\",\n \"I have done this last year. Just open an account with an online brocker and buy a couple of Apple shares (6 I think, for 190$ each or something like that :) ). If this is just to test how stock exchange works, I think this is a good idea. I am also in Europe (France), and you'r right the charge to buy on NasDaq are quite expensive but still reasonnable. Hope this helps.\",\n \"Not going to happen for Facebook since there will be too much demand and the order will go to the top clients of the underwriting investment banks. In general though, if you wanted a piece of a smaller IPO you'd just have to get in touch with a broker whose investment banking department is on the underwriting syndicate (say Merrill Lynch or Smith Barney) since IPOs often have a percentage that they allocate to retail clients (i.e. you) as well as institutional (i.e. hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds etc.). The more in demand the IPO the harder it is to get a piece.\",\n \"You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.\",\n \"Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.\",\n \"The Greek Piraeus Bank offers such services for trading stocks in Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) and in addition 26 other markets including NASDAQ, NYSE and largest European ones (full list, in Greek). Same goes for Eurobank with a list of 17 international markets and the ability to trade bonds. BETA Securities has also an online platform, but I think it's only for ASE. Some other banks (like National Bank of Greece) do have similar online services, but are usually restricted to ASE.\",\n \"I used to trade on Nasdaq using a US broker from the UK, you need a way to convert your money into US $s and have the cost of international money transfers. I don’t know if there are any laws in Turkey that will stop you using a US broker. You are also on your own if anything goes wrong, as the Turkish police will not be interested, and the US police will be very hard to deal with from Turkey. This all depends on Turkey not unplugging the internet on the day you wish to trade on!!! (I used tdameritrade, but it was a VERY long timer ago, as UK brokers are now as cheap, you should also consider UK based brokers as they will also let you trade outside of the USA.)\",\n \"According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.\",\n \"You can easily go to somebody like icici ask for the demat section and enable overseas stock trading.\",\n \"You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.\",\n \"\\\"I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A \\\"\\\"broker\\\"\\\" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are \\\"\\\"mortgage broker\\\"\\\" (for arranging home loans) and \\\"\\\"stockbroker\\\"\\\". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later.\\\"\",\n \"You can purchase stock immediately in the open market on the day of the IPO when market opens. Below link gives you more information. http://finance.zacks.com/buy-ipo-stock-3903.html\",\n \"You will likely need to open an account in another EU country, like a broker operating out of France, Britain or Germany, to get the best options. If you are comfortable using an english language site and interface, I highly recommend Interactive Brokers as they let you trade in many markets simultaneously, have simple currency conversion, and great tools. But, they are geared toward active traders so you might be better with a more retail oriented broker if you are new to trading stocks. There are many options. Here is a list to start with:\",\n \"It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.\",\n \"Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).\",\n \"Any retail equity brokerage will give you access to the NYSE, and thus Facebook shares as they become available. However, it is important to note that you nor any retail investor will be able to purchase FB at the IPO prices ($33-38 IIRC). The only people who will be able to buy in at that price are the underwriting investment banks and major investors who have subscribed to the IPO. You, and all the other retail investors will only be able to buy in as those major investors offer shares on the secondary market. This being Facebook, there will probably be a significant premium over the IPO price, both due to demand and systemic underpricing of IPOs to encourage the opening 'pop'. So, if you're intent on buying in at the IPO, pay close attention as the date approaches. Look at how the recent big IPOs have performed (GRPN, LNKD come to mind). Know how much you're willing to commit and what price you want. However, no one is going to know what the opening market price will be come Friday morning. Be watching your financial data source / analysis of choice and be prepared to make a judgement.\",\n \"The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.\",\n \"Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.\",\n \"While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets.\",\n \"Interactive Brokers offers many foreign markets (19 countries) for US based investors. You can trade all these local markets within one universal account which is very convenient in my view. IB offering\",\n \"You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.\",\n \"You can open an account with HSBC and use InvestDirect - their online share trading service - to trade LSE-traded shares. https://investments.hsbc.co.uk/product/9/sharedealing\",\n \"\\\"I have an account with ETrade. Earlier this week I got an offer to participate in the IPO proper (at the IPO price). If Charles Schwab doesn't give you the opportunity, that's a shortcoming of them as a brokerage firm; there are definitely ways for retail investors to invest in it, wise investment or no. (Okay, technically it wasn't an offer to participate, it was a notice that participation was possibly available, various securities-law disclaimers etc withstanding. \\\"\\\"This Web site is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. The offer is by prospectus only. This Web site contains a preliminary prospectus for each offering.\\\"\\\" etc etc).\\\"\",\n \"Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]\",\n \"There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck.\",\n \"\\\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \\\"\\\"windows\\\"\\\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\\\"\",\n \"Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora.\",\n \"NASDAQ provides a very good IPO calendar as well for US listings.\",\n \"\\\"Yes and no. There are two primary ways to do this. The first is known as \\\"\\\"cross listing\\\"\\\". Basically, this means that shares are listed in the home country are the primary shares, but are also traded on secondary markets using mechanisms like ADRs or Globally Registered Shares. Examples of this method include Vodafone and Research in Motion. The second is \\\"\\\"dual listing\\\"\\\". This is when two corporations that function as a single business are listed in multiple places. Examples of this include Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. Usually companies choose this method for tax purposes when they merge or acquire an international company. Generally speaking, you can safely buy shares in whichever market makes sense to you.\\\"\",\n \"You might what to check out Interactive Brokers. If your India stock is NSE listed they might be able to do it since they support trading on that exchange. I would talk to a customer service rep there first. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=exchanges&p=asia\",\n \"Two methods: 1: Become really close friend with Marky. Probably have to take a bullet for him or something. 2: Become a major client of the investment bank that will launch the IPO (most likely Goldman), and the bank will offer you some shares before the IPO. In order to become a major client you probably have to spend several millions per year in transaction fee.\",\n \"\\\"(Note: out of my depth here, but in case this helps...) While not a direct answer to your question, I'll point out that in the inverse situation - a U.S. investor who wants to buy individual stocks of companies headquartered outside US - you would buy ADRs, which are $-denominated \\\"\\\"wrapper\\\"\\\" stocks. They can be listed with one or multiple brokerages. One alternative I'd offer the person in my example would be, \\\"\\\"Are you really sure you want to directly buy individual stocks?\\\"\\\" One less targeted approach available in the US is to buy ETFs targeted for a given country (or region). Maybe there's something similar there in Asia that would eliminate the (somewhat) higher fees associated with trading foreign stocks.\\\"\",\n \"Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.\",\n \"Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.\",\n \"For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose).\",\n \"\\\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \\\"\\\"designated stock exchange\\\"\\\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \\\"\\\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\\\"\\\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\\\"\",\n \"I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.\",\n \"\\\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \\\"\\\"Depository Receipts\\\"\\\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \\\"\\\"Depository Receipts\\\"\\\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\\\"\",\n \"You probably bought the cross listed WestJet stock. If you wanted to buy shares on the TSE, I'd suspect you'd have to find a way to open a brokerage account within Canada and then you'd be able to buy the shares. However, this could get complicated to some extent as there could be requirements of Canadian tax stuff like a Social Insurance Number that may require some paperwork. In addition, you'd have to review tax law of both countries to determine how to appropriately report to each country your income as there are various rules around that. TD Waterhouse would be the Canadian subsidiary of TD Ameritrade though I haven't tried to create a Canadian brokerage account.\",\n \"Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.\",\n \"Saxo Bank offers direct access to Athens Stock Exchange. Interactive Brokers is your next best bet, and as you probably already noticed, they do not have a free platform. They are open to US and non-US citizens. Although they do not currently have direct exposure to individual companies on the Athens Stock Exchange, the various european exchanges they do provide direct market access for will give a lot of exposure. There are a few Greek companies that trade on non-Greek stock exchanges, if you want exposure. There are also Greek ETFs which bundle several companies together or try to replicate Greek company indices.\",\n \"\\\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \\\"\\\"self-directed\\\"\\\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \\\"\\\"unmanaged index funds\\\"\\\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \\\"\\\"currency hedged\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"unhedged\\\"\\\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \\\"\\\"covered call\\\"\\\" strategies and \\\"\\\"put write\\\"\\\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\\\"\\\"covering your short\\\"\\\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \\\"\\\"sell\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"sell short.\\\"\\\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\\\"\",\n \"Should do it through a limit auction book. Management and shareholders pre ipo submit sealed limit sell orders. Buyers submit sealed limit buy orders, nobody can see where the price is going. At 9AM, the price is calculated and whomever fills get filled and ta da everyone is trading at 9:30 when the market is open.\",\n \"One other issue you may face is when the company announces poor financial results and begins to tank, you will not be able to sell until the US market open and could incur a lot of pain.\",\n \"You don't have to go through an exchange. That wasn't the problem. It was that the people trading on them wouldn't be willing to take your offer. An exchange can't just list a company. They need that company's consent and the company need's the exchange's consent. I don't know if you're aware of this but that was also an entirely new disaster during Facebook's IPO. Computer glitches didn't help. What you're talking about is a called a secondary market, kind of. Stock exchanges offer those too, especially for options. That's the typical stock footage you see of guys on wall street yelling and screaming while throwing paper up in the air.\",\n \"I had this problem when I finished my job in Canada in Sept 2013. You'll likely have to open the account in person in Canada, at least if you don't already have a relationship with a broker there. DO NOT go to Virtual Brokers. They told me that my US citizenship was no problem, but right before I left Canada to double check. It wasn't until I asked specifically which US states they were licensed in that they realized they were licensed in NO US STATES. They told me that they'd freeze my account when I left. I then moved my (former) pension to a locked-in RRSP at BMO. As of September 2010 BMO could handle residents of most US states, but it took some tooth pulling to get the list out of them. However, after I flew to the USA, BMO called to demand more ID. My account was frozen until I flew back to Canada in person just to show ID. Annoyed, I closed the BMO account and moved it to TD Waterhouse. TD waterhouse can handle accounts for residents of all the US states EXCEPT Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. (I only got the complete list of exceptions when I made my first trade, since the guys at the trading desk are much more knowledgeable about such things than the guys in the branch.) TD was extremely friendly about my USA citizenship/residence. (Many Canadian brokers simply won't accept US residents, at least as of the end of 2013.) Whichever broker you choose, BRING LOTS MORE ID than they require. Insist that they zerox it all. Make sure to include your social security card. You don't want them to demand more ID after you've left the country, like BMO did. They may even make such a move simply to get rid of US customers, because the FATCA is a pain for foreign banks.\",\n \"I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.\",\n \"Depending on your perspective of it, I can see reasons for and against this idea. Only with the benefit of hindsight can one say how wise or unwise it is to do so. Earlier in my career, I invested and lost it all. Understand if you do buy when would you be able to sell, do you have to have an account with the underwriter, what fees may there be in having such an account, and would there be restrictions on when you could sell.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you could buy a stock on the day of its IPO. I'm a college student, and I wonder if I can buy stock from a company right after it finishes its IPO? Yes, you can. However, unless you are friends or family of an employee, chances are you'll be paying a higher price than you think as there is generally a fair bit of hype on most IPOs that allows some people to \\\"\\\"flip them\\\"\\\" which means someone is buying at a higher price. If I am not allowed to buy its stocks immediately after they go on sell, how long do I have to wait? Generally I'd wait until the hype dies down as if you look at most historical IPOs the stock could be bought cheaper later but that's just my perspective. And also who are allowed to buy the stocks at the first minute they are on sell? Anyone but keep in mind that while an IPO may be priced at $x, the initial trades may be a few times that value and the stock may come down over time. Facebook could be an example to consider of a company that had an IPO at one price and then came down for a little while on its chart over the past couple of years.\\\"\",\n \"I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.\",\n \"For $100 you better just hold it in Mexico. The cost of opening an account could eat 10% or more of your capital easily, and that won't be able to buy enough shares of an ETF or similar investment to make it worthwhile.\",\n \"Selftrade does list them. Not sure if you'll be able to sign up from the US though, particularly given the FATCA issues.\",\n \"\\\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \\\"\\\"Sell, sell!!!!\\\"\\\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \\\"\\\"additional value\\\"\\\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \\\"\\\"BUY\\\"\\\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \\\"\\\"pink sheets\\\"\\\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Usually the big institution that \\\"\\\"floats\\\"\\\" the stock on the market is the one to offer it to you. The IPO company doesn't sell the stock itself, the big investment bank does it for them. IPO's shareholders/employees are generally not allowed to sell their shares at the IPO until some time passes. Then you usually see the sleuth of selling.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\\\"\",\n \"Some brokerages will let you withdraw/deposit in multiple jurisdictions. e.g. I used to use Interactive Brokers. I could deposit/withdraw to US and UK bank accounts, in the appropriate currencies. It helps to have a brokerage that provides good rates on forex exchange also, and they were very good on the bid/ask spread. It was possible to get interbank rates plus a very low commission.\",\n \"\\\"The fact that your shares are of a Canadian-listed corporation (as indicated in your comment reply) and that you are located in the United States (as indicated in your bio) is highly relevant to answering the question. The restriction for needing to be a \\\"\\\"qualified institutional buyer\\\"\\\" (QIB) arises from the parent company not having registered the spin-off company rights [options] or shares (yet?) for sale in the United States. Shares sold in the U.S. must either be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption. See SEC Fast Answers - Securities Act Rule 144. Quoting: Selling restricted or control securities in the marketplace can be a complicated process. This is because the sales are so close to the interests of the issuing company that the law might require them to be registered. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, all offers and sales of securities must be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption from the registration requirements. [...] There are regulations to follow and costs involved in such registration. Perhaps the rights [options] themselves won't ever be registered (as they have a very limited lifetime), while the listed shares might be? You could contact investor relations at the parent company for more detail. (If I guessed the company correctly, there's detail in this press release. Search the text for \\\"\\\"United States\\\"\\\".)\\\"\",\n \"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.\",\n \"I don't know where your trade figures are from. ETrade, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, etc all have trading costs under 10 USD per share, so I'm not sure where your costs are coming from. I doubt currency conversion or anything like that will double the cost. As for your question, the answer is: It depends How much trading will you do? In what types of investments? For example, Schwab charges no commission on ETF purchases, but this is not an advantage if you wont buy ETFs. Consider minimums. Different brokers have different minimum cash balance/deposit requirements, so make sure you can meet those. It's true that you can get real time quotes anywhere, but consider the other services. For example, TD Ameritrade pools research reports for many publicly traded companies which are nice to read about what analysts have to say. Different brokers given different research tools, so read about offerings and see what's most useful to you. You can open different brokerage accounts, but it's much more convenient to have a one-stop place where you can do all you trading. Pick a broker which is low cost and offers a variety of investments as well as good customer support and a straightforward system.\",\n \"You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.\",\n \"\\\"Yes! What you are describing is an \\\"\\\"off-exchange\\\"\\\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you can. You could either go through brokerages like Ameritrade or fund companies like Fidelity or Vanguard. Yes there are minimums depending on the fund where some retail funds may waive a minimum if you sign up for an \\\"\\\"Automatic Investment Plan\\\"\\\" and some of the lower cost funds may have higher initial investment as Vanguard's Admiral share class is different from Investor for example.\\\"\",\n \"I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.\",\n \"\\\"Short answer: No. Being connected is very helpful and there is no consequence by securities regulators against the investor by figuring out how to acquire pre-IPO stock. Long answer: Yes, you generally have to be an \\\"\\\"Accredited Investor\\\"\\\" which basically means you EARN over $200,000/yr yourself (or $300,000 joint) and have been doing so for several years and expect to continue doing so OR have at least 1 million dollars of net worth ( this is joint worth with you and spouse). The Securities Exchange Commission and FINRA have put a lot of effort into keeping most classes of people away from a long list of investments.\\\"\",\n \"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.\",\n \"Market Watch has an IPO calender with details of upcoming IPOs that should provide most of the information you need.\",\n \"I'd look into ShareBuilder. You can buy stocks for as low as $2 each, and there is no minimum funding level. You have to be carefull about selling though, as they will charge you $10 each time you want to sell a stock, regardless of how much of it you want to sell.\",\n \"I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them.\",\n \"It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.\",\n \"Call the CBOE, the Chicago Board of Options Exchange I've requested options on several IPOs in the past. You mainly have to convince them that there is a market for them (or they won't be inclined to provide liquidity). The CBOE could talk to the company in question to help convince them, or the CBOE will just tell you when the options will begin trading. Oh yeah, sometimes they'll ask you who you work for, just try to avoid that question, they don't like to talk to individual/retail investors.\",\n \"\\\"You can start investing with any amount. You can use the ShareBuilder account to purchase \\\"\\\"partial\\\"\\\" stocks through their automatic investment plan. Usually brokers don't sell parts of stock, and ShareBuilder is the only one allowing it IMHO using its own tricks. What they do basically is buy a stock and then divide it internally among several investors who bought it, while each of the investors doesn't really own it directly. That's perfect for investing small amounts and making first steps in investing.\\\"\",\n \"Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.\",\n \"First of all, you'll need a securities account. Nowadays, most large banks offer this as a standard product for all their customers, though it may require some extra paperwork. Then you need to buy shares in the ETF. This is indeed typically done through the stock market, but there are alternatives. Some banks will sell securities to you directly, but usually only those they create themselves (options and such). Some also offer ETF investment plans that allow you to buy shares for a fixed amount each month through the bank. In any case, the bank's online banking interface should support all these options. However, fees are an important consideration! With some banks, the securities account is free, others charge an annual fee. And the fees on stock market transactions and investment plans also vary considerably, so it could be worth it to consider some alternatives.\",\n \"\\\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \\\"\\\"Dual\\\"\\\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"For equities, buy direct from the transfer agent. You have to buy one full share at a minimum but after that dividend reinvestment is free. There are others like share builder and foliofn that let you buy fractional shares. As the other poster said their roster is limited so you cannot buy every ETF out there. With your example of not wanting to spend $200 I agree with the others that you should invest in a mutual fund. Vanguard will have every index fund you need and can invest as little as $50, as long as you sign up for a systematic investment draft from your bank. Plus vanguard typically has the lowest fees in the industry. The most important thing is to start investing as soon as possible and as regular as possible. \\\"\\\"Pay yourself first\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started.\",\n \"You can do this via many online FOREX brokers. All you need to do is set up and fund an account with them and then trade via their online platform. Some examples of brokers that do this are:\",\n \"If you want direct access trading that is very hard to get. However an active trading broker like interactive brokers, Trade station, or Light speed trading may be what you are looking for. If you have serious cash though value or income investing is better than trading which is pure speculation. I know that active trading can be exciting but it's also basically gambling when compared to research based long term investment. You can't fight the market makers, the guys on the dealer desks have way too many advantages over you. Just give this all some thought and see what you want to do.\",\n \"One share costs the 202 $. You need to invest 3000 $ total at a minimum, meaning you have to buy some 14.9 shares at minimum. You should not worry about the exact number of shares, they are just to keep track, and you can buy every decimal part of them too. For example, if you invest now 5000 $, you will get 24.7525 shares. Next year, if they are for example worth 220 $ per share, you have a value of 24.7525 * 220 = 5445.55 $ It depends on the offering company, but that (a certain fixed amount per paycheck) is a typical way to invest (and a good way - you implictly take advantage of prices changing a bit - you buy more shares when the price is down and less when it's up). Probably you can make it an automated deduction from your checking account, or you send it every week/month/whenever. Good plan!\",\n \"Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.\",\n \"I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!\",\n \"There are 2 primary ways to bet against a stock if you think it will decline. The first is to short sell shares of that stock the second is to buy put options (I would also add that selling naked call options would also be a bet against but I don't believe that is as common as the other 2 mentioned methods). The problem with short selling an IPO is that you first have to borrow the shares you are going to sell. Since the shares are privately held prior to the IPO that can be problematic. Even after the IPO you may have to wait a bit before shares become available to borrow. The problem with options (either buying puts or seeking naked calls) is similar. Options are traded on a different exchange than the stock and they have their own requirements that a stock must meet to have options traded. Both of these problems eventually correct themselves however, not in time for you to catch the initial fall you seem to be looking for.\",\n \"If you have an account with a major bank they may trade an over the counter option with you. Just depends how much work you need to go through and how much you are planning on buying.\",\n \"I am not sure what a Brazilian equivalent is but you could just do an ADR. Keep in mind that when you are investing in a foreign company there are certain currency risks that you may need to consider.\",\n \"As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.\",\n \"\\\"To trade stocks in India, you need a copy of your pan card, address proof(passport or driving license/electricity bill), income tax return (if you are trading futures & options and currencies), and a cancelled cheque from the bank. You will also need to sign across your recent photographs, and require various other forms from a brokerage house which need to be signed in the brokers presence. If your stock broker trusts you, and you have all these documents, then you CAN open a DEMAT account in India by signing and sending him all these documents. Otherwise you CANNOT, as every single form states that \\\"\\\"this particular document was signed in my presence\\\"\\\", and the stock broker needs to sign under that clause. Chances are, if you live abroad, no broker will ever trust you with any kind of margin, and therefore cannot make profits from you, so they will not agree to open your account.\\\"\",\n \"A stock, bond or ETF is basically a commodity. Where you bought it does not really matter, and it has a value in USD only inasmuch as there is a current market price quoted at an American exchange. But nothing prevents you from turning around and selling it on a European exchange where it is also listed for an equivalent amount of EUR (arbitrage activities of investment banks ensure that the price will be equivalent in regard to the current exchange rate). In fact, this can be used as a cheap form of currency conversion. For blue chips at least this is trivial; exotic securities might not be listed in Europe. All you need is a broker who allows you to trade on European exchanges and hold an account denominated in EUR. If necessary, transfer your securities to a broker who does, which should not cost more than a nominal fee. Mutual funds are a different beast though; it might be possible to sell shares on an exchange anyway, or sell them back to the issuer for EUR. It depends. In any case, however, transferring 7 figure sums internationally can trigger all kinds of tax events and money laundering investigations. You really need to hire a financial advisor who has international investment experience for this kind of thing, not ask a web forum!\",\n \"This is allowed somewhat infrequently. You can often purchase stocks through DRIPs which might have little or no commission. For example Duke Energy (DUK) runs their plan internally, so you are buying from them directly. There is no setup fee, or reinvestment fee. There is a fee to sell. Other companies might have someone else manage the DRIP but might subsidize some transaction costs giving you low cost to invest. Often DRIPs charge relatively large amounts to sell and they are not very nimble if trading is what you are after. You can also go to work for a company, and often they allow you to buy stock from them at a discount (around 15% discount is common). You can use a discount broker as well. TradeKing, which is not the lowest cost broker, allows buys and sells at 4.95 per trade. If trading 100 shares that is similar in cost to the DUK DRIP.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered."],"string":"[\n \"First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":262,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2383"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Should I Purchase Health Insurance Through My S-Corp"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["17215","232199"],"string":"[\n \"17215\",\n \"232199\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["17215","232199","524134","532932","476085","41793","490223","209159","223712","306908","423074","54333","338582","327232","290056","214358","507408","154931","533825","110102","194955","457034","80866","458079","415745","98112","125696","396968","205341","121187","117065","150219","222665","133586","526158","19698","281377","422697","102995","207449","10103","56","473959","171576","64598","515233","521933","308255","405356","302560","93426","374722","370542","79129","260385","397262","346374","215920","534277","388704","70315","224406","508078","97033","423191","70452","443062","458431","349348","565614","505091","410226","527620","546634","18889","54400","240997","213185","338796","490865","177074","285493","214690","504317","197846","589398","132738","236334","67135","142645","443960","253492","474816","307397","397920","564344","506685","480472","34887","121145"],"string":"[\n \"17215\",\n \"232199\",\n \"524134\",\n \"532932\",\n \"476085\",\n \"41793\",\n \"490223\",\n \"209159\",\n \"223712\",\n \"306908\",\n \"423074\",\n \"54333\",\n \"338582\",\n \"327232\",\n \"290056\",\n \"214358\",\n \"507408\",\n \"154931\",\n \"533825\",\n \"110102\",\n \"194955\",\n \"457034\",\n \"80866\",\n \"458079\",\n \"415745\",\n \"98112\",\n \"125696\",\n \"396968\",\n \"205341\",\n \"121187\",\n \"117065\",\n \"150219\",\n \"222665\",\n \"133586\",\n \"526158\",\n \"19698\",\n \"281377\",\n \"422697\",\n \"102995\",\n \"207449\",\n \"10103\",\n \"56\",\n \"473959\",\n \"171576\",\n \"64598\",\n \"515233\",\n \"521933\",\n \"308255\",\n \"405356\",\n \"302560\",\n \"93426\",\n \"374722\",\n \"370542\",\n \"79129\",\n \"260385\",\n \"397262\",\n \"346374\",\n \"215920\",\n \"534277\",\n \"388704\",\n \"70315\",\n \"224406\",\n \"508078\",\n \"97033\",\n \"423191\",\n \"70452\",\n \"443062\",\n \"458431\",\n \"349348\",\n \"565614\",\n \"505091\",\n \"410226\",\n \"527620\",\n \"546634\",\n \"18889\",\n \"54400\",\n \"240997\",\n \"213185\",\n \"338796\",\n \"490865\",\n \"177074\",\n \"285493\",\n \"214690\",\n \"504317\",\n \"197846\",\n \"589398\",\n \"132738\",\n \"236334\",\n \"67135\",\n \"142645\",\n \"443960\",\n \"253492\",\n \"474816\",\n \"307397\",\n \"397920\",\n \"564344\",\n \"506685\",\n \"480472\",\n \"34887\",\n \"121145\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["The answer seems to depend on where you live. Perhaps you already found this, but the summary from the IRS is: The insurance laws in some states do not allow a corporation to purchase group health insurance when the corporation only has one employee. Therefore, if the shareholder was the sole corporate employee, the shareholder had to purchase his health insurance in his own name. The IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which ruled that under certain situations the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction even if the health insurance policy was purchased in the name of the shareholder. Notice 2008-1 provided four examples, including three examples in which the shareholder purchased the health insurance and one in which the S corporation purchased the health insurance. Notice 2008-1 states that if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name and paid for it with his own funds, the shareholder would not be allowed an above-the-line deduction. On the other hand, if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name but the S corporation either directly paid for the health insurance or reimbursed the shareholder for the health insurance and also included the premium payment in the shareholder’s W-2, the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction. The bottom line is that in order for a shareholder to claim an above-the-line deduction, the health insurance premiums must ultimately be paid by the S corporation and must be reported as taxable compensation in the shareholder’s W-2. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/S-Corporation-Compensation-and-Medical-Insurance-Issues I understand this to mean that you can only get the deduction in your case (having purchased it in your own name) if your state does not allow your S-Corp to purchase a group health plan because you only have one employee. (I don't know specifically if Illinois fits that description or not.) In addition, there are rules about reporting health insurance premiums for taxes for S-Corp share members that you should also check. Personally, I think that it's complicated enough that advice from a CPA or other tax advisor specific to your situation would be worth the cost.","I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business.","\"No, not on schedule C, better. Its an \"\"above the line\"\" deduction (line 29 on your 1040). Here's the turbo tax article on it. The instructions for this line set certain limitations that you must take into the account, and yes - it is limited to the net profit from the business. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2. The insurance plan must be established under your business. Your personal services must have been a material income-producing factor in the business. If you are filing Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, the policy can be either in your name or in the name of the business.\"","Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).","The tax incentives for employer sponsored health insurance were designed to incentivize employers to provide the insurance and for employees to purchase the insurance. Since your situation does not meet the requirements to take advantage of this incentive, you can not. In the near future you should be able to take part in the government sponsored exchanges. This may spur changes in how this works.","\"You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you \"\"lose\"\" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near the bottom) though there are some exceptions. Nor can health care insurance premiums be paid from an FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too. You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter. Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars. I would doubt that you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does. As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan.\"","While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all.","I think that mbhunter hit the nail on the head regarding your question. I just want to add that having a policy that isn't sponsored by your employer is a good idea... employer policies are regulated by the federal government via ERISA. Independent policies are state regulated, and usually have better protections. Also, look for a policy that allows you to increase your coverage later without medical qualification so you don't need to overbuy insurance initially.","The answer likely depends a bit on which state you are in, but this should be true for most states. I don't know anything about Pennsylvania specifically unfortunately. The Affordable Care Act created the SHOP marketplace, which allows small businesses to effectively form larger groups for group coverage purposes. SHOP stands for Small Business Health Options Program, and requires only one common-law employee on payroll. This would effectively allow you to offer group coverage without having a group. Talk to your tax accountant for more details, as this is still very new and not necessarily well understood. There are some other options, all of which I would highly suggest talking to a tax accountant about as well. HRAs (health reimbursement accounts) allow the employer to set aside pre-tax funds for the employee to use for approved medical expenses; they're often managed by a benefits company (say, Wageworks, Conexis, etc.). That would allow your employee to potentially pick a higher deductible health plan which offers poorer coverage on the individual marketplace (with after-tax dollars) and then supplement with your HRA. There are also the concept of Employer Payment Plans, where the employer reimburses the employee for their insurance premiums, but those are not compatible with the ACA for the most part - although there seems to be a lot of disagreement as to whether it's possible to have something effectively the same work, see for example this page versus this for example.","As others have pointed out, post-tax dollars are what you'll use. Just as a quick note, as you'll be using post-tax dollars; in the past, I've refused to take contractor plans because they almost always are inferior to what I've been able to get off the private exchange ehealthinsurance. A few people have written excellent articles on Get Rich Slowly here and here about them in detail if you want more information. Generally, contractors (and sometimes employees) are offered a few plans (3-4), and this health exchange gives you a little more freedom to pick your plan, which in your situation may help. It isn't always cheaper, but depending on your needs, you may obtain a better deal. Forgot to add this: this option has also made switching jobs easy as well since I don't have to pay COBRA. While it depends on the situation, this can sometimes come out significantly cheaper. For instance, if I were to take the employer health plan next year, I would lose ~$450 a month, whereas the private exchange option is ~$300. But, if I were to switch jobs, decide to opt for self-employment, or a layoff, the COBRA would be even higher than ~$450.","There are many aspects to consider in deciding what sort of company you want to form. Instead of an S-corporation, you should determine whether it would be better to form a Limited Liability Company (LLC), Limited Partnership (LP) or even a professional company (PC). Littleadv is correct: There is minimal benefit in forming an S-corp with you and your wife as the shareholders, if you will be the only contributor-worker. There are costs associated with an S-corporation, or any corporation, that might outweigh benefits from more favorable tax treatment, or personal protection from liability: Filing fees and disclosure rules vary from state to state. For example, my father was a cardiologist who had no employees, other than my grandmother (she worked for free), in a state with income taxes (NM). He was advised that a PC was best in New Mexico, while an S-Corp was better in Florida (there are no personal income taxes in Florida). The only way to know what to do requires that you consult an accountant, a good one, for guidance.","\"The basic idea is that the average person can't deduct health care costs unless they're really onerous. But a business can, and as a self-employed person, you can deduct those costs from the businesses earnings... as long as the business is really generating enough profit to cover the health insurance costs. That's why most people get their health insurance from their employer, actually. The relevant IRS rules say: \"\"You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for you, your spouse, and your dependents if you are... A self-employed individual with a net profit reported on Schedule C (Form 1040).\"\" For 2010, thanks to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, you can even deduct the premium from your income before deducting the self-employment tax (Source). I'm sure that when you get your tax returns and instructions for 2010 this will all be spelled out.\"","Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.","I think you're misunderstanding how S-Corp works. Here are some pointers: I suggest you talk with a EA/CPA licensed in your state and get yourself educated on what you're getting yourself into.","While I can't say how it is in the Philippines, my wife the insurance broker leads me to believe that individual insurance is more expensive than group coverages in the US almost always. So much so that people will go to great extents to form any sort of business just to insure themselves. If however it is cheaper, can't you simply opt out of your employer's plan? If you can opt out, will your employer give you any of the money they aren't paying for your insurance? If you can't opt out, or if you paycheck doesn't grow, I can't see why you would want additional coverage especially at such a young age. Should you lose your job in the near future and you worry about, go get the insurance then. EDIT One big advantage is if you get personal insurance, you might need to get an exam to qualify, and it is likely the younger you are the better you will qualify. But again, you already have insurance that covers you so I would advise keeping the group policy is probably better.","Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29.","Basically a company who provides health insurance for their employees provides it as part of the employee's salary package. This is an expense by the company in its pursuit of making income. In general, tax deductions are available on any expense incurred in deriving income (the exception is when social policy allows deductions for other types of expenses). If you pay for your own health insurance individually, then this expense is not an expense for you to derive your income, and as such is not tax deductible.","The best way to do this is to pay for the entire car, including gas, insurance, and repairs, from S-corp funds, then meticulously track how many miles are used for personal and how many miles for business. If you pay with S-corp funds, you will claim the personal miles as a taxable benefit from the S-corp on your personal return. The S-corp can then claim all the expenses and depreciation on the vehicle, reducing the S-corp's tax liability.","\"Yes, you can. See the instructions for line 29 of form 1040. Self employed health insurance premiums are an \"\"above the line\"\" deduction.\"","http://www.ehow.com/about_4625753_cobra-as-selfemployed-health-insurance.html This link makes it clear... it has to be itemized, and is subject to the > than 7.5% AGI rule.","Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.","\"Yes, you should budget some amount of your emergency fund for healthcare expenses. How much you budget is really dependent on your particular anticipated costs. Be aware that health insurance likely costs significantly more than your employer charges you for access to its plan. Since healthcare reform mandated guaranteed issue individual coverage you will have the ability to buy individual coverage for you and, if applicable, your family. When buying individual coverage you have essentially two choices, your decision hinges on whether or not you'd qualify for a premium subsidy. If your AGI is below 400% of the poverty line you'll be able to receive subsidized coverage at a state or federal health insurance exchange. If the subsidy is not meaningful to you, or you wouldn't qualify, you can buy an \"\"off exchange\"\" plan offered either directly through a carrier or an insurance agent (some insurance agents are also licensed to sell exchange plans though it's somewhat rare). In order to receive subsidized coverage you must buy through a state or federal exchange, or an agent licensed to sell exchange products specifically. If your employer was large enough to be required to offer its plan via COBRA or you live in a state that extends the COBRA requirement to smaller businesses, you can choose that as well. Bear in mind this option is likely to be expensive relative to individual plans. It's becoming a less relevant solution with the advent of guaranteed issue individual coverage. COBRA is not a special type of insurance, it's a mandate that your employer allow you to remain on its plan but pay the full gross premium plus an up to 2% (10% for calCOBRA) administrative fee. Despide popular vernacular, there is no such thing as Obamacare or ACA coverage. Obamacare reshaped the insurance market. The ACA outlines certain minimum coverage requirements, generally referred to as \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage.\"\" While employers and plans are not \"\"required\"\" to meet all of these coverage requirements there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. The single exception to this is grandfathered plans which can still sidestep a few of the requirements. The penalty is harsh enough that it's not worth the cost of offering a non-compliant plan. Whether you buy coverage through a state or federal exchange, through an insurance agent, or via your employer's COBRA program you will have \"\"ACA\"\" coverage (unless on the off chance your employer's plan doesn't check the \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage\"\" box). So generally all plans available to you will have $0 preventive coverage, pregnancy benefits, cancer treatment benefits etc. Another thing to consider is your entire family doesn't need to be on the same plan. If your family is healthy with the exception of one child, you can purchase $0 deductible coverage for the one child and higher deductible more catastrophic plan for the remainder of your family. In fact you could choose COBRA for one child and purchase individual coverage for the remainder of the family. The things to consider when you face a lay-off: I tried to mitigate my use of \"\"all\"\" and \"\"always\"\" because there are some narrow exceptions to these requirements, such as the \"\"Hobby Lobby\"\" decision allowing closely held organizations with highly religious owners the ability to remove certain contraception benefits. Understand that these exceptions are rare and not available to individual plans.\"","I see a lot of people making the mistake or being given bad advise in structuring a new business. If you have more than one shareholder, then by all means an S Corporation is a better structure for lower taxes; avoid double taxation. If, however, this is a one shareholder S Corp, then you had better 1099 yourself as a consultant or look into sole proprietorship. The tax benefits are much better either way. Dr. Suraiya Shaik Ali","S-Corp income is passed through to owners and is taxed on their 1040 as ordinary income. If you take a wage (pay FICA) and then take additional distributions these are not subject to FICA. A lot of business owners will buy up supplies/ necessary expenses right before the end of the tax year to lower their tax liability.","\"Many answers here have given what look to be useful perspectives on your question. I want to point out an interesting technical issue. If an employer contracts with an insurer, it agrees to cover all employees (or all that fill some pre-specified definition and no one else), and to offer only a limited range of options. If you buy insurance directly, you obviously have a huge range of choices, including the (technically illegal) one of no insurance at all. Your first thought is probably, \"\"Hey, that's great! More options, more chances to pick the plan that's right for me.\"\" Sorry, no. Yes, you have more options, but so does everyone else. If you are working for some large company, you get insurance, period. If you suspect you have an expensive health condition, you cannot buy more insurance; if you believe yourself to be healthy as a horse, you cannot get skimpier insurance and pocket the difference. Healthy people and sick people are all in the same predictable pool. If you buy insurance freely, the insurer knows that the sicker you are, the more likely you are buy insurance, a phenomenon called adverse selection. As a result, the premiums (fees) a person buying his own insurance pays are much higher, because most of his fellow policy-holders are sickly -- even if he himself is just risk-averse. On the other hand, if you are risk-neutral, if you can survive a $10,000 bill if it happens to arise, you can save big by finding the skimpiest imaginable insurance, where all your fellow policy-holders will be hale and healthy people like yourself.\"","\"Like most forms of insurance, health insurance is regulated at the state level. So what is available to you will depend greatly upon which state you live in. You can probably find a list of insurance companies from your state's official website. Many states now provide \"\"insurance of last resort\"\" for individuals who can't get insurance through private insurance companies. You can try looking into professional and trade associations. Some offer group insurance plans comparable with COBRA coverage, meaning you'd get a group discount and benefits but without the benefit of an employer paying 30-80% of your premiums. As a software developer you may qualify for membership in the IEEE or ACM, which both offer several forms of insurance to members. The ASP also offers insurance, though they don't provide much information about it on the public portions of their website. These organization offer other benefits besides insurance so you may want to take that in to consideration. The National Federation of Independent Business also offers insurance to members. You may find other associations in your specific area. Credit Unions, Coops and the local chamber of commerce are all possible avenues of finding lower cost insurance options. If you are religious there are even some faith based non-insurance organizations that provide medical cost sharing services. They depend upon the generosity and sense of fairness and obligation of their members to share the burden of medical expenses so their definitely not for everyone.\"","FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.","Basically, no. You have retirement plan options and can either go with a Roth option, which won't change your current tax burden, or go with a traditional plan, which is tax deductible but won't change your business deductions or self-employment taxes. This article has an explanation of options for setting up SEP or Solo 401k plans. Key quote for all the pre-tax retirement plans: Because pre-tax employer and employee contributions are deducted in the same way, neither one is more tax-efficient than the other. The article goes on to say that if you were an S Corp or LLC that elected to be taxed as an S Corp, a Solo 401(k) plan would allow the business to make an employer contribution to your 401(k) and even then there's no tax advantage to the employer contribution. Conclusion for S-corps: [Employer contributions] would reduce the amount of income from the S-corporation that would be passed through to you as the owner, thereby reducing your income tax. But, because this income is not subject to payroll taxes in the first place, these contributions will not reduce your payroll taxes.","\"Am I on crack, or do the perceived tax savings via S-Corp distributions really not matter at a certain level of business income? You're not on crack. Generally, if all the income is generated by your own personal services - this is the outcome. The benefit of S-Corp is when you have employees who generate your income, and you distribute to yourself profits that come out of other's personal services. In this case your distributions are exempt from FICA since it is not in fact a self-employment income. You'd still have to pay yourself a reasonable salary for your position (as a manager/officer), but it wouldn't have to cover all of the available profits. So if the IRS takes a position against you it would be that your salary should be to include the whole profits, since it is the compensation to you for the personal services that produced the income to the corporation (you). In many cases they might agree that a salary at the SS maximum limit would be reasonable - but that's only a speculation of mine. In that case you might gain some portion of the medicare tax (with the recent law changes at the levels you're talking about you'll pay some medicare anyway). There are a lot of accountants who take more aggressive position saying that not all of the distributions are liable for SE taxes, even if you're the sole employee of the corporation. These cases often end up in the Tax Court, and whatever the outcome, your legal fees become higher than the FICA savings. What is probably missing in your picture is the SS limit of (currently $112K) above which you don't pay social security tax, so whether you get it as a salary or as a distribution - that limit is the same. That is why you don't see a significant difference. I know there are a lot of accountants who'd disagree, but I would argue that for a sole employee of your company, S-Corp doesn't provide significant benefits over the disregarded LLC taxation, but has some additional overhead that adds to your expenses. Here's a link to a lawyer's blog where he suggests (and says many accountants follow) 60/40 division between salary and distributions. I.e.: his take, similarly to mine, is that most of the earnings have to be treated as salary. In your case, when the total is about 300K - you indeed will not get any FICA savings with such a division other than some of the medicare. Unusually low wages when compared to distributions can draw unwanted IRS scrutiny and an audit. An unfavorable audit will likely result in some portion of the distributions being reclassified as earned income for federal income tax purposes, which results in a deficiency assessment (i.e., a tax bill), interest on those unpaid taxes, and IRS penalties. The article also talks about the Watson case (one of the Tax Court cases I referred to), which can be used as the guidelines for determining the \"\"reasonable\"\" compensation. Talk to your tax adviser. I'm neither a tax adviser nor a tax professional. For a tax advice contact a CPA/EA licensed in your state. This is not a tax advice, just my personal opinion.\"","An S-corp doesn't pay income tax -- taxation is pass-through. This being the case, there are no tax deductions it could take for charitable giving. The solution would be for you to make the contribution out of your own pocket and then personally claim the deduction on your own taxes.","It is illegal. Coverage has a lot of minimum requirements. What has really hurt Obamacare is that it groups those that were formerly uninsured, with those that don't have employer insurance. It turns out those that were previously uninsured (often very poor) are very expensive to insure. So that has forced up premiums on everyone else. The link of health insurance to employment in the US is to blame. The sooner everyone is forced to buy their own insurance, and then preferably the government offers medicare buy in for all, the sooner the system can be cleaned up.","\"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are \"\"we\"\"? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the policy of our company. For example: \"\"Every two months profits get divided 50/50\"\" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean. Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc.\"","Health insurance is tough, as you know, because the offerings vary dramatically by State, and there is the added complication of the Affordable Care Act, which depending on where and who you are has had either a good or bad impact on the available options. If you are a sole proprietor or other business person, I'd advise talking to someone at a local chamber of commerce. Also, professional organizations like the IEEE or ACM (for IT professionals) often offer catastrophic medical or other health plans. Some employer plans give you the option to continue coverage at a higher cost when COBRA lapses as well. If you can't afford a comprehensive plan, make sure to get something to protect you against pre-existing conditions or hospitalization.","I was in your situation a few years ago and I discovered something that worked perfectly for me - a local health insurance broker. I met with her, discussed my needs, reviewed the options with her, then acted. She received a commission from the insurer, so it cost me nothing. I would certainly follow a similar approach again.","For the first four months of the year, when you were an employee, the health insurance premiums were paid for with pre-tax money. When you receive your W-2 at the end of the year, the amount in Box 1 of the W-2 will be reduced by the amount you paid for health insurance. You can't deduct it on your tax return because it has already been deducted for you. Now that you are a 1099 independent contractor, you are self-employed and eligible for the self-employed health insurance deduction. However, as you noted, the COBRA premiums are likely not eligible for this deduction, because the policy is in your old employer's name. See this question for details, but keep in mind that there are conflicting answers on that question.","Why not personal responsibility? Get paid *then* provide the service. It's what small business owners do every day without the help of government or the protection of a large corporation. Individuals comply with safety regulations to protect themselves. If you need a corporation to do it for you, expect to make less. If you can do it yourself, expect to make more as an entrepreneur.","Pre tax insurance is not possible unless the emplyer provides hsa and do a payroll deduction. Obamacare is all post tax and you can do deduction if your expenses exceeds 10%of your income","\"I am very late to this forum and post - but will just respond that I am a sole proprietor, who was just audited by the IRS for 2009, and this is one of the items that they disallowed. My husband lost his job in 2008, I was unable to get health insurance on my own due to pre-existing ( not) conditions and so we had to stay on the Cobra system. None of the cost was funded by the employer and so I took it as a SE HI deduction on Line 29. It was disallowed and unfortunately, due to AGI limits, I get nothing by taking it on Sch. A. The auditor made it very clear that if the plan was not in my name, or the company's name, I could not take the deduction above the line. In his words, \"\"it's not fair, but it is the law!\"\"\"","I think I may have figured this out but if someone could double check my reasoning I'd appreciate it. So if my company makes $75000 and I decide to pay myself a $30000 salary, then the quarterly payment break down would be like this: 1040ES: Would pay income tax on non salary dividend ($45000) 941: Would pay income tax, SS, medicare on salary ($30000) (I'm the only person on payroll) So I think this answers my question in that after switching from filing as LLC to S-corp, I won't have to pay as much on 1040ES because some of it will now be covered on payroll.","\"The biggest problem with this that others seem to have missed is that a corporation must have a profit motive. Meaning at some point after a \"\"startup phase\"\" your company needs to turn a profit to not be considered a hobby. Will your employer be paying your corporation for your salary? Is that the company's business endeavor? If you run profits through the company and treat it like a true business, this may be technically possible, but as others have mentioned probably will cost more than any benefits you'd receive. And at every step you'll be throwing tons of audit flags. Rich Dad Poor Dad advocates a light version of this. Essentially running a business like Real Estate through an LLC, and then using that LLC for \"\"business trips\"\" (vacation with some justifiable business motive) or capital purchases (laptop, etc...) and the like, such that you're paying with \"\"Pre-tax\"\" money instead of \"\"Post tax\"\", but again the business needs a revenue source.\"","\"I don't know what the OP means when he says I want to invest in health insurance from now on so that I can use the policy after I retire. Generally, a health insurance policy covers costs incurred during the current calendar year (or specific period such as July 1 of one year through June 30 of the next year) and does not cover future periods. Indeed, many policies do not guarantee renewal when the current period ends (with exceptions for employer-provided coverage through COBRA in case employment ends). So investing in a health insurance policy meaning that you pay the premiums now, and the insurance company provides the policy in the distant future is something that is new to me. Besides, what will the policy include? If someone had bought such a policy many years ago, say, before CAT scans and MRI were developed, would the policy cover such new developments? Or the policy would cover only those procedures, tests, and medications that are available when the policy is written and the insurance premiums start to be paid? The long-term health of the insurance company is also of some concern. When something is offered to me with a lifetime guarantee, I skeptically ask, \"\"My lifetime or the device's life time or the company's lifetime?\"\"\"","You can never use a health FSA for individual health insurance premiums. Moreover, FSA plan sponsors can limit what they are will to reimburse. While you can't use a health FSA for premiums, you could previously use a 125 cafeteria plan to pay premiums, but it had to be a separate election from the health FSA. However, under N. 2013-54, even using a cafeteria plan to pay for indivdiual premiums is effectively prohibited.","I agree with you 100%! >they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. I think this is exactly what is happening today. > That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance. I believe up until Obamacare, people couldn't. Also, as a general rule a business can claim a tax deduction for the salary, wages, commissions, bonuses, and other compensation it pays to its employees.","\"It's a tough question, because there is society and individual to consider, and the society's effects on the individual. Currently, employers don't have to provide insurance, they do it to compete in the employee marketplace. Employers have an advantage over employees in that regard, because they can procure insurance at a lower cost that employees can, and they get tax breaks for doing so. Employers providing health insurance get a more stable relationship with their employees, because employees always hold great value in having an employee who provides good benefits. The company I work for provides good benefits, but suppose tomorrow they told me \"\"Hey Mutatron, we're not providing benefits anymore, but we'll bump your salary to what your benefits are worth, plus enough to compensate for the tax break we get.\"\" So now, everything is equal to what it was before, but I have to go out and find my own insurance, which is a hassle, but presumably because of the PPACA I can get a good value and carry this insurance with me wherever I go, and never have to mess with changing every time I change jobs. But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. This is the way it works now with the minimum wage. A recent report found that WalMart employees rely on welfare to the tune of [$2.66 billion a year](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net), while the company makes $15 billion in profit. So 18% of Walmart's profits are an indirect subsidy from the US taxpayer, which comes to about $48 per US citizen, or about $208 a year for the top 50% of wage earners. Even so, I think I'd prefer to get my whole compensation package in one shot, all else being equal. That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance.\"","When in doubt, you should always seek the advice of a professional tax preparer or your accountant. (Many agents/accountants will gladly review your tax preparations to ensure you haven't missed something. That's quicker and cheaper than paying them to do it all.) Having said that... This Illinois resource has detailed information about S-corps: Of relevance to your situation:","\"In the United States, with an S-Corp, you pay yourself a salary from company earnings. That portion is taxed at an individual rate. The rest of the company earnings are taxed as a corporation, which often have great tax benefits. If you are making over $80K/year, the difference can be substantial. A con is that there is more paperwork and you have to create a \"\"board\"\" of advisors.\"","These are all factually correct claims. S-Corporation is a pass-through entity, so whatever gain you have on the corporate level - is passed to the shareholders. If your S-Corp has capital gains - you'll get your pro-rata share of the capital gains. Interest? The same. Dividends? You get it on your K-1. Earned income? Taxed as such to you. I.e.: whether you earn income as a S-Corp or as a sole proprietor - matters not. That's the answer to your bottom line question. The big issue, however, is this: you cannot have more than 25% passive income in your S-Corp. You pass that limit (three consecutive years, one-off is ok) - your S-Corp automatically converts to C-Corp, and you're taxed at the corporate level at the corporate rates (you then lose the capital gains rates, personal brackets, etc). This means that an S-Corp cannot be an investment company. Most (75%+) of its income has to be earned, not passive. Another problem with S-Corp is that people who work as self-proprietors incorporated as S-Corp try to abuse it and claim that the income they earned by the virtue of their own personal performance shouldn't be taxed as self-employed income. IRS frowns upon such a position, and if considerable amounts are at stake will take you all the way up to the Tax Court to prove you wrong. This has happened before, numerously. You should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA/Attorney licensed in your state) to educate you about what S-Corp is and how it is taxed, and whether or not it is appropriate for you.","Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans. You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site: S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp. I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B. The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions: Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions. I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000. Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP. Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help.","You could slip and fall in the shower tonight. Or you might never need it. Insurance is a hedge against risk. If the event has already occurred, you're uninsurable. If you and others would suffer if you have a bad accident and can't work, get it now.","If the company pays for Group Term Life Insurance, some of that premium payment may be taxable. If memory serves, that's what's included in W-2 Box C. W-2 Box C has no bearing on Schedule C.","Because collective bargaining by the gov't and your employer is the only way that we've been able to combat some of the increases. An uninsured individual will be billed 4-10x what your insurance company would pay due to collective bargaining. The largest employers (Cisco, EMC, and others) are self-insured and pay health care providers to administer their plan. SMBs get the short end of the stick and pay much higher rates for less coverage because they don't have economies of scale. A public option would allow any uninsured individual to obtain health care at a reasonable, income-based cost.","On topic of Healthcare needs, I think it depend on individual. For example, my employer's dental plan offer PPO $34 per month and DMO $12 per month. I have my favor dentist that I have been going for years. He only accept PPO. I already had most of my dental works done so I only use him for teeth clean. He charge $100 without insurance and free with insurance. I can only use my insurance for teeth clean twice a year so $34x12 = $408 vs $200. If I go with DMO, I won't get to see my doctor and since I get my teeth once a year why not just save that money and go to my favor doctor instead the DMO doctors and if I need major dental works done which isn't immediate. I can go to Taiwan for dental works that is way cheaper than U.S. I think if you're a healthy young man/women. You should put more money toward your retirement and only keep insurance for emergency. You can do a medical tourism mentioned in 60 minutes that can be more cost effective and those doctors are U.S. trained. For older folks, a full Health care insurance is more needed than retirement. Just my two cents.","\"Be careful of the other answers here. Many are wrong or partially wrong. The question implies that you knew this, but for everyone else's benefit, you can keep you LLC organization and still elect to be treated as a S-Corp by the IRS just for tax purposes. You do this by filing Form 2553 with the IRS. (You can also, by the way, elect to be taxed as a \"\"regular\"\" C-Corp if you want, although that's probably not advantageous. See Form 8832.) The advantage of electing to be treated as an S-Corp is that income beyond what constitutes a \"\"reasonable salary\"\" are not subject to social security and medicare taxes as they would when paid was wages or counted as self-employment income on Schedule C. Depending on what you need to pay yourself to meet the \"\"reasonable salary\"\" test, your overall income, and other factors about your business, this could result in tax savings. Contrary to other answers here, making this election will not force you to create a board of directors. You are still an LLC for all purposes except taxes, so whatever requirements you had in organization and governance at the state level will not change. You will have to file a \"\"corporate\"\" tax return on Form 1120S (and likely some corresponding state tax form), so that is additional paperwork, but this \"\"corporate\"\" return does not mean the S-Corp pays taxes itself. With a couple of exceptions, the S-Corp pays no taxes directly (and therefore does not pay at the corporate tax rate). Instead the S-Corp apportions its income, expenses, and deductions to the owner(s) on Schedule K. The owners get their portion reported from the S-Corp on Schedule K1 and then include that on their personal Form 1040 to pay tax at their personal rate. In addition to filing Form 1120S, you will have to handle payroll taxes, which will create some additional administrative work and/or cost. Using a payroll service for this will likely be your best option and not terribly expensive. You've also got the issue of determining your reasonable salary within the rules, which is the subject of other questions on this site and other IRS guidance.\"","If you're creating an S-Corp for consulting services that you personally are going to provide, what would it give her to have 50% of the corporation when you're dead? Not to mention that you can just add it to your will that the corporation stock will go to her, and it will be much better (IMHO, talk to a professional) since she'll be getting stepped-up basis. Why aren't you talking to a professional before making decisions? It doesn't sound like a good way to conduct business.","We don't make enough to really consider it a salary, but I've heard using a draw without a salary is a bad idea. As any other illegal action, not paying yourself a reasonable salary when being a corporate officer is indeed a bad idea. I have no idea what I need to do to actually get some money in our pockets. The answer is simple. You need to earn more money. Since it is S-Corp, it doesn't matter if you keep the profits on the corporate account or distribute - the profits will be taxed to you. You are also, as I said above, required by law to pay yourself a reasonable salary. Reasonable meaning corresponding to market rates. Paying a CPA or a Software Engineer a minimum wage will not be reasonable. That is, of course, if you're profitable, you're not required to pay yourself more money than the corporation actually has. Just to be clear, my answer refers to the question asked, and the confusing answer above that made a claim that has no substantiation in the law. I do not intend to write a thesis about pros and cons of using S-Corp every time a question about reasonable salary is asked.","In addition to stoj's two good points I'll add a couple more reasons: 3) In some situations there are secondary factors involved that can make it a good deal. These normally amount to cases where you can buy the insurance with pre-tax dollars but would have to pay the bills with post-tax dollars. 4) Insurance companies know much better what things should cost and often have negotiated rates. A rich person would generally be well-served to have health insurance for this very reason.","Compared with a Sole Proprietorship, the main disadvantages of an S-Corporation or an LLC are that it adds a lot of management overhead (time, and possibly money if you don't do it all yourself), and there are fees you must pay to incorporate, as well as additional yearly maintenance fees which vary by state. You should be able to weigh the tax savings and liability protection against the extra costs and hassle, and see which way the scales tip. As a rule of thumb, the bigger your business gets or the more income you make, the more attractive incorporating becomes. Note there are some additional taxes that certain jurisdictions impose on business income. For example, IL and CA charge 1.5% tax, NY is less, but NYC is 8.85%! In NYC specifically, you could actually end up paying slightly more tax as an S-Corp than you would as a Sole Proprietorship. In most places though, the nominal local taxes will still be less than the FICA taxes you could potentially save.","An LLC or an S corp will result in the same tax obligations because both are pass-through tax entities. An LLC is more flexible for the situation you describe because the member and manager responsibilities can be detailed in the operating agreement. You really should get a business attorney to help you get your operating agreement in order. There's also a startups beta site on Stack Exchange that may be able to help you with questions about ways to handle your operating agreement.","\"A C-Corp is not a pass-through entity, any applicable taxes would be paid by the Corporation, which is a separate legal entity from yourself. If you use the points to purchase something for yourself, that would constitute \"\"income\"\" to you, and would be taxable on your personal income tax.\"","\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\"","Despite the ACA offering generous deductions, a lot of small businesses still cannot afford the initial capital involved in offering health insurance plan to their employees... Therefore we cannot take advantage of these deductions... Putting us at a disadvantage for finding low-to-mid skilled workers, to the larger corporations that are now mandated to offer the benefits..","It would depend on the health insurance that was being offered, and if it covers your family or just you. We pay around $500-600 for individual health insurance for our employees (families cost north of 1500 a month). It's extremely expensive. Provide more details on the stock purchase plan as well (it sounds to me like in that case you'd only be getting for free what it would cost to purchase the stock... but that's only $10-15, so negligible in this case.)","\"Yes, you can make the election to file your LLC as an S-Corp, and Turbo Tax Business can help you with the S-Corp business return. You need to make sure you're set up correctly and there are a lot of things to be aware of. For example, the whole \"\"reasonable salary\"\" thing is a can of worms. So while the answer to your question is \"\"yes, it's manageable, you can do it on your own,\"\" it might be worthwhile to have a professional help you the first year, make sure it's set up right, and then you can do it on your own in subsequent years.\"","As a 24 year old, single,your needs for insurance are minimal. Why you might consider it are for these reasons. You are young, so it will be cheaper than buying say at 34. Insurance is always on sale. Two, there is no guarantee that your health will always be good, you may have to pay additional premiums later or even be refused coverage. Ask me, I pay 70% more than others my age for the same coverage. Three, insurance ownership with equity values can grow tax free as you accumulate the monies. Consider it like a bond portfolio offering guaranteed returns on portions of the growth, and a long term return of 5.5% or slighly more. Four, stating sooner versus later means more cash buildup. Just like being in a pension will generate more cash for you by age 65, than if you had started at age 34. Insurance is only one tool in getting a good start. It is not a panacea.","\"These policies are usually called dread disease policies or critical illness insurance, and they normally aren't a good deal. Furthermore, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, such policies may become less common or disappear entirely. These policies aren't a great deal because of the effects of adverse selection and asymmetric information, two closely related concepts in the economics of insurance. When you purchase an insurance policy, the insurance company charges you a premium based on your average risk level or the average risk level of your risk pool, e.g. you and your fellow employees, if you get insurance through your employer. For health insurance, this average risk level is the average probability that you'll incur healthcare costs. The insurer's actuaries calculate this probability from numerous factors, like your age, sex, current health, socioeconomic status, etc. Asymmetric information exists when you know more about this probability than the insurance company does. For example, you may look like a relatively low-risk individual on paper, but little does the insurance company know, BASE jumping is one of your hobbies. Because you know about your hobby and the insurance company doesn't, you secretly know that your risk of incurring healthcare expenses is much higher than the insurance company expects. If the insurance company knew this, they would like to charge you a much higher premium, if they could. However, they can't, because a) they don't know about your hobby, and b) the premium may be decided for the entire group/risk pool, so they can't increase it simply because a few individuals in the group have higher risk levels. Adverse selection occurs when individuals with higher risk levels are more likely to buy insurance. You may decide that because of your dangerous hobby, you do want to take advantage of your employer's healthcare plan. Unfortunately for the insurance company, they can't adjust their price accordingly. Adverse selection is a major factor in insurance markets, so I didn't go into much detail here (too much detail is probably off-topic anyway). I can point you towards more resources on the topic if you're interested. However, the situation is different when you purchase a dread disease policy. By expressing interest in such a specific policy, e.g. a cancer insurance policy, you signal to the insurance company that you feel you have a higher risk of facing that disease. In your case, you're signaling to the insurance company that your family probably has a history of cancer or that you have habits that make you more susceptible to it, and your premiums will be higher to compensate the insurance company for bearing this additional risk. Since the insurance company already has a rough estimate of your chances of developing that illness, they may already know that you have a higher chance of facing it. However, when you express interest in a disease-specific policy, this signals the existence of asymmetric information (your family history or other habits), and the insurer assumes you know something they don't that elevates your risk level of that specific disease. Since these policies are optional policies often sold as riders to existing policies, the insurance company has more flexibility in pricing them. They can charge you a higher premium because you've signaled to the insurer that you have a significantly above-average risk of contracting a specific disease*. Also, the insurer can do a much better job of estimating the expected costs of insuring you since they need only focus on data surrounding one disease. The policy will be priced accordingly, i.e. in such a way that isn't necessarily beneficial to you. Furthermore, most dread disease policies aren't guaranteed renewable, which means that even if you are willing to keep paying the premiums, the insurance company doesn't have to keep insuring you. As your risk of developing the specific disease grows, e.g. with age, it may pass the point where insuring you is no longer an acceptable risk. The company expects you to develop the illness with the next few renewal cycles, so they decide not to renew your policy. The end result? The insurance company has the premiums you've paid previously, but you no longer have coverage for that illness, and ex post, you've suffered a net loss with no reduction of risk for the foreseeable future. Dread disease policies are changing under the Affordable Care Act. According to healthcare.gov Starting in 2014, ... all new health insurance plans sold to individuals and small businesses, and plans purchased in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, must include a range of essential health benefits. The essential health benefits include quite a few areas of coverage; since this applies to policies offered on the state insurance exchanges and those offered outside of it, dread disease policies wouldn't seem to qualify. For more information, you can read the linked page on healthcare.gov or see Section 1302, subsection b), titled \"\"Essential Health Benefits Requirements\"\" in the law itself (p87). I imagine more details will be available on a state-by-state basis through 2014 and into 2015. One legal source (see the discussion on p24) states that: whatever else the ACA does with excepted benefit policies, including specific disease and fixed dollar indemnity policies, it does explicitly provide that such policies do not count as minimum essential coverage for purposes of the ACA This seems pretty straightforward; a dread disease (or \"\"specific disease\"\" policy, as it's referred to in the article), won't count towards the minimum essential requirements. This may not be an issue for you, but for others, it's important to understand that you'll still need to pay the penalty if you only purchase one of these policies. The ACA spells this out in Section 5000(f) (see p316, which states that \"\"excepted benefit policies\"\" are excluded and defines them using the definition in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). **The PSHA specifically includes \"\"Coverage only for a specified disease or illness\"\" in their definition of \"\"excepted benefit policies\"\" (see section 2791(b), paragraph 3A on p82, so it's probably a safe bet that such policies won't count towards the minimum. Also, as Rick pointed out in the comments, the Affordable Care Act also forbids lifetime limits on most insurance plans, so assuming you find an insurance policy with adequate coverage for the specific disease you're worried about, such a plan should cover the related expenses without a lifetime limit. Deductibles, annual limits, and other factors may complicate this somewhat. In the section about lifetime limits (Sec. 2711, p2), the Affordable Care Act states that: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish ... lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary. However, the law states in the next paragraph that the preceding statement should not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits that are not essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law The section also contains similarly vague caveats about annual limits, so the actual details and limits may vary once individual states finalize their policies. The law is intentionally vague because the vast majority of the law's implementation is left up to individual states. Furthermore, certain parts of the law specify actions involving the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so these may require further codification in the future too. You should still read the fine print of any insurance policy you buy and evaluate it as you would any contract (see the next section). Since a dread disease policy probably isn't a good idea, you'll probably want to evaluate the healthcare plans offered by your employer or individual plans offered in your area (if your employer doesn't offer coverage). I've tried to include the basic points offered in these articles to give you or future visitors some idea of where to start. These points may change once the Affordable Care Act is implemented, so I'll try to keep them as general as possible. Services - Above and beyond the minimum essential requirements, what services does the plan offer? Are these services a good match for you and/or your family, or do they add unnecessary cost to the premium with little or no benefit? For example, my health insurance plan offers basic dental coverage with a small co-pay, so I don't need a separate dental plan, even though my employer offers one. Choice - What doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. are preferred providers under your plan? Do you need a referral from your primary care doctor to see a specialist, or can you find one on your own? Are the preferred providers convenient for you? In my first year of college (about five years ago), my student health insurance only covered a few hospitals that were in the suburbs and somewhat difficult for me to reach. This is something to keep in mind, depending on where you live. Costs - This is a major one, obviously. Deductibles, copays, maximum cost limits over a year or your lifetime, out-of-network costs, etc. are all variables to consider. There are other factors, but since I don't have a family, other members of the site can provide more detailed information about what to look for in family policies. In place of a dread disease policy, you're likely better off purchasing a comprehensive health insurance policy, perhaps a catastrophic coverage policy with a high deductible that will kick in once you've exhausted your standard insurance policy. However, this may be a moot point since the passage of the Affordable Care Act may significantly reduce the availability of such policies anyway.\"","\"You probably don't need S-Corp. There's no difference between what you can deduct on your Schedule C and what you can deduct on 1120S, it will just cost you more money. Since you're gambling yourself, you don't need to worry about liability - but if you do, you should probably go LLC route, much cheaper and simpler. The \"\"reasonable salary\"\" trick to avoid FICA won't work. Don't even try. Schedule C for professional gamblers is a very accepted thing, nothing extraordinary about it.\"","Each S-corp is bound by its own plan documents, which typically do not limit or dictate where the investments are held. Your brokerage account has no tie to the company from which the funds come, however, you are still subject to maximum SIMPLE contribution rules and cannot exceed the $12,500 (if under age 50) COMBINED contribution for any and all companies. Be careful about co-mingling from both companies as there are penalties for early withdrawals made within 2-years of participating in the plan. If you started them both at the same time it's not an issue.","\"There are no dividends from S-Corp. There are distributions. Big difference. S-Corps fill form 1120S and schedule K-1 per shareholder. In the schedule all the income of your S-Corp will be assigned to various categories that you will later copy to your personal tax return as your personal income. It is not dividend income. The reason people prefer to take distributions from their S-Corps instead of salary is because you don't pay SE taxes on the distributions. That is also the reason why the IRS forces you to pay yourself a reasonable salary. But the tax rate on the income, all of it, is your regular income tax rate, unless the S-Corp income is categorized in a preferred category. The fact that its an S-Corp income doesn't, by itself, allow any preferential treatment. If you're learning the stuff as you go - you should probably get in touch with a tax professional to advise you. All the S-Corp income must be distributed. Its not a matter of \"\"avoiding paying the tax\"\", its the matter of \"\"you must do it\"\". Not a choice. My answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer (circ 230 disclaimer).\"","\"I'm assuming that when you say \"\"convert to S-Corp tax treatment\"\" you're not talking about actually changing your LLC to a Corporation. There are two distinct pieces of the puzzle here. First, there's your organizational form. Your state, which is where the business is legally formed and recognized, creates the LLC or Corporation. \"\"S-Corp\"\" doesn't come into play here: your company is either an LLC or a Corporation. (There are a handful of other organizational types your state might have, e.g. PLLC, Limited Partnership, etc.; none of these are immediately relevant to this discussion). Second, there's the tax treatment you receive by the IRS. If your company was created by the state as an LLC, note that the IRS doesn't recognize LLCs as a distinct organizational type: you elect to be taxed as an individual (for single member LLCs), a partnership (for multiple member LLCs), or as a corporation. The former two elections are \"\"pass through\"\" -- there's no additional level of taxation on corporate profits, everything just passes through to the owners. The latter election introduces a tax on corporate profits. When you elect pass-through treatment, a single-member LLC files on Schedule C; a multiple-member LLC will prepare a form K-1 which you will include on your 1040. If your company was created by the state as a Corporation (not an LLC), you could still elect pass-through taxation if your company qualifies under the rules in Subchapter S (i.e. \"\"an S-Corp\"\"). States do not recognize \"\"S-Corp\"\" as part of the organizational process -- that's just a tax distinction used by the IRS (and possibly your state's tax authorities). In your case, if you are a single-member LLC (and assuming there are no other reasons to organize as a corporation), talking about \"\"S-Corp tax treatment\"\" doesn't make any sense. You'll just file your schedule C; in my experience it's fairly simple. (Note that this is based on my experience of single- and multiple-member LLCs in just two states. Your state may have different rules that affect state-level taxation; and the rules may change from year to year. I've found that hiring a good CPA to prepare the forms saves a good bit of stress and time that can be better applied to the business.)\"","In all probability, having lower coverage levels will result in higher premiums. As my insurance agent explained to me, the higher your coverages, the lower the insurance company believes your risk to be - because you think about insurance smartly, you're less likely to make spurious claims. I have my coverages run at various levels every 18-24 months, and it is almost always true that higher coverages result in lower premiums. Also, there is no guarantee you'll still be employed by the same company if an injury happens. Or that they'll continue to offer the same plans every year. Insurance is a calculated risk on the part of the insurer, and a means of sharing/deflecting risk (at a cost known as your premium) on the part of the insured. Even if your premiums are slightly higher (on the order of a couple dollars per month, for example), do you really want to save a couple dollars and then be surprised when your health insurance company doesn't want to cover something?","> I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets A large part of the discount an employer gets, is due to the number of policy holders they enroll. Most methods of duplicating that have other problems. So forcing everyone into an individual market will end up raising rates on everyone, by removing group discounts. Eventually to the point where no one gets any discount from insurance.","HSA rules are different in some regards than deductions allowable under Pub 502 which deals with medical expenses deductible in Schedule A of your tax return. Pub 969 governs HSA's and similar reimbursement plans, and the guidelines are as follows: Insurance premiums. You can’t treat insurance premiums as qualified medical expenses unless the premiums are for: -Long-term care insurance. -Health care continuation coverage (such as coverage under COBRA). -Health care coverage while receiving unemployment compensation under federal or state law. -Medicare and other health care coverage if you were 65 or older (other than premiums for a Medicare supplemental policy, such as Medigap). Since your wife is still being treated like an employee for health benefits, and you are not on COBRA, thus not eligible for a deduction. You may qualify under the unemployment provision depending on the cause of her disability.","you wouldn't have to pay income taxes on the portion for health insurance. think of high deductible health plans - the employer puts the deductible into a healthcare savings account which is tax free as long as it's for medical care. right now you can also deduct the portion of your overall expenses that are medical over a portion of your income. 2 issues with your idea, though - 1. right now, there are people who can't get health insurance except through an employer. send them out into the marketplace and they will get turned down. obamacare is supposed to fix this, but if Romney is elected, it will continue. 2. healthcare inflation rises much higher than regular inflation, so if your benefits were included as part of wages and you had to buy it on your own, you would face a continually decreasing amount of money over time to purchase healthcare - a spiral. this is the issue that many have with the voucher system the republicans are proposing for medicare - the voucher will rise at inflation, while healthcare rises much higher than inflation - right now I think it's a difference of 1% versus 8-9% off the top of my head. also, for many industries, it's in the best interest of the company to have a healthy workforce.","\"I was in the health insurance game for 10 years and never heard of this until the Affordable Care Act came about. To my knowledge, there is no rule or regulation prohibiting it, however trying to get an insurer underwrite that risk is extremely unlikely. It's the same reason why you don't see AAA offering health insurance. There isn't a contractual relationship between the church and their constituents, so no underwriter worth their salt would put a reasonable price on that risk. Members can easily come and go, and since insurance through your employer is still the dominant distribution channel for health insurance, it would be seen as an adverse risk, meaning that people who couldn't get it through \"\"normal\"\" channels must be getting it through the church, which it would then be assumed that this person applying for coverage is an \"\"adverse risk\"\" or someone who is abnormally unhealthy. There are faith-based healthcare reimbursement programs that are NOT health insurance and do not satisfy the ACA required minimum coverages. From what I've seen and read, it's basically members of the religion or faith that pay money into the system (like paying an insurance premium) and they elect a board that basically evaluates each claim and pays or doesn't pay it, either partially or in full. While this is a nice way to get your bills paid, odds are it won't cover your $300,000 cancer treatment or your $50,000 cesarean section birth.\"","Yes. The S-Corp can deduct up to the amount it actually incurred in expenses. If your actual expenses to build the carport were $1000, then the $1000 would be deductible, and your business should be able to show $1000 in receipts or inventory changes. Note you cannot deduct beyond your actual expenses even if you would normally charge more. For example, suppose you invoiced the non-profit $2000 for the carport, and once the bill was paid you turned around and donated the $2000 back to the non-profit. In that case you would be deducting $1000 for your cost + $2000 donation for a total of $3000. But, you also would have $2000 in income so in the end you would end up with a $1000 loss which is exactly what your expenses were to begin with. It would probably be a good idea to be able to explain why you did this for free. If somehow you personally benefit from it then it could possibly be considered income to you, similar to if you bought a TV for your home with company funds. It would probably be cleaner from an accounting perspective if you followed through as described above- invoice the non-profit and then donate the payment back to them. Though not necessary, it could lesson any doubt about your motives.","I understand that if I have multiple health insurance policies, I can only make claim from only one of them if ever I incur medical expenses (I'm from the Philippines). In the US, you cannot simultaneously submit a claim for payment of a medical bill, or request reimbursement for a bill already paid, to multiple insurance companies, but if you are covered by more than one policy, then any part of a claim not paid by one company can be submitted to another company that is also covering you. In fact, if you have employer-paid or employer-provided coverage, most insurance companies will want your employer-provided insurance company to be billed first, and will cover whatever is not paid by the employer coverage. For example, if the employer coverage pays 80% of your doctor's bill, the private insurance will pay the remaining 20%. But, the private insurance policies are also quite expensive. Some professional groups in the US offer major medical coverage to their US members, and might be offering this to non-US members as well (though I suspect not). These policies have large deductibles so that coverage kicks in only when the total medical expenses in that year (whether wholly or partially reimbursed, or not reimbursed at all) exceed the large deductible. These types of policies actually pay out to only a few people - if you have more than, say, $20,000 of medical expenses in a year, you have been quite ill, and thus the premiums are usually much smaller than full-fledged coverage insurance policies which pay out much more frequently because of much smaller deductibles.","There are several insurance products that I buy for legal reasons: Both of these protect me from lawsuits and fines. Many people buy similar products to protect their business operations. (e.g. medical malpractice insurance) There are some insurance products I buy for tax planning and financial planning purposes: I have a large amount of savings available, so I have several tricks to reduce my insurance costs, and I have several products that I avoid. Several of these reasons are mentioned in other answers, but I thought I would collect them into a single answer to demonstrate that there are reasons other than the rational calculation of what the payout will be for the insurance products vs. the premium paid. If I gain access to a tax advantaged Health savings account, that is a bigger benefit to me than avoiding the premium, especially when my employer is paying the majority of the premium. Perhaps it makes no sense to buy insurance given sufficient savings (like the products I listed that make no sense for me given my finances) but not everyone can self-insure; it does require a certain level of wealth.",">Hey, sole proprietorships called A sole proprietorship could incorporate as a Single Member LLC and elect to be taxed as a corporation. But you would still be subject to both sides of the FICA/Medicare taxes. >and they're going to suck out five percent MORE of my GROSS How exactly does a LLC suck out 5% more of your gross? >your payroll costs go through the roof. Again, payroll expenses are generally tax deductible. I'm just trying to help you here.","\"Yes, it's normal. If you \"\"buy\"\" your own disability insurance with after tax money, any payout you get is non taxable. If your employer \"\"buys\"\" your disability insurance with their own money, any payout you get is taxable. Since the payout is not 100% of your pre-disability income, most folks strongly prefer that the payout be non taxable. To achieve this, I pay the premiums on behalf of my employees (including myself) and then add that premium to their salary as a taxable benefit. In effect I paid it to them, then took it from them and used it to buy the insurance. (It has no impact on my corporate taxes since I can either deduct premiums or salaries, same either way.) This ensures they won't pay tax if they should collect. And I have had people collect, and it was non-taxable to them.\"","\"I know this is a little late but here is my answer. No. You do not \"\"need\"\" to incorporate. In fact, incorporating in your situation will cost you in legal fees, administrative headaches, and a fair bit in taxes. The CRA would probably look at your corporation as a personal services corporation and it would not be allowed to claim a number of tax reductions. The tax rate would end up being over the top range (unless you are in Quebec where it would be just under the top marginal range).\"","\"If you use \"\"a room or other separately identifiable space\"\" within your apartment exclusively for your business, then you might be able to recoup a fraction of your rent for that. Check the rules for home office at the IRS and adopt a consistent and well-documented approach. (I would pay your full rent out of your personal account, and then do an \"\"expense report\"\" for the portion that's legitimately business related, but that's not a unique approach.) Other than that, I agree with the answer by litteadv - You cannot reduce your tax by the full amount of your rent just by having the S Corp pay, and trying to do so is probably playing with fire. Generally speaking, don't comingle business and personal expenses like that.\"","Well you've got to think about the process, but first make sure the thing you want to pay for is actually a qualified dependent care expense. Here is a list of eligible expenses from a national FSA administrator. This process will tie up your money for some amount of time. Your deduction will come out like clockwork. But there is a time-delay of potentially months between your deduction and receipt of a reimbursement. Dependent care plans are money-in money-out. You can only file a reimbursement on funds that have actually been contributed, which is different than a medical FSA. Additionally, you can only file a claim on expenses that have actually been incurred. Dependent care FSA elections can be changed through the year on an as needed basis. This would add an administrivia burden to the person running your payroll, and if there is a payroll vendor in place, likely an actual cost. The administrator in this situation would likely be the company. In the formalities of employee benefits there must always be a named administrator. If your employer currently offers no benefits you should press healthcare first. Paying healthcare premiums pretax would likely save you more money and be less administration than this. Additionally, if your employer is paying for or reimbursing you for your individual health insurance that's currently illegal under the ACA.","Gifts from your parents are not treated as income for tax purposes. You should not include that in your subsidy calculation. If you are here on a student-visa and have been in the US for less than 5 years, then you are considered a non-resident alien, and you are not required to buy a qualified plan through the insurance marketplace. You might be able to get a cheaper student plan through your school, but the subsidy might be enough that it's still worth it when calculated correctly. If you are a resident-alien or you are a citizen of the US, then you are required to get coverage, though you can choose not to purchase coverage and pay the tax for not having creditable coverage. That tax cannot be collected by the IRS unless you have already had federal tax withheld. They can only confiscate your tax return money to recoup that money. I don't have enough information to recommend one way or the other what you should do, but I would bet that if you recalculated your subsidy without including your parents income it would cover the majority of the cost. You should also consider applying for Medicaid if you meet the eligibility requirements in your state.","Having an EIN does not make the LLC a corporation -- your business can have an EIN even when treated like a sole proprietorship. An EIN is required to have a Individual 401(k), for example. But you can still be an LLC, taxed as a sole proprietor, and have a 401(k). You would need to file a Form 2553 with the IRS to elect S Corporation status. If you don't do that, you're still treated as a disregarded LLC. Whether or not you should make the election is another question.","\"I don't think so. There is a provision in ObamaCare called \"\"community rating\"\" that applies starting in 2014. Insurance companies must place individual and small group plans into a pool of people from the same geographical region. The same plan must cost the same for all small businesses from the same region. So having employees who have high costs will not significantly affect the company's cost; it will get factored into the cost for all people in the area; but the effect gets averaged out over all businesses and individuals who have plans.\"","I'll just re-post my comment as an answer as i disagree with Michael Pryor. According to this article (and few others) you may save money by incorporating. These factors don’t change the general payroll tax advantage of an S corporation, however: A S corporation can often save business owners substantial amounts of payroll tax if the business profit greatly exceeds what the business needs to pay owners for their work.","\"This is actually quite a complicated issue. I suggest you talk to a properly licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Legal advice (from an attorney licensed in your State) is also highly recommended. There are many issues at hand here. Income - both types of entities are pass-through, so \"\"earnings\"\" are taxed the same. However, for S-Corp there's a \"\"reasonable compensation\"\" requirement, so while B and C don't do any \"\"work\"\" they may be required to draw salary as executives/directors (if they act as such). Equity - for S-Corp you cannot have different classes of shares, all are the same. So you cannot have 2 partners contribute money and third to contribute nothing (work is compensated, you'll be getting salary) and all three have the same stake in the company. You can have that with an LLC. Expansion - S-Corp is limited to X shareholders, all of which have to be Americans. Once you get a foreign partner, or more than 100 partners - you automatically become C-Corp whether you want it or not. Investors - it would be very hard for you to find external investors if you're a LLC. There are many more things to consider. Do not make this decision lightly. Fixing things is usually much more expensive than doing them right at the first place.\"","\"I'm going to take a very crude view of this: Suppose that you have an event that would cost $100,000 if it occurred. If there's a 10% chance that it'll happen to you and the insurance costs less than $10,000, you'll make a profit \"\"on average.\"\" This is, of course, assuming that you could afford a $100,000 loss. If you can't, the actual loss could be much higher (or different). For example, if you couldn't afford surgery because you didn't have health insurance, it could be a lot more \"\"costly\"\" in a way that could be difficult to compare to the $100,000. Obviously, this is a very simplistic view of things. For example, making more than you paid on the premium typically isn't the only reason you'd buy insurance (even if you're high net worth). Just wanted to throw this out there for what it's worth though.\"","I like HSAs. My employer had one for one year, but then took it away. Money you put into an HSA is tax-advantaged, you can invest it however you want, it can be used for healthcare if you need it, and you can stop adding to it at any time. You're healthy now, but it's likely there will be a time when you're not, and then it would be nice to have money already available.","\"It is definitely legal, however none of such expenses will be allowed as a tax deduction for the corporation. Basically, you'll end up paying more to maintain the entity and pay taxes on its income (the rent you're paying to yourself as a corporation) at corporate rates, for no apparent benefit. Being the director/executive in the corporation will make you liable for whatever the corporation is liable, so liability isn't going away. The reason corporation is considered \"\"limited liability\"\" for owners is because shareholders are shielded from the corporate liability. Not directors or executives (which are explicitly not shielded).\"","\"Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase \"\"pass-through\"\" insurance from. What you're describing is a self-funded plan. In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc. In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant. Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime. The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people. These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues. A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year. Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated. Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums. Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement. The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums. Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement. Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance. In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained. The employer sets up a claims checking account. The TPA has draft authority on the account. The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member. Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity. This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend. I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture. Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year? And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person. I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month. So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit. Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot. A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women? Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years? Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years? A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year. Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired? A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims. They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything. I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on.\"","The idea is that the premiums (or costs) associated with the plan are a business expense, you know that already. The distinction here is that employees don't pay premiums, they elect to contribute. The company sponsors a plan, the employees then choose to accept less salary in order to participate in the employer's plan. The idea is that you're foregoing income. Why is the employee not taxed on this cost? One major reason is that the employee has no say in, and often no idea, what the gross costs are (some find out if they ever receive COBRA election paperwork). There are more benefits than strict healthcare that are Section 125 eligible. The government has a vested interest in keeping the population healthy, and when the ERISA laws and Section 125 were written it was (and still is) a pretty low friction way to get health insurance out to more people. At this point, taking away the tax break from the employees would be a huge government take away from most of the population. Try to get a politician to take something away from taxpayers. Why doesn't the deduction exist in kind to people buying individual coverage? Ask your legislators. There are thousands of preferential tax treatment oddities, where some industry will get some sort of benefit or break. I'm not sure what leads you to think there needs to be some supremely logical reason for this oddity to exit.","This probably is a question that belongs on History but here's the basic reason: the or Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 established that health benefits under approved plans were not taxable to the employee. If the employer were to pay for an employees non ERISA approved individual plan, it would be a taxable benefit. The longer story is that many polticians (esp. President Richard Nixon) were concerned that public pressure was going to lead public sentiment toward nationalized health care. This made health insurance more affordable to employees and effectively made it a cheaper way to compensate employees similar to how 401K contributions are worth more (in nominal terms) to the employee than an equivalent amount of cash. While the law was not signed by Richard Nixon due to some other stuff that was going on, it was something proposed and pushed by his administration.","I think you are overcomplicating the scenario by assuming a benefit that doesn't exist. Assume an employee earns 50k, before considering the MSP. The corporation wants to cover the MSP. They have two options: increase the salary to $50,900, or keep the salary the same and pay for the MSP directly. Both options increase the employee's taxable income by $900. Both options decrease the corporation's income by $900. Net tax for each is unchanged. *Note - I couldn't find any specific reference to the MSP in income tax documentation on either BC Finance's or CRA's website. I am assuming that it is treated as a regular cash benefit, though I am not 100% convinced this is the case. If I am wrong in this please provide a comment below.","I heard that a C-Corp being a one person shop (no other employees but the owner) can pay for the full amount 100% of personal rent if the residence is being used as a home office. Sure. Especially if you don't mind being audited. Technically, it doesn't matter how the money gets where it goes as long as the income tax filings accurately describe the tax situation. But the IRS hates it when you make personal expenses from a business account, even if you've paid the required personal income tax (because their computers simply aren't smart enough to keep up with that level of chaos). Also, on a non-tax level, commingling of business and personal funds can reduce the effectiveness of your company's liability protection and you could more easily become personally liable if the company goes bankrupt. From what I understand the 30% would be the expense, and the 70% profit distribution. I recommend you just pay yourself and pay the rent from your personal account and claim the allowed deductions properly like everyone else. Why & when it would make sense to do this? Are there any tax benefits? Never, because, no. You would still have to pay personal income tax on your 70% share of the rent (the 30% you may be able to get deductions for but the rules are quite complicated and you should never just estimate). The only way to get money out of a corporation without paying personal income tax is by having a qualified dividend. That's quite complicated - your accounting has to be clear that the money being issued as a qualified dividend came from an economic profit, not from a paper profit resulting from the fact that you worked hard without paying yourself market value.","Yeah, me too, as I said. Actually what I'd really prefer is single payer, but failing that, getting health insurance separated from employment would be a big step forward. If people really knew how much they are paying for health insurance, things would change. I've never worked for an employer that didn't renegotiate health insurance every year, often changing insurance providers every year. To the extent that HR departments are competent in finding the best value, the current environment is pretty dynamic and competitive. Are individuals going to be as competent and well informed as HR departments? I don't know, but I do know that simply making a market free doesn't guarantee lower prices if consumers are ill-informed and bad at making decisions. As for wages, currently companies are not required to carry health insurance, and many have dropped it already without increasing wages, so I don't see an upward pressure on wages from greater employee mobility. But it's true that if there were a single large pool for insurance to be based off of, large businesses would no longer get the pool advantage of health insurance over small businesses. Hence my preference for single-payer, or single-group/multi-payer.","Another source of insurance can be through the working spouses employment. Some companies do provide free or low cost coverage for spouses without a need for a physical exam. The risk is that it might not be available at the amount you want, and that if the main spouse switches companies it might not be available with the new employer. A plus is that if there is a cost it is only a one year commitment. Term insurance is the way to go. It is simple to purchase, and not complex to understand. Sizing is key. You may need to provide some level of coverage until the youngest child is in high school or college. Of course the youngest child might not have been born yet. The longer the term, the higher the cost to account for the inflation during the period of the insurance. If the term expires, but the need still exists, it is possible to get another policy but the cost of the new term policy will be higher because the insured is older. If there are special needs children involved the amount and length may need to be increased due to the increased costs and duration of need. Don't forget to periodically review the insurance situation to make sure your need haven't changed so much a new level of insurance would be needed.","Of course not. You had another job for which you earned money. What does the corporation have to do with it? Corporation is a separate entity from your person, and since it was in no way involved in the transaction - there's no justification to funnel money through it. Doing so may pierce the corporate veil and expose you to liability which you created the corporation to shield yourself from. Not to mention the tax evasion, which is the reason you are asking the question to begin with....","\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"","Here's a good rule of thumb. In any situation where you are required to purchase insurance (Auto Liability, Property Mortgage Insurance, etc.) you can safely assume that you aren't the primary beneficiary. You are being required to buy that insurance to protect someone else's investment."],"string":"[\n \"The answer seems to depend on where you live. Perhaps you already found this, but the summary from the IRS is: The insurance laws in some states do not allow a corporation to purchase group health insurance when the corporation only has one employee. Therefore, if the shareholder was the sole corporate employee, the shareholder had to purchase his health insurance in his own name. The IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which ruled that under certain situations the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction even if the health insurance policy was purchased in the name of the shareholder. Notice 2008-1 provided four examples, including three examples in which the shareholder purchased the health insurance and one in which the S corporation purchased the health insurance. Notice 2008-1 states that if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name and paid for it with his own funds, the shareholder would not be allowed an above-the-line deduction. On the other hand, if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name but the S corporation either directly paid for the health insurance or reimbursed the shareholder for the health insurance and also included the premium payment in the shareholder’s W-2, the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction. The bottom line is that in order for a shareholder to claim an above-the-line deduction, the health insurance premiums must ultimately be paid by the S corporation and must be reported as taxable compensation in the shareholder’s W-2. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/S-Corporation-Compensation-and-Medical-Insurance-Issues I understand this to mean that you can only get the deduction in your case (having purchased it in your own name) if your state does not allow your S-Corp to purchase a group health plan because you only have one employee. (I don't know specifically if Illinois fits that description or not.) In addition, there are rules about reporting health insurance premiums for taxes for S-Corp share members that you should also check. Personally, I think that it's complicated enough that advice from a CPA or other tax advisor specific to your situation would be worth the cost.\",\n \"I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business.\",\n \"\\\"No, not on schedule C, better. Its an \\\"\\\"above the line\\\"\\\" deduction (line 29 on your 1040). Here's the turbo tax article on it. The instructions for this line set certain limitations that you must take into the account, and yes - it is limited to the net profit from the business. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2. The insurance plan must be established under your business. Your personal services must have been a material income-producing factor in the business. If you are filing Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, the policy can be either in your name or in the name of the business.\\\"\",\n \"Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).\",\n \"The tax incentives for employer sponsored health insurance were designed to incentivize employers to provide the insurance and for employees to purchase the insurance. Since your situation does not meet the requirements to take advantage of this incentive, you can not. In the near future you should be able to take part in the government sponsored exchanges. This may spur changes in how this works.\",\n \"\\\"You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you \\\"\\\"lose\\\"\\\" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near the bottom) though there are some exceptions. Nor can health care insurance premiums be paid from an FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too. You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter. Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars. I would doubt that you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does. As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan.\\\"\",\n \"While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all.\",\n \"I think that mbhunter hit the nail on the head regarding your question. I just want to add that having a policy that isn't sponsored by your employer is a good idea... employer policies are regulated by the federal government via ERISA. Independent policies are state regulated, and usually have better protections. Also, look for a policy that allows you to increase your coverage later without medical qualification so you don't need to overbuy insurance initially.\",\n \"The answer likely depends a bit on which state you are in, but this should be true for most states. I don't know anything about Pennsylvania specifically unfortunately. The Affordable Care Act created the SHOP marketplace, which allows small businesses to effectively form larger groups for group coverage purposes. SHOP stands for Small Business Health Options Program, and requires only one common-law employee on payroll. This would effectively allow you to offer group coverage without having a group. Talk to your tax accountant for more details, as this is still very new and not necessarily well understood. There are some other options, all of which I would highly suggest talking to a tax accountant about as well. HRAs (health reimbursement accounts) allow the employer to set aside pre-tax funds for the employee to use for approved medical expenses; they're often managed by a benefits company (say, Wageworks, Conexis, etc.). That would allow your employee to potentially pick a higher deductible health plan which offers poorer coverage on the individual marketplace (with after-tax dollars) and then supplement with your HRA. There are also the concept of Employer Payment Plans, where the employer reimburses the employee for their insurance premiums, but those are not compatible with the ACA for the most part - although there seems to be a lot of disagreement as to whether it's possible to have something effectively the same work, see for example this page versus this for example.\",\n \"As others have pointed out, post-tax dollars are what you'll use. Just as a quick note, as you'll be using post-tax dollars; in the past, I've refused to take contractor plans because they almost always are inferior to what I've been able to get off the private exchange ehealthinsurance. A few people have written excellent articles on Get Rich Slowly here and here about them in detail if you want more information. Generally, contractors (and sometimes employees) are offered a few plans (3-4), and this health exchange gives you a little more freedom to pick your plan, which in your situation may help. It isn't always cheaper, but depending on your needs, you may obtain a better deal. Forgot to add this: this option has also made switching jobs easy as well since I don't have to pay COBRA. While it depends on the situation, this can sometimes come out significantly cheaper. For instance, if I were to take the employer health plan next year, I would lose ~$450 a month, whereas the private exchange option is ~$300. But, if I were to switch jobs, decide to opt for self-employment, or a layoff, the COBRA would be even higher than ~$450.\",\n \"There are many aspects to consider in deciding what sort of company you want to form. Instead of an S-corporation, you should determine whether it would be better to form a Limited Liability Company (LLC), Limited Partnership (LP) or even a professional company (PC). Littleadv is correct: There is minimal benefit in forming an S-corp with you and your wife as the shareholders, if you will be the only contributor-worker. There are costs associated with an S-corporation, or any corporation, that might outweigh benefits from more favorable tax treatment, or personal protection from liability: Filing fees and disclosure rules vary from state to state. For example, my father was a cardiologist who had no employees, other than my grandmother (she worked for free), in a state with income taxes (NM). He was advised that a PC was best in New Mexico, while an S-Corp was better in Florida (there are no personal income taxes in Florida). The only way to know what to do requires that you consult an accountant, a good one, for guidance.\",\n \"\\\"The basic idea is that the average person can't deduct health care costs unless they're really onerous. But a business can, and as a self-employed person, you can deduct those costs from the businesses earnings... as long as the business is really generating enough profit to cover the health insurance costs. That's why most people get their health insurance from their employer, actually. The relevant IRS rules say: \\\"\\\"You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for you, your spouse, and your dependents if you are... A self-employed individual with a net profit reported on Schedule C (Form 1040).\\\"\\\" For 2010, thanks to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, you can even deduct the premium from your income before deducting the self-employment tax (Source). I'm sure that when you get your tax returns and instructions for 2010 this will all be spelled out.\\\"\",\n \"Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.\",\n \"I think you're misunderstanding how S-Corp works. Here are some pointers: I suggest you talk with a EA/CPA licensed in your state and get yourself educated on what you're getting yourself into.\",\n \"While I can't say how it is in the Philippines, my wife the insurance broker leads me to believe that individual insurance is more expensive than group coverages in the US almost always. So much so that people will go to great extents to form any sort of business just to insure themselves. If however it is cheaper, can't you simply opt out of your employer's plan? If you can opt out, will your employer give you any of the money they aren't paying for your insurance? If you can't opt out, or if you paycheck doesn't grow, I can't see why you would want additional coverage especially at such a young age. Should you lose your job in the near future and you worry about, go get the insurance then. EDIT One big advantage is if you get personal insurance, you might need to get an exam to qualify, and it is likely the younger you are the better you will qualify. But again, you already have insurance that covers you so I would advise keeping the group policy is probably better.\",\n \"Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29.\",\n \"Basically a company who provides health insurance for their employees provides it as part of the employee's salary package. This is an expense by the company in its pursuit of making income. In general, tax deductions are available on any expense incurred in deriving income (the exception is when social policy allows deductions for other types of expenses). If you pay for your own health insurance individually, then this expense is not an expense for you to derive your income, and as such is not tax deductible.\",\n \"The best way to do this is to pay for the entire car, including gas, insurance, and repairs, from S-corp funds, then meticulously track how many miles are used for personal and how many miles for business. If you pay with S-corp funds, you will claim the personal miles as a taxable benefit from the S-corp on your personal return. The S-corp can then claim all the expenses and depreciation on the vehicle, reducing the S-corp's tax liability.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you can. See the instructions for line 29 of form 1040. Self employed health insurance premiums are an \\\"\\\"above the line\\\"\\\" deduction.\\\"\",\n \"http://www.ehow.com/about_4625753_cobra-as-selfemployed-health-insurance.html This link makes it clear... it has to be itemized, and is subject to the > than 7.5% AGI rule.\",\n \"Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you should budget some amount of your emergency fund for healthcare expenses. How much you budget is really dependent on your particular anticipated costs. Be aware that health insurance likely costs significantly more than your employer charges you for access to its plan. Since healthcare reform mandated guaranteed issue individual coverage you will have the ability to buy individual coverage for you and, if applicable, your family. When buying individual coverage you have essentially two choices, your decision hinges on whether or not you'd qualify for a premium subsidy. If your AGI is below 400% of the poverty line you'll be able to receive subsidized coverage at a state or federal health insurance exchange. If the subsidy is not meaningful to you, or you wouldn't qualify, you can buy an \\\"\\\"off exchange\\\"\\\" plan offered either directly through a carrier or an insurance agent (some insurance agents are also licensed to sell exchange plans though it's somewhat rare). In order to receive subsidized coverage you must buy through a state or federal exchange, or an agent licensed to sell exchange products specifically. If your employer was large enough to be required to offer its plan via COBRA or you live in a state that extends the COBRA requirement to smaller businesses, you can choose that as well. Bear in mind this option is likely to be expensive relative to individual plans. It's becoming a less relevant solution with the advent of guaranteed issue individual coverage. COBRA is not a special type of insurance, it's a mandate that your employer allow you to remain on its plan but pay the full gross premium plus an up to 2% (10% for calCOBRA) administrative fee. Despide popular vernacular, there is no such thing as Obamacare or ACA coverage. Obamacare reshaped the insurance market. The ACA outlines certain minimum coverage requirements, generally referred to as \\\"\\\"Minimum Essential Coverage.\\\"\\\" While employers and plans are not \\\"\\\"required\\\"\\\" to meet all of these coverage requirements there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. The single exception to this is grandfathered plans which can still sidestep a few of the requirements. The penalty is harsh enough that it's not worth the cost of offering a non-compliant plan. Whether you buy coverage through a state or federal exchange, through an insurance agent, or via your employer's COBRA program you will have \\\"\\\"ACA\\\"\\\" coverage (unless on the off chance your employer's plan doesn't check the \\\"\\\"Minimum Essential Coverage\\\"\\\" box). So generally all plans available to you will have $0 preventive coverage, pregnancy benefits, cancer treatment benefits etc. Another thing to consider is your entire family doesn't need to be on the same plan. If your family is healthy with the exception of one child, you can purchase $0 deductible coverage for the one child and higher deductible more catastrophic plan for the remainder of your family. In fact you could choose COBRA for one child and purchase individual coverage for the remainder of the family. The things to consider when you face a lay-off: I tried to mitigate my use of \\\"\\\"all\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"always\\\"\\\" because there are some narrow exceptions to these requirements, such as the \\\"\\\"Hobby Lobby\\\"\\\" decision allowing closely held organizations with highly religious owners the ability to remove certain contraception benefits. Understand that these exceptions are rare and not available to individual plans.\\\"\",\n \"I see a lot of people making the mistake or being given bad advise in structuring a new business. If you have more than one shareholder, then by all means an S Corporation is a better structure for lower taxes; avoid double taxation. If, however, this is a one shareholder S Corp, then you had better 1099 yourself as a consultant or look into sole proprietorship. The tax benefits are much better either way. Dr. Suraiya Shaik Ali\",\n \"S-Corp income is passed through to owners and is taxed on their 1040 as ordinary income. If you take a wage (pay FICA) and then take additional distributions these are not subject to FICA. A lot of business owners will buy up supplies/ necessary expenses right before the end of the tax year to lower their tax liability.\",\n \"\\\"Many answers here have given what look to be useful perspectives on your question. I want to point out an interesting technical issue. If an employer contracts with an insurer, it agrees to cover all employees (or all that fill some pre-specified definition and no one else), and to offer only a limited range of options. If you buy insurance directly, you obviously have a huge range of choices, including the (technically illegal) one of no insurance at all. Your first thought is probably, \\\"\\\"Hey, that's great! More options, more chances to pick the plan that's right for me.\\\"\\\" Sorry, no. Yes, you have more options, but so does everyone else. If you are working for some large company, you get insurance, period. If you suspect you have an expensive health condition, you cannot buy more insurance; if you believe yourself to be healthy as a horse, you cannot get skimpier insurance and pocket the difference. Healthy people and sick people are all in the same predictable pool. If you buy insurance freely, the insurer knows that the sicker you are, the more likely you are buy insurance, a phenomenon called adverse selection. As a result, the premiums (fees) a person buying his own insurance pays are much higher, because most of his fellow policy-holders are sickly -- even if he himself is just risk-averse. On the other hand, if you are risk-neutral, if you can survive a $10,000 bill if it happens to arise, you can save big by finding the skimpiest imaginable insurance, where all your fellow policy-holders will be hale and healthy people like yourself.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Like most forms of insurance, health insurance is regulated at the state level. So what is available to you will depend greatly upon which state you live in. You can probably find a list of insurance companies from your state's official website. Many states now provide \\\"\\\"insurance of last resort\\\"\\\" for individuals who can't get insurance through private insurance companies. You can try looking into professional and trade associations. Some offer group insurance plans comparable with COBRA coverage, meaning you'd get a group discount and benefits but without the benefit of an employer paying 30-80% of your premiums. As a software developer you may qualify for membership in the IEEE or ACM, which both offer several forms of insurance to members. The ASP also offers insurance, though they don't provide much information about it on the public portions of their website. These organization offer other benefits besides insurance so you may want to take that in to consideration. The National Federation of Independent Business also offers insurance to members. You may find other associations in your specific area. Credit Unions, Coops and the local chamber of commerce are all possible avenues of finding lower cost insurance options. If you are religious there are even some faith based non-insurance organizations that provide medical cost sharing services. They depend upon the generosity and sense of fairness and obligation of their members to share the burden of medical expenses so their definitely not for everyone.\\\"\",\n \"FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.\",\n \"Basically, no. You have retirement plan options and can either go with a Roth option, which won't change your current tax burden, or go with a traditional plan, which is tax deductible but won't change your business deductions or self-employment taxes. This article has an explanation of options for setting up SEP or Solo 401k plans. Key quote for all the pre-tax retirement plans: Because pre-tax employer and employee contributions are deducted in the same way, neither one is more tax-efficient than the other. The article goes on to say that if you were an S Corp or LLC that elected to be taxed as an S Corp, a Solo 401(k) plan would allow the business to make an employer contribution to your 401(k) and even then there's no tax advantage to the employer contribution. Conclusion for S-corps: [Employer contributions] would reduce the amount of income from the S-corporation that would be passed through to you as the owner, thereby reducing your income tax. But, because this income is not subject to payroll taxes in the first place, these contributions will not reduce your payroll taxes.\",\n \"\\\"Am I on crack, or do the perceived tax savings via S-Corp distributions really not matter at a certain level of business income? You're not on crack. Generally, if all the income is generated by your own personal services - this is the outcome. The benefit of S-Corp is when you have employees who generate your income, and you distribute to yourself profits that come out of other's personal services. In this case your distributions are exempt from FICA since it is not in fact a self-employment income. You'd still have to pay yourself a reasonable salary for your position (as a manager/officer), but it wouldn't have to cover all of the available profits. So if the IRS takes a position against you it would be that your salary should be to include the whole profits, since it is the compensation to you for the personal services that produced the income to the corporation (you). In many cases they might agree that a salary at the SS maximum limit would be reasonable - but that's only a speculation of mine. In that case you might gain some portion of the medicare tax (with the recent law changes at the levels you're talking about you'll pay some medicare anyway). There are a lot of accountants who take more aggressive position saying that not all of the distributions are liable for SE taxes, even if you're the sole employee of the corporation. These cases often end up in the Tax Court, and whatever the outcome, your legal fees become higher than the FICA savings. What is probably missing in your picture is the SS limit of (currently $112K) above which you don't pay social security tax, so whether you get it as a salary or as a distribution - that limit is the same. That is why you don't see a significant difference. I know there are a lot of accountants who'd disagree, but I would argue that for a sole employee of your company, S-Corp doesn't provide significant benefits over the disregarded LLC taxation, but has some additional overhead that adds to your expenses. Here's a link to a lawyer's blog where he suggests (and says many accountants follow) 60/40 division between salary and distributions. I.e.: his take, similarly to mine, is that most of the earnings have to be treated as salary. In your case, when the total is about 300K - you indeed will not get any FICA savings with such a division other than some of the medicare. Unusually low wages when compared to distributions can draw unwanted IRS scrutiny and an audit. An unfavorable audit will likely result in some portion of the distributions being reclassified as earned income for federal income tax purposes, which results in a deficiency assessment (i.e., a tax bill), interest on those unpaid taxes, and IRS penalties. The article also talks about the Watson case (one of the Tax Court cases I referred to), which can be used as the guidelines for determining the \\\"\\\"reasonable\\\"\\\" compensation. Talk to your tax adviser. I'm neither a tax adviser nor a tax professional. For a tax advice contact a CPA/EA licensed in your state. This is not a tax advice, just my personal opinion.\\\"\",\n \"An S-corp doesn't pay income tax -- taxation is pass-through. This being the case, there are no tax deductions it could take for charitable giving. The solution would be for you to make the contribution out of your own pocket and then personally claim the deduction on your own taxes.\",\n \"It is illegal. Coverage has a lot of minimum requirements. What has really hurt Obamacare is that it groups those that were formerly uninsured, with those that don't have employer insurance. It turns out those that were previously uninsured (often very poor) are very expensive to insure. So that has forced up premiums on everyone else. The link of health insurance to employment in the US is to blame. The sooner everyone is forced to buy their own insurance, and then preferably the government offers medicare buy in for all, the sooner the system can be cleaned up.\",\n \"\\\"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are \\\"\\\"we\\\"\\\"? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the policy of our company. For example: \\\"\\\"Every two months profits get divided 50/50\\\"\\\" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean. Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc.\\\"\",\n \"Health insurance is tough, as you know, because the offerings vary dramatically by State, and there is the added complication of the Affordable Care Act, which depending on where and who you are has had either a good or bad impact on the available options. If you are a sole proprietor or other business person, I'd advise talking to someone at a local chamber of commerce. Also, professional organizations like the IEEE or ACM (for IT professionals) often offer catastrophic medical or other health plans. Some employer plans give you the option to continue coverage at a higher cost when COBRA lapses as well. If you can't afford a comprehensive plan, make sure to get something to protect you against pre-existing conditions or hospitalization.\",\n \"I was in your situation a few years ago and I discovered something that worked perfectly for me - a local health insurance broker. I met with her, discussed my needs, reviewed the options with her, then acted. She received a commission from the insurer, so it cost me nothing. I would certainly follow a similar approach again.\",\n \"For the first four months of the year, when you were an employee, the health insurance premiums were paid for with pre-tax money. When you receive your W-2 at the end of the year, the amount in Box 1 of the W-2 will be reduced by the amount you paid for health insurance. You can't deduct it on your tax return because it has already been deducted for you. Now that you are a 1099 independent contractor, you are self-employed and eligible for the self-employed health insurance deduction. However, as you noted, the COBRA premiums are likely not eligible for this deduction, because the policy is in your old employer's name. See this question for details, but keep in mind that there are conflicting answers on that question.\",\n \"Why not personal responsibility? Get paid *then* provide the service. It's what small business owners do every day without the help of government or the protection of a large corporation. Individuals comply with safety regulations to protect themselves. If you need a corporation to do it for you, expect to make less. If you can do it yourself, expect to make more as an entrepreneur.\",\n \"Pre tax insurance is not possible unless the emplyer provides hsa and do a payroll deduction. Obamacare is all post tax and you can do deduction if your expenses exceeds 10%of your income\",\n \"\\\"I am very late to this forum and post - but will just respond that I am a sole proprietor, who was just audited by the IRS for 2009, and this is one of the items that they disallowed. My husband lost his job in 2008, I was unable to get health insurance on my own due to pre-existing ( not) conditions and so we had to stay on the Cobra system. None of the cost was funded by the employer and so I took it as a SE HI deduction on Line 29. It was disallowed and unfortunately, due to AGI limits, I get nothing by taking it on Sch. A. The auditor made it very clear that if the plan was not in my name, or the company's name, I could not take the deduction above the line. In his words, \\\"\\\"it's not fair, but it is the law!\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"I think I may have figured this out but if someone could double check my reasoning I'd appreciate it. So if my company makes $75000 and I decide to pay myself a $30000 salary, then the quarterly payment break down would be like this: 1040ES: Would pay income tax on non salary dividend ($45000) 941: Would pay income tax, SS, medicare on salary ($30000) (I'm the only person on payroll) So I think this answers my question in that after switching from filing as LLC to S-corp, I won't have to pay as much on 1040ES because some of it will now be covered on payroll.\",\n \"\\\"The biggest problem with this that others seem to have missed is that a corporation must have a profit motive. Meaning at some point after a \\\"\\\"startup phase\\\"\\\" your company needs to turn a profit to not be considered a hobby. Will your employer be paying your corporation for your salary? Is that the company's business endeavor? If you run profits through the company and treat it like a true business, this may be technically possible, but as others have mentioned probably will cost more than any benefits you'd receive. And at every step you'll be throwing tons of audit flags. Rich Dad Poor Dad advocates a light version of this. Essentially running a business like Real Estate through an LLC, and then using that LLC for \\\"\\\"business trips\\\"\\\" (vacation with some justifiable business motive) or capital purchases (laptop, etc...) and the like, such that you're paying with \\\"\\\"Pre-tax\\\"\\\" money instead of \\\"\\\"Post tax\\\"\\\", but again the business needs a revenue source.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I don't know what the OP means when he says I want to invest in health insurance from now on so that I can use the policy after I retire. Generally, a health insurance policy covers costs incurred during the current calendar year (or specific period such as July 1 of one year through June 30 of the next year) and does not cover future periods. Indeed, many policies do not guarantee renewal when the current period ends (with exceptions for employer-provided coverage through COBRA in case employment ends). So investing in a health insurance policy meaning that you pay the premiums now, and the insurance company provides the policy in the distant future is something that is new to me. Besides, what will the policy include? If someone had bought such a policy many years ago, say, before CAT scans and MRI were developed, would the policy cover such new developments? Or the policy would cover only those procedures, tests, and medications that are available when the policy is written and the insurance premiums start to be paid? The long-term health of the insurance company is also of some concern. When something is offered to me with a lifetime guarantee, I skeptically ask, \\\"\\\"My lifetime or the device's life time or the company's lifetime?\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"You can never use a health FSA for individual health insurance premiums. Moreover, FSA plan sponsors can limit what they are will to reimburse. While you can't use a health FSA for premiums, you could previously use a 125 cafeteria plan to pay premiums, but it had to be a separate election from the health FSA. However, under N. 2013-54, even using a cafeteria plan to pay for indivdiual premiums is effectively prohibited.\",\n \"I agree with you 100%! >they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. I think this is exactly what is happening today. > That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance. I believe up until Obamacare, people couldn't. Also, as a general rule a business can claim a tax deduction for the salary, wages, commissions, bonuses, and other compensation it pays to its employees.\",\n \"\\\"It's a tough question, because there is society and individual to consider, and the society's effects on the individual. Currently, employers don't have to provide insurance, they do it to compete in the employee marketplace. Employers have an advantage over employees in that regard, because they can procure insurance at a lower cost that employees can, and they get tax breaks for doing so. Employers providing health insurance get a more stable relationship with their employees, because employees always hold great value in having an employee who provides good benefits. The company I work for provides good benefits, but suppose tomorrow they told me \\\"\\\"Hey Mutatron, we're not providing benefits anymore, but we'll bump your salary to what your benefits are worth, plus enough to compensate for the tax break we get.\\\"\\\" So now, everything is equal to what it was before, but I have to go out and find my own insurance, which is a hassle, but presumably because of the PPACA I can get a good value and carry this insurance with me wherever I go, and never have to mess with changing every time I change jobs. But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. This is the way it works now with the minimum wage. A recent report found that WalMart employees rely on welfare to the tune of [$2.66 billion a year](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net), while the company makes $15 billion in profit. So 18% of Walmart's profits are an indirect subsidy from the US taxpayer, which comes to about $48 per US citizen, or about $208 a year for the top 50% of wage earners. Even so, I think I'd prefer to get my whole compensation package in one shot, all else being equal. That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance.\\\"\",\n \"When in doubt, you should always seek the advice of a professional tax preparer or your accountant. (Many agents/accountants will gladly review your tax preparations to ensure you haven't missed something. That's quicker and cheaper than paying them to do it all.) Having said that... This Illinois resource has detailed information about S-corps: Of relevance to your situation:\",\n \"\\\"In the United States, with an S-Corp, you pay yourself a salary from company earnings. That portion is taxed at an individual rate. The rest of the company earnings are taxed as a corporation, which often have great tax benefits. If you are making over $80K/year, the difference can be substantial. A con is that there is more paperwork and you have to create a \\\"\\\"board\\\"\\\" of advisors.\\\"\",\n \"These are all factually correct claims. S-Corporation is a pass-through entity, so whatever gain you have on the corporate level - is passed to the shareholders. If your S-Corp has capital gains - you'll get your pro-rata share of the capital gains. Interest? The same. Dividends? You get it on your K-1. Earned income? Taxed as such to you. I.e.: whether you earn income as a S-Corp or as a sole proprietor - matters not. That's the answer to your bottom line question. The big issue, however, is this: you cannot have more than 25% passive income in your S-Corp. You pass that limit (three consecutive years, one-off is ok) - your S-Corp automatically converts to C-Corp, and you're taxed at the corporate level at the corporate rates (you then lose the capital gains rates, personal brackets, etc). This means that an S-Corp cannot be an investment company. Most (75%+) of its income has to be earned, not passive. Another problem with S-Corp is that people who work as self-proprietors incorporated as S-Corp try to abuse it and claim that the income they earned by the virtue of their own personal performance shouldn't be taxed as self-employed income. IRS frowns upon such a position, and if considerable amounts are at stake will take you all the way up to the Tax Court to prove you wrong. This has happened before, numerously. You should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA/Attorney licensed in your state) to educate you about what S-Corp is and how it is taxed, and whether or not it is appropriate for you.\",\n \"Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans. You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site: S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp. I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B. The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions: Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions. I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000. Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP. Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help.\",\n \"You could slip and fall in the shower tonight. Or you might never need it. Insurance is a hedge against risk. If the event has already occurred, you're uninsurable. If you and others would suffer if you have a bad accident and can't work, get it now.\",\n \"If the company pays for Group Term Life Insurance, some of that premium payment may be taxable. If memory serves, that's what's included in W-2 Box C. W-2 Box C has no bearing on Schedule C.\",\n \"Because collective bargaining by the gov't and your employer is the only way that we've been able to combat some of the increases. An uninsured individual will be billed 4-10x what your insurance company would pay due to collective bargaining. The largest employers (Cisco, EMC, and others) are self-insured and pay health care providers to administer their plan. SMBs get the short end of the stick and pay much higher rates for less coverage because they don't have economies of scale. A public option would allow any uninsured individual to obtain health care at a reasonable, income-based cost.\",\n \"On topic of Healthcare needs, I think it depend on individual. For example, my employer's dental plan offer PPO $34 per month and DMO $12 per month. I have my favor dentist that I have been going for years. He only accept PPO. I already had most of my dental works done so I only use him for teeth clean. He charge $100 without insurance and free with insurance. I can only use my insurance for teeth clean twice a year so $34x12 = $408 vs $200. If I go with DMO, I won't get to see my doctor and since I get my teeth once a year why not just save that money and go to my favor doctor instead the DMO doctors and if I need major dental works done which isn't immediate. I can go to Taiwan for dental works that is way cheaper than U.S. I think if you're a healthy young man/women. You should put more money toward your retirement and only keep insurance for emergency. You can do a medical tourism mentioned in 60 minutes that can be more cost effective and those doctors are U.S. trained. For older folks, a full Health care insurance is more needed than retirement. Just my two cents.\",\n \"\\\"Be careful of the other answers here. Many are wrong or partially wrong. The question implies that you knew this, but for everyone else's benefit, you can keep you LLC organization and still elect to be treated as a S-Corp by the IRS just for tax purposes. You do this by filing Form 2553 with the IRS. (You can also, by the way, elect to be taxed as a \\\"\\\"regular\\\"\\\" C-Corp if you want, although that's probably not advantageous. See Form 8832.) The advantage of electing to be treated as an S-Corp is that income beyond what constitutes a \\\"\\\"reasonable salary\\\"\\\" are not subject to social security and medicare taxes as they would when paid was wages or counted as self-employment income on Schedule C. Depending on what you need to pay yourself to meet the \\\"\\\"reasonable salary\\\"\\\" test, your overall income, and other factors about your business, this could result in tax savings. Contrary to other answers here, making this election will not force you to create a board of directors. You are still an LLC for all purposes except taxes, so whatever requirements you had in organization and governance at the state level will not change. You will have to file a \\\"\\\"corporate\\\"\\\" tax return on Form 1120S (and likely some corresponding state tax form), so that is additional paperwork, but this \\\"\\\"corporate\\\"\\\" return does not mean the S-Corp pays taxes itself. With a couple of exceptions, the S-Corp pays no taxes directly (and therefore does not pay at the corporate tax rate). Instead the S-Corp apportions its income, expenses, and deductions to the owner(s) on Schedule K. The owners get their portion reported from the S-Corp on Schedule K1 and then include that on their personal Form 1040 to pay tax at their personal rate. In addition to filing Form 1120S, you will have to handle payroll taxes, which will create some additional administrative work and/or cost. Using a payroll service for this will likely be your best option and not terribly expensive. You've also got the issue of determining your reasonable salary within the rules, which is the subject of other questions on this site and other IRS guidance.\\\"\",\n \"If you're creating an S-Corp for consulting services that you personally are going to provide, what would it give her to have 50% of the corporation when you're dead? Not to mention that you can just add it to your will that the corporation stock will go to her, and it will be much better (IMHO, talk to a professional) since she'll be getting stepped-up basis. Why aren't you talking to a professional before making decisions? It doesn't sound like a good way to conduct business.\",\n \"We don't make enough to really consider it a salary, but I've heard using a draw without a salary is a bad idea. As any other illegal action, not paying yourself a reasonable salary when being a corporate officer is indeed a bad idea. I have no idea what I need to do to actually get some money in our pockets. The answer is simple. You need to earn more money. Since it is S-Corp, it doesn't matter if you keep the profits on the corporate account or distribute - the profits will be taxed to you. You are also, as I said above, required by law to pay yourself a reasonable salary. Reasonable meaning corresponding to market rates. Paying a CPA or a Software Engineer a minimum wage will not be reasonable. That is, of course, if you're profitable, you're not required to pay yourself more money than the corporation actually has. Just to be clear, my answer refers to the question asked, and the confusing answer above that made a claim that has no substantiation in the law. I do not intend to write a thesis about pros and cons of using S-Corp every time a question about reasonable salary is asked.\",\n \"In addition to stoj's two good points I'll add a couple more reasons: 3) In some situations there are secondary factors involved that can make it a good deal. These normally amount to cases where you can buy the insurance with pre-tax dollars but would have to pay the bills with post-tax dollars. 4) Insurance companies know much better what things should cost and often have negotiated rates. A rich person would generally be well-served to have health insurance for this very reason.\",\n \"Compared with a Sole Proprietorship, the main disadvantages of an S-Corporation or an LLC are that it adds a lot of management overhead (time, and possibly money if you don't do it all yourself), and there are fees you must pay to incorporate, as well as additional yearly maintenance fees which vary by state. You should be able to weigh the tax savings and liability protection against the extra costs and hassle, and see which way the scales tip. As a rule of thumb, the bigger your business gets or the more income you make, the more attractive incorporating becomes. Note there are some additional taxes that certain jurisdictions impose on business income. For example, IL and CA charge 1.5% tax, NY is less, but NYC is 8.85%! In NYC specifically, you could actually end up paying slightly more tax as an S-Corp than you would as a Sole Proprietorship. In most places though, the nominal local taxes will still be less than the FICA taxes you could potentially save.\",\n \"An LLC or an S corp will result in the same tax obligations because both are pass-through tax entities. An LLC is more flexible for the situation you describe because the member and manager responsibilities can be detailed in the operating agreement. You really should get a business attorney to help you get your operating agreement in order. There's also a startups beta site on Stack Exchange that may be able to help you with questions about ways to handle your operating agreement.\",\n \"\\\"A C-Corp is not a pass-through entity, any applicable taxes would be paid by the Corporation, which is a separate legal entity from yourself. If you use the points to purchase something for yourself, that would constitute \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" to you, and would be taxable on your personal income tax.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \\\"\\\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\\\"\\\", you cannot say \\\"\\\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\\\"\\\", and you can definitely not say \\\"\\\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\\\"\\\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \\\"\\\"advice\\\"\\\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \\\"\\\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\\\"\\\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\\\"\",\n \"Despite the ACA offering generous deductions, a lot of small businesses still cannot afford the initial capital involved in offering health insurance plan to their employees... Therefore we cannot take advantage of these deductions... Putting us at a disadvantage for finding low-to-mid skilled workers, to the larger corporations that are now mandated to offer the benefits..\",\n \"It would depend on the health insurance that was being offered, and if it covers your family or just you. We pay around $500-600 for individual health insurance for our employees (families cost north of 1500 a month). It's extremely expensive. Provide more details on the stock purchase plan as well (it sounds to me like in that case you'd only be getting for free what it would cost to purchase the stock... but that's only $10-15, so negligible in this case.)\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you can make the election to file your LLC as an S-Corp, and Turbo Tax Business can help you with the S-Corp business return. You need to make sure you're set up correctly and there are a lot of things to be aware of. For example, the whole \\\"\\\"reasonable salary\\\"\\\" thing is a can of worms. So while the answer to your question is \\\"\\\"yes, it's manageable, you can do it on your own,\\\"\\\" it might be worthwhile to have a professional help you the first year, make sure it's set up right, and then you can do it on your own in subsequent years.\\\"\",\n \"As a 24 year old, single,your needs for insurance are minimal. Why you might consider it are for these reasons. You are young, so it will be cheaper than buying say at 34. Insurance is always on sale. Two, there is no guarantee that your health will always be good, you may have to pay additional premiums later or even be refused coverage. Ask me, I pay 70% more than others my age for the same coverage. Three, insurance ownership with equity values can grow tax free as you accumulate the monies. Consider it like a bond portfolio offering guaranteed returns on portions of the growth, and a long term return of 5.5% or slighly more. Four, stating sooner versus later means more cash buildup. Just like being in a pension will generate more cash for you by age 65, than if you had started at age 34. Insurance is only one tool in getting a good start. It is not a panacea.\",\n \"\\\"These policies are usually called dread disease policies or critical illness insurance, and they normally aren't a good deal. Furthermore, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, such policies may become less common or disappear entirely. These policies aren't a great deal because of the effects of adverse selection and asymmetric information, two closely related concepts in the economics of insurance. When you purchase an insurance policy, the insurance company charges you a premium based on your average risk level or the average risk level of your risk pool, e.g. you and your fellow employees, if you get insurance through your employer. For health insurance, this average risk level is the average probability that you'll incur healthcare costs. The insurer's actuaries calculate this probability from numerous factors, like your age, sex, current health, socioeconomic status, etc. Asymmetric information exists when you know more about this probability than the insurance company does. For example, you may look like a relatively low-risk individual on paper, but little does the insurance company know, BASE jumping is one of your hobbies. Because you know about your hobby and the insurance company doesn't, you secretly know that your risk of incurring healthcare expenses is much higher than the insurance company expects. If the insurance company knew this, they would like to charge you a much higher premium, if they could. However, they can't, because a) they don't know about your hobby, and b) the premium may be decided for the entire group/risk pool, so they can't increase it simply because a few individuals in the group have higher risk levels. Adverse selection occurs when individuals with higher risk levels are more likely to buy insurance. You may decide that because of your dangerous hobby, you do want to take advantage of your employer's healthcare plan. Unfortunately for the insurance company, they can't adjust their price accordingly. Adverse selection is a major factor in insurance markets, so I didn't go into much detail here (too much detail is probably off-topic anyway). I can point you towards more resources on the topic if you're interested. However, the situation is different when you purchase a dread disease policy. By expressing interest in such a specific policy, e.g. a cancer insurance policy, you signal to the insurance company that you feel you have a higher risk of facing that disease. In your case, you're signaling to the insurance company that your family probably has a history of cancer or that you have habits that make you more susceptible to it, and your premiums will be higher to compensate the insurance company for bearing this additional risk. Since the insurance company already has a rough estimate of your chances of developing that illness, they may already know that you have a higher chance of facing it. However, when you express interest in a disease-specific policy, this signals the existence of asymmetric information (your family history or other habits), and the insurer assumes you know something they don't that elevates your risk level of that specific disease. Since these policies are optional policies often sold as riders to existing policies, the insurance company has more flexibility in pricing them. They can charge you a higher premium because you've signaled to the insurer that you have a significantly above-average risk of contracting a specific disease*. Also, the insurer can do a much better job of estimating the expected costs of insuring you since they need only focus on data surrounding one disease. The policy will be priced accordingly, i.e. in such a way that isn't necessarily beneficial to you. Furthermore, most dread disease policies aren't guaranteed renewable, which means that even if you are willing to keep paying the premiums, the insurance company doesn't have to keep insuring you. As your risk of developing the specific disease grows, e.g. with age, it may pass the point where insuring you is no longer an acceptable risk. The company expects you to develop the illness with the next few renewal cycles, so they decide not to renew your policy. The end result? The insurance company has the premiums you've paid previously, but you no longer have coverage for that illness, and ex post, you've suffered a net loss with no reduction of risk for the foreseeable future. Dread disease policies are changing under the Affordable Care Act. According to healthcare.gov Starting in 2014, ... all new health insurance plans sold to individuals and small businesses, and plans purchased in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, must include a range of essential health benefits. The essential health benefits include quite a few areas of coverage; since this applies to policies offered on the state insurance exchanges and those offered outside of it, dread disease policies wouldn't seem to qualify. For more information, you can read the linked page on healthcare.gov or see Section 1302, subsection b), titled \\\"\\\"Essential Health Benefits Requirements\\\"\\\" in the law itself (p87). I imagine more details will be available on a state-by-state basis through 2014 and into 2015. One legal source (see the discussion on p24) states that: whatever else the ACA does with excepted benefit policies, including specific disease and fixed dollar indemnity policies, it does explicitly provide that such policies do not count as minimum essential coverage for purposes of the ACA This seems pretty straightforward; a dread disease (or \\\"\\\"specific disease\\\"\\\" policy, as it's referred to in the article), won't count towards the minimum essential requirements. This may not be an issue for you, but for others, it's important to understand that you'll still need to pay the penalty if you only purchase one of these policies. The ACA spells this out in Section 5000(f) (see p316, which states that \\\"\\\"excepted benefit policies\\\"\\\" are excluded and defines them using the definition in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). **The PSHA specifically includes \\\"\\\"Coverage only for a specified disease or illness\\\"\\\" in their definition of \\\"\\\"excepted benefit policies\\\"\\\" (see section 2791(b), paragraph 3A on p82, so it's probably a safe bet that such policies won't count towards the minimum. Also, as Rick pointed out in the comments, the Affordable Care Act also forbids lifetime limits on most insurance plans, so assuming you find an insurance policy with adequate coverage for the specific disease you're worried about, such a plan should cover the related expenses without a lifetime limit. Deductibles, annual limits, and other factors may complicate this somewhat. In the section about lifetime limits (Sec. 2711, p2), the Affordable Care Act states that: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish ... lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary. However, the law states in the next paragraph that the preceding statement should not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits that are not essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law The section also contains similarly vague caveats about annual limits, so the actual details and limits may vary once individual states finalize their policies. The law is intentionally vague because the vast majority of the law's implementation is left up to individual states. Furthermore, certain parts of the law specify actions involving the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so these may require further codification in the future too. You should still read the fine print of any insurance policy you buy and evaluate it as you would any contract (see the next section). Since a dread disease policy probably isn't a good idea, you'll probably want to evaluate the healthcare plans offered by your employer or individual plans offered in your area (if your employer doesn't offer coverage). I've tried to include the basic points offered in these articles to give you or future visitors some idea of where to start. These points may change once the Affordable Care Act is implemented, so I'll try to keep them as general as possible. Services - Above and beyond the minimum essential requirements, what services does the plan offer? Are these services a good match for you and/or your family, or do they add unnecessary cost to the premium with little or no benefit? For example, my health insurance plan offers basic dental coverage with a small co-pay, so I don't need a separate dental plan, even though my employer offers one. Choice - What doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. are preferred providers under your plan? Do you need a referral from your primary care doctor to see a specialist, or can you find one on your own? Are the preferred providers convenient for you? In my first year of college (about five years ago), my student health insurance only covered a few hospitals that were in the suburbs and somewhat difficult for me to reach. This is something to keep in mind, depending on where you live. Costs - This is a major one, obviously. Deductibles, copays, maximum cost limits over a year or your lifetime, out-of-network costs, etc. are all variables to consider. There are other factors, but since I don't have a family, other members of the site can provide more detailed information about what to look for in family policies. In place of a dread disease policy, you're likely better off purchasing a comprehensive health insurance policy, perhaps a catastrophic coverage policy with a high deductible that will kick in once you've exhausted your standard insurance policy. However, this may be a moot point since the passage of the Affordable Care Act may significantly reduce the availability of such policies anyway.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You probably don't need S-Corp. There's no difference between what you can deduct on your Schedule C and what you can deduct on 1120S, it will just cost you more money. Since you're gambling yourself, you don't need to worry about liability - but if you do, you should probably go LLC route, much cheaper and simpler. The \\\"\\\"reasonable salary\\\"\\\" trick to avoid FICA won't work. Don't even try. Schedule C for professional gamblers is a very accepted thing, nothing extraordinary about it.\\\"\",\n \"Each S-corp is bound by its own plan documents, which typically do not limit or dictate where the investments are held. Your brokerage account has no tie to the company from which the funds come, however, you are still subject to maximum SIMPLE contribution rules and cannot exceed the $12,500 (if under age 50) COMBINED contribution for any and all companies. Be careful about co-mingling from both companies as there are penalties for early withdrawals made within 2-years of participating in the plan. If you started them both at the same time it's not an issue.\",\n \"\\\"There are no dividends from S-Corp. There are distributions. Big difference. S-Corps fill form 1120S and schedule K-1 per shareholder. In the schedule all the income of your S-Corp will be assigned to various categories that you will later copy to your personal tax return as your personal income. It is not dividend income. The reason people prefer to take distributions from their S-Corps instead of salary is because you don't pay SE taxes on the distributions. That is also the reason why the IRS forces you to pay yourself a reasonable salary. But the tax rate on the income, all of it, is your regular income tax rate, unless the S-Corp income is categorized in a preferred category. The fact that its an S-Corp income doesn't, by itself, allow any preferential treatment. If you're learning the stuff as you go - you should probably get in touch with a tax professional to advise you. All the S-Corp income must be distributed. Its not a matter of \\\"\\\"avoiding paying the tax\\\"\\\", its the matter of \\\"\\\"you must do it\\\"\\\". Not a choice. My answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer (circ 230 disclaimer).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm assuming that when you say \\\"\\\"convert to S-Corp tax treatment\\\"\\\" you're not talking about actually changing your LLC to a Corporation. There are two distinct pieces of the puzzle here. First, there's your organizational form. Your state, which is where the business is legally formed and recognized, creates the LLC or Corporation. \\\"\\\"S-Corp\\\"\\\" doesn't come into play here: your company is either an LLC or a Corporation. (There are a handful of other organizational types your state might have, e.g. PLLC, Limited Partnership, etc.; none of these are immediately relevant to this discussion). Second, there's the tax treatment you receive by the IRS. If your company was created by the state as an LLC, note that the IRS doesn't recognize LLCs as a distinct organizational type: you elect to be taxed as an individual (for single member LLCs), a partnership (for multiple member LLCs), or as a corporation. The former two elections are \\\"\\\"pass through\\\"\\\" -- there's no additional level of taxation on corporate profits, everything just passes through to the owners. The latter election introduces a tax on corporate profits. When you elect pass-through treatment, a single-member LLC files on Schedule C; a multiple-member LLC will prepare a form K-1 which you will include on your 1040. If your company was created by the state as a Corporation (not an LLC), you could still elect pass-through taxation if your company qualifies under the rules in Subchapter S (i.e. \\\"\\\"an S-Corp\\\"\\\"). States do not recognize \\\"\\\"S-Corp\\\"\\\" as part of the organizational process -- that's just a tax distinction used by the IRS (and possibly your state's tax authorities). In your case, if you are a single-member LLC (and assuming there are no other reasons to organize as a corporation), talking about \\\"\\\"S-Corp tax treatment\\\"\\\" doesn't make any sense. You'll just file your schedule C; in my experience it's fairly simple. (Note that this is based on my experience of single- and multiple-member LLCs in just two states. Your state may have different rules that affect state-level taxation; and the rules may change from year to year. I've found that hiring a good CPA to prepare the forms saves a good bit of stress and time that can be better applied to the business.)\\\"\",\n \"In all probability, having lower coverage levels will result in higher premiums. As my insurance agent explained to me, the higher your coverages, the lower the insurance company believes your risk to be - because you think about insurance smartly, you're less likely to make spurious claims. I have my coverages run at various levels every 18-24 months, and it is almost always true that higher coverages result in lower premiums. Also, there is no guarantee you'll still be employed by the same company if an injury happens. Or that they'll continue to offer the same plans every year. Insurance is a calculated risk on the part of the insurer, and a means of sharing/deflecting risk (at a cost known as your premium) on the part of the insured. Even if your premiums are slightly higher (on the order of a couple dollars per month, for example), do you really want to save a couple dollars and then be surprised when your health insurance company doesn't want to cover something?\",\n \"> I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets A large part of the discount an employer gets, is due to the number of policy holders they enroll. Most methods of duplicating that have other problems. So forcing everyone into an individual market will end up raising rates on everyone, by removing group discounts. Eventually to the point where no one gets any discount from insurance.\",\n \"HSA rules are different in some regards than deductions allowable under Pub 502 which deals with medical expenses deductible in Schedule A of your tax return. Pub 969 governs HSA's and similar reimbursement plans, and the guidelines are as follows: Insurance premiums. You can’t treat insurance premiums as qualified medical expenses unless the premiums are for: -Long-term care insurance. -Health care continuation coverage (such as coverage under COBRA). -Health care coverage while receiving unemployment compensation under federal or state law. -Medicare and other health care coverage if you were 65 or older (other than premiums for a Medicare supplemental policy, such as Medigap). Since your wife is still being treated like an employee for health benefits, and you are not on COBRA, thus not eligible for a deduction. You may qualify under the unemployment provision depending on the cause of her disability.\",\n \"you wouldn't have to pay income taxes on the portion for health insurance. think of high deductible health plans - the employer puts the deductible into a healthcare savings account which is tax free as long as it's for medical care. right now you can also deduct the portion of your overall expenses that are medical over a portion of your income. 2 issues with your idea, though - 1. right now, there are people who can't get health insurance except through an employer. send them out into the marketplace and they will get turned down. obamacare is supposed to fix this, but if Romney is elected, it will continue. 2. healthcare inflation rises much higher than regular inflation, so if your benefits were included as part of wages and you had to buy it on your own, you would face a continually decreasing amount of money over time to purchase healthcare - a spiral. this is the issue that many have with the voucher system the republicans are proposing for medicare - the voucher will rise at inflation, while healthcare rises much higher than inflation - right now I think it's a difference of 1% versus 8-9% off the top of my head. also, for many industries, it's in the best interest of the company to have a healthy workforce.\",\n \"\\\"I was in the health insurance game for 10 years and never heard of this until the Affordable Care Act came about. To my knowledge, there is no rule or regulation prohibiting it, however trying to get an insurer underwrite that risk is extremely unlikely. It's the same reason why you don't see AAA offering health insurance. There isn't a contractual relationship between the church and their constituents, so no underwriter worth their salt would put a reasonable price on that risk. Members can easily come and go, and since insurance through your employer is still the dominant distribution channel for health insurance, it would be seen as an adverse risk, meaning that people who couldn't get it through \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" channels must be getting it through the church, which it would then be assumed that this person applying for coverage is an \\\"\\\"adverse risk\\\"\\\" or someone who is abnormally unhealthy. There are faith-based healthcare reimbursement programs that are NOT health insurance and do not satisfy the ACA required minimum coverages. From what I've seen and read, it's basically members of the religion or faith that pay money into the system (like paying an insurance premium) and they elect a board that basically evaluates each claim and pays or doesn't pay it, either partially or in full. While this is a nice way to get your bills paid, odds are it won't cover your $300,000 cancer treatment or your $50,000 cesarean section birth.\\\"\",\n \"Yes. The S-Corp can deduct up to the amount it actually incurred in expenses. If your actual expenses to build the carport were $1000, then the $1000 would be deductible, and your business should be able to show $1000 in receipts or inventory changes. Note you cannot deduct beyond your actual expenses even if you would normally charge more. For example, suppose you invoiced the non-profit $2000 for the carport, and once the bill was paid you turned around and donated the $2000 back to the non-profit. In that case you would be deducting $1000 for your cost + $2000 donation for a total of $3000. But, you also would have $2000 in income so in the end you would end up with a $1000 loss which is exactly what your expenses were to begin with. It would probably be a good idea to be able to explain why you did this for free. If somehow you personally benefit from it then it could possibly be considered income to you, similar to if you bought a TV for your home with company funds. It would probably be cleaner from an accounting perspective if you followed through as described above- invoice the non-profit and then donate the payment back to them. Though not necessary, it could lesson any doubt about your motives.\",\n \"I understand that if I have multiple health insurance policies, I can only make claim from only one of them if ever I incur medical expenses (I'm from the Philippines). In the US, you cannot simultaneously submit a claim for payment of a medical bill, or request reimbursement for a bill already paid, to multiple insurance companies, but if you are covered by more than one policy, then any part of a claim not paid by one company can be submitted to another company that is also covering you. In fact, if you have employer-paid or employer-provided coverage, most insurance companies will want your employer-provided insurance company to be billed first, and will cover whatever is not paid by the employer coverage. For example, if the employer coverage pays 80% of your doctor's bill, the private insurance will pay the remaining 20%. But, the private insurance policies are also quite expensive. Some professional groups in the US offer major medical coverage to their US members, and might be offering this to non-US members as well (though I suspect not). These policies have large deductibles so that coverage kicks in only when the total medical expenses in that year (whether wholly or partially reimbursed, or not reimbursed at all) exceed the large deductible. These types of policies actually pay out to only a few people - if you have more than, say, $20,000 of medical expenses in a year, you have been quite ill, and thus the premiums are usually much smaller than full-fledged coverage insurance policies which pay out much more frequently because of much smaller deductibles.\",\n \"There are several insurance products that I buy for legal reasons: Both of these protect me from lawsuits and fines. Many people buy similar products to protect their business operations. (e.g. medical malpractice insurance) There are some insurance products I buy for tax planning and financial planning purposes: I have a large amount of savings available, so I have several tricks to reduce my insurance costs, and I have several products that I avoid. Several of these reasons are mentioned in other answers, but I thought I would collect them into a single answer to demonstrate that there are reasons other than the rational calculation of what the payout will be for the insurance products vs. the premium paid. If I gain access to a tax advantaged Health savings account, that is a bigger benefit to me than avoiding the premium, especially when my employer is paying the majority of the premium. Perhaps it makes no sense to buy insurance given sufficient savings (like the products I listed that make no sense for me given my finances) but not everyone can self-insure; it does require a certain level of wealth.\",\n \">Hey, sole proprietorships called A sole proprietorship could incorporate as a Single Member LLC and elect to be taxed as a corporation. But you would still be subject to both sides of the FICA/Medicare taxes. >and they're going to suck out five percent MORE of my GROSS How exactly does a LLC suck out 5% more of your gross? >your payroll costs go through the roof. Again, payroll expenses are generally tax deductible. I'm just trying to help you here.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, it's normal. If you \\\"\\\"buy\\\"\\\" your own disability insurance with after tax money, any payout you get is non taxable. If your employer \\\"\\\"buys\\\"\\\" your disability insurance with their own money, any payout you get is taxable. Since the payout is not 100% of your pre-disability income, most folks strongly prefer that the payout be non taxable. To achieve this, I pay the premiums on behalf of my employees (including myself) and then add that premium to their salary as a taxable benefit. In effect I paid it to them, then took it from them and used it to buy the insurance. (It has no impact on my corporate taxes since I can either deduct premiums or salaries, same either way.) This ensures they won't pay tax if they should collect. And I have had people collect, and it was non-taxable to them.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I know this is a little late but here is my answer. No. You do not \\\"\\\"need\\\"\\\" to incorporate. In fact, incorporating in your situation will cost you in legal fees, administrative headaches, and a fair bit in taxes. The CRA would probably look at your corporation as a personal services corporation and it would not be allowed to claim a number of tax reductions. The tax rate would end up being over the top range (unless you are in Quebec where it would be just under the top marginal range).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you use \\\"\\\"a room or other separately identifiable space\\\"\\\" within your apartment exclusively for your business, then you might be able to recoup a fraction of your rent for that. Check the rules for home office at the IRS and adopt a consistent and well-documented approach. (I would pay your full rent out of your personal account, and then do an \\\"\\\"expense report\\\"\\\" for the portion that's legitimately business related, but that's not a unique approach.) Other than that, I agree with the answer by litteadv - You cannot reduce your tax by the full amount of your rent just by having the S Corp pay, and trying to do so is probably playing with fire. Generally speaking, don't comingle business and personal expenses like that.\\\"\",\n \"Well you've got to think about the process, but first make sure the thing you want to pay for is actually a qualified dependent care expense. Here is a list of eligible expenses from a national FSA administrator. This process will tie up your money for some amount of time. Your deduction will come out like clockwork. But there is a time-delay of potentially months between your deduction and receipt of a reimbursement. Dependent care plans are money-in money-out. You can only file a reimbursement on funds that have actually been contributed, which is different than a medical FSA. Additionally, you can only file a claim on expenses that have actually been incurred. Dependent care FSA elections can be changed through the year on an as needed basis. This would add an administrivia burden to the person running your payroll, and if there is a payroll vendor in place, likely an actual cost. The administrator in this situation would likely be the company. In the formalities of employee benefits there must always be a named administrator. If your employer currently offers no benefits you should press healthcare first. Paying healthcare premiums pretax would likely save you more money and be less administration than this. Additionally, if your employer is paying for or reimbursing you for your individual health insurance that's currently illegal under the ACA.\",\n \"Gifts from your parents are not treated as income for tax purposes. You should not include that in your subsidy calculation. If you are here on a student-visa and have been in the US for less than 5 years, then you are considered a non-resident alien, and you are not required to buy a qualified plan through the insurance marketplace. You might be able to get a cheaper student plan through your school, but the subsidy might be enough that it's still worth it when calculated correctly. If you are a resident-alien or you are a citizen of the US, then you are required to get coverage, though you can choose not to purchase coverage and pay the tax for not having creditable coverage. That tax cannot be collected by the IRS unless you have already had federal tax withheld. They can only confiscate your tax return money to recoup that money. I don't have enough information to recommend one way or the other what you should do, but I would bet that if you recalculated your subsidy without including your parents income it would cover the majority of the cost. You should also consider applying for Medicaid if you meet the eligibility requirements in your state.\",\n \"Having an EIN does not make the LLC a corporation -- your business can have an EIN even when treated like a sole proprietorship. An EIN is required to have a Individual 401(k), for example. But you can still be an LLC, taxed as a sole proprietor, and have a 401(k). You would need to file a Form 2553 with the IRS to elect S Corporation status. If you don't do that, you're still treated as a disregarded LLC. Whether or not you should make the election is another question.\",\n \"\\\"I don't think so. There is a provision in ObamaCare called \\\"\\\"community rating\\\"\\\" that applies starting in 2014. Insurance companies must place individual and small group plans into a pool of people from the same geographical region. The same plan must cost the same for all small businesses from the same region. So having employees who have high costs will not significantly affect the company's cost; it will get factored into the cost for all people in the area; but the effect gets averaged out over all businesses and individuals who have plans.\\\"\",\n \"I'll just re-post my comment as an answer as i disagree with Michael Pryor. According to this article (and few others) you may save money by incorporating. These factors don’t change the general payroll tax advantage of an S corporation, however: A S corporation can often save business owners substantial amounts of payroll tax if the business profit greatly exceeds what the business needs to pay owners for their work.\",\n \"\\\"This is actually quite a complicated issue. I suggest you talk to a properly licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Legal advice (from an attorney licensed in your State) is also highly recommended. There are many issues at hand here. Income - both types of entities are pass-through, so \\\"\\\"earnings\\\"\\\" are taxed the same. However, for S-Corp there's a \\\"\\\"reasonable compensation\\\"\\\" requirement, so while B and C don't do any \\\"\\\"work\\\"\\\" they may be required to draw salary as executives/directors (if they act as such). Equity - for S-Corp you cannot have different classes of shares, all are the same. So you cannot have 2 partners contribute money and third to contribute nothing (work is compensated, you'll be getting salary) and all three have the same stake in the company. You can have that with an LLC. Expansion - S-Corp is limited to X shareholders, all of which have to be Americans. Once you get a foreign partner, or more than 100 partners - you automatically become C-Corp whether you want it or not. Investors - it would be very hard for you to find external investors if you're a LLC. There are many more things to consider. Do not make this decision lightly. Fixing things is usually much more expensive than doing them right at the first place.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm going to take a very crude view of this: Suppose that you have an event that would cost $100,000 if it occurred. If there's a 10% chance that it'll happen to you and the insurance costs less than $10,000, you'll make a profit \\\"\\\"on average.\\\"\\\" This is, of course, assuming that you could afford a $100,000 loss. If you can't, the actual loss could be much higher (or different). For example, if you couldn't afford surgery because you didn't have health insurance, it could be a lot more \\\"\\\"costly\\\"\\\" in a way that could be difficult to compare to the $100,000. Obviously, this is a very simplistic view of things. For example, making more than you paid on the premium typically isn't the only reason you'd buy insurance (even if you're high net worth). Just wanted to throw this out there for what it's worth though.\\\"\",\n \"I like HSAs. My employer had one for one year, but then took it away. Money you put into an HSA is tax-advantaged, you can invest it however you want, it can be used for healthcare if you need it, and you can stop adding to it at any time. You're healthy now, but it's likely there will be a time when you're not, and then it would be nice to have money already available.\",\n \"\\\"It is definitely legal, however none of such expenses will be allowed as a tax deduction for the corporation. Basically, you'll end up paying more to maintain the entity and pay taxes on its income (the rent you're paying to yourself as a corporation) at corporate rates, for no apparent benefit. Being the director/executive in the corporation will make you liable for whatever the corporation is liable, so liability isn't going away. The reason corporation is considered \\\"\\\"limited liability\\\"\\\" for owners is because shareholders are shielded from the corporate liability. Not directors or executives (which are explicitly not shielded).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase \\\"\\\"pass-through\\\"\\\" insurance from. What you're describing is a self-funded plan. In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc. In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant. Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime. The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people. These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues. A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year. Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated. Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums. Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement. The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums. Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement. Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance. In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained. The employer sets up a claims checking account. The TPA has draft authority on the account. The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member. Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity. This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend. I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture. Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year? And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person. I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month. So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit. Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot. A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women? Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years? Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years? A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year. Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired? A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims. They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything. I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on.\\\"\",\n \"The idea is that the premiums (or costs) associated with the plan are a business expense, you know that already. The distinction here is that employees don't pay premiums, they elect to contribute. The company sponsors a plan, the employees then choose to accept less salary in order to participate in the employer's plan. The idea is that you're foregoing income. Why is the employee not taxed on this cost? One major reason is that the employee has no say in, and often no idea, what the gross costs are (some find out if they ever receive COBRA election paperwork). There are more benefits than strict healthcare that are Section 125 eligible. The government has a vested interest in keeping the population healthy, and when the ERISA laws and Section 125 were written it was (and still is) a pretty low friction way to get health insurance out to more people. At this point, taking away the tax break from the employees would be a huge government take away from most of the population. Try to get a politician to take something away from taxpayers. Why doesn't the deduction exist in kind to people buying individual coverage? Ask your legislators. There are thousands of preferential tax treatment oddities, where some industry will get some sort of benefit or break. I'm not sure what leads you to think there needs to be some supremely logical reason for this oddity to exit.\",\n \"This probably is a question that belongs on History but here's the basic reason: the or Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 established that health benefits under approved plans were not taxable to the employee. If the employer were to pay for an employees non ERISA approved individual plan, it would be a taxable benefit. The longer story is that many polticians (esp. President Richard Nixon) were concerned that public pressure was going to lead public sentiment toward nationalized health care. This made health insurance more affordable to employees and effectively made it a cheaper way to compensate employees similar to how 401K contributions are worth more (in nominal terms) to the employee than an equivalent amount of cash. While the law was not signed by Richard Nixon due to some other stuff that was going on, it was something proposed and pushed by his administration.\",\n \"I think you are overcomplicating the scenario by assuming a benefit that doesn't exist. Assume an employee earns 50k, before considering the MSP. The corporation wants to cover the MSP. They have two options: increase the salary to $50,900, or keep the salary the same and pay for the MSP directly. Both options increase the employee's taxable income by $900. Both options decrease the corporation's income by $900. Net tax for each is unchanged. *Note - I couldn't find any specific reference to the MSP in income tax documentation on either BC Finance's or CRA's website. I am assuming that it is treated as a regular cash benefit, though I am not 100% convinced this is the case. If I am wrong in this please provide a comment below.\",\n \"I heard that a C-Corp being a one person shop (no other employees but the owner) can pay for the full amount 100% of personal rent if the residence is being used as a home office. Sure. Especially if you don't mind being audited. Technically, it doesn't matter how the money gets where it goes as long as the income tax filings accurately describe the tax situation. But the IRS hates it when you make personal expenses from a business account, even if you've paid the required personal income tax (because their computers simply aren't smart enough to keep up with that level of chaos). Also, on a non-tax level, commingling of business and personal funds can reduce the effectiveness of your company's liability protection and you could more easily become personally liable if the company goes bankrupt. From what I understand the 30% would be the expense, and the 70% profit distribution. I recommend you just pay yourself and pay the rent from your personal account and claim the allowed deductions properly like everyone else. Why & when it would make sense to do this? Are there any tax benefits? Never, because, no. You would still have to pay personal income tax on your 70% share of the rent (the 30% you may be able to get deductions for but the rules are quite complicated and you should never just estimate). The only way to get money out of a corporation without paying personal income tax is by having a qualified dividend. That's quite complicated - your accounting has to be clear that the money being issued as a qualified dividend came from an economic profit, not from a paper profit resulting from the fact that you worked hard without paying yourself market value.\",\n \"Yeah, me too, as I said. Actually what I'd really prefer is single payer, but failing that, getting health insurance separated from employment would be a big step forward. If people really knew how much they are paying for health insurance, things would change. I've never worked for an employer that didn't renegotiate health insurance every year, often changing insurance providers every year. To the extent that HR departments are competent in finding the best value, the current environment is pretty dynamic and competitive. Are individuals going to be as competent and well informed as HR departments? I don't know, but I do know that simply making a market free doesn't guarantee lower prices if consumers are ill-informed and bad at making decisions. As for wages, currently companies are not required to carry health insurance, and many have dropped it already without increasing wages, so I don't see an upward pressure on wages from greater employee mobility. But it's true that if there were a single large pool for insurance to be based off of, large businesses would no longer get the pool advantage of health insurance over small businesses. Hence my preference for single-payer, or single-group/multi-payer.\",\n \"Another source of insurance can be through the working spouses employment. Some companies do provide free or low cost coverage for spouses without a need for a physical exam. The risk is that it might not be available at the amount you want, and that if the main spouse switches companies it might not be available with the new employer. A plus is that if there is a cost it is only a one year commitment. Term insurance is the way to go. It is simple to purchase, and not complex to understand. Sizing is key. You may need to provide some level of coverage until the youngest child is in high school or college. Of course the youngest child might not have been born yet. The longer the term, the higher the cost to account for the inflation during the period of the insurance. If the term expires, but the need still exists, it is possible to get another policy but the cost of the new term policy will be higher because the insured is older. If there are special needs children involved the amount and length may need to be increased due to the increased costs and duration of need. Don't forget to periodically review the insurance situation to make sure your need haven't changed so much a new level of insurance would be needed.\",\n \"Of course not. You had another job for which you earned money. What does the corporation have to do with it? Corporation is a separate entity from your person, and since it was in no way involved in the transaction - there's no justification to funnel money through it. Doing so may pierce the corporate veil and expose you to liability which you created the corporation to shield yourself from. Not to mention the tax evasion, which is the reason you are asking the question to begin with....\",\n \"\\\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \\\"\\\"draw\\\"\\\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\\\"\",\n \"Here's a good rule of thumb. In any situation where you are required to purchase insurance (Auto Liability, Property Mortgage Insurance, etc.) you can safely assume that you aren't the primary beneficiary. You are being required to buy that insurance to protect someone else's investment.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["The answer seems to depend on where you live. Perhaps you already found this, but the summary from the IRS is: The insurance laws in some states do not allow a corporation to purchase group health insurance when the corporation only has one employee. Therefore, if the shareholder was the sole corporate employee, the shareholder had to purchase his health insurance in his own name. The IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which ruled that under certain situations the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction even if the health insurance policy was purchased in the name of the shareholder. Notice 2008-1 provided four examples, including three examples in which the shareholder purchased the health insurance and one in which the S corporation purchased the health insurance. Notice 2008-1 states that if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name and paid for it with his own funds, the shareholder would not be allowed an above-the-line deduction. On the other hand, if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name but the S corporation either directly paid for the health insurance or reimbursed the shareholder for the health insurance and also included the premium payment in the shareholder’s W-2, the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction. The bottom line is that in order for a shareholder to claim an above-the-line deduction, the health insurance premiums must ultimately be paid by the S corporation and must be reported as taxable compensation in the shareholder’s W-2. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/S-Corporation-Compensation-and-Medical-Insurance-Issues I understand this to mean that you can only get the deduction in your case (having purchased it in your own name) if your state does not allow your S-Corp to purchase a group health plan because you only have one employee. (I don't know specifically if Illinois fits that description or not.) In addition, there are rules about reporting health insurance premiums for taxes for S-Corp share members that you should also check. Personally, I think that it's complicated enough that advice from a CPA or other tax advisor specific to your situation would be worth the cost.","I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business."],"string":"[\n \"The answer seems to depend on where you live. Perhaps you already found this, but the summary from the IRS is: The insurance laws in some states do not allow a corporation to purchase group health insurance when the corporation only has one employee. Therefore, if the shareholder was the sole corporate employee, the shareholder had to purchase his health insurance in his own name. The IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which ruled that under certain situations the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction even if the health insurance policy was purchased in the name of the shareholder. Notice 2008-1 provided four examples, including three examples in which the shareholder purchased the health insurance and one in which the S corporation purchased the health insurance. Notice 2008-1 states that if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name and paid for it with his own funds, the shareholder would not be allowed an above-the-line deduction. On the other hand, if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name but the S corporation either directly paid for the health insurance or reimbursed the shareholder for the health insurance and also included the premium payment in the shareholder’s W-2, the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction. The bottom line is that in order for a shareholder to claim an above-the-line deduction, the health insurance premiums must ultimately be paid by the S corporation and must be reported as taxable compensation in the shareholder’s W-2. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/S-Corporation-Compensation-and-Medical-Insurance-Issues I understand this to mean that you can only get the deduction in your case (having purchased it in your own name) if your state does not allow your S-Corp to purchase a group health plan because you only have one employee. (I don't know specifically if Illinois fits that description or not.) In addition, there are rules about reporting health insurance premiums for taxes for S-Corp share members that you should also check. Personally, I think that it's complicated enough that advice from a CPA or other tax advisor specific to your situation would be worth the cost.\",\n \"I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":263,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10808"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What are a few sites that make it easy to invest in high interest rate mutual funds?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["28291","487052","484599"],"string":"[\n \"28291\",\n \"487052\",\n \"484599\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["487052","28291","427842","253614","586851","424131","484599","100341","183497","120133","40227","445322","99266","311690","135596","3279","274987","4666","556519","307082","449124","41577","346398","324012","592636","526346","117875","558042","112223","351088","153670","162873","215049","114520","210470","318873","483168","116614","135405","365675","331553","447552","312359","407663","35971","394748","532672","591909","376485","266239","122679","4153","557201","448890","376148","104724","52589","532179","400196","5323","567079","436120","206298","579292","436020","46986","106620","45970","281865","462612","74554","573239","550783","466472","324244","51331","346474","461948","322725","459596","387980","571218","65006","36679","311527","573213","487890","586029","83230","367014","576688","312591","345954","581712","482955","151394","276805","378427","44594","336218"],"string":"[\n \"487052\",\n \"28291\",\n \"427842\",\n \"253614\",\n \"586851\",\n \"424131\",\n \"484599\",\n \"100341\",\n \"183497\",\n \"120133\",\n \"40227\",\n \"445322\",\n \"99266\",\n \"311690\",\n \"135596\",\n \"3279\",\n \"274987\",\n \"4666\",\n \"556519\",\n \"307082\",\n \"449124\",\n \"41577\",\n \"346398\",\n \"324012\",\n \"592636\",\n \"526346\",\n \"117875\",\n \"558042\",\n \"112223\",\n \"351088\",\n \"153670\",\n \"162873\",\n \"215049\",\n \"114520\",\n \"210470\",\n \"318873\",\n \"483168\",\n \"116614\",\n \"135405\",\n \"365675\",\n \"331553\",\n \"447552\",\n \"312359\",\n \"407663\",\n \"35971\",\n \"394748\",\n \"532672\",\n \"591909\",\n \"376485\",\n \"266239\",\n \"122679\",\n \"4153\",\n \"557201\",\n \"448890\",\n \"376148\",\n \"104724\",\n \"52589\",\n \"532179\",\n \"400196\",\n \"5323\",\n \"567079\",\n \"436120\",\n \"206298\",\n \"579292\",\n \"436020\",\n \"46986\",\n \"106620\",\n \"45970\",\n \"281865\",\n \"462612\",\n \"74554\",\n \"573239\",\n \"550783\",\n \"466472\",\n \"324244\",\n \"51331\",\n \"346474\",\n \"461948\",\n \"322725\",\n \"459596\",\n \"387980\",\n \"571218\",\n \"65006\",\n \"36679\",\n \"311527\",\n \"573213\",\n \"487890\",\n \"586029\",\n \"83230\",\n \"367014\",\n \"576688\",\n \"312591\",\n \"345954\",\n \"581712\",\n \"482955\",\n \"151394\",\n \"276805\",\n \"378427\",\n \"44594\",\n \"336218\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up.","\"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \"\"emerging markets\"\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\"","There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.","\"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\"","@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you.","You do not need to have 'high net value', and yes, you can invest in it. Typically, fund companies require a minimum investment, that could be 100, it could be a 1000. 5000 should be enough for 99.9 % of all funds for an initial investment. What you need is an investment company that manages the account for you. I cannot name those for your country, but they should be easy to find (companies like IMG, and Fidelity might serve your country). You then open an account with the company of your choice, transfer the money, and tell them which fund it shall go in; all this is possible online. You can also go to see an agent in person, and he will fill the forms for you, and handle all the action, but he might take a fee for it.","Are you looking for something like Morningstar.com? They provide information about lots of mutual funds so you can search based on many factors and find good candidate mutual funds. Use their fund screener to pick funds with long track records of beating the S&P500.","According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.","Buy only 'Direct' Plans, not regular. - Demat providers won't sell Direct plans, that you can do it through https://www.mfuindia.com Make sure expense ratio < 2.5% (With direct plans it will be much lesser) I hope these points will help you to take a better decision.","I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail.","Nothing beats statistics like that found on Morning Star, Yahoo or Google Finance. When you are starting out, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pick a couple of mutual funds with good track records and start there. Keep in mind the financial press, to some degree, has a vested interest in having their readership chase the next hot thing. So while sites like Seeking Alpha, Kiplingers, or Money do provide some good advice, there is also an element that placates their advertisers. The only peer-to-peer lending I would consider is Lending Club. However, you are probably better off in the long run investing in mutual funds. One way to get involved in individual stocks without getting burned is to participate in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs). Companies that have them tend to be very well established, and they are structured to discourage trading. Buying is easy, dividend reinvestment is easy, dividend payouts are easy; but, starting and selling is kind of a pain. That is a good thing.","I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds","LendingClub.com I am an investor, 3 years now, and am making ~12%. It takes a little savvy and some research, but I'm getting a far better return than any typical investment today. As always, investors beware. If you dump your money in and don't invest wisely, you'll get taken for a ride.","Most of these blogs/websites that you mention above promote banks that pay a commission and hence you never realize there are better banks out there that offer a higher rate. I went through the same exercise to find the bank that paid the best rate and realized the truth I mention above. I currently bank with Alliant Credit Union, which doesn't pay a commission or have affiliate fees. If you find a bank that pays a higher rate than ACU, let me know, I'd like to switch to that bank as well! To give an example, ACU's regular savings rate is equivalent to EverBank's 2 year CD! See what I mean when I say affiliate and commissions run the show? Disclosure: BTW, I'm a customer of this bank, not an employee. I do have a blog if you wish to read my experience with ACU.","This might be better suited to r/personalfinance but if you're looking to invest I'd say start with an index fund. The MER's (fees) for most other mutual funds take too heavy a chunk of returns to be worth it in a market where actively managed funds are either underperforming of performing at par with passive funds. Additionally if these are your first investments, make sure you're doing it with investment goals in mind. Is this money you're saving for short, medium, or long term? For medium and long term investing make sure you're doing it through a tax efficient instrument like an IRA or 401k.","Most mutual funds underperform the stock market. Of those that over-perform, much of the performance can be attributed to dumb luck. Most mutual funds exist to generate fees from you, rather than make you wealthy. In my opinion, if you want to invest in one, choose a no-load index fund, and you will outperform most other funds. Better still get some good financial education and learn to manage your funds/investments yourself.","I personally like Schwab. Great service, low fees, wide variety of fund are available at no fee. TD Ameritrade is good too.","@sharam - big question. I am going to answer part of it, but not as directly as you might like. You mention 4-6 cents per unit per month, but fail to give a unit price, so it is hard to tell how much return you are really looking for. Given the amount you have to invest, depending on your time horizon, you will do much better outside of mutual funds. Many funds in this category have fees in the 2% range. You actually have enough money to have a diversified portfolio on your own, without recourse to funds. If you want to use a fund-like product, I encourage you to look at well established ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). They are basically like mutual funds that trade on the open stock market. One good example in this category is iShares XDV Good Luck","Searching for Banks or Credit Unions based on their high interest accounts is likely to be a giant waste of your time. The highest you might find is 1.5% not clearing inflation. For anything less than 100k youre better off putting it in a money market fund until you know what you want to do with it, which you can find anywhere.","I'd have a look at Capital One's Online account too, they've got 1.35% interest rate with 10% bonus if you have over $15k deposited. It is still low like all interest rates, but at least it is on top (or at least close)!","In addition to all the good information that JoeTaxpayer has provided, be aware of this. When you sell mutual fund shares, you can, if you choose to do so, tell the mutual fund company which shares you want to sell (e.g. all shares purchased on xx/yy/2010 plus 10 shares out of 23.147 shares purchased on ss/tt/2011 plus...) and pay taxes on the gains/losses on those specific shares. If you do not specify which shares you want sold, the mutual fund company will tell you the gains/losses based on the average cost basis and you can use this information if you like. Note that some of your gains/losses will be short-term gains or losses if you use the average cost basis. Or, you can use the FIFO method (usually resulting in the largest gain) in which the shares are sold in the order in which they were purchased. This usually results in no short-term gains/losses. Just so that you know, most mutual fund companies will link your checking account in your bank to your account with them (a one-time paperwork deal is necessary in which your bank manager's signature is required on the authorization to be sent to the fund company). After that, the connection is nearly as seamless as with your current system. Tell the fund company you want to invest money in a certain mutual fund and to take the money from your linked checking account, and they will take care of it. Sell some shares and they will deposit the money into your linked bank account, and so on. The mutual fund company will not accept instructions from you (or someone purporting to be you) to sell shares and to send the money to Joe Blow (or to Joe Taxpayer for that matter): the proceeds of redemptions go to your checking account or are used to buy shares in other mutual funds offered by the company (called an exchange and not a redemption). Oh, and most fund companies offer automatic investments (as well as automatic redemptions) at fixed time intervals, just as with your bank.","This is a great forum, mostly focused around mutual funds though: http://www.bogleheads.org/","Do not do investing with a bank. Do investing with a low cost investment company like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Charles Schwab. The lower the expenses of the fund the better. The additional money your account earns because of lower overhead expenses is so dramatic over the course of your investing it is mind boggling to me. The lower the expenses, the more of your money you keep, which feeds the power of compound interest. http://www.fool.com/investing/mutual-funds/2008/09/03/this-fund-charges-what.aspx","Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.","Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)","One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.","If you are in an economy which has a decent liquid debt market (corporate bonds, etc.), then you may look into investing in AA or AA+ rated bonds. They can provide higher returns than bank deposits and are virtually risk-free. (Though in severe economic downturns, you can see defaults in even very high-rated bonds, leading to partial or complete loss of value however, this is statistically quite rare). You can make this investment through a debt mutual fund but please make sure that you read through the offer document carefully to understand the investment style of the mutual fund and their expense ratio (which directly affect your returns). In any case, it is always recommended to reach out to an investment adviser who is good with local tax laws to minimize taxes and maximize returns.","Yahoo's primary business isn't providing mutual fund performance data. They aim to be convenient, but often leave something to be desired in terms of completeness. Try Morningstar instead. Their mission is investment research. Here's a link to Morningstar's data for the fund you specified. If you scroll down, you'll see:","At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? I think you are mixing things. There is no concept of interest or compounding in Mutual Funds. When you buy a mutual fund, it either appreciates in value or depreciates in value; both can happen depending on the time period you compare. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. The way you need to look at this is Given you started with $10,000 and its now $10,500 the return is 5%. Now if you want to calculate simple return or compounded return, you would have to calculate accordingly. You may potentially want to find a compounded return for ease of comparison with say a Bank FD interest rate or some other reason. So if $10,000 become $10,500 after one year and $11,000 after 2 year. The absolute return is 10%, the simple yearly return is 5%. Or the Simple rate of return for first year is 5% and for second year is 4.9%. Or the Average Year on Year return is 4.775%.","You are not limited in these 3 choices. You can also invest in ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, but traded like stocks. Usually (at least in Canada), MERs for ETFs are smaller than for mutual funds.","\"I'll try to give you some clues on how to find an answer to your question, rather than answering directly the question asked. Why not answer it directly? Well, I can, but it won't help you (or anyone else) much in two months when the rates change again. Generally, you won't find such in brick-and-mortar banks. You can save some time and only look at online banks. Examples: ING Direct (CapitalOne), CapitalOne, Amex FSB, E*Trade, Ally, etc. There are plenty. Go to their web sites, look for promotions, and compare. Sometimes you can find coupons/promotions which will yield more than the actual savings rate. For example, ING frequently have a $50 promotion for opening a new account. You need to understand that rates change frequently, and the highest rate account today may become barely average in a week. There are plenty of sites that offer various levels of comparison information. One of the most comprehensive ones (IMHO) is Bankrate.com. Another place to look is MoneyRates.com. These sites provide various comparisons, and you can also find some promotions advertised there. There are more similar sites. Also, search the Internet and you can find various blog posts with additional promotions – frequently banks give \"\"referral bonuses\"\" to provide incentive for clients to promote the banks. Do some due diligence on the results that appear promising. Not much. You won't find any savings account that would keep the value (purchasing power) of your money over the long term. Keeping money in savings accounts is a sure way to lose value because the inflation rate is much higher than even high-yield savings accounts. But, savings accounts are safe (insured by FDIC/NCUA up to the limit), and very convenient to keep short term savings – such as an emergency fund – that you cannot afford to lose to investments. Sometimes you'll get slightly better rates by locking up your money in a Certificate of Deposit (CD), but not significantly higher when the CD is short-term.\"","\"In addition to the advice of @karancan, If you wish to stay strictly with GICs, there are better ways to find good GIC rates, than looking at advertising from institutions you are already dealing with. This site, http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/data/rates?order=d&pageType=gic_long&sort=IR1&page=1&tax_indicator=N (among others) display impartial GIC rates for many institutions and terms of investment, in sortable form. Many of these institutions allow on-line purchases and transfers, requiring only a \"\"regular\"\" bank account as a source/destination for on-line transfers...\"","Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings. (I have an account there.) Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.","\"First, you don't state where you are and this is a rather global site. There are people from Canada, US, and many other countries here so \"\"mutual funds\"\" that mean one thing to you may be a bit different for someone in a foreign country for one point. Thanks for stating that point in a tag. Second, mutual funds are merely a type of investment vehicle, there is something to be said for what is in the fund which could be an investment company, trust or a few other possibilities. Within North America there are money market mutual funds, bond mutual funds, stock mutual funds, mutual funds of other mutual funds and funds that are a combination of any and all of the former choices. Thus, something like a money market mutual fund would be low risk but quite likely low return as well. Short-term bond funds would bring up the risk a tick though this depends on how you handle the volatility of the fund's NAV changing. There is also something to be said for open-end, ETF and closed-end funds that are a few types to consider as well. Third, taxes are something not even mentioned here which could impact which kinds of funds make sense as some funds may invest in instruments with favorable tax-treatment. Aside from funds, I'd look at CDs and Treasuries would be my suggestion. With a rather short time frame, stocks could be quite dangerous to my mind. I'd only suggest stocks if you are investing for at least 5 years. In 2 years there is a lot that can happen with stocks where if you look at history there was a record of stocks going down about 1 in every 4 years on average. Something to consider is what kind of downside would you accept here? Are you OK if what you save gets cut in half? This is what can happen with some growth funds in the short-term which is what a 2 year time horizon looks like. If you do with a stock mutual fund, it would be a gamble to my mind. Don't forget that if the fund goes down 10% and then comes up 10%, you're still down 1% since the down will take more.\"","\"Yes, there is a very good Return vs Risk graph put out at riskgrades.com. Look at it soon, because it will be unavailable after 6-30-11. The RA (return analysis) graph is what I think you are looking for. The first graph shown is an \"\"Average Return\"\", which I was told was for a 3 year period. Three period returns of 3, 6 and 12 months, are also available. You can specify the ticker symbols of funds or stocks you want a display of. For funds, the return includes price and distributions (total return), but only price movement for stocks - per site webmaster. I've used the graphs for a few years, since Forbes identified it as a \"\"Best of the Web\"\" site. Initially, I found numerous problems with some of the data and was able to work with the webmaster to correct them. Lately though, they have NOT been correcting problems that I bring to their attention. For example, try the symbols MUTHX, EDITX, AWSHX and you'll see that the Risk Grades on the graphs are seriously in error, and compress the graph results and cause overwriting and poor readability. If anyone knows of a similar product, I'd like to know about it. Thanks, George\"","One of the things I would suggest looking into is peer-to-peer lending. I do lendingclub.com, but with a lot less money, and have only done it a short period of time. Still my return is about 13%. In your case you would probably have to commit to about 3.5 years to invest your money. Buy 3 year notes, and as they are paid off pull the money out and put into a CD or money market.. They sell notes that are 3 or 5 year and you may not want to tie your money up that long.","\"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \"\"mutual funds\"\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\"","\"Since this is your emergency fund, you generally want to avoid volatility while keeping pace with inflation. You really shouldn't be looking for aggressive growth (which means taking on some risk). That comes from money outside of the emergency fund. The simplest thing to do would be to shop around for a different savings account. There are some deals out there that are better than ING. Here is a good list. The \"\"traditional\"\" places to keep an emergency fund are Money Market Mutual Funds (not to be confused with Money Market Accounts). They are considered extremely safe investments. However, the returns on such a fund is pretty low these days, often lower than a high-yield online savings account. The next step up would be a bond fund (more volatility, slightly better return). Pick something that relies on Government bonds, not \"\"high-yield\"\" (junk) bonds or anything crazy like that. Fidelity Four in One comes pretty close to your \"\"index of indexes\"\" request, but it isn't the most stable thing. You'd probably do better with a safer investment.\"","In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund. Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc. Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them.","\"Mutual funds can be relatively low risk and a good starting point. Really it depends on you. What are your goals? This is a pretty open ended question. These can all be low risk and provide some return. Note \"\"Less Knowledge\"\" is never a good qualifier for an investment. Your money is your business and you are entitled to know what your business is up to.\"","Don't invest in regular mutual funds. They are a rip-off. And, most investment professionals will not do much to help your financial future. Here's the advice:","The Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index mutual fund (VBIRX) might fit your need. Apart from 2008, it has only had one single quarter of negative returns, and has always had positive annual returns. If you're looking for an ETF, you might consider iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Credit Bond (CSJ).","There are many considerations before deciding on the best place for your funds: How liquid do you need the funds to be? If this is for an emergency fund I would keep at least some in an account that you have instant access to, What is your risk (volatility) tolerance? Would you be OK with the value dropping by as much as 30% in a year knowing that over time you'll probably earn 8-12% on it? If not, then equity funds or other stock investments are probably not the best move for you. Do you need the funds now or are they for long-term (retirement) savings? Are you eligible to fund an IRA? That would defer your taxes until you withdraw the funds from the account, but there are age restrictions that you must heed to avoid penalties. Are CDs a good idea? They do pay decent interest, but in return for that you lock up your funds for a set period of time. All that to say that there are many facets to determining the best place for your funds. If you provide more specifics you can get a more specific answer.","Returns: Variable, as with all investments. Legitimate: Contact the usual major investment-fund houses.","Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.","The Telegraph had an interesting article recently going back 30 years for Mutual's in the UK that had beaten the market and trackers for both IT and UT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11489789/The-funds-that-have-returned-more-than-12pc-per-year-for-THIRTY-years.html","Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.","As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.","\"Congratulations on deciding to save money and choosing to invest it. One thing to know about mutual funds including index funds is that they typically require a minimum investment of a few thousand dollars, $3000 being a typical amount, unless the investment is in an IRA in which case $1000 might be a minimum. In some cases, automated monthly investments of $50 or $100 might need to be set up if you are beginning with a small balance. There is nothing wrong with your approach. You now should go and look at the various requirements for specific index funds. The Fidelity and Vanguard families are good choices and both offer very low-cost index funds to choose from, but different funds can have different requirements regarding minimum investments etc. You also have a choice of which index you want to follow, the S&P 500 Index, MidCap Indexes, Small-Cap Indexes, Total Stock Market Indexes etc., but your choice might be limited until you have more money to invest because of minimum investment rules etc. Most important, after you have made your choice, I urge you to not look every day, or even every month, to see how your investment is doing. You will save yourself a lot of anxiety and will save yourself from making wrong decisions. Far too many investors ignore the maxim \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" and pull money out of what should be long-term investments at the first flicker of a downturn and end up buying high and selling low. Finally, the time is approaching when most stock funds will be declaring dividends and capital gains distributions. If you invest now, you may end up with a paper profit on which you will have to pay taxes (in non-tax-advantaged accounts) on your 2012 tax return (this is called \"\"buying a dividend\"\"), and so you might want to spend some time investigating now, but actually make the investment in late December after your chosen fund has made its distributions (the date for this will be on the fund's web site) or in early 2013.\"","If you need the money in the short-term, you want to invest in something fairly safe. These include saving accounts, CDs, and money market funds from someplace like Vanguard. The last two might give you a slightly better return than the local branch of a national bank.","For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.","Congratulations on being in such good financial state. You have a few investment choices. If you want very low risk, you are talking bonds or CDs. With the prime rate so low, nobody is paying anything useful for very low risk investments. However, my opinion is that given your finances, you should consider taking on a little more risk. A good step is a index fund, which is designed to mirror the performance of a stock index such as the S&P 500. That may be volatile in the short-term, but is likely to be a good investment in the longer term. I am not a fan of non-index mutual funds; in general the management charge makes them a less attractive investment. The next step up is investing in individual stocks, which can provide very big gains or very big losses. The Motley fool site (www.fool.com) has a lot of information about investing overall.","So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.","As always with investments, it depends on your risk adversity. I don't want to repeat the content of hundreds of recommendations here, so just the nutshell: (For qualified investments,) the more risk you are willing to take, the more returns you'll get. The upper end is the mutual funds and share market, where you have long-term expectations of 8 - 10 % (and corresponding risks of maybe +/- 50% per year), the lower end is a CD, where you can expect little to no interest, corresponding to little to no risk. Investing in shares/funds is not 'better' than investing in CDs, it is different. Not everybody likes financial roller-coasters, and some people mainly consider the high risk, which gives them sleepless nights; while others just consider the expected high long-term gains as all that counts. Find out what your personal risk adversity is, and then pick accordingly.","Bond aren't necessarily any safer than the stock market. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a low risk mutual fund. You want something that will allow you get at your money relatively quickly. In other words, CDs (since you you can pick a definite time period for your money to be tied up), money market account or just a plain old savings account. Basically, you want to match inflation and have easy access to the money. Any other returns on top of that are gravy, but don't fret too much about it. See also: Where can I park my rainy-day / emergency fund? Savings accounts don’t generate much interest. Where should I park my rainy-day / emergency fund?","\"Books such as \"\"The Pocket Idiot's Guide to Investing in Mutual Funds\"\" claim that money market funds and CDs are the most prudent things to invest in if you need the money within 5 years. More specifically:\"","See if any of the funds they offer are index funds, which will generally have MUCH lower fees and which seem to perform as well as any of the actively managed funds in the same categories.","A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.","Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.","Since returning of capital is the most important, I would go to bankrate.com and find either an online bank savings account or MMA account. By going to bankrate.com, you can find higher rates. Sometimes you can find rates that are higher than a CD and are still FDIC insured. I've found ally bank's raise your rate 2 year CD to always have the best rate. In addition, if rates go up, you are able to raise the rate to the current rate.","CDs pay less than the going rate so that the banks can earn money. Investing is risky right now due to the inaction of the Fed. Try your independent life insurance agent. You could get endowment life insurance. It would pay out at age 21. If you decide to invest it yourself try to buy a stable equity fund. My 'bedrock' fund is PGF. It pays dividends each month and is currently yealding 5.5% per year. Scottrade has a facility to automatically reinvest the dividend each month at no commission. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PGF?CountryCode=US","\"The \"\"Money 70\"\" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are \"\"bad,\"\" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck.\"","Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation. Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'.","These interest rates are very low. One of the reasons that I prefer E*Trade is because on their on-line savings account the interest rates are several times higher than on ScotTrade margin accounts (currently it's 0.7% on E*Trade, on any amount, IIRC). The transfers between the accounts on E*Trade are immediate, and they allow using the money for investing immediately even for transfers from outside source. If you can wait a couple of days for the money to arrive before your investment (unless ScotTrade, like E*Trade, allow investing external transfers immediately), you can look at AMEX, ING Direct or Capitol One on-line savings accounts for even higher rates. Oh, and needless to mention, on-line savings accounts are FDIC insured, I'm not sure if the uninvested deposits on Scottrade are.","\"TD e-series index funds are great for regular contributions every paycheck since there is no trading commission. The personal finance blog \"\"Canadian Couch Potato\"\" has great examples of what they call \"\"model portfolios\"\" and one consists of entirely TD e-series index funds. Check it out: http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/ The e-series portfolio that is described in the Model Portfolios (linked above) made returns of just over 10%. This is very similar to the ETF Model Portolio. One thing to remember is that these funds have a 30 day no sell time frame, otherwise a 2% fee is applied to the funds you withdraw.\"","I highly recommend passive investing through something like betterment (www.betterment.com) or vanguard's ETFs. FutureAdvisor.com can provide some good advice as to what funds to invest in. I'd recommend using that money to max out your Roth IRAs each year, too.","\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \"\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\"\".\"","\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \"\"actively managed\"\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \"\"time the market\"\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\"","On reading couple of articles & some research over internet, I got to know about diversified investment where one should invest 70% in equity related & rest 30% in debt related funds Yes that is about right. Although the recommendation keeps varying a bit. However your first investment should not aim for diversification. Putting small amounts in multiple mutual funds may create paper work and tracking issues. My suggestion would be to start with an Index EFT or Large cap. Then move to balanced funds and mid caps etc. On this site we don't advise on specific funds. You can refer to moneycontrol.com or economictimes or quite a few other personal finance advisory sites to understand the top funds in the segments and decide on funds accordingly. PS: Rather than buying paper, buy it electronic, better you can now buy it as Demat. If you already have an Demat account it would be best to buy through it.","You don't say what kinds of mutual funds, or what bonds. You don't say how old you are. You seem to have enough cushion to strike out on your own comfortably. This is good. Compared with Vanguard's management fees, the fees you're paying are pretty high. The bottom line of what to invest in rests with you. If you outsource it, it's still your money. The managers get paid whether you make money or not. You have lots of other options: real estate from a distressed seller, commodities, currencies, websites, or other things where you have a knowledge advantage. For the time being, though, if you're concerned about your main income stream, I wouldn't get terribly risky with your money. Cash is just peachy in that case.","http://www.moneysupermarket.com/shares/CompareSharesForm.asp lists many. I found the Interactive Investor website to be excruciatingly bad. I switched to TD Waterhouse and found the website good but the telephone service a bit abrupt. I often use the data presented on SelfTrade but don't have an account there.","The SEC 30-Day Yield you're seeing is a standardized yield calculation set out by the Securities & Exchange Commission. It can be useful for comparing bond funds, but it doesn't guarantee what you'll actually earn from a fund. IMPORTANT: The SEC 30-day yield represents a bond fund's returns from the previous 30 days expressed as an annual percentage of the current fund price — yes, an annual percentage. In other words, don't expect 1.81% return on your money every 30 days! Such a return is too-good-to-be-true return in today's low rate environment. 1.81% per year? More reasonable. Even then, the 1.81% you see is merely an estimate, one based on assumptions, of what you might expect to earn if you keep your money in place for the next year. The estimate is based on the assumptions that: These aren't reliable assumptions. BIV's price does fluctuate. You are not promised to get your principal back with a bond fund. Only an individual bond promises your principal back, and only at maturity. So, earning $181 on $10,000 invested for a full year while taking on interest-rate and other risks might not be worth the trouble of putting your money in a brokerage account. You'll need to transfer the money in and out, and there are potential trading fees to take into account. (How much to buy/sell units?) An FDIC-insured high interest savings account makes more sense.","I would stay away from the Actively Managed Funds. Index funds or the asset allocation funds are your best bet since they have the lowest fees. What is your risk tolerance? How old are you? I would suggest reading:","\"Most mutual funds are designed to make the investment banks that sell them money, not to make investers money. They do this by taking significant fees out. Because they make lots of money on these funds, they advertise them a lot, and give them important-sounding names, like \"\"Advanced technology global diversity long term appreciation\"\". Index funds are the exception; they attempt to mirror the performance of a specific index (such as the S&P 500 index). They generally have very low fees.\"","It depends on the exact level of risk that you want, but if you want to keep your risk close to zero you're pretty much stuck with the banks (and those rates don't look to be going up any time soon). If you're willing to accept a little more risk, you can invest in some index tracking ETFs instead, with the main providers in Australia being Vanguard, Street State and Betashares. A useful tool for for an overview of the Australian ETF market is offered by StockSpot. The index funds reduce your level of risk by investing in an index of the market, e.g. the S&P 200 tracked by STW. If the market as a whole rises, then your investment will too, even though within that index individual companies will rise and fall. This limits your potential rate of return as well, and is still significantly more risky than leaving your cash in an Aussie bank (after all, the whole market can fall), but it might strike the right balance for you. If you're getting started, HSBC, Nabtrade, Commsec and Westpac were all offering a couple of months of free trades up to a certain value. Once the free trades are done, you'll do better to move to another broker (you can migrate your shares to the others to take advantage of their free trades too) or to a cheaper broker like CMC Markets.","\"I used the term \"\"bond fund\"\" to mean a mutual fund which invests in bonds. Vanguard has a list. If you live in PA, OH, MA, FL, CA, NJ, or NY there are tax free funds you can invest in on that list.\"","I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.","\"Check out the \"\"rewards checking\"\" accounts listed on this thread at fatwallet finance forums. You could easily get 3.5% - 4% right now if you are willing to do the rewards checking dance. If not, you should look into the 1-2% accounts at the top. I use Alliant CU and their website is nice (and they give you your credit score every six months).\"","In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.","\"Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs. They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds. You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds. Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well. You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds. That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into \"\"established\"\" economies and a certain fraction into \"\"emerging\"\" ones. I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little.\"","\"If you want the answer from the horse's mouth, go to the website of the ETF or mutual find, and the expense ratio will be listed there, both on the \"\"Important Information\"\" part of the front page, as well as in the .pdf file that you click on to download the Prospectus. Oh wait, you don't want to go the fund's website at all, just to a query site where you type in something like VFINX. hit SEARCH, and out pops the expense ratio for the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund? Well, have you considered MorningStar?\"","Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.","There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.","\"There are raters of stock and bond funds of which Morningstar's is the best. Standard and Poor's and Value line offer reports that aren't quite as good. If you are able to read and understand these reports yourself, you don't need a professional. Such help is necessary for people who are \"\"rank beginners\"\" in investments.\"","Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.","Yes, it is. Got to start somewhere. Typically directly through a company itself. Check out this site that lists a bunch of them and their minimum requirements. Not many only accept $100 but there are a few. ie. ACTIVEnergy Income Fund, CIBC, COMPASS Income Fund, Suncor Energy Inc. and a few others.","\"An alternative to a savings account is a money market account. Not a bank \"\"Money Market\"\" account which pays effectively the same silly rate as a savings account, but an actual Money Market investment account. You can even write checks against some Money Market investment accounts. I have several accounts worth about 13,000 each. Originally, my \"\"emergency fund\"\" was in a CD ladder. I started experimenting with two different Money market investment accounts recently. Here's my latest results: August returns on various accounts worth about $13k: - Discover Bank CD: $13.22 - Discover Bank CD: $13.27 - Discover Bank CD: $13.20 - Discover Savings: $13.18 - Credit Union \"\"Money Market\"\" Savings account: $1.80 - Fidelity Money Market Account (SPAXX): $7.35 - Vanguard Money market Account (VMFXX): $10.86 The actual account values are approximate. The Fidelity Money Market Account holds the least value, and the Credit Union account by far the most. The result of the experiment is that as the CDs mature, I'll be moving out of Discover Bank into the Vanguard Money Market account. You can put your money into more traditional equities mutual fund. The danger with them is the stock market may drop big the day before you want to make your withdrawl... and then you don't have the down payment for your house anymore. But a well chosen mutual fund will yield better. There are 3 ways a mutual fund increase in value: Here's how three of my mutual funds did in the past month... adjusted as if the accounts had started off to be worth about $13,000: Those must vary wildly month-to-month. By the way, if you look up the ticker symbols, VASGX is a Vanguard \"\"Fund of Funds\"\" -- it invests not 100% in the stock market, but 80% in the stock market and 20% in bonds. VSMGX is a 60/40 split. Interesting that VASGX grew less than VSMGX...but that assumes my spreadsheet is correct. Most of my mutual funds pay dividends and capital gains once or twice a year. I don't think any pay in August.\"","I agree with others here that suggest that you should be taking higher risk since it is repaid with higher returns. You have 40 years or so to go before you might switch to safer but lower return funds. I suggest that you look at the Morningstar rating for the funds you are considering: http://www.morningstar.com/ A fund rated five stars means that the fund performs in the top 20% compared to all similar funds. I prefer five star funds. Next, check the management fees. Here is an example from one of the funds you mentioned; https://www.google.com/finance?cid=466533039917726 Next, I suggest you compare how each fund has performed compared to a benchmark. Here are some common indices: Compare an equity fund to, for example, the S&P 500. Has your fund beat or closely matched the S&P for 1, 5 and 10 years? If not, you may as well buy an index fund, such as SPY.","What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees.","Go with a Vanguard ETF. I had a lengthy discussion with a successful broker who runs a firm in Chicago. He boiled all of finance down to Vanguard ETF and start saving with a roth IRA. 20 years of psychology research shows that there's a .01 correlation (that's 1/100 of 1%) of stock/mutual fund performance to prediction. That's effectively zero. You can read more about it in the book Thinking Fast and Slow. Investors have ignored this research for years. The truth is you'd be just as successful if you picked your mutual funds out of a hat. But I'll recommend you go with a broker's advice.","As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.","\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"","Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more. If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around","I am going to assume that this is going to be a long term investment and you don't need this money before 5-6years at the very least. My advise would be to invest in one of the following funds : IDFC Premier equity fund growth plan (Direct) (Only SIP allowed right now) ICICI Discovery fund growth plan (Direct) DSP microcap fund growth plan (Direct) In case you do not want to be invested in small and mid cap and want a little less volatility then my first choice for that would be : Quantum long term equity fund dividend plan Whatever you go for make sure you go directly with the fund house and not through a broker as you end up getting charged an extra .63% extra as opposed to going direct and you will also be paying for a demat account which can be avoided if you invest directly with a fund house. Out of the above mentioned funds Quantum has the lowest expense ratio of 1.25% and it is a huge benefit if you are talking 10+ years because it makes a lot of difference. Source : My own research and experience as an investor.","\"There are mutual funds oriented toward kids or that are suitable in some way (e.g. they have low minimums). Here are two articles with mention of some of them: Of those only USAA First Start Growth is explicitly for kids: http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=UFSGX or https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/mutual_funds_reports Another fund aimed at kids is Monetta Young Investor http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=MYIFX or http://www.younginvestorfund.com/ The diversified funds (with fixed income) like USAA First Start Growth, Vanguard STAR, Pax World Balanced, etc. have the nice property that they won't be as volatile and may spend less time \"\"underwater,\"\" so that might better convey the value of investing (vs. an all-stock fund where it could be kind of depressing for years on end, if you get bad luck). Though, I feel the same principle applies for adults. Kids may appreciate intangible aspects of the funds, e.g. Pax World Balanced invests in sustainable companies, Ariel Appreciation also has some social parameters and I think the guy running it does charity work with kids, that type of thing. There should be quarterly and annual reports on mutual funds (or stocks) that would give kids something to read and think about related to the investment. Disclaimer: none of these funds are recommendations, I have not researched them in any detail, just giving you some leads.\"","Based on your question, I am going to assume your criterion are: Based on these, I believe you'd be interested in a different savings account, a CD, or money market account. Savings account can get you up to 1.3% and money market accounts can get up to 1.5%. CDs can get you a little more, but they're a little trickier. For example, a 5 year CD could get up to 2%. However, now you're money is locked away for the next few years, so this is not a good option if this money is your emergency fund or you want to use it soon. Also, if interest rates increase then your money market and savings accounts' interest rates will increase but your CD's interest rate misses out. Conversely, if interest rates drop, you're still locked into a higher rate.","\"From a quick look at sources on the web, it looks to me like Money Market Accounts and savings accounts are both paying about the same rate today: around 1%, give or take maybe 0.4%. I suppose that's better than nothing, but it's not a whole lot better than nothing. (I saw several savings accounts advertising 0.1% interest. If they mailed you a check, the postage could be more than the returns.) Personally, I keep a modest amount of emergency cash in my checking account, and I put my \"\"savings\"\" in a very safe mutual fund. That generally gets somewhere from making maybe 3% a year to losing a small amount. Certainly nothing to sing about, but better than savings or money markets. Whether you are willing to tolerate the modest risk or the sales charges is a matter for your personal situation and feelings.\"","\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"","\"First off, you generally want to park your emergency fund somewhere that is \"\"safe\"\", meaning something that is not subject to market fluctuations. Your emergency fund is something you need to be able to count on when times are tough! That rules out things like stock market investments. Secondly, you need to think about how quickly you will need access to the money. If you have an emergency, odds are you don't want to be waiting around for weeks/months/years for the money to become available. This rules out most fixed-term investments (Bonds, traditional CDs, etc). If you are concerned that you will need near-instant access to your emergency money, then you probably want to keep it in a Savings or Money Market Account at the same bank as your checking account. Most banks will let you transfer money between local accounts instantly. Unfortunately, your local bank probably has pitiful interest rates for the Savings/MMA, far below the inflation rate. This means your money will slowly lose value over time. Be prepared to keep contributing to it! For most people, being able to draw the cash from your fund within a few days (<1 week) is sufficient. Worst case, you charge something on your credit card, and then pay down the card when the emergency fund withdrawal arrives. If \"\"money within a few days\"\" is okay for you, there are a few options: Money Market (Mutual) Funds (not to be confused with a Money Market Account) - This is the traditional place to keep an emergency fund. These are investment funds you can buy with a brokerage account. An example of such a fund would be Fidelity Cash Reserves. MMFs are not FDIC insured, so they are not exactly zero risk. However, they are considered extremely safe. They almost never go down in value (only a few times in the past few decades), and when they have, the fund manager or the Federal Govt stepped in to restore the value. They usually offer slightly better return than a local savings account, and are available in taxable and non-taxable varieties. Online High-Yield Savings or Money Market Account - These are a relatively new invention. It's basically a the same thing as what your local bank offers, but it's online-only. No local branch means low overhead, so they offer higher interest rates (2.0% vs 0.5% for your local bank). Some of them used to be over 5% before the economy tanked. Like your local bank, it is FDIC insured. One bit of caution: Some of these accounts have become \"\"gimmicky\"\" lately. They have started to do things like promo rates for a few months, only offering the high interest rate on the first few $K deposited, limiting the amount that can be withdrawn, etc. Be sure to read the details before you open an account! No-Penalty CDs - Certificates of Deposit usually offer a better rate than a Savings Account, but your money is locked up until the CD term is up (e.g. 36 months). If you need to cash out before then, you pay a penalty. Some banks have begun to offer CDs that you can cash out with no penalty at all. These can offer better rates than the savings account. Make sure it really is no-penalty though. Also watch what your options are for slowly adding money over time. This can be an issue if you want to deposit $100 from every paycheck. Rewards Checking Accounts - These are checking accounts that will pay a relatively high interest rate (3% or more) provided you generate enough activity. Most of them will have requirements like you must have direct deposit setup with them, and you must do a minimum number of debit card transactions from the account per month. If you can stay on top of the requirements, these can be a great deal. If you don't stay on top of it, your interest rate usually drops back to something pitiful, though. Personally, we use the Online High-Yield Savings Account for our emergency fund. I'm not going to make a specific recommendation as to which bank to use. The best deal changes almost week to week. Instead, I will say to check out Bankrate.com for a list of savings accounts and CDs that you can sort. The Bank Deals blog is a good place to follow rate changes.\"","Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well."],"string":"[\n \"Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up.\",\n \"\\\"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \\\"\\\"emerging markets\\\"\\\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\\\"\",\n \"There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.\",\n \"\\\"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \\\"\\\"high yield\\\"\\\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\\\"\",\n \"@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you.\",\n \"You do not need to have 'high net value', and yes, you can invest in it. Typically, fund companies require a minimum investment, that could be 100, it could be a 1000. 5000 should be enough for 99.9 % of all funds for an initial investment. What you need is an investment company that manages the account for you. I cannot name those for your country, but they should be easy to find (companies like IMG, and Fidelity might serve your country). You then open an account with the company of your choice, transfer the money, and tell them which fund it shall go in; all this is possible online. You can also go to see an agent in person, and he will fill the forms for you, and handle all the action, but he might take a fee for it.\",\n \"Are you looking for something like Morningstar.com? They provide information about lots of mutual funds so you can search based on many factors and find good candidate mutual funds. Use their fund screener to pick funds with long track records of beating the S&P500.\",\n \"According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.\",\n \"Buy only 'Direct' Plans, not regular. - Demat providers won't sell Direct plans, that you can do it through https://www.mfuindia.com Make sure expense ratio < 2.5% (With direct plans it will be much lesser) I hope these points will help you to take a better decision.\",\n \"I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail.\",\n \"Nothing beats statistics like that found on Morning Star, Yahoo or Google Finance. When you are starting out, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pick a couple of mutual funds with good track records and start there. Keep in mind the financial press, to some degree, has a vested interest in having their readership chase the next hot thing. So while sites like Seeking Alpha, Kiplingers, or Money do provide some good advice, there is also an element that placates their advertisers. The only peer-to-peer lending I would consider is Lending Club. However, you are probably better off in the long run investing in mutual funds. One way to get involved in individual stocks without getting burned is to participate in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs). Companies that have them tend to be very well established, and they are structured to discourage trading. Buying is easy, dividend reinvestment is easy, dividend payouts are easy; but, starting and selling is kind of a pain. That is a good thing.\",\n \"I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds\",\n \"LendingClub.com I am an investor, 3 years now, and am making ~12%. It takes a little savvy and some research, but I'm getting a far better return than any typical investment today. As always, investors beware. If you dump your money in and don't invest wisely, you'll get taken for a ride.\",\n \"Most of these blogs/websites that you mention above promote banks that pay a commission and hence you never realize there are better banks out there that offer a higher rate. I went through the same exercise to find the bank that paid the best rate and realized the truth I mention above. I currently bank with Alliant Credit Union, which doesn't pay a commission or have affiliate fees. If you find a bank that pays a higher rate than ACU, let me know, I'd like to switch to that bank as well! To give an example, ACU's regular savings rate is equivalent to EverBank's 2 year CD! See what I mean when I say affiliate and commissions run the show? Disclosure: BTW, I'm a customer of this bank, not an employee. I do have a blog if you wish to read my experience with ACU.\",\n \"This might be better suited to r/personalfinance but if you're looking to invest I'd say start with an index fund. The MER's (fees) for most other mutual funds take too heavy a chunk of returns to be worth it in a market where actively managed funds are either underperforming of performing at par with passive funds. Additionally if these are your first investments, make sure you're doing it with investment goals in mind. Is this money you're saving for short, medium, or long term? For medium and long term investing make sure you're doing it through a tax efficient instrument like an IRA or 401k.\",\n \"Most mutual funds underperform the stock market. Of those that over-perform, much of the performance can be attributed to dumb luck. Most mutual funds exist to generate fees from you, rather than make you wealthy. In my opinion, if you want to invest in one, choose a no-load index fund, and you will outperform most other funds. Better still get some good financial education and learn to manage your funds/investments yourself.\",\n \"I personally like Schwab. Great service, low fees, wide variety of fund are available at no fee. TD Ameritrade is good too.\",\n \"@sharam - big question. I am going to answer part of it, but not as directly as you might like. You mention 4-6 cents per unit per month, but fail to give a unit price, so it is hard to tell how much return you are really looking for. Given the amount you have to invest, depending on your time horizon, you will do much better outside of mutual funds. Many funds in this category have fees in the 2% range. You actually have enough money to have a diversified portfolio on your own, without recourse to funds. If you want to use a fund-like product, I encourage you to look at well established ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). They are basically like mutual funds that trade on the open stock market. One good example in this category is iShares XDV Good Luck\",\n \"Searching for Banks or Credit Unions based on their high interest accounts is likely to be a giant waste of your time. The highest you might find is 1.5% not clearing inflation. For anything less than 100k youre better off putting it in a money market fund until you know what you want to do with it, which you can find anywhere.\",\n \"I'd have a look at Capital One's Online account too, they've got 1.35% interest rate with 10% bonus if you have over $15k deposited. It is still low like all interest rates, but at least it is on top (or at least close)!\",\n \"In addition to all the good information that JoeTaxpayer has provided, be aware of this. When you sell mutual fund shares, you can, if you choose to do so, tell the mutual fund company which shares you want to sell (e.g. all shares purchased on xx/yy/2010 plus 10 shares out of 23.147 shares purchased on ss/tt/2011 plus...) and pay taxes on the gains/losses on those specific shares. If you do not specify which shares you want sold, the mutual fund company will tell you the gains/losses based on the average cost basis and you can use this information if you like. Note that some of your gains/losses will be short-term gains or losses if you use the average cost basis. Or, you can use the FIFO method (usually resulting in the largest gain) in which the shares are sold in the order in which they were purchased. This usually results in no short-term gains/losses. Just so that you know, most mutual fund companies will link your checking account in your bank to your account with them (a one-time paperwork deal is necessary in which your bank manager's signature is required on the authorization to be sent to the fund company). After that, the connection is nearly as seamless as with your current system. Tell the fund company you want to invest money in a certain mutual fund and to take the money from your linked checking account, and they will take care of it. Sell some shares and they will deposit the money into your linked bank account, and so on. The mutual fund company will not accept instructions from you (or someone purporting to be you) to sell shares and to send the money to Joe Blow (or to Joe Taxpayer for that matter): the proceeds of redemptions go to your checking account or are used to buy shares in other mutual funds offered by the company (called an exchange and not a redemption). Oh, and most fund companies offer automatic investments (as well as automatic redemptions) at fixed time intervals, just as with your bank.\",\n \"This is a great forum, mostly focused around mutual funds though: http://www.bogleheads.org/\",\n \"Do not do investing with a bank. Do investing with a low cost investment company like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Charles Schwab. The lower the expenses of the fund the better. The additional money your account earns because of lower overhead expenses is so dramatic over the course of your investing it is mind boggling to me. The lower the expenses, the more of your money you keep, which feeds the power of compound interest. http://www.fool.com/investing/mutual-funds/2008/09/03/this-fund-charges-what.aspx\",\n \"Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.\",\n \"Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)\",\n \"One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.\",\n \"If you are in an economy which has a decent liquid debt market (corporate bonds, etc.), then you may look into investing in AA or AA+ rated bonds. They can provide higher returns than bank deposits and are virtually risk-free. (Though in severe economic downturns, you can see defaults in even very high-rated bonds, leading to partial or complete loss of value however, this is statistically quite rare). You can make this investment through a debt mutual fund but please make sure that you read through the offer document carefully to understand the investment style of the mutual fund and their expense ratio (which directly affect your returns). In any case, it is always recommended to reach out to an investment adviser who is good with local tax laws to minimize taxes and maximize returns.\",\n \"Yahoo's primary business isn't providing mutual fund performance data. They aim to be convenient, but often leave something to be desired in terms of completeness. Try Morningstar instead. Their mission is investment research. Here's a link to Morningstar's data for the fund you specified. If you scroll down, you'll see:\",\n \"At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? I think you are mixing things. There is no concept of interest or compounding in Mutual Funds. When you buy a mutual fund, it either appreciates in value or depreciates in value; both can happen depending on the time period you compare. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. The way you need to look at this is Given you started with $10,000 and its now $10,500 the return is 5%. Now if you want to calculate simple return or compounded return, you would have to calculate accordingly. You may potentially want to find a compounded return for ease of comparison with say a Bank FD interest rate or some other reason. So if $10,000 become $10,500 after one year and $11,000 after 2 year. The absolute return is 10%, the simple yearly return is 5%. Or the Simple rate of return for first year is 5% and for second year is 4.9%. Or the Average Year on Year return is 4.775%.\",\n \"You are not limited in these 3 choices. You can also invest in ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, but traded like stocks. Usually (at least in Canada), MERs for ETFs are smaller than for mutual funds.\",\n \"\\\"I'll try to give you some clues on how to find an answer to your question, rather than answering directly the question asked. Why not answer it directly? Well, I can, but it won't help you (or anyone else) much in two months when the rates change again. Generally, you won't find such in brick-and-mortar banks. You can save some time and only look at online banks. Examples: ING Direct (CapitalOne), CapitalOne, Amex FSB, E*Trade, Ally, etc. There are plenty. Go to their web sites, look for promotions, and compare. Sometimes you can find coupons/promotions which will yield more than the actual savings rate. For example, ING frequently have a $50 promotion for opening a new account. You need to understand that rates change frequently, and the highest rate account today may become barely average in a week. There are plenty of sites that offer various levels of comparison information. One of the most comprehensive ones (IMHO) is Bankrate.com. Another place to look is MoneyRates.com. These sites provide various comparisons, and you can also find some promotions advertised there. There are more similar sites. Also, search the Internet and you can find various blog posts with additional promotions – frequently banks give \\\"\\\"referral bonuses\\\"\\\" to provide incentive for clients to promote the banks. Do some due diligence on the results that appear promising. Not much. You won't find any savings account that would keep the value (purchasing power) of your money over the long term. Keeping money in savings accounts is a sure way to lose value because the inflation rate is much higher than even high-yield savings accounts. But, savings accounts are safe (insured by FDIC/NCUA up to the limit), and very convenient to keep short term savings – such as an emergency fund – that you cannot afford to lose to investments. Sometimes you'll get slightly better rates by locking up your money in a Certificate of Deposit (CD), but not significantly higher when the CD is short-term.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In addition to the advice of @karancan, If you wish to stay strictly with GICs, there are better ways to find good GIC rates, than looking at advertising from institutions you are already dealing with. This site, http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/data/rates?order=d&pageType=gic_long&sort=IR1&page=1&tax_indicator=N (among others) display impartial GIC rates for many institutions and terms of investment, in sortable form. Many of these institutions allow on-line purchases and transfers, requiring only a \\\"\\\"regular\\\"\\\" bank account as a source/destination for on-line transfers...\\\"\",\n \"Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings. (I have an account there.) Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.\",\n \"\\\"First, you don't state where you are and this is a rather global site. There are people from Canada, US, and many other countries here so \\\"\\\"mutual funds\\\"\\\" that mean one thing to you may be a bit different for someone in a foreign country for one point. Thanks for stating that point in a tag. Second, mutual funds are merely a type of investment vehicle, there is something to be said for what is in the fund which could be an investment company, trust or a few other possibilities. Within North America there are money market mutual funds, bond mutual funds, stock mutual funds, mutual funds of other mutual funds and funds that are a combination of any and all of the former choices. Thus, something like a money market mutual fund would be low risk but quite likely low return as well. Short-term bond funds would bring up the risk a tick though this depends on how you handle the volatility of the fund's NAV changing. There is also something to be said for open-end, ETF and closed-end funds that are a few types to consider as well. Third, taxes are something not even mentioned here which could impact which kinds of funds make sense as some funds may invest in instruments with favorable tax-treatment. Aside from funds, I'd look at CDs and Treasuries would be my suggestion. With a rather short time frame, stocks could be quite dangerous to my mind. I'd only suggest stocks if you are investing for at least 5 years. In 2 years there is a lot that can happen with stocks where if you look at history there was a record of stocks going down about 1 in every 4 years on average. Something to consider is what kind of downside would you accept here? Are you OK if what you save gets cut in half? This is what can happen with some growth funds in the short-term which is what a 2 year time horizon looks like. If you do with a stock mutual fund, it would be a gamble to my mind. Don't forget that if the fund goes down 10% and then comes up 10%, you're still down 1% since the down will take more.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes, there is a very good Return vs Risk graph put out at riskgrades.com. Look at it soon, because it will be unavailable after 6-30-11. The RA (return analysis) graph is what I think you are looking for. The first graph shown is an \\\"\\\"Average Return\\\"\\\", which I was told was for a 3 year period. Three period returns of 3, 6 and 12 months, are also available. You can specify the ticker symbols of funds or stocks you want a display of. For funds, the return includes price and distributions (total return), but only price movement for stocks - per site webmaster. I've used the graphs for a few years, since Forbes identified it as a \\\"\\\"Best of the Web\\\"\\\" site. Initially, I found numerous problems with some of the data and was able to work with the webmaster to correct them. Lately though, they have NOT been correcting problems that I bring to their attention. For example, try the symbols MUTHX, EDITX, AWSHX and you'll see that the Risk Grades on the graphs are seriously in error, and compress the graph results and cause overwriting and poor readability. If anyone knows of a similar product, I'd like to know about it. Thanks, George\\\"\",\n \"One of the things I would suggest looking into is peer-to-peer lending. I do lendingclub.com, but with a lot less money, and have only done it a short period of time. Still my return is about 13%. In your case you would probably have to commit to about 3.5 years to invest your money. Buy 3 year notes, and as they are paid off pull the money out and put into a CD or money market.. They sell notes that are 3 or 5 year and you may not want to tie your money up that long.\",\n \"\\\"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \\\"\\\"mutual funds\\\"\\\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Since this is your emergency fund, you generally want to avoid volatility while keeping pace with inflation. You really shouldn't be looking for aggressive growth (which means taking on some risk). That comes from money outside of the emergency fund. The simplest thing to do would be to shop around for a different savings account. There are some deals out there that are better than ING. Here is a good list. The \\\"\\\"traditional\\\"\\\" places to keep an emergency fund are Money Market Mutual Funds (not to be confused with Money Market Accounts). They are considered extremely safe investments. However, the returns on such a fund is pretty low these days, often lower than a high-yield online savings account. The next step up would be a bond fund (more volatility, slightly better return). Pick something that relies on Government bonds, not \\\"\\\"high-yield\\\"\\\" (junk) bonds or anything crazy like that. Fidelity Four in One comes pretty close to your \\\"\\\"index of indexes\\\"\\\" request, but it isn't the most stable thing. You'd probably do better with a safer investment.\\\"\",\n \"In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund. Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc. Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them.\",\n \"\\\"Mutual funds can be relatively low risk and a good starting point. Really it depends on you. What are your goals? This is a pretty open ended question. These can all be low risk and provide some return. Note \\\"\\\"Less Knowledge\\\"\\\" is never a good qualifier for an investment. Your money is your business and you are entitled to know what your business is up to.\\\"\",\n \"Don't invest in regular mutual funds. They are a rip-off. And, most investment professionals will not do much to help your financial future. Here's the advice:\",\n \"The Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index mutual fund (VBIRX) might fit your need. Apart from 2008, it has only had one single quarter of negative returns, and has always had positive annual returns. If you're looking for an ETF, you might consider iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Credit Bond (CSJ).\",\n \"There are many considerations before deciding on the best place for your funds: How liquid do you need the funds to be? If this is for an emergency fund I would keep at least some in an account that you have instant access to, What is your risk (volatility) tolerance? Would you be OK with the value dropping by as much as 30% in a year knowing that over time you'll probably earn 8-12% on it? If not, then equity funds or other stock investments are probably not the best move for you. Do you need the funds now or are they for long-term (retirement) savings? Are you eligible to fund an IRA? That would defer your taxes until you withdraw the funds from the account, but there are age restrictions that you must heed to avoid penalties. Are CDs a good idea? They do pay decent interest, but in return for that you lock up your funds for a set period of time. All that to say that there are many facets to determining the best place for your funds. If you provide more specifics you can get a more specific answer.\",\n \"Returns: Variable, as with all investments. Legitimate: Contact the usual major investment-fund houses.\",\n \"Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.\",\n \"The Telegraph had an interesting article recently going back 30 years for Mutual's in the UK that had beaten the market and trackers for both IT and UT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11489789/The-funds-that-have-returned-more-than-12pc-per-year-for-THIRTY-years.html\",\n \"Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.\",\n \"As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.\",\n \"\\\"Congratulations on deciding to save money and choosing to invest it. One thing to know about mutual funds including index funds is that they typically require a minimum investment of a few thousand dollars, $3000 being a typical amount, unless the investment is in an IRA in which case $1000 might be a minimum. In some cases, automated monthly investments of $50 or $100 might need to be set up if you are beginning with a small balance. There is nothing wrong with your approach. You now should go and look at the various requirements for specific index funds. The Fidelity and Vanguard families are good choices and both offer very low-cost index funds to choose from, but different funds can have different requirements regarding minimum investments etc. You also have a choice of which index you want to follow, the S&P 500 Index, MidCap Indexes, Small-Cap Indexes, Total Stock Market Indexes etc., but your choice might be limited until you have more money to invest because of minimum investment rules etc. Most important, after you have made your choice, I urge you to not look every day, or even every month, to see how your investment is doing. You will save yourself a lot of anxiety and will save yourself from making wrong decisions. Far too many investors ignore the maxim \\\"\\\"Buy Low, Sell High\\\"\\\" and pull money out of what should be long-term investments at the first flicker of a downturn and end up buying high and selling low. Finally, the time is approaching when most stock funds will be declaring dividends and capital gains distributions. If you invest now, you may end up with a paper profit on which you will have to pay taxes (in non-tax-advantaged accounts) on your 2012 tax return (this is called \\\"\\\"buying a dividend\\\"\\\"), and so you might want to spend some time investigating now, but actually make the investment in late December after your chosen fund has made its distributions (the date for this will be on the fund's web site) or in early 2013.\\\"\",\n \"If you need the money in the short-term, you want to invest in something fairly safe. These include saving accounts, CDs, and money market funds from someplace like Vanguard. The last two might give you a slightly better return than the local branch of a national bank.\",\n \"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.\",\n \"Congratulations on being in such good financial state. You have a few investment choices. If you want very low risk, you are talking bonds or CDs. With the prime rate so low, nobody is paying anything useful for very low risk investments. However, my opinion is that given your finances, you should consider taking on a little more risk. A good step is a index fund, which is designed to mirror the performance of a stock index such as the S&P 500. That may be volatile in the short-term, but is likely to be a good investment in the longer term. I am not a fan of non-index mutual funds; in general the management charge makes them a less attractive investment. The next step up is investing in individual stocks, which can provide very big gains or very big losses. The Motley fool site (www.fool.com) has a lot of information about investing overall.\",\n \"So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.\",\n \"As always with investments, it depends on your risk adversity. I don't want to repeat the content of hundreds of recommendations here, so just the nutshell: (For qualified investments,) the more risk you are willing to take, the more returns you'll get. The upper end is the mutual funds and share market, where you have long-term expectations of 8 - 10 % (and corresponding risks of maybe +/- 50% per year), the lower end is a CD, where you can expect little to no interest, corresponding to little to no risk. Investing in shares/funds is not 'better' than investing in CDs, it is different. Not everybody likes financial roller-coasters, and some people mainly consider the high risk, which gives them sleepless nights; while others just consider the expected high long-term gains as all that counts. Find out what your personal risk adversity is, and then pick accordingly.\",\n \"Bond aren't necessarily any safer than the stock market. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a low risk mutual fund. You want something that will allow you get at your money relatively quickly. In other words, CDs (since you you can pick a definite time period for your money to be tied up), money market account or just a plain old savings account. Basically, you want to match inflation and have easy access to the money. Any other returns on top of that are gravy, but don't fret too much about it. See also: Where can I park my rainy-day / emergency fund? Savings accounts don’t generate much interest. Where should I park my rainy-day / emergency fund?\",\n \"\\\"Books such as \\\"\\\"The Pocket Idiot's Guide to Investing in Mutual Funds\\\"\\\" claim that money market funds and CDs are the most prudent things to invest in if you need the money within 5 years. More specifically:\\\"\",\n \"See if any of the funds they offer are index funds, which will generally have MUCH lower fees and which seem to perform as well as any of the actively managed funds in the same categories.\",\n \"A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.\",\n \"Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.\",\n \"Since returning of capital is the most important, I would go to bankrate.com and find either an online bank savings account or MMA account. By going to bankrate.com, you can find higher rates. Sometimes you can find rates that are higher than a CD and are still FDIC insured. I've found ally bank's raise your rate 2 year CD to always have the best rate. In addition, if rates go up, you are able to raise the rate to the current rate.\",\n \"CDs pay less than the going rate so that the banks can earn money. Investing is risky right now due to the inaction of the Fed. Try your independent life insurance agent. You could get endowment life insurance. It would pay out at age 21. If you decide to invest it yourself try to buy a stable equity fund. My 'bedrock' fund is PGF. It pays dividends each month and is currently yealding 5.5% per year. Scottrade has a facility to automatically reinvest the dividend each month at no commission. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PGF?CountryCode=US\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"Money 70\\\"\\\" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are \\\"\\\"bad,\\\"\\\" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck.\\\"\",\n \"Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation. Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'.\",\n \"These interest rates are very low. One of the reasons that I prefer E*Trade is because on their on-line savings account the interest rates are several times higher than on ScotTrade margin accounts (currently it's 0.7% on E*Trade, on any amount, IIRC). The transfers between the accounts on E*Trade are immediate, and they allow using the money for investing immediately even for transfers from outside source. If you can wait a couple of days for the money to arrive before your investment (unless ScotTrade, like E*Trade, allow investing external transfers immediately), you can look at AMEX, ING Direct or Capitol One on-line savings accounts for even higher rates. Oh, and needless to mention, on-line savings accounts are FDIC insured, I'm not sure if the uninvested deposits on Scottrade are.\",\n \"\\\"TD e-series index funds are great for regular contributions every paycheck since there is no trading commission. The personal finance blog \\\"\\\"Canadian Couch Potato\\\"\\\" has great examples of what they call \\\"\\\"model portfolios\\\"\\\" and one consists of entirely TD e-series index funds. Check it out: http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/ The e-series portfolio that is described in the Model Portfolios (linked above) made returns of just over 10%. This is very similar to the ETF Model Portolio. One thing to remember is that these funds have a 30 day no sell time frame, otherwise a 2% fee is applied to the funds you withdraw.\\\"\",\n \"I highly recommend passive investing through something like betterment (www.betterment.com) or vanguard's ETFs. FutureAdvisor.com can provide some good advice as to what funds to invest in. I'd recommend using that money to max out your Roth IRAs each year, too.\",\n \"\\\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \\\"\\\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \\\"\\\"actively managed\\\"\\\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \\\"\\\"time the market\\\"\\\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\\\"\",\n \"On reading couple of articles & some research over internet, I got to know about diversified investment where one should invest 70% in equity related & rest 30% in debt related funds Yes that is about right. Although the recommendation keeps varying a bit. However your first investment should not aim for diversification. Putting small amounts in multiple mutual funds may create paper work and tracking issues. My suggestion would be to start with an Index EFT or Large cap. Then move to balanced funds and mid caps etc. On this site we don't advise on specific funds. You can refer to moneycontrol.com or economictimes or quite a few other personal finance advisory sites to understand the top funds in the segments and decide on funds accordingly. PS: Rather than buying paper, buy it electronic, better you can now buy it as Demat. If you already have an Demat account it would be best to buy through it.\",\n \"You don't say what kinds of mutual funds, or what bonds. You don't say how old you are. You seem to have enough cushion to strike out on your own comfortably. This is good. Compared with Vanguard's management fees, the fees you're paying are pretty high. The bottom line of what to invest in rests with you. If you outsource it, it's still your money. The managers get paid whether you make money or not. You have lots of other options: real estate from a distressed seller, commodities, currencies, websites, or other things where you have a knowledge advantage. For the time being, though, if you're concerned about your main income stream, I wouldn't get terribly risky with your money. Cash is just peachy in that case.\",\n \"http://www.moneysupermarket.com/shares/CompareSharesForm.asp lists many. I found the Interactive Investor website to be excruciatingly bad. I switched to TD Waterhouse and found the website good but the telephone service a bit abrupt. I often use the data presented on SelfTrade but don't have an account there.\",\n \"The SEC 30-Day Yield you're seeing is a standardized yield calculation set out by the Securities & Exchange Commission. It can be useful for comparing bond funds, but it doesn't guarantee what you'll actually earn from a fund. IMPORTANT: The SEC 30-day yield represents a bond fund's returns from the previous 30 days expressed as an annual percentage of the current fund price — yes, an annual percentage. In other words, don't expect 1.81% return on your money every 30 days! Such a return is too-good-to-be-true return in today's low rate environment. 1.81% per year? More reasonable. Even then, the 1.81% you see is merely an estimate, one based on assumptions, of what you might expect to earn if you keep your money in place for the next year. The estimate is based on the assumptions that: These aren't reliable assumptions. BIV's price does fluctuate. You are not promised to get your principal back with a bond fund. Only an individual bond promises your principal back, and only at maturity. So, earning $181 on $10,000 invested for a full year while taking on interest-rate and other risks might not be worth the trouble of putting your money in a brokerage account. You'll need to transfer the money in and out, and there are potential trading fees to take into account. (How much to buy/sell units?) An FDIC-insured high interest savings account makes more sense.\",\n \"I would stay away from the Actively Managed Funds. Index funds or the asset allocation funds are your best bet since they have the lowest fees. What is your risk tolerance? How old are you? I would suggest reading:\",\n \"\\\"Most mutual funds are designed to make the investment banks that sell them money, not to make investers money. They do this by taking significant fees out. Because they make lots of money on these funds, they advertise them a lot, and give them important-sounding names, like \\\"\\\"Advanced technology global diversity long term appreciation\\\"\\\". Index funds are the exception; they attempt to mirror the performance of a specific index (such as the S&P 500 index). They generally have very low fees.\\\"\",\n \"It depends on the exact level of risk that you want, but if you want to keep your risk close to zero you're pretty much stuck with the banks (and those rates don't look to be going up any time soon). If you're willing to accept a little more risk, you can invest in some index tracking ETFs instead, with the main providers in Australia being Vanguard, Street State and Betashares. A useful tool for for an overview of the Australian ETF market is offered by StockSpot. The index funds reduce your level of risk by investing in an index of the market, e.g. the S&P 200 tracked by STW. If the market as a whole rises, then your investment will too, even though within that index individual companies will rise and fall. This limits your potential rate of return as well, and is still significantly more risky than leaving your cash in an Aussie bank (after all, the whole market can fall), but it might strike the right balance for you. If you're getting started, HSBC, Nabtrade, Commsec and Westpac were all offering a couple of months of free trades up to a certain value. Once the free trades are done, you'll do better to move to another broker (you can migrate your shares to the others to take advantage of their free trades too) or to a cheaper broker like CMC Markets.\",\n \"\\\"I used the term \\\"\\\"bond fund\\\"\\\" to mean a mutual fund which invests in bonds. Vanguard has a list. If you live in PA, OH, MA, FL, CA, NJ, or NY there are tax free funds you can invest in on that list.\\\"\",\n \"I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.\",\n \"\\\"Check out the \\\"\\\"rewards checking\\\"\\\" accounts listed on this thread at fatwallet finance forums. You could easily get 3.5% - 4% right now if you are willing to do the rewards checking dance. If not, you should look into the 1-2% accounts at the top. I use Alliant CU and their website is nice (and they give you your credit score every six months).\\\"\",\n \"In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.\",\n \"\\\"Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs. They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds. You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds. Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well. You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds. That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into \\\"\\\"established\\\"\\\" economies and a certain fraction into \\\"\\\"emerging\\\"\\\" ones. I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you want the answer from the horse's mouth, go to the website of the ETF or mutual find, and the expense ratio will be listed there, both on the \\\"\\\"Important Information\\\"\\\" part of the front page, as well as in the .pdf file that you click on to download the Prospectus. Oh wait, you don't want to go the fund's website at all, just to a query site where you type in something like VFINX. hit SEARCH, and out pops the expense ratio for the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund? Well, have you considered MorningStar?\\\"\",\n \"Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.\",\n \"There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.\",\n \"\\\"There are raters of stock and bond funds of which Morningstar's is the best. Standard and Poor's and Value line offer reports that aren't quite as good. If you are able to read and understand these reports yourself, you don't need a professional. Such help is necessary for people who are \\\"\\\"rank beginners\\\"\\\" in investments.\\\"\",\n \"Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.\",\n \"Yes, it is. Got to start somewhere. Typically directly through a company itself. Check out this site that lists a bunch of them and their minimum requirements. Not many only accept $100 but there are a few. ie. ACTIVEnergy Income Fund, CIBC, COMPASS Income Fund, Suncor Energy Inc. and a few others.\",\n \"\\\"An alternative to a savings account is a money market account. Not a bank \\\"\\\"Money Market\\\"\\\" account which pays effectively the same silly rate as a savings account, but an actual Money Market investment account. You can even write checks against some Money Market investment accounts. I have several accounts worth about 13,000 each. Originally, my \\\"\\\"emergency fund\\\"\\\" was in a CD ladder. I started experimenting with two different Money market investment accounts recently. Here's my latest results: August returns on various accounts worth about $13k: - Discover Bank CD: $13.22 - Discover Bank CD: $13.27 - Discover Bank CD: $13.20 - Discover Savings: $13.18 - Credit Union \\\"\\\"Money Market\\\"\\\" Savings account: $1.80 - Fidelity Money Market Account (SPAXX): $7.35 - Vanguard Money market Account (VMFXX): $10.86 The actual account values are approximate. The Fidelity Money Market Account holds the least value, and the Credit Union account by far the most. The result of the experiment is that as the CDs mature, I'll be moving out of Discover Bank into the Vanguard Money Market account. You can put your money into more traditional equities mutual fund. The danger with them is the stock market may drop big the day before you want to make your withdrawl... and then you don't have the down payment for your house anymore. But a well chosen mutual fund will yield better. There are 3 ways a mutual fund increase in value: Here's how three of my mutual funds did in the past month... adjusted as if the accounts had started off to be worth about $13,000: Those must vary wildly month-to-month. By the way, if you look up the ticker symbols, VASGX is a Vanguard \\\"\\\"Fund of Funds\\\"\\\" -- it invests not 100% in the stock market, but 80% in the stock market and 20% in bonds. VSMGX is a 60/40 split. Interesting that VASGX grew less than VSMGX...but that assumes my spreadsheet is correct. Most of my mutual funds pay dividends and capital gains once or twice a year. I don't think any pay in August.\\\"\",\n \"I agree with others here that suggest that you should be taking higher risk since it is repaid with higher returns. You have 40 years or so to go before you might switch to safer but lower return funds. I suggest that you look at the Morningstar rating for the funds you are considering: http://www.morningstar.com/ A fund rated five stars means that the fund performs in the top 20% compared to all similar funds. I prefer five star funds. Next, check the management fees. Here is an example from one of the funds you mentioned; https://www.google.com/finance?cid=466533039917726 Next, I suggest you compare how each fund has performed compared to a benchmark. Here are some common indices: Compare an equity fund to, for example, the S&P 500. Has your fund beat or closely matched the S&P for 1, 5 and 10 years? If not, you may as well buy an index fund, such as SPY.\",\n \"What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees.\",\n \"Go with a Vanguard ETF. I had a lengthy discussion with a successful broker who runs a firm in Chicago. He boiled all of finance down to Vanguard ETF and start saving with a roth IRA. 20 years of psychology research shows that there's a .01 correlation (that's 1/100 of 1%) of stock/mutual fund performance to prediction. That's effectively zero. You can read more about it in the book Thinking Fast and Slow. Investors have ignored this research for years. The truth is you'd be just as successful if you picked your mutual funds out of a hat. But I'll recommend you go with a broker's advice.\",\n \"As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.\",\n \"\\\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \\\"\\\"hot\\\"\\\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\\\"\",\n \"Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more. If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around\",\n \"I am going to assume that this is going to be a long term investment and you don't need this money before 5-6years at the very least. My advise would be to invest in one of the following funds : IDFC Premier equity fund growth plan (Direct) (Only SIP allowed right now) ICICI Discovery fund growth plan (Direct) DSP microcap fund growth plan (Direct) In case you do not want to be invested in small and mid cap and want a little less volatility then my first choice for that would be : Quantum long term equity fund dividend plan Whatever you go for make sure you go directly with the fund house and not through a broker as you end up getting charged an extra .63% extra as opposed to going direct and you will also be paying for a demat account which can be avoided if you invest directly with a fund house. Out of the above mentioned funds Quantum has the lowest expense ratio of 1.25% and it is a huge benefit if you are talking 10+ years because it makes a lot of difference. Source : My own research and experience as an investor.\",\n \"\\\"There are mutual funds oriented toward kids or that are suitable in some way (e.g. they have low minimums). Here are two articles with mention of some of them: Of those only USAA First Start Growth is explicitly for kids: http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=UFSGX or https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/mutual_funds_reports Another fund aimed at kids is Monetta Young Investor http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=MYIFX or http://www.younginvestorfund.com/ The diversified funds (with fixed income) like USAA First Start Growth, Vanguard STAR, Pax World Balanced, etc. have the nice property that they won't be as volatile and may spend less time \\\"\\\"underwater,\\\"\\\" so that might better convey the value of investing (vs. an all-stock fund where it could be kind of depressing for years on end, if you get bad luck). Though, I feel the same principle applies for adults. Kids may appreciate intangible aspects of the funds, e.g. Pax World Balanced invests in sustainable companies, Ariel Appreciation also has some social parameters and I think the guy running it does charity work with kids, that type of thing. There should be quarterly and annual reports on mutual funds (or stocks) that would give kids something to read and think about related to the investment. Disclaimer: none of these funds are recommendations, I have not researched them in any detail, just giving you some leads.\\\"\",\n \"Based on your question, I am going to assume your criterion are: Based on these, I believe you'd be interested in a different savings account, a CD, or money market account. Savings account can get you up to 1.3% and money market accounts can get up to 1.5%. CDs can get you a little more, but they're a little trickier. For example, a 5 year CD could get up to 2%. However, now you're money is locked away for the next few years, so this is not a good option if this money is your emergency fund or you want to use it soon. Also, if interest rates increase then your money market and savings accounts' interest rates will increase but your CD's interest rate misses out. Conversely, if interest rates drop, you're still locked into a higher rate.\",\n \"\\\"From a quick look at sources on the web, it looks to me like Money Market Accounts and savings accounts are both paying about the same rate today: around 1%, give or take maybe 0.4%. I suppose that's better than nothing, but it's not a whole lot better than nothing. (I saw several savings accounts advertising 0.1% interest. If they mailed you a check, the postage could be more than the returns.) Personally, I keep a modest amount of emergency cash in my checking account, and I put my \\\"\\\"savings\\\"\\\" in a very safe mutual fund. That generally gets somewhere from making maybe 3% a year to losing a small amount. Certainly nothing to sing about, but better than savings or money markets. Whether you are willing to tolerate the modest risk or the sales charges is a matter for your personal situation and feelings.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \\\"\\\"years paying,\\\"\\\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First off, you generally want to park your emergency fund somewhere that is \\\"\\\"safe\\\"\\\", meaning something that is not subject to market fluctuations. Your emergency fund is something you need to be able to count on when times are tough! That rules out things like stock market investments. Secondly, you need to think about how quickly you will need access to the money. If you have an emergency, odds are you don't want to be waiting around for weeks/months/years for the money to become available. This rules out most fixed-term investments (Bonds, traditional CDs, etc). If you are concerned that you will need near-instant access to your emergency money, then you probably want to keep it in a Savings or Money Market Account at the same bank as your checking account. Most banks will let you transfer money between local accounts instantly. Unfortunately, your local bank probably has pitiful interest rates for the Savings/MMA, far below the inflation rate. This means your money will slowly lose value over time. Be prepared to keep contributing to it! For most people, being able to draw the cash from your fund within a few days (<1 week) is sufficient. Worst case, you charge something on your credit card, and then pay down the card when the emergency fund withdrawal arrives. If \\\"\\\"money within a few days\\\"\\\" is okay for you, there are a few options: Money Market (Mutual) Funds (not to be confused with a Money Market Account) - This is the traditional place to keep an emergency fund. These are investment funds you can buy with a brokerage account. An example of such a fund would be Fidelity Cash Reserves. MMFs are not FDIC insured, so they are not exactly zero risk. However, they are considered extremely safe. They almost never go down in value (only a few times in the past few decades), and when they have, the fund manager or the Federal Govt stepped in to restore the value. They usually offer slightly better return than a local savings account, and are available in taxable and non-taxable varieties. Online High-Yield Savings or Money Market Account - These are a relatively new invention. It's basically a the same thing as what your local bank offers, but it's online-only. No local branch means low overhead, so they offer higher interest rates (2.0% vs 0.5% for your local bank). Some of them used to be over 5% before the economy tanked. Like your local bank, it is FDIC insured. One bit of caution: Some of these accounts have become \\\"\\\"gimmicky\\\"\\\" lately. They have started to do things like promo rates for a few months, only offering the high interest rate on the first few $K deposited, limiting the amount that can be withdrawn, etc. Be sure to read the details before you open an account! No-Penalty CDs - Certificates of Deposit usually offer a better rate than a Savings Account, but your money is locked up until the CD term is up (e.g. 36 months). If you need to cash out before then, you pay a penalty. Some banks have begun to offer CDs that you can cash out with no penalty at all. These can offer better rates than the savings account. Make sure it really is no-penalty though. Also watch what your options are for slowly adding money over time. This can be an issue if you want to deposit $100 from every paycheck. Rewards Checking Accounts - These are checking accounts that will pay a relatively high interest rate (3% or more) provided you generate enough activity. Most of them will have requirements like you must have direct deposit setup with them, and you must do a minimum number of debit card transactions from the account per month. If you can stay on top of the requirements, these can be a great deal. If you don't stay on top of it, your interest rate usually drops back to something pitiful, though. Personally, we use the Online High-Yield Savings Account for our emergency fund. I'm not going to make a specific recommendation as to which bank to use. The best deal changes almost week to week. Instead, I will say to check out Bankrate.com for a list of savings accounts and CDs that you can sort. The Bank Deals blog is a good place to follow rate changes.\\\"\",\n \"Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \"\"emerging markets\"\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\"","Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up.","Are you looking for something like Morningstar.com? They provide information about lots of mutual funds so you can search based on many factors and find good candidate mutual funds. Use their fund screener to pick funds with long track records of beating the S&P500."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \\\"\\\"emerging markets\\\"\\\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\\\"\",\n \"Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up.\",\n \"Are you looking for something like Morningstar.com? They provide information about lots of mutual funds so you can search based on many factors and find good candidate mutual funds. Use their fund screener to pick funds with long track records of beating the S&P500.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":264,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3791"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"\"When people say 'Interest rates are at all time low!\"\" … Which interest rate are they actually referring to?\""},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["327432","577201","212222"],"string":"[\n \"327432\",\n \"577201\",\n \"212222\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["327432","212222","594667","570466","483218","228211","531551","581257","96396","227653","577201","519470","346064","37484","466745","420484","578983","52735","332136","205163","2390","551234","491219","357103","285064","36602","417311","499112","350180","447237","363817","136325","118817","484884","346662","389264","35251","72168","361114","569691","491917","400646","596914","433340","177137","12378","42475","133486","144177","16626","435740","377035","521813","211026","257495","129676","2234","380071","59710","534886","185104","512573","72683","500985","46716","219335","517750","335951","60486","323932","257552","121716","525717","88774","209626","307082","131723","228668","118138","548971","252496","230948","379492","305539","493963","457865","443092","135352","282013","370086","216962","331758","523959","11356","216717","148627","37954","294152","144077","129742"],"string":"[\n \"327432\",\n \"212222\",\n \"594667\",\n \"570466\",\n \"483218\",\n \"228211\",\n \"531551\",\n \"581257\",\n \"96396\",\n \"227653\",\n \"577201\",\n \"519470\",\n \"346064\",\n \"37484\",\n \"466745\",\n \"420484\",\n \"578983\",\n \"52735\",\n \"332136\",\n \"205163\",\n \"2390\",\n \"551234\",\n \"491219\",\n \"357103\",\n \"285064\",\n \"36602\",\n \"417311\",\n \"499112\",\n \"350180\",\n \"447237\",\n \"363817\",\n \"136325\",\n \"118817\",\n \"484884\",\n \"346662\",\n \"389264\",\n \"35251\",\n \"72168\",\n \"361114\",\n \"569691\",\n \"491917\",\n \"400646\",\n \"596914\",\n \"433340\",\n \"177137\",\n \"12378\",\n \"42475\",\n \"133486\",\n \"144177\",\n \"16626\",\n \"435740\",\n \"377035\",\n \"521813\",\n \"211026\",\n \"257495\",\n \"129676\",\n \"2234\",\n \"380071\",\n \"59710\",\n \"534886\",\n \"185104\",\n \"512573\",\n \"72683\",\n \"500985\",\n \"46716\",\n \"219335\",\n \"517750\",\n \"335951\",\n \"60486\",\n \"323932\",\n \"257552\",\n \"121716\",\n \"525717\",\n \"88774\",\n \"209626\",\n \"307082\",\n \"131723\",\n \"228668\",\n \"118138\",\n \"548971\",\n \"252496\",\n \"230948\",\n \"379492\",\n \"305539\",\n \"493963\",\n \"457865\",\n \"443092\",\n \"135352\",\n \"282013\",\n \"370086\",\n \"216962\",\n \"331758\",\n \"523959\",\n \"11356\",\n \"216717\",\n \"148627\",\n \"37954\",\n \"294152\",\n \"144077\",\n \"129742\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"You are correct that it could refer to any of the types of interest rates that you've mentioned. In general, though, phrases such as \"\"rising interest rates\"\" and \"\"falling interest rates\"\" refer to the Federal Funds Rate or LIBOR. These are the interest rates at which banks in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, are lending money to each other.\"","\"I would say people are generally talking about the prime lending rate. I have heard the prime lending rate defined as \"\"The rate that banks charge each other when they borrow money overnight.\"\" But it often defined as the rate at which banks lend their most creditworthy customers. That definition comes with the caveat that it is not always held to strictly. Either definition has the same idea: it's the lowest rate at which anyone could currently borrow money. The rate for many types of lending is based upon the prime rate. A variable rate loan might have an interest rate of (Prime + x). The prime rate is in turn based upon the Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate that the Fed sets manually. When the news breaks that \"\"the Fed is raising interest rates by a quarter of a point\"\" (or similar) it is the Federal Funds Rate that they control. Lending institutions then \"\"fall in line\"\" and adjust the rates at which they lend money. So to summarize: When people refer to \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\" or \"\"rising\"\" interest rates they are conceptually referring to the prime lending rate. When people talk about the Fed raising/lowering interest rates (In the U.S.) they are referring specifically to the Federal Funds Rate (which ultimately sets other lending rates).\"","\"In the United States, if someone refers to the \"\"interest rate\"\", especially if heard on news or talk radio in particular, they are almost always referring to the federal funds rate, a rate set forth and maintained by the United States Federal Reserve (the \"\"fed\"\" for short). If the fed opts to raise or lower this rate, it subsequently effects all interest rates, whether by being directly connected in a chain of loans or by market demand through the efficiency of financial markets in the case of bond auctions. The FOMC meets eight times each year to determine the target for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate effects all interest rates because it is the originating rate of interest on all loans in the chain of loans. Because of this significance as a benchmark for all interest rates, it is the rate most commonly referred to as \"\"interest rate\"\" when used alone. That is why other rates are specified by what they actually are; e.g., mortgage rates; 10 year & 30 year (for 10 year treasury and 30 year treasury bond yields respectively); savings rate, auto rate, credit card rate, CD rate—all rates of interest effected by the originating loan that is the federal funds rate. This is true in the United States but will vary for other countries. In general though, it will almost always refer to the originating rate for all loans in a given country, institution, etc. Note that bonds have yields that are based on market demand that is, in turn, based on the federal funds rate. It is because of the efficiency of financial markets that the demand, and thus the yields, are correlated to the federal funds rate.\"","\"When \"\"people say\"\", each person is referring to whatever he/she is looking at. Interest rates tend to move roughly the same, but often there is a bias regarding long vs. short term. In the US right now, short term interest rates are very low but there is a lot of chatter saying they will rise in the future. The differential between long term rates and short term rates is high compared to historical norms, suggesting that the market believes this chatter. You can also look at the differences in rates between different quality levels. If the economy is improving, the difference in rate for lower rated debt vs. higher rated debt decreases as people think the chance of businesses failing is decreasing. Right now, any interest rate you look at is well below long term historical averages, so asserting that interest rates are low is quite safe.\"","The generic representative of interest rates is the 10 year treasury bond rate. (USA). As an approximation most other interest rates do tend to move up and down with the treasury rate, but with more or less sensitivity. Another prominently discussed interest rate is the short term loan rate established by the Federal Reserve for loans it makes to banks.","Because giving someone a loan and paying them to take it isn't a loan anymore. I'll grant you, some of the treasury bill auctions did slip below 0% -- people paid in slightly more than what the bill would pay out. In as much as this was done by actual investors (and not afore-mentioned helicopter Ben Bernanke keeping the printing presses running hot all night), it was major accounts fearful of the euro disintegrating and banks crashing, and so on, and needing a safe spot to stick their cash for a couple months. Where the Fed is concerned, that interest rate he's referring to is lending they do to banks. So, how much would you take if you ran a bank and the Fed offered to pay you to take their money? A billion? A trillion? As much as you could cram in your vaults, shove in your pockets, and stuff down your favorite teller's blouse? Yea, me too.","\"These rates are so low because the cost of money is so low. Specifically, two rates are near zero. The Federal Reserve discount rate, which is \"\"the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window.\"\" The effective federal funds rate, which is the rate banks pay when they trade balances with each other through the Federal Reserve. Banks want to profit on the loans they make, like mortgage loans. To do so, they try to maximize the difference between the rates they charge on mortgages and other loans (revenue), and the rates they pay savings account holders, the Federal Reserve or other banks to obtain funds (expenses). This means that the rates they offer to pay are as close to these rates as possible. As the charts shows, both rates have been cut significantly since the start of the recession, either through open market operations (the federal funds rate) or directly (the discount rate). The discount rate is set directly by the regional Federal Reserve banks every 14 days. In most cases, the federal funds rate is lower than the discount rate, in order to encourage banks to lend money to each other instead of borrowing it from the Fed. In the past, however, there have been rare instances where the federal funds rate has exceeded the discount rate, and it's been cheaper for banks to borrow money directly from the Fed than from each other.\"","Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.","It refers to the risk free rate of a particular country. Because all other rates are usually pegged to the risk free rate. In US,it is the 30 day treasury rate. In England, it is the LIBOR In Canada, it is the overnight rate at which banks lend money to each other. All of these come under the category of risk free rate.","It's really not. You have to realize that current rates are an outlier. The average on the 10yr since 1960 is 6.7%. Even on the 1yr it's still 5.7%. The average on the 30Yr from '77-present is 7.6%. You can use your own discretion about the length of time to consider for the average, but you don't just take the current rate as the risk free rate.","As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend.","Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds? Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall. Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss.","This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past.","> if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, You cannot really believe this. There is no sector more artificial than banking, and under the current regime there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans. Rates have been artificially depressed across the spectrum using every available manipulation, and we are experiencing a coordinated money-printing/government bailout operation on a global scale. To say that rates anywhere have any relation to the real cost and/or demand for capital is absurd.","but I can't help but feel that these low rates are somehow a gimmick to trick people into taking out loans Let me help you: it's not a feeling. That's exactly what it is. Since the economy is down, people don't want to jeopardize what they have, and keep the cash in their wallets. But, while keeping the money safe in the pocket, it makes the economy even worse. So in order to make people spend some money, the rates go down so that the cost of money is lower. It also means that the inflation will be on the rise, which is again a reason not to keep money uninvested. So yes, the rates are now very low, and the housing market is a buyers' market, so it does make sense to take out a loan at this time (provided of course that you can actually repay it over time, and don't take loans you can't handle). Of course, you shouldn't be taking loans just because the rates are low. But if you were already planning on purchasing a house - now would be a good time to go on with that.","I've wondered the same thing. And, after reading the above replies, I think there is a simpler explanation. It goes like this. When the bank goes to make a loan they need capital to do it. So, they can get it from the federal reserve, another bank, or us. Well, if the federal reserve will loan it to them for lets say 0.05%, what do you think they are going to be willing to pay us? Id say maybe 0.04%. Anyway, I could be wrong, but this makes sense to me.","The yield on treasury bond indicates the amount of money anyone at can make at virtually zero risk. So lets say banks have X [say 100] amount of money. They can either invest this in treasury bonds and get Y% [say 1%] interest that is very safe, or invest into mortgage loans [i.e. lend it to people] at Y+Z% [say at 3%]. The extra Z% is to cover the servicing cost and the associated risk. (Put another way, if you wanted only Y%, why not invest into treasury bonds, rather than take the risk and hassle of getting the same Y% by lending to individuals?) In short, treasury bond rates drive the rate at which banks can invest surplus money in the market or borrow from the market. This indirectly translates into the savings & lending rates to the banks' customers.","so this is a loan for a house? a loan on a house? a new mortgage? you shouldn't just get a loan for the hell of it any time. interests rates are low because the yields on US treasuries have been pushed closer to zero, and thats pretty much that. the risk is on the bank that approves the loan, and not you. (your ability to repay should be truthful, but your payments are smaller because the interest is so low)","You understand that the Fed is *supposed* to make overnight loans to banks, that one of its primary jobs is to be a lender of last resort? And yes, some were foreign banks; foreign subsidies of US banks or counter-parties to large US banks. Near-zero, yes for course we're talking about *overnight* loans. The current commercial rate for overnight euro LIBOR is 0.26179%, in other words, 0.0026, near zero OMG conspiracy!","\"In practice No, not at zero. Banks currently have the ability to borrow at very low interest rates but not quite at zero. Using the Fed Funds Range as a metric we can see that recently (Nov 2015) the lower bound of the fed funds range was 0.05%. Fed funds are overnight lend/borrow transactions between banks (often between the federal home loan banks and other institutions) 0.05% is also the FED's current Reverse Repo Program rate (RRP), which is the rate at which certain counterparties can deposit cash with the FED overnight in exchange for collateral. The collateral (US Treasuries) is insurance against the FED defaulting, a very low risk considering the FED has the ability to create more US Dollars out of thin air. In theory the RRP rate should be a lower bound for the fed funds rate however in practice it is possible to see lower rates trade in the street. What do you mean by \"\"Third party institutions\"\"? Only banks of the highest credit quality are able to borrow at the lower bound of the Fed Funds range. These are usually large domestic banks like JP Morgan, Bank of NY etc... As credit quality decreases the rate at which they borrow increases. Currently Skandinavien, German, French banks have relatively good credit and borrow overnight money towards the lower part of the fed funds range. Italian, Spanish and smaller regional US banks have lesser credit quality and borrow at the higher end of the Fed Funds range. Institutions with lower credit quality would borrow at still higher rates.\"","But Uncle Sam isn't just borrowing money from other people/countires. He's borrowing money from himself..... with printed money. The ostensible purpose of QE, Operation Twist, et al, is to force interest rates down largely through the monetization of government debt. So to reference interest rates as if they were some neutral barometer of America's financial strength is a bit spurious.","Surely some borrowers and lenders make decisions about making and taking loans based on the actual interest rates on the actual loans? In which case it doesn't matter so much if the rates are calculated based on a fictional assumption about something. At the end of the day every borrower or lender in the market makes their own decision about which lending contracts they take part in.","Mortgage or other interest rates are determined by the banks on cost of funds, risk and operating cost. The Fed raises money from the markets by issuing Tresury Bonds at a specified rate. This rate at which it raises money varies depening on the economy. Thus there are 2 rates: the rate at which banks can borrow money from the Fed, which is higher than the rate that the Fed would give banks for excess money deposited with them. So if the cost of borrowing is less, banks can borrow this money from the Fed and loan it to individuals at a slightly higher rate that would cover their costs plus a small profit. The risk associated with a mortgage is less, and hence these would be cheaper, then say a personal loan. If the cost of borrowing goes up, the mortgage rate will go up. If the cost of borrowing money goes down, the cost would come down. Banks may not always borrow money to lend. If they have existing money, they can either park it with the Fed for a lower interest rate, or loan it to individuals for a rate higher than what they would have received from the Fed.","\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"","Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.","1) Low-Interest Rate: Isn't the inflation rate currently (and over the last couple of years) also really low, around 2%? If you're saying the inflation rate is going to go back up, I'm curious as to your reasoning. I don't see any general decrease in the money supply in the near future, wages are stagnant, and GDP looks like it's trundling along at standard rates - however, with the Gini coefficient still rising, more and more of that production is finding its way into fewer and fewer hands that don't have a lot of incentive to re-invest it.","The prime rate is actually the rate at which banks lend to consumers/businesses with the highest credit ratings. The bank rate (more commonly known as the overnight rate) is the interest rate at which banks can borrow funds from the Bank of Canada or from each other.","Wait, if everyone isn't buying things and saving money instead, who is left to get loans to buy things at higher rates? Banks don't wag the consumer's tail. Banks will make loads more money on their variable rate loans which will hurt a lot of people. Until wages rise to incentivize buying things, loan interest rates need to be low. Only way to spur the economy is to get more money in the hands of the spenders. We keep giving it to the hoarders.","There's often a legal basis to answer this question. For instance, Austria (guessing from your profile) currently uses a 4% Statutory interest rate. You'll need to dig up not just the actual but also the historical rates. Note that you'll want the non-commercial interest rate - some countries differentiate between loans to businesses and loans to individuals.","Without commenting on whether or not it's needed I don't think we are going to see a QE3 and all the political pressure is for some reason to start raising rates. Regardless of how it plays out it's safe to say that the Fed Rate isn't going any lower. You should also watch closely what happens to Fannie and Freddie. If they are dismantled and government backed mortgages become a thing of the past then I think it'll become impossible for a consumer to find a 30 year fixed rate mortgage. Even if they are kept alive, they will be put on a short leash and that will serve to further depress the mortgage market. Long story short, I'd lock your rate in.","Interest rates can't remain this low. It's like having extremely low blood pressure. When you raise the rates, banks are incented to loan money and that movement of capital is good for the economy. It forces us to become savers instead of spenders, and our pensions, 401ks, social security are all getting killed by not being able to use debt to get safer stable returns. Interest rates have to come back up.","It just means that they think that in the long-term, interest rates should be around 3-4%, i.e. probably between 3% and 4%, but perhaps a bit lower or higher occasionally.","Federal Funds Rate The interest rate at which a depository institution lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another depository institution overnight. The federal funds rate is generally only applicable to the most creditworthy institutions when they borrow and lend overnight funds to each other. The federal funds rate is one of the most influential interest rates in the U.S. economy, since it affects monetary and financial conditions, which in turn have a bearing on key aspects of the broad economy including employment, growth and inflation. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/federalfundsrate.asp#ixzz3mB5kCtvT","Yes. In the US these are called certificates of deposit or savings accounts. Every run-of-the-mill bank offers them. You give the bank money and in return they pay you an interest rate that is some fraction of or (negative) offset from the returns they expect to make from your money. Since most investments that a bank makes (say, loaning money to a local business) are themselves based on some multiple of or (positive) offset from the prime rate, in return the interest rate that they offer you is also mathematically based on the prime rate. You can find lists of banks offering the best returns on CDs or savings accounts at sites like BankRate.","If you had a time machine and could go back and tell yourself in 2005 that there would be a stretch coming up where the FFR would be held a 0% for (at least) 6 solid years you would not have believed it. No one would have believed it. That would have been crazy loony toon talk.","And how is that even an argument? So...the fed needs to raise rates, is what you seem to be saying. I'm not sure that now is the time for that, considering the weak jobs numbers recently, but it's possibly a good idea for them to announce that a hike will come soon instead of actually raising the rate. Either way, to say that having a low interest rate for a decade is a bad thing sort of obscures a harsh reality. It's certainly not something that you *want*, but what's the alternative? Would the US have been better off without the Feds balance sheet expansion? Very few economists would say yes. In fact that exact line of thought likely turned a financial crash into the Great Depression of the 30's.","You can find the national average interest rates on commercial bank accounts from the FDIC or nicely aggregated [here from the St. Louis Fed.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/search?st=National+Rate+on+Non-Jumbo+Deposits+%28less+than+%24100%2C000%29%3A+Savings) [Here is the national average interest rate on savings accounts.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAVNRNJ) If you are looking for a general historical proxy for a savings account interest rate, then the effective federal funds rate or overnight LIBOR is a good estimate prior to the 2008 financial crisis.","The prime rate is the interest rate banks use amongst themselves to lend money to each other only. It is used as the basis (sometimes) for what interest rate banks charge you. The prime rate is based loosely on the Fed rate. There is a committee that meets regularly to set this and other industry interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_rate I am not 100% positive the following is totally accurate The banks keep our deposits and pay us interest for doing so. They are paying us interest because they take yours, mine and everybody elses deposits as a large lump sum and invest that money. Sometimes as business loans, sometimes as mortgages and sometimes as credit card. The banks have a book of business that will be EXACTLY how much credit they have extended to everybody. But they do not keep that amount of cash in the vaults, only some smaller percentage of that large amount. When I use my credit card and they need to transfer money to amazon.com, if they don't happen to have enough cash that day, they will just borrow from another bank that does, and the interest rate they pay to do so is the prime rate. Since they are paying interest on the money they borrow to pay the debt I charged because they told me my credit was worth so much (...???...) they charge me a little bit more than that. Hence your credit card or mortgage's APR being based on the prime rate. I THINK that is what they do If I am wrong leave a comment and I will update, or the mods can.","\"Not at these rates. The motto used to be 3/6/3: \"\"Borrow at 3%, Loan out at 6%, and then be at the golf course by 3pm\"\". So they get 3% on the spread, minus fixed costs. Now, they borrow at near 0% and loan out at slightly above 0%. Those fixed costs starts becoming an issue. It isn't cheap to have all these ATMs, bank branches, tellers, computer systems, etc. Also, a lot of the money cannot be loaned out at all because there are not enough creditworthy borrowers. You might have recalled a few months ago, several banks started charging for deposits. They don't want more money that will just lay there while they have to pay the costs of maintaining the accounts. Some bank CEOs have stated that they would be better off if the Fed raised rates up to 1%.\"","\"Interest rates are at a record low and the government is printing money. You can get a fixed rate loan at a rate equal to inflation in a healthy economy. Unless you know that you are moving in < 5 years, why would you expose yourself to interest rate risk when rates are about as close to zero as they can be? If your thought with respect to mitigating interest rate risk is: \"\"What's the big deal, I'll just refinance!\"\", think again, because in a market where rates are climbing, you may not be able to affordably refinance at the LTV that you'll have in 5-7 years. From 1974-1991, 30 year mortgages never fell below 9%, and were over 12% from 1979 to 1985. Think about what those kinds of rates -- which reduce a new homeowner's buying power by over 40%, would do to your homes value.\"","\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-06/are-low-interest-rates-bad-for-growth) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > James Chessen, the chief economist of the American Bankers&#039; Association, said in a June 5 interview, &quot;Interest rates have been too low for too long. It has created a problem for banks.&quot; The Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents smaller U.S. banks, believes that &quot;Higher interest rates would be a net plus for the community banking sector that would help them extend more credit,&quot; according to spokesman Paul Merski. > Officials at the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are sensitive to the side effects of extremely low or even subzero interest rates. > In a May 24 speech in Madrid, ECB President Mario Draghi acknowledged that low policy rates &quot;May compress banks&#039; net interest margins and thus exert pressure on their profitability.&quot; But he said that ECB researchers found that taking into account offsetting beneficial effects, &quot;The overall impact of our measures on bank profitability was positive.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fodm5/is_the_world_overdoing_low_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~138044 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **rate**^#2 **interest**^#3 **Low**^#4 **Calomiris**^#5\"","\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\"","There's two competing forces at work, and they are at work worldwide. Banks can get money from several sources: Through inter-bank borrowing and from raising capital. Capital can come from from selling assets, stock offerings, deposits, etc. The money the banks get from depositors is capital. In the United States, the Federal Reserve regulates the amount of capital that banks must maintain. If there was no requirement for capital then there would be zero demand for capital at an interest rate above the inter-bank offering rate. As capital requirements have risen, banks are allowed to make less loans given a certain amount of capital. That has caused an increased demand for capital from depositors. As described in this Federal Reserve ruling, effective January 1st, 2014 the Federal Reserve is again raising capital requirements. As you can see here money can be borrowed, in the United States, at .0825% (100 - 99.9175). Currently interest rates paid to borrowers are quite high compared to prevailing inter-bank rates. They could see more upward pressure given the fact that banks will be forced to maintain an increased amount of capital for a given amount of loans.","There is a strange puzzle today where savings account interest rates are not rising in-line with the Federal Funds rate. Either customers are apathetic to their alternative uses of cash, or banks have some-how formed a cartel to keep their cost of funding low. I'm leaning towards the former since bank customers today likely value readily accessible cash more than the interest rate they could earn by investing in money market mutual funds.","I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost.","Firstly, the banks are far less risky than the people they lend to. Most of the interest banks charge borrowers covers defaults, but banks rarely default to the fed, especially those able to borrow from the Fed. Secondly, most banks borrowing is in the form of overnight loans to cover short term reserve fluctuations; they are not borrowing dollars to lend to you. Thirdly, if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, so are the true value of those loans. Since there are a significant number of banks that I can borrow from with a multitude of options in how to borrow, there is likely still decent competition for my business. Finally, the Fed funds rate is not currently 0%, so the banks are not getting interest free money.","\"The interest rate offered by a bond is called the nominal interest rate. The so-called real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. If inflation is equal to or greater than the nominal rate at any given time, the REAL interest rate is zero or negative. We're talking about a ten year bond. It's possible for the real interest rate to be negative for one or two years of the bond's life, and positive for eight or nine. On the other hand, if we have a period of rising inflation, as in the 1970s, the inflation rate will exceed the (original) interest rate in most years, meaning that the real interest rate on the ten year bond will be negative over its whole life. People lost \"\"serious\"\" money on bonds (and loans) in the 1970s. In such situations, the BORROWERS make out. That is, they borrow money at low rates, earn inflation (plus a little more) pay back inflated dollars, and pocket the difference. For them, the money is \"\"free.\"\"\"","\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\"","\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \"\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\"\" and \"\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\"\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \"\"stop the presses\"\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\"","\"Here's a number-crunching example of how the \"\"Zero interest rate\"\" offer is misleading. Suppose the offer is that a car \"\"costs $24,000.00 with zero percent financing over 24 months\"\" or as an alternative, \"\"$3,000.00 off for cash\"\". Ignore the hype: the quoted prices and the quoted interest rates. Look at what really happens to two people who take advantage of the two offers, One person hands over $21,000.00 cash, and leaves with the new car. The second promises to make 24 payments of $1000.00, one a month, starting in one month's time, and also leaves with the same make and model new car. The two people have received exactly the same benefit, so the two payment schemes must have the same value. A mortgage program will tell you that paying off a $21,000.00 loan by making 24 monthly payments of $1000.00 requires an interest rate of 1.10% a month, or an effective annual rate of 14.03%.\"","There is a significant tie between housing prices and mortgage rates. As such, don't assume low mortgage rates mean you will be financially better off if you buy now, since housing prices are inversely correlated with mortgage rates. This isn't a huge correlation - it's R-squared is a bit under 20%, at a 1.5-2 year lag - but there is a significant connection there. Particularly in that 10%+ era (see chart at end of post for details) in 1979-1982, there was a dramatic drop in housing price growth that corresponded with high interest rates. There is a second major factor here, though, one that is likely much more important: why the interest rates are at 10%. Interest rates are largely set to follow the Federal Funds rate (the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans to banks). That rate is set higher for essentially one purpose: to combat inflation. Higher interest rates means less borrowing, slower economic growth, and most importantly, a slower increase in the money supply - all of which come together to prevent inflation. Those 10% (and higher!) rates you heard about? Those were in the 70's and early 80's. Anyone remember the Jimmy Carter years? Inflation in the period from 1979 to 1981 averaged over 10%. Inflation in the 70s from 1973 to 1982 averaged nearly 9% annually. That meant your dollar this year was worth only $0.90 next year - which means inevitably a higher cost of borrowing. In addition to simply keeping pace with inflation, the Fed also uses the rate as a carrot/stick to control US inflation. They weren't as good at that in the 70s - they misread economic indicators in the late 1970s significantly, lowering rates dramatically in 1975-1977 (from ~12% to ~5%). This led to the dramatic double-digit inflation of the 1979-1981 period, requiring them to raise rates to astronomic levels - nearly 20% at one point. Yeah, I hope nobody bought a house on a fixed-rate mortgage from 1979-1981. The Fed has gotten a lot more careful over the years - Alan Greenspan largely was responsible for the shift in policy which seems to have been quite effective from the mid 1980s to the present (though he's long gone from his spot on the Fed board). Despite significant economic changes in both directions, inflation has been kept largely under control since then, and since 1991 have been keeping pretty steady around 6% or less. The current rate (around 0%) is unlikely to stay around forever - that would lead to massive inflation, eventually - but it's reasonable to say that prolonged periods over 10% are unlikely in the medium term. Further, if inflation did spike (and with it, your interest rates), salaries tend to spike also. Not quite as fast as inflation - in fact, that's a major reason a small positive inflation around 2-3% is important, to allow for wages to grow more slowly for poorer performers - but still, at 10% inflation the average wage will climb at a fairly similar pace. Thus, you'd be able to buy more house - or, perhaps a better idea, save more money for a house that you can then buy a few years down the road when rates drop. Ultimately, the advice here is to not worry too much about interest rates. Buy a house when you're ready, and buy the house you're ready for. Interest rates may rise, but if so it's likely due to an increase in inflation and thus wage growth; and it would take a major shift in the economy for rates to rise to the 10-11% level. If that did happen, housing prices (or at least growth in prices) would likely drop significantly. Some further references:","\"Okay, yes that's true. However, we don't know what inflation would have been during this period had the fed not been increasing their balance sheet. That's what I'm trying to get at it. So it's easy for them to say \"\"Low inflation , low interest rates\"\".\"","Holy shit that can't be USA unless you're talking about commercial lending, even then sky high rates. For the 97% LTV we sell at 3.58 last Saturday. We're a large bank too, so none of that credit unions selling themselves short nonsense. Mind you that's a special program through Fanny, but our normal rates are something like 4.4-4.55 depending on the day for 80/20 How can you be conservative but loan to credit score of over 500? We don't even look at under 640 and we're considered somewhat conservative.","It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates.","Banks in general will keep saving rates as low as possible especially if there is a surplus of funds or alternative access for funding as in the case of the Fed in the USA. Generally speaking, why would bank pay you a high interest rate when they cannot generate any income from your money? Usually we will expect to see a drop in the loan interest rate when their is a surplus of funds so as to encourage investment. But if the market is volatile then no banks will allow easy access to money through loans. The old traditional policy of lending money without proper security and no control from the central bank has created serious problems for savings account holders when some of these banks went into bankruptcy. It is for this reason most countries has modified their Financial Act to offer more protection to account holders. At the moment banks must follow rigid guidelines before a loan can be approved to a customer. In my country (Guyana) we have seen the collapse of a few banks which sent a shock wave across the county for those that have savings held at those bank. We have also seen unsecured loans having to be written off thus putting serious pressure of those banks. So government stepped in a few years ago and amended the act to make it mandatory to have commercial banks follow certain strict guidelines before approving a loan.","Most of the bankruptcy is due to taking [or building over a period of time] a loan that one cannot service, if the interest rates rise, then the amount of money to repay the loan increases, when one doesnt pay the revised amount and keeps paying less, the over all debt keeps shooting through the roof ... a lower interest rate means that one can continue to pay the same amount ... and few missed payments do not cause as much as damage as it does when the rates are high.","Usually that is the case that when fixed rates are lower than the variable rates, it is an indication that the banks feel the next movement in rates could be down. You also need to look at the fixed rates for different periods, for example 1 year fixed compared to 3 year fixed and 5 year fixed rates. If you find the 3 and 5 year fixed rates are higher than the 1 year fixed rates this could be an indication that the banks feel rates will fall in the short term but the falls won't last long and will continue to rise after a year or so. If the 3 year fixed rates are also low in comparison, then the banks may feel that the economy is heading for a longer term down trend. The banks won't want to lose out, so will change their fixed rates on their perception of where they feel the economy is headed. Since your post in May 2011, the standard variable rate has since dropped twice (in November and December) to be at 7.30%. You will also find that fixed rates have also been dropped further by the banks, indicating additional future cuts in the variable rates. Regards, Victor","\"Banks make less profit when \"\"long\"\" rates are low compared to \"\"short\"\" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) \"\"short term\"\" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money.\"","One will find that the fixed 30 year mortgage rate is tightly correlated to the 10 year treasury. An adder of 2-2.5% or so, changing slightly with the rest of the economy, as money can get tight or loose independent of the rate itself. In 2011 we are witnessing low rates yet tough loan standards, this is the phenomenon I am referencing.","\"So after you've learned about bonds, you might find yourself learning about interest rates. You might, in fact, discover that there's no such thing as a \"\"correct\"\" interest rate, or even a true \"\"market\"\" interest rate. PS We already had the housing bubble. It has come, and gone. What *new* bubble are you referring to?\"","The United States Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates should be low. (They think it may help the economy. The details matter little here though.) It will enforce this low rate by buying Treasury bonds at this very low interest rate. (Bonds are future money, so this means they pay a lot of money up front, for very little interest in the future. The Fed will pay more than anyone who offers less money up front, so they can set the price as long as they're willing to buy.) At the end of the day, Treasury bonds pay nearly no interest. Since there's little money to be made with Treasuries, people who want better-than-zero returns will bid up the current-price of any other bonds or similar loan-like instruments to get what whatever rate of return that they can. There's really no more than one price for money; you can think of the price of those bonds as basically (Treasury rate + some modifier based on the risk) percent. I realize thinking about bond prices is weird and different than other prices (you're measuring future-money using present-money and it's easy to be confused) and assure you it ultimately makes sense :) Anyway. Your savings account money has to compete with everyone else willing to lend money to banks. Everyone-else lends money for peanuts, so you get peanuts on your savings account too. Your banking is probably worth more to your bank on account of your check-card payment processing fees (collected from the merchant) than from the money they make lending out your savings (notice how many places have promotional rates if you make your direct deposits or use your check card to make a purchase N times a month). In Europe, it's similar, except you've got a different central bank. If Europe's bank operated radically differently for an extended period of time, you'd expect to see a difference in the exchange rates which would ultimately make the returns from investing in those currencies pretty similar as well. Such a change may show up domestically as inflation in the country with the loose-money policy, and internationally as weakness against other currencies. There's really only one price for money around the entire world. Any difference boils down to a difference in (perceived) risk.","You might be thinking of the Overnight market/Overnight Rate. This lending happens constantly.","Interesting thing is not all of this analysis is typically done by the person you are speaking with re: your mortgage. Likely there is an economic team (at some institution or another, as many many loans are sold/distributed in some fashion), finance team, and all of them are looking at various rates etc. Typically what is offered is matching an offsetting liability somewhere else. So there may be cases where the spread someone is looking to pick up might be tighter or looser within institutions or types of institutions vs others, even though the overall market is at one place. (e.g. banks vs. insurance companies). So you may have negotiating room at a certain term, but not another, or the reverse at another firm. One firm might have lots of 10 year money, while another might be limited, so will be picky in what they choose. Either more conservative loan terms/ltv, or a higher spread, for example. So many things go into the ultimate rate someone can get, but in theory the blog did a decent job.","All unsubstantiated opinions. >there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans Really. No relation whatsoever? And your background in finance letting you understand this is what? Are you telling me every bank of the [7,213](http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/) independent banks are in cahoots and none of them compete based on prices and services? Can you give me precise evidence that all those independent banks are not in competition? What should the price be for capital if the current prices are incorrect, and tell me why.","These are yields for the government bonds. EuroZone interest rates are much lower (10 times lower, in fact) than the UK (GBP zone) interest rates. The rates are set by the central banks.","If you throw up a 20 year chart on the 10 year you can see it isn't fluctuating around 2%. It happens to be at 2% now but it has been relentlessly driving lower for at least 20 years. My own personal biased opinion is that it is a market infested with ultra-wealthy people who aren't looking for returns. They just basically want to maintain what they already sucked out of the system.","As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate.","Probably means next to zero chance of having decent rates on savings accounts for the near future - who needs your money if banks can have government money for free? Probably no short-term effects on you besides that.","\"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens: It almost looks random. A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates. They steadily climbed and steadily fell: All that's left is inflation: First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not. Economists call this type of phenomenon \"\"sticky pricing\"\", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation. The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways. This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s. Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating. Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing. As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept \"\"low and stable\"\": But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise? Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible.\"","I will just explain the time value of money in general, descriptive terms and save the math for someone else. Imagine: You have half a million dollars. I'd like to borrow it all from you. I'll pay it all back, every penny, but no more. And I'll pay it back in about, oh, thirty years or so. (Imagine also that you can be 100% sure that I'll pay it back.) Does this sound like a good deal? Not really. Why not? Well, you could do something with that sort of money. With that sort of money, you could do a lot of things for 30 years. You could buy a nice house and live in it for 30 years and save yourself from spending a lot of money on rent during that time (or save money on interest by paying off a mortgage early) even if the price of the house goes nowhere. If you already had a house, you could do some home improvement, like insulate the place better (to save on heating bills) or even just on something that you're going to enjoy for part of those 30 years (a patio in the back yard). If you were feeling entrepreneurial, you could take that money and start a business. Or you could invest that money in the stock market, and get a lot more back.... and if that's too risky for you, just start a savings account and earn interest. And finally, in 30 years, the value of the dollar will be lower because of inflation, so it won't buy as much now as it will then. That's the time value of money. It's the opportunity cost of the best of the things that you could have done with that money during the time it was gone. When you take out a loan, your interest payments will depend in part on the time value of the money you're borrowing: the people making the loan could be investing that money somewhere else, like government bonds. (It will also depend on factors like the risk of default on the loan - this is why credit card debt is more expensive than debt like a mortgage that's backed by a big fat asset like a house which can be seized and sold if you happen to default.) This is how the Federal Reserve can affect interest rates across the economy by just buying or selling government bonds.","\"You are not \"\"the economy\"\". The economy is just the aggregate of what is going on with everyone else. You should make the decision based on your own situation now and projected into the future as best you can. Loan rates ARE at historical lows, so it is a great time to take a loan if you actually need one for some reason. However, I wouldn't go looking for a loan just because the rates are low for the same reason it doesn't make sense to buy maternity clothes if you are a single guy just because they are on sale.\"","\"No... that's just what I'm owed for letting them use my principal. If I wanted to enjoy the opportunity cost of 0% interest for 13 plus years, I'd just keep the money in my \"\"savings\"\" account (where the 8th wonder of world, miracle of compound interest no longer exists). The bigger question posited by my snark was if/when the bond market will stop trading them as legitimate paper.\"","\"The Bank of Canada does not \"\"set\"\" the interest rates. They auction government debt, and then report what the average yield/interest rate was (rounded to 25 basis points). [The average yield of yesterday's auction of 3-month Treasury bills was 0.76%](http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/interest-rates/t-bill-yields/). I don't know why the news tries to interpret what the BOC \"\"is trying to say\"\". BOC isn't saying anything - just reporting what happened, with some filler words.\"","Obviously you can't predict the future too much, but it's not too hard to figure out what is going to happen to mortgage rates in the short term. Mortgage rates are heavily influenced by 10 year treasury yields. You can find the daily 10 year rates here. It's easy to see the direction they've been moving recently. It usually takes a few days for mortgage rates to follow if the 10 year treasury yield is dropping (although if it's going up, mortgage rates will go up faster than they will fall). Here's a sample of all the 10 year treasury yields for the past 10 years. Looks like a good time to get a mortgage or refinance! You can also take a look at movements in mortgage backed securities. Here you can find a chart for Fannie Mae 3.0% mortgages. As the price goes up, mortgage rates go down. Think of it this way. Right now people are will to pay $103 for $100 worth of 3.0% mortgages. That doesn't really make sense because I could just loan you $100 at 3.0% and turn around and sell it for $103 immediately, pocketing the $3 profit. The reason is because right now, no one would willingly borrow money at 3.0%. Rates have fallen so much that if a bank has a customer paying them 3.0% on a mortgage, other people are willing to pay a premium on that mortgage. New mortgages are probably being written for 2.0%. (There is no current mortgage backed security for 2.0% fannie maes because rates have never been this low before).","\"Yes sir, I'm working on compiling your \"\"precise evidence,\"\" and I'll have it printed and bound for you on the double. In the meantime, you can look here as a starting point and try to find the part where the Fed has allowed interest rates to adjust freely, and maybe you can learn why rates are artificial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_responses_to_the_subprime_crisis As for \"\"cahoots\"\" and independent banks and whatever other off-topic nonsense you're babbling about, there was nothing said about cahoots or independent banks. The interest rates paid for and to US banks are affected by the monetary policy of the Fed. There is no collusion, or \"\"cahoots,\"\" required for them to follow a common policy of artificially-low interest rates, which was the point of the earlier post.\"","I'd have a look at Capital One's Online account too, they've got 1.35% interest rate with 10% bonus if you have over $15k deposited. It is still low like all interest rates, but at least it is on top (or at least close)!","Interest rates are always given annually, to make them comparable. If you prefer to calculate the rate or the total interest for the complete time, like 10 years or 15 years or 30 years, it is simple math, and it tells you the total you will pay, but it is not helpful for picking the better or even the right offer for your situation. Compare it to your car's gas mileage- what sense does it make to provide the information that a car will use 5000 gallons of gas over its lifetime? Is that better than a car that uses 6000 gallons (but may live 2 years longer?)","Yes those are really yields. A large portion of the world has negative yielding bonds in fact. This process has been in motion for the past 10 years for very specific reasons. So congratulations on discovering the bond market.","Right, so if a federal interest rate near 0 percent is not enough to stimulate the demand for those loans, then we have pretty much exhausted what we can do with monetary policy. So the only thing left is fiscal policy - raise spending or lower taxes","Mortgage rates generally consist of two factors: The risk premium is relatively constant for a particular individual / house combination, so most of the changes in your mortgage rate will be associated with changes in the price of money in the world economy at large. Interest rates in the overall economy are usually tied to an interest rate called the Federal Funds rate. The Federal Reserve manipulates the federal funds rate by buying and/or selling bonds until the rate is something they like. So you can usually expect your interest rate to rise or fall depending on the policies of the Federal Reserve. You can predict this in a couple of ways: The way they have described their plans recently indicates that will keep interest rates low for an extended period of time - probably through 2014 or so - and they hope to keep inflation around 2%. Unless inflation is significantly more than 2% between now and then, they are extremely unlikely to change that plan. As such, you should probably not expect mortgage interest rates in general to change more than infinitesimally small amounts until 2014ish. Worry more about your credit score.","This is of course using 'new math'. Namely, if I lend you $100 and you keep it for a month, I've lent you $100. In fact, if I loan you $100 for a year I've loaned you $100. But if I lend you $100 overnight, you pay me back in the morning, I lend you $100 overnight, you pay me back in the morning and we repeat that for a month, I've supposedly lent you $3,000. That's some interesting math for sure.","If the best they can do is 1/8th of a percent for a 15 year term, you are best served by taking the 30 year term. Pay it down sooner if you can, but it's nice to have the flexibility if you have a month where things are tight.","yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path. Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US.","\"When you say that the problem is \"\"high supply but no demand\"\" you are actually correct. Here's why: The phrase \"\"borrow/spend less, save more\"\" isn't an absolute law. It's more of a cautionary tale. Obviously, spending is an integral part of an economy: it accounts for at least 50% of every transaction! But the aphorism is getting at something other than admonishing people to not spend. The point of the saying is that interest rates should reflect savings rates. What it comes down to is the how the law of supply and demand applies to the relationship between savings and interest rates. Consider this thought experiment: in a world where everybody saves 50% of their income, what would happen to interest rates? Banks would have a glut of savings, relative to the population. Assuming demand remains constant, interest rates would go down: the price of borrowing goes down as the supply of money to be borrowed increases. Thus a corollary of the law of supply and demand is that as savings increase, interest rates tend to go down. So, as savings increase, the economic environment encourages capital improvements. Businesses can borrow at lower rates and increase long-term productive capacity. This is what the federal reserve has attempted to do by lowering the Fed Funds rate to near zero and by Operation Twist: increase economic activity through low borrowing costs. So, what's the problem? When interest rates are artificially low there are no savings to support the production later in time. A company that borrows at a 1% rate created by the feds can build a factory to make widgets, but it will have a hard time selling that widget to a population with a negative net worth. However, if the 1% rate is \"\"natural\"\", then the company should be fine: the savings of the population should support the production from his widget factory. For about 30 years we have experienced a credit boom in this country that was not created by excess savings. This trend couldn't continue forever. Look around you. At the end of the day, an economy is simply a group of people getting together to buy and sell stuff and services. Right now there is a lot of debt, and little cash. Who will be doing the buying?\"","Interest rates are market driven. They tend to be based on the prime rate set by the federal reserve bank because of the tremendous lending capacity of that institution and that other loan originators will often fund their own lending (at least in part) with fed loans. However, there is no mandatory link between the federal reserve rate and the market rate. No law stipulates that rates cannot rise or fall. They will rise and fall as lenders see necessary to use their capital. Though a lender asking 10% interest might make no loans when others are willing to lend for 9%. The only protection you have is that we are (mostly) economically free. As a borrower, you are protected by the fact that there are many lenders. Likewise, as a lender, because there are many borrowers. Stability is simply by virtue of the fact that one market participant with inordinate pricing will find fewer counterparties to transact.","\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/business/dealbook/libor-fca-banks-andrew-bailey.html) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The one-year Libor, which represents the rate of interest on a loan between banks to be paid back within a year, is the most commonly used index for mortgages in the United States, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. > &quot;And while we have given our full support to encouraging panel banks to continue to contribute and maintaining Libor over recent years, we do not think markets can rely on Libor continuing to be available indefinitely.\"\" > Mr. Bailey said that the regulator had agreed with the panel banks to sustain Libor through 2021 to smooth a transition to new rates. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6r14fz/libor_brought_scandal_greatest_financial_scandal/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~180937 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Libor**^#1 **rate**^#2 **bank**^#3 **over**^#4 **Financial**^#5\"","\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/taibbi-is-libor-crucial-financial-benchmark-a-lie-w497305) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > If you have any kind of consumer loan, it&#039;s a fair bet that it&#039;s based on LIBOR. A 2009 study by the Cleveland Fed found that 60 percent of all mortgages in the U.S. were based on LIBOR. Buried somewhere in your home, you probably have a piece of paper that outlines the terms of your credit card, student loan, or auto loan, and if you peek in the fine print, you have a good chance of seeing that the rate you pay every month is based on LIBOR. Years ago, we found out that the world&#039;s biggest banks were manipulating LIBOR. That sucked. > As a few Wall Street analysts have quietly noted in the weeks since those comments, an &quot;Absence of underlying markets&quot; is a fancy way of saying that LIBOR has not been based on real trading activity, which is a fancy way of saying that LIBOR is bullshit. > So as LIBOR reflected reality less and less, it became more and more ubiquitous, burying itself, tick-like, into the core of the financial system. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tasuo/years_ago_we_found_out_that_the_worlds_biggest/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~189474 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **LIBOR**^#1 **Bank**^#2 **market**^#3 **rate**^#4 **based**^#5\"","But it also can't be 1.46%, because that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. The rates are displayed as of Today. As the footnote suggests these are to be read with Maturities. A Treasury with 1 year Maturity is at 1.162% and a Treasury with 30Y Maturity is at 2.78%. Generally Bonds with longer maturity terms give better yields than bonds of shorter duration. This indicates the belief that in long term the outlook is positive.",">“At some point,” he said, interest rates are going to go up again, “and I should have been able to get those low rates. It’s not fair.” It's perfectly fair. Why is a bank going to lend you more money than what the collateral's worth? That would be unfair.","FYI, I am assuming you are an individual investor.. The rates on the website may change, if the government decides so. Anyway it is a UK government website, so it would reflect the changes immediately.","Monetizing loan is akin to loan money the banks don't have so they can lend money to people/state that don't have money. The ECB and the FED are theorically independant from the political power, and in pratique they more often than naught proove it (at least for the ECB), after that being independent from the financial sector they lend to... that's another question. Rates are low not because they monetize but because they want to do so without inducing inflation.","It seems a bit late in the process, no? They moved in, you are elsewhere, etc. Today, the Prime Rate is 3.25%. I don't know enough to suggest whether this is fair to both parties. It's more than you'd earn in the bank, and less than they'd pay for a business loan. My own equity line is currently 2.5%, for what that's worth.","Things we should all understand: * The Federal Reserve will not engage in QE3 or QE4 or any kind of QE. - Inflation is too high and the economy would be harmed rather than helped. * The Federal Reserve will not raise rates until 2013-2014. - Ben has been pretty adamant and clear about this. What I'm concerned about is that they keep pushing back the date. Interest rates should have been raised last year.","Interest rates have been going down since 1980. At some point it has to rebound, but as the old adage goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. The only thing we know with certainty about the 10 year interest rates is that it will most likely cap out at 0%. Maybe....","Lowered rates = boom for equities, currently held bonds, and assets. Cheaper money means a (disproportionately) good time had by all. This all comes with malinvestment, potential for moral hazard, and savers losing in a big way. Why save for retirement when your risk free return on US Treasuries can barely keep up with inflation? As an aside, it is not really a risk free rate anymore, with $20 trillion in debt and no real hope of paying it off. This is why we see the rate increases and movement towards asset sales by the Fed to get the poop off their books. They are worried about all of the above and need more arrows in their quiver when the next recession hits. They won't have enough, however. They are trying to right a ship that is fully overturned. This is now the longest period of growth (however tepid) since the tech bubble of the 1990's. Are the fundamentals really better than then?","Thanks. It has taken me some time to understand how all this works, and there are still many gray areas I want to understand further. The Fed interest rate is the rate charged by banks to loan to each other to balance overnight reserves but only using the reserves they hold at the Fed. That adds no new money to the system, but increases the money multiplier a little since perhaps more loans can be made. Basically one bank with excess reserves can loan to another bank that needs reserves. The Fed injects no money here, only sets the rate for banks to do this with each other. When the Fed buys securities that effectively adds that many more dollars into circulation, which then gets hit by the money multiplier, adding a lot of new liquidity. I think historically the latter tracks increases in the money supply much better than the former. I think the St. Louis Fed has records online for all this dating back to the 1940's or so.","Different rates. What the BoE is conducting is known as Quantitative Easing, which is a form of monetary policy avalable to central banks whenever interest rates are already too close to zero or at zero (just like in the UK). In this case, the central banks hopes to influence longer-term rates, rather than just short-term rates. It is useful to remember that the rate central banks announce is a short-term rate used for interbank lending.","It depends solely on the risk your willing to take. For example, few years back one of the leading banks in my country was offering 25% interest rate for 5 year fixed deposits and the lending rate in the market was around 12%. So people borrowed money from other banks and invested in the high return fixed deposits. After 6 months the bank filed for bankruptcy and people lost their money. Later investigations revealed that abnormal high return was offered because the bank had a major liquidity problem. So all depends on the risk associated with return on your investment. Higher the risk, higher the return.","Banks cannot just borrow from the Federal Reserve and use that money to make loans. The first thing you need to understand is how fractional reserve banking works. The banks can make loans with money that their customers have deposited in their accounts. The interest and fees from those loans go to pay the salaries of those working at the banks with leftover profit to pay dividends (interest on your bank accounts). The only reason that the Federal Reserve allows overnight lending is so that banks don't immediately become insolvent if they have larger than usual withdrawals by their depositors. The Federal Reserve keeps an eye on the balance sheets of the banks that are doing the borrowing, and if they didn't have assets in the form of deposits, they would force the banks to sell the loans that were made from those deposits. What does this have to do with personal finance? I think this question is only marginally on-topic here. This amount of money in circulation is affected specifically by the fraction of the money that can be used for making other loans. But the bigger influence is the rate that the Federal Reserve charges for overnight lending. They raise and lower the rates which affects the rates that the banks can lend at while remaining profitable.","What the comments above say is true, but one more thing is there. FD rates are directly proportional to loan rates. However, banks make money because loan rates will always be higher than FD rates."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"You are correct that it could refer to any of the types of interest rates that you've mentioned. In general, though, phrases such as \\\"\\\"rising interest rates\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"falling interest rates\\\"\\\" refer to the Federal Funds Rate or LIBOR. These are the interest rates at which banks in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, are lending money to each other.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I would say people are generally talking about the prime lending rate. I have heard the prime lending rate defined as \\\"\\\"The rate that banks charge each other when they borrow money overnight.\\\"\\\" But it often defined as the rate at which banks lend their most creditworthy customers. That definition comes with the caveat that it is not always held to strictly. Either definition has the same idea: it's the lowest rate at which anyone could currently borrow money. The rate for many types of lending is based upon the prime rate. A variable rate loan might have an interest rate of (Prime + x). The prime rate is in turn based upon the Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate that the Fed sets manually. When the news breaks that \\\"\\\"the Fed is raising interest rates by a quarter of a point\\\"\\\" (or similar) it is the Federal Funds Rate that they control. Lending institutions then \\\"\\\"fall in line\\\"\\\" and adjust the rates at which they lend money. So to summarize: When people refer to \\\"\\\"high\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"low\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"rising\\\"\\\" interest rates they are conceptually referring to the prime lending rate. When people talk about the Fed raising/lowering interest rates (In the U.S.) they are referring specifically to the Federal Funds Rate (which ultimately sets other lending rates).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In the United States, if someone refers to the \\\"\\\"interest rate\\\"\\\", especially if heard on news or talk radio in particular, they are almost always referring to the federal funds rate, a rate set forth and maintained by the United States Federal Reserve (the \\\"\\\"fed\\\"\\\" for short). If the fed opts to raise or lower this rate, it subsequently effects all interest rates, whether by being directly connected in a chain of loans or by market demand through the efficiency of financial markets in the case of bond auctions. The FOMC meets eight times each year to determine the target for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate effects all interest rates because it is the originating rate of interest on all loans in the chain of loans. Because of this significance as a benchmark for all interest rates, it is the rate most commonly referred to as \\\"\\\"interest rate\\\"\\\" when used alone. That is why other rates are specified by what they actually are; e.g., mortgage rates; 10 year & 30 year (for 10 year treasury and 30 year treasury bond yields respectively); savings rate, auto rate, credit card rate, CD rate—all rates of interest effected by the originating loan that is the federal funds rate. This is true in the United States but will vary for other countries. In general though, it will almost always refer to the originating rate for all loans in a given country, institution, etc. Note that bonds have yields that are based on market demand that is, in turn, based on the federal funds rate. It is because of the efficiency of financial markets that the demand, and thus the yields, are correlated to the federal funds rate.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When \\\"\\\"people say\\\"\\\", each person is referring to whatever he/she is looking at. Interest rates tend to move roughly the same, but often there is a bias regarding long vs. short term. In the US right now, short term interest rates are very low but there is a lot of chatter saying they will rise in the future. The differential between long term rates and short term rates is high compared to historical norms, suggesting that the market believes this chatter. You can also look at the differences in rates between different quality levels. If the economy is improving, the difference in rate for lower rated debt vs. higher rated debt decreases as people think the chance of businesses failing is decreasing. Right now, any interest rate you look at is well below long term historical averages, so asserting that interest rates are low is quite safe.\\\"\",\n \"The generic representative of interest rates is the 10 year treasury bond rate. (USA). As an approximation most other interest rates do tend to move up and down with the treasury rate, but with more or less sensitivity. Another prominently discussed interest rate is the short term loan rate established by the Federal Reserve for loans it makes to banks.\",\n \"Because giving someone a loan and paying them to take it isn't a loan anymore. I'll grant you, some of the treasury bill auctions did slip below 0% -- people paid in slightly more than what the bill would pay out. In as much as this was done by actual investors (and not afore-mentioned helicopter Ben Bernanke keeping the printing presses running hot all night), it was major accounts fearful of the euro disintegrating and banks crashing, and so on, and needing a safe spot to stick their cash for a couple months. Where the Fed is concerned, that interest rate he's referring to is lending they do to banks. So, how much would you take if you ran a bank and the Fed offered to pay you to take their money? A billion? A trillion? As much as you could cram in your vaults, shove in your pockets, and stuff down your favorite teller's blouse? Yea, me too.\",\n \"\\\"These rates are so low because the cost of money is so low. Specifically, two rates are near zero. The Federal Reserve discount rate, which is \\\"\\\"the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window.\\\"\\\" The effective federal funds rate, which is the rate banks pay when they trade balances with each other through the Federal Reserve. Banks want to profit on the loans they make, like mortgage loans. To do so, they try to maximize the difference between the rates they charge on mortgages and other loans (revenue), and the rates they pay savings account holders, the Federal Reserve or other banks to obtain funds (expenses). This means that the rates they offer to pay are as close to these rates as possible. As the charts shows, both rates have been cut significantly since the start of the recession, either through open market operations (the federal funds rate) or directly (the discount rate). The discount rate is set directly by the regional Federal Reserve banks every 14 days. In most cases, the federal funds rate is lower than the discount rate, in order to encourage banks to lend money to each other instead of borrowing it from the Fed. In the past, however, there have been rare instances where the federal funds rate has exceeded the discount rate, and it's been cheaper for banks to borrow money directly from the Fed than from each other.\\\"\",\n \"Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.\",\n \"It refers to the risk free rate of a particular country. Because all other rates are usually pegged to the risk free rate. In US,it is the 30 day treasury rate. In England, it is the LIBOR In Canada, it is the overnight rate at which banks lend money to each other. All of these come under the category of risk free rate.\",\n \"It's really not. You have to realize that current rates are an outlier. The average on the 10yr since 1960 is 6.7%. Even on the 1yr it's still 5.7%. The average on the 30Yr from '77-present is 7.6%. You can use your own discretion about the length of time to consider for the average, but you don't just take the current rate as the risk free rate.\",\n \"As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend.\",\n \"Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds? Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall. Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss.\",\n \"This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past.\",\n \"> if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, You cannot really believe this. There is no sector more artificial than banking, and under the current regime there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans. Rates have been artificially depressed across the spectrum using every available manipulation, and we are experiencing a coordinated money-printing/government bailout operation on a global scale. To say that rates anywhere have any relation to the real cost and/or demand for capital is absurd.\",\n \"but I can't help but feel that these low rates are somehow a gimmick to trick people into taking out loans Let me help you: it's not a feeling. That's exactly what it is. Since the economy is down, people don't want to jeopardize what they have, and keep the cash in their wallets. But, while keeping the money safe in the pocket, it makes the economy even worse. So in order to make people spend some money, the rates go down so that the cost of money is lower. It also means that the inflation will be on the rise, which is again a reason not to keep money uninvested. So yes, the rates are now very low, and the housing market is a buyers' market, so it does make sense to take out a loan at this time (provided of course that you can actually repay it over time, and don't take loans you can't handle). Of course, you shouldn't be taking loans just because the rates are low. But if you were already planning on purchasing a house - now would be a good time to go on with that.\",\n \"I've wondered the same thing. And, after reading the above replies, I think there is a simpler explanation. It goes like this. When the bank goes to make a loan they need capital to do it. So, they can get it from the federal reserve, another bank, or us. Well, if the federal reserve will loan it to them for lets say 0.05%, what do you think they are going to be willing to pay us? Id say maybe 0.04%. Anyway, I could be wrong, but this makes sense to me.\",\n \"The yield on treasury bond indicates the amount of money anyone at can make at virtually zero risk. So lets say banks have X [say 100] amount of money. They can either invest this in treasury bonds and get Y% [say 1%] interest that is very safe, or invest into mortgage loans [i.e. lend it to people] at Y+Z% [say at 3%]. The extra Z% is to cover the servicing cost and the associated risk. (Put another way, if you wanted only Y%, why not invest into treasury bonds, rather than take the risk and hassle of getting the same Y% by lending to individuals?) In short, treasury bond rates drive the rate at which banks can invest surplus money in the market or borrow from the market. This indirectly translates into the savings & lending rates to the banks' customers.\",\n \"so this is a loan for a house? a loan on a house? a new mortgage? you shouldn't just get a loan for the hell of it any time. interests rates are low because the yields on US treasuries have been pushed closer to zero, and thats pretty much that. the risk is on the bank that approves the loan, and not you. (your ability to repay should be truthful, but your payments are smaller because the interest is so low)\",\n \"You understand that the Fed is *supposed* to make overnight loans to banks, that one of its primary jobs is to be a lender of last resort? And yes, some were foreign banks; foreign subsidies of US banks or counter-parties to large US banks. Near-zero, yes for course we're talking about *overnight* loans. The current commercial rate for overnight euro LIBOR is 0.26179%, in other words, 0.0026, near zero OMG conspiracy!\",\n \"\\\"In practice No, not at zero. Banks currently have the ability to borrow at very low interest rates but not quite at zero. Using the Fed Funds Range as a metric we can see that recently (Nov 2015) the lower bound of the fed funds range was 0.05%. Fed funds are overnight lend/borrow transactions between banks (often between the federal home loan banks and other institutions) 0.05% is also the FED's current Reverse Repo Program rate (RRP), which is the rate at which certain counterparties can deposit cash with the FED overnight in exchange for collateral. The collateral (US Treasuries) is insurance against the FED defaulting, a very low risk considering the FED has the ability to create more US Dollars out of thin air. In theory the RRP rate should be a lower bound for the fed funds rate however in practice it is possible to see lower rates trade in the street. What do you mean by \\\"\\\"Third party institutions\\\"\\\"? Only banks of the highest credit quality are able to borrow at the lower bound of the Fed Funds range. These are usually large domestic banks like JP Morgan, Bank of NY etc... As credit quality decreases the rate at which they borrow increases. Currently Skandinavien, German, French banks have relatively good credit and borrow overnight money towards the lower part of the fed funds range. Italian, Spanish and smaller regional US banks have lesser credit quality and borrow at the higher end of the Fed Funds range. Institutions with lower credit quality would borrow at still higher rates.\\\"\",\n \"But Uncle Sam isn't just borrowing money from other people/countires. He's borrowing money from himself..... with printed money. The ostensible purpose of QE, Operation Twist, et al, is to force interest rates down largely through the monetization of government debt. So to reference interest rates as if they were some neutral barometer of America's financial strength is a bit spurious.\",\n \"Surely some borrowers and lenders make decisions about making and taking loans based on the actual interest rates on the actual loans? In which case it doesn't matter so much if the rates are calculated based on a fictional assumption about something. At the end of the day every borrower or lender in the market makes their own decision about which lending contracts they take part in.\",\n \"Mortgage or other interest rates are determined by the banks on cost of funds, risk and operating cost. The Fed raises money from the markets by issuing Tresury Bonds at a specified rate. This rate at which it raises money varies depening on the economy. Thus there are 2 rates: the rate at which banks can borrow money from the Fed, which is higher than the rate that the Fed would give banks for excess money deposited with them. So if the cost of borrowing is less, banks can borrow this money from the Fed and loan it to individuals at a slightly higher rate that would cover their costs plus a small profit. The risk associated with a mortgage is less, and hence these would be cheaper, then say a personal loan. If the cost of borrowing goes up, the mortgage rate will go up. If the cost of borrowing money goes down, the cost would come down. Banks may not always borrow money to lend. If they have existing money, they can either park it with the Fed for a lower interest rate, or loan it to individuals for a rate higher than what they would have received from the Fed.\",\n \"\\\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \\\"\\\"interest rate\\\"\\\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \\\"\\\"interest rates\\\"\\\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\\\"\",\n \"Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.\",\n \"1) Low-Interest Rate: Isn't the inflation rate currently (and over the last couple of years) also really low, around 2%? If you're saying the inflation rate is going to go back up, I'm curious as to your reasoning. I don't see any general decrease in the money supply in the near future, wages are stagnant, and GDP looks like it's trundling along at standard rates - however, with the Gini coefficient still rising, more and more of that production is finding its way into fewer and fewer hands that don't have a lot of incentive to re-invest it.\",\n \"The prime rate is actually the rate at which banks lend to consumers/businesses with the highest credit ratings. The bank rate (more commonly known as the overnight rate) is the interest rate at which banks can borrow funds from the Bank of Canada or from each other.\",\n \"Wait, if everyone isn't buying things and saving money instead, who is left to get loans to buy things at higher rates? Banks don't wag the consumer's tail. Banks will make loads more money on their variable rate loans which will hurt a lot of people. Until wages rise to incentivize buying things, loan interest rates need to be low. Only way to spur the economy is to get more money in the hands of the spenders. We keep giving it to the hoarders.\",\n \"There's often a legal basis to answer this question. For instance, Austria (guessing from your profile) currently uses a 4% Statutory interest rate. You'll need to dig up not just the actual but also the historical rates. Note that you'll want the non-commercial interest rate - some countries differentiate between loans to businesses and loans to individuals.\",\n \"Without commenting on whether or not it's needed I don't think we are going to see a QE3 and all the political pressure is for some reason to start raising rates. Regardless of how it plays out it's safe to say that the Fed Rate isn't going any lower. You should also watch closely what happens to Fannie and Freddie. If they are dismantled and government backed mortgages become a thing of the past then I think it'll become impossible for a consumer to find a 30 year fixed rate mortgage. Even if they are kept alive, they will be put on a short leash and that will serve to further depress the mortgage market. Long story short, I'd lock your rate in.\",\n \"Interest rates can't remain this low. It's like having extremely low blood pressure. When you raise the rates, banks are incented to loan money and that movement of capital is good for the economy. It forces us to become savers instead of spenders, and our pensions, 401ks, social security are all getting killed by not being able to use debt to get safer stable returns. Interest rates have to come back up.\",\n \"It just means that they think that in the long-term, interest rates should be around 3-4%, i.e. probably between 3% and 4%, but perhaps a bit lower or higher occasionally.\",\n \"Federal Funds Rate The interest rate at which a depository institution lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another depository institution overnight. The federal funds rate is generally only applicable to the most creditworthy institutions when they borrow and lend overnight funds to each other. The federal funds rate is one of the most influential interest rates in the U.S. economy, since it affects monetary and financial conditions, which in turn have a bearing on key aspects of the broad economy including employment, growth and inflation. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/federalfundsrate.asp#ixzz3mB5kCtvT\",\n \"Yes. In the US these are called certificates of deposit or savings accounts. Every run-of-the-mill bank offers them. You give the bank money and in return they pay you an interest rate that is some fraction of or (negative) offset from the returns they expect to make from your money. Since most investments that a bank makes (say, loaning money to a local business) are themselves based on some multiple of or (positive) offset from the prime rate, in return the interest rate that they offer you is also mathematically based on the prime rate. You can find lists of banks offering the best returns on CDs or savings accounts at sites like BankRate.\",\n \"If you had a time machine and could go back and tell yourself in 2005 that there would be a stretch coming up where the FFR would be held a 0% for (at least) 6 solid years you would not have believed it. No one would have believed it. That would have been crazy loony toon talk.\",\n \"And how is that even an argument? So...the fed needs to raise rates, is what you seem to be saying. I'm not sure that now is the time for that, considering the weak jobs numbers recently, but it's possibly a good idea for them to announce that a hike will come soon instead of actually raising the rate. Either way, to say that having a low interest rate for a decade is a bad thing sort of obscures a harsh reality. It's certainly not something that you *want*, but what's the alternative? Would the US have been better off without the Feds balance sheet expansion? Very few economists would say yes. In fact that exact line of thought likely turned a financial crash into the Great Depression of the 30's.\",\n \"You can find the national average interest rates on commercial bank accounts from the FDIC or nicely aggregated [here from the St. Louis Fed.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/search?st=National+Rate+on+Non-Jumbo+Deposits+%28less+than+%24100%2C000%29%3A+Savings) [Here is the national average interest rate on savings accounts.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAVNRNJ) If you are looking for a general historical proxy for a savings account interest rate, then the effective federal funds rate or overnight LIBOR is a good estimate prior to the 2008 financial crisis.\",\n \"The prime rate is the interest rate banks use amongst themselves to lend money to each other only. It is used as the basis (sometimes) for what interest rate banks charge you. The prime rate is based loosely on the Fed rate. There is a committee that meets regularly to set this and other industry interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_rate I am not 100% positive the following is totally accurate The banks keep our deposits and pay us interest for doing so. They are paying us interest because they take yours, mine and everybody elses deposits as a large lump sum and invest that money. Sometimes as business loans, sometimes as mortgages and sometimes as credit card. The banks have a book of business that will be EXACTLY how much credit they have extended to everybody. But they do not keep that amount of cash in the vaults, only some smaller percentage of that large amount. When I use my credit card and they need to transfer money to amazon.com, if they don't happen to have enough cash that day, they will just borrow from another bank that does, and the interest rate they pay to do so is the prime rate. Since they are paying interest on the money they borrow to pay the debt I charged because they told me my credit was worth so much (...???...) they charge me a little bit more than that. Hence your credit card or mortgage's APR being based on the prime rate. I THINK that is what they do If I am wrong leave a comment and I will update, or the mods can.\",\n \"\\\"Not at these rates. The motto used to be 3/6/3: \\\"\\\"Borrow at 3%, Loan out at 6%, and then be at the golf course by 3pm\\\"\\\". So they get 3% on the spread, minus fixed costs. Now, they borrow at near 0% and loan out at slightly above 0%. Those fixed costs starts becoming an issue. It isn't cheap to have all these ATMs, bank branches, tellers, computer systems, etc. Also, a lot of the money cannot be loaned out at all because there are not enough creditworthy borrowers. You might have recalled a few months ago, several banks started charging for deposits. They don't want more money that will just lay there while they have to pay the costs of maintaining the accounts. Some bank CEOs have stated that they would be better off if the Fed raised rates up to 1%.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Interest rates are at a record low and the government is printing money. You can get a fixed rate loan at a rate equal to inflation in a healthy economy. Unless you know that you are moving in < 5 years, why would you expose yourself to interest rate risk when rates are about as close to zero as they can be? If your thought with respect to mitigating interest rate risk is: \\\"\\\"What's the big deal, I'll just refinance!\\\"\\\", think again, because in a market where rates are climbing, you may not be able to affordably refinance at the LTV that you'll have in 5-7 years. From 1974-1991, 30 year mortgages never fell below 9%, and were over 12% from 1979 to 1985. Think about what those kinds of rates -- which reduce a new homeowner's buying power by over 40%, would do to your homes value.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-06/are-low-interest-rates-bad-for-growth) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > James Chessen, the chief economist of the American Bankers&#039; Association, said in a June 5 interview, &quot;Interest rates have been too low for too long. It has created a problem for banks.&quot; The Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents smaller U.S. banks, believes that &quot;Higher interest rates would be a net plus for the community banking sector that would help them extend more credit,&quot; according to spokesman Paul Merski. > Officials at the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are sensitive to the side effects of extremely low or even subzero interest rates. > In a May 24 speech in Madrid, ECB President Mario Draghi acknowledged that low policy rates &quot;May compress banks&#039; net interest margins and thus exert pressure on their profitability.&quot; But he said that ECB researchers found that taking into account offsetting beneficial effects, &quot;The overall impact of our measures on bank profitability was positive.\\\"\\\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fodm5/is_the_world_overdoing_low_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~138044 tl;drs so far.\\\"\\\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \\\"\\\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\\\"\\\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **rate**^#2 **interest**^#3 **Low**^#4 **Calomiris**^#5\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \\\"\\\"Risk\\\"\\\" is just a fancy word for \\\"\\\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\\\"\\\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \\\"\\\"Tremendous Losses\\\"\\\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\\\"\",\n \"There's two competing forces at work, and they are at work worldwide. Banks can get money from several sources: Through inter-bank borrowing and from raising capital. Capital can come from from selling assets, stock offerings, deposits, etc. The money the banks get from depositors is capital. In the United States, the Federal Reserve regulates the amount of capital that banks must maintain. If there was no requirement for capital then there would be zero demand for capital at an interest rate above the inter-bank offering rate. As capital requirements have risen, banks are allowed to make less loans given a certain amount of capital. That has caused an increased demand for capital from depositors. As described in this Federal Reserve ruling, effective January 1st, 2014 the Federal Reserve is again raising capital requirements. As you can see here money can be borrowed, in the United States, at .0825% (100 - 99.9175). Currently interest rates paid to borrowers are quite high compared to prevailing inter-bank rates. They could see more upward pressure given the fact that banks will be forced to maintain an increased amount of capital for a given amount of loans.\",\n \"There is a strange puzzle today where savings account interest rates are not rising in-line with the Federal Funds rate. Either customers are apathetic to their alternative uses of cash, or banks have some-how formed a cartel to keep their cost of funding low. I'm leaning towards the former since bank customers today likely value readily accessible cash more than the interest rate they could earn by investing in money market mutual funds.\",\n \"I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost.\",\n \"Firstly, the banks are far less risky than the people they lend to. Most of the interest banks charge borrowers covers defaults, but banks rarely default to the fed, especially those able to borrow from the Fed. Secondly, most banks borrowing is in the form of overnight loans to cover short term reserve fluctuations; they are not borrowing dollars to lend to you. Thirdly, if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, so are the true value of those loans. Since there are a significant number of banks that I can borrow from with a multitude of options in how to borrow, there is likely still decent competition for my business. Finally, the Fed funds rate is not currently 0%, so the banks are not getting interest free money.\",\n \"\\\"The interest rate offered by a bond is called the nominal interest rate. The so-called real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. If inflation is equal to or greater than the nominal rate at any given time, the REAL interest rate is zero or negative. We're talking about a ten year bond. It's possible for the real interest rate to be negative for one or two years of the bond's life, and positive for eight or nine. On the other hand, if we have a period of rising inflation, as in the 1970s, the inflation rate will exceed the (original) interest rate in most years, meaning that the real interest rate on the ten year bond will be negative over its whole life. People lost \\\"\\\"serious\\\"\\\" money on bonds (and loans) in the 1970s. In such situations, the BORROWERS make out. That is, they borrow money at low rates, earn inflation (plus a little more) pay back inflated dollars, and pocket the difference. For them, the money is \\\"\\\"free.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \\\"\\\"we can't make interest rates lower\\\"\\\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \\\"\\\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\\\"\\\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \\\"\\\"stop the presses\\\"\\\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Here's a number-crunching example of how the \\\"\\\"Zero interest rate\\\"\\\" offer is misleading. Suppose the offer is that a car \\\"\\\"costs $24,000.00 with zero percent financing over 24 months\\\"\\\" or as an alternative, \\\"\\\"$3,000.00 off for cash\\\"\\\". Ignore the hype: the quoted prices and the quoted interest rates. Look at what really happens to two people who take advantage of the two offers, One person hands over $21,000.00 cash, and leaves with the new car. The second promises to make 24 payments of $1000.00, one a month, starting in one month's time, and also leaves with the same make and model new car. The two people have received exactly the same benefit, so the two payment schemes must have the same value. A mortgage program will tell you that paying off a $21,000.00 loan by making 24 monthly payments of $1000.00 requires an interest rate of 1.10% a month, or an effective annual rate of 14.03%.\\\"\",\n \"There is a significant tie between housing prices and mortgage rates. As such, don't assume low mortgage rates mean you will be financially better off if you buy now, since housing prices are inversely correlated with mortgage rates. This isn't a huge correlation - it's R-squared is a bit under 20%, at a 1.5-2 year lag - but there is a significant connection there. Particularly in that 10%+ era (see chart at end of post for details) in 1979-1982, there was a dramatic drop in housing price growth that corresponded with high interest rates. There is a second major factor here, though, one that is likely much more important: why the interest rates are at 10%. Interest rates are largely set to follow the Federal Funds rate (the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans to banks). That rate is set higher for essentially one purpose: to combat inflation. Higher interest rates means less borrowing, slower economic growth, and most importantly, a slower increase in the money supply - all of which come together to prevent inflation. Those 10% (and higher!) rates you heard about? Those were in the 70's and early 80's. Anyone remember the Jimmy Carter years? Inflation in the period from 1979 to 1981 averaged over 10%. Inflation in the 70s from 1973 to 1982 averaged nearly 9% annually. That meant your dollar this year was worth only $0.90 next year - which means inevitably a higher cost of borrowing. In addition to simply keeping pace with inflation, the Fed also uses the rate as a carrot/stick to control US inflation. They weren't as good at that in the 70s - they misread economic indicators in the late 1970s significantly, lowering rates dramatically in 1975-1977 (from ~12% to ~5%). This led to the dramatic double-digit inflation of the 1979-1981 period, requiring them to raise rates to astronomic levels - nearly 20% at one point. Yeah, I hope nobody bought a house on a fixed-rate mortgage from 1979-1981. The Fed has gotten a lot more careful over the years - Alan Greenspan largely was responsible for the shift in policy which seems to have been quite effective from the mid 1980s to the present (though he's long gone from his spot on the Fed board). Despite significant economic changes in both directions, inflation has been kept largely under control since then, and since 1991 have been keeping pretty steady around 6% or less. The current rate (around 0%) is unlikely to stay around forever - that would lead to massive inflation, eventually - but it's reasonable to say that prolonged periods over 10% are unlikely in the medium term. Further, if inflation did spike (and with it, your interest rates), salaries tend to spike also. Not quite as fast as inflation - in fact, that's a major reason a small positive inflation around 2-3% is important, to allow for wages to grow more slowly for poorer performers - but still, at 10% inflation the average wage will climb at a fairly similar pace. Thus, you'd be able to buy more house - or, perhaps a better idea, save more money for a house that you can then buy a few years down the road when rates drop. Ultimately, the advice here is to not worry too much about interest rates. Buy a house when you're ready, and buy the house you're ready for. Interest rates may rise, but if so it's likely due to an increase in inflation and thus wage growth; and it would take a major shift in the economy for rates to rise to the 10-11% level. If that did happen, housing prices (or at least growth in prices) would likely drop significantly. Some further references:\",\n \"\\\"Okay, yes that's true. However, we don't know what inflation would have been during this period had the fed not been increasing their balance sheet. That's what I'm trying to get at it. So it's easy for them to say \\\"\\\"Low inflation , low interest rates\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"Holy shit that can't be USA unless you're talking about commercial lending, even then sky high rates. For the 97% LTV we sell at 3.58 last Saturday. We're a large bank too, so none of that credit unions selling themselves short nonsense. Mind you that's a special program through Fanny, but our normal rates are something like 4.4-4.55 depending on the day for 80/20 How can you be conservative but loan to credit score of over 500? We don't even look at under 640 and we're considered somewhat conservative.\",\n \"It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates.\",\n \"Banks in general will keep saving rates as low as possible especially if there is a surplus of funds or alternative access for funding as in the case of the Fed in the USA. Generally speaking, why would bank pay you a high interest rate when they cannot generate any income from your money? Usually we will expect to see a drop in the loan interest rate when their is a surplus of funds so as to encourage investment. But if the market is volatile then no banks will allow easy access to money through loans. The old traditional policy of lending money without proper security and no control from the central bank has created serious problems for savings account holders when some of these banks went into bankruptcy. It is for this reason most countries has modified their Financial Act to offer more protection to account holders. At the moment banks must follow rigid guidelines before a loan can be approved to a customer. In my country (Guyana) we have seen the collapse of a few banks which sent a shock wave across the county for those that have savings held at those bank. We have also seen unsecured loans having to be written off thus putting serious pressure of those banks. So government stepped in a few years ago and amended the act to make it mandatory to have commercial banks follow certain strict guidelines before approving a loan.\",\n \"Most of the bankruptcy is due to taking [or building over a period of time] a loan that one cannot service, if the interest rates rise, then the amount of money to repay the loan increases, when one doesnt pay the revised amount and keeps paying less, the over all debt keeps shooting through the roof ... a lower interest rate means that one can continue to pay the same amount ... and few missed payments do not cause as much as damage as it does when the rates are high.\",\n \"Usually that is the case that when fixed rates are lower than the variable rates, it is an indication that the banks feel the next movement in rates could be down. You also need to look at the fixed rates for different periods, for example 1 year fixed compared to 3 year fixed and 5 year fixed rates. If you find the 3 and 5 year fixed rates are higher than the 1 year fixed rates this could be an indication that the banks feel rates will fall in the short term but the falls won't last long and will continue to rise after a year or so. If the 3 year fixed rates are also low in comparison, then the banks may feel that the economy is heading for a longer term down trend. The banks won't want to lose out, so will change their fixed rates on their perception of where they feel the economy is headed. Since your post in May 2011, the standard variable rate has since dropped twice (in November and December) to be at 7.30%. You will also find that fixed rates have also been dropped further by the banks, indicating additional future cuts in the variable rates. Regards, Victor\",\n \"\\\"Banks make less profit when \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" rates are low compared to \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) \\\"\\\"short term\\\"\\\" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money.\\\"\",\n \"One will find that the fixed 30 year mortgage rate is tightly correlated to the 10 year treasury. An adder of 2-2.5% or so, changing slightly with the rest of the economy, as money can get tight or loose independent of the rate itself. In 2011 we are witnessing low rates yet tough loan standards, this is the phenomenon I am referencing.\",\n \"\\\"So after you've learned about bonds, you might find yourself learning about interest rates. You might, in fact, discover that there's no such thing as a \\\"\\\"correct\\\"\\\" interest rate, or even a true \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" interest rate. PS We already had the housing bubble. It has come, and gone. What *new* bubble are you referring to?\\\"\",\n \"The United States Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates should be low. (They think it may help the economy. The details matter little here though.) It will enforce this low rate by buying Treasury bonds at this very low interest rate. (Bonds are future money, so this means they pay a lot of money up front, for very little interest in the future. The Fed will pay more than anyone who offers less money up front, so they can set the price as long as they're willing to buy.) At the end of the day, Treasury bonds pay nearly no interest. Since there's little money to be made with Treasuries, people who want better-than-zero returns will bid up the current-price of any other bonds or similar loan-like instruments to get what whatever rate of return that they can. There's really no more than one price for money; you can think of the price of those bonds as basically (Treasury rate + some modifier based on the risk) percent. I realize thinking about bond prices is weird and different than other prices (you're measuring future-money using present-money and it's easy to be confused) and assure you it ultimately makes sense :) Anyway. Your savings account money has to compete with everyone else willing to lend money to banks. Everyone-else lends money for peanuts, so you get peanuts on your savings account too. Your banking is probably worth more to your bank on account of your check-card payment processing fees (collected from the merchant) than from the money they make lending out your savings (notice how many places have promotional rates if you make your direct deposits or use your check card to make a purchase N times a month). In Europe, it's similar, except you've got a different central bank. If Europe's bank operated radically differently for an extended period of time, you'd expect to see a difference in the exchange rates which would ultimately make the returns from investing in those currencies pretty similar as well. Such a change may show up domestically as inflation in the country with the loose-money policy, and internationally as weakness against other currencies. There's really only one price for money around the entire world. Any difference boils down to a difference in (perceived) risk.\",\n \"You might be thinking of the Overnight market/Overnight Rate. This lending happens constantly.\",\n \"Interesting thing is not all of this analysis is typically done by the person you are speaking with re: your mortgage. Likely there is an economic team (at some institution or another, as many many loans are sold/distributed in some fashion), finance team, and all of them are looking at various rates etc. Typically what is offered is matching an offsetting liability somewhere else. So there may be cases where the spread someone is looking to pick up might be tighter or looser within institutions or types of institutions vs others, even though the overall market is at one place. (e.g. banks vs. insurance companies). So you may have negotiating room at a certain term, but not another, or the reverse at another firm. One firm might have lots of 10 year money, while another might be limited, so will be picky in what they choose. Either more conservative loan terms/ltv, or a higher spread, for example. So many things go into the ultimate rate someone can get, but in theory the blog did a decent job.\",\n \"All unsubstantiated opinions. >there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans Really. No relation whatsoever? And your background in finance letting you understand this is what? Are you telling me every bank of the [7,213](http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/) independent banks are in cahoots and none of them compete based on prices and services? Can you give me precise evidence that all those independent banks are not in competition? What should the price be for capital if the current prices are incorrect, and tell me why.\",\n \"These are yields for the government bonds. EuroZone interest rates are much lower (10 times lower, in fact) than the UK (GBP zone) interest rates. The rates are set by the central banks.\",\n \"If you throw up a 20 year chart on the 10 year you can see it isn't fluctuating around 2%. It happens to be at 2% now but it has been relentlessly driving lower for at least 20 years. My own personal biased opinion is that it is a market infested with ultra-wealthy people who aren't looking for returns. They just basically want to maintain what they already sucked out of the system.\",\n \"As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate.\",\n \"Probably means next to zero chance of having decent rates on savings accounts for the near future - who needs your money if banks can have government money for free? Probably no short-term effects on you besides that.\",\n \"\\\"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens: It almost looks random. A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates. They steadily climbed and steadily fell: All that's left is inflation: First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not. Economists call this type of phenomenon \\\"\\\"sticky pricing\\\"\\\", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation. The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways. This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s. Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating. Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing. As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept \\\"\\\"low and stable\\\"\\\": But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise? Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible.\\\"\",\n \"I will just explain the time value of money in general, descriptive terms and save the math for someone else. Imagine: You have half a million dollars. I'd like to borrow it all from you. I'll pay it all back, every penny, but no more. And I'll pay it back in about, oh, thirty years or so. (Imagine also that you can be 100% sure that I'll pay it back.) Does this sound like a good deal? Not really. Why not? Well, you could do something with that sort of money. With that sort of money, you could do a lot of things for 30 years. You could buy a nice house and live in it for 30 years and save yourself from spending a lot of money on rent during that time (or save money on interest by paying off a mortgage early) even if the price of the house goes nowhere. If you already had a house, you could do some home improvement, like insulate the place better (to save on heating bills) or even just on something that you're going to enjoy for part of those 30 years (a patio in the back yard). If you were feeling entrepreneurial, you could take that money and start a business. Or you could invest that money in the stock market, and get a lot more back.... and if that's too risky for you, just start a savings account and earn interest. And finally, in 30 years, the value of the dollar will be lower because of inflation, so it won't buy as much now as it will then. That's the time value of money. It's the opportunity cost of the best of the things that you could have done with that money during the time it was gone. When you take out a loan, your interest payments will depend in part on the time value of the money you're borrowing: the people making the loan could be investing that money somewhere else, like government bonds. (It will also depend on factors like the risk of default on the loan - this is why credit card debt is more expensive than debt like a mortgage that's backed by a big fat asset like a house which can be seized and sold if you happen to default.) This is how the Federal Reserve can affect interest rates across the economy by just buying or selling government bonds.\",\n \"\\\"You are not \\\"\\\"the economy\\\"\\\". The economy is just the aggregate of what is going on with everyone else. You should make the decision based on your own situation now and projected into the future as best you can. Loan rates ARE at historical lows, so it is a great time to take a loan if you actually need one for some reason. However, I wouldn't go looking for a loan just because the rates are low for the same reason it doesn't make sense to buy maternity clothes if you are a single guy just because they are on sale.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"No... that's just what I'm owed for letting them use my principal. If I wanted to enjoy the opportunity cost of 0% interest for 13 plus years, I'd just keep the money in my \\\"\\\"savings\\\"\\\" account (where the 8th wonder of world, miracle of compound interest no longer exists). The bigger question posited by my snark was if/when the bond market will stop trading them as legitimate paper.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The Bank of Canada does not \\\"\\\"set\\\"\\\" the interest rates. They auction government debt, and then report what the average yield/interest rate was (rounded to 25 basis points). [The average yield of yesterday's auction of 3-month Treasury bills was 0.76%](http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/interest-rates/t-bill-yields/). I don't know why the news tries to interpret what the BOC \\\"\\\"is trying to say\\\"\\\". BOC isn't saying anything - just reporting what happened, with some filler words.\\\"\",\n \"Obviously you can't predict the future too much, but it's not too hard to figure out what is going to happen to mortgage rates in the short term. Mortgage rates are heavily influenced by 10 year treasury yields. You can find the daily 10 year rates here. It's easy to see the direction they've been moving recently. It usually takes a few days for mortgage rates to follow if the 10 year treasury yield is dropping (although if it's going up, mortgage rates will go up faster than they will fall). Here's a sample of all the 10 year treasury yields for the past 10 years. Looks like a good time to get a mortgage or refinance! You can also take a look at movements in mortgage backed securities. Here you can find a chart for Fannie Mae 3.0% mortgages. As the price goes up, mortgage rates go down. Think of it this way. Right now people are will to pay $103 for $100 worth of 3.0% mortgages. That doesn't really make sense because I could just loan you $100 at 3.0% and turn around and sell it for $103 immediately, pocketing the $3 profit. The reason is because right now, no one would willingly borrow money at 3.0%. Rates have fallen so much that if a bank has a customer paying them 3.0% on a mortgage, other people are willing to pay a premium on that mortgage. New mortgages are probably being written for 2.0%. (There is no current mortgage backed security for 2.0% fannie maes because rates have never been this low before).\",\n \"\\\"Yes sir, I'm working on compiling your \\\"\\\"precise evidence,\\\"\\\" and I'll have it printed and bound for you on the double. In the meantime, you can look here as a starting point and try to find the part where the Fed has allowed interest rates to adjust freely, and maybe you can learn why rates are artificial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_responses_to_the_subprime_crisis As for \\\"\\\"cahoots\\\"\\\" and independent banks and whatever other off-topic nonsense you're babbling about, there was nothing said about cahoots or independent banks. The interest rates paid for and to US banks are affected by the monetary policy of the Fed. There is no collusion, or \\\"\\\"cahoots,\\\"\\\" required for them to follow a common policy of artificially-low interest rates, which was the point of the earlier post.\\\"\",\n \"I'd have a look at Capital One's Online account too, they've got 1.35% interest rate with 10% bonus if you have over $15k deposited. It is still low like all interest rates, but at least it is on top (or at least close)!\",\n \"Interest rates are always given annually, to make them comparable. If you prefer to calculate the rate or the total interest for the complete time, like 10 years or 15 years or 30 years, it is simple math, and it tells you the total you will pay, but it is not helpful for picking the better or even the right offer for your situation. Compare it to your car's gas mileage- what sense does it make to provide the information that a car will use 5000 gallons of gas over its lifetime? Is that better than a car that uses 6000 gallons (but may live 2 years longer?)\",\n \"Yes those are really yields. A large portion of the world has negative yielding bonds in fact. This process has been in motion for the past 10 years for very specific reasons. So congratulations on discovering the bond market.\",\n \"Right, so if a federal interest rate near 0 percent is not enough to stimulate the demand for those loans, then we have pretty much exhausted what we can do with monetary policy. So the only thing left is fiscal policy - raise spending or lower taxes\",\n \"Mortgage rates generally consist of two factors: The risk premium is relatively constant for a particular individual / house combination, so most of the changes in your mortgage rate will be associated with changes in the price of money in the world economy at large. Interest rates in the overall economy are usually tied to an interest rate called the Federal Funds rate. The Federal Reserve manipulates the federal funds rate by buying and/or selling bonds until the rate is something they like. So you can usually expect your interest rate to rise or fall depending on the policies of the Federal Reserve. You can predict this in a couple of ways: The way they have described their plans recently indicates that will keep interest rates low for an extended period of time - probably through 2014 or so - and they hope to keep inflation around 2%. Unless inflation is significantly more than 2% between now and then, they are extremely unlikely to change that plan. As such, you should probably not expect mortgage interest rates in general to change more than infinitesimally small amounts until 2014ish. Worry more about your credit score.\",\n \"This is of course using 'new math'. Namely, if I lend you $100 and you keep it for a month, I've lent you $100. In fact, if I loan you $100 for a year I've loaned you $100. But if I lend you $100 overnight, you pay me back in the morning, I lend you $100 overnight, you pay me back in the morning and we repeat that for a month, I've supposedly lent you $3,000. That's some interesting math for sure.\",\n \"If the best they can do is 1/8th of a percent for a 15 year term, you are best served by taking the 30 year term. Pay it down sooner if you can, but it's nice to have the flexibility if you have a month where things are tight.\",\n \"yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path. Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US.\",\n \"\\\"When you say that the problem is \\\"\\\"high supply but no demand\\\"\\\" you are actually correct. Here's why: The phrase \\\"\\\"borrow/spend less, save more\\\"\\\" isn't an absolute law. It's more of a cautionary tale. Obviously, spending is an integral part of an economy: it accounts for at least 50% of every transaction! But the aphorism is getting at something other than admonishing people to not spend. The point of the saying is that interest rates should reflect savings rates. What it comes down to is the how the law of supply and demand applies to the relationship between savings and interest rates. Consider this thought experiment: in a world where everybody saves 50% of their income, what would happen to interest rates? Banks would have a glut of savings, relative to the population. Assuming demand remains constant, interest rates would go down: the price of borrowing goes down as the supply of money to be borrowed increases. Thus a corollary of the law of supply and demand is that as savings increase, interest rates tend to go down. So, as savings increase, the economic environment encourages capital improvements. Businesses can borrow at lower rates and increase long-term productive capacity. This is what the federal reserve has attempted to do by lowering the Fed Funds rate to near zero and by Operation Twist: increase economic activity through low borrowing costs. So, what's the problem? When interest rates are artificially low there are no savings to support the production later in time. A company that borrows at a 1% rate created by the feds can build a factory to make widgets, but it will have a hard time selling that widget to a population with a negative net worth. However, if the 1% rate is \\\"\\\"natural\\\"\\\", then the company should be fine: the savings of the population should support the production from his widget factory. For about 30 years we have experienced a credit boom in this country that was not created by excess savings. This trend couldn't continue forever. Look around you. At the end of the day, an economy is simply a group of people getting together to buy and sell stuff and services. Right now there is a lot of debt, and little cash. Who will be doing the buying?\\\"\",\n \"Interest rates are market driven. They tend to be based on the prime rate set by the federal reserve bank because of the tremendous lending capacity of that institution and that other loan originators will often fund their own lending (at least in part) with fed loans. However, there is no mandatory link between the federal reserve rate and the market rate. No law stipulates that rates cannot rise or fall. They will rise and fall as lenders see necessary to use their capital. Though a lender asking 10% interest might make no loans when others are willing to lend for 9%. The only protection you have is that we are (mostly) economically free. As a borrower, you are protected by the fact that there are many lenders. Likewise, as a lender, because there are many borrowers. Stability is simply by virtue of the fact that one market participant with inordinate pricing will find fewer counterparties to transact.\",\n \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/business/dealbook/libor-fca-banks-andrew-bailey.html) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The one-year Libor, which represents the rate of interest on a loan between banks to be paid back within a year, is the most commonly used index for mortgages in the United States, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. > &quot;And while we have given our full support to encouraging panel banks to continue to contribute and maintaining Libor over recent years, we do not think markets can rely on Libor continuing to be available indefinitely.\\\"\\\" > Mr. Bailey said that the regulator had agreed with the panel banks to sustain Libor through 2021 to smooth a transition to new rates. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6r14fz/libor_brought_scandal_greatest_financial_scandal/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~180937 tl;drs so far.\\\"\\\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \\\"\\\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\\\"\\\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Libor**^#1 **rate**^#2 **bank**^#3 **over**^#4 **Financial**^#5\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/taibbi-is-libor-crucial-financial-benchmark-a-lie-w497305) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > If you have any kind of consumer loan, it&#039;s a fair bet that it&#039;s based on LIBOR. A 2009 study by the Cleveland Fed found that 60 percent of all mortgages in the U.S. were based on LIBOR. Buried somewhere in your home, you probably have a piece of paper that outlines the terms of your credit card, student loan, or auto loan, and if you peek in the fine print, you have a good chance of seeing that the rate you pay every month is based on LIBOR. Years ago, we found out that the world&#039;s biggest banks were manipulating LIBOR. That sucked. > As a few Wall Street analysts have quietly noted in the weeks since those comments, an &quot;Absence of underlying markets&quot; is a fancy way of saying that LIBOR has not been based on real trading activity, which is a fancy way of saying that LIBOR is bullshit. > So as LIBOR reflected reality less and less, it became more and more ubiquitous, burying itself, tick-like, into the core of the financial system. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tasuo/years_ago_we_found_out_that_the_worlds_biggest/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~189474 tl;drs so far.\\\"\\\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \\\"\\\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\\\"\\\") | *Top* *keywords*: **LIBOR**^#1 **Bank**^#2 **market**^#3 **rate**^#4 **based**^#5\\\"\",\n \"But it also can't be 1.46%, because that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. The rates are displayed as of Today. As the footnote suggests these are to be read with Maturities. A Treasury with 1 year Maturity is at 1.162% and a Treasury with 30Y Maturity is at 2.78%. Generally Bonds with longer maturity terms give better yields than bonds of shorter duration. This indicates the belief that in long term the outlook is positive.\",\n \">“At some point,” he said, interest rates are going to go up again, “and I should have been able to get those low rates. It’s not fair.” It's perfectly fair. Why is a bank going to lend you more money than what the collateral's worth? That would be unfair.\",\n \"FYI, I am assuming you are an individual investor.. The rates on the website may change, if the government decides so. Anyway it is a UK government website, so it would reflect the changes immediately.\",\n \"Monetizing loan is akin to loan money the banks don't have so they can lend money to people/state that don't have money. The ECB and the FED are theorically independant from the political power, and in pratique they more often than naught proove it (at least for the ECB), after that being independent from the financial sector they lend to... that's another question. Rates are low not because they monetize but because they want to do so without inducing inflation.\",\n \"It seems a bit late in the process, no? They moved in, you are elsewhere, etc. Today, the Prime Rate is 3.25%. I don't know enough to suggest whether this is fair to both parties. It's more than you'd earn in the bank, and less than they'd pay for a business loan. My own equity line is currently 2.5%, for what that's worth.\",\n \"Things we should all understand: * The Federal Reserve will not engage in QE3 or QE4 or any kind of QE. - Inflation is too high and the economy would be harmed rather than helped. * The Federal Reserve will not raise rates until 2013-2014. - Ben has been pretty adamant and clear about this. What I'm concerned about is that they keep pushing back the date. Interest rates should have been raised last year.\",\n \"Interest rates have been going down since 1980. At some point it has to rebound, but as the old adage goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. The only thing we know with certainty about the 10 year interest rates is that it will most likely cap out at 0%. Maybe....\",\n \"Lowered rates = boom for equities, currently held bonds, and assets. Cheaper money means a (disproportionately) good time had by all. This all comes with malinvestment, potential for moral hazard, and savers losing in a big way. Why save for retirement when your risk free return on US Treasuries can barely keep up with inflation? As an aside, it is not really a risk free rate anymore, with $20 trillion in debt and no real hope of paying it off. This is why we see the rate increases and movement towards asset sales by the Fed to get the poop off their books. They are worried about all of the above and need more arrows in their quiver when the next recession hits. They won't have enough, however. They are trying to right a ship that is fully overturned. This is now the longest period of growth (however tepid) since the tech bubble of the 1990's. Are the fundamentals really better than then?\",\n \"Thanks. It has taken me some time to understand how all this works, and there are still many gray areas I want to understand further. The Fed interest rate is the rate charged by banks to loan to each other to balance overnight reserves but only using the reserves they hold at the Fed. That adds no new money to the system, but increases the money multiplier a little since perhaps more loans can be made. Basically one bank with excess reserves can loan to another bank that needs reserves. The Fed injects no money here, only sets the rate for banks to do this with each other. When the Fed buys securities that effectively adds that many more dollars into circulation, which then gets hit by the money multiplier, adding a lot of new liquidity. I think historically the latter tracks increases in the money supply much better than the former. I think the St. Louis Fed has records online for all this dating back to the 1940's or so.\",\n \"Different rates. What the BoE is conducting is known as Quantitative Easing, which is a form of monetary policy avalable to central banks whenever interest rates are already too close to zero or at zero (just like in the UK). In this case, the central banks hopes to influence longer-term rates, rather than just short-term rates. It is useful to remember that the rate central banks announce is a short-term rate used for interbank lending.\",\n \"It depends solely on the risk your willing to take. For example, few years back one of the leading banks in my country was offering 25% interest rate for 5 year fixed deposits and the lending rate in the market was around 12%. So people borrowed money from other banks and invested in the high return fixed deposits. After 6 months the bank filed for bankruptcy and people lost their money. Later investigations revealed that abnormal high return was offered because the bank had a major liquidity problem. So all depends on the risk associated with return on your investment. Higher the risk, higher the return.\",\n \"Banks cannot just borrow from the Federal Reserve and use that money to make loans. The first thing you need to understand is how fractional reserve banking works. The banks can make loans with money that their customers have deposited in their accounts. The interest and fees from those loans go to pay the salaries of those working at the banks with leftover profit to pay dividends (interest on your bank accounts). The only reason that the Federal Reserve allows overnight lending is so that banks don't immediately become insolvent if they have larger than usual withdrawals by their depositors. The Federal Reserve keeps an eye on the balance sheets of the banks that are doing the borrowing, and if they didn't have assets in the form of deposits, they would force the banks to sell the loans that were made from those deposits. What does this have to do with personal finance? I think this question is only marginally on-topic here. This amount of money in circulation is affected specifically by the fraction of the money that can be used for making other loans. But the bigger influence is the rate that the Federal Reserve charges for overnight lending. They raise and lower the rates which affects the rates that the banks can lend at while remaining profitable.\",\n \"What the comments above say is true, but one more thing is there. FD rates are directly proportional to loan rates. However, banks make money because loan rates will always be higher than FD rates.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"You are correct that it could refer to any of the types of interest rates that you've mentioned. In general, though, phrases such as \"\"rising interest rates\"\" and \"\"falling interest rates\"\" refer to the Federal Funds Rate or LIBOR. These are the interest rates at which banks in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, are lending money to each other.\"","As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend.","\"I would say people are generally talking about the prime lending rate. I have heard the prime lending rate defined as \"\"The rate that banks charge each other when they borrow money overnight.\"\" But it often defined as the rate at which banks lend their most creditworthy customers. That definition comes with the caveat that it is not always held to strictly. Either definition has the same idea: it's the lowest rate at which anyone could currently borrow money. The rate for many types of lending is based upon the prime rate. A variable rate loan might have an interest rate of (Prime + x). The prime rate is in turn based upon the Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate that the Fed sets manually. When the news breaks that \"\"the Fed is raising interest rates by a quarter of a point\"\" (or similar) it is the Federal Funds Rate that they control. Lending institutions then \"\"fall in line\"\" and adjust the rates at which they lend money. So to summarize: When people refer to \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\" or \"\"rising\"\" interest rates they are conceptually referring to the prime lending rate. When people talk about the Fed raising/lowering interest rates (In the U.S.) they are referring specifically to the Federal Funds Rate (which ultimately sets other lending rates).\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"You are correct that it could refer to any of the types of interest rates that you've mentioned. In general, though, phrases such as \\\"\\\"rising interest rates\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"falling interest rates\\\"\\\" refer to the Federal Funds Rate or LIBOR. These are the interest rates at which banks in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, are lending money to each other.\\\"\",\n \"As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend.\",\n \"\\\"I would say people are generally talking about the prime lending rate. I have heard the prime lending rate defined as \\\"\\\"The rate that banks charge each other when they borrow money overnight.\\\"\\\" But it often defined as the rate at which banks lend their most creditworthy customers. That definition comes with the caveat that it is not always held to strictly. Either definition has the same idea: it's the lowest rate at which anyone could currently borrow money. The rate for many types of lending is based upon the prime rate. A variable rate loan might have an interest rate of (Prime + x). The prime rate is in turn based upon the Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate that the Fed sets manually. When the news breaks that \\\"\\\"the Fed is raising interest rates by a quarter of a point\\\"\\\" (or similar) it is the Federal Funds Rate that they control. Lending institutions then \\\"\\\"fall in line\\\"\\\" and adjust the rates at which they lend money. So to summarize: When people refer to \\\"\\\"high\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"low\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"rising\\\"\\\" interest rates they are conceptually referring to the prime lending rate. When people talk about the Fed raising/lowering interest rates (In the U.S.) they are referring specifically to the Federal Funds Rate (which ultimately sets other lending rates).\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":265,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3369"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Why should one only contribute up to the employer's match in a 401(k)?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["371886","163834","231012","145716","411910","395840"],"string":"[\n \"371886\",\n \"163834\",\n \"231012\",\n \"145716\",\n \"411910\",\n \"395840\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["165305","330058","240259","24231","296405","97805","249063","591383","488673","115465","53544","371886","140330","1366","293531","443002","242529","555377","519750","191447","379911","273497","463892","534837","242556","18485","430931","322219","301616","427997","135724","281049","394549","92370","525426","56558","147889","404881","590711","38532","67220","585873","111843","514357","424841","477021","417257","4976","312369","464080","75766","389019","267297","181624","452592","187498","383472","39071","366307","202768","509772","163834","122560","439249","341493","79363","140917","189978","353625","290105","576391","159621","272223","160786","302512","293134","59965","69042","327509","220459","160780","309200","380615","19973","74041","529543","176110","587633","119628","458346","84967","528699","392924","337561","469138","423012","537792","42301","344698","436071"],"string":"[\n \"165305\",\n \"330058\",\n \"240259\",\n \"24231\",\n \"296405\",\n \"97805\",\n \"249063\",\n \"591383\",\n \"488673\",\n \"115465\",\n \"53544\",\n \"371886\",\n \"140330\",\n \"1366\",\n \"293531\",\n \"443002\",\n \"242529\",\n \"555377\",\n \"519750\",\n \"191447\",\n \"379911\",\n \"273497\",\n \"463892\",\n \"534837\",\n \"242556\",\n \"18485\",\n \"430931\",\n \"322219\",\n \"301616\",\n \"427997\",\n \"135724\",\n \"281049\",\n \"394549\",\n \"92370\",\n \"525426\",\n \"56558\",\n \"147889\",\n \"404881\",\n \"590711\",\n \"38532\",\n \"67220\",\n \"585873\",\n \"111843\",\n \"514357\",\n \"424841\",\n \"477021\",\n \"417257\",\n \"4976\",\n \"312369\",\n \"464080\",\n \"75766\",\n \"389019\",\n \"267297\",\n \"181624\",\n \"452592\",\n \"187498\",\n \"383472\",\n \"39071\",\n \"366307\",\n \"202768\",\n \"509772\",\n \"163834\",\n \"122560\",\n \"439249\",\n \"341493\",\n \"79363\",\n \"140917\",\n \"189978\",\n \"353625\",\n \"290105\",\n \"576391\",\n \"159621\",\n \"272223\",\n \"160786\",\n \"302512\",\n \"293134\",\n \"59965\",\n \"69042\",\n \"327509\",\n \"220459\",\n \"160780\",\n \"309200\",\n \"380615\",\n \"19973\",\n \"74041\",\n \"529543\",\n \"176110\",\n \"587633\",\n \"119628\",\n \"458346\",\n \"84967\",\n \"528699\",\n \"392924\",\n \"337561\",\n \"469138\",\n \"423012\",\n \"537792\",\n \"42301\",\n \"344698\",\n \"436071\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["In addition to the prior answer, talking from experience, you get into trouble if you surpass the contribution limit and your employer continues to deposit money above the IRS maximum allowed. When that happens, you have until April to take out the excess contribution and earned interest on that chunk of money and included in your tax return or else you get a steep tax penalty in addition to being double taxed ( for the current and next tax year). Also from experience, payroll departments will most likely get this wrong and it will end up in a compliance mess with you picking up the tab on your tax bill. Don't let it happen!!!","I would definitely be putting in enough to get the most out of the match. Only reasons I can think of not too would be: Other than that, not investing in the 401(k) is turning down free money. Edit based on feedback in comments. The only time I would advocate number 1 is if you are intensely committed to getting out of debt, were on a very tight budget and had eliminated all non-essential spending. In that situation only, I think the mental benefit of having that last debt paid off would be worth more than a few dollars in interest.","401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding. The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross. The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself. Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year. A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate. First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6650 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650. Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6300 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.","If one makes say, $10K/mo, and the company will match the first 5% dollar for dollar, a 10%/mo deposit of $1K/mo will see a $500/mo match. If the employee manages to request 90% get put into the 401(k), after 2 months, he's done. If the company wished, they could continue the $500/mo match, I agree. They typically don't and in fact, the 'true up' you mention isn't even required, one is fortunate to get it. Many companies that match are going the other way, matching only after the year is over. Why? Why does any company do anything? To save money. I used to make an attempt to divide my deposit over the year to max out the 401(k) in December and get the match real time, not a true up.","\"Many employees don't contribute enough to maximize the match, so the cost to the employer is not the same. Under the 50% of 6% strategy an employee contributing 5% would get a 2.5% match not a 3% and that saves the company 0.5%. @TTT provided an excellent link in the comments below to a study titled \"\"How much employer 401(k) matching contributions do employees leave on the table?\"\" performed by Financial Engines, an independent financial advisory service. The information meaningful to this answer is on Page 5 (Page 7 of the PDF): 4,378,445 eligible employees were included in the study 1,077,775 of the eligible employees did not contribute enough for the full match; of them, 285,386 Received zero match funds 792,389 Received some match funds, but not the full match available So 792,389 or 18% of the employees studied contributed in to employer 401(k) plans but not enough to maximize their available match.\"","If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well.","I'd take the match, but I wouldn't contribute beyond your match, for two reasons:","If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.","If your employer matches a percentage of your contributions, then you should try to max out your plan. Once you have completed maxing out your 401k, you may want to open up an IRA for several reasons: will your 401k be enough to sustain your lifestyle in retirement? Your IRA allows you to save even more for retirement. you can invest in all sorts of stuff through your IRA that might not be available in your plan. you can withdraw the principal from your IRA, usually after five years. This serves as another form of savings. IRAs have some asset protection in the event of bankruptcy. A normal savings or investment account usually does not offer such protection.","Another factor to consider is that it encourages employees to contribute more into to the plan so that they'll be able to comfortably retire. Getting the full match encourages people to put at least 6% in to avoid leaving money on the table; 100% of the 1st 3% would see a lot of people only putting 3% in instead. While 9% of your income is still a rather marginal amount to be saving; it will leave you in a much better place in your 60's than if you had only put in 6%/year.","A matching pension scheme is like free money. No wait, it actually IS free money. You are literally earning 100% interest rate on that money the instant you pay it in to the account. That money would have to sit in your credit card account for at least five years to earn that kind of return; five years in which the pension money would have earned an additional return over and above the 100%. Mathematically there is no contest that contributing to a matching pension scheme is one of the best investment there is. You should always do it. Well, almost always. When should you not do it?","The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.","Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe.","If you can afford to put money in your 401(k) account, I would say at least you should invest enough to get your employer's matching fund. It's free money, why not get it?","\"Agree with Randy, if debt and debt reduction was all about math, nobody would be in debt. It is an emotional game. If you've taken care of the reasons you're in debt, changed your behaviors, then start focusing on the math of getting it done faster. Otherwise, if you don't have a handle on the behaviors that got you there, you're just going to get more rope to hang yourself with. I.e., makes sense to take a low-interest home equity loan to pay off high-interest credit card debt, but more likely than not, you'll just re-rack up the debt on the cards because you never fixed the behavior that put you into debt. Same thing here, if you opt not to contribute to \"\"pay off the cards\"\" without fixing the debt-accumulating behaviors, what you're going to do is stay in debt AND not provide for retirement. Take the match until you're certain you have your debt accumulation habits in check.\"","\"I agree with the other answers that it is a benefit, but wanted to add another explanation for this: Also, why a company would prefer matching someone's contributions (and given him or her additional free money) instead of just offering a simple raise? In addition to a match being a benefit that is part of your total compensation, 401ks have special rules for Highly Compensated Employees. If the lower paid employees do not contribute, the \"\"Highly Compensated Employees\"\" do not get to take full advantage of the 401k. By offering a match, more lower paid employees will take advantage of a 401k program allowing more Highly Compensated Employees to also take advantage of the program.\"","\"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the \"\"riches\"\") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above).\"","An experienced individual wouldn't ask such questions. I don't say this to take a jab at you, but to provide context. The matter is much more complicated than a simple answer to your question could accomplish. The short answer is no, not necessarily; but it depends on the details. Generally, if the employer matches, it's suggested that you take advantage of the match. It's free money. That said, it comes with some strings attached, like a vesting schedule. It's not yours right away, necessarily. Choices are limited in a 401k, but we should still come out ahead with that free money. The investment choices available in a 401k are also a part of the details. If they meet your needs you should certainly consider the 401k even if the employer doesn't match. There is also the matter of one's particular tax situation, which is certainly an involved matter. A 401k can certainly be a part of judicious tax planning. It's a matter of working out the details. Continuing this theme of details and coming back to the employer match: if the employer doesn't mach, I would make sure that I'm maxing out an IRA before considering the 401k. If the employer matched, I would probably contribute to take advantage of that match. However, it quickly becomes complicated here. I'm accustomed to employer matching up to some percentage of pay, which typically works out to be less then the anual contribution limits for a 401k. So, I my plan for such a situation is to contribute up to the employer match in the 401k, then max out an IRA, and then return to the 401k to finish contributing up to its yearly maximum. There is plenty for you to consider in order to come up with a plan of action. While it's certainly complicated, it's accessible to most people. You don't have to be a genius. In fact, eggheads are regularly trounced by the markets.","If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!","Employer match doesn't incur FICA tax (social security, medicare) for you at all - either current year or when you withdraw. All you have to pay is income tax when you withdraw after retirement age. (Disclaimer - I'm not tax professional but has done my research)","\"The error in the example is here: \"\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\"\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\"","I think better advice would be always max out your 401K at least to the level that the company provides a match. For example, my company will match 50% up to 10% of your salary. Good luck finding another investment with a guaranteed immediate 50% return. Beyond the company match, it is probably good advice to put as much in the 401K as you can afford if you aren't disciplined enough to invest that money on your own. Otherwise it depends on a number of factors as to whether it is better to invest on your own or in the company plan.","Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.","One should fund a 401(k) or matched retirement account up to the match, even if you have other debt. Long term, you will come out ahead, but you must be disciplined in making the payments. If one wants to point out the risk in a 401(k), I'd suggest the money need not be invested in stocks, there's always a short term safe option.","\"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the \"\"buy low\"\" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)\"","This creates incentive for the employee to contribute more and increases the funds under management of the 401(k) plan. The size of the plan influences the fees that are charged in each of the funds offered. (The more assets under management, the better for those in the plan.) More importantly, 401(k) plans are not allowed to discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. That discrimination is determined by calculating the average deferrals by your lower compensated employees and comparing them to the average deferrals of your highly compensated employees. If highly compensated employees are saving too much compared to the rest of the pack, they will have some of their contributions returned the next year (with all the tax implications of that). Forcing everyone to contribute 6% to get the full match helps the plan to not fail the discrimination test and protects the highly compensated employees from losing some of their tax deferrals.","Specifically on the subject of maxing out your 401k, there are several downsides: The employer match usually only applies to the first 6%. Some employers offer no match at all. You listed the match as a pro, but I think it should be pointed out that you can usually get this benefit without maxing out your plan. The investment options are limited. Usually there is at least one fund available from all the common investment classes, but these may not be your preferred funds if you were able to choose for yourself. Fees can be very high. If you are working for a small to medium size company, the fees for each fund will often be higher than for the same funds in a plan offered by a large company. Fees are usually related to the dollar amount of assets under management. Each person has a different tax situation, so if you are single and making 6 figures, you might still be in the 25% bracket even after maxing out your 401k, but the same person filing jointly with a spouse that makes less could get down to the 15% bracket with a smaller contribution. I meet my retirement savings goals without maxing out the 401k. As long as the amount is above the employer match amount, my second priority is to funnel as much money as possible in to my IRA (because I get lower fees and better investment options from Vanguard).","Let me add another consideration to the company's side of the equation. Not only is a 401K a tool for the company to make them competitive when recruiting employees among other companies that offer that benefit, it is also a good retention tool. Most company's 401K plans include a vesting period of at least 3 years, sometimes more. An employee that leaves the company before they are vested in the plan will have to give up some % of the employer matched funds in the account. This gives employees incentive to stick around longer and the company reduces the risk of turnover which can be costly in terms of training and recruiting. This also factors into the reason why employers would rather give matching on the 401K than a simple pay raise. Some of those employees are going to leave during the vesting period anyway, and when that happens the employer got the benefit of motivating (extrinsically) the employee, but in the end got to keep some of the money.","The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.","\"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \"\"matching\"\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \"\"excess contributions\"\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \"\"adjust\"\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \"\"matching\"\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\", but that might be a harder change to get.\"","Yes. Not doing so would be like turning down a raise. The best advice in almost every situation is to at least contribute up to the amount that the company will match so you get the full benefit. One thing to clarify that you might not be understanding. The vesting period is only for the money the company matches, not your own investment. Even if you leave the company before the account is vested or fully vested, you can transfer to a 401k at your new employer, or roll over into an IRA, or take as taxable income (and pay a penalty if it is an early withdrawal), all your contributions together with any investment gains or losses that have occurred. Ditto whatever part of your employer match that has vested by the time you leave. Often, the employer matching contributions are invested in the same funds in the same proportions that you have chosen for your own contributions and thus will have incurred the same gains or losses as your own contributions, but what you are entitled to take with you is the part that has vested. Also, you mention that it is unlikely that you will stay the entire 5 years. However, if you plan to at least stay a couple of years it makes sense to get the 20%, 40%, etc. of the match that you vest during your stay. Again, it's free money.","The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.","\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"","\"The only way to know the specific explanation in your situation is to ask your employer. Different companies do it differently, and they will have their reasons for that difference. I've asked \"\"But why is it that way?\"\" enough times to feel confident in telling you it's rarely an arbitrary decision. In the case of your employer's policy, I can think of a number of reasons why they would limit match earnings per paycheck: Vesting, in a sense - Much as stock options have vesting requirements where you have to work for a certain amount of time to receive the options, this policy works as a sort of vesting mechanism for your employer matching funds. Without it, you could rapidly accumulate your full annual match amount in a few pay periods at the beginning of the year, and then immediately leave for employment elsewhere. You gain 100% of the annual match for only 1-2 months of work, while the employees who remain there all year work 12 months to gain the same 100%. Dollar Cost Averaging - By purchasing the same investment vehicle at different prices over time, you can reduce the impact of volatility on your earnings. For the same reason that 401k plans usually restrict you to a limited selection of mutual funds - namely, the implicit assumption is that you probably have little to no clue about investing - they also do other strategic things to encourage employees to invest (at least somewhat) wisely. By spacing their matching fund out over time, they encourage you to space your contributions over time, and they thereby indirectly force you to practice a sensible strategy of dollar cost averaging. Dollar Cost Averaging, seen from another angle - Mutual funds are the 18-wheeler trucks of the investment super-highway. They carry a lot of cargo, but they are difficult to start, stop, or steer quickly. For the same reasons that DCA is smart for you, it's also smart for a fund. The money is easier to manage and invest according to the goals of the fund if the investments trickle in over time and there are no sudden radical changes. Imagine if every employer that does matching allowed the full maximum match to be earned on the first paycheck of the year - the mutual funds in 401ks would get big balloons of money in January followed by a drastically lower investment for the rest of the year. And that would create volatility. Plan Administration Fees - Your employer has to pay the company managing the 401k for their services. It is likely that their agreement with the management company requires them to pay on a monthly basis, so it potentially makes things convenient for the accounting people on both ends if there's a steady monthly flow of money in and out. (Whether this point is at all relevant is very much dependent on how your company's agreement is structured, and how well the folks handling payroll and accounting understand it.) The Bottom Line - Your employer (let us hope) makes profits. And they pay expenses. And companies, for a variety of financial reasons, prefer to spread their profits and expenses as evenly over the year as they can. There are a lot of ways they achieve this - for example, a seasonal business might offer an annual payment plan to spread their seasonal revenue over the year. Likewise, the matching funds they are paying to you the employees are coming out of their bottom line. And the company would rather not have the majority of those funds being disbursed in a single quarter. They want a nice, even distribution. So once again it behooves them to create a 401k system that supports that objective. To Sum Up Ultimately, those 401k matching funds are a carrot. And that carrot manipulates you the employee into behaving in a way that is good for your employer, good for your investment management company, and good for your own investment success. Unless you are one of the rare birds who can outperform a dollar-cost-averaged investment in a low-cost index fund, there's very little to chafe at about this arrangement. If you are that rare bird, then your investment earning power likely outstrips the value of your annual matching monies significantly, in which case it isn't even worth thinking about.\"","Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.","\"Because 401k's are also used by self employed. A person who has a schedule C profitable income can open a 401k and \"\"match\"\" in whatever ratio he wants, up to 25% of the net profits or the limits you stated. This allows self-employed to defer more income taxes to the future. Why only self-employed? Good question. Ask your congressman. My explanation would be that since they're self-employed they're in much more danger of not having income, especially later in life, if their business go south. Thus they need a bigger cushion than an average W2 employee who can just find another job.\"","With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)","\"You'd need to test the assumptions here - in effect you're saying that in 15 years your account will have a balance 10x your income. But normally you'd expect your income to grow over the years (e.g. promotions) and so you'd hope that your income in 15 years would be significantly larger than what it is now. But, even in the case where your account eventually does grow to 10x your salary at that time, it may still be worth continuing to contribute. In effect, adding a further 1% to your account is boosting the \"\"compounding return\"\" on your account by 1% - after fees and risk free. This additional 1% \"\"return\"\" in effect makes your retirement plan safer - you either get a higher total return for the same investment mix, or you can get the same total return for a slightly safer investment mix. In effect, you're treating your salary as a \"\"safe\"\" annuity and each year putting 10% of the \"\"return\"\" from that into your more risky retirement account.\"","\"As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad. The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase. I am on the side of \"\"don't do it\"\" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more. Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA.\"","\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"","rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.","I'm not a big fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. The rules on tax-advantages accounts can change at any time. It's already painful to get money out before retirement (earnings or possibly contributions taxed as current income, plus 10% penalty). The rules could get worse. There's also the assumption that your taxes will be lower when you retire. I think this is a poor assumption. If you get free money from your employer for contribution to a 401(k), contribute up to what will get you all of the free money you can. Otherwise, pay your taxes and keep control of your assets. So short answer: Keep as much as you can out of tax-advantaged accounts unless you're turning down free money to do so.","It depends on the vesting schedule and the likelihood you'll be there long enough to get any vesting. A typical 6 year schedule gets you 20% after 2 years. You already know you'll be there 1 year, so now you need to decide if you'll last 2 years. Unless you know for sure you won't last 2 years, you should take the match on the 4%. Suppose your retirement plan earns 10%. If you leave before 2 years, compared with your 18% you're only behind by 8% return. But if you last 2 years, you'd be making a 32% return on that same amount. After 3 years you'd make 54%, and up it goes from there until you hit a 120% return after 6 years. I'd take the match simply because you have a lot more to gain than you have to lose if you leave early.","You cannot withdraw funds from a 401(k) while still employed with your company. To access your contributions, that would be treated as a loan against the 401(k), in which case you'd pay an upfront fee, and then have to repay the amount loaned, plus interest, over a set period of time. (In essence, you are paying back yourself.) Typically, there is also a minimum amount you must take out as a loan. Should you leave the job and still have an outstanding loan against your 401(k), it will be treated as a withdrawal after a certain date, at which point a 10% penalty plus taxes applies, unless you pay back the full amount of the loan remaining before that certain date. Your friends should seriously consider contributing the minimum amount necessary to get that full 50% matching amount. It's free money. As you said, it's like leaving money on the table.","If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances.","It's probably advantageous to stop depositing into a 401(k) when one is no longer receiving payroll deductions into them. Other than that, why would you want to give up the benefits? Remember, 401(k) is just the kind of account. Most offer a variety of investment options within them, and let you move money between those, so you can rebalance to suit your currently preferred risk/return tradeoffs without having to break them open. You might sometimes want to reduce your contribution for a while, if you have immediate cashflow needs elsewhere... but try to avoid doing that. Compound returns are a good thing, and the earlier the money goes in the more you get back from it.","You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.","Companies are required BY THE IRS to try to get everybody to contribute minimal amounts to the 401K's. In the past, there were abuses and only the execs could contribute and the low paid workers were starving while the execs contributed huge amounts. On a year-by-year basis, if the low-paid employees don't contribute, the IRS punishes the high paid employees. Therefore, most employers provide a matching program to incentivize low-paid employees to contribute. This 9% limitation could happen in any year and it could have happened even before you got your pay raise, what matters is what the low-paid employees were doing at your company LAST YEAR.","Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post.","\"Given that the 6 answers all advocate similar information, let me offer you the alternate scenario - You earn $60K and have an employer offering a 50% match on all deposits. All deposits. (Note, I recently read a Q&A here describing such an offer. If I see it again, I'll link). Let the thought of the above settle in. You think about the fact that $42K isn't a bad salary, and decide to deposit 30%, to gain the full match on your $18K deposit. Now, you budget to live your life, pay your bills, etc, but it's tight. When you accumulate $2000, and a strong want comes up (a toy, a trip, anything, no judgement) you have a tough decision. You think to yourself, \"\"after the match, I am literally saving 45% of my income. I'm on a pace to have the ability to retire in 20 years. Why do I need to save even more?\"\" Your budget has enough discretionary spending that if you have a $2000 'emergency', you charge it and pay it off over the next 6-8 months. Much larger, and you know that your super-funded 401(k) has the ability to tap a loan. Your choice to turn away from the common wisdom has the recommended $20K (about 6 months of your spending) sitting in your 401(k), pretax deposited as $26K, and matched to nearly $40K, growing long term. Note: This is a devil's advocate answer. Had I been the first to answer, it would reflect the above. In my own experience, when I got married, we built up the proper emergency fund. As interest rates fell, we looked at our mortgage balance, and agreed that paying down the loan would enable us to refinance and save enough in mortgage interest that the net effect was as if we were getting 8% on the money. At the same time as we got that new mortgage, the bank offered a HELOC, which I never needed to use. Did we somehow create high risk? Perhaps. Given that my wife and I were both still working, and had similar incomes, it seemed reasonable.\"","They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.","If there is no match and you are disciplined enough to contribute without it coming directly out of your paycheck, dump the 401K. The reason: Most 401K plans have huge hidden fees built into the investment prices. You won't see them directly, but 3% is not uncommon. 3% is a horrible drag on your investment performance. Get an IRA or Roth IRA and pick something with low fees. Bonus: You will have a lot more investment choices!","No, sorry. A change of 401(k) administrator is not an out, otherwise many would flee a bad plan. I'd suggest you only deposit up to the match, but use an IRA if you'd like to save more. A plan with high fees can easily negate the tax benefits and then some.","There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.","You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).","Most companies put the company match in your account each paycheck, but your are not generally vested for the match. If you leave before the specified time period then they pull back part of the matching funds. I knew somebody who did something similar back in the 1980's with their 401K. They put in 8% of their paycheck after taxes; a 100% match was deposited; then they pulled out the employees contribution every quarter. They did this for the 10 years I knew them. It avoided any tax implications, and they were still saving 8% of their pay for retirement.","With a 401k you will be taxed when you withdraw the money upon retirement (just like an IRA), but conventional wisdom had it that you're likely to be in a lower tax bracket at that time. That may not necessarily be the case though, in which case a Roth IRA would be a better option because you're paying for it with after tax dollars and distributions are untaxed. If you wanted to hedge your bets you could have both an IRA/401k and a Roth IRA. An IRA has income limits above which the contributions are no longer tax deductible, I don't believe a 401k has the same limitations (for completion's sake: a Roth IRA has income limits above which you can't contribute to one). And like you said, the employer match is free money.","If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.","If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month.","Nope, take the match. I cannot see not taking the match unless you don't have enough money to cover the bills. Every situation is different of course, and if the option is to missing minimum payments or other bills in order to get the match, make your payments. But in all other circumstances, take the match. My reasoning is, it is hard enough to earn money so take every chance you can. If you save for retirement in the process, all the better.","The reason your 401k match is always counted as pre-tax whether you are contributing to a traditional 401k or a Roth is that the money is contributed by the employer and is not counted as income, and that contribution is not taxed as income. Should you wish to pay taxes on it and convert it to a Roth, you can do that, though perhaps not until you change jobs.","In addition to George Marian's excellent advice, I'll add that if you're hitting the limits on IRA contributions, then you'd go back to your 401(k). So, put enough into your 401(k) to get the match, then max out IRA contributions to give you access to more and better investment options, then go back to your 401(k) until you top that out as well, assuming you have that much available to invest for retirement.","At the very least you should invest as much as you can that your employer will match, as they are basically giving you free money for saving. After that I would prioritize a Roth IRA as that offers similar tax benefits with more liquidity. Provided you have enough money available in your emergency fund and have plenty for everyday expenses I see no reason not to max out your 401k after that if you can afford it. However, if your emergency fund is lacking, be sure to put some there. Other investments like a 529 may come into play if you have kids you plan on sending to college, but it all depends on your situation.","\"With no match, the traditional 401(k) for someone otherwise in the 15% bracket makes little sense. I'd suggest contributing just enough if you were in the 25% bracket to be in the taxable 15% but no more. Use a Roth IRA if you are saving more than that. I'm adding this based on OP's statement that the fees on the 401(k) range .8-1.4%. I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed? in which I discuss how fees of this range negate the benefit of the mantra \"\"save at 25% to withdraw at 15%\"\" and if one were in the 15% bracket to start, this level off fee will cost you money in no time at all. The people advising you to max out the 401(k) first, given the rest of your situation and that of the account, are misguided. I'd given them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't have all the details. And with all due respect to the other posters here, everyone of them a bright, valued colleague, your answers should be addressed to the OP's exact situation. 15% bracket, no match, high fees. I suspect some of answers will change on reviewing this.\"","\"Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the \"\"regular\"\" 401(k) no matter which one you contribute to. The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k). So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account. Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side.\"","Mathwise, I absolutely agree with the other answers. No contest, you should keep getting the match. But, just for completeness, I'll give a contrarian opinion that is generally not very popular, but does have some merit. If you can focus on just one main financial goal at a time, and throw every extra dollar you have at that one focus (i.e., getting out of debt, in your case), you will make better progress than if you're trying to do too many things at once. Also, there something incredibly freeing about being out of debt that has other beneficial impacts on your life. So, if you can bring a lot of focus to the credit card debt and get it paid off quickly, it may be worth deferring the 401(k) investing long enough to do that, even though it doesn't make as much mathematical sense. (This is essentially what Dave Ramsey teaches, BTW.)","Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).","This will be difficult to achieve. It can be done, but it's very rare to have an agreement where your employer is willing to max out your contribution limit unless you are a partner in the business or a family relation. In this situation the extra employer money would probably come from a profit sharing contribution. If your employer increases your match, others are correct that your employer would have to increase the match for everyone. Not so with a profit sharing contribution. This is assuming 2 things though: Both of those are BIG if's, and I'd say 99% of the time it's not gonna happen for either of those two reasons. Your chances are better if you don't own >5% of the company, don't make over $120,000/year, and are related to you employer. Good luck!","\"For easy math, say you are in the 25% tax bracket. A thousand deposited dollars is $750 out of your pocket, but $2000 after the match. Now, you say you want to take the $750 and pay down the card. If you wait a year (at 20%) you'll owe $900, but have access to borrow a full $1000, at a low rate, 4% or so. The payment is less than $19/mo for 5 years. So long as one is comfortable juggling their debt a bit, the impact of a fully matched 401(k) cannot be beat. Keep in mind, this is a different story than those who just say \"\"don't take a 401(k) loan.\"\" Here, it's the loan that offers you the chance to fund the account. If you are let go, and withdraw the money, even at the 25% rate, you net $1500 less the $200 penalty, or $1300 compared to the $750 you are out of pocket. If you don't want to take the loan, you're still ahead so long as you are able to pay the cards over a reasonable time. I'll admit, a 20% card paid over 10+ years can still trash a 100% return. This is why I add the 401(k) loan to the mix. The question for you - jldugger - is how tight is the budget? And how much is the match? Is it dollar for dollar on first X%?\"","I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings.","You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!","\"It's simple. At 100% match, it would take a \"\"long\"\" time for bad fees to negate the benefit. Longer than the average person stays with one company. Even though $50/10 shares is crazy, if you wait till you have $500, it's 10%. Still crazy, but you are still getting 90% of the match. I'd avoid this, however, and just go with the closest thing they have to an S&P fund. Invest outside this account to save the right amount to fund your retirement. 2% total isn't enough, obviously.\"","\"The original question was aimed at early payment on a student loan at 6%. Let's look at some numbers. Note, the actual numbers were much lower, I've increased the debt to a level that's more typical, as well as more likely to keep the borrower worried, and \"\"up at night.\"\" On a $50K loan, we see 2 potential payoffs. A 6 year accelerated payoff which requires $273.54 extra per month, and the original payoff, with a payment of $555.10. Next, I show the 6 year balance on the original loan terms, $23,636.44 which we would need to exceed in the 401(k) to consider we made the right choice. The last section reflects the 401(k) balance with different rates of return. I purposely offer a wide range of returns. Even if we had another 'lost decade' averaging -1%/yr, the 401(k) balance is more than 50% higher than the current loan debt. At a more reasonable 6% average, it's double. (Note: The $273.54 deposit should really be adjusted, adding 33% if one is in the 25% bracket, or 17.6% if 15% bracket. That opens the can of worms at withdrawal. But let me add, I coerced my sister to deposit to the match, while married and a 25%er. Divorced, and disabled, her withdrawals are penalty free, and $10K is tax free due to STD deduction and exemption.) Note: The chart and text above have been edited at the request of a member comment. What about an 18% credit card? Glad you asked - The same $50K debt. It's tough to imagine a worse situation. You budgeted and can afford $901, because that's the number for a 10 year payoff. Your spouse says she can grab a extra shift and add $239/mo to the plan, because that' the number to get to a 6 year payoff. The balance after 6 years if we stick to the 10 year plan? $30,669.82. The 401(k) balances at varying rates of return again appear above. A bit less dramatic, as that 18% is tough, but even at a negative return the 401(k) is still ahead. You are welcome to run the numbers, adjust deposits for your tax rate and same for withdrawals. You'll see -1% is still about break-even. To be fair, there are a number of variables, debt owed, original time for loan to be paid, rate of loan, rate of return assumed on the 401(k), amount of potential extra payment, and the 2 tax rates, going in, coming out. Combine a horrific loan rate (the 18%) with a longer payback (15+ years) and you can contrive a scenario where, in fact, even the matched funds have trouble keeping up. I'm not judging, but I believe it's fair to say that if one can't find a budget that allows them to pay their 18% debt over a 10 year period, they need more help that we can offer here. I'm only offering the math that shows the power of the matched deposit. From a comment below, the one warning I'd offer is regarding vesting. The matched funds may not be yours immediately. Companies are allowed to have a vesting schedule which means your right to this money may be tiered, at say, 20%/year from year 2-6, for example. It's a good idea to check how your plan handles this. On further reflection, the comments of David Wallace need to be understood. At zero return, the matched money will lag the 18% payment after 4 years. The reason my chart doesn't reflect that is the match from the deposits younger than 4 years is still making up for that potential loss. I'd maintain my advice, to grab the match regardless, as there are other factors involved, the more likely return of ~8%, the tax differential should one lose their job, and the hope that one would get their act together and pay the debt off faster.\"","JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.","To be clear, a 401K is a vehicle, you make investments WITHIN it, if you choose poorly such as say putting all your money into company stock when working for the next Enron, you can still get hurt badly. So it is important to have diversity and an appropriate risk level based on your age, tolerance for risk, etc. That said, as vehicles go it is outstanding, and the 'always max your 401K' is very very common advice for a large number of investing professionals, CFA's, pundits, etc. That said there are a few priorities to consider here. First priority, if there is some level of company matching, grab that, it's hard to beat that kind of 'return' in almost any other case. Second, since you never want to tap into a 401K (if you can at all avoid it) before you are ready to retire, you should first be sure you have a good 'emergency fund' set aside in the event you lose your job, or some other major catastrophy happens. Many recommend setting aside at least 6 months of basic living expenses. Third, if you have any high interest debt (like credit card debt) pay that stuff down as fast as you can. You'll save a ton of interest (it's pretty much the same as investing the money you use to pay it down, and getting a return equal to the interest rate you are paying, with zero risk.. can't be beat. You'll also end up with a lot better cash flow, and the ability to start saving first and spending out of savings, so you earn interest instead of paying it. Once you have those things out of the way, then it is time to think about fully funding the 401K. and keep in mind, since you don't pay taxes on it, the 'felt effect' to you pocket is about 80% or even less, of what goes into the account, so it's not as painful as you might think, and the hit to your take home may be less than you'd expect. Contributing as much as you can, as early as you can also lets you benefit from the effect of compounding, and has a far larger affect on the balance than money put into the account closer to retirement. So if you can afford to max it out, I surely would advise you to do so.","Bad idea. If you lose your job and need to pay medical expenses, you can withdraw penalty-free. If you lose your job and just withdraw, you will have lower income and lower tax, though you will pay a penalty. If you don't lose your job today, consider your 401(k) an additional protection, just in case you do lose it tomorrow. Just pick the least risky investment option and relax. Besides, it will diversify your investment and protect you from your own investment decisions. If you are so ready to take a 10% loss, you are likely not so skilled in this area, so it's good to have a backup plan. But of course, do contribute 3% so you get a match.","The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.","From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision.","I think it comes down to whether you are happy with the investment choices in the 401k. If you are, there is no reason not to invest there. Additionally, it doesn't have to be an either-or choice. You can invest up to the maximum in both accounts. BTW, congratulations on thinking about retirement at your age. I wish I had been in a position to do that.","\"You might consider working on getting your new employer to sponsor a 401k, there may be options where you can invest and they aren't required to add anything as a match (which gives you higher limits). If they don't match, they may just be liable for some administration fees. If you have any side business that you do, you might also be eligible for other \"\"self-employed\"\" options that have higher limits (SEP, Simple - I think they may go up to $15k) although, I'm not sure the nitty gritties of them.\"","\"A fascinating view on this. The math of a 10% deposit and projected 10% return lead to an inevitable point when the account is worth 10X your income (nice) and the deposit, 10% of income only represents 1% of the account balance. The use of an IRA is neither here nor there, as your proposed deposit is still just 1% of your retirement account total. Pay off debt? For one with this level of savings, it should be assumed you aren't carrying any high interest debt. It really depends on your age and retirement budget. Our \"\"number\"\" was 12X our final income, so at 10X, we were still saving. For you, if you project hitting your number soon enough, I'd still deposit to the match, but maybe no more. It might be time to just enjoy the extra money. For others, their goal may be much higher and those extra years deposits are still needed. I'd play with a spreadsheet and see the impact of reduced retirement account deposits. Note - the question asks about funding the 401(k) vs paying down debt. I'd always advise to deposit to the match, but beyond that, one should focus on their high interest debt, especially by their 50's.\"","A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given: PROS: CONS: There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes. If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income. Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense.","401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not.","\"Will it be more money for me now if I don't take it out? Yes Will it be more money for for my retirement if I do? Yes The difference will be the existence of a match and tax-deferral. If there is a match then you will have an instant 100% gain on the amount that is matched. From a tax standpoint, putting some in your 401(k) now will reduce your taxes this year - you will instead pay tax when you withdraw the money at retirement (the withdrawal will be considered \"\"income\"\" at that time). Other decision points: If there is no match, but you still want to add to retirement savings, then you could alternatively put the money in an IRA, which will give you more control over your investments than a 401(k) (which could be good or bad, depending on how investment savvy you are).\"","Ben Miller's answer is very thorough, and I up voted it. I believe that the ability to rebalance without tax implications is very import, but there are two aspects of the question that were not covered: The 401K in many cases comes with a company match. Putting enough money into the fund each year to maximize the match, give you free money that is not available in the non-retirement accounts. The presence of that match is to encourage employees to contribute: even if they are tying up their funds until retirement age; and they are into a plan with only a handful of investment options; and they may have higher expenses in the 401K. The question also had a concern about the annual limits for the 401K (18,000) and the IRA (5,500). The use of a retirement account doesn't in any way limit your ability to invest in non-retirement accounts. You can choose to invest from 0 to 23,500 in the retirement accounts and from 0 to unlimited into the non-retirement accounts. Double those amounts if you are married.","\"I may be missing something here, but I don't think this is a disadvantage. The fact that the employer contribution will be taxed is the same as it would be if it were a match in a traditional account, so the amount you lose to taxes on it is a wash. The employer contribution is only smaller if you can't afford to contribute as much to the Roth because it's post-tax, and therefore your contribution is under the cap for the match. If you're contributing the maximum the employer will match or higher, then I don't think there's any disadvantage on the match portion. First, the 5% cap on employer contributions is calculated on the gross, even in a Roth account. Second, the taxing of the amount contributed to a Roth does not reduce the dollar amount that goes into the Roth account, it just reduces your net pay. So if your contribution is $100 to a Traditional account, your gross pay is reduced by $100 and your Traditional account gains $100. In the Roth, your gross pay is still taxed as though that $100 were included, but the $100 is put into the Roth. The tax portion of that \"\"after tax\"\" money does not reduce the amount of the contribution.\"","Since there is no match on the 401k, it seems to me that your first priority should be your IRA (Roth or otherwise). I don't know what your salary is, but most 22 year-olds won't be maxing out both an IRA and 401k on only 10% of their incomes, so the rest of the list may be irrelevant.","One situation where it would be prudent not to contribute would be if expenses are so tight that you cannot afford to contribute because you need that cashflow for expenses.","Congrats on saving aggressively when you're young. I'm not a huge fan of tax-advantaged accounts because the rules can change on them, and there's already a penalty for you to take out that money for most purposes until you've almost tripled your age. Free money (a match) overcomes this reservation for me, but I'm not contributing anything beyond that. I'm paying my taxes on the rest and am done with them. Watching your money grow tax-free for another 37 1/2 years only to see your (and everyone else's) marginal tax rate rise isn't much fun. I'm not saying that will happen, but it certainly could.","A 50% company match on your 401(k) is a huge amount of free money. You'd have to absolutely crush the professional money managers to justify turning it down. If you can do that, you should quit your job and do it full-time.","My employer matches 6% of my salary, dollar for dollar. So you have a great benefit. The self-directed side has no fees but $10 trades. No option trading. Yours basically allows you to invest your own funds, but not the match. It's a restriction, agreed, but a good plan.","There is Free employer money on both sides of the tax fence for some employees. On the pretax side, your employer may provide you a match. If so, invest the maximum to get 100% of the match. On the after tax side, many companies offers a 15% discount on ESPP plans and a one year hold. My wife has such an employer. The one year hold is fine because it allows us to be taxed at Long Term Capital gains if the stock goes up which is lower than our current income bracket. After creating a seasoned pool of stocks that we could sell after the one year hold, we are then able to sell the same number of stocks purchased each month. This provides a 17.6% guaranteed gain on a monthly basis. How much would you purchase if you had a guaranteed 17.6% return. Our answer is 15% (our maximum allowed). The other trick is that while the employer is collecting the money, you will purchase the stock at the lowest day of the period. You will usually sell for even more than the purchase price unless the day purchased was the lowest day of month. The trick is to reinvest the money in tax free investments to balance out the pretax investing. Never leave the money in the plan. That is too much risk.","\"First of all, you need to stop using the card completely. Yes, that means you lose out on cash back, double miles, whatever, but that's how you got to this mess in the first place. Switch to a cash budget until you can consistently spend less than you bring home. Keep better track of your expenses, build an emergency fund, and learn to save for expenses rather than borrow for them until you have your spending under control. If you can't cut your expenses any more, consider ways to increase your income (more hours at work, part-time jobs, sell stuff, etc.) Assuming that the employer match is 1-to-1 up to 4%, and you're saving an additional 7 percent to get to 15% total, I would definitely lower your contribution down to 4%, get the card paid off, and ONLY bump your contribution back up once you can safely pay off the card each month and know how much you can contribute. It is not wise to put 15% in retirement if that causes you to spend more than your net take-home pay. Your \"\"13%\"\" in your Roth is not guaranteed by any means, but the interest you pay on your credit card is. I would even be tempted to cut your retirement completely until the debt is paid, but more for motivational reasons that mathematical: I would be more concerned about living within your income at this point than getting a company match. I believe the benefits of spending wisely will outweigh a temporary loss in matched retirement funds in the long run.\"","\"The only time to stop saving money for retirement is when you have enough money to retire tomorrow. Not all of your \"\"retirement savings\"\" need to be in a 401k, it is just better if you can. Be sure to get as much as you can from the employer matching program. Unfortunately some employer matching programs discourage you from putting in too much. I've been able to max out the 401k contribution a number of times, which helps. Remember: you are likely to live to 100, so you better save enough to live that long. I don't trust social security to be there. I recommend saving so that you end up with \"\"enough to be comfortable\"\" -- this is usually about 25x your current income - PLUS inflation between now and when you plan to retire (age 62 is a good target). It is worth knowing your \"\"retirement savings number\"\". If you are making $100K per year now, you need to target $2.5M - PLUS allowance for inflation between now and when you plan to retire. This usually means you need to also arrange to make more money as well as save as much as you can and to use passive investing. Finance advisors are not worth it if you have less than $1M to invest.\"","The 401(k) has the advantage that you don't pay any tax until you take it out. That lets the gains multiple. Two examples: If any of your stocks pay dividends, these are directly taxable if you don't have a 401(k). In the 401(k), the full dividends accumulate and are reinvested. If you sell any stocks and get capital gains, they are also directly taxable in a normal account. Having said that, if you don't get any match, I would consider doing a 50/50; put half of your money in the 401(k), in something simple like an index fund, and invest the rest. That's assuming you have an index fund available in your 401(k).","Its easier than that: employer matching contributions are always pre-tax. While your contribution is split between the pre-tax and the Roth post-tax parts, matching contributions are always pre-tax. Quote from the regulations I linked to: For example, matching contributions are not permitted to be allocated to a designated Roth account. So the tax you pay is only on the Roth portion of your contribution. One of the reasons for that is the complexity you're talking about, but not only. Matching is not always vested, and it would be hard to determine what portion to tax and at what rate if matching would be allowed to go to Roth.","Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23. I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so. I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so. Another consideration: Is your companies program a good one? if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match. Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there. The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year. Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year. Otherwise you may miss out on your company match. It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not. It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future. On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth.","You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split).","It sounds like they are matching your IRA contribution dollar for dollar up to 1% of your salary. Think of that as an instant 100% yield on your investment. (Your money instantly doubles.) My 401(k) has been doing pretty well over the last year, but it will take several years before my money doubles. So you can let it sit in cash for a year, then take some pretty hefty fees and you will probably still come out ahead. (Of course it's hard to say without knowing all of the fees.)","One factor to consider is that some employers have a 401k contribution match policy that only allows a certain percentage of any given paycheck to be matched. So if the company is willing to match 4% of each paycheck, you could run into a problem here where you lose out on some of your company match. For example, suppose you get a $20,000 bonus. You can contribute $18,000 per year to your 401k and this bonus could be a nice way to knock most of that out and then take home your full paycheck the rest of the year. Sounds pretty nice, but there's a problem. The company will only match 4% of your $20,000 ($800) when they otherwise would have matched up to 4% of your annual salary ($4,000 if you're making $100,000 in this example). I'd say it's definitely worth it to make a big contribution to your 401k when you get a bonus as it's an easy way to get a lot of money in there without really feeling a loss (since it's extra money on top of your normal paycheck). But I'd definitely be careful about this situation. You don't want to throw away free money. To avoid this problem, make sure that you leave enough of your annual limit so you can contribute enough to get your 4% company match on every paycheck of the year."],"string":"[\n \"In addition to the prior answer, talking from experience, you get into trouble if you surpass the contribution limit and your employer continues to deposit money above the IRS maximum allowed. When that happens, you have until April to take out the excess contribution and earned interest on that chunk of money and included in your tax return or else you get a steep tax penalty in addition to being double taxed ( for the current and next tax year). Also from experience, payroll departments will most likely get this wrong and it will end up in a compliance mess with you picking up the tab on your tax bill. Don't let it happen!!!\",\n \"I would definitely be putting in enough to get the most out of the match. Only reasons I can think of not too would be: Other than that, not investing in the 401(k) is turning down free money. Edit based on feedback in comments. The only time I would advocate number 1 is if you are intensely committed to getting out of debt, were on a very tight budget and had eliminated all non-essential spending. In that situation only, I think the mental benefit of having that last debt paid off would be worth more than a few dollars in interest.\",\n \"401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding. The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross. The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself. Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year. A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate. First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6650 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650. Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6300 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.\",\n \"If one makes say, $10K/mo, and the company will match the first 5% dollar for dollar, a 10%/mo deposit of $1K/mo will see a $500/mo match. If the employee manages to request 90% get put into the 401(k), after 2 months, he's done. If the company wished, they could continue the $500/mo match, I agree. They typically don't and in fact, the 'true up' you mention isn't even required, one is fortunate to get it. Many companies that match are going the other way, matching only after the year is over. Why? Why does any company do anything? To save money. I used to make an attempt to divide my deposit over the year to max out the 401(k) in December and get the match real time, not a true up.\",\n \"\\\"Many employees don't contribute enough to maximize the match, so the cost to the employer is not the same. Under the 50% of 6% strategy an employee contributing 5% would get a 2.5% match not a 3% and that saves the company 0.5%. @TTT provided an excellent link in the comments below to a study titled \\\"\\\"How much employer 401(k) matching contributions do employees leave on the table?\\\"\\\" performed by Financial Engines, an independent financial advisory service. The information meaningful to this answer is on Page 5 (Page 7 of the PDF): 4,378,445 eligible employees were included in the study 1,077,775 of the eligible employees did not contribute enough for the full match; of them, 285,386 Received zero match funds 792,389 Received some match funds, but not the full match available So 792,389 or 18% of the employees studied contributed in to employer 401(k) plans but not enough to maximize their available match.\\\"\",\n \"If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well.\",\n \"I'd take the match, but I wouldn't contribute beyond your match, for two reasons:\",\n \"If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.\",\n \"If your employer matches a percentage of your contributions, then you should try to max out your plan. Once you have completed maxing out your 401k, you may want to open up an IRA for several reasons: will your 401k be enough to sustain your lifestyle in retirement? Your IRA allows you to save even more for retirement. you can invest in all sorts of stuff through your IRA that might not be available in your plan. you can withdraw the principal from your IRA, usually after five years. This serves as another form of savings. IRAs have some asset protection in the event of bankruptcy. A normal savings or investment account usually does not offer such protection.\",\n \"Another factor to consider is that it encourages employees to contribute more into to the plan so that they'll be able to comfortably retire. Getting the full match encourages people to put at least 6% in to avoid leaving money on the table; 100% of the 1st 3% would see a lot of people only putting 3% in instead. While 9% of your income is still a rather marginal amount to be saving; it will leave you in a much better place in your 60's than if you had only put in 6%/year.\",\n \"A matching pension scheme is like free money. No wait, it actually IS free money. You are literally earning 100% interest rate on that money the instant you pay it in to the account. That money would have to sit in your credit card account for at least five years to earn that kind of return; five years in which the pension money would have earned an additional return over and above the 100%. Mathematically there is no contest that contributing to a matching pension scheme is one of the best investment there is. You should always do it. Well, almost always. When should you not do it?\",\n \"The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.\",\n \"Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe.\",\n \"If you can afford to put money in your 401(k) account, I would say at least you should invest enough to get your employer's matching fund. It's free money, why not get it?\",\n \"\\\"Agree with Randy, if debt and debt reduction was all about math, nobody would be in debt. It is an emotional game. If you've taken care of the reasons you're in debt, changed your behaviors, then start focusing on the math of getting it done faster. Otherwise, if you don't have a handle on the behaviors that got you there, you're just going to get more rope to hang yourself with. I.e., makes sense to take a low-interest home equity loan to pay off high-interest credit card debt, but more likely than not, you'll just re-rack up the debt on the cards because you never fixed the behavior that put you into debt. Same thing here, if you opt not to contribute to \\\"\\\"pay off the cards\\\"\\\" without fixing the debt-accumulating behaviors, what you're going to do is stay in debt AND not provide for retirement. Take the match until you're certain you have your debt accumulation habits in check.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I agree with the other answers that it is a benefit, but wanted to add another explanation for this: Also, why a company would prefer matching someone's contributions (and given him or her additional free money) instead of just offering a simple raise? In addition to a match being a benefit that is part of your total compensation, 401ks have special rules for Highly Compensated Employees. If the lower paid employees do not contribute, the \\\"\\\"Highly Compensated Employees\\\"\\\" do not get to take full advantage of the 401k. By offering a match, more lower paid employees will take advantage of a 401k program allowing more Highly Compensated Employees to also take advantage of the program.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the \\\"\\\"riches\\\"\\\") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above).\\\"\",\n \"An experienced individual wouldn't ask such questions. I don't say this to take a jab at you, but to provide context. The matter is much more complicated than a simple answer to your question could accomplish. The short answer is no, not necessarily; but it depends on the details. Generally, if the employer matches, it's suggested that you take advantage of the match. It's free money. That said, it comes with some strings attached, like a vesting schedule. It's not yours right away, necessarily. Choices are limited in a 401k, but we should still come out ahead with that free money. The investment choices available in a 401k are also a part of the details. If they meet your needs you should certainly consider the 401k even if the employer doesn't match. There is also the matter of one's particular tax situation, which is certainly an involved matter. A 401k can certainly be a part of judicious tax planning. It's a matter of working out the details. Continuing this theme of details and coming back to the employer match: if the employer doesn't mach, I would make sure that I'm maxing out an IRA before considering the 401k. If the employer matched, I would probably contribute to take advantage of that match. However, it quickly becomes complicated here. I'm accustomed to employer matching up to some percentage of pay, which typically works out to be less then the anual contribution limits for a 401k. So, I my plan for such a situation is to contribute up to the employer match in the 401k, then max out an IRA, and then return to the 401k to finish contributing up to its yearly maximum. There is plenty for you to consider in order to come up with a plan of action. While it's certainly complicated, it's accessible to most people. You don't have to be a genius. In fact, eggheads are regularly trounced by the markets.\",\n \"If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!\",\n \"Employer match doesn't incur FICA tax (social security, medicare) for you at all - either current year or when you withdraw. All you have to pay is income tax when you withdraw after retirement age. (Disclaimer - I'm not tax professional but has done my research)\",\n \"\\\"The error in the example is here: \\\"\\\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\\\"\\\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\\\"\",\n \"I think better advice would be always max out your 401K at least to the level that the company provides a match. For example, my company will match 50% up to 10% of your salary. Good luck finding another investment with a guaranteed immediate 50% return. Beyond the company match, it is probably good advice to put as much in the 401K as you can afford if you aren't disciplined enough to invest that money on your own. Otherwise it depends on a number of factors as to whether it is better to invest on your own or in the company plan.\",\n \"Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.\",\n \"One should fund a 401(k) or matched retirement account up to the match, even if you have other debt. Long term, you will come out ahead, but you must be disciplined in making the payments. If one wants to point out the risk in a 401(k), I'd suggest the money need not be invested in stocks, there's always a short term safe option.\",\n \"\\\"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the \\\"\\\"buy low\\\"\\\" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)\\\"\",\n \"This creates incentive for the employee to contribute more and increases the funds under management of the 401(k) plan. The size of the plan influences the fees that are charged in each of the funds offered. (The more assets under management, the better for those in the plan.) More importantly, 401(k) plans are not allowed to discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. That discrimination is determined by calculating the average deferrals by your lower compensated employees and comparing them to the average deferrals of your highly compensated employees. If highly compensated employees are saving too much compared to the rest of the pack, they will have some of their contributions returned the next year (with all the tax implications of that). Forcing everyone to contribute 6% to get the full match helps the plan to not fail the discrimination test and protects the highly compensated employees from losing some of their tax deferrals.\",\n \"Specifically on the subject of maxing out your 401k, there are several downsides: The employer match usually only applies to the first 6%. Some employers offer no match at all. You listed the match as a pro, but I think it should be pointed out that you can usually get this benefit without maxing out your plan. The investment options are limited. Usually there is at least one fund available from all the common investment classes, but these may not be your preferred funds if you were able to choose for yourself. Fees can be very high. If you are working for a small to medium size company, the fees for each fund will often be higher than for the same funds in a plan offered by a large company. Fees are usually related to the dollar amount of assets under management. Each person has a different tax situation, so if you are single and making 6 figures, you might still be in the 25% bracket even after maxing out your 401k, but the same person filing jointly with a spouse that makes less could get down to the 15% bracket with a smaller contribution. I meet my retirement savings goals without maxing out the 401k. As long as the amount is above the employer match amount, my second priority is to funnel as much money as possible in to my IRA (because I get lower fees and better investment options from Vanguard).\",\n \"Let me add another consideration to the company's side of the equation. Not only is a 401K a tool for the company to make them competitive when recruiting employees among other companies that offer that benefit, it is also a good retention tool. Most company's 401K plans include a vesting period of at least 3 years, sometimes more. An employee that leaves the company before they are vested in the plan will have to give up some % of the employer matched funds in the account. This gives employees incentive to stick around longer and the company reduces the risk of turnover which can be costly in terms of training and recruiting. This also factors into the reason why employers would rather give matching on the 401K than a simple pay raise. Some of those employees are going to leave during the vesting period anyway, and when that happens the employer got the benefit of motivating (extrinsically) the employee, but in the end got to keep some of the money.\",\n \"The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.\",\n \"\\\"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \\\"\\\"matching\\\"\\\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \\\"\\\"excess contributions\\\"\\\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \\\"\\\"adjust\\\"\\\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \\\"\\\"matching\\\"\\\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \\\"\\\"supplemental after-tax contributions\\\"\\\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \\\"\\\"supplemental after-tax contributions\\\"\\\", but that might be a harder change to get.\\\"\",\n \"Yes. Not doing so would be like turning down a raise. The best advice in almost every situation is to at least contribute up to the amount that the company will match so you get the full benefit. One thing to clarify that you might not be understanding. The vesting period is only for the money the company matches, not your own investment. Even if you leave the company before the account is vested or fully vested, you can transfer to a 401k at your new employer, or roll over into an IRA, or take as taxable income (and pay a penalty if it is an early withdrawal), all your contributions together with any investment gains or losses that have occurred. Ditto whatever part of your employer match that has vested by the time you leave. Often, the employer matching contributions are invested in the same funds in the same proportions that you have chosen for your own contributions and thus will have incurred the same gains or losses as your own contributions, but what you are entitled to take with you is the part that has vested. Also, you mention that it is unlikely that you will stay the entire 5 years. However, if you plan to at least stay a couple of years it makes sense to get the 20%, 40%, etc. of the match that you vest during your stay. Again, it's free money.\",\n \"The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.\",\n \"\\\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \\\"\\\"total compensation\\\"\\\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The only way to know the specific explanation in your situation is to ask your employer. Different companies do it differently, and they will have their reasons for that difference. I've asked \\\"\\\"But why is it that way?\\\"\\\" enough times to feel confident in telling you it's rarely an arbitrary decision. In the case of your employer's policy, I can think of a number of reasons why they would limit match earnings per paycheck: Vesting, in a sense - Much as stock options have vesting requirements where you have to work for a certain amount of time to receive the options, this policy works as a sort of vesting mechanism for your employer matching funds. Without it, you could rapidly accumulate your full annual match amount in a few pay periods at the beginning of the year, and then immediately leave for employment elsewhere. You gain 100% of the annual match for only 1-2 months of work, while the employees who remain there all year work 12 months to gain the same 100%. Dollar Cost Averaging - By purchasing the same investment vehicle at different prices over time, you can reduce the impact of volatility on your earnings. For the same reason that 401k plans usually restrict you to a limited selection of mutual funds - namely, the implicit assumption is that you probably have little to no clue about investing - they also do other strategic things to encourage employees to invest (at least somewhat) wisely. By spacing their matching fund out over time, they encourage you to space your contributions over time, and they thereby indirectly force you to practice a sensible strategy of dollar cost averaging. Dollar Cost Averaging, seen from another angle - Mutual funds are the 18-wheeler trucks of the investment super-highway. They carry a lot of cargo, but they are difficult to start, stop, or steer quickly. For the same reasons that DCA is smart for you, it's also smart for a fund. The money is easier to manage and invest according to the goals of the fund if the investments trickle in over time and there are no sudden radical changes. Imagine if every employer that does matching allowed the full maximum match to be earned on the first paycheck of the year - the mutual funds in 401ks would get big balloons of money in January followed by a drastically lower investment for the rest of the year. And that would create volatility. Plan Administration Fees - Your employer has to pay the company managing the 401k for their services. It is likely that their agreement with the management company requires them to pay on a monthly basis, so it potentially makes things convenient for the accounting people on both ends if there's a steady monthly flow of money in and out. (Whether this point is at all relevant is very much dependent on how your company's agreement is structured, and how well the folks handling payroll and accounting understand it.) The Bottom Line - Your employer (let us hope) makes profits. And they pay expenses. And companies, for a variety of financial reasons, prefer to spread their profits and expenses as evenly over the year as they can. There are a lot of ways they achieve this - for example, a seasonal business might offer an annual payment plan to spread their seasonal revenue over the year. Likewise, the matching funds they are paying to you the employees are coming out of their bottom line. And the company would rather not have the majority of those funds being disbursed in a single quarter. They want a nice, even distribution. So once again it behooves them to create a 401k system that supports that objective. To Sum Up Ultimately, those 401k matching funds are a carrot. And that carrot manipulates you the employee into behaving in a way that is good for your employer, good for your investment management company, and good for your own investment success. Unless you are one of the rare birds who can outperform a dollar-cost-averaged investment in a low-cost index fund, there's very little to chafe at about this arrangement. If you are that rare bird, then your investment earning power likely outstrips the value of your annual matching monies significantly, in which case it isn't even worth thinking about.\\\"\",\n \"Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.\",\n \"\\\"Because 401k's are also used by self employed. A person who has a schedule C profitable income can open a 401k and \\\"\\\"match\\\"\\\" in whatever ratio he wants, up to 25% of the net profits or the limits you stated. This allows self-employed to defer more income taxes to the future. Why only self-employed? Good question. Ask your congressman. My explanation would be that since they're self-employed they're in much more danger of not having income, especially later in life, if their business go south. Thus they need a bigger cushion than an average W2 employee who can just find another job.\\\"\",\n \"With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)\",\n \"\\\"You'd need to test the assumptions here - in effect you're saying that in 15 years your account will have a balance 10x your income. But normally you'd expect your income to grow over the years (e.g. promotions) and so you'd hope that your income in 15 years would be significantly larger than what it is now. But, even in the case where your account eventually does grow to 10x your salary at that time, it may still be worth continuing to contribute. In effect, adding a further 1% to your account is boosting the \\\"\\\"compounding return\\\"\\\" on your account by 1% - after fees and risk free. This additional 1% \\\"\\\"return\\\"\\\" in effect makes your retirement plan safer - you either get a higher total return for the same investment mix, or you can get the same total return for a slightly safer investment mix. In effect, you're treating your salary as a \\\"\\\"safe\\\"\\\" annuity and each year putting 10% of the \\\"\\\"return\\\"\\\" from that into your more risky retirement account.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad. The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase. I am on the side of \\\"\\\"don't do it\\\"\\\" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more. Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \\\"\\\"matching contribution\\\"\\\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\\\"\",\n \"rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.\",\n \"I'm not a big fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. The rules on tax-advantages accounts can change at any time. It's already painful to get money out before retirement (earnings or possibly contributions taxed as current income, plus 10% penalty). The rules could get worse. There's also the assumption that your taxes will be lower when you retire. I think this is a poor assumption. If you get free money from your employer for contribution to a 401(k), contribute up to what will get you all of the free money you can. Otherwise, pay your taxes and keep control of your assets. So short answer: Keep as much as you can out of tax-advantaged accounts unless you're turning down free money to do so.\",\n \"It depends on the vesting schedule and the likelihood you'll be there long enough to get any vesting. A typical 6 year schedule gets you 20% after 2 years. You already know you'll be there 1 year, so now you need to decide if you'll last 2 years. Unless you know for sure you won't last 2 years, you should take the match on the 4%. Suppose your retirement plan earns 10%. If you leave before 2 years, compared with your 18% you're only behind by 8% return. But if you last 2 years, you'd be making a 32% return on that same amount. After 3 years you'd make 54%, and up it goes from there until you hit a 120% return after 6 years. I'd take the match simply because you have a lot more to gain than you have to lose if you leave early.\",\n \"You cannot withdraw funds from a 401(k) while still employed with your company. To access your contributions, that would be treated as a loan against the 401(k), in which case you'd pay an upfront fee, and then have to repay the amount loaned, plus interest, over a set period of time. (In essence, you are paying back yourself.) Typically, there is also a minimum amount you must take out as a loan. Should you leave the job and still have an outstanding loan against your 401(k), it will be treated as a withdrawal after a certain date, at which point a 10% penalty plus taxes applies, unless you pay back the full amount of the loan remaining before that certain date. Your friends should seriously consider contributing the minimum amount necessary to get that full 50% matching amount. It's free money. As you said, it's like leaving money on the table.\",\n \"If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances.\",\n \"It's probably advantageous to stop depositing into a 401(k) when one is no longer receiving payroll deductions into them. Other than that, why would you want to give up the benefits? Remember, 401(k) is just the kind of account. Most offer a variety of investment options within them, and let you move money between those, so you can rebalance to suit your currently preferred risk/return tradeoffs without having to break them open. You might sometimes want to reduce your contribution for a while, if you have immediate cashflow needs elsewhere... but try to avoid doing that. Compound returns are a good thing, and the earlier the money goes in the more you get back from it.\",\n \"You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.\",\n \"Companies are required BY THE IRS to try to get everybody to contribute minimal amounts to the 401K's. In the past, there were abuses and only the execs could contribute and the low paid workers were starving while the execs contributed huge amounts. On a year-by-year basis, if the low-paid employees don't contribute, the IRS punishes the high paid employees. Therefore, most employers provide a matching program to incentivize low-paid employees to contribute. This 9% limitation could happen in any year and it could have happened even before you got your pay raise, what matters is what the low-paid employees were doing at your company LAST YEAR.\",\n \"Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post.\",\n \"\\\"Given that the 6 answers all advocate similar information, let me offer you the alternate scenario - You earn $60K and have an employer offering a 50% match on all deposits. All deposits. (Note, I recently read a Q&A here describing such an offer. If I see it again, I'll link). Let the thought of the above settle in. You think about the fact that $42K isn't a bad salary, and decide to deposit 30%, to gain the full match on your $18K deposit. Now, you budget to live your life, pay your bills, etc, but it's tight. When you accumulate $2000, and a strong want comes up (a toy, a trip, anything, no judgement) you have a tough decision. You think to yourself, \\\"\\\"after the match, I am literally saving 45% of my income. I'm on a pace to have the ability to retire in 20 years. Why do I need to save even more?\\\"\\\" Your budget has enough discretionary spending that if you have a $2000 'emergency', you charge it and pay it off over the next 6-8 months. Much larger, and you know that your super-funded 401(k) has the ability to tap a loan. Your choice to turn away from the common wisdom has the recommended $20K (about 6 months of your spending) sitting in your 401(k), pretax deposited as $26K, and matched to nearly $40K, growing long term. Note: This is a devil's advocate answer. Had I been the first to answer, it would reflect the above. In my own experience, when I got married, we built up the proper emergency fund. As interest rates fell, we looked at our mortgage balance, and agreed that paying down the loan would enable us to refinance and save enough in mortgage interest that the net effect was as if we were getting 8% on the money. At the same time as we got that new mortgage, the bank offered a HELOC, which I never needed to use. Did we somehow create high risk? Perhaps. Given that my wife and I were both still working, and had similar incomes, it seemed reasonable.\\\"\",\n \"They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.\",\n \"If there is no match and you are disciplined enough to contribute without it coming directly out of your paycheck, dump the 401K. The reason: Most 401K plans have huge hidden fees built into the investment prices. You won't see them directly, but 3% is not uncommon. 3% is a horrible drag on your investment performance. Get an IRA or Roth IRA and pick something with low fees. Bonus: You will have a lot more investment choices!\",\n \"No, sorry. A change of 401(k) administrator is not an out, otherwise many would flee a bad plan. I'd suggest you only deposit up to the match, but use an IRA if you'd like to save more. A plan with high fees can easily negate the tax benefits and then some.\",\n \"There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.\",\n \"You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).\",\n \"Most companies put the company match in your account each paycheck, but your are not generally vested for the match. If you leave before the specified time period then they pull back part of the matching funds. I knew somebody who did something similar back in the 1980's with their 401K. They put in 8% of their paycheck after taxes; a 100% match was deposited; then they pulled out the employees contribution every quarter. They did this for the 10 years I knew them. It avoided any tax implications, and they were still saving 8% of their pay for retirement.\",\n \"With a 401k you will be taxed when you withdraw the money upon retirement (just like an IRA), but conventional wisdom had it that you're likely to be in a lower tax bracket at that time. That may not necessarily be the case though, in which case a Roth IRA would be a better option because you're paying for it with after tax dollars and distributions are untaxed. If you wanted to hedge your bets you could have both an IRA/401k and a Roth IRA. An IRA has income limits above which the contributions are no longer tax deductible, I don't believe a 401k has the same limitations (for completion's sake: a Roth IRA has income limits above which you can't contribute to one). And like you said, the employer match is free money.\",\n \"If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.\",\n \"If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month.\",\n \"Nope, take the match. I cannot see not taking the match unless you don't have enough money to cover the bills. Every situation is different of course, and if the option is to missing minimum payments or other bills in order to get the match, make your payments. But in all other circumstances, take the match. My reasoning is, it is hard enough to earn money so take every chance you can. If you save for retirement in the process, all the better.\",\n \"The reason your 401k match is always counted as pre-tax whether you are contributing to a traditional 401k or a Roth is that the money is contributed by the employer and is not counted as income, and that contribution is not taxed as income. Should you wish to pay taxes on it and convert it to a Roth, you can do that, though perhaps not until you change jobs.\",\n \"In addition to George Marian's excellent advice, I'll add that if you're hitting the limits on IRA contributions, then you'd go back to your 401(k). So, put enough into your 401(k) to get the match, then max out IRA contributions to give you access to more and better investment options, then go back to your 401(k) until you top that out as well, assuming you have that much available to invest for retirement.\",\n \"At the very least you should invest as much as you can that your employer will match, as they are basically giving you free money for saving. After that I would prioritize a Roth IRA as that offers similar tax benefits with more liquidity. Provided you have enough money available in your emergency fund and have plenty for everyday expenses I see no reason not to max out your 401k after that if you can afford it. However, if your emergency fund is lacking, be sure to put some there. Other investments like a 529 may come into play if you have kids you plan on sending to college, but it all depends on your situation.\",\n \"\\\"With no match, the traditional 401(k) for someone otherwise in the 15% bracket makes little sense. I'd suggest contributing just enough if you were in the 25% bracket to be in the taxable 15% but no more. Use a Roth IRA if you are saving more than that. I'm adding this based on OP's statement that the fees on the 401(k) range .8-1.4%. I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed? in which I discuss how fees of this range negate the benefit of the mantra \\\"\\\"save at 25% to withdraw at 15%\\\"\\\" and if one were in the 15% bracket to start, this level off fee will cost you money in no time at all. The people advising you to max out the 401(k) first, given the rest of your situation and that of the account, are misguided. I'd given them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't have all the details. And with all due respect to the other posters here, everyone of them a bright, valued colleague, your answers should be addressed to the OP's exact situation. 15% bracket, no match, high fees. I suspect some of answers will change on reviewing this.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the \\\"\\\"regular\\\"\\\" 401(k) no matter which one you contribute to. The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k). So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account. Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side.\\\"\",\n \"Mathwise, I absolutely agree with the other answers. No contest, you should keep getting the match. But, just for completeness, I'll give a contrarian opinion that is generally not very popular, but does have some merit. If you can focus on just one main financial goal at a time, and throw every extra dollar you have at that one focus (i.e., getting out of debt, in your case), you will make better progress than if you're trying to do too many things at once. Also, there something incredibly freeing about being out of debt that has other beneficial impacts on your life. So, if you can bring a lot of focus to the credit card debt and get it paid off quickly, it may be worth deferring the 401(k) investing long enough to do that, even though it doesn't make as much mathematical sense. (This is essentially what Dave Ramsey teaches, BTW.)\",\n \"Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).\",\n \"This will be difficult to achieve. It can be done, but it's very rare to have an agreement where your employer is willing to max out your contribution limit unless you are a partner in the business or a family relation. In this situation the extra employer money would probably come from a profit sharing contribution. If your employer increases your match, others are correct that your employer would have to increase the match for everyone. Not so with a profit sharing contribution. This is assuming 2 things though: Both of those are BIG if's, and I'd say 99% of the time it's not gonna happen for either of those two reasons. Your chances are better if you don't own >5% of the company, don't make over $120,000/year, and are related to you employer. Good luck!\",\n \"\\\"For easy math, say you are in the 25% tax bracket. A thousand deposited dollars is $750 out of your pocket, but $2000 after the match. Now, you say you want to take the $750 and pay down the card. If you wait a year (at 20%) you'll owe $900, but have access to borrow a full $1000, at a low rate, 4% or so. The payment is less than $19/mo for 5 years. So long as one is comfortable juggling their debt a bit, the impact of a fully matched 401(k) cannot be beat. Keep in mind, this is a different story than those who just say \\\"\\\"don't take a 401(k) loan.\\\"\\\" Here, it's the loan that offers you the chance to fund the account. If you are let go, and withdraw the money, even at the 25% rate, you net $1500 less the $200 penalty, or $1300 compared to the $750 you are out of pocket. If you don't want to take the loan, you're still ahead so long as you are able to pay the cards over a reasonable time. I'll admit, a 20% card paid over 10+ years can still trash a 100% return. This is why I add the 401(k) loan to the mix. The question for you - jldugger - is how tight is the budget? And how much is the match? Is it dollar for dollar on first X%?\\\"\",\n \"I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings.\",\n \"You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!\",\n \"\\\"It's simple. At 100% match, it would take a \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" time for bad fees to negate the benefit. Longer than the average person stays with one company. Even though $50/10 shares is crazy, if you wait till you have $500, it's 10%. Still crazy, but you are still getting 90% of the match. I'd avoid this, however, and just go with the closest thing they have to an S&P fund. Invest outside this account to save the right amount to fund your retirement. 2% total isn't enough, obviously.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The original question was aimed at early payment on a student loan at 6%. Let's look at some numbers. Note, the actual numbers were much lower, I've increased the debt to a level that's more typical, as well as more likely to keep the borrower worried, and \\\"\\\"up at night.\\\"\\\" On a $50K loan, we see 2 potential payoffs. A 6 year accelerated payoff which requires $273.54 extra per month, and the original payoff, with a payment of $555.10. Next, I show the 6 year balance on the original loan terms, $23,636.44 which we would need to exceed in the 401(k) to consider we made the right choice. The last section reflects the 401(k) balance with different rates of return. I purposely offer a wide range of returns. Even if we had another 'lost decade' averaging -1%/yr, the 401(k) balance is more than 50% higher than the current loan debt. At a more reasonable 6% average, it's double. (Note: The $273.54 deposit should really be adjusted, adding 33% if one is in the 25% bracket, or 17.6% if 15% bracket. That opens the can of worms at withdrawal. But let me add, I coerced my sister to deposit to the match, while married and a 25%er. Divorced, and disabled, her withdrawals are penalty free, and $10K is tax free due to STD deduction and exemption.) Note: The chart and text above have been edited at the request of a member comment. What about an 18% credit card? Glad you asked - The same $50K debt. It's tough to imagine a worse situation. You budgeted and can afford $901, because that's the number for a 10 year payoff. Your spouse says she can grab a extra shift and add $239/mo to the plan, because that' the number to get to a 6 year payoff. The balance after 6 years if we stick to the 10 year plan? $30,669.82. The 401(k) balances at varying rates of return again appear above. A bit less dramatic, as that 18% is tough, but even at a negative return the 401(k) is still ahead. You are welcome to run the numbers, adjust deposits for your tax rate and same for withdrawals. You'll see -1% is still about break-even. To be fair, there are a number of variables, debt owed, original time for loan to be paid, rate of loan, rate of return assumed on the 401(k), amount of potential extra payment, and the 2 tax rates, going in, coming out. Combine a horrific loan rate (the 18%) with a longer payback (15+ years) and you can contrive a scenario where, in fact, even the matched funds have trouble keeping up. I'm not judging, but I believe it's fair to say that if one can't find a budget that allows them to pay their 18% debt over a 10 year period, they need more help that we can offer here. I'm only offering the math that shows the power of the matched deposit. From a comment below, the one warning I'd offer is regarding vesting. The matched funds may not be yours immediately. Companies are allowed to have a vesting schedule which means your right to this money may be tiered, at say, 20%/year from year 2-6, for example. It's a good idea to check how your plan handles this. On further reflection, the comments of David Wallace need to be understood. At zero return, the matched money will lag the 18% payment after 4 years. The reason my chart doesn't reflect that is the match from the deposits younger than 4 years is still making up for that potential loss. I'd maintain my advice, to grab the match regardless, as there are other factors involved, the more likely return of ~8%, the tax differential should one lose their job, and the hope that one would get their act together and pay the debt off faster.\\\"\",\n \"JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.\",\n \"To be clear, a 401K is a vehicle, you make investments WITHIN it, if you choose poorly such as say putting all your money into company stock when working for the next Enron, you can still get hurt badly. So it is important to have diversity and an appropriate risk level based on your age, tolerance for risk, etc. That said, as vehicles go it is outstanding, and the 'always max your 401K' is very very common advice for a large number of investing professionals, CFA's, pundits, etc. That said there are a few priorities to consider here. First priority, if there is some level of company matching, grab that, it's hard to beat that kind of 'return' in almost any other case. Second, since you never want to tap into a 401K (if you can at all avoid it) before you are ready to retire, you should first be sure you have a good 'emergency fund' set aside in the event you lose your job, or some other major catastrophy happens. Many recommend setting aside at least 6 months of basic living expenses. Third, if you have any high interest debt (like credit card debt) pay that stuff down as fast as you can. You'll save a ton of interest (it's pretty much the same as investing the money you use to pay it down, and getting a return equal to the interest rate you are paying, with zero risk.. can't be beat. You'll also end up with a lot better cash flow, and the ability to start saving first and spending out of savings, so you earn interest instead of paying it. Once you have those things out of the way, then it is time to think about fully funding the 401K. and keep in mind, since you don't pay taxes on it, the 'felt effect' to you pocket is about 80% or even less, of what goes into the account, so it's not as painful as you might think, and the hit to your take home may be less than you'd expect. Contributing as much as you can, as early as you can also lets you benefit from the effect of compounding, and has a far larger affect on the balance than money put into the account closer to retirement. So if you can afford to max it out, I surely would advise you to do so.\",\n \"Bad idea. If you lose your job and need to pay medical expenses, you can withdraw penalty-free. If you lose your job and just withdraw, you will have lower income and lower tax, though you will pay a penalty. If you don't lose your job today, consider your 401(k) an additional protection, just in case you do lose it tomorrow. Just pick the least risky investment option and relax. Besides, it will diversify your investment and protect you from your own investment decisions. If you are so ready to take a 10% loss, you are likely not so skilled in this area, so it's good to have a backup plan. But of course, do contribute 3% so you get a match.\",\n \"The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.\",\n \"From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision.\",\n \"I think it comes down to whether you are happy with the investment choices in the 401k. If you are, there is no reason not to invest there. Additionally, it doesn't have to be an either-or choice. You can invest up to the maximum in both accounts. BTW, congratulations on thinking about retirement at your age. I wish I had been in a position to do that.\",\n \"\\\"You might consider working on getting your new employer to sponsor a 401k, there may be options where you can invest and they aren't required to add anything as a match (which gives you higher limits). If they don't match, they may just be liable for some administration fees. If you have any side business that you do, you might also be eligible for other \\\"\\\"self-employed\\\"\\\" options that have higher limits (SEP, Simple - I think they may go up to $15k) although, I'm not sure the nitty gritties of them.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A fascinating view on this. The math of a 10% deposit and projected 10% return lead to an inevitable point when the account is worth 10X your income (nice) and the deposit, 10% of income only represents 1% of the account balance. The use of an IRA is neither here nor there, as your proposed deposit is still just 1% of your retirement account total. Pay off debt? For one with this level of savings, it should be assumed you aren't carrying any high interest debt. It really depends on your age and retirement budget. Our \\\"\\\"number\\\"\\\" was 12X our final income, so at 10X, we were still saving. For you, if you project hitting your number soon enough, I'd still deposit to the match, but maybe no more. It might be time to just enjoy the extra money. For others, their goal may be much higher and those extra years deposits are still needed. I'd play with a spreadsheet and see the impact of reduced retirement account deposits. Note - the question asks about funding the 401(k) vs paying down debt. I'd always advise to deposit to the match, but beyond that, one should focus on their high interest debt, especially by their 50's.\\\"\",\n \"A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given: PROS: CONS: There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes. If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income. Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense.\",\n \"401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not.\",\n \"\\\"Will it be more money for me now if I don't take it out? Yes Will it be more money for for my retirement if I do? Yes The difference will be the existence of a match and tax-deferral. If there is a match then you will have an instant 100% gain on the amount that is matched. From a tax standpoint, putting some in your 401(k) now will reduce your taxes this year - you will instead pay tax when you withdraw the money at retirement (the withdrawal will be considered \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" at that time). Other decision points: If there is no match, but you still want to add to retirement savings, then you could alternatively put the money in an IRA, which will give you more control over your investments than a 401(k) (which could be good or bad, depending on how investment savvy you are).\\\"\",\n \"Ben Miller's answer is very thorough, and I up voted it. I believe that the ability to rebalance without tax implications is very import, but there are two aspects of the question that were not covered: The 401K in many cases comes with a company match. Putting enough money into the fund each year to maximize the match, give you free money that is not available in the non-retirement accounts. The presence of that match is to encourage employees to contribute: even if they are tying up their funds until retirement age; and they are into a plan with only a handful of investment options; and they may have higher expenses in the 401K. The question also had a concern about the annual limits for the 401K (18,000) and the IRA (5,500). The use of a retirement account doesn't in any way limit your ability to invest in non-retirement accounts. You can choose to invest from 0 to 23,500 in the retirement accounts and from 0 to unlimited into the non-retirement accounts. Double those amounts if you are married.\",\n \"\\\"I may be missing something here, but I don't think this is a disadvantage. The fact that the employer contribution will be taxed is the same as it would be if it were a match in a traditional account, so the amount you lose to taxes on it is a wash. The employer contribution is only smaller if you can't afford to contribute as much to the Roth because it's post-tax, and therefore your contribution is under the cap for the match. If you're contributing the maximum the employer will match or higher, then I don't think there's any disadvantage on the match portion. First, the 5% cap on employer contributions is calculated on the gross, even in a Roth account. Second, the taxing of the amount contributed to a Roth does not reduce the dollar amount that goes into the Roth account, it just reduces your net pay. So if your contribution is $100 to a Traditional account, your gross pay is reduced by $100 and your Traditional account gains $100. In the Roth, your gross pay is still taxed as though that $100 were included, but the $100 is put into the Roth. The tax portion of that \\\"\\\"after tax\\\"\\\" money does not reduce the amount of the contribution.\\\"\",\n \"Since there is no match on the 401k, it seems to me that your first priority should be your IRA (Roth or otherwise). I don't know what your salary is, but most 22 year-olds won't be maxing out both an IRA and 401k on only 10% of their incomes, so the rest of the list may be irrelevant.\",\n \"One situation where it would be prudent not to contribute would be if expenses are so tight that you cannot afford to contribute because you need that cashflow for expenses.\",\n \"Congrats on saving aggressively when you're young. I'm not a huge fan of tax-advantaged accounts because the rules can change on them, and there's already a penalty for you to take out that money for most purposes until you've almost tripled your age. Free money (a match) overcomes this reservation for me, but I'm not contributing anything beyond that. I'm paying my taxes on the rest and am done with them. Watching your money grow tax-free for another 37 1/2 years only to see your (and everyone else's) marginal tax rate rise isn't much fun. I'm not saying that will happen, but it certainly could.\",\n \"A 50% company match on your 401(k) is a huge amount of free money. You'd have to absolutely crush the professional money managers to justify turning it down. If you can do that, you should quit your job and do it full-time.\",\n \"My employer matches 6% of my salary, dollar for dollar. So you have a great benefit. The self-directed side has no fees but $10 trades. No option trading. Yours basically allows you to invest your own funds, but not the match. It's a restriction, agreed, but a good plan.\",\n \"There is Free employer money on both sides of the tax fence for some employees. On the pretax side, your employer may provide you a match. If so, invest the maximum to get 100% of the match. On the after tax side, many companies offers a 15% discount on ESPP plans and a one year hold. My wife has such an employer. The one year hold is fine because it allows us to be taxed at Long Term Capital gains if the stock goes up which is lower than our current income bracket. After creating a seasoned pool of stocks that we could sell after the one year hold, we are then able to sell the same number of stocks purchased each month. This provides a 17.6% guaranteed gain on a monthly basis. How much would you purchase if you had a guaranteed 17.6% return. Our answer is 15% (our maximum allowed). The other trick is that while the employer is collecting the money, you will purchase the stock at the lowest day of the period. You will usually sell for even more than the purchase price unless the day purchased was the lowest day of month. The trick is to reinvest the money in tax free investments to balance out the pretax investing. Never leave the money in the plan. That is too much risk.\",\n \"\\\"First of all, you need to stop using the card completely. Yes, that means you lose out on cash back, double miles, whatever, but that's how you got to this mess in the first place. Switch to a cash budget until you can consistently spend less than you bring home. Keep better track of your expenses, build an emergency fund, and learn to save for expenses rather than borrow for them until you have your spending under control. If you can't cut your expenses any more, consider ways to increase your income (more hours at work, part-time jobs, sell stuff, etc.) Assuming that the employer match is 1-to-1 up to 4%, and you're saving an additional 7 percent to get to 15% total, I would definitely lower your contribution down to 4%, get the card paid off, and ONLY bump your contribution back up once you can safely pay off the card each month and know how much you can contribute. It is not wise to put 15% in retirement if that causes you to spend more than your net take-home pay. Your \\\"\\\"13%\\\"\\\" in your Roth is not guaranteed by any means, but the interest you pay on your credit card is. I would even be tempted to cut your retirement completely until the debt is paid, but more for motivational reasons that mathematical: I would be more concerned about living within your income at this point than getting a company match. I believe the benefits of spending wisely will outweigh a temporary loss in matched retirement funds in the long run.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The only time to stop saving money for retirement is when you have enough money to retire tomorrow. Not all of your \\\"\\\"retirement savings\\\"\\\" need to be in a 401k, it is just better if you can. Be sure to get as much as you can from the employer matching program. Unfortunately some employer matching programs discourage you from putting in too much. I've been able to max out the 401k contribution a number of times, which helps. Remember: you are likely to live to 100, so you better save enough to live that long. I don't trust social security to be there. I recommend saving so that you end up with \\\"\\\"enough to be comfortable\\\"\\\" -- this is usually about 25x your current income - PLUS inflation between now and when you plan to retire (age 62 is a good target). It is worth knowing your \\\"\\\"retirement savings number\\\"\\\". If you are making $100K per year now, you need to target $2.5M - PLUS allowance for inflation between now and when you plan to retire. This usually means you need to also arrange to make more money as well as save as much as you can and to use passive investing. Finance advisors are not worth it if you have less than $1M to invest.\\\"\",\n \"The 401(k) has the advantage that you don't pay any tax until you take it out. That lets the gains multiple. Two examples: If any of your stocks pay dividends, these are directly taxable if you don't have a 401(k). In the 401(k), the full dividends accumulate and are reinvested. If you sell any stocks and get capital gains, they are also directly taxable in a normal account. Having said that, if you don't get any match, I would consider doing a 50/50; put half of your money in the 401(k), in something simple like an index fund, and invest the rest. That's assuming you have an index fund available in your 401(k).\",\n \"Its easier than that: employer matching contributions are always pre-tax. While your contribution is split between the pre-tax and the Roth post-tax parts, matching contributions are always pre-tax. Quote from the regulations I linked to: For example, matching contributions are not permitted to be allocated to a designated Roth account. So the tax you pay is only on the Roth portion of your contribution. One of the reasons for that is the complexity you're talking about, but not only. Matching is not always vested, and it would be hard to determine what portion to tax and at what rate if matching would be allowed to go to Roth.\",\n \"Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23. I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so. I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so. Another consideration: Is your companies program a good one? if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match. Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there. The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year. Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year. Otherwise you may miss out on your company match. It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not. It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future. On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth.\",\n \"You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split).\",\n \"It sounds like they are matching your IRA contribution dollar for dollar up to 1% of your salary. Think of that as an instant 100% yield on your investment. (Your money instantly doubles.) My 401(k) has been doing pretty well over the last year, but it will take several years before my money doubles. So you can let it sit in cash for a year, then take some pretty hefty fees and you will probably still come out ahead. (Of course it's hard to say without knowing all of the fees.)\",\n \"One factor to consider is that some employers have a 401k contribution match policy that only allows a certain percentage of any given paycheck to be matched. So if the company is willing to match 4% of each paycheck, you could run into a problem here where you lose out on some of your company match. For example, suppose you get a $20,000 bonus. You can contribute $18,000 per year to your 401k and this bonus could be a nice way to knock most of that out and then take home your full paycheck the rest of the year. Sounds pretty nice, but there's a problem. The company will only match 4% of your $20,000 ($800) when they otherwise would have matched up to 4% of your annual salary ($4,000 if you're making $100,000 in this example). I'd say it's definitely worth it to make a big contribution to your 401k when you get a bonus as it's an easy way to get a lot of money in there without really feeling a loss (since it's extra money on top of your normal paycheck). But I'd definitely be careful about this situation. You don't want to throw away free money. To avoid this problem, make sure that you leave enough of your annual limit so you can contribute enough to get your 4% company match on every paycheck of the year.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.","In addition to George Marian's excellent advice, I'll add that if you're hitting the limits on IRA contributions, then you'd go back to your 401(k). So, put enough into your 401(k) to get the match, then max out IRA contributions to give you access to more and better investment options, then go back to your 401(k) until you top that out as well, assuming you have that much available to invest for retirement.","I'd hazard that Jim is mostly worried that people are getting ripped off by high employer 401(k) fund fees. A lot of employers offer funds with fees over 1% a year. This sounds low-ish if you don't realize that the real (inflation-adjusted) return for the fund will probably average out to about 4%, so it's really something like a quarter of your earnings gone. With an IRA, you don't have to do that. You can get an IRA provider which offers good, cheap index funds and the like (cough Vanguard cough). Fund fees will probably be closer to 0.1%-ish. HOWEVER. The maximum IRA contribution in 2013 will be $5,500. The maximum for a 401(k) contribution will be $17,500. That extra capacity is enough to recommend a 401(k) over an IRA for many people. These people may be best served by putting money into the 401(k) and then rolling it over into a rollover IRA when they change jobs. Also, certain people have retirement plans which offer them good cheap index funds. These people probably don't need to worry quite as much. Finally, having two accounts is more complicated. Please contact someone who knows more about taxes than I am to figure out what limitations apply for contributing to both IRAs and 401(k)s in the same year.","\"Early this year I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed? I described the data from a 401(k) expense survey and the punchline was that the average large retirement plan (over 1000 participants) expense was 1.08%, and for smaller plans it rose to 1.24%. As I commented below, if one's goal is to make deposits with income that avoid a tax of 25%, and hope to withdraw it at retirement at 15%, it doesn't take long for a 1% fee to completely negate the benefit of pretax savings. These numbers are averages, in the same article, I mention (ok, I brag) that my company plan has an S&P fund that costs .05%. That's 1% over 20 years. The sound bite of \"\"deposit to the match\"\" needs to be followed by \"\"depending on the choice of investments and their expenses\"\" within the 401(k). Every answer here has added excellent points, fennec's last sentence shouldn't be ignored, there's a phaseout for IRA deductibility, and another for Roth eligibility. For Married filing joint, IRA deduction starts to be lost at $92K, and Roth deposit disallowed at $173K. This adds a bit to the complexity of the decision, but doesn't change the implication of the 1%+ 401(k) fees.\"","\"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \"\"not most people\"\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\"","If you exceed the income limit for deducting a traditional IRA (which is very low if you are covered by a 401(k) ), then your IRA options are basically limited to a Roth IRA. The Cramer person probably meant to compare 401(k) and IRA from the same pre-/post-tax-ness, so i.e. Traditional 401(k) vs. Traditional IRA, or Roth 401(k) vs. Roth IRA. Comparing a Roth investment against a Traditional investment goes into a whole other topic that only confuses what is being discussed here. So if deducting a traditional IRA is ruled out, then I don't think Cramer's advice can be as simply applied regarding a Traditional 401(k). (However, by that logic, and since most people on 401(k) have Traditional 401(k), and if you are covered by a 401(k) then you cannot deduct a Traditional IRA unless you are super low income, that would mean Cramer's advice is not applicable in most situations. So I don't really know what to think here.)"],"string":"[\n \"The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.\",\n \"In addition to George Marian's excellent advice, I'll add that if you're hitting the limits on IRA contributions, then you'd go back to your 401(k). So, put enough into your 401(k) to get the match, then max out IRA contributions to give you access to more and better investment options, then go back to your 401(k) until you top that out as well, assuming you have that much available to invest for retirement.\",\n \"I'd hazard that Jim is mostly worried that people are getting ripped off by high employer 401(k) fund fees. A lot of employers offer funds with fees over 1% a year. This sounds low-ish if you don't realize that the real (inflation-adjusted) return for the fund will probably average out to about 4%, so it's really something like a quarter of your earnings gone. With an IRA, you don't have to do that. You can get an IRA provider which offers good, cheap index funds and the like (cough Vanguard cough). Fund fees will probably be closer to 0.1%-ish. HOWEVER. The maximum IRA contribution in 2013 will be $5,500. The maximum for a 401(k) contribution will be $17,500. That extra capacity is enough to recommend a 401(k) over an IRA for many people. These people may be best served by putting money into the 401(k) and then rolling it over into a rollover IRA when they change jobs. Also, certain people have retirement plans which offer them good cheap index funds. These people probably don't need to worry quite as much. Finally, having two accounts is more complicated. Please contact someone who knows more about taxes than I am to figure out what limitations apply for contributing to both IRAs and 401(k)s in the same year.\",\n \"\\\"Early this year I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed? I described the data from a 401(k) expense survey and the punchline was that the average large retirement plan (over 1000 participants) expense was 1.08%, and for smaller plans it rose to 1.24%. As I commented below, if one's goal is to make deposits with income that avoid a tax of 25%, and hope to withdraw it at retirement at 15%, it doesn't take long for a 1% fee to completely negate the benefit of pretax savings. These numbers are averages, in the same article, I mention (ok, I brag) that my company plan has an S&P fund that costs .05%. That's 1% over 20 years. The sound bite of \\\"\\\"deposit to the match\\\"\\\" needs to be followed by \\\"\\\"depending on the choice of investments and their expenses\\\"\\\" within the 401(k). Every answer here has added excellent points, fennec's last sentence shouldn't be ignored, there's a phaseout for IRA deductibility, and another for Roth eligibility. For Married filing joint, IRA deduction starts to be lost at $92K, and Roth deposit disallowed at $173K. This adds a bit to the complexity of the decision, but doesn't change the implication of the 1%+ 401(k) fees.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \\\"\\\"not most people\\\"\\\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\\\"\",\n \"If you exceed the income limit for deducting a traditional IRA (which is very low if you are covered by a 401(k) ), then your IRA options are basically limited to a Roth IRA. The Cramer person probably meant to compare 401(k) and IRA from the same pre-/post-tax-ness, so i.e. Traditional 401(k) vs. Traditional IRA, or Roth 401(k) vs. Roth IRA. Comparing a Roth investment against a Traditional investment goes into a whole other topic that only confuses what is being discussed here. So if deducting a traditional IRA is ruled out, then I don't think Cramer's advice can be as simply applied regarding a Traditional 401(k). (However, by that logic, and since most people on 401(k) have Traditional 401(k), and if you are covered by a 401(k) then you cannot deduct a Traditional IRA unless you are super low income, that would mean Cramer's advice is not applicable in most situations. So I don't really know what to think here.)\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":266,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2183"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Why are there many small banks and more banks in the U.S.?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["132678","124427","571625","498146","24994","24344"],"string":"[\n \"132678\",\n \"124427\",\n \"571625\",\n \"498146\",\n \"24994\",\n \"24344\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["132678","498146","24344","550924","248863","571625","124427","24994","553762","18749","10849","550303","476851","493676","149258","322168","486669","107519","9561","374078","129894","270866","462218","491523","582270","537057","511563","95440","536048","575241","175824","424503","580918","339518","98096","469731","63844","189303","387573","111240","37269","507000","587737","305179","378154","535566","26578","258121","595564","315363","340329","535817","171123","558701","252629","552713","145270","545153","209493","335774","263965","276906","381102","294212","311423","201863","17765","495697","517810","71276","261389","470549","458485","30090","473581","54019","564709","500985","326836","417460","104239","528363","596714","249839","258141","158","372294","88196","577251","206109","340435","117286","366753","373192","369677","461416","268914","361114","61026","398131"],"string":"[\n \"132678\",\n \"498146\",\n \"24344\",\n \"550924\",\n \"248863\",\n \"571625\",\n \"124427\",\n \"24994\",\n \"553762\",\n \"18749\",\n \"10849\",\n \"550303\",\n \"476851\",\n \"493676\",\n \"149258\",\n \"322168\",\n \"486669\",\n \"107519\",\n \"9561\",\n \"374078\",\n \"129894\",\n \"270866\",\n \"462218\",\n \"491523\",\n \"582270\",\n \"537057\",\n \"511563\",\n \"95440\",\n \"536048\",\n \"575241\",\n \"175824\",\n \"424503\",\n \"580918\",\n \"339518\",\n \"98096\",\n \"469731\",\n \"63844\",\n \"189303\",\n \"387573\",\n \"111240\",\n \"37269\",\n \"507000\",\n \"587737\",\n \"305179\",\n \"378154\",\n \"535566\",\n \"26578\",\n \"258121\",\n \"595564\",\n \"315363\",\n \"340329\",\n \"535817\",\n \"171123\",\n \"558701\",\n \"252629\",\n \"552713\",\n \"145270\",\n \"545153\",\n \"209493\",\n \"335774\",\n \"263965\",\n \"276906\",\n \"381102\",\n \"294212\",\n \"311423\",\n \"201863\",\n \"17765\",\n \"495697\",\n \"517810\",\n \"71276\",\n \"261389\",\n \"470549\",\n \"458485\",\n \"30090\",\n \"473581\",\n \"54019\",\n \"564709\",\n \"500985\",\n \"326836\",\n \"417460\",\n \"104239\",\n \"528363\",\n \"596714\",\n \"249839\",\n \"258141\",\n \"158\",\n \"372294\",\n \"88196\",\n \"577251\",\n \"206109\",\n \"340435\",\n \"117286\",\n \"366753\",\n \"373192\",\n \"369677\",\n \"461416\",\n \"268914\",\n \"361114\",\n \"61026\",\n \"398131\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"As an addendum to PeterK's answer, once upon a time, there were many Savings and Loan Associations (S&Ls) that acted as small banks, accepting savings deposits from people and lending money for home mortgages to local residents. Some of these S&Ls were chartered Federally with deposits insured by the FSLIC (similar to the FDIC which still insures deposits in banks) while others had State charters and used the State equivalent of FSLIC as the insurer. To induce people to save with S&Ls instead of banks, S&Ls paid higher rates of interest on their savings accounts than banks were permitted to do on bank savings accounts. Until 1980, S&Ls were not permitted to make consumer or commercial loans, have checking accounts, issue credit cards, etc., but once the US Congress in its wisdom permitted this practice, this part of the business boomed. (Note for @RonJohn: Prior to 1980, S&Ls offered NOW accounts on which \"\"checks\"\" (technically, Negotiated Orders of Withdrawal) could be written but they were not checks in the legal sense, and many S&Ls did not return these paid \"\"checks\"\" with the monthly statement as all banks did; writing a \"\"check\"\" while pressing hard created a carbon copy that could be used as proof of payment). In just a few years' time, many S&Ls crashed because they were not geared to handle the complexities of the new things that they were permitted to do, and so ran into trouble with bad loans as well as outright fraud by S&L management and boards of directors etc. After the disappearance of most S&Ls, many small banks (often with State charters only) sprang up, and that's why there are so many banks in the US. Mortgage lending is a lucrative business (if done right), and everyone wants to get into the business. Note that 4 branches of Bank of America in a Florida town is not a sign of many banks; the many different banks that the OP noticed in Maine is.\"","Actually it seems you are not quite correct about the number of different banks in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_and_credit_unions_in_Canada According to this link there are 82-86 banks in Canada plus credit unions. This may still be lower than what would correspond to the number of banks in the US, scaled for canadian population. One further reason not mentioned before could be that the population density in Canada outside of the metropolitan areas could be lower than in the US, leaving to few small towns large enough (10,000+ (a guess corrected due to comment)) to support a bank.","\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \"\"good\"\" online service, \"\"great\"\" phone service, \"\"great\"\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \"\"walk in\"\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \"\"better\"\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \"\"big bank\"\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \"\"small bank\"\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \"\"brands\"\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\"","Ya small local banks effectively do not exist in Canada. We do however have a number of credit unions. I'm actually going to be defensive of the big five as they are actually well run (or rather well regulated). Our banking context is in many ways radically different up north.","Large businesses are, in every model, considered to be less likely to default, and Lehman brothers etc notwithstanding, this is historically correct. However, this is still stupid, since the diversification of lending money to many small businesses is way better. This, in turn, is not mapped properly by the regulations on reserve capital. Tl;dr: Banks get punished by regulations if they lend money to small institutions instead of large ones.","\"I can't find a citation, but from memory (EDIT: and reading the newspapers at the time it happened): up until around 1980, banks couldn't cross state borders. In my state, at least, they were also very local, only staying within one county. This was to enforce \"\"localness\"\", the thought being that local bankers would know local people and the local situation better than far away people who only see numbers and paperwork.\"","Wikipedia has a good summary: Historically, branch banking in the United States - especially interstate branch banking - was viewed unfavorably by regulatory authorities, and this was codified with the enactment of the McFadden Act of 1927, which specifically prohibited interstate banking. Over the next few decades, some banks attempted to circumvent McFadden's provisions by establishing bank holding companies that operated so-called independent banks in multiple states. To address this, The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from having branches in any other state. Most interstate banking prohibitions were repealed by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Research has also found that anticompetitive state provisions restricted out-of-state growth when those provisions were more restrictive than the provisions set by the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act or by neighboring states. Some states have also had restrictive bank branch laws; for example, Illinois outlawed branches (other than the main office) until 1967, and did not allow an unlimited number until 1993.","In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around.","Capital requirements for a de novo bank, as opposed to an established one, are a real bitch. Basically the government wont let you loan nearly as much of your money out. You can't skirt this by buying an existing bank. Regulators don't want upstarts making stupid loans and thus encouraging lower credit criteria systemwide. Also Incumbents don't want more competition and they have lobbyists so I don't see this changing soon.","I'd add that bigger banks tend to have experience doing more complicated things. As an example, my local credit union (~12 offices), simply didn't have the software to wire money to a Canadian bank, as where Chase did. The Canadian routing number wasn't in the format of a US institution, and their software user interface just didn't allow for that number to be entered. Also, most smaller banks don't have international toll free (in-country) numbers for foreign access. Smaller banks also tend to have less sophisticated business banking tools and experience. If you take a Treasury bond approval to a small bank, they'll generally look at you like you have three heads. So the international side of things is definitely in the favor of big banks; they have a lot more money to dump on services.","\"The most succinct answer is \"\"Banks are in the Money business\"\". Not construction, not real estate, not any of the other things they may find find themselves sometimes being dragged (foreclosure) or tempted (construction) into. \"\"Money\"\" is their core competence, and as good business people they recognize that straying outside that just dilutes their focus.\"","\"Small community banks are absolutely vital to our economy. Plenty of people these days talk about \"\"buying local,\"\" but you never hear them talking about banking local. My friends, for the most part, lean left of center politically, so they constantly complain about Wal-Mart and other large brick and mortar chains, but when I called them out on their banking by asking them to pull out their debit cards, they all banked with larger banks; Chase, PNC, Key; the only person (beside myself) who didn't bank with a large national/multi - national bank uses Huntington, which is still a very large regional bank with over $100 billion in assets. They said they didn't want to have to pay ATM fees, to which I responded that many community banks will reimburse the customer for those fees up to a certain amount (like my bank does.) They just shrugged and said they liked the convenience of it, so I asked them why do they think people shop at Wal-Mart? I didn't really get a good answer to that; they just said \"\"it's different.\"\" The best way to invest in your community is to bank with a local community bank. Those mom and pop shops you love so much; the plumber who lives down the street; the micro brewery that just opened up all do their banking with the local community bank.\"","\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/06/american_bankin.html) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The importance of the unit banking laws is obvious when you consider than Canada had no bank failures during the Great Depression, despite a similar fall in NGDP. Today, that sort of decline in NGDP would wipe out virtually the entire US banking system. > The pattern is that the governments, on the one hand, protects banks in the forms of deposit insurance or government bailouts when a crisis happens, or give banks certain opportunities. > The way the governments get the banks to subsidize mortgage risk is by protecting the banks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fcfck/american_banking_socialism_or_laissezfaire/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~136658 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Bank**^#1 **government**^#2 **deposit**^#3 **lend**^#4 **more**^#5\"","\"They're over-regulated, but no sifi favors 0 regulation - that's fucking stupid and breaks the \"\"stable\"\" state of competitive universal banking. But consumers are suffering because the regulations are so fucking stupid and costly. It's a bunch of academia-branded lawyers imposing regulations on 30-50 year bankers. That wouldn't go well anywhere. Most bankers have different views - Kashkari is a Goldman guy who wants to break all the big banks up into regional competitors. If that happens, your deposits will have a higher return window, but then you actually have a daily risk to your deposits in the name of competition...I mean, fuck that.\"","I would have been tempted to dismiss your claim, but the data I found shows that you're correct. On the plus side, the growth rate in credit union market share is higher in New York than it is in California. While there is no question that bankers hate credit unions, I can't tell you why credit unions have a smaller market share in NY. Maybe the regulatory environment is part of it. Banks have a big lobby, and they pay a lot of taxes in NYC.","\"Nearly every country has its own exchange because so many countries have their own currency, and currency permeates every part of an exchange's business. Generally, an exchange will support transaction and settlement only in local currency. Securities (except those that explicitly enable FX trading) are denominated and will trade in a single currency-- you can only buy a share of IBM in U.S. dollars. Securities trading always seeks to be a clean, frictionless, scalable process, and adding cross-currency translation to the mix would just complicate things. So it's one exchange, one currency. In most countries, citizens and even businesses are largely restricted to having bank accounts in local currency. There are various political reasons for this, but there it is: it is difficult or impossible to open a domestic bank account in a foreign-denominated currency. A public company headquartered in a given country will be required to publish financial statements in local currency, will be more likely to do business with the local citizenry and businesses in that currency, and so will likely look for investors from that same pool-- which generally means listing in local currency, which means on an exchange in that country. There are exceptions, of course. Big multinationals do business all over the world, and many seek investors all over the world as well. Mechanisms have been created to permit this (American Depositary Receipts or ADRs, for example). But once again, cross-currency translation makes things more complicated, so ADRs and their like are only practical for very big international players. As to why there may be many exchanges in a single country, IMO Nick R has it right. Read \"\"Flash Boys\"\"; many market makers profit from trading between exchanges, and so have an interest in there being many of them. And in the U.S., regulators have expressed an interest in \"\"innovation\"\" in the exchange space, and so permit them. There is also an argument to be made against having a single \"\"Too Big To Fail\"\" exchange just like the argument for banks, but I wouldn't call that a \"\"reason\"\" for the current state of affairs.\"","In Scotland, each bank issues its own separate notes. It's not uncommon to see identical-valued £10 notes, for example, from three different banks in one's wallet.","There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!","How can banks be expected to make good decisions when they are not responsible for creating their own reserve? Do you think that the banking system could run without FDIC? And why? And what is your opinion on local banking vs. big corp banking?","Well, it seems you can't answer the question. Perhaps the difference in types of banks isn't so dry, is it, you dumb fuck. But go ahead an double down on being an ignorant idiot who thinks he knows it all. If you get into politics it will serve you well.","But what creates more business owners? They don't pop up out of the ground, and there are always lots of people that want to make their own business. Businesses need capital, they need startup funds. Angel investors, VCs and banks provide the capital.","http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:","No, what I'm saying is that the extant regulations have created such massive overheads to compliance that *only* big businesses can operate in that market because of the expenses required to be compliant. Eliminating that overhead would reduce expenses and make it possible for a greater diversity of firms to exist, reducing the *average size of any individual firm*, and increasing stability through diversity.","\"In the US, this was the case during the 19th century. There was a system of \"\"subscriptions\"\" between banks, where larger banks backed the smaller banks to some extent. In trade, notes from distant banks were not accepted or discounted relative to known local banks, or silver/gold coinage. There were a number of problems with this system which came to a head during the Panic of 1907. During this crisis, a cascading series of banking failures was only stopped by the personal intervention of JP Morgan. Even when Morgan intervened, it was very difficult to make capital available in a way that avoided the panic. The subsequent creation of the Federal Reserve was a response to that crisis.\"","When the market isn't allowed to favor one currency (provider) over another, there must be a central authority with the power to regulate, provide, and insure it. People don't learn the dangers of fractional reserve banking and the resulting expansions and contractions of the money supply when the providers of the currency aren't allowed to fall, taking the savings of depositors with them. Insuring people against the dangers of mismanaged money guarantees the mismanagement of money.","> Conglomerates have no interest in gaining control of tiny businesses through loan collateral. Yes they do, at least in China. China has very low farm labor productivity by developed nations status. Agribusiness would be very profitable in China. **The reason why it's in check is because it would make hundreds of millions of farmers redundant**, so the government prevents the industry from encroaching too much.","Yeah, and what blows my mind most is that there was a very easy out for regulatory relief that would have actually brought us closer to compliance with BCBS rules. In the US the threshold for Basel rules is $50B in assets, while under Basel III and in most of the world its €250B. Just adopting this standard would give small banks relief. As an aside, the new law would also make it harder for the Fed to adopt the Basel III finalization rules, which are incredibly advantageous to US banks and which we fought hard for.","The Livret A is a very specific product. It's tax-exempt and would historically not be available through regular banks. Commercial banks can now offer it but they only collect the money on behalf of the Caisse des dépôts (CDC). The CDC then pays interest to the savers and a commission for the bank. The commission is baked into the system, not charged to the customer directly but since the interest rate is set centrally, banks cannot compete on that. So this is risk-free money for them (but on the flip side it does not help them meet capital adequacy requirements). Other savings account or products have different rules. Another angle to consider is that a livret A was historically very attractive for consumers (and was certainly perceived as such) so that many people would have a checking account at a regular bank and another account at the Caisse d'épargne or the Banque postale just to open a livret A. For commercial banks, the alternative therefore isn't having your money on your checking account vs. your livret A or another savings account, it was having your money on a livret A they administer vs. seeing you run away to another institution. There is also a cap on the livret A and you're not allowed to save more money by opening several of them at different banks. At the same time banks have been complaining that the decrease of the interest rate (and consequently of their commission) makes the whole scheme a lot less interesting for them. For what it's worth, I recently (re)opened a bank account in France after living abroad for a long time and the customer advisor did not seem particularly interested in pushing a livret A.","It's not too difficult. Every state has a few local banks that don't do this shit and with new current technology most have apps and allow you to deposit money without going to the bank itself. Yeah you don't have an ATMs everywhere but the need for ATMs deacreses each year. My local bank will even refunds me ATM charges up to 100$ a year.","Part 1 Quite a few [or rather most] countries allow USD account. So there is no conversion. Just to illustrare; In India its allowed to have a USD account. The funds can be transfered as USD and withdrawn as USD, the interest is in USD. There no conversion at any point in time. Typically the rates for CD on USD account was Central Bank regulated rate of 5%, recently this was deregulated, and some banks offer around 7% interest. Why is the rate high on USD in India? - There is a trade deficit which means India gets less USD and has to pay More USD to buy stuff [Oil and other essential items]. - The balance is typically borrowed say from IMF or other countries etc. - Allowing Banks to offer high interest rate is one way to attract more USD into the country in short term. [because somepoint in time they may take back the USD out of India] So why isn't everyone jumping and making USD investiments in India? - The Non-Residents who eventually plan to come back have invested in USD in India. - There is a risk of regulation changes, ie if the Central Bank / Country comes up pressure for Forex Reserves, they may make it difficut to take back the USD. IE they may impose charges / taxes or force conversion on such accounts. - The KYC norms make it difficult for Indian Bank to attract US citizens [except Non Resident Indians] - Certain countries would have explicit regulations to prevent Other Nationals from investing in such products as they may lead to volatility [ie all of them suddenly pull out the funds] - There would be no insurance to foreign nationals. Part 2 The FDIC insurance is not the reason for lower rates. Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes. The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid. Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury. So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail]. Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well. Part 3 Check out the regulations","Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low. Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account. The bank must maintain branches with tellers. The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities). The bank has to pay salaries. The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change. And pay for insurance against robbery. All of that costs money. At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money. Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out. At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin. They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts. An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees. But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable. So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead. UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed.","Exactly what kind of regulations are you talking about here? Regulation in the form of licensing for doctors and lawyers is one thing, but what are you implying in regulation stopping competition for other types of business? As for the profit, I would say there are a lot of contributing factors, Globalization being a big one. Edit: No need to downvote, just asking for clarification...","Because people who work with practical skills work for their own means, and not for corporations. The banks are HEAVILY invested in Corporations. The banks are also HEAVILY invested in debt. Our entire system is orchestrated by the banks. They want a workforce that is highly specialized and in debt- this ensures that they are entirely dependent on Corporate jobs for money to pay debts and on big agro for their food.... It's all a trap. Any one want to blow off the Corporations and go live/work directly for our own needs on a homestead/commune farm?","\"The problem is \"\"what would have been\"\" without regulations. A good cause and effect is the Durbin amendment to DFA - they randomly regulated interchange debit card transactions (win for Walmart, loss for banks) so it no longer makes sense to offer free checking to poor people. WMT wins, banking loses, poor people lose. The other issue is maxing out regulations actually makes the system more frail as it promotes consolidation in the sector. Consultants love it - tons of free, easy, no thought work.\"","\"because bankers are crooks is a very close answer. Just accept the truth that financial industry is the only service industry that could turn into giant parasite chopping pieces from real economy. I am not anti-financial, because greed is not banker's fault, but just one significant part of human nature. Every human being has greed and fear built in it. But financial industry is the only one which is built on exploiting greed and fear. Governments are throwing gasoline canister into that fire in desperate extinguish attempts, trying to \"\"regulate\"\" but only making it worse. With all that \"\"counter-cybercrime\"\", \"\"counter-terrorism\"\" and \"\"counter-everything\"\" efforts, ordinary people will be hurt as always.\"","\"This is unfortunately the truth, and I spend a lot of time with my clients trying to help them through this process. One of the key metrics that banks judge themselves on is \"\"products per household.\"\" The more things you have attached to them, the less likely you are to leave, and they deliberately tie you in with more and more services, e.g. direct deposit, billpay, debit cards, credit cards, etc. If you want to switch but are held back by the daunting task of all the stuff you need to do, it's easier than most people think, and bankers at those smaller banks who are getting your accounts should be more than happy to do about 80% of the work for you. *The other 20% can only be done by you personally due to privacy laws, but your banker can guide you through that too. A prime example: A customer of mine wanted to switch, but he didn't want to go to the old bank to actually wait in line and go through with the nonsense of actually closing the account. I see that anxiety over confrontation a lot, by the way. So I have saved on my desktop a form letter is a simple request by the customer to close their account at 2B2F bank. They sign it, I notarize it, and send it off to the branch. The branch of receipt has to close the account per the request. Before we send that letter, we get everything set up with the new bank, draw the old one down to $10 or so, and give instructions to the old bank to remit a check payable to the customer and mail it to me. Then the old account is closed, and I just deposit that nominal amount into the customer's account. The customer literally never has to set foot in the old bank again. The unfortunate thing is that not everyone knows that these kinds of things are even possible: that your banker should help you with this stuff, or that you can do pretty much everything remotely. Plus, if you look at the smaller banks and CUs these days, they have eliminated the need or ubiquity (i.e. \"\"but their ATMs are everywhere!\"\") because a good bank or CU will never allow you to get charged to get your money, they will give you the direct line and email address of your branch manager, and a lot of places have mobile apps that allow you to deposit checks remotely.\"","There is absolutely no logical reason why each nation does not own and control banking and thus the supply of money. Any system including the financial system works exactly the same way, regardless of ownership. Banking depends solely on the confidence of the customers/investors. Therefore when a sovereign nation/state has ownership of the banks, the profits are kept in-house, within the nation, which is actually a bonus, and taxes can be off-set by profits, which is another benefit. Any improvement or benefit by the private ownership of banking is a total myth.","Another thing to factor in are deals provided by banks. In general, banks care about new customers more than their existing customers. Hence they explicitly restrict the best deals on credit cards, savings accounts, etc, to new customers only. (Of course, there are occasionally good deals for existing customers, and some banks choose not to discriminate.) If you have many different bank accounts, you are making yourself unavailable for switching bonuses and introductory rates.","Many of the Financial intermediaries in the business, have extraordinary high requirements for opening an account. For example to open an account in Credit Suisse one will need 1 million US dollars.","\"Traditional banks don't put their money onto the stock markets. In fact, the economic crisis was in part caused by the fact that banks were placing money into higher-risk portfolios and doing just that: in the UK there has been a debate for the last few years specifically around \"\"firewalling\"\" retail and investment bank operations entirely. What I was discussing was in the retail/consumer sector where the money comes in as mortgages & secured loans and - slightly riskier - unsecured credit, credit cards, etc. In that model, you do not need to be a genius. If I lend you $20k to buy a car and you don't repay me my money plus 8%, I get the car and therefore am unlikely to be seriously out of pocket. The only thing I have to do is make sure I lend to people likely to repay more often than I do to those who will not. And that, well, that's something we've got a few hundred years of experience with... If I walk onto the NYSE and start throwing around my cash at put option on exotic FX markets that are in turn responding to conditions almost impossible to truly understand, well, I'm sure we'd agree that it's hard to beat the market. That's why the investment banks who specialise in that market don't invest their own money: they make money from investing other people's cash. Clever guys. So we need to understand here there are two very different kinds of banks, with two very different business models, and it was the mixing of them that led to the disaster we've seen. Firewalling them makes sense to me! Communists who think banks are making money out of thin air don't seem to understand that, and so it's not surprising that they seem confused about what a bank is actually there for. Those who do get these two models must see that a retail bank is there to provide finance based on savings held and investment banks are there to help people invest in riskier markets. That does not mean they are \"\"magic\"\" or \"\"evil\"\". Now, they might argue that fractional reserve banking is a problem. I would imagine many of them would prefer the credit union model instead, but that's a different debate: that's the mechanics and detail, not the institutional need for existence.\"","Note that this is just looking at public firms, whose numbers have declined while the overall number of firms has increased. It would be interesting to compare their profits to GDP, that might be a better measure to find out whether profits are more concentrated than they used to be. Also note: > However, what could indeed be a deterrent—especially for smaller companies—is that the US Congress wields far more regulatory power over public companies than private ones, note the authors.","Although I do not know about US Institutions; In India Banks have adopted a mix of features that mitigate the risk. Some ways that are used are;","I'm always hesitant to use local credit unions because I love accessing all atms fee free, having services available 24/7, having robust, safe and audited online services, and having a big enough bank that all major third party tools interface with it. Joe Schmo Local Credit Union has a lot of good services, but audited and secure online banking? No fee nationwide ATMs? Native interfacing to major tools? I just don't see it often. I shudder to think of the security at small bank websites, frankly.","Since making loans isn't 'casino banking', I'm going to start a small, regional lending institution that just lends money to people to buy homes. I really want to open up home ownership to a larger group of people, maybe those who wouldn't qualify for traditional loans. I'm just not sure whether to call it Washington Federal or Countrywide Financial.","\"This is 100% accurate: \"\"Conversely, an industry with two or three firms can be more competitive than one with 50, such as supermarkets or online platforms like Uber where economies of scale can enhance competition between fewer but healthier players. The last 40-plus years of economic research is clear: Simply counting the number of firms in an industry tells you very little about competition.\"\"\"","For small amounts I wouldn't be too concerned. There are two factors I can think of: For relatively small amounts and when dealing with reputable banking institutions there should be little concern of banking with a single bank. It's what most people do.","Financial Aid - the government gives you better interest rates and is a better lender. Credit Cards - are for idiots. Mortgage and Loans - Credit Unions give a much better deal. They actually re-invest in the community. You can take you big banks and shove em' up your ass.","\"First off, I originally brought up Wells Fargo to show that big banks may not want to open the floodgates for lower level employees and management to have free reign to profit off customers in less than responsible ways. I didn't mean or want to get into a debate about past govt. oversight of Wells Fargo's practices. [But to your point:](https://www.housingwire.com/articles/39782-cordray-answers-charges-that-cfpb-didnt-take-lead-on-wells-fargo-scandal) >He explained that the bureau first received a whistleblower tip in July 2013. The exposé by the LA Times wasn’t published until December. > >Cordray did add that the LA Times coverage was a “splendid piece of investigative reporting” and that investigative reporting often aides government investigations. > >After that first whistleblower tip, Cordray explained that the Wells Fargo case over time grew into something bigger. > >As the CFPB watched Wells Fargo through 2014 and 2015 in supervisory activity, it became clear the situation was serious enough to migrate into an enforcement action, he said. I'm not sure what you're talking about here: >And what are you talking about freedom to \"\"compete\"\" against the big guys? What are you even talking about and how is that freedom threatened? I'm saying they *will* have freedom to compete in ways that may have negative impact on clients who have chosen to move their investments from bigger banks to smaller ones. As for the list of \"\"positives\"\" you gave surrounding this bill, [there are also negatives:](http://fortune.com/2017/06/07/financial-choice-act/) >Congress this week is considering the Choice Act, which would roll back regulations enacted after the 2007 financial crisis, particularly those designed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Yet, the legislation goes even further and limits consumer access to information that could help them make better choices. > >One of the hallmarks of conservative regulatory philosophy is that educated and empowered consumers are preferable to government bureaucrats, regulations, and prohibitions. Yet, the conservatives in the House of Representatives appears ready to pass the CHOICE Act this week and in the process legally prohibit publishing data the government collects on consumer complaints on financial services. This is a mistake and would cost consumers and businesses. It would also go against the universal values of fair markets and informed consumers. But [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/business/dealbook/house-financial-regulations-dodd-frank.html) is what I find most concerning: >The bill would also eliminate the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, which requires brokers to act in the best interest of their clients when providing investment advice about retirement. The first parts of the rule are scheduled to go into effect on Friday. The rule was completed last spring under Mr. Obama after years of development. My point, before you started arguing something different, was that larger banks often *need* the oversight conducted by their customers and the government in order to help them nip bad practices in the bud before it becomes a much larger issue. This may not be as much of an issue for smaller banks, but in the end, they all deal in the same industry and present the same danger to their customers if things go bad and employees don't take their intrinsic fiduciary responsibility seriously.\"","Good read. I do wish there were more stats on the issues associated with geographic concentration touched upon in the article. For example, how are the economic gains of being in an urbanized environment mitigated by the costs associated with traffic jams, urban poverty and crime? What would happen to the economy of the US if those inefficient small cities kept declining, how would it have to change?","How do credit unions work in the US? Why not just get rid of deposit insurance for commercial banks and keep it for credit unions. Restrict credit unions ability to filter money to the new 'investment bank' sector by keeping them out of repo and money markets (not sure if this is done currently) and bang - Corporates/institutions can still lend short and banks can still lend long in the professional world, while unsophisticated retail customer's checking accounts at least are protected from the inevitable crash.","\"In the United States, many banks aim to receive $ 100 per year per account in fees and interest markup. There are several ways that they can do this on a checking account. These examples assume that there is a 3 % difference between low-interest-rate deposit accounts and low-interest rate loans. Or some combination of these markups that adds up to $ 100 / year. For example: A two dollar monthly fee = $ 24 / year, plus a $ 2,000 average balance at 0.05% = $ 29 / year, plus $ 250 / month in rewards debit card usage = $ 24 / year, plus $ 2 / month in ATM fees = $ 24 / year. Before it was taken over by Chase Manhattan in 2008, Washington Mutual had a business strategy of offering \"\"free\"\" checking with no monthly fees, no annual fees, and no charges (by Washington Mutual) for using ATMs. The catch was that the overdraft fees were not free. If the customers averaged 3 overdraft fees per year at $ 34 each, Washington Mutual reached its markup target for the accounts.\"","Another reason is that the amount of unused credit you have is a positive factor on your credit score. It's generally easier to open several different accounts for $X dollars each with different banks than to get your current bank to raise your limit severalfold in a single go. Your current bank has to worry about why you suddenly are asking for a large additional amount of credit; while other banks will be willing to offer you smaller amounts of credit in the hope that you transfer your business from your current bank to them.",">I would imagine that given any lack of compulsory regulation, that Americans are using whatever means of payment that suits them. I'd agree, it's almost entirely about competition and consumer protections in areas like banking outside of the US rather than compulsory regulation pushing people to use particular approaches. I run a company in the UK, processing cheques is expensive and awkward (its a manual process, it costs money at basically all points of the process and is more likely to result in a failed payment) for me compared to almost every other method of payment, so I prefer (and actively encourage) the use of electronic payments instead. I can do that because my bank doesn't charge extra for processing electronic payments, in fact it's now cheaper to process them than cheques. That also makes sense from the banks perspective given it costs more money for them to maintain, offer and process cheque payments (to the point that they are already essentially converting them into electronic payments by scanning..). It's not Americans being backward, it's US banks. I doubt that if you had safe, secure, cheap and reliable electronic payment facilities, with the same level of protection and control as with a cheque, most Americans would take the same approach as they do elsewhere (After all, its convenient..).","A typical manufacturer buys raw materials, produces a product using labor and energy at a specific cost with some waste, and then sells the product to produce income. A bank buys raw materials (deposits) by paying interest, then uses labor and energy to turn a portion of the raw materials into their product (loans), they then receive income (interest) on those loans. If the income exceeds the cost to buy and produce the loans taking into account losses due to delinquencies (waste) the bank company has made a profit. The growing profits can lead to an increase in stock prices or the paying of dividends. The search for more raw materials can lead to paying more for the raw materials, or by buying other factories (branches) or even other bank companies.","> accessing all atms fee free, having services available 24/7, having robust, safe and audited online services, and having a big enough bank that all major third party tools interface with it. You just described my single state credit union I've been with for 19 years now, and not the big bank I was with before (Wells Fargo).","Subsidies are anti-competitice practices. Its the government picking winners and losers over the market's preference. Just like onerous regulations. Smaller companies aren't able to hire the overhead required to keep up with them, and are therefore fined out of existences due to this countries staggering regulatory burden.","Yeah, seriously. Cheating your customers has always been part of the core business of the major banks. How would they maintain their high CEO compensation without that extra money? They need to be competitive in executive level compensation to attract the kind of candidates that will keep their bank pulling in the money needed to pay themselves.","Modern banking is operated under central banking which is critical for maintaing a stable keynsian economy. Without central banking the economy is prone to the boom and bust cycle typical of early twentieth industrialization. Our money is not backed by 'nothing' it is backed by the faith and credit of the governments issuing them. Private banks don't issue anything. What fractional reserve banking does is say that for ever X amount of dollars you have in your vaults you can make Y amount of loans. This ratio is set by the central bank in what is called the reserve ratio. If the Fed sets the reserve ratio at 10% and they know the US economy has $10 trillion in circulation than $100 trillion dollars is going to eventually emerge through fractional reserve banking. This explains inflation. Of course the central bank could also raise the reserve ratio forcing banks to call in existing loans. This is deflation. Now if you're a bank and have $1 million dollars in the bank, a reserve ratio of 10% means you can make up to $10 million in loans without getting in trouble with the Fed. If the bank makes $10 million in loans and only recuperate $9 million in loans than they fall below the 10% reserve rate ratio and become insolvent, prior to 2008 these banks would go bankrupt, but the Fed has evolved it's roll into either bailing a bank out for it to recover and learn from it's mistakes or to let it go bankrupt. All people's deposits at these banks however are safe up to $250,000 thanks to the FDIC to protect from bank runs typical of the early twentieth century that intensified boom and bust cycles. Please don't bring in the Federal Reserve into this unless you want me to prove how stupid you are even more. I'm poor broke college student with nothing better to do with my time than to win internet arguments right now, you can't win. **Too stupid, didn't read: banks need to make successful loans or they go out of business, they don't create anything out of thin air. They just listen to whatever the central bank tells them what to do.**","\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"","Pay attention to nickel-and-dime charges (atm fees, low balance fees, limit on atm transactions per month, charge for human teller transaction, charge for paper statements or tax records). Consider that a financial company will spend on the order of $100-500 to sign up a good customer. Are you getting this in a cash bonus, competitive high interest rate, reasonable other gift, or advertising directed at your eyeballs? A variation in rates less than 1% easily fits into a marketing cost and there doesn't have to be any other magic to it.","\"The real reason credit cards are so popular in the US is that Americans are lazy and broke, and the credit card companies know how to market to that. Have you ever heard of the $30k millionaires? These were individuals that purchased as if they were some of the wealthy elite, but had no real money to back it up. American society has pushed the idea of \"\"living on credit\"\" for quite some time now. An idea that is even furthered by watching the US government operate solely on credit. (Raise the debt ceiling much?) Live in America for more than six months and you will be bombarded with \"\"Pre-Approved Deals\"\" with low introductory rates that are designed to sucker the average consumer into opening multiple accounts that they don't need. Then, they try and get you to carry a balance by allowing low minimum payments that could take in the neighborhood of 20 years to pay off, depending on carried balance. This in turn pads the credit companies' pockets with all of the interest you now pay on the account. The few truly wealthy Americans do not purchase on credit.\"","How often do you need to actually go to a bank? atm's, debit and credit cards work where ever. you can even deposit checks by taking a picture of them. dealing with cash would be more troublesome though.","The one those investors said 'hey instead of pricing Tesla 10 years out, we will pool in and create jobs, by founding a $5b bank with locations nationwide'. I use them because they give great rates at places I shop. Such as if I buy a new tv from that new company founded by that hedge fund that pulled out of netflixes 10 year pricing and started an electronics firm I save 25%!!","Stop defending banks. At the time of the 08 melt down, they opened up multiple ways for large financial institutions to borrow money either for collateral (usually shit assets) or with interest rates akin to free or near free. Do you know what that means? Free money. Borrow money for free, buy treasuries and profit. Who didn't have access? Those that didn't have the inside track in the Fed and in the upper levels of the U.S. government. That's why Lehman went under and Goldman, JPM, even GE (due to finance division) didn't go under. Far far too many people upvote pro corporate comments when they aren't even remotely accurate just because their worldview is that the world is just. How silly.","Idk why Banks are so opposed to holding just a bit more capital. It helps them avoid becoming suddenly insolvent should something happen. It's like they only care about personal short term gain and care little about being in the game for the long term.","Quite the opposite, crony capitalism has caused all of these problems. Big cable? Subsidized. Big oil? Subsidized. Big banks? Bailed out. And the tax code changes they're putting through now, why do you suppose this is being done? The US has the highest statutory corporate rate in the developed world, on small and large businesses. This is anti-competitive because in order avoid steep rates you need to hire big teams of tax lawyers, accountants, and other overhead to handle the paperwork and manage liability for you. Not only that, but its to the point now where most business decisions are not undertaken with the heath of the company in mind, but with great consideration to how it will effect the company's tax liability.","They don't need to accept deposits from normal persons, but that's how they make lots of money. Banks make money off the fees they charge retailers when those folks swipe their debit cards at the retailer. It's their bread and butter. In order to facilitate you accruing swipe fees for them, they need to allow you to make deposits, on which they can charge the retailers swipe fees.","On your first point, banks (or any large company) is primarily concerned with maintaining profits. I'm very familiar with this dynamic in media with broadcast vs streaming. They will try hard to charge as much as possible to sustain the stock price, while competitors will be as aggressive as possible to capture market share. This always happens with every industry that gets disrupted. The new entrants will permanently eat away at bank profits, whether they adapt or not. No comment on your second point. Possibly true, but I don't personally assume that yet.","I mean, when the federal government can pull your bank charter and the FDIC can revoke your government insurance, it's not worth the benefit just to support some small town pot grower. It's likely to be this way until the federal government legalizes it or gives outright approval to the banks.","Banking is highly regulated, but you may want to have a look at Basel II which is kind of an international standard on how to create banking regulations. Your country/state may have considered this when creating its own local regulation; the United States do.","\"I agree -- personally, at the expense of some of the convenience you speak of, I use credit unions exclusively. However, my credit union more than makes up for that with 1) online check deposit (only thing you ever need to go to a bank for) 2) ATM fee reimbursement With those two amenities, I don't need a branch on every corner. I am pretty disappointed with BofA's practices (profiting off of those who are \"\"less responsible\"\" -- to me it's wrong to profit off of people's 'stupidity'), so I would never bank with them. It's just a personal preference because 1) I don't need them and 2) I wouldn't want to indirectly support their business. I can understand why people stick with them, and frankly don't really care, to be honest... I just think they're a fundamentally bad company through and through and would rather keep my money away from them.\"","> The vast majority of companies in the US are small businesses This is a fairly useless measure. Example: Imagine if there was one company that hired 1 billion people. And 99 companies that hired 1 person each. You can now say that 99% of companies are small businesses. Which is true, but 99.9999999% of people don't work for a small business, they work for a large business. The small businesses are inconsequential.","\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"","There are several reasons why credit cards are popular in the US: On the other hand, debit cards do not have any of these going for them. A debit card doesn't make much money for the bank unless you overdraw or something, so banks don't have incentive to push you to use them as much. As a result they don't offer rewards other benefits. Some people say the ability to spend more than you have is a downside of a credit card. But it's really an upside. The behavior of doing that when it isn't needed is bad, but that's not the card's fault, it's the users'. You can get a credit card with a very small limit if this is an issue for you. The question I find interesting is why debit cards are more popular in your home country. I can't think of any advantage they offer besides free cash back. But most people in the US don't use cash much either. I have to think in your home country the banks have a different revenue model or perhaps your country isn't as eager to offer tons of easy credit to everyone as the US is.","Go to bankrate dot com. They will have a lot of metrics there that might give you an idea and rate each category. Capitalization and profitability metrics. May not be as granular as what you are looking for though.","The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades. The risks would be large.","Politicians are for sale and regulations are useless when they are not enforced. Community banks and credit unions have to comply or get hammered by the state and federal governments. The mega banks soldier on under an utterly feckless and corrupt congress. People should never pay fees or credit card interest, pay off their loans, and get out from under banker's thumbs. They are giant impoverishing machines.","All unsubstantiated opinions. >there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans Really. No relation whatsoever? And your background in finance letting you understand this is what? Are you telling me every bank of the [7,213](http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/) independent banks are in cahoots and none of them compete based on prices and services? Can you give me precise evidence that all those independent banks are not in competition? What should the price be for capital if the current prices are incorrect, and tell me why.","The best answer is, I think, also the simplest: A bank is an entity which performs maturity transformation. (Conversely, any entity that performs maturity transformation is acting as a bank, regardless of whether it is called one or is regulated as one. And an entity which does not perform maturity transformation isn't really a bank.) Maturity transformation is the process by which a bank accepts short-term deposits, and makes long-term loans. The benefit to society is fairly obvious; we (collectively) like being able to take out mortgages, but we also like having our money in a checking account and available on demand. Banks allow this to happen, although property bubbles and similar make it clear that this isn't without cost. (Note: Central banks are a completely different kettle of fish.)","\"The bank provides a service that the customer voluntarily agreed to - the bank will provide funds to the customer now and the customer will pay back those funds plus interest in the future. The arragement wasn't forced onto the customer. The government, on the other hand, takes money (the exchange is not volutary) from people to provide a \"\"service\"\". This frustrates a lot of people - myself included - since people do not have a choice. They must pay the taxes or go to jail (or have their house confisicated, wages garnished, etc.). It gets even more frustrating when the government takes money from the people and gives it to the banks, auto companies, insurance companies, etc..\"","The big box retailers weren't really a monopoly. It was just a better business model. There were many of them and they were very competitive with each other (we'll match our competitor's price). Many of them even went out of business because the profits were driven down to such low levels.","The core competency of banks is to lend money from depositors and re-lend that money to borrowers. They do not have the expertise to develop real estate. They have trouble evening managing foreclosed real estate, such that they have to sell them at a discount.","Many reasons mentioned already. The reason why I have multiple is missing: I have a personal card for my private use and a company card for company use.","My favorite part about using a local credit union is, if I have an account issue, I can just call up and talk to someone who works five minutes from my house without *ever* punching numbers into an automated answering system. Good luck doing that with Bank of America.","It's the equivalent of you being required to keep some of your savings in a near-zero percent interest savings account vs. being able to invest and grow that capital. Even if the capital requirements were peeled back slightly, (most) banks still hold more than enough capital to absorb extreme losses. Net/net the economy is safer, but less robust than it could be.","In the US, I would say the risk is exactly the same. If your accounts are withing the FDIC amount (currently $250,000) your balance is 100% covered in case of a failure. You are giving up a larger network of ATMs in some cases. You are also perhaps giving up the number of branches you can visit, the hours the bank is open and maybe how well the website works. The features might be less, but the protection for your deposits is the same.",">No, it's not. The bank can't just jack up prices when they've got competitors, after all. Yeah, you don't understand how this stuff works. The cost of changing banks is so high most people just grumble and eat it. It took a *massive* national campaign to switch to Credit Unions and *still* only 250K people did. >Again, if the bank has even one competitor who didn't suffer as much or any damage, customers aren't just going to suck it up. Again, wrong. >I'm not remotely an anarchist No wonder you seem to be somewhat more reasonable than most of them I've spoken to. >Brute force supports the existing regime. That's basically it. And the *image* that this is legitimate is what allows them to wield force without retribution.","\"In the US, usury is complicated and depends on the type of account, the bank charter and the where the bank makes credit decisions. Most major US credit cards are issued by entities in Utah, South Dakota and Delaware. None of these states have usury limits. Many states have usury limits. In New York, for example a loan may not exceed 16% interest, if the institution is supervised by the State. Credit card issuers are usually chartered as \"\"National Associations\"\" (ie Federally chartered banks regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency). There is no Federal usury statute, and Federally chartered banks are allowed to \"\"export\"\" many of the regulations of the state where credit decisions are made. Small states like South Dakota basically design their banking regulations to meet the needs of the banks, which are major employers.\"","And a large part of these kind of phenomenon that we see between the US and Europe just emerge from little initial differences which then carry out and compound themselves over time. For example, in the US, most people get their health insurance from the company they work for, because during WWII, the government obviously instituted a draft. But what is not as obvious, is that to keep wages low to keep the price of goods low, they insituted a wage freeze. The only way companies could compete and incentivize workers was through ancillary benefits. Health insurance being the most appealing.","maybe it would turn into an Oligopoly on it's own, but regulation as that pervasive is what I'm trying to avoid here. I advocate Worker Co-ops as the best examples for these firms because they actually allow a sense of welfare taken up by the workers who can self provide with actual trades (and because their co-ownership allows a voluntary loophole in minimum wage laws, you get a real chance to vindicate/prove Adam Smith's theory of flexible prices and wages based on economic activity.). With self-provided welfare, the Government can pull out of both transfer payments as well as financial regulations because these markets have become more differentiated to a diversity of opinions, so Government can step back and focus on its more important role of Researcher and Developer, which it tends to do better at than other roles. Firms can't do this if they are breaking even, like they would in perfect competition.","Here's a point in favor of central banks: With a central bank in the middle making sure payments clear, transactions can happen with near perfect trust. When a bank has a daylight overdraft, the Fed covers it. When a bank needs overnight funding, the Fed provides it. If a bank needs vault cash, a truck shows up from the Fed. Without this, no one could ever be entirely confident the other party was money-good. With a volume of transactions that can amount to annual GDP in as little as six days, this level of trust is critical to a smoothly functioning system of payments.","The principles behind creating and keeping those entities are reasonable, civilized, and economically sound. That being said, after seeing what the practical application became, I can't say I disagree with you. It might be a failed experiment at this point. The racial angle at the end cheapens your argument, though.","Suppose that the fixed overhead costs of delivering a service, not related to the actual volume of sales, are $50 million per year. Suppose the variable costs on top are $100 per customer per year. Suppose further that 1% of the population buys the service. In the US, 3.2 million people buy the service, and it costs $116 per person to deliver it ($100 plus $50 million divided by 3.2 million). In Australia, 230,000 people buy it, and it costs $317 per person per year to deliver it ($100 plus $50 million divided by 230,000). The larger your market, the cheaper everything is, and Australia is a very small market compared with the USA, the EU, China or India.","This is not a supply side issue (bank), but a demand side (small business) and there is simply no demand. Bank CEOs have been repeating that there is just no interest in borrowing right now, they would love to lend, but businesses are not taking the loans. Businesses are trying to firm up their balance sheets and with concerns of a recession looming most small business owners don't want to borrow and risk defaulting.","If a 08 crash and bailout happens again anytime soon I don't know if the banks will get to keep control this time around. Their power is directly related to the amount of capital they have and there are enough in Congress that see them as not being loyal enough to front the political capital required to refill the coffers if it is needed. I see the next bailout being the fed making a nationalization attempt.","Right. A banker provides a product/service, whether it be liquidity or something else, for a premium. The Rothschilds, for example (I'm only familiar with them because I like their wine), are typical examples of some of the first bankers of the modern era-- they provided the ability to exchange currencies at a market value, and it made them one of the wealthiest families of the modern world. If someone doesn't like banks, then let them walk onto the NYSE and make their own investment decisions. Which is a terrible idea because it's statistically almost impossible to beat the market. If you wanted to be able to prove that you are a successful investor you would have to have higher earnings than a market portfolio every day for around 180 years, in order to have a T-statistic of about 2.0.","> The racial angle at the end cheapens your argument, though. Thanks for pointing that out. Removed race and replaced with 'low income families' > The principles behind creating and keeping those entities are reasonable, civilized, and economically sound I disagree 100%. If banks did not have a big brother to bail them out of loans that went bust whenever they wanted, they would be a lot more careful in who they loaned money too. No one is promised a house and a lawn in this life. Some of us will be renters in apartments for life, and there is nothing wrong with that.","\"Not at these rates. The motto used to be 3/6/3: \"\"Borrow at 3%, Loan out at 6%, and then be at the golf course by 3pm\"\". So they get 3% on the spread, minus fixed costs. Now, they borrow at near 0% and loan out at slightly above 0%. Those fixed costs starts becoming an issue. It isn't cheap to have all these ATMs, bank branches, tellers, computer systems, etc. Also, a lot of the money cannot be loaned out at all because there are not enough creditworthy borrowers. You might have recalled a few months ago, several banks started charging for deposits. They don't want more money that will just lay there while they have to pay the costs of maintaining the accounts. Some bank CEOs have stated that they would be better off if the Fed raised rates up to 1%.\"","Your quote: There's about 10 trillion in gold and about 2.8 trillion of US cash in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world. So how was it commercial banks could lend like crazy for home mortgages?? M1 remaind constant throughout the decade and years , if frac multiplier effect was the cause for m2, why wasn't it until the 2000s that m2 became exponential? Commercial Banks able to create credit and lend out of thin air to customers thanks to deregulation that caused m2 to explode. They didn't need no FED. They didin't need no reserves. They were able to act regardless of the FED. The FED responded to them, instead of the other way around. Before deregulation banks didn't bother creating too much credit loans coz it was too dangerous, they were mostly utilty banks. After deregulation, creation of exotic derivatives, low interest rates, and high speed internet globalized digital trading, they went crazy creating credit out of thin air coz it wasn't dangerous because they could sell the home loans.","\"The Ponzi/Madoff schemes were closed loops, so the only source of the so-called \"\"interest\"\" on the money was the contributions of future investors. The economy is more like a living thing, and the availability of capital allows people to develop new ways to do things in a more productive way. Agriculture is a great example -- for most of human history the overwhelming majority of human labor was dedicated to producing food. Now that proportion is dramatically smaller -- the descendants of farmers 100 years ago are doctors and computer programmers... professions that could not exist. Fractional reserve banking makes the economy more efficient by putting capital that would otherwise be hoarded in circulation. Money is a medium of exchange, so the more it turns over, the better it is. Genoa and Britain pioneered this concept centuries ago, and were able to defeat larger rivals in large part because of the economic advantages that the practice brought to bear. That's not to say that banking doesn't come with its warts as well. I'd suggest reading \"\"A Free Nation Deep in Debt\"\", which does a good job of explaining how we got to where we are today.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"As an addendum to PeterK's answer, once upon a time, there were many Savings and Loan Associations (S&Ls) that acted as small banks, accepting savings deposits from people and lending money for home mortgages to local residents. Some of these S&Ls were chartered Federally with deposits insured by the FSLIC (similar to the FDIC which still insures deposits in banks) while others had State charters and used the State equivalent of FSLIC as the insurer. To induce people to save with S&Ls instead of banks, S&Ls paid higher rates of interest on their savings accounts than banks were permitted to do on bank savings accounts. Until 1980, S&Ls were not permitted to make consumer or commercial loans, have checking accounts, issue credit cards, etc., but once the US Congress in its wisdom permitted this practice, this part of the business boomed. (Note for @RonJohn: Prior to 1980, S&Ls offered NOW accounts on which \\\"\\\"checks\\\"\\\" (technically, Negotiated Orders of Withdrawal) could be written but they were not checks in the legal sense, and many S&Ls did not return these paid \\\"\\\"checks\\\"\\\" with the monthly statement as all banks did; writing a \\\"\\\"check\\\"\\\" while pressing hard created a carbon copy that could be used as proof of payment). In just a few years' time, many S&Ls crashed because they were not geared to handle the complexities of the new things that they were permitted to do, and so ran into trouble with bad loans as well as outright fraud by S&L management and boards of directors etc. After the disappearance of most S&Ls, many small banks (often with State charters only) sprang up, and that's why there are so many banks in the US. Mortgage lending is a lucrative business (if done right), and everyone wants to get into the business. Note that 4 branches of Bank of America in a Florida town is not a sign of many banks; the many different banks that the OP noticed in Maine is.\\\"\",\n \"Actually it seems you are not quite correct about the number of different banks in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_and_credit_unions_in_Canada According to this link there are 82-86 banks in Canada plus credit unions. This may still be lower than what would correspond to the number of banks in the US, scaled for canadian population. One further reason not mentioned before could be that the population density in Canada outside of the metropolitan areas could be lower than in the US, leaving to few small towns large enough (10,000+ (a guess corrected due to comment)) to support a bank.\",\n \"\\\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \\\"\\\"good\\\"\\\" online service, \\\"\\\"great\\\"\\\" phone service, \\\"\\\"great\\\"\\\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \\\"\\\"walk in\\\"\\\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \\\"\\\"big bank\\\"\\\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \\\"\\\"small bank\\\"\\\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \\\"\\\"brands\\\"\\\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\\\"\",\n \"Ya small local banks effectively do not exist in Canada. We do however have a number of credit unions. I'm actually going to be defensive of the big five as they are actually well run (or rather well regulated). Our banking context is in many ways radically different up north.\",\n \"Large businesses are, in every model, considered to be less likely to default, and Lehman brothers etc notwithstanding, this is historically correct. However, this is still stupid, since the diversification of lending money to many small businesses is way better. This, in turn, is not mapped properly by the regulations on reserve capital. Tl;dr: Banks get punished by regulations if they lend money to small institutions instead of large ones.\",\n \"\\\"I can't find a citation, but from memory (EDIT: and reading the newspapers at the time it happened): up until around 1980, banks couldn't cross state borders. In my state, at least, they were also very local, only staying within one county. This was to enforce \\\"\\\"localness\\\"\\\", the thought being that local bankers would know local people and the local situation better than far away people who only see numbers and paperwork.\\\"\",\n \"Wikipedia has a good summary: Historically, branch banking in the United States - especially interstate branch banking - was viewed unfavorably by regulatory authorities, and this was codified with the enactment of the McFadden Act of 1927, which specifically prohibited interstate banking. Over the next few decades, some banks attempted to circumvent McFadden's provisions by establishing bank holding companies that operated so-called independent banks in multiple states. To address this, The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from having branches in any other state. Most interstate banking prohibitions were repealed by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Research has also found that anticompetitive state provisions restricted out-of-state growth when those provisions were more restrictive than the provisions set by the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act or by neighboring states. Some states have also had restrictive bank branch laws; for example, Illinois outlawed branches (other than the main office) until 1967, and did not allow an unlimited number until 1993.\",\n \"In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around.\",\n \"Capital requirements for a de novo bank, as opposed to an established one, are a real bitch. Basically the government wont let you loan nearly as much of your money out. You can't skirt this by buying an existing bank. Regulators don't want upstarts making stupid loans and thus encouraging lower credit criteria systemwide. Also Incumbents don't want more competition and they have lobbyists so I don't see this changing soon.\",\n \"I'd add that bigger banks tend to have experience doing more complicated things. As an example, my local credit union (~12 offices), simply didn't have the software to wire money to a Canadian bank, as where Chase did. The Canadian routing number wasn't in the format of a US institution, and their software user interface just didn't allow for that number to be entered. Also, most smaller banks don't have international toll free (in-country) numbers for foreign access. Smaller banks also tend to have less sophisticated business banking tools and experience. If you take a Treasury bond approval to a small bank, they'll generally look at you like you have three heads. So the international side of things is definitely in the favor of big banks; they have a lot more money to dump on services.\",\n \"\\\"The most succinct answer is \\\"\\\"Banks are in the Money business\\\"\\\". Not construction, not real estate, not any of the other things they may find find themselves sometimes being dragged (foreclosure) or tempted (construction) into. \\\"\\\"Money\\\"\\\" is their core competence, and as good business people they recognize that straying outside that just dilutes their focus.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Small community banks are absolutely vital to our economy. Plenty of people these days talk about \\\"\\\"buying local,\\\"\\\" but you never hear them talking about banking local. My friends, for the most part, lean left of center politically, so they constantly complain about Wal-Mart and other large brick and mortar chains, but when I called them out on their banking by asking them to pull out their debit cards, they all banked with larger banks; Chase, PNC, Key; the only person (beside myself) who didn't bank with a large national/multi - national bank uses Huntington, which is still a very large regional bank with over $100 billion in assets. They said they didn't want to have to pay ATM fees, to which I responded that many community banks will reimburse the customer for those fees up to a certain amount (like my bank does.) They just shrugged and said they liked the convenience of it, so I asked them why do they think people shop at Wal-Mart? I didn't really get a good answer to that; they just said \\\"\\\"it's different.\\\"\\\" The best way to invest in your community is to bank with a local community bank. Those mom and pop shops you love so much; the plumber who lives down the street; the micro brewery that just opened up all do their banking with the local community bank.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/06/american_bankin.html) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The importance of the unit banking laws is obvious when you consider than Canada had no bank failures during the Great Depression, despite a similar fall in NGDP. Today, that sort of decline in NGDP would wipe out virtually the entire US banking system. > The pattern is that the governments, on the one hand, protects banks in the forms of deposit insurance or government bailouts when a crisis happens, or give banks certain opportunities. > The way the governments get the banks to subsidize mortgage risk is by protecting the banks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fcfck/american_banking_socialism_or_laissezfaire/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~136658 tl;drs so far.\\\"\\\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \\\"\\\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\\\"\\\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Bank**^#1 **government**^#2 **deposit**^#3 **lend**^#4 **more**^#5\\\"\",\n \"\\\"They're over-regulated, but no sifi favors 0 regulation - that's fucking stupid and breaks the \\\"\\\"stable\\\"\\\" state of competitive universal banking. But consumers are suffering because the regulations are so fucking stupid and costly. It's a bunch of academia-branded lawyers imposing regulations on 30-50 year bankers. That wouldn't go well anywhere. Most bankers have different views - Kashkari is a Goldman guy who wants to break all the big banks up into regional competitors. If that happens, your deposits will have a higher return window, but then you actually have a daily risk to your deposits in the name of competition...I mean, fuck that.\\\"\",\n \"I would have been tempted to dismiss your claim, but the data I found shows that you're correct. On the plus side, the growth rate in credit union market share is higher in New York than it is in California. While there is no question that bankers hate credit unions, I can't tell you why credit unions have a smaller market share in NY. Maybe the regulatory environment is part of it. Banks have a big lobby, and they pay a lot of taxes in NYC.\",\n \"\\\"Nearly every country has its own exchange because so many countries have their own currency, and currency permeates every part of an exchange's business. Generally, an exchange will support transaction and settlement only in local currency. Securities (except those that explicitly enable FX trading) are denominated and will trade in a single currency-- you can only buy a share of IBM in U.S. dollars. Securities trading always seeks to be a clean, frictionless, scalable process, and adding cross-currency translation to the mix would just complicate things. So it's one exchange, one currency. In most countries, citizens and even businesses are largely restricted to having bank accounts in local currency. There are various political reasons for this, but there it is: it is difficult or impossible to open a domestic bank account in a foreign-denominated currency. A public company headquartered in a given country will be required to publish financial statements in local currency, will be more likely to do business with the local citizenry and businesses in that currency, and so will likely look for investors from that same pool-- which generally means listing in local currency, which means on an exchange in that country. There are exceptions, of course. Big multinationals do business all over the world, and many seek investors all over the world as well. Mechanisms have been created to permit this (American Depositary Receipts or ADRs, for example). But once again, cross-currency translation makes things more complicated, so ADRs and their like are only practical for very big international players. As to why there may be many exchanges in a single country, IMO Nick R has it right. Read \\\"\\\"Flash Boys\\\"\\\"; many market makers profit from trading between exchanges, and so have an interest in there being many of them. And in the U.S., regulators have expressed an interest in \\\"\\\"innovation\\\"\\\" in the exchange space, and so permit them. There is also an argument to be made against having a single \\\"\\\"Too Big To Fail\\\"\\\" exchange just like the argument for banks, but I wouldn't call that a \\\"\\\"reason\\\"\\\" for the current state of affairs.\\\"\",\n \"In Scotland, each bank issues its own separate notes. It's not uncommon to see identical-valued £10 notes, for example, from three different banks in one's wallet.\",\n \"There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!\",\n \"How can banks be expected to make good decisions when they are not responsible for creating their own reserve? Do you think that the banking system could run without FDIC? And why? And what is your opinion on local banking vs. big corp banking?\",\n \"Well, it seems you can't answer the question. Perhaps the difference in types of banks isn't so dry, is it, you dumb fuck. But go ahead an double down on being an ignorant idiot who thinks he knows it all. If you get into politics it will serve you well.\",\n \"But what creates more business owners? They don't pop up out of the ground, and there are always lots of people that want to make their own business. Businesses need capital, they need startup funds. Angel investors, VCs and banks provide the capital.\",\n \"http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:\",\n \"No, what I'm saying is that the extant regulations have created such massive overheads to compliance that *only* big businesses can operate in that market because of the expenses required to be compliant. Eliminating that overhead would reduce expenses and make it possible for a greater diversity of firms to exist, reducing the *average size of any individual firm*, and increasing stability through diversity.\",\n \"\\\"In the US, this was the case during the 19th century. There was a system of \\\"\\\"subscriptions\\\"\\\" between banks, where larger banks backed the smaller banks to some extent. In trade, notes from distant banks were not accepted or discounted relative to known local banks, or silver/gold coinage. There were a number of problems with this system which came to a head during the Panic of 1907. During this crisis, a cascading series of banking failures was only stopped by the personal intervention of JP Morgan. Even when Morgan intervened, it was very difficult to make capital available in a way that avoided the panic. The subsequent creation of the Federal Reserve was a response to that crisis.\\\"\",\n \"When the market isn't allowed to favor one currency (provider) over another, there must be a central authority with the power to regulate, provide, and insure it. People don't learn the dangers of fractional reserve banking and the resulting expansions and contractions of the money supply when the providers of the currency aren't allowed to fall, taking the savings of depositors with them. Insuring people against the dangers of mismanaged money guarantees the mismanagement of money.\",\n \"> Conglomerates have no interest in gaining control of tiny businesses through loan collateral. Yes they do, at least in China. China has very low farm labor productivity by developed nations status. Agribusiness would be very profitable in China. **The reason why it's in check is because it would make hundreds of millions of farmers redundant**, so the government prevents the industry from encroaching too much.\",\n \"Yeah, and what blows my mind most is that there was a very easy out for regulatory relief that would have actually brought us closer to compliance with BCBS rules. In the US the threshold for Basel rules is $50B in assets, while under Basel III and in most of the world its €250B. Just adopting this standard would give small banks relief. As an aside, the new law would also make it harder for the Fed to adopt the Basel III finalization rules, which are incredibly advantageous to US banks and which we fought hard for.\",\n \"The Livret A is a very specific product. It's tax-exempt and would historically not be available through regular banks. Commercial banks can now offer it but they only collect the money on behalf of the Caisse des dépôts (CDC). The CDC then pays interest to the savers and a commission for the bank. The commission is baked into the system, not charged to the customer directly but since the interest rate is set centrally, banks cannot compete on that. So this is risk-free money for them (but on the flip side it does not help them meet capital adequacy requirements). Other savings account or products have different rules. Another angle to consider is that a livret A was historically very attractive for consumers (and was certainly perceived as such) so that many people would have a checking account at a regular bank and another account at the Caisse d'épargne or the Banque postale just to open a livret A. For commercial banks, the alternative therefore isn't having your money on your checking account vs. your livret A or another savings account, it was having your money on a livret A they administer vs. seeing you run away to another institution. There is also a cap on the livret A and you're not allowed to save more money by opening several of them at different banks. At the same time banks have been complaining that the decrease of the interest rate (and consequently of their commission) makes the whole scheme a lot less interesting for them. For what it's worth, I recently (re)opened a bank account in France after living abroad for a long time and the customer advisor did not seem particularly interested in pushing a livret A.\",\n \"It's not too difficult. Every state has a few local banks that don't do this shit and with new current technology most have apps and allow you to deposit money without going to the bank itself. Yeah you don't have an ATMs everywhere but the need for ATMs deacreses each year. My local bank will even refunds me ATM charges up to 100$ a year.\",\n \"Part 1 Quite a few [or rather most] countries allow USD account. So there is no conversion. Just to illustrare; In India its allowed to have a USD account. The funds can be transfered as USD and withdrawn as USD, the interest is in USD. There no conversion at any point in time. Typically the rates for CD on USD account was Central Bank regulated rate of 5%, recently this was deregulated, and some banks offer around 7% interest. Why is the rate high on USD in India? - There is a trade deficit which means India gets less USD and has to pay More USD to buy stuff [Oil and other essential items]. - The balance is typically borrowed say from IMF or other countries etc. - Allowing Banks to offer high interest rate is one way to attract more USD into the country in short term. [because somepoint in time they may take back the USD out of India] So why isn't everyone jumping and making USD investiments in India? - The Non-Residents who eventually plan to come back have invested in USD in India. - There is a risk of regulation changes, ie if the Central Bank / Country comes up pressure for Forex Reserves, they may make it difficut to take back the USD. IE they may impose charges / taxes or force conversion on such accounts. - The KYC norms make it difficult for Indian Bank to attract US citizens [except Non Resident Indians] - Certain countries would have explicit regulations to prevent Other Nationals from investing in such products as they may lead to volatility [ie all of them suddenly pull out the funds] - There would be no insurance to foreign nationals. Part 2 The FDIC insurance is not the reason for lower rates. Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes. The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid. Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury. So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail]. Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well. Part 3 Check out the regulations\",\n \"Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low. Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account. The bank must maintain branches with tellers. The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities). The bank has to pay salaries. The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change. And pay for insurance against robbery. All of that costs money. At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money. Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out. At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin. They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts. An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees. But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable. So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead. UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed.\",\n \"Exactly what kind of regulations are you talking about here? Regulation in the form of licensing for doctors and lawyers is one thing, but what are you implying in regulation stopping competition for other types of business? As for the profit, I would say there are a lot of contributing factors, Globalization being a big one. Edit: No need to downvote, just asking for clarification...\",\n \"Because people who work with practical skills work for their own means, and not for corporations. The banks are HEAVILY invested in Corporations. The banks are also HEAVILY invested in debt. Our entire system is orchestrated by the banks. They want a workforce that is highly specialized and in debt- this ensures that they are entirely dependent on Corporate jobs for money to pay debts and on big agro for their food.... It's all a trap. Any one want to blow off the Corporations and go live/work directly for our own needs on a homestead/commune farm?\",\n \"\\\"The problem is \\\"\\\"what would have been\\\"\\\" without regulations. A good cause and effect is the Durbin amendment to DFA - they randomly regulated interchange debit card transactions (win for Walmart, loss for banks) so it no longer makes sense to offer free checking to poor people. WMT wins, banking loses, poor people lose. The other issue is maxing out regulations actually makes the system more frail as it promotes consolidation in the sector. Consultants love it - tons of free, easy, no thought work.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"because bankers are crooks is a very close answer. Just accept the truth that financial industry is the only service industry that could turn into giant parasite chopping pieces from real economy. I am not anti-financial, because greed is not banker's fault, but just one significant part of human nature. Every human being has greed and fear built in it. But financial industry is the only one which is built on exploiting greed and fear. Governments are throwing gasoline canister into that fire in desperate extinguish attempts, trying to \\\"\\\"regulate\\\"\\\" but only making it worse. With all that \\\"\\\"counter-cybercrime\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"counter-terrorism\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"counter-everything\\\"\\\" efforts, ordinary people will be hurt as always.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This is unfortunately the truth, and I spend a lot of time with my clients trying to help them through this process. One of the key metrics that banks judge themselves on is \\\"\\\"products per household.\\\"\\\" The more things you have attached to them, the less likely you are to leave, and they deliberately tie you in with more and more services, e.g. direct deposit, billpay, debit cards, credit cards, etc. If you want to switch but are held back by the daunting task of all the stuff you need to do, it's easier than most people think, and bankers at those smaller banks who are getting your accounts should be more than happy to do about 80% of the work for you. *The other 20% can only be done by you personally due to privacy laws, but your banker can guide you through that too. A prime example: A customer of mine wanted to switch, but he didn't want to go to the old bank to actually wait in line and go through with the nonsense of actually closing the account. I see that anxiety over confrontation a lot, by the way. So I have saved on my desktop a form letter is a simple request by the customer to close their account at 2B2F bank. They sign it, I notarize it, and send it off to the branch. The branch of receipt has to close the account per the request. Before we send that letter, we get everything set up with the new bank, draw the old one down to $10 or so, and give instructions to the old bank to remit a check payable to the customer and mail it to me. Then the old account is closed, and I just deposit that nominal amount into the customer's account. The customer literally never has to set foot in the old bank again. The unfortunate thing is that not everyone knows that these kinds of things are even possible: that your banker should help you with this stuff, or that you can do pretty much everything remotely. Plus, if you look at the smaller banks and CUs these days, they have eliminated the need or ubiquity (i.e. \\\"\\\"but their ATMs are everywhere!\\\"\\\") because a good bank or CU will never allow you to get charged to get your money, they will give you the direct line and email address of your branch manager, and a lot of places have mobile apps that allow you to deposit checks remotely.\\\"\",\n \"There is absolutely no logical reason why each nation does not own and control banking and thus the supply of money. Any system including the financial system works exactly the same way, regardless of ownership. Banking depends solely on the confidence of the customers/investors. Therefore when a sovereign nation/state has ownership of the banks, the profits are kept in-house, within the nation, which is actually a bonus, and taxes can be off-set by profits, which is another benefit. Any improvement or benefit by the private ownership of banking is a total myth.\",\n \"Another thing to factor in are deals provided by banks. In general, banks care about new customers more than their existing customers. Hence they explicitly restrict the best deals on credit cards, savings accounts, etc, to new customers only. (Of course, there are occasionally good deals for existing customers, and some banks choose not to discriminate.) If you have many different bank accounts, you are making yourself unavailable for switching bonuses and introductory rates.\",\n \"Many of the Financial intermediaries in the business, have extraordinary high requirements for opening an account. For example to open an account in Credit Suisse one will need 1 million US dollars.\",\n \"\\\"Traditional banks don't put their money onto the stock markets. In fact, the economic crisis was in part caused by the fact that banks were placing money into higher-risk portfolios and doing just that: in the UK there has been a debate for the last few years specifically around \\\"\\\"firewalling\\\"\\\" retail and investment bank operations entirely. What I was discussing was in the retail/consumer sector where the money comes in as mortgages & secured loans and - slightly riskier - unsecured credit, credit cards, etc. In that model, you do not need to be a genius. If I lend you $20k to buy a car and you don't repay me my money plus 8%, I get the car and therefore am unlikely to be seriously out of pocket. The only thing I have to do is make sure I lend to people likely to repay more often than I do to those who will not. And that, well, that's something we've got a few hundred years of experience with... If I walk onto the NYSE and start throwing around my cash at put option on exotic FX markets that are in turn responding to conditions almost impossible to truly understand, well, I'm sure we'd agree that it's hard to beat the market. That's why the investment banks who specialise in that market don't invest their own money: they make money from investing other people's cash. Clever guys. So we need to understand here there are two very different kinds of banks, with two very different business models, and it was the mixing of them that led to the disaster we've seen. Firewalling them makes sense to me! Communists who think banks are making money out of thin air don't seem to understand that, and so it's not surprising that they seem confused about what a bank is actually there for. Those who do get these two models must see that a retail bank is there to provide finance based on savings held and investment banks are there to help people invest in riskier markets. That does not mean they are \\\"\\\"magic\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"evil\\\"\\\". Now, they might argue that fractional reserve banking is a problem. I would imagine many of them would prefer the credit union model instead, but that's a different debate: that's the mechanics and detail, not the institutional need for existence.\\\"\",\n \"Note that this is just looking at public firms, whose numbers have declined while the overall number of firms has increased. It would be interesting to compare their profits to GDP, that might be a better measure to find out whether profits are more concentrated than they used to be. Also note: > However, what could indeed be a deterrent—especially for smaller companies—is that the US Congress wields far more regulatory power over public companies than private ones, note the authors.\",\n \"Although I do not know about US Institutions; In India Banks have adopted a mix of features that mitigate the risk. Some ways that are used are;\",\n \"I'm always hesitant to use local credit unions because I love accessing all atms fee free, having services available 24/7, having robust, safe and audited online services, and having a big enough bank that all major third party tools interface with it. Joe Schmo Local Credit Union has a lot of good services, but audited and secure online banking? No fee nationwide ATMs? Native interfacing to major tools? I just don't see it often. I shudder to think of the security at small bank websites, frankly.\",\n \"Since making loans isn't 'casino banking', I'm going to start a small, regional lending institution that just lends money to people to buy homes. I really want to open up home ownership to a larger group of people, maybe those who wouldn't qualify for traditional loans. I'm just not sure whether to call it Washington Federal or Countrywide Financial.\",\n \"\\\"This is 100% accurate: \\\"\\\"Conversely, an industry with two or three firms can be more competitive than one with 50, such as supermarkets or online platforms like Uber where economies of scale can enhance competition between fewer but healthier players. The last 40-plus years of economic research is clear: Simply counting the number of firms in an industry tells you very little about competition.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"For small amounts I wouldn't be too concerned. There are two factors I can think of: For relatively small amounts and when dealing with reputable banking institutions there should be little concern of banking with a single bank. It's what most people do.\",\n \"Financial Aid - the government gives you better interest rates and is a better lender. Credit Cards - are for idiots. Mortgage and Loans - Credit Unions give a much better deal. They actually re-invest in the community. You can take you big banks and shove em' up your ass.\",\n \"\\\"First off, I originally brought up Wells Fargo to show that big banks may not want to open the floodgates for lower level employees and management to have free reign to profit off customers in less than responsible ways. I didn't mean or want to get into a debate about past govt. oversight of Wells Fargo's practices. [But to your point:](https://www.housingwire.com/articles/39782-cordray-answers-charges-that-cfpb-didnt-take-lead-on-wells-fargo-scandal) >He explained that the bureau first received a whistleblower tip in July 2013. The exposé by the LA Times wasn’t published until December. > >Cordray did add that the LA Times coverage was a “splendid piece of investigative reporting” and that investigative reporting often aides government investigations. > >After that first whistleblower tip, Cordray explained that the Wells Fargo case over time grew into something bigger. > >As the CFPB watched Wells Fargo through 2014 and 2015 in supervisory activity, it became clear the situation was serious enough to migrate into an enforcement action, he said. I'm not sure what you're talking about here: >And what are you talking about freedom to \\\"\\\"compete\\\"\\\" against the big guys? What are you even talking about and how is that freedom threatened? I'm saying they *will* have freedom to compete in ways that may have negative impact on clients who have chosen to move their investments from bigger banks to smaller ones. As for the list of \\\"\\\"positives\\\"\\\" you gave surrounding this bill, [there are also negatives:](http://fortune.com/2017/06/07/financial-choice-act/) >Congress this week is considering the Choice Act, which would roll back regulations enacted after the 2007 financial crisis, particularly those designed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Yet, the legislation goes even further and limits consumer access to information that could help them make better choices. > >One of the hallmarks of conservative regulatory philosophy is that educated and empowered consumers are preferable to government bureaucrats, regulations, and prohibitions. Yet, the conservatives in the House of Representatives appears ready to pass the CHOICE Act this week and in the process legally prohibit publishing data the government collects on consumer complaints on financial services. This is a mistake and would cost consumers and businesses. It would also go against the universal values of fair markets and informed consumers. But [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/business/dealbook/house-financial-regulations-dodd-frank.html) is what I find most concerning: >The bill would also eliminate the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, which requires brokers to act in the best interest of their clients when providing investment advice about retirement. The first parts of the rule are scheduled to go into effect on Friday. The rule was completed last spring under Mr. Obama after years of development. My point, before you started arguing something different, was that larger banks often *need* the oversight conducted by their customers and the government in order to help them nip bad practices in the bud before it becomes a much larger issue. This may not be as much of an issue for smaller banks, but in the end, they all deal in the same industry and present the same danger to their customers if things go bad and employees don't take their intrinsic fiduciary responsibility seriously.\\\"\",\n \"Good read. I do wish there were more stats on the issues associated with geographic concentration touched upon in the article. For example, how are the economic gains of being in an urbanized environment mitigated by the costs associated with traffic jams, urban poverty and crime? What would happen to the economy of the US if those inefficient small cities kept declining, how would it have to change?\",\n \"How do credit unions work in the US? Why not just get rid of deposit insurance for commercial banks and keep it for credit unions. Restrict credit unions ability to filter money to the new 'investment bank' sector by keeping them out of repo and money markets (not sure if this is done currently) and bang - Corporates/institutions can still lend short and banks can still lend long in the professional world, while unsophisticated retail customer's checking accounts at least are protected from the inevitable crash.\",\n \"\\\"In the United States, many banks aim to receive $ 100 per year per account in fees and interest markup. There are several ways that they can do this on a checking account. These examples assume that there is a 3 % difference between low-interest-rate deposit accounts and low-interest rate loans. Or some combination of these markups that adds up to $ 100 / year. For example: A two dollar monthly fee = $ 24 / year, plus a $ 2,000 average balance at 0.05% = $ 29 / year, plus $ 250 / month in rewards debit card usage = $ 24 / year, plus $ 2 / month in ATM fees = $ 24 / year. Before it was taken over by Chase Manhattan in 2008, Washington Mutual had a business strategy of offering \\\"\\\"free\\\"\\\" checking with no monthly fees, no annual fees, and no charges (by Washington Mutual) for using ATMs. The catch was that the overdraft fees were not free. If the customers averaged 3 overdraft fees per year at $ 34 each, Washington Mutual reached its markup target for the accounts.\\\"\",\n \"Another reason is that the amount of unused credit you have is a positive factor on your credit score. It's generally easier to open several different accounts for $X dollars each with different banks than to get your current bank to raise your limit severalfold in a single go. Your current bank has to worry about why you suddenly are asking for a large additional amount of credit; while other banks will be willing to offer you smaller amounts of credit in the hope that you transfer your business from your current bank to them.\",\n \">I would imagine that given any lack of compulsory regulation, that Americans are using whatever means of payment that suits them. I'd agree, it's almost entirely about competition and consumer protections in areas like banking outside of the US rather than compulsory regulation pushing people to use particular approaches. I run a company in the UK, processing cheques is expensive and awkward (its a manual process, it costs money at basically all points of the process and is more likely to result in a failed payment) for me compared to almost every other method of payment, so I prefer (and actively encourage) the use of electronic payments instead. I can do that because my bank doesn't charge extra for processing electronic payments, in fact it's now cheaper to process them than cheques. That also makes sense from the banks perspective given it costs more money for them to maintain, offer and process cheque payments (to the point that they are already essentially converting them into electronic payments by scanning..). It's not Americans being backward, it's US banks. I doubt that if you had safe, secure, cheap and reliable electronic payment facilities, with the same level of protection and control as with a cheque, most Americans would take the same approach as they do elsewhere (After all, its convenient..).\",\n \"A typical manufacturer buys raw materials, produces a product using labor and energy at a specific cost with some waste, and then sells the product to produce income. A bank buys raw materials (deposits) by paying interest, then uses labor and energy to turn a portion of the raw materials into their product (loans), they then receive income (interest) on those loans. If the income exceeds the cost to buy and produce the loans taking into account losses due to delinquencies (waste) the bank company has made a profit. The growing profits can lead to an increase in stock prices or the paying of dividends. The search for more raw materials can lead to paying more for the raw materials, or by buying other factories (branches) or even other bank companies.\",\n \"> accessing all atms fee free, having services available 24/7, having robust, safe and audited online services, and having a big enough bank that all major third party tools interface with it. You just described my single state credit union I've been with for 19 years now, and not the big bank I was with before (Wells Fargo).\",\n \"Subsidies are anti-competitice practices. Its the government picking winners and losers over the market's preference. Just like onerous regulations. Smaller companies aren't able to hire the overhead required to keep up with them, and are therefore fined out of existences due to this countries staggering regulatory burden.\",\n \"Yeah, seriously. Cheating your customers has always been part of the core business of the major banks. How would they maintain their high CEO compensation without that extra money? They need to be competitive in executive level compensation to attract the kind of candidates that will keep their bank pulling in the money needed to pay themselves.\",\n \"Modern banking is operated under central banking which is critical for maintaing a stable keynsian economy. Without central banking the economy is prone to the boom and bust cycle typical of early twentieth industrialization. Our money is not backed by 'nothing' it is backed by the faith and credit of the governments issuing them. Private banks don't issue anything. What fractional reserve banking does is say that for ever X amount of dollars you have in your vaults you can make Y amount of loans. This ratio is set by the central bank in what is called the reserve ratio. If the Fed sets the reserve ratio at 10% and they know the US economy has $10 trillion in circulation than $100 trillion dollars is going to eventually emerge through fractional reserve banking. This explains inflation. Of course the central bank could also raise the reserve ratio forcing banks to call in existing loans. This is deflation. Now if you're a bank and have $1 million dollars in the bank, a reserve ratio of 10% means you can make up to $10 million in loans without getting in trouble with the Fed. If the bank makes $10 million in loans and only recuperate $9 million in loans than they fall below the 10% reserve rate ratio and become insolvent, prior to 2008 these banks would go bankrupt, but the Fed has evolved it's roll into either bailing a bank out for it to recover and learn from it's mistakes or to let it go bankrupt. All people's deposits at these banks however are safe up to $250,000 thanks to the FDIC to protect from bank runs typical of the early twentieth century that intensified boom and bust cycles. Please don't bring in the Federal Reserve into this unless you want me to prove how stupid you are even more. I'm poor broke college student with nothing better to do with my time than to win internet arguments right now, you can't win. **Too stupid, didn't read: banks need to make successful loans or they go out of business, they don't create anything out of thin air. They just listen to whatever the central bank tells them what to do.**\",\n \"\\\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \\\"\\\"small cap\\\"\\\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\\\"\",\n \"Pay attention to nickel-and-dime charges (atm fees, low balance fees, limit on atm transactions per month, charge for human teller transaction, charge for paper statements or tax records). Consider that a financial company will spend on the order of $100-500 to sign up a good customer. Are you getting this in a cash bonus, competitive high interest rate, reasonable other gift, or advertising directed at your eyeballs? A variation in rates less than 1% easily fits into a marketing cost and there doesn't have to be any other magic to it.\",\n \"\\\"The real reason credit cards are so popular in the US is that Americans are lazy and broke, and the credit card companies know how to market to that. Have you ever heard of the $30k millionaires? These were individuals that purchased as if they were some of the wealthy elite, but had no real money to back it up. American society has pushed the idea of \\\"\\\"living on credit\\\"\\\" for quite some time now. An idea that is even furthered by watching the US government operate solely on credit. (Raise the debt ceiling much?) Live in America for more than six months and you will be bombarded with \\\"\\\"Pre-Approved Deals\\\"\\\" with low introductory rates that are designed to sucker the average consumer into opening multiple accounts that they don't need. Then, they try and get you to carry a balance by allowing low minimum payments that could take in the neighborhood of 20 years to pay off, depending on carried balance. This in turn pads the credit companies' pockets with all of the interest you now pay on the account. The few truly wealthy Americans do not purchase on credit.\\\"\",\n \"How often do you need to actually go to a bank? atm's, debit and credit cards work where ever. you can even deposit checks by taking a picture of them. dealing with cash would be more troublesome though.\",\n \"The one those investors said 'hey instead of pricing Tesla 10 years out, we will pool in and create jobs, by founding a $5b bank with locations nationwide'. I use them because they give great rates at places I shop. Such as if I buy a new tv from that new company founded by that hedge fund that pulled out of netflixes 10 year pricing and started an electronics firm I save 25%!!\",\n \"Stop defending banks. At the time of the 08 melt down, they opened up multiple ways for large financial institutions to borrow money either for collateral (usually shit assets) or with interest rates akin to free or near free. Do you know what that means? Free money. Borrow money for free, buy treasuries and profit. Who didn't have access? Those that didn't have the inside track in the Fed and in the upper levels of the U.S. government. That's why Lehman went under and Goldman, JPM, even GE (due to finance division) didn't go under. Far far too many people upvote pro corporate comments when they aren't even remotely accurate just because their worldview is that the world is just. How silly.\",\n \"Idk why Banks are so opposed to holding just a bit more capital. It helps them avoid becoming suddenly insolvent should something happen. It's like they only care about personal short term gain and care little about being in the game for the long term.\",\n \"Quite the opposite, crony capitalism has caused all of these problems. Big cable? Subsidized. Big oil? Subsidized. Big banks? Bailed out. And the tax code changes they're putting through now, why do you suppose this is being done? The US has the highest statutory corporate rate in the developed world, on small and large businesses. This is anti-competitive because in order avoid steep rates you need to hire big teams of tax lawyers, accountants, and other overhead to handle the paperwork and manage liability for you. Not only that, but its to the point now where most business decisions are not undertaken with the heath of the company in mind, but with great consideration to how it will effect the company's tax liability.\",\n \"They don't need to accept deposits from normal persons, but that's how they make lots of money. Banks make money off the fees they charge retailers when those folks swipe their debit cards at the retailer. It's their bread and butter. In order to facilitate you accruing swipe fees for them, they need to allow you to make deposits, on which they can charge the retailers swipe fees.\",\n \"On your first point, banks (or any large company) is primarily concerned with maintaining profits. I'm very familiar with this dynamic in media with broadcast vs streaming. They will try hard to charge as much as possible to sustain the stock price, while competitors will be as aggressive as possible to capture market share. This always happens with every industry that gets disrupted. The new entrants will permanently eat away at bank profits, whether they adapt or not. No comment on your second point. Possibly true, but I don't personally assume that yet.\",\n \"I mean, when the federal government can pull your bank charter and the FDIC can revoke your government insurance, it's not worth the benefit just to support some small town pot grower. It's likely to be this way until the federal government legalizes it or gives outright approval to the banks.\",\n \"Banking is highly regulated, but you may want to have a look at Basel II which is kind of an international standard on how to create banking regulations. Your country/state may have considered this when creating its own local regulation; the United States do.\",\n \"\\\"I agree -- personally, at the expense of some of the convenience you speak of, I use credit unions exclusively. However, my credit union more than makes up for that with 1) online check deposit (only thing you ever need to go to a bank for) 2) ATM fee reimbursement With those two amenities, I don't need a branch on every corner. I am pretty disappointed with BofA's practices (profiting off of those who are \\\"\\\"less responsible\\\"\\\" -- to me it's wrong to profit off of people's 'stupidity'), so I would never bank with them. It's just a personal preference because 1) I don't need them and 2) I wouldn't want to indirectly support their business. I can understand why people stick with them, and frankly don't really care, to be honest... I just think they're a fundamentally bad company through and through and would rather keep my money away from them.\\\"\",\n \"> The vast majority of companies in the US are small businesses This is a fairly useless measure. Example: Imagine if there was one company that hired 1 billion people. And 99 companies that hired 1 person each. You can now say that 99% of companies are small businesses. Which is true, but 99.9999999% of people don't work for a small business, they work for a large business. The small businesses are inconsequential.\",\n \"\\\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \\\"\\\"reserve\\\"\\\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \\\"\\\"The Fed\\\"\\\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \\\"\\\"run\\\"\\\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \\\"\\\"bank\\\"\\\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\\\"\",\n \"There are several reasons why credit cards are popular in the US: On the other hand, debit cards do not have any of these going for them. A debit card doesn't make much money for the bank unless you overdraw or something, so banks don't have incentive to push you to use them as much. As a result they don't offer rewards other benefits. Some people say the ability to spend more than you have is a downside of a credit card. But it's really an upside. The behavior of doing that when it isn't needed is bad, but that's not the card's fault, it's the users'. You can get a credit card with a very small limit if this is an issue for you. The question I find interesting is why debit cards are more popular in your home country. I can't think of any advantage they offer besides free cash back. But most people in the US don't use cash much either. I have to think in your home country the banks have a different revenue model or perhaps your country isn't as eager to offer tons of easy credit to everyone as the US is.\",\n \"Go to bankrate dot com. They will have a lot of metrics there that might give you an idea and rate each category. Capitalization and profitability metrics. May not be as granular as what you are looking for though.\",\n \"The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades. The risks would be large.\",\n \"Politicians are for sale and regulations are useless when they are not enforced. Community banks and credit unions have to comply or get hammered by the state and federal governments. The mega banks soldier on under an utterly feckless and corrupt congress. People should never pay fees or credit card interest, pay off their loans, and get out from under banker's thumbs. They are giant impoverishing machines.\",\n \"All unsubstantiated opinions. >there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans Really. No relation whatsoever? And your background in finance letting you understand this is what? Are you telling me every bank of the [7,213](http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/) independent banks are in cahoots and none of them compete based on prices and services? Can you give me precise evidence that all those independent banks are not in competition? What should the price be for capital if the current prices are incorrect, and tell me why.\",\n \"The best answer is, I think, also the simplest: A bank is an entity which performs maturity transformation. (Conversely, any entity that performs maturity transformation is acting as a bank, regardless of whether it is called one or is regulated as one. And an entity which does not perform maturity transformation isn't really a bank.) Maturity transformation is the process by which a bank accepts short-term deposits, and makes long-term loans. The benefit to society is fairly obvious; we (collectively) like being able to take out mortgages, but we also like having our money in a checking account and available on demand. Banks allow this to happen, although property bubbles and similar make it clear that this isn't without cost. (Note: Central banks are a completely different kettle of fish.)\",\n \"\\\"The bank provides a service that the customer voluntarily agreed to - the bank will provide funds to the customer now and the customer will pay back those funds plus interest in the future. The arragement wasn't forced onto the customer. The government, on the other hand, takes money (the exchange is not volutary) from people to provide a \\\"\\\"service\\\"\\\". This frustrates a lot of people - myself included - since people do not have a choice. They must pay the taxes or go to jail (or have their house confisicated, wages garnished, etc.). It gets even more frustrating when the government takes money from the people and gives it to the banks, auto companies, insurance companies, etc..\\\"\",\n \"The big box retailers weren't really a monopoly. It was just a better business model. There were many of them and they were very competitive with each other (we'll match our competitor's price). Many of them even went out of business because the profits were driven down to such low levels.\",\n \"The core competency of banks is to lend money from depositors and re-lend that money to borrowers. They do not have the expertise to develop real estate. They have trouble evening managing foreclosed real estate, such that they have to sell them at a discount.\",\n \"Many reasons mentioned already. The reason why I have multiple is missing: I have a personal card for my private use and a company card for company use.\",\n \"My favorite part about using a local credit union is, if I have an account issue, I can just call up and talk to someone who works five minutes from my house without *ever* punching numbers into an automated answering system. Good luck doing that with Bank of America.\",\n \"It's the equivalent of you being required to keep some of your savings in a near-zero percent interest savings account vs. being able to invest and grow that capital. Even if the capital requirements were peeled back slightly, (most) banks still hold more than enough capital to absorb extreme losses. Net/net the economy is safer, but less robust than it could be.\",\n \"In the US, I would say the risk is exactly the same. If your accounts are withing the FDIC amount (currently $250,000) your balance is 100% covered in case of a failure. You are giving up a larger network of ATMs in some cases. You are also perhaps giving up the number of branches you can visit, the hours the bank is open and maybe how well the website works. The features might be less, but the protection for your deposits is the same.\",\n \">No, it's not. The bank can't just jack up prices when they've got competitors, after all. Yeah, you don't understand how this stuff works. The cost of changing banks is so high most people just grumble and eat it. It took a *massive* national campaign to switch to Credit Unions and *still* only 250K people did. >Again, if the bank has even one competitor who didn't suffer as much or any damage, customers aren't just going to suck it up. Again, wrong. >I'm not remotely an anarchist No wonder you seem to be somewhat more reasonable than most of them I've spoken to. >Brute force supports the existing regime. That's basically it. And the *image* that this is legitimate is what allows them to wield force without retribution.\",\n \"\\\"In the US, usury is complicated and depends on the type of account, the bank charter and the where the bank makes credit decisions. Most major US credit cards are issued by entities in Utah, South Dakota and Delaware. None of these states have usury limits. Many states have usury limits. In New York, for example a loan may not exceed 16% interest, if the institution is supervised by the State. Credit card issuers are usually chartered as \\\"\\\"National Associations\\\"\\\" (ie Federally chartered banks regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency). There is no Federal usury statute, and Federally chartered banks are allowed to \\\"\\\"export\\\"\\\" many of the regulations of the state where credit decisions are made. Small states like South Dakota basically design their banking regulations to meet the needs of the banks, which are major employers.\\\"\",\n \"And a large part of these kind of phenomenon that we see between the US and Europe just emerge from little initial differences which then carry out and compound themselves over time. For example, in the US, most people get their health insurance from the company they work for, because during WWII, the government obviously instituted a draft. But what is not as obvious, is that to keep wages low to keep the price of goods low, they insituted a wage freeze. The only way companies could compete and incentivize workers was through ancillary benefits. Health insurance being the most appealing.\",\n \"maybe it would turn into an Oligopoly on it's own, but regulation as that pervasive is what I'm trying to avoid here. I advocate Worker Co-ops as the best examples for these firms because they actually allow a sense of welfare taken up by the workers who can self provide with actual trades (and because their co-ownership allows a voluntary loophole in minimum wage laws, you get a real chance to vindicate/prove Adam Smith's theory of flexible prices and wages based on economic activity.). With self-provided welfare, the Government can pull out of both transfer payments as well as financial regulations because these markets have become more differentiated to a diversity of opinions, so Government can step back and focus on its more important role of Researcher and Developer, which it tends to do better at than other roles. Firms can't do this if they are breaking even, like they would in perfect competition.\",\n \"Here's a point in favor of central banks: With a central bank in the middle making sure payments clear, transactions can happen with near perfect trust. When a bank has a daylight overdraft, the Fed covers it. When a bank needs overnight funding, the Fed provides it. If a bank needs vault cash, a truck shows up from the Fed. Without this, no one could ever be entirely confident the other party was money-good. With a volume of transactions that can amount to annual GDP in as little as six days, this level of trust is critical to a smoothly functioning system of payments.\",\n \"The principles behind creating and keeping those entities are reasonable, civilized, and economically sound. That being said, after seeing what the practical application became, I can't say I disagree with you. It might be a failed experiment at this point. The racial angle at the end cheapens your argument, though.\",\n \"Suppose that the fixed overhead costs of delivering a service, not related to the actual volume of sales, are $50 million per year. Suppose the variable costs on top are $100 per customer per year. Suppose further that 1% of the population buys the service. In the US, 3.2 million people buy the service, and it costs $116 per person to deliver it ($100 plus $50 million divided by 3.2 million). In Australia, 230,000 people buy it, and it costs $317 per person per year to deliver it ($100 plus $50 million divided by 230,000). The larger your market, the cheaper everything is, and Australia is a very small market compared with the USA, the EU, China or India.\",\n \"This is not a supply side issue (bank), but a demand side (small business) and there is simply no demand. Bank CEOs have been repeating that there is just no interest in borrowing right now, they would love to lend, but businesses are not taking the loans. Businesses are trying to firm up their balance sheets and with concerns of a recession looming most small business owners don't want to borrow and risk defaulting.\",\n \"If a 08 crash and bailout happens again anytime soon I don't know if the banks will get to keep control this time around. Their power is directly related to the amount of capital they have and there are enough in Congress that see them as not being loyal enough to front the political capital required to refill the coffers if it is needed. I see the next bailout being the fed making a nationalization attempt.\",\n \"Right. A banker provides a product/service, whether it be liquidity or something else, for a premium. The Rothschilds, for example (I'm only familiar with them because I like their wine), are typical examples of some of the first bankers of the modern era-- they provided the ability to exchange currencies at a market value, and it made them one of the wealthiest families of the modern world. If someone doesn't like banks, then let them walk onto the NYSE and make their own investment decisions. Which is a terrible idea because it's statistically almost impossible to beat the market. If you wanted to be able to prove that you are a successful investor you would have to have higher earnings than a market portfolio every day for around 180 years, in order to have a T-statistic of about 2.0.\",\n \"> The racial angle at the end cheapens your argument, though. Thanks for pointing that out. Removed race and replaced with 'low income families' > The principles behind creating and keeping those entities are reasonable, civilized, and economically sound I disagree 100%. If banks did not have a big brother to bail them out of loans that went bust whenever they wanted, they would be a lot more careful in who they loaned money too. No one is promised a house and a lawn in this life. Some of us will be renters in apartments for life, and there is nothing wrong with that.\",\n \"\\\"Not at these rates. The motto used to be 3/6/3: \\\"\\\"Borrow at 3%, Loan out at 6%, and then be at the golf course by 3pm\\\"\\\". So they get 3% on the spread, minus fixed costs. Now, they borrow at near 0% and loan out at slightly above 0%. Those fixed costs starts becoming an issue. It isn't cheap to have all these ATMs, bank branches, tellers, computer systems, etc. Also, a lot of the money cannot be loaned out at all because there are not enough creditworthy borrowers. You might have recalled a few months ago, several banks started charging for deposits. They don't want more money that will just lay there while they have to pay the costs of maintaining the accounts. Some bank CEOs have stated that they would be better off if the Fed raised rates up to 1%.\\\"\",\n \"Your quote: There's about 10 trillion in gold and about 2.8 trillion of US cash in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world. So how was it commercial banks could lend like crazy for home mortgages?? M1 remaind constant throughout the decade and years , if frac multiplier effect was the cause for m2, why wasn't it until the 2000s that m2 became exponential? Commercial Banks able to create credit and lend out of thin air to customers thanks to deregulation that caused m2 to explode. They didn't need no FED. They didin't need no reserves. They were able to act regardless of the FED. The FED responded to them, instead of the other way around. Before deregulation banks didn't bother creating too much credit loans coz it was too dangerous, they were mostly utilty banks. After deregulation, creation of exotic derivatives, low interest rates, and high speed internet globalized digital trading, they went crazy creating credit out of thin air coz it wasn't dangerous because they could sell the home loans.\",\n \"\\\"The Ponzi/Madoff schemes were closed loops, so the only source of the so-called \\\"\\\"interest\\\"\\\" on the money was the contributions of future investors. The economy is more like a living thing, and the availability of capital allows people to develop new ways to do things in a more productive way. Agriculture is a great example -- for most of human history the overwhelming majority of human labor was dedicated to producing food. Now that proportion is dramatically smaller -- the descendants of farmers 100 years ago are doctors and computer programmers... professions that could not exist. Fractional reserve banking makes the economy more efficient by putting capital that would otherwise be hoarded in circulation. Money is a medium of exchange, so the more it turns over, the better it is. Genoa and Britain pioneered this concept centuries ago, and were able to defeat larger rivals in large part because of the economic advantages that the practice brought to bear. That's not to say that banking doesn't come with its warts as well. I'd suggest reading \\\"\\\"A Free Nation Deep in Debt\\\"\\\", which does a good job of explaining how we got to where we are today.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"As an addendum to PeterK's answer, once upon a time, there were many Savings and Loan Associations (S&Ls) that acted as small banks, accepting savings deposits from people and lending money for home mortgages to local residents. Some of these S&Ls were chartered Federally with deposits insured by the FSLIC (similar to the FDIC which still insures deposits in banks) while others had State charters and used the State equivalent of FSLIC as the insurer. To induce people to save with S&Ls instead of banks, S&Ls paid higher rates of interest on their savings accounts than banks were permitted to do on bank savings accounts. Until 1980, S&Ls were not permitted to make consumer or commercial loans, have checking accounts, issue credit cards, etc., but once the US Congress in its wisdom permitted this practice, this part of the business boomed. (Note for @RonJohn: Prior to 1980, S&Ls offered NOW accounts on which \"\"checks\"\" (technically, Negotiated Orders of Withdrawal) could be written but they were not checks in the legal sense, and many S&Ls did not return these paid \"\"checks\"\" with the monthly statement as all banks did; writing a \"\"check\"\" while pressing hard created a carbon copy that could be used as proof of payment). In just a few years' time, many S&Ls crashed because they were not geared to handle the complexities of the new things that they were permitted to do, and so ran into trouble with bad loans as well as outright fraud by S&L management and boards of directors etc. After the disappearance of most S&Ls, many small banks (often with State charters only) sprang up, and that's why there are so many banks in the US. Mortgage lending is a lucrative business (if done right), and everyone wants to get into the business. Note that 4 branches of Bank of America in a Florida town is not a sign of many banks; the many different banks that the OP noticed in Maine is.\"","Wikipedia has a good summary: Historically, branch banking in the United States - especially interstate branch banking - was viewed unfavorably by regulatory authorities, and this was codified with the enactment of the McFadden Act of 1927, which specifically prohibited interstate banking. Over the next few decades, some banks attempted to circumvent McFadden's provisions by establishing bank holding companies that operated so-called independent banks in multiple states. To address this, The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from having branches in any other state. Most interstate banking prohibitions were repealed by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Research has also found that anticompetitive state provisions restricted out-of-state growth when those provisions were more restrictive than the provisions set by the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act or by neighboring states. Some states have also had restrictive bank branch laws; for example, Illinois outlawed branches (other than the main office) until 1967, and did not allow an unlimited number until 1993.","\"I can't find a citation, but from memory (EDIT: and reading the newspapers at the time it happened): up until around 1980, banks couldn't cross state borders. In my state, at least, they were also very local, only staying within one county. This was to enforce \"\"localness\"\", the thought being that local bankers would know local people and the local situation better than far away people who only see numbers and paperwork.\"","Actually it seems you are not quite correct about the number of different banks in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_and_credit_unions_in_Canada According to this link there are 82-86 banks in Canada plus credit unions. This may still be lower than what would correspond to the number of banks in the US, scaled for canadian population. One further reason not mentioned before could be that the population density in Canada outside of the metropolitan areas could be lower than in the US, leaving to few small towns large enough (10,000+ (a guess corrected due to comment)) to support a bank.","In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around.","\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \"\"good\"\" online service, \"\"great\"\" phone service, \"\"great\"\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \"\"walk in\"\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \"\"better\"\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \"\"big bank\"\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \"\"small bank\"\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \"\"brands\"\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"As an addendum to PeterK's answer, once upon a time, there were many Savings and Loan Associations (S&Ls) that acted as small banks, accepting savings deposits from people and lending money for home mortgages to local residents. Some of these S&Ls were chartered Federally with deposits insured by the FSLIC (similar to the FDIC which still insures deposits in banks) while others had State charters and used the State equivalent of FSLIC as the insurer. To induce people to save with S&Ls instead of banks, S&Ls paid higher rates of interest on their savings accounts than banks were permitted to do on bank savings accounts. Until 1980, S&Ls were not permitted to make consumer or commercial loans, have checking accounts, issue credit cards, etc., but once the US Congress in its wisdom permitted this practice, this part of the business boomed. (Note for @RonJohn: Prior to 1980, S&Ls offered NOW accounts on which \\\"\\\"checks\\\"\\\" (technically, Negotiated Orders of Withdrawal) could be written but they were not checks in the legal sense, and many S&Ls did not return these paid \\\"\\\"checks\\\"\\\" with the monthly statement as all banks did; writing a \\\"\\\"check\\\"\\\" while pressing hard created a carbon copy that could be used as proof of payment). In just a few years' time, many S&Ls crashed because they were not geared to handle the complexities of the new things that they were permitted to do, and so ran into trouble with bad loans as well as outright fraud by S&L management and boards of directors etc. After the disappearance of most S&Ls, many small banks (often with State charters only) sprang up, and that's why there are so many banks in the US. Mortgage lending is a lucrative business (if done right), and everyone wants to get into the business. Note that 4 branches of Bank of America in a Florida town is not a sign of many banks; the many different banks that the OP noticed in Maine is.\\\"\",\n \"Wikipedia has a good summary: Historically, branch banking in the United States - especially interstate branch banking - was viewed unfavorably by regulatory authorities, and this was codified with the enactment of the McFadden Act of 1927, which specifically prohibited interstate banking. Over the next few decades, some banks attempted to circumvent McFadden's provisions by establishing bank holding companies that operated so-called independent banks in multiple states. To address this, The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from having branches in any other state. Most interstate banking prohibitions were repealed by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Research has also found that anticompetitive state provisions restricted out-of-state growth when those provisions were more restrictive than the provisions set by the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act or by neighboring states. Some states have also had restrictive bank branch laws; for example, Illinois outlawed branches (other than the main office) until 1967, and did not allow an unlimited number until 1993.\",\n \"\\\"I can't find a citation, but from memory (EDIT: and reading the newspapers at the time it happened): up until around 1980, banks couldn't cross state borders. In my state, at least, they were also very local, only staying within one county. This was to enforce \\\"\\\"localness\\\"\\\", the thought being that local bankers would know local people and the local situation better than far away people who only see numbers and paperwork.\\\"\",\n \"Actually it seems you are not quite correct about the number of different banks in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_and_credit_unions_in_Canada According to this link there are 82-86 banks in Canada plus credit unions. This may still be lower than what would correspond to the number of banks in the US, scaled for canadian population. One further reason not mentioned before could be that the population density in Canada outside of the metropolitan areas could be lower than in the US, leaving to few small towns large enough (10,000+ (a guess corrected due to comment)) to support a bank.\",\n \"In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around.\",\n \"\\\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \\\"\\\"good\\\"\\\" online service, \\\"\\\"great\\\"\\\" phone service, \\\"\\\"great\\\"\\\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \\\"\\\"walk in\\\"\\\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \\\"\\\"big bank\\\"\\\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \\\"\\\"small bank\\\"\\\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \\\"\\\"brands\\\"\\\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":267,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"4335"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What is the US Fair Tax?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["318583","357013","322246","484148"],"string":"[\n \"318583\",\n \"357013\",\n \"322246\",\n \"484148\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["318583","484148","322246","357013","421656","188485","588454","429037","468123","235708","543161","184705","453956","419466","474832","65284","9819","267111","357079","362173","434835","110515","538490","342618","329246","177217","388250","384572","211196","589161","473567","470215","259810","364463","148490","489383","205547","487280","333955","599320","109838","62335","481555","599987","251411","423416","546299","228503","441497","219188","229454","84528","120521","158136","357577","418520","551831","56063","145353","358286","238294","374021","431182","480635","136497","97540","517626","317570","558836","215314","597909","478195","512429","82460","199173","175520","365370","297676","376850","515513","193667","428771","472052","92902","447271","488774","81457","448390","409338","137225","64868","323111","589044","85690","391657","470087","226549","430431","425795","131959"],"string":"[\n \"318583\",\n \"484148\",\n \"322246\",\n \"357013\",\n \"421656\",\n \"188485\",\n \"588454\",\n \"429037\",\n \"468123\",\n \"235708\",\n \"543161\",\n \"184705\",\n \"453956\",\n \"419466\",\n \"474832\",\n \"65284\",\n \"9819\",\n \"267111\",\n \"357079\",\n \"362173\",\n \"434835\",\n \"110515\",\n \"538490\",\n \"342618\",\n \"329246\",\n \"177217\",\n \"388250\",\n \"384572\",\n \"211196\",\n \"589161\",\n \"473567\",\n \"470215\",\n \"259810\",\n \"364463\",\n \"148490\",\n \"489383\",\n \"205547\",\n \"487280\",\n \"333955\",\n \"599320\",\n \"109838\",\n \"62335\",\n \"481555\",\n \"599987\",\n \"251411\",\n \"423416\",\n \"546299\",\n \"228503\",\n \"441497\",\n \"219188\",\n \"229454\",\n \"84528\",\n \"120521\",\n \"158136\",\n \"357577\",\n \"418520\",\n \"551831\",\n \"56063\",\n \"145353\",\n \"358286\",\n \"238294\",\n \"374021\",\n \"431182\",\n \"480635\",\n \"136497\",\n \"97540\",\n \"517626\",\n \"317570\",\n \"558836\",\n \"215314\",\n \"597909\",\n \"478195\",\n \"512429\",\n \"82460\",\n \"199173\",\n \"175520\",\n \"365370\",\n \"297676\",\n \"376850\",\n \"515513\",\n \"193667\",\n \"428771\",\n \"472052\",\n \"92902\",\n \"447271\",\n \"488774\",\n \"81457\",\n \"448390\",\n \"409338\",\n \"137225\",\n \"64868\",\n \"323111\",\n \"589044\",\n \"85690\",\n \"391657\",\n \"470087\",\n \"226549\",\n \"430431\",\n \"425795\",\n \"131959\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"The fair tax is a proposal to replace the US income tax with a sales tax. Pros of Fair Tax: It's a large change to the way the United States currently does things. The \"\"Fair Tax Act of 2011\"\" is H.R.25 in the US House and S.13 in the Senate. The full text of the bill is available at the links provided. There are some fairly large consequences of implementing a fair tax. For example, 401ks and Roth IRAs serve no benefit over non-retirement investments. Mortgages would no longer have a tax advantage. Luxury items would get far more expensive.\"","Its a new way of computing sales tax. Wikipedia has a nice article on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax","\"In a nutshell - Value Added Tax. America, as usual, discovers what others have known and used for years. The idea of not taxing income that's tied to it is ridiculous. If you're only taxing spending but not income, people will just take spending elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, further away), and the economy will go down the drain. That's similar to the way people avoid paying sales tax now, except that it will be in orders of magnitude. Why should a corporation by office supplies in the US, if it has a branch in China? Edit Also, Fair Tax doesn't take into account moving money overseas. I've mentioned living elsewhere down below, and that also got me thinking of how I personally would certainly gain from that ridiculous thing called \"\"Fair Tax\"\". Basically, that's exactly how the \"\"rich folks\"\", those who push for it, will gain from it. Being able to move money out of the US basically makes it a perfect tax shelter. You don't pay taxes on the income (that you have in the US), and you don't pay taxes on the spendings (that you have elsewhere, because in that country income is taxable so you only pay VAT or sales taxes). This means that all the wealthy people, while investing and gaining money from the American economy (stocks, property, etc), will actually not be spending it in the US. Thus, no taxes paid to the US, dollars flowing out. Perfect. Actually, I should be all for this stupid idea. Very fair to me, no need to pay any taxes at all, because food will probably be exempt anyway.\"","\"You asked about the challenges. The transition itself is the biggest one. For people to get used to the tax at the register vs at their paycheck. For a great number of people to find new work. I don't know the numbers, but anyone involved with personal income taxes would be out of work. Sales tax is already part of the process in most states, bumping it to a federal tax wont add too much in overhead. I make no moral judgment, but consider, most prostitutes and drug dealers are avoiding income tax, but they still are buying the same goods in stores you and I are. This proposed tax reduces the collection noncompliance, and brings more people into \"\"the system\"\". Another factor some may not like is the ability to affect behavior by picking and choosing what to promote, via deductions, such as home buying or charity.\"","Yeah, the VAT adds more fairness between who gets the taxes, but is only offset by it being more complicated and needing more bureaucracy. I think it's an interesting idea. If I were a policy analyst I'd like to see what costs are vs. benefit.","Meanwhile, income tax is still based on the premise that the government owns your income (property). The government owns all of it and decides how much you get to keep. This is theft based on force. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson wants to end all income taxes including business income taxes and replace it with a federal consumption tax. Doesn't anyone want freedom?","Amazon and other online retailers actually now support bipartisan legislation to level the playing field regarding online sales taxes. Value Added Taxes (not sales taxes in the typical sense) are the way to go, as they are much more difficult to evade and can't be sheltered via the Cayman Islands. They can easily be made progressive through the use of rebates to lower income individuals. There is a reason it is in place in over 130 countries.","What about changing the income tax to a national sales tax and putting different products and services on a tiered system. Basic necessities would be taxed at a lower rate (if at all), then you work up the tiers towards purely luxury items that are taxed at a much higher rate? That would give us the benefits of a sales tax while, at the same time, not placing an extra burden on the lower class (who would, presumably, need to spend a higher portion of their income on basic necessities).","\"No one thinks a flat tax is a good idea. As someone that has a good income, I would love to be paying 20%. But I doubt a poorer person paying 5% would agree. Flat tax is regressive and hurts poorer people the most. \"\"The flat tax falls flat for good reasons\"\" https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/26/the-flat-tax-falls-flat-for-good-reasons/\"","\"Yeah the biggest problem with this is that it far more heavily taxes the poor than the rich. Poor people spend *all of their income.* Month-to-month, living paycheck-to-paycheck, poor people have no choice but to spend their entire incomes on basic necessities, utilities, etc. Rich people on the other hand spend very little of their incomes. Most of it gets stashed in hedgefunds and overseas holdings and doesn't really \"\"change hands\"\" in a way that allows it to be taxed under this style of tax structure. So your tax continuously hits 100% of the wealth of the bottom 75%(ish) of households while largely bypassing the rich folks who have more money than they can *spend*. In short, this kind of tax structure is really bad for anyone who doesn't make $300k+ a year and store most of their wealth in stocks and so forth. If you want to help the general public (households making less than $300k/year), you need to generate more tax revenue from *investments* and *capital gains*. A 2% tax, say, on stock trades valued over $10,000 obviously wouldn't hurt poor people at all, and also wouldn't really hurt the rich. Cuz if you've got 10 grand (or a hundred, or thousand, or whatever) to stash in shares of Amazon or whatever, you're really not gonna miss the $200 that comes off the top of your trade. But this *would* generate huge tax revenue, as there are thousands of such transfers a day.\"","Well not over 50%. I would want a very very simple flat rate tax (say around 25-30%) with a high personal allowance (say around $25k) and no tax breaks etc. This seems to be the fairest. Low incomes pay the least and the rich are taxed fairly but not to the extent they feel the need to avoid it.","Say for example a trade totals $10,000. A flat tax of 0.2% would be $20. This is not much for the Buy & Holder b/c he only makes a few trades a year, say 10 transactions a year. So their tax is only about $200 per year. (heck we could even drop it to 0.1%). But DayTraders will routinely do 10 trades a day, or over 3000 trades a year. So using that same 10K trade above, that could hypothetically be 3000x20 = $60,000 per year in taxes. Computer Traders will do hundreds of trades per day. Say 30,000 trades per year. So that is $600,000. So you can see how iit hardly affects legitimate investors, while making the HF traders control themselves a bit. This is what we want. The exchanges charge the flat tax with the transaction like a Sales tax. It avoids excess regulation (the SEC already monitors trades, or is supposed to), and it hurts the gamblers (HFTs), while not hindering the good guys (investors).","Owing taxes to two or more levels of government isn't double taxation. It's a feature of the American union. I'm not for this bill in general, mostly for the timing and the loss of the highest bracket, but both the state and federal governments have to generate revenue, and basing rates on pure incomes with a few loopholes as possible is the most progressive way to do it. By owing taxes unadjusted for other taxes paid, there's more incentive for states to lower local taxes and to balance state programs with federal programs, and for state reps to more fairly redistribute federal transfers instead of targeting states with (usually artificially) low local taxes and fewer state programs (usually Republican).","The point is, they shouldn't be taxing it at all. The US's fair share of that revenue is 0%. It's wasn't produced via their infrastructure or anything. It's pure double dipping. It's not up to the US to determine it's fair share of someone else's pie. It's pure American arrogance: interfering in business in other countries.","\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15680254/republicans-border-adjustment-tax) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Which would essentially add a 20 percent tax on imported goods while exempting US exports, was the key solution House Republicans had come up with to raise enough revenue to offset corporate tax cuts. > In the document, House Republicans outlined their communications strategy, which included three steps to selling the BAT. Step 1: Link the broken tax code to job losses in manufacturing. > The problem for the White House and congressional Republicans is that the administration hasn&#039;t offered a competing plan to pay for the trillions of dollars in tax cuts Trump wants. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejbtb/nobody_likes_the_border_adjustment_tax_except_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133521 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **tax**^#1 **House**^#2 **Republican**^#3 **border**^#4 **provision**^#5\"","It sounds good on paper, the problem is licensing fees paid to foreign subsidiaries for IP and trademark use. That's how Apple makes 80% of it's revenue in the US and still makes 80% of it's profit in Ireland. If the US doesn't take foreign income into account, every multinational would offshore their profits the same way. Many do it now, and the loop hole isn't as big as people are advocating for.",">a set fraction of the mean income, distributed to everyone whether or not they have other income. Seems fair to me. I would also re-tool tax brackets so instead of being based on income, they'd be based on money eared relative to the national mean. That way the brackets are naturally dynamic.","There's one huge difference. Generally speaking, the entire burden of paying VAT is intended to be placed upon end consumers, and not upon businesses themselves. So ditching corporation tax and increasing VAT would mean shifting a huge amount of the tax burden from corporations to every-day people. Such a policy could kill the party that attempted to push it.","But why can't two companies exchange goods directly without paying VAT? This would make the famous carousel fraud scam impossible and businesses won't have to deal with complicated refunds. Sales tax in the United States works as you describe. Sales tax is charged only to end customers, not to businesses that themselves charge sales tax. But this means that a criminal business can charge tax and just pocket it unless someone else reports it. They can also evade income tax the same way. Not to mention other issues like cross jurisdiction taxes (e.g. internet sales often evade sales tax). The whole point of a Value Added Tax (VAT) is that they charge at each level. This creates a system where each buyer reports the tax paid to the seller so as to be able to deduct it. So the seller has to pay the VAT that they charged. Or the tax authorities know and can revoke their VAT license. If only the end user is charged tax, then fraud is easier than under a VAT. So easy, I doubt they have a special name for it. The fraudulent business just collects tax from end users and disappears. Or simply fails to record those transactions. You could call it missing transaction record fraud, but why bother? It's just straight up tax fraud. The complexity of the carousel fraud arises from the difficulty of evading a VAT.","Well-defined definitions of a successful tax plan and its likely outcomes. Concrete, simple tax brackets. Hard numbers with real world value, not rhetorical promises washed through special interest groups and lobbyists. Well done. There's no way the current administration will do anything remotely this intelligent.","Corporate profits are currently taxed twice. Once at the corporate level, and a second time when the corporation's owners get paid via dividends or capital gains. The alternative is simply to eliminate the corporate-level taxation and raise the dividend and capital gains taxes back up to normal levels. Instead of (1-35%)*(1-15%) we'd just have (1-45%) or something","The way I see it, corporation tax is not fundamentally different from VAT. They are both a tax on revenue minus expenses, just what those expenses are is different. I think the main advantage of corporation tax is that it allows capital expenditure to be spread over several years, although as I said this makes it more complicated (and I believe that there are some capital allowances for VAT as well). One advantage of VAT is that sales in one country are taxed in that country before the money can be sent abroad. It seems simple and fair to split the tax burden between jurisdictions according to how many sales were made in each.","An equity tax does seem to make some sense. It would probably help to stave off deflation as well because it would encourage growth and investment where people would otherwise choose to sit on their money or worse. An equity tax on currency or liquid investments of even .5% APR would have a huge effect on the behavior of corporations. Sadly the largest of them would have the resources to avoid the tax by keeping all of their money out of the country.","This is something a redditor came up with. It provides a basic income to everyone, while still penalizing those who don't work (by minutely by surely lowering their stipend) and preventing a poverty trap (by never withdrawing the stipend).","\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/case-consumption-tax.html) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > You often hear calls out there - mostly from Right economists but also from some on the Left - for a consumption tax in the U.S. As presented, it&#039;s a super-simple idea: tally your income, subtract your saving, and what&#039;s left is your consumption. > The tuition line raises a particularly vexing question, and brings us back to the second question: what economic effects would we see from a consumption tax, under various accounting and taxation rules? Clearly, if you tax tuition, you discourage education. > A consumption tax, compared to, say, a wealth tax or a land-value tax, is a direct assault on GDP and GDP growth. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6txd1l/the_case_against_a_consumption_tax/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~191594 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **consumption**^#1 **Save**^#2 **tax**^#3 **account**^#4 **family**^#5\"","Irrelevant to the question. Regardless what is used for the tax base, we would still have the same debate but with much larger anti-taxation sentiments. Supply side Jesus either works or doesn't and shifting the federal revenue sources to the income taxes does not change it.","What a shit idea lol. Like how about not spend so damn much on stupid shit America. How about creating a tax bracket on those that make the oodles of dough per year. Don't go after the working man's retirement savings as easy pickings for taxes. Wtf","It is double taxation. The same income is taxed twice. But as to the core of your argument, starting from a baseline of zero I agree. But we aren't starting over .. there is 100+ years of income tax history and almost 250 years of state/local governments creating the services required for local residents. It's been amazing how a lil bit of federal control has caused the conservative movement has forgotten they brought the 10th amendment to life with Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida.","Currently, the answer is no, you cannot get out of filing a tax return. As noted in the comments, if you want to pay more to get out of the drudgery of working on your return, you can pay an accountant to do it for you. You are not alone in thinking that the current income tax system in the U.S. is overly complicated. What you are essentially describing is a flat tax, a system where there would be a simple tax rate that is paid with no deductions, loopholes, etc., and minimal reporting requirements. Besides flat tax proposals, others have proposed eliminating the income tax altogether and switching to a national sales tax, such as the FairTax proposal. Each of these proposals has pros and cons over the current system, and if you have questions about them, feel free to ask a new question. But what they have in common is that they would drastically simplify the system of taxation in this country. If that sounds good to you, you can learn more about these proposals and support organizations and candidates that advocate these reforms.","What do you propose a fair share should be? They pay nearly $900 million per year in income taxes. Their effective rate is reduced due to them paying higher taxes in years prior, plus they lost money and can deduct that as well. Not to mention, they are double taxed as a corporation and payroll taxes are not part of that $900 million, so they're paying even more than that. Part of what makes the US awesome is an environment that helps business grow. What do you think will happen when a business pays let's say 20% on revenue generated in other countries and then another 20% tax on that revenue here? Either companies will move to a country with a lower tax rate or they pull back on global trade. Both are bad for the economy.","\"So you are back to saying that the price Walmart charges for each item depends on the income level of the purchaser. That's not fair, so neither are taxes based on the income levels of taxpayers. I don't think road sweepers should be subsidized so they can drive a Rolls Royce car. And I don't think they should be allowed to live in a Rolls Royce location unless they can afford to compensate those they exclude from it. The fact they currently are is outrageous as it causes a shrunken economy and excessive inequalities. Real estate bubbles are caused by not have a LVT. Obviously there could be no \"\"bubble\"\" as it would have already been taxed away.\"","> Its a no, there should be no taxes on anyone, only service providers and voluntary customers. Last time you made this claim I pointed you to [a video on the US's Articles of Confederation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6rHSiN0vKk) and you never responded. Perhaps you'll muster up the courage this time. The Articles of Confederation was set up very similar to what you are proposing. Why do you think that government failed?","Actually, yes, I do think it's fair. It's a corporation, not a family. I think *individuals* should pay 50% of every dollar above $5m. That means every dollar; personal income, capital gains, interest, whatever. My **only** problem with taxes is how poorly I think they're spent right now. Giving more money to worthless corporate whores (congress) who've already proven they don't have the people's interests at heart is not a concept I relish. One thing at a time though.","\"1) Yes in theory that is right - minus any state taxes as well. 2) They could since there is an unknown amount outside of the US - and probably it will be a percentage and not all. Most of these companies that make a difference are already international companies. 3) They would most likely still do it for any money kept offshore, and it doesn't prevent them from continuing to do it. Again, I didn't say this was a good solution. They are just hoping to ward off economic collapse a little longer by doing this, or perhaps hire more accountants to be able to look at their books to figure out how much they are hiding to punish them. There could be many \"\"motivations\"\" for doing this tax. But I doubt any of the motivations intend to stop it from continuing to happen after the tax. The problem is any company that takes advantage of it basically says \"\"yes, i broke the law - in this amount.\"\" Thus, it might be a good way to get a list of companies to audit more thoroughly.\"","Okays, so the prices we pay for goods and services aren't set by our income levels. Why should taxes be any different? Surely they should be set by the benefits we receive from the community as measured by the market? That's what LVT is and does.","We don't have all the details, but individuals and corporations can either deduct or elect to get a credit for foreign taxes paid. What if this stays and the state/local deduction is eliminated. The IRS directly states the intent is to avoid double taxation. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-tax-credit-choosing-to-take-credit-or-deduction And ya, the system you make reference to was tried in the Articles of Confederation and proved unworkable. The initial point is that it makes no sense to eliminate the state and local tax deduction unless the intent is to punish blue states and localities in order to offset a reduction in taxes for the wealthy.","Agreed which is why an income tax is a bad idea. Personally I'm in favor of property taxes as a way to fund government. It is a much more objective measure and easy for the government's to confiscate if taxes remain unpaid.","I disagree. First off the SEC is under-funded anyhow, and most economists agree that there needs to be better regulation of the exchanges; ya know since it can fucking crash our economy and send us into WW3. Secondly, it's a flat Transaction tax much like any other State Sales Tax. State Sales Tax is arguably the most successful form of taxation there is, b/c it's so damn easy to implement, and so damn easy to audit. You're blowing this thing way out of proportion. They require the markets to charge a Transaction tax, and then they do periodic audits to ensure each exchange is doing it. The rates go up or down based on the previous quarters number of HFTs. Outside of said formula, this transaction rate can be altered by a meeting of a few SEC heads, and approved when approved by the appropriate congressional body. Kills 2 birds with one stone: * more money to the underfunded SEC * lessens the impact of HFTs and turns the markets back into a market instead of a casino. It will have minimal effects on buy & hold traders since they typically research for a long time, then buy & hold stock for many months. It will mainly affect those who buy & unload several times per day. PS: If you think that letting a market die and having new ones pop up periodically is a good idea then holy shit. Financial markets need stability & regulation. Finance doesn't like uncertainty. Crash & burn marketplaces will help no one, and will raise uncertainty which we all know investors hate.","The GOP has a lazy Susan of bad ideas. The proposed tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by two and a half trillion dollars over the next ten years. The argument in favor is that cutting taxes will boost the economy enough to make up for the cuts. IT NEVER DOES. Ever. The proposal is loaded with tax cuts for wealthy folks. Some middle class folks will see an increase because there won't be a deduction for mortgage interest and property taxes. Thanks Obama.","Yes absurd. But those fat cat business owners need to pay their share! I mean my 70 year old Korean dry cleaner and his wife have been screwing the state out of their fair share of the till for a long time. But seriously, the tax is really horrible for the small business with small margins and large volume. Dry cleaners, restaurants and convenience stores are just a few examples.","Lol I'm not even talking about no government (although that's ideal) you're just retarded to think income tax is the ONLY way to fund a government. Like I said before a federal sales tax would more than suffice and in a lot of cases would work better but please by all means continue to live in ignorance. Just because things have been done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it's the best or most efficient way.","Okay. The goal should be to avoid taxing those at the lower bracket. So no taxes for those making 30,000 and under. A lower bracket for those making $31,000 to $80,000. Leave in deductions for taxes paid to states. These can be very high and many are taxed twice. Trump's plan removes many deductions used for double taxes. Leave in mortgage interest deduction. It benefits mostly small rental companies and home owner. Get rid of many business deductions. Lower corporate taxes, especially on new businesses. There is a start. You want to have a discussion regarding this.","It's a scam pushed through to benefit the banking system. Tax payments become income for the banks. Any alleged benefits for property holders are ultimately reduced by increased property prices, capital gains tax and estate taxes","Giving the government more control over the distribution of goods and services, even more than it has now, is the recipe for imbalance that has doomed communism and socialism. Even the most tax friendly of the euros are having problems with their systems. They simply aren't competitive. https://www.thelocal.dk/20170829/denmarks-government-announces-new-tax-plan","I believe you are confusing sales tax with income tax. The tax holidays in the US are only for sales tax. Consumers purchasing certain goods during the tax holiday do not have to pay sales tax like they normally would. Effectively the price is slightly lower during those days with the purpose of giving people an extra reason to shop at that time. During the tax holiday the stores make the exact same profit that they normally do, but they may experience a bump in sales simply because more people will shop during that time. Income tax for both consumers and the businesses is not affected by this. Although New York state was the first state to implement a tax holiday 20 years ago, they no longer have one today, though they do have certain goods which have a lower tax rate year round.","Saving Fortune 500 companies hundreds of millions to billions a year and a small company a few thousand. Who's paying for the shortfall to the IRS? The reality is a small business probably make $0 profit because the owner pays himself out, or has enough employees that the (company) makes a profit saving a few grand doesn't do anything. You know what would help? The 1 trillion profit the Fortune 500 make a year, take half. Give energy companies 0% interest loans to pay off their nuclear plants and reduce energy costs for 320 million Americans by a large amount. Take the remainder and the following 3 years and refinance mortgages at 0% interest starting from the smallest to largest loans. 4 years high taxes on large corporations I just bailed out the middle class and helped the poor with 100% retuned to the IRS.","Sales taxes are charged at the point of purchase, while a VAT is assessed during the production process of the item. In the end, the amount paid by the consumer is the same, but with the VAT, the tax was collected from the manufacturer, instead of the consumer. One of the big arguments for VAT is that it prevents lost revenue due to things like smuggling (if sales tax increases past 10% smuggling spikes, so the VAT is a good mechanism if you're looking to implement large taxes on goods). It also keeps the tax burden away from shippers and other tiers of the production process that don't change the intrinsic value of the item.","Much of this inequality would be reduced if we moved from income taxation to a wealth/asset tax. We could exempt a person's main residence and retirement savings (similar to the way we do now with the home mortgage deduction and capital gains exemption and with IRAs). This would also obviate the need for a separate capital gains tax.","\"> So raise taxes on individuals and eliminate business taxes? The government still has to pay for things eventually. The big thing the US pays for that other countries don't is our massive, most-expensive-in-the-world military, which can take up roughly half our budget, Yes we should decrease military spending and stop policing the world. The biggest future expenditure will be unfunded obligations which are between $20 to $60 trillion USD. Without reform the US will go bankrupt. The dollar could be hyper-inflated which destroys the value and people's savings. The dollar will lose world reserve currency status. > We defend other countries through alliances like NATO and bilateral agreements. For that, we need a higher tax rate. We can tax individuals or businesses. Let other countries defend themselves unless they absolutely need help. People and businesses can be taxed, but high taxes and regulations are counter-productive. It hurts small business, innovation, job growth and pushes companies to move abroad and outsource. There's alarming record high unemployment in the US: >**[One in Five Families Are on Food Stamps](http://reason.com/24-7/2013/04/25/one-in-five-families-are-on-food-stamps)** The latest available data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that **a record number 23 million households in the United States are now on food stamps.** > The most recent Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) statistics of **the number of households receiving food stamps shows that 23,087,886 households participated in January 2013 - an increase of 889,154 families from January 2012 when the number of households totaled 22,188,732.** As John F. Kennedy said:. >**“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”** >– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference >**\"\"'Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”*** >– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964 >“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”* >– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President” [Read more]( http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25640/#GRyFgRZYqUiKoud6.99)\"","http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate > Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people. >Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform","\"Ah, gotcha. That would be moving the country towards a more socialistic or communistic system where the government controls more of the means of production. I think there would be a problem. Successful companies need to be disruptive and the larger you are the harder it is to try a different approach. I think if the government did try to offer a competing product, the beauracracy would weigh down the offering. The only way the government could be assured a profitable business is to compete unfairly. Consider one of the big government companies, the Post Office. UPS has always been seen as the higher-quality delivery serive. Overnight shipping was considered impossible until FedEx did it. Even today the USPS is in serious financial trouble even though it is granted a monopoly on letter delivery (it is illegal for UPS and FedEx to deliver letters). The Post Office is too inefficient to make money on package delivery so they subsidize that side of their business selling stamps. > so we could abolish income tax and lower taxes over all IMO, the taxes will be paid one way or another. If you cut income tax then it will be replaced with a payroll tax, or sales tax, or property tax, or tariff, or passed to you in the form of higher prices. The only question is the definition of a person or group's \"\"fair share\"\".\"","\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\"","I am guessing that you don't understand that even a 100% tax bracket doesn't actually equal you paying 100% of your profits in taxes. This is why the use, while having a 35%messaging corporate tax rate, only sees less than 20% in an average effective corporate tax rate... In the same vein, if a company paid taxes on what profits were created within a countries borders, that would be a fairly accurate method of calculating every country's fair percent of revenue from that company and the amount of infrastructure that were utilized by that company within that country's borders. And it still wouldn't add up to anywhere near 100% of that company's net profits...","\"The current tax regime? Not sure if you are being serious or facetious, but: [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** In contrast, corporations don't pay taxes on profits earned abroad until repatriation [here](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/14/news/economy/corporate-taxes-inversion/index.html), [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html), [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-apple-profits/). So guess what they NEVER do? This is why literally every large US multi-national corporate \"\"person\"\" pays next to nothing in taxes. It is quite obvious that this is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of tax law. That simple fix would wipe out massive amounts of government debt and force multi-national corporations and their shareholders to become engaged stake holders in the efficiency of government. But if, unlike W-2 paid human counterparts, you can dodge all taxation, \"\"Who cares if the government is using funds efficiently?\"\" That is incentive to actually game the system to force the government into wasteful spending because the subsequent fallout of increased taxation and/or failure of the state can be dodged without consequence.\"","Why not talk about services? Why should I pay more for services. It's not like more income means I use the roads and bridges more. More income doesn't mean more kids that need public education. More income doesn't mean I use fire services more. If you ask me, I'd rather people just pay for the services they use. Have kids? Then you pay for their school. Drive 60 minutes to work, then you pay more than someone that drives 10 minutes. That's seems fair.","Does that strike you as a fair solution? All the people that have made sacrifices and not spent every dime they have earned deserve to have it taken away? And I am sure they do have it 'somewhere' like low yield bonds or savings accounts...","> if a company paid taxes on what profits were created within a countries borders, that would be a fairly accurate method of calculating every country's fair percent of revenue from that company That's exactly what I said in the post you originally replied to.","\"Why is this even on the table? It's effectively a **revenue neurtral** proposal! You still pay taxes on \"\"tax deferred\"\" retirement plans - In fact, I would dare say that in most cases, people end up paying **more** in taxes, because they pay it as regular income rather than LTCG. The poor will still eat cat food and live on SSI; the rich consider what $18k/year would get them as a laughable pittance (and I say that as someone who *doesn't* grudge them their wealth). This will *only* have the effect of fucking the middle class. There is absolutely no other possible interpretation.\"","One of the reasons is also general distrust to the government. Another one is that there exist special interest group which profits from the complicated scheme, keep adding special cases, and has stronger financial situation that the opponents of such complex scheme. People do not trust government, or companies, to act in their best interests. So they (we) waste huge amount of time and/or money to comply with byzantine income laws. In 2004 Democratic presidential primary, presidential candidate Wes Clark (who beyond being 4-star general has also master degree in economics from Oxford, and taught economics in West point) proposed similar scheme: for people with income under 50K, employer would do all the (simple) paperwork, if desired, and get return. In the noise of the campaign, idea how to simplify taxes for half of the population was lost. Funny how the only candidate in recent history who was both professor of economics (not MBA, which is about business and profits) and distinguished military hero, could not get any traction in Democratic party.","\">Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to. Most of the American public believes that the bulk of taxes are federal income taxes. That's what they fixate on when evaluating the \"\"fairness\"\" of taxation. The fact remains that the very wealthy and very large corporations are structured so that they don't pay that particular type of tax. That's why Mitt Romney's tax returns are being squinted at. Mitt pays capital gains tax, not income tax and tripling the tax rate on the upper-most tax bracket wouldn't really affect him. You know this. I know this. But most people don't and few people are interested in learning how it works. If you want to \"\"tax the rich\"\" just create a progressive scale for capital gains instead of a flat 15%.\"","Proportional is good, but we don't need redistribution. The market mechanism does that on its own when it's free. The bailouts of the banks and auto industry should have shown that the only thing stopping a major, but poorly run business from bankruptcy (and having its assets redistributed) is government intervention. Maybe the change will light a fire under complacent companies and they'll start earning their profits again, or maybe they'll fail. There's no way to know ahead of time, but with no legal barriers to entry, the playing field will be fair again.","\"The only reason taxes are \"\"needed\"\" is because the people are to ignorant to know there are better more moral systems out there. For instance instead of stealing hard earned money from people tax the money they spend ie federal sales tax. \"\"How is that any different?!\"\" Because a sales tax isn't theft it just raises the price of products you want to buy, this way there is no tax dodging and no imprisonment for keeping what you earned and what is rightfully yours\"","It destroyed Sweden's position as a major player in the global securities market. When the tax was rescinded in 1991, some of the trade returned over time but things were never the same. It was also a net revenue loser without even considering the long term market damage.",">American politics is pretty utterly fucked isn't it? Haha, I think that's the one thing most sides can agree on. >That's interesting, and I've heard it before. Is something like this writer outlines what you are thinking? Essentially remove corporate taxes, and then tax dividends and capital gains as normal income? Yeah I like the idea for a few reasons. Incentivizes investments in America (capital is far more mobile than labor or even capital owners), gets rid of malinvestment of tax avoidance, sticks taxation exactly where we want it (in this case capital owners instead of random incidence among labor/capital/consumers), and cuts other deadweight losses inherent in a corporate income tax. It's really hard for me to understand why almost anyone would be against this. It's a progressive, pro-growth, anti-crony idea.","\"> Bernie sources: I would agree, it looks like the tax would cover all those that buy stock, bonds, and derivatives. However, this article didn't really cover the specifics. What would the tax be? Would it a flat dollar amount per transaction? That would make sense as it would focus more on those that do high volume traders. That wouldn't really impact me, as I already pay $9 per transaction. And I don't do many transactions. A couple dollars more, and I would be fine. > To answer your Enron example, no corporation would have enough power to actually do something like that if they didn't have at least partial backing by the government. Ah, but corporations [edit - wouldn't] have the power to do much of anything without someone to enforce their policies. Name one market that doesn't have an enforcement agency of some type. That is a mighty big assumption that the \"\"free market\"\" would make it work... especially since one doesn't really exist. And that would be the crux of my argument. All of the things you say about the perfection of the market to regulate itself is so far not proven. Take a market like Kansas - over the last 6 years, they just underwent one of the largest deregulation, de-taxation experiments of any state in the union. The results were less than stellar. Kansas is lagging the national average in growth. And they took a hundred million dollar surplus and turned into a couple billion dollar deficit almost overnight. And who suffers, of course the most poor. They shut down schools, fired teachers, and shelved many infrastructure jobs - jobs that would have been fielded by lower wage workers... And those infrastructure projects were undoubtedly in lower income areas. I would say, if you truly believe in what you preach then live it. Start a commune somewhere. Demonstrate how it is effective. That would have more power than preaching some amorphous unproveable policy over the internet.\"",">All tax is income tax, as if you haven't got the income, you can't pay it. This is a pretty apt simplification. I find that most land value tax advocates are either trying to engineer the demographics of property ownership or spiteful against people who own more than they themselves do.","> Taxation is theft. No, and [we've already gone down this road](https://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/6leb2o/missouri_republicans_lower_st_louis_minimum_wage/dju1jjp/). Are you familiar with US history and the time they had the [Articles of Confederation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)? I would be curious to know why you think it failed.","I see a couple of ways of getting at this. One would be to switch to a VAT. That would capture a good amount of revenue on anything that's made here. Second, I want IP to be taxed. We pay property taxes, so I think that trademarks and copyrighted works should be taxed just like how real property is taxed. You want to register the Burger King logo in the US? Sure thing! You will pay a percentage of its value every year and you get to use it exclusively with the full protection of the US courts your taxes help fund. I also see this as a good way out of the IP cesspool we're currently in. Copyright has become unreasonably long mostly because Disney doesn't want to lose the rights to Mickey Mouse. Look, I *am* sympathetic to Disney's argument. Mickey genuinely is important to them. But Mickey is fucking things up for everyone else. So I think Disney should pay a percentage of Mickey's value every year. In exchange, they keep their copyright forever as long as they keep paying. Now, if the copyright tax isn't paid, then the property becomes public domain forever. This would let Disney have what they want while non-profitable copyrights become public domain, as they should. Anyhow, the one thing all the big tax-avoiding companies have in common is IP. If you tax their IP in exchange for protection in US courts, there's really no way around that. They will either have to pay or let their IP go public domain.","\"Let's imagine an economy where 100% of wealth creation comes from existing financial assets and 0% comes from new wealth creation. That would essentially be a dead economy. I don't think it matters what your philosophy on economics is--that's a bad outcome. If you don't agree with that point we'll stop here. Note, if you don't think it's bad for this to keep going higher, Japan is at about 80% and we know how they're doing. If you agree 100% would be bad then we're 70% of the way there in the US. Trump's tax plan, if enacted, would push us even further. The question we should be asking is what is a reasonable way to encourage NEW wealth creation rather than protect and preserve existing wealth. For starters, it makes little sense to have a preferential tax rate for capital gains/dividends/estates as compared to earned income. Even if you just hate taxes and want them all to be gone I think it's fairly easy to say IF we're going to have taxes they should not favor income/transfer from existing financial assets as compared to earned income. A much more reasonable way to approach this is to say, we have a lot of concentration of financial assets in the top decile of wealth spectrum. Let's just level the tax rate so that income from financial assets is taxes at a similar rate to income from work. That's not even an \"\"eat the rich\"\" proposal, it's just a \"\"eat everyone equally\"\" proposal. All it would do is tax the very substantial gains in stocks at the same rate as the very meagre (median) gains from working. The fact that taxing income from financial assets at the same rate as work is a controversial idea is, to me, emblematic of a government completely captured by wealthy interests.\"","Wanna make sure every company pays at least some taxes? Install a 'tax floor'. Basically, no matter how many losses you claim, no matter how much you offshore, no matter how many loopholes you find, you can not drop below a certain number. Let's say 15%. That is it, you have to pay at least 15%. As this takes effect, and only after revenues stream in for a few years to help balance things out, you can even slightly adjust the high rate down a tad to help the big companies that don't use the loopholes. Please spread this idea around.","So raise taxes on individuals and eliminate business taxes? The government still has to pay for things eventually. The big thing the US pays for that other countries don't is our massive, most-expensive-in-the-world military, which can take up roughly half our budget, sometimes even more depending on how active we are abroad. That includes paying for current wars, preparing for future wars, and serving the veterans of past wars. We defend other countries through alliances like NATO and bilateral agreements. For that, we need a higher tax rate. We can tax individuals or businesses.","My state (Oregon) doesn't give me credit for all the federal taxes I pay so I get taxed by the state for money I never received. Now both will, fun. With this policy it would be worth it to move my family to a red state and start turning it blue.","\"So some background here - when corporations, large ones have to deal with tax, they generally try to avoid as much tax as possible. Since there are places that are \"\"tax havens\"\" where there is less to even no tax on profit, a lot of money gets routed there to avoid taxes in other places (US or other unfavorable countries). The problem with this from an IRS/government view is that they keep losing millions/billions of dollars in money because of this. I think the corporate federal tax rate is around 35% and that is without state taxes. Unfortunately when you have less and less money at home - less investment at home happens. Corporations stop doing business at home because they have more money somewhere else - and it makes sense to move more of the company to where the money is or to more favorable tax locations. Even worse - the corporation might just \"\"save\"\" its money somewhere else and kill all reinvestment - thus the money is effectively dead to the rest of the economy. There is a lot of talk about a 'one-time' repatriation tax to allow companies that have dodged their tax burdens to have their money come back to the US (and thus can be used locally) at 10% instead of 35% since there is theroretically a vast amount of cash that would be injected into the US economy. The government is hoping this stimulation will help GDP grow, taxes grow, and help the economy as a whole. In reality, it will reward corporations that broke the law (even though everyone does it), and probably just go into savings accounts here in the US - and not be the \"\"silver bullet\"\" to the economy on verge of collapse again.\"",">Corporate taxes as a percentage of federal revenue declined from 27.3 percent in 1955 to 8.9 percent in 2010 If the federal government adds a European-style VAT tax, that would also greatly decrease corporate taxes as a percentage of federal revenue, but it would be because there's more taxes coming in from other sources. Federal income taxes in the United States didn't even *exist* until 1913. Percentage of federal income goes down as income from other sources go up. The United States [currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/us-corporate-tax-rate_n_1392310.html).","Yet, if you are wealthy enough to have already accumulated the bulk of your savings, they're going to treat your capital gains much more favorably than the wage income of the poor shlub who's still trying to make these contributions. I can't wait to see how they attempt to sell this to the average taxpayer.","How about if we lower taxes on the bottom two brackets and increase taxes on the top two brackets? Right now it's 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. But wouldnt it be better if we change it to 8, 13, 25, 28, 35, 38 percent? The poor are the ones who spends most of their money on sale taxes than compared with any other brackets and the more money the poor have the more they will spend which will lead to more growth in the economy","> This constant belief that services should cost a percentage instead of a fixed rate that everyone pays is a joke. Your position makes good sense but if everyone paid a fixed rate in taxes then about %25 of the people would go broke. It doesn't seem fair that someone working within the system is bankrupted by the system. Seems to me we need to first fix unfairness in wages. Anyone who works full time for the system should at least be able to afford a modest life including health care, retirement, and taxes. Then I think it is right to demand they pay taxes to the system. Would you agree?","\"No, it is not true. That is one of the many \"\"conspiracy theorists'\"\" claims to not pay taxes, and is considered as frivolous (i.e.: punishable by very harsh penalties and criminal prosecution). Specifically to your question, the current Federal income tax framework was laid down in 1986, with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It is codified under the title 26 of the US Code. It is usually referred to as the \"\"Internal Revenue Code\"\", or IRC.\"","Your federal taxes in US include the tax which Indian government wants back from you under the treaty with US government. Some countries have treaty with US where all the money person earns in US can be reclaimed at the end of the financial year i.e no money goes to the country of citizenship. However, Indian citizens working in US are not liable for 100% reclaim on their federal tax.","Yeah because paying millions a year in taxes is somehow less than than paying the nothing the poor pay. This constant belief that services should cost a percentage instead of a fixed rate that everyone pays is a joke. There is nothing equal about going into a McDonalds lining everyone up based on income then making one guy pay for everyone else because he was more successful. Then calling it equal or fair, which it isn't.","\"C'mon, Bill - you're better than this. Aside from the fact that he accumulated his personal wealth through ruthless profiteering and tax shelters, it's just a flat out bad idea. It was an even worse idea when some neckbeard actor and commie guitarist started pushing it. All this tax will do is hamper the ability to do business (i.e., market liquidity), and end up being shouldered by small banks and in the end, the consumer. Big banks will find their ways around this, no problem, but the boutique capital firms will surely struggle. This isn't just a \"\"oh, we'll institute this micro-tax and everyone is happy!\"\" - they want to tax the underlying value of assets on each trade. This creates a direct impact to free-market trading which I don't believe they've accounted for (which is shocking, really). It's a tax on the top and bottomline, and a general tax on the actual execution point of an entire industry. It's a half-baked idea that shouldn't have gotten as far as it did.\"","\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/07/can-an-lvt-save-us/) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** > They amended their LVT to add a tax on property improvements but should have done the opposite - increase the LVT and reduce other taxes. > By adopting an LVT, they guarantee themselves sufficient income to provide government and public services - without falling into the predatory clutches of international bankers and the IMF. In his 2011 book Re-Solving the Economic Puzzle, Walter Rybeck relates how the US contemplated LVT enabling legislation during the Carter administration. > Five other states have passed LVT enabling legislation - Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington - to make it easier for local communities to adopt an LVT. Other American communities that have already benefited from an LVT include California&#039;s Central Valley, Fairhope in Alabama, Arden in Delaware, and Pittsburgh and other cities in Pennsylvania. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6hxn1x/can_an_lvt_save_us_dissident_voice/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~146992 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **LVT**^#1 **Land**^#2 **economic**^#3 **Harrison**^#4 **Tax**^#5\"","There are fees on retail trades imposed by trading houses, but not on traders like MS and GS. That's why HFT is possible. Personally, I get 100 free trades per year and that's more than enough for me. Adding a tax to this is just stupid.","What is tax slavery? Most impacted by higher taxes can afford to put them in off shore accounts. This going to hurt the economy because businesses aren't going to higher more people. Trickle down economics consistently fails. You'll have a bunch of owners saving the profits instead of giving the jobs because most of them are already operating efficiently. Especially in a state where menial labor is the most common form. Tax Slavery is a bullshit term to justify the rich robbing the government of their due while being able to benefit from the clout that comes with being American.","\".. 99% of the people against this proposition are 100% likely never to earn above $5 million a year .. the American Dream is strong, so people will be strongly against this type of taxes, making the entire suggestion a provocation of \"\"the unwashed masses\"\".\"","Walmart is one of the biggest low wage employers. Let's say $1B of the $2.66B is spent on subsidizing Wal-Mart employees. That's >$3 per US citizen, that we all pay and cannot put back into the economy how we wish. I don't even shop at wal mart and I'm forced to subsidize their employees. IMO, that is not fair. This just incentivizes walmart to hire more cheap government-subsidized employees, rewarding walmart's on my back. So let's do this: For every government dollar spent on helping low-wage employees subsist, we tax the employer the same dollar. From this I bet we would see walmart building housing for their employees, maybe even cafeterias, to get them off section 8 / food stamps. That is more efficient than sending money to the IRS, it makes its way to HUD, then to some government employees who are overburdoned, then we pay out section 8 money to landlords. That's inefficient. I know of walmart employees who rely on $1400/month in section 8, so walmart's tax bill would increase substantially, costs would rise, but tax receipts that we all have to currently pay would decrease by the same amount. So overall costs stay them same, but the finances are more efficient and where they should be vs spread around.","[Eliminating breaks **would allow the government to simplify the tax code and broaden the base of income** against which taxes are levied] [The dilemma—which Republicans are colliding with right now—is that many of the biggest tax breaks, especially for individuals, are **popular and hard to dislodge.**]","Not optional, but I assumed the premise was that with out having to pay for health care corporations would pay more in wages. In the US that is never going to be true. In other words they would use the VAT and not having to pay for health care as an excuse to extract more profit. Employee wages wouldn't go up, corporate health care costs would go down, and the VAT would be passed on to the consumer through higher prices.","Your source doesn't support your point. I don't have a problem paying taxes for services we all use - you do. Charging fees for police & courts is a libertarian notion. As sourced in my previous post, no current tax rates need to be changed to pay for UH. We just need to remove corporate subsides. As a whole, America would save about 10% of GDP yearly by converting to a UH in this fashion. If you can't honestly debate the sources or ideas I've put out and insist on circling back around to these ideological positions regardless of how often they get blown up - then I think we've made all the progress we're going to.","I've had zero taxable income for the past 2 years and yet the calculations say I owe the government $250 for each year for the Self Employment tax. How can they charge a non-zero tax on my income when my taxable income is zero? That is theft. That demands reform.","Its one of the main points. Transfer pricing includes discretionary decisions and is part of BEPS. Its also completely unnecessary: Pay taxes on revenue in country earned/sold. Get tax credits/refunds in country were spending is made. The reason why already profitable companies consider BEPS/tax arbitrage for HQ locations is because they get discretionary power over accounting profit allocation. Tax policy should serve the society though, and this proposal encourages the spending that benefits society. Its the usual case that the right answer is different than that being lobbied for.","They should be (and are) taxed the corporate rate on the 10 cents. The company they purchased the coffee grounds from will pay taxes on the 90 cents. The other alternative you suggested would put an end to most commercial activity. Very few businesses could sustain a 35% (of revenue) penalty to their margins. Society would collapse.","> It makes sense for EVERYONE to pay their fair and equal share. Totally agree. Don't you agree that a fair an equal share for someone working full time for the system is at least a modest but complete life within the system?","\"> So the fact that i was born here against my own free will automatically gives the government the right to seize the fruits of my labor? Yes, in the same way that being born to parents living in a clean house means you are going to make your bed, pick up your clothes, and mow the lawn... > \"\"well just leave then!\"\" Well, yes. It is either that, or change the laws. > Which is fucking stupid and in pretty sure I already gave you 1 way but I'll say it again cuz it's clear you're incapable of following along For someone who is so sure that they have \"\"*THE* answer\"\" you sure are defensive. It is quite possible that I have had a discussion over the SAME topic over the last 5 days with a *bunch* of people because so many people got butt hurt that I enjoy paying my taxes, and feel it is a patriotic duty because of all the good it does. > federal sales tax So federal sales tax is your big secret? I would actually be fine with it, as long as it took into account those that are currently not paying income tax due to poverty or disability. > That's why you see countries like Sweden with insane tax rates seeing limited growth and in a lot of cases on the verge of an economic collapse. I have lived in Europe for a number of years. I was in Germany last year, I will be in Spain next week. If you think that strong tax policy makes a country economically weak, then you have not actually lived in any of these countries, have you? Sweden is currently ranked 11th in the world for [GDP per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita). Matter of fact, the only country in the top ten of that list that don't have a strong tax policy is Qatar - and that is only because of ridiculous oil money. Would like to see where they sit in two years. Sweden last year had an [economic growth rate of 4.1%](http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/11/14/111716Sweden-Great-Economic-Performance-but-Mind-the-Debt). More than 3 times what the growth rate in the US was, at [1.6% for 2016](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-economic-growth-slowed-in-2016-to-1-9/). It was ranked [#34 in the world for economic growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate), just under your Bahamas with their no income tax, no estate or wealth tax, but well above the US at 47. The IMF matter of fact said their economy was \"\"in good health and growing robustly\"\"... So, not sure where you are getting your facts from, but may want to think again. I would recommend that you actually go visit a couple of these \"\"tax hellholes\"\" and see for yourself how \"\"crushed\"\" by their taxes these poor victims of government \"\"theft\"\" are...\"","> To be honest we are probably wrong in trying to tax foreign earnings. [We only tax foreign earnings when the money is repatriated to the US](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-current-system-international-taxation-work). You think businesses should be able to go to the Bahamas, sell vast property to another American, and return the profit to the US tax free? > The US should learn the get on with less. I'm all for discussing that idea. Cut the spending before you talk about cutting the taxes that fund it.","Except again you're wrong and retarded the comment I first made was in response to a ridiculous statement you mad to someone else who was referring to income tax because income tax is theft and I know this because I'm capable of critical thinking now even in my very first comment I mention income tax and nowhere in this entire conversation have I deviated from income taxes other than bringing up an alternative. I would like to ask you again, how hard is it going through life with 0 critical thinking and comprehension skills?","\"Similar, but actually quite different. A negative income tax on the first $20,000/year has a couple of problems this scheme doesn't: 1) Administration costs and legal complexity. Are we \"\"prebating\"\" or \"\"rebating\"\" the stipend? How is someone supposed to get along if they lose their job unexpectedly in a rebate-based system, can they get their income-tax withholdings back up to $20,000/year? How does the government register changes in income to know when to write someone a check? 2) With a negative tax up to a certain *fixed* level, there's effectively a changing level of subsidy depending how much of the per-capita income is the break-even tax level. If the per-capita income is $45,000/year (our current GDP per capita), then the subsidy level is almost 50%, and if it goes up to $60,000/year (our current mean household income), the subsidy level is then 33%. The system I described and steepk (IIRC) invented fixes the subsidy percentage in relation to the mean reported income (effectively fixing a *relative class level* as minimum) rather than a particular monetary amount (whose relative buying power versus inflation or other incomes can fluctuate wildly). We pick a subsidy level, say 1/3 (33.33333%). We then impose a flat income tax of that level plus a little bit more for administration costs (say, 35%). At the end of the year, everyone is taxed at that flat level, and the government scrapes its administration costs off the top and now has a big pot with 1/3 of everyone's income in it. This is divided into one portion for each taxpayer, and those portions into monthly or biweekly pieces. These pieces are sent out regularly as checks to the taxpayer, and *these checks are not taxed as income*. That last bit is what makes this so nice: it turns the tax progressive, in fact more progressive than our current system. After taxes and *after stipend*, only the rich will pay an *effective* tax rate asymptotically close to the real 35%. Most people without incomes many, many times the size of their stipends will be looking at an effective tax rate of less than 15%, including the tax-paying middle class and the professional upper-middle class who currently bitch so much about our tax rates being so confiscatory (which they *are*, for the abysmal level of social services we receive). Now, to get back to the big benefits of fixing the subsidy percentage. This means that the subsidy grows with mean income, effectively functioning as easy to run, fair, and direct wealth redistribution without the difficulty of trying to create efficient, productive WPA-style jobs or imposing market-distorting subsidies. It also means that we can allow things like automation to improve the productivity of our economy because *everyone* gets a share: if automating a certain job is truly more efficient than having a worker do it, the capitalist's income-gain from automation will push up the mean income, and therefore the basic income, further than the worker's lesser income and the capitalist's lesser profit would have.\"","> But sure, if you want companies to stay in the US and customers to pay higher prices to compensate for those higher taxes... But they don't. Across the board; prices in the US are much lower than they are in every other developed country. Partly because of economies of scale, partly because the posted tax rate != the effective tax rate.","\"I largely agree with you; but there's *no way* to make a true apples-to-apples comparison, because we've never had a \"\"flat\"\" across-the-board tax rate, and we never will. And obviously, in the degenerate cases of taxes at 0% and 100%, revenue drop to zero. Given that, the closest we can come to evaluating the potential effects of Trump's proposal is to look at what happens when major shifts in tax policy have occurred in the past; and since 1943 (when something approaching our modern tax structure first solidified)... The short answer to that is, \"\"nothing at all happens\"\". The *explanation* for that is a more interesting issue (though it boils down to \"\"if you tax X, people will Y instead\"\"), but the implications for fiscal policy are both fascinating and terrifying: Effectively, if the government spends more than 15-16% of GDP, *regardless* of how they structure taxes, they're spending against the deficit.\"","\"Alternative Minimum Tax is based not just on your income, but moreso on the deductions you use. In short, if you have above the minimum AMT threshold of income (54k per your link), and pay a tiny amount of tax, you will pay AMT. AMT is used as an overall protection for the government to say \"\"okay, you can use these deductions from your taxable income, but if you're making a lot of money, you should pay something, no matter what your deductions are\"\". This extra AMT can be used to reduce your tax payment in a future year, if you pay regular tax again. For example - if you have 60k in income, but have 60k in specific deductions from your income, you will pay zero regular tax [because your taxable income will be zero]. AMT would require you to pay some tax on your income above the minimum 54k threshold, which might work out to a few thousand bucks. Next year, if you have 60k in income, but only 15k in deductions, then you would pay some regular tax, and would be able to offset that regular tax by claiming a credit from your AMT already paid. AMT is really a pre-payment of tax paid in years when you have a lot of deductions. Unless you have a lot of deductions every single year, in which case you might not be able to get all of your AMT refunded in the end. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of AMT in the US, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax. If you think AMT is unfair (and maybe in some cases you might pay it when you think it's \"\"unfair\"\"), look at the root causes of paying AMT listed in that Wikipedia article: I am not trying to convince you that AMT is fair, just that it applies only when someone already has a very low tax rate due to deductions. If you have straight salary income, it would only apply in rare scenarios.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"The fair tax is a proposal to replace the US income tax with a sales tax. Pros of Fair Tax: It's a large change to the way the United States currently does things. The \\\"\\\"Fair Tax Act of 2011\\\"\\\" is H.R.25 in the US House and S.13 in the Senate. The full text of the bill is available at the links provided. There are some fairly large consequences of implementing a fair tax. For example, 401ks and Roth IRAs serve no benefit over non-retirement investments. Mortgages would no longer have a tax advantage. Luxury items would get far more expensive.\\\"\",\n \"Its a new way of computing sales tax. Wikipedia has a nice article on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax\",\n \"\\\"In a nutshell - Value Added Tax. America, as usual, discovers what others have known and used for years. The idea of not taxing income that's tied to it is ridiculous. If you're only taxing spending but not income, people will just take spending elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, further away), and the economy will go down the drain. That's similar to the way people avoid paying sales tax now, except that it will be in orders of magnitude. Why should a corporation by office supplies in the US, if it has a branch in China? Edit Also, Fair Tax doesn't take into account moving money overseas. I've mentioned living elsewhere down below, and that also got me thinking of how I personally would certainly gain from that ridiculous thing called \\\"\\\"Fair Tax\\\"\\\". Basically, that's exactly how the \\\"\\\"rich folks\\\"\\\", those who push for it, will gain from it. Being able to move money out of the US basically makes it a perfect tax shelter. You don't pay taxes on the income (that you have in the US), and you don't pay taxes on the spendings (that you have elsewhere, because in that country income is taxable so you only pay VAT or sales taxes). This means that all the wealthy people, while investing and gaining money from the American economy (stocks, property, etc), will actually not be spending it in the US. Thus, no taxes paid to the US, dollars flowing out. Perfect. Actually, I should be all for this stupid idea. Very fair to me, no need to pay any taxes at all, because food will probably be exempt anyway.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You asked about the challenges. The transition itself is the biggest one. For people to get used to the tax at the register vs at their paycheck. For a great number of people to find new work. I don't know the numbers, but anyone involved with personal income taxes would be out of work. Sales tax is already part of the process in most states, bumping it to a federal tax wont add too much in overhead. I make no moral judgment, but consider, most prostitutes and drug dealers are avoiding income tax, but they still are buying the same goods in stores you and I are. This proposed tax reduces the collection noncompliance, and brings more people into \\\"\\\"the system\\\"\\\". Another factor some may not like is the ability to affect behavior by picking and choosing what to promote, via deductions, such as home buying or charity.\\\"\",\n \"Yeah, the VAT adds more fairness between who gets the taxes, but is only offset by it being more complicated and needing more bureaucracy. I think it's an interesting idea. If I were a policy analyst I'd like to see what costs are vs. benefit.\",\n \"Meanwhile, income tax is still based on the premise that the government owns your income (property). The government owns all of it and decides how much you get to keep. This is theft based on force. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson wants to end all income taxes including business income taxes and replace it with a federal consumption tax. Doesn't anyone want freedom?\",\n \"Amazon and other online retailers actually now support bipartisan legislation to level the playing field regarding online sales taxes. Value Added Taxes (not sales taxes in the typical sense) are the way to go, as they are much more difficult to evade and can't be sheltered via the Cayman Islands. They can easily be made progressive through the use of rebates to lower income individuals. There is a reason it is in place in over 130 countries.\",\n \"What about changing the income tax to a national sales tax and putting different products and services on a tiered system. Basic necessities would be taxed at a lower rate (if at all), then you work up the tiers towards purely luxury items that are taxed at a much higher rate? That would give us the benefits of a sales tax while, at the same time, not placing an extra burden on the lower class (who would, presumably, need to spend a higher portion of their income on basic necessities).\",\n \"\\\"No one thinks a flat tax is a good idea. As someone that has a good income, I would love to be paying 20%. But I doubt a poorer person paying 5% would agree. Flat tax is regressive and hurts poorer people the most. \\\"\\\"The flat tax falls flat for good reasons\\\"\\\" https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/26/the-flat-tax-falls-flat-for-good-reasons/\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yeah the biggest problem with this is that it far more heavily taxes the poor than the rich. Poor people spend *all of their income.* Month-to-month, living paycheck-to-paycheck, poor people have no choice but to spend their entire incomes on basic necessities, utilities, etc. Rich people on the other hand spend very little of their incomes. Most of it gets stashed in hedgefunds and overseas holdings and doesn't really \\\"\\\"change hands\\\"\\\" in a way that allows it to be taxed under this style of tax structure. So your tax continuously hits 100% of the wealth of the bottom 75%(ish) of households while largely bypassing the rich folks who have more money than they can *spend*. In short, this kind of tax structure is really bad for anyone who doesn't make $300k+ a year and store most of their wealth in stocks and so forth. If you want to help the general public (households making less than $300k/year), you need to generate more tax revenue from *investments* and *capital gains*. A 2% tax, say, on stock trades valued over $10,000 obviously wouldn't hurt poor people at all, and also wouldn't really hurt the rich. Cuz if you've got 10 grand (or a hundred, or thousand, or whatever) to stash in shares of Amazon or whatever, you're really not gonna miss the $200 that comes off the top of your trade. But this *would* generate huge tax revenue, as there are thousands of such transfers a day.\\\"\",\n \"Well not over 50%. I would want a very very simple flat rate tax (say around 25-30%) with a high personal allowance (say around $25k) and no tax breaks etc. This seems to be the fairest. Low incomes pay the least and the rich are taxed fairly but not to the extent they feel the need to avoid it.\",\n \"Say for example a trade totals $10,000. A flat tax of 0.2% would be $20. This is not much for the Buy & Holder b/c he only makes a few trades a year, say 10 transactions a year. So their tax is only about $200 per year. (heck we could even drop it to 0.1%). But DayTraders will routinely do 10 trades a day, or over 3000 trades a year. So using that same 10K trade above, that could hypothetically be 3000x20 = $60,000 per year in taxes. Computer Traders will do hundreds of trades per day. Say 30,000 trades per year. So that is $600,000. So you can see how iit hardly affects legitimate investors, while making the HF traders control themselves a bit. This is what we want. The exchanges charge the flat tax with the transaction like a Sales tax. It avoids excess regulation (the SEC already monitors trades, or is supposed to), and it hurts the gamblers (HFTs), while not hindering the good guys (investors).\",\n \"Owing taxes to two or more levels of government isn't double taxation. It's a feature of the American union. I'm not for this bill in general, mostly for the timing and the loss of the highest bracket, but both the state and federal governments have to generate revenue, and basing rates on pure incomes with a few loopholes as possible is the most progressive way to do it. By owing taxes unadjusted for other taxes paid, there's more incentive for states to lower local taxes and to balance state programs with federal programs, and for state reps to more fairly redistribute federal transfers instead of targeting states with (usually artificially) low local taxes and fewer state programs (usually Republican).\",\n \"The point is, they shouldn't be taxing it at all. The US's fair share of that revenue is 0%. It's wasn't produced via their infrastructure or anything. It's pure double dipping. It's not up to the US to determine it's fair share of someone else's pie. It's pure American arrogance: interfering in business in other countries.\",\n \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15680254/republicans-border-adjustment-tax) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Which would essentially add a 20 percent tax on imported goods while exempting US exports, was the key solution House Republicans had come up with to raise enough revenue to offset corporate tax cuts. > In the document, House Republicans outlined their communications strategy, which included three steps to selling the BAT. Step 1: Link the broken tax code to job losses in manufacturing. > The problem for the White House and congressional Republicans is that the administration hasn&#039;t offered a competing plan to pay for the trillions of dollars in tax cuts Trump wants. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejbtb/nobody_likes_the_border_adjustment_tax_except_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~133521 tl;drs so far.\\\"\\\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \\\"\\\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\\\"\\\") | *Top* *keywords*: **tax**^#1 **House**^#2 **Republican**^#3 **border**^#4 **provision**^#5\\\"\",\n \"It sounds good on paper, the problem is licensing fees paid to foreign subsidiaries for IP and trademark use. That's how Apple makes 80% of it's revenue in the US and still makes 80% of it's profit in Ireland. If the US doesn't take foreign income into account, every multinational would offshore their profits the same way. Many do it now, and the loop hole isn't as big as people are advocating for.\",\n \">a set fraction of the mean income, distributed to everyone whether or not they have other income. Seems fair to me. I would also re-tool tax brackets so instead of being based on income, they'd be based on money eared relative to the national mean. That way the brackets are naturally dynamic.\",\n \"There's one huge difference. Generally speaking, the entire burden of paying VAT is intended to be placed upon end consumers, and not upon businesses themselves. So ditching corporation tax and increasing VAT would mean shifting a huge amount of the tax burden from corporations to every-day people. Such a policy could kill the party that attempted to push it.\",\n \"But why can't two companies exchange goods directly without paying VAT? This would make the famous carousel fraud scam impossible and businesses won't have to deal with complicated refunds. Sales tax in the United States works as you describe. Sales tax is charged only to end customers, not to businesses that themselves charge sales tax. But this means that a criminal business can charge tax and just pocket it unless someone else reports it. They can also evade income tax the same way. Not to mention other issues like cross jurisdiction taxes (e.g. internet sales often evade sales tax). The whole point of a Value Added Tax (VAT) is that they charge at each level. This creates a system where each buyer reports the tax paid to the seller so as to be able to deduct it. So the seller has to pay the VAT that they charged. Or the tax authorities know and can revoke their VAT license. If only the end user is charged tax, then fraud is easier than under a VAT. So easy, I doubt they have a special name for it. The fraudulent business just collects tax from end users and disappears. Or simply fails to record those transactions. You could call it missing transaction record fraud, but why bother? It's just straight up tax fraud. The complexity of the carousel fraud arises from the difficulty of evading a VAT.\",\n \"Well-defined definitions of a successful tax plan and its likely outcomes. Concrete, simple tax brackets. Hard numbers with real world value, not rhetorical promises washed through special interest groups and lobbyists. Well done. There's no way the current administration will do anything remotely this intelligent.\",\n \"Corporate profits are currently taxed twice. Once at the corporate level, and a second time when the corporation's owners get paid via dividends or capital gains. The alternative is simply to eliminate the corporate-level taxation and raise the dividend and capital gains taxes back up to normal levels. Instead of (1-35%)*(1-15%) we'd just have (1-45%) or something\",\n \"The way I see it, corporation tax is not fundamentally different from VAT. They are both a tax on revenue minus expenses, just what those expenses are is different. I think the main advantage of corporation tax is that it allows capital expenditure to be spread over several years, although as I said this makes it more complicated (and I believe that there are some capital allowances for VAT as well). One advantage of VAT is that sales in one country are taxed in that country before the money can be sent abroad. It seems simple and fair to split the tax burden between jurisdictions according to how many sales were made in each.\",\n \"An equity tax does seem to make some sense. It would probably help to stave off deflation as well because it would encourage growth and investment where people would otherwise choose to sit on their money or worse. An equity tax on currency or liquid investments of even .5% APR would have a huge effect on the behavior of corporations. Sadly the largest of them would have the resources to avoid the tax by keeping all of their money out of the country.\",\n \"This is something a redditor came up with. It provides a basic income to everyone, while still penalizing those who don't work (by minutely by surely lowering their stipend) and preventing a poverty trap (by never withdrawing the stipend).\",\n \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/case-consumption-tax.html) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > You often hear calls out there - mostly from Right economists but also from some on the Left - for a consumption tax in the U.S. As presented, it&#039;s a super-simple idea: tally your income, subtract your saving, and what&#039;s left is your consumption. > The tuition line raises a particularly vexing question, and brings us back to the second question: what economic effects would we see from a consumption tax, under various accounting and taxation rules? Clearly, if you tax tuition, you discourage education. > A consumption tax, compared to, say, a wealth tax or a land-value tax, is a direct assault on GDP and GDP growth. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6txd1l/the_case_against_a_consumption_tax/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~191594 tl;drs so far.\\\"\\\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \\\"\\\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\\\"\\\") | *Top* *keywords*: **consumption**^#1 **Save**^#2 **tax**^#3 **account**^#4 **family**^#5\\\"\",\n \"Irrelevant to the question. Regardless what is used for the tax base, we would still have the same debate but with much larger anti-taxation sentiments. Supply side Jesus either works or doesn't and shifting the federal revenue sources to the income taxes does not change it.\",\n \"What a shit idea lol. Like how about not spend so damn much on stupid shit America. How about creating a tax bracket on those that make the oodles of dough per year. Don't go after the working man's retirement savings as easy pickings for taxes. Wtf\",\n \"It is double taxation. The same income is taxed twice. But as to the core of your argument, starting from a baseline of zero I agree. But we aren't starting over .. there is 100+ years of income tax history and almost 250 years of state/local governments creating the services required for local residents. It's been amazing how a lil bit of federal control has caused the conservative movement has forgotten they brought the 10th amendment to life with Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida.\",\n \"Currently, the answer is no, you cannot get out of filing a tax return. As noted in the comments, if you want to pay more to get out of the drudgery of working on your return, you can pay an accountant to do it for you. You are not alone in thinking that the current income tax system in the U.S. is overly complicated. What you are essentially describing is a flat tax, a system where there would be a simple tax rate that is paid with no deductions, loopholes, etc., and minimal reporting requirements. Besides flat tax proposals, others have proposed eliminating the income tax altogether and switching to a national sales tax, such as the FairTax proposal. Each of these proposals has pros and cons over the current system, and if you have questions about them, feel free to ask a new question. But what they have in common is that they would drastically simplify the system of taxation in this country. If that sounds good to you, you can learn more about these proposals and support organizations and candidates that advocate these reforms.\",\n \"What do you propose a fair share should be? They pay nearly $900 million per year in income taxes. Their effective rate is reduced due to them paying higher taxes in years prior, plus they lost money and can deduct that as well. Not to mention, they are double taxed as a corporation and payroll taxes are not part of that $900 million, so they're paying even more than that. Part of what makes the US awesome is an environment that helps business grow. What do you think will happen when a business pays let's say 20% on revenue generated in other countries and then another 20% tax on that revenue here? Either companies will move to a country with a lower tax rate or they pull back on global trade. Both are bad for the economy.\",\n \"\\\"So you are back to saying that the price Walmart charges for each item depends on the income level of the purchaser. That's not fair, so neither are taxes based on the income levels of taxpayers. I don't think road sweepers should be subsidized so they can drive a Rolls Royce car. And I don't think they should be allowed to live in a Rolls Royce location unless they can afford to compensate those they exclude from it. The fact they currently are is outrageous as it causes a shrunken economy and excessive inequalities. Real estate bubbles are caused by not have a LVT. Obviously there could be no \\\"\\\"bubble\\\"\\\" as it would have already been taxed away.\\\"\",\n \"> Its a no, there should be no taxes on anyone, only service providers and voluntary customers. Last time you made this claim I pointed you to [a video on the US's Articles of Confederation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6rHSiN0vKk) and you never responded. Perhaps you'll muster up the courage this time. The Articles of Confederation was set up very similar to what you are proposing. Why do you think that government failed?\",\n \"Actually, yes, I do think it's fair. It's a corporation, not a family. I think *individuals* should pay 50% of every dollar above $5m. That means every dollar; personal income, capital gains, interest, whatever. My **only** problem with taxes is how poorly I think they're spent right now. Giving more money to worthless corporate whores (congress) who've already proven they don't have the people's interests at heart is not a concept I relish. One thing at a time though.\",\n \"\\\"1) Yes in theory that is right - minus any state taxes as well. 2) They could since there is an unknown amount outside of the US - and probably it will be a percentage and not all. Most of these companies that make a difference are already international companies. 3) They would most likely still do it for any money kept offshore, and it doesn't prevent them from continuing to do it. Again, I didn't say this was a good solution. They are just hoping to ward off economic collapse a little longer by doing this, or perhaps hire more accountants to be able to look at their books to figure out how much they are hiding to punish them. There could be many \\\"\\\"motivations\\\"\\\" for doing this tax. But I doubt any of the motivations intend to stop it from continuing to happen after the tax. The problem is any company that takes advantage of it basically says \\\"\\\"yes, i broke the law - in this amount.\\\"\\\" Thus, it might be a good way to get a list of companies to audit more thoroughly.\\\"\",\n \"Okays, so the prices we pay for goods and services aren't set by our income levels. Why should taxes be any different? Surely they should be set by the benefits we receive from the community as measured by the market? That's what LVT is and does.\",\n \"We don't have all the details, but individuals and corporations can either deduct or elect to get a credit for foreign taxes paid. What if this stays and the state/local deduction is eliminated. The IRS directly states the intent is to avoid double taxation. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-tax-credit-choosing-to-take-credit-or-deduction And ya, the system you make reference to was tried in the Articles of Confederation and proved unworkable. The initial point is that it makes no sense to eliminate the state and local tax deduction unless the intent is to punish blue states and localities in order to offset a reduction in taxes for the wealthy.\",\n \"Agreed which is why an income tax is a bad idea. Personally I'm in favor of property taxes as a way to fund government. It is a much more objective measure and easy for the government's to confiscate if taxes remain unpaid.\",\n \"I disagree. First off the SEC is under-funded anyhow, and most economists agree that there needs to be better regulation of the exchanges; ya know since it can fucking crash our economy and send us into WW3. Secondly, it's a flat Transaction tax much like any other State Sales Tax. State Sales Tax is arguably the most successful form of taxation there is, b/c it's so damn easy to implement, and so damn easy to audit. You're blowing this thing way out of proportion. They require the markets to charge a Transaction tax, and then they do periodic audits to ensure each exchange is doing it. The rates go up or down based on the previous quarters number of HFTs. Outside of said formula, this transaction rate can be altered by a meeting of a few SEC heads, and approved when approved by the appropriate congressional body. Kills 2 birds with one stone: * more money to the underfunded SEC * lessens the impact of HFTs and turns the markets back into a market instead of a casino. It will have minimal effects on buy & hold traders since they typically research for a long time, then buy & hold stock for many months. It will mainly affect those who buy & unload several times per day. PS: If you think that letting a market die and having new ones pop up periodically is a good idea then holy shit. Financial markets need stability & regulation. Finance doesn't like uncertainty. Crash & burn marketplaces will help no one, and will raise uncertainty which we all know investors hate.\",\n \"The GOP has a lazy Susan of bad ideas. The proposed tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by two and a half trillion dollars over the next ten years. The argument in favor is that cutting taxes will boost the economy enough to make up for the cuts. IT NEVER DOES. Ever. The proposal is loaded with tax cuts for wealthy folks. Some middle class folks will see an increase because there won't be a deduction for mortgage interest and property taxes. Thanks Obama.\",\n \"Yes absurd. But those fat cat business owners need to pay their share! I mean my 70 year old Korean dry cleaner and his wife have been screwing the state out of their fair share of the till for a long time. But seriously, the tax is really horrible for the small business with small margins and large volume. Dry cleaners, restaurants and convenience stores are just a few examples.\",\n \"Lol I'm not even talking about no government (although that's ideal) you're just retarded to think income tax is the ONLY way to fund a government. Like I said before a federal sales tax would more than suffice and in a lot of cases would work better but please by all means continue to live in ignorance. Just because things have been done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it's the best or most efficient way.\",\n \"Okay. The goal should be to avoid taxing those at the lower bracket. So no taxes for those making 30,000 and under. A lower bracket for those making $31,000 to $80,000. Leave in deductions for taxes paid to states. These can be very high and many are taxed twice. Trump's plan removes many deductions used for double taxes. Leave in mortgage interest deduction. It benefits mostly small rental companies and home owner. Get rid of many business deductions. Lower corporate taxes, especially on new businesses. There is a start. You want to have a discussion regarding this.\",\n \"It's a scam pushed through to benefit the banking system. Tax payments become income for the banks. Any alleged benefits for property holders are ultimately reduced by increased property prices, capital gains tax and estate taxes\",\n \"Giving the government more control over the distribution of goods and services, even more than it has now, is the recipe for imbalance that has doomed communism and socialism. Even the most tax friendly of the euros are having problems with their systems. They simply aren't competitive. https://www.thelocal.dk/20170829/denmarks-government-announces-new-tax-plan\",\n \"I believe you are confusing sales tax with income tax. The tax holidays in the US are only for sales tax. Consumers purchasing certain goods during the tax holiday do not have to pay sales tax like they normally would. Effectively the price is slightly lower during those days with the purpose of giving people an extra reason to shop at that time. During the tax holiday the stores make the exact same profit that they normally do, but they may experience a bump in sales simply because more people will shop during that time. Income tax for both consumers and the businesses is not affected by this. Although New York state was the first state to implement a tax holiday 20 years ago, they no longer have one today, though they do have certain goods which have a lower tax rate year round.\",\n \"Saving Fortune 500 companies hundreds of millions to billions a year and a small company a few thousand. Who's paying for the shortfall to the IRS? The reality is a small business probably make $0 profit because the owner pays himself out, or has enough employees that the (company) makes a profit saving a few grand doesn't do anything. You know what would help? The 1 trillion profit the Fortune 500 make a year, take half. Give energy companies 0% interest loans to pay off their nuclear plants and reduce energy costs for 320 million Americans by a large amount. Take the remainder and the following 3 years and refinance mortgages at 0% interest starting from the smallest to largest loans. 4 years high taxes on large corporations I just bailed out the middle class and helped the poor with 100% retuned to the IRS.\",\n \"Sales taxes are charged at the point of purchase, while a VAT is assessed during the production process of the item. In the end, the amount paid by the consumer is the same, but with the VAT, the tax was collected from the manufacturer, instead of the consumer. One of the big arguments for VAT is that it prevents lost revenue due to things like smuggling (if sales tax increases past 10% smuggling spikes, so the VAT is a good mechanism if you're looking to implement large taxes on goods). It also keeps the tax burden away from shippers and other tiers of the production process that don't change the intrinsic value of the item.\",\n \"Much of this inequality would be reduced if we moved from income taxation to a wealth/asset tax. We could exempt a person's main residence and retirement savings (similar to the way we do now with the home mortgage deduction and capital gains exemption and with IRAs). This would also obviate the need for a separate capital gains tax.\",\n \"\\\"> So raise taxes on individuals and eliminate business taxes? The government still has to pay for things eventually. The big thing the US pays for that other countries don't is our massive, most-expensive-in-the-world military, which can take up roughly half our budget, Yes we should decrease military spending and stop policing the world. The biggest future expenditure will be unfunded obligations which are between $20 to $60 trillion USD. Without reform the US will go bankrupt. The dollar could be hyper-inflated which destroys the value and people's savings. The dollar will lose world reserve currency status. > We defend other countries through alliances like NATO and bilateral agreements. For that, we need a higher tax rate. We can tax individuals or businesses. Let other countries defend themselves unless they absolutely need help. People and businesses can be taxed, but high taxes and regulations are counter-productive. It hurts small business, innovation, job growth and pushes companies to move abroad and outsource. There's alarming record high unemployment in the US: >**[One in Five Families Are on Food Stamps](http://reason.com/24-7/2013/04/25/one-in-five-families-are-on-food-stamps)** The latest available data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that **a record number 23 million households in the United States are now on food stamps.** > The most recent Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) statistics of **the number of households receiving food stamps shows that 23,087,886 households participated in January 2013 - an increase of 889,154 families from January 2012 when the number of households totaled 22,188,732.** As John F. Kennedy said:. >**“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”** >– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference >**\\\"\\\"'Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”*** >– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964 >“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”* >– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President” [Read more]( http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25640/#GRyFgRZYqUiKoud6.99)\\\"\",\n \"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate > Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people. >Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform\",\n \"\\\"Ah, gotcha. That would be moving the country towards a more socialistic or communistic system where the government controls more of the means of production. I think there would be a problem. Successful companies need to be disruptive and the larger you are the harder it is to try a different approach. I think if the government did try to offer a competing product, the beauracracy would weigh down the offering. The only way the government could be assured a profitable business is to compete unfairly. Consider one of the big government companies, the Post Office. UPS has always been seen as the higher-quality delivery serive. Overnight shipping was considered impossible until FedEx did it. Even today the USPS is in serious financial trouble even though it is granted a monopoly on letter delivery (it is illegal for UPS and FedEx to deliver letters). The Post Office is too inefficient to make money on package delivery so they subsidize that side of their business selling stamps. > so we could abolish income tax and lower taxes over all IMO, the taxes will be paid one way or another. If you cut income tax then it will be replaced with a payroll tax, or sales tax, or property tax, or tariff, or passed to you in the form of higher prices. The only question is the definition of a person or group's \\\"\\\"fair share\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Tax US corporate \\\"\\\"persons (citizens)\\\"\\\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\\\"\",\n \"I am guessing that you don't understand that even a 100% tax bracket doesn't actually equal you paying 100% of your profits in taxes. This is why the use, while having a 35%messaging corporate tax rate, only sees less than 20% in an average effective corporate tax rate... In the same vein, if a company paid taxes on what profits were created within a countries borders, that would be a fairly accurate method of calculating every country's fair percent of revenue from that company and the amount of infrastructure that were utilized by that company within that country's borders. And it still wouldn't add up to anywhere near 100% of that company's net profits...\",\n \"\\\"The current tax regime? Not sure if you are being serious or facetious, but: [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** In contrast, corporations don't pay taxes on profits earned abroad until repatriation [here](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/14/news/economy/corporate-taxes-inversion/index.html), [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html), [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-apple-profits/). So guess what they NEVER do? This is why literally every large US multi-national corporate \\\"\\\"person\\\"\\\" pays next to nothing in taxes. It is quite obvious that this is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of tax law. That simple fix would wipe out massive amounts of government debt and force multi-national corporations and their shareholders to become engaged stake holders in the efficiency of government. But if, unlike W-2 paid human counterparts, you can dodge all taxation, \\\"\\\"Who cares if the government is using funds efficiently?\\\"\\\" That is incentive to actually game the system to force the government into wasteful spending because the subsequent fallout of increased taxation and/or failure of the state can be dodged without consequence.\\\"\",\n \"Why not talk about services? Why should I pay more for services. It's not like more income means I use the roads and bridges more. More income doesn't mean more kids that need public education. More income doesn't mean I use fire services more. If you ask me, I'd rather people just pay for the services they use. Have kids? Then you pay for their school. Drive 60 minutes to work, then you pay more than someone that drives 10 minutes. That's seems fair.\",\n \"Does that strike you as a fair solution? All the people that have made sacrifices and not spent every dime they have earned deserve to have it taken away? And I am sure they do have it 'somewhere' like low yield bonds or savings accounts...\",\n \"> if a company paid taxes on what profits were created within a countries borders, that would be a fairly accurate method of calculating every country's fair percent of revenue from that company That's exactly what I said in the post you originally replied to.\",\n \"\\\"Why is this even on the table? It's effectively a **revenue neurtral** proposal! You still pay taxes on \\\"\\\"tax deferred\\\"\\\" retirement plans - In fact, I would dare say that in most cases, people end up paying **more** in taxes, because they pay it as regular income rather than LTCG. The poor will still eat cat food and live on SSI; the rich consider what $18k/year would get them as a laughable pittance (and I say that as someone who *doesn't* grudge them their wealth). This will *only* have the effect of fucking the middle class. There is absolutely no other possible interpretation.\\\"\",\n \"One of the reasons is also general distrust to the government. Another one is that there exist special interest group which profits from the complicated scheme, keep adding special cases, and has stronger financial situation that the opponents of such complex scheme. People do not trust government, or companies, to act in their best interests. So they (we) waste huge amount of time and/or money to comply with byzantine income laws. In 2004 Democratic presidential primary, presidential candidate Wes Clark (who beyond being 4-star general has also master degree in economics from Oxford, and taught economics in West point) proposed similar scheme: for people with income under 50K, employer would do all the (simple) paperwork, if desired, and get return. In the noise of the campaign, idea how to simplify taxes for half of the population was lost. Funny how the only candidate in recent history who was both professor of economics (not MBA, which is about business and profits) and distinguished military hero, could not get any traction in Democratic party.\",\n \"\\\">Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to. Most of the American public believes that the bulk of taxes are federal income taxes. That's what they fixate on when evaluating the \\\"\\\"fairness\\\"\\\" of taxation. The fact remains that the very wealthy and very large corporations are structured so that they don't pay that particular type of tax. That's why Mitt Romney's tax returns are being squinted at. Mitt pays capital gains tax, not income tax and tripling the tax rate on the upper-most tax bracket wouldn't really affect him. You know this. I know this. But most people don't and few people are interested in learning how it works. If you want to \\\"\\\"tax the rich\\\"\\\" just create a progressive scale for capital gains instead of a flat 15%.\\\"\",\n \"Proportional is good, but we don't need redistribution. The market mechanism does that on its own when it's free. The bailouts of the banks and auto industry should have shown that the only thing stopping a major, but poorly run business from bankruptcy (and having its assets redistributed) is government intervention. Maybe the change will light a fire under complacent companies and they'll start earning their profits again, or maybe they'll fail. There's no way to know ahead of time, but with no legal barriers to entry, the playing field will be fair again.\",\n \"\\\"The only reason taxes are \\\"\\\"needed\\\"\\\" is because the people are to ignorant to know there are better more moral systems out there. For instance instead of stealing hard earned money from people tax the money they spend ie federal sales tax. \\\"\\\"How is that any different?!\\\"\\\" Because a sales tax isn't theft it just raises the price of products you want to buy, this way there is no tax dodging and no imprisonment for keeping what you earned and what is rightfully yours\\\"\",\n \"It destroyed Sweden's position as a major player in the global securities market. When the tax was rescinded in 1991, some of the trade returned over time but things were never the same. It was also a net revenue loser without even considering the long term market damage.\",\n \">American politics is pretty utterly fucked isn't it? Haha, I think that's the one thing most sides can agree on. >That's interesting, and I've heard it before. Is something like this writer outlines what you are thinking? Essentially remove corporate taxes, and then tax dividends and capital gains as normal income? Yeah I like the idea for a few reasons. Incentivizes investments in America (capital is far more mobile than labor or even capital owners), gets rid of malinvestment of tax avoidance, sticks taxation exactly where we want it (in this case capital owners instead of random incidence among labor/capital/consumers), and cuts other deadweight losses inherent in a corporate income tax. It's really hard for me to understand why almost anyone would be against this. It's a progressive, pro-growth, anti-crony idea.\",\n \"\\\"> Bernie sources: I would agree, it looks like the tax would cover all those that buy stock, bonds, and derivatives. However, this article didn't really cover the specifics. What would the tax be? Would it a flat dollar amount per transaction? That would make sense as it would focus more on those that do high volume traders. That wouldn't really impact me, as I already pay $9 per transaction. And I don't do many transactions. A couple dollars more, and I would be fine. > To answer your Enron example, no corporation would have enough power to actually do something like that if they didn't have at least partial backing by the government. Ah, but corporations [edit - wouldn't] have the power to do much of anything without someone to enforce their policies. Name one market that doesn't have an enforcement agency of some type. That is a mighty big assumption that the \\\"\\\"free market\\\"\\\" would make it work... especially since one doesn't really exist. And that would be the crux of my argument. All of the things you say about the perfection of the market to regulate itself is so far not proven. Take a market like Kansas - over the last 6 years, they just underwent one of the largest deregulation, de-taxation experiments of any state in the union. The results were less than stellar. Kansas is lagging the national average in growth. And they took a hundred million dollar surplus and turned into a couple billion dollar deficit almost overnight. And who suffers, of course the most poor. They shut down schools, fired teachers, and shelved many infrastructure jobs - jobs that would have been fielded by lower wage workers... And those infrastructure projects were undoubtedly in lower income areas. I would say, if you truly believe in what you preach then live it. Start a commune somewhere. Demonstrate how it is effective. That would have more power than preaching some amorphous unproveable policy over the internet.\\\"\",\n \">All tax is income tax, as if you haven't got the income, you can't pay it. This is a pretty apt simplification. I find that most land value tax advocates are either trying to engineer the demographics of property ownership or spiteful against people who own more than they themselves do.\",\n \"> Taxation is theft. No, and [we've already gone down this road](https://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/6leb2o/missouri_republicans_lower_st_louis_minimum_wage/dju1jjp/). Are you familiar with US history and the time they had the [Articles of Confederation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)? I would be curious to know why you think it failed.\",\n \"I see a couple of ways of getting at this. One would be to switch to a VAT. That would capture a good amount of revenue on anything that's made here. Second, I want IP to be taxed. We pay property taxes, so I think that trademarks and copyrighted works should be taxed just like how real property is taxed. You want to register the Burger King logo in the US? Sure thing! You will pay a percentage of its value every year and you get to use it exclusively with the full protection of the US courts your taxes help fund. I also see this as a good way out of the IP cesspool we're currently in. Copyright has become unreasonably long mostly because Disney doesn't want to lose the rights to Mickey Mouse. Look, I *am* sympathetic to Disney's argument. Mickey genuinely is important to them. But Mickey is fucking things up for everyone else. So I think Disney should pay a percentage of Mickey's value every year. In exchange, they keep their copyright forever as long as they keep paying. Now, if the copyright tax isn't paid, then the property becomes public domain forever. This would let Disney have what they want while non-profitable copyrights become public domain, as they should. Anyhow, the one thing all the big tax-avoiding companies have in common is IP. If you tax their IP in exchange for protection in US courts, there's really no way around that. They will either have to pay or let their IP go public domain.\",\n \"\\\"Let's imagine an economy where 100% of wealth creation comes from existing financial assets and 0% comes from new wealth creation. That would essentially be a dead economy. I don't think it matters what your philosophy on economics is--that's a bad outcome. If you don't agree with that point we'll stop here. Note, if you don't think it's bad for this to keep going higher, Japan is at about 80% and we know how they're doing. If you agree 100% would be bad then we're 70% of the way there in the US. Trump's tax plan, if enacted, would push us even further. The question we should be asking is what is a reasonable way to encourage NEW wealth creation rather than protect and preserve existing wealth. For starters, it makes little sense to have a preferential tax rate for capital gains/dividends/estates as compared to earned income. Even if you just hate taxes and want them all to be gone I think it's fairly easy to say IF we're going to have taxes they should not favor income/transfer from existing financial assets as compared to earned income. A much more reasonable way to approach this is to say, we have a lot of concentration of financial assets in the top decile of wealth spectrum. Let's just level the tax rate so that income from financial assets is taxes at a similar rate to income from work. That's not even an \\\"\\\"eat the rich\\\"\\\" proposal, it's just a \\\"\\\"eat everyone equally\\\"\\\" proposal. All it would do is tax the very substantial gains in stocks at the same rate as the very meagre (median) gains from working. The fact that taxing income from financial assets at the same rate as work is a controversial idea is, to me, emblematic of a government completely captured by wealthy interests.\\\"\",\n \"Wanna make sure every company pays at least some taxes? Install a 'tax floor'. Basically, no matter how many losses you claim, no matter how much you offshore, no matter how many loopholes you find, you can not drop below a certain number. Let's say 15%. That is it, you have to pay at least 15%. As this takes effect, and only after revenues stream in for a few years to help balance things out, you can even slightly adjust the high rate down a tad to help the big companies that don't use the loopholes. Please spread this idea around.\",\n \"So raise taxes on individuals and eliminate business taxes? The government still has to pay for things eventually. The big thing the US pays for that other countries don't is our massive, most-expensive-in-the-world military, which can take up roughly half our budget, sometimes even more depending on how active we are abroad. That includes paying for current wars, preparing for future wars, and serving the veterans of past wars. We defend other countries through alliances like NATO and bilateral agreements. For that, we need a higher tax rate. We can tax individuals or businesses.\",\n \"My state (Oregon) doesn't give me credit for all the federal taxes I pay so I get taxed by the state for money I never received. Now both will, fun. With this policy it would be worth it to move my family to a red state and start turning it blue.\",\n \"\\\"So some background here - when corporations, large ones have to deal with tax, they generally try to avoid as much tax as possible. Since there are places that are \\\"\\\"tax havens\\\"\\\" where there is less to even no tax on profit, a lot of money gets routed there to avoid taxes in other places (US or other unfavorable countries). The problem with this from an IRS/government view is that they keep losing millions/billions of dollars in money because of this. I think the corporate federal tax rate is around 35% and that is without state taxes. Unfortunately when you have less and less money at home - less investment at home happens. Corporations stop doing business at home because they have more money somewhere else - and it makes sense to move more of the company to where the money is or to more favorable tax locations. Even worse - the corporation might just \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\" its money somewhere else and kill all reinvestment - thus the money is effectively dead to the rest of the economy. There is a lot of talk about a 'one-time' repatriation tax to allow companies that have dodged their tax burdens to have their money come back to the US (and thus can be used locally) at 10% instead of 35% since there is theroretically a vast amount of cash that would be injected into the US economy. The government is hoping this stimulation will help GDP grow, taxes grow, and help the economy as a whole. In reality, it will reward corporations that broke the law (even though everyone does it), and probably just go into savings accounts here in the US - and not be the \\\"\\\"silver bullet\\\"\\\" to the economy on verge of collapse again.\\\"\",\n \">Corporate taxes as a percentage of federal revenue declined from 27.3 percent in 1955 to 8.9 percent in 2010 If the federal government adds a European-style VAT tax, that would also greatly decrease corporate taxes as a percentage of federal revenue, but it would be because there's more taxes coming in from other sources. Federal income taxes in the United States didn't even *exist* until 1913. Percentage of federal income goes down as income from other sources go up. The United States [currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/us-corporate-tax-rate_n_1392310.html).\",\n \"Yet, if you are wealthy enough to have already accumulated the bulk of your savings, they're going to treat your capital gains much more favorably than the wage income of the poor shlub who's still trying to make these contributions. I can't wait to see how they attempt to sell this to the average taxpayer.\",\n \"How about if we lower taxes on the bottom two brackets and increase taxes on the top two brackets? Right now it's 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. But wouldnt it be better if we change it to 8, 13, 25, 28, 35, 38 percent? The poor are the ones who spends most of their money on sale taxes than compared with any other brackets and the more money the poor have the more they will spend which will lead to more growth in the economy\",\n \"> This constant belief that services should cost a percentage instead of a fixed rate that everyone pays is a joke. Your position makes good sense but if everyone paid a fixed rate in taxes then about %25 of the people would go broke. It doesn't seem fair that someone working within the system is bankrupted by the system. Seems to me we need to first fix unfairness in wages. Anyone who works full time for the system should at least be able to afford a modest life including health care, retirement, and taxes. Then I think it is right to demand they pay taxes to the system. Would you agree?\",\n \"\\\"No, it is not true. That is one of the many \\\"\\\"conspiracy theorists'\\\"\\\" claims to not pay taxes, and is considered as frivolous (i.e.: punishable by very harsh penalties and criminal prosecution). Specifically to your question, the current Federal income tax framework was laid down in 1986, with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It is codified under the title 26 of the US Code. It is usually referred to as the \\\"\\\"Internal Revenue Code\\\"\\\", or IRC.\\\"\",\n \"Your federal taxes in US include the tax which Indian government wants back from you under the treaty with US government. Some countries have treaty with US where all the money person earns in US can be reclaimed at the end of the financial year i.e no money goes to the country of citizenship. However, Indian citizens working in US are not liable for 100% reclaim on their federal tax.\",\n \"Yeah because paying millions a year in taxes is somehow less than than paying the nothing the poor pay. This constant belief that services should cost a percentage instead of a fixed rate that everyone pays is a joke. There is nothing equal about going into a McDonalds lining everyone up based on income then making one guy pay for everyone else because he was more successful. Then calling it equal or fair, which it isn't.\",\n \"\\\"C'mon, Bill - you're better than this. Aside from the fact that he accumulated his personal wealth through ruthless profiteering and tax shelters, it's just a flat out bad idea. It was an even worse idea when some neckbeard actor and commie guitarist started pushing it. All this tax will do is hamper the ability to do business (i.e., market liquidity), and end up being shouldered by small banks and in the end, the consumer. Big banks will find their ways around this, no problem, but the boutique capital firms will surely struggle. This isn't just a \\\"\\\"oh, we'll institute this micro-tax and everyone is happy!\\\"\\\" - they want to tax the underlying value of assets on each trade. This creates a direct impact to free-market trading which I don't believe they've accounted for (which is shocking, really). It's a tax on the top and bottomline, and a general tax on the actual execution point of an entire industry. It's a half-baked idea that shouldn't have gotten as far as it did.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/07/can-an-lvt-save-us/) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** > They amended their LVT to add a tax on property improvements but should have done the opposite - increase the LVT and reduce other taxes. > By adopting an LVT, they guarantee themselves sufficient income to provide government and public services - without falling into the predatory clutches of international bankers and the IMF. In his 2011 book Re-Solving the Economic Puzzle, Walter Rybeck relates how the US contemplated LVT enabling legislation during the Carter administration. > Five other states have passed LVT enabling legislation - Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington - to make it easier for local communities to adopt an LVT. Other American communities that have already benefited from an LVT include California&#039;s Central Valley, Fairhope in Alabama, Arden in Delaware, and Pittsburgh and other cities in Pennsylvania. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6hxn1x/can_an_lvt_save_us_dissident_voice/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~146992 tl;drs so far.\\\"\\\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \\\"\\\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\\\"\\\") | *Top* *keywords*: **LVT**^#1 **Land**^#2 **economic**^#3 **Harrison**^#4 **Tax**^#5\\\"\",\n \"There are fees on retail trades imposed by trading houses, but not on traders like MS and GS. That's why HFT is possible. Personally, I get 100 free trades per year and that's more than enough for me. Adding a tax to this is just stupid.\",\n \"What is tax slavery? Most impacted by higher taxes can afford to put them in off shore accounts. This going to hurt the economy because businesses aren't going to higher more people. Trickle down economics consistently fails. You'll have a bunch of owners saving the profits instead of giving the jobs because most of them are already operating efficiently. Especially in a state where menial labor is the most common form. Tax Slavery is a bullshit term to justify the rich robbing the government of their due while being able to benefit from the clout that comes with being American.\",\n \"\\\".. 99% of the people against this proposition are 100% likely never to earn above $5 million a year .. the American Dream is strong, so people will be strongly against this type of taxes, making the entire suggestion a provocation of \\\"\\\"the unwashed masses\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"Walmart is one of the biggest low wage employers. Let's say $1B of the $2.66B is spent on subsidizing Wal-Mart employees. That's >$3 per US citizen, that we all pay and cannot put back into the economy how we wish. I don't even shop at wal mart and I'm forced to subsidize their employees. IMO, that is not fair. This just incentivizes walmart to hire more cheap government-subsidized employees, rewarding walmart's on my back. So let's do this: For every government dollar spent on helping low-wage employees subsist, we tax the employer the same dollar. From this I bet we would see walmart building housing for their employees, maybe even cafeterias, to get them off section 8 / food stamps. That is more efficient than sending money to the IRS, it makes its way to HUD, then to some government employees who are overburdoned, then we pay out section 8 money to landlords. That's inefficient. I know of walmart employees who rely on $1400/month in section 8, so walmart's tax bill would increase substantially, costs would rise, but tax receipts that we all have to currently pay would decrease by the same amount. So overall costs stay them same, but the finances are more efficient and where they should be vs spread around.\",\n \"[Eliminating breaks **would allow the government to simplify the tax code and broaden the base of income** against which taxes are levied] [The dilemma—which Republicans are colliding with right now—is that many of the biggest tax breaks, especially for individuals, are **popular and hard to dislodge.**]\",\n \"Not optional, but I assumed the premise was that with out having to pay for health care corporations would pay more in wages. In the US that is never going to be true. In other words they would use the VAT and not having to pay for health care as an excuse to extract more profit. Employee wages wouldn't go up, corporate health care costs would go down, and the VAT would be passed on to the consumer through higher prices.\",\n \"Your source doesn't support your point. I don't have a problem paying taxes for services we all use - you do. Charging fees for police & courts is a libertarian notion. As sourced in my previous post, no current tax rates need to be changed to pay for UH. We just need to remove corporate subsides. As a whole, America would save about 10% of GDP yearly by converting to a UH in this fashion. If you can't honestly debate the sources or ideas I've put out and insist on circling back around to these ideological positions regardless of how often they get blown up - then I think we've made all the progress we're going to.\",\n \"I've had zero taxable income for the past 2 years and yet the calculations say I owe the government $250 for each year for the Self Employment tax. How can they charge a non-zero tax on my income when my taxable income is zero? That is theft. That demands reform.\",\n \"Its one of the main points. Transfer pricing includes discretionary decisions and is part of BEPS. Its also completely unnecessary: Pay taxes on revenue in country earned/sold. Get tax credits/refunds in country were spending is made. The reason why already profitable companies consider BEPS/tax arbitrage for HQ locations is because they get discretionary power over accounting profit allocation. Tax policy should serve the society though, and this proposal encourages the spending that benefits society. Its the usual case that the right answer is different than that being lobbied for.\",\n \"They should be (and are) taxed the corporate rate on the 10 cents. The company they purchased the coffee grounds from will pay taxes on the 90 cents. The other alternative you suggested would put an end to most commercial activity. Very few businesses could sustain a 35% (of revenue) penalty to their margins. Society would collapse.\",\n \"> It makes sense for EVERYONE to pay their fair and equal share. Totally agree. Don't you agree that a fair an equal share for someone working full time for the system is at least a modest but complete life within the system?\",\n \"\\\"> So the fact that i was born here against my own free will automatically gives the government the right to seize the fruits of my labor? Yes, in the same way that being born to parents living in a clean house means you are going to make your bed, pick up your clothes, and mow the lawn... > \\\"\\\"well just leave then!\\\"\\\" Well, yes. It is either that, or change the laws. > Which is fucking stupid and in pretty sure I already gave you 1 way but I'll say it again cuz it's clear you're incapable of following along For someone who is so sure that they have \\\"\\\"*THE* answer\\\"\\\" you sure are defensive. It is quite possible that I have had a discussion over the SAME topic over the last 5 days with a *bunch* of people because so many people got butt hurt that I enjoy paying my taxes, and feel it is a patriotic duty because of all the good it does. > federal sales tax So federal sales tax is your big secret? I would actually be fine with it, as long as it took into account those that are currently not paying income tax due to poverty or disability. > That's why you see countries like Sweden with insane tax rates seeing limited growth and in a lot of cases on the verge of an economic collapse. I have lived in Europe for a number of years. I was in Germany last year, I will be in Spain next week. If you think that strong tax policy makes a country economically weak, then you have not actually lived in any of these countries, have you? Sweden is currently ranked 11th in the world for [GDP per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita). Matter of fact, the only country in the top ten of that list that don't have a strong tax policy is Qatar - and that is only because of ridiculous oil money. Would like to see where they sit in two years. Sweden last year had an [economic growth rate of 4.1%](http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/11/14/111716Sweden-Great-Economic-Performance-but-Mind-the-Debt). More than 3 times what the growth rate in the US was, at [1.6% for 2016](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-economic-growth-slowed-in-2016-to-1-9/). It was ranked [#34 in the world for economic growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate), just under your Bahamas with their no income tax, no estate or wealth tax, but well above the US at 47. The IMF matter of fact said their economy was \\\"\\\"in good health and growing robustly\\\"\\\"... So, not sure where you are getting your facts from, but may want to think again. I would recommend that you actually go visit a couple of these \\\"\\\"tax hellholes\\\"\\\" and see for yourself how \\\"\\\"crushed\\\"\\\" by their taxes these poor victims of government \\\"\\\"theft\\\"\\\" are...\\\"\",\n \"> To be honest we are probably wrong in trying to tax foreign earnings. [We only tax foreign earnings when the money is repatriated to the US](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-current-system-international-taxation-work). You think businesses should be able to go to the Bahamas, sell vast property to another American, and return the profit to the US tax free? > The US should learn the get on with less. I'm all for discussing that idea. Cut the spending before you talk about cutting the taxes that fund it.\",\n \"Except again you're wrong and retarded the comment I first made was in response to a ridiculous statement you mad to someone else who was referring to income tax because income tax is theft and I know this because I'm capable of critical thinking now even in my very first comment I mention income tax and nowhere in this entire conversation have I deviated from income taxes other than bringing up an alternative. I would like to ask you again, how hard is it going through life with 0 critical thinking and comprehension skills?\",\n \"\\\"Similar, but actually quite different. A negative income tax on the first $20,000/year has a couple of problems this scheme doesn't: 1) Administration costs and legal complexity. Are we \\\"\\\"prebating\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"rebating\\\"\\\" the stipend? How is someone supposed to get along if they lose their job unexpectedly in a rebate-based system, can they get their income-tax withholdings back up to $20,000/year? How does the government register changes in income to know when to write someone a check? 2) With a negative tax up to a certain *fixed* level, there's effectively a changing level of subsidy depending how much of the per-capita income is the break-even tax level. If the per-capita income is $45,000/year (our current GDP per capita), then the subsidy level is almost 50%, and if it goes up to $60,000/year (our current mean household income), the subsidy level is then 33%. The system I described and steepk (IIRC) invented fixes the subsidy percentage in relation to the mean reported income (effectively fixing a *relative class level* as minimum) rather than a particular monetary amount (whose relative buying power versus inflation or other incomes can fluctuate wildly). We pick a subsidy level, say 1/3 (33.33333%). We then impose a flat income tax of that level plus a little bit more for administration costs (say, 35%). At the end of the year, everyone is taxed at that flat level, and the government scrapes its administration costs off the top and now has a big pot with 1/3 of everyone's income in it. This is divided into one portion for each taxpayer, and those portions into monthly or biweekly pieces. These pieces are sent out regularly as checks to the taxpayer, and *these checks are not taxed as income*. That last bit is what makes this so nice: it turns the tax progressive, in fact more progressive than our current system. After taxes and *after stipend*, only the rich will pay an *effective* tax rate asymptotically close to the real 35%. Most people without incomes many, many times the size of their stipends will be looking at an effective tax rate of less than 15%, including the tax-paying middle class and the professional upper-middle class who currently bitch so much about our tax rates being so confiscatory (which they *are*, for the abysmal level of social services we receive). Now, to get back to the big benefits of fixing the subsidy percentage. This means that the subsidy grows with mean income, effectively functioning as easy to run, fair, and direct wealth redistribution without the difficulty of trying to create efficient, productive WPA-style jobs or imposing market-distorting subsidies. It also means that we can allow things like automation to improve the productivity of our economy because *everyone* gets a share: if automating a certain job is truly more efficient than having a worker do it, the capitalist's income-gain from automation will push up the mean income, and therefore the basic income, further than the worker's lesser income and the capitalist's lesser profit would have.\\\"\",\n \"> But sure, if you want companies to stay in the US and customers to pay higher prices to compensate for those higher taxes... But they don't. Across the board; prices in the US are much lower than they are in every other developed country. Partly because of economies of scale, partly because the posted tax rate != the effective tax rate.\",\n \"\\\"I largely agree with you; but there's *no way* to make a true apples-to-apples comparison, because we've never had a \\\"\\\"flat\\\"\\\" across-the-board tax rate, and we never will. And obviously, in the degenerate cases of taxes at 0% and 100%, revenue drop to zero. Given that, the closest we can come to evaluating the potential effects of Trump's proposal is to look at what happens when major shifts in tax policy have occurred in the past; and since 1943 (when something approaching our modern tax structure first solidified)... The short answer to that is, \\\"\\\"nothing at all happens\\\"\\\". The *explanation* for that is a more interesting issue (though it boils down to \\\"\\\"if you tax X, people will Y instead\\\"\\\"), but the implications for fiscal policy are both fascinating and terrifying: Effectively, if the government spends more than 15-16% of GDP, *regardless* of how they structure taxes, they're spending against the deficit.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Alternative Minimum Tax is based not just on your income, but moreso on the deductions you use. In short, if you have above the minimum AMT threshold of income (54k per your link), and pay a tiny amount of tax, you will pay AMT. AMT is used as an overall protection for the government to say \\\"\\\"okay, you can use these deductions from your taxable income, but if you're making a lot of money, you should pay something, no matter what your deductions are\\\"\\\". This extra AMT can be used to reduce your tax payment in a future year, if you pay regular tax again. For example - if you have 60k in income, but have 60k in specific deductions from your income, you will pay zero regular tax [because your taxable income will be zero]. AMT would require you to pay some tax on your income above the minimum 54k threshold, which might work out to a few thousand bucks. Next year, if you have 60k in income, but only 15k in deductions, then you would pay some regular tax, and would be able to offset that regular tax by claiming a credit from your AMT already paid. AMT is really a pre-payment of tax paid in years when you have a lot of deductions. Unless you have a lot of deductions every single year, in which case you might not be able to get all of your AMT refunded in the end. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of AMT in the US, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax. If you think AMT is unfair (and maybe in some cases you might pay it when you think it's \\\"\\\"unfair\\\"\\\"), look at the root causes of paying AMT listed in that Wikipedia article: I am not trying to convince you that AMT is fair, just that it applies only when someone already has a very low tax rate due to deductions. If you have straight salary income, it would only apply in rare scenarios.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"The fair tax is a proposal to replace the US income tax with a sales tax. Pros of Fair Tax: It's a large change to the way the United States currently does things. The \"\"Fair Tax Act of 2011\"\" is H.R.25 in the US House and S.13 in the Senate. The full text of the bill is available at the links provided. There are some fairly large consequences of implementing a fair tax. For example, 401ks and Roth IRAs serve no benefit over non-retirement investments. Mortgages would no longer have a tax advantage. Luxury items would get far more expensive.\"","\"You asked about the challenges. The transition itself is the biggest one. For people to get used to the tax at the register vs at their paycheck. For a great number of people to find new work. I don't know the numbers, but anyone involved with personal income taxes would be out of work. Sales tax is already part of the process in most states, bumping it to a federal tax wont add too much in overhead. I make no moral judgment, but consider, most prostitutes and drug dealers are avoiding income tax, but they still are buying the same goods in stores you and I are. This proposed tax reduces the collection noncompliance, and brings more people into \"\"the system\"\". Another factor some may not like is the ability to affect behavior by picking and choosing what to promote, via deductions, such as home buying or charity.\"","\"In a nutshell - Value Added Tax. America, as usual, discovers what others have known and used for years. The idea of not taxing income that's tied to it is ridiculous. If you're only taxing spending but not income, people will just take spending elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, further away), and the economy will go down the drain. That's similar to the way people avoid paying sales tax now, except that it will be in orders of magnitude. Why should a corporation by office supplies in the US, if it has a branch in China? Edit Also, Fair Tax doesn't take into account moving money overseas. I've mentioned living elsewhere down below, and that also got me thinking of how I personally would certainly gain from that ridiculous thing called \"\"Fair Tax\"\". Basically, that's exactly how the \"\"rich folks\"\", those who push for it, will gain from it. Being able to move money out of the US basically makes it a perfect tax shelter. You don't pay taxes on the income (that you have in the US), and you don't pay taxes on the spendings (that you have elsewhere, because in that country income is taxable so you only pay VAT or sales taxes). This means that all the wealthy people, while investing and gaining money from the American economy (stocks, property, etc), will actually not be spending it in the US. Thus, no taxes paid to the US, dollars flowing out. Perfect. Actually, I should be all for this stupid idea. Very fair to me, no need to pay any taxes at all, because food will probably be exempt anyway.\"","Its a new way of computing sales tax. Wikipedia has a nice article on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"The fair tax is a proposal to replace the US income tax with a sales tax. Pros of Fair Tax: It's a large change to the way the United States currently does things. The \\\"\\\"Fair Tax Act of 2011\\\"\\\" is H.R.25 in the US House and S.13 in the Senate. The full text of the bill is available at the links provided. There are some fairly large consequences of implementing a fair tax. For example, 401ks and Roth IRAs serve no benefit over non-retirement investments. Mortgages would no longer have a tax advantage. Luxury items would get far more expensive.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You asked about the challenges. The transition itself is the biggest one. For people to get used to the tax at the register vs at their paycheck. For a great number of people to find new work. I don't know the numbers, but anyone involved with personal income taxes would be out of work. Sales tax is already part of the process in most states, bumping it to a federal tax wont add too much in overhead. I make no moral judgment, but consider, most prostitutes and drug dealers are avoiding income tax, but they still are buying the same goods in stores you and I are. This proposed tax reduces the collection noncompliance, and brings more people into \\\"\\\"the system\\\"\\\". Another factor some may not like is the ability to affect behavior by picking and choosing what to promote, via deductions, such as home buying or charity.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In a nutshell - Value Added Tax. America, as usual, discovers what others have known and used for years. The idea of not taxing income that's tied to it is ridiculous. If you're only taxing spending but not income, people will just take spending elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, further away), and the economy will go down the drain. That's similar to the way people avoid paying sales tax now, except that it will be in orders of magnitude. Why should a corporation by office supplies in the US, if it has a branch in China? Edit Also, Fair Tax doesn't take into account moving money overseas. I've mentioned living elsewhere down below, and that also got me thinking of how I personally would certainly gain from that ridiculous thing called \\\"\\\"Fair Tax\\\"\\\". Basically, that's exactly how the \\\"\\\"rich folks\\\"\\\", those who push for it, will gain from it. Being able to move money out of the US basically makes it a perfect tax shelter. You don't pay taxes on the income (that you have in the US), and you don't pay taxes on the spendings (that you have elsewhere, because in that country income is taxable so you only pay VAT or sales taxes). This means that all the wealthy people, while investing and gaining money from the American economy (stocks, property, etc), will actually not be spending it in the US. Thus, no taxes paid to the US, dollars flowing out. Perfect. Actually, I should be all for this stupid idea. Very fair to me, no need to pay any taxes at all, because food will probably be exempt anyway.\\\"\",\n \"Its a new way of computing sales tax. Wikipedia has a nice article on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":268,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10152"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What does a high operating margin but a small but positive ROE imply about a company?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["113585"],"string":"[\n \"113585\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["113585","371515","549181","516797","37032","557607","557350","106155","406542","565598","426343","266672","559363","495715","336601","544451","384642","137746","521792","444747","522040","137307","131335","14488","393759","135109","295857","527230","477426","523303","97688","576865","558635","331530","562238","401753","154769","23489","278586","8679","453635","522072","355554","113506","330242","258306","307716","253246","421248","527519","465806","560757","377686","321432","552281","80285","288551","368738","251735","531095","500533","448872","76973","278582","280895","531395","253339","168675","28183","393580","512851","72666","384583","507012","336444","283938","335651","61193","502432","446877","63725","81527","40160","374510","509659","9478","517641","11124","294095","61798","154725","482892","113587","324867","176253","56405","107519","194641","583234","76661"],"string":"[\n \"113585\",\n \"371515\",\n \"549181\",\n \"516797\",\n \"37032\",\n \"557607\",\n \"557350\",\n \"106155\",\n \"406542\",\n \"565598\",\n \"426343\",\n \"266672\",\n \"559363\",\n \"495715\",\n \"336601\",\n \"544451\",\n \"384642\",\n \"137746\",\n \"521792\",\n \"444747\",\n \"522040\",\n \"137307\",\n \"131335\",\n \"14488\",\n \"393759\",\n \"135109\",\n \"295857\",\n \"527230\",\n \"477426\",\n \"523303\",\n \"97688\",\n \"576865\",\n \"558635\",\n \"331530\",\n \"562238\",\n \"401753\",\n \"154769\",\n \"23489\",\n \"278586\",\n \"8679\",\n \"453635\",\n \"522072\",\n \"355554\",\n \"113506\",\n \"330242\",\n \"258306\",\n \"307716\",\n \"253246\",\n \"421248\",\n \"527519\",\n \"465806\",\n \"560757\",\n \"377686\",\n \"321432\",\n \"552281\",\n \"80285\",\n \"288551\",\n \"368738\",\n \"251735\",\n \"531095\",\n \"500533\",\n \"448872\",\n \"76973\",\n \"278582\",\n \"280895\",\n \"531395\",\n \"253339\",\n \"168675\",\n \"28183\",\n \"393580\",\n \"512851\",\n \"72666\",\n \"384583\",\n \"507012\",\n \"336444\",\n \"283938\",\n \"335651\",\n \"61193\",\n \"502432\",\n \"446877\",\n \"63725\",\n \"81527\",\n \"40160\",\n \"374510\",\n \"509659\",\n \"9478\",\n \"517641\",\n \"11124\",\n \"294095\",\n \"61798\",\n \"154725\",\n \"482892\",\n \"113587\",\n \"324867\",\n \"176253\",\n \"56405\",\n \"107519\",\n \"194641\",\n \"583234\",\n \"76661\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["The operating margin deals with the ability for a company to make a profit above the costs of running the company and generating sales. While ROE is how much money the company makes relative to the shareholders equity. I'd be willing to bet that if a company has a small ROE then it also has a quite large P/E (price to earnings) ratio. This would be caused by the company's stock being bid up in relation to its earnings and may not necessarily be a bad thing. People expect the high operating margin to help drive increased revenues in the future, and are willing to pay a higher price now for when that day comes.","An operating margin will not compare with ROE. If a company has even a small margin on a large turnover and has a comparative lower shareholder equity, it ROE will be much higher. One ratio alone can not analyse a company. You need a full set of ratios and figures.","A company's Return on Equity (ROE) is its net income divided by its shareholder's equity. The shareholder's equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities, and is not dependent on the stock price. What it takes to have a ROE over 100% is to have the income be greater than the equity. This might happen for a variety of reasons, but one way a high ROE happens is if the shareholder's equity (the divisor) is small, which can occur if past losses have eroded the company's capital (the original invested cash and retained earnings). If the equity has become a small value, the income for some period might exceed it, and so the ROE would be over 100%. Operating margin is not closely related to ROE. Although operating income is related to net income, to calculate the margin you divide by sales, which is completely unrelated to shareholder's equity. So there is no relationship with ROE to be expected. Operating margin is primarily dependent on market conditions, and can be substantially different in different industries.","\"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success. I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product. Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is \"\"normal\"\" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside). Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.). More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires).\"","Small companies could have growth prospects. Large companies may not have that many. So look at ROE of companies by quatile to determine which companies have better growth.","Just to clarify things: The Net Working Capital is the funds, the capital that will finance the everyday, the short term, operations of a company like buying raw materials, paying wages erc. So, Net Working Capital doesn't have a negative impact. And you should not see the liabilities as beneficial per se. It's rather the fact that with smaller capital to finance the short term operations the company is able to make this EBIT. You can see it as the efficiency of the company, the smaller the net working capital the more efficient the company is (given the EBIT). I hope you find it helpful, it's my first amswer here. Edit: why do you say the net working capital has a negative impact?","Yes definitely Warren Buffet averaged returns of only around 21% throughout his 40 years in business. ROE of 23% is probably more than double the ROE of most companies , whats more as the saying goes its easier to grow sales from 1 million to 100 million than to grow sales from 100 million to 10 billion","Lets say the hurdle rate for this company is 10% and the current return on assets is 8%. A linear increase in revenue and earnings would actually destroy some value as projects that have a 9% return are accepted even though they destroy value for the shareholder. hope this helps!","On a company level ROCE over WACC would be more meaningful in my view but the end result should be be pretty much the same. This concept is closely related to value creation. Value can only be created when a company's ROCE is exceeding its cost of funding - WACC. This is also tightly related with the NPV concept. Value is only created when the NPV on a project is >0. And to directly answer OP. Study in detail WACC. (weighted average cost of capital). Focus on the Modigliani–Miller theorem with taxes and financial distress costs. Good luck.","Profit margins. The difference goes to shareholders as new equity every quarter. You don’t need growth to see a return on equity. The consumer staple sector is a great example of this. They’ve had negative to 0 revenue growth, yet have posted respectable returns since the recession.","Another way to look at this is if we separate the owner's account from the business's account. At the start of the year, the owner puts $9 into the business account to get the business started. At the end of the first day, the business account has $10, and at the end of the second day, the business account has $11. The owner doesn't need to add any more of his own money into the business account. At the end of the 365th day, the business will have $374, which is $365 profit + $9 investment. Assuming the business has no other expenses, the business will calculate profit for the year like this: The author is making a strange point. The two numbers he is talking about are two different quantities. The business owner's return on investment is $365 / $9 = 4056%. But the business's profit margin is $365 / $3650 = 10%. Both are useful numbers when running the business. I disagree with the author's insinuation that a business is doing something tricky when calculating profit margin. Remember that, in addition to the business owner's monetary investment, he worked every day for a year to earn that $365.","Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.","I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.","Means A has a much higher level of interest payments dye to either higher debt or higher cost of debt (or combination of both). MM theory suggests higher debt in a capital structure due to the tax shield but you need to consider if A's debt level is appropriate or too high and what that says about your company.","\"This isn't as rigorous as it should be, but may offer some useful insight into how big and small companies differ operationally. Putting Apple aside, larger companies tend to sell larger volumes of products (even if they're MRI devices, or turbines) relative to what smaller companies can sell (obviously, in absolute terms as well). They are also able to negotiate volume discounts as well as payment terms. This allows them to finance sales through their supply chain. However, their large direct competitors are able to do the same thing as well. Competitive forces then drive prices down. Smaller businesses, without these advantages of scale, tend to have to charge higher margins since they have to pay directly (and, if their clients are large businesses, finance the sale). Small businesses still have higher proportional costs of operation. Sadly, my reference here is a study I performed for the South African Revenue Service about ten years ago, and not available online. However, the time taken by a small business to manage admin, tax, HR is a greater proportion of revenue than for larger companies. If the small business is a start-up with big investment from venture finance, then they could subsidise their selling price, run at a loss and try and gain scale. Funnily enough, there is a fantastic article on this by Joel Spolsky (Ben and Jerry's vs. Amazon) For the average highly-competitive smaller company, the best choice is to chase design/quality/premium markets in order to justify the higher margins they have to charge. And that's what makes Apple interesting as a case study. They were a small company in the presence of giants (Intel, Microsoft, IBM). They were \"\"forced\"\" to concentrate on design and premium markets in order to justify their need for higher margins. It almost didn't work but then they broke through. Now they're in the unique position of having gained scale but are still small enough relative to other electronics manufacturers to continue charging that premium (by volume their sales are still relatively small but their margins make them a giant). This type of variation from market to market makes developing some sort of generalised solution very unlikely but the general requirement holds: that smaller companies must charge higher margins in order to create equivalent profits to larger companies which must gain scale through volume.\"","I'll give it a shot, though I know nearly nothing about airlines. 1% is a lot when your revenue is very high. Lets say a plane can have 200 people on it. Plane tickets are a lot, so each person is charged $700 in this example. That's 140K in gross revenue per trip. 1% of that is $1400. You have several trips a day per plane. Lets say 5 trips a day per plane. Each plane is netting $7000 a day. Or around $2.5 million in profit a year. Lets say a commercial plane that has a capacity of 200, costs around $50 million. That's a 20 year ROI. Up your margins to 2%, now you're at 10 year ROI. Plus depreciation. You get to depreciate that $50 million over the course of X years. Basically making all of the profits the airline gets, tax free due to their insane amount of depreciation. Pair this income with cheap oil, and a smart CEO that can cut costs, and you have a cash cow on your hands. And given the fact that a lot of airlines have a ton of planes already depreciated to $0 that aren't on their books any more, you may be able to buy the airline for a fraction of their net assets. Margins are important, but it's all relative. Edit: Changed numbers to prove my point, and because I am not a smart man",">Jeremy Grantham, chief investment strategist of Boston-based Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co., said margins will send stock markets tumbling when they eventually revert to their mean. >“The implication for the stock market is ugly, because it means earnings are unsustainably high,” Grantham’s colleague Ben Inker, GMO’s director of asset allocation, said in a telephone interview.","Problem with deciding investments in a company is that you have multiple potential options, each with their projected returns, but each also has some hard-to-estimate risks. A further problem is that these opportunities arrive one-by-one, so you usually cannot compare project A vs. project B to decide which one is better. The internal rate of return is a rule-of-thumb like way to make these decisions. The company board may set an IRR target of e.g. 15%, and each executive will compare their projects against that target. They'll execute only the projects that are projected to give a good return, but some of these projects will end up failing. Thus the real average profit will not be equal to IRR. Important thing is that this target number gives ways to compare projects, and also for the board to control the investments. If the company has a good track record of being successful at projects, the board might set an IRR target of 10% and expect to get e.g. 8% return on their investment. However, if the company has a much larger risk of projects failing, they might demand a predicted IRR of 20% to account for the risk. Ultimately if the IRR target is set too high, the company will find no projects it considers profitable to invest in. In practice if this happens, the company owners are better off taking out the cash as dividends and investing it elsewhere.","When your profits are increased from mass layoffs and reduced expenses (like r&d) to appease investors, and not based on innovation, new market entry, or competitive advantage. It's a short term quick win but puts the long term in jeopardy.","Two of the main ways that investors benefit financially from a stock are dividends and increases in the price of the stock. In the example as described, the benefits came primarily from dividends, leaving less benefits to be realized in terms of an increase in the value of the company. Another way to put that is that the company paid its profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend, instead of accumulating that as an increase in the value of the company. The company could have chosen to take those profits and reinvest them in growing the business, which would lead to lower dividends but (hopefully) an increase in the valuation of the stock, but they chose to pay dividends instead. This still rewards the investors, but share prices stay low.","\"The company was paying \"\"only\"\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \"\"too high,\"\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \"\"most\"\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \"\"stingy,\"\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\"","> But so long as the incremental improvement to your bottom line is there, the investment is sound, with or without taxes. wat If E(ROA)>0 it's a sound investment? Not at all. > any investment the company makes that improves their net income automatically means more money for the company Where is this money coming from? If it's debt-financed it escapes corporate tax rate because interest payments are deductible. Is it coming from the company's retained earnings? We have less of that now because we hiked up the corporate tax rate. Your argument also neglects the impact corporate taxes have on equity financing and corporate leverage.","PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.","Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood. Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in. Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year. Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due. I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off. Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has. Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean. Does that make sense?","the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street","It sounds like you're drastically oversimplifying basic business economics, and implying that any company is just as well off breaking even (zero profit) as it is with turning a big profit. This is blatantly incorrect and naive. For one thing, it is certainly be easier to justify expansion or attract new investments if your company is profitable.","Honestly, I’m not sure I understand your point. The figures suggest to me that the business invests (higher capex and amortisation) and grows it’s revenues and cash flow. D&A can be higher than new capex for a number of reasons including accelerated amortisation for tax purposes. Why is D&A contribution (actually i prefer to separate the concepts of P&L and cash flow) to operating cash flow a problem or why does it evidence manipulation?","Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel). If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy. The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.","\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \"\"value\"\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \"\"book value\"\" is your compensation for a low \"\"interest\"\" rate.\"","\"Why there is this huge difference? I am not able to reconcile Yahoo's answer of 5.75%, even using their definition for ROA of: Return on Assets Formula: Earnings from Continuing Operations / Average Total Equity This ratio shows percentage of Returns to Total Assets of the company. This is a useful measure in analyzing how well a company uses its assets to produce earnings. I suspect the \"\"Average Total Equity\"\" in their formula is a typo, but using either measure I cannot come up with 5.75% for any 12-month period. I can, however, match MarketWatch's answer by looking at the 2016 fiscal year totals and using a \"\"traditional\"\" formula of Net Income / Average Total Assets: I'm NOT saying that MatketWatch is right and Yahoo is wrong - MW is using fiscal year totals while Yahoo is using trailing 12-month numbers, and Yahoo uses \"\"Earnings from Continuing Operations\"\", but even using that number (which Yahoo calculates) I am not able to reconcile the 5.75% they give.\"","It is true that operation profit comes from gross profit however it is possible for a company to have negative net profit yet have postive cash flow , it has to do with the accounting practice A possible example is that a company has extremely high depreciation expense of fixed asset hence net profit will be negative but cash flow will be positive. Assuming the fixed asset has been fully paid for in earlier years","It would be the sales revenue less everything else. When he says reinvest, that is to say they keep all of the post-tax earnings and place it in retained earnings. This means that it is still the companies money to invest and use to fulfill their goals. If they didn't have any worthy investing opportunities, they could issue dividends. So say your cost of capital is, eeeeeh, 15%. And the best investment you can make will earn you 12%. That's a loss of value. So the company, acting in the investors best interests, will give those funds back so that the investors can allocate that money to more efficient areas. Dividends are one mechanism a company has to control their rate of growth.","I don't think it makes sense to allow accounting numbers that you are not sure how to interpret as being a sell sign. If you know why the numbers are weird and you feel that the reason for it bodes ill about the future, and if you think there's a reason this has not been accounted for by the market, then you might think about selling. The stock's performance will depend on what happens in the future. Financials just document the past, and are subject to all kinds of lumpiness, seasonality, and manipulation. You might benefit from posting a link to where you got your financials. Whenever one computes something like a dividend payout ratio, one must select a time period over which to measure. If the company had a rough quarter in terms of earnings but chose not to reduce dividends because they don't expect the future to be rough, that would explain a crazy high dividend ratio. Or if they were changing their capital structure. Or one of many other potentially benign things. Accounting numbers summarize a ton of complex workings of the company and many ratios we look at could be defined in several different ways. I'm afraid that the answer to your question about how to interpret things is in the details, and we are not looking at the same details you are.","High ROI and high barriers to entry are rare to find existing together at the same time in the same market. More commonly, you have high margins/ROI in early markets, but high barriers to entry are more common in mature markets. The most common places to find high ROI and barriers to entry is when there is something *proprietary* involved. This is why the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields are so valuable. Industries related to these fields have an edge because they are the most likely fields to create something proprietary. When something proprietary is also in high demand, you have a barrier to entry and also a potential to create high margins (which in turn will be high ROI). Some people have mentioned medical devices, which are an excellent example. There are only a handful of companies that have went to the lengths of development to create the Swan Ganz catheter, for example (an essential tool used in cardiac surgeries). With little competition and high demand, companies that manufacture Swan Ganz catheters can put healthy margins on the product without worry. TL;DR: The best way to find something high ROI that also has barriers to entry is to specialize towards something proprietary that cannot be imitated or replaced, but is also in high demand.","The P/E ratio is a measure of historic (the previous financial year) earnings against the current share price. If the P/E is high, this means that the market perceives a big increase in future earnings per share. In other words, the perception is that this is a fast growing company. Higher earnings may also equate to big increases in dividends and rapid expansion. On the other hand, if the P/E is low, then there is a perception that either earnings per share are decreasing or that future growth in earnings is negligible. In other words, low P/E equates to a perception of low future growth and therefore low prospects for future payout increases - possibly even decreases. The market is (rightly) usually willing to pay a premium for fast growing companies.","Actually, share holder value is is better maximised by borrowing, and paying dividends is fairly irrelevant but a natural phase on a mature and stable company. Company finance is generally a balance between borrowing, and money raised from shares. It should be self evident with a little thought that if not now, then in the future, a company should be able to create earnings in excess of the cost of borrowing, or it's not a very valuable company to invest in! In fact what's the point of borrowing if the cost of the interest is greater than whatever wealth is being generated? The important thing about this is that money raised from shares is more expensive than borrowing. If a company doesn't pay dividends, and its share price goes up because of the increasing value of the business, and in your example the company is not borrowing more because of this, then the proportion of the value of the company that is based on the borrowing goes down. So, this means a higher and higher proportion of the finance of a company is provided by the more expensive share holders than the less expensive borrowing, and thus the company is actually providing LESS value to share holders than it might. Of course, if a company doesn't pay a dividend AND borrows more, this is not true, but that's not the scenario in your question, and generally mature companies with mature earnings may as well pay dividends as they aren't on a massive expansion drive in the same way. Now, this relative expense of share holders and borrowing is MORE true for a mature company with stable earnings, as they are less of a risk and can borrow at more favourable rates, AND such a company is LIKELY to be expanding less rapidly than a small new innovative company, so for both these reasons returning money to share holders and borrowing (or maintaining existing lending facilities) maintains a relatively more efficient financing ratio. Of course all this means that in theory, a company should be more efficient if it has no share holders at all and borrows ALL of the money it needs. Yes. In practise though, lenders aren't so keen on that scenario, they would rather have shareholders sharing the risk, and lending a less than 100% proportion of the total of a companies finance means they are much more likely to get their money back if things go horribly wrong. To take a small start up company by comparison, lenders will be leary of lending at all, and will certainly impose high rates if they do, or ask for guarantors, or demand security (and security is only available if there is other investment besides the loan). So this is why a small start up is likely to be much more heavily or exclusively funded by share holders. Also the start up is likely not to pay a dividend, because for a start it's probably not making any profit, but even if it is and could pay a dividend, in this situation borrowing is unavailable or very expensive and this is a rapidly growing business that wants to keep its hands on all the cash it can to accelerate itself. Once it starts making money of course a start up is on its way to making the transition, it becomes able to borrow money at sensible rates, it becomes bigger and more valuable on the back of the borrowing. Another important point is that dividend income is more stable, at least for the mature companies with stable earnings of your scenario, and investors like stability. If all the income from a portfolio has to be generated by sales, what happens when there is a market crash? Suddenly the investor has to pay, where as with dividends, the company pays, at least for a while. If a company's earnings are hit by market conditions of course it's likely the dividend will eventually be cut, but short term volatility should be largely eliminated.","I agree, the markets that Amazon competes in his extremely competitive with larger companies (such as Wal Mart) operating at smaller margins to increase volume. Since Amazon is continuously trying to increase its customer base and customer loyalty, they really need the low margins. The 1% increase could be harmful to the long-term growth of the company, which as the executives of Amazon explain, really matters more than higher profits this quarter. Furthermore, 5% decrease in SGA sounds like a company that's downsizing, particularly a company that operates as efficiently as Amazon, making that suggestion unreasonable and unrealistic.","Well like a lot of stuff on money.stackexchange there is not a simple answer, but generally it is not a good thing. Take a look at the wikipedia entry on Net Operating Loss. Basically the company is commenting that when they do make money they will receive preferential tax treatment on that income. So whether or not this is a positive or a negative depends on a couple of things: NOL doesn't directly impact book value other than how the actual assets of the company changed over the previous quarter. I believe there is a 1:1 correspondence to how the assets change and NOL, but I am sure someone could clarify that for me in another answer or as a comment.","Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains.","EBIT could be lower due to non-operating revenues such as investments in other companies, tax reliefs, adjustments to incorrect loss provisions and various other items that would not be part of the companies day to day operations. Be careful and read the footnotes and managements discussion for those items, they should be disclosed to some extent.","> You need to look at where the profits are coming from. Sure. If profits are coming from non-recurring revenue sources, then it isn't a great indication of ongoing profitability. If, on the other hand, profits are coming from lean staffing, low costs and a focus on the bottom line...then you're talking about how a well-run business is operated. It has been a long time since I worked on the floor of an IB so I can't speak to work happiness these days, but I do know that much of the exodus is in the form of people leaving for the buyside (as always), or for greener pastures working on FinTech out in SF.","Yeah that all can definitely be true as well, in fact we both 100% agree on symptoms of low growth. However personally I believe there are always ways to reinvest and build your business. I mean look at AAPL, they allocated $100~ billion into their own Nevada hedge fund buying up high quality debt like it's a fire sale. Some companies create their own VC firms combatting disruptive innovation. We can argue about this all we want but share buybacks can signify a lot of things at the end of the day haha. My main point with the comment above was that the buybacks inflating EPS makes it more difficult to identify true earnings growth of a company. So serious question, do you know of any ways to filter that out and identify real earnings growth?","It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit. What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash.","If it's a low margin business and you can get value for it that's higher than the leadership values it, and they have some opportunity in a better margin business but for some reason couldn't acquire debt funding or more investors to fund the new business; then it might be feasible, but unusual and probably not ideal.","This is the point of the article. Somehow a company which is so successful has, for tax purposes, such a razor thin margin. So their taxation clearly isn't in keeping with its actual ability to pay, passing along the burden to other businesses and individuals.","Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.","There are not always capital-efficient ways for a company to reinvest its own profits. This is why dividends exist. Imagine a company will reinvest 80% of its profits into a project with a huge projected return, but the other 20% of the company's profits cannot be reinvested efficiently because there are zero projects in which to reinvest the profits into that would return a better profit than what the company's shareholders could make by reinvesting those profits in their own way (ie: a benchmark market index like an S&P 500 index fund). Since the shareholders could make a better return with this than the company could with any company project, it would be irresponsible (technically maybe even illegal) for the company to reinvest that 20% of the profits. This reason for companies sometimes paying out profits to shareholders in the form of dividends is a market-efficient part of the economic system, and it really is great. If a CEO/CFO/anyone is paying out so much profit from a company that it is irresponsible to the company's investors, then that would also technically be illegal since the company is evading efficient project that would benefit its shareholders more than they could benefit themselves elsewhere in the market. (These legalities with shareholder laws are not explicitly put into action very often, but their effects are always there) It's also worth noting payout/plowback strategy is very important for the strategy and financing of a company, particularly for public investments.","\"No, having to borrow money does not necessarily mean a company will have a hard time paying the interest on it. Similarly, having to take out a mortgage on a house does not mean a person will not be able to make their mortgage payments. Borrowing money can be a way to spend future money instead of present money (at a cost, of course). A company might not have all that money at the moment, but that in no way implies they won't have it in the future. And as you allude to in your question where you talk about \"\"funding some … plans\"\", a company might be able to grow itself—possibly increasing future profits—by borrowing money.\"","Residential Construction at 362x, by the way. I'm going to hazard a guess here - Say XYZ corp trades at $100, and it's showing a normal earnings of $10 the last few years. Its industry falls on hard times, and while it makes enough to keep its doors open, profits fall to $1. The company itself is still sound, but the small earnings result in a high P/E. By the way, its book value is $110, and they have huge cash on the books along with real estate. I offer these details to show why the price doesn't drop like a rock. Now, biotech may be in a period of low reported earnings but with future results expected to justify the price. On one hand it may be an anomaly, with earnings due to rise, or it may be a bit of a bubble. An analyst for this sector should be able to comment if I'm on the right track.","First, the earnings are per year, not per quarter. Why would you expect to get a 100% per year return on your money? The earnings can go one of two ways. They can be retained, reinvested in the company, or they can be distributed as a dividend. So, the 'return' on this share is just over 5%, which is competitive with the rate you'd get on fixed investments. It's higher, in fact, as there's the risk that comes with holding the stock.","There's a distinction between profits and cash flow, attributed to the recognition of non-cash items. If you have a business where your customers pay you quickly, you manage your inventory well, and you’re able to take your time in paying your suppliers, your free cash flow can be consistently positive even when your net income is not.","This is basically saying that it's not possible to make more than some not-so-large amount without taking for yourself part of what several other people produce, yes? How does that fit with the very high profits per a employee numbers that some companies have?: http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-profitable-employees-companies","Their net income hangs around zero because they raise expenses as reinvestment in the company (line items like $16.09B in Research & Development expense last year). Retained earnings is a balance sheet item reflective of assets they're holding for projects in a later fiscal period; they aren't waiting for the next period to reinvest.","First read mhoran's answer, Then this - If the company sold nothing but refrigerators, and had 40% market share, that's $4M/yr in sales. If they have a 30% profit margin, $1.2M in profit each year. A P/E of 10 would give a stock value totaling $12M, more than the market size. The numbers are related, of course, but one isn't the maximum of the other.","\"P/E is a pretty poor way to value the company as it exists today. The company generates free cash flow yield of 2.5-3.3% which isn't remarkably high, but it's not nearly as bad as the earnings yield of 1.1%. But let's operate within the P/E ratio for right now. The company sells $40 billion of \"\"stuff\"\" each year with a net margin of 2%. If they increased prices on every product by 1% (which really wouldn't be _that_ noticeable) their profit would grow 50%. Thus, P/E drops from 90 to 60. SGA expenses equal ~20% of their operating costs. Cut 5% of SGA and you get the same 1% increase in net margin. This could come from cost-cutting today, or by greater economies of scale in the future while keeping prices the same. So, yes, it's priced as a growth firm, but it doesn't necessarily need customer growth in the traditional sense to be fairly-valued.\"","Profits go to the owners of the corporation for providing capitol. CAT is paying around 2% ... a little under $2/year/share in dividends. (note that dividends come out of profits, not before.) A 2% return on investment isn't a terrible thing. It's not great, but in current economic conditions, it's respectable. Looking at their financial statements, they don't have tons of cash on the books relative to what they spend in a quarter. They do have a fair chunk of their assets tied up in inventory. On the books, that goes down as a profit - kinda. It's mostly neutral accounting wise - money went out, inventory came in. You now have an asset worth exactly what you spent on it. The biggest growth in assets over the last couple of years has been in inventory. The amount in inventory is greater than assets minus liabilities. Then again, so is cash on hand, but the cash flow rate is also pretty high because the margins are low. So... yeah... they're making more money, but they're also investing most of that back into the capital costs of growing the business. New machinery, inventory that they can sell, business development in new markets, etc. Remember that capital costs are considered neutral - you receive an asset in return. This is distinct from operating costs which come straight to the bottom line.","You are omitting how the company made 120 million in the previous year and may be facing a shrinking market and thus have poor future prospects. If the company is shrinking, what will the shares be worth down the road. Remember companies like AOL or Blackberry? There was a time they had big profits before things changed which is the part you aren't considering here. If the company has lost something big on its earnings, e.g. the oil wells it owned have run out of reserves or the patents on its key drugs have expired, then there could be the perception that the company won't be able to compete in the future to continue to deliver earnings. Some companies may well end up going broke as one could look at GM for a company that used to be one of the largest car companies in the world and yet it ended up going broke.","\"It depends on the definition of earnings. A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce \"\"earnings\"\" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred). It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues).\"","\"If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt. If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt. The problem is, where is the inflection point between \"\"well\"\" and \"\"poorly\"\"? When does a company start to head into oblivion? Sometimes it is hard to know. But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit. If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely. A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario. Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price. And, this then has a \"\"meta\"\" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, \"\"all other investors think this way, too,\"\" and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence.\"","It means someone's getting paid too much. I'd check the sharpe ratio and compare that to similar funds along with their expense ratio. So in some scenarios it's not necessarily a bad thing but being informed is the important thing","> In other words, the company's operating assets function as a kind of piggy bank whose purpose is to extract profits that are then flushed out to shareholders. This is the sad fate of essentially all mature businesses under the conditions of American financial capitalism and, indeed, Whole Foods' executive team — led by its founder John Mackey — has been under intense pressure recently from an activist hedge fund that bought shares and has been agitating for cost cutting and more payouts. No shit. If an investor can't make a return from an increasing stock price (whole foods is flat or worse, trading at 50% of peak before Amazon closed) then then the stock must pay a dividend or nobody wants to hold it because it's a losing asset.","\"IMO, what it seems like you've done is nothing more than having screened out a company worth further investigation. The next step would be a thorough analysis of the company's past financials and current statements to arrive at your own opinion / forecast of the immediate and far future of the company's prospects. Typically, this is done by looking at the company's regulatory filings, and maybe some additional searching on comparison businesses. There are many sources of instruction for how one might \"\"value\"\" or \"\"analyze\"\" a company, or that provide help on \"\"reading a balance sheet\"\". (This is not an easy skill to learn, but it is one that will prove invaluable over a lifetime of investing.) It is possible that you'll uncover a deteriorating business where the latest selling, and subsequent drop in price that caused the high yield, is well-deserved. In which case, you know to stay away and move on to the next idea. On the other hand, you might end up confident that the company is not suffering from a drop in sales, rise in expenses, growing debt payments, loss of \"\"moat\"\", etc. In which case, you've found a great investment candidate. I say candidate because you still may decide this company isn't for you, even if the financials are right, because you might find better opportunities for an equal, or acceptable, return at lower risk while you're researching. As to the yield being high when there are no problems with the fundamentals of the business, this may simply be because of panic selling during this past few week's downturn, or some other sort of temporary and superficial scare. However, be warned that the masses can remain irrational, and thus the price stay suppressed or even drop further, for longer than you're willing to wait for your ROI. The good news is that in that case, you're being well compensated to wait at a 11+% yield!\"","Let me ask you something else: If you knew about a company that makes $1 million of profit per year and growing, with costs that are half that, would you not be interested to have a stake in this company? Of course you would. And because the shares can be publicly bought, you can. I don't think you'd care if it's an asset manager or some other company. An asset manager can do a lot with the capital it raises. It could get bigger and better offices, invest in a better computer system, maybe get faster access to exchange information, better information terminals, have more money for marketing and road shows. But the really big cash usually goes to acquire new talent. You might not need that much money for support staff, but a sales manager can be expensive, and a good fund manager can easily cost a high 7 to 8 figure number per year.","\"Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true. From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock. This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings. A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up. These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called \"\"growth\"\" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way.\"","no interest expense (no debt in the capital structure) and an income tax benefit is one possible scenario. you determine this through the financial statement by looking for the differences between the E and EBIT in those calculations (interest and taxes). of course, extraordinary items and discontinued operations could also be present, and result in the difference noted.","Mostly we invest in companies to make money. The money can be paid to as in the form of dividends that are a share of the profit. Or the company can convince enough people that it will make a lot higher profit next year, so its stock prices increases. Clearly a company that reinvests its 20% profit from one shop to open an 2nd shop is doing well and is a good investment. But, But, But... we only have the companies word for it! A dividend paying company finds it a lot harder to hide bad news for long, as it will not have the money in the bank to pay the dividends.","Aside from the market implications Victor and JB King mention, another possible reason is the dividends they pay. Usually, the dividends a company pays are dependent on the profit the company made. if a company makes less profit, the dividends turn out smaller. This might incite unrest among the shareholders, because this means that they get paid less dividends, which makes that share more likely to be sold, and thus for the price to fall.","While losing market share. That's the required context to understand why their model isn't working. Price hikes reduced their losses but people still jumped ship. Their top line growth is a result of market growth and not competitive growth as a company.","\"In some sense, I agree, but let's look at Apple who in 1997 when Steve came back as CEO and had to beg monies from Microsoft (which he received as a professional courtesy) to stay afloat swore he would never have to do again and literally deemed investors as a \"\"necessary evil\"\". He presided over one of the most profound rainy day funds (which eclipsed the US Government for a few days in its depth) because he never wanted to be in that position again. He died and Tim Cook initiated splits and buybacks. I think Cook went too far in one direction and Jobs in the other. Another stock to consider in a similar light is Starbucks. But these stocks are performing, I'm an investor, and I'm not going to complain about management decisions when ROI is at are above 20/30ish percent. Other companies like Thomson Reuters fail to achieve a cohesive diverse presence in multiple markets inexpensively sans their newsdesk operations. I'm not saying your wrong, it's just a formula of trust and strategy.\"",">But when share repurchases replace a company’s research-and-development spending, that indicates its management is unable or unwilling to spend on innovation that could generate future earnings to shareholders. I disagree. If we look at buybacks and r&d purely as investments, a shorter term investment is lower in risk and return, while a longer term one is higher in risk. Of course, the same goes for respective returns. Knowing that research-to-market time for a drug is 5-12 years, and that buybacks are almost immediate returns, the 11% difference over ten years seems generous, not greedy. I've read the same being said about marketing budgets being more than r&d. Again, if the market doesn't have perfect flow of information, marketing become a need to survive. A smart CEO would never spend more on marketing than is necessary. It's the last cost a company bears on a product before booking a sale, and it's the last bite out of the profit.","Just looking at the numbers, something appears off. Cost of equity of ~4% seems very low and should not be below cost of debt. Also a risk free rate of 1.66% seems VERY low. Sometimes it's worth taking a step back and seeing if the numbers even make sense. If you're serious about using your own analysis for investing, the assumptions are extremely important and incorrect ones can throw everything off.","I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.","No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.","I took a look at their cash flow and they spent 3 billion buying back shares and another 3 billion just last year in capex. That is 6 billion right there. I'm not sure what that capex was supposed to buy but it appears they aren't getting much of a payoff.","According to pretty well accepted corporate finance principles. They're mature/maturing companies with large durable noncyclical cash flow streams. Increasing their debt load and distributing the proceeds to shareholders would lower their after tax cost of capital and increase the value of their equity. IMO operating with such under levered balance sheets is nonoptimal. It's subjective though.","Yes youre right it's far more complex than the M-M textbook theory. My view is that there's even more advantages to debt than M-M would say. Further you've nailed exactly why these companies don't follow corporate norms. As disruptors they fear disruption despite their pretty much impenetrable moats. But their CFOs are slowly turning them. MSFT now has a normal corporate structure, apple is getting there, and Google hired Morgan Stanley's CFO. I disagree on your last point: what an entrepreneur CEO (who built a disruptive business from the ground up) wants for his balance sheet is usually not the right thing for shareholders. They do it because they can get away with it due to share class structure and their phenomenal operating performance. That's just my opinion.","In finance you are taught that debt financing is cheaper than equity financing. Also to improve your credit rating, showing that you can carry debt responsibly and pay it off without a hitch sends dog whistle that the corporation is operating well.","Do not confuse the DIV (%) value and the dividend yield. As you can see from this page, the DIV (%) is, as you say, 165%. However, the dividend yield is 3.73% at the time of writing. As the Investopedia page referenced above says: The payout ratio is calculated as follows: Annual Dividends per Share / Earnings per Share. which means that the dividends being paid out are more than the earnings of the company: In extreme cases, dividend payout ratios exceed 100%, meaning more dividends were paid out than there were profits that year. Significantly high ratios are unsustainable.","\"There is no general theory to support the notion that larger companies will be more profitable than smaller companies. Economies of scale are not always positive, one can have diseconomies of scale too. It is more common to talk about an optimal firm size, even going back to Stigler's (1958) \"\"The Economies of Scale.\"\" Intuitively, if economies of scale extended indefinitely, then natural monopolies would dominate all industries in the long run. A profit ratio, unfortunately, wouldn't quite get at scale economies. Consider, for example, that the denominator of your metric would be profit+cost and that you are trying to get at the cost reduction that derives from scale. Then, you are measuring the size of a company by the exact metric that should be reduced if scale economies exist, so the calculation would be a bit confounded. It is my understanding that such assessments are usually conducted at the industry level by determining whether the industry is becoming increasingly concentrated among fewer firms over time. (Again see Stigler). If concentration is increasing, there is an implication that, at current firm sizes, there are economies of scale in the industry.\"","How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.","\">Good, that gives their competition time to take market share. Except TAM (total actual market) is decreasing, the pool of \"\"market share\"\" is going down. So what's happening is companies are slashing margins to even maintain market share, much less increase it. Look at what's happening in computers, DELL, HP, Acer, Asus, Lenovo. Apple's sales numbers dropped for notebooks as well, but because they didnt drop as much as HP or Lenovo their market share went up. This is the new normal. Less than stellar sales. >As long as there is money on the table, someone is going to reach for it. Markets aren't known for their patience. Problem is there is less and less money on the table. Big companies are squeezing little companies. Know what you just described? Wal-mart puts the little guy out of business--- they're efficent! >Bullshit, tax burdens cause tax avoidance, they don't touch production as long as profits are still available. Yes, some, but you can only avoid it if you are multi-national. Businesses with completely domestic operations cannot avoid liabilities in the same way. But as I said above the markets are shrinking, there is less money on the table and the players that are left are fighting over the last scraps. That is obviously a bit extreme, but I personally deal with a lot of retailers and OEMs and there is NOT the wiggle room you describe. I get beat up for a few dollars. I am not talking about banks, or energy companies, or healthcare companies. I am talking about the thousands of small and medium businesses that are already squeezed. These entities are the lifeblood of the larger economy. One or two go out of business and nobody notices, but hundreds and thousands of these companies have closed now. A healthy company is not made up of only Wal-mart, Exxon and Apple.\"","\"Right. Because there was no profits. The company managed to grow by keeping very tight control of costs with respect to revenue. It's not a loophole. The alternative is spending less or charging more. Either of these things probably has significantly worse outcomes to the company - slower growth due to lack of reinvestment in the business, or slower growth due to not attracting as many customers through competitive pricing. What they have done is become a very valuable company due to a strong revenue stream. (You can ask whether a strong revenue stream alone is enough to justify their valuation, but investors seem to think so, and it also seems to indicate that they expect the stock price to continue rising or they wouldn't spend that much.) When Amazon started, I remember people joking \"\"they lose money on every sale, but they make up for it in volume\"\". Seems to have worked out for them in the long run.\"","First, corporate profits can grow relative to GDP. If companies succeed in growing revenue without paying much more to workers, then corporate profits and stock prices will grow relative to GDP. That has been happening for the last couple decades. If you require that we keep corporate profits vs GDP constant, then borrowing/leverage is how you do it. Companies can expand their operations on a fixed amount of shareholder equity, and as long as they can grow their profits faster than the cost of the debt, then shareholders keep the upside. But this also means that share prices will quickly fall if profits decline even a small amount, because the debt must still be paid off.","Talk to almost any large cap CFO or read any corporate finance textbook. McKinsey's Valuation is a great one to own: though yes McKinsey consultants can take a good idea and turn it bad by overdoing it to an extreme. Why would universal corporate finance principles not apply to large cap tech? Why is having $XXb of unutilized cash for a company with durable cash flow a good thing for equity investors?","As JB hints, it is likely due to superior or improving, fundamentals. If the fundamentals of a company improve then its ability to repay loans improves. If its ability to repay improves then more sources of cash become willing to lend to the company. Also if fundamentals are improving then more sources are willing to buy and/or hold the stock.","Both of these terms do refer to your profit; they're just different ways of evaluating it. First, your definition of capitalization rate is flipped. As explained here, it should be: On the other hand, as explained here: So cap rate is like a reverse unit cost approach to comparing two investments. If house A costs $1M and you'll make $50K (profit) from it yearly, and house B costs $1.33M and you'll make $65K (profit) from it yearly, then you can compute cap rates to see that A is a more efficient investment from the point of view of income vs. amount-of-money-you-have-stuck-in-this-investment-and-unavailable-for-use-elsewhere. Profit margin, on the other hand, cares more about your ongoing expenses than about your total investment. If it costs less to maintain property B than it does to maintain property A, then you could have something like: So B is a more efficient investment from the point of view of the fraction of your revenue you actually get to keep each year. Certainly you could think of the property's value as an opportunity cost and factor that into the net profit margin equation to get a more robust estimate of exactly how efficient your investment is. You can keep piling more factors into the equation until you've accounted for every possible facet of your investment. This is what accountants and economists spend their days doing. :-)","It says Amazon has no profits (or very low profits) but the value of the company is very high and growing because of the high revenue. All of the returns to investors are in the form of increased share price which isn't realized or taxed until the shares are sold. This isn't a loophole. Anybody can run a business where they spend most of their revenue on operating costs and run on very slim margins with the goal of growing the revenue.","The ROI percentage becomes a meaningless figure at that point and would either be infinite or a very large number if you assume an equity investment of $1 or $0.01. At that point it's obviously a lucrative deal *as long as it works out* so the bigger question is what are the risks of it not working out and what's the ROIC.","With your numbers, look at it this way - You borrowed $50. When the stock is $100, you are at 50% margin. What's most important, is that there's margin interest charged, so the amount owed will increase regardless of the stock price. When calculating your return or loss, the interest has to be accounted for or your numbers will be wrong. For a small investor, margin rates can run high, and often, will offset much of your potential gain. What good is a $100 gain if you paid $125 in margin interest?","\"It's not abnormal for a company that is as young as yours seems to be. It seems (based on what little I know), that you have debts, or accounts payable that were formerly covered by the $200 cash, but now aren't, because you paid it to yourself. For now, you're \"\"entitled\"\" to pay yourself a draw or a salary. But if you continue to do so without earning money to cover it, your company will fail.\"","A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;","You can do a bunch of sales if you price your product too low to make any money. Lots of sales, not much revenue. Kind of like what Square is going through right now. Now if you do a lot of sales at a good price, leading to good revenue and cash flow, THEN you are winning. EDIT: Before people get pedantic over my Square analogy, yes, I know they are making a lot of revenue but their margins are incredibly thin and the bulk of their revenue goes immediately to Visa/MC etc so the analogy still works. Lots of sales, not much green.","\"My favorite line: \"\"Companies should generate enough profits to justify the price that shareholders are willing to pay for its shares. Once shareholders are no longer willing to pay up for those profits, they should invest that money elsewhere.\"\" This person loses all credibility right here.\"","The market cap always reflect the company's equity. Except that you cannot fix a stock price in a free market. A company with such profit pattern would have stock price behave like present value of a perpetuity (future income stream discounted by risk free rate) Since your assumption is unachievable, there is no point in determining the logic.","Small companies are generally able to adapt quickly to take advantage of changing conditions to enter new markets when the economy is growing. This gives them a lot of growth potential under those circumstances. However, in times of crisis, there may not be a lot of new markets to enter, and financing to expand any operations may be impossible to get. Under these conditions, small-caps will suffer relative to large-caps.","\"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary. They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life. If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million. However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future \"\"real\"\" earnings \"\"ie actual profit and loss on sales\"\" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely.\"","There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!","\"Not sure I fully understand your question but my take on it is this: There a lot of people out there that admire companies and own the stock just because they like the company. For example, I know some kids who own Disney stock. They only have a share or two but they keep it because they want to say \"\"I own a part of Disney.\"\" Realistically speaking, if they hold or sell the stock it is so minuscule to have any realizable affect on the overall value of the stock which does not really make the company look better from an investor perspective. However, if a company has people that just want to own the stock just like your uncle are indeed \"\"better\"\" because they must have provided a product or service that is valued intrinsically.\"","It is. The outstanding value is the net cash flow, but it will always be higher than cash outflow due to a constant growth rate/expected return. I was slightly confused when my manager told me to find the IRR before and after cash inflows (the whole life of the investment). Especially as IRR after cash inflows is higher than the former.","\"> Or does it differ between every company what non-cash charges they have? This. Here's a hint: the FCFF *can* be calculated from Cash Flow from Operations (CFO). Think of FCFF this way: \"\"after the business has operated *and* made *all* investments needed to grow, both short and long-term, how much is left over for providers of capital?\"\" [Here's a good resource for you.](https://www.cfainstitute.org/learning/products/publications/inv/Documents/equity_chapter6.ppt)\""],"string":"[\n \"The operating margin deals with the ability for a company to make a profit above the costs of running the company and generating sales. While ROE is how much money the company makes relative to the shareholders equity. I'd be willing to bet that if a company has a small ROE then it also has a quite large P/E (price to earnings) ratio. This would be caused by the company's stock being bid up in relation to its earnings and may not necessarily be a bad thing. People expect the high operating margin to help drive increased revenues in the future, and are willing to pay a higher price now for when that day comes.\",\n \"An operating margin will not compare with ROE. If a company has even a small margin on a large turnover and has a comparative lower shareholder equity, it ROE will be much higher. One ratio alone can not analyse a company. You need a full set of ratios and figures.\",\n \"A company's Return on Equity (ROE) is its net income divided by its shareholder's equity. The shareholder's equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities, and is not dependent on the stock price. What it takes to have a ROE over 100% is to have the income be greater than the equity. This might happen for a variety of reasons, but one way a high ROE happens is if the shareholder's equity (the divisor) is small, which can occur if past losses have eroded the company's capital (the original invested cash and retained earnings). If the equity has become a small value, the income for some period might exceed it, and so the ROE would be over 100%. Operating margin is not closely related to ROE. Although operating income is related to net income, to calculate the margin you divide by sales, which is completely unrelated to shareholder's equity. So there is no relationship with ROE to be expected. Operating margin is primarily dependent on market conditions, and can be substantially different in different industries.\",\n \"\\\"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success. I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product. Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside). Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.). More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires).\\\"\",\n \"Small companies could have growth prospects. Large companies may not have that many. So look at ROE of companies by quatile to determine which companies have better growth.\",\n \"Just to clarify things: The Net Working Capital is the funds, the capital that will finance the everyday, the short term, operations of a company like buying raw materials, paying wages erc. So, Net Working Capital doesn't have a negative impact. And you should not see the liabilities as beneficial per se. It's rather the fact that with smaller capital to finance the short term operations the company is able to make this EBIT. You can see it as the efficiency of the company, the smaller the net working capital the more efficient the company is (given the EBIT). I hope you find it helpful, it's my first amswer here. Edit: why do you say the net working capital has a negative impact?\",\n \"Yes definitely Warren Buffet averaged returns of only around 21% throughout his 40 years in business. ROE of 23% is probably more than double the ROE of most companies , whats more as the saying goes its easier to grow sales from 1 million to 100 million than to grow sales from 100 million to 10 billion\",\n \"Lets say the hurdle rate for this company is 10% and the current return on assets is 8%. A linear increase in revenue and earnings would actually destroy some value as projects that have a 9% return are accepted even though they destroy value for the shareholder. hope this helps!\",\n \"On a company level ROCE over WACC would be more meaningful in my view but the end result should be be pretty much the same. This concept is closely related to value creation. Value can only be created when a company's ROCE is exceeding its cost of funding - WACC. This is also tightly related with the NPV concept. Value is only created when the NPV on a project is >0. And to directly answer OP. Study in detail WACC. (weighted average cost of capital). Focus on the Modigliani–Miller theorem with taxes and financial distress costs. Good luck.\",\n \"Profit margins. The difference goes to shareholders as new equity every quarter. You don’t need growth to see a return on equity. The consumer staple sector is a great example of this. They’ve had negative to 0 revenue growth, yet have posted respectable returns since the recession.\",\n \"Another way to look at this is if we separate the owner's account from the business's account. At the start of the year, the owner puts $9 into the business account to get the business started. At the end of the first day, the business account has $10, and at the end of the second day, the business account has $11. The owner doesn't need to add any more of his own money into the business account. At the end of the 365th day, the business will have $374, which is $365 profit + $9 investment. Assuming the business has no other expenses, the business will calculate profit for the year like this: The author is making a strange point. The two numbers he is talking about are two different quantities. The business owner's return on investment is $365 / $9 = 4056%. But the business's profit margin is $365 / $3650 = 10%. Both are useful numbers when running the business. I disagree with the author's insinuation that a business is doing something tricky when calculating profit margin. Remember that, in addition to the business owner's monetary investment, he worked every day for a year to earn that $365.\",\n \"Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.\",\n \"I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.\",\n \"Means A has a much higher level of interest payments dye to either higher debt or higher cost of debt (or combination of both). MM theory suggests higher debt in a capital structure due to the tax shield but you need to consider if A's debt level is appropriate or too high and what that says about your company.\",\n \"\\\"This isn't as rigorous as it should be, but may offer some useful insight into how big and small companies differ operationally. Putting Apple aside, larger companies tend to sell larger volumes of products (even if they're MRI devices, or turbines) relative to what smaller companies can sell (obviously, in absolute terms as well). They are also able to negotiate volume discounts as well as payment terms. This allows them to finance sales through their supply chain. However, their large direct competitors are able to do the same thing as well. Competitive forces then drive prices down. Smaller businesses, without these advantages of scale, tend to have to charge higher margins since they have to pay directly (and, if their clients are large businesses, finance the sale). Small businesses still have higher proportional costs of operation. Sadly, my reference here is a study I performed for the South African Revenue Service about ten years ago, and not available online. However, the time taken by a small business to manage admin, tax, HR is a greater proportion of revenue than for larger companies. If the small business is a start-up with big investment from venture finance, then they could subsidise their selling price, run at a loss and try and gain scale. Funnily enough, there is a fantastic article on this by Joel Spolsky (Ben and Jerry's vs. Amazon) For the average highly-competitive smaller company, the best choice is to chase design/quality/premium markets in order to justify the higher margins they have to charge. And that's what makes Apple interesting as a case study. They were a small company in the presence of giants (Intel, Microsoft, IBM). They were \\\"\\\"forced\\\"\\\" to concentrate on design and premium markets in order to justify their need for higher margins. It almost didn't work but then they broke through. Now they're in the unique position of having gained scale but are still small enough relative to other electronics manufacturers to continue charging that premium (by volume their sales are still relatively small but their margins make them a giant). This type of variation from market to market makes developing some sort of generalised solution very unlikely but the general requirement holds: that smaller companies must charge higher margins in order to create equivalent profits to larger companies which must gain scale through volume.\\\"\",\n \"I'll give it a shot, though I know nearly nothing about airlines. 1% is a lot when your revenue is very high. Lets say a plane can have 200 people on it. Plane tickets are a lot, so each person is charged $700 in this example. That's 140K in gross revenue per trip. 1% of that is $1400. You have several trips a day per plane. Lets say 5 trips a day per plane. Each plane is netting $7000 a day. Or around $2.5 million in profit a year. Lets say a commercial plane that has a capacity of 200, costs around $50 million. That's a 20 year ROI. Up your margins to 2%, now you're at 10 year ROI. Plus depreciation. You get to depreciate that $50 million over the course of X years. Basically making all of the profits the airline gets, tax free due to their insane amount of depreciation. Pair this income with cheap oil, and a smart CEO that can cut costs, and you have a cash cow on your hands. And given the fact that a lot of airlines have a ton of planes already depreciated to $0 that aren't on their books any more, you may be able to buy the airline for a fraction of their net assets. Margins are important, but it's all relative. Edit: Changed numbers to prove my point, and because I am not a smart man\",\n \">Jeremy Grantham, chief investment strategist of Boston-based Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co., said margins will send stock markets tumbling when they eventually revert to their mean. >“The implication for the stock market is ugly, because it means earnings are unsustainably high,” Grantham’s colleague Ben Inker, GMO’s director of asset allocation, said in a telephone interview.\",\n \"Problem with deciding investments in a company is that you have multiple potential options, each with their projected returns, but each also has some hard-to-estimate risks. A further problem is that these opportunities arrive one-by-one, so you usually cannot compare project A vs. project B to decide which one is better. The internal rate of return is a rule-of-thumb like way to make these decisions. The company board may set an IRR target of e.g. 15%, and each executive will compare their projects against that target. They'll execute only the projects that are projected to give a good return, but some of these projects will end up failing. Thus the real average profit will not be equal to IRR. Important thing is that this target number gives ways to compare projects, and also for the board to control the investments. If the company has a good track record of being successful at projects, the board might set an IRR target of 10% and expect to get e.g. 8% return on their investment. However, if the company has a much larger risk of projects failing, they might demand a predicted IRR of 20% to account for the risk. Ultimately if the IRR target is set too high, the company will find no projects it considers profitable to invest in. In practice if this happens, the company owners are better off taking out the cash as dividends and investing it elsewhere.\",\n \"When your profits are increased from mass layoffs and reduced expenses (like r&d) to appease investors, and not based on innovation, new market entry, or competitive advantage. It's a short term quick win but puts the long term in jeopardy.\",\n \"Two of the main ways that investors benefit financially from a stock are dividends and increases in the price of the stock. In the example as described, the benefits came primarily from dividends, leaving less benefits to be realized in terms of an increase in the value of the company. Another way to put that is that the company paid its profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend, instead of accumulating that as an increase in the value of the company. The company could have chosen to take those profits and reinvest them in growing the business, which would lead to lower dividends but (hopefully) an increase in the valuation of the stock, but they chose to pay dividends instead. This still rewards the investors, but share prices stay low.\",\n \"\\\"The company was paying \\\"\\\"only\\\"\\\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \\\"\\\"too high,\\\"\\\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \\\"\\\"most\\\"\\\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \\\"\\\"stingy,\\\"\\\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\\\"\",\n \"> But so long as the incremental improvement to your bottom line is there, the investment is sound, with or without taxes. wat If E(ROA)>0 it's a sound investment? Not at all. > any investment the company makes that improves their net income automatically means more money for the company Where is this money coming from? If it's debt-financed it escapes corporate tax rate because interest payments are deductible. Is it coming from the company's retained earnings? We have less of that now because we hiked up the corporate tax rate. Your argument also neglects the impact corporate taxes have on equity financing and corporate leverage.\",\n \"PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.\",\n \"Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood. Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in. Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year. Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due. I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off. Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has. Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean. Does that make sense?\",\n \"the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street\",\n \"It sounds like you're drastically oversimplifying basic business economics, and implying that any company is just as well off breaking even (zero profit) as it is with turning a big profit. This is blatantly incorrect and naive. For one thing, it is certainly be easier to justify expansion or attract new investments if your company is profitable.\",\n \"Honestly, I’m not sure I understand your point. The figures suggest to me that the business invests (higher capex and amortisation) and grows it’s revenues and cash flow. D&A can be higher than new capex for a number of reasons including accelerated amortisation for tax purposes. Why is D&A contribution (actually i prefer to separate the concepts of P&L and cash flow) to operating cash flow a problem or why does it evidence manipulation?\",\n \"Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel). If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy. The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.\",\n \"\\\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \\\"\\\"book value\\\"\\\" is your compensation for a low \\\"\\\"interest\\\"\\\" rate.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Why there is this huge difference? I am not able to reconcile Yahoo's answer of 5.75%, even using their definition for ROA of: Return on Assets Formula: Earnings from Continuing Operations / Average Total Equity This ratio shows percentage of Returns to Total Assets of the company. This is a useful measure in analyzing how well a company uses its assets to produce earnings. I suspect the \\\"\\\"Average Total Equity\\\"\\\" in their formula is a typo, but using either measure I cannot come up with 5.75% for any 12-month period. I can, however, match MarketWatch's answer by looking at the 2016 fiscal year totals and using a \\\"\\\"traditional\\\"\\\" formula of Net Income / Average Total Assets: I'm NOT saying that MatketWatch is right and Yahoo is wrong - MW is using fiscal year totals while Yahoo is using trailing 12-month numbers, and Yahoo uses \\\"\\\"Earnings from Continuing Operations\\\"\\\", but even using that number (which Yahoo calculates) I am not able to reconcile the 5.75% they give.\\\"\",\n \"It is true that operation profit comes from gross profit however it is possible for a company to have negative net profit yet have postive cash flow , it has to do with the accounting practice A possible example is that a company has extremely high depreciation expense of fixed asset hence net profit will be negative but cash flow will be positive. Assuming the fixed asset has been fully paid for in earlier years\",\n \"It would be the sales revenue less everything else. When he says reinvest, that is to say they keep all of the post-tax earnings and place it in retained earnings. This means that it is still the companies money to invest and use to fulfill their goals. If they didn't have any worthy investing opportunities, they could issue dividends. So say your cost of capital is, eeeeeh, 15%. And the best investment you can make will earn you 12%. That's a loss of value. So the company, acting in the investors best interests, will give those funds back so that the investors can allocate that money to more efficient areas. Dividends are one mechanism a company has to control their rate of growth.\",\n \"I don't think it makes sense to allow accounting numbers that you are not sure how to interpret as being a sell sign. If you know why the numbers are weird and you feel that the reason for it bodes ill about the future, and if you think there's a reason this has not been accounted for by the market, then you might think about selling. The stock's performance will depend on what happens in the future. Financials just document the past, and are subject to all kinds of lumpiness, seasonality, and manipulation. You might benefit from posting a link to where you got your financials. Whenever one computes something like a dividend payout ratio, one must select a time period over which to measure. If the company had a rough quarter in terms of earnings but chose not to reduce dividends because they don't expect the future to be rough, that would explain a crazy high dividend ratio. Or if they were changing their capital structure. Or one of many other potentially benign things. Accounting numbers summarize a ton of complex workings of the company and many ratios we look at could be defined in several different ways. I'm afraid that the answer to your question about how to interpret things is in the details, and we are not looking at the same details you are.\",\n \"High ROI and high barriers to entry are rare to find existing together at the same time in the same market. More commonly, you have high margins/ROI in early markets, but high barriers to entry are more common in mature markets. The most common places to find high ROI and barriers to entry is when there is something *proprietary* involved. This is why the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields are so valuable. Industries related to these fields have an edge because they are the most likely fields to create something proprietary. When something proprietary is also in high demand, you have a barrier to entry and also a potential to create high margins (which in turn will be high ROI). Some people have mentioned medical devices, which are an excellent example. There are only a handful of companies that have went to the lengths of development to create the Swan Ganz catheter, for example (an essential tool used in cardiac surgeries). With little competition and high demand, companies that manufacture Swan Ganz catheters can put healthy margins on the product without worry. TL;DR: The best way to find something high ROI that also has barriers to entry is to specialize towards something proprietary that cannot be imitated or replaced, but is also in high demand.\",\n \"The P/E ratio is a measure of historic (the previous financial year) earnings against the current share price. If the P/E is high, this means that the market perceives a big increase in future earnings per share. In other words, the perception is that this is a fast growing company. Higher earnings may also equate to big increases in dividends and rapid expansion. On the other hand, if the P/E is low, then there is a perception that either earnings per share are decreasing or that future growth in earnings is negligible. In other words, low P/E equates to a perception of low future growth and therefore low prospects for future payout increases - possibly even decreases. The market is (rightly) usually willing to pay a premium for fast growing companies.\",\n \"Actually, share holder value is is better maximised by borrowing, and paying dividends is fairly irrelevant but a natural phase on a mature and stable company. Company finance is generally a balance between borrowing, and money raised from shares. It should be self evident with a little thought that if not now, then in the future, a company should be able to create earnings in excess of the cost of borrowing, or it's not a very valuable company to invest in! In fact what's the point of borrowing if the cost of the interest is greater than whatever wealth is being generated? The important thing about this is that money raised from shares is more expensive than borrowing. If a company doesn't pay dividends, and its share price goes up because of the increasing value of the business, and in your example the company is not borrowing more because of this, then the proportion of the value of the company that is based on the borrowing goes down. So, this means a higher and higher proportion of the finance of a company is provided by the more expensive share holders than the less expensive borrowing, and thus the company is actually providing LESS value to share holders than it might. Of course, if a company doesn't pay a dividend AND borrows more, this is not true, but that's not the scenario in your question, and generally mature companies with mature earnings may as well pay dividends as they aren't on a massive expansion drive in the same way. Now, this relative expense of share holders and borrowing is MORE true for a mature company with stable earnings, as they are less of a risk and can borrow at more favourable rates, AND such a company is LIKELY to be expanding less rapidly than a small new innovative company, so for both these reasons returning money to share holders and borrowing (or maintaining existing lending facilities) maintains a relatively more efficient financing ratio. Of course all this means that in theory, a company should be more efficient if it has no share holders at all and borrows ALL of the money it needs. Yes. In practise though, lenders aren't so keen on that scenario, they would rather have shareholders sharing the risk, and lending a less than 100% proportion of the total of a companies finance means they are much more likely to get their money back if things go horribly wrong. To take a small start up company by comparison, lenders will be leary of lending at all, and will certainly impose high rates if they do, or ask for guarantors, or demand security (and security is only available if there is other investment besides the loan). So this is why a small start up is likely to be much more heavily or exclusively funded by share holders. Also the start up is likely not to pay a dividend, because for a start it's probably not making any profit, but even if it is and could pay a dividend, in this situation borrowing is unavailable or very expensive and this is a rapidly growing business that wants to keep its hands on all the cash it can to accelerate itself. Once it starts making money of course a start up is on its way to making the transition, it becomes able to borrow money at sensible rates, it becomes bigger and more valuable on the back of the borrowing. Another important point is that dividend income is more stable, at least for the mature companies with stable earnings of your scenario, and investors like stability. If all the income from a portfolio has to be generated by sales, what happens when there is a market crash? Suddenly the investor has to pay, where as with dividends, the company pays, at least for a while. If a company's earnings are hit by market conditions of course it's likely the dividend will eventually be cut, but short term volatility should be largely eliminated.\",\n \"I agree, the markets that Amazon competes in his extremely competitive with larger companies (such as Wal Mart) operating at smaller margins to increase volume. Since Amazon is continuously trying to increase its customer base and customer loyalty, they really need the low margins. The 1% increase could be harmful to the long-term growth of the company, which as the executives of Amazon explain, really matters more than higher profits this quarter. Furthermore, 5% decrease in SGA sounds like a company that's downsizing, particularly a company that operates as efficiently as Amazon, making that suggestion unreasonable and unrealistic.\",\n \"Well like a lot of stuff on money.stackexchange there is not a simple answer, but generally it is not a good thing. Take a look at the wikipedia entry on Net Operating Loss. Basically the company is commenting that when they do make money they will receive preferential tax treatment on that income. So whether or not this is a positive or a negative depends on a couple of things: NOL doesn't directly impact book value other than how the actual assets of the company changed over the previous quarter. I believe there is a 1:1 correspondence to how the assets change and NOL, but I am sure someone could clarify that for me in another answer or as a comment.\",\n \"Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains.\",\n \"EBIT could be lower due to non-operating revenues such as investments in other companies, tax reliefs, adjustments to incorrect loss provisions and various other items that would not be part of the companies day to day operations. Be careful and read the footnotes and managements discussion for those items, they should be disclosed to some extent.\",\n \"> You need to look at where the profits are coming from. Sure. If profits are coming from non-recurring revenue sources, then it isn't a great indication of ongoing profitability. If, on the other hand, profits are coming from lean staffing, low costs and a focus on the bottom line...then you're talking about how a well-run business is operated. It has been a long time since I worked on the floor of an IB so I can't speak to work happiness these days, but I do know that much of the exodus is in the form of people leaving for the buyside (as always), or for greener pastures working on FinTech out in SF.\",\n \"Yeah that all can definitely be true as well, in fact we both 100% agree on symptoms of low growth. However personally I believe there are always ways to reinvest and build your business. I mean look at AAPL, they allocated $100~ billion into their own Nevada hedge fund buying up high quality debt like it's a fire sale. Some companies create their own VC firms combatting disruptive innovation. We can argue about this all we want but share buybacks can signify a lot of things at the end of the day haha. My main point with the comment above was that the buybacks inflating EPS makes it more difficult to identify true earnings growth of a company. So serious question, do you know of any ways to filter that out and identify real earnings growth?\",\n \"It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit. What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash.\",\n \"If it's a low margin business and you can get value for it that's higher than the leadership values it, and they have some opportunity in a better margin business but for some reason couldn't acquire debt funding or more investors to fund the new business; then it might be feasible, but unusual and probably not ideal.\",\n \"This is the point of the article. Somehow a company which is so successful has, for tax purposes, such a razor thin margin. So their taxation clearly isn't in keeping with its actual ability to pay, passing along the burden to other businesses and individuals.\",\n \"Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.\",\n \"There are not always capital-efficient ways for a company to reinvest its own profits. This is why dividends exist. Imagine a company will reinvest 80% of its profits into a project with a huge projected return, but the other 20% of the company's profits cannot be reinvested efficiently because there are zero projects in which to reinvest the profits into that would return a better profit than what the company's shareholders could make by reinvesting those profits in their own way (ie: a benchmark market index like an S&P 500 index fund). Since the shareholders could make a better return with this than the company could with any company project, it would be irresponsible (technically maybe even illegal) for the company to reinvest that 20% of the profits. This reason for companies sometimes paying out profits to shareholders in the form of dividends is a market-efficient part of the economic system, and it really is great. If a CEO/CFO/anyone is paying out so much profit from a company that it is irresponsible to the company's investors, then that would also technically be illegal since the company is evading efficient project that would benefit its shareholders more than they could benefit themselves elsewhere in the market. (These legalities with shareholder laws are not explicitly put into action very often, but their effects are always there) It's also worth noting payout/plowback strategy is very important for the strategy and financing of a company, particularly for public investments.\",\n \"\\\"No, having to borrow money does not necessarily mean a company will have a hard time paying the interest on it. Similarly, having to take out a mortgage on a house does not mean a person will not be able to make their mortgage payments. Borrowing money can be a way to spend future money instead of present money (at a cost, of course). A company might not have all that money at the moment, but that in no way implies they won't have it in the future. And as you allude to in your question where you talk about \\\"\\\"funding some … plans\\\"\\\", a company might be able to grow itself—possibly increasing future profits—by borrowing money.\\\"\",\n \"Residential Construction at 362x, by the way. I'm going to hazard a guess here - Say XYZ corp trades at $100, and it's showing a normal earnings of $10 the last few years. Its industry falls on hard times, and while it makes enough to keep its doors open, profits fall to $1. The company itself is still sound, but the small earnings result in a high P/E. By the way, its book value is $110, and they have huge cash on the books along with real estate. I offer these details to show why the price doesn't drop like a rock. Now, biotech may be in a period of low reported earnings but with future results expected to justify the price. On one hand it may be an anomaly, with earnings due to rise, or it may be a bit of a bubble. An analyst for this sector should be able to comment if I'm on the right track.\",\n \"First, the earnings are per year, not per quarter. Why would you expect to get a 100% per year return on your money? The earnings can go one of two ways. They can be retained, reinvested in the company, or they can be distributed as a dividend. So, the 'return' on this share is just over 5%, which is competitive with the rate you'd get on fixed investments. It's higher, in fact, as there's the risk that comes with holding the stock.\",\n \"There's a distinction between profits and cash flow, attributed to the recognition of non-cash items. If you have a business where your customers pay you quickly, you manage your inventory well, and you’re able to take your time in paying your suppliers, your free cash flow can be consistently positive even when your net income is not.\",\n \"This is basically saying that it's not possible to make more than some not-so-large amount without taking for yourself part of what several other people produce, yes? How does that fit with the very high profits per a employee numbers that some companies have?: http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-profitable-employees-companies\",\n \"Their net income hangs around zero because they raise expenses as reinvestment in the company (line items like $16.09B in Research & Development expense last year). Retained earnings is a balance sheet item reflective of assets they're holding for projects in a later fiscal period; they aren't waiting for the next period to reinvest.\",\n \"First read mhoran's answer, Then this - If the company sold nothing but refrigerators, and had 40% market share, that's $4M/yr in sales. If they have a 30% profit margin, $1.2M in profit each year. A P/E of 10 would give a stock value totaling $12M, more than the market size. The numbers are related, of course, but one isn't the maximum of the other.\",\n \"\\\"P/E is a pretty poor way to value the company as it exists today. The company generates free cash flow yield of 2.5-3.3% which isn't remarkably high, but it's not nearly as bad as the earnings yield of 1.1%. But let's operate within the P/E ratio for right now. The company sells $40 billion of \\\"\\\"stuff\\\"\\\" each year with a net margin of 2%. If they increased prices on every product by 1% (which really wouldn't be _that_ noticeable) their profit would grow 50%. Thus, P/E drops from 90 to 60. SGA expenses equal ~20% of their operating costs. Cut 5% of SGA and you get the same 1% increase in net margin. This could come from cost-cutting today, or by greater economies of scale in the future while keeping prices the same. So, yes, it's priced as a growth firm, but it doesn't necessarily need customer growth in the traditional sense to be fairly-valued.\\\"\",\n \"Profits go to the owners of the corporation for providing capitol. CAT is paying around 2% ... a little under $2/year/share in dividends. (note that dividends come out of profits, not before.) A 2% return on investment isn't a terrible thing. It's not great, but in current economic conditions, it's respectable. Looking at their financial statements, they don't have tons of cash on the books relative to what they spend in a quarter. They do have a fair chunk of their assets tied up in inventory. On the books, that goes down as a profit - kinda. It's mostly neutral accounting wise - money went out, inventory came in. You now have an asset worth exactly what you spent on it. The biggest growth in assets over the last couple of years has been in inventory. The amount in inventory is greater than assets minus liabilities. Then again, so is cash on hand, but the cash flow rate is also pretty high because the margins are low. So... yeah... they're making more money, but they're also investing most of that back into the capital costs of growing the business. New machinery, inventory that they can sell, business development in new markets, etc. Remember that capital costs are considered neutral - you receive an asset in return. This is distinct from operating costs which come straight to the bottom line.\",\n \"You are omitting how the company made 120 million in the previous year and may be facing a shrinking market and thus have poor future prospects. If the company is shrinking, what will the shares be worth down the road. Remember companies like AOL or Blackberry? There was a time they had big profits before things changed which is the part you aren't considering here. If the company has lost something big on its earnings, e.g. the oil wells it owned have run out of reserves or the patents on its key drugs have expired, then there could be the perception that the company won't be able to compete in the future to continue to deliver earnings. Some companies may well end up going broke as one could look at GM for a company that used to be one of the largest car companies in the world and yet it ended up going broke.\",\n \"\\\"It depends on the definition of earnings. A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce \\\"\\\"earnings\\\"\\\" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred). It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt. If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt. The problem is, where is the inflection point between \\\"\\\"well\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"poorly\\\"\\\"? When does a company start to head into oblivion? Sometimes it is hard to know. But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit. If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely. A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario. Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price. And, this then has a \\\"\\\"meta\\\"\\\" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, \\\"\\\"all other investors think this way, too,\\\"\\\" and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence.\\\"\",\n \"It means someone's getting paid too much. I'd check the sharpe ratio and compare that to similar funds along with their expense ratio. So in some scenarios it's not necessarily a bad thing but being informed is the important thing\",\n \"> In other words, the company's operating assets function as a kind of piggy bank whose purpose is to extract profits that are then flushed out to shareholders. This is the sad fate of essentially all mature businesses under the conditions of American financial capitalism and, indeed, Whole Foods' executive team — led by its founder John Mackey — has been under intense pressure recently from an activist hedge fund that bought shares and has been agitating for cost cutting and more payouts. No shit. If an investor can't make a return from an increasing stock price (whole foods is flat or worse, trading at 50% of peak before Amazon closed) then then the stock must pay a dividend or nobody wants to hold it because it's a losing asset.\",\n \"\\\"IMO, what it seems like you've done is nothing more than having screened out a company worth further investigation. The next step would be a thorough analysis of the company's past financials and current statements to arrive at your own opinion / forecast of the immediate and far future of the company's prospects. Typically, this is done by looking at the company's regulatory filings, and maybe some additional searching on comparison businesses. There are many sources of instruction for how one might \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"analyze\\\"\\\" a company, or that provide help on \\\"\\\"reading a balance sheet\\\"\\\". (This is not an easy skill to learn, but it is one that will prove invaluable over a lifetime of investing.) It is possible that you'll uncover a deteriorating business where the latest selling, and subsequent drop in price that caused the high yield, is well-deserved. In which case, you know to stay away and move on to the next idea. On the other hand, you might end up confident that the company is not suffering from a drop in sales, rise in expenses, growing debt payments, loss of \\\"\\\"moat\\\"\\\", etc. In which case, you've found a great investment candidate. I say candidate because you still may decide this company isn't for you, even if the financials are right, because you might find better opportunities for an equal, or acceptable, return at lower risk while you're researching. As to the yield being high when there are no problems with the fundamentals of the business, this may simply be because of panic selling during this past few week's downturn, or some other sort of temporary and superficial scare. However, be warned that the masses can remain irrational, and thus the price stay suppressed or even drop further, for longer than you're willing to wait for your ROI. The good news is that in that case, you're being well compensated to wait at a 11+% yield!\\\"\",\n \"Let me ask you something else: If you knew about a company that makes $1 million of profit per year and growing, with costs that are half that, would you not be interested to have a stake in this company? Of course you would. And because the shares can be publicly bought, you can. I don't think you'd care if it's an asset manager or some other company. An asset manager can do a lot with the capital it raises. It could get bigger and better offices, invest in a better computer system, maybe get faster access to exchange information, better information terminals, have more money for marketing and road shows. But the really big cash usually goes to acquire new talent. You might not need that much money for support staff, but a sales manager can be expensive, and a good fund manager can easily cost a high 7 to 8 figure number per year.\",\n \"\\\"Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true. From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock. This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings. A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up. These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called \\\"\\\"growth\\\"\\\" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way.\\\"\",\n \"no interest expense (no debt in the capital structure) and an income tax benefit is one possible scenario. you determine this through the financial statement by looking for the differences between the E and EBIT in those calculations (interest and taxes). of course, extraordinary items and discontinued operations could also be present, and result in the difference noted.\",\n \"Mostly we invest in companies to make money. The money can be paid to as in the form of dividends that are a share of the profit. Or the company can convince enough people that it will make a lot higher profit next year, so its stock prices increases. Clearly a company that reinvests its 20% profit from one shop to open an 2nd shop is doing well and is a good investment. But, But, But... we only have the companies word for it! A dividend paying company finds it a lot harder to hide bad news for long, as it will not have the money in the bank to pay the dividends.\",\n \"Aside from the market implications Victor and JB King mention, another possible reason is the dividends they pay. Usually, the dividends a company pays are dependent on the profit the company made. if a company makes less profit, the dividends turn out smaller. This might incite unrest among the shareholders, because this means that they get paid less dividends, which makes that share more likely to be sold, and thus for the price to fall.\",\n \"While losing market share. That's the required context to understand why their model isn't working. Price hikes reduced their losses but people still jumped ship. Their top line growth is a result of market growth and not competitive growth as a company.\",\n \"\\\"In some sense, I agree, but let's look at Apple who in 1997 when Steve came back as CEO and had to beg monies from Microsoft (which he received as a professional courtesy) to stay afloat swore he would never have to do again and literally deemed investors as a \\\"\\\"necessary evil\\\"\\\". He presided over one of the most profound rainy day funds (which eclipsed the US Government for a few days in its depth) because he never wanted to be in that position again. He died and Tim Cook initiated splits and buybacks. I think Cook went too far in one direction and Jobs in the other. Another stock to consider in a similar light is Starbucks. But these stocks are performing, I'm an investor, and I'm not going to complain about management decisions when ROI is at are above 20/30ish percent. Other companies like Thomson Reuters fail to achieve a cohesive diverse presence in multiple markets inexpensively sans their newsdesk operations. I'm not saying your wrong, it's just a formula of trust and strategy.\\\"\",\n \">But when share repurchases replace a company’s research-and-development spending, that indicates its management is unable or unwilling to spend on innovation that could generate future earnings to shareholders. I disagree. If we look at buybacks and r&d purely as investments, a shorter term investment is lower in risk and return, while a longer term one is higher in risk. Of course, the same goes for respective returns. Knowing that research-to-market time for a drug is 5-12 years, and that buybacks are almost immediate returns, the 11% difference over ten years seems generous, not greedy. I've read the same being said about marketing budgets being more than r&d. Again, if the market doesn't have perfect flow of information, marketing become a need to survive. A smart CEO would never spend more on marketing than is necessary. It's the last cost a company bears on a product before booking a sale, and it's the last bite out of the profit.\",\n \"Just looking at the numbers, something appears off. Cost of equity of ~4% seems very low and should not be below cost of debt. Also a risk free rate of 1.66% seems VERY low. Sometimes it's worth taking a step back and seeing if the numbers even make sense. If you're serious about using your own analysis for investing, the assumptions are extremely important and incorrect ones can throw everything off.\",\n \"I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.\",\n \"No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.\",\n \"I took a look at their cash flow and they spent 3 billion buying back shares and another 3 billion just last year in capex. That is 6 billion right there. I'm not sure what that capex was supposed to buy but it appears they aren't getting much of a payoff.\",\n \"According to pretty well accepted corporate finance principles. They're mature/maturing companies with large durable noncyclical cash flow streams. Increasing their debt load and distributing the proceeds to shareholders would lower their after tax cost of capital and increase the value of their equity. IMO operating with such under levered balance sheets is nonoptimal. It's subjective though.\",\n \"Yes youre right it's far more complex than the M-M textbook theory. My view is that there's even more advantages to debt than M-M would say. Further you've nailed exactly why these companies don't follow corporate norms. As disruptors they fear disruption despite their pretty much impenetrable moats. But their CFOs are slowly turning them. MSFT now has a normal corporate structure, apple is getting there, and Google hired Morgan Stanley's CFO. I disagree on your last point: what an entrepreneur CEO (who built a disruptive business from the ground up) wants for his balance sheet is usually not the right thing for shareholders. They do it because they can get away with it due to share class structure and their phenomenal operating performance. That's just my opinion.\",\n \"In finance you are taught that debt financing is cheaper than equity financing. Also to improve your credit rating, showing that you can carry debt responsibly and pay it off without a hitch sends dog whistle that the corporation is operating well.\",\n \"Do not confuse the DIV (%) value and the dividend yield. As you can see from this page, the DIV (%) is, as you say, 165%. However, the dividend yield is 3.73% at the time of writing. As the Investopedia page referenced above says: The payout ratio is calculated as follows: Annual Dividends per Share / Earnings per Share. which means that the dividends being paid out are more than the earnings of the company: In extreme cases, dividend payout ratios exceed 100%, meaning more dividends were paid out than there were profits that year. Significantly high ratios are unsustainable.\",\n \"\\\"There is no general theory to support the notion that larger companies will be more profitable than smaller companies. Economies of scale are not always positive, one can have diseconomies of scale too. It is more common to talk about an optimal firm size, even going back to Stigler's (1958) \\\"\\\"The Economies of Scale.\\\"\\\" Intuitively, if economies of scale extended indefinitely, then natural monopolies would dominate all industries in the long run. A profit ratio, unfortunately, wouldn't quite get at scale economies. Consider, for example, that the denominator of your metric would be profit+cost and that you are trying to get at the cost reduction that derives from scale. Then, you are measuring the size of a company by the exact metric that should be reduced if scale economies exist, so the calculation would be a bit confounded. It is my understanding that such assessments are usually conducted at the industry level by determining whether the industry is becoming increasingly concentrated among fewer firms over time. (Again see Stigler). If concentration is increasing, there is an implication that, at current firm sizes, there are economies of scale in the industry.\\\"\",\n \"How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.\",\n \"\\\">Good, that gives their competition time to take market share. Except TAM (total actual market) is decreasing, the pool of \\\"\\\"market share\\\"\\\" is going down. So what's happening is companies are slashing margins to even maintain market share, much less increase it. Look at what's happening in computers, DELL, HP, Acer, Asus, Lenovo. Apple's sales numbers dropped for notebooks as well, but because they didnt drop as much as HP or Lenovo their market share went up. This is the new normal. Less than stellar sales. >As long as there is money on the table, someone is going to reach for it. Markets aren't known for their patience. Problem is there is less and less money on the table. Big companies are squeezing little companies. Know what you just described? Wal-mart puts the little guy out of business--- they're efficent! >Bullshit, tax burdens cause tax avoidance, they don't touch production as long as profits are still available. Yes, some, but you can only avoid it if you are multi-national. Businesses with completely domestic operations cannot avoid liabilities in the same way. But as I said above the markets are shrinking, there is less money on the table and the players that are left are fighting over the last scraps. That is obviously a bit extreme, but I personally deal with a lot of retailers and OEMs and there is NOT the wiggle room you describe. I get beat up for a few dollars. I am not talking about banks, or energy companies, or healthcare companies. I am talking about the thousands of small and medium businesses that are already squeezed. These entities are the lifeblood of the larger economy. One or two go out of business and nobody notices, but hundreds and thousands of these companies have closed now. A healthy company is not made up of only Wal-mart, Exxon and Apple.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Right. Because there was no profits. The company managed to grow by keeping very tight control of costs with respect to revenue. It's not a loophole. The alternative is spending less or charging more. Either of these things probably has significantly worse outcomes to the company - slower growth due to lack of reinvestment in the business, or slower growth due to not attracting as many customers through competitive pricing. What they have done is become a very valuable company due to a strong revenue stream. (You can ask whether a strong revenue stream alone is enough to justify their valuation, but investors seem to think so, and it also seems to indicate that they expect the stock price to continue rising or they wouldn't spend that much.) When Amazon started, I remember people joking \\\"\\\"they lose money on every sale, but they make up for it in volume\\\"\\\". Seems to have worked out for them in the long run.\\\"\",\n \"First, corporate profits can grow relative to GDP. If companies succeed in growing revenue without paying much more to workers, then corporate profits and stock prices will grow relative to GDP. That has been happening for the last couple decades. If you require that we keep corporate profits vs GDP constant, then borrowing/leverage is how you do it. Companies can expand their operations on a fixed amount of shareholder equity, and as long as they can grow their profits faster than the cost of the debt, then shareholders keep the upside. But this also means that share prices will quickly fall if profits decline even a small amount, because the debt must still be paid off.\",\n \"Talk to almost any large cap CFO or read any corporate finance textbook. McKinsey's Valuation is a great one to own: though yes McKinsey consultants can take a good idea and turn it bad by overdoing it to an extreme. Why would universal corporate finance principles not apply to large cap tech? Why is having $XXb of unutilized cash for a company with durable cash flow a good thing for equity investors?\",\n \"As JB hints, it is likely due to superior or improving, fundamentals. If the fundamentals of a company improve then its ability to repay loans improves. If its ability to repay improves then more sources of cash become willing to lend to the company. Also if fundamentals are improving then more sources are willing to buy and/or hold the stock.\",\n \"Both of these terms do refer to your profit; they're just different ways of evaluating it. First, your definition of capitalization rate is flipped. As explained here, it should be: On the other hand, as explained here: So cap rate is like a reverse unit cost approach to comparing two investments. If house A costs $1M and you'll make $50K (profit) from it yearly, and house B costs $1.33M and you'll make $65K (profit) from it yearly, then you can compute cap rates to see that A is a more efficient investment from the point of view of income vs. amount-of-money-you-have-stuck-in-this-investment-and-unavailable-for-use-elsewhere. Profit margin, on the other hand, cares more about your ongoing expenses than about your total investment. If it costs less to maintain property B than it does to maintain property A, then you could have something like: So B is a more efficient investment from the point of view of the fraction of your revenue you actually get to keep each year. Certainly you could think of the property's value as an opportunity cost and factor that into the net profit margin equation to get a more robust estimate of exactly how efficient your investment is. You can keep piling more factors into the equation until you've accounted for every possible facet of your investment. This is what accountants and economists spend their days doing. :-)\",\n \"It says Amazon has no profits (or very low profits) but the value of the company is very high and growing because of the high revenue. All of the returns to investors are in the form of increased share price which isn't realized or taxed until the shares are sold. This isn't a loophole. Anybody can run a business where they spend most of their revenue on operating costs and run on very slim margins with the goal of growing the revenue.\",\n \"The ROI percentage becomes a meaningless figure at that point and would either be infinite or a very large number if you assume an equity investment of $1 or $0.01. At that point it's obviously a lucrative deal *as long as it works out* so the bigger question is what are the risks of it not working out and what's the ROIC.\",\n \"With your numbers, look at it this way - You borrowed $50. When the stock is $100, you are at 50% margin. What's most important, is that there's margin interest charged, so the amount owed will increase regardless of the stock price. When calculating your return or loss, the interest has to be accounted for or your numbers will be wrong. For a small investor, margin rates can run high, and often, will offset much of your potential gain. What good is a $100 gain if you paid $125 in margin interest?\",\n \"\\\"It's not abnormal for a company that is as young as yours seems to be. It seems (based on what little I know), that you have debts, or accounts payable that were formerly covered by the $200 cash, but now aren't, because you paid it to yourself. For now, you're \\\"\\\"entitled\\\"\\\" to pay yourself a draw or a salary. But if you continue to do so without earning money to cover it, your company will fail.\\\"\",\n \"A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;\",\n \"You can do a bunch of sales if you price your product too low to make any money. Lots of sales, not much revenue. Kind of like what Square is going through right now. Now if you do a lot of sales at a good price, leading to good revenue and cash flow, THEN you are winning. EDIT: Before people get pedantic over my Square analogy, yes, I know they are making a lot of revenue but their margins are incredibly thin and the bulk of their revenue goes immediately to Visa/MC etc so the analogy still works. Lots of sales, not much green.\",\n \"\\\"My favorite line: \\\"\\\"Companies should generate enough profits to justify the price that shareholders are willing to pay for its shares. Once shareholders are no longer willing to pay up for those profits, they should invest that money elsewhere.\\\"\\\" This person loses all credibility right here.\\\"\",\n \"The market cap always reflect the company's equity. Except that you cannot fix a stock price in a free market. A company with such profit pattern would have stock price behave like present value of a perpetuity (future income stream discounted by risk free rate) Since your assumption is unachievable, there is no point in determining the logic.\",\n \"Small companies are generally able to adapt quickly to take advantage of changing conditions to enter new markets when the economy is growing. This gives them a lot of growth potential under those circumstances. However, in times of crisis, there may not be a lot of new markets to enter, and financing to expand any operations may be impossible to get. Under these conditions, small-caps will suffer relative to large-caps.\",\n \"\\\"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary. They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life. If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million. However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" earnings \\\"\\\"ie actual profit and loss on sales\\\"\\\" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely.\\\"\",\n \"There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!\",\n \"\\\"Not sure I fully understand your question but my take on it is this: There a lot of people out there that admire companies and own the stock just because they like the company. For example, I know some kids who own Disney stock. They only have a share or two but they keep it because they want to say \\\"\\\"I own a part of Disney.\\\"\\\" Realistically speaking, if they hold or sell the stock it is so minuscule to have any realizable affect on the overall value of the stock which does not really make the company look better from an investor perspective. However, if a company has people that just want to own the stock just like your uncle are indeed \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" because they must have provided a product or service that is valued intrinsically.\\\"\",\n \"It is. The outstanding value is the net cash flow, but it will always be higher than cash outflow due to a constant growth rate/expected return. I was slightly confused when my manager told me to find the IRR before and after cash inflows (the whole life of the investment). Especially as IRR after cash inflows is higher than the former.\",\n \"\\\"> Or does it differ between every company what non-cash charges they have? This. Here's a hint: the FCFF *can* be calculated from Cash Flow from Operations (CFO). Think of FCFF this way: \\\"\\\"after the business has operated *and* made *all* investments needed to grow, both short and long-term, how much is left over for providers of capital?\\\"\\\" [Here's a good resource for you.](https://www.cfainstitute.org/learning/products/publications/inv/Documents/equity_chapter6.ppt)\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["The operating margin deals with the ability for a company to make a profit above the costs of running the company and generating sales. While ROE is how much money the company makes relative to the shareholders equity. I'd be willing to bet that if a company has a small ROE then it also has a quite large P/E (price to earnings) ratio. This would be caused by the company's stock being bid up in relation to its earnings and may not necessarily be a bad thing. People expect the high operating margin to help drive increased revenues in the future, and are willing to pay a higher price now for when that day comes."],"string":"[\n \"The operating margin deals with the ability for a company to make a profit above the costs of running the company and generating sales. While ROE is how much money the company makes relative to the shareholders equity. I'd be willing to bet that if a company has a small ROE then it also has a quite large P/E (price to earnings) ratio. This would be caused by the company's stock being bid up in relation to its earnings and may not necessarily be a bad thing. People expect the high operating margin to help drive increased revenues in the future, and are willing to pay a higher price now for when that day comes.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":269,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2747"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What evidence do I need to declare tutoring income on my income tax?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["540571"],"string":"[\n \"540571\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["540571","123693","184698","150271","527776","402686","65095","172457","174025","159709","111157","156444","11021","449816","189994","327826","294187","509617","392484","238622","281803","421924","128861","51761","349424","172745","576873","388078","374264","469601","223624","442142","304034","299258","399409","555732","199617","427849","15270","257249","298009","433766","118615","91325","114835","345603","416511","599336","232451","496947","157551","496064","401551","547941","24421","466718","454184","66492","283505","384187","19245","2718","378110","219156","393354","583945","125776","33287","316925","545780","218460","26979","527318","156063","60820","141111","521411","416117","334902","221014","322906","599876","541315","568324","101382","405777","284085","529565","215437","204703","312625","426947","433292","82344","445052","203155","93638","328853","484375","319158"],"string":"[\n \"540571\",\n \"123693\",\n \"184698\",\n \"150271\",\n \"527776\",\n \"402686\",\n \"65095\",\n \"172457\",\n \"174025\",\n \"159709\",\n \"111157\",\n \"156444\",\n \"11021\",\n \"449816\",\n \"189994\",\n \"327826\",\n \"294187\",\n \"509617\",\n \"392484\",\n \"238622\",\n \"281803\",\n \"421924\",\n \"128861\",\n \"51761\",\n \"349424\",\n \"172745\",\n \"576873\",\n \"388078\",\n \"374264\",\n \"469601\",\n \"223624\",\n \"442142\",\n \"304034\",\n \"299258\",\n \"399409\",\n \"555732\",\n \"199617\",\n \"427849\",\n \"15270\",\n \"257249\",\n \"298009\",\n \"433766\",\n \"118615\",\n \"91325\",\n \"114835\",\n \"345603\",\n \"416511\",\n \"599336\",\n \"232451\",\n \"496947\",\n \"157551\",\n \"496064\",\n \"401551\",\n \"547941\",\n \"24421\",\n \"466718\",\n \"454184\",\n \"66492\",\n \"283505\",\n \"384187\",\n \"19245\",\n \"2718\",\n \"378110\",\n \"219156\",\n \"393354\",\n \"583945\",\n \"125776\",\n \"33287\",\n \"316925\",\n \"545780\",\n \"218460\",\n \"26979\",\n \"527318\",\n \"156063\",\n \"60820\",\n \"141111\",\n \"521411\",\n \"416117\",\n \"334902\",\n \"221014\",\n \"322906\",\n \"599876\",\n \"541315\",\n \"568324\",\n \"101382\",\n \"405777\",\n \"284085\",\n \"529565\",\n \"215437\",\n \"204703\",\n \"312625\",\n \"426947\",\n \"433292\",\n \"82344\",\n \"445052\",\n \"203155\",\n \"93638\",\n \"328853\",\n \"484375\",\n \"319158\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I have been a private tutor on and off for about 30 years, in three countries, so I understand your concerns! I always kept records as though it was a real business - even if I only had one student I kept records of dates/times/names, and also tracked where the money went (I never spent it straight up - it always got deposited to complete the paper trail; yes, this is paranoia on my part). I've never been asked to prove anything with regards this income (although I have no Canadian experience). It's always been a case of tell the tax folks and make sure my arse is covered if they come asking questions. Hope this helps.","There is a moral and legal obligation to file the earnings. Not doing so is tax fraud. You should keep a ledger or some record of your earnings, helpful guidelines here. Records are required by the CRA: According to the law, your responsibilities include: (source) You could get in trouble if one of your pupils report the expense at their tax filing, and the CRA finds no matching statement on your filing report. Tutoring are eligible for tax credit in case of disability: Tutoring services that are supplementary to the primary education of a person with a learning disability or an impairment in mental functions, and paid to a person in the business of providing these services to individuals who are not related to the person. A medical practitioner must certify in writing that these services are necessary. So if one of your pupils fall under that provision, you will get tax trouble sooner or later. Bottom line: start making records now, and report your earnings. Collect your tax as any lawful citizen is required to.","\"You can list it as other income reported on line 21 of form 1040. In TurboTax, enter at: - Federal Taxes tab (Personal in Home & Business) - Wages & Income -“I’ll choose what I work on” Button Scroll down to: -Less Common Income -Misc Income, 1099-A, 1099-C. -The next screen will give you several choices. Choose \"\"Other reportable Income\"\". You will reach a screen where you can type a description of the income and the amount. Type in the amount of income and categorize as Tutoring.\"","In the united states qualified institutions of higher education should give the student a 1098-t. This form breaks down all money received/billed and for tuition and scholarships. It would not include items such as books and room and board. The 1098 would constitute proof of attendance and proof of expenses. If a 529 plan was used to pay for part or all of the tuition it should also be sent to you or the student depending on where the funds were sent. If the student can't find the 1098-t it is likely that the college had an electronic copy sent to the students official email, or it can be downloaded from the student's account where tuition bills care paid. Note: a confusing part of the 1098-T is that many universities include the spring semester numbers in the form for the previous year. For Example: The 1098-T will tell you if they have done that.","For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.","You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence).","As an individual freelancer, you would need to maintain a book of accounts. This should show all the income you are getting, and should also list all the payments incurred. This can not only include the payments to other professionals, but also any hardware purchased, phone bills, any travel and entertainment bills directly related to the service you are offering. Once you arrive at a net profit figure, you would need to file this as your income. Consult a tax professional and he can help with how to keep the records of income and expenses. i.e. You would need to create invoices for payments, use checks or online transfers for most payments, segregate the accounts, one account used for this professional stuff, and another for your personal stuff, etc. In a normal course the Income Tax Department does not ask for these records, however whenever your tax returns get scrutinized on a random basis, they would ask for all the relevant documentations.","You would be required to report it as self-employment income and pay tax accordingly. It's up to you to keep proper records (like a receipt book, for example), especially when it comes to cash. If you can't prove exactly how much you earned and the government decides to guess the amount for you then you won't like the outcome!","You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer.","\"ITR1 or ITR2 needs to be filed. Declare the income through freelancing in the section \"\"income from other sources\"\"\"","Unfortunately this is something that should have been determined prior to the book tour. Your tax advisor or accountant could have assisted you in making sure you collected the documentation you needed. You are going to have to sit down with your advisor with the documentation you have and determine what you can prove.","\"It's pretty easy. In the Interview Setup for Ufile, check the box for \"\"Self-employment business income\"\". Then during the process of filling everything out, you'll get a Self-Employment screen. It'll ask for the name of your business, but just put your own name since you don't have one. For the 6-digit classification code, click the ? button and look through the list for the industry that best matches the one for whom you wrote the technical report. Or you can go with 711500: Independent artists, writers and performers. It doesn't really matter that much so don't worry if it's a poor match. It will also ask you for your income and expenses. I don't know exactly what costs you might have incurred to write your report, but you can likely claim a very tiny amount of \"\"home office\"\" expenses. Costs like rent (or mortgage interest + property tax), utilities, and home insurance can be claimed, but they have to be pro-rated for the time you were actually doing the work, and are based on the amount of space you used for the work. For example, if you paid $1000 rent and $200 utilities for the month in which the work was done, and it took you 20 of the 31 days in that month to actually do the work, and you used a room that makes up about 10% of the square footage of your home, then you can claim: $1200 * 20/31 * 0.1 = $77.42 for your home office expenses. If you also used that room for non-business purposes during that time, then you reduce it even further. Say, if the room was also used for playing video games 50% of the time, then you'd only claim $38.71\"","You need to register as self-employed with HMRC (it is perfectly fine to be self-employed and employed by an employer at the same time, in exactly your kind of situation). Then, when the income arrives you will need to declare it on your yearly tax return. HMRC information about registering for self-employment and declaring the income is here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview There's a few extra hoops if your clients are outside the UK; the detail depends on whether they are in the EU or not. More details about this are here: https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses/selling-overseas .","Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.","To be on the safe side - you'll want to get the full invoice. You don't need to actually print them, you can save it as a PDF and make sure to make your own backups once in a while. Only actually print them when the IRS asks you to kill some trees and send them a paper response, and even then you can talk to the agent in charge and check if you can email the digital file instead. The IRS won't ask for this when you file your taxes, they will only ask for this if you're under audit and they will want to actually validate the numbers on your return. You'll know when you're under audit, and who is the auditor (the agent in charge of your case). You'll also want to have some representation when that happens.","You only need to report INCOME to the IRS. Money which you are paying to a landlord on behalf of someone else is not income.","It should be reported as Miscellaneous Income. Congratulations for wanting to report this income.","Scanned or electronic copies of invoices should be sufficient as long as they are accurate and you can deliver them during an audit. Also, if you have an accountant prepare your taxes you would either need to provide them a copy of the invoices or a summary of them with the corresponding amounts to be claimed. Personally I prefer to print out a paper copy and file that away with that quarter's and year's other tax documents. I do my own taxes and find paper copies handy as I can go through each invoice/receipt and make sure I have entered its information by ticking it. I find that when handling a large number of documents that paper copies are more easy to handle than electronic ones. In the end you will need to use a system that you feel comfortable with and are able to use effectively.","You would report the overall income on your T1 general income tax return, and use form T2125 to report income and expenses for your business. Form T2125 is like a mini income-statement where you report your gross revenue and subtract off expenses. Being able to claim legitimate expenses as a deduction is an important tax benefit for businesses big and small. In terms of your second question, you generally need to register for a business number at least once you cross the threshold for GST / HST. If you earn $30,000/year (or spread over four consecutive quarters) then charging GST / HST is mandatory; see GST/HST Mandatory registration. There are other conditions as well, but the threshold is the principal one. You can also register voluntarily for GST / HST even if you're below that threshold; see GST/HST Voluntary registration. The advantage of registering voluntarily is that you can claim input tax credits (ITC) on any GST that your business pays, and remit only the difference. That saves your business money, especially if you have a lot of expenses early on. Finally, in terms of Ontario specifically (saw that on your profile), you might want to check out Ontario Sole Proprietorship. There are specific cases in which you need to register a business: e.g. specific types of businesses, or if you plan on doing business under a name other than your own. Finally, you may want to consider whether incorporating might be better for you. Here's an interesting article that compares Sole Proprietorship Versus Incorporation. Here's another article, Choosing a business structure, from the feds.","Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.","The amount earned is taxable. It needs to shown as income from other sources. Although the last date for paying Advance tax is over [15 March], there is still time to pay Self-Assessment tax till 15 June. If the tax amount due is less than 10,000/- there is no penalty. If the tax is more than Rs 10,000/- there is penalty at the rate of 1% per month from March, and if the amount of tax exceeds 40% of the total tax, there will be additional 1% interest from December. The tax can be paid online via your Banks website or using the Income Tax website at https://onlineservices.tin.egov-nsdl.com/etaxnew/tdsnontds.jsp The form to be used is 280. You can use the Income tax website to calculate and file your tax returns at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/ or use the services of a CA. Edit: If the income is less than expenses, you need not pay tax. Maintain proper records [receipts] of income and expenses, if possible use a different Bank account so that they remain different from your main account. The tax to be paid depending on your income slab. The additional income needs to added to you salary. The tax and slabs will be as per this. There is no distinction on this amount. Its treated as normal income. All Tax for the given year has to be paid in advance. i.e. for Tax year 2013-14, 30% of total tax by 15-Sept, Additional 30% [total 60%] by 15-Dec and Balance by 15-Mar. Read Page 3 and page 10 of http://incometaxindia.gov.in/Archive/Taxation_Of_Salaried_Employees_18062012.pdf","You can use the ITR 1 and declare the income from freelancing as income from other sources. As part of freelancing, certain expenses can be deducted provided they are directly related to work and have proper records. Please consult a CA who can advice you on how to do this. The Actual income shown should be less of the expenses.","Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.","You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you. If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer. As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you. How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference). You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf","\"As you are earning an income by working in India, you are required to pay tax in India. If you contract is of freelance, then the income earned by you has to be self declared and taxes paid accordingly. There are some expenses one can claim, a CA should be able to guide you. Not sure why the Swiss comapny is paying taxes?. Are they depositing this with Income Tax, India, do they have a TAN Number. If yes, then you don't need to pay tax. But you need to get a statement from your company showing the tax paid on behalf of you. You can also verify the tax paid on your behalf via \"\"http://incometaxindia.gov.in/26ASTaxCreditStatement.asp\"\" you cna register. Alternatively if you have a Bank Account in India with a PAN card on their records, most Banks provide a link to directly see\"","\"Re the business license - in California business licenses are given by the municipal/county governments, so you'll have to check that with your city hall or county office. Re taxes - yes, you'll have to pay taxes, as with any income. Services are considered \"\"imputed income\"\", and generally you'd recognize income to the extent they would be paying had they been paying the full price (or the actual cost of services provided, if more). Since this is a hobby and not a for-profit enterprise, your deductions may be limited by the actual income and the 2% AGI threshold. See more here.\"","You can receive money directly into your savings bank account. It is perfectly legal. FYI the Bank as part of regulation would report this to RBI. As the funds are received for the services you have rendered, You are liable to pay tax on the income. The income is taxed as professional income similar to the income of Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants etc. If you are paying your colleagues, it would be treated as expense. Not only this, you can also treat any phone calls you make, or equipment your purchase [laptop, desk etc] as expense. The difference become your actual income and you would be taxed as per the rate for individuals. It's advisable you contact an accountant who would advise you better for a nominal fee [few thousand rupees] and help you pay the tax and file the returns. With or without accountant It is very important for you to record all payments and expenses in a book of accounts.","\"Another factor you may want to consider is insurance, if your wife is at their house as a friend who happens to be teaching the kid to play and the kid falls off their chair and hurts them self that is rather different to your wife being brought in to the house as a contractor and an injury occurring during an activity that she was supervising. I am in a similar situation and I have a $5 million public liability policy, which costs about $300 per year. So if her income is likely to be less than that she may be better off \"\"helping a friend learn\"\" rather than \"\"providing tutoring services\"\". There may also be legal requirements, I am required to apply for government checks every few years in order to operate a business that involves working with children.\"","I am not an accountant, but I do run a business in the UK and my understanding is that it's a threshold thing, which I believe is £2,500. Assuming you don't currently have to submit self assessment, and your additional income from all sources other than employment (for which you already pay tax) is less than £2,500, you don't have to declare it. Above this level you have to submit self assessment. More information can be found here I also find that HMRC are quite helpful - give them a call and ask.","Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.","Yes, you need to include income from your freelance work on your tax return. In the eyes of the IRS, this is self-employment income from your sole-proprietorship business. The reason you don't see it mentioned in the 1040EZ instructions is that you can't use the 1040EZ form if you have self-employment income. You'll need to use the full 1040 form. Your business income and expenses will be reported on a Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ, and the result will end up on Line 12 of the 1040. Take a look at the requirements at the top of the C-EZ form; you probably meet them and can use it instead of the more complicated C form. If you have any deductible business expenses related to your freelance business, this would be done on Schedule C or C-EZ. If your freelance income was more than $400, you'll also need to pay self-employment tax. To do this, you file Schedule SE, and the tax from that schedule lands on form 1040 Line 57.","I suggest to start charging slightly more than needed to cover expenses. All you need is to show profit. It doesn't have to be significant - a couple of hundred of dollars of consistent yearly profit should suffice to show a profitable business. Then you can deduct on Schedule C all the related expenses. The caveat is that the profit (after the deduction of the expenses will be a bit smaller) will be subject to not only income tax but also the self-employment tax. But at least you'll pay tax on profit that is not entirely phantom. I remember suggesting you getting a professional consultation on this matter a while ago. You should really do that - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, it may be well worth the $100-200 fee they'll charge for the consultation (if at all...).","It's always beneficial to have detailed business records. There are any number of reasons where you'd need to prove both the types of services you've rendered and the payment history - you've already noted audits (for IRS taxes). Other possibilities: Whether these records need to be original or electronic might be the topic for another question.","From the IRS web site: So if your income was reported to the IRS (by the payer, not you) using one of the forms above, the IRS would have a record of it, regardless of whether you filed a tax return or not.","We run into this all the time with our EU clients. As far as I can tell, the only requirements when it comes to invoicing have to do with sales tax, which is determined at the state level, and only in the case that items are taxable. It seems that the service provided to you is not taxable and so there is no obligation under Californian law to provide you with the invoice you need. That said, it would be nice to provide this information to you as a courtesy. We don't provide the information typically required by EU tax authorities on our receipts either, but whenever one of our EU clients requests a more formal invoice we gladly send them one.","\"My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive. If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under \"\"Unreimbursed Employee business expenses,\"\" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional.\"","There is no document that I know of that stipulates otherwise. This can also be corroborated by the fact that RESP withdrawals are considered as income in the name of the student. Thus, so long as the student pays tuition and receives a T2202A slip from the educational institution, they should be able to claim tuition, education, and textbook amounts.","There is no strict need to do that, you can consider yourself to be consulting, a 10% of your payment will be withheld and paid as tax by the company, you can deduct up to 60% of your income as expenses and pay tax on the rest (factoring the tax deducted at source). In another approach, you could register for service tax and charge service tax on your invoice and pay to the service tax department, the tax calculations are similar to above. It will be good if you speak to a chartered accountant and get more clarity. As for business card, you could print it with your name and qualification, there are no restrictions on that.","Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.","It is definitely legal and will be accounted by the IRS as earned income.","\"VAT = Value Added Tax (as an Aussie think \"\"GST\"\") This is applicable in Britain. Basically, if you were in Britain, and if you could claim VAT as a deduction, that invoice is not sufficient proof to make the claim. But you're in Oz so it doesn't apply to you in any case. For work-related deductions like book purchases, see http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/00216829.htm&pc=001/002/068/001/002&mnu=&mfp=&st=&cy=1 Issues such as the books being second hand or purchased online are not cited in the instructions as relevant/limiting factors. In fact, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, you could claim the work-related proportion of your internet access fees as a deduction (question D5 instructions, above, cover that as well).\"","First, request that you complete a tax return. On this tax return, you will complete both the employed and self employed sections. This will give you a total income and tax liability. You will already have paid some tax via PAYE, but you will have to pay additional tax for any other income. For future years there is the option, depending on amount, to collect extra tax through PAYE to cover the other earnings. If it is likely to be the same for the next few years, this may be a better option than paying a lump sum. The tax return is now mostly online, and not too bad if your affairs are otherwise simple. The hardest part will be keeping a good record of your other earnings. Remember that you have to keep these records for seven years in case HMRC ever want to audit them, and it's a good idea to have a separate account for the income, or some other way of easily identifying it.","Every bill you write counts as income (if the bill doesn't get paid, you would count that as an expense). In cases where you don't write bills, I think the payment you receive would count as income, but you might check that on the HMRC website. So to record your income, you can basically record the payments that you receive. Anything you pay out for your business is an expense. You keep a receipt for every expense - if you don't have a receipt, you can't count it as an expense, so keeping all the receipts is very, very important. An exception are investments, for example buying a computer that should last multiple years; there you can count a percentage of the investment as expense every year. All income, minus all expenses, is your profit. You pay tax and National Insurance contributions according to your profit. You can do whatever you like with the profit. Notice that I didn't mention any salary. Self employed means you have no salary, you have profits and do with them whatever you like. On the other hand, you pay taxes on these profits almost exactly as if they were income. If you have this blog but are also employed, you'll add the profits to your normal income statement.","\"This is going to depend on the tax jurisdiction and I have no knowledge of the rules in Illinois. But I'd like to give you some direction about how to think about this. The biggest problem that you might hit is that if you collect a single check and then distribute to the tutors, you may be considered their employer. As an employer, you would be responsible for things like This is not meant as an exhaustive list. Even if not an employer, you are still paying them. You would be responsible for issuing 1099 forms to anyone who goes above $600 for the year (source). You would need to file for a taxpayer identification number for your organization, as it is acting as a business. You need to give this number to the school so that they can issue the correct form to you. You might have to register a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" name. It's conceivable that you could get away with having the school write the check to you as an individual. But if you do that, it will show up as income on your taxes and you will have to deduct payments to the other tutors. If the organization already has a separate tax identity, then you could use that. Note that the organization will be responsible for paying income tax. It should be able to deduct payments to the tutors as well as marketing expenses, etc. If the school will go for it, consider structuring things with a payment to your organization for your organization duties. Then you tell the school how much to pay each tutor. You would be responsible for giving the school the necessary information, like name, address, Social Security number, and cost (or possibly hours worked).\"","If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however.","I probably can, but I realized I also do have a commission sheet from the month of June which shows how much I made in just commissions, and then I could tell them I also get my 300 a week salary. Do you think that would suffice?","\"As a Canadian resident, the simple answer to your question is \"\"yes\"\" Having worked as a tax auditor and as a Certified Financial Planner, you are required to file an income tax return because you have taxable employment income. All the employer is doing is deducting it at source and remitting it on your behalf. That does not alleviate your need to file. In fact, if you don't file you will be subject to a no filing penalty. The one aspect you are missing is that taxpayers may be entitled to tax credits that may result in a refund to you depending on your personal situation (e.g spousal or minor dependents). I hope this helps.\"","Generally for tax questions you should talk to a tax adviser. Don't consider anything I write here as a tax advice, and the answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Does IRS like one payment method over other or they simply don't care as long as she can show the receipts? They don't care as long as she withholds the taxes (30%, unless specific arrangements are made for otherwise). She should withhold 30% of the payment and send it to the IRS. The recipient should claim refund, if the actual tax liability is lower. It's only consulting work at the moment, so most of the communication is done over phone. Should they start engaging in written communication to keep records of the work done? Yes, if she wants it to be a business expense. Is it okay to pay in one go to save money-transferring fees? Can she pay in advance? Again, she can do whatever she wants, but if she wants to account for it on her tax returns she should do it the same way she would pay any other vendor in her business. She cannot use different accounting methods for different vendors. Basically, she has not outsourced work in previous years, and she wants to avoid any red flags. Then she should start by calling on her tax adviser, and not an anonymous Internet forum.","You don't need to file or do anything. The bank will report all transfers over 10 000, but chances are slim that it will even be looked at, if you don't do this every week. Worst case, someone will ask you about the source, and you tell them exactly what you wrote above (I had multiple international transfers over 60k and nobody ever asked). You said you paid his tuition, and he is now paying you back, so in case someone asks, you should be able to produce the documentation on the tuition payment - a bill, or your bank statement showing you paid it; and the amount should be matching, so you have proof. Note that if he pays you interest, it is taxable income. You are obligated to list it on your next tax filing.","You send the proper form to the other person for the amount you gave him, and file it as your business expense on your Schedule C.","You need receipts only if you claim deductions in the itemized deductions section based on them. You itemize deductions only if your claims exceed the standard deduction (which for a single person was $5,800 last year). Even then, you need receipts for everything only if you claim sales tax as the deduction (you have to buy really a lot to pass $5K with sales tax...). I would expect people to pay more in state income taxes than sales taxes (you can claim either this or that, not both). For food - there are no taxes (at least here in California), so nothing to deduct anyway. In any case, you can always scan your receipts and keep them in the computer, for just in case, but IMHO it's waste of time, pixels and gigabytes. Here's a question which deals with the same issue, read the answers there as well.","If this will be your sole income for the year, going self-employed is the best way to do this: So, here's how to go at it: Total cash in: £2000 Total Tax paid: £0 Admin overhead: approx 3 hours. Legit: 100% :) Edit: Can you tell me that in my case what are the required fields on the invoice? If you're non-VAT registered, there are no legal requirements as to what information you need to put on the invoice -it literally can be a couple of numbers on a napkin, and still be legit. With that said, to make a professional appearance, my invoices are usually structured as follows: Left side: ( Sidenote: why client-specific incremental numbering? Why, so they can't make educated guesses to the number of clients I have at any given time :) ) Right side: Center table: And so far, none of my clients missed any fields, so this should have everything they need to :) Hope this helps, but keep in mind, all of the above is synthetic sugar on the top -ultimately, the relationship you share with your Clients is the thing you will (or will not) get paid for! Edit#2: The voices in my head just pointed out, that I've totally omitted National Insurance contributions in the above. However, and I quote HMRC: If your profits are expected to be less than £5,315 you may not have to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions. Hence, this won't change the numbers above, either -just make sure to point this out during your registration in the office.","If you want to be safe, only claim deductions for which you have a receipt. This explanation may help.","\"These kinds of questions can be rather tricky. I've struggled with this sort of thing in the past when I had income from a hobby, and I wanted to ensure that it was indeed \"\"hobby income\"\" and I didn't need to call it \"\"self-employment\"\". Here are a few resources from the IRS: There's a lot of overlap among these resources, of course. Here's the relevant portion of Publication 535, which I think is reasonable guidance on how the IRS looks at things: In determining whether you are carrying on an activity for profit, several factors are taken into account. No one factor alone is decisive. Among the factors to consider are whether: Most of the guidance looks to be centered around what one would need to do to convince the IRS that an activity actually is a business, because then one can deduct the \"\"business expenses\"\", even if that brings the total \"\"business income\"\" negative (and I'm guessing that's a fraud problem the IRS needs to deal with more often). There's not nearly as much about how to convince the IRS that an activity isn't a business and thus can be thrown into \"\"Other Income\"\" instead of needing to pay self-employment tax. Presumably the same principles should apply going either way, though. If after reading through the information they provide, you decide in good faith that your activity is really just \"\"Other income\"\" and not \"\"a business you're in on the side\"\", I would find it likely that the IRS would agree with you if they ever questioned you on it and you provided your reasoning, assuming your reasoning is reasonable. (Though it's always possible that reasonable people could end up disagreeing on some things even given the same set of facts.) Just keep good records about what you did and why, and don't get too panicked about it once you've done your due diligence. Just file based on all the information you know.\"","The Canada Revenue Agency describes in detail here what information businesses must generally include on their invoices so that GST/HST registrants can claim Input Tax Credits (ITCs) for the expenses. Quote: Sales invoices for GST/HST registrants You have to give customers who are GST/HST registrants specific information on the invoices, receipts, contracts, or other business papers that you use when you provide taxable goods and services. This information lets them support their claims for input tax credits (ITCs) or rebates for the GST/HST you charged. [...] The page quoted continues with a table describing what, specifically, needs to be on a sales invoice based on the total amount of the invoice; the requirements differ for: total sale under $30, total sale between $30 to $149.99, and total sale $150 or more. For the total sale under $30 category, the only things a sales invoice must contain to support an ITC claim are (1) the provider's business name, (2) the invoice date, and (3) the total amount paid/payable. i.e. When the total sale is under $30, there is no requirement for any GST/HST amount to be indicated separately, nor for a business number to be present on the invoice. Hence, IMHO (and I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer), if your Uber rides are for $30 or less, then you shouldn't expect a GST/HST number anyway, and a simple invoice as described should be enough for you to claim your ITCs. Whether or not the provider is registered in fact for GST/HST is beside the point. For amounts over $30, you need a bit more. While the page above specifies that the provider's business number should be included beginning with the next level of total sales, there are exceptions to those rules described at another page mentioned, Exceptions to invoice requirements, that specifically apply to the taxi/limousine case. Quote: Exceptions to invoice requirements GST/HST registrants are required to keep the necessary documentation to support their claim for ITCs and rebates. In certain circumstances the documentation requirements have been reduced. [...] For taxi or limousine fares your books and records must show: So at a minimum, for fare in excess of $30 total, you should ask the driver to note either (a) the amount of GST/HST charged, or (b) a statement that the fare includes GST/HST. The driver's business number need not be specified. Consequently, if your receipt for a ride in excess of $30 does not contain any such additional information with respect to GST/HST, then I would expect the receipt does not satisfy the CRA's requirements for supporting your ITC claim. i.e. Keep your individual rides under $30 each, or else get a better receipt from the driver when it is above that amount. p.s. It should go without saying, but your rides, of course, must be considered reasonable business expenses in order to qualify for GST/HST ITCs for your business. Receipts for rides of a personal nature are not eligible, so be sure to maintain proper records as to the business purpose and destination for each ride receipt so claimed.","\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \"\"hobby.\"\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\"","I'm not sure how this gets entered in TurboTax, but this income from the company should be included in the Schedule C (or C-EZ) Line 1 Gross Receipts total, along with all of your 1099-MISC income from your business and any other income that your business took in. You don't need a 1099 from them, and the IRS doesn't care (at least from your perspective) if you got a 1099 or not; in fact, they probably expect you to have some non-1099 income. We don't know why the company chose not to issue 1099 forms, but luckily it isn't your concern. You can fill out your tax return properly without it. Note: This answer assumes that you didn't have any tax withheld from your checks from this company. If you did have tax withheld, you'll need to insist on a 1099 to show that.","You're charging service fees as a conduit entity for these tickets. While the service fee is not a fixed rate, but a percentage, you would need to record each purchase at dollar amount. To illustrate, it would look like: Now, to your question: How do I report this on my taxes? You would first start out by filing your Schedule C from the eyes of the business (the money you earn at your job, and the money you earn as a business are different). Just keep a general journal with the above entry for each sale and close them down to a simple balance sheet and income statement and you should be fine. Of course, read the instructions for your Schedule C before you begin. As always, good luck.","If your net profit is $0, then no, you will not owe income tax as a result of providing this service. But there's a lot more to consider than just that... Before you begin you'll need to decide if this is a business or a hobby. Based on the fact that you don't intend to make a profit, you are probably going to be calling it a hobby for tax purposes. Regardless of whether it is a business or a hobby, since you will be accepting payments from people, you will need to report the income on your tax return. As both a business and a hobby you can deduct all of your expenses to bring your profit down to $0. (Assuming all the expenses are legitimate business/hobby expenses.) The main differences between business and hobby are: If you choose to run as a business you'll likely save quite a bit of money by avoiding the 2% rule, and also by being able to deduct any non-specific-customer expenses and take a loss. Be careful though that you don't go too many years with a business loss or the IRS may re-classify it as a hobby, which may include an audit. If you decide to run as a business you may need to charge a little more than just expenses to attempt to turn a profit, or at least break even.","Aside from the fact that probably nobody is ever going to come and ask for that proof unless your amounts get five digits (or you're unlucky), if you never before reimbursed yourself, your old tax declarations would clearly show that. You can't prove a negative, so the only potential is that you had reimbursements before, and an audit might ask you to prove that the new ones are not duplicates of those. In this case, if you have other receipts / proof for all those other reimbursements, they are obviously not duplicates.","You're not subject to the US tax laws, and since the income is not US-sourced, it is not subject to withholding. Your employer doesn't need any form, but if they insist - you can provide them a W8-BEN to certify your non-resident status. Keep in mind that if you do come to the US, the money you earn while in the US is US-sourced and subject to the US taxes and withholding, even if you're non-resident.","The Canada Revenue Agency does indeed put out just the guide you want. It's at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4070/rc4070-e.html - you should always take a good look at URLs to make sure they're really from the government and not from some for-profit firm that will charge you to fill out forms for free services. It covers ways to structure your business (probably a sole proprietor in your case), collecting and submitting GST or HST, sending in payroll remittances (if you pay yourself a T4 salary), and income tax including what you can deduct. It's a great place to start and you can use it as a source of keywords if you want to search for more details.","\"In general, scholarship income that you receive that is not used for tuition or books must be included in your gross income and reported as such on your tax return. Scholarship income you receive that is used for those kinds of expenses may be excludable from your gross income. See this IRS information and this related question. I believe that as represented on the 1098-T, this generally means that if Box 5 (Scholarships and Grants) is greater than Box 1 or 2 (only one of which will be used on your 1098-T), you received taxable scholarship income. If Box 5 is less than or equal to Box 1/2, you did not receive taxable scholarship income. This TaxSlayer page draws the same conclusion. However, you should realize that the 1098-T is not what makes you have to pay or not pay taxes. You incur the taxes by receiving scholarship money, and you may reduce your tax liability by paying tuition. The 1098-T is simply a record of payments that have already been made. For instance, if you received $10,000 in scholarship money --- that is, actually received checks for that amount or had that amount deposited into your bank account --- then your income went up by $10,000. If you yourself paid tuition, it is likely that you can exclude the amount of the tuition from your taxable income, reducing the tax you owe (see the IRS page linked above). However, if you received $10,000 in actual money and in addition your tuition was paid by the scholarship (with money you never actually had in your own bank account), then the entire $10,000 would be taxable. You do not give enough information in your question to be sure which of these situations is closer to your own. However, you should be able to decide by looking at your bank account: look at how much money you received and how much you spent on tuition. If you received more scholarship money than the tuition you paid out of pocket, you owe taxes on the remainder. (I emphasize that this is just a general rule of thumb and should not be taken as tax advice; you should review the IRS information and/or consult a tax professional to determine what part of your scholarship income is taxable.) In addition, as this (now rather old) article from the New York Society of CPAs notes, \"\"many colleges and universities prepare 1098-Ts incorrectly and report tuition and related expenses inconsistently\"\". This means you should be careful to reconcile the 1098-T with your own financial records of what money you actually received and paid. When I was in grad school there was a good deal of hand-wringing and hair-pulling each year among the students as we tried to determine what relationship (if any) the 1098-T bore to the financial facts.\"","\"If you want an \"\"account statement\"\" from the IRS listing the taxes due and paid and confirming a zero balance remaining, you want what they call a Tax Account Transcript. It sounds like you tried to submit this online, but yes, it would require the actual taxpayer to submit it. The other option would be to fill out Form 4506-T requesting the Form 1040 Tax Account Transcript, have the taxpayer sign it, and mail it in. Presumably whatever method you used to have her sign the Form 1040 you prepared for her you could also use to have her sign the 4506-T. Another option could be to try to request the transcript over the phone. I don't know what authentication they require, or if you would need to have been listed on the 1040 as an authorized Third Party Designee. According to the IRS Transcript FAQ Page: Q19. What if I’m unable to use Get Transcript by Mail? If you are unable to use Get Transcript by Mail, you may try our automated phone transcript service at 800-908-9946 and also receive your transcript by mail. Please allow 5 to 10 calendar days for delivery. But unless there's a reason to think that the tax account wasn't credited properly or the IRS is sending another bill or the like, I don't think there's a lot of point in doing so. In general, the fact that the check cleared the bank should be sufficient documentation that the amount was paid.\"","It's fine - if you are an employee, you will normally have all taxes deducted by the employer, and won't even need to complete a tax return. Even if you do, all the figures will be on the P60 you get at the end of the year. If that's your only income, it's pretty easy to do. Remember, your taxes and your girlfriends are totally separate. It also doesnt matter where the money goes - you could be paid in cash or into any account, it's the fact that you earn it makes it taxable.","Assuming that the jobs where you've earned money from have sent you W-2s, 1099s, etc. Then yes, you can request a Wage and Income Transcript: Shows data from information returns we receive such as Forms W-2, 1099, 1098 and Form 5498, IRA Contribution Information. Current tax year information may not be complete until July. This transcript is available for up to 10 prior years using Get Transcript Online or Form 4506-T.","You normally wouldn't pay income taxes on money that isn't income. Transferring money or withdrawing it from a bank isn't an income generating event. I think it is very doubtful that you would need to claim that on income tax forms.","As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.","HMRC may or may not find out about it; the risks and penalties involved if they do find out make it unwise not to just declare it and pay the tax on it. Based on the fact you asked the question, I am assuming that you currently pay all your tax through PAYE and don't do a tax return. You would need to register for Self Assessment and complete a return; this is not at all difficult if your tax situation is straightforward, which it sounds like yours is. Then you would owe the tax on the additional money, at whatever applicable rate (which depends on how much you earn in your main job, the rate tables are here: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances ). If it truly is a one off you could simply declare it on your return as other income, but if it is more than that then you would need to look at setting up as Self Employed - there is some good advice on the differences here: http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/tax-self-employment-still-employed/ : Broadly, you are likely to be running a business if you have a regular, organised activity with a profit motive, which continues for at least a few months. If the work is one-off, or very occasional (say, a few times per year), or not very organised, or of very low value (say, under £2,000 per year), then it might qualify as casual income. If you think it is beyond the definition of casual income then you would also need to pay National Insurance, as described in the previous link, but otherwise the tax treatment would be the same.","Adsense don't pay you daily. They pay you every month (as they have to calculate the final value). I'd say you only have to declare it when it hits your bank account. £60 actually isn't that much. It only took me a couple of months of just making a few quid, to making enough to get a monthly payment, and I only tot up what goes into my bank account. I've opened up a second account with my bank to send and receive payments relating to my online adventures. Then any in/out goes into a spreadsheet that I do at the end of the month keeping track of everything. If Mr. Taxman want to investigate at the end of the tax year, it's all logged in that account. It gets a bit murkier if you start doing US Amazon affiliates. The simplest method is to get the cheque delivered, and then log the amount that goes into your bank (after $->£ conversion). I have a Payoneer account, and transfer most of the money into my account (after it hits $500), and keep a little bit in for things I buy that are in USD. Hope that helps.","\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"","You'll need to show the whole paper trail: show that the $2000 are the same $2000 (i.e.: show that you didn't get any new income that was not yet reported on your Elance balance), and show that it was in fact transfer from Elance (matching transactions on both accounts). Obviously, add a letter describing the whole process and pointing to the specific pages and lines in the statements and prior year tax returns. Follow the instructions on the notice about where to send your response, and make sure you send it certified USPS mail. Consider having a tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) helping you with this. For the future - do not leave money on various private parties' accounts. It is uninsured, and if something happens to that company - you lose the money. That includes, in the US, also PayPal accounts.","Assuming you have registered your activities as partnership and receiving this money as Individual, you need to show this under Schedule OS, 1d [other income]. this will be under the ITR-2 [tab CG-OS] XLS tax preparation utility given by Tax Department. The XLS can be found at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/portal/individual_huf.do If the funds you are receiving are large [more than say Rs 500,000] then suggest you incorporate a partnership firm or company, there are quite a few exceptions you can claim lowering you tax outgo. The fact that you are transferring funds to your partners can be an issue incase you get audited. You would need to have sufficient evidence to show that the money paid was for services rendered directly and not your income. It would be easier if you create a partnership or have the client directly pay to them. Again if the sum is small its fine, as the sum becomes large, it would get noticed by the tax authorities.","If you are freelancing, the best form for you is ITR-4. With this form you can declare your salary income as well as your expenses related to your freelancing. And you should treat your freelancing income as business. That way you can get max deductions claimed.","You can invoice your advertisers and use the date of the invoice for tax purposes. Some advertisers may want to pay monthly, weekly etc so that would require multiple entries as income on the relevant dates.","\"The Dutch tax office is pretty decent, although slightly overburdened. Don't expect a lot of help, but they're not generally known for making a lot of problems. Digital copies are fine, for instance. They will send you your first VAT notice. You probably would have known if your company would have been incorporated, so I'll assume you're just trading as a natural person. That means you still have to file VAT returns, but the business income is just filed annually as \"\"other income\"\". For the VAT part, you'll need to invoice your customers. Keep a copy of those invoices for your own bookkeeping, and keep track of the matching customer payments. Together these form the chief evidence of your VAT obligation. You also have a VAT deduction from your purchases (it's a Value-Added Tax, after all). Again, keep receipts. The usual VAT period is 3 months, so you'd pay VAT 4 times a year. But if you would pay less than 1883 euro, you might not need to pay at all and just need to file annually The income part is easy with the receipts you had for VAT purposes anyway. Dutch Tax Office, VAT, in English\"","The problem with your profession is that it is hard to distinguish those activities as 'services rendered' or just a 'pastime hobby'. If you believe that both of those activities constitutes a 'service rendered in a professional capacity', then you should include it into the 'Goods and services for your own use' field. However, should you believe that those services rendered was not in a professional capacity and it was in a personal one (i.e. helping out), you need not include it in the field. In addition, should you feel that the pro-bono services rendered overlaps with your professional freelance work in any way, you might want to consider the service rendered to your dad and yourself as a 'professional service' and include it in Goods and services for your own use. Such examples include (but not limited to): It might be wise to call up the HMRC to clarify on your particular situation. But what I know is, this box was created to ensure that such services rendered should be considered a profit (i.e. an advantage, adds value) and not a loss (or no value).","You are confused about a couple of terms: For example you work for company A: As to the 1098-T: It is likely that you or your parents will use the 1098-T. You don't have to file a copy with the IRS. You and your parents need to determine who should be reporting the educational expenses: you or your parents.","There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.","I had a chat with a coworker whose spouse also teaches music lessons. One interesting insight was that after raising prices, the children were much more likely to come prepared because the parents felt more invested when it cost them more. They were also less likely to cancel the lessons at the last minute. This is an argument in favor of TTT's suggestion to charge something even if we donate the income to charity. Along those lines it might also make sense to give discounts if the child comes prepared having practiced daily. I agree that it's not a lot of paperwork for some additional pay, the problem is that I would also be tempted to buy a new piano and find other expenses to reduce the income. That's a discussion for another day. I think the break-even point is probably somewhere around $1000/year when I weigh record-keeping time verses the income. So as long as we exceed that, I will probably encourage her to charge for the lessons even if she charges below the market for them. I will consider setting up a charitable giving account that they can pay to instead of paying us directly.","Yes. You must register for GST as well, if you will be making over the threshold (currently $60,000). That's probably a bonus for you, as your home office expenses will mostly include GST, but your income will most likely be zero-rated. Check with an accountant or with the IRD directly. Just be certain to put aside enough money from each payment to cover income tax, GST and ACC. You will get a very large bill in your second year of business.","You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.","If you took advantage of options like a home buyers plan (HBP) you definitely need to file since you must designate how much of the plan to repay. Your employer does not know about what you do with your money so cannot take this into account for the withheld taxes. If you do not report repayment of the HBP it will be treated as a withdrawal from your RRSP i.e. additional income for that tax year.","Because the question puts moral obligations aside, I'll answer from the practical point of view. There are two reasons for declaring side income, even cash income. If you buy a house in a year or two, the additional income will help qualify you for a mortgage. The IRS has ways to discover that you earned the money. a. A client might be audited. If the client deducts the cost of your services from their income, they could be asked for proof that they paid you. Suppose they saved ATM receipts that show the withdrawals of cash used to pay you, and kept records that document the dates they paid you. The IRS might want to ask you if you were paid by the client on those dates, and how much. The asking might be in the form of an audit, and you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. b. A client might develop a grudge against you and report you to the IRS. Someone could do this even if they don't know for sure that you don't declare the income. If you were interviewed or audited, you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. c. You could fall prey to an algorithm. There might be one that compares deductions and income. If you run a crazy-high ratio year after year, you could be flagged for audit. Once again, you'd have to lie to avoid penalty.","One piece of documentation that might help here is a confirmation of your benefit selections through your employer for each year since the expenses in question were incurred, assuming you have a job with eligibility for benefits. If you can prove which accounts you maintained through your/your spouse's (if applicable) employer(s), then it is relatively simple to go back through the records for those specific accounts and see if a specific expense was ever reimbursed. Obviously, you can't prove through documentation that you didn't have accounts that don't exist. This seems like it would be more important for the accounts elected by a significant other, since I believe reimbursements from an account in your name would typically be reported to the IRS on your behalf anyway. Also, keep in mind that the IRS won't care about each line item individually. Their focus will be on whether, for any given snapshot in time, your total reimbursed amount exceeded your total eligible expenses.","(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well.","You need to file IRS Form 1040-NR. The IRS's website provides instructions.","Yes. This income would be reported on schedule SE. Normally, you will not owe any tax if the amount is less than $400. Practically, $100 in a garage sale is not why the IRS created the form SE. I wouldn't lose sleep over keeping track of small cash sales over the course of a year. However, if you have the information I'm not going to tell you not to report it.","This is taxable in India. You need to declare the income and pay taxes accordingly","The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)","According to TurboTax: You report the income in the year you received it... Therefore, since you received payment in 2017, you will report it on your 2017 tax return.","You appear to just have admitted to tax evasion. You need a lawyer. There's a good chance you don't actually owe any money, but you need legal advice. To be clear, you may well not have been obligated to file tax returns, but you have stated you had some income you didn't report, so there's really nothing else we can say other than recommend you seek legal advice.","Nope pay the employer back the due does not involve any tax. Just keep a record of the transaction so that its available as reference.","Generally, report your $150,000. If/when the the tax collectors notice the anomaly, they'll attempt to contact you to remedy it. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, it's pretty orderly. The IRS requests additional information or proof and only open it up into a full blown audit if the suspect wrongdoing. In your case, you could show a business agreement detailing the revenue split proving you correctly reported. This is only for your consideration. I strongly recommending finding and keeping a professional tax advisor.","He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.","While IANAL (tax or otherwise), I have always found that keeping original receipts is the only way to go. While anything can, at some level, be forged or faked, a photo is one more step removed from the original. A mere listing on a web site isn't much proof of anything. Keep your originals for a suggested seven years; while the IRS is trying to audit much faster than that, and any inkling of fraud can be investigated at any time, you should be well and clear with originals kept that long.","You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.","Its best you start this venture as a Business entity. Whatever the customer pays you is your income. Whatever you pay to the hotel will be your expenses. Apart from this there will be other expenses. So essentially difference between your income and expense will be the profit of the entity and tax will be on the profit. If you do not want to start an Business entity and pay as an individual then please add the country tag, depending on the country there may different ways to account for the funds.","\"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an \"\"allowable expense\"\", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 ).\"","Of course you're reportable to the IRS. Your income is someone's expense, they'll report it if required. What you're probably asking is whether you need to pay any taxes in the US. If you're neither US citizen nor a green card holder, and you don't step foot to the US - you will probably not need to pay taxes there."],"string":"[\n \"I have been a private tutor on and off for about 30 years, in three countries, so I understand your concerns! I always kept records as though it was a real business - even if I only had one student I kept records of dates/times/names, and also tracked where the money went (I never spent it straight up - it always got deposited to complete the paper trail; yes, this is paranoia on my part). I've never been asked to prove anything with regards this income (although I have no Canadian experience). It's always been a case of tell the tax folks and make sure my arse is covered if they come asking questions. Hope this helps.\",\n \"There is a moral and legal obligation to file the earnings. Not doing so is tax fraud. You should keep a ledger or some record of your earnings, helpful guidelines here. Records are required by the CRA: According to the law, your responsibilities include: (source) You could get in trouble if one of your pupils report the expense at their tax filing, and the CRA finds no matching statement on your filing report. Tutoring are eligible for tax credit in case of disability: Tutoring services that are supplementary to the primary education of a person with a learning disability or an impairment in mental functions, and paid to a person in the business of providing these services to individuals who are not related to the person. A medical practitioner must certify in writing that these services are necessary. So if one of your pupils fall under that provision, you will get tax trouble sooner or later. Bottom line: start making records now, and report your earnings. Collect your tax as any lawful citizen is required to.\",\n \"\\\"You can list it as other income reported on line 21 of form 1040. In TurboTax, enter at: - Federal Taxes tab (Personal in Home & Business) - Wages & Income -“I’ll choose what I work on” Button Scroll down to: -Less Common Income -Misc Income, 1099-A, 1099-C. -The next screen will give you several choices. Choose \\\"\\\"Other reportable Income\\\"\\\". You will reach a screen where you can type a description of the income and the amount. Type in the amount of income and categorize as Tutoring.\\\"\",\n \"In the united states qualified institutions of higher education should give the student a 1098-t. This form breaks down all money received/billed and for tuition and scholarships. It would not include items such as books and room and board. The 1098 would constitute proof of attendance and proof of expenses. If a 529 plan was used to pay for part or all of the tuition it should also be sent to you or the student depending on where the funds were sent. If the student can't find the 1098-t it is likely that the college had an electronic copy sent to the students official email, or it can be downloaded from the student's account where tuition bills care paid. Note: a confusing part of the 1098-T is that many universities include the spring semester numbers in the form for the previous year. For Example: The 1098-T will tell you if they have done that.\",\n \"For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.\",\n \"You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence).\",\n \"As an individual freelancer, you would need to maintain a book of accounts. This should show all the income you are getting, and should also list all the payments incurred. This can not only include the payments to other professionals, but also any hardware purchased, phone bills, any travel and entertainment bills directly related to the service you are offering. Once you arrive at a net profit figure, you would need to file this as your income. Consult a tax professional and he can help with how to keep the records of income and expenses. i.e. You would need to create invoices for payments, use checks or online transfers for most payments, segregate the accounts, one account used for this professional stuff, and another for your personal stuff, etc. In a normal course the Income Tax Department does not ask for these records, however whenever your tax returns get scrutinized on a random basis, they would ask for all the relevant documentations.\",\n \"You would be required to report it as self-employment income and pay tax accordingly. It's up to you to keep proper records (like a receipt book, for example), especially when it comes to cash. If you can't prove exactly how much you earned and the government decides to guess the amount for you then you won't like the outcome!\",\n \"You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer.\",\n \"\\\"ITR1 or ITR2 needs to be filed. Declare the income through freelancing in the section \\\"\\\"income from other sources\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Unfortunately this is something that should have been determined prior to the book tour. Your tax advisor or accountant could have assisted you in making sure you collected the documentation you needed. You are going to have to sit down with your advisor with the documentation you have and determine what you can prove.\",\n \"\\\"It's pretty easy. In the Interview Setup for Ufile, check the box for \\\"\\\"Self-employment business income\\\"\\\". Then during the process of filling everything out, you'll get a Self-Employment screen. It'll ask for the name of your business, but just put your own name since you don't have one. For the 6-digit classification code, click the ? button and look through the list for the industry that best matches the one for whom you wrote the technical report. Or you can go with 711500: Independent artists, writers and performers. It doesn't really matter that much so don't worry if it's a poor match. It will also ask you for your income and expenses. I don't know exactly what costs you might have incurred to write your report, but you can likely claim a very tiny amount of \\\"\\\"home office\\\"\\\" expenses. Costs like rent (or mortgage interest + property tax), utilities, and home insurance can be claimed, but they have to be pro-rated for the time you were actually doing the work, and are based on the amount of space you used for the work. For example, if you paid $1000 rent and $200 utilities for the month in which the work was done, and it took you 20 of the 31 days in that month to actually do the work, and you used a room that makes up about 10% of the square footage of your home, then you can claim: $1200 * 20/31 * 0.1 = $77.42 for your home office expenses. If you also used that room for non-business purposes during that time, then you reduce it even further. Say, if the room was also used for playing video games 50% of the time, then you'd only claim $38.71\\\"\",\n \"You need to register as self-employed with HMRC (it is perfectly fine to be self-employed and employed by an employer at the same time, in exactly your kind of situation). Then, when the income arrives you will need to declare it on your yearly tax return. HMRC information about registering for self-employment and declaring the income is here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview There's a few extra hoops if your clients are outside the UK; the detail depends on whether they are in the EU or not. More details about this are here: https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses/selling-overseas .\",\n \"Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.\",\n \"To be on the safe side - you'll want to get the full invoice. You don't need to actually print them, you can save it as a PDF and make sure to make your own backups once in a while. Only actually print them when the IRS asks you to kill some trees and send them a paper response, and even then you can talk to the agent in charge and check if you can email the digital file instead. The IRS won't ask for this when you file your taxes, they will only ask for this if you're under audit and they will want to actually validate the numbers on your return. You'll know when you're under audit, and who is the auditor (the agent in charge of your case). You'll also want to have some representation when that happens.\",\n \"You only need to report INCOME to the IRS. Money which you are paying to a landlord on behalf of someone else is not income.\",\n \"It should be reported as Miscellaneous Income. Congratulations for wanting to report this income.\",\n \"Scanned or electronic copies of invoices should be sufficient as long as they are accurate and you can deliver them during an audit. Also, if you have an accountant prepare your taxes you would either need to provide them a copy of the invoices or a summary of them with the corresponding amounts to be claimed. Personally I prefer to print out a paper copy and file that away with that quarter's and year's other tax documents. I do my own taxes and find paper copies handy as I can go through each invoice/receipt and make sure I have entered its information by ticking it. I find that when handling a large number of documents that paper copies are more easy to handle than electronic ones. In the end you will need to use a system that you feel comfortable with and are able to use effectively.\",\n \"You would report the overall income on your T1 general income tax return, and use form T2125 to report income and expenses for your business. Form T2125 is like a mini income-statement where you report your gross revenue and subtract off expenses. Being able to claim legitimate expenses as a deduction is an important tax benefit for businesses big and small. In terms of your second question, you generally need to register for a business number at least once you cross the threshold for GST / HST. If you earn $30,000/year (or spread over four consecutive quarters) then charging GST / HST is mandatory; see GST/HST Mandatory registration. There are other conditions as well, but the threshold is the principal one. You can also register voluntarily for GST / HST even if you're below that threshold; see GST/HST Voluntary registration. The advantage of registering voluntarily is that you can claim input tax credits (ITC) on any GST that your business pays, and remit only the difference. That saves your business money, especially if you have a lot of expenses early on. Finally, in terms of Ontario specifically (saw that on your profile), you might want to check out Ontario Sole Proprietorship. There are specific cases in which you need to register a business: e.g. specific types of businesses, or if you plan on doing business under a name other than your own. Finally, you may want to consider whether incorporating might be better for you. Here's an interesting article that compares Sole Proprietorship Versus Incorporation. Here's another article, Choosing a business structure, from the feds.\",\n \"Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.\",\n \"The amount earned is taxable. It needs to shown as income from other sources. Although the last date for paying Advance tax is over [15 March], there is still time to pay Self-Assessment tax till 15 June. If the tax amount due is less than 10,000/- there is no penalty. If the tax is more than Rs 10,000/- there is penalty at the rate of 1% per month from March, and if the amount of tax exceeds 40% of the total tax, there will be additional 1% interest from December. The tax can be paid online via your Banks website or using the Income Tax website at https://onlineservices.tin.egov-nsdl.com/etaxnew/tdsnontds.jsp The form to be used is 280. You can use the Income tax website to calculate and file your tax returns at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/ or use the services of a CA. Edit: If the income is less than expenses, you need not pay tax. Maintain proper records [receipts] of income and expenses, if possible use a different Bank account so that they remain different from your main account. The tax to be paid depending on your income slab. The additional income needs to added to you salary. The tax and slabs will be as per this. There is no distinction on this amount. Its treated as normal income. All Tax for the given year has to be paid in advance. i.e. for Tax year 2013-14, 30% of total tax by 15-Sept, Additional 30% [total 60%] by 15-Dec and Balance by 15-Mar. Read Page 3 and page 10 of http://incometaxindia.gov.in/Archive/Taxation_Of_Salaried_Employees_18062012.pdf\",\n \"You can use the ITR 1 and declare the income from freelancing as income from other sources. As part of freelancing, certain expenses can be deducted provided they are directly related to work and have proper records. Please consult a CA who can advice you on how to do this. The Actual income shown should be less of the expenses.\",\n \"Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.\",\n \"You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you. If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer. As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you. How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference). You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf\",\n \"\\\"As you are earning an income by working in India, you are required to pay tax in India. If you contract is of freelance, then the income earned by you has to be self declared and taxes paid accordingly. There are some expenses one can claim, a CA should be able to guide you. Not sure why the Swiss comapny is paying taxes?. Are they depositing this with Income Tax, India, do they have a TAN Number. If yes, then you don't need to pay tax. But you need to get a statement from your company showing the tax paid on behalf of you. You can also verify the tax paid on your behalf via \\\"\\\"http://incometaxindia.gov.in/26ASTaxCreditStatement.asp\\\"\\\" you cna register. Alternatively if you have a Bank Account in India with a PAN card on their records, most Banks provide a link to directly see\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Re the business license - in California business licenses are given by the municipal/county governments, so you'll have to check that with your city hall or county office. Re taxes - yes, you'll have to pay taxes, as with any income. Services are considered \\\"\\\"imputed income\\\"\\\", and generally you'd recognize income to the extent they would be paying had they been paying the full price (or the actual cost of services provided, if more). Since this is a hobby and not a for-profit enterprise, your deductions may be limited by the actual income and the 2% AGI threshold. See more here.\\\"\",\n \"You can receive money directly into your savings bank account. It is perfectly legal. FYI the Bank as part of regulation would report this to RBI. As the funds are received for the services you have rendered, You are liable to pay tax on the income. The income is taxed as professional income similar to the income of Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants etc. If you are paying your colleagues, it would be treated as expense. Not only this, you can also treat any phone calls you make, or equipment your purchase [laptop, desk etc] as expense. The difference become your actual income and you would be taxed as per the rate for individuals. It's advisable you contact an accountant who would advise you better for a nominal fee [few thousand rupees] and help you pay the tax and file the returns. With or without accountant It is very important for you to record all payments and expenses in a book of accounts.\",\n \"\\\"Another factor you may want to consider is insurance, if your wife is at their house as a friend who happens to be teaching the kid to play and the kid falls off their chair and hurts them self that is rather different to your wife being brought in to the house as a contractor and an injury occurring during an activity that she was supervising. I am in a similar situation and I have a $5 million public liability policy, which costs about $300 per year. So if her income is likely to be less than that she may be better off \\\"\\\"helping a friend learn\\\"\\\" rather than \\\"\\\"providing tutoring services\\\"\\\". There may also be legal requirements, I am required to apply for government checks every few years in order to operate a business that involves working with children.\\\"\",\n \"I am not an accountant, but I do run a business in the UK and my understanding is that it's a threshold thing, which I believe is £2,500. Assuming you don't currently have to submit self assessment, and your additional income from all sources other than employment (for which you already pay tax) is less than £2,500, you don't have to declare it. Above this level you have to submit self assessment. More information can be found here I also find that HMRC are quite helpful - give them a call and ask.\",\n \"Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.\",\n \"Yes, you need to include income from your freelance work on your tax return. In the eyes of the IRS, this is self-employment income from your sole-proprietorship business. The reason you don't see it mentioned in the 1040EZ instructions is that you can't use the 1040EZ form if you have self-employment income. You'll need to use the full 1040 form. Your business income and expenses will be reported on a Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ, and the result will end up on Line 12 of the 1040. Take a look at the requirements at the top of the C-EZ form; you probably meet them and can use it instead of the more complicated C form. If you have any deductible business expenses related to your freelance business, this would be done on Schedule C or C-EZ. If your freelance income was more than $400, you'll also need to pay self-employment tax. To do this, you file Schedule SE, and the tax from that schedule lands on form 1040 Line 57.\",\n \"I suggest to start charging slightly more than needed to cover expenses. All you need is to show profit. It doesn't have to be significant - a couple of hundred of dollars of consistent yearly profit should suffice to show a profitable business. Then you can deduct on Schedule C all the related expenses. The caveat is that the profit (after the deduction of the expenses will be a bit smaller) will be subject to not only income tax but also the self-employment tax. But at least you'll pay tax on profit that is not entirely phantom. I remember suggesting you getting a professional consultation on this matter a while ago. You should really do that - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, it may be well worth the $100-200 fee they'll charge for the consultation (if at all...).\",\n \"It's always beneficial to have detailed business records. There are any number of reasons where you'd need to prove both the types of services you've rendered and the payment history - you've already noted audits (for IRS taxes). Other possibilities: Whether these records need to be original or electronic might be the topic for another question.\",\n \"From the IRS web site: So if your income was reported to the IRS (by the payer, not you) using one of the forms above, the IRS would have a record of it, regardless of whether you filed a tax return or not.\",\n \"We run into this all the time with our EU clients. As far as I can tell, the only requirements when it comes to invoicing have to do with sales tax, which is determined at the state level, and only in the case that items are taxable. It seems that the service provided to you is not taxable and so there is no obligation under Californian law to provide you with the invoice you need. That said, it would be nice to provide this information to you as a courtesy. We don't provide the information typically required by EU tax authorities on our receipts either, but whenever one of our EU clients requests a more formal invoice we gladly send them one.\",\n \"\\\"My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive. If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under \\\"\\\"Unreimbursed Employee business expenses,\\\"\\\" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional.\\\"\",\n \"There is no document that I know of that stipulates otherwise. This can also be corroborated by the fact that RESP withdrawals are considered as income in the name of the student. Thus, so long as the student pays tuition and receives a T2202A slip from the educational institution, they should be able to claim tuition, education, and textbook amounts.\",\n \"There is no strict need to do that, you can consider yourself to be consulting, a 10% of your payment will be withheld and paid as tax by the company, you can deduct up to 60% of your income as expenses and pay tax on the rest (factoring the tax deducted at source). In another approach, you could register for service tax and charge service tax on your invoice and pay to the service tax department, the tax calculations are similar to above. It will be good if you speak to a chartered accountant and get more clarity. As for business card, you could print it with your name and qualification, there are no restrictions on that.\",\n \"Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.\",\n \"It is definitely legal and will be accounted by the IRS as earned income.\",\n \"\\\"VAT = Value Added Tax (as an Aussie think \\\"\\\"GST\\\"\\\") This is applicable in Britain. Basically, if you were in Britain, and if you could claim VAT as a deduction, that invoice is not sufficient proof to make the claim. But you're in Oz so it doesn't apply to you in any case. For work-related deductions like book purchases, see http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/00216829.htm&pc=001/002/068/001/002&mnu=&mfp=&st=&cy=1 Issues such as the books being second hand or purchased online are not cited in the instructions as relevant/limiting factors. In fact, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, you could claim the work-related proportion of your internet access fees as a deduction (question D5 instructions, above, cover that as well).\\\"\",\n \"First, request that you complete a tax return. On this tax return, you will complete both the employed and self employed sections. This will give you a total income and tax liability. You will already have paid some tax via PAYE, but you will have to pay additional tax for any other income. For future years there is the option, depending on amount, to collect extra tax through PAYE to cover the other earnings. If it is likely to be the same for the next few years, this may be a better option than paying a lump sum. The tax return is now mostly online, and not too bad if your affairs are otherwise simple. The hardest part will be keeping a good record of your other earnings. Remember that you have to keep these records for seven years in case HMRC ever want to audit them, and it's a good idea to have a separate account for the income, or some other way of easily identifying it.\",\n \"Every bill you write counts as income (if the bill doesn't get paid, you would count that as an expense). In cases where you don't write bills, I think the payment you receive would count as income, but you might check that on the HMRC website. So to record your income, you can basically record the payments that you receive. Anything you pay out for your business is an expense. You keep a receipt for every expense - if you don't have a receipt, you can't count it as an expense, so keeping all the receipts is very, very important. An exception are investments, for example buying a computer that should last multiple years; there you can count a percentage of the investment as expense every year. All income, minus all expenses, is your profit. You pay tax and National Insurance contributions according to your profit. You can do whatever you like with the profit. Notice that I didn't mention any salary. Self employed means you have no salary, you have profits and do with them whatever you like. On the other hand, you pay taxes on these profits almost exactly as if they were income. If you have this blog but are also employed, you'll add the profits to your normal income statement.\",\n \"\\\"This is going to depend on the tax jurisdiction and I have no knowledge of the rules in Illinois. But I'd like to give you some direction about how to think about this. The biggest problem that you might hit is that if you collect a single check and then distribute to the tutors, you may be considered their employer. As an employer, you would be responsible for things like This is not meant as an exhaustive list. Even if not an employer, you are still paying them. You would be responsible for issuing 1099 forms to anyone who goes above $600 for the year (source). You would need to file for a taxpayer identification number for your organization, as it is acting as a business. You need to give this number to the school so that they can issue the correct form to you. You might have to register a \\\"\\\"Doing Business As\\\"\\\" name. It's conceivable that you could get away with having the school write the check to you as an individual. But if you do that, it will show up as income on your taxes and you will have to deduct payments to the other tutors. If the organization already has a separate tax identity, then you could use that. Note that the organization will be responsible for paying income tax. It should be able to deduct payments to the tutors as well as marketing expenses, etc. If the school will go for it, consider structuring things with a payment to your organization for your organization duties. Then you tell the school how much to pay each tutor. You would be responsible for giving the school the necessary information, like name, address, Social Security number, and cost (or possibly hours worked).\\\"\",\n \"If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however.\",\n \"I probably can, but I realized I also do have a commission sheet from the month of June which shows how much I made in just commissions, and then I could tell them I also get my 300 a week salary. Do you think that would suffice?\",\n \"\\\"As a Canadian resident, the simple answer to your question is \\\"\\\"yes\\\"\\\" Having worked as a tax auditor and as a Certified Financial Planner, you are required to file an income tax return because you have taxable employment income. All the employer is doing is deducting it at source and remitting it on your behalf. That does not alleviate your need to file. In fact, if you don't file you will be subject to a no filing penalty. The one aspect you are missing is that taxpayers may be entitled to tax credits that may result in a refund to you depending on your personal situation (e.g spousal or minor dependents). I hope this helps.\\\"\",\n \"Generally for tax questions you should talk to a tax adviser. Don't consider anything I write here as a tax advice, and the answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Does IRS like one payment method over other or they simply don't care as long as she can show the receipts? They don't care as long as she withholds the taxes (30%, unless specific arrangements are made for otherwise). She should withhold 30% of the payment and send it to the IRS. The recipient should claim refund, if the actual tax liability is lower. It's only consulting work at the moment, so most of the communication is done over phone. Should they start engaging in written communication to keep records of the work done? Yes, if she wants it to be a business expense. Is it okay to pay in one go to save money-transferring fees? Can she pay in advance? Again, she can do whatever she wants, but if she wants to account for it on her tax returns she should do it the same way she would pay any other vendor in her business. She cannot use different accounting methods for different vendors. Basically, she has not outsourced work in previous years, and she wants to avoid any red flags. Then she should start by calling on her tax adviser, and not an anonymous Internet forum.\",\n \"You don't need to file or do anything. The bank will report all transfers over 10 000, but chances are slim that it will even be looked at, if you don't do this every week. Worst case, someone will ask you about the source, and you tell them exactly what you wrote above (I had multiple international transfers over 60k and nobody ever asked). You said you paid his tuition, and he is now paying you back, so in case someone asks, you should be able to produce the documentation on the tuition payment - a bill, or your bank statement showing you paid it; and the amount should be matching, so you have proof. Note that if he pays you interest, it is taxable income. You are obligated to list it on your next tax filing.\",\n \"You send the proper form to the other person for the amount you gave him, and file it as your business expense on your Schedule C.\",\n \"You need receipts only if you claim deductions in the itemized deductions section based on them. You itemize deductions only if your claims exceed the standard deduction (which for a single person was $5,800 last year). Even then, you need receipts for everything only if you claim sales tax as the deduction (you have to buy really a lot to pass $5K with sales tax...). I would expect people to pay more in state income taxes than sales taxes (you can claim either this or that, not both). For food - there are no taxes (at least here in California), so nothing to deduct anyway. In any case, you can always scan your receipts and keep them in the computer, for just in case, but IMHO it's waste of time, pixels and gigabytes. Here's a question which deals with the same issue, read the answers there as well.\",\n \"If this will be your sole income for the year, going self-employed is the best way to do this: So, here's how to go at it: Total cash in: £2000 Total Tax paid: £0 Admin overhead: approx 3 hours. Legit: 100% :) Edit: Can you tell me that in my case what are the required fields on the invoice? If you're non-VAT registered, there are no legal requirements as to what information you need to put on the invoice -it literally can be a couple of numbers on a napkin, and still be legit. With that said, to make a professional appearance, my invoices are usually structured as follows: Left side: ( Sidenote: why client-specific incremental numbering? Why, so they can't make educated guesses to the number of clients I have at any given time :) ) Right side: Center table: And so far, none of my clients missed any fields, so this should have everything they need to :) Hope this helps, but keep in mind, all of the above is synthetic sugar on the top -ultimately, the relationship you share with your Clients is the thing you will (or will not) get paid for! Edit#2: The voices in my head just pointed out, that I've totally omitted National Insurance contributions in the above. However, and I quote HMRC: If your profits are expected to be less than £5,315 you may not have to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions. Hence, this won't change the numbers above, either -just make sure to point this out during your registration in the office.\",\n \"If you want to be safe, only claim deductions for which you have a receipt. This explanation may help.\",\n \"\\\"These kinds of questions can be rather tricky. I've struggled with this sort of thing in the past when I had income from a hobby, and I wanted to ensure that it was indeed \\\"\\\"hobby income\\\"\\\" and I didn't need to call it \\\"\\\"self-employment\\\"\\\". Here are a few resources from the IRS: There's a lot of overlap among these resources, of course. Here's the relevant portion of Publication 535, which I think is reasonable guidance on how the IRS looks at things: In determining whether you are carrying on an activity for profit, several factors are taken into account. No one factor alone is decisive. Among the factors to consider are whether: Most of the guidance looks to be centered around what one would need to do to convince the IRS that an activity actually is a business, because then one can deduct the \\\"\\\"business expenses\\\"\\\", even if that brings the total \\\"\\\"business income\\\"\\\" negative (and I'm guessing that's a fraud problem the IRS needs to deal with more often). There's not nearly as much about how to convince the IRS that an activity isn't a business and thus can be thrown into \\\"\\\"Other Income\\\"\\\" instead of needing to pay self-employment tax. Presumably the same principles should apply going either way, though. If after reading through the information they provide, you decide in good faith that your activity is really just \\\"\\\"Other income\\\"\\\" and not \\\"\\\"a business you're in on the side\\\"\\\", I would find it likely that the IRS would agree with you if they ever questioned you on it and you provided your reasoning, assuming your reasoning is reasonable. (Though it's always possible that reasonable people could end up disagreeing on some things even given the same set of facts.) Just keep good records about what you did and why, and don't get too panicked about it once you've done your due diligence. Just file based on all the information you know.\\\"\",\n \"The Canada Revenue Agency describes in detail here what information businesses must generally include on their invoices so that GST/HST registrants can claim Input Tax Credits (ITCs) for the expenses. Quote: Sales invoices for GST/HST registrants You have to give customers who are GST/HST registrants specific information on the invoices, receipts, contracts, or other business papers that you use when you provide taxable goods and services. This information lets them support their claims for input tax credits (ITCs) or rebates for the GST/HST you charged. [...] The page quoted continues with a table describing what, specifically, needs to be on a sales invoice based on the total amount of the invoice; the requirements differ for: total sale under $30, total sale between $30 to $149.99, and total sale $150 or more. For the total sale under $30 category, the only things a sales invoice must contain to support an ITC claim are (1) the provider's business name, (2) the invoice date, and (3) the total amount paid/payable. i.e. When the total sale is under $30, there is no requirement for any GST/HST amount to be indicated separately, nor for a business number to be present on the invoice. Hence, IMHO (and I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer), if your Uber rides are for $30 or less, then you shouldn't expect a GST/HST number anyway, and a simple invoice as described should be enough for you to claim your ITCs. Whether or not the provider is registered in fact for GST/HST is beside the point. For amounts over $30, you need a bit more. While the page above specifies that the provider's business number should be included beginning with the next level of total sales, there are exceptions to those rules described at another page mentioned, Exceptions to invoice requirements, that specifically apply to the taxi/limousine case. Quote: Exceptions to invoice requirements GST/HST registrants are required to keep the necessary documentation to support their claim for ITCs and rebates. In certain circumstances the documentation requirements have been reduced. [...] For taxi or limousine fares your books and records must show: So at a minimum, for fare in excess of $30 total, you should ask the driver to note either (a) the amount of GST/HST charged, or (b) a statement that the fare includes GST/HST. The driver's business number need not be specified. Consequently, if your receipt for a ride in excess of $30 does not contain any such additional information with respect to GST/HST, then I would expect the receipt does not satisfy the CRA's requirements for supporting your ITC claim. i.e. Keep your individual rides under $30 each, or else get a better receipt from the driver when it is above that amount. p.s. It should go without saying, but your rides, of course, must be considered reasonable business expenses in order to qualify for GST/HST ITCs for your business. Receipts for rides of a personal nature are not eligible, so be sure to maintain proper records as to the business purpose and destination for each ride receipt so claimed.\",\n \"\\\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \\\"\\\"hobby.\\\"\\\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\\\"\",\n \"I'm not sure how this gets entered in TurboTax, but this income from the company should be included in the Schedule C (or C-EZ) Line 1 Gross Receipts total, along with all of your 1099-MISC income from your business and any other income that your business took in. You don't need a 1099 from them, and the IRS doesn't care (at least from your perspective) if you got a 1099 or not; in fact, they probably expect you to have some non-1099 income. We don't know why the company chose not to issue 1099 forms, but luckily it isn't your concern. You can fill out your tax return properly without it. Note: This answer assumes that you didn't have any tax withheld from your checks from this company. If you did have tax withheld, you'll need to insist on a 1099 to show that.\",\n \"You're charging service fees as a conduit entity for these tickets. While the service fee is not a fixed rate, but a percentage, you would need to record each purchase at dollar amount. To illustrate, it would look like: Now, to your question: How do I report this on my taxes? You would first start out by filing your Schedule C from the eyes of the business (the money you earn at your job, and the money you earn as a business are different). Just keep a general journal with the above entry for each sale and close them down to a simple balance sheet and income statement and you should be fine. Of course, read the instructions for your Schedule C before you begin. As always, good luck.\",\n \"If your net profit is $0, then no, you will not owe income tax as a result of providing this service. But there's a lot more to consider than just that... Before you begin you'll need to decide if this is a business or a hobby. Based on the fact that you don't intend to make a profit, you are probably going to be calling it a hobby for tax purposes. Regardless of whether it is a business or a hobby, since you will be accepting payments from people, you will need to report the income on your tax return. As both a business and a hobby you can deduct all of your expenses to bring your profit down to $0. (Assuming all the expenses are legitimate business/hobby expenses.) The main differences between business and hobby are: If you choose to run as a business you'll likely save quite a bit of money by avoiding the 2% rule, and also by being able to deduct any non-specific-customer expenses and take a loss. Be careful though that you don't go too many years with a business loss or the IRS may re-classify it as a hobby, which may include an audit. If you decide to run as a business you may need to charge a little more than just expenses to attempt to turn a profit, or at least break even.\",\n \"Aside from the fact that probably nobody is ever going to come and ask for that proof unless your amounts get five digits (or you're unlucky), if you never before reimbursed yourself, your old tax declarations would clearly show that. You can't prove a negative, so the only potential is that you had reimbursements before, and an audit might ask you to prove that the new ones are not duplicates of those. In this case, if you have other receipts / proof for all those other reimbursements, they are obviously not duplicates.\",\n \"You're not subject to the US tax laws, and since the income is not US-sourced, it is not subject to withholding. Your employer doesn't need any form, but if they insist - you can provide them a W8-BEN to certify your non-resident status. Keep in mind that if you do come to the US, the money you earn while in the US is US-sourced and subject to the US taxes and withholding, even if you're non-resident.\",\n \"The Canada Revenue Agency does indeed put out just the guide you want. It's at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4070/rc4070-e.html - you should always take a good look at URLs to make sure they're really from the government and not from some for-profit firm that will charge you to fill out forms for free services. It covers ways to structure your business (probably a sole proprietor in your case), collecting and submitting GST or HST, sending in payroll remittances (if you pay yourself a T4 salary), and income tax including what you can deduct. It's a great place to start and you can use it as a source of keywords if you want to search for more details.\",\n \"\\\"In general, scholarship income that you receive that is not used for tuition or books must be included in your gross income and reported as such on your tax return. Scholarship income you receive that is used for those kinds of expenses may be excludable from your gross income. See this IRS information and this related question. I believe that as represented on the 1098-T, this generally means that if Box 5 (Scholarships and Grants) is greater than Box 1 or 2 (only one of which will be used on your 1098-T), you received taxable scholarship income. If Box 5 is less than or equal to Box 1/2, you did not receive taxable scholarship income. This TaxSlayer page draws the same conclusion. However, you should realize that the 1098-T is not what makes you have to pay or not pay taxes. You incur the taxes by receiving scholarship money, and you may reduce your tax liability by paying tuition. The 1098-T is simply a record of payments that have already been made. For instance, if you received $10,000 in scholarship money --- that is, actually received checks for that amount or had that amount deposited into your bank account --- then your income went up by $10,000. If you yourself paid tuition, it is likely that you can exclude the amount of the tuition from your taxable income, reducing the tax you owe (see the IRS page linked above). However, if you received $10,000 in actual money and in addition your tuition was paid by the scholarship (with money you never actually had in your own bank account), then the entire $10,000 would be taxable. You do not give enough information in your question to be sure which of these situations is closer to your own. However, you should be able to decide by looking at your bank account: look at how much money you received and how much you spent on tuition. If you received more scholarship money than the tuition you paid out of pocket, you owe taxes on the remainder. (I emphasize that this is just a general rule of thumb and should not be taken as tax advice; you should review the IRS information and/or consult a tax professional to determine what part of your scholarship income is taxable.) In addition, as this (now rather old) article from the New York Society of CPAs notes, \\\"\\\"many colleges and universities prepare 1098-Ts incorrectly and report tuition and related expenses inconsistently\\\"\\\". This means you should be careful to reconcile the 1098-T with your own financial records of what money you actually received and paid. When I was in grad school there was a good deal of hand-wringing and hair-pulling each year among the students as we tried to determine what relationship (if any) the 1098-T bore to the financial facts.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you want an \\\"\\\"account statement\\\"\\\" from the IRS listing the taxes due and paid and confirming a zero balance remaining, you want what they call a Tax Account Transcript. It sounds like you tried to submit this online, but yes, it would require the actual taxpayer to submit it. The other option would be to fill out Form 4506-T requesting the Form 1040 Tax Account Transcript, have the taxpayer sign it, and mail it in. Presumably whatever method you used to have her sign the Form 1040 you prepared for her you could also use to have her sign the 4506-T. Another option could be to try to request the transcript over the phone. I don't know what authentication they require, or if you would need to have been listed on the 1040 as an authorized Third Party Designee. According to the IRS Transcript FAQ Page: Q19. What if I’m unable to use Get Transcript by Mail? If you are unable to use Get Transcript by Mail, you may try our automated phone transcript service at 800-908-9946 and also receive your transcript by mail. Please allow 5 to 10 calendar days for delivery. But unless there's a reason to think that the tax account wasn't credited properly or the IRS is sending another bill or the like, I don't think there's a lot of point in doing so. In general, the fact that the check cleared the bank should be sufficient documentation that the amount was paid.\\\"\",\n \"It's fine - if you are an employee, you will normally have all taxes deducted by the employer, and won't even need to complete a tax return. Even if you do, all the figures will be on the P60 you get at the end of the year. If that's your only income, it's pretty easy to do. Remember, your taxes and your girlfriends are totally separate. It also doesnt matter where the money goes - you could be paid in cash or into any account, it's the fact that you earn it makes it taxable.\",\n \"Assuming that the jobs where you've earned money from have sent you W-2s, 1099s, etc. Then yes, you can request a Wage and Income Transcript: Shows data from information returns we receive such as Forms W-2, 1099, 1098 and Form 5498, IRA Contribution Information. Current tax year information may not be complete until July. This transcript is available for up to 10 prior years using Get Transcript Online or Form 4506-T.\",\n \"You normally wouldn't pay income taxes on money that isn't income. Transferring money or withdrawing it from a bank isn't an income generating event. I think it is very doubtful that you would need to claim that on income tax forms.\",\n \"As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.\",\n \"HMRC may or may not find out about it; the risks and penalties involved if they do find out make it unwise not to just declare it and pay the tax on it. Based on the fact you asked the question, I am assuming that you currently pay all your tax through PAYE and don't do a tax return. You would need to register for Self Assessment and complete a return; this is not at all difficult if your tax situation is straightforward, which it sounds like yours is. Then you would owe the tax on the additional money, at whatever applicable rate (which depends on how much you earn in your main job, the rate tables are here: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances ). If it truly is a one off you could simply declare it on your return as other income, but if it is more than that then you would need to look at setting up as Self Employed - there is some good advice on the differences here: http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/tax-self-employment-still-employed/ : Broadly, you are likely to be running a business if you have a regular, organised activity with a profit motive, which continues for at least a few months. If the work is one-off, or very occasional (say, a few times per year), or not very organised, or of very low value (say, under £2,000 per year), then it might qualify as casual income. If you think it is beyond the definition of casual income then you would also need to pay National Insurance, as described in the previous link, but otherwise the tax treatment would be the same.\",\n \"Adsense don't pay you daily. They pay you every month (as they have to calculate the final value). I'd say you only have to declare it when it hits your bank account. £60 actually isn't that much. It only took me a couple of months of just making a few quid, to making enough to get a monthly payment, and I only tot up what goes into my bank account. I've opened up a second account with my bank to send and receive payments relating to my online adventures. Then any in/out goes into a spreadsheet that I do at the end of the month keeping track of everything. If Mr. Taxman want to investigate at the end of the tax year, it's all logged in that account. It gets a bit murkier if you start doing US Amazon affiliates. The simplest method is to get the cheque delivered, and then log the amount that goes into your bank (after $->£ conversion). I have a Payoneer account, and transfer most of the money into my account (after it hits $500), and keep a little bit in for things I buy that are in USD. Hope that helps.\",\n \"\\\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \\\"\\\"startup\\\"\\\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\\\"\",\n \"You'll need to show the whole paper trail: show that the $2000 are the same $2000 (i.e.: show that you didn't get any new income that was not yet reported on your Elance balance), and show that it was in fact transfer from Elance (matching transactions on both accounts). Obviously, add a letter describing the whole process and pointing to the specific pages and lines in the statements and prior year tax returns. Follow the instructions on the notice about where to send your response, and make sure you send it certified USPS mail. Consider having a tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) helping you with this. For the future - do not leave money on various private parties' accounts. It is uninsured, and if something happens to that company - you lose the money. That includes, in the US, also PayPal accounts.\",\n \"Assuming you have registered your activities as partnership and receiving this money as Individual, you need to show this under Schedule OS, 1d [other income]. this will be under the ITR-2 [tab CG-OS] XLS tax preparation utility given by Tax Department. The XLS can be found at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/portal/individual_huf.do If the funds you are receiving are large [more than say Rs 500,000] then suggest you incorporate a partnership firm or company, there are quite a few exceptions you can claim lowering you tax outgo. The fact that you are transferring funds to your partners can be an issue incase you get audited. You would need to have sufficient evidence to show that the money paid was for services rendered directly and not your income. It would be easier if you create a partnership or have the client directly pay to them. Again if the sum is small its fine, as the sum becomes large, it would get noticed by the tax authorities.\",\n \"If you are freelancing, the best form for you is ITR-4. With this form you can declare your salary income as well as your expenses related to your freelancing. And you should treat your freelancing income as business. That way you can get max deductions claimed.\",\n \"You can invoice your advertisers and use the date of the invoice for tax purposes. Some advertisers may want to pay monthly, weekly etc so that would require multiple entries as income on the relevant dates.\",\n \"\\\"The Dutch tax office is pretty decent, although slightly overburdened. Don't expect a lot of help, but they're not generally known for making a lot of problems. Digital copies are fine, for instance. They will send you your first VAT notice. You probably would have known if your company would have been incorporated, so I'll assume you're just trading as a natural person. That means you still have to file VAT returns, but the business income is just filed annually as \\\"\\\"other income\\\"\\\". For the VAT part, you'll need to invoice your customers. Keep a copy of those invoices for your own bookkeeping, and keep track of the matching customer payments. Together these form the chief evidence of your VAT obligation. You also have a VAT deduction from your purchases (it's a Value-Added Tax, after all). Again, keep receipts. The usual VAT period is 3 months, so you'd pay VAT 4 times a year. But if you would pay less than 1883 euro, you might not need to pay at all and just need to file annually The income part is easy with the receipts you had for VAT purposes anyway. Dutch Tax Office, VAT, in English\\\"\",\n \"The problem with your profession is that it is hard to distinguish those activities as 'services rendered' or just a 'pastime hobby'. If you believe that both of those activities constitutes a 'service rendered in a professional capacity', then you should include it into the 'Goods and services for your own use' field. However, should you believe that those services rendered was not in a professional capacity and it was in a personal one (i.e. helping out), you need not include it in the field. In addition, should you feel that the pro-bono services rendered overlaps with your professional freelance work in any way, you might want to consider the service rendered to your dad and yourself as a 'professional service' and include it in Goods and services for your own use. Such examples include (but not limited to): It might be wise to call up the HMRC to clarify on your particular situation. But what I know is, this box was created to ensure that such services rendered should be considered a profit (i.e. an advantage, adds value) and not a loss (or no value).\",\n \"You are confused about a couple of terms: For example you work for company A: As to the 1098-T: It is likely that you or your parents will use the 1098-T. You don't have to file a copy with the IRS. You and your parents need to determine who should be reporting the educational expenses: you or your parents.\",\n \"There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.\",\n \"I had a chat with a coworker whose spouse also teaches music lessons. One interesting insight was that after raising prices, the children were much more likely to come prepared because the parents felt more invested when it cost them more. They were also less likely to cancel the lessons at the last minute. This is an argument in favor of TTT's suggestion to charge something even if we donate the income to charity. Along those lines it might also make sense to give discounts if the child comes prepared having practiced daily. I agree that it's not a lot of paperwork for some additional pay, the problem is that I would also be tempted to buy a new piano and find other expenses to reduce the income. That's a discussion for another day. I think the break-even point is probably somewhere around $1000/year when I weigh record-keeping time verses the income. So as long as we exceed that, I will probably encourage her to charge for the lessons even if she charges below the market for them. I will consider setting up a charitable giving account that they can pay to instead of paying us directly.\",\n \"Yes. You must register for GST as well, if you will be making over the threshold (currently $60,000). That's probably a bonus for you, as your home office expenses will mostly include GST, but your income will most likely be zero-rated. Check with an accountant or with the IRD directly. Just be certain to put aside enough money from each payment to cover income tax, GST and ACC. You will get a very large bill in your second year of business.\",\n \"You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.\",\n \"If you took advantage of options like a home buyers plan (HBP) you definitely need to file since you must designate how much of the plan to repay. Your employer does not know about what you do with your money so cannot take this into account for the withheld taxes. If you do not report repayment of the HBP it will be treated as a withdrawal from your RRSP i.e. additional income for that tax year.\",\n \"Because the question puts moral obligations aside, I'll answer from the practical point of view. There are two reasons for declaring side income, even cash income. If you buy a house in a year or two, the additional income will help qualify you for a mortgage. The IRS has ways to discover that you earned the money. a. A client might be audited. If the client deducts the cost of your services from their income, they could be asked for proof that they paid you. Suppose they saved ATM receipts that show the withdrawals of cash used to pay you, and kept records that document the dates they paid you. The IRS might want to ask you if you were paid by the client on those dates, and how much. The asking might be in the form of an audit, and you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. b. A client might develop a grudge against you and report you to the IRS. Someone could do this even if they don't know for sure that you don't declare the income. If you were interviewed or audited, you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. c. You could fall prey to an algorithm. There might be one that compares deductions and income. If you run a crazy-high ratio year after year, you could be flagged for audit. Once again, you'd have to lie to avoid penalty.\",\n \"One piece of documentation that might help here is a confirmation of your benefit selections through your employer for each year since the expenses in question were incurred, assuming you have a job with eligibility for benefits. If you can prove which accounts you maintained through your/your spouse's (if applicable) employer(s), then it is relatively simple to go back through the records for those specific accounts and see if a specific expense was ever reimbursed. Obviously, you can't prove through documentation that you didn't have accounts that don't exist. This seems like it would be more important for the accounts elected by a significant other, since I believe reimbursements from an account in your name would typically be reported to the IRS on your behalf anyway. Also, keep in mind that the IRS won't care about each line item individually. Their focus will be on whether, for any given snapshot in time, your total reimbursed amount exceeded your total eligible expenses.\",\n \"(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well.\",\n \"You need to file IRS Form 1040-NR. The IRS's website provides instructions.\",\n \"Yes. This income would be reported on schedule SE. Normally, you will not owe any tax if the amount is less than $400. Practically, $100 in a garage sale is not why the IRS created the form SE. I wouldn't lose sleep over keeping track of small cash sales over the course of a year. However, if you have the information I'm not going to tell you not to report it.\",\n \"This is taxable in India. You need to declare the income and pay taxes accordingly\",\n \"The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)\",\n \"According to TurboTax: You report the income in the year you received it... Therefore, since you received payment in 2017, you will report it on your 2017 tax return.\",\n \"You appear to just have admitted to tax evasion. You need a lawyer. There's a good chance you don't actually owe any money, but you need legal advice. To be clear, you may well not have been obligated to file tax returns, but you have stated you had some income you didn't report, so there's really nothing else we can say other than recommend you seek legal advice.\",\n \"Nope pay the employer back the due does not involve any tax. Just keep a record of the transaction so that its available as reference.\",\n \"Generally, report your $150,000. If/when the the tax collectors notice the anomaly, they'll attempt to contact you to remedy it. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, it's pretty orderly. The IRS requests additional information or proof and only open it up into a full blown audit if the suspect wrongdoing. In your case, you could show a business agreement detailing the revenue split proving you correctly reported. This is only for your consideration. I strongly recommending finding and keeping a professional tax advisor.\",\n \"He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.\",\n \"While IANAL (tax or otherwise), I have always found that keeping original receipts is the only way to go. While anything can, at some level, be forged or faked, a photo is one more step removed from the original. A mere listing on a web site isn't much proof of anything. Keep your originals for a suggested seven years; while the IRS is trying to audit much faster than that, and any inkling of fraud can be investigated at any time, you should be well and clear with originals kept that long.\",\n \"You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.\",\n \"Its best you start this venture as a Business entity. Whatever the customer pays you is your income. Whatever you pay to the hotel will be your expenses. Apart from this there will be other expenses. So essentially difference between your income and expense will be the profit of the entity and tax will be on the profit. If you do not want to start an Business entity and pay as an individual then please add the country tag, depending on the country there may different ways to account for the funds.\",\n \"\\\"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an \\\"\\\"allowable expense\\\"\\\", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 ).\\\"\",\n \"Of course you're reportable to the IRS. Your income is someone's expense, they'll report it if required. What you're probably asking is whether you need to pay any taxes in the US. If you're neither US citizen nor a green card holder, and you don't step foot to the US - you will probably not need to pay taxes there.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I have been a private tutor on and off for about 30 years, in three countries, so I understand your concerns! I always kept records as though it was a real business - even if I only had one student I kept records of dates/times/names, and also tracked where the money went (I never spent it straight up - it always got deposited to complete the paper trail; yes, this is paranoia on my part). I've never been asked to prove anything with regards this income (although I have no Canadian experience). It's always been a case of tell the tax folks and make sure my arse is covered if they come asking questions. Hope this helps."],"string":"[\n \"I have been a private tutor on and off for about 30 years, in three countries, so I understand your concerns! I always kept records as though it was a real business - even if I only had one student I kept records of dates/times/names, and also tracked where the money went (I never spent it straight up - it always got deposited to complete the paper trail; yes, this is paranoia on my part). I've never been asked to prove anything with regards this income (although I have no Canadian experience). It's always been a case of tell the tax folks and make sure my arse is covered if they come asking questions. Hope this helps.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":270,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"5254"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How do I calculate the quarterly returns of a stock index?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["392851","402466"],"string":"[\n \"392851\",\n \"402466\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["402466","354857","138487","563169","573928","220025","409434","476260","392851","242849","574974","438547","531066","276860","143302","96697","238817","422904","105391","8003","591089","408610","175107","599651","72141","235592","2810","559168","169754","83987","583913","489706","470687","550642","48952","117049","251824","589234","144005","131044","428315","181013","369762","99708","386309","170652","393987","553377","112223","173052","394715","154927","332567","475426","459351","14368","240519","368848","532616","90570","223277","285238","187583","403870","435096","204761","336284","501153","135176","88575","198606","245648","1699","76139","443689","575237","580586","412657","18939","239137","554734","159336","456667","197480","42390","521590","517637","573899","469599","501032","345217","457873","249360","44617","223823","21103","241101","565487","556235","491647"],"string":"[\n \"402466\",\n \"354857\",\n \"138487\",\n \"563169\",\n \"573928\",\n \"220025\",\n \"409434\",\n \"476260\",\n \"392851\",\n \"242849\",\n \"574974\",\n \"438547\",\n \"531066\",\n \"276860\",\n \"143302\",\n \"96697\",\n \"238817\",\n \"422904\",\n \"105391\",\n \"8003\",\n \"591089\",\n \"408610\",\n \"175107\",\n \"599651\",\n \"72141\",\n \"235592\",\n \"2810\",\n \"559168\",\n \"169754\",\n \"83987\",\n \"583913\",\n \"489706\",\n \"470687\",\n \"550642\",\n \"48952\",\n \"117049\",\n \"251824\",\n \"589234\",\n \"144005\",\n \"131044\",\n \"428315\",\n \"181013\",\n \"369762\",\n \"99708\",\n \"386309\",\n \"170652\",\n \"393987\",\n \"553377\",\n \"112223\",\n \"173052\",\n \"394715\",\n \"154927\",\n \"332567\",\n \"475426\",\n \"459351\",\n \"14368\",\n \"240519\",\n \"368848\",\n \"532616\",\n \"90570\",\n \"223277\",\n \"285238\",\n \"187583\",\n \"403870\",\n \"435096\",\n \"204761\",\n \"336284\",\n \"501153\",\n \"135176\",\n \"88575\",\n \"198606\",\n \"245648\",\n \"1699\",\n \"76139\",\n \"443689\",\n \"575237\",\n \"580586\",\n \"412657\",\n \"18939\",\n \"239137\",\n \"554734\",\n \"159336\",\n \"456667\",\n \"197480\",\n \"42390\",\n \"521590\",\n \"517637\",\n \"573899\",\n \"469599\",\n \"501032\",\n \"345217\",\n \"457873\",\n \"249360\",\n \"44617\",\n \"223823\",\n \"21103\",\n \"241101\",\n \"565487\",\n \"556235\",\n \"491647\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Here's a few demo steps, first calculating the year to date return, then calculating the Q4 quarterly return based on the cumulative returns for Q3 and Q4. It's fine to use closing price to closing price as return periods.","You could take these definitions from MSCI as an example of how to proceed. They calculate price indices (PR) and total return indices (including dividends). For performance benchmarks the net total return (NR) indices are usually the most relevant. In your example the gross total return (TR) is 25%. From the MSCI Index Defintions page :- The MSCI Price Indexes measure the price performance of markets without including dividends. On any given day, the price return of an index captures the sum of its constituents’ free float-weighted market capitalization returns. The MSCI Total Return Indexes measure the price performance of markets with the income from constituent dividend payments. The MSCI Daily Total Return (DTR) Methodology reinvests an index constituent’s dividends at the close of trading on the day the security is quoted ex-dividend (the ex-date). Two variants of MSCI Total Return Indices are calculated: With Gross Dividends: Gross total return indexes reinvest as much as possible of a company’s dividend distributions. The reinvested amount is equal to the total dividend amount distributed to persons residing in the country of the dividend-paying company. Gross total return indexes do not, however, include any tax credits. With Net Dividends: Net total return indexes reinvest dividends after the deduction of withholding taxes, using (for international indexes) a tax rate applicable to non-resident institutional investors who do not benefit from double taxation treaties.","Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result","If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.","( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago. Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2. That will give you total return over 12 months.","Since you have the balance at equal periods and the cash flows at the period ends, the best return calculation in this case is the true time-weighted return. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-weighted_return#Formulae So, notwithstanding some ambiguity about your figures, here is a calculation using the first three periods from your second table. Giving a total return over the three periods of -23.88% If the periods are months, multiply by four to annualise.","TWRR = (2012Q4 x 2013Q1 x 2013Q2) ^ (1/3) = ?? (1.1 * .809 * 1.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 or 4.7% return. No imaginary numbers needed. But. Your second line there is wrong $15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000 ? The $15K already contains the $4k, why did you subtract it again? This a homework problem?","\"This is the same answer as for your other question, but you can easily do this yourself: ( initial adjusted close / final adjusted close ) ^ ( 1 / ( # of years sampled) ) Note: \"\"# of years sampled\"\" can be a fraction, so the one week # of years sampled would be 1/52. Crazy to say, but yahoo finance is better at quick, easy, and free data. Just pick a security, go to historical prices, and use the \"\"adjusted close\"\". money.msn's best at presenting finances quick, easy, and cheap.\"","So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells.","Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.","Annualize quarterly returns: AR = (1+QR)^4 Where *QR* is a decimal return, e.g. 0.05. Standard deviations are similar: Annual SD = SD * sqrt(T) If you have quarterly deviations, *T=4*, if you have daily, *T=252*, etc. As an aside, for work with money riding on it, it is *not* okay to aggregate standard deviations if there's autocorrelation amongst observations at a smaller time scale. Volatility is often quoted this way and that's fine, but it is dangerous to do any sort of risk management with this and you'll require more due diligence. It's a good enough approximation for napkin math, though.","There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital.","\"This page from simplestockinvesting.com gives details of total returns for the S&P500 for each decade over the last 60 years, including total returns for the entire 60 year period. It is important to understand that, from an investors point of view, the total return includes both the change in index value (capital gain) plus dividends received. This total then needs to be adjusted for inflation to give the \"\"total real return\"\". As noted in the analysis provided, 44% of the total return from the S&P500 over the last 80 years comes from dividends. For the DowJones30, this site provides a calculator for total returns and inflation adjusted total returns for user selected periods. Finding comparable analysis for the NASDAQ market is more difficult. The NASDAQ market site provides gross values for total returns over fixed periods, but you will then need to do the arithmetic to calculate the equivalent average annual total returns. No inflation adjusted values for \"\"real\"\" returns are provided, so again you will need to combine inflation data from elsewhere and do the arithmetic.\"","However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%","\"Total Return is the percent change in value (including andy dividends) of an instrument. The \"\"trailing 12-month\"\" means that your starting point is the value 12 months ago. So the formula is: where V is the value of the instrument on the reference date, V0 is the value of the instrument 12 months prior to the reference date, and D is the amount of dividends paid between the two dates.\"","Technically you should take the quarterly dividend yield as a fraction, add one, take the cube root, and subtract one (and then multiple by the stock price, if you want a dollar amount per share rather than a rate). This is to account for the fact that you could have re-invested the monthly dividends and earned dividends on that reinvestment. However, the difference between this and just dividing by three is going to be negligible over the range of dividend rates that are realistically paid out by ordinary stocks.","Your example isn't consistent: Q1 end market value (EMV) is $15,750, then you take out $2,000 and say your Q2 BMV is $11,750? For the following demo calculations I'll assume you mean your Q2 BMV is $13,750, with quarterly returns as stated: 10%, 5%, 10%. The Q2 EMV is therefore $15,125. True time-weighted return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_time-weighted_rate_of_return The following methods have the advantage of not requiring interim valuations. Money-weighted return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return Logarithmic return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Logarithmic_or_continuously_compounded_return Modified Dietz return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Dietz_method Backcalculating the final value (v3) using the calculated returns show the advantage of the money-weighted return over the true time-weighted return.","How S&P 500 returns are calculated is jotted down here. You should follow the same methodology i.e. base-weighted aggregate methodology to calculate your own returns. Anything different and it would be an incorrect comparison.","MoneyChimp is great for this. It only offers full year returns, but it compounds the results correctly, including dividends. For mid year results, just adjust a bit based on the data you can find from Google or Yahoo to add some return (or loss) for the months.","Knowing the log return is useful - the log return can help you to work out the annual return over the period it was estimated - and this should be comparable between stocks. One should just be careful with the calculation so that allowance for dividends is made sensibly.",".INX (the S&P 500 index itself) does not include reinvested dividens. You can figure total return by going to Yahoo finance, historical data. Choose the start year, and end year. You should find that data for SPY (going back to 1993) will show an adjusted close, and takes dividends into account. This isn't perfect as SPY has a .09% expense ratio, but it's better than just the S&P index. One of the more popular Dow ETF is DIA, this will let you similarly track the Dow while accounting for dividends.","\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \"\"quarterly dividends,\"\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\"","If you just want to know total return, either as dollars or a percentage, just add up the total amount spent on buys and compare this to current value plus money received on sales. In this case, you spent (310 x $3.15 + $19.95) + (277 x $3.54 + $19.95). So your total investment is ... calculator please ... $1996.98. You received 200 x $4.75 on the sale minus the $19.95 = $930.05. The present value of your remaining shares is 387 x $6.06 = $2345.22. So you have realized plus unrealized value of $2345.22 + $930.05 = $3275.27. Assuming I didn't mix up numbers or make an arithmetic mistake, your dollar gain is $3275.27 - $1996.98 = $1278.29, which comes to 1278.29 / 1996.98 = 64%. If you want to know percentage gain as an annual rate, we'd have to know buy and sell dates, and with multiple buys and sells the calculation gets messier.","Points are index based. Simple take the total value of the stocks that compose the index, and set it equal to an arbitrary number. (Say 100 or 1000) This becomes your base. Each day, you recalculate the value of the index basket, and relate it to the base. So if our index on day 0 was 100, and the value of the basket went up 1%, the new index would be 101 points. For the example given, the percentage change would be (133.32 -133.68 ) / 133.68 * 100% = -0.27% Keep in mind that an index basket will change in composition over time. Assets are added and removed as the composition of the market changes. For example, the TSX index no longer includes Nortel, a stock that at one time made up a significant portion of the index. I'm not sure if a percentage drop in an index is really a meaningful statistic because of that. It is however, a good way of looking at an individual instrument.","> So: what do i do to have the monthly %change? I was thinking (last day of the mont CP - 1st day of the month OP)/ 1st day of the mont opening price. No, use the same day (usually month end) of each month (i.e. December 31 vs. January 31). Use closing prices only. Keep in mind, it may make more mathematical sense to use LN (natural logs) to determine %-change and standard deviation. The simplest way to compare the riskiness of each is just to compare St. Dev. You can, of course, go into more detail. If you want to impress your professor, look up the efficient frontier and make one for each portfolio.","R has really good package that lets you calculate the return of rebalanced portfolios. The package is called: PerformanceAnalytics (see: http://www.inside-r.org/packages/cran/PerformanceAnalytics/docs/Return.portfolio). I quickly wrote a small script for you that lets you do exactly what you want. Code: By default the portfolio is rebalanced to an equally weighted portfolio. It is also possible to rebalance your portfolio using custom weights. See the documentation on how to do this. In order for this code to work you need to have your data already in return terms. You can do this easily in Excel. Make sure your data in excel looks like this: Than export your data to a CSV file. Note: before you run the code make sure you have installed the package PerformanceAnalytics. You can do this as follows: Let me know if you have any questions regarding the above.","The author is using the simple Dietz method, (alternatively the modified Dietz), with the assumption that the net cash-flow occurs halfway through the time period. Let's say the time period is one year for illustration, so the cash-flow would be at the end of the second quarter. The money-weighted method gives a more accurate return, but has to be solved by trial-and-error or using a computer. The money-weighted return is 11.2718 % and the simple or modified Dietz return is 11.2676 %. When the sums are done backwards to check, the Dietz is half a dollar out with a final value of $11,999.50 while the money-weighted return recalculates exactly $12,000. It is worth pointing out that the return changes if the cash-flow is not in the middle of the time period. A case with the cash-flow at the end of Q3 is added to illustrate.","\"So, there is no truly \"\"correct\"\" way to calculate return. Professionals will often calculate many different rates of return depending on what they wish to understand about their portfolio. However, the two most common ways of calculating multi-period return though are time-weighted return and money-weighted return. I'll leave the details to this good Investopeadia article, but the big picture is time-weighted returns help you understand how the stock performed during the period in question independent of how you invested it it. Whereas money-weighted return helps you understand how you performed investing in the stock in question. From your question, it appears both methods would be useful in combination to help you evaluate your portfolio. Both methods should be fairly easy to calculate yourself in a spread sheet, but if you are interested there are plenty of examples of both in google docs on the web.\"","\"Good observation. In fact, the S&P index itself is guilty of not including dividends. So when you look at the index alone, the delta between any two points in time diverges, and the 20 return observed if one fails to include dividends is meaningless, in my my humble opinion. Yahoo finance will let you look at a stock ticker and offer you an \"\"adjusted close\"\" to include the dividend effect.\"","Thanks for showing me that. I can see it now. I have always used my formula, and even a senior at another company confirmed the way I calculated the returns. Luckily, I do not work with that manager, and he has his own model, and so do I. But he was pretty cool about it when I asked about his calculations.","\"Month to date For the month to date (MTD), the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 and the price on March 16th is $4.61 so the return is which can be written more simply as The position is 1000 shares valued at $4580 on Feb 28th, so the profit on the month to date is Calendar year to date For the calendar year to date (YTD), the price on Dec 31st is $4.60 and the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 so the return to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is 0.655022 % so the year to date return is or more directly So the 2011 YTD profit on 1000 shares valued at $4600 on Dec 31st is Year to date starting Dec 10th For the year to date starting Dec 10th, the starting value is and the value on Dec 31st is 1000 * $4.60 = $4600 so the return is $4600 / $4510 - 1 = 0.0199557 = 1.99557 % The year to date profit is therefore Note - YTD is often understood to mean calendar year to date. To cover all the bases state both, ie \"\"calendar YTD (2011)\"\" and \"\"YTD starting Dec 10th 2010\"\". Edit further to comment For the calendar year to date, with 200 shares sold on Jan 10th with the share price at $4.58, the return from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is The return from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is The profit on 1000 shares from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is $4600 * -0.00434783 = -$20 The profit on 800 shares from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is zero. The profit on 800 shares from Feb 28th to March 16th is So the year to date profit is $4.\"","The point of a total return index is that it already has accounted for the capital gains + coupon income. If you want to calculate it yourself you'll have to find the on-the-run 10y bond for each distinct period then string them together to calc your total return. Check XLTP if they have anything","There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.","If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.","Yes an index is by definition any arbitrary selection. In general, to measure performance there are 2 ways: By absolute return - meaning you want a positive return at all times ie. 10% is good. -1% is bad. By relative return - this means beating the benchmark. For example, if the benchmark returns -20% and your portfolio returns -10%, then it has delivered +10% relative returns as compared to the benchmark.","\"It's easy for me to look at an IRA, no deposits or withdrawal in a year, and compare the return to some index. Once you start adding transactions, not so easy. Here's a method that answers your goal as closely as I can offer: SPY goes back to 1993. It's the most quoted EFT that replicates the S&P 500, and you specifically asked to compare how the investment would have gone if you were in such a fund. This is an important distinction, as I don't have to adjust for its .09% expense, as you would have been subject to it in this fund. Simply go to Yahoo, and start with the historical prices. Easy to do this on a spreadsheet. I'll assume you can find all your purchases inc dates & dollars invested. Look these up and treat those dollars as purchases of SPY. Once the list is done, go back and look up the dividends, issues quarterly, and on the dividend date, add the shares it would purchase based on that day's price. Of course, any withdrawals get accounted for the same way, take out the number of SPY shares it would have bought. Remember to include the commission on SPY, whatever your broker charges. If I've missed something, I'm sure we'll see someone point that out, I'd be happy to edit that in, to make this wiki-worthy. Edit - due to the nature of comments and the inability to edit, I'm adding this here. Perhaps I'm reading the question too pedantically, perhaps not. I'm reading it as \"\"if instead of doing whatever I did, I invested in an S&P index fund, how would I have performed?\"\" To measure one's return against a benchmark, the mechanics of the benchmarks calculation are not needed. In a comment I offer an example - if there were an ETF based on some type of black-box investing for which the investments were not disclosed at all, only day's end pricing, my answer above still applies exactly. The validity of such comparisons is a different question, but the fact that the formulation of the EFT doesn't come into play remains. In my comment below which I removed I hypothesized an ETF name, not intending it to come off as sarcastic. For the record, if one wishes to start JoesETF, I'm ok with it.\"","To figure this out, you need to know the price per share then vs the price per share now. Google Finance will show you historical prices. For GOOG, the closing price on January 5, 2015 was $513.87. The price on December 31, 2015 was $758.88. Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated with this formula: ROI = (Proceeds from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment Using this formula, your return on investment would be 47.7%. Since the time period was one year, this number is already an annualized return. If the time period was different than one year, you would normally convert it to an annualized rate of return in order to compare it to other investments.","Treat each transaction as separate, with its own principal, its own gain, and its own number of days. Then the total annualized return is just a weighted average of each annualized return, with the weighting related to the number of shares in that transaction.","As I write this, the NASDAQ Composite is at 2790.00, down 6.14 points from yesterday. To calculate the percentage, you take 6.14 and divide by yesterday's close of 2796.14 to yield 0.22%. In your example, if SPY drops from 133.68 to 133.32, you use the difference of -0.36 and divide by the original, i.e. -0.36/133.68 = -0.27%. SPY is an ETF which you can invest in that tracks the S&P 500 index. Ideally, the index would have dropped the same percentage as SPY, but the points would be different (~10x higher). To answer your question about how one qualifies a point, it completely depends on the index being discussed. For example, the S&P 500 is a market-capitalization weighted index of the common stock of 500 large-cap US public companies. It is as if you owned every share of each of the 500 companies, then divide by some large constant to create a number that's easily understood mentally (i.e. 1330). The NASDAQ Composite used the same methodology but includes practically all stocks listed on the NASDAQ. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of 30 large-cap companies. It's final value is modified using a divisor known as the Dow Divisor, which accounts for stock splits and similar events that have occurred since a stock has joined the index. Thus, points when referring to an index do not typically represent dollars. Rather, they serve as a quantitative measure of how the market is doing based on the performance of the index constituents. ETFs like SPY add a layer of abstraction by creating an investible vehicle that ideally tracks the value of the underlying index directly. Finally, neither price nor index value is related to volume. Volume is a raw measurement of the total number of shares traded for a given stock or the aggregate for a given exchange. Hope this helps!","I found one such tool here: Point-to-Point Returns tool","Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all.","See the Moneychimp site. From 1934 to 2006, the S&P returned an 'average' 12.81%. But the CAGR was 11.26%. I wrote an article Average Return vs Compound Annual Growth to address this issue. Interesting that over time only a few funds have managed to get anywhere near this return, but the low cost indexer can get the long term CAGR minus .05% or so, if they wish.","\"There's no need for an index to have a currency as its purpose is not to act as an asset but rather to signal investors about the performance of a collection of stocks. An index can be price-weighted, meaning that its value equals the (arithmetic) average of the prices of each stock in the index. With no stock splits, the return on this index is the same as the return on a portfolio composed of one share of each stock. If there is a stock split, however instead of dividing by the number of stocks, as you normally would when taking the arithmetic average, you divide it by the number that will make the value of the index pre-stock-split (arithmetic average) equal to the value post stock split. Then use that dividing number for all periods until a new stock split occurs. An index can be value-weighted, meaning that its changes in value track the percentage changes in total market capitalization of the stocks in the index. Price weighted indexes ignore for \"\"firm size\"\" and percentage changes in price weighted indexes are not robust to stock-splits. Value weighted indexes take \"\"firm size\"\" into account and are robust to stock-splits. DJIA is price-weighted. S&P 500 is value-weighted.\"","This link does it ok: http://investexcel.net/1979/calculate-historical-volatility-excel/ Basically, you calculate percentage return by doing stock price now / stock price before. You're not calculating the rate of return hence no subtraction of 100%. The standard is to do this on a daily basis: stock price today / stock price yesterday. The most important and most misunderstood part is that you now have to analyze the data geometrically not arithmetically. To easily do this, convert all percentage returns with the natural log, ln(). Next, you take the standard deviation of all of those results, and apply exp(). This answers the title of your question. For convenience's sake, it's best to annualize since volatility (implied or statistical) is now almost always quoted annualized. There are ~240 trading days each year. You multiply your stdev() result by (240 / # of trading days per return) ^ 0.5, so if you're doing this for daily returns, multiply the stdev() result by 240^0.5; if you were doing it weekly, you'd want to multiply by (240 / ~5)^0.5; etc. This is your number for sigma. This answers the intent of your question. For black-scholes, you do not convert anything back with exp(); BS is already set up for geometric analysis, so you need to stay there. The reason why analysis is done geometrically is because the distribution of stock returns is assumed to be lognormal (even though it's really more like logLaplace).","This answer contains three assumptions: New Share Price: Old Share Price * 1.0125 Quarterly Dividend: (New Share Price*0.01) * # of Shares in Previous Quarter Number of Shares: Shares from Previous Quarter + Quarterly Dividend/New Share Price For example, starting from right after Quarter One: New share price: $20 * 1.0125 = 20.25 1000 shares @ $20.25 a share yields $20.25 * 0.01 * 1000 = $202.5 dividend New shares: $202.5/20.25 = 10 shares Quarter Two: New share price: $20.503 1010 shares @ 20.503 yields $20.503*0.01*1010 = $207.082 dividend New shares: $207.082/20.503 = 10.1 shares Repeat over many cycles: 8 Quarters (2 years): 1061.52 shares @ $21.548 a share 20 Quarters (5 years): 1196.15 shares @ $25.012 a share 40 Quarters (10 years): 1459.53 shares @ $32.066 a share Graphically this looks like this: It's late enough someone may want to check my math ;). But I'd also assert that a 5% growth rate and a 4% dividend rate is pretty optimistic.","\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"","I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return. The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time. TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!","\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"","At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? I think you are mixing things. There is no concept of interest or compounding in Mutual Funds. When you buy a mutual fund, it either appreciates in value or depreciates in value; both can happen depending on the time period you compare. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. The way you need to look at this is Given you started with $10,000 and its now $10,500 the return is 5%. Now if you want to calculate simple return or compounded return, you would have to calculate accordingly. You may potentially want to find a compounded return for ease of comparison with say a Bank FD interest rate or some other reason. So if $10,000 become $10,500 after one year and $11,000 after 2 year. The absolute return is 10%, the simple yearly return is 5%. Or the Simple rate of return for first year is 5% and for second year is 4.9%. Or the Average Year on Year return is 4.775%.","\"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \"\"average return\"\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \"\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\"\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\"","Do what's outlined here. The capital asset pricing model will reveal how an asset (a stock in this instance) performed relative to the market performance for that time period. This by itself will answer your assignment's question but allowing you to traverse much deeper in the intricate details of the field. You'll learn a few interesting things on the way! Good luck :)","While the S&P500 is not a total return index, there is an official total return S&P500 that includes reinvested dividends and which is typically used for benchmarking. For a long time it was not available for free, but it can currently be found on yahoo finance using the ticker ^SP500TR.","You simply add the dividend to the stock price when calculating its annual return. So for year one, instead of it would be","\"Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(\"\"symbol\"\", \"\"attribute\"\", \"\"start_date\"\", \"\"num_days|end_date\"\", \"\"interval\"\") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that.\"","A one year period of study - Stock A trades at $100, and doesn't increase in value, but has $10 in dividends over the period. Stock B starts at $100, no dividend, and ends at $105. However you account for this, it would be incorrect to ignore stock A's 10% return over the period. To flip to a real example, MoneyChimp shows the S&P return from Jan 1980 to Dec 2012 as +3264% yet, the index only rose from 107.94 to 1426.19 or +1221%. The error expands with greater time and larger dividends involved, a good analysis won't ignore any dividends or splits.","Have you actually read the Wikipedia article? To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Early on, the initial divisor was composed of the original number of component companies; which made the DJIA at first, a simple arithmetic average. The present divisor, after many adjustments, is less than one (meaning the index is larger than the sum of the prices of the components). That is: DJIA = sum(p) / d where p are the prices of the component stocks and d is the Dow Divisor. Events such as stock splits or changes in the list of the companies composing the index alter the sum of the component prices. In these cases, in order to avoid discontinuity in the index, the Dow Divisor is updated so that the quotations right before and after the event coincide: DJIA = sum(p_old) / d_old = sum(p_new) / d_new The Dow Divisor was 0.14602128057775 on December 24, 2015.[40] Presently, every $1 change in price in a particular stock within the average, equates to a 6.848 (or 1 ÷ 0.14602128057775) point movement. Knowing the old prices, new prices (e.g. following a split), and old divisor, you can easily compute the new divisor... Edit: Also, the detailed methodology is published by SP Indices (PDF). Edit #2: For simplicity's sake, assume the DJIA is an index that contains 4 stocks, with a price of $100.00 each. One of the stocks splits 2:1, meaning the new price/share is $50.00. Plugging the numbers into the above equation, we can determine the new Dow Divisor: 400 / 4 = 350 / d => d = 3.5","I have asked myself this exact same question many times. The analysis would be simple if you invested all your money in a single day, but I did not and therefore I would need to convert your cash transactions into Index fund buys/sells. I got tired of trying to do this using Yahoo's data and excel so I built a website in my spare time. I humbly suggest you try my website out in the hopes that it helps you perform this computation: http://www.amibeatingthemarket.com/","What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.","At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.","The adjusted close price takes into account stock splits (and possibly dividends). You want to look at the adjusted close price. Calculating percentage changes gets computationally tricky because you need to account for splits and dividends.","The return from one day to the next is based on the Day's closing price. To be clear - opening prices can be quite different from the prior day close. In your example, they are pretty close, but this is not always the case. Just pull a larger data set to observe this. The above aside, dividends are not reflected in the index, so, after a dividend has occurred, you'd need to account for this if you are looking for true total return. In 2011, the S&P closed at 1257.60 vs a 2010 year end 1257.64. The return, however was 2.11%, not zero, after accounting for the dividends. To me, articles that suggest the yearly return was zero are inaccurate and misleading.","Yes, if your IRR is 5% per annum after three years then the total return (I prefer total rather than your use of actual) over those three years is 15.76%. Note that if you have other cashflows in and out, it gets a bit more complicated (e.g. using the XIRR function in Excel), but the idea is to find an effective annual percentage return that you're getting for your money.","\"Compounding is just the notion that the current period's growth (or loss) becomes the next period's principal. So, applied to stocks, your beginning value, plus growth (or loss) in value, plus any dividends, becomes the beginning value for the next period. Your value is compounded as you measure the performance of the investment over time. Dividends do not participate in the compounding unless you reinvest them. Compound interest is just the principle of compounding applied to an amount owed, either by you, or to you. You have a balance with which a certain percentage is calculated each period and is added to the balance. The new balance is used to calculate the next period's interest, which again adds to the balance, etc. Obviously, it's better to be on the receiving end of a compound interest calculation than on the paying end. Interest bearing investments, like bonds, pay simple interest. Like stock dividends, you would have to invest the interest in something else in order to get a compounding effect. When using a basic calculator tool for stocks, you would include the expected average annual growth rate plus the expected annual dividend rate as your \"\"interest\"\" rate. For bonds you would use the coupon rate plus the expected rate of return on whatever you put the interest into as the \"\"interest\"\" rate. Factoring in risk, you would just have to pick a different rate for a simple calculator, or use a more complex tool that allows for more variables over time. Believe it or not, this is where you would start seeing all that calculus homework pay off!\"","Fund performance at NAV (%) for latest quarter, YTD, and average annual total returns for 1, 3, 5, 10 years. P/E ratio (1 yr. forecast), P/B ratio, Beta, Sharpe ratio, Wtd. avg. market cap, fund assets. I guess I would want to calculate all these things based off of the data that I would be working with. I will assume I am working with daily fund values per share over 10+ years.","You are looking for the Internal Rate of Return. If you have a spreadsheet like Microsoft Excel you can simply put in a list of the transactions (every time money went in or out) and their dates, and the spreadsheet's XIRR function will calculate a percentage rate of return. Here's a simple example. Investment 1 was 100,000 which is now worth 104,930 so it's made about 5% per year. Investment 2 is much more complicated, money was going in and out, but the internal rate of return was 7% so money in that investment, on average, grew faster than money in the first investment.","\"You can calculate the \"\"return on investment\"\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\"","\"the \"\"how\"\" all depends on your level of computer savvy. Are you an Excel spreadsheet user or can you write in programming languages such as python? Either approach have math functions that make the calculation of ROI and Volatility trivial. If you're a python coder, then look up \"\"pandas\"\" (http://pandas.pydata.org/) - it handles a lot of the book-keeping and downloading of end of day equities data. With a dozen lines of code, you can compute ROI and volatility.\"","\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"","\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \"\"time weighted\"\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \"\"investor return\"\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \"\"beating the market\"\" (or \"\"matching the market\"\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \"\"the point\"\" - I feel \"\"the point\"\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\"","\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"","The number you are trying to calculate is called the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Google Spreadsheets (and excel) both have an XIRR function that can do this for you fairly simply. Setup a spreadsheet with 1 column for dates, 1 column for investment. Mark your investments as negative numbers (payment to invest). All investments will be negative. Mark your last row with today's date and today's valuation (positive). All withdrawals will be positive, so you are pretending to withdrawal your entire account for the purpose of calculation. Do not record dividends or other interim returns unless you are actually withdrawing money. The XIRR function will calculate your internal rate of return with irregularly timed investments. Links: Article explaining XIRR function (sample spreadsheet in google docs to modify)","It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.","\"The TWRR calculation will work even with negative values: TWRR = (1 + 0.10) x (1 + (-0.191) ) x (1 + 0.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 which is a 4.7% return. Your second question concerns the -19% return calculated for the second quarter. You seem to think this return is \"\"way-off\"\". Not really. The TWRR calculates a return by accounting for cash that was added or deducted to/from the account. So if I started with $100,000, added $10,000 to the account, and ended up with $110,000, what should be the return on my investment? My answer would be 0% since the only reason my account balance went up was due to me adding cash to it. Therefore, if I started with $100,000, added $10,000 in cash to the account, and ended up with $100,000 in my account, then my return would be a negative value since I lost the $10,000 that I deposited in the account. In the second quarter you started with $15,000, deposited $4,000, and ended with $15,750. You essentially lost almost all of the $4,000 you deposited. That is a significant loss.\"","It depends on what stocks you invest in or whether you invest in an index, as all stocks are not created equally. If you prefer to invest directly into individual stocks and you choose ones that are financially health and trending upwards, you should be able to easily outperform any indexes and get your 30% return much quicker. But you always need to make sure that you have a stop loss placed on all of your stocks, because even the best performing companies can go through bad patches. The stop loss prevents you from losing all your capital if the share price suddenly starts going south and turns into a downtrend.","\"The author is using an approximation to what you have exactly, which is called a \"\"true\"\" time-weighted rate of return. You have expressed the total time-weighted return for the period in question. In order to express this as an annual rate, you may annualize it by adding one, raising to the 1/y power, and subtracting one again, for a period of y years. The alternative to a time-weighted return is a money-weighted return, which is actually another name for the internal rate of return.\"","Indices such as SP500 are typically including dividends - the payment of dividends doesn't impact the value of the index. Where can I find data on these dividends? I found data on dividend yields, but these give me access only to the sum of dividends over the last year. This in turn can change either because there are new dividends being paid, or because you stop counting last year's dividends...","A couple ideas: Use excel - it has an IRR (internal rate of return) that can handle a table of inputs as you describe, along with dates deposited to give you a precise number. Go simple - track total deposits over the year, assume half of that was present in January. So, for example, your account started the year with $10k, ended with $15k, but you deposited $4k over the year. It should be clear the return (gain) is $1k, right? But it's not 10%, as you added during the year. I'd divide $1k/$12k for an 8.3% return. Not knowing how your deposits were structured, the true number lies between the 10% and 6.7% as extremes. You'll find as you get older and have a higher balance, this fast method gaining accuracy, as your deposits are a tinier fraction of your account and likely spread out pretty smoothly over the year anyway.","Prices are adjusted for return and not payout. So if you take the ratio of the close price and the adjusted close price, it should remain constant. The idea behind a total return (back-)adjustment is to give you a feeling how much money you would have needed back then to reach the price today under the premise that all distributions (dividends, spin-offs, etc.) are reinvested instantly and that reinvestment doesn't cost anything.","Average rates of return usually assume compounding, so your formula would be for annual compounding ,or for continuous compounding.","If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price.","A good way to measure the performance of your investments is over the long term. 25-30% returns are easy to get! It's not going to be 25-30% in a single year, though. You shouldn't expect more than about 4% real (inflation-adjusted) return per year, on average, over the long term, unless you have reason to believe that you're doing a better job of predicting the market than the intellectual and investment might of Wall Street - which is possible, but hard. (Pro tip: It's actually quite easy to outdo the market at large over the short term just by getting lucky or investing in risky askets in a good year. Earning this sort of return consistently over many years, though, is stupidly hard. Usually you'll wipe out your gains several years into the process, instead.) The stock market fluctuates like crazy, which is why they tell you not to invest any money you're likely to need sooner than about 5 years out and you switch your portfolio from stocks to bonds as you approach and enter retirement. The traditional benchmark for comparison, as others have mentioned, is the rate of return (including dividends) from the Standard and Poors 500 Index. These are large stable companies which make up the core of larger United States business. (Most people supplement these with some smaller companies and overseas companies as a part of the portfolio.)","\"To try and address your 'how' it goes a bit like this. You need to first assess how your stuff is invested, if for example half is in stocks, and the other half is in bonds, then you will need to calculate a 'blended' rate for what are reasonable 'average return' for both. That might mean looking at the S&P500 or Russell 3000 for the stock portion, and some bond index for that portion, then 'blend the rates', in this case using a formula like this then compare the blended rate with the return in your IRA. It is generally a lot more useful to compare the various components of your total return separately, especially if you investing with a particular style such as 'agressive growth' or you are buying actual bonds and not a bond fund since most of the bond oriented indexes are for bond funds, which you can't really compare well with buying and holding bonds to maturity. Lets say your stock side was two mutual funds with different styles, one 'large cap' the other 'aggressive growth'. In that case you might want to compare each one of those funds with an appropriate index such as those provided by Morningstar If you find one of them is consistently below the average, you might want to consider finding an alternative fund who's manager has a better track record (bearing in mind that \"\"past performance....\"\") For me (maybe someone has a good suggestion here) bonds are the hard thing to judge. The normal goal of actually owning bonds (as opposed to a fund) is to retain the entire principal value because there's no principal fluctuation if you hold the bond to maturity (as long as you choose well and the issuer doesn't default) The actual value 'right now' of a bond (as in selling before maturity) and bond funds, goes up and down in an inverse relationship with interest rates. That means the indexes for such things also go up and down a lot, so it's very hard to compare them to a bond you intend to hold to maturity. Also, for such a bond, there's not a lot of point to 'switch out' unless you are worried about the issuer defaulting. If rates are up from what you are getting on your bonds, then you'll have to sell your bond at a discount, and all that happens is you'll end up holding a different bond that is worth less, but has higher interest (basically the net return is likely to be pretty much the same). The better approach there is generally to 'ladder' your maturity dates so you get opportunities to reinvest at whatever the prevailing rates are, without having to sell at a discount.. anyway the point is that I'm not sure there's a lot of value to comparing return on the bond portion of an IRA unless it's invested in bond funds (which a lot of people wanting to preserve principal tend to avoid)\"","You've flipped the numerator and denominator around, and need to multiply by 100 to get percentage rather than 10: I like to use a simple example to assess reasonableness of an approach, if you had invested $100 and after 1 year had $150, your approach would yield: But since $50 is half of $100, we know the rate of return should be 50%, so we know that approach is off. But, flipping the numerator and denominator and multiplying by 100 gets us the 50% we expected: Edit: Good catch by @DJohnM you've called it 9 years, but it's actually 11, so you'd want to adjust accordingly.","\"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \"\"per share\"\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\"","The total number of shares on April 1st is 100 + 180 + 275 = 555. The price on April 1st is required. The current price is stated as $2, but $2 * 555 = $1110 and the current fund values is stated as $1500. Opting to take the current value as $1500, the price on April 1st can be calculated as $1500/555 = $2.7027. The amounts invested as number of shares x share price are: (Note these investment amounts do not match the example scenario's investment amounts, presumably because the example numbers are just made up.) The monthly returns can be calculated: The current values for each investor as invested amount x returns are: Checking the total:","You probably want the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return which is the compound interest rate that would produce your return. You can compute it in a spreadsheet with XIRR(), I made an example: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvuTW2HtDQfYdEsxVlM0RFdrRk1QS1hoNURxZkVFN3c&hl=en You can also use a financial calculator, or there are probably lots of web-based calculators such as the ones people have mentioned.","\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"","The formula you're looking for is Thus, from 3% p.a. you get ca. 0.247% per month. However, as you see 0.25% is a good approximation (generally, small rates give good approximation).","The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return.","From Wikipedia - To calculate the value of the S&P 500 Index, the sum of the adjusted market capitalization of all 500 stocks is divided by a factor, usually referred to as the Divisor. For example, if the total adjusted market cap of the 500 component stocks is US$13 trillion and the Divisor is set at 8.933 billion, then the S&P 500 Index value would be 1,455.28. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the divisor is not canceling out the units, and the S&P index is dollar denominated even though it's never quoted that way. A case in point is that the S&P is often said to have a P/E, and especially an E, the earnings attributed to one 'unit' of S&P. And if you buy a mutual fund sporting a low expense ratio, you can invest exactly that much money (the current S&P index value) and see the dividends accrue to your account, less the fee.","Right, that's my understanding of the problem too. I tried some of the indices last night (not necessarily the ones you are suggesting), but when pulling them into COMP it only provided the price return, not the total return including coupons. This latter part is still the challenge.","One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero. For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index. Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways. Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't. Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.","You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.","\"There are no guarantees in the stock market. The index fund can send you a prospectus which shows what their results have been over the past decade or so, or you can find that info on line, but \"\"past results are not a guarantee of future performance\"\". Returns and risk generally trade off against each other; trying for higher than average results requires accepting higher than usual risk, and you need to decide which types of investments, in what mix, balance those in a way you are comfortable with. Reinvested dividends are exactly the same concept as compounded interest in a bank account. That is, you get the chance to earn interest on the interest, and then interest on the interest on the interest; it's a (slow) exponential growth curve, not just linear. Note that this applies to any reinvestment of gains, not just automatic reinvestment back into the same fund -- but automatic reinvestment is very convenient as a default. This is separate from increase in value due to growth in value of the companies. Yes, you will get a yearly report with the results, including the numbers needed for your tax return. You will owe income tax on any dividends or sales of shares. Unless the fund is inside a 401k or IRA, it's just normal property and you can sell or buy shares at any time and in any amount. Of course the advantage of investing through those special retirement accounts is advantageous tax treatment, which is why they have penalties if you use the money before retirement. Re predicting results: Guesswork and rule of thumb and hope that past trends continue a bit longer. Really the right answer is not to try to predict precise numbers, but to make a moderately conservative guess, hope you do at least that well, and be delighted if you do better... And to understand that you can lose value, and that losses often correct themselves if you can avoid having to sell until prices have recovered. You can, of course, compute historical results exactly, since you know how much you put in when, how much you took out when, and how much is in the account now. You can either look at how rate of return varied over time, or just compute an average rate of return; both approaches can be useful when trying to compare one fund against another... I get an approximate version of this reported by my financial management software, but mostly ignore it except for amusement and to reassure myself that things are behaving approximately as expected. (As long as I'm outperforming what I need to hit my retirement goals, I'm happy enough and unwilling to spend much more time on it... and my plans were based on fairly conservative assumptions.) If you invest $3k, it grows at whatever rate it grows, and ten years later you have $3k+X. If you then invest another $10k, you now have $3k+X+10k, all of which grows at whatever rate the fund now grows. When you go to sell shares or fractional shares, your profit has to be calculated based on when those specific shares were purchased and how much you paid for them versus when they were sold and how much you sold them for; this is a more annoying bit of record keeping and accounting than just reporting bank account interest, but many/most brokerages and investment banks will now do that work for you and report it at the end of the year for your taxes, as I mentioned.\"","PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.","\"Instead of using the actual index, use a mutual fund as a proxy for the index. Mutual funds will include dividend income, and usually report data on the value of a \"\"hypothetical $10,000 investment\"\" over the life of the fund. If you take those dollar values and normalize them, you should get what you want. There are so many different factors that feed into general trends that it will be difficult to draw conclusions from this sort of data. Things like news flow, earnings reporting periods, business cycles, geopolitical activity, etc all affect the various sectors of the economy differently.\"","\"A good measurement would be to compare to index's. Basically a good way to measure your self would be to ask \"\"If I put my money somewhere else how much better or worse would I have done?\"\" Mutual funds and Hedge funds use the SP500 as a bench mark. Some funds actually wave their fee if they do not outperform the SP or only take a fee on the portion that has outperformed the SP500. in today's economy i dont know how to expect such a return The economy is not a good benchmark on what to expect from the stock market. For example in 2009 by certain standards the economy was worse then today but in 2009 the market rallied a great deal so your returns should have reflected that. You can use the SP500 as a quick reference to compare your returns (this is also considered the \"\"standard\"\" for a quick comparison). The way you compare your performance is also dependent on how you invest your money. If you are outperforming the SP500 you are doing well. Many mutual funds DO NOT outperform the SP500. Edit Additional Info: Here is an article with more comprehensive information on how to gauge your performance. In the article is a link to a free tool from morning star. Use the Right Benchmark to Accurately Measure Investment Performance\"","ROI and volatility should be calculated over a representative period of time, for example 3 or 5 years, depending on data availability. The ROI is simple, for example, over 5 years:- For the 5 year annualised volatility you can refer to the ESMA SRRI methodology. Box 1 (page 3) m is the annualisation factor. Stock volatility calculated from weekly data should not be compared with volatility calculated from monthly data. Also, for reference: How to Calculate your Portfolio's Rate of Return","\"Well depends but \"\"on average\"\" the stock market has historically returned somewhere around 10% per year. Note, this can vary wildly from year to year see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500#Market_statistics So it would be roughly 2.8 years to get your 30% if you happen to get the average market return for those 3 years, but the chances of that happening exactly are slim to none. You could end up with +50% or -30% over that ~3 year period of time - so the calculation doesn't do you that much good for that short period of time, but if you are talking a span of 30 years then you could plan using that as a very rough ballpark. Good rule of thumb is you shouldn't put any money in the stock market you think you will need anytime in the next 5 years. Formula to figure out total gain would be Principal x (1+ rate of return) ^ years\"","\"What you are looking for is an indicator called the \"\"Rate of Change (Price)\"\". It provides a rolling % change in the price over the period you have chosen. Below is an example showing a price chart over the last 6 months with a 100 day Rate of Change indicator below the price chart.\""],"string":"[\n \"Here's a few demo steps, first calculating the year to date return, then calculating the Q4 quarterly return based on the cumulative returns for Q3 and Q4. It's fine to use closing price to closing price as return periods.\",\n \"You could take these definitions from MSCI as an example of how to proceed. They calculate price indices (PR) and total return indices (including dividends). For performance benchmarks the net total return (NR) indices are usually the most relevant. In your example the gross total return (TR) is 25%. From the MSCI Index Defintions page :- The MSCI Price Indexes measure the price performance of markets without including dividends. On any given day, the price return of an index captures the sum of its constituents’ free float-weighted market capitalization returns. The MSCI Total Return Indexes measure the price performance of markets with the income from constituent dividend payments. The MSCI Daily Total Return (DTR) Methodology reinvests an index constituent’s dividends at the close of trading on the day the security is quoted ex-dividend (the ex-date). Two variants of MSCI Total Return Indices are calculated: With Gross Dividends: Gross total return indexes reinvest as much as possible of a company’s dividend distributions. The reinvested amount is equal to the total dividend amount distributed to persons residing in the country of the dividend-paying company. Gross total return indexes do not, however, include any tax credits. With Net Dividends: Net total return indexes reinvest dividends after the deduction of withholding taxes, using (for international indexes) a tax rate applicable to non-resident institutional investors who do not benefit from double taxation treaties.\",\n \"Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result\",\n \"If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.\",\n \"( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago. Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2. That will give you total return over 12 months.\",\n \"Since you have the balance at equal periods and the cash flows at the period ends, the best return calculation in this case is the true time-weighted return. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-weighted_return#Formulae So, notwithstanding some ambiguity about your figures, here is a calculation using the first three periods from your second table. Giving a total return over the three periods of -23.88% If the periods are months, multiply by four to annualise.\",\n \"TWRR = (2012Q4 x 2013Q1 x 2013Q2) ^ (1/3) = ?? (1.1 * .809 * 1.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 or 4.7% return. No imaginary numbers needed. But. Your second line there is wrong $15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000 ? The $15K already contains the $4k, why did you subtract it again? This a homework problem?\",\n \"\\\"This is the same answer as for your other question, but you can easily do this yourself: ( initial adjusted close / final adjusted close ) ^ ( 1 / ( # of years sampled) ) Note: \\\"\\\"# of years sampled\\\"\\\" can be a fraction, so the one week # of years sampled would be 1/52. Crazy to say, but yahoo finance is better at quick, easy, and free data. Just pick a security, go to historical prices, and use the \\\"\\\"adjusted close\\\"\\\". money.msn's best at presenting finances quick, easy, and cheap.\\\"\",\n \"So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells.\",\n \"Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.\",\n \"Annualize quarterly returns: AR = (1+QR)^4 Where *QR* is a decimal return, e.g. 0.05. Standard deviations are similar: Annual SD = SD * sqrt(T) If you have quarterly deviations, *T=4*, if you have daily, *T=252*, etc. As an aside, for work with money riding on it, it is *not* okay to aggregate standard deviations if there's autocorrelation amongst observations at a smaller time scale. Volatility is often quoted this way and that's fine, but it is dangerous to do any sort of risk management with this and you'll require more due diligence. It's a good enough approximation for napkin math, though.\",\n \"There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital.\",\n \"\\\"This page from simplestockinvesting.com gives details of total returns for the S&P500 for each decade over the last 60 years, including total returns for the entire 60 year period. It is important to understand that, from an investors point of view, the total return includes both the change in index value (capital gain) plus dividends received. This total then needs to be adjusted for inflation to give the \\\"\\\"total real return\\\"\\\". As noted in the analysis provided, 44% of the total return from the S&P500 over the last 80 years comes from dividends. For the DowJones30, this site provides a calculator for total returns and inflation adjusted total returns for user selected periods. Finding comparable analysis for the NASDAQ market is more difficult. The NASDAQ market site provides gross values for total returns over fixed periods, but you will then need to do the arithmetic to calculate the equivalent average annual total returns. No inflation adjusted values for \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" returns are provided, so again you will need to combine inflation data from elsewhere and do the arithmetic.\\\"\",\n \"However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%\",\n \"\\\"Total Return is the percent change in value (including andy dividends) of an instrument. The \\\"\\\"trailing 12-month\\\"\\\" means that your starting point is the value 12 months ago. So the formula is: where V is the value of the instrument on the reference date, V0 is the value of the instrument 12 months prior to the reference date, and D is the amount of dividends paid between the two dates.\\\"\",\n \"Technically you should take the quarterly dividend yield as a fraction, add one, take the cube root, and subtract one (and then multiple by the stock price, if you want a dollar amount per share rather than a rate). This is to account for the fact that you could have re-invested the monthly dividends and earned dividends on that reinvestment. However, the difference between this and just dividing by three is going to be negligible over the range of dividend rates that are realistically paid out by ordinary stocks.\",\n \"Your example isn't consistent: Q1 end market value (EMV) is $15,750, then you take out $2,000 and say your Q2 BMV is $11,750? For the following demo calculations I'll assume you mean your Q2 BMV is $13,750, with quarterly returns as stated: 10%, 5%, 10%. The Q2 EMV is therefore $15,125. True time-weighted return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_time-weighted_rate_of_return The following methods have the advantage of not requiring interim valuations. Money-weighted return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return Logarithmic return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Logarithmic_or_continuously_compounded_return Modified Dietz return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Dietz_method Backcalculating the final value (v3) using the calculated returns show the advantage of the money-weighted return over the true time-weighted return.\",\n \"How S&P 500 returns are calculated is jotted down here. You should follow the same methodology i.e. base-weighted aggregate methodology to calculate your own returns. Anything different and it would be an incorrect comparison.\",\n \"MoneyChimp is great for this. It only offers full year returns, but it compounds the results correctly, including dividends. For mid year results, just adjust a bit based on the data you can find from Google or Yahoo to add some return (or loss) for the months.\",\n \"Knowing the log return is useful - the log return can help you to work out the annual return over the period it was estimated - and this should be comparable between stocks. One should just be careful with the calculation so that allowance for dividends is made sensibly.\",\n \".INX (the S&P 500 index itself) does not include reinvested dividens. You can figure total return by going to Yahoo finance, historical data. Choose the start year, and end year. You should find that data for SPY (going back to 1993) will show an adjusted close, and takes dividends into account. This isn't perfect as SPY has a .09% expense ratio, but it's better than just the S&P index. One of the more popular Dow ETF is DIA, this will let you similarly track the Dow while accounting for dividends.\",\n \"\\\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \\\"\\\"quarterly dividends,\\\"\\\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\\\"\",\n \"If you just want to know total return, either as dollars or a percentage, just add up the total amount spent on buys and compare this to current value plus money received on sales. In this case, you spent (310 x $3.15 + $19.95) + (277 x $3.54 + $19.95). So your total investment is ... calculator please ... $1996.98. You received 200 x $4.75 on the sale minus the $19.95 = $930.05. The present value of your remaining shares is 387 x $6.06 = $2345.22. So you have realized plus unrealized value of $2345.22 + $930.05 = $3275.27. Assuming I didn't mix up numbers or make an arithmetic mistake, your dollar gain is $3275.27 - $1996.98 = $1278.29, which comes to 1278.29 / 1996.98 = 64%. If you want to know percentage gain as an annual rate, we'd have to know buy and sell dates, and with multiple buys and sells the calculation gets messier.\",\n \"Points are index based. Simple take the total value of the stocks that compose the index, and set it equal to an arbitrary number. (Say 100 or 1000) This becomes your base. Each day, you recalculate the value of the index basket, and relate it to the base. So if our index on day 0 was 100, and the value of the basket went up 1%, the new index would be 101 points. For the example given, the percentage change would be (133.32 -133.68 ) / 133.68 * 100% = -0.27% Keep in mind that an index basket will change in composition over time. Assets are added and removed as the composition of the market changes. For example, the TSX index no longer includes Nortel, a stock that at one time made up a significant portion of the index. I'm not sure if a percentage drop in an index is really a meaningful statistic because of that. It is however, a good way of looking at an individual instrument.\",\n \"> So: what do i do to have the monthly %change? I was thinking (last day of the mont CP - 1st day of the month OP)/ 1st day of the mont opening price. No, use the same day (usually month end) of each month (i.e. December 31 vs. January 31). Use closing prices only. Keep in mind, it may make more mathematical sense to use LN (natural logs) to determine %-change and standard deviation. The simplest way to compare the riskiness of each is just to compare St. Dev. You can, of course, go into more detail. If you want to impress your professor, look up the efficient frontier and make one for each portfolio.\",\n \"R has really good package that lets you calculate the return of rebalanced portfolios. The package is called: PerformanceAnalytics (see: http://www.inside-r.org/packages/cran/PerformanceAnalytics/docs/Return.portfolio). I quickly wrote a small script for you that lets you do exactly what you want. Code: By default the portfolio is rebalanced to an equally weighted portfolio. It is also possible to rebalance your portfolio using custom weights. See the documentation on how to do this. In order for this code to work you need to have your data already in return terms. You can do this easily in Excel. Make sure your data in excel looks like this: Than export your data to a CSV file. Note: before you run the code make sure you have installed the package PerformanceAnalytics. You can do this as follows: Let me know if you have any questions regarding the above.\",\n \"The author is using the simple Dietz method, (alternatively the modified Dietz), with the assumption that the net cash-flow occurs halfway through the time period. Let's say the time period is one year for illustration, so the cash-flow would be at the end of the second quarter. The money-weighted method gives a more accurate return, but has to be solved by trial-and-error or using a computer. The money-weighted return is 11.2718 % and the simple or modified Dietz return is 11.2676 %. When the sums are done backwards to check, the Dietz is half a dollar out with a final value of $11,999.50 while the money-weighted return recalculates exactly $12,000. It is worth pointing out that the return changes if the cash-flow is not in the middle of the time period. A case with the cash-flow at the end of Q3 is added to illustrate.\",\n \"\\\"So, there is no truly \\\"\\\"correct\\\"\\\" way to calculate return. Professionals will often calculate many different rates of return depending on what they wish to understand about their portfolio. However, the two most common ways of calculating multi-period return though are time-weighted return and money-weighted return. I'll leave the details to this good Investopeadia article, but the big picture is time-weighted returns help you understand how the stock performed during the period in question independent of how you invested it it. Whereas money-weighted return helps you understand how you performed investing in the stock in question. From your question, it appears both methods would be useful in combination to help you evaluate your portfolio. Both methods should be fairly easy to calculate yourself in a spread sheet, but if you are interested there are plenty of examples of both in google docs on the web.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Good observation. In fact, the S&P index itself is guilty of not including dividends. So when you look at the index alone, the delta between any two points in time diverges, and the 20 return observed if one fails to include dividends is meaningless, in my my humble opinion. Yahoo finance will let you look at a stock ticker and offer you an \\\"\\\"adjusted close\\\"\\\" to include the dividend effect.\\\"\",\n \"Thanks for showing me that. I can see it now. I have always used my formula, and even a senior at another company confirmed the way I calculated the returns. Luckily, I do not work with that manager, and he has his own model, and so do I. But he was pretty cool about it when I asked about his calculations.\",\n \"\\\"Month to date For the month to date (MTD), the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 and the price on March 16th is $4.61 so the return is which can be written more simply as The position is 1000 shares valued at $4580 on Feb 28th, so the profit on the month to date is Calendar year to date For the calendar year to date (YTD), the price on Dec 31st is $4.60 and the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 so the return to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is 0.655022 % so the year to date return is or more directly So the 2011 YTD profit on 1000 shares valued at $4600 on Dec 31st is Year to date starting Dec 10th For the year to date starting Dec 10th, the starting value is and the value on Dec 31st is 1000 * $4.60 = $4600 so the return is $4600 / $4510 - 1 = 0.0199557 = 1.99557 % The year to date profit is therefore Note - YTD is often understood to mean calendar year to date. To cover all the bases state both, ie \\\"\\\"calendar YTD (2011)\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"YTD starting Dec 10th 2010\\\"\\\". Edit further to comment For the calendar year to date, with 200 shares sold on Jan 10th with the share price at $4.58, the return from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is The return from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is The profit on 1000 shares from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is $4600 * -0.00434783 = -$20 The profit on 800 shares from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is zero. The profit on 800 shares from Feb 28th to March 16th is So the year to date profit is $4.\\\"\",\n \"The point of a total return index is that it already has accounted for the capital gains + coupon income. If you want to calculate it yourself you'll have to find the on-the-run 10y bond for each distinct period then string them together to calc your total return. Check XLTP if they have anything\",\n \"There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.\",\n \"If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.\",\n \"Yes an index is by definition any arbitrary selection. In general, to measure performance there are 2 ways: By absolute return - meaning you want a positive return at all times ie. 10% is good. -1% is bad. By relative return - this means beating the benchmark. For example, if the benchmark returns -20% and your portfolio returns -10%, then it has delivered +10% relative returns as compared to the benchmark.\",\n \"\\\"It's easy for me to look at an IRA, no deposits or withdrawal in a year, and compare the return to some index. Once you start adding transactions, not so easy. Here's a method that answers your goal as closely as I can offer: SPY goes back to 1993. It's the most quoted EFT that replicates the S&P 500, and you specifically asked to compare how the investment would have gone if you were in such a fund. This is an important distinction, as I don't have to adjust for its .09% expense, as you would have been subject to it in this fund. Simply go to Yahoo, and start with the historical prices. Easy to do this on a spreadsheet. I'll assume you can find all your purchases inc dates & dollars invested. Look these up and treat those dollars as purchases of SPY. Once the list is done, go back and look up the dividends, issues quarterly, and on the dividend date, add the shares it would purchase based on that day's price. Of course, any withdrawals get accounted for the same way, take out the number of SPY shares it would have bought. Remember to include the commission on SPY, whatever your broker charges. If I've missed something, I'm sure we'll see someone point that out, I'd be happy to edit that in, to make this wiki-worthy. Edit - due to the nature of comments and the inability to edit, I'm adding this here. Perhaps I'm reading the question too pedantically, perhaps not. I'm reading it as \\\"\\\"if instead of doing whatever I did, I invested in an S&P index fund, how would I have performed?\\\"\\\" To measure one's return against a benchmark, the mechanics of the benchmarks calculation are not needed. In a comment I offer an example - if there were an ETF based on some type of black-box investing for which the investments were not disclosed at all, only day's end pricing, my answer above still applies exactly. The validity of such comparisons is a different question, but the fact that the formulation of the EFT doesn't come into play remains. In my comment below which I removed I hypothesized an ETF name, not intending it to come off as sarcastic. For the record, if one wishes to start JoesETF, I'm ok with it.\\\"\",\n \"To figure this out, you need to know the price per share then vs the price per share now. Google Finance will show you historical prices. For GOOG, the closing price on January 5, 2015 was $513.87. The price on December 31, 2015 was $758.88. Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated with this formula: ROI = (Proceeds from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment Using this formula, your return on investment would be 47.7%. Since the time period was one year, this number is already an annualized return. If the time period was different than one year, you would normally convert it to an annualized rate of return in order to compare it to other investments.\",\n \"Treat each transaction as separate, with its own principal, its own gain, and its own number of days. Then the total annualized return is just a weighted average of each annualized return, with the weighting related to the number of shares in that transaction.\",\n \"As I write this, the NASDAQ Composite is at 2790.00, down 6.14 points from yesterday. To calculate the percentage, you take 6.14 and divide by yesterday's close of 2796.14 to yield 0.22%. In your example, if SPY drops from 133.68 to 133.32, you use the difference of -0.36 and divide by the original, i.e. -0.36/133.68 = -0.27%. SPY is an ETF which you can invest in that tracks the S&P 500 index. Ideally, the index would have dropped the same percentage as SPY, but the points would be different (~10x higher). To answer your question about how one qualifies a point, it completely depends on the index being discussed. For example, the S&P 500 is a market-capitalization weighted index of the common stock of 500 large-cap US public companies. It is as if you owned every share of each of the 500 companies, then divide by some large constant to create a number that's easily understood mentally (i.e. 1330). The NASDAQ Composite used the same methodology but includes practically all stocks listed on the NASDAQ. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of 30 large-cap companies. It's final value is modified using a divisor known as the Dow Divisor, which accounts for stock splits and similar events that have occurred since a stock has joined the index. Thus, points when referring to an index do not typically represent dollars. Rather, they serve as a quantitative measure of how the market is doing based on the performance of the index constituents. ETFs like SPY add a layer of abstraction by creating an investible vehicle that ideally tracks the value of the underlying index directly. Finally, neither price nor index value is related to volume. Volume is a raw measurement of the total number of shares traded for a given stock or the aggregate for a given exchange. Hope this helps!\",\n \"I found one such tool here: Point-to-Point Returns tool\",\n \"Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all.\",\n \"See the Moneychimp site. From 1934 to 2006, the S&P returned an 'average' 12.81%. But the CAGR was 11.26%. I wrote an article Average Return vs Compound Annual Growth to address this issue. Interesting that over time only a few funds have managed to get anywhere near this return, but the low cost indexer can get the long term CAGR minus .05% or so, if they wish.\",\n \"\\\"There's no need for an index to have a currency as its purpose is not to act as an asset but rather to signal investors about the performance of a collection of stocks. An index can be price-weighted, meaning that its value equals the (arithmetic) average of the prices of each stock in the index. With no stock splits, the return on this index is the same as the return on a portfolio composed of one share of each stock. If there is a stock split, however instead of dividing by the number of stocks, as you normally would when taking the arithmetic average, you divide it by the number that will make the value of the index pre-stock-split (arithmetic average) equal to the value post stock split. Then use that dividing number for all periods until a new stock split occurs. An index can be value-weighted, meaning that its changes in value track the percentage changes in total market capitalization of the stocks in the index. Price weighted indexes ignore for \\\"\\\"firm size\\\"\\\" and percentage changes in price weighted indexes are not robust to stock-splits. Value weighted indexes take \\\"\\\"firm size\\\"\\\" into account and are robust to stock-splits. DJIA is price-weighted. S&P 500 is value-weighted.\\\"\",\n \"This link does it ok: http://investexcel.net/1979/calculate-historical-volatility-excel/ Basically, you calculate percentage return by doing stock price now / stock price before. You're not calculating the rate of return hence no subtraction of 100%. The standard is to do this on a daily basis: stock price today / stock price yesterday. The most important and most misunderstood part is that you now have to analyze the data geometrically not arithmetically. To easily do this, convert all percentage returns with the natural log, ln(). Next, you take the standard deviation of all of those results, and apply exp(). This answers the title of your question. For convenience's sake, it's best to annualize since volatility (implied or statistical) is now almost always quoted annualized. There are ~240 trading days each year. You multiply your stdev() result by (240 / # of trading days per return) ^ 0.5, so if you're doing this for daily returns, multiply the stdev() result by 240^0.5; if you were doing it weekly, you'd want to multiply by (240 / ~5)^0.5; etc. This is your number for sigma. This answers the intent of your question. For black-scholes, you do not convert anything back with exp(); BS is already set up for geometric analysis, so you need to stay there. The reason why analysis is done geometrically is because the distribution of stock returns is assumed to be lognormal (even though it's really more like logLaplace).\",\n \"This answer contains three assumptions: New Share Price: Old Share Price * 1.0125 Quarterly Dividend: (New Share Price*0.01) * # of Shares in Previous Quarter Number of Shares: Shares from Previous Quarter + Quarterly Dividend/New Share Price For example, starting from right after Quarter One: New share price: $20 * 1.0125 = 20.25 1000 shares @ $20.25 a share yields $20.25 * 0.01 * 1000 = $202.5 dividend New shares: $202.5/20.25 = 10 shares Quarter Two: New share price: $20.503 1010 shares @ 20.503 yields $20.503*0.01*1010 = $207.082 dividend New shares: $207.082/20.503 = 10.1 shares Repeat over many cycles: 8 Quarters (2 years): 1061.52 shares @ $21.548 a share 20 Quarters (5 years): 1196.15 shares @ $25.012 a share 40 Quarters (10 years): 1459.53 shares @ $32.066 a share Graphically this looks like this: It's late enough someone may want to check my math ;). But I'd also assert that a 5% growth rate and a 4% dividend rate is pretty optimistic.\",\n \"\\\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \\\"\\\"should be worth\\\"\\\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\\\"\",\n \"I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return. The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time. TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!\",\n \"\\\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \\\"\\\"monthly inflation data\\\"\\\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\\\"\",\n \"At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? I think you are mixing things. There is no concept of interest or compounding in Mutual Funds. When you buy a mutual fund, it either appreciates in value or depreciates in value; both can happen depending on the time period you compare. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. The way you need to look at this is Given you started with $10,000 and its now $10,500 the return is 5%. Now if you want to calculate simple return or compounded return, you would have to calculate accordingly. You may potentially want to find a compounded return for ease of comparison with say a Bank FD interest rate or some other reason. So if $10,000 become $10,500 after one year and $11,000 after 2 year. The absolute return is 10%, the simple yearly return is 5%. Or the Simple rate of return for first year is 5% and for second year is 4.9%. Or the Average Year on Year return is 4.775%.\",\n \"\\\"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \\\"\\\"average return\\\"\\\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \\\"\\\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\\\"\\\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\\\"\",\n \"Do what's outlined here. The capital asset pricing model will reveal how an asset (a stock in this instance) performed relative to the market performance for that time period. This by itself will answer your assignment's question but allowing you to traverse much deeper in the intricate details of the field. You'll learn a few interesting things on the way! Good luck :)\",\n \"While the S&P500 is not a total return index, there is an official total return S&P500 that includes reinvested dividends and which is typically used for benchmarking. For a long time it was not available for free, but it can currently be found on yahoo finance using the ticker ^SP500TR.\",\n \"You simply add the dividend to the stock price when calculating its annual return. So for year one, instead of it would be\",\n \"\\\"Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(\\\"\\\"symbol\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"attribute\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"start_date\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"num_days|end_date\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"interval\\\"\\\") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that.\\\"\",\n \"A one year period of study - Stock A trades at $100, and doesn't increase in value, but has $10 in dividends over the period. Stock B starts at $100, no dividend, and ends at $105. However you account for this, it would be incorrect to ignore stock A's 10% return over the period. To flip to a real example, MoneyChimp shows the S&P return from Jan 1980 to Dec 2012 as +3264% yet, the index only rose from 107.94 to 1426.19 or +1221%. The error expands with greater time and larger dividends involved, a good analysis won't ignore any dividends or splits.\",\n \"Have you actually read the Wikipedia article? To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Early on, the initial divisor was composed of the original number of component companies; which made the DJIA at first, a simple arithmetic average. The present divisor, after many adjustments, is less than one (meaning the index is larger than the sum of the prices of the components). That is: DJIA = sum(p) / d where p are the prices of the component stocks and d is the Dow Divisor. Events such as stock splits or changes in the list of the companies composing the index alter the sum of the component prices. In these cases, in order to avoid discontinuity in the index, the Dow Divisor is updated so that the quotations right before and after the event coincide: DJIA = sum(p_old) / d_old = sum(p_new) / d_new The Dow Divisor was 0.14602128057775 on December 24, 2015.[40] Presently, every $1 change in price in a particular stock within the average, equates to a 6.848 (or 1 ÷ 0.14602128057775) point movement. Knowing the old prices, new prices (e.g. following a split), and old divisor, you can easily compute the new divisor... Edit: Also, the detailed methodology is published by SP Indices (PDF). Edit #2: For simplicity's sake, assume the DJIA is an index that contains 4 stocks, with a price of $100.00 each. One of the stocks splits 2:1, meaning the new price/share is $50.00. Plugging the numbers into the above equation, we can determine the new Dow Divisor: 400 / 4 = 350 / d => d = 3.5\",\n \"I have asked myself this exact same question many times. The analysis would be simple if you invested all your money in a single day, but I did not and therefore I would need to convert your cash transactions into Index fund buys/sells. I got tired of trying to do this using Yahoo's data and excel so I built a website in my spare time. I humbly suggest you try my website out in the hopes that it helps you perform this computation: http://www.amibeatingthemarket.com/\",\n \"What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.\",\n \"At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.\",\n \"The adjusted close price takes into account stock splits (and possibly dividends). You want to look at the adjusted close price. Calculating percentage changes gets computationally tricky because you need to account for splits and dividends.\",\n \"The return from one day to the next is based on the Day's closing price. To be clear - opening prices can be quite different from the prior day close. In your example, they are pretty close, but this is not always the case. Just pull a larger data set to observe this. The above aside, dividends are not reflected in the index, so, after a dividend has occurred, you'd need to account for this if you are looking for true total return. In 2011, the S&P closed at 1257.60 vs a 2010 year end 1257.64. The return, however was 2.11%, not zero, after accounting for the dividends. To me, articles that suggest the yearly return was zero are inaccurate and misleading.\",\n \"Yes, if your IRR is 5% per annum after three years then the total return (I prefer total rather than your use of actual) over those three years is 15.76%. Note that if you have other cashflows in and out, it gets a bit more complicated (e.g. using the XIRR function in Excel), but the idea is to find an effective annual percentage return that you're getting for your money.\",\n \"\\\"Compounding is just the notion that the current period's growth (or loss) becomes the next period's principal. So, applied to stocks, your beginning value, plus growth (or loss) in value, plus any dividends, becomes the beginning value for the next period. Your value is compounded as you measure the performance of the investment over time. Dividends do not participate in the compounding unless you reinvest them. Compound interest is just the principle of compounding applied to an amount owed, either by you, or to you. You have a balance with which a certain percentage is calculated each period and is added to the balance. The new balance is used to calculate the next period's interest, which again adds to the balance, etc. Obviously, it's better to be on the receiving end of a compound interest calculation than on the paying end. Interest bearing investments, like bonds, pay simple interest. Like stock dividends, you would have to invest the interest in something else in order to get a compounding effect. When using a basic calculator tool for stocks, you would include the expected average annual growth rate plus the expected annual dividend rate as your \\\"\\\"interest\\\"\\\" rate. For bonds you would use the coupon rate plus the expected rate of return on whatever you put the interest into as the \\\"\\\"interest\\\"\\\" rate. Factoring in risk, you would just have to pick a different rate for a simple calculator, or use a more complex tool that allows for more variables over time. Believe it or not, this is where you would start seeing all that calculus homework pay off!\\\"\",\n \"Fund performance at NAV (%) for latest quarter, YTD, and average annual total returns for 1, 3, 5, 10 years. P/E ratio (1 yr. forecast), P/B ratio, Beta, Sharpe ratio, Wtd. avg. market cap, fund assets. I guess I would want to calculate all these things based off of the data that I would be working with. I will assume I am working with daily fund values per share over 10+ years.\",\n \"You are looking for the Internal Rate of Return. If you have a spreadsheet like Microsoft Excel you can simply put in a list of the transactions (every time money went in or out) and their dates, and the spreadsheet's XIRR function will calculate a percentage rate of return. Here's a simple example. Investment 1 was 100,000 which is now worth 104,930 so it's made about 5% per year. Investment 2 is much more complicated, money was going in and out, but the internal rate of return was 7% so money in that investment, on average, grew faster than money in the first investment.\",\n \"\\\"You can calculate the \\\"\\\"return on investment\\\"\\\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"the \\\"\\\"how\\\"\\\" all depends on your level of computer savvy. Are you an Excel spreadsheet user or can you write in programming languages such as python? Either approach have math functions that make the calculation of ROI and Volatility trivial. If you're a python coder, then look up \\\"\\\"pandas\\\"\\\" (http://pandas.pydata.org/) - it handles a lot of the book-keeping and downloading of end of day equities data. With a dozen lines of code, you can compute ROI and volatility.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \\\"\\\"patient buyer\\\"\\\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \\\"\\\"representative sample.\\\"\\\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \\\"\\\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\\\"\\\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \\\"\\\"time weighted\\\"\\\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \\\"\\\"investor return\\\"\\\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \\\"\\\"beating the market\\\"\\\" (or \\\"\\\"matching the market\\\"\\\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \\\"\\\"the point\\\"\\\" - I feel \\\"\\\"the point\\\"\\\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \\\"\\\"loss\\\"\\\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \\\"\\\"Personal rate of return\\\"\\\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\\\"\",\n \"The number you are trying to calculate is called the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Google Spreadsheets (and excel) both have an XIRR function that can do this for you fairly simply. Setup a spreadsheet with 1 column for dates, 1 column for investment. Mark your investments as negative numbers (payment to invest). All investments will be negative. Mark your last row with today's date and today's valuation (positive). All withdrawals will be positive, so you are pretending to withdrawal your entire account for the purpose of calculation. Do not record dividends or other interim returns unless you are actually withdrawing money. The XIRR function will calculate your internal rate of return with irregularly timed investments. Links: Article explaining XIRR function (sample spreadsheet in google docs to modify)\",\n \"It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.\",\n \"\\\"The TWRR calculation will work even with negative values: TWRR = (1 + 0.10) x (1 + (-0.191) ) x (1 + 0.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 which is a 4.7% return. Your second question concerns the -19% return calculated for the second quarter. You seem to think this return is \\\"\\\"way-off\\\"\\\". Not really. The TWRR calculates a return by accounting for cash that was added or deducted to/from the account. So if I started with $100,000, added $10,000 to the account, and ended up with $110,000, what should be the return on my investment? My answer would be 0% since the only reason my account balance went up was due to me adding cash to it. Therefore, if I started with $100,000, added $10,000 in cash to the account, and ended up with $100,000 in my account, then my return would be a negative value since I lost the $10,000 that I deposited in the account. In the second quarter you started with $15,000, deposited $4,000, and ended with $15,750. You essentially lost almost all of the $4,000 you deposited. That is a significant loss.\\\"\",\n \"It depends on what stocks you invest in or whether you invest in an index, as all stocks are not created equally. If you prefer to invest directly into individual stocks and you choose ones that are financially health and trending upwards, you should be able to easily outperform any indexes and get your 30% return much quicker. But you always need to make sure that you have a stop loss placed on all of your stocks, because even the best performing companies can go through bad patches. The stop loss prevents you from losing all your capital if the share price suddenly starts going south and turns into a downtrend.\",\n \"\\\"The author is using an approximation to what you have exactly, which is called a \\\"\\\"true\\\"\\\" time-weighted rate of return. You have expressed the total time-weighted return for the period in question. In order to express this as an annual rate, you may annualize it by adding one, raising to the 1/y power, and subtracting one again, for a period of y years. The alternative to a time-weighted return is a money-weighted return, which is actually another name for the internal rate of return.\\\"\",\n \"Indices such as SP500 are typically including dividends - the payment of dividends doesn't impact the value of the index. Where can I find data on these dividends? I found data on dividend yields, but these give me access only to the sum of dividends over the last year. This in turn can change either because there are new dividends being paid, or because you stop counting last year's dividends...\",\n \"A couple ideas: Use excel - it has an IRR (internal rate of return) that can handle a table of inputs as you describe, along with dates deposited to give you a precise number. Go simple - track total deposits over the year, assume half of that was present in January. So, for example, your account started the year with $10k, ended with $15k, but you deposited $4k over the year. It should be clear the return (gain) is $1k, right? But it's not 10%, as you added during the year. I'd divide $1k/$12k for an 8.3% return. Not knowing how your deposits were structured, the true number lies between the 10% and 6.7% as extremes. You'll find as you get older and have a higher balance, this fast method gaining accuracy, as your deposits are a tinier fraction of your account and likely spread out pretty smoothly over the year anyway.\",\n \"Prices are adjusted for return and not payout. So if you take the ratio of the close price and the adjusted close price, it should remain constant. The idea behind a total return (back-)adjustment is to give you a feeling how much money you would have needed back then to reach the price today under the premise that all distributions (dividends, spin-offs, etc.) are reinvested instantly and that reinvestment doesn't cost anything.\",\n \"Average rates of return usually assume compounding, so your formula would be for annual compounding ,or for continuous compounding.\",\n \"If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price.\",\n \"A good way to measure the performance of your investments is over the long term. 25-30% returns are easy to get! It's not going to be 25-30% in a single year, though. You shouldn't expect more than about 4% real (inflation-adjusted) return per year, on average, over the long term, unless you have reason to believe that you're doing a better job of predicting the market than the intellectual and investment might of Wall Street - which is possible, but hard. (Pro tip: It's actually quite easy to outdo the market at large over the short term just by getting lucky or investing in risky askets in a good year. Earning this sort of return consistently over many years, though, is stupidly hard. Usually you'll wipe out your gains several years into the process, instead.) The stock market fluctuates like crazy, which is why they tell you not to invest any money you're likely to need sooner than about 5 years out and you switch your portfolio from stocks to bonds as you approach and enter retirement. The traditional benchmark for comparison, as others have mentioned, is the rate of return (including dividends) from the Standard and Poors 500 Index. These are large stable companies which make up the core of larger United States business. (Most people supplement these with some smaller companies and overseas companies as a part of the portfolio.)\",\n \"\\\"To try and address your 'how' it goes a bit like this. You need to first assess how your stuff is invested, if for example half is in stocks, and the other half is in bonds, then you will need to calculate a 'blended' rate for what are reasonable 'average return' for both. That might mean looking at the S&P500 or Russell 3000 for the stock portion, and some bond index for that portion, then 'blend the rates', in this case using a formula like this then compare the blended rate with the return in your IRA. It is generally a lot more useful to compare the various components of your total return separately, especially if you investing with a particular style such as 'agressive growth' or you are buying actual bonds and not a bond fund since most of the bond oriented indexes are for bond funds, which you can't really compare well with buying and holding bonds to maturity. Lets say your stock side was two mutual funds with different styles, one 'large cap' the other 'aggressive growth'. In that case you might want to compare each one of those funds with an appropriate index such as those provided by Morningstar If you find one of them is consistently below the average, you might want to consider finding an alternative fund who's manager has a better track record (bearing in mind that \\\"\\\"past performance....\\\"\\\") For me (maybe someone has a good suggestion here) bonds are the hard thing to judge. The normal goal of actually owning bonds (as opposed to a fund) is to retain the entire principal value because there's no principal fluctuation if you hold the bond to maturity (as long as you choose well and the issuer doesn't default) The actual value 'right now' of a bond (as in selling before maturity) and bond funds, goes up and down in an inverse relationship with interest rates. That means the indexes for such things also go up and down a lot, so it's very hard to compare them to a bond you intend to hold to maturity. Also, for such a bond, there's not a lot of point to 'switch out' unless you are worried about the issuer defaulting. If rates are up from what you are getting on your bonds, then you'll have to sell your bond at a discount, and all that happens is you'll end up holding a different bond that is worth less, but has higher interest (basically the net return is likely to be pretty much the same). The better approach there is generally to 'ladder' your maturity dates so you get opportunities to reinvest at whatever the prevailing rates are, without having to sell at a discount.. anyway the point is that I'm not sure there's a lot of value to comparing return on the bond portion of an IRA unless it's invested in bond funds (which a lot of people wanting to preserve principal tend to avoid)\\\"\",\n \"You've flipped the numerator and denominator around, and need to multiply by 100 to get percentage rather than 10: I like to use a simple example to assess reasonableness of an approach, if you had invested $100 and after 1 year had $150, your approach would yield: But since $50 is half of $100, we know the rate of return should be 50%, so we know that approach is off. But, flipping the numerator and denominator and multiplying by 100 gets us the 50% we expected: Edit: Good catch by @DJohnM you've called it 9 years, but it's actually 11, so you'd want to adjust accordingly.\",\n \"\\\"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \\\"\\\"per share\\\"\\\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\\\"\",\n \"The total number of shares on April 1st is 100 + 180 + 275 = 555. The price on April 1st is required. The current price is stated as $2, but $2 * 555 = $1110 and the current fund values is stated as $1500. Opting to take the current value as $1500, the price on April 1st can be calculated as $1500/555 = $2.7027. The amounts invested as number of shares x share price are: (Note these investment amounts do not match the example scenario's investment amounts, presumably because the example numbers are just made up.) The monthly returns can be calculated: The current values for each investor as invested amount x returns are: Checking the total:\",\n \"You probably want the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return which is the compound interest rate that would produce your return. You can compute it in a spreadsheet with XIRR(), I made an example: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvuTW2HtDQfYdEsxVlM0RFdrRk1QS1hoNURxZkVFN3c&hl=en You can also use a financial calculator, or there are probably lots of web-based calculators such as the ones people have mentioned.\",\n \"\\\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \\\"\\\"total return\\\"\\\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \\\"\\\"net return\\\"\\\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\\\"\",\n \"The formula you're looking for is Thus, from 3% p.a. you get ca. 0.247% per month. However, as you see 0.25% is a good approximation (generally, small rates give good approximation).\",\n \"The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return.\",\n \"From Wikipedia - To calculate the value of the S&P 500 Index, the sum of the adjusted market capitalization of all 500 stocks is divided by a factor, usually referred to as the Divisor. For example, if the total adjusted market cap of the 500 component stocks is US$13 trillion and the Divisor is set at 8.933 billion, then the S&P 500 Index value would be 1,455.28. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the divisor is not canceling out the units, and the S&P index is dollar denominated even though it's never quoted that way. A case in point is that the S&P is often said to have a P/E, and especially an E, the earnings attributed to one 'unit' of S&P. And if you buy a mutual fund sporting a low expense ratio, you can invest exactly that much money (the current S&P index value) and see the dividends accrue to your account, less the fee.\",\n \"Right, that's my understanding of the problem too. I tried some of the indices last night (not necessarily the ones you are suggesting), but when pulling them into COMP it only provided the price return, not the total return including coupons. This latter part is still the challenge.\",\n \"One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero. For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index. Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways. Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't. Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.\",\n \"You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.\",\n \"\\\"There are no guarantees in the stock market. The index fund can send you a prospectus which shows what their results have been over the past decade or so, or you can find that info on line, but \\\"\\\"past results are not a guarantee of future performance\\\"\\\". Returns and risk generally trade off against each other; trying for higher than average results requires accepting higher than usual risk, and you need to decide which types of investments, in what mix, balance those in a way you are comfortable with. Reinvested dividends are exactly the same concept as compounded interest in a bank account. That is, you get the chance to earn interest on the interest, and then interest on the interest on the interest; it's a (slow) exponential growth curve, not just linear. Note that this applies to any reinvestment of gains, not just automatic reinvestment back into the same fund -- but automatic reinvestment is very convenient as a default. This is separate from increase in value due to growth in value of the companies. Yes, you will get a yearly report with the results, including the numbers needed for your tax return. You will owe income tax on any dividends or sales of shares. Unless the fund is inside a 401k or IRA, it's just normal property and you can sell or buy shares at any time and in any amount. Of course the advantage of investing through those special retirement accounts is advantageous tax treatment, which is why they have penalties if you use the money before retirement. Re predicting results: Guesswork and rule of thumb and hope that past trends continue a bit longer. Really the right answer is not to try to predict precise numbers, but to make a moderately conservative guess, hope you do at least that well, and be delighted if you do better... And to understand that you can lose value, and that losses often correct themselves if you can avoid having to sell until prices have recovered. You can, of course, compute historical results exactly, since you know how much you put in when, how much you took out when, and how much is in the account now. You can either look at how rate of return varied over time, or just compute an average rate of return; both approaches can be useful when trying to compare one fund against another... I get an approximate version of this reported by my financial management software, but mostly ignore it except for amusement and to reassure myself that things are behaving approximately as expected. (As long as I'm outperforming what I need to hit my retirement goals, I'm happy enough and unwilling to spend much more time on it... and my plans were based on fairly conservative assumptions.) If you invest $3k, it grows at whatever rate it grows, and ten years later you have $3k+X. If you then invest another $10k, you now have $3k+X+10k, all of which grows at whatever rate the fund now grows. When you go to sell shares or fractional shares, your profit has to be calculated based on when those specific shares were purchased and how much you paid for them versus when they were sold and how much you sold them for; this is a more annoying bit of record keeping and accounting than just reporting bank account interest, but many/most brokerages and investment banks will now do that work for you and report it at the end of the year for your taxes, as I mentioned.\\\"\",\n \"PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.\",\n \"\\\"Instead of using the actual index, use a mutual fund as a proxy for the index. Mutual funds will include dividend income, and usually report data on the value of a \\\"\\\"hypothetical $10,000 investment\\\"\\\" over the life of the fund. If you take those dollar values and normalize them, you should get what you want. There are so many different factors that feed into general trends that it will be difficult to draw conclusions from this sort of data. Things like news flow, earnings reporting periods, business cycles, geopolitical activity, etc all affect the various sectors of the economy differently.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A good measurement would be to compare to index's. Basically a good way to measure your self would be to ask \\\"\\\"If I put my money somewhere else how much better or worse would I have done?\\\"\\\" Mutual funds and Hedge funds use the SP500 as a bench mark. Some funds actually wave their fee if they do not outperform the SP or only take a fee on the portion that has outperformed the SP500. in today's economy i dont know how to expect such a return The economy is not a good benchmark on what to expect from the stock market. For example in 2009 by certain standards the economy was worse then today but in 2009 the market rallied a great deal so your returns should have reflected that. You can use the SP500 as a quick reference to compare your returns (this is also considered the \\\"\\\"standard\\\"\\\" for a quick comparison). The way you compare your performance is also dependent on how you invest your money. If you are outperforming the SP500 you are doing well. Many mutual funds DO NOT outperform the SP500. Edit Additional Info: Here is an article with more comprehensive information on how to gauge your performance. In the article is a link to a free tool from morning star. Use the Right Benchmark to Accurately Measure Investment Performance\\\"\",\n \"ROI and volatility should be calculated over a representative period of time, for example 3 or 5 years, depending on data availability. The ROI is simple, for example, over 5 years:- For the 5 year annualised volatility you can refer to the ESMA SRRI methodology. Box 1 (page 3) m is the annualisation factor. Stock volatility calculated from weekly data should not be compared with volatility calculated from monthly data. Also, for reference: How to Calculate your Portfolio's Rate of Return\",\n \"\\\"Well depends but \\\"\\\"on average\\\"\\\" the stock market has historically returned somewhere around 10% per year. Note, this can vary wildly from year to year see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500#Market_statistics So it would be roughly 2.8 years to get your 30% if you happen to get the average market return for those 3 years, but the chances of that happening exactly are slim to none. You could end up with +50% or -30% over that ~3 year period of time - so the calculation doesn't do you that much good for that short period of time, but if you are talking a span of 30 years then you could plan using that as a very rough ballpark. Good rule of thumb is you shouldn't put any money in the stock market you think you will need anytime in the next 5 years. Formula to figure out total gain would be Principal x (1+ rate of return) ^ years\\\"\",\n \"\\\"What you are looking for is an indicator called the \\\"\\\"Rate of Change (Price)\\\"\\\". It provides a rolling % change in the price over the period you have chosen. Below is an example showing a price chart over the last 6 months with a 100 day Rate of Change indicator below the price chart.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells.","Here's a few demo steps, first calculating the year to date return, then calculating the Q4 quarterly return based on the cumulative returns for Q3 and Q4. It's fine to use closing price to closing price as return periods."],"string":"[\n \"So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells.\",\n \"Here's a few demo steps, first calculating the year to date return, then calculating the Q4 quarterly return based on the cumulative returns for Q3 and Q4. It's fine to use closing price to closing price as return periods.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":271,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6629"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Tax treatment of a boxed trade?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["444405"],"string":"[\n \"444405\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["267067","247902","99448","249687","123287","578022","154774","42521","552255","390864","211122","557181","233248","478600","333425","251394","361482","204388","91466","222320","178059","481283","232207","278460","350080","295153","530410","302735","163836","487256","443354","385310","161041","16187","581380","314200","581632","514970","569455","562481","428318","36341","34139","207788","430570","396180","137251","292065","330848","14364","89546","456436","543898","342411","431610","591157","423929","263312","264820","195767","115333","417295","259072","580429","252176","218460","537371","212312","72677","444405","530146","152960","526661","553253","289120","173133","227064","383287","19144","562904","265159","146177","482768","244061","175563","179855","87283","193485","50250","548705","361507","350317","406042","345793","149305","202645","435798","414454","441718","526714"],"string":"[\n \"267067\",\n \"247902\",\n \"99448\",\n \"249687\",\n \"123287\",\n \"578022\",\n \"154774\",\n \"42521\",\n \"552255\",\n \"390864\",\n \"211122\",\n \"557181\",\n \"233248\",\n \"478600\",\n \"333425\",\n \"251394\",\n \"361482\",\n \"204388\",\n \"91466\",\n \"222320\",\n \"178059\",\n \"481283\",\n \"232207\",\n \"278460\",\n \"350080\",\n \"295153\",\n \"530410\",\n \"302735\",\n \"163836\",\n \"487256\",\n \"443354\",\n \"385310\",\n \"161041\",\n \"16187\",\n \"581380\",\n \"314200\",\n \"581632\",\n \"514970\",\n \"569455\",\n \"562481\",\n \"428318\",\n \"36341\",\n \"34139\",\n \"207788\",\n \"430570\",\n \"396180\",\n \"137251\",\n \"292065\",\n \"330848\",\n \"14364\",\n \"89546\",\n \"456436\",\n \"543898\",\n \"342411\",\n \"431610\",\n \"591157\",\n \"423929\",\n \"263312\",\n \"264820\",\n \"195767\",\n \"115333\",\n \"417295\",\n \"259072\",\n \"580429\",\n \"252176\",\n \"218460\",\n \"537371\",\n \"212312\",\n \"72677\",\n \"444405\",\n \"530146\",\n \"152960\",\n \"526661\",\n \"553253\",\n \"289120\",\n \"173133\",\n \"227064\",\n \"383287\",\n \"19144\",\n \"562904\",\n \"265159\",\n \"146177\",\n \"482768\",\n \"244061\",\n \"175563\",\n \"179855\",\n \"87283\",\n \"193485\",\n \"50250\",\n \"548705\",\n \"361507\",\n \"350317\",\n \"406042\",\n \"345793\",\n \"149305\",\n \"202645\",\n \"435798\",\n \"414454\",\n \"441718\",\n \"526714\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.","If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.","\"Apparently box 39 does not receive half of box 38 if \"\"The price of the share or unit is less than its fair market value when the agreement was made.\"\" - the last point in paragraph 110(1)(d): *http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/fnncl/scrty/stckpt03-eng.html#dspst The employee can claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act if all of the following conditions are met:\"","You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.","This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.","\"You owe no tax on the option transaction in 2015 in this case. How you ultimately get taxed depends on how you dispose of the position. If it expires, then you will have a short-term capital gain on the option position at expiration. If it is exercised, then the option is \"\"gone\"\" for tax purposes and your basis in the underlying is adjusted. From IRS Publication 550: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. In your case, this will be a long-term capital gain. For completeness, if you buy to cover the option back from the market before expiration or exercise, then it is also a short-term capital gain. Also, keep in mind that this all assumes that this covered call is \"\"qualified\"\" so that it does not count as a straddle. You can find more about that in Pub 550. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010630 All of this is for US tax purposes.\"","For case 1, there is no tax due as you sold the book for less than your cost basis. If you had sold for more than $100, then you would have had a profit. For case 2, that depends on the value of the gift card with respect to the value of your fare. Most likely that gift card is less than the cost of the fare. And in that case it would generally be treated as a reduction in the purchase price. The same way that rebates and cash back on credit card are treated. Note if for some reason a 1099 was generated that would change the situation and you would need to consult a tax professional. Since that would indicate that the other party to the transaction had a different view of the situation.","\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"","The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.","I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.","In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).","No. Black Scholes includes a number of variables to calculate the value of the derivative but taxation isn't one of them. Whether you are trading options or futures, the dividend itelf may be part of the equation, but not the tax on said dividend.","(I'm assuming the tag of United-states is accurate) Yes, the remaining amount is tax free -- at the current price. If you sell at exactly the original price, there is no capital gain, no capital loss. So you've already payed the taxes. If you sell and there is a capital gain of $3000, then you will pay taxes on the $3000. If 33% is your marginal tax rate, and if you held the stock for less than a year, then you will keep $7000 and pay taxes of $1000. Somehow, I doubt your marginal tax rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year after eTrade sold some for you to pay taxes, then you will pay 15% on the gain -- or $450. eTrade sold the shares to pay the taxes generated by the income. Yes, those shares were considered income. If you sell and have a loss, well, life sucks. However, if you sell something else, you can use the loss to offset the other gain. So if you sell stock A for a loss of $3000, and sell stock B at a gain of $4000, then you pay taxes on the net of $1000.","\"The tax comes when you close the position. If the option expires worthless it's as if you bought it back for $0. There's a short-term capital gain for the difference between your short-sale price and your buyback price on the option. I believe the capital gain is always short-term because short sales are treated as short-term even if you hold them open more than one year. If the option is exercised (calling away your stock) then you add the premium to your sale price on the stock and then compute the capital gain. So in this case you can end up treating the premium as a long-term capital gain. See IRS pub 550 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010619 Search for \"\"Writers of puts and calls\"\"\"","As mentioned by Dilip, you need to provide more details. In general for transacting on stocks; Long Term: If you hold the stock for more than one year then its long term and not taxable. There is a STT [Securities Transaction Tax] that is already deducted/paid during buying and selling of a stock. Short Term: If you hold the stock for less than one year, it's short term gain. This can be adjusted against the short term loss for the financial year. The tax rate is 10%. Day Trading: Is same as short term from tax point of view. Unless you are doing it as a full time business. If you have purchased multiple quantities of same stock in different quantities and time, then when you selling you have to arrive at profit or loss on FIFO basis, ie First in First Out","The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable","Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss.","You likely received the shares as ordinary income for services of $10k, since they withheld taxes at granting. Separately, you likely had a short term capital loss on sale of $2k, since your holding period seems to have been under one year.","\"Gifts given and received between business partners or employers/employees are treated as income, if they are beyond minimal value. If your boss gives you a gift, s/he should include it as part of your taxable wages for payroll purposes - which means that some of your wages should be withheld to cover income, social security, and Medicare taxes on it. At the end of the year, the value of the gift should be included in Box 1 (wages) of your form W-2. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to do anything special. A 1099-MISC would not be appropriate because you are an employee of your boss - so the two of you need to address the full panoply of employment taxes, not just income tax, which would be the result if the payment were reported on 1099-MISC. If the employer wants to cover the cost to you of the taxes on the gift, they'll need to \"\"gross up\"\" your pay to cover it. Let's say your employer gives you a gift worth $100, and you're in a 25% tax bracket. Your employer has to give you $125 so that you end up with a gain of $100. But the extra $25 is taxable, too, so your employer will need to add on an extra $6.25 to cover the 25% tax on the $25. But, wait, now we've gotta pay 25% tax on the $6.25, so they add an extra $1.56 to cover that tax. And now they've gotta pay an extra $.39 . . . The formula to calculate the gross-up amount is: where [TAX RATE] is the tax rate expressed as a percentage. So, to get the grossed-up amount for a $100 gift in a 25% bracket, we'd calculate 1/(1-.25), or 1/.75, or 1.333, multiply that by the target gift amount of $100, and end up with $133.33. The equation is a little uglier if you have to pay state income taxes that are deductible on the federal return but it's a similar principle. The entire $133.33 would then be reported as income, but the net effect on the employee is that they're $100 richer after taxes. The \"\"gross-up\"\" idea can be quite complicated if you dig into the details - there are some circumstances where an additional few dollars of income can have an unexpected impact on a tax return, in a fashion not obvious from looking at the tax table. If the employer doesn't include the gift in Box 1 on the W-2 but you want to pay taxes on it anyway, include the amount in Line 7 on the 1040 as if it had been on a W-2, and fill out form 8919 to calculate the FICA taxes that should have been withheld.\"","\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \"\"adjust the basis\"\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \"\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\"\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\"","Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.","Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.","does it still count as a capital gain or loss? Yes. Is it essentially treated like you sold the stock at the price of the buy-out? Yes. Do you still get a 1099-B from your broker? Yes.","Flipping usually refers to real-estate transaction: you buy a property, improve/renovate/rehabilitate it and resell it quickly. The distinction between flipper and investor is similar to the distinction between trader and investor, even though the tax code doesn't explicitly refer to house flipping. Gains on house flipping can be considered as active business gain or passive activity income, which are treated differently: passive income goes on Schedule E and Schedule D, active income goes on Schedule C. The distinction between passive and active is based on the characteristics of the activity (hours you spent on it, among other things). Trading income can similarly be considered as either passive (Schedule D/E treatment) or active (Schedule C treatment). Here's what the IRS has to say about traders: Special rules apply if you are a trader in securities, in the business of buying and selling securities for your own account. This is considered a business, even though you do not maintain an inventory and do not have customers. To be engaged in business as a trader in securities, you must meet all of the following conditions: The following facts and circumstances should be considered in determining if your activity is a securities trading business: If the nature of your trading activities does not qualify as a business, you are considered an investor... Investor, in this context, means passive income treatment (Schedule D/E). However, even if your income is considered active (Schedule C), stock sale proceeds are not subject to the self-employment tax. As you can see, there's no specific definition, but the facts and circumstances matter. You may be considered a trader by the IRS, or you may not. You may want to be considered a trader (for example to be able to make a mark-to-market election), or you may not. You should talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for more details and suggestions.","Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/","\"Keep in mind that all of the information below assumes: That being said, here are some examples of national tax laws relating to barter transactions. Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list, but based on my grossly non-representative sample, I think it's fairly safe to assume that barter transactions are more likely taxable than not. You're referring to a barter system; in the United States, the IRS is very specific about this (see the section titled Bartering). Bartering is an exchange of property or services. The fair market value of goods and services exchanged is fully taxable and must be included on Form 1040 in the income of both parties. The IRS also provides more details: Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide or may provide under the bartering arrangement. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF). Refer to Topic 308 for amended return information. So yes, the net value of bartered goods or services is most likely taxable. According to the Australian Tax Office: Barter transactions are assessable and deductible for income tax purposes to the same extent as other cash or credit transactions. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs states that: If you supply services or goods (new or second-hand) and receive other goods or services in payment, there are two separate supplies: You must account for VAT, and so must your customer if they're VAT-registered. The VAT treatment is the same as for part-exchanges. You must both account for VAT on the amounts you would each have paid for the goods or services if there had been no barter and they had been paid for with money. Searching the website of the Federal Tax Service for the Russian/Cryllic word for barter (бартер) doesn't yield any results, but that might be because even between Google Translate and the rest of the internet, I don't speak Russian. That being said, I did manage to find this (translated from the first full paragraph of the Russian, beginning with \"\"Налог на доходы...\"\": The tax on personal income is paid by citizens of the Russian Federation with all types of income received by them in the calendar year, either in cash or in kind. Since bartering would probably qualify as an in kind transaction, it would likely be taxable. The South African Revenue Service includes barter transactions in the supply of goods taxed under the VAT. The term “supply” is defined very broadly and includes all forms of supply and any derivative of the term, irrespective of where the supply is effected. The term includes performance in terms of a sale, rental agreement, instalment credit agreement or barter transaction. Look for section 3.6, Supply and Taxable Supply, found on p17 of the current version of the linked document.\"","For the employee, this is an identical tax situation to an at-the-money option purchase. They're buying an asset with a specific cost basis. For the company, you are just issuing shares from treasury as authorized... debit cash, credit additional paid-in-capital and equity. There is no tax consequence for this money received.","I'm assuming this was a cashless exercise because you had income show up on your w-2. When I had a similar situation, I did the following: If you made $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in stock options then your W-2 now says $60,000. You'll record that on your taxes just like it was regular income. You'll also get a form that talks about your stock sale. But remember, you bought and sold the stock within seconds. Your forms will probably look like this: Bought stock: $10,000 Sold stock: $10,000 + $50 commission Total profit (loss): ($50) From the Turbotax/IRS view point, you lost $50 on the sale of the stock because you paid the commission, but the buy and sell prices were identical or nearly identical.","Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.","Generally speaking, you realize options gains or losses for (US) tax purposes when you close out the option position, or when it expires so in your example, if you're discussing an equity option, you'd realize the gain or loss next year, assuming you don't close it out prior to year end. But options tax treatment can get messy fast: Still, if you have no other stock or option positions in the underlying during or within 30 days of the establishment of the naked put, and assuming the option isn't assigned, you won't realize any gains or losses until the year in which the option is closed or expires.","Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.","Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.","ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.","The business and investment would be shown on separate parts of the tax return. (An exception to this is where an investment is related and part of your business, such as futures trading on business products) On the business side of it, you would show the transfer to the stocks as a draw from the business, the amount transferred would then be the cost base of the investment. For taxes, you only have to report gains or losses on investments.","You continue with this form. The fact that the trade in value is less than market value doesn't mean that you don't have taxable income from the sale. Since you depreciated the car before selling it, you need to compare the trade in value not to the market value, but to your cost basis, which may be lower.","If you received shares as part of a bonus you needed to pay income tax on the dollar valuse of those shares at the time you received them. This income tax is based on the dollar value of the bonus and has nothing to do with the shares. If you have since sold these shares you will need to report any capital gain or loss you made from their dollar value when you received them. If you made a gain you would need to pay capital gains tax on the profits (if you held them for more than a year you would get a discount on the capital gains tax you have to pay). If you made a loss you can use that capital loss to reduce any other capital gains in that income year, reduce any other income up to $3000 per year, or carry any additional capital loss forward to future income years to reduce any gains or income (up to $3000 per year) you do have in the future.","Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.","You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.","Work on your own site is certainly not relevant here, that's just a part of your trade, not a service you provided to yourself. The business received the benefit of that work, not you. Suppose your business sold televisions. If you took a TV from stock for your own lounge, that would be included in this box because you have effectively paid yourself with a TV rather than cash. If you take a TV from stock to use as a demo model, that's part of your trade and not goods you have taken out of the business for your own use. For services provided to your dad it's less clear. As Skaty said, it depends whether it's your business providing the service, or you personally. If you gave your dad a free TV then it would be clear that you have effectively paid yourself with another TV and then given it to your dad as a gift. With services it's less clear whether you're receiving services from the business for free. You might consider how it would be treated by your employer if you weren't self-employed. If you were just applying your skills to help your dad in your free time, your employer wouldn't care. If you used your employer's equipment or facilities, or hosted his site on a server that your employer pays for, your employer would be more likely to discipline you for effectively stealing services from them, as they would if you took a TV from their warehouse for him.","No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain. Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do.","Interesting. How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate? It's hard to imagine they do that. I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?","The purpose of the transfer determines the taxability. If this is happening to frequent, it is advisable to keep proper records of the transaction so that if there is an enquiry from Tax authorities you can explain. Unless you explain the why the transfer is being made, I have put out some broad categories.","Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.","\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"","\"Of course. The rationale is exactly the same as always: profit is taxed. The fact that you use intermediate barter to make that profit is irrelevant. To clarify, as it seems that you think it makes a difference that no money \"\"changed hands\"\". Consider this situation: So far your cost is $10000. How will the tax authority address this? They will look at the fair market value of the barter. You got gold worth of $20000. So from their perspective, you got $20000, and immediately exchanged it into gold. What does it mean for you? That you're taxed on the $10000 gain you made on your product X (the $20000 worth of barter that you received minus the $10000 worth of work/material/expenses that you spend on producing the merchandise), and that you have $20000 basis in the gold that you now own. If in a year, when you plan to sell the gold, its price drops - you can deduct investment losses. If its price goes up - you'll have investment gain. But for the gain you're making on your product X you will pay taxes now, because that's when you realized it - sold the merchandize and received in return something else of a value.\"","\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"","You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.","The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.","\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \"\"substantially identical\"\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\"","Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free.","If you have made $33k from winning trades and lost $30k from loosing trades your net gain for the year would be $3k, so obviously you would pay taxes only on the net $3k gains.","The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End.","The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html","If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.","You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant. So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.","Sale of a stock creates a capital gain. It can be offset with losses, up to $3000 more than the gains. It can be deferred when held within a retirement account. When you gift appreciated stock, the basis follows. So when I gifted my daughter's trust shares, there was still tax due upon sale. The kiddy tax helped reduce but not eliminate it. And there was no quotes around ownership. The money is gone, her account is for college. No 1031 exchange exists for stock.","If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.","\"The shares are \"\"imputed income\"\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \"\"US Person\"\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\"","\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"","@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.","With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.","If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).","What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.","It looks like what you're calling a name change was registered as a merger that resulted in an exchange of stock. If that's the case, then what you've been told is correct. You've got one long-term sale and one short-term sale. Based a quick read of the Form 8937 that was filed, it looks like there were multiple entities involved in this event, more than one of which existed prior to it. https://www.mylan.com/-/media/mylancom/files/form%208937%20for%20mylan%20n%20v.pdf","\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"","\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"","No Tax would have been deducted at the time of purchase/sale of shares. You would yourself be required to compute your tax liability and then pay taxes to the govt. In case the shares sold were held for less than 1 year - 15% tax on capital gains would be levied. In case the shares sold were held for more than 1 year - No Tax would be levied and the income earned would be tax free. PS: No Tax is levied at the time of purchase of shares and Tax is only applicable at the time of sale of shares.","Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.","\"if you buy back the now ITM calls, then you will have a short term loss. That pair of transactions is independent, from a tax perspective, of your long position (which was being used as \"\"collateral\"\" in the very case that occurred). I can see your tax situation and can see the logic of taking a short term loss to balance a short term gain. Referring to D Stanley's answer, #2 and #3 are not the same because you are paying intrinsic value in the options and the skew in #2, whereas #3 has no intrinsic value. Of course, because you can't know the future, the stock price could move higher or lower between #2 and #3. #1 presumes the stock continues to climb.\"","Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.","Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.","\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"","\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"","E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.","\"I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced. This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11. The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. \"\"On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock.\"\" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock. Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits. However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016. According to the IRS website \"\"When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received.\"\" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete. Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement \"\"A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received\"\" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date. However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016. Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments. To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes. They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones.\"","Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.","You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.","The original post's $16 has two errors: Here is the first scenario: . Tax Liability($) on Net . Cash # of Price Paper Realized Value Time: ($) Shares ($/sh) Profits Profits ($) 1. Start with: 100 - n/a - - 100 2. After buy 10@10$/sh: - 10 10 - - 100 3. Before selling: - 10 12 (5) - 115 4. After sell 10@12$/sh: 120 - n/a - (5) 115 5. After buy 12@10$/sh: - 12 10 - (5) 115 6. Before selling: - 12 12 (6) (5) 133 7. After sell 12@12$/sh: 144 - n/a - (11) 133 8. After buy 14@10$/sh: 4 14 10 - (11) 133 9. Before selling: 4 14 12 (7) (11) 154 10.After sell 14@12$/sh: 172 - n/a - (18) 154 At this point, assuming that all of the transactions occurred in the same fiscal year, and the realized profits were subject to a 25% short-term capital gains tax, you would owe $18 in taxes. Yes, this is 25% of $172 - $100.","The key point is from the penultimate sentence in your second paragraph: for which you have already paid taxes When you receive a dividend or realise a capital gain, you get taxed on that then, and you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it again in future. So the cost basis gets adjusted to reflect that.","From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.","The HMRC website says: Stock dividends are treated as income by virtue of CTA10/S1049, and taxable as savings income under Chapter 5 of Part 4 of ITTOIA05 (sections 409 to 414). ITTOIA05 is the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, and says: 409 Charge to tax on stock dividend income (1) Income tax is charged on stock dividend income. (2) In this Chapter “stock dividend income” means the income that is treated as arising under section 410. 411 Income charged (1) Tax is charged under this Chapter on the amount of stock dividend income treated for income tax purposes as arising in the tax year. (2) That amount is the cash equivalent of the share capital on the issue of which the stock dividend income arises (see section 412), grossed up by reference to the dividend ordinary rate for the tax year.","It looks like it has to deal with an expiration of rights as a taxable event. I found this link via google, which states that Not only does the PSEC shareholder have a TAXABLE EVENT, but he has TWO taxable events. The net effect of these two taxable events has DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES for DIFFERENT SHAREHOLDERS depending upon their peculiar TAX SITUATIONS. The CORRECT STATEMENT of the tax treatment of unexercised PYLDR rights is in the N-2 on page 32, which reads in relevant part as follows: “…, if you receive a Subscription Right from PSEC and do not sell or exercise that right before it expires, you should generally expect to have (1) taxable dividend income equal to the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC to the extent of PSEC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits and (2) a capital loss upon the expiration of such right in an amount equal to your adjusted tax basis (if any) in such right (which should generally equal the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC).” Please note, for quarterly “estimated taxes” purposes, that the DIVIDEND taxable events occur “ON THE DATE OF ITS DISTRIBUTION BY PSEC (my emphasis),” while the CAPITAL LOSS occurs “UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH RIGHT” (my emphasis). They do NOT occur on 31 December 2015 or some other date. However, to my knowledge, neither of the taxable events he mentions would be taxed by 4/15. If you are worried about it, I would recommend seeing a tax professional. Otherwise I'd wait to see the tax forms sent by your brokerage.","There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.","The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at","In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain! Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice.","\"While derivative pricing models are better modeling reality as academia invests more into the subject, none sufficiently do. If, for example, one assumes that stock returns are lognormal for the purposes of pricing options like Black Scholes does, the only true dependent variable becomes log-standard deviation otherwise known as \"\"volatility\"\", producing the infamous \"\"volatility smile\"\" which disappears in the cases of models with more factors accounting for other mathematical moments such as mean, skew, and kurtosis, etc. Still, these more advanced models are flawed, and suffer the same extreme time mispricing as Black Scholes. In other words, one can model anything however one wants, but the worse the model, the stranger the results since volatility for a given expiration should be constant across all strikes and is with better models. In the case of pricing dividends, these can be adjusted for the many complexities of taxation, but the model becomes ever more complex and extremely computationally expensive for each eventuality. Furthermore, with more complexity in any model, the likelihood of discovering a closed form in the short run is less. For equities in a low interest rate, not high dividend yield, not low volatility, low dividend tax environment, the standard swap pricing models will not provide results much different from one where a single low tax rate on dividends is assumed. If one is pricing a swap on equity outside of the bounds above, the dividend tax rate could have more of an effect, but for computational efficiency, applying a single assumed dividend tax rate would be optimal with D*(1-x), instead of D in a formula, where D is the dividend paid and x is the tax rate. In short, a closed form model is only as good as its assumptions, so if anomalies appear between the actual prices of swaps in the market and a swap model then that model is less correct than the one with smaller anomalies of the same type. In other words, if pricing equity swaps without a dividend tax rate factored more closely matches the actual prices than pricing with dividend taxes factored then it could be assumed that pricing without a dividend tax factored is superior. This all depends upon the data, and there doesn't seem to be much in academia to assist with a conclusion. If equity swaps do truly provide a tax advantage and both parties to a swap transaction are aware of this fact then it seems unlikely swap sellers wouldn't demand some of the tax advantage back in the form of a higher price. A model is no defense since volatility curves persist despite what Black Scholes says they should be.\"","You would not owe any taxes in the 2015 year, unless you got exercised and called away in 2015. The premium would be short term capital gains barring some other exception I'm not aware of, and if you retain a gain on the underlying shares then that would still be long term capital gains. If it gets called in say April 2016, is the premium+profit+dividends all long term capital gains for the year 2016? The profits are long term capital gains and the premium serves to lower your cost basis, dividends have their own conditions so you'll have to do separate research on that, fortunately they'll likely be negligible compared to the potential capital gains and options premium.","\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"","In addition to the adjustment type in NL7's answer, there are a host of others. If there are any adjustments, form 8949 is required, if not, the gains can be separated into short and long-term and added together to be entered on Schedule D. Anything requiring an adjustment code in column F of the 8949 requires an entry in column G. Some other example entries for column F include: (see the 8949 instructions for a complete list) **A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. (from Pub17)","This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.","The tax cost at election should be zero. The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income. §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it. If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes. That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade. The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election. The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income. This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable. It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election.","Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.","Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc.","\"Overall the question is one of a political nature. However, this component can have objective answers: \"\"What behavior is trying to be prevented?\"\" There are mechanisms by which capital gains can be deferred (1031 like-kind exchange, or simply holding a long position for years) or eliminated by the estate step up in basis. With these available, mechanisms that enable basis-reduction are ripe for abuse. On the other hand, if this truly bothers you then if you meet the IRS qualifications of a day trader, you may elect to use \"\"mark to market\"\" accounting, eliminating this entirely as a concern. Special rules for traders of securities\"","\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"","For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.","Well, you won't be double taxed based on what you described. Partners are taxed on income, typically distributions. Your gain in the partnership is not income. However, you were essentially given some money which you elected to invest in the partnership, so you need to pay tax on that money. The question becomes, are you being double taxed in another way? Your question doesn't explain how you invested, but pretty much the options are either a payroll deduction (some amount taken out of X paychecks or a bonus) or some other payment to you that was not treated as a payroll deduction. Given that you got a 1099, that suggests the latter. However, if the money was taken out as a payroll deduction - you've already paid taxes (via your W2)! So, I'd double check on that. Regarding why the numbers don't exactly match up - Your shares in the partnership likely transacted before the partnership valuation. Let's illustrate with an example. Say the partnership is currently worth $1000 with 100 outstanding shares. You put up $1000 and get 100 shares. Partnership is now worth $2000 with 200 outstanding shares. However, after a good year for the firm, it's valuation sets the firm's worth at $3000. Your gain is $1500 not $1000. You can also see if what happened was the firm's valuation went down, your gain would be less than your initial investment. If instead your shares transacted immediately after the valuation, then your gain and your cost to acquire the shares would be the same. So again, I'd suggest double checking on this - if your shares transacted after the valuation, there needs to be an explanation for the difference in your gain. For reference: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/incorporation-and-legal-structures/partnership-taxes.html And https://www.irs.gov/publications/p541/ar02.html Here you learn the purpose of the gain boxes on your K1 - tracking your capital basis should the partnership sell. Essentially, when the partnership is sold, you as a partner get some money. That money is then taxed. How much you pay will depend on what you received versus what the company was worth and whether your gain was long term or short term. This link doesn't go into that detail, but should give you a thread to pull. I'd also suggest reading more about partnerships and K1 and not just the IRS publications. Don't get me wrong, they're a good source of information, just also dense and sometimes tough to understand. Good luck and congrats.","\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"","This may be a good or a bad deal, depending on the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise. Let's assume the FMV is $6, which is the break even point. In general this would probably be treated as two transactions. So overall you would be cash neutral, but your regular tax income would be increased by $30,000 and your AMT income by $60,000.","An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive."],"string":"[\n \"In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.\",\n \"If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.\",\n \"\\\"Apparently box 39 does not receive half of box 38 if \\\"\\\"The price of the share or unit is less than its fair market value when the agreement was made.\\\"\\\" - the last point in paragraph 110(1)(d): *http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/fnncl/scrty/stckpt03-eng.html#dspst The employee can claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act if all of the following conditions are met:\\\"\",\n \"You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.\",\n \"This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.\",\n \"\\\"You owe no tax on the option transaction in 2015 in this case. How you ultimately get taxed depends on how you dispose of the position. If it expires, then you will have a short-term capital gain on the option position at expiration. If it is exercised, then the option is \\\"\\\"gone\\\"\\\" for tax purposes and your basis in the underlying is adjusted. From IRS Publication 550: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. In your case, this will be a long-term capital gain. For completeness, if you buy to cover the option back from the market before expiration or exercise, then it is also a short-term capital gain. Also, keep in mind that this all assumes that this covered call is \\\"\\\"qualified\\\"\\\" so that it does not count as a straddle. You can find more about that in Pub 550. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010630 All of this is for US tax purposes.\\\"\",\n \"For case 1, there is no tax due as you sold the book for less than your cost basis. If you had sold for more than $100, then you would have had a profit. For case 2, that depends on the value of the gift card with respect to the value of your fare. Most likely that gift card is less than the cost of the fare. And in that case it would generally be treated as a reduction in the purchase price. The same way that rebates and cash back on credit card are treated. Note if for some reason a 1099 was generated that would change the situation and you would need to consult a tax professional. Since that would indicate that the other party to the transaction had a different view of the situation.\",\n \"\\\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \\\"\\\"otherwise\\\"\\\" is substantial and far-ranging.\\\"\",\n \"The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.\",\n \"I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.\",\n \"In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).\",\n \"No. Black Scholes includes a number of variables to calculate the value of the derivative but taxation isn't one of them. Whether you are trading options or futures, the dividend itelf may be part of the equation, but not the tax on said dividend.\",\n \"(I'm assuming the tag of United-states is accurate) Yes, the remaining amount is tax free -- at the current price. If you sell at exactly the original price, there is no capital gain, no capital loss. So you've already payed the taxes. If you sell and there is a capital gain of $3000, then you will pay taxes on the $3000. If 33% is your marginal tax rate, and if you held the stock for less than a year, then you will keep $7000 and pay taxes of $1000. Somehow, I doubt your marginal tax rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year after eTrade sold some for you to pay taxes, then you will pay 15% on the gain -- or $450. eTrade sold the shares to pay the taxes generated by the income. Yes, those shares were considered income. If you sell and have a loss, well, life sucks. However, if you sell something else, you can use the loss to offset the other gain. So if you sell stock A for a loss of $3000, and sell stock B at a gain of $4000, then you pay taxes on the net of $1000.\",\n \"\\\"The tax comes when you close the position. If the option expires worthless it's as if you bought it back for $0. There's a short-term capital gain for the difference between your short-sale price and your buyback price on the option. I believe the capital gain is always short-term because short sales are treated as short-term even if you hold them open more than one year. If the option is exercised (calling away your stock) then you add the premium to your sale price on the stock and then compute the capital gain. So in this case you can end up treating the premium as a long-term capital gain. See IRS pub 550 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010619 Search for \\\"\\\"Writers of puts and calls\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"As mentioned by Dilip, you need to provide more details. In general for transacting on stocks; Long Term: If you hold the stock for more than one year then its long term and not taxable. There is a STT [Securities Transaction Tax] that is already deducted/paid during buying and selling of a stock. Short Term: If you hold the stock for less than one year, it's short term gain. This can be adjusted against the short term loss for the financial year. The tax rate is 10%. Day Trading: Is same as short term from tax point of view. Unless you are doing it as a full time business. If you have purchased multiple quantities of same stock in different quantities and time, then when you selling you have to arrive at profit or loss on FIFO basis, ie First in First Out\",\n \"The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable\",\n \"Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss.\",\n \"You likely received the shares as ordinary income for services of $10k, since they withheld taxes at granting. Separately, you likely had a short term capital loss on sale of $2k, since your holding period seems to have been under one year.\",\n \"\\\"Gifts given and received between business partners or employers/employees are treated as income, if they are beyond minimal value. If your boss gives you a gift, s/he should include it as part of your taxable wages for payroll purposes - which means that some of your wages should be withheld to cover income, social security, and Medicare taxes on it. At the end of the year, the value of the gift should be included in Box 1 (wages) of your form W-2. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to do anything special. A 1099-MISC would not be appropriate because you are an employee of your boss - so the two of you need to address the full panoply of employment taxes, not just income tax, which would be the result if the payment were reported on 1099-MISC. If the employer wants to cover the cost to you of the taxes on the gift, they'll need to \\\"\\\"gross up\\\"\\\" your pay to cover it. Let's say your employer gives you a gift worth $100, and you're in a 25% tax bracket. Your employer has to give you $125 so that you end up with a gain of $100. But the extra $25 is taxable, too, so your employer will need to add on an extra $6.25 to cover the 25% tax on the $25. But, wait, now we've gotta pay 25% tax on the $6.25, so they add an extra $1.56 to cover that tax. And now they've gotta pay an extra $.39 . . . The formula to calculate the gross-up amount is: where [TAX RATE] is the tax rate expressed as a percentage. So, to get the grossed-up amount for a $100 gift in a 25% bracket, we'd calculate 1/(1-.25), or 1/.75, or 1.333, multiply that by the target gift amount of $100, and end up with $133.33. The equation is a little uglier if you have to pay state income taxes that are deductible on the federal return but it's a similar principle. The entire $133.33 would then be reported as income, but the net effect on the employee is that they're $100 richer after taxes. The \\\"\\\"gross-up\\\"\\\" idea can be quite complicated if you dig into the details - there are some circumstances where an additional few dollars of income can have an unexpected impact on a tax return, in a fashion not obvious from looking at the tax table. If the employer doesn't include the gift in Box 1 on the W-2 but you want to pay taxes on it anyway, include the amount in Line 7 on the 1040 as if it had been on a W-2, and fill out form 8919 to calculate the FICA taxes that should have been withheld.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \\\"\\\"adjust the basis\\\"\\\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \\\"\\\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\\\"\\\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\\\"\",\n \"Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.\",\n \"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.\",\n \"does it still count as a capital gain or loss? Yes. Is it essentially treated like you sold the stock at the price of the buy-out? Yes. Do you still get a 1099-B from your broker? Yes.\",\n \"Flipping usually refers to real-estate transaction: you buy a property, improve/renovate/rehabilitate it and resell it quickly. The distinction between flipper and investor is similar to the distinction between trader and investor, even though the tax code doesn't explicitly refer to house flipping. Gains on house flipping can be considered as active business gain or passive activity income, which are treated differently: passive income goes on Schedule E and Schedule D, active income goes on Schedule C. The distinction between passive and active is based on the characteristics of the activity (hours you spent on it, among other things). Trading income can similarly be considered as either passive (Schedule D/E treatment) or active (Schedule C treatment). Here's what the IRS has to say about traders: Special rules apply if you are a trader in securities, in the business of buying and selling securities for your own account. This is considered a business, even though you do not maintain an inventory and do not have customers. To be engaged in business as a trader in securities, you must meet all of the following conditions: The following facts and circumstances should be considered in determining if your activity is a securities trading business: If the nature of your trading activities does not qualify as a business, you are considered an investor... Investor, in this context, means passive income treatment (Schedule D/E). However, even if your income is considered active (Schedule C), stock sale proceeds are not subject to the self-employment tax. As you can see, there's no specific definition, but the facts and circumstances matter. You may be considered a trader by the IRS, or you may not. You may want to be considered a trader (for example to be able to make a mark-to-market election), or you may not. You should talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for more details and suggestions.\",\n \"Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/\",\n \"\\\"Keep in mind that all of the information below assumes: That being said, here are some examples of national tax laws relating to barter transactions. Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list, but based on my grossly non-representative sample, I think it's fairly safe to assume that barter transactions are more likely taxable than not. You're referring to a barter system; in the United States, the IRS is very specific about this (see the section titled Bartering). Bartering is an exchange of property or services. The fair market value of goods and services exchanged is fully taxable and must be included on Form 1040 in the income of both parties. The IRS also provides more details: Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide or may provide under the bartering arrangement. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF). Refer to Topic 308 for amended return information. So yes, the net value of bartered goods or services is most likely taxable. According to the Australian Tax Office: Barter transactions are assessable and deductible for income tax purposes to the same extent as other cash or credit transactions. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs states that: If you supply services or goods (new or second-hand) and receive other goods or services in payment, there are two separate supplies: You must account for VAT, and so must your customer if they're VAT-registered. The VAT treatment is the same as for part-exchanges. You must both account for VAT on the amounts you would each have paid for the goods or services if there had been no barter and they had been paid for with money. Searching the website of the Federal Tax Service for the Russian/Cryllic word for barter (бартер) doesn't yield any results, but that might be because even between Google Translate and the rest of the internet, I don't speak Russian. That being said, I did manage to find this (translated from the first full paragraph of the Russian, beginning with \\\"\\\"Налог на доходы...\\\"\\\": The tax on personal income is paid by citizens of the Russian Federation with all types of income received by them in the calendar year, either in cash or in kind. Since bartering would probably qualify as an in kind transaction, it would likely be taxable. The South African Revenue Service includes barter transactions in the supply of goods taxed under the VAT. The term “supply” is defined very broadly and includes all forms of supply and any derivative of the term, irrespective of where the supply is effected. The term includes performance in terms of a sale, rental agreement, instalment credit agreement or barter transaction. Look for section 3.6, Supply and Taxable Supply, found on p17 of the current version of the linked document.\\\"\",\n \"For the employee, this is an identical tax situation to an at-the-money option purchase. They're buying an asset with a specific cost basis. For the company, you are just issuing shares from treasury as authorized... debit cash, credit additional paid-in-capital and equity. There is no tax consequence for this money received.\",\n \"I'm assuming this was a cashless exercise because you had income show up on your w-2. When I had a similar situation, I did the following: If you made $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in stock options then your W-2 now says $60,000. You'll record that on your taxes just like it was regular income. You'll also get a form that talks about your stock sale. But remember, you bought and sold the stock within seconds. Your forms will probably look like this: Bought stock: $10,000 Sold stock: $10,000 + $50 commission Total profit (loss): ($50) From the Turbotax/IRS view point, you lost $50 on the sale of the stock because you paid the commission, but the buy and sell prices were identical or nearly identical.\",\n \"Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.\",\n \"Generally speaking, you realize options gains or losses for (US) tax purposes when you close out the option position, or when it expires so in your example, if you're discussing an equity option, you'd realize the gain or loss next year, assuming you don't close it out prior to year end. But options tax treatment can get messy fast: Still, if you have no other stock or option positions in the underlying during or within 30 days of the establishment of the naked put, and assuming the option isn't assigned, you won't realize any gains or losses until the year in which the option is closed or expires.\",\n \"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.\",\n \"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.\",\n \"ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.\",\n \"The business and investment would be shown on separate parts of the tax return. (An exception to this is where an investment is related and part of your business, such as futures trading on business products) On the business side of it, you would show the transfer to the stocks as a draw from the business, the amount transferred would then be the cost base of the investment. For taxes, you only have to report gains or losses on investments.\",\n \"You continue with this form. The fact that the trade in value is less than market value doesn't mean that you don't have taxable income from the sale. Since you depreciated the car before selling it, you need to compare the trade in value not to the market value, but to your cost basis, which may be lower.\",\n \"If you received shares as part of a bonus you needed to pay income tax on the dollar valuse of those shares at the time you received them. This income tax is based on the dollar value of the bonus and has nothing to do with the shares. If you have since sold these shares you will need to report any capital gain or loss you made from their dollar value when you received them. If you made a gain you would need to pay capital gains tax on the profits (if you held them for more than a year you would get a discount on the capital gains tax you have to pay). If you made a loss you can use that capital loss to reduce any other capital gains in that income year, reduce any other income up to $3000 per year, or carry any additional capital loss forward to future income years to reduce any gains or income (up to $3000 per year) you do have in the future.\",\n \"Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.\",\n \"You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.\",\n \"Work on your own site is certainly not relevant here, that's just a part of your trade, not a service you provided to yourself. The business received the benefit of that work, not you. Suppose your business sold televisions. If you took a TV from stock for your own lounge, that would be included in this box because you have effectively paid yourself with a TV rather than cash. If you take a TV from stock to use as a demo model, that's part of your trade and not goods you have taken out of the business for your own use. For services provided to your dad it's less clear. As Skaty said, it depends whether it's your business providing the service, or you personally. If you gave your dad a free TV then it would be clear that you have effectively paid yourself with another TV and then given it to your dad as a gift. With services it's less clear whether you're receiving services from the business for free. You might consider how it would be treated by your employer if you weren't self-employed. If you were just applying your skills to help your dad in your free time, your employer wouldn't care. If you used your employer's equipment or facilities, or hosted his site on a server that your employer pays for, your employer would be more likely to discipline you for effectively stealing services from them, as they would if you took a TV from their warehouse for him.\",\n \"No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain. Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do.\",\n \"Interesting. How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate? It's hard to imagine they do that. I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?\",\n \"The purpose of the transfer determines the taxability. If this is happening to frequent, it is advisable to keep proper records of the transaction so that if there is an enquiry from Tax authorities you can explain. Unless you explain the why the transfer is being made, I have put out some broad categories.\",\n \"Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.\",\n \"\\\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \\\"\\\"wash sale\\\"\\\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Of course. The rationale is exactly the same as always: profit is taxed. The fact that you use intermediate barter to make that profit is irrelevant. To clarify, as it seems that you think it makes a difference that no money \\\"\\\"changed hands\\\"\\\". Consider this situation: So far your cost is $10000. How will the tax authority address this? They will look at the fair market value of the barter. You got gold worth of $20000. So from their perspective, you got $20000, and immediately exchanged it into gold. What does it mean for you? That you're taxed on the $10000 gain you made on your product X (the $20000 worth of barter that you received minus the $10000 worth of work/material/expenses that you spend on producing the merchandise), and that you have $20000 basis in the gold that you now own. If in a year, when you plan to sell the gold, its price drops - you can deduct investment losses. If its price goes up - you'll have investment gain. But for the gain you're making on your product X you will pay taxes now, because that's when you realized it - sold the merchandize and received in return something else of a value.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \\\"\\\"conversion\\\"\\\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\\\"\",\n \"You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.\",\n \"The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.\",\n \"\\\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free.\",\n \"If you have made $33k from winning trades and lost $30k from loosing trades your net gain for the year would be $3k, so obviously you would pay taxes only on the net $3k gains.\",\n \"The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End.\",\n \"The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html\",\n \"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.\",\n \"You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant. So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.\",\n \"Sale of a stock creates a capital gain. It can be offset with losses, up to $3000 more than the gains. It can be deferred when held within a retirement account. When you gift appreciated stock, the basis follows. So when I gifted my daughter's trust shares, there was still tax due upon sale. The kiddy tax helped reduce but not eliminate it. And there was no quotes around ownership. The money is gone, her account is for college. No 1031 exchange exists for stock.\",\n \"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.\",\n \"\\\"The shares are \\\"\\\"imputed income\\\"\\\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \\\"\\\"US Person\\\"\\\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \\\"\\\"inner\\\"\\\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\\\"\",\n \"@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.\",\n \"With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.\",\n \"If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).\",\n \"What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.\",\n \"It looks like what you're calling a name change was registered as a merger that resulted in an exchange of stock. If that's the case, then what you've been told is correct. You've got one long-term sale and one short-term sale. Based a quick read of the Form 8937 that was filed, it looks like there were multiple entities involved in this event, more than one of which existed prior to it. https://www.mylan.com/-/media/mylancom/files/form%208937%20for%20mylan%20n%20v.pdf\",\n \"\\\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \\\"\\\"ready made\\\"\\\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \\\"\\\"frequent trader\\\"\\\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \\\"\\\"startup\\\"\\\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\\\"\",\n \"No Tax would have been deducted at the time of purchase/sale of shares. You would yourself be required to compute your tax liability and then pay taxes to the govt. In case the shares sold were held for less than 1 year - 15% tax on capital gains would be levied. In case the shares sold were held for more than 1 year - No Tax would be levied and the income earned would be tax free. PS: No Tax is levied at the time of purchase of shares and Tax is only applicable at the time of sale of shares.\",\n \"Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.\",\n \"\\\"if you buy back the now ITM calls, then you will have a short term loss. That pair of transactions is independent, from a tax perspective, of your long position (which was being used as \\\"\\\"collateral\\\"\\\" in the very case that occurred). I can see your tax situation and can see the logic of taking a short term loss to balance a short term gain. Referring to D Stanley's answer, #2 and #3 are not the same because you are paying intrinsic value in the options and the skew in #2, whereas #3 has no intrinsic value. Of course, because you can't know the future, the stock price could move higher or lower between #2 and #3. #1 presumes the stock continues to climb.\\\"\",\n \"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.\",\n \"Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.\",\n \"\\\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \\\"\\\"loss\\\"\\\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \\\"\\\"short-term capital loss\\\"\\\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \\\"\\\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\\\"\\\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\\\"\",\n \"E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.\",\n \"\\\"I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced. This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11. The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. \\\"\\\"On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock.\\\"\\\" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock. Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits. However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016. According to the IRS website \\\"\\\"When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received.\\\"\\\" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete. Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement \\\"\\\"A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received\\\"\\\" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date. However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016. Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments. To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes. They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones.\\\"\",\n \"Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.\",\n \"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.\",\n \"The original post's $16 has two errors: Here is the first scenario: . Tax Liability($) on Net . Cash # of Price Paper Realized Value Time: ($) Shares ($/sh) Profits Profits ($) 1. Start with: 100 - n/a - - 100 2. After buy 10@10$/sh: - 10 10 - - 100 3. Before selling: - 10 12 (5) - 115 4. After sell 10@12$/sh: 120 - n/a - (5) 115 5. After buy 12@10$/sh: - 12 10 - (5) 115 6. Before selling: - 12 12 (6) (5) 133 7. After sell 12@12$/sh: 144 - n/a - (11) 133 8. After buy 14@10$/sh: 4 14 10 - (11) 133 9. Before selling: 4 14 12 (7) (11) 154 10.After sell 14@12$/sh: 172 - n/a - (18) 154 At this point, assuming that all of the transactions occurred in the same fiscal year, and the realized profits were subject to a 25% short-term capital gains tax, you would owe $18 in taxes. Yes, this is 25% of $172 - $100.\",\n \"The key point is from the penultimate sentence in your second paragraph: for which you have already paid taxes When you receive a dividend or realise a capital gain, you get taxed on that then, and you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it again in future. So the cost basis gets adjusted to reflect that.\",\n \"From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.\",\n \"The HMRC website says: Stock dividends are treated as income by virtue of CTA10/S1049, and taxable as savings income under Chapter 5 of Part 4 of ITTOIA05 (sections 409 to 414). ITTOIA05 is the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, and says: 409 Charge to tax on stock dividend income (1) Income tax is charged on stock dividend income. (2) In this Chapter “stock dividend income” means the income that is treated as arising under section 410. 411 Income charged (1) Tax is charged under this Chapter on the amount of stock dividend income treated for income tax purposes as arising in the tax year. (2) That amount is the cash equivalent of the share capital on the issue of which the stock dividend income arises (see section 412), grossed up by reference to the dividend ordinary rate for the tax year.\",\n \"It looks like it has to deal with an expiration of rights as a taxable event. I found this link via google, which states that Not only does the PSEC shareholder have a TAXABLE EVENT, but he has TWO taxable events. The net effect of these two taxable events has DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES for DIFFERENT SHAREHOLDERS depending upon their peculiar TAX SITUATIONS. The CORRECT STATEMENT of the tax treatment of unexercised PYLDR rights is in the N-2 on page 32, which reads in relevant part as follows: “…, if you receive a Subscription Right from PSEC and do not sell or exercise that right before it expires, you should generally expect to have (1) taxable dividend income equal to the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC to the extent of PSEC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits and (2) a capital loss upon the expiration of such right in an amount equal to your adjusted tax basis (if any) in such right (which should generally equal the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC).” Please note, for quarterly “estimated taxes” purposes, that the DIVIDEND taxable events occur “ON THE DATE OF ITS DISTRIBUTION BY PSEC (my emphasis),” while the CAPITAL LOSS occurs “UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH RIGHT” (my emphasis). They do NOT occur on 31 December 2015 or some other date. However, to my knowledge, neither of the taxable events he mentions would be taxed by 4/15. If you are worried about it, I would recommend seeing a tax professional. Otherwise I'd wait to see the tax forms sent by your brokerage.\",\n \"There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.\",\n \"The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at\",\n \"In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain! Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice.\",\n \"\\\"While derivative pricing models are better modeling reality as academia invests more into the subject, none sufficiently do. If, for example, one assumes that stock returns are lognormal for the purposes of pricing options like Black Scholes does, the only true dependent variable becomes log-standard deviation otherwise known as \\\"\\\"volatility\\\"\\\", producing the infamous \\\"\\\"volatility smile\\\"\\\" which disappears in the cases of models with more factors accounting for other mathematical moments such as mean, skew, and kurtosis, etc. Still, these more advanced models are flawed, and suffer the same extreme time mispricing as Black Scholes. In other words, one can model anything however one wants, but the worse the model, the stranger the results since volatility for a given expiration should be constant across all strikes and is with better models. In the case of pricing dividends, these can be adjusted for the many complexities of taxation, but the model becomes ever more complex and extremely computationally expensive for each eventuality. Furthermore, with more complexity in any model, the likelihood of discovering a closed form in the short run is less. For equities in a low interest rate, not high dividend yield, not low volatility, low dividend tax environment, the standard swap pricing models will not provide results much different from one where a single low tax rate on dividends is assumed. If one is pricing a swap on equity outside of the bounds above, the dividend tax rate could have more of an effect, but for computational efficiency, applying a single assumed dividend tax rate would be optimal with D*(1-x), instead of D in a formula, where D is the dividend paid and x is the tax rate. In short, a closed form model is only as good as its assumptions, so if anomalies appear between the actual prices of swaps in the market and a swap model then that model is less correct than the one with smaller anomalies of the same type. In other words, if pricing equity swaps without a dividend tax rate factored more closely matches the actual prices than pricing with dividend taxes factored then it could be assumed that pricing without a dividend tax factored is superior. This all depends upon the data, and there doesn't seem to be much in academia to assist with a conclusion. If equity swaps do truly provide a tax advantage and both parties to a swap transaction are aware of this fact then it seems unlikely swap sellers wouldn't demand some of the tax advantage back in the form of a higher price. A model is no defense since volatility curves persist despite what Black Scholes says they should be.\\\"\",\n \"You would not owe any taxes in the 2015 year, unless you got exercised and called away in 2015. The premium would be short term capital gains barring some other exception I'm not aware of, and if you retain a gain on the underlying shares then that would still be long term capital gains. If it gets called in say April 2016, is the premium+profit+dividends all long term capital gains for the year 2016? The profits are long term capital gains and the premium serves to lower your cost basis, dividends have their own conditions so you'll have to do separate research on that, fortunately they'll likely be negligible compared to the potential capital gains and options premium.\",\n \"\\\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \\\"\\\"new income\\\"\\\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\\\"\",\n \"In addition to the adjustment type in NL7's answer, there are a host of others. If there are any adjustments, form 8949 is required, if not, the gains can be separated into short and long-term and added together to be entered on Schedule D. Anything requiring an adjustment code in column F of the 8949 requires an entry in column G. Some other example entries for column F include: (see the 8949 instructions for a complete list) **A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. (from Pub17)\",\n \"This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.\",\n \"The tax cost at election should be zero. The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income. §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it. If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes. That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade. The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election. The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income. This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable. It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election.\",\n \"Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.\",\n \"Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc.\",\n \"\\\"Overall the question is one of a political nature. However, this component can have objective answers: \\\"\\\"What behavior is trying to be prevented?\\\"\\\" There are mechanisms by which capital gains can be deferred (1031 like-kind exchange, or simply holding a long position for years) or eliminated by the estate step up in basis. With these available, mechanisms that enable basis-reduction are ripe for abuse. On the other hand, if this truly bothers you then if you meet the IRS qualifications of a day trader, you may elect to use \\\"\\\"mark to market\\\"\\\" accounting, eliminating this entirely as a concern. Special rules for traders of securities\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \\\"\\\"most property you own\\\"\\\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\\\"\",\n \"For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.\",\n \"Well, you won't be double taxed based on what you described. Partners are taxed on income, typically distributions. Your gain in the partnership is not income. However, you were essentially given some money which you elected to invest in the partnership, so you need to pay tax on that money. The question becomes, are you being double taxed in another way? Your question doesn't explain how you invested, but pretty much the options are either a payroll deduction (some amount taken out of X paychecks or a bonus) or some other payment to you that was not treated as a payroll deduction. Given that you got a 1099, that suggests the latter. However, if the money was taken out as a payroll deduction - you've already paid taxes (via your W2)! So, I'd double check on that. Regarding why the numbers don't exactly match up - Your shares in the partnership likely transacted before the partnership valuation. Let's illustrate with an example. Say the partnership is currently worth $1000 with 100 outstanding shares. You put up $1000 and get 100 shares. Partnership is now worth $2000 with 200 outstanding shares. However, after a good year for the firm, it's valuation sets the firm's worth at $3000. Your gain is $1500 not $1000. You can also see if what happened was the firm's valuation went down, your gain would be less than your initial investment. If instead your shares transacted immediately after the valuation, then your gain and your cost to acquire the shares would be the same. So again, I'd suggest double checking on this - if your shares transacted after the valuation, there needs to be an explanation for the difference in your gain. For reference: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/incorporation-and-legal-structures/partnership-taxes.html And https://www.irs.gov/publications/p541/ar02.html Here you learn the purpose of the gain boxes on your K1 - tracking your capital basis should the partnership sell. Essentially, when the partnership is sold, you as a partner get some money. That money is then taxed. How much you pay will depend on what you received versus what the company was worth and whether your gain was long term or short term. This link doesn't go into that detail, but should give you a thread to pull. I'd also suggest reading more about partnerships and K1 and not just the IRS publications. Don't get me wrong, they're a good source of information, just also dense and sometimes tough to understand. Good luck and congrats.\",\n \"\\\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \\\"\\\"Consult a professional.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"This may be a good or a bad deal, depending on the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise. Let's assume the FMV is $6, which is the break even point. In general this would probably be treated as two transactions. So overall you would be cash neutral, but your regular tax income would be increased by $30,000 and your AMT income by $60,000.\",\n \"An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it."],"string":"[\n \"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":272,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6792"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Where to find the full book of outstanding bids/asks for a stock?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["485973"],"string":"[\n \"485973\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["557770","48493","283008","382067","251100","294867","485973","404604","212685","334383","571620","321028","118389","347315","580133","446904","177926","100188","526377","322798","137175","487074","501748","51063","384850","146125","315334","568043","577075","560245","442048","471643","425561","466255","421724","28604","284235","87065","63403","96467","402482","596106","124205","373620","306104","485054","516923","129745","274733","423841","218670","215260","481544","375544","317148","123649","575018","373862","112714","492262","413423","21376","560558","161411","32485","39185","95010","427747","38545","535343","558566","53263","524050","517161","159966","37959","517935","5018","86281","237653","123958","546493","65894","303649","14461","420587","189275","71330","365463","9683","577090","253135","146076","396844","15112","261858","503075","49111","510061","175831"],"string":"[\n \"557770\",\n \"48493\",\n \"283008\",\n \"382067\",\n \"251100\",\n \"294867\",\n \"485973\",\n \"404604\",\n \"212685\",\n \"334383\",\n \"571620\",\n \"321028\",\n \"118389\",\n \"347315\",\n \"580133\",\n \"446904\",\n \"177926\",\n \"100188\",\n \"526377\",\n \"322798\",\n \"137175\",\n \"487074\",\n \"501748\",\n \"51063\",\n \"384850\",\n \"146125\",\n \"315334\",\n \"568043\",\n \"577075\",\n \"560245\",\n \"442048\",\n \"471643\",\n \"425561\",\n \"466255\",\n \"421724\",\n \"28604\",\n \"284235\",\n \"87065\",\n \"63403\",\n \"96467\",\n \"402482\",\n \"596106\",\n \"124205\",\n \"373620\",\n \"306104\",\n \"485054\",\n \"516923\",\n \"129745\",\n \"274733\",\n \"423841\",\n \"218670\",\n \"215260\",\n \"481544\",\n \"375544\",\n \"317148\",\n \"123649\",\n \"575018\",\n \"373862\",\n \"112714\",\n \"492262\",\n \"413423\",\n \"21376\",\n \"560558\",\n \"161411\",\n \"32485\",\n \"39185\",\n \"95010\",\n \"427747\",\n \"38545\",\n \"535343\",\n \"558566\",\n \"53263\",\n \"524050\",\n \"517161\",\n \"159966\",\n \"37959\",\n \"517935\",\n \"5018\",\n \"86281\",\n \"237653\",\n \"123958\",\n \"546493\",\n \"65894\",\n \"303649\",\n \"14461\",\n \"420587\",\n \"189275\",\n \"71330\",\n \"365463\",\n \"9683\",\n \"577090\",\n \"253135\",\n \"146076\",\n \"396844\",\n \"15112\",\n \"261858\",\n \"503075\",\n \"49111\",\n \"510061\",\n \"175831\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.","Buy Data products from NSE. You will get historical order book. The Live order book may not be available. https://www.nseindia.com/supra_global/content/dotex/data_products.htm This link has all the data products that NSE can provide","My broker collates the order book by price and marketplace, displaying the number of shares available at each level, sorted as in Victor's screencap. You can glean information from not just a snapshot of the order book but also by watching how it changes over time. Although it's not always a complete picture -- many brokers hold limit orders internally until the market is close, at which point they'll route to an exchange or trade internally. And of course skilled market participants know that there's people out there looking to glean information from the order book and will act to confuse the picture. The order book can show you: Combined with a list of trades (price & size, and whether it was a buy or sell), you can get a much more complete picture of what's going on with a stock than by looking at charts alone.","Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day.","In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.","You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.","For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second.","Yes apply for live and dynamic data (you may have to pay for this depending on your broker and your country) and look at the market depth.","At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)","Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API. EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST**** trades **but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system. I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.","The three sites mentioned in the second link are all professional trading workstations, not public web sites. There may not be free quotes available.","Depends on the exchange, and it's usually not going to be free. I use IB's API, and I've heard good things about IQFeed. You can get some free book data from Bats, but again you probably won't see your own transactions go by. http://batstrading.com/market_data/","One broker told me that I have to simply read the ask size and the bid size, seeing what the market makers are offering. This implies that my order would have to match that price exactly, which is unfortunate because options contract spreads can be WIDE. Also, if my planned position size is larger than the best bid/best ask, then I should break up the order, which is also unfortunate because most brokers charge a lot for options orders.","They're all in one place. The OCC provides: http://www.optionsclearing.com/webapps/flex-reports","I think Infochimps has what you are looking for: NYSE and NASDAQ.","Quite a few Banks/brokers offer direct terminals to NSE where you can see live prices.","In the stock market many participants enter orders that are not necessarily set at the current market price of the stock (i.e. they are not market orders, they are limit orders). They can be lower than the market price (if they want to buy) or they can be higher than the market price (if they want to sell). The set of orders at each point of time for a security is called the order book. The lowest selling price of the order book is the offer or ask, the higher buying price is the bid. The more liquid is a security, the more orders will be in the order book, and the narrower will be the bid-ask spread. The depth of the order book is the number of units that the order book can absorb in any direction (buy or sell). As an example: imagine I want to buy 100 units at the lowest offer, but the size of the lowest offer is only 50 units, and there is not any further order, that means the stock has little depth.","They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task.","You can buy the data and process it on your own. http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/Daily-TAQ","\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"","If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.","Ya, that's a lot of data - especially considering your relative lack of experience and the likely fact that you have no idea what to do with what you're given. How do you even know you need minute or tick-based bid-ask data? You can get a lot more than OHLC/V/Split/Dividend. You can get: * Book Value; * Dividend information (Amount, yield, ex date, pay date); * EBITDA; * EPS (current AND estimates); * Price/sales ratio; * Price/book value; * Price/earnings ratio; * PEG ratio; * Short ratio; * Market cap. Among other things, all for free.","To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE: I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter. Many of these stocks are amusingly scary): http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices.","It's an over-the-counter stock quote system. Read all about it. Or visit it.","\"My Broker and probably many Brokers provide this information in a table format under \"\"Course of Sale\"\". It provides the time, price and volume of each trade on that day. You could also view this data on a chart in some charting programs. Just set the interval to \"\"Tick by Tick\"\" and look at the volume. \"\"Tick by Tick\"\" will basically place a mark for every trade that is taken and then the volume will tell you the size of that trade.\"","The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.","If you're willing to shell out some cash, vendors will be quite happy to sell you everything you need. Picking one out of thin air, and no idea if this is a good price or not, the CBOE will sell you EOD data for every option for $40 for one day, and at a discount for multiple days. Beyond the high/low/close for each contract, you get the volume. Or a month of TAQ data will run your $1550, for what that's worth, which probably isn't a lot for a retail strategy.","\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \"\"time and sales,\"\" or \"\"TNS,\"\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \"\"time and quotes,\"\" or \"\"TNQ\"\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\"","Bloomberg terminal is a pretty standard way nowadays to get this information (and a lot more) pretty much in real time.","The CBOE site, as well as some other sites and trading platforms, will show the bid/ask and statistics for that option at each individual options exchange, in addition to statistics and the best bid/offer across all exchanges. cboe.com: Delayed Quote Help lists what the single-letter codes mean. A is for the AMEX options exchange, B is for BOX, X is for PHLX, etc.","All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.","Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.","Agree with some of the posts above - Barchart is a good source for finding unusual options activity and also open interest -https://www.barchart.com/options/open-interest-change","You'd have to buy that information. Quoting from this page, Commercial Historical Data Higher resolution and more complete datasets are generally not available for free. Below is a list of vendors which have passed our quality screening (in total, we screened over a dozen vendors). To qualify, the vendor must aggregate data from all US national/regional exchanges as only complete datasets are suitable for research use. The last point is especially important as there are many vendors who just get data from a couple sources and is missing important information such as dark pool trades. They offer some alternatives for free data: Daily Resolution Data 1) Yahoo! Finance– Daily resolution data, with split/dividend adjustments can be downloaded from here. The download procedure can be automated using this tool. Note, Yahoo quite frequently has errors in its database and does not contain data for delisted symbols. 2) QuantQuote Free Data– QuantQuote offers free daily resolution data for the S&P500 at this web page under the Free Data tab. The data accounts for symbol changes, splits, and dividends, and is largely free of the errors found in the Yahoo data. Note, only 500 symbols are available unlike Yahoo which provides all listed symbols. And they list recommendations about who to buy the data from.","Many exchanges trade the same securities. An order may be posted to a secondary exchange, but if the National Best Bid and Offer data provider malfunctions, only those with data feeds from that exchange will see it. Only the data provider for the primary exchange where a stock is listed provides the NBBO. Missing orders are very common with the NBBO data providers. NASDAQ's order consolidator has had many failures over the past few years, and the data provider's top executive has recently resigned. Brokers have no control over this system. A broker may be alerted to a malfunction by an accountholder, but a broker may only inform the relevant exchange and the relevant data provider.","\"The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade. It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side. But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as \"\"tip of the iceberg\"\" prices. That is: The \"\"Bid: 13.20 x200\"\" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares. Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices. So the \"\"bid\"\" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The \"\"Ask: 13.27 x1,000\"\" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares. Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices. So the \"\"ask\"\" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges. The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned. In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock. For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow). For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction. Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27. If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called \"\"current\"\" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22. And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.) Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid.\"","\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"","The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.","\"People must simply be willing to match your orders if they know about it. You can sniff orders out if you can see them or predict them. For instance, you can look at an order book and decide who you want to get filled at, especially if you are looking at different quotes from different exchanges. So you can get a \"\"better\"\" fill just by looking at what someone is willing to pay to enter/exit their order as well as what exchange they placed their order through, and send an order to that specific exchange to match them. You (or a program) can just watch the level 2's and place an order as soon as you see one you like. The orders on the level2's do not reveal ALL interested market participants. Also many brokers have difficulty updating options quotes. Finally, options & market volatility can inflate or decrease the price of options by large percentages very quickly.\"","you can try CME DataSuite. Your broker gives you real time options quotes. If you do not have one you can open a scottrade account with just $500 deposit. When I moved my money from scottrade to ameritrade they did not close my account even till this day I can access my scottrade account and see real time quotes and the same research they offered me before. You can try withdrawing your deposit and see if it stays open like mine did.","You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer.","A number of places. First, fast and cheap, you can probably get this from EODData.com, as part of a historical index price download -- they have good customer service in my experience and will likely confirm it for you before you buy. Any number of other providers can get it for you too. Likely Capital IQ, Bloomberg, and other professional solutions. I checked a number of free sites, and Market Watch was the only that had a longer history than a few months.","Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No. For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.","I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year","Not that I am aware. There are times that an option is available, but none have traded yet, and it takes a request to get a bid/ask, or you can make an offer and see if it's accepted. But the option chain itself has to be open.","You can get this data from a variety of sources, but likely not all from 1 source. Yahoo is a good source, as is Google, but some stock markets also give away some of this data, and there's foreign websites which provide data for foreign exchanges. Some Googling is required, as is knowledge of web scraping (R, Python, Ruby or Perl are great tools for this...).","I'm answering in a perspective of an End-User within the United Kingdom. Most stockbrokers won't provide Real-time information without 'Level 2' access, however this comes free for most who trade over a certain threshold. If you're like me, who trade within their ISA Holding each year, you need to look elsewhere. I personally use IG.com. They've recently began a stockbroking service, whereas this comes with realtime information etc with a paid account without any 'threshold'. Additionally, you may want to look into CFDs/Spreadbets as these, won't include the heavy 'fees' and tax liabilities that trading with stocks may bring.","I don't see it in any of the exchange feeds I've gone through, including the SIPs. Not sure if there's something wrong with Nasdaq Last Sale (I don't have that feed) but it should be putting out the exact same data as ITCH.","The trick is real time. I like to wake up in the morning, turn on my computer and see at a glance the gain or loss data on each of my stock and bond at that moment. Companies like Ameritrde offer them, but you have to enroll and trade stock in them.","You can get this information through Bloomberg, but it's a paid service.","the data source is the same as the live market trading. pre and after market trading are active markets and there are actual buyers and sellers getting their orders matched.","\"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page. (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"lit\"\" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other. Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"non-lit\"\" exchanges. These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA. There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF. They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're \"\"located at\"\" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring. (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further. (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.) I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities. Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point.\"","\"You can see all the (millions) of trades per day for a US stock only if you purchase that data from the individual exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, ARCA, ...), from a commercial market data aggregator (Bloomberg, Axioma, ...), or from the Consolidated Tape Association. In none of that data will you ever find identifying information for the traders. What you are recalling regarding the names of \"\"people from the company\"\" trading company stock is related to SEC regulations stating that people with significant ownership of company stock and/or controlling positions on the company board of directors must publicize (most of) their trades in that stock. That information can usually be found on the company's investor relations website, or through the SEC website.\"","You probably will not find to many places if any that give you live quotes on options because for the general public there is not that high of a demand. Most people do not even know what stock options are. You can get update on some sites like CNBC, but you will have refresh constantly to get the latest option prices. You can also try an online broker, most of whom will let you have access to their tools and quotes if you sign up for an account. Some require a deposit before you can access those tools and some don't. Personally, I use TD Ameritrade and I do not believe they require a deposit to use their tools, but don't quote me on that.","So in your screenshot, someone or some group of someones is willing to buy 3,000 shares at $3.45, and someone or some group of someones is willing to sell 2,000 shares at 3.88. Without getting in to the specific mechanics, you can place a market buy order for 10 (or whatever number) shares and it will probably transact at $3.88 per share because that's the lowest price for which someone will currently sell their shares. As a small fish, you can generally ignore the volume notations in the bid/ask quotes.","It depends on the way you have directed the order and the execution agreement you have signed with your broker. In case of DMA (direct market access) you would direct your order to the specific exchange - and that exchange would post your offer, assuming you did not tag it as hidden. However, if you just gave your order to the broker (be it via telephone, email or even online), they may not have to display your order to the market or chose which exchange to sell it on. It will also depend where the stock is listed. For most US listed and OTC stocks, regulation NMS applies where your order should have been executed against if it went to the exchanges. Check your account opening docs and agreements, particulary the execution agreement. In there it will tell you how your order should be treated. In case where the broker stipulates that you have DMA or that they will direct your order to Lit markets (public exchanges and not market making firms and dark-pools) then you may have a case - you would need to request information to whcih exchange your broker sent the order to. In case that you gave them discretion on routing of your order - read the fine print. The answer lies there. Regarding NBBO missing you quote as quantycuenta suggested above is also a possibility, however Reg NMS should take care of this. Do you have stock and date & time of your order?","Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D","Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).","\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"","There are about 250 trading days in a year. There are also about 1,900 stocks listed on the NYSE. What you're asking for would require about 6.2M rows of data. Depending on the number of attributes you're likely looking at a couple GB of data. You're only getting that much information through an API or an FTP.","It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.","But what about the following scenario which is my paraphrasing of a Nanex article (I'm hoping you can help clarify this for me). 1. I observe a 1,000 lot @$10 advertised for Sell on a lit exchange. 2. I try to lift the 1,000 by placing a limit order @10. 3. My order goes through some kind of order routing process. First, 3 orders get executed on a dark pool. Let's say I got a 50 lot filled (so available offer reduces to 950). 4. My order hits a lit exchange. I get a partial fill for 100 (offer shrinks to 850); but the offered size shrinks instead to 500. Or 0. 5. Now, in order to execute my trade, I will have to take a higher price than the original advertised liquidity. My question (maybe you can answer this) is why did my original order size of 1,000 appear in smaller blocks? Is this because the order routing algorithm breaks up the size? Or is it that market makers only post offers in small block sizes (e.g. 100) So even if the order book looked like: 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 All the way to 1,000 total -- as soon as the first 100 shares were lifted, the MM can immediately cancel the remainder of the advertised liquidity -- in practical terms making it impossible to execute large orders at an advertised price.","As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price.","\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"","Volume @ 0 doesn't mean that there are no buyers and sellers, it just means that there hasn't been any trades done yet. What you need to look for are the bids and offers (for selling and buying, respectively). For further expiration and NTM or IT options there will almost always be a bid and an offer (but it may be very wide). Now, in case where there is 0 bid (no one is willing to buy), you may still have a chance if the option has some value in it. For that - you need your broker to try to shop it to market making firms. Now, depending on who your broker is, this may or may not be possible. Alternatively, if you have DMA (direct market access) to the options exchanges, you can try to put in an offer of your own and wait for someone to execute against you, however do not expect to be traded with unless your price is out of line with the cost. However, in wide markets, you can try Lampost options (they may give you price improvement) or try to offer very close to the bid. You may save yourself a penny or two and perhaps get a rebate if you are using BATSO or NASDAQO markets (if you have DMA and pass-through exchange fees).","The Level 2 data is simply showing the depth of the market. If I am trading shares with my broker I have the option of viewing only the top 10 bid/ask prices in the depth or all of the data (which sometimes can be a very long list). With another broker I get the top ten bid and ask prices and how many orders are available for each price level, or I have the option of listing each order separately for each price level (in order of when the order was placed). I get the same kind of data if trading options. I do not know about futures because I don't trade them. Simply this data may be important to a trader because it may give an indication of whether there are more buyers or sellers in the market, which in turn may (but not always) give an indication of which way the market may be moving. As an example the price depth below shows WBC before market open with sellers outweighing the buyers in both numbers and volume. This gives an indication that prices may drop when the market opens. Of course there could be some good news coming out prior to market open or just after, causing a flood of buyers into the market and sellers to cancel their orders. This would change everything around with more buyers than sellers and indicate that prices may now be going up. The market depth is an important aspect to look at before putting an order in, as it can give an indication of which way the market is moving, especially in a very liquid security or market.","There are usually so many different options around for the same stock that some are rarely traded. Especially if the price has moved since the option was issued, nobody might be interested in that particular option at that price anymore. So the asking price might be something that someone asked for ages ago and that is much higher than anyone would reasonably pay today. With a bid of $20 and an ask of $30, nobody is trading, but the value of that option is somewhere between $20 and $30. If the value is below $25, someone will notice your $25 bid and sell.","Market price simply depends on your order side. If you are placing a buy order the market price is the lowest ask, if you are placing a sell order the market price is the highest bid. If your order is larger than the volume then you'd need to also consider the next lowest ask or next highest bid until you've fulfilled your order volume.","\"Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though. The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of \"\"quants\"\" doing simple algorithms \"\"that execute within milliseconds\"\" for banks and funds. Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal.\"","Yahoo Finance's Historical Prices section allows you to look up daily historical quotes for any given stock symbol, you don't have to hit a library for this information. Your can choose a desired time frame for your query, and the dataset will include High/Low/Close/Volume numbers. You can then download a CSV version of this report and perform additional analysis in a spreadsheet of your choice. Below is Twitter report from IPO through yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=TWTR&a=10&b=7&c=2013&d=08&e=23&f=2014&g=d","Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc.","The information on GOOG or other sites is the average price of the stock and is indicative of the price at with the stock would be available. The actual trades happen at different values throught the day ... So the prices are good for most purposes and if you need the exact prices, you can thne decided to log into you trading terminal and get the actual quotes This is similar to FX quotes or any other such quotes and give you a general sense","Regulators? SEC, in the US. Its public records for public companies.","\"Considering the fact that you are so unaware of how to find such data, I find it very very hard to believe that you actually need it. \"\"All trade and finance data for as much tickers and markets as possible.\"\" Wtf does that even mean. You could be referencing thousands of different types of data for any given \"\"ticker\"\" with a statement so vague. What are you looking for?\"","Yes, past option prices are available for many options, but as far as I know not for free. You can get them from, for example, OptionMetrics. Probably there are other providers as well, which may be cheaper for an individual or small institution. OptionMetrics data comes from the National Best Bid and Offer. Probably there are some over-the-counter options that are not included here, but for someone asking this question, OptionMetrics will most likely have the option you are interested in.","FINRA lets you view recent trades, but as stated in the other answer bonds are illiquid and often do not trade frequently. Therefore recent trades prices are only a rough estimate of the current price that would be accepted. http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp","I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.","It could be that the contracts were bought at cheaper prices such as $.01 earlier in the day. What you see there with the bid and ask is the CURRENT bid and CURRENT ask. The high ask price means there is no current liquidity, as someone is quoting a very high ask price just in case someone really wants to trade that price. But as you said, no one would buy this with a better price on a closer strike price. The volume likely occurred at a different price than listed on the current ask.","You can use the Securities Exchange Commission's EDGAR search engine to search all available SEC related filings. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Top tip: use the fast search on the right to search for the company ticker rather than by company name.","Try Google Finance Screener ; you will be able to filter for NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges.","\"My answer isn't a full one, but that's because I think the answer depends on, at minimum, the country your broker is in, the type of order you place (limit, market, algo, etc.,) and the size of your order. For example, I can tell from watching live rates on regular lot limit orders I place with my UK-based broker that they hold limit orders internally until they see a crossing rate on the exchange my requested stock is trading on, then they submit a limit order to that exchange. I only get filled from that one exchange and this happens noticeably after I see my limit price print, and my fills are always better than my limit price. Whereas with my US-based broker, I can see my regular lotsize limit order in the order book (depth of book data) prior to any fills. I will routinely be notified of a fill before I see the limit price print. And my fills come from any number of US exchanges (NYSE, ARCA, BATS, etc.) even for the same stock. I should point out that the \"\"NBBO\"\" rule in the US, under SEC regulation NMS, probably causes more complications in handling of market and limit orders than you're likely to find in most countries.\"","\"You're confusing a specific visual representation of the top bid & ask orders selected from the order book with the actual \"\"top of the book\"\". \"\"Top\"\" in the sense of the \"\"top of the book\"\" is a ranking (by order of \"\"best\"\", different for bids vs. asks) and not meant to be strictly a visual positioning on a page or screen. The data in the visual representation comes from the top of the order book (the best bids, and the best asks), but that visual representation is choosing to present it in a specific way. Think of the \"\"book\"\" as the model, the abstract collection of outstanding bid and ask order data. When people talk about the \"\"top of the book\"\", they're talking about the best bids (higher being better), and the best asks (lower being better). The visual representation above is but one possible way to render a tip-of-the-iceberg view of the best orders in the \"\"book\"\". The advantage of that particular visual representation is that one can see the asks & bids converging towards the center. The spread is visible as the difference between the two middle elements – being the lowest row in the blue \"\"Asks\"\" area, and the highest row in the green \"\"Bids\"\" area. The up-arrow they had included in the \"\"Asks\"\" area was perhaps meant to provide a clue about how the data was sorted contrary to expectations of descending order of \"\"bestness\"\", and/or to imply there is further depth to the book data in the indicated direction. If the bids & asks had been oriented side-by-side instead, they might have chosen to represent it as below, re-arranging the rows in the \"\"Asks\"\" in the opposite order (i.e. in the order you had expected) so that the \"\"bests\"\" are both in the top row:\"","Since I've been doing this since late 03 I have colo machines in Chicago and NYC, and have direct exchange data feeds etc. I mentioned in a prior post though, for someone starting out on algorithmic trading, I'd recommend Nanex for tick data and Interactive Brokers for your brokerage account. IB has a robust and easy to use API. It won't let you do the most low latency stuff bc you can't colo at the exchange and have to clear through their order management systems but if you are looking at opportunities that exist in the market in excess of 50ms it's probably a good place to start. If not, go Lightspeed imo, but that'll cost you on the colo/data a lot more.","Log in to your Scottrade account, and goto Markets --> Analyst Views --> Click the PDF link for the company. Also, there is also the 'Views and News' part of the web page which has additional information beyond what exist in the reports.","For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date.","Moody's is now Mergent Online. It's no longer being printed, and must be accessed digitally. In order to browse the database, check with your local public library or university to see if you can get access. (A University will probably require you to visit for access). Another good tool is Value Line Reports. They are printed information sheets on public companies that are updated regularly, and are convenient for browsing and for comparing securities. Again, check your local libraries. A lot of the public information you may be looking for can be found on Yahoo Finance, for free, from home. Yahoo finance, will give financial information, ratios, news, filings, analysis, all in one place.","\"I'm familiar with and have traded U.S.-listed LEAPS and I've always used the CBOE quotes page you linked to. So, I too was surprised I couldn't find 3M (MMM) LEAPS quotes at that page, even after checking the \"\"List all options, LEAPS, Credit Options & Weeklys if avail.\"\" radio button. Used to work! Fortunately, I was able to get access to the full chain of option quotes from the CBOE's other quotes page: Go to the \"\"Quotes & Data\"\" menu, then select Delayed Quotes - NEW! Here's how: I think the new interface is terrible: it's too many steps to get to the information desired. I preferred the all-in-one table of the Delayed Quotes Classic page, the one you linked to. As to why that classic page isn't yielding the full chain, I can only suggest it is a recently introduced bug (software defect). I certainly was able to get LEAPS quotes from that page before. On Yahoo! Finance option quotes: I don't know why their chain is incomplete – I can't see the logic, for instance, as to why MMM Jan 2012 60 calls are missing. I thought at first it may be lack of volume or open interest, but nope. Anyway, I don't trust Yahoo! to provide accurate, reliable quotes anyway, having seen too many errors and missing data in particular in the feed of Canadian stocks, which I also trade. I rely on the exchange's quotes, and my broker's real-time quotes. I check Yahoo! only for convenience sake, and when it actually matters I go to the other more reliable sources. For what it's worth, though, you can also get full chain option quotes at NASDAQ. See here for the 3M (MMM) example then click on the \"\"Jan 12\"\" link near the top. However, I would consider CBOE's quotes more definitive, since they are the options exchange.\"","Well, kind of XD. I usually just look through Business Week for the ADRs that are on the OTC market. I don't do anything major, but why I love them is that they have a greater reach than just ADRs on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Like for instance, if I wanted to own Thai or European stocks, many of the larger, more reputable firms are listed on the OTC market. Having said that, most other sites don't have earnings reports laid out for you. Business Week does. The only fancy thing I am interested in are options and options on futures, and Bar Chart is good for the latter.","> we make a trade-off between time to execute and market impact. Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. > we will join the bid for some fraction of our size, and also hit the offer when it looks like the price might be moving away from us So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? > In some certain situations we will even sweep the book several levels deep to avoid tipping off market makers and having them adjust in anticipation of the rest of our order. Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... I have a few other questions I would appreciate your insight on. Just trying to ascertain how orders are filled when, as you put it, time is more important than market impact to the client - when they need to take a large amount of liquidity as quickly as possible and as orderly as possible. Let me know if you'd rather I pm you about this or the additional questions, I work in the industry as well so I know privacy is paramount.","[Brute Force](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack) Sending random hits to a server over and over again. Three order books. One happens earlier, the other two simultaneously. Bid ABT 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid APPL 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid AET 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid ACT 105.00x1000 **Filled** The aforementioned happens before all else. Act's current value is 100.01.* Ask Act 100.00x1000 **Limit order denied** Ask Act 109.00x1000 **Filled** The third order book is simply testing the waters to see what the guy making the ask is willing to pay. *As well as all the cancelled orders, for the illustration.","http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.","\"Where can I download all stock symbols of all companies \"\"currently listed\"\" and \"\"delisted\"\" as of today? That's incredibly similar . You can also do it with a Bloomberg terminal but there's no need to pay to do this because he data changes so slowly.\"","\"Publicly traded companies files 10-Ks with the SEC, searchable on the EDGAR system. If you want basic financial statement info then look for 10-Ks that are marked \"\"Interactive Data\"\", as for those the SEC has broken everything out by statement into standard formats. You could also use marketwatch which puts everything in financial statements into the same or as similar of categories as it can to make it easier to compare companies.\"","It depends on the sequence in which the order [bid and ask] were placed. Please read the below question to understand how the order are matched. How do exchanges match limit orders?","Neither site offers index futures or options pricing. Your best best is likely to get the quote from a broker who supports trading those vehicles. Free sites usually limit themselves to stocks and sometimes to options chains -- the exception is Reuters where just about any security for which you have the reuters formatted trading symbol can be quoted.","$500 per package, with a package representing 100 stocks, or $5k for the entire market from a single source (NYSE, for example). IIRC that was the neighborhood when I went looking. I actually only needed one index in great detail - I chose the S&P 500, and found a source for well under $100.","To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.","\"http://www.interactivedata.com -> reference data No, it's not free. Nor would I consider it \"\"high quality\"\". For free data, try the Yahoo Finance API. The data you want is there, though you may need to calculate some of the fields yourself. Once you have your application working with free data you will be in a good position to evaluate whether it's worth it to shift to more detailed non-free data.\"","\"My broker (thinkorswim) offers this from the platform's trade tab. I believe this feature isn't crippled in the PaperMoney version which is effectively a \"\"free online service.\"\"\"","yes you are right as per my understanding while doing trade you must consider fol (specially for starters like me) The volume of the stock you are trading in should be high enough to keep you secure for quick in and out Whenever the bid volume is more than the ask volume the prices will move up and vice versa. to give an example if a stock is at 100 points and there are fol bids: The transaction will occur when either the bidder agrees to pay the ask price (case 1. he pays 101 . his bid offer will disappear and the next best ask will be 102. and the current price will be 101 which was the last transaction.) or when the person giving ask price agrees to deal at best bid which was 99 in which case the share will go down."],"string":"[\n \"As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.\",\n \"Buy Data products from NSE. You will get historical order book. The Live order book may not be available. https://www.nseindia.com/supra_global/content/dotex/data_products.htm This link has all the data products that NSE can provide\",\n \"My broker collates the order book by price and marketplace, displaying the number of shares available at each level, sorted as in Victor's screencap. You can glean information from not just a snapshot of the order book but also by watching how it changes over time. Although it's not always a complete picture -- many brokers hold limit orders internally until the market is close, at which point they'll route to an exchange or trade internally. And of course skilled market participants know that there's people out there looking to glean information from the order book and will act to confuse the picture. The order book can show you: Combined with a list of trades (price & size, and whether it was a buy or sell), you can get a much more complete picture of what's going on with a stock than by looking at charts alone.\",\n \"Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day.\",\n \"In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.\",\n \"You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.\",\n \"For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second.\",\n \"Yes apply for live and dynamic data (you may have to pay for this depending on your broker and your country) and look at the market depth.\",\n \"At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)\",\n \"Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API. EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST**** trades **but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system. I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.\",\n \"The three sites mentioned in the second link are all professional trading workstations, not public web sites. There may not be free quotes available.\",\n \"Depends on the exchange, and it's usually not going to be free. I use IB's API, and I've heard good things about IQFeed. You can get some free book data from Bats, but again you probably won't see your own transactions go by. http://batstrading.com/market_data/\",\n \"One broker told me that I have to simply read the ask size and the bid size, seeing what the market makers are offering. This implies that my order would have to match that price exactly, which is unfortunate because options contract spreads can be WIDE. Also, if my planned position size is larger than the best bid/best ask, then I should break up the order, which is also unfortunate because most brokers charge a lot for options orders.\",\n \"They're all in one place. The OCC provides: http://www.optionsclearing.com/webapps/flex-reports\",\n \"I think Infochimps has what you are looking for: NYSE and NASDAQ.\",\n \"Quite a few Banks/brokers offer direct terminals to NSE where you can see live prices.\",\n \"In the stock market many participants enter orders that are not necessarily set at the current market price of the stock (i.e. they are not market orders, they are limit orders). They can be lower than the market price (if they want to buy) or they can be higher than the market price (if they want to sell). The set of orders at each point of time for a security is called the order book. The lowest selling price of the order book is the offer or ask, the higher buying price is the bid. The more liquid is a security, the more orders will be in the order book, and the narrower will be the bid-ask spread. The depth of the order book is the number of units that the order book can absorb in any direction (buy or sell). As an example: imagine I want to buy 100 units at the lowest offer, but the size of the lowest offer is only 50 units, and there is not any further order, that means the stock has little depth.\",\n \"They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task.\",\n \"You can buy the data and process it on your own. http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/Daily-TAQ\",\n \"\\\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \\\"\\\"depth chart\\\"\\\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \\\"\\\"bids\\\"\\\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \\\"\\\"asks\\\"\\\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\\\"\",\n \"If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.\",\n \"Ya, that's a lot of data - especially considering your relative lack of experience and the likely fact that you have no idea what to do with what you're given. How do you even know you need minute or tick-based bid-ask data? You can get a lot more than OHLC/V/Split/Dividend. You can get: * Book Value; * Dividend information (Amount, yield, ex date, pay date); * EBITDA; * EPS (current AND estimates); * Price/sales ratio; * Price/book value; * Price/earnings ratio; * PEG ratio; * Short ratio; * Market cap. Among other things, all for free.\",\n \"To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE: I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter. Many of these stocks are amusingly scary): http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices.\",\n \"It's an over-the-counter stock quote system. Read all about it. Or visit it.\",\n \"\\\"My Broker and probably many Brokers provide this information in a table format under \\\"\\\"Course of Sale\\\"\\\". It provides the time, price and volume of each trade on that day. You could also view this data on a chart in some charting programs. Just set the interval to \\\"\\\"Tick by Tick\\\"\\\" and look at the volume. \\\"\\\"Tick by Tick\\\"\\\" will basically place a mark for every trade that is taken and then the volume will tell you the size of that trade.\\\"\",\n \"The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.\",\n \"If you're willing to shell out some cash, vendors will be quite happy to sell you everything you need. Picking one out of thin air, and no idea if this is a good price or not, the CBOE will sell you EOD data for every option for $40 for one day, and at a discount for multiple days. Beyond the high/low/close for each contract, you get the volume. Or a month of TAQ data will run your $1550, for what that's worth, which probably isn't a lot for a retail strategy.\",\n \"\\\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \\\"\\\"time and sales,\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"TNS,\\\"\\\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \\\"\\\"time and quotes,\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"TNQ\\\"\\\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\\\"\",\n \"Bloomberg terminal is a pretty standard way nowadays to get this information (and a lot more) pretty much in real time.\",\n \"The CBOE site, as well as some other sites and trading platforms, will show the bid/ask and statistics for that option at each individual options exchange, in addition to statistics and the best bid/offer across all exchanges. cboe.com: Delayed Quote Help lists what the single-letter codes mean. A is for the AMEX options exchange, B is for BOX, X is for PHLX, etc.\",\n \"All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.\",\n \"Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.\",\n \"Agree with some of the posts above - Barchart is a good source for finding unusual options activity and also open interest -https://www.barchart.com/options/open-interest-change\",\n \"You'd have to buy that information. Quoting from this page, Commercial Historical Data Higher resolution and more complete datasets are generally not available for free. Below is a list of vendors which have passed our quality screening (in total, we screened over a dozen vendors). To qualify, the vendor must aggregate data from all US national/regional exchanges as only complete datasets are suitable for research use. The last point is especially important as there are many vendors who just get data from a couple sources and is missing important information such as dark pool trades. They offer some alternatives for free data: Daily Resolution Data 1) Yahoo! Finance– Daily resolution data, with split/dividend adjustments can be downloaded from here. The download procedure can be automated using this tool. Note, Yahoo quite frequently has errors in its database and does not contain data for delisted symbols. 2) QuantQuote Free Data– QuantQuote offers free daily resolution data for the S&P500 at this web page under the Free Data tab. The data accounts for symbol changes, splits, and dividends, and is largely free of the errors found in the Yahoo data. Note, only 500 symbols are available unlike Yahoo which provides all listed symbols. And they list recommendations about who to buy the data from.\",\n \"Many exchanges trade the same securities. An order may be posted to a secondary exchange, but if the National Best Bid and Offer data provider malfunctions, only those with data feeds from that exchange will see it. Only the data provider for the primary exchange where a stock is listed provides the NBBO. Missing orders are very common with the NBBO data providers. NASDAQ's order consolidator has had many failures over the past few years, and the data provider's top executive has recently resigned. Brokers have no control over this system. A broker may be alerted to a malfunction by an accountholder, but a broker may only inform the relevant exchange and the relevant data provider.\",\n \"\\\"The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade. It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side. But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as \\\"\\\"tip of the iceberg\\\"\\\" prices. That is: The \\\"\\\"Bid: 13.20 x200\\\"\\\" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares. Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices. So the \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment. If you entered a \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The \\\"\\\"Ask: 13.27 x1,000\\\"\\\" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares. Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices. So the \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment. If you entered a \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges. The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned. In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock. For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow). For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction. Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27. If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called \\\"\\\"current\\\"\\\" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22. And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.) Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \\\"\\\"market price\\\"\\\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \\\"\\\"market price\\\"\\\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \\\"\\\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\\\"\\\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\\\"\",\n \"The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.\",\n \"\\\"People must simply be willing to match your orders if they know about it. You can sniff orders out if you can see them or predict them. For instance, you can look at an order book and decide who you want to get filled at, especially if you are looking at different quotes from different exchanges. So you can get a \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" fill just by looking at what someone is willing to pay to enter/exit their order as well as what exchange they placed their order through, and send an order to that specific exchange to match them. You (or a program) can just watch the level 2's and place an order as soon as you see one you like. The orders on the level2's do not reveal ALL interested market participants. Also many brokers have difficulty updating options quotes. Finally, options & market volatility can inflate or decrease the price of options by large percentages very quickly.\\\"\",\n \"you can try CME DataSuite. Your broker gives you real time options quotes. If you do not have one you can open a scottrade account with just $500 deposit. When I moved my money from scottrade to ameritrade they did not close my account even till this day I can access my scottrade account and see real time quotes and the same research they offered me before. You can try withdrawing your deposit and see if it stays open like mine did.\",\n \"You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer.\",\n \"A number of places. First, fast and cheap, you can probably get this from EODData.com, as part of a historical index price download -- they have good customer service in my experience and will likely confirm it for you before you buy. Any number of other providers can get it for you too. Likely Capital IQ, Bloomberg, and other professional solutions. I checked a number of free sites, and Market Watch was the only that had a longer history than a few months.\",\n \"Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No. For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.\",\n \"I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year\",\n \"Not that I am aware. There are times that an option is available, but none have traded yet, and it takes a request to get a bid/ask, or you can make an offer and see if it's accepted. But the option chain itself has to be open.\",\n \"You can get this data from a variety of sources, but likely not all from 1 source. Yahoo is a good source, as is Google, but some stock markets also give away some of this data, and there's foreign websites which provide data for foreign exchanges. Some Googling is required, as is knowledge of web scraping (R, Python, Ruby or Perl are great tools for this...).\",\n \"I'm answering in a perspective of an End-User within the United Kingdom. Most stockbrokers won't provide Real-time information without 'Level 2' access, however this comes free for most who trade over a certain threshold. If you're like me, who trade within their ISA Holding each year, you need to look elsewhere. I personally use IG.com. They've recently began a stockbroking service, whereas this comes with realtime information etc with a paid account without any 'threshold'. Additionally, you may want to look into CFDs/Spreadbets as these, won't include the heavy 'fees' and tax liabilities that trading with stocks may bring.\",\n \"I don't see it in any of the exchange feeds I've gone through, including the SIPs. Not sure if there's something wrong with Nasdaq Last Sale (I don't have that feed) but it should be putting out the exact same data as ITCH.\",\n \"The trick is real time. I like to wake up in the morning, turn on my computer and see at a glance the gain or loss data on each of my stock and bond at that moment. Companies like Ameritrde offer them, but you have to enroll and trade stock in them.\",\n \"You can get this information through Bloomberg, but it's a paid service.\",\n \"the data source is the same as the live market trading. pre and after market trading are active markets and there are actual buyers and sellers getting their orders matched.\",\n \"\\\"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page. (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \\\"\\\"lit\\\"\\\" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other. Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \\\"\\\"non-lit\\\"\\\" exchanges. These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA. There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF. They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're \\\"\\\"located at\\\"\\\" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring. (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further. (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.) I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities. Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You can see all the (millions) of trades per day for a US stock only if you purchase that data from the individual exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, ARCA, ...), from a commercial market data aggregator (Bloomberg, Axioma, ...), or from the Consolidated Tape Association. In none of that data will you ever find identifying information for the traders. What you are recalling regarding the names of \\\"\\\"people from the company\\\"\\\" trading company stock is related to SEC regulations stating that people with significant ownership of company stock and/or controlling positions on the company board of directors must publicize (most of) their trades in that stock. That information can usually be found on the company's investor relations website, or through the SEC website.\\\"\",\n \"You probably will not find to many places if any that give you live quotes on options because for the general public there is not that high of a demand. Most people do not even know what stock options are. You can get update on some sites like CNBC, but you will have refresh constantly to get the latest option prices. You can also try an online broker, most of whom will let you have access to their tools and quotes if you sign up for an account. Some require a deposit before you can access those tools and some don't. Personally, I use TD Ameritrade and I do not believe they require a deposit to use their tools, but don't quote me on that.\",\n \"So in your screenshot, someone or some group of someones is willing to buy 3,000 shares at $3.45, and someone or some group of someones is willing to sell 2,000 shares at 3.88. Without getting in to the specific mechanics, you can place a market buy order for 10 (or whatever number) shares and it will probably transact at $3.88 per share because that's the lowest price for which someone will currently sell their shares. As a small fish, you can generally ignore the volume notations in the bid/ask quotes.\",\n \"It depends on the way you have directed the order and the execution agreement you have signed with your broker. In case of DMA (direct market access) you would direct your order to the specific exchange - and that exchange would post your offer, assuming you did not tag it as hidden. However, if you just gave your order to the broker (be it via telephone, email or even online), they may not have to display your order to the market or chose which exchange to sell it on. It will also depend where the stock is listed. For most US listed and OTC stocks, regulation NMS applies where your order should have been executed against if it went to the exchanges. Check your account opening docs and agreements, particulary the execution agreement. In there it will tell you how your order should be treated. In case where the broker stipulates that you have DMA or that they will direct your order to Lit markets (public exchanges and not market making firms and dark-pools) then you may have a case - you would need to request information to whcih exchange your broker sent the order to. In case that you gave them discretion on routing of your order - read the fine print. The answer lies there. Regarding NBBO missing you quote as quantycuenta suggested above is also a possibility, however Reg NMS should take care of this. Do you have stock and date & time of your order?\",\n \"Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D\",\n \"Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).\",\n \"\\\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \\\"\\\"round trip\\\"\\\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\\\"\",\n \"There are about 250 trading days in a year. There are also about 1,900 stocks listed on the NYSE. What you're asking for would require about 6.2M rows of data. Depending on the number of attributes you're likely looking at a couple GB of data. You're only getting that much information through an API or an FTP.\",\n \"It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.\",\n \"But what about the following scenario which is my paraphrasing of a Nanex article (I'm hoping you can help clarify this for me). 1. I observe a 1,000 lot @$10 advertised for Sell on a lit exchange. 2. I try to lift the 1,000 by placing a limit order @10. 3. My order goes through some kind of order routing process. First, 3 orders get executed on a dark pool. Let's say I got a 50 lot filled (so available offer reduces to 950). 4. My order hits a lit exchange. I get a partial fill for 100 (offer shrinks to 850); but the offered size shrinks instead to 500. Or 0. 5. Now, in order to execute my trade, I will have to take a higher price than the original advertised liquidity. My question (maybe you can answer this) is why did my original order size of 1,000 appear in smaller blocks? Is this because the order routing algorithm breaks up the size? Or is it that market makers only post offers in small block sizes (e.g. 100) So even if the order book looked like: 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 All the way to 1,000 total -- as soon as the first 100 shares were lifted, the MM can immediately cancel the remainder of the advertised liquidity -- in practical terms making it impossible to execute large orders at an advertised price.\",\n \"As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price.\",\n \"\\\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \\\"\\\"SEC filings\\\"\\\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\\\"\",\n \"Volume @ 0 doesn't mean that there are no buyers and sellers, it just means that there hasn't been any trades done yet. What you need to look for are the bids and offers (for selling and buying, respectively). For further expiration and NTM or IT options there will almost always be a bid and an offer (but it may be very wide). Now, in case where there is 0 bid (no one is willing to buy), you may still have a chance if the option has some value in it. For that - you need your broker to try to shop it to market making firms. Now, depending on who your broker is, this may or may not be possible. Alternatively, if you have DMA (direct market access) to the options exchanges, you can try to put in an offer of your own and wait for someone to execute against you, however do not expect to be traded with unless your price is out of line with the cost. However, in wide markets, you can try Lampost options (they may give you price improvement) or try to offer very close to the bid. You may save yourself a penny or two and perhaps get a rebate if you are using BATSO or NASDAQO markets (if you have DMA and pass-through exchange fees).\",\n \"The Level 2 data is simply showing the depth of the market. If I am trading shares with my broker I have the option of viewing only the top 10 bid/ask prices in the depth or all of the data (which sometimes can be a very long list). With another broker I get the top ten bid and ask prices and how many orders are available for each price level, or I have the option of listing each order separately for each price level (in order of when the order was placed). I get the same kind of data if trading options. I do not know about futures because I don't trade them. Simply this data may be important to a trader because it may give an indication of whether there are more buyers or sellers in the market, which in turn may (but not always) give an indication of which way the market may be moving. As an example the price depth below shows WBC before market open with sellers outweighing the buyers in both numbers and volume. This gives an indication that prices may drop when the market opens. Of course there could be some good news coming out prior to market open or just after, causing a flood of buyers into the market and sellers to cancel their orders. This would change everything around with more buyers than sellers and indicate that prices may now be going up. The market depth is an important aspect to look at before putting an order in, as it can give an indication of which way the market is moving, especially in a very liquid security or market.\",\n \"There are usually so many different options around for the same stock that some are rarely traded. Especially if the price has moved since the option was issued, nobody might be interested in that particular option at that price anymore. So the asking price might be something that someone asked for ages ago and that is much higher than anyone would reasonably pay today. With a bid of $20 and an ask of $30, nobody is trading, but the value of that option is somewhere between $20 and $30. If the value is below $25, someone will notice your $25 bid and sell.\",\n \"Market price simply depends on your order side. If you are placing a buy order the market price is the lowest ask, if you are placing a sell order the market price is the highest bid. If your order is larger than the volume then you'd need to also consider the next lowest ask or next highest bid until you've fulfilled your order volume.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though. The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of \\\"\\\"quants\\\"\\\" doing simple algorithms \\\"\\\"that execute within milliseconds\\\"\\\" for banks and funds. Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal.\\\"\",\n \"Yahoo Finance's Historical Prices section allows you to look up daily historical quotes for any given stock symbol, you don't have to hit a library for this information. Your can choose a desired time frame for your query, and the dataset will include High/Low/Close/Volume numbers. You can then download a CSV version of this report and perform additional analysis in a spreadsheet of your choice. Below is Twitter report from IPO through yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=TWTR&a=10&b=7&c=2013&d=08&e=23&f=2014&g=d\",\n \"Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc.\",\n \"The information on GOOG or other sites is the average price of the stock and is indicative of the price at with the stock would be available. The actual trades happen at different values throught the day ... So the prices are good for most purposes and if you need the exact prices, you can thne decided to log into you trading terminal and get the actual quotes This is similar to FX quotes or any other such quotes and give you a general sense\",\n \"Regulators? SEC, in the US. Its public records for public companies.\",\n \"\\\"Considering the fact that you are so unaware of how to find such data, I find it very very hard to believe that you actually need it. \\\"\\\"All trade and finance data for as much tickers and markets as possible.\\\"\\\" Wtf does that even mean. You could be referencing thousands of different types of data for any given \\\"\\\"ticker\\\"\\\" with a statement so vague. What are you looking for?\\\"\",\n \"Yes, past option prices are available for many options, but as far as I know not for free. You can get them from, for example, OptionMetrics. Probably there are other providers as well, which may be cheaper for an individual or small institution. OptionMetrics data comes from the National Best Bid and Offer. Probably there are some over-the-counter options that are not included here, but for someone asking this question, OptionMetrics will most likely have the option you are interested in.\",\n \"FINRA lets you view recent trades, but as stated in the other answer bonds are illiquid and often do not trade frequently. Therefore recent trades prices are only a rough estimate of the current price that would be accepted. http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp\",\n \"I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.\",\n \"It could be that the contracts were bought at cheaper prices such as $.01 earlier in the day. What you see there with the bid and ask is the CURRENT bid and CURRENT ask. The high ask price means there is no current liquidity, as someone is quoting a very high ask price just in case someone really wants to trade that price. But as you said, no one would buy this with a better price on a closer strike price. The volume likely occurred at a different price than listed on the current ask.\",\n \"You can use the Securities Exchange Commission's EDGAR search engine to search all available SEC related filings. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Top tip: use the fast search on the right to search for the company ticker rather than by company name.\",\n \"Try Google Finance Screener ; you will be able to filter for NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges.\",\n \"\\\"My answer isn't a full one, but that's because I think the answer depends on, at minimum, the country your broker is in, the type of order you place (limit, market, algo, etc.,) and the size of your order. For example, I can tell from watching live rates on regular lot limit orders I place with my UK-based broker that they hold limit orders internally until they see a crossing rate on the exchange my requested stock is trading on, then they submit a limit order to that exchange. I only get filled from that one exchange and this happens noticeably after I see my limit price print, and my fills are always better than my limit price. Whereas with my US-based broker, I can see my regular lotsize limit order in the order book (depth of book data) prior to any fills. I will routinely be notified of a fill before I see the limit price print. And my fills come from any number of US exchanges (NYSE, ARCA, BATS, etc.) even for the same stock. I should point out that the \\\"\\\"NBBO\\\"\\\" rule in the US, under SEC regulation NMS, probably causes more complications in handling of market and limit orders than you're likely to find in most countries.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You're confusing a specific visual representation of the top bid & ask orders selected from the order book with the actual \\\"\\\"top of the book\\\"\\\". \\\"\\\"Top\\\"\\\" in the sense of the \\\"\\\"top of the book\\\"\\\" is a ranking (by order of \\\"\\\"best\\\"\\\", different for bids vs. asks) and not meant to be strictly a visual positioning on a page or screen. The data in the visual representation comes from the top of the order book (the best bids, and the best asks), but that visual representation is choosing to present it in a specific way. Think of the \\\"\\\"book\\\"\\\" as the model, the abstract collection of outstanding bid and ask order data. When people talk about the \\\"\\\"top of the book\\\"\\\", they're talking about the best bids (higher being better), and the best asks (lower being better). The visual representation above is but one possible way to render a tip-of-the-iceberg view of the best orders in the \\\"\\\"book\\\"\\\". The advantage of that particular visual representation is that one can see the asks & bids converging towards the center. The spread is visible as the difference between the two middle elements – being the lowest row in the blue \\\"\\\"Asks\\\"\\\" area, and the highest row in the green \\\"\\\"Bids\\\"\\\" area. The up-arrow they had included in the \\\"\\\"Asks\\\"\\\" area was perhaps meant to provide a clue about how the data was sorted contrary to expectations of descending order of \\\"\\\"bestness\\\"\\\", and/or to imply there is further depth to the book data in the indicated direction. If the bids & asks had been oriented side-by-side instead, they might have chosen to represent it as below, re-arranging the rows in the \\\"\\\"Asks\\\"\\\" in the opposite order (i.e. in the order you had expected) so that the \\\"\\\"bests\\\"\\\" are both in the top row:\\\"\",\n \"Since I've been doing this since late 03 I have colo machines in Chicago and NYC, and have direct exchange data feeds etc. I mentioned in a prior post though, for someone starting out on algorithmic trading, I'd recommend Nanex for tick data and Interactive Brokers for your brokerage account. IB has a robust and easy to use API. It won't let you do the most low latency stuff bc you can't colo at the exchange and have to clear through their order management systems but if you are looking at opportunities that exist in the market in excess of 50ms it's probably a good place to start. If not, go Lightspeed imo, but that'll cost you on the colo/data a lot more.\",\n \"Log in to your Scottrade account, and goto Markets --> Analyst Views --> Click the PDF link for the company. Also, there is also the 'Views and News' part of the web page which has additional information beyond what exist in the reports.\",\n \"For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date.\",\n \"Moody's is now Mergent Online. It's no longer being printed, and must be accessed digitally. In order to browse the database, check with your local public library or university to see if you can get access. (A University will probably require you to visit for access). Another good tool is Value Line Reports. They are printed information sheets on public companies that are updated regularly, and are convenient for browsing and for comparing securities. Again, check your local libraries. A lot of the public information you may be looking for can be found on Yahoo Finance, for free, from home. Yahoo finance, will give financial information, ratios, news, filings, analysis, all in one place.\",\n \"\\\"I'm familiar with and have traded U.S.-listed LEAPS and I've always used the CBOE quotes page you linked to. So, I too was surprised I couldn't find 3M (MMM) LEAPS quotes at that page, even after checking the \\\"\\\"List all options, LEAPS, Credit Options & Weeklys if avail.\\\"\\\" radio button. Used to work! Fortunately, I was able to get access to the full chain of option quotes from the CBOE's other quotes page: Go to the \\\"\\\"Quotes & Data\\\"\\\" menu, then select Delayed Quotes - NEW! Here's how: I think the new interface is terrible: it's too many steps to get to the information desired. I preferred the all-in-one table of the Delayed Quotes Classic page, the one you linked to. As to why that classic page isn't yielding the full chain, I can only suggest it is a recently introduced bug (software defect). I certainly was able to get LEAPS quotes from that page before. On Yahoo! Finance option quotes: I don't know why their chain is incomplete – I can't see the logic, for instance, as to why MMM Jan 2012 60 calls are missing. I thought at first it may be lack of volume or open interest, but nope. Anyway, I don't trust Yahoo! to provide accurate, reliable quotes anyway, having seen too many errors and missing data in particular in the feed of Canadian stocks, which I also trade. I rely on the exchange's quotes, and my broker's real-time quotes. I check Yahoo! only for convenience sake, and when it actually matters I go to the other more reliable sources. For what it's worth, though, you can also get full chain option quotes at NASDAQ. See here for the 3M (MMM) example then click on the \\\"\\\"Jan 12\\\"\\\" link near the top. However, I would consider CBOE's quotes more definitive, since they are the options exchange.\\\"\",\n \"Well, kind of XD. I usually just look through Business Week for the ADRs that are on the OTC market. I don't do anything major, but why I love them is that they have a greater reach than just ADRs on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Like for instance, if I wanted to own Thai or European stocks, many of the larger, more reputable firms are listed on the OTC market. Having said that, most other sites don't have earnings reports laid out for you. Business Week does. The only fancy thing I am interested in are options and options on futures, and Bar Chart is good for the latter.\",\n \"> we make a trade-off between time to execute and market impact. Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. > we will join the bid for some fraction of our size, and also hit the offer when it looks like the price might be moving away from us So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? > In some certain situations we will even sweep the book several levels deep to avoid tipping off market makers and having them adjust in anticipation of the rest of our order. Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... I have a few other questions I would appreciate your insight on. Just trying to ascertain how orders are filled when, as you put it, time is more important than market impact to the client - when they need to take a large amount of liquidity as quickly as possible and as orderly as possible. Let me know if you'd rather I pm you about this or the additional questions, I work in the industry as well so I know privacy is paramount.\",\n \"[Brute Force](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack) Sending random hits to a server over and over again. Three order books. One happens earlier, the other two simultaneously. Bid ABT 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid APPL 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid AET 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid ACT 105.00x1000 **Filled** The aforementioned happens before all else. Act's current value is 100.01.* Ask Act 100.00x1000 **Limit order denied** Ask Act 109.00x1000 **Filled** The third order book is simply testing the waters to see what the guy making the ask is willing to pay. *As well as all the cancelled orders, for the illustration.\",\n \"http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.\",\n \"\\\"Where can I download all stock symbols of all companies \\\"\\\"currently listed\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"delisted\\\"\\\" as of today? That's incredibly similar . You can also do it with a Bloomberg terminal but there's no need to pay to do this because he data changes so slowly.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Publicly traded companies files 10-Ks with the SEC, searchable on the EDGAR system. If you want basic financial statement info then look for 10-Ks that are marked \\\"\\\"Interactive Data\\\"\\\", as for those the SEC has broken everything out by statement into standard formats. You could also use marketwatch which puts everything in financial statements into the same or as similar of categories as it can to make it easier to compare companies.\\\"\",\n \"It depends on the sequence in which the order [bid and ask] were placed. Please read the below question to understand how the order are matched. How do exchanges match limit orders?\",\n \"Neither site offers index futures or options pricing. Your best best is likely to get the quote from a broker who supports trading those vehicles. Free sites usually limit themselves to stocks and sometimes to options chains -- the exception is Reuters where just about any security for which you have the reuters formatted trading symbol can be quoted.\",\n \"$500 per package, with a package representing 100 stocks, or $5k for the entire market from a single source (NYSE, for example). IIRC that was the neighborhood when I went looking. I actually only needed one index in great detail - I chose the S&P 500, and found a source for well under $100.\",\n \"To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.\",\n \"\\\"http://www.interactivedata.com -> reference data No, it's not free. Nor would I consider it \\\"\\\"high quality\\\"\\\". For free data, try the Yahoo Finance API. The data you want is there, though you may need to calculate some of the fields yourself. Once you have your application working with free data you will be in a good position to evaluate whether it's worth it to shift to more detailed non-free data.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"My broker (thinkorswim) offers this from the platform's trade tab. I believe this feature isn't crippled in the PaperMoney version which is effectively a \\\"\\\"free online service.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"yes you are right as per my understanding while doing trade you must consider fol (specially for starters like me) The volume of the stock you are trading in should be high enough to keep you secure for quick in and out Whenever the bid volume is more than the ask volume the prices will move up and vice versa. to give an example if a stock is at 100 points and there are fol bids: The transaction will occur when either the bidder agrees to pay the ask price (case 1. he pays 101 . his bid offer will disappear and the next best ask will be 102. and the current price will be 101 which was the last transaction.) or when the person giving ask price agrees to deal at best bid which was 99 in which case the share will go down.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second."],"string":"[\n \"For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":273,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10122"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Why diversify stocks/investments?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["570787","139368","273718","259084"],"string":"[\n \"570787\",\n \"139368\",\n \"273718\",\n \"259084\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["502495","153989","259084","279072","139368","110078","297100","508540","43683","331008","238702","477646","459970","296567","370777","365189","180855","310218","225239","419038","378137","144261","134542","218728","533576","570787","89084","102620","208977","384857","564069","463837","438582","257835","565181","36534","312942","593879","288144","474351","122581","229364","146637","216757","186575","525929","214723","470758","217035","323363","119392","344783","568443","391861","568624","322806","287846","222646","278607","297429","425452","420118","185123","599436","513818","179328","309157","314085","456761","418528","31581","90294","336722","526115","142188","28425","465774","216391","362579","526681","576008","199181","559027","260384","221795","347825","437875","499166","256349","30774","1103","98704","556913","433730","317354","577832","343977","466950","107751","549188"],"string":"[\n \"502495\",\n \"153989\",\n \"259084\",\n \"279072\",\n \"139368\",\n \"110078\",\n \"297100\",\n \"508540\",\n \"43683\",\n \"331008\",\n \"238702\",\n \"477646\",\n \"459970\",\n \"296567\",\n \"370777\",\n \"365189\",\n \"180855\",\n \"310218\",\n \"225239\",\n \"419038\",\n \"378137\",\n \"144261\",\n \"134542\",\n \"218728\",\n \"533576\",\n \"570787\",\n \"89084\",\n \"102620\",\n \"208977\",\n \"384857\",\n \"564069\",\n \"463837\",\n \"438582\",\n \"257835\",\n \"565181\",\n \"36534\",\n \"312942\",\n \"593879\",\n \"288144\",\n \"474351\",\n \"122581\",\n \"229364\",\n \"146637\",\n \"216757\",\n \"186575\",\n \"525929\",\n \"214723\",\n \"470758\",\n \"217035\",\n \"323363\",\n \"119392\",\n \"344783\",\n \"568443\",\n \"391861\",\n \"568624\",\n \"322806\",\n \"287846\",\n \"222646\",\n \"278607\",\n \"297429\",\n \"425452\",\n \"420118\",\n \"185123\",\n \"599436\",\n \"513818\",\n \"179328\",\n \"309157\",\n \"314085\",\n \"456761\",\n \"418528\",\n \"31581\",\n \"90294\",\n \"336722\",\n \"526115\",\n \"142188\",\n \"28425\",\n \"465774\",\n \"216391\",\n \"362579\",\n \"526681\",\n \"576008\",\n \"199181\",\n \"559027\",\n \"260384\",\n \"221795\",\n \"347825\",\n \"437875\",\n \"499166\",\n \"256349\",\n \"30774\",\n \"1103\",\n \"98704\",\n \"556913\",\n \"433730\",\n \"317354\",\n \"577832\",\n \"343977\",\n \"466950\",\n \"107751\",\n \"549188\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.","\"Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to \"\"protect\"\" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, \"\"Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!\"\" But quite a few have also said, \"\"If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!\"\" I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose.\"","Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.","If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.","Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.","If you buy stock in established companies, it is vey unlikely that they will lose all their value. Spreading your money across multiple stocks -- diversifying -- reduces that risk because it is extremely unlikely that they all lose all their value at once. Spreading them across multiple industries and adding bonds to the mix increases diversification. Of course the trade-off is that if one of the stocks skyrockets you don't benefit as much as if you had been lucky enough to put all your money in that one stock. You need to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to tolerate in exchange for the chance of gains. Other answers on this site have dealt with this in more detail.","\"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \"\"cast our net\"\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\"","\"Diversification is extremely important and the one true \"\"Free Lunch\"\" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about \"\"true\"\" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated \"\"Return Drivers.\"\" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch\"","If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.","\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"","\"Years ago I wrote an article Risk, Reward, Coin Flipping which explains from a 'game theory' perspective how diversifying works to minimize standard deviation in one's returns. It's long and tedious, not easy to summarize, but it holds up well, I'm pleased with how the analogy does its job. Update - the above is too \"\"link-only\"\", written over 5 years ago. The article I wrote offers a mathematical approach via an understandable example of coin flipping. With just 2 options, a 'head' is a 10% loss, while a 'tail' is a 30% gain. This actually represents the market fairly well as it results in a 10% average gain and 28% standard deviation for just 2 flips. The article shows how by 'diversifying', choosing to make multiple smaller bets, the average 10% stays the same, but the standard deviation is brought down dramatically, 7.6% when we use a sample experiment with 7 coins.\"","\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"","I think to answer this question it is best for you to learn more about why people diversify through asset allocation. Look at related questions involving Asset Allocation here. I've asked a couple questions about asset allocation - I think you'll find the top rated answer on this post useful.","\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"","if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? No, because Modern Portfolio Theory would say that if there is another asset (B2) with the same (or higher) return but less risk (which you already have in asset A), you should invest in that. If those are the only two assets you can choose from, you would invest completely in Asset A. The point of diversification is that, so long as two assets aren't perfectly positively correlated (meaning that if one moves up the other always moves up), then losses in one asset will sometimes be offset by gains in another, reducing the overall risk.","At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2*s and m+2*s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2*SD(R) and E(R)+2*SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.","Diversifying your portfolio between asset A and asset B only reduces the portfolio risk if asset A and asset B are not correlated. If they have either a low correlation or a negative correlation to each other, then you benefit from combining them in a portfolio in terms of risk reduction. The standard deviation of returns will be lower in a portfolio of low or uncorrelated assets. If on the other hand you combine two correlated assets into a portfolio you are doubling down on the same assumption, which means you are not reducing your risk. You are also wasting capital because now you have allocated capital to 2 separate trades / investments yet they have shown a high tendency of moving together. Here is an article that discusses this further: Why Diversify your Stock Portfolio","\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"","Most investors should not be in individual stocks. The market, however you measure it, can rise, yet some stocks will fall for whatever reason. The diversification needed is to have a number of shares of different stocks, and that a bit higher than most investors are able to invest and certainly not one starting out. I suggest you look at either mutual funds or ETFs, and keep studying. (I'm told I should have offered the UK equivalent Investment Trusts , OEIC, or Unit Trusts)","\"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords. Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000. He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in \"\"genius moves\"\" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too. Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference. In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse.\"","Diversification is just one aspect in an investment portfolio. The other aspects in Investment are Risk Taking Ability, Liquidity, Local Regulations, Tax benefits, Ease & Convenience, Cost of carrying out transactions etc. Investing in other regions is prone FX risk and other risks depending on the region of investment. For example investing in Emerging markets there is a risk of Local Regulations being changed, additional tax being levied, or Political instability and host of such risks. Investing in local markets give you better understanding of such changes and the risk associated is less plus the Ease of carrying out transactions is great, less expensive compared to cost of transactions in other markets. Diversification in Investment should also be looked upon how much you invest in; Equities Debt Bullion Real Estate Once you have a sizeable amount of investment in Equities or Debt, it would then make more sense to diversify this portion more to include funds from other regions. Unless you are an Running your own business, it makes sense to invest in your line of business if that is performing well. The reason being that the benefit / returns from the equities is much greater than the salary rise / bonus. For example I am in Information Technology and yet invest in all leading IT companies because the returns from companies in these segments have been good.","\"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say \"\"diversify\"\" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked \"\"why diversify at all?\"\", and that is entirely a different question from your original \"\"what diversification is?\"\". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time.\"","\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \"\"risk apettite\"\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\"","The other example I'd offer is the case for diversification. If one buys 10 well chosen stocks, i.e. stocks spread across different industries so their correlation to one another is low, they will have lower risk than each of the 10 folk who own one of those stocks per person. Same stocks, but lower risk when combined.","\"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"","Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.","Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value.","You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion.","Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment. An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.","The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument.","\"The short answer: zero. dg99's answer gives some good reasons why. You will basically never be able to achieve diversification with individual stocks that is anywhere close to what you can get with mutual funds. Owning individual stocks exposes you to much greater risk in that random one-off events that happen to affect one of the companies you own can have a disproportionate effect on your assets. (For instance, some sort of scandal involving a particular company can cause its stock to tank.) There are only two reasons I can see to invest in individual stocks: a. You have some unique opportunity to acquire stock that other people might not be able to get (or get at that price). This can be the case if you work for a privately-held company that allows you to buy stock (or options), or allows you to participate in its IPO. Even then, you should not go too crazy, since having too much stock in the company you work for can double your pain if the company falls on hard times (you may lose your job and your investment). b. For fun. If you like tracking stocks and trying to beat the market, you may want to test your skills at this by using a small proportion of your investable cash (no more than 10%). In this case you're not so much hoping to increase your returns as to just enjoy investing more. This can also have a psychological benefit in that it allows you to \"\"blow off steam\"\" and indulge your desire to make decisions, while allowing your passive investments (index funds) to shoulder the load of actually gaining value.\"","\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"","I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.","The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold.","I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return. In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost.","\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"","Diversified is relative. Alfred has all his money in Apple. He's done very well over the last 10 years, but I think most investors would say that he's taking an incredible risk by putting everything on one stock. Betty has stock in Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Compared to Alfred, she is diversified. Charlie looks at Betty and realizes that she is only investing in one particular industry. All the companies in an individual industry can have a downturn together, so he invests everything in an S&P 500 index fund. David looks at Charlie and notes that he's got everything in large, high-capitalization companies. Small-cap stocks are often where the growth happens, so he invests in a total stock market fund. Evelyn realizes that David has all his money tied up in one country, the United States. What about the rest of the world? She invests in a global fund. Frank really likes Evelyn's broad approach to equities, but he knows that some portion of fixed-income assets (e.g. cash deposits, bonds) can reduce portfolio volatility—and may even enhance returns through periodic rebalancing. He does what Evelyn does, but also allocates some percentage of his portfolio to fixed income, and intends to maintain his target allocations. Being diversified enough depends on your individual goals and investing philosophy. There are some who would say that it is wrong to put all of your money in one fund, no matter what it is. Others would say that a sufficiently broad index fund is inherently diversified as-is.","\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"","Depends on the fund. If it's a Target Date fund, which is inherently diversified, this comes down to how much you trust the investment house to not go belly-up. If it's another kind of fund, you need to manage your own duversification and occasional rebalancing. Most of my money is in index funds (details elsewhere), but that's five or six very different indexes to cover the investment space with the mix of investment types I've selected. And most of it is in a single family of funds, which might be argued to be higher risk than desirable but which has been convenient.","\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"","Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.","Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.","\"Yes, a diversified portfolio can generate greater returns than the S&P 500 by going OUTSIDE it. For instance, small stocks (on average) generate higher returns than the \"\"large caps\"\" found in the S&P 500. So if you own a diversified portfolio of stocks, some of which are smaller (in market cap) than the typical S&P 500 stock, you have a chance to outperform. You might also outperform by owning other asset classes than stocks such as gold, real estate, and timber (among others) at appropriate times. (You may also be able to get the relevant exposure by owning gold and timber stocks and REITS.) This was a lesson that David Swensen of the Yale endowment taught us.\"","\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"","You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.","It all depends on the liquidity of your investments some examples: You can mitigate only the risk that you can control. It is always good to have:","While you would reduce risk by diversifying into other stock ETFs across the world, Developed Market returns (and Emerging Markets to a lesser extent) are generally highly correlated with another (correlation of ~0.85-0.90). This implies that they all go up in bull-markets and go down together in bear markets. You are better off diversifying into other asset-classes given your risk tolerance (such as government bonds, as you have mentioned). Alternatively, you can target a portfolio owning all of the assets in the universe (assuming you're trading in Frankfurt, a combination of something similar to H4ZJ and XBAG, but with higher volumes and/or lower fees)! A good starting resource would be the Bogleheads Wiki: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Asset_allocation","\"One approach is to invest in \"\"allocation\"\" mutual funds that use various methods to vary their asset allocation. Some examples (these are not recommendations; just to show you what I am talking about): A good way to identify a useful allocation fund is to look at the \"\"R-squared\"\" (correlation) with indexes on Morningstar. If the allocation fund has a 90-plus R-squared with any index, it probably isn't doing a lot. If it's relatively uncorrelated, then the manager is not index-hugging, but is making decisions to give you different risks from the index. If you put 10% of your portfolio in a fund that varies allocation to stocks from 25% to 75%, then your allocation to stocks created by that 10% would be between 2.5% to 7.5% depending on the views of the fund manager. You can use that type of calculation to invest enough in allocation funds to allow your overall allocation to vary within a desired range, and then you could put the rest of your money in index funds or whatever you normally use. You can think of this as diversifying across investment discipline in addition to across asset class. Another approach is to simply rely on your already balanced portfolio and enjoy any downturns in stocks as an opportunity to rebalance and buy some stocks at a lower price. Then enjoy any run-up as an opportunity to rebalance and sell some stocks at a high price. The difficulty of course is going through with the rebalance. This is one advantage of all-in-one funds (target date, \"\"lifecycle,\"\" balanced, they have many names), they will always go through with the rebalance for you - and you can't \"\"see\"\" each bucket in order to get stressed about it. i.e. it's important to think of your portfolio as a whole, not look at the loss in the stocks portion. An all-in-one fund keeps you from seeing the stocks-by-themselves loss number, which is a good way to trick yourself into behaving sensibly. If you want to rebalance \"\"more aggressively\"\" then look at value averaging (search for \"\"value averaging\"\" on this site for example). A questionable approach is flat-out market-timing, where you try to get out and back in at the right times; a variation on this would be to buy put options at certain times; the problem is that it's just too hard. I think it makes more sense to buy an allocation fund that does this for you. If you do market time, you want to go in and out gradually, and value averaging is one way to do that.\"","Research the company. Obtain and read their current and past financial statements. Find and read news stories about them. Look for patterns and draw conclusions. Or diversify to the point where one company failing doesn't hurt you significantly. Or both.","In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing. Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks). This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk. Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other. If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly. You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund. Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable. You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post. The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification. The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot.","Generally a diversified portfolio will give you a better overall return --a couple of factors that may address what you are looking at - 1) Correlation - The correlation between your two funds is still very high -- it's partially a function of how global economies are related and many companies are now multi-national. It may help if you diversified into other types of products. 2) Diversification - Following up from before, you may want to also look into diversifying into some bonds, commodities, reits, etc. They will have a much smaller correlation with a total domestic stock fund. 3) Returns - I'm not sure if by dominate you mean that it has better overall returns, but the point of diversification is to to get you the highest returns. It's really the ability to limit the risk for the returns - this really translates to limiting the volatility. This may mean that overall your max returns could be lower-- ie: maybe VTSAX gives potential average returns between 3%-11%. A diversified portfolio may give you potential average returns of 5%-9%. A similar article debating the merits of 'smart beta ETFs' if you are curious. Hope that helps.","\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \"\"over the period tracked\"\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\"","Because stock markets don't always go up, sometimes they go down. Sometimes they go way down. Between 2007 and 2009 the S&P 500 lost over half its value. So if in 2007 you thought you had just enough to retire on, in 2009 you'd suddenly find you had only half of what you needed! Of course over the next few years, many of the stocks recovered value, but if you had retired in 2008 and depended on a 401k that consisted entirely of stocks, you'd have been forced to sell a bunch of stocks near the bottom of the market to cover your retirement living expenses. Bonds go up and down too, but usually not to the same extent as stocks, and ideally you aren't selling the bonds for your living expenses, just collecting the interest that's due you for the year. Of course, some companies and cities went bankrupt in the 2008 crisis too, and they stopped making interest payments. Another risk is that you may be forced to retire before you were actually planning to. As you age you are at increasing risk for medical problems that may force an early retirement. Many businesses coped with the 2008 recession by laying off their older workers who were earning higher salaries. It wasn't an easy environment for older workers to find jobs in, so many folks were forced into early retirement. Nothing is risk free, so you need to make an effort to understand what the risks are, and decide which ones you are comfortable with.","Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.","Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.","\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"","Not that I am aware. If you are trying to mitigate losses from stock purchases, you may want to consider stock mutual funds. This is why single stocks can be extremely risky.","thanks! hence the etf - I hoped to get an ETF of say 20-25 positions, out of which 12 will lose in value, 10 will stay flat or lose a bit, and 2-3 go AAPL, bringing the total ETF up by a solid 10% or so :) and then the divident game begins.","To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.","Chris Rea's comment captures it -- most people don't have working crystal balls. Unless you are a trader, you address risk with diversification. There are several questions on this site discussing strategies to diversify your portfolio. In many ways, the markets offer investors false choices. We have an emotional desire to react to stimuli -- but that often leads to lousy outcomes. For example, selling your NASDAQ 100 fund after its value falls is usually a bad idea.","\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \"\"truth\"\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\"","\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"","\"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that. Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion \"\"don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so\"\" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the \"\"don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all\"\" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds.\"","\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"","Stock portfolios have diversifiable risk and undiversifiable risk. The market rewards investors for taking undiversifiable risk (e.g. owning an index of oil producing companies) and does not reward investors for assuming diversifiable risk (e.g. owning a single oil producing company). The market will not provide investors with any extra return for owning a single oil company when they can buy an oil index fund at no additional cost. Similarly, the market will not reward you for owning a small-cap index fund when you can purchase a globally diversified / capitalization diversified index fund at no additional cost. This article provides a more detailed description. The Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund is a much better staring point for an equity portfolio. You will need to make sure that the asset allocation of your overall portfolio (e.g. stocks, bonds, P2P lending, cash) is consistent with your time horizon (5-10 years).","This depends completely on your investing goals. Typically when saving for retirement younger investors aim for a more volatile and aggressive portfolio but diversify their portfolio with more cautious stocks/bonds as they near retirement. In other words, the volatility that owning a single stock brings may be in line with your goals if you can shoulder the risk.","Rephrasing your question: Am I diversified if I have more than 50% US stocks? I would say that you can certainly be diversified and have more than 50% of your portfolio invested in US Stocks. I view the amount of international stocks (non-US) as a risk choice. My observations have been that my international stocks have higher risk which comes with a higher reward. I'm not comfortable with putting too much of my portfolio into a very high risk category. I personally invest 25% directly in mutual funds that invest in foreign stocks. When you couple that with the money I invest in US stocks via mutual funds that have foreign interests (Coke, GE, etc.), I'm somewhat over 25% international in my portfolio.","\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"","\"Historically, the market's average rate of return has been about 8%. (Serakfalcon's \"\"6% to 10%\"\" is essentially the same number.) You should be able to get into that range for long-term investments with minimal risk. \"\"5 or 6 companies\"\", unless you know a heck of a lot about those companies, is fairly high risk. If any one of those runs into trouble, a considerable amount of your net investment is riding on it. Of course if any of them invents the Next Big Thing you could hit it big; that's the tradeoff. Diversification isn't sexy, but it buffers you from single-company disasters, and if you diversify across kinds of investment that buffers you from single-sector disasters. Index funds aren't sexy, but they're a low-cost way to diversify, especially if you go with a mix of funds in different categories (large cap, small cap, bond, international, real estate) or a fund which has that mix built into it such as a target date fund.\"","\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \"\"buy low\"\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\"","When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.","For what it's worth -- and I realize this isn't directly an answer to the question -- one of the advantages of sticking with mutual funds, beyond their being inherently diversified, is that it removes a lot of the temptation to try to time the market. When you need money, you sell shares in such a way that it maintains your preferred investment ratio, and simply don't worry about which stocks are actually involved. (I've gotten 15% APR this year across all my investments, for absolutely minimal effort. That's quite good enough for me.)","Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.","The mathematical answer is for you to have a diversified portfolio in your ISA. But that's easier said than done.","1. It doesn't have an almost perfect negative correlation - its value decays very fast because of time. In fact, something like 80% of options expire worthless. They typically have a lifespan of 30-90 days and unless you're using them as a way to earn excess return, you'll likely just throw away your premium. 2. You're also making some assumptions about correlation and risk/reward. You won't become wealthy by distributing risk, all you can hope for is less volatility - maybe that's what you're looking for - but you can also expect your return to be less than the market over almost any period of time. 3. Options aren't really for diversifying. Furthermore, why diversify? It's a myth that it adds any value. There's around a 90% correlation for all asset classes since around 2000, so you're being sold some blue sky if someone tells you otherwise. 4. Look up prices of put options. 1-2% of your portfolio might buy you a handful of options, but again, there's a high probability you'll lose that 1-2% entirely every 30-90 days.","A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually. Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms.","I think it depends entirely on your risk tolerance. Putting money in individual stocks obviously increases your risk and potentially increases your reward. Personally (as a fairly conservative investor) I'd only invest in individual stocks if I could afford to lose the entire investment (maybe I'd end up buying Enron or Nortel). If you enjoy envesting and feel 10% is an acceptable loss I think you have your answer","The problem is aggregating information from so many sources, countries, and economies. You are probably more aware of local laws, local tax changes, local economic performance, etc, so it makes sense that you'd be more in tune with your own country. If your intent is to be fully diversified, then buy a total world fund. A lot of hedge funds do what you are suggesting, but I think it requires either some serious math or some serious research. Note: I'm invested in emerging markets (EEM) for exactly the reason you suggest... diversification.","Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.","As mentioned, dividends are a way of returning value to shareholders. It is a conduit of profit as companies don't legitimately control upward appreciation in their share prices. If you can't wrap your head around the risk to the reward, then this simply means you partially fit the description for a greater investment risk profile, so you need to put down Warren Buffett's books and Rich Dad Poor Dad and get an investment book that fits your risk profile.","Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.","If you are a novice investor and want to diversify, I'd recommend looking into targeted mutual funds. They couldn't be easier. You just put your money in the fund with the year that you anticipating needing to take the money out and the fund manager handles diversification and adjusting the risk appropriately over the life of the fund based on the remaining time horizon. The only downside is that the annual expenses tend to be higher on these than if you just invested in the underlying securities/funds, but you are pretty much paying them to manage it for you.","Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:","\"Yes, you can insure against the fall in price of stock by purchasing a put option. You pay for a put and if the price of the share falls below the \"\"strike price\"\" of the put, then you can exercise the put. On exercise, the person who sold you the put contract agrees to buy the stock for the strike price, even though that strike price is higher than the market price. You can adjust the level of insurance by buying put options at higher or lower prices, or buying fewer put options than shares you own (leaving some shares uninsured). Alternatively, you can minimize your risk exposure by investing in an index or other fund, which gives you partial ownership in a large number of shares. That means on any given day, lots of shares do worse and lots of shares do better. You can reduce the need for insurance by purchasing a lower-risk, lower-growth financial product.\"","There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:","The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.","An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)","It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.","The stock market, as a whole, is extremely volatile. During any 3 year period, the market could go up or down. However, and this is the important point,the market as a whole has historically been a good long term investment. If you need the money in 5 years, then you want to put it in something less volatile (so there's less chance of losing it). If you need the money in 50 years, put it in the market; the massive growth over those 50 years will more than make up for any short term drops, and you will probably come out ahead. Once you get closer to retirement age, you want to take the money out of stocks and put it in something safer; essentially locking in your profit, and protecting yourself from the possibility of further loss. Something else to consider: everyone lost money in 2008. There were no safe investments (well, ok, there were a few... but not enough to talk about). Given that, why would you choose another investment over stocks? Taking a 50% loss after decades of 10% annual returns is still better than a 50% loss after decades of 5% growth (in fact, after 20 years of growth, it's still 250% better - and that ratio will only improve the longer you leave it in).","The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.","Investing only in one industry may be problematic as it is highly correlated. There are factor outside your (or anyones) knowledge which may affect all the industry: If you are familiar with the industry it may happen that you work in that (ignore rest of paragraph if this is not the case). In such case you are likely to have problems at work (frozen salary, no bonus, position terminated) and you need to liquidate the investments at that point (see many advice regarding ESPP). Depending on your field you may have some inside knowledge so even if you would took a position without it you may need to somehow prove it. On the other hand diversifying the investment might reduce the volatility of investment. Rise in oil will cause problems for air industry but will be a boom for oil industry etc. In this way you smooth the grow of the investments. Investing part of portfolio into specific industry may make more sense. It still possibly worth to avoid it at the beginning investor may have trouble to beat the market (for example according to behavioural economics you are exposed to various biases, or if markets are efficient then prices most likely already take into account any information you may have). (I'm still new to all this so it's mostly based on what I read rather then any personal experience. Also a standard disclaimer that this is not an investment, or any other, advice and I'm not licensed financial advisor in any jurisdiction)","\"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now. In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not \"\"pure stocks\"\": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done \"\"by hand,\"\" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard. (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice.\"","Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.","I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover. Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier. Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment.","You can simply stick with some index funds that tracks the S&P 500 and Ex-US world market. That should provide some good diversification. And of course, you should always have a portion of your money in short/mid term bond fund, rebalancing your stock/bond ratio all the way as deemed necessary. If you want to follow the The Über–Tuber portfolio, you'd better make sure that there's minimum overlapping among the underlying shares that they hold.","Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.","\"Ryan's suggestion to index for your main strategy is dead on. Your risk is highest with one given stock, and decreases as you diversify. Yet, picking the stocks one at a time is an effort, when done right, it's time consuming. For what one can say about Jim \"\"mad money\"\" Cramer, his advice to spend an hour a month studying each stock you own, is pretty decent advice. Penny stocks are sub one dollar priced, typically small companies which in theory can grow to be large companies, but the available information tends to be tougher to get hold of. Options are a discussion for a different thread, I discussed the covered call strategy elsewhere and show that options are not necessarily high risk, it depends how they are used.\"","\"Having savings only in your home currency is relatively 'low risk' compared with other types of 'low diversification'. This is because, in a simple case, your future cash outflows will be in your home currency, so if the GBP fluctuates in value, it will (theoretically) still buy you the same goods at home. In this way, keeping your savings in the same currency as your future expenditures creates a natural hedge against currency fluctuation. This gets complicated for goods imported from other countries, where base price fluctuates based on a foreign currency, or for situations where you expect to incur significant foreign currency expenditures (retirement elsewhere, etc.). In such cases, you no longer have certainty that your future expenditures will be based on the GBP, and saving money in other currencies may make more sense. In many circumstances, 'diversification' of the currency of your savings may actually increase your risk, not decrease it. Be sure you are doing this for a specific reason, with a specific strategy, and not just to generally 'spread your money around'. Even in case of a Brexit, consider: what would you do with a bank account full of USD? If the answer is \"\"Convert it back to GBP when needed (in 6 months, 5 years, 30, etc.), to buy British goods\"\", then I wouldn't call this a way to reduce your risk. Instead, I would call it a type of investment, with its own set of risks associated.\"","When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.","\"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\"\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \"\"as defined by theory.\"\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\""],"string":"[\n \"Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.\",\n \"\\\"Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to \\\"\\\"protect\\\"\\\" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, \\\"\\\"Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!\\\"\\\" But quite a few have also said, \\\"\\\"If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!\\\"\\\" I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose.\\\"\",\n \"Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.\",\n \"If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.\",\n \"Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.\",\n \"If you buy stock in established companies, it is vey unlikely that they will lose all their value. Spreading your money across multiple stocks -- diversifying -- reduces that risk because it is extremely unlikely that they all lose all their value at once. Spreading them across multiple industries and adding bonds to the mix increases diversification. Of course the trade-off is that if one of the stocks skyrockets you don't benefit as much as if you had been lucky enough to put all your money in that one stock. You need to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to tolerate in exchange for the chance of gains. Other answers on this site have dealt with this in more detail.\",\n \"\\\"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \\\"\\\"cast our net\\\"\\\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Diversification is extremely important and the one true \\\"\\\"Free Lunch\\\"\\\" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about \\\"\\\"true\\\"\\\" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated \\\"\\\"Return Drivers.\\\"\\\" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch\\\"\",\n \"If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.\",\n \"\\\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \\\"\\\"putting all your eggs in one basket\\\"\\\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Years ago I wrote an article Risk, Reward, Coin Flipping which explains from a 'game theory' perspective how diversifying works to minimize standard deviation in one's returns. It's long and tedious, not easy to summarize, but it holds up well, I'm pleased with how the analogy does its job. Update - the above is too \\\"\\\"link-only\\\"\\\", written over 5 years ago. The article I wrote offers a mathematical approach via an understandable example of coin flipping. With just 2 options, a 'head' is a 10% loss, while a 'tail' is a 30% gain. This actually represents the market fairly well as it results in a 10% average gain and 28% standard deviation for just 2 flips. The article shows how by 'diversifying', choosing to make multiple smaller bets, the average 10% stays the same, but the standard deviation is brought down dramatically, 7.6% when we use a sample experiment with 7 coins.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \\\"\\\"sector\\\"\\\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \\\"\\\"room to run\\\"\\\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \\\"\\\"all major countries that aren't the USA\\\"\\\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\\\"\",\n \"I think to answer this question it is best for you to learn more about why people diversify through asset allocation. Look at related questions involving Asset Allocation here. I've asked a couple questions about asset allocation - I think you'll find the top rated answer on this post useful.\",\n \"\\\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \\\"\\\"data and proof\\\"\\\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\\\"\",\n \"if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? No, because Modern Portfolio Theory would say that if there is another asset (B2) with the same (or higher) return but less risk (which you already have in asset A), you should invest in that. If those are the only two assets you can choose from, you would invest completely in Asset A. The point of diversification is that, so long as two assets aren't perfectly positively correlated (meaning that if one moves up the other always moves up), then losses in one asset will sometimes be offset by gains in another, reducing the overall risk.\",\n \"At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2*s and m+2*s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2*SD(R) and E(R)+2*SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.\",\n \"Diversifying your portfolio between asset A and asset B only reduces the portfolio risk if asset A and asset B are not correlated. If they have either a low correlation or a negative correlation to each other, then you benefit from combining them in a portfolio in terms of risk reduction. The standard deviation of returns will be lower in a portfolio of low or uncorrelated assets. If on the other hand you combine two correlated assets into a portfolio you are doubling down on the same assumption, which means you are not reducing your risk. You are also wasting capital because now you have allocated capital to 2 separate trades / investments yet they have shown a high tendency of moving together. Here is an article that discusses this further: Why Diversify your Stock Portfolio\",\n \"\\\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \\\"\\\"safer investments\\\"\\\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\\\"\",\n \"Most investors should not be in individual stocks. The market, however you measure it, can rise, yet some stocks will fall for whatever reason. The diversification needed is to have a number of shares of different stocks, and that a bit higher than most investors are able to invest and certainly not one starting out. I suggest you look at either mutual funds or ETFs, and keep studying. (I'm told I should have offered the UK equivalent Investment Trusts , OEIC, or Unit Trusts)\",\n \"\\\"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords. Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000. He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in \\\"\\\"genius moves\\\"\\\" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too. Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference. In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse.\\\"\",\n \"Diversification is just one aspect in an investment portfolio. The other aspects in Investment are Risk Taking Ability, Liquidity, Local Regulations, Tax benefits, Ease & Convenience, Cost of carrying out transactions etc. Investing in other regions is prone FX risk and other risks depending on the region of investment. For example investing in Emerging markets there is a risk of Local Regulations being changed, additional tax being levied, or Political instability and host of such risks. Investing in local markets give you better understanding of such changes and the risk associated is less plus the Ease of carrying out transactions is great, less expensive compared to cost of transactions in other markets. Diversification in Investment should also be looked upon how much you invest in; Equities Debt Bullion Real Estate Once you have a sizeable amount of investment in Equities or Debt, it would then make more sense to diversify this portion more to include funds from other regions. Unless you are an Running your own business, it makes sense to invest in your line of business if that is performing well. The reason being that the benefit / returns from the equities is much greater than the salary rise / bonus. For example I am in Information Technology and yet invest in all leading IT companies because the returns from companies in these segments have been good.\",\n \"\\\"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say \\\"\\\"diversify\\\"\\\" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked \\\"\\\"why diversify at all?\\\"\\\", and that is entirely a different question from your original \\\"\\\"what diversification is?\\\"\\\". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \\\"\\\"risk apettite\\\"\\\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\\\"\",\n \"The other example I'd offer is the case for diversification. If one buys 10 well chosen stocks, i.e. stocks spread across different industries so their correlation to one another is low, they will have lower risk than each of the 10 folk who own one of those stocks per person. Same stocks, but lower risk when combined.\",\n \"\\\"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \\\"\\\"adventurous\\\"\\\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \\\"\\\"rebalance\\\"\\\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \\\"\\\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\\\"\\\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \\\"\\\"type\\\"\\\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \\\"\\\"right\\\"\\\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\\\"\",\n \"Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.\",\n \"Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value.\",\n \"You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion.\",\n \"Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment. An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.\",\n \"The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument.\",\n \"\\\"The short answer: zero. dg99's answer gives some good reasons why. You will basically never be able to achieve diversification with individual stocks that is anywhere close to what you can get with mutual funds. Owning individual stocks exposes you to much greater risk in that random one-off events that happen to affect one of the companies you own can have a disproportionate effect on your assets. (For instance, some sort of scandal involving a particular company can cause its stock to tank.) There are only two reasons I can see to invest in individual stocks: a. You have some unique opportunity to acquire stock that other people might not be able to get (or get at that price). This can be the case if you work for a privately-held company that allows you to buy stock (or options), or allows you to participate in its IPO. Even then, you should not go too crazy, since having too much stock in the company you work for can double your pain if the company falls on hard times (you may lose your job and your investment). b. For fun. If you like tracking stocks and trying to beat the market, you may want to test your skills at this by using a small proportion of your investable cash (no more than 10%). In this case you're not so much hoping to increase your returns as to just enjoy investing more. This can also have a psychological benefit in that it allows you to \\\"\\\"blow off steam\\\"\\\" and indulge your desire to make decisions, while allowing your passive investments (index funds) to shoulder the load of actually gaining value.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \\\"\\\"multiple coin toss\\\"\\\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \\\"\\\"Uncle Fred\\\"\\\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \\\"\\\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\\\"\\\" or simply, the \\\"\\\"coin toss.\\\"\\\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\\\"\",\n \"I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.\",\n \"The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold.\",\n \"I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return. In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost.\",\n \"\\\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \\\"\\\"short term investment\\\"\\\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \\\"\\\"parrot\\\"\\\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\\\"\",\n \"Diversified is relative. Alfred has all his money in Apple. He's done very well over the last 10 years, but I think most investors would say that he's taking an incredible risk by putting everything on one stock. Betty has stock in Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Compared to Alfred, she is diversified. Charlie looks at Betty and realizes that she is only investing in one particular industry. All the companies in an individual industry can have a downturn together, so he invests everything in an S&P 500 index fund. David looks at Charlie and notes that he's got everything in large, high-capitalization companies. Small-cap stocks are often where the growth happens, so he invests in a total stock market fund. Evelyn realizes that David has all his money tied up in one country, the United States. What about the rest of the world? She invests in a global fund. Frank really likes Evelyn's broad approach to equities, but he knows that some portion of fixed-income assets (e.g. cash deposits, bonds) can reduce portfolio volatility—and may even enhance returns through periodic rebalancing. He does what Evelyn does, but also allocates some percentage of his portfolio to fixed income, and intends to maintain his target allocations. Being diversified enough depends on your individual goals and investing philosophy. There are some who would say that it is wrong to put all of your money in one fund, no matter what it is. Others would say that a sufficiently broad index fund is inherently diversified as-is.\",\n \"\\\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \\\"\\\"dry periods\\\"\\\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \\\"\\\"relies\\\"\\\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\\\"\",\n \"Depends on the fund. If it's a Target Date fund, which is inherently diversified, this comes down to how much you trust the investment house to not go belly-up. If it's another kind of fund, you need to manage your own duversification and occasional rebalancing. Most of my money is in index funds (details elsewhere), but that's five or six very different indexes to cover the investment space with the mix of investment types I've selected. And most of it is in a single family of funds, which might be argued to be higher risk than desirable but which has been convenient.\",\n \"\\\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \\\"\\\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\\\"\\\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\\\"\",\n \"Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.\",\n \"Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, a diversified portfolio can generate greater returns than the S&P 500 by going OUTSIDE it. For instance, small stocks (on average) generate higher returns than the \\\"\\\"large caps\\\"\\\" found in the S&P 500. So if you own a diversified portfolio of stocks, some of which are smaller (in market cap) than the typical S&P 500 stock, you have a chance to outperform. You might also outperform by owning other asset classes than stocks such as gold, real estate, and timber (among others) at appropriate times. (You may also be able to get the relevant exposure by owning gold and timber stocks and REITS.) This was a lesson that David Swensen of the Yale endowment taught us.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \\\"\\\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\\\"\\\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \\\"\\\"Random\\\"\\\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \\\"\\\"random walk.\\\"\\\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \\\"\\\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\\\"\\\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \\\"\\\"random\\\"\\\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\\\"\",\n \"You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.\",\n \"It all depends on the liquidity of your investments some examples: You can mitigate only the risk that you can control. It is always good to have:\",\n \"While you would reduce risk by diversifying into other stock ETFs across the world, Developed Market returns (and Emerging Markets to a lesser extent) are generally highly correlated with another (correlation of ~0.85-0.90). This implies that they all go up in bull-markets and go down together in bear markets. You are better off diversifying into other asset-classes given your risk tolerance (such as government bonds, as you have mentioned). Alternatively, you can target a portfolio owning all of the assets in the universe (assuming you're trading in Frankfurt, a combination of something similar to H4ZJ and XBAG, but with higher volumes and/or lower fees)! A good starting resource would be the Bogleheads Wiki: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Asset_allocation\",\n \"\\\"One approach is to invest in \\\"\\\"allocation\\\"\\\" mutual funds that use various methods to vary their asset allocation. Some examples (these are not recommendations; just to show you what I am talking about): A good way to identify a useful allocation fund is to look at the \\\"\\\"R-squared\\\"\\\" (correlation) with indexes on Morningstar. If the allocation fund has a 90-plus R-squared with any index, it probably isn't doing a lot. If it's relatively uncorrelated, then the manager is not index-hugging, but is making decisions to give you different risks from the index. If you put 10% of your portfolio in a fund that varies allocation to stocks from 25% to 75%, then your allocation to stocks created by that 10% would be between 2.5% to 7.5% depending on the views of the fund manager. You can use that type of calculation to invest enough in allocation funds to allow your overall allocation to vary within a desired range, and then you could put the rest of your money in index funds or whatever you normally use. You can think of this as diversifying across investment discipline in addition to across asset class. Another approach is to simply rely on your already balanced portfolio and enjoy any downturns in stocks as an opportunity to rebalance and buy some stocks at a lower price. Then enjoy any run-up as an opportunity to rebalance and sell some stocks at a high price. The difficulty of course is going through with the rebalance. This is one advantage of all-in-one funds (target date, \\\"\\\"lifecycle,\\\"\\\" balanced, they have many names), they will always go through with the rebalance for you - and you can't \\\"\\\"see\\\"\\\" each bucket in order to get stressed about it. i.e. it's important to think of your portfolio as a whole, not look at the loss in the stocks portion. An all-in-one fund keeps you from seeing the stocks-by-themselves loss number, which is a good way to trick yourself into behaving sensibly. If you want to rebalance \\\"\\\"more aggressively\\\"\\\" then look at value averaging (search for \\\"\\\"value averaging\\\"\\\" on this site for example). A questionable approach is flat-out market-timing, where you try to get out and back in at the right times; a variation on this would be to buy put options at certain times; the problem is that it's just too hard. I think it makes more sense to buy an allocation fund that does this for you. If you do market time, you want to go in and out gradually, and value averaging is one way to do that.\\\"\",\n \"Research the company. Obtain and read their current and past financial statements. Find and read news stories about them. Look for patterns and draw conclusions. Or diversify to the point where one company failing doesn't hurt you significantly. Or both.\",\n \"In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing. Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks). This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk. Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other. If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly. You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund. Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable. You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post. The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification. The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot.\",\n \"Generally a diversified portfolio will give you a better overall return --a couple of factors that may address what you are looking at - 1) Correlation - The correlation between your two funds is still very high -- it's partially a function of how global economies are related and many companies are now multi-national. It may help if you diversified into other types of products. 2) Diversification - Following up from before, you may want to also look into diversifying into some bonds, commodities, reits, etc. They will have a much smaller correlation with a total domestic stock fund. 3) Returns - I'm not sure if by dominate you mean that it has better overall returns, but the point of diversification is to to get you the highest returns. It's really the ability to limit the risk for the returns - this really translates to limiting the volatility. This may mean that overall your max returns could be lower-- ie: maybe VTSAX gives potential average returns between 3%-11%. A diversified portfolio may give you potential average returns of 5%-9%. A similar article debating the merits of 'smart beta ETFs' if you are curious. Hope that helps.\",\n \"\\\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \\\"\\\"over the period tracked\\\"\\\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\\\"\",\n \"Because stock markets don't always go up, sometimes they go down. Sometimes they go way down. Between 2007 and 2009 the S&P 500 lost over half its value. So if in 2007 you thought you had just enough to retire on, in 2009 you'd suddenly find you had only half of what you needed! Of course over the next few years, many of the stocks recovered value, but if you had retired in 2008 and depended on a 401k that consisted entirely of stocks, you'd have been forced to sell a bunch of stocks near the bottom of the market to cover your retirement living expenses. Bonds go up and down too, but usually not to the same extent as stocks, and ideally you aren't selling the bonds for your living expenses, just collecting the interest that's due you for the year. Of course, some companies and cities went bankrupt in the 2008 crisis too, and they stopped making interest payments. Another risk is that you may be forced to retire before you were actually planning to. As you age you are at increasing risk for medical problems that may force an early retirement. Many businesses coped with the 2008 recession by laying off their older workers who were earning higher salaries. It wasn't an easy environment for older workers to find jobs in, so many folks were forced into early retirement. Nothing is risk free, so you need to make an effort to understand what the risks are, and decide which ones you are comfortable with.\",\n \"Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.\",\n \"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.\",\n \"\\\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \\\"\\\"yes.\\\"\\\" Diversification is good.\\\"\\\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \\\"\\\"favorite fund\\\"\\\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \\\"\\\"hot streak\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"can't lose.\\\"\\\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \\\"\\\"premium\\\"\\\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\", while the other half is \\\"\\\"growth.\\\"\\\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\\\"\",\n \"Not that I am aware. If you are trying to mitigate losses from stock purchases, you may want to consider stock mutual funds. This is why single stocks can be extremely risky.\",\n \"thanks! hence the etf - I hoped to get an ETF of say 20-25 positions, out of which 12 will lose in value, 10 will stay flat or lose a bit, and 2-3 go AAPL, bringing the total ETF up by a solid 10% or so :) and then the divident game begins.\",\n \"To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.\",\n \"Chris Rea's comment captures it -- most people don't have working crystal balls. Unless you are a trader, you address risk with diversification. There are several questions on this site discussing strategies to diversify your portfolio. In many ways, the markets offer investors false choices. We have an emotional desire to react to stimuli -- but that often leads to lousy outcomes. For example, selling your NASDAQ 100 fund after its value falls is usually a bad idea.\",\n \"\\\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \\\"\\\"truth\\\"\\\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \\\"\\\"all-time high\\\"\\\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \\\"\\\"never lose\\\"\\\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \\\"\\\"can't lose\\\"\\\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \\\"\\\"reasonable gain\\\"\\\"? Why is your \\\"\\\"guaranteed\\\"\\\" X% gain better than the \\\"\\\"unreasonable\\\"\\\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \\\"\\\"reasonable\\\"\\\" gain for an individual stock is?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that. Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion \\\"\\\"don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so\\\"\\\" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the \\\"\\\"don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all\\\"\\\" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \\\"\\\"term\\\"\\\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \\\"\\\"bonds\\\"\\\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \\\"\\\"average duration\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"average maturity\\\"\\\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \\\"\\\"complicated\\\"\\\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \\\"\\\"floating rate\\\"\\\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\\\"\",\n \"Stock portfolios have diversifiable risk and undiversifiable risk. The market rewards investors for taking undiversifiable risk (e.g. owning an index of oil producing companies) and does not reward investors for assuming diversifiable risk (e.g. owning a single oil producing company). The market will not provide investors with any extra return for owning a single oil company when they can buy an oil index fund at no additional cost. Similarly, the market will not reward you for owning a small-cap index fund when you can purchase a globally diversified / capitalization diversified index fund at no additional cost. This article provides a more detailed description. The Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund is a much better staring point for an equity portfolio. You will need to make sure that the asset allocation of your overall portfolio (e.g. stocks, bonds, P2P lending, cash) is consistent with your time horizon (5-10 years).\",\n \"This depends completely on your investing goals. Typically when saving for retirement younger investors aim for a more volatile and aggressive portfolio but diversify their portfolio with more cautious stocks/bonds as they near retirement. In other words, the volatility that owning a single stock brings may be in line with your goals if you can shoulder the risk.\",\n \"Rephrasing your question: Am I diversified if I have more than 50% US stocks? I would say that you can certainly be diversified and have more than 50% of your portfolio invested in US Stocks. I view the amount of international stocks (non-US) as a risk choice. My observations have been that my international stocks have higher risk which comes with a higher reward. I'm not comfortable with putting too much of my portfolio into a very high risk category. I personally invest 25% directly in mutual funds that invest in foreign stocks. When you couple that with the money I invest in US stocks via mutual funds that have foreign interests (Coke, GE, etc.), I'm somewhat over 25% international in my portfolio.\",\n \"\\\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \\\"\\\"safe haven\\\"\\\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \\\"\\\"hedge\\\"\\\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \\\"\\\"hot\\\"\\\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \\\"\\\"jitters\\\"\\\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \\\"\\\"survivor bias\\\"\\\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Historically, the market's average rate of return has been about 8%. (Serakfalcon's \\\"\\\"6% to 10%\\\"\\\" is essentially the same number.) You should be able to get into that range for long-term investments with minimal risk. \\\"\\\"5 or 6 companies\\\"\\\", unless you know a heck of a lot about those companies, is fairly high risk. If any one of those runs into trouble, a considerable amount of your net investment is riding on it. Of course if any of them invents the Next Big Thing you could hit it big; that's the tradeoff. Diversification isn't sexy, but it buffers you from single-company disasters, and if you diversify across kinds of investment that buffers you from single-sector disasters. Index funds aren't sexy, but they're a low-cost way to diversify, especially if you go with a mix of funds in different categories (large cap, small cap, bond, international, real estate) or a fund which has that mix built into it such as a target date fund.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \\\"\\\"buy low\\\"\\\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\\\"\",\n \"When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.\",\n \"For what it's worth -- and I realize this isn't directly an answer to the question -- one of the advantages of sticking with mutual funds, beyond their being inherently diversified, is that it removes a lot of the temptation to try to time the market. When you need money, you sell shares in such a way that it maintains your preferred investment ratio, and simply don't worry about which stocks are actually involved. (I've gotten 15% APR this year across all my investments, for absolutely minimal effort. That's quite good enough for me.)\",\n \"Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.\",\n \"The mathematical answer is for you to have a diversified portfolio in your ISA. But that's easier said than done.\",\n \"1. It doesn't have an almost perfect negative correlation - its value decays very fast because of time. In fact, something like 80% of options expire worthless. They typically have a lifespan of 30-90 days and unless you're using them as a way to earn excess return, you'll likely just throw away your premium. 2. You're also making some assumptions about correlation and risk/reward. You won't become wealthy by distributing risk, all you can hope for is less volatility - maybe that's what you're looking for - but you can also expect your return to be less than the market over almost any period of time. 3. Options aren't really for diversifying. Furthermore, why diversify? It's a myth that it adds any value. There's around a 90% correlation for all asset classes since around 2000, so you're being sold some blue sky if someone tells you otherwise. 4. Look up prices of put options. 1-2% of your portfolio might buy you a handful of options, but again, there's a high probability you'll lose that 1-2% entirely every 30-90 days.\",\n \"A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually. Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms.\",\n \"I think it depends entirely on your risk tolerance. Putting money in individual stocks obviously increases your risk and potentially increases your reward. Personally (as a fairly conservative investor) I'd only invest in individual stocks if I could afford to lose the entire investment (maybe I'd end up buying Enron or Nortel). If you enjoy envesting and feel 10% is an acceptable loss I think you have your answer\",\n \"The problem is aggregating information from so many sources, countries, and economies. You are probably more aware of local laws, local tax changes, local economic performance, etc, so it makes sense that you'd be more in tune with your own country. If your intent is to be fully diversified, then buy a total world fund. A lot of hedge funds do what you are suggesting, but I think it requires either some serious math or some serious research. Note: I'm invested in emerging markets (EEM) for exactly the reason you suggest... diversification.\",\n \"Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.\",\n \"As mentioned, dividends are a way of returning value to shareholders. It is a conduit of profit as companies don't legitimately control upward appreciation in their share prices. If you can't wrap your head around the risk to the reward, then this simply means you partially fit the description for a greater investment risk profile, so you need to put down Warren Buffett's books and Rich Dad Poor Dad and get an investment book that fits your risk profile.\",\n \"Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.\",\n \"If you are a novice investor and want to diversify, I'd recommend looking into targeted mutual funds. They couldn't be easier. You just put your money in the fund with the year that you anticipating needing to take the money out and the fund manager handles diversification and adjusting the risk appropriately over the life of the fund based on the remaining time horizon. The only downside is that the annual expenses tend to be higher on these than if you just invested in the underlying securities/funds, but you are pretty much paying them to manage it for you.\",\n \"Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you can insure against the fall in price of stock by purchasing a put option. You pay for a put and if the price of the share falls below the \\\"\\\"strike price\\\"\\\" of the put, then you can exercise the put. On exercise, the person who sold you the put contract agrees to buy the stock for the strike price, even though that strike price is higher than the market price. You can adjust the level of insurance by buying put options at higher or lower prices, or buying fewer put options than shares you own (leaving some shares uninsured). Alternatively, you can minimize your risk exposure by investing in an index or other fund, which gives you partial ownership in a large number of shares. That means on any given day, lots of shares do worse and lots of shares do better. You can reduce the need for insurance by purchasing a lower-risk, lower-growth financial product.\\\"\",\n \"There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:\",\n \"The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.\",\n \"An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)\",\n \"It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.\",\n \"The stock market, as a whole, is extremely volatile. During any 3 year period, the market could go up or down. However, and this is the important point,the market as a whole has historically been a good long term investment. If you need the money in 5 years, then you want to put it in something less volatile (so there's less chance of losing it). If you need the money in 50 years, put it in the market; the massive growth over those 50 years will more than make up for any short term drops, and you will probably come out ahead. Once you get closer to retirement age, you want to take the money out of stocks and put it in something safer; essentially locking in your profit, and protecting yourself from the possibility of further loss. Something else to consider: everyone lost money in 2008. There were no safe investments (well, ok, there were a few... but not enough to talk about). Given that, why would you choose another investment over stocks? Taking a 50% loss after decades of 10% annual returns is still better than a 50% loss after decades of 5% growth (in fact, after 20 years of growth, it's still 250% better - and that ratio will only improve the longer you leave it in).\",\n \"The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.\",\n \"Investing only in one industry may be problematic as it is highly correlated. There are factor outside your (or anyones) knowledge which may affect all the industry: If you are familiar with the industry it may happen that you work in that (ignore rest of paragraph if this is not the case). In such case you are likely to have problems at work (frozen salary, no bonus, position terminated) and you need to liquidate the investments at that point (see many advice regarding ESPP). Depending on your field you may have some inside knowledge so even if you would took a position without it you may need to somehow prove it. On the other hand diversifying the investment might reduce the volatility of investment. Rise in oil will cause problems for air industry but will be a boom for oil industry etc. In this way you smooth the grow of the investments. Investing part of portfolio into specific industry may make more sense. It still possibly worth to avoid it at the beginning investor may have trouble to beat the market (for example according to behavioural economics you are exposed to various biases, or if markets are efficient then prices most likely already take into account any information you may have). (I'm still new to all this so it's mostly based on what I read rather then any personal experience. Also a standard disclaimer that this is not an investment, or any other, advice and I'm not licensed financial advisor in any jurisdiction)\",\n \"\\\"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now. In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not \\\"\\\"pure stocks\\\"\\\": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done \\\"\\\"by hand,\\\"\\\" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard. (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice.\\\"\",\n \"Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.\",\n \"I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover. Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier. Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment.\",\n \"You can simply stick with some index funds that tracks the S&P 500 and Ex-US world market. That should provide some good diversification. And of course, you should always have a portion of your money in short/mid term bond fund, rebalancing your stock/bond ratio all the way as deemed necessary. If you want to follow the The Über–Tuber portfolio, you'd better make sure that there's minimum overlapping among the underlying shares that they hold.\",\n \"Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.\",\n \"\\\"Ryan's suggestion to index for your main strategy is dead on. Your risk is highest with one given stock, and decreases as you diversify. Yet, picking the stocks one at a time is an effort, when done right, it's time consuming. For what one can say about Jim \\\"\\\"mad money\\\"\\\" Cramer, his advice to spend an hour a month studying each stock you own, is pretty decent advice. Penny stocks are sub one dollar priced, typically small companies which in theory can grow to be large companies, but the available information tends to be tougher to get hold of. Options are a discussion for a different thread, I discussed the covered call strategy elsewhere and show that options are not necessarily high risk, it depends how they are used.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Having savings only in your home currency is relatively 'low risk' compared with other types of 'low diversification'. This is because, in a simple case, your future cash outflows will be in your home currency, so if the GBP fluctuates in value, it will (theoretically) still buy you the same goods at home. In this way, keeping your savings in the same currency as your future expenditures creates a natural hedge against currency fluctuation. This gets complicated for goods imported from other countries, where base price fluctuates based on a foreign currency, or for situations where you expect to incur significant foreign currency expenditures (retirement elsewhere, etc.). In such cases, you no longer have certainty that your future expenditures will be based on the GBP, and saving money in other currencies may make more sense. In many circumstances, 'diversification' of the currency of your savings may actually increase your risk, not decrease it. Be sure you are doing this for a specific reason, with a specific strategy, and not just to generally 'spread your money around'. Even in case of a Brexit, consider: what would you do with a bank account full of USD? If the answer is \\\"\\\"Convert it back to GBP when needed (in 6 months, 5 years, 30, etc.), to buy British goods\\\"\\\", then I wouldn't call this a way to reduce your risk. Instead, I would call it a type of investment, with its own set of risks associated.\\\"\",\n \"When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.\",\n \"\\\"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\\\"\\\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \\\"\\\"as defined by theory.\\\"\\\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.","Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.","Any investor can make a bad bet, even Buffett. Even if you have done every bit of research on an investment possible you are exposed to random external events.. acts of god, and outright fraud.","Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits."],"string":"[\n \"Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.\",\n \"Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.\",\n \"Any investor can make a bad bet, even Buffett. Even if you have done every bit of research on an investment possible you are exposed to random external events.. acts of god, and outright fraud.\",\n \"Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":274,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"11054"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Short Term Capital Gains tax vs. IRA Withdrawal Tax w/o Quarterly Est. Taxes"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["155053","321015"],"string":"[\n \"155053\",\n \"321015\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["155053","321015","101578","420529","267466","112231","60929","482768","94496","559324","561636","395686","575833","181294","290182","188890","276333","536390","66858","110202","56951","453639","557361","240651","176105","141939","76530","83769","116017","448589","558867","393693","530146","338170","358371","562957","109305","415815","197576","223042","581085","159462","518310","523521","304479","144313","84996","125168","513392","571142","561377","481283","318579","251394","208216","487975","271504","423171","461084","298685","159197","18059","477172","156832","199544","424427","144751","46621","419160","374676","187810","147656","578798","508219","80014","466720","481014","303193","12119","158907","152603","451314","448038","259150","207788","500175","127974","243855","84105","121832","162592","526661","112182","423929","272458","565410","445052","235470","549223","76480"],"string":"[\n \"155053\",\n \"321015\",\n \"101578\",\n \"420529\",\n \"267466\",\n \"112231\",\n \"60929\",\n \"482768\",\n \"94496\",\n \"559324\",\n \"561636\",\n \"395686\",\n \"575833\",\n \"181294\",\n \"290182\",\n \"188890\",\n \"276333\",\n \"536390\",\n \"66858\",\n \"110202\",\n \"56951\",\n \"453639\",\n \"557361\",\n \"240651\",\n \"176105\",\n \"141939\",\n \"76530\",\n \"83769\",\n \"116017\",\n \"448589\",\n \"558867\",\n \"393693\",\n \"530146\",\n \"338170\",\n \"358371\",\n \"562957\",\n \"109305\",\n \"415815\",\n \"197576\",\n \"223042\",\n \"581085\",\n \"159462\",\n \"518310\",\n \"523521\",\n \"304479\",\n \"144313\",\n \"84996\",\n \"125168\",\n \"513392\",\n \"571142\",\n \"561377\",\n \"481283\",\n \"318579\",\n \"251394\",\n \"208216\",\n \"487975\",\n \"271504\",\n \"423171\",\n \"461084\",\n \"298685\",\n \"159197\",\n \"18059\",\n \"477172\",\n \"156832\",\n \"199544\",\n \"424427\",\n \"144751\",\n \"46621\",\n \"419160\",\n \"374676\",\n \"187810\",\n \"147656\",\n \"578798\",\n \"508219\",\n \"80014\",\n \"466720\",\n \"481014\",\n \"303193\",\n \"12119\",\n \"158907\",\n \"152603\",\n \"451314\",\n \"448038\",\n \"259150\",\n \"207788\",\n \"500175\",\n \"127974\",\n \"243855\",\n \"84105\",\n \"121832\",\n \"162592\",\n \"526661\",\n \"112182\",\n \"423929\",\n \"272458\",\n \"565410\",\n \"445052\",\n \"235470\",\n \"549223\",\n \"76480\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"","\"Bottom line is this: there's no \"\"short term capital gains tax\"\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\"","First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.","I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.","In general, you are expected to pay all the money you owe in taxes by the end of the tax year, or you may have to pay a penalty. But you don't have to pay a penalty if: The amount you owe (i.e. total tax due minus what you paid in withholding and estimated taxes) is less than $1000. You paid at least 90% of your total tax bill. You paid at least 100% of last year's tax bill. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html I think point #3 may work for you here. Suppose that last year your total tax liability was, say, $5,000. This year your tax on your regular income would be $5,500, but you have this additional capital gain that brings your total tax to $6,500. If your withholding was $5,000 -- the amount you owed last year -- than you'll owe the difference, $1,500, but you won't have to pay any penalties. If you normally get a refund every year, even a small one, then you should be fine. I'd check the numbers to be sure, of course. If you normally have to pay something every April 15, or if your income and therefore your withholding went down this year for whatever reason, then you should make an estimated payment. The IRS has a page explaining the rules in more detail: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc","It would be fairer to the average person if we paid our normal tax rate on the amount we contributed to the IRA and paid at the capital gains rate for the difference. The same as people that invest outside of the IRA. Most IRAs aren't that large and most people are going to have a rough time living on the reduced social security. It seems like we are taxing the average Joe at a higher rate than the rich.","\"In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about \"\"the fiscal cliff\"\" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year.\"","There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.","First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account.","\"First - Welcome to Money.SE. You gave a lot of detail, and it's tough to parse out the single question. Actually, you have multiple issues. $1300 is what you need to pay the tax? In the 25% bracket plus 10% penalty, you have a 65% net amount. $1300/.65 = Exactly $2000. You withdraw $2000, have them (the IRA holder) withhold $700 in federal tax, and you're done. All that said, don't do it. Nathan's answer - payment plan with IRS - is the way to go. You've shared with us a important issue. Your budget is running too tight. We have a post here, \"\"the correct order of investing\"\" which provides a great guideline that applies to most visitors. You are missing the part that requires a decent sized emergency fund. In your case, calling it that, may be a misnomer, as the tax bill isn't an unexpected emergency, but something that should have been foreseeable. We have had a number of posts here that advocate the paid in full house. And I always respond that the emergency fund comes first. With $70K of income, you should have $35K or so of liquidity, money readily available. Tax due in April shouldn't be causing you this grief. Please read that post I linked and others here to help you with the budgeting issue. Last - You are in an enviable position, A half million dollars, no mortgage, mid 40s. Easily doing better than most. So, please forgive the soapbox tone of the above, it was just my \"\"see, that's what I'm talking about\"\" moment from my tenure here.\"","You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.","I think you're misunderstanding how tax brackets work. If you make $1 more and that bumps you into a higher bracket, only THAT particular dollar will be taxed at the higher tax bracket rate... Not your entire income. Short term capital gains are treated as income. Long term capital gains have a special tax rate currently.","All money distributed from a Traditional IRA to which no nondeductible contributions have been made is taxed as ordinary income. It does not matter if you think of the money as the original contribution or gains; the taxation is the same. Money distributed from a Roth IRA is tax-free. In either case, penalties apply if the distribution is premature.","\"This is actually (to me) an interesting point to note. While the answer is \"\"that's what Congress wrote,\"\" there are implications to note. First, for many, the goal of tax deferral is to shift 25% or 28% income to 15% income at retirement. With long term gains at 15%, simply investing long term post tax can accomplish a similar goal, where all gain is taxed at 15%. Looking at this from another angle, an IRA (or 401(k) for that matter) effectively turns long term gains into ordinary income. It's a good observation, and shouldn't be ignored.\"","If you are inside of a ROTH IRA you are not getting taxed on any gain. Dividends, distributions, interest payment, or capital gains are never taxed. This, of course, assumes you wait until age 59.5 to do ROTH withdrawals on your gains.","As I commented, there's confusion on withholding. The 20% pertains to 401(k) accounts, not IRAs.","Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct.","No matter what, you owe taxes on the gains, known as capital gains. How much, depends on how long you invested it for. In your example, each month is treated separately - each month you contribute starts a new clock on that set of investments. If you hold it for longer than a year, the taxes are treated as long-term, and less than a year is short-term. Short term taxes are at your marginal rate, and long term taxes are different, usually 15%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400/tc409","\"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \"\"Net Investment Tax\"\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\"","There's no additional income tax burden created when you decide to make Roth IRA contributions, your Roth IRA contributions are taxed at the same time all your income is taxed. If you earned that $100 by working a job, then your employer likely withheld taxes when they paid you. If you earned it through self-employment, then you'll pay estimated taxes on that income quarterly, etc. In any case when you file your annual tax return the actual taxes owed vs taxes paid gets reconciled and you're left with a refund or owe an additional sum.","You can withdraw the principal of your Roth IRA account (i.e.: the amounts after tax deposited there) without a tax. However, in case of conversion - you have to wait for five years before you can do that. Otherwise, 10% penalty will apply. It is actually mentioned in the article you linked to. Taxable portion in that context is the portion you paid tax on when converting. In the case you described (converting your 401k) that would be the whole amount of the conversion.","(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!","Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)","First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.","Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.","In addition to the other answers, which cover the risks of what is essentially leveraged investing, I'd like to point out that the 2.6% penalty is a flat rate. If you are responsible for withholding your own taxes then you are paying tax four times a year. So any underpayment on your first quarterly tax payment will have much more time to accrue in the stock market than your last payment, although each underpayment will be penalized by the 2.6%. It may make sense for someone to make full payments on later payments but underpay on earlier ones.","\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"","\"I think there are several issues here. First, there's the contribution. As littleadv said, there is no excess contribution. Excess contribution is only if you exceed the contribution limit. The contribution limit for Traditional IRAs does not depend on how high your income goes or whether you have a 401(k). It's the deduction limit that may depend on those things. Not deducting it is perfectly legitimate, and is completely different than an \"\"excess contribution\"\", which has a penalty. Second, the withdrawal. You are allowed to withdraw contributions made during a year, plus any earnings from those contributions, before the tax filing deadline for the taxes of that year (which is April 15 of the following year, or even up to October 15 of the following year), and it will be treated as if the contribution never happened. No penalties. The earnings will be taxed as regular income (as if you put it in a bank account). That sounds like what you did. So the withdrawal was not an \"\"early withdrawal\"\", and the 1099-R should reflect that (what distribution code did they put?). Third, even if (and it does not sound like the case, but if) it doesn't qualify as a return of contributions before the tax due date as described above (maybe you withdrew it after October 15 of the following year), as littleadv mentioned, your contribution was a non-deductible contribution, and when withdrawing it, only the earnings portion (which after such a short time should only be a very small part of the distribution) would be subject to tax and penalty.\"","In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.","The safe harbor provision is based on the tax you or the prior year. So in 2016 this helped you as your tax was substantially increased from 2015. However, by the same token in 2017 your safe harbor amount is going to be very high. Therefore if 2017 is similar you will owe penalties. The solution here is to make estimated tax payments in the quarters that you realize large gains. This is exactly what the estimated tax payments are for. Your estimate tax payments do not have to be the same. In fact if you have a sudden boost in earnings in quarter 3, then the IRS expects that quarter 3 estimated tax payment to be boosted.","I'm not sure where you are, but in the United States capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income. On the 1040, captial gains income is separated from earned income, and income tax is calculated just on earned income. Then capital gains tax is calculated on capital gains income, and then added to income tax afterward.","For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.","Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.","My understanding (I've never filed one myself) is that the 1040ES is intended to allow you to file quarterly and report unpredictable income, and to pay estimated taxes on that income. I was in the same sort of boat for 2016 -- I had a big unexpected income source in 2015, and this took away my Safe Harbor for 2016. I adjusted my w-2 to zero exemptions (eventually) and will be getting a refund of about 1% of our income. So lets say you make 10000 in STG in March, and another 15000 in STG in April. File a quarterly 1040-ES between March 31 and April 15. Report the income, and pay some tax. You should be able to calculate the STCG Tax for 10k pretty easily. Just assume that it comes off the top and doesn't add at all to your deductions. Then for April, do the same by June 15. Just like your W-2 is used to estimate how much your employer should withhold, the 1040ES is designed to estimate how much extra you need to pay to the IRS to avoid penalties. It'll all get resolved after you file your final 1040 for the 2017 calendar year.","\"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the \"\"save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%\"\" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars.\"","If you qualify for the safe harbor, you are not required to pay additional quarterly taxes. Of course, you're still welcome to do so if you're sure you'll owe them; however, you will not be penalized. If your income is over $150k (joint) or $75k (single), your safe harbor is: Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty. Generally, if you're under that level, the following reasons suggest you will not owe the tax (from the IRS publication 505): The total of your withholding and timely estimated tax payments was at least as much as your 2013 tax. (See Special rules for certain individuals for higher income taxpayers and farmers and fishermen.) The tax balance due on your 2014 return is no more than 10% of your total 2014 tax, and you paid all required estimated tax payments on time. Your total tax for 2014 (defined later) minus your withholding is less than $1,000. You did not have a tax liability for 2013. You did not have any withholding taxes and your current year tax (less any household employment taxes) is less than $1,000. If you paid one-fourth of your last year's taxes (or of 110% of your last-year's taxes) in estimated taxes for each quarter prior to this one, you should be fine as far as penalties go, and can simply add the excess you know you will owe to the next check.","\"IRA is a tax-deferred account. I.e.: you're not paying any taxes on the income within the account (as long as you don't withdraw it) and you can deduct the investment (with certain limitation on how much, depending on your total AGI). It is taxed when you withdraw it - at ordinary rates for the \"\"traditional\"\" IRA and with 0% rate for ROTH, as long as the withdrawal is qualified (if not qualified - you pay ordinary rate tax for ROTH and additional 10% tax for both on the taxable amounts). The details are a bit complicated (there's deductible IRA, non-deductible IRA, roll-overs, etc etc), but that's the basic. Regular investment accounts are taxed currently on any income, but you get the \"\"better\"\" capital gains rates on many things. So which one is better depends how long your investment is going to be, what is your tax situation now, and what you anticipate it to be later when you retire.\"","If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.","First of all depending on the type of IRA you may not have to pay taxes on withdrawals in the US at all. If you are withdrawing your principle from a Roth IRA then you don't owe taxes. Only when you withdraw the gains do you pay taxes on it. You have two options for withdrawals: Lump Sum Withdrawal: If you take a lump sum withdrawal you will owe taxes to the US (30% for non-resident aliens of the US), and according to DTAA; Article 23, you will file your taxes with India declaring your IRA or 401(k) withdrawal proceeds and claim credit on the taxes you paid to the US. Monthly Pension Withdrawal: You can also receive monthly pension payments and you will only be taxed in the country in which you are a resident of. This is according to DTAA, Article 20. You would then have to submit necessary documentation to your payer in the US so that they do not withhold any taxes in the US. Just as a side note it might be just better to keep the money where it is and let it grow or roll it over to a Roth IRA if you are currently in a lower tax bracket for maximum savings of your principle. Here is a link with more detailed information of what I provided you: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/news/30663129_1_taxable-income-nri-401k-plan","The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.","\"Since the deduction balances out the future tax (presumably), I am only paying tax on the gains, however over 20 years, those gains could be greater than the original $4000 itself. (Doubling would only take 3.6% annual return over 20 years ) If I put it into a Roth IRA, I don't get a tax deduction, but I get to withdraw the original $4000 and all the gains, tax free in about 20 years. It seems the Roth IRA is a better deal tax wise, but I would like to hear if I am missing something. You are missing the time value of money. $4000 now does not have the same value to you as $4000 years in the future. In fact, the $4000 now has the same value as the money it grows into (principal + earnings) in the future. So a certain percentage of tax on the $4000 now has the same effect to you as the same percentage of tax on the $4000 + earnings in the future, no matter how much \"\"earnings\"\" is. It's simple math. If you start with the same amount of pre-tax money, and have the same flat percentage tax rate, then both Traditional and Roth will leave you with the same amount of money, regardless of how many times the gains are. Try it for yourself.\"","You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed.","Long term gains are taxed at 15% maximum. Losses, up to the $3K/yr you cited, can offset ordinary income, so 25% or higher, depending on your income. Better to take the loss that way. With my usual disclaimer: Do not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.","\"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \"\"penalty\"\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \"\"need it\"\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \"\"hopeful\"\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \"\"tax\"\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\"","You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf","Generally it is advisable to mention what country you're asking about, as tax laws differ. To the best of my knowledge, however, this particular issue is handled consistently in every tax jurisdiction I'm familiar with. You invested X, it appreciated and is now worth X + Y. In your example, X = $10,000 and Y = $40,000. Total X + Y = $50,000. When you withdraw an amount, say A (in your example A = $10,000), it is considered a withdrawal of both the earnings and the original capital, in proportion to the total of your account. Taxable portion of the withdrawal is proportional to the earnings. Lets mark it T. In your example, T = $10,000 - $10,000 * $10,000/$50,000 = $8,000. I.e.: 80% of the withdrawal will be attributed to earnings and would be taxable (short term in your case, if you're in the US), and 20% to the original capital. This will keep the proportion of the remained the same - 20% of the remaining amount will be attributed to the original capital (accidentally, it will be $8,000), and the remaining 80% will be attributed to the earnings. The withdrawn amount attributed to the capital ($2,000), and the remaining amount attributed to the capital ($8,000) will equal exactly to the invested amount.","You must pay your taxes at the quarterly intervals. For most people the withholding done by their employer satisfies this requirement. However, if your income does not have any withholding (or sufficient), then you must file quarterly estimated tax payments. Note that if you have a second job that does withhold, then you can adjust your W4 to request further withholding there and possibly reduce the need for estimated payments. Estimated tax payments also come into play with large investment earnings. The amount that you need to prepay the IRS is impacted by the safe harbor rule, which I am sure others will provide the exact details on.","If you have the cash on hand to pay the tax on the amount you are transferring I recommend moving to a Roth IRA An IRA is tax-deferred. You put in pretax contributions in to an IRA, and you are taxed on that money (your contributions and interest earned) when you withdraw it at retirement, age 59 1/2. The idea being that you will be taking less out per year in your retirement years, putting you into a lower tax bracket. The major problem is most people draw out as much or more a year in their retirement years than when they were working. A Roth IRA grows tax free You put after tax contributions into a Roth IRA, you have paid taxes on the contributions, and you are never taxed on the growth. When you draw the money out at retirement you don't pay any income taxes on that money. Let me give you an example: For this example we will use the following information for both scenario: We will invest $400 per month for a total of $4800. The current maximum is $5000 if you are under 50 years old $400 dollars after taxes is $300 Invest $300 a month, at age 65 you have 3,529,432 You owe no taxes on this money, it doesn't matter how much you take out a year. $400 dollars a month is taken pretax out of your paycheck. Invest $400 per month, at age 65 you have $4,705,909 You owe taxes of 25% as you draw that out for at total tax of 1,176,477 4,705,909 - 1,176,477 = 3,529,432 cash in your pocket The problem is if you draw out more than $82,400 (current 2010 filing single) per year you will be pushed to a higher tax bracket and take more of your money away. If you decide to buy a vacation home and you take out $250,000 to pay for it, that's counted as income for that year any you will be in the 33% tax bracket. Even if you can keep yourself to a low income the government forces your hand and makes you draw out more money at age 70, based on their tables, forcing you into a higher tax bracket","Yes, it really will hurt you to keep pulling your money from your IRA. Your best bet is to set up a payment plan with the IRS, and pay the taxes you owe now, as well as adjust your withholding (with a new W-4 to your payroll department) so that you don't have a large tax liability next year. These tax advantaged plans really are designed to penalize you if you pull the money out early to give you incentive to keep the money for retirement. Your best bet is to make a monthly budget that includes your tax payments for taxes owed this year, as well as higher deductions from your paycheck to properly withhold taxes for next year.","Post-tax (i.e. non-retirement account) investing is nothing to ignore. You don't mention a spouse, so for a start, you still have the $5500 to put in an IRA. The remaining investment funds will earn dividends, if any, at a tax preferred rate, and then the gain on sale will be taxed at 15% if the code doesn't change again. The gains accumulate tax deferred, and you control the timing of the sale. With a 401(k) all withdrawal are taxable as income. In your case, just the gain is taxed at a potential long term cap gain rate. Hopefully the new job pays more than the old one and the loss of 401(k) is compensated.","I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric.","Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.","The principal of the contribution can definitely be withdrawn tax-free and penalty-free. However, there is a section that makes me think that the earnings part may be subject to penalty in addition to tax. In Publication 590-A, under Traditional IRAs -> When Can You Withdraw or Use Assets? -> Contributions Returned Before Due Date of Return -> Early Distributions Tax, it says: The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59½ does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59½ rule, it will be subject to this tax. This section is only specifically about the return of contributions before the due date of return, not a general withdrawal (as you can see from the first sentence that the penalty doesn't apply to contributions, which wouldn't be true of general withdrawals). Therefore, the second sentence must be about the earnings part of the withdrawal that you must make together with the contribution part as part of the return of contributions before the due date of the return. If the penalty it is talking about is only about other types of withdrawals and doesn't apply to the earnings part of the return of contribution before the due date of the return, then this sentence wouldn't make sense as it's in a part that's only about return of contribution before the due date of the return.","The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable","\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \"\"my friend told me.\"\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\"","She is very wrong. If the IRA is a traditional, i.e. A pretax IRA (not a Roth), all withdrawals are subject to tax at one's marginal rate. Read that to mean that a large sum can easily push her into higher brackets than normal. If it stayed with her, she'd take smaller withdrawals and be able to throttle her tax impact. Once she takes it all out, and gifts it to you, no gift tax is due, but there's form 709, where it's declared, and counts against her $5.5M lifetime estate exemption. There are a few things in the world of finance that offend me as much as lawyer malpractice, going into an area they are ignorant of.","In your entire question, the only time you mention that this is an investment inside an IRA is when you say Every quarter, six months, whatever Id have to rebalance my IRA while Vanguard would do this for the fund of funds without me needing to. Within an IRA, there are no tax implications to the rebalancing. But if this investment were not inside an IRA, then the rebalancing done by you will have tax implications. In particular, any gains realized when you sell shares in one fund and buy shares in another fund during the rebalancing process are subject to income tax. Similarly, losses also might be realized (and will affect your taxes). However, if you are invested in a fund of funds, there are no capital gains (or capital losses) when re-balancing is done; you have gains or losses only when you sell shares of the fund of funds for a price different than the price you paid for them.","I'm assuming your talking USA. There are two ways to look. If you know you should pay on the cap gains, the best way to handle that separately from your salary is to file a quarterly tax payment. That, I understand, is what the self-employed have to do. I'm in the situation where at some point, probably this year, the company that employs me will be bought out, and I will owe capital gains taxes on my shares gobbled up in the buy-out. It's a cash-for-stock transaction. So, in my case, I've just adjusted my W-4 to take advantage of the safe-harbor provision related to taxes I payed in 2016 and my salary. The details vary depending on your situation, but in my case, I've calculated what it will take in W-4 allowances to make sure I pay 110% of my 2016 tax payment (after refund). I'm not worrying about what the actual taxes on those shares of company stock will be, because I've met the rules for safe-harbor. Safe harbor just means that they can't penalize you for under-withholding or underpayment. It doesn't mean I won't have to write a check on april 15.","Why shouldn't I just keep my money in the savings account and earn the same amount (both accounts have the same APY in this case)? I will assume that you are transferring money from your savings account into a Traditional IRA and deducting the contribution from your income. While you may think that the money that is being transferred is yours already -- it is sitting in your savings account, for Pete's sake! -- you are deducting that amount in getting to your taxable income, and so you are effectively contributing it from current income and not paying taxes on the amount contributed. So, consider the same amount of money sitting in your savings account versus the same amount of money sitting in your Traditional IRA account. While you will earn the same amount of interest in both accounts, you will have to pay taxes each year on the interest earned in the savings account. You might choose, as most people do, to not take money out of the savings account to pay theses taxes but just pay them from ready cash/checking account/current income etc., or these taxes might just reduce the refund that you will getting from the IRS and your State income tax authority, but in either case, you have paid taxes on the interest earned in your non-IRA savings account, and of course, long ago, you also paid taxes on the original amount in the non-IRA savings account. So, if you take any money out of the non-IRA savings account, you don't pay any taxes on the amount withdrawn except possibly for the interest earned from January 1 till the date of withdrawal (which you are paying from ready cash). On the other hand, consider the Traditional IRA. The original deposit was not taxed in the sense that you got a deduction (reduced tax or increased refund) when you made the contribution. The annual interest earned was not taxed each year either. So when you make a qualified withdrawal (after age 59.5 or by meeting one of the other exceptions allowing withdrawal before age 59.5), you are taking money on which you have not paid any taxes at all, and the IRS wants its cut. The money withdrawn is taxable income to you. Furthermore, the money withdrawn is not eligible for any kind of favorable treatment such as having it count as qualified dividends or as long-term capital gains even if your IRA was invested in stocks and the money in the account is all qualified dividends or long-term capital gains. If you make an unqualified withdrawal, you owe a penalty (technically named an excise tax) in addition to income tax on the amount withdrawn. If you are investing in a Roth IRA, you will not be getting a deduction when you make the contribution, and qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free, and so the answer is completely different from the above.","\"The annualized method allows you to take a look at each quarter independently and pay the tax in the quarter that you earned it. -- According to Linda Durand, a certified public accountant with Drolet & Associates PLLC in Washington, D.C., from the Bankrate article \"\"Paying quarterly estimated taxes\"\" And after paying annualized quarterly estimates, you can still owe up to $1000 at tax time without penalty.\"",">I could be wrong but you will still get tax at 10% This isn't true for Roths. If I put 5k (post tax of course) money into a Roth 401k or a Roth IRA I can withdraw that 5k whenever I want penalty and tax free. Now lets say that 5k has grown to 7k and I take out all 7k the first 5k is penalty and tax free but the extra 2k is taxed (with the extra 10% penalty added on). So as long as you don't touch any growth in your roth accounts you can withdraw the principal amount with the same consequences you would experience if you were to take money out of your checking account at your bank. Also money in and IRA does not have to be invested it could be in a liquid position. Now a pre tax retirement account doesn't have the same luxury. If I stick 5k into a traditional IRA and it grows to 7k and I pull that money out the entire ammount gets taxed AND penalized (even the principal amount is subject the 10% penalty). Now if you do a Roth conversion (pre-tax to post-tax retirment account conversion) the principal ammount (the amount you paid taxes on) is still subject to the 10% penalty for 5 years. After the 5 years you can withdraw the converted ammount tax and penalty free (well you already paid the taxes) it would just be the growth that is subject to the penalty.","The penalty is 10% regardless of the tax. If your marginal rate is so low, I'd consider converting some to Roth each year, and not touching it for tuition.","The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040. This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed. Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW. Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part. The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936. This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here.","\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"","Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends.","Edited in response to JoeTaxpayer's comment and OP Tim's additional question. To add to and clarify a little what littleadv has said, and to answer OP Tim's next question: As far as the IRS is concerned, you have at most one Individual Retirement Account of each type (Traditional, Roth) though the money in each IRA can be invested with as many different custodians (brokerages, banks, etc.) and different investments as you like. Thus, the maximum $5000 ($6000 for older folks) that you can contribute each year can be split up and invested any which way you like, and when in later years you take a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from a Traditional IRA, you can get the money by selling just one of the investments, or from several investments; all that the IRS cares is that the total amount that is distributed to you is at least as large as the RMD. An important corollary is that the balance in your IRA is the sum total of the value of all the investments that various custodians are holding for you in IRA accounts. There is no loss in an IRA until every penny has been withdrawn from every investment in your IRA and distributed to you, thus making your IRA balance zero. As long as you have a positive balance, there is no loss: everything has to come out. After the last distribution from your Roth IRA (the one that empties your entire Roth IRA, no matter where it is invested and reduces your Roth IRA balance (see definition above) to zero), total up all the amounts that you have received as distributions from your Roth IRA. If this is less than the total amount of money you contributed to your Roth IRA (this includes rollovers from a Traditional IRA or Roth 401k etc., but not the earnings within the Roth IRA that you re-invested inside the Roth IRA), you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI limit. This 2% is not a cap (in the sense that no more than 2% of your AGI can be deducted in this category) but rather a threshold: you can only deduct whatever part of your total Miscellaneous Deductions exceeds 2% of your AGI. Not many people have Miscellaneous Deductions whose total exceeds 2% of their AGI, and so they end up not being able to deduct anything in this category. If you ever made nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA because you were ineligible to make a deductible contribution (income too high, pension plan coverage at work etc), then the sum of all these contributions is your basis in your Traditional IRA. Note that your deductible contributions, if any, are not part of the basis. The above rules apply to your basis in your Traditional IRA as well. After the last distribution from your Traditional IRA (the one that empties all your Traditional IRA accounts and reduces your Traditional IRA balance to zero), total up all the distributions that you received (don't forget to include the nontaxable part of each distribution that represents a return of the basis). If the sum total is less than your basis, you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI threshold. You can only deposit cash into an IRA and take a distribution in cash from an IRA. Now, as JoeTaxpayer points out, if your IRA owns stock, you can take a distribution by having the shares transferred from your IRA account in your brokerage to your personal account in the brokerage. However, the amount of the distribution, as reported by the brokerage to the IRS, is the value of the shares transferred as of the time of the transfer, (more generally the fair market value of the property that is transferred out of the IRA) and this is the amount you report on your income tax return. Any capital gain or loss on those shares remains inside the IRA because your basis (in your personal account) in the shares that came out of the IRA is the amount of the distribution. If you sell these shares at a later date, you will have a (taxable) gain or loss depending on whether you sold the shares for more or less than your basis. In effect, the share transfer transaction is as if you sold the shares in the IRA, took the proceeds as a cash distribution and immediately bought the same shares in your personal account, but you saved the transaction fees for the sale and the purchase and avoided paying the difference between the buying and selling price of the shares as well as any changes in these in the microseconds that would have elapsed between the execution of the sell-shares-in-Tim's-IRA-account, distribute-cash-to-Tim, and buy-shares-in-Tim's-personal account transactions. Of course, your broker will likely charge a fee for transferring ownership of the shares from your IRA to you. But the important point is that any capital gain or loss within the IRA cannot be used to offset a gain or loss in your taxable accounts. What happens inside the IRA stays inside the IRA.","\"There's currently not much reason to keep around a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA in my opinion -- a Roth IRA is almost strictly better. Think about it: a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA of the same amount. In both cases, contributions are after-tax (so no tax deduction). But when you withdraw, for the Roth IRA you don't have to pay tax, and for the non-deductible Traditional IRA, you have to pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". A Roth IRA can be contributed to at pretty much any income level, thanks to the backdoor Roth IRA process (which uses a temporary non-deductible Traditional IRA in the process). So there is not much reason for a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA. As for your question, a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a taxable account. Well, a non-deductible Traditional IRA is contributed to with after-tax money, and taxed on the earnings only on withdrawal. So the taxation is almost identical to things like stocks and homes, where the gain is not realized until the thing is sold. However, compared to things like savings accounts and bonds, where you get taxed on the interest yearly, it is much better. Every time you get taxed on gains like this, it is taxing gains earned from after-tax money, so if you think of an amount of money as being equivalent to the amount of money it grows to over time (time value of money), then it is taxing money that is (or grown from money that is) already taxed. So it is better to have this only happen at the end at withdrawal than every year.\"","Excise tax on the excess contribution is 6% a year on the amount of the contribution. In addition, gains will be taxable to you. By adding 20K over the limit, you added $1200 to your tax bill. Withdraw it ASAP. Whatever investment you have in your IRA - you can probably buy it (or a comparable) outside of the IRA.","The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty.","\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"","Some of the expenses you describe may be eligible to be paid off by a 401(k) without incurring a penalty. As long as you do not mind paying tax on the extra income. If your tax bracket does not go up, then using your IRA may not be a bad idea. You should consult a tax expert and see which expenses can qualify for a withdrawal without penalty. I believe medical bills and medical insurance costs are eligible to be withdrawn without penalty in some instances.","You can't say I'm wrong and then go on to explain why exactly what I said is correct. :) You (and I) are in complete agreement that there's no LTCG on either Roth *or* Traditional 401ks, because you pay both as straight income - The former up front, the latter when you withdraw it. My point was that, for virtually everyone, their regular income tax rate is **higher** than their LTCG rate.","All of your 401k income is taxable and no more than 85% of your SS income. You can use the worksheets in IRS: Publication 915 to determine what percentage of your SS is taxable. Just as with ordinary income, deductions/exemptions apply and not all that is taxable will be taxed. When you begin drawing SS you'll have the option to have taxes withheld at various rates, more convenient than quarterly estimated payments in my opinion.","\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\"","The alternative isn't too bad. Invest in a regular account. The dividends and cap gains will see favorable tax treatment. In my opinion, much of the magic of the retirement account is with 401(k) matched deposits. The benefit you'll miss is the long term opportunity to skim income off the top, at say, 25%, have it grow, and then withdraw it at a much lower average tax rate. If that benefit doesn't outweigh the fear of the 10%, stick with my first thought above.","One additional note related to Roth vs regular: for a regular 401k or IRA, you pay the 10% penalty on any withdrawal. For a Roth, you can withdraw the contributions early (but not the earnings) without any penalty or tax. Of course, if this is a retirement account it's better to leave it that way. Personally it's one reason I avoid Roth - in addition to probably being in a higher bracket now, I also would prefer not to be able to touch my money. But for some there could be advantages in having that ability (such as in an emergency).","\"The answer to your first question is true. No tax on withdrawls. Under these circumstances, the withdrawl is \"\"qualified\"\". To your second question, as long as the withdrawl is qualified, it is not taxed, regardless of your additional income. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/03/030403.asp?lgl=rira-baseline-vertical has a very comprehensive, plain English, description of the IRS rules (as of today, anyway).\"","As littleadv suggested, you are mixing issues. If you have earned income and are able to deduct an IRA deposit, where those actual dollars came from is irrelevant. The fact that you are taking proceeds from one transaction to deposit to the IRA is a booking entry on your side, but the IRS doesn't care. By the way, when you get that $1000 gain, the broker doesn't withhold tax, so if you take the entire $1000 and put it in the IRA, you owe $150 on one line, but save $250 elsewhere, and are still $100 to the positive on your tax return.","\"I think the math is wrong. Note that in Scenario #1, you are only out of pocket $1000, while in Scenario #2, you are out of pocket $1250; the contribution and the tax you paid with respect to it. A better concept than tax rate is \"\"Retention Rate\"\". This is the fraction of your money that the Feds let you keep. And Growth Factor is the how much the investment grows. So In Scenario #1, you multiply $1000 by the investment Growth Factor and then by the retirement Retention Rate. And in Scenario #2, you multiply the same $1000 by the current Retention Rate and then by the Growth Factor. Since in your approximation, the two GFs are the same, there is no saving...\"","\"I wrote a brilliant guest post at Don't Mess With Taxes, titled Roth IRAs and Your Retirement Income. (Note - this article now reflects 2012 rates. Just updated) Simply put, it's an ongoing question of whether your taxes will be higher now than at any point in the future. If you are in the 25% bracket now, it would take quite of bit of money for your withdrawals to put you in that bracket at retirement. In the case of the IRA, you have the opportunity to convert in any year between now and retirement if your rate that year drops for whatever reason. The simplest case is if you are now in the 25% bracket. I say go pre-tax, and track, year by year what your withdrawal would be if you retired today. At 15%, but with a good chance for promotion to the 25% bracket, start with Roth flavor and then as you hit 25%, use a combination. This approach would smooth your marginal rate to stay at 15%. To give you a start to this puzzle, in 2012, a couple has a $11,900 standard deduction along with 2 exemptions of $3800 each. This means the first $19,500 in an IRA comes out tax free at retirement. If you believe in a 4% withdrawal rate, you need a retirement account containing $500K pretax to generate this much money. This tick up with inflation, 2 years ago, it was $18,700 and $467K respectively. This is why those who scream \"\"taxes will go up\"\" may be correct, but do you really believe the standard deduction and exemptions will go away? Edit - and as time passes, and I learn more, new info comes to my attention. The above thoughts not withstanding, there's an issue of taxation of Social Security benefits. This creates a The Phantom Tax Rate Zone which I recently wrote about. A single person with not really too high an income gets thrust into the 46% bracket. Not a typo, 46.25% to be exact.\"","Don't forget inflation. With a Roth 401k (or IRA), you don't pay any taxes on inflationary or real gains. You pay taxes at the beginning and then no more taxes (unless you invest money after you distributed from it). With a regular, taxable investment account (not a 401k or IRA), you pay taxes on the initial amount. And then you pay taxes on the gains, both inflationary and real. So you effectively pay taxes on the inflated principal twice. Once at initial earning and once when it shows up as inflationary gains. I'll give an example later. With a traditional 401k (or IRA), you pay no taxes on the initial amount. You pay taxes on the distributed amount. That includes taxes on gains, but it only taxes them once, not twice. All the taxes are paid at distribution time. Here's a semirealistic example. This is not a real example with real numbers, but the numbers shouldn't be ridiculously off. They could happen. I'm going to ignore variation and pretend that all the numbers will be the same each year so as to simplify the math. So you pay a 25% marginal tax rate and want to invest $12,000 plus any tax savings. Roth: $12,000 principal Traditional IRA (Trad): $16,000 principal with $4000 in tax savings Taxable Investment Account (TIA): $12,000 principal Let's assume that you make an 8% rate of return and inflation is 3%. Both numbers are possible, although higher and lower numbers have occurred in the past. That gives you returns of $960 for the Roth and TIA cases and a return of $1280 for the Trad case. Pay no annual taxes on the Roth or Trad cases. Pay 25% marginal tax on the TIA case, that's $240. Balances after one year: Roth: $12,960 Trad: $17,280 TIA: $12,720 Inflation decreases the value of the Roth and TIA cases by $360 in the Roth and TIA cases. And by $480 in the Trad case. Ten years of inflationary gains (cumulative): Roth: $5354 Trad: $7138 TIA: $4872 Net buildup (including inflationary gains): Roth: $25,907 Trad: $34,543 TIA: $23,168 Real value (minus inflation to maintain spending power): Roth: $20,554 Trad: $27,405 TIA: $18,109 Now take out $3000 per year, after taxes. That's $3000 in the the Roth and TIA cases, as you already paid the taxes. In the Trad case, that's $4000 because you have to pay 25% tax which will cost $1000. Do that for five years and the new balances are Roth: $9931 Trad: $13,241 TIA: $5973 The TIA will run out in the 8th year. The Roth and Trad will both run out in the 9th year. So to summarize. The Traditional IRA initially grows the most. The TIA grows the least. The TIA is tax-advantaged over the Traditional IRA at that point, but it still runs out first. The Roth IRA grows about the same as the Traditional after taxes are included. Note that I left out the matching contribution from a 401k. That would help both those options. I assumed that the marginal tax rate would be 25% on the Traditional IRA distributions. It might be only 15%, which would increase the advantage of the Traditional IRA. I assumed that the 15% rate on capital returns would still be true for the entire period. If that is increased, the TIA option gets a lot worse. Inflation could be higher or lower. As stated earlier, the TIA account is hit the worst by inflation.","Without more information about what tax bracket you are in, I cannot make a recommendation about what your best option is, but here are a few things to consider:","\"IRA contribution must be from your earned income in the sense that you cannot contribute to IRA more than you have in earned income. If all your income is capital gains - you cannot contribute anything to IRA. Once you're within the income limit restriction, it doesn't matter what other money you have, because as you said - once in your account, its all just money. But what you're describing is basically \"\"I deposit $850 from my salary into an IRA and then go pay for my gas with the $850 I have from the capital gains\"\", so you're not paying any less taxes here. If it makes you feel any better, you can describe it to yourself the way you did. It doesn't really matter.\"","The advantage of a Traditional IRA is: tax deduction today. The advantage of a Roth IRA: no tax on withdrawal. Both types are tax-deferred, and have no bearing on the question.","\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"","\"You ask about \"\"traditional IRA VS taxable (non-retirement) investment account.\"\" You already know about tax deductible IRAs, which are similar, mostly, to your 401(k). A Traditional IRA can have a non-deducted component. In a sense, it then functions similar to the fully pre-tax IRA as it grows tax free, but then withdrawals are made and taxes paid on the pro-rated not-yet-taxed money. It also offers the simple conversion to a Roth IRA. For those who have no current IRA with pre-tax money, a conversion will be tax free, for those with an existing pretax IRA, conversions are prorated for tax due, if the account had say $10,000, and $5,000 was post-tax, any conversion will have half taxed at your marginal rate.\"","There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.","You will not necessarily incur a penalty. You can potentially use the Annualized Income Installment method, which allows you to compute the tax due for each quarter based on income actually earned up to that point in the year. See Publication 505, in particular Worksheet 2-9. Form 2210 is also relevant as that is the form you will use when actually calculating whether you owe a penalty after the year is over. On my reading of Form 2210, if you had literally zero income during the first quarter, you won't be expected to make an estimated tax payment for that quarter (as long as you properly follow the Annualized Income Installment method for future quarters). However, you should go through the calculations yourself to see what the situation is with your actual numbers.","The earnings portion will be taxed at your marginal tax rate + 10% penalty. If the total is $100, then the earnings portion is probably not very significant for this to be a concern. But it's something you could put into a Roth IRA and let it compound with the rest of your retirement savings. Depending on your age, the compounding effect of $100 invested early enough tax free can be thousands of dollars at retirement. i.e. You have 60 days to deposit it into a Roth IRA. Don't let that pass you by.","\"IRA distributions are reported on line 15b on the standard form 1040. That is in the same Income section as most of your other income (including that 1099 income and W2 income, etc.). Its income is included in the Line 22 \"\"Total Income\"\", from which the Personal Exemption (calculated on 6d, subtracted from the total in line 42) and the Standard Deduction (line 40 - also Itemized Deduction total would be here) are later reduced to arrive at Line 43, \"\"Taxable Income\"\". As such, yes, he might owe only the 10% penalty (which is reported on line 59, and you do not reduce this by the deductions, as you surmised).\"","Using the default values for age and retirement and only making the changes you specified in the question. assumed ROR: 6%, current tax rate: 25%, retirement tax rate: 15%, married, have an employer retirement plan. The results from the two calculators are: Traditional IRA: 631,341 IRA before taxes 536,640 IRA after taxes. Roth IRA: 631,341 Roth IRA 450,207 Taxable Savings where: Total taxable savings The total amount you would have accumulated by retirement in a taxable savings account. your question: The (Traditional) IRA After Taxes value is 6.3% higher than the (Roth) Taxable Savings amount. (Both had an equal gross amount.) Does that mean I should put my money in a tIRA instead of a Roth? My percentages don't match your percentages because you didn't specify the numbers you used. In any case the 450K number shows you what you would have if the money was not invested in an IRA or 401K. To decide between a Roth and a traditional IRA ignore the taxable savings number, that only shows what happens if you decide not not use a retirement account.","\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"","\"Investopedia probably should change the wording to \"\"tax free\"\" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. \"\"Tax advantaged\"\" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases.\"","If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.","\"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"","Some more considerations: (1) Tax rates (both ordinary and capital gains) are likely to be different when you retire. (2) Your marginal tax rate may be different when you retire depending on how much income you have at the time. In retirement your income may be structured completely differently than when you are working. For example, you may also have a Roth IRA/401K to pull from.","He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.","how is it double taxation when you didn't start off with that extra $100? it's double taxation if they taxed you on the total amount you pulled out of the market, not the profit you made. explain the math on your last part, please.","Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.","Well, whats the source of income from? Social security? Dividends? At 40k that's the good thing about a progressive tax, you wouldn't be taxed heavily. Even 40k of capital gains, which lets be honest is mostly high income individuals, is barely taxed at a higher level than that 40,000k from a fixed income source. Again, that's the gain (aka profit) one is receiving from selling shares of a company."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Bottom line is this: there's no \\\"\\\"short term capital gains tax\\\"\\\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\\\"\",\n \"First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.\",\n \"I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.\",\n \"In general, you are expected to pay all the money you owe in taxes by the end of the tax year, or you may have to pay a penalty. But you don't have to pay a penalty if: The amount you owe (i.e. total tax due minus what you paid in withholding and estimated taxes) is less than $1000. You paid at least 90% of your total tax bill. You paid at least 100% of last year's tax bill. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html I think point #3 may work for you here. Suppose that last year your total tax liability was, say, $5,000. This year your tax on your regular income would be $5,500, but you have this additional capital gain that brings your total tax to $6,500. If your withholding was $5,000 -- the amount you owed last year -- than you'll owe the difference, $1,500, but you won't have to pay any penalties. If you normally get a refund every year, even a small one, then you should be fine. I'd check the numbers to be sure, of course. If you normally have to pay something every April 15, or if your income and therefore your withholding went down this year for whatever reason, then you should make an estimated payment. The IRS has a page explaining the rules in more detail: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc\",\n \"It would be fairer to the average person if we paid our normal tax rate on the amount we contributed to the IRA and paid at the capital gains rate for the difference. The same as people that invest outside of the IRA. Most IRAs aren't that large and most people are going to have a rough time living on the reduced social security. It seems like we are taxing the average Joe at a higher rate than the rich.\",\n \"\\\"In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about \\\"\\\"the fiscal cliff\\\"\\\" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year.\\\"\",\n \"There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.\",\n \"First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account.\",\n \"\\\"First - Welcome to Money.SE. You gave a lot of detail, and it's tough to parse out the single question. Actually, you have multiple issues. $1300 is what you need to pay the tax? In the 25% bracket plus 10% penalty, you have a 65% net amount. $1300/.65 = Exactly $2000. You withdraw $2000, have them (the IRA holder) withhold $700 in federal tax, and you're done. All that said, don't do it. Nathan's answer - payment plan with IRS - is the way to go. You've shared with us a important issue. Your budget is running too tight. We have a post here, \\\"\\\"the correct order of investing\\\"\\\" which provides a great guideline that applies to most visitors. You are missing the part that requires a decent sized emergency fund. In your case, calling it that, may be a misnomer, as the tax bill isn't an unexpected emergency, but something that should have been foreseeable. We have had a number of posts here that advocate the paid in full house. And I always respond that the emergency fund comes first. With $70K of income, you should have $35K or so of liquidity, money readily available. Tax due in April shouldn't be causing you this grief. Please read that post I linked and others here to help you with the budgeting issue. Last - You are in an enviable position, A half million dollars, no mortgage, mid 40s. Easily doing better than most. So, please forgive the soapbox tone of the above, it was just my \\\"\\\"see, that's what I'm talking about\\\"\\\" moment from my tenure here.\\\"\",\n \"You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.\",\n \"I think you're misunderstanding how tax brackets work. If you make $1 more and that bumps you into a higher bracket, only THAT particular dollar will be taxed at the higher tax bracket rate... Not your entire income. Short term capital gains are treated as income. Long term capital gains have a special tax rate currently.\",\n \"All money distributed from a Traditional IRA to which no nondeductible contributions have been made is taxed as ordinary income. It does not matter if you think of the money as the original contribution or gains; the taxation is the same. Money distributed from a Roth IRA is tax-free. In either case, penalties apply if the distribution is premature.\",\n \"\\\"This is actually (to me) an interesting point to note. While the answer is \\\"\\\"that's what Congress wrote,\\\"\\\" there are implications to note. First, for many, the goal of tax deferral is to shift 25% or 28% income to 15% income at retirement. With long term gains at 15%, simply investing long term post tax can accomplish a similar goal, where all gain is taxed at 15%. Looking at this from another angle, an IRA (or 401(k) for that matter) effectively turns long term gains into ordinary income. It's a good observation, and shouldn't be ignored.\\\"\",\n \"If you are inside of a ROTH IRA you are not getting taxed on any gain. Dividends, distributions, interest payment, or capital gains are never taxed. This, of course, assumes you wait until age 59.5 to do ROTH withdrawals on your gains.\",\n \"As I commented, there's confusion on withholding. The 20% pertains to 401(k) accounts, not IRAs.\",\n \"Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct.\",\n \"No matter what, you owe taxes on the gains, known as capital gains. How much, depends on how long you invested it for. In your example, each month is treated separately - each month you contribute starts a new clock on that set of investments. If you hold it for longer than a year, the taxes are treated as long-term, and less than a year is short-term. Short term taxes are at your marginal rate, and long term taxes are different, usually 15%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400/tc409\",\n \"\\\"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \\\"\\\"Net Investment Tax\\\"\\\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\\\"\",\n \"There's no additional income tax burden created when you decide to make Roth IRA contributions, your Roth IRA contributions are taxed at the same time all your income is taxed. If you earned that $100 by working a job, then your employer likely withheld taxes when they paid you. If you earned it through self-employment, then you'll pay estimated taxes on that income quarterly, etc. In any case when you file your annual tax return the actual taxes owed vs taxes paid gets reconciled and you're left with a refund or owe an additional sum.\",\n \"You can withdraw the principal of your Roth IRA account (i.e.: the amounts after tax deposited there) without a tax. However, in case of conversion - you have to wait for five years before you can do that. Otherwise, 10% penalty will apply. It is actually mentioned in the article you linked to. Taxable portion in that context is the portion you paid tax on when converting. In the case you described (converting your 401k) that would be the whole amount of the conversion.\",\n \"(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!\",\n \"Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)\",\n \"First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.\",\n \"Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.\",\n \"In addition to the other answers, which cover the risks of what is essentially leveraged investing, I'd like to point out that the 2.6% penalty is a flat rate. If you are responsible for withholding your own taxes then you are paying tax four times a year. So any underpayment on your first quarterly tax payment will have much more time to accrue in the stock market than your last payment, although each underpayment will be penalized by the 2.6%. It may make sense for someone to make full payments on later payments but underpay on earlier ones.\",\n \"\\\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \\\"\\\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I think there are several issues here. First, there's the contribution. As littleadv said, there is no excess contribution. Excess contribution is only if you exceed the contribution limit. The contribution limit for Traditional IRAs does not depend on how high your income goes or whether you have a 401(k). It's the deduction limit that may depend on those things. Not deducting it is perfectly legitimate, and is completely different than an \\\"\\\"excess contribution\\\"\\\", which has a penalty. Second, the withdrawal. You are allowed to withdraw contributions made during a year, plus any earnings from those contributions, before the tax filing deadline for the taxes of that year (which is April 15 of the following year, or even up to October 15 of the following year), and it will be treated as if the contribution never happened. No penalties. The earnings will be taxed as regular income (as if you put it in a bank account). That sounds like what you did. So the withdrawal was not an \\\"\\\"early withdrawal\\\"\\\", and the 1099-R should reflect that (what distribution code did they put?). Third, even if (and it does not sound like the case, but if) it doesn't qualify as a return of contributions before the tax due date as described above (maybe you withdrew it after October 15 of the following year), as littleadv mentioned, your contribution was a non-deductible contribution, and when withdrawing it, only the earnings portion (which after such a short time should only be a very small part of the distribution) would be subject to tax and penalty.\\\"\",\n \"In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.\",\n \"The safe harbor provision is based on the tax you or the prior year. So in 2016 this helped you as your tax was substantially increased from 2015. However, by the same token in 2017 your safe harbor amount is going to be very high. Therefore if 2017 is similar you will owe penalties. The solution here is to make estimated tax payments in the quarters that you realize large gains. This is exactly what the estimated tax payments are for. Your estimate tax payments do not have to be the same. In fact if you have a sudden boost in earnings in quarter 3, then the IRS expects that quarter 3 estimated tax payment to be boosted.\",\n \"I'm not sure where you are, but in the United States capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income. On the 1040, captial gains income is separated from earned income, and income tax is calculated just on earned income. Then capital gains tax is calculated on capital gains income, and then added to income tax afterward.\",\n \"For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.\",\n \"Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.\",\n \"My understanding (I've never filed one myself) is that the 1040ES is intended to allow you to file quarterly and report unpredictable income, and to pay estimated taxes on that income. I was in the same sort of boat for 2016 -- I had a big unexpected income source in 2015, and this took away my Safe Harbor for 2016. I adjusted my w-2 to zero exemptions (eventually) and will be getting a refund of about 1% of our income. So lets say you make 10000 in STG in March, and another 15000 in STG in April. File a quarterly 1040-ES between March 31 and April 15. Report the income, and pay some tax. You should be able to calculate the STCG Tax for 10k pretty easily. Just assume that it comes off the top and doesn't add at all to your deductions. Then for April, do the same by June 15. Just like your W-2 is used to estimate how much your employer should withhold, the 1040ES is designed to estimate how much extra you need to pay to the IRS to avoid penalties. It'll all get resolved after you file your final 1040 for the 2017 calendar year.\",\n \"\\\"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the \\\"\\\"save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%\\\"\\\" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars.\\\"\",\n \"If you qualify for the safe harbor, you are not required to pay additional quarterly taxes. Of course, you're still welcome to do so if you're sure you'll owe them; however, you will not be penalized. If your income is over $150k (joint) or $75k (single), your safe harbor is: Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty. Generally, if you're under that level, the following reasons suggest you will not owe the tax (from the IRS publication 505): The total of your withholding and timely estimated tax payments was at least as much as your 2013 tax. (See Special rules for certain individuals for higher income taxpayers and farmers and fishermen.) The tax balance due on your 2014 return is no more than 10% of your total 2014 tax, and you paid all required estimated tax payments on time. Your total tax for 2014 (defined later) minus your withholding is less than $1,000. You did not have a tax liability for 2013. You did not have any withholding taxes and your current year tax (less any household employment taxes) is less than $1,000. If you paid one-fourth of your last year's taxes (or of 110% of your last-year's taxes) in estimated taxes for each quarter prior to this one, you should be fine as far as penalties go, and can simply add the excess you know you will owe to the next check.\",\n \"\\\"IRA is a tax-deferred account. I.e.: you're not paying any taxes on the income within the account (as long as you don't withdraw it) and you can deduct the investment (with certain limitation on how much, depending on your total AGI). It is taxed when you withdraw it - at ordinary rates for the \\\"\\\"traditional\\\"\\\" IRA and with 0% rate for ROTH, as long as the withdrawal is qualified (if not qualified - you pay ordinary rate tax for ROTH and additional 10% tax for both on the taxable amounts). The details are a bit complicated (there's deductible IRA, non-deductible IRA, roll-overs, etc etc), but that's the basic. Regular investment accounts are taxed currently on any income, but you get the \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" capital gains rates on many things. So which one is better depends how long your investment is going to be, what is your tax situation now, and what you anticipate it to be later when you retire.\\\"\",\n \"If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.\",\n \"First of all depending on the type of IRA you may not have to pay taxes on withdrawals in the US at all. If you are withdrawing your principle from a Roth IRA then you don't owe taxes. Only when you withdraw the gains do you pay taxes on it. You have two options for withdrawals: Lump Sum Withdrawal: If you take a lump sum withdrawal you will owe taxes to the US (30% for non-resident aliens of the US), and according to DTAA; Article 23, you will file your taxes with India declaring your IRA or 401(k) withdrawal proceeds and claim credit on the taxes you paid to the US. Monthly Pension Withdrawal: You can also receive monthly pension payments and you will only be taxed in the country in which you are a resident of. This is according to DTAA, Article 20. You would then have to submit necessary documentation to your payer in the US so that they do not withhold any taxes in the US. Just as a side note it might be just better to keep the money where it is and let it grow or roll it over to a Roth IRA if you are currently in a lower tax bracket for maximum savings of your principle. Here is a link with more detailed information of what I provided you: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/news/30663129_1_taxable-income-nri-401k-plan\",\n \"The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.\",\n \"\\\"Since the deduction balances out the future tax (presumably), I am only paying tax on the gains, however over 20 years, those gains could be greater than the original $4000 itself. (Doubling would only take 3.6% annual return over 20 years ) If I put it into a Roth IRA, I don't get a tax deduction, but I get to withdraw the original $4000 and all the gains, tax free in about 20 years. It seems the Roth IRA is a better deal tax wise, but I would like to hear if I am missing something. You are missing the time value of money. $4000 now does not have the same value to you as $4000 years in the future. In fact, the $4000 now has the same value as the money it grows into (principal + earnings) in the future. So a certain percentage of tax on the $4000 now has the same effect to you as the same percentage of tax on the $4000 + earnings in the future, no matter how much \\\"\\\"earnings\\\"\\\" is. It's simple math. If you start with the same amount of pre-tax money, and have the same flat percentage tax rate, then both Traditional and Roth will leave you with the same amount of money, regardless of how many times the gains are. Try it for yourself.\\\"\",\n \"You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed.\",\n \"Long term gains are taxed at 15% maximum. Losses, up to the $3K/yr you cited, can offset ordinary income, so 25% or higher, depending on your income. Better to take the loss that way. With my usual disclaimer: Do not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\",\n \"\\\"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \\\"\\\"penalty\\\"\\\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \\\"\\\"need it\\\"\\\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \\\"\\\"hopeful\\\"\\\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \\\"\\\"tax\\\"\\\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\\\"\",\n \"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf\",\n \"Generally it is advisable to mention what country you're asking about, as tax laws differ. To the best of my knowledge, however, this particular issue is handled consistently in every tax jurisdiction I'm familiar with. You invested X, it appreciated and is now worth X + Y. In your example, X = $10,000 and Y = $40,000. Total X + Y = $50,000. When you withdraw an amount, say A (in your example A = $10,000), it is considered a withdrawal of both the earnings and the original capital, in proportion to the total of your account. Taxable portion of the withdrawal is proportional to the earnings. Lets mark it T. In your example, T = $10,000 - $10,000 * $10,000/$50,000 = $8,000. I.e.: 80% of the withdrawal will be attributed to earnings and would be taxable (short term in your case, if you're in the US), and 20% to the original capital. This will keep the proportion of the remained the same - 20% of the remaining amount will be attributed to the original capital (accidentally, it will be $8,000), and the remaining 80% will be attributed to the earnings. The withdrawn amount attributed to the capital ($2,000), and the remaining amount attributed to the capital ($8,000) will equal exactly to the invested amount.\",\n \"You must pay your taxes at the quarterly intervals. For most people the withholding done by their employer satisfies this requirement. However, if your income does not have any withholding (or sufficient), then you must file quarterly estimated tax payments. Note that if you have a second job that does withhold, then you can adjust your W4 to request further withholding there and possibly reduce the need for estimated payments. Estimated tax payments also come into play with large investment earnings. The amount that you need to prepay the IRS is impacted by the safe harbor rule, which I am sure others will provide the exact details on.\",\n \"If you have the cash on hand to pay the tax on the amount you are transferring I recommend moving to a Roth IRA An IRA is tax-deferred. You put in pretax contributions in to an IRA, and you are taxed on that money (your contributions and interest earned) when you withdraw it at retirement, age 59 1/2. The idea being that you will be taking less out per year in your retirement years, putting you into a lower tax bracket. The major problem is most people draw out as much or more a year in their retirement years than when they were working. A Roth IRA grows tax free You put after tax contributions into a Roth IRA, you have paid taxes on the contributions, and you are never taxed on the growth. When you draw the money out at retirement you don't pay any income taxes on that money. Let me give you an example: For this example we will use the following information for both scenario: We will invest $400 per month for a total of $4800. The current maximum is $5000 if you are under 50 years old $400 dollars after taxes is $300 Invest $300 a month, at age 65 you have 3,529,432 You owe no taxes on this money, it doesn't matter how much you take out a year. $400 dollars a month is taken pretax out of your paycheck. Invest $400 per month, at age 65 you have $4,705,909 You owe taxes of 25% as you draw that out for at total tax of 1,176,477 4,705,909 - 1,176,477 = 3,529,432 cash in your pocket The problem is if you draw out more than $82,400 (current 2010 filing single) per year you will be pushed to a higher tax bracket and take more of your money away. If you decide to buy a vacation home and you take out $250,000 to pay for it, that's counted as income for that year any you will be in the 33% tax bracket. Even if you can keep yourself to a low income the government forces your hand and makes you draw out more money at age 70, based on their tables, forcing you into a higher tax bracket\",\n \"Yes, it really will hurt you to keep pulling your money from your IRA. Your best bet is to set up a payment plan with the IRS, and pay the taxes you owe now, as well as adjust your withholding (with a new W-4 to your payroll department) so that you don't have a large tax liability next year. These tax advantaged plans really are designed to penalize you if you pull the money out early to give you incentive to keep the money for retirement. Your best bet is to make a monthly budget that includes your tax payments for taxes owed this year, as well as higher deductions from your paycheck to properly withhold taxes for next year.\",\n \"Post-tax (i.e. non-retirement account) investing is nothing to ignore. You don't mention a spouse, so for a start, you still have the $5500 to put in an IRA. The remaining investment funds will earn dividends, if any, at a tax preferred rate, and then the gain on sale will be taxed at 15% if the code doesn't change again. The gains accumulate tax deferred, and you control the timing of the sale. With a 401(k) all withdrawal are taxable as income. In your case, just the gain is taxed at a potential long term cap gain rate. Hopefully the new job pays more than the old one and the loss of 401(k) is compensated.\",\n \"I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric.\",\n \"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.\",\n \"The principal of the contribution can definitely be withdrawn tax-free and penalty-free. However, there is a section that makes me think that the earnings part may be subject to penalty in addition to tax. In Publication 590-A, under Traditional IRAs -> When Can You Withdraw or Use Assets? -> Contributions Returned Before Due Date of Return -> Early Distributions Tax, it says: The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59½ does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59½ rule, it will be subject to this tax. This section is only specifically about the return of contributions before the due date of return, not a general withdrawal (as you can see from the first sentence that the penalty doesn't apply to contributions, which wouldn't be true of general withdrawals). Therefore, the second sentence must be about the earnings part of the withdrawal that you must make together with the contribution part as part of the return of contributions before the due date of the return. If the penalty it is talking about is only about other types of withdrawals and doesn't apply to the earnings part of the return of contribution before the due date of the return, then this sentence wouldn't make sense as it's in a part that's only about return of contribution before the due date of the return.\",\n \"The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable\",\n \"\\\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \\\"\\\"my friend told me.\\\"\\\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\\\"\",\n \"She is very wrong. If the IRA is a traditional, i.e. A pretax IRA (not a Roth), all withdrawals are subject to tax at one's marginal rate. Read that to mean that a large sum can easily push her into higher brackets than normal. If it stayed with her, she'd take smaller withdrawals and be able to throttle her tax impact. Once she takes it all out, and gifts it to you, no gift tax is due, but there's form 709, where it's declared, and counts against her $5.5M lifetime estate exemption. There are a few things in the world of finance that offend me as much as lawyer malpractice, going into an area they are ignorant of.\",\n \"In your entire question, the only time you mention that this is an investment inside an IRA is when you say Every quarter, six months, whatever Id have to rebalance my IRA while Vanguard would do this for the fund of funds without me needing to. Within an IRA, there are no tax implications to the rebalancing. But if this investment were not inside an IRA, then the rebalancing done by you will have tax implications. In particular, any gains realized when you sell shares in one fund and buy shares in another fund during the rebalancing process are subject to income tax. Similarly, losses also might be realized (and will affect your taxes). However, if you are invested in a fund of funds, there are no capital gains (or capital losses) when re-balancing is done; you have gains or losses only when you sell shares of the fund of funds for a price different than the price you paid for them.\",\n \"I'm assuming your talking USA. There are two ways to look. If you know you should pay on the cap gains, the best way to handle that separately from your salary is to file a quarterly tax payment. That, I understand, is what the self-employed have to do. I'm in the situation where at some point, probably this year, the company that employs me will be bought out, and I will owe capital gains taxes on my shares gobbled up in the buy-out. It's a cash-for-stock transaction. So, in my case, I've just adjusted my W-4 to take advantage of the safe-harbor provision related to taxes I payed in 2016 and my salary. The details vary depending on your situation, but in my case, I've calculated what it will take in W-4 allowances to make sure I pay 110% of my 2016 tax payment (after refund). I'm not worrying about what the actual taxes on those shares of company stock will be, because I've met the rules for safe-harbor. Safe harbor just means that they can't penalize you for under-withholding or underpayment. It doesn't mean I won't have to write a check on april 15.\",\n \"Why shouldn't I just keep my money in the savings account and earn the same amount (both accounts have the same APY in this case)? I will assume that you are transferring money from your savings account into a Traditional IRA and deducting the contribution from your income. While you may think that the money that is being transferred is yours already -- it is sitting in your savings account, for Pete's sake! -- you are deducting that amount in getting to your taxable income, and so you are effectively contributing it from current income and not paying taxes on the amount contributed. So, consider the same amount of money sitting in your savings account versus the same amount of money sitting in your Traditional IRA account. While you will earn the same amount of interest in both accounts, you will have to pay taxes each year on the interest earned in the savings account. You might choose, as most people do, to not take money out of the savings account to pay theses taxes but just pay them from ready cash/checking account/current income etc., or these taxes might just reduce the refund that you will getting from the IRS and your State income tax authority, but in either case, you have paid taxes on the interest earned in your non-IRA savings account, and of course, long ago, you also paid taxes on the original amount in the non-IRA savings account. So, if you take any money out of the non-IRA savings account, you don't pay any taxes on the amount withdrawn except possibly for the interest earned from January 1 till the date of withdrawal (which you are paying from ready cash). On the other hand, consider the Traditional IRA. The original deposit was not taxed in the sense that you got a deduction (reduced tax or increased refund) when you made the contribution. The annual interest earned was not taxed each year either. So when you make a qualified withdrawal (after age 59.5 or by meeting one of the other exceptions allowing withdrawal before age 59.5), you are taking money on which you have not paid any taxes at all, and the IRS wants its cut. The money withdrawn is taxable income to you. Furthermore, the money withdrawn is not eligible for any kind of favorable treatment such as having it count as qualified dividends or as long-term capital gains even if your IRA was invested in stocks and the money in the account is all qualified dividends or long-term capital gains. If you make an unqualified withdrawal, you owe a penalty (technically named an excise tax) in addition to income tax on the amount withdrawn. If you are investing in a Roth IRA, you will not be getting a deduction when you make the contribution, and qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free, and so the answer is completely different from the above.\",\n \"\\\"The annualized method allows you to take a look at each quarter independently and pay the tax in the quarter that you earned it. -- According to Linda Durand, a certified public accountant with Drolet & Associates PLLC in Washington, D.C., from the Bankrate article \\\"\\\"Paying quarterly estimated taxes\\\"\\\" And after paying annualized quarterly estimates, you can still owe up to $1000 at tax time without penalty.\\\"\",\n \">I could be wrong but you will still get tax at 10% This isn't true for Roths. If I put 5k (post tax of course) money into a Roth 401k or a Roth IRA I can withdraw that 5k whenever I want penalty and tax free. Now lets say that 5k has grown to 7k and I take out all 7k the first 5k is penalty and tax free but the extra 2k is taxed (with the extra 10% penalty added on). So as long as you don't touch any growth in your roth accounts you can withdraw the principal amount with the same consequences you would experience if you were to take money out of your checking account at your bank. Also money in and IRA does not have to be invested it could be in a liquid position. Now a pre tax retirement account doesn't have the same luxury. If I stick 5k into a traditional IRA and it grows to 7k and I pull that money out the entire ammount gets taxed AND penalized (even the principal amount is subject the 10% penalty). Now if you do a Roth conversion (pre-tax to post-tax retirment account conversion) the principal ammount (the amount you paid taxes on) is still subject to the 10% penalty for 5 years. After the 5 years you can withdraw the converted ammount tax and penalty free (well you already paid the taxes) it would just be the growth that is subject to the penalty.\",\n \"The penalty is 10% regardless of the tax. If your marginal rate is so low, I'd consider converting some to Roth each year, and not touching it for tuition.\",\n \"The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040. This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed. Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW. Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part. The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936. This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here.\",\n \"\\\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \\\"\\\"social security lockbox\\\"\\\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \\\"\\\"rob\\\"\\\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\\\"\",\n \"Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends.\",\n \"Edited in response to JoeTaxpayer's comment and OP Tim's additional question. To add to and clarify a little what littleadv has said, and to answer OP Tim's next question: As far as the IRS is concerned, you have at most one Individual Retirement Account of each type (Traditional, Roth) though the money in each IRA can be invested with as many different custodians (brokerages, banks, etc.) and different investments as you like. Thus, the maximum $5000 ($6000 for older folks) that you can contribute each year can be split up and invested any which way you like, and when in later years you take a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from a Traditional IRA, you can get the money by selling just one of the investments, or from several investments; all that the IRS cares is that the total amount that is distributed to you is at least as large as the RMD. An important corollary is that the balance in your IRA is the sum total of the value of all the investments that various custodians are holding for you in IRA accounts. There is no loss in an IRA until every penny has been withdrawn from every investment in your IRA and distributed to you, thus making your IRA balance zero. As long as you have a positive balance, there is no loss: everything has to come out. After the last distribution from your Roth IRA (the one that empties your entire Roth IRA, no matter where it is invested and reduces your Roth IRA balance (see definition above) to zero), total up all the amounts that you have received as distributions from your Roth IRA. If this is less than the total amount of money you contributed to your Roth IRA (this includes rollovers from a Traditional IRA or Roth 401k etc., but not the earnings within the Roth IRA that you re-invested inside the Roth IRA), you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI limit. This 2% is not a cap (in the sense that no more than 2% of your AGI can be deducted in this category) but rather a threshold: you can only deduct whatever part of your total Miscellaneous Deductions exceeds 2% of your AGI. Not many people have Miscellaneous Deductions whose total exceeds 2% of their AGI, and so they end up not being able to deduct anything in this category. If you ever made nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA because you were ineligible to make a deductible contribution (income too high, pension plan coverage at work etc), then the sum of all these contributions is your basis in your Traditional IRA. Note that your deductible contributions, if any, are not part of the basis. The above rules apply to your basis in your Traditional IRA as well. After the last distribution from your Traditional IRA (the one that empties all your Traditional IRA accounts and reduces your Traditional IRA balance to zero), total up all the distributions that you received (don't forget to include the nontaxable part of each distribution that represents a return of the basis). If the sum total is less than your basis, you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI threshold. You can only deposit cash into an IRA and take a distribution in cash from an IRA. Now, as JoeTaxpayer points out, if your IRA owns stock, you can take a distribution by having the shares transferred from your IRA account in your brokerage to your personal account in the brokerage. However, the amount of the distribution, as reported by the brokerage to the IRS, is the value of the shares transferred as of the time of the transfer, (more generally the fair market value of the property that is transferred out of the IRA) and this is the amount you report on your income tax return. Any capital gain or loss on those shares remains inside the IRA because your basis (in your personal account) in the shares that came out of the IRA is the amount of the distribution. If you sell these shares at a later date, you will have a (taxable) gain or loss depending on whether you sold the shares for more or less than your basis. In effect, the share transfer transaction is as if you sold the shares in the IRA, took the proceeds as a cash distribution and immediately bought the same shares in your personal account, but you saved the transaction fees for the sale and the purchase and avoided paying the difference between the buying and selling price of the shares as well as any changes in these in the microseconds that would have elapsed between the execution of the sell-shares-in-Tim's-IRA-account, distribute-cash-to-Tim, and buy-shares-in-Tim's-personal account transactions. Of course, your broker will likely charge a fee for transferring ownership of the shares from your IRA to you. But the important point is that any capital gain or loss within the IRA cannot be used to offset a gain or loss in your taxable accounts. What happens inside the IRA stays inside the IRA.\",\n \"\\\"There's currently not much reason to keep around a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA in my opinion -- a Roth IRA is almost strictly better. Think about it: a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA of the same amount. In both cases, contributions are after-tax (so no tax deduction). But when you withdraw, for the Roth IRA you don't have to pay tax, and for the non-deductible Traditional IRA, you have to pay tax on the \\\"\\\"earnings\\\"\\\". A Roth IRA can be contributed to at pretty much any income level, thanks to the backdoor Roth IRA process (which uses a temporary non-deductible Traditional IRA in the process). So there is not much reason for a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA. As for your question, a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a taxable account. Well, a non-deductible Traditional IRA is contributed to with after-tax money, and taxed on the earnings only on withdrawal. So the taxation is almost identical to things like stocks and homes, where the gain is not realized until the thing is sold. However, compared to things like savings accounts and bonds, where you get taxed on the interest yearly, it is much better. Every time you get taxed on gains like this, it is taxing gains earned from after-tax money, so if you think of an amount of money as being equivalent to the amount of money it grows to over time (time value of money), then it is taxing money that is (or grown from money that is) already taxed. So it is better to have this only happen at the end at withdrawal than every year.\\\"\",\n \"Excise tax on the excess contribution is 6% a year on the amount of the contribution. In addition, gains will be taxable to you. By adding 20K over the limit, you added $1200 to your tax bill. Withdraw it ASAP. Whatever investment you have in your IRA - you can probably buy it (or a comparable) outside of the IRA.\",\n \"The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty.\",\n \"\\\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\\\"\",\n \"Some of the expenses you describe may be eligible to be paid off by a 401(k) without incurring a penalty. As long as you do not mind paying tax on the extra income. If your tax bracket does not go up, then using your IRA may not be a bad idea. You should consult a tax expert and see which expenses can qualify for a withdrawal without penalty. I believe medical bills and medical insurance costs are eligible to be withdrawn without penalty in some instances.\",\n \"You can't say I'm wrong and then go on to explain why exactly what I said is correct. :) You (and I) are in complete agreement that there's no LTCG on either Roth *or* Traditional 401ks, because you pay both as straight income - The former up front, the latter when you withdraw it. My point was that, for virtually everyone, their regular income tax rate is **higher** than their LTCG rate.\",\n \"All of your 401k income is taxable and no more than 85% of your SS income. You can use the worksheets in IRS: Publication 915 to determine what percentage of your SS is taxable. Just as with ordinary income, deductions/exemptions apply and not all that is taxable will be taxed. When you begin drawing SS you'll have the option to have taxes withheld at various rates, more convenient than quarterly estimated payments in my opinion.\",\n \"\\\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \\\"\\\"tax deferral\\\"\\\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \\\"\\\"carrot\\\"\\\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \\\"\\\"post-tax deduction\\\"\\\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\\\"\",\n \"The alternative isn't too bad. Invest in a regular account. The dividends and cap gains will see favorable tax treatment. In my opinion, much of the magic of the retirement account is with 401(k) matched deposits. The benefit you'll miss is the long term opportunity to skim income off the top, at say, 25%, have it grow, and then withdraw it at a much lower average tax rate. If that benefit doesn't outweigh the fear of the 10%, stick with my first thought above.\",\n \"One additional note related to Roth vs regular: for a regular 401k or IRA, you pay the 10% penalty on any withdrawal. For a Roth, you can withdraw the contributions early (but not the earnings) without any penalty or tax. Of course, if this is a retirement account it's better to leave it that way. Personally it's one reason I avoid Roth - in addition to probably being in a higher bracket now, I also would prefer not to be able to touch my money. But for some there could be advantages in having that ability (such as in an emergency).\",\n \"\\\"The answer to your first question is true. No tax on withdrawls. Under these circumstances, the withdrawl is \\\"\\\"qualified\\\"\\\". To your second question, as long as the withdrawl is qualified, it is not taxed, regardless of your additional income. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/03/030403.asp?lgl=rira-baseline-vertical has a very comprehensive, plain English, description of the IRS rules (as of today, anyway).\\\"\",\n \"As littleadv suggested, you are mixing issues. If you have earned income and are able to deduct an IRA deposit, where those actual dollars came from is irrelevant. The fact that you are taking proceeds from one transaction to deposit to the IRA is a booking entry on your side, but the IRS doesn't care. By the way, when you get that $1000 gain, the broker doesn't withhold tax, so if you take the entire $1000 and put it in the IRA, you owe $150 on one line, but save $250 elsewhere, and are still $100 to the positive on your tax return.\",\n \"\\\"I think the math is wrong. Note that in Scenario #1, you are only out of pocket $1000, while in Scenario #2, you are out of pocket $1250; the contribution and the tax you paid with respect to it. A better concept than tax rate is \\\"\\\"Retention Rate\\\"\\\". This is the fraction of your money that the Feds let you keep. And Growth Factor is the how much the investment grows. So In Scenario #1, you multiply $1000 by the investment Growth Factor and then by the retirement Retention Rate. And in Scenario #2, you multiply the same $1000 by the current Retention Rate and then by the Growth Factor. Since in your approximation, the two GFs are the same, there is no saving...\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I wrote a brilliant guest post at Don't Mess With Taxes, titled Roth IRAs and Your Retirement Income. (Note - this article now reflects 2012 rates. Just updated) Simply put, it's an ongoing question of whether your taxes will be higher now than at any point in the future. If you are in the 25% bracket now, it would take quite of bit of money for your withdrawals to put you in that bracket at retirement. In the case of the IRA, you have the opportunity to convert in any year between now and retirement if your rate that year drops for whatever reason. The simplest case is if you are now in the 25% bracket. I say go pre-tax, and track, year by year what your withdrawal would be if you retired today. At 15%, but with a good chance for promotion to the 25% bracket, start with Roth flavor and then as you hit 25%, use a combination. This approach would smooth your marginal rate to stay at 15%. To give you a start to this puzzle, in 2012, a couple has a $11,900 standard deduction along with 2 exemptions of $3800 each. This means the first $19,500 in an IRA comes out tax free at retirement. If you believe in a 4% withdrawal rate, you need a retirement account containing $500K pretax to generate this much money. This tick up with inflation, 2 years ago, it was $18,700 and $467K respectively. This is why those who scream \\\"\\\"taxes will go up\\\"\\\" may be correct, but do you really believe the standard deduction and exemptions will go away? Edit - and as time passes, and I learn more, new info comes to my attention. The above thoughts not withstanding, there's an issue of taxation of Social Security benefits. This creates a The Phantom Tax Rate Zone which I recently wrote about. A single person with not really too high an income gets thrust into the 46% bracket. Not a typo, 46.25% to be exact.\\\"\",\n \"Don't forget inflation. With a Roth 401k (or IRA), you don't pay any taxes on inflationary or real gains. You pay taxes at the beginning and then no more taxes (unless you invest money after you distributed from it). With a regular, taxable investment account (not a 401k or IRA), you pay taxes on the initial amount. And then you pay taxes on the gains, both inflationary and real. So you effectively pay taxes on the inflated principal twice. Once at initial earning and once when it shows up as inflationary gains. I'll give an example later. With a traditional 401k (or IRA), you pay no taxes on the initial amount. You pay taxes on the distributed amount. That includes taxes on gains, but it only taxes them once, not twice. All the taxes are paid at distribution time. Here's a semirealistic example. This is not a real example with real numbers, but the numbers shouldn't be ridiculously off. They could happen. I'm going to ignore variation and pretend that all the numbers will be the same each year so as to simplify the math. So you pay a 25% marginal tax rate and want to invest $12,000 plus any tax savings. Roth: $12,000 principal Traditional IRA (Trad): $16,000 principal with $4000 in tax savings Taxable Investment Account (TIA): $12,000 principal Let's assume that you make an 8% rate of return and inflation is 3%. Both numbers are possible, although higher and lower numbers have occurred in the past. That gives you returns of $960 for the Roth and TIA cases and a return of $1280 for the Trad case. Pay no annual taxes on the Roth or Trad cases. Pay 25% marginal tax on the TIA case, that's $240. Balances after one year: Roth: $12,960 Trad: $17,280 TIA: $12,720 Inflation decreases the value of the Roth and TIA cases by $360 in the Roth and TIA cases. And by $480 in the Trad case. Ten years of inflationary gains (cumulative): Roth: $5354 Trad: $7138 TIA: $4872 Net buildup (including inflationary gains): Roth: $25,907 Trad: $34,543 TIA: $23,168 Real value (minus inflation to maintain spending power): Roth: $20,554 Trad: $27,405 TIA: $18,109 Now take out $3000 per year, after taxes. That's $3000 in the the Roth and TIA cases, as you already paid the taxes. In the Trad case, that's $4000 because you have to pay 25% tax which will cost $1000. Do that for five years and the new balances are Roth: $9931 Trad: $13,241 TIA: $5973 The TIA will run out in the 8th year. The Roth and Trad will both run out in the 9th year. So to summarize. The Traditional IRA initially grows the most. The TIA grows the least. The TIA is tax-advantaged over the Traditional IRA at that point, but it still runs out first. The Roth IRA grows about the same as the Traditional after taxes are included. Note that I left out the matching contribution from a 401k. That would help both those options. I assumed that the marginal tax rate would be 25% on the Traditional IRA distributions. It might be only 15%, which would increase the advantage of the Traditional IRA. I assumed that the 15% rate on capital returns would still be true for the entire period. If that is increased, the TIA option gets a lot worse. Inflation could be higher or lower. As stated earlier, the TIA account is hit the worst by inflation.\",\n \"Without more information about what tax bracket you are in, I cannot make a recommendation about what your best option is, but here are a few things to consider:\",\n \"\\\"IRA contribution must be from your earned income in the sense that you cannot contribute to IRA more than you have in earned income. If all your income is capital gains - you cannot contribute anything to IRA. Once you're within the income limit restriction, it doesn't matter what other money you have, because as you said - once in your account, its all just money. But what you're describing is basically \\\"\\\"I deposit $850 from my salary into an IRA and then go pay for my gas with the $850 I have from the capital gains\\\"\\\", so you're not paying any less taxes here. If it makes you feel any better, you can describe it to yourself the way you did. It doesn't really matter.\\\"\",\n \"The advantage of a Traditional IRA is: tax deduction today. The advantage of a Roth IRA: no tax on withdrawal. Both types are tax-deferred, and have no bearing on the question.\",\n \"\\\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \\\"\\\"wash sale\\\"\\\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You ask about \\\"\\\"traditional IRA VS taxable (non-retirement) investment account.\\\"\\\" You already know about tax deductible IRAs, which are similar, mostly, to your 401(k). A Traditional IRA can have a non-deducted component. In a sense, it then functions similar to the fully pre-tax IRA as it grows tax free, but then withdrawals are made and taxes paid on the pro-rated not-yet-taxed money. It also offers the simple conversion to a Roth IRA. For those who have no current IRA with pre-tax money, a conversion will be tax free, for those with an existing pretax IRA, conversions are prorated for tax due, if the account had say $10,000, and $5,000 was post-tax, any conversion will have half taxed at your marginal rate.\\\"\",\n \"There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.\",\n \"You will not necessarily incur a penalty. You can potentially use the Annualized Income Installment method, which allows you to compute the tax due for each quarter based on income actually earned up to that point in the year. See Publication 505, in particular Worksheet 2-9. Form 2210 is also relevant as that is the form you will use when actually calculating whether you owe a penalty after the year is over. On my reading of Form 2210, if you had literally zero income during the first quarter, you won't be expected to make an estimated tax payment for that quarter (as long as you properly follow the Annualized Income Installment method for future quarters). However, you should go through the calculations yourself to see what the situation is with your actual numbers.\",\n \"The earnings portion will be taxed at your marginal tax rate + 10% penalty. If the total is $100, then the earnings portion is probably not very significant for this to be a concern. But it's something you could put into a Roth IRA and let it compound with the rest of your retirement savings. Depending on your age, the compounding effect of $100 invested early enough tax free can be thousands of dollars at retirement. i.e. You have 60 days to deposit it into a Roth IRA. Don't let that pass you by.\",\n \"\\\"IRA distributions are reported on line 15b on the standard form 1040. That is in the same Income section as most of your other income (including that 1099 income and W2 income, etc.). Its income is included in the Line 22 \\\"\\\"Total Income\\\"\\\", from which the Personal Exemption (calculated on 6d, subtracted from the total in line 42) and the Standard Deduction (line 40 - also Itemized Deduction total would be here) are later reduced to arrive at Line 43, \\\"\\\"Taxable Income\\\"\\\". As such, yes, he might owe only the 10% penalty (which is reported on line 59, and you do not reduce this by the deductions, as you surmised).\\\"\",\n \"Using the default values for age and retirement and only making the changes you specified in the question. assumed ROR: 6%, current tax rate: 25%, retirement tax rate: 15%, married, have an employer retirement plan. The results from the two calculators are: Traditional IRA: 631,341 IRA before taxes 536,640 IRA after taxes. Roth IRA: 631,341 Roth IRA 450,207 Taxable Savings where: Total taxable savings The total amount you would have accumulated by retirement in a taxable savings account. your question: The (Traditional) IRA After Taxes value is 6.3% higher than the (Roth) Taxable Savings amount. (Both had an equal gross amount.) Does that mean I should put my money in a tIRA instead of a Roth? My percentages don't match your percentages because you didn't specify the numbers you used. In any case the 450K number shows you what you would have if the money was not invested in an IRA or 401K. To decide between a Roth and a traditional IRA ignore the taxable savings number, that only shows what happens if you decide not not use a retirement account.\",\n \"\\\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \\\"\\\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\\\"\\\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Investopedia probably should change the wording to \\\"\\\"tax free\\\"\\\" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. \\\"\\\"Tax advantaged\\\"\\\" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases.\\\"\",\n \"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.\",\n \"\\\"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \\\"\\\"outgrow\\\"\\\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\\\"\",\n \"Some more considerations: (1) Tax rates (both ordinary and capital gains) are likely to be different when you retire. (2) Your marginal tax rate may be different when you retire depending on how much income you have at the time. In retirement your income may be structured completely differently than when you are working. For example, you may also have a Roth IRA/401K to pull from.\",\n \"He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.\",\n \"how is it double taxation when you didn't start off with that extra $100? it's double taxation if they taxed you on the total amount you pulled out of the market, not the profit you made. explain the math on your last part, please.\",\n \"Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.\",\n \"Well, whats the source of income from? Social security? Dividends? At 40k that's the good thing about a progressive tax, you wouldn't be taxed heavily. Even 40k of capital gains, which lets be honest is mostly high income individuals, is barely taxed at a higher level than that 40,000k from a fixed income source. Again, that's the gain (aka profit) one is receiving from selling shares of a company.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"","\"Bottom line is this: there's no \"\"short term capital gains tax\"\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Bottom line is this: there's no \\\"\\\"short term capital gains tax\\\"\\\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":275,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6525"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Does it make sense to trade my GOOGL shares for GOOG and pocket the difference?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["181985","98150","106541"],"string":"[\n \"181985\",\n \"98150\",\n \"106541\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["106541","98150","105542","550661","404224","147002","181985","156467","378906","290045","345404","127487","435407","502970","134892","531787","374867","251604","162804","268423","303001","204167","521133","304918","38287","186631","444405","481283","171025","468381","340264","492401","583080","55893","348922","474305","259904","414505","524940","263751","423929","135798","479824","373204","30070","492503","508286","483394","275297","501214","483191","267067","178614","30973","79410","137465","76330","295445","443354","287923","431610","291996","269129","30201","498561","363919","280611","580429","306688","581780","562481","221795","227064","469819","111568","528516","23217","550785","255097","39660","468047","71292","355089","212025","530146","539664","421992","546491","84045","204388","434252","12351","387035","343042","451314","546133","291548","481169","474981","498014"],"string":"[\n \"106541\",\n \"98150\",\n \"105542\",\n \"550661\",\n \"404224\",\n \"147002\",\n \"181985\",\n \"156467\",\n \"378906\",\n \"290045\",\n \"345404\",\n \"127487\",\n \"435407\",\n \"502970\",\n \"134892\",\n \"531787\",\n \"374867\",\n \"251604\",\n \"162804\",\n \"268423\",\n \"303001\",\n \"204167\",\n \"521133\",\n \"304918\",\n \"38287\",\n \"186631\",\n \"444405\",\n \"481283\",\n \"171025\",\n \"468381\",\n \"340264\",\n \"492401\",\n \"583080\",\n \"55893\",\n \"348922\",\n \"474305\",\n \"259904\",\n \"414505\",\n \"524940\",\n \"263751\",\n \"423929\",\n \"135798\",\n \"479824\",\n \"373204\",\n \"30070\",\n \"492503\",\n \"508286\",\n \"483394\",\n \"275297\",\n \"501214\",\n \"483191\",\n \"267067\",\n \"178614\",\n \"30973\",\n \"79410\",\n \"137465\",\n \"76330\",\n \"295445\",\n \"443354\",\n \"287923\",\n \"431610\",\n \"291996\",\n \"269129\",\n \"30201\",\n \"498561\",\n \"363919\",\n \"280611\",\n \"580429\",\n \"306688\",\n \"581780\",\n \"562481\",\n \"221795\",\n \"227064\",\n \"469819\",\n \"111568\",\n \"528516\",\n \"23217\",\n \"550785\",\n \"255097\",\n \"39660\",\n \"468047\",\n \"71292\",\n \"355089\",\n \"212025\",\n \"530146\",\n \"539664\",\n \"421992\",\n \"546491\",\n \"84045\",\n \"204388\",\n \"434252\",\n \"12351\",\n \"387035\",\n \"343042\",\n \"451314\",\n \"546133\",\n \"291548\",\n \"481169\",\n \"474981\",\n \"498014\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Too much fiddling with your portfolio if the difference is 3-4% or less (as it's become in recent months). Hands off is the better advice. As for buying shares, go for whichever is the cheapest (i.e. Goog rather than Googl) because the voting right with the latter is merely symbolic. And who attends shareholders' meetings, for Pete's sake? On the other hand, if your holdings in the company are way up in the triple (maybe even quadruple) figures, then it might make sense to do the math and take the time to squeeze an extra percentage point or two out of your Googl purchases. The idle rich occupying the exclusive club that includes only the top 1% of the population needs to have somethinng to do with its time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling to make a living--leaving only enough time to visit our portfolios as often as Buffett advises (about twice a year).","It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial. We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0. Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations. So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D}) = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year. Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X. It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity. And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero. So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?","\"Note that these used to be a single \"\"common\"\" share that has \"\"split\"\" (actually a \"\"special dividend\"\" but effectively a split). If you owned one share of Google before the split, you had one share giving you X worth of equity in the company and 1 vote. After the split you have two shares giving you the same X worth of equity and 1 vote. In other words, zero change. Buy or sell either depending on how much you value the vote and how much you think others will pay (or not) for that vote in the future. As Google issues new shares, it'll likely issue more of the new non-voting shares meaning dilution of equity but not dilution of voting power. For most of us, our few votes count for nothing so evaluate this as you will. Google's founders believe they can do a better job running the company long-term when there are fewer pressures from outside holders who may have only short-term interests in mind. If you disagree, or if you are only interested in the short-term, you probably shouldn't be an owner of Google. As always, evaluate the facts for yourself, your situation, and your beliefs.\"","Google will be issuing Class C shares (under the ticker symbol GOOCV) to current GOOG holders in the beginning of April. The Class C shares and Class A shares will then change symbols, with the Class C shares trading under GOOG. This was announced on January 30th. Details are in this benzinga article: Projected Trading Timeline March 27 - April 2 Record Date - Payment Date Class C shares commence trading on March 27 as GOOCV on a when issued basis Class A shares continue to trade as GOOG, with entitlement to Class C shares Class A shares will also trade on an ex-distribution basis, without entitlement to the Class C shares, as GOOAV April 3 EX Date The ticker for the Class A shares will change from GOOG to GOOGL The ticker for the Class C shares will change from GOOCV to GOOG and commence regular way trading The ticker for the Class A shares that traded on an ex-distribution basis - GOOAV - will be suspended","Presumably you're talking about the different share class introduced in the recent stock split, which mean that there are now three Google share classes: Due to the voting rights, Class A shares should be worth more than class C, but how much only time will tell. Actually, one could very well argue that a non-voting share of a company that pays no dividends has no value at all. It's unlikely the markets will see it that way, though.","For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded.","\"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \"\"Class C Settlement Agreement\"\" in the S-3 filing\"","You are right: if the combined value of all outstanding GOOG shares was $495B, and the combined value of all GOOGL shares was $495B, then yes, Alphabet would have a market cap of at least $990B (where I say at least only because I myself don't know that there aren't other issues that should be in the count as well). The respective values of the total outstanding GOOG and GOOGL shares are significantly less than that at present though. Using numbers I just grabbed for those tickers from Google Finance (of course), they currently stand thus:","Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.","You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.","The stock split, it is similar to what happened to Apple a little while back. When Google split 2 to 1, it means that each share holder got 2 shares for each 1 share they had and each share was 1/2 the price.","There is no difference between more shares of a relatively cheaper stock and less shares of a relatively more expensive stock. When you invest in a stock, the percentage increase (or decrease) in the share price results in gains (or losses). This is a fundamental concept of investing. Your question suggests that you would benefit from further research before investing your money. Trading real dollars can be difficult without a strong understanding of the principles involved. Investing your money without a good knowledge base will likely be stressful and could have a discouraging effect if it doesn't go well. Before you open an investment account, read up on investing fundamentals, particularly mutual funds as those can be a great place to start as a new investor. There are many sources of information including books, websites such as http://investor.gov/investing-basics and this website. Don't skip the sections on taxes, as those matter just as much and sometimes more than the simple buying and selling. You might look at tax advantaged accounts, such as 401k's, IRA's, etc. It shouldn't take long but it will be one of the most important things you do as a beginning investor. Everyone has to start here. Understanding the vocabulary and concepts will likely save you time and money throughout your investing life.","It seems at most a cosmetic difference - nothing keeps you from adding the 9$ cash to the fund the same day the fees are deducted from the shares.","It was actually a reverse split meaning that every 10 shares you had became 1 share and the price should be 10x higher. - Citigroup in reverse split The chart just accounts for the split. The big dip is Googles way of showing from what price it split from. If you remember before the split the stock was trading around $4-$5 after the reverse split the stock became 10x higher. Just to clear it up a 1:2(1 for 2) split would mean you get 1 share for every 2 shares you have. This is known as a reverse split. A 2:1(2 for 1) split means you get 2 shares for every 1 share you have. The first number represents the amount of shares you will receive and the second number represents how many shares you will be giving up.","http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/ Are you counting both class A and other share classes?","\"There's an expression, \"\"stock prices have no memory.\"\" Apple trades at about $115. Why would I carry my shares at anything but $115 even though I paid say $75 a share, while you just bought it at $115? The only difference, perhaps, is that if I hold them in a non retirement account, I might track the net I'd have, post tax.\"","Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.","They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.","the difference would be taxes... Lets say you have two lots, one with a 10 dollar gain, and one with a 20 dollar gain. And lets say you decide to sell one lot this year, and the other lot in 10 years. AND, lets say that it turns out the stock price is exactly the same in ten years as it is when you sell the first lot. In all likelyhood, you'll have more income, and therefore you are likely to be in a different marginal tax rate. If you believe that you're more likely to pay more taxes in 10 years, then sell the lot with the higher gain now. If you believe you're more likely to pay more taxes now, then sell the lot with the lower gain now.","Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.","I agree that their tech incubator works great, but with so much extra cash, I can imagine how investors are frustrated with it just sitting there. If goog paid dividends the investore have the option to plough it back into the company to help fund r&d, or to invest it elsewhere. As it stands, the only options that the investors have are to stay for the ride, or do the wall street walk. Also, nice username. U wsb, bro?","If you aren't familiar with Norbert's Gambit, it's worth looking at. This is a mechanism using a Canadian brokerage account to simultaneously execute one stock trade in CAD and one in USD. The link I provided claims that it only starts potentially making sense somewhere in the 10,000+ range.","My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.","If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?","I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.","Assuming you plan to buy a whole number of shares and have a maximum dollar value you intend to invest, it may be better to wait for the split if the figures don't quite work out nicely. For example, if you are going to invest $1,000 and the stock pre-split is $400 and the split is 2 for 1, then you'd buy 2 shares before the split unless you have an extra $200 to add. Meanwhile, after the split you could buy 5 shares at $200 so that you invest all that you intend. Aside from that case, it doesn't really make a difference since the split is similar to getting 2 nickels for a dime which in each case is still a total value of 10 cents.","Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.","Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.","Alphabet has about 40% on shore or 60%. I know it is 60/40 but forget which way. So way, way more than they really need. What Apple does is borrow against the offshore money when needed, Apple now has over $90b in debt and Google less than $4b. So Google would not have any problem.","I have not looked in details but apparently the company has (at least) a dual listing in Hong Kong (its main listing, ticker 700) and in the US (ticker TCTZF). It also has an ADR (TCEHY), the underlying of which is the HK line. The two US listings essentially trade at the same price and will provide very similar returns but a major difference is that TCTZF pays dividends in HKD whereas TCEHY pays its dividends in USD. The latter may be more convenient depending on the account you use to trade the stock. The ADR line is also more liquid.","That is a weird one. Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option. One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options. This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options. However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US. I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share. Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees","All corporate gains are taxed at the same rate as corporate income, for the corporate entity, so this actually can be WORSE than the individual capital gains tax rates. There are a lot of things you can do with trading certain asset classes, like opening you up to like-kind re-investment tax perks, but I can't think of anything that helps with stocks. Also, in the US there is now a law against doing things solely to avoid tax if they have no other economic purpose. So be conscious about that, you'll need to be able to rationalize at least a thin excuse for why you jumped through all the hoops.","As yet another explanation of why it does not really matter, you can look at this from the valuation point of view. Stock price is the present value of its future cash flows (be it free cash flow of the firm or dividends, depending on the model). Let's have a look at the dividends case. Imagine, the price of the stock is based on only three dividends streams $5 dollars each: dividend to be paid today, in year 1, and in year 2. Each should be discounted back to today (say, at 10%), except today's dividend, since today is now. Once that dividend is paid, it is no longer in the stream of cash flows. So if we just delete that first $5 from the formula, the price will adjust itself down by the amount of the dividend to $8.68. NOTE that this is a very simple example, since in reality cash flows streams are arguably infinite and because there are many other factors affecting stock price. But simply for your understanding, this example should provide you with the reason simply from the valuation perspective.","Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.","There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.","No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments.","If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,","\"The key difference I've found between a stock split and a stock dividend – of the exact same stock and class, as opposed to a spin-off – seems to be from the company's own accounting perspective. There doesn't appear to be any actual transfer of value to the shareholder with either kind of transaction; i.e. in theory, each transaction would be immaterial to the value of your holdings. With respect to the company's accounting, a stock split affects the par value of the shares, whereas a stock dividend reduces the retained earnings account in order to increase paid-in or contributed capital. I found a good online source which explains the history behind this accounting difference: McGraw-Hill - Intermediate Accounting eBook, 6/e - Chapter 18 - Stock Dividends and Splits. Small quote: [...] Besides being based on fallacious reasoning, accounting for stock dividends by artificially reclassifying “earned” capital as “invested” capital conflicts with the reporting objective of reporting shareholders' equity by source. Despite these limitations, this outdated accounting standard still applies. Since neither the corporation nor its shareholders apparently benefits from stock dividends, why do companies declare them?23 Occasionally, a company tries to give shareholders the illusion that they are receiving a real dividend. Another reason is merely to enable the corporation to take advantage of the accepted accounting practice of capitalizing retained earnings. Specifically, a company might wish to reduce an existing balance in retained earnings—otherwise available for cash dividends—so it can reinvest the earned assets represented by that balance without carrying a large balance in retained earnings. [...] There's a lot more on that page, before and after, worth reading. From another book: Google Books - Comparative Income Taxation, a Structural Analysis - page 314 - Stock Dividends. Small quote: The distribution of dividends in the form of stock or \"\"bonus\"\" shares to existing shareholders typically involves a transfer for corporate law purposes of retained earnings into stated capital. It can been [sic] viewed as a deemed distribution of a cash dividend to the shareholders followed by a corresponding contribution to capital or as solely as an event at the corporate level which has no effect on the shareholders whose economic interest in the corporation is unchanged by the receipt of additional shares. The systems have taken varied approaches to the stock dividend problem. The treatment is in part a function of the rules dealing with distributions of stated capital. [emphases above are mine] [... continues w/descriptions of different countries' tax treatments of the kinds of stock dividends. Includes U.S., Sweden, Japan, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany. ...] As far as why a corporation might want to capitalize earnings and reduce the equity otherwise available for dividends, I can only imagine that, ignoring taxes for a moment, that it may have something to do with capital ratios that need to be maintained for financing or regulatory purposes? Yet, I remain curious. If I discover more on this then I'll update my answer. Additional resources:\"","One difference is the bid/ask spread will cost you more in a lower cost stock than a higher cost one. Say you have two highly liquid stocks with tiny spreads: If you wanted to buy say $2,000 of stock: Now imagine these are almost identical ETFs tracking the S&P 500 index and extrapolate this to a trade of $2,000,000 and you can see there's some cost savings in the higher priced stock. As a practical example, recently a popular S&P 500 ETF (Vanguard's VOO) did a reverse split to help investors minimize this oft-missed cost.","I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.","If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.","\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \"\"options\"\" :)\"","I'm not too sure tbh, i'm just getting my series 7 first before anything. But thank you for such a well thought out response. I'd probably trade something that has a bit more volatility like BAC or something though.","Unless your brokerage will sell you fractional shares, the most obvious difference (without us knowing the actual identify of the companies) is that with the $260 one, you will have 3 shares plus you will have $220 minus commission left over that you wanted to invest but weren't able to simply because of the mechanics of long division. You could put that $220 into one of the cheaper stocks, but now the multiple commissions will start to eat your returns. My personal opinion is you should go for a low cost index mutual fund or ETF, and wait to pick individual stocks until you have more than $1000 to work with (and even then, probably still go with the low cost index fund)","I often sell covered calls, and if they are in the money, let the stock go. I am charged the same fee as if I sold online ($9, I use Schwab) which is better than buying back the option if I'm ok to sell the stock. In my case, If the option is slightly in the money, and I see the options are priced well, i.e. I'd do another covered call anyway, I sometimes buy the option and sell the one a year out. I prefer to do this in my IRA account as the trading creates no tax issue.","I will assume that you are not asking in the context of high frequency trading, as this is Personal Finance Stack Exchange. It is completely acceptable to trade odd lots for retail brokerage customers. The odd lot description that you provided in your link, from Interactive Brokers is correct. But even in that context, it says, regarding the acceptability of odd lots to stock exchanges: The exception is that odd lots can be routed to NYSE/ARCA/AMEX, but only as part of a basket order or as a market-on-close (MOC) order. Google GOOG is traded on the NASDAQ. Everything on the NASDAQ is electronic, and always has been. You will have no problem selling or buying less than 100 shares of Google. There is also an issue of higher commissions with odd lots: While trading commissions for odd lots may still be higher than for standard lots on a percentage basis, the popularity of online trading platforms and the consequent plunge in brokerage commissions means that it is no longer as difficult or expensive for investors to dispose of odd lots as it used to be in the past. Notice what it says about online trading making it easier, not more difficult, to trade odd lots.","\"While I'm sure there's some truth to the argument that unsophisticated retail investors index against the S&P 500 thinking that they're tracking \"\"the market,\"\" I don't think it makes sense to steer the S&P 500 in that direction to cater to that lowest common denominator. The *ad absurdum* conclusion of that course of action, of course, would be to abolish the S&P 500 entirely and move those assets into the S&P Total Market Index. But clearly there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps with single share classes, just as there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps in general. As for whether it will be a loss for passive investors...it will be interesting to see how that pans out. Maybe good corporate governance and direct accountability by managers really do contribute positively to returns in the long run and investors will benefit from this change as a result. Or maybe this will result in companies with multiple share classes being undervalued and create an opportunity to earn outsized returns by investing in them, and indexes that omit those companies will underperform. Only time will tell.\"","What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)","In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.","This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:","From their 10-K pulled directly from Edgar: As of October 22, 2015, there were 291,327,781 shares of Alphabet Inc.’s (the successor issuer pursuant to Rule 12g-3(a) under the Exchange Act as of October 2, 2015) (Alphabet) Class A common stock outstanding, 50,893,362 shares of Alphabet's Class B common stock outstanding, and 345,504,021 Alphabet's Class C capital stock outstanding. From here just do the math. The shares outstanding are listed on the first page of the 10-Q and 10-K reports. Edit: I believe Class B shares in this instance are not traded on the market and therefore would not be included.","In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.","The difference is ordinary income. If the price drops and you sell for exactly what you paid, you have an income of D and a capital loss of D which usually cancel each other, but not always. For example, if you already have over $3000 in losses, this loss won't help you, it will carry forward. The above changes a bit if you hold the stock for 2 years after the beginning of the purchase period. If sold between your purchase price and fair market the day you bought, the gain is only the difference, no gain to fair market + loss. Pretty convoluted. Your company should have provided you with a brief FAQ / Q&A to explain this. My friends at Fairmark have an article that explains the ESPP process clearly, Tax Reporting for Qualifying Dispositions of ESPP Shares.","Yes, the net effect is zero. If you own zero shares by Nov 30, for example, and don't buy any more shares by 12/31, the year is done, and nothing left to account for.","On NYSE it isn't the equity which is listed but is an ADR(American Depositary Receipt). Source A negotiable certificate issued by a U.S. bank representing a specified number of shares (or one share) in a foreign stock that is traded on a U.S. exchange. ADRs are denominated in U.S. dollars, with the underlying security held by a U.S. financial institution overseas. ADRs help to reduce administration and duty costs that would otherwise be levied on each transaction. Else people would make a killing on the arbitrage opportunity. Frankly speaking arbitrage opportunities are more or less non existent. They occur for maybe seconds or milliseconds and the HFT firms and banks trade on it to remove the arbitrage.","I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.","You bought 1 share of Google at $67.05 while it has a current trading price of $1204.11. Now, if you bought a widget for under $70 and it currently sells for over $1200 that is quite the increase, no? Be careful of what prices you enter into a portfolio tool as some people may be able to use options to have a strike price different than the current trading price by a sizable difference. Take the gain of $1122.06 on an initial cost of $82.05 for seeing where the 1367% is coming. User error on the portfolio will lead to misleading statistics I think as you meant to put in something else, right?","Also important to keep in mind is the difference in liquidity. The stock could be very liquid in 1 exchange but not in another. When times get bad, liquidity could dry up 1 one exchange, which results in a trading discount.","Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.","\"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a \"\"realized loss\"\" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the \"\"cost basis\"\" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders.\"","You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant. So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.","\"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it \"\"wasting money\"\" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701).\"","Unless you suffer from the illusion that you can time the market, it honestly doesn't matter much; the difference is lost in the noise. That may be true even if you do suffer from that illusion. Also, as discussed here previously, the drop in a stock's price right after the dividend has been paid just reflects the fact that you aren't about to get an immediate refund in the form of a dividend. If you look at the real cost per share, it's meaningless and can/should be ignored. Buying after the dividend is paid may save you a tiny fraction of a cent of short-term income tax, but that's meaningless in real terms.","You're talking about NQO - non-qualified stock options. Even assuming the whole scheme is going to work, the way NQO are taxed is that the difference between the fair market value and the strike price is considered income to you and is taxed as salary. You'll save nothing, and will add a huge headache and additional costs of IPO and SEC regulations.","While my margin is not nearly as good as yours, I sell out early. I generally think it's a bad idea to hold any single stock, as they can vary wildly in value. However, as you mention, it's advantageous to hold for one year. Read more about Capital Gains Taxes here and here.","I buy or sell a few shares whenever I have a small amount of money to transfer into out of my mutual funds. Since I'm not paying transaction fees, there is no reason not to, when that is what makes sense. If you are paying a fee for each transaction, of course it makes sense to try to wait until you have a larger amount to move so the overhead per share is lower.","Is this right? The example is slightly off. Google would be running a cafeteria that can be subsidized. Employees pay an amount to buy food. Not every one spends the same amount or eats the same amount of food. If someone doesn't use cafeteria; he doesn't get more money. For example, suppose John Doe makes $100,000 a year taxed at a rate of 20%, for a take home pay of $80,000. He spends $10,000 on food. His employer Corporation decides to give him all of his food and deduct it as a business expense - costing them $10,000. But now they can pay John Doe an amount so his take home pay will be reduced by $10,000 - $87,500 The company is now spending $97500 employing John Doe, for a savings of $2500$. If a scheme is devised specifically to evade taxes; then it is invalid. In this case Bill may buy groceries worth only $5000. So keep track of which employee buys how much groceries in added cost of Google. Plus one can't really call it a business expense.","It looks like what you're calling a name change was registered as a merger that resulted in an exchange of stock. If that's the case, then what you've been told is correct. You've got one long-term sale and one short-term sale. Based a quick read of the Form 8937 that was filed, it looks like there were multiple entities involved in this event, more than one of which existed prior to it. https://www.mylan.com/-/media/mylancom/files/form%208937%20for%20mylan%20n%20v.pdf","Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.","\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"","No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain. Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do.","There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:","You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.","While theoretically it works it's not a realistic trade because of market efficiency. It's realistic for brokers to advertise trades like this so they can earn more customers and commission. These sorts of trades will be priced in to highly liquid big ticket names like KO and the vast majority of the market. The possibility exists with small names with less liquidity, less trading volume; however, the very execution of this trade will alter the behavior of impending traders thus minimizing any potential profits.","With Apple the money is offshore. That is why they borrow and at now about $100B of debt but have about $250B in the bank offshore. But you do have to be careful because the money offshore is NOT yet taxed and so it is not really a 1:1. With Google it is less than $4B so not really a big deal but can not answer why not just use the onshore cash to pay it off. Google has plenty of money onshore to do this. I believe Apple over the last year had 4% onshore low point and high point was 7%. Google it is 40% or 60%. I know it is 40/60 split but can never remember which way.","Some companies like Royal Dutch Shell have multiple share classes to suit the tax regimes in Holland and the UK the A shares have dutch withholding tax applied and the B shares dont. Also some split capital investment trusts have multiple share classes http://www.trustnet.com/Education/Split.aspx?ms=1","It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).","Depends on your contract, cash or shares delivered? If shares, then you get 5 BIG shares. Theres no longer any options. If you sell instantly, theoretically you will net the $10 difference + profit above strike. If cash, same thing just that you get cash $50 less strike. Applies to cash and stock deals Options are binary, never pro-rated. if converted, basically you end up with BIG shares.","Liquidity on dual listed equities is rarely the same on both exchanges. More liquidity means you would typically get a better price assuming you execute the trades using the same order types. It's recommended to trade where the liquidity is greater unless your trading method benefits somehow from it being lower. It's important to remember that some ADRs (some European companies listed in US) have ADR fees which vary. USD/EUR transaction fees are low when using a decent broker but you're obviously participating in the currency risk.","Okay as long as you aren't dumb enough to actually think this would be worth pursuing. I don't want you to waste your money when it could go towards something nice, like your house budget. If you really do believe they are overvalued there are much better strategies.","Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.","Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.","You might have to pay a premium for the stocks on the dividend tax–free exchanges. For example, HSBC on the NYSE yields 4.71% versus HSBC on the LSE which yields only 4.56%. Assuming the shares are truly identical, the only reason for this (aside from market fluctuations) is if the taxes are more favorable in the UK versus the US, thus increasing demand for HSBC on the LSE, raising the price, and reducing the yield. A difference of 0.15% in yield is pretty insignificant relative to a 30% versus 0% dividend tax. But a key question is, does your country have a foreign tax credit like the US does? If so you (usually) end up getting that 30% back, just delayed until you get your tax return, and the question of which exchange to buy on becomes not so clear cut. If your country doesn't have such a tax credit, then yes, you'll want to buy on an exchange where you won't get hit with the dividend tax. Note that I got this information from a great article I read several months back (site requires free registration to see it all unfortunately). They discuss the case of UN versus UL--both on the NYSE but ADRs for Unilever in the Netherlands and the UK, respectively. The logic is very similar to your situation.","The difference is whether your options qualify as incentive stock options (ISOs), or whether they are non-qualifying options. If your options meet all of the criteria for being ISOs (see here), then (a) you are not taxed when you exercise the options. You treat the sale of the underlying stock as a long term capital gain, with the basis being the exercise price (S). There is something about the alternative minimum tax (AMT) as they pertain to these kinds of options. Calculating your AMT basically means that your ISOs are treated as non-qualifying options. So if your exercise bumps you into AMT territory, too bad, so sad. If you exercise earlier, you do get a clock ticking, as you put it, because one of the caveats of having your options qualify as ISOs is that you hold the underlying stock (a) at least two years after you were granted the options and (b) at least one year after you exercise the options.","Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.","No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels. Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.","I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.","I'll take the $9bn, the specific cash balance problem will get smaller, and we'll have a really interesting shareholder letter to read next year. I'll even make an appearance at the annual meeting and talk about what I'm doing with the money.","Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.","You likely received the shares as ordinary income for services of $10k, since they withheld taxes at granting. Separately, you likely had a short term capital loss on sale of $2k, since your holding period seems to have been under one year.","You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.","I wrote a detailed article on Tax Loss Harvesting to show the impact on returns. For my example, I showed a person in the 15% bracket. In years with no loss, they trade to capture gains at 0% long term rate, thus bumping their basis up. In years with losses, they tax harvest for a 15% effective 'rebate' on that loss. I showed how for the lost decade 2000-2009, a buy and hold would have returned -1% CAGR, but the tax loss harvester would have gained 1% (just 1% for the decade, not CAGR), ending the decade with no loss. As one's portfolio grows, the math changes. You can only take $3000 capital loss against ordinary income, and my example relies on the difference between taking a gain for free but using a loss to offset income. Note, the higher earner would take gains at 15%, but losses at 25%, but only for the relatively small portfolio. The benefit for them is to use loss harvesting to offset gains, less so for ordinary income. As the other answer state, Wealthfront can aid you to do this with no math on your part.","Your gain is $1408. The difference between 32% of your gain and 15% of your gain is $236.36 or $1.60 per share. If you sell now, you have $3957.44 after taxes. Forget about the ESPP for a moment. Are you be willing to wager $4000 on the proposition that your company's stock price won't go down more than $1.60 or so over the next 18 months? I've never felt it was worth it. Also, I never thought it made much sense to own any of my employer's stock. If their business does poorly, I'd prefer not to have both my job and my money at risk. If you sell now: Now assuming you hold for 18 months, pay 15% capital gains tax, and the stock price drops by $1.60 to $23.40:","I work on a buy-side firm, so I know how these small data issues can drive us crazy. Hope my answer below can help you: Reason for price difference: 1. Vendor and data source Basically, data providers such as Google and Yahoo redistribute EOD data by aggregating data from their vendors. Although the raw data is taken from the same exchanges, different vendors tend to collect them through different trading platforms. For example, Yahoo, is getting stock data from Hemscott (which was acquired by Morningstar), which is not the most accurate source of EOD stocks. Google gets data from Deutsche Börse. To make the process more complicated, each vendor can choose to get EOD data from another EOD data provider or the exchange itself, or they can produce their own open, high, low, close and volume from the actual trade tick-data, and these data may come from any exchanges. 2. Price Adjustment For equities data, the re-distributor usually adjusts the raw data by applying certain customized procedures. This includes adjustment for corporate actions, such as dividends and splits. For futures data, rolling is required, and back-ward and for-warding rolling can be chosen. Different adjustment methods can lead to different price display. 3. Extended trading hours Along with the growth of electronic trading, many market tends to trade during extended hours, such as pre-open and post-close trading periods. Futures and FX markets even trade around the clock. This leads to another freedom in price reporting: whether to include the price movement during the extended trading hours. Conclusion To cross-verify the true price, we should always check the price from the Exchange where the asset is actually traded. Given the convenience of getting EOD data nowadays, this task should be easy to achieve. In fact, for professional traders and investors alike, they will never reply price on free providers such as Yahoo and Google, they will most likely choose Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. However, for personal use, Yahoo and Google should both be good choices, and the difference is small enough to ignore.","Without more information about what tax bracket you are in, I cannot make a recommendation about what your best option is, but here are a few things to consider:","Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.","Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000. If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares. The price in the market is unimportant. Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense. It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction. It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares. Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased. Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price. Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege. I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense. It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2. The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment.","Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units. So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares. The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash. An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend. However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares. The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend. (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers. It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.","\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"","It looks like GOOG did not have a pre-market trade until 7:14 am ET, so Google Finance was still reporting the last trade it had, which was in the after-hours session yesterday. FB, on the other hand, was trading like crazy after-hours yesterday and pre-market today as it had an earnings report yesterday."],"string":"[\n \"Too much fiddling with your portfolio if the difference is 3-4% or less (as it's become in recent months). Hands off is the better advice. As for buying shares, go for whichever is the cheapest (i.e. Goog rather than Googl) because the voting right with the latter is merely symbolic. And who attends shareholders' meetings, for Pete's sake? On the other hand, if your holdings in the company are way up in the triple (maybe even quadruple) figures, then it might make sense to do the math and take the time to squeeze an extra percentage point or two out of your Googl purchases. The idle rich occupying the exclusive club that includes only the top 1% of the population needs to have somethinng to do with its time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling to make a living--leaving only enough time to visit our portfolios as often as Buffett advises (about twice a year).\",\n \"It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial. We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0. Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations. So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D}) = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year. Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X. It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity. And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero. So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?\",\n \"\\\"Note that these used to be a single \\\"\\\"common\\\"\\\" share that has \\\"\\\"split\\\"\\\" (actually a \\\"\\\"special dividend\\\"\\\" but effectively a split). If you owned one share of Google before the split, you had one share giving you X worth of equity in the company and 1 vote. After the split you have two shares giving you the same X worth of equity and 1 vote. In other words, zero change. Buy or sell either depending on how much you value the vote and how much you think others will pay (or not) for that vote in the future. As Google issues new shares, it'll likely issue more of the new non-voting shares meaning dilution of equity but not dilution of voting power. For most of us, our few votes count for nothing so evaluate this as you will. Google's founders believe they can do a better job running the company long-term when there are fewer pressures from outside holders who may have only short-term interests in mind. If you disagree, or if you are only interested in the short-term, you probably shouldn't be an owner of Google. As always, evaluate the facts for yourself, your situation, and your beliefs.\\\"\",\n \"Google will be issuing Class C shares (under the ticker symbol GOOCV) to current GOOG holders in the beginning of April. The Class C shares and Class A shares will then change symbols, with the Class C shares trading under GOOG. This was announced on January 30th. Details are in this benzinga article: Projected Trading Timeline March 27 - April 2 Record Date - Payment Date Class C shares commence trading on March 27 as GOOCV on a when issued basis Class A shares continue to trade as GOOG, with entitlement to Class C shares Class A shares will also trade on an ex-distribution basis, without entitlement to the Class C shares, as GOOAV April 3 EX Date The ticker for the Class A shares will change from GOOG to GOOGL The ticker for the Class C shares will change from GOOCV to GOOG and commence regular way trading The ticker for the Class A shares that traded on an ex-distribution basis - GOOAV - will be suspended\",\n \"Presumably you're talking about the different share class introduced in the recent stock split, which mean that there are now three Google share classes: Due to the voting rights, Class A shares should be worth more than class C, but how much only time will tell. Actually, one could very well argue that a non-voting share of a company that pays no dividends has no value at all. It's unlikely the markets will see it that way, though.\",\n \"For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded.\",\n \"\\\"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \\\"\\\"Class C Settlement Agreement\\\"\\\" in the S-3 filing\\\"\",\n \"You are right: if the combined value of all outstanding GOOG shares was $495B, and the combined value of all GOOGL shares was $495B, then yes, Alphabet would have a market cap of at least $990B (where I say at least only because I myself don't know that there aren't other issues that should be in the count as well). The respective values of the total outstanding GOOG and GOOGL shares are significantly less than that at present though. Using numbers I just grabbed for those tickers from Google Finance (of course), they currently stand thus:\",\n \"Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.\",\n \"You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.\",\n \"The stock split, it is similar to what happened to Apple a little while back. When Google split 2 to 1, it means that each share holder got 2 shares for each 1 share they had and each share was 1/2 the price.\",\n \"There is no difference between more shares of a relatively cheaper stock and less shares of a relatively more expensive stock. When you invest in a stock, the percentage increase (or decrease) in the share price results in gains (or losses). This is a fundamental concept of investing. Your question suggests that you would benefit from further research before investing your money. Trading real dollars can be difficult without a strong understanding of the principles involved. Investing your money without a good knowledge base will likely be stressful and could have a discouraging effect if it doesn't go well. Before you open an investment account, read up on investing fundamentals, particularly mutual funds as those can be a great place to start as a new investor. There are many sources of information including books, websites such as http://investor.gov/investing-basics and this website. Don't skip the sections on taxes, as those matter just as much and sometimes more than the simple buying and selling. You might look at tax advantaged accounts, such as 401k's, IRA's, etc. It shouldn't take long but it will be one of the most important things you do as a beginning investor. Everyone has to start here. Understanding the vocabulary and concepts will likely save you time and money throughout your investing life.\",\n \"It seems at most a cosmetic difference - nothing keeps you from adding the 9$ cash to the fund the same day the fees are deducted from the shares.\",\n \"It was actually a reverse split meaning that every 10 shares you had became 1 share and the price should be 10x higher. - Citigroup in reverse split The chart just accounts for the split. The big dip is Googles way of showing from what price it split from. If you remember before the split the stock was trading around $4-$5 after the reverse split the stock became 10x higher. Just to clear it up a 1:2(1 for 2) split would mean you get 1 share for every 2 shares you have. This is known as a reverse split. A 2:1(2 for 1) split means you get 2 shares for every 1 share you have. The first number represents the amount of shares you will receive and the second number represents how many shares you will be giving up.\",\n \"http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/ Are you counting both class A and other share classes?\",\n \"\\\"There's an expression, \\\"\\\"stock prices have no memory.\\\"\\\" Apple trades at about $115. Why would I carry my shares at anything but $115 even though I paid say $75 a share, while you just bought it at $115? The only difference, perhaps, is that if I hold them in a non retirement account, I might track the net I'd have, post tax.\\\"\",\n \"Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.\",\n \"They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.\",\n \"the difference would be taxes... Lets say you have two lots, one with a 10 dollar gain, and one with a 20 dollar gain. And lets say you decide to sell one lot this year, and the other lot in 10 years. AND, lets say that it turns out the stock price is exactly the same in ten years as it is when you sell the first lot. In all likelyhood, you'll have more income, and therefore you are likely to be in a different marginal tax rate. If you believe that you're more likely to pay more taxes in 10 years, then sell the lot with the higher gain now. If you believe you're more likely to pay more taxes now, then sell the lot with the lower gain now.\",\n \"Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.\",\n \"I agree that their tech incubator works great, but with so much extra cash, I can imagine how investors are frustrated with it just sitting there. If goog paid dividends the investore have the option to plough it back into the company to help fund r&d, or to invest it elsewhere. As it stands, the only options that the investors have are to stay for the ride, or do the wall street walk. Also, nice username. U wsb, bro?\",\n \"If you aren't familiar with Norbert's Gambit, it's worth looking at. This is a mechanism using a Canadian brokerage account to simultaneously execute one stock trade in CAD and one in USD. The link I provided claims that it only starts potentially making sense somewhere in the 10,000+ range.\",\n \"My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.\",\n \"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?\",\n \"I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.\",\n \"Assuming you plan to buy a whole number of shares and have a maximum dollar value you intend to invest, it may be better to wait for the split if the figures don't quite work out nicely. For example, if you are going to invest $1,000 and the stock pre-split is $400 and the split is 2 for 1, then you'd buy 2 shares before the split unless you have an extra $200 to add. Meanwhile, after the split you could buy 5 shares at $200 so that you invest all that you intend. Aside from that case, it doesn't really make a difference since the split is similar to getting 2 nickels for a dime which in each case is still a total value of 10 cents.\",\n \"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.\",\n \"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.\",\n \"Alphabet has about 40% on shore or 60%. I know it is 60/40 but forget which way. So way, way more than they really need. What Apple does is borrow against the offshore money when needed, Apple now has over $90b in debt and Google less than $4b. So Google would not have any problem.\",\n \"I have not looked in details but apparently the company has (at least) a dual listing in Hong Kong (its main listing, ticker 700) and in the US (ticker TCTZF). It also has an ADR (TCEHY), the underlying of which is the HK line. The two US listings essentially trade at the same price and will provide very similar returns but a major difference is that TCTZF pays dividends in HKD whereas TCEHY pays its dividends in USD. The latter may be more convenient depending on the account you use to trade the stock. The ADR line is also more liquid.\",\n \"That is a weird one. Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option. One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options. This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options. However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US. I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share. Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees\",\n \"All corporate gains are taxed at the same rate as corporate income, for the corporate entity, so this actually can be WORSE than the individual capital gains tax rates. There are a lot of things you can do with trading certain asset classes, like opening you up to like-kind re-investment tax perks, but I can't think of anything that helps with stocks. Also, in the US there is now a law against doing things solely to avoid tax if they have no other economic purpose. So be conscious about that, you'll need to be able to rationalize at least a thin excuse for why you jumped through all the hoops.\",\n \"As yet another explanation of why it does not really matter, you can look at this from the valuation point of view. Stock price is the present value of its future cash flows (be it free cash flow of the firm or dividends, depending on the model). Let's have a look at the dividends case. Imagine, the price of the stock is based on only three dividends streams $5 dollars each: dividend to be paid today, in year 1, and in year 2. Each should be discounted back to today (say, at 10%), except today's dividend, since today is now. Once that dividend is paid, it is no longer in the stream of cash flows. So if we just delete that first $5 from the formula, the price will adjust itself down by the amount of the dividend to $8.68. NOTE that this is a very simple example, since in reality cash flows streams are arguably infinite and because there are many other factors affecting stock price. But simply for your understanding, this example should provide you with the reason simply from the valuation perspective.\",\n \"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.\",\n \"There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.\",\n \"No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments.\",\n \"If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,\",\n \"\\\"The key difference I've found between a stock split and a stock dividend – of the exact same stock and class, as opposed to a spin-off – seems to be from the company's own accounting perspective. There doesn't appear to be any actual transfer of value to the shareholder with either kind of transaction; i.e. in theory, each transaction would be immaterial to the value of your holdings. With respect to the company's accounting, a stock split affects the par value of the shares, whereas a stock dividend reduces the retained earnings account in order to increase paid-in or contributed capital. I found a good online source which explains the history behind this accounting difference: McGraw-Hill - Intermediate Accounting eBook, 6/e - Chapter 18 - Stock Dividends and Splits. Small quote: [...] Besides being based on fallacious reasoning, accounting for stock dividends by artificially reclassifying “earned” capital as “invested” capital conflicts with the reporting objective of reporting shareholders' equity by source. Despite these limitations, this outdated accounting standard still applies. Since neither the corporation nor its shareholders apparently benefits from stock dividends, why do companies declare them?23 Occasionally, a company tries to give shareholders the illusion that they are receiving a real dividend. Another reason is merely to enable the corporation to take advantage of the accepted accounting practice of capitalizing retained earnings. Specifically, a company might wish to reduce an existing balance in retained earnings—otherwise available for cash dividends—so it can reinvest the earned assets represented by that balance without carrying a large balance in retained earnings. [...] There's a lot more on that page, before and after, worth reading. From another book: Google Books - Comparative Income Taxation, a Structural Analysis - page 314 - Stock Dividends. Small quote: The distribution of dividends in the form of stock or \\\"\\\"bonus\\\"\\\" shares to existing shareholders typically involves a transfer for corporate law purposes of retained earnings into stated capital. It can been [sic] viewed as a deemed distribution of a cash dividend to the shareholders followed by a corresponding contribution to capital or as solely as an event at the corporate level which has no effect on the shareholders whose economic interest in the corporation is unchanged by the receipt of additional shares. The systems have taken varied approaches to the stock dividend problem. The treatment is in part a function of the rules dealing with distributions of stated capital. [emphases above are mine] [... continues w/descriptions of different countries' tax treatments of the kinds of stock dividends. Includes U.S., Sweden, Japan, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany. ...] As far as why a corporation might want to capitalize earnings and reduce the equity otherwise available for dividends, I can only imagine that, ignoring taxes for a moment, that it may have something to do with capital ratios that need to be maintained for financing or regulatory purposes? Yet, I remain curious. If I discover more on this then I'll update my answer. Additional resources:\\\"\",\n \"One difference is the bid/ask spread will cost you more in a lower cost stock than a higher cost one. Say you have two highly liquid stocks with tiny spreads: If you wanted to buy say $2,000 of stock: Now imagine these are almost identical ETFs tracking the S&P 500 index and extrapolate this to a trade of $2,000,000 and you can see there's some cost savings in the higher priced stock. As a practical example, recently a popular S&P 500 ETF (Vanguard's VOO) did a reverse split to help investors minimize this oft-missed cost.\",\n \"I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.\",\n \"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.\",\n \"\\\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \\\"\\\"options\\\"\\\" :)\\\"\",\n \"I'm not too sure tbh, i'm just getting my series 7 first before anything. But thank you for such a well thought out response. I'd probably trade something that has a bit more volatility like BAC or something though.\",\n \"Unless your brokerage will sell you fractional shares, the most obvious difference (without us knowing the actual identify of the companies) is that with the $260 one, you will have 3 shares plus you will have $220 minus commission left over that you wanted to invest but weren't able to simply because of the mechanics of long division. You could put that $220 into one of the cheaper stocks, but now the multiple commissions will start to eat your returns. My personal opinion is you should go for a low cost index mutual fund or ETF, and wait to pick individual stocks until you have more than $1000 to work with (and even then, probably still go with the low cost index fund)\",\n \"I often sell covered calls, and if they are in the money, let the stock go. I am charged the same fee as if I sold online ($9, I use Schwab) which is better than buying back the option if I'm ok to sell the stock. In my case, If the option is slightly in the money, and I see the options are priced well, i.e. I'd do another covered call anyway, I sometimes buy the option and sell the one a year out. I prefer to do this in my IRA account as the trading creates no tax issue.\",\n \"I will assume that you are not asking in the context of high frequency trading, as this is Personal Finance Stack Exchange. It is completely acceptable to trade odd lots for retail brokerage customers. The odd lot description that you provided in your link, from Interactive Brokers is correct. But even in that context, it says, regarding the acceptability of odd lots to stock exchanges: The exception is that odd lots can be routed to NYSE/ARCA/AMEX, but only as part of a basket order or as a market-on-close (MOC) order. Google GOOG is traded on the NASDAQ. Everything on the NASDAQ is electronic, and always has been. You will have no problem selling or buying less than 100 shares of Google. There is also an issue of higher commissions with odd lots: While trading commissions for odd lots may still be higher than for standard lots on a percentage basis, the popularity of online trading platforms and the consequent plunge in brokerage commissions means that it is no longer as difficult or expensive for investors to dispose of odd lots as it used to be in the past. Notice what it says about online trading making it easier, not more difficult, to trade odd lots.\",\n \"\\\"While I'm sure there's some truth to the argument that unsophisticated retail investors index against the S&P 500 thinking that they're tracking \\\"\\\"the market,\\\"\\\" I don't think it makes sense to steer the S&P 500 in that direction to cater to that lowest common denominator. The *ad absurdum* conclusion of that course of action, of course, would be to abolish the S&P 500 entirely and move those assets into the S&P Total Market Index. But clearly there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps with single share classes, just as there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps in general. As for whether it will be a loss for passive investors...it will be interesting to see how that pans out. Maybe good corporate governance and direct accountability by managers really do contribute positively to returns in the long run and investors will benefit from this change as a result. Or maybe this will result in companies with multiple share classes being undervalued and create an opportunity to earn outsized returns by investing in them, and indexes that omit those companies will underperform. Only time will tell.\\\"\",\n \"What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)\",\n \"In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.\",\n \"This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:\",\n \"From their 10-K pulled directly from Edgar: As of October 22, 2015, there were 291,327,781 shares of Alphabet Inc.’s (the successor issuer pursuant to Rule 12g-3(a) under the Exchange Act as of October 2, 2015) (Alphabet) Class A common stock outstanding, 50,893,362 shares of Alphabet's Class B common stock outstanding, and 345,504,021 Alphabet's Class C capital stock outstanding. From here just do the math. The shares outstanding are listed on the first page of the 10-Q and 10-K reports. Edit: I believe Class B shares in this instance are not traded on the market and therefore would not be included.\",\n \"In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.\",\n \"The difference is ordinary income. If the price drops and you sell for exactly what you paid, you have an income of D and a capital loss of D which usually cancel each other, but not always. For example, if you already have over $3000 in losses, this loss won't help you, it will carry forward. The above changes a bit if you hold the stock for 2 years after the beginning of the purchase period. If sold between your purchase price and fair market the day you bought, the gain is only the difference, no gain to fair market + loss. Pretty convoluted. Your company should have provided you with a brief FAQ / Q&A to explain this. My friends at Fairmark have an article that explains the ESPP process clearly, Tax Reporting for Qualifying Dispositions of ESPP Shares.\",\n \"Yes, the net effect is zero. If you own zero shares by Nov 30, for example, and don't buy any more shares by 12/31, the year is done, and nothing left to account for.\",\n \"On NYSE it isn't the equity which is listed but is an ADR(American Depositary Receipt). Source A negotiable certificate issued by a U.S. bank representing a specified number of shares (or one share) in a foreign stock that is traded on a U.S. exchange. ADRs are denominated in U.S. dollars, with the underlying security held by a U.S. financial institution overseas. ADRs help to reduce administration and duty costs that would otherwise be levied on each transaction. Else people would make a killing on the arbitrage opportunity. Frankly speaking arbitrage opportunities are more or less non existent. They occur for maybe seconds or milliseconds and the HFT firms and banks trade on it to remove the arbitrage.\",\n \"I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.\",\n \"You bought 1 share of Google at $67.05 while it has a current trading price of $1204.11. Now, if you bought a widget for under $70 and it currently sells for over $1200 that is quite the increase, no? Be careful of what prices you enter into a portfolio tool as some people may be able to use options to have a strike price different than the current trading price by a sizable difference. Take the gain of $1122.06 on an initial cost of $82.05 for seeing where the 1367% is coming. User error on the portfolio will lead to misleading statistics I think as you meant to put in something else, right?\",\n \"Also important to keep in mind is the difference in liquidity. The stock could be very liquid in 1 exchange but not in another. When times get bad, liquidity could dry up 1 one exchange, which results in a trading discount.\",\n \"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.\",\n \"\\\"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a \\\"\\\"realized loss\\\"\\\" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the \\\"\\\"cost basis\\\"\\\" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders.\\\"\",\n \"You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant. So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.\",\n \"\\\"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it \\\"\\\"wasting money\\\"\\\" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701).\\\"\",\n \"Unless you suffer from the illusion that you can time the market, it honestly doesn't matter much; the difference is lost in the noise. That may be true even if you do suffer from that illusion. Also, as discussed here previously, the drop in a stock's price right after the dividend has been paid just reflects the fact that you aren't about to get an immediate refund in the form of a dividend. If you look at the real cost per share, it's meaningless and can/should be ignored. Buying after the dividend is paid may save you a tiny fraction of a cent of short-term income tax, but that's meaningless in real terms.\",\n \"You're talking about NQO - non-qualified stock options. Even assuming the whole scheme is going to work, the way NQO are taxed is that the difference between the fair market value and the strike price is considered income to you and is taxed as salary. You'll save nothing, and will add a huge headache and additional costs of IPO and SEC regulations.\",\n \"While my margin is not nearly as good as yours, I sell out early. I generally think it's a bad idea to hold any single stock, as they can vary wildly in value. However, as you mention, it's advantageous to hold for one year. Read more about Capital Gains Taxes here and here.\",\n \"I buy or sell a few shares whenever I have a small amount of money to transfer into out of my mutual funds. Since I'm not paying transaction fees, there is no reason not to, when that is what makes sense. If you are paying a fee for each transaction, of course it makes sense to try to wait until you have a larger amount to move so the overhead per share is lower.\",\n \"Is this right? The example is slightly off. Google would be running a cafeteria that can be subsidized. Employees pay an amount to buy food. Not every one spends the same amount or eats the same amount of food. If someone doesn't use cafeteria; he doesn't get more money. For example, suppose John Doe makes $100,000 a year taxed at a rate of 20%, for a take home pay of $80,000. He spends $10,000 on food. His employer Corporation decides to give him all of his food and deduct it as a business expense - costing them $10,000. But now they can pay John Doe an amount so his take home pay will be reduced by $10,000 - $87,500 The company is now spending $97500 employing John Doe, for a savings of $2500$. If a scheme is devised specifically to evade taxes; then it is invalid. In this case Bill may buy groceries worth only $5000. So keep track of which employee buys how much groceries in added cost of Google. Plus one can't really call it a business expense.\",\n \"It looks like what you're calling a name change was registered as a merger that resulted in an exchange of stock. If that's the case, then what you've been told is correct. You've got one long-term sale and one short-term sale. Based a quick read of the Form 8937 that was filed, it looks like there were multiple entities involved in this event, more than one of which existed prior to it. https://www.mylan.com/-/media/mylancom/files/form%208937%20for%20mylan%20n%20v.pdf\",\n \"Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.\",\n \"\\\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \\\"\\\"It depends.\\\"\\\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\\\"\",\n \"No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain. Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do.\",\n \"There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:\",\n \"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.\",\n \"While theoretically it works it's not a realistic trade because of market efficiency. It's realistic for brokers to advertise trades like this so they can earn more customers and commission. These sorts of trades will be priced in to highly liquid big ticket names like KO and the vast majority of the market. The possibility exists with small names with less liquidity, less trading volume; however, the very execution of this trade will alter the behavior of impending traders thus minimizing any potential profits.\",\n \"With Apple the money is offshore. That is why they borrow and at now about $100B of debt but have about $250B in the bank offshore. But you do have to be careful because the money offshore is NOT yet taxed and so it is not really a 1:1. With Google it is less than $4B so not really a big deal but can not answer why not just use the onshore cash to pay it off. Google has plenty of money onshore to do this. I believe Apple over the last year had 4% onshore low point and high point was 7%. Google it is 40% or 60%. I know it is 40/60 split but can never remember which way.\",\n \"Some companies like Royal Dutch Shell have multiple share classes to suit the tax regimes in Holland and the UK the A shares have dutch withholding tax applied and the B shares dont. Also some split capital investment trusts have multiple share classes http://www.trustnet.com/Education/Split.aspx?ms=1\",\n \"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).\",\n \"Depends on your contract, cash or shares delivered? If shares, then you get 5 BIG shares. Theres no longer any options. If you sell instantly, theoretically you will net the $10 difference + profit above strike. If cash, same thing just that you get cash $50 less strike. Applies to cash and stock deals Options are binary, never pro-rated. if converted, basically you end up with BIG shares.\",\n \"Liquidity on dual listed equities is rarely the same on both exchanges. More liquidity means you would typically get a better price assuming you execute the trades using the same order types. It's recommended to trade where the liquidity is greater unless your trading method benefits somehow from it being lower. It's important to remember that some ADRs (some European companies listed in US) have ADR fees which vary. USD/EUR transaction fees are low when using a decent broker but you're obviously participating in the currency risk.\",\n \"Okay as long as you aren't dumb enough to actually think this would be worth pursuing. I don't want you to waste your money when it could go towards something nice, like your house budget. If you really do believe they are overvalued there are much better strategies.\",\n \"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.\",\n \"Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.\",\n \"You might have to pay a premium for the stocks on the dividend tax–free exchanges. For example, HSBC on the NYSE yields 4.71% versus HSBC on the LSE which yields only 4.56%. Assuming the shares are truly identical, the only reason for this (aside from market fluctuations) is if the taxes are more favorable in the UK versus the US, thus increasing demand for HSBC on the LSE, raising the price, and reducing the yield. A difference of 0.15% in yield is pretty insignificant relative to a 30% versus 0% dividend tax. But a key question is, does your country have a foreign tax credit like the US does? If so you (usually) end up getting that 30% back, just delayed until you get your tax return, and the question of which exchange to buy on becomes not so clear cut. If your country doesn't have such a tax credit, then yes, you'll want to buy on an exchange where you won't get hit with the dividend tax. Note that I got this information from a great article I read several months back (site requires free registration to see it all unfortunately). They discuss the case of UN versus UL--both on the NYSE but ADRs for Unilever in the Netherlands and the UK, respectively. The logic is very similar to your situation.\",\n \"The difference is whether your options qualify as incentive stock options (ISOs), or whether they are non-qualifying options. If your options meet all of the criteria for being ISOs (see here), then (a) you are not taxed when you exercise the options. You treat the sale of the underlying stock as a long term capital gain, with the basis being the exercise price (S). There is something about the alternative minimum tax (AMT) as they pertain to these kinds of options. Calculating your AMT basically means that your ISOs are treated as non-qualifying options. So if your exercise bumps you into AMT territory, too bad, so sad. If you exercise earlier, you do get a clock ticking, as you put it, because one of the caveats of having your options qualify as ISOs is that you hold the underlying stock (a) at least two years after you were granted the options and (b) at least one year after you exercise the options.\",\n \"Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.\",\n \"No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels. Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.\",\n \"I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.\",\n \"I'll take the $9bn, the specific cash balance problem will get smaller, and we'll have a really interesting shareholder letter to read next year. I'll even make an appearance at the annual meeting and talk about what I'm doing with the money.\",\n \"Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.\",\n \"You likely received the shares as ordinary income for services of $10k, since they withheld taxes at granting. Separately, you likely had a short term capital loss on sale of $2k, since your holding period seems to have been under one year.\",\n \"You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.\",\n \"I wrote a detailed article on Tax Loss Harvesting to show the impact on returns. For my example, I showed a person in the 15% bracket. In years with no loss, they trade to capture gains at 0% long term rate, thus bumping their basis up. In years with losses, they tax harvest for a 15% effective 'rebate' on that loss. I showed how for the lost decade 2000-2009, a buy and hold would have returned -1% CAGR, but the tax loss harvester would have gained 1% (just 1% for the decade, not CAGR), ending the decade with no loss. As one's portfolio grows, the math changes. You can only take $3000 capital loss against ordinary income, and my example relies on the difference between taking a gain for free but using a loss to offset income. Note, the higher earner would take gains at 15%, but losses at 25%, but only for the relatively small portfolio. The benefit for them is to use loss harvesting to offset gains, less so for ordinary income. As the other answer state, Wealthfront can aid you to do this with no math on your part.\",\n \"Your gain is $1408. The difference between 32% of your gain and 15% of your gain is $236.36 or $1.60 per share. If you sell now, you have $3957.44 after taxes. Forget about the ESPP for a moment. Are you be willing to wager $4000 on the proposition that your company's stock price won't go down more than $1.60 or so over the next 18 months? I've never felt it was worth it. Also, I never thought it made much sense to own any of my employer's stock. If their business does poorly, I'd prefer not to have both my job and my money at risk. If you sell now: Now assuming you hold for 18 months, pay 15% capital gains tax, and the stock price drops by $1.60 to $23.40:\",\n \"I work on a buy-side firm, so I know how these small data issues can drive us crazy. Hope my answer below can help you: Reason for price difference: 1. Vendor and data source Basically, data providers such as Google and Yahoo redistribute EOD data by aggregating data from their vendors. Although the raw data is taken from the same exchanges, different vendors tend to collect them through different trading platforms. For example, Yahoo, is getting stock data from Hemscott (which was acquired by Morningstar), which is not the most accurate source of EOD stocks. Google gets data from Deutsche Börse. To make the process more complicated, each vendor can choose to get EOD data from another EOD data provider or the exchange itself, or they can produce their own open, high, low, close and volume from the actual trade tick-data, and these data may come from any exchanges. 2. Price Adjustment For equities data, the re-distributor usually adjusts the raw data by applying certain customized procedures. This includes adjustment for corporate actions, such as dividends and splits. For futures data, rolling is required, and back-ward and for-warding rolling can be chosen. Different adjustment methods can lead to different price display. 3. Extended trading hours Along with the growth of electronic trading, many market tends to trade during extended hours, such as pre-open and post-close trading periods. Futures and FX markets even trade around the clock. This leads to another freedom in price reporting: whether to include the price movement during the extended trading hours. Conclusion To cross-verify the true price, we should always check the price from the Exchange where the asset is actually traded. Given the convenience of getting EOD data nowadays, this task should be easy to achieve. In fact, for professional traders and investors alike, they will never reply price on free providers such as Yahoo and Google, they will most likely choose Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. However, for personal use, Yahoo and Google should both be good choices, and the difference is small enough to ignore.\",\n \"Without more information about what tax bracket you are in, I cannot make a recommendation about what your best option is, but here are a few things to consider:\",\n \"Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.\",\n \"Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000. If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares. The price in the market is unimportant. Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense. It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction. It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares. Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased. Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price. Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege. I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense. It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2. The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment.\",\n \"Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units. So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares. The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash. An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend. However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares. The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend. (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers. It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.\",\n \"\\\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \\\"\\\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\\\"\\\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\\\"\",\n \"It looks like GOOG did not have a pre-market trade until 7:14 am ET, so Google Finance was still reporting the last trade it had, which was in the after-hours session yesterday. FB, on the other hand, was trading like crazy after-hours yesterday and pre-market today as it had an earnings report yesterday.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \"\"Class C Settlement Agreement\"\" in the S-3 filing\"","It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial. We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0. Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations. So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D}) = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year. Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X. It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity. And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero. So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?","Too much fiddling with your portfolio if the difference is 3-4% or less (as it's become in recent months). Hands off is the better advice. As for buying shares, go for whichever is the cheapest (i.e. Goog rather than Googl) because the voting right with the latter is merely symbolic. And who attends shareholders' meetings, for Pete's sake? On the other hand, if your holdings in the company are way up in the triple (maybe even quadruple) figures, then it might make sense to do the math and take the time to squeeze an extra percentage point or two out of your Googl purchases. The idle rich occupying the exclusive club that includes only the top 1% of the population needs to have somethinng to do with its time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling to make a living--leaving only enough time to visit our portfolios as often as Buffett advises (about twice a year)."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \\\"\\\"Class C Settlement Agreement\\\"\\\" in the S-3 filing\\\"\",\n \"It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial. We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0. Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations. So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D}) = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year. Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X. It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity. And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero. So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?\",\n \"Too much fiddling with your portfolio if the difference is 3-4% or less (as it's become in recent months). Hands off is the better advice. As for buying shares, go for whichever is the cheapest (i.e. Goog rather than Googl) because the voting right with the latter is merely symbolic. And who attends shareholders' meetings, for Pete's sake? On the other hand, if your holdings in the company are way up in the triple (maybe even quadruple) figures, then it might make sense to do the math and take the time to squeeze an extra percentage point or two out of your Googl purchases. The idle rich occupying the exclusive club that includes only the top 1% of the population needs to have somethinng to do with its time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling to make a living--leaving only enough time to visit our portfolios as often as Buffett advises (about twice a year).\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":276,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"7295"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Selling non-dividend for dividend stocks"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["244749"],"string":"[\n \"244749\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["542667","244754","335606","348922","222921","594047","263751","519073","412965","268423","598295","217837","352484","342379","292559","407551","501214","521133","568166","467575","55893","478291","481999","507117","434252","71292","219762","151871","384120","313248","163433","497060","509879","548705","584090","110983","25671","257274","138835","587689","352415","71511","517577","490620","501931","33562","443926","95948","304918","443354","88428","23217","355089","199642","120297","425641","519461","355662","115553","527997","106104","550319","51602","248853","38510","39478","183910","163290","5347","301757","322284","259904","404949","468047","231295","312154","119976","189874","42521","540292","487616","553856","481283","295082","413174","206442","267067","257833","376800","360716","28211","513942","559671","431386","81353","38287","30774","196939","330303","551286"],"string":"[\n \"542667\",\n \"244754\",\n \"335606\",\n \"348922\",\n \"222921\",\n \"594047\",\n \"263751\",\n \"519073\",\n \"412965\",\n \"268423\",\n \"598295\",\n \"217837\",\n \"352484\",\n \"342379\",\n \"292559\",\n \"407551\",\n \"501214\",\n \"521133\",\n \"568166\",\n \"467575\",\n \"55893\",\n \"478291\",\n \"481999\",\n \"507117\",\n \"434252\",\n \"71292\",\n \"219762\",\n \"151871\",\n \"384120\",\n \"313248\",\n \"163433\",\n \"497060\",\n \"509879\",\n \"548705\",\n \"584090\",\n \"110983\",\n \"25671\",\n \"257274\",\n \"138835\",\n \"587689\",\n \"352415\",\n \"71511\",\n \"517577\",\n \"490620\",\n \"501931\",\n \"33562\",\n \"443926\",\n \"95948\",\n \"304918\",\n \"443354\",\n \"88428\",\n \"23217\",\n \"355089\",\n \"199642\",\n \"120297\",\n \"425641\",\n \"519461\",\n \"355662\",\n \"115553\",\n \"527997\",\n \"106104\",\n \"550319\",\n \"51602\",\n \"248853\",\n \"38510\",\n \"39478\",\n \"183910\",\n \"163290\",\n \"5347\",\n \"301757\",\n \"322284\",\n \"259904\",\n \"404949\",\n \"468047\",\n \"231295\",\n \"312154\",\n \"119976\",\n \"189874\",\n \"42521\",\n \"540292\",\n \"487616\",\n \"553856\",\n \"481283\",\n \"295082\",\n \"413174\",\n \"206442\",\n \"267067\",\n \"257833\",\n \"376800\",\n \"360716\",\n \"28211\",\n \"513942\",\n \"559671\",\n \"431386\",\n \"81353\",\n \"38287\",\n \"30774\",\n \"196939\",\n \"330303\",\n \"551286\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["There are strategies based on yields. Dogs of the Dow being a specific example while Miller Howard has a few studies around dividends that may be of use if you additional material. Selling off a portion of the holding can run into problems as how could one hold 10 shares, selling a non-zero whole number every year for over 20 years if the stock doesn't ever pay a dividend in additional shares or cash?","You can use long-term options called LEAPS to increase dividend yield. Here's how it works: Let's say you buy a dividend-yielding stock for $38 that pays an annual dividend of $2 for a 5.3% yield. Next, you SELL a deep-in-the-money LEAPS options. In this hypothetical we'll sell the $25 call option for $13. That now reduces our cost basis from $38 to $25. Since the dividend remains @ $2, our yield is now $2/$25 = 8%. Now there are issues that may need to be dealt with like early assignment of the option where rolling the option may be necessary. More details of this strategy can be found on my website.","Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:","There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.","You can buy dividend stocks, just buy and hold. you will get cash or extra stock every quarter. You can also sell covered calls on your dividend stocks, this will give you even more cash. you can also... actually this rabbit hole goes very deep. just stick with my first sentence.","Yes, one such strategy is dividend arbitrage using stock and in the money options. You have to find out which option is the most mispriced before the ex-dividend date.","I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.","Not a bad strategy. However: If you REALLY want tax efficiency you can buy stocks that don't pay a dividend, usually growth stocks like FB, GOOGL, and others. This way you will never have to pay any dividend tax - all your tax will be paid when you retire at a theoretically lower tax rate (<--- really a grey tax area here). *Also, check out Robin Hood. They offer commission free stock trading.","Although the market discussion by other answers is correct, the tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy. However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way. If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction.","Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.","Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.","why sell? Because the stock no longer fits your strategy. Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else. Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes. That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.","\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"","Stocks aren't just paper -- they're ownership of a company. Getting cash from a stock that doesn't pay dividends basically means reducing your stake in the company. If the stock pays dividends, on the other hand, you still have the same shares, but now you have cash too. You can choose to buy more of the company...or, more importantly, to use it elsewhere if that's what you want to do.","The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell.","\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\"","This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:","My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.","You could hold a long position in some company XXXX and then short your own shares (assuming your broker will let you do that). The dividend that would have gone to you would then go to whoever is holding the shares you short sold. You just don't get a dividend. If you're going to short in a smart way... do it on a stock you otherwise believe in, but use it to minimize the pull-backs on the way up.","There are ETFs and mutual funds that pay dividends. Mutual funds and ETFs are quite similar. Your advisor is correct regarding future funds you invest. But you already had incurred the risk of buying an individual stock. That is a 'sunk cost'. If you were satisfied with the returns you could have retained the HD stock you already owned and just put future moneys into an ETF or mutual fund. BTW: does your advisor receive a commission from your purchase of a mutual fund? That may have been his motivation to give you the advice to sell your existing holdings.","Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.","\"In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a \"\"loss harvesting\"\" strategy. So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax \"\"benefits\"\" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends. You have precise control of the realization of gains. However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch. One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses. Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly. While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule. If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?\"","I'd like to add that many companies offer Divident Re-Investment Plans or DRIPs, which is basically a regular automatic stock purchase program. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_reinvestment_plan. While your stock broker may offer dividend reinvestment, this is not the same as a DRIP. DRIPs are offered directly by the company, rather than the stock broker. They have the added benefits that the stock purchases are almost always commission-free, and in some cases, the company even offers a discount on the stock price. It can take a little more effort to get enrolled in a DRIP, but if you are interested in holding the stock long-term, this is a good option to consider.","with the semi-strong form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis expected dividends are priced into the options and security already. If you are able to locate such an arbitrage opportunity then you should take it, but I suspect it will be more more difficult than you think. Remember that many dividends require you to have been a shareholder by a certain date prior to the dividend occurring.","You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.","Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.","In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.","\"Their is no arbitrage opportunity with \"\"buying dividends.\"\" You're buying a taxable event. This is a largely misunderstood topic. The stock always drops by the amount if the dividend on the ex date. The stock opens that day trading \"\"ex\"\" (excluding) the dividend. It then pays out later based in the shareholders on record. There is a lot of talk about price movement and value here. That can happen but it's from trading not from the dividend per se. Yes sometimes you do see a stock pop the day prior to ex date because people are buying the stock for the dividend but the trading aspect of a stock is determined by supply and demand from people trading the stock. The dividends are paid out from the owners equity section of the balance sheet. This is a return of equity to shareholders. The idea is to give owners of the company some of their investment back (from when they bought the stock) without having the owners sell the shares of the company. After all if it's a good company you want to keep holding it so it will appreciate. Another similar way to think of it is like a bonds interest payment. People sometimes forget when trading that these are actual companies meant to be invested in. Your buying an ownership in the company with your cash. It really makes no difference to buy the dividend or not, all other things constant. Though market activity can add or lose value from trading as normal.\"","Yes you can do that and it it wise to do so. However, you should make sure that the general trend of the stock is upwards and you buy during a trought in the uptrend. So basically if the stock is making higher highs and higher lows on the daily or weekly charts, then you would want to buy around one of the higher lows before the ex-dividend date. If the stock is making lower lows and lower highs, then it is in a downtrend, so never buy in this instance. It is better to miss out on a dividend of $1 rather than to buy just for this $1 dividend and lose $5 or more when the price continues to drop further.","Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio.","There are many stategies with options that you have listed. The one I use frequently is buy in the money calls and sell at the money staddles. Do this ONLY on stocks you do not mind owning because that is the worse thing that can happen and if you like the company you stand less of a chance of being scared out of the trade. It works well with high quality resonable dividend paying stocks. Cat, GE, Mrk, PM etc. Good luck","One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.","You should never invest in a stock just for the dividend. Dividends are not guaranteed. I have seen some companies that are paying close to 10% dividends but are losing money and have to borrow funds just to maintain the dividends. How long can these companies continue paying dividends at this rate or at all. Would you keep investing in a stock paying 10% dividends per year where the share price is falling 20% per year? I know I wouldn't. Some high dividend paying stocks also tend to grow a lot slower than lower or non dividend paying stocks. You should look at the total return - both dividend yield and capital return combined to make a better decision. You should also never stay in a stock which is falling drastically just because it pays a dividend. I would never stay in a stock that falls 20%, 30%, 50% or more just because I am getting a 5% dividend. Regarding taxation, some countries may have special taxation rules when it comes to dividends just like they may have special taxation rules for longer term capital gains compared to shorter term capital gains. Again no one should use taxation as the main purpose to make an investment decision. You should factor taxation into your decision but it should never be the determining factor of your decisions. No one has ever become poor in making a gain and paying some tax, but many people have lost a great portion of their capital by not selling a stock when it has lost 50% or more of its value.","This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.","An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time.","In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK","The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.","\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"","If you expect to pay tax on dividends move dividend producing assets into your ISA. If have a lot of investments you can Look at Zeros (zero dividend preference share) issued by splits (split capital trusts), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_capital_investment_trust","Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend.","\"Not minutes, but hours. The \"\"ex-dividend\"\" date is the deadline for acquiring a stock to receive a dividend. If you hold a stock at the beginning of this day, you will receive the dividend. So you could buy a stock right at the end of the day on the day before the ex-dividend date, and sell it the next day (on the ex-dividend date), and you would get your dividend. See this page from the SEC for more information. The problem with this strategy, however, is that the value of the stock typically drops by the same amount as the dividend on that day. If you take a look at the historical price of the stock you are interested in, you'll see this. Of course, it makes sense why: a seller knows that selling before the date results in a loss of the dividend, so they want a higher price to compensate. Likewise, a buyer on or after the date knows that the dividend is already gone, so they want to pay a lower price.\"","\"You have to be the owner of record before the ex-dividend date, which is not the same day as the date the dividend is paid. This also implies that if you sell on or after the ex-dividend date, you'll still get the dividend, even if you no longer own the stock. Keep in mind, also, that the quoted price of the stock (and on any open orders that are not specifically marked as \"\"do not reduce\"\") on its ex-dividend date is dropped by the amount of the dividend, first thing in the morning before trading starts. If you happen to be the first order of the day, before market forces cause the price to move, you'll end up with zero gain, since the dividend is built into the price, and you got the same value out of it -- the dividend in cash, and the remaining value in stock. As pointed out in the comments (Thanks @Brick), you'll still get a market price for your trade, but the price reduction will have had some impact on the first trade of the day. Source: NYSE Rule 118.30 Also, remember that the dividend yield is expressed in annualized terms. So a 3% yield can only be fully realized by receiving all of the dividend payments made by the company for the year. You can, of course, forget about individual companies and just look for dividends to create your own effective yield over time. But, see the final point... Finally, if you keep buying and selling just to play games with the dividends, you're going to pay far more in transaction fees than you will earn in dividends. And, depending on your individual circumstances, you may end up paying more in capital gains taxes.\"","You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.","You sell any investment because you need to do something else with the money -- rebalance your investments, buy something, pay off a debt....","I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.","I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly","If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand.","If your criteria has changed but some of your existing holdings don't meet your new criteria you should eventually liquidate them, because they are not part of your new strategy. However, you don't want to just liquidate them right now if they are currently performing quite well (share price currently uptrending). One way you could handle this is to place a trailing stop loss on the stocks that don't meet your current criteria and let the market take you out when the stocks have stopped up trending.","If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?","Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.","Buying individual/small basket of high dividend shares is exposing you to 50%+ and very fast potential downswings in capital/margin calls. There is no free lunch in returns in this respect: nothing that pays enough to help you pay your mortgage at a high rate won’t expose you to a lot of potential volatility. Main issue here looks like you have very poorly performing rental investments you should consider selling or switching up rental usage/how you rent them (moving to shorter term, higher yield lets, ditching any agents/handymen that are taking up capital/try and refinance to lower mortgage rates etc etc). Trying to use leveraged stock returns to pay for poorly performing housing investments is like spraying gasoline all over a fire. Fixing the actual issue in hand first is virtually always the best course of action in these scenarios.","It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).","You might have to pay a premium for the stocks on the dividend tax–free exchanges. For example, HSBC on the NYSE yields 4.71% versus HSBC on the LSE which yields only 4.56%. Assuming the shares are truly identical, the only reason for this (aside from market fluctuations) is if the taxes are more favorable in the UK versus the US, thus increasing demand for HSBC on the LSE, raising the price, and reducing the yield. A difference of 0.15% in yield is pretty insignificant relative to a 30% versus 0% dividend tax. But a key question is, does your country have a foreign tax credit like the US does? If so you (usually) end up getting that 30% back, just delayed until you get your tax return, and the question of which exchange to buy on becomes not so clear cut. If your country doesn't have such a tax credit, then yes, you'll want to buy on an exchange where you won't get hit with the dividend tax. Note that I got this information from a great article I read several months back (site requires free registration to see it all unfortunately). They discuss the case of UN versus UL--both on the NYSE but ADRs for Unilever in the Netherlands and the UK, respectively. The logic is very similar to your situation.","By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call. For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price. The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.","How do you find good quality dividend stocks? That is an easy one. Past performance has always been my key to this answer. also remember why you are investing in the first place. Do you want cash flow, security or capital growth. Also let's not forget... how much time do you want to devote to this venture. There is going to be a balance in your investing and your returns. More time in... the higher returns you get. As for finding good dividend stocks, look to the Dividend Aristocrats or the Dividend Contenders. These companies have consistently increased their payouts to their investors for years. There is a trading strategy that could escalate your returns. Dividend Capturing, simply put... You buy the stock before the ex-date and sell after date of record. Thus collecting a dividend and moving on to the next one. Warning: though this is a profitable strategy, it only works with certain stocks so do your research or find a good source.","I would say the most important thing to consider is the quality of the company relative to the price you pay for it. No dividend also means that you will not pay taxes on dividends.","A specific strategy to make money on a potentially moderately decreasing stock price on a dividend paying stock is to write covered calls. There is a category on Money.SE about covered call writing, but in summary, a covered call is a contract to sell the shares at a set price within a defined time range; you gain a premium (called the time value) which, when I've done it, can be up to an additional 1%-3% return on the position. With this strategy you're collecting dividends and come out with the best return if the stock price stays in the middle: if the price does not shoot up high enough that your option is called, you still own the stock and made extra return; if the price drops moderately, you may still be positive.","There are many reasons for buying stock for dividends. You are right in the sense that in theory a stock's price will go down in value by the amount of the dividend. As the amount of dividend was adding to the value of the company, but now has been paid out to shareholder, so now the company is worth less by the value of the dividend. However, in real life this may or may not happen. Sometimes the price will drop by less than the value of the dividend. Sometimes the price will drop by more than the dividend. And other times the price will go up even though the stock has gone ex-dividend. We can say that if the price has dropped by exactly the amount of the dividend then there has been no change in the stockholders value, if the price has dropped by more than the value of the dividend then there has been a drop to the stockholder's value, and if the price has gone up or dropped by less than the value of the dividend then there has been a increase to the stockholder's value. Benefits of Buying Stocks with Good Dividends: What you shouldn't do however, is buy stocks solely due to the dividend. Be aware that if a company starts reducing its dividends, it could be an early warning sign that the company may be heading into financial troubles. That is why holding a stock that is dropping in price purely for its dividend can be a very dangerous practice.","No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.","There are indeed various strategies to make money from this. As Ben correctly said, the stock price drops correspondingly on the dividend date, so the straightforward way doesn't work. What does work are schemes that involve dividend taxation based on nationality, and schemes based on American Options where people can use market rules to their advantage if some options are not exercised.","\"If you sold the stock for a profit, you will owe tax on that profit. Whether it is taxed as short-term or long-term capital gains depends on how long you held the stock before selling it. Presumably you're going to invest this money into mutual funds or something of that sort. Those may pay dividends which can be reinvested, and will grow in value (you hope) just as the individual stock shares would (you hope). Assuming the advice you've been given is at all reasonable, there's no need for buyer's remorse here; you're just changing your investing style to a different point on the risk-versus-return curve. (If you have to ask this question, I tend to agree that you should do more homework before playing with shares in individual companieS ... unless you're getting thess shares at employee discount, in which case you should still seriously consider selling them fairly quickly and reinvesting the money in a more structured manner. In a very real sense your job is itself an \"\"investment\"\" in your employer; if they ever get into trouble you don't want that to hit both your income and investments.)\"","This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.","\"Dividends can also be automatically reinvested in your stock holding through a DRIP plan (see the wikipedia link for further details, wiki_DRIP). Rather than receiving the dividend money, you \"\"buy\"\" additional stock shares your with dividend money. The value in the DRIP strategy is twofold. 1) your number of shares increases without paying transaction fees, 2) you increase the value of your holding by increasing number of shares. In the end, the RIO can be quite substantial due to the law of compounding interest (though here in the form of dividends). Talk with your broker (brokerage service provider) to enroll your dividend receiving stocks in a DRIP.\"","The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.","1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.","A lot of people use dividend stocks as a regular income, which is why dividend stocks are often associated with retirement. If your goal is growth and you're reinvesting capital gains and dividends then investing growth stocks or dividend stocks should have the same effect. The only difference would be if you are manually reinvesting dividends, which could incur extra trading fees.","The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.","The dividend goes to he who owns the stock when it goes ex-div. A buyer (the call buyer who exercises) will not exercise unless the stock plus dividend are in the money. Otherwise they'd be buying the stock at a premium. I like the scenario your friend doesn't. If I can find a high dividend stock and sell the call for a decent price, I may get a great return on a stock that's gone down 5% over a year's time. If it goes up and called away, that's fine too, it means a profit.","If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.","Simply if your stock is still rising in price keep it. If it is falling in price sell it and pay off your mortgage. To know when to do this is very easy. If it is currently rising you can put a trailing stop loss on it and sell it when it drops and hits your stop loss. A second easy method is to draw an uptrend line under the increasing price and then sell when the price drops down below the uptrend line, as per the chart below. This will enable you to capture the bulk of the price movement upward and sell before the price drops too far down. You can then use the profits (after tax) to pay down your mortgage. Of course if the price is currently in a downtrend sell it ASAP.","\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"","If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,","First, what Daniel Carson said. Second, if you're getting started, just make sure you are well diversified. Lots of growth stocks turn into dividend stocks over time-- Microsoft and Apple are the classic examples in this era. Someday, Google will pay a dividend too. If you're investing for the long haul, diversify and watch your taxes, and you'll make out better than nearly everyone else.","Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.","The stock tends to drop by the amount of the dividend -- or if you prefer to think of it this way, the stock price has been pushed up by the amount of the dividend before it was paid out. Really, all this shift does is factor out the impending dividend's effect on the real purchase cost of the stock. As such it's pretty much irrelevant except that, of course, the dividend is short-term gain that you have to pay taxes on almost immediately. Which also tends to get figured into the price folks are willing to pay for the stock. Conclusion: no, there's no real opportunity here. There's a slight tax reason to avoid buying right before dividends are paid, but that's about it. Basic principle: If it's simple and obvious,the market has already accounted for it.","One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.","\"One alternative strategy you may want to consider is writing covered calls on the stock you have \"\"just sitting there\"\". This will allow you to earn a return (the premium from the calls) without necessarily having to give up your holding. As a brief overview, \"\"options\"\" are derivatives that give the holder the right (or option) to buy or sell shares at a specified price. Holders of call options with a strike prike $x on a particular security have the right to purchase that security at the strike price $x. Conversely, holders of put options with a strike price of $x have the right to sell that security at the strike price $x. Always on the other side of a call or put option is a person that has sold the option, which is called \"\"writing\"\" the option. If this person writes a call option, then he will be obligated to sell a certain amount of stock (100 shares per contract) at the strike price if that option is exercised. A writer of a put option will be obligated to by 100 shares per contract at the strike price if that option is exercised. Covered calls involve writing call contracts on stock that you own. For example, say you own 100 shares of AAPL, and that AAPL is currently trading for $330. You decide to write a Jan 21, 2012 call on these shares at a strike price of $340, earning you a premium of say $300. Two things can now happen: if the price of AAPL is not at least $340 on January 21, then the options are \"\"out of the money\"\" and will expire unexercised (why exercise an option to buy at $340 when you can buy at the currently cheaper market price?). You keep your AAPL stock plus the $300 premium you earn. If, however, the price of AAPL is greater than $340, the option will be exercised and you will now be required to sell the shares you own at $340. You will earn a return of $10/share ($340-$330), plus the $300 premium from the call option. You still make out in the end, but have unfortunately incurred an opportunity cost, as had you not written the call option you would have been able to sell at the market price, which is higher than the $340 strike price. Covered calls are considered relatively safe and conservative, however the strategy is most effective for stocks that are expected to stay within a relatively narrow price range for the duration of the contract. They do provide one option of earning additional money on stocks you are currently holding, albeit at the risk of giving up some returns if the stock price rises above the strike price.\"","The market is not stupid. It realises that a company is worth less after paying out dividends than before paying them. (It's obvious, since that company has just given out part of its earnings.) So after a company pays out dividends, its stock price normally drops approximately by the amount paid. Therefore if you buy, get the dividend, and immediately sell, under normal conditions you won't make any profit.","\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"","Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.","Maximizing income could mean a lot of things. What you really want is to maximize wealth. Doesn't matter if it comes from your bond appreciating in value or as dividends. In order to maximize your wealth (that's today's wealth), you need to make decisions based on the net present value of these bonds. The market is fairly priced, especially for a tight market like government bonds. That means if your bond falls in price, it has fallen by precisely the amount necessary so that an investor would be indifferent between purchasing it now, at its current price, and purchasing a new bond with a higher dividend. The bonds with higher dividends will simply have a higher price, so more of the money comes as dividends than as price appreciation (at maturity it will sell for face value). In other words, the animals are out of the barn and you have lost (or made) money already. Changing from one bond to another will not change your wealth one way or the other. The only potential effect of changing bonds will be changing the risk of your portfolio. If you buy a bond that matures later or has a lower dividend than your current bond, you will be adding additional interest rate risk to your portfolio. That risk should be compensated, so you will have a higher expected return as well. But regardless of your choice you will not be made wealthier or less wealthy by changing from one bond to another. Should you buy bonds that will earn you the most possible? Sure, if you are below your risk tolerance. Even among default free bonds, the longer the maturity and the lower the dividend, the greater the effect of future changes in interest rates on your bond. That makes them riskier, but also makes them earn more money on average. TL;DR: In terms of your wealth, which is what matters, it doesn't matter whether you hold your bond or buy a new one.","Some investors (pension funds or insurance companies) need to pay out a certain amount of money to their clients. They need cash on a periodical basis, and thus prefer dividend paying stock more.","Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.","Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).","Since you reference SS, I surmise you are in the US. Stock you inherit gets a stepped up basis when it's inherited. (so long as it was not contained within a tax deffered retirement account.) When you sell, the new basis is taken from that day you inherited it. It should be minimal compared to your desire to diversify.","\"It is important to remember that the stock price in principle reflects the value of the company, so the market cap should drop upon issuance of the the dividend. However, the above reasoning neglects to consider taxes, which make the question a bit more interesting. The key fact is that different investors are going to get taxed on the dividend to varying degrees, ranging from 20% for qualified dividends in the USA for a high-income individual in a taxable account (and even worse for non-qualified dividends) to 0% for tax-exempt nonprofits, retirement accounts, and low-income individuals. The high-tax investors are going to be a bit averse to paying tax on that dividend, whereas the tax-free investors are not. Hence in a tax-rational market the tax-free investors are going to be the ones buying right before a dividend and the tax-paying investors will be buying right afterwards. Tax-exempt investors could in principle make some amount of money buying dividends to keep them off the tax-paying investors' books. (Of course, the strategy could backfire if too many people did it all at once.) That said, the tax-payers have the tax disincentive to prevent them from fully exploiting the opposite strategy of selling just before a dividend. In particular, they are subject to capital gains tax when they sell at a profit (unless they have enough compensating capital losses), and it is to their after-tax profit to defer taxation by not trading. That said, the stock market has well-known irrationality when it comes to considering tax consequences, so logic based on assumed rationality of the market does not always apply to the extent one would expect. The foremost example of tax-irrationality is the so-called \"\"dividend paradox\"\", which basically states that corporations should favor stock buybacks (or perhaps loan repayment) to the complete exclusion of dividends because capital gains are taxed less harshly than dividends in a variety of ways, some of which are subtle: 1) Historically (although not currently in the USA for qualified dividends) the tax rate was higher for dividends. (In Canada, for example, dividends are taxed at twice the rate of capital gains.) 2) If you die holding appreciated stock then you (meaning your heirs) completely escape US the capital gains tax on the accrual during your lifetime. 3) Capital gains tax can be deferred by simply not selling. In comparison to dividends, this is roughly equivalent to getting a tax-free loan from the government which is invested for profit and paid at a later date after inflation has eaten away at the real value of the loan. For example, if all your stock investments increase by 10%/year but you sell every year, in a high-tax bracket situation you're total after-tax return will be only 8% per year. In contrast, if you hold the same investments for many many years and then sell, your total return will be nearly 10% per year, because you only pay 20% once (at the end). 4) A capital gain can often be neutralized by a capital loss in another stock, so that no tax results. If you loose money on a stock that is paying dividends, you're still going to have to pay tax on that dividend. There are companies that borrow money to pay out that taxable-dividend each quarter, which seems like gross tax malpractice on the part of the CFO. (If the dividend paradox doesn't make sense, first consider the case that you owned ALL the shares of a company. It wouldn't matter to you at all on a pre-tax basis whether you got a $1000 company buyback or a $1000 dividend, because after the buyback/dividend you'd still own the entire company and $1000. The number of shares would be reduced, but objecting that you owned fewer shares after the buyback would be like saying you have become shorter if your height is measured in inches rather than centimeters.) [Of course, in the case of many shareholders you can get burned by failing to sell into the buyback when the share price is too high, but that is another matter.]\"","In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.","For XOM if you were lucky enough to purchase on 20 Jan 16, at 73.18/share and sold on 15 July at 94.95 you would achieve a 29% return in six months. Awesome. You'd also get a dividend payment or two adding another percentage point per to your returns. The one year chart for FB shows it increasing from ~95/share to ~129. Yet no dividend was paid. However, the 35.7% YTD for 2016 should make anyone happy. Both of these require excellent timing, and those kind of returns are unsustainable over the long haul. Many people simply hold stocks. Having the dividend is a nice bonus to some growth. Why to people buy stocks? For profit. Sometimes dividend payers offer the best option, sometimes not.","The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.","\"What you seem to want is a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP). That's typically offered by the broker, not by the ETF itself. Essentially this is a discounted purchase of new shares when you're dividend comes out. As noted in the answer by JoeTaxpayer, you'll still need to pay tax on the dividend, but that probably won't be a big problem unless you've got a lot of dividends. You'll pay that out of some other funds when it's due. All DRIPs (not just for ETFs) have potential to complicate computation of your tax basis for eventual sale, so be aware of that. It doesn't have to be a show-stopper for you, but it's something to consider before you start. It's probably less of a problem now than it used to be since brokers now have to report your basis on the 1099-B in the year of sale, reducing your administrative burden (if you trust them to get it right). Here's a list of brokerages that were offering this from a top-of-the-search-list article that I found online: Some brokerages, including TD Ameritrade, Vanguard, Scottrade, Schwab and, to a lesser extent, Etrade, offer ETF DRIPs—no-cost dividend reinvestment programs. This is very helpful for busy clients. Other brokerages, such as Fidelity, leave ETF dividend reinvestment to their clients. Source: http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23595-your-etf-has-drip-drag.html?nopaging=1 Presumably the list is not constant. I almost didn't included but I thought the wide availability (at least as of the time of the article's posting) was more interesting than any specific broker on it. You'll want to do some research before you choose a broker to do this. Compare fees for sure, but also take into account other factors like how soon after the dividend they do the purchase (is it the ex-date, the pay date, or something else?). A quick search online should net you several decent articles with more information. I just searched on \"\"ETF DRIP\"\" to check it out.\"","\"The strategy is right. As pointed out by you, will the \"\" volatility cause the premium on the price of the options to be too high to make this worthwhile\"\" ... this is subjective and depends on how the markets feels about the volatility and the trend ... ie if the market believes that the stock will go up, the option at 45 would cost quite a bit less. However if the market believes the stock would go down, the option at 45 would be quite high [and may not even be available]. There is no generic right or wrong, the strategy is right [with out without putting dividend into equation] it depends what options are available at what prices.\"","\"The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called \"\"hard-to-borrow fee\"\". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends. This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker).\"","Your back of the envelope calculation shows an income of about 5.5% per year, which is much better than a bank. The risk of course is that in a few years when you want to sell the stock, the price may not be at the level you want. The question is what are you giving up with this plan. You have 80K in cash, will cutting it to 30K in cash make it harder for your business to survive? If your income from the business starts slowly, having that 50K in cash may be better. Selling the stock when the business is desperate for money may lock in losses.","\"TL;DR: If your currently held bond's bid yield is smaller than another bonds' ask yield. You can swap your bond for bigger returns. Let's imagine you buy a long bond for $12000 (face value of $10000) and it has 6% coupon. The cash flows will have an internal return rate of 4.37%, this is the published \"\"ask yield\"\" in 2014 of the bond. After six years, prices have fallen, inflation and yields went up. So you can sell it for only $10000. If you would do it, the IRR will be only 2.55%, so there will be less return, than if you keep it. But if you would \"\"undo\"\" the transaction, then the future cash flows would yield 6.38%. This is the \"\"bid yield\"\" in 2020 of the bond. If you can find an offer that yields more than 6.38%, you have better returns if you sell your bond and invest that $10000 in the other bond. But as other answers pointed it out, you rarely have this opportunity as the market is very effective. (Assuming everything else is equal.)\"","When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid","I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.","The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.","In an ideal world Say on 24th July the share price of Apple was $600. Everyone knows that they will get the $ 2.65 on 16th August. There is not other news that is affecting the price. You want to go in and buy the shares on 16th Morning at $600 and then sell it on 17th August at $600. Now in this process you have earned sure shot $2.65/- Or in an ideal world when the announcement is made on 24th July, why would I sell it at $600, when I know if I wait for few more days I will get $2.65/- so i will be more inclined to sell it at $602.65 /- ... so on 16th Aug after the dividend is paid out, the share price will be back to $600/- In a real world, dividend or no dividend the share price would be moving up or down ... Notice that the dividend amount is less than 1% of the stock price ... stock prices change more than this percentage ... so if you are trying to do what is described in paragraph one, then you may be disappointed as the share price may go down as well by more than $2.65 you have made","There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too.","The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons."],"string":"[\n \"There are strategies based on yields. Dogs of the Dow being a specific example while Miller Howard has a few studies around dividends that may be of use if you additional material. Selling off a portion of the holding can run into problems as how could one hold 10 shares, selling a non-zero whole number every year for over 20 years if the stock doesn't ever pay a dividend in additional shares or cash?\",\n \"You can use long-term options called LEAPS to increase dividend yield. Here's how it works: Let's say you buy a dividend-yielding stock for $38 that pays an annual dividend of $2 for a 5.3% yield. Next, you SELL a deep-in-the-money LEAPS options. In this hypothetical we'll sell the $25 call option for $13. That now reduces our cost basis from $38 to $25. Since the dividend remains @ $2, our yield is now $2/$25 = 8%. Now there are issues that may need to be dealt with like early assignment of the option where rolling the option may be necessary. More details of this strategy can be found on my website.\",\n \"Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:\",\n \"There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.\",\n \"You can buy dividend stocks, just buy and hold. you will get cash or extra stock every quarter. You can also sell covered calls on your dividend stocks, this will give you even more cash. you can also... actually this rabbit hole goes very deep. just stick with my first sentence.\",\n \"Yes, one such strategy is dividend arbitrage using stock and in the money options. You have to find out which option is the most mispriced before the ex-dividend date.\",\n \"I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.\",\n \"Not a bad strategy. However: If you REALLY want tax efficiency you can buy stocks that don't pay a dividend, usually growth stocks like FB, GOOGL, and others. This way you will never have to pay any dividend tax - all your tax will be paid when you retire at a theoretically lower tax rate (<--- really a grey tax area here). *Also, check out Robin Hood. They offer commission free stock trading.\",\n \"Although the market discussion by other answers is correct, the tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy. However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way. If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction.\",\n \"Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.\",\n \"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.\",\n \"why sell? Because the stock no longer fits your strategy. Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else. Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes. That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.\",\n \"\\\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \\\"\\\"dividend paying\\\"\\\"/\\\"\\\"growth stock\\\"\\\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \\\"\\\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\\\"\\\". Likewise \\\"\\\"growth stocks\\\"\\\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \\\"\\\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\\\"\\\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\\\"\",\n \"Stocks aren't just paper -- they're ownership of a company. Getting cash from a stock that doesn't pay dividends basically means reducing your stake in the company. If the stock pays dividends, on the other hand, you still have the same shares, but now you have cash too. You can choose to buy more of the company...or, more importantly, to use it elsewhere if that's what you want to do.\",\n \"The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell.\",\n \"\\\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \\\"\\\"a slice of the company\\\"\\\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\\\"\",\n \"This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:\",\n \"My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.\",\n \"You could hold a long position in some company XXXX and then short your own shares (assuming your broker will let you do that). The dividend that would have gone to you would then go to whoever is holding the shares you short sold. You just don't get a dividend. If you're going to short in a smart way... do it on a stock you otherwise believe in, but use it to minimize the pull-backs on the way up.\",\n \"There are ETFs and mutual funds that pay dividends. Mutual funds and ETFs are quite similar. Your advisor is correct regarding future funds you invest. But you already had incurred the risk of buying an individual stock. That is a 'sunk cost'. If you were satisfied with the returns you could have retained the HD stock you already owned and just put future moneys into an ETF or mutual fund. BTW: does your advisor receive a commission from your purchase of a mutual fund? That may have been his motivation to give you the advice to sell your existing holdings.\",\n \"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.\",\n \"\\\"In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a \\\"\\\"loss harvesting\\\"\\\" strategy. So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax \\\"\\\"benefits\\\"\\\" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends. You have precise control of the realization of gains. However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch. One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses. Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly. While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule. If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?\\\"\",\n \"I'd like to add that many companies offer Divident Re-Investment Plans or DRIPs, which is basically a regular automatic stock purchase program. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_reinvestment_plan. While your stock broker may offer dividend reinvestment, this is not the same as a DRIP. DRIPs are offered directly by the company, rather than the stock broker. They have the added benefits that the stock purchases are almost always commission-free, and in some cases, the company even offers a discount on the stock price. It can take a little more effort to get enrolled in a DRIP, but if you are interested in holding the stock long-term, this is a good option to consider.\",\n \"with the semi-strong form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis expected dividends are priced into the options and security already. If you are able to locate such an arbitrage opportunity then you should take it, but I suspect it will be more more difficult than you think. Remember that many dividends require you to have been a shareholder by a certain date prior to the dividend occurring.\",\n \"You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.\",\n \"Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.\",\n \"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.\",\n \"\\\"Their is no arbitrage opportunity with \\\"\\\"buying dividends.\\\"\\\" You're buying a taxable event. This is a largely misunderstood topic. The stock always drops by the amount if the dividend on the ex date. The stock opens that day trading \\\"\\\"ex\\\"\\\" (excluding) the dividend. It then pays out later based in the shareholders on record. There is a lot of talk about price movement and value here. That can happen but it's from trading not from the dividend per se. Yes sometimes you do see a stock pop the day prior to ex date because people are buying the stock for the dividend but the trading aspect of a stock is determined by supply and demand from people trading the stock. The dividends are paid out from the owners equity section of the balance sheet. This is a return of equity to shareholders. The idea is to give owners of the company some of their investment back (from when they bought the stock) without having the owners sell the shares of the company. After all if it's a good company you want to keep holding it so it will appreciate. Another similar way to think of it is like a bonds interest payment. People sometimes forget when trading that these are actual companies meant to be invested in. Your buying an ownership in the company with your cash. It really makes no difference to buy the dividend or not, all other things constant. Though market activity can add or lose value from trading as normal.\\\"\",\n \"Yes you can do that and it it wise to do so. However, you should make sure that the general trend of the stock is upwards and you buy during a trought in the uptrend. So basically if the stock is making higher highs and higher lows on the daily or weekly charts, then you would want to buy around one of the higher lows before the ex-dividend date. If the stock is making lower lows and lower highs, then it is in a downtrend, so never buy in this instance. It is better to miss out on a dividend of $1 rather than to buy just for this $1 dividend and lose $5 or more when the price continues to drop further.\",\n \"Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio.\",\n \"There are many stategies with options that you have listed. The one I use frequently is buy in the money calls and sell at the money staddles. Do this ONLY on stocks you do not mind owning because that is the worse thing that can happen and if you like the company you stand less of a chance of being scared out of the trade. It works well with high quality resonable dividend paying stocks. Cat, GE, Mrk, PM etc. Good luck\",\n \"One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.\",\n \"You should never invest in a stock just for the dividend. Dividends are not guaranteed. I have seen some companies that are paying close to 10% dividends but are losing money and have to borrow funds just to maintain the dividends. How long can these companies continue paying dividends at this rate or at all. Would you keep investing in a stock paying 10% dividends per year where the share price is falling 20% per year? I know I wouldn't. Some high dividend paying stocks also tend to grow a lot slower than lower or non dividend paying stocks. You should look at the total return - both dividend yield and capital return combined to make a better decision. You should also never stay in a stock which is falling drastically just because it pays a dividend. I would never stay in a stock that falls 20%, 30%, 50% or more just because I am getting a 5% dividend. Regarding taxation, some countries may have special taxation rules when it comes to dividends just like they may have special taxation rules for longer term capital gains compared to shorter term capital gains. Again no one should use taxation as the main purpose to make an investment decision. You should factor taxation into your decision but it should never be the determining factor of your decisions. No one has ever become poor in making a gain and paying some tax, but many people have lost a great portion of their capital by not selling a stock when it has lost 50% or more of its value.\",\n \"This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.\",\n \"An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time.\",\n \"In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK\",\n \"The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.\",\n \"\\\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \\\"\\\"low income\\\"\\\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\\\"\",\n \"If you expect to pay tax on dividends move dividend producing assets into your ISA. If have a lot of investments you can Look at Zeros (zero dividend preference share) issued by splits (split capital trusts), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_capital_investment_trust\",\n \"Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend.\",\n \"\\\"Not minutes, but hours. The \\\"\\\"ex-dividend\\\"\\\" date is the deadline for acquiring a stock to receive a dividend. If you hold a stock at the beginning of this day, you will receive the dividend. So you could buy a stock right at the end of the day on the day before the ex-dividend date, and sell it the next day (on the ex-dividend date), and you would get your dividend. See this page from the SEC for more information. The problem with this strategy, however, is that the value of the stock typically drops by the same amount as the dividend on that day. If you take a look at the historical price of the stock you are interested in, you'll see this. Of course, it makes sense why: a seller knows that selling before the date results in a loss of the dividend, so they want a higher price to compensate. Likewise, a buyer on or after the date knows that the dividend is already gone, so they want to pay a lower price.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You have to be the owner of record before the ex-dividend date, which is not the same day as the date the dividend is paid. This also implies that if you sell on or after the ex-dividend date, you'll still get the dividend, even if you no longer own the stock. Keep in mind, also, that the quoted price of the stock (and on any open orders that are not specifically marked as \\\"\\\"do not reduce\\\"\\\") on its ex-dividend date is dropped by the amount of the dividend, first thing in the morning before trading starts. If you happen to be the first order of the day, before market forces cause the price to move, you'll end up with zero gain, since the dividend is built into the price, and you got the same value out of it -- the dividend in cash, and the remaining value in stock. As pointed out in the comments (Thanks @Brick), you'll still get a market price for your trade, but the price reduction will have had some impact on the first trade of the day. Source: NYSE Rule 118.30 Also, remember that the dividend yield is expressed in annualized terms. So a 3% yield can only be fully realized by receiving all of the dividend payments made by the company for the year. You can, of course, forget about individual companies and just look for dividends to create your own effective yield over time. But, see the final point... Finally, if you keep buying and selling just to play games with the dividends, you're going to pay far more in transaction fees than you will earn in dividends. And, depending on your individual circumstances, you may end up paying more in capital gains taxes.\\\"\",\n \"You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.\",\n \"You sell any investment because you need to do something else with the money -- rebalance your investments, buy something, pay off a debt....\",\n \"I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.\",\n \"I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly\",\n \"If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand.\",\n \"If your criteria has changed but some of your existing holdings don't meet your new criteria you should eventually liquidate them, because they are not part of your new strategy. However, you don't want to just liquidate them right now if they are currently performing quite well (share price currently uptrending). One way you could handle this is to place a trailing stop loss on the stocks that don't meet your current criteria and let the market take you out when the stocks have stopped up trending.\",\n \"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?\",\n \"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.\",\n \"Buying individual/small basket of high dividend shares is exposing you to 50%+ and very fast potential downswings in capital/margin calls. There is no free lunch in returns in this respect: nothing that pays enough to help you pay your mortgage at a high rate won’t expose you to a lot of potential volatility. Main issue here looks like you have very poorly performing rental investments you should consider selling or switching up rental usage/how you rent them (moving to shorter term, higher yield lets, ditching any agents/handymen that are taking up capital/try and refinance to lower mortgage rates etc etc). Trying to use leveraged stock returns to pay for poorly performing housing investments is like spraying gasoline all over a fire. Fixing the actual issue in hand first is virtually always the best course of action in these scenarios.\",\n \"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).\",\n \"You might have to pay a premium for the stocks on the dividend tax–free exchanges. For example, HSBC on the NYSE yields 4.71% versus HSBC on the LSE which yields only 4.56%. Assuming the shares are truly identical, the only reason for this (aside from market fluctuations) is if the taxes are more favorable in the UK versus the US, thus increasing demand for HSBC on the LSE, raising the price, and reducing the yield. A difference of 0.15% in yield is pretty insignificant relative to a 30% versus 0% dividend tax. But a key question is, does your country have a foreign tax credit like the US does? If so you (usually) end up getting that 30% back, just delayed until you get your tax return, and the question of which exchange to buy on becomes not so clear cut. If your country doesn't have such a tax credit, then yes, you'll want to buy on an exchange where you won't get hit with the dividend tax. Note that I got this information from a great article I read several months back (site requires free registration to see it all unfortunately). They discuss the case of UN versus UL--both on the NYSE but ADRs for Unilever in the Netherlands and the UK, respectively. The logic is very similar to your situation.\",\n \"By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call. For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price. The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.\",\n \"How do you find good quality dividend stocks? That is an easy one. Past performance has always been my key to this answer. also remember why you are investing in the first place. Do you want cash flow, security or capital growth. Also let's not forget... how much time do you want to devote to this venture. There is going to be a balance in your investing and your returns. More time in... the higher returns you get. As for finding good dividend stocks, look to the Dividend Aristocrats or the Dividend Contenders. These companies have consistently increased their payouts to their investors for years. There is a trading strategy that could escalate your returns. Dividend Capturing, simply put... You buy the stock before the ex-date and sell after date of record. Thus collecting a dividend and moving on to the next one. Warning: though this is a profitable strategy, it only works with certain stocks so do your research or find a good source.\",\n \"I would say the most important thing to consider is the quality of the company relative to the price you pay for it. No dividend also means that you will not pay taxes on dividends.\",\n \"A specific strategy to make money on a potentially moderately decreasing stock price on a dividend paying stock is to write covered calls. There is a category on Money.SE about covered call writing, but in summary, a covered call is a contract to sell the shares at a set price within a defined time range; you gain a premium (called the time value) which, when I've done it, can be up to an additional 1%-3% return on the position. With this strategy you're collecting dividends and come out with the best return if the stock price stays in the middle: if the price does not shoot up high enough that your option is called, you still own the stock and made extra return; if the price drops moderately, you may still be positive.\",\n \"There are many reasons for buying stock for dividends. You are right in the sense that in theory a stock's price will go down in value by the amount of the dividend. As the amount of dividend was adding to the value of the company, but now has been paid out to shareholder, so now the company is worth less by the value of the dividend. However, in real life this may or may not happen. Sometimes the price will drop by less than the value of the dividend. Sometimes the price will drop by more than the dividend. And other times the price will go up even though the stock has gone ex-dividend. We can say that if the price has dropped by exactly the amount of the dividend then there has been no change in the stockholders value, if the price has dropped by more than the value of the dividend then there has been a drop to the stockholder's value, and if the price has gone up or dropped by less than the value of the dividend then there has been a increase to the stockholder's value. Benefits of Buying Stocks with Good Dividends: What you shouldn't do however, is buy stocks solely due to the dividend. Be aware that if a company starts reducing its dividends, it could be an early warning sign that the company may be heading into financial troubles. That is why holding a stock that is dropping in price purely for its dividend can be a very dangerous practice.\",\n \"No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.\",\n \"There are indeed various strategies to make money from this. As Ben correctly said, the stock price drops correspondingly on the dividend date, so the straightforward way doesn't work. What does work are schemes that involve dividend taxation based on nationality, and schemes based on American Options where people can use market rules to their advantage if some options are not exercised.\",\n \"\\\"If you sold the stock for a profit, you will owe tax on that profit. Whether it is taxed as short-term or long-term capital gains depends on how long you held the stock before selling it. Presumably you're going to invest this money into mutual funds or something of that sort. Those may pay dividends which can be reinvested, and will grow in value (you hope) just as the individual stock shares would (you hope). Assuming the advice you've been given is at all reasonable, there's no need for buyer's remorse here; you're just changing your investing style to a different point on the risk-versus-return curve. (If you have to ask this question, I tend to agree that you should do more homework before playing with shares in individual companieS ... unless you're getting thess shares at employee discount, in which case you should still seriously consider selling them fairly quickly and reinvesting the money in a more structured manner. In a very real sense your job is itself an \\\"\\\"investment\\\"\\\" in your employer; if they ever get into trouble you don't want that to hit both your income and investments.)\\\"\",\n \"This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.\",\n \"\\\"Dividends can also be automatically reinvested in your stock holding through a DRIP plan (see the wikipedia link for further details, wiki_DRIP). Rather than receiving the dividend money, you \\\"\\\"buy\\\"\\\" additional stock shares your with dividend money. The value in the DRIP strategy is twofold. 1) your number of shares increases without paying transaction fees, 2) you increase the value of your holding by increasing number of shares. In the end, the RIO can be quite substantial due to the law of compounding interest (though here in the form of dividends). Talk with your broker (brokerage service provider) to enroll your dividend receiving stocks in a DRIP.\\\"\",\n \"The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.\",\n \"1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.\",\n \"A lot of people use dividend stocks as a regular income, which is why dividend stocks are often associated with retirement. If your goal is growth and you're reinvesting capital gains and dividends then investing growth stocks or dividend stocks should have the same effect. The only difference would be if you are manually reinvesting dividends, which could incur extra trading fees.\",\n \"The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.\",\n \"The dividend goes to he who owns the stock when it goes ex-div. A buyer (the call buyer who exercises) will not exercise unless the stock plus dividend are in the money. Otherwise they'd be buying the stock at a premium. I like the scenario your friend doesn't. If I can find a high dividend stock and sell the call for a decent price, I may get a great return on a stock that's gone down 5% over a year's time. If it goes up and called away, that's fine too, it means a profit.\",\n \"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.\",\n \"Simply if your stock is still rising in price keep it. If it is falling in price sell it and pay off your mortgage. To know when to do this is very easy. If it is currently rising you can put a trailing stop loss on it and sell it when it drops and hits your stop loss. A second easy method is to draw an uptrend line under the increasing price and then sell when the price drops down below the uptrend line, as per the chart below. This will enable you to capture the bulk of the price movement upward and sell before the price drops too far down. You can then use the profits (after tax) to pay down your mortgage. Of course if the price is currently in a downtrend sell it ASAP.\",\n \"\\\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \\\"\\\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\\\"\\\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\\\"\",\n \"If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,\",\n \"First, what Daniel Carson said. Second, if you're getting started, just make sure you are well diversified. Lots of growth stocks turn into dividend stocks over time-- Microsoft and Apple are the classic examples in this era. Someday, Google will pay a dividend too. If you're investing for the long haul, diversify and watch your taxes, and you'll make out better than nearly everyone else.\",\n \"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.\",\n \"The stock tends to drop by the amount of the dividend -- or if you prefer to think of it this way, the stock price has been pushed up by the amount of the dividend before it was paid out. Really, all this shift does is factor out the impending dividend's effect on the real purchase cost of the stock. As such it's pretty much irrelevant except that, of course, the dividend is short-term gain that you have to pay taxes on almost immediately. Which also tends to get figured into the price folks are willing to pay for the stock. Conclusion: no, there's no real opportunity here. There's a slight tax reason to avoid buying right before dividends are paid, but that's about it. Basic principle: If it's simple and obvious,the market has already accounted for it.\",\n \"One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.\",\n \"\\\"One alternative strategy you may want to consider is writing covered calls on the stock you have \\\"\\\"just sitting there\\\"\\\". This will allow you to earn a return (the premium from the calls) without necessarily having to give up your holding. As a brief overview, \\\"\\\"options\\\"\\\" are derivatives that give the holder the right (or option) to buy or sell shares at a specified price. Holders of call options with a strike prike $x on a particular security have the right to purchase that security at the strike price $x. Conversely, holders of put options with a strike price of $x have the right to sell that security at the strike price $x. Always on the other side of a call or put option is a person that has sold the option, which is called \\\"\\\"writing\\\"\\\" the option. If this person writes a call option, then he will be obligated to sell a certain amount of stock (100 shares per contract) at the strike price if that option is exercised. A writer of a put option will be obligated to by 100 shares per contract at the strike price if that option is exercised. Covered calls involve writing call contracts on stock that you own. For example, say you own 100 shares of AAPL, and that AAPL is currently trading for $330. You decide to write a Jan 21, 2012 call on these shares at a strike price of $340, earning you a premium of say $300. Two things can now happen: if the price of AAPL is not at least $340 on January 21, then the options are \\\"\\\"out of the money\\\"\\\" and will expire unexercised (why exercise an option to buy at $340 when you can buy at the currently cheaper market price?). You keep your AAPL stock plus the $300 premium you earn. If, however, the price of AAPL is greater than $340, the option will be exercised and you will now be required to sell the shares you own at $340. You will earn a return of $10/share ($340-$330), plus the $300 premium from the call option. You still make out in the end, but have unfortunately incurred an opportunity cost, as had you not written the call option you would have been able to sell at the market price, which is higher than the $340 strike price. Covered calls are considered relatively safe and conservative, however the strategy is most effective for stocks that are expected to stay within a relatively narrow price range for the duration of the contract. They do provide one option of earning additional money on stocks you are currently holding, albeit at the risk of giving up some returns if the stock price rises above the strike price.\\\"\",\n \"The market is not stupid. It realises that a company is worth less after paying out dividends than before paying them. (It's obvious, since that company has just given out part of its earnings.) So after a company pays out dividends, its stock price normally drops approximately by the amount paid. Therefore if you buy, get the dividend, and immediately sell, under normal conditions you won't make any profit.\",\n \"\\\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \\\"\\\"otherwise\\\"\\\" is substantial and far-ranging.\\\"\",\n \"Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.\",\n \"Maximizing income could mean a lot of things. What you really want is to maximize wealth. Doesn't matter if it comes from your bond appreciating in value or as dividends. In order to maximize your wealth (that's today's wealth), you need to make decisions based on the net present value of these bonds. The market is fairly priced, especially for a tight market like government bonds. That means if your bond falls in price, it has fallen by precisely the amount necessary so that an investor would be indifferent between purchasing it now, at its current price, and purchasing a new bond with a higher dividend. The bonds with higher dividends will simply have a higher price, so more of the money comes as dividends than as price appreciation (at maturity it will sell for face value). In other words, the animals are out of the barn and you have lost (or made) money already. Changing from one bond to another will not change your wealth one way or the other. The only potential effect of changing bonds will be changing the risk of your portfolio. If you buy a bond that matures later or has a lower dividend than your current bond, you will be adding additional interest rate risk to your portfolio. That risk should be compensated, so you will have a higher expected return as well. But regardless of your choice you will not be made wealthier or less wealthy by changing from one bond to another. Should you buy bonds that will earn you the most possible? Sure, if you are below your risk tolerance. Even among default free bonds, the longer the maturity and the lower the dividend, the greater the effect of future changes in interest rates on your bond. That makes them riskier, but also makes them earn more money on average. TL;DR: In terms of your wealth, which is what matters, it doesn't matter whether you hold your bond or buy a new one.\",\n \"Some investors (pension funds or insurance companies) need to pay out a certain amount of money to their clients. They need cash on a periodical basis, and thus prefer dividend paying stock more.\",\n \"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.\",\n \"Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).\",\n \"Since you reference SS, I surmise you are in the US. Stock you inherit gets a stepped up basis when it's inherited. (so long as it was not contained within a tax deffered retirement account.) When you sell, the new basis is taken from that day you inherited it. It should be minimal compared to your desire to diversify.\",\n \"\\\"It is important to remember that the stock price in principle reflects the value of the company, so the market cap should drop upon issuance of the the dividend. However, the above reasoning neglects to consider taxes, which make the question a bit more interesting. The key fact is that different investors are going to get taxed on the dividend to varying degrees, ranging from 20% for qualified dividends in the USA for a high-income individual in a taxable account (and even worse for non-qualified dividends) to 0% for tax-exempt nonprofits, retirement accounts, and low-income individuals. The high-tax investors are going to be a bit averse to paying tax on that dividend, whereas the tax-free investors are not. Hence in a tax-rational market the tax-free investors are going to be the ones buying right before a dividend and the tax-paying investors will be buying right afterwards. Tax-exempt investors could in principle make some amount of money buying dividends to keep them off the tax-paying investors' books. (Of course, the strategy could backfire if too many people did it all at once.) That said, the tax-payers have the tax disincentive to prevent them from fully exploiting the opposite strategy of selling just before a dividend. In particular, they are subject to capital gains tax when they sell at a profit (unless they have enough compensating capital losses), and it is to their after-tax profit to defer taxation by not trading. That said, the stock market has well-known irrationality when it comes to considering tax consequences, so logic based on assumed rationality of the market does not always apply to the extent one would expect. The foremost example of tax-irrationality is the so-called \\\"\\\"dividend paradox\\\"\\\", which basically states that corporations should favor stock buybacks (or perhaps loan repayment) to the complete exclusion of dividends because capital gains are taxed less harshly than dividends in a variety of ways, some of which are subtle: 1) Historically (although not currently in the USA for qualified dividends) the tax rate was higher for dividends. (In Canada, for example, dividends are taxed at twice the rate of capital gains.) 2) If you die holding appreciated stock then you (meaning your heirs) completely escape US the capital gains tax on the accrual during your lifetime. 3) Capital gains tax can be deferred by simply not selling. In comparison to dividends, this is roughly equivalent to getting a tax-free loan from the government which is invested for profit and paid at a later date after inflation has eaten away at the real value of the loan. For example, if all your stock investments increase by 10%/year but you sell every year, in a high-tax bracket situation you're total after-tax return will be only 8% per year. In contrast, if you hold the same investments for many many years and then sell, your total return will be nearly 10% per year, because you only pay 20% once (at the end). 4) A capital gain can often be neutralized by a capital loss in another stock, so that no tax results. If you loose money on a stock that is paying dividends, you're still going to have to pay tax on that dividend. There are companies that borrow money to pay out that taxable-dividend each quarter, which seems like gross tax malpractice on the part of the CFO. (If the dividend paradox doesn't make sense, first consider the case that you owned ALL the shares of a company. It wouldn't matter to you at all on a pre-tax basis whether you got a $1000 company buyback or a $1000 dividend, because after the buyback/dividend you'd still own the entire company and $1000. The number of shares would be reduced, but objecting that you owned fewer shares after the buyback would be like saying you have become shorter if your height is measured in inches rather than centimeters.) [Of course, in the case of many shareholders you can get burned by failing to sell into the buyback when the share price is too high, but that is another matter.]\\\"\",\n \"In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.\",\n \"For XOM if you were lucky enough to purchase on 20 Jan 16, at 73.18/share and sold on 15 July at 94.95 you would achieve a 29% return in six months. Awesome. You'd also get a dividend payment or two adding another percentage point per to your returns. The one year chart for FB shows it increasing from ~95/share to ~129. Yet no dividend was paid. However, the 35.7% YTD for 2016 should make anyone happy. Both of these require excellent timing, and those kind of returns are unsustainable over the long haul. Many people simply hold stocks. Having the dividend is a nice bonus to some growth. Why to people buy stocks? For profit. Sometimes dividend payers offer the best option, sometimes not.\",\n \"The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.\",\n \"\\\"What you seem to want is a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP). That's typically offered by the broker, not by the ETF itself. Essentially this is a discounted purchase of new shares when you're dividend comes out. As noted in the answer by JoeTaxpayer, you'll still need to pay tax on the dividend, but that probably won't be a big problem unless you've got a lot of dividends. You'll pay that out of some other funds when it's due. All DRIPs (not just for ETFs) have potential to complicate computation of your tax basis for eventual sale, so be aware of that. It doesn't have to be a show-stopper for you, but it's something to consider before you start. It's probably less of a problem now than it used to be since brokers now have to report your basis on the 1099-B in the year of sale, reducing your administrative burden (if you trust them to get it right). Here's a list of brokerages that were offering this from a top-of-the-search-list article that I found online: Some brokerages, including TD Ameritrade, Vanguard, Scottrade, Schwab and, to a lesser extent, Etrade, offer ETF DRIPs—no-cost dividend reinvestment programs. This is very helpful for busy clients. Other brokerages, such as Fidelity, leave ETF dividend reinvestment to their clients. Source: http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23595-your-etf-has-drip-drag.html?nopaging=1 Presumably the list is not constant. I almost didn't included but I thought the wide availability (at least as of the time of the article's posting) was more interesting than any specific broker on it. You'll want to do some research before you choose a broker to do this. Compare fees for sure, but also take into account other factors like how soon after the dividend they do the purchase (is it the ex-date, the pay date, or something else?). A quick search online should net you several decent articles with more information. I just searched on \\\"\\\"ETF DRIP\\\"\\\" to check it out.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The strategy is right. As pointed out by you, will the \\\"\\\" volatility cause the premium on the price of the options to be too high to make this worthwhile\\\"\\\" ... this is subjective and depends on how the markets feels about the volatility and the trend ... ie if the market believes that the stock will go up, the option at 45 would cost quite a bit less. However if the market believes the stock would go down, the option at 45 would be quite high [and may not even be available]. There is no generic right or wrong, the strategy is right [with out without putting dividend into equation] it depends what options are available at what prices.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called \\\"\\\"hard-to-borrow fee\\\"\\\". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends. This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker).\\\"\",\n \"Your back of the envelope calculation shows an income of about 5.5% per year, which is much better than a bank. The risk of course is that in a few years when you want to sell the stock, the price may not be at the level you want. The question is what are you giving up with this plan. You have 80K in cash, will cutting it to 30K in cash make it harder for your business to survive? If your income from the business starts slowly, having that 50K in cash may be better. Selling the stock when the business is desperate for money may lock in losses.\",\n \"\\\"TL;DR: If your currently held bond's bid yield is smaller than another bonds' ask yield. You can swap your bond for bigger returns. Let's imagine you buy a long bond for $12000 (face value of $10000) and it has 6% coupon. The cash flows will have an internal return rate of 4.37%, this is the published \\\"\\\"ask yield\\\"\\\" in 2014 of the bond. After six years, prices have fallen, inflation and yields went up. So you can sell it for only $10000. If you would do it, the IRR will be only 2.55%, so there will be less return, than if you keep it. But if you would \\\"\\\"undo\\\"\\\" the transaction, then the future cash flows would yield 6.38%. This is the \\\"\\\"bid yield\\\"\\\" in 2020 of the bond. If you can find an offer that yields more than 6.38%, you have better returns if you sell your bond and invest that $10000 in the other bond. But as other answers pointed it out, you rarely have this opportunity as the market is very effective. (Assuming everything else is equal.)\\\"\",\n \"When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid\",\n \"I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.\",\n \"The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.\",\n \"In an ideal world Say on 24th July the share price of Apple was $600. Everyone knows that they will get the $ 2.65 on 16th August. There is not other news that is affecting the price. You want to go in and buy the shares on 16th Morning at $600 and then sell it on 17th August at $600. Now in this process you have earned sure shot $2.65/- Or in an ideal world when the announcement is made on 24th July, why would I sell it at $600, when I know if I wait for few more days I will get $2.65/- so i will be more inclined to sell it at $602.65 /- ... so on 16th Aug after the dividend is paid out, the share price will be back to $600/- In a real world, dividend or no dividend the share price would be moving up or down ... Notice that the dividend amount is less than 1% of the stock price ... stock prices change more than this percentage ... so if you are trying to do what is described in paragraph one, then you may be disappointed as the share price may go down as well by more than $2.65 you have made\",\n \"There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too.\",\n \"The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Is selling Vested RSU is the same as selling a regular stock? Yes. Your basis (to calculate the gain) is what you've been taxed on when the RSUs vested. Check your payslips/W2 for that period, and the employer should probably have sent you detailed information about that. I'm not a US citizen, my account is in ETrade and my stocks are of a US company, what pre arrangements I need to take to avoid tax issues? You will pay capital gains taxes on the sale in Israel. Depending on where you were when you earned the stocks and what taxes you paid then - it may open additional issues with the Israeli tax authority. Check with an Israeli tax adviser/accountant."],"string":"[\n \"Is selling Vested RSU is the same as selling a regular stock? Yes. Your basis (to calculate the gain) is what you've been taxed on when the RSUs vested. Check your payslips/W2 for that period, and the employer should probably have sent you detailed information about that. I'm not a US citizen, my account is in ETrade and my stocks are of a US company, what pre arrangements I need to take to avoid tax issues? You will pay capital gains taxes on the sale in Israel. Depending on where you were when you earned the stocks and what taxes you paid then - it may open additional issues with the Israeli tax authority. Check with an Israeli tax adviser/accountant.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":277,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"4306"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["450694","221435","233718","61819"],"string":"[\n \"450694\",\n \"221435\",\n \"233718\",\n \"61819\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["450694","233718","499875","79777","87057","319996","61819","134239","19618","116921","104480","489509","221435","228787","293777","540451","215708","490113","363421","460755","582063","531953","429460","321842","310016","93518","248794","445943","576632","195506","124254","167717","157376","127434","452434","133440","215189","580757","487162","17906","301570","510363","157907","90589","273478","422989","378390","343489","10726","443511","536689","264067","99797","486159","405276","165767","357103","39696","375199","283473","67069","517345","124862","565568","336618","523864","68462","450922","114439","103536","177264","379547","305346","542098","126431","96211","367137","208907","205585","429704","137184","525231","351154","190347","316497","302699","10558","554996","416975","512564","401818","152910","245355","484891","115087","105343","16090","387194","285648","24881"],"string":"[\n \"450694\",\n \"233718\",\n \"499875\",\n \"79777\",\n \"87057\",\n \"319996\",\n \"61819\",\n \"134239\",\n \"19618\",\n \"116921\",\n \"104480\",\n \"489509\",\n \"221435\",\n \"228787\",\n \"293777\",\n \"540451\",\n \"215708\",\n \"490113\",\n \"363421\",\n \"460755\",\n \"582063\",\n \"531953\",\n \"429460\",\n \"321842\",\n \"310016\",\n \"93518\",\n \"248794\",\n \"445943\",\n \"576632\",\n \"195506\",\n \"124254\",\n \"167717\",\n \"157376\",\n \"127434\",\n \"452434\",\n \"133440\",\n \"215189\",\n \"580757\",\n \"487162\",\n \"17906\",\n \"301570\",\n \"510363\",\n \"157907\",\n \"90589\",\n \"273478\",\n \"422989\",\n \"378390\",\n \"343489\",\n \"10726\",\n \"443511\",\n \"536689\",\n \"264067\",\n \"99797\",\n \"486159\",\n \"405276\",\n \"165767\",\n \"357103\",\n \"39696\",\n \"375199\",\n \"283473\",\n \"67069\",\n \"517345\",\n \"124862\",\n \"565568\",\n \"336618\",\n \"523864\",\n \"68462\",\n \"450922\",\n \"114439\",\n \"103536\",\n \"177264\",\n \"379547\",\n \"305346\",\n \"542098\",\n \"126431\",\n \"96211\",\n \"367137\",\n \"208907\",\n \"205585\",\n \"429704\",\n \"137184\",\n \"525231\",\n \"351154\",\n \"190347\",\n \"316497\",\n \"302699\",\n \"10558\",\n \"554996\",\n \"416975\",\n \"512564\",\n \"401818\",\n \"152910\",\n \"245355\",\n \"484891\",\n \"115087\",\n \"105343\",\n \"16090\",\n \"387194\",\n \"285648\",\n \"24881\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \"\"control\"\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\"","The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals. The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at. And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading. eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.","Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)","\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"","The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.","Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out.","\"According to Soros in \"\"The Alchemy of Finance\"\", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding).\"","\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \"\"buy\"\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \"\"basket\"\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \"\"shopping list\"\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\"","It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.","Because we need energy in the form of oil. If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves. Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?","The exchange rate between two currencies is simply the price that the most recent market participants were able to agree on, when trading. ie: if the USDCAD is 1.36, it's because the last trade that happened where someone bought 1 USD cost 1.36 CAD. There is no one person/organization which 'decides' the rate between two currencies. The rate moves you see is just the reality of money changing hands as people in various situations trade currencies for various reasons. Just like with stocks or any other market product, foreign exchange rates can fluctuate wildly based on many things. It is very difficult to forecast where rates will go, because the biggest changes in rates can often be unpredictable news events. For example, when Brexit happened, the value of the GBP plummeted relative to other currencies, because the market traders had less faith in the UK economy, and therefore weren't willing to pay as much to buy GBP. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232. There is a very high level of risk in the foreign exchange market; for your sake, don't get involved in any trading that you do not well understand, first.","currency's central bank or treasury/finance department speeches that can announce a significant change in policy. That includes: Particularly when it is a high level figure within the department such as the President or Prime Minister making the announcement. Macroeconomic stats: GeoPolitical considerations, such as: Economic calendars, such as ForexFactory and MyFxBook track planned economic news releases. Obviously, a coup d'etat or war declaration may not be well known in advance.","\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \"\"money\"\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\"","Brilliant fact-based objective reality explanation of the world currency markets. I'm into bitcoin and physical gold investments (yeah, I know, it's like being gay and straight at the same time without being bi), may I ask you a few things later?","The increase of currency value in relation to another is a critical determinant of the economic health. It plays an important part in the level of trade and affects the world’s free market economy. But, they also effect on smaller scale as they create an impact on the portfolio of investors. So, it is suggested that the investors should make their trades wisely keeping in mind the value of other currencies that might your trade. Also, you should check the news daily to get regular updates and be well-informed of any changes happening in the market","\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \"\"believe it is money\"\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\"","I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.","\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"","\"Feel free to educate man. Everything I can find says the same thing. [Investopedia](http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-are-key-factors-cause-market-go-and-down.asp) >If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. Conversely, a larger number of sellers bids down the price of stocks hoping to entice buyers to purchase. Yes, if a company is performing well, you might find that more people want to buy then sale. That would cause it to go up. But if no one wants to buy, it doesn't matter how well the company is doing. I mean really, how would that work? Someone in the company notices they had more sales today then yesterday, email someone on wallstreet and they just mouse wheel the stock price up to something higher? Say the stock is $1.00 right now. But the lowest buy order is $.90. and the highest sale order is $1.10. (I guess there is some math there making is $1.) As soon as someone says, yeah. I'll sale at 90 cents, it'll go down. If someone says yeah, I'll buy at $1.10 it'll go up. I'm sure there is more to it than that. But everything I can find. It 100% has to have people more people wanting to buy then sale for it to go up. If more want to sale then buy, it'll go down. But hey, if this is way off base. Go ahead and fill me in. I'm open to CMV. This was all found after a short amount of time researching [\"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\"](https://www.google.com/search?q=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&oq=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l4.43421.43421.0.43882.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.6Crfejzb3XY)\"","From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.","Look for unsustainable policies and actions by policy makers, both before and possibly during, when looking at the ForEx markets. Consider some examples: Each of those events could be seen in the growing unsustainability of local policies. ForEx markets and local policies can appear to stay on an unsustainable path for a long time, but equilibrium will force itself on everything in the long run. In two of the above cases, the initial response wasn't enough to offset the mess, and more and more intervention had to be done, only making matters worse. When you know how unsustainable policies are and how big the corrections need to be, you can quickly ascertain whether an action by policy makers will be enough.","Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get.","Many people trade the currency markets via brokers who have developed online apps with live forex prices and many currency pairs. You can trade on your phone, iPad or PC / Mac.","Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.","To make it simple, just use gold as the main benchmark. Gold price never moves, FIAT currencies move around the price of gold. So, when comparing US$ and Australian dollars to the gold, you know which currency is moving up and which down.","\"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are \"\"lending\"\" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the \"\"saver\"\" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. \"\"Savers\"\" therefore \"\"shop around\"\" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard \"\"invisible hand\"\" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!\"","Forex is really not that volatile compared to other major asset classes like stocks and commodities. But still markets are generally unencumbered in the major pairs and therefore spikes in volatility can happen. Take what happened with the Swiss Franc a few years ago for example, or GBPUSD recently with news of Brexit. This is less the case with highly regulated currencies like the Chinese Yuan (CNY) Volatility is caused by excessive buy or sell pressure in relation to the available liquidity at the current price. This is usually caused by large buy or sell orders placed with interbank desks by institutions (often including other banks) and central banks. News can also sometimes have a dramatic impact and cause traders to adjust their prices significantly and very quickly.","\"Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the \"\"rules of the game\"\" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior.\"","\"If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in \"\"betting on the outcome of an horse race\"\" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process.\"","\"Without going into minor details, an FX transaction works essentially like this. Let's assume you have SEK 100 on your account. If you buy 100 USD/RUB at 1.00, then that transaction creates a positive cash balance on your account of USD 100 and a negative cash balance (an overdraft) of RUB 100. So right after the transaction (assuming there is not transaction cost), the \"\"net equity\"\" of your account is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 100 = 100 SEK. Let's say that, the day after, the RUB has gone down by 10% and the RUB 100 is now worth SEK 90 only. Your new equity is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 90 = 110 SEK and you've made 10%(*): congrats! Had you instead bought 100 SEK/RUB, the result would have been the same (assuming the USD/SEK rate constant). In practice the USD/SEK rate would probably not be constant and you would need to also account for: (*) in your example, the USD/RUB has gone up 10% but the RUB has gone down 9.09%, hence the result you find. In my example, the RUB has gone down 10% (i.e. the USD has gone up 11%).\"","It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.","\"As you say, the currency carry trade shouldn't work. The deluge of new cash into a high-interest currency should result in falling exchange rates. A November 2009 paper by Òscar Jordà and Alan Taylor of the University of California, Davis, may be offer one approach which is more stable. According to The Economist: They find that a refined carry-trade strategy—one that incorporates a measure of long-term value—produces more consistent profits and is less prone to huge losses than one that targets the highest yield. However, exchange rates, central bank interest rates, as well as money supply are all political as well as economic constructs. An economic driver for arbitrage may be offset by political will (such as US quantative easing) or even social malaise (Japanese continual low inward investment). I wouldn't go so far as calling the carry trade \"\"free money\"\" - currencies have proven far too unstable for that - but state interference in markets tends to be clearly telegraphed and a trader with nerves of steel may take advantage of it.\"","Yes traders, living or algorithmic, are the only direct factors that can cause a change in the price of a marketable item. Traders can be affected by news, broken exchanges ;), emotional cycles, lunar cycles, time the trader goes to lunch (or a power cycle if you are an algo running on that unfortunate OS), anything.","You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are: 1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?) This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math. Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table: As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for. There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.","Sometimes the market has to be left alone. Too much interference of the policy makers to stabilize the falling market can actually result in a major crisis. Every change stabilises after sometime and it is also applicable in the Forex trading market. So, the eager investors should learn to have some patience and wait for the market to stabilise itself rather than make random predictions on the policies released by policy makers","\"At any moment, the price is where the supply (seller) and demand (buyer) intersect. This occurs fast enough you don't see it as anything other than bid/ask. What moves it? News of a new drug, device, sandwich, etc. Earning release, whether above or below expectations, or even dead-on, will often impact the price. Every night, the talking heads try to explain the day's price moves. When they can't, they often report \"\"profit taking\"\" for a market drop, or other similar nonsense. Some moves are simple random change.\"","\"All of the other answers here are accurate, but (I think) are missing the point as to the question, which rests on how Bonds work in the first place. The bond specifies a payback AMOUNT and DATE. Let's say it is $10,000 and one year from today. If you buy that today for $9900, your yield will be 1%. If you buy it today for $11,000, your yield will be less than 0% (please don't make me do the math - it's just under negative 1%). You might be willing to pay that 1% (rather than receive 1%) for the certainty that you will definitely get your money back. The combined actions of all the people who may be willing to pay a little more or a little less for the safety of a US Treasury Bond is what people call \"\"the Market.\"\" Market forces (generally, investor confidence) will drive the price up and down, which affects the yield. All the other stuff - coupons and inflation and whatnot - all of that only makes sense if you understand that you aren't buying a rate of return, you are buying a payback amount and date.\"","If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].","\"Switzerland is presumably where one moves the money in case of an apocalypse; although, they have lost some of that appeal now with the tax reporting to the EU and USA. Switzerland has a very old, stable banking industry, but this isn't the only appeal. Their reputation for safeguarding money, be it despot or Nazi, is most of the attraction. Low to no taxes is the second. Also, there isn't much financially illegal despite recent changes. Put that all together, and if a country is about to go to hell in handbasket because it borrowed too much or goes to war while Switzerland stays stable and very strict about paying depositors, those residents are going to try to move as much money to Switzerland as possible before its confiscated for one reason or another, sending the CHF up. Japan is a different duck. They have persistently ~0% inflation thus low nominal and real interest rates. With them, the so-called \"\"cash & carry trade\"\" or more ubiquitous \"\"carry trade\"\" dominates. Many investors choose to borrow in JPY to buy investments denominated in other currencies. If the countries of those other currencies are about to take their residents' money or go to war, putting money at jeopardy, the residents doing the carry trading will try to unwind their levered investments to reduce risk, sending the JPY up.\"","\"This is my two cents (pun intended). It was too long for a comment, so I tried to make it more of an answer. I am no expert with investments or Islam: Anything on a server exists 'physically'. It exists on a hard drive, tape drive, and/or a combination thereof. It is stored as data, which on a hard drive are small particles that are electrically charged, where each bit is represented by that electric charge. That data exists physically. It also depends on your definition of physically. This data is stored on a hard drive, which I deem physical, though is transferred via electric pulses often via fiber cable. Don't fall for marketing words like cloud. Data must be stored somewhere, and is often redundant and backed up. To me, money is just paper with an amount attached to it. It tells me nothing about its value in a market. A $1 bill was worth a lot more 3 decades ago (you could buy more goods because it had a higher value) than it is today. Money is simply an indication of the value of a good you traded at the time you traded. At a simplistic level, you could accomplish the same thing with a friend, saying \"\"If you buy lunch today, I'll buy lunch next time\"\". There was no exchange in money between me and you, but there was an exchange in the value of the lunch, if that makes sense. The same thing could have been accomplished by me and you exchanging half the lunch costs in physical money (or credit/debit card or check). Any type of investment can be considered gambling. Though you do get some sort of proof that the investment exists somewhere Investments may go up or down in value at any given time. Perhaps with enough research you can make educated investments, but that just makes it a smaller gamble. Nothing is guaranteed. Currency investment is akin to stock market investment, in that it may go up or down in value, in comparison to other currencies; though it doesn't make you an owner of the money's issuer, generally, it's similar. I find if you keep all your money in U.S. dollars without considering other nations, that's a sort of ignorant way of gambling, you're betting your money will lose value less slowly than if you had it elsewhere or in multiple places. Back on track to your question: [A]m I really buying that currency? You are trading a currency. You are giving one currency and exchanging it for another. I guess you could consider that buying, since you can consider trading currency for a piece of software as buying something. Or is the situation more like playing with the live rates? It depends on your perception of playing with the live rates. Investments to me are long-term commitments with reputable research attached to it that I intend to keep, through highs and lows, unless something triggers me to change my investment elsewhere. If by playing you mean risk, as described above, you will have a level of risk. If by playing you mean not taking it seriously, then do thorough research before investing and don't be trading every few seconds for minor returns, trying to make major returns out of minor returns (my opinion), or doing anything based on a whim. Was that money created out of thin air? I suggest you do more research before starting to trade currency into how markets and trading works. Simplistically, think of a market as a closed system with other markets, such as UK market, French market, etc. Each can interact with each other. The U.S. [or any market] has a set number of dollars in the pool. $100 for example's sake. Each $1 has a certain value associated with it. If for some reason, the country decides to create more paper that is green, says $1, and stamps presidents on them (money), and adds 15 $1 to the pool (making it $115), each one of these dollars' value goes down. This can also happen with goods. This, along with the trading of goods between markets, peoples' attachment of value to goods of the market, and peoples' perception of the market, is what fluctates currency trading, in simple terms. So essentially, no, money is not made out of thin air. Money is a medium for value though values are always changing and money is a static amount. You are attempting to trade values and own the medium that has the most value, if that makes sense. Values of goods are constantly changing. This is a learning process for me as well so I hope this helps answers your questions you seem to have. As stated above, I'm no expert; I'm actually quite new to this, so I probably missed a few things here and there.\"","No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low.","International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)","\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"","If the fact that currency is based on fiat, something that has been the case with currency somewhere on Earth since the Tang Dynasty of China discovered paper money a long, long time ago, leaves you up in arms, then I shudder to think what an explanation of how the price of money can be derived from plotting IS and LM together and extending it's meeting point into the money market to determine the price of currency would do to your notion of control by powerful offices in government. My good sir, have you ever considered that YOU might be the smug moron? That YOU might be the one who just found out what everyone in the room already learned years ago and lack the foundation the rest of us have to understand that information in context? That it might be YOU who are uninformed? I'll quote you right here: >people who have no clue what the fuck they are talking about go off and lecture other people, bringing up facts that have no thought behind them, and are merely definitions posing as an argument. Making a statement, then getting corrected, then coming back and simply lengthening the original answer is not an argument. >I'll say it again: our currency is fiat. It is backed by nothing You don't seem to understand just what it is backed by. It is backed by trust, steady demand, and the assurance of powerful national and international bodies. As is the price of everything, including gold and literally every other commodity on the planet. Your utter shock and outrage upon discovering this minute fact does not indicate a revolutionary zeitgeist or that you are some kind of free spirit, it indicates that you are uneducated on the context of basic and well understood facts that the rest of the educated world is already caught up on.","The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60","Having trouble understanding currency arbitrage for one example. Conditions: US 3% interest per 6 months Germany 3.6% interest per 6 months Spot rate is $1.09/euro 6-month Forward is $1.04/euro How do I make this into an arbitrage opportunity? There is supposed to be a profit but I keep getting negatives. Any help would be greatly appreciated.","Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;","\"The prices quoted are for currency pairs traded on the foreign exchange market. For currencies traded on these exchanges, the exchange rates of a given currency pair are determined by the market, so supply and demand, investor confidence, etc. all play a role. EBS and Reuters are the two primary trading platforms in the foreign exchange market, and much of the data on exchange rates comes from them. Websites will usually get their data either from these sources directly or from a data provider that in turn gets it from EBS, Reuters, or another data source like Bloomberg or Haver Analytics. These data sources aren't free, however. In the US, many contracts, transactions, etc. that involve exchange rates use the exchange rate data published by the Federal Reserve. You might see this in contracts that specify to use \"\"the exchange rate published by the Federal Reserve at 12 pm (noon) on date --some date--\"\". You can also look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data, which maintains data series of historical daily, weekly, and monthly exchange rates for major currency pairs. These data are free, although they aren't realtime. Data for each business day is mostly updated the next business day.\"","Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult. Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank.","\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \"\"black\"\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\"","I usually look at the high and low exchange rates for the last five years. If the current rate is fairly close to the high for a trade over the past five years, then I do the trade. If the current exchange rate is close to the low, then I wait.","well you had it a bit backwards. the more liquid a market is, the less important the idea of insider information becomes. this is the opposite in less liquid markets - such as low volatile stocks about to announce earnings. knowing the earnings would net you a much larger percentage than, say, knowing if the ECB will cut rates of not. the change will be a much larger % and as with currencies, it is more important to know what the major players are planning - as in, central banks and reserves, carry trades, etc.","\"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 \"\"dollars\"\", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency.\"","Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss.","One interpretation of the above is that Pound (alongside US Dollar, Euro and other major curriencies), which forms the Forex basket of countries has dropped to less than 10% weightage in case of China's Forex holding. Now the question is where did this money go, this money probably have gone into Forex market to buy Yuan against Pound/Dollar etc. to bolster or strengthen Yuan. The currency reserve management is the 'wealth' management part and the 'currency' management part is what is known as 'central bank intervention' to stabilize the currency.","\"You may as well ask why a piece of wood is 25 centimeters long but only 10 inches. Most units of measure are very arbitrary. Somebody decides that this amount of heat or distance or money is a convenient unit, and so that's what they use. Suppose that tomorrow the government issued a whole new currency that had 10 times the value of the old currency. So if you used to make 10,000 foobars a year, now you make 1,000 new foobars. And likewise the price of everything you buy is divided by 10. If a certain model car used to cost 2,000 foobars, now it costs 200 new foobars. Are you better or worse off? Clearly if ALL prices change by the same percentage, then it makes absolutely no difference. (Aside from the hassle of making the switch and getting used to the new numbers.) A currency where 1 unit of money buys more is not necessarily a \"\"stronger currency\"\". Any more than inches are \"\"better\"\" than centimeters because you get more wood for an inch than you get for a centimeter. A currency is said to be \"\"strong\"\" when it's value is stable or increasing relative to other currencies. If yesterday I could trade 10 foobars for 1 plugh, but today I only need 9 foobars to buy 1 plugh, then foobars are stronger than plughs. Even though I still need more foobars than plughs to buy the same item.\"","\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"","\"The market price of a stock is based on nothing at all more than what two parties were last willing to transact for it. The stock has a \"\"bid\"\" and an \"\"ask\"\" each is the value placed by a counterparty. For the sale to occur, one party must meet the other. The stock transacts and that is the price. For a stock to \"\"go up\"\" people must be willing to pay more for it. Likewise, for it to \"\"go down\"\" people must be willing to accept less for it.\"","Currencies are a zero-sum game. If you make money, someone else will lose it. Because bank notes sitting in a pile don't create anything useful. But shares in companies are different, because companies actually do useful things and make money, so it's possible for all investors to make money. The best way to benefit is generally to put your money into a low-cost index fund and then forget about it for at least five years.","The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)","If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.","\"This is actually a fairly hard question to answer well as much of the currency trading that is done in financial markets is actually done directly with banks and other financial institutions instead of on a centralized market and the banks are understandably not always excited to part with information on how exactly they do their business. Other methods of currency exchange have much, much less volume though so it is important to understand the trading through markets as best as possible. Some banks do give information on how much is traded so surveys can give a reasonable indication of relative volume by currency. Note the U.S. Dollar is by far the largest volume of currency traded partially because people often covert one currency to another in the markets by trading \"\"through\"\" the Dollar. Wikipedia has a good explanation and a nicely formatted table of information as well.\"","\"To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the \"\"real economy\"\" is to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to \"\"sit on\"\" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me.\"","\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"","If I understand what you're asking, I think you're looking at the relationship wrong. Yes, when one currency has a higher interest rate relative to another, it's value should, theoretically, appreciate. For example, if the USD interest rate is 10% and the EUR is 5%, the USD should appreciate in value against the EUR. However, the parity relationship tells you the price at which an investor would be indifferent to the difference in interest rates. So using the formula for interest rate parity: (1+r(USD))/(1+r(EUR)) = F/S and plugging in the interest rates from above and a spot rate of $1.5/EUR: (1.1)/(1.05) = F/(1.5) The 1 year forward rate would have to be $1.5714/EUR in order for the investor to be INDIFFERENT between holding USD or EUR. All this assuming interest rate parity holds. I'm not big on Econ but this is how I understood it when studying for the CFA exam the past few months. So please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.","Ultimately no one really knows what causes the markets to rise and fall beyond supply and demand. If more people want to buy then sell, prices go up. And if more people want to sell, prices go down. The news channels will often try to attribute a specific reason to the price move, but that is largely just guess work to fill up the news pages so people have something to read. You may find it interesting to read up on the Elliot wave principle. The crash of 2008 was a perfect Elliot Wave fit. Elliot Wave theory states that social moods (which ultimately drive the stock market) generally occur in a relatively predictable pattern. The crash in September was a Wave 3 down. This is where the majority of people give up hope. However there are still a few people who are still holding on. The markets tend to meander about during wave 4. Finally the last few people give up hope and sell out. This causes the final crash of wave 5. Only when the last person has given up hope can the markets start to go up again..","\"As the European crisis worsened the Swiss Franc (CHF) was seen as a safe currency so Europeans attempted to exchange their Euros for Francs. This caused the Franc to appreciate in value, against the Euro, through the summer and fall of 2011. The Swiss government and Swiss Central Bank (SNB) believe mercantilism will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland. The Swiss central planners believe that having an abundance of export businesses in Switzerland will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland as the exporters sell their good and services abroad and pocket a bunch of cash. Thus, the central planners tend to favor exporters. From the article: At the start of the year, when exporters urged for government and SNB action, ... The Swiss Central bank continued to intervene in currency markets in 2011 to prevent the CHF from appreciating. This was done to prevent a decrease in export business. Finally after many failed attempts they announced the 1.20 peg in September. The central planners give little consideration to imports, however, since manufacturers in foreign countries don't vote or contribute to the campaign funds of the central planners in Switzerland. As the CHF strengthened many imported items became very cheap for Swiss citizens. This was of little concern to the central planners. Currencies are like other goods in a market in that they respond to supply and demand. Their value can change daily or even hourly based on the continually varying demands of people. This can cause the exchange rate to rise and fall against other currencies and goods. Central planners mistakenly believe that the price of certain market items (like currency) should not fluctuate. The believe there is some magical number that will cause the market to operate \"\"better\"\" or \"\"more correctly\"\". How does the SNB maintain the peg? They maintain the peg by printing Francs and purchasing euros.\"","I think you are asking a few questions here. Why is gold chosen as money? In a free market there are five characteristics of a good money: Gold and silver meet all five characteristics. Diamonds are not easily divisible which is why they are not normally used as money. Copper, Iron, and lead are not scarce enough - you would need a lot of these metals to make weekly or daily purchases. Paper is also way too plentiful to be used as money. By the way, historically silver has been used for money more than gold. How does international trade work with gold as money (is this what you are asking with your hypothetical example of 10 countries each with y amount of gold?) Typically a government will issue a currency that is backed by gold. This means you can redeem your currency for actual gold. Then when an American spends 5 US dollars (USD) to purchase a Chinese good the Chinese man now owns 5 USDs. The Chinese man can either redeem the 5 USD for gold or spend the 5 USD in the US. If a government issues more currency then they have gold for then the gold will start to flow from that country to other countries as the citizens of the other countries redeem the over-issued currency for gold. This outflow of gold restricts governments from over-issuing paper currency. Who creates the procedures and who supervises them in modern worldwide economy? The Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements all are involved in the current system where the US dollar (see Bretton Woods agreement) is the reserve currency used by central banks throughout the world. Some think this system is coming to an end. I tend to agree.","You may simply be asking why stocks 'gap up' or 'gap down' when the stock market opens. This is because the price adjusts to news that occurred while the exchanges were closed overnight. Perhaps Asian stocks crashed, or perhaps a news story was released in the New York Times about some major company. There are thousands of factors that affect market sentiment, and the big gaps that happen at the open of every trading day is the price of the stocks catching up to those factors.","\"Um no. Easy google. \"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\" >This is how it works with stocks; supply is the amount of shares that people want to sell, and demand is the amount of shares that people want to purchase. If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. So sure, if a company is performing well, people will want to buy the stock. Causing it to go up. But even if a company was performing well and no one wanted to buy the stock. There would be only sellers and the price would go down.\"","\"I suspect that to \"\"make money\"\" it isn't enough to know the current value (\"\"high currency\"\"): to make money you'd need to know/guess/predict/bet on the future change in value: will the currency value go higher in the future? Or will it come down again? Or will it stay the same? Everybody knows the current value, so that by itself isn't enough knowledge to make money from. That said, if you know you're going to need American dollars in the future (if you have future expenses which need to be paid in American dollars), then now might be a good time to buy those dollars.\"","Trading Speeches can be difficult, 1 comment can be bullish then next phrase bearish. However language algorithms can process the tone of the entire message before you can read the first word or have even finished downloading the text of the statement. The biggest news is the 1st Friday of the month, the non-farm payrolls out of the USA. You used to be able to get the news before the price moved, but high-frequency algos changed all that, essentially the exchanges get quote stuffed, so good luck unless you are using a bucketshop. Better to wait for a pull back from the initial reaction if the numbers are good, otherwise you will get a fill at the peak. If the numbers are a big deviation from expectations then you can just jump in. Back in 2006 the Bank of England raised interest rates when it wasn't expected and the GBPUSD flew 500 pips. This Forex calendar has charts of every news release, so you can see what to expected based on what has happened in the past with a certain bit of economic news. http://www.fasteconomicnews.com/fx_calendar.aspx","Since 2007 the world has seen a period of striking economic and financial volatility featuring the deepest recession since the 1930s despite this gold has performed strongly with its price roughly doubling since the global financial crisis began in mid-2007. 1. Gold and real interest rates: One of the factor that influences gold prices is real interest rate which is to some extent related to inflation. Since gold lacks a yield of its own, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases with a real interest rate increase and decreases with a fall in real interest rates. 2. Gold and the US dollar: The external value of the US dollar has been a significant influence on short-term gold price movements. The IMF estimated6 in 2008 that 40-50% of the moves in the gold price since 2002 were dollar-related, with a 1% change in the effective external value of the dollar leading to a more than 1% change in the gold price (Source). 3. Gold and financial stress: It is a significant and commonly observed influence on the short-term price of gold. In periods of financial stress gold demand may rise for a number of reasons: 4. Gold and political instability: It is another factor that can boost gold prices. Investor concerns about wars, civil conflicts and international tensions can boost demand for gold for similar reasons to those noted above for periods of financial stress. Gold‟s potential function as a „currency of last resort‟ in case of serious system collapse provides a particular incentive to hold it in case the political situation is especially severe. (Source) 5. Gold and official sector activity: The behaviour of central banks and other parts of the official sector can have an important impact on gold prices. One reason for this is that central banks are big holders of gold, possessing some 30,500 metric tons in 2010, which is approximately 15% of all above-ground gold stocks. As a result, central bank policies on gold sales and purchases can have significant effects, and these policies have been subject to considerable shifts over the decades. (Source) (Source of above graphs)","\"In addition to the information in the other answer, I would suggest looking at an economic calendar. These provide the dates and values of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, consumer confidence, etc. Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal all provide such calendars. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. You could also look at a global economic calendar; both xe.com and livecharts.co.uk provide these. If you're only interested in the US, the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and WSJ calendars may provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but foreign announcements also affect US markets, so it's important to get as much perspective as possible. I like the global economic calendars I linked to above because they rate announcements on \"\"priority\"\", which is a quick way to learn which announcements have the greatest effect. Economic calendars are especially important in the context of an interview because you may be asked a follow-up question. For example, the US markets jumped in early trading today (5/28/2013) because the consumer confidence numbers exceeded forecasts (from the WSJ calendar, 76.2 vs 2.3). As SRKX stated, it's important to know more than the numbers; being able to analyze the numbers in the context of the wider market and being aware of the fundamentals driving them is what's most important. An economic calendar is a good way to see this information quickly and succinctly. (I'm paraphrasing part of my answer to another question, so you may or may not find some of that information helpful as well; I'm certainly not suggesting you look at the website of every central bank in the morning. That's what an economic calendar is for!)\"","\"Other things equal is sometimes referred to as \"\"ceteris paribus\"\" - the scenario where you compare two currencies (or things) under the assumption that all other factors that could effect those currencies (earthquakes, revolutions, currency crises ect) are not ocurring. Its like using a control group in a lab. \"\"Real interest rates\"\" means the rate of that countries interest rate, accounting for inflation. \"\"Proportional to the strength of its home currency\"\" is referring to how countries with higher rates of interest tend to have stronger currencies (relative to other currencies) because foreign investment/capital will flood into the country seeking those higher rates of return - excess demand for the currency will cause it to appreciate. So this is also true in reverse, as capital will tend to leave a country will ultra-low interest rates.\"","\"the Yen is *the source* of **\"\"carry trades\"\"**. It means whichever savvy people with means who want to borrow money to invest on a leveraged basis anywhere in the world, come running to borrow in yen. Why? Because (1) Japan is an advanced economy whose currency is freely convertible to many many currencies/countries who are happy to convert yen back and forth. (2) Japanese interest rates are low, lower than in the west b/c of their earlier deflationary crises due to too much debt and due to west requiring Yen to be too strong after the Plaza accords; so it's cheap to borrow there. So a lot of investment around the world has, in origin, come from borrowing in japan. As long as that investment is \"\"on\"\", the loan to japan remains outstanding. But the investor earns the \"\"carry\"\": the rate of difference between the cost of borrowing in Yen, and earning the return from whatever investment it is. When scary things happen (like war, disaster, coups etc) the big money bags/investors pull their money out of their investments and put it in their banks. This means they sell their investments, wherever they are, convert some of that money back into yent ( BUY YEN ) to return their yen loans. yen goes up.\"","Imagine that the existing interest rate is 5%. So on a bond with face value of 100, you would be getting a $5 coupon implying a 5% yield. Now, if let's say the interest rates go up to 10%, then a new bond issued with a face value of 100 will give you a coupon of $10 implying a 10% yield. If someone in the bond market buys your bond after interest price adjustment, in order to make the 10% yield (which means that an investor typically targets at least the risk-free rate on his investments) he needs to buy your bond at $50 so that a $5 coupon can give a 10% yield. The reverse happens when interest rates go down. I hope this somewhat clears the picture. Yield = Coupon/Investment Amount Update: Since the interest rate of the bond does not change after its issuance, the arbitrage in the interest rate is reflected in the market price of the bond. This helps in bringing back the yields of old bonds in-line with the freshly issued bonds.","That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up.","\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\"","\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"","What you were told isn't an absolute truth, so trying to counter something fundamentally flawed won't get you anywhere. For example: chinese midcap equities are up 20% this year, even from their high of 100%. While the BSE Sensex in India is down several percentage points on the year. Your portfolio would have lost money this year taking advice from your peers. The fluctuation in the rupees and remnibi would not have changed this fact. What you are asking is a pretty common area of research, as in several people will write their dissertation on the exact same topic every year, and you should be able to find various analysis and theories on the subject. But the macroeconomic landscape changes, a lot.","\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"","\"You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem. \"\"In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.\"\" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars. Thus, the amount of money is not relevant- it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price. Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because \"\"that's how it's always been.\"\" Nobody \"\"creates/supervises\"\" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values.\"","\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \"\"root value\"\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\"","\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\"","\"Does some official tell the Foreign Exchange the the new exchange rate for the yuan is 0.98 * the current exchange rate? For China (and other countries with fixed/controlled exchange rates) - that's exactly how it happens. Does it just print more? This is the way to go for fully convertible currencies (like the USD, EUR, GBP, and handful of others, there're about 20 in the world). Flood the market and as with any commodity - flooding the market leads to a price drop. Obviously \"\"just print more\"\" is much harder to do than picking up the phone and saying \"\"Now you're buying/selling dollars at this price and if you don't I'll have you executed\"\".\"","\"At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, \"\"agents\"\") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets.\"","\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"","There are no flat fees but typically banks and money exchangers will use a the current market rate, up to the minute for some powerful exchangers. They then add a little on top depending on many variables. Those variables can be related to the quantity of currency that organization holds, the average amount they hold, the market trend for that currency, the stability of the currency, the location of that currency exchange, etc. As for the one stop shop for currency exchange providers, you can try moneysupermarket.com Hope that helps.","Have an upvote. I don't really understand the issue of money competition. There really isn't anything stopping me from putting my wealth in any other currency, or any other store of value for that matter (gold, stocks, bonds, lollipops, prison cigarettes). The value of a domestic currency is affected by the relative value of these others.","There are many things that can make a company's share price go up or down. Generally, over the long term, the more consistently profitable a company is the more its share price will go up. However, there are times when a company may not be making any profits yet but its share price still goes up. This can be due to forecasts that the company will start making profits in the near future. Sometimes a company may report increased profits from the previous year but makes less than what the market was expecting it to make. This can cause its share price to fall, as the market is disappointed in the results. In the shorter term greed, fear and speculation can make a company's share price move irrationally. When you think the share price should be going up it suddenly falls, and Vis-versa. When interest rates are low, companies with higher dividend yields (compared to bank account interest rates) become high in demand and their shares generally go up in price. As the share price goes up the dividend yield will be reduced unless the company continues to increase the dividend it distributes to shareholders. When interest rates start to rise these companies become less favourable as they are seen as higher risk comparable to similar returns from having one's money in the safety of the bank. This can cause the share prices to fall. These are just some of the reasons that make a company's share price move up or down. As humans are an irrational bunch often ruled by emotions, sometimes the reasons share prices move in a particular direction can be quite confusing, but that is the nature of the financial markets.","The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.","\"I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\"","\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \"\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\"\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\"","I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.","\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"","A currency that is strong right now is one that is expensive for you to buy. The perfect one would be a currency that is weak now but will get stronger; the worst currency is one that is strong today and gets weak. If a currency stays unchanged it doesn't matter whether it is weak or strong today as long as it doesn't get weaker / stronger. (While this advice is correct, it is useless for investing since you don't know which currencies will get weaker / stronger in the future). Investing in your own currency means less risk. Your local prices are usually not affected by currency change. If you safe for retirement and want to retire in a foreign country, you might consider in that country's currency.",">IOW, everyone is perfectly free to instantaneously decide that a dollar is worth only 1/1,000,000,000th of an orange, and oranges would instantly cost a billion dollars. Oranges cost less than that not because the government sets the price of oranges, but purely because that's what the market agrees to. This shows a profound misunderstanding of how fiat currencies work. The demand for fiat currencies comes from the fact they are necessary to pay taxes and debts. Other currencies/commodities will not be recognized as settlement of debts in court disputes, so they would first need to be sold onto the market in exchange for the fiat currency. Individuals can't simply *decide* what the relative value of certain goods and services are. The market does that, collectively via voluntary trade. >I'm explaining internal combustion for a 5-year-old, and you're calling it inaccurate and misleading because it doesn't address the sociological implications of American car-culture. Hahah, you're confusing the oil for the gasoline!","Don't really know much about futures but I'll give you a couple of options: Assuming that you are just looking around right now about currency investing, are you sure (I mean, really sure) that you want to do it?","\"Relative changes in rates are significant. Why? Exchange rates encourage cross-border trade. For example, I live in an area that is now popular with Canadian tourists, mostly due to the favorable exchange rates. Changes in exchange rates between trading partners can affect trade balance as well. The US \"\"strong dollar\"\" policy made US exports expensive and imports cheaper, which encouraged more imports.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \\\"\\\"control\\\"\\\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\\\"\",\n \"The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals. The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at. And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading. eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.\",\n \"Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)\",\n \"\\\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \\\"\\\"Supply:\\\"\\\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \\\"\\\"have\\\"\\\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \\\"\\\"multiplier effect.\\\"\\\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \\\"\\\"supply\\\"\\\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \\\"\\\"basket of goods\\\"\\\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\\\"\",\n \"The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.\",\n \"Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out.\",\n \"\\\"According to Soros in \\\"\\\"The Alchemy of Finance\\\"\\\", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are \\\"\\\"wrong\\\"\\\" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are \\\"\\\"wrong\\\"\\\" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \\\"\\\"buy\\\"\\\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \\\"\\\"basket\\\"\\\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \\\"\\\"shopping list\\\"\\\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\\\"\",\n \"It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.\",\n \"Because we need energy in the form of oil. If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves. Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?\",\n \"The exchange rate between two currencies is simply the price that the most recent market participants were able to agree on, when trading. ie: if the USDCAD is 1.36, it's because the last trade that happened where someone bought 1 USD cost 1.36 CAD. There is no one person/organization which 'decides' the rate between two currencies. The rate moves you see is just the reality of money changing hands as people in various situations trade currencies for various reasons. Just like with stocks or any other market product, foreign exchange rates can fluctuate wildly based on many things. It is very difficult to forecast where rates will go, because the biggest changes in rates can often be unpredictable news events. For example, when Brexit happened, the value of the GBP plummeted relative to other currencies, because the market traders had less faith in the UK economy, and therefore weren't willing to pay as much to buy GBP. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232. There is a very high level of risk in the foreign exchange market; for your sake, don't get involved in any trading that you do not well understand, first.\",\n \"currency's central bank or treasury/finance department speeches that can announce a significant change in policy. That includes: Particularly when it is a high level figure within the department such as the President or Prime Minister making the announcement. Macroeconomic stats: GeoPolitical considerations, such as: Economic calendars, such as ForexFactory and MyFxBook track planned economic news releases. Obviously, a coup d'etat or war declaration may not be well known in advance.\",\n \"\\\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \\\"\\\"money\\\"\\\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\\\"\",\n \"Brilliant fact-based objective reality explanation of the world currency markets. I'm into bitcoin and physical gold investments (yeah, I know, it's like being gay and straight at the same time without being bi), may I ask you a few things later?\",\n \"The increase of currency value in relation to another is a critical determinant of the economic health. It plays an important part in the level of trade and affects the world’s free market economy. But, they also effect on smaller scale as they create an impact on the portfolio of investors. So, it is suggested that the investors should make their trades wisely keeping in mind the value of other currencies that might your trade. Also, you should check the news daily to get regular updates and be well-informed of any changes happening in the market\",\n \"\\\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \\\"\\\"believe it is money\\\"\\\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\\\"\",\n \"I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.\",\n \"\\\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \\\"\\\"weak\\\"\\\" and some \\\"\\\"strong\\\"\\\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Feel free to educate man. Everything I can find says the same thing. [Investopedia](http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-are-key-factors-cause-market-go-and-down.asp) >If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. Conversely, a larger number of sellers bids down the price of stocks hoping to entice buyers to purchase. Yes, if a company is performing well, you might find that more people want to buy then sale. That would cause it to go up. But if no one wants to buy, it doesn't matter how well the company is doing. I mean really, how would that work? Someone in the company notices they had more sales today then yesterday, email someone on wallstreet and they just mouse wheel the stock price up to something higher? Say the stock is $1.00 right now. But the lowest buy order is $.90. and the highest sale order is $1.10. (I guess there is some math there making is $1.) As soon as someone says, yeah. I'll sale at 90 cents, it'll go down. If someone says yeah, I'll buy at $1.10 it'll go up. I'm sure there is more to it than that. But everything I can find. It 100% has to have people more people wanting to buy then sale for it to go up. If more want to sale then buy, it'll go down. But hey, if this is way off base. Go ahead and fill me in. I'm open to CMV. This was all found after a short amount of time researching [\\\"\\\"What makes stock prices go up?\\\"\\\"](https://www.google.com/search?q=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&oq=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l4.43421.43421.0.43882.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.6Crfejzb3XY)\\\"\",\n \"From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.\",\n \"Look for unsustainable policies and actions by policy makers, both before and possibly during, when looking at the ForEx markets. Consider some examples: Each of those events could be seen in the growing unsustainability of local policies. ForEx markets and local policies can appear to stay on an unsustainable path for a long time, but equilibrium will force itself on everything in the long run. In two of the above cases, the initial response wasn't enough to offset the mess, and more and more intervention had to be done, only making matters worse. When you know how unsustainable policies are and how big the corrections need to be, you can quickly ascertain whether an action by policy makers will be enough.\",\n \"Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get.\",\n \"Many people trade the currency markets via brokers who have developed online apps with live forex prices and many currency pairs. You can trade on your phone, iPad or PC / Mac.\",\n \"Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.\",\n \"To make it simple, just use gold as the main benchmark. Gold price never moves, FIAT currencies move around the price of gold. So, when comparing US$ and Australian dollars to the gold, you know which currency is moving up and which down.\",\n \"\\\"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are \\\"\\\"lending\\\"\\\" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the \\\"\\\"saver\\\"\\\" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. \\\"\\\"Savers\\\"\\\" therefore \\\"\\\"shop around\\\"\\\" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard \\\"\\\"invisible hand\\\"\\\" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!\\\"\",\n \"Forex is really not that volatile compared to other major asset classes like stocks and commodities. But still markets are generally unencumbered in the major pairs and therefore spikes in volatility can happen. Take what happened with the Swiss Franc a few years ago for example, or GBPUSD recently with news of Brexit. This is less the case with highly regulated currencies like the Chinese Yuan (CNY) Volatility is caused by excessive buy or sell pressure in relation to the available liquidity at the current price. This is usually caused by large buy or sell orders placed with interbank desks by institutions (often including other banks) and central banks. News can also sometimes have a dramatic impact and cause traders to adjust their prices significantly and very quickly.\",\n \"\\\"Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the \\\"\\\"rules of the game\\\"\\\" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in \\\"\\\"betting on the outcome of an horse race\\\"\\\" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Without going into minor details, an FX transaction works essentially like this. Let's assume you have SEK 100 on your account. If you buy 100 USD/RUB at 1.00, then that transaction creates a positive cash balance on your account of USD 100 and a negative cash balance (an overdraft) of RUB 100. So right after the transaction (assuming there is not transaction cost), the \\\"\\\"net equity\\\"\\\" of your account is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 100 = 100 SEK. Let's say that, the day after, the RUB has gone down by 10% and the RUB 100 is now worth SEK 90 only. Your new equity is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 90 = 110 SEK and you've made 10%(*): congrats! Had you instead bought 100 SEK/RUB, the result would have been the same (assuming the USD/SEK rate constant). In practice the USD/SEK rate would probably not be constant and you would need to also account for: (*) in your example, the USD/RUB has gone up 10% but the RUB has gone down 9.09%, hence the result you find. In my example, the RUB has gone down 10% (i.e. the USD has gone up 11%).\\\"\",\n \"It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.\",\n \"\\\"As you say, the currency carry trade shouldn't work. The deluge of new cash into a high-interest currency should result in falling exchange rates. A November 2009 paper by Òscar Jordà and Alan Taylor of the University of California, Davis, may be offer one approach which is more stable. According to The Economist: They find that a refined carry-trade strategy—one that incorporates a measure of long-term value—produces more consistent profits and is less prone to huge losses than one that targets the highest yield. However, exchange rates, central bank interest rates, as well as money supply are all political as well as economic constructs. An economic driver for arbitrage may be offset by political will (such as US quantative easing) or even social malaise (Japanese continual low inward investment). I wouldn't go so far as calling the carry trade \\\"\\\"free money\\\"\\\" - currencies have proven far too unstable for that - but state interference in markets tends to be clearly telegraphed and a trader with nerves of steel may take advantage of it.\\\"\",\n \"Yes traders, living or algorithmic, are the only direct factors that can cause a change in the price of a marketable item. Traders can be affected by news, broken exchanges ;), emotional cycles, lunar cycles, time the trader goes to lunch (or a power cycle if you are an algo running on that unfortunate OS), anything.\",\n \"You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are: 1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?) This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math. Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table: As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for. There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.\",\n \"Sometimes the market has to be left alone. Too much interference of the policy makers to stabilize the falling market can actually result in a major crisis. Every change stabilises after sometime and it is also applicable in the Forex trading market. So, the eager investors should learn to have some patience and wait for the market to stabilise itself rather than make random predictions on the policies released by policy makers\",\n \"\\\"At any moment, the price is where the supply (seller) and demand (buyer) intersect. This occurs fast enough you don't see it as anything other than bid/ask. What moves it? News of a new drug, device, sandwich, etc. Earning release, whether above or below expectations, or even dead-on, will often impact the price. Every night, the talking heads try to explain the day's price moves. When they can't, they often report \\\"\\\"profit taking\\\"\\\" for a market drop, or other similar nonsense. Some moves are simple random change.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"All of the other answers here are accurate, but (I think) are missing the point as to the question, which rests on how Bonds work in the first place. The bond specifies a payback AMOUNT and DATE. Let's say it is $10,000 and one year from today. If you buy that today for $9900, your yield will be 1%. If you buy it today for $11,000, your yield will be less than 0% (please don't make me do the math - it's just under negative 1%). You might be willing to pay that 1% (rather than receive 1%) for the certainty that you will definitely get your money back. The combined actions of all the people who may be willing to pay a little more or a little less for the safety of a US Treasury Bond is what people call \\\"\\\"the Market.\\\"\\\" Market forces (generally, investor confidence) will drive the price up and down, which affects the yield. All the other stuff - coupons and inflation and whatnot - all of that only makes sense if you understand that you aren't buying a rate of return, you are buying a payback amount and date.\\\"\",\n \"If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].\",\n \"\\\"Switzerland is presumably where one moves the money in case of an apocalypse; although, they have lost some of that appeal now with the tax reporting to the EU and USA. Switzerland has a very old, stable banking industry, but this isn't the only appeal. Their reputation for safeguarding money, be it despot or Nazi, is most of the attraction. Low to no taxes is the second. Also, there isn't much financially illegal despite recent changes. Put that all together, and if a country is about to go to hell in handbasket because it borrowed too much or goes to war while Switzerland stays stable and very strict about paying depositors, those residents are going to try to move as much money to Switzerland as possible before its confiscated for one reason or another, sending the CHF up. Japan is a different duck. They have persistently ~0% inflation thus low nominal and real interest rates. With them, the so-called \\\"\\\"cash & carry trade\\\"\\\" or more ubiquitous \\\"\\\"carry trade\\\"\\\" dominates. Many investors choose to borrow in JPY to buy investments denominated in other currencies. If the countries of those other currencies are about to take their residents' money or go to war, putting money at jeopardy, the residents doing the carry trading will try to unwind their levered investments to reduce risk, sending the JPY up.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This is my two cents (pun intended). It was too long for a comment, so I tried to make it more of an answer. I am no expert with investments or Islam: Anything on a server exists 'physically'. It exists on a hard drive, tape drive, and/or a combination thereof. It is stored as data, which on a hard drive are small particles that are electrically charged, where each bit is represented by that electric charge. That data exists physically. It also depends on your definition of physically. This data is stored on a hard drive, which I deem physical, though is transferred via electric pulses often via fiber cable. Don't fall for marketing words like cloud. Data must be stored somewhere, and is often redundant and backed up. To me, money is just paper with an amount attached to it. It tells me nothing about its value in a market. A $1 bill was worth a lot more 3 decades ago (you could buy more goods because it had a higher value) than it is today. Money is simply an indication of the value of a good you traded at the time you traded. At a simplistic level, you could accomplish the same thing with a friend, saying \\\"\\\"If you buy lunch today, I'll buy lunch next time\\\"\\\". There was no exchange in money between me and you, but there was an exchange in the value of the lunch, if that makes sense. The same thing could have been accomplished by me and you exchanging half the lunch costs in physical money (or credit/debit card or check). Any type of investment can be considered gambling. Though you do get some sort of proof that the investment exists somewhere Investments may go up or down in value at any given time. Perhaps with enough research you can make educated investments, but that just makes it a smaller gamble. Nothing is guaranteed. Currency investment is akin to stock market investment, in that it may go up or down in value, in comparison to other currencies; though it doesn't make you an owner of the money's issuer, generally, it's similar. I find if you keep all your money in U.S. dollars without considering other nations, that's a sort of ignorant way of gambling, you're betting your money will lose value less slowly than if you had it elsewhere or in multiple places. Back on track to your question: [A]m I really buying that currency? You are trading a currency. You are giving one currency and exchanging it for another. I guess you could consider that buying, since you can consider trading currency for a piece of software as buying something. Or is the situation more like playing with the live rates? It depends on your perception of playing with the live rates. Investments to me are long-term commitments with reputable research attached to it that I intend to keep, through highs and lows, unless something triggers me to change my investment elsewhere. If by playing you mean risk, as described above, you will have a level of risk. If by playing you mean not taking it seriously, then do thorough research before investing and don't be trading every few seconds for minor returns, trying to make major returns out of minor returns (my opinion), or doing anything based on a whim. Was that money created out of thin air? I suggest you do more research before starting to trade currency into how markets and trading works. Simplistically, think of a market as a closed system with other markets, such as UK market, French market, etc. Each can interact with each other. The U.S. [or any market] has a set number of dollars in the pool. $100 for example's sake. Each $1 has a certain value associated with it. If for some reason, the country decides to create more paper that is green, says $1, and stamps presidents on them (money), and adds 15 $1 to the pool (making it $115), each one of these dollars' value goes down. This can also happen with goods. This, along with the trading of goods between markets, peoples' attachment of value to goods of the market, and peoples' perception of the market, is what fluctates currency trading, in simple terms. So essentially, no, money is not made out of thin air. Money is a medium for value though values are always changing and money is a static amount. You are attempting to trade values and own the medium that has the most value, if that makes sense. Values of goods are constantly changing. This is a learning process for me as well so I hope this helps answers your questions you seem to have. As stated above, I'm no expert; I'm actually quite new to this, so I probably missed a few things here and there.\\\"\",\n \"No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low.\",\n \"International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)\",\n \"\\\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \\\"\\\"shares\\\"\\\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \\\"\\\"printing money\\\"\\\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\\\"\",\n \"If the fact that currency is based on fiat, something that has been the case with currency somewhere on Earth since the Tang Dynasty of China discovered paper money a long, long time ago, leaves you up in arms, then I shudder to think what an explanation of how the price of money can be derived from plotting IS and LM together and extending it's meeting point into the money market to determine the price of currency would do to your notion of control by powerful offices in government. My good sir, have you ever considered that YOU might be the smug moron? That YOU might be the one who just found out what everyone in the room already learned years ago and lack the foundation the rest of us have to understand that information in context? That it might be YOU who are uninformed? I'll quote you right here: >people who have no clue what the fuck they are talking about go off and lecture other people, bringing up facts that have no thought behind them, and are merely definitions posing as an argument. Making a statement, then getting corrected, then coming back and simply lengthening the original answer is not an argument. >I'll say it again: our currency is fiat. It is backed by nothing You don't seem to understand just what it is backed by. It is backed by trust, steady demand, and the assurance of powerful national and international bodies. As is the price of everything, including gold and literally every other commodity on the planet. Your utter shock and outrage upon discovering this minute fact does not indicate a revolutionary zeitgeist or that you are some kind of free spirit, it indicates that you are uneducated on the context of basic and well understood facts that the rest of the educated world is already caught up on.\",\n \"The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60\",\n \"Having trouble understanding currency arbitrage for one example. Conditions: US 3% interest per 6 months Germany 3.6% interest per 6 months Spot rate is $1.09/euro 6-month Forward is $1.04/euro How do I make this into an arbitrage opportunity? There is supposed to be a profit but I keep getting negatives. Any help would be greatly appreciated.\",\n \"Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;\",\n \"\\\"The prices quoted are for currency pairs traded on the foreign exchange market. For currencies traded on these exchanges, the exchange rates of a given currency pair are determined by the market, so supply and demand, investor confidence, etc. all play a role. EBS and Reuters are the two primary trading platforms in the foreign exchange market, and much of the data on exchange rates comes from them. Websites will usually get their data either from these sources directly or from a data provider that in turn gets it from EBS, Reuters, or another data source like Bloomberg or Haver Analytics. These data sources aren't free, however. In the US, many contracts, transactions, etc. that involve exchange rates use the exchange rate data published by the Federal Reserve. You might see this in contracts that specify to use \\\"\\\"the exchange rate published by the Federal Reserve at 12 pm (noon) on date --some date--\\\"\\\". You can also look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data, which maintains data series of historical daily, weekly, and monthly exchange rates for major currency pairs. These data are free, although they aren't realtime. Data for each business day is mostly updated the next business day.\\\"\",\n \"Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult. Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank.\",\n \"\\\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \\\"\\\"black\\\"\\\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\\\"\",\n \"I usually look at the high and low exchange rates for the last five years. If the current rate is fairly close to the high for a trade over the past five years, then I do the trade. If the current exchange rate is close to the low, then I wait.\",\n \"well you had it a bit backwards. the more liquid a market is, the less important the idea of insider information becomes. this is the opposite in less liquid markets - such as low volatile stocks about to announce earnings. knowing the earnings would net you a much larger percentage than, say, knowing if the ECB will cut rates of not. the change will be a much larger % and as with currencies, it is more important to know what the major players are planning - as in, central banks and reserves, carry trades, etc.\",\n \"\\\"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 \\\"\\\"dollars\\\"\\\", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency.\\\"\",\n \"Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss.\",\n \"One interpretation of the above is that Pound (alongside US Dollar, Euro and other major curriencies), which forms the Forex basket of countries has dropped to less than 10% weightage in case of China's Forex holding. Now the question is where did this money go, this money probably have gone into Forex market to buy Yuan against Pound/Dollar etc. to bolster or strengthen Yuan. The currency reserve management is the 'wealth' management part and the 'currency' management part is what is known as 'central bank intervention' to stabilize the currency.\",\n \"\\\"You may as well ask why a piece of wood is 25 centimeters long but only 10 inches. Most units of measure are very arbitrary. Somebody decides that this amount of heat or distance or money is a convenient unit, and so that's what they use. Suppose that tomorrow the government issued a whole new currency that had 10 times the value of the old currency. So if you used to make 10,000 foobars a year, now you make 1,000 new foobars. And likewise the price of everything you buy is divided by 10. If a certain model car used to cost 2,000 foobars, now it costs 200 new foobars. Are you better or worse off? Clearly if ALL prices change by the same percentage, then it makes absolutely no difference. (Aside from the hassle of making the switch and getting used to the new numbers.) A currency where 1 unit of money buys more is not necessarily a \\\"\\\"stronger currency\\\"\\\". Any more than inches are \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" than centimeters because you get more wood for an inch than you get for a centimeter. A currency is said to be \\\"\\\"strong\\\"\\\" when it's value is stable or increasing relative to other currencies. If yesterday I could trade 10 foobars for 1 plugh, but today I only need 9 foobars to buy 1 plugh, then foobars are stronger than plughs. Even though I still need more foobars than plughs to buy the same item.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \\\"\\\"interest rate\\\"\\\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \\\"\\\"interest rates\\\"\\\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The market price of a stock is based on nothing at all more than what two parties were last willing to transact for it. The stock has a \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" and an \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" each is the value placed by a counterparty. For the sale to occur, one party must meet the other. The stock transacts and that is the price. For a stock to \\\"\\\"go up\\\"\\\" people must be willing to pay more for it. Likewise, for it to \\\"\\\"go down\\\"\\\" people must be willing to accept less for it.\\\"\",\n \"Currencies are a zero-sum game. If you make money, someone else will lose it. Because bank notes sitting in a pile don't create anything useful. But shares in companies are different, because companies actually do useful things and make money, so it's possible for all investors to make money. The best way to benefit is generally to put your money into a low-cost index fund and then forget about it for at least five years.\",\n \"The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)\",\n \"If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.\",\n \"\\\"This is actually a fairly hard question to answer well as much of the currency trading that is done in financial markets is actually done directly with banks and other financial institutions instead of on a centralized market and the banks are understandably not always excited to part with information on how exactly they do their business. Other methods of currency exchange have much, much less volume though so it is important to understand the trading through markets as best as possible. Some banks do give information on how much is traded so surveys can give a reasonable indication of relative volume by currency. Note the U.S. Dollar is by far the largest volume of currency traded partially because people often covert one currency to another in the markets by trading \\\"\\\"through\\\"\\\" the Dollar. Wikipedia has a good explanation and a nicely formatted table of information as well.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the \\\"\\\"real economy\\\"\\\" is to \\\"\\\"lock in\\\"\\\" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to \\\"\\\"lock in\\\"\\\" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to \\\"\\\"sit on\\\"\\\" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \\\"\\\"fair\\\"\\\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\\\"\",\n \"If I understand what you're asking, I think you're looking at the relationship wrong. Yes, when one currency has a higher interest rate relative to another, it's value should, theoretically, appreciate. For example, if the USD interest rate is 10% and the EUR is 5%, the USD should appreciate in value against the EUR. However, the parity relationship tells you the price at which an investor would be indifferent to the difference in interest rates. So using the formula for interest rate parity: (1+r(USD))/(1+r(EUR)) = F/S and plugging in the interest rates from above and a spot rate of $1.5/EUR: (1.1)/(1.05) = F/(1.5) The 1 year forward rate would have to be $1.5714/EUR in order for the investor to be INDIFFERENT between holding USD or EUR. All this assuming interest rate parity holds. I'm not big on Econ but this is how I understood it when studying for the CFA exam the past few months. So please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.\",\n \"Ultimately no one really knows what causes the markets to rise and fall beyond supply and demand. If more people want to buy then sell, prices go up. And if more people want to sell, prices go down. The news channels will often try to attribute a specific reason to the price move, but that is largely just guess work to fill up the news pages so people have something to read. You may find it interesting to read up on the Elliot wave principle. The crash of 2008 was a perfect Elliot Wave fit. Elliot Wave theory states that social moods (which ultimately drive the stock market) generally occur in a relatively predictable pattern. The crash in September was a Wave 3 down. This is where the majority of people give up hope. However there are still a few people who are still holding on. The markets tend to meander about during wave 4. Finally the last few people give up hope and sell out. This causes the final crash of wave 5. Only when the last person has given up hope can the markets start to go up again..\",\n \"\\\"As the European crisis worsened the Swiss Franc (CHF) was seen as a safe currency so Europeans attempted to exchange their Euros for Francs. This caused the Franc to appreciate in value, against the Euro, through the summer and fall of 2011. The Swiss government and Swiss Central Bank (SNB) believe mercantilism will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland. The Swiss central planners believe that having an abundance of export businesses in Switzerland will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland as the exporters sell their good and services abroad and pocket a bunch of cash. Thus, the central planners tend to favor exporters. From the article: At the start of the year, when exporters urged for government and SNB action, ... The Swiss Central bank continued to intervene in currency markets in 2011 to prevent the CHF from appreciating. This was done to prevent a decrease in export business. Finally after many failed attempts they announced the 1.20 peg in September. The central planners give little consideration to imports, however, since manufacturers in foreign countries don't vote or contribute to the campaign funds of the central planners in Switzerland. As the CHF strengthened many imported items became very cheap for Swiss citizens. This was of little concern to the central planners. Currencies are like other goods in a market in that they respond to supply and demand. Their value can change daily or even hourly based on the continually varying demands of people. This can cause the exchange rate to rise and fall against other currencies and goods. Central planners mistakenly believe that the price of certain market items (like currency) should not fluctuate. The believe there is some magical number that will cause the market to operate \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"more correctly\\\"\\\". How does the SNB maintain the peg? They maintain the peg by printing Francs and purchasing euros.\\\"\",\n \"I think you are asking a few questions here. Why is gold chosen as money? In a free market there are five characteristics of a good money: Gold and silver meet all five characteristics. Diamonds are not easily divisible which is why they are not normally used as money. Copper, Iron, and lead are not scarce enough - you would need a lot of these metals to make weekly or daily purchases. Paper is also way too plentiful to be used as money. By the way, historically silver has been used for money more than gold. How does international trade work with gold as money (is this what you are asking with your hypothetical example of 10 countries each with y amount of gold?) Typically a government will issue a currency that is backed by gold. This means you can redeem your currency for actual gold. Then when an American spends 5 US dollars (USD) to purchase a Chinese good the Chinese man now owns 5 USDs. The Chinese man can either redeem the 5 USD for gold or spend the 5 USD in the US. If a government issues more currency then they have gold for then the gold will start to flow from that country to other countries as the citizens of the other countries redeem the over-issued currency for gold. This outflow of gold restricts governments from over-issuing paper currency. Who creates the procedures and who supervises them in modern worldwide economy? The Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements all are involved in the current system where the US dollar (see Bretton Woods agreement) is the reserve currency used by central banks throughout the world. Some think this system is coming to an end. I tend to agree.\",\n \"You may simply be asking why stocks 'gap up' or 'gap down' when the stock market opens. This is because the price adjusts to news that occurred while the exchanges were closed overnight. Perhaps Asian stocks crashed, or perhaps a news story was released in the New York Times about some major company. There are thousands of factors that affect market sentiment, and the big gaps that happen at the open of every trading day is the price of the stocks catching up to those factors.\",\n \"\\\"Um no. Easy google. \\\"\\\"What makes stock prices go up?\\\"\\\" >This is how it works with stocks; supply is the amount of shares that people want to sell, and demand is the amount of shares that people want to purchase. If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. So sure, if a company is performing well, people will want to buy the stock. Causing it to go up. But even if a company was performing well and no one wanted to buy the stock. There would be only sellers and the price would go down.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I suspect that to \\\"\\\"make money\\\"\\\" it isn't enough to know the current value (\\\"\\\"high currency\\\"\\\"): to make money you'd need to know/guess/predict/bet on the future change in value: will the currency value go higher in the future? Or will it come down again? Or will it stay the same? Everybody knows the current value, so that by itself isn't enough knowledge to make money from. That said, if you know you're going to need American dollars in the future (if you have future expenses which need to be paid in American dollars), then now might be a good time to buy those dollars.\\\"\",\n \"Trading Speeches can be difficult, 1 comment can be bullish then next phrase bearish. However language algorithms can process the tone of the entire message before you can read the first word or have even finished downloading the text of the statement. The biggest news is the 1st Friday of the month, the non-farm payrolls out of the USA. You used to be able to get the news before the price moved, but high-frequency algos changed all that, essentially the exchanges get quote stuffed, so good luck unless you are using a bucketshop. Better to wait for a pull back from the initial reaction if the numbers are good, otherwise you will get a fill at the peak. If the numbers are a big deviation from expectations then you can just jump in. Back in 2006 the Bank of England raised interest rates when it wasn't expected and the GBPUSD flew 500 pips. This Forex calendar has charts of every news release, so you can see what to expected based on what has happened in the past with a certain bit of economic news. http://www.fasteconomicnews.com/fx_calendar.aspx\",\n \"Since 2007 the world has seen a period of striking economic and financial volatility featuring the deepest recession since the 1930s despite this gold has performed strongly with its price roughly doubling since the global financial crisis began in mid-2007. 1. Gold and real interest rates: One of the factor that influences gold prices is real interest rate which is to some extent related to inflation. Since gold lacks a yield of its own, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases with a real interest rate increase and decreases with a fall in real interest rates. 2. Gold and the US dollar: The external value of the US dollar has been a significant influence on short-term gold price movements. The IMF estimated6 in 2008 that 40-50% of the moves in the gold price since 2002 were dollar-related, with a 1% change in the effective external value of the dollar leading to a more than 1% change in the gold price (Source). 3. Gold and financial stress: It is a significant and commonly observed influence on the short-term price of gold. In periods of financial stress gold demand may rise for a number of reasons: 4. Gold and political instability: It is another factor that can boost gold prices. Investor concerns about wars, civil conflicts and international tensions can boost demand for gold for similar reasons to those noted above for periods of financial stress. Gold‟s potential function as a „currency of last resort‟ in case of serious system collapse provides a particular incentive to hold it in case the political situation is especially severe. (Source) 5. Gold and official sector activity: The behaviour of central banks and other parts of the official sector can have an important impact on gold prices. One reason for this is that central banks are big holders of gold, possessing some 30,500 metric tons in 2010, which is approximately 15% of all above-ground gold stocks. As a result, central bank policies on gold sales and purchases can have significant effects, and these policies have been subject to considerable shifts over the decades. (Source) (Source of above graphs)\",\n \"\\\"In addition to the information in the other answer, I would suggest looking at an economic calendar. These provide the dates and values of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, consumer confidence, etc. Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal all provide such calendars. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. You could also look at a global economic calendar; both xe.com and livecharts.co.uk provide these. If you're only interested in the US, the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and WSJ calendars may provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but foreign announcements also affect US markets, so it's important to get as much perspective as possible. I like the global economic calendars I linked to above because they rate announcements on \\\"\\\"priority\\\"\\\", which is a quick way to learn which announcements have the greatest effect. Economic calendars are especially important in the context of an interview because you may be asked a follow-up question. For example, the US markets jumped in early trading today (5/28/2013) because the consumer confidence numbers exceeded forecasts (from the WSJ calendar, 76.2 vs 2.3). As SRKX stated, it's important to know more than the numbers; being able to analyze the numbers in the context of the wider market and being aware of the fundamentals driving them is what's most important. An economic calendar is a good way to see this information quickly and succinctly. (I'm paraphrasing part of my answer to another question, so you may or may not find some of that information helpful as well; I'm certainly not suggesting you look at the website of every central bank in the morning. That's what an economic calendar is for!)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Other things equal is sometimes referred to as \\\"\\\"ceteris paribus\\\"\\\" - the scenario where you compare two currencies (or things) under the assumption that all other factors that could effect those currencies (earthquakes, revolutions, currency crises ect) are not ocurring. Its like using a control group in a lab. \\\"\\\"Real interest rates\\\"\\\" means the rate of that countries interest rate, accounting for inflation. \\\"\\\"Proportional to the strength of its home currency\\\"\\\" is referring to how countries with higher rates of interest tend to have stronger currencies (relative to other currencies) because foreign investment/capital will flood into the country seeking those higher rates of return - excess demand for the currency will cause it to appreciate. So this is also true in reverse, as capital will tend to leave a country will ultra-low interest rates.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"the Yen is *the source* of **\\\"\\\"carry trades\\\"\\\"**. It means whichever savvy people with means who want to borrow money to invest on a leveraged basis anywhere in the world, come running to borrow in yen. Why? Because (1) Japan is an advanced economy whose currency is freely convertible to many many currencies/countries who are happy to convert yen back and forth. (2) Japanese interest rates are low, lower than in the west b/c of their earlier deflationary crises due to too much debt and due to west requiring Yen to be too strong after the Plaza accords; so it's cheap to borrow there. So a lot of investment around the world has, in origin, come from borrowing in japan. As long as that investment is \\\"\\\"on\\\"\\\", the loan to japan remains outstanding. But the investor earns the \\\"\\\"carry\\\"\\\": the rate of difference between the cost of borrowing in Yen, and earning the return from whatever investment it is. When scary things happen (like war, disaster, coups etc) the big money bags/investors pull their money out of their investments and put it in their banks. This means they sell their investments, wherever they are, convert some of that money back into yent ( BUY YEN ) to return their yen loans. yen goes up.\\\"\",\n \"Imagine that the existing interest rate is 5%. So on a bond with face value of 100, you would be getting a $5 coupon implying a 5% yield. Now, if let's say the interest rates go up to 10%, then a new bond issued with a face value of 100 will give you a coupon of $10 implying a 10% yield. If someone in the bond market buys your bond after interest price adjustment, in order to make the 10% yield (which means that an investor typically targets at least the risk-free rate on his investments) he needs to buy your bond at $50 so that a $5 coupon can give a 10% yield. The reverse happens when interest rates go down. I hope this somewhat clears the picture. Yield = Coupon/Investment Amount Update: Since the interest rate of the bond does not change after its issuance, the arbitrage in the interest rate is reflected in the market price of the bond. This helps in bringing back the yields of old bonds in-line with the freshly issued bonds.\",\n \"That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up.\",\n \"\\\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \\\"\\\"coupons\\\"\\\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \\\"\\\"liquidity\\\"\\\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \\\"\\\"spendable\\\"\\\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \\\"\\\"liquidity crisis\\\"\\\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \\\"\\\"equities\\\"\\\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\\\"\",\n \"What you were told isn't an absolute truth, so trying to counter something fundamentally flawed won't get you anywhere. For example: chinese midcap equities are up 20% this year, even from their high of 100%. While the BSE Sensex in India is down several percentage points on the year. Your portfolio would have lost money this year taking advice from your peers. The fluctuation in the rupees and remnibi would not have changed this fact. What you are asking is a pretty common area of research, as in several people will write their dissertation on the exact same topic every year, and you should be able to find various analysis and theories on the subject. But the macroeconomic landscape changes, a lot.\",\n \"\\\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\\\"\\\"at market\\\"\\\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\\\"\\\"limit up\\\"\\\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \\\"\\\"market impact\\\"\\\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem. \\\"\\\"In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.\\\"\\\" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars. Thus, the amount of money is not relevant- it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price. Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because \\\"\\\"that's how it's always been.\\\"\\\" Nobody \\\"\\\"creates/supervises\\\"\\\" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \\\"\\\"root value\\\"\\\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Does some official tell the Foreign Exchange the the new exchange rate for the yuan is 0.98 * the current exchange rate? For China (and other countries with fixed/controlled exchange rates) - that's exactly how it happens. Does it just print more? This is the way to go for fully convertible currencies (like the USD, EUR, GBP, and handful of others, there're about 20 in the world). Flood the market and as with any commodity - flooding the market leads to a price drop. Obviously \\\"\\\"just print more\\\"\\\" is much harder to do than picking up the phone and saying \\\"\\\"Now you're buying/selling dollars at this price and if you don't I'll have you executed\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, \\\"\\\"agents\\\"\\\") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \\\"\\\"goal\\\"\\\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \\\"\\\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\\\"\\\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\\\"\",\n \"There are no flat fees but typically banks and money exchangers will use a the current market rate, up to the minute for some powerful exchangers. They then add a little on top depending on many variables. Those variables can be related to the quantity of currency that organization holds, the average amount they hold, the market trend for that currency, the stability of the currency, the location of that currency exchange, etc. As for the one stop shop for currency exchange providers, you can try moneysupermarket.com Hope that helps.\",\n \"Have an upvote. I don't really understand the issue of money competition. There really isn't anything stopping me from putting my wealth in any other currency, or any other store of value for that matter (gold, stocks, bonds, lollipops, prison cigarettes). The value of a domestic currency is affected by the relative value of these others.\",\n \"There are many things that can make a company's share price go up or down. Generally, over the long term, the more consistently profitable a company is the more its share price will go up. However, there are times when a company may not be making any profits yet but its share price still goes up. This can be due to forecasts that the company will start making profits in the near future. Sometimes a company may report increased profits from the previous year but makes less than what the market was expecting it to make. This can cause its share price to fall, as the market is disappointed in the results. In the shorter term greed, fear and speculation can make a company's share price move irrationally. When you think the share price should be going up it suddenly falls, and Vis-versa. When interest rates are low, companies with higher dividend yields (compared to bank account interest rates) become high in demand and their shares generally go up in price. As the share price goes up the dividend yield will be reduced unless the company continues to increase the dividend it distributes to shareholders. When interest rates start to rise these companies become less favourable as they are seen as higher risk comparable to similar returns from having one's money in the safety of the bank. This can cause the share prices to fall. These are just some of the reasons that make a company's share price move up or down. As humans are an irrational bunch often ruled by emotions, sometimes the reasons share prices move in a particular direction can be quite confusing, but that is the nature of the financial markets.\",\n \"The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.\",\n \"\\\"I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \\\"\\\"coupons\\\"\\\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \\\"\\\"liquidity\\\"\\\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \\\"\\\"spendable\\\"\\\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \\\"\\\"liquidity crisis\\\"\\\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \\\"\\\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\\\"\\\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\\\"\",\n \"I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.\",\n \"\\\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \\\"\\\"market makers\\\"\\\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \\\"\\\"best bid/ask\\\"\\\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"A currency that is strong right now is one that is expensive for you to buy. The perfect one would be a currency that is weak now but will get stronger; the worst currency is one that is strong today and gets weak. If a currency stays unchanged it doesn't matter whether it is weak or strong today as long as it doesn't get weaker / stronger. (While this advice is correct, it is useless for investing since you don't know which currencies will get weaker / stronger in the future). Investing in your own currency means less risk. Your local prices are usually not affected by currency change. If you safe for retirement and want to retire in a foreign country, you might consider in that country's currency.\",\n \">IOW, everyone is perfectly free to instantaneously decide that a dollar is worth only 1/1,000,000,000th of an orange, and oranges would instantly cost a billion dollars. Oranges cost less than that not because the government sets the price of oranges, but purely because that's what the market agrees to. This shows a profound misunderstanding of how fiat currencies work. The demand for fiat currencies comes from the fact they are necessary to pay taxes and debts. Other currencies/commodities will not be recognized as settlement of debts in court disputes, so they would first need to be sold onto the market in exchange for the fiat currency. Individuals can't simply *decide* what the relative value of certain goods and services are. The market does that, collectively via voluntary trade. >I'm explaining internal combustion for a 5-year-old, and you're calling it inaccurate and misleading because it doesn't address the sociological implications of American car-culture. Hahah, you're confusing the oil for the gasoline!\",\n \"Don't really know much about futures but I'll give you a couple of options: Assuming that you are just looking around right now about currency investing, are you sure (I mean, really sure) that you want to do it?\",\n \"\\\"Relative changes in rates are significant. Why? Exchange rates encourage cross-border trade. For example, I live in an area that is now popular with Canadian tourists, mostly due to the favorable exchange rates. Changes in exchange rates between trading partners can affect trade balance as well. The US \\\"\\\"strong dollar\\\"\\\" policy made US exports expensive and imports cheaper, which encouraged more imports.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \"\"control\"\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\"","\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \"\"money\"\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\"","The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals. The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at. And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading. eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.","\"According to Soros in \"\"The Alchemy of Finance\"\", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding).\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \\\"\\\"control\\\"\\\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \\\"\\\"money\\\"\\\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\\\"\",\n \"The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals. The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at. And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading. eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.\",\n \"\\\"According to Soros in \\\"\\\"The Alchemy of Finance\\\"\\\", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are \\\"\\\"wrong\\\"\\\" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are \\\"\\\"wrong\\\"\\\" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding).\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":278,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10482"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Rollover into bond fund to do dollar cost averaging [duplicate]"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["549072"],"string":"[\n \"549072\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["434466","330023","18436","397976","535732","175576","120266","291015","447567","374284","598478","153178","145458","537603","406192","505597","225536","135031","250530","109455","268772","530425","41905","354291","67220","439757","525089","464264","229364","333961","24846","293320","31581","237052","278607","224782","476517","51331","34925","240975","569948","466403","31139","134005","127401","384893","500815","553318","586851","186538","342485","265817","341102","349621","361010","34688","546133","505993","335294","436622","404261","280992","201495","481312","155242","193396","57457","83860","565517","346474","329497","5710","551122","71510","41130","179282","193648","83230","263784","296426","394814","187039","506298","327556","222485","24404","269550","400356","349668","473042","104254","215296","458843","549270","347823","381104","506302","100341","465439","304804"],"string":"[\n \"434466\",\n \"330023\",\n \"18436\",\n \"397976\",\n \"535732\",\n \"175576\",\n \"120266\",\n \"291015\",\n \"447567\",\n \"374284\",\n \"598478\",\n \"153178\",\n \"145458\",\n \"537603\",\n \"406192\",\n \"505597\",\n \"225536\",\n \"135031\",\n \"250530\",\n \"109455\",\n \"268772\",\n \"530425\",\n \"41905\",\n \"354291\",\n \"67220\",\n \"439757\",\n \"525089\",\n \"464264\",\n \"229364\",\n \"333961\",\n \"24846\",\n \"293320\",\n \"31581\",\n \"237052\",\n \"278607\",\n \"224782\",\n \"476517\",\n \"51331\",\n \"34925\",\n \"240975\",\n \"569948\",\n \"466403\",\n \"31139\",\n \"134005\",\n \"127401\",\n \"384893\",\n \"500815\",\n \"553318\",\n \"586851\",\n \"186538\",\n \"342485\",\n \"265817\",\n \"341102\",\n \"349621\",\n \"361010\",\n \"34688\",\n \"546133\",\n \"505993\",\n \"335294\",\n \"436622\",\n \"404261\",\n \"280992\",\n \"201495\",\n \"481312\",\n \"155242\",\n \"193396\",\n \"57457\",\n \"83860\",\n \"565517\",\n \"346474\",\n \"329497\",\n \"5710\",\n \"551122\",\n \"71510\",\n \"41130\",\n \"179282\",\n \"193648\",\n \"83230\",\n \"263784\",\n \"296426\",\n \"394814\",\n \"187039\",\n \"506298\",\n \"327556\",\n \"222485\",\n \"24404\",\n \"269550\",\n \"400356\",\n \"349668\",\n \"473042\",\n \"104254\",\n \"215296\",\n \"458843\",\n \"549270\",\n \"347823\",\n \"381104\",\n \"506302\",\n \"100341\",\n \"465439\",\n \"304804\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"I assume by that you mean gradually buying the same mix of funds over time. If that's the case, there is no rational reason to do this. Dollar-cost averaging is an artifact of the way most people fund their 401(k). I would not consider it a viable \"\"strategy\"\". (Neither does Wikipedia) Let's say you have $100,000 that you add $10,000 at a time. When you add money, one of three things can happen: Since you can't predict the future, there's no mathematical justification for buying in segments. There's just as much chance that your funds will be worth more or less, so on average it should make little to no difference. In fact, given the time value of money there is a slight advantage to investing it all now so you can capture any future returns. You can always rebalance later to capture gains on some funds and purchase funds that are down to (hopefully) catch them on a rebound.\"","\"Dollar cost averaging is a fancy name someone came up with to say \"\"Invest all of the time\"\". I would not bother with spreading out purchases. If the market is too expensive right now ...so what? The items you sell will bring top dollar. The fund you buy will cost top dollar. It all evens out. You could sell your assets and just sit on cash, but that would require knowing when the next market drop is coming..which no one knows. Also, it never really is cash; it goes into a money market fund which is not guaranteed. I would rather own companies(VSTAX) and collect the dividend.\"","Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.","You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.","There have been studies which show that Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) underperforms Lump Sum Investing (LSI). Vanguard, in particular, has published one such study. Of course, reading about advice in a study is one thing; acting on that advice can be something else entirely. We rolled over my wife's 401(k) to an IRA back in early 2007 and just did it as a lump sum. You know what happened after that. But our horizon was 25+ years at that time, so we didn't lose too much sleep over it (we haven't sold or gone to cash, either).","If you have a lump sum, you could put it into a low risk investment (which should also have low fluctuations) right away to avoid the risk of buying at a down point. Then move it into a higher risk investment over a period of time. That way you'll buy more units when the price is lower than when it's higher. Usually I hear dollar cost averaging applied to the practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of an investment every week or month right out of your salary. The effect is pretty minimal though, except on the highest growth portfolios, and is generally just used as a sales tool by investment councilors (in my opinion).","You shouldn't. The Dow has gained 7% annually on average since October 1915(inflation-adjusted). It has also lost 73% of its inflation-adjusted value from 1966 to 1982 meaning that it would have lost you 4.5% annually for 16 years. Furthermore, past performance is not indicative of future results. If stock markets keep performing like they have for the past 100 years, you can expect there will be a point within the next 60-or-so years your stocks will be higher in value than they were when you bought them. With funds you are paying the people managing them which means you are guaranteed to have pyramiding losses that your gains will have to offset. In your case, you are betting with no fundamental knowledge that S&P will be higher than now whenever you need the money which is not even supported by the above assumption. Dollar averaging just means you will be placing many bets which will reduce your expected losses(and your expected gains) when compared to just buying $100K worth of S&P right now. Whatever you invest in, and whatever your time-frame, don't gamble. If you can't say this company(ies) will be $X more valuable than now in X months with probability > Y, then you shouldn't be investing in it. Nobody ever made money by losing money. There are also safer investments than the stock market, like treasury bonds, even if the returns are lousy.","Dollar Cost Averaging isn't usually the best idea for lump sum investment unless your risk tolerance is very low or your time horizons are low (in which case is the stock market the right place for your money). Usually you will do better by investing immediately. There are lots of articles around on the web about why DCA doesn't work over the long term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging http://www.efmoody.com/planning/dollarcost.html","That doesn't sound like dollar cost averaging. That sounds like a form of day trading. Dollar cost averaging is how most people add money to their 401K, or how they add money to some IRA accounts. You are proposing a form of day trading.","Dollar cost averaging doesn't (or shouldn't) apply here. DCA is the natural way we invest in the market, buying in by a steady dollar amount each pay period, so over time we can buy more shares when the market is down, and fewer when it's higher. It's more psychological than financial. The fact is that given the market rises, on average, over time, if one has a lump sum to invest, it should be deployed based on other factors, not just DCA'd in. As I said, DCA is just how we all naturally invest from our income. The above has nothing to do with your situation. You are invested and wish to swap funds. If the funds are with the same broker, you should be able to execute this at the closing price. The sell and buy happen after hours and you wake up the next day with the newly invested portfolio. If funds are getting transferred from broker to broker, you do have a risk. The risk that they take time, say even 2 days when funds are not invested. A shame to lose a 2% market move as the cost of moving brokers. In this case, I'd do mine and my wife's at different times. To reduce that risk.","\"I up voted JoeTaxpayer but i would like add a couple of things. Dollar Cost averaging over a 5 day period is in no way practical. If you get a 1% swing in that time that would be quite a lot. Personally I think 5 years is way to long. When markets go down they go down fast. I would suggest 1 to 2 years investing quarterly. I would hate seeing you miss out on market gains for a 5 year period on the last of your money. The whole point of Dollar Cost averaging instead of market timing is the mantra \"\"Its about time in the market not timing the market\"\" So if you have money on the sidelines for years you are missing out on your time in the market.\"","Its best to dollar cost average adding say 5%-10% a quarter into the fund. That's what Clark Howard would suggest. Also make sure you do not need the money for 5 years, then you should be okay. Its tough to lose money if you keep your money there for a long period of time.","If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.","If I invest X each month, where does X go - an existing (low yield) bond, or a new bond (at the current interest rate)? This has to be viewed in a larger context. If the fund has outflows greater than or equal to inflows then chances are there isn't any buying being done with your money as that cash is going to those selling their shares in the fund. If though inflows are greater than outflows, there may be some new purchases or not. Don't forget that the new purchase could be an existing bond as the fund has to maintain the duration of being a short-term, intermediate-term or long-term bond fund though there are some exceptions like convertibles or high yield where duration isn't likely a factor. Does that just depend on what the fund manager is doing at the time (buying/selling)? No, it depends on the shares being created or redeemed as well as the manager's discretion. If I put Y into a fund, and leave it there for 50 years, where does Y go when all of the bonds at the time I made the purchase mature? You're missing that the fund may buy and sell bonds at various times as for example a long-term bond fund may not have issues nearing maturity because of what part of the yield curve it is to mimic. Does Y just get reinvested in new bonds at the interest rate at that time? Y gets mixed with the other money in the fund that may increase or decrease in value over time. This is part of the risk in a bond fund where NAV can fluctuate versus a money market mutual fund where the NAV is somewhat fixed at $1/share.","As mentioned by others, dollar cost averaging is just a fancy term for how many shares your individual purchases get when you are initially adding money to your investment accounts. Once the money is invested, annual or quarterly rebalancing serves the purpose of taking advantage of higher rates of growth in particular market sectors. You define the asset allocation based on your risk profile, time to retirement, etc., then you periodically sell the shares of the investments that have grown faster than the rest and buy more shares of the investments that are relatively cheaper.","\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"","You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.","Dollar cost averaging can be done in a retirement plan, and can be done for individual stock purchases, as this will increase your returns by reducing your risk, especially if you are buying a particular stock for the first time. How many time have I purchased a stock, bottom fishing, thinking I was buying at the low, only to find out there was a new low. Sitting with a thousand shares that are now down $3-$4K. I have a choice to sell at a loss, hold what I've got or double down. I usually add more shares if I'm thinking I'll recover, but at that time I'd wished I'd eased into my investment. That way I would have owned more shares at a smaller cost basis. Anything can happen in the market, not knowing whether the price will increase or decrease. In the example above a $3,000 loss is equal to the brokerage cost of about 300 trades, so trading cost should not be a factor. Now I'm not saying to slowly get into the market and miss the bull, like we're having today with Trump, but get into individual stocks slowly, being fully invested in the market. Also DCA means you do not buy equal number of shares per period, say monthly, but that you buy with the same amount of money a different number of shares, reducing your total costs. Let's say you spend $2000 on a stock trading at $10 (200 shares), if the stock rose to $20 you would spend $2000 and buy 100 shares, and if the stock dropped to $5 you would spend $2000 and buy 400 shares, by now having amassed 700 shares for $6,000. On the other hand and in contrast to DCA had you purchased 200 shares for $2000 at $10/share, then 200 shares for $4000 at $20/share, and finally 200 more shares for $1000 at $5/share, you would have amassed only 600 shares for $7000 investment.","Canadian Couch Potato has an article which is somewhat related. Ask the Spud: Can You Time the Markets? The argument roughly boils down to the following: That said, I didn't follow the advice. I inherited a sum of money, more than I had dealt with before, and I did not feel I was emotionally capable of immediately dumping it into my portfolio (Canadian stocks, US stocks, world stocks, Canadian bonds, all passive indexed mutual funds), and so I decided to add the money into my portfolio over the course of a year, twice a month. The money that I had not yet invested, I put into a money market account. That worked for me because I was purchasing mutual funds with no transaction costs. If you are buying ETFs, this strategy makes less sense. In hindsight, this was not financially prudent; I'd have been financially better off to buy all the mutual funds right at the beginning. But I was satisfied with the tradeoff, knowing that I did not have hindsight and I would have been emotionally hurt had the stock market crashed. There must be research that would prove, based on past performance, the statistically optimal time frame for dollar-cost averaging. However, I strongly suppose that the time frame is rather small, and so I would advise that you either invest the money immediately, or dollar-cost average your investment over the course of the year. This answer is not an ideal answer to your question because it is lacking such a citation.","\"You have heard the old adage \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\", right? That sounds so obvious that you'd have to wonder why they would ever bother coining such an expression. It should rank up there with \"\"Don't walk in front of a moving car\"\" on the Duh scale of advice. Well, your question demonstrates exactly why it isn't quite so obvious in the real world and that people need to be reminded of it. So, in your example, the stock prices are currently low (relative to what they have been). So per that adage, do you sell or buy when prices are low? Hint: It isn't sell. Yes. Your gut is going to tell you the exact opposite thanks to the fact that our brains are unfortunately wired to make us susceptible to the loss aversion fallacy. When the market has undergone a big drop is the WORST time to stop contributing (buying stocks). This example might help get your brain and gut to agree a little more easily: If you were talking about any other non-investment commodity, cars for instance. Your question equates to.. I really need a car, but the prices have been dropping like crazy lately. Maybe I should wait until the car dealers start raising their prices again before I buy one. Dollar Cost Averaging As littleadv suggested, if you have an automatic payroll deduction for your retirement account, you are getting the benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging. Because you are investing the same amount on a scheduled interval, you are buying more shares when they are cheap and fewer when they are expensive. It is like an automatic buy low strategy is built into the account. The alternative, which you are implying, is a market timing strategy. Under this strategy, instead of investing regularly you try to get in and out of investments right before they go up/drop. There are two MAJOR flaws with this approach: 1) Your brain will work against you (see above) and encourage you to do the exact opposite of what you should be doing. 2) Unless you are clairvoyant, this strategy isn't much better than gambling. If you are lucky it can work, but because of #1, the odds are stacked against you.\"","I'm staring at this chart and asking myself, How long a period is enough to have an average I'd be happy with regardless of the direction the market goes? 3 years? 4 years? Clearly, a lump sum investment risks a 2000 buy at 1500. Not good. Honestly, I love the question, and find it interesting, but there's likely no exact answer, just some back and forth analysis. You're investing about $40K/yr anyway. I'd suggest a 4 year timeframe is a good time to invest the new money as well. Other folk want to offer opinions? Edit - with the OP's additional info, he expects these bonuses to continue, my updated advice is to DCA quarterly if going into assets with a transaction fee or monthly if into a no-fee fund, over just a one year period.","\"You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: \"\"I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account.\"\" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline.\"","Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.","There is no reason to ever do DCA. You'll notice that no asset managers would ever dream of it. You should invest your money as soon as you get it. Throughout history, this is the utility maximizing choice. The market rises on average. Why would you keep money out of it?","rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.","Dollar cost averaging moderates risk. But you pay for this by giving up the chance for higher gains. If you took a hundred people and randomly had them fully buy into the market over a decade period, some of those people will do very well (relative to the rest) while others will do very poorly (relatively). If you dollar cost average, your performance would fall into the middle so you don't fall into the bottom (but you won't fall into the top either).","Sounds like you're doing fine, though somewhat fuzzy: how are you allocating the $500/month? Are you doing dollar cost averaging into funds, accumulating enough $$ to buy round lots of individual stocks, market timing, etc. The summary suggestion: max out the ROTH first, then with $$$ left over, do the after tax, low-cost fund, monthly dollar cost averaging approach.","Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go. No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way.","Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.","\"Trying to \"\"time the market\"\" is usually a bad idea. People who do this every day for a living have a hard time doing that, and I'm guessing you don't have that kind of time and knowledge. So that leaves you with your first and third options, commonly called lump-sum and dollar cost averaging respectively. Which one to use depends on where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. Dollar cost averaging (DCA) has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a trade-off. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up, which is especially true with an index fund! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?\"","\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"","The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity. Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option.","When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.","If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market. (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy.","To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.","The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.","Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?","\"I used the term \"\"bond fund\"\" to mean a mutual fund which invests in bonds. Vanguard has a list. If you live in PA, OH, MA, FL, CA, NJ, or NY there are tax free funds you can invest in on that list.\"","One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market.","First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.","A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund. Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund. The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.","It looks like an improvement to me, if for no other reason than lowering the expenses. But if you are around 35 years away from retirement you could consider eliminating all bond funds for now. They will pay better in a few years. And the stock market(s) will definitely go up more than bonds over the next 35 years.","Yes, you're absolutely right. For such small amounts and such large fees, almost any investment choice is pointless. Some brokers allow for commission free ETF trading. Seek them out. As you've noticed, bond interest rates are almost 0%. This is a far cry from the days of Benjamin Graham, where the USD acted more like gold, with much more frequent booms and busts. During Graham's heyday, one could sell one's bonds at super low interest rates and buy them back again when high. In his day, interest rates would be very high one year like in 2008 and next to nothing the next like in 2009, cycling back and forth, until the 1960s hit, and he didn't know what to do. Graham preferred to wait for the reversion to the mean, and act only when far from it. Those opportunities are few and far between now since fiat currencies are far better managed than they were then, the Fed-caused 2009 total destruction as an outlier to recent times. In your case, it's best to leave the bonds to the insurance companies and buy equities. If you want less volatility, buy a buy-write ETF. Bonds will surely disappoint unless one is lucky enough to hold bonds while interest rates fall from ~6% to ~3%, an eventuality that shouldn't be expected to occur again, as Bill Gross is painfully discovering.","\"Vanguard released an analysis paper in 2013 titled \"\"Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later.\"\" This paper explores the performance difference(s) between a dollar-cost averaging strategy and a lump sum strategy when you already possess the funds. This paper is an excellent read but the conclusion from the executive summary is: We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is satisfied with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets as soon as possible. The caveat to the conclusion is weighing your emotions. If you are primarily concerned with minimizing the possibility of a loss then you should use a dollar cost averaging strategy with the understanding that, on a purely mathematical basis, the dollar cost averaging strategy is likely to under-perform a lump sum investment of the funds. The paper explores a 10 year holding period with either: The analysis includes various portfolio blends and is backtested against the United States, United Kingdom and Australian markets. Based on this, as far as I'm concerned, the rule of thumb is invest the lump sum if you're going to invest at all.\"","You are right about the stock and index funds, with dollar cost averaging over several years, the daily price of the security (especially a dividend paying security) will not matter* because your position will have accumulated larger over several entry points, some entries with cheaper shares and some entries with more expensive shares. In the future your position will be so large that any uptick will net you large gains on your original equity. *not matter being a reference to even extreme forms of volatility. But if you had all your equity in a poor company and tanked, never to rise again, then you would still be in a losing position even with dollar cost averaging. If your only other holdings are bonds, then you MAY want to sell those to free up capital.","The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.","How much money do you have in your money market fund and what in your mind is the purpose of this money? If it is your six-months-of-living-expenses emergency fund, then you might want to consider bank CDs in addition to bond funds as an alternative to your money-market fund investment. Most (though not necessarily all, so be sure to check) bank CDs can be cashed in at any time with a penalty of three months of interest, and so unless you anticipate being laid off very soon, you might get a slightly better rate of interest, FDIC insurance (which mutual funds do not have), and with any luck you may never have to break a CD and lose the interest. Building a ladder of CDs with one maturing each month might be another way to reduce the risk of loss. On the other hand, bond mutual funds are a risky bet now because your investment will lose value if interest rate go up, and as JohnFx points out, interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Finally, the amount of the investment is something that you might want to consider before making changes. If you have $50K put away as your six-month fund, you are talking of $500 versus $350 per annum in changing to a riskier investment with a 1% yield from a safer investment with a 0.7% yield. Whether bragging rights at neighborhood parties are worth the trouble is something for you to decide.","Avoiding fees would not be the primary reason to buy bonds yourself. No, the reason to buy bonds yourself in a retirement account is that you can hold them to maturity. Bond funds can and do lose value if interest rates rise (and gain it if interest rates fall). Of course the same happens with the bond that you hold, but you can hang on to it until maturity and get the face value out of it. That said, it would take some effort to put together a decent bond portfolio, especially if you were going to buy anything rated lower than the absolute best. I think it'd be fun to do, but I'm weird that way.","@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you.","\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \"\"time the market\"\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \"\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\"\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\"\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\"\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \"\"good old days\"\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\"","just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way.","Dollar cost averaging works if the stuff you're buying goes up within your time horizon. It won't protect you from losing money if it doesn't. Also consider that the person (or company, or industry) that suggests dollar-cost averaging might want you to start up a regular investment program and put it on auto-pilot, which subsequently increases the chance that you won't give due attention to the fact that you're sending them money every paycheck to buy an investment that make them money regardless of whether you make money or not.","I believe that the Wikipedia article is attempting to draw a difference between dollar cost averaging as a result of investing when money becomes available (i.e. 401k contributions from your paycheck) and spreading out a lump sum investment. For the former you want to continuously invest as the money becomes available following your predetermined plan for allocation. For the later it may be reasonable to consider the market as you decide how and the timing for investing.","\"Option 1 is out. There are no \"\"safe returns\"\" that make much money. Besides, if a correction does come along how will you know when to invest? There is no signal that says when the bottom is reached, and you emotions could keep you from acting. Option 2 (dollar cost averaging) is prudent and comforting. There are always some bargains about. You could start with an energy ETF or a few \"\"big oil\"\" company stocks right now.\"","Dollar cost averaging is a method of regularly investing money as it is available. For example, $100 from each paycheck. It has been shown to bet better, on average, than collecting the money and investing it all at once. It is not intended to be used when you have the entire amount up front. See this link. Dollar cost averaging a lump sum would only be beneficial if the market was just as likely to go up as is to go down. Since, over time, the market (historically) has always gone up, your best bet is to invest all of your money right away. Anything else is just trying to time the market.","\"The bond funds should tell you their duration. My 401(k) has similar choices, and right now, I'm at the short maturity, i.e. under 1 year. The current return is awful, but better than the drop the longer term funds will experience as rates come back up. Not quite mathematically correct, but close enough, \"\"duration\"\" gives you the time-weighted average maturity in a way that tells you how the value responds to a rate change. If a fund has a 10 year duration, a .1% rate rise will cause the fund value to drop 1.0%.\"","Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.","Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks). Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table.","\"Since you have emphasized that you don't mind about variability, and that you have other funds you could liquidate, then I think a solution is to do with this money the same thing that you are already doing with those other funds. Then when you need the money, if the market has gone up sell the lots that were part of your original \"\"other funds\"\", which presumably have aged enough to qualify for long term gains rates, and let the newly purchased shares take their place.\"","More often than not the market will rise year on year. Your best move is to put the $5000 in on Jan 2. Are you in the 15% bracket? If not, that is, if higher, I'd suggest the traditional, deductible, IRA.","The fee representing the expense ratio is charged as long as you hold the investment. It is deducted daily from the fund assets, and thus reduces the price per share (NAV per share) that is calculated each day after the markets close. The investment fee is charged only when you make an investment in the fund. So, invest in the fund in one swell foop (all $5500 or $6500 for older people, all invested in a single transaction) rather than make monthly investments into the fund (hold the money in a money-market within your Roth IRA if need be). But, do check if there are back-end loads or 12b1 fees associated with the fund. The former often disappear after a few years; the latter are another permanent drain on performance. Also, please check whether reinvestment of dividends and capital gains incur the $75 transaction fee.","Here is a deliberately simple example of Dollar Cost averaging: Day 1: Buy 100 shares at $10. Total value = $1,000. Average cost per share = $10.00/share (easy). Day 2: Buy 100 more shares at $9. Total value = $1,900. Average cost per share = $9.50/share (1,900/200). Notice how your average cost per share went from $10.00 to $9.50. Now instead of hoping the stock rises above $10.00 a share to make a profit, you only need it to go to $9.50 a share (assuming no commissions or transaction fees). It's easy to see how this could work to your advantage. The only catch is that you need buy more of a stock that is dropping (people might think you're crazy). This could easily backfire if the stock continues to drop.","You will maximize your expected wealth by investing all the money you intend to invest, as soon as you have it available. Don't let the mythos of dollar cost averaging induce you to allocate more much money to a savings account than is optimal. If you want the positive expected return of the market, don't put your money in a savings account. That's especially true now, when you are certainly earning a negative real interest rate on your savings account. Dollar cost averaging and putting all your money in at the beginning would have the same expected return except that if you put all your money in earlier, it spends more time in the market, so your expected return is higher. Your volatility is also higher (because your savings account would have very low volatility) but your preference for investment tells me that you view the expected return and volatility tradeoff of the stock market as acceptable. If you need something to help you feel less stress about investing right away, think of it as dollar cost averaging on a yearly basis instead of monthly. Further, you take take comfort in knowing that you have allocated your wealth as you can instead of letting it fizzle away in real terms in a bank account.","\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"","You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.","I think you're not applying the right time scale here. ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) is usually vesting every 6 months. So every half a year you receive a chunk of stocks based on your salary deduction, with the 15% discount. Every half a year you have a chunk of money from the sale of these stocks that you're going to put into your long term investment portfolio. That is dollar cost averaging. You're investing periodically (every 6 months in this case), same (based on your salary deferral) amount of money, regardless of the stock market behavior. That is precisely what dollar cost averaging is.","Since you are paying taxes on the distributions from your mutual funds anyway, instead of reinvesting the distributions back into the mutual funds, you could receive them as cash, then contribute them to your Roth IRA once you are able to open one.","The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.","If it had immediate purchase power of $525, can I use that to buy more $500 bonds over and over again? Your idea is flawed. You can't just make money out of thin air, unless you are running a Ponzi scheme.","I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.","You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there.","\"As Michael Pryor answered, a bond fund is a mutual fund that invests in bonds. I'd also consider an ETF based on bonds to be a bond fund, but I'm not sure that all investors would consider these as \"\"bond funds\"\". Not all bond funds are the same -- just like stock funds. You can classify bond funds based on the issuer of the bonds: You can also classify funds based on the time to maturity: In general, bond funds have lower risk and lower expected return than stock funds. Sometimes bond funds have price movements that are not tightly correlated to the price movements in the equity markets. This can make them a decent hedge against declines in your equity investments. See Michal Pryor's answer for some info on how you can get tax free treatment for your bond fund investments.\"","If you have other savings, the diversification occurs across the accounts. e.g. my 401(k) has access to the insanely low .02% fee VIIIX (Vanguard S&P fund) You can bet it's 100% in. My IRAs are the other assets that make the full picture look better allocated. A new investor has the issue you suggest, although right now, you can deposit $5500 for 2013, and $5500 for 2014, so with $11K available, you can start with $6 or $9K and start with 2 or 3 funds. Or $9K now, but with $500 left over for the '14 deposit, you can deposit $6K in early '15. The disparity of $3K min/$5500 annual limit is annoying, I agree, but shouldn't be a detriment to your planning.","\"Value averaging has you shift the balance of your portfolio over time, not the amount of contributions. So you can only do it if you have a portfolio holding both risky assets (shares etc) and some cash. You start out by making a plan about how much you will contribute every month and at what rate you expect the share part of the portfolio to grow. Perhaps based on 20th century data you think an 8% growth rate is reasonable. Or alternatively if you know your desired final amount obviously you can work backwards to a desired rate from that. If in any month the share part is falling below its expected growth path, you would put more money into it: possibly your whole paycheck contribution plus some from the savings cash account. On the other hand if the share component is growing \"\"too fast\"\" you would put all your additional savings into cash. So if your investments are doing well, you're not supposed to spend the excess money, but rather to put it aside into a dedicated cash account to top up your share component when prices fall. In theory, this has the auto-levelling benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging, but even better: when prices are high, you'll automatically buy fewer shares, or even sell some; conversely when prices are low you'll buy extra shares from your reserve account. If it turns out your estimate was unreasonably optimistic, and over your lifetime shares only ever average 3%, you'll end up with an entirely share portfolio, and a bumpier ride than you might have liked. If you have horrible luck and over your entire investing life shares return less than cash (which has happened, though not yet in the USA), then this will be worse than a standard balanced portfolio. The original book Value Averaging by Edelson has a pretty good explanation of various cases, though I would say some of the examples are worked in excessive detail. I have not implemented this myself, one reason being that the amount I'm able to save from year to year varies, as it probably does for you, and so predicting a path is not quite so simple as he assumes. You could still do it I suppose. I think you could get a very crude approximation to this by simply directing your savings into cash when the share market's rate of growth over the last several years is above what you think is the long term average.\"","\"First, do you get charged a commission or other fee for reinvesting? Second, why would capital gains and dividends be grouped together? If the broker charges you for that run away. As Joe explained, it is done as a courtesy. Doesn't this mean if I sell the stock, the profit will be used to buy that stock right back? No, this is only the capital gains distributions of funds. Lastly, there are two additional checkbox options I was hoping somebody could explain: \"\"All equity positions currently held in this account\"\" and \"\"Future equity purchases, transfers, and deposits to this account\"\". \"\"All equity positions\"\" means your selection will be valid for all the positions you already have. \"\"Future positions\"\" means it will only affect future positions, not the ones you already have. For example: FOLLOW-UP: Looking around, some people suggest not doing this for taxable accounts because it complicates cost basis reporting. Is this a valid concern? Doesn't the brokerage handle that and send you the information when you sell the stock? Yes, because you end up with tons of positions and you need to track the cost basis for each. Brokers are required to report cost-basis on 1099-B now, so its less of a problem, but before 2011 you'd have 10's of positions each year (if you have a monthly dividend, for example) each with different cost basis, and you'd usually sell them all at once. Go figure the gain. So the new 1099-B reporting regulations help a little on this, but it only kicks in for everything starting of 2013 IIRC. Fortunately, for some investments (mutual funds, mainly) you may chose averaging, but it has drawbacks as well.\"","\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \"\"up\"\" day or selling on a \"\"down\"\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\"","It may be true for a bond fund. But it is not true for bond etf. Bond etf will drop by the same amount when it distribute dividend on ex-dividend date.","What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees.","I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.","It's important to remember that upward trending things spend the vast majority of their time at all time highs - intelligent, well meaning people have been regularly saying the Dow Jones has been too expensive since about 2010, often because it was now at 'all time highs': Sitting on the sidelines can end up just as expensive (if not more so) than avoiding big drops. If you are worried about a large down swing straight after investing just drip it in over a period you feel comfortable with - no one can really answer this better than that without more info on your risk tolerance and exactly what you want to invest in. Worth noting that buying anything other than transaction free funds when split into small transactions also adds a lot more fees (~£10 entry and exit in a UK ISA for example). Split these over 12 months say, and it will cost you £240 straight out of the gate (2 fund purchases per month for 12 months @£10 each) and another £240 to exit before any holding fees from the ISA platform: that's over 1% of your capital gone just to your stockbroker employing this strategy. Both the products you mention are also quite high cost in ongoing charges, so unless you have very high convictions about the management quality, will also probably lag cheaper investment types over the long run as well due to the dire performance of virtually all higher cost, active management over time.","well, you know the problem lies with bonds maturing. The issue is not the function COMP but the security itself. You have to use existing total return indices that reflect a constant 10yr maturity position. >perpetually rolled the principal once the bond matured until the present? That would mean your 10y becomes 7y, 5y, 3y, 1y, matured then you reinvest. Not the same. Use SECF to find something like MLT1US10 Index or go to the IND page to see Merrill Lynch's bond indices. They're some of the best.","\"The person who told you \"\"no-load funds\"\" had the right idea. Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a \"\"value\"\" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a \"\"growth\"\" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund \"\"usually\"\" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager. Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money. For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of \"\"short term\"\". Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days. Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse. You don't need this money. For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it. You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%. For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero. Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now? Any recreation or hobby or activity. Maybe your rent or your tuition. Why spend it for a vague sense of \"\"safety\"\", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?\"","This is just a pedestrian (my) opinion: Yes, It is wise to invest in bond funds even in a low interest environment. Check out the lazy man's portfolio on bogleheads. The reason is:","\"You are asking multiple questions here, pieces of which may have been addressed in other questions. A bond (I'm using US Government bonds in this example, and making the 'zero risk of default' assumption) will be priced based on today's interest rate. This is true whether it's a 10% bond with 10 years left (say rates were 10% on the 30 yr bond 20 years ago) a 2% bond with 10 years, or a new 3% 10 year bond. The rate I use above is the 'coupon' rate, i.e. the amount the bond will pay each year in interest. What's the same for each bond is called the \"\"Yield to Maturity.\"\" The price adjusts, by the market, so the return over the next ten years is the same. A bond fund simply contains a mix of bonds, but in aggregate, has a yield as well as a duration, the time-and-interest-weighted maturity. When rates rise, the bond fund will drop in value based on this factor (duration). Does this begin to answer your question?\"","You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters.","For the rollover, you should probably talk to the recipient manager. This would be your broker or whomever (your new employer if rolling into another 401k). They should be able to update you on progress and let you know if you need to do anything. In a comment, you say I could be putting in money but instead im lossing. There is no requirement that an IRA have 401k money in it. Just put the money in without the existing money. Eventually the rollover will complete and add that money to whatever you contribute to the IRA. The rollover should not affect your future contributions in any way.","Buy a fund of bonds, there are plenty and are registered on your stockbroker account as 'funds' rather than shares. Otherwise, to the individual investor, they can be considered as the same thing. Funds (of bonds, rather than funds that contain property or shares or other investments) are often high yield, low volatility. You buy the fund, and let the manager work it for you. He buys bonds in accordance to the specification of the fund (ie some funds will say 'European only', or 'global high yield' etc) and he will buy and sell the bonds regularly. You never hold to maturity as this is handled for you - in many cases, the manager will be buying and selling bonds all the time in order to give you a stable fund that returns you a dividend. Private investors can buy bonds directly, but its not common. Should you do it? Up to you. Bonds return, the company issuing a corporate bond will do so at a fixed price with a fixed yield. At the end of the term, they return the principal. So a 20-year bond with a 5% yield will return someone who invests £10k, £500 a year and at the end of the 20 years will return the £10k. The corporate doesn't care who holds the bond, so you can happily sell it to someone else, probably for £10km give or take. People say to invest in bonds because they do not move much in value. In financially difficult times, this means bonds are more attractive to investors as they are a safe place to hold money while stocks drop, but in good times the opposite applies, no-one wants a fund returning 5% when they think they can get 20% growth from a stock.","\"Your funds are in a retirement account. Withdrawals from your IRA will be penalized if you withdraw before you turn 59.5 years old, and you appear to be decades away from that age. The general advice I would give you is to pick a \"\"target year fund\"\" that targets the year you turn 59.5. The stock market is more volatile, but its average gains will protect you from inflation just eating your funds. Bonds are in counterpoint to your stocks - more stable, and protecting you from the chance that stocks dip right before you want to withdraw. Target year funds start with higher amounts of stock, and gradually rebalance towards bonds over time. Thus, you take your market risks earlier while you can benefit from the market's gains, and then have stability when you actually would want to retire and depend on the savings.\"","This is more than likely a thing about your financial institution and the exchanges where they trade shares. Some exchanges cannot/will not handle odd lot transactions. Most established brokerages have software and accounting systems that will deal in round lots with the exchanges, but can track your shares individually. Sometimes specific stocks cannot be purchased in odd lots due to circumstances specific to that stock (trading only on a specific exchange, for example). Most brokerages offer dollar-cost averaging programs, but may limit which stocks are eligible, due to odd lot and partial share purchases. Check with your brokerage to see if they can support odd lot and/or DCA purchases. You may find another similar ETF with similar holdings that has better trading conditions, or might consider an open-end mutual fund with similar objectives. Mutual funds allow partial share purchases (you have $100 to invest today, and they issue you 35.2 shares, for example).","There was a time that a rule of thumb stated your stock allocation should be 100-your age. That rule suggests that you are at 65%stock/35% bond/cash. If you are comfortable having this money 100% invested, the best advice would be dollar cost averaging, anything more specific would suggest market timing.","Many folks use bonds to diversify their portfolio since bonds rise and fall in value at different times and for different reasons than stocks. Bonds pay interest on a regular basis (usually monthly or quarterly) and so some people invest in bonds in order to match the interest payments to some regular expense they might have. The interest payment does not change (fixed income). For individual bonds, there is a maturity date at which you can expect to receive the face value of the bond (the issuer's creditworthiness is important here). You can make a little money on a bond by buying it when its value is lower than its face value and either selling later for a higher value, or waiting for it to mature. Often the minimum investment for a single bond is high, so if you don't have a large enough amount, you can still get the performance of bonds through a bond fund. These do not mature, so you don't have a guarantee of a return of your investment. However, they have access to more bonds than retail investors, so the funds can keep your money more fully invested. If you don't need the income, you can reinvest the dividends and have a little extra capital growth this way.","If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.","The following advice assumes that you have a significant amount already in the account in cash equivalents. If you are only talking a few hundred bucks or so, then just jump in at the next dip (like today's). If you have a larger amount to move into equities, the safest approach is to gradually move it into investments over some period of time at regular intervals regardless of what is going on in the market. This mitigates the risk of investing it all into an fund that is peaking at the exact moment you buy. So, for example, you might invest 20% of the total amount each month for 5 months to gradually get into the market. The larger the amount you are investing, the more you probably want to spread it out, but don't spread it out much further than a year or you are losing opportunity cost by leaving your money in cash-type investments with likely a very poor rate of return. This strategy is called dollar-cost averaging if you want to research it more.","For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds.","You report what you contributed (sum of monthly investments that you made) to the bond fund. Distributions are the earnings in the account that stay in the account and have no tax consequences (in particular, you don't report them as income on your tax returns) until you withdraw the money later.","Since you already have twice your target in that emergency fund, putting that overage to work is a good idea. The impression that I get is that you'd still like to stay on the safe side. What you're looking for is a Balanced Fund. In a balanced fund the managers invest in both stocks and bonds (and cash). Since you have that diversification between those two asset classes, their returns tend to be much less volatile than other funds. Also, because of their intended audience and the traditions from that class of funds' long history, they tend to invest somewhat more conservatively in both asset classes. There are two general types of balanced funds: Conservative Allocation funds and Moderate Allocation funds. Conservative allocation funds invest in more fixed income than equity (the classic mix is 60% bonds, 40% stocks). Moderate allocation funds invest in more equity than fixed income (classic mix: 40% bonds, 60% stocks). A good pair of funds that are similar but exemplify the difference between conservative allocation and moderate allocation are Vanguard's Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) for the former and Vanguard's Wellington Fund (VWELX) for the latter. (Disclaimer: though both funds are broadly considered excellent, this is not a recommendation.) Good luck sorting this out!","2%? I would put in just what it takes to share in the profit sharing, not a dime more. My S&P fund cost is .02% (edited, as it dropped to .02 since original post), 1/100 of the cost of most funds you list. Doesn't take too many years of this fee to negate the potential tax savings, and not many more to make this a real loser.","According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.","That would be my suggestion (and what I've personally done), but I can't tell you what's right for you. As an aside, you don't usually need to manually fund an IRA (traditional *or* Roth) to open it for a rollover - Just tell them you're doing a rollover, and they'll set you up and tell you where to have the 401k checks sent (and sometimes even arrange it all *for* you).","I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons:"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"I assume by that you mean gradually buying the same mix of funds over time. If that's the case, there is no rational reason to do this. Dollar-cost averaging is an artifact of the way most people fund their 401(k). I would not consider it a viable \\\"\\\"strategy\\\"\\\". (Neither does Wikipedia) Let's say you have $100,000 that you add $10,000 at a time. When you add money, one of three things can happen: Since you can't predict the future, there's no mathematical justification for buying in segments. There's just as much chance that your funds will be worth more or less, so on average it should make little to no difference. In fact, given the time value of money there is a slight advantage to investing it all now so you can capture any future returns. You can always rebalance later to capture gains on some funds and purchase funds that are down to (hopefully) catch them on a rebound.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Dollar cost averaging is a fancy name someone came up with to say \\\"\\\"Invest all of the time\\\"\\\". I would not bother with spreading out purchases. If the market is too expensive right now ...so what? The items you sell will bring top dollar. The fund you buy will cost top dollar. It all evens out. You could sell your assets and just sit on cash, but that would require knowing when the next market drop is coming..which no one knows. Also, it never really is cash; it goes into a money market fund which is not guaranteed. I would rather own companies(VSTAX) and collect the dividend.\\\"\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.\",\n \"You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.\",\n \"There have been studies which show that Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) underperforms Lump Sum Investing (LSI). Vanguard, in particular, has published one such study. Of course, reading about advice in a study is one thing; acting on that advice can be something else entirely. We rolled over my wife's 401(k) to an IRA back in early 2007 and just did it as a lump sum. You know what happened after that. But our horizon was 25+ years at that time, so we didn't lose too much sleep over it (we haven't sold or gone to cash, either).\",\n \"If you have a lump sum, you could put it into a low risk investment (which should also have low fluctuations) right away to avoid the risk of buying at a down point. Then move it into a higher risk investment over a period of time. That way you'll buy more units when the price is lower than when it's higher. Usually I hear dollar cost averaging applied to the practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of an investment every week or month right out of your salary. The effect is pretty minimal though, except on the highest growth portfolios, and is generally just used as a sales tool by investment councilors (in my opinion).\",\n \"You shouldn't. The Dow has gained 7% annually on average since October 1915(inflation-adjusted). It has also lost 73% of its inflation-adjusted value from 1966 to 1982 meaning that it would have lost you 4.5% annually for 16 years. Furthermore, past performance is not indicative of future results. If stock markets keep performing like they have for the past 100 years, you can expect there will be a point within the next 60-or-so years your stocks will be higher in value than they were when you bought them. With funds you are paying the people managing them which means you are guaranteed to have pyramiding losses that your gains will have to offset. In your case, you are betting with no fundamental knowledge that S&P will be higher than now whenever you need the money which is not even supported by the above assumption. Dollar averaging just means you will be placing many bets which will reduce your expected losses(and your expected gains) when compared to just buying $100K worth of S&P right now. Whatever you invest in, and whatever your time-frame, don't gamble. If you can't say this company(ies) will be $X more valuable than now in X months with probability > Y, then you shouldn't be investing in it. Nobody ever made money by losing money. There are also safer investments than the stock market, like treasury bonds, even if the returns are lousy.\",\n \"Dollar Cost Averaging isn't usually the best idea for lump sum investment unless your risk tolerance is very low or your time horizons are low (in which case is the stock market the right place for your money). Usually you will do better by investing immediately. There are lots of articles around on the web about why DCA doesn't work over the long term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging http://www.efmoody.com/planning/dollarcost.html\",\n \"That doesn't sound like dollar cost averaging. That sounds like a form of day trading. Dollar cost averaging is how most people add money to their 401K, or how they add money to some IRA accounts. You are proposing a form of day trading.\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging doesn't (or shouldn't) apply here. DCA is the natural way we invest in the market, buying in by a steady dollar amount each pay period, so over time we can buy more shares when the market is down, and fewer when it's higher. It's more psychological than financial. The fact is that given the market rises, on average, over time, if one has a lump sum to invest, it should be deployed based on other factors, not just DCA'd in. As I said, DCA is just how we all naturally invest from our income. The above has nothing to do with your situation. You are invested and wish to swap funds. If the funds are with the same broker, you should be able to execute this at the closing price. The sell and buy happen after hours and you wake up the next day with the newly invested portfolio. If funds are getting transferred from broker to broker, you do have a risk. The risk that they take time, say even 2 days when funds are not invested. A shame to lose a 2% market move as the cost of moving brokers. In this case, I'd do mine and my wife's at different times. To reduce that risk.\",\n \"\\\"I up voted JoeTaxpayer but i would like add a couple of things. Dollar Cost averaging over a 5 day period is in no way practical. If you get a 1% swing in that time that would be quite a lot. Personally I think 5 years is way to long. When markets go down they go down fast. I would suggest 1 to 2 years investing quarterly. I would hate seeing you miss out on market gains for a 5 year period on the last of your money. The whole point of Dollar Cost averaging instead of market timing is the mantra \\\"\\\"Its about time in the market not timing the market\\\"\\\" So if you have money on the sidelines for years you are missing out on your time in the market.\\\"\",\n \"Its best to dollar cost average adding say 5%-10% a quarter into the fund. That's what Clark Howard would suggest. Also make sure you do not need the money for 5 years, then you should be okay. Its tough to lose money if you keep your money there for a long period of time.\",\n \"If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.\",\n \"If I invest X each month, where does X go - an existing (low yield) bond, or a new bond (at the current interest rate)? This has to be viewed in a larger context. If the fund has outflows greater than or equal to inflows then chances are there isn't any buying being done with your money as that cash is going to those selling their shares in the fund. If though inflows are greater than outflows, there may be some new purchases or not. Don't forget that the new purchase could be an existing bond as the fund has to maintain the duration of being a short-term, intermediate-term or long-term bond fund though there are some exceptions like convertibles or high yield where duration isn't likely a factor. Does that just depend on what the fund manager is doing at the time (buying/selling)? No, it depends on the shares being created or redeemed as well as the manager's discretion. If I put Y into a fund, and leave it there for 50 years, where does Y go when all of the bonds at the time I made the purchase mature? You're missing that the fund may buy and sell bonds at various times as for example a long-term bond fund may not have issues nearing maturity because of what part of the yield curve it is to mimic. Does Y just get reinvested in new bonds at the interest rate at that time? Y gets mixed with the other money in the fund that may increase or decrease in value over time. This is part of the risk in a bond fund where NAV can fluctuate versus a money market mutual fund where the NAV is somewhat fixed at $1/share.\",\n \"As mentioned by others, dollar cost averaging is just a fancy term for how many shares your individual purchases get when you are initially adding money to your investment accounts. Once the money is invested, annual or quarterly rebalancing serves the purpose of taking advantage of higher rates of growth in particular market sectors. You define the asset allocation based on your risk profile, time to retirement, etc., then you periodically sell the shares of the investments that have grown faster than the rest and buy more shares of the investments that are relatively cheaper.\",\n \"\\\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \\\"\\\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging can be done in a retirement plan, and can be done for individual stock purchases, as this will increase your returns by reducing your risk, especially if you are buying a particular stock for the first time. How many time have I purchased a stock, bottom fishing, thinking I was buying at the low, only to find out there was a new low. Sitting with a thousand shares that are now down $3-$4K. I have a choice to sell at a loss, hold what I've got or double down. I usually add more shares if I'm thinking I'll recover, but at that time I'd wished I'd eased into my investment. That way I would have owned more shares at a smaller cost basis. Anything can happen in the market, not knowing whether the price will increase or decrease. In the example above a $3,000 loss is equal to the brokerage cost of about 300 trades, so trading cost should not be a factor. Now I'm not saying to slowly get into the market and miss the bull, like we're having today with Trump, but get into individual stocks slowly, being fully invested in the market. Also DCA means you do not buy equal number of shares per period, say monthly, but that you buy with the same amount of money a different number of shares, reducing your total costs. Let's say you spend $2000 on a stock trading at $10 (200 shares), if the stock rose to $20 you would spend $2000 and buy 100 shares, and if the stock dropped to $5 you would spend $2000 and buy 400 shares, by now having amassed 700 shares for $6,000. On the other hand and in contrast to DCA had you purchased 200 shares for $2000 at $10/share, then 200 shares for $4000 at $20/share, and finally 200 more shares for $1000 at $5/share, you would have amassed only 600 shares for $7000 investment.\",\n \"Canadian Couch Potato has an article which is somewhat related. Ask the Spud: Can You Time the Markets? The argument roughly boils down to the following: That said, I didn't follow the advice. I inherited a sum of money, more than I had dealt with before, and I did not feel I was emotionally capable of immediately dumping it into my portfolio (Canadian stocks, US stocks, world stocks, Canadian bonds, all passive indexed mutual funds), and so I decided to add the money into my portfolio over the course of a year, twice a month. The money that I had not yet invested, I put into a money market account. That worked for me because I was purchasing mutual funds with no transaction costs. If you are buying ETFs, this strategy makes less sense. In hindsight, this was not financially prudent; I'd have been financially better off to buy all the mutual funds right at the beginning. But I was satisfied with the tradeoff, knowing that I did not have hindsight and I would have been emotionally hurt had the stock market crashed. There must be research that would prove, based on past performance, the statistically optimal time frame for dollar-cost averaging. However, I strongly suppose that the time frame is rather small, and so I would advise that you either invest the money immediately, or dollar-cost average your investment over the course of the year. This answer is not an ideal answer to your question because it is lacking such a citation.\",\n \"\\\"You have heard the old adage \\\"\\\"Buy low, sell high\\\"\\\", right? That sounds so obvious that you'd have to wonder why they would ever bother coining such an expression. It should rank up there with \\\"\\\"Don't walk in front of a moving car\\\"\\\" on the Duh scale of advice. Well, your question demonstrates exactly why it isn't quite so obvious in the real world and that people need to be reminded of it. So, in your example, the stock prices are currently low (relative to what they have been). So per that adage, do you sell or buy when prices are low? Hint: It isn't sell. Yes. Your gut is going to tell you the exact opposite thanks to the fact that our brains are unfortunately wired to make us susceptible to the loss aversion fallacy. When the market has undergone a big drop is the WORST time to stop contributing (buying stocks). This example might help get your brain and gut to agree a little more easily: If you were talking about any other non-investment commodity, cars for instance. Your question equates to.. I really need a car, but the prices have been dropping like crazy lately. Maybe I should wait until the car dealers start raising their prices again before I buy one. Dollar Cost Averaging As littleadv suggested, if you have an automatic payroll deduction for your retirement account, you are getting the benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging. Because you are investing the same amount on a scheduled interval, you are buying more shares when they are cheap and fewer when they are expensive. It is like an automatic buy low strategy is built into the account. The alternative, which you are implying, is a market timing strategy. Under this strategy, instead of investing regularly you try to get in and out of investments right before they go up/drop. There are two MAJOR flaws with this approach: 1) Your brain will work against you (see above) and encourage you to do the exact opposite of what you should be doing. 2) Unless you are clairvoyant, this strategy isn't much better than gambling. If you are lucky it can work, but because of #1, the odds are stacked against you.\\\"\",\n \"I'm staring at this chart and asking myself, How long a period is enough to have an average I'd be happy with regardless of the direction the market goes? 3 years? 4 years? Clearly, a lump sum investment risks a 2000 buy at 1500. Not good. Honestly, I love the question, and find it interesting, but there's likely no exact answer, just some back and forth analysis. You're investing about $40K/yr anyway. I'd suggest a 4 year timeframe is a good time to invest the new money as well. Other folk want to offer opinions? Edit - with the OP's additional info, he expects these bonuses to continue, my updated advice is to DCA quarterly if going into assets with a transaction fee or monthly if into a no-fee fund, over just a one year period.\",\n \"\\\"You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: \\\"\\\"I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account.\\\"\\\" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline.\\\"\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.\",\n \"There is no reason to ever do DCA. You'll notice that no asset managers would ever dream of it. You should invest your money as soon as you get it. Throughout history, this is the utility maximizing choice. The market rises on average. Why would you keep money out of it?\",\n \"rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging moderates risk. But you pay for this by giving up the chance for higher gains. If you took a hundred people and randomly had them fully buy into the market over a decade period, some of those people will do very well (relative to the rest) while others will do very poorly (relatively). If you dollar cost average, your performance would fall into the middle so you don't fall into the bottom (but you won't fall into the top either).\",\n \"Sounds like you're doing fine, though somewhat fuzzy: how are you allocating the $500/month? Are you doing dollar cost averaging into funds, accumulating enough $$ to buy round lots of individual stocks, market timing, etc. The summary suggestion: max out the ROTH first, then with $$$ left over, do the after tax, low-cost fund, monthly dollar cost averaging approach.\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go. No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way.\",\n \"Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.\",\n \"\\\"Trying to \\\"\\\"time the market\\\"\\\" is usually a bad idea. People who do this every day for a living have a hard time doing that, and I'm guessing you don't have that kind of time and knowledge. So that leaves you with your first and third options, commonly called lump-sum and dollar cost averaging respectively. Which one to use depends on where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. Dollar cost averaging (DCA) has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a trade-off. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up, which is especially true with an index fund! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\\\"\",\n \"The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity. Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option.\",\n \"When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.\",\n \"If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market. (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy.\",\n \"To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.\",\n \"The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.\",\n \"Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?\",\n \"\\\"I used the term \\\"\\\"bond fund\\\"\\\" to mean a mutual fund which invests in bonds. Vanguard has a list. If you live in PA, OH, MA, FL, CA, NJ, or NY there are tax free funds you can invest in on that list.\\\"\",\n \"One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market.\",\n \"First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.\",\n \"A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund. Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund. The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.\",\n \"It looks like an improvement to me, if for no other reason than lowering the expenses. But if you are around 35 years away from retirement you could consider eliminating all bond funds for now. They will pay better in a few years. And the stock market(s) will definitely go up more than bonds over the next 35 years.\",\n \"Yes, you're absolutely right. For such small amounts and such large fees, almost any investment choice is pointless. Some brokers allow for commission free ETF trading. Seek them out. As you've noticed, bond interest rates are almost 0%. This is a far cry from the days of Benjamin Graham, where the USD acted more like gold, with much more frequent booms and busts. During Graham's heyday, one could sell one's bonds at super low interest rates and buy them back again when high. In his day, interest rates would be very high one year like in 2008 and next to nothing the next like in 2009, cycling back and forth, until the 1960s hit, and he didn't know what to do. Graham preferred to wait for the reversion to the mean, and act only when far from it. Those opportunities are few and far between now since fiat currencies are far better managed than they were then, the Fed-caused 2009 total destruction as an outlier to recent times. In your case, it's best to leave the bonds to the insurance companies and buy equities. If you want less volatility, buy a buy-write ETF. Bonds will surely disappoint unless one is lucky enough to hold bonds while interest rates fall from ~6% to ~3%, an eventuality that shouldn't be expected to occur again, as Bill Gross is painfully discovering.\",\n \"\\\"Vanguard released an analysis paper in 2013 titled \\\"\\\"Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later.\\\"\\\" This paper explores the performance difference(s) between a dollar-cost averaging strategy and a lump sum strategy when you already possess the funds. This paper is an excellent read but the conclusion from the executive summary is: We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is satisfied with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets as soon as possible. The caveat to the conclusion is weighing your emotions. If you are primarily concerned with minimizing the possibility of a loss then you should use a dollar cost averaging strategy with the understanding that, on a purely mathematical basis, the dollar cost averaging strategy is likely to under-perform a lump sum investment of the funds. The paper explores a 10 year holding period with either: The analysis includes various portfolio blends and is backtested against the United States, United Kingdom and Australian markets. Based on this, as far as I'm concerned, the rule of thumb is invest the lump sum if you're going to invest at all.\\\"\",\n \"You are right about the stock and index funds, with dollar cost averaging over several years, the daily price of the security (especially a dividend paying security) will not matter* because your position will have accumulated larger over several entry points, some entries with cheaper shares and some entries with more expensive shares. In the future your position will be so large that any uptick will net you large gains on your original equity. *not matter being a reference to even extreme forms of volatility. But if you had all your equity in a poor company and tanked, never to rise again, then you would still be in a losing position even with dollar cost averaging. If your only other holdings are bonds, then you MAY want to sell those to free up capital.\",\n \"The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.\",\n \"How much money do you have in your money market fund and what in your mind is the purpose of this money? If it is your six-months-of-living-expenses emergency fund, then you might want to consider bank CDs in addition to bond funds as an alternative to your money-market fund investment. Most (though not necessarily all, so be sure to check) bank CDs can be cashed in at any time with a penalty of three months of interest, and so unless you anticipate being laid off very soon, you might get a slightly better rate of interest, FDIC insurance (which mutual funds do not have), and with any luck you may never have to break a CD and lose the interest. Building a ladder of CDs with one maturing each month might be another way to reduce the risk of loss. On the other hand, bond mutual funds are a risky bet now because your investment will lose value if interest rate go up, and as JohnFx points out, interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Finally, the amount of the investment is something that you might want to consider before making changes. If you have $50K put away as your six-month fund, you are talking of $500 versus $350 per annum in changing to a riskier investment with a 1% yield from a safer investment with a 0.7% yield. Whether bragging rights at neighborhood parties are worth the trouble is something for you to decide.\",\n \"Avoiding fees would not be the primary reason to buy bonds yourself. No, the reason to buy bonds yourself in a retirement account is that you can hold them to maturity. Bond funds can and do lose value if interest rates rise (and gain it if interest rates fall). Of course the same happens with the bond that you hold, but you can hang on to it until maturity and get the face value out of it. That said, it would take some effort to put together a decent bond portfolio, especially if you were going to buy anything rated lower than the absolute best. I think it'd be fun to do, but I'm weird that way.\",\n \"@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you.\",\n \"\\\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \\\"\\\"time the market\\\"\\\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \\\"\\\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\\\"\\\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\\\"\\\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\\\"\\\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \\\"\\\"good old days\\\"\\\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\\\"\",\n \"just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way.\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging works if the stuff you're buying goes up within your time horizon. It won't protect you from losing money if it doesn't. Also consider that the person (or company, or industry) that suggests dollar-cost averaging might want you to start up a regular investment program and put it on auto-pilot, which subsequently increases the chance that you won't give due attention to the fact that you're sending them money every paycheck to buy an investment that make them money regardless of whether you make money or not.\",\n \"I believe that the Wikipedia article is attempting to draw a difference between dollar cost averaging as a result of investing when money becomes available (i.e. 401k contributions from your paycheck) and spreading out a lump sum investment. For the former you want to continuously invest as the money becomes available following your predetermined plan for allocation. For the later it may be reasonable to consider the market as you decide how and the timing for investing.\",\n \"\\\"Option 1 is out. There are no \\\"\\\"safe returns\\\"\\\" that make much money. Besides, if a correction does come along how will you know when to invest? There is no signal that says when the bottom is reached, and you emotions could keep you from acting. Option 2 (dollar cost averaging) is prudent and comforting. There are always some bargains about. You could start with an energy ETF or a few \\\"\\\"big oil\\\"\\\" company stocks right now.\\\"\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging is a method of regularly investing money as it is available. For example, $100 from each paycheck. It has been shown to bet better, on average, than collecting the money and investing it all at once. It is not intended to be used when you have the entire amount up front. See this link. Dollar cost averaging a lump sum would only be beneficial if the market was just as likely to go up as is to go down. Since, over time, the market (historically) has always gone up, your best bet is to invest all of your money right away. Anything else is just trying to time the market.\",\n \"\\\"The bond funds should tell you their duration. My 401(k) has similar choices, and right now, I'm at the short maturity, i.e. under 1 year. The current return is awful, but better than the drop the longer term funds will experience as rates come back up. Not quite mathematically correct, but close enough, \\\"\\\"duration\\\"\\\" gives you the time-weighted average maturity in a way that tells you how the value responds to a rate change. If a fund has a 10 year duration, a .1% rate rise will cause the fund value to drop 1.0%.\\\"\",\n \"Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.\",\n \"Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks). Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table.\",\n \"\\\"Since you have emphasized that you don't mind about variability, and that you have other funds you could liquidate, then I think a solution is to do with this money the same thing that you are already doing with those other funds. Then when you need the money, if the market has gone up sell the lots that were part of your original \\\"\\\"other funds\\\"\\\", which presumably have aged enough to qualify for long term gains rates, and let the newly purchased shares take their place.\\\"\",\n \"More often than not the market will rise year on year. Your best move is to put the $5000 in on Jan 2. Are you in the 15% bracket? If not, that is, if higher, I'd suggest the traditional, deductible, IRA.\",\n \"The fee representing the expense ratio is charged as long as you hold the investment. It is deducted daily from the fund assets, and thus reduces the price per share (NAV per share) that is calculated each day after the markets close. The investment fee is charged only when you make an investment in the fund. So, invest in the fund in one swell foop (all $5500 or $6500 for older people, all invested in a single transaction) rather than make monthly investments into the fund (hold the money in a money-market within your Roth IRA if need be). But, do check if there are back-end loads or 12b1 fees associated with the fund. The former often disappear after a few years; the latter are another permanent drain on performance. Also, please check whether reinvestment of dividends and capital gains incur the $75 transaction fee.\",\n \"Here is a deliberately simple example of Dollar Cost averaging: Day 1: Buy 100 shares at $10. Total value = $1,000. Average cost per share = $10.00/share (easy). Day 2: Buy 100 more shares at $9. Total value = $1,900. Average cost per share = $9.50/share (1,900/200). Notice how your average cost per share went from $10.00 to $9.50. Now instead of hoping the stock rises above $10.00 a share to make a profit, you only need it to go to $9.50 a share (assuming no commissions or transaction fees). It's easy to see how this could work to your advantage. The only catch is that you need buy more of a stock that is dropping (people might think you're crazy). This could easily backfire if the stock continues to drop.\",\n \"You will maximize your expected wealth by investing all the money you intend to invest, as soon as you have it available. Don't let the mythos of dollar cost averaging induce you to allocate more much money to a savings account than is optimal. If you want the positive expected return of the market, don't put your money in a savings account. That's especially true now, when you are certainly earning a negative real interest rate on your savings account. Dollar cost averaging and putting all your money in at the beginning would have the same expected return except that if you put all your money in earlier, it spends more time in the market, so your expected return is higher. Your volatility is also higher (because your savings account would have very low volatility) but your preference for investment tells me that you view the expected return and volatility tradeoff of the stock market as acceptable. If you need something to help you feel less stress about investing right away, think of it as dollar cost averaging on a yearly basis instead of monthly. Further, you take take comfort in knowing that you have allocated your wealth as you can instead of letting it fizzle away in real terms in a bank account.\",\n \"\\\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \\\"\\\"people\\\"\\\" are willing to pay for them. Those \\\"\\\"people\\\"\\\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \\\"\\\"Don't fight the Fed\\\"\\\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\\\"\",\n \"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.\",\n \"I think you're not applying the right time scale here. ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) is usually vesting every 6 months. So every half a year you receive a chunk of stocks based on your salary deduction, with the 15% discount. Every half a year you have a chunk of money from the sale of these stocks that you're going to put into your long term investment portfolio. That is dollar cost averaging. You're investing periodically (every 6 months in this case), same (based on your salary deferral) amount of money, regardless of the stock market behavior. That is precisely what dollar cost averaging is.\",\n \"Since you are paying taxes on the distributions from your mutual funds anyway, instead of reinvesting the distributions back into the mutual funds, you could receive them as cash, then contribute them to your Roth IRA once you are able to open one.\",\n \"The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.\",\n \"If it had immediate purchase power of $525, can I use that to buy more $500 bonds over and over again? Your idea is flawed. You can't just make money out of thin air, unless you are running a Ponzi scheme.\",\n \"I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.\",\n \"You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there.\",\n \"\\\"As Michael Pryor answered, a bond fund is a mutual fund that invests in bonds. I'd also consider an ETF based on bonds to be a bond fund, but I'm not sure that all investors would consider these as \\\"\\\"bond funds\\\"\\\". Not all bond funds are the same -- just like stock funds. You can classify bond funds based on the issuer of the bonds: You can also classify funds based on the time to maturity: In general, bond funds have lower risk and lower expected return than stock funds. Sometimes bond funds have price movements that are not tightly correlated to the price movements in the equity markets. This can make them a decent hedge against declines in your equity investments. See Michal Pryor's answer for some info on how you can get tax free treatment for your bond fund investments.\\\"\",\n \"If you have other savings, the diversification occurs across the accounts. e.g. my 401(k) has access to the insanely low .02% fee VIIIX (Vanguard S&P fund) You can bet it's 100% in. My IRAs are the other assets that make the full picture look better allocated. A new investor has the issue you suggest, although right now, you can deposit $5500 for 2013, and $5500 for 2014, so with $11K available, you can start with $6 or $9K and start with 2 or 3 funds. Or $9K now, but with $500 left over for the '14 deposit, you can deposit $6K in early '15. The disparity of $3K min/$5500 annual limit is annoying, I agree, but shouldn't be a detriment to your planning.\",\n \"\\\"Value averaging has you shift the balance of your portfolio over time, not the amount of contributions. So you can only do it if you have a portfolio holding both risky assets (shares etc) and some cash. You start out by making a plan about how much you will contribute every month and at what rate you expect the share part of the portfolio to grow. Perhaps based on 20th century data you think an 8% growth rate is reasonable. Or alternatively if you know your desired final amount obviously you can work backwards to a desired rate from that. If in any month the share part is falling below its expected growth path, you would put more money into it: possibly your whole paycheck contribution plus some from the savings cash account. On the other hand if the share component is growing \\\"\\\"too fast\\\"\\\" you would put all your additional savings into cash. So if your investments are doing well, you're not supposed to spend the excess money, but rather to put it aside into a dedicated cash account to top up your share component when prices fall. In theory, this has the auto-levelling benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging, but even better: when prices are high, you'll automatically buy fewer shares, or even sell some; conversely when prices are low you'll buy extra shares from your reserve account. If it turns out your estimate was unreasonably optimistic, and over your lifetime shares only ever average 3%, you'll end up with an entirely share portfolio, and a bumpier ride than you might have liked. If you have horrible luck and over your entire investing life shares return less than cash (which has happened, though not yet in the USA), then this will be worse than a standard balanced portfolio. The original book Value Averaging by Edelson has a pretty good explanation of various cases, though I would say some of the examples are worked in excessive detail. I have not implemented this myself, one reason being that the amount I'm able to save from year to year varies, as it probably does for you, and so predicting a path is not quite so simple as he assumes. You could still do it I suppose. I think you could get a very crude approximation to this by simply directing your savings into cash when the share market's rate of growth over the last several years is above what you think is the long term average.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First, do you get charged a commission or other fee for reinvesting? Second, why would capital gains and dividends be grouped together? If the broker charges you for that run away. As Joe explained, it is done as a courtesy. Doesn't this mean if I sell the stock, the profit will be used to buy that stock right back? No, this is only the capital gains distributions of funds. Lastly, there are two additional checkbox options I was hoping somebody could explain: \\\"\\\"All equity positions currently held in this account\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"Future equity purchases, transfers, and deposits to this account\\\"\\\". \\\"\\\"All equity positions\\\"\\\" means your selection will be valid for all the positions you already have. \\\"\\\"Future positions\\\"\\\" means it will only affect future positions, not the ones you already have. For example: FOLLOW-UP: Looking around, some people suggest not doing this for taxable accounts because it complicates cost basis reporting. Is this a valid concern? Doesn't the brokerage handle that and send you the information when you sell the stock? Yes, because you end up with tons of positions and you need to track the cost basis for each. Brokers are required to report cost-basis on 1099-B now, so its less of a problem, but before 2011 you'd have 10's of positions each year (if you have a monthly dividend, for example) each with different cost basis, and you'd usually sell them all at once. Go figure the gain. So the new 1099-B reporting regulations help a little on this, but it only kicks in for everything starting of 2013 IIRC. Fortunately, for some investments (mutual funds, mainly) you may chose averaging, but it has drawbacks as well.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \\\"\\\"up\\\"\\\" day or selling on a \\\"\\\"down\\\"\\\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\\\"\",\n \"It may be true for a bond fund. But it is not true for bond etf. Bond etf will drop by the same amount when it distribute dividend on ex-dividend date.\",\n \"What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees.\",\n \"I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.\",\n \"It's important to remember that upward trending things spend the vast majority of their time at all time highs - intelligent, well meaning people have been regularly saying the Dow Jones has been too expensive since about 2010, often because it was now at 'all time highs': Sitting on the sidelines can end up just as expensive (if not more so) than avoiding big drops. If you are worried about a large down swing straight after investing just drip it in over a period you feel comfortable with - no one can really answer this better than that without more info on your risk tolerance and exactly what you want to invest in. Worth noting that buying anything other than transaction free funds when split into small transactions also adds a lot more fees (~£10 entry and exit in a UK ISA for example). Split these over 12 months say, and it will cost you £240 straight out of the gate (2 fund purchases per month for 12 months @£10 each) and another £240 to exit before any holding fees from the ISA platform: that's over 1% of your capital gone just to your stockbroker employing this strategy. Both the products you mention are also quite high cost in ongoing charges, so unless you have very high convictions about the management quality, will also probably lag cheaper investment types over the long run as well due to the dire performance of virtually all higher cost, active management over time.\",\n \"well, you know the problem lies with bonds maturing. The issue is not the function COMP but the security itself. You have to use existing total return indices that reflect a constant 10yr maturity position. >perpetually rolled the principal once the bond matured until the present? That would mean your 10y becomes 7y, 5y, 3y, 1y, matured then you reinvest. Not the same. Use SECF to find something like MLT1US10 Index or go to the IND page to see Merrill Lynch's bond indices. They're some of the best.\",\n \"\\\"The person who told you \\\"\\\"no-load funds\\\"\\\" had the right idea. Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a \\\"\\\"growth\\\"\\\" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund \\\"\\\"usually\\\"\\\" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager. Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money. For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of \\\"\\\"short term\\\"\\\". Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days. Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse. You don't need this money. For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it. You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%. For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero. Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now? Any recreation or hobby or activity. Maybe your rent or your tuition. Why spend it for a vague sense of \\\"\\\"safety\\\"\\\", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?\\\"\",\n \"This is just a pedestrian (my) opinion: Yes, It is wise to invest in bond funds even in a low interest environment. Check out the lazy man's portfolio on bogleheads. The reason is:\",\n \"\\\"You are asking multiple questions here, pieces of which may have been addressed in other questions. A bond (I'm using US Government bonds in this example, and making the 'zero risk of default' assumption) will be priced based on today's interest rate. This is true whether it's a 10% bond with 10 years left (say rates were 10% on the 30 yr bond 20 years ago) a 2% bond with 10 years, or a new 3% 10 year bond. The rate I use above is the 'coupon' rate, i.e. the amount the bond will pay each year in interest. What's the same for each bond is called the \\\"\\\"Yield to Maturity.\\\"\\\" The price adjusts, by the market, so the return over the next ten years is the same. A bond fund simply contains a mix of bonds, but in aggregate, has a yield as well as a duration, the time-and-interest-weighted maturity. When rates rise, the bond fund will drop in value based on this factor (duration). Does this begin to answer your question?\\\"\",\n \"You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters.\",\n \"For the rollover, you should probably talk to the recipient manager. This would be your broker or whomever (your new employer if rolling into another 401k). They should be able to update you on progress and let you know if you need to do anything. In a comment, you say I could be putting in money but instead im lossing. There is no requirement that an IRA have 401k money in it. Just put the money in without the existing money. Eventually the rollover will complete and add that money to whatever you contribute to the IRA. The rollover should not affect your future contributions in any way.\",\n \"Buy a fund of bonds, there are plenty and are registered on your stockbroker account as 'funds' rather than shares. Otherwise, to the individual investor, they can be considered as the same thing. Funds (of bonds, rather than funds that contain property or shares or other investments) are often high yield, low volatility. You buy the fund, and let the manager work it for you. He buys bonds in accordance to the specification of the fund (ie some funds will say 'European only', or 'global high yield' etc) and he will buy and sell the bonds regularly. You never hold to maturity as this is handled for you - in many cases, the manager will be buying and selling bonds all the time in order to give you a stable fund that returns you a dividend. Private investors can buy bonds directly, but its not common. Should you do it? Up to you. Bonds return, the company issuing a corporate bond will do so at a fixed price with a fixed yield. At the end of the term, they return the principal. So a 20-year bond with a 5% yield will return someone who invests £10k, £500 a year and at the end of the 20 years will return the £10k. The corporate doesn't care who holds the bond, so you can happily sell it to someone else, probably for £10km give or take. People say to invest in bonds because they do not move much in value. In financially difficult times, this means bonds are more attractive to investors as they are a safe place to hold money while stocks drop, but in good times the opposite applies, no-one wants a fund returning 5% when they think they can get 20% growth from a stock.\",\n \"\\\"Your funds are in a retirement account. Withdrawals from your IRA will be penalized if you withdraw before you turn 59.5 years old, and you appear to be decades away from that age. The general advice I would give you is to pick a \\\"\\\"target year fund\\\"\\\" that targets the year you turn 59.5. The stock market is more volatile, but its average gains will protect you from inflation just eating your funds. Bonds are in counterpoint to your stocks - more stable, and protecting you from the chance that stocks dip right before you want to withdraw. Target year funds start with higher amounts of stock, and gradually rebalance towards bonds over time. Thus, you take your market risks earlier while you can benefit from the market's gains, and then have stability when you actually would want to retire and depend on the savings.\\\"\",\n \"This is more than likely a thing about your financial institution and the exchanges where they trade shares. Some exchanges cannot/will not handle odd lot transactions. Most established brokerages have software and accounting systems that will deal in round lots with the exchanges, but can track your shares individually. Sometimes specific stocks cannot be purchased in odd lots due to circumstances specific to that stock (trading only on a specific exchange, for example). Most brokerages offer dollar-cost averaging programs, but may limit which stocks are eligible, due to odd lot and partial share purchases. Check with your brokerage to see if they can support odd lot and/or DCA purchases. You may find another similar ETF with similar holdings that has better trading conditions, or might consider an open-end mutual fund with similar objectives. Mutual funds allow partial share purchases (you have $100 to invest today, and they issue you 35.2 shares, for example).\",\n \"There was a time that a rule of thumb stated your stock allocation should be 100-your age. That rule suggests that you are at 65%stock/35% bond/cash. If you are comfortable having this money 100% invested, the best advice would be dollar cost averaging, anything more specific would suggest market timing.\",\n \"Many folks use bonds to diversify their portfolio since bonds rise and fall in value at different times and for different reasons than stocks. Bonds pay interest on a regular basis (usually monthly or quarterly) and so some people invest in bonds in order to match the interest payments to some regular expense they might have. The interest payment does not change (fixed income). For individual bonds, there is a maturity date at which you can expect to receive the face value of the bond (the issuer's creditworthiness is important here). You can make a little money on a bond by buying it when its value is lower than its face value and either selling later for a higher value, or waiting for it to mature. Often the minimum investment for a single bond is high, so if you don't have a large enough amount, you can still get the performance of bonds through a bond fund. These do not mature, so you don't have a guarantee of a return of your investment. However, they have access to more bonds than retail investors, so the funds can keep your money more fully invested. If you don't need the income, you can reinvest the dividends and have a little extra capital growth this way.\",\n \"If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.\",\n \"The following advice assumes that you have a significant amount already in the account in cash equivalents. If you are only talking a few hundred bucks or so, then just jump in at the next dip (like today's). If you have a larger amount to move into equities, the safest approach is to gradually move it into investments over some period of time at regular intervals regardless of what is going on in the market. This mitigates the risk of investing it all into an fund that is peaking at the exact moment you buy. So, for example, you might invest 20% of the total amount each month for 5 months to gradually get into the market. The larger the amount you are investing, the more you probably want to spread it out, but don't spread it out much further than a year or you are losing opportunity cost by leaving your money in cash-type investments with likely a very poor rate of return. This strategy is called dollar-cost averaging if you want to research it more.\",\n \"For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds.\",\n \"You report what you contributed (sum of monthly investments that you made) to the bond fund. Distributions are the earnings in the account that stay in the account and have no tax consequences (in particular, you don't report them as income on your tax returns) until you withdraw the money later.\",\n \"Since you already have twice your target in that emergency fund, putting that overage to work is a good idea. The impression that I get is that you'd still like to stay on the safe side. What you're looking for is a Balanced Fund. In a balanced fund the managers invest in both stocks and bonds (and cash). Since you have that diversification between those two asset classes, their returns tend to be much less volatile than other funds. Also, because of their intended audience and the traditions from that class of funds' long history, they tend to invest somewhat more conservatively in both asset classes. There are two general types of balanced funds: Conservative Allocation funds and Moderate Allocation funds. Conservative allocation funds invest in more fixed income than equity (the classic mix is 60% bonds, 40% stocks). Moderate allocation funds invest in more equity than fixed income (classic mix: 40% bonds, 60% stocks). A good pair of funds that are similar but exemplify the difference between conservative allocation and moderate allocation are Vanguard's Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) for the former and Vanguard's Wellington Fund (VWELX) for the latter. (Disclaimer: though both funds are broadly considered excellent, this is not a recommendation.) Good luck sorting this out!\",\n \"2%? I would put in just what it takes to share in the profit sharing, not a dime more. My S&P fund cost is .02% (edited, as it dropped to .02 since original post), 1/100 of the cost of most funds you list. Doesn't take too many years of this fee to negate the potential tax savings, and not many more to make this a real loser.\",\n \"According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.\",\n \"That would be my suggestion (and what I've personally done), but I can't tell you what's right for you. As an aside, you don't usually need to manually fund an IRA (traditional *or* Roth) to open it for a rollover - Just tell them you're doing a rollover, and they'll set you up and tell you where to have the 401k checks sent (and sometimes even arrange it all *for* you).\",\n \"I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons:\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Many would recommend lump sum investing because of the interest gains, and general upward historical trend of the market. After introducing DCA in A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Malkiel says the following: But remember, because there is a long-term uptrend in common-stock prices, this technique is not necessarily appropriate if you need to invest a lump sum such as a bequest. If possible, keep a small reserve (in a money fund) to take advantage of market declines and buy a few extra shares if the market is down sharply. I’m not suggesting for a minute that you try to forecast the market. However, it’s usually a good time to buy after the market has fallen out of bed. Just as hope and greed can sometimes feed on themselves to produce speculative bubbles, so do pessimism and despair react to produce market panics. - A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Burton G. Malkiel He goes on from there to recommend a rebalancing strategy."],"string":"[\n \"Many would recommend lump sum investing because of the interest gains, and general upward historical trend of the market. After introducing DCA in A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Malkiel says the following: But remember, because there is a long-term uptrend in common-stock prices, this technique is not necessarily appropriate if you need to invest a lump sum such as a bequest. If possible, keep a small reserve (in a money fund) to take advantage of market declines and buy a few extra shares if the market is down sharply. I’m not suggesting for a minute that you try to forecast the market. However, it’s usually a good time to buy after the market has fallen out of bed. Just as hope and greed can sometimes feed on themselves to produce speculative bubbles, so do pessimism and despair react to produce market panics. - A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Burton G. Malkiel He goes on from there to recommend a rebalancing strategy.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":279,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"1832"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Warren Buffett and Charles Munger advice for small investors?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["590276"],"string":"[\n \"590276\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["411084","133487","209843","590276","359229","323660","485092","3533","299284","14748","145140","474296","380612","556913","157038","331553","288073","70558","245728","404341","163590","195222","501395","245168","253374","404732","550252","565827","328477","278369","538086","136825","338962","63158","596537","312591","444261","509064","446948","42960","419038","559768","363719","134722","460643","329466","213435","323067","133935","35093","190264","191566","117801","24846","552707","302315","283733","384893","580313","276778","269384","320587","379914","182511","479697","98704","137852","458740","234640","41809","142320","38510","171189","276082","224816","396537","458244","551590","524030","236218","31139","339864","423745","217437","243457","153348","320320","160922","339332","144030","148348","229271","215296","231195","35971","371579","113099","334491","68270","262180"],"string":"[\n \"411084\",\n \"133487\",\n \"209843\",\n \"590276\",\n \"359229\",\n \"323660\",\n \"485092\",\n \"3533\",\n \"299284\",\n \"14748\",\n \"145140\",\n \"474296\",\n \"380612\",\n \"556913\",\n \"157038\",\n \"331553\",\n \"288073\",\n \"70558\",\n \"245728\",\n \"404341\",\n \"163590\",\n \"195222\",\n \"501395\",\n \"245168\",\n \"253374\",\n \"404732\",\n \"550252\",\n \"565827\",\n \"328477\",\n \"278369\",\n \"538086\",\n \"136825\",\n \"338962\",\n \"63158\",\n \"596537\",\n \"312591\",\n \"444261\",\n \"509064\",\n \"446948\",\n \"42960\",\n \"419038\",\n \"559768\",\n \"363719\",\n \"134722\",\n \"460643\",\n \"329466\",\n \"213435\",\n \"323067\",\n \"133935\",\n \"35093\",\n \"190264\",\n \"191566\",\n \"117801\",\n \"24846\",\n \"552707\",\n \"302315\",\n \"283733\",\n \"384893\",\n \"580313\",\n \"276778\",\n \"269384\",\n \"320587\",\n \"379914\",\n \"182511\",\n \"479697\",\n \"98704\",\n \"137852\",\n \"458740\",\n \"234640\",\n \"41809\",\n \"142320\",\n \"38510\",\n \"171189\",\n \"276082\",\n \"224816\",\n \"396537\",\n \"458244\",\n \"551590\",\n \"524030\",\n \"236218\",\n \"31139\",\n \"339864\",\n \"423745\",\n \"217437\",\n \"243457\",\n \"153348\",\n \"320320\",\n \"160922\",\n \"339332\",\n \"144030\",\n \"148348\",\n \"229271\",\n \"215296\",\n \"231195\",\n \"35971\",\n \"371579\",\n \"113099\",\n \"334491\",\n \"68270\",\n \"262180\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"","\"You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund.\"\" Or as he said at a different time, \"\"Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees\"\". You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund. Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy.\"","\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"","\"Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10 percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: \"\"I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions or individuals.\"\"\"","As a corollary to this; the average investor will never know more than the market. Buffett can buy mispriced securities because he runs a multi-billion dollar company dedicated to finding these mispricings. My advice for the common man: 1. Invest in both Stocks (for growth) & Bonds (for wealth preservation) 2. Stocks should be almost exclusively Index Funds That's it. The stock market has a 'random walk with a positive drift' which means that in general, the market will increase in value. Index funds capture this value and will protect you against the inevitable BoA, AIG, Enron, etc. It's fine to invest in index funds with a strategy as well, for instance emerging market ETFs could capture the growth of a particular region. Bear ETFs are attractive if you think the market is going to hit a downturn in the future.","\"I don't know really is the best investment strategy. People think that they have to know everything to make money. But realistically, out of the hundreds of thousands of publicly traded securities, you really can only invest in a tiny number of them. Of the course of a week, you literally have more than a million \"\"buy\"\" or \"\"don't buy\"\" decisions, because the prices of those securities fluctuate every day. Simply due to the fact that there are so many securities, you cannot know what everything is going to do. You have to say \"\"I don't know\"\". Also, when you do understand something, it is usually fairly priced. So will you make money on it? \"\"I don't know\"\". Only very rarely will you find something that you actually understand well and it is significantly undervalued. You can be looking at a company a day for two years before you find it. But people get trigger happy. They bet on 51%/49% odds when they should only bet on 90%/10% odds or higher. If you are forced to bet on everything, it makes sense that you bet on everything you believe is greater than 50% chance of winning. But since you cannot bet on everything, you should only bet on the highest quality bets, those with greater than 90% chance of winning. To find such a bet, you may have to shuffle through 100 different companies and only make 2-3 bets. You are looking for something that is at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean. People are not good at doing a lot of work, most of which yields nothing, to find one big payoff. They are wired to only look at the present, so they take the best bet they can see at the moment, which is often barely above 50% (and with any misjudgment, it may actually be well below 50%). And people are not good at understanding compound/geometric growth. You can keep multipling 10% gains (1.10 * 1.10 * 1.10 ...), but that can all be wiped out by multiplying by one zero, which is why taking a 51%/49% bet is so dangerous (even though technically it is an advantageous one). They forget to adjust for the geometric aspect of compounding. A 99%/1% bet is one you should take, but if you are allowed to repeat it and you keep going all-in, you will eventually lose and have $0, which is the same as if you took a single all-in bet that has 0% chance of winning. As Buffett says, if you are only allowed to make 20 investments over a lifetime, you will most likely do better because it prevents you from making many of these mistakes.\"","A couple points, first you don't point out what investors you want to invest with, and second BRK.B does not track anything; it is just a very small slice of his entire holdings BRK.A minus the voting rights. One solid way to go would be to buy BRK.B and also a tech ETF like QQQ, or XLK, ..or both.","\"Warren Buffet isn't using any special sauce. He looks for value and ignores hype, greed, and fear. He buys what he knows and looks for companies that generate cash and/or are available for a discount of their true value. He explains what he looks for in a company and his reasons for buying it. He has said on numerous occasions, \"\"I look for intrinsic value.\"\" (So there's your formula.) Human nature is often irrational and investing seems to bring out the fear and greed. I've always been a bit surprised when people ascribe some sort of sixth sense to Warren Buffet's success. He just works hard and doesn't deviate from a sound strategy. \"\"Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.\"\" And of course, rule one: \"\"Don't lose money.\"\" It's not a joke. How many people buy high and sell low because of fear and greed? When the market tanks, buy more. Finally, anyone can invest with Buffet without all the work. Just buy a few shares of BRK.A or BRK.B.\"","The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.","\"That's great that you have saved up money. You are ahead of your peers. I would advise against investing in an index fund. The attraction of the idea is that you will get the same return as the base item. For example, an index fund of gold would supposedly give you the same return as if you bought gold. In reality this is not true. The return of an index fund is always significantly below the return of the underlying commodity. Your best strategy is to invest in something you know and understand. There are two books that can help you learn how to do this: \"\"One Up on Wall Street\"\" by Peter Lynch and \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. Buying, reading and following the guidance in these two books is your best investment of time and money.\"","That is absolute rubbish. Warren Buffet follows simple value and GARP tenants that literally anyone could follow if they had the discipline to do so. I have never once heard of an investment made by Warren Buffet that wasn't rooted in fundamentals and easy to understand. The concept is fairly simple as is the math, buying great companies trading at discounts to what they are worth due to market fluctuations, emotionality, or overreactions to key sectors etc. If I buy ABC corp at $10 knowing it is worth $20, it could go down or trade sideways for FIVE YEARS doing seemingly nothing and then one day catch up with its worth due to any number of factors. In that case, my 100% return which took five years to actualize accounts for an average 20% return per year. Also (and this should be obvious), but diversification is a double edged sword. Every year, hundreds of stocks individually beat the market return. Owning any one of these stocks as your only holding would mean that YOU beat the market. As you buy more stocks and diversify your return will get closer and closer to that of an index or mutual fund. My advice is to stick to fundamentals like value and GARP investing, learn to separate when the market is being silly from when it is responding to a genuine concern, do your own homework and analysis on the stocks you buy, BE PATIENT after buying stock that your analysis gives you confidence in, and don't over diversify. If you do these things, congrats. YOU ARE Warren Buffet.","\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \"\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\"\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \"\"The RRSP Secret\"\" by Greg Habstritt. \"\"Unshakeable\"\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\"","\"Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the \"\"outcome\"\" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M? Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word \"\"average\"\". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. \"\"Heavyweights\"\" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes. Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion.\"","Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.","It is only wise to invest in what you understand (ala Warren Buffet style). Depending on how much money you have, you might see fit to consult a good independent financial advisor instead of seeking advice from this website. A famous quote goes: “Those who say, do not know. Those who know, do not say”","Don't invest in regular mutual funds. They are a rip-off. And, most investment professionals will not do much to help your financial future. Here's the advice:","I think the list could have added: - Save in regular intervals using the same strategy. Just to make sure that good old dollar cost averaging is thrown in. That's probably where most people go way wrong. Save money all year, dump it on a stock they like because some family friend investment expert said that 'apple prices will go up' with out explaining that you need to take advantage of mean reversion to help spread the risk.","This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.","I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way. Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book. It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays. Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company. In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company. How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate. You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic. Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing. Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it. Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price. It is good to look at index funds as a diversification. Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars. Big deal. How much money could you earn during that time period? Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time. If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double. Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing. Start building funds that can compound. Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant. The key is to get money to compound!","Read Warren Buffett's letters to his shareholders - they are such an interesting read and I guarantee you'll learn more than financial modelling - you will learn how to think about these businesses. Must be what 700-800 pages in total?","\"So, I've read the article in question, \"\"Basically, It's Over\"\". Here's my opinion: I respect Charlie Munger but I think his parable misses the mark. If he's trying to convince the average person (or at least the average Slate-reading person) that America is overspending and headed for trouble, the parable could have been told better. I wasn't sure how to follow some of the analogies he was making, and didn't experience the clear \"\"aha\"\" I was hoping for. Nevertheless, I agree with his point of view, which I see as: In the long run, the United States is going to have serious difficulty in supporting its debt habit, energy consumption habit, and its currency. In terms of an investment strategy to protect oneself, here are some thoughts. These don't constitute a complete strategy, but are some points to consider as part of an overall strategy: If the U.S. is going to continue amassing debt fast, it would stand to reason it will become a worse credit risk, requiring it to pay higher interest rates on its debt. Long-term treasury bonds would decline as rates increase, and so wouldn't be a great place to be invested today. In order to pay the mounting debt and debt servicing costs, the U.S. will continue to run the printing presses, to inflate itself out of debt. This increase in the money supply will put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar relative to the currencies of better-run economies. U.S. cash and short-term treasuries might not be a great place to be invested today. Hedge with inflation-indexed bonds (e.g. TIPS) or the bonds of stronger major economies – but diversify; don't just pick one. If you agree that energy prices are headed higher, especially relative to U.S. dollars, then a good sector to invest a portion of one's portfolio would be world energy producing companies. (Send some of your money over to Canada, we have lots of oil and we're right next door :-) Anybody who has already been practicing broad, global diversification is already reasonably protected. Clearly, \"\"diversification\"\" across just U.S. stocks and bonds is not enough. Finally: I don't underestimate the ability of the U.S. to get out of this rut. U.S. history has impressed upon me (as a Canadian) two things in particular: it is highly capable of both innovating and of overcoming challenges. I'm keeping a small part of my portfolio invested in strong U.S. companies that are proven innovators – not of the \"\"financial\"\"-innovation variety – and with global reach.\"","\"As foundational material, read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy.\"","\"Those who say a person should invest in riskier assets when young are those who equate higher returns with higher risk. I would argue that any investment you do not understand is risky and allows you to lose money at a more rapid rate than someone who understands the investment. The way to reduce risk is to learn about what you want to invest in before you invest in it. Learning afterward can be a very expensive proposition, possibly costing you your retirement. Warren Buffet told the story on Bloomberg Radio in late 2013 of how he read everything in his local library on investing as a teenager and when his family moved to Washington he realized he had the entire Library of Congress at his disposal. One of Mr. Buffett's famous quotes when asked why he doesn't invest in the tech sector was: \"\"I don't invest in what I do not understand.\"\". There are several major asset classes: Paper (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, currency), Commodities (silver, gold, oil), Businesses (creation, purchase or partnership as opposed to common stock ownership) and Real Estate (rental properties, flips, land development). Pick one that interests you and learn everything about it that you can before investing. This will allow you to minimize and mitigate risks while increasing the rewards.\"","Warren Buffett answered this question very well at the 2009 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting. He said that it was important to read everything you can about investing. What you will find is that you will have a number of competing ideas in your head. You will need to think these through and find the best way to solve them that fits you. You will mostly learn how to invest through good examples. There are fewer good examples out there than you might think, given how many books there are and how many people get paid to give advice in this area. If you want to see how professional investors actually think about specific investments, over a thousand investment examples can be found at www.valueinvestorsclub.com, just login as a guest. The site is run by Joel Greenblatt (you would benefit from reading his books also), and it will give you a sense of the work that investors put into their research. Good luck.","\"Despite Buffett's nearly perfect consistent advice over the past few decades, they don't reflect his earliest days. His modern philosophy seemed to solidify in the 1970s. You can see that Buffett's earliest days grew faster, at 29.5 % for those partners willing to take on leverage with Buffett, than the last half century, at 19.7%. Not only is Buffett limited by size, as its quite difficult to squeeze one half trillion USD into sub-billion USD investments, but the economy thus market is far different than it was before the 1980s. He would have to acquire at least 500 billion USD companies outright, and there simply aren't that many available that satisfy all of his modern conditions. The market is much different now than it was when he first started at Graham-Newman because before the 1960s, the economy thus market would collapse and rebound about every few years. This sort of variance can actually help a value investor because a true value investor will abandon investments when valuations are high and go all in when valuations are low. The most extreme example was when he tried to as quietly as possible buy up an insurance company selling for something like a P/E of 1 during one of the collapses. These kinds of opportunities are seldom available anymore, not even during the 2009 collapse. As he became larger, those investments became off limits because it simply wasn't worth his time to find such a high returner if it's only a bare fraction of his wealth. Also, he started to deviate from Benjamin Graham's methods and started to incorporate Philip Fisher's. By the 1970s, his investment philosophy was more or less cemented. He tried to balance Graham's avarice for price with Fisher's for value. All of the commentary that special tax dodges or cheap financing are central to his returns are false. They contributed, but they are ancillary. As one can see by comparing the limited vs general partners, leverage helps enormously, but this is still a tangent. Buffett has undoubtedly built his wealth from the nature of his investments. The exact blueprint can be constructed by reading every word he has published and any quotes he has not disavowed. Simply, he buys the highest quality companies in terms of risk-adjusted growth at the best available prices. Quantitatively, it is a simple strategy to replicate. NFLX was selling very cheaply during the mid-2000s, WDC sells frequently at low valuations, up and coming retailers frequently sell at low valuations, etc. The key to Buffett's method is emotional control and removing the mental block that price equals value; price is cost, value is revenue, and that concept is the hardest for most to imbibe. Quoting from the first link: One sidelight here: it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately to people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of IQ or academic training. It's instant recognition, or it is nothing. and I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market. These Graham-and-Doddsville investors have successfully exploited gaps between price and value. When the price of a stock can be influenced by a \"\"herd\"\" on Wall Street with prices set at the margin by the most emotional person, or the greediest person, or the most depressed person, it is hard to argue that the market always prices rationally. In fact, market prices are frequently nonsensical. and finally Success in investing doesn’t correlate with I.Q. once you’re above the level of 25. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing. There is almost no information on any who has helped Buffett internally or even managed Berkshire's investments aside from Louis Simpson. It is unlikely that Buffett has allowed anyone to manage much of Berkshire's investments considering the consistent stream of commentary from him claiming that he nearly does nothing except read annual reports all day to the extent that he may have neglected his family to some degree and that listening to others will more likely hurt performance than help with the most striking example being his father's recommendation that he not open a hedge fund after retiring from Graham-Newman because he believed the market was topping, and he absolutely idolized his father.\"","As a young investor, you should know that the big secret is that profitable long term investing is boring. It is is not buying one day and selling the next and keeping very close tabs on your investments and jumping on the computer and going 'Buy!' , 'Sell'. That makes brokers rich, but not you. So look at investments but not everyday and find something else that's exciting, whether it's dirt biking or WOW or competitive python coding. As a 19 year old, you have a ton of time and you don't need to swing for the fences and make 50% or 30% or even 20% returns every year to do well. And you don't have to pick the best performing stocks, and if you do, you don;t have to buy them at their lowest or sell them at their highest. Go read A Random Walk's guide to Investing by Burton Malkiel and The only Investment Guide you'll ever need by Andrew Tobias. Buy them at used bookstores because it's cheaper that way. And if you want more excitement read You Can Be a Stock Market Genius by Joel GreenBlatt, One up On Wall Street By Peter Lynch, something by Warren Buffet and if you want to be really whacked, read Fooled By Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Talib, But never forget about Tobias and Malkiel, invest a regular amount of money every month from 19 to 65 according to what they write and you'll be a wealthy guy by 65.","\"Invest in productive assets and by that I mean companies. Edit: I'll elaborate on \"\"productive assets\"\": any asset that produces something; whether it produces cash or a commodity, you'll automatically accumulate more of its byproduct in the future. The rest is self explanatory\"","\"If you can afford the time and are looking for more deep, and fun, investment tips, check out http://gurufocus.com. Great for more fundamental analysis of \"\"Intelligent Investor\"\" type Benjamin Graham-style businesses. No use scatter-shooting the stock exchange hoping to find good value businesses. Even blue-chips have an increasingly uncertain future (except IMHO certain world dominators like KO, WMT, XO and MCD).\"","\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"","\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"","If you see something that looks like a sales pitch, be skeptical, even if they sound informed, say things which resonate with your concerns and promise to alleviate your problems. Watch out in particular for people who pontificate about matters which are tangentially related to the investment (e.g. populist anti-Wall-Street sentiment). Beware limited-time opportunities, offers, and discounts. I'm specifically talking about your email pitches, Motley Fool. They're shameful. Remember you're allowed to change your mind and go back on something that you've said a few minutes ago. If anyone tries to trick you into agreeing to go along with them by taking what something you've said and manipulating it, or uses logic to demonstrate that you must buy something based on things you've said, tell them you're not comfortable, head for the door and don't look back. Don't be afraid of embarrassment or anything like that. (You can investigate whether your position is in fact logically consistent later.) Run away from anyone who resents or deprecates the notion of a second opinion. Don't ever go along with anything that seems shady: it may be shadier than you know. Some people thought Bernie Maddoff was doing some front-running on the side; turns out it was a Ponzi scheme. (Likewise the Ponzi scheme that devastated Albania's economy was widely suspected of being dirty, but people suspected more of a black-market angle.) Beware of anyone who is promising stability and protection. Insurance companies can sell you products (especially annuities) which can deliver it, but they're very expensive for what you get. Don't buy it unless you seriously need it.","For the mechanices/terms of stock investing, I recommend Learn to Earn by Peter Lynch. I also like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. It explains why indexing is the best choice for most people. For stock picking, a good intro is The Little Book of Value Investing by Chris Brown. And then there is The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. IMO, this is the bible of investing.","Commonly recommended books: Intelligent Investor - Graham One Up On Wall Street - Lynch The Essays of Warren Buffett : Lessons for Corporate America - Cunningham Graham's book should be mandatory reading for this sub. Lynch's book talks about leveraging your personal expertise to make intelligent investment choices. Cunningham's is a compilation of Warren Buffett's letters to shareholders of BH with some commentary. It covers a wider range of material, but the lessons on corporate governance are very useful when doing valuation.","A guy I used to work with would buy some shares in certain companies on a regular basis. The guy in question chose Coke, Pepsi, GE, Disney and some other old stable stocks. He just kept buying a few shared ($50 or so at a time) year after year after year. He worked his entire life, but by the time he was ready to retire, he had a pretty sizable investment; he was worth a rather tidy sum. The moral of the story is, it is very much worth it to invest a bit at a time. Don't bother with the idea of buying low and selling high; not right now. Just go ahead and buy stable stocks (or shares of index funds) and wait them out. This strategy (mixed with other retirement tactics like a 401K from work, and IRA of your own, Social Security in the US) is a good way to build wealth. Don't spend money you don't have, be ready for a long term investment and I think it makes great sense, regardless of what country you live in.","I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.","\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"","The key to good investing is you need to understand what you are investing in. That is, if you are buying a company that makes product X, you need to understand that. It is a good idea to buy stock in good companies but that is not sufficient. You need to buy stock in good companies at good prices. That means you need to understand things like price to earnings, price to revenue and price to book. Bob","I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.","Powers makes a good point: trading costs may eat up a significant portion of your ROI. A fee as little as 2% can consume more than 50% of your long-term ROI! A rule of thumb is keep your fees to less than 1%. One way to do that is to buy stock in companies that have a DRIP with a Share Purchase Plan (SPP). Often the SPP allows investors to purchase shares for low fees or free. Once you have the ability to purchase shares for (virtually) free, you can use InvestMete. Roughly, you send more money to the companies whose share prices are near their 52-week low, and less money to those who are near their 52-week high. Getting back to your original question...","Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.","\"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords. Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000. He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in \"\"genius moves\"\" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too. Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference. In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse.\"","\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"","\"As ChrisInEdmonton describes, shorting has an asymmetric risk/reward ratio. And put options have a time cost, if you think the market is overvalued and buy lots of puts, but they expire before the market finally corrects, you can lose your entire investment. Betting on market timing of any kind is extremely difficult to do, some would argue it's impossible. \"\"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent\"\" is a favorite wall street trader saying. Instead of playing a game that's difficult to win, the better option is to play one you can win. That's to learn how to value individual investments well and accumulate cash until you can find investments that are under-valued to invest in. The best way to learn to value investments is to read Graham and Buffett. \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a good starting point, and you can read all of Buffett's investor letters for the last 30 years + for free on the Berkshire Hathaway web site. Finally the textbook on valuing stocks and other investments is \"\"Securities Analysis\"\" the 6th edition is only version to get, it was updated with Buffett and other leading value investors oversight. A basic overview of valuing investments is that every investment has an \"\"intrinsic value\"\" consisting of it's future cash flows, discounted for the time it takes to receive them. The skill is being able to estimate how likely those cash flows are to happen. a) Is it a good business? Does it have a moat, i.e. barriers that make it hard for competitors to duplicate it? b) Will management invest or distribute those cash flows wisely? Then your strategy is to not even worry about the market, spend your time looking at individual stocks and investments and wait until some come along that's well undervalued. That may be during a market correction, or it may be tomorrow. And it's not just good enough to intelligently value your investments, you also have to have psychological fortitude to not panic and to think for yourself. Buffett describes it best. Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his. Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you. But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game. Lastly learning to value investments isn't just useful in the stock market, they are applicable to investing in any investment such as bonds, real estate, and even buying your home or running a business.\"","Buffet is in a different league from other value investors. He looks for stable companies with no debt and good management. Then he looks to deeply understand the industries of candidate companies, and looks for companies that are not in commodity businesses or sell commodities that can be bought for 25% of the valuation that he believes reflects the true value of the company. Deeply understanding the market is really the key. Consider the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which Buffet purchased last year. Railroads benefit from higher oil prices, as they can transport cargo much cheaper than trucks. They also tend to have natural monopolies in the regions they operate in. Buffet bought the railroad just as production of oil and natural gas in North Dakota started picking up. Since pipeline capacity between North Dakota and refineries in Texas/Oklahoma is very limited, the railroad is making alot of money transporting crude.","This fortune article is referenced in his either 2003 or 2004 annual report in which he does say that the market will not likely return much in the future and generally talks numbers. I am also a value investor, such that I can be in this environment and believe there is a bit of value in knowing where you think the market is headed but the real value is in underwriting each deal. In long, I agree with you","If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.","\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"","As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.","\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \"\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\"\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\"","\"I'm a senior majoring in accounting and management information systems. Here is a question I answered a while back about financial statements and employee retention. In the answer that I provided at the bottom it was to assess a company's ability to pay by use of ratios. Likewise, similar accounting methods need to be understood and implemented when assessing stocks(which is where I believe Mr. Buffet was going with this). As we can see the severity of the questions decreases, but if you can not answer question 3 then you should study accounting principles. So how much is enough just to get started? You will never have enough knowledge to start, period. You will have to continuously be learning, so start sooner than later. However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. A comment on @Veronica's post. Understanding economics and accounting are fundamental. Analysis, seeing trends, and copying are instinctual human traits that helped us evolve (we are very good at pattern recognition). Taking an intro economic and accounting course at a local community college is an excellent place to start when breaking the mold of pattern-thinking. You have to be critical in understanding what elements move a company's A/R in the statement of cash flows. Read. Literally, don't stop reading. Latest edition of of Kesio's accounting principles? Read it. Cover to cover. Tax policies on Section 874, 222, 534? Read it. Take a class, read a book, ask questions! Good Luck, \"\"Welcome to [the] Science [of Business], you're gonna like it here\"\" - Phil Plait\"","Read the Security Analysis. I believe if you read it completely, you will have a real good chance of succeeding at making good money. If you find the book hard to read just go through it and underline under the text as you read it.","I would always recommend the intelligent investor by Benjamin Graham the mentor of warren buffet once you have a basic knowledge ie what is a share bond guilt etc In terms of pure investment the UK is fairly similar the major difference is the simpler tax structure, ISA allowance and the more generous CGT regime.","Adding to the very good advises above - Concentrate on costs related to investment activity. Note all expenses and costs that you pay. Keep it low.","\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"","\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"","Lots of good advice so far. Here's some meta-advice. Read through everything here twice, and distill out what the big picture ideas are. Learn about what you need to know about them. Pick a strategy and/or long term goals. Work toward them. Get advice from many many places and distill it. This is currently known as crowd-sourcing but I've been doing it all my life. It's very effective. No one will ever care as much about your money as you. Some specific things I haven't seen mentioned (or not mentioned much):","Value investing is an investment approach that relies on buying securities below their intrinsic values. There are two main concepts; one is the Intrinsic Value and the other is Margin of Safety. Intrinsic value is the value of the underlying business - if we are talking about stocks - that can be calculated through carefully analyzing the business looking at all aspects of it. If there is an intrinsic value exists for a company then there is a price tag we can put on its shares as well. Value investing is looking to buy shares well below its intrinsic value. It is important to know that there is no correct intrinsic value exists for a company and two people can come up with different figures, if they were presented the same data. Calculating the intrinsic value for a business is the hardest part of value investing. Margin of Safety is the difference between the buying price of a stock and its intrinsic value. Value investors are insisting on buying stocks well below their intrinsic value, where the margin of safety is 20%-30% or even more. This concepts is protecting them from poor decisions and market downturns. It is also providing a room for error, when calculating the intrinsic value. The approach was introduced by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd in a book called Security Analysis in 1934. Other famous investor using this approach is Warren Buffet Books to read: I would start to read the first two book first.","The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.","you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.","You have received much good advice, but based on 53 years investing and the first 25 getting my nose bloodied and breaking even I very strongly offer the following. Before doing so let me first offer this caveat: I am not questioning your broker or the advice, but it is only valuable to you if history proves correct. No one, not even Bernanke can predict how stock will perform in the future. Maybe if he sees a depression. My advice to someone new to stock investing is to purchase a index fund from a discount broker, e.g. Fidelity or Vanguard, and then study the market and economics. The Wall Street Journal and the web are my favorites. I started with a hell of a lot less than you have saved, I would not turn $200K over to anyone until you know exactly the risk and cost involved. Also, I wouldn't depend on one person or firm to advise or manage my money. I like to balance one against the other. I do not recall different firms recommending the same stocks. One must remember everyone in the business of recommending stock or any investment is selling something and must be compensated. That's how they earn a living.","\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \"\"financial planner,\"\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\"","\"I'm 39 and have been investing since my very early 20's, and the advice I'd like to go back and give myself is the following: 1) Time is your friend. Compounding interest is a powerful force and is probably the most important factor to how much money you are going to wind up with in the end. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can. You have to run twice as hard to catch up if you start late, and you will still probably wind up with less in the end for the extra effort. 2) Don't invest 100% of your investment money It always bugged me to let my cash sit idle in an investment account because the niggling notion of inflation eating up my money and I felt I was wasting opportunity cost by not being fully invested in something. However, not having enough investable cash around to buy into the fire-sale dips in the market made me miss out on opportunities. 3) Diversify The dot.com bubble taught me this in a big, hairy painful way. I had this idea that as a technologist I really understood the tech bubble and fearlessly over-invested in Tech stocks. I just knew that I was on top of things as an \"\"industry insider\"\" and would know when to jump. Yeah. That didn't work out so well. I lost more than 6 figures, at least on paper. Diversification will attenuate the ups and downs somewhat and make the market a lot less scary in the long run. 4) Mind your expenses It took me years of paying huge full-service broker fees to realize that those clowns don't seem to do any better than anyone else at picking stocks. Even when they do, the transaction costs are a lead weight on your returns. The same holds true for mutual funds/ETFs. Shop for low expense ratios aggressively. It is really hard for a fund manager to consistently beat the indexes especially when you burden the returns with expense ratios that skim an extra 1% or so off the top. The expense ratio/broker fees are among the very few things that you can predict reliably when it comes to investments, take advantage of this knowledge. 5) Have an exit strategy for every investment People are emotional creatures. It is hard to be logical when you have skin in the game and most people aren't disciplined enough to just admit when they have a loser and bail out while they are in the red or conversely admit when they have a winner and take profits before the party is over. It helps to counteract this instinct to have an exit strategy for each investment you buy. That is, you will get out if it drops by x% or grows by y%. In fact, it is probably a good idea to just enter those sell limit orders right after you buy the investment so you don't have to convince yourself to press the eject button in the heat of a big move in the price of that investment. Don't try to predict tops or bottoms. They are extremely hard to guess and things often turn so fast that you can't act on them in time anyway. Get out of an investment when it has met your goal or is going to far in the wrong direction. If you find yourself saying \"\"It has to come back eventually\"\", slap yourself. When you are trying to decide whether to stay in the investment or bail, the most important question is \"\"If I had the current cash value of the stock instead of shares, would I buy it today?\"\" because essentially that is what you are doing when you stick with an investment. 6) Don't invest in fads When you are investing you become acutely sensitive to everyone's opinions on what investment is hot and what is not. If everyone is talking about a particular investment, avoid it. The more enthusiastic people are about it (even experts) the MORE you should avoid it. When everyone starts forming investment clubs at work and the stock market seems to be the preferred topic of conversation at every party you go to. Get out! I'm a big fan of contrarian investing. Take profits when it feels like all the momentum is going into the market, and buy in when everyone seems to be running for the doors.\"","I am a bit at a loss as to how you can read the same book, that inspired Warren Buffet, and take away that trading 600 contracts per month is a way to prosperity. As a fellow engineer I can say with assurance this speculation scheme is doomed to failure. Crossing out the word gamble was a mistake. Instead you should focus on two things. The first is your core business, which is signal processing. Work and strive to be the best you can. Seek out opportunities to increase your income while keeping your costs low. As an engineer you have an opportunity to earn an above average salary with very low costs. Second would be to warehouse some of those earning and let others who are good at other things work for you. You may want to read the Jack Bogle books and seek an asset allocation model. I tend to be more aggressive then he would suggest, but that is a matter of preference. You don't really have the time, when you focus on your core business, to manage 6 trades a month let alone 600. Put your contributions on auto pilot and a surprisingly short time you will have a pile of cash.","\"Read \"\"The intelligent Investor\"\" book before you do anything. I started when I really didn't understand anything about stocks. I bought an internet stock for $150 per share which sold at 75cents a year later. I sold it for a profit but would've been a disaster.\"","Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)","\"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now. In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not \"\"pure stocks\"\": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done \"\"by hand,\"\" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard. (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice.\"","I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again.","Don't be too scared of investing in the market. It has ups and downs, but over the long haul you make money in it. You can't jump in and out, just consistently add money to investments that you 1) understand and 2) trust. When I say understand, what I mean is you can follow how the money is generated, either because a company sells products, a government promises to pay back the bond, or compounding interest makes sense. You don't need to worry about the day to day details, but if you don't understand how the money is made, it isn't transparent enough and a danger could be afoot. Here are some basic rules I try (!) to follow The biggest trick is to invest what you can, and do so consistently. You can build wealth by earning more and spending less. I personally find spending less a lot easier, but earning more is pretty easy with some simple investment tools.","I would say that the three most important skills are: Note that some costs are hidden. So, for example, a mutual fund investing in other countries than where you live in may mean the investment target country charges a certain percentage of dividends going to the mutual fund. The mutual fund company doesn't usually want to tell you this. There may be clever financial instruments (derivatives) that can be used to avoid this, but they are not without their problems. If you diversify into equities at low cost, you will have a very wealthy future. I would recommend you to compare two options: ...and pick from these options the cheaper one. If your time has a high value, and you wish to take this value into account, I would say it is almost always far better option to choose an index fund. Whatever you do, don't pay for active management! It is a mathematical truth that before costs, actively managed investments will yield the same return than indexed investments. However, the costs are higher in active management, so you will have less total return. Don't believe that good historical return would imply good future return. However, if for some reason you see an index fund that continuously loses to the index more than by the amount of stated costs, beware!","Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway took a 50% loss in each of the last two bear markets. His stock even lost 10% in 2015 when the S&P lost 8%. He doesn't have a track record to support the claim that his stock performs relatively better in a bear market, so perhaps it's best to take his letter with a grain of salt. Edit: As one commenter points out, Mr. Buffett is comparing the book performance of his fund to the market performance of an index. That is an apples to oranges comparison. It's deceptive at best.","\"Most articles on investing recommend that investors that are just starting out to invest in index stock or bonds funds. This is the easiest way to get rolling and limit risk by investing in bonds and stocks, and not either one of the asset classes alone. When you start to look deeper into investing there are so many options: Small Cap, Large Cap, technical analysis, fundamental analysis, option strategies, and on and on. This can end up being a full time job or chewing into a lot of personal time. It is a great challenge to learn various investment strategies frankly for the average person that works full time it is a huge effort. I would recommend also reading \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" to get a wider perspective on how asset allocation can help grow a portfolio and reduce risk. This book covers a simple process.\"","1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.","\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"","Patience is the key to success. If you hold strong without falling to temptations like seeing a small surge in the price. If it goes down it comes up after a period of time. Just invest on the share when it reaches low bottom and you could see you money multiplying year after year","Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.","In general, the better advice I've heard is to spend only on things that matter to you and scrimp on the rest. It's an easy way to budget without having to stick to a strict set of rules. Otherwise keep 3-6 months of living expenses in liquid accounts (money market, savings) and invest the rest.","\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"","\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"","John Bogle never said only buy the S&P 500 or any single index Q:Do you think the average person could safely invest for retirement and other goals without expert advice -- just by indexing? A: Yes, there is a rule of thumb I add to that. You should start out heavily invested in equities. Hold some bond index funds as well as stock index funds. By the time you get closer to retirement or into your retirement, you should have a significant position in bond index funds as well as stock index funds. As we get older, we have less time to recoup. We have more money to protect and our nervousness increases with age. We get a little bit worried about that nest egg when it's large and we have little time to recoup it, so we pay too much attention to the fluctuations in the market, which in the long run mean nothing. How much to pay Q: What's the highest expense ratio that one should pay for a domestic equity fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent maybe. Q: For an international fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent. Q: For a bond fund? A: One-half of 1 percent. But I'd shave that a little bit. For example, if you can buy a no-load bond fund or a no-load stock fund, you can afford a little more expense ratio, because you're not paying any commission. You've eliminated cost No. 2....","\"If you're not rich, investing money will produce very small return, and is a waste of your resources. If you want to save until you die, then go for it (that's what investment companies want you to do). I suggest invest your money in building a network of friends who will be future asset for you. A group of friends helping each other have a much higher prospect of success. It has been proven that approximately 70% of jobs have been obtained through networking. Either through family, or friends, this is the vast majority. I will reiterate, invest on friends and family, not on strangers who want to tie down your money so they can have fun for the moment, while you wait to have fun when you're almost dead. Added source for those who are questioning the most well known fact within organizations, I'm baffled by the level of ignorance. Linkedin Recruitment Blog ...companies want to hire from within first; only when there are no appropriate internal candidates will they rely on referrals from employees (who get a bonus for a successful hire) and people who will approach them through informational meetings. The latter category of jobseekers (you) have the benefit of getting known before the job is \"\"officially posted.\"\" For those who believe loaning money to friends and family is a way of losing money -> this is a risk well worth taking -> and the risk is much lower than loaning your money to strangers -> and the reward is much higher than loaning your money to strangers.\"","Yes, you're absolutely right. For such small amounts and such large fees, almost any investment choice is pointless. Some brokers allow for commission free ETF trading. Seek them out. As you've noticed, bond interest rates are almost 0%. This is a far cry from the days of Benjamin Graham, where the USD acted more like gold, with much more frequent booms and busts. During Graham's heyday, one could sell one's bonds at super low interest rates and buy them back again when high. In his day, interest rates would be very high one year like in 2008 and next to nothing the next like in 2009, cycling back and forth, until the 1960s hit, and he didn't know what to do. Graham preferred to wait for the reversion to the mean, and act only when far from it. Those opportunities are few and far between now since fiat currencies are far better managed than they were then, the Fed-caused 2009 total destruction as an outlier to recent times. In your case, it's best to leave the bonds to the insurance companies and buy equities. If you want less volatility, buy a buy-write ETF. Bonds will surely disappoint unless one is lucky enough to hold bonds while interest rates fall from ~6% to ~3%, an eventuality that shouldn't be expected to occur again, as Bill Gross is painfully discovering.","A note on the article: I thought this article by Buffet on market level was particularly appropriate now, given the seemingly daily new highs, current level of interest rates (hint: they are incredibly low), and corporate profits (hint: they are incredibly high). If you believe the market will eventually revert to the mean, that implies substandard results over an extended period of time into the future.","Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.","\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"","\"First: what's your risk tolerance? How long is your investment going to last? If it's a short-term investment (a few years) and you expect to break even (or better) then your risk tolerance is low. You should not invest much money in stocks, even index funds and \"\"defensive\"\" stocks. If, however, you're looking for a long-term investment which you will put money into continually over the next 30 years, the amount of stock you purchase at any given time is pretty small, so the money you might lose by timing the market wrong will also be rather small. Also, you probably do a remarkably poor job of knowing when to buy stocks. If you actually knew how to time the market to materially improve your risk-adjusted returns, you've missed your calling; you should be making six figures or more on Wall Street. :)\"","You can try paper trading to sharpen your investing skills(identifying stocks to invest, how much money to allocate and stuff) but nothing compares to getting beaten black and blue in the real world. When virtual money is involved you mayn't care, because you don't loose anything, but when your hard earned money disappears or grows, no paper trading can incite those feelings in you. So there is no guarantee that doing paper trading will make you a better investor, but can help you a lot in terms of learning. Secondly educate yourself on the ways of investing. It is hard work and realize that there is no substitute for hard work. India is a growing economy and your friends maybe safe in the short term but take it from any INVESTOR, not in the long run. And moreover as all economies are recovering from the recession there are ample opportunities to invest money in India both good and bad. Calculate your returns and compare it with your friends maybe a year or two down the lane to compare the returns generated from both sides. Maybe they would come trumps but remember selecting a good investment from a bad investment will surely pay out in the long run. Not sure what you do not understand what Buffet says. It cannot get more simpler than that. If you can drill those rules into your blood, you mayn't become a billionaire but surely you will make a killing, but in the long run. Read and read as much as you can. Buy books, browse the net. This might help. One more guy like you.","You can never depend ONLY on pension. You must get financial education and invest your money. I recommend you to read The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham...it's the bible of Warren Buffet. Besides, you don't need to be a Billionaire for retiring and be happy. I recommend you to get education in ETFs. I quote The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham p. 131. According to Ibboston Associates, the leading financial research firm, if you had invested $12,000 in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index at the beginning of september 1929, 10 years later you would have had only $7,223 left. But if you had started with a paltry $100 and simply invested another $100 every single month, then by August 1939, your money would have grown to $15,571! That's the power of disciplined buying-even in the face of the Great Depression and the worst bear market of all time. You are still young to make even bolder investments. But seriously you can never depend ONLY on pension. You won't regret learning how to invest your money, it doesn't matter if it's in the stock market, real state market, whatever market... Knowing what to do with your money is priceless. I hope this helps. Happy profits!","You might want to consider 'investing' a portion of that money into educating yourself. The payoff might not be as immediately obvious or gratifying but with appropriate determination, in the long term it will generate you a much greater return. If you would like to learn about investing, a great starting point would be to buy and read the book 'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham. This will be a great barometer for how ready you are to invest in the stock market. If you are able to understand the concepts discussed and comprehend why they are important, you will have gone far in ensuring that you will make adequate returns over your lifetime and will - more importantly - increase the odds of safeguarding your capital.","The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged. It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull.","\"There are many questions and good answers here regarding investment choices. The first decision you need to make is how involved do you intend to be in investment activity. If you plan to be actively investing by yourself, you should look for questions here about making investment choices. If you intend to be a more passive investor, look for posts by \"\"Bogleheads\"\", who focus on broad-focused, low cost investments. This is the optimal choice for many people. If you are not comfortable managing investments at all, you need to figure out how to find a competent and reasonably priced financial advisor to meet with and guide your investment strategy. This advice generally costs about 1-2% of your total managed assets annually.\"","Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.","\"There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said \"\"Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10\"\". A few days later he comes back to me and says \"\"There are none\"\". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods.\"","If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.","I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.","Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.","\"The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) has this bit to note: The returns of small growth stocks are ridiculously low—just 2.18 percent per year since 1927 (versus 17.47 percent for small value, 10.06 percent for large growth, and 13.99 percent for large value). Where the S & P 500 would be a blend of large-cap growth and value so does that meet your \"\"beat the market over the long term\"\" as 1927-1999 would be long for most people.\"","\"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following \"\"market conditions\"\" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about.\"","\"The most important thing is to start. Don't waste months and years trying to figure out the \"\"optimal\"\" strategy or trying to read all the best books before you start. Pick a solid, simple choice, like investing in your company sponsored 401(k), and do it today. This I Will Teach You To Be Rich post on barriers has some good insight on this.\"","I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping.","\"Put the whole lot into a couple of low-cost broad index funds with dividends reinvested (also known as accumulation funds) and then don't look at them. Invest through a low-cost broker. There are a number to choose from and once you start googling around the theme of \"\"index fund investing\"\" you'll find them. The S&P 500 is a popular index to start with.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \\\"\\\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\\\"\\\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \\\"\\\"winners\\\"\\\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is \\\"\\\"Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund.\\\"\\\" Or as he said at a different time, \\\"\\\"Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees\\\"\\\". You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund. Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \\\"\\\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\\\"\\\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10 percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: \\\"\\\"I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions or individuals.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"As a corollary to this; the average investor will never know more than the market. Buffett can buy mispriced securities because he runs a multi-billion dollar company dedicated to finding these mispricings. My advice for the common man: 1. Invest in both Stocks (for growth) & Bonds (for wealth preservation) 2. Stocks should be almost exclusively Index Funds That's it. The stock market has a 'random walk with a positive drift' which means that in general, the market will increase in value. Index funds capture this value and will protect you against the inevitable BoA, AIG, Enron, etc. It's fine to invest in index funds with a strategy as well, for instance emerging market ETFs could capture the growth of a particular region. Bear ETFs are attractive if you think the market is going to hit a downturn in the future.\",\n \"\\\"I don't know really is the best investment strategy. People think that they have to know everything to make money. But realistically, out of the hundreds of thousands of publicly traded securities, you really can only invest in a tiny number of them. Of the course of a week, you literally have more than a million \\\"\\\"buy\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"don't buy\\\"\\\" decisions, because the prices of those securities fluctuate every day. Simply due to the fact that there are so many securities, you cannot know what everything is going to do. You have to say \\\"\\\"I don't know\\\"\\\". Also, when you do understand something, it is usually fairly priced. So will you make money on it? \\\"\\\"I don't know\\\"\\\". Only very rarely will you find something that you actually understand well and it is significantly undervalued. You can be looking at a company a day for two years before you find it. But people get trigger happy. They bet on 51%/49% odds when they should only bet on 90%/10% odds or higher. If you are forced to bet on everything, it makes sense that you bet on everything you believe is greater than 50% chance of winning. But since you cannot bet on everything, you should only bet on the highest quality bets, those with greater than 90% chance of winning. To find such a bet, you may have to shuffle through 100 different companies and only make 2-3 bets. You are looking for something that is at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean. People are not good at doing a lot of work, most of which yields nothing, to find one big payoff. They are wired to only look at the present, so they take the best bet they can see at the moment, which is often barely above 50% (and with any misjudgment, it may actually be well below 50%). And people are not good at understanding compound/geometric growth. You can keep multipling 10% gains (1.10 * 1.10 * 1.10 ...), but that can all be wiped out by multiplying by one zero, which is why taking a 51%/49% bet is so dangerous (even though technically it is an advantageous one). They forget to adjust for the geometric aspect of compounding. A 99%/1% bet is one you should take, but if you are allowed to repeat it and you keep going all-in, you will eventually lose and have $0, which is the same as if you took a single all-in bet that has 0% chance of winning. As Buffett says, if you are only allowed to make 20 investments over a lifetime, you will most likely do better because it prevents you from making many of these mistakes.\\\"\",\n \"A couple points, first you don't point out what investors you want to invest with, and second BRK.B does not track anything; it is just a very small slice of his entire holdings BRK.A minus the voting rights. One solid way to go would be to buy BRK.B and also a tech ETF like QQQ, or XLK, ..or both.\",\n \"\\\"Warren Buffet isn't using any special sauce. He looks for value and ignores hype, greed, and fear. He buys what he knows and looks for companies that generate cash and/or are available for a discount of their true value. He explains what he looks for in a company and his reasons for buying it. He has said on numerous occasions, \\\"\\\"I look for intrinsic value.\\\"\\\" (So there's your formula.) Human nature is often irrational and investing seems to bring out the fear and greed. I've always been a bit surprised when people ascribe some sort of sixth sense to Warren Buffet's success. He just works hard and doesn't deviate from a sound strategy. \\\"\\\"Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.\\\"\\\" And of course, rule one: \\\"\\\"Don't lose money.\\\"\\\" It's not a joke. How many people buy high and sell low because of fear and greed? When the market tanks, buy more. Finally, anyone can invest with Buffet without all the work. Just buy a few shares of BRK.A or BRK.B.\\\"\",\n \"The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.\",\n \"\\\"That's great that you have saved up money. You are ahead of your peers. I would advise against investing in an index fund. The attraction of the idea is that you will get the same return as the base item. For example, an index fund of gold would supposedly give you the same return as if you bought gold. In reality this is not true. The return of an index fund is always significantly below the return of the underlying commodity. Your best strategy is to invest in something you know and understand. There are two books that can help you learn how to do this: \\\"\\\"One Up on Wall Street\\\"\\\" by Peter Lynch and \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Investor\\\"\\\" by Benjamin Graham. Buying, reading and following the guidance in these two books is your best investment of time and money.\\\"\",\n \"That is absolute rubbish. Warren Buffet follows simple value and GARP tenants that literally anyone could follow if they had the discipline to do so. I have never once heard of an investment made by Warren Buffet that wasn't rooted in fundamentals and easy to understand. The concept is fairly simple as is the math, buying great companies trading at discounts to what they are worth due to market fluctuations, emotionality, or overreactions to key sectors etc. If I buy ABC corp at $10 knowing it is worth $20, it could go down or trade sideways for FIVE YEARS doing seemingly nothing and then one day catch up with its worth due to any number of factors. In that case, my 100% return which took five years to actualize accounts for an average 20% return per year. Also (and this should be obvious), but diversification is a double edged sword. Every year, hundreds of stocks individually beat the market return. Owning any one of these stocks as your only holding would mean that YOU beat the market. As you buy more stocks and diversify your return will get closer and closer to that of an index or mutual fund. My advice is to stick to fundamentals like value and GARP investing, learn to separate when the market is being silly from when it is responding to a genuine concern, do your own homework and analysis on the stocks you buy, BE PATIENT after buying stock that your analysis gives you confidence in, and don't over diversify. If you do these things, congrats. YOU ARE Warren Buffet.\",\n \"\\\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \\\"\\\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\\\"\\\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \\\"\\\"The RRSP Secret\\\"\\\" by Greg Habstritt. \\\"\\\"Unshakeable\\\"\\\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the \\\"\\\"outcome\\\"\\\" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M? Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word \\\"\\\"average\\\"\\\". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. \\\"\\\"Heavyweights\\\"\\\" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes. Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion.\\\"\",\n \"Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.\",\n \"It is only wise to invest in what you understand (ala Warren Buffet style). Depending on how much money you have, you might see fit to consult a good independent financial advisor instead of seeking advice from this website. A famous quote goes: “Those who say, do not know. Those who know, do not say”\",\n \"Don't invest in regular mutual funds. They are a rip-off. And, most investment professionals will not do much to help your financial future. Here's the advice:\",\n \"I think the list could have added: - Save in regular intervals using the same strategy. Just to make sure that good old dollar cost averaging is thrown in. That's probably where most people go way wrong. Save money all year, dump it on a stock they like because some family friend investment expert said that 'apple prices will go up' with out explaining that you need to take advantage of mean reversion to help spread the risk.\",\n \"This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.\",\n \"I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way. Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book. It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays. Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company. In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company. How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate. You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic. Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing. Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it. Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price. It is good to look at index funds as a diversification. Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars. Big deal. How much money could you earn during that time period? Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time. If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double. Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing. Start building funds that can compound. Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant. The key is to get money to compound!\",\n \"Read Warren Buffett's letters to his shareholders - they are such an interesting read and I guarantee you'll learn more than financial modelling - you will learn how to think about these businesses. Must be what 700-800 pages in total?\",\n \"\\\"So, I've read the article in question, \\\"\\\"Basically, It's Over\\\"\\\". Here's my opinion: I respect Charlie Munger but I think his parable misses the mark. If he's trying to convince the average person (or at least the average Slate-reading person) that America is overspending and headed for trouble, the parable could have been told better. I wasn't sure how to follow some of the analogies he was making, and didn't experience the clear \\\"\\\"aha\\\"\\\" I was hoping for. Nevertheless, I agree with his point of view, which I see as: In the long run, the United States is going to have serious difficulty in supporting its debt habit, energy consumption habit, and its currency. In terms of an investment strategy to protect oneself, here are some thoughts. These don't constitute a complete strategy, but are some points to consider as part of an overall strategy: If the U.S. is going to continue amassing debt fast, it would stand to reason it will become a worse credit risk, requiring it to pay higher interest rates on its debt. Long-term treasury bonds would decline as rates increase, and so wouldn't be a great place to be invested today. In order to pay the mounting debt and debt servicing costs, the U.S. will continue to run the printing presses, to inflate itself out of debt. This increase in the money supply will put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar relative to the currencies of better-run economies. U.S. cash and short-term treasuries might not be a great place to be invested today. Hedge with inflation-indexed bonds (e.g. TIPS) or the bonds of stronger major economies – but diversify; don't just pick one. If you agree that energy prices are headed higher, especially relative to U.S. dollars, then a good sector to invest a portion of one's portfolio would be world energy producing companies. (Send some of your money over to Canada, we have lots of oil and we're right next door :-) Anybody who has already been practicing broad, global diversification is already reasonably protected. Clearly, \\\"\\\"diversification\\\"\\\" across just U.S. stocks and bonds is not enough. Finally: I don't underestimate the ability of the U.S. to get out of this rut. U.S. history has impressed upon me (as a Canadian) two things in particular: it is highly capable of both innovating and of overcoming challenges. I'm keeping a small part of my portfolio invested in strong U.S. companies that are proven innovators – not of the \\\"\\\"financial\\\"\\\"-innovation variety – and with global reach.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As foundational material, read \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Investor\\\"\\\" by Benjamin Graham. It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Those who say a person should invest in riskier assets when young are those who equate higher returns with higher risk. I would argue that any investment you do not understand is risky and allows you to lose money at a more rapid rate than someone who understands the investment. The way to reduce risk is to learn about what you want to invest in before you invest in it. Learning afterward can be a very expensive proposition, possibly costing you your retirement. Warren Buffet told the story on Bloomberg Radio in late 2013 of how he read everything in his local library on investing as a teenager and when his family moved to Washington he realized he had the entire Library of Congress at his disposal. One of Mr. Buffett's famous quotes when asked why he doesn't invest in the tech sector was: \\\"\\\"I don't invest in what I do not understand.\\\"\\\". There are several major asset classes: Paper (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, currency), Commodities (silver, gold, oil), Businesses (creation, purchase or partnership as opposed to common stock ownership) and Real Estate (rental properties, flips, land development). Pick one that interests you and learn everything about it that you can before investing. This will allow you to minimize and mitigate risks while increasing the rewards.\\\"\",\n \"Warren Buffett answered this question very well at the 2009 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting. He said that it was important to read everything you can about investing. What you will find is that you will have a number of competing ideas in your head. You will need to think these through and find the best way to solve them that fits you. You will mostly learn how to invest through good examples. There are fewer good examples out there than you might think, given how many books there are and how many people get paid to give advice in this area. If you want to see how professional investors actually think about specific investments, over a thousand investment examples can be found at www.valueinvestorsclub.com, just login as a guest. The site is run by Joel Greenblatt (you would benefit from reading his books also), and it will give you a sense of the work that investors put into their research. Good luck.\",\n \"\\\"Despite Buffett's nearly perfect consistent advice over the past few decades, they don't reflect his earliest days. His modern philosophy seemed to solidify in the 1970s. You can see that Buffett's earliest days grew faster, at 29.5 % for those partners willing to take on leverage with Buffett, than the last half century, at 19.7%. Not only is Buffett limited by size, as its quite difficult to squeeze one half trillion USD into sub-billion USD investments, but the economy thus market is far different than it was before the 1980s. He would have to acquire at least 500 billion USD companies outright, and there simply aren't that many available that satisfy all of his modern conditions. The market is much different now than it was when he first started at Graham-Newman because before the 1960s, the economy thus market would collapse and rebound about every few years. This sort of variance can actually help a value investor because a true value investor will abandon investments when valuations are high and go all in when valuations are low. The most extreme example was when he tried to as quietly as possible buy up an insurance company selling for something like a P/E of 1 during one of the collapses. These kinds of opportunities are seldom available anymore, not even during the 2009 collapse. As he became larger, those investments became off limits because it simply wasn't worth his time to find such a high returner if it's only a bare fraction of his wealth. Also, he started to deviate from Benjamin Graham's methods and started to incorporate Philip Fisher's. By the 1970s, his investment philosophy was more or less cemented. He tried to balance Graham's avarice for price with Fisher's for value. All of the commentary that special tax dodges or cheap financing are central to his returns are false. They contributed, but they are ancillary. As one can see by comparing the limited vs general partners, leverage helps enormously, but this is still a tangent. Buffett has undoubtedly built his wealth from the nature of his investments. The exact blueprint can be constructed by reading every word he has published and any quotes he has not disavowed. Simply, he buys the highest quality companies in terms of risk-adjusted growth at the best available prices. Quantitatively, it is a simple strategy to replicate. NFLX was selling very cheaply during the mid-2000s, WDC sells frequently at low valuations, up and coming retailers frequently sell at low valuations, etc. The key to Buffett's method is emotional control and removing the mental block that price equals value; price is cost, value is revenue, and that concept is the hardest for most to imbibe. Quoting from the first link: One sidelight here: it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately to people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of IQ or academic training. It's instant recognition, or it is nothing. and I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market. These Graham-and-Doddsville investors have successfully exploited gaps between price and value. When the price of a stock can be influenced by a \\\"\\\"herd\\\"\\\" on Wall Street with prices set at the margin by the most emotional person, or the greediest person, or the most depressed person, it is hard to argue that the market always prices rationally. In fact, market prices are frequently nonsensical. and finally Success in investing doesn’t correlate with I.Q. once you’re above the level of 25. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing. There is almost no information on any who has helped Buffett internally or even managed Berkshire's investments aside from Louis Simpson. It is unlikely that Buffett has allowed anyone to manage much of Berkshire's investments considering the consistent stream of commentary from him claiming that he nearly does nothing except read annual reports all day to the extent that he may have neglected his family to some degree and that listening to others will more likely hurt performance than help with the most striking example being his father's recommendation that he not open a hedge fund after retiring from Graham-Newman because he believed the market was topping, and he absolutely idolized his father.\\\"\",\n \"As a young investor, you should know that the big secret is that profitable long term investing is boring. It is is not buying one day and selling the next and keeping very close tabs on your investments and jumping on the computer and going 'Buy!' , 'Sell'. That makes brokers rich, but not you. So look at investments but not everyday and find something else that's exciting, whether it's dirt biking or WOW or competitive python coding. As a 19 year old, you have a ton of time and you don't need to swing for the fences and make 50% or 30% or even 20% returns every year to do well. And you don't have to pick the best performing stocks, and if you do, you don;t have to buy them at their lowest or sell them at their highest. Go read A Random Walk's guide to Investing by Burton Malkiel and The only Investment Guide you'll ever need by Andrew Tobias. Buy them at used bookstores because it's cheaper that way. And if you want more excitement read You Can Be a Stock Market Genius by Joel GreenBlatt, One up On Wall Street By Peter Lynch, something by Warren Buffet and if you want to be really whacked, read Fooled By Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Talib, But never forget about Tobias and Malkiel, invest a regular amount of money every month from 19 to 65 according to what they write and you'll be a wealthy guy by 65.\",\n \"\\\"Invest in productive assets and by that I mean companies. Edit: I'll elaborate on \\\"\\\"productive assets\\\"\\\": any asset that produces something; whether it produces cash or a commodity, you'll automatically accumulate more of its byproduct in the future. The rest is self explanatory\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you can afford the time and are looking for more deep, and fun, investment tips, check out http://gurufocus.com. Great for more fundamental analysis of \\\"\\\"Intelligent Investor\\\"\\\" type Benjamin Graham-style businesses. No use scatter-shooting the stock exchange hoping to find good value businesses. Even blue-chips have an increasingly uncertain future (except IMHO certain world dominators like KO, WMT, XO and MCD).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \\\"\\\"get into investing,\\\"\\\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \\\"\\\"normalized\\\"\\\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\\\"\",\n \"If you see something that looks like a sales pitch, be skeptical, even if they sound informed, say things which resonate with your concerns and promise to alleviate your problems. Watch out in particular for people who pontificate about matters which are tangentially related to the investment (e.g. populist anti-Wall-Street sentiment). Beware limited-time opportunities, offers, and discounts. I'm specifically talking about your email pitches, Motley Fool. They're shameful. Remember you're allowed to change your mind and go back on something that you've said a few minutes ago. If anyone tries to trick you into agreeing to go along with them by taking what something you've said and manipulating it, or uses logic to demonstrate that you must buy something based on things you've said, tell them you're not comfortable, head for the door and don't look back. Don't be afraid of embarrassment or anything like that. (You can investigate whether your position is in fact logically consistent later.) Run away from anyone who resents or deprecates the notion of a second opinion. Don't ever go along with anything that seems shady: it may be shadier than you know. Some people thought Bernie Maddoff was doing some front-running on the side; turns out it was a Ponzi scheme. (Likewise the Ponzi scheme that devastated Albania's economy was widely suspected of being dirty, but people suspected more of a black-market angle.) Beware of anyone who is promising stability and protection. Insurance companies can sell you products (especially annuities) which can deliver it, but they're very expensive for what you get. Don't buy it unless you seriously need it.\",\n \"For the mechanices/terms of stock investing, I recommend Learn to Earn by Peter Lynch. I also like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. It explains why indexing is the best choice for most people. For stock picking, a good intro is The Little Book of Value Investing by Chris Brown. And then there is The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. IMO, this is the bible of investing.\",\n \"Commonly recommended books: Intelligent Investor - Graham One Up On Wall Street - Lynch The Essays of Warren Buffett : Lessons for Corporate America - Cunningham Graham's book should be mandatory reading for this sub. Lynch's book talks about leveraging your personal expertise to make intelligent investment choices. Cunningham's is a compilation of Warren Buffett's letters to shareholders of BH with some commentary. It covers a wider range of material, but the lessons on corporate governance are very useful when doing valuation.\",\n \"A guy I used to work with would buy some shares in certain companies on a regular basis. The guy in question chose Coke, Pepsi, GE, Disney and some other old stable stocks. He just kept buying a few shared ($50 or so at a time) year after year after year. He worked his entire life, but by the time he was ready to retire, he had a pretty sizable investment; he was worth a rather tidy sum. The moral of the story is, it is very much worth it to invest a bit at a time. Don't bother with the idea of buying low and selling high; not right now. Just go ahead and buy stable stocks (or shares of index funds) and wait them out. This strategy (mixed with other retirement tactics like a 401K from work, and IRA of your own, Social Security in the US) is a good way to build wealth. Don't spend money you don't have, be ready for a long term investment and I think it makes great sense, regardless of what country you live in.\",\n \"I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.\",\n \"\\\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \\\"\\\"hot\\\"\\\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\\\"\",\n \"The key to good investing is you need to understand what you are investing in. That is, if you are buying a company that makes product X, you need to understand that. It is a good idea to buy stock in good companies but that is not sufficient. You need to buy stock in good companies at good prices. That means you need to understand things like price to earnings, price to revenue and price to book. Bob\",\n \"I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.\",\n \"Powers makes a good point: trading costs may eat up a significant portion of your ROI. A fee as little as 2% can consume more than 50% of your long-term ROI! A rule of thumb is keep your fees to less than 1%. One way to do that is to buy stock in companies that have a DRIP with a Share Purchase Plan (SPP). Often the SPP allows investors to purchase shares for low fees or free. Once you have the ability to purchase shares for (virtually) free, you can use InvestMete. Roughly, you send more money to the companies whose share prices are near their 52-week low, and less money to those who are near their 52-week high. Getting back to your original question...\",\n \"Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.\",\n \"\\\"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords. Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000. He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in \\\"\\\"genius moves\\\"\\\" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too. Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference. In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"What you are seeking is termed \\\"\\\"Alpha\\\"\\\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Investor\\\"\\\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \\\"\\\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\\\"\\\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As ChrisInEdmonton describes, shorting has an asymmetric risk/reward ratio. And put options have a time cost, if you think the market is overvalued and buy lots of puts, but they expire before the market finally corrects, you can lose your entire investment. Betting on market timing of any kind is extremely difficult to do, some would argue it's impossible. \\\"\\\"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent\\\"\\\" is a favorite wall street trader saying. Instead of playing a game that's difficult to win, the better option is to play one you can win. That's to learn how to value individual investments well and accumulate cash until you can find investments that are under-valued to invest in. The best way to learn to value investments is to read Graham and Buffett. \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Investor\\\"\\\" is a good starting point, and you can read all of Buffett's investor letters for the last 30 years + for free on the Berkshire Hathaway web site. Finally the textbook on valuing stocks and other investments is \\\"\\\"Securities Analysis\\\"\\\" the 6th edition is only version to get, it was updated with Buffett and other leading value investors oversight. A basic overview of valuing investments is that every investment has an \\\"\\\"intrinsic value\\\"\\\" consisting of it's future cash flows, discounted for the time it takes to receive them. The skill is being able to estimate how likely those cash flows are to happen. a) Is it a good business? Does it have a moat, i.e. barriers that make it hard for competitors to duplicate it? b) Will management invest or distribute those cash flows wisely? Then your strategy is to not even worry about the market, spend your time looking at individual stocks and investments and wait until some come along that's well undervalued. That may be during a market correction, or it may be tomorrow. And it's not just good enough to intelligently value your investments, you also have to have psychological fortitude to not panic and to think for yourself. Buffett describes it best. Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his. Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you. But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game. Lastly learning to value investments isn't just useful in the stock market, they are applicable to investing in any investment such as bonds, real estate, and even buying your home or running a business.\\\"\",\n \"Buffet is in a different league from other value investors. He looks for stable companies with no debt and good management. Then he looks to deeply understand the industries of candidate companies, and looks for companies that are not in commodity businesses or sell commodities that can be bought for 25% of the valuation that he believes reflects the true value of the company. Deeply understanding the market is really the key. Consider the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which Buffet purchased last year. Railroads benefit from higher oil prices, as they can transport cargo much cheaper than trucks. They also tend to have natural monopolies in the regions they operate in. Buffet bought the railroad just as production of oil and natural gas in North Dakota started picking up. Since pipeline capacity between North Dakota and refineries in Texas/Oklahoma is very limited, the railroad is making alot of money transporting crude.\",\n \"This fortune article is referenced in his either 2003 or 2004 annual report in which he does say that the market will not likely return much in the future and generally talks numbers. I am also a value investor, such that I can be in this environment and believe there is a bit of value in knowing where you think the market is headed but the real value is in underwriting each deal. In long, I agree with you\",\n \"If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.\",\n \"\\\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Investor\\\"\\\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\\\"\",\n \"As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.\",\n \"\\\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \\\"\\\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\\\"\\\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm a senior majoring in accounting and management information systems. Here is a question I answered a while back about financial statements and employee retention. In the answer that I provided at the bottom it was to assess a company's ability to pay by use of ratios. Likewise, similar accounting methods need to be understood and implemented when assessing stocks(which is where I believe Mr. Buffet was going with this). As we can see the severity of the questions decreases, but if you can not answer question 3 then you should study accounting principles. So how much is enough just to get started? You will never have enough knowledge to start, period. You will have to continuously be learning, so start sooner than later. However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. A comment on @Veronica's post. Understanding economics and accounting are fundamental. Analysis, seeing trends, and copying are instinctual human traits that helped us evolve (we are very good at pattern recognition). Taking an intro economic and accounting course at a local community college is an excellent place to start when breaking the mold of pattern-thinking. You have to be critical in understanding what elements move a company's A/R in the statement of cash flows. Read. Literally, don't stop reading. Latest edition of of Kesio's accounting principles? Read it. Cover to cover. Tax policies on Section 874, 222, 534? Read it. Take a class, read a book, ask questions! Good Luck, \\\"\\\"Welcome to [the] Science [of Business], you're gonna like it here\\\"\\\" - Phil Plait\\\"\",\n \"Read the Security Analysis. I believe if you read it completely, you will have a real good chance of succeeding at making good money. If you find the book hard to read just go through it and underline under the text as you read it.\",\n \"I would always recommend the intelligent investor by Benjamin Graham the mentor of warren buffet once you have a basic knowledge ie what is a share bond guilt etc In terms of pure investment the UK is fairly similar the major difference is the simpler tax structure, ISA allowance and the more generous CGT regime.\",\n \"Adding to the very good advises above - Concentrate on costs related to investment activity. Note all expenses and costs that you pay. Keep it low.\",\n \"\\\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \\\"\\\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\\\"\\\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\\\"\",\n \"Lots of good advice so far. Here's some meta-advice. Read through everything here twice, and distill out what the big picture ideas are. Learn about what you need to know about them. Pick a strategy and/or long term goals. Work toward them. Get advice from many many places and distill it. This is currently known as crowd-sourcing but I've been doing it all my life. It's very effective. No one will ever care as much about your money as you. Some specific things I haven't seen mentioned (or not mentioned much):\",\n \"Value investing is an investment approach that relies on buying securities below their intrinsic values. There are two main concepts; one is the Intrinsic Value and the other is Margin of Safety. Intrinsic value is the value of the underlying business - if we are talking about stocks - that can be calculated through carefully analyzing the business looking at all aspects of it. If there is an intrinsic value exists for a company then there is a price tag we can put on its shares as well. Value investing is looking to buy shares well below its intrinsic value. It is important to know that there is no correct intrinsic value exists for a company and two people can come up with different figures, if they were presented the same data. Calculating the intrinsic value for a business is the hardest part of value investing. Margin of Safety is the difference between the buying price of a stock and its intrinsic value. Value investors are insisting on buying stocks well below their intrinsic value, where the margin of safety is 20%-30% or even more. This concepts is protecting them from poor decisions and market downturns. It is also providing a room for error, when calculating the intrinsic value. The approach was introduced by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd in a book called Security Analysis in 1934. Other famous investor using this approach is Warren Buffet Books to read: I would start to read the first two book first.\",\n \"The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.\",\n \"you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.\",\n \"You have received much good advice, but based on 53 years investing and the first 25 getting my nose bloodied and breaking even I very strongly offer the following. Before doing so let me first offer this caveat: I am not questioning your broker or the advice, but it is only valuable to you if history proves correct. No one, not even Bernanke can predict how stock will perform in the future. Maybe if he sees a depression. My advice to someone new to stock investing is to purchase a index fund from a discount broker, e.g. Fidelity or Vanguard, and then study the market and economics. The Wall Street Journal and the web are my favorites. I started with a hell of a lot less than you have saved, I would not turn $200K over to anyone until you know exactly the risk and cost involved. Also, I wouldn't depend on one person or firm to advise or manage my money. I like to balance one against the other. I do not recall different firms recommending the same stocks. One must remember everyone in the business of recommending stock or any investment is selling something and must be compensated. That's how they earn a living.\",\n \"\\\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \\\"\\\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\\\"\\\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \\\"\\\"financial planner,\\\"\\\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm 39 and have been investing since my very early 20's, and the advice I'd like to go back and give myself is the following: 1) Time is your friend. Compounding interest is a powerful force and is probably the most important factor to how much money you are going to wind up with in the end. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can. You have to run twice as hard to catch up if you start late, and you will still probably wind up with less in the end for the extra effort. 2) Don't invest 100% of your investment money It always bugged me to let my cash sit idle in an investment account because the niggling notion of inflation eating up my money and I felt I was wasting opportunity cost by not being fully invested in something. However, not having enough investable cash around to buy into the fire-sale dips in the market made me miss out on opportunities. 3) Diversify The dot.com bubble taught me this in a big, hairy painful way. I had this idea that as a technologist I really understood the tech bubble and fearlessly over-invested in Tech stocks. I just knew that I was on top of things as an \\\"\\\"industry insider\\\"\\\" and would know when to jump. Yeah. That didn't work out so well. I lost more than 6 figures, at least on paper. Diversification will attenuate the ups and downs somewhat and make the market a lot less scary in the long run. 4) Mind your expenses It took me years of paying huge full-service broker fees to realize that those clowns don't seem to do any better than anyone else at picking stocks. Even when they do, the transaction costs are a lead weight on your returns. The same holds true for mutual funds/ETFs. Shop for low expense ratios aggressively. It is really hard for a fund manager to consistently beat the indexes especially when you burden the returns with expense ratios that skim an extra 1% or so off the top. The expense ratio/broker fees are among the very few things that you can predict reliably when it comes to investments, take advantage of this knowledge. 5) Have an exit strategy for every investment People are emotional creatures. It is hard to be logical when you have skin in the game and most people aren't disciplined enough to just admit when they have a loser and bail out while they are in the red or conversely admit when they have a winner and take profits before the party is over. It helps to counteract this instinct to have an exit strategy for each investment you buy. That is, you will get out if it drops by x% or grows by y%. In fact, it is probably a good idea to just enter those sell limit orders right after you buy the investment so you don't have to convince yourself to press the eject button in the heat of a big move in the price of that investment. Don't try to predict tops or bottoms. They are extremely hard to guess and things often turn so fast that you can't act on them in time anyway. Get out of an investment when it has met your goal or is going to far in the wrong direction. If you find yourself saying \\\"\\\"It has to come back eventually\\\"\\\", slap yourself. When you are trying to decide whether to stay in the investment or bail, the most important question is \\\"\\\"If I had the current cash value of the stock instead of shares, would I buy it today?\\\"\\\" because essentially that is what you are doing when you stick with an investment. 6) Don't invest in fads When you are investing you become acutely sensitive to everyone's opinions on what investment is hot and what is not. If everyone is talking about a particular investment, avoid it. The more enthusiastic people are about it (even experts) the MORE you should avoid it. When everyone starts forming investment clubs at work and the stock market seems to be the preferred topic of conversation at every party you go to. Get out! I'm a big fan of contrarian investing. Take profits when it feels like all the momentum is going into the market, and buy in when everyone seems to be running for the doors.\\\"\",\n \"I am a bit at a loss as to how you can read the same book, that inspired Warren Buffet, and take away that trading 600 contracts per month is a way to prosperity. As a fellow engineer I can say with assurance this speculation scheme is doomed to failure. Crossing out the word gamble was a mistake. Instead you should focus on two things. The first is your core business, which is signal processing. Work and strive to be the best you can. Seek out opportunities to increase your income while keeping your costs low. As an engineer you have an opportunity to earn an above average salary with very low costs. Second would be to warehouse some of those earning and let others who are good at other things work for you. You may want to read the Jack Bogle books and seek an asset allocation model. I tend to be more aggressive then he would suggest, but that is a matter of preference. You don't really have the time, when you focus on your core business, to manage 6 trades a month let alone 600. Put your contributions on auto pilot and a surprisingly short time you will have a pile of cash.\",\n \"\\\"Read \\\"\\\"The intelligent Investor\\\"\\\" book before you do anything. I started when I really didn't understand anything about stocks. I bought an internet stock for $150 per share which sold at 75cents a year later. I sold it for a profit but would've been a disaster.\\\"\",\n \"Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)\",\n \"\\\"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now. In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not \\\"\\\"pure stocks\\\"\\\": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done \\\"\\\"by hand,\\\"\\\" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard. (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice.\\\"\",\n \"I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again.\",\n \"Don't be too scared of investing in the market. It has ups and downs, but over the long haul you make money in it. You can't jump in and out, just consistently add money to investments that you 1) understand and 2) trust. When I say understand, what I mean is you can follow how the money is generated, either because a company sells products, a government promises to pay back the bond, or compounding interest makes sense. You don't need to worry about the day to day details, but if you don't understand how the money is made, it isn't transparent enough and a danger could be afoot. Here are some basic rules I try (!) to follow The biggest trick is to invest what you can, and do so consistently. You can build wealth by earning more and spending less. I personally find spending less a lot easier, but earning more is pretty easy with some simple investment tools.\",\n \"I would say that the three most important skills are: Note that some costs are hidden. So, for example, a mutual fund investing in other countries than where you live in may mean the investment target country charges a certain percentage of dividends going to the mutual fund. The mutual fund company doesn't usually want to tell you this. There may be clever financial instruments (derivatives) that can be used to avoid this, but they are not without their problems. If you diversify into equities at low cost, you will have a very wealthy future. I would recommend you to compare two options: ...and pick from these options the cheaper one. If your time has a high value, and you wish to take this value into account, I would say it is almost always far better option to choose an index fund. Whatever you do, don't pay for active management! It is a mathematical truth that before costs, actively managed investments will yield the same return than indexed investments. However, the costs are higher in active management, so you will have less total return. Don't believe that good historical return would imply good future return. However, if for some reason you see an index fund that continuously loses to the index more than by the amount of stated costs, beware!\",\n \"Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway took a 50% loss in each of the last two bear markets. His stock even lost 10% in 2015 when the S&P lost 8%. He doesn't have a track record to support the claim that his stock performs relatively better in a bear market, so perhaps it's best to take his letter with a grain of salt. Edit: As one commenter points out, Mr. Buffett is comparing the book performance of his fund to the market performance of an index. That is an apples to oranges comparison. It's deceptive at best.\",\n \"\\\"Most articles on investing recommend that investors that are just starting out to invest in index stock or bonds funds. This is the easiest way to get rolling and limit risk by investing in bonds and stocks, and not either one of the asset classes alone. When you start to look deeper into investing there are so many options: Small Cap, Large Cap, technical analysis, fundamental analysis, option strategies, and on and on. This can end up being a full time job or chewing into a lot of personal time. It is a great challenge to learn various investment strategies frankly for the average person that works full time it is a huge effort. I would recommend also reading \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\\\"\\\" to get a wider perspective on how asset allocation can help grow a portfolio and reduce risk. This book covers a simple process.\\\"\",\n \"1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.\",\n \"\\\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \\\"\\\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\\\"\\\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\\\"\",\n \"Patience is the key to success. If you hold strong without falling to temptations like seeing a small surge in the price. If it goes down it comes up after a period of time. Just invest on the share when it reaches low bottom and you could see you money multiplying year after year\",\n \"Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.\",\n \"In general, the better advice I've heard is to spend only on things that matter to you and scrimp on the rest. It's an easy way to budget without having to stick to a strict set of rules. Otherwise keep 3-6 months of living expenses in liquid accounts (money market, savings) and invest the rest.\",\n \"\\\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \\\"\\\"The other useful technique is \\\"\\\"rebalancing,\\\"\\\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\\\"\\\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \\\"\\\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\\\"\\\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\\\"\",\n \"\\\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \\\"\\\"buy index funds.\\\"\\\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \\\"\\\"autopilotness\\\"\\\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\\\"\",\n \"John Bogle never said only buy the S&P 500 or any single index Q:Do you think the average person could safely invest for retirement and other goals without expert advice -- just by indexing? A: Yes, there is a rule of thumb I add to that. You should start out heavily invested in equities. Hold some bond index funds as well as stock index funds. By the time you get closer to retirement or into your retirement, you should have a significant position in bond index funds as well as stock index funds. As we get older, we have less time to recoup. We have more money to protect and our nervousness increases with age. We get a little bit worried about that nest egg when it's large and we have little time to recoup it, so we pay too much attention to the fluctuations in the market, which in the long run mean nothing. How much to pay Q: What's the highest expense ratio that one should pay for a domestic equity fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent maybe. Q: For an international fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent. Q: For a bond fund? A: One-half of 1 percent. But I'd shave that a little bit. For example, if you can buy a no-load bond fund or a no-load stock fund, you can afford a little more expense ratio, because you're not paying any commission. You've eliminated cost No. 2....\",\n \"\\\"If you're not rich, investing money will produce very small return, and is a waste of your resources. If you want to save until you die, then go for it (that's what investment companies want you to do). I suggest invest your money in building a network of friends who will be future asset for you. A group of friends helping each other have a much higher prospect of success. It has been proven that approximately 70% of jobs have been obtained through networking. Either through family, or friends, this is the vast majority. I will reiterate, invest on friends and family, not on strangers who want to tie down your money so they can have fun for the moment, while you wait to have fun when you're almost dead. Added source for those who are questioning the most well known fact within organizations, I'm baffled by the level of ignorance. Linkedin Recruitment Blog ...companies want to hire from within first; only when there are no appropriate internal candidates will they rely on referrals from employees (who get a bonus for a successful hire) and people who will approach them through informational meetings. The latter category of jobseekers (you) have the benefit of getting known before the job is \\\"\\\"officially posted.\\\"\\\" For those who believe loaning money to friends and family is a way of losing money -> this is a risk well worth taking -> and the risk is much lower than loaning your money to strangers -> and the reward is much higher than loaning your money to strangers.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, you're absolutely right. For such small amounts and such large fees, almost any investment choice is pointless. Some brokers allow for commission free ETF trading. Seek them out. As you've noticed, bond interest rates are almost 0%. This is a far cry from the days of Benjamin Graham, where the USD acted more like gold, with much more frequent booms and busts. During Graham's heyday, one could sell one's bonds at super low interest rates and buy them back again when high. In his day, interest rates would be very high one year like in 2008 and next to nothing the next like in 2009, cycling back and forth, until the 1960s hit, and he didn't know what to do. Graham preferred to wait for the reversion to the mean, and act only when far from it. Those opportunities are few and far between now since fiat currencies are far better managed than they were then, the Fed-caused 2009 total destruction as an outlier to recent times. In your case, it's best to leave the bonds to the insurance companies and buy equities. If you want less volatility, buy a buy-write ETF. Bonds will surely disappoint unless one is lucky enough to hold bonds while interest rates fall from ~6% to ~3%, an eventuality that shouldn't be expected to occur again, as Bill Gross is painfully discovering.\",\n \"A note on the article: I thought this article by Buffet on market level was particularly appropriate now, given the seemingly daily new highs, current level of interest rates (hint: they are incredibly low), and corporate profits (hint: they are incredibly high). If you believe the market will eventually revert to the mean, that implies substandard results over an extended period of time into the future.\",\n \"Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.\",\n \"\\\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \\\"\\\"lesser bad\\\"\\\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First: what's your risk tolerance? How long is your investment going to last? If it's a short-term investment (a few years) and you expect to break even (or better) then your risk tolerance is low. You should not invest much money in stocks, even index funds and \\\"\\\"defensive\\\"\\\" stocks. If, however, you're looking for a long-term investment which you will put money into continually over the next 30 years, the amount of stock you purchase at any given time is pretty small, so the money you might lose by timing the market wrong will also be rather small. Also, you probably do a remarkably poor job of knowing when to buy stocks. If you actually knew how to time the market to materially improve your risk-adjusted returns, you've missed your calling; you should be making six figures or more on Wall Street. :)\\\"\",\n \"You can try paper trading to sharpen your investing skills(identifying stocks to invest, how much money to allocate and stuff) but nothing compares to getting beaten black and blue in the real world. When virtual money is involved you mayn't care, because you don't loose anything, but when your hard earned money disappears or grows, no paper trading can incite those feelings in you. So there is no guarantee that doing paper trading will make you a better investor, but can help you a lot in terms of learning. Secondly educate yourself on the ways of investing. It is hard work and realize that there is no substitute for hard work. India is a growing economy and your friends maybe safe in the short term but take it from any INVESTOR, not in the long run. And moreover as all economies are recovering from the recession there are ample opportunities to invest money in India both good and bad. Calculate your returns and compare it with your friends maybe a year or two down the lane to compare the returns generated from both sides. Maybe they would come trumps but remember selecting a good investment from a bad investment will surely pay out in the long run. Not sure what you do not understand what Buffet says. It cannot get more simpler than that. If you can drill those rules into your blood, you mayn't become a billionaire but surely you will make a killing, but in the long run. Read and read as much as you can. Buy books, browse the net. This might help. One more guy like you.\",\n \"You can never depend ONLY on pension. You must get financial education and invest your money. I recommend you to read The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham...it's the bible of Warren Buffet. Besides, you don't need to be a Billionaire for retiring and be happy. I recommend you to get education in ETFs. I quote The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham p. 131. According to Ibboston Associates, the leading financial research firm, if you had invested $12,000 in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index at the beginning of september 1929, 10 years later you would have had only $7,223 left. But if you had started with a paltry $100 and simply invested another $100 every single month, then by August 1939, your money would have grown to $15,571! That's the power of disciplined buying-even in the face of the Great Depression and the worst bear market of all time. You are still young to make even bolder investments. But seriously you can never depend ONLY on pension. You won't regret learning how to invest your money, it doesn't matter if it's in the stock market, real state market, whatever market... Knowing what to do with your money is priceless. I hope this helps. Happy profits!\",\n \"You might want to consider 'investing' a portion of that money into educating yourself. The payoff might not be as immediately obvious or gratifying but with appropriate determination, in the long term it will generate you a much greater return. If you would like to learn about investing, a great starting point would be to buy and read the book 'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham. This will be a great barometer for how ready you are to invest in the stock market. If you are able to understand the concepts discussed and comprehend why they are important, you will have gone far in ensuring that you will make adequate returns over your lifetime and will - more importantly - increase the odds of safeguarding your capital.\",\n \"The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged. It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull.\",\n \"\\\"There are many questions and good answers here regarding investment choices. The first decision you need to make is how involved do you intend to be in investment activity. If you plan to be actively investing by yourself, you should look for questions here about making investment choices. If you intend to be a more passive investor, look for posts by \\\"\\\"Bogleheads\\\"\\\", who focus on broad-focused, low cost investments. This is the optimal choice for many people. If you are not comfortable managing investments at all, you need to figure out how to find a competent and reasonably priced financial advisor to meet with and guide your investment strategy. This advice generally costs about 1-2% of your total managed assets annually.\\\"\",\n \"Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.\",\n \"\\\"There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said \\\"\\\"Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10\\\"\\\". A few days later he comes back to me and says \\\"\\\"There are none\\\"\\\". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods.\\\"\",\n \"If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.\",\n \"I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.\",\n \"Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.\",\n \"\\\"The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) has this bit to note: The returns of small growth stocks are ridiculously low—just 2.18 percent per year since 1927 (versus 17.47 percent for small value, 10.06 percent for large growth, and 13.99 percent for large value). Where the S & P 500 would be a blend of large-cap growth and value so does that meet your \\\"\\\"beat the market over the long term\\\"\\\" as 1927-1999 would be long for most people.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following \\\"\\\"market conditions\\\"\\\" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The most important thing is to start. Don't waste months and years trying to figure out the \\\"\\\"optimal\\\"\\\" strategy or trying to read all the best books before you start. Pick a solid, simple choice, like investing in your company sponsored 401(k), and do it today. This I Will Teach You To Be Rich post on barriers has some good insight on this.\\\"\",\n \"I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping.\",\n \"\\\"Put the whole lot into a couple of low-cost broad index funds with dividends reinvested (also known as accumulation funds) and then don't look at them. Invest through a low-cost broker. There are a number to choose from and once you start googling around the theme of \\\"\\\"index fund investing\\\"\\\" you'll find them. The S&P 500 is a popular index to start with.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10 percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: \"\"I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions or individuals.\"\"\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10 percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: \\\"\\\"I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions or individuals.\\\"\\\"\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":280,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2423"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"At what age should I start or stop saving money?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["81106","396127","553288","551954","529444","305946","538023"],"string":"[\n \"81106\",\n \"396127\",\n \"553288\",\n \"551954\",\n \"529444\",\n \"305946\",\n \"538023\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["396127","551954","104457","529444","337561","463043","102395","305946","59965","417787","468010","553288","295637","81106","489480","234846","421535","398731","35680","319760","247132","538023","431203","47614","519856","361623","504940","484819","272328","413266","434190","486095","415432","399543","213435","109061","142209","13602","223872","81343","85977","383102","423745","60093","99987","275223","300047","441518","599075","184243","524912","440628","328157","430014","287991","38269","335248","147745","55513","433371","462113","119165","308130","199970","416743","73811","421455","283635","231246","280967","85368","479697","488015","88095","47184","292615","81554","16388","32833","56924","326560","91215","511506","5673","131852","194080","328076","129509","516782","334491","70730","202208","478242","293179","118880","85837","294676","515440","86304","476078"],"string":"[\n \"396127\",\n \"551954\",\n \"104457\",\n \"529444\",\n \"337561\",\n \"463043\",\n \"102395\",\n \"305946\",\n \"59965\",\n \"417787\",\n \"468010\",\n \"553288\",\n \"295637\",\n \"81106\",\n \"489480\",\n \"234846\",\n \"421535\",\n \"398731\",\n \"35680\",\n \"319760\",\n \"247132\",\n \"538023\",\n \"431203\",\n \"47614\",\n \"519856\",\n \"361623\",\n \"504940\",\n \"484819\",\n \"272328\",\n \"413266\",\n \"434190\",\n \"486095\",\n \"415432\",\n \"399543\",\n \"213435\",\n \"109061\",\n \"142209\",\n \"13602\",\n \"223872\",\n \"81343\",\n \"85977\",\n \"383102\",\n \"423745\",\n \"60093\",\n \"99987\",\n \"275223\",\n \"300047\",\n \"441518\",\n \"599075\",\n \"184243\",\n \"524912\",\n \"440628\",\n \"328157\",\n \"430014\",\n \"287991\",\n \"38269\",\n \"335248\",\n \"147745\",\n \"55513\",\n \"433371\",\n \"462113\",\n \"119165\",\n \"308130\",\n \"199970\",\n \"416743\",\n \"73811\",\n \"421455\",\n \"283635\",\n \"231246\",\n \"280967\",\n \"85368\",\n \"479697\",\n \"488015\",\n \"88095\",\n \"47184\",\n \"292615\",\n \"81554\",\n \"16388\",\n \"32833\",\n \"56924\",\n \"326560\",\n \"91215\",\n \"511506\",\n \"5673\",\n \"131852\",\n \"194080\",\n \"328076\",\n \"129509\",\n \"516782\",\n \"334491\",\n \"70730\",\n \"202208\",\n \"478242\",\n \"293179\",\n \"118880\",\n \"85837\",\n \"294676\",\n \"515440\",\n \"86304\",\n \"476078\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends.","There is no age-limit, in fact the sooner you start the better - the sooner the money starts to compound.","I would say start now, its never too early! It does add up over time and even if it is just a tiny amount, just getting in the habit of setting aside money is great. Looking back i wish i had started earlier instead of pushing it back. There will always be something to spend it on pushing it back whether its college or a car ect. Start now and thank yourself later.","As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!","\"The only time to stop saving money for retirement is when you have enough money to retire tomorrow. Not all of your \"\"retirement savings\"\" need to be in a 401k, it is just better if you can. Be sure to get as much as you can from the employer matching program. Unfortunately some employer matching programs discourage you from putting in too much. I've been able to max out the 401k contribution a number of times, which helps. Remember: you are likely to live to 100, so you better save enough to live that long. I don't trust social security to be there. I recommend saving so that you end up with \"\"enough to be comfortable\"\" -- this is usually about 25x your current income - PLUS inflation between now and when you plan to retire (age 62 is a good target). It is worth knowing your \"\"retirement savings number\"\". If you are making $100K per year now, you need to target $2.5M - PLUS allowance for inflation between now and when you plan to retire. This usually means you need to also arrange to make more money as well as save as much as you can and to use passive investing. Finance advisors are not worth it if you have less than $1M to invest.\"","Start now. It's a lot easier to save now than it is to start to save later.","You should be trying to save 10% of your income from an early age. You can live well now and enjoy life within your means now, instead of trying to keep up with the Jones. Do you need to live in a larger house (when you can't really afford it) because it is more comfortable or because you want to show it off in front of your family and friends? You can live and enjoy life and eat well now and still save enough to have a comfortable retirement, just spend your money now on the things you enjoy, not things you see others enjoying.","It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days. The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save. If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age. But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement. It's not always easy to find a balance. The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all!","The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.","Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50. Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010). I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire?","Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.","Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.","Saving some money for the future is a good idea. But how much to save is a tough question. I retired with a small fraction of what the experts said I would need. Three years later, I can confidently say I did not even need what I had saved.","As AskAboutGadgets notes, there's no lower age limit. You current age (24) is a pretty good one; you'll have four decades or so for your money to grow and compound, allowing it to become a veritable fortune when you're ready to retire if you invest it fairly aggressively.","You will find lots of rules of thumb but there is no universal truth to how much you should save. There are factors you DO need to consider though: you should start as early as possible to set money aside for retirement. You should then use a retirement calculator to at least get an understanding of the amount you need to set aside each month to achieve the desired retirement income; your default should be not to spend money and only spend money when you must. Leisure, travel and eating out should come last after you have saved up; you should have funds for different terms. For example, my wife and I have an emergency fund for unexpected expenses or losses in income. The rule of thumb here generally is to have 3-6 months of salary saved up. A longer term fund should be created for larger expenses like buying a car or preparing the cashdown on a property. Finally, the retirement fund which should cover your needs after you have retired.",">But on the bright side, the most common decade for people to start saving is in their 20s. Twice as many 30 to 49 year olds said they started saving in their 20s instead of their 30s, while the 50 to 64 age group was “only slightly more likely” to have started saving in their 20s over their 30s, according to the report, which surveyed 1,003 adults living in the continental U.S. So they are basing their analysis of how early people start saving purely by studying people in their 30s and 40s with those in their 50s and 60s. They don't compare either of those age groups with those in their 20s and 30s to see how things have changed?","There is no absolute answer to this as it depends on your particular situation, but some tips: As to investing versus saving, you need to do some of both: Be careful about stockpiling too much in bank accounts. Inflation will eat that money up over time to the tune of 3-4%/year. You are young and have a longer investment horizon for retirement, take advantage of that and accept a little more risk while you can.","Saving for retirement is important. So is living within one's means. Also--wear your sunscreen every day, rain or shine, never stop going to the gym, stay the same weight you were in high school, and eat your vegetables if you want to pass for 30 when you are 50.","Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.","Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.","So don't retire. But plan like you will retire. I am sure that some billionaire put some money away into a pension, 401K, or IRA for their retirement when they were young. It turns out they never had to worry about outliving their money. The next few paragraphs use United States examples. What happens if you have to retire, but you never saved. All the matching funds you could have collected in a 401K are gone, they disappeared with every paycheck you didn't contribute. Every year you didn't contribute to an IRA can never be replayed. You gave up the magic of compounding, because you thought you would never want to retire. If you save but don't need it, you will have more money to play with as you cut back your hours to part time. If you skip all the plans that make it hard to spend the money until you are 59 1/2, you can still save, but it takes even more discipline to not spend it before you are old.","You've never saved money? Have you ever bought anything? There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something. In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day. Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places. Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank. Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed. Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it. The traditional concept of savings is gone. There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway. Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right.","James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement. If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%. I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company.","If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.","One opinion related to savings is to save 30% of your take home salary every month, split the amount into two parts depending on your age (29) one part would be 30% of 30% and another 70% of 30%. Take the 70% and buy blue chip stock and take the 30% and buy govt. bonds. Each 10 years adjust the percentages at 40, 40% on bonds and 60% on stock. Only cash out on the day you retire, otherwise ignore all market/economic movements. With this and the statutory savings (employment retirement) you should be ok.","\"The most important thing is not to tell yourself \"\"I'll save more later in my career when I have more disposable income,\"\" because of two factors. 1) You will get raises over your career, but unless you make it big, it will never really feel like you have extra money. You may double or triple your salary over a career, but it usually happens in small increments which your lifestyle tends to adjust upwards to meet even though it doesn't feel like it. 2) Later in your career you may have more money to save, but now the commodity you have is time. Your total savings at retirement are going to be influenced in a massive way by both of these factors. A good strategy is save SOMETHING early in your career even if it feels like an insignificant amount. Then save larger amounts later in your career when you are earning more, but have less time for your investments to grow and less tolerance for high risk/high growth investments.\"","Are you sure the question even makes sense? In the present-day world economy, it's unlikely that someone young who just started working has the means to put away any significant amount of money as savings, and attempting to do so might actually preclude making the financial choices that actually lead to stability - things like purchasing [the right types and amounts of] insurance, buying outright rather than using credit to compensate for the fact that you committed to keep some portion of your income as savings, spending money in ways that enrich your experience and expand your professional opportunities, etc. There's also the ethical question of how viable/sustainable saving is. The mechanism by which saving ensures financial stability is by everyone hoarding enough resources to deal with some level of worst-case scenario that might happen in their future. This worked for past generations in the US because we had massive amounts (relative to the population) of (stolen) natural resources, infrastructure built on enslaved labor, etc. It doesn't scale with modern changes the world is undergoing and it inherently only works for some people when it's not working for others. From my perspective, much more valuable financial skills for the next generation are:","Similarly, too much long term investment seems unproductive, but what would be too much? In 1900, the life expectancy of someone in the United States was less than 50. It is now in the 70s. My grandparents were born around that time and all lived into their 80s and 90s. Life expectancy in India is currently about 66. You should expect that to increase into the 70s if not the 80s in the next fifty years. You should plan on living until 120. Why? If you die earlier than that, you may have wasted some money that you could have used for a better living standard. However, if you do live that long and you spent all your savings by the time that you were 66, you'll have a hard retirement. You've already said that you won't have descendants to take care of you. You'll need your investments to do so. You need long term investments more than someone with a family, not less. You need to able to afford a house for retirement. You need to be able to maintain it, buy food, etc. on your savings. In order to be sure it lasts, you need to build your long term investments until they produce a steady income that comes close to matching your preretirement income. There are some costs that you won't have in retirement. You won't need to save for retirement. You won't need to commute to work. So your retirement income doesn't need to support that. If I were you, I'd save like everyone else until income from investments matched my current expenses minus commuting. At that time, you can readjust. Overall, you are far more likely not to save enough than too much. I wouldn't worry about oversaving in your twenties. No one actually does so.","It's never too early, but age 3 is when we started a piggy bank. Age 4 is when we opened a bank account. When you go shopping with your children, discuss what items cost (such as bread, milk, books, etc.) Start teaching them that everything has a value...then relate it to how much they have saved. Kids need to learn 3 basic things from their parents: how to save/invest, how to spend wisely, how to share/donate","For a more philosophical way to approach this, consider money saved as the opposite of money owed: This philosophy works for things which you may be able to borrow for (computer, car, house), but also for things you can't borrow for (retirement, giving to your kids, etc.). As others have mentioned, the 10% suggestion is for retirement, but the actual number depends on your lifestyle. As you can see in this chart, saving 10% of your income means you'll need to work for 51.4 years.","The compound interest argument is a good one. While you are young, it is important to save, since time is on your side for compounding of interest. I think the 401K is a good idea, but not for all of your savings. Think about saving a percentage of your income, but put it in a couple places. Your Roth is also a great thing, since you'll be able to remove money without paying tax again. The 401k (tax deferred) is a good idea if your company matches any of it (FREE MONEY!), and because it lowers your taxable income now, and it's taken out of your check before you see it, so you don't miss it. It's still important to save other money that you can have for ready cash (unexpected dead car, for example, or medical bills, or what have you.) I find that I don't want to be managing my investments from minute to minute, or doing my own trades (I'd rather do other things), so I have a mix (Roth, 401k, cash savings) of automated contributions for savings, and I think hard before buying new stuff. The point is to save, and if possible, try to save at least 10% of your income.","\"There is a basic difference between saving for voluntary retirement (i.e. choosing to do things other than work even though you could still work) and the need to save for later in life in general. Regardless of how much you like your job, a time will eventually come when you are no longer able to work, and you will need an alternate source of income to live from at that point. Unfortuately, this is also the time when most people generally have the highest medical bills as well, and may need other services such as long-term nursing home care. So even if you plan to work as long as possible, a retirement fund is an excellent way to plan for these needs as it is tax-advantaged and many companies offer matching contributions. I would simply recommend that you see \"\"retirement accounts\"\" as a good way to accomplish your goals - you don't have to use them to create a \"\"typical\"\" retirement. Once you've taken advantages of the match and tax subsidies, you may also wish to consider saving for an annuity. Fees can be high, so you will need to do your homework (generally, you want to wait and buy an immediate annuity), but this is another way to turn savings into guaranteed income once you need to stop working. Best of luck!\"","On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)","Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.","\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"","In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.","As a 20 year old who has just started earning enough to save, I suggest showing them the different types of lifestyles they could live in the future if they started saving now versus what their life would be like if they didn't save at all. Try showing them actual dollar values as well so it's not just an arbitrary idea.","Save what you can. Due to compounding of interest, saving early is much more advantageous than saving the same amount later. Obviously you need money to live on, and you're entitled to spend some money on entertainment -- but set a budget on that and stick to that budget. Buying toys now deprives you of better toys later. You aren't saving for an uncertain future; you are saving for a certain future!","Lets imagine two scenarios: 1) You make 10.4k (40% of total income) yearly contributions to a savings account that earns 1% interest for 10 years. In this scenario, you put in 104k and earned 5.89k in interest, for a total of 109.9k. 2) You make the same 10.4k yearly contribution to an index fund that earns 7% on average for 10 years. In this scenario you put in the same 104k, but earned 49.7k in interest*, for a total of 153.7k. The main advantage is option 1) has more liquidity -- you can get the money out faster. Option 2) requires time to divest any stocks / bonds. So you need enough savings to get you through that divestment period. Imagine another two scenarios where you stop earning income: 1-b) You stop working and have only your 109.9k principal amount in a 1% savings account. If you withdraw 15.6k yearly for your current cost of living, you will run through your savings in 7 years. 2-b) You stop working and have only 20k (2 years of savings) in savings that earns 1% with 153.7k in stocks that earns 7%. If you withdraw your cost of living currently at 15.6k, you will run through your investments in 15 years and your savings in 2 years, for a total of 17 years. The two years of income in savings is extremely generous for how long it starts the divestment process. In summary, invest your money. It wasn't specified what currency we are talking about, but you can easily find access to an investment company no matter where you are in the world. Keep a small amount for a rainy day.","\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"","Chances are since college is your next likely step I would recommend saving up for it. Start building an emergency fund. Recommended $1,000 minimum. To start building your credit rating (when 18) get a low interest low limit credit. Pay off the balance every month. Starting to build your credit rating now can save you hundreds of thousands when buying a house over the course of paying it off. ie. cheaper interest rate. As for investing, the sooner you can get started the better. Acquire preferred/stocks/bonds/REITs/ETFs/etc that pay you to own them (they pay you dividends monthly/quarterly/etc). Stick with solid stocks that have a history of consistently increasing their dividends over time and that are solid companies. I personally follow the work/advice of Derek Foster. He's not a professional but he retired at 34. His first book (Stop working - Here's how you can) is great and recommend it to anyone who is looking to get started. Also check out Ramit Sethi's blog I Will Teach You to be Rich. He focuses on big wins which save you a lot over the long term. He's also got some great advice for students as well. Best of luck!","\"I am pretty sure you could find a number of financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number, but the rule of thumb I like best is Save a dime of every dollar. 10% (Savings means save for retirement, not vacations.) Here is a nice article from radio personality Clark Howard with some adjustments based on your age: Saving for retirement later in life? If you're getting started saving for retirement later in life, the dime out of every dollar rule won't cut it for you. So for you, The Baltimore Sun has crunched the following numbers: Jayraj has a particularly good and just as simple bit of math. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/30751/91 Your retirement and financial planning should not end with a flat percentage. In fact, the chances that any simple math formula is adequate are very low. My percentages (or Jayraj's simple math) are only starting places. If you are at the point where you are asking \"\"where do I start\"\", starting with this super easy no-brainer approach is great because the key is starting and doing it.\"","Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.","What you put that money into is quite relevant. It depends on how soon you will need some, or all, of that money. It has been very useful to me to divide my savings into three areas... 1) very short term 'oops' funds. This is for when you forget to put something in your budget or when a monthly bill is very high this month. Put this money into passbook savings. 2) Emergency funds that are needed quite infrequently. Used for such things as when you go to the hospital or an appliance breaks down. Put this money in higher yeald savings, but where it can be accessed. 3) Retirement savings. Put this money into a 401-K. Never draw on it till you retire. Make no loans against it. When you change jobs roll over into a self-directed IRA and invest in an ETF that pays dividends. Reinvest the dividend each month. So, like I said, where you put that money depends on how soon you will need it.","\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \"\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\"\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \"\"fun\"\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\"","\"Ultimately, money derives its value from being spend on a good or service. Investing it is an act of denying your present-self a good or service so that your future-self can obtain (hopefully more) goods or services. Investing is a sensible and responsible default position, but you clearly have passed the point at which the opportunity cost of the dollar not spent today is greater than its benefit in the future. Not all dollars are the same. Remember that money is a temporary store of value but you have to spend it to realize that value. In your search, learn about the \"\"psychology of money.\"\" What are you saving it for? How much do you want left over when you die? If you die tomorrow, will you regret not having spend a little more? I'm sorry to get morbid on you, but saving for the future requires answering the question \"\"How long?\"\" and it's never forever. This may be tangential but it shaped my behaviour towards money nonetheless: Frank Zimbardo on The Psychology of Time. I would hazard a guess and say that you land in the future-oriented camp.\"","Start a Roth IRA. Keep it in low risk, short term money market or CDs. At this stage, stocks may be premature. As you build up the account, up to $5000/year, at some point, you should start buying an index mutual fund, say one following the S&P. When you are out of school and working for real money, save an emergency account outside the IRA and shift that Roth IRA to be fully invested. My 13 year old has her emergency account, and her Roth IRA to deposit her baby sitting money. It's never too soon to start.","\"A good question -- there are many good tactical points in other answers but I wanted to emphasize two strategic points to think about in your \"\"5-year plan\"\", both of which involve around diversification: Expense allocation: You have several potential expenses. Actually, expenses isn't the right word, it's more like \"\"applications\"\". Think of the money you have as a resource that you can \"\"pour\"\" (because money has liquidity!) into multiple \"\"buckets\"\" depending on time horizon and risk tolerance. An ultra-short-term cushion for extreme emergencies -- e.g. things go really wrong -- this should be something you can access at a moment's notice from a bank account. For example, your car has been towed and they need cash. A short-term cushion for emergencies -- something bad happens and you need the money in a few days or weeks. (A CD ladder is good for this -- it pays better interest and you can get the money out quick with a minimal penalty.) A long-term savings cushion -- you might want to make a down payment on a house or a car, but you know it's some years off. For this, an investment account is good; there are quite a few index funds out there which have very low expenses and will get you a better return than CDs / savings account, with some risk tolerance. Retirement savings -- $1 now can be worth a huge amount of money to you in 40 years if you invest it wisely. Here's where the IRA (or 401K if you get a job) comes in. You need to put these in this order of priority. Put enough money in your short-term cushions to be 99% confident you have enough. Then with the remainder, put most of it in an investment account but some of it in a retirement account. The thing to realize is that you need to make the retirement account off-limits, so you don't want to put too much money there, but the earlier you can get started in a retirement account, the better. I'm 38, and I started both an investment and a retirement account at age 24. They're now to the point where I save more income, on average, from the returns in my investments, than I can save from my salary. But I wish I had started a few years earlier. Income: You need to come up with some idea of what your range of net income (after living expenses) is likely to be over the next five years, so that you can make decisions about your savings allocation. Are you in good health or bad? Are you single or do you have a family? Are you working towards law school or medical school, and need to borrow money? Are you planning on getting a job with a dependable salary, or do you plan on being self-employed, where there is more uncertainty in your income? These are all factors that will help you decide how important short-term and long term savings are to your 5-year plan. In short, there is no one place you should put your money. But be smart about it and you'll give yourself a good head start in your personal finances. Good luck!\"","I don't have a reference, but I think it depends on when you entered the workforce: If you finished school at age 24, your primary goals are to pay down expensive debt and to save up enough for a down payment. So essentially not much. Maybe $5k to $10k at the most. On the other hand if you entered the workforce at age 20, with no debts and no significant expenses, it should have been easy to sock away 20% of your income for 6 years, so $40k to $50k would be reasonable. The difference is that the first person's income earning potential should be higher, so eventually they'd be able to make up the difference and pass them.","A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income.","\"What percent of my salary should I save? is tightly coupled with its companion, What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? Interestingly, Mr.Christer's answer, 10%, is the number that plugs into the equation that I reference. Jay's 25X rule is part of this. We start with the assumption that one's required income at retirement will be 80% of their pre-retirement income. That's high by some observations, low by others. A quick look at the expenses that go away in retirement - The above can total 35-40% It would be great if it ended there, but there are costs that go up. The above extra spending is tough to nail down, after all, you knew what you spent, and what's going away, but the new items? Crapshoot. (For non-native speakers - this refers to a game with dice, meaning a random event) Again, referencing Mr Christer's answer \"\"financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number,\"\" I'm going to disagree with that soundbyte. Consider, when retirement is 30 years away, you don't know much If I can offer an analogy. I once had the pleasure of hearing Jim Lovell (The astronaut played by Tom Hanks in Apollo 13) give a speech. He said that for the first 99% of the trip to the moon, they simply aimed ahead of their target, never directly at the moon. In this manner, I suggest that with so many variables, accuracy is impossible, it's a moving target. Start young, take the 10% MrC offered, and keep saving. Every few years, stop and see if you are on target, if not, bump the number a bit. Better to turn 50 and find that after a good decade you've reached your number and can drop your savings to a minimum, perhaps just to capture a 401(k) match, than to turn 50 and realize you've undersaved and need to bump to an unsustainable level. Imagine planning ahead in 1999. You've seen 2 great decades of returns, and even realizing that 18%/yr couldn't continue, you plan for a below average 7%, this would double your 1999 balance in 10 years. Instead you saw zero return. For a decade. In sum, when each variable has an accuracy of +/-50% you are not going to combine them all and get a number with even 10% accuracy (as if MrC were wrong, but the pro would tell you 11% is right for you?). This is as absurd as packaging up a bunch of C rated debt, and thinking that enough of this paper would yield a final product that was AAA.\"","To make this more general: should you save for retirement or for education? The answer is simple: save for your education first. A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on behalf Universities UK in 2006 and another by the Washington-based College Board in 2007 indicate that graduates of higher education can earn anywhere from $400,000 to $1 million more, after tax and education loans are paid, than do those who start work with only a high-school qualification. [From my blog...] Over your lifetime your higher education will earn you far more than any other income and investments you forego while attaining that education. Make those sacrifices now to reap greater rewards later.","Assume you will need to retire with a few million in the bank to maintain an average lifestyle. I had an analysis done for me (at 33) that shows my family, to keep it up lifestyle will need to have 3.4MM in the bank so in retirement I can draw down enough cash. This number reflects inflation. Now that you are 18, if you make consistent but small savings you will achieve that financial stability. Try to make it automatic so you aren't tempted to spend. There is more you can do but since you have such an early start, you can do less than most people and still have plenty. Even thought it is great you are thinking about it, don't forget to be young, move around lots and have fun. Just pay yourself first and have fun second. Also, thank whoever guided you to this point. If you did it all on your own, be proud.","\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \"\"real\"\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\"","I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year. The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund. So your savings should be around $5k. Build that first. Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income. Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses. Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much. And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact. If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up). Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures. Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase. So you need more savings. By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money. Doesn't really change the basic analysis though. Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings. If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year. That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard. So you probably shouldn't invest next year. With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year). That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app. You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock. If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app. You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system. If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds. The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term. Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system. As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same. At some point, users saturate the app. All the possible returns are realized. Then users are competing with each other for returns. The per user returns will shrink as usage grows. If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it. Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria. Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued. The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy.","\"It really depends a lot on you and how much time you are putting into it. Since you're saying you want your money to work for you I'm going to assume you want as little hassle as possible. A few general tips: Save a fixed percentage of your monthly income Don't try to save \"\"whenever you have money left over\"\", you will just end up spending it somehow. Invest long term - don't trade Don't try to beat the market - it will just take up too much time and statistically you will end up making less. Hedge If you invest in the company/industry you work in, you will be double screwed if the sector drops (lose job + savings at the same time). Optimally you should invest in something that will benefit when the company you work for is doing bad. Pay off high interest debt Usually debt will have a higher interest than any safe investment you can make. Spend money to save/make money Sometimes the best investment you can make is on stuff that will save you money in the long run. Like buy an apartment close to work (less transport costs) or get a more expensive car that will save you money on gas, insurance etc.\"","Take a certain percentage of your income (say, 10%, but more is better if you can) and put it aside with every paycheck. Some employers will even allow you to direct deposit your paycheck into two different accounts and you can specify a certain amount or percentage for the second account. Your savings will go directly into a separate account as if you never had it in the first place. Consider your savings untouchable as spending money. Watch it grow. There's no other secret, you just have to do it!","First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account. Step by step you'll save nice money ;)","Conventional wisdom says (100-age) percentage of your saving should go to Equity and (age) percentage should go to debt. My advice to you is to invest (100-age) into index fund through SIP and rest in FD. You can re-balance your investment once a year. Stock picking is very risky. And so is market timing. Of cource you can change the 100 into a other number according to your risk tolerance.","BrenBarn did a great job explaining your options so I won't rehash any of that. I know you said that you don't want to save for retirement yet, but I'm going to risk answering that you should anyway. Specifically, I think you should consider a Roth IRA. When it comes to tax advantaged retirement accounts, once the contribution period for a tax year ends, there's no way to make up for it. For example in 2015 you may contribute up to $5,500 to your IRA. You can make those contributions up until tax day of the following year (April 15th, 2016). After that, you cannot contribute money towards 2015 again. So each year that goes by, you're losing out on some potential to contribute. As for why I think a Roth IRA specifically could work well for you: I'm advocating this because I think it's a good balance. You put away some money in a retirement account now, when it will have the most impact on your future retirement assets, taking advantage of a time you will never have again. At a low cost custodian like Vanguard, you can open an IRA with as little as $1,000 to start and choose from excellent fund options that meet your risk requirements. If you end up deciding that you really want that money for a car or a house or beer money, you can withdraw any of the contributions without fear of penalty or additional tax. But if you decide you don't really need to take that money back out, you've contributed to your retirement for a tax year you likely wouldn't have otherwise, and wouldn't be able to make up for later when you have more than enough to max out an IRA each year. I also want to stress that you should have a liquid emergency fund (in a savings or checking account) to deal with unexpected emergencies before funding something like this. But after that, if you have no specific goal for your savings and you don't know for sure you'll actually need to spend it in the near future, funding a Roth IRA is worth considering in my opinion.","IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.","I don't like your strategy. Don't wait. Open an investment account today with a low cost providers and put those funds into a low cost investment that represents as much of the market as you can find. I am going to start by assuming you are a really smart person. With that assumption I am going to assume you can see details and trends and read into the lines. As a computer programmer I am going to assume you are pretty task oriented, and that you look for optimal solutions. Now I am going to ask you to step back. You are clearly very good at managing your money, but I believe you are over-thinking your opportunity. Reading your question, you need a starting place (and some managed expectations), so here is your plan: Now that you have a personal retirement account (IRA, Roth IRA, MyRA?) and perhaps a 401(k) (or equivalent) at work, you can start to select which investments go into that account. I know that was your question, but things you said in your question made me wonder if you had all of that clear in your head. The key point here is don't wait. You won't be able to time the market; certainly not consistently. Get in NOW and stay in. You adjust your investments based on your risk tolerance as you age, and you adjust your investments based on your wealth and needs. But get in NOW. Over the course of 40 years you are likely to be working, sometimes the market will be up, and sometimes the market will be down; but keep buying in. Because every day you are in, you money can grow; and over 40 years the chances that you will grow substantially is pretty high. No need to wait, start growing today. Things I didn't discuss but are important to you:","I recommend pulling up a retirement calculator and having an honest conversation about how long term savings works, and the power of compound interest. Just by playing around with the sliders on an online calculator, you can demonstrate how the early years are the most important. Depending on how much they make now and are considering saving, delaying 5-10 years can easily leave 6-7 figures on the table. If it's specifically a child or close family member, I recommend pulling up your retirement account. Talk with them about how you managed it, and how much you were putting in. Perhaps show them how much is the principal and how much is interest. If you did well, tell them how. If you didn't do as well as you liked, tell them what you would have done differently. Finally, discuss a bit of psychology. Even if they don't have a professional job and are making minimum wage, getting into the habit of saving makes it easier when they eventually make more. A couple of dollars a month isn't much, but getting into the habit makes it easier to save a couple hundred dollars a month later on.","Definitely not. You are too young. Let me explain: Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things. Let's say you want to buy a house. You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that. College Tuition? Limits. Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement. At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand. If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate. Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money. I'd say don't worry until you are 30. BTW: I'm 24 now. I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules. Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank. After a few years, I had enough to start my business :) the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity. Further Explanation: I am in the NYC area. Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ. One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often. Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train). Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects). Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K. As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with).","Everybody else has given great answers on what to do, but I just want to add some encouragement. Keep saving. Learn to live within your means while saving, and things like houses and cars and new electronics will come. You can always wait a year and save money up for that new TV, but when retirement hits you are out of time. (I sure wish I had). Keep that retirement money out of sight and (mostly) out of mind. Great job saving and keep up the good work.","Excellent responses so far. Because I am a math guy, I wanted to stress the power of compounding. It's great that you are thinking about saving and your future when you are so young. Definitely be displined about your saving and investing. You would be surprised how just a small amount can compound over the years. For example, if you were to start with $5000 and contribute $100 per month. Assuming that you can get 5% ROR (hard in today's world but shouldn't be down the road), your final principal after 28 years (when you are 50 years old) will be over $90,000, which of only $38,000 is what you contributed yourself. The rest is interest. You can play with the numbers here: http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm","\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"","By not saving some of your income you put yourself at risk of the following: If you are comfortable taking on those risks, then continue what you are doing (I'm not being sarcastic here...some people are perfectly comfortable taking on these risks). I plan on working until I die so I am not as concerned with saving for retirement but I do save some money for temporary job loss situations. Saving money presents its own set of issues (e.g. Where should I put the money?, Should I invest the money?, What type of investments?). If you have no interest in researching answers to these type of questions then I would suggest what others have already suggested: have part of your paycheck automatically siphoned into an account that can only be accessed by a trusted family member.","If I were you, I would save 200 euros for retirement each month and another 800 I would stash away with the hope to start investing soon. I think you have to invest a bigger lump sum, then 1000 euros. It makes sense to invest at least 30K to see any tangible results. My acquaintances started from 50K and now see pretty handsome returns. Investing is profitable, as long as you approach it smartly. Also, do not ever hire an overly expensive financial consultant - this expenses will never pay off. Of course, check their credentials and reputation... But never pay much to these guys. Not worth it.","Invest in kids, not pension - they never inflate. Without kids your retirement will be miserable anyway. And with them you'll be good. Personally, I do not believe that that our current savings will be worth it in 30 years in these times.","I'm assuming you're in Germany or Europe based on your question, but here's an American's perspective that should pertain you you as well: Once you have a steady income and an emergency fund large enough to keep you from going bankrupt, then start learning about retirement and investment options.","Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)","\"IMHO It is definitively not too early to start learning and thinking about personal finances and also about investing. If you like to try stock market games, make sure to use one that includes a realistic fee structure simulation as well - otherwise there'll be a very unpleasant awakening when switching to reality... I'd like to stress the need for low fees with the brokerage account! Sit down and calculate how much fees different brokers take for a \"\"portfolio\"\" of say, 1 ETF, 1 bond, 1 share of about $500 or $1000 each (e.g. order fee, annual fee, fee for paying out interest/dividend). In my experience, it is good if you can manage to make the first small investing steps before starting your career. Real jobs tend to need lots of time (particularly at the beginning), so time to learn investing is extremely scarce right at the time when you for the first time in your life earn money that could/should be invested. I'm talking of very slowly starting with a single purchase of say an ETF, a single bond next time you have saved up a suitable amount of toy money, then maybe a single share (and essentially not doing anything with them in order to avoid further fees). While such a \"\"portfolio\"\" is terrible with respect to diversification and relative fees*, this gives you the possibility to learn the procedures, to see how the fees cut in, what to do wrt taxes etc. This is why I speak about toy money and why I consider this money an investment in education. * An order fee of, say, $10 on a $500 position are terrible 4% (2 x $10) for buying + selling - depending on your local taxes, that would be several years of dividend yield for say some arbitrary Dow Jones ETF. Nevertheless, purchase + sale together are less than 3 cinema tickets.\"","\"The answer is, there are a lot of answers! It always seems so daunting to start saving when you're living paycheck to paycheck and anticipate more bills on the way (kids are expensive!!). Start small, and make it automatic if you can. If you can take $25 out of every paycheck and put it into a savings account, and do this automatically using your bank's Bill Pay system, that will go a long way. It's about setting up a new habit for yourself, and increasing as you can. One way I've heard it phrased is \"\"Pay yourself first\"\". Don't set unrealistic expectations for yourself, either. You need to start building a savings account to cover emergencies, not just future purchases. If something happens and you can't get a paycheck for a week, a month, 2 months, how will you pay your bills? Set up a savings account just for that purpose and don't touch it unless it's a true emergency. There are several banks out there that will let you set up multiple savings accounts and mark them for specific purposes, like CapitalOne's 360 accounts. Set one up for the emergency account that gets your automatic per-paycheck deposit, then set up another one for \"\"fun money\"\" or \"\"new home fund\"\" or whatever else you want to save up for. Starting the savings process is hard, no doubt about it. You need to learn how to budget with the money you have after \"\"paying yourself first\"\". But the important part is to stick with it. Consider your savings account as another \"\"mandatory\"\" utility. You have to pay it $25/mo or risk...I don't know...a smack on the back of the head. If you wait until the end of the month to see what you have left after everything else, you'll find you don't have anything left. If you can set it up through your bank so when you get your paycheck it automatically puts $25 into a savings account, then you'll never have that $25 burning a hole in your pocket. If your paychecks aren't direct deposit, and you're physically cashing them when you receive them, then tell the bank teller to put $25 into your savings account. You can do it! Make sure your wife is on board and you communicate the importance of setting up a savings account and work together to make it happen. Be patient, and realize that $25 may seem like a trivial amount to put away now, but after 24 paychecks (1 year depending on pay schedule), that's $600! (Plus interest but rates are too low now to worth noting that).\"","Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).","While it’s your personal choice on HOW you save for later its essential that you save. My sister works in a bank and recommended me not to put any money into retirement plans since the tax-advances seem fine but have to paid back when you take the money out of the accounts (in Switzerland, don't know about the united states). Many reasons exist that you suddenly need the money: Buying a house, needing a new car, health issues or just leaving the country forever (and the government trying to make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back). I recommend putting it on a savings account on a different bank that you normally use, without any cards and so on. In short: It can be dangerous to have money locked away – especially if you could easily have it at your hands and you know you're able to manage it.","Heck no, don't spend more! I saved a ton of money when I got my first real job. You won't always be able to do this. Save a bundle while you can.","I recommend saving for retirement first to leverage compound interest over a long time horizon. The historical real return on the stock market has been about 7%. Assuming returns stay at 7% in the future (big assumption, but don't have any better numbers to go off of), then $8,000 saved today will be worth $119,795 in 40 years (1.07^40*8000). Having a sizable retirement portfolio will give you peace of mind as you progress through life and make other expenditures. If you buy assets that pay you money and appreciate, you will be in a better financial position than if you buy assets that require significant cash outflows (i.e. property taxes, interest you pay to the bank, etc.) or assets that ultimately depreciate to zero (a car). As a young person, you are well positioned to pay yourself (not the bank or the car dealership) and leverage compound interest over a long time horizon.","In addition to the issues discussed in BrenBarn's answer, I think you need to consider your medium term saving needs and existing savings. In particular, do you have a sufficient rainy day fund, a fund you will spend if things go wrong? For example, if you are dependent on a vehicle that is not covered by a guarantee or service plan, you should have enough money saved for a couple of major repairs. Depending on how secure your job is, whether it carries sick leave and long term disability, and how easy or difficult it would be to find another job in the event e.g. of your employer going bankrupt due to a downturn in your industry, you should have months to years of minimal living expenses in your rainy day fund. If you don't have those things covered, you should urgently save as much as you can until they are covered. If you do, then the next savings priority is to put money by for retirement. Of course, if all goes well the rainy day fund will ultimately get folded into retirement, but it needs to exist now, in a form you can access quickly.","Your gut feeling is absolutely spot on - you shouldn't be worrying about pension now, not at the age of 25. Assuming that you're not a footballer in the middle of the most productive part of your career and already have a fat wad of crunchy banknotes under your pillow that you're looking to set aside for a rainy day when you won't be able to play at your prime any longer. That doesn't mean you shouldn't invest, nor that means that you mustn't save. There are several factors at play here. First of all as a young person you are likely to have a high tolerance for risk, there is still plenty of time to recover should expected returns not materialise. Even a pension fund with the most aggressive risk / return strategy might just not quite do it for you. You could invest into education instead, improve health, obtain a profitable skill, create social capital by building connections, pay for experience, buy a house, start a family or even a business. Next, as a young professional you're unlikely to have reached your full earning potential yet and due to the law of diminishing marginal utility a hundred pounds per month now have greater utility (i.e. positive impact on your lifestyle) than a seven hundred pounds will in 7-10 years time once your earnings plateaued. That is to say it's easier to save £700 month from £3000 and maintain a reasonable level of personal comfort than carve £100 from £1300 monthly income. And last, but not the least, lets face it from a human point of view - forty years is a very long investment horizon and many things might and will change. One of the downsides of UK pensions is that you have very little control over the money until you reach a certain age. Tactically I suggest saving up to build a cushion consisting of cash or near cash assets; the size of the stash should be such that it is enough to cover all of your expenses from a minimum of 2 months to a maximum of a year. The exact size will depend on your personal comfort level, whatever social net you have (parents, wife, partner) and how hard it will be to find a new source of income should the current cease to produce cash. On a strategic level you can start looking into investing any surplus cash into the foundation of what will bring joy and happiness into the next 40 years of your life. Your or your partners training and education is one of the most sensible choices whilst you're young. Starting a family is another one. Both might help you reach you full earning potential much quicker. Finding what you love to do and learning how to do it really well - cash can accelerate this process bringing you quicker there you want to be. If you were a start-up business in front of a huge uncaptured market would you rather use cash to pay dividends or finance growth?","Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?","That's up to you, but I wouldn't play around with my retirement money if I was in your situation. Your earning potential during your retirement years will likely be at its nadir. Do you really want to risk being forced to be a Wal-Mart greeter when you are 80? Also, considering your earning potential now is probably at or near the peak, your opportunity cost for each hour of your life is much higher now than it will be later. So ultimately you'd be working a little harder now or a lot harder later for less money.","\"Don't mind the percentages. They are highly misleading. First, \"\"saving\"\" is making available for future use. It might be \"\"hoarding\"\", \"\"investing\"\" or a combination thereof. It might be for a specific use (a car, a college education, retirement, etc.), or for a non-specific use (for an emergency, for when you decide to spend some of those savings, or just for lack of a compelling use as of the moment). In first case, whatever you save should be available by the date you intend to use it. In second case, it might be prudent to have savings (and investments, see below) of various liquidity (cash you have at hand, bank account you can draw next day, mutual fund account you can draw in a month, maybe something you can only cash in a year etc.). You will see that the actual percentages you \"\"save\"\" fluctuate enormously throughout your life, varying with the progress of your career, changes of marital status and family cmposition, etc., etc. What you should really do is to come up with a rough plan of how you expect, from right now and to the end of your life at whatever age, have enough money for whatever level of comfort you plan for each period of your life, allowing for some specified level of perturbations. Then you just execute that plan or change it as you go.\"","\"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \"\"doobop\"\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\"","There is no right answer here, one has to make the choice himself. Its best to have an emergency fund before you start to commit funds to other reasons. The plan looks good. Keep following it and revise the plan often.","I was asking myself the exact same thing. And i have come to the conclusion that most of your money should be invested, In index etfs and maybe some bond etfs too. If Inflation is about 2% and the interest you make in a savings account is less than 1%. Your actually loosing money in a savings account. Keep a few thousand bucks in your savings account and the majority invested and working for you.","The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be.","It's time she look into what employer provided retirement plan she can use. She's at the point where she should think about investing for the long term, with retirement in mind.","Not 100% related, but the #1 thing you need to avoid is CREDIT CARD DEBT. Trust me on this one. I'm 31, and finally got out of credit card debt about eight months ago. For just about my entire 20s, I racked up credit card debt and saved zero. Invested zero. It pains me to realize that I basically wasted ten years of possible interest, and instead bought a lot of dumb things and paid 25% interest on it. So yes, put money into your 401k and an IRA. Max them out.","\"The most important thing is to start. Don't waste months and years trying to figure out the \"\"optimal\"\" strategy or trying to read all the best books before you start. Pick a solid, simple choice, like investing in your company sponsored 401(k), and do it today. This I Will Teach You To Be Rich post on barriers has some good insight on this.\"","With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.","Does anyone have any good resources for starting up learning about savings, finances, etc? I'm 20 years old and want to begin really saving consistently and learning about 401Ks, IRAs, savings accounts, how to grow your money safely and slowly, etc. I'm mainly looking for a website or application that will help me budget and organize things. A phone app would be nice. And any subreddit where I could learn about these things would be extremely helpful too.","At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty.","For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.","You don't have to retire. But the US government and other national governments have programs that allow you to set aside money when you are young to be used when you are older. To encourage you to do this, they reduce your taxes either now or when your are older. They also allow your employer to match your funds. In the US they have IRAs, 401Ks, and Social Security. You are not required to stop working while tapping into these funds. Having a job and using these funds will impact your taxes, but your are not forbidden from doing both. Decades ago most retirement funds come from pensions and Social Security. Most people are going to reach their senior years without a pension, or with only a very small pension because they had one in one of their early jobs. So go ahead, gamble that you will not need to save for retirement. Then hope that decades later you were right about it, because you can't go back in time and fix your choice. Some never save for retirement, either because they can't or they think they can't. Many that don't save end up working longer than they imagined. Some work everyday until they die, or are physically unable to work. Sometimes it is because they love the job, but often it is because they cannot afford to quit.","You are asking all the right questions. I predict a bright future! In addition to the excellent advice from Phil, I would add that NOW is the time to think about investing. If you have not yet started a retirement account, open up a Roth IRA and max it out ($5.5k in 2014) every year. The time value of money is strong and you will be thanking yourself in 40 years for starting now. Yes, paying down debt is important, and you should do that, too. It's a balance. If you get converted to a full-time employee, take part in any retirement plan they offer, and max out any matching because it's free money.","If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.","\"My father imparted this advice to me when I was a teenager, and it hasn't failed me yet. > Pay yourself first What this means is that the first \"\"bill\"\" you pay should always be your savings. Preferably in a way that automatically comes out of your paycheck or account without requiring you to take an active step to make it happen. I save a ton of money, but I am no more disciplined than anyone else. I just realized that over the years of progressing in my career that I gradually got higher and higher salaries, yet never had a substantial increase in the money I had leftover in my bank at the end of the month despite the fact that I make about 8x the money I used to live reasonably comfortably on. Therein is the point, we spend whatever money we see, so you almost have to hide it from yourself. First, participate to the fullest in your company's 401k if they offer it. After a while you will adjust naturally to the net take home pay and won't miss the savings you are accumulating. Absent that, or in addition to that, set up a separate bank or investment account and arrange an automatic transfer from your checking account every month. Then set up automatic investing in CD's or some other less-liquid-than-cash investment so you it is just enough hassle to get at the money that you won't do it on a whim. It sounds too simple, but it works.\"","\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\"","I encourage using it as a buffer. After h.s. I had a thousand or so dollars saved up in my savings account. After college it was maybe 5 thousand and it's remained roughly like that ever since. I figure any modest emergency or spending splurge may cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. I'm talking about a new couch, a car accident, hospital bill, vacation to wherever, etc. It's nice to have an idea of a buffer. Financial advisors say to have a buffer of about 3 months of salary. This is in case of unemployment and such. It was smart for me. I wouldn't try to spend money to make money at this point. It's not enough money to try to see a significant gain unless you're lucky. I tried Sharebuilder a while ago with $200 to see what stocks were like. They gave you several free trades to see how you liked it. At first I was shuffling stuff a little too much and once the fees start kicking in it's 7 bucks here, 7 bucks there- eventually I realized you have to invest enough to offset the transfer fees and the fact that you have your money tied up in something going up and down all the time. But yeah. Start with a buffer and scale it up as your lifestyle changes. Anything beyond your buffer is spending money, investing money, fun money."],"string":"[\n \"While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends.\",\n \"There is no age-limit, in fact the sooner you start the better - the sooner the money starts to compound.\",\n \"I would say start now, its never too early! It does add up over time and even if it is just a tiny amount, just getting in the habit of setting aside money is great. Looking back i wish i had started earlier instead of pushing it back. There will always be something to spend it on pushing it back whether its college or a car ect. Start now and thank yourself later.\",\n \"As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!\",\n \"\\\"The only time to stop saving money for retirement is when you have enough money to retire tomorrow. Not all of your \\\"\\\"retirement savings\\\"\\\" need to be in a 401k, it is just better if you can. Be sure to get as much as you can from the employer matching program. Unfortunately some employer matching programs discourage you from putting in too much. I've been able to max out the 401k contribution a number of times, which helps. Remember: you are likely to live to 100, so you better save enough to live that long. I don't trust social security to be there. I recommend saving so that you end up with \\\"\\\"enough to be comfortable\\\"\\\" -- this is usually about 25x your current income - PLUS inflation between now and when you plan to retire (age 62 is a good target). It is worth knowing your \\\"\\\"retirement savings number\\\"\\\". If you are making $100K per year now, you need to target $2.5M - PLUS allowance for inflation between now and when you plan to retire. This usually means you need to also arrange to make more money as well as save as much as you can and to use passive investing. Finance advisors are not worth it if you have less than $1M to invest.\\\"\",\n \"Start now. It's a lot easier to save now than it is to start to save later.\",\n \"You should be trying to save 10% of your income from an early age. You can live well now and enjoy life within your means now, instead of trying to keep up with the Jones. Do you need to live in a larger house (when you can't really afford it) because it is more comfortable or because you want to show it off in front of your family and friends? You can live and enjoy life and eat well now and still save enough to have a comfortable retirement, just spend your money now on the things you enjoy, not things you see others enjoying.\",\n \"It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days. The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save. If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age. But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement. It's not always easy to find a balance. The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all!\",\n \"The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.\",\n \"Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50. Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010). I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire?\",\n \"Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.\",\n \"Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.\",\n \"Saving some money for the future is a good idea. But how much to save is a tough question. I retired with a small fraction of what the experts said I would need. Three years later, I can confidently say I did not even need what I had saved.\",\n \"As AskAboutGadgets notes, there's no lower age limit. You current age (24) is a pretty good one; you'll have four decades or so for your money to grow and compound, allowing it to become a veritable fortune when you're ready to retire if you invest it fairly aggressively.\",\n \"You will find lots of rules of thumb but there is no universal truth to how much you should save. There are factors you DO need to consider though: you should start as early as possible to set money aside for retirement. You should then use a retirement calculator to at least get an understanding of the amount you need to set aside each month to achieve the desired retirement income; your default should be not to spend money and only spend money when you must. Leisure, travel and eating out should come last after you have saved up; you should have funds for different terms. For example, my wife and I have an emergency fund for unexpected expenses or losses in income. The rule of thumb here generally is to have 3-6 months of salary saved up. A longer term fund should be created for larger expenses like buying a car or preparing the cashdown on a property. Finally, the retirement fund which should cover your needs after you have retired.\",\n \">But on the bright side, the most common decade for people to start saving is in their 20s. Twice as many 30 to 49 year olds said they started saving in their 20s instead of their 30s, while the 50 to 64 age group was “only slightly more likely” to have started saving in their 20s over their 30s, according to the report, which surveyed 1,003 adults living in the continental U.S. So they are basing their analysis of how early people start saving purely by studying people in their 30s and 40s with those in their 50s and 60s. They don't compare either of those age groups with those in their 20s and 30s to see how things have changed?\",\n \"There is no absolute answer to this as it depends on your particular situation, but some tips: As to investing versus saving, you need to do some of both: Be careful about stockpiling too much in bank accounts. Inflation will eat that money up over time to the tune of 3-4%/year. You are young and have a longer investment horizon for retirement, take advantage of that and accept a little more risk while you can.\",\n \"Saving for retirement is important. So is living within one's means. Also--wear your sunscreen every day, rain or shine, never stop going to the gym, stay the same weight you were in high school, and eat your vegetables if you want to pass for 30 when you are 50.\",\n \"Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.\",\n \"Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.\",\n \"So don't retire. But plan like you will retire. I am sure that some billionaire put some money away into a pension, 401K, or IRA for their retirement when they were young. It turns out they never had to worry about outliving their money. The next few paragraphs use United States examples. What happens if you have to retire, but you never saved. All the matching funds you could have collected in a 401K are gone, they disappeared with every paycheck you didn't contribute. Every year you didn't contribute to an IRA can never be replayed. You gave up the magic of compounding, because you thought you would never want to retire. If you save but don't need it, you will have more money to play with as you cut back your hours to part time. If you skip all the plans that make it hard to spend the money until you are 59 1/2, you can still save, but it takes even more discipline to not spend it before you are old.\",\n \"You've never saved money? Have you ever bought anything? There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something. In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day. Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places. Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank. Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed. Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it. The traditional concept of savings is gone. There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway. Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right.\",\n \"James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement. If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%. I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company.\",\n \"If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.\",\n \"One opinion related to savings is to save 30% of your take home salary every month, split the amount into two parts depending on your age (29) one part would be 30% of 30% and another 70% of 30%. Take the 70% and buy blue chip stock and take the 30% and buy govt. bonds. Each 10 years adjust the percentages at 40, 40% on bonds and 60% on stock. Only cash out on the day you retire, otherwise ignore all market/economic movements. With this and the statutory savings (employment retirement) you should be ok.\",\n \"\\\"The most important thing is not to tell yourself \\\"\\\"I'll save more later in my career when I have more disposable income,\\\"\\\" because of two factors. 1) You will get raises over your career, but unless you make it big, it will never really feel like you have extra money. You may double or triple your salary over a career, but it usually happens in small increments which your lifestyle tends to adjust upwards to meet even though it doesn't feel like it. 2) Later in your career you may have more money to save, but now the commodity you have is time. Your total savings at retirement are going to be influenced in a massive way by both of these factors. A good strategy is save SOMETHING early in your career even if it feels like an insignificant amount. Then save larger amounts later in your career when you are earning more, but have less time for your investments to grow and less tolerance for high risk/high growth investments.\\\"\",\n \"Are you sure the question even makes sense? In the present-day world economy, it's unlikely that someone young who just started working has the means to put away any significant amount of money as savings, and attempting to do so might actually preclude making the financial choices that actually lead to stability - things like purchasing [the right types and amounts of] insurance, buying outright rather than using credit to compensate for the fact that you committed to keep some portion of your income as savings, spending money in ways that enrich your experience and expand your professional opportunities, etc. There's also the ethical question of how viable/sustainable saving is. The mechanism by which saving ensures financial stability is by everyone hoarding enough resources to deal with some level of worst-case scenario that might happen in their future. This worked for past generations in the US because we had massive amounts (relative to the population) of (stolen) natural resources, infrastructure built on enslaved labor, etc. It doesn't scale with modern changes the world is undergoing and it inherently only works for some people when it's not working for others. From my perspective, much more valuable financial skills for the next generation are:\",\n \"Similarly, too much long term investment seems unproductive, but what would be too much? In 1900, the life expectancy of someone in the United States was less than 50. It is now in the 70s. My grandparents were born around that time and all lived into their 80s and 90s. Life expectancy in India is currently about 66. You should expect that to increase into the 70s if not the 80s in the next fifty years. You should plan on living until 120. Why? If you die earlier than that, you may have wasted some money that you could have used for a better living standard. However, if you do live that long and you spent all your savings by the time that you were 66, you'll have a hard retirement. You've already said that you won't have descendants to take care of you. You'll need your investments to do so. You need long term investments more than someone with a family, not less. You need to able to afford a house for retirement. You need to be able to maintain it, buy food, etc. on your savings. In order to be sure it lasts, you need to build your long term investments until they produce a steady income that comes close to matching your preretirement income. There are some costs that you won't have in retirement. You won't need to save for retirement. You won't need to commute to work. So your retirement income doesn't need to support that. If I were you, I'd save like everyone else until income from investments matched my current expenses minus commuting. At that time, you can readjust. Overall, you are far more likely not to save enough than too much. I wouldn't worry about oversaving in your twenties. No one actually does so.\",\n \"It's never too early, but age 3 is when we started a piggy bank. Age 4 is when we opened a bank account. When you go shopping with your children, discuss what items cost (such as bread, milk, books, etc.) Start teaching them that everything has a value...then relate it to how much they have saved. Kids need to learn 3 basic things from their parents: how to save/invest, how to spend wisely, how to share/donate\",\n \"For a more philosophical way to approach this, consider money saved as the opposite of money owed: This philosophy works for things which you may be able to borrow for (computer, car, house), but also for things you can't borrow for (retirement, giving to your kids, etc.). As others have mentioned, the 10% suggestion is for retirement, but the actual number depends on your lifestyle. As you can see in this chart, saving 10% of your income means you'll need to work for 51.4 years.\",\n \"The compound interest argument is a good one. While you are young, it is important to save, since time is on your side for compounding of interest. I think the 401K is a good idea, but not for all of your savings. Think about saving a percentage of your income, but put it in a couple places. Your Roth is also a great thing, since you'll be able to remove money without paying tax again. The 401k (tax deferred) is a good idea if your company matches any of it (FREE MONEY!), and because it lowers your taxable income now, and it's taken out of your check before you see it, so you don't miss it. It's still important to save other money that you can have for ready cash (unexpected dead car, for example, or medical bills, or what have you.) I find that I don't want to be managing my investments from minute to minute, or doing my own trades (I'd rather do other things), so I have a mix (Roth, 401k, cash savings) of automated contributions for savings, and I think hard before buying new stuff. The point is to save, and if possible, try to save at least 10% of your income.\",\n \"\\\"There is a basic difference between saving for voluntary retirement (i.e. choosing to do things other than work even though you could still work) and the need to save for later in life in general. Regardless of how much you like your job, a time will eventually come when you are no longer able to work, and you will need an alternate source of income to live from at that point. Unfortuately, this is also the time when most people generally have the highest medical bills as well, and may need other services such as long-term nursing home care. So even if you plan to work as long as possible, a retirement fund is an excellent way to plan for these needs as it is tax-advantaged and many companies offer matching contributions. I would simply recommend that you see \\\"\\\"retirement accounts\\\"\\\" as a good way to accomplish your goals - you don't have to use them to create a \\\"\\\"typical\\\"\\\" retirement. Once you've taken advantages of the match and tax subsidies, you may also wish to consider saving for an annuity. Fees can be high, so you will need to do your homework (generally, you want to wait and buy an immediate annuity), but this is another way to turn savings into guaranteed income once you need to stop working. Best of luck!\\\"\",\n \"On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)\",\n \"Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.\",\n \"\\\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Investor\\\"\\\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\\\"\",\n \"In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.\",\n \"As a 20 year old who has just started earning enough to save, I suggest showing them the different types of lifestyles they could live in the future if they started saving now versus what their life would be like if they didn't save at all. Try showing them actual dollar values as well so it's not just an arbitrary idea.\",\n \"Save what you can. Due to compounding of interest, saving early is much more advantageous than saving the same amount later. Obviously you need money to live on, and you're entitled to spend some money on entertainment -- but set a budget on that and stick to that budget. Buying toys now deprives you of better toys later. You aren't saving for an uncertain future; you are saving for a certain future!\",\n \"Lets imagine two scenarios: 1) You make 10.4k (40% of total income) yearly contributions to a savings account that earns 1% interest for 10 years. In this scenario, you put in 104k and earned 5.89k in interest, for a total of 109.9k. 2) You make the same 10.4k yearly contribution to an index fund that earns 7% on average for 10 years. In this scenario you put in the same 104k, but earned 49.7k in interest*, for a total of 153.7k. The main advantage is option 1) has more liquidity -- you can get the money out faster. Option 2) requires time to divest any stocks / bonds. So you need enough savings to get you through that divestment period. Imagine another two scenarios where you stop earning income: 1-b) You stop working and have only your 109.9k principal amount in a 1% savings account. If you withdraw 15.6k yearly for your current cost of living, you will run through your savings in 7 years. 2-b) You stop working and have only 20k (2 years of savings) in savings that earns 1% with 153.7k in stocks that earns 7%. If you withdraw your cost of living currently at 15.6k, you will run through your investments in 15 years and your savings in 2 years, for a total of 17 years. The two years of income in savings is extremely generous for how long it starts the divestment process. In summary, invest your money. It wasn't specified what currency we are talking about, but you can easily find access to an investment company no matter where you are in the world. Keep a small amount for a rainy day.\",\n \"\\\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \\\"\\\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\\\"\\\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \\\"\\\"37 years at 20% savings rate\\\"\\\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\\\"\",\n \"Chances are since college is your next likely step I would recommend saving up for it. Start building an emergency fund. Recommended $1,000 minimum. To start building your credit rating (when 18) get a low interest low limit credit. Pay off the balance every month. Starting to build your credit rating now can save you hundreds of thousands when buying a house over the course of paying it off. ie. cheaper interest rate. As for investing, the sooner you can get started the better. Acquire preferred/stocks/bonds/REITs/ETFs/etc that pay you to own them (they pay you dividends monthly/quarterly/etc). Stick with solid stocks that have a history of consistently increasing their dividends over time and that are solid companies. I personally follow the work/advice of Derek Foster. He's not a professional but he retired at 34. His first book (Stop working - Here's how you can) is great and recommend it to anyone who is looking to get started. Also check out Ramit Sethi's blog I Will Teach You to be Rich. He focuses on big wins which save you a lot over the long term. He's also got some great advice for students as well. Best of luck!\",\n \"\\\"I am pretty sure you could find a number of financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number, but the rule of thumb I like best is Save a dime of every dollar. 10% (Savings means save for retirement, not vacations.) Here is a nice article from radio personality Clark Howard with some adjustments based on your age: Saving for retirement later in life? If you're getting started saving for retirement later in life, the dime out of every dollar rule won't cut it for you. So for you, The Baltimore Sun has crunched the following numbers: Jayraj has a particularly good and just as simple bit of math. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/30751/91 Your retirement and financial planning should not end with a flat percentage. In fact, the chances that any simple math formula is adequate are very low. My percentages (or Jayraj's simple math) are only starting places. If you are at the point where you are asking \\\"\\\"where do I start\\\"\\\", starting with this super easy no-brainer approach is great because the key is starting and doing it.\\\"\",\n \"Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.\",\n \"What you put that money into is quite relevant. It depends on how soon you will need some, or all, of that money. It has been very useful to me to divide my savings into three areas... 1) very short term 'oops' funds. This is for when you forget to put something in your budget or when a monthly bill is very high this month. Put this money into passbook savings. 2) Emergency funds that are needed quite infrequently. Used for such things as when you go to the hospital or an appliance breaks down. Put this money in higher yeald savings, but where it can be accessed. 3) Retirement savings. Put this money into a 401-K. Never draw on it till you retire. Make no loans against it. When you change jobs roll over into a self-directed IRA and invest in an ETF that pays dividends. Reinvest the dividend each month. So, like I said, where you put that money depends on how soon you will need it.\",\n \"\\\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \\\"\\\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\\\"\\\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \\\"\\\"fun\\\"\\\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Ultimately, money derives its value from being spend on a good or service. Investing it is an act of denying your present-self a good or service so that your future-self can obtain (hopefully more) goods or services. Investing is a sensible and responsible default position, but you clearly have passed the point at which the opportunity cost of the dollar not spent today is greater than its benefit in the future. Not all dollars are the same. Remember that money is a temporary store of value but you have to spend it to realize that value. In your search, learn about the \\\"\\\"psychology of money.\\\"\\\" What are you saving it for? How much do you want left over when you die? If you die tomorrow, will you regret not having spend a little more? I'm sorry to get morbid on you, but saving for the future requires answering the question \\\"\\\"How long?\\\"\\\" and it's never forever. This may be tangential but it shaped my behaviour towards money nonetheless: Frank Zimbardo on The Psychology of Time. I would hazard a guess and say that you land in the future-oriented camp.\\\"\",\n \"Start a Roth IRA. Keep it in low risk, short term money market or CDs. At this stage, stocks may be premature. As you build up the account, up to $5000/year, at some point, you should start buying an index mutual fund, say one following the S&P. When you are out of school and working for real money, save an emergency account outside the IRA and shift that Roth IRA to be fully invested. My 13 year old has her emergency account, and her Roth IRA to deposit her baby sitting money. It's never too soon to start.\",\n \"\\\"A good question -- there are many good tactical points in other answers but I wanted to emphasize two strategic points to think about in your \\\"\\\"5-year plan\\\"\\\", both of which involve around diversification: Expense allocation: You have several potential expenses. Actually, expenses isn't the right word, it's more like \\\"\\\"applications\\\"\\\". Think of the money you have as a resource that you can \\\"\\\"pour\\\"\\\" (because money has liquidity!) into multiple \\\"\\\"buckets\\\"\\\" depending on time horizon and risk tolerance. An ultra-short-term cushion for extreme emergencies -- e.g. things go really wrong -- this should be something you can access at a moment's notice from a bank account. For example, your car has been towed and they need cash. A short-term cushion for emergencies -- something bad happens and you need the money in a few days or weeks. (A CD ladder is good for this -- it pays better interest and you can get the money out quick with a minimal penalty.) A long-term savings cushion -- you might want to make a down payment on a house or a car, but you know it's some years off. For this, an investment account is good; there are quite a few index funds out there which have very low expenses and will get you a better return than CDs / savings account, with some risk tolerance. Retirement savings -- $1 now can be worth a huge amount of money to you in 40 years if you invest it wisely. Here's where the IRA (or 401K if you get a job) comes in. You need to put these in this order of priority. Put enough money in your short-term cushions to be 99% confident you have enough. Then with the remainder, put most of it in an investment account but some of it in a retirement account. The thing to realize is that you need to make the retirement account off-limits, so you don't want to put too much money there, but the earlier you can get started in a retirement account, the better. I'm 38, and I started both an investment and a retirement account at age 24. They're now to the point where I save more income, on average, from the returns in my investments, than I can save from my salary. But I wish I had started a few years earlier. Income: You need to come up with some idea of what your range of net income (after living expenses) is likely to be over the next five years, so that you can make decisions about your savings allocation. Are you in good health or bad? Are you single or do you have a family? Are you working towards law school or medical school, and need to borrow money? Are you planning on getting a job with a dependable salary, or do you plan on being self-employed, where there is more uncertainty in your income? These are all factors that will help you decide how important short-term and long term savings are to your 5-year plan. In short, there is no one place you should put your money. But be smart about it and you'll give yourself a good head start in your personal finances. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"I don't have a reference, but I think it depends on when you entered the workforce: If you finished school at age 24, your primary goals are to pay down expensive debt and to save up enough for a down payment. So essentially not much. Maybe $5k to $10k at the most. On the other hand if you entered the workforce at age 20, with no debts and no significant expenses, it should have been easy to sock away 20% of your income for 6 years, so $40k to $50k would be reasonable. The difference is that the first person's income earning potential should be higher, so eventually they'd be able to make up the difference and pass them.\",\n \"A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income.\",\n \"\\\"What percent of my salary should I save? is tightly coupled with its companion, What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? Interestingly, Mr.Christer's answer, 10%, is the number that plugs into the equation that I reference. Jay's 25X rule is part of this. We start with the assumption that one's required income at retirement will be 80% of their pre-retirement income. That's high by some observations, low by others. A quick look at the expenses that go away in retirement - The above can total 35-40% It would be great if it ended there, but there are costs that go up. The above extra spending is tough to nail down, after all, you knew what you spent, and what's going away, but the new items? Crapshoot. (For non-native speakers - this refers to a game with dice, meaning a random event) Again, referencing Mr Christer's answer \\\"\\\"financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number,\\\"\\\" I'm going to disagree with that soundbyte. Consider, when retirement is 30 years away, you don't know much If I can offer an analogy. I once had the pleasure of hearing Jim Lovell (The astronaut played by Tom Hanks in Apollo 13) give a speech. He said that for the first 99% of the trip to the moon, they simply aimed ahead of their target, never directly at the moon. In this manner, I suggest that with so many variables, accuracy is impossible, it's a moving target. Start young, take the 10% MrC offered, and keep saving. Every few years, stop and see if you are on target, if not, bump the number a bit. Better to turn 50 and find that after a good decade you've reached your number and can drop your savings to a minimum, perhaps just to capture a 401(k) match, than to turn 50 and realize you've undersaved and need to bump to an unsustainable level. Imagine planning ahead in 1999. You've seen 2 great decades of returns, and even realizing that 18%/yr couldn't continue, you plan for a below average 7%, this would double your 1999 balance in 10 years. Instead you saw zero return. For a decade. In sum, when each variable has an accuracy of +/-50% you are not going to combine them all and get a number with even 10% accuracy (as if MrC were wrong, but the pro would tell you 11% is right for you?). This is as absurd as packaging up a bunch of C rated debt, and thinking that enough of this paper would yield a final product that was AAA.\\\"\",\n \"To make this more general: should you save for retirement or for education? The answer is simple: save for your education first. A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on behalf Universities UK in 2006 and another by the Washington-based College Board in 2007 indicate that graduates of higher education can earn anywhere from $400,000 to $1 million more, after tax and education loans are paid, than do those who start work with only a high-school qualification. [From my blog...] Over your lifetime your higher education will earn you far more than any other income and investments you forego while attaining that education. Make those sacrifices now to reap greater rewards later.\",\n \"Assume you will need to retire with a few million in the bank to maintain an average lifestyle. I had an analysis done for me (at 33) that shows my family, to keep it up lifestyle will need to have 3.4MM in the bank so in retirement I can draw down enough cash. This number reflects inflation. Now that you are 18, if you make consistent but small savings you will achieve that financial stability. Try to make it automatic so you aren't tempted to spend. There is more you can do but since you have such an early start, you can do less than most people and still have plenty. Even thought it is great you are thinking about it, don't forget to be young, move around lots and have fun. Just pay yourself first and have fun second. Also, thank whoever guided you to this point. If you did it all on your own, be proud.\",\n \"\\\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\\\"\",\n \"I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year. The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund. So your savings should be around $5k. Build that first. Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income. Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses. Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much. And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact. If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up). Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures. Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase. So you need more savings. By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money. Doesn't really change the basic analysis though. Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings. If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year. That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard. So you probably shouldn't invest next year. With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year). That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app. You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock. If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app. You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system. If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds. The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term. Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system. As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same. At some point, users saturate the app. All the possible returns are realized. Then users are competing with each other for returns. The per user returns will shrink as usage grows. If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it. Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria. Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued. The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy.\",\n \"\\\"It really depends a lot on you and how much time you are putting into it. Since you're saying you want your money to work for you I'm going to assume you want as little hassle as possible. A few general tips: Save a fixed percentage of your monthly income Don't try to save \\\"\\\"whenever you have money left over\\\"\\\", you will just end up spending it somehow. Invest long term - don't trade Don't try to beat the market - it will just take up too much time and statistically you will end up making less. Hedge If you invest in the company/industry you work in, you will be double screwed if the sector drops (lose job + savings at the same time). Optimally you should invest in something that will benefit when the company you work for is doing bad. Pay off high interest debt Usually debt will have a higher interest than any safe investment you can make. Spend money to save/make money Sometimes the best investment you can make is on stuff that will save you money in the long run. Like buy an apartment close to work (less transport costs) or get a more expensive car that will save you money on gas, insurance etc.\\\"\",\n \"Take a certain percentage of your income (say, 10%, but more is better if you can) and put it aside with every paycheck. Some employers will even allow you to direct deposit your paycheck into two different accounts and you can specify a certain amount or percentage for the second account. Your savings will go directly into a separate account as if you never had it in the first place. Consider your savings untouchable as spending money. Watch it grow. There's no other secret, you just have to do it!\",\n \"First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account. Step by step you'll save nice money ;)\",\n \"Conventional wisdom says (100-age) percentage of your saving should go to Equity and (age) percentage should go to debt. My advice to you is to invest (100-age) into index fund through SIP and rest in FD. You can re-balance your investment once a year. Stock picking is very risky. And so is market timing. Of cource you can change the 100 into a other number according to your risk tolerance.\",\n \"BrenBarn did a great job explaining your options so I won't rehash any of that. I know you said that you don't want to save for retirement yet, but I'm going to risk answering that you should anyway. Specifically, I think you should consider a Roth IRA. When it comes to tax advantaged retirement accounts, once the contribution period for a tax year ends, there's no way to make up for it. For example in 2015 you may contribute up to $5,500 to your IRA. You can make those contributions up until tax day of the following year (April 15th, 2016). After that, you cannot contribute money towards 2015 again. So each year that goes by, you're losing out on some potential to contribute. As for why I think a Roth IRA specifically could work well for you: I'm advocating this because I think it's a good balance. You put away some money in a retirement account now, when it will have the most impact on your future retirement assets, taking advantage of a time you will never have again. At a low cost custodian like Vanguard, you can open an IRA with as little as $1,000 to start and choose from excellent fund options that meet your risk requirements. If you end up deciding that you really want that money for a car or a house or beer money, you can withdraw any of the contributions without fear of penalty or additional tax. But if you decide you don't really need to take that money back out, you've contributed to your retirement for a tax year you likely wouldn't have otherwise, and wouldn't be able to make up for later when you have more than enough to max out an IRA each year. I also want to stress that you should have a liquid emergency fund (in a savings or checking account) to deal with unexpected emergencies before funding something like this. But after that, if you have no specific goal for your savings and you don't know for sure you'll actually need to spend it in the near future, funding a Roth IRA is worth considering in my opinion.\",\n \"IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.\",\n \"I don't like your strategy. Don't wait. Open an investment account today with a low cost providers and put those funds into a low cost investment that represents as much of the market as you can find. I am going to start by assuming you are a really smart person. With that assumption I am going to assume you can see details and trends and read into the lines. As a computer programmer I am going to assume you are pretty task oriented, and that you look for optimal solutions. Now I am going to ask you to step back. You are clearly very good at managing your money, but I believe you are over-thinking your opportunity. Reading your question, you need a starting place (and some managed expectations), so here is your plan: Now that you have a personal retirement account (IRA, Roth IRA, MyRA?) and perhaps a 401(k) (or equivalent) at work, you can start to select which investments go into that account. I know that was your question, but things you said in your question made me wonder if you had all of that clear in your head. The key point here is don't wait. You won't be able to time the market; certainly not consistently. Get in NOW and stay in. You adjust your investments based on your risk tolerance as you age, and you adjust your investments based on your wealth and needs. But get in NOW. Over the course of 40 years you are likely to be working, sometimes the market will be up, and sometimes the market will be down; but keep buying in. Because every day you are in, you money can grow; and over 40 years the chances that you will grow substantially is pretty high. No need to wait, start growing today. Things I didn't discuss but are important to you:\",\n \"I recommend pulling up a retirement calculator and having an honest conversation about how long term savings works, and the power of compound interest. Just by playing around with the sliders on an online calculator, you can demonstrate how the early years are the most important. Depending on how much they make now and are considering saving, delaying 5-10 years can easily leave 6-7 figures on the table. If it's specifically a child or close family member, I recommend pulling up your retirement account. Talk with them about how you managed it, and how much you were putting in. Perhaps show them how much is the principal and how much is interest. If you did well, tell them how. If you didn't do as well as you liked, tell them what you would have done differently. Finally, discuss a bit of psychology. Even if they don't have a professional job and are making minimum wage, getting into the habit of saving makes it easier when they eventually make more. A couple of dollars a month isn't much, but getting into the habit makes it easier to save a couple hundred dollars a month later on.\",\n \"Definitely not. You are too young. Let me explain: Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things. Let's say you want to buy a house. You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that. College Tuition? Limits. Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement. At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand. If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate. Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money. I'd say don't worry until you are 30. BTW: I'm 24 now. I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules. Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank. After a few years, I had enough to start my business :) the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity. Further Explanation: I am in the NYC area. Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ. One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often. Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train). Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects). Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K. As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with).\",\n \"Everybody else has given great answers on what to do, but I just want to add some encouragement. Keep saving. Learn to live within your means while saving, and things like houses and cars and new electronics will come. You can always wait a year and save money up for that new TV, but when retirement hits you are out of time. (I sure wish I had). Keep that retirement money out of sight and (mostly) out of mind. Great job saving and keep up the good work.\",\n \"Excellent responses so far. Because I am a math guy, I wanted to stress the power of compounding. It's great that you are thinking about saving and your future when you are so young. Definitely be displined about your saving and investing. You would be surprised how just a small amount can compound over the years. For example, if you were to start with $5000 and contribute $100 per month. Assuming that you can get 5% ROR (hard in today's world but shouldn't be down the road), your final principal after 28 years (when you are 50 years old) will be over $90,000, which of only $38,000 is what you contributed yourself. The rest is interest. You can play with the numbers here: http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm\",\n \"\\\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \\\"\\\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\\\"\\\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \\\"\\\"continue to live like a student.\\\"\\\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \\\"\\\"retirement\\\"\\\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\\\"\",\n \"By not saving some of your income you put yourself at risk of the following: If you are comfortable taking on those risks, then continue what you are doing (I'm not being sarcastic here...some people are perfectly comfortable taking on these risks). I plan on working until I die so I am not as concerned with saving for retirement but I do save some money for temporary job loss situations. Saving money presents its own set of issues (e.g. Where should I put the money?, Should I invest the money?, What type of investments?). If you have no interest in researching answers to these type of questions then I would suggest what others have already suggested: have part of your paycheck automatically siphoned into an account that can only be accessed by a trusted family member.\",\n \"If I were you, I would save 200 euros for retirement each month and another 800 I would stash away with the hope to start investing soon. I think you have to invest a bigger lump sum, then 1000 euros. It makes sense to invest at least 30K to see any tangible results. My acquaintances started from 50K and now see pretty handsome returns. Investing is profitable, as long as you approach it smartly. Also, do not ever hire an overly expensive financial consultant - this expenses will never pay off. Of course, check their credentials and reputation... But never pay much to these guys. Not worth it.\",\n \"Invest in kids, not pension - they never inflate. Without kids your retirement will be miserable anyway. And with them you'll be good. Personally, I do not believe that that our current savings will be worth it in 30 years in these times.\",\n \"I'm assuming you're in Germany or Europe based on your question, but here's an American's perspective that should pertain you you as well: Once you have a steady income and an emergency fund large enough to keep you from going bankrupt, then start learning about retirement and investment options.\",\n \"Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)\",\n \"\\\"IMHO It is definitively not too early to start learning and thinking about personal finances and also about investing. If you like to try stock market games, make sure to use one that includes a realistic fee structure simulation as well - otherwise there'll be a very unpleasant awakening when switching to reality... I'd like to stress the need for low fees with the brokerage account! Sit down and calculate how much fees different brokers take for a \\\"\\\"portfolio\\\"\\\" of say, 1 ETF, 1 bond, 1 share of about $500 or $1000 each (e.g. order fee, annual fee, fee for paying out interest/dividend). In my experience, it is good if you can manage to make the first small investing steps before starting your career. Real jobs tend to need lots of time (particularly at the beginning), so time to learn investing is extremely scarce right at the time when you for the first time in your life earn money that could/should be invested. I'm talking of very slowly starting with a single purchase of say an ETF, a single bond next time you have saved up a suitable amount of toy money, then maybe a single share (and essentially not doing anything with them in order to avoid further fees). While such a \\\"\\\"portfolio\\\"\\\" is terrible with respect to diversification and relative fees*, this gives you the possibility to learn the procedures, to see how the fees cut in, what to do wrt taxes etc. This is why I speak about toy money and why I consider this money an investment in education. * An order fee of, say, $10 on a $500 position are terrible 4% (2 x $10) for buying + selling - depending on your local taxes, that would be several years of dividend yield for say some arbitrary Dow Jones ETF. Nevertheless, purchase + sale together are less than 3 cinema tickets.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The answer is, there are a lot of answers! It always seems so daunting to start saving when you're living paycheck to paycheck and anticipate more bills on the way (kids are expensive!!). Start small, and make it automatic if you can. If you can take $25 out of every paycheck and put it into a savings account, and do this automatically using your bank's Bill Pay system, that will go a long way. It's about setting up a new habit for yourself, and increasing as you can. One way I've heard it phrased is \\\"\\\"Pay yourself first\\\"\\\". Don't set unrealistic expectations for yourself, either. You need to start building a savings account to cover emergencies, not just future purchases. If something happens and you can't get a paycheck for a week, a month, 2 months, how will you pay your bills? Set up a savings account just for that purpose and don't touch it unless it's a true emergency. There are several banks out there that will let you set up multiple savings accounts and mark them for specific purposes, like CapitalOne's 360 accounts. Set one up for the emergency account that gets your automatic per-paycheck deposit, then set up another one for \\\"\\\"fun money\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"new home fund\\\"\\\" or whatever else you want to save up for. Starting the savings process is hard, no doubt about it. You need to learn how to budget with the money you have after \\\"\\\"paying yourself first\\\"\\\". But the important part is to stick with it. Consider your savings account as another \\\"\\\"mandatory\\\"\\\" utility. You have to pay it $25/mo or risk...I don't know...a smack on the back of the head. If you wait until the end of the month to see what you have left after everything else, you'll find you don't have anything left. If you can set it up through your bank so when you get your paycheck it automatically puts $25 into a savings account, then you'll never have that $25 burning a hole in your pocket. If your paychecks aren't direct deposit, and you're physically cashing them when you receive them, then tell the bank teller to put $25 into your savings account. You can do it! Make sure your wife is on board and you communicate the importance of setting up a savings account and work together to make it happen. Be patient, and realize that $25 may seem like a trivial amount to put away now, but after 24 paychecks (1 year depending on pay schedule), that's $600! (Plus interest but rates are too low now to worth noting that).\\\"\",\n \"Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).\",\n \"While it’s your personal choice on HOW you save for later its essential that you save. My sister works in a bank and recommended me not to put any money into retirement plans since the tax-advances seem fine but have to paid back when you take the money out of the accounts (in Switzerland, don't know about the united states). Many reasons exist that you suddenly need the money: Buying a house, needing a new car, health issues or just leaving the country forever (and the government trying to make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back). I recommend putting it on a savings account on a different bank that you normally use, without any cards and so on. In short: It can be dangerous to have money locked away – especially if you could easily have it at your hands and you know you're able to manage it.\",\n \"Heck no, don't spend more! I saved a ton of money when I got my first real job. You won't always be able to do this. Save a bundle while you can.\",\n \"I recommend saving for retirement first to leverage compound interest over a long time horizon. The historical real return on the stock market has been about 7%. Assuming returns stay at 7% in the future (big assumption, but don't have any better numbers to go off of), then $8,000 saved today will be worth $119,795 in 40 years (1.07^40*8000). Having a sizable retirement portfolio will give you peace of mind as you progress through life and make other expenditures. If you buy assets that pay you money and appreciate, you will be in a better financial position than if you buy assets that require significant cash outflows (i.e. property taxes, interest you pay to the bank, etc.) or assets that ultimately depreciate to zero (a car). As a young person, you are well positioned to pay yourself (not the bank or the car dealership) and leverage compound interest over a long time horizon.\",\n \"In addition to the issues discussed in BrenBarn's answer, I think you need to consider your medium term saving needs and existing savings. In particular, do you have a sufficient rainy day fund, a fund you will spend if things go wrong? For example, if you are dependent on a vehicle that is not covered by a guarantee or service plan, you should have enough money saved for a couple of major repairs. Depending on how secure your job is, whether it carries sick leave and long term disability, and how easy or difficult it would be to find another job in the event e.g. of your employer going bankrupt due to a downturn in your industry, you should have months to years of minimal living expenses in your rainy day fund. If you don't have those things covered, you should urgently save as much as you can until they are covered. If you do, then the next savings priority is to put money by for retirement. Of course, if all goes well the rainy day fund will ultimately get folded into retirement, but it needs to exist now, in a form you can access quickly.\",\n \"Your gut feeling is absolutely spot on - you shouldn't be worrying about pension now, not at the age of 25. Assuming that you're not a footballer in the middle of the most productive part of your career and already have a fat wad of crunchy banknotes under your pillow that you're looking to set aside for a rainy day when you won't be able to play at your prime any longer. That doesn't mean you shouldn't invest, nor that means that you mustn't save. There are several factors at play here. First of all as a young person you are likely to have a high tolerance for risk, there is still plenty of time to recover should expected returns not materialise. Even a pension fund with the most aggressive risk / return strategy might just not quite do it for you. You could invest into education instead, improve health, obtain a profitable skill, create social capital by building connections, pay for experience, buy a house, start a family or even a business. Next, as a young professional you're unlikely to have reached your full earning potential yet and due to the law of diminishing marginal utility a hundred pounds per month now have greater utility (i.e. positive impact on your lifestyle) than a seven hundred pounds will in 7-10 years time once your earnings plateaued. That is to say it's easier to save £700 month from £3000 and maintain a reasonable level of personal comfort than carve £100 from £1300 monthly income. And last, but not the least, lets face it from a human point of view - forty years is a very long investment horizon and many things might and will change. One of the downsides of UK pensions is that you have very little control over the money until you reach a certain age. Tactically I suggest saving up to build a cushion consisting of cash or near cash assets; the size of the stash should be such that it is enough to cover all of your expenses from a minimum of 2 months to a maximum of a year. The exact size will depend on your personal comfort level, whatever social net you have (parents, wife, partner) and how hard it will be to find a new source of income should the current cease to produce cash. On a strategic level you can start looking into investing any surplus cash into the foundation of what will bring joy and happiness into the next 40 years of your life. Your or your partners training and education is one of the most sensible choices whilst you're young. Starting a family is another one. Both might help you reach you full earning potential much quicker. Finding what you love to do and learning how to do it really well - cash can accelerate this process bringing you quicker there you want to be. If you were a start-up business in front of a huge uncaptured market would you rather use cash to pay dividends or finance growth?\",\n \"Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?\",\n \"That's up to you, but I wouldn't play around with my retirement money if I was in your situation. Your earning potential during your retirement years will likely be at its nadir. Do you really want to risk being forced to be a Wal-Mart greeter when you are 80? Also, considering your earning potential now is probably at or near the peak, your opportunity cost for each hour of your life is much higher now than it will be later. So ultimately you'd be working a little harder now or a lot harder later for less money.\",\n \"\\\"Don't mind the percentages. They are highly misleading. First, \\\"\\\"saving\\\"\\\" is making available for future use. It might be \\\"\\\"hoarding\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"investing\\\"\\\" or a combination thereof. It might be for a specific use (a car, a college education, retirement, etc.), or for a non-specific use (for an emergency, for when you decide to spend some of those savings, or just for lack of a compelling use as of the moment). In first case, whatever you save should be available by the date you intend to use it. In second case, it might be prudent to have savings (and investments, see below) of various liquidity (cash you have at hand, bank account you can draw next day, mutual fund account you can draw in a month, maybe something you can only cash in a year etc.). You will see that the actual percentages you \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\" fluctuate enormously throughout your life, varying with the progress of your career, changes of marital status and family cmposition, etc., etc. What you should really do is to come up with a rough plan of how you expect, from right now and to the end of your life at whatever age, have enough money for whatever level of comfort you plan for each period of your life, allowing for some specified level of perturbations. Then you just execute that plan or change it as you go.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \\\"\\\"doobop\\\"\\\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\\\"\",\n \"There is no right answer here, one has to make the choice himself. Its best to have an emergency fund before you start to commit funds to other reasons. The plan looks good. Keep following it and revise the plan often.\",\n \"I was asking myself the exact same thing. And i have come to the conclusion that most of your money should be invested, In index etfs and maybe some bond etfs too. If Inflation is about 2% and the interest you make in a savings account is less than 1%. Your actually loosing money in a savings account. Keep a few thousand bucks in your savings account and the majority invested and working for you.\",\n \"The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be.\",\n \"It's time she look into what employer provided retirement plan she can use. She's at the point where she should think about investing for the long term, with retirement in mind.\",\n \"Not 100% related, but the #1 thing you need to avoid is CREDIT CARD DEBT. Trust me on this one. I'm 31, and finally got out of credit card debt about eight months ago. For just about my entire 20s, I racked up credit card debt and saved zero. Invested zero. It pains me to realize that I basically wasted ten years of possible interest, and instead bought a lot of dumb things and paid 25% interest on it. So yes, put money into your 401k and an IRA. Max them out.\",\n \"\\\"The most important thing is to start. Don't waste months and years trying to figure out the \\\"\\\"optimal\\\"\\\" strategy or trying to read all the best books before you start. Pick a solid, simple choice, like investing in your company sponsored 401(k), and do it today. This I Will Teach You To Be Rich post on barriers has some good insight on this.\\\"\",\n \"With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.\",\n \"Does anyone have any good resources for starting up learning about savings, finances, etc? I'm 20 years old and want to begin really saving consistently and learning about 401Ks, IRAs, savings accounts, how to grow your money safely and slowly, etc. I'm mainly looking for a website or application that will help me budget and organize things. A phone app would be nice. And any subreddit where I could learn about these things would be extremely helpful too.\",\n \"At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty.\",\n \"For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.\",\n \"You don't have to retire. But the US government and other national governments have programs that allow you to set aside money when you are young to be used when you are older. To encourage you to do this, they reduce your taxes either now or when your are older. They also allow your employer to match your funds. In the US they have IRAs, 401Ks, and Social Security. You are not required to stop working while tapping into these funds. Having a job and using these funds will impact your taxes, but your are not forbidden from doing both. Decades ago most retirement funds come from pensions and Social Security. Most people are going to reach their senior years without a pension, or with only a very small pension because they had one in one of their early jobs. So go ahead, gamble that you will not need to save for retirement. Then hope that decades later you were right about it, because you can't go back in time and fix your choice. Some never save for retirement, either because they can't or they think they can't. Many that don't save end up working longer than they imagined. Some work everyday until they die, or are physically unable to work. Sometimes it is because they love the job, but often it is because they cannot afford to quit.\",\n \"You are asking all the right questions. I predict a bright future! In addition to the excellent advice from Phil, I would add that NOW is the time to think about investing. If you have not yet started a retirement account, open up a Roth IRA and max it out ($5.5k in 2014) every year. The time value of money is strong and you will be thanking yourself in 40 years for starting now. Yes, paying down debt is important, and you should do that, too. It's a balance. If you get converted to a full-time employee, take part in any retirement plan they offer, and max out any matching because it's free money.\",\n \"If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.\",\n \"\\\"My father imparted this advice to me when I was a teenager, and it hasn't failed me yet. > Pay yourself first What this means is that the first \\\"\\\"bill\\\"\\\" you pay should always be your savings. Preferably in a way that automatically comes out of your paycheck or account without requiring you to take an active step to make it happen. I save a ton of money, but I am no more disciplined than anyone else. I just realized that over the years of progressing in my career that I gradually got higher and higher salaries, yet never had a substantial increase in the money I had leftover in my bank at the end of the month despite the fact that I make about 8x the money I used to live reasonably comfortably on. Therein is the point, we spend whatever money we see, so you almost have to hide it from yourself. First, participate to the fullest in your company's 401k if they offer it. After a while you will adjust naturally to the net take home pay and won't miss the savings you are accumulating. Absent that, or in addition to that, set up a separate bank or investment account and arrange an automatic transfer from your checking account every month. Then set up automatic investing in CD's or some other less-liquid-than-cash investment so you it is just enough hassle to get at the money that you won't do it on a whim. It sounds too simple, but it works.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \\\"\\\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\\\"\\\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \\\"\\\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\\\"\\\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"I encourage using it as a buffer. After h.s. I had a thousand or so dollars saved up in my savings account. After college it was maybe 5 thousand and it's remained roughly like that ever since. I figure any modest emergency or spending splurge may cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. I'm talking about a new couch, a car accident, hospital bill, vacation to wherever, etc. It's nice to have an idea of a buffer. Financial advisors say to have a buffer of about 3 months of salary. This is in case of unemployment and such. It was smart for me. I wouldn't try to spend money to make money at this point. It's not enough money to try to see a significant gain unless you're lucky. I tried Sharebuilder a while ago with $200 to see what stocks were like. They gave you several free trades to see how you liked it. At first I was shuffling stuff a little too much and once the fees start kicking in it's 7 bucks here, 7 bucks there- eventually I realized you have to invest enough to offset the transfer fees and the fact that you have your money tied up in something going up and down all the time. But yeah. Start with a buffer and scale it up as your lifestyle changes. Anything beyond your buffer is spending money, investing money, fun money.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["As AskAboutGadgets notes, there's no lower age limit. You current age (24) is a pretty good one; you'll have four decades or so for your money to grow and compound, allowing it to become a veritable fortune when you're ready to retire if you invest it fairly aggressively.","While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends.","Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.","There is no age-limit, in fact the sooner you start the better - the sooner the money starts to compound.","As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!","It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days. The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save. If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age. But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement. It's not always easy to find a balance. The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all!","You've never saved money? Have you ever bought anything? There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something. In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day. Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places. Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank. Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed. Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it. The traditional concept of savings is gone. There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway. Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right."],"string":"[\n \"As AskAboutGadgets notes, there's no lower age limit. You current age (24) is a pretty good one; you'll have four decades or so for your money to grow and compound, allowing it to become a veritable fortune when you're ready to retire if you invest it fairly aggressively.\",\n \"While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends.\",\n \"Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.\",\n \"There is no age-limit, in fact the sooner you start the better - the sooner the money starts to compound.\",\n \"As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!\",\n \"It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days. The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save. If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age. But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement. It's not always easy to find a balance. The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all!\",\n \"You've never saved money? Have you ever bought anything? There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something. In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day. Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places. Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank. Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed. Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it. The traditional concept of savings is gone. There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway. Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":281,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"7431"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Pay off mortgage or invest in high value saving account"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["372921"],"string":"[\n \"372921\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["154449","2393","63883","251642","372921","493336","557734","468831","589256","220733","426215","81906","387722","115717","340209","393857","431811","109903","241073","494148","377814","441512","477907","529954","560915","157414","100136","400567","131365","364099","160105","74497","561056","473427","78361","361717","341837","440719","247449","476068","586626","463260","403314","552383","323475","286466","472200","39716","394474","435576","98294","368590","249054","449294","91504","78447","290631","373554","50964","311558","202527","595436","402950","106215","552792","310780","459705","411206","461937","278626","123971","452474","310361","63427","470716","326542","457945","423628","439995","263546","209963","304277","101589","395099","568784","198251","524018","200900","107068","284318","85745","141059","331093","422142","90927","556072","564638","30808","175305","488638"],"string":"[\n \"154449\",\n \"2393\",\n \"63883\",\n \"251642\",\n \"372921\",\n \"493336\",\n \"557734\",\n \"468831\",\n \"589256\",\n \"220733\",\n \"426215\",\n \"81906\",\n \"387722\",\n \"115717\",\n \"340209\",\n \"393857\",\n \"431811\",\n \"109903\",\n \"241073\",\n \"494148\",\n \"377814\",\n \"441512\",\n \"477907\",\n \"529954\",\n \"560915\",\n \"157414\",\n \"100136\",\n \"400567\",\n \"131365\",\n \"364099\",\n \"160105\",\n \"74497\",\n \"561056\",\n \"473427\",\n \"78361\",\n \"361717\",\n \"341837\",\n \"440719\",\n \"247449\",\n \"476068\",\n \"586626\",\n \"463260\",\n \"403314\",\n \"552383\",\n \"323475\",\n \"286466\",\n \"472200\",\n \"39716\",\n \"394474\",\n \"435576\",\n \"98294\",\n \"368590\",\n \"249054\",\n \"449294\",\n \"91504\",\n \"78447\",\n \"290631\",\n \"373554\",\n \"50964\",\n \"311558\",\n \"202527\",\n \"595436\",\n \"402950\",\n \"106215\",\n \"552792\",\n \"310780\",\n \"459705\",\n \"411206\",\n \"461937\",\n \"278626\",\n \"123971\",\n \"452474\",\n \"310361\",\n \"63427\",\n \"470716\",\n \"326542\",\n \"457945\",\n \"423628\",\n \"439995\",\n \"263546\",\n \"209963\",\n \"304277\",\n \"101589\",\n \"395099\",\n \"568784\",\n \"198251\",\n \"524018\",\n \"200900\",\n \"107068\",\n \"284318\",\n \"85745\",\n \"141059\",\n \"331093\",\n \"422142\",\n \"90927\",\n \"556072\",\n \"564638\",\n \"30808\",\n \"175305\",\n \"488638\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["In all likelihood, the best thing you can do, if these really are your only two options (ie no other debt at all), paying-down your mortgage will shorten the term of the mortgage, and mean you spend less on your house in the long run. Investing is should be a long-term activity - so yes, the likelihood is that, given a modest investment, it will gain at historical averages over the life of the investment vehicle. However, that is not a guarantee, and is an inherent risk. Whereas paying-down a mortgage lowers your financial obligations and risk, investing increases your risk. I want to know how you got a 2.1% interest rate on a mortgage, though - the lowest I've seen anywhere is 3.25%.","\"If you don't want to take any risk and you want your money to be liquid, then the best place to \"\"invest\"\" such money is in an insured bank deposit, such as a high interest savings account. However, you aren't likely to find a savings account interest rate that comes close to that charged by your mortgage, so the better decision from a numbers perspective is to pay down more on your mortgage or other debt. Paying down your debt has almost no risk, but has a better payoff than simply saving the money in a bank account. However, if you choose to pay down more debt, I suggest you still keep aside enough cash to have an adequate emergency fund. Since you want safety and liquidity, don't expect high returns from such money.\"","It's six of one a half dozen of another. Investing the cash is a little more risky. You know exactly what you'll get by paying down your mortgage. If you have a solid emergency fund it's probably most advisable to pay down your mortgage. If your mortgage is 3% and your investment makes 3.5% you're talking about a taxable gain of 0.5% on the additional cash. Is that worth it to you? Sure, the S&P has been on a tear but remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.","Paying down your mortgage saves lots of interest. With a long term mortgage you end up paying twice us much to the bank than the sales price of the house. Even low mortgage interests are higher than short term bonds. The saving of those interest are as much an investment as the interest you get from a bond. However, before paying off a mortgage other higher interest loans should be paid off. Also it should be considered if the mortgage interest create a tax reduction in the comparison with any other options.","\"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the \"\"what-ifs\"\". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the \"\"pay-off-early\"\" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%.\"","At the moment the interest rate... implies a variable rate mortgage. I believe rates are only going to go up from here. So, if I were in your position, I would pay off the mortgage first. If you don't have 3-6 months in savings for an emergency, I would invest that much money in low risk investments. Anything remaining I would invest in a balanced portfolio of mutual funds. The biggest benefit to this is the flexibility it gives you. Not being burdened by a monthly mortgage frees you up to invest. This may be in your stock portfolio each month or it may be in your community or charitable causes. You have financial margin.","Yes, you will come out ahead slightly by putting the money in the savings account, then paying off your mortgage later. However, we don't know what will happen to these interest rates after 1 year. If you put the £300 per month into the savings account for a year, then put the money into you mortgage, you will save about £78 for the year over just putting the money toward your mortgage in the first place. For me, I'm more concerned about longer term strategy. What happens to your mortgage rate after 2 years? What happens to your savings account rate after 1 year? The mortgage rate likely goes up and the savings account rate likely goes down, making the savings of this strategy even less after the first year. Instead, you may want to put this £300 per month toward retirement investments (assuming you have no other debt), which should, over the long term, earn more than the savings account.","First of all, you should absolutely put money into savings until you have at least a 6 month cushion, and preferably longer. It doesn't matter if you get 0% interest in your savings and have a high interest rate mortgage, the cushion is still more important. Once you have a nice emergency fund, you can then consider the question of whether to pay more towards the mortgage if the numbers make sense. However, in my opinion, it's not just a straight comparison of interest rates. In other words, if your savings account gives you 1% and your mortgage is 5%, that's still not an automatic win for the mortgage. The reason is that by putting the money into your mortgage, you're locking it up and can't access it. To me, money in the hand is worth a lot more than money that's yours on paper but not easily accessible. I don't know the math well enough, but you don't really need the math. Just keep in mind that you have to weight the present value of putting that money into savings vs the future value of putting it into your mortgage and paying less interest at some point in the future. Do the math and see how much you will save by paying the mortgage down faster, but also keep in mind that future money is worth less than present money. A LOT less if you suddenly have an emergency or decide on a major purchase and need the money, but then have to jump through hoops to get to it. To me, you need to save a considerable amount by paying down the mortgage, and also understand that your money is getting locked away, for it to make sense.","\"For some people, it should be a top priority. For others, there are higher priorities. What it should be for you depends on a number of things, including your overall financial situation (both your current finances and how stable you expect them to be over time), your level of financial \"\"education\"\", the costs of your mortgage, the alternative investments available to you, your investing goals, and your tolerance for risk. Your #1 priority should be to ensure that your basic needs (including making the required monthly payment on your mortgage) are met, both now and in the near future, which includes paying off high-interest (i.e. credit card) debt and building up an emergency fund in a savings or money-market account or some other low-risk and liquid account. If you haven't done those things, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and do not consider making advance payments on your mortgage. Mason Wheeler's statements that the bank can't take your house if you've paid it off are correct, but it's going to be a long time till you get there and they can take it if you're partway to paying it off early and then something bad happens to you and you start missing payments. (If you're not underwater, you should be able to get some of your money back by selling - possibly at a loss - before it gets to the point of foreclosure, but you'll still have to move, which can be costly and unappealing.) So make sure you've got what you need to handle your basic needs even if you hit a rough patch, and make sure you're not financing the paying off of your house by taking a loan from Visa at 27% annually. Once you've gotten through all of those more-important things, you finally get to decide what else to invest your extra money in. Different investments will provide different rewards, both financial and emotional (and Mason Wheeler has clearly demonstrated that he gets a strong emotional payoff from not having a mortgage, which may or may not be how you feel about it). On the financial side of any potential investment, you'll want to consider things like the expected rate of return, the risk it carries (both on its own and whether it balances out or unbalances the overall risk profile of all your investments in total), its expected costs (including its - and your - tax rate and any preferred tax treatment), and any other potential factors (such as an employer match on 401(k) contributions, which are basically free money to you). Then you weigh the pros and cons (financial and emotional) of each option against your imperfect forecast of what the future holds, take your best guess, and then keep adjusting as you go through life and things change. But I want to come back to one of the factors I mentioned in the first paragraph. Which options you should even be considering is in part influenced by the degree to which you understand your finances and the wide variety of options available to you as well as all the subtleties of how different things can make them more or less advantageous than one another. The fact that you're posting this question here indicates that you're still early in the process of learning those things, and although it's great that you're educating yourself on them (and keep doing it!), it means that you're probably not ready to worry about some of the things other posters have talked about, such as Cost of Capital and ROI. So keep reading blog posts and articles online (there's no shortage of them), and keep developing your understanding of the options available to you and their pros and cons, and wait to tackle the full suite of investment options till you fully understand them. However, there's still the question of what to do between now and then. Paying the mortgage down isn't an unreasonable thing for you to do for now, since it's a guaranteed rate of return that also provides some degree of emotional payoff. But I'd say the higher priority should be getting money into a tax-advantaged retirement account (a 401(k)/403(b)/IRA), because the tax-advantaged growth of those accounts makes their long-term return far greater than whatever you're paying on your mortgage, and they provide more benefit (tax-advantaged growth) the earlier you invest in them, so doing that now instead of paying off the house quicker is probably going to be better for you financially, even if it doesn't provide the emotional payoff. If your employer will match your contributions into that account, then it's a no-brainer, but it's probably still a better idea than the mortgage unless the emotional payoff is very very important to you or unless you're nearing retirement age (so the tax-free growth period is small). If you're not sure what to invest in, just choose something that's broad-market and low-cost (total-market index funds are a great choice), and you can diversify into other things as you gain more savvy as an investor; what matters more is that you start investing in something now, not exactly what it is. Disclaimer: I'm not a personal advisor, and this does not constitute investing advice. Understand your choices and make your own decisions.\"","I would not recommend using your own money to pay off something that is not a strong asset. Use the savings where it will have the maximum return. Why not put (some of) the savings into another investment mortgage? Thanks to the leverage your return would be much higher than 5.5%, plus you would have more income.","\"Understand your own risk tolerance and discipline. From Moneychimp we can see different market results - This is a 15 year span, containing what was arguably one of the most awful decades going. A full 10 year period with a negative return. Yet, the 15 year return was a 6.65% CAGR. You'd net 5.65% after long term cap gains. Your mortgage is likely costing ~4% or 3% after tax (This is not applicable to my Canadian friends, I understand you don't deduct interest). In my not so humble opinion, I'd pay off the highest rate debts first (unlike The David followers who are happy to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in 0% interest debt before the large 18% debt) and invest at the highest rate I'd get long term. The problem is knowing when to flip from one to the other. Here's food for thought - The David insists on his use of the 12% long term market return. The last 100 years have had an average 11.96% return, but you can't spend average, the CAGR, the real compound rate was 10.06%. Why would he recommend paying off a sub 3% loan while using 12% for his long term planning (All my David remarks are not applicable to Canadian members, you all probably know better than to listen to US entertainers)? I am retired, and put my money where my mouth is. The $200K I still owe on my mortgage is offset by over $400K in my 401(k). The money went in at 25%/28% pretax, has grown over these past 20 years, and comes out at 15% to pay my mortgage each month. No regrets. Anyone starting out now, and taking a 30 year mortgage, but putting the delta to a 15 year mortgage payment into their 401(k) is nearly certain to have far more in the retirement account 15 years hence than their remaining balance on the loan, even after taxes are considered. Even more if this money helps them to get the full matching, which too many miss. All that said, keep in mind, the market is likely to see a correction or two in the next 15 years, one of which may be painful. If that would keep you up at night, don't listen to me. If a fixed return of 4% seems more appealing than a 10% return with a 15% standard deviation, pay the mortgage first. Last - if you have a paid off house but no job, the town still wants its property tax, and the utilities still need to be paid. If you lose your job with $400K in your 401(k)/IRA but have a $200K mortgage, you have a lot of time to find a new job or sell the house with little pressure from the debt collectors. (To answer the question in advance - \"\"Joe, at what mortgage rate do you pay it off first?\"\" Good question. I'd deposit to my 401(k) to grab matching deposits first, and then if the mortgage was anywhere north of 6%, prioritize that. This would keep my chances at near 100% of coming out ahead.)\"","Aggressively paying of Mortgage is better. If you have more cash available [assuming you have covered all other aspects i.e. emergency funds, retirement etc], the only question you need to ask is where will you invest and what returns would you get. So if your mortgage is say at 5%, if the spare money can get you more than this, its beneficial, if its in Bank CD with say near zero interest, its not worth it. However if you are sure you can make 10% returns on the investments, then go ahead and don't pay the mortgage aggressively.","\"The mortgage has a higher interest rate, how can it make sense to pay off the HELOC first?? As for the mutual fund, it comes down to what returns you are expecting. If the after-tax return is higher than the mortgage rate then invest, otherwise \"\"invest\"\" in paying down the mortgage. Note that paying down debt is usually the best investment you have.\"","Simply, you should put your money into whatever has the higher interest rate, savings or repayment of debt. Let's say at the beginning of month A you put $1000 into each account. In the case of the savings, at the end of month A you will have $1001.6 ($1000 + 1000 x 2% annual interest / 12) In the case of a loan, at the end of month A you will have $1005.7. ($17000 plus 6.8 interest for one month is 17096.3. On $16000, the new value is 16090.6. The difference between these is $1005.7. 5.7 / 1.6 = 3.56 Therefore, using your money to repay your loan nets you a return about 3.5 times greater.","\"I think the basic question you're asking is whether you'd be better off putting the $20K into an IRA or similar investment, or if your best bet is to pay down your mortgage. The answer is...that depends. What you didn't share is what your mortgage balance is so that we can understand how using that money to pay down the mortgage would affect you. The lower your remaining balance on the mortgage, the more impact paying it down will affect your long-term finances. For example, if your remaining principal balance is more than $200k, paying down $20k in principal will not have as significant an effect as if you only have $100k principal balance and were paying down $20k of that. To me, one option is to put the $20k toward mortgage principal, then perhaps do a refinance on your remaining mortgage with the goal of getting a better interest rate. This would double the benefit to you. First, your mortgage payment would be lower by virtue of a lower principal balance (assuming you keep the same term period in your refinanced mortgage as you have now. In other words, if you have a 15-year now, your new mortgage should be 15 years also to see the best effect on your payment). Further, if you can obtain a lower interest rate on the new loan, now you have the dual benefit of a lower principal balance to pay down plus the reduced interest cost on that principal balance. This would put money into your pocket immediately, which I think is part of your goal, although the question does hinge on what you'd pay in points and fees for a refinance. You can invest, but with that comes risk, and right now may not be the ideal time to enter the markets given all of the uncertainties with the \"\"Brexit\"\" issue. By paying down your mortgage principal, even if you do nothing else, you can save yourself considerable interest in the long term which might be more beneficial than the return you'd get from the markets or an IRA at this point. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"","The short answer is that it depends on the taxation laws in your country. The long answer is that there are usually tax avoidance mechanisms that you can use which may make it more economically feasible for you to go one way or the other. Consider the following: The long term average growth rate of the stock market in Australia is around 7%. The average interest on a mortgage is 4.75%. Assuming you have money left over from a 20% deposit, you have a few options. You could: 1) Put that money into an index fund for the long term, understanding that the market may not move for a decade, or even move downwards; 2) Dump that money straight into the mortgage; 3) Put that money in an offset account Option 1 will get you (over the course of 30-40 years) around 7% return. If and when that profit is realised it will be taxed at a minimum of half your marginal tax rate (probably around 20%, netting you around 5.25%) Option 2 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free Option 3 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free with the added bonus that the money is ready for you to draw upon on short notice. Of the three options, until you have a good 3+ months of living expenses covered, I'd go with the offset account every single time. Once you have a few months worth of living expenses covered, I would the adopt a policy of spreading your risk. In Australia, that would mean extra contributions to my Super (401k in the US) and possibly purchasing an investment property as well (once I had the capital to positively gear it). Of course, you should find out more about the tax laws in your country and do your own maths.","The mathematically correct answer is to invest, because you'll get a higher rate of return. I think that answer is bunk -- owning your home free and clear is a huge burden lifted off of your shoulders. You're at an age where you may find a new job, business, personal or other opportunities will be easier to take advantage of without that burden.","It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals.","I think there are a few facets to this, namely: Overall, I wouldn't concentrate on paying off the house if I didn't have any other money parked and invested, but I'd still try to get rid of the mortgage ASAP as it'll give you more money that you can invest, too. At the end of the day, if you save out paying $20k in interest, that's almost $20k you can invest. Yes, I realise there's a time component to this as well and you might well get a better return overall if you invested the $20k now that in 5 years' time. But I'd still rather pay off the house.","My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage. So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily. Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future. On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A. Let's say you lose your job a year from now. Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed. But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it. People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job.","pay off loans first, then invest. it's a guaranteed benefit. you could invest it and make great returns, or you could watch the market crash the next day and there goes your savings. no guarantee exists there. take the sure thing. that's my two cents.","\"There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum. So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said \"\"ignoring tax implications\"\". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation.\"","In general, saving money should be prioritized over extra debt payments. Every dollar that you spend paying down a debt will decrease the amount of principal owed; this will directly decrease the future interest payments you will make. However, as time goes on, you are dealing with a smaller and smaller set of principal; additionally, it is assumed that your income will grow (or at least keep pace with inflation), making the debt more bearable. On the other hand, every dollar you save (or invest) now will increase your future income - also making the future debt more bearable. Not only that, but the longer you save, the more value to you get from having saved, meaning you should save as early as possible. Finally, the benefits of paying down the mortgage early end when the mortgage is completely paid off, while the benefits of saving will continue (and even grow) after the house is owned free and clear. That is, if you have an extra $100,000 to put into the mortgage during the life of the loan, you could sink that into the mortgage and see it disappear, or you could invest it, and reap the dividends for the rest of your life. Caveat emptor: behavior trumps numbers. This only works if you will actually be disciplined about saving the extra money rather than paying off debt. If you're the kind of person for whom money burns a hole in your pocket until you spend it, then use it on debt. But if you are able to save and invest that money, you will be better off in the long run.","The answer can depend greatly on whether the interest on a mortgage for the house you live in is tax deductible in the country you are in (I assume the mortgage is on the house you live in and not an investment property). It will also depend on the difference between the mortgage interest rate and the return of the unit trust, your income and your tax rates. In essence you would need to do a cost-benefit analysis to figure out which option would provide the bigest financial benefit, considering the different rates, your income and your tax rates. Basically, if you can get a better return from the unit trust than the mortgage interest rate and you can claim a tax deduction for the mortgage interest payments, then you may be better off investing in the unit trust rather than putting extra repayments into the mortgage.","\"I'm assuming when you say \"\"…put it towards our mortgage payment?\"\", you mean make additional payments on top of your scheduled payment. Strictly speaking, if the interest on your mortgage is higher than the return you can expect by saving, then yes, your excess savings should be put toward your mortgage. This assumes that there are no pre-payment penalties, that you really won't miss that money in the short term (i.e. you say you have enough savings for emergencies, so that's good), and that both choices would use after-tax dollars (i.e. mortgage payment vs RRSP contribution in Canada is a huge discussion).\"","Let's look at some of your options: In a savings account, your $40,000 might be earning maybe 0.5%, if you are lucky. In a year, you'll have earned $200. On the plus side, you'll have your $40,000 easily accessible to you to pay for moving, closing costs on your new house, etc. If you apply it to your mortgage, you are effectively saving the interest on the amount for the life of the loan. Let's say that the interest rate on your mortgage is 4%. If you were staying in the house long-term, this interest would be compounded, but since you are only going to be there for 1 year, this move will save you $1600 in interest this year, which means that when you sell the house and pay off this mortgage, you'll have $1600 extra in your pocket. You said that you don't like to dabble in stocks. I wouldn't recommend investing in individual stocks anyway. A stock mutual fund, however, is a great option for investing, but only as a long-term investment. You should be able to beat your 4% mortgage, but only over the long term. If you want to have the $40,000 available to you in a year, don't invest in a mutual fund now. I would lean toward option #2, applying the money to the mortgage. However, there are some other considerations: Do you have any other debts, maybe a car loan, student loan, or a credit card balance? If so, I would forget everything else and put everything toward one or more of these loans first. Do you have an emergency fund in place, or is this $40,000 all of the cash that you have available to you? One rule of thumb is that you have 3 to 6 months of expenses set aside in a safe, easily accessible account ready to go if something comes up. Are you saving for retirement? If you don't already have retirement savings in place and are adding to it regularly, some of this cash would be a great start to a Roth IRA or something like that, invested in a stock mutual fund. If you are already debt free except for this mortgage, you might want to do some of each: Keep $10,000 in a savings account for an emergency fund (if you don't already have an emergency fund), put $5,000 in a Roth IRA (if you aren't already contributing a satisfactory amount to a retirement account), and apply the rest toward your mortgage.","\"From what I've read, paying down your mortgage -- above and beyond what you'd normally pay -- is indeed an investment but a very poor form of investment. In other words, you could take that extra money you'd apply towards your mortgage and put it in something that has a much higher rate of return than a house. As an extreme example, consider: if I took $6k extra I would have paid toward my mortgage in a single year, and bought a nice performing stock, I could see returns of 2x or 3x. Now, that implies I know which stock to pick, etcetera.. I found a \"\"mortgage or investment\"\" calculator which could be of use as well: http://www.planningtips.com/cgi-bin/prepay_v_invest.pl (scroll to bottom to see the summary and whether or not prepay or invest wins for the numbers you plugged in)\"","If it's either/or, I'd pay down the mortgage, no question. I know I'm in the minority, but I'm not a fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. There are too many things that can change between now and the next 30 years (the time frame that you'll be able to withdraw from your IRA account without penalty). The rules governing these accounts can change at any time, and I don't think they'll be changes for the better. Putting the money toward your mortgage will relieve you of that monthly payment faster. The benefits of IRAs come retirement age are too uncertain for my taste.","but then they make suggestions such as paying extra each month on your mortgage. How else does one pay off his mortgage early other than by paying extra each month? The principal and interest are fixed, no matter how much money you throw at them. The interest rate is fixed. The total interest paid varies depending on how much extra you pay towards the principal. You'll pay the same amount every month regardless. That's factually incorrect. just put the extra money into savings At 1.2%, if you're smart enough to put it in an on-line savings account. until you have enough to pay off the mortgage Which costs you 3.5%. This way, the money is locked up in your home. Who says that all of your money must be locked up in your home? (I'm sure that there are financial advisors who recommend that you throw every single spare dime into extra mortgage payments, but they're rare.) Am I missing something? Yes: the mathematical sense to see that a 3.5% loan costs more than than 1.2% savings earns you","Certainly, paying off the mortgage is better than doing nothing with the money. But it gets interesting when you consider keeping the mortgage and investing the money. If the mortgage rate is 5% and you expect >5% returns from stocks or some other investment, then it might make sense to seek those higher returns. If you expect the same 5% return from stocks, keeping the mortgage and investing the money can still be more tax-efficient. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 30%, the real cost of mortgage interest (in terms of post-tax money) is 3.5%*. If your investment results in long-term capital gains taxed at 15%, the real rate of growth of your post-tax money would be 4.25%. So in post-tax terms, your rate of gain is greater than your rate of loss. On the other hand, paying off the mortgage is safer than investing borrowed money, so doing so might be more appropriate for the risk-averse. * I'm oversimplifying a bit by assuming the deduction doesn't change your marginal tax rate.","\"I was going to ask, \"\"Do you feel lucky, punk?\"\" but then it occurred to me that the film this quote came from, Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood, is 43 years old. And yet, the question remains. The stock market, as measured by the S&P has returned 9.67% compounded over the last 100 years. But with a standard deviation just under 20%, there are years when you'll do better and years you'll lose. And I'd not ignore the last decade which was pretty bad, a loss for the decade. There are clearly two schools of thought. One says that no one ever lost sleep over not having a mortgage payment. The other school states that at the very beginning, you have a long investing horizon, and the chances are very good that the 30 years to come will bring a return north of 6%. The two decades prior to the last were so good that these past 30 years were still pretty good, 11.39% compounded. There is no right or wrong here. My gut says fund your retirement accounts to the maximum. Build your emergency fund. You see, if you pay down your mortgage, but lose your job, you'll still need to make those payments. Once you build your security, think of the mortgage as the cash side of your investing, i.e. focus less on the relatively low rate of return (4.3%) and more on the eventual result, once paid, your cash flow goes up nicely. Edit - in light of the extra information you provided, your profile reads that you have a high risk tolerance. Low overhead, no dependents, and secure employment combine to lead me to this conclusion. At 23, I'd not be investing at 4.3%. I'd learn how to invest in a way I was comfortable with, and take it from there. Disclosure (Updated) - I am older, and am semi-retired. I still have some time left on the mortgage, but it doesn't bother me, not at 3.5%. I also have a 16 year old to put through college but her college account i fully funded.\"","Yes, one is certainly better than the other. Which one depends on your priorities and the interest and tax rates on your student loan, your savings, and your (future) mortgage plus how much you can afford to save and still enjoy the lifestyle you want as well as how soon you want to move out. Basically, you havn't given enough information.","you should always invest if your investment rate of return is higher than your interest rate Your next line, about standard deviation is dead on. There are too many variables to give an exact answer here, in my opinion. The main reason is that one variable isn't easy to quantify - One's risk tolerance. Clearly, there's one extreme, the 18% credit card. Unless you are funding loanshark type rates of 2%/week, it's safe to say that 18% debt should take priority over any investments, except for the matched 401(k) deposits. What I think you're talking about is something we've addressed here in multiple threads. Do I prepay my sub 4% mortgage or invest? In this case, (and to Noah's comment) the question is whether you can expect a post-tax return of over 3% during your time horizon. I look at the return for 15 years from 1998-2013 and see a 6% CAGR for the S&P. I chose 15 years, as the choice is often one of paying a 30 year mortgage faster, as fast as 15. The last 15 years offer a pretty bad scenario, 2 crashes and a mortgage crisis. 6% after long term gains would get you 5.1% net. You can pull the data back to 1871 and run CAGR numbers for the timeframe of your choosing. I haven't done it yet, but I imagine there's no 15 year span that lags the 3% target I cite. What makes it more complex is that the investment isn't lump sum. It may not be obvious, but CAGR is a dollar invested at T=0, and returns calculated to T=final year. It would take a bit of spreadsheeting to invest the extra funds every month/year over your period of analysis. In the end, there are still those who will choose to pay off their 4% mortgage regardless of what the numbers show. Even if the 15 year result showed worst case 3.5% (almost no profit) and an average 10%, the feeling of risk is more than many will want.","I read your question that you have a comfortable amount toward retirement. If not, pad your retirement accounts if possible. If your loan rate is locked at 2.67%, invest that money in the market and pay the loan as agreed. So long as you feel comfortable in your employment and income status for the next few years, I would bet you will get a lot more out of your cash investing in diversified, low cost funds or ETFs that you will save in interest on that loan. Finally, if you decide to lower your debt instead of increasing investments (based on your tolerance for risk) why not pay more on the mortgage? If you owe most of your mortgage and it is typically long term, you might cut many years off of the mortgage with a large payment.","The chances are good that the interest you are going to pay on the debt is going to be higher than the interest you are going to receive on any type of short term investments. That would make the paying off of the debt worth more to you in the long run than saving your money. Note that without the particulars of your situation this is all just theory crafting so consult the details of you loan agreements. I cannot imagine that a credit provider did not discuss this with you before you put pen on paper.","First off, this is a post for /r/personalfinance. Second off, if you want to think of this like an accountant/financier, those are the bank's 10233 dollars, not your's, and you are paying them 6% to keep that money. If you are confident that you are going to make more than 6% interest on any investments you make with that money, it makes sense to do so, although your return will be 6% less in reality. You also assume the risk of losing money on the investment and not having enough money to repay your loans. tl;dr Pay off the loan.","It is important to consider your overall financial goals (especially in the 3-5 year range). If you have another financial goal which cannot be met without that additional money then meeting that financial goal might take priority over what I am about to say. Your mortgage rate is another important factor to consider when answering this question. Extra mortgage payments are equivalent to investing that money in a VERY low risk investment with an equivalent yield of the mortgage rate because you will be paying that much less per year in interest. (Actually, when you consider that mortgage interest is often tax-deductible the equivalent yield should be reduced by your income tax rate.) Typically it is not possible to find such a low risk investment with a yield as high as your mortgage rate. For example current mortgage rates are over twice as high as the yield of a one year CD. Also keep in mind that additional mortgage payments help you build equity. This equity will most likely be applied to your next home purchase. If so their effect will be in place throughout the life of your next mortgage too.","There are a lot of open questions about if this is your only accessible money or if you have other emergency funds, and if you have any retirements savings and when do you plan to retire, but leaving this all aside: You currently pay 2.65% on the mortgage, and you make less on savings (maybe 1 or 1.5%). So putting the savings into the mortgage makes you the difference, which is a good deal. However, you need to reflect this with your risk-averisty, and your long term goals, and look at potential even better deals. For example, you could put the savings into higher risk/higher gain investments (let’s assume index funds), and make 6 - 10% per year in average. That obviously is a lot more. Why would you not want to do that? Investing like this is a long term plan. If this is your only savings/emergency fund, or if you need the money within the next five years, you should not do it; it could catch you in a bad market situation, and then it might be a severe loss. If you are sure you don’t need it for at least five if not ten years, invest it and keep the mortgage, you will easily beat its interest rate. If you are risk-averse, and can’t sleep with your savings doing loopings while you watch, that is also not a plan for you. There are many things to consider, and your personal situation is relevant for the decision. Consider all options, and be sure to always have a emergency fund remaining. It is also not black and white - there are options in between of your two propositions - pay some in, and keep some for emergencies.","\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"","\"I doubt you will get an answer equal to \"\"You can't save when you have debt\"\". Because most mortgages are for decades, very few people would be able to save for retirement if they had to wait to be mortgage free. The difficulty in saving occurs when the interest rate is very high (18% or more) and the interest is not deductible. Such as with credit cards. The minimum payment for your mortgage is 30% of your income. If that doesn't include taxes and homeowners insurance in the 30%, then for the United States that would be considered too large. While the general plan to pay down the mortgage is a good idea, make sure that you are able to handle the minimum payments before starting to increase the payments. Try the minimum for a year or two before getting aggressive The calculation is based on the interest rate of the mortgage, the interest rate of the savings account, and the potential tax deduction of the mortgage and the tax rate on the earned interest. Putting extra money into a mortgage, but missing out on matching retirement money would also have to be figured into the calculation. Make sure you do save for retirement , kids education, and emergencies. Unless your country has a complex system where the money can flow in and out of the mortgage, then once you put extra money into the mortgage you can't get it back when the car dies. The nice thing about putting extra money into a mortgage is that you can do it either in an organized way, or only when you feel comfortable. So it is not urgent for you to commit to a plan immediately. One thing to avoid is a plan that charges you a fee to add extra money, or charges a fee to switch to a bi-weekly mortgage. While your ideas is good, these plans should never cost any money to start, and may be a scam if a 3rd party gets between you and the lender.\"","You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses). Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive. You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses. Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment. Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach. Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach. Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both. You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K. Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy.","The answer will vary person to person and situation to situation. But the basic concept to always consider is this: What interest rate am I paying on my debt? 10%? 18%? And what interest rate am I making on my savings/investment, etc? 3%? 7%? It won't give you a hard and fast answer, but will definitely let you know if you should take a closer look at it. I'd suggest talking to a financial planner about it. Find a fee-based planner that you can turn to intermittently to make sure you are on the right track...not a commission-based planner, a fee-based one. (with respectful apologies to any commission-based planners who may read this.) My instinct is usually to pay off the debt, try to clean everything up so you don't have anything outstanding that is charging you interest. Debt is clutter, it's stressful, it can be a reminder of money you wish you hadn't spent. As long as you have access to money in case of emergency, job loss, etc, get your debt paid off and keep it paid off. You'll sleep much better.","I want to start investing money, as low risk as possible, but with a percentage growth of at least 4% over 10 - 15 years. ...I do have a mortgage, Then there's your answer. You get a risk-free return of the interest rate on your mortgage (I'm assuming it's more than 4%). Every bit you put toward your mortgage reduces the amount of interest you pay by the interest rate, helping you to pay it off faster. Then, once your mortgage is paid off, you can look at other investments that fit your risk tolerance and return requirements. That said, make sure you have enough emergency savings to reduce cash flow interruptions, and make sure you don't have any other debts to pay. I'm not saying that everyone with a mortgage should pay it off before other investments. You asked for a low-risk 4% investment, which paying your mortgage would accomplish. If you want more return (and more risk) then other investments would be appropriate. Other factors that might change your decision might be:","\"Aside from employer 401(k) matches (which may double your money immediately), paying off debts is almost always the best place to start. Paying off a debt early is a zero-risk operation and will earn you N% (where N is your interest rate). Is that a good deal for a zero-risk return? The closest equivalent today (Aug 24, 2012) is that you can earn about 2.68% on 10-year Treasury bonds. Unless you have a really, really good interest rate (or the interest is tax-deductible), paying off your loan will offer an excellent risk-adjusted return, so you should do that. The \"\"really good\"\" interest rate is typically a mortgage or student loans. (Mortgage interest is also tax-deductible, at least for now.) In those cases, you're not going to gain nearly as much by paying the loan early, and the loan is large - larger than the amount you want to have in risk-free investments. You want to invest for returns, as well! So you can save for retirement instead (in a 401(k) or similar account) and take on a little risk.\"","First off, putting extra cash toward a mortgage early on, when most of the payments are going to interest, is the BEST time. If you pay an extra $1 on your mortgage today, you will save 30 years worth of interest (assuming a 30 year mortgage). If in 29 years you pay an extra dollar, you will only save 1 year worth of interest. That said, there are lots of things that go into a decision like this. Do you have other debts? How stable is your income? What is the interest rate on your mortgage compared to any other debts you may have or potential investments you might make? How much risk are you willing to take? Etc. Mortgages tend to be very low interest, and, at least in the U.S., the interest on them is tax-deductible, making the effective interest rate even lower. If you have some other loan, you are almost always better to pay the other loan off first. If you don't mind a little risk, you are usually better off to invest your money rather than pay off the mortgage. Suppose your mortgage is 5%. The average return on the stock market is something like 7% (according to my buddy who works for Wells Fargo). So if you put $1000 toward your mortgage, you'd save $50 the first year. (Ignoring compounding for simplicity, changes the exact numbers but not the basic idea.) If you put that same $1000 in the stock market, than if it's a typical year you'd make $70. You could put $50 of that toward paying the interest on your mortgage and you'd have $20 left to go on a wild spending spree. The catch is that the interest on a mortgage is fixed, while the return on an investment is highly variable. In an AVERAGE year the stock market might return 7%, but this year it might return 20% or it might lose 10% or a wide range of other possible numbers. (Well, you might have a variable rate mortgage, but there are still usually some defined limits on how much it can vary.)","Gosh don't do either! Unless you are fully funding you ROTH accounts and even then I wouldn't do it. Those interest rates are free money. You are giving away the best bargain in the history of home mortgages. Don't you think you can make more than 4% on your money invested? Don't you think in 5 years you will be able to make 4% on bond/cd's/ and other low risk investments? Don't forget money you pay in the 2020's on beyond to your mortgage are inflationary dollars. Do you think that money will be more valuable in the 20's and beyond? I don't. Roths are free money too. Think if you put 11k in there a year how much would you have at the end of it tax free. There is a reason you can only put $5,500 in them, they are too good a deal tax wise to let people put too much in there. Think about this my parents bought their home in 1967 their mortgage was $170 a month. Inflation hits and the interest they are paying at 8%! mind you, it was still a laughable amount of money each month for mortgage payment from 1977 and on. Also I bought a $450,000 house 38 months ago. Instead of putting down 180 I put down 80 I let the other 100k in my investment account and moved 5.5k over to Roth every year. I now have a roth worth $38k and an investment account worth $105k. I made 40k on my money those three years and the 38k is tax free! If you don't believe me call the help line at clarkhoward.com Get over the emotional need to be debt free and make a logical finical choice. I am begging you to think about this. This post could save you tens of thousands of dollars. Let me put it one more way. 100k in debt with 100k in investments is debt free living. Especially when you debt is under 4% and a tax write off.","Without knowing actual numbers it's tough to say. Personally, I would pay off the car then, going forward, use the money that would have been paid on your car note toward your mortgage. I always think of things in the worst possible scenario. It's easier, and faster, to repossess a car than to foreclose on real estate. Also, in an emergency situation, depleting your fund for your car loan and your mortgage would be significantly more detrimental than only paying a mortgage with a car owned outright. Fewer obligations means fewer things to draw down your funds in an emergency. Whether the tax deductability of the mortgage interest outweighs the lower rate on your car loan will depend on a lot of factors that haven't been shared. I think it's safe to assume with only 1% of separation the real difference isn't significant. I think when determining which credit cards to pay off, choosing the one with the highest rate is smart. But that's not the situation you're in. If you don't have foreclosure concerns I'd still pay off the car then start investing.","As weird as it seems, 5 years is not a long term investment. Furthermore investing is about accepting risk. Based on your criteria for the alternative to a down payment, I think your only choice is to make the larger down payment. If however, you were willing to invest that money for the long term (in a retirement account or an educational account for example) then I would definitely encourage you to invest. I think the chance that a long term investment in a diversified investment account will exceed 3.25% is pretty high. However, that is only my opinion, and I am not clairvoyant, so your let your personal tolerance to risk be your guide. But again, based on the way you asked it, down payment all the way. Your time frame means you are not an investor. Therefore your only option for risk free storage of money is an FDIC insured account, which might pay a little less than 1% for the next 5 years. A bigger down payment will have a 3.25% return in this case. In that order. #4 and #5 could be swapped if the interest rate on the loans is really low.","Others have suggested paying off the student loan, mostly for the satisfaction of one less payment, but I suggest you do the math on how much interest you would save by paying early on each of the loans: When you do the calculations I think you'll see why paying toward the debt with the highest interest rate is almost always the best advice. Whether you can refinance the mortgage to a lower rate is a separate question, but the above calculation would still apply, just with different amortization schedules.","\"You seem to really have your financial act together. Your combination of assets, and ongoing savings makes you the ideal candidate for paying it off. One way to look at it is that your mortgage offers you a place to 'invest' at a fixed 2-7/8% rate. \"\"I'd really like to not have a house payment\"\" is all I need to hear. The flip side is the lecture that talks about long term market returns, the fact that the combination of your deductible mortgage, but 15% cap gain rate means you need 2.5% return to break even, and odds are pretty high that will occur over the next 15 years. \"\"pretty high\"\" does not equal \"\"guaranteed\"\". And I won't debate the value of sleeping soundly vs an excess 5-8% return on this money that you'd maybe achieve. You haven't missed anything. In fact, though I advocate saving first, you are already doing that. This is above and beyond. Good work.\"","Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:","what other pieces of info should I consider If you don't have liquid case available for unexpected repairs, then you probably don't want to use this money for either option. The 7% return on the stocks is absolutely not guaranteed. There is a good amount of risk involved with any stock investment. Paying down the mortgage, by contrast, has a much lower risk. In the case of the mortgage, you know you'll get a 2.1% annual return until it adjusts, and then you can put some constraints on the return you'll get after it adjusts. In the case of stocks, it's reasonable to guess that it will return more than 2.1% annually if you hold it long enough. But there will be huge swings from month to month and from year to year. The sooner you need it, the more guaranteed you will want the return to be. If you have few or no stock (or bond)-like assets, then (nearly) all of your wealth is in your house, and that is independent of the remaining balance on your mortgage. If you are going to sell the house soon, then you will want to diversify your assets to protect you against a drop in home value. If you are going to stay in the house forever, then you will eventually need non-house assets to consume. Ultimately, neither option is inherently better; it really depends on what you need.","\"You have 1998-2011 income-contingent student loans, where the interest rate is the lower of (1% + base rate) or RPI (retail price inflation). For the next few years the it's likely to be (1% + base rate) as interest rates stay low and inflation shoots up. These loans only need to be repaid in proportion to your salary, and if they aren't repaid for long enough (e.g. the holder takes a career break for children) they are written off. So all-in-all, they are pretty good debt to have: low interest rate, and you might not have to repay them ever. It's likely that your mortgage will have a significantly higher rate than the student loan, so you'd be better off reducing your mortgage. Also, the higher deposit might mean you can get a lower interest rate on the whole mortgage because the lender will see you as a lower risk, so the return from \"\"investing\"\" it in your mortgage would be even greater than the raw interest rate. Having the student loan outstanding might make some difference to the \"\"affordability\"\" check for your mortgage payments, but lenders will be very familiar with how they work. Reducing your mortgage payments with the higher deposit should easily counterbalance that. Your own suggestion is to invest the £30K in a \"\"reasonably safe portfolio\"\" making 5%. There'll inevitably be some risk in that - 5% is a relatively high return in today's climate - but if you're willing to take that risk, you can investigate the effect on your mortgage to see if it's worth it or not.\"","If you can get a rate of savings that is higher than your debt, you save. If you can't then you pay off your debt. That makes the most of the money you have. Also to think about: what are you goals? Do you want to own a home, start a family, further your education, move to a new town? All of these you would need to save up for. If you can do these large transactions in cash you will be better off. If it were me I would do what I think is a parroting of Dave Ramsay's advice Congratulations by the way. It isn't easy to do what you have accomplished and you will lead a simpler life if you don't have to worry about money everyday.","You are weighting a certain cost of the mortgage interest versus the possible gain of the value of the house. Take the interest you pay per month and divide it by the current value of the house. Say your interest is 3% of the value of the house (may be more or less depending on the balance owed and the interest rate of your mortgage). Say the average appreciation in your area is also 3%. But that means that there's only a 50% chance that the actual appreciation will be more than that (assuming the odds are equal either way), and there's a 50% change that you'll be worse off. Generally, trading a risk-free loss for a risky gain of equal size is not a good investment; you generally can find better average returns on risky investments, so your best bet is to sell now and pay of the mortgage.","This is opinion, no right or wrong. Two schools of thought, one saying you should aim to be debt free, ASAP, the other suggests that when your borrowing expense is so much lower than expected market return, just keep investing. With your mortgage, a variable, I trust the payment is recalculated so if you pay down half the loan, it will drop to half when the rate changes and new payment calculated, right? If not, you still have a high payment due until it's paid in full. Me, I like the flexibility of going with the full term, and saving the money as long as rates are low. Even moderate inflation will make that payment fell like less over time, and there are funds whose dividends are above the mortgage rate. If/when rates rise, you can always pay down aggressively. I'm concerned that you don't have a good sense of your saving goals. You have less than a years income saved for the long term. To replace 80% of your income you need about 20 times your current income, or $4M. Of course, you get to subtract pension income or whatever Canada's social security system is (forgive my ignorance on this).","Morpheus, I think you are approaching this question the wrong way. The interest rate is not the most important consideration; you also need to consider the other characteristics of the investment. Money in a bank account is very liquid; you can do anything you want with it. Equity in a house is very illiquid; it is hard and expensive to access. Let's say you have $25,000 to either go towards a bigger downpayment or to invest. What happens if you lose your job? If you have $25,000 in the bank, you have a lot of flexibility; you can pay a mortgage for a number of months, or you could use it to relocate. If you put the money in the house, you cannot access it at all; without a job you can't refi or get a home equity loan. Your only recourse would be to sell the house, which might not be possible if there are systemic issues (such as the ones in the real estate crash). Even if you can refi or get a home equity loan, you will have to pay fees. My advice is to put the money somewhere else. If your term is long (say, 10 years or so), I would put the money in an index fund.","If what you are paying in interest on the debt is a higher percentage than what your investments are returning, the best investment you can make is to pay off the debt. If you're lucky enough to be paying historically low rates (as I am on my mortgage) and getting good returns on the investments so the latter is the higher percentage, the balance goes the other way and you'd want to continue paying off the debt relatively slowly -- essentially treating it as a leveraged investment. If you aren't sure, paying off the debt should probably be the default prefrence.","Put yourself in this position - if you had no debts and no investments, would you borrow money at those rates to invest in the stock market? If no, then pay off the debts. If yes, then keep them.","If you have (other) high interest debt, say over 8%, pay it back first. Else, you are likely best off paying this loan back and getting the money working for you long term.","Look at my answer here, and then calculate again. If you keep on saving and keep on paying off your highest interest rate loan, you'll be 'making' money. Also look at this answer here for saving or paying back. Basically, you should always calculate whether the money you have is better 'spend' in a savings account or as a return payment to your loan. Always tackle the highest interest loan first. My 0,02€","I like this option, rather than exposing all 600k to market risk, I'd think of paying off the mortgage as a way to diversify my portfolio. Expose 400k to market risk, and get a guaranteed 3.75% return on that 200k (in essence). Then you can invest the money you were putting towards your mortgage each month. The potential disadvantage, is that the extra 200k investment could earn significantly more than 3.75%, and you'd lose out on some money. Historically, the market beats 3.75%, and you'd come out ahead investing everything. There's no guarantee. You also don't have to keep your money invested, you can change your position down the road and pay off the house. I feel best about a paid off house, but I know that my sense of security carries opportunity cost. Up to you to decide how much risk you're willing to accept. Also, if you don't have an emergency fund, I'd set up that first and then go from there with investing/paying off house.","\"Math says invest in the Market (But paying off your mortgage early is a valid option if you are very risk averse.) You are going to get a better return by investing in the stock market. In the US in 2015/2016, mortgages are 3%-4%, and give you a tax break. The rate of return on the stock market is ~10%, (closer to 6% after you subtract out inflation, taxes, fees, etc.) Since 10 > 3, (or 6% > 4%, to use the pessimistic numbers) investing in the market is the better deal. But... The market has risk, and your mortgage does not. If you are very risk averse paying off the mortgage may make sense. As an example: Family A has a single \"\"breadwinner\"\", who works a low skilled job. Family B has 2 working spouses, both in high skill white collar positions. These two families are going to have wildly different risk tolerances. It may make sense for family A to \"\"invest\"\" its extra money in paying off the mortgage, after they have tackled high interest debt, built an emergency fund, maxed the 401k, etc. Personally I would not: in the US you cannot recoup pre-payments if you lose your job. If I was very risk averse, I would keep my extra money as cash, so I could pay my mortgage after I lost my job. It is never going to make sense for family B to pay the mortgage early. At that point, any decision to pre-pay is going to be based on emotion and not logic.\"","See my recent answer to a similar question on prepaying a mortgage versus investing in IRA. The issue here is similar: you want to compare the relative rates of funding your retirement account versus paying down your debt. If you can invest at a better rate than you are paying on your debt, with similar risk, then you should invest. Otherwise, pay down your debt. The big difference with your situation is that you have a variable rate loan, so there's a significant risk that the rate on it will go up. If I was in your shoes, I would do the following: But that's me. If you're more debt-averse, you may decide to prepay that fixed rate loan too.","\"Aside from the calculations of \"\"how much you save through reducing interest\"\", you have two different types of loan here. The house that is mortgaged is not a wasting asset. You can reasonably expect that in 2045 it will have retained its worth measured in \"\"houses\"\", against the other houses in the same neighbourhood. In money terms, it is likely to be worth more than its current value, if only because of inflation. To judge the real cost or benefit of the mortgage, you need to consider those factors. You didn't say whether the 3.625% is a fixed or variable rate, but you also need to consider how the rate might compare with inflation in the long term. If you have a fixed rate mortgage and inflation rises above 3.625% in future, you are making money from the loan in the long term, not losing what you pay in interest. On the other hand, your car is a wasting asset, and your car loans are just a way of \"\"paying by installments\"\" over the life of the car. If there are no penalties for early repayment, the obvious choice there is to pay off the highest interest rates first. You might also want to consider what happens if you need to \"\"get the $11,000 back\"\" to use for some other (unplanned, or emergency) purpose. If you pay it into your mortgage now, there is no easy way to get it back before 2045. On the other hand, if you pay down your car loans, most likely you now have a car that is worth more than the loans on it. In an emergency, you could sell the car and recover at least some of the $11,000. Of course you should keep enough cash available to cover \"\"normal emergencies\"\" without having to take this sort of action, but \"\"abnormal emergencies\"\" do sometimes happen!\"","\"I'm an American so I don't claim to know anything about Scottish tax law. But just based on what you say above: First, think about how it would work if there were no taxes. If you make a payment against the mortgage, you save 5% in interest. If you put money into a retirement account, you make whatever the profits are on the investment. If that amount comes to more than 5%, then you are better of investing in the retirement account. If it's less than 5%, you are better off paying off the mortgage. As most investments pay significantly better than 5%, this is the superior strategy. On the other hand, apparently you are paying a variable-rate mortgage, but still, mortgage rates are relatively stable. Investment returns vary all over the place and can be negative. So if you are very cautious, that's a reason to pay off the mortgage rather than invest. The younger you are, the less of a concern this should be, as in the long term, investments pretty much always recover lost ground. If you were planning to retire next year I'd have very different advice than if you are planning to retire in 30 years. But sadly, you do have to pay taxes, and that needs to be factored in. So you say that you would have to pay 25% dividend tax on any money you used to pay the mortgage. But the effective tax rate on the retirement money is 15%. So in effect money put against the mortgage pays a 25% tax, and so effectively generates only 5% * .75 = 3.75%. But money invested in the retirement plan pays only 15% tax, and so if the investment returns 3.75% / .85 = 4.4% it would give the same effective return. So if you can invest in something that gives returns of at least 4.4% per year, you're better off putting into the retirement plan than paying off the mortgage. There may be other Scottish tax implications I don't know about. As to \"\"Substantially less paperwork\"\", I have no idea how much paperwork is involved in putting money into a retirement account in Scotland. Here in the U.S., you basically call a financial management company of one sort or another and say \"\"hey, I want to open a retirement account with your company\"\", and they'll prepare most of the forms for you and you just sign them. It could be done with half an hour of your time. Of course the more you research different investment options, etc, the more time it will take. \"\"More flexible e.g. if I want to retire early\"\" If there are restrictions on when you can withdraw money from a retirement account and receive that 25% freebie you mentioned, yes, this could be a factor. Again, I don't know Scottish tax law, there may be other considerations. Here in the U.S., there's a 10% tax penalty if you withdraw money from a retirement account before the legal retirement age. Realistically that's a minor issue, if you have money in there for several years the tax benefits will be more than 10%. But yeah, it would be stupid to put money in in December and then take it out the following January and have to pay the 10% penalty. \"\"Doesn't incur the risk that the government will change the pension rules between now and when I retire\"\" Maybe. But then laws might change in your favor, too. And as you indicated that your mortgage interest rate could change, there could be risk on that side too. That all comes down to what you think the risks are all around.\"","Pay it off....I've only ever paid interest on mortgages to buy the houses I've lived in (I paid both mortgages of years ahead of schedule) & as a result my credit rating's way above average, I use credit cards for everything, pay 'em off in full every month unless I'm paid not to (currently have around 8,000 sitting interest free while the cash earns 6% elsewhere). Life's sweet if you understand the system. Hell if you don't. Keep saving...","Can you wait until you retire before needing the money? Will you buy your first house sometime in the future? If yes, then favour an RRSP. Remember that you are rewarded by paying less tax for having the foresight and commitment to defer income taxes until your retirement, when you are presumably earning less income. Are your household expenses higher than 28% of your gross income? 35% of your net income? Does making your mortgage payments stress you? Are interest rates lower than their historical norm and an increase would cause you difficulty? If yes, then favour your mortgage. Do you need this money before your retire? Does your TFSA earn more interest than your mortgage costs your? If yes, then favour a TFSA. Does an alternative investment earn more than your TFSA? Can you handle an uptick in your mortgage interest rate? If yes, then favour the alternative investment and not your RRSP, mortgage or TFSA.","If it were me, I'd pour my entire savings into paying down the mortgage. I'd also get a HELOC and a personal LOC to use as my emergency fund if I didn't have one already. I personally don't like paying interest on loans when I have cash in the bank to cover it.","At the area where I live (Finland), banks typically charge a lot more for additional mortgage credit taken after purchasing the house. So, if you are planning to purchase a house, and pay it with a mortgage, you get a very good rate, but if you pay back the mortgage and then realize you need additional credit, you get a much worse rate. So, if this is applicable to your area as well, I would simply buy stocks after you have paid enough of the mortgage that it is only 50% of the house price or so. This is especially good advice if you are young. Also, if your mortgage is a fixed rate and not an adjustable rate mortgage, you probably have a very low permanent interest rate on it as interest rates are low currently (adjustable rate mortgages will also have a low rate but it will surely go up). Some people say there's a bubble currently in the stock market, but actually the bubble is in the bond market. Stocks are expensive because the other alternatives (bonds) are expensive as well. Paying back your mortgage is equivalent to investing money in bonds. I don't invest in bonds at the current ridiculously low interest rates; I merely invest in stocks and have a small cash reserve that will become even smaller as I discover new investment opportunities. I could pay back a significant percentage (about 50%) of the loans I have by selling my stocks and using my cash reserves. I don't do that; I invest in stocks instead, and am planning to increase my exposure to the stock market at a healthy pace. Also, consider the fact that mortgage is cheap credit. If you need additional credit for consumption due to e.g. becoming suddenly unemployed, you will get it only at very expensive rates, if at all. If you're very near the retirement age (I'm not), this advice may not be applicable to you. Edit: and oh, if your mortgage is fixed rate, and interest rates have come down, the bank will require you to pay the opportunity cost of the unpaid interests. So, you may need to pay more than you owe the bank. Edit2: let's assume the bank offered you a 4% fixed rate for a 10-year loan, which you agreed to. Now let's also assume interest rates of new agreements have come down to 2%. It would be a loss to the bank to pay back the amount of the loan (because the bank cannot get 4% by offering somebody else a new loan, only 2%), unless you paid also 10 years * (4% - 2%) * amount = 20% * amount of lost interest income. At least where I live, in fixed rate loans, one needs to pay back the bank this opportunity cost of unpaid interests.","You're in the same situation I'm in (bought new house, didn't sell old house, now renting out old house). Assuming that everything is stable, right now I'd do something besides pay down your new mortgage. If you pay down the mortgage at your old house, that mortgage payment will go away faster than if you paid down the one on the new house. Then, things start to get fun. You then have a lot more free cash flow available to do whatever you like. I'd tend to do that before searching for other investments. Then, once you have the free cash flow, you can look for other investments (probably a wise risk) or retire the mortgage on your residence earlier.","Personally, I would split the difference, putting about half into each. Simply because it balances out the problem and I don't have to fret about whether one or the other will provide a significant difference. As bstpierre points out, the one which will make you more in the end is the one which you can grow the fastest. The mortgage payment is locked at 5% growth, which, while modest, is also essentially guaranteed at this point. The CD in your IRA is likely less than that amount, even after tax consideration. A couple additional points to consider:","It has to do with return. I don't know if Canada has a matching feature on retirement accounts, but in the US many companies will match the first X% you put in. So for me, my first $5000 or so is matched 100%. I'll take that match over paying down any debt. Beyond that, of course it's a simple matter of rate of return. Why save in the bank at 2% when you owe at 10-18%? One can make this as simple or convoluted as they like. My mortgage is a tax deduction so my 5% mortgage costs me 3.6%. I've continued to invest rather than pay the mortgage too early, as my retirement account is with pre-tax dollars. So $72 will put $100 in that account. Even in this last decade, bad as it was, I got more than 3.6% return.","You have to have 9% ROI for your investment to break even. That's pretty steep. I'd pay the loan, where you have 9% promised return. Just make sure that there are no pre-payment penalties, and that you're comfortable enough with not having that money available.","If the savings rate is the same as the loan rate, mathematically it doesn't make any difference whether you pay down the loan more and save less or vice versa. However, if the loan rate is higher than the savings rate it's better to pay it down as fast as possible. The chart below compares paying down the loan and saving equally (the gradual scenario), versus paying down the loan quickly at 2 x $193 and then saving 2 x $193. The savings rate, for illustration, is 2%. Paying quickly pays down the loan completely by month 51. On the other hand, in the gradual scheme the loan can't be paid down (with the savings) until month 54, which then leaves 3 months less for saving. In conclusion, it's better to pay down the higher rate loan first. Practically speaking, it may be useful to have some savings available.","The main factors you have to consider are: Could you get a better return on that money by investing it somewhere? The investment rate should basically be more than the mortgage rate. If you find yourself suddenly in need of money (eg, loss of job) do you have enough savings to ride that out? If not, investing the extra money in an instant access investment, even at a lower rate, may make sense as it gives you future flexibility. Do you have any other debts that are at a higher rate? If so, pay those off first as you will get more bang for your buck.","Depends upon the debt cost. Assuming it is consumer debt or credit card debt, it is better to pay that off first, it is the best investment you can make. Let's say it is credit card debt. If you pay 18% interst and have for example a $1,000 amount. If you pay it off you save $180 in interest ($1,000 times 18%). You would have to earn 18% on 1,000 to generate $180 if it was in aninvestment. Here is a link discussing ways of reducing debt Once you have debt paid off you have the cashflow to begin building wealth. The key is in the cashflow.","A: Rollover the cash from the previous account into the new one a low-cost IRA like Vanguard. This, and only this. Because your mortgage is, less than 4%, while your retirement plan will earn 7% over the long term. I have no 'retirement' plans because Because you're 28. and essentially will be happy working until I die Unless circumstances change. but as far as I see it this is not such a bad deal because it is like paying taxes on income. (Principal says I will lose up to 30%) You're ignoring the 10% early withdrawal penalty. I am wise with my money for the most part Then don't piss away $3,000 just for a temporary feel good. I earn a high salary in a tech job. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. So -- after building up an Emergency Fund -- throw as much as possible of your high salary against your mortgage to get rid of the PMI.","It depends on your tax rate. Multiply your marginal rate (including state, if applicable) by your 3.1% to figure out how much you are saving through the deduction, then subtract that from the 3.1% to get the effective rate on the mortgage. For example, if you are in the 28% bracket with no state tax impact from the mortgage, your effective rate on the mortgage is 2.232%. This also assumes you'd still itemize deductions without the mortgage, otherwise, the effective deduction is less. Others have pointed out more behavioral reasons for wanting to pay off the car first, but from a purely financial impact, this is the way to analyze it. This is also your risk-free rate to compare additional investing to (after taking into account taxes on investments).","According to Dave Ramsey you should pay off the house. What I've found is that I'm willing to work a lot harder at saving money to put toward the house when I have that specific goal in mind. If I were to put the money in the market instead then I would be less likely to make as many sacrifices and would inevitability end up putting less money away.","The short answer is to invest it since the rate of return is higher than your mortgage. (Assuming that you can withstand interest rate hikes, meet short term liquidity needs and don't need your $10K in the short or near term). The long answer is if you're comfortable leveraging your house and can put that $10K away for the long term you can reduce your taxes via the Smith Manoeuvre: Alternatively, if you have kids or grandkids and will help them through school, take the government's money by putting it away in an RESP.","You didn't mention how much is the interest rate of your debts. It is a very simple rule. If you think you can make more money by investing (the best way you can) in spite of having debts then go ahead and invest. Else, if you donno what you're doing and can't make sure you earn more than what you're paying off for interest then may be you should focus on clearing up the debts first. You can read more about similar topic discussion here Now, that you've presented the interest rate of your loans i.e. 11% which is your average, then I suggest you to clear up the high interest rate loans first i.e. which are above 11% because it is very difficult to make an investment and get returns more than 11% of what you invest. What ever be it, now that you won't be having big events in the coming 5 years, I suggest you to clear up all your loans and stay debt free i.e. tr to become stable and tension free. You know, because you can't run away anywhere with all those loans up on your shoulders, you HAVE to clear them today or tomorrow. So, now that you're free (in the next 5 yrs) and burden less, so why not clear them up today?","the math makes sense to invest instead of paying down, but... how much would you borrow at 3.5%, to invest the money into the stock market? It's the same question, just turned around.","\"I love the idea of #1, keep that going. I don't think #2 is very realistic. Given the short time frame putting money at risk for a higher yield may not work in your favor. If it was me, I'd stick to a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account (around 1%). I don't mind #3 either, however, I'd be socking whatever you could to mortgage principle so you can get out of PMI sooner rather than later. That would be my top priority. Given the status of interest rates, you may end up saving money in the long run. I doubt it, but you may. If you choose to go with #3, don't settle for a house that you really don't like. Get something that you want. Who knows it may take you a year or so to find something!\"","\"Can is fine, and other answered that. I'd suggest that you consider the \"\"should.\"\" Does your employer offer a matched retirement account, typically a 401(k)? Are you depositing up to the match? Do you have any higher interest short term debt, credit cards, car loan, student loan, etc? Do you have 6 months worth of living expenses in liquid funds? One point I like to beat a dead horse over is this - for most normal mortgages, the extra you pay goes to principal, but regardless of how much extra you pay, the next payment is still due next month. So it's possible that you are feeling pretty good that for 5 years you pay so much that you have just 10 left on the 30 year loan, but if you lose your job, you still risk losing the house to foreclosure. It's not like you can ask the bank for that money back. If you are as disciplined as you sound, put the extra money aside, and only when you have well over the recommended 6 months, then make those prepayments if you choose. To pull my comment to @MikeKale into my answer - I avoided this aspect of the discussion. But here I'll suggest that a 4% mortgage costs 3% after tax (in 25% bracket), and I'd bet cap gain rates will stay 15% for non-1%ers. So, with the break-even return of 3.5% (to return 3 after tax) and DVY yielding 3.33%, the questions becomes - do you think the DVY top yielders will be flat over the next 15 years? Any return over .17%/yr is profit. That said, the truly risk averse should heed the advise in original answer, then pre-pay. Update - when asked,in April 2012, the DVY I suggested as an example of an investment that beats the mortgage cost, traded at $56. It's now $83 and still yields 3.84%. To put numbers to this, a lump sum $100K would be worth $148K (this doesn't include dividends), and giving off $5700/yr in dividends for an after-tax $4800/yr. We happened to have a good 4 years, overall. The time horizon (15 years) makes the strategy low risk if one sticks to it.\"","Forgive me as I do not know much about your fine country, but I do know one thing. You can make 5% risk free guaranteed. How, from your link: If you make a voluntary repayment of $500 or more, you will receive a bonus of 5 per cent. This means your account will be credited with an additional 5 per cent of the value of your payment. I'd take 20.900 of that amount saved and pay off her loan tomorrow and increase my net worth by 22.000. I'd also do the same thing for your loan. In fact in someways it is more important to pay off your loan first. As I understand it, you will eventually have to pay your loan back once your income rises above a threshold. Psychologically you make attempt to retard your future income in order to avoid payback. Those decisions may not be made overtly but it is likely they will be made. So by the end of the day (or as soon as possible), I'd have a bank balance of 113,900 and no student loan debt. This amounts to a net increase in net worth of 1900. It is a great, safe, first investment.","\"First off, the \"\"mortgage interest is tax deductible\"\" argument is a red herring. What \"\"tax deductible\"\" sounds like it means is \"\"if I pay $100 on X, I can pay $100 less on my taxes\"\". If that were true, you're still not saving any money overall, so it doesn't help you any in the immediate term, and it's actually a bad idea long-term because that mortgage interest compounds, but you don't pay compound interest on taxes. But that's not what it actually means. What it actually means is that you can deduct some percentage of that $100, (usually not all of it,) from your gross income, (not from the final amount of tax you pay,) which reduces your top-line \"\"income subject to taxation.\"\" Unless you're just barely over the line of a tax bracket, spending money on something \"\"tax deductible\"\" is rarely a net gain. Having gotten that out of the way, pay down the mortgage first. It's a very simple matter of numbers: Anything you pay on a long-term debt is money you would have paid anyway, but it eliminates interest on that payment (and all compoundings thereof) from the equation for the entire duration of the loan. So--ignoring for the moment the possibility of extreme situations like default and bank failure--you can consider it to be essentially a guaranteed, risk-free investment that will pay you dividends equal to the rate of interest on the loan, for the entire duration of the loan. The mortgage is 3.9%, presumably for 30 years. The car loan is 1.9% for a lot less than that. Not sure how long; let's just pull a number out of a hat and say \"\"5 years.\"\" If you were given the option to invest at a guaranteed 3.9% for 30 years, or a guaranteed 1.9% for 5 years, which would you choose? It's a no-brainer when you look at it that way.\"","If its deductible, the IRA is a no-brainer. You're netting a positive return just from the tax deduction, and you'll have years of tax-free appreciation. You're already on track to pay off your mortgage in 5 years, the impact of $10,000 on the balance now is not very consequential. On the other hand, you won't have an opportunity to make additional IRA contributions.","I'm also a UK, Ltd company contractor that has pondered the same topic. I afraid, however, that I don't understand the maths in the original question. Mortgage interest is flat for the term of the mortgage rather than compounded, so, ignoring the tapering at the end of the lifespan of the mortgage, I get the amount of interest to something like £9,300 (7500 x 0.05 x 25). Does this make the decision any easier for you? As you point out, the total cost of this overpayment from your company account is £12,500. Using the above figure, it would take over 13 years to recoup the £5,000 difference (at £375 interest a year). I used to be of the same opinion that the mortgage should be paid off at all costs first. But now I'm coming round to the American way of thinking; £12,500 invested in a pension with a 5% yield will easily outstrip the interest saved by making the over payment - 12500 x 1.05 ^ 25 = £43,300 - over 250% better off (£43,300 / (£9,300 + £7,500)). I now make no mortgage overpayments at all and instead pay all the money into my pension. This (amongst other things) keeps me below the upper earnings tax threshold, so I'm only paying corporation tax for the money I'm drawing as dividends. There's a massive caveat to this though; I'm 49. I should be able to draw the tax free element of my pension pot in six years time and pay my mortgage off and it's quite unlikely that the government will be changing pensions policy in that time (but drawing 25% tax free has been a feature of pensions for quite some time). I can then chose to keep working or retire. If my pension is still doing well (9% ish pa at the moment), I could chose to not pay my mortgage off at all. In the next twenty or so years, however, all this could change. In your position I would do a bit of both. Make a regular overpayment to pay down your mortgage (even a small amount that you'll barely notice will make quite a difference to the end date of your mortgage - £100 a month will take years off). I didn't start paying properly into my pension until fairly recently and so If you're not already, I'd also make quite substantial, regular payments into one now, directly from your company, 15-17.5% of your gross drawings. Leaving it until later will only make it more painful. Then when you get to retirement age, no matter what, you'll have a decent pension pot. An actuary I worked with pointed out that if you pay something into a pension, when you retire you should have some sort of pot; if you pay nothing, you are absolutely guaranteed to have nothing. And finally, if you haven't already, fix your mortgage. We're three years into a five year fix. The variable rate we were going to be transferred to was 3.99%. We fixed, not because of wanting any sense of security, but because the fixed rate was 2.59% with no fee. There are much better rates than that about now. Rates are starting to rise, so it's a good time.","Excellent answers so far, so I will just add one additional consideration: liquidity. Money invested in a mutual fund (exclusive of retirement accounts with early withdrawal penalties) has a relatively high liquidity. Whereas excess equity in your home from paying down early has very low liquidity. To put it simply: If you get in a desperate situation (long term unemployment) it is better to have to cash in a mutual fund than try to sell your house on the quick and move in with your mother. Liquidity becomes less of an issue if you also manage to fund a decent sized rainy-day fund (6-9 months of living expenses).","There are two components to any non-trivial financial decision: Assuming that all things remain equal, borrowing money at a low rate while investing for a higher return is a no-brainer. The problem is, all things do not remain equal. For example: I think that you need to assess your position and preferences. I'd err on the side of being in less debt.","I would prioritize paying off the heloc first. Paying off the heloc has a guaranteed rate of return and will reduce the size of savings cushion you'll need in the future. However, you shouldn't assume your heloc funds will remain available indefinitely. If you read your fine print, you are not guaranteed access to your unused credit by the bank. If you lose your job or your home value significantly declines, the bank could refuse to let you take more money out on your heloc. Recently, I've seen people's available credit be reset to 0 on open helocs by banks trying to reduce their exposure. Planning on the future of available credit via a heloc is not a good safety net.","\"But in the debt-payoff-first scenario, I'd be wiping out my debt in two years. It would take several more years if I were to just pay the minimums and put the extra money toward investing instead. Right. The idea is that in 2 years, you are likely to have more in the savings/stock account than you owe on the loan. But. The range of returns for X years has a smaller standard deviation the greater X is. e.g. any year has about a 1 in 3 chance of being negative. A 10 year period had a negative return (-1% CAGR) in the '00s recently, but the 15 year return even around that decade would have been successful. Jan 1 '96 - Dec 31 2010 returned 6.76% CAGR, Jan 1 2001 - Dec 31 2015 returned 4.96% CAGR. This tells you that the time frame is as important as your sleep factor. Your 2 years? I'd just kill the loans. A 10-15 year horizon? I'd ask how you \"\"feel\"\" about that debt. The cost of going after a potential higher return may not be worth the risk to many. For some, it's fine. I retired, with a mortgage still in place, but the money in my 401(k) that could have paid off the mortgage is now about twice the remaining balance. So I sleep like a baby. In the end, I'm a fan of investing for the long term vs paying off low rate debt, but it's a choice based on the individual.\"","The long term growth is not 6.5%, it's 10% give or take. But, that return comes with risk. A standard deviation of 14%. Does the 401(k) have a match? And are you getting the full match? If no match, or you already top it off, the 6.5% is a rate that I'd be happy to get on my money. So, I would pay it off faster. My highest rate debt is my 3.5% mortgage, which is 2.5% after tax. At 2.5%, I prefer to be a borrower, as that gap 2.5%-10% is pretty appealing, long term.","Hard to give an answer without knowing more details (interest rates, remaining principle on loans, especially how soon the new roof is needed). Maintaining the value in your home (unless you are planning to walk away from it or short-sell or something) is of paramount importance, and the cost of a leak should it happen can be substantial. If the roof is a few years out, and you have loans with interest rates about oh I'd say around 6%or more then I would pay off those loans and take the money you were paying there and start putting it into a fund to pay for the roof. I am also a huge fan of doing whatever you can to max out your 401K contributions. Money put into a 401K early has a LOT more value than money put in later, and since you don't pay taxes on it, the cost out of your pocket is much lower (eg. at a 20% tax rate it costs you only $80 out of pocket to put $100 into your 401.. (look at that, you just made like 25% return on that $80) Paying off loans is pretty much equivalent to making a risk free return on the money equal to the interest rate on the loan. But to REALLY make that work, what you need to do is in a virtual sense, keep making the loan payment just now pay it to yourself, putting that money into a savings account, or towards your 401K or whatever. If you just torn around and start spending that money, then you are not really getting as much value to paying off the loan early.","It depends what rate mortgage you can get for any extra loans... If you remortgage you are likely to get a rate of 3.5-4%... depending who you go with. With deposit accounts in the UK maying around 1% (yes, you can get more by tying it up for longer but not a huge amount more) clearly you're better off not having a mortgage rather than money in the bank. Does your 8k income allow for tax? If it does, you are getting 6% return on the money tied up in the flat. If you are getting 6% after tax on the invested money, that's way better than you would get on any left over cash paid into an investment. Borrowing money on a mortgage would cost you less than 6%... so you are better off borrowing rather than selling the flat. If you are getting 6% before tax... depending on your tax rate... it probably makes very little difference. You'd need to work out how much an extra 80k mortgage would cost you, how much the 50k on deposit would earn you and how much you make after tax. There is a different route. Set up a mortgage on the rental flat. You can claim the interest payment off the flat's income... reduce your tax bill so the effective mortgage rate on the flat would be less than what you could get with a mortgage on the new house. Use the money from the flat's mortgage to finance the difference in house price. In fact from a tax view, you may be better off having a mortgage free house and maxing out the mortgage on the flat so you can write off as much as possible against your tax bill. All of the above assume ... that the flat is rented all the time. The odd dry spell on the flat could influence the sums a lot. All of the above assume that your cash flow works whichever route you choose. As no-one on stack exchange has all of the numbers for your specific circumstances it may be worth talking to a tax accountant. They could advise you properly, knowing the numbers, which makes the best sense for you in terms of overall cost, cash flow, risk and so on.","I would lean towards making a smaller down payment and hanging onto savings for flexibility. Questions to think about: If you have enough cash that you can make a huge down payment and still have all the other bases covered, then it comes down to your risk tolerance and personal style. You can almost definitely build a portfolio that will beat your mortgage rate on average over the long term, but with more risk and volatility. Heck, you could make a 20% down payment on another house and rent it out.","\"I think your analysis is very clear, it's a sensible approach, and the numbers sound about right to me. A few other things you might want to think about: Tax In some jurisdictions you can deduct mortgage interest against your income tax. I see from your profile that you're in Texas, but I don't know the exact situation there and I think it's better to keep this answer general anyway. If that's the case for you, then you should re-run your numbers taking that into account. You may also be able to make your investments tax-advantaged, for example if you save them in a retirement account. You'll need to apply the appropriate limits for your specific situation and take an educated guess as to how that might change over the next 30 years. Liquidity The money you're not spending on your mortgage is money that's available to you for other spending or emergencies - i.e. even though your default assumption is to invest it and that's a sensible way to compare with the mortgage, you might still place some extra value on having more free access to it. Overpayments Would you have the option to pay extra on the mortgage? That's another way of \"\"investing\"\" your money that gets you a guaranteed return of the mortgage rate. You might want to consider if you'd want to send some of your excess money that way.\"","Mortgage rates are at record lows. The 30 yr fixed is now below 4%, if you are in the 25% bracket and itemize (state income tax, property tax, donations, easy to pass the minimum) it costs you 3% post tax. This is the rate of long term inflation, effectively making this money free. You are likely to be able to average a far greater return than this mortgage is costing you. These rates may last another year or two, but long term, they are an anomaly. ETFs such as DVY (the Dow high dividend stocks) are yielding over 3.75%, 3.2% after the 15% cap gain tax. i.e. you get a small positive return, and the potential for capital gains. If this ETF rises just 3%/yr it's all profit above your cost of money. That said, there are those who sleep better with a paid in full house, regardless of the rate. To that extreme, I've read those who make paying their mortgage a priority ahead of funding their matched 401(k). While I can guess what the market will return, but can't know what will actual happen, it's foolish to skip one's match. They reason that the market can crash, I reply the 401(k) has to have a short term fund, money market or T-bill type returns, but a 100% match is a no-brainer. Using an estimated 4% for the 30 and 3.5% for the 15, the payment on the 15 yr mortgage will be 50% higher, $1430 (15yr) for $200K vs $955 for the 30. How does this play in your budget? Do you have an adequate emergency fund? Are you funding your retirement plan at a decent level? In the end, there is no right answer, just what's right for you. Understanding the rest of your financial picture will get you more detailed advice. Not knowing your situation limits the answers. Edit 6/30/2015 - When I wrote this answer, the DVY was trading at $48.24. $100,000 invested would have given off $3187/yr after a 15% dividend tax rate. At $75/share now, the $100,000 investment would be worth $155,472 and yielding $5597 for a net $4757 after tax. The choice to go DVY would have been profitable from the start, with room now for a 35% crash before losing any money.","\"Really this is no different from any kind of large lump sum and having a mortgage. There are probably many questions and answers on this subject. It really doesn't matter that the proceeds were the result of a sale, an inheritance would not change the answer. I think it is important to note that the proceeds will not eliminate the house 2 mortgage. A high level choice of investment one makes is between equity (such as stock) and debt investments (such as bonds and mortgages). You are in a unique case of being able to invest in your own mortgage with no investment fee. This may tip the scales in favor of paying down the mortgage. It is difficult to answer in your specific case as we don't know the rest of your finances. Do you have a sizable 401K that is heavily invested in stocks? Do you have the need for a college fund? Do you have an emergency fund? Do you have a desire to own several homes generating income property? If it was me I'd do the following in order, skipping steps I may have already completed: I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? I really kind of hate this attitude. Your goal is to get rid of the mortgage in a timely manner. Doing such makes paying for kids college a snap, reduces the income one might need in retirement, basically eliminates the need for life insurance, and gives one a whole lot of money to have fun with.\""],"string":"[\n \"In all likelihood, the best thing you can do, if these really are your only two options (ie no other debt at all), paying-down your mortgage will shorten the term of the mortgage, and mean you spend less on your house in the long run. Investing is should be a long-term activity - so yes, the likelihood is that, given a modest investment, it will gain at historical averages over the life of the investment vehicle. However, that is not a guarantee, and is an inherent risk. Whereas paying-down a mortgage lowers your financial obligations and risk, investing increases your risk. I want to know how you got a 2.1% interest rate on a mortgage, though - the lowest I've seen anywhere is 3.25%.\",\n \"\\\"If you don't want to take any risk and you want your money to be liquid, then the best place to \\\"\\\"invest\\\"\\\" such money is in an insured bank deposit, such as a high interest savings account. However, you aren't likely to find a savings account interest rate that comes close to that charged by your mortgage, so the better decision from a numbers perspective is to pay down more on your mortgage or other debt. Paying down your debt has almost no risk, but has a better payoff than simply saving the money in a bank account. However, if you choose to pay down more debt, I suggest you still keep aside enough cash to have an adequate emergency fund. Since you want safety and liquidity, don't expect high returns from such money.\\\"\",\n \"It's six of one a half dozen of another. Investing the cash is a little more risky. You know exactly what you'll get by paying down your mortgage. If you have a solid emergency fund it's probably most advisable to pay down your mortgage. If your mortgage is 3% and your investment makes 3.5% you're talking about a taxable gain of 0.5% on the additional cash. Is that worth it to you? Sure, the S&P has been on a tear but remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.\",\n \"Paying down your mortgage saves lots of interest. With a long term mortgage you end up paying twice us much to the bank than the sales price of the house. Even low mortgage interests are higher than short term bonds. The saving of those interest are as much an investment as the interest you get from a bond. However, before paying off a mortgage other higher interest loans should be paid off. Also it should be considered if the mortgage interest create a tax reduction in the comparison with any other options.\",\n \"\\\"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the \\\"\\\"what-ifs\\\"\\\". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the \\\"\\\"pay-off-early\\\"\\\" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%.\\\"\",\n \"At the moment the interest rate... implies a variable rate mortgage. I believe rates are only going to go up from here. So, if I were in your position, I would pay off the mortgage first. If you don't have 3-6 months in savings for an emergency, I would invest that much money in low risk investments. Anything remaining I would invest in a balanced portfolio of mutual funds. The biggest benefit to this is the flexibility it gives you. Not being burdened by a monthly mortgage frees you up to invest. This may be in your stock portfolio each month or it may be in your community or charitable causes. You have financial margin.\",\n \"Yes, you will come out ahead slightly by putting the money in the savings account, then paying off your mortgage later. However, we don't know what will happen to these interest rates after 1 year. If you put the £300 per month into the savings account for a year, then put the money into you mortgage, you will save about £78 for the year over just putting the money toward your mortgage in the first place. For me, I'm more concerned about longer term strategy. What happens to your mortgage rate after 2 years? What happens to your savings account rate after 1 year? The mortgage rate likely goes up and the savings account rate likely goes down, making the savings of this strategy even less after the first year. Instead, you may want to put this £300 per month toward retirement investments (assuming you have no other debt), which should, over the long term, earn more than the savings account.\",\n \"First of all, you should absolutely put money into savings until you have at least a 6 month cushion, and preferably longer. It doesn't matter if you get 0% interest in your savings and have a high interest rate mortgage, the cushion is still more important. Once you have a nice emergency fund, you can then consider the question of whether to pay more towards the mortgage if the numbers make sense. However, in my opinion, it's not just a straight comparison of interest rates. In other words, if your savings account gives you 1% and your mortgage is 5%, that's still not an automatic win for the mortgage. The reason is that by putting the money into your mortgage, you're locking it up and can't access it. To me, money in the hand is worth a lot more than money that's yours on paper but not easily accessible. I don't know the math well enough, but you don't really need the math. Just keep in mind that you have to weight the present value of putting that money into savings vs the future value of putting it into your mortgage and paying less interest at some point in the future. Do the math and see how much you will save by paying the mortgage down faster, but also keep in mind that future money is worth less than present money. A LOT less if you suddenly have an emergency or decide on a major purchase and need the money, but then have to jump through hoops to get to it. To me, you need to save a considerable amount by paying down the mortgage, and also understand that your money is getting locked away, for it to make sense.\",\n \"\\\"For some people, it should be a top priority. For others, there are higher priorities. What it should be for you depends on a number of things, including your overall financial situation (both your current finances and how stable you expect them to be over time), your level of financial \\\"\\\"education\\\"\\\", the costs of your mortgage, the alternative investments available to you, your investing goals, and your tolerance for risk. Your #1 priority should be to ensure that your basic needs (including making the required monthly payment on your mortgage) are met, both now and in the near future, which includes paying off high-interest (i.e. credit card) debt and building up an emergency fund in a savings or money-market account or some other low-risk and liquid account. If you haven't done those things, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and do not consider making advance payments on your mortgage. Mason Wheeler's statements that the bank can't take your house if you've paid it off are correct, but it's going to be a long time till you get there and they can take it if you're partway to paying it off early and then something bad happens to you and you start missing payments. (If you're not underwater, you should be able to get some of your money back by selling - possibly at a loss - before it gets to the point of foreclosure, but you'll still have to move, which can be costly and unappealing.) So make sure you've got what you need to handle your basic needs even if you hit a rough patch, and make sure you're not financing the paying off of your house by taking a loan from Visa at 27% annually. Once you've gotten through all of those more-important things, you finally get to decide what else to invest your extra money in. Different investments will provide different rewards, both financial and emotional (and Mason Wheeler has clearly demonstrated that he gets a strong emotional payoff from not having a mortgage, which may or may not be how you feel about it). On the financial side of any potential investment, you'll want to consider things like the expected rate of return, the risk it carries (both on its own and whether it balances out or unbalances the overall risk profile of all your investments in total), its expected costs (including its - and your - tax rate and any preferred tax treatment), and any other potential factors (such as an employer match on 401(k) contributions, which are basically free money to you). Then you weigh the pros and cons (financial and emotional) of each option against your imperfect forecast of what the future holds, take your best guess, and then keep adjusting as you go through life and things change. But I want to come back to one of the factors I mentioned in the first paragraph. Which options you should even be considering is in part influenced by the degree to which you understand your finances and the wide variety of options available to you as well as all the subtleties of how different things can make them more or less advantageous than one another. The fact that you're posting this question here indicates that you're still early in the process of learning those things, and although it's great that you're educating yourself on them (and keep doing it!), it means that you're probably not ready to worry about some of the things other posters have talked about, such as Cost of Capital and ROI. So keep reading blog posts and articles online (there's no shortage of them), and keep developing your understanding of the options available to you and their pros and cons, and wait to tackle the full suite of investment options till you fully understand them. However, there's still the question of what to do between now and then. Paying the mortgage down isn't an unreasonable thing for you to do for now, since it's a guaranteed rate of return that also provides some degree of emotional payoff. But I'd say the higher priority should be getting money into a tax-advantaged retirement account (a 401(k)/403(b)/IRA), because the tax-advantaged growth of those accounts makes their long-term return far greater than whatever you're paying on your mortgage, and they provide more benefit (tax-advantaged growth) the earlier you invest in them, so doing that now instead of paying off the house quicker is probably going to be better for you financially, even if it doesn't provide the emotional payoff. If your employer will match your contributions into that account, then it's a no-brainer, but it's probably still a better idea than the mortgage unless the emotional payoff is very very important to you or unless you're nearing retirement age (so the tax-free growth period is small). If you're not sure what to invest in, just choose something that's broad-market and low-cost (total-market index funds are a great choice), and you can diversify into other things as you gain more savvy as an investor; what matters more is that you start investing in something now, not exactly what it is. Disclaimer: I'm not a personal advisor, and this does not constitute investing advice. Understand your choices and make your own decisions.\\\"\",\n \"I would not recommend using your own money to pay off something that is not a strong asset. Use the savings where it will have the maximum return. Why not put (some of) the savings into another investment mortgage? Thanks to the leverage your return would be much higher than 5.5%, plus you would have more income.\",\n \"\\\"Understand your own risk tolerance and discipline. From Moneychimp we can see different market results - This is a 15 year span, containing what was arguably one of the most awful decades going. A full 10 year period with a negative return. Yet, the 15 year return was a 6.65% CAGR. You'd net 5.65% after long term cap gains. Your mortgage is likely costing ~4% or 3% after tax (This is not applicable to my Canadian friends, I understand you don't deduct interest). In my not so humble opinion, I'd pay off the highest rate debts first (unlike The David followers who are happy to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in 0% interest debt before the large 18% debt) and invest at the highest rate I'd get long term. The problem is knowing when to flip from one to the other. Here's food for thought - The David insists on his use of the 12% long term market return. The last 100 years have had an average 11.96% return, but you can't spend average, the CAGR, the real compound rate was 10.06%. Why would he recommend paying off a sub 3% loan while using 12% for his long term planning (All my David remarks are not applicable to Canadian members, you all probably know better than to listen to US entertainers)? I am retired, and put my money where my mouth is. The $200K I still owe on my mortgage is offset by over $400K in my 401(k). The money went in at 25%/28% pretax, has grown over these past 20 years, and comes out at 15% to pay my mortgage each month. No regrets. Anyone starting out now, and taking a 30 year mortgage, but putting the delta to a 15 year mortgage payment into their 401(k) is nearly certain to have far more in the retirement account 15 years hence than their remaining balance on the loan, even after taxes are considered. Even more if this money helps them to get the full matching, which too many miss. All that said, keep in mind, the market is likely to see a correction or two in the next 15 years, one of which may be painful. If that would keep you up at night, don't listen to me. If a fixed return of 4% seems more appealing than a 10% return with a 15% standard deviation, pay the mortgage first. Last - if you have a paid off house but no job, the town still wants its property tax, and the utilities still need to be paid. If you lose your job with $400K in your 401(k)/IRA but have a $200K mortgage, you have a lot of time to find a new job or sell the house with little pressure from the debt collectors. (To answer the question in advance - \\\"\\\"Joe, at what mortgage rate do you pay it off first?\\\"\\\" Good question. I'd deposit to my 401(k) to grab matching deposits first, and then if the mortgage was anywhere north of 6%, prioritize that. This would keep my chances at near 100% of coming out ahead.)\\\"\",\n \"Aggressively paying of Mortgage is better. If you have more cash available [assuming you have covered all other aspects i.e. emergency funds, retirement etc], the only question you need to ask is where will you invest and what returns would you get. So if your mortgage is say at 5%, if the spare money can get you more than this, its beneficial, if its in Bank CD with say near zero interest, its not worth it. However if you are sure you can make 10% returns on the investments, then go ahead and don't pay the mortgage aggressively.\",\n \"\\\"The mortgage has a higher interest rate, how can it make sense to pay off the HELOC first?? As for the mutual fund, it comes down to what returns you are expecting. If the after-tax return is higher than the mortgage rate then invest, otherwise \\\"\\\"invest\\\"\\\" in paying down the mortgage. Note that paying down debt is usually the best investment you have.\\\"\",\n \"Simply, you should put your money into whatever has the higher interest rate, savings or repayment of debt. Let's say at the beginning of month A you put $1000 into each account. In the case of the savings, at the end of month A you will have $1001.6 ($1000 + 1000 x 2% annual interest / 12) In the case of a loan, at the end of month A you will have $1005.7. ($17000 plus 6.8 interest for one month is 17096.3. On $16000, the new value is 16090.6. The difference between these is $1005.7. 5.7 / 1.6 = 3.56 Therefore, using your money to repay your loan nets you a return about 3.5 times greater.\",\n \"\\\"I think the basic question you're asking is whether you'd be better off putting the $20K into an IRA or similar investment, or if your best bet is to pay down your mortgage. The answer is...that depends. What you didn't share is what your mortgage balance is so that we can understand how using that money to pay down the mortgage would affect you. The lower your remaining balance on the mortgage, the more impact paying it down will affect your long-term finances. For example, if your remaining principal balance is more than $200k, paying down $20k in principal will not have as significant an effect as if you only have $100k principal balance and were paying down $20k of that. To me, one option is to put the $20k toward mortgage principal, then perhaps do a refinance on your remaining mortgage with the goal of getting a better interest rate. This would double the benefit to you. First, your mortgage payment would be lower by virtue of a lower principal balance (assuming you keep the same term period in your refinanced mortgage as you have now. In other words, if you have a 15-year now, your new mortgage should be 15 years also to see the best effect on your payment). Further, if you can obtain a lower interest rate on the new loan, now you have the dual benefit of a lower principal balance to pay down plus the reduced interest cost on that principal balance. This would put money into your pocket immediately, which I think is part of your goal, although the question does hinge on what you'd pay in points and fees for a refinance. You can invest, but with that comes risk, and right now may not be the ideal time to enter the markets given all of the uncertainties with the \\\"\\\"Brexit\\\"\\\" issue. By paying down your mortgage principal, even if you do nothing else, you can save yourself considerable interest in the long term which might be more beneficial than the return you'd get from the markets or an IRA at this point. I hope this helps. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"The short answer is that it depends on the taxation laws in your country. The long answer is that there are usually tax avoidance mechanisms that you can use which may make it more economically feasible for you to go one way or the other. Consider the following: The long term average growth rate of the stock market in Australia is around 7%. The average interest on a mortgage is 4.75%. Assuming you have money left over from a 20% deposit, you have a few options. You could: 1) Put that money into an index fund for the long term, understanding that the market may not move for a decade, or even move downwards; 2) Dump that money straight into the mortgage; 3) Put that money in an offset account Option 1 will get you (over the course of 30-40 years) around 7% return. If and when that profit is realised it will be taxed at a minimum of half your marginal tax rate (probably around 20%, netting you around 5.25%) Option 2 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free Option 3 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free with the added bonus that the money is ready for you to draw upon on short notice. Of the three options, until you have a good 3+ months of living expenses covered, I'd go with the offset account every single time. Once you have a few months worth of living expenses covered, I would the adopt a policy of spreading your risk. In Australia, that would mean extra contributions to my Super (401k in the US) and possibly purchasing an investment property as well (once I had the capital to positively gear it). Of course, you should find out more about the tax laws in your country and do your own maths.\",\n \"The mathematically correct answer is to invest, because you'll get a higher rate of return. I think that answer is bunk -- owning your home free and clear is a huge burden lifted off of your shoulders. You're at an age where you may find a new job, business, personal or other opportunities will be easier to take advantage of without that burden.\",\n \"It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals.\",\n \"I think there are a few facets to this, namely: Overall, I wouldn't concentrate on paying off the house if I didn't have any other money parked and invested, but I'd still try to get rid of the mortgage ASAP as it'll give you more money that you can invest, too. At the end of the day, if you save out paying $20k in interest, that's almost $20k you can invest. Yes, I realise there's a time component to this as well and you might well get a better return overall if you invested the $20k now that in 5 years' time. But I'd still rather pay off the house.\",\n \"My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage. So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily. Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future. On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A. Let's say you lose your job a year from now. Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed. But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it. People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job.\",\n \"pay off loans first, then invest. it's a guaranteed benefit. you could invest it and make great returns, or you could watch the market crash the next day and there goes your savings. no guarantee exists there. take the sure thing. that's my two cents.\",\n \"\\\"There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum. So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said \\\"\\\"ignoring tax implications\\\"\\\". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation.\\\"\",\n \"In general, saving money should be prioritized over extra debt payments. Every dollar that you spend paying down a debt will decrease the amount of principal owed; this will directly decrease the future interest payments you will make. However, as time goes on, you are dealing with a smaller and smaller set of principal; additionally, it is assumed that your income will grow (or at least keep pace with inflation), making the debt more bearable. On the other hand, every dollar you save (or invest) now will increase your future income - also making the future debt more bearable. Not only that, but the longer you save, the more value to you get from having saved, meaning you should save as early as possible. Finally, the benefits of paying down the mortgage early end when the mortgage is completely paid off, while the benefits of saving will continue (and even grow) after the house is owned free and clear. That is, if you have an extra $100,000 to put into the mortgage during the life of the loan, you could sink that into the mortgage and see it disappear, or you could invest it, and reap the dividends for the rest of your life. Caveat emptor: behavior trumps numbers. This only works if you will actually be disciplined about saving the extra money rather than paying off debt. If you're the kind of person for whom money burns a hole in your pocket until you spend it, then use it on debt. But if you are able to save and invest that money, you will be better off in the long run.\",\n \"The answer can depend greatly on whether the interest on a mortgage for the house you live in is tax deductible in the country you are in (I assume the mortgage is on the house you live in and not an investment property). It will also depend on the difference between the mortgage interest rate and the return of the unit trust, your income and your tax rates. In essence you would need to do a cost-benefit analysis to figure out which option would provide the bigest financial benefit, considering the different rates, your income and your tax rates. Basically, if you can get a better return from the unit trust than the mortgage interest rate and you can claim a tax deduction for the mortgage interest payments, then you may be better off investing in the unit trust rather than putting extra repayments into the mortgage.\",\n \"\\\"I'm assuming when you say \\\"\\\"…put it towards our mortgage payment?\\\"\\\", you mean make additional payments on top of your scheduled payment. Strictly speaking, if the interest on your mortgage is higher than the return you can expect by saving, then yes, your excess savings should be put toward your mortgage. This assumes that there are no pre-payment penalties, that you really won't miss that money in the short term (i.e. you say you have enough savings for emergencies, so that's good), and that both choices would use after-tax dollars (i.e. mortgage payment vs RRSP contribution in Canada is a huge discussion).\\\"\",\n \"Let's look at some of your options: In a savings account, your $40,000 might be earning maybe 0.5%, if you are lucky. In a year, you'll have earned $200. On the plus side, you'll have your $40,000 easily accessible to you to pay for moving, closing costs on your new house, etc. If you apply it to your mortgage, you are effectively saving the interest on the amount for the life of the loan. Let's say that the interest rate on your mortgage is 4%. If you were staying in the house long-term, this interest would be compounded, but since you are only going to be there for 1 year, this move will save you $1600 in interest this year, which means that when you sell the house and pay off this mortgage, you'll have $1600 extra in your pocket. You said that you don't like to dabble in stocks. I wouldn't recommend investing in individual stocks anyway. A stock mutual fund, however, is a great option for investing, but only as a long-term investment. You should be able to beat your 4% mortgage, but only over the long term. If you want to have the $40,000 available to you in a year, don't invest in a mutual fund now. I would lean toward option #2, applying the money to the mortgage. However, there are some other considerations: Do you have any other debts, maybe a car loan, student loan, or a credit card balance? If so, I would forget everything else and put everything toward one or more of these loans first. Do you have an emergency fund in place, or is this $40,000 all of the cash that you have available to you? One rule of thumb is that you have 3 to 6 months of expenses set aside in a safe, easily accessible account ready to go if something comes up. Are you saving for retirement? If you don't already have retirement savings in place and are adding to it regularly, some of this cash would be a great start to a Roth IRA or something like that, invested in a stock mutual fund. If you are already debt free except for this mortgage, you might want to do some of each: Keep $10,000 in a savings account for an emergency fund (if you don't already have an emergency fund), put $5,000 in a Roth IRA (if you aren't already contributing a satisfactory amount to a retirement account), and apply the rest toward your mortgage.\",\n \"\\\"From what I've read, paying down your mortgage -- above and beyond what you'd normally pay -- is indeed an investment but a very poor form of investment. In other words, you could take that extra money you'd apply towards your mortgage and put it in something that has a much higher rate of return than a house. As an extreme example, consider: if I took $6k extra I would have paid toward my mortgage in a single year, and bought a nice performing stock, I could see returns of 2x or 3x. Now, that implies I know which stock to pick, etcetera.. I found a \\\"\\\"mortgage or investment\\\"\\\" calculator which could be of use as well: http://www.planningtips.com/cgi-bin/prepay_v_invest.pl (scroll to bottom to see the summary and whether or not prepay or invest wins for the numbers you plugged in)\\\"\",\n \"If it's either/or, I'd pay down the mortgage, no question. I know I'm in the minority, but I'm not a fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. There are too many things that can change between now and the next 30 years (the time frame that you'll be able to withdraw from your IRA account without penalty). The rules governing these accounts can change at any time, and I don't think they'll be changes for the better. Putting the money toward your mortgage will relieve you of that monthly payment faster. The benefits of IRAs come retirement age are too uncertain for my taste.\",\n \"but then they make suggestions such as paying extra each month on your mortgage. How else does one pay off his mortgage early other than by paying extra each month? The principal and interest are fixed, no matter how much money you throw at them. The interest rate is fixed. The total interest paid varies depending on how much extra you pay towards the principal. You'll pay the same amount every month regardless. That's factually incorrect. just put the extra money into savings At 1.2%, if you're smart enough to put it in an on-line savings account. until you have enough to pay off the mortgage Which costs you 3.5%. This way, the money is locked up in your home. Who says that all of your money must be locked up in your home? (I'm sure that there are financial advisors who recommend that you throw every single spare dime into extra mortgage payments, but they're rare.) Am I missing something? Yes: the mathematical sense to see that a 3.5% loan costs more than than 1.2% savings earns you\",\n \"Certainly, paying off the mortgage is better than doing nothing with the money. But it gets interesting when you consider keeping the mortgage and investing the money. If the mortgage rate is 5% and you expect >5% returns from stocks or some other investment, then it might make sense to seek those higher returns. If you expect the same 5% return from stocks, keeping the mortgage and investing the money can still be more tax-efficient. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 30%, the real cost of mortgage interest (in terms of post-tax money) is 3.5%*. If your investment results in long-term capital gains taxed at 15%, the real rate of growth of your post-tax money would be 4.25%. So in post-tax terms, your rate of gain is greater than your rate of loss. On the other hand, paying off the mortgage is safer than investing borrowed money, so doing so might be more appropriate for the risk-averse. * I'm oversimplifying a bit by assuming the deduction doesn't change your marginal tax rate.\",\n \"\\\"I was going to ask, \\\"\\\"Do you feel lucky, punk?\\\"\\\" but then it occurred to me that the film this quote came from, Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood, is 43 years old. And yet, the question remains. The stock market, as measured by the S&P has returned 9.67% compounded over the last 100 years. But with a standard deviation just under 20%, there are years when you'll do better and years you'll lose. And I'd not ignore the last decade which was pretty bad, a loss for the decade. There are clearly two schools of thought. One says that no one ever lost sleep over not having a mortgage payment. The other school states that at the very beginning, you have a long investing horizon, and the chances are very good that the 30 years to come will bring a return north of 6%. The two decades prior to the last were so good that these past 30 years were still pretty good, 11.39% compounded. There is no right or wrong here. My gut says fund your retirement accounts to the maximum. Build your emergency fund. You see, if you pay down your mortgage, but lose your job, you'll still need to make those payments. Once you build your security, think of the mortgage as the cash side of your investing, i.e. focus less on the relatively low rate of return (4.3%) and more on the eventual result, once paid, your cash flow goes up nicely. Edit - in light of the extra information you provided, your profile reads that you have a high risk tolerance. Low overhead, no dependents, and secure employment combine to lead me to this conclusion. At 23, I'd not be investing at 4.3%. I'd learn how to invest in a way I was comfortable with, and take it from there. Disclosure (Updated) - I am older, and am semi-retired. I still have some time left on the mortgage, but it doesn't bother me, not at 3.5%. I also have a 16 year old to put through college but her college account i fully funded.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, one is certainly better than the other. Which one depends on your priorities and the interest and tax rates on your student loan, your savings, and your (future) mortgage plus how much you can afford to save and still enjoy the lifestyle you want as well as how soon you want to move out. Basically, you havn't given enough information.\",\n \"you should always invest if your investment rate of return is higher than your interest rate Your next line, about standard deviation is dead on. There are too many variables to give an exact answer here, in my opinion. The main reason is that one variable isn't easy to quantify - One's risk tolerance. Clearly, there's one extreme, the 18% credit card. Unless you are funding loanshark type rates of 2%/week, it's safe to say that 18% debt should take priority over any investments, except for the matched 401(k) deposits. What I think you're talking about is something we've addressed here in multiple threads. Do I prepay my sub 4% mortgage or invest? In this case, (and to Noah's comment) the question is whether you can expect a post-tax return of over 3% during your time horizon. I look at the return for 15 years from 1998-2013 and see a 6% CAGR for the S&P. I chose 15 years, as the choice is often one of paying a 30 year mortgage faster, as fast as 15. The last 15 years offer a pretty bad scenario, 2 crashes and a mortgage crisis. 6% after long term gains would get you 5.1% net. You can pull the data back to 1871 and run CAGR numbers for the timeframe of your choosing. I haven't done it yet, but I imagine there's no 15 year span that lags the 3% target I cite. What makes it more complex is that the investment isn't lump sum. It may not be obvious, but CAGR is a dollar invested at T=0, and returns calculated to T=final year. It would take a bit of spreadsheeting to invest the extra funds every month/year over your period of analysis. In the end, there are still those who will choose to pay off their 4% mortgage regardless of what the numbers show. Even if the 15 year result showed worst case 3.5% (almost no profit) and an average 10%, the feeling of risk is more than many will want.\",\n \"I read your question that you have a comfortable amount toward retirement. If not, pad your retirement accounts if possible. If your loan rate is locked at 2.67%, invest that money in the market and pay the loan as agreed. So long as you feel comfortable in your employment and income status for the next few years, I would bet you will get a lot more out of your cash investing in diversified, low cost funds or ETFs that you will save in interest on that loan. Finally, if you decide to lower your debt instead of increasing investments (based on your tolerance for risk) why not pay more on the mortgage? If you owe most of your mortgage and it is typically long term, you might cut many years off of the mortgage with a large payment.\",\n \"The chances are good that the interest you are going to pay on the debt is going to be higher than the interest you are going to receive on any type of short term investments. That would make the paying off of the debt worth more to you in the long run than saving your money. Note that without the particulars of your situation this is all just theory crafting so consult the details of you loan agreements. I cannot imagine that a credit provider did not discuss this with you before you put pen on paper.\",\n \"First off, this is a post for /r/personalfinance. Second off, if you want to think of this like an accountant/financier, those are the bank's 10233 dollars, not your's, and you are paying them 6% to keep that money. If you are confident that you are going to make more than 6% interest on any investments you make with that money, it makes sense to do so, although your return will be 6% less in reality. You also assume the risk of losing money on the investment and not having enough money to repay your loans. tl;dr Pay off the loan.\",\n \"It is important to consider your overall financial goals (especially in the 3-5 year range). If you have another financial goal which cannot be met without that additional money then meeting that financial goal might take priority over what I am about to say. Your mortgage rate is another important factor to consider when answering this question. Extra mortgage payments are equivalent to investing that money in a VERY low risk investment with an equivalent yield of the mortgage rate because you will be paying that much less per year in interest. (Actually, when you consider that mortgage interest is often tax-deductible the equivalent yield should be reduced by your income tax rate.) Typically it is not possible to find such a low risk investment with a yield as high as your mortgage rate. For example current mortgage rates are over twice as high as the yield of a one year CD. Also keep in mind that additional mortgage payments help you build equity. This equity will most likely be applied to your next home purchase. If so their effect will be in place throughout the life of your next mortgage too.\",\n \"There are a lot of open questions about if this is your only accessible money or if you have other emergency funds, and if you have any retirements savings and when do you plan to retire, but leaving this all aside: You currently pay 2.65% on the mortgage, and you make less on savings (maybe 1 or 1.5%). So putting the savings into the mortgage makes you the difference, which is a good deal. However, you need to reflect this with your risk-averisty, and your long term goals, and look at potential even better deals. For example, you could put the savings into higher risk/higher gain investments (let’s assume index funds), and make 6 - 10% per year in average. That obviously is a lot more. Why would you not want to do that? Investing like this is a long term plan. If this is your only savings/emergency fund, or if you need the money within the next five years, you should not do it; it could catch you in a bad market situation, and then it might be a severe loss. If you are sure you don’t need it for at least five if not ten years, invest it and keep the mortgage, you will easily beat its interest rate. If you are risk-averse, and can’t sleep with your savings doing loopings while you watch, that is also not a plan for you. There are many things to consider, and your personal situation is relevant for the decision. Consider all options, and be sure to always have a emergency fund remaining. It is also not black and white - there are options in between of your two propositions - pay some in, and keep some for emergencies.\",\n \"\\\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \\\"\\\"pay early\\\"\\\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \\\"\\\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\\\"\\\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \\\"\\\"paid in full\\\"\\\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I doubt you will get an answer equal to \\\"\\\"You can't save when you have debt\\\"\\\". Because most mortgages are for decades, very few people would be able to save for retirement if they had to wait to be mortgage free. The difficulty in saving occurs when the interest rate is very high (18% or more) and the interest is not deductible. Such as with credit cards. The minimum payment for your mortgage is 30% of your income. If that doesn't include taxes and homeowners insurance in the 30%, then for the United States that would be considered too large. While the general plan to pay down the mortgage is a good idea, make sure that you are able to handle the minimum payments before starting to increase the payments. Try the minimum for a year or two before getting aggressive The calculation is based on the interest rate of the mortgage, the interest rate of the savings account, and the potential tax deduction of the mortgage and the tax rate on the earned interest. Putting extra money into a mortgage, but missing out on matching retirement money would also have to be figured into the calculation. Make sure you do save for retirement , kids education, and emergencies. Unless your country has a complex system where the money can flow in and out of the mortgage, then once you put extra money into the mortgage you can't get it back when the car dies. The nice thing about putting extra money into a mortgage is that you can do it either in an organized way, or only when you feel comfortable. So it is not urgent for you to commit to a plan immediately. One thing to avoid is a plan that charges you a fee to add extra money, or charges a fee to switch to a bi-weekly mortgage. While your ideas is good, these plans should never cost any money to start, and may be a scam if a 3rd party gets between you and the lender.\\\"\",\n \"You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses). Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive. You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses. Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment. Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach. Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach. Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both. You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K. Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy.\",\n \"The answer will vary person to person and situation to situation. But the basic concept to always consider is this: What interest rate am I paying on my debt? 10%? 18%? And what interest rate am I making on my savings/investment, etc? 3%? 7%? It won't give you a hard and fast answer, but will definitely let you know if you should take a closer look at it. I'd suggest talking to a financial planner about it. Find a fee-based planner that you can turn to intermittently to make sure you are on the right track...not a commission-based planner, a fee-based one. (with respectful apologies to any commission-based planners who may read this.) My instinct is usually to pay off the debt, try to clean everything up so you don't have anything outstanding that is charging you interest. Debt is clutter, it's stressful, it can be a reminder of money you wish you hadn't spent. As long as you have access to money in case of emergency, job loss, etc, get your debt paid off and keep it paid off. You'll sleep much better.\",\n \"I want to start investing money, as low risk as possible, but with a percentage growth of at least 4% over 10 - 15 years. ...I do have a mortgage, Then there's your answer. You get a risk-free return of the interest rate on your mortgage (I'm assuming it's more than 4%). Every bit you put toward your mortgage reduces the amount of interest you pay by the interest rate, helping you to pay it off faster. Then, once your mortgage is paid off, you can look at other investments that fit your risk tolerance and return requirements. That said, make sure you have enough emergency savings to reduce cash flow interruptions, and make sure you don't have any other debts to pay. I'm not saying that everyone with a mortgage should pay it off before other investments. You asked for a low-risk 4% investment, which paying your mortgage would accomplish. If you want more return (and more risk) then other investments would be appropriate. Other factors that might change your decision might be:\",\n \"\\\"Aside from employer 401(k) matches (which may double your money immediately), paying off debts is almost always the best place to start. Paying off a debt early is a zero-risk operation and will earn you N% (where N is your interest rate). Is that a good deal for a zero-risk return? The closest equivalent today (Aug 24, 2012) is that you can earn about 2.68% on 10-year Treasury bonds. Unless you have a really, really good interest rate (or the interest is tax-deductible), paying off your loan will offer an excellent risk-adjusted return, so you should do that. The \\\"\\\"really good\\\"\\\" interest rate is typically a mortgage or student loans. (Mortgage interest is also tax-deductible, at least for now.) In those cases, you're not going to gain nearly as much by paying the loan early, and the loan is large - larger than the amount you want to have in risk-free investments. You want to invest for returns, as well! So you can save for retirement instead (in a 401(k) or similar account) and take on a little risk.\\\"\",\n \"First off, putting extra cash toward a mortgage early on, when most of the payments are going to interest, is the BEST time. If you pay an extra $1 on your mortgage today, you will save 30 years worth of interest (assuming a 30 year mortgage). If in 29 years you pay an extra dollar, you will only save 1 year worth of interest. That said, there are lots of things that go into a decision like this. Do you have other debts? How stable is your income? What is the interest rate on your mortgage compared to any other debts you may have or potential investments you might make? How much risk are you willing to take? Etc. Mortgages tend to be very low interest, and, at least in the U.S., the interest on them is tax-deductible, making the effective interest rate even lower. If you have some other loan, you are almost always better to pay the other loan off first. If you don't mind a little risk, you are usually better off to invest your money rather than pay off the mortgage. Suppose your mortgage is 5%. The average return on the stock market is something like 7% (according to my buddy who works for Wells Fargo). So if you put $1000 toward your mortgage, you'd save $50 the first year. (Ignoring compounding for simplicity, changes the exact numbers but not the basic idea.) If you put that same $1000 in the stock market, than if it's a typical year you'd make $70. You could put $50 of that toward paying the interest on your mortgage and you'd have $20 left to go on a wild spending spree. The catch is that the interest on a mortgage is fixed, while the return on an investment is highly variable. In an AVERAGE year the stock market might return 7%, but this year it might return 20% or it might lose 10% or a wide range of other possible numbers. (Well, you might have a variable rate mortgage, but there are still usually some defined limits on how much it can vary.)\",\n \"Gosh don't do either! Unless you are fully funding you ROTH accounts and even then I wouldn't do it. Those interest rates are free money. You are giving away the best bargain in the history of home mortgages. Don't you think you can make more than 4% on your money invested? Don't you think in 5 years you will be able to make 4% on bond/cd's/ and other low risk investments? Don't forget money you pay in the 2020's on beyond to your mortgage are inflationary dollars. Do you think that money will be more valuable in the 20's and beyond? I don't. Roths are free money too. Think if you put 11k in there a year how much would you have at the end of it tax free. There is a reason you can only put $5,500 in them, they are too good a deal tax wise to let people put too much in there. Think about this my parents bought their home in 1967 their mortgage was $170 a month. Inflation hits and the interest they are paying at 8%! mind you, it was still a laughable amount of money each month for mortgage payment from 1977 and on. Also I bought a $450,000 house 38 months ago. Instead of putting down 180 I put down 80 I let the other 100k in my investment account and moved 5.5k over to Roth every year. I now have a roth worth $38k and an investment account worth $105k. I made 40k on my money those three years and the 38k is tax free! If you don't believe me call the help line at clarkhoward.com Get over the emotional need to be debt free and make a logical finical choice. I am begging you to think about this. This post could save you tens of thousands of dollars. Let me put it one more way. 100k in debt with 100k in investments is debt free living. Especially when you debt is under 4% and a tax write off.\",\n \"Without knowing actual numbers it's tough to say. Personally, I would pay off the car then, going forward, use the money that would have been paid on your car note toward your mortgage. I always think of things in the worst possible scenario. It's easier, and faster, to repossess a car than to foreclose on real estate. Also, in an emergency situation, depleting your fund for your car loan and your mortgage would be significantly more detrimental than only paying a mortgage with a car owned outright. Fewer obligations means fewer things to draw down your funds in an emergency. Whether the tax deductability of the mortgage interest outweighs the lower rate on your car loan will depend on a lot of factors that haven't been shared. I think it's safe to assume with only 1% of separation the real difference isn't significant. I think when determining which credit cards to pay off, choosing the one with the highest rate is smart. But that's not the situation you're in. If you don't have foreclosure concerns I'd still pay off the car then start investing.\",\n \"As weird as it seems, 5 years is not a long term investment. Furthermore investing is about accepting risk. Based on your criteria for the alternative to a down payment, I think your only choice is to make the larger down payment. If however, you were willing to invest that money for the long term (in a retirement account or an educational account for example) then I would definitely encourage you to invest. I think the chance that a long term investment in a diversified investment account will exceed 3.25% is pretty high. However, that is only my opinion, and I am not clairvoyant, so your let your personal tolerance to risk be your guide. But again, based on the way you asked it, down payment all the way. Your time frame means you are not an investor. Therefore your only option for risk free storage of money is an FDIC insured account, which might pay a little less than 1% for the next 5 years. A bigger down payment will have a 3.25% return in this case. In that order. #4 and #5 could be swapped if the interest rate on the loans is really low.\",\n \"Others have suggested paying off the student loan, mostly for the satisfaction of one less payment, but I suggest you do the math on how much interest you would save by paying early on each of the loans: When you do the calculations I think you'll see why paying toward the debt with the highest interest rate is almost always the best advice. Whether you can refinance the mortgage to a lower rate is a separate question, but the above calculation would still apply, just with different amortization schedules.\",\n \"\\\"You seem to really have your financial act together. Your combination of assets, and ongoing savings makes you the ideal candidate for paying it off. One way to look at it is that your mortgage offers you a place to 'invest' at a fixed 2-7/8% rate. \\\"\\\"I'd really like to not have a house payment\\\"\\\" is all I need to hear. The flip side is the lecture that talks about long term market returns, the fact that the combination of your deductible mortgage, but 15% cap gain rate means you need 2.5% return to break even, and odds are pretty high that will occur over the next 15 years. \\\"\\\"pretty high\\\"\\\" does not equal \\\"\\\"guaranteed\\\"\\\". And I won't debate the value of sleeping soundly vs an excess 5-8% return on this money that you'd maybe achieve. You haven't missed anything. In fact, though I advocate saving first, you are already doing that. This is above and beyond. Good work.\\\"\",\n \"Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:\",\n \"what other pieces of info should I consider If you don't have liquid case available for unexpected repairs, then you probably don't want to use this money for either option. The 7% return on the stocks is absolutely not guaranteed. There is a good amount of risk involved with any stock investment. Paying down the mortgage, by contrast, has a much lower risk. In the case of the mortgage, you know you'll get a 2.1% annual return until it adjusts, and then you can put some constraints on the return you'll get after it adjusts. In the case of stocks, it's reasonable to guess that it will return more than 2.1% annually if you hold it long enough. But there will be huge swings from month to month and from year to year. The sooner you need it, the more guaranteed you will want the return to be. If you have few or no stock (or bond)-like assets, then (nearly) all of your wealth is in your house, and that is independent of the remaining balance on your mortgage. If you are going to sell the house soon, then you will want to diversify your assets to protect you against a drop in home value. If you are going to stay in the house forever, then you will eventually need non-house assets to consume. Ultimately, neither option is inherently better; it really depends on what you need.\",\n \"\\\"You have 1998-2011 income-contingent student loans, where the interest rate is the lower of (1% + base rate) or RPI (retail price inflation). For the next few years the it's likely to be (1% + base rate) as interest rates stay low and inflation shoots up. These loans only need to be repaid in proportion to your salary, and if they aren't repaid for long enough (e.g. the holder takes a career break for children) they are written off. So all-in-all, they are pretty good debt to have: low interest rate, and you might not have to repay them ever. It's likely that your mortgage will have a significantly higher rate than the student loan, so you'd be better off reducing your mortgage. Also, the higher deposit might mean you can get a lower interest rate on the whole mortgage because the lender will see you as a lower risk, so the return from \\\"\\\"investing\\\"\\\" it in your mortgage would be even greater than the raw interest rate. Having the student loan outstanding might make some difference to the \\\"\\\"affordability\\\"\\\" check for your mortgage payments, but lenders will be very familiar with how they work. Reducing your mortgage payments with the higher deposit should easily counterbalance that. Your own suggestion is to invest the £30K in a \\\"\\\"reasonably safe portfolio\\\"\\\" making 5%. There'll inevitably be some risk in that - 5% is a relatively high return in today's climate - but if you're willing to take that risk, you can investigate the effect on your mortgage to see if it's worth it or not.\\\"\",\n \"If you can get a rate of savings that is higher than your debt, you save. If you can't then you pay off your debt. That makes the most of the money you have. Also to think about: what are you goals? Do you want to own a home, start a family, further your education, move to a new town? All of these you would need to save up for. If you can do these large transactions in cash you will be better off. If it were me I would do what I think is a parroting of Dave Ramsay's advice Congratulations by the way. It isn't easy to do what you have accomplished and you will lead a simpler life if you don't have to worry about money everyday.\",\n \"You are weighting a certain cost of the mortgage interest versus the possible gain of the value of the house. Take the interest you pay per month and divide it by the current value of the house. Say your interest is 3% of the value of the house (may be more or less depending on the balance owed and the interest rate of your mortgage). Say the average appreciation in your area is also 3%. But that means that there's only a 50% chance that the actual appreciation will be more than that (assuming the odds are equal either way), and there's a 50% change that you'll be worse off. Generally, trading a risk-free loss for a risky gain of equal size is not a good investment; you generally can find better average returns on risky investments, so your best bet is to sell now and pay of the mortgage.\",\n \"This is opinion, no right or wrong. Two schools of thought, one saying you should aim to be debt free, ASAP, the other suggests that when your borrowing expense is so much lower than expected market return, just keep investing. With your mortgage, a variable, I trust the payment is recalculated so if you pay down half the loan, it will drop to half when the rate changes and new payment calculated, right? If not, you still have a high payment due until it's paid in full. Me, I like the flexibility of going with the full term, and saving the money as long as rates are low. Even moderate inflation will make that payment fell like less over time, and there are funds whose dividends are above the mortgage rate. If/when rates rise, you can always pay down aggressively. I'm concerned that you don't have a good sense of your saving goals. You have less than a years income saved for the long term. To replace 80% of your income you need about 20 times your current income, or $4M. Of course, you get to subtract pension income or whatever Canada's social security system is (forgive my ignorance on this).\",\n \"Morpheus, I think you are approaching this question the wrong way. The interest rate is not the most important consideration; you also need to consider the other characteristics of the investment. Money in a bank account is very liquid; you can do anything you want with it. Equity in a house is very illiquid; it is hard and expensive to access. Let's say you have $25,000 to either go towards a bigger downpayment or to invest. What happens if you lose your job? If you have $25,000 in the bank, you have a lot of flexibility; you can pay a mortgage for a number of months, or you could use it to relocate. If you put the money in the house, you cannot access it at all; without a job you can't refi or get a home equity loan. Your only recourse would be to sell the house, which might not be possible if there are systemic issues (such as the ones in the real estate crash). Even if you can refi or get a home equity loan, you will have to pay fees. My advice is to put the money somewhere else. If your term is long (say, 10 years or so), I would put the money in an index fund.\",\n \"If what you are paying in interest on the debt is a higher percentage than what your investments are returning, the best investment you can make is to pay off the debt. If you're lucky enough to be paying historically low rates (as I am on my mortgage) and getting good returns on the investments so the latter is the higher percentage, the balance goes the other way and you'd want to continue paying off the debt relatively slowly -- essentially treating it as a leveraged investment. If you aren't sure, paying off the debt should probably be the default prefrence.\",\n \"Put yourself in this position - if you had no debts and no investments, would you borrow money at those rates to invest in the stock market? If no, then pay off the debts. If yes, then keep them.\",\n \"If you have (other) high interest debt, say over 8%, pay it back first. Else, you are likely best off paying this loan back and getting the money working for you long term.\",\n \"Look at my answer here, and then calculate again. If you keep on saving and keep on paying off your highest interest rate loan, you'll be 'making' money. Also look at this answer here for saving or paying back. Basically, you should always calculate whether the money you have is better 'spend' in a savings account or as a return payment to your loan. Always tackle the highest interest loan first. My 0,02€\",\n \"I like this option, rather than exposing all 600k to market risk, I'd think of paying off the mortgage as a way to diversify my portfolio. Expose 400k to market risk, and get a guaranteed 3.75% return on that 200k (in essence). Then you can invest the money you were putting towards your mortgage each month. The potential disadvantage, is that the extra 200k investment could earn significantly more than 3.75%, and you'd lose out on some money. Historically, the market beats 3.75%, and you'd come out ahead investing everything. There's no guarantee. You also don't have to keep your money invested, you can change your position down the road and pay off the house. I feel best about a paid off house, but I know that my sense of security carries opportunity cost. Up to you to decide how much risk you're willing to accept. Also, if you don't have an emergency fund, I'd set up that first and then go from there with investing/paying off house.\",\n \"\\\"Math says invest in the Market (But paying off your mortgage early is a valid option if you are very risk averse.) You are going to get a better return by investing in the stock market. In the US in 2015/2016, mortgages are 3%-4%, and give you a tax break. The rate of return on the stock market is ~10%, (closer to 6% after you subtract out inflation, taxes, fees, etc.) Since 10 > 3, (or 6% > 4%, to use the pessimistic numbers) investing in the market is the better deal. But... The market has risk, and your mortgage does not. If you are very risk averse paying off the mortgage may make sense. As an example: Family A has a single \\\"\\\"breadwinner\\\"\\\", who works a low skilled job. Family B has 2 working spouses, both in high skill white collar positions. These two families are going to have wildly different risk tolerances. It may make sense for family A to \\\"\\\"invest\\\"\\\" its extra money in paying off the mortgage, after they have tackled high interest debt, built an emergency fund, maxed the 401k, etc. Personally I would not: in the US you cannot recoup pre-payments if you lose your job. If I was very risk averse, I would keep my extra money as cash, so I could pay my mortgage after I lost my job. It is never going to make sense for family B to pay the mortgage early. At that point, any decision to pre-pay is going to be based on emotion and not logic.\\\"\",\n \"See my recent answer to a similar question on prepaying a mortgage versus investing in IRA. The issue here is similar: you want to compare the relative rates of funding your retirement account versus paying down your debt. If you can invest at a better rate than you are paying on your debt, with similar risk, then you should invest. Otherwise, pay down your debt. The big difference with your situation is that you have a variable rate loan, so there's a significant risk that the rate on it will go up. If I was in your shoes, I would do the following: But that's me. If you're more debt-averse, you may decide to prepay that fixed rate loan too.\",\n \"\\\"Aside from the calculations of \\\"\\\"how much you save through reducing interest\\\"\\\", you have two different types of loan here. The house that is mortgaged is not a wasting asset. You can reasonably expect that in 2045 it will have retained its worth measured in \\\"\\\"houses\\\"\\\", against the other houses in the same neighbourhood. In money terms, it is likely to be worth more than its current value, if only because of inflation. To judge the real cost or benefit of the mortgage, you need to consider those factors. You didn't say whether the 3.625% is a fixed or variable rate, but you also need to consider how the rate might compare with inflation in the long term. If you have a fixed rate mortgage and inflation rises above 3.625% in future, you are making money from the loan in the long term, not losing what you pay in interest. On the other hand, your car is a wasting asset, and your car loans are just a way of \\\"\\\"paying by installments\\\"\\\" over the life of the car. If there are no penalties for early repayment, the obvious choice there is to pay off the highest interest rates first. You might also want to consider what happens if you need to \\\"\\\"get the $11,000 back\\\"\\\" to use for some other (unplanned, or emergency) purpose. If you pay it into your mortgage now, there is no easy way to get it back before 2045. On the other hand, if you pay down your car loans, most likely you now have a car that is worth more than the loans on it. In an emergency, you could sell the car and recover at least some of the $11,000. Of course you should keep enough cash available to cover \\\"\\\"normal emergencies\\\"\\\" without having to take this sort of action, but \\\"\\\"abnormal emergencies\\\"\\\" do sometimes happen!\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm an American so I don't claim to know anything about Scottish tax law. But just based on what you say above: First, think about how it would work if there were no taxes. If you make a payment against the mortgage, you save 5% in interest. If you put money into a retirement account, you make whatever the profits are on the investment. If that amount comes to more than 5%, then you are better of investing in the retirement account. If it's less than 5%, you are better off paying off the mortgage. As most investments pay significantly better than 5%, this is the superior strategy. On the other hand, apparently you are paying a variable-rate mortgage, but still, mortgage rates are relatively stable. Investment returns vary all over the place and can be negative. So if you are very cautious, that's a reason to pay off the mortgage rather than invest. The younger you are, the less of a concern this should be, as in the long term, investments pretty much always recover lost ground. If you were planning to retire next year I'd have very different advice than if you are planning to retire in 30 years. But sadly, you do have to pay taxes, and that needs to be factored in. So you say that you would have to pay 25% dividend tax on any money you used to pay the mortgage. But the effective tax rate on the retirement money is 15%. So in effect money put against the mortgage pays a 25% tax, and so effectively generates only 5% * .75 = 3.75%. But money invested in the retirement plan pays only 15% tax, and so if the investment returns 3.75% / .85 = 4.4% it would give the same effective return. So if you can invest in something that gives returns of at least 4.4% per year, you're better off putting into the retirement plan than paying off the mortgage. There may be other Scottish tax implications I don't know about. As to \\\"\\\"Substantially less paperwork\\\"\\\", I have no idea how much paperwork is involved in putting money into a retirement account in Scotland. Here in the U.S., you basically call a financial management company of one sort or another and say \\\"\\\"hey, I want to open a retirement account with your company\\\"\\\", and they'll prepare most of the forms for you and you just sign them. It could be done with half an hour of your time. Of course the more you research different investment options, etc, the more time it will take. \\\"\\\"More flexible e.g. if I want to retire early\\\"\\\" If there are restrictions on when you can withdraw money from a retirement account and receive that 25% freebie you mentioned, yes, this could be a factor. Again, I don't know Scottish tax law, there may be other considerations. Here in the U.S., there's a 10% tax penalty if you withdraw money from a retirement account before the legal retirement age. Realistically that's a minor issue, if you have money in there for several years the tax benefits will be more than 10%. But yeah, it would be stupid to put money in in December and then take it out the following January and have to pay the 10% penalty. \\\"\\\"Doesn't incur the risk that the government will change the pension rules between now and when I retire\\\"\\\" Maybe. But then laws might change in your favor, too. And as you indicated that your mortgage interest rate could change, there could be risk on that side too. That all comes down to what you think the risks are all around.\\\"\",\n \"Pay it off....I've only ever paid interest on mortgages to buy the houses I've lived in (I paid both mortgages of years ahead of schedule) & as a result my credit rating's way above average, I use credit cards for everything, pay 'em off in full every month unless I'm paid not to (currently have around 8,000 sitting interest free while the cash earns 6% elsewhere). Life's sweet if you understand the system. Hell if you don't. Keep saving...\",\n \"Can you wait until you retire before needing the money? Will you buy your first house sometime in the future? If yes, then favour an RRSP. Remember that you are rewarded by paying less tax for having the foresight and commitment to defer income taxes until your retirement, when you are presumably earning less income. Are your household expenses higher than 28% of your gross income? 35% of your net income? Does making your mortgage payments stress you? Are interest rates lower than their historical norm and an increase would cause you difficulty? If yes, then favour your mortgage. Do you need this money before your retire? Does your TFSA earn more interest than your mortgage costs your? If yes, then favour a TFSA. Does an alternative investment earn more than your TFSA? Can you handle an uptick in your mortgage interest rate? If yes, then favour the alternative investment and not your RRSP, mortgage or TFSA.\",\n \"If it were me, I'd pour my entire savings into paying down the mortgage. I'd also get a HELOC and a personal LOC to use as my emergency fund if I didn't have one already. I personally don't like paying interest on loans when I have cash in the bank to cover it.\",\n \"At the area where I live (Finland), banks typically charge a lot more for additional mortgage credit taken after purchasing the house. So, if you are planning to purchase a house, and pay it with a mortgage, you get a very good rate, but if you pay back the mortgage and then realize you need additional credit, you get a much worse rate. So, if this is applicable to your area as well, I would simply buy stocks after you have paid enough of the mortgage that it is only 50% of the house price or so. This is especially good advice if you are young. Also, if your mortgage is a fixed rate and not an adjustable rate mortgage, you probably have a very low permanent interest rate on it as interest rates are low currently (adjustable rate mortgages will also have a low rate but it will surely go up). Some people say there's a bubble currently in the stock market, but actually the bubble is in the bond market. Stocks are expensive because the other alternatives (bonds) are expensive as well. Paying back your mortgage is equivalent to investing money in bonds. I don't invest in bonds at the current ridiculously low interest rates; I merely invest in stocks and have a small cash reserve that will become even smaller as I discover new investment opportunities. I could pay back a significant percentage (about 50%) of the loans I have by selling my stocks and using my cash reserves. I don't do that; I invest in stocks instead, and am planning to increase my exposure to the stock market at a healthy pace. Also, consider the fact that mortgage is cheap credit. If you need additional credit for consumption due to e.g. becoming suddenly unemployed, you will get it only at very expensive rates, if at all. If you're very near the retirement age (I'm not), this advice may not be applicable to you. Edit: and oh, if your mortgage is fixed rate, and interest rates have come down, the bank will require you to pay the opportunity cost of the unpaid interests. So, you may need to pay more than you owe the bank. Edit2: let's assume the bank offered you a 4% fixed rate for a 10-year loan, which you agreed to. Now let's also assume interest rates of new agreements have come down to 2%. It would be a loss to the bank to pay back the amount of the loan (because the bank cannot get 4% by offering somebody else a new loan, only 2%), unless you paid also 10 years * (4% - 2%) * amount = 20% * amount of lost interest income. At least where I live, in fixed rate loans, one needs to pay back the bank this opportunity cost of unpaid interests.\",\n \"You're in the same situation I'm in (bought new house, didn't sell old house, now renting out old house). Assuming that everything is stable, right now I'd do something besides pay down your new mortgage. If you pay down the mortgage at your old house, that mortgage payment will go away faster than if you paid down the one on the new house. Then, things start to get fun. You then have a lot more free cash flow available to do whatever you like. I'd tend to do that before searching for other investments. Then, once you have the free cash flow, you can look for other investments (probably a wise risk) or retire the mortgage on your residence earlier.\",\n \"Personally, I would split the difference, putting about half into each. Simply because it balances out the problem and I don't have to fret about whether one or the other will provide a significant difference. As bstpierre points out, the one which will make you more in the end is the one which you can grow the fastest. The mortgage payment is locked at 5% growth, which, while modest, is also essentially guaranteed at this point. The CD in your IRA is likely less than that amount, even after tax consideration. A couple additional points to consider:\",\n \"It has to do with return. I don't know if Canada has a matching feature on retirement accounts, but in the US many companies will match the first X% you put in. So for me, my first $5000 or so is matched 100%. I'll take that match over paying down any debt. Beyond that, of course it's a simple matter of rate of return. Why save in the bank at 2% when you owe at 10-18%? One can make this as simple or convoluted as they like. My mortgage is a tax deduction so my 5% mortgage costs me 3.6%. I've continued to invest rather than pay the mortgage too early, as my retirement account is with pre-tax dollars. So $72 will put $100 in that account. Even in this last decade, bad as it was, I got more than 3.6% return.\",\n \"You have to have 9% ROI for your investment to break even. That's pretty steep. I'd pay the loan, where you have 9% promised return. Just make sure that there are no pre-payment penalties, and that you're comfortable enough with not having that money available.\",\n \"If the savings rate is the same as the loan rate, mathematically it doesn't make any difference whether you pay down the loan more and save less or vice versa. However, if the loan rate is higher than the savings rate it's better to pay it down as fast as possible. The chart below compares paying down the loan and saving equally (the gradual scenario), versus paying down the loan quickly at 2 x $193 and then saving 2 x $193. The savings rate, for illustration, is 2%. Paying quickly pays down the loan completely by month 51. On the other hand, in the gradual scheme the loan can't be paid down (with the savings) until month 54, which then leaves 3 months less for saving. In conclusion, it's better to pay down the higher rate loan first. Practically speaking, it may be useful to have some savings available.\",\n \"The main factors you have to consider are: Could you get a better return on that money by investing it somewhere? The investment rate should basically be more than the mortgage rate. If you find yourself suddenly in need of money (eg, loss of job) do you have enough savings to ride that out? If not, investing the extra money in an instant access investment, even at a lower rate, may make sense as it gives you future flexibility. Do you have any other debts that are at a higher rate? If so, pay those off first as you will get more bang for your buck.\",\n \"Depends upon the debt cost. Assuming it is consumer debt or credit card debt, it is better to pay that off first, it is the best investment you can make. Let's say it is credit card debt. If you pay 18% interst and have for example a $1,000 amount. If you pay it off you save $180 in interest ($1,000 times 18%). You would have to earn 18% on 1,000 to generate $180 if it was in aninvestment. Here is a link discussing ways of reducing debt Once you have debt paid off you have the cashflow to begin building wealth. The key is in the cashflow.\",\n \"A: Rollover the cash from the previous account into the new one a low-cost IRA like Vanguard. This, and only this. Because your mortgage is, less than 4%, while your retirement plan will earn 7% over the long term. I have no 'retirement' plans because Because you're 28. and essentially will be happy working until I die Unless circumstances change. but as far as I see it this is not such a bad deal because it is like paying taxes on income. (Principal says I will lose up to 30%) You're ignoring the 10% early withdrawal penalty. I am wise with my money for the most part Then don't piss away $3,000 just for a temporary feel good. I earn a high salary in a tech job. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. So -- after building up an Emergency Fund -- throw as much as possible of your high salary against your mortgage to get rid of the PMI.\",\n \"It depends on your tax rate. Multiply your marginal rate (including state, if applicable) by your 3.1% to figure out how much you are saving through the deduction, then subtract that from the 3.1% to get the effective rate on the mortgage. For example, if you are in the 28% bracket with no state tax impact from the mortgage, your effective rate on the mortgage is 2.232%. This also assumes you'd still itemize deductions without the mortgage, otherwise, the effective deduction is less. Others have pointed out more behavioral reasons for wanting to pay off the car first, but from a purely financial impact, this is the way to analyze it. This is also your risk-free rate to compare additional investing to (after taking into account taxes on investments).\",\n \"According to Dave Ramsey you should pay off the house. What I've found is that I'm willing to work a lot harder at saving money to put toward the house when I have that specific goal in mind. If I were to put the money in the market instead then I would be less likely to make as many sacrifices and would inevitability end up putting less money away.\",\n \"The short answer is to invest it since the rate of return is higher than your mortgage. (Assuming that you can withstand interest rate hikes, meet short term liquidity needs and don't need your $10K in the short or near term). The long answer is if you're comfortable leveraging your house and can put that $10K away for the long term you can reduce your taxes via the Smith Manoeuvre: Alternatively, if you have kids or grandkids and will help them through school, take the government's money by putting it away in an RESP.\",\n \"You didn't mention how much is the interest rate of your debts. It is a very simple rule. If you think you can make more money by investing (the best way you can) in spite of having debts then go ahead and invest. Else, if you donno what you're doing and can't make sure you earn more than what you're paying off for interest then may be you should focus on clearing up the debts first. You can read more about similar topic discussion here Now, that you've presented the interest rate of your loans i.e. 11% which is your average, then I suggest you to clear up the high interest rate loans first i.e. which are above 11% because it is very difficult to make an investment and get returns more than 11% of what you invest. What ever be it, now that you won't be having big events in the coming 5 years, I suggest you to clear up all your loans and stay debt free i.e. tr to become stable and tension free. You know, because you can't run away anywhere with all those loans up on your shoulders, you HAVE to clear them today or tomorrow. So, now that you're free (in the next 5 yrs) and burden less, so why not clear them up today?\",\n \"the math makes sense to invest instead of paying down, but... how much would you borrow at 3.5%, to invest the money into the stock market? It's the same question, just turned around.\",\n \"\\\"I love the idea of #1, keep that going. I don't think #2 is very realistic. Given the short time frame putting money at risk for a higher yield may not work in your favor. If it was me, I'd stick to a \\\"\\\"high interest\\\"\\\" savings account (around 1%). I don't mind #3 either, however, I'd be socking whatever you could to mortgage principle so you can get out of PMI sooner rather than later. That would be my top priority. Given the status of interest rates, you may end up saving money in the long run. I doubt it, but you may. If you choose to go with #3, don't settle for a house that you really don't like. Get something that you want. Who knows it may take you a year or so to find something!\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Can is fine, and other answered that. I'd suggest that you consider the \\\"\\\"should.\\\"\\\" Does your employer offer a matched retirement account, typically a 401(k)? Are you depositing up to the match? Do you have any higher interest short term debt, credit cards, car loan, student loan, etc? Do you have 6 months worth of living expenses in liquid funds? One point I like to beat a dead horse over is this - for most normal mortgages, the extra you pay goes to principal, but regardless of how much extra you pay, the next payment is still due next month. So it's possible that you are feeling pretty good that for 5 years you pay so much that you have just 10 left on the 30 year loan, but if you lose your job, you still risk losing the house to foreclosure. It's not like you can ask the bank for that money back. If you are as disciplined as you sound, put the extra money aside, and only when you have well over the recommended 6 months, then make those prepayments if you choose. To pull my comment to @MikeKale into my answer - I avoided this aspect of the discussion. But here I'll suggest that a 4% mortgage costs 3% after tax (in 25% bracket), and I'd bet cap gain rates will stay 15% for non-1%ers. So, with the break-even return of 3.5% (to return 3 after tax) and DVY yielding 3.33%, the questions becomes - do you think the DVY top yielders will be flat over the next 15 years? Any return over .17%/yr is profit. That said, the truly risk averse should heed the advise in original answer, then pre-pay. Update - when asked,in April 2012, the DVY I suggested as an example of an investment that beats the mortgage cost, traded at $56. It's now $83 and still yields 3.84%. To put numbers to this, a lump sum $100K would be worth $148K (this doesn't include dividends), and giving off $5700/yr in dividends for an after-tax $4800/yr. We happened to have a good 4 years, overall. The time horizon (15 years) makes the strategy low risk if one sticks to it.\\\"\",\n \"Forgive me as I do not know much about your fine country, but I do know one thing. You can make 5% risk free guaranteed. How, from your link: If you make a voluntary repayment of $500 or more, you will receive a bonus of 5 per cent. This means your account will be credited with an additional 5 per cent of the value of your payment. I'd take 20.900 of that amount saved and pay off her loan tomorrow and increase my net worth by 22.000. I'd also do the same thing for your loan. In fact in someways it is more important to pay off your loan first. As I understand it, you will eventually have to pay your loan back once your income rises above a threshold. Psychologically you make attempt to retard your future income in order to avoid payback. Those decisions may not be made overtly but it is likely they will be made. So by the end of the day (or as soon as possible), I'd have a bank balance of 113,900 and no student loan debt. This amounts to a net increase in net worth of 1900. It is a great, safe, first investment.\",\n \"\\\"First off, the \\\"\\\"mortgage interest is tax deductible\\\"\\\" argument is a red herring. What \\\"\\\"tax deductible\\\"\\\" sounds like it means is \\\"\\\"if I pay $100 on X, I can pay $100 less on my taxes\\\"\\\". If that were true, you're still not saving any money overall, so it doesn't help you any in the immediate term, and it's actually a bad idea long-term because that mortgage interest compounds, but you don't pay compound interest on taxes. But that's not what it actually means. What it actually means is that you can deduct some percentage of that $100, (usually not all of it,) from your gross income, (not from the final amount of tax you pay,) which reduces your top-line \\\"\\\"income subject to taxation.\\\"\\\" Unless you're just barely over the line of a tax bracket, spending money on something \\\"\\\"tax deductible\\\"\\\" is rarely a net gain. Having gotten that out of the way, pay down the mortgage first. It's a very simple matter of numbers: Anything you pay on a long-term debt is money you would have paid anyway, but it eliminates interest on that payment (and all compoundings thereof) from the equation for the entire duration of the loan. So--ignoring for the moment the possibility of extreme situations like default and bank failure--you can consider it to be essentially a guaranteed, risk-free investment that will pay you dividends equal to the rate of interest on the loan, for the entire duration of the loan. The mortgage is 3.9%, presumably for 30 years. The car loan is 1.9% for a lot less than that. Not sure how long; let's just pull a number out of a hat and say \\\"\\\"5 years.\\\"\\\" If you were given the option to invest at a guaranteed 3.9% for 30 years, or a guaranteed 1.9% for 5 years, which would you choose? It's a no-brainer when you look at it that way.\\\"\",\n \"If its deductible, the IRA is a no-brainer. You're netting a positive return just from the tax deduction, and you'll have years of tax-free appreciation. You're already on track to pay off your mortgage in 5 years, the impact of $10,000 on the balance now is not very consequential. On the other hand, you won't have an opportunity to make additional IRA contributions.\",\n \"I'm also a UK, Ltd company contractor that has pondered the same topic. I afraid, however, that I don't understand the maths in the original question. Mortgage interest is flat for the term of the mortgage rather than compounded, so, ignoring the tapering at the end of the lifespan of the mortgage, I get the amount of interest to something like £9,300 (7500 x 0.05 x 25). Does this make the decision any easier for you? As you point out, the total cost of this overpayment from your company account is £12,500. Using the above figure, it would take over 13 years to recoup the £5,000 difference (at £375 interest a year). I used to be of the same opinion that the mortgage should be paid off at all costs first. But now I'm coming round to the American way of thinking; £12,500 invested in a pension with a 5% yield will easily outstrip the interest saved by making the over payment - 12500 x 1.05 ^ 25 = £43,300 - over 250% better off (£43,300 / (£9,300 + £7,500)). I now make no mortgage overpayments at all and instead pay all the money into my pension. This (amongst other things) keeps me below the upper earnings tax threshold, so I'm only paying corporation tax for the money I'm drawing as dividends. There's a massive caveat to this though; I'm 49. I should be able to draw the tax free element of my pension pot in six years time and pay my mortgage off and it's quite unlikely that the government will be changing pensions policy in that time (but drawing 25% tax free has been a feature of pensions for quite some time). I can then chose to keep working or retire. If my pension is still doing well (9% ish pa at the moment), I could chose to not pay my mortgage off at all. In the next twenty or so years, however, all this could change. In your position I would do a bit of both. Make a regular overpayment to pay down your mortgage (even a small amount that you'll barely notice will make quite a difference to the end date of your mortgage - £100 a month will take years off). I didn't start paying properly into my pension until fairly recently and so If you're not already, I'd also make quite substantial, regular payments into one now, directly from your company, 15-17.5% of your gross drawings. Leaving it until later will only make it more painful. Then when you get to retirement age, no matter what, you'll have a decent pension pot. An actuary I worked with pointed out that if you pay something into a pension, when you retire you should have some sort of pot; if you pay nothing, you are absolutely guaranteed to have nothing. And finally, if you haven't already, fix your mortgage. We're three years into a five year fix. The variable rate we were going to be transferred to was 3.99%. We fixed, not because of wanting any sense of security, but because the fixed rate was 2.59% with no fee. There are much better rates than that about now. Rates are starting to rise, so it's a good time.\",\n \"Excellent answers so far, so I will just add one additional consideration: liquidity. Money invested in a mutual fund (exclusive of retirement accounts with early withdrawal penalties) has a relatively high liquidity. Whereas excess equity in your home from paying down early has very low liquidity. To put it simply: If you get in a desperate situation (long term unemployment) it is better to have to cash in a mutual fund than try to sell your house on the quick and move in with your mother. Liquidity becomes less of an issue if you also manage to fund a decent sized rainy-day fund (6-9 months of living expenses).\",\n \"There are two components to any non-trivial financial decision: Assuming that all things remain equal, borrowing money at a low rate while investing for a higher return is a no-brainer. The problem is, all things do not remain equal. For example: I think that you need to assess your position and preferences. I'd err on the side of being in less debt.\",\n \"I would prioritize paying off the heloc first. Paying off the heloc has a guaranteed rate of return and will reduce the size of savings cushion you'll need in the future. However, you shouldn't assume your heloc funds will remain available indefinitely. If you read your fine print, you are not guaranteed access to your unused credit by the bank. If you lose your job or your home value significantly declines, the bank could refuse to let you take more money out on your heloc. Recently, I've seen people's available credit be reset to 0 on open helocs by banks trying to reduce their exposure. Planning on the future of available credit via a heloc is not a good safety net.\",\n \"\\\"But in the debt-payoff-first scenario, I'd be wiping out my debt in two years. It would take several more years if I were to just pay the minimums and put the extra money toward investing instead. Right. The idea is that in 2 years, you are likely to have more in the savings/stock account than you owe on the loan. But. The range of returns for X years has a smaller standard deviation the greater X is. e.g. any year has about a 1 in 3 chance of being negative. A 10 year period had a negative return (-1% CAGR) in the '00s recently, but the 15 year return even around that decade would have been successful. Jan 1 '96 - Dec 31 2010 returned 6.76% CAGR, Jan 1 2001 - Dec 31 2015 returned 4.96% CAGR. This tells you that the time frame is as important as your sleep factor. Your 2 years? I'd just kill the loans. A 10-15 year horizon? I'd ask how you \\\"\\\"feel\\\"\\\" about that debt. The cost of going after a potential higher return may not be worth the risk to many. For some, it's fine. I retired, with a mortgage still in place, but the money in my 401(k) that could have paid off the mortgage is now about twice the remaining balance. So I sleep like a baby. In the end, I'm a fan of investing for the long term vs paying off low rate debt, but it's a choice based on the individual.\\\"\",\n \"The long term growth is not 6.5%, it's 10% give or take. But, that return comes with risk. A standard deviation of 14%. Does the 401(k) have a match? And are you getting the full match? If no match, or you already top it off, the 6.5% is a rate that I'd be happy to get on my money. So, I would pay it off faster. My highest rate debt is my 3.5% mortgage, which is 2.5% after tax. At 2.5%, I prefer to be a borrower, as that gap 2.5%-10% is pretty appealing, long term.\",\n \"Hard to give an answer without knowing more details (interest rates, remaining principle on loans, especially how soon the new roof is needed). Maintaining the value in your home (unless you are planning to walk away from it or short-sell or something) is of paramount importance, and the cost of a leak should it happen can be substantial. If the roof is a few years out, and you have loans with interest rates about oh I'd say around 6%or more then I would pay off those loans and take the money you were paying there and start putting it into a fund to pay for the roof. I am also a huge fan of doing whatever you can to max out your 401K contributions. Money put into a 401K early has a LOT more value than money put in later, and since you don't pay taxes on it, the cost out of your pocket is much lower (eg. at a 20% tax rate it costs you only $80 out of pocket to put $100 into your 401.. (look at that, you just made like 25% return on that $80) Paying off loans is pretty much equivalent to making a risk free return on the money equal to the interest rate on the loan. But to REALLY make that work, what you need to do is in a virtual sense, keep making the loan payment just now pay it to yourself, putting that money into a savings account, or towards your 401K or whatever. If you just torn around and start spending that money, then you are not really getting as much value to paying off the loan early.\",\n \"It depends what rate mortgage you can get for any extra loans... If you remortgage you are likely to get a rate of 3.5-4%... depending who you go with. With deposit accounts in the UK maying around 1% (yes, you can get more by tying it up for longer but not a huge amount more) clearly you're better off not having a mortgage rather than money in the bank. Does your 8k income allow for tax? If it does, you are getting 6% return on the money tied up in the flat. If you are getting 6% after tax on the invested money, that's way better than you would get on any left over cash paid into an investment. Borrowing money on a mortgage would cost you less than 6%... so you are better off borrowing rather than selling the flat. If you are getting 6% before tax... depending on your tax rate... it probably makes very little difference. You'd need to work out how much an extra 80k mortgage would cost you, how much the 50k on deposit would earn you and how much you make after tax. There is a different route. Set up a mortgage on the rental flat. You can claim the interest payment off the flat's income... reduce your tax bill so the effective mortgage rate on the flat would be less than what you could get with a mortgage on the new house. Use the money from the flat's mortgage to finance the difference in house price. In fact from a tax view, you may be better off having a mortgage free house and maxing out the mortgage on the flat so you can write off as much as possible against your tax bill. All of the above assume ... that the flat is rented all the time. The odd dry spell on the flat could influence the sums a lot. All of the above assume that your cash flow works whichever route you choose. As no-one on stack exchange has all of the numbers for your specific circumstances it may be worth talking to a tax accountant. They could advise you properly, knowing the numbers, which makes the best sense for you in terms of overall cost, cash flow, risk and so on.\",\n \"I would lean towards making a smaller down payment and hanging onto savings for flexibility. Questions to think about: If you have enough cash that you can make a huge down payment and still have all the other bases covered, then it comes down to your risk tolerance and personal style. You can almost definitely build a portfolio that will beat your mortgage rate on average over the long term, but with more risk and volatility. Heck, you could make a 20% down payment on another house and rent it out.\",\n \"\\\"I think your analysis is very clear, it's a sensible approach, and the numbers sound about right to me. A few other things you might want to think about: Tax In some jurisdictions you can deduct mortgage interest against your income tax. I see from your profile that you're in Texas, but I don't know the exact situation there and I think it's better to keep this answer general anyway. If that's the case for you, then you should re-run your numbers taking that into account. You may also be able to make your investments tax-advantaged, for example if you save them in a retirement account. You'll need to apply the appropriate limits for your specific situation and take an educated guess as to how that might change over the next 30 years. Liquidity The money you're not spending on your mortgage is money that's available to you for other spending or emergencies - i.e. even though your default assumption is to invest it and that's a sensible way to compare with the mortgage, you might still place some extra value on having more free access to it. Overpayments Would you have the option to pay extra on the mortgage? That's another way of \\\"\\\"investing\\\"\\\" your money that gets you a guaranteed return of the mortgage rate. You might want to consider if you'd want to send some of your excess money that way.\\\"\",\n \"Mortgage rates are at record lows. The 30 yr fixed is now below 4%, if you are in the 25% bracket and itemize (state income tax, property tax, donations, easy to pass the minimum) it costs you 3% post tax. This is the rate of long term inflation, effectively making this money free. You are likely to be able to average a far greater return than this mortgage is costing you. These rates may last another year or two, but long term, they are an anomaly. ETFs such as DVY (the Dow high dividend stocks) are yielding over 3.75%, 3.2% after the 15% cap gain tax. i.e. you get a small positive return, and the potential for capital gains. If this ETF rises just 3%/yr it's all profit above your cost of money. That said, there are those who sleep better with a paid in full house, regardless of the rate. To that extreme, I've read those who make paying their mortgage a priority ahead of funding their matched 401(k). While I can guess what the market will return, but can't know what will actual happen, it's foolish to skip one's match. They reason that the market can crash, I reply the 401(k) has to have a short term fund, money market or T-bill type returns, but a 100% match is a no-brainer. Using an estimated 4% for the 30 and 3.5% for the 15, the payment on the 15 yr mortgage will be 50% higher, $1430 (15yr) for $200K vs $955 for the 30. How does this play in your budget? Do you have an adequate emergency fund? Are you funding your retirement plan at a decent level? In the end, there is no right answer, just what's right for you. Understanding the rest of your financial picture will get you more detailed advice. Not knowing your situation limits the answers. Edit 6/30/2015 - When I wrote this answer, the DVY was trading at $48.24. $100,000 invested would have given off $3187/yr after a 15% dividend tax rate. At $75/share now, the $100,000 investment would be worth $155,472 and yielding $5597 for a net $4757 after tax. The choice to go DVY would have been profitable from the start, with room now for a 35% crash before losing any money.\",\n \"\\\"Really this is no different from any kind of large lump sum and having a mortgage. There are probably many questions and answers on this subject. It really doesn't matter that the proceeds were the result of a sale, an inheritance would not change the answer. I think it is important to note that the proceeds will not eliminate the house 2 mortgage. A high level choice of investment one makes is between equity (such as stock) and debt investments (such as bonds and mortgages). You are in a unique case of being able to invest in your own mortgage with no investment fee. This may tip the scales in favor of paying down the mortgage. It is difficult to answer in your specific case as we don't know the rest of your finances. Do you have a sizable 401K that is heavily invested in stocks? Do you have the need for a college fund? Do you have an emergency fund? Do you have a desire to own several homes generating income property? If it was me I'd do the following in order, skipping steps I may have already completed: I've heard that the bank may agree to a \\\"\\\"one time adjustment\\\"\\\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? I really kind of hate this attitude. Your goal is to get rid of the mortgage in a timely manner. Doing such makes paying for kids college a snap, reduces the income one might need in retirement, basically eliminates the need for life insurance, and gives one a whole lot of money to have fun with.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the \"\"what-ifs\"\". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the \"\"pay-off-early\"\" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the \\\"\\\"what-ifs\\\"\\\". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the \\\"\\\"pay-off-early\\\"\\\" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":282,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2334"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How do you determine “excess cash” for Enterprise Value calculations from a balance sheet?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["228403","2304","150650"],"string":"[\n \"228403\",\n \"2304\",\n \"150650\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["150650","228403","346760","2304","598908","72666","413566","342025","105949","507903","552343","298779","141221","482884","358686","591247","369816","563732","339524","220269","284843","192515","527230","280895","322459","333360","446652","98947","419479","587966","76661","241308","91576","189680","366249","257093","258306","371012","301998","110163","473963","204917","447509","407449","380851","393838","314919","466430","400738","274358","582537","514276","517083","551029","11263","490077","115294","559363","495066","355554","158063","486421","456222","374510","583234","227019","446877","387250","112821","167753","430120","240252","535300","296006","131957","379299","27797","135164","217904","209838","497699","82479","416297","188982","314110","306255","410450","587462","509939","555915","77963","477860","407372","599411","405166","220898","3315","276927","159012","113693"],"string":"[\n \"150650\",\n \"228403\",\n \"346760\",\n \"2304\",\n \"598908\",\n \"72666\",\n \"413566\",\n \"342025\",\n \"105949\",\n \"507903\",\n \"552343\",\n \"298779\",\n \"141221\",\n \"482884\",\n \"358686\",\n \"591247\",\n \"369816\",\n \"563732\",\n \"339524\",\n \"220269\",\n \"284843\",\n \"192515\",\n \"527230\",\n \"280895\",\n \"322459\",\n \"333360\",\n \"446652\",\n \"98947\",\n \"419479\",\n \"587966\",\n \"76661\",\n \"241308\",\n \"91576\",\n \"189680\",\n \"366249\",\n \"257093\",\n \"258306\",\n \"371012\",\n \"301998\",\n \"110163\",\n \"473963\",\n \"204917\",\n \"447509\",\n \"407449\",\n \"380851\",\n \"393838\",\n \"314919\",\n \"466430\",\n \"400738\",\n \"274358\",\n \"582537\",\n \"514276\",\n \"517083\",\n \"551029\",\n \"11263\",\n \"490077\",\n \"115294\",\n \"559363\",\n \"495066\",\n \"355554\",\n \"158063\",\n \"486421\",\n \"456222\",\n \"374510\",\n \"583234\",\n \"227019\",\n \"446877\",\n \"387250\",\n \"112821\",\n \"167753\",\n \"430120\",\n \"240252\",\n \"535300\",\n \"296006\",\n \"131957\",\n \"379299\",\n \"27797\",\n \"135164\",\n \"217904\",\n \"209838\",\n \"497699\",\n \"82479\",\n \"416297\",\n \"188982\",\n \"314110\",\n \"306255\",\n \"410450\",\n \"587462\",\n \"509939\",\n \"555915\",\n \"77963\",\n \"477860\",\n \"407372\",\n \"599411\",\n \"405166\",\n \"220898\",\n \"3315\",\n \"276927\",\n \"159012\",\n \"113693\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Excess Cash = Cash & Equivalents + Long-Term Investments - Current Liabilities The problem this calculation of excess cash is that \"\"long-term investments\"\" can be illiquid things like real estate. Another flaw is that it gives no credit for Current Assets, like receivables, which can be used to offset Current Liabilities. The first thing I'd do is \"\"net out\"\" Current Assets and Current Liabilities, then add Cash back in. Excess Cash = Current Assets - Current Liabilities + Cash & Equivalents. It would be nice if GAAP would require Long-Term Investments to be broken out as a) liquid long-term investments (stocks, bonds) b) illiquid long-term investments (real estate, private equity, etc)\"","You're not missing anything. Excess cash is somewhat of a nebulous concept. To different people it means different things. The answer is that excess cash varies for each company depending on their business. For instance, some companies need very high amounts of working capital. A company may be increasing their inventories and therefore will require more cash on their balance sheet to fund growth. If a company always needs this extra cash, some investors prefer to leave that cash out of a valuation because the company cannot run profitably without it. Think about what happens to your calculation of Enterprise Value if you subtract excess cash as opposed to cash. Excess cash is always less than cash. Therefore by subtracting excess cash you increase EV. Since one common valuation metric is EV/EBITDA, a higher numerator will make the stock seem more expensive - that is the EV/EBITDA ratio will seem higher when using excess cash as opposed to cash. So using excess cash in your valuation methodology is basically a conservative concept. Depending on the business 20% of revenues seem way too high as a reserve for excess cash. 2% is a much better rule of thumb.","\"Read again what I said in my original post. \"\"Enterprise Value is the sort of \"\"bare bones\"\" total firm value. It doesn't include any cash because you'd basically be paying cash for cash. Also, this makes analysis of transaction multiples more streamlined, as some firms may have a ton of excess cash on their balance sheet, skewing multiples.\"\" I said that that is WHY we use enterprise value. Because if you didn't it would skew multiples.\"","20% is almost certainly too high. I agree with 2%, as a very rough rule. It will vary significantly depending on the industry. I generally calculate an average of the previous 2-3 years working capital, and deduct that from cash. Working capital is Current Assets less Current Liabilities. Current Assets is comprised of cash, prepaid expenses, and significantly, accounts receivable. This means that CA is likely to be much higher than just cash, which leaves more excess cash after liabilities are deducted. Which reduces EV, which makes the EV/EBITDA ratio look even more pricey, as Dimitri noted. But a balance sheet is just a snapshot of the final day of the quarter. As such, and because of seasonal effects, it's critical to smooth this by averaging several periods. After calculating this for a few companies, compare to revenue. Is it close to 2%?","cash isn't part of changes in working capital calculation - dont include it in current assets. *edit - Also to answer a question you didn't ask, subtracting cash doesn't skew the multiples. If cash really is that excess, the market cap will reflect a large cash position, thus adding it all back into EV. Think of apple as a good example. If they theoretically would dividend out all the cash, market cap would drop and so would EV.","I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.","Generally you don't exclude cash that is needed to keep working capital going. A firm's need to cash will vary based upon it's AR and AP policies. Some companies that have beat up their vendors and extract harsh payment terms, like Dell and Walmart, often have negative working capital and can therefore be thought of as funding growth on their suppliers cash. Most companies require some amount of cash in their working capital to connect the dots from when they pay their suppliers and when their customers pay them. You need to leave that cash in your working capital calculation and on your DCF.","You can think of a free cash flow as dividends from operations. FCF = cash from operations - investment in operations. The present value of these cash flows into the future is the value of the firm (DCF is very much like the dividend discount model). Now why does a DCF produce enterprise value and not equity value? Because a DCF values the firm's operating assets. To find the equity value, you use the accounting relation: assets = liabilities + equity (or in financial terms net operating assets = net financial obligations + common stockholders equity). This means you take away net debt from the value produced by the DCF to find equity. Now all your excess cash is netted off against your financial obligations (debt) to find the net debt. Cash used for day to day operations is an operating asset and should be treated as such, operating cash should not deducted from value of assets when finding the value of equity. At least that's what they're teaching at university now (i'm a uni student who's just finished my business valuation subject).","\"Oh, I understand now -- we're having an absurd, meaningless conversation about an obscure theoretical point. When you can tell me how you can determine a \"\"minimum cash\"\" level from a public company's filings, we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, make a simplifying assumption and move on. I misunderstood -- I thought we were actually trying to understand the difference between enterprise value and equity value / understand the implication of an enterprise value multiple.\"","Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us: * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare?","This is a tough question SFun28. Let's try and debug the metric. First, let's expand upon the notion share price is determined in an efficient market where prospective buyers and sellers have access to info on an enterprises' cash balance and they may weigh that into their decision making. Therefore, a desirable/undesirable cash balance may raise or lower the share price, to what extent, we do not know. We must ask How significant is cash/debt balance in determining the market price of a stock? As you noted, we have limited info, which may decrease the weight of these account balances in our decision process. Using a materiality level of 5% of net income of operations, cash/debt may be immaterial or not considered by an investor. investors oftentimes interpret the same information differently (e.g. Microsoft's large cash balance may show they no longer have innovative ideas worth investing in, or they are well positioned to acquire innovative companies, or weather a contraction in the sector) My guess is a math mind would ignore the affect of account balances on the equity portion of the enterprise value calculation because it may not be a factor, or because the affect is subjective.","Ok - what's your starting point? Are you starting with equity value and then working your way back to an enterprise value? Then yes, you must subtract cash and add debt. If you're doing a DCF, you don't have to make any changes to the values at the end if you're looking for an enterprise value. If you're looking for an equity value, you would need to add cash and subtract debt. If you're simply applying a enterprise value multiple (such as EV / EBITDA) you don't need to make any changes. Just multiply the Company's EBITDA by the multiple in question. Enterprise values are supposed to be capital structure independent because they are only valuing the company on metrics that occur before the impact of the Company's capital structure.","Sure let's say we're starting with the equity value of a public company. Fully diluted shares times market price. We add debt and subtract all cash to give us enterprise value. Calculate a multiple on that. Look what we did up there, we subtracted out all cash. The DCF approach assumes we have an operating level of cash when it calculates a value. You're saying that the DCF spits out an enterprise value. It cannot be an enterprise value if the DCF approach assumes we hold cash. We would have to subtract out an operating level of cash from the DCF concluded value to compare it apples to apples to the cashless enterprise values we derived from the market approach multiples.","\"A DCF includes changes in working capital which is a source or use of cash. I also don't like your characterization of enterprise value as \"\"cashless\"\" because it's also \"\"debtless\"\". It's capital structure independent -- just like a DCF is. **That's the common theme.**\"","\"Look, as my final comment. You're overthinking this. Companies routinely have waaaay more cash on their books than they \"\"need\"\" because they keep a rainy day fund. Yes, there are extreme examples like Apple that has about 60 billion more than they need but practically all companies are going to maintain excess cash for emergencies, acquisitions, etc. As I said in another comment, the common theme between a DCF and an EV multiple is that they are both capital structure independent. Even here there are going to be differences, companies with a really shitty capital structure (read: too much debt) will trade publicly at a lower enterprise value multiple because of the risk that they go bankrupt. In an acquisition, this (probably) would not be the case. In the case of a DCF, you would probably raise your discount rate to account for the risk of bankruptcy.\"","I believe you are missing knowledge of how to conduct a ratio analysis. Understanding liquidity ratios, specifically the quick or acid-test ratio will be of interest and help your understanding. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acidtest.asp Help with conducting a ratio analysis. http://www.demonstratingvalue.org/resources/financial-ratio-analysis Finally, after working through the definitions, this website will be of use. https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Exxon-Mobil-Corp/Ratios/Liquidity","i cannot directly tell from the provided information if it is already included in Net A/R but if there is a balance sheet you can check yourself if the Total Cash Flow matches the difference between cash position year 0&1 and see if it is net or still to be included.","Take a look at apple. It has no debt. So the ev is basically mkt cap - cash. Also remember market cap is the float * share price nothing else. Obviously share price takes into account the assets of the firm into perpituituy but the way you phrased it, adding debt , didnt sound quite right to me. We remove cash since someone buying a company isn't going to pay for your cash. In the transaction cash is distributed to share holders then the company is sold.","You can get really nerdy with the EV calc, but I would just add that it's important to deduct any non-operating, non-consolidated assets in addition to the minority interest adjustment - e.g. unconsolidated subsidiaries, excess real estate, excess working capital, etc.","Makes sense. I typed the previous reply on an ipad and was too lazy to go into the fact that as you point out the cash exits the balance sheet so in a DCF it doesn't get any weight in the terminal value calculation which makes up a significant chunk of an EV normally.","You're buying the operations of firm A for $450, or 4.5x EBITDA. You're buying the operations of firm B for $500, or 5.0x EBITDA. You're paying a higher multiple for firm B. Of couse subtracting cash 'skews multiples' - but you need to pull it out. You're paying for a business' ability generate that EBITDA over time. Cash is a one-shot deal. You need to pull it out to get the value of what you're actually investing in.","Enterprise Value is supposed to be the price you would be willing to pay to acquire the company. Typically, companies are delivered debt-free and cash-free, so the cash on the balance sheet at the time of the transaction is distributed to the original owners. So, for instance, a company like Apple would have a lower EV than Market Value because the cash on the balance sheet is not going to be included in an acquisition. And you are right, there are plenty of instances where you see Enterprise Value lower than Market Value (Cap). If you are solely looking at equity valuation (equity investing), then use market cap. If you are looking at firm valuation for M&A, then EV is more important.","Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel). If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy. The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.","no interest expense (no debt in the capital structure) and an income tax benefit is one possible scenario. you determine this through the financial statement by looking for the differences between the E and EBIT in those calculations (interest and taxes). of course, extraordinary items and discontinued operations could also be present, and result in the difference noted.","\"Finance is ALL about obscure theoretical points. This one actually isn't even that obscure, kind of like a big gaping whole that nobody addresses. So to address your \"\"minimum cash\"\" level point. That's what I'm working towards. Check this: So if you are selling your company, and all of the potential buyers are public companies, you would adjust your working capital balances in your model to match the public company market benchmark (ie: days payable outstanding, days receivable outstanding). This would be some sort of \"\"added value\"\" that a public company would bring to the mix. You should do the same for cash. You would benchmark what level of cash the comparable public companies hold (possibly as a % of revenue?), and apply that as the level of operating cash. You're counter argument would be that some firms may choose to hold on to excess levels of cash for a period of time (Apple), skewing \"\"minimum cash levels\"\" upward. That's true, but over a period of time, investors would either (1). demand the excess cash back or (2) investors would sell shares because the company is not earning a sufficient return on equity. My second point is half baked and not fully thought through but it goes along with the idea that a company will dividend out excess cash if it cannot reach the hurdle rate demanded by investors. Thank you for continuing the conversation with me, I think you're the only one that gets it.\"","\"A lot of financial software will calculate the value of operating leasess for you (bullet 2). E.g. Capital IQ, BB. What a lot of professionals do is \"\"reverse\"\" out EBITDA/EBIT etc. for: - non-recurring expenses (think big accounting changes, some impairments) - change operating expenses into capital leases to adjust the capital structure - occasionally change some operating expenses (e.g. options) because you are under the assumption if you take a company private that those expenses will not be relevant The whole point is simply to see the operating revenues/expenses of the firm\"","I think I understand what I am doing wrong. To provide some clarity, I am trying to determine what the value of a project is to a firm. To do this I am taking FCF, not including interest or principal payments, and discounting back to get an NPV enterprise value. I then back off net debt to get to equity value. I believe what I am doing wrong is that I show that initial $50M as a cash outflow in period 0 and then back it off again when I go from enterprise value to equity value. Does this make any sense? Thanks for your help.","\"Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's \"\"worth.\"\" The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows: Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets Enterprise value is essentially \"\"how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital.\"\" It can be viewed as \"\"if I wanted to buy the *entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?\"\"\"","This is in the balance sheet, but the info is not usually that detailed. It is safe to assume that at least some portion of the cash/cash equivalents will be in liquid bonds. You may find more specific details in the company SEC filings (annual reports etc).","Here's the original academic backbone that it's based on and expanded upon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modigliani%E2%80%93Miller_theorem I think thats it's overly conservative in this case (I fully accept academic theories only go so far in the real world) as Damodaran (NYU professor) has made a pretty solid case that cash on balance sheet at large cap tech companies is valued by the markets at less than its after tax $ value.","\"> Or does it differ between every company what non-cash charges they have? This. Here's a hint: the FCFF *can* be calculated from Cash Flow from Operations (CFO). Think of FCFF this way: \"\"after the business has operated *and* made *all* investments needed to grow, both short and long-term, how much is left over for providers of capital?\"\" [Here's a good resource for you.](https://www.cfainstitute.org/learning/products/publications/inv/Documents/equity_chapter6.ppt)\"","The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)","Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach: Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash. Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600. If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple.","\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"","You wouldn't know it's value (Enterprise Value) without knowing its cash balance. The equation: EV = Market Cap + Minority Interest + Preferred Stock + Debt - Cash Enterprise Value is the value of the company to ALL shareholders (creditors, preferred stock holders, common stock holders). So, taking on debt could either increase or decrease the EV depending on the cash balance of the company. This will have no effect, directly, on the market cap. It will, however effect the present value of its future cash flows as the WACC will increase due to the new cost of debt (interest payments, higher risk of bankruptcy, less flexibility by management).","The primary drivers of cash flow in a software firm is the productivity and skill of your employees. How is that reflected in a balance sheet? Well, take a company like Adobe or Salesforce, or even Microsoft. What would you be able to tell about each from their balance sheets? You can look at their cash level, and what else would matter?","Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.","I was merely trying to be helpful - Conceptually, you have dump this idea that something is skewed. It isn't. Firm A sold for $500 (equity value aka purchase price to shareholders) + debt (zero) - cash (50) for 450. Enterprise value is the cash free, debt free sale price. The implied ev multiple is 4.5x on A - that is the answer. The other business sold for a higher multiple of 5x. If you would pile on more cash onto A, the purchase price would increase, but the EV wouldn't. The idea is to think hard about the difference between equity value and enterprise value when examining a transaction.","\"I heard today while listening to an accounting podcast that a balance sheet... can be used to determine if a company has enough money to pay its employees. The \"\"money\"\" that you're looking at is specifically cash on the balance sheet. The cash flows document mentioned is just a more-finance-related document that explains how we ended at cash on the balance sheet. ...even looking for a job This is critical, that i don't believe many people look at when searching for a job. Using the ratios listed below can (and many others), one can determine if the business they are applying for will be around in the next five years. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one good)? My favorite example of a high cash company is Nintendo. Rolling at 570 Billion USD IN CASH ALONE is astonishing. Using the ratios we can see how well they are doing. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one bad)? Tesla is a good example of the later on being cash poor. Walk me though how to understand such a document? *Note: This question is highly complex and will take months of reading to fully comprehend the components that make up the financial statements. I would recommend that this question be posted completely separate.\"","Your best bet is to just look at comparative balance sheets or contact the company itself. Otherwise, you will need access to a service like PrivCo to get data.","\"I was wondering how do we calculate the total capital of a company? Which items should I look for in the financial statements? Total capital usually refers to the sum of long-term debt and total shareholder equity; both of these items can be found on the company's balance sheet. This is one of the calculations that's traditionally used when determining a company's return on capital. I'll use the balance sheet from Gilead Sciences' (GILD) 2012 10-K form as an example. Net long-term debt was $7,054,555,000 and total stockholder equity was $9,550,869,000 which should give a grand total of $16,605,424,000 for total capital. (I know you can do the math, but I always find an example helpful if it uses realistic numbers). You may sometimes hear the term \"\"total capital\"\" referring to \"\"total capital stock\"\" or \"\"total capital assets,\"\" in which case it may be referring to physical capital, i.e. assets like inventory, PP&E, etc., instead of financial capital/leverage. And how do I calculate notes payable? Is the same as accounts payable? As the word \"\"payable\"\" suggests, both are liabilities. However, I've always been taught that accounts payable are debts a business owes to its suppliers, while notes payable are debts a business owes to banks and other institutions with which it has signed a formal agreement and which use formal debt instruments, e.g. a loan contract. This definition seems to match various articles I found online. On a balance sheet, you can usually determine notes payable by combining the short-term debt of the company with the current portion of the long-term debt. These pieces comprise the debt that is due within the fiscal year. In the balance sheet for Gilead Sciences, I would only include the $1,169,490,000 categorized as \"\"Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net\"\" term, since the other current liabilities don't look like they would involve formal debt contracts. Since the notes payable section of GILD's balance sheet doesn't seem that diverse and therefore might not make the best example, I'll include the most recent balance sheet Monsanto as well.1 Monsanto's balance sheet lists a term called \"\"Short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt\"\" with a value of $36 million. This looks like almost the exact definition of notes payable. 1. Note that this financial statement is called a Statement of Consolidated Financial Position on Monsanto's 10-K.\"","\"This formula is not calculating \"\"Earnings\"\". Instead, it is calculating \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\". As the original poster notes, the \"\"Earnings\"\" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization. The \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:\"","\"You are comparing \"\"market caps\"\" and \"\"enterprise value\"\". If the company has four billion dollars cash in the bank, then the value would be four billion plus whatever the business itself is worth as a business. If the business itself is only worth 400 million, then you would have 4.4bn market caps and 400 million enterprise value. The \"\"enterprise value\"\" is basically how much the business would be worth if it had no cash or no debt. These numbers would be a very unusual situation. It could happen for example if a big company has sold 90% of its business for cash. When you buy a share of the company, you get a tiny share of the business and you own a tiny share of the cash. This stock will very likely keep its value, but won't make much money. On the other hand, more common would be a company where the business is worth 4bn, but the company has also 4bn debt. So it is worth exactly zero. Market caps close to zero, but enterprise value $4bn, because you ignore the debt in the enterprise value. Edit: Sorry, got the \"\"enterprise value\"\" totally wrong, read millions instead of billions: Your numbers would mean that you have a huge, huge company with close to 440bn debt. Most likely someone made a mistake here. A \"\"normal\"\" situation would be say a company with a business that is worth $500 million, but they have $100 million debt, so market caps = $400 million but enterprise value = $500 million. PS. Yahoo has the same nonsense numbers on their UK site, and for other companies (I just checked Marks and Spencer's which apparently has an enterprise value of 800 billion pound with a totally ridiculous P/E ratio.\"","\"Umm, it depends on the transaction but a lot of transactions get done on a \"\"cash free / debt free\"\" basis. Meaning, I'll pay you 5x EBITDA (or $500) and you deliver the company without any cash or debt subject to a \"\"standard\"\" amount of working capital. Ultimately, you're confusing enterprise value and equity value. The two companies may have different purchase prices (equity values) but they should have very similar enterprise values (given the hypothetical scenario you put together).\"","\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"","\"tl;dr It's a difference between cash and cash equivalents and net cash and cash equivalents. Download the 2016 annual report from http://www.diageo.com/en-us/investor/Pages/financialreports.aspx On page 99 is the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows at the bottom is a section \"\"Net cash and cash equivalents consist of:\"\" Net cash and cash equivalents consist of: 2016-06-30 2015-06-30 Cash and cash equivalents 1,089 472 Bank overdrafts (280) (90) 809 382 The difference between net cash of 809 million and 382 million is 427 million, matching the \"\"Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents\"\" from Yahoo. I do not know that bank overdrafts mean in this situation, but appears to cause cash to show up on balance sheet without being reflected in the net cash portions of the cash flow statement. And the numbers seem like balances, not year of year changes like the rest of the statement of cash flows. 2015 net CCE 382 2016 cash flow + 427 ---- 2016 net CCE 809 Cash from overdrafts + 280 ---- 2015 balance sheet cash 1,089\"","\"Morningstar's definition of cash includes \"\"cash equivalents (fixed-income securities with a maturity of one year or less)\"\". So I'm guessing 81% of its holdings are short-term enough to fall into this category.\"","This comment makes zero sense. No one values equities from the balance sheet, unless you're trying to justify why you'd invest in sears or something (i.e. b/s vastly understates market value of real estate holdings and you're hoping for a liquidity event). Certainly not a tech company or really anything as a going concern.","Capital surplus is used to account for that amount which a firm raises in excess of the par value (nominal value) of the shares (common stock).. Investopedia has a much simpler answer. Somebody has tried to be smart on wikipedia and have done the calculations without much explanation. The portion of the surplus of a business arising from sources other than earnings : all surplus other than earned surplus usually including amounts received from sale or exchange of capital stock in excess of par or stated value, profits on resale of treasury stock, donations to capital by stockholders or others, or increment arising from revaluation of fixed or other assets The number of shares a company wants to issue is decided and agreed with the regulators. They decide the par value and then decide how much premium will be charged, extra money above the par value. Take out any RHP of an issue and you find all these details. Par Value = 1 Issue price(Price at which investors buy) = 10 Premium = 9 For a single share the capital surplus is 9, multiply it by the number of shares issued and you have the total capital surplus.","Yea good points and they definitely should not be overlooked. The whole point of the EV calculation is to get the analyst to look at what the true underlying business is and what one is really paying for when buying securities in a company. Market Cap can be misleading for many reasons and get real annoyed when people say things like, I own XYZ company because its cash account is greater than its market cap....","Just so everyone knows. A core model refers to a forecast of the Balance Sheet, income statement, and Statement of Cash Flows. From this you can solve for Free Cash Flow to Equity and solve for some more price values, like Sum of Parts.","It's hard to say for smaller cap firms because they are all so different. Take a look at SandP or other rating agencies at about the BB range. Then decide how much of a buffer you'd like. If all goes to hell, do you want to be able to cover all you salaries, debt etc for three months? Six? What kind of seasonal volatility does your industry face? Do you plan on any significant investment or FTE uplift any time soon? This will all play into how much retained earnings you will chose to have.","\"It does depend, but in the effort to be efficient we usually just add back Depreciation, Amortization, and Stock Based Comp. [Although adding back SBC is hotly debated](https://www.wallstreetprep.com/blog/stock-based-compensation-treatment-dcf-almost-always-wrong/), we usually still add it back at my firm. Keep in mind I'm in M&A, so we don't really concern ourselves with creating the \"\"purest\"\" valuation... * EBIAT * Add Depreciation * Add Amort * Add SBC * Subtract Capex * Add the decrease in NWC * Subtract the increase in NWC * = FCFF\"","It is difficult to reconcile historical balance sheets with historical cash flow statements because there are adjustments that are not always clearly disclosed. Practitioners consider activity on historical cash flow statements but generally don't invest time reconciling historical accounts, instead focusing on balancing projected balance sheets / cash flow statements. If you had non-public internal books, you could reconcile the figures (presuming they are accurate). In regards to Mike Haskel's comment, there's also a section pertaining to operating capital, not just effects on net income.","The actual financial statements should always be referenced first before opening or closing a position. For US companies, they are freely available on EDGAR. Annual reports are called 10-Ks, and quarterly reports are called 10-Qs. YHOO and GOOG do a great job of posting financials that are quickly available, but money.msn has the best. These should be starting point, quick references. As you can see, they may all have the same strange accounting. Sometimes, it's difficult to find the information one seeks in the consolidated financial statements as in this case, so searching through the filing is necessary. The notes can be helpful, but Ctrl-F seems to do everything I need when I want something in a report. In AAPL's case, the Interest expense can be found in Note 3.","Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners.","This is something I love about only investing in tech. Every company I'd want to invest in has a great balance sheet anyway, that's just how their economics work, so I don't have to worry about this. I actually work in reverse. Like with AAPL, I'm deducting their cash from their market cap to get an even more attractive valuation*. As opposed to trying to work out all the complex debt and liabilities of a bank or something. *AAPL actually does have some debt now but it's dead simple to deduct and only a workaround to their offshore cash.","I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.","\"Market Capitalization is the value the market attributes to the company shares calculated by multiplying the current trading price of these shares by the total amount of shares outstanding. So a company with 100 shares trading at $10 has a market cap of $1000. It is technically not the same as the value of a company (in the sense of how much someone would need to pay to acquire the company), Enterprise value is what you want to determine the net value of a company which is calculated as the market capitalization + company debt (as the acquirer has to take on this debt) - company cash (as the acquirer can pocket this for itself). The exact boundary for when a company belongs to a certain \"\"cap\"\" is up for debate. For a \"\"large cap\"\" a market capitalization of $10 billion+ is usually considered the cutoff (with $100+ billion behemoths being called \"\"mega caps\"\"). Anything between $10 billion and ~$1 billion is considered \"\"mid cap\"\", from ~$1billion to ~$200 million it's called a \"\"small cap\"\" and below $200 million is \"\"nano cap\"\". Worth noting that these boundaries change quite dramatically over time as the overall average market capitalization increases as companies grow, for example in the 80s a company with a market cap of $1 billion would be considered \"\"large cap\"\". The market \"\"determines\"\" what the market cap of company should be based (usually but certainly not always!) on the historical and expected profit a company makes, for a simple example let's say that our $1000 market cap company makes $100 a year, this means that this company's earnings per share is $1. If the company grows to make $200 a year you can reasonably expect the share price to rise from $10 to ~$20 with the corresponding increase in market cap. (this is all extremely simplified of course).\"","It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit. What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash.","\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"","\"I like this explanation the best. EV is trying to get at the value of the underlying business, excluding the capital structure you currently have on the company. If your lemonade stand is worth $100, but the business also comes with $50 in cash lying around (and no debt), then the EV is $100. But the price you'd pay the owner (the \"\"market cap\"\") is $150, because it's like you get an immediate cash rebate.\"","O boy you can take an entire on this. Here are the basics. Project future cash flows on a series of underlying assumptions such as growth rate and risk free rate. You then have to adjust top line items such as depreciation and come up with FCF. Then discount everything back with a terminal value.","Talk to almost any large cap CFO or read any corporate finance textbook. McKinsey's Valuation is a great one to own: though yes McKinsey consultants can take a good idea and turn it bad by overdoing it to an extreme. Why would universal corporate finance principles not apply to large cap tech? Why is having $XXb of unutilized cash for a company with durable cash flow a good thing for equity investors?","It is. The outstanding value is the net cash flow, but it will always be higher than cash outflow due to a constant growth rate/expected return. I was slightly confused when my manager told me to find the IRR before and after cash inflows (the whole life of the investment). Especially as IRR after cash inflows is higher than the former.","This is fine, but I'd probably spend a moment introducing WACC and it's estimation. It's also useful to link up the enterprise value to share price, so just also mentioning the debt subtraction to get equity value and division by shares for price. Keep in mind you're usually given like a minute to answer this, so you can afford to be a bit more detailed in some parts.","How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.","Theoretically there is always a time value of money. You'll need to keep your cash in a Money Market Fund to realize its potential (I'm not saying MMFs are the best investment strategy, they are the best kind of account for liquid cash). Choose an accounts that's flexible with regard to its minimum required so you can always keep this extra money in it and remove it when you need to make a payment.","You can add $262,500 worth of notes payable (assuming that you use the cash to buy inventory immediately). Any more and you would push the current ratio below 2. In case this ratio is the trouble, the formula for current ratio is current assets over current liabilities. Notes payable is a current liability and inventory is a current asset so you add the number to both of them. I used Excel to do this. With this addition the quick ratio is 1.19. The formula for this is (current assets - inventory)/Current liabilities. So you take ($1,312,500 + $262,500 - $262,500 - $375,000)/($525,000 + $262,500) = 1.19","Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation.","\"I don't know how much finance you know, but a fundamental idea is that something's value is the present value of all its future cash flows. Basically what those cash flows are worth today. So if we can predict the cash flows the equity holders will get in the future (not easy), and determine at what rate to discount the cash flows (not easy), we can value the equity. So a company will have cash flows coming in. But not all go to the equity holders. Some will go to debt holders, if any (interest payments). Some will go to preferred equity holders (dividends), if any. What's left over is what the equity holders will get. If there's no debt, preferred equity or other things like that, then the equity holders get all the cash flows. This doesn't mean the equity holders literally receive the cash - they'll get whatever is given out via dividends. But, they \"\"own\"\" the cash and it may be reinvested in the business to generate more cash in the future.\"","Thanks for this, great in depth answer. I had previously calculated a WACC and have used it for my discount rate. As part of your last point on revenue vs. cash, I've set a accounts receivable period of 30 days, and then applied a factor of 30/365 * revenue to understand what portion of my revenue is not cash in hand. Does that make sense?","Simply put, expansionary capex is seen as an investment and maintenance capex is seen as a cost. In terms of valuation, free cash flow will not include expansionary capex because you are valuing the company as its current business. It's important to note that this approach will usually undervalue companies with strong investment opportunities. Also, like /u/scarletham said, please edit out the identifying information to avoid any disclosure problems.","I'm a big believer in pulling the quarterly and or annual statements and deriving your own analysis. The automated parsing systems at Google, Yahoo, and others are a good starting point and they'll let you generally compare various metrics of different companies or market segments. With that in mind, there are any number of reasons Google's scripts could have broken out or combined a couple of cash flow line items. If you're digging this deep in the weeds on this company you should pull the SEC filings and build out your own data.","Are you trying to figure out if a project would increase the market value of equity? I think your issue is that the Market value of Equity will not be updated with the NPV of 40M (Assuming it is truly +, not sure if it's true with 50M of debt). EV = Market Value of Equity + Debt - Cash and CE Ev - Debt + Cash and CE = Market equity value. So I think you would have to update the market value of Equity up with 40M. This would then lead to EV = Equity Value + future income stream discounted + debt - Cash and Cash Equivalents.","You could create your own spreadsheet of Cash Flows and use the XIRR function in Excel: The formula is:","Hi all Started my MBA studies recently. We have a simulation project and I've taken the VP Finance Role as I didn't have much experience in this and wanted to learn more. Unfortunately I don't have accounting until next semester, so I'm trying to make up the cap with my career experience so far as an engineer + youtube tutorials. I built a discounted cashflow model. I'm trying to now determine the amount of loan to take in my first year of business. Basically the equity financing doesn't cover our first year capital expenditure, let alone any other costs. My question is how do I determine what an appropriate loan amount is to take. My first thoughts are enough to cover my capital expenses + 1st half of the year operating expenses before I start seeing a revenue. Right now my balance sheet would lead me to believe I have a 0.52 Debt Ratio and 1.23 Debt-to-Equity ratio. Is that ok?","Reports -> I&E -> Cash Flow Select the Mutual Fund account only.","Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world","The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.","I'm not a finance guy by trade, I'm an accountant, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'm going to say no. EBITDA is your accounting profit before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. So it's already free of many non-cash items, and is closer to a cash-basis measure of profit, but still includes many non-cash revenues. As far as I know, the discounting is to take the time value of money into account so you can make a decision on whether the present value of the expected future cash flows are greater than the present value of the cash outflow being asked today. If it is, then you buy. If not, then you don't.","Too calculate these values, information contained in the company's financial statements (income, balance, or cashflow) will be needed along with the price. Google finance does not maintain this information for BME. You will need to find another source for this information or analyze another another symbol's financial section (BAC for example).","\"fair enough, but I wasn't sure if you actually get it or not because your question seemed to revolved around cash and transaction value. You are really just said \"\"skewing\"\" is if you didn't add net debt the multiple wouldn't be a valid muliptle. If you understand it, why start out with this mental exercise of saying \"\"we shouldn't calculate multiples wrong, because then they would be wrong\"\"?\"","If I understand you right, what you need is the minimum amount in the account until your next deposit. So for example, if today is the 10th and you get paid on the 15th, how much do I need to have in the account, so I know how much I can spend? That amount should be all of the bills that will be paid between today and the 15th. An alternative would just to keep a running balance and see what the minimum value is. My personal finance software does that for me, but it's possible, although a little more complicated, in Excel. You'd have to find the date of the next deposit, and do a SUMIF looking for dates between today and that date. That's about as far as I can get without getting off-topic.","\"Free Cash Flow (FCF) is not a metric/data point which represents any ACTUAL cash flow of a company. FCF is a data point which communicates how much cash a company has after Operating cash requirements and cash expenditures \"\"required\"\" to grow and maintain the existing business. FCF can be used to pay dividends, buy back stock, purchase companies, et cetera. None of which are REQUIRED to run the business.\"","Not quite the usual DCF or valuation question, but more FP&A: any ideas how to bridge cash forecast to financial forecast? To clarify, financial forecast is mostly done on an accrual basis whereas cash is outflows and inflows. Trying to figure out how to have better visibility into cash discrepancies","With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:","\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \"\"recent equity issuance or M&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\"","Shareholder's Equity consists of two main things: The initial capitalization of the company (when the shares were first sold, plus extra share issues) and retained earnings, which is the amount of money the company has made over and above capitalization, which has not been re-distributed back to shareholders. So yes, it is the firm's total equity financing-- the initial capitalization is the equity that was put into the company when it was founded plus subsequent increases in equity due to share issues, and retained earnings is the increase in equity that has occurred since then which has not yet been re-distributed to shareholders (though it belongs to them, as the residual claimants). Both accounts are credited when they increase, because they represent an increase in cash, that is debited, so in order to make credits = debits they must be credits. (It doesn't mean that the company has that much cash on hand, as the cash will likely be re-invested). Shareholder's Equity is neither an asset nor a liability: it is used to purchase assets and to reduce liabilities, and is simply a measure of assets minus liabilities that is necessary to make the accounting equation balance: Since the book value of stocks doesn't change that often (because it represents the price the company sold it for, not the current value on the stock market, and would therefore only change when there were new share issues), almost all changes in total assets or in total liabilities are reflected in Retained Earnings.","You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.","In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.","I understand it could be cash converts. I was an accounting major. I'm just pointing out some possible reasons for why they might borrow instead of using cash on hand. They might not have enough cash on hand because of the fact that they might be holding cash equivalents.","\"QUICK ANSWER What @Mike Haskel wrote is generally correct that the indirect method for cash flow statement reporting, which most US companies use, can sometimes produce different results that don't clearly reconcile with balance sheet shifts. With regards to accounts receivables, this is especially so when there is a major increase or decrease in the company's allowances for doubtful accounts. In this case, there is more to the company's balance sheet and cash flow statements differences per its accounts receivables than its allowances for doubtful accounts seems responsible for. As explained below, the difference, $1.25bn, is likely owing more to currency shifts and how they are accounted for than to other factors. = = = = = = = = = = DIRTY DETAILS Microsoft Corp. generally sells to high-quality / high-credit buyers; mostly PC, server and other devices manufacturers and licensees. It hence made doubtful accounts provisions of $16mn for its $86,833mn (0.018%) of 2014 sales and wrote off $51mn of its carrying balance during the year. Its accounting for \"\"Other comprehensive income\"\" captures the primary differences of many accounts; specifically in this case, the \"\"foreign currency translation\"\" figure that comprises many balance sheet accounts and net out against shareholders' equity (i.e. those assets and liabilities bypass the income statement). The footnotes include this explanation: Assets and liabilities recorded in foreign currencies are translated at the exchange rate on the balance sheet date. Revenue and expenses are translated at average rates of exchange prevailing during the year. Translation adjustments resulting from this process are recorded to other comprehensive income (“OCI”) What all this means is that those two balance sheet figures are computed by translating all the accounts with foreign currency balances (in this case, accounts receivables) into the reporting currency, US dollars (USD), at the date of the balance sheets, June 30 of the years 2013 and 2014. The change in accounts receivables cash flow figure is computed by first determining the average exchange rates for all the currencies it uses to conduct business and applying them respectively to the changes in each non-USD accounts receivables during the periods. For this reason, almost all multinational companies that report using indirect cash flow statements will have discrepancies between the changes in their reported working capital changes during a period and the dates of their balance sheet and it's usually because of currency shifts during the period.\"","Assuming there are no other liabilities... The enterprise value is $5mm. $1mm loan + $4mm equity. The proforma enterprise value will be the same, but the equity will now represent all of it at $5mm. Your 4% will now be 3.2%, but equal the same value; $160,000.","\"Total Capital This is a very old fashioned term that really is mostly only used in the finance industry today, like when everyone was obsessed with \"\"bank capital\"\". Total Capital = Preferred Equity + Common Equity + Liabilities True blue preferred shares are almost only used by financial companies, banks specifically. The more modern ones that convert to common are used by all other companies. Notes Payable This is another old fashioned term that now carries a different meaning in Generally Accepted Account Principles (GAAP). The oldest definition of a note or a promissory note is a promise to pay a fixed amount of money on a specific date. This has been modified to resemble more a bond and evolved into the zero coupon bond, a bond that makes no cash interest payments but makes one final payment that includes principal & interest. A bank note, like a One Dollar bill, is a note that pays something, in this case One Dollar, never (technically, the repayment date is simply not specified in the contract). While it pays One Dollar, it never pays it back, so it has a constant value of One Dollar. The constant nature, inflation notwithstanding, is what makes bank notes the preferred medium of exchange. GAAP has taken its' own definition to mean any debt payable within 12 months, as it is a current (<12 months) liability.\"","Opening capital = opening assests-opening liabilities","I'll have to think it through, but at the very least unless your debt is a pure discount instrument and you are using cash flows, some if that money IS getting paid during those 5 years. As in if you are using earnings, they pay p&i. Or if earnings and pure discount instruments, then amortized interest (I think, been a while). You see the actual numbers and know what you are trying to do, but I'm a little lost. Are you building a discount model with a multiple terminal and using ev as the multiple? Are you using free cash flow to firm for the discounting? I'm guessing that's the case.","\"First, don't use Yahoo's mangling of the XBRL data to do financial analysis. Get it from the horse's mouth: http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Search for Facebook, select the latest 10-Q, and look at the income statement on pg. 6 (helpfully linked in the table of contents). This is what humans do. When you do this, you see that Yahoo omitted FB's (admittedly trivial) interest expense. I've seen much worse errors. If you're trying to scrape Yahoo... well do what you must. You'll do better getting the XBRL data straight from EDGAR and mangling it yourself, but there's a learning curve, and if you're trying to compare lots of companies there's a problem of mapping everybody to a common chart of accounts. Second, assuming you're not using FCF as a valuation metric (which has got some problems)... you don't want to exclude interest expense from the calculation of free cash flow. This becomes significant for heavily indebted firms. You might as well just start from net income and adjust from there... which, as it happens, is exactly the approach taken by the normal \"\"indirect\"\" form of the statement of cash flows. That's what this statement is for. Essentially you want to take cash flow from operations and subtract capital expenditures (from the cash flow from investments section). It's not an encouraging sign that Yahoo's lines on the cash flow statement don't sum to the totals. As far as definitions go... working capital is not assets - liabilities, it is current assets - current liabilities. Furthermore, you want to calculate changes in working capital, i.e. the difference in net current assets from the previous quarter. What you're doing here is subtracting the company's accumulated equity capital from a single quarter's operating results, which is why you're getting an insane result that in no way resembles what appears in the statement of cash flows. Also you seem to be using the numbers for the wrong quarter - 2014q4 instead of 2015q3. I can't figure out where you're getting your depreciation number from, but the statement of cash flows shows they booked $486M in depreciation for 2015q3; your number is high. FB doesn't have negative FCF.\"","Corporate debt isn't an iou. Large corporations sell bonds and make annual or semiannual payments in those bonds. Cash is often held in a country with favorable tax condition, like Ireland.. Depending on the industry, this cash is invested in money market funds, fixed income securities, and maybe stocks or other funds. Because of the low interest rates that have prevailed since the recession, it's most economical to invest most cash and borrow for larger investments. However, the cash that ends up overseas is net of expenses. Internet is paid from operating income. I'm by no means an expert though, so take this with a grain of salt.","Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's. Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple?"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Excess Cash = Cash & Equivalents + Long-Term Investments - Current Liabilities The problem this calculation of excess cash is that \\\"\\\"long-term investments\\\"\\\" can be illiquid things like real estate. Another flaw is that it gives no credit for Current Assets, like receivables, which can be used to offset Current Liabilities. The first thing I'd do is \\\"\\\"net out\\\"\\\" Current Assets and Current Liabilities, then add Cash back in. Excess Cash = Current Assets - Current Liabilities + Cash & Equivalents. It would be nice if GAAP would require Long-Term Investments to be broken out as a) liquid long-term investments (stocks, bonds) b) illiquid long-term investments (real estate, private equity, etc)\\\"\",\n \"You're not missing anything. Excess cash is somewhat of a nebulous concept. To different people it means different things. The answer is that excess cash varies for each company depending on their business. For instance, some companies need very high amounts of working capital. A company may be increasing their inventories and therefore will require more cash on their balance sheet to fund growth. If a company always needs this extra cash, some investors prefer to leave that cash out of a valuation because the company cannot run profitably without it. Think about what happens to your calculation of Enterprise Value if you subtract excess cash as opposed to cash. Excess cash is always less than cash. Therefore by subtracting excess cash you increase EV. Since one common valuation metric is EV/EBITDA, a higher numerator will make the stock seem more expensive - that is the EV/EBITDA ratio will seem higher when using excess cash as opposed to cash. So using excess cash in your valuation methodology is basically a conservative concept. Depending on the business 20% of revenues seem way too high as a reserve for excess cash. 2% is a much better rule of thumb.\",\n \"\\\"Read again what I said in my original post. \\\"\\\"Enterprise Value is the sort of \\\"\\\"bare bones\\\"\\\" total firm value. It doesn't include any cash because you'd basically be paying cash for cash. Also, this makes analysis of transaction multiples more streamlined, as some firms may have a ton of excess cash on their balance sheet, skewing multiples.\\\"\\\" I said that that is WHY we use enterprise value. Because if you didn't it would skew multiples.\\\"\",\n \"20% is almost certainly too high. I agree with 2%, as a very rough rule. It will vary significantly depending on the industry. I generally calculate an average of the previous 2-3 years working capital, and deduct that from cash. Working capital is Current Assets less Current Liabilities. Current Assets is comprised of cash, prepaid expenses, and significantly, accounts receivable. This means that CA is likely to be much higher than just cash, which leaves more excess cash after liabilities are deducted. Which reduces EV, which makes the EV/EBITDA ratio look even more pricey, as Dimitri noted. But a balance sheet is just a snapshot of the final day of the quarter. As such, and because of seasonal effects, it's critical to smooth this by averaging several periods. After calculating this for a few companies, compare to revenue. Is it close to 2%?\",\n \"cash isn't part of changes in working capital calculation - dont include it in current assets. *edit - Also to answer a question you didn't ask, subtracting cash doesn't skew the multiples. If cash really is that excess, the market cap will reflect a large cash position, thus adding it all back into EV. Think of apple as a good example. If they theoretically would dividend out all the cash, market cap would drop and so would EV.\",\n \"I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.\",\n \"Generally you don't exclude cash that is needed to keep working capital going. A firm's need to cash will vary based upon it's AR and AP policies. Some companies that have beat up their vendors and extract harsh payment terms, like Dell and Walmart, often have negative working capital and can therefore be thought of as funding growth on their suppliers cash. Most companies require some amount of cash in their working capital to connect the dots from when they pay their suppliers and when their customers pay them. You need to leave that cash in your working capital calculation and on your DCF.\",\n \"You can think of a free cash flow as dividends from operations. FCF = cash from operations - investment in operations. The present value of these cash flows into the future is the value of the firm (DCF is very much like the dividend discount model). Now why does a DCF produce enterprise value and not equity value? Because a DCF values the firm's operating assets. To find the equity value, you use the accounting relation: assets = liabilities + equity (or in financial terms net operating assets = net financial obligations + common stockholders equity). This means you take away net debt from the value produced by the DCF to find equity. Now all your excess cash is netted off against your financial obligations (debt) to find the net debt. Cash used for day to day operations is an operating asset and should be treated as such, operating cash should not deducted from value of assets when finding the value of equity. At least that's what they're teaching at university now (i'm a uni student who's just finished my business valuation subject).\",\n \"\\\"Oh, I understand now -- we're having an absurd, meaningless conversation about an obscure theoretical point. When you can tell me how you can determine a \\\"\\\"minimum cash\\\"\\\" level from a public company's filings, we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, make a simplifying assumption and move on. I misunderstood -- I thought we were actually trying to understand the difference between enterprise value and equity value / understand the implication of an enterprise value multiple.\\\"\",\n \"Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us: * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare?\",\n \"This is a tough question SFun28. Let's try and debug the metric. First, let's expand upon the notion share price is determined in an efficient market where prospective buyers and sellers have access to info on an enterprises' cash balance and they may weigh that into their decision making. Therefore, a desirable/undesirable cash balance may raise or lower the share price, to what extent, we do not know. We must ask How significant is cash/debt balance in determining the market price of a stock? As you noted, we have limited info, which may decrease the weight of these account balances in our decision process. Using a materiality level of 5% of net income of operations, cash/debt may be immaterial or not considered by an investor. investors oftentimes interpret the same information differently (e.g. Microsoft's large cash balance may show they no longer have innovative ideas worth investing in, or they are well positioned to acquire innovative companies, or weather a contraction in the sector) My guess is a math mind would ignore the affect of account balances on the equity portion of the enterprise value calculation because it may not be a factor, or because the affect is subjective.\",\n \"Ok - what's your starting point? Are you starting with equity value and then working your way back to an enterprise value? Then yes, you must subtract cash and add debt. If you're doing a DCF, you don't have to make any changes to the values at the end if you're looking for an enterprise value. If you're looking for an equity value, you would need to add cash and subtract debt. If you're simply applying a enterprise value multiple (such as EV / EBITDA) you don't need to make any changes. Just multiply the Company's EBITDA by the multiple in question. Enterprise values are supposed to be capital structure independent because they are only valuing the company on metrics that occur before the impact of the Company's capital structure.\",\n \"Sure let's say we're starting with the equity value of a public company. Fully diluted shares times market price. We add debt and subtract all cash to give us enterprise value. Calculate a multiple on that. Look what we did up there, we subtracted out all cash. The DCF approach assumes we have an operating level of cash when it calculates a value. You're saying that the DCF spits out an enterprise value. It cannot be an enterprise value if the DCF approach assumes we hold cash. We would have to subtract out an operating level of cash from the DCF concluded value to compare it apples to apples to the cashless enterprise values we derived from the market approach multiples.\",\n \"\\\"A DCF includes changes in working capital which is a source or use of cash. I also don't like your characterization of enterprise value as \\\"\\\"cashless\\\"\\\" because it's also \\\"\\\"debtless\\\"\\\". It's capital structure independent -- just like a DCF is. **That's the common theme.**\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Look, as my final comment. You're overthinking this. Companies routinely have waaaay more cash on their books than they \\\"\\\"need\\\"\\\" because they keep a rainy day fund. Yes, there are extreme examples like Apple that has about 60 billion more than they need but practically all companies are going to maintain excess cash for emergencies, acquisitions, etc. As I said in another comment, the common theme between a DCF and an EV multiple is that they are both capital structure independent. Even here there are going to be differences, companies with a really shitty capital structure (read: too much debt) will trade publicly at a lower enterprise value multiple because of the risk that they go bankrupt. In an acquisition, this (probably) would not be the case. In the case of a DCF, you would probably raise your discount rate to account for the risk of bankruptcy.\\\"\",\n \"I believe you are missing knowledge of how to conduct a ratio analysis. Understanding liquidity ratios, specifically the quick or acid-test ratio will be of interest and help your understanding. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acidtest.asp Help with conducting a ratio analysis. http://www.demonstratingvalue.org/resources/financial-ratio-analysis Finally, after working through the definitions, this website will be of use. https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Exxon-Mobil-Corp/Ratios/Liquidity\",\n \"i cannot directly tell from the provided information if it is already included in Net A/R but if there is a balance sheet you can check yourself if the Total Cash Flow matches the difference between cash position year 0&1 and see if it is net or still to be included.\",\n \"Take a look at apple. It has no debt. So the ev is basically mkt cap - cash. Also remember market cap is the float * share price nothing else. Obviously share price takes into account the assets of the firm into perpituituy but the way you phrased it, adding debt , didnt sound quite right to me. We remove cash since someone buying a company isn't going to pay for your cash. In the transaction cash is distributed to share holders then the company is sold.\",\n \"You can get really nerdy with the EV calc, but I would just add that it's important to deduct any non-operating, non-consolidated assets in addition to the minority interest adjustment - e.g. unconsolidated subsidiaries, excess real estate, excess working capital, etc.\",\n \"Makes sense. I typed the previous reply on an ipad and was too lazy to go into the fact that as you point out the cash exits the balance sheet so in a DCF it doesn't get any weight in the terminal value calculation which makes up a significant chunk of an EV normally.\",\n \"You're buying the operations of firm A for $450, or 4.5x EBITDA. You're buying the operations of firm B for $500, or 5.0x EBITDA. You're paying a higher multiple for firm B. Of couse subtracting cash 'skews multiples' - but you need to pull it out. You're paying for a business' ability generate that EBITDA over time. Cash is a one-shot deal. You need to pull it out to get the value of what you're actually investing in.\",\n \"Enterprise Value is supposed to be the price you would be willing to pay to acquire the company. Typically, companies are delivered debt-free and cash-free, so the cash on the balance sheet at the time of the transaction is distributed to the original owners. So, for instance, a company like Apple would have a lower EV than Market Value because the cash on the balance sheet is not going to be included in an acquisition. And you are right, there are plenty of instances where you see Enterprise Value lower than Market Value (Cap). If you are solely looking at equity valuation (equity investing), then use market cap. If you are looking at firm valuation for M&A, then EV is more important.\",\n \"Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel). If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy. The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.\",\n \"no interest expense (no debt in the capital structure) and an income tax benefit is one possible scenario. you determine this through the financial statement by looking for the differences between the E and EBIT in those calculations (interest and taxes). of course, extraordinary items and discontinued operations could also be present, and result in the difference noted.\",\n \"\\\"Finance is ALL about obscure theoretical points. This one actually isn't even that obscure, kind of like a big gaping whole that nobody addresses. So to address your \\\"\\\"minimum cash\\\"\\\" level point. That's what I'm working towards. Check this: So if you are selling your company, and all of the potential buyers are public companies, you would adjust your working capital balances in your model to match the public company market benchmark (ie: days payable outstanding, days receivable outstanding). This would be some sort of \\\"\\\"added value\\\"\\\" that a public company would bring to the mix. You should do the same for cash. You would benchmark what level of cash the comparable public companies hold (possibly as a % of revenue?), and apply that as the level of operating cash. You're counter argument would be that some firms may choose to hold on to excess levels of cash for a period of time (Apple), skewing \\\"\\\"minimum cash levels\\\"\\\" upward. That's true, but over a period of time, investors would either (1). demand the excess cash back or (2) investors would sell shares because the company is not earning a sufficient return on equity. My second point is half baked and not fully thought through but it goes along with the idea that a company will dividend out excess cash if it cannot reach the hurdle rate demanded by investors. Thank you for continuing the conversation with me, I think you're the only one that gets it.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A lot of financial software will calculate the value of operating leasess for you (bullet 2). E.g. Capital IQ, BB. What a lot of professionals do is \\\"\\\"reverse\\\"\\\" out EBITDA/EBIT etc. for: - non-recurring expenses (think big accounting changes, some impairments) - change operating expenses into capital leases to adjust the capital structure - occasionally change some operating expenses (e.g. options) because you are under the assumption if you take a company private that those expenses will not be relevant The whole point is simply to see the operating revenues/expenses of the firm\\\"\",\n \"I think I understand what I am doing wrong. To provide some clarity, I am trying to determine what the value of a project is to a firm. To do this I am taking FCF, not including interest or principal payments, and discounting back to get an NPV enterprise value. I then back off net debt to get to equity value. I believe what I am doing wrong is that I show that initial $50M as a cash outflow in period 0 and then back it off again when I go from enterprise value to equity value. Does this make any sense? Thanks for your help.\",\n \"\\\"Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's \\\"\\\"worth.\\\"\\\" The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows: Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets Enterprise value is essentially \\\"\\\"how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital.\\\"\\\" It can be viewed as \\\"\\\"if I wanted to buy the *entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"This is in the balance sheet, but the info is not usually that detailed. It is safe to assume that at least some portion of the cash/cash equivalents will be in liquid bonds. You may find more specific details in the company SEC filings (annual reports etc).\",\n \"Here's the original academic backbone that it's based on and expanded upon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modigliani%E2%80%93Miller_theorem I think thats it's overly conservative in this case (I fully accept academic theories only go so far in the real world) as Damodaran (NYU professor) has made a pretty solid case that cash on balance sheet at large cap tech companies is valued by the markets at less than its after tax $ value.\",\n \"\\\"> Or does it differ between every company what non-cash charges they have? This. Here's a hint: the FCFF *can* be calculated from Cash Flow from Operations (CFO). Think of FCFF this way: \\\"\\\"after the business has operated *and* made *all* investments needed to grow, both short and long-term, how much is left over for providers of capital?\\\"\\\" [Here's a good resource for you.](https://www.cfainstitute.org/learning/products/publications/inv/Documents/equity_chapter6.ppt)\\\"\",\n \"The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)\",\n \"Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach: Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash. Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600. If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple.\",\n \"\\\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \\\"\\\"equity\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"market cap\\\"\\\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \\\"\\\"enterprise value\\\"\\\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \\\"\\\"Enterprise value\\\"\\\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \\\"\\\"free and clear,\\\"\\\" counting the debt.\\\"\",\n \"You wouldn't know it's value (Enterprise Value) without knowing its cash balance. The equation: EV = Market Cap + Minority Interest + Preferred Stock + Debt - Cash Enterprise Value is the value of the company to ALL shareholders (creditors, preferred stock holders, common stock holders). So, taking on debt could either increase or decrease the EV depending on the cash balance of the company. This will have no effect, directly, on the market cap. It will, however effect the present value of its future cash flows as the WACC will increase due to the new cost of debt (interest payments, higher risk of bankruptcy, less flexibility by management).\",\n \"The primary drivers of cash flow in a software firm is the productivity and skill of your employees. How is that reflected in a balance sheet? Well, take a company like Adobe or Salesforce, or even Microsoft. What would you be able to tell about each from their balance sheets? You can look at their cash level, and what else would matter?\",\n \"Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.\",\n \"I was merely trying to be helpful - Conceptually, you have dump this idea that something is skewed. It isn't. Firm A sold for $500 (equity value aka purchase price to shareholders) + debt (zero) - cash (50) for 450. Enterprise value is the cash free, debt free sale price. The implied ev multiple is 4.5x on A - that is the answer. The other business sold for a higher multiple of 5x. If you would pile on more cash onto A, the purchase price would increase, but the EV wouldn't. The idea is to think hard about the difference between equity value and enterprise value when examining a transaction.\",\n \"\\\"I heard today while listening to an accounting podcast that a balance sheet... can be used to determine if a company has enough money to pay its employees. The \\\"\\\"money\\\"\\\" that you're looking at is specifically cash on the balance sheet. The cash flows document mentioned is just a more-finance-related document that explains how we ended at cash on the balance sheet. ...even looking for a job This is critical, that i don't believe many people look at when searching for a job. Using the ratios listed below can (and many others), one can determine if the business they are applying for will be around in the next five years. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one good)? My favorite example of a high cash company is Nintendo. Rolling at 570 Billion USD IN CASH ALONE is astonishing. Using the ratios we can see how well they are doing. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one bad)? Tesla is a good example of the later on being cash poor. Walk me though how to understand such a document? *Note: This question is highly complex and will take months of reading to fully comprehend the components that make up the financial statements. I would recommend that this question be posted completely separate.\\\"\",\n \"Your best bet is to just look at comparative balance sheets or contact the company itself. Otherwise, you will need access to a service like PrivCo to get data.\",\n \"\\\"I was wondering how do we calculate the total capital of a company? Which items should I look for in the financial statements? Total capital usually refers to the sum of long-term debt and total shareholder equity; both of these items can be found on the company's balance sheet. This is one of the calculations that's traditionally used when determining a company's return on capital. I'll use the balance sheet from Gilead Sciences' (GILD) 2012 10-K form as an example. Net long-term debt was $7,054,555,000 and total stockholder equity was $9,550,869,000 which should give a grand total of $16,605,424,000 for total capital. (I know you can do the math, but I always find an example helpful if it uses realistic numbers). You may sometimes hear the term \\\"\\\"total capital\\\"\\\" referring to \\\"\\\"total capital stock\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"total capital assets,\\\"\\\" in which case it may be referring to physical capital, i.e. assets like inventory, PP&E, etc., instead of financial capital/leverage. And how do I calculate notes payable? Is the same as accounts payable? As the word \\\"\\\"payable\\\"\\\" suggests, both are liabilities. However, I've always been taught that accounts payable are debts a business owes to its suppliers, while notes payable are debts a business owes to banks and other institutions with which it has signed a formal agreement and which use formal debt instruments, e.g. a loan contract. This definition seems to match various articles I found online. On a balance sheet, you can usually determine notes payable by combining the short-term debt of the company with the current portion of the long-term debt. These pieces comprise the debt that is due within the fiscal year. In the balance sheet for Gilead Sciences, I would only include the $1,169,490,000 categorized as \\\"\\\"Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net\\\"\\\" term, since the other current liabilities don't look like they would involve formal debt contracts. Since the notes payable section of GILD's balance sheet doesn't seem that diverse and therefore might not make the best example, I'll include the most recent balance sheet Monsanto as well.1 Monsanto's balance sheet lists a term called \\\"\\\"Short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt\\\"\\\" with a value of $36 million. This looks like almost the exact definition of notes payable. 1. Note that this financial statement is called a Statement of Consolidated Financial Position on Monsanto's 10-K.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This formula is not calculating \\\"\\\"Earnings\\\"\\\". Instead, it is calculating \\\"\\\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\\\"\\\". As the original poster notes, the \\\"\\\"Earnings\\\"\\\" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization. The \\\"\\\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\\\"\\\" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You are comparing \\\"\\\"market caps\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"enterprise value\\\"\\\". If the company has four billion dollars cash in the bank, then the value would be four billion plus whatever the business itself is worth as a business. If the business itself is only worth 400 million, then you would have 4.4bn market caps and 400 million enterprise value. The \\\"\\\"enterprise value\\\"\\\" is basically how much the business would be worth if it had no cash or no debt. These numbers would be a very unusual situation. It could happen for example if a big company has sold 90% of its business for cash. When you buy a share of the company, you get a tiny share of the business and you own a tiny share of the cash. This stock will very likely keep its value, but won't make much money. On the other hand, more common would be a company where the business is worth 4bn, but the company has also 4bn debt. So it is worth exactly zero. Market caps close to zero, but enterprise value $4bn, because you ignore the debt in the enterprise value. Edit: Sorry, got the \\\"\\\"enterprise value\\\"\\\" totally wrong, read millions instead of billions: Your numbers would mean that you have a huge, huge company with close to 440bn debt. Most likely someone made a mistake here. A \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" situation would be say a company with a business that is worth $500 million, but they have $100 million debt, so market caps = $400 million but enterprise value = $500 million. PS. Yahoo has the same nonsense numbers on their UK site, and for other companies (I just checked Marks and Spencer's which apparently has an enterprise value of 800 billion pound with a totally ridiculous P/E ratio.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Umm, it depends on the transaction but a lot of transactions get done on a \\\"\\\"cash free / debt free\\\"\\\" basis. Meaning, I'll pay you 5x EBITDA (or $500) and you deliver the company without any cash or debt subject to a \\\"\\\"standard\\\"\\\" amount of working capital. Ultimately, you're confusing enterprise value and equity value. The two companies may have different purchase prices (equity values) but they should have very similar enterprise values (given the hypothetical scenario you put together).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \\\"\\\"Technical Considerations\\\"\\\" there and you will see that the \\\"\\\"access to data on cash and debts\\\"\\\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"tl;dr It's a difference between cash and cash equivalents and net cash and cash equivalents. Download the 2016 annual report from http://www.diageo.com/en-us/investor/Pages/financialreports.aspx On page 99 is the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows at the bottom is a section \\\"\\\"Net cash and cash equivalents consist of:\\\"\\\" Net cash and cash equivalents consist of: 2016-06-30 2015-06-30 Cash and cash equivalents 1,089 472 Bank overdrafts (280) (90) 809 382 The difference between net cash of 809 million and 382 million is 427 million, matching the \\\"\\\"Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents\\\"\\\" from Yahoo. I do not know that bank overdrafts mean in this situation, but appears to cause cash to show up on balance sheet without being reflected in the net cash portions of the cash flow statement. And the numbers seem like balances, not year of year changes like the rest of the statement of cash flows. 2015 net CCE 382 2016 cash flow + 427 ---- 2016 net CCE 809 Cash from overdrafts + 280 ---- 2015 balance sheet cash 1,089\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Morningstar's definition of cash includes \\\"\\\"cash equivalents (fixed-income securities with a maturity of one year or less)\\\"\\\". So I'm guessing 81% of its holdings are short-term enough to fall into this category.\\\"\",\n \"This comment makes zero sense. No one values equities from the balance sheet, unless you're trying to justify why you'd invest in sears or something (i.e. b/s vastly understates market value of real estate holdings and you're hoping for a liquidity event). Certainly not a tech company or really anything as a going concern.\",\n \"Capital surplus is used to account for that amount which a firm raises in excess of the par value (nominal value) of the shares (common stock).. Investopedia has a much simpler answer. Somebody has tried to be smart on wikipedia and have done the calculations without much explanation. The portion of the surplus of a business arising from sources other than earnings : all surplus other than earned surplus usually including amounts received from sale or exchange of capital stock in excess of par or stated value, profits on resale of treasury stock, donations to capital by stockholders or others, or increment arising from revaluation of fixed or other assets The number of shares a company wants to issue is decided and agreed with the regulators. They decide the par value and then decide how much premium will be charged, extra money above the par value. Take out any RHP of an issue and you find all these details. Par Value = 1 Issue price(Price at which investors buy) = 10 Premium = 9 For a single share the capital surplus is 9, multiply it by the number of shares issued and you have the total capital surplus.\",\n \"Yea good points and they definitely should not be overlooked. The whole point of the EV calculation is to get the analyst to look at what the true underlying business is and what one is really paying for when buying securities in a company. Market Cap can be misleading for many reasons and get real annoyed when people say things like, I own XYZ company because its cash account is greater than its market cap....\",\n \"Just so everyone knows. A core model refers to a forecast of the Balance Sheet, income statement, and Statement of Cash Flows. From this you can solve for Free Cash Flow to Equity and solve for some more price values, like Sum of Parts.\",\n \"It's hard to say for smaller cap firms because they are all so different. Take a look at SandP or other rating agencies at about the BB range. Then decide how much of a buffer you'd like. If all goes to hell, do you want to be able to cover all you salaries, debt etc for three months? Six? What kind of seasonal volatility does your industry face? Do you plan on any significant investment or FTE uplift any time soon? This will all play into how much retained earnings you will chose to have.\",\n \"\\\"It does depend, but in the effort to be efficient we usually just add back Depreciation, Amortization, and Stock Based Comp. [Although adding back SBC is hotly debated](https://www.wallstreetprep.com/blog/stock-based-compensation-treatment-dcf-almost-always-wrong/), we usually still add it back at my firm. Keep in mind I'm in M&A, so we don't really concern ourselves with creating the \\\"\\\"purest\\\"\\\" valuation... * EBIAT * Add Depreciation * Add Amort * Add SBC * Subtract Capex * Add the decrease in NWC * Subtract the increase in NWC * = FCFF\\\"\",\n \"It is difficult to reconcile historical balance sheets with historical cash flow statements because there are adjustments that are not always clearly disclosed. Practitioners consider activity on historical cash flow statements but generally don't invest time reconciling historical accounts, instead focusing on balancing projected balance sheets / cash flow statements. If you had non-public internal books, you could reconcile the figures (presuming they are accurate). In regards to Mike Haskel's comment, there's also a section pertaining to operating capital, not just effects on net income.\",\n \"The actual financial statements should always be referenced first before opening or closing a position. For US companies, they are freely available on EDGAR. Annual reports are called 10-Ks, and quarterly reports are called 10-Qs. YHOO and GOOG do a great job of posting financials that are quickly available, but money.msn has the best. These should be starting point, quick references. As you can see, they may all have the same strange accounting. Sometimes, it's difficult to find the information one seeks in the consolidated financial statements as in this case, so searching through the filing is necessary. The notes can be helpful, but Ctrl-F seems to do everything I need when I want something in a report. In AAPL's case, the Interest expense can be found in Note 3.\",\n \"Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners.\",\n \"This is something I love about only investing in tech. Every company I'd want to invest in has a great balance sheet anyway, that's just how their economics work, so I don't have to worry about this. I actually work in reverse. Like with AAPL, I'm deducting their cash from their market cap to get an even more attractive valuation*. As opposed to trying to work out all the complex debt and liabilities of a bank or something. *AAPL actually does have some debt now but it's dead simple to deduct and only a workaround to their offshore cash.\",\n \"I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.\",\n \"\\\"Market Capitalization is the value the market attributes to the company shares calculated by multiplying the current trading price of these shares by the total amount of shares outstanding. So a company with 100 shares trading at $10 has a market cap of $1000. It is technically not the same as the value of a company (in the sense of how much someone would need to pay to acquire the company), Enterprise value is what you want to determine the net value of a company which is calculated as the market capitalization + company debt (as the acquirer has to take on this debt) - company cash (as the acquirer can pocket this for itself). The exact boundary for when a company belongs to a certain \\\"\\\"cap\\\"\\\" is up for debate. For a \\\"\\\"large cap\\\"\\\" a market capitalization of $10 billion+ is usually considered the cutoff (with $100+ billion behemoths being called \\\"\\\"mega caps\\\"\\\"). Anything between $10 billion and ~$1 billion is considered \\\"\\\"mid cap\\\"\\\", from ~$1billion to ~$200 million it's called a \\\"\\\"small cap\\\"\\\" and below $200 million is \\\"\\\"nano cap\\\"\\\". Worth noting that these boundaries change quite dramatically over time as the overall average market capitalization increases as companies grow, for example in the 80s a company with a market cap of $1 billion would be considered \\\"\\\"large cap\\\"\\\". The market \\\"\\\"determines\\\"\\\" what the market cap of company should be based (usually but certainly not always!) on the historical and expected profit a company makes, for a simple example let's say that our $1000 market cap company makes $100 a year, this means that this company's earnings per share is $1. If the company grows to make $200 a year you can reasonably expect the share price to rise from $10 to ~$20 with the corresponding increase in market cap. (this is all extremely simplified of course).\\\"\",\n \"It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit. What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash.\",\n \"\\\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \\\"\\\"Net Income\\\"\\\". That's followed by a line labeled \\\"\\\"Preferred Dividends\\\"\\\", which is followed by \\\"\\\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\\\"\\\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \\\"\\\"earnings for the common stock\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I like this explanation the best. EV is trying to get at the value of the underlying business, excluding the capital structure you currently have on the company. If your lemonade stand is worth $100, but the business also comes with $50 in cash lying around (and no debt), then the EV is $100. But the price you'd pay the owner (the \\\"\\\"market cap\\\"\\\") is $150, because it's like you get an immediate cash rebate.\\\"\",\n \"O boy you can take an entire on this. Here are the basics. Project future cash flows on a series of underlying assumptions such as growth rate and risk free rate. You then have to adjust top line items such as depreciation and come up with FCF. Then discount everything back with a terminal value.\",\n \"Talk to almost any large cap CFO or read any corporate finance textbook. McKinsey's Valuation is a great one to own: though yes McKinsey consultants can take a good idea and turn it bad by overdoing it to an extreme. Why would universal corporate finance principles not apply to large cap tech? Why is having $XXb of unutilized cash for a company with durable cash flow a good thing for equity investors?\",\n \"It is. The outstanding value is the net cash flow, but it will always be higher than cash outflow due to a constant growth rate/expected return. I was slightly confused when my manager told me to find the IRR before and after cash inflows (the whole life of the investment). Especially as IRR after cash inflows is higher than the former.\",\n \"This is fine, but I'd probably spend a moment introducing WACC and it's estimation. It's also useful to link up the enterprise value to share price, so just also mentioning the debt subtraction to get equity value and division by shares for price. Keep in mind you're usually given like a minute to answer this, so you can afford to be a bit more detailed in some parts.\",\n \"How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.\",\n \"Theoretically there is always a time value of money. You'll need to keep your cash in a Money Market Fund to realize its potential (I'm not saying MMFs are the best investment strategy, they are the best kind of account for liquid cash). Choose an accounts that's flexible with regard to its minimum required so you can always keep this extra money in it and remove it when you need to make a payment.\",\n \"You can add $262,500 worth of notes payable (assuming that you use the cash to buy inventory immediately). Any more and you would push the current ratio below 2. In case this ratio is the trouble, the formula for current ratio is current assets over current liabilities. Notes payable is a current liability and inventory is a current asset so you add the number to both of them. I used Excel to do this. With this addition the quick ratio is 1.19. The formula for this is (current assets - inventory)/Current liabilities. So you take ($1,312,500 + $262,500 - $262,500 - $375,000)/($525,000 + $262,500) = 1.19\",\n \"Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation.\",\n \"\\\"I don't know how much finance you know, but a fundamental idea is that something's value is the present value of all its future cash flows. Basically what those cash flows are worth today. So if we can predict the cash flows the equity holders will get in the future (not easy), and determine at what rate to discount the cash flows (not easy), we can value the equity. So a company will have cash flows coming in. But not all go to the equity holders. Some will go to debt holders, if any (interest payments). Some will go to preferred equity holders (dividends), if any. What's left over is what the equity holders will get. If there's no debt, preferred equity or other things like that, then the equity holders get all the cash flows. This doesn't mean the equity holders literally receive the cash - they'll get whatever is given out via dividends. But, they \\\"\\\"own\\\"\\\" the cash and it may be reinvested in the business to generate more cash in the future.\\\"\",\n \"Thanks for this, great in depth answer. I had previously calculated a WACC and have used it for my discount rate. As part of your last point on revenue vs. cash, I've set a accounts receivable period of 30 days, and then applied a factor of 30/365 * revenue to understand what portion of my revenue is not cash in hand. Does that make sense?\",\n \"Simply put, expansionary capex is seen as an investment and maintenance capex is seen as a cost. In terms of valuation, free cash flow will not include expansionary capex because you are valuing the company as its current business. It's important to note that this approach will usually undervalue companies with strong investment opportunities. Also, like /u/scarletham said, please edit out the identifying information to avoid any disclosure problems.\",\n \"I'm a big believer in pulling the quarterly and or annual statements and deriving your own analysis. The automated parsing systems at Google, Yahoo, and others are a good starting point and they'll let you generally compare various metrics of different companies or market segments. With that in mind, there are any number of reasons Google's scripts could have broken out or combined a couple of cash flow line items. If you're digging this deep in the weeds on this company you should pull the SEC filings and build out your own data.\",\n \"Are you trying to figure out if a project would increase the market value of equity? I think your issue is that the Market value of Equity will not be updated with the NPV of 40M (Assuming it is truly +, not sure if it's true with 50M of debt). EV = Market Value of Equity + Debt - Cash and CE Ev - Debt + Cash and CE = Market equity value. So I think you would have to update the market value of Equity up with 40M. This would then lead to EV = Equity Value + future income stream discounted + debt - Cash and Cash Equivalents.\",\n \"You could create your own spreadsheet of Cash Flows and use the XIRR function in Excel: The formula is:\",\n \"Hi all Started my MBA studies recently. We have a simulation project and I've taken the VP Finance Role as I didn't have much experience in this and wanted to learn more. Unfortunately I don't have accounting until next semester, so I'm trying to make up the cap with my career experience so far as an engineer + youtube tutorials. I built a discounted cashflow model. I'm trying to now determine the amount of loan to take in my first year of business. Basically the equity financing doesn't cover our first year capital expenditure, let alone any other costs. My question is how do I determine what an appropriate loan amount is to take. My first thoughts are enough to cover my capital expenses + 1st half of the year operating expenses before I start seeing a revenue. Right now my balance sheet would lead me to believe I have a 0.52 Debt Ratio and 1.23 Debt-to-Equity ratio. Is that ok?\",\n \"Reports -> I&E -> Cash Flow Select the Mutual Fund account only.\",\n \"Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world\",\n \"The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.\",\n \"I'm not a finance guy by trade, I'm an accountant, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'm going to say no. EBITDA is your accounting profit before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. So it's already free of many non-cash items, and is closer to a cash-basis measure of profit, but still includes many non-cash revenues. As far as I know, the discounting is to take the time value of money into account so you can make a decision on whether the present value of the expected future cash flows are greater than the present value of the cash outflow being asked today. If it is, then you buy. If not, then you don't.\",\n \"Too calculate these values, information contained in the company's financial statements (income, balance, or cashflow) will be needed along with the price. Google finance does not maintain this information for BME. You will need to find another source for this information or analyze another another symbol's financial section (BAC for example).\",\n \"\\\"fair enough, but I wasn't sure if you actually get it or not because your question seemed to revolved around cash and transaction value. You are really just said \\\"\\\"skewing\\\"\\\" is if you didn't add net debt the multiple wouldn't be a valid muliptle. If you understand it, why start out with this mental exercise of saying \\\"\\\"we shouldn't calculate multiples wrong, because then they would be wrong\\\"\\\"?\\\"\",\n \"If I understand you right, what you need is the minimum amount in the account until your next deposit. So for example, if today is the 10th and you get paid on the 15th, how much do I need to have in the account, so I know how much I can spend? That amount should be all of the bills that will be paid between today and the 15th. An alternative would just to keep a running balance and see what the minimum value is. My personal finance software does that for me, but it's possible, although a little more complicated, in Excel. You'd have to find the date of the next deposit, and do a SUMIF looking for dates between today and that date. That's about as far as I can get without getting off-topic.\",\n \"\\\"Free Cash Flow (FCF) is not a metric/data point which represents any ACTUAL cash flow of a company. FCF is a data point which communicates how much cash a company has after Operating cash requirements and cash expenditures \\\"\\\"required\\\"\\\" to grow and maintain the existing business. FCF can be used to pay dividends, buy back stock, purchase companies, et cetera. None of which are REQUIRED to run the business.\\\"\",\n \"Not quite the usual DCF or valuation question, but more FP&A: any ideas how to bridge cash forecast to financial forecast? To clarify, financial forecast is mostly done on an accrual basis whereas cash is outflows and inflows. Trying to figure out how to have better visibility into cash discrepancies\",\n \"With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:\",\n \"\\\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \\\"\\\"recent equity issuance or M&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\\\"\\\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\\\"\",\n \"Shareholder's Equity consists of two main things: The initial capitalization of the company (when the shares were first sold, plus extra share issues) and retained earnings, which is the amount of money the company has made over and above capitalization, which has not been re-distributed back to shareholders. So yes, it is the firm's total equity financing-- the initial capitalization is the equity that was put into the company when it was founded plus subsequent increases in equity due to share issues, and retained earnings is the increase in equity that has occurred since then which has not yet been re-distributed to shareholders (though it belongs to them, as the residual claimants). Both accounts are credited when they increase, because they represent an increase in cash, that is debited, so in order to make credits = debits they must be credits. (It doesn't mean that the company has that much cash on hand, as the cash will likely be re-invested). Shareholder's Equity is neither an asset nor a liability: it is used to purchase assets and to reduce liabilities, and is simply a measure of assets minus liabilities that is necessary to make the accounting equation balance: Since the book value of stocks doesn't change that often (because it represents the price the company sold it for, not the current value on the stock market, and would therefore only change when there were new share issues), almost all changes in total assets or in total liabilities are reflected in Retained Earnings.\",\n \"You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.\",\n \"In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.\",\n \"I understand it could be cash converts. I was an accounting major. I'm just pointing out some possible reasons for why they might borrow instead of using cash on hand. They might not have enough cash on hand because of the fact that they might be holding cash equivalents.\",\n \"\\\"QUICK ANSWER What @Mike Haskel wrote is generally correct that the indirect method for cash flow statement reporting, which most US companies use, can sometimes produce different results that don't clearly reconcile with balance sheet shifts. With regards to accounts receivables, this is especially so when there is a major increase or decrease in the company's allowances for doubtful accounts. In this case, there is more to the company's balance sheet and cash flow statements differences per its accounts receivables than its allowances for doubtful accounts seems responsible for. As explained below, the difference, $1.25bn, is likely owing more to currency shifts and how they are accounted for than to other factors. = = = = = = = = = = DIRTY DETAILS Microsoft Corp. generally sells to high-quality / high-credit buyers; mostly PC, server and other devices manufacturers and licensees. It hence made doubtful accounts provisions of $16mn for its $86,833mn (0.018%) of 2014 sales and wrote off $51mn of its carrying balance during the year. Its accounting for \\\"\\\"Other comprehensive income\\\"\\\" captures the primary differences of many accounts; specifically in this case, the \\\"\\\"foreign currency translation\\\"\\\" figure that comprises many balance sheet accounts and net out against shareholders' equity (i.e. those assets and liabilities bypass the income statement). The footnotes include this explanation: Assets and liabilities recorded in foreign currencies are translated at the exchange rate on the balance sheet date. Revenue and expenses are translated at average rates of exchange prevailing during the year. Translation adjustments resulting from this process are recorded to other comprehensive income (“OCI”) What all this means is that those two balance sheet figures are computed by translating all the accounts with foreign currency balances (in this case, accounts receivables) into the reporting currency, US dollars (USD), at the date of the balance sheets, June 30 of the years 2013 and 2014. The change in accounts receivables cash flow figure is computed by first determining the average exchange rates for all the currencies it uses to conduct business and applying them respectively to the changes in each non-USD accounts receivables during the periods. For this reason, almost all multinational companies that report using indirect cash flow statements will have discrepancies between the changes in their reported working capital changes during a period and the dates of their balance sheet and it's usually because of currency shifts during the period.\\\"\",\n \"Assuming there are no other liabilities... The enterprise value is $5mm. $1mm loan + $4mm equity. The proforma enterprise value will be the same, but the equity will now represent all of it at $5mm. Your 4% will now be 3.2%, but equal the same value; $160,000.\",\n \"\\\"Total Capital This is a very old fashioned term that really is mostly only used in the finance industry today, like when everyone was obsessed with \\\"\\\"bank capital\\\"\\\". Total Capital = Preferred Equity + Common Equity + Liabilities True blue preferred shares are almost only used by financial companies, banks specifically. The more modern ones that convert to common are used by all other companies. Notes Payable This is another old fashioned term that now carries a different meaning in Generally Accepted Account Principles (GAAP). The oldest definition of a note or a promissory note is a promise to pay a fixed amount of money on a specific date. This has been modified to resemble more a bond and evolved into the zero coupon bond, a bond that makes no cash interest payments but makes one final payment that includes principal & interest. A bank note, like a One Dollar bill, is a note that pays something, in this case One Dollar, never (technically, the repayment date is simply not specified in the contract). While it pays One Dollar, it never pays it back, so it has a constant value of One Dollar. The constant nature, inflation notwithstanding, is what makes bank notes the preferred medium of exchange. GAAP has taken its' own definition to mean any debt payable within 12 months, as it is a current (<12 months) liability.\\\"\",\n \"Opening capital = opening assests-opening liabilities\",\n \"I'll have to think it through, but at the very least unless your debt is a pure discount instrument and you are using cash flows, some if that money IS getting paid during those 5 years. As in if you are using earnings, they pay p&i. Or if earnings and pure discount instruments, then amortized interest (I think, been a while). You see the actual numbers and know what you are trying to do, but I'm a little lost. Are you building a discount model with a multiple terminal and using ev as the multiple? Are you using free cash flow to firm for the discounting? I'm guessing that's the case.\",\n \"\\\"First, don't use Yahoo's mangling of the XBRL data to do financial analysis. Get it from the horse's mouth: http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Search for Facebook, select the latest 10-Q, and look at the income statement on pg. 6 (helpfully linked in the table of contents). This is what humans do. When you do this, you see that Yahoo omitted FB's (admittedly trivial) interest expense. I've seen much worse errors. If you're trying to scrape Yahoo... well do what you must. You'll do better getting the XBRL data straight from EDGAR and mangling it yourself, but there's a learning curve, and if you're trying to compare lots of companies there's a problem of mapping everybody to a common chart of accounts. Second, assuming you're not using FCF as a valuation metric (which has got some problems)... you don't want to exclude interest expense from the calculation of free cash flow. This becomes significant for heavily indebted firms. You might as well just start from net income and adjust from there... which, as it happens, is exactly the approach taken by the normal \\\"\\\"indirect\\\"\\\" form of the statement of cash flows. That's what this statement is for. Essentially you want to take cash flow from operations and subtract capital expenditures (from the cash flow from investments section). It's not an encouraging sign that Yahoo's lines on the cash flow statement don't sum to the totals. As far as definitions go... working capital is not assets - liabilities, it is current assets - current liabilities. Furthermore, you want to calculate changes in working capital, i.e. the difference in net current assets from the previous quarter. What you're doing here is subtracting the company's accumulated equity capital from a single quarter's operating results, which is why you're getting an insane result that in no way resembles what appears in the statement of cash flows. Also you seem to be using the numbers for the wrong quarter - 2014q4 instead of 2015q3. I can't figure out where you're getting your depreciation number from, but the statement of cash flows shows they booked $486M in depreciation for 2015q3; your number is high. FB doesn't have negative FCF.\\\"\",\n \"Corporate debt isn't an iou. Large corporations sell bonds and make annual or semiannual payments in those bonds. Cash is often held in a country with favorable tax condition, like Ireland.. Depending on the industry, this cash is invested in money market funds, fixed income securities, and maybe stocks or other funds. Because of the low interest rates that have prevailed since the recession, it's most economical to invest most cash and borrow for larger investments. However, the cash that ends up overseas is net of expenses. Internet is paid from operating income. I'm by no means an expert though, so take this with a grain of salt.\",\n \"Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's. Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple?\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["You're not missing anything. Excess cash is somewhat of a nebulous concept. To different people it means different things. The answer is that excess cash varies for each company depending on their business. For instance, some companies need very high amounts of working capital. A company may be increasing their inventories and therefore will require more cash on their balance sheet to fund growth. If a company always needs this extra cash, some investors prefer to leave that cash out of a valuation because the company cannot run profitably without it. Think about what happens to your calculation of Enterprise Value if you subtract excess cash as opposed to cash. Excess cash is always less than cash. Therefore by subtracting excess cash you increase EV. Since one common valuation metric is EV/EBITDA, a higher numerator will make the stock seem more expensive - that is the EV/EBITDA ratio will seem higher when using excess cash as opposed to cash. So using excess cash in your valuation methodology is basically a conservative concept. Depending on the business 20% of revenues seem way too high as a reserve for excess cash. 2% is a much better rule of thumb.","20% is almost certainly too high. I agree with 2%, as a very rough rule. It will vary significantly depending on the industry. I generally calculate an average of the previous 2-3 years working capital, and deduct that from cash. Working capital is Current Assets less Current Liabilities. Current Assets is comprised of cash, prepaid expenses, and significantly, accounts receivable. This means that CA is likely to be much higher than just cash, which leaves more excess cash after liabilities are deducted. Which reduces EV, which makes the EV/EBITDA ratio look even more pricey, as Dimitri noted. But a balance sheet is just a snapshot of the final day of the quarter. As such, and because of seasonal effects, it's critical to smooth this by averaging several periods. After calculating this for a few companies, compare to revenue. Is it close to 2%?","\"Excess Cash = Cash & Equivalents + Long-Term Investments - Current Liabilities The problem this calculation of excess cash is that \"\"long-term investments\"\" can be illiquid things like real estate. Another flaw is that it gives no credit for Current Assets, like receivables, which can be used to offset Current Liabilities. The first thing I'd do is \"\"net out\"\" Current Assets and Current Liabilities, then add Cash back in. Excess Cash = Current Assets - Current Liabilities + Cash & Equivalents. It would be nice if GAAP would require Long-Term Investments to be broken out as a) liquid long-term investments (stocks, bonds) b) illiquid long-term investments (real estate, private equity, etc)\""],"string":"[\n \"You're not missing anything. Excess cash is somewhat of a nebulous concept. To different people it means different things. The answer is that excess cash varies for each company depending on their business. For instance, some companies need very high amounts of working capital. A company may be increasing their inventories and therefore will require more cash on their balance sheet to fund growth. If a company always needs this extra cash, some investors prefer to leave that cash out of a valuation because the company cannot run profitably without it. Think about what happens to your calculation of Enterprise Value if you subtract excess cash as opposed to cash. Excess cash is always less than cash. Therefore by subtracting excess cash you increase EV. Since one common valuation metric is EV/EBITDA, a higher numerator will make the stock seem more expensive - that is the EV/EBITDA ratio will seem higher when using excess cash as opposed to cash. So using excess cash in your valuation methodology is basically a conservative concept. Depending on the business 20% of revenues seem way too high as a reserve for excess cash. 2% is a much better rule of thumb.\",\n \"20% is almost certainly too high. I agree with 2%, as a very rough rule. It will vary significantly depending on the industry. I generally calculate an average of the previous 2-3 years working capital, and deduct that from cash. Working capital is Current Assets less Current Liabilities. Current Assets is comprised of cash, prepaid expenses, and significantly, accounts receivable. This means that CA is likely to be much higher than just cash, which leaves more excess cash after liabilities are deducted. Which reduces EV, which makes the EV/EBITDA ratio look even more pricey, as Dimitri noted. But a balance sheet is just a snapshot of the final day of the quarter. As such, and because of seasonal effects, it's critical to smooth this by averaging several periods. After calculating this for a few companies, compare to revenue. Is it close to 2%?\",\n \"\\\"Excess Cash = Cash & Equivalents + Long-Term Investments - Current Liabilities The problem this calculation of excess cash is that \\\"\\\"long-term investments\\\"\\\" can be illiquid things like real estate. Another flaw is that it gives no credit for Current Assets, like receivables, which can be used to offset Current Liabilities. The first thing I'd do is \\\"\\\"net out\\\"\\\" Current Assets and Current Liabilities, then add Cash back in. Excess Cash = Current Assets - Current Liabilities + Cash & Equivalents. It would be nice if GAAP would require Long-Term Investments to be broken out as a) liquid long-term investments (stocks, bonds) b) illiquid long-term investments (real estate, private equity, etc)\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":283,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3995"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"I have more than $250,000 in a US Bank account… mistake?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["427032","278734","297900","506909","230208"],"string":"[\n \"427032\",\n \"278734\",\n \"297900\",\n \"506909\",\n \"230208\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["427032","404954","479918","62019","463608","304411","14349","270866","297900","230208","312358","186332","190539","527597","278734","480827","320969","537394","171720","21420","556519","535566","506909","550339","508895","394276","460008","411143","599563","214755","493158","345091","238833","76515","399590","241035","203201","410450","171345","489278","549773","98344","430216","351109","254937","423883","558628","301745","320652","485507","534670","12781","282663","53244","136212","486675","325218","422477","400631","494666","583803","499354","267627","401807","490831","488366","345741","323154","310112","589103","336965","314850","472094","505611","294614","29399","293179","507000","395246","352883","82482","433817","498719","575794","535931","577134","323228","570960","249558","165378","248243","385344","355792","477630","560622","373697","238786","496857","505461","457989"],"string":"[\n \"427032\",\n \"404954\",\n \"479918\",\n \"62019\",\n \"463608\",\n \"304411\",\n \"14349\",\n \"270866\",\n \"297900\",\n \"230208\",\n \"312358\",\n \"186332\",\n \"190539\",\n \"527597\",\n \"278734\",\n \"480827\",\n \"320969\",\n \"537394\",\n \"171720\",\n \"21420\",\n \"556519\",\n \"535566\",\n \"506909\",\n \"550339\",\n \"508895\",\n \"394276\",\n \"460008\",\n \"411143\",\n \"599563\",\n \"214755\",\n \"493158\",\n \"345091\",\n \"238833\",\n \"76515\",\n \"399590\",\n \"241035\",\n \"203201\",\n \"410450\",\n \"171345\",\n \"489278\",\n \"549773\",\n \"98344\",\n \"430216\",\n \"351109\",\n \"254937\",\n \"423883\",\n \"558628\",\n \"301745\",\n \"320652\",\n \"485507\",\n \"534670\",\n \"12781\",\n \"282663\",\n \"53244\",\n \"136212\",\n \"486675\",\n \"325218\",\n \"422477\",\n \"400631\",\n \"494666\",\n \"583803\",\n \"499354\",\n \"267627\",\n \"401807\",\n \"490831\",\n \"488366\",\n \"345741\",\n \"323154\",\n \"310112\",\n \"589103\",\n \"336965\",\n \"314850\",\n \"472094\",\n \"505611\",\n \"294614\",\n \"29399\",\n \"293179\",\n \"507000\",\n \"395246\",\n \"352883\",\n \"82482\",\n \"433817\",\n \"498719\",\n \"575794\",\n \"535931\",\n \"577134\",\n \"323228\",\n \"570960\",\n \"249558\",\n \"165378\",\n \"248243\",\n \"385344\",\n \"355792\",\n \"477630\",\n \"560622\",\n \"373697\",\n \"238786\",\n \"496857\",\n \"505461\",\n \"457989\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.","Most people who have over $250,000 in liquid cash savings would not want to start putting their money into regular savings accounts in different banks, especially with interest rates as ridiculously low as they are now in 2014-15. People with money will want to diversify their investments in ways that will potentially earn them more money, and they can also afford to seek the advice of financial planners who can help them do this wisely. Even if you decide to put $250,000 into various accounts at different banks, I wouldn't necessarily trust that the FDIC will be able to help you recover your money in the event that your banks go under. The amount of money available to the FDIC to cover such losses pales in comparison to the actual amount of money that Americans have in their bank accounts.","\"For personal accounts, I can't imagine that this is too much of a problem. The only concern that I can think of (for American banks) is that FDIC only insures you up to $100,000 if the bank were to go belly-up. If you're getting over that amount of money, you may want to \"\"diversify\"\" a little more.\"","A better answer is to put the money in a Dodd-Frank qualified non interest bearing checking account. FDIC covers the entire balance, there is no upper limit on the insurance. This will only be good till the end of 2012 but for short term landing spot this works well. Forget the interest you will earn and go for the safety of the principal.","\"You can store millions of dollars in deposit accounts, you just lose the explicit FDIC guarantee. So you look for rock-solid banks. Bankrate.com has \"\"Safe and Sound Ratings\"\" that show the relative strength of various banks. You put your excess deposits in those banks, and you are pretty safe. Note that in addition to the explicit FDIC guarantee, there is now an implicit guarantee that certain institutions have been deemed too \"\"big to fail\"\", and will be backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, without regard to the capitalization of the bank. Bank of America, for example, is not well capitalized and is carrying billions of dollars of \"\"assets\"\" that have little or no value. Yet government policy keeps the bank afloat and your deposits secure. Another strategy is to use municipal money market accounts, which provide secure (but not guaranteed) deposit-like accounts as well as a tax benefit. If you have > $1M in liquid assets, you probably need a financial professional and attorney advising you to make sure that you are aware of and are controlling for risk in a way consistent with your longer-term goals.\"","Even assuming hypothetically that you are able to split money in different bank accounts to get full coverage and all your accounts are in top ranking financial institutions in USA, you can not rely on FDIC if all or most of those banks go broke. Because FDIC just has a meagre 25 billion dollars to cover all bank accounts in the USA. And you know the amount of bank deposits in USA run in at least a trillion of dollars. US Deposits & FDIC Insurance figures","If you want to store that much money, find a good hiding place. (E-mail me the location. I'll keep it a secret. I promise!) But I think instead you want to invest that much money, in a cash-like liquid form. You can do $250,000 in a bank (beyond 2012) and then spread the rest over some big-name brokerages with money market accounts. But, as JohnFx pointed out, with that much cash you can do amazing things with it. Think bigger.","http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:","If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts. With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct.","Build a trust. I have a trust account under my name and 3 dependents, FDIC confirmed we're good to 1m. Then I have personal accounts for the 4 of us and a corp account, all at the same bank, each also insured.","\"But it's also true that the FDIC (or equivalent) insurance account doesn't have enough to cover all deposits. The FDIC may come in handy if your local FDIC member bank goes belly up and a few hundred depositors need to be made whole. However, in a national crisis, where the government is \"\"legally\"\" stealing funds, that FDIC insurance is a joke. I do agree though, if you have more than the insured amount in a single account, split it up.\"","Exactly. And I'm diversified in other ways. I have a money collection that includes lots of silver and some gold, a rental property. In terms of actual cash accounts it's closer to 750K. Protip: I always keep actual cash dollars in a safe in the house as well. I learned that trick from my neighbor who said she needed it twice in her life. Even a safe deposit box isn't good enough as the government can get in there, too. She and her husband owned a gas station and unbeknownst to them the Sunoco gas trucks were leaking when filling their tanks so they had a big ecological problem. The government took every bit of liquid assets they had... that they could find. Then when he died a few years ago something similar thing happened and she needed to dip into it.","The FDIC guarantee is up to $250,000 per depositor per insured bank. If your goal is primarily to protect your money, you may want to consider depositing your money in multiple insured banks. I'll leave it to someone else to accurately define money market accounts and how they function, and the (very low) risks you take with them. Don't forget that inflation will eat into your money. It's unlikely you'll make enough interest either in a savings account or in a money market account to cover the inflation. You should factor this in to your overall investment plan.","You don't mention how much money you are talking about but one option is to use reward checking accounts that are FDIC/NCUA insured. They pay 3-4% interest but generally have a few requirements such as 10-12 debit card transactions and sometimes require direct deposit as well as a limit of 10-50k deposits earning the top rate.","Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)","So basically, if you have a large savings account and are not investing... (because banks are actually a very poor way to get returns on capital), they will invest it for you... The take home I'm getting is... invest your money, and leave it out of the banks.","It depends on your situation. For families with small amounts over the FDIC limit, there's account structures that let you get multiple coverages. Things like holding 100k in an account in joint with your wife, each of you holding 100k in individual accounts etc. For larger sums and institutions, there's CDARS. This system spreads your money out to multiple institutions with an eye to FDIC insurance limits. Some people feel this system is abusing FDIC, so I suppose it's possible it gets outlawed / shut down some day. Alternatively, you can just invest it yourself. Treasury Direct allows small buyers to buy US govt bonds at finished auction rates, or submit a qualified bid at auction. You won't get great rates, but Treasuries are about as good as dollars.","If you are concerned about FDIC coverage, then yes, you can spread your money across multiple banks. The limit is $250k, so after you invest in property, 4 banks should do it. That having been said, in my opinion, it would be a waste to keep all this money in a bank's savings account. You will slowly lose value over time due to inflation. I suggest you spend a little money on an independent fee-based investment advisor. Choose someone who will teach you about investing in mutual funds, so you can feel comfortable with it. He or she should take into account your tolerance for risk, look at your goals, and help you come up with a low cost plan for investing your money. It's certainly okay to keep the money in a bank short-term, but don't wait too long; take steps toward putting that money to work for you.","There's no limit, from the legal perspective (with regards to the US law, that is), to how much you can keep on your bank accounts anywhere in the world. FBAR requirements are reporting requirements, they don't limit how much you can keep in the accounts, they only make you report the accounts to the government. There's no such requirement with regards to the US domestic accounts. That is for the US government, your own government (of the country of which you're a citizen of) may have limitations on what accounts you may have outside of that country, or have reporting requirements of their own. That said, keep in mind that FDIC only insures up to $250K per person (i.e.: on all your accounts) in each institution. So if you have more than $250K in a FDIC insured account - you better spread it across different banks.","There is no accounting reason that it should be different, there are likely psychological reasons that it should be, however. Assuming that you live in a western country with good banking regulation, you likely have deposit insurance or a similar scheme. Here in Canada we are covered up to $100,000 in a single account with various limitations. At least my rainy-day account plus savings is nowhere near that, so I'm good to go. That said, however, having a large lump of money in an account you regularly use may tempt you more than you can stand. That iPad, car, home improvement, etc., might be too easy to buy knowing you have relatively easy access to that money. So it really becomes a self-discipline question. Good Luck","Searching for Banks or Credit Unions based on their high interest accounts is likely to be a giant waste of your time. The highest you might find is 1.5% not clearing inflation. For anything less than 100k youre better off putting it in a money market fund until you know what you want to do with it, which you can find anywhere.","For small amounts I wouldn't be too concerned. There are two factors I can think of: For relatively small amounts and when dealing with reputable banking institutions there should be little concern of banking with a single bank. It's what most people do.","Many brokerage accounts for trading stocks are covered under SIPC insurance, which is up to $500,000 You can also have multiple checking and savings accounts with the $250,000 balance split up. You can also check your bank's capital ratio on the FDIC website, somewhere. The FDIC won't move on them unless it falls under 3% and even then FDIC will force them into receivership and sell them to a bigger bank before they go bust and experience losses of customer deposits. This is what mostly happened when hundreds of banks failed during the crisis from 2008-2010. There were very isolated events where customers actually lost their cash balances, and that was mostly because those customers had completely uninsured accounts. As that was the most extreme moment in US and global financial history, you should be able to judge risk with the aforementioned information in mind. You can stay in a cash balance easily and be fully insured.","\"Yes you should worry and take care not to violate the law or provide any appearance of impropriety. Every bank in the USA is required under the Bank Secrecy Act to report cash transactions over $10,000 the same day to the IRS -- and here's the fun secret part -- without notification to the depositor. But splitting the deposits up into smaller amounts is also a crime, called \"\"structuring\"\". On occasion there is a news story where a retail business that naturally must deposit cash from customers will be (falsely?) accused of structuring, e.g.: Feds seize grocery store's entire bank account -- Institute for Justice defends grocer Under the legal doctrine of civil asset forfeiture, your money can be accused of a crime, seized, and tried separately from its owner. The actual cases indicate the money as defendant, i.e. \"\"US v $124,700\"\" In this somewhat bizarre system of \"\"justice\"\", the owner need not be charged with a crime, and is not in immediate peril of going to prison (about the only upside in this, but might be temporary because the authorities haven't charged the owner yet). When only the money is charged with a crime, there is no requirement for the government to supply a public defender for the owners who can not afford a lawyer.... can not afford a lawyer, because the government took all their money....\"","U.S. citizens are allowed to own foreign bank and investment accounts. However, there are various financial and tax reporting requirements for owners of such accounts. Even when there is no foreign income involved. For example famous FBAR (Fincen Report Form 114), Form 8938, and even more forms if your assets/activities abroad become more complicated. Penalties, even for unintentional non-compliance can be Draconian. So just keep in mind, that once you start having foreign accounts, you will start having additional obligations and might spend more money and time on tax preparation. If you are ok with that, then its cool. But... assuming your gloomy predictions on Trump presidency come true. They might be accompanied by more strict capital control, reporting requirements, and may become even greater pain in the neck for people with foreign assets. Regarding recommendations, I am not sure about banks, but there are some foreign precious metal investing companies that are completely online based such as https://www.bullionvault.com/ and https://www.goldmoney.com/. These might also guard you from potential problems with US dollar.","I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account. This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage. The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything. From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution.","They might not have to open accounts at 12 bank because the coverage does allow multiple accounts at one institution if the accounts are joint accounts. It also treats retirement accounts a separate account. The bigger issue is that most millionaires don't have all their money siting in the bank. They invest in stocks, bonds, government bonds, international funds, and their own companies. Most of these carry risk, but they are diversified. They also can afford advisers to help them manage and protect their assets.","In October 2011 in the United States, you just don't have any options. Save your money in a savings account and that is the best you can do. Your desire to buy a house means you are a saver not an investor, and you risk tolerance on this pile of money is 0. Save it in a bank account; I highly doubt chasing an interest rate will pay off with any significance. (being highly dependent on your opinion of significant)","The FDIC has been pretty good at recovery lost money from failed banks. The problem is the temporary loss from immediate needs. The best thing for anyone to do is diversify in investments and banks with adequate covered insurance for all accounts. Immediate access to available cash is always a priority that should be governed by the money manager in this case yourself.","Anything over a $10,000 deposit is reported to the IRS. I'm not sure if you need to fill out a form or if the bank does it automatically. As long as it's legit I don't see that there would be any issues. The worst that would happen is somebody would have to talk to the IRS and explain that it was their money and not a gift of some sort. Edit it is reported to the FinCEN not the IRS https://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/OLM_017.htm","This: I was told by my broker that the amount of money I invest would be spread across multiple banks (which are FDIC insured) so that at each bank the amount would not exceed $250K. Has nothing to do with this: Is this how CDs offered by brokerage houses (that are not themselves FDIC insured) offer protection? If you want a CD, get the CD from a bank itself.","You should ensure that your broker is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). SIPC protects the cash and securities in your brokerage account much like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects bank deposits. Securities are protected with a limit of $500,000 USD. Cash is protected with a limit of $250,000 USD. It should be noted that SIPC does not protect investors against loss of value or bad advice. As far as having multiple brokerage accounts for security, I personally don’t think it’s necessary to have multiple accounts for that reason. Depending on account or transaction fees, it might not hurt to have multiple accounts. It can actually be beneficial to have multiple accounts so long as each account serves a purpose in your overall financial plan. For example, I have three brokerage accounts, each of which serves a specific purpose. One provides low cost stock and bond transactions, another provides superior market data, and the third provides low cost mutual fund transactions. If you’re worried about asset security, there are a few things you can do to protect yourself. I would recommend you begin by consulting a qualified financial advisor about your risk profile. You stated that a considerable portion of your total assets are in securities. Depending on your risk profile and the amount of your net worth held in securities, you might be better served by moving your money into lower risk asset classes. I’m not an attorney or a financial advisor. This is not legal advice or financial advice. You can and should consult your own attorney and financial advisor.","I would suggest a high interest checking account if you qualify, or if you don't, an Investor's Deposit Account (IDA).","Don't worry. The Cyprus situation could only occur because those banks were paying interest rates well above EU market rates, and the government did not tax them at all. Even the one-time 6.75% tax discussed is comparable to e.g. Germany and the Netherlands, if you average over the last 5 years. The simple solution is to just spread your money over multiple banks, with assets at each bank staying below EUR 100.000. There are more than 100 banks large enough that they'll come under ECB supervision this year; you'd be able to squirrel away over 10 million there. (Each branch of the Dutch Rabobank is insured individually, so you could even save 14 million there alone, and they're collectively AAA-rated.) Additionally, those savings will then be backed by more than 10 governments, many of which are still AAA-rated. Once you have to worry about those limits, you should really talk to an independent advisor. Investing in AAA government bonds is also pretty safe. The examples given by littleadv all involve known risky bonds. E.g. Argentina was on a credit watch, and paying 16% interest rates.","IMO, QE2 will likely have no perceptible impact in the near term. Keeping all of your savings in a bank guarantees that you will lose money to inflation & taxes. I'd suggest consulting a financial advisor -- preferably someone who understands issues facing someone with assets in the US and Canada. In terms of what portion of your savings should be in USD vs. CAD, that's going to depend on your situation. I'd probably want more assets in the place that I'm living in for the next several years.","They've already taken your money, and your purchasing power. The Fed's balance sheets is filled with $4 trillion worth of toxic mortgage derivatives and US treasuries that were purchased at all time highs. Move your money to a credit union.","I spent some time comparing banks' interest rates until I realized that it didn't actually matter (to me). The only money I keep in checking and savings accounts is money that I'm going to spend shortly or is part of an emergency fund, and in both those cases convenience of liquidity is far more important than small differences in interest (I want to be able to go to a nearby branch, even if traveling, and pull out large sums of money). The majority of our money goes into investment accounts, where it's earning much more than even the best savings account. Most of your 100k would be much better served in a stock/bonds mix. Are standard taxable investment accounts one of those things you can't open? What about if you opened one in your home country?","With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:","You would need to look at all aspects: - Current Rate of Interest in US compare to China - Current Exchange rate and the rate in Future when you want the money back - Any tax / Regulatory implications of keeping the money in US - Any furture regulations that may hamper your access to these funds If you are planning to stay in China and at some point in time want to get the money back, In my opinion it would make more sense to do it today like you are doing, rather than take the risk of exchange rate and regulations. Further the current low risk returns in US are near zero. The inflation in US is of no concern to you. On the other hand you have a decent return in China. If you know that at some point in future you would need USD [either moving to US, or large purchase in USD], then it would make sense to keep the funds in USD.","The deposit insurance isn't provided by the bank; it's provided by the Singapore Deposit Insurance Corporation (SDIC). In the event that the bank fails or is declared insolvent, the SDIC will pay deposit holders their total balance in all accounts with that bank, up to S$50,000. If you hold S$60,000 in all of your insured accounts, you'll only receive S$50,000 if the bank fails. The SDIC provides an example page with sample calculations, and this is exactly what they show. If you deposit an amount greater than $S50,000, it's only insured up to S$50,000. So does it mean one should open multiple accounts under different banks to spread the money around and maintain only S$50,000 in one deposit account? This is one option. The calculations page I linked to above gives this reminder: Deposits are not insured separately in each branch office of a DI Scheme member i.e. all your eligible accounts maintained with different branches of a DI Scheme member are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. This seems like common sense, but it's important to remember that if you open an account with two branch offices of Bank A, your deposits are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. The SDIC insurance is per institution (called a Deposit Insurance Member), not per branch. If you hold S$45,000 in each branch office, for a total of S$90,000, you're still only insured up to S$50,000 for that bank. If you want to spread out your accounts between multiple banks, make sure they're different banks, not just different branches. Another option, if it applies to you, is to open a joint account with your spouse. In the FAQ page, the SDIC gives this example under point 14: if you and your husband have a joint account with S$70,000, and you have a separate account of S$20,000, your total deposits of S$55,000 will be covered to the maximum of S$50,000. The deposit of $S70,000 is split evenly between the spouses, so in the eyes of the SDIC, each are holding S$35,000. Then, the husband's additional S$20,000 is added to S$35,000 for a total of S$50,000. This is then insured up to S$50,000 as usual. I'm sure there are other options specific to Singapore that I'm not aware of; if you're well above the limit, i.e. holding millions of dollars, I'm sure a professional accountant in Singapore could guide you further.","Would it be a reasonable idea to open a savings account in an overseas bank? For the risks you mention, this may not be a good idea for individual. Note HNI / Companies routinely keep funds in various overseas account. For individual the amount of paperwork [reporting in US etc] and fees etc would be high. Plus in adverse conditions, access to this funds would still be stringent and restricted. Some of the other options you can try are Generally for the risks you mention, there is very little an individual can do except to take it if & when it comes.","Do you have a good reason for keeping a US bank account? If not, I would close it and transfer to your Canadian bank account just to simplify your life. Unless you are investing on the scale of George Soros you shouldn't be worrying too much about exchange rates.","Houses burn down a lot more frequently than banks fail. Also, I'll bet the odds that FDIC will insure the loss of money in a bank is much higher than the odds of a homeowner's policy believing a huge pile of cash burned up in your house AND even then your policy probably wouldn't have coverage limits high enough to reimburse you for substantial cash losses. Oh yeah, then there is theft, floods,etc. The biggest danger is that routine inflation will eat up that money faster than the rats in the basement. Now, having some cash for a small emergency on hand isn't a terrible idea, but using your closet as a personal bank doesn't seem very smart.","Lets make some assumptions. You are not close to retirement. You have no other debts. You have a job. You have no big need for the money. You should invest that. Do not invest with a bank, they are not as competitive on fees as a brokerage account. You can get specific answers that are different from every person, (so you should dig in and research a lot more if you care (and you should). Personally, I would suggest you open an account with one of the low cost providers. Then, with that new investment account, put your money into a target retirement account. File your statements away and tend to it once a year. (Make sure it is there, that you can access it, that nothing alarming is going on). You certainly have enough to start an investment account. If you want to get more into it, ask a phone adviser what you should open. Finally, before you start investing, make sure you follow the advice of radix07 and have no debt, saving the most you can for retirement. A rule of thumb is your money will double every 72 months. Congratulations, you are a saver. Investing isn't for you as the risk of investing is in conflict with your desire to preserver you money. Open a savings account or high interest checking account with a credit union, online only or local community bank. Shop around no the web for the highest interest. Don't get your hopes up though, the highest rate you see (that doesn't have strings attached) won't be much here late summer of 2012.","> Too much work for me. Agreed. That's why I just make sure I keep the daily minimum in there at all times and I don't have to worry about it. I think our fee is $45/mo, so I'm not willing to waste $540/yr. I contemplate moving to a credit union, but I don't like the idea of having to update dozens of accounts, bill pay, direct deposits, etc.","No. And just a caution about that super low risk: suppose that you lived during the late 70s and early 80s, when savers in the United States could get interest rates over 10% for savings. You put your money into an account in 1980, knowing that in five years, you'll have made a solid amount of interest. Except that you might have been smarter to convert your money to AUD and save in that currency because it would have moved from 0.88 in value to 1.43 in value (in principal only, not interest - when I look at the RBA's bank interest, it appears they were also paying double digit interest to savers). Now, I get that this may not be the answer that you want to see because it means that if the interest rates were higher in the US, for savers, they might be higher elsewhere too, and it also means that what may appear to be a super low risk could actually be a high risk.","There are lots of credit unions that are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) instead of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Both cover individual accounts up to $250,000. If you are looking for non-trivial returns on your money, you should consider a brokerage account which is insured by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC). In the case of SPIC insured accounts, what you are insured against is the failure of the broker (not against loss on your investments if you choose to invest poorly). SPIC insurance covers up to $500,000 in losses from an insolvent broker. You have already indicated your lack of interest in using other investments, but I am not aware of any non-insured accounts that offer higher interest than insured accounts. You have also indicated your lack of interest in investment advice, but it sounds like what you are looking for is offered by a stable value fund.","Currently the FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per person per bank. The following products are covered if your bank is FDIC insured. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation#FDIC-insured_products","To store $1 milion in a bank with full FDIC insurance currently requires 4 separate bank accounts, each at 250k. It's not that difficult, particularly if you are married and your spouse can have 2 in his/her name. (This is dependent on the FDIC limit; they raised it to 250k after the 2008 crash).","Banks in the US have to report deposits of more than $10,000, so they'll contact you to complete form 8300 or something. It should not be a problem, though, if you specify that it's someone else's money, not your income.","There is no such animal. If you are looking to give up FDIC protection, investing in a short-term, high quality bond fund or a tax-free bond fund with short durations is a good way to balance safety vs. return. Make sure you buy funds -- buying individual bonds isn't appropriate for folks without a high net worth. Another option is savings bonds, but the yields on these is awful today.","\"The most important thing to look at is the FDIC insurance. Savings accounts are covered. Money markets - not necessarily. Online savings accounts provide rates of ~1%. Look at American Express, Ally, Capitol One, ING Direct, E*Trade, etc. The \"\"pledge\"\" basically brings EverBank into the same list, as they all have similar rates. Being top 5% of competitive accounts is not that hard, because there are thousands of banks around, you know. 0.76 is not the highest rate available. American Express currently give 1% on their savings account. Re moving the money a lot - depends on the amounts, but when the rates were higher, I moved around a lot. Now, it just doesn't worth the trouble, although I would move for 0.25%.\"","Make sure the financial adviser is fee only. This means the person gets paid a set fee instead of a commission. The commission based adviser will put you in a financial instrument that can charge upwards of 5%, so he would get $900k for hooking you as a client. You can go to finra.org to find a good one. Read books a variety of books so you know about finanical matters. Credit is not advisable if you have as much money as you do. You have already won the race, no need to take risks.","The one thing we know for certain is that holding large amounts of cash isn't ideal - inflation will eat away at your wealth. It's understandable that you're hesitant to put all your wealth in common stock. The S&P 500's price/earnings is 18.7 right now - a little high by historical standards. But consider that the S&P 500 has given a CAGR of approximately 10% (not inflation-adjusted) since 1970. If you don't time the market correctly, you could miss out on considerable gains. So it's probably best to invest at least a portion of your wealth in common stocks, and just accept the risk of short-term losses. You'll likely come out ahead in the long run, compared to an investor who tries to time the market and ends up holding cash positions for too long. If you really think US stocks are overpriced, you could look at other markets, but you'll find similar P/Es in Europe and Japan. You could try an emerging market fund like VEMAX if you have the risk tolerance. Let's say you're not convinced, and don't want to invest heavily in stocks right now. In the current market, safe cash alternatives like Treasury bills offer very low yields - not enough to offset inflation tax. So I would invest in a diversified portfolio of long-term bonds, real estate, maybe precious metals, and whatever amount of stock you're comfortable with.","In the United States, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation protects the first $500,000 you have at a brokerage including up to $250,000 in cash. This means that if the firm holding your securities fails financially, you have some coverage. That insurance does not prevent your investment itself from losing money. Even traditionally save money market funds can potentially lose value in a situation called Breaking the buck. This means that the Net Asset Value of the fund falls below $1/share. Alas, during periods of market calamity, even traditionally safe stores of value are subject to increased risk.","The article you link scares me; but I still have faith that the FDIC will keep me protected. Personally, if the FDIC goes broke, there is something more fundamentally wrong with the government as a whole and dollars won't worry me much. There are lots of issues with the FDIC, and I think the answers lie outside of simply printing more money and funding the FDIC further. There is likely more bad before this storm is over, and I might be ignorant, but I still want to operate normally. My money would stay where it is with things being how I see them in today","\"is it worth it? That is for you to judge. The risks are having it blowup in your face, and you having to pay a penalty, or go to jail. The issue is how you keep it secret, and who you keep it secret from. If you have money in a secret account and keep it hidden even though you: You are taking a big risk. If the knowledge of the contents of the secret stash would cause a judge or government agency to make a different decision, you could face penalties ranging from monetary to jail time. The government could also decide that they need to determine the source of the funds. They may want to know if the money was \"\"earned\"\" through illegal means. They will want to determine if the funds should haven taxed not just on the interest but if the original income tax was ever collected. If the amounts are large enough the taxing authority and police will have a lot of fun pulling apart your entire financial history. Oh and the lawyers you pay to keep you out of jail will also have their fun. why do some people do it? They are greedy; or paranoid; or they don't trust others; or they are criminals.\"","\"As you've observed, when you're dealing with that amount of money, you're going to have to give up FDIC guarantees. That means that keeping the money in a bank account carries some risk with it: if that particular bank goes bust, you could lose most of your money. There are a few options to stretch the FDIC limit such as CDARS, but likely can't handle your hypothetical $800 million. So, what's a lucky winner to do? There are a few options, including treasury securities, money market funds, and more general capital investments such as stocks and bonds. Which one(s) are best depend on what your goals are, and what kind of risks you find acceptable. Money in the bank has two defining characteristics: its value is very stable, and it is liquid (meaning you can spend it very easily, whenever you want, without incurring costs). Treasury securities and money market funds each focus on one of these characteristics. A treasury security is a piece of paper (or really, an electronic record) saying that the US Federal Government owes you money and when they will pay it back. They are very secure in that the government has never missed a payment, and will move heaven and earth to make sure they won't miss one in the future (even taking into account recent political history). You can buy and sell them on an open market, either through a broker or directly on the Treasury's website. The major downside of these compared to a bank account is that they're not as liquid as cash: you own specific amounts of specific kinds of securities, not just some number of dollars in an account. The government will pay you guaranteed cash on specified dates; if you need cash on different dates, you will need to sell the securities in the open market and the price will be subject to market fluctuations. The other \"\"cash-like\"\" option is money market funds. These are a type of mutual fund offered by financial companies. These funds take your money and spread it out over a wide variety of very low risk, very short term investments, with the goal of ensuring that the full value will never go down and is available at any time. They are very liquid: you can typically transfer cash quickly and easily to a normal bank account, write checks directly, and sometimes even use \"\"online bill pay\"\"-like features. They have a very good track record for stability, too, but no one is guaranteeing them against something going terribly wrong. They are lower risk than a (non-FDIC-insured) bank account, since the investments are spread out across many institutions. Beyond those two somewhat \"\"cash-like\"\" options, there are of course other, more general investments such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. These other options trade away some degree of stability, liquidity, or both, in exchange for better expected returns.\"","\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \"\"shoot the jaywalker\"\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\"","Your main concern seems to be to be accused of something called 'smurfing' or structuring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring Depositing money amounts (cash or checks) under the 10k limit to circumvent the reporting requirement. People have been investigated for depositing under the limit, e.g. small business owners. If you're always above 10k you should be fine, as your deposits are reported and shouldn't raise IRS or FBI suspicions.","In the US bank or credit union checking, savings, CD's are insured through FDIC or NCUA. The coverage is for $250,000. This limit can be increased by having multiple accounts. You, your spouse, and a Joint account with your spouse, are considered 3 different accounts, so you could have $750K coverage. IRA funds are considered a separate pot of money for insurance coverage. Here is an explanation from NCUA and FDIC. There is no safety difference between savings and checking. There are differences regarding minimum balances, maximum number of transactions per month, and fees. But they are equally safe.","I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.","Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).","Yes, you can put assets in Canadian banks. Will it protect your wealth to a greater extent than the FDIC protection provided by the US Government? Probably not. If you do business or spend significant time in Canada, then having at least some money in Canada makes sense. Otherwise, you're trying to protect yourself against some outlying risk of a US banking collapse, while subjecting yourself to a very real currency exchange risk.","Do not try to deposit piece wise. Either use the system in complete transparence, or do not use it at all. The fear of having your bank account frozen, even if you are in your rights, is justified. In any case, I don't advise you to put in bank before reaching IRS. Also keep all the proof that you indeed contacted them. (Recommended letter and copy of any form you submit to them) Be ready to also give those same documents to your bank to proove your good faith. If they are wrong, you'll be considered in bad faith until you can proove otherwise, without your bank account. Do not trust their good faith, they are not bad people, but very badly organized with too much power, so they put the burden of proof on you just because they can. If it is too burdensome for you then keep cash or go bitcoin. (but the learning curve to keep so much money in bitcoin secure against theft is high) You should declare it in this case anyway, but at least you don't have to fear having your money blocked arbitrarily.","If you're the type of moron that keeps several thousand dollars sitting in their checking account then you're either a 1st generation immigrant or just insanely bad with money. And still think going around insulting people is smart. Literally the worst.","If thats how you feel (its how I feel ) then the last thing you want bankers doing is accepting deposits from people who think their money is not being risked, then making loans with it (fractional reserve banking). And fdic is not an answer to that fundamental problem.","My brokerage account (E-Trade) automatically spreads cash balances that exceed the FDIC insured amount into several partner banks, so just about any amount gets insured.","\"The first consideration for the banking part of your portfolio is safety. In the United States that is FDIC protection, or the equivalent for a Credit Union. The second consideration is does it have the level of service you need. For this I mean the location of branches, ATMs, or its online services meet your needs for speed, accuracy, and ability to access or move the money as you need. The rest are then balanced on the extras. For your situation those extras include the ability to make free trades. For other it might be a discount on their mortgage. For others it is free checking. In your current situation if the first two things are met, and you are using those extra benefits then don't change. For me the free trades wouldn't be a benefit, so any major degradation in the safety and service would cause me to leave. Keep in mind that free services exist to entice you to make a deposit: which they can then make money by lending it out; or they offer a free service to entice you to use a service they can charge you to use. All Free services come with a cost. I earned a completely paltry $3.33 YTD over the last 9 months on my savings at my bank presumably in exchange for these \"\"free\"\" trades. Without knowing how much you had deposited in your savings account there is no way to know how much you could have made at the bank across the street. But with the low rates of the last decade there is not big money to be made off the emergency savings of a typical american family.\"","\"Your objectives are contradictory and/or not possible. Eliminating the non-taxable objective: You could divide the $100K in 5 increments, making a \"\"CD ladder\"\" $25K in 3mo CD (or savings a/c) $25K in 6 mo CD $25K in 9mo CD $25K in 1 yr CD or similar structure (6mo also works well) Every maturing CD you are able to access cash and/or invest in another longest maturity CD, and earn a higher rate of interest. This plan also works well to plan for future interest rates hikes. If you are forced to access (sell CD's) ALL the $$$ at any time, you will only lose accrued interest, none of the principal. All FDIC guaranteed. If non-taxable is the highest priority, \"\"invest\"\" in a tax-free money market fund....see Vanguard Funds. You will not have FDIC guarantee.\"","Not OP, but let's see: My money-market account is showing 0.25% interest rate. My savings account, 0.20%. And checking, 0.22%. It doesn't matter where I keep my emergency fund and what I keep my checking balance. It's making fuck-all for interest. And I need to keep a couple thousand in there because my mortgage hits for about $1600. And my monthly CC spend averages ~$3500 monthly. I simply can't keep a couple hundred in there.","In the UK I believe the first £50,000 in each bank are secured by the government, so are very safe but one has to check what 'each bank' means as some are members of the same 'group'. See the FSCS","The US requires its (tax) residents to report foreign accounts if the balances (on all the accounts together) are $10K or more at any given day during the year. This is done through the FBAR system. In addition, you obviously need to report this income on your US tax return and pay taxes. If the balances on your foreign accounts exceed specific threshold, your tax return should also include form 8938. If you report everything and pay the taxes due - you can keep the money wherever you want and transfer it between your accounts as you may see fit. If you don't - the US government may come after you with huge penalties, and the Dubai bank may freeze your account. Its easy to become US tax resident. Stay in the US for more than half a year in a row - and here you are. Subject to the US taxation. Even if you're not a US citizen or green card holder, or at all illegal. Some immigration statuses may grant you an exemption, but none that allows you working for your Dubai employer, so I'm assuming you're a US tax resident.","This will probably require some explanation from you on the source of the money and the reasons for the transaction. Cash transactions over $10k will be reported by the bank (in this case) on a CTR report to FinCEN. Keep in mind, mere breaking the transaction into multiple smaller ones in order to avoid the CTR is on its own a criminal offense. Just deposit what you want to deposit, and report what's needed to be reported. Note that if you're a US tax resident - these foreign bank accounts must have been reported already to FinCEN via FBAR, if not - you should expect a very nasty audit with the IRS.","Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, like reducing interest charges, IMO you shouldn't do this. The fact that the bank teller or a computer files a CTR doesn't imply that you are doing something improper -- it is simply a regulation that banks are required to adhere to. Millions of CTRs are probably filled out over the course of the year. It doesn't add more time to your transaction, nor does it impact your tax or other liability. Learning about this stuff can instill a sense of paranoia. Don't fall victim to that -- these are measures in place to make it more difficult to dodge taxation and launder money.","Re #2, consider an account at a credit union rather than a bank or brokerage firm. Whether you choose a savings account or a money market account, you're likely to get an account with lower fees (so it doesn't cost you money), and rates that are typically similar.","For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.","Although I do not know about US Institutions; In India Banks have adopted a mix of features that mitigate the risk. Some ways that are used are;","Basically, all the same reasons you might not want to keep piles of your own country's cash, plus or minus the exchange rate question. Banks exist for good reasons. You probably want to use them unless you are explicitly playing the exchange rate game -- And if that's what you want, there are probably better ways to do it. If you need help not touching the money, CDs or other term accounts might give you enough disincentive. Or might not.","The FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per bank, for each ownership category. The ownership categories are: You and a spouse could collectively have $750,000 of insured deposits at a single bank if you each had a single account, and a joint account together.","You should talk to a financial fiduciary (make sure they are a fiduciary, not all planners are) about investing your money. Even ultra safe investments such as treasury bonds will beat the 1% interest rate offered by your savings account (the yield on the 5 year treasury is currently around 2%).","\"If all of the money needs to be liquid, T-Bills from a broker are the way to go. Treasury Direct is a little onerous -- I'm not sure that you could actually get money out of there in a week. If you can sacrifice some liquidity, I'd recommend a mix of treasury, brokered CDs, agency and municipal securities. The government has implicitly guaranteed that \"\"too big to fail\"\" entities are going to be backed by the faith & credit of the United States, so investments in general obligation bonds from big states like New York, California and Florida and cities like New York City will yield you better returns, come with significant tax benefits, and represent only marginal additional short-term risk.\"","\"I would keep some money in the U.S. and some money in India. That way, in case \"\"something bad\"\" happens in one country, you will still have money in the other.\"","\"You can move most or all of those financial products into a single account at one institution, but I wouldn't go with a \"\"mutual fund account\"\" like Vanguard. The big online brokerages should offer: Consolidating everything into one statement can vastly simplify your record keeping. With a balance of $250k, you should be able to get a paper statement without a fee. Depending on where the accounts are currently held (e.g. if the stocks are at a full-service broker), you may also be able to save on fees.\"","If this is truly your emergency fund, then you should keep the money safe. Unfortunately interest rates are very low right now and there is not much you can do about that. However, ask your investment advisor for a CDIC insured high interest account, such as these:","Your goals are mutually exclusive. You cannot both earn a return that will outpace inflation while simultaneously having zero-risk of losing money, at least not in the 2011 market. In 2008, a 5+% CD would have been a good choice. Here's a potential compromise... sacrifice some immediate liquidity for more earnings. Say you had $10,000 saved: In this scheme, you've diversified a little bit, have access to 50% of your money immediately (either through online transfer or bringing your bonds to a teller), have an implicit US government guarantee for 50% of your money and low risk for the rest, and get inflation protection for 75% of your money.","In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)","That's a sensible plan. No there's no reason for the IRS to see this arrangement as suspicious, particularly because the deposits will be from paychecks; you have a record of where all the money came from. Conversely, multiple cash deposits might be considered suspicious. It can only affect your credit if you have credit lines associated with the account (like an overdraft line of credit). Interest earned could increase your tax liability by a tiny amount, but in the current interest rate environment, that's not much of a worry.","I'm pretty sure you are don't actually plan to put £120,000 into a zero interest account, because when you take inflation into account, in 20 years, then £120,000 won't be worth anywhere near that amount. For its value to grow you need the interest rate to exceed the rate of inflation and so paying 20% (or even 40%) tax on the interest can make the difference between whether being richer and getting poorer.","You spread money/investment across different accounts for different reasons: All this is in addition to diversification reasons. Investing all your money into one stock, bond, Mutual fund, ETF is risky if that one segment of the economy/market suffers. There is a drawback to diversification of accounts. Some have minimum amounts and fee structures. In the original question you asked about 1,000 per account. That may mean that some accounts may be closed to you. In other cases they will charge a higher percentage for fees for small accounts. Those issues would disappear long before you hit the 1,000,000 per account you mentioned in your comment. One problem can occur with having too much diversification. Having dozens of funds could mean that the overlap between the funds might result in over investing in a segment because you didn't realize that one stock segment appeared in 1/3 of the funds.","It is FDIC insured, there is no catch .. a few banks offer above 1% APY. Alliant and Ally come to my mind. Terms & Conditions","Chase has a limit of $500,000 per day. A banker should be able to help you determine any immediate tax liabilities that will arise as a direct result of the transaction. You may wish to consult with a tax professional about any indirect implications the transfer may have. This transaction will be reported to the government but assuming that you are not involved in any illegitimate activities the likelihood of the US government taking any action on the notice is incredibly low. I have heard of 7 and 14 day holds being placed on out of character transfers but if you are buying property you should work with your bank to help facilitate. Bankers understand the business and can help you avoid any appearances of impropriety that the government flags. Should your account be flagged, I would retain a lawyer immediately. If you feel you have a reason to be concerned, then I would contact a lawyer in the US and Thailand before initiating the transfer. As they say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.","I wanted to know how safe is such investment with online banks vis-a-vis regular banks? As far as I know, neither money market accounts nor savings accounts have any investment risk (within reason) since both are insured by the FDIC. Note that this is not necessarily the case with money market funds. is their any downside to such investments? Yes, there are a few. I believe the two biggest ones are:","To me, it depends. How much are their total assets? Having 10% of your money in something like that isn't crazy. having it all in? That IS crazy. Can they reduce their exposure to this account without paying a penalty (say pull out 10%?) The Manager should be taking direction from them. If they aren't able to get the manager to re-allocate to something more suitable, under your friends direction, they should then pursue whether or not the manager is operating lawfully.","\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \"\"lawsuit\"\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\"","\"Are there still people who keep significant amounts of money in a bank savings account? You could get ~1% by just choosing the right bank. ING Direct, for example, gives 0.8%, 4 times more than your credit union, with the same FDIC insurance! If you do want to invest in something slightly more long-term, you can get a CD. At the same ING Direct, you can get a 5-year CD with 1% APR. Comes with the same FDIC insurance. Note that I mention ING Direct just because I accidentally had their site open right in front of me, their rates are definitely not the highest right now. If you want to give up the FDIC insurance and take some more risks, you can invest your money in municipal bonds or various kinds of \"\"low risk\"\" mutual funds, which may yield 3-5% a year. If you want to take even more risks - there's a whole stock market available for you, with ETF's, mutual funds and individual stocks. Whether you should - that only you can tell. But you can have a NO-RISK investment yielding 4-5 times more than what you have right now, just saying.\"","\"Your #1 problem is the Government both in it's form as a taxation outfit and as a 'law and order' outfit. You'd be very surprised at how fast a bank seizes your bank account in response to a court order. Purchase 100 Mexican 50 Peso Gold (1.2 oz/ea). These coins are cheap (lowest cost to get into) and will not be reportable on sale to taxing authorities. That money is out of the banking system and legal system(s). Do not store them in a bank! You need to find a tax strategist, probably a former IRS agent / CPA type. With the rest remaining money... There's an old saying, Don't fight the Fed. As well as \"\"The trend is your friend\"\". So, the Fed wants all savers fully invested right now (near 0 interest rates). When investing, I find that if you do exactly opposite what you think is the smart thing, that's the best thing. Therefore, it follows: 1) Don't fight the Fed 2) Do opposite of smart 3) Do: Fight the Fed (and stay 100% out of the market and in cash) We're looking like Japan so could remain deflationary for decades to come. Cash is king...\"","\"HSBC, Hang Seng, and other HK banks had a series of special savings account offers when I lived in HK a few years ago. Some could be linked to the performance of your favorite stock or country's stock index. Interest rates were higher back then, around 6% one year. What they were effectively doing is taking the interest you would have earned and used it to place a bet on the stock or index in question. Technically, one way this can be done, for instance, is with call options and zero coupon bonds or notes. But there was nothing to strategize with once the account was set up, so the investor did not need to know how it worked behind the scenes... Looking at the deposit plus offering in particular, this one looks a little more dangerous than what I describe. See, now we are in an economy of low almost zero interest rates. So to boost the offered rate the bank is offering you an account where you guarantee the AUD/HKD rate for the bank in exchange for some extra interest. Effectively they sell AUD options (or want to cover their own AUD exposures) and you get some of that as extra interest. Problem is, if the AUD declines, then you lose money because the savings and interest will be converted to AUD at a contractual rate that you are agreeing to now when you take the deposit plus account. This risk of loss is also mentioned in the fine print. I wouldn't recommend this especially if the risks are not clear. If you read the fine print, you may determine you are better off with a multicurrency account, where you can change your HK$ into any currency you like and earn interest in that currency. None of these were \"\"leveraged\"\" forex accounts where you can bet on tiny fluctuations in currencies. Tiny being like 1% or 2% moves. Generally you should beware anything offering 50:1 or more leverage as a way to possibly lose all of your money quickly. Since you mentioned being a US citizen, you should learn about IRS form TD F 90-22.1 (which must be filed yearly if you have over $10,000 in foreign accounts) and google a little about the \"\"foreign account tax compliance act\"\", which shows a shift of the government towards more strict oversight of foreign accounts.\"","\"You state \"\"Any info will be appreciated\"\", so here's some background information on my answer (you can skip to my answer): When I worked for banks, I was required to submit suspicious activity to the people above me by filling out a form with a customer's name, SSN, account number(s) and ID. You may hear in media that it is $10K or sometimes $5K. The truth is that it could be lower than that, depending on what the institution defines as suspicious. Every year we were required to take a \"\"course\"\" which implied that terrorists and criminals use cash regularly - whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant - this is what the course implied. It's important to understand that many people use cash-only budgets because it's easier than relying on the banking system which charges overdraft fees for going over, or in some cases, you pay more at merchants because of card usage (some merchants give discounts for cash). If someone has a budget of $10K a month and they choose to use cash, that's perfectly fine. Also, why is it anyone's business what someone does with their private property? This created an interesting contrast among differently aged Americans - older Americans saw the banking system as tyrannical busybodies whereas young Americans didn't care. This is part of why I eventually left the banking system; I felt sick that I had to report this information, but it's amazing how quick everyone is to accept the new rules. Notice how one of the comments asks you what you intend to do with the money, as if it's any of their business. Welcome to the New America©! My answer: If you withdraw $100,000, here is what will more than likely happen: Now, watch the anger at this answer because I'm telling you the truth. This article will explain why. Your very question had a negative 1, as if asking what you're asking is wrong (see the absurdity)! If Joseph Stalin ran for president in the United States, the majority of Americans would welcome him. You have good reason to be concerned; others at this site have noticed this as well.\"","\"In answering your question as it's written: I don't think you're really \"\"missing\"\" something. Different banks offer different rates. Online banks, or eBanking solutions, such as CapitalOne, Ally, Barclays, etc., typically offer higher interest rates on basic savings accounts. There are differences between Money Market accounts and Standard Savings accounts, but primarily it comes down to how you can access your cash. This may vary based on bank, but Ally has a decent blurb about it: Regular savings accounts are easy to open and, when you choose an online bank like Ally Bank, you tend to get interest rates that are more competitive than brick-and-mortar counterparts, according to Bankrate.com. Additionally, as a member of the FDIC, Ally Bank gives you peace of mind knowing that the money in your Ally Bank Online Savings Account is insured to the maximum allowed by the law. Money market accounts are easy to open, too. And again, online banks may offer better rates than traditional banks. Generally, you have a bit more flexibility of access with a money market account than you do with a savings account. You can access funds in your Ally Bank Money Market Account through electronic fund transfers, checks, debit cards and ATM withdrawals. With savings accounts, your access is limited to electronic funds transfers or telephone withdrawals (and in-person withdrawals at traditional banks). Both types of accounts are subject to federal transaction limits. Here's a bit more information about a Money Market Account and why the rate might be a little bit higher (from thesimpledollar.com): A money market deposit account is a bit different. The restrictions on what a bank can do with that money are somewhat looser – they can often invest that money in things such as treasury notes, certificates of deposit, municipal bonds, and so on in addition to the tight restrictions of a normal savings accounts. In other words, the bank can take your money and invest it in other investments that are very safe. Now outside of your question, if you have $100K that you want to earn interest on, I'd suggest looking at options with higher rates of return rather than a basic savings account which will top out around 1% or so. What you do with that money is dependent on how quickly you need access to it, and there are a lot of Q&A's on this site that cover suggestions.\""],"string":"[\n \"First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.\",\n \"Most people who have over $250,000 in liquid cash savings would not want to start putting their money into regular savings accounts in different banks, especially with interest rates as ridiculously low as they are now in 2014-15. People with money will want to diversify their investments in ways that will potentially earn them more money, and they can also afford to seek the advice of financial planners who can help them do this wisely. Even if you decide to put $250,000 into various accounts at different banks, I wouldn't necessarily trust that the FDIC will be able to help you recover your money in the event that your banks go under. The amount of money available to the FDIC to cover such losses pales in comparison to the actual amount of money that Americans have in their bank accounts.\",\n \"\\\"For personal accounts, I can't imagine that this is too much of a problem. The only concern that I can think of (for American banks) is that FDIC only insures you up to $100,000 if the bank were to go belly-up. If you're getting over that amount of money, you may want to \\\"\\\"diversify\\\"\\\" a little more.\\\"\",\n \"A better answer is to put the money in a Dodd-Frank qualified non interest bearing checking account. FDIC covers the entire balance, there is no upper limit on the insurance. This will only be good till the end of 2012 but for short term landing spot this works well. Forget the interest you will earn and go for the safety of the principal.\",\n \"\\\"You can store millions of dollars in deposit accounts, you just lose the explicit FDIC guarantee. So you look for rock-solid banks. Bankrate.com has \\\"\\\"Safe and Sound Ratings\\\"\\\" that show the relative strength of various banks. You put your excess deposits in those banks, and you are pretty safe. Note that in addition to the explicit FDIC guarantee, there is now an implicit guarantee that certain institutions have been deemed too \\\"\\\"big to fail\\\"\\\", and will be backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, without regard to the capitalization of the bank. Bank of America, for example, is not well capitalized and is carrying billions of dollars of \\\"\\\"assets\\\"\\\" that have little or no value. Yet government policy keeps the bank afloat and your deposits secure. Another strategy is to use municipal money market accounts, which provide secure (but not guaranteed) deposit-like accounts as well as a tax benefit. If you have > $1M in liquid assets, you probably need a financial professional and attorney advising you to make sure that you are aware of and are controlling for risk in a way consistent with your longer-term goals.\\\"\",\n \"Even assuming hypothetically that you are able to split money in different bank accounts to get full coverage and all your accounts are in top ranking financial institutions in USA, you can not rely on FDIC if all or most of those banks go broke. Because FDIC just has a meagre 25 billion dollars to cover all bank accounts in the USA. And you know the amount of bank deposits in USA run in at least a trillion of dollars. US Deposits & FDIC Insurance figures\",\n \"If you want to store that much money, find a good hiding place. (E-mail me the location. I'll keep it a secret. I promise!) But I think instead you want to invest that much money, in a cash-like liquid form. You can do $250,000 in a bank (beyond 2012) and then spread the rest over some big-name brokerages with money market accounts. But, as JohnFx pointed out, with that much cash you can do amazing things with it. Think bigger.\",\n \"http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:\",\n \"If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts. With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct.\",\n \"Build a trust. I have a trust account under my name and 3 dependents, FDIC confirmed we're good to 1m. Then I have personal accounts for the 4 of us and a corp account, all at the same bank, each also insured.\",\n \"\\\"But it's also true that the FDIC (or equivalent) insurance account doesn't have enough to cover all deposits. The FDIC may come in handy if your local FDIC member bank goes belly up and a few hundred depositors need to be made whole. However, in a national crisis, where the government is \\\"\\\"legally\\\"\\\" stealing funds, that FDIC insurance is a joke. I do agree though, if you have more than the insured amount in a single account, split it up.\\\"\",\n \"Exactly. And I'm diversified in other ways. I have a money collection that includes lots of silver and some gold, a rental property. In terms of actual cash accounts it's closer to 750K. Protip: I always keep actual cash dollars in a safe in the house as well. I learned that trick from my neighbor who said she needed it twice in her life. Even a safe deposit box isn't good enough as the government can get in there, too. She and her husband owned a gas station and unbeknownst to them the Sunoco gas trucks were leaking when filling their tanks so they had a big ecological problem. The government took every bit of liquid assets they had... that they could find. Then when he died a few years ago something similar thing happened and she needed to dip into it.\",\n \"The FDIC guarantee is up to $250,000 per depositor per insured bank. If your goal is primarily to protect your money, you may want to consider depositing your money in multiple insured banks. I'll leave it to someone else to accurately define money market accounts and how they function, and the (very low) risks you take with them. Don't forget that inflation will eat into your money. It's unlikely you'll make enough interest either in a savings account or in a money market account to cover the inflation. You should factor this in to your overall investment plan.\",\n \"You don't mention how much money you are talking about but one option is to use reward checking accounts that are FDIC/NCUA insured. They pay 3-4% interest but generally have a few requirements such as 10-12 debit card transactions and sometimes require direct deposit as well as a limit of 10-50k deposits earning the top rate.\",\n \"Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)\",\n \"So basically, if you have a large savings account and are not investing... (because banks are actually a very poor way to get returns on capital), they will invest it for you... The take home I'm getting is... invest your money, and leave it out of the banks.\",\n \"It depends on your situation. For families with small amounts over the FDIC limit, there's account structures that let you get multiple coverages. Things like holding 100k in an account in joint with your wife, each of you holding 100k in individual accounts etc. For larger sums and institutions, there's CDARS. This system spreads your money out to multiple institutions with an eye to FDIC insurance limits. Some people feel this system is abusing FDIC, so I suppose it's possible it gets outlawed / shut down some day. Alternatively, you can just invest it yourself. Treasury Direct allows small buyers to buy US govt bonds at finished auction rates, or submit a qualified bid at auction. You won't get great rates, but Treasuries are about as good as dollars.\",\n \"If you are concerned about FDIC coverage, then yes, you can spread your money across multiple banks. The limit is $250k, so after you invest in property, 4 banks should do it. That having been said, in my opinion, it would be a waste to keep all this money in a bank's savings account. You will slowly lose value over time due to inflation. I suggest you spend a little money on an independent fee-based investment advisor. Choose someone who will teach you about investing in mutual funds, so you can feel comfortable with it. He or she should take into account your tolerance for risk, look at your goals, and help you come up with a low cost plan for investing your money. It's certainly okay to keep the money in a bank short-term, but don't wait too long; take steps toward putting that money to work for you.\",\n \"There's no limit, from the legal perspective (with regards to the US law, that is), to how much you can keep on your bank accounts anywhere in the world. FBAR requirements are reporting requirements, they don't limit how much you can keep in the accounts, they only make you report the accounts to the government. There's no such requirement with regards to the US domestic accounts. That is for the US government, your own government (of the country of which you're a citizen of) may have limitations on what accounts you may have outside of that country, or have reporting requirements of their own. That said, keep in mind that FDIC only insures up to $250K per person (i.e.: on all your accounts) in each institution. So if you have more than $250K in a FDIC insured account - you better spread it across different banks.\",\n \"There is no accounting reason that it should be different, there are likely psychological reasons that it should be, however. Assuming that you live in a western country with good banking regulation, you likely have deposit insurance or a similar scheme. Here in Canada we are covered up to $100,000 in a single account with various limitations. At least my rainy-day account plus savings is nowhere near that, so I'm good to go. That said, however, having a large lump of money in an account you regularly use may tempt you more than you can stand. That iPad, car, home improvement, etc., might be too easy to buy knowing you have relatively easy access to that money. So it really becomes a self-discipline question. Good Luck\",\n \"Searching for Banks or Credit Unions based on their high interest accounts is likely to be a giant waste of your time. The highest you might find is 1.5% not clearing inflation. For anything less than 100k youre better off putting it in a money market fund until you know what you want to do with it, which you can find anywhere.\",\n \"For small amounts I wouldn't be too concerned. There are two factors I can think of: For relatively small amounts and when dealing with reputable banking institutions there should be little concern of banking with a single bank. It's what most people do.\",\n \"Many brokerage accounts for trading stocks are covered under SIPC insurance, which is up to $500,000 You can also have multiple checking and savings accounts with the $250,000 balance split up. You can also check your bank's capital ratio on the FDIC website, somewhere. The FDIC won't move on them unless it falls under 3% and even then FDIC will force them into receivership and sell them to a bigger bank before they go bust and experience losses of customer deposits. This is what mostly happened when hundreds of banks failed during the crisis from 2008-2010. There were very isolated events where customers actually lost their cash balances, and that was mostly because those customers had completely uninsured accounts. As that was the most extreme moment in US and global financial history, you should be able to judge risk with the aforementioned information in mind. You can stay in a cash balance easily and be fully insured.\",\n \"\\\"Yes you should worry and take care not to violate the law or provide any appearance of impropriety. Every bank in the USA is required under the Bank Secrecy Act to report cash transactions over $10,000 the same day to the IRS -- and here's the fun secret part -- without notification to the depositor. But splitting the deposits up into smaller amounts is also a crime, called \\\"\\\"structuring\\\"\\\". On occasion there is a news story where a retail business that naturally must deposit cash from customers will be (falsely?) accused of structuring, e.g.: Feds seize grocery store's entire bank account -- Institute for Justice defends grocer Under the legal doctrine of civil asset forfeiture, your money can be accused of a crime, seized, and tried separately from its owner. The actual cases indicate the money as defendant, i.e. \\\"\\\"US v $124,700\\\"\\\" In this somewhat bizarre system of \\\"\\\"justice\\\"\\\", the owner need not be charged with a crime, and is not in immediate peril of going to prison (about the only upside in this, but might be temporary because the authorities haven't charged the owner yet). When only the money is charged with a crime, there is no requirement for the government to supply a public defender for the owners who can not afford a lawyer.... can not afford a lawyer, because the government took all their money....\\\"\",\n \"U.S. citizens are allowed to own foreign bank and investment accounts. However, there are various financial and tax reporting requirements for owners of such accounts. Even when there is no foreign income involved. For example famous FBAR (Fincen Report Form 114), Form 8938, and even more forms if your assets/activities abroad become more complicated. Penalties, even for unintentional non-compliance can be Draconian. So just keep in mind, that once you start having foreign accounts, you will start having additional obligations and might spend more money and time on tax preparation. If you are ok with that, then its cool. But... assuming your gloomy predictions on Trump presidency come true. They might be accompanied by more strict capital control, reporting requirements, and may become even greater pain in the neck for people with foreign assets. Regarding recommendations, I am not sure about banks, but there are some foreign precious metal investing companies that are completely online based such as https://www.bullionvault.com/ and https://www.goldmoney.com/. These might also guard you from potential problems with US dollar.\",\n \"I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account. This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage. The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything. From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution.\",\n \"They might not have to open accounts at 12 bank because the coverage does allow multiple accounts at one institution if the accounts are joint accounts. It also treats retirement accounts a separate account. The bigger issue is that most millionaires don't have all their money siting in the bank. They invest in stocks, bonds, government bonds, international funds, and their own companies. Most of these carry risk, but they are diversified. They also can afford advisers to help them manage and protect their assets.\",\n \"In October 2011 in the United States, you just don't have any options. Save your money in a savings account and that is the best you can do. Your desire to buy a house means you are a saver not an investor, and you risk tolerance on this pile of money is 0. Save it in a bank account; I highly doubt chasing an interest rate will pay off with any significance. (being highly dependent on your opinion of significant)\",\n \"The FDIC has been pretty good at recovery lost money from failed banks. The problem is the temporary loss from immediate needs. The best thing for anyone to do is diversify in investments and banks with adequate covered insurance for all accounts. Immediate access to available cash is always a priority that should be governed by the money manager in this case yourself.\",\n \"Anything over a $10,000 deposit is reported to the IRS. I'm not sure if you need to fill out a form or if the bank does it automatically. As long as it's legit I don't see that there would be any issues. The worst that would happen is somebody would have to talk to the IRS and explain that it was their money and not a gift of some sort. Edit it is reported to the FinCEN not the IRS https://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/OLM_017.htm\",\n \"This: I was told by my broker that the amount of money I invest would be spread across multiple banks (which are FDIC insured) so that at each bank the amount would not exceed $250K. Has nothing to do with this: Is this how CDs offered by brokerage houses (that are not themselves FDIC insured) offer protection? If you want a CD, get the CD from a bank itself.\",\n \"You should ensure that your broker is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). SIPC protects the cash and securities in your brokerage account much like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects bank deposits. Securities are protected with a limit of $500,000 USD. Cash is protected with a limit of $250,000 USD. It should be noted that SIPC does not protect investors against loss of value or bad advice. As far as having multiple brokerage accounts for security, I personally don’t think it’s necessary to have multiple accounts for that reason. Depending on account or transaction fees, it might not hurt to have multiple accounts. It can actually be beneficial to have multiple accounts so long as each account serves a purpose in your overall financial plan. For example, I have three brokerage accounts, each of which serves a specific purpose. One provides low cost stock and bond transactions, another provides superior market data, and the third provides low cost mutual fund transactions. If you’re worried about asset security, there are a few things you can do to protect yourself. I would recommend you begin by consulting a qualified financial advisor about your risk profile. You stated that a considerable portion of your total assets are in securities. Depending on your risk profile and the amount of your net worth held in securities, you might be better served by moving your money into lower risk asset classes. I’m not an attorney or a financial advisor. This is not legal advice or financial advice. You can and should consult your own attorney and financial advisor.\",\n \"I would suggest a high interest checking account if you qualify, or if you don't, an Investor's Deposit Account (IDA).\",\n \"Don't worry. The Cyprus situation could only occur because those banks were paying interest rates well above EU market rates, and the government did not tax them at all. Even the one-time 6.75% tax discussed is comparable to e.g. Germany and the Netherlands, if you average over the last 5 years. The simple solution is to just spread your money over multiple banks, with assets at each bank staying below EUR 100.000. There are more than 100 banks large enough that they'll come under ECB supervision this year; you'd be able to squirrel away over 10 million there. (Each branch of the Dutch Rabobank is insured individually, so you could even save 14 million there alone, and they're collectively AAA-rated.) Additionally, those savings will then be backed by more than 10 governments, many of which are still AAA-rated. Once you have to worry about those limits, you should really talk to an independent advisor. Investing in AAA government bonds is also pretty safe. The examples given by littleadv all involve known risky bonds. E.g. Argentina was on a credit watch, and paying 16% interest rates.\",\n \"IMO, QE2 will likely have no perceptible impact in the near term. Keeping all of your savings in a bank guarantees that you will lose money to inflation & taxes. I'd suggest consulting a financial advisor -- preferably someone who understands issues facing someone with assets in the US and Canada. In terms of what portion of your savings should be in USD vs. CAD, that's going to depend on your situation. I'd probably want more assets in the place that I'm living in for the next several years.\",\n \"They've already taken your money, and your purchasing power. The Fed's balance sheets is filled with $4 trillion worth of toxic mortgage derivatives and US treasuries that were purchased at all time highs. Move your money to a credit union.\",\n \"I spent some time comparing banks' interest rates until I realized that it didn't actually matter (to me). The only money I keep in checking and savings accounts is money that I'm going to spend shortly or is part of an emergency fund, and in both those cases convenience of liquidity is far more important than small differences in interest (I want to be able to go to a nearby branch, even if traveling, and pull out large sums of money). The majority of our money goes into investment accounts, where it's earning much more than even the best savings account. Most of your 100k would be much better served in a stock/bonds mix. Are standard taxable investment accounts one of those things you can't open? What about if you opened one in your home country?\",\n \"With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:\",\n \"You would need to look at all aspects: - Current Rate of Interest in US compare to China - Current Exchange rate and the rate in Future when you want the money back - Any tax / Regulatory implications of keeping the money in US - Any furture regulations that may hamper your access to these funds If you are planning to stay in China and at some point in time want to get the money back, In my opinion it would make more sense to do it today like you are doing, rather than take the risk of exchange rate and regulations. Further the current low risk returns in US are near zero. The inflation in US is of no concern to you. On the other hand you have a decent return in China. If you know that at some point in future you would need USD [either moving to US, or large purchase in USD], then it would make sense to keep the funds in USD.\",\n \"The deposit insurance isn't provided by the bank; it's provided by the Singapore Deposit Insurance Corporation (SDIC). In the event that the bank fails or is declared insolvent, the SDIC will pay deposit holders their total balance in all accounts with that bank, up to S$50,000. If you hold S$60,000 in all of your insured accounts, you'll only receive S$50,000 if the bank fails. The SDIC provides an example page with sample calculations, and this is exactly what they show. If you deposit an amount greater than $S50,000, it's only insured up to S$50,000. So does it mean one should open multiple accounts under different banks to spread the money around and maintain only S$50,000 in one deposit account? This is one option. The calculations page I linked to above gives this reminder: Deposits are not insured separately in each branch office of a DI Scheme member i.e. all your eligible accounts maintained with different branches of a DI Scheme member are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. This seems like common sense, but it's important to remember that if you open an account with two branch offices of Bank A, your deposits are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. The SDIC insurance is per institution (called a Deposit Insurance Member), not per branch. If you hold S$45,000 in each branch office, for a total of S$90,000, you're still only insured up to S$50,000 for that bank. If you want to spread out your accounts between multiple banks, make sure they're different banks, not just different branches. Another option, if it applies to you, is to open a joint account with your spouse. In the FAQ page, the SDIC gives this example under point 14: if you and your husband have a joint account with S$70,000, and you have a separate account of S$20,000, your total deposits of S$55,000 will be covered to the maximum of S$50,000. The deposit of $S70,000 is split evenly between the spouses, so in the eyes of the SDIC, each are holding S$35,000. Then, the husband's additional S$20,000 is added to S$35,000 for a total of S$50,000. This is then insured up to S$50,000 as usual. I'm sure there are other options specific to Singapore that I'm not aware of; if you're well above the limit, i.e. holding millions of dollars, I'm sure a professional accountant in Singapore could guide you further.\",\n \"Would it be a reasonable idea to open a savings account in an overseas bank? For the risks you mention, this may not be a good idea for individual. Note HNI / Companies routinely keep funds in various overseas account. For individual the amount of paperwork [reporting in US etc] and fees etc would be high. Plus in adverse conditions, access to this funds would still be stringent and restricted. Some of the other options you can try are Generally for the risks you mention, there is very little an individual can do except to take it if & when it comes.\",\n \"Do you have a good reason for keeping a US bank account? If not, I would close it and transfer to your Canadian bank account just to simplify your life. Unless you are investing on the scale of George Soros you shouldn't be worrying too much about exchange rates.\",\n \"Houses burn down a lot more frequently than banks fail. Also, I'll bet the odds that FDIC will insure the loss of money in a bank is much higher than the odds of a homeowner's policy believing a huge pile of cash burned up in your house AND even then your policy probably wouldn't have coverage limits high enough to reimburse you for substantial cash losses. Oh yeah, then there is theft, floods,etc. The biggest danger is that routine inflation will eat up that money faster than the rats in the basement. Now, having some cash for a small emergency on hand isn't a terrible idea, but using your closet as a personal bank doesn't seem very smart.\",\n \"Lets make some assumptions. You are not close to retirement. You have no other debts. You have a job. You have no big need for the money. You should invest that. Do not invest with a bank, they are not as competitive on fees as a brokerage account. You can get specific answers that are different from every person, (so you should dig in and research a lot more if you care (and you should). Personally, I would suggest you open an account with one of the low cost providers. Then, with that new investment account, put your money into a target retirement account. File your statements away and tend to it once a year. (Make sure it is there, that you can access it, that nothing alarming is going on). You certainly have enough to start an investment account. If you want to get more into it, ask a phone adviser what you should open. Finally, before you start investing, make sure you follow the advice of radix07 and have no debt, saving the most you can for retirement. A rule of thumb is your money will double every 72 months. Congratulations, you are a saver. Investing isn't for you as the risk of investing is in conflict with your desire to preserver you money. Open a savings account or high interest checking account with a credit union, online only or local community bank. Shop around no the web for the highest interest. Don't get your hopes up though, the highest rate you see (that doesn't have strings attached) won't be much here late summer of 2012.\",\n \"> Too much work for me. Agreed. That's why I just make sure I keep the daily minimum in there at all times and I don't have to worry about it. I think our fee is $45/mo, so I'm not willing to waste $540/yr. I contemplate moving to a credit union, but I don't like the idea of having to update dozens of accounts, bill pay, direct deposits, etc.\",\n \"No. And just a caution about that super low risk: suppose that you lived during the late 70s and early 80s, when savers in the United States could get interest rates over 10% for savings. You put your money into an account in 1980, knowing that in five years, you'll have made a solid amount of interest. Except that you might have been smarter to convert your money to AUD and save in that currency because it would have moved from 0.88 in value to 1.43 in value (in principal only, not interest - when I look at the RBA's bank interest, it appears they were also paying double digit interest to savers). Now, I get that this may not be the answer that you want to see because it means that if the interest rates were higher in the US, for savers, they might be higher elsewhere too, and it also means that what may appear to be a super low risk could actually be a high risk.\",\n \"There are lots of credit unions that are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) instead of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Both cover individual accounts up to $250,000. If you are looking for non-trivial returns on your money, you should consider a brokerage account which is insured by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC). In the case of SPIC insured accounts, what you are insured against is the failure of the broker (not against loss on your investments if you choose to invest poorly). SPIC insurance covers up to $500,000 in losses from an insolvent broker. You have already indicated your lack of interest in using other investments, but I am not aware of any non-insured accounts that offer higher interest than insured accounts. You have also indicated your lack of interest in investment advice, but it sounds like what you are looking for is offered by a stable value fund.\",\n \"Currently the FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per person per bank. The following products are covered if your bank is FDIC insured. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation#FDIC-insured_products\",\n \"To store $1 milion in a bank with full FDIC insurance currently requires 4 separate bank accounts, each at 250k. It's not that difficult, particularly if you are married and your spouse can have 2 in his/her name. (This is dependent on the FDIC limit; they raised it to 250k after the 2008 crash).\",\n \"Banks in the US have to report deposits of more than $10,000, so they'll contact you to complete form 8300 or something. It should not be a problem, though, if you specify that it's someone else's money, not your income.\",\n \"There is no such animal. If you are looking to give up FDIC protection, investing in a short-term, high quality bond fund or a tax-free bond fund with short durations is a good way to balance safety vs. return. Make sure you buy funds -- buying individual bonds isn't appropriate for folks without a high net worth. Another option is savings bonds, but the yields on these is awful today.\",\n \"\\\"The most important thing to look at is the FDIC insurance. Savings accounts are covered. Money markets - not necessarily. Online savings accounts provide rates of ~1%. Look at American Express, Ally, Capitol One, ING Direct, E*Trade, etc. The \\\"\\\"pledge\\\"\\\" basically brings EverBank into the same list, as they all have similar rates. Being top 5% of competitive accounts is not that hard, because there are thousands of banks around, you know. 0.76 is not the highest rate available. American Express currently give 1% on their savings account. Re moving the money a lot - depends on the amounts, but when the rates were higher, I moved around a lot. Now, it just doesn't worth the trouble, although I would move for 0.25%.\\\"\",\n \"Make sure the financial adviser is fee only. This means the person gets paid a set fee instead of a commission. The commission based adviser will put you in a financial instrument that can charge upwards of 5%, so he would get $900k for hooking you as a client. You can go to finra.org to find a good one. Read books a variety of books so you know about finanical matters. Credit is not advisable if you have as much money as you do. You have already won the race, no need to take risks.\",\n \"The one thing we know for certain is that holding large amounts of cash isn't ideal - inflation will eat away at your wealth. It's understandable that you're hesitant to put all your wealth in common stock. The S&P 500's price/earnings is 18.7 right now - a little high by historical standards. But consider that the S&P 500 has given a CAGR of approximately 10% (not inflation-adjusted) since 1970. If you don't time the market correctly, you could miss out on considerable gains. So it's probably best to invest at least a portion of your wealth in common stocks, and just accept the risk of short-term losses. You'll likely come out ahead in the long run, compared to an investor who tries to time the market and ends up holding cash positions for too long. If you really think US stocks are overpriced, you could look at other markets, but you'll find similar P/Es in Europe and Japan. You could try an emerging market fund like VEMAX if you have the risk tolerance. Let's say you're not convinced, and don't want to invest heavily in stocks right now. In the current market, safe cash alternatives like Treasury bills offer very low yields - not enough to offset inflation tax. So I would invest in a diversified portfolio of long-term bonds, real estate, maybe precious metals, and whatever amount of stock you're comfortable with.\",\n \"In the United States, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation protects the first $500,000 you have at a brokerage including up to $250,000 in cash. This means that if the firm holding your securities fails financially, you have some coverage. That insurance does not prevent your investment itself from losing money. Even traditionally save money market funds can potentially lose value in a situation called Breaking the buck. This means that the Net Asset Value of the fund falls below $1/share. Alas, during periods of market calamity, even traditionally safe stores of value are subject to increased risk.\",\n \"The article you link scares me; but I still have faith that the FDIC will keep me protected. Personally, if the FDIC goes broke, there is something more fundamentally wrong with the government as a whole and dollars won't worry me much. There are lots of issues with the FDIC, and I think the answers lie outside of simply printing more money and funding the FDIC further. There is likely more bad before this storm is over, and I might be ignorant, but I still want to operate normally. My money would stay where it is with things being how I see them in today\",\n \"\\\"is it worth it? That is for you to judge. The risks are having it blowup in your face, and you having to pay a penalty, or go to jail. The issue is how you keep it secret, and who you keep it secret from. If you have money in a secret account and keep it hidden even though you: You are taking a big risk. If the knowledge of the contents of the secret stash would cause a judge or government agency to make a different decision, you could face penalties ranging from monetary to jail time. The government could also decide that they need to determine the source of the funds. They may want to know if the money was \\\"\\\"earned\\\"\\\" through illegal means. They will want to determine if the funds should haven taxed not just on the interest but if the original income tax was ever collected. If the amounts are large enough the taxing authority and police will have a lot of fun pulling apart your entire financial history. Oh and the lawyers you pay to keep you out of jail will also have their fun. why do some people do it? They are greedy; or paranoid; or they don't trust others; or they are criminals.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As you've observed, when you're dealing with that amount of money, you're going to have to give up FDIC guarantees. That means that keeping the money in a bank account carries some risk with it: if that particular bank goes bust, you could lose most of your money. There are a few options to stretch the FDIC limit such as CDARS, but likely can't handle your hypothetical $800 million. So, what's a lucky winner to do? There are a few options, including treasury securities, money market funds, and more general capital investments such as stocks and bonds. Which one(s) are best depend on what your goals are, and what kind of risks you find acceptable. Money in the bank has two defining characteristics: its value is very stable, and it is liquid (meaning you can spend it very easily, whenever you want, without incurring costs). Treasury securities and money market funds each focus on one of these characteristics. A treasury security is a piece of paper (or really, an electronic record) saying that the US Federal Government owes you money and when they will pay it back. They are very secure in that the government has never missed a payment, and will move heaven and earth to make sure they won't miss one in the future (even taking into account recent political history). You can buy and sell them on an open market, either through a broker or directly on the Treasury's website. The major downside of these compared to a bank account is that they're not as liquid as cash: you own specific amounts of specific kinds of securities, not just some number of dollars in an account. The government will pay you guaranteed cash on specified dates; if you need cash on different dates, you will need to sell the securities in the open market and the price will be subject to market fluctuations. The other \\\"\\\"cash-like\\\"\\\" option is money market funds. These are a type of mutual fund offered by financial companies. These funds take your money and spread it out over a wide variety of very low risk, very short term investments, with the goal of ensuring that the full value will never go down and is available at any time. They are very liquid: you can typically transfer cash quickly and easily to a normal bank account, write checks directly, and sometimes even use \\\"\\\"online bill pay\\\"\\\"-like features. They have a very good track record for stability, too, but no one is guaranteeing them against something going terribly wrong. They are lower risk than a (non-FDIC-insured) bank account, since the investments are spread out across many institutions. Beyond those two somewhat \\\"\\\"cash-like\\\"\\\" options, there are of course other, more general investments such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. These other options trade away some degree of stability, liquidity, or both, in exchange for better expected returns.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \\\"\\\"shoot the jaywalker\\\"\\\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\\\"\",\n \"Your main concern seems to be to be accused of something called 'smurfing' or structuring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring Depositing money amounts (cash or checks) under the 10k limit to circumvent the reporting requirement. People have been investigated for depositing under the limit, e.g. small business owners. If you're always above 10k you should be fine, as your deposits are reported and shouldn't raise IRS or FBI suspicions.\",\n \"In the US bank or credit union checking, savings, CD's are insured through FDIC or NCUA. The coverage is for $250,000. This limit can be increased by having multiple accounts. You, your spouse, and a Joint account with your spouse, are considered 3 different accounts, so you could have $750K coverage. IRA funds are considered a separate pot of money for insurance coverage. Here is an explanation from NCUA and FDIC. There is no safety difference between savings and checking. There are differences regarding minimum balances, maximum number of transactions per month, and fees. But they are equally safe.\",\n \"I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.\",\n \"Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).\",\n \"Yes, you can put assets in Canadian banks. Will it protect your wealth to a greater extent than the FDIC protection provided by the US Government? Probably not. If you do business or spend significant time in Canada, then having at least some money in Canada makes sense. Otherwise, you're trying to protect yourself against some outlying risk of a US banking collapse, while subjecting yourself to a very real currency exchange risk.\",\n \"Do not try to deposit piece wise. Either use the system in complete transparence, or do not use it at all. The fear of having your bank account frozen, even if you are in your rights, is justified. In any case, I don't advise you to put in bank before reaching IRS. Also keep all the proof that you indeed contacted them. (Recommended letter and copy of any form you submit to them) Be ready to also give those same documents to your bank to proove your good faith. If they are wrong, you'll be considered in bad faith until you can proove otherwise, without your bank account. Do not trust their good faith, they are not bad people, but very badly organized with too much power, so they put the burden of proof on you just because they can. If it is too burdensome for you then keep cash or go bitcoin. (but the learning curve to keep so much money in bitcoin secure against theft is high) You should declare it in this case anyway, but at least you don't have to fear having your money blocked arbitrarily.\",\n \"If you're the type of moron that keeps several thousand dollars sitting in their checking account then you're either a 1st generation immigrant or just insanely bad with money. And still think going around insulting people is smart. Literally the worst.\",\n \"If thats how you feel (its how I feel ) then the last thing you want bankers doing is accepting deposits from people who think their money is not being risked, then making loans with it (fractional reserve banking). And fdic is not an answer to that fundamental problem.\",\n \"My brokerage account (E-Trade) automatically spreads cash balances that exceed the FDIC insured amount into several partner banks, so just about any amount gets insured.\",\n \"\\\"The first consideration for the banking part of your portfolio is safety. In the United States that is FDIC protection, or the equivalent for a Credit Union. The second consideration is does it have the level of service you need. For this I mean the location of branches, ATMs, or its online services meet your needs for speed, accuracy, and ability to access or move the money as you need. The rest are then balanced on the extras. For your situation those extras include the ability to make free trades. For other it might be a discount on their mortgage. For others it is free checking. In your current situation if the first two things are met, and you are using those extra benefits then don't change. For me the free trades wouldn't be a benefit, so any major degradation in the safety and service would cause me to leave. Keep in mind that free services exist to entice you to make a deposit: which they can then make money by lending it out; or they offer a free service to entice you to use a service they can charge you to use. All Free services come with a cost. I earned a completely paltry $3.33 YTD over the last 9 months on my savings at my bank presumably in exchange for these \\\"\\\"free\\\"\\\" trades. Without knowing how much you had deposited in your savings account there is no way to know how much you could have made at the bank across the street. But with the low rates of the last decade there is not big money to be made off the emergency savings of a typical american family.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Your objectives are contradictory and/or not possible. Eliminating the non-taxable objective: You could divide the $100K in 5 increments, making a \\\"\\\"CD ladder\\\"\\\" $25K in 3mo CD (or savings a/c) $25K in 6 mo CD $25K in 9mo CD $25K in 1 yr CD or similar structure (6mo also works well) Every maturing CD you are able to access cash and/or invest in another longest maturity CD, and earn a higher rate of interest. This plan also works well to plan for future interest rates hikes. If you are forced to access (sell CD's) ALL the $$$ at any time, you will only lose accrued interest, none of the principal. All FDIC guaranteed. If non-taxable is the highest priority, \\\"\\\"invest\\\"\\\" in a tax-free money market fund....see Vanguard Funds. You will not have FDIC guarantee.\\\"\",\n \"Not OP, but let's see: My money-market account is showing 0.25% interest rate. My savings account, 0.20%. And checking, 0.22%. It doesn't matter where I keep my emergency fund and what I keep my checking balance. It's making fuck-all for interest. And I need to keep a couple thousand in there because my mortgage hits for about $1600. And my monthly CC spend averages ~$3500 monthly. I simply can't keep a couple hundred in there.\",\n \"In the UK I believe the first £50,000 in each bank are secured by the government, so are very safe but one has to check what 'each bank' means as some are members of the same 'group'. See the FSCS\",\n \"The US requires its (tax) residents to report foreign accounts if the balances (on all the accounts together) are $10K or more at any given day during the year. This is done through the FBAR system. In addition, you obviously need to report this income on your US tax return and pay taxes. If the balances on your foreign accounts exceed specific threshold, your tax return should also include form 8938. If you report everything and pay the taxes due - you can keep the money wherever you want and transfer it between your accounts as you may see fit. If you don't - the US government may come after you with huge penalties, and the Dubai bank may freeze your account. Its easy to become US tax resident. Stay in the US for more than half a year in a row - and here you are. Subject to the US taxation. Even if you're not a US citizen or green card holder, or at all illegal. Some immigration statuses may grant you an exemption, but none that allows you working for your Dubai employer, so I'm assuming you're a US tax resident.\",\n \"This will probably require some explanation from you on the source of the money and the reasons for the transaction. Cash transactions over $10k will be reported by the bank (in this case) on a CTR report to FinCEN. Keep in mind, mere breaking the transaction into multiple smaller ones in order to avoid the CTR is on its own a criminal offense. Just deposit what you want to deposit, and report what's needed to be reported. Note that if you're a US tax resident - these foreign bank accounts must have been reported already to FinCEN via FBAR, if not - you should expect a very nasty audit with the IRS.\",\n \"Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, like reducing interest charges, IMO you shouldn't do this. The fact that the bank teller or a computer files a CTR doesn't imply that you are doing something improper -- it is simply a regulation that banks are required to adhere to. Millions of CTRs are probably filled out over the course of the year. It doesn't add more time to your transaction, nor does it impact your tax or other liability. Learning about this stuff can instill a sense of paranoia. Don't fall victim to that -- these are measures in place to make it more difficult to dodge taxation and launder money.\",\n \"Re #2, consider an account at a credit union rather than a bank or brokerage firm. Whether you choose a savings account or a money market account, you're likely to get an account with lower fees (so it doesn't cost you money), and rates that are typically similar.\",\n \"For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.\",\n \"Although I do not know about US Institutions; In India Banks have adopted a mix of features that mitigate the risk. Some ways that are used are;\",\n \"Basically, all the same reasons you might not want to keep piles of your own country's cash, plus or minus the exchange rate question. Banks exist for good reasons. You probably want to use them unless you are explicitly playing the exchange rate game -- And if that's what you want, there are probably better ways to do it. If you need help not touching the money, CDs or other term accounts might give you enough disincentive. Or might not.\",\n \"The FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per bank, for each ownership category. The ownership categories are: You and a spouse could collectively have $750,000 of insured deposits at a single bank if you each had a single account, and a joint account together.\",\n \"You should talk to a financial fiduciary (make sure they are a fiduciary, not all planners are) about investing your money. Even ultra safe investments such as treasury bonds will beat the 1% interest rate offered by your savings account (the yield on the 5 year treasury is currently around 2%).\",\n \"\\\"If all of the money needs to be liquid, T-Bills from a broker are the way to go. Treasury Direct is a little onerous -- I'm not sure that you could actually get money out of there in a week. If you can sacrifice some liquidity, I'd recommend a mix of treasury, brokered CDs, agency and municipal securities. The government has implicitly guaranteed that \\\"\\\"too big to fail\\\"\\\" entities are going to be backed by the faith & credit of the United States, so investments in general obligation bonds from big states like New York, California and Florida and cities like New York City will yield you better returns, come with significant tax benefits, and represent only marginal additional short-term risk.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I would keep some money in the U.S. and some money in India. That way, in case \\\"\\\"something bad\\\"\\\" happens in one country, you will still have money in the other.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You can move most or all of those financial products into a single account at one institution, but I wouldn't go with a \\\"\\\"mutual fund account\\\"\\\" like Vanguard. The big online brokerages should offer: Consolidating everything into one statement can vastly simplify your record keeping. With a balance of $250k, you should be able to get a paper statement without a fee. Depending on where the accounts are currently held (e.g. if the stocks are at a full-service broker), you may also be able to save on fees.\\\"\",\n \"If this is truly your emergency fund, then you should keep the money safe. Unfortunately interest rates are very low right now and there is not much you can do about that. However, ask your investment advisor for a CDIC insured high interest account, such as these:\",\n \"Your goals are mutually exclusive. You cannot both earn a return that will outpace inflation while simultaneously having zero-risk of losing money, at least not in the 2011 market. In 2008, a 5+% CD would have been a good choice. Here's a potential compromise... sacrifice some immediate liquidity for more earnings. Say you had $10,000 saved: In this scheme, you've diversified a little bit, have access to 50% of your money immediately (either through online transfer or bringing your bonds to a teller), have an implicit US government guarantee for 50% of your money and low risk for the rest, and get inflation protection for 75% of your money.\",\n \"In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)\",\n \"That's a sensible plan. No there's no reason for the IRS to see this arrangement as suspicious, particularly because the deposits will be from paychecks; you have a record of where all the money came from. Conversely, multiple cash deposits might be considered suspicious. It can only affect your credit if you have credit lines associated with the account (like an overdraft line of credit). Interest earned could increase your tax liability by a tiny amount, but in the current interest rate environment, that's not much of a worry.\",\n \"I'm pretty sure you are don't actually plan to put £120,000 into a zero interest account, because when you take inflation into account, in 20 years, then £120,000 won't be worth anywhere near that amount. For its value to grow you need the interest rate to exceed the rate of inflation and so paying 20% (or even 40%) tax on the interest can make the difference between whether being richer and getting poorer.\",\n \"You spread money/investment across different accounts for different reasons: All this is in addition to diversification reasons. Investing all your money into one stock, bond, Mutual fund, ETF is risky if that one segment of the economy/market suffers. There is a drawback to diversification of accounts. Some have minimum amounts and fee structures. In the original question you asked about 1,000 per account. That may mean that some accounts may be closed to you. In other cases they will charge a higher percentage for fees for small accounts. Those issues would disappear long before you hit the 1,000,000 per account you mentioned in your comment. One problem can occur with having too much diversification. Having dozens of funds could mean that the overlap between the funds might result in over investing in a segment because you didn't realize that one stock segment appeared in 1/3 of the funds.\",\n \"It is FDIC insured, there is no catch .. a few banks offer above 1% APY. Alliant and Ally come to my mind. Terms & Conditions\",\n \"Chase has a limit of $500,000 per day. A banker should be able to help you determine any immediate tax liabilities that will arise as a direct result of the transaction. You may wish to consult with a tax professional about any indirect implications the transfer may have. This transaction will be reported to the government but assuming that you are not involved in any illegitimate activities the likelihood of the US government taking any action on the notice is incredibly low. I have heard of 7 and 14 day holds being placed on out of character transfers but if you are buying property you should work with your bank to help facilitate. Bankers understand the business and can help you avoid any appearances of impropriety that the government flags. Should your account be flagged, I would retain a lawyer immediately. If you feel you have a reason to be concerned, then I would contact a lawyer in the US and Thailand before initiating the transfer. As they say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.\",\n \"I wanted to know how safe is such investment with online banks vis-a-vis regular banks? As far as I know, neither money market accounts nor savings accounts have any investment risk (within reason) since both are insured by the FDIC. Note that this is not necessarily the case with money market funds. is their any downside to such investments? Yes, there are a few. I believe the two biggest ones are:\",\n \"To me, it depends. How much are their total assets? Having 10% of your money in something like that isn't crazy. having it all in? That IS crazy. Can they reduce their exposure to this account without paying a penalty (say pull out 10%?) The Manager should be taking direction from them. If they aren't able to get the manager to re-allocate to something more suitable, under your friends direction, they should then pursue whether or not the manager is operating lawfully.\",\n \"\\\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \\\"\\\"lawsuit\\\"\\\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Are there still people who keep significant amounts of money in a bank savings account? You could get ~1% by just choosing the right bank. ING Direct, for example, gives 0.8%, 4 times more than your credit union, with the same FDIC insurance! If you do want to invest in something slightly more long-term, you can get a CD. At the same ING Direct, you can get a 5-year CD with 1% APR. Comes with the same FDIC insurance. Note that I mention ING Direct just because I accidentally had their site open right in front of me, their rates are definitely not the highest right now. If you want to give up the FDIC insurance and take some more risks, you can invest your money in municipal bonds or various kinds of \\\"\\\"low risk\\\"\\\" mutual funds, which may yield 3-5% a year. If you want to take even more risks - there's a whole stock market available for you, with ETF's, mutual funds and individual stocks. Whether you should - that only you can tell. But you can have a NO-RISK investment yielding 4-5 times more than what you have right now, just saying.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Your #1 problem is the Government both in it's form as a taxation outfit and as a 'law and order' outfit. You'd be very surprised at how fast a bank seizes your bank account in response to a court order. Purchase 100 Mexican 50 Peso Gold (1.2 oz/ea). These coins are cheap (lowest cost to get into) and will not be reportable on sale to taxing authorities. That money is out of the banking system and legal system(s). Do not store them in a bank! You need to find a tax strategist, probably a former IRS agent / CPA type. With the rest remaining money... There's an old saying, Don't fight the Fed. As well as \\\"\\\"The trend is your friend\\\"\\\". So, the Fed wants all savers fully invested right now (near 0 interest rates). When investing, I find that if you do exactly opposite what you think is the smart thing, that's the best thing. Therefore, it follows: 1) Don't fight the Fed 2) Do opposite of smart 3) Do: Fight the Fed (and stay 100% out of the market and in cash) We're looking like Japan so could remain deflationary for decades to come. Cash is king...\\\"\",\n \"\\\"HSBC, Hang Seng, and other HK banks had a series of special savings account offers when I lived in HK a few years ago. Some could be linked to the performance of your favorite stock or country's stock index. Interest rates were higher back then, around 6% one year. What they were effectively doing is taking the interest you would have earned and used it to place a bet on the stock or index in question. Technically, one way this can be done, for instance, is with call options and zero coupon bonds or notes. But there was nothing to strategize with once the account was set up, so the investor did not need to know how it worked behind the scenes... Looking at the deposit plus offering in particular, this one looks a little more dangerous than what I describe. See, now we are in an economy of low almost zero interest rates. So to boost the offered rate the bank is offering you an account where you guarantee the AUD/HKD rate for the bank in exchange for some extra interest. Effectively they sell AUD options (or want to cover their own AUD exposures) and you get some of that as extra interest. Problem is, if the AUD declines, then you lose money because the savings and interest will be converted to AUD at a contractual rate that you are agreeing to now when you take the deposit plus account. This risk of loss is also mentioned in the fine print. I wouldn't recommend this especially if the risks are not clear. If you read the fine print, you may determine you are better off with a multicurrency account, where you can change your HK$ into any currency you like and earn interest in that currency. None of these were \\\"\\\"leveraged\\\"\\\" forex accounts where you can bet on tiny fluctuations in currencies. Tiny being like 1% or 2% moves. Generally you should beware anything offering 50:1 or more leverage as a way to possibly lose all of your money quickly. Since you mentioned being a US citizen, you should learn about IRS form TD F 90-22.1 (which must be filed yearly if you have over $10,000 in foreign accounts) and google a little about the \\\"\\\"foreign account tax compliance act\\\"\\\", which shows a shift of the government towards more strict oversight of foreign accounts.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You state \\\"\\\"Any info will be appreciated\\\"\\\", so here's some background information on my answer (you can skip to my answer): When I worked for banks, I was required to submit suspicious activity to the people above me by filling out a form with a customer's name, SSN, account number(s) and ID. You may hear in media that it is $10K or sometimes $5K. The truth is that it could be lower than that, depending on what the institution defines as suspicious. Every year we were required to take a \\\"\\\"course\\\"\\\" which implied that terrorists and criminals use cash regularly - whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant - this is what the course implied. It's important to understand that many people use cash-only budgets because it's easier than relying on the banking system which charges overdraft fees for going over, or in some cases, you pay more at merchants because of card usage (some merchants give discounts for cash). If someone has a budget of $10K a month and they choose to use cash, that's perfectly fine. Also, why is it anyone's business what someone does with their private property? This created an interesting contrast among differently aged Americans - older Americans saw the banking system as tyrannical busybodies whereas young Americans didn't care. This is part of why I eventually left the banking system; I felt sick that I had to report this information, but it's amazing how quick everyone is to accept the new rules. Notice how one of the comments asks you what you intend to do with the money, as if it's any of their business. Welcome to the New America©! My answer: If you withdraw $100,000, here is what will more than likely happen: Now, watch the anger at this answer because I'm telling you the truth. This article will explain why. Your very question had a negative 1, as if asking what you're asking is wrong (see the absurdity)! If Joseph Stalin ran for president in the United States, the majority of Americans would welcome him. You have good reason to be concerned; others at this site have noticed this as well.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In answering your question as it's written: I don't think you're really \\\"\\\"missing\\\"\\\" something. Different banks offer different rates. Online banks, or eBanking solutions, such as CapitalOne, Ally, Barclays, etc., typically offer higher interest rates on basic savings accounts. There are differences between Money Market accounts and Standard Savings accounts, but primarily it comes down to how you can access your cash. This may vary based on bank, but Ally has a decent blurb about it: Regular savings accounts are easy to open and, when you choose an online bank like Ally Bank, you tend to get interest rates that are more competitive than brick-and-mortar counterparts, according to Bankrate.com. Additionally, as a member of the FDIC, Ally Bank gives you peace of mind knowing that the money in your Ally Bank Online Savings Account is insured to the maximum allowed by the law. Money market accounts are easy to open, too. And again, online banks may offer better rates than traditional banks. Generally, you have a bit more flexibility of access with a money market account than you do with a savings account. You can access funds in your Ally Bank Money Market Account through electronic fund transfers, checks, debit cards and ATM withdrawals. With savings accounts, your access is limited to electronic funds transfers or telephone withdrawals (and in-person withdrawals at traditional banks). Both types of accounts are subject to federal transaction limits. Here's a bit more information about a Money Market Account and why the rate might be a little bit higher (from thesimpledollar.com): A money market deposit account is a bit different. The restrictions on what a bank can do with that money are somewhat looser – they can often invest that money in things such as treasury notes, certificates of deposit, municipal bonds, and so on in addition to the tight restrictions of a normal savings accounts. In other words, the bank can take your money and invest it in other investments that are very safe. Now outside of your question, if you have $100K that you want to earn interest on, I'd suggest looking at options with higher rates of return rather than a basic savings account which will top out around 1% or so. What you do with that money is dependent on how quickly you need access to it, and there are a lot of Q&A's on this site that cover suggestions.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.","Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)","If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts. With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct.","Many brokerage accounts for trading stocks are covered under SIPC insurance, which is up to $500,000 You can also have multiple checking and savings accounts with the $250,000 balance split up. You can also check your bank's capital ratio on the FDIC website, somewhere. The FDIC won't move on them unless it falls under 3% and even then FDIC will force them into receivership and sell them to a bigger bank before they go bust and experience losses of customer deposits. This is what mostly happened when hundreds of banks failed during the crisis from 2008-2010. There were very isolated events where customers actually lost their cash balances, and that was mostly because those customers had completely uninsured accounts. As that was the most extreme moment in US and global financial history, you should be able to judge risk with the aforementioned information in mind. You can stay in a cash balance easily and be fully insured.","Build a trust. I have a trust account under my name and 3 dependents, FDIC confirmed we're good to 1m. Then I have personal accounts for the 4 of us and a corp account, all at the same bank, each also insured."],"string":"[\n \"First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.\",\n \"Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)\",\n \"If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts. With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct.\",\n \"Many brokerage accounts for trading stocks are covered under SIPC insurance, which is up to $500,000 You can also have multiple checking and savings accounts with the $250,000 balance split up. You can also check your bank's capital ratio on the FDIC website, somewhere. The FDIC won't move on them unless it falls under 3% and even then FDIC will force them into receivership and sell them to a bigger bank before they go bust and experience losses of customer deposits. This is what mostly happened when hundreds of banks failed during the crisis from 2008-2010. There were very isolated events where customers actually lost their cash balances, and that was mostly because those customers had completely uninsured accounts. As that was the most extreme moment in US and global financial history, you should be able to judge risk with the aforementioned information in mind. You can stay in a cash balance easily and be fully insured.\",\n \"Build a trust. I have a trust account under my name and 3 dependents, FDIC confirmed we're good to 1m. Then I have personal accounts for the 4 of us and a corp account, all at the same bank, each also insured.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":284,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6890"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Where does the money go when I buy stocks?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["558703","240196"],"string":"[\n \"558703\",\n \"240196\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["558703","240196","154976","471964","327941","32589","245834","393483","167322","260006","160028","128571","239064","381665","26203","524949","593455","211730","369998","332323","516561","241135","413256","413672","511760","317365","390817","537783","386278","258419","528095","525527","259072","226197","584295","365465","482739","427067","286494","537603","395409","313437","148435","186184","137478","592891","552586","155677","231221","568200","461018","540462","564870","173088","406872","306782","286296","116738","180362","564396","493438","192600","196173","93231","109246","339327","451301","152286","429927","25605","158923","130303","455168","210743","481999","370212","65147","313570","525231","407505","350110","99943","598295","466143","563405","522798","94900","591436","442830","217042","1198","517323","580364","449352","434596","454222","34882","347348","131788","320698"],"string":"[\n \"558703\",\n \"240196\",\n \"154976\",\n \"471964\",\n \"327941\",\n \"32589\",\n \"245834\",\n \"393483\",\n \"167322\",\n \"260006\",\n \"160028\",\n \"128571\",\n \"239064\",\n \"381665\",\n \"26203\",\n \"524949\",\n \"593455\",\n \"211730\",\n \"369998\",\n \"332323\",\n \"516561\",\n \"241135\",\n \"413256\",\n \"413672\",\n \"511760\",\n \"317365\",\n \"390817\",\n \"537783\",\n \"386278\",\n \"258419\",\n \"528095\",\n \"525527\",\n \"259072\",\n \"226197\",\n \"584295\",\n \"365465\",\n \"482739\",\n \"427067\",\n \"286494\",\n \"537603\",\n \"395409\",\n \"313437\",\n \"148435\",\n \"186184\",\n \"137478\",\n \"592891\",\n \"552586\",\n \"155677\",\n \"231221\",\n \"568200\",\n \"461018\",\n \"540462\",\n \"564870\",\n \"173088\",\n \"406872\",\n \"306782\",\n \"286296\",\n \"116738\",\n \"180362\",\n \"564396\",\n \"493438\",\n \"192600\",\n \"196173\",\n \"93231\",\n \"109246\",\n \"339327\",\n \"451301\",\n \"152286\",\n \"429927\",\n \"25605\",\n \"158923\",\n \"130303\",\n \"455168\",\n \"210743\",\n \"481999\",\n \"370212\",\n \"65147\",\n \"313570\",\n \"525231\",\n \"407505\",\n \"350110\",\n \"99943\",\n \"598295\",\n \"466143\",\n \"563405\",\n \"522798\",\n \"94900\",\n \"591436\",\n \"442830\",\n \"217042\",\n \"1198\",\n \"517323\",\n \"580364\",\n \"449352\",\n \"434596\",\n \"454222\",\n \"34882\",\n \"347348\",\n \"131788\",\n \"320698\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the \"\"market maker\"\" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for \"\"retail\"\" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know.\"","The money goes to the seller. There are a lot of behind the scenes things that happen, and some transactions are very complicated with many parties involved (evidenced by all the comments on @keshlam's perfectly reasonable high-level answer), but ultimately the money goes to the seller. Sometimes the seller is the company. The billions of shares that change hands each day are moving between other individuals like you and investment funds; these transactions have no direct impact on the company's financials, in general.","Cash changes hands when you buy or sell the stock. While you own the stock, you own it, not cash, so there is no cash to go anywhere. You spent your money when you bought. The seller got that money. It's gone. You hope that when you sell the stock, someone will give you more money for it than you spent. But they may give you less. Money doesn't magically appear either way, it comes from the buyer. After selling, you have the money -- however much you sold for -- and no longer have the stock. NOTE that this means the current value of a share of stock is interesting, but not really very relevant, unless you are actively buying or selling. What your portfolio is worth on paper is nothing more than an approximate snapshot at the moment you retrieve the data. It is not a promise of what will actually happen when you do sell.","A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.","You or the broker place an order to buy the share with the stock exchange. There has to be a matching sell order by someone. Once a match is made, you pay the money and get the share.","First: the question is irrelevant for purchases on exchange, mostly. Majority of sales on stock exchanges is between shareholders. If however you buy directly from the company (in a IPO, or direct share purchase program of some kind, like ESPP), then it does end up showing in the company account ledgers one way or another. It then become part of company's total assets, and the newly sold shares add to the equity.","In short, thanks to the answers and comments posted so far. No actual money is magically disappeared when the stock price goes down but the value is lost. The value changes of a stock is similar to the value changes of a house. The following is the long answer I came up with based on the previous answers and comments alone with my own understandings. Any experts who find any of the following is 200% out of place and wrong, feel free to edit it or make comments. Everything below only applies if the following are true: The stock price is only decreasing since the IPO because the company has been spending the money but not making profits after the IPO. The devaluation of the stock is not the result of any bad news related to the company but a direct translation of the money the company has lost by spending on whatever the company is doing. The actual money don’t just disappear into the thin air when the stock price goes down. All the money involved in trading this stock has already distributed to the sellers of this stock before the price went down. There is no actual money that is literally disappeared, it was shifted from one hand to another, but again this already happened before the price went down. For example, I bought some stocks for $100, then the price went down to $80. The $100 has already shifted from my hand to the seller before the price went down. I got the stock with less value, but the actual money $100 did not just go down to $80, it’s in the hand of the seller who sold the stock to me. Now if I sell the stock to the same seller who sold the stock to me, then I lost $20, where did the $20 go? it went to the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back at a lower price. The seller ended up with the same amount of the stocks and the $20 from me. Did the seller made $20? Yes, but did the seller’s total assets increased? No, it’s still $100, $80 from the stocks, and $20 in cash. Did anyone made an extra $20? No. Although I did lost $20, but the total cash involved is still there, I have the $80 , the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back has the $20. The total cash value is still $100. Directly, I did lost $20 to the guy who sold me the stock when the stock has higher value and then bought it back at a lower price. But that guy did not increased his total assets by $20. The value of the stock is decreased, the total money $100 did not disappear, it ended up from one person holding it to 2 people holding it. I lost $20 and nobody gained $20, how is that possible? Assume the company of the stock never made any profit since it’s IPO, the company just keeps spending the money, to really track down where the $20 I lost is going, it is the company has indirectly spent that money. So who got that $20 I lost? It could be the company spent $20 for a birthday cake, the $20 went to the cake maker. The company never did anything to make that $20 back, so that $20 is lost. Again, assume the stock price only goes down after its IPO, then buying this stock is similar to the buying a sport car example from JoeTaxpayer (in one of the answers), and buying an apple example from BrenBarn(in one of the comments from JoeTaxpayer’s answer). Go back to the question, does the money disappears into the thin air when the value of the stock goes down? No, the money did not disappear, it switched hands. It went from the buyer of the stock to the company, and the company has spent that money. Then what happens when the stock price goes down because bad news about the company? I believe the actual money still did not just disappear. If the bad news turn out to be true that the company had indeed lost this much money, the money did not disappear, it’s been spent/lost by the company. If the bad news turn out to be false, the stock price will eventually go up again, the money is still in the hand of the company. As a summary, the money itself did not disappear no matter what happens, it just went from one wallet to another wallet in many different ways through the things people created that has a value.","Because the stock still has the same value as the money paid for it - you are just exchanging one asset for another (of course the stock value starts to change immediately, but for the accounting the fictional value is the buying price). For the accounting, it is similar to changing a 100$ bill in five 20$ bills - same value, still assets.","\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"","Now a days, your stocks can be seen virtually through a brokerage account. Back in the days, a stock certificate was the only way to authenticate stock ownership. You can still request them though from the corporation you have shares in or your brokerage. It will have your name, corporation name and number of shares you have. You have to buy shares of a stock either through a brokerage or the corporation itself. Most stock brokerages are legit and are FDIC or SIPC insured. But your risks are your own loses. The $10 you are referring to is the trade commission fee the brokerage charges. When you place an order to buy or sell a stock the brokerage will charge you $10. So for example if you bought 1 share of a $20 stock. The total transaction cost will be $30. Depending on the state you live in, you can basically starting trading stocks at either 18 or 21. You can donate/gift your shares to virtually anyone. When you sell a stock and experience a profit, you will be charged a capital gains tax. If you buy a stock and sell it for a gain within 1 year, you will taxed up to 35% or your tax bracket but if you hold it for more than a year, you will taxed only 15% or your tax bracket.","\"Ditto to MD-Tech, but from a more \"\"philosophical\"\" point of view: When you buy stock, you own it, just like you own a cell phone or a toaster or a pair of socks that you bought. The difference is that a share of stock means that you own a piece of a corporation. You can't physically take possession of it and put it in your garage, because if all the stock-holders did that, then all the company's assets would be scattered around all the stock-holder's garages and the company couldn't function. Like if you bought a 1/11 share in a football team, you couldn't take one of the football players home and keep him in your closet, because then the team wouldn't be able to function. (I might want to take one of the cheerleaders home, but that's another subject ...) In pre-electronic times, you could get a piece of paper that said, \"\"XYZ Corporation - 1 share\"\". You could take physical possession of this piece of paper and put it in your filing cabinet. I'm not sure if you can even get such certificates any more; I haven't seen one in decades. These days it's just recorded electronically. That doesn't mean that you don't own it. It just means that someone else is keeping the records for you. It's like leaving your car in a parking lot. It's still your car. The people who run the parking lot doesn't own it. They are keeping it for you, but just because they have physical possession doesn't make it theirs.\"","Don't sit on it, because the money does not work for you. Add more money to it and buy a stock or stocks of the company.","When I invest in a business valued at $50,000, I pay $25,000 and receive 50% equity. Does that $25,000 go to the current owner of the business, or into the capital of the business itself? Who receives the money depends on who is selling you the equity. There are a couple of different scenarios that can fit your question. You could buy existing shares from the current owner(s) of the company. In this case, the current owner(s) would be receiving the funds from you, and in return giving you their stake in the company. So if you all agree that the value of the business is $50,000, and you give $25,000 to the current owner(s), they give you half of their shares. The value of the company has not changed. The company could be issuing new shares. This is called stock dilution, or an increase in authorized share capital. Let's say that everyone agrees that the value of the business is $50,000. The company could create new shares and sell them to you for $25,000. In this case, the value of the company has jumped to $75,000; you now control one-third of the company, and the existing owner(s), who previously owned 100% of the company, now only own two-thirds. In order for you to end up with 50% of the company in this case, you would have to invest $50,000 instead, which would result in the company being valued at $100,000. If you are wondering why the current owners would agree to this second scenario, there are two questions that address this:","\"It's not a ponzi scheme, and it does create value. I think you are confusing \"\"creating value\"\" and \"\"producing something\"\". The stock market does create value, but not in the same way as Toyota creates value by making a car. The stock market does not produce anything. The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public. & The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. Earnings are the in-flow that you are missing here. Business profits DO flow back into the stock market through earnings and dividends. Think about a private company: if it has $100,000 in profits for the year then the company keeps $100,000, but if that same company is publicly traded with 100,000 shares outstanding then, all else being equal, each of those shares went up by $1. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. You can't go to an Apple store and try to pay with a stock certificate, but that doesn't mean the certificate doesn't have value. Using your agriculture example, you wouldn't be able to pay with a basket of tomatoes either. You wouldn't even be able to pay with a lump of gold! We used to do that. It was called the barter system. Companies also do buy shares back from the market using company cash. Although they usually do it through clearing-houses that are capable of moving blocks of 1,000 shares at a time.\"","First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.","If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.","You buy stocks for dividends over the long term. If a share of stock pays $1.00 in dividends every quarter, that's four dollars a year. If you bought it for $40, it pays out $4 in a year, and it's still worth roughly $40 at the end of the year, you're $4 richer. People will often invest large amounts of money in stable stocks not planning to sell it, but only collect the dividends which are either re-invested or pulled out as income.","When you buy a stock, you become a partial owner of the company that the stock is for. As the company is valued at a higher or lower amount, the stock will reflect that by gaining or losing value. You still own that stock. For example, if you bought a stock for $10 per share and next week it is worth $8 dollars per share, the only loss incurred is on paper. You do not have to pay the difference (which I think is what you are asking?) and will only physically lose that money if you sell at that point. Similarly if that stock becomes worth $12, you have only gained money on paper and can only physically see it if you sell at that point.","It depends. If the investor bought newly-issued shares or treasury shares, the company gets the money. If the investor bought shares already held by the owner, the owner gets the money. A 100% owner can decide how to structure the sale. Yet, the investor may only be willing to buy shares if the funds increase the company's working capital.","Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.","The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet.","Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started.","\"There is a legal document called a \"\"Stock Purchase Agreement\"\" and it depends on who is the other party to the buyer in the Agreement. In almost all startups the sale goes through the company, so the company keeps the money. In your example, the company would be worth $10,000 \"\"Post-Money\"\" because the $1k got 10% of the Company.\"","\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \"\"X\"\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\"","Anytime you invest in stocks, you do that inside an investment account - such as the type you might open at ETrade, Vanguard, Fidelity or Charles Schwab. Once you have the account and fund it, you can tell the system to invest some/all of your money in When you open your investment account, their first question will be whether this is a cash account, traditional IRA, or Roth IRA. The broker must report this to the IRS because the tax treatment is very different.","\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"","The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.","This is a very good question! The biggest difference is that when you put money in a savings bank you are a lender that is protected by the government, and when you buy stocks you become an owner. As a lender, whether the bank makes or loses money on the loans it makes, they still maintain your balance and pay you interest, and your principal balance is guaranteed by the government (in the USA). The bank is the party that is primarily at risk if their business does not perform well. As an owner, you participate fully in the company's gains and losses, but you also put your money at risk, since if the company loses money, you do too. Because of this, many people prefer to buy funds made up of many stocks, so they are not at risk of one company performing very poorly or going bankrupt. When you buy stock you become a part owner and share in the profitability of the company, often through a dividend. You should also be aware that stocks often have years where they do very poorly as well as years when they do very well. However, over a long period of time (10 years or more), they have historically done better in outpacing inflation than any other type of investment. For this reason, I would recommend that you only invest in the stock market if you expect to be able to leave the money there for 10 years or more, ideally, and for 5 years at the very least. Otherwise, you may need to take the money out at a bad time. I would also recommend that you only invest in stocks if you already have an emergency fund, and don't have consumer debt. There isn't much point in putting your money at risk to get a return if you can get a risk-free return by paying off debt, or if you would have to pull your money back out if your car broke down or you lost your job.","how do they turn shares into cash that they can then use to grow their business? Once a Company issues an IPO or Follow-On Public Offer, the company gets the Money. Going over the list of question tagged IPO would help you with basics. Specifically the below questions; How does a company get money by going public in an IPO? Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market? Why would a stock opening price differ from the offering price? From what I've read so far, it seems that pre-IPO an investment bank essentially buys the companies public shares, and that bank then sells them on the open market. Is the investment bank buying 100% of the newly issued public shares? And then depositing the cash equivalent into the companies bank account? Additionally, as the stock price rises and falls over the lifetime of the company how does that actually impact the companies bank balance? Quite a bit on above is incorrect. Please read the answers to the question tagged IPO. Once an IPO is over, the company does not gain anything directly from the change in shareprice. There is indirect gain / loss.","For some very small private companies I know of (and am part of), paper stocks do exist. You can sit at the table with the damn things in your hand and wave them in people's faces. They tell everyone how much of the company you own as a result of the money you ponied up. On the other hand, most stocks are now electronic. Nothing to hold. Just electronic records to review. They still represent how much you own of the company because of some amount of money you have put at risk, but they aren't anywhere near as much fun as the old-fasioned paper proofs. (As MrChrister notes, you can pay a small fee to get paper if you like, even for some big companies. Some of these paper stocks are remarkably elaborate and fine looking, but hardly necessary.) (You can see more info about what stocks are and what sort of stocks exist here: http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/What_is_a_stock%3F)","For point two.. The norm for buying stock is to just register online with a major broker: Fidelity, Schwab,TD Ameritrade...etc, send them money to fund your purchase, make the stock purchase in your account, and then have a little faith. You could probably get them to physically transfer the stock certificates from them to you, but it is not the norm at all. I would plan on a fee being involved also. The 10$ is for one trade... regardless of if you buy one share or many. So you wouldn't buy 1 share of a five dollar stock as your cost would be absurd. You might buy a hundred shares.","\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \"\"holding\"\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\"","What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.","\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"","There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.","\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"","\"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \"\"market makers\"\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\"","A purchase of a stock is not a taxable event. No 1099 to worry about. Welcome to Money.SE","People buy stocks with the intention of making money. They either expect the price to continue to rise or that they will get dividends and the price will not drop (enough) to wipe out their dividend earnings.","If I invest X each month, where does X go - an existing (low yield) bond, or a new bond (at the current interest rate)? This has to be viewed in a larger context. If the fund has outflows greater than or equal to inflows then chances are there isn't any buying being done with your money as that cash is going to those selling their shares in the fund. If though inflows are greater than outflows, there may be some new purchases or not. Don't forget that the new purchase could be an existing bond as the fund has to maintain the duration of being a short-term, intermediate-term or long-term bond fund though there are some exceptions like convertibles or high yield where duration isn't likely a factor. Does that just depend on what the fund manager is doing at the time (buying/selling)? No, it depends on the shares being created or redeemed as well as the manager's discretion. If I put Y into a fund, and leave it there for 50 years, where does Y go when all of the bonds at the time I made the purchase mature? You're missing that the fund may buy and sell bonds at various times as for example a long-term bond fund may not have issues nearing maturity because of what part of the yield curve it is to mimic. Does Y just get reinvested in new bonds at the interest rate at that time? Y gets mixed with the other money in the fund that may increase or decrease in value over time. This is part of the risk in a bond fund where NAV can fluctuate versus a money market mutual fund where the NAV is somewhat fixed at $1/share.","This depends on what your definition of the word is is. Strictly speaking, you are only investing in a company when you buy stock from them somehow. This is usually done during an IPO or a secondary offering. Or, if you are someone like Warren Buffet or an institutional investor, you strike a deal with the company to buy shares directly from them. Otherwise, your money goes to someone else. Merriam-Webster defines speculate as 1b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively However, it also defines it as: 2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations The typical use of the term stock speculation vs stock investing involves definition 1b. This alludes to the idea that little to no research was done about the stock. This may be due to a lack of time, interest, knowledge, etc., or it may be due to a lack of information. The former usually has a negative connotation. The latter may have a negative connotation, though usually the connotation is one of greater risk. Strictly speaking, definition 2 includes investing as you define it along with investing in securities/commodities.","I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc.. 1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently.","I see a false assumption that you are making. (Almost always) When you buy stock the cash you spend does not go to the company. Instead it goes to someone else who is selling their shares. The exception to this is when you buy shares in an IPO. Those of us who have saved all our lives for retirement want income producing investments once we retire. (Hopefully) We have saved up quite a bit of money. To have us purchase their stock companies have to offer us dividends.","\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \"\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\"\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\"","No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.","Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Sometimes. If the market goes down, and someone sells -- on a panic, perhaps, or nervousness -- at a loss, if you have extra cash then you can buy that stock on the hope/expectation that its value will rise.","As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm. My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later.","That is a loaded question but I'll give it a shot. First things first you need to determine if you are ready to invest in stocks. If you have a lot of high interest debt you would be much better served paying that off before investing in stocks. Stocks return around 8%-10% in the long run, so you'd be better off paying off any debt you have that is higher than 8%-10%. Most people get their start investing in stocks through mutual funds in their 401k or a Roth IRA. If you want to invest in individual stocks instead of mutual funds then you will need to do a lot of reading and learning. You will need a brokerage account or if you have a stock in mind they might have a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP) that you could invest in directly with the company. You will have to compare the different brokerage firms to determine which is best for you. Since you seem to be internet savvy, I suggest you use a discount brokerage that let's you buy stocks online with cheaper commissions. A good rule of thumb is to keep commissions below 1% of the amount invested. Once you have your online brokerage account open with money in there the process of actually buying the stock is fairly straightforward. Just place an order for the amount of shares you want. That order can be a market order which means the purchase will occur at the current market price. Or you can use a limit order where you control at what price your purchase will occur. There are lots of good books out there for beginners. Personally I learned from the Motley Fool. And last but not least is to have fun with it. Learn as much as you can and welcome to the club.","In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker. This is called a margin account. The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan. If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information.","New to investing... when I buy/sell a stock can I buy/sell at the exact market price whenever I'd like or is there more to it? Does there need to be a demand for when I'm trying to sell or am I just forcing the company to buy back my shares? Sorry if confusing/rookie question","stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.","You can make money via stocks in two primary ways: Note that there's no guarantee of either. So it may very well not make you money.","\"The answer to your question is \"\"no\"\". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account. If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days. Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker. Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership. Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house.\"","\"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \"\"cost basis\"\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\"","\"I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A \"\"broker\"\" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are \"\"mortgage broker\"\" (for arranging home loans) and \"\"stockbroker\"\". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later.\"","\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"","A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.","\"Not a bond holder, but when we get dividends we usually just buy up a benchmark index tracking ETF unless/until we're ready to rebalance our portfolio. Most of the trades in the day are earmarked with the reason \"\"spending cash\"\". I'd assume it's similar for bond holders and coupons.\"","When you own stock in a company, you do literally own part of the business, even if it's a small portion. Anyone amassing over 50% of shares really does have a controlling interest. No, you can't trade a handful of AAPL shares back to Apple for an iPod, but you can sell the shares and then go buy an iPod with the proceeds. Stock prices change over time because the underlying companies are worth more or less and people are willing to pay more or less for those shares. There is no Ponzi scheme because each share you own can be bought or sold on the open market. Dividends come from the company profits, not from other investors. On the other hand, money only has value because everyone believes it has value. There's the real conspiracy.","Day traders see a dip, buy stocks, then sell them 4 mins later when the value climbed to a small peak. What value is created? Is the company better off from that trade? The stocks were already outside of company hands, so the trade doesn't affect them at all. You've just received money from others for no contribution to society. A common scenario is a younger business having a great idea but not enough capital funds to actually get the business going. So, investors buy shares which they can sell later on at a higher value. The investor gets value from the shares increasing over time, but the business also gets value of receiving money to build the business.","A Company start with say $100. Lets say the max it can borrow from bank is $100 @ $10 a year as Interest. After a years say, On the $200 the company made a profit of $110. So it now has total $310 Option 1: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It further gave away the $100 back to shareholders as dividends. The Balance with company $100. It can again start the second year, borrow from Bank $100 @ 10 interest and restart. Option 2: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It now has $200. It can now borrow $200 from Bank @ $20. After a year it makes a profit of $250. [Economics of scale result $30 more] Quite a few companies in growth phase use Option 2 as they can grow faster, achieve economies of scale, keep competition at bay, etc Now if I had a share of this company say 1 @ $1, by end of first year its value would be $2, at the end of year 2 it would be $3.3. Now there is someone else who wants to buy this share at end of year 1. I would say this share gives me 100% returns every year, so I will not sell at $2. Give me $3 at the end of first year. The buyer would think well, if I buy this at $3, first year I would notionally get $.3 and from then on $1 every year. Not bad. This is still better than other stocks and better than Bank CD etc ... So as long as the company is doing well and expected to do well in future its price keeps on increasing as there is someone who want to buy. Why would someone want to sell and not hold one: 1. Needs cash for buying house or other purposes, close to retirement etc 2. Is balancing the portfolio to make is less risk based 3. Quite a few similar reasons Why would someone feel its right to buy: 1. Has cash and is young is open to small risk 2. Believes the value will still go up further 3. Quite a few similar reasons","Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).","Suppose I purchase $10,000 worth of a particular share today. If the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $9,000 for those shares, then I replacing their $9,000 investment with my $10,000 investment. This is a net inflow of $1,000 into the market. Similarly, if the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $11,000 for those shares, then their $11,000 investment is being replace by my $10,000 investment. This is a net outflow of $1,000 out of the market. The aggregate of all such inflows and outflows in the net inflow/outflow into the market over a given period of time. (Here we are ignoring the effects of new share issues.)","quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.","\"Seems like no one in this thread has heard of \"\"treasury stocks\"\", which indeed allow a company to own and sell its own stock. Think about it. When there is a stock buy-back funded by excess profits, where does that stock go?\"","Would you mind adding where that additional value comes from, if not from the losses of other investors? You asked this in a comment, but it seems to be the key to the confusion. Corporations generate money (profits, paid as dividends) from sales. Sales trade products for money. The creation of the product creates value. A car is worth more than General Motors pays for its components and inputs, even including labor and overhead as inputs. That's what profit is: added value. The dividend is the return that the stock owner gets for owning the stock. This can be a bit confusing in the sense that some stocks don't pay dividends. The theory is that the stock price is still based on the future dividends (or the liquidation price, which you could also consider a type of dividend). But the current price is mostly based on the likelihood that the stock price will increase rather than any expected dividends during ownership of the stock. A comment calls out the example of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway is a weird case. It operates more like a mutual fund than a company. As such, investors prefer that it reinvest its money rather than pay a dividend. If investors want money from it, they sell shares to other investors. But that still isn't really a zero sum game, as the stock increases in value over time. There are other stocks that don't pay dividends. For example, Digital Equipment Corporation went through its entire existence without ever paying a dividend. It merged with Compaq, paying investors for owning the stock. Overall, you can see this in that the stock market goes up on average. It might have a few losing years, but pick a long enough time frame, and the market will increase during it. If you sell a stock today, it's because you value the money more than the stock. If it goes up tomorrow, that's the buyer's good luck. If it goes down, the buyer's bad luck. But it shouldn't matter to you. You wanted money for something. You received the money. The increase in the stock market overall is an increase in value. It is completely unrelated to trading losses. Over time, trading gains outweigh trading losses for investors as a group. Individual investors may depart from that, but the overall gain is added value. If the only way to make gains in the stock market was for someone else to take a loss, then the stock market wouldn't be able to go up. To view it as a zero sum game, we have to ignore the stocks themselves. Then each transaction is a payment (loss) for one party and a receipt (gain) for the other. But the stocks themselves do have value other than what we pay for them. The net present value of of future payments (dividends, buyouts, etc.) has an intrinsic worth. It's a risky worth. Some stocks will turn out to be worthless, but on average the gains outweigh the losses.","\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\"","I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.","Where can publicly traded profits go but to shareholders via dividends? They can be retained by the company.","A company CAN hold on to money. This is called retained earnings. Not all money is due back to the owners (i.e. stockholders), but only the amount that the board of directors chooses to pay back in the form of dividends. There is a lot more detail around this, but this is the simple answer to your question.","In theory you can buy shares directly from someone else who owns them. In practise, if the stock is listed on an exchange, they are unlikely to own them directly, they are likely to own them through an intermediary. You will have to pay fees to that intermediary to transfer the shares to your name. There are thousands of small companies owned by the guy who started it and a few other investors. You can buy stock in that kind of company directly from the existing owners, as long as they are willing to sell you some. It's a super-high risk investment strategy, though. This is the kind of deal that happens on Dragons Den.","The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.","\"Yes! What you are describing is an \"\"off-exchange\"\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\"","There are two ways that an asset can generate value. One is that the asset generates some revenue (e.g. you buy a house for $100,000 and rent it out for $1,000 per month) and the second way is that the asset appreciates (e.g you buy a house for $100,000, you don't rent it out and 5 years later you sell it for $200,000). Stocks are the same.","I'd like to add that many companies offer Divident Re-Investment Plans or DRIPs, which is basically a regular automatic stock purchase program. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_reinvestment_plan. While your stock broker may offer dividend reinvestment, this is not the same as a DRIP. DRIPs are offered directly by the company, rather than the stock broker. They have the added benefits that the stock purchases are almost always commission-free, and in some cases, the company even offers a discount on the stock price. It can take a little more effort to get enrolled in a DRIP, but if you are interested in holding the stock long-term, this is a good option to consider.","Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.","At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders. Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread. As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00. If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation. A number of buyers cancel their orders. Now the highest buy order is $7. There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7. That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000. Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share). Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock. Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1. Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money. Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE.","\"The way to invest money in a company is to buy its shares, or derivatives of its shares. However, it seems you're way in over your head. Don't buy what you don't understand. There is plenty of material to teach you about stock investing on the internet. However, a book may be the fastest way to learn what you need to know. And yes, there is a \"\"for dummies\"\" book about that: Stock Investing ForDummies. I just found it by Googling, I'm sure you can find even more interesting books out there. (Note, the link is to the \"\"cheat sheet\"\" in the back of the book. The full book is worth reading.)\"","\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"","\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"","\"Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting. The \"\"worth\"\" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers.\"","I'd look into ShareBuilder. You can buy stocks for as low as $2 each, and there is no minimum funding level. You have to be carefull about selling though, as they will charge you $10 each time you want to sell a stock, regardless of how much of it you want to sell.","Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.","Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction.","Your autograph analogy seems relevant to me. But it is not just speculation. In the long run, investing in stocks is like investing in the economy. In the long run, the economy is expected to grow , hence stock prices are expected to go up. Now in theory: the price of any financial instrument is equal to the net present value today of all the future cash flows from the instrument. So if company's earnings improve, shareholders hope that the earnings will trickle down to them either in form of dividends or in form of capital gain. So they buy the stock, creating demand for it. I can try to explain more if this did not make any sense. :)","There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck.","Buy a share - not a penny stock; rather a well known company like Coca-Cola, Kelloggs, Exxon, etc. Follow the company. Understand their business model. See the share price fall and rise. You will learn a lot having your own money at risk.","You can purchase stock immediately in the open market on the day of the IPO when market opens. Below link gives you more information. http://finance.zacks.com/buy-ipo-stock-3903.html","Unless you are buying millions of dollars worth of a stock at a time, your transaction is a drop in the bucket, unlikely to have any noticable effect on the stock price. As Ian says, it's more likely that you are just remembering the times when the price dropped after you bought. If you keep careful track, I suspect you will find that the price goes up more often than it goes down, or at least, that the stocks you buy go up as often as the average stock on the market goes up. If you actually kept records and found that's not true, the most likely explanation is bad luck. Or that someone has placed a voodoo curse on you. I suppose one could imagine other scenarios. Like, if you regularly buy stock based on recommendations by well-known market pundits, you could expect to see a temporary increase in price as thousands or millions of people who hear this recommendation rush to buy, and then a few days or weeks later people move on to the next recommendation, the market setttles down, and the price reverts to a more normal level. In that case, if you're on the tail end of the buying rush, you could end up paying a premium. I'm just speculating here, I haven't done a study to find if this actually happens, but it sounds plausible to me.","\"Look at the link to the SIPC. I don't know exactly what you mean by \"\"runs out of funds,\"\" but the SIPC will replace shares of stock stolen from your account, and up to $100,000 in cash. The real risk is when a shady brokers sells you shares in a stock that becomes worthless, that's when \"\"buyer beware\"\" kicks in. No help there.\"","Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments.","The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares.","\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"","Where does the money go Who wins the billions Ever heard of The Wolf of Wall Street , theres where the money goes . In short ,bankers, traders who are paid millions to take make leverage bets using the banks money regardless of whether they do well . If they screw up and lose millions , they get paid to leave ( compensation package ) . If they do well , they get bonus.","In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.","\"You are correct that, barring an equity capital raise, your money doesn't actually end up in the company. However, interest in their stock can help a company in other ways; Management/board members hopefully own shares or options themselves, thus knowing that \"\"green\"\" policies are favorable for the stock price (as your fund might buy shares) can be quite an incentive for them to go green(er). Companies with above average company share performance are also often viewed as financially healthy and so creditors tend to charge lower interest for companies with good share performance. Lastly, a high share price makes a company difficult to take over (as all those shares have to be acquired) and at the same time makes it easier for the company to perform takeovers themselves as they can finance such acquisitions by issuing more of their own shares. There is also the implication that money flowing towards such green companies is money flowing out of/away from polluting companies, for these \"\"dirty\"\" companies the inverse of the previous points can hold true. Of course on the other hand there is quite an argument to be made that large enough \"\"green\"\" funds should actually buy substantial positions in companies with poor environmental records and steer the company towards greener policies but that might be a hard sell to investors.\"","Open Google finance and divide the Market Capitalization by the total price. That will give you the total number of shares outstanding. Now see the number of shares you could buy for $1000(40 shares of $25 each or 10 shares of 100 shares each). Now divide the number of shares you own, by the number of shares outstanding in the company and multiply it by 100(i.e (Shares you own/shares Outstanding) * 100). That will give you the percentage or stake of the company you own(With $1000, don't expect it to be a very large number). Now ask your self the question, Is it worth it if I can buy x % of this company for $1000? If the answer is yes, go ahead and buy it. To answer your question in short, NO! it does not matter whether you buy 10 shares for $100 or 40 shares for $25. Cheers","You realize that most of the money raised through the IPO process doesn't go into the company's bank account? Those shares were shares that were held by the investors and original owners and it's those prior pre-IPO shareholders that got their money back along with a tidy profit. The cash on its books was there before the IPO, and after. The IPO process was more about a change in stock owners ship than anything else. Edit - as the SEC disclosure mentioned in comments below states, the Facebook IPO raised $6.7B for facebook's use, the rest of the transaction was from the investors selling their shares. Mark Zuckerberg still owns more than 55% of shares outstanding. The $6.7B is still about 10% of the company value. Nothing to ignore, but clearly, 'most' of the money from the IPO didn't go to the company.","Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.","When stocks have a change in price it is because of a TRADE. To have a trade you have to have both a buyer and a seller. When the price of a security is going up there are an equal amount of shares being sold as being bought. When the price of a security is going down there are an equal amount of shares being bought as being sold. There almost always is an unequal amount of shares waiting to be sold compared to the amount waiting to be bought. But waiting shares do not move the price, only when the purchase price and the sale price agree, and a trade occurs, does the price move. So the price does not go down because more shares are being sold. Neither does the price go up because more shares are being bought."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the \\\"\\\"market maker\\\"\\\" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for \\\"\\\"retail\\\"\\\" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know.\\\"\",\n \"The money goes to the seller. There are a lot of behind the scenes things that happen, and some transactions are very complicated with many parties involved (evidenced by all the comments on @keshlam's perfectly reasonable high-level answer), but ultimately the money goes to the seller. Sometimes the seller is the company. The billions of shares that change hands each day are moving between other individuals like you and investment funds; these transactions have no direct impact on the company's financials, in general.\",\n \"Cash changes hands when you buy or sell the stock. While you own the stock, you own it, not cash, so there is no cash to go anywhere. You spent your money when you bought. The seller got that money. It's gone. You hope that when you sell the stock, someone will give you more money for it than you spent. But they may give you less. Money doesn't magically appear either way, it comes from the buyer. After selling, you have the money -- however much you sold for -- and no longer have the stock. NOTE that this means the current value of a share of stock is interesting, but not really very relevant, unless you are actively buying or selling. What your portfolio is worth on paper is nothing more than an approximate snapshot at the moment you retrieve the data. It is not a promise of what will actually happen when you do sell.\",\n \"A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.\",\n \"You or the broker place an order to buy the share with the stock exchange. There has to be a matching sell order by someone. Once a match is made, you pay the money and get the share.\",\n \"First: the question is irrelevant for purchases on exchange, mostly. Majority of sales on stock exchanges is between shareholders. If however you buy directly from the company (in a IPO, or direct share purchase program of some kind, like ESPP), then it does end up showing in the company account ledgers one way or another. It then become part of company's total assets, and the newly sold shares add to the equity.\",\n \"In short, thanks to the answers and comments posted so far. No actual money is magically disappeared when the stock price goes down but the value is lost. The value changes of a stock is similar to the value changes of a house. The following is the long answer I came up with based on the previous answers and comments alone with my own understandings. Any experts who find any of the following is 200% out of place and wrong, feel free to edit it or make comments. Everything below only applies if the following are true: The stock price is only decreasing since the IPO because the company has been spending the money but not making profits after the IPO. The devaluation of the stock is not the result of any bad news related to the company but a direct translation of the money the company has lost by spending on whatever the company is doing. The actual money don’t just disappear into the thin air when the stock price goes down. All the money involved in trading this stock has already distributed to the sellers of this stock before the price went down. There is no actual money that is literally disappeared, it was shifted from one hand to another, but again this already happened before the price went down. For example, I bought some stocks for $100, then the price went down to $80. The $100 has already shifted from my hand to the seller before the price went down. I got the stock with less value, but the actual money $100 did not just go down to $80, it’s in the hand of the seller who sold the stock to me. Now if I sell the stock to the same seller who sold the stock to me, then I lost $20, where did the $20 go? it went to the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back at a lower price. The seller ended up with the same amount of the stocks and the $20 from me. Did the seller made $20? Yes, but did the seller’s total assets increased? No, it’s still $100, $80 from the stocks, and $20 in cash. Did anyone made an extra $20? No. Although I did lost $20, but the total cash involved is still there, I have the $80 , the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back has the $20. The total cash value is still $100. Directly, I did lost $20 to the guy who sold me the stock when the stock has higher value and then bought it back at a lower price. But that guy did not increased his total assets by $20. The value of the stock is decreased, the total money $100 did not disappear, it ended up from one person holding it to 2 people holding it. I lost $20 and nobody gained $20, how is that possible? Assume the company of the stock never made any profit since it’s IPO, the company just keeps spending the money, to really track down where the $20 I lost is going, it is the company has indirectly spent that money. So who got that $20 I lost? It could be the company spent $20 for a birthday cake, the $20 went to the cake maker. The company never did anything to make that $20 back, so that $20 is lost. Again, assume the stock price only goes down after its IPO, then buying this stock is similar to the buying a sport car example from JoeTaxpayer (in one of the answers), and buying an apple example from BrenBarn(in one of the comments from JoeTaxpayer’s answer). Go back to the question, does the money disappears into the thin air when the value of the stock goes down? No, the money did not disappear, it switched hands. It went from the buyer of the stock to the company, and the company has spent that money. Then what happens when the stock price goes down because bad news about the company? I believe the actual money still did not just disappear. If the bad news turn out to be true that the company had indeed lost this much money, the money did not disappear, it’s been spent/lost by the company. If the bad news turn out to be false, the stock price will eventually go up again, the money is still in the hand of the company. As a summary, the money itself did not disappear no matter what happens, it just went from one wallet to another wallet in many different ways through the things people created that has a value.\",\n \"Because the stock still has the same value as the money paid for it - you are just exchanging one asset for another (of course the stock value starts to change immediately, but for the accounting the fictional value is the buying price). For the accounting, it is similar to changing a 100$ bill in five 20$ bills - same value, still assets.\",\n \"\\\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \\\"\\\"enter\\\"\\\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \\\"\\\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\\\"\\\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \\\"\\\"worth\\\"\\\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\\\"\",\n \"Now a days, your stocks can be seen virtually through a brokerage account. Back in the days, a stock certificate was the only way to authenticate stock ownership. You can still request them though from the corporation you have shares in or your brokerage. It will have your name, corporation name and number of shares you have. You have to buy shares of a stock either through a brokerage or the corporation itself. Most stock brokerages are legit and are FDIC or SIPC insured. But your risks are your own loses. The $10 you are referring to is the trade commission fee the brokerage charges. When you place an order to buy or sell a stock the brokerage will charge you $10. So for example if you bought 1 share of a $20 stock. The total transaction cost will be $30. Depending on the state you live in, you can basically starting trading stocks at either 18 or 21. You can donate/gift your shares to virtually anyone. When you sell a stock and experience a profit, you will be charged a capital gains tax. If you buy a stock and sell it for a gain within 1 year, you will taxed up to 35% or your tax bracket but if you hold it for more than a year, you will taxed only 15% or your tax bracket.\",\n \"\\\"Ditto to MD-Tech, but from a more \\\"\\\"philosophical\\\"\\\" point of view: When you buy stock, you own it, just like you own a cell phone or a toaster or a pair of socks that you bought. The difference is that a share of stock means that you own a piece of a corporation. You can't physically take possession of it and put it in your garage, because if all the stock-holders did that, then all the company's assets would be scattered around all the stock-holder's garages and the company couldn't function. Like if you bought a 1/11 share in a football team, you couldn't take one of the football players home and keep him in your closet, because then the team wouldn't be able to function. (I might want to take one of the cheerleaders home, but that's another subject ...) In pre-electronic times, you could get a piece of paper that said, \\\"\\\"XYZ Corporation - 1 share\\\"\\\". You could take physical possession of this piece of paper and put it in your filing cabinet. I'm not sure if you can even get such certificates any more; I haven't seen one in decades. These days it's just recorded electronically. That doesn't mean that you don't own it. It just means that someone else is keeping the records for you. It's like leaving your car in a parking lot. It's still your car. The people who run the parking lot doesn't own it. They are keeping it for you, but just because they have physical possession doesn't make it theirs.\\\"\",\n \"Don't sit on it, because the money does not work for you. Add more money to it and buy a stock or stocks of the company.\",\n \"When I invest in a business valued at $50,000, I pay $25,000 and receive 50% equity. Does that $25,000 go to the current owner of the business, or into the capital of the business itself? Who receives the money depends on who is selling you the equity. There are a couple of different scenarios that can fit your question. You could buy existing shares from the current owner(s) of the company. In this case, the current owner(s) would be receiving the funds from you, and in return giving you their stake in the company. So if you all agree that the value of the business is $50,000, and you give $25,000 to the current owner(s), they give you half of their shares. The value of the company has not changed. The company could be issuing new shares. This is called stock dilution, or an increase in authorized share capital. Let's say that everyone agrees that the value of the business is $50,000. The company could create new shares and sell them to you for $25,000. In this case, the value of the company has jumped to $75,000; you now control one-third of the company, and the existing owner(s), who previously owned 100% of the company, now only own two-thirds. In order for you to end up with 50% of the company in this case, you would have to invest $50,000 instead, which would result in the company being valued at $100,000. If you are wondering why the current owners would agree to this second scenario, there are two questions that address this:\",\n \"\\\"It's not a ponzi scheme, and it does create value. I think you are confusing \\\"\\\"creating value\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"producing something\\\"\\\". The stock market does create value, but not in the same way as Toyota creates value by making a car. The stock market does not produce anything. The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public. & The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. Earnings are the in-flow that you are missing here. Business profits DO flow back into the stock market through earnings and dividends. Think about a private company: if it has $100,000 in profits for the year then the company keeps $100,000, but if that same company is publicly traded with 100,000 shares outstanding then, all else being equal, each of those shares went up by $1. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. You can't go to an Apple store and try to pay with a stock certificate, but that doesn't mean the certificate doesn't have value. Using your agriculture example, you wouldn't be able to pay with a basket of tomatoes either. You wouldn't even be able to pay with a lump of gold! We used to do that. It was called the barter system. Companies also do buy shares back from the market using company cash. Although they usually do it through clearing-houses that are capable of moving blocks of 1,000 shares at a time.\\\"\",\n \"First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.\",\n \"If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.\",\n \"You buy stocks for dividends over the long term. If a share of stock pays $1.00 in dividends every quarter, that's four dollars a year. If you bought it for $40, it pays out $4 in a year, and it's still worth roughly $40 at the end of the year, you're $4 richer. People will often invest large amounts of money in stable stocks not planning to sell it, but only collect the dividends which are either re-invested or pulled out as income.\",\n \"When you buy a stock, you become a partial owner of the company that the stock is for. As the company is valued at a higher or lower amount, the stock will reflect that by gaining or losing value. You still own that stock. For example, if you bought a stock for $10 per share and next week it is worth $8 dollars per share, the only loss incurred is on paper. You do not have to pay the difference (which I think is what you are asking?) and will only physically lose that money if you sell at that point. Similarly if that stock becomes worth $12, you have only gained money on paper and can only physically see it if you sell at that point.\",\n \"It depends. If the investor bought newly-issued shares or treasury shares, the company gets the money. If the investor bought shares already held by the owner, the owner gets the money. A 100% owner can decide how to structure the sale. Yet, the investor may only be willing to buy shares if the funds increase the company's working capital.\",\n \"Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.\",\n \"The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet.\",\n \"Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started.\",\n \"\\\"There is a legal document called a \\\"\\\"Stock Purchase Agreement\\\"\\\" and it depends on who is the other party to the buyer in the Agreement. In almost all startups the sale goes through the company, so the company keeps the money. In your example, the company would be worth $10,000 \\\"\\\"Post-Money\\\"\\\" because the $1k got 10% of the Company.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\\\"\",\n \"Anytime you invest in stocks, you do that inside an investment account - such as the type you might open at ETrade, Vanguard, Fidelity or Charles Schwab. Once you have the account and fund it, you can tell the system to invest some/all of your money in When you open your investment account, their first question will be whether this is a cash account, traditional IRA, or Roth IRA. The broker must report this to the IRS because the tax treatment is very different.\",\n \"\\\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\\\"\",\n \"The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.\",\n \"This is a very good question! The biggest difference is that when you put money in a savings bank you are a lender that is protected by the government, and when you buy stocks you become an owner. As a lender, whether the bank makes or loses money on the loans it makes, they still maintain your balance and pay you interest, and your principal balance is guaranteed by the government (in the USA). The bank is the party that is primarily at risk if their business does not perform well. As an owner, you participate fully in the company's gains and losses, but you also put your money at risk, since if the company loses money, you do too. Because of this, many people prefer to buy funds made up of many stocks, so they are not at risk of one company performing very poorly or going bankrupt. When you buy stock you become a part owner and share in the profitability of the company, often through a dividend. You should also be aware that stocks often have years where they do very poorly as well as years when they do very well. However, over a long period of time (10 years or more), they have historically done better in outpacing inflation than any other type of investment. For this reason, I would recommend that you only invest in the stock market if you expect to be able to leave the money there for 10 years or more, ideally, and for 5 years at the very least. Otherwise, you may need to take the money out at a bad time. I would also recommend that you only invest in stocks if you already have an emergency fund, and don't have consumer debt. There isn't much point in putting your money at risk to get a return if you can get a risk-free return by paying off debt, or if you would have to pull your money back out if your car broke down or you lost your job.\",\n \"how do they turn shares into cash that they can then use to grow their business? Once a Company issues an IPO or Follow-On Public Offer, the company gets the Money. Going over the list of question tagged IPO would help you with basics. Specifically the below questions; How does a company get money by going public in an IPO? Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market? Why would a stock opening price differ from the offering price? From what I've read so far, it seems that pre-IPO an investment bank essentially buys the companies public shares, and that bank then sells them on the open market. Is the investment bank buying 100% of the newly issued public shares? And then depositing the cash equivalent into the companies bank account? Additionally, as the stock price rises and falls over the lifetime of the company how does that actually impact the companies bank balance? Quite a bit on above is incorrect. Please read the answers to the question tagged IPO. Once an IPO is over, the company does not gain anything directly from the change in shareprice. There is indirect gain / loss.\",\n \"For some very small private companies I know of (and am part of), paper stocks do exist. You can sit at the table with the damn things in your hand and wave them in people's faces. They tell everyone how much of the company you own as a result of the money you ponied up. On the other hand, most stocks are now electronic. Nothing to hold. Just electronic records to review. They still represent how much you own of the company because of some amount of money you have put at risk, but they aren't anywhere near as much fun as the old-fasioned paper proofs. (As MrChrister notes, you can pay a small fee to get paper if you like, even for some big companies. Some of these paper stocks are remarkably elaborate and fine looking, but hardly necessary.) (You can see more info about what stocks are and what sort of stocks exist here: http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/What_is_a_stock%3F)\",\n \"For point two.. The norm for buying stock is to just register online with a major broker: Fidelity, Schwab,TD Ameritrade...etc, send them money to fund your purchase, make the stock purchase in your account, and then have a little faith. You could probably get them to physically transfer the stock certificates from them to you, but it is not the norm at all. I would plan on a fee being involved also. The 10$ is for one trade... regardless of if you buy one share or many. So you wouldn't buy 1 share of a five dollar stock as your cost would be absurd. You might buy a hundred shares.\",\n \"\\\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \\\"\\\"holding\\\"\\\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\\\"\",\n \"What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.\",\n \"\\\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \\\"\\\"bearer\\\"\\\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \\\"\\\"too big to fail\\\"\\\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \\\"\\\"Heads we win, tails you lose\\\"\\\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\\\"\",\n \"There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.\",\n \"\\\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \\\"\\\"Sell, sell!!!!\\\"\\\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \\\"\\\"additional value\\\"\\\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \\\"\\\"BUY\\\"\\\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \\\"\\\"pink sheets\\\"\\\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \\\"\\\"market makers\\\"\\\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\\\"\",\n \"A purchase of a stock is not a taxable event. No 1099 to worry about. Welcome to Money.SE\",\n \"People buy stocks with the intention of making money. They either expect the price to continue to rise or that they will get dividends and the price will not drop (enough) to wipe out their dividend earnings.\",\n \"If I invest X each month, where does X go - an existing (low yield) bond, or a new bond (at the current interest rate)? This has to be viewed in a larger context. If the fund has outflows greater than or equal to inflows then chances are there isn't any buying being done with your money as that cash is going to those selling their shares in the fund. If though inflows are greater than outflows, there may be some new purchases or not. Don't forget that the new purchase could be an existing bond as the fund has to maintain the duration of being a short-term, intermediate-term or long-term bond fund though there are some exceptions like convertibles or high yield where duration isn't likely a factor. Does that just depend on what the fund manager is doing at the time (buying/selling)? No, it depends on the shares being created or redeemed as well as the manager's discretion. If I put Y into a fund, and leave it there for 50 years, where does Y go when all of the bonds at the time I made the purchase mature? You're missing that the fund may buy and sell bonds at various times as for example a long-term bond fund may not have issues nearing maturity because of what part of the yield curve it is to mimic. Does Y just get reinvested in new bonds at the interest rate at that time? Y gets mixed with the other money in the fund that may increase or decrease in value over time. This is part of the risk in a bond fund where NAV can fluctuate versus a money market mutual fund where the NAV is somewhat fixed at $1/share.\",\n \"This depends on what your definition of the word is is. Strictly speaking, you are only investing in a company when you buy stock from them somehow. This is usually done during an IPO or a secondary offering. Or, if you are someone like Warren Buffet or an institutional investor, you strike a deal with the company to buy shares directly from them. Otherwise, your money goes to someone else. Merriam-Webster defines speculate as 1b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively However, it also defines it as: 2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations The typical use of the term stock speculation vs stock investing involves definition 1b. This alludes to the idea that little to no research was done about the stock. This may be due to a lack of time, interest, knowledge, etc., or it may be due to a lack of information. The former usually has a negative connotation. The latter may have a negative connotation, though usually the connotation is one of greater risk. Strictly speaking, definition 2 includes investing as you define it along with investing in securities/commodities.\",\n \"I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc.. 1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently.\",\n \"I see a false assumption that you are making. (Almost always) When you buy stock the cash you spend does not go to the company. Instead it goes to someone else who is selling their shares. The exception to this is when you buy shares in an IPO. Those of us who have saved all our lives for retirement want income producing investments once we retire. (Hopefully) We have saved up quite a bit of money. To have us purchase their stock companies have to offer us dividends.\",\n \"\\\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \\\"\\\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\\\"\\\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\\\"\",\n \"No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.\",\n \"Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Sometimes. If the market goes down, and someone sells -- on a panic, perhaps, or nervousness -- at a loss, if you have extra cash then you can buy that stock on the hope/expectation that its value will rise.\",\n \"As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm. My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later.\",\n \"That is a loaded question but I'll give it a shot. First things first you need to determine if you are ready to invest in stocks. If you have a lot of high interest debt you would be much better served paying that off before investing in stocks. Stocks return around 8%-10% in the long run, so you'd be better off paying off any debt you have that is higher than 8%-10%. Most people get their start investing in stocks through mutual funds in their 401k or a Roth IRA. If you want to invest in individual stocks instead of mutual funds then you will need to do a lot of reading and learning. You will need a brokerage account or if you have a stock in mind they might have a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP) that you could invest in directly with the company. You will have to compare the different brokerage firms to determine which is best for you. Since you seem to be internet savvy, I suggest you use a discount brokerage that let's you buy stocks online with cheaper commissions. A good rule of thumb is to keep commissions below 1% of the amount invested. Once you have your online brokerage account open with money in there the process of actually buying the stock is fairly straightforward. Just place an order for the amount of shares you want. That order can be a market order which means the purchase will occur at the current market price. Or you can use a limit order where you control at what price your purchase will occur. There are lots of good books out there for beginners. Personally I learned from the Motley Fool. And last but not least is to have fun with it. Learn as much as you can and welcome to the club.\",\n \"In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker. This is called a margin account. The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan. If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information.\",\n \"New to investing... when I buy/sell a stock can I buy/sell at the exact market price whenever I'd like or is there more to it? Does there need to be a demand for when I'm trying to sell or am I just forcing the company to buy back my shares? Sorry if confusing/rookie question\",\n \"stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.\",\n \"You can make money via stocks in two primary ways: Note that there's no guarantee of either. So it may very well not make you money.\",\n \"\\\"The answer to your question is \\\"\\\"no\\\"\\\". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account. If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days. Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker. Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership. Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \\\"\\\"cost basis\\\"\\\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A \\\"\\\"broker\\\"\\\" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are \\\"\\\"mortgage broker\\\"\\\" (for arranging home loans) and \\\"\\\"stockbroker\\\"\\\". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\\\"\\\"ownership\\\"\\\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \\\"\\\"ownership\\\"\\\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \\\"\\\"part owner\\\"\\\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\\\"\",\n \"A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.\",\n \"\\\"Not a bond holder, but when we get dividends we usually just buy up a benchmark index tracking ETF unless/until we're ready to rebalance our portfolio. Most of the trades in the day are earmarked with the reason \\\"\\\"spending cash\\\"\\\". I'd assume it's similar for bond holders and coupons.\\\"\",\n \"When you own stock in a company, you do literally own part of the business, even if it's a small portion. Anyone amassing over 50% of shares really does have a controlling interest. No, you can't trade a handful of AAPL shares back to Apple for an iPod, but you can sell the shares and then go buy an iPod with the proceeds. Stock prices change over time because the underlying companies are worth more or less and people are willing to pay more or less for those shares. There is no Ponzi scheme because each share you own can be bought or sold on the open market. Dividends come from the company profits, not from other investors. On the other hand, money only has value because everyone believes it has value. There's the real conspiracy.\",\n \"Day traders see a dip, buy stocks, then sell them 4 mins later when the value climbed to a small peak. What value is created? Is the company better off from that trade? The stocks were already outside of company hands, so the trade doesn't affect them at all. You've just received money from others for no contribution to society. A common scenario is a younger business having a great idea but not enough capital funds to actually get the business going. So, investors buy shares which they can sell later on at a higher value. The investor gets value from the shares increasing over time, but the business also gets value of receiving money to build the business.\",\n \"A Company start with say $100. Lets say the max it can borrow from bank is $100 @ $10 a year as Interest. After a years say, On the $200 the company made a profit of $110. So it now has total $310 Option 1: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It further gave away the $100 back to shareholders as dividends. The Balance with company $100. It can again start the second year, borrow from Bank $100 @ 10 interest and restart. Option 2: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It now has $200. It can now borrow $200 from Bank @ $20. After a year it makes a profit of $250. [Economics of scale result $30 more] Quite a few companies in growth phase use Option 2 as they can grow faster, achieve economies of scale, keep competition at bay, etc Now if I had a share of this company say 1 @ $1, by end of first year its value would be $2, at the end of year 2 it would be $3.3. Now there is someone else who wants to buy this share at end of year 1. I would say this share gives me 100% returns every year, so I will not sell at $2. Give me $3 at the end of first year. The buyer would think well, if I buy this at $3, first year I would notionally get $.3 and from then on $1 every year. Not bad. This is still better than other stocks and better than Bank CD etc ... So as long as the company is doing well and expected to do well in future its price keeps on increasing as there is someone who want to buy. Why would someone want to sell and not hold one: 1. Needs cash for buying house or other purposes, close to retirement etc 2. Is balancing the portfolio to make is less risk based 3. Quite a few similar reasons Why would someone feel its right to buy: 1. Has cash and is young is open to small risk 2. Believes the value will still go up further 3. Quite a few similar reasons\",\n \"Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).\",\n \"Suppose I purchase $10,000 worth of a particular share today. If the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $9,000 for those shares, then I replacing their $9,000 investment with my $10,000 investment. This is a net inflow of $1,000 into the market. Similarly, if the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $11,000 for those shares, then their $11,000 investment is being replace by my $10,000 investment. This is a net outflow of $1,000 out of the market. The aggregate of all such inflows and outflows in the net inflow/outflow into the market over a given period of time. (Here we are ignoring the effects of new share issues.)\",\n \"quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.\",\n \"\\\"Seems like no one in this thread has heard of \\\"\\\"treasury stocks\\\"\\\", which indeed allow a company to own and sell its own stock. Think about it. When there is a stock buy-back funded by excess profits, where does that stock go?\\\"\",\n \"Would you mind adding where that additional value comes from, if not from the losses of other investors? You asked this in a comment, but it seems to be the key to the confusion. Corporations generate money (profits, paid as dividends) from sales. Sales trade products for money. The creation of the product creates value. A car is worth more than General Motors pays for its components and inputs, even including labor and overhead as inputs. That's what profit is: added value. The dividend is the return that the stock owner gets for owning the stock. This can be a bit confusing in the sense that some stocks don't pay dividends. The theory is that the stock price is still based on the future dividends (or the liquidation price, which you could also consider a type of dividend). But the current price is mostly based on the likelihood that the stock price will increase rather than any expected dividends during ownership of the stock. A comment calls out the example of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway is a weird case. It operates more like a mutual fund than a company. As such, investors prefer that it reinvest its money rather than pay a dividend. If investors want money from it, they sell shares to other investors. But that still isn't really a zero sum game, as the stock increases in value over time. There are other stocks that don't pay dividends. For example, Digital Equipment Corporation went through its entire existence without ever paying a dividend. It merged with Compaq, paying investors for owning the stock. Overall, you can see this in that the stock market goes up on average. It might have a few losing years, but pick a long enough time frame, and the market will increase during it. If you sell a stock today, it's because you value the money more than the stock. If it goes up tomorrow, that's the buyer's good luck. If it goes down, the buyer's bad luck. But it shouldn't matter to you. You wanted money for something. You received the money. The increase in the stock market overall is an increase in value. It is completely unrelated to trading losses. Over time, trading gains outweigh trading losses for investors as a group. Individual investors may depart from that, but the overall gain is added value. If the only way to make gains in the stock market was for someone else to take a loss, then the stock market wouldn't be able to go up. To view it as a zero sum game, we have to ignore the stocks themselves. Then each transaction is a payment (loss) for one party and a receipt (gain) for the other. But the stocks themselves do have value other than what we pay for them. The net present value of of future payments (dividends, buyouts, etc.) has an intrinsic worth. It's a risky worth. Some stocks will turn out to be worthless, but on average the gains outweigh the losses.\",\n \"\\\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \\\"\\\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\\\"\\\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\\\"\",\n \"I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.\",\n \"Where can publicly traded profits go but to shareholders via dividends? They can be retained by the company.\",\n \"A company CAN hold on to money. This is called retained earnings. Not all money is due back to the owners (i.e. stockholders), but only the amount that the board of directors chooses to pay back in the form of dividends. There is a lot more detail around this, but this is the simple answer to your question.\",\n \"In theory you can buy shares directly from someone else who owns them. In practise, if the stock is listed on an exchange, they are unlikely to own them directly, they are likely to own them through an intermediary. You will have to pay fees to that intermediary to transfer the shares to your name. There are thousands of small companies owned by the guy who started it and a few other investors. You can buy stock in that kind of company directly from the existing owners, as long as they are willing to sell you some. It's a super-high risk investment strategy, though. This is the kind of deal that happens on Dragons Den.\",\n \"The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.\",\n \"\\\"Yes! What you are describing is an \\\"\\\"off-exchange\\\"\\\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\\\"\",\n \"There are two ways that an asset can generate value. One is that the asset generates some revenue (e.g. you buy a house for $100,000 and rent it out for $1,000 per month) and the second way is that the asset appreciates (e.g you buy a house for $100,000, you don't rent it out and 5 years later you sell it for $200,000). Stocks are the same.\",\n \"I'd like to add that many companies offer Divident Re-Investment Plans or DRIPs, which is basically a regular automatic stock purchase program. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_reinvestment_plan. While your stock broker may offer dividend reinvestment, this is not the same as a DRIP. DRIPs are offered directly by the company, rather than the stock broker. They have the added benefits that the stock purchases are almost always commission-free, and in some cases, the company even offers a discount on the stock price. It can take a little more effort to get enrolled in a DRIP, but if you are interested in holding the stock long-term, this is a good option to consider.\",\n \"Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.\",\n \"At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders. Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread. As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00. If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation. A number of buyers cancel their orders. Now the highest buy order is $7. There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7. That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000. Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share). Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock. Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1. Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money. Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE.\",\n \"\\\"The way to invest money in a company is to buy its shares, or derivatives of its shares. However, it seems you're way in over your head. Don't buy what you don't understand. There is plenty of material to teach you about stock investing on the internet. However, a book may be the fastest way to learn what you need to know. And yes, there is a \\\"\\\"for dummies\\\"\\\" book about that: Stock Investing ForDummies. I just found it by Googling, I'm sure you can find even more interesting books out there. (Note, the link is to the \\\"\\\"cheat sheet\\\"\\\" in the back of the book. The full book is worth reading.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\\\"\\\"at market\\\"\\\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\\\"\\\"limit up\\\"\\\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \\\"\\\"market impact\\\"\\\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \\\"\\\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\\\"\\\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \\\"\\\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\\\"\\\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting. The \\\"\\\"worth\\\"\\\" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers.\\\"\",\n \"I'd look into ShareBuilder. You can buy stocks for as low as $2 each, and there is no minimum funding level. You have to be carefull about selling though, as they will charge you $10 each time you want to sell a stock, regardless of how much of it you want to sell.\",\n \"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.\",\n \"Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction.\",\n \"Your autograph analogy seems relevant to me. But it is not just speculation. In the long run, investing in stocks is like investing in the economy. In the long run, the economy is expected to grow , hence stock prices are expected to go up. Now in theory: the price of any financial instrument is equal to the net present value today of all the future cash flows from the instrument. So if company's earnings improve, shareholders hope that the earnings will trickle down to them either in form of dividends or in form of capital gain. So they buy the stock, creating demand for it. I can try to explain more if this did not make any sense. :)\",\n \"There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck.\",\n \"Buy a share - not a penny stock; rather a well known company like Coca-Cola, Kelloggs, Exxon, etc. Follow the company. Understand their business model. See the share price fall and rise. You will learn a lot having your own money at risk.\",\n \"You can purchase stock immediately in the open market on the day of the IPO when market opens. Below link gives you more information. http://finance.zacks.com/buy-ipo-stock-3903.html\",\n \"Unless you are buying millions of dollars worth of a stock at a time, your transaction is a drop in the bucket, unlikely to have any noticable effect on the stock price. As Ian says, it's more likely that you are just remembering the times when the price dropped after you bought. If you keep careful track, I suspect you will find that the price goes up more often than it goes down, or at least, that the stocks you buy go up as often as the average stock on the market goes up. If you actually kept records and found that's not true, the most likely explanation is bad luck. Or that someone has placed a voodoo curse on you. I suppose one could imagine other scenarios. Like, if you regularly buy stock based on recommendations by well-known market pundits, you could expect to see a temporary increase in price as thousands or millions of people who hear this recommendation rush to buy, and then a few days or weeks later people move on to the next recommendation, the market setttles down, and the price reverts to a more normal level. In that case, if you're on the tail end of the buying rush, you could end up paying a premium. I'm just speculating here, I haven't done a study to find if this actually happens, but it sounds plausible to me.\",\n \"\\\"Look at the link to the SIPC. I don't know exactly what you mean by \\\"\\\"runs out of funds,\\\"\\\" but the SIPC will replace shares of stock stolen from your account, and up to $100,000 in cash. The real risk is when a shady brokers sells you shares in a stock that becomes worthless, that's when \\\"\\\"buyer beware\\\"\\\" kicks in. No help there.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments.\",\n \"The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares.\",\n \"\\\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\") is the same price someone else sells (their \\\"\\\"sell\\\"\\\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\\\"\",\n \"Where does the money go Who wins the billions Ever heard of The Wolf of Wall Street , theres where the money goes . In short ,bankers, traders who are paid millions to take make leverage bets using the banks money regardless of whether they do well . If they screw up and lose millions , they get paid to leave ( compensation package ) . If they do well , they get bonus.\",\n \"In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.\",\n \"\\\"You are correct that, barring an equity capital raise, your money doesn't actually end up in the company. However, interest in their stock can help a company in other ways; Management/board members hopefully own shares or options themselves, thus knowing that \\\"\\\"green\\\"\\\" policies are favorable for the stock price (as your fund might buy shares) can be quite an incentive for them to go green(er). Companies with above average company share performance are also often viewed as financially healthy and so creditors tend to charge lower interest for companies with good share performance. Lastly, a high share price makes a company difficult to take over (as all those shares have to be acquired) and at the same time makes it easier for the company to perform takeovers themselves as they can finance such acquisitions by issuing more of their own shares. There is also the implication that money flowing towards such green companies is money flowing out of/away from polluting companies, for these \\\"\\\"dirty\\\"\\\" companies the inverse of the previous points can hold true. Of course on the other hand there is quite an argument to be made that large enough \\\"\\\"green\\\"\\\" funds should actually buy substantial positions in companies with poor environmental records and steer the company towards greener policies but that might be a hard sell to investors.\\\"\",\n \"Open Google finance and divide the Market Capitalization by the total price. That will give you the total number of shares outstanding. Now see the number of shares you could buy for $1000(40 shares of $25 each or 10 shares of 100 shares each). Now divide the number of shares you own, by the number of shares outstanding in the company and multiply it by 100(i.e (Shares you own/shares Outstanding) * 100). That will give you the percentage or stake of the company you own(With $1000, don't expect it to be a very large number). Now ask your self the question, Is it worth it if I can buy x % of this company for $1000? If the answer is yes, go ahead and buy it. To answer your question in short, NO! it does not matter whether you buy 10 shares for $100 or 40 shares for $25. Cheers\",\n \"You realize that most of the money raised through the IPO process doesn't go into the company's bank account? Those shares were shares that were held by the investors and original owners and it's those prior pre-IPO shareholders that got their money back along with a tidy profit. The cash on its books was there before the IPO, and after. The IPO process was more about a change in stock owners ship than anything else. Edit - as the SEC disclosure mentioned in comments below states, the Facebook IPO raised $6.7B for facebook's use, the rest of the transaction was from the investors selling their shares. Mark Zuckerberg still owns more than 55% of shares outstanding. The $6.7B is still about 10% of the company value. Nothing to ignore, but clearly, 'most' of the money from the IPO didn't go to the company.\",\n \"Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.\",\n \"When stocks have a change in price it is because of a TRADE. To have a trade you have to have both a buyer and a seller. When the price of a security is going up there are an equal amount of shares being sold as being bought. When the price of a security is going down there are an equal amount of shares being bought as being sold. There almost always is an unequal amount of shares waiting to be sold compared to the amount waiting to be bought. But waiting shares do not move the price, only when the purchase price and the sale price agree, and a trade occurs, does the price move. So the price does not go down because more shares are being sold. Neither does the price go up because more shares are being bought.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the \"\"market maker\"\" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for \"\"retail\"\" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know.\"","The money goes to the seller. There are a lot of behind the scenes things that happen, and some transactions are very complicated with many parties involved (evidenced by all the comments on @keshlam's perfectly reasonable high-level answer), but ultimately the money goes to the seller. Sometimes the seller is the company. The billions of shares that change hands each day are moving between other individuals like you and investment funds; these transactions have no direct impact on the company's financials, in general."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the \\\"\\\"market maker\\\"\\\" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for \\\"\\\"retail\\\"\\\" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know.\\\"\",\n \"The money goes to the seller. There are a lot of behind the scenes things that happen, and some transactions are very complicated with many parties involved (evidenced by all the comments on @keshlam's perfectly reasonable high-level answer), but ultimately the money goes to the seller. Sometimes the seller is the company. The billions of shares that change hands each day are moving between other individuals like you and investment funds; these transactions have no direct impact on the company's financials, in general.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":285,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3103"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"AVS Address Verification System of BOTH Credit and Debit Cards - WHERE, HOW?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["176596"],"string":"[\n \"176596\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["176596","229937","246989","26996","13800","278667","280699","446255","283889","428689","409822","422225","219990","277964","5607","350237","492578","147637","196233","50347","138645","95257","332422","507428","264809","329028","521688","158008","241866","589773","325904","294128","301361","149032","18832","298729","308307","3243","488379","86532","294899","63366","86752","498140","158965","513477","159460","456679","442435","167202","7766","361917","349554","448639","213370","325713","323310","144580","456887","72854","168283","532077","448769","210855","165995","115890","20670","362643","204825","481648","123601","597933","367730","78086","39720","379732","558611","203475","152039","208169","259194","153220","494689","428973","139518","434320","160535","162870","491793","399382","233781","141579","283698","262524","39772","542783","414932","444104","448086","304100"],"string":"[\n \"176596\",\n \"229937\",\n \"246989\",\n \"26996\",\n \"13800\",\n \"278667\",\n \"280699\",\n \"446255\",\n \"283889\",\n \"428689\",\n \"409822\",\n \"422225\",\n \"219990\",\n \"277964\",\n \"5607\",\n \"350237\",\n \"492578\",\n \"147637\",\n \"196233\",\n \"50347\",\n \"138645\",\n \"95257\",\n \"332422\",\n \"507428\",\n \"264809\",\n \"329028\",\n \"521688\",\n \"158008\",\n \"241866\",\n \"589773\",\n \"325904\",\n \"294128\",\n \"301361\",\n \"149032\",\n \"18832\",\n \"298729\",\n \"308307\",\n \"3243\",\n \"488379\",\n \"86532\",\n \"294899\",\n \"63366\",\n \"86752\",\n \"498140\",\n \"158965\",\n \"513477\",\n \"159460\",\n \"456679\",\n \"442435\",\n \"167202\",\n \"7766\",\n \"361917\",\n \"349554\",\n \"448639\",\n \"213370\",\n \"325713\",\n \"323310\",\n \"144580\",\n \"456887\",\n \"72854\",\n \"168283\",\n \"532077\",\n \"448769\",\n \"210855\",\n \"165995\",\n \"115890\",\n \"20670\",\n \"362643\",\n \"204825\",\n \"481648\",\n \"123601\",\n \"597933\",\n \"367730\",\n \"78086\",\n \"39720\",\n \"379732\",\n \"558611\",\n \"203475\",\n \"152039\",\n \"208169\",\n \"259194\",\n \"153220\",\n \"494689\",\n \"428973\",\n \"139518\",\n \"434320\",\n \"160535\",\n \"162870\",\n \"491793\",\n \"399382\",\n \"233781\",\n \"141579\",\n \"283698\",\n \"262524\",\n \"39772\",\n \"542783\",\n \"414932\",\n \"444104\",\n \"448086\",\n \"304100\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Parts of what you want are possible, but taken as a whole, you're out of luck. First of all, there is no master database of every cardholder in the country. The only way to check if information is correct is to ask the issuing bank. The AVS system is a way to automate doing so, but it's possible to call the bank directly and verbally verify the address. That means you're subject to the whims of what the issuing bank chooses to support. Banks that are part of the Visa and MasterCard networks generally only verify the numeric parts (address, apartment number, zipcode). AmEx can also verify the cardholder name. But if the bank doesn't have support for validating something, you can't validate it. Separately, there is a \"\"verify-only\"\" transaction which some processors support, which will do exactly what you want: Return AVS values without ever charging the card. However, processors require you to have the \"\"approved merchant account\"\" you don't want to have to have. Without being a merchant, you shouldn't have access to other people's credit cards anyway. Would you really want anyone in the country to be able to verify anyone else's address whenever they want? In short, whatever purpose you have for wanting this probably falls into one of three categories:\"","\"Zip code, as well as billing address, is used in conjunction with the Address Verification Service (AVS). AVS is a web (or phone) service that actually verifies the address with the billing address on file with the issuing bank. It does not use the credit card stripe. You can see more information from various sources such as bank merchant help pages like Bank of America's. As far as what is stored on the stripe, it varies some by bank (as there are some \"\"optional\"\" areas). The standards are discussed here. Fields include your account number, name, the expiration date, some card-specific stuff, and then the discretionary section. I would not expect much in terms of address type information there. So - the answer to your question is that they can't really take much more than your name and CC #, unless you give it to them. If you give a false zip code, you may have your purchase rejected. They certainly do keep track of the credit card number, and I would suppose that is the most valuable piece to them; they can see you make purchases across time and know for a fact that it's the same exact person (since it's the same card). Additionally, zip codes for AVS from pay-at-the-pump are supposedly not generally used for marketing (see this article for example). That is probably not true at at-the-register (in-person) collections, most of those aren't for AVS anyway. Even California permits the pay-at-the-pump zip verification as long as it's only used for that (same article). I would assume any information given, though, is collected for marketing purposes.\"","\"As others have stated, credit (signature required) is processed through their respective networks (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, or American Express). A \"\"debit\"\" card tied to your checking account, still go through the same credit network even though the funds are guaranteed from your checking rather than a free loan 30-60 days which has the potential to be unpaid. This type of debit card purchase may be eligible for a lower processing rate for less risk. Debit cards can also be processed through the debit network (PIN required, no signature). This is typically a straight fee such as $0.35. Fees vary, but let me give you a simple comparison: Say you are at the supermarket and buy $50 worth of groceries with a debit card with Visa logo. You are asked \"\"credit\"\" or \"\"debit\"\": At my supermarket, this is why I am given the option to enter my PIN first. If I want to pay by credit, I have to tap Cancel to process via credit signature.\"","Security in the merchant services system is mainly handled in two ways: 1) Before transactions are done, the business itself must go through an application process similar (but not identical) to getting a loan. Some high risk businesses must pay higher fees due to the increased likelihood of customer complaints. 2) When a customer disputes a transaction, that's a mark against the business. Get too many of these disputes, and your priviledge of accepting credit cards will be revoked, meaning you won't be able to again. It's in the merchant's best interest to verify customer's identity, because disputes cost them money directly. It's in the servicer's best interest to verify the businesses integrity, because fraud drives up the cost for everyone else. As a whole, it's quite a reactionary system, yet in practice it works remarkably well.","POS stands for Point of Sale (like a specific store location) which indicates that the purchase occurred by using your debit card, but it can also be the on-line transaction done via 3-D Secure. Checking with bank, they said that Kirchstrasse transaction could be related to direct marketing subscription service ordered on-line. Investigating further what I've found these kind of transactions are performed by 2BuySafe company registered at Kirchstrasse in Liechtenstein with went through the MultiCards on-line cashier which can be used for paying different variety of services (e.g. in this case it was polish on-line storage service called Chomikuj). These kind of transactions can be tracked by checking the e-mail (e.g. in gmail by the following query: after:2014/09/02 before:2014/09/02 Order). Remember, that if you still don't recognise your transaction, you should call your bank. I have found also some other people concerns about that kind of transactions who ask: Is 2BuySafe.com and www.multicards.com some sort of Scam? Provided answer says: MultiCards Internet Billing is a provider of online credit card and debit card processing and payment solutions to many retailers worldwide. MultiCards was one of the pioneer companies offering this type of service since 1995 and is a PCI / DSS certified Internet Payment Service Provider (IPSP) providing service to hundreds of retail websites worldwide MultiCards is a registered Internet Payment Service Provider and has implemented various fraud protection tools including, but not limited to, MultiCards Fraud Score Tool and 'Verified by Visa' and 'MasterCard SecureCode' to protect card holder's card details. 2BuySafe.com Is also Secured and Verified By GeoTrust The certificate should be trusted by all major web browsers (all the correct intermediate certificates are installed). The certificate was issued by GeoTrust. Entering Incorrect information can lead to a card being rejected as @ TOS 2BuySafe.com is hosted on the Multicards Server site","There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.","They represent two distict payment processing mechanisms that just happen to be available on one product. Rather like having dvi and hdmi on you laptop. Your account number and sort code relates to the bank account. Your long number, expiry and ccv relate to the card. It is perfectly possible and not uncommon to have two different cards on the same account, which would have their own card numbers etc. The BACS, CHAPS, DirectDebit and FasterPayments systems use the account numbers. These transactions are practically irreversible and work through the interbank transfer system and should be considered 'direct money transfers' - electronic cash. The long digits are used by Mastercard, Visa, AmEx etc and go through their own payment systems. These payments are 'indirect' and may or may not be reversible as the private payment network (visa etc) has some accountability. They work like electronic cheques. This is why debit card transactions can cause you to go overdrawn - you are writing a promise to pay from an account. It is up to the bank to block the card if you have no money, vs a CHAPS payment that checks the money is there before moving it. It is easier (but still hard) to recover money lost through Visa fraud than BACS. Credit cards have only the long number etc. While savings accounts (non-checking accounts) have only account numbers. Depending on where you are different laws will likely cover debit card vs money transfer payments. In the UK Direct debit guarantee is the most common protection on the BACS system, while standing orders and faster payments give you little legal power. Debit cards will give you some protection because the payment system stands between you and the bank account, so if you didn't make the transaction you should be able to reclaim the money ('card not present fraud'). If you did make the transaction but the vendor failed to supply or goods were faulty then a Chargeback system exists where you may also be able to reclaim. A bank transfer you make is irrecoverable and refund can only be claimed through court for faulty goods.","\"Yes and No. There's always a \"\"fee\"\". The difference in credit vs debit usually determines how much that fee is and how it's paid. Each vendor who accepts the major credit card is under contract to pay for equipment and meet certain standards. The same is true for debt card transactions. How much the \"\"fee\"\" is can vary based on the contract the vendor has with MasterCard/Visa/AMEX. But in general most debt transactions go back to the bank who distributed the card.\"","\"From my days in e-commerce they break down like this? The company doesn't know a debit from a credit card. Got the Visa logo, then it is a Visa through the company's payment gateway. The gateway talks to the bank and that is where the particulars for money is figured out. When I programmed gateway interfaces, I had the option to \"\"authorize\"\" or check for funds (which didn't reserve anything, just verified funds existed), run for batch (which put a hold on the funds and collected them at the end of the night) or just take the money. Most places did a verify during the early checkout stages and then did a batch at the end of the night. The nightly batch allows a merchant to cancel a transaction without getting charged a fee. The \"\"authorize\"\" doesn't mean the money is tied up, although that might be your banks policy. Furthermore, an authorize can only last for so many days. This also explains why most of your banks don't report your transactions to you the day of. There is a bunch more activity on your card than the transactions that complete.\"","Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.","If you call them, you can make sure they'll use the new address, but if you want to do it online, there is some risk that the update is delayed. Note also that an address change with an immediate request for a replacement debit card smells very fishy - this what a hacker / thief would do to get your money. Calling seems to be the better approach, as you can verify your identity further. Otherwise, you might well run into an automated block.","\"Actually in Finland on some bank + debit/credit card + online retailer combinations you type in your card details as you normally do, but after clicking \"\"Buy\"\" you get directed to your own bank's website which asks you to authenticate yourself with online banking credentials. It also displays the amount of money and to which account it is being paid to. After authentication you get directed back to the retailer's website. Cannot say why banks in US haven't implemented this.\"","CC always (applies only if you pay your balance in full). First you rack up points on your card, second if there is an unauthorized pull a Cc will help you a bank may or may not. As a general advice don't hand out your banking information like a credit card number. Now paying bills through the bank is a different matter. This advice applies to companies that would like to pull money from bank accounts. Never do that if Cc is an alternative.","Like email and spam, fighting creditcard fraud is a cat and mouse game, with technology and processes constantly being developed to reduce fraud. The CVV on the back of the card is just one more layer of security. Requiring the CVV generally requires you to physically have access to the card. CVV should not be stored by any merchant. This frustrates card skimming fraud as the CVV is not present in the track data and fraud caused by database compromises. You should never use your PIN online. MC/VISA both have implementations of 3D-Secure (SecureCode for MC and Verified by VISA) which require a password / code to confirm card ownership. Depends on both Issuer and Merchant implementing the standard. Regarding not needing a PIN at the airport, some low value transactions no longer need PINs, depending on the Issuer and Scheme (VISA/MC). MasterCard PayPass or VISA PayWave enable low value contactless transactions without PIN. In Australia, the maximum value for a contactless transactions is $100 AUD. At some merchants (McDonalds for example) a PIN is not required for for meals purchased with VISA (at least, for the cheeseburger I bought there as a test). This makes sense - if you don't need a PIN for a contactless purchase, why do you need it for a chip based purchase? So - why allow PIN free transactions? On average customers report stolen credit cards / wallet very quickly and the losses are correspondingly small. As card issuers are always online, cards can be cancelled very quickly after being reported lost / stolen. Finally, by performing transactions for just a few cents or pennies, the merchant (Spotify) can likely validate you are the owner of the card as you'd need access to your online bank to confirm the transactions. PayPal do this with bank account to confirm ownership. (Unless I've misunderstood your statement).","\"Here is how the Visa network works: A Visa transaction is a carefully orchestrated process. When a Visa account holder uses a Visa card to buy a pair of shoes, it’s actually the acquirer — the merchant’s bank — that reimburses the merchant for the shoes. Then, the issuer — the account holder’s bank — reimburses the acquirer, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Lastly, the issuer collects from the account holder by withdrawing funds from the account holder’s bank account if a debit account is used, or through billing if a credit account is used. I read this to mean the Merchant's Bank (the Acquirer Bank) gives the merchant the money within 2 days via the Card Issuer's Bank. The issuing bank is the one that provides the \"\"credit\"\" feature since that bank won't get reimbursed until the shopper's bill is paid (or perhaps even longer if the shopper carries a balance). You'll notice the Credit Card company (Visa/MC/etc) is only involved in the process as a way of passing messages. Of course they take a fee for this service so seller ultimately get's less than the buyer bought the shoes for.\"","Some businesses verify the shipping address with the credit card company, and refuse to ship to an alternate address without additional, offline verification. Of course, this is only useful for physical goods.","So, my questions: Are payment cards provide sufficient security now? Yes. If so, how is that achieved? Depending on your country's laws, of course. In most places (The US and EU, notably), there's a statutory limit on liability for fraudulent charges. For transactions when the card is not present, proving that the charge is not fraudulent is merchants' task. Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? Is it? Try to copy someones credit card info next time you're in the line at the local grocery store. BTW, some of my friends tend to rub off the CVV code from the cards they get immediately after receiving; nevertheless, it could have already been written down by some unfair bank employee. Rubbish.","> Verify the signature against what? How old are you I wonder? I am guessing that you're so young you don't know how it used to be done. Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID if the signature on your card is not valid (blank, or says 'SEE I.D.'). This worked for a long time, until retailers started hiring incompetent children who were too lazy to do their jobs properly. I once worked for a retailer who would fire you if they caught you not verifying signatures.","The truth is that Visa does not require a merchant to enter the cvv number before authorizing a transaction. The only information that is really needed is the credit card number and expiration date.","\"Yes, there is a slight reason to worry as the debit card contains 1) Account Number 2) of course a the Debit Card number 3) CSV code at the back of every debit card and mostly these three parameters are being followed to verify the authenticity of the cardholder, but there are some other parameters like \"\"password of your debit card\"\" and even address in some cases. So stay chill the manager will not be able to make any online payment using the credential of your debit card without password and other details...\"","\"These are two different ways of processing payments. They go through different systems many times, and are treated differently by the banks, credit card issuers and the stores. Merchants pay different fees on transactions paid by debit cards and by credit cards. Debit transactions require PIN, and are deducted from your bank account directly. In order to achieve that, the transaction has to reach the bank in real time, otherwise it will be declined. This means, that the merchant has to have a line of communications open to the relevant processor, that in turn has to be able to connect to the bank and get the authorization - all that while on-line. The bank verifies the PIN, authorizes the transaction, and deducts the amount from your account, while you're still at the counter. Many times these transactions cannot be reversed, and the fraud protections and warranties are different from credit transactions. Credit transactions don't have to go to your card issuer at all. The merchant can accept credit payment without calling anyone, and without getting prior authorizations. Even if the merchant sends the transaction for authorization with its processor, if the processor cannot reach the issuing bank - they can still approve the transaction under certain conditions. This is, however, never true with debit cards (even if used as \"\"credit\"\"). They're not deducted from your bank account, but accumulated on your credit card account. They're posted there when the actual transaction reaches the card issuer, which may be many days (and even many months) after the transaction took place. Credit transactions can be reversed (in some cases very easily), and enjoy from a higher level of fraud protection. In some countries (and most, if not all, of the EU) fraudulent credit transactions are never the consumer's problem, always the bank's. Not so with debit transactions. Banks may be encouraging you to use debit for several reasons: Merchants will probably prefer credit because: Consumers will probably be better off with credit because:\"","ATM and Debit are not the same thing. ATM is a card that can only be used to withdraw money from the ATMs that belong to that bank (or participate in the same network). In some countries, ATM cards can be used for shopping if the merchant is equipped with an appropriate reader and is participating in an appropriate network. Debit card can be used for purchases in any store showing the appropriate (Visa/MC) logo, and withdraw money at any ATM showing the appropriate (Visa/MC or the ATM network that appears on the card) logo.","This doesn't directly pertain to international transactions but may be relevant. I got an American Express gift card over the holidays, and I tried to use it at an online merchant. The card was declined because it failed address verification. I called American Express gift card services (number was on the gift card), and they knew immediately what the problem was and fixed it. They simply took my address and added it as a billing address on the card. I retried the payment and it went through right away. It may be worth calling the gift card company and asking them to simply add your billing address.","Merchants are only supposed to verify the presence of a signature, which signifies that the card owner has accepted the terms and conditions of the card / account. It was never really intended to be used to authenticate the card holder, nor is it used as such in practice.","It depends on the business. Some ask for ID and check against the signature (rare); some ask for ID but barely glance at it; some check just that it's signed (also rare); some ask for me to input my ZIP code on the card reader (KMart); and some don't do anything (most common). What they do doesn't seem connected to whether I put the card in the reader myself, or hand it to the cashier for them to scan. It does seem silly to check IDs, etc., as there are places such as gas stations where I never even see an employee, and can spend just as much there as at WalMart, KMart, or the grocery store, all places that tend to do more checking.","One bank is more willing to risk losses and customer hassle in exchange for lower processing costs than the other bank is. It's strictly a business decision. Regarding how they detect suspicious transactions: Patten detection based on your past usage history. I've gotten calls asking me to confirm that I just placed a large order with a company I'd never bought from before, or in a country that I haven't previously visited, or...","In most cases, the brand on the card, eg Visa or MasterCard, is a middleman. The company processes the transaction, transferring $xx from the bank to the seller, and telling the bank to debit the buyer's account. The bank is at risk, not the company transacting the purchase. What's interesting is that American Express started as both. My first Amex card, issued in 1979 (long expired, but in my box of memorabilia) had no bank. American Express offered a card that offered no extended credit, it was pay in full each month. Since then, Amex started offering extended credit, i.e. with annual interest, and minimum payments, and more recently, offering transaction processing for banks which take on the credit risk, essentially becoming very similar to MasterCard and Visa.","There generally isn't much in the way of real identity verification, at least in the US and online. The protection you get is that with most credit cards you can report your card stolen (within some amount of time) and the fraudulent charges dropped. The merchant is the one that usually ends up paying for it if it gets charged back so it's usually in the merchant's best interest to do verification. However the cost of doing so (inconvenience to the customer, or if it's an impulse buy, giving them more time to change their mind, etc) is often greater than the occasional fraudulent charge so they usually don't do too much about it unless they're in a business where it's a frequent problem.","With change in technology and regulations, quite a few clearing systems provide an ability to directly credit a credit card. In Europe Sepa transactions allow one to credit a credit card. The service would be offered by Local bank rather than Visa or Master Card","Verify the signature against what? You are going to have a pad of paper and ask the customer to sign and compare it for every charge? Also, FYI, per the credit card companies, you need just to check if the signature is on the card. They do NOT(!) ask you to compare signatures.","In addition to what has been said, gift cards with a credit card logo (which is what I am assuming you mean here) do not have an address associated with them. That means that if you try to use one at a merchant that users address verification (common in online purchases), the transaction will fail. In my experience with an American Express branded gift card, I was able to call the number on the back and they added an address to the card so that it would work. It seemed like this was a common and well known issue. Because the gift card is not associated with any person, no verification is needed to add that address, you can give them any address you want. Also I believe that the card numbers in use for gift cards are specific, that is you could tell that a card is a gift card based on the number alone. That means it is likely possible for a merchant to reject those gift cards while still accepting other cards from that network. This is likely for certain transactions. For example, a hotel or car rental agency requires a credit card for incidentals, and it's likely that the system itself will outright reject a gift card even if it has enough on it for the initial hold. As for debit cards, I think there are far fewer issues with acceptance, other than the aforementioned hold issues described in another answer.","\"> Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID ... This worked for a long time, until retailers ... For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. Impractical and not even worth it as anyone can copy a signature on a card. Neither do banks bother to check for signature. They don't even have a \"\"signature on-file\"\" anymore. Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. I guarantee you that! **Please try it! Let me know if it did not work!** I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. The only sure thing is to ask for a PIN. But, alas, credit cards use a chip, so if I steall your card, I can buy with it with no problems. But not if I still your ATM card - I don't know your PIN. The PIN is in your head and I can't get it. The credit card companies don't really care.\"","While Rocky's answer is correct in the big picture there is another factor here to keep in mind: The disruption while you're waiting to resolve it. If a fraudster gets your card and drains your account you'll get your money back--but there will be a period while they are investigating that it won't be available. For this reason I avoid debit card transactions and only use credit cards. If the fraudster gets your credit card you might lose access while they investigate but you don't lose access to your bank account.","It depends on your bank and your terms of service, but using the card one way or the other may affect things such as how long it takes to process, what buyer protections you have, etc. It also affects the store as I believe they are charged differently for debit vs credit transactions.","\"Just to add about using debit card as \"\"credit\"\" vs \"\"debit\"\" way: In addition to the difference of having to enter the PIN when using \"\"debit\"\" mode (vs having to sign in \"\"credit\"\" mode), for stores that offer cash back (i.e. get cash out of your account at the same time as paying), you can only get cash back when using \"\"debit\"\" mode.\"","\"I completely agree with @littleadv in favor of using the credit card and dispute resolution process, but I believe there are more important details here related to consumer protection. Since 1968, US citizens are protected from credit card fraud, limiting the out-of-pocket loss to $50 if your card is lost, stolen, or otherwise used without your permission. That means the bank can't make you pay more than $50 if you report unauthorized activity--and, nicely, many credit cards these days go ahead and waive the $50 too, so you might not have to pay anything (other than the necessary time and phone calls). Of course, many banks offer a $50 cap or no fees at all for fraudulent charges--my bank once happily resolved some bad charges for me at no loss to me--but banks are under no obligation to shield debit card customers from fraud. If you read the fine print on your debit card account agreement you may find some vague promises to resolve your dispute, but probably nothing saying you cannot be held liable (the bank is not going to lose money on you if they are unable to reverse the charges!). Now a personal story: I once had my credit card used to buy $3,000 in stereo equipment, at a store I had never heard of in a state I have never visited. The bank notified me of the surprising charges, and I was immediately able to begin the fraud report--but it took months of calls before the case was accepted and the charges reversed. So, yes, there was no money out of my pocket, but I was completely unable to use the credit card, and every month they kept on piling on more finance fees and late-payment charges and such, and I would have to call them again and explain again that the charges were disputed... Finally, after about 8 months in total, they accepted the fraud report and reversed all the charges. Lastly, I want to mention one more important tool for preventing or limiting loss from online purchases: \"\"disposable\"\", one-time-use credit card numbers. At least a few credit card providers (Citibank, Bank of America, Discover) offer you the option, on their websites, to generate a credit card number that charges your account, but under the limits you specify, including a maximum amount and expiration date. With one of these disposable numbers, you can pay for a single purchase and be confident that, even if the number were stolen in-transit or the merchant a fraud, they don't have your actual credit card number, and they can never charge you again. I have not yet seen this option for debit card customers, but there must be some banks that offer it, since it saves them a lot of time and trouble in pursuing defrauders. So, in short: If you pay with a credit card number you will not ever have to pay more than $50 for fraudulent charges. Even better, you may be able to use a disposable/one-time-use credit card number to further limit the chances that your credit is misused. Here's to happy--and safe--consumering!\"","Debit is them taking the money, in your case electronically. Credit is somebody vouching for you and saying you will pay later. They are alternate ways to pay for a product. As a merchant, if you take a credit card you are agreeing that a the issuer of the credit card is going to pay you right away. The issuer of the credit will worry about collecting the money from me. There are a ton of details with regards to why you would use one over another, where the costs in each method are and who pays what for each. The main different is the source of the funds.","I would presume this goes entirely through the credit card network rather than the banking network. I am guessing that it's essentially the same operation as if you had returned something purchased on a card to the store for credit, but I'm not sure whether it really looks like a vendor credit to the network or if it is marked as a different type of transaction.","The thing is that we never asked for these services. The banks and the merchants did. These companies build profiles **against** you to provide your credit info to any creditor who asks. Then they bill you so that they will not hand out your identity to criminals for a period of time. Great fucking system.","If the debit card is associated with the account, there is nowhere else it could go. The chance is nil that there is another account with that 16-digit number. So either it goes there, or the transfer fails and it is right back where it came from, though this could take some days. If you don't want to risk a wait, talk to your bank now.","Credit cards and debit cards make up the bulk of the transactions in the US. Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of each credit card transaction. For the most part, this fee it built into the price of what you buy. That is, you don't generally pay extra at the grocery store if you use a credit card (gasoline purchases are a notable exception here.) If you were getting something like 2% of a third of all the retail transactions in the US, you'd probably not want to rock the boat too much either. Since there is little fraud relative to the amount of money they are taking in, and it can often be detected using statistical analysis, they don't really stand to gain that much by reducing it through these methods. Sure they can reduce the losses on the insurance they provide to the credit card consumer but they risk slowing down the money machine. These companies want avoid doing something like reducing fraud by 0.5% revenues but causing purchases with the cards drop by 1%. More security will be implemented as we can see with the (slow) introduction of chip cards in the US but only at a pace that will prevent disruption of the money machine. EMV will likely cause a large drop in CC fraud at brick-and-mortar stores but won't stop it online. You will likely see some sort of system like you describe rolled out for that eventually.","It depends on what provider they are using to process your charge and if it's through a website, a phone application or a desktop application. For example, if they build a desktop application with Authorize.net, the desktop application will take your information in, and then make a webservice call with it to a secure authorize.net processing platform. Something similar is true for FirstData. However, if they are using PayPal to process your request, you are routed to a paypal site to make the charge, then the funds are sent to the merchant. As for what is returned that also depends on the provider and the application. If you are using a website it's likely an XML response with all the information they provide upon a transaction attempt. If it's a desktop application they may just hand the cc info off to a library which processes the charge and then returns specific confirmed or denied flags. So to be totally honest without knowing the exact situation in which you are charging your card, it's impossible to know. For all you know they are putting your credit card information in a database unencrypted and then charging them all at the end of the week in one giant batch. If you are able to find out whom they are using as a credit card processing provider then you can look for that companies developer documentation. It will provide you with all the information you are looking for including examples.","Skimmers are most likely at gas station pumps. If your debit card is compromised you are getting money taken out of your checking account which could cause a cascade of NSF fees. Never use debit card at pump. Clark Howard calls debit cards piece of trash fake visa/mc That is because of all the points mentioned above but the most important fact is back in the 60's when congress was protecting its constituents they made sure that the banks were responsible for fraud and maxed your liability at $50. Debit cards were introduced much later when congress was interested in protecting banks. So you have no protection on your debit card and if they find you negligent with your card they may not replace the stolen funds. I got rid of my debit card and only have an ATM card. So it cannot be used in stores which means you have to know the pin and then you can only get $200 a day.","\"The fee structures are different for PIN-based transactions versus \"\"credit\"\" style transactions. Usually there is a fixed fee (around $0.50) for PIN-based transactions and a varying fixed fee plus a percentage for credit transactions (something like $0.35 + 2.5%). There are also value limits for PIN-based transactions... I believe that you cannot exceed $400 in most places. The signature feature of credit transactions isn't there to protect you, it signifies your agreement to comply with the contract you and the credit card issuer, protecting the merchant from some types of chargeback. Some merchants waive the signature for low dollar value transactions to increase convenience and speed up the lines. All of your other questions are answered elsewhere on this site.\"","If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. I have my back account (i.e. chequing account) and VISA account at/from the same bank (which, in my case, is the Royal Bank of Canada). I asked my bank to set up an automatic transfer, so that they automatically pay off my whole VISA balance every month, on time, by taking the money from my bank account. In that way I am never late paying the VISA so I never pay interest charges. IOW I use the VISA like a debit card; the difference is that it's accepted at some places where a debit card isn't (e.g. online, and for car rentals), and that the money is deducted from my bank account at the end of the month instead of immediately.","Here's a simple answer: If your debit card has a visa or mc logo, it can be used as a 'credit card'. In order to do so, you shouldn't enter the pin, instead choose 'credit' and sign for it. Unlike a credit card, you can't spend money you don't have but like a credit card, your purchase is protected by the credit card company (visa/mc) and gives you privileges like zero fraud liability and purchase disputes. http://www.moneycone.com/should-you-sign-for-a-debit-card-purchase-or-use-your-pin/","As far as I'm aware, PINs are only used for in-person transactions, not 'remote' (over the Internet or phone).","Debit card purchases without PIN are treated as credit card purchases by merchants, and that includes ID verification. In addition to the ways you mentioned, you can get a debit card in any grocery store and load it with cash, and these debit cards don't have a name imprinted on them. But then if you lose them - you may have troubles proving you did in fact lose them when you try to recover your money, as anyone can use them. Technically you can register them online and call in and request refunds for fraud losses just as any other debit/credit card in the US (with $50 deductible), but in practice it may be difficult. These cards have very high fees, and may not be accepted for rentals etc.","From the business side of credit cards, Discover and American Express carry their own risk. AmEx has lent their logo to banks such as Bank of America (BofA) to use the AmEx transaction network, but the financial risk and customer service is provided by BofA. Visa and MasterCard let banks use their logo and process through their respective networks for a fee. The financial risk of fraud, non-payment from merchants, etc is the risk that the individual banks carry.","Credit in debit way - the card simply functions like a debit card for that transaction - pulling cash from your checking account. No difference. You've simply discovered the fact that some banks are using the same piece of plastic for two functions, debit which draws funds directly from your checking, and credit which offers you time to pay a bill the comes in some time later. It's a personal choice.","Who cares? If your card gets stolen, most cards provide you with 100% liability protection. Just sign the thing!","As it is international debits, this will take a while. BofA is right, You have to dispute this with Card Issuer, i.e. HDFC. The worst case for me was around 1 month. Keep chasing and sending out reminders every 3-4 days.","\"The address under a bank's name on a check, if there is one, is generally going to be the contact address of the bank. That will be true no matter where on the check the bank's name appears. The address of the person or business the account belongs to, if present, will appear under their name. This information block is typically near the top left corner the check, so it will be visible as the return address if the check is mailed in a \"\"window envelope\"\" designed for this purpose. The address the check is being mailed to, if it appears on the check, will generally appear low on the check and to the right, so it will be visible as the destination address when the check is mailed using a \"\"window envelope\"\" designed for this purpose. If that isn't the answer you were looking for, please clarify your question.\"","Given that the laws on consumer liability for unauthorized transactions mean no cost in most cases, the CVV is there to protect the merchant. Typically a merchant will receive a lower cost from their bank to process the transaction with the CVV code versus without. As far as the Netflix case goes, (or any other recurring billing for that matter) they wouldn't care as much about it because Visa/MC/Amex regulations prohibit storage of the CVV. So if they collect it then it's only used for the first transaction and renewals just use the rest of the card info (name, expiration date, address). Does the presence of CVV indicate the merchant has better security? Maybe, maybe not. It probably means they care about their costs and want to pay the bank as little as possible to process the transaction.","Debit cards with the Visa or Mastercard symbol on them work technically everywhere where credit cards work. There are some limitations where the respective business does not accept them, for example car rentals want a credit card for potential extra charges; but most of the time, for day-to-day shopping and dining, debit cards work fine. However, you should read up the potential risks. A credit card gives you some security by buffering incorrect/fraudulent charges from your account, and credit card companies also help you reverse incorrect charges, before you ever have to pay for it. If you use a debit card, it is your money on the line immediately - any incorrect charge, even accidential, takes your money from your account, and it is gone while you work on reversing the charge. Any theft, and your account can be cleaned out, and you will be without money while you go after the thief. Many people consider the debit card risk too high, and don't use them for this reason. However, many people do use them - it is up to you.","There are 2 parties when we say credit card companies: The bank that gives you a card & VISA/Mastercard For a Bank the revenues generally come from: For VISA/Mastercard the revenue is from: P.S. Have not covered American express here but in short it is a combination of the above 2 models","> Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. About that you are correct, however during any sort of forensic investigation they are going to ask to see a signature receipt if one is available. > For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. No that isn't true. Retailers are required by many card processing vendors to send in a signed receipt. This is changing, because employees are lazy, and retailers don't care about their customers at all so they don't bother enforcing any standards on their minimum wage register jockeys. However many of them are still required to send signed receipts in. When I was younger I worked at a store that would not get paid by the bank if it did not send in a signed receipt for every transaction. Go on, try walking away without signing your credit card receipt at stores where they present it for signature, and see what happens. > I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. You and everyone else. Big deal. Different credit card processors have different requirements for their customers (merchants). > The credit card companies don't really care. I think the real lesson here is **nobody cares**. Not the banks, not the credit card companies, and not the merchants. The only thing any of them give a fuck about is keeping the money flowing, especially into their own wallets, and if that means customers get ripped off sometimes because of inadequate protections, so what. My only point is, if I have one at all, **merchants _should_ care** about protecting the customer, and **customers _should_ care** about what protections are in place to prevent fraud. **PIN numbers are fine** as an authentication method, **but they should be completely shielded from view** by people standing in line or cameras overhead.","I'm pretty sure it's merchant-dependent. If a credit card transaction doesn't go through, PayPal will automatically charge your bank account. Some merchants may want that extra insurance.",">> Hey! Do you mind giving your credit card to the waiter... > I'm not especially fond of that, but it's easy to report fraud to the bank and most of the time the bank will reverse the charges. No kidding! Of course, even I give credit cards to waiters. What do I care? **As you said, you are not liable to any fraud on your credit card.** None at all!!!! It's only Merchant, not the credit card company, that pay the price for fraud... **and you pay higher prices to cover for losses from fraud.** > The PIN situation is different because a mugging is life-threatening. Nonsense! Mugging at the ATM is so rare, each ATM has a camera. **In any case, I am not talking about using PIN to withdraw money!** I am talking about PIN to authorize charges on a credit card or ATM card. >> We already determined that nobody even care about signatures or check them. > You can't use a stolen card at an ATM with a signature. Huh? You totally got it wrong what I said, or, you argue for the sake of argument. **I am saying that cards that require you to enter a PIN cannot be used used when stolen or copied. Yes or no?** **On the other hand, cards that require signature can be used when stolen or copied because signature is a worthless method to validate the charge. Yes or no?** LASTLY, my Costco credit card has a picture of me on it. **Question for you, since for some reason you argue so much against PINs: Wouldn't a picture on the card better than a signature?** Yes or no? Do you see? There are so many ways to make this system so much more secure and fraud proof... but, ON PURPOSE, the credit card companies don't want that... because they are not liable for fraud. Simple as that.","\"To answer your question as clarified in a comment: All I wanted to know what will happen if I enter my debit card number in the sixteen digit account number they offer on the application for balance transfer. That's all. Almost certainly (subject to the particular terms and conditions of the offer), no money will move, the only question is exactly when and how they will say no. If you do it online, and their system is clever enough to look up the IIN (the first six digits) of the card number you enter, their system might learn straight away that you have entered a debit card number (eg a card starting 431940 is a Bank of Ireland debit card). Otherwise, you'll have to wait until the request goes to their back office system, which will eventually lead to the card issuer's system being contacted, at which point it will become clear that it's a debit card, and your transfer request will be refused at that point. That said, some credit card companies do offer a \"\"Money Transfer\"\" aka \"\"Super Balance Transfer\"\", which is an offer to transfer money directly into a bank account, putting the resulting debt on the credit card. I've never seen these offered without having to call a service centre and talk to a person, though, presumably so that they can check that the details they have for you (about income etc) are still correct.\"","a typical debit card is subject to several limits:","\"> Go on, try walking away without signing your credit card receipt at stores where they present it for signature, and see what happens. That's true... if the amount is over $25. Did you notice it? Actually, at Costco is over $50. And you know what else is true? That yes, they require you to squibble something, but you can write an obvious incorrect signature and nobody will care. You have no idea how many times the screen with the electronic pen did not work right, so I just put couple of lines... >> know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. > You and everyone else. Big deal. Different credit card processors have different requirements for their customers (merchants). Just because different processors have different requirements makes the whole process impossible to manage or comply with. Go figure out the requirement based on the card presented. >> The credit card companies don't really care. > I think the real lesson here is nobody cares. The merchant cares, because they are ultimately responsible for paying for fraud... which is the main reason why credit card companies don't care... and many merchants too because they have insurance... The bottom line is that everyone would not mind to enter a PIN to get the transaction through, but a stupid ego trip of the credit card companies who don't want to be \"\"like ATMs\"\". That's it. So they came up with chip in the card, which made the process slower and more expensive, and does not solve anything except fake credit cards (copied credit cards).\"","If you are looking at domestic transfers, all Banks hold accounts with the Central Bank [Reserve Bank] , in US the Central Bank is called Federal Reserve. The money from account of Bank of America held with Fed is debited and the account of Citi held with Fed is credited.","A large biller is registered and can initiate an ACH Debit to your account based on the Account Number and the Routing number. He assumes responsibility and completes the due diligence of obtaining a written mandate / permission / authorization from you. There are other legal process where by you get a Power of Attorney that would allow you to transact on behalf of someone. The key point you seem to be missing is that one can ONLY transact from ones account either by walking into the Bank / ATM, or by writing a check. There are other options as well to transact.","If it is one of those debit cards you use just like a credit card without a PIN, I'd cancel it regardless of whatever you are trying to do with your finances. They just seem too dangerous to me. Unlike a credit card, if someone makes fraudulent purchases on a debit card the money is gone from your bank account until you resolve the issue with the issue. With a credit card, the BANK is out the money until it gets worked out. My brother once had his credit card number (not the card) stolen and the criminals emptied his bank account. Eventually the bank put the money back after an investigation, but it had two really nasty side effects: 1) Dozens of checks bounced. The bank refunded the bounced check fees, but not all of the stores would. 2) He had no money in his account until it was resolved. Luckily in his case they resolved it in a few days, but he was already making preparations to borrow money to pay his rent/bills.","I don't believe there is such a process. My observation (i.e. my opinion) is that banks will have a level of security walls appropriate to the cost vs risk they experience. Since as Frazell says, your liability is limited for this type of fraud, you personally bear little if any risk. If this fraud were common enough that the cost of your proposal outweighed the expense, they would implement it. On a similar note. Credit card fraud can be reduced ten fold if a PIN were required for all purchases. The 3 digits on the back helps prove the card is there, and you just didn't steal the from 16 digits, but a 6-8 digit PIN required at point of sale would be tough for the thief to guess. How much software to do this would cost, I don't know, but the idea is brilliant, even if it's mine. 10 fold reduction, if not 100 fold. (Any bank guys reading?)","\"•Have you had any problems with bills not being paid? NO •If you had issues, were they addressed satisfactorily? Answer: A big issue that blindsided me: With my bank, the funds come out of my account right away, but the actual payment is done through a third-party service. On my bank's online site it appears that the payment has been made, but that does not necessarily mean that the intended recipient has cashed it. Looking online at my credit union's site is useless, because all I can tell is that the payment has been sent. The only way to verify payment is to contact the intended recipient. Or I may telephone the online bill pay representative at my bank/credit union, who has access to the third party service. If I do nothing, after 90 days, the check is void, at which time the third party service notifies the bank/credit union and the funds will eventually end up back in my account. I learned this today, after a third-party paper check to a health care provider was returned to me via mail by the recipient (because insurance had already paid and I did not owe them anything). The money was in the hands of the third-party service, not in my account, nor that of my credit union nor the recipient. At first my credit union told me that I would have to contact the third-party service myself and work it out. I said \"\"NO WAY\"\" and the credit union did get the money back into account the same day. This is a sweet deal for the third party, who has my money interest-free anywhere from a few days to three months. And risk-free as well, because the money goes directly from my account to the third party service.\"","In Finland, this happens all the time - it's all about having an official ID, they don't even ask your bank account number or the card. However, as no location was specified in the question, I guess it could be anything. The stronger the requirement for official personal id is in your country, the better odds you have with just using that. Where I live it is quite strong.","\"Much of what you're asking will not be disclosed for obvious security reasons, so don't be surprised when call center people say they \"\"don't know\"\". They may actually not know, but even if they did, they'd be fired if they were to say anything. Nothing could be a touchier subject than online security for the financial institutions. I don't know of reliable sources for the data you're asking about, and I don't know the banks or other firms would release it. For a bank to talk about its incidence rates of fraud would be unusual, because none of these institutions wants to appear \"\"less safe\"\" than their competitors. If there's any information out there then it's going to be pretty vague. None of these institutions wants the \"\"bad guys\"\" to know what their degree of success is against one bank versus any other. I hope that makes sense. The smaller banks usually piggyback their data on the networks of the larger financial institutions, so they are as secure (as a general rule) as the larger banks' networks they're running on. Also, your transactions on your credit cards are not generally handled directly by your bank anyway, unless it's one of the big heavyweights like Chase or Bank of America. All transactions run through merchant processors, who act as intermediaries between merchants and the banks, and those guys are pretty damned good at security. I've met some of the programmers, and they're impressive to me (I've been a programmer for 35 years and can't put a finger on these guys!). Most banks require that you must provide proof of identity when opening an account, and that ID must me the standards of the \"\"USA Real ID Act\"\". Here's an excerpt from the Department of Homeland Security website on what Real ID is: Passed by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. States have made considerable progress in meeting this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and every state has a more secure driver’s license today than before the passage of the Act. In order for banks to qualify for FDIC protection, they must comply with the Real ID standards when opening accounts. As with any business (especially online), the most effective way to minimize fraud is vigilant monitoring of data. Banks and other online financial entities have become very adept at pattern analysis and simply knowing where and what to look for when dealing with their customers. There are certainly sophisticated measures which are kept carefully out of the public eye for doing this, and obviously they're good at it. They have to be, right? There's no way to completely eliminate fraud -- too much incentive exists for the \"\"bad guys\"\" to not constantly search for new ways to run their schemes, and the good guys will always be at the disadvantage, because there's no way to anticipate everything anyone might come up with. Just look at online viruses and malware. Your antivirus software can only deal with what it knows about, and the bad guys are always coming up with some new variant that gets past the filters until the antivirus maker learns of it and comes up with a way to deal with it. Your question's a good one to ponder, and I wouldn't want to be the chief of internet security for a bank or online institution, because I'd lay awake at night pondering when the call's going to come that we finally ran out of luck! (grin) I hope this was helpful. Good luck!\"","For me, it is mostly for the fraud protection. If I have a debit card and someone makes a fraudulent charge the money is removed from my bank account. From my understanding, I can then file a fraud complaint with the bank to recover my money. However, for some period of time, the money is missing from my bank account. I've heard conflicting stories of money being returned quickly while the complaint is undergoing investigation as well as money being tied up for several days/weeks. It may depend on the bank. With a credit card, it is the banks money that is tied up.","The use of an old address would make me suspect that your data was stolen from some database you had registered to long ago with the old address. I would think that contacting your credit rating firm and the credit card company is urgent.","\"As for PC Mastercard like stated by @nullability, VISA Desjardins list the \"\"Pending Authorizations\"\" almost instantly (the time it's take to get back home) in AccesD (Their Web portal for managing accounts).\"","I think you'll find that a credit card does have an account number and sort code, I have had a Visa card previously and currently have a Mastercard. Both were paid by Direct Debit, and I could then transfer money to the account when I wanted to pay more than the minimum payment off. Check the introductory letter from the card provider, it should be on there, failing that, contact the provider and ask them for the details, how to pay, or a direct debit mandate for either the whole amount or the minimum amount.","Whether your card will work, I believe, depends on the institution that issued it. You'll just have to try. What I can tell you, is that the process of using a debit card or credit card in the US is fairly straight forward. If your card has a chip, you'll 'insert' your card, chip end first, into the bottom slot of the reader, assuming the reader has one. This technology is still being distributed / accepted, so you may encounter some areas where they don't have this, or they have an insert or sign that says something along the lines of 'No chip reader / swipe instead'. If your card doesn't have a chip, which looks like the bottom end of a cellular phone's SIM card, you just swipe your card in the reader. There will / may be on-screen prompts, which will explain any additional input necessary from you. Depending on how they 'process' your card - As a debit card or credit card (They can 'process' a debit card as if it's a standard credit card), you may or may not be asked to enter your debit card's PIN. If they process it as debit, you'll have to enter your PIN. If they process it as if it were a credit card, it will still go through but you'll be asked to sign the receipt. IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO NOTE: You need to find out whether your card issuer will charge you foreign transaction fees when you use your Indian debit card in the US. Is the card carrying a different currency than the US?","When the check is deposited, the bank verifies the signature in the check matches your signature in file.","\"I cannot answer the original question, but since there is a good deal of discussion about whether it's credible at all, here's an answer that I got from Bank of America. Note the fine difference between \"\"your account\"\" and \"\"our account\"\", which does not seem to be a typo: The payment method is determined automatically by our system. One of the main factors is the method by which pay to recipients prefer to receive payments. If a payment can be issued electronically, we attempt to do so because it is the most efficient method. Payment methods include: *Electronic: Payment is sent electronically prior to the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Corporate Check: This is a check drawn on our account and is mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds to cover the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Laser Draft Check: This is a check drawn on your account and mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account when the pay to recipient cashes the check, just as if you wrote the check yourself. To determine how your payment was sent, click the \"\"Payments\"\" button in your Bill Pay service. Select the \"\"view payment\"\" link next to the payment. Payment information is then displayed. \"\"Transmitted electronically\"\" means the payment was sent electronically. \"\"Payment transaction number\"\" means the payment was sent via a check drawn from our account. \"\"Check number\"\" means the payment was sent as a laser draft check. Each payment request is evaluated individually and may change each time a payment processes. A payment may switch from one payment method to another for a number of reasons. The merchant may have temporarily switched the payment method to paper, while they update processing information. Recent changes or re-issuance of your payee account number could alter the payment method. In my case, the web site reads a little different: Payment check # 12345678 (8 digits) was sent to Company on 10/27/2015 and delivered on 10/30/2015. Funds were withdrawn from your (named) account on 10/30/2015. for one due on 10/30/2015; this must be the \"\"corporate check\"\". And for another, earlier one, due on 10/01/2015, this must be the laser draft check: Check # 1234 (4 digits) from your (named) account was mailed to Company on 09/28/2015. Funds for this payment are withdrawn from your account when the Pay To account cashes the check. Both payments were made based on the same recurring bill pay payment that I set up manually (knowing little more of the company than its address).\"","If your debit card/ATM card is stolen or lost, someone else might be able to withdraw money from the checking account that it is tied to, or buy things with the card and have the money taken out of the checking account to pay the merchant. Subject to daily withdrawal limits imposed by your bank, a considerable amount of money could be lost in this way. At least in the US, debit or ATM cards, although they are often branded Mastercard or Visa, do not provide the same level of protection as credit cards for which the liability is limited to $50 until the card is reported as lost or stolen and $0 thereafter. Note also that the money in your savings account is safe, unless you have chosen an automatic overdraft protection feature that automatically transfers money from your savings account into the checking account to cover overdrafts. So that is another reason to keep most of your money in the savings account and only enough for immediately foreseeable needs in the checking account (and to think carefully before accepting automatic overdraft protection offers). These days, with mobile banking available via smartphones and the like, transferring money yourself from savings to checking account as needed might be a preferred way of doing things on the go (until the smartphone is stolen!)","\"When using a debit card in a \"\"credit\"\" way, you don't need to enter your PIN, which protects you from skimmers and similar nastiness. Also, assuming it's a Visa or Mastercard debit card, you now have access to all of the fraud protection and other things that you would get with a credit card. The downside for the merchant is that credit card transaction fees are typically higher than debit card transaction fees. I'm less familiar with using a credit card in a \"\"debit\"\" way, so don't have anything to offer on that part of your question.\"","Lets say Debit is what you pay and Credit is what somebody else pays for you. A Debit card will charge your bank account directly. A Credit card will charge your bank account some time later. In both cases the shop owner has the money available directly. It's called Credit because somebody believes you will be able to pay your debt on time (or later with an interest). As for purchase and sales. A customer buys = makes a purchase. A shopkeeper sells = makes a sale. Note from a bar: I made an agreement with the bank. They don't sell beer, I don't give Credit.","It's not so much a credit card, but a financial institution's online platform that either provides this functionality or not. The following Canadian financial institutions show an itemized list of pre-authorized transactions (not an exhaustive list): The following institutions show a total value of pre-authorized transactions: Most other institutions show the available credit (e.g. Chase Financial used by Amazon Rewards), which give an indication of how much you have to spend. By subtracting the current balance and the available balance from the total credit limit, you can get an indication of the total amount of pre-authorized transactions. Example: $1000 - $500 - $400 = $100 is the amount of pre-authorized transactions. From TD's EasyWeb demo (http://tdeasywebdemo.com/v2/#/en/PFS/accounts/activity/chq), it appears that they don't include pre-authorized transactions in the Available Credit. You can verify for yourself by logging in to online banking after you make a purchase and comparing the Available Credit to [Credit Limit - Current Balance]. If it is equal, then they don't include, if it is different (most likely for the value of the transaction), then they do.","Call in to the bank using a publicly available number to verify the request.","Credit Cards when I can. The reason if there is fraud or disputed charges (like I very much disagree with the cell phone charge) a debit card is already gone and I have to get the money back, versus a credit card where I haven't paid anybody anything.","Credit card, without a doubt. The reason is dispute resolution. If you dispute a charge on debit card - the money has left your account already, and if the dispute was accepted - you'll get it back. If. Eventually. In the mean time your overdraft will be missing $$$. For credit cards, you can catch a fraud action before the money actually leaves your pocket and dispute it then. In this case the charge is set aside, and you will only be required to actually pay if the dispute is rejected. I.e.: The money stays in your pocket, until the business proves that the charge is legit. In both cases, if the dispute is justified (i.e.: there was indeed a fraud) neither you nor the bank will lose money at the bottom line, it's just who's got the money during the dispute resolution process (which may be lengthy) that matters.","\"Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? I'd guess that's to protect the card company, not you. The number of the card is guessable, but each other bit of information makes it much harder to guess (the CVV code makes it ~1000 times harder, the expiration date makes it about 50-100 times harder). Since you wouldn't be responsible for the payment anyway, adding security for online transactions provides the company with less liability. As for the security of your information online, that's trickier. It depends entirely on the site you're using whether they've implemented the appropriate security measures or not (and, given the SSL attacks we've seen, even that might not help). (source: I'm a web developer, and have worked on payments systems before that implemented the security mandated by the cards). At the very least never, ever type in your information on a non-https site (there's normally a little \"\"lock\"\" icon that will display if you're on HTTPS instead of HTTP).\"","Visa, Mastercard have very strong consumer protection. I have been wondering about this question for a while but never got around to asking it here: What happens if a retailer knowingly defrauds me? My guess is the first party to ask for help is Visa, Mastercard: a retailer knowingly defrauding you is unlikely to refund you any money. However, slip-ups do happen. If this is a retailer of good repute, they will not only refund you the money but send you a gift card too! Please do followup this post with what helped you in the end, but my guess is, your first (and last) line of defense would be Visa, Mastercard. Anything that would go through the bank would take such a lot of time and effort, that you would be better off writing it off.","The mode of payment mentioned by your bank is called the ACH(Automatic Clearing House) which means that anyone(Trusted payment gateway owners like banks themselves) can process payments. There can be a fraud declared against any payment that you have made and you can get every single penny back. This amount can not be withdrawn in cash at all. However for your situation I would suggest that you ask your bank to block any transactions above the amount of a specific sum, this way they will require your authorization to finalize the payment. You should feel safe after this. Also no one can access any other account apart from the one whose details you are giving out so do not worry about this guy(or anyone else for that matter) to be able to access your other accounts. Hope this helps. (I have experience in payment gateways so I do understand these procedures.) Cheers!!","So my wife was at work today and got yelled at by both a cop and her managers for simply LOOKING at the card. I don't understand I also work in retail and of course I must see the card to ensure it is a real card, it is a very strict policy that we must have a valid physical card to run any credit/debit transactions. People put skimmers everywhere you use your card and can pick up the info off the strip and put it onto another card and use it without you noticing right away. With the right equipment they can put their name on it or the name on their fake I.d. so the only red flag would be them trying to use several different cards","What you're referring to is Visa Easy Payment Services (VEPS). Other payment processors have similar programs. Basically, certain merchants (based on merchant category code - or MCC), are not required to obtain a signature under $50. This limit was raised to $50 from $25 last year. Here is the press release from Visa describing the increase, and the program in general.","Unlike MasterCard and Visa who only provide clearing service and tie up Banks to actually issue cards or POS terminals for merchants; Discover card operates more like American Express. It's a totally different network; cards and POS to merchants are directly offered by Discover Bank only. There is no other banks that issue this card.","A debit card takes the funds right from your account. There's no 'credit' issued along the way. The credit card facilitates a short term loan. If you are a pay-in-full customer, as I am, there's a cost to lend the money, but we're not paying it. It's part of the fee charged to the merchant. Thus the higher transaction cost.","\"That's accurate. Here is another risk with the current checking system, which many people are not aware of: Anyone who knows your checking account number can learn what your balance in that account is. (This is bank-specific, but it is possible at the major banks I've checked.) How does that work? Many banks have a phone line where you can dial up and interact with an automated voice response system, for various customer service tasks. One of the options is something like \"\"merchant check verification\"\". That option is intended to help a merchant who receives a check to verify whether the person writing the check has enough money in their account for the check to clear. If you select that option in the phone tree, it will prompt you to enter in the account number on the check and the amount of the check, and then it will respond by telling you either \"\"there are currently sufficient funds in the account to cash this check\"\" or \"\"there are not sufficient funds; this check would bounce\"\". Here's how you can abuse this system to learn how much someone has in their bank account, if you know their account number. You call up and check whether they've enough money to cash a $10,000 check (note that you don't actually have to have a check for $10,000 in your hands; you just need to know the account number). If the system says \"\"nope, it'd bounce\"\", then you call again and try $5,000. If the system says \"\"yup, sufficient funds for a $5,000 check\"\", then you try $7,500. If it says \"\"nope, not enough for that\"\", you try $6,250. Etcetera. At each step, you narrow the range of possible account balances by a factor of two. Consequently, after about a dozen or so steps, you will likely know their balance to within a few dollars. (Computer scientists know this procedure by the name \"\"binary search\"\". The rest of us may recognize it as akin to a game of \"\"20 questions\"\".) If this bothers you, you may be able to protect your self by calling up your bank and asking them how to prevent it. When I talked to my bank (Bank of America), they told me they could put a fraud alert flag on your account, which would disable the merchant check verification service for my account. It does mean that I have to provide a 3-digit PIN any time I phone up my bank, but that's fine with me. I realize many folks may terribly not be concerned about revealing their bank account balance, so in the grand scheme of things, this risk may be relatively minor. However, I thought I'd document it here for others to be aware of.\"","\"Circa 2002-2005, I was able to successfully \"\"transfer\"\" a balance from a debit card linked to a bank account to a Bank of America Visa credit card. As an example, I could say do a balance transfer from the card XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (which was a valid debit card number) to the credit card, and the funds would appear in the checking account within a few days, and also the balance on the credit card would go up the amount plus any balance transfer fee. I think they've sealed off that loophole years ago.\"","Typically there are several parties involved: (Sometimes one company plays multiple roles; for example AmEx is a network and an issuer.) When a merchant charges a card and the issuer approves it, money is transferred from the issuer to the acquirer to the merchant. This settlement process takes some time, but generally is completed within a day. Of course, most cardholders pay on a monthly basis. The issuer must use their own funds in the mean time. If the cardholder defaults, the issuer takes the loss.","Try to get a second card in your business' name, with a separate card number (like you would get one for a spouse). They may or may not allow that free (you wouldn't want to pay a second fee), and it might be only possible with the second card bearing the same number, which makes it useless. But it is worth a try.","I've called both BofA and Amex Customer Support, and they couldn't help. That's because you cannot. Debit card is tied to your checking account, so you can do a cash advance from your AMEX and deposit it to your BOA checking account. It will then be available to use with your debit card.","Your chief problem seems to be that you're mixing Visa (credit cards) and Step2 (a European Automated Clearing House). Credit cards are primarily an American concept, but do work worldwide especially in travel&tourism industry. The Credit Card companies are financial institutions themselves and operate similar to international banks They're typically acting as intermediaries between the customer's bank and the retailer's bank, so this works even if those two banks have no existing agreements. This is expensive, though. Step2 is a cheaper European system which eliminates the middle man. It allows the consumer's bank to directly pay the retailer's bank. VISA is not a member of Step2.","As other answers and comments suggest you are trying to do something... odd to say the least. No one wants to use a credit card to finance a checking/current account because you are creating a debt on that credit card (unless you are in the odd situation where the card is in credit) that will immediately start accruing interest at a rate probably in excess of 10% per annum. That is not a clever thing to do. What you really need to do is find an account that one of you owns that has a positive balance and use an internet banking service to transfer part of that positive balance onto the debit card. The other solution is not to use the debit card at all but use the credit card to complete the purchases you are trying to manage with the debit card. The reason that BofA and AmEx customer support can't help you is that no one would ever do what you want to do; they would either move existing money from another account or ask for a bank loan.","Or at least I saw it do so with Bank of America.","\"PC MasterCard recently added this as a new feature to their online system. It lets you see \"\"Pending Authorizations\"\" for your card when you log in. Their email said: Along with your purchases, you'll see a list of every transaction that's been approved, but not yet applied to your balance. You'll be able to identify these with the word “Pending” in the date column. Here's a link with more information: http://pcfinancial.ca/pendingauthorization/\"","> But I pretty much followed the procedure I was told to, its just I don't know why we wouldn't get the money back. First, you're in the wrong spot. Go to /r/personalfinance. Second, does it *really* make sense that you'd still get paid? If someone stole your wallet and bought something for $100, can you not go to the store and demand your $100? Or do you have to go and find the thief THEN get back *that* item and THEN return it to the store and THEN get your cash back? It's easier both logistically and logically to stop the payment going to the store, and have the store consider it a theft of their merchandise."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Parts of what you want are possible, but taken as a whole, you're out of luck. First of all, there is no master database of every cardholder in the country. The only way to check if information is correct is to ask the issuing bank. The AVS system is a way to automate doing so, but it's possible to call the bank directly and verbally verify the address. That means you're subject to the whims of what the issuing bank chooses to support. Banks that are part of the Visa and MasterCard networks generally only verify the numeric parts (address, apartment number, zipcode). AmEx can also verify the cardholder name. But if the bank doesn't have support for validating something, you can't validate it. Separately, there is a \\\"\\\"verify-only\\\"\\\" transaction which some processors support, which will do exactly what you want: Return AVS values without ever charging the card. However, processors require you to have the \\\"\\\"approved merchant account\\\"\\\" you don't want to have to have. Without being a merchant, you shouldn't have access to other people's credit cards anyway. Would you really want anyone in the country to be able to verify anyone else's address whenever they want? In short, whatever purpose you have for wanting this probably falls into one of three categories:\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Zip code, as well as billing address, is used in conjunction with the Address Verification Service (AVS). AVS is a web (or phone) service that actually verifies the address with the billing address on file with the issuing bank. It does not use the credit card stripe. You can see more information from various sources such as bank merchant help pages like Bank of America's. As far as what is stored on the stripe, it varies some by bank (as there are some \\\"\\\"optional\\\"\\\" areas). The standards are discussed here. Fields include your account number, name, the expiration date, some card-specific stuff, and then the discretionary section. I would not expect much in terms of address type information there. So - the answer to your question is that they can't really take much more than your name and CC #, unless you give it to them. If you give a false zip code, you may have your purchase rejected. They certainly do keep track of the credit card number, and I would suppose that is the most valuable piece to them; they can see you make purchases across time and know for a fact that it's the same exact person (since it's the same card). Additionally, zip codes for AVS from pay-at-the-pump are supposedly not generally used for marketing (see this article for example). That is probably not true at at-the-register (in-person) collections, most of those aren't for AVS anyway. Even California permits the pay-at-the-pump zip verification as long as it's only used for that (same article). I would assume any information given, though, is collected for marketing purposes.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As others have stated, credit (signature required) is processed through their respective networks (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, or American Express). A \\\"\\\"debit\\\"\\\" card tied to your checking account, still go through the same credit network even though the funds are guaranteed from your checking rather than a free loan 30-60 days which has the potential to be unpaid. This type of debit card purchase may be eligible for a lower processing rate for less risk. Debit cards can also be processed through the debit network (PIN required, no signature). This is typically a straight fee such as $0.35. Fees vary, but let me give you a simple comparison: Say you are at the supermarket and buy $50 worth of groceries with a debit card with Visa logo. You are asked \\\"\\\"credit\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"debit\\\"\\\": At my supermarket, this is why I am given the option to enter my PIN first. If I want to pay by credit, I have to tap Cancel to process via credit signature.\\\"\",\n \"Security in the merchant services system is mainly handled in two ways: 1) Before transactions are done, the business itself must go through an application process similar (but not identical) to getting a loan. Some high risk businesses must pay higher fees due to the increased likelihood of customer complaints. 2) When a customer disputes a transaction, that's a mark against the business. Get too many of these disputes, and your priviledge of accepting credit cards will be revoked, meaning you won't be able to again. It's in the merchant's best interest to verify customer's identity, because disputes cost them money directly. It's in the servicer's best interest to verify the businesses integrity, because fraud drives up the cost for everyone else. As a whole, it's quite a reactionary system, yet in practice it works remarkably well.\",\n \"POS stands for Point of Sale (like a specific store location) which indicates that the purchase occurred by using your debit card, but it can also be the on-line transaction done via 3-D Secure. Checking with bank, they said that Kirchstrasse transaction could be related to direct marketing subscription service ordered on-line. Investigating further what I've found these kind of transactions are performed by 2BuySafe company registered at Kirchstrasse in Liechtenstein with went through the MultiCards on-line cashier which can be used for paying different variety of services (e.g. in this case it was polish on-line storage service called Chomikuj). These kind of transactions can be tracked by checking the e-mail (e.g. in gmail by the following query: after:2014/09/02 before:2014/09/02 Order). Remember, that if you still don't recognise your transaction, you should call your bank. I have found also some other people concerns about that kind of transactions who ask: Is 2BuySafe.com and www.multicards.com some sort of Scam? Provided answer says: MultiCards Internet Billing is a provider of online credit card and debit card processing and payment solutions to many retailers worldwide. MultiCards was one of the pioneer companies offering this type of service since 1995 and is a PCI / DSS certified Internet Payment Service Provider (IPSP) providing service to hundreds of retail websites worldwide MultiCards is a registered Internet Payment Service Provider and has implemented various fraud protection tools including, but not limited to, MultiCards Fraud Score Tool and 'Verified by Visa' and 'MasterCard SecureCode' to protect card holder's card details. 2BuySafe.com Is also Secured and Verified By GeoTrust The certificate should be trusted by all major web browsers (all the correct intermediate certificates are installed). The certificate was issued by GeoTrust. Entering Incorrect information can lead to a card being rejected as @ TOS 2BuySafe.com is hosted on the Multicards Server site\",\n \"There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.\",\n \"They represent two distict payment processing mechanisms that just happen to be available on one product. Rather like having dvi and hdmi on you laptop. Your account number and sort code relates to the bank account. Your long number, expiry and ccv relate to the card. It is perfectly possible and not uncommon to have two different cards on the same account, which would have their own card numbers etc. The BACS, CHAPS, DirectDebit and FasterPayments systems use the account numbers. These transactions are practically irreversible and work through the interbank transfer system and should be considered 'direct money transfers' - electronic cash. The long digits are used by Mastercard, Visa, AmEx etc and go through their own payment systems. These payments are 'indirect' and may or may not be reversible as the private payment network (visa etc) has some accountability. They work like electronic cheques. This is why debit card transactions can cause you to go overdrawn - you are writing a promise to pay from an account. It is up to the bank to block the card if you have no money, vs a CHAPS payment that checks the money is there before moving it. It is easier (but still hard) to recover money lost through Visa fraud than BACS. Credit cards have only the long number etc. While savings accounts (non-checking accounts) have only account numbers. Depending on where you are different laws will likely cover debit card vs money transfer payments. In the UK Direct debit guarantee is the most common protection on the BACS system, while standing orders and faster payments give you little legal power. Debit cards will give you some protection because the payment system stands between you and the bank account, so if you didn't make the transaction you should be able to reclaim the money ('card not present fraud'). If you did make the transaction but the vendor failed to supply or goods were faulty then a Chargeback system exists where you may also be able to reclaim. A bank transfer you make is irrecoverable and refund can only be claimed through court for faulty goods.\",\n \"\\\"Yes and No. There's always a \\\"\\\"fee\\\"\\\". The difference in credit vs debit usually determines how much that fee is and how it's paid. Each vendor who accepts the major credit card is under contract to pay for equipment and meet certain standards. The same is true for debt card transactions. How much the \\\"\\\"fee\\\"\\\" is can vary based on the contract the vendor has with MasterCard/Visa/AMEX. But in general most debt transactions go back to the bank who distributed the card.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"From my days in e-commerce they break down like this? The company doesn't know a debit from a credit card. Got the Visa logo, then it is a Visa through the company's payment gateway. The gateway talks to the bank and that is where the particulars for money is figured out. When I programmed gateway interfaces, I had the option to \\\"\\\"authorize\\\"\\\" or check for funds (which didn't reserve anything, just verified funds existed), run for batch (which put a hold on the funds and collected them at the end of the night) or just take the money. Most places did a verify during the early checkout stages and then did a batch at the end of the night. The nightly batch allows a merchant to cancel a transaction without getting charged a fee. The \\\"\\\"authorize\\\"\\\" doesn't mean the money is tied up, although that might be your banks policy. Furthermore, an authorize can only last for so many days. This also explains why most of your banks don't report your transactions to you the day of. There is a bunch more activity on your card than the transactions that complete.\\\"\",\n \"Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.\",\n \"If you call them, you can make sure they'll use the new address, but if you want to do it online, there is some risk that the update is delayed. Note also that an address change with an immediate request for a replacement debit card smells very fishy - this what a hacker / thief would do to get your money. Calling seems to be the better approach, as you can verify your identity further. Otherwise, you might well run into an automated block.\",\n \"\\\"Actually in Finland on some bank + debit/credit card + online retailer combinations you type in your card details as you normally do, but after clicking \\\"\\\"Buy\\\"\\\" you get directed to your own bank's website which asks you to authenticate yourself with online banking credentials. It also displays the amount of money and to which account it is being paid to. After authentication you get directed back to the retailer's website. Cannot say why banks in US haven't implemented this.\\\"\",\n \"CC always (applies only if you pay your balance in full). First you rack up points on your card, second if there is an unauthorized pull a Cc will help you a bank may or may not. As a general advice don't hand out your banking information like a credit card number. Now paying bills through the bank is a different matter. This advice applies to companies that would like to pull money from bank accounts. Never do that if Cc is an alternative.\",\n \"Like email and spam, fighting creditcard fraud is a cat and mouse game, with technology and processes constantly being developed to reduce fraud. The CVV on the back of the card is just one more layer of security. Requiring the CVV generally requires you to physically have access to the card. CVV should not be stored by any merchant. This frustrates card skimming fraud as the CVV is not present in the track data and fraud caused by database compromises. You should never use your PIN online. MC/VISA both have implementations of 3D-Secure (SecureCode for MC and Verified by VISA) which require a password / code to confirm card ownership. Depends on both Issuer and Merchant implementing the standard. Regarding not needing a PIN at the airport, some low value transactions no longer need PINs, depending on the Issuer and Scheme (VISA/MC). MasterCard PayPass or VISA PayWave enable low value contactless transactions without PIN. In Australia, the maximum value for a contactless transactions is $100 AUD. At some merchants (McDonalds for example) a PIN is not required for for meals purchased with VISA (at least, for the cheeseburger I bought there as a test). This makes sense - if you don't need a PIN for a contactless purchase, why do you need it for a chip based purchase? So - why allow PIN free transactions? On average customers report stolen credit cards / wallet very quickly and the losses are correspondingly small. As card issuers are always online, cards can be cancelled very quickly after being reported lost / stolen. Finally, by performing transactions for just a few cents or pennies, the merchant (Spotify) can likely validate you are the owner of the card as you'd need access to your online bank to confirm the transactions. PayPal do this with bank account to confirm ownership. (Unless I've misunderstood your statement).\",\n \"\\\"Here is how the Visa network works: A Visa transaction is a carefully orchestrated process. When a Visa account holder uses a Visa card to buy a pair of shoes, it’s actually the acquirer — the merchant’s bank — that reimburses the merchant for the shoes. Then, the issuer — the account holder’s bank — reimburses the acquirer, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Lastly, the issuer collects from the account holder by withdrawing funds from the account holder’s bank account if a debit account is used, or through billing if a credit account is used. I read this to mean the Merchant's Bank (the Acquirer Bank) gives the merchant the money within 2 days via the Card Issuer's Bank. The issuing bank is the one that provides the \\\"\\\"credit\\\"\\\" feature since that bank won't get reimbursed until the shopper's bill is paid (or perhaps even longer if the shopper carries a balance). You'll notice the Credit Card company (Visa/MC/etc) is only involved in the process as a way of passing messages. Of course they take a fee for this service so seller ultimately get's less than the buyer bought the shoes for.\\\"\",\n \"Some businesses verify the shipping address with the credit card company, and refuse to ship to an alternate address without additional, offline verification. Of course, this is only useful for physical goods.\",\n \"So, my questions: Are payment cards provide sufficient security now? Yes. If so, how is that achieved? Depending on your country's laws, of course. In most places (The US and EU, notably), there's a statutory limit on liability for fraudulent charges. For transactions when the card is not present, proving that the charge is not fraudulent is merchants' task. Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? Is it? Try to copy someones credit card info next time you're in the line at the local grocery store. BTW, some of my friends tend to rub off the CVV code from the cards they get immediately after receiving; nevertheless, it could have already been written down by some unfair bank employee. Rubbish.\",\n \"> Verify the signature against what? How old are you I wonder? I am guessing that you're so young you don't know how it used to be done. Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID if the signature on your card is not valid (blank, or says 'SEE I.D.'). This worked for a long time, until retailers started hiring incompetent children who were too lazy to do their jobs properly. I once worked for a retailer who would fire you if they caught you not verifying signatures.\",\n \"The truth is that Visa does not require a merchant to enter the cvv number before authorizing a transaction. The only information that is really needed is the credit card number and expiration date.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, there is a slight reason to worry as the debit card contains 1) Account Number 2) of course a the Debit Card number 3) CSV code at the back of every debit card and mostly these three parameters are being followed to verify the authenticity of the cardholder, but there are some other parameters like \\\"\\\"password of your debit card\\\"\\\" and even address in some cases. So stay chill the manager will not be able to make any online payment using the credential of your debit card without password and other details...\\\"\",\n \"\\\"These are two different ways of processing payments. They go through different systems many times, and are treated differently by the banks, credit card issuers and the stores. Merchants pay different fees on transactions paid by debit cards and by credit cards. Debit transactions require PIN, and are deducted from your bank account directly. In order to achieve that, the transaction has to reach the bank in real time, otherwise it will be declined. This means, that the merchant has to have a line of communications open to the relevant processor, that in turn has to be able to connect to the bank and get the authorization - all that while on-line. The bank verifies the PIN, authorizes the transaction, and deducts the amount from your account, while you're still at the counter. Many times these transactions cannot be reversed, and the fraud protections and warranties are different from credit transactions. Credit transactions don't have to go to your card issuer at all. The merchant can accept credit payment without calling anyone, and without getting prior authorizations. Even if the merchant sends the transaction for authorization with its processor, if the processor cannot reach the issuing bank - they can still approve the transaction under certain conditions. This is, however, never true with debit cards (even if used as \\\"\\\"credit\\\"\\\"). They're not deducted from your bank account, but accumulated on your credit card account. They're posted there when the actual transaction reaches the card issuer, which may be many days (and even many months) after the transaction took place. Credit transactions can be reversed (in some cases very easily), and enjoy from a higher level of fraud protection. In some countries (and most, if not all, of the EU) fraudulent credit transactions are never the consumer's problem, always the bank's. Not so with debit transactions. Banks may be encouraging you to use debit for several reasons: Merchants will probably prefer credit because: Consumers will probably be better off with credit because:\\\"\",\n \"ATM and Debit are not the same thing. ATM is a card that can only be used to withdraw money from the ATMs that belong to that bank (or participate in the same network). In some countries, ATM cards can be used for shopping if the merchant is equipped with an appropriate reader and is participating in an appropriate network. Debit card can be used for purchases in any store showing the appropriate (Visa/MC) logo, and withdraw money at any ATM showing the appropriate (Visa/MC or the ATM network that appears on the card) logo.\",\n \"This doesn't directly pertain to international transactions but may be relevant. I got an American Express gift card over the holidays, and I tried to use it at an online merchant. The card was declined because it failed address verification. I called American Express gift card services (number was on the gift card), and they knew immediately what the problem was and fixed it. They simply took my address and added it as a billing address on the card. I retried the payment and it went through right away. It may be worth calling the gift card company and asking them to simply add your billing address.\",\n \"Merchants are only supposed to verify the presence of a signature, which signifies that the card owner has accepted the terms and conditions of the card / account. It was never really intended to be used to authenticate the card holder, nor is it used as such in practice.\",\n \"It depends on the business. Some ask for ID and check against the signature (rare); some ask for ID but barely glance at it; some check just that it's signed (also rare); some ask for me to input my ZIP code on the card reader (KMart); and some don't do anything (most common). What they do doesn't seem connected to whether I put the card in the reader myself, or hand it to the cashier for them to scan. It does seem silly to check IDs, etc., as there are places such as gas stations where I never even see an employee, and can spend just as much there as at WalMart, KMart, or the grocery store, all places that tend to do more checking.\",\n \"One bank is more willing to risk losses and customer hassle in exchange for lower processing costs than the other bank is. It's strictly a business decision. Regarding how they detect suspicious transactions: Patten detection based on your past usage history. I've gotten calls asking me to confirm that I just placed a large order with a company I'd never bought from before, or in a country that I haven't previously visited, or...\",\n \"In most cases, the brand on the card, eg Visa or MasterCard, is a middleman. The company processes the transaction, transferring $xx from the bank to the seller, and telling the bank to debit the buyer's account. The bank is at risk, not the company transacting the purchase. What's interesting is that American Express started as both. My first Amex card, issued in 1979 (long expired, but in my box of memorabilia) had no bank. American Express offered a card that offered no extended credit, it was pay in full each month. Since then, Amex started offering extended credit, i.e. with annual interest, and minimum payments, and more recently, offering transaction processing for banks which take on the credit risk, essentially becoming very similar to MasterCard and Visa.\",\n \"There generally isn't much in the way of real identity verification, at least in the US and online. The protection you get is that with most credit cards you can report your card stolen (within some amount of time) and the fraudulent charges dropped. The merchant is the one that usually ends up paying for it if it gets charged back so it's usually in the merchant's best interest to do verification. However the cost of doing so (inconvenience to the customer, or if it's an impulse buy, giving them more time to change their mind, etc) is often greater than the occasional fraudulent charge so they usually don't do too much about it unless they're in a business where it's a frequent problem.\",\n \"With change in technology and regulations, quite a few clearing systems provide an ability to directly credit a credit card. In Europe Sepa transactions allow one to credit a credit card. The service would be offered by Local bank rather than Visa or Master Card\",\n \"Verify the signature against what? You are going to have a pad of paper and ask the customer to sign and compare it for every charge? Also, FYI, per the credit card companies, you need just to check if the signature is on the card. They do NOT(!) ask you to compare signatures.\",\n \"In addition to what has been said, gift cards with a credit card logo (which is what I am assuming you mean here) do not have an address associated with them. That means that if you try to use one at a merchant that users address verification (common in online purchases), the transaction will fail. In my experience with an American Express branded gift card, I was able to call the number on the back and they added an address to the card so that it would work. It seemed like this was a common and well known issue. Because the gift card is not associated with any person, no verification is needed to add that address, you can give them any address you want. Also I believe that the card numbers in use for gift cards are specific, that is you could tell that a card is a gift card based on the number alone. That means it is likely possible for a merchant to reject those gift cards while still accepting other cards from that network. This is likely for certain transactions. For example, a hotel or car rental agency requires a credit card for incidentals, and it's likely that the system itself will outright reject a gift card even if it has enough on it for the initial hold. As for debit cards, I think there are far fewer issues with acceptance, other than the aforementioned hold issues described in another answer.\",\n \"\\\"> Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID ... This worked for a long time, until retailers ... For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. Impractical and not even worth it as anyone can copy a signature on a card. Neither do banks bother to check for signature. They don't even have a \\\"\\\"signature on-file\\\"\\\" anymore. Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. I guarantee you that! **Please try it! Let me know if it did not work!** I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. The only sure thing is to ask for a PIN. But, alas, credit cards use a chip, so if I steall your card, I can buy with it with no problems. But not if I still your ATM card - I don't know your PIN. The PIN is in your head and I can't get it. The credit card companies don't really care.\\\"\",\n \"While Rocky's answer is correct in the big picture there is another factor here to keep in mind: The disruption while you're waiting to resolve it. If a fraudster gets your card and drains your account you'll get your money back--but there will be a period while they are investigating that it won't be available. For this reason I avoid debit card transactions and only use credit cards. If the fraudster gets your credit card you might lose access while they investigate but you don't lose access to your bank account.\",\n \"It depends on your bank and your terms of service, but using the card one way or the other may affect things such as how long it takes to process, what buyer protections you have, etc. It also affects the store as I believe they are charged differently for debit vs credit transactions.\",\n \"\\\"Just to add about using debit card as \\\"\\\"credit\\\"\\\" vs \\\"\\\"debit\\\"\\\" way: In addition to the difference of having to enter the PIN when using \\\"\\\"debit\\\"\\\" mode (vs having to sign in \\\"\\\"credit\\\"\\\" mode), for stores that offer cash back (i.e. get cash out of your account at the same time as paying), you can only get cash back when using \\\"\\\"debit\\\"\\\" mode.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I completely agree with @littleadv in favor of using the credit card and dispute resolution process, but I believe there are more important details here related to consumer protection. Since 1968, US citizens are protected from credit card fraud, limiting the out-of-pocket loss to $50 if your card is lost, stolen, or otherwise used without your permission. That means the bank can't make you pay more than $50 if you report unauthorized activity--and, nicely, many credit cards these days go ahead and waive the $50 too, so you might not have to pay anything (other than the necessary time and phone calls). Of course, many banks offer a $50 cap or no fees at all for fraudulent charges--my bank once happily resolved some bad charges for me at no loss to me--but banks are under no obligation to shield debit card customers from fraud. If you read the fine print on your debit card account agreement you may find some vague promises to resolve your dispute, but probably nothing saying you cannot be held liable (the bank is not going to lose money on you if they are unable to reverse the charges!). Now a personal story: I once had my credit card used to buy $3,000 in stereo equipment, at a store I had never heard of in a state I have never visited. The bank notified me of the surprising charges, and I was immediately able to begin the fraud report--but it took months of calls before the case was accepted and the charges reversed. So, yes, there was no money out of my pocket, but I was completely unable to use the credit card, and every month they kept on piling on more finance fees and late-payment charges and such, and I would have to call them again and explain again that the charges were disputed... Finally, after about 8 months in total, they accepted the fraud report and reversed all the charges. Lastly, I want to mention one more important tool for preventing or limiting loss from online purchases: \\\"\\\"disposable\\\"\\\", one-time-use credit card numbers. At least a few credit card providers (Citibank, Bank of America, Discover) offer you the option, on their websites, to generate a credit card number that charges your account, but under the limits you specify, including a maximum amount and expiration date. With one of these disposable numbers, you can pay for a single purchase and be confident that, even if the number were stolen in-transit or the merchant a fraud, they don't have your actual credit card number, and they can never charge you again. I have not yet seen this option for debit card customers, but there must be some banks that offer it, since it saves them a lot of time and trouble in pursuing defrauders. So, in short: If you pay with a credit card number you will not ever have to pay more than $50 for fraudulent charges. Even better, you may be able to use a disposable/one-time-use credit card number to further limit the chances that your credit is misused. Here's to happy--and safe--consumering!\\\"\",\n \"Debit is them taking the money, in your case electronically. Credit is somebody vouching for you and saying you will pay later. They are alternate ways to pay for a product. As a merchant, if you take a credit card you are agreeing that a the issuer of the credit card is going to pay you right away. The issuer of the credit will worry about collecting the money from me. There are a ton of details with regards to why you would use one over another, where the costs in each method are and who pays what for each. The main different is the source of the funds.\",\n \"I would presume this goes entirely through the credit card network rather than the banking network. I am guessing that it's essentially the same operation as if you had returned something purchased on a card to the store for credit, but I'm not sure whether it really looks like a vendor credit to the network or if it is marked as a different type of transaction.\",\n \"The thing is that we never asked for these services. The banks and the merchants did. These companies build profiles **against** you to provide your credit info to any creditor who asks. Then they bill you so that they will not hand out your identity to criminals for a period of time. Great fucking system.\",\n \"If the debit card is associated with the account, there is nowhere else it could go. The chance is nil that there is another account with that 16-digit number. So either it goes there, or the transfer fails and it is right back where it came from, though this could take some days. If you don't want to risk a wait, talk to your bank now.\",\n \"Credit cards and debit cards make up the bulk of the transactions in the US. Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of each credit card transaction. For the most part, this fee it built into the price of what you buy. That is, you don't generally pay extra at the grocery store if you use a credit card (gasoline purchases are a notable exception here.) If you were getting something like 2% of a third of all the retail transactions in the US, you'd probably not want to rock the boat too much either. Since there is little fraud relative to the amount of money they are taking in, and it can often be detected using statistical analysis, they don't really stand to gain that much by reducing it through these methods. Sure they can reduce the losses on the insurance they provide to the credit card consumer but they risk slowing down the money machine. These companies want avoid doing something like reducing fraud by 0.5% revenues but causing purchases with the cards drop by 1%. More security will be implemented as we can see with the (slow) introduction of chip cards in the US but only at a pace that will prevent disruption of the money machine. EMV will likely cause a large drop in CC fraud at brick-and-mortar stores but won't stop it online. You will likely see some sort of system like you describe rolled out for that eventually.\",\n \"It depends on what provider they are using to process your charge and if it's through a website, a phone application or a desktop application. For example, if they build a desktop application with Authorize.net, the desktop application will take your information in, and then make a webservice call with it to a secure authorize.net processing platform. Something similar is true for FirstData. However, if they are using PayPal to process your request, you are routed to a paypal site to make the charge, then the funds are sent to the merchant. As for what is returned that also depends on the provider and the application. If you are using a website it's likely an XML response with all the information they provide upon a transaction attempt. If it's a desktop application they may just hand the cc info off to a library which processes the charge and then returns specific confirmed or denied flags. So to be totally honest without knowing the exact situation in which you are charging your card, it's impossible to know. For all you know they are putting your credit card information in a database unencrypted and then charging them all at the end of the week in one giant batch. If you are able to find out whom they are using as a credit card processing provider then you can look for that companies developer documentation. It will provide you with all the information you are looking for including examples.\",\n \"Skimmers are most likely at gas station pumps. If your debit card is compromised you are getting money taken out of your checking account which could cause a cascade of NSF fees. Never use debit card at pump. Clark Howard calls debit cards piece of trash fake visa/mc That is because of all the points mentioned above but the most important fact is back in the 60's when congress was protecting its constituents they made sure that the banks were responsible for fraud and maxed your liability at $50. Debit cards were introduced much later when congress was interested in protecting banks. So you have no protection on your debit card and if they find you negligent with your card they may not replace the stolen funds. I got rid of my debit card and only have an ATM card. So it cannot be used in stores which means you have to know the pin and then you can only get $200 a day.\",\n \"\\\"The fee structures are different for PIN-based transactions versus \\\"\\\"credit\\\"\\\" style transactions. Usually there is a fixed fee (around $0.50) for PIN-based transactions and a varying fixed fee plus a percentage for credit transactions (something like $0.35 + 2.5%). There are also value limits for PIN-based transactions... I believe that you cannot exceed $400 in most places. The signature feature of credit transactions isn't there to protect you, it signifies your agreement to comply with the contract you and the credit card issuer, protecting the merchant from some types of chargeback. Some merchants waive the signature for low dollar value transactions to increase convenience and speed up the lines. All of your other questions are answered elsewhere on this site.\\\"\",\n \"If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. I have my back account (i.e. chequing account) and VISA account at/from the same bank (which, in my case, is the Royal Bank of Canada). I asked my bank to set up an automatic transfer, so that they automatically pay off my whole VISA balance every month, on time, by taking the money from my bank account. In that way I am never late paying the VISA so I never pay interest charges. IOW I use the VISA like a debit card; the difference is that it's accepted at some places where a debit card isn't (e.g. online, and for car rentals), and that the money is deducted from my bank account at the end of the month instead of immediately.\",\n \"Here's a simple answer: If your debit card has a visa or mc logo, it can be used as a 'credit card'. In order to do so, you shouldn't enter the pin, instead choose 'credit' and sign for it. Unlike a credit card, you can't spend money you don't have but like a credit card, your purchase is protected by the credit card company (visa/mc) and gives you privileges like zero fraud liability and purchase disputes. http://www.moneycone.com/should-you-sign-for-a-debit-card-purchase-or-use-your-pin/\",\n \"As far as I'm aware, PINs are only used for in-person transactions, not 'remote' (over the Internet or phone).\",\n \"Debit card purchases without PIN are treated as credit card purchases by merchants, and that includes ID verification. In addition to the ways you mentioned, you can get a debit card in any grocery store and load it with cash, and these debit cards don't have a name imprinted on them. But then if you lose them - you may have troubles proving you did in fact lose them when you try to recover your money, as anyone can use them. Technically you can register them online and call in and request refunds for fraud losses just as any other debit/credit card in the US (with $50 deductible), but in practice it may be difficult. These cards have very high fees, and may not be accepted for rentals etc.\",\n \"From the business side of credit cards, Discover and American Express carry their own risk. AmEx has lent their logo to banks such as Bank of America (BofA) to use the AmEx transaction network, but the financial risk and customer service is provided by BofA. Visa and MasterCard let banks use their logo and process through their respective networks for a fee. The financial risk of fraud, non-payment from merchants, etc is the risk that the individual banks carry.\",\n \"Credit in debit way - the card simply functions like a debit card for that transaction - pulling cash from your checking account. No difference. You've simply discovered the fact that some banks are using the same piece of plastic for two functions, debit which draws funds directly from your checking, and credit which offers you time to pay a bill the comes in some time later. It's a personal choice.\",\n \"Who cares? If your card gets stolen, most cards provide you with 100% liability protection. Just sign the thing!\",\n \"As it is international debits, this will take a while. BofA is right, You have to dispute this with Card Issuer, i.e. HDFC. The worst case for me was around 1 month. Keep chasing and sending out reminders every 3-4 days.\",\n \"\\\"The address under a bank's name on a check, if there is one, is generally going to be the contact address of the bank. That will be true no matter where on the check the bank's name appears. The address of the person or business the account belongs to, if present, will appear under their name. This information block is typically near the top left corner the check, so it will be visible as the return address if the check is mailed in a \\\"\\\"window envelope\\\"\\\" designed for this purpose. The address the check is being mailed to, if it appears on the check, will generally appear low on the check and to the right, so it will be visible as the destination address when the check is mailed using a \\\"\\\"window envelope\\\"\\\" designed for this purpose. If that isn't the answer you were looking for, please clarify your question.\\\"\",\n \"Given that the laws on consumer liability for unauthorized transactions mean no cost in most cases, the CVV is there to protect the merchant. Typically a merchant will receive a lower cost from their bank to process the transaction with the CVV code versus without. As far as the Netflix case goes, (or any other recurring billing for that matter) they wouldn't care as much about it because Visa/MC/Amex regulations prohibit storage of the CVV. So if they collect it then it's only used for the first transaction and renewals just use the rest of the card info (name, expiration date, address). Does the presence of CVV indicate the merchant has better security? Maybe, maybe not. It probably means they care about their costs and want to pay the bank as little as possible to process the transaction.\",\n \"Debit cards with the Visa or Mastercard symbol on them work technically everywhere where credit cards work. There are some limitations where the respective business does not accept them, for example car rentals want a credit card for potential extra charges; but most of the time, for day-to-day shopping and dining, debit cards work fine. However, you should read up the potential risks. A credit card gives you some security by buffering incorrect/fraudulent charges from your account, and credit card companies also help you reverse incorrect charges, before you ever have to pay for it. If you use a debit card, it is your money on the line immediately - any incorrect charge, even accidential, takes your money from your account, and it is gone while you work on reversing the charge. Any theft, and your account can be cleaned out, and you will be without money while you go after the thief. Many people consider the debit card risk too high, and don't use them for this reason. However, many people do use them - it is up to you.\",\n \"There are 2 parties when we say credit card companies: The bank that gives you a card & VISA/Mastercard For a Bank the revenues generally come from: For VISA/Mastercard the revenue is from: P.S. Have not covered American express here but in short it is a combination of the above 2 models\",\n \"> Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. About that you are correct, however during any sort of forensic investigation they are going to ask to see a signature receipt if one is available. > For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. No that isn't true. Retailers are required by many card processing vendors to send in a signed receipt. This is changing, because employees are lazy, and retailers don't care about their customers at all so they don't bother enforcing any standards on their minimum wage register jockeys. However many of them are still required to send signed receipts in. When I was younger I worked at a store that would not get paid by the bank if it did not send in a signed receipt for every transaction. Go on, try walking away without signing your credit card receipt at stores where they present it for signature, and see what happens. > I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. You and everyone else. Big deal. Different credit card processors have different requirements for their customers (merchants). > The credit card companies don't really care. I think the real lesson here is **nobody cares**. Not the banks, not the credit card companies, and not the merchants. The only thing any of them give a fuck about is keeping the money flowing, especially into their own wallets, and if that means customers get ripped off sometimes because of inadequate protections, so what. My only point is, if I have one at all, **merchants _should_ care** about protecting the customer, and **customers _should_ care** about what protections are in place to prevent fraud. **PIN numbers are fine** as an authentication method, **but they should be completely shielded from view** by people standing in line or cameras overhead.\",\n \"I'm pretty sure it's merchant-dependent. If a credit card transaction doesn't go through, PayPal will automatically charge your bank account. Some merchants may want that extra insurance.\",\n \">> Hey! Do you mind giving your credit card to the waiter... > I'm not especially fond of that, but it's easy to report fraud to the bank and most of the time the bank will reverse the charges. No kidding! Of course, even I give credit cards to waiters. What do I care? **As you said, you are not liable to any fraud on your credit card.** None at all!!!! It's only Merchant, not the credit card company, that pay the price for fraud... **and you pay higher prices to cover for losses from fraud.** > The PIN situation is different because a mugging is life-threatening. Nonsense! Mugging at the ATM is so rare, each ATM has a camera. **In any case, I am not talking about using PIN to withdraw money!** I am talking about PIN to authorize charges on a credit card or ATM card. >> We already determined that nobody even care about signatures or check them. > You can't use a stolen card at an ATM with a signature. Huh? You totally got it wrong what I said, or, you argue for the sake of argument. **I am saying that cards that require you to enter a PIN cannot be used used when stolen or copied. Yes or no?** **On the other hand, cards that require signature can be used when stolen or copied because signature is a worthless method to validate the charge. Yes or no?** LASTLY, my Costco credit card has a picture of me on it. **Question for you, since for some reason you argue so much against PINs: Wouldn't a picture on the card better than a signature?** Yes or no? Do you see? There are so many ways to make this system so much more secure and fraud proof... but, ON PURPOSE, the credit card companies don't want that... because they are not liable for fraud. Simple as that.\",\n \"\\\"To answer your question as clarified in a comment: All I wanted to know what will happen if I enter my debit card number in the sixteen digit account number they offer on the application for balance transfer. That's all. Almost certainly (subject to the particular terms and conditions of the offer), no money will move, the only question is exactly when and how they will say no. If you do it online, and their system is clever enough to look up the IIN (the first six digits) of the card number you enter, their system might learn straight away that you have entered a debit card number (eg a card starting 431940 is a Bank of Ireland debit card). Otherwise, you'll have to wait until the request goes to their back office system, which will eventually lead to the card issuer's system being contacted, at which point it will become clear that it's a debit card, and your transfer request will be refused at that point. That said, some credit card companies do offer a \\\"\\\"Money Transfer\\\"\\\" aka \\\"\\\"Super Balance Transfer\\\"\\\", which is an offer to transfer money directly into a bank account, putting the resulting debt on the credit card. I've never seen these offered without having to call a service centre and talk to a person, though, presumably so that they can check that the details they have for you (about income etc) are still correct.\\\"\",\n \"a typical debit card is subject to several limits:\",\n \"\\\"> Go on, try walking away without signing your credit card receipt at stores where they present it for signature, and see what happens. That's true... if the amount is over $25. Did you notice it? Actually, at Costco is over $50. And you know what else is true? That yes, they require you to squibble something, but you can write an obvious incorrect signature and nobody will care. You have no idea how many times the screen with the electronic pen did not work right, so I just put couple of lines... >> know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. > You and everyone else. Big deal. Different credit card processors have different requirements for their customers (merchants). Just because different processors have different requirements makes the whole process impossible to manage or comply with. Go figure out the requirement based on the card presented. >> The credit card companies don't really care. > I think the real lesson here is nobody cares. The merchant cares, because they are ultimately responsible for paying for fraud... which is the main reason why credit card companies don't care... and many merchants too because they have insurance... The bottom line is that everyone would not mind to enter a PIN to get the transaction through, but a stupid ego trip of the credit card companies who don't want to be \\\"\\\"like ATMs\\\"\\\". That's it. So they came up with chip in the card, which made the process slower and more expensive, and does not solve anything except fake credit cards (copied credit cards).\\\"\",\n \"If you are looking at domestic transfers, all Banks hold accounts with the Central Bank [Reserve Bank] , in US the Central Bank is called Federal Reserve. The money from account of Bank of America held with Fed is debited and the account of Citi held with Fed is credited.\",\n \"A large biller is registered and can initiate an ACH Debit to your account based on the Account Number and the Routing number. He assumes responsibility and completes the due diligence of obtaining a written mandate / permission / authorization from you. There are other legal process where by you get a Power of Attorney that would allow you to transact on behalf of someone. The key point you seem to be missing is that one can ONLY transact from ones account either by walking into the Bank / ATM, or by writing a check. There are other options as well to transact.\",\n \"If it is one of those debit cards you use just like a credit card without a PIN, I'd cancel it regardless of whatever you are trying to do with your finances. They just seem too dangerous to me. Unlike a credit card, if someone makes fraudulent purchases on a debit card the money is gone from your bank account until you resolve the issue with the issue. With a credit card, the BANK is out the money until it gets worked out. My brother once had his credit card number (not the card) stolen and the criminals emptied his bank account. Eventually the bank put the money back after an investigation, but it had two really nasty side effects: 1) Dozens of checks bounced. The bank refunded the bounced check fees, but not all of the stores would. 2) He had no money in his account until it was resolved. Luckily in his case they resolved it in a few days, but he was already making preparations to borrow money to pay his rent/bills.\",\n \"I don't believe there is such a process. My observation (i.e. my opinion) is that banks will have a level of security walls appropriate to the cost vs risk they experience. Since as Frazell says, your liability is limited for this type of fraud, you personally bear little if any risk. If this fraud were common enough that the cost of your proposal outweighed the expense, they would implement it. On a similar note. Credit card fraud can be reduced ten fold if a PIN were required for all purchases. The 3 digits on the back helps prove the card is there, and you just didn't steal the from 16 digits, but a 6-8 digit PIN required at point of sale would be tough for the thief to guess. How much software to do this would cost, I don't know, but the idea is brilliant, even if it's mine. 10 fold reduction, if not 100 fold. (Any bank guys reading?)\",\n \"\\\"•Have you had any problems with bills not being paid? NO •If you had issues, were they addressed satisfactorily? Answer: A big issue that blindsided me: With my bank, the funds come out of my account right away, but the actual payment is done through a third-party service. On my bank's online site it appears that the payment has been made, but that does not necessarily mean that the intended recipient has cashed it. Looking online at my credit union's site is useless, because all I can tell is that the payment has been sent. The only way to verify payment is to contact the intended recipient. Or I may telephone the online bill pay representative at my bank/credit union, who has access to the third party service. If I do nothing, after 90 days, the check is void, at which time the third party service notifies the bank/credit union and the funds will eventually end up back in my account. I learned this today, after a third-party paper check to a health care provider was returned to me via mail by the recipient (because insurance had already paid and I did not owe them anything). The money was in the hands of the third-party service, not in my account, nor that of my credit union nor the recipient. At first my credit union told me that I would have to contact the third-party service myself and work it out. I said \\\"\\\"NO WAY\\\"\\\" and the credit union did get the money back into account the same day. This is a sweet deal for the third party, who has my money interest-free anywhere from a few days to three months. And risk-free as well, because the money goes directly from my account to the third party service.\\\"\",\n \"In Finland, this happens all the time - it's all about having an official ID, they don't even ask your bank account number or the card. However, as no location was specified in the question, I guess it could be anything. The stronger the requirement for official personal id is in your country, the better odds you have with just using that. Where I live it is quite strong.\",\n \"\\\"Much of what you're asking will not be disclosed for obvious security reasons, so don't be surprised when call center people say they \\\"\\\"don't know\\\"\\\". They may actually not know, but even if they did, they'd be fired if they were to say anything. Nothing could be a touchier subject than online security for the financial institutions. I don't know of reliable sources for the data you're asking about, and I don't know the banks or other firms would release it. For a bank to talk about its incidence rates of fraud would be unusual, because none of these institutions wants to appear \\\"\\\"less safe\\\"\\\" than their competitors. If there's any information out there then it's going to be pretty vague. None of these institutions wants the \\\"\\\"bad guys\\\"\\\" to know what their degree of success is against one bank versus any other. I hope that makes sense. The smaller banks usually piggyback their data on the networks of the larger financial institutions, so they are as secure (as a general rule) as the larger banks' networks they're running on. Also, your transactions on your credit cards are not generally handled directly by your bank anyway, unless it's one of the big heavyweights like Chase or Bank of America. All transactions run through merchant processors, who act as intermediaries between merchants and the banks, and those guys are pretty damned good at security. I've met some of the programmers, and they're impressive to me (I've been a programmer for 35 years and can't put a finger on these guys!). Most banks require that you must provide proof of identity when opening an account, and that ID must me the standards of the \\\"\\\"USA Real ID Act\\\"\\\". Here's an excerpt from the Department of Homeland Security website on what Real ID is: Passed by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. States have made considerable progress in meeting this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and every state has a more secure driver’s license today than before the passage of the Act. In order for banks to qualify for FDIC protection, they must comply with the Real ID standards when opening accounts. As with any business (especially online), the most effective way to minimize fraud is vigilant monitoring of data. Banks and other online financial entities have become very adept at pattern analysis and simply knowing where and what to look for when dealing with their customers. There are certainly sophisticated measures which are kept carefully out of the public eye for doing this, and obviously they're good at it. They have to be, right? There's no way to completely eliminate fraud -- too much incentive exists for the \\\"\\\"bad guys\\\"\\\" to not constantly search for new ways to run their schemes, and the good guys will always be at the disadvantage, because there's no way to anticipate everything anyone might come up with. Just look at online viruses and malware. Your antivirus software can only deal with what it knows about, and the bad guys are always coming up with some new variant that gets past the filters until the antivirus maker learns of it and comes up with a way to deal with it. Your question's a good one to ponder, and I wouldn't want to be the chief of internet security for a bank or online institution, because I'd lay awake at night pondering when the call's going to come that we finally ran out of luck! (grin) I hope this was helpful. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"For me, it is mostly for the fraud protection. If I have a debit card and someone makes a fraudulent charge the money is removed from my bank account. From my understanding, I can then file a fraud complaint with the bank to recover my money. However, for some period of time, the money is missing from my bank account. I've heard conflicting stories of money being returned quickly while the complaint is undergoing investigation as well as money being tied up for several days/weeks. It may depend on the bank. With a credit card, it is the banks money that is tied up.\",\n \"The use of an old address would make me suspect that your data was stolen from some database you had registered to long ago with the old address. I would think that contacting your credit rating firm and the credit card company is urgent.\",\n \"\\\"As for PC Mastercard like stated by @nullability, VISA Desjardins list the \\\"\\\"Pending Authorizations\\\"\\\" almost instantly (the time it's take to get back home) in AccesD (Their Web portal for managing accounts).\\\"\",\n \"I think you'll find that a credit card does have an account number and sort code, I have had a Visa card previously and currently have a Mastercard. Both were paid by Direct Debit, and I could then transfer money to the account when I wanted to pay more than the minimum payment off. Check the introductory letter from the card provider, it should be on there, failing that, contact the provider and ask them for the details, how to pay, or a direct debit mandate for either the whole amount or the minimum amount.\",\n \"Whether your card will work, I believe, depends on the institution that issued it. You'll just have to try. What I can tell you, is that the process of using a debit card or credit card in the US is fairly straight forward. If your card has a chip, you'll 'insert' your card, chip end first, into the bottom slot of the reader, assuming the reader has one. This technology is still being distributed / accepted, so you may encounter some areas where they don't have this, or they have an insert or sign that says something along the lines of 'No chip reader / swipe instead'. If your card doesn't have a chip, which looks like the bottom end of a cellular phone's SIM card, you just swipe your card in the reader. There will / may be on-screen prompts, which will explain any additional input necessary from you. Depending on how they 'process' your card - As a debit card or credit card (They can 'process' a debit card as if it's a standard credit card), you may or may not be asked to enter your debit card's PIN. If they process it as debit, you'll have to enter your PIN. If they process it as if it were a credit card, it will still go through but you'll be asked to sign the receipt. IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO NOTE: You need to find out whether your card issuer will charge you foreign transaction fees when you use your Indian debit card in the US. Is the card carrying a different currency than the US?\",\n \"When the check is deposited, the bank verifies the signature in the check matches your signature in file.\",\n \"\\\"I cannot answer the original question, but since there is a good deal of discussion about whether it's credible at all, here's an answer that I got from Bank of America. Note the fine difference between \\\"\\\"your account\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"our account\\\"\\\", which does not seem to be a typo: The payment method is determined automatically by our system. One of the main factors is the method by which pay to recipients prefer to receive payments. If a payment can be issued electronically, we attempt to do so because it is the most efficient method. Payment methods include: *Electronic: Payment is sent electronically prior to the \\\"\\\"Deliver By\\\"\\\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account on the \\\"\\\"Deliver By\\\"\\\" date. *Corporate Check: This is a check drawn on our account and is mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \\\"\\\"Deliver By\\\"\\\" date. The funds to cover the payment are deducted from your account on the \\\"\\\"Deliver By\\\"\\\" date. *Laser Draft Check: This is a check drawn on your account and mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \\\"\\\"Deliver By\\\"\\\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account when the pay to recipient cashes the check, just as if you wrote the check yourself. To determine how your payment was sent, click the \\\"\\\"Payments\\\"\\\" button in your Bill Pay service. Select the \\\"\\\"view payment\\\"\\\" link next to the payment. Payment information is then displayed. \\\"\\\"Transmitted electronically\\\"\\\" means the payment was sent electronically. \\\"\\\"Payment transaction number\\\"\\\" means the payment was sent via a check drawn from our account. \\\"\\\"Check number\\\"\\\" means the payment was sent as a laser draft check. Each payment request is evaluated individually and may change each time a payment processes. A payment may switch from one payment method to another for a number of reasons. The merchant may have temporarily switched the payment method to paper, while they update processing information. Recent changes or re-issuance of your payee account number could alter the payment method. In my case, the web site reads a little different: Payment check # 12345678 (8 digits) was sent to Company on 10/27/2015 and delivered on 10/30/2015. Funds were withdrawn from your (named) account on 10/30/2015. for one due on 10/30/2015; this must be the \\\"\\\"corporate check\\\"\\\". And for another, earlier one, due on 10/01/2015, this must be the laser draft check: Check # 1234 (4 digits) from your (named) account was mailed to Company on 09/28/2015. Funds for this payment are withdrawn from your account when the Pay To account cashes the check. Both payments were made based on the same recurring bill pay payment that I set up manually (knowing little more of the company than its address).\\\"\",\n \"If your debit card/ATM card is stolen or lost, someone else might be able to withdraw money from the checking account that it is tied to, or buy things with the card and have the money taken out of the checking account to pay the merchant. Subject to daily withdrawal limits imposed by your bank, a considerable amount of money could be lost in this way. At least in the US, debit or ATM cards, although they are often branded Mastercard or Visa, do not provide the same level of protection as credit cards for which the liability is limited to $50 until the card is reported as lost or stolen and $0 thereafter. Note also that the money in your savings account is safe, unless you have chosen an automatic overdraft protection feature that automatically transfers money from your savings account into the checking account to cover overdrafts. So that is another reason to keep most of your money in the savings account and only enough for immediately foreseeable needs in the checking account (and to think carefully before accepting automatic overdraft protection offers). These days, with mobile banking available via smartphones and the like, transferring money yourself from savings to checking account as needed might be a preferred way of doing things on the go (until the smartphone is stolen!)\",\n \"\\\"When using a debit card in a \\\"\\\"credit\\\"\\\" way, you don't need to enter your PIN, which protects you from skimmers and similar nastiness. Also, assuming it's a Visa or Mastercard debit card, you now have access to all of the fraud protection and other things that you would get with a credit card. The downside for the merchant is that credit card transaction fees are typically higher than debit card transaction fees. I'm less familiar with using a credit card in a \\\"\\\"debit\\\"\\\" way, so don't have anything to offer on that part of your question.\\\"\",\n \"Lets say Debit is what you pay and Credit is what somebody else pays for you. A Debit card will charge your bank account directly. A Credit card will charge your bank account some time later. In both cases the shop owner has the money available directly. It's called Credit because somebody believes you will be able to pay your debt on time (or later with an interest). As for purchase and sales. A customer buys = makes a purchase. A shopkeeper sells = makes a sale. Note from a bar: I made an agreement with the bank. They don't sell beer, I don't give Credit.\",\n \"It's not so much a credit card, but a financial institution's online platform that either provides this functionality or not. The following Canadian financial institutions show an itemized list of pre-authorized transactions (not an exhaustive list): The following institutions show a total value of pre-authorized transactions: Most other institutions show the available credit (e.g. Chase Financial used by Amazon Rewards), which give an indication of how much you have to spend. By subtracting the current balance and the available balance from the total credit limit, you can get an indication of the total amount of pre-authorized transactions. Example: $1000 - $500 - $400 = $100 is the amount of pre-authorized transactions. From TD's EasyWeb demo (http://tdeasywebdemo.com/v2/#/en/PFS/accounts/activity/chq), it appears that they don't include pre-authorized transactions in the Available Credit. You can verify for yourself by logging in to online banking after you make a purchase and comparing the Available Credit to [Credit Limit - Current Balance]. If it is equal, then they don't include, if it is different (most likely for the value of the transaction), then they do.\",\n \"Call in to the bank using a publicly available number to verify the request.\",\n \"Credit Cards when I can. The reason if there is fraud or disputed charges (like I very much disagree with the cell phone charge) a debit card is already gone and I have to get the money back, versus a credit card where I haven't paid anybody anything.\",\n \"Credit card, without a doubt. The reason is dispute resolution. If you dispute a charge on debit card - the money has left your account already, and if the dispute was accepted - you'll get it back. If. Eventually. In the mean time your overdraft will be missing $$$. For credit cards, you can catch a fraud action before the money actually leaves your pocket and dispute it then. In this case the charge is set aside, and you will only be required to actually pay if the dispute is rejected. I.e.: The money stays in your pocket, until the business proves that the charge is legit. In both cases, if the dispute is justified (i.e.: there was indeed a fraud) neither you nor the bank will lose money at the bottom line, it's just who's got the money during the dispute resolution process (which may be lengthy) that matters.\",\n \"\\\"Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? I'd guess that's to protect the card company, not you. The number of the card is guessable, but each other bit of information makes it much harder to guess (the CVV code makes it ~1000 times harder, the expiration date makes it about 50-100 times harder). Since you wouldn't be responsible for the payment anyway, adding security for online transactions provides the company with less liability. As for the security of your information online, that's trickier. It depends entirely on the site you're using whether they've implemented the appropriate security measures or not (and, given the SSL attacks we've seen, even that might not help). (source: I'm a web developer, and have worked on payments systems before that implemented the security mandated by the cards). At the very least never, ever type in your information on a non-https site (there's normally a little \\\"\\\"lock\\\"\\\" icon that will display if you're on HTTPS instead of HTTP).\\\"\",\n \"Visa, Mastercard have very strong consumer protection. I have been wondering about this question for a while but never got around to asking it here: What happens if a retailer knowingly defrauds me? My guess is the first party to ask for help is Visa, Mastercard: a retailer knowingly defrauding you is unlikely to refund you any money. However, slip-ups do happen. If this is a retailer of good repute, they will not only refund you the money but send you a gift card too! Please do followup this post with what helped you in the end, but my guess is, your first (and last) line of defense would be Visa, Mastercard. Anything that would go through the bank would take such a lot of time and effort, that you would be better off writing it off.\",\n \"The mode of payment mentioned by your bank is called the ACH(Automatic Clearing House) which means that anyone(Trusted payment gateway owners like banks themselves) can process payments. There can be a fraud declared against any payment that you have made and you can get every single penny back. This amount can not be withdrawn in cash at all. However for your situation I would suggest that you ask your bank to block any transactions above the amount of a specific sum, this way they will require your authorization to finalize the payment. You should feel safe after this. Also no one can access any other account apart from the one whose details you are giving out so do not worry about this guy(or anyone else for that matter) to be able to access your other accounts. Hope this helps. (I have experience in payment gateways so I do understand these procedures.) Cheers!!\",\n \"So my wife was at work today and got yelled at by both a cop and her managers for simply LOOKING at the card. I don't understand I also work in retail and of course I must see the card to ensure it is a real card, it is a very strict policy that we must have a valid physical card to run any credit/debit transactions. People put skimmers everywhere you use your card and can pick up the info off the strip and put it onto another card and use it without you noticing right away. With the right equipment they can put their name on it or the name on their fake I.d. so the only red flag would be them trying to use several different cards\",\n \"What you're referring to is Visa Easy Payment Services (VEPS). Other payment processors have similar programs. Basically, certain merchants (based on merchant category code - or MCC), are not required to obtain a signature under $50. This limit was raised to $50 from $25 last year. Here is the press release from Visa describing the increase, and the program in general.\",\n \"Unlike MasterCard and Visa who only provide clearing service and tie up Banks to actually issue cards or POS terminals for merchants; Discover card operates more like American Express. It's a totally different network; cards and POS to merchants are directly offered by Discover Bank only. There is no other banks that issue this card.\",\n \"A debit card takes the funds right from your account. There's no 'credit' issued along the way. The credit card facilitates a short term loan. If you are a pay-in-full customer, as I am, there's a cost to lend the money, but we're not paying it. It's part of the fee charged to the merchant. Thus the higher transaction cost.\",\n \"\\\"That's accurate. Here is another risk with the current checking system, which many people are not aware of: Anyone who knows your checking account number can learn what your balance in that account is. (This is bank-specific, but it is possible at the major banks I've checked.) How does that work? Many banks have a phone line where you can dial up and interact with an automated voice response system, for various customer service tasks. One of the options is something like \\\"\\\"merchant check verification\\\"\\\". That option is intended to help a merchant who receives a check to verify whether the person writing the check has enough money in their account for the check to clear. If you select that option in the phone tree, it will prompt you to enter in the account number on the check and the amount of the check, and then it will respond by telling you either \\\"\\\"there are currently sufficient funds in the account to cash this check\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"there are not sufficient funds; this check would bounce\\\"\\\". Here's how you can abuse this system to learn how much someone has in their bank account, if you know their account number. You call up and check whether they've enough money to cash a $10,000 check (note that you don't actually have to have a check for $10,000 in your hands; you just need to know the account number). If the system says \\\"\\\"nope, it'd bounce\\\"\\\", then you call again and try $5,000. If the system says \\\"\\\"yup, sufficient funds for a $5,000 check\\\"\\\", then you try $7,500. If it says \\\"\\\"nope, not enough for that\\\"\\\", you try $6,250. Etcetera. At each step, you narrow the range of possible account balances by a factor of two. Consequently, after about a dozen or so steps, you will likely know their balance to within a few dollars. (Computer scientists know this procedure by the name \\\"\\\"binary search\\\"\\\". The rest of us may recognize it as akin to a game of \\\"\\\"20 questions\\\"\\\".) If this bothers you, you may be able to protect your self by calling up your bank and asking them how to prevent it. When I talked to my bank (Bank of America), they told me they could put a fraud alert flag on your account, which would disable the merchant check verification service for my account. It does mean that I have to provide a 3-digit PIN any time I phone up my bank, but that's fine with me. I realize many folks may terribly not be concerned about revealing their bank account balance, so in the grand scheme of things, this risk may be relatively minor. However, I thought I'd document it here for others to be aware of.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Circa 2002-2005, I was able to successfully \\\"\\\"transfer\\\"\\\" a balance from a debit card linked to a bank account to a Bank of America Visa credit card. As an example, I could say do a balance transfer from the card XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (which was a valid debit card number) to the credit card, and the funds would appear in the checking account within a few days, and also the balance on the credit card would go up the amount plus any balance transfer fee. I think they've sealed off that loophole years ago.\\\"\",\n \"Typically there are several parties involved: (Sometimes one company plays multiple roles; for example AmEx is a network and an issuer.) When a merchant charges a card and the issuer approves it, money is transferred from the issuer to the acquirer to the merchant. This settlement process takes some time, but generally is completed within a day. Of course, most cardholders pay on a monthly basis. The issuer must use their own funds in the mean time. If the cardholder defaults, the issuer takes the loss.\",\n \"Try to get a second card in your business' name, with a separate card number (like you would get one for a spouse). They may or may not allow that free (you wouldn't want to pay a second fee), and it might be only possible with the second card bearing the same number, which makes it useless. But it is worth a try.\",\n \"I've called both BofA and Amex Customer Support, and they couldn't help. That's because you cannot. Debit card is tied to your checking account, so you can do a cash advance from your AMEX and deposit it to your BOA checking account. It will then be available to use with your debit card.\",\n \"Your chief problem seems to be that you're mixing Visa (credit cards) and Step2 (a European Automated Clearing House). Credit cards are primarily an American concept, but do work worldwide especially in travel&tourism industry. The Credit Card companies are financial institutions themselves and operate similar to international banks They're typically acting as intermediaries between the customer's bank and the retailer's bank, so this works even if those two banks have no existing agreements. This is expensive, though. Step2 is a cheaper European system which eliminates the middle man. It allows the consumer's bank to directly pay the retailer's bank. VISA is not a member of Step2.\",\n \"As other answers and comments suggest you are trying to do something... odd to say the least. No one wants to use a credit card to finance a checking/current account because you are creating a debt on that credit card (unless you are in the odd situation where the card is in credit) that will immediately start accruing interest at a rate probably in excess of 10% per annum. That is not a clever thing to do. What you really need to do is find an account that one of you owns that has a positive balance and use an internet banking service to transfer part of that positive balance onto the debit card. The other solution is not to use the debit card at all but use the credit card to complete the purchases you are trying to manage with the debit card. The reason that BofA and AmEx customer support can't help you is that no one would ever do what you want to do; they would either move existing money from another account or ask for a bank loan.\",\n \"Or at least I saw it do so with Bank of America.\",\n \"\\\"PC MasterCard recently added this as a new feature to their online system. It lets you see \\\"\\\"Pending Authorizations\\\"\\\" for your card when you log in. Their email said: Along with your purchases, you'll see a list of every transaction that's been approved, but not yet applied to your balance. You'll be able to identify these with the word “Pending” in the date column. Here's a link with more information: http://pcfinancial.ca/pendingauthorization/\\\"\",\n \"> But I pretty much followed the procedure I was told to, its just I don't know why we wouldn't get the money back. First, you're in the wrong spot. Go to /r/personalfinance. Second, does it *really* make sense that you'd still get paid? If someone stole your wallet and bought something for $100, can you not go to the store and demand your $100? Or do you have to go and find the thief THEN get back *that* item and THEN return it to the store and THEN get your cash back? It's easier both logistically and logically to stop the payment going to the store, and have the store consider it a theft of their merchandise.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Parts of what you want are possible, but taken as a whole, you're out of luck. First of all, there is no master database of every cardholder in the country. The only way to check if information is correct is to ask the issuing bank. The AVS system is a way to automate doing so, but it's possible to call the bank directly and verbally verify the address. That means you're subject to the whims of what the issuing bank chooses to support. Banks that are part of the Visa and MasterCard networks generally only verify the numeric parts (address, apartment number, zipcode). AmEx can also verify the cardholder name. But if the bank doesn't have support for validating something, you can't validate it. Separately, there is a \"\"verify-only\"\" transaction which some processors support, which will do exactly what you want: Return AVS values without ever charging the card. However, processors require you to have the \"\"approved merchant account\"\" you don't want to have to have. Without being a merchant, you shouldn't have access to other people's credit cards anyway. Would you really want anyone in the country to be able to verify anyone else's address whenever they want? In short, whatever purpose you have for wanting this probably falls into one of three categories:\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Parts of what you want are possible, but taken as a whole, you're out of luck. First of all, there is no master database of every cardholder in the country. The only way to check if information is correct is to ask the issuing bank. The AVS system is a way to automate doing so, but it's possible to call the bank directly and verbally verify the address. That means you're subject to the whims of what the issuing bank chooses to support. Banks that are part of the Visa and MasterCard networks generally only verify the numeric parts (address, apartment number, zipcode). AmEx can also verify the cardholder name. But if the bank doesn't have support for validating something, you can't validate it. Separately, there is a \\\"\\\"verify-only\\\"\\\" transaction which some processors support, which will do exactly what you want: Return AVS values without ever charging the card. However, processors require you to have the \\\"\\\"approved merchant account\\\"\\\" you don't want to have to have. Without being a merchant, you shouldn't have access to other people's credit cards anyway. Would you really want anyone in the country to be able to verify anyone else's address whenever they want? In short, whatever purpose you have for wanting this probably falls into one of three categories:\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":286,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"4205"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How and why does the exchange rate of a currency change almost everyday?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["79777","134239","540451"],"string":"[\n \"79777\",\n \"134239\",\n \"540451\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["79777","499875","540451","104480","61819","293777","233718","134239","19618","221435","321842","490113","215708","450694","24881","489509","319996","460755","288330","531953","510363","445943","165767","93518","343489","70421","452434","105714","273478","248794","133440","536689","354559","535613","152910","329062","441163","324546","580757","534588","302699","283473","544506","157376","241000","582063","314508","157907","116921","472298","152657","351154","68462","517381","405276","443511","336618","109788","484891","87057","416975","293483","78648","42334","114439","356465","501461","48783","122487","115087","67069","16961","310016","482415","484190","429460","126431","283168","173986","441920","440270","506818","163303","124254","190347","291165","357103","303240","301570","228787","300213","285064","402314","167717","476891","205585","386745","177264","588877","253926"],"string":"[\n \"79777\",\n \"499875\",\n \"540451\",\n \"104480\",\n \"61819\",\n \"293777\",\n \"233718\",\n \"134239\",\n \"19618\",\n \"221435\",\n \"321842\",\n \"490113\",\n \"215708\",\n \"450694\",\n \"24881\",\n \"489509\",\n \"319996\",\n \"460755\",\n \"288330\",\n \"531953\",\n \"510363\",\n \"445943\",\n \"165767\",\n \"93518\",\n \"343489\",\n \"70421\",\n \"452434\",\n \"105714\",\n \"273478\",\n \"248794\",\n \"133440\",\n \"536689\",\n \"354559\",\n \"535613\",\n \"152910\",\n \"329062\",\n \"441163\",\n \"324546\",\n \"580757\",\n \"534588\",\n \"302699\",\n \"283473\",\n \"544506\",\n \"157376\",\n \"241000\",\n \"582063\",\n \"314508\",\n \"157907\",\n \"116921\",\n \"472298\",\n \"152657\",\n \"351154\",\n \"68462\",\n \"517381\",\n \"405276\",\n \"443511\",\n \"336618\",\n \"109788\",\n \"484891\",\n \"87057\",\n \"416975\",\n \"293483\",\n \"78648\",\n \"42334\",\n \"114439\",\n \"356465\",\n \"501461\",\n \"48783\",\n \"122487\",\n \"115087\",\n \"67069\",\n \"16961\",\n \"310016\",\n \"482415\",\n \"484190\",\n \"429460\",\n \"126431\",\n \"283168\",\n \"173986\",\n \"441920\",\n \"440270\",\n \"506818\",\n \"163303\",\n \"124254\",\n \"190347\",\n \"291165\",\n \"357103\",\n \"303240\",\n \"301570\",\n \"228787\",\n \"300213\",\n \"285064\",\n \"402314\",\n \"167717\",\n \"476891\",\n \"205585\",\n \"386745\",\n \"177264\",\n \"588877\",\n \"253926\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"","Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)","\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \"\"believe it is money\"\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\"","The exchange rate between two currencies is simply the price that the most recent market participants were able to agree on, when trading. ie: if the USDCAD is 1.36, it's because the last trade that happened where someone bought 1 USD cost 1.36 CAD. There is no one person/organization which 'decides' the rate between two currencies. The rate moves you see is just the reality of money changing hands as people in various situations trade currencies for various reasons. Just like with stocks or any other market product, foreign exchange rates can fluctuate wildly based on many things. It is very difficult to forecast where rates will go, because the biggest changes in rates can often be unpredictable news events. For example, when Brexit happened, the value of the GBP plummeted relative to other currencies, because the market traders had less faith in the UK economy, and therefore weren't willing to pay as much to buy GBP. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232. There is a very high level of risk in the foreign exchange market; for your sake, don't get involved in any trading that you do not well understand, first.","\"According to Soros in \"\"The Alchemy of Finance\"\", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding).\"","The increase of currency value in relation to another is a critical determinant of the economic health. It plays an important part in the level of trade and affects the world’s free market economy. But, they also effect on smaller scale as they create an impact on the portfolio of investors. So, it is suggested that the investors should make their trades wisely keeping in mind the value of other currencies that might your trade. Also, you should check the news daily to get regular updates and be well-informed of any changes happening in the market","The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals. The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at. And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading. eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.","\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \"\"buy\"\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \"\"basket\"\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \"\"shopping list\"\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\"","It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.","\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \"\"money\"\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\"","Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.","\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"","I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.","\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \"\"control\"\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\"","\"Relative changes in rates are significant. Why? Exchange rates encourage cross-border trade. For example, I live in an area that is now popular with Canadian tourists, mostly due to the favorable exchange rates. Changes in exchange rates between trading partners can affect trade balance as well. The US \"\"strong dollar\"\" policy made US exports expensive and imports cheaper, which encouraged more imports.\"","currency's central bank or treasury/finance department speeches that can announce a significant change in policy. That includes: Particularly when it is a high level figure within the department such as the President or Prime Minister making the announcement. Macroeconomic stats: GeoPolitical considerations, such as: Economic calendars, such as ForexFactory and MyFxBook track planned economic news releases. Obviously, a coup d'etat or war declaration may not be well known in advance.","Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out.","From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.","No. An exchange rate tells you the exchange rate, that's all. Changes in exchange rates are a little more interesting because they suggest economic changes (or anticipation of such), but since the exchange rate is the composite of many economic forces, determining what changes may be in action from an exchange rate change is not really possible.","Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get.","International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)","\"Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the \"\"rules of the game\"\" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior.\"","\"You may as well ask why a piece of wood is 25 centimeters long but only 10 inches. Most units of measure are very arbitrary. Somebody decides that this amount of heat or distance or money is a convenient unit, and so that's what they use. Suppose that tomorrow the government issued a whole new currency that had 10 times the value of the old currency. So if you used to make 10,000 foobars a year, now you make 1,000 new foobars. And likewise the price of everything you buy is divided by 10. If a certain model car used to cost 2,000 foobars, now it costs 200 new foobars. Are you better or worse off? Clearly if ALL prices change by the same percentage, then it makes absolutely no difference. (Aside from the hassle of making the switch and getting used to the new numbers.) A currency where 1 unit of money buys more is not necessarily a \"\"stronger currency\"\". Any more than inches are \"\"better\"\" than centimeters because you get more wood for an inch than you get for a centimeter. A currency is said to be \"\"strong\"\" when it's value is stable or increasing relative to other currencies. If yesterday I could trade 10 foobars for 1 plugh, but today I only need 9 foobars to buy 1 plugh, then foobars are stronger than plughs. Even though I still need more foobars than plughs to buy the same item.\"","\"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are \"\"lending\"\" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the \"\"saver\"\" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. \"\"Savers\"\" therefore \"\"shop around\"\" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard \"\"invisible hand\"\" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!\"","\"The prices quoted are for currency pairs traded on the foreign exchange market. For currencies traded on these exchanges, the exchange rates of a given currency pair are determined by the market, so supply and demand, investor confidence, etc. all play a role. EBS and Reuters are the two primary trading platforms in the foreign exchange market, and much of the data on exchange rates comes from them. Websites will usually get their data either from these sources directly or from a data provider that in turn gets it from EBS, Reuters, or another data source like Bloomberg or Haver Analytics. These data sources aren't free, however. In the US, many contracts, transactions, etc. that involve exchange rates use the exchange rate data published by the Federal Reserve. You might see this in contracts that specify to use \"\"the exchange rate published by the Federal Reserve at 12 pm (noon) on date --some date--\"\". You can also look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data, which maintains data series of historical daily, weekly, and monthly exchange rates for major currency pairs. These data are free, although they aren't realtime. Data for each business day is mostly updated the next business day.\"","The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.","Sometimes the market has to be left alone. Too much interference of the policy makers to stabilize the falling market can actually result in a major crisis. Every change stabilises after sometime and it is also applicable in the Forex trading market. So, the eager investors should learn to have some patience and wait for the market to stabilise itself rather than make random predictions on the policies released by policy makers","A lot of questions, but all it boils down to is: . Banks usually perform T+1 net settlements, also called Global Netting, as opposed to real-time gross settlements. That means they promise the counterparty the money at some point in the future (within the next few business days, see delivery versus payment) and collect all transactions of that kind. For this example say, they will have a net outflow of 10M USD. The next day they will purchase 10M USD on the FX market and hand it over to the global netter. Note that this might be more than one transaction, especially because the sums are usually larger. Another Indian bank might have a 10M USD inflow, they too will use the FX market, selling 10M USD for INR, probably picking a different time to the first bank. So the rates will most likely differ (apart from the obvious bid/ask difference). The dollar rate they charge you is an average of their rate achieved when buying the USD, plus some commission for their forex brokerage, plus probably some fee for the service (accessing the global netting system isn't free). The fees should be clearly (and separately) stated on your bank statement, and so should be the FX rate. Back to the second example: Obviously since it's a different bank handing over INRs or USDs (or if it was your own bank, they would have internally netted the incoming USDs with the outgoing USDs) the rate will be different, but it's still a once a day transaction. From the INRs you get they will subtract the average FX achieved rate, the FX commissions and again the service fee for the global netting. The fees alone mean that the USD/INR sell rate is different from the buy rate.","The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60","Forex is really not that volatile compared to other major asset classes like stocks and commodities. But still markets are generally unencumbered in the major pairs and therefore spikes in volatility can happen. Take what happened with the Swiss Franc a few years ago for example, or GBPUSD recently with news of Brexit. This is less the case with highly regulated currencies like the Chinese Yuan (CNY) Volatility is caused by excessive buy or sell pressure in relation to the available liquidity at the current price. This is usually caused by large buy or sell orders placed with interbank desks by institutions (often including other banks) and central banks. News can also sometimes have a dramatic impact and cause traders to adjust their prices significantly and very quickly.","\"At any moment, the price is where the supply (seller) and demand (buyer) intersect. This occurs fast enough you don't see it as anything other than bid/ask. What moves it? News of a new drug, device, sandwich, etc. Earning release, whether above or below expectations, or even dead-on, will often impact the price. Every night, the talking heads try to explain the day's price moves. When they can't, they often report \"\"profit taking\"\" for a market drop, or other similar nonsense. Some moves are simple random change.\"","I usually look at the high and low exchange rates for the last five years. If the current rate is fairly close to the high for a trade over the past five years, then I do the trade. If the current exchange rate is close to the low, then I wait.","What you are asking about is called Interest Rate Parity. Or for a longer explanation the article Interest Rate Parity at Wikipedia. If the US has a rate of say zero, and the rate in Elbonia is 10%, one believes that in a year the exchange rate will be shifted by 10%, i.e. it will take 1.1 unit of their currency to get the dollars one unit did prior. Else, you'd always profit from such FOREX trades. (Disclaimer - I am not claiming this to be true or false, just offering one theory that explains the rate difference effect on future exchange rates.","Besides overnight news events and auction mechanisms there is a more fundamental reason the price of a stock is always moving. Theoretically the stock price will move slightly even in the unlikely scenario that absolutely nothing of interest happens during the entire night. Let me go into that in some more detail: Stock valuation using Discounted Cash FLow One of the fundamental reasons that stock value is constantly changing is because underneath every stock there is a company that expects to make some kind of profit or loss in the future. We have to go into the fundamentals of stock value to understand why this is important: One popular way to determine the value of a stock is by looking into the future and summing up all the earnings (or cashflows) it has yet to produce. You have to reduce each amount by a certain factor that gets larger for payments that are farther into the future. Think of it this way: a dollar in hand now is better than a dollar that you get tomorrow. This method of valuation is called Discounted Cash Flow (abbr. DCF; see the wikipedia article on DCF) Time's effect on stock value Now take the Close price C, and the open price O. Let's assume that since there has been no news, the expectations for future earnings are the same for C and O. Remember that the discounting factor for these earnings is dependent on the time until the cashflow occurs? For O, this time is slightly shorter than for C, and therefore the value will be slightly higher (or lower, when the company is expected to incur losses). So now you can see that even without all the external forces that continuously push and pull on the stock price, a stock still changes in value over time. Hope this helps.","The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.","Are you trying to get someone to do your homework for you? This question has been answered repeatedly in the negative by everyone who actually studies the economy. Read Mundell-Flemming model, and learn this stuff. You can see why currency regimes like the Euro make sense from a theoretical stand point, but where flexible exchange rates are a welcome release valve for pressures. You obviously have never studied economics. Hyper inflation doesn't happen becuase of floating exhange rates. Hyperinflation happens when people lose faith in the governing body, regardless of who that is. You think political regimes won't change just because there is one currency? No, they will still spent 1.05 for every dollar they bring in taxes. Hyperinflation is not a problem of floating exchange rates, it doesn't follow from any causal relationship.","Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.","At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.","If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].","On Credit Cards [I am assuming you have a Visa or Master card], the RBI does not decide the rate. The rate is decided by Visa or Master. The standard Sheet rate for the day is used. Additionally SBI would mark it up by few paise [FX mark-up spread]. This is shown as mark-up fee. The rate of USD Vs INR changes frequently. On large value [say 1 million] trades even a paise off makes a huge difference and hence the rate is constantly changing [going up or down]. The rates offered to individuals are constant through out the day. They change from day to day and can go up for down. Recently in the past 6 months if you read the papers, Rupee has been going down and is at historic low. On a give day there are 2 rates; - Bank Buy Rate, ie the rate at which Bank will BUY USD from you. Say 61. So it will buy 100 USD and give you Rupees 6100. - Bank Sell rate, ie the rate at which Bank will SELL USD to you. Say 62. So if you want 100 USD, you need to give Bank 6200. The difference between this is the profit to bank.","\"Does some official tell the Foreign Exchange the the new exchange rate for the yuan is 0.98 * the current exchange rate? For China (and other countries with fixed/controlled exchange rates) - that's exactly how it happens. Does it just print more? This is the way to go for fully convertible currencies (like the USD, EUR, GBP, and handful of others, there're about 20 in the world). Flood the market and as with any commodity - flooding the market leads to a price drop. Obviously \"\"just print more\"\" is much harder to do than picking up the phone and saying \"\"Now you're buying/selling dollars at this price and if you don't I'll have you executed\"\".\"","The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)","according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.","Yes traders, living or algorithmic, are the only direct factors that can cause a change in the price of a marketable item. Traders can be affected by news, broken exchanges ;), emotional cycles, lunar cycles, time the trader goes to lunch (or a power cycle if you are an algo running on that unfortunate OS), anything.","The measure of change of value of a currency in relation to itself is inflation (or deflation).","Look for unsustainable policies and actions by policy makers, both before and possibly during, when looking at the ForEx markets. Consider some examples: Each of those events could be seen in the growing unsustainability of local policies. ForEx markets and local policies can appear to stay on an unsustainable path for a long time, but equilibrium will force itself on everything in the long run. In two of the above cases, the initial response wasn't enough to offset the mess, and more and more intervention had to be done, only making matters worse. When you know how unsustainable policies are and how big the corrections need to be, you can quickly ascertain whether an action by policy makers will be enough.","There's a concept called interest rate parity, which sort of says that you cannot profit on the difference in interest rates. This difference accounts for the predicted movement in exchange rates as well, along with the stability of the currencies.","\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"","Because we need energy in the form of oil. If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves. Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?","Depending on what currency the price is quoted in and is originally sold, currency fluctuation can also carry over onto the price in your currency. An example for that would be bitcoin prices which sometimes show heavy ups and downs in one currency, but seem totally stable in another and can be tracked back to changed exchange rates between currencies. Also like others have said, prices on stocks are not actually fixed. You can offer to buy or sell at any price. Only if 2 people want to buy or sell for the same price there will actually be a transaction.","It depends on the asset and the magnitude of the exchange rate change relative to the inflation rate. If it is a production asset, the prices can be expected to change relative to the changes in exchange rate regardless of magnitude, ceteris paribus. If it is a consumption asset, the prices of those assets will change with the net of the exchange rate change and inflation rate, but it can be a slow process since all of the possessions of the country becoming relatively poorer cannot immediately be shipped out and the need to exchange wants for goods will be resisted as long as possible.","\"You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem. \"\"In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.\"\" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars. Thus, the amount of money is not relevant- it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price. Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because \"\"that's how it's always been.\"\" Nobody \"\"creates/supervises\"\" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values.\"","\"As the European crisis worsened the Swiss Franc (CHF) was seen as a safe currency so Europeans attempted to exchange their Euros for Francs. This caused the Franc to appreciate in value, against the Euro, through the summer and fall of 2011. The Swiss government and Swiss Central Bank (SNB) believe mercantilism will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland. The Swiss central planners believe that having an abundance of export businesses in Switzerland will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland as the exporters sell their good and services abroad and pocket a bunch of cash. Thus, the central planners tend to favor exporters. From the article: At the start of the year, when exporters urged for government and SNB action, ... The Swiss Central bank continued to intervene in currency markets in 2011 to prevent the CHF from appreciating. This was done to prevent a decrease in export business. Finally after many failed attempts they announced the 1.20 peg in September. The central planners give little consideration to imports, however, since manufacturers in foreign countries don't vote or contribute to the campaign funds of the central planners in Switzerland. As the CHF strengthened many imported items became very cheap for Swiss citizens. This was of little concern to the central planners. Currencies are like other goods in a market in that they respond to supply and demand. Their value can change daily or even hourly based on the continually varying demands of people. This can cause the exchange rate to rise and fall against other currencies and goods. Central planners mistakenly believe that the price of certain market items (like currency) should not fluctuate. The believe there is some magical number that will cause the market to operate \"\"better\"\" or \"\"more correctly\"\". How does the SNB maintain the peg? They maintain the peg by printing Francs and purchasing euros.\"","\"Wikipedia talks about the Chinese currency: Scholarly studies suggest that the yuan is undervalued on the basis of purchasing power parity analysis. so despite it appearing cheaper due to the official exchange rate, the price in China might actually be fair. There are also restrictions on foreign exchange (purportedly \"\"to prevent inflows of hot money\"\"), which, in concert with any other legal obstacles to owning or trading on the Chinese exchange, may also explain why the high-frequency traders aren't tripping over each other to arbitrage away the difference.\"","One interpretation of the above is that Pound (alongside US Dollar, Euro and other major curriencies), which forms the Forex basket of countries has dropped to less than 10% weightage in case of China's Forex holding. Now the question is where did this money go, this money probably have gone into Forex market to buy Yuan against Pound/Dollar etc. to bolster or strengthen Yuan. The currency reserve management is the 'wealth' management part and the 'currency' management part is what is known as 'central bank intervention' to stabilize the currency.","\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \"\"black\"\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\"","If I understand what you're asking, I think you're looking at the relationship wrong. Yes, when one currency has a higher interest rate relative to another, it's value should, theoretically, appreciate. For example, if the USD interest rate is 10% and the EUR is 5%, the USD should appreciate in value against the EUR. However, the parity relationship tells you the price at which an investor would be indifferent to the difference in interest rates. So using the formula for interest rate parity: (1+r(USD))/(1+r(EUR)) = F/S and plugging in the interest rates from above and a spot rate of $1.5/EUR: (1.1)/(1.05) = F/(1.5) The 1 year forward rate would have to be $1.5714/EUR in order for the investor to be INDIFFERENT between holding USD or EUR. All this assuming interest rate parity holds. I'm not big on Econ but this is how I understood it when studying for the CFA exam the past few months. So please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.","There is nothing called actual, unless you convert currency. There are real offer rates that are slightly different from Bank to Bank. Search Engines give a generic average value based on the sites they are trust / have tie-up with. Banks don't use google or search engines to get the basis, they have quite a bit more info and there is a specific Treasury function that would look at the trend and give out a huge spread between buy and sell.","\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \"\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\"\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\"","The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.","There are no flat fees but typically banks and money exchangers will use a the current market rate, up to the minute for some powerful exchangers. They then add a little on top depending on many variables. Those variables can be related to the quantity of currency that organization holds, the average amount they hold, the market trend for that currency, the stability of the currency, the location of that currency exchange, etc. As for the one stop shop for currency exchange providers, you can try moneysupermarket.com Hope that helps.","I noticed the buy/sell board table. Where did you notice this. Generally for a pair of currencies, there is Unit associated along with direction. The Unit is generally constant. These are only revised when there is large devaluation of a particular currency. Buying Php for MYR 8.52, Selling MYR 8.98. So in this case the Unit of PHP is 100, so Bank is Buying 100 PHP from you [you are selling PHP] and will give you MYR 8.52. If you now want to buy 100 PHP [so the Bank is selling you], you have to pay MYR 8.98. So you loose MYR 0.46 Why are they selling it way beyond the exchange rate? Why is this? As explained above, they are not. Its still within the range. The quote on internet are average price. This means before going back to Philippines, I can buy a lot of peso that I can buy and exchange it for higher price right? Generally an individual cannot make money by buying in one currency and selling in other. There are specialist who try and find arbitrage between multiple pair of currencies and make money out of it. Its a continuous process, if they start making profit, the market will react and put pressure on a pair and the prices would move to remove the arbitrage.","It's the buying and selling of the stock that causes the fluctuation in prices, not the news. People buy and sell all the time, and not just for newsworthy reasons. They may have to send a child to college, or fix a roof, etc. Or they may be technical traders looking for signals. All kinds of reasons.","I wrote about the dynamic of why either of a lower or higher exchange rate would be good for economies in Would dropping the value of its currency be good for an economy? A strong currency allows consumers to import goods cheaply from the rest of the world. A weak currency allows producers to export goods cheaply to the rest of the world. People are both consumers and producers. Clearly, there have to be trade-offs. Strong or weak mean relative to Purchasing Power Parity (i.e. you can buy more or less of an equivalent good with the same money). Governments worrying about unemployment will try and push their currencies weaker relative to others, no matter the cost. There will be an inflationary impact (imported inputs cost more as a currency weakens) but a country running a major surplus (like China) can afford to subsidise these costs.","You may simply be asking why stocks 'gap up' or 'gap down' when the stock market opens. This is because the price adjusts to news that occurred while the exchanges were closed overnight. Perhaps Asian stocks crashed, or perhaps a news story was released in the New York Times about some major company. There are thousands of factors that affect market sentiment, and the big gaps that happen at the open of every trading day is the price of the stocks catching up to those factors.","As mentioned in several other answers, the main reason for high rates is to maximize profit. However, here is another, smaller effect: The typical flow of getting money from an ATM: Suppose you have a minute to consider the offer, then in that time the currency may drop or rise (which you can see from an external source of information). Therefore this opens a window for abuse. For real major currencies these huge switches are rare, but they do happen. And when 1 or 2 minor currencies are involved these switches are more common. Just looking at a random pair for today (Botswana Pula to Haitian Gourde) I immediately spotted a moment where the exchange rate jumped by more than 2 %. This may not be the best example, but it shows why a large margin is desirable. Note that this argument only holds for when the customer knows in advance what the exchange rate would be, for cases where it is calculated afterwards I have not found any valid excuse for such large margins (except that it allows them to offer other services at a lower price because these transaction).","An economy produces goods and services and people use money to pay for those goods and services. Money has value because people believe that they can buy and sell goods and services with it in that economy. How much the value of money is, is determined by how much money there is in comparison to goods and services (supply and demand). In most economies it is the job of the federal/national reserve bank to ensure that prices stay stable (ie the relationship of goods and services to how much money there is is stable); as this is necessary for a well running economy. The federal reserve bank does so by making more (printing, decreasing interest rates) or less (increasing interest rates) available to the economy. To determine how much money needs to be in the economy to keep prices stable is incredibly hard as many factors have an impact: If the reserve bank gets it wrong and there is more money compared to goods and services than previous, prices will rise to compensate; this is inflation If it's the other way round is deflation. Since it is commonly regarded that deflation is much more destabilizing to an economy than inflation the reserve banks tend to err on the side of inflation.","\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"","Originally dollars were exchangeable for specie at any time, provided you went to a govt exchange. under Bretton Woods this was a generally fixed rate, but regardless there existed a spread on gold. This ceased to be the case in 71 when the Nixon shock broke Bretton woods.","I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.","If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.","The Federal Reserve Bank publishes exchange rate data in their H.10 release. It is daily, not minute by minute. The Fed says this about their data: About the Release The H.10 weekly release contains daily rates of exchange of major currencies against the U.S. dollar. The data are noon buying rates in New York for cable transfers payable in the listed currencies. The rates have been certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for customs purposes as required by section 522 of the amended Tariff Act of 1930. The historical EURUSD rates for the value of 1 EURO in US$ are at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/hist/dat00_eu.htm If you need to know USDEUR the value of 1 US$ in EUROS use division 1.0/EURUSD.","To make it simple, just use gold as the main benchmark. Gold price never moves, FIAT currencies move around the price of gold. So, when comparing US$ and Australian dollars to the gold, you know which currency is moving up and which down.","Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates. This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates. If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year. Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount. The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during.","\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \"\"price\"\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \"\"market\"\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \"\"price\"\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \"\"amateur hour\"\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\"","Many people trade the currency markets via brokers who have developed online apps with live forex prices and many currency pairs. You can trade on your phone, iPad or PC / Mac.","\"Other things equal is sometimes referred to as \"\"ceteris paribus\"\" - the scenario where you compare two currencies (or things) under the assumption that all other factors that could effect those currencies (earthquakes, revolutions, currency crises ect) are not ocurring. Its like using a control group in a lab. \"\"Real interest rates\"\" means the rate of that countries interest rate, accounting for inflation. \"\"Proportional to the strength of its home currency\"\" is referring to how countries with higher rates of interest tend to have stronger currencies (relative to other currencies) because foreign investment/capital will flood into the country seeking those higher rates of return - excess demand for the currency will cause it to appreciate. So this is also true in reverse, as capital will tend to leave a country will ultra-low interest rates.\"","There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.","A day is a long time and the rate is not the same all day. Some sources will report a close price that averages the bid and ask. Some sources will report a volume-weighted average. Some will report the last transaction price. Some will report a time-weighted average. Some will average the highest and lowest prices for the interval. Different marketplaces will also have slightly different prices because different traders are present at each marketplace. Usually, the documentation will explain what method they use and you can choose the source whose method makes the most sense for your application.","While that sounds reasonable, it looks like most of the actual trading is done on the basis of changes rather than value. At a guess, this is because computing the balance sheet anew with every change inhibits the speed with which transactions can be processed.","The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low.","\"You are violating the Uncovered Interest Rate Parity. If Country A has interest rate of 4% and Country B has interest rate of 1%, Country B's expected exchange rate must appreciate by 3% compared to spot. The \"\"persistent pressure to further depreciate\"\" doesn't magically occur by decree of the supreme leader. If there is room for risk free profit, the entire Country B would deposit their money at Country A, since Country A has higher interest rate and \"\"appreciates\"\" as you said. The entire Country A will also borrow their money at Country B. The exception is Capital Control. Certain people are given the opportunity to get the risk free profit, and the others are prohibited from making those transactions, making UIP to not hold.\"","What you want is the average change in rate of the Australian Dollar against multiple other currencies, to even out the effect of moves in a single other currency. People often look at the trade-weighted exchange rate to get an idea of this, as it allows you to look at the currencies that are most relevant, rather than every tiny other currency having an equal weight.","It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.","\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \"\"root value\"\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\"","How high is high? In countries that suffered hyperinflation such as the Weimar Republic around 1923 and Zimbabwe around the late 1990s this certainly did happen on a daily basis. E.g. One boy, who was sent to buy two bread buns, stopped to play football and by the time he got to the shop, the price had gone up, so he could only afford to buy one. or One father set out for Berlin to buy a pair of shoes. When he got there, he could only afford a cup of coffee and the bus fare home. or At the height of the country's economic crisis that year, prices were rising at least twice day, with Zimbabweans forced to carry cash around in plastic bags just to buy basic items.","\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"","I've always understood inflation to be linked to individual currencies, although my only research into the subject was an intro economics course in undergrad and I don't recall seeing why that would be the case. I guess the basic principle is that currency traders are watching the printing presses and trading in exchange markets to the point that the exchange rates fall in relation to increases in money supply. There's probably something about the carry trade in there as well, but it's late and I took some medications, so someone else will have to carry that torch. I must admit I've not really paid attention to foreign currencies like HKD, but the proximity and political relationship with China probably greatly complicates your question, since part of the problem has been China's currency peg.","No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low.","Brilliant fact-based objective reality explanation of the world currency markets. I'm into bitcoin and physical gold investments (yeah, I know, it's like being gay and straight at the same time without being bi), may I ask you a few things later?","If I understand correctly, you're actually asking why there isn't a society whose members generally accept/use any currency for transactions, and just like, Google the exchange rate or something. The answer is because it's exceptionally inconvenient. Can you imagine having a wallet with 200 pouches for all the different currencies? Why would you want to deal with exchange rates all the time? What if the value of a currency changes? (A single currency at least has the illusion of being stable). Et cetera.","Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.","AU rates are higher than 3.75%. The market for deposits here in Australia is very competitive (banks have change increased deposits as a share of liabilities from ~50% to ~60% in just the last few years) and, as a result, demand deposits here pay far more than the central bank rate. My demand savings account, for example, pays 4.95%. That AU-US interest differentials are so staggeringly high means that, inmevitably, lots of investors are carrying. Depending of FX moves over the next year, a lot of investors will either gain heaps or lose more. If you can leverage, you can gain even more (or lose the house).","\"As you say, the currency carry trade shouldn't work. The deluge of new cash into a high-interest currency should result in falling exchange rates. A November 2009 paper by Òscar Jordà and Alan Taylor of the University of California, Davis, may be offer one approach which is more stable. According to The Economist: They find that a refined carry-trade strategy—one that incorporates a measure of long-term value—produces more consistent profits and is less prone to huge losses than one that targets the highest yield. However, exchange rates, central bank interest rates, as well as money supply are all political as well as economic constructs. An economic driver for arbitrage may be offset by political will (such as US quantative easing) or even social malaise (Japanese continual low inward investment). I wouldn't go so far as calling the carry trade \"\"free money\"\" - currencies have proven far too unstable for that - but state interference in markets tends to be clearly telegraphed and a trader with nerves of steel may take advantage of it.\"","\"I'm not an economist, but I understand the idea of value or \"\"price\"\" is purely \"\"what people agree it to be\"\". The quants and analysts I've worked with always talk about \"\"discovering the price\"\" - it's an unknown until someone says \"\"I will pay X\"\". Are my 2nd hand Nikes worth $20? Put em on ebay to find out. If someone buys them, then yes, 2nd hand Nikes are worth $20. If they don't sell then they're not worth $20. Obviously ebay is not the most efficient market out there. The exchanges attempt to be that with prices varying by fractions of cent in fractions of seconds (milliseconds). EDIT* Perhaps another way to look at it is \"\"What is the 'correct' value of a computer game, say 'Skyrim'?\"\" Your idea of the value of labour and production costs produces some figure. But in the real world, what actually happens? On release day the game is priced at, say, $60. And lots of people say \"\"I will pay $60\"\". Many people don't, but many people do. Months later, Steam has a sale and they suggest Skyrim is now worth $30. Lot's of people who didn't think it was worth $60 do think it is worth $30. The amount of labour that went into is hasn't changed. So what it the true or 'correct' value/price of the game? What is the correct value/price of *amything*? It is *what people will pay for it*.\"","\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\"","Why do these fees exist? From a Banks point of view, they are operating in Currency A; Currency B is a commodity [similar to Oil, Grains, Goods, etc]. So they will only buy if they can sell it at a margin. Currency Conversion have inherent risks, on small amount, the Bank generally does not hedge these risks as it is expensive; but balances the position end of day or if the exposure becomes large. The rate they may get then may be different and the margin covers it. Hence on highly traded currency pairs; the spread is less. Are there back-end processes and requirements that require financial institutions to pass off the loss to consumers as a fee? The processes are to ensure bank does not make loss. is it just to make money on the convenience of international transactions? Banks do make money on such transactions; however they also take some risks. The Forex market is not single market, but is a collective hybrid market place. There are costs a bank incurs to carry and square off positions and some of it is reflected in fees. If you see some of the remittance corridors, banks have optimized a remittance service; say USD to INR, there is a huge flow often in small amounts. The remittance service aggregates such amounts to make it a large amount to get a better deal for themselves and passes on the benefits to individuals. Such volume of scale is not available for other pairs / corridors.","\"I suspect that to \"\"make money\"\" it isn't enough to know the current value (\"\"high currency\"\"): to make money you'd need to know/guess/predict/bet on the future change in value: will the currency value go higher in the future? Or will it come down again? Or will it stay the same? Everybody knows the current value, so that by itself isn't enough knowledge to make money from. That said, if you know you're going to need American dollars in the future (if you have future expenses which need to be paid in American dollars), then now might be a good time to buy those dollars.\"","FX is often purchased with leverage by both retail and wholesale speculators on the assumption daily movements are typically more restrained than a number of other asset classes. When volatility picks up unexpectedly these leveraged accounts can absolutely be wiped out. While these events are relatively rare, one happened as recently as 2016 when the Swiss National Bank unleashed the Swiss Franc from its Euro mooring. You can read about it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-snb-brokers-idUSKBN0KP1EH20150116","\"The dow jones is an index of 30 stocks that's weighted based on the price per share of these stocks. To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Prices are the result of supply and demand. Demand is defined as simply as \"\"I want this badly enough to pay cash for it\"\", \"\"supply is \"\"I own this and don't want to own it, therefore I'll sell it\"\" When investors go about deciding they'd like to buy some stock from people who own it and are wanting to sell it, a market is generated and a price both are willing to sell/buy at is found. If the price is too high/low, you won't sell or buy. The price has to be \"\"right\"\" based on your own personal valuation. Since these trades are done through an exchange and are so common, literally millions of shares are traded per day, you get the best price available at that moment for your shares. If person A is only willing to give you 100 dollars and person B is willing to give you 100.01, screw person A. I'm selling shares to person B. When this done on a macro-level (millions of shares traded per day) the exchanges will track and make public the \"\"price movement\"\" of what the market is willing to give for each and every publicly traded stock. TLDR: SUPPLY AND DEMAND. DOW USES THEIR OWN METHODS.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \\\"\\\"Supply:\\\"\\\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \\\"\\\"have\\\"\\\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \\\"\\\"multiplier effect.\\\"\\\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \\\"\\\"supply\\\"\\\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \\\"\\\"basket of goods\\\"\\\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\\\"\",\n \"Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)\",\n \"\\\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \\\"\\\"believe it is money\\\"\\\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\\\"\",\n \"The exchange rate between two currencies is simply the price that the most recent market participants were able to agree on, when trading. ie: if the USDCAD is 1.36, it's because the last trade that happened where someone bought 1 USD cost 1.36 CAD. There is no one person/organization which 'decides' the rate between two currencies. The rate moves you see is just the reality of money changing hands as people in various situations trade currencies for various reasons. Just like with stocks or any other market product, foreign exchange rates can fluctuate wildly based on many things. It is very difficult to forecast where rates will go, because the biggest changes in rates can often be unpredictable news events. For example, when Brexit happened, the value of the GBP plummeted relative to other currencies, because the market traders had less faith in the UK economy, and therefore weren't willing to pay as much to buy GBP. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232. There is a very high level of risk in the foreign exchange market; for your sake, don't get involved in any trading that you do not well understand, first.\",\n \"\\\"According to Soros in \\\"\\\"The Alchemy of Finance\\\"\\\", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are \\\"\\\"wrong\\\"\\\" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are \\\"\\\"wrong\\\"\\\" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding).\\\"\",\n \"The increase of currency value in relation to another is a critical determinant of the economic health. It plays an important part in the level of trade and affects the world’s free market economy. But, they also effect on smaller scale as they create an impact on the portfolio of investors. So, it is suggested that the investors should make their trades wisely keeping in mind the value of other currencies that might your trade. Also, you should check the news daily to get regular updates and be well-informed of any changes happening in the market\",\n \"The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals. The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at. And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading. eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.\",\n \"\\\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \\\"\\\"buy\\\"\\\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \\\"\\\"basket\\\"\\\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \\\"\\\"shopping list\\\"\\\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\\\"\",\n \"It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.\",\n \"\\\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \\\"\\\"money\\\"\\\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\\\"\",\n \"Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.\",\n \"\\\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \\\"\\\"weak\\\"\\\" and some \\\"\\\"strong\\\"\\\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\\\"\",\n \"I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.\",\n \"\\\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \\\"\\\"control\\\"\\\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Relative changes in rates are significant. Why? Exchange rates encourage cross-border trade. For example, I live in an area that is now popular with Canadian tourists, mostly due to the favorable exchange rates. Changes in exchange rates between trading partners can affect trade balance as well. The US \\\"\\\"strong dollar\\\"\\\" policy made US exports expensive and imports cheaper, which encouraged more imports.\\\"\",\n \"currency's central bank or treasury/finance department speeches that can announce a significant change in policy. That includes: Particularly when it is a high level figure within the department such as the President or Prime Minister making the announcement. Macroeconomic stats: GeoPolitical considerations, such as: Economic calendars, such as ForexFactory and MyFxBook track planned economic news releases. Obviously, a coup d'etat or war declaration may not be well known in advance.\",\n \"Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out.\",\n \"From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.\",\n \"No. An exchange rate tells you the exchange rate, that's all. Changes in exchange rates are a little more interesting because they suggest economic changes (or anticipation of such), but since the exchange rate is the composite of many economic forces, determining what changes may be in action from an exchange rate change is not really possible.\",\n \"Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get.\",\n \"International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)\",\n \"\\\"Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the \\\"\\\"rules of the game\\\"\\\" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You may as well ask why a piece of wood is 25 centimeters long but only 10 inches. Most units of measure are very arbitrary. Somebody decides that this amount of heat or distance or money is a convenient unit, and so that's what they use. Suppose that tomorrow the government issued a whole new currency that had 10 times the value of the old currency. So if you used to make 10,000 foobars a year, now you make 1,000 new foobars. And likewise the price of everything you buy is divided by 10. If a certain model car used to cost 2,000 foobars, now it costs 200 new foobars. Are you better or worse off? Clearly if ALL prices change by the same percentage, then it makes absolutely no difference. (Aside from the hassle of making the switch and getting used to the new numbers.) A currency where 1 unit of money buys more is not necessarily a \\\"\\\"stronger currency\\\"\\\". Any more than inches are \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" than centimeters because you get more wood for an inch than you get for a centimeter. A currency is said to be \\\"\\\"strong\\\"\\\" when it's value is stable or increasing relative to other currencies. If yesterday I could trade 10 foobars for 1 plugh, but today I only need 9 foobars to buy 1 plugh, then foobars are stronger than plughs. Even though I still need more foobars than plughs to buy the same item.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are \\\"\\\"lending\\\"\\\" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the \\\"\\\"saver\\\"\\\" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. \\\"\\\"Savers\\\"\\\" therefore \\\"\\\"shop around\\\"\\\" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard \\\"\\\"invisible hand\\\"\\\" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The prices quoted are for currency pairs traded on the foreign exchange market. For currencies traded on these exchanges, the exchange rates of a given currency pair are determined by the market, so supply and demand, investor confidence, etc. all play a role. EBS and Reuters are the two primary trading platforms in the foreign exchange market, and much of the data on exchange rates comes from them. Websites will usually get their data either from these sources directly or from a data provider that in turn gets it from EBS, Reuters, or another data source like Bloomberg or Haver Analytics. These data sources aren't free, however. In the US, many contracts, transactions, etc. that involve exchange rates use the exchange rate data published by the Federal Reserve. You might see this in contracts that specify to use \\\"\\\"the exchange rate published by the Federal Reserve at 12 pm (noon) on date --some date--\\\"\\\". You can also look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data, which maintains data series of historical daily, weekly, and monthly exchange rates for major currency pairs. These data are free, although they aren't realtime. Data for each business day is mostly updated the next business day.\\\"\",\n \"The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.\",\n \"Sometimes the market has to be left alone. Too much interference of the policy makers to stabilize the falling market can actually result in a major crisis. Every change stabilises after sometime and it is also applicable in the Forex trading market. So, the eager investors should learn to have some patience and wait for the market to stabilise itself rather than make random predictions on the policies released by policy makers\",\n \"A lot of questions, but all it boils down to is: . Banks usually perform T+1 net settlements, also called Global Netting, as opposed to real-time gross settlements. That means they promise the counterparty the money at some point in the future (within the next few business days, see delivery versus payment) and collect all transactions of that kind. For this example say, they will have a net outflow of 10M USD. The next day they will purchase 10M USD on the FX market and hand it over to the global netter. Note that this might be more than one transaction, especially because the sums are usually larger. Another Indian bank might have a 10M USD inflow, they too will use the FX market, selling 10M USD for INR, probably picking a different time to the first bank. So the rates will most likely differ (apart from the obvious bid/ask difference). The dollar rate they charge you is an average of their rate achieved when buying the USD, plus some commission for their forex brokerage, plus probably some fee for the service (accessing the global netting system isn't free). The fees should be clearly (and separately) stated on your bank statement, and so should be the FX rate. Back to the second example: Obviously since it's a different bank handing over INRs or USDs (or if it was your own bank, they would have internally netted the incoming USDs with the outgoing USDs) the rate will be different, but it's still a once a day transaction. From the INRs you get they will subtract the average FX achieved rate, the FX commissions and again the service fee for the global netting. The fees alone mean that the USD/INR sell rate is different from the buy rate.\",\n \"The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60\",\n \"Forex is really not that volatile compared to other major asset classes like stocks and commodities. But still markets are generally unencumbered in the major pairs and therefore spikes in volatility can happen. Take what happened with the Swiss Franc a few years ago for example, or GBPUSD recently with news of Brexit. This is less the case with highly regulated currencies like the Chinese Yuan (CNY) Volatility is caused by excessive buy or sell pressure in relation to the available liquidity at the current price. This is usually caused by large buy or sell orders placed with interbank desks by institutions (often including other banks) and central banks. News can also sometimes have a dramatic impact and cause traders to adjust their prices significantly and very quickly.\",\n \"\\\"At any moment, the price is where the supply (seller) and demand (buyer) intersect. This occurs fast enough you don't see it as anything other than bid/ask. What moves it? News of a new drug, device, sandwich, etc. Earning release, whether above or below expectations, or even dead-on, will often impact the price. Every night, the talking heads try to explain the day's price moves. When they can't, they often report \\\"\\\"profit taking\\\"\\\" for a market drop, or other similar nonsense. Some moves are simple random change.\\\"\",\n \"I usually look at the high and low exchange rates for the last five years. If the current rate is fairly close to the high for a trade over the past five years, then I do the trade. If the current exchange rate is close to the low, then I wait.\",\n \"What you are asking about is called Interest Rate Parity. Or for a longer explanation the article Interest Rate Parity at Wikipedia. If the US has a rate of say zero, and the rate in Elbonia is 10%, one believes that in a year the exchange rate will be shifted by 10%, i.e. it will take 1.1 unit of their currency to get the dollars one unit did prior. Else, you'd always profit from such FOREX trades. (Disclaimer - I am not claiming this to be true or false, just offering one theory that explains the rate difference effect on future exchange rates.\",\n \"Besides overnight news events and auction mechanisms there is a more fundamental reason the price of a stock is always moving. Theoretically the stock price will move slightly even in the unlikely scenario that absolutely nothing of interest happens during the entire night. Let me go into that in some more detail: Stock valuation using Discounted Cash FLow One of the fundamental reasons that stock value is constantly changing is because underneath every stock there is a company that expects to make some kind of profit or loss in the future. We have to go into the fundamentals of stock value to understand why this is important: One popular way to determine the value of a stock is by looking into the future and summing up all the earnings (or cashflows) it has yet to produce. You have to reduce each amount by a certain factor that gets larger for payments that are farther into the future. Think of it this way: a dollar in hand now is better than a dollar that you get tomorrow. This method of valuation is called Discounted Cash Flow (abbr. DCF; see the wikipedia article on DCF) Time's effect on stock value Now take the Close price C, and the open price O. Let's assume that since there has been no news, the expectations for future earnings are the same for C and O. Remember that the discounting factor for these earnings is dependent on the time until the cashflow occurs? For O, this time is slightly shorter than for C, and therefore the value will be slightly higher (or lower, when the company is expected to incur losses). So now you can see that even without all the external forces that continuously push and pull on the stock price, a stock still changes in value over time. Hope this helps.\",\n \"The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.\",\n \"Are you trying to get someone to do your homework for you? This question has been answered repeatedly in the negative by everyone who actually studies the economy. Read Mundell-Flemming model, and learn this stuff. You can see why currency regimes like the Euro make sense from a theoretical stand point, but where flexible exchange rates are a welcome release valve for pressures. You obviously have never studied economics. Hyper inflation doesn't happen becuase of floating exhange rates. Hyperinflation happens when people lose faith in the governing body, regardless of who that is. You think political regimes won't change just because there is one currency? No, they will still spent 1.05 for every dollar they bring in taxes. Hyperinflation is not a problem of floating exchange rates, it doesn't follow from any causal relationship.\",\n \"Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.\",\n \"At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.\",\n \"If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].\",\n \"On Credit Cards [I am assuming you have a Visa or Master card], the RBI does not decide the rate. The rate is decided by Visa or Master. The standard Sheet rate for the day is used. Additionally SBI would mark it up by few paise [FX mark-up spread]. This is shown as mark-up fee. The rate of USD Vs INR changes frequently. On large value [say 1 million] trades even a paise off makes a huge difference and hence the rate is constantly changing [going up or down]. The rates offered to individuals are constant through out the day. They change from day to day and can go up for down. Recently in the past 6 months if you read the papers, Rupee has been going down and is at historic low. On a give day there are 2 rates; - Bank Buy Rate, ie the rate at which Bank will BUY USD from you. Say 61. So it will buy 100 USD and give you Rupees 6100. - Bank Sell rate, ie the rate at which Bank will SELL USD to you. Say 62. So if you want 100 USD, you need to give Bank 6200. The difference between this is the profit to bank.\",\n \"\\\"Does some official tell the Foreign Exchange the the new exchange rate for the yuan is 0.98 * the current exchange rate? For China (and other countries with fixed/controlled exchange rates) - that's exactly how it happens. Does it just print more? This is the way to go for fully convertible currencies (like the USD, EUR, GBP, and handful of others, there're about 20 in the world). Flood the market and as with any commodity - flooding the market leads to a price drop. Obviously \\\"\\\"just print more\\\"\\\" is much harder to do than picking up the phone and saying \\\"\\\"Now you're buying/selling dollars at this price and if you don't I'll have you executed\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)\",\n \"according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.\",\n \"Yes traders, living or algorithmic, are the only direct factors that can cause a change in the price of a marketable item. Traders can be affected by news, broken exchanges ;), emotional cycles, lunar cycles, time the trader goes to lunch (or a power cycle if you are an algo running on that unfortunate OS), anything.\",\n \"The measure of change of value of a currency in relation to itself is inflation (or deflation).\",\n \"Look for unsustainable policies and actions by policy makers, both before and possibly during, when looking at the ForEx markets. Consider some examples: Each of those events could be seen in the growing unsustainability of local policies. ForEx markets and local policies can appear to stay on an unsustainable path for a long time, but equilibrium will force itself on everything in the long run. In two of the above cases, the initial response wasn't enough to offset the mess, and more and more intervention had to be done, only making matters worse. When you know how unsustainable policies are and how big the corrections need to be, you can quickly ascertain whether an action by policy makers will be enough.\",\n \"There's a concept called interest rate parity, which sort of says that you cannot profit on the difference in interest rates. This difference accounts for the predicted movement in exchange rates as well, along with the stability of the currencies.\",\n \"\\\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \\\"\\\"shares\\\"\\\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \\\"\\\"printing money\\\"\\\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\\\"\",\n \"Because we need energy in the form of oil. If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves. Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?\",\n \"Depending on what currency the price is quoted in and is originally sold, currency fluctuation can also carry over onto the price in your currency. An example for that would be bitcoin prices which sometimes show heavy ups and downs in one currency, but seem totally stable in another and can be tracked back to changed exchange rates between currencies. Also like others have said, prices on stocks are not actually fixed. You can offer to buy or sell at any price. Only if 2 people want to buy or sell for the same price there will actually be a transaction.\",\n \"It depends on the asset and the magnitude of the exchange rate change relative to the inflation rate. If it is a production asset, the prices can be expected to change relative to the changes in exchange rate regardless of magnitude, ceteris paribus. If it is a consumption asset, the prices of those assets will change with the net of the exchange rate change and inflation rate, but it can be a slow process since all of the possessions of the country becoming relatively poorer cannot immediately be shipped out and the need to exchange wants for goods will be resisted as long as possible.\",\n \"\\\"You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem. \\\"\\\"In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.\\\"\\\" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars. Thus, the amount of money is not relevant- it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price. Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because \\\"\\\"that's how it's always been.\\\"\\\" Nobody \\\"\\\"creates/supervises\\\"\\\" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As the European crisis worsened the Swiss Franc (CHF) was seen as a safe currency so Europeans attempted to exchange their Euros for Francs. This caused the Franc to appreciate in value, against the Euro, through the summer and fall of 2011. The Swiss government and Swiss Central Bank (SNB) believe mercantilism will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland. The Swiss central planners believe that having an abundance of export businesses in Switzerland will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland as the exporters sell their good and services abroad and pocket a bunch of cash. Thus, the central planners tend to favor exporters. From the article: At the start of the year, when exporters urged for government and SNB action, ... The Swiss Central bank continued to intervene in currency markets in 2011 to prevent the CHF from appreciating. This was done to prevent a decrease in export business. Finally after many failed attempts they announced the 1.20 peg in September. The central planners give little consideration to imports, however, since manufacturers in foreign countries don't vote or contribute to the campaign funds of the central planners in Switzerland. As the CHF strengthened many imported items became very cheap for Swiss citizens. This was of little concern to the central planners. Currencies are like other goods in a market in that they respond to supply and demand. Their value can change daily or even hourly based on the continually varying demands of people. This can cause the exchange rate to rise and fall against other currencies and goods. Central planners mistakenly believe that the price of certain market items (like currency) should not fluctuate. The believe there is some magical number that will cause the market to operate \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"more correctly\\\"\\\". How does the SNB maintain the peg? They maintain the peg by printing Francs and purchasing euros.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Wikipedia talks about the Chinese currency: Scholarly studies suggest that the yuan is undervalued on the basis of purchasing power parity analysis. so despite it appearing cheaper due to the official exchange rate, the price in China might actually be fair. There are also restrictions on foreign exchange (purportedly \\\"\\\"to prevent inflows of hot money\\\"\\\"), which, in concert with any other legal obstacles to owning or trading on the Chinese exchange, may also explain why the high-frequency traders aren't tripping over each other to arbitrage away the difference.\\\"\",\n \"One interpretation of the above is that Pound (alongside US Dollar, Euro and other major curriencies), which forms the Forex basket of countries has dropped to less than 10% weightage in case of China's Forex holding. Now the question is where did this money go, this money probably have gone into Forex market to buy Yuan against Pound/Dollar etc. to bolster or strengthen Yuan. The currency reserve management is the 'wealth' management part and the 'currency' management part is what is known as 'central bank intervention' to stabilize the currency.\",\n \"\\\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \\\"\\\"black\\\"\\\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\\\"\",\n \"If I understand what you're asking, I think you're looking at the relationship wrong. Yes, when one currency has a higher interest rate relative to another, it's value should, theoretically, appreciate. For example, if the USD interest rate is 10% and the EUR is 5%, the USD should appreciate in value against the EUR. However, the parity relationship tells you the price at which an investor would be indifferent to the difference in interest rates. So using the formula for interest rate parity: (1+r(USD))/(1+r(EUR)) = F/S and plugging in the interest rates from above and a spot rate of $1.5/EUR: (1.1)/(1.05) = F/(1.5) The 1 year forward rate would have to be $1.5714/EUR in order for the investor to be INDIFFERENT between holding USD or EUR. All this assuming interest rate parity holds. I'm not big on Econ but this is how I understood it when studying for the CFA exam the past few months. So please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.\",\n \"There is nothing called actual, unless you convert currency. There are real offer rates that are slightly different from Bank to Bank. Search Engines give a generic average value based on the sites they are trust / have tie-up with. Banks don't use google or search engines to get the basis, they have quite a bit more info and there is a specific Treasury function that would look at the trend and give out a huge spread between buy and sell.\",\n \"\\\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \\\"\\\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\\\"\\\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\\\"\",\n \"The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.\",\n \"There are no flat fees but typically banks and money exchangers will use a the current market rate, up to the minute for some powerful exchangers. They then add a little on top depending on many variables. Those variables can be related to the quantity of currency that organization holds, the average amount they hold, the market trend for that currency, the stability of the currency, the location of that currency exchange, etc. As for the one stop shop for currency exchange providers, you can try moneysupermarket.com Hope that helps.\",\n \"I noticed the buy/sell board table. Where did you notice this. Generally for a pair of currencies, there is Unit associated along with direction. The Unit is generally constant. These are only revised when there is large devaluation of a particular currency. Buying Php for MYR 8.52, Selling MYR 8.98. So in this case the Unit of PHP is 100, so Bank is Buying 100 PHP from you [you are selling PHP] and will give you MYR 8.52. If you now want to buy 100 PHP [so the Bank is selling you], you have to pay MYR 8.98. So you loose MYR 0.46 Why are they selling it way beyond the exchange rate? Why is this? As explained above, they are not. Its still within the range. The quote on internet are average price. This means before going back to Philippines, I can buy a lot of peso that I can buy and exchange it for higher price right? Generally an individual cannot make money by buying in one currency and selling in other. There are specialist who try and find arbitrage between multiple pair of currencies and make money out of it. Its a continuous process, if they start making profit, the market will react and put pressure on a pair and the prices would move to remove the arbitrage.\",\n \"It's the buying and selling of the stock that causes the fluctuation in prices, not the news. People buy and sell all the time, and not just for newsworthy reasons. They may have to send a child to college, or fix a roof, etc. Or they may be technical traders looking for signals. All kinds of reasons.\",\n \"I wrote about the dynamic of why either of a lower or higher exchange rate would be good for economies in Would dropping the value of its currency be good for an economy? A strong currency allows consumers to import goods cheaply from the rest of the world. A weak currency allows producers to export goods cheaply to the rest of the world. People are both consumers and producers. Clearly, there have to be trade-offs. Strong or weak mean relative to Purchasing Power Parity (i.e. you can buy more or less of an equivalent good with the same money). Governments worrying about unemployment will try and push their currencies weaker relative to others, no matter the cost. There will be an inflationary impact (imported inputs cost more as a currency weakens) but a country running a major surplus (like China) can afford to subsidise these costs.\",\n \"You may simply be asking why stocks 'gap up' or 'gap down' when the stock market opens. This is because the price adjusts to news that occurred while the exchanges were closed overnight. Perhaps Asian stocks crashed, or perhaps a news story was released in the New York Times about some major company. There are thousands of factors that affect market sentiment, and the big gaps that happen at the open of every trading day is the price of the stocks catching up to those factors.\",\n \"As mentioned in several other answers, the main reason for high rates is to maximize profit. However, here is another, smaller effect: The typical flow of getting money from an ATM: Suppose you have a minute to consider the offer, then in that time the currency may drop or rise (which you can see from an external source of information). Therefore this opens a window for abuse. For real major currencies these huge switches are rare, but they do happen. And when 1 or 2 minor currencies are involved these switches are more common. Just looking at a random pair for today (Botswana Pula to Haitian Gourde) I immediately spotted a moment where the exchange rate jumped by more than 2 %. This may not be the best example, but it shows why a large margin is desirable. Note that this argument only holds for when the customer knows in advance what the exchange rate would be, for cases where it is calculated afterwards I have not found any valid excuse for such large margins (except that it allows them to offer other services at a lower price because these transaction).\",\n \"An economy produces goods and services and people use money to pay for those goods and services. Money has value because people believe that they can buy and sell goods and services with it in that economy. How much the value of money is, is determined by how much money there is in comparison to goods and services (supply and demand). In most economies it is the job of the federal/national reserve bank to ensure that prices stay stable (ie the relationship of goods and services to how much money there is is stable); as this is necessary for a well running economy. The federal reserve bank does so by making more (printing, decreasing interest rates) or less (increasing interest rates) available to the economy. To determine how much money needs to be in the economy to keep prices stable is incredibly hard as many factors have an impact: If the reserve bank gets it wrong and there is more money compared to goods and services than previous, prices will rise to compensate; this is inflation If it's the other way round is deflation. Since it is commonly regarded that deflation is much more destabilizing to an economy than inflation the reserve banks tend to err on the side of inflation.\",\n \"\\\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \\\"\\\"s\\\"\\\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\\\"\",\n \"Originally dollars were exchangeable for specie at any time, provided you went to a govt exchange. under Bretton Woods this was a generally fixed rate, but regardless there existed a spread on gold. This ceased to be the case in 71 when the Nixon shock broke Bretton woods.\",\n \"I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.\",\n \"If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.\",\n \"The Federal Reserve Bank publishes exchange rate data in their H.10 release. It is daily, not minute by minute. The Fed says this about their data: About the Release The H.10 weekly release contains daily rates of exchange of major currencies against the U.S. dollar. The data are noon buying rates in New York for cable transfers payable in the listed currencies. The rates have been certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for customs purposes as required by section 522 of the amended Tariff Act of 1930. The historical EURUSD rates for the value of 1 EURO in US$ are at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/hist/dat00_eu.htm If you need to know USDEUR the value of 1 US$ in EUROS use division 1.0/EURUSD.\",\n \"To make it simple, just use gold as the main benchmark. Gold price never moves, FIAT currencies move around the price of gold. So, when comparing US$ and Australian dollars to the gold, you know which currency is moving up and which down.\",\n \"Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates. This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates. If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year. Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount. The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during.\",\n \"\\\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \\\"\\\"price\\\"\\\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \\\"\\\"price\\\"\\\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \\\"\\\"amateur hour\\\"\\\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\\\"\",\n \"Many people trade the currency markets via brokers who have developed online apps with live forex prices and many currency pairs. You can trade on your phone, iPad or PC / Mac.\",\n \"\\\"Other things equal is sometimes referred to as \\\"\\\"ceteris paribus\\\"\\\" - the scenario where you compare two currencies (or things) under the assumption that all other factors that could effect those currencies (earthquakes, revolutions, currency crises ect) are not ocurring. Its like using a control group in a lab. \\\"\\\"Real interest rates\\\"\\\" means the rate of that countries interest rate, accounting for inflation. \\\"\\\"Proportional to the strength of its home currency\\\"\\\" is referring to how countries with higher rates of interest tend to have stronger currencies (relative to other currencies) because foreign investment/capital will flood into the country seeking those higher rates of return - excess demand for the currency will cause it to appreciate. So this is also true in reverse, as capital will tend to leave a country will ultra-low interest rates.\\\"\",\n \"There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.\",\n \"A day is a long time and the rate is not the same all day. Some sources will report a close price that averages the bid and ask. Some sources will report a volume-weighted average. Some will report the last transaction price. Some will report a time-weighted average. Some will average the highest and lowest prices for the interval. Different marketplaces will also have slightly different prices because different traders are present at each marketplace. Usually, the documentation will explain what method they use and you can choose the source whose method makes the most sense for your application.\",\n \"While that sounds reasonable, it looks like most of the actual trading is done on the basis of changes rather than value. At a guess, this is because computing the balance sheet anew with every change inhibits the speed with which transactions can be processed.\",\n \"The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low.\",\n \"\\\"You are violating the Uncovered Interest Rate Parity. If Country A has interest rate of 4% and Country B has interest rate of 1%, Country B's expected exchange rate must appreciate by 3% compared to spot. The \\\"\\\"persistent pressure to further depreciate\\\"\\\" doesn't magically occur by decree of the supreme leader. If there is room for risk free profit, the entire Country B would deposit their money at Country A, since Country A has higher interest rate and \\\"\\\"appreciates\\\"\\\" as you said. The entire Country A will also borrow their money at Country B. The exception is Capital Control. Certain people are given the opportunity to get the risk free profit, and the others are prohibited from making those transactions, making UIP to not hold.\\\"\",\n \"What you want is the average change in rate of the Australian Dollar against multiple other currencies, to even out the effect of moves in a single other currency. People often look at the trade-weighted exchange rate to get an idea of this, as it allows you to look at the currencies that are most relevant, rather than every tiny other currency having an equal weight.\",\n \"It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.\",\n \"\\\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \\\"\\\"root value\\\"\\\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\\\"\",\n \"How high is high? In countries that suffered hyperinflation such as the Weimar Republic around 1923 and Zimbabwe around the late 1990s this certainly did happen on a daily basis. E.g. One boy, who was sent to buy two bread buns, stopped to play football and by the time he got to the shop, the price had gone up, so he could only afford to buy one. or One father set out for Berlin to buy a pair of shoes. When he got there, he could only afford a cup of coffee and the bus fare home. or At the height of the country's economic crisis that year, prices were rising at least twice day, with Zimbabweans forced to carry cash around in plastic bags just to buy basic items.\",\n \"\\\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \\\"\\\"interest rate\\\"\\\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \\\"\\\"interest rates\\\"\\\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\\\"\",\n \"I've always understood inflation to be linked to individual currencies, although my only research into the subject was an intro economics course in undergrad and I don't recall seeing why that would be the case. I guess the basic principle is that currency traders are watching the printing presses and trading in exchange markets to the point that the exchange rates fall in relation to increases in money supply. There's probably something about the carry trade in there as well, but it's late and I took some medications, so someone else will have to carry that torch. I must admit I've not really paid attention to foreign currencies like HKD, but the proximity and political relationship with China probably greatly complicates your question, since part of the problem has been China's currency peg.\",\n \"No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low.\",\n \"Brilliant fact-based objective reality explanation of the world currency markets. I'm into bitcoin and physical gold investments (yeah, I know, it's like being gay and straight at the same time without being bi), may I ask you a few things later?\",\n \"If I understand correctly, you're actually asking why there isn't a society whose members generally accept/use any currency for transactions, and just like, Google the exchange rate or something. The answer is because it's exceptionally inconvenient. Can you imagine having a wallet with 200 pouches for all the different currencies? Why would you want to deal with exchange rates all the time? What if the value of a currency changes? (A single currency at least has the illusion of being stable). Et cetera.\",\n \"Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.\",\n \"AU rates are higher than 3.75%. The market for deposits here in Australia is very competitive (banks have change increased deposits as a share of liabilities from ~50% to ~60% in just the last few years) and, as a result, demand deposits here pay far more than the central bank rate. My demand savings account, for example, pays 4.95%. That AU-US interest differentials are so staggeringly high means that, inmevitably, lots of investors are carrying. Depending of FX moves over the next year, a lot of investors will either gain heaps or lose more. If you can leverage, you can gain even more (or lose the house).\",\n \"\\\"As you say, the currency carry trade shouldn't work. The deluge of new cash into a high-interest currency should result in falling exchange rates. A November 2009 paper by Òscar Jordà and Alan Taylor of the University of California, Davis, may be offer one approach which is more stable. According to The Economist: They find that a refined carry-trade strategy—one that incorporates a measure of long-term value—produces more consistent profits and is less prone to huge losses than one that targets the highest yield. However, exchange rates, central bank interest rates, as well as money supply are all political as well as economic constructs. An economic driver for arbitrage may be offset by political will (such as US quantative easing) or even social malaise (Japanese continual low inward investment). I wouldn't go so far as calling the carry trade \\\"\\\"free money\\\"\\\" - currencies have proven far too unstable for that - but state interference in markets tends to be clearly telegraphed and a trader with nerves of steel may take advantage of it.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm not an economist, but I understand the idea of value or \\\"\\\"price\\\"\\\" is purely \\\"\\\"what people agree it to be\\\"\\\". The quants and analysts I've worked with always talk about \\\"\\\"discovering the price\\\"\\\" - it's an unknown until someone says \\\"\\\"I will pay X\\\"\\\". Are my 2nd hand Nikes worth $20? Put em on ebay to find out. If someone buys them, then yes, 2nd hand Nikes are worth $20. If they don't sell then they're not worth $20. Obviously ebay is not the most efficient market out there. The exchanges attempt to be that with prices varying by fractions of cent in fractions of seconds (milliseconds). EDIT* Perhaps another way to look at it is \\\"\\\"What is the 'correct' value of a computer game, say 'Skyrim'?\\\"\\\" Your idea of the value of labour and production costs produces some figure. But in the real world, what actually happens? On release day the game is priced at, say, $60. And lots of people say \\\"\\\"I will pay $60\\\"\\\". Many people don't, but many people do. Months later, Steam has a sale and they suggest Skyrim is now worth $30. Lot's of people who didn't think it was worth $60 do think it is worth $30. The amount of labour that went into is hasn't changed. So what it the true or 'correct' value/price of the game? What is the correct value/price of *amything*? It is *what people will pay for it*.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \\\"\\\"coupons\\\"\\\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \\\"\\\"liquidity\\\"\\\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \\\"\\\"spendable\\\"\\\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \\\"\\\"liquidity crisis\\\"\\\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\\\"\",\n \"Why do these fees exist? From a Banks point of view, they are operating in Currency A; Currency B is a commodity [similar to Oil, Grains, Goods, etc]. So they will only buy if they can sell it at a margin. Currency Conversion have inherent risks, on small amount, the Bank generally does not hedge these risks as it is expensive; but balances the position end of day or if the exposure becomes large. The rate they may get then may be different and the margin covers it. Hence on highly traded currency pairs; the spread is less. Are there back-end processes and requirements that require financial institutions to pass off the loss to consumers as a fee? The processes are to ensure bank does not make loss. is it just to make money on the convenience of international transactions? Banks do make money on such transactions; however they also take some risks. The Forex market is not single market, but is a collective hybrid market place. There are costs a bank incurs to carry and square off positions and some of it is reflected in fees. If you see some of the remittance corridors, banks have optimized a remittance service; say USD to INR, there is a huge flow often in small amounts. The remittance service aggregates such amounts to make it a large amount to get a better deal for themselves and passes on the benefits to individuals. Such volume of scale is not available for other pairs / corridors.\",\n \"\\\"I suspect that to \\\"\\\"make money\\\"\\\" it isn't enough to know the current value (\\\"\\\"high currency\\\"\\\"): to make money you'd need to know/guess/predict/bet on the future change in value: will the currency value go higher in the future? Or will it come down again? Or will it stay the same? Everybody knows the current value, so that by itself isn't enough knowledge to make money from. That said, if you know you're going to need American dollars in the future (if you have future expenses which need to be paid in American dollars), then now might be a good time to buy those dollars.\\\"\",\n \"FX is often purchased with leverage by both retail and wholesale speculators on the assumption daily movements are typically more restrained than a number of other asset classes. When volatility picks up unexpectedly these leveraged accounts can absolutely be wiped out. While these events are relatively rare, one happened as recently as 2016 when the Swiss National Bank unleashed the Swiss Franc from its Euro mooring. You can read about it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-snb-brokers-idUSKBN0KP1EH20150116\",\n \"\\\"The dow jones is an index of 30 stocks that's weighted based on the price per share of these stocks. To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Prices are the result of supply and demand. Demand is defined as simply as \\\"\\\"I want this badly enough to pay cash for it\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"supply is \\\"\\\"I own this and don't want to own it, therefore I'll sell it\\\"\\\" When investors go about deciding they'd like to buy some stock from people who own it and are wanting to sell it, a market is generated and a price both are willing to sell/buy at is found. If the price is too high/low, you won't sell or buy. The price has to be \\\"\\\"right\\\"\\\" based on your own personal valuation. Since these trades are done through an exchange and are so common, literally millions of shares are traded per day, you get the best price available at that moment for your shares. If person A is only willing to give you 100 dollars and person B is willing to give you 100.01, screw person A. I'm selling shares to person B. When this done on a macro-level (millions of shares traded per day) the exchanges will track and make public the \\\"\\\"price movement\\\"\\\" of what the market is willing to give for each and every publicly traded stock. TLDR: SUPPLY AND DEMAND. DOW USES THEIR OWN METHODS.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"","\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \"\"buy\"\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \"\"basket\"\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \"\"shopping list\"\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\"","\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \"\"believe it is money\"\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \\\"\\\"Supply:\\\"\\\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \\\"\\\"have\\\"\\\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \\\"\\\"multiplier effect.\\\"\\\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \\\"\\\"supply\\\"\\\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \\\"\\\"basket of goods\\\"\\\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \\\"\\\"buy\\\"\\\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \\\"\\\"basket\\\"\\\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \\\"\\\"shopping list\\\"\\\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \\\"\\\"believe it is money\\\"\\\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":287,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"8247"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Tax on Stocks or ETF's"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["42521","475170","321114","465313"],"string":"[\n \"42521\",\n \"475170\",\n \"321114\",\n \"465313\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["333425","195767","423929","447651","581632","553253","526661","84238","530146","537916","586010","161041","149305","350317","507276","65702","474745","537371","42521","580802","437907","518735","169240","244061","161019","459953","264820","535822","326559","553332","29502","233248","563831","110343","350555","251394","583626","545267","518310","202645","67616","534391","481283","367742","183910","343708","453639","43508","456968","407185","252135","552138","261902","392313","558867","443354","427067","173133","447197","337993","153112","227064","512253","493160","474981","524612","311782","249687","374676","240651","543898","41509","321114","590010","314342","216827","244749","420529","45190","506448","257274","252176","448659","23217","309923","496820","430868","190687","343219","207788","89546","189028","155053","486974","34139","175563","158185","116017","550319","216404"],"string":"[\n \"333425\",\n \"195767\",\n \"423929\",\n \"447651\",\n \"581632\",\n \"553253\",\n \"526661\",\n \"84238\",\n \"530146\",\n \"537916\",\n \"586010\",\n \"161041\",\n \"149305\",\n \"350317\",\n \"507276\",\n \"65702\",\n \"474745\",\n \"537371\",\n \"42521\",\n \"580802\",\n \"437907\",\n \"518735\",\n \"169240\",\n \"244061\",\n \"161019\",\n \"459953\",\n \"264820\",\n \"535822\",\n \"326559\",\n \"553332\",\n \"29502\",\n \"233248\",\n \"563831\",\n \"110343\",\n \"350555\",\n \"251394\",\n \"583626\",\n \"545267\",\n \"518310\",\n \"202645\",\n \"67616\",\n \"534391\",\n \"481283\",\n \"367742\",\n \"183910\",\n \"343708\",\n \"453639\",\n \"43508\",\n \"456968\",\n \"407185\",\n \"252135\",\n \"552138\",\n \"261902\",\n \"392313\",\n \"558867\",\n \"443354\",\n \"427067\",\n \"173133\",\n \"447197\",\n \"337993\",\n \"153112\",\n \"227064\",\n \"512253\",\n \"493160\",\n \"474981\",\n \"524612\",\n \"311782\",\n \"249687\",\n \"374676\",\n \"240651\",\n \"543898\",\n \"41509\",\n \"321114\",\n \"590010\",\n \"314342\",\n \"216827\",\n \"244749\",\n \"420529\",\n \"45190\",\n \"506448\",\n \"257274\",\n \"252176\",\n \"448659\",\n \"23217\",\n \"309923\",\n \"496820\",\n \"430868\",\n \"190687\",\n \"343219\",\n \"207788\",\n \"89546\",\n \"189028\",\n \"155053\",\n \"486974\",\n \"34139\",\n \"175563\",\n \"158185\",\n \"116017\",\n \"550319\",\n \"216404\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["As mentioned by Dilip, you need to provide more details. In general for transacting on stocks; Long Term: If you hold the stock for more than one year then its long term and not taxable. There is a STT [Securities Transaction Tax] that is already deducted/paid during buying and selling of a stock. Short Term: If you hold the stock for less than one year, it's short term gain. This can be adjusted against the short term loss for the financial year. The tax rate is 10%. Day Trading: Is same as short term from tax point of view. Unless you are doing it as a full time business. If you have purchased multiple quantities of same stock in different quantities and time, then when you selling you have to arrive at profit or loss on FIFO basis, ie First in First Out","@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.","If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.","Is the remaining amount tax free? As in, if the amount shown (which I can sell) on etrade is $5000 then if I sell the entire shares will my bank account be increased by $5000? The stocks they sell are withholding. So let's say you had $7000 of stock and they sold $2000 for taxes. That leaves you with $5000. But the actual taxes paid might be more or less than $2000. They go in the same bucket as the rest of your withholding. If too much is withheld, you get a refund. Too little and you owe them. Way too little and you have to pay penalties. At the end of the year, you will show $7000 as income and $2000 as withheld for taxes from that transaction. You may also have a capital gain if the stock increases in price. They do not generally withhold on stock sales, as they don't necessarily know what was your gain and what was your loss. You usually have to handle that yourself. The main point that I wanted to make is that the sale is not tax free. It's just that you already had tax withheld. It may or may not be enough.","Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.","E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.","\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"","Gold ETFs are treated different than stock ETFs, as a collectable. This makes long-term investing in gold ETFs (for one year or longer) subject to a relatively large capital gains tax (maximum rate of 28%, rather than the 15% rate that is applicable to most other long-term capital gains). Read The Gold Showdown: ETFs Vs. Futures for more details.","Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.","\"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \"\"Wash Sale Rule\"\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\"","The money that you put into the ETF is not tax-exempt in the usual sense of the word. It is your money and you don't owe any taxes on it any more unless Congress (or the state that you reside in) imposes a wealth tax at some time in the future. What you will owe taxes on are any dividends or capital gains that the ETF distributes to you each year (even if you have opted to automatically re-invest those amounts into the ETF), and the capital gains when you sell shares of the ETF.","ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.","\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"","Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.","\"Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any \"\"Income tax\"\" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under \"\"Taxable money for FY Income tax\"\"? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain. Will the \"\"Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back\"\" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay \"\"Dividend Distribution Tax\"\"? Paid by the company. What is \"\"Capital Gains\"\"? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security.\"","\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"","Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx","No Tax would have been deducted at the time of purchase/sale of shares. You would yourself be required to compute your tax liability and then pay taxes to the govt. In case the shares sold were held for less than 1 year - 15% tax on capital gains would be levied. In case the shares sold were held for more than 1 year - No Tax would be levied and the income earned would be tax free. PS: No Tax is levied at the time of purchase of shares and Tax is only applicable at the time of sale of shares.","\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"","You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.","The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.","There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.","You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.","The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at","Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.","As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.","\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"","The Federal Central Tax Office says you may not have to pay taxes in germany for capital gains. You may have to apply for a tax relief to prevent the tax from being collected. You very likely will have to pay whatever taxes there are in Hong Kong on capital gains. Since you use an US broker withholding tax may apply to you but this is a different question that has nothing to do with Germany or german stocks. To be sure you should contact a local expert on this topic. EDIT: I missed some informations that I found on the english site of the german Federal Central Tax Office homepage.","The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).","Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.","You pay taxes on any gains you make after selling, so if you buy and hold you won't pay taxes (and you should hold for more than a year so that it gets taxed at the long-term rate, not the short-term rate). I like ETFs, there are some good ones Vanguard offers that are fairly broad, or you can use something like www.Betterment.com which invests in a diversified portfolio of ETFs (and includes things like automatic re-balancing and tax-loss harvesting).","(I'm assuming the tag of United-states is accurate) Yes, the remaining amount is tax free -- at the current price. If you sell at exactly the original price, there is no capital gain, no capital loss. So you've already payed the taxes. If you sell and there is a capital gain of $3000, then you will pay taxes on the $3000. If 33% is your marginal tax rate, and if you held the stock for less than a year, then you will keep $7000 and pay taxes of $1000. Somehow, I doubt your marginal tax rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year after eTrade sold some for you to pay taxes, then you will pay 15% on the gain -- or $450. eTrade sold the shares to pay the taxes generated by the income. Yes, those shares were considered income. If you sell and have a loss, well, life sucks. However, if you sell something else, you can use the loss to offset the other gain. So if you sell stock A for a loss of $3000, and sell stock B at a gain of $4000, then you pay taxes on the net of $1000.","The same as you would for an individual stock. A stock starts the year at $100, and has $4 in dividends over the year, why would the fact the the stock ends the year at say $90, confuse you? You pay tax on the dividend at the favored rate, if held in a taxable account, obviously, and that's about it.","A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).","Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.","The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable","I don't see a tag for United States, so I'm having to assume this is US taxes. It doesn't matter what app you use, IRS trades are all calculated the same. First, you have to report each trade on a 8949 and from that the totals go into a schedule D. Short term trades are stocks that you've kept exactly one year or less, long term trades are for 1 year + 1 day or more. Trades where you sold a stock for a loss, then bought that stock back again under 30 days don't get to count as a loss. This only affects realized capital gains and losses, you don't count fees. First, take all of your short term gains then offset them by all of your short term losses. Do the same for long term gains and losses. Short and long term gains are taxed at different rates. You can deduct losses from short term to your long term and vice versa. Then you can deduct the total losses up to $3000 (household, $1500 married, filing separately) per year on your regular income taxes or other dividend taxes. If you have over $3000 in losses, then you need to carry that over to subsequent years. Edited per Dave's comments: thanks Dave","\"Very interesting question. While searching i also found that some precious metal ETFs (including IAU) gains are taxed at 28% because IRS considers it \"\"collectible\"\", rather than the usual long term 15% for stocks and stock holding ETFs. As for capital gain tax you have to pay now my guess it's because of the following statement in the IAU prospectus (page 34): When the trust sells gold, for example to pay expenses, a Shareholder will recognize gain or loss ....\"","Long term gains are taxed at 15% maximum. Losses, up to the $3K/yr you cited, can offset ordinary income, so 25% or higher, depending on your income. Better to take the loss that way. With my usual disclaimer: Do not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.","For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.","This depends on the particular index, of course. Capital gains taxes occur when stock is sold (for a profit). This occurs less frequently in an index fund: Where an active manager frequently buys and sells stocks (after all, he wants to be active :-) ), the index fund only sells stocks when the particular stock leaves the index. For an index such as the S&P 500 this does not happen that often. The more specific the criteria of the index fund, the more often the selling of stock and thus the need to pay capital gains taxes occurs.","Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?","Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.","Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.","The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.","\"The US withholding tax applies to stocks/ETFs purchased on the NYSE and other US-based exchanges. If you buy Cenovus on the TSE then you will not be charged this tax. Your last sentence seems like you might be misunderstanding this tax though. If the tax applied, it would not cost you 15% on all your profits, it only applies to dividend yields. So if it pays you a 5% dividend, the tax costs you 0.75%. However, if you buy at $21.19 and sell at $26, then your capital gain is not subject to withholding taxes. It is however, subject to Canadian income tax (at 50% of the gain amount) when it's not sheltered in a TFSA or other registered account. The tax on the gains could easily amount to 16% of your profits, which is a much more significant cost. Therefore, having to pay a 0.75% withholding cost certainly does not \"\"defeat the purpose of the TFSA\"\" which is to shelter from Canadian income tax!\"","(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!","\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"","However, you might have to pay taxes on capital gains if these stocks were acquired during your prior residency.","\"Mutual funds don't pay taxes themselves, they distribute any dividends or capital gains to the shareholders. Thus, if you hold a mutual fund in a tax-advantaged account like a 401k or IRA then the distribution isn't a taxable event while in a regular taxable account you would have to pay taxes on the distributions. From Forbes: There can be foreign companies on US stock exchanges that would still work the same way. Unilever for example is an Anglo-Dutch multinational listed on the NYSE as \"\"UN.\"\"\"","You normally only pay taxes on the difference between the sale price and the cost basis of the asset. In your example, you would probably pay taxes on the $10 difference, not the full sale price of $110. If you paid a commission, however, you would be taxed on your gain minus the commission you paid. Since you held the asset for less than a year, you wouldn't pay the long-term capital gains rate of 20%; you'd be taxed on the capital gain as if it were ordinary income, which depends on your federal income tax bracket. Also, littleadv makes a good point about the implications of buying the asset with after-tax funds too, so that's another part of the equation to consider as well.","\"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a \"\"limited\"\" agreement. You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\"","\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"","non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.","I'm not sure where you are, but in the United States capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income. On the 1040, captial gains income is separated from earned income, and income tax is calculated just on earned income. Then capital gains tax is calculated on capital gains income, and then added to income tax afterward.","Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.","A purchase of a stock is not a taxable event. No 1099 to worry about. Welcome to Money.SE","Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.","See my answer here What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock The only tax from US stocks you'd need to worry about would be dividend withholding tax of 30%. If you contact your ISA provider they should be able to provide you with a W8-BEN form so that you can have this rate reduced to 15%. Just because there's a tax treaty does not mean you will automatically be charged 15% - you must provide a W8-BEN form and renew it when it expires. That last 15% is unfortunately unavoidable. If you were paying any UK taxes you could claim that 15% as a discount against your UK dividend tax liability, but as your US stock would be wrapped in an ISA there's no UK tax to pay which means no tax to reclaim from the tax treaty. Other than DWT though, you will pay absolutely no tax on US stocks held in an ISA to either the US or UK government.","\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"","The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.","You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.","Capital gains taxes for a year are calculated on sales of assets that take place during that year. So if you sell some stock in 2016, you will report those gains/losses on your 2016 tax return.","\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"","\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"","ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.","If so, are there ways to reduce the amount of taxes owed? Given that it's currently December, I suppose I could sell half of what I want now, and the other half in January and it would split the tax burden over 2 years instead, but beyond that, are there any strategies for tax reduction in this scenario? One possibility is to also sell stocks that have gone down since you bought them. Of course, you would only do this if you have changed your mind about the stock's prospects since you bought it -- that is, it has gone down and you no longer think it will go up enough to be worth holding it. When you sell stocks, any losses you take can offset any gains, so if you sell one stock for a gain of $10,000 and another for a loss of $5,000, you will only be taxed on your net gain of $5,000. Even if you think your down stock could go back up, you could sell it to realize the loss, and then buy it back later at the lower price (as long as you're not worried it will go up in the meantime). However, you need to wait at least 30 days before rebuying the stock to avoid wash sale rules. This practice is known as tax loss harvesting.","You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.","\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"","First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.","The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html","You need to report the income from any work as income, regardless of if you invest it, spend it, or put it in your mattress (ignoring tax advantaged accounts like 401ks). You then also need to report any realized gains or losses from non-tax advantaged accounts, as well as any dividends received. Gains and losses are realized when you actually sell, and is the difference between the price you bought for, and the price you sold for. Gains are taxed at the capital gains rate, either short-term or long-term depending on how long you owned the stock. The tax system is complex, and these are just the general rules. There are lots of complications and special situations, some things are different depending on how much you make, etc. The IRS has all of the forms and rules online. You might also consider having a professional do you taxes the first time, just to ensure that they are done correctly. You can then use that as an example in future years.","If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.","What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.","\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\"","You pay taxes on capital gains when you realize your gains by selling the investment property. Also, in the US, taxes on capital gains are computed at special rates depending on your current income level, and so when you realize your gains two years from now, you will pay taxes on the gains at the special rate then applicable to your income level for the year of sale. Remember also that the US Congress can change the tax laws at any time between now and the time you sell your stocks, and so the rates you are looking at now may have changed too.","Is selling Vested RSU is the same as selling a regular stock? Yes. Your basis (to calculate the gain) is what you've been taxed on when the RSUs vested. Check your payslips/W2 for that period, and the employer should probably have sent you detailed information about that. I'm not a US citizen, my account is in ETrade and my stocks are of a US company, what pre arrangements I need to take to avoid tax issues? You will pay capital gains taxes on the sale in Israel. Depending on where you were when you earned the stocks and what taxes you paid then - it may open additional issues with the Israeli tax authority. Check with an Israeli tax adviser/accountant.","I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.","\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\"","I believe the answer to your question boils down to a discussion of tax strategies and personal situation, both now and in the future. As a result, it's pretty hard to give a concrete example to the question as asked right now. For example, if your tax rate now is likely to be higher than your tax rate at retirement (it is for most people), than putting the higher growth ETF in a retirement fund makes some sense. But even then, there are other considerations. However, if the opposite is true (which could happen if your income is growing so fast that your retirement income looks like it will be higher than your current income), than you might want the flexibility of holding all your ETFs in your non-tax advantaged brokerage account so that IF you do incur capital gains they are paid at prevailing, presumably lower tax rates. (I assume you meant a brokerage account rather than a savings account since you usually can't hold ETFs in a savings account.) I also want to mention that a holding in a corp account isn't necessarily taxed twice. It depends on the corporation type and the type of distribution. For example, S corps pay no federal income tax themselves. Instead the owners pay taxes when money is distributed to them as personal income. Which means you could trickle out the earnings from an holdings there such that it keeps you under any given federal tax bracket (assuming it's your only personal income.) This might come in handy when retired for example. Also, distribution of the holdings as dividends would incur cap gains tax rates rather than personal income tax rates. One thing I would definitely say: any holdings in a Roth account (IRA, 401k) will have no future taxes on earnings or distributions (unless the gov't changes its mind.) Thus, putting your highest total return ETF there would always be the right move.","\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"","\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"","I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.","It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).","Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.","When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.","If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.","\"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \"\"tax exempt\"\", but each time you sell, you \"\"reset the counter\"\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\"","You realise a capital gain as soon as you sell the stock. At that point, you will have to pay taxes on the profits when you fill in your tax return. The fact that you used the money to subsequently purchase other stocks is not relevant, unless you sell those stocks within the same tax year. For example, purchase $5000 of stock A in 2010. Sell for $6000 in 2010. Purchase $6000 of stock B in 2010. Sell stock B for $6500 in 2010. Purchase $6500 of stock C in 2010. Sell stock C for $7000 in 2011. You owe capital gains on ($6000 - $5000) + ($6500 - $6000) = $1500 for tax year 2010. You owe capital gains on ($7000 - $6500) = $500 for 2011.","\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"","If you have made $33k from winning trades and lost $30k from loosing trades your net gain for the year would be $3k, so obviously you would pay taxes only on the net $3k gains.","Purchasing stock doesn't affect your immediate taxes any more than purchasing anything else, unless you purchase it through a traditional 401k or some other pre-tax vehicle. Selling stock has tax effects; that's when you have a gain or loss to report.","\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"","Generally speaking, each year, mutual funds distribute to their shareholders the dividends that are earned by the stocks that they hold and also the net capital gains that they make when they sell stocks that they hold. If they did not do so, the money would be income to the fund and the fund would have to pay taxes on the amount not distributed. (On the other hand, net capital losses are held by the fund and carried forward to later years to offset future capital gains). You pay taxes on the amounts of the distributions declared by the fund. Whether the fund sold a particular stock for a loss or a gain (and if so, how much) is not the issue; what the fund declares as its distribution is. This is why it is not a good idea to buy a mutual fund just before it makes a distribution; your share price drops by the per-share amount of the distribution, and you have to pay taxes on the distribution.","Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.","In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain! Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice.","The answer to your question doesn't depend on who you trade with but what country you live in. If you live outside of the US, you will have to pay tax on dividends... sometimes. This depends on the tax treaty that your country has with the US. Canada, Australia, UK and a few other countries have favorable tax treaties with the US that allow you to not be double taxed. You must look into the tax treaty that your home country has with the US to answer the question. Each country is different.","In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.","This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.","Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes."],"string":"[\n \"As mentioned by Dilip, you need to provide more details. In general for transacting on stocks; Long Term: If you hold the stock for more than one year then its long term and not taxable. There is a STT [Securities Transaction Tax] that is already deducted/paid during buying and selling of a stock. Short Term: If you hold the stock for less than one year, it's short term gain. This can be adjusted against the short term loss for the financial year. The tax rate is 10%. Day Trading: Is same as short term from tax point of view. Unless you are doing it as a full time business. If you have purchased multiple quantities of same stock in different quantities and time, then when you selling you have to arrive at profit or loss on FIFO basis, ie First in First Out\",\n \"@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.\",\n \"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.\",\n \"Is the remaining amount tax free? As in, if the amount shown (which I can sell) on etrade is $5000 then if I sell the entire shares will my bank account be increased by $5000? The stocks they sell are withholding. So let's say you had $7000 of stock and they sold $2000 for taxes. That leaves you with $5000. But the actual taxes paid might be more or less than $2000. They go in the same bucket as the rest of your withholding. If too much is withheld, you get a refund. Too little and you owe them. Way too little and you have to pay penalties. At the end of the year, you will show $7000 as income and $2000 as withheld for taxes from that transaction. You may also have a capital gain if the stock increases in price. They do not generally withhold on stock sales, as they don't necessarily know what was your gain and what was your loss. You usually have to handle that yourself. The main point that I wanted to make is that the sale is not tax free. It's just that you already had tax withheld. It may or may not be enough.\",\n \"Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.\",\n \"E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.\",\n \"\\\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \\\"\\\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\\\"\\\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\\\"\",\n \"Gold ETFs are treated different than stock ETFs, as a collectable. This makes long-term investing in gold ETFs (for one year or longer) subject to a relatively large capital gains tax (maximum rate of 28%, rather than the 15% rate that is applicable to most other long-term capital gains). Read The Gold Showdown: ETFs Vs. Futures for more details.\",\n \"Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.\",\n \"\\\"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \\\"\\\"Wash Sale Rule\\\"\\\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\\\"\",\n \"The money that you put into the ETF is not tax-exempt in the usual sense of the word. It is your money and you don't owe any taxes on it any more unless Congress (or the state that you reside in) imposes a wealth tax at some time in the future. What you will owe taxes on are any dividends or capital gains that the ETF distributes to you each year (even if you have opted to automatically re-invest those amounts into the ETF), and the capital gains when you sell shares of the ETF.\",\n \"ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.\",\n \"\\\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \\\"\\\"most property you own\\\"\\\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\\\"\",\n \"Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.\",\n \"\\\"Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any \\\"\\\"Income tax\\\"\\\" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under \\\"\\\"Taxable money for FY Income tax\\\"\\\"? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain. Will the \\\"\\\"Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back\\\"\\\" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay \\\"\\\"Dividend Distribution Tax\\\"\\\"? Paid by the company. What is \\\"\\\"Capital Gains\\\"\\\"? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \\\"\\\"Transfer on Death\\\"\\\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\\\"\",\n \"Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx\",\n \"No Tax would have been deducted at the time of purchase/sale of shares. You would yourself be required to compute your tax liability and then pay taxes to the govt. In case the shares sold were held for less than 1 year - 15% tax on capital gains would be levied. In case the shares sold were held for more than 1 year - No Tax would be levied and the income earned would be tax free. PS: No Tax is levied at the time of purchase of shares and Tax is only applicable at the time of sale of shares.\",\n \"\\\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \\\"\\\"otherwise\\\"\\\" is substantial and far-ranging.\\\"\",\n \"You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.\",\n \"The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.\",\n \"There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.\",\n \"You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.\",\n \"The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at\",\n \"Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.\",\n \"As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.\",\n \"\\\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \\\"\\\"inner\\\"\\\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\\\"\",\n \"The Federal Central Tax Office says you may not have to pay taxes in germany for capital gains. You may have to apply for a tax relief to prevent the tax from being collected. You very likely will have to pay whatever taxes there are in Hong Kong on capital gains. Since you use an US broker withholding tax may apply to you but this is a different question that has nothing to do with Germany or german stocks. To be sure you should contact a local expert on this topic. EDIT: I missed some informations that I found on the english site of the german Federal Central Tax Office homepage.\",\n \"The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\",\n \"Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.\",\n \"You pay taxes on any gains you make after selling, so if you buy and hold you won't pay taxes (and you should hold for more than a year so that it gets taxed at the long-term rate, not the short-term rate). I like ETFs, there are some good ones Vanguard offers that are fairly broad, or you can use something like www.Betterment.com which invests in a diversified portfolio of ETFs (and includes things like automatic re-balancing and tax-loss harvesting).\",\n \"(I'm assuming the tag of United-states is accurate) Yes, the remaining amount is tax free -- at the current price. If you sell at exactly the original price, there is no capital gain, no capital loss. So you've already payed the taxes. If you sell and there is a capital gain of $3000, then you will pay taxes on the $3000. If 33% is your marginal tax rate, and if you held the stock for less than a year, then you will keep $7000 and pay taxes of $1000. Somehow, I doubt your marginal tax rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year after eTrade sold some for you to pay taxes, then you will pay 15% on the gain -- or $450. eTrade sold the shares to pay the taxes generated by the income. Yes, those shares were considered income. If you sell and have a loss, well, life sucks. However, if you sell something else, you can use the loss to offset the other gain. So if you sell stock A for a loss of $3000, and sell stock B at a gain of $4000, then you pay taxes on the net of $1000.\",\n \"The same as you would for an individual stock. A stock starts the year at $100, and has $4 in dividends over the year, why would the fact the the stock ends the year at say $90, confuse you? You pay tax on the dividend at the favored rate, if held in a taxable account, obviously, and that's about it.\",\n \"A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).\",\n \"Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.\",\n \"The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable\",\n \"I don't see a tag for United States, so I'm having to assume this is US taxes. It doesn't matter what app you use, IRS trades are all calculated the same. First, you have to report each trade on a 8949 and from that the totals go into a schedule D. Short term trades are stocks that you've kept exactly one year or less, long term trades are for 1 year + 1 day or more. Trades where you sold a stock for a loss, then bought that stock back again under 30 days don't get to count as a loss. This only affects realized capital gains and losses, you don't count fees. First, take all of your short term gains then offset them by all of your short term losses. Do the same for long term gains and losses. Short and long term gains are taxed at different rates. You can deduct losses from short term to your long term and vice versa. Then you can deduct the total losses up to $3000 (household, $1500 married, filing separately) per year on your regular income taxes or other dividend taxes. If you have over $3000 in losses, then you need to carry that over to subsequent years. Edited per Dave's comments: thanks Dave\",\n \"\\\"Very interesting question. While searching i also found that some precious metal ETFs (including IAU) gains are taxed at 28% because IRS considers it \\\"\\\"collectible\\\"\\\", rather than the usual long term 15% for stocks and stock holding ETFs. As for capital gain tax you have to pay now my guess it's because of the following statement in the IAU prospectus (page 34): When the trust sells gold, for example to pay expenses, a Shareholder will recognize gain or loss ....\\\"\",\n \"Long term gains are taxed at 15% maximum. Losses, up to the $3K/yr you cited, can offset ordinary income, so 25% or higher, depending on your income. Better to take the loss that way. With my usual disclaimer: Do not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\",\n \"For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.\",\n \"This depends on the particular index, of course. Capital gains taxes occur when stock is sold (for a profit). This occurs less frequently in an index fund: Where an active manager frequently buys and sells stocks (after all, he wants to be active :-) ), the index fund only sells stocks when the particular stock leaves the index. For an index such as the S&P 500 this does not happen that often. The more specific the criteria of the index fund, the more often the selling of stock and thus the need to pay capital gains taxes occurs.\",\n \"Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?\",\n \"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.\",\n \"Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.\",\n \"The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.\",\n \"\\\"The US withholding tax applies to stocks/ETFs purchased on the NYSE and other US-based exchanges. If you buy Cenovus on the TSE then you will not be charged this tax. Your last sentence seems like you might be misunderstanding this tax though. If the tax applied, it would not cost you 15% on all your profits, it only applies to dividend yields. So if it pays you a 5% dividend, the tax costs you 0.75%. However, if you buy at $21.19 and sell at $26, then your capital gain is not subject to withholding taxes. It is however, subject to Canadian income tax (at 50% of the gain amount) when it's not sheltered in a TFSA or other registered account. The tax on the gains could easily amount to 16% of your profits, which is a much more significant cost. Therefore, having to pay a 0.75% withholding cost certainly does not \\\"\\\"defeat the purpose of the TFSA\\\"\\\" which is to shelter from Canadian income tax!\\\"\",\n \"(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!\",\n \"\\\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \\\"\\\"tax home\\\"\\\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \\\"\\\"tax home\\\"\\\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\\\"\",\n \"However, you might have to pay taxes on capital gains if these stocks were acquired during your prior residency.\",\n \"\\\"Mutual funds don't pay taxes themselves, they distribute any dividends or capital gains to the shareholders. Thus, if you hold a mutual fund in a tax-advantaged account like a 401k or IRA then the distribution isn't a taxable event while in a regular taxable account you would have to pay taxes on the distributions. From Forbes: There can be foreign companies on US stock exchanges that would still work the same way. Unilever for example is an Anglo-Dutch multinational listed on the NYSE as \\\"\\\"UN.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"You normally only pay taxes on the difference between the sale price and the cost basis of the asset. In your example, you would probably pay taxes on the $10 difference, not the full sale price of $110. If you paid a commission, however, you would be taxed on your gain minus the commission you paid. Since you held the asset for less than a year, you wouldn't pay the long-term capital gains rate of 20%; you'd be taxed on the capital gain as if it were ordinary income, which depends on your federal income tax bracket. Also, littleadv makes a good point about the implications of buying the asset with after-tax funds too, so that's another part of the equation to consider as well.\",\n \"\\\"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a \\\"\\\"limited\\\"\\\" agreement. You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \\\"\\\"substantially identical stock or securities.\\\"\\\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \\\"\\\"substantially identical.\\\"\\\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\\\"\",\n \"non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.\",\n \"I'm not sure where you are, but in the United States capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income. On the 1040, captial gains income is separated from earned income, and income tax is calculated just on earned income. Then capital gains tax is calculated on capital gains income, and then added to income tax afterward.\",\n \"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.\",\n \"A purchase of a stock is not a taxable event. No 1099 to worry about. Welcome to Money.SE\",\n \"Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.\",\n \"See my answer here What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock The only tax from US stocks you'd need to worry about would be dividend withholding tax of 30%. If you contact your ISA provider they should be able to provide you with a W8-BEN form so that you can have this rate reduced to 15%. Just because there's a tax treaty does not mean you will automatically be charged 15% - you must provide a W8-BEN form and renew it when it expires. That last 15% is unfortunately unavoidable. If you were paying any UK taxes you could claim that 15% as a discount against your UK dividend tax liability, but as your US stock would be wrapped in an ISA there's no UK tax to pay which means no tax to reclaim from the tax treaty. Other than DWT though, you will pay absolutely no tax on US stocks held in an ISA to either the US or UK government.\",\n \"\\\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \\\"\\\"basis price.\\\"\\\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \\\"\\\"riding out bad times in cash.\\\"\\\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \\\"\\\"sell low, buy high.\\\"\\\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\\\"\",\n \"The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.\",\n \"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.\",\n \"Capital gains taxes for a year are calculated on sales of assets that take place during that year. So if you sell some stock in 2016, you will report those gains/losses on your 2016 tax return.\",\n \"\\\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \\\"\\\"free advice\\\"\\\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \\\"\\\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\\\"\\\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\\\"\",\n \"ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.\",\n \"If so, are there ways to reduce the amount of taxes owed? Given that it's currently December, I suppose I could sell half of what I want now, and the other half in January and it would split the tax burden over 2 years instead, but beyond that, are there any strategies for tax reduction in this scenario? One possibility is to also sell stocks that have gone down since you bought them. Of course, you would only do this if you have changed your mind about the stock's prospects since you bought it -- that is, it has gone down and you no longer think it will go up enough to be worth holding it. When you sell stocks, any losses you take can offset any gains, so if you sell one stock for a gain of $10,000 and another for a loss of $5,000, you will only be taxed on your net gain of $5,000. Even if you think your down stock could go back up, you could sell it to realize the loss, and then buy it back later at the lower price (as long as you're not worried it will go up in the meantime). However, you need to wait at least 30 days before rebuying the stock to avoid wash sale rules. This practice is known as tax loss harvesting.\",\n \"You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.\",\n \"\\\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\\\"\",\n \"First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.\",\n \"The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html\",\n \"You need to report the income from any work as income, regardless of if you invest it, spend it, or put it in your mattress (ignoring tax advantaged accounts like 401ks). You then also need to report any realized gains or losses from non-tax advantaged accounts, as well as any dividends received. Gains and losses are realized when you actually sell, and is the difference between the price you bought for, and the price you sold for. Gains are taxed at the capital gains rate, either short-term or long-term depending on how long you owned the stock. The tax system is complex, and these are just the general rules. There are lots of complications and special situations, some things are different depending on how much you make, etc. The IRS has all of the forms and rules online. You might also consider having a professional do you taxes the first time, just to ensure that they are done correctly. You can then use that as an example in future years.\",\n \"If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.\",\n \"What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.\",\n \"\\\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \\\"\\\"pure taxable income\\\"\\\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\\\"\",\n \"You pay taxes on capital gains when you realize your gains by selling the investment property. Also, in the US, taxes on capital gains are computed at special rates depending on your current income level, and so when you realize your gains two years from now, you will pay taxes on the gains at the special rate then applicable to your income level for the year of sale. Remember also that the US Congress can change the tax laws at any time between now and the time you sell your stocks, and so the rates you are looking at now may have changed too.\",\n \"Is selling Vested RSU is the same as selling a regular stock? Yes. Your basis (to calculate the gain) is what you've been taxed on when the RSUs vested. Check your payslips/W2 for that period, and the employer should probably have sent you detailed information about that. I'm not a US citizen, my account is in ETrade and my stocks are of a US company, what pre arrangements I need to take to avoid tax issues? You will pay capital gains taxes on the sale in Israel. Depending on where you were when you earned the stocks and what taxes you paid then - it may open additional issues with the Israeli tax authority. Check with an Israeli tax adviser/accountant.\",\n \"I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.\",\n \"\\\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \\\"\\\"owner\\\"\\\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\\\"\",\n \"I believe the answer to your question boils down to a discussion of tax strategies and personal situation, both now and in the future. As a result, it's pretty hard to give a concrete example to the question as asked right now. For example, if your tax rate now is likely to be higher than your tax rate at retirement (it is for most people), than putting the higher growth ETF in a retirement fund makes some sense. But even then, there are other considerations. However, if the opposite is true (which could happen if your income is growing so fast that your retirement income looks like it will be higher than your current income), than you might want the flexibility of holding all your ETFs in your non-tax advantaged brokerage account so that IF you do incur capital gains they are paid at prevailing, presumably lower tax rates. (I assume you meant a brokerage account rather than a savings account since you usually can't hold ETFs in a savings account.) I also want to mention that a holding in a corp account isn't necessarily taxed twice. It depends on the corporation type and the type of distribution. For example, S corps pay no federal income tax themselves. Instead the owners pay taxes when money is distributed to them as personal income. Which means you could trickle out the earnings from an holdings there such that it keeps you under any given federal tax bracket (assuming it's your only personal income.) This might come in handy when retired for example. Also, distribution of the holdings as dividends would incur cap gains tax rates rather than personal income tax rates. One thing I would definitely say: any holdings in a Roth account (IRA, 401k) will have no future taxes on earnings or distributions (unless the gov't changes its mind.) Thus, putting your highest total return ETF there would always be the right move.\",\n \"\\\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \\\"\\\"low income\\\"\\\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \\\"\\\"ready made\\\"\\\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \\\"\\\"frequent trader\\\"\\\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\\\"\",\n \"I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.\",\n \"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).\",\n \"Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.\",\n \"When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.\",\n \"If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.\",\n \"\\\"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \\\"\\\"tax exempt\\\"\\\", but each time you sell, you \\\"\\\"reset the counter\\\"\\\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\\\"\",\n \"You realise a capital gain as soon as you sell the stock. At that point, you will have to pay taxes on the profits when you fill in your tax return. The fact that you used the money to subsequently purchase other stocks is not relevant, unless you sell those stocks within the same tax year. For example, purchase $5000 of stock A in 2010. Sell for $6000 in 2010. Purchase $6000 of stock B in 2010. Sell stock B for $6500 in 2010. Purchase $6500 of stock C in 2010. Sell stock C for $7000 in 2011. You owe capital gains on ($6000 - $5000) + ($6500 - $6000) = $1500 for tax year 2010. You owe capital gains on ($7000 - $6500) = $500 for 2011.\",\n \"\\\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \\\"\\\"wash sale\\\"\\\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\\\"\",\n \"If you have made $33k from winning trades and lost $30k from loosing trades your net gain for the year would be $3k, so obviously you would pay taxes only on the net $3k gains.\",\n \"Purchasing stock doesn't affect your immediate taxes any more than purchasing anything else, unless you purchase it through a traditional 401k or some other pre-tax vehicle. Selling stock has tax effects; that's when you have a gain or loss to report.\",\n \"\\\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\\\"\",\n \"Generally speaking, each year, mutual funds distribute to their shareholders the dividends that are earned by the stocks that they hold and also the net capital gains that they make when they sell stocks that they hold. If they did not do so, the money would be income to the fund and the fund would have to pay taxes on the amount not distributed. (On the other hand, net capital losses are held by the fund and carried forward to later years to offset future capital gains). You pay taxes on the amounts of the distributions declared by the fund. Whether the fund sold a particular stock for a loss or a gain (and if so, how much) is not the issue; what the fund declares as its distribution is. This is why it is not a good idea to buy a mutual fund just before it makes a distribution; your share price drops by the per-share amount of the distribution, and you have to pay taxes on the distribution.\",\n \"Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.\",\n \"In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain! Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice.\",\n \"The answer to your question doesn't depend on who you trade with but what country you live in. If you live outside of the US, you will have to pay tax on dividends... sometimes. This depends on the tax treaty that your country has with the US. Canada, Australia, UK and a few other countries have favorable tax treaties with the US that allow you to not be double taxed. You must look into the tax treaty that your home country has with the US to answer the question. Each country is different.\",\n \"In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.\",\n \"This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.\",\n \"Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"","\"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as \"\"mark to market\"\", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation.\"","If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.","I think the answer you are looking for is: You are not taxed on the original basis (purchase cost) of your investment. If you pay $30 a share, and sell at $35, the $5 per share gain is taxable at time of sale. But the $30 basis cost doesn't enter into tax calculations at all. (So it's important to keep good records on your investments and how much you paid for them at purchase.)"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \\\"\\\"otherwise\\\"\\\" is substantial and far-ranging.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as \\\"\\\"mark to market\\\"\\\", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation.\\\"\",\n \"If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.\",\n \"I think the answer you are looking for is: You are not taxed on the original basis (purchase cost) of your investment. If you pay $30 a share, and sell at $35, the $5 per share gain is taxable at time of sale. But the $30 basis cost doesn't enter into tax calculations at all. (So it's important to keep good records on your investments and how much you paid for them at purchase.)\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":288,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"9108"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Starting an investment portfolio with Rs 5,000/-"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["272021","472585"],"string":"[\n \"272021\",\n \"472585\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["290757","323067","581712","65006","281865","175139","272021","46967","531965","183497","240351","452760","171189","356552","208165","593475","551627","152286","307424","93073","224816","596537","312821","384893","298985","412785","537711","469141","78893","102119","45970","488651","231246","548467","172913","55513","591909","52941","215799","246531","576688","397383","51848","239459","474296","129255","425293","336218","465819","390972","436622","8861","571218","376485","398278","310935","436120","68270","161445","365675","122679","479697","231195","579901","400196","269384","413856","505993","460457","183722","97836","325808","424061","45174","451782","100341","176335","332064","580313","35971","125477","153231","415432","235917","241996","274833","525089","95282","585269","59394","272174","586632","158426","397976","358154","41357","531005","338707","497344","379546"],"string":"[\n \"290757\",\n \"323067\",\n \"581712\",\n \"65006\",\n \"281865\",\n \"175139\",\n \"272021\",\n \"46967\",\n \"531965\",\n \"183497\",\n \"240351\",\n \"452760\",\n \"171189\",\n \"356552\",\n \"208165\",\n \"593475\",\n \"551627\",\n \"152286\",\n \"307424\",\n \"93073\",\n \"224816\",\n \"596537\",\n \"312821\",\n \"384893\",\n \"298985\",\n \"412785\",\n \"537711\",\n \"469141\",\n \"78893\",\n \"102119\",\n \"45970\",\n \"488651\",\n \"231246\",\n \"548467\",\n \"172913\",\n \"55513\",\n \"591909\",\n \"52941\",\n \"215799\",\n \"246531\",\n \"576688\",\n \"397383\",\n \"51848\",\n \"239459\",\n \"474296\",\n \"129255\",\n \"425293\",\n \"336218\",\n \"465819\",\n \"390972\",\n \"436622\",\n \"8861\",\n \"571218\",\n \"376485\",\n \"398278\",\n \"310935\",\n \"436120\",\n \"68270\",\n \"161445\",\n \"365675\",\n \"122679\",\n \"479697\",\n \"231195\",\n \"579901\",\n \"400196\",\n \"269384\",\n \"413856\",\n \"505993\",\n \"460457\",\n \"183722\",\n \"97836\",\n \"325808\",\n \"424061\",\n \"45174\",\n \"451782\",\n \"100341\",\n \"176335\",\n \"332064\",\n \"580313\",\n \"35971\",\n \"125477\",\n \"153231\",\n \"415432\",\n \"235917\",\n \"241996\",\n \"274833\",\n \"525089\",\n \"95282\",\n \"585269\",\n \"59394\",\n \"272174\",\n \"586632\",\n \"158426\",\n \"397976\",\n \"358154\",\n \"41357\",\n \"531005\",\n \"338707\",\n \"497344\",\n \"379546\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Rs 10,000 is a small but good amount to begin with. I would suggest you start by investing in some good mutual funds. Do some research, a balance mutual fund is less risky less returns compared to a equity mutual fund. The other option is directly investing in stock market, however this needs some experience and you would need to open demat and trading accounts that would cost money to open and maintain.","As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.","I am going to assume that this is going to be a long term investment and you don't need this money before 5-6years at the very least. My advise would be to invest in one of the following funds : IDFC Premier equity fund growth plan (Direct) (Only SIP allowed right now) ICICI Discovery fund growth plan (Direct) DSP microcap fund growth plan (Direct) In case you do not want to be invested in small and mid cap and want a little less volatility then my first choice for that would be : Quantum long term equity fund dividend plan Whatever you go for make sure you go directly with the fund house and not through a broker as you end up getting charged an extra .63% extra as opposed to going direct and you will also be paying for a demat account which can be avoided if you invest directly with a fund house. Out of the above mentioned funds Quantum has the lowest expense ratio of 1.25% and it is a huge benefit if you are talking 10+ years because it makes a lot of difference. Source : My own research and experience as an investor.","There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.","On reading couple of articles & some research over internet, I got to know about diversified investment where one should invest 70% in equity related & rest 30% in debt related funds Yes that is about right. Although the recommendation keeps varying a bit. However your first investment should not aim for diversification. Putting small amounts in multiple mutual funds may create paper work and tracking issues. My suggestion would be to start with an Index EFT or Large cap. Then move to balanced funds and mid caps etc. On this site we don't advise on specific funds. You can refer to moneycontrol.com or economictimes or quite a few other personal finance advisory sites to understand the top funds in the segments and decide on funds accordingly. PS: Rather than buying paper, buy it electronic, better you can now buy it as Demat. If you already have an Demat account it would be best to buy through it.","The best way to invest 50k Indian rupees is in a 5 Year NSC(National Saving Certificate which can be obtained at the Post Office) yielding interest 8.1% p.a. (at present), which is more than the effective FDR interest rate offered by any bank in India. Investment in an NSC also permits a deduction u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So, investing in an NSC will save tax and get a higher return/benefit for your investment.","Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months","I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely). For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: - 1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD = Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers!","First, as Dheer mentioned above, there is no right answer as investment avenues for a person is dicteted by many subjective considerations. Given that below a few of my thoughts (strictly thoughts): 1) Have a plan for how much money you would need in next 5-7 years, one hint is, do you plan you buy a house, car, get married ... Try to project this requirement 2) Related to the above, if you have some idea on point 1, then it would be possible for you to determine how much you need to save now to achieve the above (possibly with a loan thrown in). It will also give you some indication as to where and how much of your current cash holding that you should invest now 3) From an investment perspective there are many instruments, some more risky some less. The exact mix of instruments that you should consider is based on many things, one among them is your risk apetite and fund requirement projections 4) Usually (not as a rule of thumb) the % of savings corresponding to your age should go into low risk investments and 100-the % into higher risk investment 5) You could talk to some professional invetment planners, all banks offer the service Hope this helps, I reiterate as Dheer did, there is truely no right answer for your question all the answers would be rather contextual.","Buy only 'Direct' Plans, not regular. - Demat providers won't sell Direct plans, that you can do it through https://www.mfuindia.com Make sure expense ratio < 2.5% (With direct plans it will be much lesser) I hope these points will help you to take a better decision.","Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not.","\"Best way to invest around 50k Indian rupees and save Tax There is nothing \"\"Best\"\". There are multiple options that are available under 80C and you need to select one that suites you best. There are market linked options like ELSS, or assured returns like 6 years FD, or PPF or Term Insurance or other such options.\"","\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"","I have been on the same boat as you are right now. So basically, it depends on your goals, risk tolerance, upcoming life events! You want a plan not just for this particular 50K, but for your household assets and future earnings to come! My suggestion: Get a flat fee, online financial advisor to do the work for you. You don’t have to figure this out by yourself. Personally, I would invest in a portfolio that: Offers dynamic asset allocation plans that evolves over time based on changing market conditions. Offers a healthy mix of beta and alpha strategies along with the liquidity and ability to monitor activity online. Has structural risk management in place. Risk management is as much about increasing risk as it is about cutting risk. Therefore, you want a plan for de-allocating and re-allocating risk Hope this helps.","50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...","There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes: I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50 to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan. List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have? There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here.","I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.","I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.","There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia. First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this. Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns. Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features","You can invest more that 20,000 in Infrastructure bonds, however the tax benefit is only on 20,000. Further the interest earned is taxable. The best guaranteed post tax returns is on PPF. So invest a substantial sum in this. As your age group low you can afford to take risk and hence could also look at investing in ELSS [Mutual Fund]. A note on each of these investments: LIC: If you have taken any of the endowment / Money Back plan, remember the returns are very low around 5-6%. It would make more sense to buy a pure term plan at fraction of the cost and invest the remaining premium into even PPF or FD that would give you more return. NSC/Postal Savings: They are a good option, however the interest is taxable. There is a locking of 6 years. PPF: The locking is large 15 years although one can do partial withdrawals after 7 years. The interest is not taxable. ULIP: These are market linked plans with Insurance and balance invested into markets. The charges for initial few years is quite high, plus the returns are not comparable to the normal Mutual Funds. Invest in this only if one needs less paper and doesn't want to track things separately. ELSS/Mutual Fund: These offer good market returns, but there is a risk of market. As you are young you can afford to take the risk. Most of the ELSS have given average results that are still higher than FD or PPF. Pension Plan: This is a good way to accumulate for retirement. Invest some small amount in this and do not take any insurance on it. Go for pure equity as you can still take the risk. This ensures that you have a kit for retirement. Check out the terms and conditions as to how you need to purchase annuity at the term end etc.","Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.","I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.","\"Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track \"\"the market\"\" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up.\"","The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.","\"Is this amount an adequate starting amount to begin investing with? Yes. You can open an account at a brokerage with this amount. I'm not sure I would invest in individual stocks at this point. Which services should I use to start buying shares? (Currently my bank offers this service but I'm willing to use other sources) I can't make UK-specific recommendations, but I'd compare your bank's fees to those of a discount broker -- as well as the variety and level of service available. I would like to regularly increase the amount invested in shares. Is it worth doing this in say £200 increments? Take a look at the fees associated with each investment. Divide the fee by the increment to see what percent you'll lose to fees/commissions. Keep in mind that you have to gain more than that percentage to start earning a positive return on your investment. If you have access to fee-free automatic mutual fund investments, and you can commit to the £200 amount on a regular basis going forward, then this can be a completely free way of making these incremental investments. See also this answer on dollar cost averaging, and my comment on the other answer on that question for how fees impact returns. When buying shares should I focus on say two or three companies, or diversify more? I would diversify into two or three different index funds. Read up on asset allocation. For example, you might invest 1/3 of your balance into S&P 500 index fund, bond index fund, and MSCI EAFE index fund (but that's just a rough example, and not necessarily good for you). I highly recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein for excellent info on diversification and asset allocation.\"","One year is short term -- short enough that trying to predict returns is a crap shoot. Frankly, if you will need the money in one year I wouldn't touch anything riskier than a money market account. $5000 also isn't enough to give you much flexibility in achieving a balanced portfolio, since the minimal initial purchase for mutual funds is often around $2500. (I'm not sure whether ETFs would give you any more flexibility.) So on grounds of both size and time horizon, I have to recommend against this plan. The risk of losing money, with insufficient time for gains to balance that risk, is simply too high. Others may feel differently, of course. But that's the best advice I can offer.","\"Before going into specific investments, I think it would be a good idea to assess how \"\"free\"\" is that $5000. How much do you have to rely on it in emergency? You always want to buy low and sell high. However, if you need to make unplanned withdraw from an investment, you risk unfavorable market conditions at the time when you need the money, and lose money that way. One common suggestion is to keep 3-6 months living expense in checking/saving/very, very liquid/short term investments. After that, you can invest the rest in more profitable ventures. Assuming that you are all set in that regard, next consideration is whether you have any goal for the money besides generating the maximum return. Is this for retirement, buying a house/apartment a few year down the road, graduate school, emergency cash store for the time between graduation and getting a job, or traveling a year in Europe after graduation? There are myriad of other possible goals. Knowing that you get a better idea of the time frame involved in the investment, and what you need to do with your money. If this is for retirement, you just need to generate the highest possible return for 40-50 years, while minimize taxes when you have to withdraw that money (there are more nuanced concerns, but large idea-wise that's what you need to do). If you want it for a trip to an exotic location in 2 year, then your primary goal will be to preserve the value of your capital, while assessing whether you need to manage foreign-exchange risk. The time frame also rule in or rule out certain types of investments. If you are planning to use the money to purchase a house in 5 years, IRAs probably would not be what you are looking for. If you are planning to retirement, short term CD would not be the most effective way. After figuring out a bit of what you are trying to do with the money, I think how you want to invest it will be much more clear to you. In case of retirement, people seem to generally recommend no load index funds, and mid-cap growth funds. Nothing is really off the table, since your investment time frame is so long, and you can tolerate risk. You might also be interested to check out https://www.wealthfront.com/ (I have no relation with them). A friend recommended it to me, and I think their pitch make sense. In other cases, it really is case dependent, and there might have more than one solution to any case. There is just one more potential investment venture that people you might not immediately thinking of, and that might be of interest to you. That is to use the $5000 as your own budget to build/maintain connections with people and network. Use it to take professors out to a meal to pick their brain, travel to keep in touch with old friends, network with potential future employers and peers to improve job prospect, or get opportunities to meet interesting people. I hope this helps.\"","When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself.","Contrary to most other advise given here, I'd recommend (in your situation) not to invest in stock (yet). There are some 'hidden' cost to investing that will eat your profit and in the end, that's why you are investing. Banks will charge for buying, selling and maintaining stock as well as for cashing dividends. Depending on which bank or intermediary these costs will rise. So, my advise is to start playing with stock creating a virtual portfolio and track that. Just as duffbeer says, start saving. Also look at my answer here.","Compound interest is your friend. For such a low amount of cash, just pop it into savings accounts or deposits. When you reach about 1.500€ buy one very defensive stock that pays high dividends. With deposits, you don't risk anything, with one stock, you can lose 100% of the investment. That's why it's important to buy defensive stock (food, pharma, ...). Every time you hit 1.500€ after, buy another stock until you have about 10 different stock in different sectors, in different countries. Then buy more stock of the ones you have in portfolio. You're own strategy is pretty good also.","\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \"\"actively managed\"\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \"\"time the market\"\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\"","It varies. Depending on your brokerage, they may charge you per transaction, so the more transactions, the higher the cost. Though this (from what I've seen), is uncommon with many index funds. In terms of how aggressive you want to be with your investment varies on your comfort with risk, timeline of investment and many other factors beyond the scope of this question. The biggest issue you may need to be aware of is if you are looking at mutual funds, they may have minimum investments. Depending on what that minimum investment is set to, you may not be able to split your $5500 into more than one fund. A lot of this comes down to the specific funds in which your are anticipating investing, as well as the service you use to do so (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc). Ultimately, diversification can be a lot safer, but there are logistics to consider. Personally, I began with a target fund (a mutual fund with adjusted risk based on the estimated year of retirement) and add additional mutual funds, stocks and ETFs as time goes on.","If I were you, I would save 200 euros for retirement each month and another 800 I would stash away with the hope to start investing soon. I think you have to invest a bigger lump sum, then 1000 euros. It makes sense to invest at least 30K to see any tangible results. My acquaintances started from 50K and now see pretty handsome returns. Investing is profitable, as long as you approach it smartly. Also, do not ever hire an overly expensive financial consultant - this expenses will never pay off. Of course, check their credentials and reputation... But never pay much to these guys. Not worth it.","\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \"\"invest in knowledge\"\".\"","What is the best form of investment? It only depends on your goals... The perfect amount of money depends also on your particular situation. The first thing you should start getting familiar with is the notion of portfolio and diversification. Managing risk is also fundamental especially with the current market funkiness... Start looking at index based ETFs -Exchange Traded Funds- and Balanced Mutual Funds to begin with. Many discounted online brokerage companies in the USA offer good training and knowledge centers. Some of them will also let you practice with a demo account that let you invest virtual money to make you feel comfortable with the interface and also with investing in general.","Conventional wisdom says (100-age) percentage of your saving should go to Equity and (age) percentage should go to debt. My advice to you is to invest (100-age) into index fund through SIP and rest in FD. You can re-balance your investment once a year. Stock picking is very risky. And so is market timing. Of cource you can change the 100 into a other number according to your risk tolerance.","As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.","It is difficult to actually 'answer' your (or any other) investment question as investment outlook and objectives are different from one individual to another. I shall put down some of my thoughts and probably you shall be able to factor them in while you take your decision. As for your last paragraph, in general from investment perspective, the younger you are more kisk you can take and bond gives a stable base to a portfolio. One good way to estimate the proportionality of bond:stock is (your age):(100-your age). However for 2-3 years you could ignore the above and invest in good quality stocks for long term.","5 years is a reasonable time period to invest in a stock which will give you a decent return and will generally not lose too much value except in case of 2008 kinda downturn. I would advise you to invest in a large cap stock/s like BP, Royal Dutch or HSBC (Your parents of course can buy them for you).","As I recall, the Scottrade minimum is only $500. (By the way, Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends which the securities pay) Once you have an account, you can buy into an index fund. SPY tracks the S&P 500. It is also currently paying nearly 2% in dividends. You can shop for other alternatives here: http://seekingalpha.com/insight/etf_hub/etf_guide/selector/article/39431-core-building-blocks-large-mid-small-cap-us-etfs","As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.","What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings.","\"Before anything else, read up on the basics of economics. After that, there a few things you need to ask yourself before you even think about investing in anything: If you have an answer to those questions: Once you answered those questions I could make a simple first suggestion: Confident in handling it yourself and low maintenance with uncertain horizon: look up an online bank that offers ETFs such as IWDA (accumulation (dividend is not payed but reinvested) or income(dividend is payed out)) and maybe a few more specific ones then buy and hold for at least 5 years. Confident and high maintenance with long horizon: maybe stock picking but you'll probably never be able to beat the market unless you invest 10's of hours in research per week. However this will also cost a bit and given your initial amount not advisable to do. Be sure that you also have a VERY close look at the prospectus of an investment (especially if you go with a (retail) bank and they \"\"recommend\"\" you certain actively traded funds). They tend to charge you quite a bit (yearly management fees of 2-3% (which is A LOT if you are eying maybe 7%-8% yearly) aren't unheard of). ETF's such IWDA only have for example a yearly cost of 0.20%. Personally I have one portfolio (of many) only consisting of that ETF (so IWDA) and one global small cap. It's one of the best and most consistant ones to date. In the end, the amount you start with doesn't really matter so much as long as it's enough to buy at least a few shares of what you have in mind. If you can then increase your portfolio over time and keep the expenses in check, compounding interest should do the rest.\"","As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.","\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \"\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\"\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \"\"The RRSP Secret\"\" by Greg Habstritt. \"\"Unshakeable\"\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\"","Investing is really about learning your own comfort level. You will make money and lose money. You will make mistakes but you will also learn a great deal. First off, invest in your own financial knowledge, this doesn't require capital at all but a commitment. No one will watch or care for your own money better than yourself. Read books, and follow some companies in a Google Finance virtual portfolio. Track how they're doing over time - you can do this as a virtual portfolio without actually spending or losing money. Have you ever invested before? What is your knowledge level? Investing long term is about trying to balance risk while reducing losses and trying not to get screwed along the way (by people). My personal advice: Go to an independent financial planner, go to one that charges you per hour only. Financial planners that don't charge you hourly get paid in commissions. They will be biased to sell you what puts the most money in their pockets. Do not go to the banks investment people, they are employed by the banks who have sales and quota requirements to have you invest and push their own investment vehicles like mutual funds. Take $15k to the financial planner and see what they suggest. Keep the other $5K in something slow and boring and $1k under your mattress in actual cash as an emergency. While you're young, compound interest is the magic that will make that $25k increase hand over fist in time. But you need to have it consistently make money. I'm young too and more risk tolerant because I have time. While I get older I can start to scale back my risk because I'm nearing retirement and preserve instead of try to make returns.","\"I've never invested in penny stocks. My #1 investing rule, buy what you know and use. People get burned because they hear about the next big thing, go invest! to just end up losing everything because they have no clue in what they're investing in. From what I've found, until you have minimum of $5k to invest, put everything in a single investment. The reason for this, as others have mentioned, is that commissions eat up just about all your profits. My opinion, don't put it in a bond, returns are garbage right now - however they are \"\"safe\"\". Because this is $1000 we're talking about and not your life savings, put it in a equity like a stock to try and maximize your return. I aim for 15% returns on stocks and can generally achieve 10-15% consistently. The problem is when you get greedy and keep thinking it will go above once you're at 10-15%. Sell it. Sell it right away :) If it drops down -15% you have to be willing to accept that risk. The nice thing is that you can wait it out. I try to put a 3 month time frame on things I buy to make money. Once you start getting a more sizable chunk of money to play around with you should start to diversify. In Canada at least, once you have a trading account with a decent size investment the commissions get reduced to like $10 a trade. With your consistent 10% returns and additional savings you'll start to build up your portfolio. Keep at it and best of luck!\"","Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.","\"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \"\"how do I pick stocks?\"\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\"","\"Shares are for investors. Most of the rich are investors. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. But if you want to get rich, the first step is to become an investor. (The second is to become a SUCCESSFUL investor. 50 pounds might be too little. Try to start with at least 500 at a time. You can ADD amounts of 50 pounds. There are definitely fees involved. You will \"\"pay for lessons.\"\" But it will be worth it, if you become even a moderately successful investor. As for rules, they'll teach you the rules. Everyone wants your business. People have gotten (modestly) rich, buying shares here and there. One man told me of investing $600 in a company called Limited, and ending up with $12,000 some years later. BRIC is not a \"\"share.\"\" It is an acronym for four countries \"\"of the future.\"\" High risk, high reward here.\"","More often than not the market will rise year on year. Your best move is to put the $5000 in on Jan 2. Are you in the 15% bracket? If not, that is, if higher, I'd suggest the traditional, deductible, IRA.","\"Sure. For starters, you can put it in a savings account. Don't laugh, they used to pay noticeable interest. You know, back in the olden days. You could buy an I-bond from Treasury Direct. They're a government savings bond that pays a specified amount of interest (currently 0%, I believe), plus the amount of the inflation rate (something like 3.5% currently, I believe). You don't get paid the money -- the I-bond grows in value till you sell it. You can open a discount brokerage account, and buy 1 or more shares of stock in a company you like. Discount brokerages generally have a minimum of $500 or so, but will waive that if you set the account up as an IRA. Scot Trade, for instance. (An IRA, in case you didn't know, is a type of account that's tax free but you can't touch it till you turn 59 1/2. It's meant to help you save for retirement.) Incidentally, watch out of \"\"small account\"\" fees that some brokerages might charge you. Generally they're annual or monthly charges they'd charge you to cover their costs on your account -- since they're certainly not going to make it in commissions. That IRA at Scot Trade is no-fee. Speaking of commissions, those will be a big chunk of that $100. It'll be like $7-$10 to buy that stock -- a pretty big bite. However, many of these discount brokerages also offer some mutual funds for no commission. Those mutual funds, in turn, have minimums too, but once again if your account's an IRA many will waive the minimum or set it low -- like $100.\"","Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.","\"Congratulations on deciding to save money and choosing to invest it. One thing to know about mutual funds including index funds is that they typically require a minimum investment of a few thousand dollars, $3000 being a typical amount, unless the investment is in an IRA in which case $1000 might be a minimum. In some cases, automated monthly investments of $50 or $100 might need to be set up if you are beginning with a small balance. There is nothing wrong with your approach. You now should go and look at the various requirements for specific index funds. The Fidelity and Vanguard families are good choices and both offer very low-cost index funds to choose from, but different funds can have different requirements regarding minimum investments etc. You also have a choice of which index you want to follow, the S&P 500 Index, MidCap Indexes, Small-Cap Indexes, Total Stock Market Indexes etc., but your choice might be limited until you have more money to invest because of minimum investment rules etc. Most important, after you have made your choice, I urge you to not look every day, or even every month, to see how your investment is doing. You will save yourself a lot of anxiety and will save yourself from making wrong decisions. Far too many investors ignore the maxim \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" and pull money out of what should be long-term investments at the first flicker of a downturn and end up buying high and selling low. Finally, the time is approaching when most stock funds will be declaring dividends and capital gains distributions. If you invest now, you may end up with a paper profit on which you will have to pay taxes (in non-tax-advantaged accounts) on your 2012 tax return (this is called \"\"buying a dividend\"\"), and so you might want to spend some time investigating now, but actually make the investment in late December after your chosen fund has made its distributions (the date for this will be on the fund's web site) or in early 2013.\"","Before jumping into stock trading, do try Mutual Funds and Index funds, That should give you some good overview of the equity markets. Further, do read up on building a balanced portfolio to suit your need and risk apetite. This would help you decide on Govt. bonds and other debt instruments.","A safe investment would be to get a 5-year CD from Ally Bank. No minimum deposit and no monthly maintenance fees. 1.74% APY at the moment. I would choose a 5-year CD since the early withdrawal penalty is only 60 days interest, which will be negligible for a $100 investment and increasing the term significantly increases your interest rate. Regarding other suggestions: Even if you find a way purchase stock commission free, it will probably cost a $5-$10 commission to sell, wiping out probably a year or two of gains. Also, I-Bonds must be held for a year minimum, which is problematic. At the end of the day, it's probably not really worth your time to do any of these. $2 a year or $5 a year, it's still fairly insignificant and your time is surely worth more than that.","\"The \"\"Money 70\"\" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are \"\"bad,\"\" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck.\"","I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping.","The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index. These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds. Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity. The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk. It's not even low-risk, really. It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market. An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks. Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing. If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you.","\"Mutual funds can be relatively low risk and a good starting point. Really it depends on you. What are your goals? This is a pretty open ended question. These can all be low risk and provide some return. Note \"\"Less Knowledge\"\" is never a good qualifier for an investment. Your money is your business and you are entitled to know what your business is up to.\"","For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.","Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)","I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.","\"Invest! Because you are young and have lots of time, I recommend opening an investment account and putting most (1000£?) or all in something like an S&P 500 index fund or ETF. Start building your savings now because compound growth over time will build significant wealth. You can still invest the other 500£/mo in something a bit less volatile if you think you'll need the money in < 5 years. If you expect your income to continue to grow and you expect to have extra cash every month for the foreseeable future, I'd just put it all in an index fund. You can weather any temporary market swings, and in the worst-case scenario you can always sell a few shares if you need the cash. The advantage of an index fund is that it has very low fees and it's an \"\"invest-and-forget\"\" approach. You don't have to watch the market every day because your money will simply match the market. And in the long term the market does much better than most managed funds or ETFs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fund\"","Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.","\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \"\"financial planner,\"\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\"","In terms of building the initial investment using some kind of mutual fund, I'd suggest you see my answer to this similar question https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9943/cheapest-or-free-online-broker-for-beginner For buying individual stocks later, you could look at sharebuilder, or a low cost broker, however most of them charge between $5-$7 per trade, and if you are doing small dollar value trades then that can really really eat into things if you try to trade a lot.","Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks). Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table.","In my mind, when looking at a five year period you have a number of options. You didn't specify where you are based, which admittedly makes it harder, to give you good advice. If you are looking for an investment that can achieve large gains, equities are impossible to ignore. By investing in an index fund or other diverse asset forms (such as mutual funds), your risk is relatively minimal. However there has historically been five year periods where you would lose/flatline your money. If this was to be the case you would likely be better off waiting more than five years to buy a house, which would be frustrating. When markets rebound, they often do it hard. If you are in a major economy, taking something like the top 100 of your stock market is a safe bet, although admittedly you would have made terrible returns if you invested in the Polish markets. While they often achieve lower returns than equity investments, they are generally considered safer - especially government issued bonds. If you were willing to sacrifice returns for safety, you must always consider them. This is an interesting new addition, and I can't comment on the state of it in the United States, however in Europe we have a number of platforms which do this. In the UK, for example you can achieve ~7.3% returns YoY using sites like Funding Circle. If you invest in a diverse range of businesses, you have minimal risk from and individual company not paying. Elsewhere in Europe (although not appropriate for me as everything I do is denominated in Sterling), you can secure 12% in places like Georgia, Poland, and Estonia. This is a very good rate and the platforms seem reputable, and 'guarantee' their loans. However unlike funding circle, they are for consumer loans. The risk profile in my mind is similar to that of equities, but it is hard to say. Whatever you do, you need to do your homework, and ensure that you can handle the level of risk offered by the investments you make. I haven't included things like Savings accounts in here, as the rates aren't worth bothering with.","You have a couple of options: Auto-investing in an open-end mutual fund. Some companies may waive a minimum if you sign up for an automatic investing, e.g. T. Rowe Price will waive its minimum if you agree to invest $100/month. There may be some lower ones out there as well. Some brokers like ShareBuilder have programs where someone could auto-invest getting fractional shares with each purchase. However, something to consider is what percentage is it costing you to buy each time as it may be quite a bit of friction if you are paying $4 a purchase and only buying $40, this is 10% of your investment being eaten up in costs that I'd highly advise taking the first option.","Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.","5 years is very short term, and since you are sure you'll need the money, investing it into the markets should probably not be done. You can toss it in Ally bank for 1% or consider a 5 yr raise your rate CD A decent write-up on time horizons: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110813/using-time-horizons-investing.asp If you want to go the stock/bond route you can assess the benefits of using something like a vanguard target date fund, or a roboadvisor such as wealthfront or betterment. You need to assess whether you think you may move up your time horizon, say you want to buy a house in 4 years, or, if it is 5 years, are you ok with it being 6.5-7 if there is a market downturn.","Put £50 away as often as possible, and once it's built up to £500, invest in a stockmarket ETF. Repeat until you retire.","Here's a good strategy: Open up a Roth IRA at a discount-broker, like TD Ameritrade, invest in no-fee ETF's, tracking an Index, with very low expense ratios (look for around .15%) This way, you won't pay brokers fees whenever you buy shares, and shares are cheap enough to buy casually. This is a good way to start. When you learn more about the market, you can check out individual stocks, exploring different market sectors, etc. But you won't regret starting with a good index fund. Also, it's easy to know how well you did. Just listen on the radio or online for how the Dow or S&P did that day/month/year. Your account will mirror these changes!","Investing in mutual funds, ETF, etc. won't build a large pool of money. Be an active investor if your nature aligns. For e.g. Invest in buying out a commercial space (on bank finance) like a office space and then rent it out. That would give you better return than a savings account. In few years time, you may be able to pay back your financing and then the total return is your net return. Look for options like this for a multiple growth in your worth.","According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.","\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \"\"core\"\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \"\"satellite\"\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\"","It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount. In either case, your calculation is far away from reality. Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice.","you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.","Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.","\"The $1K in funds are by default your emergency fund. If absolutely necessary, emergency funds may need to come from debt, a credit capacity, focus on building credit to leverage lower rates for living expenses eventually needed. Profitable organizations & proprietors, borrow at a lower cost of capital than their return. Join your local credit union, you're welcome to join mine online, the current rates for the first $500 in both your checking and savings is 4.07%, it's currently the fourth largest in the U.S. by assets. You may join as a \"\"family member\"\" to me (Karl Erdmann), not sure what their definition of \"\"family\"\" is, I'd be happy to trace our ancestry if need be or consider other options. Their current incentive program, like many institutions have often, will give you $100 for going through the hassle to join and establish a checking and savings. Some institutions, such as this credit union, have a lower threshold to risk, applicants may be turned down for an account if there is any negative history or a low credit score, shooting for a score of 600 before applying seems safest. The web services, as you mentioned, have significantly improved the layman's ability to cost effectively invest funds and provide liquidity. Robinhood currently seems to be providing the most affordable access to the market. It goes without saying, stay objective with your trust of any platform, as you may have noticed, there is a detailed explanation of how Robinhood makes their money on this stack exchange community, they are largely backed by venture funding, hopefully the organization is able to maintain a low enough overhead to keep the organization sustainable in the long run. The services that power this service such as Plaid, seem promising and underrated, but i digress. The platform gives access for users to learn how investing works, it seems safest to plan a diversified portfolio utilizing a mix of securities,such as low Beta stocks or \"\"blue chip\"\" companies with clear dividend policies. One intriguing feature, if you invest in equities is casting votes on decisions in shareholder meetings. Another popular investment asset class that is less liquid and perhaps something to work toward is real estate. Google the economist \"\"Matthew Rognlie\"\" for his work on income equality on this type of investment. There are many incentives for first time homeowners, saving up for a down payment is the first step. Consider adding to your portfolio a Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs) to gain a market position. Another noteworthy approach to this idea is an investment commercial property cooperative organization, currently the first and only one is called NorthEast Investment Cooperative, one stock of class A is $1K. If you are interested and plan to focus on equities, consider dropping into your college's Accounting Capstone course to learn more about the the details of fundamental and technical analysis of an organization. The complexities of investing involve cyclical risk, macro and micro economic factors, understanding financial statements and their notes, cash flow forecasting - discounting, market timing, and a host of other details Wikipedia is much more helpful at detailing. It's safe to assume initial investment decisions by unsophisticated investors are mostly whimsical, and likely will only add up to learning opportunities, however risk is inherit in all things, including sitting on cash that pays a price of inflation. A promising mindset in long term investments are in organizations that focus on conscious business practices. Another way to think of investing is that you are already somewhat of a \"\"sophisticated investor\"\" and could beat the market by what you know given your background, catching wind of certain information first, or acting on a new trends or technology quickly. Move carefully with any perhaps biased \"\"bullish\"\" or \"\"bearish\"\" mindset. Thinking independently is helpful, constantly becoming familiar with different ideas from professions in a diverse set of backgrounds, and simulating decisions in portfolio's. Here is an extremely limited set of authors and outlets that may have ideas worth digging more into, MIT Tech Reviews (Informative), Bloomberg TV (it's free, informative), John Mackey (businessman), Paul Mason (provocative journalist). Google finance is a simple and free go-to application, use the \"\"cost basis\"\" feature for \"\"paper\"\" or real trades, it's easy to import transactions from a .csv. This seems sufficient to start off with. Enjoy the journey, aim for real value with your resources.\"","The plan doesn't make sense. Don't invest your money. Just keep it in your bank account. $5000 is not a lot, especially since you don't have a steady income stream. You only have $1000 to your name, you can't afford to gamble $4000. You will need it for things like food, books, rent, student loans, traveling, etc. If you don't get a job right after you graduate, you will be very happy to have some money in the bank. Or what if you get a dream job, but you need a car? Or you get a job at a suit & tie business and need to get a new wardrobe? Or your computer dies and you need a new one? You find a great apartment but need $2500 first, last & security? That money can help you out much more NOW when you're starting out, then it will when you're ready to retire in your 60's.","On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)","This is slightly opinion based. Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? At your age and the time period, I would say NO. This is because although the index fund do return 6-7% on average, there are several times it blips and goes negative as well. Stock Markets in short periods like 6 months can be unpredictable. At times a downturn will remain stagnant for periods of 2-3 years before suddenly zoom ahead. If you are not to particular about the time when you need the changes done; i.e. the changes can in worst case wait for few years; then yes investing in Index fund would make sense. Else you are well off keeping this in savings. Try CD's if they can offer better rates for such durations.","A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.","Taking into account that you are in Cyprus, a Euro country, you should not invest in USD as the USA and China are starting a currency war that will benefit the Euro. Meaning, if you buy USD today, they will be worth less in a couple of months. As for the way of investing your money. Look at it like a boat race, starting on the 1st of January and ending on the 31st of December each year. There are a lot of boats in the water. Some are small, some are big, some are whole fleets. Your objective is to choose the fastest boat at any time. If you invest all of your money in one small boat, that might sink before the end of the year, you are putting yourself at risk. Say: Startup Capital. If you invest all of your money in a medium sized boat, you still run the risk of it sinking. Say: Stock market stock. If you invest all of your money in a supertanker, the risk of it sinking is smaller, and the probability of it ending first in the race is also smaller. Say: a stock of a multinational. A fleet is limited by it's slowest boat, but it will surely reach the shore. Say: a fund. Now investing money is time consuming, and you may not have the money to create your own portfolio (your own fleet). So a fund should be your choice. However, there are a lot of funds out there, and not all funds perform the same. Most funds are compared with their index. A 3 star Morningstar rated fund is performing on par with it's index for a time period. A 4 or 5 star rated fund is doing better than it's index. Most funds fluctuate between ratings. A 4 star rated fund can be mismanaged and in a number of months become a 2 star rated fund. Or the other way around. But it's not just luck. Depending on the money you have available, your best bet is to buy a number of star rated, managed funds. There are a lot of factors to keep into account. Currency is one. Geography, Sector... Don't buy for less than 1.000€ in one fund, and don't buy more than 10 funds. Stay away from Gold, unless you want to speculate (short term). Stay away from the USD (for now). And if you can prevent it, don't put all your eggs in one basket.","Sounds like you're doing fine, though somewhat fuzzy: how are you allocating the $500/month? Are you doing dollar cost averaging into funds, accumulating enough $$ to buy round lots of individual stocks, market timing, etc. The summary suggestion: max out the ROTH first, then with $$$ left over, do the after tax, low-cost fund, monthly dollar cost averaging approach.","\"Contribute as much as you can. When do you want to retire and how much income do you think you'll need? A $1M portfolio yielding 5% will yield $50,000/year. Do some research about how to build a portfolio... this site is a good start, but check out books on retirement planning and magazines like Money and Kiplinger. If you don't speak \"\"money\"\" or are intimidated by investing, look for a fee-based financial advisor whom you are comfortable with.\"","\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"","\"Invest in a high quality dividend paying group of stocks. Look up \"\"stock aristocrats\"\" to find longterm quality stocks that have regularly increased their dividends for over 20'years. 10'years is a safe period of time to invest in stocks. If you had bought stocks at their hight in 2007 and kept them through the 40% decline thru 2008 and 2009 and held on to them for 10 years until 2017, you would have earned a 40 % increase from when you purchased them. That is pretty much a worst case scenerio. If you had invested in dividend paying stocks and had earned an additional 2.5% per year, you would have exceeded your 5% goal. The lifetime yearly return of the stock market is 10%. Time is the only downside, but with ten years, you are almost certainly immune.\"","For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.","Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you.","ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.","You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.","\"You can start investing with any amount. You can use the ShareBuilder account to purchase \"\"partial\"\" stocks through their automatic investment plan. Usually brokers don't sell parts of stock, and ShareBuilder is the only one allowing it IMHO using its own tricks. What they do basically is buy a stock and then divide it internally among several investors who bought it, while each of the investors doesn't really own it directly. That's perfect for investing small amounts and making first steps in investing.\"","3-5 years is long enough of a timeframe that I'd certainly invest it, assuming you have enough (which $10k is). Even conservatively you can guess at 4-5% annual growth; if you invest reasonably conservatively (60/40 mix of stocks/bonds, with both in large ETFs or similar) you should have a good chance to gain along those lines and still be reasonably safe in case the market tanks. Of course, the market could tank at any time and wipe out 20-30% of that or even more, even if you invest conservatively - so you need to think about that risk, and decide if it's worth it or not. But, particularly if your 3-5 year time frame is reasonably flexible (i.e., if in 2019 the market tanks, you can wait the 2-3 years it may take to come back up) you should be investing. And - as usual, the normal warnings apply. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance, we are not your investment advisors, and you may lose 100% of your investment...","\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"","If you are not working, I believe you would be getting some money from your family to meet your expenses. In such a case, I would start with maintaining a Cash A/c which would list your monthly expenses and the money you received, which is what I used to do at your age. You can maintain it in a notebook with pen/pencil or using online tools such as Google Sheets. Enter each expense entries each day as debits and entries towards any money you receive as credits. At the end of the month, tally them and see how much you have left. Also, this gives you a clear picture of where your expenses are what is that you can avoid. On longer term, this can help you form an annual budget for your personal finances.","\"For equities, buy direct from the transfer agent. You have to buy one full share at a minimum but after that dividend reinvestment is free. There are others like share builder and foliofn that let you buy fractional shares. As the other poster said their roster is limited so you cannot buy every ETF out there. With your example of not wanting to spend $200 I agree with the others that you should invest in a mutual fund. Vanguard will have every index fund you need and can invest as little as $50, as long as you sign up for a systematic investment draft from your bank. Plus vanguard typically has the lowest fees in the industry. The most important thing is to start investing as soon as possible and as regular as possible. \"\"Pay yourself first\"\"\"","It sounds like you are interested in investing in the stock market but you don't want to take too much risk. Investing in an Index EFT will provide some diversification and can be less risky than investing in individual stocks, however with potentially lower returns. If you want to invest your money, the first thing you should do is learn about managing your risk. You are still young and you should spend your time now to increase your education and knowledge. There are plenty of good books to start with, and you should prepare an investment plan which incorporates a risk management strategy. $1000 is a little low to start investing in the stock market, so whilst you are building your education and preparing your plan, you can continue building up more funds for when you are ready to start investing. Place your funds in an high interest savings account for now, and whilst you are learning you can practice your strategies using virtual accounts. In fact the ASX has a share market game which is held 2 or 3 times per year. The ASX website also has some good learning materials for novices and they hold regular seminars. It is another good source for improving your education in the subject. Remember, first get educated, then plan and practice, and then invest."],"string":"[\n \"Rs 10,000 is a small but good amount to begin with. I would suggest you start by investing in some good mutual funds. Do some research, a balance mutual fund is less risky less returns compared to a equity mutual fund. The other option is directly investing in stock market, however this needs some experience and you would need to open demat and trading accounts that would cost money to open and maintain.\",\n \"As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.\",\n \"I am going to assume that this is going to be a long term investment and you don't need this money before 5-6years at the very least. My advise would be to invest in one of the following funds : IDFC Premier equity fund growth plan (Direct) (Only SIP allowed right now) ICICI Discovery fund growth plan (Direct) DSP microcap fund growth plan (Direct) In case you do not want to be invested in small and mid cap and want a little less volatility then my first choice for that would be : Quantum long term equity fund dividend plan Whatever you go for make sure you go directly with the fund house and not through a broker as you end up getting charged an extra .63% extra as opposed to going direct and you will also be paying for a demat account which can be avoided if you invest directly with a fund house. Out of the above mentioned funds Quantum has the lowest expense ratio of 1.25% and it is a huge benefit if you are talking 10+ years because it makes a lot of difference. Source : My own research and experience as an investor.\",\n \"There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.\",\n \"On reading couple of articles & some research over internet, I got to know about diversified investment where one should invest 70% in equity related & rest 30% in debt related funds Yes that is about right. Although the recommendation keeps varying a bit. However your first investment should not aim for diversification. Putting small amounts in multiple mutual funds may create paper work and tracking issues. My suggestion would be to start with an Index EFT or Large cap. Then move to balanced funds and mid caps etc. On this site we don't advise on specific funds. You can refer to moneycontrol.com or economictimes or quite a few other personal finance advisory sites to understand the top funds in the segments and decide on funds accordingly. PS: Rather than buying paper, buy it electronic, better you can now buy it as Demat. If you already have an Demat account it would be best to buy through it.\",\n \"The best way to invest 50k Indian rupees is in a 5 Year NSC(National Saving Certificate which can be obtained at the Post Office) yielding interest 8.1% p.a. (at present), which is more than the effective FDR interest rate offered by any bank in India. Investment in an NSC also permits a deduction u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So, investing in an NSC will save tax and get a higher return/benefit for your investment.\",\n \"Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months\",\n \"I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely). For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: - 1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD = Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers!\",\n \"First, as Dheer mentioned above, there is no right answer as investment avenues for a person is dicteted by many subjective considerations. Given that below a few of my thoughts (strictly thoughts): 1) Have a plan for how much money you would need in next 5-7 years, one hint is, do you plan you buy a house, car, get married ... Try to project this requirement 2) Related to the above, if you have some idea on point 1, then it would be possible for you to determine how much you need to save now to achieve the above (possibly with a loan thrown in). It will also give you some indication as to where and how much of your current cash holding that you should invest now 3) From an investment perspective there are many instruments, some more risky some less. The exact mix of instruments that you should consider is based on many things, one among them is your risk apetite and fund requirement projections 4) Usually (not as a rule of thumb) the % of savings corresponding to your age should go into low risk investments and 100-the % into higher risk investment 5) You could talk to some professional invetment planners, all banks offer the service Hope this helps, I reiterate as Dheer did, there is truely no right answer for your question all the answers would be rather contextual.\",\n \"Buy only 'Direct' Plans, not regular. - Demat providers won't sell Direct plans, that you can do it through https://www.mfuindia.com Make sure expense ratio < 2.5% (With direct plans it will be much lesser) I hope these points will help you to take a better decision.\",\n \"Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not.\",\n \"\\\"Best way to invest around 50k Indian rupees and save Tax There is nothing \\\"\\\"Best\\\"\\\". There are multiple options that are available under 80C and you need to select one that suites you best. There are market linked options like ELSS, or assured returns like 6 years FD, or PPF or Term Insurance or other such options.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \\\"\\\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\\\"\\\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\\\"\",\n \"I have been on the same boat as you are right now. So basically, it depends on your goals, risk tolerance, upcoming life events! You want a plan not just for this particular 50K, but for your household assets and future earnings to come! My suggestion: Get a flat fee, online financial advisor to do the work for you. You don’t have to figure this out by yourself. Personally, I would invest in a portfolio that: Offers dynamic asset allocation plans that evolves over time based on changing market conditions. Offers a healthy mix of beta and alpha strategies along with the liquidity and ability to monitor activity online. Has structural risk management in place. Risk management is as much about increasing risk as it is about cutting risk. Therefore, you want a plan for de-allocating and re-allocating risk Hope this helps.\",\n \"50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...\",\n \"There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes: I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50 to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan. List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have? There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here.\",\n \"I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.\",\n \"I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.\",\n \"There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia. First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this. Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns. Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features\",\n \"You can invest more that 20,000 in Infrastructure bonds, however the tax benefit is only on 20,000. Further the interest earned is taxable. The best guaranteed post tax returns is on PPF. So invest a substantial sum in this. As your age group low you can afford to take risk and hence could also look at investing in ELSS [Mutual Fund]. A note on each of these investments: LIC: If you have taken any of the endowment / Money Back plan, remember the returns are very low around 5-6%. It would make more sense to buy a pure term plan at fraction of the cost and invest the remaining premium into even PPF or FD that would give you more return. NSC/Postal Savings: They are a good option, however the interest is taxable. There is a locking of 6 years. PPF: The locking is large 15 years although one can do partial withdrawals after 7 years. The interest is not taxable. ULIP: These are market linked plans with Insurance and balance invested into markets. The charges for initial few years is quite high, plus the returns are not comparable to the normal Mutual Funds. Invest in this only if one needs less paper and doesn't want to track things separately. ELSS/Mutual Fund: These offer good market returns, but there is a risk of market. As you are young you can afford to take the risk. Most of the ELSS have given average results that are still higher than FD or PPF. Pension Plan: This is a good way to accumulate for retirement. Invest some small amount in this and do not take any insurance on it. Go for pure equity as you can still take the risk. This ensures that you have a kit for retirement. Check out the terms and conditions as to how you need to purchase annuity at the term end etc.\",\n \"Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.\",\n \"I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.\",\n \"\\\"Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track \\\"\\\"the market\\\"\\\" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up.\\\"\",\n \"The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.\",\n \"\\\"Is this amount an adequate starting amount to begin investing with? Yes. You can open an account at a brokerage with this amount. I'm not sure I would invest in individual stocks at this point. Which services should I use to start buying shares? (Currently my bank offers this service but I'm willing to use other sources) I can't make UK-specific recommendations, but I'd compare your bank's fees to those of a discount broker -- as well as the variety and level of service available. I would like to regularly increase the amount invested in shares. Is it worth doing this in say £200 increments? Take a look at the fees associated with each investment. Divide the fee by the increment to see what percent you'll lose to fees/commissions. Keep in mind that you have to gain more than that percentage to start earning a positive return on your investment. If you have access to fee-free automatic mutual fund investments, and you can commit to the £200 amount on a regular basis going forward, then this can be a completely free way of making these incremental investments. See also this answer on dollar cost averaging, and my comment on the other answer on that question for how fees impact returns. When buying shares should I focus on say two or three companies, or diversify more? I would diversify into two or three different index funds. Read up on asset allocation. For example, you might invest 1/3 of your balance into S&P 500 index fund, bond index fund, and MSCI EAFE index fund (but that's just a rough example, and not necessarily good for you). I highly recommend \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\\\"\\\" by William Bernstein for excellent info on diversification and asset allocation.\\\"\",\n \"One year is short term -- short enough that trying to predict returns is a crap shoot. Frankly, if you will need the money in one year I wouldn't touch anything riskier than a money market account. $5000 also isn't enough to give you much flexibility in achieving a balanced portfolio, since the minimal initial purchase for mutual funds is often around $2500. (I'm not sure whether ETFs would give you any more flexibility.) So on grounds of both size and time horizon, I have to recommend against this plan. The risk of losing money, with insufficient time for gains to balance that risk, is simply too high. Others may feel differently, of course. But that's the best advice I can offer.\",\n \"\\\"Before going into specific investments, I think it would be a good idea to assess how \\\"\\\"free\\\"\\\" is that $5000. How much do you have to rely on it in emergency? You always want to buy low and sell high. However, if you need to make unplanned withdraw from an investment, you risk unfavorable market conditions at the time when you need the money, and lose money that way. One common suggestion is to keep 3-6 months living expense in checking/saving/very, very liquid/short term investments. After that, you can invest the rest in more profitable ventures. Assuming that you are all set in that regard, next consideration is whether you have any goal for the money besides generating the maximum return. Is this for retirement, buying a house/apartment a few year down the road, graduate school, emergency cash store for the time between graduation and getting a job, or traveling a year in Europe after graduation? There are myriad of other possible goals. Knowing that you get a better idea of the time frame involved in the investment, and what you need to do with your money. If this is for retirement, you just need to generate the highest possible return for 40-50 years, while minimize taxes when you have to withdraw that money (there are more nuanced concerns, but large idea-wise that's what you need to do). If you want it for a trip to an exotic location in 2 year, then your primary goal will be to preserve the value of your capital, while assessing whether you need to manage foreign-exchange risk. The time frame also rule in or rule out certain types of investments. If you are planning to use the money to purchase a house in 5 years, IRAs probably would not be what you are looking for. If you are planning to retirement, short term CD would not be the most effective way. After figuring out a bit of what you are trying to do with the money, I think how you want to invest it will be much more clear to you. In case of retirement, people seem to generally recommend no load index funds, and mid-cap growth funds. Nothing is really off the table, since your investment time frame is so long, and you can tolerate risk. You might also be interested to check out https://www.wealthfront.com/ (I have no relation with them). A friend recommended it to me, and I think their pitch make sense. In other cases, it really is case dependent, and there might have more than one solution to any case. There is just one more potential investment venture that people you might not immediately thinking of, and that might be of interest to you. That is to use the $5000 as your own budget to build/maintain connections with people and network. Use it to take professors out to a meal to pick their brain, travel to keep in touch with old friends, network with potential future employers and peers to improve job prospect, or get opportunities to meet interesting people. I hope this helps.\\\"\",\n \"When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself.\",\n \"Contrary to most other advise given here, I'd recommend (in your situation) not to invest in stock (yet). There are some 'hidden' cost to investing that will eat your profit and in the end, that's why you are investing. Banks will charge for buying, selling and maintaining stock as well as for cashing dividends. Depending on which bank or intermediary these costs will rise. So, my advise is to start playing with stock creating a virtual portfolio and track that. Just as duffbeer says, start saving. Also look at my answer here.\",\n \"Compound interest is your friend. For such a low amount of cash, just pop it into savings accounts or deposits. When you reach about 1.500€ buy one very defensive stock that pays high dividends. With deposits, you don't risk anything, with one stock, you can lose 100% of the investment. That's why it's important to buy defensive stock (food, pharma, ...). Every time you hit 1.500€ after, buy another stock until you have about 10 different stock in different sectors, in different countries. Then buy more stock of the ones you have in portfolio. You're own strategy is pretty good also.\",\n \"\\\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \\\"\\\"actively managed\\\"\\\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \\\"\\\"time the market\\\"\\\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\\\"\",\n \"It varies. Depending on your brokerage, they may charge you per transaction, so the more transactions, the higher the cost. Though this (from what I've seen), is uncommon with many index funds. In terms of how aggressive you want to be with your investment varies on your comfort with risk, timeline of investment and many other factors beyond the scope of this question. The biggest issue you may need to be aware of is if you are looking at mutual funds, they may have minimum investments. Depending on what that minimum investment is set to, you may not be able to split your $5500 into more than one fund. A lot of this comes down to the specific funds in which your are anticipating investing, as well as the service you use to do so (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc). Ultimately, diversification can be a lot safer, but there are logistics to consider. Personally, I began with a target fund (a mutual fund with adjusted risk based on the estimated year of retirement) and add additional mutual funds, stocks and ETFs as time goes on.\",\n \"If I were you, I would save 200 euros for retirement each month and another 800 I would stash away with the hope to start investing soon. I think you have to invest a bigger lump sum, then 1000 euros. It makes sense to invest at least 30K to see any tangible results. My acquaintances started from 50K and now see pretty handsome returns. Investing is profitable, as long as you approach it smartly. Also, do not ever hire an overly expensive financial consultant - this expenses will never pay off. Of course, check their credentials and reputation... But never pay much to these guys. Not worth it.\",\n \"\\\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \\\"\\\"invest in knowledge\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"What is the best form of investment? It only depends on your goals... The perfect amount of money depends also on your particular situation. The first thing you should start getting familiar with is the notion of portfolio and diversification. Managing risk is also fundamental especially with the current market funkiness... Start looking at index based ETFs -Exchange Traded Funds- and Balanced Mutual Funds to begin with. Many discounted online brokerage companies in the USA offer good training and knowledge centers. Some of them will also let you practice with a demo account that let you invest virtual money to make you feel comfortable with the interface and also with investing in general.\",\n \"Conventional wisdom says (100-age) percentage of your saving should go to Equity and (age) percentage should go to debt. My advice to you is to invest (100-age) into index fund through SIP and rest in FD. You can re-balance your investment once a year. Stock picking is very risky. And so is market timing. Of cource you can change the 100 into a other number according to your risk tolerance.\",\n \"As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.\",\n \"It is difficult to actually 'answer' your (or any other) investment question as investment outlook and objectives are different from one individual to another. I shall put down some of my thoughts and probably you shall be able to factor them in while you take your decision. As for your last paragraph, in general from investment perspective, the younger you are more kisk you can take and bond gives a stable base to a portfolio. One good way to estimate the proportionality of bond:stock is (your age):(100-your age). However for 2-3 years you could ignore the above and invest in good quality stocks for long term.\",\n \"5 years is a reasonable time period to invest in a stock which will give you a decent return and will generally not lose too much value except in case of 2008 kinda downturn. I would advise you to invest in a large cap stock/s like BP, Royal Dutch or HSBC (Your parents of course can buy them for you).\",\n \"As I recall, the Scottrade minimum is only $500. (By the way, Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends which the securities pay) Once you have an account, you can buy into an index fund. SPY tracks the S&P 500. It is also currently paying nearly 2% in dividends. You can shop for other alternatives here: http://seekingalpha.com/insight/etf_hub/etf_guide/selector/article/39431-core-building-blocks-large-mid-small-cap-us-etfs\",\n \"As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.\",\n \"What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings.\",\n \"\\\"Before anything else, read up on the basics of economics. After that, there a few things you need to ask yourself before you even think about investing in anything: If you have an answer to those questions: Once you answered those questions I could make a simple first suggestion: Confident in handling it yourself and low maintenance with uncertain horizon: look up an online bank that offers ETFs such as IWDA (accumulation (dividend is not payed but reinvested) or income(dividend is payed out)) and maybe a few more specific ones then buy and hold for at least 5 years. Confident and high maintenance with long horizon: maybe stock picking but you'll probably never be able to beat the market unless you invest 10's of hours in research per week. However this will also cost a bit and given your initial amount not advisable to do. Be sure that you also have a VERY close look at the prospectus of an investment (especially if you go with a (retail) bank and they \\\"\\\"recommend\\\"\\\" you certain actively traded funds). They tend to charge you quite a bit (yearly management fees of 2-3% (which is A LOT if you are eying maybe 7%-8% yearly) aren't unheard of). ETF's such IWDA only have for example a yearly cost of 0.20%. Personally I have one portfolio (of many) only consisting of that ETF (so IWDA) and one global small cap. It's one of the best and most consistant ones to date. In the end, the amount you start with doesn't really matter so much as long as it's enough to buy at least a few shares of what you have in mind. If you can then increase your portfolio over time and keep the expenses in check, compounding interest should do the rest.\\\"\",\n \"As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.\",\n \"\\\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \\\"\\\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\\\"\\\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \\\"\\\"The RRSP Secret\\\"\\\" by Greg Habstritt. \\\"\\\"Unshakeable\\\"\\\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\\\"\",\n \"Investing is really about learning your own comfort level. You will make money and lose money. You will make mistakes but you will also learn a great deal. First off, invest in your own financial knowledge, this doesn't require capital at all but a commitment. No one will watch or care for your own money better than yourself. Read books, and follow some companies in a Google Finance virtual portfolio. Track how they're doing over time - you can do this as a virtual portfolio without actually spending or losing money. Have you ever invested before? What is your knowledge level? Investing long term is about trying to balance risk while reducing losses and trying not to get screwed along the way (by people). My personal advice: Go to an independent financial planner, go to one that charges you per hour only. Financial planners that don't charge you hourly get paid in commissions. They will be biased to sell you what puts the most money in their pockets. Do not go to the banks investment people, they are employed by the banks who have sales and quota requirements to have you invest and push their own investment vehicles like mutual funds. Take $15k to the financial planner and see what they suggest. Keep the other $5K in something slow and boring and $1k under your mattress in actual cash as an emergency. While you're young, compound interest is the magic that will make that $25k increase hand over fist in time. But you need to have it consistently make money. I'm young too and more risk tolerant because I have time. While I get older I can start to scale back my risk because I'm nearing retirement and preserve instead of try to make returns.\",\n \"\\\"I've never invested in penny stocks. My #1 investing rule, buy what you know and use. People get burned because they hear about the next big thing, go invest! to just end up losing everything because they have no clue in what they're investing in. From what I've found, until you have minimum of $5k to invest, put everything in a single investment. The reason for this, as others have mentioned, is that commissions eat up just about all your profits. My opinion, don't put it in a bond, returns are garbage right now - however they are \\\"\\\"safe\\\"\\\". Because this is $1000 we're talking about and not your life savings, put it in a equity like a stock to try and maximize your return. I aim for 15% returns on stocks and can generally achieve 10-15% consistently. The problem is when you get greedy and keep thinking it will go above once you're at 10-15%. Sell it. Sell it right away :) If it drops down -15% you have to be willing to accept that risk. The nice thing is that you can wait it out. I try to put a 3 month time frame on things I buy to make money. Once you start getting a more sizable chunk of money to play around with you should start to diversify. In Canada at least, once you have a trading account with a decent size investment the commissions get reduced to like $10 a trade. With your consistent 10% returns and additional savings you'll start to build up your portfolio. Keep at it and best of luck!\\\"\",\n \"Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.\",\n \"\\\"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \\\"\\\"how do I pick stocks?\\\"\\\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Shares are for investors. Most of the rich are investors. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. But if you want to get rich, the first step is to become an investor. (The second is to become a SUCCESSFUL investor. 50 pounds might be too little. Try to start with at least 500 at a time. You can ADD amounts of 50 pounds. There are definitely fees involved. You will \\\"\\\"pay for lessons.\\\"\\\" But it will be worth it, if you become even a moderately successful investor. As for rules, they'll teach you the rules. Everyone wants your business. People have gotten (modestly) rich, buying shares here and there. One man told me of investing $600 in a company called Limited, and ending up with $12,000 some years later. BRIC is not a \\\"\\\"share.\\\"\\\" It is an acronym for four countries \\\"\\\"of the future.\\\"\\\" High risk, high reward here.\\\"\",\n \"More often than not the market will rise year on year. Your best move is to put the $5000 in on Jan 2. Are you in the 15% bracket? If not, that is, if higher, I'd suggest the traditional, deductible, IRA.\",\n \"\\\"Sure. For starters, you can put it in a savings account. Don't laugh, they used to pay noticeable interest. You know, back in the olden days. You could buy an I-bond from Treasury Direct. They're a government savings bond that pays a specified amount of interest (currently 0%, I believe), plus the amount of the inflation rate (something like 3.5% currently, I believe). You don't get paid the money -- the I-bond grows in value till you sell it. You can open a discount brokerage account, and buy 1 or more shares of stock in a company you like. Discount brokerages generally have a minimum of $500 or so, but will waive that if you set the account up as an IRA. Scot Trade, for instance. (An IRA, in case you didn't know, is a type of account that's tax free but you can't touch it till you turn 59 1/2. It's meant to help you save for retirement.) Incidentally, watch out of \\\"\\\"small account\\\"\\\" fees that some brokerages might charge you. Generally they're annual or monthly charges they'd charge you to cover their costs on your account -- since they're certainly not going to make it in commissions. That IRA at Scot Trade is no-fee. Speaking of commissions, those will be a big chunk of that $100. It'll be like $7-$10 to buy that stock -- a pretty big bite. However, many of these discount brokerages also offer some mutual funds for no commission. Those mutual funds, in turn, have minimums too, but once again if your account's an IRA many will waive the minimum or set it low -- like $100.\\\"\",\n \"Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.\",\n \"\\\"Congratulations on deciding to save money and choosing to invest it. One thing to know about mutual funds including index funds is that they typically require a minimum investment of a few thousand dollars, $3000 being a typical amount, unless the investment is in an IRA in which case $1000 might be a minimum. In some cases, automated monthly investments of $50 or $100 might need to be set up if you are beginning with a small balance. There is nothing wrong with your approach. You now should go and look at the various requirements for specific index funds. The Fidelity and Vanguard families are good choices and both offer very low-cost index funds to choose from, but different funds can have different requirements regarding minimum investments etc. You also have a choice of which index you want to follow, the S&P 500 Index, MidCap Indexes, Small-Cap Indexes, Total Stock Market Indexes etc., but your choice might be limited until you have more money to invest because of minimum investment rules etc. Most important, after you have made your choice, I urge you to not look every day, or even every month, to see how your investment is doing. You will save yourself a lot of anxiety and will save yourself from making wrong decisions. Far too many investors ignore the maxim \\\"\\\"Buy Low, Sell High\\\"\\\" and pull money out of what should be long-term investments at the first flicker of a downturn and end up buying high and selling low. Finally, the time is approaching when most stock funds will be declaring dividends and capital gains distributions. If you invest now, you may end up with a paper profit on which you will have to pay taxes (in non-tax-advantaged accounts) on your 2012 tax return (this is called \\\"\\\"buying a dividend\\\"\\\"), and so you might want to spend some time investigating now, but actually make the investment in late December after your chosen fund has made its distributions (the date for this will be on the fund's web site) or in early 2013.\\\"\",\n \"Before jumping into stock trading, do try Mutual Funds and Index funds, That should give you some good overview of the equity markets. Further, do read up on building a balanced portfolio to suit your need and risk apetite. This would help you decide on Govt. bonds and other debt instruments.\",\n \"A safe investment would be to get a 5-year CD from Ally Bank. No minimum deposit and no monthly maintenance fees. 1.74% APY at the moment. I would choose a 5-year CD since the early withdrawal penalty is only 60 days interest, which will be negligible for a $100 investment and increasing the term significantly increases your interest rate. Regarding other suggestions: Even if you find a way purchase stock commission free, it will probably cost a $5-$10 commission to sell, wiping out probably a year or two of gains. Also, I-Bonds must be held for a year minimum, which is problematic. At the end of the day, it's probably not really worth your time to do any of these. $2 a year or $5 a year, it's still fairly insignificant and your time is surely worth more than that.\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"Money 70\\\"\\\" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are \\\"\\\"bad,\\\"\\\" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck.\\\"\",\n \"I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping.\",\n \"The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index. These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds. Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity. The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk. It's not even low-risk, really. It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market. An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks. Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing. If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you.\",\n \"\\\"Mutual funds can be relatively low risk and a good starting point. Really it depends on you. What are your goals? This is a pretty open ended question. These can all be low risk and provide some return. Note \\\"\\\"Less Knowledge\\\"\\\" is never a good qualifier for an investment. Your money is your business and you are entitled to know what your business is up to.\\\"\",\n \"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.\",\n \"Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)\",\n \"I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.\",\n \"\\\"Invest! Because you are young and have lots of time, I recommend opening an investment account and putting most (1000£?) or all in something like an S&P 500 index fund or ETF. Start building your savings now because compound growth over time will build significant wealth. You can still invest the other 500£/mo in something a bit less volatile if you think you'll need the money in < 5 years. If you expect your income to continue to grow and you expect to have extra cash every month for the foreseeable future, I'd just put it all in an index fund. You can weather any temporary market swings, and in the worst-case scenario you can always sell a few shares if you need the cash. The advantage of an index fund is that it has very low fees and it's an \\\"\\\"invest-and-forget\\\"\\\" approach. You don't have to watch the market every day because your money will simply match the market. And in the long term the market does much better than most managed funds or ETFs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fund\\\"\",\n \"Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.\",\n \"\\\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \\\"\\\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\\\"\\\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \\\"\\\"financial planner,\\\"\\\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\\\"\",\n \"In terms of building the initial investment using some kind of mutual fund, I'd suggest you see my answer to this similar question https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9943/cheapest-or-free-online-broker-for-beginner For buying individual stocks later, you could look at sharebuilder, or a low cost broker, however most of them charge between $5-$7 per trade, and if you are doing small dollar value trades then that can really really eat into things if you try to trade a lot.\",\n \"Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks). Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table.\",\n \"In my mind, when looking at a five year period you have a number of options. You didn't specify where you are based, which admittedly makes it harder, to give you good advice. If you are looking for an investment that can achieve large gains, equities are impossible to ignore. By investing in an index fund or other diverse asset forms (such as mutual funds), your risk is relatively minimal. However there has historically been five year periods where you would lose/flatline your money. If this was to be the case you would likely be better off waiting more than five years to buy a house, which would be frustrating. When markets rebound, they often do it hard. If you are in a major economy, taking something like the top 100 of your stock market is a safe bet, although admittedly you would have made terrible returns if you invested in the Polish markets. While they often achieve lower returns than equity investments, they are generally considered safer - especially government issued bonds. If you were willing to sacrifice returns for safety, you must always consider them. This is an interesting new addition, and I can't comment on the state of it in the United States, however in Europe we have a number of platforms which do this. In the UK, for example you can achieve ~7.3% returns YoY using sites like Funding Circle. If you invest in a diverse range of businesses, you have minimal risk from and individual company not paying. Elsewhere in Europe (although not appropriate for me as everything I do is denominated in Sterling), you can secure 12% in places like Georgia, Poland, and Estonia. This is a very good rate and the platforms seem reputable, and 'guarantee' their loans. However unlike funding circle, they are for consumer loans. The risk profile in my mind is similar to that of equities, but it is hard to say. Whatever you do, you need to do your homework, and ensure that you can handle the level of risk offered by the investments you make. I haven't included things like Savings accounts in here, as the rates aren't worth bothering with.\",\n \"You have a couple of options: Auto-investing in an open-end mutual fund. Some companies may waive a minimum if you sign up for an automatic investing, e.g. T. Rowe Price will waive its minimum if you agree to invest $100/month. There may be some lower ones out there as well. Some brokers like ShareBuilder have programs where someone could auto-invest getting fractional shares with each purchase. However, something to consider is what percentage is it costing you to buy each time as it may be quite a bit of friction if you are paying $4 a purchase and only buying $40, this is 10% of your investment being eaten up in costs that I'd highly advise taking the first option.\",\n \"Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.\",\n \"5 years is very short term, and since you are sure you'll need the money, investing it into the markets should probably not be done. You can toss it in Ally bank for 1% or consider a 5 yr raise your rate CD A decent write-up on time horizons: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110813/using-time-horizons-investing.asp If you want to go the stock/bond route you can assess the benefits of using something like a vanguard target date fund, or a roboadvisor such as wealthfront or betterment. You need to assess whether you think you may move up your time horizon, say you want to buy a house in 4 years, or, if it is 5 years, are you ok with it being 6.5-7 if there is a market downturn.\",\n \"Put £50 away as often as possible, and once it's built up to £500, invest in a stockmarket ETF. Repeat until you retire.\",\n \"Here's a good strategy: Open up a Roth IRA at a discount-broker, like TD Ameritrade, invest in no-fee ETF's, tracking an Index, with very low expense ratios (look for around .15%) This way, you won't pay brokers fees whenever you buy shares, and shares are cheap enough to buy casually. This is a good way to start. When you learn more about the market, you can check out individual stocks, exploring different market sectors, etc. But you won't regret starting with a good index fund. Also, it's easy to know how well you did. Just listen on the radio or online for how the Dow or S&P did that day/month/year. Your account will mirror these changes!\",\n \"Investing in mutual funds, ETF, etc. won't build a large pool of money. Be an active investor if your nature aligns. For e.g. Invest in buying out a commercial space (on bank finance) like a office space and then rent it out. That would give you better return than a savings account. In few years time, you may be able to pay back your financing and then the total return is your net return. Look for options like this for a multiple growth in your worth.\",\n \"According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.\",\n \"\\\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \\\"\\\"core\\\"\\\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \\\"\\\"satellite\\\"\\\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\\\"\",\n \"It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount. In either case, your calculation is far away from reality. Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice.\",\n \"you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.\",\n \"Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.\",\n \"\\\"The $1K in funds are by default your emergency fund. If absolutely necessary, emergency funds may need to come from debt, a credit capacity, focus on building credit to leverage lower rates for living expenses eventually needed. Profitable organizations & proprietors, borrow at a lower cost of capital than their return. Join your local credit union, you're welcome to join mine online, the current rates for the first $500 in both your checking and savings is 4.07%, it's currently the fourth largest in the U.S. by assets. You may join as a \\\"\\\"family member\\\"\\\" to me (Karl Erdmann), not sure what their definition of \\\"\\\"family\\\"\\\" is, I'd be happy to trace our ancestry if need be or consider other options. Their current incentive program, like many institutions have often, will give you $100 for going through the hassle to join and establish a checking and savings. Some institutions, such as this credit union, have a lower threshold to risk, applicants may be turned down for an account if there is any negative history or a low credit score, shooting for a score of 600 before applying seems safest. The web services, as you mentioned, have significantly improved the layman's ability to cost effectively invest funds and provide liquidity. Robinhood currently seems to be providing the most affordable access to the market. It goes without saying, stay objective with your trust of any platform, as you may have noticed, there is a detailed explanation of how Robinhood makes their money on this stack exchange community, they are largely backed by venture funding, hopefully the organization is able to maintain a low enough overhead to keep the organization sustainable in the long run. The services that power this service such as Plaid, seem promising and underrated, but i digress. The platform gives access for users to learn how investing works, it seems safest to plan a diversified portfolio utilizing a mix of securities,such as low Beta stocks or \\\"\\\"blue chip\\\"\\\" companies with clear dividend policies. One intriguing feature, if you invest in equities is casting votes on decisions in shareholder meetings. Another popular investment asset class that is less liquid and perhaps something to work toward is real estate. Google the economist \\\"\\\"Matthew Rognlie\\\"\\\" for his work on income equality on this type of investment. There are many incentives for first time homeowners, saving up for a down payment is the first step. Consider adding to your portfolio a Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs) to gain a market position. Another noteworthy approach to this idea is an investment commercial property cooperative organization, currently the first and only one is called NorthEast Investment Cooperative, one stock of class A is $1K. If you are interested and plan to focus on equities, consider dropping into your college's Accounting Capstone course to learn more about the the details of fundamental and technical analysis of an organization. The complexities of investing involve cyclical risk, macro and micro economic factors, understanding financial statements and their notes, cash flow forecasting - discounting, market timing, and a host of other details Wikipedia is much more helpful at detailing. It's safe to assume initial investment decisions by unsophisticated investors are mostly whimsical, and likely will only add up to learning opportunities, however risk is inherit in all things, including sitting on cash that pays a price of inflation. A promising mindset in long term investments are in organizations that focus on conscious business practices. Another way to think of investing is that you are already somewhat of a \\\"\\\"sophisticated investor\\\"\\\" and could beat the market by what you know given your background, catching wind of certain information first, or acting on a new trends or technology quickly. Move carefully with any perhaps biased \\\"\\\"bullish\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"bearish\\\"\\\" mindset. Thinking independently is helpful, constantly becoming familiar with different ideas from professions in a diverse set of backgrounds, and simulating decisions in portfolio's. Here is an extremely limited set of authors and outlets that may have ideas worth digging more into, MIT Tech Reviews (Informative), Bloomberg TV (it's free, informative), John Mackey (businessman), Paul Mason (provocative journalist). Google finance is a simple and free go-to application, use the \\\"\\\"cost basis\\\"\\\" feature for \\\"\\\"paper\\\"\\\" or real trades, it's easy to import transactions from a .csv. This seems sufficient to start off with. Enjoy the journey, aim for real value with your resources.\\\"\",\n \"The plan doesn't make sense. Don't invest your money. Just keep it in your bank account. $5000 is not a lot, especially since you don't have a steady income stream. You only have $1000 to your name, you can't afford to gamble $4000. You will need it for things like food, books, rent, student loans, traveling, etc. If you don't get a job right after you graduate, you will be very happy to have some money in the bank. Or what if you get a dream job, but you need a car? Or you get a job at a suit & tie business and need to get a new wardrobe? Or your computer dies and you need a new one? You find a great apartment but need $2500 first, last & security? That money can help you out much more NOW when you're starting out, then it will when you're ready to retire in your 60's.\",\n \"On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)\",\n \"This is slightly opinion based. Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? At your age and the time period, I would say NO. This is because although the index fund do return 6-7% on average, there are several times it blips and goes negative as well. Stock Markets in short periods like 6 months can be unpredictable. At times a downturn will remain stagnant for periods of 2-3 years before suddenly zoom ahead. If you are not to particular about the time when you need the changes done; i.e. the changes can in worst case wait for few years; then yes investing in Index fund would make sense. Else you are well off keeping this in savings. Try CD's if they can offer better rates for such durations.\",\n \"A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.\",\n \"Taking into account that you are in Cyprus, a Euro country, you should not invest in USD as the USA and China are starting a currency war that will benefit the Euro. Meaning, if you buy USD today, they will be worth less in a couple of months. As for the way of investing your money. Look at it like a boat race, starting on the 1st of January and ending on the 31st of December each year. There are a lot of boats in the water. Some are small, some are big, some are whole fleets. Your objective is to choose the fastest boat at any time. If you invest all of your money in one small boat, that might sink before the end of the year, you are putting yourself at risk. Say: Startup Capital. If you invest all of your money in a medium sized boat, you still run the risk of it sinking. Say: Stock market stock. If you invest all of your money in a supertanker, the risk of it sinking is smaller, and the probability of it ending first in the race is also smaller. Say: a stock of a multinational. A fleet is limited by it's slowest boat, but it will surely reach the shore. Say: a fund. Now investing money is time consuming, and you may not have the money to create your own portfolio (your own fleet). So a fund should be your choice. However, there are a lot of funds out there, and not all funds perform the same. Most funds are compared with their index. A 3 star Morningstar rated fund is performing on par with it's index for a time period. A 4 or 5 star rated fund is doing better than it's index. Most funds fluctuate between ratings. A 4 star rated fund can be mismanaged and in a number of months become a 2 star rated fund. Or the other way around. But it's not just luck. Depending on the money you have available, your best bet is to buy a number of star rated, managed funds. There are a lot of factors to keep into account. Currency is one. Geography, Sector... Don't buy for less than 1.000€ in one fund, and don't buy more than 10 funds. Stay away from Gold, unless you want to speculate (short term). Stay away from the USD (for now). And if you can prevent it, don't put all your eggs in one basket.\",\n \"Sounds like you're doing fine, though somewhat fuzzy: how are you allocating the $500/month? Are you doing dollar cost averaging into funds, accumulating enough $$ to buy round lots of individual stocks, market timing, etc. The summary suggestion: max out the ROTH first, then with $$$ left over, do the after tax, low-cost fund, monthly dollar cost averaging approach.\",\n \"\\\"Contribute as much as you can. When do you want to retire and how much income do you think you'll need? A $1M portfolio yielding 5% will yield $50,000/year. Do some research about how to build a portfolio... this site is a good start, but check out books on retirement planning and magazines like Money and Kiplinger. If you don't speak \\\"\\\"money\\\"\\\" or are intimidated by investing, look for a fee-based financial advisor whom you are comfortable with.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \\\"\\\"money market accounts\\\"\\\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Invest in a high quality dividend paying group of stocks. Look up \\\"\\\"stock aristocrats\\\"\\\" to find longterm quality stocks that have regularly increased their dividends for over 20'years. 10'years is a safe period of time to invest in stocks. If you had bought stocks at their hight in 2007 and kept them through the 40% decline thru 2008 and 2009 and held on to them for 10 years until 2017, you would have earned a 40 % increase from when you purchased them. That is pretty much a worst case scenerio. If you had invested in dividend paying stocks and had earned an additional 2.5% per year, you would have exceeded your 5% goal. The lifetime yearly return of the stock market is 10%. Time is the only downside, but with ten years, you are almost certainly immune.\\\"\",\n \"For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.\",\n \"Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you.\",\n \"ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.\",\n \"You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.\",\n \"\\\"You can start investing with any amount. You can use the ShareBuilder account to purchase \\\"\\\"partial\\\"\\\" stocks through their automatic investment plan. Usually brokers don't sell parts of stock, and ShareBuilder is the only one allowing it IMHO using its own tricks. What they do basically is buy a stock and then divide it internally among several investors who bought it, while each of the investors doesn't really own it directly. That's perfect for investing small amounts and making first steps in investing.\\\"\",\n \"3-5 years is long enough of a timeframe that I'd certainly invest it, assuming you have enough (which $10k is). Even conservatively you can guess at 4-5% annual growth; if you invest reasonably conservatively (60/40 mix of stocks/bonds, with both in large ETFs or similar) you should have a good chance to gain along those lines and still be reasonably safe in case the market tanks. Of course, the market could tank at any time and wipe out 20-30% of that or even more, even if you invest conservatively - so you need to think about that risk, and decide if it's worth it or not. But, particularly if your 3-5 year time frame is reasonably flexible (i.e., if in 2019 the market tanks, you can wait the 2-3 years it may take to come back up) you should be investing. And - as usual, the normal warnings apply. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance, we are not your investment advisors, and you may lose 100% of your investment...\",\n \"\\\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \\\"\\\"for dummies\\\"\\\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\\\"\",\n \"If you are not working, I believe you would be getting some money from your family to meet your expenses. In such a case, I would start with maintaining a Cash A/c which would list your monthly expenses and the money you received, which is what I used to do at your age. You can maintain it in a notebook with pen/pencil or using online tools such as Google Sheets. Enter each expense entries each day as debits and entries towards any money you receive as credits. At the end of the month, tally them and see how much you have left. Also, this gives you a clear picture of where your expenses are what is that you can avoid. On longer term, this can help you form an annual budget for your personal finances.\",\n \"\\\"For equities, buy direct from the transfer agent. You have to buy one full share at a minimum but after that dividend reinvestment is free. There are others like share builder and foliofn that let you buy fractional shares. As the other poster said their roster is limited so you cannot buy every ETF out there. With your example of not wanting to spend $200 I agree with the others that you should invest in a mutual fund. Vanguard will have every index fund you need and can invest as little as $50, as long as you sign up for a systematic investment draft from your bank. Plus vanguard typically has the lowest fees in the industry. The most important thing is to start investing as soon as possible and as regular as possible. \\\"\\\"Pay yourself first\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"It sounds like you are interested in investing in the stock market but you don't want to take too much risk. Investing in an Index EFT will provide some diversification and can be less risky than investing in individual stocks, however with potentially lower returns. If you want to invest your money, the first thing you should do is learn about managing your risk. You are still young and you should spend your time now to increase your education and knowledge. There are plenty of good books to start with, and you should prepare an investment plan which incorporates a risk management strategy. $1000 is a little low to start investing in the stock market, so whilst you are building your education and preparing your plan, you can continue building up more funds for when you are ready to start investing. Place your funds in an high interest savings account for now, and whilst you are learning you can practice your strategies using virtual accounts. In fact the ASX has a share market game which is held 2 or 3 times per year. The ASX website also has some good learning materials for novices and they hold regular seminars. It is another good source for improving your education in the subject. Remember, first get educated, then plan and practice, and then invest.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months","I don't think it makes sense to invest in an FD since. 1.) A 30 day FD is not very likely to give you 8-9% 2.) Inflation is so high in India that your losing money even though you think that you are doing well enough. I would suggest you to expect a larger return and try hedging your portfolio correctly. For example you can buy a stock which is likely to go higher, and to limit your risks, you can buy a put option on the same stock, so even if the price falls drastically, you can exercise your option and not lose anything except for the premium you paid. Good luck:)"],"string":"[\n \"Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months\",\n \"I don't think it makes sense to invest in an FD since. 1.) A 30 day FD is not very likely to give you 8-9% 2.) Inflation is so high in India that your losing money even though you think that you are doing well enough. I would suggest you to expect a larger return and try hedging your portfolio correctly. For example you can buy a stock which is likely to go higher, and to limit your risks, you can buy a put option on the same stock, so even if the price falls drastically, you can exercise your option and not lose anything except for the premium you paid. Good luck:)\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":289,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"9617"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What differentiates index funds and ETFs?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["408524","364735","314008"],"string":"[\n \"408524\",\n \"364735\",\n \"314008\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["408524","370244","106863","159471","479420","473658","172374","270992","288679","358997","138383","96926","367960","364735","518735","454224","580802","195191","87722","107462","153660","298350","49168","153112","472663","312015","480315","539263","334919","268289","362579","148721","500486","357979","377429","590010","281841","332278","437875","454610","387277","161019","99568","143238","314008","230997","322826","392465","200212","119819","200360","87238","368124","220486","172703","94076","276983","560783","489103","204202","435746","101852","17208","403864","492212","130188","374204","27930","524612","253971","308071","324697","237133","473150","206744","147282","65587","554015","224765","410123","407571","474745","70898","451598","201714","271997","501153","254230","161041","138658","341544","585405","438582","173967","89205","97836","122679","286227","498597","144033"],"string":"[\n \"408524\",\n \"370244\",\n \"106863\",\n \"159471\",\n \"479420\",\n \"473658\",\n \"172374\",\n \"270992\",\n \"288679\",\n \"358997\",\n \"138383\",\n \"96926\",\n \"367960\",\n \"364735\",\n \"518735\",\n \"454224\",\n \"580802\",\n \"195191\",\n \"87722\",\n \"107462\",\n \"153660\",\n \"298350\",\n \"49168\",\n \"153112\",\n \"472663\",\n \"312015\",\n \"480315\",\n \"539263\",\n \"334919\",\n \"268289\",\n \"362579\",\n \"148721\",\n \"500486\",\n \"357979\",\n \"377429\",\n \"590010\",\n \"281841\",\n \"332278\",\n \"437875\",\n \"454610\",\n \"387277\",\n \"161019\",\n \"99568\",\n \"143238\",\n \"314008\",\n \"230997\",\n \"322826\",\n \"392465\",\n \"200212\",\n \"119819\",\n \"200360\",\n \"87238\",\n \"368124\",\n \"220486\",\n \"172703\",\n \"94076\",\n \"276983\",\n \"560783\",\n \"489103\",\n \"204202\",\n \"435746\",\n \"101852\",\n \"17208\",\n \"403864\",\n \"492212\",\n \"130188\",\n \"374204\",\n \"27930\",\n \"524612\",\n \"253971\",\n \"308071\",\n \"324697\",\n \"237133\",\n \"473150\",\n \"206744\",\n \"147282\",\n \"65587\",\n \"554015\",\n \"224765\",\n \"410123\",\n \"407571\",\n \"474745\",\n \"70898\",\n \"451598\",\n \"201714\",\n \"271997\",\n \"501153\",\n \"254230\",\n \"161041\",\n \"138658\",\n \"341544\",\n \"585405\",\n \"438582\",\n \"173967\",\n \"89205\",\n \"97836\",\n \"122679\",\n \"286227\",\n \"498597\",\n \"144033\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.","Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.","The main difference between a mutual fund and an ETF are how they are bought and sold (from the investors perspective). An ETF is transacted on the open market. This means you normally can't buy partial shares with your initial investment. Having to transact on the open market also means you pay a market price. The market price is always a little bit different from the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund. During market hours, the ETF will trade at a premium/discount to the NAV calculated on the previous day. Morningstar's fund analysis will show a graph of the premium/discount to NAV for an ETF. With a mutual fund on the other hand, your investment goes to a fund company, which then grants you shares while under the hood buying the underlying investments. You pay the NAV price and are allowed to buy partial shares. Usually an ETF has a lower expense ratio, but if that's equal and any initial fees/commissions are equal, I would prefer the mutual fund in order to buy partial shares (so your initial investment will be fully invested) and so you don't have to worry about paying premium to NAV","Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.","Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.","ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading:","If you just want to track an index, then ETFs are, generally speaking, the better way.","The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.","ETFs are both liquid (benefits active traders) and a simple way for people to invest in funds even if they don't have the minimum balance needed to invest in a mutual fund (EDIT: in which purchases are resolved at the end of the trading day). One big difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you must buy ETFs in whole units, whereas you can add $100 to a mutual fund and the fund will determine -- usually to 4 decimal places -- how many shares you've purchased.","What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.","Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.","The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.","\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"","I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..","There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.","A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker.","You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.","Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.","In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue. The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds.","So, why or why should I not invest in the cheaper index fund? They are both same, one is not cheaper than other. You get something that is worth $1000. To give a simple illustration; There is an item for $100, Vanguard creates 10 Units out of this so price per unit is $10. Schwab creates 25 units out of this, so the per unit price is $4. Now if you are looking at investing $20; with Vanguard you would get 2 units, with Schwab you would get 5 units. This does not mean one is cheaper than other. Both are at the same value of $20. The Factors you need to consider are; Related question What differentiates index funds and ETFs?","\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \"\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\"\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \"\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\"\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\"","\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"","The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)","The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.","\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"","I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative.","\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"","There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.","Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious.","\"One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs. Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares. This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month. If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned. This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult. (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating \"\"leftover\"\" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small. It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a \"\"hands-off\"\" auto-investing plan. With ETFs, you generally must remember to \"\"manually\"\" buy the shares yourself every so often. For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio. The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up.\"","Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.","\"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices. From an investors point of view, this is not important. What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage. In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%. Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the \"\"compare\"\" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500. You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds. Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing.\"","First, it's not always the case that ETFs have lower expenses than the equivalent mutual funds. For example, in the Vanguard family of funds the expense ratio for the ETF version is the same as it is for the Admiral share class in the mutual fund version. With that in mind, the main advantages of a mutual fund over an equivalent ETF are: From a long-term investor's point of view, the main disadvantage of mutual funds relative to ETFs is the minimum account sizes. Especially if the fund has multiple share classes (i.e., where better classes get lower expense ratios), you might have to have quite a lot of money invested in the fund in order to get the same expense ratio as the ETF. There are some other differences that matter to more active investors (e.g., intraday trading, options, etc.), but for a passive investor the ones above are the major ones. Apart from those mutual funds and ETFs are pretty similar. Personally, I prefer mutual funds because I'm at a point where the fund minimums aren't really an issue, and I don't want to deal with the more fiddly aspects of ETFs. For investors just starting out the lower minimum investment for an ETF is a big win, as long as you can get commission-free trades (which is what I've assumed above.)","Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund","In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.","What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.","\"The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the \"\"basket\"\" of investments that a share in the fund represents. Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the \"\"DJI 30\"\" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index.\"","One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.","An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)","\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \"\"derivative\"\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\"","ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.","Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.","\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"","\"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%. The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement \"\"admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF\"\".\"","\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"","\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \"\"fee\"\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \"\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\"\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\"","As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index:","\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"","http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker.","\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"","\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"","what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition] This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?","\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \"\"market rate of return\"\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\"","\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \"\"index includes 500 leading companies\"\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\"","No, some of Vanguard's funds are index funds like their Total Stock Market Index and 500 Index. In contrast, there are funds like Vanguard PRIMECAP and Vanguard Wellington that are actively managed. There are index funds in both open-end and exchange-traded formats. VTI is the ticker for Vanguard's Total Stock Market ETF while VTSMX is an open-end mutual fund format. VOO would be the S & P 500 ETF ticker while VFINX is one of the open-end mutual fund tickers, where VIIIX has a really low expense ratio but a pretty stiff minimum to my mind. As a general note, open-end mutual funds will generally have a 5 letter ticker ending in X while an ETF will generally be shorter at 3 or 4 letters in length.","index ETF tracks indented index (if fund manager spend all money on Premium Pokemon Trading Cards someone must cover resulting losses) Most Index ETF are passively managed. ie a computer algorithm would do automatic trades. The role of fund manager is limited. There are controls adopted by the institution that generally do allow such wide deviations, it would quickly be flagged and reported. Most financial institutions have keyman fraud insurance. fees are not higher that specified in prospectus Most countries have regulation where fees need to be reported and cannot exceed the guideline specified. at least theoretically possible to end with ETF shares that for weeks cannot be sold Yes some ETF's can be illiquid at difficult to sell. Hence its important to invest in ETF that are very liquid.","You haven't looked very far if you didn't find index tracking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on the Toronto Stock Exchange. There are at least a half dozen major exchange-traded fund families that I'm aware of, including Canadian-listed offerings from some of the larger ETF providers from the U.S. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) maintains a list of ETF providers that have products listed on the TSX.","Mutual funds don't do what ETFs do because, according to how the fund was built in their contract, they can't. That is not how they are built and the people that invested in them expect them to act in a certain way. That is ok, though. Many people still invest in mutual funds partially because of their history but there are some advantages to mutual funds over etfs. Mainly mutual funds must mark-to-market at the end of day while etf values can drift from the asset value especially in crisis. As long enough people invest in mutual funds the funds make enough money on their fees they don't need to change. Maybe mutual funds will go extinct as etfs do have significant advantages, but it likely won't happen soon.","\"Ask your trading site for their definition of \"\"ETF\"\". The term itself is overloaded/ambiguous. Consider: If \"\"ETF\"\" is interpreted liberally, then any fund that trades on a [stock] exchange is an exchange-traded fund. i.e. the most literal meaning implied by the acronym itself. Whereas, if \"\"ETF\"\" is interpreted more narrowly and in the sense that most market participants might use it, then \"\"ETF\"\" refers to those exchange-traded funds that specifically have a mechanism in place to ensure the fund's current price remains close to its net asset value. This is not the case with closed-end funds (CEFs), which often trade at either a premium or a discount to their underlying net asset value.\"","They're exchange traded debt, basically, not funds. E.g. from the NYSE: An exchange-traded note (ETN) is a senior unsecured debt obligation designed to track the total return of an underlying market index or other benchmark, minus investor fees. Whereas an ETF, in some way or another, is an equity product - which doesn't mean that they can only expose you to equity, but that they themselves are a company that you buy shares in. FCOR for example is a bond ETF, basically a company whose sole purpose is to own a basket of bonds. Contrast that to DTYS, a bear Treasury ETN, which is described as The ETNs are unsecured debt obligations of the issuer, Barclays Bank PLC, and are not, either directly or indirectly, an obligation of or guaranteed by any third party. Also from Barclays site: Because the iPath ETNs are debt securities, they do not have any voting rights. FCOR on the other hand is some sort of company owned/managed by a Fidelity trust, though my EDGAR skills are rusty. AGREEMENT made this 18th day of September, 2014, by and between Fidelity Merrimack Street Trust, a Massachusetts business trust which may issue one or more series of shares of beneficial interest (hereinafter called the Trust), on behalf of Fidelity Corporate Bond ETF (hereinafter called the Fund), and Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc., a New Hampshire corporation (hereinafter called the Adviser) as set forth in its entirety below.","The top ten holdings for these funds don't overlap by even one stock. It seems to me they are targeting an index for comparison, but making no attempt to replicate a list of holdings as would, say, a true S&P index.","No. Investors purchase ETFs' as they would any other stock, own it under the same circumstances as an equity investment, collecting distributions instead of dividends or interest. The ETF takes care of the internal operations (bond maturities and turnover, accrued interest, payment dates, etc.).","See my comment for some discussion of why one might choose an identical fund over an ETF. As to why someone would choose the higher cost fund in this instance ... The Admiral Shares version of the fund (VFIAX) has the same expense ratio as the ETF but has a minimum investment of $10K. Some investors may want to eventually own the Admiral Shares fund but do not yet have $10K. If they begin with the Investor Shares now and then convert to Admiral later, that conversion will be a non-taxable event. If, however, they start with ETF shares now and then sell them later to buy the fund, that sale will be a taxable event. Vanguard ETFs are only commission-free to Vanguard clients using Vanguard Brokerage Services. Some investors using other brokers may face all sorts of penalties for purchasing third-party ETFs. Some retirement plan participants (either at Vanguard or another broker) may not even be allowed to purchase ETFs.","Like an S&P 500 ETF? So you're getting in some cash inflow each day, cash outflows each day. And you have to buy and sell 500 different stocks, at the same time, in order for your total fund assets to match the S&P 500 index proportions, as much as possible. At any given time, the prices you get from the purchase/sale of stock is probably going to be somewhat different than the theoretical amounts you are supposed to get to match, so it's quite a tangle. This is my understanding of things. Some funds are simpler - a Dow 30 fund only has 30 stocks to balance out. Maybe that's easier, or maybe it's harder because one wonky trade makes a bigger difference? I'm not sure this is how it really operates. The closest I've gotten is a team that has submitted products for indexing, and attempted to develop funds from those indexes. Turns out finding the $25-50 million of initial investments isn't as easy as anyone would think.","The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work.","ETFs trade on specific exchanges. If your broker deals with those exchanges, you should have access to the ETF. If your broker does not deal with that exchange, then you will not have access through that broker. This is different than, say, mutual funds, which don't trade on the exchanges are proprietary to certain brokerages or financial institutions.","Close-end funds just means there's a fixed number of shares available, so if you want to buy some you must purchase from other existing owners, typically through an exchange. Open-end funds mean the company providing the shares is still selling them, so you can buy them directly from the company. Some can also be traded on exchanges as well.","Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.","ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.","The way it is handled with ETF's is that someone has to gather a block of units and redeem them with the fund. So, with the mutual fund you redeem your unit directly with the fund, always, you never sell to another player. With the ETF - its the opposite, you sell to another player. Once a player has a large chunk of units - he can go to the fund and redeem them. These are very specific players (investment banks), not individual investors.","Why not figure out the % composition of the index and invest in the participating securities directly? This isn't really practical. Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 Those two indices represent 2500 stocks. A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks. Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments. Index funds provide inexpensive diversity.","One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.","\"If your intention is to purchase ETFs on a regular basis (like $x per month), then ETFs may not make sense. You may have to pay a fixed transaction cost like you were buying a stock for each purchase. In a similar no load mutual fund, there are more likely to be no transaction costs (depending on how it is bought). The above paragraph is not very definitive, and is really dependent upon how you would purchase either ETFs or Mutual funds. For example if you have a Fidelity brokerage account, they may let you buy certain ETFs commission free. Okay then either ETFs make great sense. It would not make sense to buy ones that they charge $35 per transaction if you have regular transactions that are smallish. The last two questions seem to be asking if you should buy MF or buy stocks directly. For most people the later is a losing proposition. They do not have the time or ability to buy stocks directly, effectively. Even if they did they may not have the capital to make enough of a difference when one considers all the cost involved. However, if that kind of thing interests you, perhaps you should dabble. Start out small and look at the higher costs of doing so as part of the \"\"cost of doing business\"\".\"","Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything. The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares. Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple. Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion. Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion. It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units.","In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index.","Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror. The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings. Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index.","Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.","What account you put it in depends on why you have those different accounts. First, if you have them due to regulatory requirements, then you of course must follow said regulations. I doubt that's the case here. Otherwise, you might be splitting based on how they trade (ETFs trade as stocks) or you could be splitting based on how you build a portfolio out of them. When you build a non-speculative stock portfolio, you typically want to limit your holdings in a single stock to a fairly small portion of your portfolio (say, 3%) to limit your exposure to bad stuff happening to a single company. That doesn't apply nearly a much to mutual funds, especially index funds. ETFs are much more like mutual funds here. You can also, of course, create an ETF account and put them there. You also say you have a market index account, what is that used for?","\"An ETF does not track any one individual stock. It \"\"is a marketable security that tracks an index, a commodity, bonds, or a basket of assets like an index fund.\"\" Check out this link to learn more about ETFs. The easiest way see what ETF tracks a stock is to determine what sector and industry that company is in and find some ETF that trade it. The ETF will likely trade that stock, assuming that its market cap and exchange it trades on fits within the parameters of the ETF.\"","\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \"\"natural\"\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\"","\"Okay. An ETF is an \"\"Exchange Traded Fund\"\". It trades like a stock, on the stock market. Basically by buying one ETF, you can have ownership in the underlying companies that make up the ETF. So, if you buy QCLN, a green energy ETF, you own Tesla, First Solar Inc, SunPower Corporation, Vivint Solar, Advanced energy industries and a bunch of other companies that are involved in clean energy. It allows you to gain exposure to a sector without having to buy individual companies. There are ETFs for lots of different things. Technology ETFs, Healthcare ETFs, Consumer Staples ETFs, Utilities ETFs, etc. REITS are essentially the same thing, except they own real estate.\"","Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx","\"Regarding SPY: \"\"One SPDR unit is valued at approximately 1/10 of the value of the S&P 500. Dividends are distributed quarterly, and are based on the accumulated stock dividends held in trust, less any expenses of the trust.\"\" (source) These are depository receipts, not the actual stocks. Regarding IVV: \"\"The component stocks are weighted according to the total float-adjusted market value of their outstanding shares. The Fund invests in sectors, such as energy, information technology, industrials, financials, consumer staples, healthcare, telecom services, consumer discretionary and materials.\"\" (more here) VOO is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The tracking error seems pretty small to me. I went to Google Finance and plotted the percent change for all four on one chart. They lie pretty much on top of one another. The actual dollar value of each one doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that they move up and down almost in lock-step. There may be a larger difference going farther out, but for three separate financial products, the agreement is still remarkably good.\"","The simple answer is that whatever strategy is implemented with e-series, could be implemented at a lower cost with ETFs.","Ohhhh. Well thank you for that info. I know I could've Googled it all and while I'm a sticker for doing your own research, it's nice to hear it from someone in the know. Gotta pass on knowledge to those who don't know. Is it cheap to buy an ETF?","Mutual funds are funds composed of financial assets and the funds of investors, and are managed by a firm, usually a large wealth management firm. They are generally accessible to anyone. Hedge funds are private investment funds with limited access, and are subject to fewer regulations. They are usually legally set up as their own firm.","\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"","The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)","ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.","- ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally <1%. - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio. - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF.","Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.","Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.","I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.","The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself. The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index. This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment. SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund. There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere.","The market doesn't really need to adjust for fees on ETF funds that are often less than 1/10th of a percent. The loss of the return is more than made up for by the diversification. How does the market adjust for trading fees? It doesn't have to, it's just a cost of doing business. If one broker or platform offers better fee structures, people will naturally migrate toward the lower fees.","Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.","For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.","diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).","An index fund is just copying the definition of an index. The group that defines the index determines how to weight the different parts of the index. The index fund just makes sure they invest the same way the index creator wants. Think of a non-investment scenario. A teacher can grade tests, quizzes, homework, in-class assignments, research papers. They decide how much weight to give each category and how much weight to give each part of each category. when a student wants to see how they are doing they take the information in the syllabus, and generate a few formulas in a spreadsheet to calculate their current grade. They can also calculate what they need to get on the final exam to get the grade they want.","The Creation/Redemption mechanism is how shares of an ETF are created or redeemed as needed and thus is where there can be differences in what the value of the holdings can be versus the trading price. If the ETF is thinly traded, then the difference could be big as more volume would be where the mechanism could kick in as generally there are blocks required so the mechanism usually created or redeemed in lots of 50,000 shares I believe. From the link where AP=Authorized Participant: With ETFs, APs do most of the buying and selling. When APs sense demand for additional shares of an ETF—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a premium to its NAV—they go into the market and create new shares. When the APs sense demand from investors looking to redeem—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a discount—they process redemptions. So, suppose the NAV of the ETF is $20/share and the trading price is $30/share. The AP can buy the underlying securities for $20/share in a bulk order that equates to 50,000 shares of the ETF and exchange the underlying shares for new shares in the ETF. Then the AP can turn around and sell those new ETF shares for $30/share and pocket the gain. If you switch the prices around, the AP would then take the ETF shares and exchange them for the underlying securities in the same way and make a profit on the difference. SEC also notes this same process."],"string":"[\n \"Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.\",\n \"Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.\",\n \"The main difference between a mutual fund and an ETF are how they are bought and sold (from the investors perspective). An ETF is transacted on the open market. This means you normally can't buy partial shares with your initial investment. Having to transact on the open market also means you pay a market price. The market price is always a little bit different from the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund. During market hours, the ETF will trade at a premium/discount to the NAV calculated on the previous day. Morningstar's fund analysis will show a graph of the premium/discount to NAV for an ETF. With a mutual fund on the other hand, your investment goes to a fund company, which then grants you shares while under the hood buying the underlying investments. You pay the NAV price and are allowed to buy partial shares. Usually an ETF has a lower expense ratio, but if that's equal and any initial fees/commissions are equal, I would prefer the mutual fund in order to buy partial shares (so your initial investment will be fully invested) and so you don't have to worry about paying premium to NAV\",\n \"Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.\",\n \"Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.\",\n \"ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading:\",\n \"If you just want to track an index, then ETFs are, generally speaking, the better way.\",\n \"The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.\",\n \"ETFs are both liquid (benefits active traders) and a simple way for people to invest in funds even if they don't have the minimum balance needed to invest in a mutual fund (EDIT: in which purchases are resolved at the end of the trading day). One big difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you must buy ETFs in whole units, whereas you can add $100 to a mutual fund and the fund will determine -- usually to 4 decimal places -- how many shares you've purchased.\",\n \"What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.\",\n \"Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.\",\n \"The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.\",\n \"\\\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \\\"\\\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\\\"\\\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\\\"\",\n \"I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..\",\n \"There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.\",\n \"A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker.\",\n \"You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.\",\n \"Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.\",\n \"In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue. The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds.\",\n \"So, why or why should I not invest in the cheaper index fund? They are both same, one is not cheaper than other. You get something that is worth $1000. To give a simple illustration; There is an item for $100, Vanguard creates 10 Units out of this so price per unit is $10. Schwab creates 25 units out of this, so the per unit price is $4. Now if you are looking at investing $20; with Vanguard you would get 2 units, with Schwab you would get 5 units. This does not mean one is cheaper than other. Both are at the same value of $20. The Factors you need to consider are; Related question What differentiates index funds and ETFs?\",\n \"\\\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \\\"\\\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\\\"\\\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \\\"\\\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\\\"\\\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \\\"\\\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\\\"\\\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\\\"\",\n \"The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)\",\n \"The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.\",\n \"\\\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \\\"\\\"ETF\\\"\\\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \\\"\\\"investment minimums\\\"\\\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \\\"\\\"Fees and Investment Minimums\\\"\\\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\\\"\",\n \"I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative.\",\n \"\\\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\") and the lowest available sell offer (\\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\\\"\",\n \"There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.\",\n \"Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious.\",\n \"\\\"One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs. Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares. This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month. If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned. This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult. (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating \\\"\\\"leftover\\\"\\\" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small. It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a \\\"\\\"hands-off\\\"\\\" auto-investing plan. With ETFs, you generally must remember to \\\"\\\"manually\\\"\\\" buy the shares yourself every so often. For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio. The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up.\\\"\",\n \"Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.\",\n \"\\\"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices. From an investors point of view, this is not important. What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage. In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%. Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the \\\"\\\"compare\\\"\\\" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500. You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds. Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing.\\\"\",\n \"First, it's not always the case that ETFs have lower expenses than the equivalent mutual funds. For example, in the Vanguard family of funds the expense ratio for the ETF version is the same as it is for the Admiral share class in the mutual fund version. With that in mind, the main advantages of a mutual fund over an equivalent ETF are: From a long-term investor's point of view, the main disadvantage of mutual funds relative to ETFs is the minimum account sizes. Especially if the fund has multiple share classes (i.e., where better classes get lower expense ratios), you might have to have quite a lot of money invested in the fund in order to get the same expense ratio as the ETF. There are some other differences that matter to more active investors (e.g., intraday trading, options, etc.), but for a passive investor the ones above are the major ones. Apart from those mutual funds and ETFs are pretty similar. Personally, I prefer mutual funds because I'm at a point where the fund minimums aren't really an issue, and I don't want to deal with the more fiddly aspects of ETFs. For investors just starting out the lower minimum investment for an ETF is a big win, as long as you can get commission-free trades (which is what I've assumed above.)\",\n \"Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund\",\n \"In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.\",\n \"What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.\",\n \"\\\"The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the \\\"\\\"basket\\\"\\\" of investments that a share in the fund represents. Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the \\\"\\\"DJI 30\\\"\\\" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index.\\\"\",\n \"One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.\",\n \"An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)\",\n \"\\\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \\\"\\\"derivative\\\"\\\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\\\"\",\n \"ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.\",\n \"Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.\",\n \"\\\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \\\"\\\"quant\\\"\\\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%. The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement \\\"\\\"admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \\\"\\\"enough\\\"\\\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \\\"\\\"fee\\\"\\\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \\\"\\\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\\\"\\\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\\\"\",\n \"As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index:\",\n \"\\\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \\\"\\\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\\\"\\\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \\\"\\\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\\\"\\\" As a matter of practice, when people say \\\"\\\"mutual fund\\\"\\\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\\\"\",\n \"http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker.\",\n \"\\\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \\\"\\\"ETF\\\"\\\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \\\"\\\"exchange-traded\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"funds\\\"\\\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \\\"\\\"authorized participants\\\"\\\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\\\"\",\n \"what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition] This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?\",\n \"\\\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \\\"\\\"market rate of return\\\"\\\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \\\"\\\"index includes 500 leading companies\\\"\\\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\\\"\",\n \"No, some of Vanguard's funds are index funds like their Total Stock Market Index and 500 Index. In contrast, there are funds like Vanguard PRIMECAP and Vanguard Wellington that are actively managed. There are index funds in both open-end and exchange-traded formats. VTI is the ticker for Vanguard's Total Stock Market ETF while VTSMX is an open-end mutual fund format. VOO would be the S & P 500 ETF ticker while VFINX is one of the open-end mutual fund tickers, where VIIIX has a really low expense ratio but a pretty stiff minimum to my mind. As a general note, open-end mutual funds will generally have a 5 letter ticker ending in X while an ETF will generally be shorter at 3 or 4 letters in length.\",\n \"index ETF tracks indented index (if fund manager spend all money on Premium Pokemon Trading Cards someone must cover resulting losses) Most Index ETF are passively managed. ie a computer algorithm would do automatic trades. The role of fund manager is limited. There are controls adopted by the institution that generally do allow such wide deviations, it would quickly be flagged and reported. Most financial institutions have keyman fraud insurance. fees are not higher that specified in prospectus Most countries have regulation where fees need to be reported and cannot exceed the guideline specified. at least theoretically possible to end with ETF shares that for weeks cannot be sold Yes some ETF's can be illiquid at difficult to sell. Hence its important to invest in ETF that are very liquid.\",\n \"You haven't looked very far if you didn't find index tracking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on the Toronto Stock Exchange. There are at least a half dozen major exchange-traded fund families that I'm aware of, including Canadian-listed offerings from some of the larger ETF providers from the U.S. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) maintains a list of ETF providers that have products listed on the TSX.\",\n \"Mutual funds don't do what ETFs do because, according to how the fund was built in their contract, they can't. That is not how they are built and the people that invested in them expect them to act in a certain way. That is ok, though. Many people still invest in mutual funds partially because of their history but there are some advantages to mutual funds over etfs. Mainly mutual funds must mark-to-market at the end of day while etf values can drift from the asset value especially in crisis. As long enough people invest in mutual funds the funds make enough money on their fees they don't need to change. Maybe mutual funds will go extinct as etfs do have significant advantages, but it likely won't happen soon.\",\n \"\\\"Ask your trading site for their definition of \\\"\\\"ETF\\\"\\\". The term itself is overloaded/ambiguous. Consider: If \\\"\\\"ETF\\\"\\\" is interpreted liberally, then any fund that trades on a [stock] exchange is an exchange-traded fund. i.e. the most literal meaning implied by the acronym itself. Whereas, if \\\"\\\"ETF\\\"\\\" is interpreted more narrowly and in the sense that most market participants might use it, then \\\"\\\"ETF\\\"\\\" refers to those exchange-traded funds that specifically have a mechanism in place to ensure the fund's current price remains close to its net asset value. This is not the case with closed-end funds (CEFs), which often trade at either a premium or a discount to their underlying net asset value.\\\"\",\n \"They're exchange traded debt, basically, not funds. E.g. from the NYSE: An exchange-traded note (ETN) is a senior unsecured debt obligation designed to track the total return of an underlying market index or other benchmark, minus investor fees. Whereas an ETF, in some way or another, is an equity product - which doesn't mean that they can only expose you to equity, but that they themselves are a company that you buy shares in. FCOR for example is a bond ETF, basically a company whose sole purpose is to own a basket of bonds. Contrast that to DTYS, a bear Treasury ETN, which is described as The ETNs are unsecured debt obligations of the issuer, Barclays Bank PLC, and are not, either directly or indirectly, an obligation of or guaranteed by any third party. Also from Barclays site: Because the iPath ETNs are debt securities, they do not have any voting rights. FCOR on the other hand is some sort of company owned/managed by a Fidelity trust, though my EDGAR skills are rusty. AGREEMENT made this 18th day of September, 2014, by and between Fidelity Merrimack Street Trust, a Massachusetts business trust which may issue one or more series of shares of beneficial interest (hereinafter called the Trust), on behalf of Fidelity Corporate Bond ETF (hereinafter called the Fund), and Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc., a New Hampshire corporation (hereinafter called the Adviser) as set forth in its entirety below.\",\n \"The top ten holdings for these funds don't overlap by even one stock. It seems to me they are targeting an index for comparison, but making no attempt to replicate a list of holdings as would, say, a true S&P index.\",\n \"No. Investors purchase ETFs' as they would any other stock, own it under the same circumstances as an equity investment, collecting distributions instead of dividends or interest. The ETF takes care of the internal operations (bond maturities and turnover, accrued interest, payment dates, etc.).\",\n \"See my comment for some discussion of why one might choose an identical fund over an ETF. As to why someone would choose the higher cost fund in this instance ... The Admiral Shares version of the fund (VFIAX) has the same expense ratio as the ETF but has a minimum investment of $10K. Some investors may want to eventually own the Admiral Shares fund but do not yet have $10K. If they begin with the Investor Shares now and then convert to Admiral later, that conversion will be a non-taxable event. If, however, they start with ETF shares now and then sell them later to buy the fund, that sale will be a taxable event. Vanguard ETFs are only commission-free to Vanguard clients using Vanguard Brokerage Services. Some investors using other brokers may face all sorts of penalties for purchasing third-party ETFs. Some retirement plan participants (either at Vanguard or another broker) may not even be allowed to purchase ETFs.\",\n \"Like an S&P 500 ETF? So you're getting in some cash inflow each day, cash outflows each day. And you have to buy and sell 500 different stocks, at the same time, in order for your total fund assets to match the S&P 500 index proportions, as much as possible. At any given time, the prices you get from the purchase/sale of stock is probably going to be somewhat different than the theoretical amounts you are supposed to get to match, so it's quite a tangle. This is my understanding of things. Some funds are simpler - a Dow 30 fund only has 30 stocks to balance out. Maybe that's easier, or maybe it's harder because one wonky trade makes a bigger difference? I'm not sure this is how it really operates. The closest I've gotten is a team that has submitted products for indexing, and attempted to develop funds from those indexes. Turns out finding the $25-50 million of initial investments isn't as easy as anyone would think.\",\n \"The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work.\",\n \"ETFs trade on specific exchanges. If your broker deals with those exchanges, you should have access to the ETF. If your broker does not deal with that exchange, then you will not have access through that broker. This is different than, say, mutual funds, which don't trade on the exchanges are proprietary to certain brokerages or financial institutions.\",\n \"Close-end funds just means there's a fixed number of shares available, so if you want to buy some you must purchase from other existing owners, typically through an exchange. Open-end funds mean the company providing the shares is still selling them, so you can buy them directly from the company. Some can also be traded on exchanges as well.\",\n \"Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.\",\n \"ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.\",\n \"The way it is handled with ETF's is that someone has to gather a block of units and redeem them with the fund. So, with the mutual fund you redeem your unit directly with the fund, always, you never sell to another player. With the ETF - its the opposite, you sell to another player. Once a player has a large chunk of units - he can go to the fund and redeem them. These are very specific players (investment banks), not individual investors.\",\n \"Why not figure out the % composition of the index and invest in the participating securities directly? This isn't really practical. Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 Those two indices represent 2500 stocks. A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks. Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments. Index funds provide inexpensive diversity.\",\n \"One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.\",\n \"\\\"If your intention is to purchase ETFs on a regular basis (like $x per month), then ETFs may not make sense. You may have to pay a fixed transaction cost like you were buying a stock for each purchase. In a similar no load mutual fund, there are more likely to be no transaction costs (depending on how it is bought). The above paragraph is not very definitive, and is really dependent upon how you would purchase either ETFs or Mutual funds. For example if you have a Fidelity brokerage account, they may let you buy certain ETFs commission free. Okay then either ETFs make great sense. It would not make sense to buy ones that they charge $35 per transaction if you have regular transactions that are smallish. The last two questions seem to be asking if you should buy MF or buy stocks directly. For most people the later is a losing proposition. They do not have the time or ability to buy stocks directly, effectively. Even if they did they may not have the capital to make enough of a difference when one considers all the cost involved. However, if that kind of thing interests you, perhaps you should dabble. Start out small and look at the higher costs of doing so as part of the \\\"\\\"cost of doing business\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything. The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares. Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple. Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion. Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion. It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units.\",\n \"In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index.\",\n \"Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror. The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings. Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index.\",\n \"Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.\",\n \"What account you put it in depends on why you have those different accounts. First, if you have them due to regulatory requirements, then you of course must follow said regulations. I doubt that's the case here. Otherwise, you might be splitting based on how they trade (ETFs trade as stocks) or you could be splitting based on how you build a portfolio out of them. When you build a non-speculative stock portfolio, you typically want to limit your holdings in a single stock to a fairly small portion of your portfolio (say, 3%) to limit your exposure to bad stuff happening to a single company. That doesn't apply nearly a much to mutual funds, especially index funds. ETFs are much more like mutual funds here. You can also, of course, create an ETF account and put them there. You also say you have a market index account, what is that used for?\",\n \"\\\"An ETF does not track any one individual stock. It \\\"\\\"is a marketable security that tracks an index, a commodity, bonds, or a basket of assets like an index fund.\\\"\\\" Check out this link to learn more about ETFs. The easiest way see what ETF tracks a stock is to determine what sector and industry that company is in and find some ETF that trade it. The ETF will likely trade that stock, assuming that its market cap and exchange it trades on fits within the parameters of the ETF.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \\\"\\\"natural\\\"\\\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Okay. An ETF is an \\\"\\\"Exchange Traded Fund\\\"\\\". It trades like a stock, on the stock market. Basically by buying one ETF, you can have ownership in the underlying companies that make up the ETF. So, if you buy QCLN, a green energy ETF, you own Tesla, First Solar Inc, SunPower Corporation, Vivint Solar, Advanced energy industries and a bunch of other companies that are involved in clean energy. It allows you to gain exposure to a sector without having to buy individual companies. There are ETFs for lots of different things. Technology ETFs, Healthcare ETFs, Consumer Staples ETFs, Utilities ETFs, etc. REITS are essentially the same thing, except they own real estate.\\\"\",\n \"Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx\",\n \"\\\"Regarding SPY: \\\"\\\"One SPDR unit is valued at approximately 1/10 of the value of the S&P 500. Dividends are distributed quarterly, and are based on the accumulated stock dividends held in trust, less any expenses of the trust.\\\"\\\" (source) These are depository receipts, not the actual stocks. Regarding IVV: \\\"\\\"The component stocks are weighted according to the total float-adjusted market value of their outstanding shares. The Fund invests in sectors, such as energy, information technology, industrials, financials, consumer staples, healthcare, telecom services, consumer discretionary and materials.\\\"\\\" (more here) VOO is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The tracking error seems pretty small to me. I went to Google Finance and plotted the percent change for all four on one chart. They lie pretty much on top of one another. The actual dollar value of each one doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that they move up and down almost in lock-step. There may be a larger difference going farther out, but for three separate financial products, the agreement is still remarkably good.\\\"\",\n \"The simple answer is that whatever strategy is implemented with e-series, could be implemented at a lower cost with ETFs.\",\n \"Ohhhh. Well thank you for that info. I know I could've Googled it all and while I'm a sticker for doing your own research, it's nice to hear it from someone in the know. Gotta pass on knowledge to those who don't know. Is it cheap to buy an ETF?\",\n \"Mutual funds are funds composed of financial assets and the funds of investors, and are managed by a firm, usually a large wealth management firm. They are generally accessible to anyone. Hedge funds are private investment funds with limited access, and are subject to fewer regulations. They are usually legally set up as their own firm.\",\n \"\\\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \\\"\\\"patient buyer\\\"\\\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \\\"\\\"representative sample.\\\"\\\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \\\"\\\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\\\"\\\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\\\"\",\n \"The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)\",\n \"ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.\",\n \"- ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally <1%. - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio. - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF.\",\n \"Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.\",\n \"Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.\",\n \"I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.\",\n \"The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself. The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index. This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment. SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund. There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere.\",\n \"The market doesn't really need to adjust for fees on ETF funds that are often less than 1/10th of a percent. The loss of the return is more than made up for by the diversification. How does the market adjust for trading fees? It doesn't have to, it's just a cost of doing business. If one broker or platform offers better fee structures, people will naturally migrate toward the lower fees.\",\n \"Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.\",\n \"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.\",\n \"diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).\",\n \"An index fund is just copying the definition of an index. The group that defines the index determines how to weight the different parts of the index. The index fund just makes sure they invest the same way the index creator wants. Think of a non-investment scenario. A teacher can grade tests, quizzes, homework, in-class assignments, research papers. They decide how much weight to give each category and how much weight to give each part of each category. when a student wants to see how they are doing they take the information in the syllabus, and generate a few formulas in a spreadsheet to calculate their current grade. They can also calculate what they need to get on the final exam to get the grade they want.\",\n \"The Creation/Redemption mechanism is how shares of an ETF are created or redeemed as needed and thus is where there can be differences in what the value of the holdings can be versus the trading price. If the ETF is thinly traded, then the difference could be big as more volume would be where the mechanism could kick in as generally there are blocks required so the mechanism usually created or redeemed in lots of 50,000 shares I believe. From the link where AP=Authorized Participant: With ETFs, APs do most of the buying and selling. When APs sense demand for additional shares of an ETF—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a premium to its NAV—they go into the market and create new shares. When the APs sense demand from investors looking to redeem—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a discount—they process redemptions. So, suppose the NAV of the ETF is $20/share and the trading price is $30/share. The AP can buy the underlying securities for $20/share in a bulk order that equates to 50,000 shares of the ETF and exchange the underlying shares for new shares in the ETF. Then the AP can turn around and sell those new ETF shares for $30/share and pocket the gain. If you switch the prices around, the AP would then take the ETF shares and exchange them for the underlying securities in the same way and make a profit on the difference. SEC also notes this same process.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.","I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..","\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\""],"string":"[\n \"Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.\",\n \"I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..\",\n \"\\\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \\\"\\\"enough\\\"\\\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":290,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6199"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How can all these countries owe so much money? Why & where did they borrow it from?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["414693","584273","239214","169921"],"string":"[\n \"414693\",\n \"584273\",\n \"239214\",\n \"169921\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["584273","414693","47163","520000","450041","298794","169921","209013","239214","10399","194335","14035","514697","477724","596959","69960","392806","370186","222693","151971","510305","329270","490042","24214","396145","286900","199253","463750","310456","49602","263563","124940","118191","92912","380714","203231","133511","295089","474318","72238","453919","446705","44708","177832","321842","127359","446402","311495","540516","276831","396360","99525","1917","153316","56481","294761","67406","428764","345823","206881","476812","475104","69518","176970","132519","152201","373346","303820","137602","383555","208637","242171","514952","99797","145238","322259","395929","430923","189592","351853","563268","58851","333966","119906","231306","217377","125966","65043","592859","267815","231310","583883","97075","481987","538457","344165","3559","169028","190427","38918"],"string":"[\n \"584273\",\n \"414693\",\n \"47163\",\n \"520000\",\n \"450041\",\n \"298794\",\n \"169921\",\n \"209013\",\n \"239214\",\n \"10399\",\n \"194335\",\n \"14035\",\n \"514697\",\n \"477724\",\n \"596959\",\n \"69960\",\n \"392806\",\n \"370186\",\n \"222693\",\n \"151971\",\n \"510305\",\n \"329270\",\n \"490042\",\n \"24214\",\n \"396145\",\n \"286900\",\n \"199253\",\n \"463750\",\n \"310456\",\n \"49602\",\n \"263563\",\n \"124940\",\n \"118191\",\n \"92912\",\n \"380714\",\n \"203231\",\n \"133511\",\n \"295089\",\n \"474318\",\n \"72238\",\n \"453919\",\n \"446705\",\n \"44708\",\n \"177832\",\n \"321842\",\n \"127359\",\n \"446402\",\n \"311495\",\n \"540516\",\n \"276831\",\n \"396360\",\n \"99525\",\n \"1917\",\n \"153316\",\n \"56481\",\n \"294761\",\n \"67406\",\n \"428764\",\n \"345823\",\n \"206881\",\n \"476812\",\n \"475104\",\n \"69518\",\n \"176970\",\n \"132519\",\n \"152201\",\n \"373346\",\n \"303820\",\n \"137602\",\n \"383555\",\n \"208637\",\n \"242171\",\n \"514952\",\n \"99797\",\n \"145238\",\n \"322259\",\n \"395929\",\n \"430923\",\n \"189592\",\n \"351853\",\n \"563268\",\n \"58851\",\n \"333966\",\n \"119906\",\n \"231306\",\n \"217377\",\n \"125966\",\n \"65043\",\n \"592859\",\n \"267815\",\n \"231310\",\n \"583883\",\n \"97075\",\n \"481987\",\n \"538457\",\n \"344165\",\n \"3559\",\n \"169028\",\n \"190427\",\n \"38918\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.","\"They borrowed it from the people, and typically to finance wars and military spending. For example, Wikipedia suggests that the Bank of England \"\"was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy.\"\" It's a game that everyone has to play once started; if Napoleon buys an army on credit, you'll have to raise an equal amount or face quite a problem. As for why they've grown so large, it's because governments are quite skilled at owing large sums of money. Only a small portion of the debt comes due in full at a given moment, and they constantly reissue new debt via auction to keep it rolling. So as long as they can make coupon (interest) and the lump sum at maturity, it's not difficult to keep up. Imagine how much credit card debt you could rack up if you only ever had to pay interest. This game will continue for as long as people lend. And there are plenty of lenders. There's pensions, mutual funds and endowments, which find public debt typically safer than stocks. And money market funds, which target 1 dollar NAV and only invest in the \"\"safest\"\" AAA-rated bonds to protect it. There's central banks, which can buy and sell public debt to manipulate inflation and exchange rates. Absent some kind of UN resolution to ban lending, or perhaps a EU mandated balanced budget, these debts will likely continue to grow. You think they \"\"collectively owe more money than can exist\"\", but there's a lot of wealth in the world. Most nations owe less than a year's GDP. For example, the US's total wealth is in the neighborhood of 50 trillion.\"","\"Depends on the country, whether its a currency issuer with floating exchange rate, and what the debt is denominated in. For instance, the US has no real debt, b/c its all in US dollars and can be printed at any time. It has no need to borrow anything, it issues its own currency. It used to be different 4 decades ago, on the gold standard, so in general people still think currency issuers need to borrow (or earn) to spend. Just a relic in thinking. But when the country does not issue its own currency, then it does need to earn or borrow in order to spend. In this case, it could borrow from anywhere that will lend it money. In US, a state would fit this description. Or Greece, as it borrowed Euros, for which it is not an issuer of. EDIT: just came across this blog http://pragcap.com/where-does-the-money-come-from Its title, \"\"Where does the money come from\"\". Maybe he saw this question. Anyway, the US does not need to borrow money. Why would it borrow what it creates? From the video: \"\"Thinking is hard, that's why we don't do it a lot\"\". Great line.\"","I looked into the investopedia one (all their videos are mazing), but that detail just was not clear to me, it also makes be wonder, if a country issues bonds to finance itself, what happens at maturity when literally millions of them need to be paid? The income needs to have grown to that level or it defaults? Wouldn't all the countries default if that was the case, or are bonds being issued to being able to pay maturity of older bonds already? (I'm freaking myself out by realizing this)","The answers provided so far as good and informative, but I just thought I'd add one small point... There are super-national organisations that commonly lend to governments, in particular those in the developing the world. The World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) are the two primary ones. Also quite notably, the Greek economy was bailed out only this year by the EMF (European Monetary Fund) spearheaded by Germany - this is a rare occurrence however and was done mainly because Greece was a relatively developed country and others had an obligation to assist it as an EU member state.","It's more complicated than that. Governments raise money in a number of ways. First, they tax economic activity within their borders and for connected companies and individuals. Then, some governments have actual revenues from state-owned enterprises (licences, patents, courts, business revenues, and so on). Whatever shortage arises between state expenditure and this income is the deficit which is usually financed through debt. Government usually issues a bond (Wikipedia for a list of government bonds) of various types, some with extremely lengthy maturation dates. These bonds can be purchased both locally and by foreign investment funds. The nature of who buys is important. From the Wikipedia link you'll see that most government debt is very highly rated based on the ability of the state to simply raise taxes in order to fund redemption. Pension funds are legally bound to only invest in highly-rated investment classes and the bulk of bonds may be purchased to support local pensioners. A state that defaults on debt will first hit its own most vulnerable citizens. In addition, the fall-out will result in a savage cut in ratings. Countries like Argentina and Zimbabwe, which have both refused to repay their debts even to the IMF, are currently unable to raise investment at all. This has a tremendous impact on local economic development. So, default is out of the question without severe penalties. The second part of your question is about paying down the debt. As debts increase, more and more of the revenue that a country does earn is spent on servicing debt repayments. Sometimes bonds are issued merely to refinance old debt. A country that spends too much on refinancing debt is no different from an individual. Less and less money is available to do other things. In conclusion: governments can neither default nor binge-borrow unless they wish to severely limit economic opportunities for their citizens.","Here is an overview of who owns US Debt from Wikipedia, it indicates that approximately 1/3rd of US debt is held by foreigners (mainly the central banks of other countries), approximately 1/2 of US Debt is held by the federal reserve, and the rest is owned by various America organizations (mutual funds, pension funds, etc). The money is loaned via bonds, treasury bills, etc. When you put money in your pension fund, you very likely buying US debt. The US Treasury department all has a comprehensive page about how public debt works in the United States here: an overview of public debt from the treasury. I wasn't able to find a similar breakdown for other countries, but Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of how much debt is owed by other countries: a list of countries by public debt.","i disagree. if a country has sovereign currency, then there is no squandering. where does that money come from in the first place? govt creates it, and spends it into the economy through deficit spending. And govt gets a service or product in return from that spending. Govt deficit spending = private sector savings.","\"Others have pointed out that the entities loaning money to the government are typically people and institutions. Recently, however, the US federal government borrowings were largely funded by money printed by the Federal Reserve. The government had to borrow $1.1 trillion from October, 2010 through June, 2011. During this period the FED printed around $0.8 trillion new dollars to purchase US debt. Thus, the US government was not borrowing money from people, it was being funded by money printing. The central bankers call this \"\"quantitative easing\"\".\"","Where are they going to get money from? Their bonds are worthless because they have no viable way of ever paying back debt so why would anyone lend money to them. You, and Keynes think that you can fuel debt with more debt, but all this does is build a massive debt bubble that has to pop at some point. This is exactly what these nations did for years and now are beginning to realize that they can no longer issue debt.","To understand this fully one would need to understand quite a few things. Not in scope here. In short, whenever China sells goods to US, it gets USD as most of the trades are in USD. China uses this money to buy other things it needs like Oil etc. After this they still have quite a bit of USD left with them. The money is left with them because US is buying more things from China and selling less things to China. This creates a surplus USD with China. So if US were to borrow money from China or any other country, it would be this excess money. Ofcourse how money gets created in first place is a different topic altogether.","\"For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc. There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds. The \"\"National Debt\"\" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the \"\"Bonds\"\" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong. If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (\"\"Default\"\" on its payments). This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future. Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default. Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge.\"","\"Is it not that bad? Depends how bad is bad. The problems causes by a government having large debt are similar to those caused by an individual having large debt. The big issue is: More and more of your income goes to paying interest on the debt, and is thus not available for spending on goods and services. If it gets bad enough, you find you cannot make payments, you start defaulting on loans, and then you have to make serious sacrifices, like selling your property to pay the debt. Nations have an advantage over individuals in that they can sometimes repudiate debt, i.e. simply declare that they are not going to pay. Lenders can then refuse to give them more money, but that doesn't get their original loans paid back. In theory other nations could send in troops to seize property to pay the loan, but this is a very extreme solution. Totally aside from any moral considerations, modern warfare is very expensive, it's likely the war would cost you more than you'd recover on the debt. How much debt is too much? It's hard to give a number, any more than one could give a \"\"maximum acceptable debt\"\" for an individual. American banks have a rule of thumb that they won't normally loan you money if your total debt payments would be more than 1/3 of your income. I've never come close to that, that seems awfully high to me. But, say, a young person just starting out so he's not making a lot of money, and he lives someplace with high housing prices, might find this painful but acceptable. Etc.\"","\"That was indeed a typo. I would not go into details regarding Germany, Japan's economy is pretty much in stagnated state for the past two decades. US has a high deficit and this issue is a major topic if you follow the current election season. And yes, that is not a good thing. Britain (Still, is not that UK?) and Italy seem to come off as time wrap living in colonial era where they can just get free stuff off others. Note the high debt cost of Italy. It is not as if debtors are lining up to give money to these nations. More often than not, it is the leftover state of pre-world war mindset where some people/organizations try to hold on to the money and influence as long as possible. I think this topic itself is extremely complicated and has various facets to it but to even moot such ideas - essentially saying \"\"lets exchange goods and here take our currency\"\" and then saying \"\"our currency has no value btw\"\" is criminal. It just voids the legal contract written on a dollar note.\"","It isn't as simple as just borrowing money. This is more of an economics question but there are reasons to borrow money (simple example being when the economy is growing too slowly) and reasons to increase taxes (basic example being when the economy is growing too fast). Check out monetary and fiscal policy on investopedia or youtube, this should give you a good understanding. Now one more thing to consider is the 'risk' of governments defaulting on their loans. In a simple sense, the more debt a government has the more risk there is to default. This means people who lend the government money will want a higher interest rate, making it harder for the government to borrow money.","As long as we remember that debt is the only option when the government has to borrow their money at interest or take it from taxes. When taxes don't cut it, we borrow. Ever wondered why the government doesn't just spend money into the economy instead of borrowing at interest?","One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).","Has any country in their existence, paid their debt in full? To me it seems that every country is in debt and it will just keep growing. It's like they know that the debt is impossible to pay and they just play along so that they get their paycheck and pass the debt to the other guy/gal who wins the office. Do we just want to believe that one day everybody would receive so much money that everybody would pay off their debt?","“Why do governments borrow money instead of printing it? (When printing money, one doesn't need to pay interest).” Good question. Numerous leading economists, including a couple of economics Nobel Laureates have asked the same question and concluded that borrowing can be dispensed with. First, Milton Freidman set out a monetary system in a paper in the American Economic Review which involved no government borrowing, and govt just printed money (in a responsible fashion of course) as and when needed. See: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1810624 A second Nobel Laureate with similar views was William Vickrey. A third economist with similar views (of Keynes’ era) was Abba Lerner. Keynes said of Lerner, “Lerner's argument is impeccable, but heaven help anyone who tries to put it across to the plain man at this stage of the evolution of our ideas”.","\"Governments borrowing money doesn't create new money. When banks \"\"borrow\"\" money (i.e. take deposits), it does effectively create money because the depositor expects to be able to get the money back at any time, but the bank assumes that most won't actually do this and lends out most of the money to other people. If everyone did actually ask for their money back at once, the illusion of the extra money created by this process would collapse, and the bank would go bust. In contrast when governments borrow money, the loan isn't repayable on demand, it has a fixed maturity and the money is only repaid at the end of that period (plus interest at defined points during the period). So holders of government debt don't have money they can spend (they can turn it into money they can spend but only by finding someone else to buy it). So government debt doesn't create inflation in itself. If they printed money, then they'd be devaluing the money of everyone who had saved or invested, whereas if they borrow money and use taxes to repay it, the burden falls more evenly across the economy and doesn't disproportionately penalise certain sets of people.\"","The country isn't a business, of course you are correct. That doesn't mean one can run deficits year after year and expect success. I blame both GWB and Obama in this regard, neither showed a serious interest in balancing the budget. But you have to, the money has to come from somewhere to get what you want.","The Government doesn't borrow money. It in fact simply prints it. The bond market is used for an advanced way of controlling the demand for this printed money. Think about it logically. Take 2011 for example. The Govt spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in. This is real money that get's credited in to people's bank accounts to purchase real goods and services. Now who purchases the majority of treasuries? The Primary Dealers. What are the Primary Dealers? They are banks. Where do banks get their money? From us. So now put two and two together. When the Govt spends $1.7 trillion and credits our bank accounts, the banking system has $1.7 trillion more. Then that money flows in to pension funds, gets spent in to corporation who then send that money to China for cheap products... and eventually the money spent purchases up Govt securities for investments. We had to physically give China 1 trillion dollars for them to be able to purchase 1 trillion dollars in securities. So it makes sense if you think about how the math works in the real world.","\"Sovereign states borrow money explicitly in a two primary ways: A sovereign cannot be compelled to repay debt, and there isn't a judicial process like bankruptcy to erase debt. When sovereigns default, they negotiate new terms with creditors and pay back some fraction of the actual debt owed. They can also print money to repay debt, which has other nasty consequences. But, while a state cannot be compelled to repay a debt, creditors cannot be compelled to loan money to the state either! Any enterprise of sufficient size needs access to capital via loans to meet daily obligations in anticipation of revenue -- even when times are good. Defaulting makes borrowing impossible or expensive, and is avoided. Regarding using your military to avoid repaying debt... remember what Napoleon said: \"\"An army travels on its stomach\"\". Military campaigns are expensive... no borrowing ability means the soldiers don't get paid and the food, fuel and ammo don't get delivered. Smaller countries have other risks as well. Many nations are essentially forced to use US Dollars as a reserve currency, or are forced by the market to borrow money in a foreign currency. This creates a situation where any risk of non-payment results in a deep devaluation of the local currency. When your debt is denominated in dollars, these shifts can dramatically increase your debt obligations from a local currency point of view. You also run the risk that a larger or richer company will park warships in your harbor and seize assets as payment -- the US and Britain engaged in this several times during the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, not paying the bills has a cascading effect. Bad situations get worse, and they do so quickly.\"","> A significant proportion of recent economic growth has relied on borrowed money -- today standing at a dizzying 325 percent of global gross domestic product. Debt allows society to accelerate consumption, as borrowings are used to purchase something today against the promise of future repayment. Unfunded entitlements to social services, health care and pensions increase those liabilities. The bill for these commitments will soon become unsustainable, as demographic changes make it more difficult to meet.","hey look I can spout random countries too. Spain! Back it up, or shut up. The UK did NOT sell debt and simultaneously purchase its own debt in the past (until modern times). And who said the reason soviet union collapsed was because of its banking policies? Putting words in peoples mouths aren't we. I think you should move along before you get hurt. This is a grown up conversation little one.","\"To summarize, the money never existed. The best example I can give is the housing bubble. Houses were being bought on credit worthiness and this pushed the house prices and values up as if the houses had been bought with real money. When people couldn't make their payments, the house prices crashed. The boom and bust cycle is simply credit being overextended (boom) and when there is not enough money in the system for everyone to repay all their debts it crashes (bust). The real question that people should be asking is not \"\"Where did all the money go?\"\", but \"\"Why is money issued by private banks?\"\" Money is a social invention to facilitate trade. Should it not be like a public water utility? Counterfeiting is illegal except when a private bank does it. Money should not be variable in value and economics will never be a science if the measurement of value is not standardized. All natural sciences have standards of measurement like meters, joules, degrees, etc. Money must decrease in value constantly because all money is issued at interest. We essentially pay rent on all money that isssued and the interest can only be repaid if more money is created, once again at interest. This is why economists generally say some inflation is good. Finance has told them interest is a given on the issue of money when in reality, money is just an IOU that requires no such interest payment for it's issue. Interest should be made if a loan is issued against savings, but not for the simple issuance of money. There should be public banks that issue the money and private banks for investment. You can read more about this from reading about Arthur Kitson. In this way, the public controls the value of it's money, not private bankers that use the issue of money to transfer wealth to an idle financial class. If you want to get into the differences between wealth and debt, read the work of Frederick Soddy. It's off topic from this thread but really interesting to see how he relates real science to economics and how our current economic system is not scientific in the least. Wealth is subject to the laws of thermodynamics while debt is an invention of the human will. Debt never rots or degrades with time and can expand exponentially through compound interest - nothing in the natural world does this.\"",">I would be really surprised if they didn't have more relatively short term debt as they were in the midst of a global freaking conflict, man. What its spent on is a political decision and isn't relevant, except that its even less useful than how it might be spent today. >I just don't want to open the unlimited money taps without carefully considering how long we can leave them open You are the only one saying that. Its a straw man. >If you're deciding whether or not to spend a crap ton of money you don't have, it helps if you haven't already spent a crap ton of money you don't have The government is the issuer of the currency. It doesn't have it or not have it. It creates it. They've issued an ~~crap ton of money~~ amount that hasn't been clawed back through taxation and they can add to it if it suits them.","\"This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment. If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as *looong* as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets. Heck, if you can take on even *more* debt at 3%, you should still do the same. Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, *but*, doing so is effectively a form of \"\"loan\"\" to yourself. We call the \"\"interest\"\" on that loan \"\"inflation\"\", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart). So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%. But someone has to *take* that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of. There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much. If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially \"\"invested\"\" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people.\"","You don't understand government financing at all. Gov'ts earn revenue, aka, taxes. They also spend money. The different between the money they spend and they money they earn is the deficit. If you run a deficit for a long period of time, you incur a very large national debt. Now, you can finance (aka, pay for) a deficit by borrowing money. This means you can sell bonds, and instead of pay off the debt each year, you just pay the interest. If your spending balloons out of control, your the likely hood of you paying your debt decreases. If you are very unlikely to payback your debt, people won't buy any more of your bonds, and you no longer have the income (from borrowing) to pay off your interest from other debt you owe, or what ever other obligations you own (think mortgage payments, or teachers salaries, etc). Here's were Europe and USA differ: European nations can't just print money. They can issue more debt, but they can't just create more euros. IF you can print money, you can pay off your debt with money you literally created out of thin air (at the expense of your people, this is called inflation). But this is a form of cheating, eventually people won't trust you, and won't buy your debt either. So where do the banks come in? if the government is SOUND and the banks are NOT, the government can backstop the banks. This is what the US and UK did. Greece, Spain, Ireland all had to back stop their banks also. However, Greece, Spain, and Irelany ( and Italy, and Portugal) also have 1) A lot of debt 2) Structurally high deficits 3) Extremely high borrowing costs (high interest rates...because people don't trust them...because...) 4) Weak underlying economies The fourth point gets you in real trouble. if you have high entitlements, lots of poeple out of work, who the hell is paying taxes and what are they going to? You have no revenue! Remember, a govt works just like a household. It is easy for a good household to support one member, but it is difficult for a member to support an irresponsible household.","\"It is measured in US dollars. The US cannot just print the money because that would cause inflation. Remember that money is really just a convenient placeholder for the barter system. Creating more money regardless of whether there is more value in the economy (work, resources, etc.) is a very bad idea, and doing so has collapsed the economies of many countries. Debt increasing means that the US owes other countries more money. So yes, they are receiving more money from other countries, but the US has to pay it all back with interest eventually. The US government spends more money than it receives in taxes. To decrease the debt, spending needs to decrease and/or taxes need to increase. Many countries lend to the US. One of the biggest is China. These countries do so because of interest -- the US pays back more money than it gets lent, so the lending countries make a profit. If China suddenly called in all its debt to the US, this would severely damage the world economy. China's biggest trading partner is the US, so it has no interest in harming the US this way; it would harm itself. Additionally, the US would probably refuse to pay it (not to mention that it can't), and then China would lose all the money it \"\"invested\"\" in the US. It would benefit no one.\"","Money as Debt and Money as Debt II (while low-quality in their production), give a great historical explanation of how the modern monetary system came into being, as well as touching on things you just said. You can find various versions online, but here are two links anyway: * Money as Debt: http://archive.org/details/MoneyAsDebt * Money as Debt II: http://archive.org/details/MoneyAsDebt2","The higher the debt, the higher inflation needs to be to wash the debt away. This is why the debt and US equities move upward hand in hand. The same goes for US housing. Just as homeowners borrow money through mortgages so that house prices rise, the banks borrow the money for mortgages through the central banks. Thus, the cycle circulates. The more debt, the higher the prices! Everybody makes money from debt. That is why the US has the highest external debt on the globe, yet they are considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world.","\"Hmm... Maybe I somewhat misunderstood your question then. Yes, trade deficits/surpluses are really the core of the country-level \"\"investment\"\". But yes, it maters what they *do* with it, which is **why** so many countries put any excesses into US treasuries. Going back to \"\"personal\"\" finance, if they pay down higher interest debt with their trade surplus, *great*; if they have no debt and can issue local currency (in PF land, \"\"take out a loan\"\") for under 2%, *great*; If not... **Not** so great. \"\"Saving\"\" money that costs over 2% isn't an investment, it's nothing but a loan disguised as one.\"",">It is well known that the US entered an unprecedented depression after its unprecedented borrowing during World War 2. Yeah, just ignore ALL of the differences between the world *then* (devastated and destroyed factories & cities all over Europe and Asia) and the world *now*. Ignorance... it's what's for dinner!","\"> As I currently understand, we owe much of our national debt to ourselves. Debtors owe creditors. Creditors are, by and large, the banks. Forget about we/ourselves. One thing we are taught in school is that banks earn money on the spread between what a creditor pays, minus what a saver earns in interest on his deposit. In reality, such private savings pretty much do not exist. When someone borrows from the bank, they mostly aren't borrowing another person's savings. The bank is creating *new* currency through the issuance of debt. > The reason for this is that people are being charged interest that does not exist in the system. I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"does not exist in the system\"\". The way it works is you borrow a dollar, and now you owe a dollar plus the interest on the dollar. Since each new loan creates more debt than currency, the monetary system can never shrink or it implodes. If you mean that the currency is unbacked by any objective measure of value, that is correct. > Therefore, if we tried to pay the debt (like some conservative politicians are fighting for) it would be a massive transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%, since most of the debt is owed to the 1% (banks). There is no possibility of repaying it. Both the Red Team and the Blue Team are in on this. If you're worried about the 99% you should be advocating commodity money, because that is the only way to stop theft by inflation. If you're worried about yourself, get informed as to how these plans have played out in history and how you might protect yourself.\"","\"Global banks are without a doubt the new evil empires. They're buying debt for pennies on the dollar, because they know the risk of default/bankruptcy, yet they expect the IMF to do for international debt what W did for student loans. Wasn't Argentina also the country that had a vulture fund \"\"seize\"\" one of their naval vessels? Soon banks will have their own standing armies and naval fleets to exact asset forfeiture.\"","The reason they have this massive debt is largely (not entirely) because they have been employing Keynes' policies and spending more than they had for so many years as it is. Austerity is not the solution. However, reckless spending is not the solution either. A lot of people arguing for keynesian policies (not a bad idea in most recessions) don't grasp that investors have a limited amount of money to invest and aren't going to place it in a country that has as bad of a debt problem as you pointed out. So many people keep arguing these struggling countries need to spend more. While that would help expand their economies, it is not feasible. Where do you guys going to think the money is going to come from? If investors don't want to provide then they have to print more money, which creates the risk of hyperinflation. Spending could help a little maybe if it was a realistic thing to do. Right now any Keynesian solutions are a fairy tale. Countries like Greece need to do what they can with the resources available to them instead of spending like a bunch of millionaire playboys on crystal meth. Look at the U.S. We have spent trillions and our GDP is still growing at only slightly more than half the rate it has from 1947-2012. If people expect massive government spending to be a fix to these problems, then we are a clear case that it isn't. I acknowledge we could be a lot worse and possibly still be seeing a contraction without the spending, but it clearly isn't fixing our problems and sooner or later we won't be able to take on more debt to fix it. We need real solutions to generate real growth instead of dicking around like this. Other western countries need to do the same. edit:Also what we are doing right now would not be considered keynesian solutions. Keynes would advocate spending money to fix the problems, not just dumping money into the economy. That is something I would agree with. But since our politicians can't grasp that I don't want them in control of the purse strings anymore.","Some countries, like the United States, allow a mortgage interest tax deduction. This means the interest you pay on a mortgage, which is typically much more than half of the monthly payment at the beginning of a 25 year mortgage, is tax deductible, so you might get 33% or more of the interest back, and that effectively makes the interest rate significantly lower. Therefore you are borrowing the money really cheap. That makes MrChrister's answer even more appropriate.","\"If the government prints money recklessly and causes inflation, people will come to expect inflation, and the value of the currency will plummet, and you'll end up like Zimbabwe where a trillion dollars won't buy a loaf of bread. If the government actually pays people for the money they borrow, they don't have this problem - and as it turns out, the US government can get pretty good rates on borrowing in general, in part because they're extraordinarily good about paying them back. (Also, inflation expectations are low, so people will accept 1-2% interest rates. If you expected inflation of 10%, you'd see people demanding something more like 12% interest rates.) (The downside of too much of this sort of borrowing is that it \"\"crowds out\"\" other borrowing, which may harm the economy. Who would lend money to / invest in a small business, if the government is paying good money and there's almost no risk at all?) Now, inflation can come into play afterward, if the Fed decides it needs to maintain \"\"easy money\"\" policies to stimulate the economy (because taxes are too high because we're paying off the debt, or because we've crowded out smaller borrowers, or something). -- In general, you can count on the the principle that if you, as the government, try to play too many games with people's money... well, people aren't stupid; they will eventually catch on, and adjust their behavior to compensate, and then you're right back where you started, but with less trust.\"","230 government agencies by law have to buy treasury bonds with their excess cash. Those agencies hold 30% of the debt. The rest is by anyone else who purchased bonds on the open market when the treasury sold them. Are you fucking stupid? You think the government just printed 20 trillion dollars with nothing to back it? No hedge funds bought them. China, Japan, Britain, bought them.",">This goes on until they simply drop dead. Substitute debt for alcohol and you have our situation exactly. *Exactly.* It is well known that the US entered an unprecedented depression after its unprecedented borrowing during World War 2. It is all very simple and easily predicted.","\"Actually the UK was doing that back in the 1600's to finance war with France. You might want to learn why the crown jewels were not actually owned by the state :) \"\"I think you should move along before you get hurt. This is a grown up conversation little one.\"\"\"","As do other states. The state and national debts are created by big government politicians. Such as bloated civil services, pension funds, more borrowing instead of fiscally responsible. The USA federal gov keeps trillions of shadow debt off its books and downplays the actual unemployment rate.","\"Why rent money? \"\"Ooh... new shiny. Must have!\"\" - lol Seriously, Governements that control the presses can harness an almost magical property of money \"\"trust\"\". You and I believe wages have a set value per hour worked. This isn't always so.\"","Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.","They didn't have more **going into** the war. I would be really surprised if they didn't have more relatively short term debt as they were **in the midst of a global freaking conflict**, man. Well I'll be damned, we both want the same thing. I just don't want to open the unlimited money taps without carefully considering how long we can leave them open Edit: If you're deciding whether or not to spend a crap ton of money you don't have, it helps if you haven't already spent a crap ton of money you don't have","\"Most of those countries had debt that was well beyond prudent levels (~70% of GDP) before the crisis, levels such that any crisis would put them over the safe limit and into trouble. The only exception was Spain whose debt levels were still marginally dangerous. Greece was off the charts, which is why they left off the graph for Greece. Second problem. On top of the high or marginal levels of government debt, the governments implicitly or explicitly guaranteed the banks, without limiting in any effective way their levels of leverage and risk (inb4 Basel II - a lot of paper that made no difference). Protip: if someone guarantees your debt, they should be able to oversee your level of risk, but the governments didn't. As a result these banks, and their CEOs in particular, have a bet that goes \"\"heads I win, tails I win (and you the taxpayer lose)\"\". If the loans are paid off the CEOs rake in millions. If the loans go bad the government bails them out and the CEOs and other top executives - you guessed it - rake in millions. Of course when faced with these incentives the banks will lend too much. This is not free market capitalism, it is crony capitalism. **Bailouts of private companies are not part of unfettered free market capitalism.** The third problem is that the same governments cannot print money like the US can because the Euro is not owned by the individual governments. The answer to excessive levels of government debt is for governments not to borrow too much and not to take on excessive unfunded liabilities such as pensions. This probably needs to be enforced by a constitutional amendment, so it can't be easily overruled. The answer to governments getting dragged into bailing out insolvent banks and then going under themselves, is to allow the banks to go under and to guarantee only small deposits. Let shareholders, bond holders and large (>$500k) lenders to the banks to lose their money. Second, hold bank executives and shareholders liable for the bank's debts. Eg executive salaries and other remuneration need to be clawed back up to a 5 year window. Shareholders should be liable (as they used to be) for debts up to an additional 100% of the par value of the shares. I can assure you this would concentrate minds wonderfully - as it did in the old days when Wall St investment banks were partnerships with each partner liable for all the debts of the firm. Another alternative would be for governments to enforce limits on financial risk, but unfortunately they do not have the courage to do this, nor the morality to resist \"\"campaign contributions\"\" / bribes to look the other way. If these steps were taken the issue of the Euro currency would not be a problem. However printing money (which requires having your own currency) is a solution if it comes to that although it comes at the expense of people who have saved and invested prudently. Printing money (keeping interest rates excessively low for years on end) subsidizes borrowers - the ones who created the problem - at the expense of savers. Clearly this creates terribly perverse incentives the next time around. Anyone who thinks this problem is a result of unfettered free market capitalism is not paying attention.\"",">Not to mention that Japan has a very good savings rate. Remember they buy a lot of bonds with their savings, Japanese bonds. This shows up as debt on the ledger. People really need to learn about government debt in general.","For now we can pay off our debt in United States dollars. If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. If we continued printing money we would be debasing our currency against the new reserve currency, which would mean that after we took on too much debt we wouldn't really be able to pay our creditors back after exchanging our devalued currency for the new one on the international markets. We are lucky enough not to have to worry about this now. But I think OP was referring to all countries in these situations. Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. That is why I am saying that America has a very disillusioned view of reality when it comes to deficit spending. We wouldn't have that any more if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard (I don't think the second option is nearly as realistic but we never know).","\"Instead of getting into complex economic theories, here are the few places I can tell you where the cash has disappeared to: 1. Apple - holding over 100b cash in their vault more than any banks have in their reserves in the world and more than enough to pay off all of the debts of the U.S. 2. Real Estates.........in developing countries, that is :p. You may keep hearing how real estates are de-valuing in the U.S., but in developing countries like the BRICs, they are going higher. Think Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, etc. Yes, it's a proven bubble there. If you have access to their regional news, just listen to how many people in Asia have to borrow from loan sharks to keep their finances afloat. 3. Gold - go see for yourself on goldprice.org, that's where the wealthy individuals put their cash in the so-called \"\"safe haven\"\" next to shotguns. Yes, it's ridiculous and is totally out of anyone's league beyond basic things like air, water, and food. 4. Commodities (gas, food, basic materials) - enough said, check out your local gas pumps and grocery stores.\"","\"Many reasons, but let me pick my favourite: The incentive to save isn't there. Any government subject to elections has the incentive to spend as much as possible to remain in power. What is worse, it has a DISINCENTIVE to save. Because the money it saves - and which it pays for with bad will from the electorate, who should really be smarter - is going to be spent by the OTHER guy who will then look incredibly good and be reassured of re-election. \"\"But isn't it afraid of accumulating debt?\"\" you may ask, and its simple. Somebody else will be there when the debt is due. The problem of incentives is a fundamental one.\"","Lol TL:DR. your first point is completely wrong so I stopped at the wall of text. Get over it buddy, you lost the argument. No country simultaniously purchased and sold its own debt, like we have this past several years in the US. So, shut the fuck up already. loser.","Are you fucking stupid or just retarded? There isn't another country in the world remotely with the size of economy we have or that are starting wars like we are. Do you understand that wars are 10-15 year commitments with tens of trillions ~~wasted ~~ stolen ? I'm not going to argue with the flat earth society.. go troll someone else with your fantasy arguments.","> But to answer your question, the two factors you mention are positively correlated, not negatively as you postulate. I'm not sure if there's necessarily any correlation. I'm merely stating the fact that they have so much savings that they must export capital but at the same time, they've ramped up domestic debt to somewhere around 300% of GDP which, I don't know why you say it isn't a lot, but it's probably twice the level of the average developing country. Wealth is probably very overstated, but the mechanism for why this has happened is confusing to me.","But how can you have continued growth? Nothing is perpetual at least not in real life - maybe in theory :) I'm guessing you're talking about growth in the money supply right? Well how can you keep growing your money supply indefinitely if doing so requires the creation of a larger amount of debt than the amount that already exists? Think of it in rounds. If each round of debt requires that new debt to the amount of 105% of the old debt is created, how long can you keep that running for? You've essentially got the principle of compound interest working against you. I'm obviously missing something really big because this seems ridiculous to me...","\"Why would a bank buy government bonds? Why couldn't they just deposit their money in another bank instead? Generally, banks are limited by laws and regulations about how much they must set aside as reserves. Of the money they receive as deposits, they may loan a certain amount, but must keep some as a reserve (this is called \"\"fractional reserve banking\"\"). Different countries have a different amount that they must set aside in reserves. In countries where bank deposits are guaranteed, there is almost always some upper limit to how much is guaranteed. The amount of money that a bank would deposit in another bank would be far greater than the guarantee.\"","They are wrong. Agreed. The problem I have is that sooner or later you get in so much debt no one will lend money to you anymore. At that point austerity is forced on you. The increased spending comes from domestic and foreign investors. We all know how fickle the financial markets can be. If our debt gets too high and they cut off the tap, we are fucked. I don't think we are anywhere near that point now. However, things can change dramatically in the course of a few months. Political tensions, global uncertainty and social unrest could all cause enough of a panic that people start questioning the safety of U.S. treasuries. We could also see the day where everyone collectively demands the U.S. stop ripping them off with negative bond yields. Like I said, I see no indication of that now, but who knows how long it will take? I know this is a bit of a tangent, but it is clear. My solution: borrow money to improve the economy while you can but make sure that your dollars count to fixing the economy. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck with a stagnant economy AND at a serious risk of bankruptcy when the financial markets no longer see you as a wise investment. You can't save yourself from falling off of two cliffs at the same time so our politicians should stop dicking around and start looking for real solutions with the money they are borrowing instead of pissing it away on useless shit.","\"But their economy is based on -- built upon -- the very concept of debt, just like the U.S. and most other advanced economies on the planet. Debt itself isn't the problem -- having to borrow to get capital and then *service the debt* is where the problems appear because whilst one group in the economy continues this old pattern of issuing debt and expecting payback with interest, another prominent group has been undercutting the ability of debtors to service their debt by shifting how products and services develop and are used by the public. It's the old \"\"watch this hand\"\" trick with the other hand stabbing you when you're not looking. Simply put, you can't have an economy based upon the debt/return-on-interest model while -- at the very same time -- having an economy based on make-everything-in-China/India production/service model: If you make people have to borrow money to have money, then you *must* give them a way to service that debt; otherwise, you're just a daft bastard who refuses to acknowledge that adding two and two returns four; an imbecile who insists that he can indeed have his cake and eat it too; I could go on but the point is made.\"","\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \"\"printing their way out of it\"\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\"","> They'd literally have to invade and plunder other nations on a regular basis. Which is what they do. The plundering is done by the mining companies and oil companies and engineering firms that follow them in though. Not them directly.","I'll give you a stark example of China's debt-driven construction growth: Since '09 China has constructed enough physical office space buildings to give every Chinese man, woman, and child their own cubicle - 3 times over! Given that these buildings were largely financed by debt, its hard to see how those creditors get all their money back given that there simply are not enough Chinese people to occupy and pay/rent that space in order for break-even to occur.","The debt is a problem but IF (and the key word is if) other nations are lending to us at rates we dictate, then that is not a problem. But if our own banks, Central Bank, and the like are buying it then the problem is being kept on our shores. The issue is with fractional reserve lending, one will always have this issue but if other nations give us items/services for paper/pixels we send them why not continue.","Lots of countries *have* printed themselves away from debt. Not all inflation turns into a death spiral like Zimbabwe (or Weimar Germany) did, for that you need to have a really shitty economy that no-one believes in. The problem with Japan right now is that they are trying to print their debt away, but as they do so, their currency *appreciates*. Gold medal for the first one who manages to explain that one.","Surely there's more to the picture than this. Breaking the borrowing limit by going to 3.5% multiple times is surely no where near as bad as going to 18% once. On top of this there was a fundamental difference in the use of capital. Borrowing to invest (as Germany did) has been ridiculously beneficial for them.","Corrupt country leaders will probably rape it dry for their personal gains. Next thing you know, the secretary of state is getting $100000 loan with 1 percent interest when the country national bank lending money to its people at 25% percent interest.","No - we're having fun seeing how long you avoid providing a single example of something you claimed was so universal any single one should suffice. It seems you totally pulled that statement out of your ass and now are so stubborn that admitting it must impact your psyche in some amazing way. So stubborn that you both don't address your claim, admit it is wrong, and yet you call us names for asking you to back up your statement. This is fun. You still have not listed an empire that did not purchase it's own debt. Your entire argument fails.","The main driver behind countries not printing themselves out of debt is the fact that it will cripple the economy, destroy citizens savings, asset valuations and piss all the countries trade partners off so much that they may stop doing business with them. You will have a few different extremes, look at Zimbabwe as an example of a country that just prints money like no ones business. America is essentially devaluing its currency to compete with China. That annoys the Chinese because their holdings are devalued and as such you then see people moving away from US treasuries into more stable commodities and currencies.","The ECB has put up about 400BEuro from EU countries. They are borrowing the money at an interests from other EU countries and then lend it to Spain with an interest. Same way the FEd is borrowing money from tax payers for yet another stimulus, QE3.","Your preferred answer: It's not debt, it's magic. It never has to be paid back. Ok, go ahead tell us all you know about QE and how it isn't debt. Your half baked version of the socratic method isn't working too well.","\"Your question is expressed as a run-on sentence, which I'm having trouble parsing. Maybe you could restate. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the statist canard that [the debt is not a problem because] \"\"we owe it to ourselves\"\". Collectivists like to think we're all in this together, but that's not reality. Some people are taking from others by force of law. The debt is owed to BANKS, and they want to keep this system going. Wouldn't you like to have a legal monopoly on the supply of currency? Institutions which are funded by loose credit (government, academia, military contractors, crony corporations) likewise benefit from this system. Those who invest in US dollars, and those who are farthest from the central planning spigot are the losers in this scheme. But there is more debt than currency, so it can't ever be repaid. So that is a moot point - it can't even hypothetically be considered. There are however a number of other ways that this system could unwind, when it inevitably does. The banks could be left to fail, and their assets would be bid on by others through the bankruptcy process. Or the Fed could keep issuing currency to keep the banks solvent, eventually inflating the whole system into irrelevance.\"","\"Pretty much every american \"\"borrows\"\". Credit cards are essential in building credit history and story. Debit cards got popular in the past few years, but most still borrow at least a little bit on credit and pay it off right away.\"","\"It's helpful to remember that Charles Ponzi started with a legitimate arbitrage (international postal remittances). Once purveyors of arbitrage reach a certain scale, there's a natural tendency to become lazy and just forgo the arbitrage and just use new investor money to pay off previous investors. Banks wouldn't be any different if it weren't for central banks and government participation. Indeed, the primary reason that the FedResInk came into existence is **because** of ponzi-like bank failures (bankers call them \"\"a run on the bank\"\"). Neoclassical economics is about using the synthesis of state sovereignty and central bank monetary theory to keep the system they've developed intact. ...and, as fun as it might be to sit back and calculate just how much debt can be created from a life-time of labor proceeds (a couple million for the average person-- completely hypothetical back of the envelope inflation excluded, 4.5x10^14, which is still in middle of the trillions), it would be wise to keep in mind that the last banking crisis, while fundamentally caused by the inability to collect future labor proceeds, was precipitated, not by individuals, but by repurchase agreements propping up extremely leveraged positions made by and between massive investment banks. So, the thing to remember is that fractional reserve debt issuance banking is like a 10 to 1 transistor that has a fundamental tolerance requirement on the source signal, but that when the source signal fades, it can draw from the surplus signal created by the 10 to 1 amplification (up to a certain point and then the transistor goes up in a puff of smoke).\"","There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.","\"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 \"\"dollars\"\", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency.\"","\"Judging from your comments, you seem to be confused about the way banking works. Banks can only lend out money that they actually have: whether from deposits or investors or loans taken from other banks/government entities. The rules on how this works varies from country to country, but the principle is always the same. There is no magic money. Let's imagine a closed system. There's only one town, and that town only has one bank. There are 100 people total in town, and each has $10,000. Everyone deposits all of their money in the bank. The bank now has $1,000,000 in total deposits. You take a loan for $100,000 and buy a house. The bank now has $900,000. You make your payments of $965 per month: $833 of interest and $132 toward principal. In this ideal world, the bank has no costs associated with doing business. After one month, the bank has $1,000,000 in deposits, $900,965 in cash on hand, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit (from interest). Now here's the confusing part. You bought a house from someone. That person also lives in town. He takes the $100,000 you gave him and... deposits it in the bank. The bank now has $1,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit. Assume 10 more people buy houses at $100,000 each, taking loans for that whole amount (for the same terms you did). Assume those sellers then deposit the money back in the bank. The bank now has $2,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $1,099,868 in loans, and $833 in profit. The bank is taking in $10,615 per month ($965 x 11) in loan payments, making profit of $9,163 ($833 x 11) per month from interest. This process of loans and deposits and payments can go on forever without any outside influence. This is the primary way money is created. It's like printing money without the paper. Of course, we're not in a closed system. Banks are limited in endlessly creating money, primarily by two things: Reserve Requirements are set by government agencies. They might say banks can lend until their cash on hand (or liquid equivalent) is, at minimum, 35% of total deposits. So a bank with $1,000,000 in deposits would have to keep $350,000 in cash at any given time. Capital Requirements work largely the same way. It's more the bank saying, \"\"What happens if a bunch of people want their deposits back?\"\" They plan a reasonable amount of cash to have on hand for that scenario.\"","When banks create a loan, it is said they write the debit account out of thin air (liability), balanced by the loan (asset). When the person who gets the loans spends the money, the bank has to pay it. If the bank only has 10% reserves of the money it loans, how does the bank pay out it's loans? Does it borrow the money from the Fed and then pay it back?","\"Here's some way of thinking about it, and I'm not really sure if it's completely correct, but sometimes we oversimplify when trying to tell a five year old :) Say there are two people in the world. You and me. We both have $100. A total of $200 in the world. Suddenly, a wild bank appears. I deposit my $100 in the bank. I still have $100 and you still have $100. Now you want to buy something from me that costs $150. You go to the bank to loan money. The bank has $100 available so gives you $50. You give me $150. Now I have $250 and you are $50 in debt. I deposit the $150 in the bank. We do this again and again, until I have $1000 on my bank account, and you are $900 in debt. I want to buy a house of $500 and go to my bank, demanding to take out $500. But there is only $200 in the whole world so the bank can only give me $200. \"\"Money\"\" has been created out of thin air, but it's actually you who are in debt. If you go bankrupt, the bank has a big debt it won't get back, and is in deep shit when I come around to demand my money back. At that point governments step in to loan the bank money for cheap, because if the bank fails, I will lose all my pension savings I put into that bank, as well as my companies and a lot of my employees. And other banks loaned this bank money, so if this bank fails, the other banks will be in the exact same position and will also fail, because then they will also have debts that won't be paid back. There are regulations minimizing this - i.e. a bank is required to keep a percentage of the amount of money on its accounts, so there's a maximum limit of \"\"money created\"\".\"","\"India's a very interesting case study. They're economy's exploded and grown by leaps and bounds in the last decade. It's a free market but the Reserve Bank of India's get's weird sometimes. For instance a lot of these crappy and defaulting loans are because the government (Reserve Bank of India) said to fuel growth you have to make sure a certain percentage of your loan book is made out industries we want to develop. So huge loans were made to construction firms, not because they fit the risk profile of the bank or were good investments, but cause the government mandated it. Ton's of horribly run companies got money they shouldn't have. Also, public banks pay a lot less than their private counterparts, so you don't have the best and brightest handing out these loans. India's a fucking mess of laws. Like there's no codified way to declare bankruptcy like there is in the West. So if a company goes belly up, they have to go through this maze of different government offices with contradictory rules so creditors (in many cases, the banks that lent them money) can get some of their money back, IMF said it takes 4.5 years on average for a company to go through bankruptcy proceedings. That's insane! And because it's India, there's a ton of shady shit going on behind the scenes. Up until 2-3 years ago, loans that the banking industry considers non performing (interest payments haven't been made in 90 days) were lumped in another category and hidden in the balance sheet, so the rest of the world looked at this said, \"\"well, their NPL ratio is only 3-4% which is fine for developing country\"\" and continued to rate them highly. It wasn't until recently that we figured out the ENTIRE banking sector wasn't reporting their bad loans properly.\"","\"You quite literally just answered why I never understood my own god damn currency says \"\"I promise to pay the bearer...\"\" What I don't get however, is that how wealth comes out of thin air.... why each continent cannot be eternally rich... We're all (at the very basic level) taking things from the ground and providing a service to someone. But if the whole world were to become bankers (only providing a service to which some people would emply never actually existed), we obviously can't all make money from it. So how does money \"\"come out of thin air\"\" so speak?\"","Yep, the wonderful thing about finance is the more you learn the more you start understanding the world around you. I think your question is more related to economics (deficits, surpluses and budgets) however countries can (and do) reissue new bonds to help pay off the old ones. Also keep in mind if a country has say $10trillion in debt, it isn't all due at once so maybe only $10 billion might be due per year",">So where is all the money? I mean, labor has been produced to make things and wages paid to the laborers. The things are purchased by other laborers, who were paid for producing goods or services, etc. It's a closed loop, right? Almost right. The problem is that the wages paid to the laborers are not high enough to buy all the goods produced, so there is constant overproduction and at the same time there are people who would want to buy these goods, but can't afford them. Some people lose their jobs, which reduces demand for goods even further. It's a vicious circle and everbody loses in the long run.",">u telling me there were that much savings and reserve in the system? Yes. You're telling me there wasn't? The loans were bundled and *sold to investors* to get more capital to loan. It was not magically created as you seem to think. [There were about $4trillion saved in the US at the time](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WSAVNS). The mortgages were sold all over the world, where there is easily more trillions of savings and reserve. You still have not addressed M2 being around 10x M1. You keep floundering but not addressing anything of substance.","I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks.","\"I meant \"\"we\"\" in terms of the US Treasury, which currently owes over 100% of GDP. And that's cooking the debt numbers down using cash accounting and cooking the GDP up by lying about inflation, among other things. Plenty of people are doing better than ever, particularly those who have their hands in the cheap money thrown around by the Fed.\"","What are those maximums, and do all countries have them? Usury, lending money for any interest at all, used to be anti-biblical: it wasn't a Christian thing to do, and so in Christian countries it was Jews who did it (Jews who were money-lenders). Asking for interest on loans is still anti-Koranic: so Islamic banks don't lend money for interest. Instead of your getting a mortgage from the bank to buy a house, the bank will buy the house, which you then buy from bank on a rent-to-own basis. Further details:","First Reddit comment! This may seem like a noob question, but why can't the government just borrow unlimited amount of money, to pay for welfare program instead of raising taxes? I would assume that would be the better thing to do, and just roll the debt forward. Thanks!","\"Still waiting, still not seeing any that have.. When you debate someone, in a forum or somewhere other than your armchair, I suggest you forget about trying to demand a opposite answer from someone as an answer to a question. Its not only childish, its really quite silly. You are, by all definitions, a troglodyte. If you think of those ignorant \"\"republican christians\"\", thats how you are acting now. No country in the past has ever sold and bought there own debt at the same time I can promise you I worked in finance, for a large highly rated company, then got rich building a business. I know this hurts, but honestly, when you are wrong, just admit it and move on. Ignorance is just so sad to display and probably keeps you held back in life anyways. Im off to bed though I am sure you'll declare yourself victor of not naming a single country that bought and sold its own debt in history. But, maybe its ANY victory in your head you need right now. Who knows. ------------------------------------------- Update 1 * lol I see you changed your answer, let me do the same. The fact that the \"\"bank of england\"\" in 1694 is the model of \"\"modern\"\" central banks STILL doesn't show that they BOUGHT THERE OWN DEBT. Do you still not understand this yet? Modern central banking has NOTHING TO DO with buying your own debt. You really are clueless as to how \"\"economics\"\" works aren't you? ------------------------------------------- Update 2 * I think you keep changing them, because for some reason you just won't admit you have no understanding of modern/classical banking. Once again: >In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank-notes.[12] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy. This statement still DOES NOT show that the government here simultaniously purchased its own bonds it issued. It issued debt, yes, no one is debating this. The bank, for all purposes, acted as the Treasury for England. But honestly, you are a fucking piece of work. I have watched you lie, change your answers, and pretty much do every childish thing in the book to try to win an arguement on Reddit. You are a little person, honestly. I know not of what world you live in, but it isn't this one. Seriously, get better, the world is alot more fun when you don't suck so bad at it.\"","I'm sorry, I know that it's not your fault but you really need to think about what you're saying and stop listening to the financial advisors on tv... If you think that all you need to do is give people money to spend then you need to read up on Zimbabwe. They tried that - at it's hight they *think* that Zim's inflation hit 6.5 x 10^108 % ([that's 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe)). I can't even begin to imagine how large that is - basically bread cost billions of zim dollars a loaf. I remember hearing the one day that they were dropping 3 zeros from their notes. I'm ashamed to say that I laughed. No one is buying right now because, instead of buying stuff, everyone is paying back loans - or they're too scared to buy in case they need the cash to survive in the future. Look at the liquidity crisis; the housing bubble; all the bank failing/needing to be bailed out lately - all because people couldn't pay back the loans they took out. The US government is already $15 trillion in debt (nearly 16 trillion now) - and that's only the public debt. The gov is already paying $454 billion every year *just to repay the **interest** on the debt!* Never mind actually paying back the principle amount. Last year it added another $1.2 trillion to the deficit (that's another 1,200,000,000 dollars that it owes on top of the 15,000,000,000 dollars it already owes). At the beginning of this year, public debt amounted to 102% of GDP - that means that if everyone in America didn't buy what ever it was that they bought last year and instead repaid the public debt (not private mind you, just the debts that the government owed) then they *still* wouldn't have been able to pay it all off. Now after reading all of that, please keep a straight face and tell me that all that the government needs to spend even more money to sort it all out.","It is also not helped that governments globally are pressing banks to improve capital ratios; i.e. hold more in reserve. While this will reduce the likelihood of a bailout in the near future, it severely reduces the access to money and damages the economy.","> The issue I have with your use of Japan is that Japan has very strong exports of superior quality and low cost, we do not. That has no bearing on their sovereign debt situation though. Japan's debt is yen-denominated. Does Japan rely on the rest of the world to supply it with yen via exports? No. Japan issues the yen. >And what about South and Central American Pesos? Where you saw actual debt crises, it was countries that owed US dollars. Peg your peso to the US dollar and/or borrow US dollars and you are on the hook for US dollars which you can run out of. Let's just apply this as a general rule: any example of actual sovereign debt crisis you want to offer, before you do... look for where they're on the hook for foreign currency. You'll find it. >What about Keynes, Minsky, and the trilemma? Their central banks were completely overridden by foreign speculators. We can only choose two out of three options, peg our currency, spend to help the economy, and/or maintain free trade, not all three What I'm describing is consistent with the trilemma [triangle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity#mediaviewer/File:Impossible_trinity_diagram.svg). I'm saying the sovereign monetary policy with a floating rate currency is the one which allows a country the most policy space for responding to crisis and funding its domestic economy in general up to its own real capacity limits. I want to emphasize here that the printing press isn't some magic fountain of real wealth. Your potential real wealth is limited by what you have the real resources to produce. The idea is to fund yourself to the point where you're producing up to your own real limits of output capacity at full employment. Maximize your own potential. As opposed to adopting voluntary financial constraints which force you to leave some of that potential idle, making you poorer in real terms.","\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://bankunderground.co.uk/2017/08/08/your-country-needs-funds-the-extraordinary-story-of-britains-early-efforts-to-finance-the-first-world-war/) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Financing World War I required the UK government to borrow the equivalent of a full year&#039;s GDP. But its first effort to raise capital in the bond market was a spectacular failure. > As part of a project looking at the financing of World War I, the ledgers of investors who purchased the 3&frac12;% War Loan have been analysed for the first time. > These reveal the startling truth about the failure of the first bond issue of the Great War and the extraordinary role of the Bank of England in covering and then concealing the shortfall in funds. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tfsn0/hacker_news_the_extraordinary_story_of_britains/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~189875 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **War**^#1 **Bank**^#2 **Loan**^#3 **investors**^#4 **bond**^#5\"","\"And if you subtract that 30% (the 19% Social Security and 11% Fed holdings) which are entirely bogus and moot... Then that 32% (out of the remaining 70%) is pretty darned near half, and regardless of it being just shy of a majority, it is still the largest block. Even then, since the dollar itself is backed by nothing, it isn't technically a problem -- the US can pay it off at any time (the only inherent cost being the debasement of the currency). Where the problem with that comes in is that there are a LOT of US assets located on foreign soil (all of the \"\"joint-operation\"\" manufacturing plants in China, for instance); and foreign governments CAN hold them \"\"hostage\"\" (so to speak), or if they so choose, to literally confiscate (nationalize) them and yet legally \"\"compensate\"\" their US based paper-owners by paying them off with the debased dollars (and/or US treas bonds, same thing really)... basically just \"\"paying\"\" us with checks drawn on our own collective account.\"","Steve Keen says otherwise, he says Banks CAN create a Quadrillion dollars, as long as there are willing borrowers. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc_fpGfyqGE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sSfPkIUHPk&feature=share why does m2 seem like exponential? how can fractional reserve do something like that? unpossible. seems like only an explosive growth in either productivity or profits through slave labor globalization or speculative derivatives can do something like that.","So if a country forces their savings onto another country, say the U.S., the U.S. would have to absorb those savings somehow. If there were enough productive investments available, then this would be a good thing. But if there aren't enough productive investments available but the savings are still forced upon the U.S. it would seem that it would inevitably lead to some kind of a debt bubble for the U.S.","\"What you are looking for is the \"\"debt maturity profile\"\" (to make it easier to google. Most countries continuously roll over their debt, in effect just paying interest forever. So when your debt is due, you issue another loan for the same amount and use the new loan to pay off the old one.\"","\"Banks use the money for productive pursuits, earning returns in excess of what they will owe the fed in discount interest. If a bank could not yield a return greater than their interest due their lender (whether that lender is the fed or not) they probably wouldn't borrow in the first place. EDIT: I misunderstood the question. The federal reserve does not disseminate new money by making loans. They do so by issuing and trading in bonds. The US Treasury, for example, issues a bond. The Federal Reserve Bank buys this bond using money they \"\"printed\"\". So the same question applies.... where does the money come from to pay the interest on the bond? It comes from the perpetual issuance and trading in bonds at a growing rate. All the fed needs to do is to buy bonds at a rate faster than they collect interest.\"","\"(relix already hit on some of this) It's hard to explain this to a five-year-old, because there are some fairly abstract concepts involved, but here goes... All actual \"\"money\"\" is debt. All of it, including monetary gold, etc. (Don't argue with me yet, I'll get to that.) Imagine a pretend world with no money, some kind of primitive villiage or something. Now let's invent paper money. You can't just print a bunch of paper that says people have to give you stuff, because nobody would honor it. But you *could* print IOUs. Let's walk through this... - Let's say you're an apple-farmer and I'm a hunter. You want some meat but haven't harvested your crops yet. You say to me, \"\"hey, go hunt me some meat and I'll give you 1/10th of my apple harvest in the fall\"\". Fair enough, I give you meat, you owe me apples. There's probably a lot of this kind of stuff going on, in addition to normal barter. In time, standard \"\"prices\"\" start to emerge: a deer haunch is worth a bushel of apples, or whatever. - Now, let's say a week later, I realize that my kid needs a new pair of shoes more than I need a bushel of apples. I come back to you and say, \"\"Hey remember that bushel of apples you owe me? Could you write a marker, redeemable for one bushel of apples, that I can give to the shoemaker in trade for a pair of shoes?\"\" You say okay, and we have invented a *transferable note*, something a lot like money. - In time, our little villiage starts to figure out that a note redeemable for a bushel of apples can be swapped for all kinds of things. The fisherman who doesn't even like apples will accept apple-certificates in trade for fish, because he knows he can trade them to boat-builder who loves apples. In time, you can even start to hire farm-workers without giving them anything except a note promising a cut of the future harvest. Now, you are issuing *debt*: a promise to provide apples. The \"\"money\"\" is a transferable IOU-- your workers get a promise to provide value equal to a day of farm-work, or whatever, and it's transferrable, so they can use it to buy whatever they want. The worker gets fish from the fisherman, not in exchange for doing any work or giving him anything he can use, but in exchange for an IOU that the fisherman can redeem anywhere. So far so good. But there are a couple of forks in the road here, on the way to a realistic monetary system, that we'll address separately: - What happens if your apple orchard is destroyed in a wildfire? Suddenly all the notes that everyone has been trading are basically wiped out. It didn't \"\"go\"\" anywhere, it's just gone, it doesn't exist. Real value was genuinely destroyed. There is no thermodynamic law of the conservation of monetary value-- just as you and I created it by creating transferable debt, it can also be genuinely destroyed. (We'll get back to this in a minute, it gets interesting). - The second issue is that, in all probability, the whole town is not *just* trading apple-certificates. I could also issue promises to catch deer, the fisherman could issue promises of fish, and so on. This could get pretty messy, especially if you got the notion to issue more apple-certificates than you can grow: you could buy all kinds of stuff with self-issued debt that you could never repay, and the town wouldn't find out until harvest-time comes. Once again, value has been \"\"destroyed\"\" people worked and made stuff and gave you stuff in exchange for something that doesn't exist, and will never exist. All that stuff they made is gone, you consumed it, and there is nothing to show for it. The above two concerns are likely to become manifest in our village sooner or later, and probably sooner. This leads to the question of *credit*, which is, at its most basic, a measure of *credibility*. Every time you issue an apple-certificate, you are *borrowing*, with a promise to repay from future apple-harvests. After the first couple of town scandals, people will start taking a closer look at the credibility of the issuer. Let's say the town potato-farmer comes up with a scheme where his potato-certificates are actually issued by some credible third-party, say the town priest or whatever, who starts every growing season with a book of numbered certificates equal to the typical crop-yield and no more, and keeps half of the certificate on file, issuing the other half. Now there is an audit trail and a very credible system that is likely to earn the potato-grower a lot of credit, compared to other farmers in town. That means that the potato-grower can probably issue more notes at a better exchange rate than some murkier system. Similarly, the town drunk probably won't get much value for his certificates promising a ship of gold. Now we have something like a credit market emerging, and the potato-farmer is issuing something closer to what we might call a modern \"\"bond\"\"... (continued in a reply to this post...)\"","\"please explain, and use historic example if you would, how purchasing your own debt is a 1) Solid financial decision 2) Historically successful for another country. Oh right, you can't. Because its not. Maybe you don't have an \"\"understanding\"\" of economics, loser.\"","If you have an increasing population but a steady supply of wealth then there will be a perceived effect of decline. As the average person can afford less and less. If inflation is factored in this effect is accelerated as the value of money is reduced but the availability of that money is as well. In this model those who have tend to accumulate as they produce. And those who do not have tend to lose wealth as they consume to fill basic needs, at ever increasing prices, with a declining source of income, exacerbating the effect. If you control your population, prevent inflation and deflation, and maintain a constant production/consumption cycle that is perfectly in balance then you could have that utopian society. But in practice there is waste. That waste makes maintaining that balance impractical at best. People have different desires and motivations. So while that utopian society that you propose seems possible at the theoretical level when solely looking at the mechanics and economics, in practice it becomes more about managing the people. Which makes the task virtually impossible. As for the debt issue that is the strategy of many of the western nations. Most of them experienced growth over the last 50 years that was unprecedented in history. Many of them simply assumed it would continue indefinitely and failed to plan for a downturn. In addition they planned for the growth and borrowed based on the assumptions. When the growth slowed several continued to use the same projections for their budgeting, with the effect of spending money they would not take in. So in a way, yes the growth is needed to service the continued growth of debt, unless the government issuing that debt is willing to reduce its expenses.","Is there anywhere I can get further information? I ask because I'm thinking about an alternative theory of money where companies can issue bonds as currency, and we can have coexisting monetary policies. These relate to what i'm saying: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/utf5u/where_has_all_the_money_in_the_world_gone/c4yfkhg http://www.radicalsocialentreps.org/2012/07/open-source-currencies-on-the-rise-in-greece/ http://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-central-banks-independent-2012-5 http://truth-out.org/news/item/11868-spain-and-greece-are-being-forced-to-suffer-to-save-germany-from-high-inflation"],"string":"[\n \"By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.\",\n \"\\\"They borrowed it from the people, and typically to finance wars and military spending. For example, Wikipedia suggests that the Bank of England \\\"\\\"was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy.\\\"\\\" It's a game that everyone has to play once started; if Napoleon buys an army on credit, you'll have to raise an equal amount or face quite a problem. As for why they've grown so large, it's because governments are quite skilled at owing large sums of money. Only a small portion of the debt comes due in full at a given moment, and they constantly reissue new debt via auction to keep it rolling. So as long as they can make coupon (interest) and the lump sum at maturity, it's not difficult to keep up. Imagine how much credit card debt you could rack up if you only ever had to pay interest. This game will continue for as long as people lend. And there are plenty of lenders. There's pensions, mutual funds and endowments, which find public debt typically safer than stocks. And money market funds, which target 1 dollar NAV and only invest in the \\\"\\\"safest\\\"\\\" AAA-rated bonds to protect it. There's central banks, which can buy and sell public debt to manipulate inflation and exchange rates. Absent some kind of UN resolution to ban lending, or perhaps a EU mandated balanced budget, these debts will likely continue to grow. You think they \\\"\\\"collectively owe more money than can exist\\\"\\\", but there's a lot of wealth in the world. Most nations owe less than a year's GDP. For example, the US's total wealth is in the neighborhood of 50 trillion.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Depends on the country, whether its a currency issuer with floating exchange rate, and what the debt is denominated in. For instance, the US has no real debt, b/c its all in US dollars and can be printed at any time. It has no need to borrow anything, it issues its own currency. It used to be different 4 decades ago, on the gold standard, so in general people still think currency issuers need to borrow (or earn) to spend. Just a relic in thinking. But when the country does not issue its own currency, then it does need to earn or borrow in order to spend. In this case, it could borrow from anywhere that will lend it money. In US, a state would fit this description. Or Greece, as it borrowed Euros, for which it is not an issuer of. EDIT: just came across this blog http://pragcap.com/where-does-the-money-come-from Its title, \\\"\\\"Where does the money come from\\\"\\\". Maybe he saw this question. Anyway, the US does not need to borrow money. Why would it borrow what it creates? From the video: \\\"\\\"Thinking is hard, that's why we don't do it a lot\\\"\\\". Great line.\\\"\",\n \"I looked into the investopedia one (all their videos are mazing), but that detail just was not clear to me, it also makes be wonder, if a country issues bonds to finance itself, what happens at maturity when literally millions of them need to be paid? The income needs to have grown to that level or it defaults? Wouldn't all the countries default if that was the case, or are bonds being issued to being able to pay maturity of older bonds already? (I'm freaking myself out by realizing this)\",\n \"The answers provided so far as good and informative, but I just thought I'd add one small point... There are super-national organisations that commonly lend to governments, in particular those in the developing the world. The World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) are the two primary ones. Also quite notably, the Greek economy was bailed out only this year by the EMF (European Monetary Fund) spearheaded by Germany - this is a rare occurrence however and was done mainly because Greece was a relatively developed country and others had an obligation to assist it as an EU member state.\",\n \"It's more complicated than that. Governments raise money in a number of ways. First, they tax economic activity within their borders and for connected companies and individuals. Then, some governments have actual revenues from state-owned enterprises (licences, patents, courts, business revenues, and so on). Whatever shortage arises between state expenditure and this income is the deficit which is usually financed through debt. Government usually issues a bond (Wikipedia for a list of government bonds) of various types, some with extremely lengthy maturation dates. These bonds can be purchased both locally and by foreign investment funds. The nature of who buys is important. From the Wikipedia link you'll see that most government debt is very highly rated based on the ability of the state to simply raise taxes in order to fund redemption. Pension funds are legally bound to only invest in highly-rated investment classes and the bulk of bonds may be purchased to support local pensioners. A state that defaults on debt will first hit its own most vulnerable citizens. In addition, the fall-out will result in a savage cut in ratings. Countries like Argentina and Zimbabwe, which have both refused to repay their debts even to the IMF, are currently unable to raise investment at all. This has a tremendous impact on local economic development. So, default is out of the question without severe penalties. The second part of your question is about paying down the debt. As debts increase, more and more of the revenue that a country does earn is spent on servicing debt repayments. Sometimes bonds are issued merely to refinance old debt. A country that spends too much on refinancing debt is no different from an individual. Less and less money is available to do other things. In conclusion: governments can neither default nor binge-borrow unless they wish to severely limit economic opportunities for their citizens.\",\n \"Here is an overview of who owns US Debt from Wikipedia, it indicates that approximately 1/3rd of US debt is held by foreigners (mainly the central banks of other countries), approximately 1/2 of US Debt is held by the federal reserve, and the rest is owned by various America organizations (mutual funds, pension funds, etc). The money is loaned via bonds, treasury bills, etc. When you put money in your pension fund, you very likely buying US debt. The US Treasury department all has a comprehensive page about how public debt works in the United States here: an overview of public debt from the treasury. I wasn't able to find a similar breakdown for other countries, but Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of how much debt is owed by other countries: a list of countries by public debt.\",\n \"i disagree. if a country has sovereign currency, then there is no squandering. where does that money come from in the first place? govt creates it, and spends it into the economy through deficit spending. And govt gets a service or product in return from that spending. Govt deficit spending = private sector savings.\",\n \"\\\"Others have pointed out that the entities loaning money to the government are typically people and institutions. Recently, however, the US federal government borrowings were largely funded by money printed by the Federal Reserve. The government had to borrow $1.1 trillion from October, 2010 through June, 2011. During this period the FED printed around $0.8 trillion new dollars to purchase US debt. Thus, the US government was not borrowing money from people, it was being funded by money printing. The central bankers call this \\\"\\\"quantitative easing\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"Where are they going to get money from? Their bonds are worthless because they have no viable way of ever paying back debt so why would anyone lend money to them. You, and Keynes think that you can fuel debt with more debt, but all this does is build a massive debt bubble that has to pop at some point. This is exactly what these nations did for years and now are beginning to realize that they can no longer issue debt.\",\n \"To understand this fully one would need to understand quite a few things. Not in scope here. In short, whenever China sells goods to US, it gets USD as most of the trades are in USD. China uses this money to buy other things it needs like Oil etc. After this they still have quite a bit of USD left with them. The money is left with them because US is buying more things from China and selling less things to China. This creates a surplus USD with China. So if US were to borrow money from China or any other country, it would be this excess money. Ofcourse how money gets created in first place is a different topic altogether.\",\n \"\\\"For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc. There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds. The \\\"\\\"National Debt\\\"\\\" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the \\\"\\\"Bonds\\\"\\\" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong. If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (\\\"\\\"Default\\\"\\\" on its payments). This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future. Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default. Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Is it not that bad? Depends how bad is bad. The problems causes by a government having large debt are similar to those caused by an individual having large debt. The big issue is: More and more of your income goes to paying interest on the debt, and is thus not available for spending on goods and services. If it gets bad enough, you find you cannot make payments, you start defaulting on loans, and then you have to make serious sacrifices, like selling your property to pay the debt. Nations have an advantage over individuals in that they can sometimes repudiate debt, i.e. simply declare that they are not going to pay. Lenders can then refuse to give them more money, but that doesn't get their original loans paid back. In theory other nations could send in troops to seize property to pay the loan, but this is a very extreme solution. Totally aside from any moral considerations, modern warfare is very expensive, it's likely the war would cost you more than you'd recover on the debt. How much debt is too much? It's hard to give a number, any more than one could give a \\\"\\\"maximum acceptable debt\\\"\\\" for an individual. American banks have a rule of thumb that they won't normally loan you money if your total debt payments would be more than 1/3 of your income. I've never come close to that, that seems awfully high to me. But, say, a young person just starting out so he's not making a lot of money, and he lives someplace with high housing prices, might find this painful but acceptable. Etc.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"That was indeed a typo. I would not go into details regarding Germany, Japan's economy is pretty much in stagnated state for the past two decades. US has a high deficit and this issue is a major topic if you follow the current election season. And yes, that is not a good thing. Britain (Still, is not that UK?) and Italy seem to come off as time wrap living in colonial era where they can just get free stuff off others. Note the high debt cost of Italy. It is not as if debtors are lining up to give money to these nations. More often than not, it is the leftover state of pre-world war mindset where some people/organizations try to hold on to the money and influence as long as possible. I think this topic itself is extremely complicated and has various facets to it but to even moot such ideas - essentially saying \\\"\\\"lets exchange goods and here take our currency\\\"\\\" and then saying \\\"\\\"our currency has no value btw\\\"\\\" is criminal. It just voids the legal contract written on a dollar note.\\\"\",\n \"It isn't as simple as just borrowing money. This is more of an economics question but there are reasons to borrow money (simple example being when the economy is growing too slowly) and reasons to increase taxes (basic example being when the economy is growing too fast). Check out monetary and fiscal policy on investopedia or youtube, this should give you a good understanding. Now one more thing to consider is the 'risk' of governments defaulting on their loans. In a simple sense, the more debt a government has the more risk there is to default. This means people who lend the government money will want a higher interest rate, making it harder for the government to borrow money.\",\n \"As long as we remember that debt is the only option when the government has to borrow their money at interest or take it from taxes. When taxes don't cut it, we borrow. Ever wondered why the government doesn't just spend money into the economy instead of borrowing at interest?\",\n \"One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).\",\n \"Has any country in their existence, paid their debt in full? To me it seems that every country is in debt and it will just keep growing. It's like they know that the debt is impossible to pay and they just play along so that they get their paycheck and pass the debt to the other guy/gal who wins the office. Do we just want to believe that one day everybody would receive so much money that everybody would pay off their debt?\",\n \"“Why do governments borrow money instead of printing it? (When printing money, one doesn't need to pay interest).” Good question. Numerous leading economists, including a couple of economics Nobel Laureates have asked the same question and concluded that borrowing can be dispensed with. First, Milton Freidman set out a monetary system in a paper in the American Economic Review which involved no government borrowing, and govt just printed money (in a responsible fashion of course) as and when needed. See: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1810624 A second Nobel Laureate with similar views was William Vickrey. A third economist with similar views (of Keynes’ era) was Abba Lerner. Keynes said of Lerner, “Lerner's argument is impeccable, but heaven help anyone who tries to put it across to the plain man at this stage of the evolution of our ideas”.\",\n \"\\\"Governments borrowing money doesn't create new money. When banks \\\"\\\"borrow\\\"\\\" money (i.e. take deposits), it does effectively create money because the depositor expects to be able to get the money back at any time, but the bank assumes that most won't actually do this and lends out most of the money to other people. If everyone did actually ask for their money back at once, the illusion of the extra money created by this process would collapse, and the bank would go bust. In contrast when governments borrow money, the loan isn't repayable on demand, it has a fixed maturity and the money is only repaid at the end of that period (plus interest at defined points during the period). So holders of government debt don't have money they can spend (they can turn it into money they can spend but only by finding someone else to buy it). So government debt doesn't create inflation in itself. If they printed money, then they'd be devaluing the money of everyone who had saved or invested, whereas if they borrow money and use taxes to repay it, the burden falls more evenly across the economy and doesn't disproportionately penalise certain sets of people.\\\"\",\n \"The country isn't a business, of course you are correct. That doesn't mean one can run deficits year after year and expect success. I blame both GWB and Obama in this regard, neither showed a serious interest in balancing the budget. But you have to, the money has to come from somewhere to get what you want.\",\n \"The Government doesn't borrow money. It in fact simply prints it. The bond market is used for an advanced way of controlling the demand for this printed money. Think about it logically. Take 2011 for example. The Govt spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in. This is real money that get's credited in to people's bank accounts to purchase real goods and services. Now who purchases the majority of treasuries? The Primary Dealers. What are the Primary Dealers? They are banks. Where do banks get their money? From us. So now put two and two together. When the Govt spends $1.7 trillion and credits our bank accounts, the banking system has $1.7 trillion more. Then that money flows in to pension funds, gets spent in to corporation who then send that money to China for cheap products... and eventually the money spent purchases up Govt securities for investments. We had to physically give China 1 trillion dollars for them to be able to purchase 1 trillion dollars in securities. So it makes sense if you think about how the math works in the real world.\",\n \"\\\"Sovereign states borrow money explicitly in a two primary ways: A sovereign cannot be compelled to repay debt, and there isn't a judicial process like bankruptcy to erase debt. When sovereigns default, they negotiate new terms with creditors and pay back some fraction of the actual debt owed. They can also print money to repay debt, which has other nasty consequences. But, while a state cannot be compelled to repay a debt, creditors cannot be compelled to loan money to the state either! Any enterprise of sufficient size needs access to capital via loans to meet daily obligations in anticipation of revenue -- even when times are good. Defaulting makes borrowing impossible or expensive, and is avoided. Regarding using your military to avoid repaying debt... remember what Napoleon said: \\\"\\\"An army travels on its stomach\\\"\\\". Military campaigns are expensive... no borrowing ability means the soldiers don't get paid and the food, fuel and ammo don't get delivered. Smaller countries have other risks as well. Many nations are essentially forced to use US Dollars as a reserve currency, or are forced by the market to borrow money in a foreign currency. This creates a situation where any risk of non-payment results in a deep devaluation of the local currency. When your debt is denominated in dollars, these shifts can dramatically increase your debt obligations from a local currency point of view. You also run the risk that a larger or richer company will park warships in your harbor and seize assets as payment -- the US and Britain engaged in this several times during the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, not paying the bills has a cascading effect. Bad situations get worse, and they do so quickly.\\\"\",\n \"> A significant proportion of recent economic growth has relied on borrowed money -- today standing at a dizzying 325 percent of global gross domestic product. Debt allows society to accelerate consumption, as borrowings are used to purchase something today against the promise of future repayment. Unfunded entitlements to social services, health care and pensions increase those liabilities. The bill for these commitments will soon become unsustainable, as demographic changes make it more difficult to meet.\",\n \"hey look I can spout random countries too. Spain! Back it up, or shut up. The UK did NOT sell debt and simultaneously purchase its own debt in the past (until modern times). And who said the reason soviet union collapsed was because of its banking policies? Putting words in peoples mouths aren't we. I think you should move along before you get hurt. This is a grown up conversation little one.\",\n \"\\\"To summarize, the money never existed. The best example I can give is the housing bubble. Houses were being bought on credit worthiness and this pushed the house prices and values up as if the houses had been bought with real money. When people couldn't make their payments, the house prices crashed. The boom and bust cycle is simply credit being overextended (boom) and when there is not enough money in the system for everyone to repay all their debts it crashes (bust). The real question that people should be asking is not \\\"\\\"Where did all the money go?\\\"\\\", but \\\"\\\"Why is money issued by private banks?\\\"\\\" Money is a social invention to facilitate trade. Should it not be like a public water utility? Counterfeiting is illegal except when a private bank does it. Money should not be variable in value and economics will never be a science if the measurement of value is not standardized. All natural sciences have standards of measurement like meters, joules, degrees, etc. Money must decrease in value constantly because all money is issued at interest. We essentially pay rent on all money that isssued and the interest can only be repaid if more money is created, once again at interest. This is why economists generally say some inflation is good. Finance has told them interest is a given on the issue of money when in reality, money is just an IOU that requires no such interest payment for it's issue. Interest should be made if a loan is issued against savings, but not for the simple issuance of money. There should be public banks that issue the money and private banks for investment. You can read more about this from reading about Arthur Kitson. In this way, the public controls the value of it's money, not private bankers that use the issue of money to transfer wealth to an idle financial class. If you want to get into the differences between wealth and debt, read the work of Frederick Soddy. It's off topic from this thread but really interesting to see how he relates real science to economics and how our current economic system is not scientific in the least. Wealth is subject to the laws of thermodynamics while debt is an invention of the human will. Debt never rots or degrades with time and can expand exponentially through compound interest - nothing in the natural world does this.\\\"\",\n \">I would be really surprised if they didn't have more relatively short term debt as they were in the midst of a global freaking conflict, man. What its spent on is a political decision and isn't relevant, except that its even less useful than how it might be spent today. >I just don't want to open the unlimited money taps without carefully considering how long we can leave them open You are the only one saying that. Its a straw man. >If you're deciding whether or not to spend a crap ton of money you don't have, it helps if you haven't already spent a crap ton of money you don't have The government is the issuer of the currency. It doesn't have it or not have it. It creates it. They've issued an ~~crap ton of money~~ amount that hasn't been clawed back through taxation and they can add to it if it suits them.\",\n \"\\\"This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment. If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as *looong* as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets. Heck, if you can take on even *more* debt at 3%, you should still do the same. Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, *but*, doing so is effectively a form of \\\"\\\"loan\\\"\\\" to yourself. We call the \\\"\\\"interest\\\"\\\" on that loan \\\"\\\"inflation\\\"\\\", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart). So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%. But someone has to *take* that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of. There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much. If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially \\\"\\\"invested\\\"\\\" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people.\\\"\",\n \"You don't understand government financing at all. Gov'ts earn revenue, aka, taxes. They also spend money. The different between the money they spend and they money they earn is the deficit. If you run a deficit for a long period of time, you incur a very large national debt. Now, you can finance (aka, pay for) a deficit by borrowing money. This means you can sell bonds, and instead of pay off the debt each year, you just pay the interest. If your spending balloons out of control, your the likely hood of you paying your debt decreases. If you are very unlikely to payback your debt, people won't buy any more of your bonds, and you no longer have the income (from borrowing) to pay off your interest from other debt you owe, or what ever other obligations you own (think mortgage payments, or teachers salaries, etc). Here's were Europe and USA differ: European nations can't just print money. They can issue more debt, but they can't just create more euros. IF you can print money, you can pay off your debt with money you literally created out of thin air (at the expense of your people, this is called inflation). But this is a form of cheating, eventually people won't trust you, and won't buy your debt either. So where do the banks come in? if the government is SOUND and the banks are NOT, the government can backstop the banks. This is what the US and UK did. Greece, Spain, Ireland all had to back stop their banks also. However, Greece, Spain, and Irelany ( and Italy, and Portugal) also have 1) A lot of debt 2) Structurally high deficits 3) Extremely high borrowing costs (high interest rates...because people don't trust them...because...) 4) Weak underlying economies The fourth point gets you in real trouble. if you have high entitlements, lots of poeple out of work, who the hell is paying taxes and what are they going to? You have no revenue! Remember, a govt works just like a household. It is easy for a good household to support one member, but it is difficult for a member to support an irresponsible household.\",\n \"\\\"It is measured in US dollars. The US cannot just print the money because that would cause inflation. Remember that money is really just a convenient placeholder for the barter system. Creating more money regardless of whether there is more value in the economy (work, resources, etc.) is a very bad idea, and doing so has collapsed the economies of many countries. Debt increasing means that the US owes other countries more money. So yes, they are receiving more money from other countries, but the US has to pay it all back with interest eventually. The US government spends more money than it receives in taxes. To decrease the debt, spending needs to decrease and/or taxes need to increase. Many countries lend to the US. One of the biggest is China. These countries do so because of interest -- the US pays back more money than it gets lent, so the lending countries make a profit. If China suddenly called in all its debt to the US, this would severely damage the world economy. China's biggest trading partner is the US, so it has no interest in harming the US this way; it would harm itself. Additionally, the US would probably refuse to pay it (not to mention that it can't), and then China would lose all the money it \\\"\\\"invested\\\"\\\" in the US. It would benefit no one.\\\"\",\n \"Money as Debt and Money as Debt II (while low-quality in their production), give a great historical explanation of how the modern monetary system came into being, as well as touching on things you just said. You can find various versions online, but here are two links anyway: * Money as Debt: http://archive.org/details/MoneyAsDebt * Money as Debt II: http://archive.org/details/MoneyAsDebt2\",\n \"The higher the debt, the higher inflation needs to be to wash the debt away. This is why the debt and US equities move upward hand in hand. The same goes for US housing. Just as homeowners borrow money through mortgages so that house prices rise, the banks borrow the money for mortgages through the central banks. Thus, the cycle circulates. The more debt, the higher the prices! Everybody makes money from debt. That is why the US has the highest external debt on the globe, yet they are considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world.\",\n \"\\\"Hmm... Maybe I somewhat misunderstood your question then. Yes, trade deficits/surpluses are really the core of the country-level \\\"\\\"investment\\\"\\\". But yes, it maters what they *do* with it, which is **why** so many countries put any excesses into US treasuries. Going back to \\\"\\\"personal\\\"\\\" finance, if they pay down higher interest debt with their trade surplus, *great*; if they have no debt and can issue local currency (in PF land, \\\"\\\"take out a loan\\\"\\\") for under 2%, *great*; If not... **Not** so great. \\\"\\\"Saving\\\"\\\" money that costs over 2% isn't an investment, it's nothing but a loan disguised as one.\\\"\",\n \">It is well known that the US entered an unprecedented depression after its unprecedented borrowing during World War 2. Yeah, just ignore ALL of the differences between the world *then* (devastated and destroyed factories & cities all over Europe and Asia) and the world *now*. Ignorance... it's what's for dinner!\",\n \"\\\"> As I currently understand, we owe much of our national debt to ourselves. Debtors owe creditors. Creditors are, by and large, the banks. Forget about we/ourselves. One thing we are taught in school is that banks earn money on the spread between what a creditor pays, minus what a saver earns in interest on his deposit. In reality, such private savings pretty much do not exist. When someone borrows from the bank, they mostly aren't borrowing another person's savings. The bank is creating *new* currency through the issuance of debt. > The reason for this is that people are being charged interest that does not exist in the system. I'm not sure what you mean by \\\"\\\"does not exist in the system\\\"\\\". The way it works is you borrow a dollar, and now you owe a dollar plus the interest on the dollar. Since each new loan creates more debt than currency, the monetary system can never shrink or it implodes. If you mean that the currency is unbacked by any objective measure of value, that is correct. > Therefore, if we tried to pay the debt (like some conservative politicians are fighting for) it would be a massive transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%, since most of the debt is owed to the 1% (banks). There is no possibility of repaying it. Both the Red Team and the Blue Team are in on this. If you're worried about the 99% you should be advocating commodity money, because that is the only way to stop theft by inflation. If you're worried about yourself, get informed as to how these plans have played out in history and how you might protect yourself.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Global banks are without a doubt the new evil empires. They're buying debt for pennies on the dollar, because they know the risk of default/bankruptcy, yet they expect the IMF to do for international debt what W did for student loans. Wasn't Argentina also the country that had a vulture fund \\\"\\\"seize\\\"\\\" one of their naval vessels? Soon banks will have their own standing armies and naval fleets to exact asset forfeiture.\\\"\",\n \"The reason they have this massive debt is largely (not entirely) because they have been employing Keynes' policies and spending more than they had for so many years as it is. Austerity is not the solution. However, reckless spending is not the solution either. A lot of people arguing for keynesian policies (not a bad idea in most recessions) don't grasp that investors have a limited amount of money to invest and aren't going to place it in a country that has as bad of a debt problem as you pointed out. So many people keep arguing these struggling countries need to spend more. While that would help expand their economies, it is not feasible. Where do you guys going to think the money is going to come from? If investors don't want to provide then they have to print more money, which creates the risk of hyperinflation. Spending could help a little maybe if it was a realistic thing to do. Right now any Keynesian solutions are a fairy tale. Countries like Greece need to do what they can with the resources available to them instead of spending like a bunch of millionaire playboys on crystal meth. Look at the U.S. We have spent trillions and our GDP is still growing at only slightly more than half the rate it has from 1947-2012. If people expect massive government spending to be a fix to these problems, then we are a clear case that it isn't. I acknowledge we could be a lot worse and possibly still be seeing a contraction without the spending, but it clearly isn't fixing our problems and sooner or later we won't be able to take on more debt to fix it. We need real solutions to generate real growth instead of dicking around like this. Other western countries need to do the same. edit:Also what we are doing right now would not be considered keynesian solutions. Keynes would advocate spending money to fix the problems, not just dumping money into the economy. That is something I would agree with. But since our politicians can't grasp that I don't want them in control of the purse strings anymore.\",\n \"Some countries, like the United States, allow a mortgage interest tax deduction. This means the interest you pay on a mortgage, which is typically much more than half of the monthly payment at the beginning of a 25 year mortgage, is tax deductible, so you might get 33% or more of the interest back, and that effectively makes the interest rate significantly lower. Therefore you are borrowing the money really cheap. That makes MrChrister's answer even more appropriate.\",\n \"\\\"If the government prints money recklessly and causes inflation, people will come to expect inflation, and the value of the currency will plummet, and you'll end up like Zimbabwe where a trillion dollars won't buy a loaf of bread. If the government actually pays people for the money they borrow, they don't have this problem - and as it turns out, the US government can get pretty good rates on borrowing in general, in part because they're extraordinarily good about paying them back. (Also, inflation expectations are low, so people will accept 1-2% interest rates. If you expected inflation of 10%, you'd see people demanding something more like 12% interest rates.) (The downside of too much of this sort of borrowing is that it \\\"\\\"crowds out\\\"\\\" other borrowing, which may harm the economy. Who would lend money to / invest in a small business, if the government is paying good money and there's almost no risk at all?) Now, inflation can come into play afterward, if the Fed decides it needs to maintain \\\"\\\"easy money\\\"\\\" policies to stimulate the economy (because taxes are too high because we're paying off the debt, or because we've crowded out smaller borrowers, or something). -- In general, you can count on the the principle that if you, as the government, try to play too many games with people's money... well, people aren't stupid; they will eventually catch on, and adjust their behavior to compensate, and then you're right back where you started, but with less trust.\\\"\",\n \"230 government agencies by law have to buy treasury bonds with their excess cash. Those agencies hold 30% of the debt. The rest is by anyone else who purchased bonds on the open market when the treasury sold them. Are you fucking stupid? You think the government just printed 20 trillion dollars with nothing to back it? No hedge funds bought them. China, Japan, Britain, bought them.\",\n \">This goes on until they simply drop dead. Substitute debt for alcohol and you have our situation exactly. *Exactly.* It is well known that the US entered an unprecedented depression after its unprecedented borrowing during World War 2. It is all very simple and easily predicted.\",\n \"\\\"Actually the UK was doing that back in the 1600's to finance war with France. You might want to learn why the crown jewels were not actually owned by the state :) \\\"\\\"I think you should move along before you get hurt. This is a grown up conversation little one.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"As do other states. The state and national debts are created by big government politicians. Such as bloated civil services, pension funds, more borrowing instead of fiscally responsible. The USA federal gov keeps trillions of shadow debt off its books and downplays the actual unemployment rate.\",\n \"\\\"Why rent money? \\\"\\\"Ooh... new shiny. Must have!\\\"\\\" - lol Seriously, Governements that control the presses can harness an almost magical property of money \\\"\\\"trust\\\"\\\". You and I believe wages have a set value per hour worked. This isn't always so.\\\"\",\n \"Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.\",\n \"They didn't have more **going into** the war. I would be really surprised if they didn't have more relatively short term debt as they were **in the midst of a global freaking conflict**, man. Well I'll be damned, we both want the same thing. I just don't want to open the unlimited money taps without carefully considering how long we can leave them open Edit: If you're deciding whether or not to spend a crap ton of money you don't have, it helps if you haven't already spent a crap ton of money you don't have\",\n \"\\\"Most of those countries had debt that was well beyond prudent levels (~70% of GDP) before the crisis, levels such that any crisis would put them over the safe limit and into trouble. The only exception was Spain whose debt levels were still marginally dangerous. Greece was off the charts, which is why they left off the graph for Greece. Second problem. On top of the high or marginal levels of government debt, the governments implicitly or explicitly guaranteed the banks, without limiting in any effective way their levels of leverage and risk (inb4 Basel II - a lot of paper that made no difference). Protip: if someone guarantees your debt, they should be able to oversee your level of risk, but the governments didn't. As a result these banks, and their CEOs in particular, have a bet that goes \\\"\\\"heads I win, tails I win (and you the taxpayer lose)\\\"\\\". If the loans are paid off the CEOs rake in millions. If the loans go bad the government bails them out and the CEOs and other top executives - you guessed it - rake in millions. Of course when faced with these incentives the banks will lend too much. This is not free market capitalism, it is crony capitalism. **Bailouts of private companies are not part of unfettered free market capitalism.** The third problem is that the same governments cannot print money like the US can because the Euro is not owned by the individual governments. The answer to excessive levels of government debt is for governments not to borrow too much and not to take on excessive unfunded liabilities such as pensions. This probably needs to be enforced by a constitutional amendment, so it can't be easily overruled. The answer to governments getting dragged into bailing out insolvent banks and then going under themselves, is to allow the banks to go under and to guarantee only small deposits. Let shareholders, bond holders and large (>$500k) lenders to the banks to lose their money. Second, hold bank executives and shareholders liable for the bank's debts. Eg executive salaries and other remuneration need to be clawed back up to a 5 year window. Shareholders should be liable (as they used to be) for debts up to an additional 100% of the par value of the shares. I can assure you this would concentrate minds wonderfully - as it did in the old days when Wall St investment banks were partnerships with each partner liable for all the debts of the firm. Another alternative would be for governments to enforce limits on financial risk, but unfortunately they do not have the courage to do this, nor the morality to resist \\\"\\\"campaign contributions\\\"\\\" / bribes to look the other way. If these steps were taken the issue of the Euro currency would not be a problem. However printing money (which requires having your own currency) is a solution if it comes to that although it comes at the expense of people who have saved and invested prudently. Printing money (keeping interest rates excessively low for years on end) subsidizes borrowers - the ones who created the problem - at the expense of savers. Clearly this creates terribly perverse incentives the next time around. Anyone who thinks this problem is a result of unfettered free market capitalism is not paying attention.\\\"\",\n \">Not to mention that Japan has a very good savings rate. Remember they buy a lot of bonds with their savings, Japanese bonds. This shows up as debt on the ledger. People really need to learn about government debt in general.\",\n \"For now we can pay off our debt in United States dollars. If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. If we continued printing money we would be debasing our currency against the new reserve currency, which would mean that after we took on too much debt we wouldn't really be able to pay our creditors back after exchanging our devalued currency for the new one on the international markets. We are lucky enough not to have to worry about this now. But I think OP was referring to all countries in these situations. Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. That is why I am saying that America has a very disillusioned view of reality when it comes to deficit spending. We wouldn't have that any more if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard (I don't think the second option is nearly as realistic but we never know).\",\n \"\\\"Instead of getting into complex economic theories, here are the few places I can tell you where the cash has disappeared to: 1. Apple - holding over 100b cash in their vault more than any banks have in their reserves in the world and more than enough to pay off all of the debts of the U.S. 2. Real Estates.........in developing countries, that is :p. You may keep hearing how real estates are de-valuing in the U.S., but in developing countries like the BRICs, they are going higher. Think Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, etc. Yes, it's a proven bubble there. If you have access to their regional news, just listen to how many people in Asia have to borrow from loan sharks to keep their finances afloat. 3. Gold - go see for yourself on goldprice.org, that's where the wealthy individuals put their cash in the so-called \\\"\\\"safe haven\\\"\\\" next to shotguns. Yes, it's ridiculous and is totally out of anyone's league beyond basic things like air, water, and food. 4. Commodities (gas, food, basic materials) - enough said, check out your local gas pumps and grocery stores.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Many reasons, but let me pick my favourite: The incentive to save isn't there. Any government subject to elections has the incentive to spend as much as possible to remain in power. What is worse, it has a DISINCENTIVE to save. Because the money it saves - and which it pays for with bad will from the electorate, who should really be smarter - is going to be spent by the OTHER guy who will then look incredibly good and be reassured of re-election. \\\"\\\"But isn't it afraid of accumulating debt?\\\"\\\" you may ask, and its simple. Somebody else will be there when the debt is due. The problem of incentives is a fundamental one.\\\"\",\n \"Lol TL:DR. your first point is completely wrong so I stopped at the wall of text. Get over it buddy, you lost the argument. No country simultaniously purchased and sold its own debt, like we have this past several years in the US. So, shut the fuck up already. loser.\",\n \"Are you fucking stupid or just retarded? There isn't another country in the world remotely with the size of economy we have or that are starting wars like we are. Do you understand that wars are 10-15 year commitments with tens of trillions ~~wasted ~~ stolen ? I'm not going to argue with the flat earth society.. go troll someone else with your fantasy arguments.\",\n \"> But to answer your question, the two factors you mention are positively correlated, not negatively as you postulate. I'm not sure if there's necessarily any correlation. I'm merely stating the fact that they have so much savings that they must export capital but at the same time, they've ramped up domestic debt to somewhere around 300% of GDP which, I don't know why you say it isn't a lot, but it's probably twice the level of the average developing country. Wealth is probably very overstated, but the mechanism for why this has happened is confusing to me.\",\n \"But how can you have continued growth? Nothing is perpetual at least not in real life - maybe in theory :) I'm guessing you're talking about growth in the money supply right? Well how can you keep growing your money supply indefinitely if doing so requires the creation of a larger amount of debt than the amount that already exists? Think of it in rounds. If each round of debt requires that new debt to the amount of 105% of the old debt is created, how long can you keep that running for? You've essentially got the principle of compound interest working against you. I'm obviously missing something really big because this seems ridiculous to me...\",\n \"\\\"Why would a bank buy government bonds? Why couldn't they just deposit their money in another bank instead? Generally, banks are limited by laws and regulations about how much they must set aside as reserves. Of the money they receive as deposits, they may loan a certain amount, but must keep some as a reserve (this is called \\\"\\\"fractional reserve banking\\\"\\\"). Different countries have a different amount that they must set aside in reserves. In countries where bank deposits are guaranteed, there is almost always some upper limit to how much is guaranteed. The amount of money that a bank would deposit in another bank would be far greater than the guarantee.\\\"\",\n \"They are wrong. Agreed. The problem I have is that sooner or later you get in so much debt no one will lend money to you anymore. At that point austerity is forced on you. The increased spending comes from domestic and foreign investors. We all know how fickle the financial markets can be. If our debt gets too high and they cut off the tap, we are fucked. I don't think we are anywhere near that point now. However, things can change dramatically in the course of a few months. Political tensions, global uncertainty and social unrest could all cause enough of a panic that people start questioning the safety of U.S. treasuries. We could also see the day where everyone collectively demands the U.S. stop ripping them off with negative bond yields. Like I said, I see no indication of that now, but who knows how long it will take? I know this is a bit of a tangent, but it is clear. My solution: borrow money to improve the economy while you can but make sure that your dollars count to fixing the economy. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck with a stagnant economy AND at a serious risk of bankruptcy when the financial markets no longer see you as a wise investment. You can't save yourself from falling off of two cliffs at the same time so our politicians should stop dicking around and start looking for real solutions with the money they are borrowing instead of pissing it away on useless shit.\",\n \"\\\"But their economy is based on -- built upon -- the very concept of debt, just like the U.S. and most other advanced economies on the planet. Debt itself isn't the problem -- having to borrow to get capital and then *service the debt* is where the problems appear because whilst one group in the economy continues this old pattern of issuing debt and expecting payback with interest, another prominent group has been undercutting the ability of debtors to service their debt by shifting how products and services develop and are used by the public. It's the old \\\"\\\"watch this hand\\\"\\\" trick with the other hand stabbing you when you're not looking. Simply put, you can't have an economy based upon the debt/return-on-interest model while -- at the very same time -- having an economy based on make-everything-in-China/India production/service model: If you make people have to borrow money to have money, then you *must* give them a way to service that debt; otherwise, you're just a daft bastard who refuses to acknowledge that adding two and two returns four; an imbecile who insists that he can indeed have his cake and eat it too; I could go on but the point is made.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \\\"\\\"printing their way out of it\\\"\\\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\\\"\",\n \"> They'd literally have to invade and plunder other nations on a regular basis. Which is what they do. The plundering is done by the mining companies and oil companies and engineering firms that follow them in though. Not them directly.\",\n \"I'll give you a stark example of China's debt-driven construction growth: Since '09 China has constructed enough physical office space buildings to give every Chinese man, woman, and child their own cubicle - 3 times over! Given that these buildings were largely financed by debt, its hard to see how those creditors get all their money back given that there simply are not enough Chinese people to occupy and pay/rent that space in order for break-even to occur.\",\n \"The debt is a problem but IF (and the key word is if) other nations are lending to us at rates we dictate, then that is not a problem. But if our own banks, Central Bank, and the like are buying it then the problem is being kept on our shores. The issue is with fractional reserve lending, one will always have this issue but if other nations give us items/services for paper/pixels we send them why not continue.\",\n \"Lots of countries *have* printed themselves away from debt. Not all inflation turns into a death spiral like Zimbabwe (or Weimar Germany) did, for that you need to have a really shitty economy that no-one believes in. The problem with Japan right now is that they are trying to print their debt away, but as they do so, their currency *appreciates*. Gold medal for the first one who manages to explain that one.\",\n \"Surely there's more to the picture than this. Breaking the borrowing limit by going to 3.5% multiple times is surely no where near as bad as going to 18% once. On top of this there was a fundamental difference in the use of capital. Borrowing to invest (as Germany did) has been ridiculously beneficial for them.\",\n \"Corrupt country leaders will probably rape it dry for their personal gains. Next thing you know, the secretary of state is getting $100000 loan with 1 percent interest when the country national bank lending money to its people at 25% percent interest.\",\n \"No - we're having fun seeing how long you avoid providing a single example of something you claimed was so universal any single one should suffice. It seems you totally pulled that statement out of your ass and now are so stubborn that admitting it must impact your psyche in some amazing way. So stubborn that you both don't address your claim, admit it is wrong, and yet you call us names for asking you to back up your statement. This is fun. You still have not listed an empire that did not purchase it's own debt. Your entire argument fails.\",\n \"The main driver behind countries not printing themselves out of debt is the fact that it will cripple the economy, destroy citizens savings, asset valuations and piss all the countries trade partners off so much that they may stop doing business with them. You will have a few different extremes, look at Zimbabwe as an example of a country that just prints money like no ones business. America is essentially devaluing its currency to compete with China. That annoys the Chinese because their holdings are devalued and as such you then see people moving away from US treasuries into more stable commodities and currencies.\",\n \"The ECB has put up about 400BEuro from EU countries. They are borrowing the money at an interests from other EU countries and then lend it to Spain with an interest. Same way the FEd is borrowing money from tax payers for yet another stimulus, QE3.\",\n \"Your preferred answer: It's not debt, it's magic. It never has to be paid back. Ok, go ahead tell us all you know about QE and how it isn't debt. Your half baked version of the socratic method isn't working too well.\",\n \"\\\"Your question is expressed as a run-on sentence, which I'm having trouble parsing. Maybe you could restate. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the statist canard that [the debt is not a problem because] \\\"\\\"we owe it to ourselves\\\"\\\". Collectivists like to think we're all in this together, but that's not reality. Some people are taking from others by force of law. The debt is owed to BANKS, and they want to keep this system going. Wouldn't you like to have a legal monopoly on the supply of currency? Institutions which are funded by loose credit (government, academia, military contractors, crony corporations) likewise benefit from this system. Those who invest in US dollars, and those who are farthest from the central planning spigot are the losers in this scheme. But there is more debt than currency, so it can't ever be repaid. So that is a moot point - it can't even hypothetically be considered. There are however a number of other ways that this system could unwind, when it inevitably does. The banks could be left to fail, and their assets would be bid on by others through the bankruptcy process. Or the Fed could keep issuing currency to keep the banks solvent, eventually inflating the whole system into irrelevance.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Pretty much every american \\\"\\\"borrows\\\"\\\". Credit cards are essential in building credit history and story. Debit cards got popular in the past few years, but most still borrow at least a little bit on credit and pay it off right away.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It's helpful to remember that Charles Ponzi started with a legitimate arbitrage (international postal remittances). Once purveyors of arbitrage reach a certain scale, there's a natural tendency to become lazy and just forgo the arbitrage and just use new investor money to pay off previous investors. Banks wouldn't be any different if it weren't for central banks and government participation. Indeed, the primary reason that the FedResInk came into existence is **because** of ponzi-like bank failures (bankers call them \\\"\\\"a run on the bank\\\"\\\"). Neoclassical economics is about using the synthesis of state sovereignty and central bank monetary theory to keep the system they've developed intact. ...and, as fun as it might be to sit back and calculate just how much debt can be created from a life-time of labor proceeds (a couple million for the average person-- completely hypothetical back of the envelope inflation excluded, 4.5x10^14, which is still in middle of the trillions), it would be wise to keep in mind that the last banking crisis, while fundamentally caused by the inability to collect future labor proceeds, was precipitated, not by individuals, but by repurchase agreements propping up extremely leveraged positions made by and between massive investment banks. So, the thing to remember is that fractional reserve debt issuance banking is like a 10 to 1 transistor that has a fundamental tolerance requirement on the source signal, but that when the source signal fades, it can draw from the surplus signal created by the 10 to 1 amplification (up to a certain point and then the transistor goes up in a puff of smoke).\\\"\",\n \"There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.\",\n \"\\\"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 \\\"\\\"dollars\\\"\\\", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Judging from your comments, you seem to be confused about the way banking works. Banks can only lend out money that they actually have: whether from deposits or investors or loans taken from other banks/government entities. The rules on how this works varies from country to country, but the principle is always the same. There is no magic money. Let's imagine a closed system. There's only one town, and that town only has one bank. There are 100 people total in town, and each has $10,000. Everyone deposits all of their money in the bank. The bank now has $1,000,000 in total deposits. You take a loan for $100,000 and buy a house. The bank now has $900,000. You make your payments of $965 per month: $833 of interest and $132 toward principal. In this ideal world, the bank has no costs associated with doing business. After one month, the bank has $1,000,000 in deposits, $900,965 in cash on hand, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit (from interest). Now here's the confusing part. You bought a house from someone. That person also lives in town. He takes the $100,000 you gave him and... deposits it in the bank. The bank now has $1,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit. Assume 10 more people buy houses at $100,000 each, taking loans for that whole amount (for the same terms you did). Assume those sellers then deposit the money back in the bank. The bank now has $2,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $1,099,868 in loans, and $833 in profit. The bank is taking in $10,615 per month ($965 x 11) in loan payments, making profit of $9,163 ($833 x 11) per month from interest. This process of loans and deposits and payments can go on forever without any outside influence. This is the primary way money is created. It's like printing money without the paper. Of course, we're not in a closed system. Banks are limited in endlessly creating money, primarily by two things: Reserve Requirements are set by government agencies. They might say banks can lend until their cash on hand (or liquid equivalent) is, at minimum, 35% of total deposits. So a bank with $1,000,000 in deposits would have to keep $350,000 in cash at any given time. Capital Requirements work largely the same way. It's more the bank saying, \\\"\\\"What happens if a bunch of people want their deposits back?\\\"\\\" They plan a reasonable amount of cash to have on hand for that scenario.\\\"\",\n \"When banks create a loan, it is said they write the debit account out of thin air (liability), balanced by the loan (asset). When the person who gets the loans spends the money, the bank has to pay it. If the bank only has 10% reserves of the money it loans, how does the bank pay out it's loans? Does it borrow the money from the Fed and then pay it back?\",\n \"\\\"Here's some way of thinking about it, and I'm not really sure if it's completely correct, but sometimes we oversimplify when trying to tell a five year old :) Say there are two people in the world. You and me. We both have $100. A total of $200 in the world. Suddenly, a wild bank appears. I deposit my $100 in the bank. I still have $100 and you still have $100. Now you want to buy something from me that costs $150. You go to the bank to loan money. The bank has $100 available so gives you $50. You give me $150. Now I have $250 and you are $50 in debt. I deposit the $150 in the bank. We do this again and again, until I have $1000 on my bank account, and you are $900 in debt. I want to buy a house of $500 and go to my bank, demanding to take out $500. But there is only $200 in the whole world so the bank can only give me $200. \\\"\\\"Money\\\"\\\" has been created out of thin air, but it's actually you who are in debt. If you go bankrupt, the bank has a big debt it won't get back, and is in deep shit when I come around to demand my money back. At that point governments step in to loan the bank money for cheap, because if the bank fails, I will lose all my pension savings I put into that bank, as well as my companies and a lot of my employees. And other banks loaned this bank money, so if this bank fails, the other banks will be in the exact same position and will also fail, because then they will also have debts that won't be paid back. There are regulations minimizing this - i.e. a bank is required to keep a percentage of the amount of money on its accounts, so there's a maximum limit of \\\"\\\"money created\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"India's a very interesting case study. They're economy's exploded and grown by leaps and bounds in the last decade. It's a free market but the Reserve Bank of India's get's weird sometimes. For instance a lot of these crappy and defaulting loans are because the government (Reserve Bank of India) said to fuel growth you have to make sure a certain percentage of your loan book is made out industries we want to develop. So huge loans were made to construction firms, not because they fit the risk profile of the bank or were good investments, but cause the government mandated it. Ton's of horribly run companies got money they shouldn't have. Also, public banks pay a lot less than their private counterparts, so you don't have the best and brightest handing out these loans. India's a fucking mess of laws. Like there's no codified way to declare bankruptcy like there is in the West. So if a company goes belly up, they have to go through this maze of different government offices with contradictory rules so creditors (in many cases, the banks that lent them money) can get some of their money back, IMF said it takes 4.5 years on average for a company to go through bankruptcy proceedings. That's insane! And because it's India, there's a ton of shady shit going on behind the scenes. Up until 2-3 years ago, loans that the banking industry considers non performing (interest payments haven't been made in 90 days) were lumped in another category and hidden in the balance sheet, so the rest of the world looked at this said, \\\"\\\"well, their NPL ratio is only 3-4% which is fine for developing country\\\"\\\" and continued to rate them highly. It wasn't until recently that we figured out the ENTIRE banking sector wasn't reporting their bad loans properly.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You quite literally just answered why I never understood my own god damn currency says \\\"\\\"I promise to pay the bearer...\\\"\\\" What I don't get however, is that how wealth comes out of thin air.... why each continent cannot be eternally rich... We're all (at the very basic level) taking things from the ground and providing a service to someone. But if the whole world were to become bankers (only providing a service to which some people would emply never actually existed), we obviously can't all make money from it. So how does money \\\"\\\"come out of thin air\\\"\\\" so speak?\\\"\",\n \"Yep, the wonderful thing about finance is the more you learn the more you start understanding the world around you. I think your question is more related to economics (deficits, surpluses and budgets) however countries can (and do) reissue new bonds to help pay off the old ones. Also keep in mind if a country has say $10trillion in debt, it isn't all due at once so maybe only $10 billion might be due per year\",\n \">So where is all the money? I mean, labor has been produced to make things and wages paid to the laborers. The things are purchased by other laborers, who were paid for producing goods or services, etc. It's a closed loop, right? Almost right. The problem is that the wages paid to the laborers are not high enough to buy all the goods produced, so there is constant overproduction and at the same time there are people who would want to buy these goods, but can't afford them. Some people lose their jobs, which reduces demand for goods even further. It's a vicious circle and everbody loses in the long run.\",\n \">u telling me there were that much savings and reserve in the system? Yes. You're telling me there wasn't? The loans were bundled and *sold to investors* to get more capital to loan. It was not magically created as you seem to think. [There were about $4trillion saved in the US at the time](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WSAVNS). The mortgages were sold all over the world, where there is easily more trillions of savings and reserve. You still have not addressed M2 being around 10x M1. You keep floundering but not addressing anything of substance.\",\n \"I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks.\",\n \"\\\"I meant \\\"\\\"we\\\"\\\" in terms of the US Treasury, which currently owes over 100% of GDP. And that's cooking the debt numbers down using cash accounting and cooking the GDP up by lying about inflation, among other things. Plenty of people are doing better than ever, particularly those who have their hands in the cheap money thrown around by the Fed.\\\"\",\n \"What are those maximums, and do all countries have them? Usury, lending money for any interest at all, used to be anti-biblical: it wasn't a Christian thing to do, and so in Christian countries it was Jews who did it (Jews who were money-lenders). Asking for interest on loans is still anti-Koranic: so Islamic banks don't lend money for interest. Instead of your getting a mortgage from the bank to buy a house, the bank will buy the house, which you then buy from bank on a rent-to-own basis. Further details:\",\n \"First Reddit comment! This may seem like a noob question, but why can't the government just borrow unlimited amount of money, to pay for welfare program instead of raising taxes? I would assume that would be the better thing to do, and just roll the debt forward. Thanks!\",\n \"\\\"Still waiting, still not seeing any that have.. When you debate someone, in a forum or somewhere other than your armchair, I suggest you forget about trying to demand a opposite answer from someone as an answer to a question. Its not only childish, its really quite silly. You are, by all definitions, a troglodyte. If you think of those ignorant \\\"\\\"republican christians\\\"\\\", thats how you are acting now. No country in the past has ever sold and bought there own debt at the same time I can promise you I worked in finance, for a large highly rated company, then got rich building a business. I know this hurts, but honestly, when you are wrong, just admit it and move on. Ignorance is just so sad to display and probably keeps you held back in life anyways. Im off to bed though I am sure you'll declare yourself victor of not naming a single country that bought and sold its own debt in history. But, maybe its ANY victory in your head you need right now. Who knows. ------------------------------------------- Update 1 * lol I see you changed your answer, let me do the same. The fact that the \\\"\\\"bank of england\\\"\\\" in 1694 is the model of \\\"\\\"modern\\\"\\\" central banks STILL doesn't show that they BOUGHT THERE OWN DEBT. Do you still not understand this yet? Modern central banking has NOTHING TO DO with buying your own debt. You really are clueless as to how \\\"\\\"economics\\\"\\\" works aren't you? ------------------------------------------- Update 2 * I think you keep changing them, because for some reason you just won't admit you have no understanding of modern/classical banking. Once again: >In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank-notes.[12] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy. This statement still DOES NOT show that the government here simultaniously purchased its own bonds it issued. It issued debt, yes, no one is debating this. The bank, for all purposes, acted as the Treasury for England. But honestly, you are a fucking piece of work. I have watched you lie, change your answers, and pretty much do every childish thing in the book to try to win an arguement on Reddit. You are a little person, honestly. I know not of what world you live in, but it isn't this one. Seriously, get better, the world is alot more fun when you don't suck so bad at it.\\\"\",\n \"I'm sorry, I know that it's not your fault but you really need to think about what you're saying and stop listening to the financial advisors on tv... If you think that all you need to do is give people money to spend then you need to read up on Zimbabwe. They tried that - at it's hight they *think* that Zim's inflation hit 6.5 x 10^108 % ([that's 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe)). I can't even begin to imagine how large that is - basically bread cost billions of zim dollars a loaf. I remember hearing the one day that they were dropping 3 zeros from their notes. I'm ashamed to say that I laughed. No one is buying right now because, instead of buying stuff, everyone is paying back loans - or they're too scared to buy in case they need the cash to survive in the future. Look at the liquidity crisis; the housing bubble; all the bank failing/needing to be bailed out lately - all because people couldn't pay back the loans they took out. The US government is already $15 trillion in debt (nearly 16 trillion now) - and that's only the public debt. The gov is already paying $454 billion every year *just to repay the **interest** on the debt!* Never mind actually paying back the principle amount. Last year it added another $1.2 trillion to the deficit (that's another 1,200,000,000 dollars that it owes on top of the 15,000,000,000 dollars it already owes). At the beginning of this year, public debt amounted to 102% of GDP - that means that if everyone in America didn't buy what ever it was that they bought last year and instead repaid the public debt (not private mind you, just the debts that the government owed) then they *still* wouldn't have been able to pay it all off. Now after reading all of that, please keep a straight face and tell me that all that the government needs to spend even more money to sort it all out.\",\n \"It is also not helped that governments globally are pressing banks to improve capital ratios; i.e. hold more in reserve. While this will reduce the likelihood of a bailout in the near future, it severely reduces the access to money and damages the economy.\",\n \"> The issue I have with your use of Japan is that Japan has very strong exports of superior quality and low cost, we do not. That has no bearing on their sovereign debt situation though. Japan's debt is yen-denominated. Does Japan rely on the rest of the world to supply it with yen via exports? No. Japan issues the yen. >And what about South and Central American Pesos? Where you saw actual debt crises, it was countries that owed US dollars. Peg your peso to the US dollar and/or borrow US dollars and you are on the hook for US dollars which you can run out of. Let's just apply this as a general rule: any example of actual sovereign debt crisis you want to offer, before you do... look for where they're on the hook for foreign currency. You'll find it. >What about Keynes, Minsky, and the trilemma? Their central banks were completely overridden by foreign speculators. We can only choose two out of three options, peg our currency, spend to help the economy, and/or maintain free trade, not all three What I'm describing is consistent with the trilemma [triangle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity#mediaviewer/File:Impossible_trinity_diagram.svg). I'm saying the sovereign monetary policy with a floating rate currency is the one which allows a country the most policy space for responding to crisis and funding its domestic economy in general up to its own real capacity limits. I want to emphasize here that the printing press isn't some magic fountain of real wealth. Your potential real wealth is limited by what you have the real resources to produce. The idea is to fund yourself to the point where you're producing up to your own real limits of output capacity at full employment. Maximize your own potential. As opposed to adopting voluntary financial constraints which force you to leave some of that potential idle, making you poorer in real terms.\",\n \"\\\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://bankunderground.co.uk/2017/08/08/your-country-needs-funds-the-extraordinary-story-of-britains-early-efforts-to-finance-the-first-world-war/) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Financing World War I required the UK government to borrow the equivalent of a full year&#039;s GDP. But its first effort to raise capital in the bond market was a spectacular failure. > As part of a project looking at the financing of World War I, the ledgers of investors who purchased the 3&frac12;% War Loan have been analysed for the first time. > These reveal the startling truth about the failure of the first bond issue of the Great War and the extraordinary role of the Bank of England in covering and then concealing the shortfall in funds. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tfsn0/hacker_news_the_extraordinary_story_of_britains/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \\\"\\\"Version 1.65, ~189875 tl;drs so far.\\\"\\\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \\\"\\\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\\\"\\\") | *Top* *keywords*: **War**^#1 **Bank**^#2 **Loan**^#3 **investors**^#4 **bond**^#5\\\"\",\n \"\\\"And if you subtract that 30% (the 19% Social Security and 11% Fed holdings) which are entirely bogus and moot... Then that 32% (out of the remaining 70%) is pretty darned near half, and regardless of it being just shy of a majority, it is still the largest block. Even then, since the dollar itself is backed by nothing, it isn't technically a problem -- the US can pay it off at any time (the only inherent cost being the debasement of the currency). Where the problem with that comes in is that there are a LOT of US assets located on foreign soil (all of the \\\"\\\"joint-operation\\\"\\\" manufacturing plants in China, for instance); and foreign governments CAN hold them \\\"\\\"hostage\\\"\\\" (so to speak), or if they so choose, to literally confiscate (nationalize) them and yet legally \\\"\\\"compensate\\\"\\\" their US based paper-owners by paying them off with the debased dollars (and/or US treas bonds, same thing really)... basically just \\\"\\\"paying\\\"\\\" us with checks drawn on our own collective account.\\\"\",\n \"Steve Keen says otherwise, he says Banks CAN create a Quadrillion dollars, as long as there are willing borrowers. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc_fpGfyqGE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sSfPkIUHPk&feature=share why does m2 seem like exponential? how can fractional reserve do something like that? unpossible. seems like only an explosive growth in either productivity or profits through slave labor globalization or speculative derivatives can do something like that.\",\n \"So if a country forces their savings onto another country, say the U.S., the U.S. would have to absorb those savings somehow. If there were enough productive investments available, then this would be a good thing. But if there aren't enough productive investments available but the savings are still forced upon the U.S. it would seem that it would inevitably lead to some kind of a debt bubble for the U.S.\",\n \"\\\"What you are looking for is the \\\"\\\"debt maturity profile\\\"\\\" (to make it easier to google. Most countries continuously roll over their debt, in effect just paying interest forever. So when your debt is due, you issue another loan for the same amount and use the new loan to pay off the old one.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Banks use the money for productive pursuits, earning returns in excess of what they will owe the fed in discount interest. If a bank could not yield a return greater than their interest due their lender (whether that lender is the fed or not) they probably wouldn't borrow in the first place. EDIT: I misunderstood the question. The federal reserve does not disseminate new money by making loans. They do so by issuing and trading in bonds. The US Treasury, for example, issues a bond. The Federal Reserve Bank buys this bond using money they \\\"\\\"printed\\\"\\\". So the same question applies.... where does the money come from to pay the interest on the bond? It comes from the perpetual issuance and trading in bonds at a growing rate. All the fed needs to do is to buy bonds at a rate faster than they collect interest.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"(relix already hit on some of this) It's hard to explain this to a five-year-old, because there are some fairly abstract concepts involved, but here goes... All actual \\\"\\\"money\\\"\\\" is debt. All of it, including monetary gold, etc. (Don't argue with me yet, I'll get to that.) Imagine a pretend world with no money, some kind of primitive villiage or something. Now let's invent paper money. You can't just print a bunch of paper that says people have to give you stuff, because nobody would honor it. But you *could* print IOUs. Let's walk through this... - Let's say you're an apple-farmer and I'm a hunter. You want some meat but haven't harvested your crops yet. You say to me, \\\"\\\"hey, go hunt me some meat and I'll give you 1/10th of my apple harvest in the fall\\\"\\\". Fair enough, I give you meat, you owe me apples. There's probably a lot of this kind of stuff going on, in addition to normal barter. In time, standard \\\"\\\"prices\\\"\\\" start to emerge: a deer haunch is worth a bushel of apples, or whatever. - Now, let's say a week later, I realize that my kid needs a new pair of shoes more than I need a bushel of apples. I come back to you and say, \\\"\\\"Hey remember that bushel of apples you owe me? Could you write a marker, redeemable for one bushel of apples, that I can give to the shoemaker in trade for a pair of shoes?\\\"\\\" You say okay, and we have invented a *transferable note*, something a lot like money. - In time, our little villiage starts to figure out that a note redeemable for a bushel of apples can be swapped for all kinds of things. The fisherman who doesn't even like apples will accept apple-certificates in trade for fish, because he knows he can trade them to boat-builder who loves apples. In time, you can even start to hire farm-workers without giving them anything except a note promising a cut of the future harvest. Now, you are issuing *debt*: a promise to provide apples. The \\\"\\\"money\\\"\\\" is a transferable IOU-- your workers get a promise to provide value equal to a day of farm-work, or whatever, and it's transferrable, so they can use it to buy whatever they want. The worker gets fish from the fisherman, not in exchange for doing any work or giving him anything he can use, but in exchange for an IOU that the fisherman can redeem anywhere. So far so good. But there are a couple of forks in the road here, on the way to a realistic monetary system, that we'll address separately: - What happens if your apple orchard is destroyed in a wildfire? Suddenly all the notes that everyone has been trading are basically wiped out. It didn't \\\"\\\"go\\\"\\\" anywhere, it's just gone, it doesn't exist. Real value was genuinely destroyed. There is no thermodynamic law of the conservation of monetary value-- just as you and I created it by creating transferable debt, it can also be genuinely destroyed. (We'll get back to this in a minute, it gets interesting). - The second issue is that, in all probability, the whole town is not *just* trading apple-certificates. I could also issue promises to catch deer, the fisherman could issue promises of fish, and so on. This could get pretty messy, especially if you got the notion to issue more apple-certificates than you can grow: you could buy all kinds of stuff with self-issued debt that you could never repay, and the town wouldn't find out until harvest-time comes. Once again, value has been \\\"\\\"destroyed\\\"\\\" people worked and made stuff and gave you stuff in exchange for something that doesn't exist, and will never exist. All that stuff they made is gone, you consumed it, and there is nothing to show for it. The above two concerns are likely to become manifest in our village sooner or later, and probably sooner. This leads to the question of *credit*, which is, at its most basic, a measure of *credibility*. Every time you issue an apple-certificate, you are *borrowing*, with a promise to repay from future apple-harvests. After the first couple of town scandals, people will start taking a closer look at the credibility of the issuer. Let's say the town potato-farmer comes up with a scheme where his potato-certificates are actually issued by some credible third-party, say the town priest or whatever, who starts every growing season with a book of numbered certificates equal to the typical crop-yield and no more, and keeps half of the certificate on file, issuing the other half. Now there is an audit trail and a very credible system that is likely to earn the potato-grower a lot of credit, compared to other farmers in town. That means that the potato-grower can probably issue more notes at a better exchange rate than some murkier system. Similarly, the town drunk probably won't get much value for his certificates promising a ship of gold. Now we have something like a credit market emerging, and the potato-farmer is issuing something closer to what we might call a modern \\\"\\\"bond\\\"\\\"... (continued in a reply to this post...)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"please explain, and use historic example if you would, how purchasing your own debt is a 1) Solid financial decision 2) Historically successful for another country. Oh right, you can't. Because its not. Maybe you don't have an \\\"\\\"understanding\\\"\\\" of economics, loser.\\\"\",\n \"If you have an increasing population but a steady supply of wealth then there will be a perceived effect of decline. As the average person can afford less and less. If inflation is factored in this effect is accelerated as the value of money is reduced but the availability of that money is as well. In this model those who have tend to accumulate as they produce. And those who do not have tend to lose wealth as they consume to fill basic needs, at ever increasing prices, with a declining source of income, exacerbating the effect. If you control your population, prevent inflation and deflation, and maintain a constant production/consumption cycle that is perfectly in balance then you could have that utopian society. But in practice there is waste. That waste makes maintaining that balance impractical at best. People have different desires and motivations. So while that utopian society that you propose seems possible at the theoretical level when solely looking at the mechanics and economics, in practice it becomes more about managing the people. Which makes the task virtually impossible. As for the debt issue that is the strategy of many of the western nations. Most of them experienced growth over the last 50 years that was unprecedented in history. Many of them simply assumed it would continue indefinitely and failed to plan for a downturn. In addition they planned for the growth and borrowed based on the assumptions. When the growth slowed several continued to use the same projections for their budgeting, with the effect of spending money they would not take in. So in a way, yes the growth is needed to service the continued growth of debt, unless the government issuing that debt is willing to reduce its expenses.\",\n \"Is there anywhere I can get further information? I ask because I'm thinking about an alternative theory of money where companies can issue bonds as currency, and we can have coexisting monetary policies. These relate to what i'm saying: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/utf5u/where_has_all_the_money_in_the_world_gone/c4yfkhg http://www.radicalsocialentreps.org/2012/07/open-source-currencies-on-the-rise-in-greece/ http://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-central-banks-independent-2012-5 http://truth-out.org/news/item/11868-spain-and-greece-are-being-forced-to-suffer-to-save-germany-from-high-inflation\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"They borrowed it from the people, and typically to finance wars and military spending. For example, Wikipedia suggests that the Bank of England \"\"was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy.\"\" It's a game that everyone has to play once started; if Napoleon buys an army on credit, you'll have to raise an equal amount or face quite a problem. As for why they've grown so large, it's because governments are quite skilled at owing large sums of money. Only a small portion of the debt comes due in full at a given moment, and they constantly reissue new debt via auction to keep it rolling. So as long as they can make coupon (interest) and the lump sum at maturity, it's not difficult to keep up. Imagine how much credit card debt you could rack up if you only ever had to pay interest. This game will continue for as long as people lend. And there are plenty of lenders. There's pensions, mutual funds and endowments, which find public debt typically safer than stocks. And money market funds, which target 1 dollar NAV and only invest in the \"\"safest\"\" AAA-rated bonds to protect it. There's central banks, which can buy and sell public debt to manipulate inflation and exchange rates. Absent some kind of UN resolution to ban lending, or perhaps a EU mandated balanced budget, these debts will likely continue to grow. You think they \"\"collectively owe more money than can exist\"\", but there's a lot of wealth in the world. Most nations owe less than a year's GDP. For example, the US's total wealth is in the neighborhood of 50 trillion.\"","By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.","\"Others have pointed out that the entities loaning money to the government are typically people and institutions. Recently, however, the US federal government borrowings were largely funded by money printed by the Federal Reserve. The government had to borrow $1.1 trillion from October, 2010 through June, 2011. During this period the FED printed around $0.8 trillion new dollars to purchase US debt. Thus, the US government was not borrowing money from people, it was being funded by money printing. The central bankers call this \"\"quantitative easing\"\".\"","Here is an overview of who owns US Debt from Wikipedia, it indicates that approximately 1/3rd of US debt is held by foreigners (mainly the central banks of other countries), approximately 1/2 of US Debt is held by the federal reserve, and the rest is owned by various America organizations (mutual funds, pension funds, etc). The money is loaned via bonds, treasury bills, etc. When you put money in your pension fund, you very likely buying US debt. The US Treasury department all has a comprehensive page about how public debt works in the United States here: an overview of public debt from the treasury. I wasn't able to find a similar breakdown for other countries, but Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of how much debt is owed by other countries: a list of countries by public debt."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"They borrowed it from the people, and typically to finance wars and military spending. For example, Wikipedia suggests that the Bank of England \\\"\\\"was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy.\\\"\\\" It's a game that everyone has to play once started; if Napoleon buys an army on credit, you'll have to raise an equal amount or face quite a problem. As for why they've grown so large, it's because governments are quite skilled at owing large sums of money. Only a small portion of the debt comes due in full at a given moment, and they constantly reissue new debt via auction to keep it rolling. So as long as they can make coupon (interest) and the lump sum at maturity, it's not difficult to keep up. Imagine how much credit card debt you could rack up if you only ever had to pay interest. This game will continue for as long as people lend. And there are plenty of lenders. There's pensions, mutual funds and endowments, which find public debt typically safer than stocks. And money market funds, which target 1 dollar NAV and only invest in the \\\"\\\"safest\\\"\\\" AAA-rated bonds to protect it. There's central banks, which can buy and sell public debt to manipulate inflation and exchange rates. Absent some kind of UN resolution to ban lending, or perhaps a EU mandated balanced budget, these debts will likely continue to grow. You think they \\\"\\\"collectively owe more money than can exist\\\"\\\", but there's a lot of wealth in the world. Most nations owe less than a year's GDP. For example, the US's total wealth is in the neighborhood of 50 trillion.\\\"\",\n \"By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.\",\n \"\\\"Others have pointed out that the entities loaning money to the government are typically people and institutions. Recently, however, the US federal government borrowings were largely funded by money printed by the Federal Reserve. The government had to borrow $1.1 trillion from October, 2010 through June, 2011. During this period the FED printed around $0.8 trillion new dollars to purchase US debt. Thus, the US government was not borrowing money from people, it was being funded by money printing. The central bankers call this \\\"\\\"quantitative easing\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"Here is an overview of who owns US Debt from Wikipedia, it indicates that approximately 1/3rd of US debt is held by foreigners (mainly the central banks of other countries), approximately 1/2 of US Debt is held by the federal reserve, and the rest is owned by various America organizations (mutual funds, pension funds, etc). The money is loaned via bonds, treasury bills, etc. When you put money in your pension fund, you very likely buying US debt. The US Treasury department all has a comprehensive page about how public debt works in the United States here: an overview of public debt from the treasury. I wasn't able to find a similar breakdown for other countries, but Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of how much debt is owed by other countries: a list of countries by public debt.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":291,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10137"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"F-1 student investing in foreign markets"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["57168"],"string":"[\n \"57168\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["78632","308048","57168","412226","255519","480638","123030","397340","528475","197478","143264","347560","231814","234851","540986","334495","514952","535340","89351","480749","102682","458635","410543","35191","506368","213833","411021","51777","565296","551809","426703","349417","253024","98461","389581","144685","431389","566028","113644","526847","224688","386173","504612","178691","534391","284805","526664","177222","400500","12268","378390","187155","152643","508895","461821","311834","213373","107215","588345","57841","5347","148208","427916","589625","397449","208916","66039","151412","407259","62966","551964","79009","43508","268022","47579","160899","598680","98510","552298","382505","219995","326559","334154","412109","276408","296528","23116","13657","430868","287019","478711","64168","269646","451671","471789","28188","241996","291229","120082","44574"],"string":"[\n \"78632\",\n \"308048\",\n \"57168\",\n \"412226\",\n \"255519\",\n \"480638\",\n \"123030\",\n \"397340\",\n \"528475\",\n \"197478\",\n \"143264\",\n \"347560\",\n \"231814\",\n \"234851\",\n \"540986\",\n \"334495\",\n \"514952\",\n \"535340\",\n \"89351\",\n \"480749\",\n \"102682\",\n \"458635\",\n \"410543\",\n \"35191\",\n \"506368\",\n \"213833\",\n \"411021\",\n \"51777\",\n \"565296\",\n \"551809\",\n \"426703\",\n \"349417\",\n \"253024\",\n \"98461\",\n \"389581\",\n \"144685\",\n \"431389\",\n \"566028\",\n \"113644\",\n \"526847\",\n \"224688\",\n \"386173\",\n \"504612\",\n \"178691\",\n \"534391\",\n \"284805\",\n \"526664\",\n \"177222\",\n \"400500\",\n \"12268\",\n \"378390\",\n \"187155\",\n \"152643\",\n \"508895\",\n \"461821\",\n \"311834\",\n \"213373\",\n \"107215\",\n \"588345\",\n \"57841\",\n \"5347\",\n \"148208\",\n \"427916\",\n \"589625\",\n \"397449\",\n \"208916\",\n \"66039\",\n \"151412\",\n \"407259\",\n \"62966\",\n \"551964\",\n \"79009\",\n \"43508\",\n \"268022\",\n \"47579\",\n \"160899\",\n \"598680\",\n \"98510\",\n \"552298\",\n \"382505\",\n \"219995\",\n \"326559\",\n \"334154\",\n \"412109\",\n \"276408\",\n \"296528\",\n \"23116\",\n \"13657\",\n \"430868\",\n \"287019\",\n \"478711\",\n \"64168\",\n \"269646\",\n \"451671\",\n \"471789\",\n \"28188\",\n \"241996\",\n \"291229\",\n \"120082\",\n \"44574\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["As an F1 student, I have been investing (and occasionally buying and selling within few weeks) for several years, and I have never had problems (of course I report to IRS gains/losses every year at tax time). On the other hand, the officer in charge of foreign students at my school advised me to not run ads on a website and make a profit. So, it seems to me that investing is perfectly legit for a F1 student, as it's not considered a business activity. That's obviously my personal understanding, you may want to speak with an immigration attorney to be on the safe side.","It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this.","You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country.","There are no legal reasons preventing you from trading as a F-1 visa holder, as noted in this Money.SE answer. Per this article, here are the things you need to set up an account: What do I need to have for doing Stock trading as F1 student ? Typically, most of the stock brokerage firms require Social Security Number (SSN) for stock trading. The reason is that, for your capital gains, it is required by IRS for tax purposes. If you work on campus, then you would already get SSN as part of the job application process…Typically, once you get the on-campus job or work authorization using CPT or OPT , you use that offer letter and take all your current documents like Passport, I-20, I-94 and apply for SSN at Social Security Administration(SSA) Office, check full details at SSA Website . SSN is typically used to report job wages by employer for tax purposes or check eligibility of benefits to IRS/Government. I do NOT have SSN, Can I still do stock trading as F1 student ? While many stock brokerage firms require SSN, you are not out of luck, if you do not have one…you will have to apply for an ITIN Number ( Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ) and can use the same when applying for stock brokerage account. While some of the firms accept ITIN number, it totally depends on the stock brokering firm and you need to check with the one that you are interested in. The key thing is that you'll need either a SSN or ITIN to open a US-based brokerage account.","There's no limitation on what you can invest in, including trading stocks (as long as trading is not a business activity, like day-trading or investing for others). You just need to make sure you have a tax ID (either ITIN or SSN) and pay taxes on all the gains and dividends. Also, consider your home country tax laws, since you're still tax resident in your home country (most likely).","Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.","Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]","So, my question is what is the limit below which I don't have to pay taxes while trading. I just invested $10. Do I have to pay taxes for this too? what are the slabs? Any income is subject to tax. That said, investing $10 will probably not generate much of income, even at the discount brokers most of it will be wasted on commissions... I am also having an assistantship. So is holding two sources of income legitimate? Thanks You can have as many sources of income as you want. Working is what is restricted when you're on a student visa. As long as you don't open a business as a day trader or start working for someone trading stocks - you're fine.","\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"","If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.","You don't need a visa to invest in US equity. You don't need a visa to profit from US equity. There may be other legal considerations, but they aren't visa related, hope that helps","You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.","It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf","You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.","Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process.","You have two problems, money exchange commissions and currency risk. Commissions are always exorbitant. First you must find the cheapest way to get your money converted to the foreign currency and into your brokerage account. The absolute cheapest way may involve some research and financial institution maneuvering. Also I'd forget about anything other than USD for the foreseeable future. Any other foreign currency will probably have higher commissions and a weaker market. Once you have that down, you must avoid needlessly exchanging currencies. Keep a balance in the foreign currency, keep all dividends and capital gains there, and only take local money out of your brokerage account right before using it. That means of course that you need to keep enough local currency to pay taxes on any gains, etc. As for currency risk, there are two solutions. One solution is to buy your risk away using forex. You sell an amount of USD/AED lots that is mostly equivalent to your current investments and then just make sure you don't get margin calls. I'm not sure just how cheap your rates would be in the UAE, but, on average, your investments should still have positive returns. The other solution is to just stop seeing exchange rate fluctuations as losses. If you had USD 100k and now you have USD 115k how are you losing money? Exchange rates can go the other way just fine, you know, and holding USD is a good way to hedge against your country going south.","There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.","\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"","Interactive Brokers offers many foreign markets (19 countries) for US based investors. You can trade all these local markets within one universal account which is very convenient in my view. IB offering","You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.","\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \"\"Dual\"\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\"","\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"","As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.","First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.","I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.","I will split my answer in a few sections... Note: I will not address the legal aspect of the question. If you can or not use Federal money to invest. 1st - Investments with Student Loan 2nd - IRA as the Instrument I hope this helps!","With $7 Million at stake I guess it would be prudent to take legal advise as well as advise from qualified CA. Forex trading for select currency pair [with one leg in INR] is allowed. Ex USDINR, EURINR, JPYINR, GBPINR. Forex trading for pairs without INR or not in the above list is NOT allowed.","The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.","You have left out the most important piece of information: are you an American citizen? If you are, then PFIC rules mean you need to be very careful not to invest in any foreign index funds/ETFs. That means it will probably be easiest for you to just leave the money in the US and continue to invest it there. If you do not have US citizenship, and have never had a green card, then you will qualify for non-resident alien status after you've been gone for 3 years. Once that happens, you won't owe US capital gains tax (though you will owe it in AUS). You will owe 30% tax on dividends, though. Much more at Investopedia.","Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.","\"In addition to @MD-tech's answer: I'd distinguish between stock of a foreign company traded in local currency at a local exchange from the same stock traded in the foreign currency at a foreign exchange (and maybe with a foreign bank holding your accounts). The latter option will typically have higher variation because of exchange rate, and (usually) higher risks associated with possibility of recovery, (double) taxation and the possible legal difficulties @MD-tech mentions. Trading the foreign stock at a local exchange may mean that the transaction volume is far lower than at their \"\"home\"\" exchange. Holding stock of companies working in foreign markets OTOH can be seen as diversification and may lower your risk. If you only invest in the local market, your investments may be subject to the same economic fluctuations that your wage/employment/pension situation is subject to - it may be good to try de-correlating this a bit. Of course, depending on political circumstances in your home country, foreign investments may be less risky (though I'd suspect these home countries also come with a high risk of seizing foreign investments...)\"","Your definition of 'outside your country' might need some redefinition, as there are three different things going on here . . . Your financial adviser appears to be highlighting the currency risk associated with point three. However, consider these risk scenarios . . . A) Your country enters a period of severe financial difficulty, and money markets shut down. Your brokerage becomes insolvent, and your investments are lost. In this scenario the fact of whether your investments were in an overseas index such as the S&P, or were purchased from an account denominated in a different currency, would be irrelevant. The only thing that would have mitigated this scenario is an account with an overseas broker. B) Your country's stock market enters a sustained and deep bear market, decimating the value of shares in its companies. In this scenario the fact of whether your investments were made in from a brokerage overseas, or were purchased from an account denominated in a different currency, would be irrelevant. The only thing that would have mitigate this scenario is investment in shares and indices outside your home country. Your adviser has a good point; as long as you intend to enjoy your retirement in your home country then it might be advisable to remove currency risk by holding an account in Rupees. However, you might like to consider reducing the other forms of risk by holding non-Indian securities to create a globally diversified portfolio, and also placing some of your capital in an account with a broker outside your home country (this may be very difficult to do in practice).","Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)","There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.","I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).","One other issue you may face is when the company announces poor financial results and begins to tank, you will not be able to sell until the US market open and could incur a lot of pain.","Question One: Question Two: Your best reference for this would be a brokerage account with data privileges in the markets you wish to trade. Failing that, I would reference the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group (CME Group) website. Question Three: Considering future tuition costs and being Canadian, you are eligible to open a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP). While contributions to this plan are not tax deductible, any taxes on income earned through investments within the fund are deferred until the beneficiary withdraws the funds. Since the beneficiary will likely be in a lower tax bracket at such a time, the sum will likely be taxed at a lower rate, assuming that the beneficiary enrolls in a qualifying post secondary institution. The Canadian government also offers the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG) in which the federal government will match 20% of the first $2500 of your annual RESP contribution up to a maximum of $500.","As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.","OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.","I had this problem when I finished my job in Canada in Sept 2013. You'll likely have to open the account in person in Canada, at least if you don't already have a relationship with a broker there. DO NOT go to Virtual Brokers. They told me that my US citizenship was no problem, but right before I left Canada to double check. It wasn't until I asked specifically which US states they were licensed in that they realized they were licensed in NO US STATES. They told me that they'd freeze my account when I left. I then moved my (former) pension to a locked-in RRSP at BMO. As of September 2010 BMO could handle residents of most US states, but it took some tooth pulling to get the list out of them. However, after I flew to the USA, BMO called to demand more ID. My account was frozen until I flew back to Canada in person just to show ID. Annoyed, I closed the BMO account and moved it to TD Waterhouse. TD waterhouse can handle accounts for residents of all the US states EXCEPT Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. (I only got the complete list of exceptions when I made my first trade, since the guys at the trading desk are much more knowledgeable about such things than the guys in the branch.) TD was extremely friendly about my USA citizenship/residence. (Many Canadian brokers simply won't accept US residents, at least as of the end of 2013.) Whichever broker you choose, BRING LOTS MORE ID than they require. Insist that they zerox it all. Make sure to include your social security card. You don't want them to demand more ID after you've left the country, like BMO did. They may even make such a move simply to get rid of US customers, because the FATCA is a pain for foreign banks.","Every month I will get a return in from my share of the profit which would be used for repayment of capital and interest in India. Not to sure what the business plan is. Please factor all the modalities, Exchange rate fluctuations, etc. My concern is regarding RBI rules and regulations, FEMA guidelines, and Income tax. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme; Funds can be transferred outside India. Any profit you make will be taxable in India. You will have to declare this pay tax in as per schedule.","It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.","You can apply for Foreign currency accounts. But they aren't saving accounts by any means, but more like current accounts. Taking money out will involve charges. You have to visit the bank website to figure out what all operations can be performed on your account. Barclays and HSBC allow accounts in foreign currency. Other banks also will be providing the same services. Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person Depends on country by country. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Get yourself a trading account and invest in foreign markets i.e. equities, bonds etc. But all in all be ready for the foreign exchange risks involved in denominating assets in multiple currencies.","You should invest a trivial (<500$USD) amount of money in a stock portfolio. If you aren't able to make more on the market than the interest rates of your loans, you are losing money. This question has discussed this topic as well.","Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?","\"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \"\"foreign-controlled trust\"\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\"","\"For starting with zero knowledge you certainly did a great job on research as you hit on most of the important points with your question. It seems like you have already saved up around six months of expenses in savings so it is a great time to look into investing. The hardest part of your question is actually one of the most important details. Investing in a way that minimizes your taxes is generally more important, in the end, than what assets you actually invest in (as long as you invest even semi-reasonably). The problem is that the interaction between your home country's tax system and the U.S. tax system can be complex. It's probably (likely?) still worth maxing out your 401(k) (IRA, SEP, 529 accounts if you qualify) to avoid taxes, but like this question from an Indian investor it may be worth seeing an investment professional about this. If you do, see a fee-based professional preferably one familiar with your country. If tax-advantaged accounts are not a good deal for you or if you max them out, a discount broker is probably a good second option for someone willing to do a bit of research like you. With this money investing in broadly-diversified, low fee, index mutual funds or exchange traded funds is generally recommended. Among other benefits, diversified funds make sure that if any particular company fails you don't feel too much pain. The advantages of low fees are fairly obvious and one very good reason why so many people recommend Vanguard on this site. A common mix for someone your age is mostly stocks (local and international) and some bonds. Though with how you talk about risk you may prefer more bonds. Some people recommend spicing this up a bit with a small amount of real estate (REITs), sometimes even other assets. The right portfolio of the above can change a lot given the person. The above mentioned adviser and/or more research can help here. If, in the future, you start to believe you will go back to your home country soon that may throw much of this advice out the window and you should definitely reevaluate then. Also, if you are interested in the math/stats behind the above advice \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a light read and a good place to start. Investing makes for a very interesting and reasonably profitable math/stats problem.\"","I used to trade on Nasdaq using a US broker from the UK, you need a way to convert your money into US $s and have the cost of international money transfers. I don’t know if there are any laws in Turkey that will stop you using a US broker. You are also on your own if anything goes wrong, as the Turkish police will not be interested, and the US police will be very hard to deal with from Turkey. This all depends on Turkey not unplugging the internet on the day you wish to trade on!!! (I used tdameritrade, but it was a VERY long timer ago, as UK brokers are now as cheap, you should also consider UK based brokers as they will also let you trade outside of the USA.)","Where is the money coming from? If you already have the money (inheritance, gifts or similar) sitting in your account, you can just buy e.g. index funds from Vanguard, Robinhood or other low-cost brokerages. But first you should estimate how much money you need for your studies - it is a bit of a gamble to invest money that you'll need to withdraw in a few years time. Even though the average return may be quite high (12% sounds like an overestimate, more commonly quoted figure is 7%), over short timespans your stocks will go up and down randomly. Once you actually have a job and have income from it, then the 401k and IRA and similar retirement accounts start to make sense. There is no need to have all your savings in the same account, so you can start saving now already.","As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.","Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;","\"I'd check the terms of the student loan. It's been a long time since I had a student loan, but when I did it had restrictions that it could only be used for educational expenses, which they pretty clear spelled out meant tuition, books, lab fees, I think some provision for living expenses. If your student loan is subsidized by the government, they're not going to let you use it to start a business or go on vacation ... nor are they likely to let you invest it. Even if it is legal and within the terms of the contract, borrowing money to invest is very risky. What if you invest in the stock market, and then the stock market goes down? You may find you don't have the money to make the payments on the loan. People do this sort of thing all the time -- that's what \"\"buying on margin\"\" is all about. And some of them lose a bundle and get in real trouble.\"","I strongly recommend you to invest in either stocks or bonds. Both markets have very strict regulations, and usually follow international standards of governance. Plus, they are closely supervised by local governments, since they look to serve the interests of capital holders in order to attract foreign investment. Real estate investment is not all risky, but regulations tend to be very localized. There are federal, state/county laws and byelaws, the last usually being the most significant in terms of costs (city taxes) and zoning. So if they ever change, that could ruin your investment. Keeping up with them would be hard work, because of language, legal and distance issues (visiting notary's office to sign papers, for example). Another thing to consider is, specially on rural distant areas, the risk of forgers taking your land. In poorer countries you could also face the problem of land invasion, both urban and rural. Solution for that depends on a harsh (fast) or socially populist (slow) local government. Small businesses are out of question for you, frankly. The list of risks (cash stealing, accounting misleading, etc.) is such that you will lose money. Even if you ran the business in your hometown it would not be easy right?","U.S. citizens are allowed to own foreign bank and investment accounts. However, there are various financial and tax reporting requirements for owners of such accounts. Even when there is no foreign income involved. For example famous FBAR (Fincen Report Form 114), Form 8938, and even more forms if your assets/activities abroad become more complicated. Penalties, even for unintentional non-compliance can be Draconian. So just keep in mind, that once you start having foreign accounts, you will start having additional obligations and might spend more money and time on tax preparation. If you are ok with that, then its cool. But... assuming your gloomy predictions on Trump presidency come true. They might be accompanied by more strict capital control, reporting requirements, and may become even greater pain in the neck for people with foreign assets. Regarding recommendations, I am not sure about banks, but there are some foreign precious metal investing companies that are completely online based such as https://www.bullionvault.com/ and https://www.goldmoney.com/. These might also guard you from potential problems with US dollar.","Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.","Some brokerages will let you withdraw/deposit in multiple jurisdictions. e.g. I used to use Interactive Brokers. I could deposit/withdraw to US and UK bank accounts, in the appropriate currencies. It helps to have a brokerage that provides good rates on forex exchange also, and they were very good on the bid/ask spread. It was possible to get interbank rates plus a very low commission.","When you want to invest in an asset denominated by a foreign currency, your investment is going to have some currency risk to it. You need to worry not just about what happens to your own currency, but also the foreign currency. Lets say you want to invest $10000 in US Stocks as a Canadian. Today that will cost you $13252, since USDCAD just hit 1.3252. You now have two ways you can make money. One is if USDCAD goes up, two is if the stocks go up. The former may not be obvious, but remember, you are holding US denominated assets currently, with the intention of one day converting those assets back into CAD. Essentially, you are long USDCAD (long USD short CAD). Since you are short CAD, if CAD goes up it hurts you It may seem odd to think about this as a currency trade, but it opens up a possibility. If you want a foreign investment to be currency neutral, you just make the opposite currency trade, in addition to your original investment. So in this case, you would buy $10,000 in US stocks, and then short USDCAD (ie long CAD, short USD $10,000). This is kind of savvy and may not be something you would do. But its worth mentioning. And there are also some currency hedged ETFs out there that do this for you http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact However most are hedged relative to USD, and are meant to hedge the target countries currency, not your own.","According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.","\"This sounds like a FATCA issue. I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US. The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens. The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened. Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors. This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step. Such a step would require thought and planning. Note that there would be an expatriation tax (\"\"exit tax\"\") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access. A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons. But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible. Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA.\"","I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.","If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.","If you buy US stocks when the CAD is high and sell them when the CAD is lower you will make a currency gain on top of any profit or loss from the stock investments. If you buy US stocks when the CAD is low and sell when the CAD is higher any profits from gains from the stock investment will be reduced and any losses will be increased. If you are just starting out you may be better off investing in your own country to avoid any currency risk adding to your stock market risk.","You can buy and sell stocks, if you like. You'll have to pay taxes on any profits. And short-term is speculating, not investing, and has high risk","Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.","You can keep your Mutual Funds. You have to communicate your new status to fund house. The SIP can continue. Please note you have to convert the savings account to NRO account. Most banks would keep the account number same, else you have to revise SIP debit to new NRO account. From a tax point of view, it would be similar to resident status. Right now short term gains are taxed. There are quite a few other things you may need to do. Although dated, this is a good article. PS: Once you become resident alien in US for tax purposes, you are liable for taxes on global income.","\"I took a course in forex trading for 3 months. I also studied financial markets in the Uni. I have been saving in order to start investing but I face the same question. I have gathered some advantages and disadventages that I would like to know your opinion. Forex market is more liquid, its more easy to identify what makes the currency change and to \"\"predict\"\" it. For small investors its an intraday trading. The risk is huge but the return can be also huge. Stocks are for long term investements. Its difficult to have a bigger return unless you know something that others dont. Its more difficult to predict price change since its easier to anyone influence it. The risk is less.\"","The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.","I think there are two options: You invest for very close friends, who trust you completely. In this case, I don't see why you need legal formalities. Just take their money, invest, and return the profits (or losses) to them. They'll know that you invest it as well as you can (rather than spend it on your dream vacation), simply because they trust you. And in case they never get to see most of their money back - they'll know that you've tried your best, and won't be upset with you. You invest for people who trust you, but not 100%. In this case, don't take their money. If you lose (and in Forex, you most likely will) then you'll lose not only money, but also your friends. Even if the legal documents would prove that you were honset, and that they knew what they're getting into, they'll still be mad at you.","\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"","when investing in index funds Index fund as the name suggests invests in the same proportion of the stocks that make up the index. You can choose a Index Fund that tracks NYSE or S&P etc. You cannot select individual companies. Generally these are passively managed, i.e. just follow the index composition via automated algorithms resulting in lower Fund Manager costs. is it possible to establish an offshore company Yes it is possible and most large organization or High Net-worth individuals do this. Its expensive and complicated for ordinary individuals. One needs and army of International Tax Consultants / International Lawyers / etc but do I have to pay taxes from the capital gains at the end of the year? Yes Canada taxes on world wide income and you would have to pay taxes on gains in Canada. Note depending on your tax residency status in US, you may have to pay tax in US as well.","You do not need to set this up as a loan. Try finding an Indian student. He is eligible to get cash (using a travel card, may be) from India tax-free. As long as it doesn't exceed the i-20 amount, he will not have any problems. Since, $10,000 is very small amount, the student shouldn't be having any problem.","lol @ savings accounts. I don't use savings accounts. I just use checking for liquidity and invest everything else. Now if you have a job that prohibits trading on your own account that's understandable but if you have the knowledge might as well use it and make some $$$","\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"","One risk not mentioned is that foreign stock might be thinly traded on your local stock market, so you will find it harder to buy and sell, and you will be late to the game if there is some sudden change in the share price in the original country.","It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms.","As far as the RRSP goes, see my answer in self directed RRSP for a non resident Don't forget to file your FBAR and form 8938, if applicable. -Jon","You can trade currency ETF options on IB. It is SIPC insured; the options are just like vanilla options in Saxo.","There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.","\"I suggest that you're really asking questions surrounding three topics: (1) what allocation hedges your risks but also allows for upside? (2) How do you time your purchases so you're not getting hammered by exchange rates? (3) How do you know if you're doing ok? Allocations Your questions concerning allocation are really \"\"what if\"\" questions, as DoubleVu points out. Only you can really answer those. I would suggest building an excel sheet and thinking through the scenarios of at least 3 what-ifs. A) What if you keep your current allocations and anything in local currency gets cut in half in value? Could you live with that? B) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and your economy recovers... so stable items grow at 5% per year, but your local investments grow 50% for the next 3 years? Could you live with that missed opportunity? C) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and they grow at 5%... while SA continues a gradual slide? Remember that slow or flat growth in a stable currency is the same as higher returns in a declining currency. I would trust your own insights as a local, but I would recommend thinking more about how this plays out for your current investments. Timing You bring up concerns about \"\"timing\"\" of buying expensive foreign currencies... you can't time the market. If you knew how to do this with forex trading, you wouldn't be here :). Read up on dollar cost averaging. For most people, and most companies with international exposure, it may not beat the market in the short term, but it nets out positive in the long term. Rebalancing For you there will be two questions to ask regularly: is the allocation still correct as political and international issues play out? Have any returns or losses thrown your planned allocation out of alignment? Put your investment goals in writing, and revisit it at least once a year to evaluate whether any adjustments would be wise to make. And of course, I am not a registered financial professional, especially not in SA, so I obviously recommend taking what I say with a large dose of salt.\"","You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean.","Don't try individual stocks. If you have a job, any job, even one from mowing lawns, you can open a Roth IRA. If you are under 18 you will need your parents/guardian to setting up the account. You can put the an amount equal to your earned income into the Roth IRA, up to the annual maximum of $5500. There are advantages to a Roth IRA: What happens if you are using your income to pay for your car, insurance, etc? You can get the money from your parents, grandparents. The only rule is that you can't invest more than you have earned. Act before Tax day (April 15th). You know what you made last year. If you open the account and make the contribution before April 15th it can count for last year, as long as you are clear with the broker/bank when you make the deposit.","The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).","If you are using the money to invest in a property (even abroad) then you can claim tax exemption. while some people will tell you that the reinvestment should be in India only, it have been ruled that the property can be purchased abroad too..","It all depends on how much risk you take. The problem is you have no idea what the risks are, and so you will lose all your money. I would say zero. But if you want to have a go, try reading reminiscences of a stock operator, then try reading my own attempt to make sense of the same stuff Hey, as you're a student you could even try making sense of my FX and MM training on the same website. Good luck","Please consult a tax advisor. You may be voilating the FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act] and can land into trouble. Further what you are doing can land up into various other acts as illegal including AML. Further if there is income generated by Indian citizen in India, he is still liable to pay tax, irrespective of whether you get the funds back into India. Edit: AML is Anti Money Laundering. Your transaction is sure to raise AML triggers as it looks like converting Black Money to White in round about way. Once the triggers are raised, RBI division will investigate further to verify what you are doing. If you are able to prove that this is a valid transaction, you would be OK on AML front. How will Income Tax Know? - If they don't know does not mean you are not liable for tax. - Any suspicious transactions would get investigated and sooner or later Income Tax would know about it and can cause a serious problem. - It is irrelevant where you have kept the money, if you have earned something, its taxable. For it not to be taxable you need to conduct this business differently. Please consult a tax adviser who will advice you on the tax-ability of this type of transaction.","Yes it is legal, in fact according to statistics.gov.uk, foreign investors are the largest holders of UK shares (as of 2008). Investors from outside the UK owned 41.5 per cent of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2008, up from 40.0 per cent at end of 2006, according to the latest Office for National Statistics report on share ownership.","\"Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student. Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going. I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations. I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost. You are not misusing your money by \"\"not doing anything with it\"\". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino. Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you.\"","In short: yes, as long as you have Internet access. See, for example this question or this one about opening a brokerage account from outside the US. Your sister could even open an account here in the US and provide you with access. However, I'm guessing you're not a registered or even formally trained financial advisor and if you make bets with her money that don't work out well, she could get pretty upset with you. You might consider doing research from Bangladesh on good financial advisors and picking one (or a few) to recommend she go see in the US. EDIT: OP hopes to be a financial advisor in the future. Given that comment, I'd recommend looking into becoming a Certified Financial Planner (unless CFA suits your goals; you indicated that process is already underway), as a step towards that goal. Information about the certification in the US is here, in India here, and in some other countries here.","If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.","For $100 you better just hold it in Mexico. The cost of opening an account could eat 10% or more of your capital easily, and that won't be able to buy enough shares of an ETF or similar investment to make it worthwhile.","As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office.","Investing in the stock market early is a good thing. However, it does have a learning curve, and that curve can, and eventually will, cost you. One basic rule in investing is that risk and reward are proportional. The greater the reward, the higher the risk that you either (a) won't get the reward, or (b) lose your money instead. Given that, don't invest money you can't afford to lose (you mentioned you're on a student budget). If you want to start with short but sercure investments, try finding a high-interest savings account or CD. For example, the bank I use has an offer where the first $500 in your account gets ~6% interest - certainly not bad if you only put $500 in the account. Unfortunately, most banks are offering a pittance for savings rates or CDs. If you're willing to take more risk, you could certainly put money into the stock market. Before you do, I would recommend spending some time learning about how the stock market works, it's flows and ebbs, and how stock valuations work. Don't buy a stock because you hear about it a lot; understand why that stock is being valued as such. Also consider buying index funds (such as SPY) which is like a stock but tracks an entire index. That way if a specific company suddenly drops, you won't be nearly as affected. On the flip side, if only 1 company goes up, but the market goes down, you'll miss out. But consider the odds of having picked that 1 company.","I find that there are two violation of law , prima facie , if someone earns money by depositing in the online account and then not reporting it ( including in his total income for the year ) and not bringing in India. Income Tax Act violation 1. It is simply comcealment liable for penalty & prosecution under I.T.Act. 2. You should know that anyone who is resident of India as per income Tax Act and having taxable income ( gross total income exceeding exemption limit) will have to fill up the column in his/her income tax return whether Previously these column were not in the Income Tax Return. So , now anyone who is liable to file return of Income can be tried for false return if he has hiddne assets aborad. 2. FEMA violation RBI permits remittance under Liberalized Remittance Scheme. However this scheme can not be used for certain purpose . It is important to examine whether RBI prohibits use of remittance for any entity or business you have described. You can read following FAQ on RBI site Q. 30. What are the prohibited items under the Scheme? Ans. The remittance facility under the Scheme is not available for the following: i) Remittance for any purpose specifically prohibited under Schedule-I (like purchase of lottery tickets/sweep stakes, proscribed magazines, etc.) or any item restricted under Schedule II of Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000; ii) Remittance from India for margins or margin calls to overseas exchanges / overseas counter-party; iii) Remittances for purchase of FCCBs issued by Indian companies in the overseas secondary market; iv) Remittance for trading in foreign exchange abroad; v) Remittance by a resident individual for setting up a company abroad; vi) Remittances directly or indirectly to Bhutan, Nepal, Mauritius and Pakistan; vii) Remittances directly or indirectly to countries identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as “non co-operative countries and territories”, from time to time; and viii) Remittances directly or indirectly to those individuals and entities identified as posing significant risk of committing acts of terrorism as advised separately by the Reserve Bank to the banks. You will have to examine , if the remittance was NOT done for purpose not allowed by RBI under LRS . If you clear this , you can say there is no violation and your violation is restricted to I.T.Act only.","It's not really like im am going to lose my money unless I was doing penny stocks. And throwing away that much for a vacation when student debt will probally exist in my life later on appears not wise.","Banking vs. speculating isn't a relevant dichotomy here. If my broker-dealer goes belly-up, I'm covered for up to $500K to replace the cash and securities I had on deposit with them. If he was doing forex investing, he fell into one of the few areas which is not covered by SIPC deposit insurance.","\"To trade stocks in India, you need a copy of your pan card, address proof(passport or driving license/electricity bill), income tax return (if you are trading futures & options and currencies), and a cancelled cheque from the bank. You will also need to sign across your recent photographs, and require various other forms from a brokerage house which need to be signed in the brokers presence. If your stock broker trusts you, and you have all these documents, then you CAN open a DEMAT account in India by signing and sending him all these documents. Otherwise you CANNOT, as every single form states that \"\"this particular document was signed in my presence\"\", and the stock broker needs to sign under that clause. Chances are, if you live abroad, no broker will ever trust you with any kind of margin, and therefore cannot make profits from you, so they will not agree to open your account.\"","A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.","\"The other option apart from the above which I feel is quite good is \"\"Travel Card\"\" [also called Forex Card] issued in USD. These cards are like prepaid debit cards. They are available from almost quite a few Indian Banks like HDFC / ICICI / UTI. The limit for students is around 100 K USD per year. http://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/cards/prepaid_cards/forexplus_card/pre_forex_elg.htm The card can be reloaded by any amount [i think the minimum is USD 100] by visiting the Branch or certain Forex agents. There loading fee is INR 75. The Fx is typical Card Rate prevailing on the day. In US this card can be used as a credit card for almost everything [I have used this without any hassel]. Avoid using the card for blocking anything [at Hotel for room booking, or initial block at car rentals]. Although its mentioned that there is a withdrawl fees, i was never charged anything for withdrawls. The card comes with an internet based login to monitor account balance and transactions. Any unused funds can be withdrawn in India. The payment will be make in INR.\"","ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.","\"I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's answer, but there are a couple of ideas that are relevant to your particular situation: If I were you, I would invest at least half of the cash in growth ETFs because you're young enough that market variability doesn't affect you and long term growth is important. The rest should be invested in safer investments (value and dividend ETFs, bonds, cash) so that you have something to live off in the near term. You said you wanted to invest ethically. The keyword to search is \"\"socially responsible ETFs\"\". There are many, and if this is important to you, you'll have to read their prospectus to find one that matches your ethics. Since you're American, the way I understand it, you need to file taxes on income; selling stocks at a gain is income. You want to make sure that as your stocks appreciate, you sell some every year and immediately rebuy them so that you pay a small tax bill every year rather than one huge tax bill 20 years from now. Claiming about $20600 of capital gains every year would be tax free assuming you are not earning any other money. I would claim a bit more in years where you make a lot. You can mitigate your long term capital gains tax exposure by opening a Roth IRA and maxing that out. Capital gains in the Roth IRA are not taxable. Even if you don't have income from working, you can have some income if you invest in stocks that pay dividends, which would allow you to contribute to a Roth IRA. You should figure where you're going to be living because you will want to minimize the currency risk of having your money in USD while you're living abroad. If the exchange rate were to change by a lot, you might find yourself a lot poorer. There are various hedging strategies, but the easiest one is to invest some of your money in securities of the country you'll be living in. You should look into how you'll be converting money into the foreign currency. There are sometimes way of minimizing the spread when converting large amounts of money, e.g., Norbert's gambit. Shaving off 1.5% when exchanging $100k saves $1500.\""],"string":"[\n \"As an F1 student, I have been investing (and occasionally buying and selling within few weeks) for several years, and I have never had problems (of course I report to IRS gains/losses every year at tax time). On the other hand, the officer in charge of foreign students at my school advised me to not run ads on a website and make a profit. So, it seems to me that investing is perfectly legit for a F1 student, as it's not considered a business activity. That's obviously my personal understanding, you may want to speak with an immigration attorney to be on the safe side.\",\n \"It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this.\",\n \"You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country.\",\n \"There are no legal reasons preventing you from trading as a F-1 visa holder, as noted in this Money.SE answer. Per this article, here are the things you need to set up an account: What do I need to have for doing Stock trading as F1 student ? Typically, most of the stock brokerage firms require Social Security Number (SSN) for stock trading. The reason is that, for your capital gains, it is required by IRS for tax purposes. If you work on campus, then you would already get SSN as part of the job application process…Typically, once you get the on-campus job or work authorization using CPT or OPT , you use that offer letter and take all your current documents like Passport, I-20, I-94 and apply for SSN at Social Security Administration(SSA) Office, check full details at SSA Website . SSN is typically used to report job wages by employer for tax purposes or check eligibility of benefits to IRS/Government. I do NOT have SSN, Can I still do stock trading as F1 student ? While many stock brokerage firms require SSN, you are not out of luck, if you do not have one…you will have to apply for an ITIN Number ( Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ) and can use the same when applying for stock brokerage account. While some of the firms accept ITIN number, it totally depends on the stock brokering firm and you need to check with the one that you are interested in. The key thing is that you'll need either a SSN or ITIN to open a US-based brokerage account.\",\n \"There's no limitation on what you can invest in, including trading stocks (as long as trading is not a business activity, like day-trading or investing for others). You just need to make sure you have a tax ID (either ITIN or SSN) and pay taxes on all the gains and dividends. Also, consider your home country tax laws, since you're still tax resident in your home country (most likely).\",\n \"Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.\",\n \"Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]\",\n \"So, my question is what is the limit below which I don't have to pay taxes while trading. I just invested $10. Do I have to pay taxes for this too? what are the slabs? Any income is subject to tax. That said, investing $10 will probably not generate much of income, even at the discount brokers most of it will be wasted on commissions... I am also having an assistantship. So is holding two sources of income legitimate? Thanks You can have as many sources of income as you want. Working is what is restricted when you're on a student visa. As long as you don't open a business as a day trader or start working for someone trading stocks - you're fine.\",\n \"\\\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \\\"\\\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\\\"\\\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\\\"\",\n \"If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.\",\n \"You don't need a visa to invest in US equity. You don't need a visa to profit from US equity. There may be other legal considerations, but they aren't visa related, hope that helps\",\n \"You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.\",\n \"It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf\",\n \"You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.\",\n \"Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process.\",\n \"You have two problems, money exchange commissions and currency risk. Commissions are always exorbitant. First you must find the cheapest way to get your money converted to the foreign currency and into your brokerage account. The absolute cheapest way may involve some research and financial institution maneuvering. Also I'd forget about anything other than USD for the foreseeable future. Any other foreign currency will probably have higher commissions and a weaker market. Once you have that down, you must avoid needlessly exchanging currencies. Keep a balance in the foreign currency, keep all dividends and capital gains there, and only take local money out of your brokerage account right before using it. That means of course that you need to keep enough local currency to pay taxes on any gains, etc. As for currency risk, there are two solutions. One solution is to buy your risk away using forex. You sell an amount of USD/AED lots that is mostly equivalent to your current investments and then just make sure you don't get margin calls. I'm not sure just how cheap your rates would be in the UAE, but, on average, your investments should still have positive returns. The other solution is to just stop seeing exchange rate fluctuations as losses. If you had USD 100k and now you have USD 115k how are you losing money? Exchange rates can go the other way just fine, you know, and holding USD is a good way to hedge against your country going south.\",\n \"There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.\",\n \"\\\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \\\"\\\"self-directed\\\"\\\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \\\"\\\"unmanaged index funds\\\"\\\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \\\"\\\"currency hedged\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"unhedged\\\"\\\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \\\"\\\"covered call\\\"\\\" strategies and \\\"\\\"put write\\\"\\\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\\\"\",\n \"Interactive Brokers offers many foreign markets (19 countries) for US based investors. You can trade all these local markets within one universal account which is very convenient in my view. IB offering\",\n \"You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.\",\n \"\\\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \\\"\\\"Dual\\\"\\\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \\\"\\\"designated stock exchange\\\"\\\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \\\"\\\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\\\"\\\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\\\"\",\n \"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.\",\n \"First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.\",\n \"I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.\",\n \"I will split my answer in a few sections... Note: I will not address the legal aspect of the question. If you can or not use Federal money to invest. 1st - Investments with Student Loan 2nd - IRA as the Instrument I hope this helps!\",\n \"With $7 Million at stake I guess it would be prudent to take legal advise as well as advise from qualified CA. Forex trading for select currency pair [with one leg in INR] is allowed. Ex USDINR, EURINR, JPYINR, GBPINR. Forex trading for pairs without INR or not in the above list is NOT allowed.\",\n \"The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.\",\n \"You have left out the most important piece of information: are you an American citizen? If you are, then PFIC rules mean you need to be very careful not to invest in any foreign index funds/ETFs. That means it will probably be easiest for you to just leave the money in the US and continue to invest it there. If you do not have US citizenship, and have never had a green card, then you will qualify for non-resident alien status after you've been gone for 3 years. Once that happens, you won't owe US capital gains tax (though you will owe it in AUS). You will owe 30% tax on dividends, though. Much more at Investopedia.\",\n \"Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.\",\n \"\\\"In addition to @MD-tech's answer: I'd distinguish between stock of a foreign company traded in local currency at a local exchange from the same stock traded in the foreign currency at a foreign exchange (and maybe with a foreign bank holding your accounts). The latter option will typically have higher variation because of exchange rate, and (usually) higher risks associated with possibility of recovery, (double) taxation and the possible legal difficulties @MD-tech mentions. Trading the foreign stock at a local exchange may mean that the transaction volume is far lower than at their \\\"\\\"home\\\"\\\" exchange. Holding stock of companies working in foreign markets OTOH can be seen as diversification and may lower your risk. If you only invest in the local market, your investments may be subject to the same economic fluctuations that your wage/employment/pension situation is subject to - it may be good to try de-correlating this a bit. Of course, depending on political circumstances in your home country, foreign investments may be less risky (though I'd suspect these home countries also come with a high risk of seizing foreign investments...)\\\"\",\n \"Your definition of 'outside your country' might need some redefinition, as there are three different things going on here . . . Your financial adviser appears to be highlighting the currency risk associated with point three. However, consider these risk scenarios . . . A) Your country enters a period of severe financial difficulty, and money markets shut down. Your brokerage becomes insolvent, and your investments are lost. In this scenario the fact of whether your investments were in an overseas index such as the S&P, or were purchased from an account denominated in a different currency, would be irrelevant. The only thing that would have mitigated this scenario is an account with an overseas broker. B) Your country's stock market enters a sustained and deep bear market, decimating the value of shares in its companies. In this scenario the fact of whether your investments were made in from a brokerage overseas, or were purchased from an account denominated in a different currency, would be irrelevant. The only thing that would have mitigate this scenario is investment in shares and indices outside your home country. Your adviser has a good point; as long as you intend to enjoy your retirement in your home country then it might be advisable to remove currency risk by holding an account in Rupees. However, you might like to consider reducing the other forms of risk by holding non-Indian securities to create a globally diversified portfolio, and also placing some of your capital in an account with a broker outside your home country (this may be very difficult to do in practice).\",\n \"Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)\",\n \"There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.\",\n \"I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).\",\n \"One other issue you may face is when the company announces poor financial results and begins to tank, you will not be able to sell until the US market open and could incur a lot of pain.\",\n \"Question One: Question Two: Your best reference for this would be a brokerage account with data privileges in the markets you wish to trade. Failing that, I would reference the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group (CME Group) website. Question Three: Considering future tuition costs and being Canadian, you are eligible to open a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP). While contributions to this plan are not tax deductible, any taxes on income earned through investments within the fund are deferred until the beneficiary withdraws the funds. Since the beneficiary will likely be in a lower tax bracket at such a time, the sum will likely be taxed at a lower rate, assuming that the beneficiary enrolls in a qualifying post secondary institution. The Canadian government also offers the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG) in which the federal government will match 20% of the first $2500 of your annual RESP contribution up to a maximum of $500.\",\n \"As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.\",\n \"OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.\",\n \"I had this problem when I finished my job in Canada in Sept 2013. You'll likely have to open the account in person in Canada, at least if you don't already have a relationship with a broker there. DO NOT go to Virtual Brokers. They told me that my US citizenship was no problem, but right before I left Canada to double check. It wasn't until I asked specifically which US states they were licensed in that they realized they were licensed in NO US STATES. They told me that they'd freeze my account when I left. I then moved my (former) pension to a locked-in RRSP at BMO. As of September 2010 BMO could handle residents of most US states, but it took some tooth pulling to get the list out of them. However, after I flew to the USA, BMO called to demand more ID. My account was frozen until I flew back to Canada in person just to show ID. Annoyed, I closed the BMO account and moved it to TD Waterhouse. TD waterhouse can handle accounts for residents of all the US states EXCEPT Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. (I only got the complete list of exceptions when I made my first trade, since the guys at the trading desk are much more knowledgeable about such things than the guys in the branch.) TD was extremely friendly about my USA citizenship/residence. (Many Canadian brokers simply won't accept US residents, at least as of the end of 2013.) Whichever broker you choose, BRING LOTS MORE ID than they require. Insist that they zerox it all. Make sure to include your social security card. You don't want them to demand more ID after you've left the country, like BMO did. They may even make such a move simply to get rid of US customers, because the FATCA is a pain for foreign banks.\",\n \"Every month I will get a return in from my share of the profit which would be used for repayment of capital and interest in India. Not to sure what the business plan is. Please factor all the modalities, Exchange rate fluctuations, etc. My concern is regarding RBI rules and regulations, FEMA guidelines, and Income tax. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme; Funds can be transferred outside India. Any profit you make will be taxable in India. You will have to declare this pay tax in as per schedule.\",\n \"It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.\",\n \"You can apply for Foreign currency accounts. But they aren't saving accounts by any means, but more like current accounts. Taking money out will involve charges. You have to visit the bank website to figure out what all operations can be performed on your account. Barclays and HSBC allow accounts in foreign currency. Other banks also will be providing the same services. Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person Depends on country by country. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Get yourself a trading account and invest in foreign markets i.e. equities, bonds etc. But all in all be ready for the foreign exchange risks involved in denominating assets in multiple currencies.\",\n \"You should invest a trivial (<500$USD) amount of money in a stock portfolio. If you aren't able to make more on the market than the interest rates of your loans, you are losing money. This question has discussed this topic as well.\",\n \"Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?\",\n \"\\\"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \\\"\\\"foreign-controlled trust\\\"\\\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"For starting with zero knowledge you certainly did a great job on research as you hit on most of the important points with your question. It seems like you have already saved up around six months of expenses in savings so it is a great time to look into investing. The hardest part of your question is actually one of the most important details. Investing in a way that minimizes your taxes is generally more important, in the end, than what assets you actually invest in (as long as you invest even semi-reasonably). The problem is that the interaction between your home country's tax system and the U.S. tax system can be complex. It's probably (likely?) still worth maxing out your 401(k) (IRA, SEP, 529 accounts if you qualify) to avoid taxes, but like this question from an Indian investor it may be worth seeing an investment professional about this. If you do, see a fee-based professional preferably one familiar with your country. If tax-advantaged accounts are not a good deal for you or if you max them out, a discount broker is probably a good second option for someone willing to do a bit of research like you. With this money investing in broadly-diversified, low fee, index mutual funds or exchange traded funds is generally recommended. Among other benefits, diversified funds make sure that if any particular company fails you don't feel too much pain. The advantages of low fees are fairly obvious and one very good reason why so many people recommend Vanguard on this site. A common mix for someone your age is mostly stocks (local and international) and some bonds. Though with how you talk about risk you may prefer more bonds. Some people recommend spicing this up a bit with a small amount of real estate (REITs), sometimes even other assets. The right portfolio of the above can change a lot given the person. The above mentioned adviser and/or more research can help here. If, in the future, you start to believe you will go back to your home country soon that may throw much of this advice out the window and you should definitely reevaluate then. Also, if you are interested in the math/stats behind the above advice \\\"\\\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\\\"\\\" is a light read and a good place to start. Investing makes for a very interesting and reasonably profitable math/stats problem.\\\"\",\n \"I used to trade on Nasdaq using a US broker from the UK, you need a way to convert your money into US $s and have the cost of international money transfers. I don’t know if there are any laws in Turkey that will stop you using a US broker. You are also on your own if anything goes wrong, as the Turkish police will not be interested, and the US police will be very hard to deal with from Turkey. This all depends on Turkey not unplugging the internet on the day you wish to trade on!!! (I used tdameritrade, but it was a VERY long timer ago, as UK brokers are now as cheap, you should also consider UK based brokers as they will also let you trade outside of the USA.)\",\n \"Where is the money coming from? If you already have the money (inheritance, gifts or similar) sitting in your account, you can just buy e.g. index funds from Vanguard, Robinhood or other low-cost brokerages. But first you should estimate how much money you need for your studies - it is a bit of a gamble to invest money that you'll need to withdraw in a few years time. Even though the average return may be quite high (12% sounds like an overestimate, more commonly quoted figure is 7%), over short timespans your stocks will go up and down randomly. Once you actually have a job and have income from it, then the 401k and IRA and similar retirement accounts start to make sense. There is no need to have all your savings in the same account, so you can start saving now already.\",\n \"As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.\",\n \"Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;\",\n \"\\\"I'd check the terms of the student loan. It's been a long time since I had a student loan, but when I did it had restrictions that it could only be used for educational expenses, which they pretty clear spelled out meant tuition, books, lab fees, I think some provision for living expenses. If your student loan is subsidized by the government, they're not going to let you use it to start a business or go on vacation ... nor are they likely to let you invest it. Even if it is legal and within the terms of the contract, borrowing money to invest is very risky. What if you invest in the stock market, and then the stock market goes down? You may find you don't have the money to make the payments on the loan. People do this sort of thing all the time -- that's what \\\"\\\"buying on margin\\\"\\\" is all about. And some of them lose a bundle and get in real trouble.\\\"\",\n \"I strongly recommend you to invest in either stocks or bonds. Both markets have very strict regulations, and usually follow international standards of governance. Plus, they are closely supervised by local governments, since they look to serve the interests of capital holders in order to attract foreign investment. Real estate investment is not all risky, but regulations tend to be very localized. There are federal, state/county laws and byelaws, the last usually being the most significant in terms of costs (city taxes) and zoning. So if they ever change, that could ruin your investment. Keeping up with them would be hard work, because of language, legal and distance issues (visiting notary's office to sign papers, for example). Another thing to consider is, specially on rural distant areas, the risk of forgers taking your land. In poorer countries you could also face the problem of land invasion, both urban and rural. Solution for that depends on a harsh (fast) or socially populist (slow) local government. Small businesses are out of question for you, frankly. The list of risks (cash stealing, accounting misleading, etc.) is such that you will lose money. Even if you ran the business in your hometown it would not be easy right?\",\n \"U.S. citizens are allowed to own foreign bank and investment accounts. However, there are various financial and tax reporting requirements for owners of such accounts. Even when there is no foreign income involved. For example famous FBAR (Fincen Report Form 114), Form 8938, and even more forms if your assets/activities abroad become more complicated. Penalties, even for unintentional non-compliance can be Draconian. So just keep in mind, that once you start having foreign accounts, you will start having additional obligations and might spend more money and time on tax preparation. If you are ok with that, then its cool. But... assuming your gloomy predictions on Trump presidency come true. They might be accompanied by more strict capital control, reporting requirements, and may become even greater pain in the neck for people with foreign assets. Regarding recommendations, I am not sure about banks, but there are some foreign precious metal investing companies that are completely online based such as https://www.bullionvault.com/ and https://www.goldmoney.com/. These might also guard you from potential problems with US dollar.\",\n \"Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.\",\n \"Some brokerages will let you withdraw/deposit in multiple jurisdictions. e.g. I used to use Interactive Brokers. I could deposit/withdraw to US and UK bank accounts, in the appropriate currencies. It helps to have a brokerage that provides good rates on forex exchange also, and they were very good on the bid/ask spread. It was possible to get interbank rates plus a very low commission.\",\n \"When you want to invest in an asset denominated by a foreign currency, your investment is going to have some currency risk to it. You need to worry not just about what happens to your own currency, but also the foreign currency. Lets say you want to invest $10000 in US Stocks as a Canadian. Today that will cost you $13252, since USDCAD just hit 1.3252. You now have two ways you can make money. One is if USDCAD goes up, two is if the stocks go up. The former may not be obvious, but remember, you are holding US denominated assets currently, with the intention of one day converting those assets back into CAD. Essentially, you are long USDCAD (long USD short CAD). Since you are short CAD, if CAD goes up it hurts you It may seem odd to think about this as a currency trade, but it opens up a possibility. If you want a foreign investment to be currency neutral, you just make the opposite currency trade, in addition to your original investment. So in this case, you would buy $10,000 in US stocks, and then short USDCAD (ie long CAD, short USD $10,000). This is kind of savvy and may not be something you would do. But its worth mentioning. And there are also some currency hedged ETFs out there that do this for you http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact However most are hedged relative to USD, and are meant to hedge the target countries currency, not your own.\",\n \"According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.\",\n \"\\\"This sounds like a FATCA issue. I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US. The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens. The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened. Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors. This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step. Such a step would require thought and planning. Note that there would be an expatriation tax (\\\"\\\"exit tax\\\"\\\") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access. A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons. But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible. Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA.\\\"\",\n \"I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.\",\n \"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.\",\n \"If you buy US stocks when the CAD is high and sell them when the CAD is lower you will make a currency gain on top of any profit or loss from the stock investments. If you buy US stocks when the CAD is low and sell when the CAD is higher any profits from gains from the stock investment will be reduced and any losses will be increased. If you are just starting out you may be better off investing in your own country to avoid any currency risk adding to your stock market risk.\",\n \"You can buy and sell stocks, if you like. You'll have to pay taxes on any profits. And short-term is speculating, not investing, and has high risk\",\n \"Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.\",\n \"You can keep your Mutual Funds. You have to communicate your new status to fund house. The SIP can continue. Please note you have to convert the savings account to NRO account. Most banks would keep the account number same, else you have to revise SIP debit to new NRO account. From a tax point of view, it would be similar to resident status. Right now short term gains are taxed. There are quite a few other things you may need to do. Although dated, this is a good article. PS: Once you become resident alien in US for tax purposes, you are liable for taxes on global income.\",\n \"\\\"I took a course in forex trading for 3 months. I also studied financial markets in the Uni. I have been saving in order to start investing but I face the same question. I have gathered some advantages and disadventages that I would like to know your opinion. Forex market is more liquid, its more easy to identify what makes the currency change and to \\\"\\\"predict\\\"\\\" it. For small investors its an intraday trading. The risk is huge but the return can be also huge. Stocks are for long term investements. Its difficult to have a bigger return unless you know something that others dont. Its more difficult to predict price change since its easier to anyone influence it. The risk is less.\\\"\",\n \"The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.\",\n \"I think there are two options: You invest for very close friends, who trust you completely. In this case, I don't see why you need legal formalities. Just take their money, invest, and return the profits (or losses) to them. They'll know that you invest it as well as you can (rather than spend it on your dream vacation), simply because they trust you. And in case they never get to see most of their money back - they'll know that you've tried your best, and won't be upset with you. You invest for people who trust you, but not 100%. In this case, don't take their money. If you lose (and in Forex, you most likely will) then you'll lose not only money, but also your friends. Even if the legal documents would prove that you were honset, and that they knew what they're getting into, they'll still be mad at you.\",\n \"\\\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \\\"\\\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\\\"\\\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\\\"\",\n \"when investing in index funds Index fund as the name suggests invests in the same proportion of the stocks that make up the index. You can choose a Index Fund that tracks NYSE or S&P etc. You cannot select individual companies. Generally these are passively managed, i.e. just follow the index composition via automated algorithms resulting in lower Fund Manager costs. is it possible to establish an offshore company Yes it is possible and most large organization or High Net-worth individuals do this. Its expensive and complicated for ordinary individuals. One needs and army of International Tax Consultants / International Lawyers / etc but do I have to pay taxes from the capital gains at the end of the year? Yes Canada taxes on world wide income and you would have to pay taxes on gains in Canada. Note depending on your tax residency status in US, you may have to pay tax in US as well.\",\n \"You do not need to set this up as a loan. Try finding an Indian student. He is eligible to get cash (using a travel card, may be) from India tax-free. As long as it doesn't exceed the i-20 amount, he will not have any problems. Since, $10,000 is very small amount, the student shouldn't be having any problem.\",\n \"lol @ savings accounts. I don't use savings accounts. I just use checking for liquidity and invest everything else. Now if you have a job that prohibits trading on your own account that's understandable but if you have the knowledge might as well use it and make some $$$\",\n \"\\\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \\\"\\\"tax home\\\"\\\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \\\"\\\"tax home\\\"\\\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\\\"\",\n \"One risk not mentioned is that foreign stock might be thinly traded on your local stock market, so you will find it harder to buy and sell, and you will be late to the game if there is some sudden change in the share price in the original country.\",\n \"It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms.\",\n \"As far as the RRSP goes, see my answer in self directed RRSP for a non resident Don't forget to file your FBAR and form 8938, if applicable. -Jon\",\n \"You can trade currency ETF options on IB. It is SIPC insured; the options are just like vanilla options in Saxo.\",\n \"There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.\",\n \"\\\"I suggest that you're really asking questions surrounding three topics: (1) what allocation hedges your risks but also allows for upside? (2) How do you time your purchases so you're not getting hammered by exchange rates? (3) How do you know if you're doing ok? Allocations Your questions concerning allocation are really \\\"\\\"what if\\\"\\\" questions, as DoubleVu points out. Only you can really answer those. I would suggest building an excel sheet and thinking through the scenarios of at least 3 what-ifs. A) What if you keep your current allocations and anything in local currency gets cut in half in value? Could you live with that? B) What if you allocate more to \\\"\\\"stable economies\\\"\\\" and your economy recovers... so stable items grow at 5% per year, but your local investments grow 50% for the next 3 years? Could you live with that missed opportunity? C) What if you allocate more to \\\"\\\"stable economies\\\"\\\" and they grow at 5%... while SA continues a gradual slide? Remember that slow or flat growth in a stable currency is the same as higher returns in a declining currency. I would trust your own insights as a local, but I would recommend thinking more about how this plays out for your current investments. Timing You bring up concerns about \\\"\\\"timing\\\"\\\" of buying expensive foreign currencies... you can't time the market. If you knew how to do this with forex trading, you wouldn't be here :). Read up on dollar cost averaging. For most people, and most companies with international exposure, it may not beat the market in the short term, but it nets out positive in the long term. Rebalancing For you there will be two questions to ask regularly: is the allocation still correct as political and international issues play out? Have any returns or losses thrown your planned allocation out of alignment? Put your investment goals in writing, and revisit it at least once a year to evaluate whether any adjustments would be wise to make. And of course, I am not a registered financial professional, especially not in SA, so I obviously recommend taking what I say with a large dose of salt.\\\"\",\n \"You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean.\",\n \"Don't try individual stocks. If you have a job, any job, even one from mowing lawns, you can open a Roth IRA. If you are under 18 you will need your parents/guardian to setting up the account. You can put the an amount equal to your earned income into the Roth IRA, up to the annual maximum of $5500. There are advantages to a Roth IRA: What happens if you are using your income to pay for your car, insurance, etc? You can get the money from your parents, grandparents. The only rule is that you can't invest more than you have earned. Act before Tax day (April 15th). You know what you made last year. If you open the account and make the contribution before April 15th it can count for last year, as long as you are clear with the broker/bank when you make the deposit.\",\n \"The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\",\n \"If you are using the money to invest in a property (even abroad) then you can claim tax exemption. while some people will tell you that the reinvestment should be in India only, it have been ruled that the property can be purchased abroad too..\",\n \"It all depends on how much risk you take. The problem is you have no idea what the risks are, and so you will lose all your money. I would say zero. But if you want to have a go, try reading reminiscences of a stock operator, then try reading my own attempt to make sense of the same stuff Hey, as you're a student you could even try making sense of my FX and MM training on the same website. Good luck\",\n \"Please consult a tax advisor. You may be voilating the FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act] and can land into trouble. Further what you are doing can land up into various other acts as illegal including AML. Further if there is income generated by Indian citizen in India, he is still liable to pay tax, irrespective of whether you get the funds back into India. Edit: AML is Anti Money Laundering. Your transaction is sure to raise AML triggers as it looks like converting Black Money to White in round about way. Once the triggers are raised, RBI division will investigate further to verify what you are doing. If you are able to prove that this is a valid transaction, you would be OK on AML front. How will Income Tax Know? - If they don't know does not mean you are not liable for tax. - Any suspicious transactions would get investigated and sooner or later Income Tax would know about it and can cause a serious problem. - It is irrelevant where you have kept the money, if you have earned something, its taxable. For it not to be taxable you need to conduct this business differently. Please consult a tax adviser who will advice you on the tax-ability of this type of transaction.\",\n \"Yes it is legal, in fact according to statistics.gov.uk, foreign investors are the largest holders of UK shares (as of 2008). Investors from outside the UK owned 41.5 per cent of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2008, up from 40.0 per cent at end of 2006, according to the latest Office for National Statistics report on share ownership.\",\n \"\\\"Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student. Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going. I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations. I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost. You are not misusing your money by \\\"\\\"not doing anything with it\\\"\\\". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino. Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you.\\\"\",\n \"In short: yes, as long as you have Internet access. See, for example this question or this one about opening a brokerage account from outside the US. Your sister could even open an account here in the US and provide you with access. However, I'm guessing you're not a registered or even formally trained financial advisor and if you make bets with her money that don't work out well, she could get pretty upset with you. You might consider doing research from Bangladesh on good financial advisors and picking one (or a few) to recommend she go see in the US. EDIT: OP hopes to be a financial advisor in the future. Given that comment, I'd recommend looking into becoming a Certified Financial Planner (unless CFA suits your goals; you indicated that process is already underway), as a step towards that goal. Information about the certification in the US is here, in India here, and in some other countries here.\",\n \"If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.\",\n \"For $100 you better just hold it in Mexico. The cost of opening an account could eat 10% or more of your capital easily, and that won't be able to buy enough shares of an ETF or similar investment to make it worthwhile.\",\n \"As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office.\",\n \"Investing in the stock market early is a good thing. However, it does have a learning curve, and that curve can, and eventually will, cost you. One basic rule in investing is that risk and reward are proportional. The greater the reward, the higher the risk that you either (a) won't get the reward, or (b) lose your money instead. Given that, don't invest money you can't afford to lose (you mentioned you're on a student budget). If you want to start with short but sercure investments, try finding a high-interest savings account or CD. For example, the bank I use has an offer where the first $500 in your account gets ~6% interest - certainly not bad if you only put $500 in the account. Unfortunately, most banks are offering a pittance for savings rates or CDs. If you're willing to take more risk, you could certainly put money into the stock market. Before you do, I would recommend spending some time learning about how the stock market works, it's flows and ebbs, and how stock valuations work. Don't buy a stock because you hear about it a lot; understand why that stock is being valued as such. Also consider buying index funds (such as SPY) which is like a stock but tracks an entire index. That way if a specific company suddenly drops, you won't be nearly as affected. On the flip side, if only 1 company goes up, but the market goes down, you'll miss out. But consider the odds of having picked that 1 company.\",\n \"I find that there are two violation of law , prima facie , if someone earns money by depositing in the online account and then not reporting it ( including in his total income for the year ) and not bringing in India. Income Tax Act violation 1. It is simply comcealment liable for penalty & prosecution under I.T.Act. 2. You should know that anyone who is resident of India as per income Tax Act and having taxable income ( gross total income exceeding exemption limit) will have to fill up the column in his/her income tax return whether Previously these column were not in the Income Tax Return. So , now anyone who is liable to file return of Income can be tried for false return if he has hiddne assets aborad. 2. FEMA violation RBI permits remittance under Liberalized Remittance Scheme. However this scheme can not be used for certain purpose . It is important to examine whether RBI prohibits use of remittance for any entity or business you have described. You can read following FAQ on RBI site Q. 30. What are the prohibited items under the Scheme? Ans. The remittance facility under the Scheme is not available for the following: i) Remittance for any purpose specifically prohibited under Schedule-I (like purchase of lottery tickets/sweep stakes, proscribed magazines, etc.) or any item restricted under Schedule II of Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000; ii) Remittance from India for margins or margin calls to overseas exchanges / overseas counter-party; iii) Remittances for purchase of FCCBs issued by Indian companies in the overseas secondary market; iv) Remittance for trading in foreign exchange abroad; v) Remittance by a resident individual for setting up a company abroad; vi) Remittances directly or indirectly to Bhutan, Nepal, Mauritius and Pakistan; vii) Remittances directly or indirectly to countries identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as “non co-operative countries and territories”, from time to time; and viii) Remittances directly or indirectly to those individuals and entities identified as posing significant risk of committing acts of terrorism as advised separately by the Reserve Bank to the banks. You will have to examine , if the remittance was NOT done for purpose not allowed by RBI under LRS . If you clear this , you can say there is no violation and your violation is restricted to I.T.Act only.\",\n \"It's not really like im am going to lose my money unless I was doing penny stocks. And throwing away that much for a vacation when student debt will probally exist in my life later on appears not wise.\",\n \"Banking vs. speculating isn't a relevant dichotomy here. If my broker-dealer goes belly-up, I'm covered for up to $500K to replace the cash and securities I had on deposit with them. If he was doing forex investing, he fell into one of the few areas which is not covered by SIPC deposit insurance.\",\n \"\\\"To trade stocks in India, you need a copy of your pan card, address proof(passport or driving license/electricity bill), income tax return (if you are trading futures & options and currencies), and a cancelled cheque from the bank. You will also need to sign across your recent photographs, and require various other forms from a brokerage house which need to be signed in the brokers presence. If your stock broker trusts you, and you have all these documents, then you CAN open a DEMAT account in India by signing and sending him all these documents. Otherwise you CANNOT, as every single form states that \\\"\\\"this particular document was signed in my presence\\\"\\\", and the stock broker needs to sign under that clause. Chances are, if you live abroad, no broker will ever trust you with any kind of margin, and therefore cannot make profits from you, so they will not agree to open your account.\\\"\",\n \"A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.\",\n \"\\\"The other option apart from the above which I feel is quite good is \\\"\\\"Travel Card\\\"\\\" [also called Forex Card] issued in USD. These cards are like prepaid debit cards. They are available from almost quite a few Indian Banks like HDFC / ICICI / UTI. The limit for students is around 100 K USD per year. http://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/cards/prepaid_cards/forexplus_card/pre_forex_elg.htm The card can be reloaded by any amount [i think the minimum is USD 100] by visiting the Branch or certain Forex agents. There loading fee is INR 75. The Fx is typical Card Rate prevailing on the day. In US this card can be used as a credit card for almost everything [I have used this without any hassel]. Avoid using the card for blocking anything [at Hotel for room booking, or initial block at car rentals]. Although its mentioned that there is a withdrawl fees, i was never charged anything for withdrawls. The card comes with an internet based login to monitor account balance and transactions. Any unused funds can be withdrawn in India. The payment will be make in INR.\\\"\",\n \"ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.\",\n \"\\\"I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's answer, but there are a couple of ideas that are relevant to your particular situation: If I were you, I would invest at least half of the cash in growth ETFs because you're young enough that market variability doesn't affect you and long term growth is important. The rest should be invested in safer investments (value and dividend ETFs, bonds, cash) so that you have something to live off in the near term. You said you wanted to invest ethically. The keyword to search is \\\"\\\"socially responsible ETFs\\\"\\\". There are many, and if this is important to you, you'll have to read their prospectus to find one that matches your ethics. Since you're American, the way I understand it, you need to file taxes on income; selling stocks at a gain is income. You want to make sure that as your stocks appreciate, you sell some every year and immediately rebuy them so that you pay a small tax bill every year rather than one huge tax bill 20 years from now. Claiming about $20600 of capital gains every year would be tax free assuming you are not earning any other money. I would claim a bit more in years where you make a lot. You can mitigate your long term capital gains tax exposure by opening a Roth IRA and maxing that out. Capital gains in the Roth IRA are not taxable. Even if you don't have income from working, you can have some income if you invest in stocks that pay dividends, which would allow you to contribute to a Roth IRA. You should figure where you're going to be living because you will want to minimize the currency risk of having your money in USD while you're living abroad. If the exchange rate were to change by a lot, you might find yourself a lot poorer. There are various hedging strategies, but the easiest one is to invest some of your money in securities of the country you'll be living in. You should look into how you'll be converting money into the foreign currency. There are sometimes way of minimizing the spread when converting large amounts of money, e.g., Norbert's gambit. Shaving off 1.5% when exchanging $100k saves $1500.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country."],"string":"[\n \"You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":292,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3014"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What investments are positively related to the housing market decline?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["341399","273282"],"string":"[\n \"341399\",\n \"273282\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["341399","273282","484266","401264","150632","75650","190891","300703","387141","481874","584633","12782","350332","209125","337057","494928","66219","407145","149725","288167","494438","598764","217242","313913","208081","60175","412502","257716","174302","421285","48946","250028","549763","427808","158006","409859","297877","8135","55985","32936","186031","251843","509064","508055","268802","183934","21225","107697","375438","570855","190503","130388","144177","483648","181007","329930","375151","390061","73649","53601","422820","464078","457800","275768","464957","355620","386162","394326","25582","28039","465430","68269","166597","62027","532907","62669","34844","228997","354117","265218","440220","50744","376709","214798","189006","265267","482077","324587","387702","328556","419397","397290","501504","24822","113189","440696","427819","160623","442122","242040"],"string":"[\n \"341399\",\n \"273282\",\n \"484266\",\n \"401264\",\n \"150632\",\n \"75650\",\n \"190891\",\n \"300703\",\n \"387141\",\n \"481874\",\n \"584633\",\n \"12782\",\n \"350332\",\n \"209125\",\n \"337057\",\n \"494928\",\n \"66219\",\n \"407145\",\n \"149725\",\n \"288167\",\n \"494438\",\n \"598764\",\n \"217242\",\n \"313913\",\n \"208081\",\n \"60175\",\n \"412502\",\n \"257716\",\n \"174302\",\n \"421285\",\n \"48946\",\n \"250028\",\n \"549763\",\n \"427808\",\n \"158006\",\n \"409859\",\n \"297877\",\n \"8135\",\n \"55985\",\n \"32936\",\n \"186031\",\n \"251843\",\n \"509064\",\n \"508055\",\n \"268802\",\n \"183934\",\n \"21225\",\n \"107697\",\n \"375438\",\n \"570855\",\n \"190503\",\n \"130388\",\n \"144177\",\n \"483648\",\n \"181007\",\n \"329930\",\n \"375151\",\n \"390061\",\n \"73649\",\n \"53601\",\n \"422820\",\n \"464078\",\n \"457800\",\n \"275768\",\n \"464957\",\n \"355620\",\n \"386162\",\n \"394326\",\n \"25582\",\n \"28039\",\n \"465430\",\n \"68269\",\n \"166597\",\n \"62027\",\n \"532907\",\n \"62669\",\n \"34844\",\n \"228997\",\n \"354117\",\n \"265218\",\n \"440220\",\n \"50744\",\n \"376709\",\n \"214798\",\n \"189006\",\n \"265267\",\n \"482077\",\n \"324587\",\n \"387702\",\n \"328556\",\n \"419397\",\n \"397290\",\n \"501504\",\n \"24822\",\n \"113189\",\n \"440696\",\n \"427819\",\n \"160623\",\n \"442122\",\n \"242040\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["A possibility could be real estate brokerage firms such as Realogy or Prudential. Although a brokerage commission is linked to the sale prices it is more directly impacted by sales volume. If volume is maintained or goes up a real estate brokerage firm can actually profit rather handsomely in an up market or a down market. If sales volume does go up another option would be other service markets for real estate such as real estate information and marketing websites and sources i.e. http://www.trulia.com. Furthermore one can go and make a broad generalization such as since real estate no longer requires the same quantity of construction material other industries sensitive to the price of those commodities should technically have a lower cost of doing business. But be careful in the US much of the wealth an average american has is in their home. In this case this means that the economy as a whole takes a dive due to consumer uncertainty. In which case safe havens could benefit, may be things like Proctor & Gamble, gold, or treasuries. Side Note: You can always short builders or someone who loses if the housing market declines, this will make your investment higher as a result of the security going lower.","\"During the actual decline, there's very little money to be made and a lot to lose. When housing prices tank, everybody loses; the banks are exposed to higher risk of mortgage defaults, insurers start having to pay out more for \"\"gas leaks\"\" claiming over-leveraged homes, realtors starve because their commissions go down (even as foreclosures put more homes on the market) and people faced with financial uncertainty will stay put in their current homes instead of moving elsewhere. And homebuilders and contractors go broke because nobody wants to spend cash on a new home or major reno that looks like a losing investment. There can be some bright spots. Smaller hardware stores will make money as people do relatively small DIY projects to improve the condition of their current home. The larger stores get this business too, but it tends to be more than offset by the loss of contractor business (FAR more lucrative, and something the ACEs and True-Values don't really get in on). Of course the \"\"grave-robbers\"\" do well; gold buyers, auctioneers, pawn shops, repo firms; these guys eat well when other people are defaulting on loans or have to sell their stuff for fast cash. Most of these businesses are not publicly traded. One thing that was seen was increased revenues at discount retailers like Wal-Mart, Dollar General etc. When things are bad, people in the middle class who had avoided these stores for image or morality reasons learn to swallow their pride and buy discount store brands for half the price of national brand names. That lessens the blow felt by the discount retailers as overall consumer spending decreases; the pie shrinks, but the discount retailers get a bigger slice of the mandatory spending on food, clothing, etc (and the higher-level retailers get it in the shorts). When the pie starts to grow again as consumer spending picks back up, the discount retailers retain their percentage for a while, as the fickle middle class can afford to buy more from the discount retailer but can't yet afford to take their business back to the shopping mall stores. This produces a flatter, \"\"offset\"\" price graph for discount retailers through the business cycle; they don't lose as early or as much as everyone else in a major downturn, and they turn it around sooner while everyone else may still be on the way down, but as everything gets better for everyone on the upswing it's less great for the discount guys, as they start losing customers and their dollars to competitors with better stuff, even as the ones they keep spend more. This doesn't generally manifest as a true negative correlation, but it can be a good hedge. The number one money-making investment in a tanking economy is gold. When things go down the crapper, everyone wants gold, so if you see the train wreck coming far enough in advance, you can make a big move to gold and really make some money off that investment. For instance, when the first whispers about ARM adjustments and mass defaults reached the public consciousness in mid-2005, gold bullion jumped from about $400 to over $700 in a nine-month period. It cooled off again in 06-07 but only to about $600/oz, and then in late 07 it steadily climbed to peak at $1000/oz; even if you got in late, an investment of $1000 in July '07 in \"\"bulk\"\" gold would have netted you $650 in one year; that's a 65% APY. Then the economy hit bottom and a lot of investors ditched gold for investments they thought would pull back out of their holes quickly; For just a little while in '08 gold was down to $700 again. Then came all the government reports; unemployment not budging, home prices still declining, a lot of banks still hiding just how bad their position was. If you had seen that it was going to be bad, bad, bad, like a lot of now-billionaire hedge fund investors did, a $1000 investment in gold in July 05, and then cashing out at the tops of the peaks and buying back in at the major troughs, would be worth almost $4000 today. That's a 400% return over 7 years, or an annual average yield of 57%. There simply hasn't been anything like that in the last 7 years.\"","You could short home builders who do a lot of their business in Northern California. (Not just San Francisco, Silicon Valley, or even the Bay Area.) Home prices in Sacramento and the northern San Joaquin Valley are correlated with Bay Area home prices. Many of these builders went broke during the last bust, so you might have trouble finding a publicly traded home builder that is concentrated in just one market.","\"If you're trying to hedge the ups and downs of your local residential real estate market, a REIT fund holding commercial properties across the country is not the ideal match. Here's a comparison of an index tracking single-family home prices in one region (Los Angeles) and VNQ (another popular REIT fund). There's some correlation but there's clearly different magnitudes and sometimes different directions. With a national home price index, the correlation is only 68%, and it would be lower for individual cities. You could still use it for hedging, but there's significant \"\"tracker error\"\" risk to be considered. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with any investment that would be a better match for individual residential markets. So, if you decide to use this, I'd also adjust the level of exposure to get a closer result. E.g. using approx. 50% VNQ and 50% cash results in a closer result after 2 years (compared to national single-family home price changes) than either 0% VNQ and 100% cash, or 100% VNQ and 0% cash.\"","You can hedge your house price from losing value if you believe that the housing market is correlated with major stock indices. Speak with a commodities broker because they will be able to help you buy puts on stock indices which if correlated with housing prices will offer somewhat of a hedge. Example. House prices drop 30% because of weak economy, stocks will generally drop around that same amount 30%. If you have enough exposure to in the puts compared to your house value you will be protected. You can also buy calls in 30 year bonds for interest rate lock if you are not on a fixed interest rate. Many investors like warren buffet and carl icahn have been protecting them selves from a potential market downward turn. Speak to a local commodity broker to get some detailed advice, not etrade or any discount brokers they won't be able to help you specialize your trades. look for a full time commodity broker house.","As the value of a currency declines, commodities, priced in that currency, will rise. The two best commodities to see a change in would be oil and gold.","\"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average \"\"spread\"\" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either. Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right.\"","The most obvious route is to short the lenders, preferably subprime. Since there are no lenders that operate exclusively in San Francisco, you could look north at Canada. The Canadian real estate market (esp. Vancouver) is just as overheated as the San Francisco market. As a start, famous short seller Marc Cohodes recommends HCG (Home Capital Group) as an opportune short.","Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!","Frequently people saving money for a down payment, or for their emergency fund, feel that they need to find a way to speedup the process via methods that will generate more interest than a bank account or a CD. Once they have reached their goal they also feel that having the money sitting around not generating income is a missed opportunity. All investments that aren't 100% safe introduce risk. To entice you to invest they offer the opportunity make more money than a bank account or CD. But the downside is that the extra money isn't guaranteed. In fact the introduced risk also opens up the investment to the possibility of losses, including a total loss. You have identified risks with bank accounts and CDs. With the bank account you will generally lose money vs. inflation. With a CD the investment is less liquid if you sell early, or you want/need to sell 1/2 a CD, you will give up some of that extra income. Also if rates on a CD rise next month you are stilled locked into your current rate til the CD ends. Putting some or all of the money you are saving for the house into a risky investment means that you may shorten or extend the time period. Nobody knows. by investing in real estate we can offset the risk of real estate going up in the next couple years: if real estate goes up we will still be able to use our down payment for a comparable house as of now. Inversely, if real estate goes down we will lose on the down payment but be able to get a house cheaper. Unless the REIT matches the market of residential real estate in your city/metropolitan region there is no guarantee that home prices in your city will move the same way the REIT does. A recent listing of the 10 largest holdings of the index is: none of these tell me what home prices in my neighborhood will do next year.","It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.","Your question may have another clue. You are bullish regarding the real estate market. Is that for your city, your state, your nation or for the whole world? Unless you can identify particular properties or neighborhoods that are expected to be better than the average return for your expected bull market in real estate, you will be taking a huge risk. It would be the same as believing that stocks are about to enter a bull market, but then wanting to put 50% of your wealth on one stock. The YTD for the DOW is ~+7%, yet 13 of the 30 have not reached the average increase including 4 that are down more than 7%. Being bullish about the real estate segment still gives you plenty of opportunities to invest. You can invest directly in the REIT or you can invest in the companies that will grow because of the bullish conditions. If your opinion changes in a few years it is hard to short a single property.","\"If you do as you propose you are going to get burned. You need to sell, then start to rent. amongst other things. Since 2008, the economy never \"\"recovered,\"\" but was sort of stabilized temporarily like a fighter on the ropes. The economy is beginning to collapse again, and that collapse will accelerate around the Fall. The dollar too will also begin its delayed downward fall come Autumn. Just one example of what I speak: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART I would be happy to tell you more if you like, but I am already going to get pilloried for what I have already said. I do not sell anything, or push anything, but since you asked, and I follow this day in and day out, I thought that I would give you my very well informed answer. Take it for what it's worth. So let me know if you want more.\"","I see that you're invested in a couple bond funds. You do not want to be invested in bonds when the Fed raises rates. When rates climb, the value of bond investments decline, and vice-versa. So that means you should sell bonds before a rate hike, and buy them before a rate drop.","Well put and, honestly, seemingly unavoidable. It will be crazy if it truly does come to fruition if they (Fed/Treasury/Gummit) realize that they cannot inflate their way out of this by printing more money and all of the nay-sayers of massive deflation get proven wrong. So, the better question is this: we believe/know it's coming, so how do we prepare and strategically place ourselves to survive/profit/prosper from the coming collapse? As I see it, RE is a crap investment for the foreseeable future as oversupply and oversize are not absorbed. People have to live, so rentals will be key; but, they have already bloomed quite a bit. Stocks will likely trade sideways for awhile before likely tanking as the forced/willing withdrawals start happening from the Boomers. So, keeping it in stocks doesn't sound overly positive, unless a fairly aggressive put strategy is enforced. Bonds are paying crap and, after taxes, barely pacing inflation. For me personally and selfishly, I have 20 years minimum for retirement, so I'm fine qith the market trending sideways or down. It means that I'm getting more bang for my DCA buck and, 20+ years from now, I will be well positioned when the market eventually cycles back up. But, for now, where do we put our investments to protect and, hopefully, grow them as the mid term passes?","When credit locks up, junk bond prices fall rapidly, and you see more defaults. The opportunity to make money with junk is to buy a diversified collection of them when the market declines. Look at the charts from some of the mutual funds or ETFs like PIMCO High Yield Instl (PHIYX), or Northeast Investors (NTHEX). Very volatile stuff. Keep in mind that junk bonds are not representative of the economy as a whole -- they cluster in certain industries. Retail and financials are big industry segments for junk. Also keep in mind that the market for these things is not as liquid as the stock market. If your investment choice is really a sector investment, you might be better served by investing in sector funds with stocks that trade every day versus bonds whose market price may be difficult to determine.","If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.","\"In my experience, Shiller is always way before his time with his predictions and often it comes at too early a point for anyone actually making some money to care about. His view is very long term - and I trust his predictions, because he so accurately predicted so many of the homepocalypse, and the measures that would follow. He even predicted that there would be bailouts in his book \"\"Irrational Exuberance\"\". His opinons were poo-poo'd as doom and gloom and manipulative until every piece started falling apart in the specific order of events (give or take) that they did. I personally think people like Dr. Shiller make bold predictions that are hard to swallow. The derivatives market is a bit skittish about rolling into bull territory with any kind of housing index, but Warren Buffet's old adage to \"\"buy when everyone is selling and sell when everyone is buying.\"\" (paraphrase). I see this as a good long-term investment because I trust Shiller's judgement, he stuck to his guns when the doubts were lobbed at him incessantly (and Krugman, et. al. to some extent), and he turned out to be more than vindicated. To me, these kinds of sources are usually pretty sound. The man knows what he's talking about, and I wouldn't mind picking up a piece of that action, especially if the market just doesn't trust any real estate investments. It's pretty easy to realize that right now housing will be undervalued and now that mortgage applications are (supposedly) stricter, I think there's a good argument to be made that this economist should continue to exceed expectations.\"","Buy some pits for xiv in October if you want to piggy back. Options pretty cheap right now. Not sure if xiv has options, but if vix spikes, xiv will tank almost 1 for 1 negative relationship. Chart both of them over time to see the relationship.","There are two impacts: First, if the pound is dropping, then buying houses becomes cheaper for foreign investors, so they will tend to buy more houses as investments, which will drive house prices up. Second, in theory you might be able to get a mortgage in a foreign country, let's say in Euro, and you might hope that over the next few years the pound would go up again, and the Euros that you owe the foreign bank become worth less.","I want to know too. Outside of the stock market there could be a lot of assets that aren't being supported as well as stocks by the US government. If that's the case we could be seeing another signaller showing the poor shape of the economy.","I know that assets like bonds have prices that have an inverse relationship with interest rates, but what other assets do as well? I'm a bit new to finance and all that so I'm trying to learn. Would real estate prices be high as well? If so, why?","You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included.","\"VNQ only holds ~16% residential REITs. The rest are industrial, office, retail (e.g. shopping malls), specialized (hotels perhaps?) etc. Thus, VNQ isn't as correlated towards housing as you might have assumed just based on it being about \"\"real estate.\"\" Second of all, if by \"\"housing\"\" you mean that actual houses have gone up appreciably, then you ought to realize that residential REITs seldom hold actual houses. The residential units held tend primarily to be rental apartments. There is a relationship in prices, but not direct.\"","I would think a depressed housing market might be the BEST time to buy, is this not correct? There are foreclosures where banks are letting houses go for half of their standard value, and are offering some of the lowest interest rates ever. In a strong economy you could be looking at around 10% APR, I see this as a situation where it's a buy low sort of time.","If you've decided to ignore the sound advice re: oil company stocks, and you want something directly linked to the price of oil, do the following: Understand that oil producers would like avoid the risk of a price drop, and oil consumers (refiners, electric utilities, etc.) would like to avoid the risk of a price rise. Understand that you are about to assume their risk.","\"I was in a similar situation, and used FX trading to hedge against currency fluctuations. I bought the \"\"new\"\" currency when the PPP implied valuation of my \"\"old\"\" currency was high, and was able to protect quite a bit of purchasing power that I would have lost without the hedge. Unfortunately you get taxed for the \"\"gain\"\" you made, but still helpful. In terms of housing market, you could look into a Ireland REIT index, but it may not correlate well with the actual house prices you are looking for.\"","Basically, they all do. The relationship is much more dynamic with stocks but corporate financing costs increase, return requirements increase (risk free rate goes up). Same with real estate. Commodity demand is correlated with economic activity, which is correlated with interest rates, although not perfectly. The most important factor is, a higher risk free rate increases the discount rate, which reduces asset values","Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.","Invest in an etf called SPXS and hope for a market correction in the next month. Or if you know a lot about markets and trends, select from this list of leveraged etfs available from Direxion.","\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \"\"clumping\"\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\"","Generally speaking, you want to find goods and services that are inelastic and also require oil as a cost. Oil company stocks make record profits when oil is high, because direct demand for oil is relatively inelastic. Profit margins of oil competition should also go up, as this creates inflation in general, as people seek alternatives to the inelastic demand.","Invest in solid companies, not in esoteric products built on sand. The problem is with finance, not with real economy: oil companies make money, mobile phone companies make money, airlines make money...","If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.","There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged. For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500. (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well. For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility. As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises. One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX.","Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply.","Real estate. The value of the house where I live going up 15% per year! From 2004-2009. Sold for $92k in 1980 now valued at $524k. Twice the rate of inflation in that timeframe. None of it makes sense nor is it sustainable = asset bubble. In my zip code the median income is $162k and median house value $808k (Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012). That averages out 5x annual income. In LA and Las Vegas that ratio is even worse, where most of these HELs and HELOCs are going to blow up. This article is accurate. People use these loans to replace their stagnating or falling wages. And its a lot of people.","The charts suggest otherwise. Although most of the large gains were wiped out in 2008 and 2011, that doesn't include the substantial dividends you are likely to get with financials. They still returned a positive percentage and some outperformed benchmark indices over time. But hey, don't let your bias get in the way.","Generally, you need something that goes up over time during periods of index decline, but otherwise holds some value. Historically, people tend to use gold for that purpose. But with gold also set up for possible declines, that raises questions. Silver has dropped a bit more than gold in terms of percentages. If you think the downward motion will be in the form of sudden jumps, you can look at putting some of your money in puts away from the current price, but you can easily wind up paying too much for this protection. In the case of a deflation, most things lose value vs. money, and you want all cash. These things might already be obvious. I don't think there is a clear answer to your question. But if the future were clear, the present market could possibly anticipate and adjust... one reason the future of the market always seems a bit murky.","You always see articles of how financially distressed people are, but then other articles on how home prices are rising and people don't want to sell their homes for less (to meet the pent-up demand for starter homes). A nice, long, prolonged drop in real estate prices would solve so much. With the decline in retail I hope it comes.","It is almost a sure thing that the housing market will crash again hugely.For this reason I prefer to own several houses that way when it does no one can ask for their money back and leave me homeless. Current economics suggest a fall of between 40-60% from 2011 prices meaning that if you have bought a house in the last 12 years you can wave bye bye to any and all equity, and this will happen very soon. I recommend saving your money and buying a house outright (like I did 3 times) from someone who has spent 12 years or so paying a mortgage.","\"You're \"\"onto\"\" something. Investing in real estate was not a bad idea about 10-15 years ago, when stocks were high, and real estate was not. On the other hand, by about 2006, BOTH stocks and real estate were high, and should have been avoided. And around 1980, both were LOW, and should have been bought. I expand this construct to include gold and oil. Around 2005, these were relatively low, and should have been bought over stocks and real estate. On the other hand, ALL FOUR are high right now, and offer comparable dangers.\"","I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.","Credit products and securitized debt. Credit/debt is the flip side of equity but has less volatility. In today's investing environment people are not looking for a big return as much as less risk with a modest return. Another trend I think you will see is the disappearance of the wall between interest rate products/fixed income and credit products.","Without commenting on your view of the TV market: Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure: 1.Short the stocks Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet 2.Options a. Write Calls b. Buy puts Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta 3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts. Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain","not sure if serious, read on if you don't think the previous comment is sarcasm. No, they don't. The point of investing is to buy a stake in something that will become more valuable in the future. Other things don't have to devalue for your investment to gain value. This is possible because the net value of everything is increasing over time (compare the value of all the world's private property today to its value in 1900).","\"Real estate is not a good investment. In fact, it's easy to make a case for it being the worst possible investment imaginable: Imagine over a cup or coffee or a glass of wine we get to talking about investments. Then maybe one of us, let’s say you, says: “Hey I’ve got an idea. We’re always talking about good investments. What if we came up with the worst possible investment we can construct? What might that look like?” Well, let’s see now (pulling out our lined yellow pad), let’s make a list. To be really terrible: -- Why Your House Is A Terrible Investment There are plenty of good reasons to own a home, but the key word there is \"\"home\"\". Owning housing as an investment property is a horrible idea, and anyone who does it, especially right now with as bubbly as the market is looking again, (or, better put, still, since the last bubble never did fully pop and clear out the underlying systemic instability,) is an idiot. And even after the current housing market bubble pops, it's likely to remain a bad idea for decades. We're never getting the early 2000s back, for basic supply-and-demand reasons: with the Baby Boom generation retiring, aging and dying off, they're not likely to do much more home-buying, and no generation after them is as big as they are, which means a glut of oversupply and weak demand for the entirety of the foreseeable future.\"","The article John cites says no correlation, but this chart from the article says otherwise; One sees the rate drop from 14% to 4% and housing rise from an index of 50 to near 190. (reaching over to my TI BA-35 calculator) I see that at 14%, $1000/mo will buy $84,400 worth of mortgage, but at 4%, it will buy $209,500. 2-1/2 times the borrowing power for the same payment. But wait, my friends at West Egg tell me that inflation means I can't compare $1000 in 1980 to the same $1000 in 2010. The $1,000 inflates to $2611 (i.e. an income rising only with inflation, no more) and that can fund a mortgage for $546,900. This is 6.5 times the original borrowing power, yet the housing index 'only' rose 3.8X. See that crazy chart? Housing actually got cheaper from 1980 to the peak. Statistics can say whatever you wish. Interest rate change drove all the change in housing prices, but not quite as much as it should have. To answer your question - I expect that when rates rise (and they will) housing prices will take a hit. In today's dollars, a current $1000 borrows (at 4%) nearly $210K, but at 6%, just $167K. If rates took a jump from these record lows, that's the nature of the risk you'd take.","One way of looking at it is that your equity in your house is an investment in a particular class of asset, and investing further in that asset class may drive you away from, rather than towards, your preferred asset mix. It's pretty common here in New Zealand for people's only investments to be their homes and rental properties. I wish those people luck when our current property boom ends.","So wages for the working class are declining, young people can't find jobs and are over encumbered in school debt, unemployment is really high, yet these fools think they can find a sucker who can afford their overpriced assets? Good Luck.","Hits 3 I go in big. You think it'll still be at 3 in 5 or 10 years? Come on now. It ain't going under and the economy will rebound. When it does, all the bank stocks will come back. It's quite simple, really.","To avoid risk from rising interest rates, get a fixed rate mortgage. For the life of the mortgage your principal and interest payments will remain the same. Keep in mind that the taxes and insurance portion of your monthly payment may still go up. Because you own the property, the costs to maintain the property are your responsibility. If you rented this would be the responsibility of the owner of the property; if the cost to repair and maintain goes up so does the rent. Because you are the owner your annual costs to repair and maintain may go up over time. The way to eliminate risk of loss of value is to never move, until the mortgage is paid off. You will know exactly what principal and interest will cost you over the life of the loan. When you sell that will be essentially return on your payments. You don't know if the loss of value is due to world, national, regional, local or individual circumstances. so hedging is tough. If the fact that the mortgage is 95% is what makes you nervous, your biggest risk is risk of being upside down. That risk is greatly reduced by increasing the amount of the down payment. That decreases the risk that the value will be below the mortgage amount if due to unforeseen circumstances you have to sell immediately. The money will still be lost due to decrease in value, but you aren't forced to bring cash to the settlement table if you need to sell.","\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \"\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\"\" and \"\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\"\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \"\"stop the presses\"\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\"","Totally depends on the drivers of the downturn. Keep in mind that in ~2005, both real estate and short-term bonds would arguably have been reasonable answers to this question (without the benefit of hindsight, of course). e: After re-reading your post, it looks like you were asking about (I assume) equity investments by sector rather than asset classes more broadly. I'm not sure equity in any sector can be considered a safe haven in a downturn. Utilities are the typical answer, but they didn't do much better than equity markets in general in 2008-2009.","Goldman Sachs saw credit default swaps as an investment option too. You have to realize they aren't really in the buy and hold game. Them seeing an opportunity to make money off something doesn't mean it will necessarily go up in the future. Also the US economy is the strongest it's been in almost 20 years.. Eroding?","\"I would undoubtedly sell the investments if they are positive, maybe even a little negative. That's what non-retirement investments are for, building wealth to spend, give, etc. Flipping things may put it in perspective. Would you borrow money or liquidate your emergency fund in order to invest in mutual funds? If you can completely ignore risk then this MAY make sense. Let's say if you could borrow money at 3.75% and had a \"\"guaranteed\"\" investment return of 7.5% and a \"\"guaranteed\"\" source of income (job). But mutual funds (stocks, bonds) aren't even guaranteed to make money and they most definitely can lose and lose big. Also, I hope your job isn't in any way tied to the oil industry. On the other hand, if you take a loan and fall on hard times you can liquidate your mutual funds to get out of the bind, but you are at the mercy of the market and the worth of your investments at that point. So it may come down to whether you want to choose when to spend your investments, when they are up or at some future date when they may be worth much less (or much more).\"","If your planning on shorting the stocks be careful, while the value of the retail sector may be declining there will be a lot of back and forth over the next ten years, and as REITs discounts to nav increases, there is huge opportunities for buyouts from developers who have other use ideas for the real estate. The real estate will always have value, even if it's not as a shopping center.",">I would much rather have my money in an up-trend. Damn right. Or at least have it liquid. We couldn't sell this house now, even though it's one of the best in the neighborhood. (The nice, but smaller, house across the street has been on the market for over a year.) A few other houses in the neighborhood didn't seem to have any problems being rented, though, so we could likely get rental income from this one if we wanted.","It's always a good move for risk-averse person, expecially in Europe. Because houses are not represented by number in an index. Therefor if you are risk-adverse, you will suffer less pain when house prices go down because you won't have a number to look at everyday like the S&P500 index. Because houses in Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain) are almost all made by concrete and really well done (string real marble cover, hard ceramic covers, copper pipes, ...) compared to the ones in US. The house will still be almost new after 30 years, it will just need a repaint and really few/cheap fixings. Because on the long run (20/30 years) hosues are guaranteed to rise in price, expecially in dense places like big city, NY, San Francisco, etc. The reason is simple: the number of people is ever growing in this world, but the quantity of land is always the same. Moreover there is inflation, do you really think that 30 years from now building a concrete house will be less expensive than today??? Do you think the concrete will cost less? Do you think the gasoline that moves the trucks that bring the concrete will be less expensive than now? Do you think the labour cost will be less expensice than now? So, 30 years from now building an house will be much more expensive than today, and therefor your house wil be more expensive too. On the lomng run stock market do not guarantee you to always increase. The US stock market have always been growing in the long run, but Japan stock market today is at the same level of 30 years ago. Guess what happened to you if you invested your money in the Japan stock market, 30 years ago, whilest your friend bought an hosue in Japan 30 years ago. He would now be rich, and you would now be poor.","\"There's an old saying: \"\"Never invest in anything that eats or needs maintenance.\"\" This doesn't mean that a house or a racehorse or private ownership of your own company is not an investment. It just points out that constant effort is needed on your part, or on the part of somebody you pay, just to keep it from losing value. Common stock, gold, and money in the bank are three things you can buy and leave alone. They may gain or lose market value, but not because of neglect on your part. Buying a house is a complex decision. There are many benefits and many risks. Other investments have benefits and risks too.\"","\"How can one offset exposure created by real-estate purchase? provides a similar discussion. Even if such a product were available in the precise increments you need, the pricing would make it a loser for you. \"\"There's no free lunch\"\" in this case, and the cost to insure against the downside would be disproportional to the true risk. Say you bought a $100K home. At today's valuations, the downside over a given year might be, say, 20%. It might cost you $5000 to 'insure' against that $20K risk. Let me offer an example - The SPY (S&P ETF) is now at $177. A $160 (Dec '14) put costs $7.50. So, if you fear a crash, you can pay 4%, but only get a return if the market falls by over 14%. If it falls 'just' 10%, you lose your premium. With only 5% down, you will get a far better risk-adjusted return by paying down the mortgage to <78% LTV, and requesting PMI, if any, be removed. Even if no PMI, in 5 years, you'll have 20% more equity than otherwise. Over the long term, 5 year's housing inflation would be ~ 15% or so. This process would help insure you are not underwater in that time. Not guarantee, but help.\"","\"1) link? 2) It doesn't matter if they can or do, what matters is if they are *investing* (not trading) in it *more* than banks are investing in businesses. If that is the case (it is) then businesses as a whole will see the inflation first, and commodities will be playing catchup the entire time, but mostly when the investments hit recession. I will invest in the market again after they lose their mal-invested value, In historical terms the best time was to invest in them was 1980, 1938 and 1900, and the best time to get out was 1929 1960's and 2000. But to bet against them right now, with the dollar, is meaningless because the FED is deflating the currency as they go down, so it's like running on a treadmill. By holding silver I am essentially short the market, only difference is instead of holding a devaluing currency (cash) I'm holding a real money which is increasing in value. There's nothing simpler than \"\"investing\"\" in commodities for the long-term, people lose when they are making monthly/daily trades in them. Anyone who bought and held on to gold in 2000 did it for $300, and they've made infinitely more than the majority of people investing in blue chips (because they've lost value) and much more than those who invested in bonds. And that trend isn't going to stop unless the government lets the dollar deflate in which case the dollar will come to gold instead of the other way around. Until they are in equilibrium again. Historically the dow has an average of being 2 ounces of gold, peaking at 50 and trophing at .5. If it hits .5 again like it has everytime this occurs in the past. Then either gold will be $20000 or the dow will be 4000. You pick.\"","That tends to be the case with a lot of things I am seeing. Any changes seem to create short term recession with projections of long-term growth. I would normally see that as a problem, because the reaction to the recession could effect the outcome post recession, but the LFPR trending downward is not a good sign for the economy as a whole. Eventually that portion would leave most markets, or welfare would have to increase, on the current trajectory. I think encouraging non-income producing assets for wealth generation is a flawed system, personally. Whether I am right or wrong, I do not know. I think the Government, and subsequently the fed, should encourage income-producing assets for the wealth affect, or in the very least, not something as crucial as housing to the health of the consumer base.","Put Options. They're less risky than shorting, and have similar upsides. The major difference is that if the price goes up, you're just out the underwriting price. You'll also need to know when the event will happen, or you risk being outwaited. More traditionally, an investor would pull their money out of the market and move into Treasury bonds. Recall that when the market tanked in 2008, the price of treasuries jumped. Problem is, you can only do that trade once, and it hasn't really unwound yet. And the effect is most pronounced on short term treasuries, so you have to babysit the investment. Because of this, I think some people have moved into commodities like gold, but there's a lot of risk there. Worst case scenario you have a lot of shiny metal you can't eat or use.","> Indeed, the most popular of the funds, the Barclays iPath fund, known broadly by its ticker symbol VXX, has since its inception averaged a yearly return of negative 58 percent, according to FactSet. > Or look at it this way: If an investor bought VXX when it came to market in 2009 and held onto it until now, that investor would have lost 99 percent of his investment. perfect for /r/wallstreetbets !","\"The Case-Schiller macro derivatives market has seen very minimal activity. For example, in the three regional markets of San Diego (SDG), Boston (BOS) and Los Angeles (LAX) on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume, no trades settled, no open interest. * Source: CME Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. Why haven't these real-estate futures caught on with investors? Keep in mind that the CME introduced these indices, with support from Professor Shiller and partner Standard & Poor's several years ago. The CME seems committed to wait this out, as they have shown no indication of dropping the Case-Shiller indices. There are alternative real-estate investment securities to the Case-Shiller indices. I don't think the market of investors is so small that Case-Shiller has been, in effect, \"\"crowded out\"\" by them. I think it is more likely a matter of known quantities. Also, I don't know how well these alternatives are doing! Additional reference: CME spec's for Case-Shiller index futures and options contracts.\"","I agree with @Turukawa that the x-axes need to be the same to make a direct comparison. However, the graphs you linked make me think of introductory calculus: If you time averaged plots, speculative investments (gold, housing) seem to have many large concave up time periods and the dow jones has many concave down sections. Using the concavity test: If the first derivative tells you about the rate of change, the second derivative tells you about the rate of change of rate of change. Remember back to Physics 101: 1st derivative is velocity & second derivative is acceleration. It would be interesting to have the same time scales for your plots & compare these accelerations between the two. I suspect the more volatile investments would have larger (in magnitude) accelerations during boom/bust cycles than less speculative investments.","\"For real. AAA treasury bonds are used a safe investment vehicle for the reason of \"\"its the US government, its safe\"\", which is pretty similar to the \"\"dude, who doesnt pay their mortgage?!\"\" line of thinking. You got people dumping money into these derivatives and suddenly someone goes \"\"oh yeah you just bought a bunch of bad debt that should be rated 'junk'. Oops.\"\"\"","Short the Pound and other English financial items. Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well. You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard. Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash.","\"I don't see how I'm biased in favor of the banks. Make no mistake, the banks are to blame for the collapse, more so than the government. However I'm acknowledging the timeline and all the major players in this game, and that includes the government. I addressed the role of banks selling risky mortgages susceptible to default, which includes predatory lending rates, highly leveraged individuals who buy investment properties, and subprime ARM loans. Thank you for providing more detail. I also addressed the securitization of risky mortgages into investment-grade debt, which could be sold to satisfy the \"\"Giant Pool of Money\"\". Plus, I addressed how the banks lowered their standards to continue the supply of mortgages. Feel free to directly cite [Paul Krugman](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/cre-ative-destruction/) as the source of your argument regarding the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial RE. Commercial RE was pulled along by residential RE and the broader market rally (commercial land is highly cyclical). Commercial RE prices rose as the market showed lower interest rates and higher land prices. So commercial RE slightly lagged the housing market.\"","I would strongly recommend investing in assets and commodities. I personally believe fiat money is losing its value because of a rising inflation and the price of oil. The collapse of the euro should considerably affect the US currency and shake up other regions of the world in forex markets. In my opinion, safest investment these days are hard assets and commodities. Real estate, land, gold, silver(my favorite) and food could provide some lucrative benefits. GL mate!","\"You're hearing alot of talk about housing (and by implication property) not being an investment today because on the downside of a market, the conventional wisdom is to be negative about buying things that have lost value. Just as it was dumb to listen to your coworker about hot .Com IPOs in 1999, it's dumb to listen to the real estate naysayers now. Here's another question along a similar vein: Were stocks a good investment in the spring of 2009? The conventional wisdom said: \"\"No, stocks are scary! Buy T-Bills or Gold Bullion!\"\". The people who made money said: \"\"Wait a second, Goldman Sachs is down like 75%? IBM is down like 30%, are they going anywhere? Time to buy.\"\" The wrong house is a poor investment in any economy. Buying a house in Detriot in 1970 was not a good move. Buying a house that needs $50k in work, not a good move. Buying a condo with a bankrupt HOA in Florida is not a good idea. But a good house that is well cared for is a great investment. I'm living in a house right now that is 80 years old, well maintained and affordable on a single income. A similar home a few blocks away sold in May for the same price as we paid in 2006. I'm paying about 20% less than I would for an apartment, and we'll think about moving in 2016 or 2017, by which time I'll probably have put $30-50k into the house. (Roof, kitchen, exterior painting, minor renovation)\"","Options are contractual instruments. Most options you'll run into are contracts which allow you to buy or sell stock at a given price at some time in the future, if you feel like it (it gives you the option). These are Call and Put options, respectively (for buying the stock and selling the stock). If you have a lot of money in an index fund ETF, you may be able to protect your portfolio against a market decline by (e.g.) buying Put options against the ETF for a substantially lower price than the index fund currently trades at. If the market crashes and your fund falls in value significantly, you can exercise the options, selling the fund at the price that your option has specified (to the counter-party of your contract). This is the risk that the option mitigates against. Even if you don't have one particular fund with your investments, you could still buy a put option on a similar fund, and resell it to another person in lieu of exercise (they would be capable of buying the stock and performing the exercise themselves for profit if necessary). In general, if you are buying an option for safety, it should be an option either on something you own, or something whose price behavior will mimic something you own. You will note that options are linked to the price of stocks. Futures are contracts whose values are linked to the price of other things, typically commodities such as oil, gold, or orange juice. Their behaviors may diverge. With an option you can have a contractual guarantee on the exact investment you're trying to protect. (Additionally, many commodities' value may fall at the same time that stock investments fall: during economic contractions which reduce industrial activity, resulting in lower profits for firms and less demand for commodities.) You may also note that there are other structures that options may have - PUT options on index funds or similar instruments are probably most specifically relevant to your interests. The downside of protecting yourself with options is that it costs money to buy this option, and the option eventually expires, so you may lose money. Essentially, you are buying safety and risk-tolerance from the option contract's counterparty, and safety is not free. I cannot inform you what level of safety is appropriate for your portfolio's needs, but more safety is more expensive.","I agree, again, for the most part. But I still see the trend of real-estate to be going down. I would much rather have my money in an up-trend. While many people should still buy homes for the same reasons they would if the bubble weren't there and still crashing.","PST, or any of the Ultra Short/Long funds aren't actually holding any traditional securities -- just swaps that are betting on the underlying asset. They also don't track the value of the underlying security over time -- just for one day. (And they're not even guaranteed to do that!) IEF is an actual treasury bond fund that holds real-life treasury securities, not swaps. Shorting a fund like IEF is one option, another is to buy options on a fund like IEF. Be very careful investing with ETFs, and don't buy any until you fully read and understand the prospectus. I got burned by an Ultra Long ETF because I didn't do my homework.","This is literally the thought process that caused the 2008 collapse, the only difference being the bonds consisted of sub-prime mortgages. Not saying its a bad idea, honestly you could make a lot of money, but macro-economically its a shit-storm brewing in the distance.","\"Yes, it's unreasonable to think the prices will drop 10-20% in that time frame. Housing prices are not an equation that can can be solved to \"\"home prices are X% overvalued.\"\" You have 3 answers so far, Quanty's \"\"prices are inversely proportional to rates,\"\" Rob's \"\"there's no strong correlation between interest rates and house prices,\"\" and MB's, \"\"rising interest rates create downward pressure on housing prices.\"\" Any research into price history had better take every other variable into account. Articles that look at rates vs price don't always address a key item, income. Say we agree that the data show your city to be 10% too high. But if sellers like their high price and have some 'dig my heels in' power, prices won't drop. The seller simply stays put, and the supply/demand curves result not in a lower price, but in less supply. And the effect is to change the demographic of that area, i.e. attracting higher income earners. Rob linked to an article with a nice set of charts. One chart showing the US30 yr fixed rate and 'Real House Prices'. What results is a chart that can refute the relationship between rates and prices. But that would ignore an historical point that's too important to forget. The tumble that started in Jan '06 had nothing to do with the 30 year rate. It was the result of a series of insane financial products including 'interest only option ARMs' which permitted buyers to get approved for a purchase based on a payment that wasn't fixed, and would change to a fully amortizing mortgage at a higher rate that was unaffordable. A product that was a financial time bomb. Canada Banks offered no such product, and when the US market got pneumonia, Canada experienced a mild cold. With respect to any answers that offer US centric data to prove any hypothesis, I don't feel such comparisons are appropriate. Correlations, and the data used to prove them are an interesting thing. I can suggest that you take the US 30 year rate, along with our median income, or rather 25% of monthly median income. Calculate the mortgage that results. This translates nicely to the home a median family can afford. And I claim that long term this is the equilibrium price of that median home. But supply/demand has another factor, 'stickyness' or the more technical term, 'inelasticity of demand.' This means that for example, a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes does not cause a 10% drop in consumption. Each and every good has its own elasticity, and in the case of housing, a rise in cost would certainly impact the marginal buyers, but others will simply adjust their budgets. Not all buyers were planning to hit the bank's limit on what they could afford, so the rise doesn't change their mind, just their budget. Last - I know that Canada does not have a 30 year mortgage, most common is a 5 year rate with 30 year amortization. (correction/clarification, anyone?) The effect of this is less volatility in the market, since I believe your rates are not poised for the 2.5% to 4% jump implied by another response. Small increases can be absorbed. In a beautiful coincidence, the Federal Reserve Board sent me a link to The Interest Rate Elasticity of Mortgage Demand: Evidence From Bunching at the Conforming Loan Limit. It's a bit long but a worthwhile look at how the correlation isn't as instant as some might think.\"","I just read this: Housing and inflation Adjusted for inflation the price of a house has increased a miniscule amount. A better investment would be an ETF that buys REIT stocks. You would be investing in real estate but can cash in and walk away at any time. Here is a list of mREITs: Stockchart of REITs","Yes, but only because the US had a huge crash. Other economies have, in the absence of any credible *real* growth strategy, continued pumping housing. I still think student debt will erode incomes further as it's simply pulling forward demand that will drag on incomes later. When nearly everyone has a degree then nearly everyone doesn't get paid much more for having one. By the same principle of supply and demand all the boomer downsizing vs impoverished 30-something lack of upsizing will mean prices will fall.","Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%). Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher. Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high. We're currently at a three-year low. Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up. Eventually. Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall. It hasn't happened yet though. In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008). The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening.","Uhm, this is my disclaimer that this is not financial advice. But. I would imagine a decent amount of high growth tech will go into the toilet. Also cyclicals that are heavily reliant on the low cost of short term capital. But really these are just some intuitive guesses. It would really depend on what the mechanism and impact of a future recession would be. Curious though, why do you personally think a recession is looming? I know there's been a lot of talk but per the VIX, investors' worries don't appear to be affecting their behavior too much (at least in equities). I think the big risk is the Fed not being able to control the yield curve, i.e if short term rates increase but the Fed can't or won't shrink the balance sheet enough to impact long term rates. Just an idea.","High risk foreign debt is great until the bottom falls out of the market when the government default on debt or revalues currency. If you do this, you should be able to sustain near total losses of principal and interest.","\"anything that produces steady income will produce a \"\"real return\"\" (return above inflation) in a zero-interest rate environment: Note, however, that all of these will decline in value if interest rates rise.\"","Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment. It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area. There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash. If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame. This is no guarantee of course. Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further. While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home. The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk. Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate. When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa). Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn.","\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"","\"Perhaps buying some internationally exchanged stock of China real-estate companies? It's never too late to enter a bubble or profit from a bubble after it bursts. As a native Chinese, my observations suggest that the bubble may exist in a few of the most populated cities of China such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, the price doesn't seem to be much higher than expected in cities further within the mainland, such as Xi'an and Chengdu. I myself is living in Xi'an. I did a post about the urban housing cost of Xi'an at the end of last year: http://www.xianhotels.info/urban-housing-cost-of-xian-china~15 It may give you a rough idea of the pricing level. The average of 5,500 CNY per square meter (condo) hasn't fluctuated much since the posting of the entry. But you need to pay about 1,000 to 3,000 higher to get something desirable. For location, just search \"\"Xi'an, China\"\" in Google Maps. =========== I actually have no idea how you, a foreigner can safely and easily profit from this. I'll just share what I know. It's really hard to financially enter China. To prevent oversea speculative funds from freely entering and leaving China, the Admin of Forex (safe.gov.cn) has laid down a range of rigid policies regarding currency exchange. By law, any native individual, such as me, is imposed of a maximum of $50,000 that can be converted from USD to CNY or the other way around per year AND a maximum of $10,000 per day. Larger chunks of exchange must get the written consent of the Admin of Forex or it will simply not be cleared by any of the banks in China, even HSBC that's not owned by China. However, you can circumvent this limit by using the social ID of your immediate relatives when submitting exchange requests. It takes extra time and effort but viable. However, things may change drastically should China be in a forex crisis or simply war. You may not be able to withdraw USD at all from the banks in China, even with a positive balance that's your own money. My whole income stream are USD which is wired monthly from US to Bank of China. I purchased a property in the middle of last year that's worth 275,000 CNY using the funds I exchanged from USD I had earned. It's a 43.7% down payment on a mortgage loan of 20 years: http://www.mlcalc.com/#mortgage-275000-43.7-20-4.284-0-0-0.52-7-2009-year (in CNY, not USD) The current household loan rate is 6.12% across the entire China. However, because this is my first property, it is discounted by 30% to 4.284% to encourage the first house purchase. There will be no more discounts of loan rate for the 2nd property and so forth to discourage speculative stocking that drives the price high. The apartment I bought in July of 2009 can easily be sold at 300,000 now. Some of the earlier buyers have enjoyed much more appreciation than I do. To give you a rough idea, a house bought in 2006 is now evaluated 100% more, one bought in 2008 now 50% more and one bought in the beginning of 2009 now 25% more.\"","\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\"","if more people wanted to short mortgages, the price of insurance on them would have gone up, and investors would have stopped wanting to buy them, which would cause interest rates on homes to go up, reducing the number of people who can buy homes out of their price range- which was a fundamental cause of the crisis","No, there is no linkage to the value of real estate and inflation. In most of the United States if you bought at the peak of the market in 2006, you still haven't recovered 7+ years later. Also real estate has a strong local component to the price. Pick the wrong location or the wrong type of real estate and the value of your real estate will be dropping while everybody else sees their values rising. Three properties I have owned near Washington DC, have had three different price patterns since the late 80's. Each had a different starting and ending point for the peak price rise. You can get lucky and make a lot, but there is no way to guarantee that prices will rise at all during the period you will own it.","In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund.","\"TBF - Proshares short 20+ Year Treasury The TBF fund is designed to track (hopefully) 100 percent of the inverse daily returns of the Barclays Capital 20+ Year U.S. Treasury Index. there's some risk of tracking error, and also a compounding effect if it's down several days in a row. (invest with care) There's also a TBT fund, but the risks are even greater since it is leveraged, potentially you could make the right long term call, but lose a lot in the short term due to tracking error and effect of compounding) (that would tend to make this one more appropriate for short term 'bets' on interest rates, and less so for a long term investor) There are also quite a few floating rate closed-end funds (Click here, then click on \"\"loan participation funds\"\") that should do well in a rising rate environment. Just beware that these funds seem to incorporate a substantial amount of credit risk as well as floating interest rate exposure. Closed end funds trade a lot like securities, since the fund is closed, you have to buy shares from another owner that is selling (just like with stocks), that means the shares can sometimes trade above or below the underlying value of the actual assets held by the fund depending on buying/selling pressure and the relative liquidity of a given fund.\"","Typically in a developed / developing economy if there is high overall inflation, then it means everything will rise including property/real estate. The cost of funds is low [too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation] which means more companies borrow money cheaply and more business florish and hence the stock market should also go up. So if you are looking at a situation where industry is doing badly and the inflation is high, then it means there are larger issues. The best bet would be Gold and parking the funds into other currency.","What financial instruments are there that are profitable when an underlying assets falls? The instrument you are looking for is called an Option, specifically a Put Option. It allows you, within the validity date, to sell ('Put') the respective shares to the option giver, at the predefined Strike Price. For example, let's assume APPL trades currently at 100 $ per share, and you think they will go down a lot. You buy one Put Option for 100 shares (they always come for larger amounts like 100s) for a Strike Price of 90 $, and pay 5 $ for it (it would be cheap if nobody believes they will fall that much). Note the last sentence under 2. - it is rather easy and very common when trading options to make complete losses. You have been warned. Are they available for IPOs? They could be available for IPOs, even before the IPO. However, someone has to put them out (some large bank, typically), which is some effort, and they would only do that if they expect enough interest and volume in the trade. most of the time, there will be no such options on the market. Are they available for foreign stocks?Yes, but again only selectively - only if the stock is well known and interesting enough for a broad audience.","I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation. When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates.","Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs....","You seem to underestimate the risk of this deal for the inverstors. A person purchasing a residence is happy to pay $70K instead of $150K now, and the only risk they take is that the construction company fails to build the condo. Whatever happens on the estate market in two years, they still saved the price difference between the price of complete apartments and to-be-build apartments (which by the way may be less than $150K-$70K, since that $150K is the price on a hot market in two years). However, an investor aiming to earn money counts on that the property will actually cost $150K in two years, so he's additionally taking the risk that the estate market may drop. Should that happen, their return on investment will be considerably lower, and it's entirely possible they will make a loss instead of a profit. At this point, this becomes yet another high risk investment option, like financing a startup.","There is none, whatever sector you invest in will be subject to cyclical market difficulties, however alpha can be generated from two sources: Timing and selection. Its much easier to get the timing done over a long period of time.","\"I agree for the most part. I thought about them, I even thought about money supply and some others. But the point was mainly that businesses as a whole have been doing bad for not just this year or since 2008 but over a decade, not enough to account for inflation. This is grounds that the economy is in a recession, and will be. Bond's aren't really an investment in business as they are loaning money to the government on interest so they don't portray whether the economy is in recession or not. The premise was that a recession is/has occurred, not that money cannot be made in a good portfolio. Perhaps you didn't fully understand my last point, I don't believe gold and silver are the bubble. I believe the dollar is the bubble and it has been bursting since 2000. Commodity prices are merely a sign of the bursting bubble. Given that we're in recession, the only way to \"\"pull-out\"\" as it is apparent people have been doing for the past 10 years, is to buy real assets and that this creates a positive feedback loop into devaluing the dollar. Not everyone will pull out, but most will. For a long while the assets have had little exposure to the inflation of the dollar, and now it's catching up to the assets. Ergo assets are undervalued, they are not the bubble.\"","All of this makes perfect sense and I can definitely see the logic behind it. But I don't think Hedge Funds are the way to go. The real money lies in real estate, more specifically land-banking. The problem, though, is that a lot of land-banking investments are really just scams and it's really hard to tell which ones are real and which ones are fake.","Oh woohooo . . .and its all a great investment AAA . .you have to buy and when we do . .it goes straight down because we find the biggest seller was Morgan and Stanley Yah. . .we know that game really well now . .always buy the good news Build some fucking public toilets"],"string":"[\n \"A possibility could be real estate brokerage firms such as Realogy or Prudential. Although a brokerage commission is linked to the sale prices it is more directly impacted by sales volume. If volume is maintained or goes up a real estate brokerage firm can actually profit rather handsomely in an up market or a down market. If sales volume does go up another option would be other service markets for real estate such as real estate information and marketing websites and sources i.e. http://www.trulia.com. Furthermore one can go and make a broad generalization such as since real estate no longer requires the same quantity of construction material other industries sensitive to the price of those commodities should technically have a lower cost of doing business. But be careful in the US much of the wealth an average american has is in their home. In this case this means that the economy as a whole takes a dive due to consumer uncertainty. In which case safe havens could benefit, may be things like Proctor & Gamble, gold, or treasuries. Side Note: You can always short builders or someone who loses if the housing market declines, this will make your investment higher as a result of the security going lower.\",\n \"\\\"During the actual decline, there's very little money to be made and a lot to lose. When housing prices tank, everybody loses; the banks are exposed to higher risk of mortgage defaults, insurers start having to pay out more for \\\"\\\"gas leaks\\\"\\\" claiming over-leveraged homes, realtors starve because their commissions go down (even as foreclosures put more homes on the market) and people faced with financial uncertainty will stay put in their current homes instead of moving elsewhere. And homebuilders and contractors go broke because nobody wants to spend cash on a new home or major reno that looks like a losing investment. There can be some bright spots. Smaller hardware stores will make money as people do relatively small DIY projects to improve the condition of their current home. The larger stores get this business too, but it tends to be more than offset by the loss of contractor business (FAR more lucrative, and something the ACEs and True-Values don't really get in on). Of course the \\\"\\\"grave-robbers\\\"\\\" do well; gold buyers, auctioneers, pawn shops, repo firms; these guys eat well when other people are defaulting on loans or have to sell their stuff for fast cash. Most of these businesses are not publicly traded. One thing that was seen was increased revenues at discount retailers like Wal-Mart, Dollar General etc. When things are bad, people in the middle class who had avoided these stores for image or morality reasons learn to swallow their pride and buy discount store brands for half the price of national brand names. That lessens the blow felt by the discount retailers as overall consumer spending decreases; the pie shrinks, but the discount retailers get a bigger slice of the mandatory spending on food, clothing, etc (and the higher-level retailers get it in the shorts). When the pie starts to grow again as consumer spending picks back up, the discount retailers retain their percentage for a while, as the fickle middle class can afford to buy more from the discount retailer but can't yet afford to take their business back to the shopping mall stores. This produces a flatter, \\\"\\\"offset\\\"\\\" price graph for discount retailers through the business cycle; they don't lose as early or as much as everyone else in a major downturn, and they turn it around sooner while everyone else may still be on the way down, but as everything gets better for everyone on the upswing it's less great for the discount guys, as they start losing customers and their dollars to competitors with better stuff, even as the ones they keep spend more. This doesn't generally manifest as a true negative correlation, but it can be a good hedge. The number one money-making investment in a tanking economy is gold. When things go down the crapper, everyone wants gold, so if you see the train wreck coming far enough in advance, you can make a big move to gold and really make some money off that investment. For instance, when the first whispers about ARM adjustments and mass defaults reached the public consciousness in mid-2005, gold bullion jumped from about $400 to over $700 in a nine-month period. It cooled off again in 06-07 but only to about $600/oz, and then in late 07 it steadily climbed to peak at $1000/oz; even if you got in late, an investment of $1000 in July '07 in \\\"\\\"bulk\\\"\\\" gold would have netted you $650 in one year; that's a 65% APY. Then the economy hit bottom and a lot of investors ditched gold for investments they thought would pull back out of their holes quickly; For just a little while in '08 gold was down to $700 again. Then came all the government reports; unemployment not budging, home prices still declining, a lot of banks still hiding just how bad their position was. If you had seen that it was going to be bad, bad, bad, like a lot of now-billionaire hedge fund investors did, a $1000 investment in gold in July 05, and then cashing out at the tops of the peaks and buying back in at the major troughs, would be worth almost $4000 today. That's a 400% return over 7 years, or an annual average yield of 57%. There simply hasn't been anything like that in the last 7 years.\\\"\",\n \"You could short home builders who do a lot of their business in Northern California. (Not just San Francisco, Silicon Valley, or even the Bay Area.) Home prices in Sacramento and the northern San Joaquin Valley are correlated with Bay Area home prices. Many of these builders went broke during the last bust, so you might have trouble finding a publicly traded home builder that is concentrated in just one market.\",\n \"\\\"If you're trying to hedge the ups and downs of your local residential real estate market, a REIT fund holding commercial properties across the country is not the ideal match. Here's a comparison of an index tracking single-family home prices in one region (Los Angeles) and VNQ (another popular REIT fund). There's some correlation but there's clearly different magnitudes and sometimes different directions. With a national home price index, the correlation is only 68%, and it would be lower for individual cities. You could still use it for hedging, but there's significant \\\"\\\"tracker error\\\"\\\" risk to be considered. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with any investment that would be a better match for individual residential markets. So, if you decide to use this, I'd also adjust the level of exposure to get a closer result. E.g. using approx. 50% VNQ and 50% cash results in a closer result after 2 years (compared to national single-family home price changes) than either 0% VNQ and 100% cash, or 100% VNQ and 0% cash.\\\"\",\n \"You can hedge your house price from losing value if you believe that the housing market is correlated with major stock indices. Speak with a commodities broker because they will be able to help you buy puts on stock indices which if correlated with housing prices will offer somewhat of a hedge. Example. House prices drop 30% because of weak economy, stocks will generally drop around that same amount 30%. If you have enough exposure to in the puts compared to your house value you will be protected. You can also buy calls in 30 year bonds for interest rate lock if you are not on a fixed interest rate. Many investors like warren buffet and carl icahn have been protecting them selves from a potential market downward turn. Speak to a local commodity broker to get some detailed advice, not etrade or any discount brokers they won't be able to help you specialize your trades. look for a full time commodity broker house.\",\n \"As the value of a currency declines, commodities, priced in that currency, will rise. The two best commodities to see a change in would be oil and gold.\",\n \"\\\"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average \\\"\\\"spread\\\"\\\" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either. Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right.\\\"\",\n \"The most obvious route is to short the lenders, preferably subprime. Since there are no lenders that operate exclusively in San Francisco, you could look north at Canada. The Canadian real estate market (esp. Vancouver) is just as overheated as the San Francisco market. As a start, famous short seller Marc Cohodes recommends HCG (Home Capital Group) as an opportune short.\",\n \"Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!\",\n \"Frequently people saving money for a down payment, or for their emergency fund, feel that they need to find a way to speedup the process via methods that will generate more interest than a bank account or a CD. Once they have reached their goal they also feel that having the money sitting around not generating income is a missed opportunity. All investments that aren't 100% safe introduce risk. To entice you to invest they offer the opportunity make more money than a bank account or CD. But the downside is that the extra money isn't guaranteed. In fact the introduced risk also opens up the investment to the possibility of losses, including a total loss. You have identified risks with bank accounts and CDs. With the bank account you will generally lose money vs. inflation. With a CD the investment is less liquid if you sell early, or you want/need to sell 1/2 a CD, you will give up some of that extra income. Also if rates on a CD rise next month you are stilled locked into your current rate til the CD ends. Putting some or all of the money you are saving for the house into a risky investment means that you may shorten or extend the time period. Nobody knows. by investing in real estate we can offset the risk of real estate going up in the next couple years: if real estate goes up we will still be able to use our down payment for a comparable house as of now. Inversely, if real estate goes down we will lose on the down payment but be able to get a house cheaper. Unless the REIT matches the market of residential real estate in your city/metropolitan region there is no guarantee that home prices in your city will move the same way the REIT does. A recent listing of the 10 largest holdings of the index is: none of these tell me what home prices in my neighborhood will do next year.\",\n \"It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.\",\n \"Your question may have another clue. You are bullish regarding the real estate market. Is that for your city, your state, your nation or for the whole world? Unless you can identify particular properties or neighborhoods that are expected to be better than the average return for your expected bull market in real estate, you will be taking a huge risk. It would be the same as believing that stocks are about to enter a bull market, but then wanting to put 50% of your wealth on one stock. The YTD for the DOW is ~+7%, yet 13 of the 30 have not reached the average increase including 4 that are down more than 7%. Being bullish about the real estate segment still gives you plenty of opportunities to invest. You can invest directly in the REIT or you can invest in the companies that will grow because of the bullish conditions. If your opinion changes in a few years it is hard to short a single property.\",\n \"\\\"If you do as you propose you are going to get burned. You need to sell, then start to rent. amongst other things. Since 2008, the economy never \\\"\\\"recovered,\\\"\\\" but was sort of stabilized temporarily like a fighter on the ropes. The economy is beginning to collapse again, and that collapse will accelerate around the Fall. The dollar too will also begin its delayed downward fall come Autumn. Just one example of what I speak: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART I would be happy to tell you more if you like, but I am already going to get pilloried for what I have already said. I do not sell anything, or push anything, but since you asked, and I follow this day in and day out, I thought that I would give you my very well informed answer. Take it for what it's worth. So let me know if you want more.\\\"\",\n \"I see that you're invested in a couple bond funds. You do not want to be invested in bonds when the Fed raises rates. When rates climb, the value of bond investments decline, and vice-versa. So that means you should sell bonds before a rate hike, and buy them before a rate drop.\",\n \"Well put and, honestly, seemingly unavoidable. It will be crazy if it truly does come to fruition if they (Fed/Treasury/Gummit) realize that they cannot inflate their way out of this by printing more money and all of the nay-sayers of massive deflation get proven wrong. So, the better question is this: we believe/know it's coming, so how do we prepare and strategically place ourselves to survive/profit/prosper from the coming collapse? As I see it, RE is a crap investment for the foreseeable future as oversupply and oversize are not absorbed. People have to live, so rentals will be key; but, they have already bloomed quite a bit. Stocks will likely trade sideways for awhile before likely tanking as the forced/willing withdrawals start happening from the Boomers. So, keeping it in stocks doesn't sound overly positive, unless a fairly aggressive put strategy is enforced. Bonds are paying crap and, after taxes, barely pacing inflation. For me personally and selfishly, I have 20 years minimum for retirement, so I'm fine qith the market trending sideways or down. It means that I'm getting more bang for my DCA buck and, 20+ years from now, I will be well positioned when the market eventually cycles back up. But, for now, where do we put our investments to protect and, hopefully, grow them as the mid term passes?\",\n \"When credit locks up, junk bond prices fall rapidly, and you see more defaults. The opportunity to make money with junk is to buy a diversified collection of them when the market declines. Look at the charts from some of the mutual funds or ETFs like PIMCO High Yield Instl (PHIYX), or Northeast Investors (NTHEX). Very volatile stuff. Keep in mind that junk bonds are not representative of the economy as a whole -- they cluster in certain industries. Retail and financials are big industry segments for junk. Also keep in mind that the market for these things is not as liquid as the stock market. If your investment choice is really a sector investment, you might be better served by investing in sector funds with stocks that trade every day versus bonds whose market price may be difficult to determine.\",\n \"If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.\",\n \"\\\"In my experience, Shiller is always way before his time with his predictions and often it comes at too early a point for anyone actually making some money to care about. His view is very long term - and I trust his predictions, because he so accurately predicted so many of the homepocalypse, and the measures that would follow. He even predicted that there would be bailouts in his book \\\"\\\"Irrational Exuberance\\\"\\\". His opinons were poo-poo'd as doom and gloom and manipulative until every piece started falling apart in the specific order of events (give or take) that they did. I personally think people like Dr. Shiller make bold predictions that are hard to swallow. The derivatives market is a bit skittish about rolling into bull territory with any kind of housing index, but Warren Buffet's old adage to \\\"\\\"buy when everyone is selling and sell when everyone is buying.\\\"\\\" (paraphrase). I see this as a good long-term investment because I trust Shiller's judgement, he stuck to his guns when the doubts were lobbed at him incessantly (and Krugman, et. al. to some extent), and he turned out to be more than vindicated. To me, these kinds of sources are usually pretty sound. The man knows what he's talking about, and I wouldn't mind picking up a piece of that action, especially if the market just doesn't trust any real estate investments. It's pretty easy to realize that right now housing will be undervalued and now that mortgage applications are (supposedly) stricter, I think there's a good argument to be made that this economist should continue to exceed expectations.\\\"\",\n \"Buy some pits for xiv in October if you want to piggy back. Options pretty cheap right now. Not sure if xiv has options, but if vix spikes, xiv will tank almost 1 for 1 negative relationship. Chart both of them over time to see the relationship.\",\n \"There are two impacts: First, if the pound is dropping, then buying houses becomes cheaper for foreign investors, so they will tend to buy more houses as investments, which will drive house prices up. Second, in theory you might be able to get a mortgage in a foreign country, let's say in Euro, and you might hope that over the next few years the pound would go up again, and the Euros that you owe the foreign bank become worth less.\",\n \"I want to know too. Outside of the stock market there could be a lot of assets that aren't being supported as well as stocks by the US government. If that's the case we could be seeing another signaller showing the poor shape of the economy.\",\n \"I know that assets like bonds have prices that have an inverse relationship with interest rates, but what other assets do as well? I'm a bit new to finance and all that so I'm trying to learn. Would real estate prices be high as well? If so, why?\",\n \"You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included.\",\n \"\\\"VNQ only holds ~16% residential REITs. The rest are industrial, office, retail (e.g. shopping malls), specialized (hotels perhaps?) etc. Thus, VNQ isn't as correlated towards housing as you might have assumed just based on it being about \\\"\\\"real estate.\\\"\\\" Second of all, if by \\\"\\\"housing\\\"\\\" you mean that actual houses have gone up appreciably, then you ought to realize that residential REITs seldom hold actual houses. The residential units held tend primarily to be rental apartments. There is a relationship in prices, but not direct.\\\"\",\n \"I would think a depressed housing market might be the BEST time to buy, is this not correct? There are foreclosures where banks are letting houses go for half of their standard value, and are offering some of the lowest interest rates ever. In a strong economy you could be looking at around 10% APR, I see this as a situation where it's a buy low sort of time.\",\n \"If you've decided to ignore the sound advice re: oil company stocks, and you want something directly linked to the price of oil, do the following: Understand that oil producers would like avoid the risk of a price drop, and oil consumers (refiners, electric utilities, etc.) would like to avoid the risk of a price rise. Understand that you are about to assume their risk.\",\n \"\\\"I was in a similar situation, and used FX trading to hedge against currency fluctuations. I bought the \\\"\\\"new\\\"\\\" currency when the PPP implied valuation of my \\\"\\\"old\\\"\\\" currency was high, and was able to protect quite a bit of purchasing power that I would have lost without the hedge. Unfortunately you get taxed for the \\\"\\\"gain\\\"\\\" you made, but still helpful. In terms of housing market, you could look into a Ireland REIT index, but it may not correlate well with the actual house prices you are looking for.\\\"\",\n \"Basically, they all do. The relationship is much more dynamic with stocks but corporate financing costs increase, return requirements increase (risk free rate goes up). Same with real estate. Commodity demand is correlated with economic activity, which is correlated with interest rates, although not perfectly. The most important factor is, a higher risk free rate increases the discount rate, which reduces asset values\",\n \"Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.\",\n \"Invest in an etf called SPXS and hope for a market correction in the next month. Or if you know a lot about markets and trends, select from this list of leveraged etfs available from Direxion.\",\n \"\\\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \\\"\\\"clumping\\\"\\\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\\\"\",\n \"Generally speaking, you want to find goods and services that are inelastic and also require oil as a cost. Oil company stocks make record profits when oil is high, because direct demand for oil is relatively inelastic. Profit margins of oil competition should also go up, as this creates inflation in general, as people seek alternatives to the inelastic demand.\",\n \"Invest in solid companies, not in esoteric products built on sand. The problem is with finance, not with real economy: oil companies make money, mobile phone companies make money, airlines make money...\",\n \"If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.\",\n \"There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged. For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500. (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well. For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility. As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises. One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX.\",\n \"Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply.\",\n \"Real estate. The value of the house where I live going up 15% per year! From 2004-2009. Sold for $92k in 1980 now valued at $524k. Twice the rate of inflation in that timeframe. None of it makes sense nor is it sustainable = asset bubble. In my zip code the median income is $162k and median house value $808k (Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012). That averages out 5x annual income. In LA and Las Vegas that ratio is even worse, where most of these HELs and HELOCs are going to blow up. This article is accurate. People use these loans to replace their stagnating or falling wages. And its a lot of people.\",\n \"The charts suggest otherwise. Although most of the large gains were wiped out in 2008 and 2011, that doesn't include the substantial dividends you are likely to get with financials. They still returned a positive percentage and some outperformed benchmark indices over time. But hey, don't let your bias get in the way.\",\n \"Generally, you need something that goes up over time during periods of index decline, but otherwise holds some value. Historically, people tend to use gold for that purpose. But with gold also set up for possible declines, that raises questions. Silver has dropped a bit more than gold in terms of percentages. If you think the downward motion will be in the form of sudden jumps, you can look at putting some of your money in puts away from the current price, but you can easily wind up paying too much for this protection. In the case of a deflation, most things lose value vs. money, and you want all cash. These things might already be obvious. I don't think there is a clear answer to your question. But if the future were clear, the present market could possibly anticipate and adjust... one reason the future of the market always seems a bit murky.\",\n \"You always see articles of how financially distressed people are, but then other articles on how home prices are rising and people don't want to sell their homes for less (to meet the pent-up demand for starter homes). A nice, long, prolonged drop in real estate prices would solve so much. With the decline in retail I hope it comes.\",\n \"It is almost a sure thing that the housing market will crash again hugely.For this reason I prefer to own several houses that way when it does no one can ask for their money back and leave me homeless. Current economics suggest a fall of between 40-60% from 2011 prices meaning that if you have bought a house in the last 12 years you can wave bye bye to any and all equity, and this will happen very soon. I recommend saving your money and buying a house outright (like I did 3 times) from someone who has spent 12 years or so paying a mortgage.\",\n \"\\\"You're \\\"\\\"onto\\\"\\\" something. Investing in real estate was not a bad idea about 10-15 years ago, when stocks were high, and real estate was not. On the other hand, by about 2006, BOTH stocks and real estate were high, and should have been avoided. And around 1980, both were LOW, and should have been bought. I expand this construct to include gold and oil. Around 2005, these were relatively low, and should have been bought over stocks and real estate. On the other hand, ALL FOUR are high right now, and offer comparable dangers.\\\"\",\n \"I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.\",\n \"Credit products and securitized debt. Credit/debt is the flip side of equity but has less volatility. In today's investing environment people are not looking for a big return as much as less risk with a modest return. Another trend I think you will see is the disappearance of the wall between interest rate products/fixed income and credit products.\",\n \"Without commenting on your view of the TV market: Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure: 1.Short the stocks Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet 2.Options a. Write Calls b. Buy puts Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta 3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts. Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain\",\n \"not sure if serious, read on if you don't think the previous comment is sarcasm. No, they don't. The point of investing is to buy a stake in something that will become more valuable in the future. Other things don't have to devalue for your investment to gain value. This is possible because the net value of everything is increasing over time (compare the value of all the world's private property today to its value in 1900).\",\n \"\\\"Real estate is not a good investment. In fact, it's easy to make a case for it being the worst possible investment imaginable: Imagine over a cup or coffee or a glass of wine we get to talking about investments. Then maybe one of us, let’s say you, says: “Hey I’ve got an idea. We’re always talking about good investments. What if we came up with the worst possible investment we can construct? What might that look like?” Well, let’s see now (pulling out our lined yellow pad), let’s make a list. To be really terrible: -- Why Your House Is A Terrible Investment There are plenty of good reasons to own a home, but the key word there is \\\"\\\"home\\\"\\\". Owning housing as an investment property is a horrible idea, and anyone who does it, especially right now with as bubbly as the market is looking again, (or, better put, still, since the last bubble never did fully pop and clear out the underlying systemic instability,) is an idiot. And even after the current housing market bubble pops, it's likely to remain a bad idea for decades. We're never getting the early 2000s back, for basic supply-and-demand reasons: with the Baby Boom generation retiring, aging and dying off, they're not likely to do much more home-buying, and no generation after them is as big as they are, which means a glut of oversupply and weak demand for the entirety of the foreseeable future.\\\"\",\n \"The article John cites says no correlation, but this chart from the article says otherwise; One sees the rate drop from 14% to 4% and housing rise from an index of 50 to near 190. (reaching over to my TI BA-35 calculator) I see that at 14%, $1000/mo will buy $84,400 worth of mortgage, but at 4%, it will buy $209,500. 2-1/2 times the borrowing power for the same payment. But wait, my friends at West Egg tell me that inflation means I can't compare $1000 in 1980 to the same $1000 in 2010. The $1,000 inflates to $2611 (i.e. an income rising only with inflation, no more) and that can fund a mortgage for $546,900. This is 6.5 times the original borrowing power, yet the housing index 'only' rose 3.8X. See that crazy chart? Housing actually got cheaper from 1980 to the peak. Statistics can say whatever you wish. Interest rate change drove all the change in housing prices, but not quite as much as it should have. To answer your question - I expect that when rates rise (and they will) housing prices will take a hit. In today's dollars, a current $1000 borrows (at 4%) nearly $210K, but at 6%, just $167K. If rates took a jump from these record lows, that's the nature of the risk you'd take.\",\n \"One way of looking at it is that your equity in your house is an investment in a particular class of asset, and investing further in that asset class may drive you away from, rather than towards, your preferred asset mix. It's pretty common here in New Zealand for people's only investments to be their homes and rental properties. I wish those people luck when our current property boom ends.\",\n \"So wages for the working class are declining, young people can't find jobs and are over encumbered in school debt, unemployment is really high, yet these fools think they can find a sucker who can afford their overpriced assets? Good Luck.\",\n \"Hits 3 I go in big. You think it'll still be at 3 in 5 or 10 years? Come on now. It ain't going under and the economy will rebound. When it does, all the bank stocks will come back. It's quite simple, really.\",\n \"To avoid risk from rising interest rates, get a fixed rate mortgage. For the life of the mortgage your principal and interest payments will remain the same. Keep in mind that the taxes and insurance portion of your monthly payment may still go up. Because you own the property, the costs to maintain the property are your responsibility. If you rented this would be the responsibility of the owner of the property; if the cost to repair and maintain goes up so does the rent. Because you are the owner your annual costs to repair and maintain may go up over time. The way to eliminate risk of loss of value is to never move, until the mortgage is paid off. You will know exactly what principal and interest will cost you over the life of the loan. When you sell that will be essentially return on your payments. You don't know if the loss of value is due to world, national, regional, local or individual circumstances. so hedging is tough. If the fact that the mortgage is 95% is what makes you nervous, your biggest risk is risk of being upside down. That risk is greatly reduced by increasing the amount of the down payment. That decreases the risk that the value will be below the mortgage amount if due to unforeseen circumstances you have to sell immediately. The money will still be lost due to decrease in value, but you aren't forced to bring cash to the settlement table if you need to sell.\",\n \"\\\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \\\"\\\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\\\"\\\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \\\"\\\"stop the presses\\\"\\\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\\\"\",\n \"Totally depends on the drivers of the downturn. Keep in mind that in ~2005, both real estate and short-term bonds would arguably have been reasonable answers to this question (without the benefit of hindsight, of course). e: After re-reading your post, it looks like you were asking about (I assume) equity investments by sector rather than asset classes more broadly. I'm not sure equity in any sector can be considered a safe haven in a downturn. Utilities are the typical answer, but they didn't do much better than equity markets in general in 2008-2009.\",\n \"Goldman Sachs saw credit default swaps as an investment option too. You have to realize they aren't really in the buy and hold game. Them seeing an opportunity to make money off something doesn't mean it will necessarily go up in the future. Also the US economy is the strongest it's been in almost 20 years.. Eroding?\",\n \"\\\"I would undoubtedly sell the investments if they are positive, maybe even a little negative. That's what non-retirement investments are for, building wealth to spend, give, etc. Flipping things may put it in perspective. Would you borrow money or liquidate your emergency fund in order to invest in mutual funds? If you can completely ignore risk then this MAY make sense. Let's say if you could borrow money at 3.75% and had a \\\"\\\"guaranteed\\\"\\\" investment return of 7.5% and a \\\"\\\"guaranteed\\\"\\\" source of income (job). But mutual funds (stocks, bonds) aren't even guaranteed to make money and they most definitely can lose and lose big. Also, I hope your job isn't in any way tied to the oil industry. On the other hand, if you take a loan and fall on hard times you can liquidate your mutual funds to get out of the bind, but you are at the mercy of the market and the worth of your investments at that point. So it may come down to whether you want to choose when to spend your investments, when they are up or at some future date when they may be worth much less (or much more).\\\"\",\n \"If your planning on shorting the stocks be careful, while the value of the retail sector may be declining there will be a lot of back and forth over the next ten years, and as REITs discounts to nav increases, there is huge opportunities for buyouts from developers who have other use ideas for the real estate. The real estate will always have value, even if it's not as a shopping center.\",\n \">I would much rather have my money in an up-trend. Damn right. Or at least have it liquid. We couldn't sell this house now, even though it's one of the best in the neighborhood. (The nice, but smaller, house across the street has been on the market for over a year.) A few other houses in the neighborhood didn't seem to have any problems being rented, though, so we could likely get rental income from this one if we wanted.\",\n \"It's always a good move for risk-averse person, expecially in Europe. Because houses are not represented by number in an index. Therefor if you are risk-adverse, you will suffer less pain when house prices go down because you won't have a number to look at everyday like the S&P500 index. Because houses in Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain) are almost all made by concrete and really well done (string real marble cover, hard ceramic covers, copper pipes, ...) compared to the ones in US. The house will still be almost new after 30 years, it will just need a repaint and really few/cheap fixings. Because on the long run (20/30 years) hosues are guaranteed to rise in price, expecially in dense places like big city, NY, San Francisco, etc. The reason is simple: the number of people is ever growing in this world, but the quantity of land is always the same. Moreover there is inflation, do you really think that 30 years from now building a concrete house will be less expensive than today??? Do you think the concrete will cost less? Do you think the gasoline that moves the trucks that bring the concrete will be less expensive than now? Do you think the labour cost will be less expensice than now? So, 30 years from now building an house will be much more expensive than today, and therefor your house wil be more expensive too. On the lomng run stock market do not guarantee you to always increase. The US stock market have always been growing in the long run, but Japan stock market today is at the same level of 30 years ago. Guess what happened to you if you invested your money in the Japan stock market, 30 years ago, whilest your friend bought an hosue in Japan 30 years ago. He would now be rich, and you would now be poor.\",\n \"\\\"There's an old saying: \\\"\\\"Never invest in anything that eats or needs maintenance.\\\"\\\" This doesn't mean that a house or a racehorse or private ownership of your own company is not an investment. It just points out that constant effort is needed on your part, or on the part of somebody you pay, just to keep it from losing value. Common stock, gold, and money in the bank are three things you can buy and leave alone. They may gain or lose market value, but not because of neglect on your part. Buying a house is a complex decision. There are many benefits and many risks. Other investments have benefits and risks too.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"How can one offset exposure created by real-estate purchase? provides a similar discussion. Even if such a product were available in the precise increments you need, the pricing would make it a loser for you. \\\"\\\"There's no free lunch\\\"\\\" in this case, and the cost to insure against the downside would be disproportional to the true risk. Say you bought a $100K home. At today's valuations, the downside over a given year might be, say, 20%. It might cost you $5000 to 'insure' against that $20K risk. Let me offer an example - The SPY (S&P ETF) is now at $177. A $160 (Dec '14) put costs $7.50. So, if you fear a crash, you can pay 4%, but only get a return if the market falls by over 14%. If it falls 'just' 10%, you lose your premium. With only 5% down, you will get a far better risk-adjusted return by paying down the mortgage to <78% LTV, and requesting PMI, if any, be removed. Even if no PMI, in 5 years, you'll have 20% more equity than otherwise. Over the long term, 5 year's housing inflation would be ~ 15% or so. This process would help insure you are not underwater in that time. Not guarantee, but help.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"1) link? 2) It doesn't matter if they can or do, what matters is if they are *investing* (not trading) in it *more* than banks are investing in businesses. If that is the case (it is) then businesses as a whole will see the inflation first, and commodities will be playing catchup the entire time, but mostly when the investments hit recession. I will invest in the market again after they lose their mal-invested value, In historical terms the best time was to invest in them was 1980, 1938 and 1900, and the best time to get out was 1929 1960's and 2000. But to bet against them right now, with the dollar, is meaningless because the FED is deflating the currency as they go down, so it's like running on a treadmill. By holding silver I am essentially short the market, only difference is instead of holding a devaluing currency (cash) I'm holding a real money which is increasing in value. There's nothing simpler than \\\"\\\"investing\\\"\\\" in commodities for the long-term, people lose when they are making monthly/daily trades in them. Anyone who bought and held on to gold in 2000 did it for $300, and they've made infinitely more than the majority of people investing in blue chips (because they've lost value) and much more than those who invested in bonds. And that trend isn't going to stop unless the government lets the dollar deflate in which case the dollar will come to gold instead of the other way around. Until they are in equilibrium again. Historically the dow has an average of being 2 ounces of gold, peaking at 50 and trophing at .5. If it hits .5 again like it has everytime this occurs in the past. Then either gold will be $20000 or the dow will be 4000. You pick.\\\"\",\n \"That tends to be the case with a lot of things I am seeing. Any changes seem to create short term recession with projections of long-term growth. I would normally see that as a problem, because the reaction to the recession could effect the outcome post recession, but the LFPR trending downward is not a good sign for the economy as a whole. Eventually that portion would leave most markets, or welfare would have to increase, on the current trajectory. I think encouraging non-income producing assets for wealth generation is a flawed system, personally. Whether I am right or wrong, I do not know. I think the Government, and subsequently the fed, should encourage income-producing assets for the wealth affect, or in the very least, not something as crucial as housing to the health of the consumer base.\",\n \"Put Options. They're less risky than shorting, and have similar upsides. The major difference is that if the price goes up, you're just out the underwriting price. You'll also need to know when the event will happen, or you risk being outwaited. More traditionally, an investor would pull their money out of the market and move into Treasury bonds. Recall that when the market tanked in 2008, the price of treasuries jumped. Problem is, you can only do that trade once, and it hasn't really unwound yet. And the effect is most pronounced on short term treasuries, so you have to babysit the investment. Because of this, I think some people have moved into commodities like gold, but there's a lot of risk there. Worst case scenario you have a lot of shiny metal you can't eat or use.\",\n \"> Indeed, the most popular of the funds, the Barclays iPath fund, known broadly by its ticker symbol VXX, has since its inception averaged a yearly return of negative 58 percent, according to FactSet. > Or look at it this way: If an investor bought VXX when it came to market in 2009 and held onto it until now, that investor would have lost 99 percent of his investment. perfect for /r/wallstreetbets !\",\n \"\\\"The Case-Schiller macro derivatives market has seen very minimal activity. For example, in the three regional markets of San Diego (SDG), Boston (BOS) and Los Angeles (LAX) on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume, no trades settled, no open interest. * Source: CME Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. Why haven't these real-estate futures caught on with investors? Keep in mind that the CME introduced these indices, with support from Professor Shiller and partner Standard & Poor's several years ago. The CME seems committed to wait this out, as they have shown no indication of dropping the Case-Shiller indices. There are alternative real-estate investment securities to the Case-Shiller indices. I don't think the market of investors is so small that Case-Shiller has been, in effect, \\\"\\\"crowded out\\\"\\\" by them. I think it is more likely a matter of known quantities. Also, I don't know how well these alternatives are doing! Additional reference: CME spec's for Case-Shiller index futures and options contracts.\\\"\",\n \"I agree with @Turukawa that the x-axes need to be the same to make a direct comparison. However, the graphs you linked make me think of introductory calculus: If you time averaged plots, speculative investments (gold, housing) seem to have many large concave up time periods and the dow jones has many concave down sections. Using the concavity test: If the first derivative tells you about the rate of change, the second derivative tells you about the rate of change of rate of change. Remember back to Physics 101: 1st derivative is velocity & second derivative is acceleration. It would be interesting to have the same time scales for your plots & compare these accelerations between the two. I suspect the more volatile investments would have larger (in magnitude) accelerations during boom/bust cycles than less speculative investments.\",\n \"\\\"For real. AAA treasury bonds are used a safe investment vehicle for the reason of \\\"\\\"its the US government, its safe\\\"\\\", which is pretty similar to the \\\"\\\"dude, who doesnt pay their mortgage?!\\\"\\\" line of thinking. You got people dumping money into these derivatives and suddenly someone goes \\\"\\\"oh yeah you just bought a bunch of bad debt that should be rated 'junk'. Oops.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Short the Pound and other English financial items. Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well. You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard. Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash.\",\n \"\\\"I don't see how I'm biased in favor of the banks. Make no mistake, the banks are to blame for the collapse, more so than the government. However I'm acknowledging the timeline and all the major players in this game, and that includes the government. I addressed the role of banks selling risky mortgages susceptible to default, which includes predatory lending rates, highly leveraged individuals who buy investment properties, and subprime ARM loans. Thank you for providing more detail. I also addressed the securitization of risky mortgages into investment-grade debt, which could be sold to satisfy the \\\"\\\"Giant Pool of Money\\\"\\\". Plus, I addressed how the banks lowered their standards to continue the supply of mortgages. Feel free to directly cite [Paul Krugman](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/cre-ative-destruction/) as the source of your argument regarding the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial RE. Commercial RE was pulled along by residential RE and the broader market rally (commercial land is highly cyclical). Commercial RE prices rose as the market showed lower interest rates and higher land prices. So commercial RE slightly lagged the housing market.\\\"\",\n \"I would strongly recommend investing in assets and commodities. I personally believe fiat money is losing its value because of a rising inflation and the price of oil. The collapse of the euro should considerably affect the US currency and shake up other regions of the world in forex markets. In my opinion, safest investment these days are hard assets and commodities. Real estate, land, gold, silver(my favorite) and food could provide some lucrative benefits. GL mate!\",\n \"\\\"You're hearing alot of talk about housing (and by implication property) not being an investment today because on the downside of a market, the conventional wisdom is to be negative about buying things that have lost value. Just as it was dumb to listen to your coworker about hot .Com IPOs in 1999, it's dumb to listen to the real estate naysayers now. Here's another question along a similar vein: Were stocks a good investment in the spring of 2009? The conventional wisdom said: \\\"\\\"No, stocks are scary! Buy T-Bills or Gold Bullion!\\\"\\\". The people who made money said: \\\"\\\"Wait a second, Goldman Sachs is down like 75%? IBM is down like 30%, are they going anywhere? Time to buy.\\\"\\\" The wrong house is a poor investment in any economy. Buying a house in Detriot in 1970 was not a good move. Buying a house that needs $50k in work, not a good move. Buying a condo with a bankrupt HOA in Florida is not a good idea. But a good house that is well cared for is a great investment. I'm living in a house right now that is 80 years old, well maintained and affordable on a single income. A similar home a few blocks away sold in May for the same price as we paid in 2006. I'm paying about 20% less than I would for an apartment, and we'll think about moving in 2016 or 2017, by which time I'll probably have put $30-50k into the house. (Roof, kitchen, exterior painting, minor renovation)\\\"\",\n \"Options are contractual instruments. Most options you'll run into are contracts which allow you to buy or sell stock at a given price at some time in the future, if you feel like it (it gives you the option). These are Call and Put options, respectively (for buying the stock and selling the stock). If you have a lot of money in an index fund ETF, you may be able to protect your portfolio against a market decline by (e.g.) buying Put options against the ETF for a substantially lower price than the index fund currently trades at. If the market crashes and your fund falls in value significantly, you can exercise the options, selling the fund at the price that your option has specified (to the counter-party of your contract). This is the risk that the option mitigates against. Even if you don't have one particular fund with your investments, you could still buy a put option on a similar fund, and resell it to another person in lieu of exercise (they would be capable of buying the stock and performing the exercise themselves for profit if necessary). In general, if you are buying an option for safety, it should be an option either on something you own, or something whose price behavior will mimic something you own. You will note that options are linked to the price of stocks. Futures are contracts whose values are linked to the price of other things, typically commodities such as oil, gold, or orange juice. Their behaviors may diverge. With an option you can have a contractual guarantee on the exact investment you're trying to protect. (Additionally, many commodities' value may fall at the same time that stock investments fall: during economic contractions which reduce industrial activity, resulting in lower profits for firms and less demand for commodities.) You may also note that there are other structures that options may have - PUT options on index funds or similar instruments are probably most specifically relevant to your interests. The downside of protecting yourself with options is that it costs money to buy this option, and the option eventually expires, so you may lose money. Essentially, you are buying safety and risk-tolerance from the option contract's counterparty, and safety is not free. I cannot inform you what level of safety is appropriate for your portfolio's needs, but more safety is more expensive.\",\n \"I agree, again, for the most part. But I still see the trend of real-estate to be going down. I would much rather have my money in an up-trend. While many people should still buy homes for the same reasons they would if the bubble weren't there and still crashing.\",\n \"PST, or any of the Ultra Short/Long funds aren't actually holding any traditional securities -- just swaps that are betting on the underlying asset. They also don't track the value of the underlying security over time -- just for one day. (And they're not even guaranteed to do that!) IEF is an actual treasury bond fund that holds real-life treasury securities, not swaps. Shorting a fund like IEF is one option, another is to buy options on a fund like IEF. Be very careful investing with ETFs, and don't buy any until you fully read and understand the prospectus. I got burned by an Ultra Long ETF because I didn't do my homework.\",\n \"This is literally the thought process that caused the 2008 collapse, the only difference being the bonds consisted of sub-prime mortgages. Not saying its a bad idea, honestly you could make a lot of money, but macro-economically its a shit-storm brewing in the distance.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, it's unreasonable to think the prices will drop 10-20% in that time frame. Housing prices are not an equation that can can be solved to \\\"\\\"home prices are X% overvalued.\\\"\\\" You have 3 answers so far, Quanty's \\\"\\\"prices are inversely proportional to rates,\\\"\\\" Rob's \\\"\\\"there's no strong correlation between interest rates and house prices,\\\"\\\" and MB's, \\\"\\\"rising interest rates create downward pressure on housing prices.\\\"\\\" Any research into price history had better take every other variable into account. Articles that look at rates vs price don't always address a key item, income. Say we agree that the data show your city to be 10% too high. But if sellers like their high price and have some 'dig my heels in' power, prices won't drop. The seller simply stays put, and the supply/demand curves result not in a lower price, but in less supply. And the effect is to change the demographic of that area, i.e. attracting higher income earners. Rob linked to an article with a nice set of charts. One chart showing the US30 yr fixed rate and 'Real House Prices'. What results is a chart that can refute the relationship between rates and prices. But that would ignore an historical point that's too important to forget. The tumble that started in Jan '06 had nothing to do with the 30 year rate. It was the result of a series of insane financial products including 'interest only option ARMs' which permitted buyers to get approved for a purchase based on a payment that wasn't fixed, and would change to a fully amortizing mortgage at a higher rate that was unaffordable. A product that was a financial time bomb. Canada Banks offered no such product, and when the US market got pneumonia, Canada experienced a mild cold. With respect to any answers that offer US centric data to prove any hypothesis, I don't feel such comparisons are appropriate. Correlations, and the data used to prove them are an interesting thing. I can suggest that you take the US 30 year rate, along with our median income, or rather 25% of monthly median income. Calculate the mortgage that results. This translates nicely to the home a median family can afford. And I claim that long term this is the equilibrium price of that median home. But supply/demand has another factor, 'stickyness' or the more technical term, 'inelasticity of demand.' This means that for example, a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes does not cause a 10% drop in consumption. Each and every good has its own elasticity, and in the case of housing, a rise in cost would certainly impact the marginal buyers, but others will simply adjust their budgets. Not all buyers were planning to hit the bank's limit on what they could afford, so the rise doesn't change their mind, just their budget. Last - I know that Canada does not have a 30 year mortgage, most common is a 5 year rate with 30 year amortization. (correction/clarification, anyone?) The effect of this is less volatility in the market, since I believe your rates are not poised for the 2.5% to 4% jump implied by another response. Small increases can be absorbed. In a beautiful coincidence, the Federal Reserve Board sent me a link to The Interest Rate Elasticity of Mortgage Demand: Evidence From Bunching at the Conforming Loan Limit. It's a bit long but a worthwhile look at how the correlation isn't as instant as some might think.\\\"\",\n \"I just read this: Housing and inflation Adjusted for inflation the price of a house has increased a miniscule amount. A better investment would be an ETF that buys REIT stocks. You would be investing in real estate but can cash in and walk away at any time. Here is a list of mREITs: Stockchart of REITs\",\n \"Yes, but only because the US had a huge crash. Other economies have, in the absence of any credible *real* growth strategy, continued pumping housing. I still think student debt will erode incomes further as it's simply pulling forward demand that will drag on incomes later. When nearly everyone has a degree then nearly everyone doesn't get paid much more for having one. By the same principle of supply and demand all the boomer downsizing vs impoverished 30-something lack of upsizing will mean prices will fall.\",\n \"Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%). Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher. Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high. We're currently at a three-year low. Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up. Eventually. Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall. It hasn't happened yet though. In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008). The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening.\",\n \"Uhm, this is my disclaimer that this is not financial advice. But. I would imagine a decent amount of high growth tech will go into the toilet. Also cyclicals that are heavily reliant on the low cost of short term capital. But really these are just some intuitive guesses. It would really depend on what the mechanism and impact of a future recession would be. Curious though, why do you personally think a recession is looming? I know there's been a lot of talk but per the VIX, investors' worries don't appear to be affecting their behavior too much (at least in equities). I think the big risk is the Fed not being able to control the yield curve, i.e if short term rates increase but the Fed can't or won't shrink the balance sheet enough to impact long term rates. Just an idea.\",\n \"High risk foreign debt is great until the bottom falls out of the market when the government default on debt or revalues currency. If you do this, you should be able to sustain near total losses of principal and interest.\",\n \"\\\"anything that produces steady income will produce a \\\"\\\"real return\\\"\\\" (return above inflation) in a zero-interest rate environment: Note, however, that all of these will decline in value if interest rates rise.\\\"\",\n \"Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment. It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area. There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash. If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame. This is no guarantee of course. Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further. While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home. The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk. Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate. When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa). Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn.\",\n \"\\\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \\\"\\\"failing.\\\"\\\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Perhaps buying some internationally exchanged stock of China real-estate companies? It's never too late to enter a bubble or profit from a bubble after it bursts. As a native Chinese, my observations suggest that the bubble may exist in a few of the most populated cities of China such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, the price doesn't seem to be much higher than expected in cities further within the mainland, such as Xi'an and Chengdu. I myself is living in Xi'an. I did a post about the urban housing cost of Xi'an at the end of last year: http://www.xianhotels.info/urban-housing-cost-of-xian-china~15 It may give you a rough idea of the pricing level. The average of 5,500 CNY per square meter (condo) hasn't fluctuated much since the posting of the entry. But you need to pay about 1,000 to 3,000 higher to get something desirable. For location, just search \\\"\\\"Xi'an, China\\\"\\\" in Google Maps. =========== I actually have no idea how you, a foreigner can safely and easily profit from this. I'll just share what I know. It's really hard to financially enter China. To prevent oversea speculative funds from freely entering and leaving China, the Admin of Forex (safe.gov.cn) has laid down a range of rigid policies regarding currency exchange. By law, any native individual, such as me, is imposed of a maximum of $50,000 that can be converted from USD to CNY or the other way around per year AND a maximum of $10,000 per day. Larger chunks of exchange must get the written consent of the Admin of Forex or it will simply not be cleared by any of the banks in China, even HSBC that's not owned by China. However, you can circumvent this limit by using the social ID of your immediate relatives when submitting exchange requests. It takes extra time and effort but viable. However, things may change drastically should China be in a forex crisis or simply war. You may not be able to withdraw USD at all from the banks in China, even with a positive balance that's your own money. My whole income stream are USD which is wired monthly from US to Bank of China. I purchased a property in the middle of last year that's worth 275,000 CNY using the funds I exchanged from USD I had earned. It's a 43.7% down payment on a mortgage loan of 20 years: http://www.mlcalc.com/#mortgage-275000-43.7-20-4.284-0-0-0.52-7-2009-year (in CNY, not USD) The current household loan rate is 6.12% across the entire China. However, because this is my first property, it is discounted by 30% to 4.284% to encourage the first house purchase. There will be no more discounts of loan rate for the 2nd property and so forth to discourage speculative stocking that drives the price high. The apartment I bought in July of 2009 can easily be sold at 300,000 now. Some of the earlier buyers have enjoyed much more appreciation than I do. To give you a rough idea, a house bought in 2006 is now evaluated 100% more, one bought in 2008 now 50% more and one bought in the beginning of 2009 now 25% more.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \\\"\\\"the long run\\\"\\\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \\\"\\\"erase\\\"\\\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \\\"\\\"get rich or start over\\\"\\\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\\\"\",\n \"if more people wanted to short mortgages, the price of insurance on them would have gone up, and investors would have stopped wanting to buy them, which would cause interest rates on homes to go up, reducing the number of people who can buy homes out of their price range- which was a fundamental cause of the crisis\",\n \"No, there is no linkage to the value of real estate and inflation. In most of the United States if you bought at the peak of the market in 2006, you still haven't recovered 7+ years later. Also real estate has a strong local component to the price. Pick the wrong location or the wrong type of real estate and the value of your real estate will be dropping while everybody else sees their values rising. Three properties I have owned near Washington DC, have had three different price patterns since the late 80's. Each had a different starting and ending point for the peak price rise. You can get lucky and make a lot, but there is no way to guarantee that prices will rise at all during the period you will own it.\",\n \"In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund.\",\n \"\\\"TBF - Proshares short 20+ Year Treasury The TBF fund is designed to track (hopefully) 100 percent of the inverse daily returns of the Barclays Capital 20+ Year U.S. Treasury Index. there's some risk of tracking error, and also a compounding effect if it's down several days in a row. (invest with care) There's also a TBT fund, but the risks are even greater since it is leveraged, potentially you could make the right long term call, but lose a lot in the short term due to tracking error and effect of compounding) (that would tend to make this one more appropriate for short term 'bets' on interest rates, and less so for a long term investor) There are also quite a few floating rate closed-end funds (Click here, then click on \\\"\\\"loan participation funds\\\"\\\") that should do well in a rising rate environment. Just beware that these funds seem to incorporate a substantial amount of credit risk as well as floating interest rate exposure. Closed end funds trade a lot like securities, since the fund is closed, you have to buy shares from another owner that is selling (just like with stocks), that means the shares can sometimes trade above or below the underlying value of the actual assets held by the fund depending on buying/selling pressure and the relative liquidity of a given fund.\\\"\",\n \"Typically in a developed / developing economy if there is high overall inflation, then it means everything will rise including property/real estate. The cost of funds is low [too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation] which means more companies borrow money cheaply and more business florish and hence the stock market should also go up. So if you are looking at a situation where industry is doing badly and the inflation is high, then it means there are larger issues. The best bet would be Gold and parking the funds into other currency.\",\n \"What financial instruments are there that are profitable when an underlying assets falls? The instrument you are looking for is called an Option, specifically a Put Option. It allows you, within the validity date, to sell ('Put') the respective shares to the option giver, at the predefined Strike Price. For example, let's assume APPL trades currently at 100 $ per share, and you think they will go down a lot. You buy one Put Option for 100 shares (they always come for larger amounts like 100s) for a Strike Price of 90 $, and pay 5 $ for it (it would be cheap if nobody believes they will fall that much). Note the last sentence under 2. - it is rather easy and very common when trading options to make complete losses. You have been warned. Are they available for IPOs? They could be available for IPOs, even before the IPO. However, someone has to put them out (some large bank, typically), which is some effort, and they would only do that if they expect enough interest and volume in the trade. most of the time, there will be no such options on the market. Are they available for foreign stocks?Yes, but again only selectively - only if the stock is well known and interesting enough for a broad audience.\",\n \"I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation. When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates.\",\n \"Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs....\",\n \"You seem to underestimate the risk of this deal for the inverstors. A person purchasing a residence is happy to pay $70K instead of $150K now, and the only risk they take is that the construction company fails to build the condo. Whatever happens on the estate market in two years, they still saved the price difference between the price of complete apartments and to-be-build apartments (which by the way may be less than $150K-$70K, since that $150K is the price on a hot market in two years). However, an investor aiming to earn money counts on that the property will actually cost $150K in two years, so he's additionally taking the risk that the estate market may drop. Should that happen, their return on investment will be considerably lower, and it's entirely possible they will make a loss instead of a profit. At this point, this becomes yet another high risk investment option, like financing a startup.\",\n \"There is none, whatever sector you invest in will be subject to cyclical market difficulties, however alpha can be generated from two sources: Timing and selection. Its much easier to get the timing done over a long period of time.\",\n \"\\\"I agree for the most part. I thought about them, I even thought about money supply and some others. But the point was mainly that businesses as a whole have been doing bad for not just this year or since 2008 but over a decade, not enough to account for inflation. This is grounds that the economy is in a recession, and will be. Bond's aren't really an investment in business as they are loaning money to the government on interest so they don't portray whether the economy is in recession or not. The premise was that a recession is/has occurred, not that money cannot be made in a good portfolio. Perhaps you didn't fully understand my last point, I don't believe gold and silver are the bubble. I believe the dollar is the bubble and it has been bursting since 2000. Commodity prices are merely a sign of the bursting bubble. Given that we're in recession, the only way to \\\"\\\"pull-out\\\"\\\" as it is apparent people have been doing for the past 10 years, is to buy real assets and that this creates a positive feedback loop into devaluing the dollar. Not everyone will pull out, but most will. For a long while the assets have had little exposure to the inflation of the dollar, and now it's catching up to the assets. Ergo assets are undervalued, they are not the bubble.\\\"\",\n \"All of this makes perfect sense and I can definitely see the logic behind it. But I don't think Hedge Funds are the way to go. The real money lies in real estate, more specifically land-banking. The problem, though, is that a lot of land-banking investments are really just scams and it's really hard to tell which ones are real and which ones are fake.\",\n \"Oh woohooo . . .and its all a great investment AAA . .you have to buy and when we do . .it goes straight down because we find the biggest seller was Morgan and Stanley Yah. . .we know that game really well now . .always buy the good news Build some fucking public toilets\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["A possibility could be real estate brokerage firms such as Realogy or Prudential. Although a brokerage commission is linked to the sale prices it is more directly impacted by sales volume. If volume is maintained or goes up a real estate brokerage firm can actually profit rather handsomely in an up market or a down market. If sales volume does go up another option would be other service markets for real estate such as real estate information and marketing websites and sources i.e. http://www.trulia.com. Furthermore one can go and make a broad generalization such as since real estate no longer requires the same quantity of construction material other industries sensitive to the price of those commodities should technically have a lower cost of doing business. But be careful in the US much of the wealth an average american has is in their home. In this case this means that the economy as a whole takes a dive due to consumer uncertainty. In which case safe havens could benefit, may be things like Proctor & Gamble, gold, or treasuries. Side Note: You can always short builders or someone who loses if the housing market declines, this will make your investment higher as a result of the security going lower.","\"During the actual decline, there's very little money to be made and a lot to lose. When housing prices tank, everybody loses; the banks are exposed to higher risk of mortgage defaults, insurers start having to pay out more for \"\"gas leaks\"\" claiming over-leveraged homes, realtors starve because their commissions go down (even as foreclosures put more homes on the market) and people faced with financial uncertainty will stay put in their current homes instead of moving elsewhere. And homebuilders and contractors go broke because nobody wants to spend cash on a new home or major reno that looks like a losing investment. There can be some bright spots. Smaller hardware stores will make money as people do relatively small DIY projects to improve the condition of their current home. The larger stores get this business too, but it tends to be more than offset by the loss of contractor business (FAR more lucrative, and something the ACEs and True-Values don't really get in on). Of course the \"\"grave-robbers\"\" do well; gold buyers, auctioneers, pawn shops, repo firms; these guys eat well when other people are defaulting on loans or have to sell their stuff for fast cash. Most of these businesses are not publicly traded. One thing that was seen was increased revenues at discount retailers like Wal-Mart, Dollar General etc. When things are bad, people in the middle class who had avoided these stores for image or morality reasons learn to swallow their pride and buy discount store brands for half the price of national brand names. That lessens the blow felt by the discount retailers as overall consumer spending decreases; the pie shrinks, but the discount retailers get a bigger slice of the mandatory spending on food, clothing, etc (and the higher-level retailers get it in the shorts). When the pie starts to grow again as consumer spending picks back up, the discount retailers retain their percentage for a while, as the fickle middle class can afford to buy more from the discount retailer but can't yet afford to take their business back to the shopping mall stores. This produces a flatter, \"\"offset\"\" price graph for discount retailers through the business cycle; they don't lose as early or as much as everyone else in a major downturn, and they turn it around sooner while everyone else may still be on the way down, but as everything gets better for everyone on the upswing it's less great for the discount guys, as they start losing customers and their dollars to competitors with better stuff, even as the ones they keep spend more. This doesn't generally manifest as a true negative correlation, but it can be a good hedge. The number one money-making investment in a tanking economy is gold. When things go down the crapper, everyone wants gold, so if you see the train wreck coming far enough in advance, you can make a big move to gold and really make some money off that investment. For instance, when the first whispers about ARM adjustments and mass defaults reached the public consciousness in mid-2005, gold bullion jumped from about $400 to over $700 in a nine-month period. It cooled off again in 06-07 but only to about $600/oz, and then in late 07 it steadily climbed to peak at $1000/oz; even if you got in late, an investment of $1000 in July '07 in \"\"bulk\"\" gold would have netted you $650 in one year; that's a 65% APY. Then the economy hit bottom and a lot of investors ditched gold for investments they thought would pull back out of their holes quickly; For just a little while in '08 gold was down to $700 again. Then came all the government reports; unemployment not budging, home prices still declining, a lot of banks still hiding just how bad their position was. If you had seen that it was going to be bad, bad, bad, like a lot of now-billionaire hedge fund investors did, a $1000 investment in gold in July 05, and then cashing out at the tops of the peaks and buying back in at the major troughs, would be worth almost $4000 today. That's a 400% return over 7 years, or an annual average yield of 57%. There simply hasn't been anything like that in the last 7 years.\""],"string":"[\n \"A possibility could be real estate brokerage firms such as Realogy or Prudential. Although a brokerage commission is linked to the sale prices it is more directly impacted by sales volume. If volume is maintained or goes up a real estate brokerage firm can actually profit rather handsomely in an up market or a down market. If sales volume does go up another option would be other service markets for real estate such as real estate information and marketing websites and sources i.e. http://www.trulia.com. Furthermore one can go and make a broad generalization such as since real estate no longer requires the same quantity of construction material other industries sensitive to the price of those commodities should technically have a lower cost of doing business. But be careful in the US much of the wealth an average american has is in their home. In this case this means that the economy as a whole takes a dive due to consumer uncertainty. In which case safe havens could benefit, may be things like Proctor & Gamble, gold, or treasuries. Side Note: You can always short builders or someone who loses if the housing market declines, this will make your investment higher as a result of the security going lower.\",\n \"\\\"During the actual decline, there's very little money to be made and a lot to lose. When housing prices tank, everybody loses; the banks are exposed to higher risk of mortgage defaults, insurers start having to pay out more for \\\"\\\"gas leaks\\\"\\\" claiming over-leveraged homes, realtors starve because their commissions go down (even as foreclosures put more homes on the market) and people faced with financial uncertainty will stay put in their current homes instead of moving elsewhere. And homebuilders and contractors go broke because nobody wants to spend cash on a new home or major reno that looks like a losing investment. There can be some bright spots. Smaller hardware stores will make money as people do relatively small DIY projects to improve the condition of their current home. The larger stores get this business too, but it tends to be more than offset by the loss of contractor business (FAR more lucrative, and something the ACEs and True-Values don't really get in on). Of course the \\\"\\\"grave-robbers\\\"\\\" do well; gold buyers, auctioneers, pawn shops, repo firms; these guys eat well when other people are defaulting on loans or have to sell their stuff for fast cash. Most of these businesses are not publicly traded. One thing that was seen was increased revenues at discount retailers like Wal-Mart, Dollar General etc. When things are bad, people in the middle class who had avoided these stores for image or morality reasons learn to swallow their pride and buy discount store brands for half the price of national brand names. That lessens the blow felt by the discount retailers as overall consumer spending decreases; the pie shrinks, but the discount retailers get a bigger slice of the mandatory spending on food, clothing, etc (and the higher-level retailers get it in the shorts). When the pie starts to grow again as consumer spending picks back up, the discount retailers retain their percentage for a while, as the fickle middle class can afford to buy more from the discount retailer but can't yet afford to take their business back to the shopping mall stores. This produces a flatter, \\\"\\\"offset\\\"\\\" price graph for discount retailers through the business cycle; they don't lose as early or as much as everyone else in a major downturn, and they turn it around sooner while everyone else may still be on the way down, but as everything gets better for everyone on the upswing it's less great for the discount guys, as they start losing customers and their dollars to competitors with better stuff, even as the ones they keep spend more. This doesn't generally manifest as a true negative correlation, but it can be a good hedge. The number one money-making investment in a tanking economy is gold. When things go down the crapper, everyone wants gold, so if you see the train wreck coming far enough in advance, you can make a big move to gold and really make some money off that investment. For instance, when the first whispers about ARM adjustments and mass defaults reached the public consciousness in mid-2005, gold bullion jumped from about $400 to over $700 in a nine-month period. It cooled off again in 06-07 but only to about $600/oz, and then in late 07 it steadily climbed to peak at $1000/oz; even if you got in late, an investment of $1000 in July '07 in \\\"\\\"bulk\\\"\\\" gold would have netted you $650 in one year; that's a 65% APY. Then the economy hit bottom and a lot of investors ditched gold for investments they thought would pull back out of their holes quickly; For just a little while in '08 gold was down to $700 again. Then came all the government reports; unemployment not budging, home prices still declining, a lot of banks still hiding just how bad their position was. If you had seen that it was going to be bad, bad, bad, like a lot of now-billionaire hedge fund investors did, a $1000 investment in gold in July 05, and then cashing out at the tops of the peaks and buying back in at the major troughs, would be worth almost $4000 today. That's a 400% return over 7 years, or an annual average yield of 57%. There simply hasn't been anything like that in the last 7 years.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":293,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6787"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Would it make sense to sell a stock, then repurchase it for tax purposes?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["587120"],"string":"[\n \"587120\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["38287","219762","540292","17184","23217","390864","304918","400730","376800","358602","396030","156092","161155","207929","407602","221715","571124","377944","261902","501214","522319","444405","268423","292762","514970","474981","55893","596518","113948","483394","438419","152960","132111","306460","416789","72677","581780","536610","132966","318321","399583","46625","178059","517577","550468","322284","14364","343219","443354","151037","102999","290317","177798","590010","456436","350080","312154","457059","187761","335375","584917","330848","275340","71601","311782","137251","548278","521133","345793","227064","257274","481283","140267","448659","81353","303193","477851","348922","338754","71292","221427","598460","256010","162804","323731","468047","543898","379786","539548","561999","150809","476224","492401","585764","537212","5347","4830","551286","557361","75024"],"string":"[\n \"38287\",\n \"219762\",\n \"540292\",\n \"17184\",\n \"23217\",\n \"390864\",\n \"304918\",\n \"400730\",\n \"376800\",\n \"358602\",\n \"396030\",\n \"156092\",\n \"161155\",\n \"207929\",\n \"407602\",\n \"221715\",\n \"571124\",\n \"377944\",\n \"261902\",\n \"501214\",\n \"522319\",\n \"444405\",\n \"268423\",\n \"292762\",\n \"514970\",\n \"474981\",\n \"55893\",\n \"596518\",\n \"113948\",\n \"483394\",\n \"438419\",\n \"152960\",\n \"132111\",\n \"306460\",\n \"416789\",\n \"72677\",\n \"581780\",\n \"536610\",\n \"132966\",\n \"318321\",\n \"399583\",\n \"46625\",\n \"178059\",\n \"517577\",\n \"550468\",\n \"322284\",\n \"14364\",\n \"343219\",\n \"443354\",\n \"151037\",\n \"102999\",\n \"290317\",\n \"177798\",\n \"590010\",\n \"456436\",\n \"350080\",\n \"312154\",\n \"457059\",\n \"187761\",\n \"335375\",\n \"584917\",\n \"330848\",\n \"275340\",\n \"71601\",\n \"311782\",\n \"137251\",\n \"548278\",\n \"521133\",\n \"345793\",\n \"227064\",\n \"257274\",\n \"481283\",\n \"140267\",\n \"448659\",\n \"81353\",\n \"303193\",\n \"477851\",\n \"348922\",\n \"338754\",\n \"71292\",\n \"221427\",\n \"598460\",\n \"256010\",\n \"162804\",\n \"323731\",\n \"468047\",\n \"543898\",\n \"379786\",\n \"539548\",\n \"561999\",\n \"150809\",\n \"476224\",\n \"492401\",\n \"585764\",\n \"537212\",\n \"5347\",\n \"4830\",\n \"551286\",\n \"557361\",\n \"75024\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.","In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.","Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.","\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \"\"for tax purposes\"\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\"","It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).","I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.","If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?","Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.","The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.","The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.","No, you can not cheat the IRS. This question is also based on the assumption that the stock will return to $1 which isn't always a safe assumption and that it will continue to cycle like that repeatedly which is also likely a false assumption.","I think what you're asking is, Can I buy 1000 shares of the stock at $1. For $1000. it goes up to $2, then sell 500 shares of the stock with proceeds of $1000, now having my original $1000 out of it, and still owning 500 shares. And that not create a taxable event. Since all I did was take my cost basis back out, and didn't collect any gains. And then I want to repeat that over and over. Nope, not in the USA anyway. Each sale is a separate taxable event. The first sale will have proceeds of $1000 and a cost basis of $500, with $500 of capital gains, and taxes owed at the time of that sale. The remaining stock will have a cost basis of $500 and proceeds of whatever you sell it for in the future. The next batch of stock will have a cost basis of whatever you pay for it. The only thing that works anything like the way you're thinking, is a Roth IRA... You can put your cost basis in, pull it back out, and put it back in again, all tax free. But every time your cost basis cycles in, that counts towed your contribution limits unless you do it fast enough to call it a rollover.","Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.","I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.","Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.","\"If you bought them, you can sell them. That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called \"\"wash sale\"\" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year. There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes.\"","\"According to Wikipedia this is still a wash sale: In the USA wash sale rules are codified in \"\"26 USC § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities.\"\" Under Section 1091, a wash sale occurs when a taxpayer sells or trades stock or securities at a loss, and within 30 days before or after the sale:\"","Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both. Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02","\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"","This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:","Firstly 795 is not even. Secondly - generally you would pay tax on the sale of the 122 shares, whether you buy them back or not, even one minute later, has nothing to do with it. The only reason this would not create a capital gains event is if your country (which you haven't specified) has some odd rules or laws about this that I, and most others, have never heard of before.","Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.","Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.","Yes. On December 10, you have a wash sale. As long as you don't buy the stock back for 30 days after that, the wash is of no consequence. In other words, you don't have a wash issue if you don't own the stock for 30 days.","You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.","\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"","Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.","I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.","Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase.","What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)","Looks like there are no specific rule in India to prevent Wash sales. See the link below. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/investors-can-rejig-portfolio-book-short-term-loss-to-save-tax/articleshow/7812788.cms?intenttarget=no","\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"","\"Yes- you do not realize gains or losses until you actually sell the stock. After you sell the initial stocks/bonds you have realized the gain. When you buy the new, different stocks you haven't realized anything until you then sell those. There is one exception to this, called the \"\"Wash-Sale Rule\"\". From Investopedia.com: With the wash-sale rule, the IRS disallows a loss deduction from the sale of a security if a ‘substantially identical security' was purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash-sale period is actually 61 days, consisting of the 30 days before and the 30 days after the date of the sale. For example, if you bought 100 shares of IBM on December 1 and then sold 100 shares of IBM on December 15 at a loss, the loss deduction would not be allowed. Similarly, selling IBM on December 15 and then buying it back on January 10 of the following year does not permit a deduction. The wash-sale rule is designed to prevent investors from making trades for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.\"","No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits.","Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -","\"if you buy back the now ITM calls, then you will have a short term loss. That pair of transactions is independent, from a tax perspective, of your long position (which was being used as \"\"collateral\"\" in the very case that occurred). I can see your tax situation and can see the logic of taking a short term loss to balance a short term gain. Referring to D Stanley's answer, #2 and #3 are not the same because you are paying intrinsic value in the options and the skew in #2, whereas #3 has no intrinsic value. Of course, because you can't know the future, the stock price could move higher or lower between #2 and #3. #1 presumes the stock continues to climb.\"","\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"","\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \"\"first\"\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \"\"usual\"\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \"\"gain\"\" or \"\"loss\"\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \"\"no,\"\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\"","From the IRS Section 1091. Loss from Wash Sales of Stock or Securities Section 1091(a) provides that in the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law),or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or 3 securities, then no deduction shall be allowed under § 165 The document is not long, 4 pages, and should be read to see the intent. It's tough to choose the one snippet, but the conclusion is this is the definitive response to that question. A purchase within an IRA or other retirement account can create a wash sale if such a purchase would be a wash sale otherwise, i.e. the fact that it's a retirement account doesn't avoid wash rules.","My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.","In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.","\"'Note that \"\"to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill\"\" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists.\"","Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.","You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.","No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.","\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"","Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free.","You realise a capital gain as soon as you sell the stock. At that point, you will have to pay taxes on the profits when you fill in your tax return. The fact that you used the money to subsequently purchase other stocks is not relevant, unless you sell those stocks within the same tax year. For example, purchase $5000 of stock A in 2010. Sell for $6000 in 2010. Purchase $6000 of stock B in 2010. Sell stock B for $6500 in 2010. Purchase $6500 of stock C in 2010. Sell stock C for $7000 in 2011. You owe capital gains on ($6000 - $5000) + ($6500 - $6000) = $1500 for tax year 2010. You owe capital gains on ($7000 - $6500) = $500 for 2011.","Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.","Disallowed losses due to the wash sale rule are added to the basis of the repurchased shares. In your example, on day two you paid $0.70 per share. Then the disallowed $0.30 loss from the previous day gets added to the basis, making your total basis $1.00 per share. When you sell at the end of the day for $1.00 per share, your net gain/loss is zero. Furthermore, you can recapture disallowed losses by selling the last lot of ABC, completely divesting yourself of all holdings in ABC for at least 31 days. Even if that last lot was a loss, when taking into account the increased basis from previously disallowed wash sale losses, you can claim the loss fully on this last, non-wash sale.",">suffering, say, a potential 20% loss for business reasons can be preferable to creating a guaranteed, irreversible 37% loss due to state and federal LTCG taxes. You don't pay taxes on capital losses... In fact, you can write them off against future gains.","As JoeTaxpayer illustrated, yes you can. However, one thing to remember is that unless you live in a state with no state income tax, there may be state tax to pay on those gains. Even so, it's likely a good idea if you expect either your income (or the federal capital gains tax rate) to rise in the future.","\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \"\"average price\"\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\"","What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.","The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End.","Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/","One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.","\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \"\"substantially identical\"\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \"\"substantially identical\"\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \"\"deep in the money\"\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\"\"A Primer on Wash Sales\"\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \"\"play it safe\"\" position: \"\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\"\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \"\"hell no\"\" to \"\"only if blatant.\"\" If you can get an \"\"official\"\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\"","Wash sale applies. If you purchase shares within 30 days of that Feb 3 sell date, the wash sale kicks in, preventing the loss on that sale, and deferring it into the new shares.","\"Once again I offer some sage advice - \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Michael offers an excellent method to decide what to do. Note, he doesn't base the decision on the tax implication. If you are truly indifferent to holding the stock, taxwise, you might consider selling just the profitable shares if that's enough cash. Then sell shares at a loss each year if you have no other gains. That will let you pay the long term gain rate on the shares sold this year, but offset regular income in years to come. But. I'm hard pressed to believe you are indifferent, and I'd use Michel's approach to decide. Updated - The New Law is simply a rule requiring brokers to track basis. Your situation doesn't change at all. When you sell the shares, you need to identify which shares you want to sell. For older shares, the tracking is your responsibility, that's all.\"","When you get into reading Revenue Rulings and Treasury Regulations - I'd suggest hiring a professional to do that for you. Especially since you also need to assure that the new stock does indeed qualify as QSBS. However, from the revenue ruling you quoted it doesn't sound like there's any other requirement other than reporting the subsequent purchase as a loss on your schedule D. I wouldn't know, however, if there are subsequent/superseding revenue rulings on the matter since 1998. Professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) would have the means and the ability to research this and give you a proper advice.","\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \"\"substantially identical\"\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\"","No, there's nothing special in mutual funds or ETFs. Wash sale rules apply to any asset.","\"And my CPA is saying no way, it will cost me many thousands in taxes and doesn't make any sense. I'd think so too. It looks like it converts from capitol gains at 14% to something else at about 35% Can be, if your gain under the Sec.1231 rules is classified as depreciation recapture. But, perhaps the buyers will be saving this way? Not your problem even if they were, which they aren't. I would not do something my CPA says \"\"no-way\"\" about. I sometimes prefer not doing some things my CPA says \"\"it may fly\"\" because I'm defensive when it comes to taxes, but if your CPA is not willing to sign something off - don't do it. Ever.\"","If so, are there ways to reduce the amount of taxes owed? Given that it's currently December, I suppose I could sell half of what I want now, and the other half in January and it would split the tax burden over 2 years instead, but beyond that, are there any strategies for tax reduction in this scenario? One possibility is to also sell stocks that have gone down since you bought them. Of course, you would only do this if you have changed your mind about the stock's prospects since you bought it -- that is, it has gone down and you no longer think it will go up enough to be worth holding it. When you sell stocks, any losses you take can offset any gains, so if you sell one stock for a gain of $10,000 and another for a loss of $5,000, you will only be taxed on your net gain of $5,000. Even if you think your down stock could go back up, you could sell it to realize the loss, and then buy it back later at the lower price (as long as you're not worried it will go up in the meantime). However, you need to wait at least 30 days before rebuying the stock to avoid wash sale rules. This practice is known as tax loss harvesting.","You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.","\"There are several reasons. First, if you sell your stock \"\"at any price\"\", you may be selling it for less than you originally bought it for. Thus you will take a loss right at the beginning of your scheme. If you \"\"rinse and repeat\"\", the problem only gets worse. Every time you sell your stock, you will have to sell it at an even lower price in order to lower the price even more. Then you buy it back and. . . just resell it an even lower price? It should be clear that you are not making any money this way. Second, even if you don't sell it at an absolute loss, you must sell it at a relative loss in order to lower the price. In other words, if someone will currently buy your shares for $X, and you want to lower the price, you must sell them for less than $X. But you could have made more money by selling them for $X, since someone was already willing to buy them at that price. In order to bring the price down significantly, you have to sell the stock for less than people currently believe it is worth, which means you're incurring a loss relative to just selling it at the market rate. Of course, you can still make money if it goes back up again, but selling it at an extra loss this way just makes it harder to break even. Third, if you sell the stock at $X, whoever you sold it to is not going to sell it right back to you at $X, because then they would not make any money. You could in theory buy it from someone else, but the same principle holds: if the stock price has just gone down, people who have it may be waiting for it to go back up. This is doubly true if anyone suspects you have been trying to manipulate the stock price, because they will then suspect that the price drop is artificial and it will soon go back up. Fourth, even if someone did sell it right back to you at the price you sold it for, then what? You now hold the stock at a lower price, but you don't gain unless it goes back up. If it wasn't going up before until you took action, there is no reason to suppose it will go back up now. In fact, if you had enough shares to significantly influence the price, other people may have been fooled into thinking the value is actually lower now. The basic problem is that, in order for you to buy it at a low price, someone else has to sell it at that low price. It is easy to sell someone a stock for less than it's worth, but it will be hard to get people to sell it back to you for less than it's worth. If you engage in deceptive practices to get people to do this, you may be guilty of securities fraud.\"","My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.","\"Overall the question is one of a political nature. However, this component can have objective answers: \"\"What behavior is trying to be prevented?\"\" There are mechanisms by which capital gains can be deferred (1031 like-kind exchange, or simply holding a long position for years) or eliminated by the estate step up in basis. With these available, mechanisms that enable basis-reduction are ripe for abuse. On the other hand, if this truly bothers you then if you meet the IRS qualifications of a day trader, you may elect to use \"\"mark to market\"\" accounting, eliminating this entirely as a concern. Special rules for traders of securities\"","You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.","\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"","Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.","\"Strangely enough, you have a wash sale, but, for the fact that you sold the shares and then more than 30 days passed, you can take the loss. I mistakenly used the phrase \"\"and ended the year with no shared of the stock\"\" elsewhere, and was corrected, as one can sell at a loss up to 12/31, and have until the end of January to create a wash condition. In your case, the facts in June combined with you ending the year with no shares removes any doubt, a wash sale, but one that's fully closed out. Note - while Vicky's answer is correct, it should go on to say that once the stock is not owned for 30 days, the wash sale loss is permitted.\"","I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.","When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid","As littleadv suggested, you are mixing issues. If you have earned income and are able to deduct an IRA deposit, where those actual dollars came from is irrelevant. The fact that you are taking proceeds from one transaction to deposit to the IRA is a booking entry on your side, but the IRS doesn't care. By the way, when you get that $1000 gain, the broker doesn't withhold tax, so if you take the entire $1000 and put it in the IRA, you owe $150 on one line, but save $250 elsewhere, and are still $100 to the positive on your tax return.","\"Just brainstorming here, but my gut feeling is it should be possible to sell your home to yourself with the sole purpose of resetting your basis. Taken at face value it feels illegal, but since I think we all would agree that you could sell your house to a third party and purchase the identical house next door for the same price (thus resetting your basis), why can't you purchase the same home right back? If one is legal, it seems odd for the other not to be. That being said, I have no idea how to legally do it. Perhaps you truly need a third party to step in which you sell it to, and then buy it back from them sometime in the future. Or perhaps you could start an LLC and have it purchase your home from you. Either way, I highly suggest finding an expert real estate attorney/accountant before attempting this, and don't be surprised if you get multiple opposite opinions. I suspect this is a gray area which will highly depend on how tax \"\"aggressive\"\" you are willing to be.\"","There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.","Yes. Wash rules are only for losses.","Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.","With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?","Did you read what I wrote? I sold some stock for a gain, that's a taxable event. Are you trying to say I just shouldn't have sold it? Do you understand investing at all? And the second point is moot, I still had to pay the tax, having write offs doesn't change the fact that my taxes were higher(more importantly that they would have been much higher if I couldn't take advantage of capital gains.)","Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. There is risk in exchanging this (known) property for another (unknown) property. That risk may be more than $9000 worth of risk. Tax considerations are important, but most important is that your investments make money. If you intend to continue as a landlord, you had better be sure you are finding a better deal elsewhere if you are going to trade this property up. I should also mention that you have a 5 year window in which you need to have lived in the home for 2 years. You have time and might be able to sell for a higher price if you wait a little longer.","the difference would be taxes... Lets say you have two lots, one with a 10 dollar gain, and one with a 20 dollar gain. And lets say you decide to sell one lot this year, and the other lot in 10 years. AND, lets say that it turns out the stock price is exactly the same in ten years as it is when you sell the first lot. In all likelyhood, you'll have more income, and therefore you are likely to be in a different marginal tax rate. If you believe that you're more likely to pay more taxes in 10 years, then sell the lot with the higher gain now. If you believe you're more likely to pay more taxes now, then sell the lot with the lower gain now.","If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.","Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.","The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html","You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.","\"Of course, but that's not relevant to my example. Let me clarify: say you hold a highly-appreciated $10M position in AAPL and you have good reason to believe the next iPhone is going to be a flop, causing the stock to decline 20%. You can sell now to avoid the (probable) decline, but by doing so you will be left with, let's say, $6.67M after paying $3.33M of state and federal LTCG taxes on the appreciation ($9M of the $10M, because you bought a long time ago). However, by simply doing nothing and \"\"eating\"\" the 20% decline, you'll end up with $8M instead of $6.67M. Many economists would criticize the tax in this example, as it has led to the investor rationally suffering a $2M loss, instead of reallocating all $10M of his/her capital to a more promising enterprise. Furthermore, if/when many investors act that way, they can create inefficiency in the equity markets (prices not declining by as much as they should to reflect a firm's reduced prospects).\"","\"You cannot get \"\"your investment\"\" out and \"\"leave only the capital gains\"\" until they become taxable at the long-term rate. When you sell some shares after holding them for less than a year, you have capital gains on which you will have to pay taxes at the short-term capital gains rate (that is, at the same rate as ordinary income). As an example, if you bought 100 shares at $70 for a net investment of $7000, and sell 70 of them at $100 after five months to get your \"\"initial investment back\"\", you will have short-term capital gains of $30 per share on the 70 shares that you sold and so you have to pay tax on that $30x70=$2100. The other $4900 = $7000-$2100 is \"\"tax-free\"\" since it is just your purchase price of the 70 shares being returned to you. So after paying the tax on your short-term capital gains, you really don't have your \"\"initial investment back\"\"; you have something less. The capital gains on the 30 shares that you continue to hold will become (long-term capital gains) income to you only when you sell the shares after having held them for a full year or more: the gains on the shares sold after five months are taxable income in the year of sale.\"","You are not allowed to pick and choose what years to take a loss once the stock/fund is sold. While I realize it might be too late for you to do anything now, in the future if members should read this, they might consider doing a Roth conversion during that year they will have $3000 in losses. This way they will show some income that can be offset by that loss, effectively getting a free conversion to the Roth.","The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.","All corporate gains are taxed at the same rate as corporate income, for the corporate entity, so this actually can be WORSE than the individual capital gains tax rates. There are a lot of things you can do with trading certain asset classes, like opening you up to like-kind re-investment tax perks, but I can't think of anything that helps with stocks. Also, in the US there is now a law against doing things solely to avoid tax if they have no other economic purpose. So be conscious about that, you'll need to be able to rationalize at least a thin excuse for why you jumped through all the hoops.","I brought this up to my CPA. She said don't do it. People used to do it, but now they're cracking down. Is it unfair? Yes. But it's the government so don't mess with them.","Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.","If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.","Yes, you could avoid capital gains tax altogether, however, capital gains are used in determining your tax bracket even though they are not taxed at that rate. This would only work in situations where your total capital gains and ordinary income kept you in the 0% longterm capital gains bracket. You can't realize a million dollars in capital gains and have no tax burden due to lack of ordinary income. You can potentially save some money by realizing capital gains strategically. Giving up income in an attempt to save on taxes rarely makes sense.","The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons.","Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)","Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take."],"string":"[\n \"I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.\",\n \"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.\",\n \"Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.\",\n \"\\\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \\\"\\\"for tax purposes\\\"\\\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\\\"\",\n \"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).\",\n \"I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.\",\n \"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?\",\n \"Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.\",\n \"The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.\",\n \"The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.\",\n \"No, you can not cheat the IRS. This question is also based on the assumption that the stock will return to $1 which isn't always a safe assumption and that it will continue to cycle like that repeatedly which is also likely a false assumption.\",\n \"I think what you're asking is, Can I buy 1000 shares of the stock at $1. For $1000. it goes up to $2, then sell 500 shares of the stock with proceeds of $1000, now having my original $1000 out of it, and still owning 500 shares. And that not create a taxable event. Since all I did was take my cost basis back out, and didn't collect any gains. And then I want to repeat that over and over. Nope, not in the USA anyway. Each sale is a separate taxable event. The first sale will have proceeds of $1000 and a cost basis of $500, with $500 of capital gains, and taxes owed at the time of that sale. The remaining stock will have a cost basis of $500 and proceeds of whatever you sell it for in the future. The next batch of stock will have a cost basis of whatever you pay for it. The only thing that works anything like the way you're thinking, is a Roth IRA... You can put your cost basis in, pull it back out, and put it back in again, all tax free. But every time your cost basis cycles in, that counts towed your contribution limits unless you do it fast enough to call it a rollover.\",\n \"Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.\",\n \"I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.\",\n \"Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.\",\n \"\\\"If you bought them, you can sell them. That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called \\\"\\\"wash sale\\\"\\\" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year. There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"According to Wikipedia this is still a wash sale: In the USA wash sale rules are codified in \\\"\\\"26 USC § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities.\\\"\\\" Under Section 1091, a wash sale occurs when a taxpayer sells or trades stock or securities at a loss, and within 30 days before or after the sale:\\\"\",\n \"Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both. Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02\",\n \"\\\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \\\"\\\"substantially identical stock or securities.\\\"\\\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \\\"\\\"substantially identical.\\\"\\\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\\\"\",\n \"This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:\",\n \"Firstly 795 is not even. Secondly - generally you would pay tax on the sale of the 122 shares, whether you buy them back or not, even one minute later, has nothing to do with it. The only reason this would not create a capital gains event is if your country (which you haven't specified) has some odd rules or laws about this that I, and most others, have never heard of before.\",\n \"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.\",\n \"Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.\",\n \"Yes. On December 10, you have a wash sale. As long as you don't buy the stock back for 30 days after that, the wash is of no consequence. In other words, you don't have a wash issue if you don't own the stock for 30 days.\",\n \"You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.\",\n \"\\\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \\\"\\\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\\\"\\\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\\\"\",\n \"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.\",\n \"I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.\",\n \"Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase.\",\n \"What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)\",\n \"Looks like there are no specific rule in India to prevent Wash sales. See the link below. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/investors-can-rejig-portfolio-book-short-term-loss-to-save-tax/articleshow/7812788.cms?intenttarget=no\",\n \"\\\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \\\"\\\"loss\\\"\\\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \\\"\\\"short-term capital loss\\\"\\\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes- you do not realize gains or losses until you actually sell the stock. After you sell the initial stocks/bonds you have realized the gain. When you buy the new, different stocks you haven't realized anything until you then sell those. There is one exception to this, called the \\\"\\\"Wash-Sale Rule\\\"\\\". From Investopedia.com: With the wash-sale rule, the IRS disallows a loss deduction from the sale of a security if a ‘substantially identical security' was purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash-sale period is actually 61 days, consisting of the 30 days before and the 30 days after the date of the sale. For example, if you bought 100 shares of IBM on December 1 and then sold 100 shares of IBM on December 15 at a loss, the loss deduction would not be allowed. Similarly, selling IBM on December 15 and then buying it back on January 10 of the following year does not permit a deduction. The wash-sale rule is designed to prevent investors from making trades for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.\\\"\",\n \"No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits.\",\n \"Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -\",\n \"\\\"if you buy back the now ITM calls, then you will have a short term loss. That pair of transactions is independent, from a tax perspective, of your long position (which was being used as \\\"\\\"collateral\\\"\\\" in the very case that occurred). I can see your tax situation and can see the logic of taking a short term loss to balance a short term gain. Referring to D Stanley's answer, #2 and #3 are not the same because you are paying intrinsic value in the options and the skew in #2, whereas #3 has no intrinsic value. Of course, because you can't know the future, the stock price could move higher or lower between #2 and #3. #1 presumes the stock continues to climb.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \\\"\\\"It depends.\\\"\\\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \\\"\\\"first\\\"\\\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \\\"\\\"usual\\\"\\\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \\\"\\\"gain\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"loss\\\"\\\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \\\"\\\"no,\\\"\\\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\\\"\",\n \"From the IRS Section 1091. Loss from Wash Sales of Stock or Securities Section 1091(a) provides that in the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law),or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or 3 securities, then no deduction shall be allowed under § 165 The document is not long, 4 pages, and should be read to see the intent. It's tough to choose the one snippet, but the conclusion is this is the definitive response to that question. A purchase within an IRA or other retirement account can create a wash sale if such a purchase would be a wash sale otherwise, i.e. the fact that it's a retirement account doesn't avoid wash rules.\",\n \"My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.\",\n \"In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.\",\n \"\\\"'Note that \\\"\\\"to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill\\\"\\\" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists.\\\"\",\n \"Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.\",\n \"You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.\",\n \"No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.\",\n \"\\\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \\\"\\\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\\\"\\\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\\\"\",\n \"Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free.\",\n \"You realise a capital gain as soon as you sell the stock. At that point, you will have to pay taxes on the profits when you fill in your tax return. The fact that you used the money to subsequently purchase other stocks is not relevant, unless you sell those stocks within the same tax year. For example, purchase $5000 of stock A in 2010. Sell for $6000 in 2010. Purchase $6000 of stock B in 2010. Sell stock B for $6500 in 2010. Purchase $6500 of stock C in 2010. Sell stock C for $7000 in 2011. You owe capital gains on ($6000 - $5000) + ($6500 - $6000) = $1500 for tax year 2010. You owe capital gains on ($7000 - $6500) = $500 for 2011.\",\n \"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.\",\n \"Disallowed losses due to the wash sale rule are added to the basis of the repurchased shares. In your example, on day two you paid $0.70 per share. Then the disallowed $0.30 loss from the previous day gets added to the basis, making your total basis $1.00 per share. When you sell at the end of the day for $1.00 per share, your net gain/loss is zero. Furthermore, you can recapture disallowed losses by selling the last lot of ABC, completely divesting yourself of all holdings in ABC for at least 31 days. Even if that last lot was a loss, when taking into account the increased basis from previously disallowed wash sale losses, you can claim the loss fully on this last, non-wash sale.\",\n \">suffering, say, a potential 20% loss for business reasons can be preferable to creating a guaranteed, irreversible 37% loss due to state and federal LTCG taxes. You don't pay taxes on capital losses... In fact, you can write them off against future gains.\",\n \"As JoeTaxpayer illustrated, yes you can. However, one thing to remember is that unless you live in a state with no state income tax, there may be state tax to pay on those gains. Even so, it's likely a good idea if you expect either your income (or the federal capital gains tax rate) to rise in the future.\",\n \"\\\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \\\"\\\"average price\\\"\\\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\\\"\",\n \"What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.\",\n \"The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End.\",\n \"Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/\",\n \"One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.\",\n \"\\\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \\\"\\\"deep in the money\\\"\\\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\\\"\\\"A Primer on Wash Sales\\\"\\\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \\\"\\\"play it safe\\\"\\\" position: \\\"\\\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\\\"\\\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \\\"\\\"hell no\\\"\\\" to \\\"\\\"only if blatant.\\\"\\\" If you can get an \\\"\\\"official\\\"\\\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\\\"\",\n \"Wash sale applies. If you purchase shares within 30 days of that Feb 3 sell date, the wash sale kicks in, preventing the loss on that sale, and deferring it into the new shares.\",\n \"\\\"Once again I offer some sage advice - \\\"\\\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\\\"\\\" Michael offers an excellent method to decide what to do. Note, he doesn't base the decision on the tax implication. If you are truly indifferent to holding the stock, taxwise, you might consider selling just the profitable shares if that's enough cash. Then sell shares at a loss each year if you have no other gains. That will let you pay the long term gain rate on the shares sold this year, but offset regular income in years to come. But. I'm hard pressed to believe you are indifferent, and I'd use Michel's approach to decide. Updated - The New Law is simply a rule requiring brokers to track basis. Your situation doesn't change at all. When you sell the shares, you need to identify which shares you want to sell. For older shares, the tracking is your responsibility, that's all.\\\"\",\n \"When you get into reading Revenue Rulings and Treasury Regulations - I'd suggest hiring a professional to do that for you. Especially since you also need to assure that the new stock does indeed qualify as QSBS. However, from the revenue ruling you quoted it doesn't sound like there's any other requirement other than reporting the subsequent purchase as a loss on your schedule D. I wouldn't know, however, if there are subsequent/superseding revenue rulings on the matter since 1998. Professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) would have the means and the ability to research this and give you a proper advice.\",\n \"\\\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\\\"\",\n \"No, there's nothing special in mutual funds or ETFs. Wash sale rules apply to any asset.\",\n \"\\\"And my CPA is saying no way, it will cost me many thousands in taxes and doesn't make any sense. I'd think so too. It looks like it converts from capitol gains at 14% to something else at about 35% Can be, if your gain under the Sec.1231 rules is classified as depreciation recapture. But, perhaps the buyers will be saving this way? Not your problem even if they were, which they aren't. I would not do something my CPA says \\\"\\\"no-way\\\"\\\" about. I sometimes prefer not doing some things my CPA says \\\"\\\"it may fly\\\"\\\" because I'm defensive when it comes to taxes, but if your CPA is not willing to sign something off - don't do it. Ever.\\\"\",\n \"If so, are there ways to reduce the amount of taxes owed? Given that it's currently December, I suppose I could sell half of what I want now, and the other half in January and it would split the tax burden over 2 years instead, but beyond that, are there any strategies for tax reduction in this scenario? One possibility is to also sell stocks that have gone down since you bought them. Of course, you would only do this if you have changed your mind about the stock's prospects since you bought it -- that is, it has gone down and you no longer think it will go up enough to be worth holding it. When you sell stocks, any losses you take can offset any gains, so if you sell one stock for a gain of $10,000 and another for a loss of $5,000, you will only be taxed on your net gain of $5,000. Even if you think your down stock could go back up, you could sell it to realize the loss, and then buy it back later at the lower price (as long as you're not worried it will go up in the meantime). However, you need to wait at least 30 days before rebuying the stock to avoid wash sale rules. This practice is known as tax loss harvesting.\",\n \"You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.\",\n \"\\\"There are several reasons. First, if you sell your stock \\\"\\\"at any price\\\"\\\", you may be selling it for less than you originally bought it for. Thus you will take a loss right at the beginning of your scheme. If you \\\"\\\"rinse and repeat\\\"\\\", the problem only gets worse. Every time you sell your stock, you will have to sell it at an even lower price in order to lower the price even more. Then you buy it back and. . . just resell it an even lower price? It should be clear that you are not making any money this way. Second, even if you don't sell it at an absolute loss, you must sell it at a relative loss in order to lower the price. In other words, if someone will currently buy your shares for $X, and you want to lower the price, you must sell them for less than $X. But you could have made more money by selling them for $X, since someone was already willing to buy them at that price. In order to bring the price down significantly, you have to sell the stock for less than people currently believe it is worth, which means you're incurring a loss relative to just selling it at the market rate. Of course, you can still make money if it goes back up again, but selling it at an extra loss this way just makes it harder to break even. Third, if you sell the stock at $X, whoever you sold it to is not going to sell it right back to you at $X, because then they would not make any money. You could in theory buy it from someone else, but the same principle holds: if the stock price has just gone down, people who have it may be waiting for it to go back up. This is doubly true if anyone suspects you have been trying to manipulate the stock price, because they will then suspect that the price drop is artificial and it will soon go back up. Fourth, even if someone did sell it right back to you at the price you sold it for, then what? You now hold the stock at a lower price, but you don't gain unless it goes back up. If it wasn't going up before until you took action, there is no reason to suppose it will go back up now. In fact, if you had enough shares to significantly influence the price, other people may have been fooled into thinking the value is actually lower now. The basic problem is that, in order for you to buy it at a low price, someone else has to sell it at that low price. It is easy to sell someone a stock for less than it's worth, but it will be hard to get people to sell it back to you for less than it's worth. If you engage in deceptive practices to get people to do this, you may be guilty of securities fraud.\\\"\",\n \"My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.\",\n \"\\\"Overall the question is one of a political nature. However, this component can have objective answers: \\\"\\\"What behavior is trying to be prevented?\\\"\\\" There are mechanisms by which capital gains can be deferred (1031 like-kind exchange, or simply holding a long position for years) or eliminated by the estate step up in basis. With these available, mechanisms that enable basis-reduction are ripe for abuse. On the other hand, if this truly bothers you then if you meet the IRS qualifications of a day trader, you may elect to use \\\"\\\"mark to market\\\"\\\" accounting, eliminating this entirely as a concern. Special rules for traders of securities\\\"\",\n \"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.\",\n \"\\\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \\\"\\\"low income\\\"\\\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\\\"\",\n \"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.\",\n \"\\\"Strangely enough, you have a wash sale, but, for the fact that you sold the shares and then more than 30 days passed, you can take the loss. I mistakenly used the phrase \\\"\\\"and ended the year with no shared of the stock\\\"\\\" elsewhere, and was corrected, as one can sell at a loss up to 12/31, and have until the end of January to create a wash condition. In your case, the facts in June combined with you ending the year with no shares removes any doubt, a wash sale, but one that's fully closed out. Note - while Vicky's answer is correct, it should go on to say that once the stock is not owned for 30 days, the wash sale loss is permitted.\\\"\",\n \"I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.\",\n \"When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid\",\n \"As littleadv suggested, you are mixing issues. If you have earned income and are able to deduct an IRA deposit, where those actual dollars came from is irrelevant. The fact that you are taking proceeds from one transaction to deposit to the IRA is a booking entry on your side, but the IRS doesn't care. By the way, when you get that $1000 gain, the broker doesn't withhold tax, so if you take the entire $1000 and put it in the IRA, you owe $150 on one line, but save $250 elsewhere, and are still $100 to the positive on your tax return.\",\n \"\\\"Just brainstorming here, but my gut feeling is it should be possible to sell your home to yourself with the sole purpose of resetting your basis. Taken at face value it feels illegal, but since I think we all would agree that you could sell your house to a third party and purchase the identical house next door for the same price (thus resetting your basis), why can't you purchase the same home right back? If one is legal, it seems odd for the other not to be. That being said, I have no idea how to legally do it. Perhaps you truly need a third party to step in which you sell it to, and then buy it back from them sometime in the future. Or perhaps you could start an LLC and have it purchase your home from you. Either way, I highly suggest finding an expert real estate attorney/accountant before attempting this, and don't be surprised if you get multiple opposite opinions. I suspect this is a gray area which will highly depend on how tax \\\"\\\"aggressive\\\"\\\" you are willing to be.\\\"\",\n \"There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.\",\n \"Yes. Wash rules are only for losses.\",\n \"Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.\",\n \"With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?\",\n \"Did you read what I wrote? I sold some stock for a gain, that's a taxable event. Are you trying to say I just shouldn't have sold it? Do you understand investing at all? And the second point is moot, I still had to pay the tax, having write offs doesn't change the fact that my taxes were higher(more importantly that they would have been much higher if I couldn't take advantage of capital gains.)\",\n \"Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. There is risk in exchanging this (known) property for another (unknown) property. That risk may be more than $9000 worth of risk. Tax considerations are important, but most important is that your investments make money. If you intend to continue as a landlord, you had better be sure you are finding a better deal elsewhere if you are going to trade this property up. I should also mention that you have a 5 year window in which you need to have lived in the home for 2 years. You have time and might be able to sell for a higher price if you wait a little longer.\",\n \"the difference would be taxes... Lets say you have two lots, one with a 10 dollar gain, and one with a 20 dollar gain. And lets say you decide to sell one lot this year, and the other lot in 10 years. AND, lets say that it turns out the stock price is exactly the same in ten years as it is when you sell the first lot. In all likelyhood, you'll have more income, and therefore you are likely to be in a different marginal tax rate. If you believe that you're more likely to pay more taxes in 10 years, then sell the lot with the higher gain now. If you believe you're more likely to pay more taxes now, then sell the lot with the lower gain now.\",\n \"If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.\",\n \"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.\",\n \"The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html\",\n \"You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.\",\n \"\\\"Of course, but that's not relevant to my example. Let me clarify: say you hold a highly-appreciated $10M position in AAPL and you have good reason to believe the next iPhone is going to be a flop, causing the stock to decline 20%. You can sell now to avoid the (probable) decline, but by doing so you will be left with, let's say, $6.67M after paying $3.33M of state and federal LTCG taxes on the appreciation ($9M of the $10M, because you bought a long time ago). However, by simply doing nothing and \\\"\\\"eating\\\"\\\" the 20% decline, you'll end up with $8M instead of $6.67M. Many economists would criticize the tax in this example, as it has led to the investor rationally suffering a $2M loss, instead of reallocating all $10M of his/her capital to a more promising enterprise. Furthermore, if/when many investors act that way, they can create inefficiency in the equity markets (prices not declining by as much as they should to reflect a firm's reduced prospects).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You cannot get \\\"\\\"your investment\\\"\\\" out and \\\"\\\"leave only the capital gains\\\"\\\" until they become taxable at the long-term rate. When you sell some shares after holding them for less than a year, you have capital gains on which you will have to pay taxes at the short-term capital gains rate (that is, at the same rate as ordinary income). As an example, if you bought 100 shares at $70 for a net investment of $7000, and sell 70 of them at $100 after five months to get your \\\"\\\"initial investment back\\\"\\\", you will have short-term capital gains of $30 per share on the 70 shares that you sold and so you have to pay tax on that $30x70=$2100. The other $4900 = $7000-$2100 is \\\"\\\"tax-free\\\"\\\" since it is just your purchase price of the 70 shares being returned to you. So after paying the tax on your short-term capital gains, you really don't have your \\\"\\\"initial investment back\\\"\\\"; you have something less. The capital gains on the 30 shares that you continue to hold will become (long-term capital gains) income to you only when you sell the shares after having held them for a full year or more: the gains on the shares sold after five months are taxable income in the year of sale.\\\"\",\n \"You are not allowed to pick and choose what years to take a loss once the stock/fund is sold. While I realize it might be too late for you to do anything now, in the future if members should read this, they might consider doing a Roth conversion during that year they will have $3000 in losses. This way they will show some income that can be offset by that loss, effectively getting a free conversion to the Roth.\",\n \"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.\",\n \"All corporate gains are taxed at the same rate as corporate income, for the corporate entity, so this actually can be WORSE than the individual capital gains tax rates. There are a lot of things you can do with trading certain asset classes, like opening you up to like-kind re-investment tax perks, but I can't think of anything that helps with stocks. Also, in the US there is now a law against doing things solely to avoid tax if they have no other economic purpose. So be conscious about that, you'll need to be able to rationalize at least a thin excuse for why you jumped through all the hoops.\",\n \"I brought this up to my CPA. She said don't do it. People used to do it, but now they're cracking down. Is it unfair? Yes. But it's the government so don't mess with them.\",\n \"Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.\",\n \"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.\",\n \"Yes, you could avoid capital gains tax altogether, however, capital gains are used in determining your tax bracket even though they are not taxed at that rate. This would only work in situations where your total capital gains and ordinary income kept you in the 0% longterm capital gains bracket. You can't realize a million dollars in capital gains and have no tax burden due to lack of ordinary income. You can potentially save some money by realizing capital gains strategically. Giving up income in an attempt to save on taxes rarely makes sense.\",\n \"The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons.\",\n \"Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)\",\n \"Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"What you're talking about is called \"\"tax gain harvesting,\"\" and it is considered good tax management. From The Oblivious Investor, investors in the 10% or 15% bracket pay 0% tax on long-term capital gains. For an interesting take on never paying income taxes again, check out Go Curry Cracker. You can claim up to $70,000 or so in capital gains before paying any taxes if you are the 10% or 15% tax bracket.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"What you're talking about is called \\\"\\\"tax gain harvesting,\\\"\\\" and it is considered good tax management. From The Oblivious Investor, investors in the 10% or 15% bracket pay 0% tax on long-term capital gains. For an interesting take on never paying income taxes again, check out Go Curry Cracker. You can claim up to $70,000 or so in capital gains before paying any taxes if you are the 10% or 15% tax bracket.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":294,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"89"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How can I deposit a check made out to my business into my personal account?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["413229","590102","268026","248624","508754","64556"],"string":"[\n \"413229\",\n \"590102\",\n \"268026\",\n \"248624\",\n \"508754\",\n \"64556\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["188893","536686","309023","521540","65404","508754","264075","197862","193830","556021","184697","316359","406109","213331","116030","261856","268026","564553","346537","466317","138934","91707","377521","590102","501230","42032","165397","596427","388147","192726","526817","389953","133833","480238","469738","494666","413229","15473","289844","308938","466162","354314","100764","278653","426076","94957","3336","461858","400230","248624","272807","507287","66991","468718","529879","591416","168667","86273","152027","40719","342212","266840","508960","473017","357738","270339","570960","451969","357037","561103","1066","460577","148589","590837","229157","181187","528661","331384","246049","439540","48840","489199","317569","500403","505611","187790","385484","485507","514425","221061","264934","36917","212713","80538","391420","301833","480472","45078","324717","71569"],"string":"[\n \"188893\",\n \"536686\",\n \"309023\",\n \"521540\",\n \"65404\",\n \"508754\",\n \"264075\",\n \"197862\",\n \"193830\",\n \"556021\",\n \"184697\",\n \"316359\",\n \"406109\",\n \"213331\",\n \"116030\",\n \"261856\",\n \"268026\",\n \"564553\",\n \"346537\",\n \"466317\",\n \"138934\",\n \"91707\",\n \"377521\",\n \"590102\",\n \"501230\",\n \"42032\",\n \"165397\",\n \"596427\",\n \"388147\",\n \"192726\",\n \"526817\",\n \"389953\",\n \"133833\",\n \"480238\",\n \"469738\",\n \"494666\",\n \"413229\",\n \"15473\",\n \"289844\",\n \"308938\",\n \"466162\",\n \"354314\",\n \"100764\",\n \"278653\",\n \"426076\",\n \"94957\",\n \"3336\",\n \"461858\",\n \"400230\",\n \"248624\",\n \"272807\",\n \"507287\",\n \"66991\",\n \"468718\",\n \"529879\",\n \"591416\",\n \"168667\",\n \"86273\",\n \"152027\",\n \"40719\",\n \"342212\",\n \"266840\",\n \"508960\",\n \"473017\",\n \"357738\",\n \"270339\",\n \"570960\",\n \"451969\",\n \"357037\",\n \"561103\",\n \"1066\",\n \"460577\",\n \"148589\",\n \"590837\",\n \"229157\",\n \"181187\",\n \"528661\",\n \"331384\",\n \"246049\",\n \"439540\",\n \"48840\",\n \"489199\",\n \"317569\",\n \"500403\",\n \"505611\",\n \"187790\",\n \"385484\",\n \"485507\",\n \"514425\",\n \"221061\",\n \"264934\",\n \"36917\",\n \"212713\",\n \"80538\",\n \"391420\",\n \"301833\",\n \"480472\",\n \"45078\",\n \"324717\",\n \"71569\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Assuming it's your business, endorse the check as yourself and your DBA name, payable to your personal account","\"If your son endorses the check or better still, endorses it with \"\"for deposit only\"\" and places the account number in the endorsement, it's likely the bank will accept it for deposit. In this manner, you are not putting it in your account, you are putting it in his. I have a family member perform this action occasionally with zero complications and she does not have an account at the same bank.\"","\"Depending on how the check was made out, you may be able to file a DBA (\"\"doing business as\"\"), which would give you the business name locally. Then open an account under that name and deposit the check. Or simply go back to the customer and say \"\"hey, I don't have yhe company bak account open yet; could I exchange this check for one made out to me personally?\"\" That's how I've been handling hobby income under a company name. (I really do ned to file that DBA!)\"","If the check is made out to him, he will have to endorse it. Which means that at some point he will have to physically have the check in his hands. At which point, he could probably just deposit it himself. If there's some problem getting the check to him for him to sign it, you could call the bank and ask if they'll accept it for deposit to his account without a signature. I understand some banks will do this. I would be very surprised if they would let you deposit a check made out to your son to your account. They'd have no way of knowing if your son was agreeable to this or if you were stealing his money. Traditionally, the person the check was made out to could endorse it, give the check to someone else, and then the second person could endorse it and deposit it to their (the second person's) account. That is, the endorsement would have your son's signature, and below that, your signature. But I understand some banks won't accept this any more, so you'd be best to check before trying it.","Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it. It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank. In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID. You don't even technically have to be there. Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business.","\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"","How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.","Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.","You can sign over the check, of course. However, you'll probably need to deal with 1099 issued to you personally instead of the corporation later on. You'll have to add it to your tax return as income and negative income on the same line (line 21 of your 1040) and attach a statement explaining that the income was erroneously reported to you and will be reported on the corp form 1120. Another option is to return the check to the payer and ask them to reissue in the correct name. Next time, make sure to provide the properly filled W9 to your payers with the details of the corporation, not your own details.","Yes, you can do this. I do this for my own single-member LLC, but I usually do it online instead of writing a check. Your only legal obligation is to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to the IRS. I'm assuming you are not otherwise doing anything shady. For example, that you have funds in your business account to pay any expenses that will be due soon or that you are trying to somehow pull a fast one on someone else...","You can simply deposit the check into your joint account. You should be able do that even without his signature. Then you can transfer the money out of that account and into yours.","In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account. You do if you are exchanging the check for cash. Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them. Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account. Individuals can do the same. I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them. Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them. I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check.","\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"","\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \"\"prize check\"\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \"\"estimated payment\"\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\"","if the deposit earned interest, you could be liable for taxes on the interest earned. If it ended up in a checking account, then you will not be liable for any taxes since checking accounts do not earn interest anyway. Your bank may inquire about where these transfers are coming from and question the legality of it.","Banks has to complete KYC. In case you want to open a bank account, most will ask for proof of address. I also feel it is difficult for bank to encash a cheque payable to a business in your account. Opening a bank account in the name of your business or alternatively obtaining a cheque payable to your personal name seems the only alternatives to me.","\"If you sign the check \"\"For Deposit Only\"\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \"\"payable name\"\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \"\"Pay to the Order Of\"\" line on checks. Say the church's \"\"legal name\"\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \"\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\". You'll get offering checks made out to \"\"Saint Barnabas\"\", \"\"Saint B's\"\", \"\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\", \"\"Red Bluff Episcopal\"\", \"\"Youth Group Fund\"\", \"\"Pastor Frank\"\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \"\"earmarked\"\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \"\"discretionary fund\"\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\"","\"If the cheque is not crossed, then your friend can write \"\"payable to [your name]\"\" above his signature when he endorses it. If it is crossed, you'll have to deposit it into his account. Given that one can deposit cheques at ATMs, this shouldn't require his presence. Just make sure he endorses it before you leave! It also might take a few more days to clear.\"","Deposit check and send a personal check (resulting in tax and IRS reporting issues) That's a bad idea, unless maybe the check you're receiving is a certified bank draft. Suppose the insurance company are crooks and the check is fraudulent. It could take weeks or months for some investigation to catch up to that, long after your own personal check was cashed by the pharmacy. The bank will then put you on hook for the 20 grand by reversing the check, even though the funds had been deposited into your account. Do not put yourself into the position of a money handler; you don't have the cash base, insurance, government protection and whatever else that a bank has. And, of course, you're being a free money handler if you do that. (You're not even compensated for postage, time and whatnot). If you're handling money between two parties, you should collect a percentage, or else refuse. That percentage has to be in proportion to the risk, since cashing a check for someone carries a risk similar to (and is effectively a form of) making a loan.","buy a cashiers check with the cash (a CRT will be nec if over 10 K) and deposit the cashiers check","When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.","All banks in the US that I have ever worked with will allow you to deposit checks if: In your case, you have 3 options:","I'd consider this offer. Keep in mind, any time you write a check, there's the information he's asking for. If it makes you feel comfortable, use the small balance account, or set up a 4th one you'll use for these incoming deposits only.","When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.","How? Basically all banks nowadays allow online deposits from a smartphone - you take a picture from the front and back of the check, and submit it, and that's it. You still have the paper check, and it looks pristine, but it is deposited (and the paper is worthless).","\"There are at least a couple problems: Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account. Check bounces. They get charged a fee. You get charged a fee. You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid. The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee. Your \"\"friend\"\" may really be a crook. The check is no good. Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check. You cash it. They take the money and disappear. You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case). My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks. In general, I would view this the same as a loan. When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose. Note that an actual loan would be safer. If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50. If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal. You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police. If they don't believe you, they could charge you. A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail.\"","\"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write \"\"pay to the order of \"\" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write \"\"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY\"\" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!\"","I'll assume you are asking about a check for some kind of work or service that you provided them, that they hired your company to do. No large business will do that. In their records they have a contract with your company to provide services. If they write you a personal check it won't match with the contract, and when the auditors see that they will scream blue murder. Whoever wrote the check will have to prove that you are legitimately the same thing as the company (that doesn't mean taking your word for it). They may also have to show they weren't conspiring with you to commit tax fraud ( that wasn't your intention of course, was it?) .","\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \"\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\"\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\"","\"Basically, yes. Don't use your business account for personal spending because it may invalidate your limited liability protection. Transfer a chunk of money to your personal account, write it down in your books as \"\"distribution\"\" (or something similar), and use it in whatever way you want from your personal account. The IRS doesn't care per se, but mixing personal and business expenses will cause troubles if you're audited because you'll have problems distinguishing one from another. You should be using some accounting software to make sure you track your expenses and distributions correctly. It will make it easier for you to prepare reports for yourself and your tax preparer, and also track distributions and expenses. I suggest GnuCash, I find it highly effective for a small business with not so many transactions (if you have a lot of transactions, then maybe QuickBooks would be more appropriate).\"","You mentioned depositing the check and then sending a personal check. Be sure to account for time, since any deposit over $10,000 the money will be made available in increments, so it may take 10-14 days to get the full amount in your account before you could send a personal check. I would not recommend this option regardless, but if you do, just a heads up.","I have seen this happen with IRS checks, the bank told me that the IRS imposes the requirement. Otherwise, though, I have frequently deposited checks made out to my wife into a joint checking account without her signature, they have never cared one bit.","\"In absence of complete information, I can only speculate that your phrases We both endorsed the cheque, and especially since the name on the cheque doesn't seem to be the name of the person I spoke with. mean that the check was payable to Jane Doe but was endorsed by someone you know as Wade Roe using language such as \"\"Pay to the order of user6344\"\" and then you endorsed it as something like \"\"For deposit only to Acct# 1234567890\"\" and gave it to the bank teller with a deposit slip for Acct# 1234567890. Presumably Wade Roe did not accompany you to the bank and the bank teller did not notice that the check was not endorsed to you by Jane Doe, or she did go with you to the bank but the teller did not check her ID when she endorsed the check. In any case, you, as a customer of the bank, are definitely on the hook in the sense that you in effect guaranteed the validity of Wade Roe's endorsement of the check payable to Jane Doe. You presented the check to the bank as a legitimate check that you were legitimately entitled to deposit in your account. In effect, if fraud was committed, you committed the fraud by depositing a bum check. As all the other answers have said, you need to go down to the bank and talk to a bank officer, preferably the manager, right away. Don't go to a teller (even though in many banks, the tellers have job titles like assistant vice-president.\"","They can go to an ATM and deposit it in to their account. The ATM does not care to read the name, and the bank does not care to verify anything if the check goes through (meaning the bank it is drawn on pays). So if nobody complains, that's it, he has your money. You would need to go to the check-writer's bank and ask for help, or look at the check-writer's cancelled check copy if you get to it. That bank can find out where it was deposited to, and then you have to go after the guy and get your money back - if it is still recoverable! - if it is a poor sod and he already blew your 5 grand, you can sue his pants off, but there are no 5 grand in them anywhere. So bad luck for you. Technically, the bank is not supposed to accept the check if the name doesn't match. At the counter, that might get a question, but as said above, there are deposit ATMs, and he could also just endorse the check to himself and sign the endorsement with some illegible scrawling, and claim that this is your signature - how would Joe the teller know? Either way, he gets the check in his account, and then he can take it out and blow it. It is legally clearly theft or fraud, and probably a federal crime, but if the guy is bankrupt, that doesn't help you much. Depending on that bank's fine-print, they might or might not cover your loss, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Better don't lose a check.","I don't know if it's legal but your talking about arbitraging the rates between a personal savings account and a business account. I also don't know those rates but will venture to guess that they are not materially different, after taking into account the cost of setting up and registering an LLC, for it to be worth the time and effort.","Your main concern seems to be to be accused of something called 'smurfing' or structuring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring Depositing money amounts (cash or checks) under the 10k limit to circumvent the reporting requirement. People have been investigated for depositing under the limit, e.g. small business owners. If you're always above 10k you should be fine, as your deposits are reported and shouldn't raise IRS or FBI suspicions.","You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).","I don't see any reason to worry about a check being deposited via cell phone. There isn't anything you can write on a check to make it physical deposit only or similar. If you really want to keep your check from being read electronically you could always smudge the numbers but you run the risk of the bank not cashing it and possibly getting a return check fee.","\"A check is simply an order to the bank to pay money to someone. The payor's signature on the front of the check is all that's needed to make that order binding. If you read the check carefully, you'll see that it says \"\"Pay to the order of ...\"\"; that's the payor's instruction to the bank, and as payee you can make a further order, to pay the money to someone else, in which case you'd have to endorse the check to make your order binding. But nobody does that any more; instead, people always just deposit checks into their accounts. When you deposit a check, the payor's signature is all that's needed to tell the payor's bank that it should pay the money. If your bank insists on a signature as well, that's just to pretend that they're paying attention in case it turns out that you stole the check. In reality, banks don't pay attention to signatures, nor to the name of the payee. I once put the wrong check into an envelope, and the phone company got a check for something over $700 on a bill of less than $50, payable to some completely different company; they deposited it and gave me a credit for the balance; none of the banks in the transition chain questioned it.\"","\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \"\"write check\"\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \"\"make deposit\"\" in its QB file. (In QB you \"\"write check\"\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \"\"negative expense\"\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\"","Years ago, I had a tenant who bounced a check now and then. I started going to the bank where his account was. With my ID they were agreeable to cashing the check against his account. The teller first checked his balance and only cashed when there were enough funds. One time he was $10 short. I wrote a deposit slip and added the $10 it took to clear the check. As they say, your mileage may vary, I hear some banks won't even break a large bill for a non customer.","I am assuming this is USA. While it is a bit of a pain, you are best off to have separate accounts for your business and personal. This way, if it comes to audit, you hand the IRS statements for your business account(s) and they match your return. As a further precaution I would have the card(s) you use for business expenses look different then the ones you use for personal so you don't mess another one up.","\"You don't specify which country you are in, so my answers are more from a best practice view than a legal view.. I don't intend on using it for personal use, but I mean it's just as possible. This is a dangerous proposition.. You shouldn't co-mingle business expenses with personal expenses. If there is a chance this will happen, then stop, make it so that it won't happen. The big danger is in being able to have traceability between what you are doing for the business, and what you are doing for yourself. If you are using this as a \"\"staging\"\" account for investments, etc., are those investments for yourself? Or for the business? Is tax treatment on capital gains and/or dividends the same for personal and business in your jurisdiction? If you buy a widget, is the widget an expense against business income? Or is it an out of pocket expense for personal consumption? The former reduces your taxable income, the latter does not. I don't see the benefit of a real business account because those have features specific to maybe corporations, LLC, and etc. -- nothing beneficial to a sole proprietor who has no reports/employees. The real benefit is that there is a clear delineation between business income/expenses and personal income/expenses. This account can also accept money and hold it from business transactions/sales, and possibly transfer some to the personal account if there's no need for reinvesting said amount/percentage. What you are looking for is a commonly called a current account, because it is used for current expenses. If you are moving money out of the account to your personal account, that speaks to paying yourself, which has other implications as well. The safest/cleanest way to do this is to: While this may sound like overkill, it is the only way to guarantee that income/expenses are allocated to the correct entity (i.e. you, or your business). From a Canadian standpoint:\"","Quick get a Social Security Number for the child. You will need it before you file your taxes early next year. If you don't have a SSN for your child you will not be able to claim them as a dependent. If you applied for one already, many do so at the hospital, then wait for it to arrive. The next step is to open a savings account with the child's SSN. Then have your parent write the check in the child's name and deposit it into the account. If it is written in the child's name already then you don't need a new check from them. If the check is large, you may run into problems if you take a check in the name of a minor and try and deposit it into your account. The bank would have no idea that the person is related to you.","\"Let me do the math. .6% * (not large) = really tiny. Since \"\"not large\"\" = \"\"small\"\" , etc. I suggest that even a small chance that you need to explain this to anyone in the future is a sign to avoid the risk. Yes, there are times that it's illegal. A real estate office may not deposit escrow funds into anything but a segregated escrow account. In your case, even if legal, it messes up 'the books' and can cost you more in grief than the 'tiny amount' saves you in cash.\"","\"Its a classic sign of fraud. The fraud is on you. You cashed the check not given to you, and not endorsed by the person its given to, so even if the check is legit you're still in trouble. There are many variations of this scheme, but the common thing is that the \"\"innocent\"\" third party is given a check to cash, and gives its own check or cash in return. The check ends up being forged, stolen, or otherwise invalid, but the cash/check the third party gave is long gone. Usually its cash, because its untraceable. You should wait at least a couple of weeks to make sure the check doesn't bounce. You might want to contact the check owner to verify its legit, and suggest to return the money, if it is not. You might also want to consult with an attorney. Bear in mind, that it might be reported to the authorities as a money laundering scheme (which it very well might be), and you'll have some explaining to do in this case, even if the check is legit.\"","\"Yes, kinda. Talk to local banks about a business account, and tell them you want to enable certain employees to make deposits but not withdrawals. They don't need to know you're all the same person. For instance I have a PayPal account for business. These allow you to create \"\"sub accounts\"\" for your employees with a variety of access privileges. Of course I control the master account, but I also set up a \"\"sub account\"\" for myself. That is the account I use every day.\"","\"You can spend the money quite quickly. The problem is that if there is something wrong with the check, the bank will ask you for the money back. If the check is from a trusted source (a trusted friend, a business with good reputation etc.) that's fine. If the money is from an untrusted source, make sure that having to pay back the money doesn't get you into trouble. Since most people are honest, this is fine for a small amount, but if it's more than you can afford to pay back, don't spend it. A simple scam is that people send you checks, \"\"by mistake\"\" the check is for the wrong amount, say $910 instead of $190, and they ask you to send the difference back. So you put $910 into your account, send them $720, and six weeks later your bank asks for their $910 back. If someone pays you too much on a check and asks you to pay them the difference, you know it is a scam.\"","\"IANAL, but. As you note, when you open a new account, they give you temporary checks that are usually blank in the upper left. I've used such checks and the bank has honored them. Therefore, I conclude that there must not be any legal requirement for anything to appear there, nor does the bank require it. Businesses are often reluctant to accept such temporary checks, for the obvious reason that anyone could go to the bank, open an account with $10, write checks for thousands of dollars, and disappear. At least if they've waited long enough to get the permanent checks in, there's some reason to believe that they plan to stick around. In any case, it's not clear what you are trying to accomplish. You want to hand-write either your business name or your personal name depending on whether the check is for personal or business purposes? I don't see what that gains. You could always use a personal check for business purposes. If you're afraid someone will say, \"\"Hey, that doesn't look very professional, what kind of fly-by-night company is this that uses personal checks?\"\", surely a hand-written company name would look even less professional. Why not just open a business account and have your personal checks printed with your personal name and your business checks with your business name? I don't know where you live, but I have a business account on which I pay zero fees. The only cost is getting checks printed. There's the small hassle of having to make one trip to the bank to open the account. Well, the biggest hassle I have is that the bank won't let me transfer money between my personal and business accounts over the Internet, so I have to either go to the bank to move money back and forth, or I have to write a check from one account to the other and deposit through an ATM.\"","\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\"","While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.","I'm going to give the checkmark to Joe, but I wanted to convey my personal experience. I bank with TD in New Jersey and was informed by the teller that I simply needed to endorse the check myself and indicate Parent of Minor. I cannot attest if other banks will accept this, but it at least works for TD and my situation in particular.","Deposit it into your Brazilian bank account. They'll charge you collection fee (shouldn't be high, its a cashier's check equivalent), and the currency exchange rate may not be the best ever, but that's the price to pay for the service. Another option would be to cash the check at check cashing places, but that would most likely require you being in the US (I don't know if any check-cashing store in Brazil would cash a US check).","I actually had to go to the bank today and so I decided to ask. The answer I was given is that a check is a legal document (a promise to pay). In order to get your money from the bank, you need to sign the check over to them. By endorsing the check you are attesting to the fact that you have transferred said document to them and they can draw on that account.","It would be better to use a bank account and have the refund deposited directly to it. But you said you never had a bank account, so that may be a problem. Another option is to have the refund check mailed to you, and you deposit it in your local bank, converting to your home currency (or not, depending on local laws). Generally, for another person to cash a check made out to you - you need to endorse it first. Physically, on the back of the check. That means you have to see the check. Specifically with tax refund checks there's much more scrutiny since there's a lot of fraud going on with regards to tax refunds. Thus, I doubt a bank would allow a third party cash a check made out to you, without you actually being present there.","\"No functional difference. Only impression/convenience. \"\"Business checks\"\" are checks in larger format (8\"\" instead of the regular 5\"\" checks), they can be from your personal account just as well. I didn't have any problem using the small \"\"individual\"\"-standard checks for my company (I actually did get them for free from Wells Fargo, but that was a gesture, not by policy).\"","If you don't have a bank account then open one and use the check as your opening deposit. You'll need to obtain a Social Security card as well (you didn't indicate you have one or not, so I'll assume you don't), but they're free and quick to apply for. I assume you're from Washington state, so there should be no problem with you opening an account in Washington, no matter where the check is from. Because of the amount of the check, the bank will probably only let yo have a part of the amount for a few days until it clears, but federal banking rules require quick clearance of out-of-state checks (I think it's 48 hours now), so you'd have access to at least half of the money right away and the rest in a few days.","\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"","It seems that you're complicating things quite a bit. Why would you not create a business entity, open one or more bank accounts for it, and then have the money wired into those accounts? If you plan on being a company then set up the appropriate structure for it. In the U.S., you can form an S-corporation or an LLC and choose pass-through taxation so that all you pay is income tax on what you receive from the business as personal income. The business itself would not have tax liability in such a case. Co-mingling your personal banking with that of your business could create real tax headaches for you if you aren't careful, so it's not worth the trouble or risk.","What you are describing is perfectly legal, and is well under the threshold to attract the attention of the IRS ($10K+). The money is not income, because it is repayment for goods provided or a loan made to your friends. I do this myself oftentimes to take advantage of the rewards on my credit cards. With cash to cover expenses coming in immediately from friends/family, there is virtually no risk. If you are concerned and want to protect against questions in the future about the source of the money, you ought to start keeping records of dates, times, locations, amounts, and the names of people involved when the charges are made. Then track the dates when the cash is deposited into your bank account. That way you can demonstrate the cash flow (Charge -> Repayment -> Deposit) to anyone who needs to know.","I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.","The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.","\"I would contact the security/fraud departments at your bank and see if you can get in contact (via your bank) with the bank that the check is drawn on. By my reading of your question, it sounds like the person you are dealing with fraudulently endorsed a third party check, which you subsequently endorsed for deposit. Explain this situation to your bank. As far as the other person goes, tell her \"\"I'm in contact with the frauds department at my bank, as the validity of the check is in question, and I'm not giving you a cent until the matter is resolved.\"\" Depositing a bad check is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, so it's essential to bring this to the attention of the bank and authorities asap.\"","The person writing the check has already signed and endorsed it. The depositer's signature is not to confirm the check's validity, but to demonstrate that the check was depisited to the correct Fred Smith's account, and permit charges to be brought if, eg, Fred Bonzo Smith tries to steal Fred Gnorph Smith's check.","No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.","If it's always the same person, you could open a joint account. Then fees are avoided altogether. How fast the funds are available depends on what you deposit. Cash is immediate.","That's a sensible plan. No there's no reason for the IRS to see this arrangement as suspicious, particularly because the deposits will be from paychecks; you have a record of where all the money came from. Conversely, multiple cash deposits might be considered suspicious. It can only affect your credit if you have credit lines associated with the account (like an overdraft line of credit). Interest earned could increase your tax liability by a tiny amount, but in the current interest rate environment, that's not much of a worry.","As long as someone is willing to take it, you can write it! I personally wrote a check for a new car. The dealership didn't bat an eye.","You should be careful about mingling your personal money and that of the business, even if it is a sole prop right now. It is a good habit to keep separate business and personal bank/credit accounts just so that when you change to an LLC, it is simpler for you to separate what belongs to the company and what is yours personally. What you're doing makes it more difficult (although only marginally so) to itemize business deductions that were paid with an ostensibly personal credit account. The better habit to get into now is keeping that distinct separation between personal and business. That being said, there's nothing illegal in what you're doing, but it would make an accountant cringe, that's for sure. (chuckle) Hope this helps. Good luck!","The fee you were charged to get the money order is gone. You agreed to that fee when you purchased the Money order. It is now a check that you can use how ever you wish. If you have already added a name to the pay to line it can be changed but different agencies have different rules for what they will accept. Take the money order to your bank explain the situation and tell them you want to put the money in your account, or cash it.","\"There's nothing you can do. If he has indeed deposited the check, it would appear on your account fairly quickly - I've never seen it taking more than 2-3 business days. However, a check is a debt instrument, and you cannot close the account until it clears, or until the \"\"unclaimed property\"\" laws of your state kick in. If he claims that he deposited the check, ask it in writing and have your bank (or the bank where it was deposited) investigate why it takes so long to clear. If he's not willing to give it to you in writing - he's likely not deposited it. Whatever the reason may be, even just to cause you nuisance. Lesson learned. Next time - cashier's check with a signed receipt. Re closing the LLC: if you're the only two partners - you can just withdraw yourself from the LLC, take out your share, and drop it on him leaving him the only partner. Check with your local attorney for details.\"","Once you've made a good-faith effort to straighten the situation out you've done all you can do. Cash the check.","You can receive all the Money in your Bank. By Problem if you mean whether it will raise any alarms at the Bank. Most likely yes, such kind of activity would trigger AML. Bank would flag this off to regulators and questions would be asked. If you are doing a Legitimate business, its not an issue. Maintain a proper record of the transaction and pay your taxes. As funds are large 80 K a month, it makes sense to seek to advice of a Laywer and CA to help you keep thing in order.","\"It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just \"\"endorsed\"\", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.\"","\"No, you cannot do that. You can't just debit someone because \"\"he said so\"\". You'll need a document in writing, that would show the routing number, account number, the amount to withdraw and who is allowed to withdraw it. This document must be signed by the account owner and dated. Usually, these documents are called \"\"checks\"\". But legally speaking, in most countries you can write this on any piece of paper and it would be valid. But better use a standard check. Once you have a check - you can cash/deposit it in any bank, that part is true.\"","They sure can. They are two different legal entities, so why not? You can even write a check to yourself, and then deposit it back into your own account. (Not very useful, but you can). The tax implications are a very different question, as this might constitute taking money out of the company. Edit: In some countries, when the business hires someone to work for them, it is forbidden by law to do that, unless he/she is explicitly allowed to do it in his contract. The business owner himself however, can always 'allow' himself to do that.","The legal department at the Bank left me a message telling me that the bank check was paid & the recipient got the funds. Call up the bank and find out who the recipient was. Generally it can only be cashed by the person whose name is on it - the original business partner to whom it was intended. It is unlikely to be cashed by the attorney, unless he misrepresented the facts to the bank and got the funds. My question is how could he have cashed it without the original bank check? The other possibility is your mom lost this check, went to the bank and requested them to cancel this and reissue a fresh banker's check and give it to the business partner - in which case the check you had was worthless. You would need to work with the bank and ask them for details. However without the details of the original bank check that you found, it would be difficult for the bank to help you.","I agree with Joe, having the money deposited to the US bank account may land you in trouble. Technically, a US business paying a foreigner must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty says otherwise. The US business should do that based on your W8-BEN/W8-ECI form that you should have given to the business before being paid. I'm guessing, that by paying to your US bank account, you (and your American counterpart) are trying to avoid this withholding. That may cause trouble for both of you. I would suggest you talking to a professional (EA/CPA licensed in the State where the business is located) and having the situation resolved ASAP. You may not be liable for the US taxes at all, but because of incorrectly reporting the income/expense - you and the US business may end up paying way more than the $0 you otherwise would have, in penalties.","The simplest method is just to write a check from one account and deposit it in the other. If you are the owner of both accounts, you should be able to electronically deposit the check using their phone apps. Depending on the amount you are transfering, it may take a few days for the check to clear.","\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"","You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says. You will not without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements.","\"It's possible to cash cheques by post. When I did this, it involved filling out a \"\"paying-in slip\"\" (I had a book of these provided by the bank) and posting the cheque together with the slip to an address provided by the bank. You could also bring the paying-in slip and the cheque to a branch and deposit them there, and it wasn't necessary that you were the account holder, just that the details on the slip matched the account you were paying into. I Googled \"\"paying-in slip\"\" and found the instructions for HSBC as an example: Paying-In Slips. It explicitly mentions that you don't need to be the account holder to do this, and moreover there are even blank slips in the branch, which you just need to fill in with the correct account details. I think the procedure is much the same for other banks, but presumably you could check the relevant bank's website for specific guidance.\"","Why do they have to endorse every check every time they want to deposit it? They told you why. They said it was because it was made out to one person and there were others on the account that could withdraw money from the acct., so endorsing it acknowledged that the payee still wanted to deposit the money, knowing others could take the $ out The reason they insist on it may have something to do with their responsibility in case of elder abuse. They are worried that you may be using your parents' money without their knowledge, and if it ends up being true and they didn't enforce the requirement - they may also be liable. I have a joint account with my spouse, and they do not let us deposit checks written to both of us unless we both endorse. This is similar, and stems from the same concern. So here's the unusual situation In case of a death of a joint account holder - the whole account is frozen until the estate is executed. You cannot deposit a check of a deceased person to such an account.","Not illegal. With respect to littleadv response, the printing of a check isn't illegal. I can order checks from cheap check printers, and they have no relationship to any bank, so long as they have my routing number and checking account number, they print. Years ago (25+) I wrote my account details on a shirt in protest to owing the IRS money, and my bank cashed it. They charged a penalty of some nominal amount, $20 or so for 'non-standard check format' or something like that. But, in fact, stupid young person rants aside, you may write a check out by hand on a piece of paper and it should clear. The missing factor is the magnetic ink. But, I often see a regular check with a strip taped to the bottom when the mag strip fails, proving that bad ink will not prevent a check from clearing. So long as the person trying to send you the funds isn't going to dispute the transaction (and the check is made out to you, so I suppose they couldn't even do that) this process should be simple. I see little to no risk so long as the image isn't intercepted along the way.","This will probably require some explanation from you on the source of the money and the reasons for the transaction. Cash transactions over $10k will be reported by the bank (in this case) on a CTR report to FinCEN. Keep in mind, mere breaking the transaction into multiple smaller ones in order to avoid the CTR is on its own a criminal offense. Just deposit what you want to deposit, and report what's needed to be reported. Note that if you're a US tax resident - these foreign bank accounts must have been reported already to FinCEN via FBAR, if not - you should expect a very nasty audit with the IRS.","Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.","\"Open a personal account to link SQUARE with, open a savings account with same bank. Register as \"\"PERSONAL USE\"\", make as many transactions you want for whatever you want $5.00 to $1,000.00 or more, you get paid, square collects a fee. Money is in your \"\"personal account\"\" in 24 hrs, transfer it to your savings acct. 2 years now no issue. I've done the EIN, vendors license, registering business crap, if you work for yourself for private citizens it's none of anyone else's concern.\"","Banks in the US have to report deposits of more than $10,000, so they'll contact you to complete form 8300 or something. It should not be a problem, though, if you specify that it's someone else's money, not your income.","As long as your bank does not have any limits on the number of transactions per month you should be fine. The danger would be theft while you had the money before depositing into the new account. I would expect that your new credit union could do a wire transfer for you. It might cost you a few dollars but it would be safer and probably faster.","\"Generally, ACH transfers are not considered direct deposits. However, you can pay for this service to various providers, and they will do the transfer so that it would be marked as a direct deposit. For example, Wells Fargo allows doing it using their \"\"DirectPay\"\" system. I happen to have a WF business account (free with conditions) where this service is available, but there are plenty of providers. It does cost money (for WF - $10 monthly fee + $0.50 for a transfer to non-WF account), but it may be worth it for you if the benefit is large enough.\"","\"There is no \"\"reason why this cannot be done\"\", but you can tell your friend that these actions are officially shady in the eyes of the US government. Any bank transactions with a value of $10,000 or more are automatically reported to the government as a way to prevent money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal shenanigans. \"\"Structuring\"\" bank deposits to avoid this monetary limit is a crime in and of itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report\"","It all depends on the trust level you have in them handling it correctly. If they never deposit it, it doesn't matter what happens to the check, they could frame it and hang it on the wall. The risk is that someone someday deposits it (incorrectly double-charging you), and you need to do what think is appropriate to avoid this risk. If your trust in them is too small, only sending it back to you makes sure that you physically control the check.","This varies by jurisdiction somewhat but speaking as a Canadian, a small business owner, and accountant (unregistered but some courses and accounting for multiple businesses) this is the answer if you were in Canada. In Canada the cheque cashing limit is 6 months. Therefor any bank will refuse to cash this cheque. It would be totally morally and legally acceptable to ask for a replacement cheque from your employer. In Canada they would generally have no problem issuing a replacement; in other jurisdictions with differing time limits they might want to cancel the original cheque first.","\"If you forgot to put the name on the \"\"pay to the order of\"\" line then anybody who gets their hands on the check can add their name to the check and deposit it at their bank into their account. If it goes to the correct person they will have an easy time making sure that the check is made out correctly. They don't have to worry about that picky teller who doesn't know what to do with a check made out to Billy Smith and a drivers license for Xavier William Smith. On the other hand... a criminal will also be able to make sure it is processed exactly the way they want it. If I made it out to a small business or a person I would let them know. You might not have a choice but to wait and see what happens if it was sent to a large business, the payment processing center could be a long way from where you will be calling.\"","You friend would only be able to deposit this in NRO account. You may have to explain the source of money. If you declare it as gift, then you would need to pay gift tax. What you are doing is converting USD to INR outside the normal banking network and this maybe in volition of FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act].","\"If the cheque is crossed (as almost all are these days), it can only be paid into an account in the name of the person it was written out to: it cannot be paid into another's account, nor can it be \"\"cashed\"\"1 – see the rules on \"\"Crossed\"\" cheques. Note: that while the recipient of the cheque cannot (legally) alter this state of afairs, the writer of a cheque that was printed pre-crossed can – at least technically – cancel the crossing (see above link). Probably the best the OP can do is pay in the cheque on the friend's behalf (as described in Ben Millwood's answer) and then either lend the friend some money until they are mobile and can get some cash to repay the OP (or have the friend write one of their own cheques which the OP can pay into their bank account). 1 As mentioned in the last section of the rules on crossed cheques, the only exception is that designated \"\"Cheque cashing shops\"\" have special arrangements to deposit cheques which they have cashed (after deducting a fee). However, they would (should?) require proof of identity (of the original payee) and so are unlikely to be of any help (and probably not worth the cost for £35). Having said that, I've never used one, so have no idea how strict they are in practice.\"","Of course not. You had another job for which you earned money. What does the corporation have to do with it? Corporation is a separate entity from your person, and since it was in no way involved in the transaction - there's no justification to funnel money through it. Doing so may pierce the corporate veil and expose you to liability which you created the corporation to shield yourself from. Not to mention the tax evasion, which is the reason you are asking the question to begin with....","You probably can't deposit the check directly, but there are mechanisms in place to get your money through other means. In the US, all states and territories have an unclaimed property registry. Before you contact the company that wrote the check, you should check that registry in your state. You will have to provide proof that you are the intended recipient, having the original check in your possession should make that considerably easier.","As I replied to someone else who said that: I'm often having to send stuff with the check. Paperwork, a bill etc. While that would work to a person who knows me, it's usually not going to work with a business or government who needs to know why I'm sending this check.","You can move money in and out of the business at will, just keep track of every transaction. Ideally you'd use an accounting software like QuickBooks or similar. Create a Capital Contributions account and every time you put money into the business checking account record it as a Capital Contribution. Likewise, if you take money out of the business, it comes from your capital accounts. (You can create a separate Capital Distributions account in your accounting software, or just use a single account for contributions and distributions). Money coming in and out of those capital accounts is not taxable because you will pay taxes based on net earnings regardless of whether or not you have distributed any profits. So there's no need to make a loan to the company, which would have tax consequences. To reimburse yourself for purchases already made, submit an expense report to the company. If the company is unfunded right now, you can make a capital contribution to cover current expenses, submit the expense report, and wait until you have some profits before paying out the expense report or making any distributions. Welcome to entrepreneurship."],"string":"[\n \"Assuming it's your business, endorse the check as yourself and your DBA name, payable to your personal account\",\n \"\\\"If your son endorses the check or better still, endorses it with \\\"\\\"for deposit only\\\"\\\" and places the account number in the endorsement, it's likely the bank will accept it for deposit. In this manner, you are not putting it in your account, you are putting it in his. I have a family member perform this action occasionally with zero complications and she does not have an account at the same bank.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Depending on how the check was made out, you may be able to file a DBA (\\\"\\\"doing business as\\\"\\\"), which would give you the business name locally. Then open an account under that name and deposit the check. Or simply go back to the customer and say \\\"\\\"hey, I don't have yhe company bak account open yet; could I exchange this check for one made out to me personally?\\\"\\\" That's how I've been handling hobby income under a company name. (I really do ned to file that DBA!)\\\"\",\n \"If the check is made out to him, he will have to endorse it. Which means that at some point he will have to physically have the check in his hands. At which point, he could probably just deposit it himself. If there's some problem getting the check to him for him to sign it, you could call the bank and ask if they'll accept it for deposit to his account without a signature. I understand some banks will do this. I would be very surprised if they would let you deposit a check made out to your son to your account. They'd have no way of knowing if your son was agreeable to this or if you were stealing his money. Traditionally, the person the check was made out to could endorse it, give the check to someone else, and then the second person could endorse it and deposit it to their (the second person's) account. That is, the endorsement would have your son's signature, and below that, your signature. But I understand some banks won't accept this any more, so you'd be best to check before trying it.\",\n \"Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it. It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank. In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID. You don't even technically have to be there. Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business.\",\n \"\\\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \\\"\\\"dba\\\"\\\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\\\"\",\n \"How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.\",\n \"Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.\",\n \"You can sign over the check, of course. However, you'll probably need to deal with 1099 issued to you personally instead of the corporation later on. You'll have to add it to your tax return as income and negative income on the same line (line 21 of your 1040) and attach a statement explaining that the income was erroneously reported to you and will be reported on the corp form 1120. Another option is to return the check to the payer and ask them to reissue in the correct name. Next time, make sure to provide the properly filled W9 to your payers with the details of the corporation, not your own details.\",\n \"Yes, you can do this. I do this for my own single-member LLC, but I usually do it online instead of writing a check. Your only legal obligation is to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to the IRS. I'm assuming you are not otherwise doing anything shady. For example, that you have funds in your business account to pay any expenses that will be due soon or that you are trying to somehow pull a fast one on someone else...\",\n \"You can simply deposit the check into your joint account. You should be able do that even without his signature. Then you can transfer the money out of that account and into yours.\",\n \"In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account. You do if you are exchanging the check for cash. Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them. Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account. Individuals can do the same. I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them. Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them. I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check.\",\n \"\\\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \\\"\\\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\\\"\\\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \\\"\\\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\\\"\\\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \\\"\\\"online bank\\\"\\\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \\\"\\\"credit card swipe on your phone\\\"\\\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \\\"\\\"Please apply this to my new account\\\"\\\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \\\"\\\"prize check\\\"\\\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \\\"\\\"estimated payment\\\"\\\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\\\"\",\n \"if the deposit earned interest, you could be liable for taxes on the interest earned. If it ended up in a checking account, then you will not be liable for any taxes since checking accounts do not earn interest anyway. Your bank may inquire about where these transfers are coming from and question the legality of it.\",\n \"Banks has to complete KYC. In case you want to open a bank account, most will ask for proof of address. I also feel it is difficult for bank to encash a cheque payable to a business in your account. Opening a bank account in the name of your business or alternatively obtaining a cheque payable to your personal name seems the only alternatives to me.\",\n \"\\\"If you sign the check \\\"\\\"For Deposit Only\\\"\\\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \\\"\\\"payable name\\\"\\\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \\\"\\\"Pay to the Order Of\\\"\\\" line on checks. Say the church's \\\"\\\"legal name\\\"\\\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \\\"\\\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\\\"\\\". You'll get offering checks made out to \\\"\\\"Saint Barnabas\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Saint B's\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Red Bluff Episcopal\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Youth Group Fund\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Pastor Frank\\\"\\\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \\\"\\\"earmarked\\\"\\\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \\\"\\\"discretionary fund\\\"\\\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If the cheque is not crossed, then your friend can write \\\"\\\"payable to [your name]\\\"\\\" above his signature when he endorses it. If it is crossed, you'll have to deposit it into his account. Given that one can deposit cheques at ATMs, this shouldn't require his presence. Just make sure he endorses it before you leave! It also might take a few more days to clear.\\\"\",\n \"Deposit check and send a personal check (resulting in tax and IRS reporting issues) That's a bad idea, unless maybe the check you're receiving is a certified bank draft. Suppose the insurance company are crooks and the check is fraudulent. It could take weeks or months for some investigation to catch up to that, long after your own personal check was cashed by the pharmacy. The bank will then put you on hook for the 20 grand by reversing the check, even though the funds had been deposited into your account. Do not put yourself into the position of a money handler; you don't have the cash base, insurance, government protection and whatever else that a bank has. And, of course, you're being a free money handler if you do that. (You're not even compensated for postage, time and whatnot). If you're handling money between two parties, you should collect a percentage, or else refuse. That percentage has to be in proportion to the risk, since cashing a check for someone carries a risk similar to (and is effectively a form of) making a loan.\",\n \"buy a cashiers check with the cash (a CRT will be nec if over 10 K) and deposit the cashiers check\",\n \"When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.\",\n \"All banks in the US that I have ever worked with will allow you to deposit checks if: In your case, you have 3 options:\",\n \"I'd consider this offer. Keep in mind, any time you write a check, there's the information he's asking for. If it makes you feel comfortable, use the small balance account, or set up a 4th one you'll use for these incoming deposits only.\",\n \"When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.\",\n \"How? Basically all banks nowadays allow online deposits from a smartphone - you take a picture from the front and back of the check, and submit it, and that's it. You still have the paper check, and it looks pristine, but it is deposited (and the paper is worthless).\",\n \"\\\"There are at least a couple problems: Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account. Check bounces. They get charged a fee. You get charged a fee. You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid. The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee. Your \\\"\\\"friend\\\"\\\" may really be a crook. The check is no good. Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check. You cash it. They take the money and disappear. You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case). My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks. In general, I would view this the same as a loan. When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose. Note that an actual loan would be safer. If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50. If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal. You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police. If they don't believe you, they could charge you. A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write \\\"\\\"pay to the order of \\\"\\\" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write \\\"\\\"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY\\\"\\\" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!\\\"\",\n \"I'll assume you are asking about a check for some kind of work or service that you provided them, that they hired your company to do. No large business will do that. In their records they have a contract with your company to provide services. If they write you a personal check it won't match with the contract, and when the auditors see that they will scream blue murder. Whoever wrote the check will have to prove that you are legitimately the same thing as the company (that doesn't mean taking your word for it). They may also have to show they weren't conspiring with you to commit tax fraud ( that wasn't your intention of course, was it?) .\",\n \"\\\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \\\"\\\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\\\"\\\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Basically, yes. Don't use your business account for personal spending because it may invalidate your limited liability protection. Transfer a chunk of money to your personal account, write it down in your books as \\\"\\\"distribution\\\"\\\" (or something similar), and use it in whatever way you want from your personal account. The IRS doesn't care per se, but mixing personal and business expenses will cause troubles if you're audited because you'll have problems distinguishing one from another. You should be using some accounting software to make sure you track your expenses and distributions correctly. It will make it easier for you to prepare reports for yourself and your tax preparer, and also track distributions and expenses. I suggest GnuCash, I find it highly effective for a small business with not so many transactions (if you have a lot of transactions, then maybe QuickBooks would be more appropriate).\\\"\",\n \"You mentioned depositing the check and then sending a personal check. Be sure to account for time, since any deposit over $10,000 the money will be made available in increments, so it may take 10-14 days to get the full amount in your account before you could send a personal check. I would not recommend this option regardless, but if you do, just a heads up.\",\n \"I have seen this happen with IRS checks, the bank told me that the IRS imposes the requirement. Otherwise, though, I have frequently deposited checks made out to my wife into a joint checking account without her signature, they have never cared one bit.\",\n \"\\\"In absence of complete information, I can only speculate that your phrases We both endorsed the cheque, and especially since the name on the cheque doesn't seem to be the name of the person I spoke with. mean that the check was payable to Jane Doe but was endorsed by someone you know as Wade Roe using language such as \\\"\\\"Pay to the order of user6344\\\"\\\" and then you endorsed it as something like \\\"\\\"For deposit only to Acct# 1234567890\\\"\\\" and gave it to the bank teller with a deposit slip for Acct# 1234567890. Presumably Wade Roe did not accompany you to the bank and the bank teller did not notice that the check was not endorsed to you by Jane Doe, or she did go with you to the bank but the teller did not check her ID when she endorsed the check. In any case, you, as a customer of the bank, are definitely on the hook in the sense that you in effect guaranteed the validity of Wade Roe's endorsement of the check payable to Jane Doe. You presented the check to the bank as a legitimate check that you were legitimately entitled to deposit in your account. In effect, if fraud was committed, you committed the fraud by depositing a bum check. As all the other answers have said, you need to go down to the bank and talk to a bank officer, preferably the manager, right away. Don't go to a teller (even though in many banks, the tellers have job titles like assistant vice-president.\\\"\",\n \"They can go to an ATM and deposit it in to their account. The ATM does not care to read the name, and the bank does not care to verify anything if the check goes through (meaning the bank it is drawn on pays). So if nobody complains, that's it, he has your money. You would need to go to the check-writer's bank and ask for help, or look at the check-writer's cancelled check copy if you get to it. That bank can find out where it was deposited to, and then you have to go after the guy and get your money back - if it is still recoverable! - if it is a poor sod and he already blew your 5 grand, you can sue his pants off, but there are no 5 grand in them anywhere. So bad luck for you. Technically, the bank is not supposed to accept the check if the name doesn't match. At the counter, that might get a question, but as said above, there are deposit ATMs, and he could also just endorse the check to himself and sign the endorsement with some illegible scrawling, and claim that this is your signature - how would Joe the teller know? Either way, he gets the check in his account, and then he can take it out and blow it. It is legally clearly theft or fraud, and probably a federal crime, but if the guy is bankrupt, that doesn't help you much. Depending on that bank's fine-print, they might or might not cover your loss, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Better don't lose a check.\",\n \"I don't know if it's legal but your talking about arbitraging the rates between a personal savings account and a business account. I also don't know those rates but will venture to guess that they are not materially different, after taking into account the cost of setting up and registering an LLC, for it to be worth the time and effort.\",\n \"Your main concern seems to be to be accused of something called 'smurfing' or structuring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring Depositing money amounts (cash or checks) under the 10k limit to circumvent the reporting requirement. People have been investigated for depositing under the limit, e.g. small business owners. If you're always above 10k you should be fine, as your deposits are reported and shouldn't raise IRS or FBI suspicions.\",\n \"You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).\",\n \"I don't see any reason to worry about a check being deposited via cell phone. There isn't anything you can write on a check to make it physical deposit only or similar. If you really want to keep your check from being read electronically you could always smudge the numbers but you run the risk of the bank not cashing it and possibly getting a return check fee.\",\n \"\\\"A check is simply an order to the bank to pay money to someone. The payor's signature on the front of the check is all that's needed to make that order binding. If you read the check carefully, you'll see that it says \\\"\\\"Pay to the order of ...\\\"\\\"; that's the payor's instruction to the bank, and as payee you can make a further order, to pay the money to someone else, in which case you'd have to endorse the check to make your order binding. But nobody does that any more; instead, people always just deposit checks into their accounts. When you deposit a check, the payor's signature is all that's needed to tell the payor's bank that it should pay the money. If your bank insists on a signature as well, that's just to pretend that they're paying attention in case it turns out that you stole the check. In reality, banks don't pay attention to signatures, nor to the name of the payee. I once put the wrong check into an envelope, and the phone company got a check for something over $700 on a bill of less than $50, payable to some completely different company; they deposited it and gave me a credit for the balance; none of the banks in the transition chain questioned it.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \\\"\\\"write check\\\"\\\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \\\"\\\"make deposit\\\"\\\" in its QB file. (In QB you \\\"\\\"write check\\\"\\\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \\\"\\\"negative expense\\\"\\\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\\\"\",\n \"Years ago, I had a tenant who bounced a check now and then. I started going to the bank where his account was. With my ID they were agreeable to cashing the check against his account. The teller first checked his balance and only cashed when there were enough funds. One time he was $10 short. I wrote a deposit slip and added the $10 it took to clear the check. As they say, your mileage may vary, I hear some banks won't even break a large bill for a non customer.\",\n \"I am assuming this is USA. While it is a bit of a pain, you are best off to have separate accounts for your business and personal. This way, if it comes to audit, you hand the IRS statements for your business account(s) and they match your return. As a further precaution I would have the card(s) you use for business expenses look different then the ones you use for personal so you don't mess another one up.\",\n \"\\\"You don't specify which country you are in, so my answers are more from a best practice view than a legal view.. I don't intend on using it for personal use, but I mean it's just as possible. This is a dangerous proposition.. You shouldn't co-mingle business expenses with personal expenses. If there is a chance this will happen, then stop, make it so that it won't happen. The big danger is in being able to have traceability between what you are doing for the business, and what you are doing for yourself. If you are using this as a \\\"\\\"staging\\\"\\\" account for investments, etc., are those investments for yourself? Or for the business? Is tax treatment on capital gains and/or dividends the same for personal and business in your jurisdiction? If you buy a widget, is the widget an expense against business income? Or is it an out of pocket expense for personal consumption? The former reduces your taxable income, the latter does not. I don't see the benefit of a real business account because those have features specific to maybe corporations, LLC, and etc. -- nothing beneficial to a sole proprietor who has no reports/employees. The real benefit is that there is a clear delineation between business income/expenses and personal income/expenses. This account can also accept money and hold it from business transactions/sales, and possibly transfer some to the personal account if there's no need for reinvesting said amount/percentage. What you are looking for is a commonly called a current account, because it is used for current expenses. If you are moving money out of the account to your personal account, that speaks to paying yourself, which has other implications as well. The safest/cleanest way to do this is to: While this may sound like overkill, it is the only way to guarantee that income/expenses are allocated to the correct entity (i.e. you, or your business). From a Canadian standpoint:\\\"\",\n \"Quick get a Social Security Number for the child. You will need it before you file your taxes early next year. If you don't have a SSN for your child you will not be able to claim them as a dependent. If you applied for one already, many do so at the hospital, then wait for it to arrive. The next step is to open a savings account with the child's SSN. Then have your parent write the check in the child's name and deposit it into the account. If it is written in the child's name already then you don't need a new check from them. If the check is large, you may run into problems if you take a check in the name of a minor and try and deposit it into your account. The bank would have no idea that the person is related to you.\",\n \"\\\"Let me do the math. .6% * (not large) = really tiny. Since \\\"\\\"not large\\\"\\\" = \\\"\\\"small\\\"\\\" , etc. I suggest that even a small chance that you need to explain this to anyone in the future is a sign to avoid the risk. Yes, there are times that it's illegal. A real estate office may not deposit escrow funds into anything but a segregated escrow account. In your case, even if legal, it messes up 'the books' and can cost you more in grief than the 'tiny amount' saves you in cash.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Its a classic sign of fraud. The fraud is on you. You cashed the check not given to you, and not endorsed by the person its given to, so even if the check is legit you're still in trouble. There are many variations of this scheme, but the common thing is that the \\\"\\\"innocent\\\"\\\" third party is given a check to cash, and gives its own check or cash in return. The check ends up being forged, stolen, or otherwise invalid, but the cash/check the third party gave is long gone. Usually its cash, because its untraceable. You should wait at least a couple of weeks to make sure the check doesn't bounce. You might want to contact the check owner to verify its legit, and suggest to return the money, if it is not. You might also want to consult with an attorney. Bear in mind, that it might be reported to the authorities as a money laundering scheme (which it very well might be), and you'll have some explaining to do in this case, even if the check is legit.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes, kinda. Talk to local banks about a business account, and tell them you want to enable certain employees to make deposits but not withdrawals. They don't need to know you're all the same person. For instance I have a PayPal account for business. These allow you to create \\\"\\\"sub accounts\\\"\\\" for your employees with a variety of access privileges. Of course I control the master account, but I also set up a \\\"\\\"sub account\\\"\\\" for myself. That is the account I use every day.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You can spend the money quite quickly. The problem is that if there is something wrong with the check, the bank will ask you for the money back. If the check is from a trusted source (a trusted friend, a business with good reputation etc.) that's fine. If the money is from an untrusted source, make sure that having to pay back the money doesn't get you into trouble. Since most people are honest, this is fine for a small amount, but if it's more than you can afford to pay back, don't spend it. A simple scam is that people send you checks, \\\"\\\"by mistake\\\"\\\" the check is for the wrong amount, say $910 instead of $190, and they ask you to send the difference back. So you put $910 into your account, send them $720, and six weeks later your bank asks for their $910 back. If someone pays you too much on a check and asks you to pay them the difference, you know it is a scam.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"IANAL, but. As you note, when you open a new account, they give you temporary checks that are usually blank in the upper left. I've used such checks and the bank has honored them. Therefore, I conclude that there must not be any legal requirement for anything to appear there, nor does the bank require it. Businesses are often reluctant to accept such temporary checks, for the obvious reason that anyone could go to the bank, open an account with $10, write checks for thousands of dollars, and disappear. At least if they've waited long enough to get the permanent checks in, there's some reason to believe that they plan to stick around. In any case, it's not clear what you are trying to accomplish. You want to hand-write either your business name or your personal name depending on whether the check is for personal or business purposes? I don't see what that gains. You could always use a personal check for business purposes. If you're afraid someone will say, \\\"\\\"Hey, that doesn't look very professional, what kind of fly-by-night company is this that uses personal checks?\\\"\\\", surely a hand-written company name would look even less professional. Why not just open a business account and have your personal checks printed with your personal name and your business checks with your business name? I don't know where you live, but I have a business account on which I pay zero fees. The only cost is getting checks printed. There's the small hassle of having to make one trip to the bank to open the account. Well, the biggest hassle I have is that the bank won't let me transfer money between my personal and business accounts over the Internet, so I have to either go to the bank to move money back and forth, or I have to write a check from one account to the other and deposit through an ATM.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \\\"\\\"Doing Business As\\\"\\\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\\\"\",\n \"While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.\",\n \"I'm going to give the checkmark to Joe, but I wanted to convey my personal experience. I bank with TD in New Jersey and was informed by the teller that I simply needed to endorse the check myself and indicate Parent of Minor. I cannot attest if other banks will accept this, but it at least works for TD and my situation in particular.\",\n \"Deposit it into your Brazilian bank account. They'll charge you collection fee (shouldn't be high, its a cashier's check equivalent), and the currency exchange rate may not be the best ever, but that's the price to pay for the service. Another option would be to cash the check at check cashing places, but that would most likely require you being in the US (I don't know if any check-cashing store in Brazil would cash a US check).\",\n \"I actually had to go to the bank today and so I decided to ask. The answer I was given is that a check is a legal document (a promise to pay). In order to get your money from the bank, you need to sign the check over to them. By endorsing the check you are attesting to the fact that you have transferred said document to them and they can draw on that account.\",\n \"It would be better to use a bank account and have the refund deposited directly to it. But you said you never had a bank account, so that may be a problem. Another option is to have the refund check mailed to you, and you deposit it in your local bank, converting to your home currency (or not, depending on local laws). Generally, for another person to cash a check made out to you - you need to endorse it first. Physically, on the back of the check. That means you have to see the check. Specifically with tax refund checks there's much more scrutiny since there's a lot of fraud going on with regards to tax refunds. Thus, I doubt a bank would allow a third party cash a check made out to you, without you actually being present there.\",\n \"\\\"No functional difference. Only impression/convenience. \\\"\\\"Business checks\\\"\\\" are checks in larger format (8\\\"\\\" instead of the regular 5\\\"\\\" checks), they can be from your personal account just as well. I didn't have any problem using the small \\\"\\\"individual\\\"\\\"-standard checks for my company (I actually did get them for free from Wells Fargo, but that was a gesture, not by policy).\\\"\",\n \"If you don't have a bank account then open one and use the check as your opening deposit. You'll need to obtain a Social Security card as well (you didn't indicate you have one or not, so I'll assume you don't), but they're free and quick to apply for. I assume you're from Washington state, so there should be no problem with you opening an account in Washington, no matter where the check is from. Because of the amount of the check, the bank will probably only let yo have a part of the amount for a few days until it clears, but federal banking rules require quick clearance of out-of-state checks (I think it's 48 hours now), so you'd have access to at least half of the money right away and the rest in a few days.\",\n \"\\\"See \\\"\\\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\\\"\\\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \\\"\\\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \\\"\\\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\\\"\\\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\\\"\\\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\\\"\",\n \"It seems that you're complicating things quite a bit. Why would you not create a business entity, open one or more bank accounts for it, and then have the money wired into those accounts? If you plan on being a company then set up the appropriate structure for it. In the U.S., you can form an S-corporation or an LLC and choose pass-through taxation so that all you pay is income tax on what you receive from the business as personal income. The business itself would not have tax liability in such a case. Co-mingling your personal banking with that of your business could create real tax headaches for you if you aren't careful, so it's not worth the trouble or risk.\",\n \"What you are describing is perfectly legal, and is well under the threshold to attract the attention of the IRS ($10K+). The money is not income, because it is repayment for goods provided or a loan made to your friends. I do this myself oftentimes to take advantage of the rewards on my credit cards. With cash to cover expenses coming in immediately from friends/family, there is virtually no risk. If you are concerned and want to protect against questions in the future about the source of the money, you ought to start keeping records of dates, times, locations, amounts, and the names of people involved when the charges are made. Then track the dates when the cash is deposited into your bank account. That way you can demonstrate the cash flow (Charge -> Repayment -> Deposit) to anyone who needs to know.\",\n \"I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.\",\n \"The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.\",\n \"\\\"I would contact the security/fraud departments at your bank and see if you can get in contact (via your bank) with the bank that the check is drawn on. By my reading of your question, it sounds like the person you are dealing with fraudulently endorsed a third party check, which you subsequently endorsed for deposit. Explain this situation to your bank. As far as the other person goes, tell her \\\"\\\"I'm in contact with the frauds department at my bank, as the validity of the check is in question, and I'm not giving you a cent until the matter is resolved.\\\"\\\" Depositing a bad check is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, so it's essential to bring this to the attention of the bank and authorities asap.\\\"\",\n \"The person writing the check has already signed and endorsed it. The depositer's signature is not to confirm the check's validity, but to demonstrate that the check was depisited to the correct Fred Smith's account, and permit charges to be brought if, eg, Fred Bonzo Smith tries to steal Fred Gnorph Smith's check.\",\n \"No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.\",\n \"If it's always the same person, you could open a joint account. Then fees are avoided altogether. How fast the funds are available depends on what you deposit. Cash is immediate.\",\n \"That's a sensible plan. No there's no reason for the IRS to see this arrangement as suspicious, particularly because the deposits will be from paychecks; you have a record of where all the money came from. Conversely, multiple cash deposits might be considered suspicious. It can only affect your credit if you have credit lines associated with the account (like an overdraft line of credit). Interest earned could increase your tax liability by a tiny amount, but in the current interest rate environment, that's not much of a worry.\",\n \"As long as someone is willing to take it, you can write it! I personally wrote a check for a new car. The dealership didn't bat an eye.\",\n \"You should be careful about mingling your personal money and that of the business, even if it is a sole prop right now. It is a good habit to keep separate business and personal bank/credit accounts just so that when you change to an LLC, it is simpler for you to separate what belongs to the company and what is yours personally. What you're doing makes it more difficult (although only marginally so) to itemize business deductions that were paid with an ostensibly personal credit account. The better habit to get into now is keeping that distinct separation between personal and business. That being said, there's nothing illegal in what you're doing, but it would make an accountant cringe, that's for sure. (chuckle) Hope this helps. Good luck!\",\n \"The fee you were charged to get the money order is gone. You agreed to that fee when you purchased the Money order. It is now a check that you can use how ever you wish. If you have already added a name to the pay to line it can be changed but different agencies have different rules for what they will accept. Take the money order to your bank explain the situation and tell them you want to put the money in your account, or cash it.\",\n \"\\\"There's nothing you can do. If he has indeed deposited the check, it would appear on your account fairly quickly - I've never seen it taking more than 2-3 business days. However, a check is a debt instrument, and you cannot close the account until it clears, or until the \\\"\\\"unclaimed property\\\"\\\" laws of your state kick in. If he claims that he deposited the check, ask it in writing and have your bank (or the bank where it was deposited) investigate why it takes so long to clear. If he's not willing to give it to you in writing - he's likely not deposited it. Whatever the reason may be, even just to cause you nuisance. Lesson learned. Next time - cashier's check with a signed receipt. Re closing the LLC: if you're the only two partners - you can just withdraw yourself from the LLC, take out your share, and drop it on him leaving him the only partner. Check with your local attorney for details.\\\"\",\n \"Once you've made a good-faith effort to straighten the situation out you've done all you can do. Cash the check.\",\n \"You can receive all the Money in your Bank. By Problem if you mean whether it will raise any alarms at the Bank. Most likely yes, such kind of activity would trigger AML. Bank would flag this off to regulators and questions would be asked. If you are doing a Legitimate business, its not an issue. Maintain a proper record of the transaction and pay your taxes. As funds are large 80 K a month, it makes sense to seek to advice of a Laywer and CA to help you keep thing in order.\",\n \"\\\"It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just \\\"\\\"endorsed\\\"\\\", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"No, you cannot do that. You can't just debit someone because \\\"\\\"he said so\\\"\\\". You'll need a document in writing, that would show the routing number, account number, the amount to withdraw and who is allowed to withdraw it. This document must be signed by the account owner and dated. Usually, these documents are called \\\"\\\"checks\\\"\\\". But legally speaking, in most countries you can write this on any piece of paper and it would be valid. But better use a standard check. Once you have a check - you can cash/deposit it in any bank, that part is true.\\\"\",\n \"They sure can. They are two different legal entities, so why not? You can even write a check to yourself, and then deposit it back into your own account. (Not very useful, but you can). The tax implications are a very different question, as this might constitute taking money out of the company. Edit: In some countries, when the business hires someone to work for them, it is forbidden by law to do that, unless he/she is explicitly allowed to do it in his contract. The business owner himself however, can always 'allow' himself to do that.\",\n \"The legal department at the Bank left me a message telling me that the bank check was paid & the recipient got the funds. Call up the bank and find out who the recipient was. Generally it can only be cashed by the person whose name is on it - the original business partner to whom it was intended. It is unlikely to be cashed by the attorney, unless he misrepresented the facts to the bank and got the funds. My question is how could he have cashed it without the original bank check? The other possibility is your mom lost this check, went to the bank and requested them to cancel this and reissue a fresh banker's check and give it to the business partner - in which case the check you had was worthless. You would need to work with the bank and ask them for details. However without the details of the original bank check that you found, it would be difficult for the bank to help you.\",\n \"I agree with Joe, having the money deposited to the US bank account may land you in trouble. Technically, a US business paying a foreigner must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty says otherwise. The US business should do that based on your W8-BEN/W8-ECI form that you should have given to the business before being paid. I'm guessing, that by paying to your US bank account, you (and your American counterpart) are trying to avoid this withholding. That may cause trouble for both of you. I would suggest you talking to a professional (EA/CPA licensed in the State where the business is located) and having the situation resolved ASAP. You may not be liable for the US taxes at all, but because of incorrectly reporting the income/expense - you and the US business may end up paying way more than the $0 you otherwise would have, in penalties.\",\n \"The simplest method is just to write a check from one account and deposit it in the other. If you are the owner of both accounts, you should be able to electronically deposit the check using their phone apps. Depending on the amount you are transfering, it may take a few days for the check to clear.\",\n \"\\\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \\\"\\\"as deposit only\\\"\\\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\\\"\",\n \"You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says. You will not without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements.\",\n \"\\\"It's possible to cash cheques by post. When I did this, it involved filling out a \\\"\\\"paying-in slip\\\"\\\" (I had a book of these provided by the bank) and posting the cheque together with the slip to an address provided by the bank. You could also bring the paying-in slip and the cheque to a branch and deposit them there, and it wasn't necessary that you were the account holder, just that the details on the slip matched the account you were paying into. I Googled \\\"\\\"paying-in slip\\\"\\\" and found the instructions for HSBC as an example: Paying-In Slips. It explicitly mentions that you don't need to be the account holder to do this, and moreover there are even blank slips in the branch, which you just need to fill in with the correct account details. I think the procedure is much the same for other banks, but presumably you could check the relevant bank's website for specific guidance.\\\"\",\n \"Why do they have to endorse every check every time they want to deposit it? They told you why. They said it was because it was made out to one person and there were others on the account that could withdraw money from the acct., so endorsing it acknowledged that the payee still wanted to deposit the money, knowing others could take the $ out The reason they insist on it may have something to do with their responsibility in case of elder abuse. They are worried that you may be using your parents' money without their knowledge, and if it ends up being true and they didn't enforce the requirement - they may also be liable. I have a joint account with my spouse, and they do not let us deposit checks written to both of us unless we both endorse. This is similar, and stems from the same concern. So here's the unusual situation In case of a death of a joint account holder - the whole account is frozen until the estate is executed. You cannot deposit a check of a deceased person to such an account.\",\n \"Not illegal. With respect to littleadv response, the printing of a check isn't illegal. I can order checks from cheap check printers, and they have no relationship to any bank, so long as they have my routing number and checking account number, they print. Years ago (25+) I wrote my account details on a shirt in protest to owing the IRS money, and my bank cashed it. They charged a penalty of some nominal amount, $20 or so for 'non-standard check format' or something like that. But, in fact, stupid young person rants aside, you may write a check out by hand on a piece of paper and it should clear. The missing factor is the magnetic ink. But, I often see a regular check with a strip taped to the bottom when the mag strip fails, proving that bad ink will not prevent a check from clearing. So long as the person trying to send you the funds isn't going to dispute the transaction (and the check is made out to you, so I suppose they couldn't even do that) this process should be simple. I see little to no risk so long as the image isn't intercepted along the way.\",\n \"This will probably require some explanation from you on the source of the money and the reasons for the transaction. Cash transactions over $10k will be reported by the bank (in this case) on a CTR report to FinCEN. Keep in mind, mere breaking the transaction into multiple smaller ones in order to avoid the CTR is on its own a criminal offense. Just deposit what you want to deposit, and report what's needed to be reported. Note that if you're a US tax resident - these foreign bank accounts must have been reported already to FinCEN via FBAR, if not - you should expect a very nasty audit with the IRS.\",\n \"Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.\",\n \"\\\"Open a personal account to link SQUARE with, open a savings account with same bank. Register as \\\"\\\"PERSONAL USE\\\"\\\", make as many transactions you want for whatever you want $5.00 to $1,000.00 or more, you get paid, square collects a fee. Money is in your \\\"\\\"personal account\\\"\\\" in 24 hrs, transfer it to your savings acct. 2 years now no issue. I've done the EIN, vendors license, registering business crap, if you work for yourself for private citizens it's none of anyone else's concern.\\\"\",\n \"Banks in the US have to report deposits of more than $10,000, so they'll contact you to complete form 8300 or something. It should not be a problem, though, if you specify that it's someone else's money, not your income.\",\n \"As long as your bank does not have any limits on the number of transactions per month you should be fine. The danger would be theft while you had the money before depositing into the new account. I would expect that your new credit union could do a wire transfer for you. It might cost you a few dollars but it would be safer and probably faster.\",\n \"\\\"Generally, ACH transfers are not considered direct deposits. However, you can pay for this service to various providers, and they will do the transfer so that it would be marked as a direct deposit. For example, Wells Fargo allows doing it using their \\\"\\\"DirectPay\\\"\\\" system. I happen to have a WF business account (free with conditions) where this service is available, but there are plenty of providers. It does cost money (for WF - $10 monthly fee + $0.50 for a transfer to non-WF account), but it may be worth it for you if the benefit is large enough.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There is no \\\"\\\"reason why this cannot be done\\\"\\\", but you can tell your friend that these actions are officially shady in the eyes of the US government. Any bank transactions with a value of $10,000 or more are automatically reported to the government as a way to prevent money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal shenanigans. \\\"\\\"Structuring\\\"\\\" bank deposits to avoid this monetary limit is a crime in and of itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report\\\"\",\n \"It all depends on the trust level you have in them handling it correctly. If they never deposit it, it doesn't matter what happens to the check, they could frame it and hang it on the wall. The risk is that someone someday deposits it (incorrectly double-charging you), and you need to do what think is appropriate to avoid this risk. If your trust in them is too small, only sending it back to you makes sure that you physically control the check.\",\n \"This varies by jurisdiction somewhat but speaking as a Canadian, a small business owner, and accountant (unregistered but some courses and accounting for multiple businesses) this is the answer if you were in Canada. In Canada the cheque cashing limit is 6 months. Therefor any bank will refuse to cash this cheque. It would be totally morally and legally acceptable to ask for a replacement cheque from your employer. In Canada they would generally have no problem issuing a replacement; in other jurisdictions with differing time limits they might want to cancel the original cheque first.\",\n \"\\\"If you forgot to put the name on the \\\"\\\"pay to the order of\\\"\\\" line then anybody who gets their hands on the check can add their name to the check and deposit it at their bank into their account. If it goes to the correct person they will have an easy time making sure that the check is made out correctly. They don't have to worry about that picky teller who doesn't know what to do with a check made out to Billy Smith and a drivers license for Xavier William Smith. On the other hand... a criminal will also be able to make sure it is processed exactly the way they want it. If I made it out to a small business or a person I would let them know. You might not have a choice but to wait and see what happens if it was sent to a large business, the payment processing center could be a long way from where you will be calling.\\\"\",\n \"You friend would only be able to deposit this in NRO account. You may have to explain the source of money. If you declare it as gift, then you would need to pay gift tax. What you are doing is converting USD to INR outside the normal banking network and this maybe in volition of FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act].\",\n \"\\\"If the cheque is crossed (as almost all are these days), it can only be paid into an account in the name of the person it was written out to: it cannot be paid into another's account, nor can it be \\\"\\\"cashed\\\"\\\"1 – see the rules on \\\"\\\"Crossed\\\"\\\" cheques. Note: that while the recipient of the cheque cannot (legally) alter this state of afairs, the writer of a cheque that was printed pre-crossed can – at least technically – cancel the crossing (see above link). Probably the best the OP can do is pay in the cheque on the friend's behalf (as described in Ben Millwood's answer) and then either lend the friend some money until they are mobile and can get some cash to repay the OP (or have the friend write one of their own cheques which the OP can pay into their bank account). 1 As mentioned in the last section of the rules on crossed cheques, the only exception is that designated \\\"\\\"Cheque cashing shops\\\"\\\" have special arrangements to deposit cheques which they have cashed (after deducting a fee). However, they would (should?) require proof of identity (of the original payee) and so are unlikely to be of any help (and probably not worth the cost for £35). Having said that, I've never used one, so have no idea how strict they are in practice.\\\"\",\n \"Of course not. You had another job for which you earned money. What does the corporation have to do with it? Corporation is a separate entity from your person, and since it was in no way involved in the transaction - there's no justification to funnel money through it. Doing so may pierce the corporate veil and expose you to liability which you created the corporation to shield yourself from. Not to mention the tax evasion, which is the reason you are asking the question to begin with....\",\n \"You probably can't deposit the check directly, but there are mechanisms in place to get your money through other means. In the US, all states and territories have an unclaimed property registry. Before you contact the company that wrote the check, you should check that registry in your state. You will have to provide proof that you are the intended recipient, having the original check in your possession should make that considerably easier.\",\n \"As I replied to someone else who said that: I'm often having to send stuff with the check. Paperwork, a bill etc. While that would work to a person who knows me, it's usually not going to work with a business or government who needs to know why I'm sending this check.\",\n \"You can move money in and out of the business at will, just keep track of every transaction. Ideally you'd use an accounting software like QuickBooks or similar. Create a Capital Contributions account and every time you put money into the business checking account record it as a Capital Contribution. Likewise, if you take money out of the business, it comes from your capital accounts. (You can create a separate Capital Distributions account in your accounting software, or just use a single account for contributions and distributions). Money coming in and out of those capital accounts is not taxable because you will pay taxes based on net earnings regardless of whether or not you have distributed any profits. So there's no need to make a loan to the company, which would have tax consequences. To reimburse yourself for purchases already made, submit an expense report to the company. If the company is unfunded right now, you can make a capital contribution to cover current expenses, submit the expense report, and wait until you have some profits before paying out the expense report or making any distributions. Welcome to entrepreneurship.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).","When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.","\"If you sign the check \"\"For Deposit Only\"\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \"\"payable name\"\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \"\"Pay to the Order Of\"\" line on checks. Say the church's \"\"legal name\"\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \"\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\". You'll get offering checks made out to \"\"Saint Barnabas\"\", \"\"Saint B's\"\", \"\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\", \"\"Red Bluff Episcopal\"\", \"\"Youth Group Fund\"\", \"\"Pastor Frank\"\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \"\"earmarked\"\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \"\"discretionary fund\"\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\"","\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\"","\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"","If you're a sole proprietor there's no reason to have a separate business account, as long as you keep adequate records, as you are one and the same for tax purposes. My husband and I already have 5 accounts and a mortgage with one bank. I don't see the need to open up yet another account. As a contracted accountant, I don't need to write business checks, and my expenses are minimal. As long as I have an present my assumed business name certificate and ID, there's no reason for a bank not to deposit into my personal account."],"string":"[\n \"You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).\",\n \"When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.\",\n \"\\\"If you sign the check \\\"\\\"For Deposit Only\\\"\\\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \\\"\\\"payable name\\\"\\\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \\\"\\\"Pay to the Order Of\\\"\\\" line on checks. Say the church's \\\"\\\"legal name\\\"\\\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \\\"\\\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\\\"\\\". You'll get offering checks made out to \\\"\\\"Saint Barnabas\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Saint B's\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Red Bluff Episcopal\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Youth Group Fund\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Pastor Frank\\\"\\\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \\\"\\\"earmarked\\\"\\\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \\\"\\\"discretionary fund\\\"\\\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \\\"\\\"Doing Business As\\\"\\\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \\\"\\\"dba\\\"\\\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\\\"\",\n \"If you're a sole proprietor there's no reason to have a separate business account, as long as you keep adequate records, as you are one and the same for tax purposes. My husband and I already have 5 accounts and a mortgage with one bank. I don't see the need to open up yet another account. As a contracted accountant, I don't need to write business checks, and my expenses are minimal. As long as I have an present my assumed business name certificate and ID, there's no reason for a bank not to deposit into my personal account.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":295,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"4179"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Why could the serious financial woes of some EU member states lead to the end of the Euro?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["278196"],"string":"[\n \"278196\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["278196","518406","179822","319729","443828","148194","240848","133580","546589","514620","133966","110746","446402","540553","143823","475804","310456","468297","559885","535947","467825","371672","65899","449934","514058","398455","394585","125011","309358","285420","28976","22704","598030","10399","14687","9649","353780","63171","417170","536866","589950","124624","367809","122683","218045","393499","80943","538582","94448","304007","57923","5179","393994","273077","293945","283526","136073","144987","400046","146878","314240","538328","583903","392806","147799","354159","266447","515714","145299","231521","312045","110628","334071","189811","245308","133511","540516","163557","472879","497220","594157","329062","112309","59110","348995","156297","586865","209131","369035","384694","392887","345823","273387","530998","129133","172443","451734","14035","115848","74054"],"string":"[\n \"278196\",\n \"518406\",\n \"179822\",\n \"319729\",\n \"443828\",\n \"148194\",\n \"240848\",\n \"133580\",\n \"546589\",\n \"514620\",\n \"133966\",\n \"110746\",\n \"446402\",\n \"540553\",\n \"143823\",\n \"475804\",\n \"310456\",\n \"468297\",\n \"559885\",\n \"535947\",\n \"467825\",\n \"371672\",\n \"65899\",\n \"449934\",\n \"514058\",\n \"398455\",\n \"394585\",\n \"125011\",\n \"309358\",\n \"285420\",\n \"28976\",\n \"22704\",\n \"598030\",\n \"10399\",\n \"14687\",\n \"9649\",\n \"353780\",\n \"63171\",\n \"417170\",\n \"536866\",\n \"589950\",\n \"124624\",\n \"367809\",\n \"122683\",\n \"218045\",\n \"393499\",\n \"80943\",\n \"538582\",\n \"94448\",\n \"304007\",\n \"57923\",\n \"5179\",\n \"393994\",\n \"273077\",\n \"293945\",\n \"283526\",\n \"136073\",\n \"144987\",\n \"400046\",\n \"146878\",\n \"314240\",\n \"538328\",\n \"583903\",\n \"392806\",\n \"147799\",\n \"354159\",\n \"266447\",\n \"515714\",\n \"145299\",\n \"231521\",\n \"312045\",\n \"110628\",\n \"334071\",\n \"189811\",\n \"245308\",\n \"133511\",\n \"540516\",\n \"163557\",\n \"472879\",\n \"497220\",\n \"594157\",\n \"329062\",\n \"112309\",\n \"59110\",\n \"348995\",\n \"156297\",\n \"586865\",\n \"209131\",\n \"369035\",\n \"384694\",\n \"392887\",\n \"345823\",\n \"273387\",\n \"530998\",\n \"129133\",\n \"172443\",\n \"451734\",\n \"14035\",\n \"115848\",\n \"74054\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["The Euro is a common currency between various countries in Europe. This means that individual countries give up their traditional sovereign control of their own currency, and cede that control to the EU. Such a system has many advantages, but it also means that individual countries cannot deal with their unique situations as easily. For instance, if the US were a part of the EU, then the Fed couldn't issue $600B the way they are to bolster the economy. The danger to the Euro is that countries will withdraw their participation in order to micromanage their economies more effectively. If a major country withdraws its participation, it could start a domino effect where many countries withdraw so that they too can manage their economies more effectively. As more countries withdraw, a shared currency becomes less and less appealing.","Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU. It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal.","To be more technical the Eurozone. UK is in the EU, but it's currency is fine. I hope you're not getting downvoted for the technicality. Greece can't print money, it makes default more likely and that's a result of the Euro. That's the core of the problem. Europe wanted a shared currency without a shared budgetary process, this was going to happen eventually.","These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation. Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine.","US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects.","\"The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much \"\"connected\"\". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite.\"","\"Why will they find financing when they leave the Euro? Why would their currencies not simply hyperinflate due to excessive issuance in an attempt to devalue? Which is worse for unemployment, austerity or hyperinflation? >they'd be expelled by Germany This is a union correct? Why do you assume Germany holds all the cards? I've read that Gonzalo Lira essay and have read Mish about everyday since 2009, yet still do not think it is so obvious that the Euro will collapse. I gained quite a bit of skepticism from Barry Eichengreen's paper on the [Breakup of the Euro Area.](http://www.nber.org/papers/c11654.pdf?new_window=1) What I see right now is that so far the ECB has only acted in such a way as to prevent outright deflation and meet its 2% inflation target, but not to continuously outright fund the profligate governments. They let the bond markets force those governments into contraction or into default whereas the fed, with its dual mandate, will always buy the US bonds and eventually will inflate the currency as opposed to having a sovereign default. So I think we will see the ECB continue to print as much is needed to meet its mandate but at the same time there will be defaults, bank nationalizations and failures, and a continued lack of growth in the Euro area until eventually the austerity measures bring revenue and spending in line at which point the countries under heavy debt would be stupid not to default because they can self finance. Whereas in the US we are so dependent on deficit financing that as foreigners move further away from holding treasuries we become more susceptible to bond vigilantes taking the reigns which will force the feds hand into outright monetization. Then I think we will see our own government exacerbate inflation by bidding on the same goods that those dollars which no longer are going into treasuries are bidding on. Then I think we'll finally see bad inflation in the US. Of course as long as there is hoards of money fleeing Europe for the US \"\"safe haven,\"\" the lack of foreign treasury investment is pretty moot. *spelling\"","Is it possible that the result could be a reduced-size Eurozone, with Germany, France, Austria, BeNeLux and Finland remaining in, while others go back to their former currencies or form a Southern European (and Irish) common currency?","Icelandish and Irish Economies began to fail in 2008, Ireland was bailed out by the IMF and Britain, Iceland by the Germany and the IMF. Greek economy has essentially failed, and is at risk of being kicked out of the Euro currency by the Eurozone members. Spanish and Italian economies are faltering. Worst case scenario, everybody can't pay back money and keep accumulating debt, which would lead to a complete collapse of the European economy, resulting in a global economic meltdown. Germany currently are in control of al lot of countries debts (especially Ireland) which means that they will become the main players in decisions regarding the proliferation/faltering of the european economy in the future.","Yea, but that coin would be worth shit ( They'll inflate their way out of debt) and there won't be anyone wanting to buy their bonds for a long time so they'll probably print more money. Also, everybody's savings will be gone. Going out of the Euro will put them in a worse financial climate than staying in and do austerity.","If one of the EURO countries goes bankrupt, then it will destablise the entire financial industry. IE there would be many financial institutions [Banks, Credit Union, Pension Funds, Insurance Funds, Corporates] that are holding EURO Investments in that country will loose their money and this will have a cascading impact ... similar and much bigger than US Sub-prime crisis of 2008. So if your money is in EURO and you are staying in EURO countires, the inflation will mean your money is of less value ... If you are holding USD and staying in EURO and country goes bankrupt then chances are that it will loose value with USD and hence you can convert them to EURO and spend more EUROs to buy the same items ...","It depends on what actions the European Central Bank (ECB) takes. If it prints Euros to bail out the country then your Euros will decline in value. Same thing with a US state going bankrupt. If the FED prints dollars to bailout a state it will set a precedent that other states can spend carelessly and the FED will be there to bail them out by printing money. If you own bonds issued by the bankrupting state then you could lose some of your money if the country is not bailed out.","\"Most of those countries had debt that was well beyond prudent levels (~70% of GDP) before the crisis, levels such that any crisis would put them over the safe limit and into trouble. The only exception was Spain whose debt levels were still marginally dangerous. Greece was off the charts, which is why they left off the graph for Greece. Second problem. On top of the high or marginal levels of government debt, the governments implicitly or explicitly guaranteed the banks, without limiting in any effective way their levels of leverage and risk (inb4 Basel II - a lot of paper that made no difference). Protip: if someone guarantees your debt, they should be able to oversee your level of risk, but the governments didn't. As a result these banks, and their CEOs in particular, have a bet that goes \"\"heads I win, tails I win (and you the taxpayer lose)\"\". If the loans are paid off the CEOs rake in millions. If the loans go bad the government bails them out and the CEOs and other top executives - you guessed it - rake in millions. Of course when faced with these incentives the banks will lend too much. This is not free market capitalism, it is crony capitalism. **Bailouts of private companies are not part of unfettered free market capitalism.** The third problem is that the same governments cannot print money like the US can because the Euro is not owned by the individual governments. The answer to excessive levels of government debt is for governments not to borrow too much and not to take on excessive unfunded liabilities such as pensions. This probably needs to be enforced by a constitutional amendment, so it can't be easily overruled. The answer to governments getting dragged into bailing out insolvent banks and then going under themselves, is to allow the banks to go under and to guarantee only small deposits. Let shareholders, bond holders and large (>$500k) lenders to the banks to lose their money. Second, hold bank executives and shareholders liable for the bank's debts. Eg executive salaries and other remuneration need to be clawed back up to a 5 year window. Shareholders should be liable (as they used to be) for debts up to an additional 100% of the par value of the shares. I can assure you this would concentrate minds wonderfully - as it did in the old days when Wall St investment banks were partnerships with each partner liable for all the debts of the firm. Another alternative would be for governments to enforce limits on financial risk, but unfortunately they do not have the courage to do this, nor the morality to resist \"\"campaign contributions\"\" / bribes to look the other way. If these steps were taken the issue of the Euro currency would not be a problem. However printing money (which requires having your own currency) is a solution if it comes to that although it comes at the expense of people who have saved and invested prudently. Printing money (keeping interest rates excessively low for years on end) subsidizes borrowers - the ones who created the problem - at the expense of savers. Clearly this creates terribly perverse incentives the next time around. Anyone who thinks this problem is a result of unfettered free market capitalism is not paying attention.\"","\"This question is different because you are asking for actual advice vs. a more academic, \"\"what if\"\" scenario. The answer that I'll give will be different, and similar to another recent question on a similar vein. Basically, if you're living in a European country that's effectively in default and in need of a bailout, the range of things that can happen is difficult to predict... the fate of countries like Ireland and Greece, whatever the scenario, will be economic and social upheaval. But, this isn't the end of the world either... it's happened before and will happen again. As an individual, you need to start investing defensively in a manner appropriate for your level of wealth. Things to think about: I'd suggest reading \"\"A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy\"\"\"","So the Euro was doomed from the start because there was no provisions of kicking out and/or halting countries from excessive borrowing? I think the Euro is stronger in the long run because no single country can put inflationary pressure on the Euro due to irresponsible borrowing by that single state (e.g. United States). In the end of the day, they have to work their way out of debt with real economic growth thusly making it an attractive currency for the long term.","If they default and try to stay in the Euro, they will be shut out of any chance of financing but they will be obliged to conduct business in a currency that they cannot afford. Their businesses will close, unemployment rise until they have no option to stay in the Euro. Instead of that, they will reissue the Peseta, Lira, Drachma, etc. and then devalue. That will allow their real estate, tourism and manufacturing to be very competitive. If they could stay in the Euro after default they would starve, but I don't think they could stay, even if they wanted to because they'd be expelled by Germany. Here is [Gonzalo Lira's suggestion as to how Spain should have already left the Euro](http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2012/04/will-there-be-corralito-in-spain.html)","You don't understand government financing at all. Gov'ts earn revenue, aka, taxes. They also spend money. The different between the money they spend and they money they earn is the deficit. If you run a deficit for a long period of time, you incur a very large national debt. Now, you can finance (aka, pay for) a deficit by borrowing money. This means you can sell bonds, and instead of pay off the debt each year, you just pay the interest. If your spending balloons out of control, your the likely hood of you paying your debt decreases. If you are very unlikely to payback your debt, people won't buy any more of your bonds, and you no longer have the income (from borrowing) to pay off your interest from other debt you owe, or what ever other obligations you own (think mortgage payments, or teachers salaries, etc). Here's were Europe and USA differ: European nations can't just print money. They can issue more debt, but they can't just create more euros. IF you can print money, you can pay off your debt with money you literally created out of thin air (at the expense of your people, this is called inflation). But this is a form of cheating, eventually people won't trust you, and won't buy your debt either. So where do the banks come in? if the government is SOUND and the banks are NOT, the government can backstop the banks. This is what the US and UK did. Greece, Spain, Ireland all had to back stop their banks also. However, Greece, Spain, and Irelany ( and Italy, and Portugal) also have 1) A lot of debt 2) Structurally high deficits 3) Extremely high borrowing costs (high interest rates...because people don't trust them...because...) 4) Weak underlying economies The fourth point gets you in real trouble. if you have high entitlements, lots of poeple out of work, who the hell is paying taxes and what are they going to? You have no revenue! Remember, a govt works just like a household. It is easy for a good household to support one member, but it is difficult for a member to support an irresponsible household.","Maybe the EU really ISN'T really that important, and the financial problems that have resulted from European integration are evidence that state sovereignty and self-determination are what's important... But hey, what do I know, I'm not a rich banker/bureaucrat who profited off the whole imposed mess at the expense of the ordinary working people.","No. Empirically no. The issue at hand has little to do with market confidence. This loss of confidence is the effect of the problem. It's cause is the result of a wholly inadequate fiscal transfer mechanism that is incapable of addressing demand shocks. While there are relevant political and ideological parameters worthy of analysis, they render themselves moot because of the structural constraints of monetary union. My two cents.","Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/","\"These have the potential to become \"\"end-of-the-world\"\" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid. Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default. Take Zimbabwe, for example. Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies. Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece.\"","The Euro will collapse because Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece will have to default on their debt. In order to keep up with current payments they have to take emergency loans at the same time that their economies are in recession and demands on social programs are increasing. There is simply no way that they can cut enough spending and raise enough revenue to balance their budgets. That is not opinion, it is arithmetic. If they cannot pay their loans they will either voluntarily leave the Euro, or they will be forced out. Next comes France who also has a large and growing budget deficit and a large public debt. It is unsustainable. That which is unsustainable will end. The last reason that the Euro will fail and that it will be soon is Germany. Up to now, all the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have come predominantly from Germany. In order to float the Eurobonds that some idiots think might save Europe, the German people have to authorize their government to participate and thereby take on another mountain of debt. The German people will not vote for that authorization. Is that enough reasons? Because there are more. Lots more. Read [Mike Shedlock](http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com)","Its highly unlikely to 'collapse', perhaps there will be managed defaults, yes, but there is no way they will let it collapse as a global depression would follow. If the euro collapses it will also bring down most of the global economy including the likes of China and the US (not to mention the Germans) and they are not going to let that happen. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cf8ce18-2042-11e1-9878-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1y0lc0hy1 P.s. I am surprised we have not seen more suggestions of buying guns, land and building a commune.","the problem now is A LOT of people dont have confidence in the euro, and they are taking their money out of it , and confidence is the only thing that backs the euro, or any fiat money. It's gonna get worst before it gets better unfortunately...","\"There's an ideological/psychological aspect of this too apart from the practical problems. Eurozone leaders keep saying the mantra: conversion to the euro is \"\"irreversible\"\". There are analogies of this in recent history, it reminds me of the soviet leaders and their belief that communism is where history ends. They genuinely thought that once a communist system is built up in a country, it would stay forever. They believed in the superiority of their system, among other things this lead to the isolation of the Soviet Union from the West and the start of the Cold War. Then, in 1956 they were proven wrong with the Hungarian revolution and while they tried to \"\"clean up\"\" the situation as fast as they could and forget about it, their downhill inevitably started. Back to the present, you can easily see the importance of keeping Greece in the EZ. If Greece exits, the illusion of the irreversibility of the Euro is gone, and it would start to fall apart.\"","**OFC there is more to it than meets the eye!** Its a nice breakdown though. In my opinion, there are just 2 ways out: One is to merge the whole European Union into one Nation, much like the **United** States of America. (*United States of Europe*, ehehehe) But i guesss Germany, France and UK are not very interested in feeding everyone else even more. **OR** Split. The thing is, the ones with the most power are not interested in one of these solutions. And now to come to your question, YES Recession is coming (isnt it alrdy here?) Greetings from Austria!","\"There will not be enough money to fill the holes that are caused by banks' easy money policies combined with the trillions in derivative \"\"hedges\"\" that the banks have off-balance sheet. The idea is that the chain reaction collapse of the European banking system can be avoided by plugging the holes in the dam in Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. But it is a crazy idea. Next comes France, and then what? At some point there is not enough money to plug the holes and the entire facade collapses anyways. Adults would dismantle the Eurozone now and let each country see to itself. Let the banks collapse. Capital (in the form of dollars, gold, etc) will reappear and means will evolve rapidly to connect capital with people who need loans for business. Consumer loans are going the way of the dodo bird.\"","**Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union: Monetary policy inflexibility** Since membership of the eurozone establishes a single monetary policy for the respective states, they can no longer use an isolated monetary policy, e. g. to increase their competitiveness at the cost of other eurozone members by printing money and devalue, or to print money to finance excessive government deficits or pay interest on unsustainable high government debt levels. As a consequence, if member states do not manage their economy in a way that they can show a fiscal discipline (as they were obliged by the Maastricht treaty), they will sooner or later risk a sovereign debt crisis in their country without the possibility to print money as an easy way out. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.23","\"The biggest risk you have when a country defaults on its currency is a major devaluation of the currency. Since the EURO is a fiat currency, like almost all developed nations, its \"\"promise\"\" comes from the expectation that its union and system will endure. The EURO is a basket of countries and as such could probably handle bailing out countries or possibly letting some default on their sovereign debt without killing the EURO itself. A similar reality happens in the United States with some level of regularity with state and municipal debt being considered riskier than Federal debt (it isn't uncommon for cities to default). The biggest reason the EURO will probably lose a LOT of value initially is if any nation defaults there isn't a track record as to how the EU member body will respond. Will some countries attempt to break out of the EU? If the member countries fracture then the EURO collapses rendering any and all EURO notes useless. It is that political stability that underlies the value of the EURO. If you are seriously concerned about the risk of a falling EURO and its long term stability then you'd do best buying a hedge currency or devising a basket of hedge currencies to diversify risk. Many will recommend you buy Gold or other precious metals, but I think the idea is silly at best. It is not only hard to buy precious metals at a \"\"fair\"\" value it is even harder to sell them at a fair value. Whatever currency you hold needs to be able to be used in transactions with ease. Doesn't do you any good having $20K in gold coins and no one willing to buy them (as the seller at the store will usually want currency and not gold coins). If you want to go the easy route you can follow the same line of reasoning Central Banks do. Buy USD and hold it. It is probably the world's safest currency to hold over a long period of time. Current US policy is inflationary so that won't help you gain value, but that depends on how the EU responds to a sovereign debt crisis; if one matures.\"","But Greece is in the EU - therefore the one-armed drug addict has the means to get money from his relatives. Because most of the relatives have an alcohol problem (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France) they turn to their hard-working but slightly naive neighbours (Austria,Germany,Netherlands) for money. They believe that they´ll have to pay for just one last dose of crack cocaine and then the Greeks will kick the habit.",">but is in no shape to do so due to their massive debt. Actually it's because they don't have their own printing press for the Euro. They need to drop out of the Euro, devalue their own currency and take control of their own monetary policy and economy.","> The European economy was not utterly doomed before the Euro, therefore the fall of the Euro does not doom their economy. I'm not sure how that's related at all. Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok again in the future after a jarring multi-national currency shift. There are tons of other factors in play. First of all, who's going to accept drachma again? What is it worth? What about pesata and lira? These currencies haven't been used in over a decade. Who is going to value them? Who is going to accept them? What happens when the Greeks default? When their pension checks start bouncing? This is what Germany is fearing. Who is going to buy their products when there is a major currency crisis going on?","In theory, anything can happen, and the world could end tomorrow. However, with a reasonably sane financial plan you should be able to ride this out. If the government cannot or won't immediately pay its debt in full, the most immediate consequence is that people are going to be unwilling to lend any more money in future, except at very high rates to reflect the high risk of future default. Presumably the government has got into this state by running a deficit (spending more than they collect in tax) and that is going to have to come to an abrupt end. That means: higher taxes, public service retrenchments and restrictions of service, perhaps cuts to social benefits, etc. Countries that get into this state typically also have banks that have lent too much money to risky customers. So you should also expect to see some banks get into trouble, which may mean customers who have money on deposit will have trouble getting it back. In many cases governments will guarantee deposits, but perhaps only up to a particular ceiling like $100k. It would be very possible to lose everything if you have speculative investments geared by substantial loans. If you have zero or moderate debt, your net wealth may decrease substantially (50%?) but there should be little prospect of it going to zero. It is possible governments will simply confiscate your property, but I think in a first-world EU country this is fairly unlikely to happen to bank accounts, houses, shares, etc. Typically, a default has led to a fall in the value of the country's currency. In the eurozone that is more complex because the same currency is used by countries that are doing fairly well, and because there is also turbulence in other major currency regions (JPY, USD and GBP). In some ways this makes the adjustment harder, because debts can't be inflated down. All of this obviously causes a lot of economic turbulence so you can expect house prices to fall, share prices to gyrate, unemployment to rise. If you can afford it and come stomach the risk, it may turn out to be a good time to buy assets for the long term. If you're reasonably young the largest impact on you won't be losing your current savings, but rather the impact on your future job prospects from this adjustment period. You never know, but I don't think the Weimar Republic wheelbarrows-of-banknotes situation is likely to recur; people are at least a bit smarter now and there is an inflation-targeting independent central bank. I think gold can have some room in a portfolio, but now is not the time to make a sudden drastic move into it. Most middle class people cannot afford to have enough gold to support them for the rest of their life, though they may have enough for a rainy day or to act as a balancing component. So what I would do to cope with this is: be well diversified, be sufficiently conservatively positioned that I would sleep at night, and beyond that just ride it out and try not to worry too much.","Where are they going to get money from? Their bonds are worthless because they have no viable way of ever paying back debt so why would anyone lend money to them. You, and Keynes think that you can fuel debt with more debt, but all this does is build a massive debt bubble that has to pop at some point. This is exactly what these nations did for years and now are beginning to realize that they can no longer issue debt.","\"But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? Ultimately, a US state could go into default. However, I doubt that such a scenario would be allowed to transpire. This seems to happen to California with some regularity. That is, risking default. What would happen is not quite well known: \"\"There is no provision for a state to go bankrupt,\"\" Kyser said. \"\"I don't think anyone really knows what will happen or even if the state will go into receivership if it does default. I can tell you this, officials are looking at all the (current) laws.\"\" (source) I believe that the answer to your question is that it could happen, but likely would not be allowed to occur. The nature of the EU and US are quite different. The individual states forming the US are not separate nations. For better or for worse, the US is a stronger federation than the EU. (Something that is lamented at times when the Feds mess with the purview of the locals.)\"","The Euro is currently at 1.24. It's been lower than that before. Why do you think there is still so much money behind it? I'm not trying to push back, but do you know something that the market doesn't in terms of a collapse? Also, if you are so positive, are you heavily shorting the euro? I by no means am convinced that the euro was a good idea. But I am convinced that they will do whatever they can to keep it alive.","The EU's situation is nothing like the United States. The core problem there is a monetary union without a fiscal union. All the member countries were bound to a currency they had no control over, despite the health and resources of their economies.","See the problem is it's very hard to see how they can leave or ask to leave. There's very little on this in the treaties. They can't be kicked out under any treaty to the best of my knowledge. The only way I can see them getting kicked out is that they are cut off from Target 2, forced to print money/introduce capital controls etc, that breaks the laws of loads of treaties and they then get kicked out of not just the Euro but also the EU. It's all so incredibly messy.","\"The risk is that greece defaults on it's debts and the rest of the eurozone chose to punish it by kicking it out of the Eurozone and cutting off it's banks from ECB funds. Since the greek government and banks are already in pretty dire straits this would leave greece with little choice but to forciblly convert deposits in those banks to a \"\"new drachma\"\". The exchange rate used for the forced conversions would almost certainly be unfavorable compared to market rates soon after the conversion. There would likely be capital controls to prevent people pulling their money out in the runup to the forced conversion. While I guess they could theoretically perform the forced conversion only on Euro deposits this seems politically unlikely to me.\"","of course the value will be non zero however it would be very small, as all the countries would not leave at once... if its a piig holding the bag it would fall precipitously, if its a AAA (non france) it would go to 1.5 Its very path dependent on whom leaves when","\"The Euro is not the reason for the debt crisis. It is only preventing those countries affected from using the easy way out. The fault is entirely that of those countries. They were given billions and billions in structural aid, to put the \"\"convergence criteria\"\" into reality. Instead they chose bubble economies. And no, this is not the same all around Europe. I don't see France or Germany having a giant property bubble.\"","It's a failed state. The belief that people are going to hunker down in austerity and pay off national debt was always silly. Sucks for the bond holders, but all these people who bet against sovereign debt defaults have bet wrong.","Assuming that's true, and giving you that EU countries are more interdependent than most, you're still massively overstating the effect of Greece's problems on the rest of the union. Yeah, it's a problem. Yeah, they'll all pay a bit for it. Still, the economy is nowhere near collapse because of it.","It seems possible if the Euro is partially/entirely unwound that policies could be enacted to prohibit exactly this behavior, otherwise what will stop outflow to the stronger countries on a massive scale? (Thus amplifying the resulting decade-long clusterfuck) We've never had this situation in Europe before, and already for Greece and Spain there are suggestions to instigate withdrawal controls. It doesn't seem far fetched to imagine retroactive controls placed on private deposits in newly-foreign-currency banks. If I were concerned about the Euro's collapse I'd be more inclined to move assets out of the eurozone entirely","\"What EU wanted to force Cyprus to do is to break the insurance contract the government has with the bank depositors. The parliament rightfully refused, and it didn't pass. In the EU, and Cyprus as part of it, all bank deposits are insured up to 100,000EUR by the government. This is similar to the US FDIC insurance. Thus, requiring the \"\"small\"\" (up to 100K) depositors to participate in the bank reorganization means that the government breaks its word to people, and effectively defaults. That is exactly what the Cyprus government wanted to avoid, the default, so I can't understand why the idea even came up. Depositors of more than 100k are not guaranteed against bank failures, and indeed - in Cyprus these depositors will get \"\"haircuts\"\". But before them, first come shareholders and bondholders who would be completely wiped out. Thus, first and foremost, those who failed (the bank owners) will be the first to pay the price. However, governments can default. This happened in many places, for example in Russia in the 90's, in Argentina in 2000's (and in fact numerous times during the last century), the US in the 1930's, and many other examples - you can see a list in Wikipedia. When government defaults on its debts, it will not pay some or all of them, and its currency may also be devaluated. For example, in Russia in 1998 the currency lost 70% of its value against the USD within months, and much of the cash at hands of the public became worthless overnight. In the US in 1933 the President issued an executive order forbidding private citizens keeping gold and silver bullions and coins, which resulted in dollar devaluation by about 30% and investors in precious metals losing large amounts of money. The executive order requiring surrender of the Treasury gold certificates is in fact the government's failure to pay on these obligations. While the US or Russia control their own currency, European countries don't and cannot devaluate the currency as they wish in order to ease their debts. Thus in Euro-zone the devaluation solutions taken by Russia and the US are not possible. Cyprus cannot devaluate its currency, and even if it could - its external debt would not likely to be denominated in it (actually, Russian debt isn't denominated in Rubles, that's why they forced restructuring of their own debt, but devaluating the currency helped raising the money from the citizens similarly to the US seizing the gold in 1930's). Thus, in case of Cyprus or other Euro-zone countries, direct taxes is the only way to raise money from the citizens. So if you're in a country that controls its own currency (such as the US, Russia, Argentina, etc) and especially if the debt is denominated in that currency (mainly the US) - you should be worried more of inflation than taxes. But if you're in the Euro-zone and your country is in troubles (which is almost any country in the zone) - you can expect taxes. How to avoid that? Deal with your elected officials and have them fix your economy, but know that you can't just \"\"erase\"\" the debt through inflation as the Americans can (and will), someone will have to pay.\"","Oh, you mean converting your money to that of a country whose public debt is [103% of GDP, instead of the 108% of your own?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt) That seems hardly an advancement, even more so considering that the public debt of the Eurozone as a whole is 82.5% of GDP. Greece is just 2% of the European economy, its default would not mean the collapse of the Euro.","\"> Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok I'm not claiming it will be \"\"definitely be ok\"\". definitely ok != utterly doomed. > What happens when the Greeks default? If they were paying in drachma, they wouldn't default. They'd print more drachma and inflation would occur. That's how currency imbalances adjust. Germany wants it both ways. They want a stable Europe-wide currency but they don't want a Europe-wide economy, they want their economy isolated from the problems in the rest of Europe. Germany should leave the Euro.\"","Andrew Lilico has a likely scenario for when Greece defaults on its sovereign debt: What happens when Greece defaults. Here are a few things: Every bank in Greece will instantly go insolvent. The Greek government will nationalise every bank in Greece. The Greek government will forbid withdrawals from Greek banks. To prevent Greek depositors from rioting on the streets, Argentina-2002-style (when the Argentinian president had to flee by helicopter from the roof of the presidential palace to evade a mob of such depositors), the Greek government will declare a curfew, perhaps even general martial law. Greece will redenominate all its debts into “New Drachmas” or whatever it calls the new currency (this is a classic ploy of countries defaulting) The New Drachma will devalue by some 30-70 per cent (probably around 50 per cent, though perhaps more), effectively defaulting 0n 50 per cent or more of all Greek euro-denominated debts. As Megan McArdle says, there's more at the link, all depressing. I think you're focusing too much on Greece leaving the euro and not enough on why Greece would leave the euro. Greece would leave the euro precisely so that it could pay back its debt in a new currency worth less than valuable euros. The new currency will devalue, since that's the point of leaving. Along the way the government forces its citizens to take the new currency. The money they have in Greek banks will be converted to the new currency: The citizens don't have a choice to keep their euros.","Banks cannot survive without the government. Once people lose faith in the governement, the banking system will fail. The banking system failing is a symptom of the issue, not a cause. Backstopping the banks protects the general populace, and prevents runs which will actually destroy the banking system. The burden shifts from the banks to the government. But a gaurantee is not an actual payment. The banks still operate as normal without any cash from the government, but with the knowledge that, if they ARE over extended, the government will take on their debt. the government gaurantee lowers the rates that the banks pay to raise debt to continue to operate. So let's say PIIGS fully bail out their banking system, paying off all debt, that's worse case. Where does the money come from? Revenues, aka taxes. If the gov't takes on the bank debt and has positve revenue, no problem, a little less hand outs, but the country as a whole benefits from having a functioning banking system. If revenues are poor or negative, however, it's just adding to the deficit. Gov't can print money, don't forget. But if revenues are poor and there's no hope to see them improve...Boom, all hell breaks loose, and you get Europe.","\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"","It's not that simple. The problem is that Greece is not in control if it's own finances. Neither are any of the other countries. The Eurozone doesn't have the power to do things like raise taxes or sell government bonds, and the individual governments don't have the power to float the currency. The Eurozone is going to unwind over the a decade. Greece will leave, but there are another 4-5 countries that should leave the Euro for the same reasons as Greece. Spain seems likely to be the next up, with Italy not far behind. The Euro was never designed to break apart. We really have no idea what the shockwaves of a country leaving the currency will look like.","I've been short the Euro for several months now against the USD (could be various others as well). I got in at 1.42, sold on a bounce up to 1.36, bought back at 1.38 and now will probably ride it out lower. Regardless of whether or not the Eurozone breaks up, I see it breaking through the 1.30 mark in the near-term. After that, I'm not sure how low it goes, but there is certainly potential for it to head towards 1/1. In order to reduce the burden, the ECB needs to devalue the currency. Although Germany really doesn't want this due to their anti-inflationary ideology, if Italy comes crashing down, so does France. When France goes, Germany goes into a deep recession if not a depression. They have to devalue some. As for a collapse, I have no idea. It probably depends on how many (if any) countries retain the currency and who they are.","It's slightly more complicated than that. Usually a country that was in Greece's situation would be able to use inflation to devalue their currency which would have the effect of lowering the value of the government's debts and also of making Greek prices more competitive in the international market. Or they could use quantitative easing to inject cheap cash into the economy to help stimulate it. Because Greece is on the Euro, however, they have no control over their own currency and their options are highly limited. Additionally, when you join the EU, especially the Eurozone, that's supposed to come with additional internal responsibilities, but it's also supposed to come with additional external ones as well. Greece has a responsibility to get its shit together, but the whole point is that more financially stable countries have a responsibility to help them. Right now that means Germany; they're the ones with the greatest control over the Euro and they're shying away from their duties. If the rest of Europe didn't want to risk ending up in this position they shouldn't have let Greece into the Eurozone.","I haven't been following this crisis at all, so I know nothing about this, but I understand why the value of the Euro would shoot up as a result of Greece/Italy/Portugal leaving. But why would the Germans not want this? Is it because Germany is a leading exporter and it would increase the costs of exports from the country? Or could you expand on that for me? thanks",">The European economy was not utterly doomed before the Euro, therefore the fall of the Euro does not doom their economy. UTTERLY DOOMED and DOOMED are two entirely different things. The former is a quasi-permanent state of affairs (decades upon decades) the latter a temporary one (albeit possibly several years).","\">So far, politicians in Europe have held 19 high-level emergency meetings in an attempt to solve this crisis. >All of their efforts have failed. >Right now, this is the situation in Europe.... >-Most EU governments are drowning in toxic levels of debt This mess has been caused by the idea of allowing some people to live at the expense of others. All of it - from the millions of cushy, make-work government \"\"jobs\"\", to the rest of the welfare state, has been caused by the political left.\"","If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this website). Europe holds the record for most failed currencies. It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993. I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed. It depends on how it fails. If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros. Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place. Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation.","\"to answer the question in the title of your post... + convince your fellow Euro nations to accept austerity, + convince them to elect responsible governments, + demand transparency from your leaders, and... + make sure this never ever happens again. Alternatively, build a time machine and go back in time to either... + immigrate to another part of the world, + sabotage the corruption of the PIGS nations, + prevent the formation of a shared currency, or finally, + do something to ensure Germany didn't lose WWII, as letting them be in charge of everybody's money would appear to be a sound financial decision. That is how you negate the impact of the Euro collapsing. Now, on to the details of your question... I believe your initial assessment is correct. If one accountable nation were responsible for the solvency of its currency, it could be trusted indefinitely. As is the case with the Euro, as no one country is directly responsible for it, the less responsible governments are in a race to exploit it as much as possible. Remember, \"\"Spain no es Zimbabwe!\"\" I think Euro zone nations will be lucky if all that comes of this is the fall of the Euro. Wars between nations have been fought over less significant developments than what Greece, Italy and Spain have done to the financial stability of their Euro zone counterparts. Foreign gold trusts, possession of physical precious metals and precious metal ETFs (GLD is one stock ticker of such a fund, although I would look to a similar fund issued by a company with better physical gold audits) can hedge your currency risk. Check with local laws regarding physical possession of gold. In the USA when we left the gold standard for our currency, the government confiscated all privately owned precious metals and raided customer bank security boxes. Assess your own risk of that sort of thing happening.\"","You forgot the biggest thing: Japan still controls its own currency and Greece does not. If you don't control your currency, you have much more limited options when it comes to borrowing money. It is why US states can't borrow a lot of money, they all have to share the US dollar which no one state controls. So states are used to making cutbacks in hard times, but the Eurozone nations have not adopted this mindset. Greece isn't in trouble because it borrowed too much, it's in trouble because it borrowed so much *and has to share the Euro*. Greece can't inflate its currency, so if they can't make a payment they default, no one wants to lend to a place that might default. If Greece had its own currency still there would be no currency crisis in Europe, just some inflation.","[Monetary Policy Inflexibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union#Monetary_policy_inflexibility) >Since membership of the eurozone establishes a single monetary policy for the respective states... without the possibility to print money as an easy way out. Italy's options are privatization, austerity, and shifting the burden on to the taxpayer.","Rescuing the private banks has made very little difference. None of the countries in real trouble have large banking sectors. The majority of the problems has stemmed from the totally ridiculous public spending. Greece has a hilarious history of over spending. For example, their civil servants used to be paid for 14 months of the year. They also have comedy tax collection. According to there tax office there is only 324 swimming pools in the entire place..... a quick count on satellite reveals 1000s. Some data is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/world/europe/02evasion.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 In reality many nations werent ready for the euro in the first place. But to be clear, blaming the banks is like blaming a snowball for the sinking of the titanic. The numbers aren't even in the same league.","Weren't these fuckers just given 120 billion euros? At this point they should probably stop fueling this shit and just let them burn. European tax payers aren't the only ones dealing with this. The American Federal Reserve is lending money to the banks and the ECB to help with this. I don't want to pay for ailing banks in my own goddamn country, let alone those on the other side of the world in a country I may never visit.","\"On contrary of what Mike Scott suggested, I think in case of EURO DOOM it's a lot safer if your savings were changed into another currency in advance. Beware that bringing your money into an EURO CORE country (like Finland, Austria, Germany, Nethereland) it's useful if you think those banks are safer, but totally useless to avoid the conversion of your saving from Euro into your national currency. In case of EURO CRASH, only the Central Bank will decide what happens to ALL the Euro deposited wherever, single banks, even if they are Deutsche Bank or BNP or ING, can not decide what to do on their own. ECB (European Central Bank) might decide to convert EURO into local currencies based on the account's owner nationality. Therefor if you are Greek and you moved your saving in a German bank, the ECB might decide that your Euro are converted into New Dracma even if they sit in a German bank account. The funniest thing is that if you ask to a Finland bank: \"\"In case of Euro crash, would you convert my Euro into New Dracma?\"\", they sure would answer \"\"No, we can't!\"\", which is true, they can not because it's only the ECB (Europe Central Bank) the one that decides how an ordered Euro crash has to be manged, and the ECB might decide as I explained you above. Other Central Banks (Swiss, FED, etc.) would only follow the decisions of the ECB. Moreover in case of EURO DOOM, it's highly probable that the Euro currency looses a tremendous value compared to other currencies, the loss would be huge in case the Euro Crash happens in a disordered way (i.e. a strong country like Germany and their banks decides to get out and they start printing their own money w/o listening to the ECB anymore). So even if your saving are in Euro in Germany they would loose so much value (compared to other currencies) that you will regreat forever not to have converted them into another currency when you had the time to do it. Couple of advises: 1) If you want to change you savings into another currency you don't need to bring them into another bank/country (like US), you could simply buy US Shares/Bonds at your local bank. Shares/Bonds of a US company/US gov will always be worth their value in dollars no matter in what new pathetic currency your account will be converted. 2) But is there a drawback in converting my saving into another currency (i.e. buying dollars in the form of US treasury bonds)? Unfortunately yes, the drawback is that in case this Euro drama comes finally to an happy ending and Germans decide to open their wallets for the nth time to save the currency, the Euro might suddenly increase its value compared to other currencies, therefor if you changed your saving into another currency you might loose money (i.e. US dollars looses value against the Euro).\"","One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).","I'm worried that it's, as so many observers or commentators seem to be doing with these crises, pre-empting events. I do wish news reporters would stick to reporting the news, rather than panicking people by putting forward their view that something is going to happen, such as Greece exiting the euro and adopting a new currency. As with these things, expectations are key, and this is by no means helping.","If any Euro countries leave the Euro, they will have to impose capital flow restrictions - it's a given, to avoid a complete implosion of the entire system. The idea of retroactive controls is very interesting - this may be one of the first times in a currency collapse that such a system would be feasible (i.e., both the country being fled from and the countries being fled to are under common control). No doubt they would try such a thing if they thought they could get away with it.","I disagree. The question is leading, it presumes that backstopping the banks was a cause, not an effect, of poor government funding, which is absolutely insane. A country cannot be brought down by the financial sector, it's just not possible, not even where the country doesn't have monetary authority.","I vehemently disagree with this. Greek crisis is completely different form Spanish, Irish or Portuguese crisis. Greece has a balance of payments + fiscal crisis, due to a government which has not been balancing its budgets for decades (ever?). Greece cannot spend its way out of this crisis because this isn't a demand led crisis.","I was thinking down the road about what may happen as some countries pile on debt and others are more responsible. I've spent a lot of time oversea and talented people in the capital cities are really mobile these days. Right now there's a small brain drain to the benefit of Switzerland which has some really innovative people moving there. What if a large country like Germany were to do on a larger scale? Educated workforce, innovative and if you overlook a really ugly period, a great history of innovation. It seems they could bring in a lot of people from Japan and (increasingly) the US as they head slowly toward debt of 200% of GDP. Why would talented people who are highly mobile want to stay in a country where the debt will take 30 years to repay mostly on the back of the talented high earning people?","My 0,02€ - I probably live in the same country as you. Stop worrying. The Euro zone has a 100.000€ guaranty deposit. So if any bank should fail, that's the amount you'll receive back. This applies to all bank accounts and deposits. Not to any investments. You should not have more than 100.000€ in any bank. So, lucky you, if you have more than that money, divide between a number of banks. As for the Euro, there might be an inflation, but at this moment the USA and China are in a currency battle that 'benefits' the Euro. Meaning you should not invest in dollars or yuan at this time. Look for undervalued currency to invest in as they should rise against the Euro.","\">more foreign capital would flow in More capital flowing in to a country that defaults on its payments? Hah, that's a good one! Brazil defaulted in the 1980s, the result was a lost decade of high unemployment and hyperinflation reaching upwards of 80% **per month**. Same with Argentina, only their hyperinflation was above 200% per month. There's nothing positive coming from breaking up with the world's monetary system, any positive results that you get could be obtained with much less suffering by doing whatever austerity measures you need in order to honor your debts. I'm Brazilian and had to go through that situation just as I was starting to work. Ironically, the labour party is now in power here and Brazil is now a net creditor internationally. AFTER the \"\"evil capitalists\"\" took power and privatized the state corporations the situation started to improve, and the labour party finally managed to be elected and now are reaping the fruits of all that they fought so hard against. I remember their slogans in the 1989 election campaign: \"\"the external debt is immoral and unpayable\"\", \"\"no to privatization\"\".\"","> Europe is a temporary problem. Lol.. The better question for this thread is how is the European economy not utterly doomed? I see no way at all of the Euro surviving. Greece has already technically defaulted by saying it's not going to pay back all of it's debt. They will officially default when Germany stops bailing them out. Spain is in the exact same situation, just about a year behind. They haven't technically defaulted yet, but they will. They're receiving bailout after bailout and the Greece situation only makes their interest rates worse. Italy is just barely behind Spain, the Greek default followed by the Spanish defualt will send Italian interest rates through the roof dooming them to the same fate. This will eventually effect the US, but our borrowing rates are held artificially low due to the Fed just printing up more fake money and letting the US borrow as much as it wants. If you don't see this scheme crumbling and collapsing, I'm just curious what you actually think *will* happen?","The best scenario I've heard is by Tyler Cowen: Basically, the Greek Government runs out of Euros. So they print up IOUs to issue to their workers, pensioners, etc promising payment of Euros at some future date. The first day, some wag holds up the IOUs says 'hey, look at these drachmas'. By the seventh day, the IOUs are trading at a discount - there's an exchange rate between the IOUS and Euros, and you in essence have a Drachma currency. What that does in terms of converting external debts, bank accounts, and etc from Drachmas into Euros I'm not sure about. Obviously this isn't the best way to go about getting out of the Euro, but it's the best 'muddle through' option and given how Europe in general has been dealing with this problem it's highly probable this is the method they'll take.",">The EU focus on fiscal deficit is completely mistaken. They are the result of the crisis, not the cause. The fiscal deficit was *increased* by the crisis, but there would not have been a crisis at all if nobody had been running up debts either. It's possible to shift private deficits to public (as happens if people borrow more money than they are taking in, default on loans, cause a bank to run out of money, and the government decides to transfer the bank's losses to its taxpaying public). However, it's still ultimately driven by running a deficit until an unsustainable amount of debt is public, via one mechanism or other.","Loans and bailouts to Spain is sending a distinct message to the sixteen other nations of the eurozone and one that could severely impact all of them. The survival of the euro is very much close to an exit. Register Today for all the exciting news and discussion groups we have to offer! @ http://www.igoldpost.com/register-today/","The reason they have this massive debt is largely (not entirely) because they have been employing Keynes' policies and spending more than they had for so many years as it is. Austerity is not the solution. However, reckless spending is not the solution either. A lot of people arguing for keynesian policies (not a bad idea in most recessions) don't grasp that investors have a limited amount of money to invest and aren't going to place it in a country that has as bad of a debt problem as you pointed out. So many people keep arguing these struggling countries need to spend more. While that would help expand their economies, it is not feasible. Where do you guys going to think the money is going to come from? If investors don't want to provide then they have to print more money, which creates the risk of hyperinflation. Spending could help a little maybe if it was a realistic thing to do. Right now any Keynesian solutions are a fairy tale. Countries like Greece need to do what they can with the resources available to them instead of spending like a bunch of millionaire playboys on crystal meth. Look at the U.S. We have spent trillions and our GDP is still growing at only slightly more than half the rate it has from 1947-2012. If people expect massive government spending to be a fix to these problems, then we are a clear case that it isn't. I acknowledge we could be a lot worse and possibly still be seeing a contraction without the spending, but it clearly isn't fixing our problems and sooner or later we won't be able to take on more debt to fix it. We need real solutions to generate real growth instead of dicking around like this. Other western countries need to do the same. edit:Also what we are doing right now would not be considered keynesian solutions. Keynes would advocate spending money to fix the problems, not just dumping money into the economy. That is something I would agree with. But since our politicians can't grasp that I don't want them in control of the purse strings anymore.","For now we can pay off our debt in United States dollars. If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. If we continued printing money we would be debasing our currency against the new reserve currency, which would mean that after we took on too much debt we wouldn't really be able to pay our creditors back after exchanging our devalued currency for the new one on the international markets. We are lucky enough not to have to worry about this now. But I think OP was referring to all countries in these situations. Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. That is why I am saying that America has a very disillusioned view of reality when it comes to deficit spending. We wouldn't have that any more if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard (I don't think the second option is nearly as realistic but we never know).","\"Yet another \"\"If X, then EUROFAIL!!\"\" It's really fucking tedious even without the screamingly, mind-numbingly wrong \"\"logic\"\" of this one. If you're lending money to Germany at 0% and still expect to make a profit, it's because the Euro *will be HIGHER* than your currency at the end of the loan period. This one doesn't look like stupidity so much as a really ham-fisted manipulation attempt to engineer a short-term euro drop for a nicer buy-in.\"","Most national banks are required by the regulations of their host countries to hold significant reserves in the form of government debt. A default would likely wipe out their capital and your common stock would become worthless. The common stock only has positive value today because of the option value based on the possibility the host country will evade a default.","\"The short answer is that you will not be able to go back to whichever discussion you were having and say \"\"the Euro crisis was caused by bailing out private banks,\"\" if that is indeed what you were ultimately searching for here.\"","There's no need to move it to a different currency, but if your bank is in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain or Greece, you might consider moving it to a different Eurozone country. Finland, Austria, Germany or the Netherlands seem safest at present. There's a small risk of a forcible Eurozone exit followed by redenomination of bank deposits into a new currency that will immediately collapse.","Are you trying to get someone to do your homework for you? This question has been answered repeatedly in the negative by everyone who actually studies the economy. Read Mundell-Flemming model, and learn this stuff. You can see why currency regimes like the Euro make sense from a theoretical stand point, but where flexible exchange rates are a welcome release valve for pressures. You obviously have never studied economics. Hyper inflation doesn't happen becuase of floating exhange rates. Hyperinflation happens when people lose faith in the governing body, regardless of who that is. You think political regimes won't change just because there is one currency? No, they will still spent 1.05 for every dollar they bring in taxes. Hyperinflation is not a problem of floating exchange rates, it doesn't follow from any causal relationship.","As others said, Greece cannot set.monetary policy because that is the job of the ECB. If you meant fiscal policy, then you are right: their high levels of debt plus their default this year make it so that they cannot unilaterally borrow more money to run a deficit as the private market will not lend to them. This makes them dependent on a bailout.","Those government workers in Greece were just mooching off a corrupt system that was enabled by the blind pursuit of yield and the moral hazard of bailout expectations. They were way overpaid to do nothing but collect bribes and drink coffee all day. Good riddance. Greece is a poor agricultural country with some tourism and some shipping, and needs to go back to living within its means. Nobody is going to starve, and high unemployment was always the norm there until a few years ago - I lived there before the Euro, and they managed just fine despite high interest rates and inflation. Japan has had lost decades because its banks, like those in the west now, are practicing extend and pretend, so there hasn't been a proper flush of the system. The PIIGS should just flat out default and get it over with, rather than slowly default while giving up sovereignty. Even Germany would be better off if the PIIGS defaulted, since it is German taxpayers and savers who are going to pay for these bailouts. Let the banks fail, meaning let their equityholders and bondholders take losses - the depositors will be fine. The resulting lower asset prices will tempt risk capital back into the system, and life will go on. Bailouts just throw good money after bad and prop up corrupt banks and politicians. EDIT: Let me clarify about depositors making out fine. The banks' equityholders and bondholders take losses before depositors, who are insured anyway. In most cases, in Europe as in the US, the write-downs are not large enough to eat through this cushion before threatening depositors. Creditors were rewarded with higher interest for lending to these irresponsible banks, so they should take the hit rather than get made whole at taxpayer and saver (inflation) expense.","do you really want another overblown economic crisis that lets billions starve? Throwing money at the problem to temper it is the only solution. What needs to happen while that is being done is aggressive reform and belt tightening - and that's not happening fast enough which may then lead us into a larger full blown crisis. i.e. you may just get your wish.","\"Do you have the felling this is going to get much much worse before it gets better? I mean, Greece is going through with austerity measures and will be cutting gov't spending and raising taxes again. They will be cutting over 150,000 gov't workers, pensions cut, etc. How are they ever going to grow? If Spain and Italy follow in this practice, I see another \"\"loss decade\"\" just like Japan went through. If not a total EU collapse.\"","\"I was being sarcastic. What I was trying to say was that this is a horseshit \"\"kick the can down the road\"\" maneuver that will only make things worse in the long run. Spain is fucked, Italy is next. Greece is leaving the Euro, and soon there will be capital controls all across Europe. It'll be hell.\"","The answer is far more simple. The purchasers of periphery debt have been banks in the periphery. Since these countries don't have a central bank, their private banks were swallowing the national debt since nobody else wanted to touch it. When the market value of that debt plummets, the banks have massive holes they need to fill on their balance sheets to fulfill capital requirements and solvency. Therefore, the banks themselves need to be injected with liquidity. Now you can see why its a reiterative problem.","The free market will determine exchange rates. But only sort of. If anyone leaves the euro expect and immediate mother-of-all-bank-runs. Then the new currency will begin to trade both officially and unofficially and eventually a market clearing price will be set. Whether that lands on an officially pegged rate or at a discount to that rate is a total crapshoot and not even worth trying to predict.","\"No one's worrying about \"\"GFC II.\"\" A Greek default/exit would hurt banks, but not that much more than is already priced into the market. The capital most big banks have raised would be sufficient to deal with Greece contingency. The real damage would be to GDP figures.\"","I suppose they still could risk hyperinflation? Anyways, if they got their own currency that would probably be positive for their exports. Still, what are they going to export? Buying any raw materials would be super expensive with their devalued currency. What is your thought about their exporting with devalued currency?","\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \"\"printing their way out of it\"\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\"","\">If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. No, a debt that comes into being as dollar-denominated remains dollar-denominated. Reserve currency status doesn't change this. The advantage of having the reserve currency is that other countries have a strong motive to accumulate dollars. Because of this we can pay for our imports in dollars. If we no longer had the reserve currency we would lose the ability to run a persistent trade deficit without borrowing foreign currency to do so. To some extent this would self-correct. If foreigners no longer desired to hoard dollars, the flow of dollars back in to the US would bring down the trade deficit. Going forward, we'd have to \"\"live within our means\"\" with respect to foreign trade, funding imports with exports. Domestically every country that has its own currency, not just the US, can use that currency to fully fund its own domestic productive capacity. Printing money doesn't make a poor country rich but it does allow any country to fully realize its own potential. >Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. This is only true when a country borrows in a currency it doesn't issue. When a country spends in its own currency its policy space is constrained by inflation. To the extent any country uses, pegs to or borrows in someone else's currency that policy space is narrowed by the need to first borrow or earn that currency. >if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard The euro shows us where that road leads. Countries that give up monetary authority give up sovereignty and when they find themselves in a situation where the monetary policy they no longer control is at odds with their needs, their economies get torn apart. That's why one country, one currency is good policy. Stability and maximum policy space is achieved when fiscal authority, political legitimacy and monetary authority are consolidated at the same level. It's a three-legged stool that becomes a fragile balancing act when one leg is taken away. Also, there's a whole side discussion to be had on what the alternatives are to the dollar as a reserve currency. The dollar is in that position for a reason.\"","''just how much of the troubled southern EU nations' debt is due to the rescuing of private banks? thanks'' My answer rambled onto related topics. In short, not much. While the actual sums involved in bank bailouts are considerable, relative to sovereign debts run up by having structural/trade deficits for ~10 years, they aren't the problem in Europe at the moment...but they ARE the tip of an Iceberg that could sink parts of the EU and leave the rest struggling to stay above water. An interesting question to ponder, with deceptively simple answers, is: If the % of sovereign debt resulting from bank bailouts is so small, why does the media and general public throw a fit every time a major EU bank gets into trouble? People are worried about losing their savings that they have with that bank. Its a visceral fear that is easy to personally relate to. But scratch below the surface and there is a whole buffet of terror for you to feast on. Assuming leverage of ~26* on assets held by banks and that true liabilities aren't completely opaque to average Joe retail investor, the collapse of the right bank could fire the starting gun on a vicious recession, trigger bailouts of other institutions exposed to the original and all sorts of nasty events. These bank assets include the mess created by rehypothecation, securitization of shitty credit/assets and CDS, commercial paper that relies on never having to be realized as a loss and interference in the money markets and currencys by states. Its damn hard to work out what assets and liabilities a bank has these days, let alone what any debt they have taken on is worth. Euro Crisis Best Crisis. *Pulled from memory, I'm not sure if this is accurate for Europe.","> there is no way they will let it collapse Do you think they would have let it get to the point of imminent collapse, if they could do anything about it? Why do you think they will have any more power over the next stage in this debacle?","\"Except the government in this case has decided to limit itself to Euros, a currency it does not control and therefore one it can \"\"run out of\"\", making deficit spending a risky proposal indeed. The correct approach is of course to never join such a regime in the first place, and then deficit spend as needed to keep your labor force highly employed.\"","\"i hate to say it, and i will probably be downvoted to oblivion, but i don't think you can do anything. i'm not an expert, so i might be wrong, but if greece (or any euro country, for that matters) decides to exit the euro, the currency will be dead within the week. that, from what i've read in various newspapers, will be an incredibly bad news for the european economy. which *will* collapse in a very short period of time. then the collapse would propagate (more or less slowly, more or less significantly) to other economies, especially china and US, possibly middle east, too. at that point, you (well, we) have a major economic cataclysm. would it really matter if you had a tiny bit more money than your neighbour, if production stops, goods don't move that much anymore, and your country is generally in such a deep shit that the potato famine will look like a day in eurodisney? i agree with what other people are saying: they will not allow the euro to fall. \"\"they\"\" sounds like hidden conspiracies, but even if european leaders have taught us that we can expect the worse from them (2 world wars in the last centuries are just the quicker reminder of their stupidity), there's the americans, the chineses, and so on. i think the worst thing you, or anyone else in europe, can do is panicking and moving their money around. if the exchange rate with the euro is not fixed (and nothing is) you still have a chance to lose a significant amount of money in the short-medium run, in a worst case scenario. chill. relax. if you're really desperate and think that things *will* go bad, try turning a hobby into another job, especially if you can do it online and can bring you a steady income eventually. **TL; DR: if the world economy collapse, you will still lose money. live happy. chill.**\"","\"For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc. There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds. The \"\"National Debt\"\" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the \"\"Bonds\"\" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong. If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (\"\"Default\"\" on its payments). This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future. Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default. Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge.\"",">The interesting thing for me - In Ireland's case they need to have a refurendum. I wonder if they will accept this? It's not clear cut whether we need a referendum. It's a common misconception that all Treaty changes require a referendum in Ireland. Not so. In Crotty v An Taoiseach it was accepted by the Supreme Court that joining the EEC (as it then was) involved getting on board a moving train and that even the assignment of new competences to Europe would not necessarily necessitate a referendum. Any change in the fundamental scope of the Union would however require a referendum. In that case the introduction of a Common Foreign and Security Policy and qualified majority voting was a change in scope and referendum was necessary. In this case, it's hard to tell. The EU already has some competence in this area - its possible to levy fines etc for breaches of the stability and growth pact already. I couldn't predict how the Supreme Court would characterise giving the Court of Justice oversight in this area. They will feel presssure from many corners in this case as well - holding in favour of a referendum might be seen as threatening economic disaster, while holding against would undermine democratic legitimacy. If there is a referendum, I predict it will go down like a lead balloon. Forcing the Lisbon Treaty on the electorate twice gave rise to enough resentment - botching the recovery and being seen to enforce austerity on the country made it worse. I imagine support for the EU is at an all time low in this country.","ok fuck it then, you'd rather discuss how to pass the CFA five times a week? enjoy! by the way - if you're going to be so condescending with your information - at least be correct when doing so. Ireland and Greece have both taken on debt to support failing banks - whether or not they did before the crisis, and whether or not it is only a small % of total deficit, is irrelevant to his question. this is the entire reason direct recapitalizing has been implemented with ESF - to prevent further deterioration of country balance sheets"],"string":"[\n \"The Euro is a common currency between various countries in Europe. This means that individual countries give up their traditional sovereign control of their own currency, and cede that control to the EU. Such a system has many advantages, but it also means that individual countries cannot deal with their unique situations as easily. For instance, if the US were a part of the EU, then the Fed couldn't issue $600B the way they are to bolster the economy. The danger to the Euro is that countries will withdraw their participation in order to micromanage their economies more effectively. If a major country withdraws its participation, it could start a domino effect where many countries withdraw so that they too can manage their economies more effectively. As more countries withdraw, a shared currency becomes less and less appealing.\",\n \"Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU. It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal.\",\n \"To be more technical the Eurozone. UK is in the EU, but it's currency is fine. I hope you're not getting downvoted for the technicality. Greece can't print money, it makes default more likely and that's a result of the Euro. That's the core of the problem. Europe wanted a shared currency without a shared budgetary process, this was going to happen eventually.\",\n \"These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation. Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine.\",\n \"US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects.\",\n \"\\\"The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much \\\"\\\"connected\\\"\\\". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Why will they find financing when they leave the Euro? Why would their currencies not simply hyperinflate due to excessive issuance in an attempt to devalue? Which is worse for unemployment, austerity or hyperinflation? >they'd be expelled by Germany This is a union correct? Why do you assume Germany holds all the cards? I've read that Gonzalo Lira essay and have read Mish about everyday since 2009, yet still do not think it is so obvious that the Euro will collapse. I gained quite a bit of skepticism from Barry Eichengreen's paper on the [Breakup of the Euro Area.](http://www.nber.org/papers/c11654.pdf?new_window=1) What I see right now is that so far the ECB has only acted in such a way as to prevent outright deflation and meet its 2% inflation target, but not to continuously outright fund the profligate governments. They let the bond markets force those governments into contraction or into default whereas the fed, with its dual mandate, will always buy the US bonds and eventually will inflate the currency as opposed to having a sovereign default. So I think we will see the ECB continue to print as much is needed to meet its mandate but at the same time there will be defaults, bank nationalizations and failures, and a continued lack of growth in the Euro area until eventually the austerity measures bring revenue and spending in line at which point the countries under heavy debt would be stupid not to default because they can self finance. Whereas in the US we are so dependent on deficit financing that as foreigners move further away from holding treasuries we become more susceptible to bond vigilantes taking the reigns which will force the feds hand into outright monetization. Then I think we will see our own government exacerbate inflation by bidding on the same goods that those dollars which no longer are going into treasuries are bidding on. Then I think we'll finally see bad inflation in the US. Of course as long as there is hoards of money fleeing Europe for the US \\\"\\\"safe haven,\\\"\\\" the lack of foreign treasury investment is pretty moot. *spelling\\\"\",\n \"Is it possible that the result could be a reduced-size Eurozone, with Germany, France, Austria, BeNeLux and Finland remaining in, while others go back to their former currencies or form a Southern European (and Irish) common currency?\",\n \"Icelandish and Irish Economies began to fail in 2008, Ireland was bailed out by the IMF and Britain, Iceland by the Germany and the IMF. Greek economy has essentially failed, and is at risk of being kicked out of the Euro currency by the Eurozone members. Spanish and Italian economies are faltering. Worst case scenario, everybody can't pay back money and keep accumulating debt, which would lead to a complete collapse of the European economy, resulting in a global economic meltdown. Germany currently are in control of al lot of countries debts (especially Ireland) which means that they will become the main players in decisions regarding the proliferation/faltering of the european economy in the future.\",\n \"Yea, but that coin would be worth shit ( They'll inflate their way out of debt) and there won't be anyone wanting to buy their bonds for a long time so they'll probably print more money. Also, everybody's savings will be gone. Going out of the Euro will put them in a worse financial climate than staying in and do austerity.\",\n \"If one of the EURO countries goes bankrupt, then it will destablise the entire financial industry. IE there would be many financial institutions [Banks, Credit Union, Pension Funds, Insurance Funds, Corporates] that are holding EURO Investments in that country will loose their money and this will have a cascading impact ... similar and much bigger than US Sub-prime crisis of 2008. So if your money is in EURO and you are staying in EURO countires, the inflation will mean your money is of less value ... If you are holding USD and staying in EURO and country goes bankrupt then chances are that it will loose value with USD and hence you can convert them to EURO and spend more EUROs to buy the same items ...\",\n \"It depends on what actions the European Central Bank (ECB) takes. If it prints Euros to bail out the country then your Euros will decline in value. Same thing with a US state going bankrupt. If the FED prints dollars to bailout a state it will set a precedent that other states can spend carelessly and the FED will be there to bail them out by printing money. If you own bonds issued by the bankrupting state then you could lose some of your money if the country is not bailed out.\",\n \"\\\"Most of those countries had debt that was well beyond prudent levels (~70% of GDP) before the crisis, levels such that any crisis would put them over the safe limit and into trouble. The only exception was Spain whose debt levels were still marginally dangerous. Greece was off the charts, which is why they left off the graph for Greece. Second problem. On top of the high or marginal levels of government debt, the governments implicitly or explicitly guaranteed the banks, without limiting in any effective way their levels of leverage and risk (inb4 Basel II - a lot of paper that made no difference). Protip: if someone guarantees your debt, they should be able to oversee your level of risk, but the governments didn't. As a result these banks, and their CEOs in particular, have a bet that goes \\\"\\\"heads I win, tails I win (and you the taxpayer lose)\\\"\\\". If the loans are paid off the CEOs rake in millions. If the loans go bad the government bails them out and the CEOs and other top executives - you guessed it - rake in millions. Of course when faced with these incentives the banks will lend too much. This is not free market capitalism, it is crony capitalism. **Bailouts of private companies are not part of unfettered free market capitalism.** The third problem is that the same governments cannot print money like the US can because the Euro is not owned by the individual governments. The answer to excessive levels of government debt is for governments not to borrow too much and not to take on excessive unfunded liabilities such as pensions. This probably needs to be enforced by a constitutional amendment, so it can't be easily overruled. The answer to governments getting dragged into bailing out insolvent banks and then going under themselves, is to allow the banks to go under and to guarantee only small deposits. Let shareholders, bond holders and large (>$500k) lenders to the banks to lose their money. Second, hold bank executives and shareholders liable for the bank's debts. Eg executive salaries and other remuneration need to be clawed back up to a 5 year window. Shareholders should be liable (as they used to be) for debts up to an additional 100% of the par value of the shares. I can assure you this would concentrate minds wonderfully - as it did in the old days when Wall St investment banks were partnerships with each partner liable for all the debts of the firm. Another alternative would be for governments to enforce limits on financial risk, but unfortunately they do not have the courage to do this, nor the morality to resist \\\"\\\"campaign contributions\\\"\\\" / bribes to look the other way. If these steps were taken the issue of the Euro currency would not be a problem. However printing money (which requires having your own currency) is a solution if it comes to that although it comes at the expense of people who have saved and invested prudently. Printing money (keeping interest rates excessively low for years on end) subsidizes borrowers - the ones who created the problem - at the expense of savers. Clearly this creates terribly perverse incentives the next time around. Anyone who thinks this problem is a result of unfettered free market capitalism is not paying attention.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This question is different because you are asking for actual advice vs. a more academic, \\\"\\\"what if\\\"\\\" scenario. The answer that I'll give will be different, and similar to another recent question on a similar vein. Basically, if you're living in a European country that's effectively in default and in need of a bailout, the range of things that can happen is difficult to predict... the fate of countries like Ireland and Greece, whatever the scenario, will be economic and social upheaval. But, this isn't the end of the world either... it's happened before and will happen again. As an individual, you need to start investing defensively in a manner appropriate for your level of wealth. Things to think about: I'd suggest reading \\\"\\\"A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"So the Euro was doomed from the start because there was no provisions of kicking out and/or halting countries from excessive borrowing? I think the Euro is stronger in the long run because no single country can put inflationary pressure on the Euro due to irresponsible borrowing by that single state (e.g. United States). In the end of the day, they have to work their way out of debt with real economic growth thusly making it an attractive currency for the long term.\",\n \"If they default and try to stay in the Euro, they will be shut out of any chance of financing but they will be obliged to conduct business in a currency that they cannot afford. Their businesses will close, unemployment rise until they have no option to stay in the Euro. Instead of that, they will reissue the Peseta, Lira, Drachma, etc. and then devalue. That will allow their real estate, tourism and manufacturing to be very competitive. If they could stay in the Euro after default they would starve, but I don't think they could stay, even if they wanted to because they'd be expelled by Germany. Here is [Gonzalo Lira's suggestion as to how Spain should have already left the Euro](http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2012/04/will-there-be-corralito-in-spain.html)\",\n \"You don't understand government financing at all. Gov'ts earn revenue, aka, taxes. They also spend money. The different between the money they spend and they money they earn is the deficit. If you run a deficit for a long period of time, you incur a very large national debt. Now, you can finance (aka, pay for) a deficit by borrowing money. This means you can sell bonds, and instead of pay off the debt each year, you just pay the interest. If your spending balloons out of control, your the likely hood of you paying your debt decreases. If you are very unlikely to payback your debt, people won't buy any more of your bonds, and you no longer have the income (from borrowing) to pay off your interest from other debt you owe, or what ever other obligations you own (think mortgage payments, or teachers salaries, etc). Here's were Europe and USA differ: European nations can't just print money. They can issue more debt, but they can't just create more euros. IF you can print money, you can pay off your debt with money you literally created out of thin air (at the expense of your people, this is called inflation). But this is a form of cheating, eventually people won't trust you, and won't buy your debt either. So where do the banks come in? if the government is SOUND and the banks are NOT, the government can backstop the banks. This is what the US and UK did. Greece, Spain, Ireland all had to back stop their banks also. However, Greece, Spain, and Irelany ( and Italy, and Portugal) also have 1) A lot of debt 2) Structurally high deficits 3) Extremely high borrowing costs (high interest rates...because people don't trust them...because...) 4) Weak underlying economies The fourth point gets you in real trouble. if you have high entitlements, lots of poeple out of work, who the hell is paying taxes and what are they going to? You have no revenue! Remember, a govt works just like a household. It is easy for a good household to support one member, but it is difficult for a member to support an irresponsible household.\",\n \"Maybe the EU really ISN'T really that important, and the financial problems that have resulted from European integration are evidence that state sovereignty and self-determination are what's important... But hey, what do I know, I'm not a rich banker/bureaucrat who profited off the whole imposed mess at the expense of the ordinary working people.\",\n \"No. Empirically no. The issue at hand has little to do with market confidence. This loss of confidence is the effect of the problem. It's cause is the result of a wholly inadequate fiscal transfer mechanism that is incapable of addressing demand shocks. While there are relevant political and ideological parameters worthy of analysis, they render themselves moot because of the structural constraints of monetary union. My two cents.\",\n \"Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/\",\n \"\\\"These have the potential to become \\\"\\\"end-of-the-world\\\"\\\" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid. Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default. Take Zimbabwe, for example. Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies. Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece.\\\"\",\n \"The Euro will collapse because Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece will have to default on their debt. In order to keep up with current payments they have to take emergency loans at the same time that their economies are in recession and demands on social programs are increasing. There is simply no way that they can cut enough spending and raise enough revenue to balance their budgets. That is not opinion, it is arithmetic. If they cannot pay their loans they will either voluntarily leave the Euro, or they will be forced out. Next comes France who also has a large and growing budget deficit and a large public debt. It is unsustainable. That which is unsustainable will end. The last reason that the Euro will fail and that it will be soon is Germany. Up to now, all the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have come predominantly from Germany. In order to float the Eurobonds that some idiots think might save Europe, the German people have to authorize their government to participate and thereby take on another mountain of debt. The German people will not vote for that authorization. Is that enough reasons? Because there are more. Lots more. Read [Mike Shedlock](http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com)\",\n \"Its highly unlikely to 'collapse', perhaps there will be managed defaults, yes, but there is no way they will let it collapse as a global depression would follow. If the euro collapses it will also bring down most of the global economy including the likes of China and the US (not to mention the Germans) and they are not going to let that happen. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cf8ce18-2042-11e1-9878-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1y0lc0hy1 P.s. I am surprised we have not seen more suggestions of buying guns, land and building a commune.\",\n \"the problem now is A LOT of people dont have confidence in the euro, and they are taking their money out of it , and confidence is the only thing that backs the euro, or any fiat money. It's gonna get worst before it gets better unfortunately...\",\n \"\\\"There's an ideological/psychological aspect of this too apart from the practical problems. Eurozone leaders keep saying the mantra: conversion to the euro is \\\"\\\"irreversible\\\"\\\". There are analogies of this in recent history, it reminds me of the soviet leaders and their belief that communism is where history ends. They genuinely thought that once a communist system is built up in a country, it would stay forever. They believed in the superiority of their system, among other things this lead to the isolation of the Soviet Union from the West and the start of the Cold War. Then, in 1956 they were proven wrong with the Hungarian revolution and while they tried to \\\"\\\"clean up\\\"\\\" the situation as fast as they could and forget about it, their downhill inevitably started. Back to the present, you can easily see the importance of keeping Greece in the EZ. If Greece exits, the illusion of the irreversibility of the Euro is gone, and it would start to fall apart.\\\"\",\n \"**OFC there is more to it than meets the eye!** Its a nice breakdown though. In my opinion, there are just 2 ways out: One is to merge the whole European Union into one Nation, much like the **United** States of America. (*United States of Europe*, ehehehe) But i guesss Germany, France and UK are not very interested in feeding everyone else even more. **OR** Split. The thing is, the ones with the most power are not interested in one of these solutions. And now to come to your question, YES Recession is coming (isnt it alrdy here?) Greetings from Austria!\",\n \"\\\"There will not be enough money to fill the holes that are caused by banks' easy money policies combined with the trillions in derivative \\\"\\\"hedges\\\"\\\" that the banks have off-balance sheet. The idea is that the chain reaction collapse of the European banking system can be avoided by plugging the holes in the dam in Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. But it is a crazy idea. Next comes France, and then what? At some point there is not enough money to plug the holes and the entire facade collapses anyways. Adults would dismantle the Eurozone now and let each country see to itself. Let the banks collapse. Capital (in the form of dollars, gold, etc) will reappear and means will evolve rapidly to connect capital with people who need loans for business. Consumer loans are going the way of the dodo bird.\\\"\",\n \"**Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union: Monetary policy inflexibility** Since membership of the eurozone establishes a single monetary policy for the respective states, they can no longer use an isolated monetary policy, e. g. to increase their competitiveness at the cost of other eurozone members by printing money and devalue, or to print money to finance excessive government deficits or pay interest on unsustainable high government debt levels. As a consequence, if member states do not manage their economy in a way that they can show a fiscal discipline (as they were obliged by the Maastricht treaty), they will sooner or later risk a sovereign debt crisis in their country without the possibility to print money as an easy way out. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.23\",\n \"\\\"The biggest risk you have when a country defaults on its currency is a major devaluation of the currency. Since the EURO is a fiat currency, like almost all developed nations, its \\\"\\\"promise\\\"\\\" comes from the expectation that its union and system will endure. The EURO is a basket of countries and as such could probably handle bailing out countries or possibly letting some default on their sovereign debt without killing the EURO itself. A similar reality happens in the United States with some level of regularity with state and municipal debt being considered riskier than Federal debt (it isn't uncommon for cities to default). The biggest reason the EURO will probably lose a LOT of value initially is if any nation defaults there isn't a track record as to how the EU member body will respond. Will some countries attempt to break out of the EU? If the member countries fracture then the EURO collapses rendering any and all EURO notes useless. It is that political stability that underlies the value of the EURO. If you are seriously concerned about the risk of a falling EURO and its long term stability then you'd do best buying a hedge currency or devising a basket of hedge currencies to diversify risk. Many will recommend you buy Gold or other precious metals, but I think the idea is silly at best. It is not only hard to buy precious metals at a \\\"\\\"fair\\\"\\\" value it is even harder to sell them at a fair value. Whatever currency you hold needs to be able to be used in transactions with ease. Doesn't do you any good having $20K in gold coins and no one willing to buy them (as the seller at the store will usually want currency and not gold coins). If you want to go the easy route you can follow the same line of reasoning Central Banks do. Buy USD and hold it. It is probably the world's safest currency to hold over a long period of time. Current US policy is inflationary so that won't help you gain value, but that depends on how the EU responds to a sovereign debt crisis; if one matures.\\\"\",\n \"But Greece is in the EU - therefore the one-armed drug addict has the means to get money from his relatives. Because most of the relatives have an alcohol problem (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France) they turn to their hard-working but slightly naive neighbours (Austria,Germany,Netherlands) for money. They believe that they´ll have to pay for just one last dose of crack cocaine and then the Greeks will kick the habit.\",\n \">but is in no shape to do so due to their massive debt. Actually it's because they don't have their own printing press for the Euro. They need to drop out of the Euro, devalue their own currency and take control of their own monetary policy and economy.\",\n \"> The European economy was not utterly doomed before the Euro, therefore the fall of the Euro does not doom their economy. I'm not sure how that's related at all. Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok again in the future after a jarring multi-national currency shift. There are tons of other factors in play. First of all, who's going to accept drachma again? What is it worth? What about pesata and lira? These currencies haven't been used in over a decade. Who is going to value them? Who is going to accept them? What happens when the Greeks default? When their pension checks start bouncing? This is what Germany is fearing. Who is going to buy their products when there is a major currency crisis going on?\",\n \"In theory, anything can happen, and the world could end tomorrow. However, with a reasonably sane financial plan you should be able to ride this out. If the government cannot or won't immediately pay its debt in full, the most immediate consequence is that people are going to be unwilling to lend any more money in future, except at very high rates to reflect the high risk of future default. Presumably the government has got into this state by running a deficit (spending more than they collect in tax) and that is going to have to come to an abrupt end. That means: higher taxes, public service retrenchments and restrictions of service, perhaps cuts to social benefits, etc. Countries that get into this state typically also have banks that have lent too much money to risky customers. So you should also expect to see some banks get into trouble, which may mean customers who have money on deposit will have trouble getting it back. In many cases governments will guarantee deposits, but perhaps only up to a particular ceiling like $100k. It would be very possible to lose everything if you have speculative investments geared by substantial loans. If you have zero or moderate debt, your net wealth may decrease substantially (50%?) but there should be little prospect of it going to zero. It is possible governments will simply confiscate your property, but I think in a first-world EU country this is fairly unlikely to happen to bank accounts, houses, shares, etc. Typically, a default has led to a fall in the value of the country's currency. In the eurozone that is more complex because the same currency is used by countries that are doing fairly well, and because there is also turbulence in other major currency regions (JPY, USD and GBP). In some ways this makes the adjustment harder, because debts can't be inflated down. All of this obviously causes a lot of economic turbulence so you can expect house prices to fall, share prices to gyrate, unemployment to rise. If you can afford it and come stomach the risk, it may turn out to be a good time to buy assets for the long term. If you're reasonably young the largest impact on you won't be losing your current savings, but rather the impact on your future job prospects from this adjustment period. You never know, but I don't think the Weimar Republic wheelbarrows-of-banknotes situation is likely to recur; people are at least a bit smarter now and there is an inflation-targeting independent central bank. I think gold can have some room in a portfolio, but now is not the time to make a sudden drastic move into it. Most middle class people cannot afford to have enough gold to support them for the rest of their life, though they may have enough for a rainy day or to act as a balancing component. So what I would do to cope with this is: be well diversified, be sufficiently conservatively positioned that I would sleep at night, and beyond that just ride it out and try not to worry too much.\",\n \"Where are they going to get money from? Their bonds are worthless because they have no viable way of ever paying back debt so why would anyone lend money to them. You, and Keynes think that you can fuel debt with more debt, but all this does is build a massive debt bubble that has to pop at some point. This is exactly what these nations did for years and now are beginning to realize that they can no longer issue debt.\",\n \"\\\"But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? Ultimately, a US state could go into default. However, I doubt that such a scenario would be allowed to transpire. This seems to happen to California with some regularity. That is, risking default. What would happen is not quite well known: \\\"\\\"There is no provision for a state to go bankrupt,\\\"\\\" Kyser said. \\\"\\\"I don't think anyone really knows what will happen or even if the state will go into receivership if it does default. I can tell you this, officials are looking at all the (current) laws.\\\"\\\" (source) I believe that the answer to your question is that it could happen, but likely would not be allowed to occur. The nature of the EU and US are quite different. The individual states forming the US are not separate nations. For better or for worse, the US is a stronger federation than the EU. (Something that is lamented at times when the Feds mess with the purview of the locals.)\\\"\",\n \"The Euro is currently at 1.24. It's been lower than that before. Why do you think there is still so much money behind it? I'm not trying to push back, but do you know something that the market doesn't in terms of a collapse? Also, if you are so positive, are you heavily shorting the euro? I by no means am convinced that the euro was a good idea. But I am convinced that they will do whatever they can to keep it alive.\",\n \"The EU's situation is nothing like the United States. The core problem there is a monetary union without a fiscal union. All the member countries were bound to a currency they had no control over, despite the health and resources of their economies.\",\n \"See the problem is it's very hard to see how they can leave or ask to leave. There's very little on this in the treaties. They can't be kicked out under any treaty to the best of my knowledge. The only way I can see them getting kicked out is that they are cut off from Target 2, forced to print money/introduce capital controls etc, that breaks the laws of loads of treaties and they then get kicked out of not just the Euro but also the EU. It's all so incredibly messy.\",\n \"\\\"The risk is that greece defaults on it's debts and the rest of the eurozone chose to punish it by kicking it out of the Eurozone and cutting off it's banks from ECB funds. Since the greek government and banks are already in pretty dire straits this would leave greece with little choice but to forciblly convert deposits in those banks to a \\\"\\\"new drachma\\\"\\\". The exchange rate used for the forced conversions would almost certainly be unfavorable compared to market rates soon after the conversion. There would likely be capital controls to prevent people pulling their money out in the runup to the forced conversion. While I guess they could theoretically perform the forced conversion only on Euro deposits this seems politically unlikely to me.\\\"\",\n \"of course the value will be non zero however it would be very small, as all the countries would not leave at once... if its a piig holding the bag it would fall precipitously, if its a AAA (non france) it would go to 1.5 Its very path dependent on whom leaves when\",\n \"\\\"The Euro is not the reason for the debt crisis. It is only preventing those countries affected from using the easy way out. The fault is entirely that of those countries. They were given billions and billions in structural aid, to put the \\\"\\\"convergence criteria\\\"\\\" into reality. Instead they chose bubble economies. And no, this is not the same all around Europe. I don't see France or Germany having a giant property bubble.\\\"\",\n \"It's a failed state. The belief that people are going to hunker down in austerity and pay off national debt was always silly. Sucks for the bond holders, but all these people who bet against sovereign debt defaults have bet wrong.\",\n \"Assuming that's true, and giving you that EU countries are more interdependent than most, you're still massively overstating the effect of Greece's problems on the rest of the union. Yeah, it's a problem. Yeah, they'll all pay a bit for it. Still, the economy is nowhere near collapse because of it.\",\n \"It seems possible if the Euro is partially/entirely unwound that policies could be enacted to prohibit exactly this behavior, otherwise what will stop outflow to the stronger countries on a massive scale? (Thus amplifying the resulting decade-long clusterfuck) We've never had this situation in Europe before, and already for Greece and Spain there are suggestions to instigate withdrawal controls. It doesn't seem far fetched to imagine retroactive controls placed on private deposits in newly-foreign-currency banks. If I were concerned about the Euro's collapse I'd be more inclined to move assets out of the eurozone entirely\",\n \"\\\"What EU wanted to force Cyprus to do is to break the insurance contract the government has with the bank depositors. The parliament rightfully refused, and it didn't pass. In the EU, and Cyprus as part of it, all bank deposits are insured up to 100,000EUR by the government. This is similar to the US FDIC insurance. Thus, requiring the \\\"\\\"small\\\"\\\" (up to 100K) depositors to participate in the bank reorganization means that the government breaks its word to people, and effectively defaults. That is exactly what the Cyprus government wanted to avoid, the default, so I can't understand why the idea even came up. Depositors of more than 100k are not guaranteed against bank failures, and indeed - in Cyprus these depositors will get \\\"\\\"haircuts\\\"\\\". But before them, first come shareholders and bondholders who would be completely wiped out. Thus, first and foremost, those who failed (the bank owners) will be the first to pay the price. However, governments can default. This happened in many places, for example in Russia in the 90's, in Argentina in 2000's (and in fact numerous times during the last century), the US in the 1930's, and many other examples - you can see a list in Wikipedia. When government defaults on its debts, it will not pay some or all of them, and its currency may also be devaluated. For example, in Russia in 1998 the currency lost 70% of its value against the USD within months, and much of the cash at hands of the public became worthless overnight. In the US in 1933 the President issued an executive order forbidding private citizens keeping gold and silver bullions and coins, which resulted in dollar devaluation by about 30% and investors in precious metals losing large amounts of money. The executive order requiring surrender of the Treasury gold certificates is in fact the government's failure to pay on these obligations. While the US or Russia control their own currency, European countries don't and cannot devaluate the currency as they wish in order to ease their debts. Thus in Euro-zone the devaluation solutions taken by Russia and the US are not possible. Cyprus cannot devaluate its currency, and even if it could - its external debt would not likely to be denominated in it (actually, Russian debt isn't denominated in Rubles, that's why they forced restructuring of their own debt, but devaluating the currency helped raising the money from the citizens similarly to the US seizing the gold in 1930's). Thus, in case of Cyprus or other Euro-zone countries, direct taxes is the only way to raise money from the citizens. So if you're in a country that controls its own currency (such as the US, Russia, Argentina, etc) and especially if the debt is denominated in that currency (mainly the US) - you should be worried more of inflation than taxes. But if you're in the Euro-zone and your country is in troubles (which is almost any country in the zone) - you can expect taxes. How to avoid that? Deal with your elected officials and have them fix your economy, but know that you can't just \\\"\\\"erase\\\"\\\" the debt through inflation as the Americans can (and will), someone will have to pay.\\\"\",\n \"Oh, you mean converting your money to that of a country whose public debt is [103% of GDP, instead of the 108% of your own?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt) That seems hardly an advancement, even more so considering that the public debt of the Eurozone as a whole is 82.5% of GDP. Greece is just 2% of the European economy, its default would not mean the collapse of the Euro.\",\n \"\\\"> Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok I'm not claiming it will be \\\"\\\"definitely be ok\\\"\\\". definitely ok != utterly doomed. > What happens when the Greeks default? If they were paying in drachma, they wouldn't default. They'd print more drachma and inflation would occur. That's how currency imbalances adjust. Germany wants it both ways. They want a stable Europe-wide currency but they don't want a Europe-wide economy, they want their economy isolated from the problems in the rest of Europe. Germany should leave the Euro.\\\"\",\n \"Andrew Lilico has a likely scenario for when Greece defaults on its sovereign debt: What happens when Greece defaults. Here are a few things: Every bank in Greece will instantly go insolvent. The Greek government will nationalise every bank in Greece. The Greek government will forbid withdrawals from Greek banks. To prevent Greek depositors from rioting on the streets, Argentina-2002-style (when the Argentinian president had to flee by helicopter from the roof of the presidential palace to evade a mob of such depositors), the Greek government will declare a curfew, perhaps even general martial law. Greece will redenominate all its debts into “New Drachmas” or whatever it calls the new currency (this is a classic ploy of countries defaulting) The New Drachma will devalue by some 30-70 per cent (probably around 50 per cent, though perhaps more), effectively defaulting 0n 50 per cent or more of all Greek euro-denominated debts. As Megan McArdle says, there's more at the link, all depressing. I think you're focusing too much on Greece leaving the euro and not enough on why Greece would leave the euro. Greece would leave the euro precisely so that it could pay back its debt in a new currency worth less than valuable euros. The new currency will devalue, since that's the point of leaving. Along the way the government forces its citizens to take the new currency. The money they have in Greek banks will be converted to the new currency: The citizens don't have a choice to keep their euros.\",\n \"Banks cannot survive without the government. Once people lose faith in the governement, the banking system will fail. The banking system failing is a symptom of the issue, not a cause. Backstopping the banks protects the general populace, and prevents runs which will actually destroy the banking system. The burden shifts from the banks to the government. But a gaurantee is not an actual payment. The banks still operate as normal without any cash from the government, but with the knowledge that, if they ARE over extended, the government will take on their debt. the government gaurantee lowers the rates that the banks pay to raise debt to continue to operate. So let's say PIIGS fully bail out their banking system, paying off all debt, that's worse case. Where does the money come from? Revenues, aka taxes. If the gov't takes on the bank debt and has positve revenue, no problem, a little less hand outs, but the country as a whole benefits from having a functioning banking system. If revenues are poor or negative, however, it's just adding to the deficit. Gov't can print money, don't forget. But if revenues are poor and there's no hope to see them improve...Boom, all hell breaks loose, and you get Europe.\",\n \"\\\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\\\"\\\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\\\"\\\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\\\"\",\n \"It's not that simple. The problem is that Greece is not in control if it's own finances. Neither are any of the other countries. The Eurozone doesn't have the power to do things like raise taxes or sell government bonds, and the individual governments don't have the power to float the currency. The Eurozone is going to unwind over the a decade. Greece will leave, but there are another 4-5 countries that should leave the Euro for the same reasons as Greece. Spain seems likely to be the next up, with Italy not far behind. The Euro was never designed to break apart. We really have no idea what the shockwaves of a country leaving the currency will look like.\",\n \"I've been short the Euro for several months now against the USD (could be various others as well). I got in at 1.42, sold on a bounce up to 1.36, bought back at 1.38 and now will probably ride it out lower. Regardless of whether or not the Eurozone breaks up, I see it breaking through the 1.30 mark in the near-term. After that, I'm not sure how low it goes, but there is certainly potential for it to head towards 1/1. In order to reduce the burden, the ECB needs to devalue the currency. Although Germany really doesn't want this due to their anti-inflationary ideology, if Italy comes crashing down, so does France. When France goes, Germany goes into a deep recession if not a depression. They have to devalue some. As for a collapse, I have no idea. It probably depends on how many (if any) countries retain the currency and who they are.\",\n \"It's slightly more complicated than that. Usually a country that was in Greece's situation would be able to use inflation to devalue their currency which would have the effect of lowering the value of the government's debts and also of making Greek prices more competitive in the international market. Or they could use quantitative easing to inject cheap cash into the economy to help stimulate it. Because Greece is on the Euro, however, they have no control over their own currency and their options are highly limited. Additionally, when you join the EU, especially the Eurozone, that's supposed to come with additional internal responsibilities, but it's also supposed to come with additional external ones as well. Greece has a responsibility to get its shit together, but the whole point is that more financially stable countries have a responsibility to help them. Right now that means Germany; they're the ones with the greatest control over the Euro and they're shying away from their duties. If the rest of Europe didn't want to risk ending up in this position they shouldn't have let Greece into the Eurozone.\",\n \"I haven't been following this crisis at all, so I know nothing about this, but I understand why the value of the Euro would shoot up as a result of Greece/Italy/Portugal leaving. But why would the Germans not want this? Is it because Germany is a leading exporter and it would increase the costs of exports from the country? Or could you expand on that for me? thanks\",\n \">The European economy was not utterly doomed before the Euro, therefore the fall of the Euro does not doom their economy. UTTERLY DOOMED and DOOMED are two entirely different things. The former is a quasi-permanent state of affairs (decades upon decades) the latter a temporary one (albeit possibly several years).\",\n \"\\\">So far, politicians in Europe have held 19 high-level emergency meetings in an attempt to solve this crisis. >All of their efforts have failed. >Right now, this is the situation in Europe.... >-Most EU governments are drowning in toxic levels of debt This mess has been caused by the idea of allowing some people to live at the expense of others. All of it - from the millions of cushy, make-work government \\\"\\\"jobs\\\"\\\", to the rest of the welfare state, has been caused by the political left.\\\"\",\n \"If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this website). Europe holds the record for most failed currencies. It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993. I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed. It depends on how it fails. If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros. Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place. Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation.\",\n \"\\\"to answer the question in the title of your post... + convince your fellow Euro nations to accept austerity, + convince them to elect responsible governments, + demand transparency from your leaders, and... + make sure this never ever happens again. Alternatively, build a time machine and go back in time to either... + immigrate to another part of the world, + sabotage the corruption of the PIGS nations, + prevent the formation of a shared currency, or finally, + do something to ensure Germany didn't lose WWII, as letting them be in charge of everybody's money would appear to be a sound financial decision. That is how you negate the impact of the Euro collapsing. Now, on to the details of your question... I believe your initial assessment is correct. If one accountable nation were responsible for the solvency of its currency, it could be trusted indefinitely. As is the case with the Euro, as no one country is directly responsible for it, the less responsible governments are in a race to exploit it as much as possible. Remember, \\\"\\\"Spain no es Zimbabwe!\\\"\\\" I think Euro zone nations will be lucky if all that comes of this is the fall of the Euro. Wars between nations have been fought over less significant developments than what Greece, Italy and Spain have done to the financial stability of their Euro zone counterparts. Foreign gold trusts, possession of physical precious metals and precious metal ETFs (GLD is one stock ticker of such a fund, although I would look to a similar fund issued by a company with better physical gold audits) can hedge your currency risk. Check with local laws regarding physical possession of gold. In the USA when we left the gold standard for our currency, the government confiscated all privately owned precious metals and raided customer bank security boxes. Assess your own risk of that sort of thing happening.\\\"\",\n \"You forgot the biggest thing: Japan still controls its own currency and Greece does not. If you don't control your currency, you have much more limited options when it comes to borrowing money. It is why US states can't borrow a lot of money, they all have to share the US dollar which no one state controls. So states are used to making cutbacks in hard times, but the Eurozone nations have not adopted this mindset. Greece isn't in trouble because it borrowed too much, it's in trouble because it borrowed so much *and has to share the Euro*. Greece can't inflate its currency, so if they can't make a payment they default, no one wants to lend to a place that might default. If Greece had its own currency still there would be no currency crisis in Europe, just some inflation.\",\n \"[Monetary Policy Inflexibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union#Monetary_policy_inflexibility) >Since membership of the eurozone establishes a single monetary policy for the respective states... without the possibility to print money as an easy way out. Italy's options are privatization, austerity, and shifting the burden on to the taxpayer.\",\n \"Rescuing the private banks has made very little difference. None of the countries in real trouble have large banking sectors. The majority of the problems has stemmed from the totally ridiculous public spending. Greece has a hilarious history of over spending. For example, their civil servants used to be paid for 14 months of the year. They also have comedy tax collection. According to there tax office there is only 324 swimming pools in the entire place..... a quick count on satellite reveals 1000s. Some data is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/world/europe/02evasion.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 In reality many nations werent ready for the euro in the first place. But to be clear, blaming the banks is like blaming a snowball for the sinking of the titanic. The numbers aren't even in the same league.\",\n \"Weren't these fuckers just given 120 billion euros? At this point they should probably stop fueling this shit and just let them burn. European tax payers aren't the only ones dealing with this. The American Federal Reserve is lending money to the banks and the ECB to help with this. I don't want to pay for ailing banks in my own goddamn country, let alone those on the other side of the world in a country I may never visit.\",\n \"\\\"On contrary of what Mike Scott suggested, I think in case of EURO DOOM it's a lot safer if your savings were changed into another currency in advance. Beware that bringing your money into an EURO CORE country (like Finland, Austria, Germany, Nethereland) it's useful if you think those banks are safer, but totally useless to avoid the conversion of your saving from Euro into your national currency. In case of EURO CRASH, only the Central Bank will decide what happens to ALL the Euro deposited wherever, single banks, even if they are Deutsche Bank or BNP or ING, can not decide what to do on their own. ECB (European Central Bank) might decide to convert EURO into local currencies based on the account's owner nationality. Therefor if you are Greek and you moved your saving in a German bank, the ECB might decide that your Euro are converted into New Dracma even if they sit in a German bank account. The funniest thing is that if you ask to a Finland bank: \\\"\\\"In case of Euro crash, would you convert my Euro into New Dracma?\\\"\\\", they sure would answer \\\"\\\"No, we can't!\\\"\\\", which is true, they can not because it's only the ECB (Europe Central Bank) the one that decides how an ordered Euro crash has to be manged, and the ECB might decide as I explained you above. Other Central Banks (Swiss, FED, etc.) would only follow the decisions of the ECB. Moreover in case of EURO DOOM, it's highly probable that the Euro currency looses a tremendous value compared to other currencies, the loss would be huge in case the Euro Crash happens in a disordered way (i.e. a strong country like Germany and their banks decides to get out and they start printing their own money w/o listening to the ECB anymore). So even if your saving are in Euro in Germany they would loose so much value (compared to other currencies) that you will regreat forever not to have converted them into another currency when you had the time to do it. Couple of advises: 1) If you want to change you savings into another currency you don't need to bring them into another bank/country (like US), you could simply buy US Shares/Bonds at your local bank. Shares/Bonds of a US company/US gov will always be worth their value in dollars no matter in what new pathetic currency your account will be converted. 2) But is there a drawback in converting my saving into another currency (i.e. buying dollars in the form of US treasury bonds)? Unfortunately yes, the drawback is that in case this Euro drama comes finally to an happy ending and Germans decide to open their wallets for the nth time to save the currency, the Euro might suddenly increase its value compared to other currencies, therefor if you changed your saving into another currency you might loose money (i.e. US dollars looses value against the Euro).\\\"\",\n \"One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).\",\n \"I'm worried that it's, as so many observers or commentators seem to be doing with these crises, pre-empting events. I do wish news reporters would stick to reporting the news, rather than panicking people by putting forward their view that something is going to happen, such as Greece exiting the euro and adopting a new currency. As with these things, expectations are key, and this is by no means helping.\",\n \"If any Euro countries leave the Euro, they will have to impose capital flow restrictions - it's a given, to avoid a complete implosion of the entire system. The idea of retroactive controls is very interesting - this may be one of the first times in a currency collapse that such a system would be feasible (i.e., both the country being fled from and the countries being fled to are under common control). No doubt they would try such a thing if they thought they could get away with it.\",\n \"I disagree. The question is leading, it presumes that backstopping the banks was a cause, not an effect, of poor government funding, which is absolutely insane. A country cannot be brought down by the financial sector, it's just not possible, not even where the country doesn't have monetary authority.\",\n \"I vehemently disagree with this. Greek crisis is completely different form Spanish, Irish or Portuguese crisis. Greece has a balance of payments + fiscal crisis, due to a government which has not been balancing its budgets for decades (ever?). Greece cannot spend its way out of this crisis because this isn't a demand led crisis.\",\n \"I was thinking down the road about what may happen as some countries pile on debt and others are more responsible. I've spent a lot of time oversea and talented people in the capital cities are really mobile these days. Right now there's a small brain drain to the benefit of Switzerland which has some really innovative people moving there. What if a large country like Germany were to do on a larger scale? Educated workforce, innovative and if you overlook a really ugly period, a great history of innovation. It seems they could bring in a lot of people from Japan and (increasingly) the US as they head slowly toward debt of 200% of GDP. Why would talented people who are highly mobile want to stay in a country where the debt will take 30 years to repay mostly on the back of the talented high earning people?\",\n \"My 0,02€ - I probably live in the same country as you. Stop worrying. The Euro zone has a 100.000€ guaranty deposit. So if any bank should fail, that's the amount you'll receive back. This applies to all bank accounts and deposits. Not to any investments. You should not have more than 100.000€ in any bank. So, lucky you, if you have more than that money, divide between a number of banks. As for the Euro, there might be an inflation, but at this moment the USA and China are in a currency battle that 'benefits' the Euro. Meaning you should not invest in dollars or yuan at this time. Look for undervalued currency to invest in as they should rise against the Euro.\",\n \"\\\">more foreign capital would flow in More capital flowing in to a country that defaults on its payments? Hah, that's a good one! Brazil defaulted in the 1980s, the result was a lost decade of high unemployment and hyperinflation reaching upwards of 80% **per month**. Same with Argentina, only their hyperinflation was above 200% per month. There's nothing positive coming from breaking up with the world's monetary system, any positive results that you get could be obtained with much less suffering by doing whatever austerity measures you need in order to honor your debts. I'm Brazilian and had to go through that situation just as I was starting to work. Ironically, the labour party is now in power here and Brazil is now a net creditor internationally. AFTER the \\\"\\\"evil capitalists\\\"\\\" took power and privatized the state corporations the situation started to improve, and the labour party finally managed to be elected and now are reaping the fruits of all that they fought so hard against. I remember their slogans in the 1989 election campaign: \\\"\\\"the external debt is immoral and unpayable\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"no to privatization\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"> Europe is a temporary problem. Lol.. The better question for this thread is how is the European economy not utterly doomed? I see no way at all of the Euro surviving. Greece has already technically defaulted by saying it's not going to pay back all of it's debt. They will officially default when Germany stops bailing them out. Spain is in the exact same situation, just about a year behind. They haven't technically defaulted yet, but they will. They're receiving bailout after bailout and the Greece situation only makes their interest rates worse. Italy is just barely behind Spain, the Greek default followed by the Spanish defualt will send Italian interest rates through the roof dooming them to the same fate. This will eventually effect the US, but our borrowing rates are held artificially low due to the Fed just printing up more fake money and letting the US borrow as much as it wants. If you don't see this scheme crumbling and collapsing, I'm just curious what you actually think *will* happen?\",\n \"The best scenario I've heard is by Tyler Cowen: Basically, the Greek Government runs out of Euros. So they print up IOUs to issue to their workers, pensioners, etc promising payment of Euros at some future date. The first day, some wag holds up the IOUs says 'hey, look at these drachmas'. By the seventh day, the IOUs are trading at a discount - there's an exchange rate between the IOUS and Euros, and you in essence have a Drachma currency. What that does in terms of converting external debts, bank accounts, and etc from Drachmas into Euros I'm not sure about. Obviously this isn't the best way to go about getting out of the Euro, but it's the best 'muddle through' option and given how Europe in general has been dealing with this problem it's highly probable this is the method they'll take.\",\n \">The EU focus on fiscal deficit is completely mistaken. They are the result of the crisis, not the cause. The fiscal deficit was *increased* by the crisis, but there would not have been a crisis at all if nobody had been running up debts either. It's possible to shift private deficits to public (as happens if people borrow more money than they are taking in, default on loans, cause a bank to run out of money, and the government decides to transfer the bank's losses to its taxpaying public). However, it's still ultimately driven by running a deficit until an unsustainable amount of debt is public, via one mechanism or other.\",\n \"Loans and bailouts to Spain is sending a distinct message to the sixteen other nations of the eurozone and one that could severely impact all of them. The survival of the euro is very much close to an exit. Register Today for all the exciting news and discussion groups we have to offer! @ http://www.igoldpost.com/register-today/\",\n \"The reason they have this massive debt is largely (not entirely) because they have been employing Keynes' policies and spending more than they had for so many years as it is. Austerity is not the solution. However, reckless spending is not the solution either. A lot of people arguing for keynesian policies (not a bad idea in most recessions) don't grasp that investors have a limited amount of money to invest and aren't going to place it in a country that has as bad of a debt problem as you pointed out. So many people keep arguing these struggling countries need to spend more. While that would help expand their economies, it is not feasible. Where do you guys going to think the money is going to come from? If investors don't want to provide then they have to print more money, which creates the risk of hyperinflation. Spending could help a little maybe if it was a realistic thing to do. Right now any Keynesian solutions are a fairy tale. Countries like Greece need to do what they can with the resources available to them instead of spending like a bunch of millionaire playboys on crystal meth. Look at the U.S. We have spent trillions and our GDP is still growing at only slightly more than half the rate it has from 1947-2012. If people expect massive government spending to be a fix to these problems, then we are a clear case that it isn't. I acknowledge we could be a lot worse and possibly still be seeing a contraction without the spending, but it clearly isn't fixing our problems and sooner or later we won't be able to take on more debt to fix it. We need real solutions to generate real growth instead of dicking around like this. Other western countries need to do the same. edit:Also what we are doing right now would not be considered keynesian solutions. Keynes would advocate spending money to fix the problems, not just dumping money into the economy. That is something I would agree with. But since our politicians can't grasp that I don't want them in control of the purse strings anymore.\",\n \"For now we can pay off our debt in United States dollars. If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. If we continued printing money we would be debasing our currency against the new reserve currency, which would mean that after we took on too much debt we wouldn't really be able to pay our creditors back after exchanging our devalued currency for the new one on the international markets. We are lucky enough not to have to worry about this now. But I think OP was referring to all countries in these situations. Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. That is why I am saying that America has a very disillusioned view of reality when it comes to deficit spending. We wouldn't have that any more if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard (I don't think the second option is nearly as realistic but we never know).\",\n \"\\\"Yet another \\\"\\\"If X, then EUROFAIL!!\\\"\\\" It's really fucking tedious even without the screamingly, mind-numbingly wrong \\\"\\\"logic\\\"\\\" of this one. If you're lending money to Germany at 0% and still expect to make a profit, it's because the Euro *will be HIGHER* than your currency at the end of the loan period. This one doesn't look like stupidity so much as a really ham-fisted manipulation attempt to engineer a short-term euro drop for a nicer buy-in.\\\"\",\n \"Most national banks are required by the regulations of their host countries to hold significant reserves in the form of government debt. A default would likely wipe out their capital and your common stock would become worthless. The common stock only has positive value today because of the option value based on the possibility the host country will evade a default.\",\n \"\\\"The short answer is that you will not be able to go back to whichever discussion you were having and say \\\"\\\"the Euro crisis was caused by bailing out private banks,\\\"\\\" if that is indeed what you were ultimately searching for here.\\\"\",\n \"There's no need to move it to a different currency, but if your bank is in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain or Greece, you might consider moving it to a different Eurozone country. Finland, Austria, Germany or the Netherlands seem safest at present. There's a small risk of a forcible Eurozone exit followed by redenomination of bank deposits into a new currency that will immediately collapse.\",\n \"Are you trying to get someone to do your homework for you? This question has been answered repeatedly in the negative by everyone who actually studies the economy. Read Mundell-Flemming model, and learn this stuff. You can see why currency regimes like the Euro make sense from a theoretical stand point, but where flexible exchange rates are a welcome release valve for pressures. You obviously have never studied economics. Hyper inflation doesn't happen becuase of floating exhange rates. Hyperinflation happens when people lose faith in the governing body, regardless of who that is. You think political regimes won't change just because there is one currency? No, they will still spent 1.05 for every dollar they bring in taxes. Hyperinflation is not a problem of floating exchange rates, it doesn't follow from any causal relationship.\",\n \"As others said, Greece cannot set.monetary policy because that is the job of the ECB. If you meant fiscal policy, then you are right: their high levels of debt plus their default this year make it so that they cannot unilaterally borrow more money to run a deficit as the private market will not lend to them. This makes them dependent on a bailout.\",\n \"Those government workers in Greece were just mooching off a corrupt system that was enabled by the blind pursuit of yield and the moral hazard of bailout expectations. They were way overpaid to do nothing but collect bribes and drink coffee all day. Good riddance. Greece is a poor agricultural country with some tourism and some shipping, and needs to go back to living within its means. Nobody is going to starve, and high unemployment was always the norm there until a few years ago - I lived there before the Euro, and they managed just fine despite high interest rates and inflation. Japan has had lost decades because its banks, like those in the west now, are practicing extend and pretend, so there hasn't been a proper flush of the system. The PIIGS should just flat out default and get it over with, rather than slowly default while giving up sovereignty. Even Germany would be better off if the PIIGS defaulted, since it is German taxpayers and savers who are going to pay for these bailouts. Let the banks fail, meaning let their equityholders and bondholders take losses - the depositors will be fine. The resulting lower asset prices will tempt risk capital back into the system, and life will go on. Bailouts just throw good money after bad and prop up corrupt banks and politicians. EDIT: Let me clarify about depositors making out fine. The banks' equityholders and bondholders take losses before depositors, who are insured anyway. In most cases, in Europe as in the US, the write-downs are not large enough to eat through this cushion before threatening depositors. Creditors were rewarded with higher interest for lending to these irresponsible banks, so they should take the hit rather than get made whole at taxpayer and saver (inflation) expense.\",\n \"do you really want another overblown economic crisis that lets billions starve? Throwing money at the problem to temper it is the only solution. What needs to happen while that is being done is aggressive reform and belt tightening - and that's not happening fast enough which may then lead us into a larger full blown crisis. i.e. you may just get your wish.\",\n \"\\\"Do you have the felling this is going to get much much worse before it gets better? I mean, Greece is going through with austerity measures and will be cutting gov't spending and raising taxes again. They will be cutting over 150,000 gov't workers, pensions cut, etc. How are they ever going to grow? If Spain and Italy follow in this practice, I see another \\\"\\\"loss decade\\\"\\\" just like Japan went through. If not a total EU collapse.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I was being sarcastic. What I was trying to say was that this is a horseshit \\\"\\\"kick the can down the road\\\"\\\" maneuver that will only make things worse in the long run. Spain is fucked, Italy is next. Greece is leaving the Euro, and soon there will be capital controls all across Europe. It'll be hell.\\\"\",\n \"The answer is far more simple. The purchasers of periphery debt have been banks in the periphery. Since these countries don't have a central bank, their private banks were swallowing the national debt since nobody else wanted to touch it. When the market value of that debt plummets, the banks have massive holes they need to fill on their balance sheets to fulfill capital requirements and solvency. Therefore, the banks themselves need to be injected with liquidity. Now you can see why its a reiterative problem.\",\n \"The free market will determine exchange rates. But only sort of. If anyone leaves the euro expect and immediate mother-of-all-bank-runs. Then the new currency will begin to trade both officially and unofficially and eventually a market clearing price will be set. Whether that lands on an officially pegged rate or at a discount to that rate is a total crapshoot and not even worth trying to predict.\",\n \"\\\"No one's worrying about \\\"\\\"GFC II.\\\"\\\" A Greek default/exit would hurt banks, but not that much more than is already priced into the market. The capital most big banks have raised would be sufficient to deal with Greece contingency. The real damage would be to GDP figures.\\\"\",\n \"I suppose they still could risk hyperinflation? Anyways, if they got their own currency that would probably be positive for their exports. Still, what are they going to export? Buying any raw materials would be super expensive with their devalued currency. What is your thought about their exporting with devalued currency?\",\n \"\\\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \\\"\\\"printing their way out of it\\\"\\\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\\\"\",\n \"\\\">If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. No, a debt that comes into being as dollar-denominated remains dollar-denominated. Reserve currency status doesn't change this. The advantage of having the reserve currency is that other countries have a strong motive to accumulate dollars. Because of this we can pay for our imports in dollars. If we no longer had the reserve currency we would lose the ability to run a persistent trade deficit without borrowing foreign currency to do so. To some extent this would self-correct. If foreigners no longer desired to hoard dollars, the flow of dollars back in to the US would bring down the trade deficit. Going forward, we'd have to \\\"\\\"live within our means\\\"\\\" with respect to foreign trade, funding imports with exports. Domestically every country that has its own currency, not just the US, can use that currency to fully fund its own domestic productive capacity. Printing money doesn't make a poor country rich but it does allow any country to fully realize its own potential. >Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. This is only true when a country borrows in a currency it doesn't issue. When a country spends in its own currency its policy space is constrained by inflation. To the extent any country uses, pegs to or borrows in someone else's currency that policy space is narrowed by the need to first borrow or earn that currency. >if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard The euro shows us where that road leads. Countries that give up monetary authority give up sovereignty and when they find themselves in a situation where the monetary policy they no longer control is at odds with their needs, their economies get torn apart. That's why one country, one currency is good policy. Stability and maximum policy space is achieved when fiscal authority, political legitimacy and monetary authority are consolidated at the same level. It's a three-legged stool that becomes a fragile balancing act when one leg is taken away. Also, there's a whole side discussion to be had on what the alternatives are to the dollar as a reserve currency. The dollar is in that position for a reason.\\\"\",\n \"''just how much of the troubled southern EU nations' debt is due to the rescuing of private banks? thanks'' My answer rambled onto related topics. In short, not much. While the actual sums involved in bank bailouts are considerable, relative to sovereign debts run up by having structural/trade deficits for ~10 years, they aren't the problem in Europe at the moment...but they ARE the tip of an Iceberg that could sink parts of the EU and leave the rest struggling to stay above water. An interesting question to ponder, with deceptively simple answers, is: If the % of sovereign debt resulting from bank bailouts is so small, why does the media and general public throw a fit every time a major EU bank gets into trouble? People are worried about losing their savings that they have with that bank. Its a visceral fear that is easy to personally relate to. But scratch below the surface and there is a whole buffet of terror for you to feast on. Assuming leverage of ~26* on assets held by banks and that true liabilities aren't completely opaque to average Joe retail investor, the collapse of the right bank could fire the starting gun on a vicious recession, trigger bailouts of other institutions exposed to the original and all sorts of nasty events. These bank assets include the mess created by rehypothecation, securitization of shitty credit/assets and CDS, commercial paper that relies on never having to be realized as a loss and interference in the money markets and currencys by states. Its damn hard to work out what assets and liabilities a bank has these days, let alone what any debt they have taken on is worth. Euro Crisis Best Crisis. *Pulled from memory, I'm not sure if this is accurate for Europe.\",\n \"> there is no way they will let it collapse Do you think they would have let it get to the point of imminent collapse, if they could do anything about it? Why do you think they will have any more power over the next stage in this debacle?\",\n \"\\\"Except the government in this case has decided to limit itself to Euros, a currency it does not control and therefore one it can \\\"\\\"run out of\\\"\\\", making deficit spending a risky proposal indeed. The correct approach is of course to never join such a regime in the first place, and then deficit spend as needed to keep your labor force highly employed.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"i hate to say it, and i will probably be downvoted to oblivion, but i don't think you can do anything. i'm not an expert, so i might be wrong, but if greece (or any euro country, for that matters) decides to exit the euro, the currency will be dead within the week. that, from what i've read in various newspapers, will be an incredibly bad news for the european economy. which *will* collapse in a very short period of time. then the collapse would propagate (more or less slowly, more or less significantly) to other economies, especially china and US, possibly middle east, too. at that point, you (well, we) have a major economic cataclysm. would it really matter if you had a tiny bit more money than your neighbour, if production stops, goods don't move that much anymore, and your country is generally in such a deep shit that the potato famine will look like a day in eurodisney? i agree with what other people are saying: they will not allow the euro to fall. \\\"\\\"they\\\"\\\" sounds like hidden conspiracies, but even if european leaders have taught us that we can expect the worse from them (2 world wars in the last centuries are just the quicker reminder of their stupidity), there's the americans, the chineses, and so on. i think the worst thing you, or anyone else in europe, can do is panicking and moving their money around. if the exchange rate with the euro is not fixed (and nothing is) you still have a chance to lose a significant amount of money in the short-medium run, in a worst case scenario. chill. relax. if you're really desperate and think that things *will* go bad, try turning a hobby into another job, especially if you can do it online and can bring you a steady income eventually. **TL; DR: if the world economy collapse, you will still lose money. live happy. chill.**\\\"\",\n \"\\\"For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc. There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds. The \\\"\\\"National Debt\\\"\\\" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the \\\"\\\"Bonds\\\"\\\" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong. If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (\\\"\\\"Default\\\"\\\" on its payments). This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future. Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default. Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge.\\\"\",\n \">The interesting thing for me - In Ireland's case they need to have a refurendum. I wonder if they will accept this? It's not clear cut whether we need a referendum. It's a common misconception that all Treaty changes require a referendum in Ireland. Not so. In Crotty v An Taoiseach it was accepted by the Supreme Court that joining the EEC (as it then was) involved getting on board a moving train and that even the assignment of new competences to Europe would not necessarily necessitate a referendum. Any change in the fundamental scope of the Union would however require a referendum. In that case the introduction of a Common Foreign and Security Policy and qualified majority voting was a change in scope and referendum was necessary. In this case, it's hard to tell. The EU already has some competence in this area - its possible to levy fines etc for breaches of the stability and growth pact already. I couldn't predict how the Supreme Court would characterise giving the Court of Justice oversight in this area. They will feel presssure from many corners in this case as well - holding in favour of a referendum might be seen as threatening economic disaster, while holding against would undermine democratic legitimacy. If there is a referendum, I predict it will go down like a lead balloon. Forcing the Lisbon Treaty on the electorate twice gave rise to enough resentment - botching the recovery and being seen to enforce austerity on the country made it worse. I imagine support for the EU is at an all time low in this country.\",\n \"ok fuck it then, you'd rather discuss how to pass the CFA five times a week? enjoy! by the way - if you're going to be so condescending with your information - at least be correct when doing so. Ireland and Greece have both taken on debt to support failing banks - whether or not they did before the crisis, and whether or not it is only a small % of total deficit, is irrelevant to his question. this is the entire reason direct recapitalizing has been implemented with ESF - to prevent further deterioration of country balance sheets\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["The Euro is a common currency between various countries in Europe. This means that individual countries give up their traditional sovereign control of their own currency, and cede that control to the EU. Such a system has many advantages, but it also means that individual countries cannot deal with their unique situations as easily. For instance, if the US were a part of the EU, then the Fed couldn't issue $600B the way they are to bolster the economy. The danger to the Euro is that countries will withdraw their participation in order to micromanage their economies more effectively. If a major country withdraws its participation, it could start a domino effect where many countries withdraw so that they too can manage their economies more effectively. As more countries withdraw, a shared currency becomes less and less appealing."],"string":"[\n \"The Euro is a common currency between various countries in Europe. This means that individual countries give up their traditional sovereign control of their own currency, and cede that control to the EU. Such a system has many advantages, but it also means that individual countries cannot deal with their unique situations as easily. For instance, if the US were a part of the EU, then the Fed couldn't issue $600B the way they are to bolster the economy. The danger to the Euro is that countries will withdraw their participation in order to micromanage their economies more effectively. If a major country withdraws its participation, it could start a domino effect where many countries withdraw so that they too can manage their economies more effectively. As more countries withdraw, a shared currency becomes less and less appealing.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":296,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3888"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Why I can't view my debit card pre-authorized amounts?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["307083","319213","239632"],"string":"[\n \"307083\",\n \"319213\",\n \"239632\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["208169","448086","181757","283889","91804","307083","323213","9830","313441","75735","385237","597933","384892","598419","276733","316652","261161","519328","458374","209718","168283","240328","319213","486617","306684","443609","236289","380595","382347","109164","5334","514155","434320","444640","151639","50347","75538","186671","385746","122493","359039","13800","234632","294077","285638","593547","178290","152689","165995","456147","288657","490955","517006","585890","262524","185403","185434","481665","423505","405848","219990","266493","181697","450371","428689","282934","568636","303713","432077","146909","278667","207992","233040","181538","278666","132636","175448","440527","376353","64547","224801","281977","516608","372282","479105","86532","244133","366578","210855","159783","329957","595633","328253","273944","239632","265640","361917","39772","44113","264932"],"string":"[\n \"208169\",\n \"448086\",\n \"181757\",\n \"283889\",\n \"91804\",\n \"307083\",\n \"323213\",\n \"9830\",\n \"313441\",\n \"75735\",\n \"385237\",\n \"597933\",\n \"384892\",\n \"598419\",\n \"276733\",\n \"316652\",\n \"261161\",\n \"519328\",\n \"458374\",\n \"209718\",\n \"168283\",\n \"240328\",\n \"319213\",\n \"486617\",\n \"306684\",\n \"443609\",\n \"236289\",\n \"380595\",\n \"382347\",\n \"109164\",\n \"5334\",\n \"514155\",\n \"434320\",\n \"444640\",\n \"151639\",\n \"50347\",\n \"75538\",\n \"186671\",\n \"385746\",\n \"122493\",\n \"359039\",\n \"13800\",\n \"234632\",\n \"294077\",\n \"285638\",\n \"593547\",\n \"178290\",\n \"152689\",\n \"165995\",\n \"456147\",\n \"288657\",\n \"490955\",\n \"517006\",\n \"585890\",\n \"262524\",\n \"185403\",\n \"185434\",\n \"481665\",\n \"423505\",\n \"405848\",\n \"219990\",\n \"266493\",\n \"181697\",\n \"450371\",\n \"428689\",\n \"282934\",\n \"568636\",\n \"303713\",\n \"432077\",\n \"146909\",\n \"278667\",\n \"207992\",\n \"233040\",\n \"181538\",\n \"278666\",\n \"132636\",\n \"175448\",\n \"440527\",\n \"376353\",\n \"64547\",\n \"224801\",\n \"281977\",\n \"516608\",\n \"372282\",\n \"479105\",\n \"86532\",\n \"244133\",\n \"366578\",\n \"210855\",\n \"159783\",\n \"329957\",\n \"595633\",\n \"328253\",\n \"273944\",\n \"239632\",\n \"265640\",\n \"361917\",\n \"39772\",\n \"44113\",\n \"264932\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["It's not so much a credit card, but a financial institution's online platform that either provides this functionality or not. The following Canadian financial institutions show an itemized list of pre-authorized transactions (not an exhaustive list): The following institutions show a total value of pre-authorized transactions: Most other institutions show the available credit (e.g. Chase Financial used by Amazon Rewards), which give an indication of how much you have to spend. By subtracting the current balance and the available balance from the total credit limit, you can get an indication of the total amount of pre-authorized transactions. Example: $1000 - $500 - $400 = $100 is the amount of pre-authorized transactions. From TD's EasyWeb demo (http://tdeasywebdemo.com/v2/#/en/PFS/accounts/activity/chq), it appears that they don't include pre-authorized transactions in the Available Credit. You can verify for yourself by logging in to online banking after you make a purchase and comparing the Available Credit to [Credit Limit - Current Balance]. If it is equal, then they don't include, if it is different (most likely for the value of the transaction), then they do.","\"PC MasterCard recently added this as a new feature to their online system. It lets you see \"\"Pending Authorizations\"\" for your card when you log in. Their email said: Along with your purchases, you'll see a list of every transaction that's been approved, but not yet applied to your balance. You'll be able to identify these with the word “Pending” in the date column. Here's a link with more information: http://pcfinancial.ca/pendingauthorization/\"","The way that credit card transactions happen are: In your example, the card is authorized for the charge but the transaction never actually moves on to the next step. However, your available credit should drop by whatever the authorized amount is and this will not disappear until it naturally goes away when the transaction does not move onto the next step.","\"From my days in e-commerce they break down like this? The company doesn't know a debit from a credit card. Got the Visa logo, then it is a Visa through the company's payment gateway. The gateway talks to the bank and that is where the particulars for money is figured out. When I programmed gateway interfaces, I had the option to \"\"authorize\"\" or check for funds (which didn't reserve anything, just verified funds existed), run for batch (which put a hold on the funds and collected them at the end of the night) or just take the money. Most places did a verify during the early checkout stages and then did a batch at the end of the night. The nightly batch allows a merchant to cancel a transaction without getting charged a fee. The \"\"authorize\"\" doesn't mean the money is tied up, although that might be your banks policy. Furthermore, an authorize can only last for so many days. This also explains why most of your banks don't report your transactions to you the day of. There is a bunch more activity on your card than the transactions that complete.\"","Is there a debit card accessing this account? When you spend money on a debit card for certain item, including, but not limited to gas, restaurant, hotel, a bit extra is held in reserve. For example, a $100 restaurant charge might hold $125, to allow for a tip. (You're a generous tipper, right?) The actual sales slips my take days to reconcile. It's for this reason that I've remarked how credit cards have their place. Using debit cards requires that one have more in their account than they need to spend, especially when taking a trip including hotel costs.","\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\"","That's how my power company does it. You authorize them to direct debit recurring monthly. If they screw up and withdraw $1000, you're out until it gets fixed. But it varies from company to company. Not everyone's situation is like your online banking.","The answer to your question is very simple: The preauth and the shipment of the goods have no connection within the credit card system. It is possible to process a payment that does not cancel a preauthorization. This is needed for the case where you place two orders and the one you placed second ships first. A preauth can remain active for some time unless it is captured or cancelled. So in your case a preauth was placed and remained active. That you were shipped and billed for some goods had no effect on the preauth because one side or the other failed to attach them.","\"There are, in fact, two balances kept for your account by most banks that have to comply with common convenience banking laws. The first is your actual balance; it is simply the sum total of all deposits and withdrawals that have cleared the account; that is, both your bank and the bank from which the deposit came or to which the payment will go have exchanged necessary proof of authorization from the payor, and have confirmed with each other that the money has actually been debited from the account of the payor, transferred between the banks and credited to the account of the payee. The second balance is the \"\"available balance\"\". This is the actual balance, plus any amount that the bank is \"\"floating\"\" you while a deposit clears, minus any amount that the bank has received notice of that you may have just authorized, but for which either full proof of authorization or the definite amount (or both) have not been confirmed. This is what's happening here. Your bank received notice that you intended to pay the train company $X. They put an \"\"authorization hold\"\" on that $X, deducting it from your available balance but not your actual balance. The bank then, for whatever reason, declined to process the actual transaction (insufficient funds, suspicion of theft/fraud), but kept the hold in place in case the transaction was re-attempted. Holds for debit purchases usually expire between 1 and 5 days after being placed if the hold is not subsequently \"\"settled\"\" by the merchant providing definite proof of amount and authorization before that time. The expiration time mainly depends on the policy of the bank holding your account. Holds can remain in place as long as thirty days for certain accounts or types of payment, again depending on bank policy. In certain circumstances, the bank can remove a hold on request. But it is the bank, and not the merchant, that you must contact to remove a hold or even inquire about one.\"","I called Bank of America today about the same problem on my account. The service representative said that part of money is available to me and I can use the money.","It will depend on credit they are offering you during the period being covered. A gas station locks up what they expect is the maximum transaction for most people. When the prices of gas spikes some people have the pump turn off before the tank is filled, therefore they need to use a 2nd card to complete the purchase. Before you arrive at a hotel they lockup the cost of one night in the hotel, that way they still sell the room for one night if you never show. While you are there they lockup the cost of what you could owe them. This would include the cost of the room, and average room service or bar service. For a car rental, it would be based on the risk they perceive. They don't want to try and collect against a card you gave them when you reserved the car, or when you picked up the car, only to find that you have gone over the limit. Some online systems will let you see what is pending against your card. Others could provide that information to you over the phone.","\"As for PC Mastercard like stated by @nullability, VISA Desjardins list the \"\"Pending Authorizations\"\" almost instantly (the time it's take to get back home) in AccesD (Their Web portal for managing accounts).\"","\"The \"\"hold\"\" is just placeholder that prevents you from overspending until the transaction is settled. The merchant isn't \"\"holding\"\" your money, your bank or card provider is protecting itself from you overdrawing. In general, it takes 1-3 days for a credit transaction to settle. With a credit card, this usually isn't an issue, unless you have a very low credit line or other unusual things going on. With pre-paid and debit cards, it is an issue, since your spending power is contingent upon you having an available balance. I'm a contrarian on this topic, but I don't see any compelling reason to use debit or stored value cards, other than preventing yourself from overspending. I've answered a few other questions in detail in this area, if you're interested.\"","Context clues hun. I was talking about if you go to Chilis and swipe your card for $20 and leave a $5 tip the processing amount the bank takes into account when telling you your available balance is much more likely to be $23 than $25. So the bank knows I went to Chilis the second I swipe my card, but doesnt know the exact amount. I was saying a lot of people dont understand that. They see they spent X at Chilis (processing) and assume it to be fact. I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time with this concept. Also comparing swiping a debit card as credit to writing a check (in terms of when they show up on your account) is a terrible comparison. When a check goes through the accurate balance is taken out all at once a few days later, but when you swipe a debit card as credit a tentative balance is taken out immediately and adjusted to the actual balance when it settles. And calling me ignorant because I don't need the help writing down where my money is at or goes is pretty ironic.","I don't use pre-authorized automatic payment methods because there is no control, and it is impossible to get it back. Once you have authorized a firm to withdraw funds from your account, there is no realistic way to revoke that control, save closing down your bank account entirely and moving to another institution. I once had automatic payments set up for my apartment rent, and then one month they withdrew twice on one day, overdrawing my account; it was very difficult to dispute the charge and get it back. The bank was little help as I had authorized them to withdraw funds; it didn't make any difference that they had done it twice, because I had given them permission to withdraw that amount. The property management company was large and difficult to contact, and at first denied any wrongdoing. tl;dr version: it's more pain than it's worth, and I will never do it again.","I stopped using pre-authorized payments for things like telephone etc., because it made it more possible/likely for a fraudulent charge to sneak by. But if there is an occasion for choosing pre-authorized payments (like charities, and places of exact fixed price) I use my credit card because then I also get points. Furthermore, I reason (perhaps wrongly) that if there is intermediary step between actual money (bank account) and the source of the bill then it gives me better chance of catching irregularities and hence a little safer. I am sure other members here will laugh my naivety, but there you have it.","\"This question is likely to be closed as a product recommendation request. But if you are willing to change the question a bit, perhaps to \"\"How do I avoid having my debit card declined when I know I have good funds\"\" it becomes a reasonable general question. And my answer follows. I can tell you the same thing happens to those of us with credit cards. It can happen when your buying pattern changes. Suddenly buying a lot of merchandise, especially away from home. Nothing like having your card declined while with relatives you visit or while on vacation. I'd talk to the bank and ask for advice how to avoid this. I've called my card issuer to tell them I'll in X city for these dates, to expect charges from there. That seems to work well.\"","\"I don't think the reason is \"\"to verify that it is truly me\"\". It should be possible for someone else (friend, relative...) to make a payment on your behalf, using their own card. It is common that \"\"gift cards\"\" are not per-authorized for \"\"Card Not Present\"\" (CNP) use like on the internet, or over the phone. In many cases, you can register your card, online or by speaking to a representative over the phone. After that, you should be able to use it to pay your phone company. Also, depending on where you got the card, you may be able to go to a teller at the issuing bank, and withdraw cash (or get a check), possibly without a fee.\"","In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment. If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out. I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily.","Given you mention a check clearing, in addition to debit card holds as JoeTaxpayer notes, you may also have funds that are on hold for that reason. While the bank may have stated it would be a one day hold, some banks may mean business days (Monday-Friday), and so it will become available on Monday. This is because checks are not always instantly withdrawn from the other account (although this is becoming much more common post-electronic check reform), so the bank wants to make sure it actually is getting the money from the check; after all, if the check you deposited bounces, the bank doesn't want to end up footing the bill. The bank allows you some portion up front, largely as a customer service; the amount varies from bank to bank, but it's generally a small amount they don't mind risking. $200 is a pretty good amount, actually; back when I was just out of college and frequently spending the last $50 in my account, the pre-clearance amount was usually $50. If the bank does this to you regularly and you feel that it is unfair in how long it holds checks, you might consider shopping around; different banks have different hold policies, or might allow you a larger amount up front. In particular, online banks tend to have more favorable terms this way.","a typical debit card is subject to several limits:","The RDFI (Receiving Depository Institution) is the place where you keep your money and where the Debit is going to be made. Unfortunately the Debit did not go through for some kind of regulatory reason that I don't understand. You could ask them why people are not allowed to make ACH Debits there or you can try to pay through a different bank.","No money is stolen. They don't show you the hold for whatever reason (not so good a bank?), but the money is still yours. You just cannot use it, but it is still on your account. These holds usually go away after a week. In certain cases (like a security deposit) it may take up to 30 days. You can request from the merchant to cancel the hold if it is no longer necessary. They'll have to be proactive on that, and some merchants wouldn't want the hassle. It is however a known issue. When I was working in the banking industry, we would routinely receive these hold cancellation requests from merchants (hotels and car rentals).","There's the fear that one might forget the debit is coming and still bounce the payment. Personally, I agree with Dheer's list, I don't want to give someone unlimited access to my account. I make good use of electronic payments where I initiate the payment. For the credit card I use regularly, I have a $250 monthly payment set to go automatically. If I forget to make a payment or lose the bill, at least the minimum is covered. The monthly charges are enough that when I actually pay the bill in full upon receipt, it just goes in toward current charges. Bills like gas/electric/phone are different every month, so an auto-debit is actually more trouble than how I handle.","Hence why I pay bill by bill and don't authorize automatic withdrawals. Are you telling me your online banking and/or utility company don't allow you to make non automatic payments online? If so I guess thats the answer to OP's question...","\"In short you have to wait till the hold expires. If its one week, its great. Few years back it was one Month. It is advisable you use a Credit Card for these type of transactions. With Credit Cards you are not out of funds like in Debit Cards. Plus the reversals are as much as I know automatic. In case of Debit Cards, the Holds are not automatically released on cancelled transactions but released only after expiry. Where as in Credit Cards, the holds are released immediately on cancelled transactions. \"\"Does the hold reserve it for them or for the original transaction?\"\" Yes hold is for that specific transaction from that specific merchant. i.e. if you try and book the same item from the same merchant, you will not be able to as you have money blocked. Although the merchant sends an unblock message when cancelling, on Debit cards these messages are not supported in India\"","Without the details of a specific bank it's hard to give a definitive answer, but here are some potential valid reasons I can think of: And most importantly","Open a dispute for the preauth. It is effectively a double charge, since you have already paid for the item. You can provide evidence of the other transaction. This forces them to go through some hassle and waste some time on the issue.","\"Well, it took some effort to get an explanation from my bank. Turns out that some supermarkets use direct debit as a method of transferring money for purchases payed by so-called \"\"EC\"\" cards here. I was told that for some reason, a supermarket decided to reverse one of such transactions.\"","\"Step 1. Log onto chase.com Step 2. Click on the account in question Step 3. Add \"\"Outstanding balance\"\" to \"\"Pending charges\"\" Step 4. Pay said total amount With all the energy you spent trying to find out if they're doing something illegal, you could've resolved the original issue yourself and be done with it.\"","Sign up for alerts. Everytime you use your card, you'll get an alert. That way if there is an unauthorized transaction, you'll know right away. The alerts can also tell you what amount was charged - since this happens right away, the last last cc transaction is fresh in your memory and any overcharges can be easily detected. Has saved me more times than I can remember!","\"You should probably call the travel agency and complain. Not that they will care, but if by any chance they do - they can ask PayPal to remove the block. This is what is called \"\"authorization pending\"\". Usually, a credit card transaction has two stages: The merchant requests its payment processor to authorize the transaction. The processor will contact the card issuer with the transaction details and will get the authorization code which will be passed to the merchant. At that stage the transaction enters the \"\"pending\"\" stage on your account. The merchant submits the transaction and gets the money from its payment processor, who forwards the transaction to the card issuer and gets the money from there. The card issuer charges the card owner. The transaction should have the same authorization code received in step #1, and by matching it to the pending transaction, the card issuer removes the pending transaction, and posts the actual transaction. However, if the transaction in step #2 doesn't include the code from step #1, the match doesn't occur and you see the situation you have now: both the actual transaction and the pending are active. In this case the merchant should contact its merchant processor and request the revocation of the authorization code. The processor will then forward the request to the card issuer, who will then remove the pending transaction. As you can see - multiple parties have to actually care for that to happen, and many times they don't, because they don't have to. As to the period - it's up to the card issuer (PayPal in your case), but 1 month is a very long time. Usually it's about a week or two, unless it's a hotel/car rental. In any case - once it expires, it will go away on its own and if you don't mind for the amounts to be blocked until then - just let it expire. The fact that you used a debit card for this transaction is irrelevant. Unless it was a pin transaction, debit card transactions are processed as credit card transactions by processors. For pin transactions, there process is different and you shouldn't see doubles. If it was a pin transaction - contact PayPal and check with them what's going on. Generally, PayPal is not to be used as a \"\"bank account\"\", it is merely a payment processor, and it is advised to remove the money from there as soon as possible.\"","The mode of payment mentioned by your bank is called the ACH(Automatic Clearing House) which means that anyone(Trusted payment gateway owners like banks themselves) can process payments. There can be a fraud declared against any payment that you have made and you can get every single penny back. This amount can not be withdrawn in cash at all. However for your situation I would suggest that you ask your bank to block any transactions above the amount of a specific sum, this way they will require your authorization to finalize the payment. You should feel safe after this. Also no one can access any other account apart from the one whose details you are giving out so do not worry about this guy(or anyone else for that matter) to be able to access your other accounts. Hope this helps. (I have experience in payment gateways so I do understand these procedures.) Cheers!!","It is barely possible that this is Citi's fault, but it sounds more like it is on the Costco end. The way that this is supposed to work is that they preauthorize your card for the necessary amount. That reserves the payment, removing the money from your credit line. On delivery, they are supposed to capture the preauthorization. That causes the money to transfer to them. Until that point, they've reserved your payment but not actually received it. If you cancel, then they don't have to pay processing fees. The capture should allow for a larger sale so as to provide for tips, upsells, and unanticipated taxes and fees. In this case, instead of capturing the preauthorization, they seem to have simply generated a new transaction. Citi could be doing something wrong and processing the capture incorrectly. Or Costco could be doing a purchase when they should be doing a capture. From outside, we can't really say. The thirty days would seem to be how long Costco can schedule in advance. So the preauthorization can last that long for them. Costco should also have the ability to cancel a preauthorization. However, they may not know how to trigger that. With smaller merchants, they usually have an interface where they can view preauthorizations and capture or cancel them. Costco may have those messages sent automatically from their system. Note that a common use for this pattern is with things like gasoline or delivery purchases. If this has been Citi/Costco both times, I'd try ordering a pizza or some other delivery food and see if they do it correctly. If it was Citi both times and a different merchant the other time, then it's probably a Citi problem rather than a merchant problem.","\"AIUI this is not terribly abnormal. There are authorisations (sometimes reffered to as \"\"pending charges\"\" or \"\"holds\"\") and actual charges. An authorisation reserves money but doesn't actually take it. Normally what happens when you pay by card is that the merchant gets an authorisation immediately. Then some time later the authorisation is converted into an actual charge when the merchant takes the money. Sometimes merchants are slow in taking the actual charge, either deliberately (some merchants won't charge your card until they actually supply the goods to reduce the chance of having to process a refund) or because of administrative snarlups somewhere. When this happens the authorisation can time out before the actual charge is taken. So you get the pattern you see, first the authorisation appears then it times out and dissapears and finally the actual charge shows up.\"","\"Yes, there is a slight reason to worry as the debit card contains 1) Account Number 2) of course a the Debit Card number 3) CSV code at the back of every debit card and mostly these three parameters are being followed to verify the authenticity of the cardholder, but there are some other parameters like \"\"password of your debit card\"\" and even address in some cases. So stay chill the manager will not be able to make any online payment using the credential of your debit card without password and other details...\"","Yes, it is possible, and many companies do it for legitimate reasons. For example renewing subscriptions or one-click ordering. The only way to completely stop it would be to cancel the card. More realistically, check your bill whenever it arrives, and report any unauthorized transactions to the card issuer.","This depends on the practise and applications available with the Beneficiary Bank. For a corporate customer, the details are show. For Retail customers they are generally not shown.","That all makes sense, but all of those things are the responsibility of the cardholder. If you want to pay off your balance, anything quoted would obviously not include any transaction yet to post. The problem is a creditor refusing to give the balance AND refusing to take a payment for an amount over the previous statement balance. This is essentially forcing the customer to pay more interest after they declare their intent to pay the full amount. Good points, but I don't believe those were factors in this case.","Just use a credit card like AMEX Blue that categorizes your purchases, and reconcile at the end of the month. There is no good reason to use a debit card.","If your debit card has no fraud protection then you need to find a different bank, many debit cards include it. Even with fraud protection, I don't like to keep excess money in the checking account, so I have checking and savings accounts with an online bank. I can transfer money from savings to checking instantly, 6 times per month, which allows me to keep only what is needed in the checking account. Many online banks have a better overdraft policy as well, where you simply pay a small amount of interest on the over-drawn amount, rather than a set ~$35 overdraft fee, or a $20 fee for them to automatically transfer money from your savings account. I've heard of, but not made use of threshold-based fraud alerts or two-factor approval, which you can set up so that any purchase in excess of $N triggers the need for additional approval via your phone.","POS stands for Point of Sale (like a specific store location) which indicates that the purchase occurred by using your debit card, but it can also be the on-line transaction done via 3-D Secure. Checking with bank, they said that Kirchstrasse transaction could be related to direct marketing subscription service ordered on-line. Investigating further what I've found these kind of transactions are performed by 2BuySafe company registered at Kirchstrasse in Liechtenstein with went through the MultiCards on-line cashier which can be used for paying different variety of services (e.g. in this case it was polish on-line storage service called Chomikuj). These kind of transactions can be tracked by checking the e-mail (e.g. in gmail by the following query: after:2014/09/02 before:2014/09/02 Order). Remember, that if you still don't recognise your transaction, you should call your bank. I have found also some other people concerns about that kind of transactions who ask: Is 2BuySafe.com and www.multicards.com some sort of Scam? Provided answer says: MultiCards Internet Billing is a provider of online credit card and debit card processing and payment solutions to many retailers worldwide. MultiCards was one of the pioneer companies offering this type of service since 1995 and is a PCI / DSS certified Internet Payment Service Provider (IPSP) providing service to hundreds of retail websites worldwide MultiCards is a registered Internet Payment Service Provider and has implemented various fraud protection tools including, but not limited to, MultiCards Fraud Score Tool and 'Verified by Visa' and 'MasterCard SecureCode' to protect card holder's card details. 2BuySafe.com Is also Secured and Verified By GeoTrust The certificate should be trusted by all major web browsers (all the correct intermediate certificates are installed). The certificate was issued by GeoTrust. Entering Incorrect information can lead to a card being rejected as @ TOS 2BuySafe.com is hosted on the Multicards Server site","Short answer: No. Some of those 'automatic' payments you've agreed to (presumably by signing a PAD form) are initiated in batch by the company whom you're buying from (phone company, cable company etc). So no, the bank has no indication from one day to the next what is coming through. And the request goes from say, your cable company to THEIR merchant bank to YOUR bank. Typically you have a monthly bill date which is fixed, and they should have terms established when it is due. If a payment comes back NSF they can retry once - but only for the same amount and I believe it is 14 days from the initial payment attempt. It makes it predictable, and you'd figure banks would clue in and start to predict for you when things may come out - but strictly speaking your bank doesn't know when or how much.","\"This is not a normal occurrence, and you have every right to be annoyed, but the technical way it usually happens goes like this: What can happen is when the merchant incorrectly completes the transaction without referencing the pre-authorization transaction. The bank effectively doesn't \"\"know\"\" this is the same transaction, so they process it the same way they process any other purchase, and it has no effect on the pre-authorization and related held/pending transaction. As far as the bank knows, you purchased a second set of blinds in the store for $200 and are still waiting on the first order to come in, they have no idea the store screwed up. The reason this is possible is the purpose of the pre-auth in the first place is that it is a contractual agreement between the bank (credit card) and the merchant that the funds are available, will be available except under rare special circumstances, and thus they can go ahead and process the order. This lets the merchant be secure in the knowledge that they can collect their payment, but you aren't paying interest or monthly payments on something you haven't even gotten yet! This system works reasonably well for everyone - right up until someone screws up and fails to properly release a hold, makes a second transaction instead of properly referencing the first one, or the bank screws up their system and fails to correctly match referenced pre-authorization codes to purchases. The problem is that this should not be a normal occurrence, and the people you are speaking with to try to sort out the issue often do not have the authority or knowledge necessary to properly fix the issue, or its such a hassle for them that they hope you just go away and time fixes the issue on its own. The only sure-fire solution to this is: make sure you have so much extra credit line that this doesn't effect you and you can safely let it time out on its own, or stop doing business with this combination of merchant/payment that creates the problem. Back when my credit limits were being pushed, I would never pay at gas pumps because their hold polices were so weird and unpredictable, and I would only pre-pay inside or with cash to avoid the holds.\"","I doubt it's legal, but for next time, just go onto the website and your balance will be right there front-and-center... no need to deal with some ill-informed cranky lady in a call center half-way across the world.","The Bank have risk. In goods, thrre are two profiles, essentially it can be convenient and hence the usage, pay off monthly or spending future earnings today for luxury. The way cash advance is seen, emergency, ran out of cash in foreign/remote location... Debit cards not working etc. One generally needs small amount of cash. The other segment is loss of income. Essentially I have run out of cash and I need to borrow. This is additional risk and hence is limited or curtailed.","Sounds questionable to me. If there is no way around this I would suggest opening a new account with only the minimum balance necessary and sending them the debit card associated with that account. If anything goes wrong then the amount of damage they can do will be limited. I would definitely be looking for other options though. Maybe they can just mail you a check or something?","This is normal for credit cards. As long as you make the credit card company's cutoff time, they will make the funds available on your credit card rather than make you wait for them to actually get the funds from your bank. The amount of time this takes actually can vary significantly from bank to bank. You do want to make sure funds are available in your bank account for them to withdraw when they do take them though. If not, the payment would get returned and can set red flags on your credit card account that take a while to drop off.","If it is one of those debit cards you use just like a credit card without a PIN, I'd cancel it regardless of whatever you are trying to do with your finances. They just seem too dangerous to me. Unlike a credit card, if someone makes fraudulent purchases on a debit card the money is gone from your bank account until you resolve the issue with the issue. With a credit card, the BANK is out the money until it gets worked out. My brother once had his credit card number (not the card) stolen and the criminals emptied his bank account. Eventually the bank put the money back after an investigation, but it had two really nasty side effects: 1) Dozens of checks bounced. The bank refunded the bounced check fees, but not all of the stores would. 2) He had no money in his account until it was resolved. Luckily in his case they resolved it in a few days, but he was already making preparations to borrow money to pay his rent/bills.","It is the people who you bought the ticket from. Blocking is frequently done by hotels, gas stations, or rental car companies. Also, for anything where the credit card might be used to cover any damages or charges you might incur later as part of the transaction. In essence, they are reserving part of your credit limit, ostensibly to cover charges they reasonably expect you might incur. For example, when you start pumping gas using a credit card they may block out $100 to make sure you don't pump a full tank and your credit card is declined because you ran over your limit at $3. In general, the blocks clear fairly quickly after you settle up with the company on your final bill. You can also ask the company to clear the block, but I don't think they are required to by law in any specific time period. It may be up to their (and your) agreement with the credit card company. Normally it isn't an issue and you don't even notice this going on behind the scenes, but if you keep your credit card near its limit, or use a debit card it can lead to nasty surprises (e.g. they can make you overdraw your account). One more reason not to use debit cards. More information is available here on the Federal Trade Commission's website.","I paid with my Visa credit card. Generally on credit cards, the holds / authorizations are valid for a month on single transactions. So if you haven't been charged on your card, it seems that there was some technical error with the online market place. They were not able to trace this. Is there an expiration date on these kind of online purchases? Should I expect the money to be withdrawn at any time? There are 2 different aspects, one is do you still owe them money and can they ask you; It would be yes, I don't know the timelines. This would depend on establishing a contract etc. They can contact you for unpaid invoice. Can they again charge the credit card automatically ... generally No.","\"Executive summary: It sounds like the merchant just did an authorization then cancelled that authorization when you cancelled the order, so there was never an actual charge so you'll never see an actual refund and there's no money to \"\"claim\"\". More detail: From your second paragraph, it sounds like they just did an authorization but never posted the transaction. A credit card authorization is basically the merchant asking your credit card company \"\"Does sandi have enough credit to pay this amount and if so please reserve that amount for a bit.\"\" The authorization will decrease the total credit you have available on the card, but it's not actually a charge, so if your billing cycle ends, it won't show up on your statement. Depending on which company issued your credit card, you may be able to see the authorization online, usually labelled something like \"\"Pending transactions\"\". Even if your credit card company doesn't show pending transactions, you'll see a decrease in your available credit, however you shouldn't see an increase in your balance. The next step, and the only way the original merchant gets paid, is for the merchant to actually post a transaction to your card. Then it becomes a real charge that will show up on your next credit card statement and you'll be expected to pay it (unless you dispute the charge, but that's a different issue). If the charge is for the same amount as the authorization, the authorization will go away (it's now been converted to an actual charge). If the amounts are different, or the merchant never posts a transaction, the authorization will be removed by your credit card company automatically after a certain amount of time. So it sounds like you placed the order, the merchant did an authorization to make sure you could pay for it and to reserve the money, but then you cancelled the order before the merchant could post the transaction, so you were never really charged for it. The merchant then cancelled the authorization (going by the start of your third paragraph). So there was never an actual transaction posted, you were never charged, and you never really owed any money. Your available credit went down for a bit, but now should be restored to what it was before you placed the order. You'll never see an actual refund reflected on your credit card statement because there was no actual transaction.\"","I would guess that this is due to the card issuer, not Paypal. Credit card transactions are tagged with a code describing the type of purchase, and some issuers disallow certain types (such as gambling).","You are in luck, I have an ANZ credit card as well. I have just checked my paper statement with online, and was able to find a matching online statement in less than a minute. You simply click on your credit card account from the list of accounts. Under Date Range it will have the Current incomplete statement period. You simply click on the down arrow and select the last complete date range ending sometime in late April (depending on your credit card cycle). You then press on View next to the drop down box. This should provide you with a list of purchases and payment/credits for that period, followed by a line with your Credit Limit, Available Funds and Closing Balance. The line below that then shows your Due Date, and Overdue/Overlimit, the Minimum Payment and Amount Due Now If you are after paying only the minimum amount then you pay this amount by the due date (you will be charged interest if you only pay this amount). If, on the otherhand, you wish to avoid paying any interest then you need to pay the full Closing Balance before the due date. You should also be able to get electronic statements sent to your email address.","Try to get a second card in your business' name, with a separate card number (like you would get one for a spouse). They may or may not allow that free (you wouldn't want to pay a second fee), and it might be only possible with the second card bearing the same number, which makes it useless. But it is worth a try.","Believe it or not, this is done as a service to you. The reason for this has to do with a fundamental difference between a credit card account and a checking account. With a credit card account, there is no money in the account; every charge is borrowed money. When you get to your credit limit, your credit transactions will start getting declined, but if the bank does for some reason let one get approved, it's not a big deal for anyone; it just means that you owe a little more than your credit limit. Note that (almost) every credit card transaction today is an electronic transaction. A checking account, however, has real money in it. When it is gone, it is gone. When a balance inquiry is done, the bank has no way of knowing how many checks you've written that have not been cashed yet. It is a customer's responsibility to know exactly how much money is available to spend. If you write more checks than you have money for in your account, technically you have committed a crime. Unfortunately, there are too many people now that are not taking the responsibility of calculating their own checking account balance seriously, and bad checks are written all the time. When a bank allows these transactions to be paid even though you don't have enough money in your account, they are preventing a crime from being committed by you. The fee is a finance charge for loaning you the money, but it is also there to encourage you not to spend more than you have. Even if you use a debit card, it is still tied to a checking account, and the bank doesn't know if you have written enough checks to overdraw your account or not. It is still your responsibility to keep track of your own available balance. Every time this happens to you, thank the bank as you pay this fee, and then commit to keeping your own running balance and always knowing how much you have left in your account.","We have a pre-paid mastercard. This will only allow the spending up to the amount already paid into the card account. Visa Electron is a bank account linked debit card that will not allow the account to go overdrawn but this card type is getting quite rare.","Imagine the following scenario: You have a credit limit of $1000 and you want to by a tablet from a store. It costs $600. You then walk next door and buy a TV for $600. You would expect that you would go over your limit and the second transaction will be rejected. As long as that hold is in place, you don't have access to those blocked funds. That makes sure that you can't promise to pay more than you have funds on the card. Holds can get in the way if you are close to your credit limit. People run into this problem if they reserve a hotel room, rent a car, or purchase gasoline. The hold is set at a specific level to make sure you have enough funds for the typical transaction. This distance between vendors is not relevant. The bank is blocking funds based on a request from a vendor. They have to block the funds because you might use the multiple times in the same store. It is possible that the card company might release the hold based on the request by the vendor, but they generally don't. If this is a debit card linked to a bank account, the bank can have access to the overdraft system or a linked savings account. If is is a credit card they can decide to to increase your credit limit, and offer you what is essentially a loan. Plus they can hit you with fees. But if the card is a prepaid debit card or gift card they don't want to allow you to go beyond your limit. If this is a card that you plan on recharging, you could put extra funds on the card to allow both the old hold and the new hold to co-exist.","I'm sure it depends on the company, but I routinely run balances greater than 0 on my credit card. The reason is simple: I already budgeted to spend the money, I know I'm going to spend the money, and it's easier to put the extra money on the card at the beginning of my budget period rather than waiting until I spend the money and get a bill. There are 2 relevant numbers: First is the balance on your bill. It can show a positive or negative value, as people have talked about. The balance on my card tends to update fairly infrequently. The second is the available credit. When I overpay on my card, the available credit does not show more than the available debt. The latter value, however, updates for me immediately -- I can see within minutes any transaction on my credit card based on the credit available. One important caveat: Refunds don't always immediately process. You may have to wait days or weeks until that money shows up in your account. Spending the money before it appears in your account will cause your card to behave exactly as if you don't have the money.","I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.","CC always (applies only if you pay your balance in full). First you rack up points on your card, second if there is an unauthorized pull a Cc will help you a bank may or may not. As a general advice don't hand out your banking information like a credit card number. Now paying bills through the bank is a different matter. This advice applies to companies that would like to pull money from bank accounts. Never do that if Cc is an alternative.","As a merchant I can tell you that the only thing the bank gets from me. Is the total amount and a category for my business. No detail, not ever.","If this is a pre-authorized automatic billing, and if you have signed any contract with the merchant, cancelling may not block any future charges from the merchant. Happens with gyms, magazines, memberships quite often. There is a time period after the cancellation this will occur, then it'll be completely dead.","When you swipe your credit card, the terminal at the store makes a request of your bank, and your bank has only a few seconds to accept or reject the transaction. Once the transaction is accepted by your bank, it appears in the Pending transactions. At the end of the business day, the store submits all of the final transactions for the day to their bank in a batch, and the banks all trade transactions in a batch, and money is sent between banks. This is the process that takes a couple of days, and after this happens, you see the transaction move from your Pending transactions into the regular transactions area. Most of the time, the pending transaction and the final transaction are the same. However, there are cases where it is different. A couple of examples: With a credit account, the fact that the final amount is not known for a few days is no big deal: after all, you don't have any money in the account, and if you end up spending more than you have, the bank will happily let you take your time coming up with the money (at a steep cost, of course). With a debit card tied to your checking account, the transaction is handled the same way, as far is the store is concerned. However, your bank is not going to run the risk of you overdrawing your checking account. They also are not going to run the risk of you withdrawing money from your account that is needed to cover pending transactions. So they usually treat these pending transactions as final transactions, deducting the pending transaction from your account balance immediately. When the final transaction comes through, they adjust the transaction, and your balance goes up or down accordingly. This is one of the big drawbacks to using a debit card, in my opinion. If a bad pending transaction comes through, you are out this money until it gets straightened out.","Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.","\"As stated in the other answer, debit card payments even contactless ones, do not debit instantly or anywhere near instantly. They can take several days or even longer. However, the fact that the payment was approved would indicate that the contactless device used by the retailer managed to connect to your bank account and could see there were sufficient funds. At this time the payment should also have \"\"reserved\"\" the funds so it will be \"\"pending\"\" as such. Your online banking may not show all types of pending transactions, it may only show Direct Debits for example, if you ring the bank I expect they will be able to see this payment and advise accordingly, out of interest who do you bank with? If you can see your \"\"available\"\" funds you should find that includes this payment having been \"\"reserved\"\" ie you can't use that money, but if it's a small amount you may struggle to spot it. Again, this will vary by bank and how their internet banking system has been implemented. I would expect this payment to debit your account the working day after you made it, or at worst the day after that. In theory with \"\"faster payment\"\" technology it could happened within 2 hours but not all banks implemented that system in the same way so delays can and do occur. If the retailer/merchant banks with the same bank you do, in theory the transaction could be instantaneous, again depending on the bank. Short answer short, the transaction is fine, it won't be void, you just need to wait, probably a day or two. This link has more info, especially useful if you bank with NatWest (as I say the technology is likely to vary by bank to some extent). Your own bank should have their own version of this. http://personal.natwest.com/personal/current-accounts/your-visa-debit-card/contactless.html\"","As far as I can see, this is an issue of the bank's policy rather than some legal regulation. That means that you'll need to work it out with the bank. To give you a couple of ideas to work with when you talk with them, maybe something from this list will work: Good luck!","Three reasons I prefer not to use direct debit:","The post that you linked to saying that a pre-paid credit card is really a debit card is kind of right and kind of wrong. From your point of view, to get a $1000 pre-paid credit card, you need to hand over $1000. So nobody is giving any credit to you. You can only spend money that you actually own, like a debit card. For the merchant accepting your card, it is exactly like a credit card. He doesn't know what deals you had to make to get the card. The merchant just knows that up to some amount, he will receive money. So in that sense it is a credit card and will be accepted like a credit card.","I would expect so--the block from spending funds probably does not put a block in place for receiving funds. But ask your bank. Expect a 50% chance that they give you the wrong answer. (Some banks are better than others, but on average this is how often I have found bank employees to be incorrect about anything nonstandard). It may help to ask the bank how often it happens and who actually sorts out problems with blocked cards--and then talk to that person. Then you should only expect a 25% chance that they are wrong.","There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.","With a check, there are limits on cashing the stale check, but that is set by the banks involved. With a debit card transaction, it will be up the the debit card company and your bank. Imagine a situation where a person finds an old check and tries to cash it at their bank. If the bank considers the check stale, they might reject it, or put a longer hold on the check. When the check writers bank gets the transaction, they will also decide what to do. If they reject it, the first bank will reverse the transaction. You can't count on a 90 day, or 180 day limit; most banks will ask you to put a stop payment on an old check that you don't want cashed. This is especially important step if you write a replacement check. Because there is no check number to put a stop payment on, in fact the temporary hold will fall off after a few days. There doesn't appear to be a way to stop an old transaction. Be careful if you do contact the restaurant, you could end up double paying for the meal if they swipe your card again. Your best option may be just to keep the transaction as pending.","I just had this happen to me with Chase and speaking with my executive support contact, they will not return the funds unless you request them back. Which I find appalling and just one more reason that I don't like working with Chase!","You probably don't need to call the bank. Today is Sunday, so three days ago was probably Friday (or Thursday depending on how you count the days). Banks normally don't post transactions on weekends - and transactions that do happen on the weekend sometimes don't get posted until Tuesday. I would give it till Tuesday and then call them if you still don't see it show up on your account.","Whether or not you have money in your account will not necessarily stop them withdrawing the money, and it certainly won't stop them attempting to withdraw the money. There are two possible scenarios when they attempt to withdraw the money (as they surely will): I think you are just lucky they haven't attempted the withdrawal yet. Put the necessary money into your account now if you possibly can, and consider this a slightly expensive lesson learned about following the Ts and Cs when cancelling services.","Debit cards are the dumbest development ever. I now have a piece of plastic that allows any yahoo to cause me to bounce my mortgage. Great. Throw away the debit card. Use a credit card and exercise some self control. Take out a sufficient amount of cash to cover your weekly incidental expenses under $50. If you want something that costs more than $50, wait a week and use the credit card. You'll find that using cash at places like the convenience store or gas station will cause you to not spend $3 for a slim jim, lotto ticket, donut or other dumb and unnecessary item.","\"Why would you consider it null and void? It might be that something went wrong and the business \"\"lost\"\" the transaction one way or another. It might be something else. It might never appear. It might appear. In one of the questions a while ago someone posted a link of a story where an account was overdrawn because of a forgotten debit card charge that resurfaced months later. Can't find the link right now, but it can definitely happen.\"","When using a debit card there are two limits that may be imposed on the use: the current balance and the maximum daily limit. If the banking institution limits your daily usage that may mean that on a particular day you may not be able to make a large purchase, even though you have money in the bank. Otherwise as long as you have funds in the account linked to the debit card you can make the transaction. The catch is that as soon as the transaction is sent to the bank one of two things happens: the money is immediately deducted from the account; or a hold equal to the the amount of the transaction is placed on the account. A hold is generally used when the transaction is done in two parts: the pre-scan at a restaurant, or gas station. The hold reduces the amount of available funds in the account. A hold or an immediate deduction limits the size of future transactions. To be able to make larger transactions you need to transfer more money into the account. There is no debit card transaction that you can do to artificially allow a larger transaction, unless the bank is not placing a hold or doing an immediate deduction. Because a debit card is linked to a bank account, some accounts have overdraft protection. This protection comes in two forms: they either transfer your money from another account, or they make a loan. Either way there can be costs involved.","One possibility is to ask RBC to lend you some money (or more specifically, to lend you some more money): an overdraft, a personal loan, or whatever. To discuss this you should to talk to your personal banker (not a teller), probably by appointment: to explain why you want it, and how and when you expect repay it. You might (I don't know) say that you want the loan (or some of the loan) to pay off the Visa, and/or for the travel. If you've only just arrived in Canada, however, then I don't see why they should want to lend it to you (i.e. why they should think you're a good credit risk). Is there anyone else (e.g. an immigration sponsor or parent or employer) who might co-sign (a.k.a. guarantee) the loan? I have never had this issue before with any other credit cards but I got an RBC Visa in Canada In some countries (not Canada) a Visa behaves more like a debit card, i.e. you can only spend money you have in the account.","A federal or state regulator has ordered that the RDFI cannot participate in the ACH network, or the RDFI's participation has been limited in some capacity. You need to contact the RDFI for more details...ask for their ACH operations group. The RDFI is the institution receiving the ACH transaction. It could be either the debit side or credit side. It is not the institution originating the ACH transaction, which is the ODFI. The entire RDFI institution might be restricted for an extremely poor audit, or rampant suspect money laundering or terrorist funding. Specific accounts at the RDFI might be limited for a variety of reasons, including freezing the account for suspicious activity (money laundering or terrorist funding), court order for impending legal proceedings, IRS levies for nonpayment of taxes, or perhaps child support delinquency. I am making an educated guess on the reasons.","They hold most of time rental value for example if you rent car for 5 days and decline insurance offered at counter - they will ideally hold 5days x rental value per day + insurance x 5 days most of them round of this figure. if the card is issued from overseas like asia they hold extra $ 500 for collection issues. hope this helps you to plan - this is general thumb rule.","There are two separate cases here that people are not separating. Any card will allow you to pay an amount not exceeding the actually posted charges. Some cards will allow you to pay more than this, some will not. My parents have deliberately overpaid as a means of having a higher credit limit, I've been denied (different card) when trying to do the same thing and the website wouldn't even allow me to pay temporary charges that hadn't yet become real. (A human operator would allow paying those, though.)","This sounds more like a behavioral than a debit card issue to me TBH. Did you put the money you're putting away into a separate savings account that you (mentally) labelled 'for investment'? That's pretty much what I do (and I have a couple of savings accounts for exactly that reason) and even though I know I've got $x in the savings accounts, the debit card I carry only lets me spend money from my main bank account. By the time I've transferred the money, the urge to spend has usually gone away, even though it often only takes seconds to make the transfer.","\"> I was saying a lot of people dont understand that. They see they spent X at Chilis (processing) and assume it to be fact. I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time with this concept. And the solution -- keeping an ACCURATE and independent checkbook register (rather than relying on an \"\"online balance\"\") is still the same. >Also comparing swiping a debit card as credit to writing a check (in terms of when they show up on your account) is a terrible comparison. Nope. It's the same thing. You're still talking about a discrepancy between what has been processed, versus what you have ACTUALLY spent. >And calling me ignorant because I don't need the help writing down where my money is at or goes is pretty ironic. Well, if you're having problems with overdrafts (as you claimed you had) then rather obviously you DO need help (or at least you need to own up to where the problem lies -- your faulty \"\"memory\"\" of what you spent).\"","Something is missing from your scenario. If you don't know what it is, start by going to http://annualcreditreport.com and get your free credit report. Review it, and figure out if you have outstanding balances or judgements that you're unaware of. You should be using your card every month and pay it on time.","If the debit card is associated with the account, there is nowhere else it could go. The chance is nil that there is another account with that 16-digit number. So either it goes there, or the transfer fails and it is right back where it came from, though this could take some days. If you don't want to risk a wait, talk to your bank now.","I've used PayPal for my business for a long time. Sometimes PayPal doesn't trust credit cards. Debit or direct bank transfer are reliable. There is also a charge for using a credit card but I don't think that is the reason. You may be trying to purchase a high value item. That would be a possible reason why PayPal allowed you to use credit cards in the past, but will not allow you to do so now, for these particular transactions.","Of course not, this is confidential information in the same way that I cannot phone up your bank and ask to see a list of the transactions that you have made. Any bank has to be extremely careful about protecting the private transactions of it's customers and would be subject to heavy fines if it revealed this information without the customer's consent.","A large biller is registered and can initiate an ACH Debit to your account based on the Account Number and the Routing number. He assumes responsibility and completes the due diligence of obtaining a written mandate / permission / authorization from you. There are other legal process where by you get a Power of Attorney that would allow you to transact on behalf of someone. The key point you seem to be missing is that one can ONLY transact from ones account either by walking into the Bank / ATM, or by writing a check. There are other options as well to transact.","AIUI credit cards report three main things. The potential problem with your strategy is that by pre loading you never actually get a bill and so your provider may not report your payments. Better to wait until the bill comes and then pay it in full. That ensures that your use of the card is properly reported.","I did just what you suggest. The card company honored the charge, they told me the temporary number was solely for the purpose of assigning a number to one vendor/business. So even though I set a low limit, the number was still active and the card company paid the request. Small price to pay, but it didn't go as I wished. For this purpose, I've used Visa/Mastercard gift cards. They are often on sale for face value and no additional fees.","Typically, a direct debit is set up by the company who will be receiving the money, not by you or your bank. So you need to contact your credit card company, and ask them to set up the direct debit.","I think part of the reason people overdraft is because the online banking app/website doesn't show a true indication of your account balance. I've had mine (at Bank of America) adjust to $30 less than it told me I had when I checked due to processing payments being altered.","I found the answer to what you're looking for in the PayPal Help Center. Refer specifically to the question PayPal - How much do you charge to my card when confirming my debit or credit card?. Quote: We take the extra step to confirm your card so that we can verify that the card is valid and that you are the card owner. To confirm your card, we’ll charge $1.95 to it. After the card is confirmed, we’ll refund the amount to your PayPal balance. Here are amounts for cards in other countries: If we can’t determine or don’t support your card’s currency, we charge $1.95 USD to the card. (Refer directly to PayPal for potentially more up-to-date information.)","The hard hold is the bank holding your money for no reason but to make money of your. Like the hotel took deposit for my over night and they released the time checked out in there system but it never showed on my account . I had to call the bank why the numbers are not adding up to my current balance. It's illegal practice by banks to hold your money until your realize you didn't spent that much and that musing amount is not even showing on your account. When it happen they will release after 30 days or you can call the bank right away soon as you done your business so you can use the money right away not the bank","\"I can't speak for every credit card, but I know two of mine don't have overage fees. The transaction either goes through, or gets denied. Check your card agreement and look for the fee section. One other thing to consider, sometimes when you make an online payment to a credit card, you will notice that the \"\"Available Balance\"\" number on the account will increase right away even if the payment is not reflected on your \"\"Current Balance\"\". If this is the case, and you are positive that your payment will be successfully posted to the account, I say go for it.\"","As it is international debits, this will take a while. BofA is right, You have to dispute this with Card Issuer, i.e. HDFC. The worst case for me was around 1 month. Keep chasing and sending out reminders every 3-4 days.","I've called both BofA and Amex Customer Support, and they couldn't help. That's because you cannot. Debit card is tied to your checking account, so you can do a cash advance from your AMEX and deposit it to your BOA checking account. It will then be available to use with your debit card.","Are you sure the payment has actually posted and isn't sitting in a pre-auth status? If it is, it'll fall off in a few days and they're probably telling the truth. If not, and it has fully posted to your account, I agree with the others. It's very appropriate to initiate a chargeback. You can provide documentation showing they confirmed a cancellation, further, you can show proof that they had no intent of charging you. Good luck!","\"I linked my bank account (by making a transfer from bank account to Paypal) without linking a card. This should not give Paypal any rights to do anything with my bank account - transfer that I made to link it was exactly the same as any other outgoing transfer from my bank account. On attempting to pay more that resides in my Paypal balance I get To pay for this purchase right now, link a debit or credit card to your PayPal account. message. Paypal is not mentioning it but one may also transfer money to Paypal account form bank to solve this problem. Note, that one may give allow Paypal to access bank account - maybe linking a card will allow this? Paypal encourages linking card but without any description of consequences so I never checked this. It is also possible that Paypal gained access to your bank balance in other way - for example in Poland it just asked for logins and passwords to bank accounts (yes, using \"\"Add money instantly using Trustly\"\" in Poland really requires sharing full login credentials to bank account - what among other things breaks typical bank contract) source for \"\"Paypal attempts phishing\"\": https://niebezpiecznik.pl/post/uwaga-uzytkownicy-paypala-nie-korzystajcie-z-najnowszej-funkcji-tego-serwisu/\""],"string":"[\n \"It's not so much a credit card, but a financial institution's online platform that either provides this functionality or not. The following Canadian financial institutions show an itemized list of pre-authorized transactions (not an exhaustive list): The following institutions show a total value of pre-authorized transactions: Most other institutions show the available credit (e.g. Chase Financial used by Amazon Rewards), which give an indication of how much you have to spend. By subtracting the current balance and the available balance from the total credit limit, you can get an indication of the total amount of pre-authorized transactions. Example: $1000 - $500 - $400 = $100 is the amount of pre-authorized transactions. From TD's EasyWeb demo (http://tdeasywebdemo.com/v2/#/en/PFS/accounts/activity/chq), it appears that they don't include pre-authorized transactions in the Available Credit. You can verify for yourself by logging in to online banking after you make a purchase and comparing the Available Credit to [Credit Limit - Current Balance]. If it is equal, then they don't include, if it is different (most likely for the value of the transaction), then they do.\",\n \"\\\"PC MasterCard recently added this as a new feature to their online system. It lets you see \\\"\\\"Pending Authorizations\\\"\\\" for your card when you log in. Their email said: Along with your purchases, you'll see a list of every transaction that's been approved, but not yet applied to your balance. You'll be able to identify these with the word “Pending” in the date column. Here's a link with more information: http://pcfinancial.ca/pendingauthorization/\\\"\",\n \"The way that credit card transactions happen are: In your example, the card is authorized for the charge but the transaction never actually moves on to the next step. However, your available credit should drop by whatever the authorized amount is and this will not disappear until it naturally goes away when the transaction does not move onto the next step.\",\n \"\\\"From my days in e-commerce they break down like this? The company doesn't know a debit from a credit card. Got the Visa logo, then it is a Visa through the company's payment gateway. The gateway talks to the bank and that is where the particulars for money is figured out. When I programmed gateway interfaces, I had the option to \\\"\\\"authorize\\\"\\\" or check for funds (which didn't reserve anything, just verified funds existed), run for batch (which put a hold on the funds and collected them at the end of the night) or just take the money. Most places did a verify during the early checkout stages and then did a batch at the end of the night. The nightly batch allows a merchant to cancel a transaction without getting charged a fee. The \\\"\\\"authorize\\\"\\\" doesn't mean the money is tied up, although that might be your banks policy. Furthermore, an authorize can only last for so many days. This also explains why most of your banks don't report your transactions to you the day of. There is a bunch more activity on your card than the transactions that complete.\\\"\",\n \"Is there a debit card accessing this account? When you spend money on a debit card for certain item, including, but not limited to gas, restaurant, hotel, a bit extra is held in reserve. For example, a $100 restaurant charge might hold $125, to allow for a tip. (You're a generous tipper, right?) The actual sales slips my take days to reconcile. It's for this reason that I've remarked how credit cards have their place. Using debit cards requires that one have more in their account than they need to spend, especially when taking a trip including hotel costs.\",\n \"\\\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \\\"\\\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\\\"\\\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \\\"\\\"soft holds\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"hard holds\\\"\\\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \\\"\\\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\\\"\\\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \\\"\\\"Account Balance\\\"\\\" and an \\\"\\\"Available Balance\\\"\\\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \\\"\\\"available\\\"\\\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \\\"\\\"reserved\\\"\\\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \\\"\\\"money in my account\\\"\\\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \\\"\\\"reserve\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"rent\\\"\\\" anything, ever.\\\"\",\n \"That's how my power company does it. You authorize them to direct debit recurring monthly. If they screw up and withdraw $1000, you're out until it gets fixed. But it varies from company to company. Not everyone's situation is like your online banking.\",\n \"The answer to your question is very simple: The preauth and the shipment of the goods have no connection within the credit card system. It is possible to process a payment that does not cancel a preauthorization. This is needed for the case where you place two orders and the one you placed second ships first. A preauth can remain active for some time unless it is captured or cancelled. So in your case a preauth was placed and remained active. That you were shipped and billed for some goods had no effect on the preauth because one side or the other failed to attach them.\",\n \"\\\"There are, in fact, two balances kept for your account by most banks that have to comply with common convenience banking laws. The first is your actual balance; it is simply the sum total of all deposits and withdrawals that have cleared the account; that is, both your bank and the bank from which the deposit came or to which the payment will go have exchanged necessary proof of authorization from the payor, and have confirmed with each other that the money has actually been debited from the account of the payor, transferred between the banks and credited to the account of the payee. The second balance is the \\\"\\\"available balance\\\"\\\". This is the actual balance, plus any amount that the bank is \\\"\\\"floating\\\"\\\" you while a deposit clears, minus any amount that the bank has received notice of that you may have just authorized, but for which either full proof of authorization or the definite amount (or both) have not been confirmed. This is what's happening here. Your bank received notice that you intended to pay the train company $X. They put an \\\"\\\"authorization hold\\\"\\\" on that $X, deducting it from your available balance but not your actual balance. The bank then, for whatever reason, declined to process the actual transaction (insufficient funds, suspicion of theft/fraud), but kept the hold in place in case the transaction was re-attempted. Holds for debit purchases usually expire between 1 and 5 days after being placed if the hold is not subsequently \\\"\\\"settled\\\"\\\" by the merchant providing definite proof of amount and authorization before that time. The expiration time mainly depends on the policy of the bank holding your account. Holds can remain in place as long as thirty days for certain accounts or types of payment, again depending on bank policy. In certain circumstances, the bank can remove a hold on request. But it is the bank, and not the merchant, that you must contact to remove a hold or even inquire about one.\\\"\",\n \"I called Bank of America today about the same problem on my account. The service representative said that part of money is available to me and I can use the money.\",\n \"It will depend on credit they are offering you during the period being covered. A gas station locks up what they expect is the maximum transaction for most people. When the prices of gas spikes some people have the pump turn off before the tank is filled, therefore they need to use a 2nd card to complete the purchase. Before you arrive at a hotel they lockup the cost of one night in the hotel, that way they still sell the room for one night if you never show. While you are there they lockup the cost of what you could owe them. This would include the cost of the room, and average room service or bar service. For a car rental, it would be based on the risk they perceive. They don't want to try and collect against a card you gave them when you reserved the car, or when you picked up the car, only to find that you have gone over the limit. Some online systems will let you see what is pending against your card. Others could provide that information to you over the phone.\",\n \"\\\"As for PC Mastercard like stated by @nullability, VISA Desjardins list the \\\"\\\"Pending Authorizations\\\"\\\" almost instantly (the time it's take to get back home) in AccesD (Their Web portal for managing accounts).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"hold\\\"\\\" is just placeholder that prevents you from overspending until the transaction is settled. The merchant isn't \\\"\\\"holding\\\"\\\" your money, your bank or card provider is protecting itself from you overdrawing. In general, it takes 1-3 days for a credit transaction to settle. With a credit card, this usually isn't an issue, unless you have a very low credit line or other unusual things going on. With pre-paid and debit cards, it is an issue, since your spending power is contingent upon you having an available balance. I'm a contrarian on this topic, but I don't see any compelling reason to use debit or stored value cards, other than preventing yourself from overspending. I've answered a few other questions in detail in this area, if you're interested.\\\"\",\n \"Context clues hun. I was talking about if you go to Chilis and swipe your card for $20 and leave a $5 tip the processing amount the bank takes into account when telling you your available balance is much more likely to be $23 than $25. So the bank knows I went to Chilis the second I swipe my card, but doesnt know the exact amount. I was saying a lot of people dont understand that. They see they spent X at Chilis (processing) and assume it to be fact. I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time with this concept. Also comparing swiping a debit card as credit to writing a check (in terms of when they show up on your account) is a terrible comparison. When a check goes through the accurate balance is taken out all at once a few days later, but when you swipe a debit card as credit a tentative balance is taken out immediately and adjusted to the actual balance when it settles. And calling me ignorant because I don't need the help writing down where my money is at or goes is pretty ironic.\",\n \"I don't use pre-authorized automatic payment methods because there is no control, and it is impossible to get it back. Once you have authorized a firm to withdraw funds from your account, there is no realistic way to revoke that control, save closing down your bank account entirely and moving to another institution. I once had automatic payments set up for my apartment rent, and then one month they withdrew twice on one day, overdrawing my account; it was very difficult to dispute the charge and get it back. The bank was little help as I had authorized them to withdraw funds; it didn't make any difference that they had done it twice, because I had given them permission to withdraw that amount. The property management company was large and difficult to contact, and at first denied any wrongdoing. tl;dr version: it's more pain than it's worth, and I will never do it again.\",\n \"I stopped using pre-authorized payments for things like telephone etc., because it made it more possible/likely for a fraudulent charge to sneak by. But if there is an occasion for choosing pre-authorized payments (like charities, and places of exact fixed price) I use my credit card because then I also get points. Furthermore, I reason (perhaps wrongly) that if there is intermediary step between actual money (bank account) and the source of the bill then it gives me better chance of catching irregularities and hence a little safer. I am sure other members here will laugh my naivety, but there you have it.\",\n \"\\\"This question is likely to be closed as a product recommendation request. But if you are willing to change the question a bit, perhaps to \\\"\\\"How do I avoid having my debit card declined when I know I have good funds\\\"\\\" it becomes a reasonable general question. And my answer follows. I can tell you the same thing happens to those of us with credit cards. It can happen when your buying pattern changes. Suddenly buying a lot of merchandise, especially away from home. Nothing like having your card declined while with relatives you visit or while on vacation. I'd talk to the bank and ask for advice how to avoid this. I've called my card issuer to tell them I'll in X city for these dates, to expect charges from there. That seems to work well.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I don't think the reason is \\\"\\\"to verify that it is truly me\\\"\\\". It should be possible for someone else (friend, relative...) to make a payment on your behalf, using their own card. It is common that \\\"\\\"gift cards\\\"\\\" are not per-authorized for \\\"\\\"Card Not Present\\\"\\\" (CNP) use like on the internet, or over the phone. In many cases, you can register your card, online or by speaking to a representative over the phone. After that, you should be able to use it to pay your phone company. Also, depending on where you got the card, you may be able to go to a teller at the issuing bank, and withdraw cash (or get a check), possibly without a fee.\\\"\",\n \"In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment. If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out. I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily.\",\n \"Given you mention a check clearing, in addition to debit card holds as JoeTaxpayer notes, you may also have funds that are on hold for that reason. While the bank may have stated it would be a one day hold, some banks may mean business days (Monday-Friday), and so it will become available on Monday. This is because checks are not always instantly withdrawn from the other account (although this is becoming much more common post-electronic check reform), so the bank wants to make sure it actually is getting the money from the check; after all, if the check you deposited bounces, the bank doesn't want to end up footing the bill. The bank allows you some portion up front, largely as a customer service; the amount varies from bank to bank, but it's generally a small amount they don't mind risking. $200 is a pretty good amount, actually; back when I was just out of college and frequently spending the last $50 in my account, the pre-clearance amount was usually $50. If the bank does this to you regularly and you feel that it is unfair in how long it holds checks, you might consider shopping around; different banks have different hold policies, or might allow you a larger amount up front. In particular, online banks tend to have more favorable terms this way.\",\n \"a typical debit card is subject to several limits:\",\n \"The RDFI (Receiving Depository Institution) is the place where you keep your money and where the Debit is going to be made. Unfortunately the Debit did not go through for some kind of regulatory reason that I don't understand. You could ask them why people are not allowed to make ACH Debits there or you can try to pay through a different bank.\",\n \"No money is stolen. They don't show you the hold for whatever reason (not so good a bank?), but the money is still yours. You just cannot use it, but it is still on your account. These holds usually go away after a week. In certain cases (like a security deposit) it may take up to 30 days. You can request from the merchant to cancel the hold if it is no longer necessary. They'll have to be proactive on that, and some merchants wouldn't want the hassle. It is however a known issue. When I was working in the banking industry, we would routinely receive these hold cancellation requests from merchants (hotels and car rentals).\",\n \"There's the fear that one might forget the debit is coming and still bounce the payment. Personally, I agree with Dheer's list, I don't want to give someone unlimited access to my account. I make good use of electronic payments where I initiate the payment. For the credit card I use regularly, I have a $250 monthly payment set to go automatically. If I forget to make a payment or lose the bill, at least the minimum is covered. The monthly charges are enough that when I actually pay the bill in full upon receipt, it just goes in toward current charges. Bills like gas/electric/phone are different every month, so an auto-debit is actually more trouble than how I handle.\",\n \"Hence why I pay bill by bill and don't authorize automatic withdrawals. Are you telling me your online banking and/or utility company don't allow you to make non automatic payments online? If so I guess thats the answer to OP's question...\",\n \"\\\"In short you have to wait till the hold expires. If its one week, its great. Few years back it was one Month. It is advisable you use a Credit Card for these type of transactions. With Credit Cards you are not out of funds like in Debit Cards. Plus the reversals are as much as I know automatic. In case of Debit Cards, the Holds are not automatically released on cancelled transactions but released only after expiry. Where as in Credit Cards, the holds are released immediately on cancelled transactions. \\\"\\\"Does the hold reserve it for them or for the original transaction?\\\"\\\" Yes hold is for that specific transaction from that specific merchant. i.e. if you try and book the same item from the same merchant, you will not be able to as you have money blocked. Although the merchant sends an unblock message when cancelling, on Debit cards these messages are not supported in India\\\"\",\n \"Without the details of a specific bank it's hard to give a definitive answer, but here are some potential valid reasons I can think of: And most importantly\",\n \"Open a dispute for the preauth. It is effectively a double charge, since you have already paid for the item. You can provide evidence of the other transaction. This forces them to go through some hassle and waste some time on the issue.\",\n \"\\\"Well, it took some effort to get an explanation from my bank. Turns out that some supermarkets use direct debit as a method of transferring money for purchases payed by so-called \\\"\\\"EC\\\"\\\" cards here. I was told that for some reason, a supermarket decided to reverse one of such transactions.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Step 1. Log onto chase.com Step 2. Click on the account in question Step 3. Add \\\"\\\"Outstanding balance\\\"\\\" to \\\"\\\"Pending charges\\\"\\\" Step 4. Pay said total amount With all the energy you spent trying to find out if they're doing something illegal, you could've resolved the original issue yourself and be done with it.\\\"\",\n \"Sign up for alerts. Everytime you use your card, you'll get an alert. That way if there is an unauthorized transaction, you'll know right away. The alerts can also tell you what amount was charged - since this happens right away, the last last cc transaction is fresh in your memory and any overcharges can be easily detected. Has saved me more times than I can remember!\",\n \"\\\"You should probably call the travel agency and complain. Not that they will care, but if by any chance they do - they can ask PayPal to remove the block. This is what is called \\\"\\\"authorization pending\\\"\\\". Usually, a credit card transaction has two stages: The merchant requests its payment processor to authorize the transaction. The processor will contact the card issuer with the transaction details and will get the authorization code which will be passed to the merchant. At that stage the transaction enters the \\\"\\\"pending\\\"\\\" stage on your account. The merchant submits the transaction and gets the money from its payment processor, who forwards the transaction to the card issuer and gets the money from there. The card issuer charges the card owner. The transaction should have the same authorization code received in step #1, and by matching it to the pending transaction, the card issuer removes the pending transaction, and posts the actual transaction. However, if the transaction in step #2 doesn't include the code from step #1, the match doesn't occur and you see the situation you have now: both the actual transaction and the pending are active. In this case the merchant should contact its merchant processor and request the revocation of the authorization code. The processor will then forward the request to the card issuer, who will then remove the pending transaction. As you can see - multiple parties have to actually care for that to happen, and many times they don't, because they don't have to. As to the period - it's up to the card issuer (PayPal in your case), but 1 month is a very long time. Usually it's about a week or two, unless it's a hotel/car rental. In any case - once it expires, it will go away on its own and if you don't mind for the amounts to be blocked until then - just let it expire. The fact that you used a debit card for this transaction is irrelevant. Unless it was a pin transaction, debit card transactions are processed as credit card transactions by processors. For pin transactions, there process is different and you shouldn't see doubles. If it was a pin transaction - contact PayPal and check with them what's going on. Generally, PayPal is not to be used as a \\\"\\\"bank account\\\"\\\", it is merely a payment processor, and it is advised to remove the money from there as soon as possible.\\\"\",\n \"The mode of payment mentioned by your bank is called the ACH(Automatic Clearing House) which means that anyone(Trusted payment gateway owners like banks themselves) can process payments. There can be a fraud declared against any payment that you have made and you can get every single penny back. This amount can not be withdrawn in cash at all. However for your situation I would suggest that you ask your bank to block any transactions above the amount of a specific sum, this way they will require your authorization to finalize the payment. You should feel safe after this. Also no one can access any other account apart from the one whose details you are giving out so do not worry about this guy(or anyone else for that matter) to be able to access your other accounts. Hope this helps. (I have experience in payment gateways so I do understand these procedures.) Cheers!!\",\n \"It is barely possible that this is Citi's fault, but it sounds more like it is on the Costco end. The way that this is supposed to work is that they preauthorize your card for the necessary amount. That reserves the payment, removing the money from your credit line. On delivery, they are supposed to capture the preauthorization. That causes the money to transfer to them. Until that point, they've reserved your payment but not actually received it. If you cancel, then they don't have to pay processing fees. The capture should allow for a larger sale so as to provide for tips, upsells, and unanticipated taxes and fees. In this case, instead of capturing the preauthorization, they seem to have simply generated a new transaction. Citi could be doing something wrong and processing the capture incorrectly. Or Costco could be doing a purchase when they should be doing a capture. From outside, we can't really say. The thirty days would seem to be how long Costco can schedule in advance. So the preauthorization can last that long for them. Costco should also have the ability to cancel a preauthorization. However, they may not know how to trigger that. With smaller merchants, they usually have an interface where they can view preauthorizations and capture or cancel them. Costco may have those messages sent automatically from their system. Note that a common use for this pattern is with things like gasoline or delivery purchases. If this has been Citi/Costco both times, I'd try ordering a pizza or some other delivery food and see if they do it correctly. If it was Citi both times and a different merchant the other time, then it's probably a Citi problem rather than a merchant problem.\",\n \"\\\"AIUI this is not terribly abnormal. There are authorisations (sometimes reffered to as \\\"\\\"pending charges\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"holds\\\"\\\") and actual charges. An authorisation reserves money but doesn't actually take it. Normally what happens when you pay by card is that the merchant gets an authorisation immediately. Then some time later the authorisation is converted into an actual charge when the merchant takes the money. Sometimes merchants are slow in taking the actual charge, either deliberately (some merchants won't charge your card until they actually supply the goods to reduce the chance of having to process a refund) or because of administrative snarlups somewhere. When this happens the authorisation can time out before the actual charge is taken. So you get the pattern you see, first the authorisation appears then it times out and dissapears and finally the actual charge shows up.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes, there is a slight reason to worry as the debit card contains 1) Account Number 2) of course a the Debit Card number 3) CSV code at the back of every debit card and mostly these three parameters are being followed to verify the authenticity of the cardholder, but there are some other parameters like \\\"\\\"password of your debit card\\\"\\\" and even address in some cases. So stay chill the manager will not be able to make any online payment using the credential of your debit card without password and other details...\\\"\",\n \"Yes, it is possible, and many companies do it for legitimate reasons. For example renewing subscriptions or one-click ordering. The only way to completely stop it would be to cancel the card. More realistically, check your bill whenever it arrives, and report any unauthorized transactions to the card issuer.\",\n \"This depends on the practise and applications available with the Beneficiary Bank. For a corporate customer, the details are show. For Retail customers they are generally not shown.\",\n \"That all makes sense, but all of those things are the responsibility of the cardholder. If you want to pay off your balance, anything quoted would obviously not include any transaction yet to post. The problem is a creditor refusing to give the balance AND refusing to take a payment for an amount over the previous statement balance. This is essentially forcing the customer to pay more interest after they declare their intent to pay the full amount. Good points, but I don't believe those were factors in this case.\",\n \"Just use a credit card like AMEX Blue that categorizes your purchases, and reconcile at the end of the month. There is no good reason to use a debit card.\",\n \"If your debit card has no fraud protection then you need to find a different bank, many debit cards include it. Even with fraud protection, I don't like to keep excess money in the checking account, so I have checking and savings accounts with an online bank. I can transfer money from savings to checking instantly, 6 times per month, which allows me to keep only what is needed in the checking account. Many online banks have a better overdraft policy as well, where you simply pay a small amount of interest on the over-drawn amount, rather than a set ~$35 overdraft fee, or a $20 fee for them to automatically transfer money from your savings account. I've heard of, but not made use of threshold-based fraud alerts or two-factor approval, which you can set up so that any purchase in excess of $N triggers the need for additional approval via your phone.\",\n \"POS stands for Point of Sale (like a specific store location) which indicates that the purchase occurred by using your debit card, but it can also be the on-line transaction done via 3-D Secure. Checking with bank, they said that Kirchstrasse transaction could be related to direct marketing subscription service ordered on-line. Investigating further what I've found these kind of transactions are performed by 2BuySafe company registered at Kirchstrasse in Liechtenstein with went through the MultiCards on-line cashier which can be used for paying different variety of services (e.g. in this case it was polish on-line storage service called Chomikuj). These kind of transactions can be tracked by checking the e-mail (e.g. in gmail by the following query: after:2014/09/02 before:2014/09/02 Order). Remember, that if you still don't recognise your transaction, you should call your bank. I have found also some other people concerns about that kind of transactions who ask: Is 2BuySafe.com and www.multicards.com some sort of Scam? Provided answer says: MultiCards Internet Billing is a provider of online credit card and debit card processing and payment solutions to many retailers worldwide. MultiCards was one of the pioneer companies offering this type of service since 1995 and is a PCI / DSS certified Internet Payment Service Provider (IPSP) providing service to hundreds of retail websites worldwide MultiCards is a registered Internet Payment Service Provider and has implemented various fraud protection tools including, but not limited to, MultiCards Fraud Score Tool and 'Verified by Visa' and 'MasterCard SecureCode' to protect card holder's card details. 2BuySafe.com Is also Secured and Verified By GeoTrust The certificate should be trusted by all major web browsers (all the correct intermediate certificates are installed). The certificate was issued by GeoTrust. Entering Incorrect information can lead to a card being rejected as @ TOS 2BuySafe.com is hosted on the Multicards Server site\",\n \"Short answer: No. Some of those 'automatic' payments you've agreed to (presumably by signing a PAD form) are initiated in batch by the company whom you're buying from (phone company, cable company etc). So no, the bank has no indication from one day to the next what is coming through. And the request goes from say, your cable company to THEIR merchant bank to YOUR bank. Typically you have a monthly bill date which is fixed, and they should have terms established when it is due. If a payment comes back NSF they can retry once - but only for the same amount and I believe it is 14 days from the initial payment attempt. It makes it predictable, and you'd figure banks would clue in and start to predict for you when things may come out - but strictly speaking your bank doesn't know when or how much.\",\n \"\\\"This is not a normal occurrence, and you have every right to be annoyed, but the technical way it usually happens goes like this: What can happen is when the merchant incorrectly completes the transaction without referencing the pre-authorization transaction. The bank effectively doesn't \\\"\\\"know\\\"\\\" this is the same transaction, so they process it the same way they process any other purchase, and it has no effect on the pre-authorization and related held/pending transaction. As far as the bank knows, you purchased a second set of blinds in the store for $200 and are still waiting on the first order to come in, they have no idea the store screwed up. The reason this is possible is the purpose of the pre-auth in the first place is that it is a contractual agreement between the bank (credit card) and the merchant that the funds are available, will be available except under rare special circumstances, and thus they can go ahead and process the order. This lets the merchant be secure in the knowledge that they can collect their payment, but you aren't paying interest or monthly payments on something you haven't even gotten yet! This system works reasonably well for everyone - right up until someone screws up and fails to properly release a hold, makes a second transaction instead of properly referencing the first one, or the bank screws up their system and fails to correctly match referenced pre-authorization codes to purchases. The problem is that this should not be a normal occurrence, and the people you are speaking with to try to sort out the issue often do not have the authority or knowledge necessary to properly fix the issue, or its such a hassle for them that they hope you just go away and time fixes the issue on its own. The only sure-fire solution to this is: make sure you have so much extra credit line that this doesn't effect you and you can safely let it time out on its own, or stop doing business with this combination of merchant/payment that creates the problem. Back when my credit limits were being pushed, I would never pay at gas pumps because their hold polices were so weird and unpredictable, and I would only pre-pay inside or with cash to avoid the holds.\\\"\",\n \"I doubt it's legal, but for next time, just go onto the website and your balance will be right there front-and-center... no need to deal with some ill-informed cranky lady in a call center half-way across the world.\",\n \"The Bank have risk. In goods, thrre are two profiles, essentially it can be convenient and hence the usage, pay off monthly or spending future earnings today for luxury. The way cash advance is seen, emergency, ran out of cash in foreign/remote location... Debit cards not working etc. One generally needs small amount of cash. The other segment is loss of income. Essentially I have run out of cash and I need to borrow. This is additional risk and hence is limited or curtailed.\",\n \"Sounds questionable to me. If there is no way around this I would suggest opening a new account with only the minimum balance necessary and sending them the debit card associated with that account. If anything goes wrong then the amount of damage they can do will be limited. I would definitely be looking for other options though. Maybe they can just mail you a check or something?\",\n \"This is normal for credit cards. As long as you make the credit card company's cutoff time, they will make the funds available on your credit card rather than make you wait for them to actually get the funds from your bank. The amount of time this takes actually can vary significantly from bank to bank. You do want to make sure funds are available in your bank account for them to withdraw when they do take them though. If not, the payment would get returned and can set red flags on your credit card account that take a while to drop off.\",\n \"If it is one of those debit cards you use just like a credit card without a PIN, I'd cancel it regardless of whatever you are trying to do with your finances. They just seem too dangerous to me. Unlike a credit card, if someone makes fraudulent purchases on a debit card the money is gone from your bank account until you resolve the issue with the issue. With a credit card, the BANK is out the money until it gets worked out. My brother once had his credit card number (not the card) stolen and the criminals emptied his bank account. Eventually the bank put the money back after an investigation, but it had two really nasty side effects: 1) Dozens of checks bounced. The bank refunded the bounced check fees, but not all of the stores would. 2) He had no money in his account until it was resolved. Luckily in his case they resolved it in a few days, but he was already making preparations to borrow money to pay his rent/bills.\",\n \"It is the people who you bought the ticket from. Blocking is frequently done by hotels, gas stations, or rental car companies. Also, for anything where the credit card might be used to cover any damages or charges you might incur later as part of the transaction. In essence, they are reserving part of your credit limit, ostensibly to cover charges they reasonably expect you might incur. For example, when you start pumping gas using a credit card they may block out $100 to make sure you don't pump a full tank and your credit card is declined because you ran over your limit at $3. In general, the blocks clear fairly quickly after you settle up with the company on your final bill. You can also ask the company to clear the block, but I don't think they are required to by law in any specific time period. It may be up to their (and your) agreement with the credit card company. Normally it isn't an issue and you don't even notice this going on behind the scenes, but if you keep your credit card near its limit, or use a debit card it can lead to nasty surprises (e.g. they can make you overdraw your account). One more reason not to use debit cards. More information is available here on the Federal Trade Commission's website.\",\n \"I paid with my Visa credit card. Generally on credit cards, the holds / authorizations are valid for a month on single transactions. So if you haven't been charged on your card, it seems that there was some technical error with the online market place. They were not able to trace this. Is there an expiration date on these kind of online purchases? Should I expect the money to be withdrawn at any time? There are 2 different aspects, one is do you still owe them money and can they ask you; It would be yes, I don't know the timelines. This would depend on establishing a contract etc. They can contact you for unpaid invoice. Can they again charge the credit card automatically ... generally No.\",\n \"\\\"Executive summary: It sounds like the merchant just did an authorization then cancelled that authorization when you cancelled the order, so there was never an actual charge so you'll never see an actual refund and there's no money to \\\"\\\"claim\\\"\\\". More detail: From your second paragraph, it sounds like they just did an authorization but never posted the transaction. A credit card authorization is basically the merchant asking your credit card company \\\"\\\"Does sandi have enough credit to pay this amount and if so please reserve that amount for a bit.\\\"\\\" The authorization will decrease the total credit you have available on the card, but it's not actually a charge, so if your billing cycle ends, it won't show up on your statement. Depending on which company issued your credit card, you may be able to see the authorization online, usually labelled something like \\\"\\\"Pending transactions\\\"\\\". Even if your credit card company doesn't show pending transactions, you'll see a decrease in your available credit, however you shouldn't see an increase in your balance. The next step, and the only way the original merchant gets paid, is for the merchant to actually post a transaction to your card. Then it becomes a real charge that will show up on your next credit card statement and you'll be expected to pay it (unless you dispute the charge, but that's a different issue). If the charge is for the same amount as the authorization, the authorization will go away (it's now been converted to an actual charge). If the amounts are different, or the merchant never posts a transaction, the authorization will be removed by your credit card company automatically after a certain amount of time. So it sounds like you placed the order, the merchant did an authorization to make sure you could pay for it and to reserve the money, but then you cancelled the order before the merchant could post the transaction, so you were never really charged for it. The merchant then cancelled the authorization (going by the start of your third paragraph). So there was never an actual transaction posted, you were never charged, and you never really owed any money. Your available credit went down for a bit, but now should be restored to what it was before you placed the order. You'll never see an actual refund reflected on your credit card statement because there was no actual transaction.\\\"\",\n \"I would guess that this is due to the card issuer, not Paypal. Credit card transactions are tagged with a code describing the type of purchase, and some issuers disallow certain types (such as gambling).\",\n \"You are in luck, I have an ANZ credit card as well. I have just checked my paper statement with online, and was able to find a matching online statement in less than a minute. You simply click on your credit card account from the list of accounts. Under Date Range it will have the Current incomplete statement period. You simply click on the down arrow and select the last complete date range ending sometime in late April (depending on your credit card cycle). You then press on View next to the drop down box. This should provide you with a list of purchases and payment/credits for that period, followed by a line with your Credit Limit, Available Funds and Closing Balance. The line below that then shows your Due Date, and Overdue/Overlimit, the Minimum Payment and Amount Due Now If you are after paying only the minimum amount then you pay this amount by the due date (you will be charged interest if you only pay this amount). If, on the otherhand, you wish to avoid paying any interest then you need to pay the full Closing Balance before the due date. You should also be able to get electronic statements sent to your email address.\",\n \"Try to get a second card in your business' name, with a separate card number (like you would get one for a spouse). They may or may not allow that free (you wouldn't want to pay a second fee), and it might be only possible with the second card bearing the same number, which makes it useless. But it is worth a try.\",\n \"Believe it or not, this is done as a service to you. The reason for this has to do with a fundamental difference between a credit card account and a checking account. With a credit card account, there is no money in the account; every charge is borrowed money. When you get to your credit limit, your credit transactions will start getting declined, but if the bank does for some reason let one get approved, it's not a big deal for anyone; it just means that you owe a little more than your credit limit. Note that (almost) every credit card transaction today is an electronic transaction. A checking account, however, has real money in it. When it is gone, it is gone. When a balance inquiry is done, the bank has no way of knowing how many checks you've written that have not been cashed yet. It is a customer's responsibility to know exactly how much money is available to spend. If you write more checks than you have money for in your account, technically you have committed a crime. Unfortunately, there are too many people now that are not taking the responsibility of calculating their own checking account balance seriously, and bad checks are written all the time. When a bank allows these transactions to be paid even though you don't have enough money in your account, they are preventing a crime from being committed by you. The fee is a finance charge for loaning you the money, but it is also there to encourage you not to spend more than you have. Even if you use a debit card, it is still tied to a checking account, and the bank doesn't know if you have written enough checks to overdraw your account or not. It is still your responsibility to keep track of your own available balance. Every time this happens to you, thank the bank as you pay this fee, and then commit to keeping your own running balance and always knowing how much you have left in your account.\",\n \"We have a pre-paid mastercard. This will only allow the spending up to the amount already paid into the card account. Visa Electron is a bank account linked debit card that will not allow the account to go overdrawn but this card type is getting quite rare.\",\n \"Imagine the following scenario: You have a credit limit of $1000 and you want to by a tablet from a store. It costs $600. You then walk next door and buy a TV for $600. You would expect that you would go over your limit and the second transaction will be rejected. As long as that hold is in place, you don't have access to those blocked funds. That makes sure that you can't promise to pay more than you have funds on the card. Holds can get in the way if you are close to your credit limit. People run into this problem if they reserve a hotel room, rent a car, or purchase gasoline. The hold is set at a specific level to make sure you have enough funds for the typical transaction. This distance between vendors is not relevant. The bank is blocking funds based on a request from a vendor. They have to block the funds because you might use the multiple times in the same store. It is possible that the card company might release the hold based on the request by the vendor, but they generally don't. If this is a debit card linked to a bank account, the bank can have access to the overdraft system or a linked savings account. If is is a credit card they can decide to to increase your credit limit, and offer you what is essentially a loan. Plus they can hit you with fees. But if the card is a prepaid debit card or gift card they don't want to allow you to go beyond your limit. If this is a card that you plan on recharging, you could put extra funds on the card to allow both the old hold and the new hold to co-exist.\",\n \"I'm sure it depends on the company, but I routinely run balances greater than 0 on my credit card. The reason is simple: I already budgeted to spend the money, I know I'm going to spend the money, and it's easier to put the extra money on the card at the beginning of my budget period rather than waiting until I spend the money and get a bill. There are 2 relevant numbers: First is the balance on your bill. It can show a positive or negative value, as people have talked about. The balance on my card tends to update fairly infrequently. The second is the available credit. When I overpay on my card, the available credit does not show more than the available debt. The latter value, however, updates for me immediately -- I can see within minutes any transaction on my credit card based on the credit available. One important caveat: Refunds don't always immediately process. You may have to wait days or weeks until that money shows up in your account. Spending the money before it appears in your account will cause your card to behave exactly as if you don't have the money.\",\n \"I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.\",\n \"CC always (applies only if you pay your balance in full). First you rack up points on your card, second if there is an unauthorized pull a Cc will help you a bank may or may not. As a general advice don't hand out your banking information like a credit card number. Now paying bills through the bank is a different matter. This advice applies to companies that would like to pull money from bank accounts. Never do that if Cc is an alternative.\",\n \"As a merchant I can tell you that the only thing the bank gets from me. Is the total amount and a category for my business. No detail, not ever.\",\n \"If this is a pre-authorized automatic billing, and if you have signed any contract with the merchant, cancelling may not block any future charges from the merchant. Happens with gyms, magazines, memberships quite often. There is a time period after the cancellation this will occur, then it'll be completely dead.\",\n \"When you swipe your credit card, the terminal at the store makes a request of your bank, and your bank has only a few seconds to accept or reject the transaction. Once the transaction is accepted by your bank, it appears in the Pending transactions. At the end of the business day, the store submits all of the final transactions for the day to their bank in a batch, and the banks all trade transactions in a batch, and money is sent between banks. This is the process that takes a couple of days, and after this happens, you see the transaction move from your Pending transactions into the regular transactions area. Most of the time, the pending transaction and the final transaction are the same. However, there are cases where it is different. A couple of examples: With a credit account, the fact that the final amount is not known for a few days is no big deal: after all, you don't have any money in the account, and if you end up spending more than you have, the bank will happily let you take your time coming up with the money (at a steep cost, of course). With a debit card tied to your checking account, the transaction is handled the same way, as far is the store is concerned. However, your bank is not going to run the risk of you overdrawing your checking account. They also are not going to run the risk of you withdrawing money from your account that is needed to cover pending transactions. So they usually treat these pending transactions as final transactions, deducting the pending transaction from your account balance immediately. When the final transaction comes through, they adjust the transaction, and your balance goes up or down accordingly. This is one of the big drawbacks to using a debit card, in my opinion. If a bad pending transaction comes through, you are out this money until it gets straightened out.\",\n \"Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.\",\n \"\\\"As stated in the other answer, debit card payments even contactless ones, do not debit instantly or anywhere near instantly. They can take several days or even longer. However, the fact that the payment was approved would indicate that the contactless device used by the retailer managed to connect to your bank account and could see there were sufficient funds. At this time the payment should also have \\\"\\\"reserved\\\"\\\" the funds so it will be \\\"\\\"pending\\\"\\\" as such. Your online banking may not show all types of pending transactions, it may only show Direct Debits for example, if you ring the bank I expect they will be able to see this payment and advise accordingly, out of interest who do you bank with? If you can see your \\\"\\\"available\\\"\\\" funds you should find that includes this payment having been \\\"\\\"reserved\\\"\\\" ie you can't use that money, but if it's a small amount you may struggle to spot it. Again, this will vary by bank and how their internet banking system has been implemented. I would expect this payment to debit your account the working day after you made it, or at worst the day after that. In theory with \\\"\\\"faster payment\\\"\\\" technology it could happened within 2 hours but not all banks implemented that system in the same way so delays can and do occur. If the retailer/merchant banks with the same bank you do, in theory the transaction could be instantaneous, again depending on the bank. Short answer short, the transaction is fine, it won't be void, you just need to wait, probably a day or two. This link has more info, especially useful if you bank with NatWest (as I say the technology is likely to vary by bank to some extent). Your own bank should have their own version of this. http://personal.natwest.com/personal/current-accounts/your-visa-debit-card/contactless.html\\\"\",\n \"As far as I can see, this is an issue of the bank's policy rather than some legal regulation. That means that you'll need to work it out with the bank. To give you a couple of ideas to work with when you talk with them, maybe something from this list will work: Good luck!\",\n \"Three reasons I prefer not to use direct debit:\",\n \"The post that you linked to saying that a pre-paid credit card is really a debit card is kind of right and kind of wrong. From your point of view, to get a $1000 pre-paid credit card, you need to hand over $1000. So nobody is giving any credit to you. You can only spend money that you actually own, like a debit card. For the merchant accepting your card, it is exactly like a credit card. He doesn't know what deals you had to make to get the card. The merchant just knows that up to some amount, he will receive money. So in that sense it is a credit card and will be accepted like a credit card.\",\n \"I would expect so--the block from spending funds probably does not put a block in place for receiving funds. But ask your bank. Expect a 50% chance that they give you the wrong answer. (Some banks are better than others, but on average this is how often I have found bank employees to be incorrect about anything nonstandard). It may help to ask the bank how often it happens and who actually sorts out problems with blocked cards--and then talk to that person. Then you should only expect a 25% chance that they are wrong.\",\n \"There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.\",\n \"With a check, there are limits on cashing the stale check, but that is set by the banks involved. With a debit card transaction, it will be up the the debit card company and your bank. Imagine a situation where a person finds an old check and tries to cash it at their bank. If the bank considers the check stale, they might reject it, or put a longer hold on the check. When the check writers bank gets the transaction, they will also decide what to do. If they reject it, the first bank will reverse the transaction. You can't count on a 90 day, or 180 day limit; most banks will ask you to put a stop payment on an old check that you don't want cashed. This is especially important step if you write a replacement check. Because there is no check number to put a stop payment on, in fact the temporary hold will fall off after a few days. There doesn't appear to be a way to stop an old transaction. Be careful if you do contact the restaurant, you could end up double paying for the meal if they swipe your card again. Your best option may be just to keep the transaction as pending.\",\n \"I just had this happen to me with Chase and speaking with my executive support contact, they will not return the funds unless you request them back. Which I find appalling and just one more reason that I don't like working with Chase!\",\n \"You probably don't need to call the bank. Today is Sunday, so three days ago was probably Friday (or Thursday depending on how you count the days). Banks normally don't post transactions on weekends - and transactions that do happen on the weekend sometimes don't get posted until Tuesday. I would give it till Tuesday and then call them if you still don't see it show up on your account.\",\n \"Whether or not you have money in your account will not necessarily stop them withdrawing the money, and it certainly won't stop them attempting to withdraw the money. There are two possible scenarios when they attempt to withdraw the money (as they surely will): I think you are just lucky they haven't attempted the withdrawal yet. Put the necessary money into your account now if you possibly can, and consider this a slightly expensive lesson learned about following the Ts and Cs when cancelling services.\",\n \"Debit cards are the dumbest development ever. I now have a piece of plastic that allows any yahoo to cause me to bounce my mortgage. Great. Throw away the debit card. Use a credit card and exercise some self control. Take out a sufficient amount of cash to cover your weekly incidental expenses under $50. If you want something that costs more than $50, wait a week and use the credit card. You'll find that using cash at places like the convenience store or gas station will cause you to not spend $3 for a slim jim, lotto ticket, donut or other dumb and unnecessary item.\",\n \"\\\"Why would you consider it null and void? It might be that something went wrong and the business \\\"\\\"lost\\\"\\\" the transaction one way or another. It might be something else. It might never appear. It might appear. In one of the questions a while ago someone posted a link of a story where an account was overdrawn because of a forgotten debit card charge that resurfaced months later. Can't find the link right now, but it can definitely happen.\\\"\",\n \"When using a debit card there are two limits that may be imposed on the use: the current balance and the maximum daily limit. If the banking institution limits your daily usage that may mean that on a particular day you may not be able to make a large purchase, even though you have money in the bank. Otherwise as long as you have funds in the account linked to the debit card you can make the transaction. The catch is that as soon as the transaction is sent to the bank one of two things happens: the money is immediately deducted from the account; or a hold equal to the the amount of the transaction is placed on the account. A hold is generally used when the transaction is done in two parts: the pre-scan at a restaurant, or gas station. The hold reduces the amount of available funds in the account. A hold or an immediate deduction limits the size of future transactions. To be able to make larger transactions you need to transfer more money into the account. There is no debit card transaction that you can do to artificially allow a larger transaction, unless the bank is not placing a hold or doing an immediate deduction. Because a debit card is linked to a bank account, some accounts have overdraft protection. This protection comes in two forms: they either transfer your money from another account, or they make a loan. Either way there can be costs involved.\",\n \"One possibility is to ask RBC to lend you some money (or more specifically, to lend you some more money): an overdraft, a personal loan, or whatever. To discuss this you should to talk to your personal banker (not a teller), probably by appointment: to explain why you want it, and how and when you expect repay it. You might (I don't know) say that you want the loan (or some of the loan) to pay off the Visa, and/or for the travel. If you've only just arrived in Canada, however, then I don't see why they should want to lend it to you (i.e. why they should think you're a good credit risk). Is there anyone else (e.g. an immigration sponsor or parent or employer) who might co-sign (a.k.a. guarantee) the loan? I have never had this issue before with any other credit cards but I got an RBC Visa in Canada In some countries (not Canada) a Visa behaves more like a debit card, i.e. you can only spend money you have in the account.\",\n \"A federal or state regulator has ordered that the RDFI cannot participate in the ACH network, or the RDFI's participation has been limited in some capacity. You need to contact the RDFI for more details...ask for their ACH operations group. The RDFI is the institution receiving the ACH transaction. It could be either the debit side or credit side. It is not the institution originating the ACH transaction, which is the ODFI. The entire RDFI institution might be restricted for an extremely poor audit, or rampant suspect money laundering or terrorist funding. Specific accounts at the RDFI might be limited for a variety of reasons, including freezing the account for suspicious activity (money laundering or terrorist funding), court order for impending legal proceedings, IRS levies for nonpayment of taxes, or perhaps child support delinquency. I am making an educated guess on the reasons.\",\n \"They hold most of time rental value for example if you rent car for 5 days and decline insurance offered at counter - they will ideally hold 5days x rental value per day + insurance x 5 days most of them round of this figure. if the card is issued from overseas like asia they hold extra $ 500 for collection issues. hope this helps you to plan - this is general thumb rule.\",\n \"There are two separate cases here that people are not separating. Any card will allow you to pay an amount not exceeding the actually posted charges. Some cards will allow you to pay more than this, some will not. My parents have deliberately overpaid as a means of having a higher credit limit, I've been denied (different card) when trying to do the same thing and the website wouldn't even allow me to pay temporary charges that hadn't yet become real. (A human operator would allow paying those, though.)\",\n \"This sounds more like a behavioral than a debit card issue to me TBH. Did you put the money you're putting away into a separate savings account that you (mentally) labelled 'for investment'? That's pretty much what I do (and I have a couple of savings accounts for exactly that reason) and even though I know I've got $x in the savings accounts, the debit card I carry only lets me spend money from my main bank account. By the time I've transferred the money, the urge to spend has usually gone away, even though it often only takes seconds to make the transfer.\",\n \"\\\"> I was saying a lot of people dont understand that. They see they spent X at Chilis (processing) and assume it to be fact. I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time with this concept. And the solution -- keeping an ACCURATE and independent checkbook register (rather than relying on an \\\"\\\"online balance\\\"\\\") is still the same. >Also comparing swiping a debit card as credit to writing a check (in terms of when they show up on your account) is a terrible comparison. Nope. It's the same thing. You're still talking about a discrepancy between what has been processed, versus what you have ACTUALLY spent. >And calling me ignorant because I don't need the help writing down where my money is at or goes is pretty ironic. Well, if you're having problems with overdrafts (as you claimed you had) then rather obviously you DO need help (or at least you need to own up to where the problem lies -- your faulty \\\"\\\"memory\\\"\\\" of what you spent).\\\"\",\n \"Something is missing from your scenario. If you don't know what it is, start by going to http://annualcreditreport.com and get your free credit report. Review it, and figure out if you have outstanding balances or judgements that you're unaware of. You should be using your card every month and pay it on time.\",\n \"If the debit card is associated with the account, there is nowhere else it could go. The chance is nil that there is another account with that 16-digit number. So either it goes there, or the transfer fails and it is right back where it came from, though this could take some days. If you don't want to risk a wait, talk to your bank now.\",\n \"I've used PayPal for my business for a long time. Sometimes PayPal doesn't trust credit cards. Debit or direct bank transfer are reliable. There is also a charge for using a credit card but I don't think that is the reason. You may be trying to purchase a high value item. That would be a possible reason why PayPal allowed you to use credit cards in the past, but will not allow you to do so now, for these particular transactions.\",\n \"Of course not, this is confidential information in the same way that I cannot phone up your bank and ask to see a list of the transactions that you have made. Any bank has to be extremely careful about protecting the private transactions of it's customers and would be subject to heavy fines if it revealed this information without the customer's consent.\",\n \"A large biller is registered and can initiate an ACH Debit to your account based on the Account Number and the Routing number. He assumes responsibility and completes the due diligence of obtaining a written mandate / permission / authorization from you. There are other legal process where by you get a Power of Attorney that would allow you to transact on behalf of someone. The key point you seem to be missing is that one can ONLY transact from ones account either by walking into the Bank / ATM, or by writing a check. There are other options as well to transact.\",\n \"AIUI credit cards report three main things. The potential problem with your strategy is that by pre loading you never actually get a bill and so your provider may not report your payments. Better to wait until the bill comes and then pay it in full. That ensures that your use of the card is properly reported.\",\n \"I did just what you suggest. The card company honored the charge, they told me the temporary number was solely for the purpose of assigning a number to one vendor/business. So even though I set a low limit, the number was still active and the card company paid the request. Small price to pay, but it didn't go as I wished. For this purpose, I've used Visa/Mastercard gift cards. They are often on sale for face value and no additional fees.\",\n \"Typically, a direct debit is set up by the company who will be receiving the money, not by you or your bank. So you need to contact your credit card company, and ask them to set up the direct debit.\",\n \"I think part of the reason people overdraft is because the online banking app/website doesn't show a true indication of your account balance. I've had mine (at Bank of America) adjust to $30 less than it told me I had when I checked due to processing payments being altered.\",\n \"I found the answer to what you're looking for in the PayPal Help Center. Refer specifically to the question PayPal - How much do you charge to my card when confirming my debit or credit card?. Quote: We take the extra step to confirm your card so that we can verify that the card is valid and that you are the card owner. To confirm your card, we’ll charge $1.95 to it. After the card is confirmed, we’ll refund the amount to your PayPal balance. Here are amounts for cards in other countries: If we can’t determine or don’t support your card’s currency, we charge $1.95 USD to the card. (Refer directly to PayPal for potentially more up-to-date information.)\",\n \"The hard hold is the bank holding your money for no reason but to make money of your. Like the hotel took deposit for my over night and they released the time checked out in there system but it never showed on my account . I had to call the bank why the numbers are not adding up to my current balance. It's illegal practice by banks to hold your money until your realize you didn't spent that much and that musing amount is not even showing on your account. When it happen they will release after 30 days or you can call the bank right away soon as you done your business so you can use the money right away not the bank\",\n \"\\\"I can't speak for every credit card, but I know two of mine don't have overage fees. The transaction either goes through, or gets denied. Check your card agreement and look for the fee section. One other thing to consider, sometimes when you make an online payment to a credit card, you will notice that the \\\"\\\"Available Balance\\\"\\\" number on the account will increase right away even if the payment is not reflected on your \\\"\\\"Current Balance\\\"\\\". If this is the case, and you are positive that your payment will be successfully posted to the account, I say go for it.\\\"\",\n \"As it is international debits, this will take a while. BofA is right, You have to dispute this with Card Issuer, i.e. HDFC. The worst case for me was around 1 month. Keep chasing and sending out reminders every 3-4 days.\",\n \"I've called both BofA and Amex Customer Support, and they couldn't help. That's because you cannot. Debit card is tied to your checking account, so you can do a cash advance from your AMEX and deposit it to your BOA checking account. It will then be available to use with your debit card.\",\n \"Are you sure the payment has actually posted and isn't sitting in a pre-auth status? If it is, it'll fall off in a few days and they're probably telling the truth. If not, and it has fully posted to your account, I agree with the others. It's very appropriate to initiate a chargeback. You can provide documentation showing they confirmed a cancellation, further, you can show proof that they had no intent of charging you. Good luck!\",\n \"\\\"I linked my bank account (by making a transfer from bank account to Paypal) without linking a card. This should not give Paypal any rights to do anything with my bank account - transfer that I made to link it was exactly the same as any other outgoing transfer from my bank account. On attempting to pay more that resides in my Paypal balance I get To pay for this purchase right now, link a debit or credit card to your PayPal account. message. Paypal is not mentioning it but one may also transfer money to Paypal account form bank to solve this problem. Note, that one may give allow Paypal to access bank account - maybe linking a card will allow this? Paypal encourages linking card but without any description of consequences so I never checked this. It is also possible that Paypal gained access to your bank balance in other way - for example in Poland it just asked for logins and passwords to bank accounts (yes, using \\\"\\\"Add money instantly using Trustly\\\"\\\" in Poland really requires sharing full login credentials to bank account - what among other things breaks typical bank contract) source for \\\"\\\"Paypal attempts phishing\\\"\\\": https://niebezpiecznik.pl/post/uwaga-uzytkownicy-paypala-nie-korzystajcie-z-najnowszej-funkcji-tego-serwisu/\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\"","No money is stolen. They don't show you the hold for whatever reason (not so good a bank?), but the money is still yours. You just cannot use it, but it is still on your account. These holds usually go away after a week. In certain cases (like a security deposit) it may take up to 30 days. You can request from the merchant to cancel the hold if it is no longer necessary. They'll have to be proactive on that, and some merchants wouldn't want the hassle. It is however a known issue. When I was working in the banking industry, we would routinely receive these hold cancellation requests from merchants (hotels and car rentals).","The hard hold is the bank holding your money for no reason but to make money of your. Like the hotel took deposit for my over night and they released the time checked out in there system but it never showed on my account . I had to call the bank why the numbers are not adding up to my current balance. It's illegal practice by banks to hold your money until your realize you didn't spent that much and that musing amount is not even showing on your account. When it happen they will release after 30 days or you can call the bank right away soon as you done your business so you can use the money right away not the bank"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \\\"\\\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\\\"\\\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \\\"\\\"soft holds\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"hard holds\\\"\\\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \\\"\\\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\\\"\\\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \\\"\\\"Account Balance\\\"\\\" and an \\\"\\\"Available Balance\\\"\\\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \\\"\\\"available\\\"\\\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \\\"\\\"reserved\\\"\\\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \\\"\\\"money in my account\\\"\\\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \\\"\\\"reserve\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"rent\\\"\\\" anything, ever.\\\"\",\n \"No money is stolen. They don't show you the hold for whatever reason (not so good a bank?), but the money is still yours. You just cannot use it, but it is still on your account. These holds usually go away after a week. In certain cases (like a security deposit) it may take up to 30 days. You can request from the merchant to cancel the hold if it is no longer necessary. They'll have to be proactive on that, and some merchants wouldn't want the hassle. It is however a known issue. When I was working in the banking industry, we would routinely receive these hold cancellation requests from merchants (hotels and car rentals).\",\n \"The hard hold is the bank holding your money for no reason but to make money of your. Like the hotel took deposit for my over night and they released the time checked out in there system but it never showed on my account . I had to call the bank why the numbers are not adding up to my current balance. It's illegal practice by banks to hold your money until your realize you didn't spent that much and that musing amount is not even showing on your account. When it happen they will release after 30 days or you can call the bank right away soon as you done your business so you can use the money right away not the bank\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":297,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2395"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Freelance site with lowest commission fees?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["179066"],"string":"[\n \"179066\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["179066","280679","165503","545324","57320","148250","151758","253881","296725","294517","97094","103120","294645","569993","396792","593101","129607","242551","158091","115584","446622","246986","480984","192910","489285","313039","250038","234747","155699","14765","47044","139802","451207","286320","31936","374375","587711","301477","186621","195336","361383","277513","422476","38424","108671","460348","157548","501056","594182","265397","234983","186889","576384","30417","254635","535200","585050","30524","133788","539073","236931","256881","532672","71293","589692","296718","29009","311202","17071","165645","552747","512267","355930","210437","274987","407844","257311","475906","194090","469972","282811","452544","286935","201561","417769","262721","176489","421924","599336","362923","481091","517410","270038","59670","432417","117634","115815","49930","553540","278430"],"string":"[\n \"179066\",\n \"280679\",\n \"165503\",\n \"545324\",\n \"57320\",\n \"148250\",\n \"151758\",\n \"253881\",\n \"296725\",\n \"294517\",\n \"97094\",\n \"103120\",\n \"294645\",\n \"569993\",\n \"396792\",\n \"593101\",\n \"129607\",\n \"242551\",\n \"158091\",\n \"115584\",\n \"446622\",\n \"246986\",\n \"480984\",\n \"192910\",\n \"489285\",\n \"313039\",\n \"250038\",\n \"234747\",\n \"155699\",\n \"14765\",\n \"47044\",\n \"139802\",\n \"451207\",\n \"286320\",\n \"31936\",\n \"374375\",\n \"587711\",\n \"301477\",\n \"186621\",\n \"195336\",\n \"361383\",\n \"277513\",\n \"422476\",\n \"38424\",\n \"108671\",\n \"460348\",\n \"157548\",\n \"501056\",\n \"594182\",\n \"265397\",\n \"234983\",\n \"186889\",\n \"576384\",\n \"30417\",\n \"254635\",\n \"535200\",\n \"585050\",\n \"30524\",\n \"133788\",\n \"539073\",\n \"236931\",\n \"256881\",\n \"532672\",\n \"71293\",\n \"589692\",\n \"296718\",\n \"29009\",\n \"311202\",\n \"17071\",\n \"165645\",\n \"552747\",\n \"512267\",\n \"355930\",\n \"210437\",\n \"274987\",\n \"407844\",\n \"257311\",\n \"475906\",\n \"194090\",\n \"469972\",\n \"282811\",\n \"452544\",\n \"286935\",\n \"201561\",\n \"417769\",\n \"262721\",\n \"176489\",\n \"421924\",\n \"599336\",\n \"362923\",\n \"481091\",\n \"517410\",\n \"270038\",\n \"59670\",\n \"432417\",\n \"117634\",\n \"115815\",\n \"49930\",\n \"553540\",\n \"278430\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Your own site/business. I’m in freelancing and internet business for 15 years, 20 years IT experience. Currently i use freelance websites for cheap Asian employees, very seldom for EU/USA employees, and if only if local competition is heavily out-pricing qualified staff. Till I went \"\"limited\"\" i.e., founded a limited corporation I was jobbing as freelancer and sole proprietor, both with limited success due to the strong Asian competition i myself currently hire. The point where freelancing got \"\"not sustainable\"\" as primary income was 2006 for me, don’t want to get into detail but every freelancer who was active back then knows what I mean, it was like whole India got internet. If you have absolutely no references, do it for the references a limited time and see the fee you pay as service for you to get references, then start your own web identity, either as freelancer or as corporation. Make sure you take your very satisfied customers with you. Every \"\"very satisfied\"\" customer in your contact list means 10 new customers which mean 2 new customers which mean 0.2 new customers and so on. Honestly, this info is solely based on experience of this niche fro ma European citizen perspective, if you’re based anywhere else the situation might be totally different.\"","\"Paypal has an account called \"\"micropayments\"\" for those who have a lot of transaction under $10 with \"\"better\"\" commission structure, 5%+5c per transaction (rather than 2.9% + 30c with regular merchant accounts)\"","Just keep in mind that on Upwork, you basically have to be the cheapest person to get most of the gigs. It's great to get your feet wet, but I would strongly encourage you to use it to build a portfolio up and then start reaching out to people in your network to see if anyone needs your services.","Been a freelance motion graphic artist for 18 years and I've never touched any of those sites. It's idiots and amateurs looking for cheap, shitty labor. I don't feel like competing against people in 3rd world countries so I get all my jobs the old fashioned way.","One company owns majority of popular freelancing websites (elance included) Aside from the race to the bottom pricing happening for projects; customer is always right. Lots of stories of even a pip from a client freezing accounts -- not even just a project, your whole account with any ongoing projects. Everything gone. Thousands lost. Not worth it. No recourse.","Elance, UpWork, Fivver Who would've thought taking skilled labor and watering down the price to mere pennies would be bad for everybody involved? That's why, even though I operate just like a freelancer, I incorporated. Legally, I'm a sole proprietor, not a freelancer...aside the few tax differences, it just saves me a ton of headaches.","\"PayPal offers a service called \"\"PayPal Business Payments\"\". Instead of charging a percentage, they charge a flat fee. For US-to-US payments, the fee is fifty cents per transaction. For Canada-to-Canada payments, the fee is five dollars per transaction. You need to use a third-party invoicing service and choose the \"\"PayPal Business Payments\"\" option. FreshBooks or Zoho Invoice might work.\"","you *can* get the guys in india for pennies on the dollar, but then you get what you pay for. I was told on upwork that I didn't get picked because I was too expensive, but then he went on to say that their proposals are usually garbage and wanted to pay me a little to look them over and make sure they weren't full of shit. Upwork should be called UpOffShoring. wtf?","That all depends on you. The cheaper places are certainly going to cost less, but when it comes to comparing value that is a subjective decision that only you can make. Maybe the more expensive one has an easier to user website, friendlier customer service, or something else you value enough to pay more for trades.","Have you looked at OptionsHouse? They charge $2.95 per trade and are one of the lowest when it comes to fees. Bare bones interface, but fast execution.","I'm a freelance programmer, reverse-engineer, and network engineer. I do quarterly 1099 filings using a cheap local accounting firm. I did them on my own at first; not that hard.. You deduct from sum the percentage for that earning-tier issued by the IRS.. $500.00 for writing algorithms on a timer? Yikes.. I did topcoder once but it didn't pay much then it was only good for portfolio.. No way I would race to do algorithms for third-world-rate capital..","Your best bet is to use a payment processor that charges ONLY a fixed monthly fee and not a fee per transaction.","That's exactly what happened to me except on Fiverr. I had months of activity and hundreds of 5-star reviews. I had real clients. Repeat buyers. Real business relationships. Then one day they deleted both of my accounts (I had one for buying and one for selling). Apparently, buried somewhere in their terms of service, users aren't allowed to have more than one account. I didn't even try to hide it- my usernames were nerdi and nerdi2. They even made me wait months and submit I.D. just to be able to log in and withdrawal my earnings. So much for that.","\"Are you in the US? One thing you can do is prepay taxes at a rate of a 1.8% fee. Much lower than paypal. I would do this on what is \"\"left over\"\". Here are somethings that I would tend to do in your case: Those are some of the things I would be looking at. Do you care to share the details of your offer?\"","\"Paypal linked with my bank account. 1.Can I use my Saving bank account to receive payments from my clients? Or is it necessary to open a current account? Yes you can get funds into your savings account. However it is advisable to keep a seperate account as it would help with your IT Returns. 2.I will be paying a certain % as commission on every sales to a couple of sales guys (who are not my employees but only working on commission). Can I show this as an expense in my IT returns? As you are earning as freelancer, you are eligible for certain deductions like Phone calls, Laptop, other hardware, payments to partners. It is important that you maintain a book of records. An accountant for a small fee of Rs 5 K should be able to help you. In the Returns you have to show Net income after all these deductions, there is no place to enter expenses. 3.Since I will be receiving all the payments in Euros so am I falling under a category of \"\"Exporter of services\"\"? The work you are doing can be Free Lancing. 4.Do I need an Import Export Code (IEC) for smoothly running this small business? You can run this without one as Free lancing. IEC would be when you grow big and are looking for various benefits under tax and pay different taxes and are incorporated as a company.\"","Several things to consider: I don't see why your friend should pay any tax. It's not his income at all. And I am not sure where your income should be taxed in this scenario. Is he declaring it as his income somehow? The bank won't do it for him, the transfer as such should be transparent. On the other hand, money transiting on his account could in principle look suspicious, although €300 is unlikely to raise alarm. What I do know is that if you do pay taxes, 20% is not particularly high as such. There are four brackets of income tax (and tax-like contributions to the pension system) in the Netherlands, between 36.55% and 52%. Rates for personal taxes in the Netherlands are simply way higher than what you might be used to in Eastern Europe or what has been mentioned in comments. In fact, if anything, 20% seems too low. I am at a loss guessing what it could correspond to, you could ask your friend how he came to that number. There various tax discounts (kortingen) and deductions (aftreken) that apply to freelance work (and some that apply to all incomes). €3000 yearly is quite low and would probably not be taxed at all if you were recently registered as freelance (zzp'er) in the Netherlands and had no other sources of income. But on the other hand, if your money is treated as being part of your friend's income, these wouldn't apply, as he is probably already benefiting from them. There are special rules for copyright fees. Not sure this is necessarily 100% kosher but I have met people who got paid that way for articles they wrote in trade publications.","In addition to paypal, Amazon also offers a payment processing service that has micropayment pricing: For Transactions < $10:","I think something you might want to look at is a service called Dwolla. They charge $0.25 per transaction, and are free for transactions under $10.","Since you are not starting with a lot of cash the commissions may eat into your account. So go with somebody that has no inactivity fee and low/free commission. I think there are number of sites and the ING sharebuilder.com comes to mind. Scottrade also one of the cheaper ones that i used.","\"Putting them on line 10 is best suited for your situation. According to Quickbooks: Commissions and Fees (Line 10) Commissions/fees paid to nonemployees to generate revenue (e.g. agent fees). It seems like this website you are using falls under the term \"\"nonemployees\"\".\"","The fees for the services are displayed on the PayPal website at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-fees-outside Is there anything else you were looking for.","My recollection is that most traditional reader systems charge like 5%. For squareup there were two different pricing schemes 1. 2.75% per swipe. 2. 0% per swipe but a $275 permonth charge. When I did the math the flat fee only made sense if you're doing over $2500ish per month in business. These fees seem pretty minimal to me.","Why wouldn't one of the existing crowdsourcing systems meet your needs? Yes, they charge a commission, but they have already addressed the issues you raise and specifically they provide the third-party accounting you want.","This very informative link gives a clear and comprehensive comparison (pros and cons) of various popular brokers: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/best-online-brokers-for-stock-trading/ (Best Online Brokers for Stock Trading 2016) There are indeed some significant cons for the super-low commission fee. Just for a quick example, the Interactive Broker requires a minimum of 10k account balance, as well as the frequent trading activity even on monthly basis (or the minimum $10 commission would be charged).","I think either one would allow for lower pricing tiers as a merchant. I am at 2.5 on my main account. $0 to $3,000 2.9% + $0.30 $3.20 fee on a $100 sale $3,000+ to $10,000 2.5% + $0.30 $2.80 fee on a $100 sale $10,000+ 2.2% + $0.30 $2.50 fee on a $100 sale $100,000+ Call 1-888-818-3928","Use some form of escrow agent: Some freelancer sites provide payment escrow services (e.g. E-Lance). In this system the client puts money in escrow for the project in advance and then when they accept the project it forwards the payment to the provider. Progress Payments Arrange a progress payment approach with the client where they pay at certain milestones rather than a single payment at the end of the project. Ideally you would have them pre-pay for each milestone before you start work on it. However, you could ask for payment after each milestone, which might be easier to sell to your client. It does leave some risk, but minimizes that risk somewhat.","My go-to response whenever anyone asks me this is the Monevator table of platform fees. It looks a little complicated at first, but scroll past the table for a couple of paragraphs of useful info to help narrow down your search. The general tone of the page is geared more towards investors in index funds, but the fees on share-dealing are right there in the table too. There are also special notes if there are discounts for frequent traders and that sort of thing, so not too much passive-investor elitism on show!","Lower fees are always better, everything else equal. A lower fee makes your transaction overall a better deal, all else equal. Other transactions costs (like the SEC fee on sales) are mostly the same across brokers and there is unlikely to be any difference in execution quality either. When comparing brokers be sure to consider the other issues: To me, most of these are minor issues. For that reason, I'd say let transaction cost be your guide. I hear a lot of talk about the quality of the interface. If you just want to buy or sell a stock, they are all pretty easy. Some brokers have better tools for monitoring the market or looking at technical indicators, if you are into that.","\"A hundred different Indian sweatshops low bidding everyone. I would be surprised if any of those projects are ever successful or under budget, but the amateur clients don't seem to care, they just want \"\"the next Facebook\"\" built for $100.\"","Transferwise is a new peer-to-peer service that's setup to lower fees for international money transfers: https://transferwise.com","In general the other party will expect you to keep your promises. If you promise to do something for a fixed amount of money, you take on a risk and it is no longer their problem if you work slower than you planned. In principle it could even be the case that you take on a project and fail, after which the company may not have to pay at all. So regardless of how things should be written in your books (For example a theoretical pay above minimum wage but a loss for your private company): An important thing to note is that if you are worried about ending up below minimum wage, you are definitely asking a fee that is too low. You should keep in mind that your fee should include a fair compensation for the expected work, and a fair compensation for the risk that you have taken on.","For people who frequently submit payments via PayPal, you may want to try and negotiate with them to use Paypal mass payments. Although the mass payment program is designed to send small amounts to many people, you can process payment batches of 1 transaction. In the CA mass payment fees (paid by sender) are 2% capped at 1.25 CAD To CA and US. International payments are 2% capped at 24.00 CAD. No fees for receiver. A business PayPal account is required to enable mass payments. When I mention this to customers, many are unaware Paypal's mass payment program exists! https://merchant.paypal.com/ca/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=merchant/mass_pay","What about web-hosting fees? Cost of Internet service? Cost of computer equipment to do the work? Amortized cost of development? Time for support calls/email? Phone service used for sales? Advertising/marketing expenses? Look hard--I bet there are some costs.","I have sold a few items on ebay. The biggest issue I have with ebay is all of the fees. I am not sure how much has changed recently, but when I was selling stuff it felt like ebay and paypal took a large chunk of the money. I could be wrong, but it seemed like they were getting around 35% or more of my 'profits'. Of course, you then have the shipping fees on top of that, which will run a few bucks on common items. For items that sell for around $20 on ebay, I felt like I was ending up with about $5 in my pocket. I have used Amazon to sell used books, though I haven't done that for about a year or so. They had no fees for listing items, and the item remains listed for about 90 days. If it sells, they process the payment and can deposit it into your bank account or provide an Amazon gift certificate. I forget Amazon's fees, but I remember that it didn't seem to be as frustrating as the ebay/paypal price structure.","If you want the cheapest online broker in Australia, you can't go past CMC Markets, they charge $9.90 upto a $10,000 trade and 0.1% above that. There is no ongoing fees unless you choose to have dynamic data (stock prices get updated automatically as they change). However, the dynamic data fee does get waived if you have about 10 or more trades per month. You don't really need the dynamic data unless you are a regular trader anyway. They also provide some good research tools and some basic charting. Your funds with them are kept segragated in a Bankwest Account, so are resonably safe. They don't provide the best interest on funds kept in the account, so it is best to just deposit the funds when you are looking to buy, and move your funds elswhere (earning higher interest) when selling. Hopes this helps, regards Victor. Update They have now increased their basic brokerage to a minimum of $11 per trade unless you are a frequent trader.","\"If you are not worried about timing the market and want to buy primarily \"\"blue chip\"\" stocks to hold for a while, consider using Loyal3. They don't charge any commission. The downside is that trades are executed at the end of the day and there's only about 60 companies currently available (but there are some really good ones currently available).\"","I've been using xetrade for quite awhile, also used nzforex (associated with ozforex / canadian forex, probably ukforex as well) -- xetrade has slightly better rates than I've gotten at nzforex, so I've been using them primarily. That said, I am in the process of opening an account at CurrencyFair, because it appears that I'll be able to exchange money at better rates there. (XETrade charges me 1.5% off the rate you see at xe.com -- which is the FX conversion fee I believe -- there are no fees other than the spread charged). I think the reason CurrencyFair may be able to do better is because the exchange is based on the peer-to-peer trade, so you could theoretically get a deal better than xe.com. I'll update my answer here after I've been using CurrencyFair for awhile, and let you know. They theoretically guarantee no worse than 0.5% though (+ $4.00 / withdrawal) -- so I think it'll save me quite a bit of money.","If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. Also, CMC Markets charges $11 commission up to $10,000 trade. This is actually quite a low fee - based on your $7,000, $22 for in and out of a position would be less than 0.32% (of course you might want to buy into more than one company - so your brokerage would be slightly higher). Still this is way lower than full service brokerage which could be $100 or more in and then again out again. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first.","\"I wouldn't trust \"\"about.com\"\"; they're based on grabbing content from other places and are entirely unreliable. You can use the money transfer on PayPal, or transfer through a bank. I wouldn't give my bank account details to complete strangers, though. But that's me, with my distrust of the human kind.\"","0.13% is a pretty low fee. PTTRX expenses are 0.45%, VINIX expenses are 0.04%. So based on your allocation, you end up with at least 0.08%. While lower than 0.13%, don't know if it is worth the trouble (and potentially fees) of monthly re-balancing.","Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.","A fully automated website that literally does the selling for you. Receive money daily paid directly to you PayPal account! 100% commissions from one incredible package... for just $6.99! No Web Hosting Or Domain Fees!! For all the details, visit website at: http://victor699.beep.com/","Every brokerage is different, on all of their websites they have an actual list of fees. There are tons of different charges you may encounter.","Depending on how tech savvy your client is you could potentially use bitcoin. There is some take of indian regulators stopping bitcoin exchanges, meaning it might be hard to get your money out in your local country but the lack of fees to transfer and not getting killed on the exchange rate every time has a huge impact, especially if your individual transaction sizes are not huge.","Fidelity, Charles Schwab, TDA, and just about every make online brokerage gives you massive amounts of free trades each year and when you sign up. Pretty much the same as 100+ free trades /yr over a 10 year period. Also, you get commission-free trade for the most popular ETFs, which is much more important. Lastly, if you care about free trades, you're probably investing poorly. Non-professionals shouldn't be making that many non-ETF trades in a year. Professional traders wouldn't blink over a tiny $5-10 commission fee.","The website likely has no differentiation. I am hoping, however, the service does. I'm not looking to break down a fledgling business plan, I am just looking for information on how and where to build or buy a website that performs thusly: Company creates account and posts the service they can provide, Consumer applies for said service, I deal with some required middle-man work which is at the cost of the consumer.","Dwolla looks to be a great option. But it requires users to have an account there (Free to sign up). And there rates are absolutely amazing. Free for transactions under $10 $0.25 to receive money on transactions over $10","Trading is NOT zero-sum game, it is negative sum actually. In fact all people's money is getting swept by commissions and fees. If you don't have The Plan (which includes minimizing commission losses), you win some (not a lot), then you get big positions, then market crashes, then all your money is gone. You will start noticing that commissions are real, only when you get market crash. Prey that you get heavy losses (-10% of portfolio) before some (giant) market crash. Getting good lesson by small price is better then high price (-30..50%). Piece of advice. There is small exchanges that do NOT charge you for operations, taking only market spread ($0.01) as commission. They do so because they do not have big population and they trade mostly by using automatic market-makers (which means there is no way to buy 10% of Apple there).","Have you considered doing some small freelance programming jobs? One site I like for this type of thing is eLance.com, but I am sure there are others. Heck, you are soon going to be up all night anyway, why not earn some cash during those hours the rest of us foolishly waste on sleep?","\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"","The lowest cost way to trade on an exchange is to trade directly on the exchange. I can't speak to the LSE, but in the US, there is a mandated firewall between the individual and the exchange, the broker; therefore, in the US, one would have to start a business and become a broker. If that process is too costly, the broker or trade platform that permits individuals to trade with the lowest commissions is the next lowest.","Fiverr and Mechanical Turk comes to my mind. You won't break the bank, but will give you a nice distraction and earn you some cash for your time. And you can do this at your own schedule.","I am a freelancer based in Europe and I want to tell you: - if you are a freelancer, then you INVOICE your Swizzerland based client The word salary is improper. - So your client will DEDUCE the invoice from its taxes, and NOT pay income tax on top of that invoice. Because invoice = expense. So, ONLY YOU pay income tax in India. Your client pays no tax at all, not in India, not in Swizzerland. As you are a freelancer and not employee, the company has no obligation to pay employer taxes for you. A company has financial benefits from working with a freelancer.","Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.","The website http://currencyfair.com/ provides a service which gives you both a decent exchange rate (about 1% off from mid-market rate) and a moderately low fee for the transfer: 4 USD for outgoing ACH in the US, 10 USD for same-day US wire. For the reverse (sending money from the US to EU) the fees are: 3 EUR for an ACH, 8 EUR for a same-day EUR wire. It has been online for quite a while, so I assume its legit, but I'd do a transfer for a smaller sum first, to see if there are any problems, and then a second transfer for the whole sum.","eBay is the worst of the worst. I used it way back when it was fair to buyers and sellers. These days, scammers can can get free stuff at your expense and then eBay will punish you on top of getting scammed.",">keep the profit margin the most minimal as possible to gain customers over time That's not the right way to go. The running for the lowest price is endless and no one is going to win. What you have to do is establish your brand and charge a fair price for something that add value on people's life. If they think it's worth they will buy it. That's the best way to grow your ecommerce. Shopify + Dropshipping is the easiest way to go. First what you need to do is find what you want to sell. Then name your store and create a good logo for it. Remember, you need to focus on establish your brand. Going for the lowest price not going to take you anywhere. They will just buy from you because it's cheap and sometimes not even that. You are selling the service not only the product. You can't charge too much but charge the lowest price is not good either. 1- $300 I think it's too much. I would charge you half of that if you were my client. It's easy but time consuming to set up a Shopify store (depending on how many items you would be selling). You need to be aware to banners, logo and social media at very beginning too. So it's not only the store itself. 2- If you are going for Shopify you don't need servers, vps... The Shopify will be your hosting. What you need would be mostly pay designer (logo, banners), apps (Upsell, hurrify, shipping...), domain and maybe someone to write your product description. About how much would you get back it depends completely of what you are about to sell and how is the market for it. I work with digital marketing and wanted to test my entrepreneurship skills with e-commerce plus my marketing knowledge last week. Ended up making over $5,500 on the first 5 days selling in Brazil. Proof (http://imgur.com/a/zDmot) But if you don't have any knowledge about it don't expect too much at very beginning. You probably won't sell anything or almost nothing on your first month based on some friends experiences. 3- That's true. I spend around $500-$600 to get more than $5,500 in sales in 5 days. They are mostly from Facebook Ads. Never tried any independent website and I don't think that's worth for a new E-commerce in my opinion. But again, if you don't have marketing knowledge you will spend a lot of money to make it worth for you. Here, I highly recommend you to hire someone to do it for you or teach you. That's sometimes an expensive service but better than what you would spend trying to learn/doing by yourself Let me know if I can help you with your website or anything else. I have the knowledge but sometimes I don't know how to express myself. Hope I helped you.","Your cost of platform is built into your commission rates...SC is free if I sign up to a broker that charges more commissions. Right now I am with IB as my broker. With the cost of my charting, if I were to make 10 round turns per month, I would pay $4.50 per side commission on FOREX, $3.25 per side on EQUITIES. Still a better deal than ToS.","1: Low fees means: a Total Expense Ratio of less than 0,5%. One detail you may also want to pay attention to whether the fund reinvests returns (Thesaurierender Fonds) which is basically good for investing, but if it's also a foreign-based fund then taxes get complicated, see http://www.finanztip.de/indexfonds-etf/thesaurierende-fonds/","This is pretty shameless branded content by Forbes for UpWork. “Brand Voice” should be called what it is, paid advertising. I bet an agency has placed the post here too. Anyone else noticing this or am I just being cynical?","Discount brokers come and go. They tend to come with ridiculously cheap prices, and they go when they fail to gain traction, or raise their prices, at which point they can be undercut by a new player. Some brokers are nicer to people with more money, while others cater to small traders on simple low commissions. No matter which broker you choose, you aren't liable to make much money doing frequent trades with a small account. You either risk most of your money on every trade, or several small trades get sapped by commissions. It is understandable that you want to pay less given the disadvantages of a small account. Just2Trade, USAA, Sogotrade, etc. have each been reasonable options in the < $4 a trade range. Many websites will give you a list of the top discount brokers of the year. As with any heavy discounter/deal that is too good to be true, find reputable referrals from people who use the service, and complaints from customers who have been burned.","They're not negotiating trade rates for you, you set the trade rates in your order. What they might have is a slightly slower system, delivering your orders a second later than the competition would. If that's critical to you then you should look at that, otherwise look at their fees, customer support and research aids because that's where the broker value is.","Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.","Thanks, at the moment I don't plan to do alot of trading just need to sell a few shares at the moment and might sell some more more at another point, but other than that I don't plan on touching the stock and just plan on letting it re-invest itself. Since I don't plan on doing alot of selling I don't know how much I need to worry about fee's as long as they aren't too steep.","There is nothing called best; Depending on the amounts there are several options and each will cost some money. If your business is still small customers are individuals try PayPal it will be easy for everyone. The other options are accepting Credit Card, you would need to set-up card gateway on your website etc Simple wire transfer, it will cost more both for your customers and to you.","You mean sites like prosper.com? I see that they are growing but is this really substainable when the novely wears off? Also I find the low volatility claim interesting since I thought low vol portfolios would be a hard sell. How have you experienced this?","I'm just a sole trader who doesn't have much money which is why I'm looking at budget stuff. It's not like I'm a big business just being really tight. I need advice on this, not to get down-voted. I need one that is cheap or free but I would prefer that I can upload my own files and I would like to connect my own domain to it.","Indiabulls. Low brokerage (If you bargain) I'm user of it and I'm getting 25paisa for delivery and 5 paisa for intraday. All transactions can be done online. Also they provide an stand alone application PowerIndiabulls, which is too good and appraised by many users as best in the industry. Not sure about it, but I think Powerindiabulls application is the answer for this. Please have a look at their website for more details.","I have recently started using Transferwise to transfer money between the U.K. and The Netherlands. Transferwise has lower fees than other companies. They use a pseudo-peer-to-peer money transfer system. When person A transfers £ to €, and person B transfers € to £, they effectively cancel these two agains teach other, which significantly lowers exchange fees for both A and B. I am not affiliated with Transferwise other than as a customer.","Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.","Income Tax would only be levied on the 10% commission that you earn and not on the total amount kept in the Escrow Account.","It is best to take advise from / appoint a professional CA. Will I have to pay GST? No GST is applicable. Exports outside of India do not have GST. Do I have to collect TDS when I send money to the PUBLISHERS ? No But another guy said, I have to pay 18% tax when receiving and sending payments, apart from that I have to collect 30.9% TDS when sending payment to the PUBLISHERS(outside India). There is only income tax applicable on profits. So whatever you get from Advertisers less of payments to publishers less of your expenses is your profit. Since you are doing this as individual, you will have to declare this as income from other sources and pay income tax as appropriate. Note there are restrictions on sending payments outside of India plus there are exchange rate fluctuations. It is best you open an Foreign Currency Resident [or Domestic] Account. This will enable you payout someone without much issues. Else you will have to follow FEMA and LRS schemes of RBI.","To be fair, part of the $5 goes to Paypal whether you sign up with them or not. I bought the special and certainly have no regrets. But I do hope Louie uses a competitor of theirs like WePay next time.",">Content Writer >Content writing is a quick job nowadays. There are some excellent marketplaces for writers. You can get a job as a writer there. I will give a short list here. >People always look for a writer, who has website or blog. I often look for writers for my niche sites. I love to change writer and deal with new peoples. I hire writers from Social Media and several marketplaces. >If you think, you’re right in English and you can write proper blog content then you can start writing right now. >First of all, make a blog for your own. Make 5-10 excellent blog content there as your sample writing. You don't need to be right in English. Many contributes do not have great English skills but can deliver great concepts.","I personally like Schwab. Great service, low fees, wide variety of fund are available at no fee. TD Ameritrade is good too.","I would prefer to see you register in your home state, and then focus on making money, rather than spending time looking to game the system to save a few bucks. People worry way too much about these trivial fees when they should be focused on making their business successful. Get registered, get insurance, and then pour it on and start making money. Make $650 your target for a week's income - you can do it! Next year's goal should be spending $50 a month on a payroll service because you're SO BUSY you can't take the extra time to pay your own social security taxes.","If you are using paypal to sell items online, you need a Premier (or better) account rather than personal. Paypal states: Our fees are the same for Personal, Premier, and Business accounts. [...] If you use your PayPal account to request money from someone, you'll be charged a fee when you receive the payment.","Surprised nobody has mentioned Freshbooks yet. It's lightweight, easy to use, and free for low-end use (scaling up price-wise as you scale up).","You can find a lot of information at the HRMC website at http://hmrc.gov.uk. If you don't want to work as an employee, you can register as self-employed (basically a one-man band), which is quite simple, you can start your own company, which is more work but can have tax advantages, or you can find umbrella companies which will officially employ you while in reality you are a freelancer and only do your billing through them. Umbrella companies can be anywhere from totally legal to extremely dodgy. If they promise you that you pay only five percent tax on your income through ingenious tricks, that's only until the tax office finds out and they will make you pay. Between self-employed and your own company, the big difference is whether you are actually working independently or not. If you work like an employee (take someone else's orders) and claim you are a company, the tax office doesn't like that. And if you pay very little taxes, they don't like that either. So self-employed is the safer choice but you will pay more taxes, close to what a normal employee would pay. Obviously you will have to pay tax on your income and NHS insurance. Obviously you are required to tell the government (actually HMRC) about your income. Not doing so would be tax evasion and get you into deep trouble when you are caught. I don't think you have to tell them the source of your income, but not telling them might look very suspicious and might get your accounts checked carefully. And unless you design a website for the mafia, why wouldn't you tell them? The bill payer will try to deduct your bill from their profits anyway, so it's no secret. Most important to remember: When you send out a bill and receive payment, you'll have to pay tax on it. When self employed, as a rule of thumb put one third away into a savings account for your tax bill. Don't spend it all or you will find yourself in deep trouble when your taxes need paying. Plus put some more away for times when you can't find work.","\"It's a tough thing to do. You should look for a salaried position. Your freelance skills will be much better received, if you've worked for a couple of companies doing programming full time. Nothing beats working at it all day long for a few years. If you're set on being freelance, write some utility that will be popular, and submit it to Freshmeat.net. Now that's asking a lot. Those on the Web looking for programmers will most likely want you to work for 'sweat equity'. That is, a share in the company for you labour. In other words \"\"FREE\"\". I've done my share of those, and if you're just getting into this, you should steer away from them. You may hit the jackpot, but you won't sleep for the next few years ;-)\"","With a paypal micropayment he pays 61k (6.1%) (5% of sale price + .05 cents per transaction) With a regular paypal he pays 95k (9.5%) (2.9% of sale price + .30 cents per transaction) In case anybody was wondering what the poster is talking about. Either way he got hosed by using PayPal. Note: I'm working off 220,000 units sold at 1 million dollars (which I know aren't the exact figures).","PayPal does charge a premium, both for sending and receiving. Here's how you find their rates:","If you’re concerned about transferring USD, I can’t really help you there. But if you’re looking to transfer wealth, I believe that’s where something like Bitcoin could help you. In fact a small or nonexistent processing fee is one of Bitcoin’s biggest strengths as a currency. Off the top of my head, I believe BitPay has services that would suit your needs. And if you’re worried about the volatility of Bitcoin, you can always convert it straight to USD just so you can avoid service fees!","You could use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is THE fee-killer. I haven't used US and China exchanges, but you can connect your US bank account to Coinbase, buy bitcoins, transfer to BTCChina, and sell for CNY. There are many other options to convert from and to Bitcoins, but Coinbase seems to be most practical and most widely used in the US and BTCChina is the largest and probably most trusted exchange in China. You can also use LocalBitocoins for both buying and selling, but people on LocalBitcoins typically charge larger fees than exchanges, though this may vary. Please read a bit about Bitcoin before using it, and be aware of the risks. It's still very new (but revolutionary and very easy and fast to move internationally). Try with a small amount first to check it out. Your electronic wallet can be stolen, and you're exposed to certain risks of exchanges shutting down or government/banks stepping over their boundaries. One nice thing is that you probably won't be affected by volatility as you won't be holding bitcoins for long. Also be aware that the Chinese don't like capital leaving China and there is a possibility that China government will introduce further regulations on exchanges (though they have stated that buying, selling and owning bitcoins is legal). You're doing the opposite, importing money into China, but you'll probably feel it in one way or the other. P.S. Approximate fast fee calculation: Coinbase has 1% transaction fee + $0.15 bank fee. Bitcoin transfer is free or in some cases with minimal 0.0001 BTC fee (a bit less than $0.01 currently). BTCChina has 0.3% trading fee and 0.5% CNY withdrawal fee. As you can see, the main fees are exchange fees, but still less than 3% and if you find a good exchange combination with low fees you're golden, or might even make money on transaction if BTC price rises. Also check this Reddit thread - there are alternative China exchanges with lower fees. P.P.S. Found this blog post, maybe a bit outdated, but probably with better calculation than mine as it takes into account exchange prices.","How do I directly get my Freelancing amount in my Axis bank account? Do I need to inform my Bank before receiving any such payment? Yes you can get it directly into your Axis Bank Account. You would need to inform your client your Bank Account Number, Bank Name and Address and Swift BIC or IFSC Code [Axis Bank website or Branch can tell you]. You can receive credits in Euro's. Upon receipt Axis Bank will automatically convert this into Rupees using standard rate. Your Bank [Axis] may also charge some Bank fees for the wire transfer. How do I pay tax for this extra income in India? You would need to treat this as income and add it to total income including salary and calculate tax accordingly. You can pay taxes online using Income Tax India website. You can also approach a CA who would do the tax computation, paying taxes and filing returns for as little as Rs 1000 - 2000/- Edit: IBAN is International Bank Account Number. Explain to you client that India does not subscribe to IBAN. Its right now only used by Europe and Australia. Give you normal Bank Account Number. Please call up your Bank / walk into your Branch to get the SWIFT BIC. It will be something like this http://www.theswiftcodes.com/india/page/3/","Square prices are hard to beat for a small operation. I've looked around when I was considering starting up a business, and they're definitely one of the cheapest. Paypal are the second best, but I do not trust Paypal in general. However, looking locally may provide you some more options. If you walk in to one of the local banks, you may be able to get offers for merchant accounts with better rate, depending on your relationships with that bank. You can also check out Costco merchant services, they seem to be quite competitive with the rates, but there may be other costs (they will probably charge more for equipment).","(For people looking at this question many years later...) Schwab and Fidelity offer a wide selection of commission-free ETFs. You need an initial purchase amount, though, of (when last I checked at Schwab) $1,000.","You can use the ITR 1 and declare the income from freelancing as income from other sources. As part of freelancing, certain expenses can be deducted provided they are directly related to work and have proper records. Please consult a CA who can advice you on how to do this. The Actual income shown should be less of the expenses.","Generally for tax questions you should talk to a tax adviser. Don't consider anything I write here as a tax advice, and the answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Does IRS like one payment method over other or they simply don't care as long as she can show the receipts? They don't care as long as she withholds the taxes (30%, unless specific arrangements are made for otherwise). She should withhold 30% of the payment and send it to the IRS. The recipient should claim refund, if the actual tax liability is lower. It's only consulting work at the moment, so most of the communication is done over phone. Should they start engaging in written communication to keep records of the work done? Yes, if she wants it to be a business expense. Is it okay to pay in one go to save money-transferring fees? Can she pay in advance? Again, she can do whatever she wants, but if she wants to account for it on her tax returns she should do it the same way she would pay any other vendor in her business. She cannot use different accounting methods for different vendors. Basically, she has not outsourced work in previous years, and she wants to avoid any red flags. Then she should start by calling on her tax adviser, and not an anonymous Internet forum.","PayPal charges a 2.5% currency conversion fee to exchange funds from one currency to another. That means, the receiver would receive $ 9.75. Read More","They're developing a way for homeowners to buy and sell their property online without the use of a realtor therefore saving themselves the user thousands of dollars on commission charges. They educate the user as well as provide the forms needed for free. If a service is needed, like an escrow company or appraisal, they suggest a few.","From PayPal's website: PayPal offers discounted transaction rates for 501(c)(3) charities for most products, and consistently low rates for all other nonprofits. No extra fees for setup, statements, withdrawals or cancellation. 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction and no monthly fee for charities. There is a reduced rate if the donations total more than $100,000 (which they would for Wikipedia), but PayPal doesn't publish those rates. You have to call and ask about them. One forum I read indicates the rate drops to 1.9% + $0.30 per transaction.","I would never, ever recommend that to a startup business like what's being discussed here. You're talking about a larger, regional business that's doing at least $200,000 a year in revenue, if not significantly more, for a $15,000 site to be effective. Or an e-commerce store. But, yeah. Your price is right for that sort of thing.","\"Lifecycle funds might be a suitable fit for you. Lifecycle funds (aka \"\"target date funds\"\") are a mutual fund that invests your money in other mutual funds based on how much time is left until you need the money-- they follow a \"\"glide-path\"\" of reducing stock holdings in favor of bonds over time to reduce volatility of your final return as you near retirement. The ones I've looked at don't charge a fee of their own for this, but they do direct your portfolio to actively managed funds. That said, the ones I've seen have an \"\"acquired\"\" expense ratio of less than what you're proposing you'd pay a professional. FWIW, my current plan is to invest in a binary portfolio of cheap mutual funds that track S&P500 and AGG and rebalance regularly. This is easy enough that I don't see the point of adding in a 1 percent commission.\"","Use buxfer.com. It's available in India and most of the features are free.","Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here. The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions. That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc. A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees.","\"Free, huh? From their Commission and Fee Schedule: So if you literally bought two shares, then the SEC added one penny in fees and FINRA added one penny as a \"\"Trading Activity Fee\"\" Note that there are several other fees on their schedule that may not apply to you. If you had bought 100 shares instead, your total fees would have still been only 2 cents, but you would have lost $4 on the trade. So the fees are minuscule when you start doing larger orders. However, That should not discourage you from experimenting and learning. I'd rather pay 2 cents in fees on a 4 cent loss than 2 cents in fees on a $400 loss. Just chalk it up to the cost of experience.\"","I'm going to assume that you want to be invested all the time and each trade consists in selling a security and buying another one (similar to your example). How much commissions you are willing to pay depends on several factors, but one way to think about it is as follows. You have a position in stock A and you want to switch to stock B because you think it will perform better. If you think there's a good chance (>50%) that B will outperform A by more than x% then you can happily pay up to x/2% commissions and still make money over a long time horizon. If you like formulae, one way to express it is: Where: Example: if you tend to be right 51% of the time (hit rate), and gain 110% more than you lose on average (win loss ratio), you can see that your expected profit is: 5.1% - commissions, so you could pay 2.5% commissions on entering and closing the position and still make money*. Unfortunately, common sense, statistics and numerous studies tell us a sad truth: on average, people have a hit rate of 50% and a win/loss ratio of 100%. Which means that their expected profit per trade is 0% - commission. Based on that crude observation - unless you can prove to yourself that you are better than average - you should aim at reducing commissions paid to your broker as much as possible through: * 51% and 110% are not random numbers, they correspond to the results of the top 15% (professional) managers in a research paper using a sample of 215 funds managing $150bn.","I work from home. However I am starting my own agency (http://localgrowthdigital.com) in United States. It's specialized in E-commerce and small business. The website is not ready yet though. I am moving to Arizona and will open my office there probably. Yes, I got over $5.500 IN SALES only working online. Net profit was around 35-40% of that.","I am the vendor and I pay the 2 to 3%, not the customer. And I will pay it with a smile on my face. It's either that or deal with cash or other payment methods that are a) difficult/expensive or b) not possible because I am an online merchant. I would *like* the fees to be lower but right now pretty much every other method is either difficult, expensive or both. They know what they are doing. EDIT: Merchants like debit cards. They have the cheapest interchange rate. Reward cards are the most expensive - where do you think your 1% cash back comes from? :)"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Your own site/business. I’m in freelancing and internet business for 15 years, 20 years IT experience. Currently i use freelance websites for cheap Asian employees, very seldom for EU/USA employees, and if only if local competition is heavily out-pricing qualified staff. Till I went \\\"\\\"limited\\\"\\\" i.e., founded a limited corporation I was jobbing as freelancer and sole proprietor, both with limited success due to the strong Asian competition i myself currently hire. The point where freelancing got \\\"\\\"not sustainable\\\"\\\" as primary income was 2006 for me, don’t want to get into detail but every freelancer who was active back then knows what I mean, it was like whole India got internet. If you have absolutely no references, do it for the references a limited time and see the fee you pay as service for you to get references, then start your own web identity, either as freelancer or as corporation. Make sure you take your very satisfied customers with you. Every \\\"\\\"very satisfied\\\"\\\" customer in your contact list means 10 new customers which mean 2 new customers which mean 0.2 new customers and so on. Honestly, this info is solely based on experience of this niche fro ma European citizen perspective, if you’re based anywhere else the situation might be totally different.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Paypal has an account called \\\"\\\"micropayments\\\"\\\" for those who have a lot of transaction under $10 with \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" commission structure, 5%+5c per transaction (rather than 2.9% + 30c with regular merchant accounts)\\\"\",\n \"Just keep in mind that on Upwork, you basically have to be the cheapest person to get most of the gigs. It's great to get your feet wet, but I would strongly encourage you to use it to build a portfolio up and then start reaching out to people in your network to see if anyone needs your services.\",\n \"Been a freelance motion graphic artist for 18 years and I've never touched any of those sites. It's idiots and amateurs looking for cheap, shitty labor. I don't feel like competing against people in 3rd world countries so I get all my jobs the old fashioned way.\",\n \"One company owns majority of popular freelancing websites (elance included) Aside from the race to the bottom pricing happening for projects; customer is always right. Lots of stories of even a pip from a client freezing accounts -- not even just a project, your whole account with any ongoing projects. Everything gone. Thousands lost. Not worth it. No recourse.\",\n \"Elance, UpWork, Fivver Who would've thought taking skilled labor and watering down the price to mere pennies would be bad for everybody involved? That's why, even though I operate just like a freelancer, I incorporated. Legally, I'm a sole proprietor, not a freelancer...aside the few tax differences, it just saves me a ton of headaches.\",\n \"\\\"PayPal offers a service called \\\"\\\"PayPal Business Payments\\\"\\\". Instead of charging a percentage, they charge a flat fee. For US-to-US payments, the fee is fifty cents per transaction. For Canada-to-Canada payments, the fee is five dollars per transaction. You need to use a third-party invoicing service and choose the \\\"\\\"PayPal Business Payments\\\"\\\" option. FreshBooks or Zoho Invoice might work.\\\"\",\n \"you *can* get the guys in india for pennies on the dollar, but then you get what you pay for. I was told on upwork that I didn't get picked because I was too expensive, but then he went on to say that their proposals are usually garbage and wanted to pay me a little to look them over and make sure they weren't full of shit. Upwork should be called UpOffShoring. wtf?\",\n \"That all depends on you. The cheaper places are certainly going to cost less, but when it comes to comparing value that is a subjective decision that only you can make. Maybe the more expensive one has an easier to user website, friendlier customer service, or something else you value enough to pay more for trades.\",\n \"Have you looked at OptionsHouse? They charge $2.95 per trade and are one of the lowest when it comes to fees. Bare bones interface, but fast execution.\",\n \"I'm a freelance programmer, reverse-engineer, and network engineer. I do quarterly 1099 filings using a cheap local accounting firm. I did them on my own at first; not that hard.. You deduct from sum the percentage for that earning-tier issued by the IRS.. $500.00 for writing algorithms on a timer? Yikes.. I did topcoder once but it didn't pay much then it was only good for portfolio.. No way I would race to do algorithms for third-world-rate capital..\",\n \"Your best bet is to use a payment processor that charges ONLY a fixed monthly fee and not a fee per transaction.\",\n \"That's exactly what happened to me except on Fiverr. I had months of activity and hundreds of 5-star reviews. I had real clients. Repeat buyers. Real business relationships. Then one day they deleted both of my accounts (I had one for buying and one for selling). Apparently, buried somewhere in their terms of service, users aren't allowed to have more than one account. I didn't even try to hide it- my usernames were nerdi and nerdi2. They even made me wait months and submit I.D. just to be able to log in and withdrawal my earnings. So much for that.\",\n \"\\\"Are you in the US? One thing you can do is prepay taxes at a rate of a 1.8% fee. Much lower than paypal. I would do this on what is \\\"\\\"left over\\\"\\\". Here are somethings that I would tend to do in your case: Those are some of the things I would be looking at. Do you care to share the details of your offer?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Paypal linked with my bank account. 1.Can I use my Saving bank account to receive payments from my clients? Or is it necessary to open a current account? Yes you can get funds into your savings account. However it is advisable to keep a seperate account as it would help with your IT Returns. 2.I will be paying a certain % as commission on every sales to a couple of sales guys (who are not my employees but only working on commission). Can I show this as an expense in my IT returns? As you are earning as freelancer, you are eligible for certain deductions like Phone calls, Laptop, other hardware, payments to partners. It is important that you maintain a book of records. An accountant for a small fee of Rs 5 K should be able to help you. In the Returns you have to show Net income after all these deductions, there is no place to enter expenses. 3.Since I will be receiving all the payments in Euros so am I falling under a category of \\\"\\\"Exporter of services\\\"\\\"? The work you are doing can be Free Lancing. 4.Do I need an Import Export Code (IEC) for smoothly running this small business? You can run this without one as Free lancing. IEC would be when you grow big and are looking for various benefits under tax and pay different taxes and are incorporated as a company.\\\"\",\n \"Several things to consider: I don't see why your friend should pay any tax. It's not his income at all. And I am not sure where your income should be taxed in this scenario. Is he declaring it as his income somehow? The bank won't do it for him, the transfer as such should be transparent. On the other hand, money transiting on his account could in principle look suspicious, although €300 is unlikely to raise alarm. What I do know is that if you do pay taxes, 20% is not particularly high as such. There are four brackets of income tax (and tax-like contributions to the pension system) in the Netherlands, between 36.55% and 52%. Rates for personal taxes in the Netherlands are simply way higher than what you might be used to in Eastern Europe or what has been mentioned in comments. In fact, if anything, 20% seems too low. I am at a loss guessing what it could correspond to, you could ask your friend how he came to that number. There various tax discounts (kortingen) and deductions (aftreken) that apply to freelance work (and some that apply to all incomes). €3000 yearly is quite low and would probably not be taxed at all if you were recently registered as freelance (zzp'er) in the Netherlands and had no other sources of income. But on the other hand, if your money is treated as being part of your friend's income, these wouldn't apply, as he is probably already benefiting from them. There are special rules for copyright fees. Not sure this is necessarily 100% kosher but I have met people who got paid that way for articles they wrote in trade publications.\",\n \"In addition to paypal, Amazon also offers a payment processing service that has micropayment pricing: For Transactions < $10:\",\n \"I think something you might want to look at is a service called Dwolla. They charge $0.25 per transaction, and are free for transactions under $10.\",\n \"Since you are not starting with a lot of cash the commissions may eat into your account. So go with somebody that has no inactivity fee and low/free commission. I think there are number of sites and the ING sharebuilder.com comes to mind. Scottrade also one of the cheaper ones that i used.\",\n \"\\\"Putting them on line 10 is best suited for your situation. According to Quickbooks: Commissions and Fees (Line 10) Commissions/fees paid to nonemployees to generate revenue (e.g. agent fees). It seems like this website you are using falls under the term \\\"\\\"nonemployees\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"The fees for the services are displayed on the PayPal website at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-fees-outside Is there anything else you were looking for.\",\n \"My recollection is that most traditional reader systems charge like 5%. For squareup there were two different pricing schemes 1. 2.75% per swipe. 2. 0% per swipe but a $275 permonth charge. When I did the math the flat fee only made sense if you're doing over $2500ish per month in business. These fees seem pretty minimal to me.\",\n \"Why wouldn't one of the existing crowdsourcing systems meet your needs? Yes, they charge a commission, but they have already addressed the issues you raise and specifically they provide the third-party accounting you want.\",\n \"This very informative link gives a clear and comprehensive comparison (pros and cons) of various popular brokers: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/best-online-brokers-for-stock-trading/ (Best Online Brokers for Stock Trading 2016) There are indeed some significant cons for the super-low commission fee. Just for a quick example, the Interactive Broker requires a minimum of 10k account balance, as well as the frequent trading activity even on monthly basis (or the minimum $10 commission would be charged).\",\n \"I think either one would allow for lower pricing tiers as a merchant. I am at 2.5 on my main account. $0 to $3,000 2.9% + $0.30 $3.20 fee on a $100 sale $3,000+ to $10,000 2.5% + $0.30 $2.80 fee on a $100 sale $10,000+ 2.2% + $0.30 $2.50 fee on a $100 sale $100,000+ Call 1-888-818-3928\",\n \"Use some form of escrow agent: Some freelancer sites provide payment escrow services (e.g. E-Lance). In this system the client puts money in escrow for the project in advance and then when they accept the project it forwards the payment to the provider. Progress Payments Arrange a progress payment approach with the client where they pay at certain milestones rather than a single payment at the end of the project. Ideally you would have them pre-pay for each milestone before you start work on it. However, you could ask for payment after each milestone, which might be easier to sell to your client. It does leave some risk, but minimizes that risk somewhat.\",\n \"My go-to response whenever anyone asks me this is the Monevator table of platform fees. It looks a little complicated at first, but scroll past the table for a couple of paragraphs of useful info to help narrow down your search. The general tone of the page is geared more towards investors in index funds, but the fees on share-dealing are right there in the table too. There are also special notes if there are discounts for frequent traders and that sort of thing, so not too much passive-investor elitism on show!\",\n \"Lower fees are always better, everything else equal. A lower fee makes your transaction overall a better deal, all else equal. Other transactions costs (like the SEC fee on sales) are mostly the same across brokers and there is unlikely to be any difference in execution quality either. When comparing brokers be sure to consider the other issues: To me, most of these are minor issues. For that reason, I'd say let transaction cost be your guide. I hear a lot of talk about the quality of the interface. If you just want to buy or sell a stock, they are all pretty easy. Some brokers have better tools for monitoring the market or looking at technical indicators, if you are into that.\",\n \"\\\"A hundred different Indian sweatshops low bidding everyone. I would be surprised if any of those projects are ever successful or under budget, but the amateur clients don't seem to care, they just want \\\"\\\"the next Facebook\\\"\\\" built for $100.\\\"\",\n \"Transferwise is a new peer-to-peer service that's setup to lower fees for international money transfers: https://transferwise.com\",\n \"In general the other party will expect you to keep your promises. If you promise to do something for a fixed amount of money, you take on a risk and it is no longer their problem if you work slower than you planned. In principle it could even be the case that you take on a project and fail, after which the company may not have to pay at all. So regardless of how things should be written in your books (For example a theoretical pay above minimum wage but a loss for your private company): An important thing to note is that if you are worried about ending up below minimum wage, you are definitely asking a fee that is too low. You should keep in mind that your fee should include a fair compensation for the expected work, and a fair compensation for the risk that you have taken on.\",\n \"For people who frequently submit payments via PayPal, you may want to try and negotiate with them to use Paypal mass payments. Although the mass payment program is designed to send small amounts to many people, you can process payment batches of 1 transaction. In the CA mass payment fees (paid by sender) are 2% capped at 1.25 CAD To CA and US. International payments are 2% capped at 24.00 CAD. No fees for receiver. A business PayPal account is required to enable mass payments. When I mention this to customers, many are unaware Paypal's mass payment program exists! https://merchant.paypal.com/ca/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=merchant/mass_pay\",\n \"What about web-hosting fees? Cost of Internet service? Cost of computer equipment to do the work? Amortized cost of development? Time for support calls/email? Phone service used for sales? Advertising/marketing expenses? Look hard--I bet there are some costs.\",\n \"I have sold a few items on ebay. The biggest issue I have with ebay is all of the fees. I am not sure how much has changed recently, but when I was selling stuff it felt like ebay and paypal took a large chunk of the money. I could be wrong, but it seemed like they were getting around 35% or more of my 'profits'. Of course, you then have the shipping fees on top of that, which will run a few bucks on common items. For items that sell for around $20 on ebay, I felt like I was ending up with about $5 in my pocket. I have used Amazon to sell used books, though I haven't done that for about a year or so. They had no fees for listing items, and the item remains listed for about 90 days. If it sells, they process the payment and can deposit it into your bank account or provide an Amazon gift certificate. I forget Amazon's fees, but I remember that it didn't seem to be as frustrating as the ebay/paypal price structure.\",\n \"If you want the cheapest online broker in Australia, you can't go past CMC Markets, they charge $9.90 upto a $10,000 trade and 0.1% above that. There is no ongoing fees unless you choose to have dynamic data (stock prices get updated automatically as they change). However, the dynamic data fee does get waived if you have about 10 or more trades per month. You don't really need the dynamic data unless you are a regular trader anyway. They also provide some good research tools and some basic charting. Your funds with them are kept segragated in a Bankwest Account, so are resonably safe. They don't provide the best interest on funds kept in the account, so it is best to just deposit the funds when you are looking to buy, and move your funds elswhere (earning higher interest) when selling. Hopes this helps, regards Victor. Update They have now increased their basic brokerage to a minimum of $11 per trade unless you are a frequent trader.\",\n \"\\\"If you are not worried about timing the market and want to buy primarily \\\"\\\"blue chip\\\"\\\" stocks to hold for a while, consider using Loyal3. They don't charge any commission. The downside is that trades are executed at the end of the day and there's only about 60 companies currently available (but there are some really good ones currently available).\\\"\",\n \"I've been using xetrade for quite awhile, also used nzforex (associated with ozforex / canadian forex, probably ukforex as well) -- xetrade has slightly better rates than I've gotten at nzforex, so I've been using them primarily. That said, I am in the process of opening an account at CurrencyFair, because it appears that I'll be able to exchange money at better rates there. (XETrade charges me 1.5% off the rate you see at xe.com -- which is the FX conversion fee I believe -- there are no fees other than the spread charged). I think the reason CurrencyFair may be able to do better is because the exchange is based on the peer-to-peer trade, so you could theoretically get a deal better than xe.com. I'll update my answer here after I've been using CurrencyFair for awhile, and let you know. They theoretically guarantee no worse than 0.5% though (+ $4.00 / withdrawal) -- so I think it'll save me quite a bit of money.\",\n \"If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. Also, CMC Markets charges $11 commission up to $10,000 trade. This is actually quite a low fee - based on your $7,000, $22 for in and out of a position would be less than 0.32% (of course you might want to buy into more than one company - so your brokerage would be slightly higher). Still this is way lower than full service brokerage which could be $100 or more in and then again out again. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first.\",\n \"\\\"I wouldn't trust \\\"\\\"about.com\\\"\\\"; they're based on grabbing content from other places and are entirely unreliable. You can use the money transfer on PayPal, or transfer through a bank. I wouldn't give my bank account details to complete strangers, though. But that's me, with my distrust of the human kind.\\\"\",\n \"0.13% is a pretty low fee. PTTRX expenses are 0.45%, VINIX expenses are 0.04%. So based on your allocation, you end up with at least 0.08%. While lower than 0.13%, don't know if it is worth the trouble (and potentially fees) of monthly re-balancing.\",\n \"Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.\",\n \"A fully automated website that literally does the selling for you. Receive money daily paid directly to you PayPal account! 100% commissions from one incredible package... for just $6.99! No Web Hosting Or Domain Fees!! For all the details, visit website at: http://victor699.beep.com/\",\n \"Every brokerage is different, on all of their websites they have an actual list of fees. There are tons of different charges you may encounter.\",\n \"Depending on how tech savvy your client is you could potentially use bitcoin. There is some take of indian regulators stopping bitcoin exchanges, meaning it might be hard to get your money out in your local country but the lack of fees to transfer and not getting killed on the exchange rate every time has a huge impact, especially if your individual transaction sizes are not huge.\",\n \"Fidelity, Charles Schwab, TDA, and just about every make online brokerage gives you massive amounts of free trades each year and when you sign up. Pretty much the same as 100+ free trades /yr over a 10 year period. Also, you get commission-free trade for the most popular ETFs, which is much more important. Lastly, if you care about free trades, you're probably investing poorly. Non-professionals shouldn't be making that many non-ETF trades in a year. Professional traders wouldn't blink over a tiny $5-10 commission fee.\",\n \"The website likely has no differentiation. I am hoping, however, the service does. I'm not looking to break down a fledgling business plan, I am just looking for information on how and where to build or buy a website that performs thusly: Company creates account and posts the service they can provide, Consumer applies for said service, I deal with some required middle-man work which is at the cost of the consumer.\",\n \"Dwolla looks to be a great option. But it requires users to have an account there (Free to sign up). And there rates are absolutely amazing. Free for transactions under $10 $0.25 to receive money on transactions over $10\",\n \"Trading is NOT zero-sum game, it is negative sum actually. In fact all people's money is getting swept by commissions and fees. If you don't have The Plan (which includes minimizing commission losses), you win some (not a lot), then you get big positions, then market crashes, then all your money is gone. You will start noticing that commissions are real, only when you get market crash. Prey that you get heavy losses (-10% of portfolio) before some (giant) market crash. Getting good lesson by small price is better then high price (-30..50%). Piece of advice. There is small exchanges that do NOT charge you for operations, taking only market spread ($0.01) as commission. They do so because they do not have big population and they trade mostly by using automatic market-makers (which means there is no way to buy 10% of Apple there).\",\n \"Have you considered doing some small freelance programming jobs? One site I like for this type of thing is eLance.com, but I am sure there are others. Heck, you are soon going to be up all night anyway, why not earn some cash during those hours the rest of us foolishly waste on sleep?\",\n \"\\\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \\\"\\\"this\\\"\\\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\\\"\",\n \"The lowest cost way to trade on an exchange is to trade directly on the exchange. I can't speak to the LSE, but in the US, there is a mandated firewall between the individual and the exchange, the broker; therefore, in the US, one would have to start a business and become a broker. If that process is too costly, the broker or trade platform that permits individuals to trade with the lowest commissions is the next lowest.\",\n \"Fiverr and Mechanical Turk comes to my mind. You won't break the bank, but will give you a nice distraction and earn you some cash for your time. And you can do this at your own schedule.\",\n \"I am a freelancer based in Europe and I want to tell you: - if you are a freelancer, then you INVOICE your Swizzerland based client The word salary is improper. - So your client will DEDUCE the invoice from its taxes, and NOT pay income tax on top of that invoice. Because invoice = expense. So, ONLY YOU pay income tax in India. Your client pays no tax at all, not in India, not in Swizzerland. As you are a freelancer and not employee, the company has no obligation to pay employer taxes for you. A company has financial benefits from working with a freelancer.\",\n \"Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.\",\n \"The website http://currencyfair.com/ provides a service which gives you both a decent exchange rate (about 1% off from mid-market rate) and a moderately low fee for the transfer: 4 USD for outgoing ACH in the US, 10 USD for same-day US wire. For the reverse (sending money from the US to EU) the fees are: 3 EUR for an ACH, 8 EUR for a same-day EUR wire. It has been online for quite a while, so I assume its legit, but I'd do a transfer for a smaller sum first, to see if there are any problems, and then a second transfer for the whole sum.\",\n \"eBay is the worst of the worst. I used it way back when it was fair to buyers and sellers. These days, scammers can can get free stuff at your expense and then eBay will punish you on top of getting scammed.\",\n \">keep the profit margin the most minimal as possible to gain customers over time That's not the right way to go. The running for the lowest price is endless and no one is going to win. What you have to do is establish your brand and charge a fair price for something that add value on people's life. If they think it's worth they will buy it. That's the best way to grow your ecommerce. Shopify + Dropshipping is the easiest way to go. First what you need to do is find what you want to sell. Then name your store and create a good logo for it. Remember, you need to focus on establish your brand. Going for the lowest price not going to take you anywhere. They will just buy from you because it's cheap and sometimes not even that. You are selling the service not only the product. You can't charge too much but charge the lowest price is not good either. 1- $300 I think it's too much. I would charge you half of that if you were my client. It's easy but time consuming to set up a Shopify store (depending on how many items you would be selling). You need to be aware to banners, logo and social media at very beginning too. So it's not only the store itself. 2- If you are going for Shopify you don't need servers, vps... The Shopify will be your hosting. What you need would be mostly pay designer (logo, banners), apps (Upsell, hurrify, shipping...), domain and maybe someone to write your product description. About how much would you get back it depends completely of what you are about to sell and how is the market for it. I work with digital marketing and wanted to test my entrepreneurship skills with e-commerce plus my marketing knowledge last week. Ended up making over $5,500 on the first 5 days selling in Brazil. Proof (http://imgur.com/a/zDmot) But if you don't have any knowledge about it don't expect too much at very beginning. You probably won't sell anything or almost nothing on your first month based on some friends experiences. 3- That's true. I spend around $500-$600 to get more than $5,500 in sales in 5 days. They are mostly from Facebook Ads. Never tried any independent website and I don't think that's worth for a new E-commerce in my opinion. But again, if you don't have marketing knowledge you will spend a lot of money to make it worth for you. Here, I highly recommend you to hire someone to do it for you or teach you. That's sometimes an expensive service but better than what you would spend trying to learn/doing by yourself Let me know if I can help you with your website or anything else. I have the knowledge but sometimes I don't know how to express myself. Hope I helped you.\",\n \"Your cost of platform is built into your commission rates...SC is free if I sign up to a broker that charges more commissions. Right now I am with IB as my broker. With the cost of my charting, if I were to make 10 round turns per month, I would pay $4.50 per side commission on FOREX, $3.25 per side on EQUITIES. Still a better deal than ToS.\",\n \"1: Low fees means: a Total Expense Ratio of less than 0,5%. One detail you may also want to pay attention to whether the fund reinvests returns (Thesaurierender Fonds) which is basically good for investing, but if it's also a foreign-based fund then taxes get complicated, see http://www.finanztip.de/indexfonds-etf/thesaurierende-fonds/\",\n \"This is pretty shameless branded content by Forbes for UpWork. “Brand Voice” should be called what it is, paid advertising. I bet an agency has placed the post here too. Anyone else noticing this or am I just being cynical?\",\n \"Discount brokers come and go. They tend to come with ridiculously cheap prices, and they go when they fail to gain traction, or raise their prices, at which point they can be undercut by a new player. Some brokers are nicer to people with more money, while others cater to small traders on simple low commissions. No matter which broker you choose, you aren't liable to make much money doing frequent trades with a small account. You either risk most of your money on every trade, or several small trades get sapped by commissions. It is understandable that you want to pay less given the disadvantages of a small account. Just2Trade, USAA, Sogotrade, etc. have each been reasonable options in the < $4 a trade range. Many websites will give you a list of the top discount brokers of the year. As with any heavy discounter/deal that is too good to be true, find reputable referrals from people who use the service, and complaints from customers who have been burned.\",\n \"They're not negotiating trade rates for you, you set the trade rates in your order. What they might have is a slightly slower system, delivering your orders a second later than the competition would. If that's critical to you then you should look at that, otherwise look at their fees, customer support and research aids because that's where the broker value is.\",\n \"Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.\",\n \"Thanks, at the moment I don't plan to do alot of trading just need to sell a few shares at the moment and might sell some more more at another point, but other than that I don't plan on touching the stock and just plan on letting it re-invest itself. Since I don't plan on doing alot of selling I don't know how much I need to worry about fee's as long as they aren't too steep.\",\n \"There is nothing called best; Depending on the amounts there are several options and each will cost some money. If your business is still small customers are individuals try PayPal it will be easy for everyone. The other options are accepting Credit Card, you would need to set-up card gateway on your website etc Simple wire transfer, it will cost more both for your customers and to you.\",\n \"You mean sites like prosper.com? I see that they are growing but is this really substainable when the novely wears off? Also I find the low volatility claim interesting since I thought low vol portfolios would be a hard sell. How have you experienced this?\",\n \"I'm just a sole trader who doesn't have much money which is why I'm looking at budget stuff. It's not like I'm a big business just being really tight. I need advice on this, not to get down-voted. I need one that is cheap or free but I would prefer that I can upload my own files and I would like to connect my own domain to it.\",\n \"Indiabulls. Low brokerage (If you bargain) I'm user of it and I'm getting 25paisa for delivery and 5 paisa for intraday. All transactions can be done online. Also they provide an stand alone application PowerIndiabulls, which is too good and appraised by many users as best in the industry. Not sure about it, but I think Powerindiabulls application is the answer for this. Please have a look at their website for more details.\",\n \"I have recently started using Transferwise to transfer money between the U.K. and The Netherlands. Transferwise has lower fees than other companies. They use a pseudo-peer-to-peer money transfer system. When person A transfers £ to €, and person B transfers € to £, they effectively cancel these two agains teach other, which significantly lowers exchange fees for both A and B. I am not affiliated with Transferwise other than as a customer.\",\n \"Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.\",\n \"Income Tax would only be levied on the 10% commission that you earn and not on the total amount kept in the Escrow Account.\",\n \"It is best to take advise from / appoint a professional CA. Will I have to pay GST? No GST is applicable. Exports outside of India do not have GST. Do I have to collect TDS when I send money to the PUBLISHERS ? No But another guy said, I have to pay 18% tax when receiving and sending payments, apart from that I have to collect 30.9% TDS when sending payment to the PUBLISHERS(outside India). There is only income tax applicable on profits. So whatever you get from Advertisers less of payments to publishers less of your expenses is your profit. Since you are doing this as individual, you will have to declare this as income from other sources and pay income tax as appropriate. Note there are restrictions on sending payments outside of India plus there are exchange rate fluctuations. It is best you open an Foreign Currency Resident [or Domestic] Account. This will enable you payout someone without much issues. Else you will have to follow FEMA and LRS schemes of RBI.\",\n \"To be fair, part of the $5 goes to Paypal whether you sign up with them or not. I bought the special and certainly have no regrets. But I do hope Louie uses a competitor of theirs like WePay next time.\",\n \">Content Writer >Content writing is a quick job nowadays. There are some excellent marketplaces for writers. You can get a job as a writer there. I will give a short list here. >People always look for a writer, who has website or blog. I often look for writers for my niche sites. I love to change writer and deal with new peoples. I hire writers from Social Media and several marketplaces. >If you think, you’re right in English and you can write proper blog content then you can start writing right now. >First of all, make a blog for your own. Make 5-10 excellent blog content there as your sample writing. You don't need to be right in English. Many contributes do not have great English skills but can deliver great concepts.\",\n \"I personally like Schwab. Great service, low fees, wide variety of fund are available at no fee. TD Ameritrade is good too.\",\n \"I would prefer to see you register in your home state, and then focus on making money, rather than spending time looking to game the system to save a few bucks. People worry way too much about these trivial fees when they should be focused on making their business successful. Get registered, get insurance, and then pour it on and start making money. Make $650 your target for a week's income - you can do it! Next year's goal should be spending $50 a month on a payroll service because you're SO BUSY you can't take the extra time to pay your own social security taxes.\",\n \"If you are using paypal to sell items online, you need a Premier (or better) account rather than personal. Paypal states: Our fees are the same for Personal, Premier, and Business accounts. [...] If you use your PayPal account to request money from someone, you'll be charged a fee when you receive the payment.\",\n \"Surprised nobody has mentioned Freshbooks yet. It's lightweight, easy to use, and free for low-end use (scaling up price-wise as you scale up).\",\n \"You can find a lot of information at the HRMC website at http://hmrc.gov.uk. If you don't want to work as an employee, you can register as self-employed (basically a one-man band), which is quite simple, you can start your own company, which is more work but can have tax advantages, or you can find umbrella companies which will officially employ you while in reality you are a freelancer and only do your billing through them. Umbrella companies can be anywhere from totally legal to extremely dodgy. If they promise you that you pay only five percent tax on your income through ingenious tricks, that's only until the tax office finds out and they will make you pay. Between self-employed and your own company, the big difference is whether you are actually working independently or not. If you work like an employee (take someone else's orders) and claim you are a company, the tax office doesn't like that. And if you pay very little taxes, they don't like that either. So self-employed is the safer choice but you will pay more taxes, close to what a normal employee would pay. Obviously you will have to pay tax on your income and NHS insurance. Obviously you are required to tell the government (actually HMRC) about your income. Not doing so would be tax evasion and get you into deep trouble when you are caught. I don't think you have to tell them the source of your income, but not telling them might look very suspicious and might get your accounts checked carefully. And unless you design a website for the mafia, why wouldn't you tell them? The bill payer will try to deduct your bill from their profits anyway, so it's no secret. Most important to remember: When you send out a bill and receive payment, you'll have to pay tax on it. When self employed, as a rule of thumb put one third away into a savings account for your tax bill. Don't spend it all or you will find yourself in deep trouble when your taxes need paying. Plus put some more away for times when you can't find work.\",\n \"\\\"It's a tough thing to do. You should look for a salaried position. Your freelance skills will be much better received, if you've worked for a couple of companies doing programming full time. Nothing beats working at it all day long for a few years. If you're set on being freelance, write some utility that will be popular, and submit it to Freshmeat.net. Now that's asking a lot. Those on the Web looking for programmers will most likely want you to work for 'sweat equity'. That is, a share in the company for you labour. In other words \\\"\\\"FREE\\\"\\\". I've done my share of those, and if you're just getting into this, you should steer away from them. You may hit the jackpot, but you won't sleep for the next few years ;-)\\\"\",\n \"With a paypal micropayment he pays 61k (6.1%) (5% of sale price + .05 cents per transaction) With a regular paypal he pays 95k (9.5%) (2.9% of sale price + .30 cents per transaction) In case anybody was wondering what the poster is talking about. Either way he got hosed by using PayPal. Note: I'm working off 220,000 units sold at 1 million dollars (which I know aren't the exact figures).\",\n \"PayPal does charge a premium, both for sending and receiving. Here's how you find their rates:\",\n \"If you’re concerned about transferring USD, I can’t really help you there. But if you’re looking to transfer wealth, I believe that’s where something like Bitcoin could help you. In fact a small or nonexistent processing fee is one of Bitcoin’s biggest strengths as a currency. Off the top of my head, I believe BitPay has services that would suit your needs. And if you’re worried about the volatility of Bitcoin, you can always convert it straight to USD just so you can avoid service fees!\",\n \"You could use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is THE fee-killer. I haven't used US and China exchanges, but you can connect your US bank account to Coinbase, buy bitcoins, transfer to BTCChina, and sell for CNY. There are many other options to convert from and to Bitcoins, but Coinbase seems to be most practical and most widely used in the US and BTCChina is the largest and probably most trusted exchange in China. You can also use LocalBitocoins for both buying and selling, but people on LocalBitcoins typically charge larger fees than exchanges, though this may vary. Please read a bit about Bitcoin before using it, and be aware of the risks. It's still very new (but revolutionary and very easy and fast to move internationally). Try with a small amount first to check it out. Your electronic wallet can be stolen, and you're exposed to certain risks of exchanges shutting down or government/banks stepping over their boundaries. One nice thing is that you probably won't be affected by volatility as you won't be holding bitcoins for long. Also be aware that the Chinese don't like capital leaving China and there is a possibility that China government will introduce further regulations on exchanges (though they have stated that buying, selling and owning bitcoins is legal). You're doing the opposite, importing money into China, but you'll probably feel it in one way or the other. P.S. Approximate fast fee calculation: Coinbase has 1% transaction fee + $0.15 bank fee. Bitcoin transfer is free or in some cases with minimal 0.0001 BTC fee (a bit less than $0.01 currently). BTCChina has 0.3% trading fee and 0.5% CNY withdrawal fee. As you can see, the main fees are exchange fees, but still less than 3% and if you find a good exchange combination with low fees you're golden, or might even make money on transaction if BTC price rises. Also check this Reddit thread - there are alternative China exchanges with lower fees. P.P.S. Found this blog post, maybe a bit outdated, but probably with better calculation than mine as it takes into account exchange prices.\",\n \"How do I directly get my Freelancing amount in my Axis bank account? Do I need to inform my Bank before receiving any such payment? Yes you can get it directly into your Axis Bank Account. You would need to inform your client your Bank Account Number, Bank Name and Address and Swift BIC or IFSC Code [Axis Bank website or Branch can tell you]. You can receive credits in Euro's. Upon receipt Axis Bank will automatically convert this into Rupees using standard rate. Your Bank [Axis] may also charge some Bank fees for the wire transfer. How do I pay tax for this extra income in India? You would need to treat this as income and add it to total income including salary and calculate tax accordingly. You can pay taxes online using Income Tax India website. You can also approach a CA who would do the tax computation, paying taxes and filing returns for as little as Rs 1000 - 2000/- Edit: IBAN is International Bank Account Number. Explain to you client that India does not subscribe to IBAN. Its right now only used by Europe and Australia. Give you normal Bank Account Number. Please call up your Bank / walk into your Branch to get the SWIFT BIC. It will be something like this http://www.theswiftcodes.com/india/page/3/\",\n \"Square prices are hard to beat for a small operation. I've looked around when I was considering starting up a business, and they're definitely one of the cheapest. Paypal are the second best, but I do not trust Paypal in general. However, looking locally may provide you some more options. If you walk in to one of the local banks, you may be able to get offers for merchant accounts with better rate, depending on your relationships with that bank. You can also check out Costco merchant services, they seem to be quite competitive with the rates, but there may be other costs (they will probably charge more for equipment).\",\n \"(For people looking at this question many years later...) Schwab and Fidelity offer a wide selection of commission-free ETFs. You need an initial purchase amount, though, of (when last I checked at Schwab) $1,000.\",\n \"You can use the ITR 1 and declare the income from freelancing as income from other sources. As part of freelancing, certain expenses can be deducted provided they are directly related to work and have proper records. Please consult a CA who can advice you on how to do this. The Actual income shown should be less of the expenses.\",\n \"Generally for tax questions you should talk to a tax adviser. Don't consider anything I write here as a tax advice, and the answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Does IRS like one payment method over other or they simply don't care as long as she can show the receipts? They don't care as long as she withholds the taxes (30%, unless specific arrangements are made for otherwise). She should withhold 30% of the payment and send it to the IRS. The recipient should claim refund, if the actual tax liability is lower. It's only consulting work at the moment, so most of the communication is done over phone. Should they start engaging in written communication to keep records of the work done? Yes, if she wants it to be a business expense. Is it okay to pay in one go to save money-transferring fees? Can she pay in advance? Again, she can do whatever she wants, but if she wants to account for it on her tax returns she should do it the same way she would pay any other vendor in her business. She cannot use different accounting methods for different vendors. Basically, she has not outsourced work in previous years, and she wants to avoid any red flags. Then she should start by calling on her tax adviser, and not an anonymous Internet forum.\",\n \"PayPal charges a 2.5% currency conversion fee to exchange funds from one currency to another. That means, the receiver would receive $ 9.75. Read More\",\n \"They're developing a way for homeowners to buy and sell their property online without the use of a realtor therefore saving themselves the user thousands of dollars on commission charges. They educate the user as well as provide the forms needed for free. If a service is needed, like an escrow company or appraisal, they suggest a few.\",\n \"From PayPal's website: PayPal offers discounted transaction rates for 501(c)(3) charities for most products, and consistently low rates for all other nonprofits. No extra fees for setup, statements, withdrawals or cancellation. 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction and no monthly fee for charities. There is a reduced rate if the donations total more than $100,000 (which they would for Wikipedia), but PayPal doesn't publish those rates. You have to call and ask about them. One forum I read indicates the rate drops to 1.9% + $0.30 per transaction.\",\n \"I would never, ever recommend that to a startup business like what's being discussed here. You're talking about a larger, regional business that's doing at least $200,000 a year in revenue, if not significantly more, for a $15,000 site to be effective. Or an e-commerce store. But, yeah. Your price is right for that sort of thing.\",\n \"\\\"Lifecycle funds might be a suitable fit for you. Lifecycle funds (aka \\\"\\\"target date funds\\\"\\\") are a mutual fund that invests your money in other mutual funds based on how much time is left until you need the money-- they follow a \\\"\\\"glide-path\\\"\\\" of reducing stock holdings in favor of bonds over time to reduce volatility of your final return as you near retirement. The ones I've looked at don't charge a fee of their own for this, but they do direct your portfolio to actively managed funds. That said, the ones I've seen have an \\\"\\\"acquired\\\"\\\" expense ratio of less than what you're proposing you'd pay a professional. FWIW, my current plan is to invest in a binary portfolio of cheap mutual funds that track S&P500 and AGG and rebalance regularly. This is easy enough that I don't see the point of adding in a 1 percent commission.\\\"\",\n \"Use buxfer.com. It's available in India and most of the features are free.\",\n \"Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here. The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions. That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc. A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees.\",\n \"\\\"Free, huh? From their Commission and Fee Schedule: So if you literally bought two shares, then the SEC added one penny in fees and FINRA added one penny as a \\\"\\\"Trading Activity Fee\\\"\\\" Note that there are several other fees on their schedule that may not apply to you. If you had bought 100 shares instead, your total fees would have still been only 2 cents, but you would have lost $4 on the trade. So the fees are minuscule when you start doing larger orders. However, That should not discourage you from experimenting and learning. I'd rather pay 2 cents in fees on a 4 cent loss than 2 cents in fees on a $400 loss. Just chalk it up to the cost of experience.\\\"\",\n \"I'm going to assume that you want to be invested all the time and each trade consists in selling a security and buying another one (similar to your example). How much commissions you are willing to pay depends on several factors, but one way to think about it is as follows. You have a position in stock A and you want to switch to stock B because you think it will perform better. If you think there's a good chance (>50%) that B will outperform A by more than x% then you can happily pay up to x/2% commissions and still make money over a long time horizon. If you like formulae, one way to express it is: Where: Example: if you tend to be right 51% of the time (hit rate), and gain 110% more than you lose on average (win loss ratio), you can see that your expected profit is: 5.1% - commissions, so you could pay 2.5% commissions on entering and closing the position and still make money*. Unfortunately, common sense, statistics and numerous studies tell us a sad truth: on average, people have a hit rate of 50% and a win/loss ratio of 100%. Which means that their expected profit per trade is 0% - commission. Based on that crude observation - unless you can prove to yourself that you are better than average - you should aim at reducing commissions paid to your broker as much as possible through: * 51% and 110% are not random numbers, they correspond to the results of the top 15% (professional) managers in a research paper using a sample of 215 funds managing $150bn.\",\n \"I work from home. However I am starting my own agency (http://localgrowthdigital.com) in United States. It's specialized in E-commerce and small business. The website is not ready yet though. I am moving to Arizona and will open my office there probably. Yes, I got over $5.500 IN SALES only working online. Net profit was around 35-40% of that.\",\n \"I am the vendor and I pay the 2 to 3%, not the customer. And I will pay it with a smile on my face. It's either that or deal with cash or other payment methods that are a) difficult/expensive or b) not possible because I am an online merchant. I would *like* the fees to be lower but right now pretty much every other method is either difficult, expensive or both. They know what they are doing. EDIT: Merchants like debit cards. They have the cheapest interchange rate. Reward cards are the most expensive - where do you think your 1% cash back comes from? :)\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Your own site/business. I’m in freelancing and internet business for 15 years, 20 years IT experience. Currently i use freelance websites for cheap Asian employees, very seldom for EU/USA employees, and if only if local competition is heavily out-pricing qualified staff. Till I went \"\"limited\"\" i.e., founded a limited corporation I was jobbing as freelancer and sole proprietor, both with limited success due to the strong Asian competition i myself currently hire. The point where freelancing got \"\"not sustainable\"\" as primary income was 2006 for me, don’t want to get into detail but every freelancer who was active back then knows what I mean, it was like whole India got internet. If you have absolutely no references, do it for the references a limited time and see the fee you pay as service for you to get references, then start your own web identity, either as freelancer or as corporation. Make sure you take your very satisfied customers with you. Every \"\"very satisfied\"\" customer in your contact list means 10 new customers which mean 2 new customers which mean 0.2 new customers and so on. Honestly, this info is solely based on experience of this niche fro ma European citizen perspective, if you’re based anywhere else the situation might be totally different.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Your own site/business. I’m in freelancing and internet business for 15 years, 20 years IT experience. Currently i use freelance websites for cheap Asian employees, very seldom for EU/USA employees, and if only if local competition is heavily out-pricing qualified staff. Till I went \\\"\\\"limited\\\"\\\" i.e., founded a limited corporation I was jobbing as freelancer and sole proprietor, both with limited success due to the strong Asian competition i myself currently hire. The point where freelancing got \\\"\\\"not sustainable\\\"\\\" as primary income was 2006 for me, don’t want to get into detail but every freelancer who was active back then knows what I mean, it was like whole India got internet. If you have absolutely no references, do it for the references a limited time and see the fee you pay as service for you to get references, then start your own web identity, either as freelancer or as corporation. Make sure you take your very satisfied customers with you. Every \\\"\\\"very satisfied\\\"\\\" customer in your contact list means 10 new customers which mean 2 new customers which mean 0.2 new customers and so on. Honestly, this info is solely based on experience of this niche fro ma European citizen perspective, if you’re based anywhere else the situation might be totally different.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":298,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"9979"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What is the best way to invest in gold as a hedge against inflation without having to hold physical gold?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["538237","35633","337243","35369"],"string":"[\n \"538237\",\n \"35633\",\n \"337243\",\n \"35369\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["35369","13885","538237","165659","10578","89311","326858","556936","483734","516148","351362","337243","369563","327271","35633","97081","48691","466176","172814","274859","427890","259440","184557","443094","302869","174302","399751","96351","212157","570173","69395","399952","181574","174002","190772","551811","315286","339169","357493","234889","546027","239459","584633","282501","426771","475539","111451","372457","233635","272547","129352","51585","332924","156672","385702","135113","257881","182389","235322","480598","240628","487817","444946","470759","280356","265766","326599","163359","27037","367207","595349","477939","220795","84238","280204","573404","324697","346389","17652","253711","122679","306571","554213","565782","415616","559027","362102","403977","544092","534080","76907","525193","531005","281234","340815","421268","194279","388613","460839","371390"],"string":"[\n \"35369\",\n \"13885\",\n \"538237\",\n \"165659\",\n \"10578\",\n \"89311\",\n \"326858\",\n \"556936\",\n \"483734\",\n \"516148\",\n \"351362\",\n \"337243\",\n \"369563\",\n \"327271\",\n \"35633\",\n \"97081\",\n \"48691\",\n \"466176\",\n \"172814\",\n \"274859\",\n \"427890\",\n \"259440\",\n \"184557\",\n \"443094\",\n \"302869\",\n \"174302\",\n \"399751\",\n \"96351\",\n \"212157\",\n \"570173\",\n \"69395\",\n \"399952\",\n \"181574\",\n \"174002\",\n \"190772\",\n \"551811\",\n \"315286\",\n \"339169\",\n \"357493\",\n \"234889\",\n \"546027\",\n \"239459\",\n \"584633\",\n \"282501\",\n \"426771\",\n \"475539\",\n \"111451\",\n \"372457\",\n \"233635\",\n \"272547\",\n \"129352\",\n \"51585\",\n \"332924\",\n \"156672\",\n \"385702\",\n \"135113\",\n \"257881\",\n \"182389\",\n \"235322\",\n \"480598\",\n \"240628\",\n \"487817\",\n \"444946\",\n \"470759\",\n \"280356\",\n \"265766\",\n \"326599\",\n \"163359\",\n \"27037\",\n \"367207\",\n \"595349\",\n \"477939\",\n \"220795\",\n \"84238\",\n \"280204\",\n \"573404\",\n \"324697\",\n \"346389\",\n \"17652\",\n \"253711\",\n \"122679\",\n \"306571\",\n \"554213\",\n \"565782\",\n \"415616\",\n \"559027\",\n \"362102\",\n \"403977\",\n \"544092\",\n \"534080\",\n \"76907\",\n \"525193\",\n \"531005\",\n \"281234\",\n \"340815\",\n \"421268\",\n \"194279\",\n \"388613\",\n \"460839\",\n \"371390\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Investing in gold without having physical gold is not really a hedge against inflation. GLD is really more for speculation, not protection against serious inflation. If there is any kind of inflation worth really protecting yourself against then one thing you will notice at its onset is a divergence in the price of physical and GLD; with GLD offering very little protection if any against inflation. Ultimately holders of GLD will demand physical metal and the physical price will rise and the paper price will fall. I would advise you to study physical gold before you purchase GLD for that reason. EDIT: Just adding this to my answer - I don't know why I didn't put it in before, and I hasten to add that I'm not an expert though a little investigation will show you that this is at least one option for owning gold. If you think of having the physical gold yourself at one end of the spectrum and buying GLD at the other; so that you don't need to take physical delivery, there is another scenario which I understand is in between (and sorry I don't actually know what it's referred to as) but it's where you buy the physical gold but instead of taking delivery the bars are stored for you in a vault - these bars are numbered and you actually own what you have paid for and theoretically you could go and visit your gold and actually remove it because it's your gold - as opposed to having paper GLD which in my understanding is a \"\"right to take physical delivery\"\" of gold - and this is slightly different - of course unlike GLD you actually have to pay a storage fee and of course unlike having the physical gold buried in your garden or something you are not entirely secure against say a robbery of the vault, and you are also depending on the company not to sell the same bar to more than one person - but that's the only think that their reputation is built on, and a company like that would live or die by the reputation - ( and of course you might lose the proverbial gold buried in the garden either, so nothing's 100% secure anyway really )\"","You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.","\"GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front. Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the \"\"regular person.\"\" Hope it helps!\"","ETF's are great products for investing in GOLD. Depending on where you are there are also leveraged products such as CFD's (Contracts For Difference) which may be more suitable for your budget. I would stick with the big CFD providers as they offer very liquid products with tight spreads. Some CFD providers are MarketMakers whilst others provide DMA products. Futures contracts are great leveraged products but can be very volatile and like any leveraged product (such as some ETF's and most CFD's), you must be aware of the risks involved in controlling such a large position for such a small outlay. There also ETN's (Exchange Traded Notes) which are debt products issued by banks (or an underwriter), but these are subject to fees when the note matures. You will also find pooled (unallocated to physical bullion) certificates sold through many gold institutions although you will often pay a small premium for their services (some are very attractive, others have a markup worse than the example of your gold coin). (Note from JoeT - CFDs are not authorized for trading in the US)","Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating.","You can buy real gold, or you can buy shares of a gold ETF, or invest in gold futures contracts. There's a number of ways, but the goal is to be exposed to the price fluctuations of gold. I actually have a bank account through www.goldmoney.com. It works just like PayPal or a bank account. You send money and buy gold and then they send you a debit card linked to that account. When you swipe it, you're spending your gold. They also cater to business customers as well..you can send invoices to get paid, do payroll, and everything in between.","\"There are gold index funds. I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"real gold\"\". If you mean you want to buy physical gold, you don't need to. The gold index funds will track the price of gold and will keep you from filling your basement up with gold bars. Gold index funds will buy gold and then issue shares for the gold they hold. You can then buy and sell these just like you would buy and sell any share. GLD and IAU are the ticker symbols of some of these funds. I think it is also worth pointing out that historically gold has a been a poor investment.\"","\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"","Gold since the ancient time ( at least when it was founded) has kept its value. for example the french franc currency was considered valuable in the years 1400~ but in 1641 lost its value. However who owned Gold back then still got value. The advantage of having gold is you can convert it to cash easily in the world. it hedges against inflation: it is value rise when inflation happend. Gold has no income,no earnings. its not like a stock or a bond. its an alternative way to store value the Disadvantages of investing in Gold Gold doesnt return income , needs physical storage and insurance, Capital gains tax rates are higher on most gold investments. the best way to invest gold when there is inflation is expected. source","\"I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold \"\"shares\"\" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs. This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount.\"","In 2008, 10 year treasuries were up 20.1%, to gold's 4.96%. Respectfully, if I were certain if a market drop, I'd just short the market, easily done by shorting SPY or other index ETFs. If you wish to buy gold, the easiest and least expensive way is to buy an ETF, GLD to be specific. It trades like a stock, for what that's worth. There are those who would suggest this is not like buying gold, it's just 'paper'. I believe otherwise. It's a non leveraged, fully backed ETF. I try not to question other's political or religious beliefs or as it pertains to this ETF, their conspiracy theories.","\"Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a \"\"bar of gold\"\". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold \"\"stock\"\" and a pure silver \"\"stock\"\", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm\"","If you want to speculate on gold price you should always buy an ETF/ETC (Exchange Traded Commodity). The reasons are simple: Easy to buy and sell (one mouse click) Cheap to buy and sell (small bank commission), compared to buy real gold (always 6 to 12% comission to the local shop when you buy and when you sell), see this one it's one cheap gold buy/sell shop I found on the internet But if you sometimes feel unsecure that you might one day loose everything due to a major economy collapse event (like an armageddon), or not to have enough money in bad periods or during retirment, and it makes you feel better to know you buried 999 Gold Sovereign in your house backyard (along with a rifle as suggested in comments), then just buy them and live an happy life (as long as you hide your gold in good ways and write a good treasury map).","\"I do not know anything about retail investing in India, since I am in the US. However, there are a couple of general things to keep in mind about gold that should be largely independent of country. First, gold is not an investment. Aside from a few industrial uses, it has no productive value. It is, at best, a hedge against inflation, since many people feel more comfortable with what they consider \"\"real\"\" money that is not subject to what seems to be arbitrary creation by central banks. Second, buying tiny amounts of gold as coin or bullion from a retail dealer will always involve a fairly significant spread from the commodity spot price. The spot price only applies to large transactions. Retail dealers have costs of doing business that necessitate these fees in order for them to make a profit. You must also consider the costs of storing your gold in a way that mitigates the risk of theft. (The comment by NL7 is on this point. It appeared while I was typing this answer.) You might find this Planet Money piece instructive on the process, costs, and risks of buying gold bullion (in the US). If you feel that you must own gold as an inflation hedge, and it is possible for residents of India, you would be best off with some kind of gold fund that tracks the price of bullion.\"","Since GLD is priced as 1/10 oz of gold, I'd call it the preferred way to buy if that's your desire. I believe gold is entering classic bubble territory. Caveat emptor. A comment brought me back to this question. My answer still applies, the ETF the best way to buy gold at the lowest transaction cost. The day I posted and expressed my 'bubble' concern, gold was $1746. Today, nearly 5 years later, it's $1350, a drop of 23%, plus an additional 2% of accumulated expenses. Note, GLD has a .4% annual expense. On the other hand, the S&P is up 80% from that time. In other words, $10K invested that day would be worth less than $7,700 had it been invested in gold, and $18,000 in stock. It would take a market crash, gold soaring or some combination of the two for gold to have been the right choice then. No one can predict short term movement of either the market or metals, my answer here wasn't prescient, just lucky.","Here's a start at a high level: I have a few friends who have made a killing on GLD, and write options to make money off of the investment without incurring the capital gains penalties for selling. That's a little out of my comfort zone though.","\"And you have hit the nail on the head of holding gold as an alternative to liquid currency. There is simply no way to reliably buy and sell physical gold at the spot price unless you have millions of dollars. Exhibit A) The stock symbol GLD is an ETF backed by gold. Its shares are redeemable for gold if you have more than 100,000 shares then you can be assisted by an \"\"Authorized Participant\"\". Read the fund's details. Less than 100,000 shares? no physical gold for you. With GLD's share price being $155.55 this would mean you need to have over 15 million dollars, and be financially solvent enough to be willing to exchange the liquidity of shares and dollars for illiquid gold, that you wouldn't be able to sell at a fair price in smaller denominations. The ETF trades at a different price than the gold spot market, so you technically are dealing with a spread here too. Exhibit B) The futures market. Accepting delivery of a gold futures contract also requires that you get 1000 units of the underlying asset. This means 1000 gold bars which are currently $1,610.70 each. This means you would need $1,610,700 that you would be comfortable with exchanging for gold bars, which: In contrast, securitized gold (gold in an ETF, for instance) can be hedged very easily, and one can sell covered calls to negate transaction fees, hedge, and collect dividends from the fund. quickly recuperating any \"\"spread tax\"\" that you encounter from opening the position. Also, leverage: no bank would grant you a loan to buy 4 to 20 times more gold than you can actually afford, but in the stock market 4 - 20 times your account value on margin is possible and in the futures market 20 times is pretty normal (\"\"initial margin and maintenance margin\"\"), effectively bringing your access to the spot market for physical gold more so within reach. caveat emptor.\"","I don't know answers that would be specific to Canada but one of the main ETF funds that tracks gold prices is GLD (SPDR Gold Trust) another is IAU (iShares Gold Trust). Also, there are several ETF's that combine different precious metals together and can be traded. You can find a fairly decent list here on the Stock Encylopedia site.","\"I'm really surprised more people didn't recommend UGA or USO specifically. These have been mentioned in the past on a myriad of sites as ways to hedge against rising prices. I'm sure they would work quite well as an investment opportunity. They are ETF's that invest in nearby futures and constantly roll the position to the next delivery date. This creates a higher than usual expense ratio, I believe, but it could still be a good investment. However, be forewarned that they make you a \"\"partner\"\" by buying the stock so it can mildly complicate your tax return.\"","Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:","\"The difficulty with investing in mining and gold company stocks is that they are subject to the same market forces as any other stocks, although they may whether those forces better in a crisis than other stocks do because they are related to gold, which has always been a \"\"flight to safety\"\" move for investors. Some investors buy physical gold, although you don't have to take actual delivery of the metal itself. You can leave it with the broker-dealer you buy it from, much the way you don't have your broker send you stock certificates. That way, if you leave the gold with the broker-dealer (someone reputable, of course, like APMEX or Monex) then you can sell it quickly if you choose, just like when you want to sell a stock. If you take delivery of a security (share certificate) or commodity (gold, oil, etc.) then before you can sell it, you have to return it to broker, which takes time. The decision has much to do with your investing objectives and willingness to absorb risk. The reason people choose mutual funds is because their money gets spread around a basket of stocks, so if one company in the fund takes a hit it doesn't wipe out their entire investment. If you buy gold, you run the risk (low, in my opinion) of seeing big losses if, for some reason, gold prices plummet. You're \"\"all in\"\" on one thing, which can be risky. It's a judgment call on your part, but that's my two cents' worth.\"","\"Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD. Hedging it doesn't mean \"\"less speculative\"\". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible).\"","Make a portfolio with gold and put options for gold. If the price rises again, sell a part of your gold and use it to buy new put options. If the price goes down, then use your put options to sell gold at a favorable price.","\"In addition to the possibility of buying gold ETFs or tradable certificates, there are also firms specializing in providing \"\"bank accounts\"\" of sorts which are denominated in units of weight of precious metal. While these usually charge some fees, they do meet your criteria of being able to buy and sell precious metals without needing to store them yourself; also, these fees are likely lower than similar storage arranged by yourself. Depending on the specifics, they may also make buying small amounts practical (buying small amounts of physical precious metals usually comes with a large mark-up over the spot price, sometimes to the tune of a 50% or so immediate loss if you buy and then immediately sell). Do note that, as pointed out by John Bensin, buying gold gets you an amount of metal, the local currency value of which will vary over time, sometimes wildly, so it is not the same thing as depositing the original amount of money in a bank account. Since 2006, the price of an ounce (about 31.1 grams) of gold has gone from under $500 US to over $1800 US to under $1100 US. Few other investment classes are anywhere near this volatile. If you are interested in this type of service, you might want to check out BitGold (not the same thing at all as Bitcoin) or GoldMoney. (I am not affiliated with either.) Make sure to do your research thoroughly as these may or may not be covered by the same regulations as regular banks, particularly if you choose a company based outside of or a storage location outside of your own country.\"","If you don't need 100% accuracy then GLD and SLV will work fine. Over the long-term these converge quite nicely with the price of the metal.","Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.","\"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \"\"modified\"\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\"","\"Over time, gold has mainly a hedge against inflation, based on its scarcity value. That is, unless finds some \"\"killer app\"\" for it that would also make it a good investment. The \"\"usual\"\" ones, metallurgical, electronic, medicine, dental, don't really do the trick. It should be noted that gold performs its inflation hedge function over a long period of time, say $50-$100 years. Over shorter periods of time, it will spike for other reasons. The latest classic example was in 1979-80, and the main reason, in my opinion, was the Iranian hostage crisis (inflation was secondary.) This was a POLITICAL risk situation, but one that was not unwarranted. An attack on 52 U.S. hostages (diplomats, no less), was potenially an attack on the U.S. dollar. But gold got so pricey that it lost its \"\"inflation hedge\"\" function for some two decades (until about 2000). Inflation has not been a notable factor in 2011. But Mideastern political risk has been. Witness Egypt, Libya, and potentially Syria and other countries. Put another way, gold is less of an investment that a \"\"hedge.\"\" And not just against inflation.\"","Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market.","If your broker lets you, you could just short GLD shares. The borrow cost is de minimis (it looks like it's basically zero at the moment), and there's no real upfront cost aside from the margin you'd have to post against the position. Don't forget to set a stop, though. You can also look at buying lower-strike puts (the lower the strike, the cheaper the cost). Don't go selling calls - that's probably outside your risk profile.","\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"","You'll still lose a little bit if you buy a put option at the current price. No such thing as free hedging. Let's say you have 100 shares of IAU that you bought for exactly $12.50 per share. This is $1,250. Now let's say you bought a put option with a strike price of $13 that expires in April 2011. The current price for this option is $1.10 per share, or $110. You can sell your IAU for $1,300 any time before the expiration date, but this leaves $60 in time value. The price of the options will always have a time component that is a premium on the difference between the current price and the strike price. (Oh, forgot to add in commissions to this.)","Depends what kind of expenses you intend to use this money for. If you plan to buy housing in the future (eg you're saving a deposit), then you need to ensure that the value doesn't deteriorate relative to the value of the housing you are likely to buy - so you could buy a Residential REIT, or buy some investment property. If you expect to use this money for food, then you should buy suitable assets (eg Wheat futures, etc). Link the current asset to the future expense, and you will be fine. If you buy Gold, then you are making a bet that Gold will retain its value compared to the thing you want to purchase in future. It doesn't matter what the price of Gold does in $US.","Gold is a commodity. It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such. In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted. A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it. There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities. Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high. A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out. Just like any other business. High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation. It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury. There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation. If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised. You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government. Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing. If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so. And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own.","I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)","gold is incredibly volatile, I tried spreadbetting on it. During the month of its highest gain, month beginning to month end, I was betting it would go up - and I still managed to lose money. It went down so much, that my stop loss margin would kick in. Don't do things with gold in the short term its a very small and liquid market. My advice with gold, actually buy some physical gold as insurance.","Advantages of Gold IRA (regardless of where you're holding it): Disadvantages of Gold IRA: Instead, you can invest in trust funds like SLV (The ETF for silver) or GLD in your regular brokerage IRA. These funds negotiate their prices of storage, are relatively liquid, and shield you from the dangers of owning physical metal while providing opportunity to invest in it at market prices.","It depends on what your goals are, your age, how much debt you have, etc. Assuming -- and we all know what happens when you assume -- that your financial life is otherwise in order, the 5% to 10% range you're talking about isn't overinvesting. You won't have a lot of company; most people don't own any. One comment on this part: I have some gold (GLD), but not much ... Gold and GLD are not the same thing at all. Owning shares of the SPDR Gold Trust is not the same thing as owning gold coins or bars. You're achieving different ends by owning GLD shares as opposed to the physical yellow metal. GLD will follow the spot price of gold pretty closely, but it isn't the same thing as physical ownership.","\"This article fails to explain that paper gold doesn't \"\"necessarily\"\" guarantee the owner to physical gold. An index fund tracking the price of gold per ounce guarantees the owner the market value of gold at the termination of the contract. This keeps markets liquid, and allows investors to diversify into precious metals without the inconvenience of storage and delivery fees. As long as we are using currency that can be exchanged for gold this shouldn't pose a problem. If we move to a post currency world of barter and trade, you're better invested in weapons and ammunition.\"","if you bought gold in late '79, it would have taken 30 years to break even. Of all this time it was two brief periods the returns were great, but long term, not so much. Look at the ETF GLD if you wish to buy gold, and avoid most of the buy/sell spread issues. Edit - I suggest looking at Compound Annual Growth Rate and decide whether long term gold actually makes sense for you as an investor. It's sold with the same enthusiasm as snake oil was in the 1800's, and the suggestion that it's a storehouse of value seems nonsensical to me.","With gold at US$1300 or so, a gram is about $40. For your purposes, you have the choice between the GLD ETF, which represents a bit less than 1/10oz gold equivalent per share, or the physical metal itself. Either choice has a cost: the commission on the buy plus, eventually, the sale of the gold. There may be ongoing fees as well (fund fees, storage, etc.) GLD trades like a stock and you can enter limit orders or any other type of order the broker accepts.","As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.","It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.","I assume you've looked into gold as an asset class (which is considered to be a good diversifier in your portfolio at about 5% of investments) because there are a lot of opinions around about that. But in terms of physical vs paper gold investment, my experience has been that they'll absolutely kill you on fees if you're not careful. I had a broker try and charge me $80/oz. They do it in the margins though, so they'll just sell at say $1,350 but buy at $1,200. Just make sure you either know the market price when you walk in and stick to your guns or lock in a price ahead of time.","The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.","\"Nobody can give you a definitive answer. To those who suggest it's expensive at these prices, [I'd point to this chart](http://treo.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6002285970c014e8c39f2c3970d-850wi) showing the price of gold versus the global money supply over the past decade or so. It's not conclusive, but it's evidence that gold tracks the money supply relatively well. There might be a bit of risk premium baked in that it would shed in a stable economy, but that premium is unknowable. It's also (imo) probably worth the protection it provides. In an inflationary scenario (Euro devaluation) gold will hold its buying power very well. It also fares well in a deflationary environment, just not quite as well as holding physical currency. Note that in such an environment, bank defaults are a big danger: that 50k might only be safe under your mattress (rather than in a fractionally reserved bank account). If you're buying gold, certificates aren't exactly a bad option, although there still exists the counterparty risk of the agent storing your gold, as well as political risk of the nation where it's being held. Buying physical bullion ameliorates these risks, but then you face the problem of protecting it. Safe deposit boxes, a home safe, or burying it in your backyard are all possible options. The merits of each, I'll leave as an exerice to the reader. Foreign currency might be a little bit better than the Euro, but as we've seen in the past year or so, the Swiss Franc has been devalued to match the Euro in the proverbial \"\"race to the bottom\"\". It's probably not much better than another fiat currency. I don't know anything about Norway. Edit: Depending on your time horizon, my personal opinion would be to put no less than 5-10% of your savings in a hard store of value (e.g. gold, silver, platinum). Depending on your risk appetite, you could probably stand to put a lot more into it, especially given the Eurozone turmoil. Of course, as with anything else, your mileage may vary, past performance does not guarantee future results, this is not investment advice, seek professional medical help if you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours.\"","Currency hedge means that you are somewhat protected from movements in currency as your investment is in gold not currency. So this then becomes less speculative and concentrates more on your intended investment. EDIT The purpose of the GBSE ETF is aimed for investors living in Europe wanting to invest in USD Gold and not be effected by movements in the EUR/USD. The GBSE ETF aims to hedge against the effects of the currency movements in the EUR/USD and more closely track the USD Gold price. The 3 charts below demonstrate this over the past 5 years. So as is demonstrated the performance of the GBSE ETF closely matches the performance of the USD Gold price rather than the EUR Gold price, meaning someone in Europe can invest in the fund and get the appropriate similar performance as investing directly into the USD Gold without being affected by currency exchange when changing back to EUR. This is by no way speculative as the OP suggests but is in fact serving the purpose as per the ETF details.","Just buy a FTSE-100 tracker. It's cheap and easy, and will hedge you pretty well, as the FTSE-100 is dominated by big mining and oil companies who do most of their business in currencies other than sterling.","\"As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com \"\"Real\"\" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings. That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year. Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit. This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%. If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money. If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400. If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate. Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed. Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal. Also there is often noisy jitter in the price. The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery. Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold. To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere.\"","\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \"\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\"\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \"\"Don't do this\"\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\"","Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.","I agree with buying gold, as this is truly the worldwide currency and will only increase in value if the Euro fails. The only issue will be if your country confiscates all citizen's gold ( it has happened many times throughout history. As for ETFs, be careful because unless you purchase these in terms of other currencies (I am assuming you aren't), than the ETF you own is still in terms of Euros, making the whole investment worthless if you are trying to avoid Euro currency risk.","\"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \"\"ETF Securities\"\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \"\"ETF Securities\"\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\"","From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.","The reason that you are advised to take more risk while you are young is because the risk is often correlated to a short investment horizon. Young people have 40-50 years to let their savings grow if they get started early enough. If you need the money in 5-15 years (near the end of your earning years), there is much more risk of a dip that will not correct itself before you need the money than if you don't need the money for 25-40 years (someone whose career is on the rise). The main focus for the young should be growth. Hedging your investments with gold might be a good strategy for someone who is worried about the volatility of other investments, but I would imagine that gold will only reduce your returns compared to small-cap stocks, for example. If you are looking for more risk, you can leverage some of your money and buy call options to increase the gains with upward market moves.","\"If the \"\"crash\"\" you worry about is a dissolution of the euro, then the main thing you should concern yourself with is liquidity. For that, purchase the most highly liquid gold ETF or futures contract, whichever is more appropriate for the total amount of money involved. Any other way and you will lose a significant chunk of your assets to transaction costs. If, on the other hand, the \"\"crash\"\" you were concerned about were the total collapse of the world economy, and people around the world abandon all paper currencies and resort to barter as a method of trade, then I can see buying several small pieces being a rational strategy, although then I would also question whether you were a sane individual.\"","\"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (\"\"In 2010 GBP\"\" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation\"","Start with putting money in gold coin bullion: If you are a beginner, make certain you start things with putting money in gold coin bullion . They are very simple to go with including have very minimum quantity of risk involved . After you buy gold bullion or gold coins you will get the same from any delivery company.","Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.","Bad question. Even people choosing a 401k strategy have to choose risk over reward. But looking at this simply, if you take a 10 year chart of Gold, you will not find any other stock or commodity that could have been invested in that would have provided you with the same results with as little volatility over this time period. http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au3650nys.gif","Reddit doesn't have a ton of resources to offer you as you learn about where to invest, you want to start reading up on actual investing sites. You might start with Motley Fool, StockTwits, Seeking Alpha, Marketwatch, etc. I agree with hipster's take, if all countries are going to keep printing money and expanding their debts and craziness, gold has a bright future. Land, petroleum, commodities, and precious metals have an intrinsic worth that will still be there regardless of what currencies are doing, versus bonds which are merely promises to pay, which will be paid off in devalued money, or stocks which are just promises of future earnings. Think about spreading your risk in a few different places, one chunk here, one chunk there. Some people in the US now are big on dividend paying stocks in lieu of bonds which only pay a percent, which is negative return after inflation. Some people buy 'royalty trust' units, which throw off income from oil leases as dividends. You might want to park a portion in a different currency, but dollar funds aren't going to pay interest and Switzerland plans to keep devaluing its currency as people keep bidding the price up. I don't know if you are allowed to buy CEF, a bullion-backed fund out of Canada in your country, but that's one way to own gold & silver. But with the instability out there, you might prefer a bit of the real thing stashed in a safe place. Or if you have a bit of family land, maybe just be sure you can pay the taxes to keep it; or pursue any other way to own 'real stuff' that will still be worth something after all hell breaks loose.","Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.","\"I think you have a really good idea, kudos to it. It will be difficult to break eve, and while you stressed the fact that you are ready to part with this money, it would be interesting for you not to part with this money just for the sake of trading. You will be frustrated because you are \"\"winning\"\" and breaking even or even losing money in the process. Think about that. For somebody with limited experience the derivatives market carries a very high risk also as everything in this matters carries high or very high yield. Trading futures on margin can actually work but I think you will need a bit more money. Check the mini contracts of infinity futures and calculate the commissions. You will be paying more for a contract, yes. you will need more money for your maintenance margin, yes, but if you day-trade and you have a cheapo broker this will be substantially lower. Gold contracts pay about 10 to 1 so a mini contract of 33 ounces will pay you 33 dollars per 1 dollar move. Your commissions will be about 4/5 usd in a discount broker and you will need to pay some exchange house fees, maybe about 15% of your trade will be fees. Check the contract specs and costs. As somebody said before, they wouldn't recommend trading on margin but with an account of that side I wouldn't know anything else. Trading physical gold on margin could also be an option. Just my 2 cents.\"","A lot of people probably don't agree with him, but Warren Buffett has some great quotes on why he doesn't invest in gold: I will say this about gold. If you took all the gold in the world, it would roughly make a cube 67 feet on a side…Now for that same cube of gold, it would be worth at today’s market prices about $7 trillion dollars – that’s probably about a third of the value of all the stocks in the United States…For $7 trillion dollars…you could have all the farmland in the United States, you could have about seven Exxon Mobils, and you could have a trillion dollars of walking-around money…And if you offered me the choice of looking at some 67 foot cube of gold and looking at it all day, and you know me touching it and fondling it occasionally…Call me crazy, but I’ll take the farmland and the Exxon Mobils. And his classic quote: [Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.","\"This type of account will sell you just enough rope to hang yourself. Gold is at $1400 or so. Were you around when it first hit $800 in '79/'80? I was. No one was saying \"\"sell\"\" only forecasts of $2000. If you bought and held, you've still not broken even to inflation let alone simple market returns.\"","\"You don't need to use a real stock like GLD. You can just create a \"\"stock\"\" called something like \"\"1 oz Gold\"\" and buy and sell them as if they were shares. It won't auto-update the price like GLD, but that's not a big deal to update manually once a month or so. I prefer to have accurate data that is correct at a particular point in time to having data that is 2-3% off, or that requires entering the ounces as 10x reality. YMMV. This is very similar to how you track US Savings Bonds in Quicken (and might be described in the help under that topic.)\"","Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.","I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.","Series I Savings Bonds would be another option that have part of their return indexed to inflation though currently they are yielding 1.64% through April 30, 2016 though some may question how well is that 3% you quote as an inflation rate. From the first link: Series I savings bonds are a low-risk savings product. While you own them they earn interest and protect you from inflation. You may purchase electronic I bonds via TreasuryDirect or paper I bonds with your IRS tax refund. As a TreasuryDirect account holder, you can purchase, manage, and redeem I bonds directly from your web browser. TIPS vs I Bonds if you want to compare these products that are rather safe in terms of avoiding a nominal loss. This would be where a portion of the funds could go, not all of them at once.","This. Why not convert the 50k euro to dollars and AUD, and invest in a basket of companies that trade on American/Australian exchanges instead. You could hold a bit of gold, but I would definitely not put everything into gold.","Diversify, diversify, diversify. Gold, USD, Swiss Franc and one thing that hasn't really been mentioned yet: equities. Yes, they may go down if the recession gets worse but at the end of the day you have a claim to a company. That's a physical asset. It's also a hedge against inflation/devaluation just like foreign currencies and precious metals. Make sure that you invest in companies that actually produce something that will always be needed though. I.e. Siemens, Novartis, Caterpillar etc. NOT the Zyngas and Facebooks of the world!","\"Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't assume that you know more than the market does. The probability of gold prices rising again in the near future is already \"\"priced in\"\" as it were. Unless you are privy to some reliable information that no one else knows (given that you are asking here, I'm guessing not), stay away. Invest in a globally diversified low cost portfolio of primarily stocks and bonds and don't try to predict the future. Also I would kill for a 4.5% interest rate on my savings. In the USA, 1% is on the high side of what you can get right now. What is inflation like over there?\"","For long periods of time a short ETF's performance will not match the negative of the long ETF, e.g. funding costs and the fact that they 'only' match daily returns will result in a suboptimal performance. If possible use other derivatives like a put on a long gold etf (fgriglesnickerseven)","Gold ETFs are treated different than stock ETFs, as a collectable. This makes long-term investing in gold ETFs (for one year or longer) subject to a relatively large capital gains tax (maximum rate of 28%, rather than the 15% rate that is applicable to most other long-term capital gains). Read The Gold Showdown: ETFs Vs. Futures for more details.","Putting the money in a bank savings account is a reasonably safe investment. Anything other than that will come with additional risk of various kinds. (That's right; not even a bank account is completely free of risk. Neither is withdrawing cash and storing it somewhere yourself.) And I don't know which country you are from, but you will certainly have access to your country's government bonds and the likes. You may also have access to mutual funds which invest in other countries' government bonds (bond or money-market funds). The question you need to ask yourself really is twofold. One, for how long do you intend to keep the money invested? (Shorter term investing should involve lower risk.) Two, what amount of risk (specifically, price volatility) are you willing to accept? The answers to those questions will determine which asset class(es) are appropriate in your particular case. Beyond that, you need to make a personal call: which asset class(es) do you believe are likely to do better or less bad than others? Low risk usually comes at the price of a lower return. Higher return usually involves taking more risk (specifically price volatility in the investment vehicle) but more risk does not necessarily guarantee a higher return - you may also lose a large fraction of or even the entire capital amount. In extreme cases (leveraged investments) you might even lose more than the capital amount. Gold may be a component of a well-diversified portfolio but I certainly would not recommend putting all of one's money in it. (The same goes for any asset class; a portfolio composed exclusively of stocks is no more well-diversified than a portfolio composed exclusively of precious metals, or government bonds.) For some specifics about investing in precious metals, you may want to see Pros & cons of investing in gold vs. platinum?.","\"No, investing in gold is a bad idea. Gold at these prices is completely useless. There are many other precious metals that are far more useful. It seems highly unlikely you will make a large return and the downside is huge. If the world economy is stabilised gold will halve very quickly, perhaps more. A great piece of advice I have had while investing is \"\"if the shoe shine boy tells you to buy; sell\"\", i.e. when the general public think it is a good idea to invest in a certain product you have already missed the boat. You have missed the gold boat. Unfortunately most safe heavens are exhausted: chf, jpy, gold, etc. At the moment there aren't any safe places. NOK is probably your best bet but beware of intervention (see EURCHF around sep last year).\"","One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.","The only way to hedge a position is to take on a countervailing position with a higher multiplier as any counter position such as a 1:1 inverse ETF will merely cancel out the ETF it is meant to hedge yielding a negative return roughly in the amount of fees & slippage. For true risk-aversion, continually selling the shortest term available covered calls is the only free lunch. A suboptimal version, the CBOE BuyWrite Index, has outperformed its underlying with lower volatility. The second best way is to continually hedge positions with long puts, but this can become very tax-complicated since the hedged positions need to be rebalanced continually and expensive depending on option liquidity. The ideal, assuming no taxes and infinite liquidity, is to sell covered calls when implied volatility is high and buy puts when implied volatility is low.","How would gold have protected you during the 2007/8 crisis? In no way, shape or form. The ways to protect yourself at any time are: Boring, huh?","Depending on the Price of the ETF and the hedging you may well simply be guaranteed to make a small loss.","For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.","Gold is not really an investment at all, because it doesn't generate an income. It's only worth money because people think it's worth money (it has some industrial uses, but most gold is used as a store of value and not for industrial purposes), not because of its income stream.","See the following information: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Treasury_Inflation_Protected_Security You can buy individual bonds or you can purchase many of them together as a mutual fund or ETF. These bonds are designed to keep pace with inflation. Buying individual inflation-protected US government bonds is about as safe as you can get in the investment world. The mutual fund or ETF approach exposes you to interest rate risk - the fund's value can (and sometimes does) drop. Its value can also increase if interest rates fall.","Another answer to this question occurred to me as I started learning more about historical uses for gold etc. Perhaps it's a crackpot idea, but I'm going to float it anyway to see what you folks think. Investing in Gold is an indirect investment in the Economy and GDP of the nation of India. To that extent is it only a hedge against inflation, so long as the indian economy grows at a more rapid rate than your local inflation rate. Fact, India currently consumes more than 1/3 of gold production, predominantly in the form of Jewelry. And their demand has been growing rapidly, up 69% just between 2009 and 2010 alone. I can't find too many historial consumption numbers for India, but when you look at past articles on this subject, you see phrases like 'one forth' and '20%' being used only a few years go to describe India's consumption levels. Fact, India has virtually no domestic sources of gold. India’s handful of gold mines produce about 2.5 tonnes of the metal each year, a fraction of the country’s annual consumption of about 800 tonnes. Fact. Indian Culture places high value on gold as a visible demonstration of wealth. Particularly in situations such In Indian weddings where the bride brings in gold to show her family's status and wealth and it forms part of the dowry given to bride. It is believed that a bride wearing 24k gold on their wedding to bring luck and happiness throughout the married life. Fact, the recent trends in outsourcing, Indian citizens working abroad sending money home, etc have all lead to a influx of foreign cash to the Indian economy and explosive GDP growth. See the following chart and compare the period of 2000-current with a chart showing the price of gold in other answer here. Notice how the curves parallel each other to a large degree Potentially unfounded conclusion drawn from above numbers. The rapid growth of the Indian economy, coupled with a rich cultural tradition that values gold as a symbol of wealth, along with a sudden rise in 'wealthy' people due to the economy and influx of foreign cash, has resulted in skyrocketing demand for gold from India, and this large 'consumption' demand is the most likely explanation for the sudden rise in the price of gold over the last several years. Investors then jump on the 'rising price bandwagon' as especially does anyone that can make a profit from selling gold to those seeking to get on said bandwagon. As such, as long as indian cultural tradition remains unchanged, and their economy remains strong, the resulting increasing demand for gold will sustain current and perhaps increased prices. Should there be any sudden collapse in the Indian GDP, gold will likely tumble in parallel. disclaimer: not an expert, just observations based off the data I've seen, there may be other parts to the picture of 'gold demand' that I've not considered.","Regarding investing in gold vs. stocks, I don't think I could say it better than Warren Buffett: You could take all the gold that's ever been mined, and it would fill a cube 67 feet in each direction. For what that's worth at current gold prices, you could buy all -- not some -- all of the farmland in the United States. Plus, you could buy 10 Exxon Mobils, plus have $1 trillion of walking-around money. Or you could have a big cube of metal. Which would you take? Which is going to produce more value?","Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:","First is storage which is a big and a detrimental headache. Security is another big headache. Investing in precious metal has always been an investment opportunity in the countries in the east i.e. India and China because of cultural reason and due to absence of investment opportunities for the less fortunate ones. It isn't the case so in the West. Secondly what is the right an opportune moment is open to question. When the worlwide economy is up and running, that is probably the time to buy i.e. people would like to put money in use rather than store. The saying goes the other way when the economy is stagnating. Then there is also the case of waiting out the bad periods to sell your gold and silver. If you do want to buy precious metals then use a service like BullionVault, rather than doing those yourself. It takes care of the 2 big headaches, I mentioned earlier.","I'd say neither. Index Funds mimic whatever index. Some stocks that are in the index are good investment opportunities, others not so much. I'm guessing the Bond Index Funds do the same. As for Gold... did you notice how much gold has risen lately? Do you think it will keep on rising like that? For which period? (Hint: if your timespan is less than 10 years, you really shouldn't invest). Investing is about buying low, and selling high. Gold is high, don't touch it. If you want to invest in funds, look at 4 or 5 star Morningstar rated funds. My advisors suggest Threadneedle (Lux) US Equities DU - LU0096364046 with a 4 star rating as the best American fund at this time. However, they are not favoring American stocks at this moment... so maybe you should stay away from the US for now. Have you looked at the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries?","There are two basic ways you can separate your investments from the dollar (or any other currency).","I think your question is very difficult to answer because it involves speculation. I think the best article describing why or why not to invest in gold in a recent Motley Fool Article.","One option is buying physical gold. I don't know about Irish law -- but from an economic standpoint, putting funds in foreign currencies would also be an option. You could look into buying shares in an ETF tracking foreign currency as an alternative to direct money exchange.","\"Article summation: You may have enjoyed that 30% last year and 6% first half this year, but inflation is almost at 2% and we expect inflationary hedges and non-US-dollar investments to outperform. My response: Hahaha, what? Is he even looking at his own numbers? Since when did 2% inflation \"\"trump\"\" 6, 12, or 30% growth? He can't seriously be implying that people should run to gold...\"","\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"","\"Look at a broader diversification. Something like: For physical gold, I'd look at a mix of gold coins and bullion. Study the pricing model for coins -- you'll probably find that the spreads on small coins make them too expensive. There are a few levels of risk with storing in a vault -- the practical risk is that your government will close banks in the event of a panic, and your money will be inaccessible. You need to balance that risk with the risk to your personal security that comes with having lots of gold or cash in your home. My recommendation is to avoid wasting time on the \"\"Mad Max\"\" scenarios. If the world economy collapses into utter ruin, we're all screwed. A few gold coins won't do much for you.\"","When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.","The best advice I can give you is to ignore gold right now. You really don't and can't have all the information you would need to support an argument for shorting gold. How much fiat cash have the central banks injected into the word economy? Billions? Trillions? Tens of Trillions? Maybe not much at all as the banks repay overnight? Anyway.. Without going on a full on rant why would you touch gold on a short? I can understand speculating on long position based on all the news out there but I'd hesitate to be a contraian in this market. Just find a nice little company that makes money, has a good product and a pretty little balance sheet. It will take longer to research but fuck if I'm betting on a huge drop in gold any time soon. What reasons do you have to believe gold is headed for any significant slide?","\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"","If you were certain you would probably do best by short selling an ETF that tracked the index for the market you think was about to tank. You'd certainly make a lot more money on that strategy than precious metals. If you were feeling super confident and want to make your money earn even more, you could also buy a bunch of put options on those same ETF funds. Obligatory Warning: Short selling and options can be extremely risky. While most investments cap your potential losses to your total investment, a short sale has no theoretical limit to the amount of money you can lose.","\"Google \"\"forex broker\"\" and find one of the thousands that allows you to trade on Gold futures. Then use one of them to short Gold... just watch your leverage. I would certainly wait before you're shorting gold. Why tie up capital in a bubble that you think will burst in the next few years. Wait for the price to increase and monitor for actual signs of the bubble bursting. Right now with the Euro possibly collapsing shorting gold probably isn't your best bet.\"","My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Investing in gold without having physical gold is not really a hedge against inflation. GLD is really more for speculation, not protection against serious inflation. If there is any kind of inflation worth really protecting yourself against then one thing you will notice at its onset is a divergence in the price of physical and GLD; with GLD offering very little protection if any against inflation. Ultimately holders of GLD will demand physical metal and the physical price will rise and the paper price will fall. I would advise you to study physical gold before you purchase GLD for that reason. EDIT: Just adding this to my answer - I don't know why I didn't put it in before, and I hasten to add that I'm not an expert though a little investigation will show you that this is at least one option for owning gold. If you think of having the physical gold yourself at one end of the spectrum and buying GLD at the other; so that you don't need to take physical delivery, there is another scenario which I understand is in between (and sorry I don't actually know what it's referred to as) but it's where you buy the physical gold but instead of taking delivery the bars are stored for you in a vault - these bars are numbered and you actually own what you have paid for and theoretically you could go and visit your gold and actually remove it because it's your gold - as opposed to having paper GLD which in my understanding is a \\\"\\\"right to take physical delivery\\\"\\\" of gold - and this is slightly different - of course unlike GLD you actually have to pay a storage fee and of course unlike having the physical gold buried in your garden or something you are not entirely secure against say a robbery of the vault, and you are also depending on the company not to sell the same bar to more than one person - but that's the only think that their reputation is built on, and a company like that would live or die by the reputation - ( and of course you might lose the proverbial gold buried in the garden either, so nothing's 100% secure anyway really )\\\"\",\n \"You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.\",\n \"\\\"GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front. Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the \\\"\\\"regular person.\\\"\\\" Hope it helps!\\\"\",\n \"ETF's are great products for investing in GOLD. Depending on where you are there are also leveraged products such as CFD's (Contracts For Difference) which may be more suitable for your budget. I would stick with the big CFD providers as they offer very liquid products with tight spreads. Some CFD providers are MarketMakers whilst others provide DMA products. Futures contracts are great leveraged products but can be very volatile and like any leveraged product (such as some ETF's and most CFD's), you must be aware of the risks involved in controlling such a large position for such a small outlay. There also ETN's (Exchange Traded Notes) which are debt products issued by banks (or an underwriter), but these are subject to fees when the note matures. You will also find pooled (unallocated to physical bullion) certificates sold through many gold institutions although you will often pay a small premium for their services (some are very attractive, others have a markup worse than the example of your gold coin). (Note from JoeT - CFDs are not authorized for trading in the US)\",\n \"Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating.\",\n \"You can buy real gold, or you can buy shares of a gold ETF, or invest in gold futures contracts. There's a number of ways, but the goal is to be exposed to the price fluctuations of gold. I actually have a bank account through www.goldmoney.com. It works just like PayPal or a bank account. You send money and buy gold and then they send you a debit card linked to that account. When you swipe it, you're spending your gold. They also cater to business customers as well..you can send invoices to get paid, do payroll, and everything in between.\",\n \"\\\"There are gold index funds. I'm not sure what you mean by \\\"\\\"real gold\\\"\\\". If you mean you want to buy physical gold, you don't need to. The gold index funds will track the price of gold and will keep you from filling your basement up with gold bars. Gold index funds will buy gold and then issue shares for the gold they hold. You can then buy and sell these just like you would buy and sell any share. GLD and IAU are the ticker symbols of some of these funds. I think it is also worth pointing out that historically gold has a been a poor investment.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \\\"\\\"real return\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"inflation-managed\\\"\\\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\\\"\",\n \"Gold since the ancient time ( at least when it was founded) has kept its value. for example the french franc currency was considered valuable in the years 1400~ but in 1641 lost its value. However who owned Gold back then still got value. The advantage of having gold is you can convert it to cash easily in the world. it hedges against inflation: it is value rise when inflation happend. Gold has no income,no earnings. its not like a stock or a bond. its an alternative way to store value the Disadvantages of investing in Gold Gold doesnt return income , needs physical storage and insurance, Capital gains tax rates are higher on most gold investments. the best way to invest gold when there is inflation is expected. source\",\n \"\\\"I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold \\\"\\\"shares\\\"\\\" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs. This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount.\\\"\",\n \"In 2008, 10 year treasuries were up 20.1%, to gold's 4.96%. Respectfully, if I were certain if a market drop, I'd just short the market, easily done by shorting SPY or other index ETFs. If you wish to buy gold, the easiest and least expensive way is to buy an ETF, GLD to be specific. It trades like a stock, for what that's worth. There are those who would suggest this is not like buying gold, it's just 'paper'. I believe otherwise. It's a non leveraged, fully backed ETF. I try not to question other's political or religious beliefs or as it pertains to this ETF, their conspiracy theories.\",\n \"\\\"Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a \\\"\\\"bar of gold\\\"\\\". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold \\\"\\\"stock\\\"\\\" and a pure silver \\\"\\\"stock\\\"\\\", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm\\\"\",\n \"If you want to speculate on gold price you should always buy an ETF/ETC (Exchange Traded Commodity). The reasons are simple: Easy to buy and sell (one mouse click) Cheap to buy and sell (small bank commission), compared to buy real gold (always 6 to 12% comission to the local shop when you buy and when you sell), see this one it's one cheap gold buy/sell shop I found on the internet But if you sometimes feel unsecure that you might one day loose everything due to a major economy collapse event (like an armageddon), or not to have enough money in bad periods or during retirment, and it makes you feel better to know you buried 999 Gold Sovereign in your house backyard (along with a rifle as suggested in comments), then just buy them and live an happy life (as long as you hide your gold in good ways and write a good treasury map).\",\n \"\\\"I do not know anything about retail investing in India, since I am in the US. However, there are a couple of general things to keep in mind about gold that should be largely independent of country. First, gold is not an investment. Aside from a few industrial uses, it has no productive value. It is, at best, a hedge against inflation, since many people feel more comfortable with what they consider \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" money that is not subject to what seems to be arbitrary creation by central banks. Second, buying tiny amounts of gold as coin or bullion from a retail dealer will always involve a fairly significant spread from the commodity spot price. The spot price only applies to large transactions. Retail dealers have costs of doing business that necessitate these fees in order for them to make a profit. You must also consider the costs of storing your gold in a way that mitigates the risk of theft. (The comment by NL7 is on this point. It appeared while I was typing this answer.) You might find this Planet Money piece instructive on the process, costs, and risks of buying gold bullion (in the US). If you feel that you must own gold as an inflation hedge, and it is possible for residents of India, you would be best off with some kind of gold fund that tracks the price of bullion.\\\"\",\n \"Since GLD is priced as 1/10 oz of gold, I'd call it the preferred way to buy if that's your desire. I believe gold is entering classic bubble territory. Caveat emptor. A comment brought me back to this question. My answer still applies, the ETF the best way to buy gold at the lowest transaction cost. The day I posted and expressed my 'bubble' concern, gold was $1746. Today, nearly 5 years later, it's $1350, a drop of 23%, plus an additional 2% of accumulated expenses. Note, GLD has a .4% annual expense. On the other hand, the S&P is up 80% from that time. In other words, $10K invested that day would be worth less than $7,700 had it been invested in gold, and $18,000 in stock. It would take a market crash, gold soaring or some combination of the two for gold to have been the right choice then. No one can predict short term movement of either the market or metals, my answer here wasn't prescient, just lucky.\",\n \"Here's a start at a high level: I have a few friends who have made a killing on GLD, and write options to make money off of the investment without incurring the capital gains penalties for selling. That's a little out of my comfort zone though.\",\n \"\\\"And you have hit the nail on the head of holding gold as an alternative to liquid currency. There is simply no way to reliably buy and sell physical gold at the spot price unless you have millions of dollars. Exhibit A) The stock symbol GLD is an ETF backed by gold. Its shares are redeemable for gold if you have more than 100,000 shares then you can be assisted by an \\\"\\\"Authorized Participant\\\"\\\". Read the fund's details. Less than 100,000 shares? no physical gold for you. With GLD's share price being $155.55 this would mean you need to have over 15 million dollars, and be financially solvent enough to be willing to exchange the liquidity of shares and dollars for illiquid gold, that you wouldn't be able to sell at a fair price in smaller denominations. The ETF trades at a different price than the gold spot market, so you technically are dealing with a spread here too. Exhibit B) The futures market. Accepting delivery of a gold futures contract also requires that you get 1000 units of the underlying asset. This means 1000 gold bars which are currently $1,610.70 each. This means you would need $1,610,700 that you would be comfortable with exchanging for gold bars, which: In contrast, securitized gold (gold in an ETF, for instance) can be hedged very easily, and one can sell covered calls to negate transaction fees, hedge, and collect dividends from the fund. quickly recuperating any \\\"\\\"spread tax\\\"\\\" that you encounter from opening the position. Also, leverage: no bank would grant you a loan to buy 4 to 20 times more gold than you can actually afford, but in the stock market 4 - 20 times your account value on margin is possible and in the futures market 20 times is pretty normal (\\\"\\\"initial margin and maintenance margin\\\"\\\"), effectively bringing your access to the spot market for physical gold more so within reach. caveat emptor.\\\"\",\n \"I don't know answers that would be specific to Canada but one of the main ETF funds that tracks gold prices is GLD (SPDR Gold Trust) another is IAU (iShares Gold Trust). Also, there are several ETF's that combine different precious metals together and can be traded. You can find a fairly decent list here on the Stock Encylopedia site.\",\n \"\\\"I'm really surprised more people didn't recommend UGA or USO specifically. These have been mentioned in the past on a myriad of sites as ways to hedge against rising prices. I'm sure they would work quite well as an investment opportunity. They are ETF's that invest in nearby futures and constantly roll the position to the next delivery date. This creates a higher than usual expense ratio, I believe, but it could still be a good investment. However, be forewarned that they make you a \\\"\\\"partner\\\"\\\" by buying the stock so it can mildly complicate your tax return.\\\"\",\n \"Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:\",\n \"\\\"The difficulty with investing in mining and gold company stocks is that they are subject to the same market forces as any other stocks, although they may whether those forces better in a crisis than other stocks do because they are related to gold, which has always been a \\\"\\\"flight to safety\\\"\\\" move for investors. Some investors buy physical gold, although you don't have to take actual delivery of the metal itself. You can leave it with the broker-dealer you buy it from, much the way you don't have your broker send you stock certificates. That way, if you leave the gold with the broker-dealer (someone reputable, of course, like APMEX or Monex) then you can sell it quickly if you choose, just like when you want to sell a stock. If you take delivery of a security (share certificate) or commodity (gold, oil, etc.) then before you can sell it, you have to return it to broker, which takes time. The decision has much to do with your investing objectives and willingness to absorb risk. The reason people choose mutual funds is because their money gets spread around a basket of stocks, so if one company in the fund takes a hit it doesn't wipe out their entire investment. If you buy gold, you run the risk (low, in my opinion) of seeing big losses if, for some reason, gold prices plummet. You're \\\"\\\"all in\\\"\\\" on one thing, which can be risky. It's a judgment call on your part, but that's my two cents' worth.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD. Hedging it doesn't mean \\\"\\\"less speculative\\\"\\\". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible).\\\"\",\n \"Make a portfolio with gold and put options for gold. If the price rises again, sell a part of your gold and use it to buy new put options. If the price goes down, then use your put options to sell gold at a favorable price.\",\n \"\\\"In addition to the possibility of buying gold ETFs or tradable certificates, there are also firms specializing in providing \\\"\\\"bank accounts\\\"\\\" of sorts which are denominated in units of weight of precious metal. While these usually charge some fees, they do meet your criteria of being able to buy and sell precious metals without needing to store them yourself; also, these fees are likely lower than similar storage arranged by yourself. Depending on the specifics, they may also make buying small amounts practical (buying small amounts of physical precious metals usually comes with a large mark-up over the spot price, sometimes to the tune of a 50% or so immediate loss if you buy and then immediately sell). Do note that, as pointed out by John Bensin, buying gold gets you an amount of metal, the local currency value of which will vary over time, sometimes wildly, so it is not the same thing as depositing the original amount of money in a bank account. Since 2006, the price of an ounce (about 31.1 grams) of gold has gone from under $500 US to over $1800 US to under $1100 US. Few other investment classes are anywhere near this volatile. If you are interested in this type of service, you might want to check out BitGold (not the same thing at all as Bitcoin) or GoldMoney. (I am not affiliated with either.) Make sure to do your research thoroughly as these may or may not be covered by the same regulations as regular banks, particularly if you choose a company based outside of or a storage location outside of your own country.\\\"\",\n \"If you don't need 100% accuracy then GLD and SLV will work fine. Over the long-term these converge quite nicely with the price of the metal.\",\n \"Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.\",\n \"\\\"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \\\"\\\"modified\\\"\\\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Over time, gold has mainly a hedge against inflation, based on its scarcity value. That is, unless finds some \\\"\\\"killer app\\\"\\\" for it that would also make it a good investment. The \\\"\\\"usual\\\"\\\" ones, metallurgical, electronic, medicine, dental, don't really do the trick. It should be noted that gold performs its inflation hedge function over a long period of time, say $50-$100 years. Over shorter periods of time, it will spike for other reasons. The latest classic example was in 1979-80, and the main reason, in my opinion, was the Iranian hostage crisis (inflation was secondary.) This was a POLITICAL risk situation, but one that was not unwarranted. An attack on 52 U.S. hostages (diplomats, no less), was potenially an attack on the U.S. dollar. But gold got so pricey that it lost its \\\"\\\"inflation hedge\\\"\\\" function for some two decades (until about 2000). Inflation has not been a notable factor in 2011. But Mideastern political risk has been. Witness Egypt, Libya, and potentially Syria and other countries. Put another way, gold is less of an investment that a \\\"\\\"hedge.\\\"\\\" And not just against inflation.\\\"\",\n \"Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market.\",\n \"If your broker lets you, you could just short GLD shares. The borrow cost is de minimis (it looks like it's basically zero at the moment), and there's no real upfront cost aside from the margin you'd have to post against the position. Don't forget to set a stop, though. You can also look at buying lower-strike puts (the lower the strike, the cheaper the cost). Don't go selling calls - that's probably outside your risk profile.\",\n \"\\\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \\\"\\\"bag 'o cash\\\"\\\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \\\"\\\"Paper trade\\\"\\\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \\\"\\\"not long enough\\\"\\\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \\\"\\\"risk-free-rate\\\"\\\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\\\"\",\n \"You'll still lose a little bit if you buy a put option at the current price. No such thing as free hedging. Let's say you have 100 shares of IAU that you bought for exactly $12.50 per share. This is $1,250. Now let's say you bought a put option with a strike price of $13 that expires in April 2011. The current price for this option is $1.10 per share, or $110. You can sell your IAU for $1,300 any time before the expiration date, but this leaves $60 in time value. The price of the options will always have a time component that is a premium on the difference between the current price and the strike price. (Oh, forgot to add in commissions to this.)\",\n \"Depends what kind of expenses you intend to use this money for. If you plan to buy housing in the future (eg you're saving a deposit), then you need to ensure that the value doesn't deteriorate relative to the value of the housing you are likely to buy - so you could buy a Residential REIT, or buy some investment property. If you expect to use this money for food, then you should buy suitable assets (eg Wheat futures, etc). Link the current asset to the future expense, and you will be fine. If you buy Gold, then you are making a bet that Gold will retain its value compared to the thing you want to purchase in future. It doesn't matter what the price of Gold does in $US.\",\n \"Gold is a commodity. It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such. In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted. A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it. There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities. Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high. A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out. Just like any other business. High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation. It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury. There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation. If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised. You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government. Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing. If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so. And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own.\",\n \"I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)\",\n \"gold is incredibly volatile, I tried spreadbetting on it. During the month of its highest gain, month beginning to month end, I was betting it would go up - and I still managed to lose money. It went down so much, that my stop loss margin would kick in. Don't do things with gold in the short term its a very small and liquid market. My advice with gold, actually buy some physical gold as insurance.\",\n \"Advantages of Gold IRA (regardless of where you're holding it): Disadvantages of Gold IRA: Instead, you can invest in trust funds like SLV (The ETF for silver) or GLD in your regular brokerage IRA. These funds negotiate their prices of storage, are relatively liquid, and shield you from the dangers of owning physical metal while providing opportunity to invest in it at market prices.\",\n \"It depends on what your goals are, your age, how much debt you have, etc. Assuming -- and we all know what happens when you assume -- that your financial life is otherwise in order, the 5% to 10% range you're talking about isn't overinvesting. You won't have a lot of company; most people don't own any. One comment on this part: I have some gold (GLD), but not much ... Gold and GLD are not the same thing at all. Owning shares of the SPDR Gold Trust is not the same thing as owning gold coins or bars. You're achieving different ends by owning GLD shares as opposed to the physical yellow metal. GLD will follow the spot price of gold pretty closely, but it isn't the same thing as physical ownership.\",\n \"\\\"This article fails to explain that paper gold doesn't \\\"\\\"necessarily\\\"\\\" guarantee the owner to physical gold. An index fund tracking the price of gold per ounce guarantees the owner the market value of gold at the termination of the contract. This keeps markets liquid, and allows investors to diversify into precious metals without the inconvenience of storage and delivery fees. As long as we are using currency that can be exchanged for gold this shouldn't pose a problem. If we move to a post currency world of barter and trade, you're better invested in weapons and ammunition.\\\"\",\n \"if you bought gold in late '79, it would have taken 30 years to break even. Of all this time it was two brief periods the returns were great, but long term, not so much. Look at the ETF GLD if you wish to buy gold, and avoid most of the buy/sell spread issues. Edit - I suggest looking at Compound Annual Growth Rate and decide whether long term gold actually makes sense for you as an investor. It's sold with the same enthusiasm as snake oil was in the 1800's, and the suggestion that it's a storehouse of value seems nonsensical to me.\",\n \"With gold at US$1300 or so, a gram is about $40. For your purposes, you have the choice between the GLD ETF, which represents a bit less than 1/10oz gold equivalent per share, or the physical metal itself. Either choice has a cost: the commission on the buy plus, eventually, the sale of the gold. There may be ongoing fees as well (fund fees, storage, etc.) GLD trades like a stock and you can enter limit orders or any other type of order the broker accepts.\",\n \"As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.\",\n \"It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.\",\n \"I assume you've looked into gold as an asset class (which is considered to be a good diversifier in your portfolio at about 5% of investments) because there are a lot of opinions around about that. But in terms of physical vs paper gold investment, my experience has been that they'll absolutely kill you on fees if you're not careful. I had a broker try and charge me $80/oz. They do it in the margins though, so they'll just sell at say $1,350 but buy at $1,200. Just make sure you either know the market price when you walk in and stick to your guns or lock in a price ahead of time.\",\n \"The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.\",\n \"\\\"Nobody can give you a definitive answer. To those who suggest it's expensive at these prices, [I'd point to this chart](http://treo.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6002285970c014e8c39f2c3970d-850wi) showing the price of gold versus the global money supply over the past decade or so. It's not conclusive, but it's evidence that gold tracks the money supply relatively well. There might be a bit of risk premium baked in that it would shed in a stable economy, but that premium is unknowable. It's also (imo) probably worth the protection it provides. In an inflationary scenario (Euro devaluation) gold will hold its buying power very well. It also fares well in a deflationary environment, just not quite as well as holding physical currency. Note that in such an environment, bank defaults are a big danger: that 50k might only be safe under your mattress (rather than in a fractionally reserved bank account). If you're buying gold, certificates aren't exactly a bad option, although there still exists the counterparty risk of the agent storing your gold, as well as political risk of the nation where it's being held. Buying physical bullion ameliorates these risks, but then you face the problem of protecting it. Safe deposit boxes, a home safe, or burying it in your backyard are all possible options. The merits of each, I'll leave as an exerice to the reader. Foreign currency might be a little bit better than the Euro, but as we've seen in the past year or so, the Swiss Franc has been devalued to match the Euro in the proverbial \\\"\\\"race to the bottom\\\"\\\". It's probably not much better than another fiat currency. I don't know anything about Norway. Edit: Depending on your time horizon, my personal opinion would be to put no less than 5-10% of your savings in a hard store of value (e.g. gold, silver, platinum). Depending on your risk appetite, you could probably stand to put a lot more into it, especially given the Eurozone turmoil. Of course, as with anything else, your mileage may vary, past performance does not guarantee future results, this is not investment advice, seek professional medical help if you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours.\\\"\",\n \"Currency hedge means that you are somewhat protected from movements in currency as your investment is in gold not currency. So this then becomes less speculative and concentrates more on your intended investment. EDIT The purpose of the GBSE ETF is aimed for investors living in Europe wanting to invest in USD Gold and not be effected by movements in the EUR/USD. The GBSE ETF aims to hedge against the effects of the currency movements in the EUR/USD and more closely track the USD Gold price. The 3 charts below demonstrate this over the past 5 years. So as is demonstrated the performance of the GBSE ETF closely matches the performance of the USD Gold price rather than the EUR Gold price, meaning someone in Europe can invest in the fund and get the appropriate similar performance as investing directly into the USD Gold without being affected by currency exchange when changing back to EUR. This is by no way speculative as the OP suggests but is in fact serving the purpose as per the ETF details.\",\n \"Just buy a FTSE-100 tracker. It's cheap and easy, and will hedge you pretty well, as the FTSE-100 is dominated by big mining and oil companies who do most of their business in currencies other than sterling.\",\n \"\\\"As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com \\\"\\\"Real\\\"\\\" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings. That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year. Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit. This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%. If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money. If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400. If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate. Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed. Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal. Also there is often noisy jitter in the price. The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery. Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold. To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \\\"\\\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\\\"\\\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \\\"\\\"Don't do this\\\"\\\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\\\"\",\n \"Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.\",\n \"I agree with buying gold, as this is truly the worldwide currency and will only increase in value if the Euro fails. The only issue will be if your country confiscates all citizen's gold ( it has happened many times throughout history. As for ETFs, be careful because unless you purchase these in terms of other currencies (I am assuming you aren't), than the ETF you own is still in terms of Euros, making the whole investment worthless if you are trying to avoid Euro currency risk.\",\n \"\\\"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \\\"\\\"ETF Securities\\\"\\\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \\\"\\\"ETF Securities\\\"\\\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\\\"\",\n \"From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.\",\n \"The reason that you are advised to take more risk while you are young is because the risk is often correlated to a short investment horizon. Young people have 40-50 years to let their savings grow if they get started early enough. If you need the money in 5-15 years (near the end of your earning years), there is much more risk of a dip that will not correct itself before you need the money than if you don't need the money for 25-40 years (someone whose career is on the rise). The main focus for the young should be growth. Hedging your investments with gold might be a good strategy for someone who is worried about the volatility of other investments, but I would imagine that gold will only reduce your returns compared to small-cap stocks, for example. If you are looking for more risk, you can leverage some of your money and buy call options to increase the gains with upward market moves.\",\n \"\\\"If the \\\"\\\"crash\\\"\\\" you worry about is a dissolution of the euro, then the main thing you should concern yourself with is liquidity. For that, purchase the most highly liquid gold ETF or futures contract, whichever is more appropriate for the total amount of money involved. Any other way and you will lose a significant chunk of your assets to transaction costs. If, on the other hand, the \\\"\\\"crash\\\"\\\" you were concerned about were the total collapse of the world economy, and people around the world abandon all paper currencies and resort to barter as a method of trade, then I can see buying several small pieces being a rational strategy, although then I would also question whether you were a sane individual.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (\\\"\\\"In 2010 GBP\\\"\\\" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation\\\"\",\n \"Start with putting money in gold coin bullion: If you are a beginner, make certain you start things with putting money in gold coin bullion . They are very simple to go with including have very minimum quantity of risk involved . After you buy gold bullion or gold coins you will get the same from any delivery company.\",\n \"Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.\",\n \"Bad question. Even people choosing a 401k strategy have to choose risk over reward. But looking at this simply, if you take a 10 year chart of Gold, you will not find any other stock or commodity that could have been invested in that would have provided you with the same results with as little volatility over this time period. http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au3650nys.gif\",\n \"Reddit doesn't have a ton of resources to offer you as you learn about where to invest, you want to start reading up on actual investing sites. You might start with Motley Fool, StockTwits, Seeking Alpha, Marketwatch, etc. I agree with hipster's take, if all countries are going to keep printing money and expanding their debts and craziness, gold has a bright future. Land, petroleum, commodities, and precious metals have an intrinsic worth that will still be there regardless of what currencies are doing, versus bonds which are merely promises to pay, which will be paid off in devalued money, or stocks which are just promises of future earnings. Think about spreading your risk in a few different places, one chunk here, one chunk there. Some people in the US now are big on dividend paying stocks in lieu of bonds which only pay a percent, which is negative return after inflation. Some people buy 'royalty trust' units, which throw off income from oil leases as dividends. You might want to park a portion in a different currency, but dollar funds aren't going to pay interest and Switzerland plans to keep devaluing its currency as people keep bidding the price up. I don't know if you are allowed to buy CEF, a bullion-backed fund out of Canada in your country, but that's one way to own gold & silver. But with the instability out there, you might prefer a bit of the real thing stashed in a safe place. Or if you have a bit of family land, maybe just be sure you can pay the taxes to keep it; or pursue any other way to own 'real stuff' that will still be worth something after all hell breaks loose.\",\n \"Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.\",\n \"\\\"I think you have a really good idea, kudos to it. It will be difficult to break eve, and while you stressed the fact that you are ready to part with this money, it would be interesting for you not to part with this money just for the sake of trading. You will be frustrated because you are \\\"\\\"winning\\\"\\\" and breaking even or even losing money in the process. Think about that. For somebody with limited experience the derivatives market carries a very high risk also as everything in this matters carries high or very high yield. Trading futures on margin can actually work but I think you will need a bit more money. Check the mini contracts of infinity futures and calculate the commissions. You will be paying more for a contract, yes. you will need more money for your maintenance margin, yes, but if you day-trade and you have a cheapo broker this will be substantially lower. Gold contracts pay about 10 to 1 so a mini contract of 33 ounces will pay you 33 dollars per 1 dollar move. Your commissions will be about 4/5 usd in a discount broker and you will need to pay some exchange house fees, maybe about 15% of your trade will be fees. Check the contract specs and costs. As somebody said before, they wouldn't recommend trading on margin but with an account of that side I wouldn't know anything else. Trading physical gold on margin could also be an option. Just my 2 cents.\\\"\",\n \"A lot of people probably don't agree with him, but Warren Buffett has some great quotes on why he doesn't invest in gold: I will say this about gold. If you took all the gold in the world, it would roughly make a cube 67 feet on a side…Now for that same cube of gold, it would be worth at today’s market prices about $7 trillion dollars – that’s probably about a third of the value of all the stocks in the United States…For $7 trillion dollars…you could have all the farmland in the United States, you could have about seven Exxon Mobils, and you could have a trillion dollars of walking-around money…And if you offered me the choice of looking at some 67 foot cube of gold and looking at it all day, and you know me touching it and fondling it occasionally…Call me crazy, but I’ll take the farmland and the Exxon Mobils. And his classic quote: [Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.\",\n \"\\\"This type of account will sell you just enough rope to hang yourself. Gold is at $1400 or so. Were you around when it first hit $800 in '79/'80? I was. No one was saying \\\"\\\"sell\\\"\\\" only forecasts of $2000. If you bought and held, you've still not broken even to inflation let alone simple market returns.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You don't need to use a real stock like GLD. You can just create a \\\"\\\"stock\\\"\\\" called something like \\\"\\\"1 oz Gold\\\"\\\" and buy and sell them as if they were shares. It won't auto-update the price like GLD, but that's not a big deal to update manually once a month or so. I prefer to have accurate data that is correct at a particular point in time to having data that is 2-3% off, or that requires entering the ounces as 10x reality. YMMV. This is very similar to how you track US Savings Bonds in Quicken (and might be described in the help under that topic.)\\\"\",\n \"Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.\",\n \"I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.\",\n \"Series I Savings Bonds would be another option that have part of their return indexed to inflation though currently they are yielding 1.64% through April 30, 2016 though some may question how well is that 3% you quote as an inflation rate. From the first link: Series I savings bonds are a low-risk savings product. While you own them they earn interest and protect you from inflation. You may purchase electronic I bonds via TreasuryDirect or paper I bonds with your IRS tax refund. As a TreasuryDirect account holder, you can purchase, manage, and redeem I bonds directly from your web browser. TIPS vs I Bonds if you want to compare these products that are rather safe in terms of avoiding a nominal loss. This would be where a portion of the funds could go, not all of them at once.\",\n \"This. Why not convert the 50k euro to dollars and AUD, and invest in a basket of companies that trade on American/Australian exchanges instead. You could hold a bit of gold, but I would definitely not put everything into gold.\",\n \"Diversify, diversify, diversify. Gold, USD, Swiss Franc and one thing that hasn't really been mentioned yet: equities. Yes, they may go down if the recession gets worse but at the end of the day you have a claim to a company. That's a physical asset. It's also a hedge against inflation/devaluation just like foreign currencies and precious metals. Make sure that you invest in companies that actually produce something that will always be needed though. I.e. Siemens, Novartis, Caterpillar etc. NOT the Zyngas and Facebooks of the world!\",\n \"\\\"Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't assume that you know more than the market does. The probability of gold prices rising again in the near future is already \\\"\\\"priced in\\\"\\\" as it were. Unless you are privy to some reliable information that no one else knows (given that you are asking here, I'm guessing not), stay away. Invest in a globally diversified low cost portfolio of primarily stocks and bonds and don't try to predict the future. Also I would kill for a 4.5% interest rate on my savings. In the USA, 1% is on the high side of what you can get right now. What is inflation like over there?\\\"\",\n \"For long periods of time a short ETF's performance will not match the negative of the long ETF, e.g. funding costs and the fact that they 'only' match daily returns will result in a suboptimal performance. If possible use other derivatives like a put on a long gold etf (fgriglesnickerseven)\",\n \"Gold ETFs are treated different than stock ETFs, as a collectable. This makes long-term investing in gold ETFs (for one year or longer) subject to a relatively large capital gains tax (maximum rate of 28%, rather than the 15% rate that is applicable to most other long-term capital gains). Read The Gold Showdown: ETFs Vs. Futures for more details.\",\n \"Putting the money in a bank savings account is a reasonably safe investment. Anything other than that will come with additional risk of various kinds. (That's right; not even a bank account is completely free of risk. Neither is withdrawing cash and storing it somewhere yourself.) And I don't know which country you are from, but you will certainly have access to your country's government bonds and the likes. You may also have access to mutual funds which invest in other countries' government bonds (bond or money-market funds). The question you need to ask yourself really is twofold. One, for how long do you intend to keep the money invested? (Shorter term investing should involve lower risk.) Two, what amount of risk (specifically, price volatility) are you willing to accept? The answers to those questions will determine which asset class(es) are appropriate in your particular case. Beyond that, you need to make a personal call: which asset class(es) do you believe are likely to do better or less bad than others? Low risk usually comes at the price of a lower return. Higher return usually involves taking more risk (specifically price volatility in the investment vehicle) but more risk does not necessarily guarantee a higher return - you may also lose a large fraction of or even the entire capital amount. In extreme cases (leveraged investments) you might even lose more than the capital amount. Gold may be a component of a well-diversified portfolio but I certainly would not recommend putting all of one's money in it. (The same goes for any asset class; a portfolio composed exclusively of stocks is no more well-diversified than a portfolio composed exclusively of precious metals, or government bonds.) For some specifics about investing in precious metals, you may want to see Pros & cons of investing in gold vs. platinum?.\",\n \"\\\"No, investing in gold is a bad idea. Gold at these prices is completely useless. There are many other precious metals that are far more useful. It seems highly unlikely you will make a large return and the downside is huge. If the world economy is stabilised gold will halve very quickly, perhaps more. A great piece of advice I have had while investing is \\\"\\\"if the shoe shine boy tells you to buy; sell\\\"\\\", i.e. when the general public think it is a good idea to invest in a certain product you have already missed the boat. You have missed the gold boat. Unfortunately most safe heavens are exhausted: chf, jpy, gold, etc. At the moment there aren't any safe places. NOK is probably your best bet but beware of intervention (see EURCHF around sep last year).\\\"\",\n \"One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.\",\n \"The only way to hedge a position is to take on a countervailing position with a higher multiplier as any counter position such as a 1:1 inverse ETF will merely cancel out the ETF it is meant to hedge yielding a negative return roughly in the amount of fees & slippage. For true risk-aversion, continually selling the shortest term available covered calls is the only free lunch. A suboptimal version, the CBOE BuyWrite Index, has outperformed its underlying with lower volatility. The second best way is to continually hedge positions with long puts, but this can become very tax-complicated since the hedged positions need to be rebalanced continually and expensive depending on option liquidity. The ideal, assuming no taxes and infinite liquidity, is to sell covered calls when implied volatility is high and buy puts when implied volatility is low.\",\n \"How would gold have protected you during the 2007/8 crisis? In no way, shape or form. The ways to protect yourself at any time are: Boring, huh?\",\n \"Depending on the Price of the ETF and the hedging you may well simply be guaranteed to make a small loss.\",\n \"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.\",\n \"Gold is not really an investment at all, because it doesn't generate an income. It's only worth money because people think it's worth money (it has some industrial uses, but most gold is used as a store of value and not for industrial purposes), not because of its income stream.\",\n \"See the following information: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Treasury_Inflation_Protected_Security You can buy individual bonds or you can purchase many of them together as a mutual fund or ETF. These bonds are designed to keep pace with inflation. Buying individual inflation-protected US government bonds is about as safe as you can get in the investment world. The mutual fund or ETF approach exposes you to interest rate risk - the fund's value can (and sometimes does) drop. Its value can also increase if interest rates fall.\",\n \"Another answer to this question occurred to me as I started learning more about historical uses for gold etc. Perhaps it's a crackpot idea, but I'm going to float it anyway to see what you folks think. Investing in Gold is an indirect investment in the Economy and GDP of the nation of India. To that extent is it only a hedge against inflation, so long as the indian economy grows at a more rapid rate than your local inflation rate. Fact, India currently consumes more than 1/3 of gold production, predominantly in the form of Jewelry. And their demand has been growing rapidly, up 69% just between 2009 and 2010 alone. I can't find too many historial consumption numbers for India, but when you look at past articles on this subject, you see phrases like 'one forth' and '20%' being used only a few years go to describe India's consumption levels. Fact, India has virtually no domestic sources of gold. India’s handful of gold mines produce about 2.5 tonnes of the metal each year, a fraction of the country’s annual consumption of about 800 tonnes. Fact. Indian Culture places high value on gold as a visible demonstration of wealth. Particularly in situations such In Indian weddings where the bride brings in gold to show her family's status and wealth and it forms part of the dowry given to bride. It is believed that a bride wearing 24k gold on their wedding to bring luck and happiness throughout the married life. Fact, the recent trends in outsourcing, Indian citizens working abroad sending money home, etc have all lead to a influx of foreign cash to the Indian economy and explosive GDP growth. See the following chart and compare the period of 2000-current with a chart showing the price of gold in other answer here. Notice how the curves parallel each other to a large degree Potentially unfounded conclusion drawn from above numbers. The rapid growth of the Indian economy, coupled with a rich cultural tradition that values gold as a symbol of wealth, along with a sudden rise in 'wealthy' people due to the economy and influx of foreign cash, has resulted in skyrocketing demand for gold from India, and this large 'consumption' demand is the most likely explanation for the sudden rise in the price of gold over the last several years. Investors then jump on the 'rising price bandwagon' as especially does anyone that can make a profit from selling gold to those seeking to get on said bandwagon. As such, as long as indian cultural tradition remains unchanged, and their economy remains strong, the resulting increasing demand for gold will sustain current and perhaps increased prices. Should there be any sudden collapse in the Indian GDP, gold will likely tumble in parallel. disclaimer: not an expert, just observations based off the data I've seen, there may be other parts to the picture of 'gold demand' that I've not considered.\",\n \"Regarding investing in gold vs. stocks, I don't think I could say it better than Warren Buffett: You could take all the gold that's ever been mined, and it would fill a cube 67 feet in each direction. For what that's worth at current gold prices, you could buy all -- not some -- all of the farmland in the United States. Plus, you could buy 10 Exxon Mobils, plus have $1 trillion of walking-around money. Or you could have a big cube of metal. Which would you take? Which is going to produce more value?\",\n \"Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:\",\n \"First is storage which is a big and a detrimental headache. Security is another big headache. Investing in precious metal has always been an investment opportunity in the countries in the east i.e. India and China because of cultural reason and due to absence of investment opportunities for the less fortunate ones. It isn't the case so in the West. Secondly what is the right an opportune moment is open to question. When the worlwide economy is up and running, that is probably the time to buy i.e. people would like to put money in use rather than store. The saying goes the other way when the economy is stagnating. Then there is also the case of waiting out the bad periods to sell your gold and silver. If you do want to buy precious metals then use a service like BullionVault, rather than doing those yourself. It takes care of the 2 big headaches, I mentioned earlier.\",\n \"I'd say neither. Index Funds mimic whatever index. Some stocks that are in the index are good investment opportunities, others not so much. I'm guessing the Bond Index Funds do the same. As for Gold... did you notice how much gold has risen lately? Do you think it will keep on rising like that? For which period? (Hint: if your timespan is less than 10 years, you really shouldn't invest). Investing is about buying low, and selling high. Gold is high, don't touch it. If you want to invest in funds, look at 4 or 5 star Morningstar rated funds. My advisors suggest Threadneedle (Lux) US Equities DU - LU0096364046 with a 4 star rating as the best American fund at this time. However, they are not favoring American stocks at this moment... so maybe you should stay away from the US for now. Have you looked at the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries?\",\n \"There are two basic ways you can separate your investments from the dollar (or any other currency).\",\n \"I think your question is very difficult to answer because it involves speculation. I think the best article describing why or why not to invest in gold in a recent Motley Fool Article.\",\n \"One option is buying physical gold. I don't know about Irish law -- but from an economic standpoint, putting funds in foreign currencies would also be an option. You could look into buying shares in an ETF tracking foreign currency as an alternative to direct money exchange.\",\n \"\\\"Article summation: You may have enjoyed that 30% last year and 6% first half this year, but inflation is almost at 2% and we expect inflationary hedges and non-US-dollar investments to outperform. My response: Hahaha, what? Is he even looking at his own numbers? Since when did 2% inflation \\\"\\\"trump\\\"\\\" 6, 12, or 30% growth? He can't seriously be implying that people should run to gold...\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \\\"\\\"for dummies\\\"\\\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Look at a broader diversification. Something like: For physical gold, I'd look at a mix of gold coins and bullion. Study the pricing model for coins -- you'll probably find that the spreads on small coins make them too expensive. There are a few levels of risk with storing in a vault -- the practical risk is that your government will close banks in the event of a panic, and your money will be inaccessible. You need to balance that risk with the risk to your personal security that comes with having lots of gold or cash in your home. My recommendation is to avoid wasting time on the \\\"\\\"Mad Max\\\"\\\" scenarios. If the world economy collapses into utter ruin, we're all screwed. A few gold coins won't do much for you.\\\"\",\n \"When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.\",\n \"The best advice I can give you is to ignore gold right now. You really don't and can't have all the information you would need to support an argument for shorting gold. How much fiat cash have the central banks injected into the word economy? Billions? Trillions? Tens of Trillions? Maybe not much at all as the banks repay overnight? Anyway.. Without going on a full on rant why would you touch gold on a short? I can understand speculating on long position based on all the news out there but I'd hesitate to be a contraian in this market. Just find a nice little company that makes money, has a good product and a pretty little balance sheet. It will take longer to research but fuck if I'm betting on a huge drop in gold any time soon. What reasons do you have to believe gold is headed for any significant slide?\",\n \"\\\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \\\"\\\"age in bonds,\\\"\\\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \\\"\\\"notion in the investment community\\\"\\\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\\\"\",\n \"If you were certain you would probably do best by short selling an ETF that tracked the index for the market you think was about to tank. You'd certainly make a lot more money on that strategy than precious metals. If you were feeling super confident and want to make your money earn even more, you could also buy a bunch of put options on those same ETF funds. Obligatory Warning: Short selling and options can be extremely risky. While most investments cap your potential losses to your total investment, a short sale has no theoretical limit to the amount of money you can lose.\",\n \"\\\"Google \\\"\\\"forex broker\\\"\\\" and find one of the thousands that allows you to trade on Gold futures. Then use one of them to short Gold... just watch your leverage. I would certainly wait before you're shorting gold. Why tie up capital in a bubble that you think will burst in the next few years. Wait for the price to increase and monitor for actual signs of the bubble bursting. Right now with the Euro possibly collapsing shorting gold probably isn't your best bet.\\\"\",\n \"My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front. Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the \"\"regular person.\"\" Hope it helps!\"","Since GLD is priced as 1/10 oz of gold, I'd call it the preferred way to buy if that's your desire. I believe gold is entering classic bubble territory. Caveat emptor. A comment brought me back to this question. My answer still applies, the ETF the best way to buy gold at the lowest transaction cost. The day I posted and expressed my 'bubble' concern, gold was $1746. Today, nearly 5 years later, it's $1350, a drop of 23%, plus an additional 2% of accumulated expenses. Note, GLD has a .4% annual expense. On the other hand, the S&P is up 80% from that time. In other words, $10K invested that day would be worth less than $7,700 had it been invested in gold, and $18,000 in stock. It would take a market crash, gold soaring or some combination of the two for gold to have been the right choice then. No one can predict short term movement of either the market or metals, my answer here wasn't prescient, just lucky.","\"Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a \"\"bar of gold\"\". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold \"\"stock\"\" and a pure silver \"\"stock\"\", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm\"","\"Investing in gold without having physical gold is not really a hedge against inflation. GLD is really more for speculation, not protection against serious inflation. If there is any kind of inflation worth really protecting yourself against then one thing you will notice at its onset is a divergence in the price of physical and GLD; with GLD offering very little protection if any against inflation. Ultimately holders of GLD will demand physical metal and the physical price will rise and the paper price will fall. I would advise you to study physical gold before you purchase GLD for that reason. EDIT: Just adding this to my answer - I don't know why I didn't put it in before, and I hasten to add that I'm not an expert though a little investigation will show you that this is at least one option for owning gold. If you think of having the physical gold yourself at one end of the spectrum and buying GLD at the other; so that you don't need to take physical delivery, there is another scenario which I understand is in between (and sorry I don't actually know what it's referred to as) but it's where you buy the physical gold but instead of taking delivery the bars are stored for you in a vault - these bars are numbered and you actually own what you have paid for and theoretically you could go and visit your gold and actually remove it because it's your gold - as opposed to having paper GLD which in my understanding is a \"\"right to take physical delivery\"\" of gold - and this is slightly different - of course unlike GLD you actually have to pay a storage fee and of course unlike having the physical gold buried in your garden or something you are not entirely secure against say a robbery of the vault, and you are also depending on the company not to sell the same bar to more than one person - but that's the only think that their reputation is built on, and a company like that would live or die by the reputation - ( and of course you might lose the proverbial gold buried in the garden either, so nothing's 100% secure anyway really )\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front. Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the \\\"\\\"regular person.\\\"\\\" Hope it helps!\\\"\",\n \"Since GLD is priced as 1/10 oz of gold, I'd call it the preferred way to buy if that's your desire. I believe gold is entering classic bubble territory. Caveat emptor. A comment brought me back to this question. My answer still applies, the ETF the best way to buy gold at the lowest transaction cost. The day I posted and expressed my 'bubble' concern, gold was $1746. Today, nearly 5 years later, it's $1350, a drop of 23%, plus an additional 2% of accumulated expenses. Note, GLD has a .4% annual expense. On the other hand, the S&P is up 80% from that time. In other words, $10K invested that day would be worth less than $7,700 had it been invested in gold, and $18,000 in stock. It would take a market crash, gold soaring or some combination of the two for gold to have been the right choice then. No one can predict short term movement of either the market or metals, my answer here wasn't prescient, just lucky.\",\n \"\\\"Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a \\\"\\\"bar of gold\\\"\\\". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold \\\"\\\"stock\\\"\\\" and a pure silver \\\"\\\"stock\\\"\\\", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Investing in gold without having physical gold is not really a hedge against inflation. GLD is really more for speculation, not protection against serious inflation. If there is any kind of inflation worth really protecting yourself against then one thing you will notice at its onset is a divergence in the price of physical and GLD; with GLD offering very little protection if any against inflation. Ultimately holders of GLD will demand physical metal and the physical price will rise and the paper price will fall. I would advise you to study physical gold before you purchase GLD for that reason. EDIT: Just adding this to my answer - I don't know why I didn't put it in before, and I hasten to add that I'm not an expert though a little investigation will show you that this is at least one option for owning gold. If you think of having the physical gold yourself at one end of the spectrum and buying GLD at the other; so that you don't need to take physical delivery, there is another scenario which I understand is in between (and sorry I don't actually know what it's referred to as) but it's where you buy the physical gold but instead of taking delivery the bars are stored for you in a vault - these bars are numbered and you actually own what you have paid for and theoretically you could go and visit your gold and actually remove it because it's your gold - as opposed to having paper GLD which in my understanding is a \\\"\\\"right to take physical delivery\\\"\\\" of gold - and this is slightly different - of course unlike GLD you actually have to pay a storage fee and of course unlike having the physical gold buried in your garden or something you are not entirely secure against say a robbery of the vault, and you are also depending on the company not to sell the same bar to more than one person - but that's the only think that their reputation is built on, and a company like that would live or die by the reputation - ( and of course you might lose the proverbial gold buried in the garden either, so nothing's 100% secure anyway really )\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":299,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"8013"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Frequency of investments to maximise returns (and minimise fees)"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["496159","224231"],"string":"[\n \"496159\",\n \"224231\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["304398","48678","144349","254910","278607","176335","402633","24846","53100","537626","268772","446948","549364","496159","186538","49930","234039","397976","138954","384983","384893","215296","117634","582697","376967","103622","263784","363919","123880","244524","296426","404261","224231","543223","598478","81652","412965","536841","568978","34241","250530","323067","488651","548467","325426","41905","583549","233717","464381","444008","272021","255252","504032","377659","234979","410461","277","57033","201495","447567","58186","493010","100341","61593","122679","36284","253028","590218","153178","83807","242556","331492","341699","354291","82194","577832","596537","533549","469519","329466","48566","264820","272486","341481","377186","535737","25671","301477","224782","16175","124230","155242","568624","120266","227542","18532","307424","332064","575929","560497"],"string":"[\n \"304398\",\n \"48678\",\n \"144349\",\n \"254910\",\n \"278607\",\n \"176335\",\n \"402633\",\n \"24846\",\n \"53100\",\n \"537626\",\n \"268772\",\n \"446948\",\n \"549364\",\n \"496159\",\n \"186538\",\n \"49930\",\n \"234039\",\n \"397976\",\n \"138954\",\n \"384983\",\n \"384893\",\n \"215296\",\n \"117634\",\n \"582697\",\n \"376967\",\n \"103622\",\n \"263784\",\n \"363919\",\n \"123880\",\n \"244524\",\n \"296426\",\n \"404261\",\n \"224231\",\n \"543223\",\n \"598478\",\n \"81652\",\n \"412965\",\n \"536841\",\n \"568978\",\n \"34241\",\n \"250530\",\n \"323067\",\n \"488651\",\n \"548467\",\n \"325426\",\n \"41905\",\n \"583549\",\n \"233717\",\n \"464381\",\n \"444008\",\n \"272021\",\n \"255252\",\n \"504032\",\n \"377659\",\n \"234979\",\n \"410461\",\n \"277\",\n \"57033\",\n \"201495\",\n \"447567\",\n \"58186\",\n \"493010\",\n \"100341\",\n \"61593\",\n \"122679\",\n \"36284\",\n \"253028\",\n \"590218\",\n \"153178\",\n \"83807\",\n \"242556\",\n \"331492\",\n \"341699\",\n \"354291\",\n \"82194\",\n \"577832\",\n \"596537\",\n \"533549\",\n \"469519\",\n \"329466\",\n \"48566\",\n \"264820\",\n \"272486\",\n \"341481\",\n \"377186\",\n \"535737\",\n \"25671\",\n \"301477\",\n \"224782\",\n \"16175\",\n \"124230\",\n \"155242\",\n \"568624\",\n \"120266\",\n \"227542\",\n \"18532\",\n \"307424\",\n \"332064\",\n \"575929\",\n \"560497\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.","By not timing the market and being a passive investor, the best time to invest is the moment you have extra money (usually when wages are received). The market trends up. $10 fee on $2000 represents 0.5% transaction cost, which is borderline prohibitive. I would suggest running simulations, but I suspect that 1 month is the best because average historical monthly total return is more than 0.5%.","Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.","Note, the main trade off here is the costs of holding cash rather than being invested for a few months vs trading costs from trading every month. Let's start by understanding investing every month vs every three months. First compare holding cash for two months (at ~0% for most Canadians right now) and then investing on the third month vs being invested in a single stock etf (~5% annually?). At those rates she is forgoing equity returns of around These costs and the $10 for one big trade give total costs of $16+$8+$10=$34 dollars. If you were to trade every month instead there would be no cost for not being invested and the trading costs over three months would just be 3*$10=$30. So in this case it would be better to trade monthly instead of every three months. However, I'm guessing you don't trade all $2000 into a single etf. The more etfs you trade the more trading more infrequently would be an advantage. You can redo the above calculations spliting the amount across more etfs and including the added trading costs to get a feel for what is best. You can also rotate as @Jason suggests but that can leave you unbalanced temporarily if not done carefully. A second option would be to find a discount broker that allows you to trade the etfs you are interested in for free. This is not always possible but often will be for those investing in index funds. For instance I trade every month and have no brokerage costs. Dollar cost averaging and value averaging are for people investing a single large amount instead of regular monthly amounts. Unless the initial amount is much much larger than the monthly amounts this is probably not worth considering. Edit: Hopefully the above edits will clarify that I was comparing the costs (including the forgone returns) of trading every 3 months vs trading every month.","To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.","\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \"\"core\"\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \"\"satellite\"\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\"","Securities (things you can buy on the stock market) that pay dividends usually pay every quarter (every three months), but some pay every month. (For example: PGF pays dividends each month.) IF you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you will be compounding your return. I use the feature at Scottrade to automatically reinvest the dividend each month. Using this feature at Scottrade incurs no commission for the purchases of the stock from the dividend. (saving on commissions and fees is, likely, the most important aspect of investing). US Treasuries (usually) pay interest twice a year. There is no commission when using Treasury Direct.","\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"","\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \"\"want\"\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\"","If markets are efficient (which they aren't, but anyways...), the frequency of DCA investments shouldn't yield any meaningful difference in return. The one possible item to note is that if you're able to invest more frequently, you'll have more money exposed to the effects of compounding for longer, which *may* increase return. However, there are also transaction costs to consider, which may render something like *continuous* DCA-ing ineffective. That same compounding effect also negates the potential benefits of DCA altogether, making it more logical to lump sum your investments. You may be conflating DCA with simply making additional cash every week that's available for investment. If that's the case, again, lump sum as early as possible should yield the best results... (this isn't financial advice, read the sidebar disclaimers)","I'm staring at this chart and asking myself, How long a period is enough to have an average I'd be happy with regardless of the direction the market goes? 3 years? 4 years? Clearly, a lump sum investment risks a 2000 buy at 1500. Not good. Honestly, I love the question, and find it interesting, but there's likely no exact answer, just some back and forth analysis. You're investing about $40K/yr anyway. I'd suggest a 4 year timeframe is a good time to invest the new money as well. Other folk want to offer opinions? Edit - with the OP's additional info, he expects these bonuses to continue, my updated advice is to DCA quarterly if going into assets with a transaction fee or monthly if into a no-fee fund, over just a one year period.","Powers makes a good point: trading costs may eat up a significant portion of your ROI. A fee as little as 2% can consume more than 50% of your long-term ROI! A rule of thumb is keep your fees to less than 1%. One way to do that is to buy stock in companies that have a DRIP with a Share Purchase Plan (SPP). Often the SPP allows investors to purchase shares for low fees or free. Once you have the ability to purchase shares for (virtually) free, you can use InvestMete. Roughly, you send more money to the companies whose share prices are near their 52-week low, and less money to those who are near their 52-week high. Getting back to your original question...","\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\"","Okay, I think I managed to find the precise answer to this problem! It involves solving a non-linear exponential equation, but I also found a good approximate solution using the truncated Taylor series. See below for a spreadsheet you can use. Let's start by defining the growth factors per period, for money in the bank and money invested: Now, let S be the amount ready to be invested after n+1 periods; so the first of that money has earned interest for n periods. That is, The key step to solve the problem was to fix the total number of periods considered. So let's introduce a new variable: t = the total number of time periods elapsed So if money is ready to invest every n+1 periods, there will be t/(n+1) separate investments, and the future value of the investments will be: This formula is exact in the case of integer t and n, and a good approximation when t and n are not integers. Substituting S, we get the version of the formula which explicitly depends on n: Fortunately, only a couple of terms in FV depend on n, so we can find the derivative after some effort: Equating the derivative to zero, we can remove the denominator, and assuming t is greater than zero, we can divide by the constant ( 1-G t ): To simplify the equation, we can define some extra constants: Then, we can define a function f(n) and write the equation as: Note that α, β, γ, G, and R are all constant. From here there are two options: Use Newton's method or another numerical method for finding the positive root of f(n). This can be done in a number of software packages like MATLAB, Octave, etc, or by using a graphics calculator. Solve approximately using a truncated Taylor series polynomial. I will use this method here. The Taylor series of f(n), centred around n=0, is: Truncating the series to the first three terms, we get a quadratic polynomial (with constant coefficients): Using R, G, α, β and γ defined above, let c0, c1 and c2 be the coefficients of the truncated Taylor series for f(n): Then, n should be rounded to the nearest whole number. To be certain, check the values above and below n using the formula for FV. Using the example from the question: For example, I might put aside $100 every week to invest into a stock with an expected growth of 9% p.a., but brokerage fees are $10/trade. For how many weeks should I accumulate the $100 before investing, if I can put it in my high-interest bank account at 4% p.a. until then? Using Newton's method to find roots of f(n) above, we get n = 14.004. Using the closed-form approximate solution, we get n = 14.082. Checking this against the FV with t = 1680 (evenly divisible by each n + 1 tested): Therefore, you should wait for n = 14 periods, keeping that money in the bank, investing it together with the money in the next period (so you will make an investment every 14 + 1 = 15 weeks.) Here's one way to implement the above solution with a spreadsheet. StackExchange doesn't allow tables in their syntax at this time, so I'll show a screenshot of the formulae and columns you can copy and paste: Formulae: Copy and paste column A: Copy and paste column B: Results: Remember, n is the number of periods to accumulate money in the bank. So you will want to invest every n+1 weeks; in this case, every 15 weeks.","\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \"\"time the market\"\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \"\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\"\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\"\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\"\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \"\"good old days\"\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\"","I'm going to assume that you want to be invested all the time and each trade consists in selling a security and buying another one (similar to your example). How much commissions you are willing to pay depends on several factors, but one way to think about it is as follows. You have a position in stock A and you want to switch to stock B because you think it will perform better. If you think there's a good chance (>50%) that B will outperform A by more than x% then you can happily pay up to x/2% commissions and still make money over a long time horizon. If you like formulae, one way to express it is: Where: Example: if you tend to be right 51% of the time (hit rate), and gain 110% more than you lose on average (win loss ratio), you can see that your expected profit is: 5.1% - commissions, so you could pay 2.5% commissions on entering and closing the position and still make money*. Unfortunately, common sense, statistics and numerous studies tell us a sad truth: on average, people have a hit rate of 50% and a win/loss ratio of 100%. Which means that their expected profit per trade is 0% - commission. Based on that crude observation - unless you can prove to yourself that you are better than average - you should aim at reducing commissions paid to your broker as much as possible through: * 51% and 110% are not random numbers, they correspond to the results of the top 15% (professional) managers in a research paper using a sample of 215 funds managing $150bn.","Assuming you have no new cash to add to your account as gyurisc has suggested, I wouldn't sweat the small amounts – it doesn't hurt to have a little cash sit idle, even if you want to theoretically be fully invested (the wisdom of doing that, or not, perhaps worthy of another question :-) If you try too hard to invest the small amounts frequently, you're likely to get killed on fees. My strategy (if you could call it that) is to simply let small amounts accumulate until there's enough to buy more shares without paying too much commission. For instance, I don't like fees to be more than 1% of the shares purchased, so with a $10 commission per trade, I prefer to make minimum $1000 purchases. I used to roll small amounts of cash into a no-load money market fund I could buy without commission, and then purchase shares when I hit the threshold, but even putting the cash in a money market fund isn't worth the hassle today with rates of return from money market funds being close to zero.","You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.","\"Plenty! Following are just a few: For things like RESP and RRSP which have an \"\"end\"\" date; as you or your children age, you should be migrating to less speculative investments and more secure ones. When children are young, for example, you might be in a \"\"growth\"\" type fund. Later on, you would likely want to switch that to an \"\"income\"\" fund, which is also more conservative and less likely to lose principal. Are you getting the best benefit from your credit cards? Is there another card with benefits that you would get more \"\"back\"\" from using? Is that fee-based Air miles card worth it? Is cash-back better for you? If you have regular investment withdrawals, can you increase them? Do you like the plan they are going in to? Similarly look over any other long-term debt repayment. Student loans, car loans, mortgage. What is coming up this year, what is \"\"ending\"\". If, for example, car payment will end, how will you earmark that money, so it just does not disappear into general funds. While you could go over things like these more often, once a year should be plenty often to keep tabs and not obsess. Good Luck!\"","\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"","The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.","If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.","Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here. The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions. That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc. A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees.","This depends on the terms and conditions of your IRA account, and those of the investments you have chosen. In general, you are better off investing as quickly as is feasible given those terms. Money in your cash account doesn't earn much of a return, so the quicker you get money into something earning a return, the better. However, pay attention to the fees and costs associated with investing. If there is a per-transaction fee, you may want to consolidate, as it may be more efficient to do so - after all, if you contribute $500 at a shot, and it costs you $5 to make a trade, you're paying 1% off the top to make that trade if you make 11 of them, versus 0.1% to make 1, so the question is do you earn that 1% back over the course of the six months? That will depend on what you are investing in. More than likely you're going to earn more than 1% over the course of the six months, so it's probably worth investing it in pieces still in that situation, but if the transaction cost is higher, or the time differential lower, you may have a less clear-cut answer. I invest at Vanguard in their funds and have no transaction fees, so I have a more obvious answer (invest as soon as possible). You also need to consider whether you have minimums to pay attention to - maybe your investment is something you can only buy whole shares of, for example, or you might have a much higher fee if you make small transactions. In that case, you should wait until you have the minimum to make that transaction if the fee is more than the return you'll get. So the answer is - make the transactions as early as you can, subject to considering the fees you will pay for making them.","That depends whether you're betting on the market going up, or down, during the year. If you don't like to bet (and I don't), you can take advantage of dollar cost averaging by splitting it up into smaller contributions throughout the year.","If you know with 100% certainty what the market will do, then invest it all at the best time. If not, spread it out over time to avoid investing it all at the worst possible time.","I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.","I buy or sell a few shares whenever I have a small amount of money to transfer into out of my mutual funds. Since I'm not paying transaction fees, there is no reason not to, when that is what makes sense. If you are paying a fee for each transaction, of course it makes sense to try to wait until you have a larger amount to move so the overhead per share is lower.","The two biggest issues that impact your question I would say are diversification and fees. If you have $10,000 to invest and only invest it in two securities, then a 20% drop in one security can have you lose 10% of your initial investment which I would consider a very high risk scenario. If you have $10,000 to invest and invest it in 20 securities, then a 20% drop in one security would only cause you to lose 1% of your initial investment. So far this is looking better from a diversification point of view. But then the issue of fees comes in. If you paid $10 per trade to buy those 20 securities you already spent 2% of your initial investment in fees! Not to mention you will pay at least another $200 to get out of all those positions. No right answer - but those are the two factors I always try to balance.","Daily > Weekly > Monthly. This statement says that if you use daily returns you will get more noise than if you used weekly or monthly returns. Much of the research performed uses monthly returns, although weekly returns have been used as well. For HFT you would need to detrend the data in order to spot true turning points.","It's important to remember that upward trending things spend the vast majority of their time at all time highs - intelligent, well meaning people have been regularly saying the Dow Jones has been too expensive since about 2010, often because it was now at 'all time highs': Sitting on the sidelines can end up just as expensive (if not more so) than avoiding big drops. If you are worried about a large down swing straight after investing just drip it in over a period you feel comfortable with - no one can really answer this better than that without more info on your risk tolerance and exactly what you want to invest in. Worth noting that buying anything other than transaction free funds when split into small transactions also adds a lot more fees (~£10 entry and exit in a UK ISA for example). Split these over 12 months say, and it will cost you £240 straight out of the gate (2 fund purchases per month for 12 months @£10 each) and another £240 to exit before any holding fees from the ISA platform: that's over 1% of your capital gone just to your stockbroker employing this strategy. Both the products you mention are also quite high cost in ongoing charges, so unless you have very high convictions about the management quality, will also probably lag cheaper investment types over the long run as well due to the dire performance of virtually all higher cost, active management over time.","The fee representing the expense ratio is charged as long as you hold the investment. It is deducted daily from the fund assets, and thus reduces the price per share (NAV per share) that is calculated each day after the markets close. The investment fee is charged only when you make an investment in the fund. So, invest in the fund in one swell foop (all $5500 or $6500 for older people, all invested in a single transaction) rather than make monthly investments into the fund (hold the money in a money-market within your Roth IRA if need be). But, do check if there are back-end loads or 12b1 fees associated with the fund. The former often disappear after a few years; the latter are another permanent drain on performance. Also, please check whether reinvestment of dividends and capital gains incur the $75 transaction fee.","\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"","Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.","\"I up voted JoeTaxpayer but i would like add a couple of things. Dollar Cost averaging over a 5 day period is in no way practical. If you get a 1% swing in that time that would be quite a lot. Personally I think 5 years is way to long. When markets go down they go down fast. I would suggest 1 to 2 years investing quarterly. I would hate seeing you miss out on market gains for a 5 year period on the last of your money. The whole point of Dollar Cost averaging instead of market timing is the mantra \"\"Its about time in the market not timing the market\"\" So if you have money on the sidelines for years you are missing out on your time in the market.\"","In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.","Although the market discussion by other answers is correct, the tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy. However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way. If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction.","The goal of the kelly criterion strategy is to find a balance between preservation of starting capital and returns. One of extreme you could bet the entirety of your account on one trade, which would maximize your returns if you win, but leave you unable to further invest if you lose. On the other extreme, you could bet the smallest amount of capital possible over the course of several trades to increase the probability that you'll even out to 70% accuracy over time. But this method would be extremely slow. So for your case, investing 40% each time is one way to find an optimal balance between these two extremes. Use this as a rule of thumb though, because your own situation and investing goals may differ from the goal of optimal growth.","First off, I think you are on the right path not paying 3% to a broker; that sort of fee reduces the money you earn significantly in the long term. For your fund investing approach, 10 funds seems like a lot; one of the point of funds is that they are diversified, so I would expect that the 10th fund would give relatively little diversification over the other 9. I would think about targeting only 5 funds. To invest in the funds, rather than trying to invest in all funds every month, put all of the money into a single fund, and rotate the fund month to month. That reduces your transaction costs significantly.","\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \"\"quiesced\"\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \"\"wash sales\"\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\"","Canadian Couch Potato has an article which is somewhat related. Ask the Spud: Can You Time the Markets? The argument roughly boils down to the following: That said, I didn't follow the advice. I inherited a sum of money, more than I had dealt with before, and I did not feel I was emotionally capable of immediately dumping it into my portfolio (Canadian stocks, US stocks, world stocks, Canadian bonds, all passive indexed mutual funds), and so I decided to add the money into my portfolio over the course of a year, twice a month. The money that I had not yet invested, I put into a money market account. That worked for me because I was purchasing mutual funds with no transaction costs. If you are buying ETFs, this strategy makes less sense. In hindsight, this was not financially prudent; I'd have been financially better off to buy all the mutual funds right at the beginning. But I was satisfied with the tradeoff, knowing that I did not have hindsight and I would have been emotionally hurt had the stock market crashed. There must be research that would prove, based on past performance, the statistically optimal time frame for dollar-cost averaging. However, I strongly suppose that the time frame is rather small, and so I would advise that you either invest the money immediately, or dollar-cost average your investment over the course of the year. This answer is not an ideal answer to your question because it is lacking such a citation.","As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.","It varies. Depending on your brokerage, they may charge you per transaction, so the more transactions, the higher the cost. Though this (from what I've seen), is uncommon with many index funds. In terms of how aggressive you want to be with your investment varies on your comfort with risk, timeline of investment and many other factors beyond the scope of this question. The biggest issue you may need to be aware of is if you are looking at mutual funds, they may have minimum investments. Depending on what that minimum investment is set to, you may not be able to split your $5500 into more than one fund. A lot of this comes down to the specific funds in which your are anticipating investing, as well as the service you use to do so (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc). Ultimately, diversification can be a lot safer, but there are logistics to consider. Personally, I began with a target fund (a mutual fund with adjusted risk based on the estimated year of retirement) and add additional mutual funds, stocks and ETFs as time goes on.","\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \"\"invest in knowledge\"\".\"","\"Previously (prior to Capital One acquisition -- it's kind of like K-Mart buying Sears) Sharebuilder offered 12 automatic (i.e. pre-scheduled) stock purchases per month if you subscribed to their $12/mo \"\"Advantage\"\" plan. So, 12 trades for $1 a trade. Great deal. Except then they flattened their pricing to everyone's acclaim (that is, everyone except for the non-millionaire casual investors) and jacked it up to $4 per automatic investment. As far as I know, Sharebuilder's 12 no-fee investments for $12/mo was rather unique in the online trading world -- and now it's very sadly extinct. They do have no-fee mutual fund investing, however, for what it's worth.\"","Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.","Katherine from Betterment here. I wanted to address your inquiry and another comment regarding our services. I agree with JAGAnalyst - it's detrimental to your returns and potential for growth if you try to time the market. That's why Betterment offers customized asset allocation for each portfolio based on the nature of your goal, time horizon, and how much you are able to put towards your investments. We do this so regardless of what's happening in the markets, you can feel comfortable that your asset allocation plus other determining factors will get you where you need to go, without having to time your investing. We also put out quite a bit of content regarding market timing and why we think it's an unwise practice. We believe continuously depositing to your goal, especially through auto-deposits, compounding returns, tax-efficient auto-rebalancing, and reinvesting dividends are the best ways to grow your assets. Let me know if you would like additional information regarding Betterment accounts and our best practices. I am available at buck@betterment.com and am always happy to speak about Betterment's services. Katherine Buck, Betterment Community Manager","I do the same thing with my 401k (100% S&P 500). My strategy is to check it weekly. If the S&P falls by 10%-20% (based on risk tolerance, currently mine is 19%). I'll move all of it out into cash until I see 3-consecutive months of gains, then I'll get back in. I don't have a lot of time to manage my investments, and this was the simplest strategy I've come up with so far. It served me very well in the 2008 crash. I got out around 120 and returned to the S&P on 2009-06-29 around 90.","\"In many cases the expenses are not pulled out on a specific day, so this wouldn't work. On the other hand some funds do charge an annual or quarterly fee if your investment in the fund is larger than the minimum but lower than a \"\"small balance\"\" value. Many funds will reduce or eliminate this fee if you signup for electronic forms or other electronic services. Some will also eliminate the fee if the total investment in all your funds is above a certain level. For retirement funds what you suggest could be made more complex because of annual limits. Though if you were below the limits you could decide to add the extra funds to cover those expenses as the end of the year approached.\"","which is a better way to structure a SIP, This is no one way better than other. SIP as you already know offers advantages in terms of averaging costs. Given that transaction costs are same, averaging daily would be better from law of averages point of view. The only flip side to doing it daily is tracking, i.e. your Bank Statement is going to look horrible, recon as to what and how much got purchased will be horrendous. Further tracking liquidity could be an issue unless you use segregated accounts. i.e. you don't know how done you are with your investments. On monthly this is more easy, once you get salary and get investments and other mandatory payments out of way, you know what you have in the account for rest of the month. In the end I would put this more of convenience than anything else.","Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months","Here are my re-run figures. Not counting capital gains taxes, I calculate you need to be making 1.875% per annum or 0.155% per month on your $8,000 investment to break-even on the loan. It's interesting that the return you need to gain to break-even is less than the interest you're paying, even with commission. It happens because the investment is gaining a return on an increasing amount while the load is accruing interest on a decreasing amount. Ref. r, logarithmic return","You're completely missing the most important thing you can do: minimize fees.","It would depend on a) Ones view on Markets and b) Ones nature. If one believes that the market would be going up in the near future then it would be best to buy all at once. If one believes the market is uncertain, it would make sense to invest over a period of time. If one is a disciplined investor and can stick to plan, it would make sense to invest over a period of time as the risk is generally less. How much less is again subjective. If one is not a disciplined investor then buying now and getting done with is a good idea. As to exactly quantifying this is absolute number for future would not be possible. One can take the data from past, however it would work advantages if the prices moves up and disadvantages if the price moves down.","There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation).","\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"","My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.","\"The high frequency trading you reference has no adverse impact on individual investors - at least not in the \"\"going to take advantage of you\"\" way that many articles imply. If anything, high-frequency trading is generally more helpful than harmful, adding liquidity to the system, although it can cause some volatility and \"\"noise\"\" in volume and other data, and the sudden entrance or exit of this type of trading can drive some abnormal market movements. As to research and time needed for trading, most data suggests that the less you try to \"\"beat the market\"\", the better you'll do. Trade activity tends to be inversely related to returns, particularly for individuals. Your best bet is likely to learn enough about investment risks to ensure you're comfortable with them, and invest in broadly diversified asset classes, regions, and sectors, and then mostly leave them alone, or rebalance annually. You'll almost surely do a lot better that way than you will if you spend countless hours researching the \"\"right\"\" stocks to buy.\"","You will maximize your expected wealth by investing all the money you intend to invest, as soon as you have it available. Don't let the mythos of dollar cost averaging induce you to allocate more much money to a savings account than is optimal. If you want the positive expected return of the market, don't put your money in a savings account. That's especially true now, when you are certainly earning a negative real interest rate on your savings account. Dollar cost averaging and putting all your money in at the beginning would have the same expected return except that if you put all your money in earlier, it spends more time in the market, so your expected return is higher. Your volatility is also higher (because your savings account would have very low volatility) but your preference for investment tells me that you view the expected return and volatility tradeoff of the stock market as acceptable. If you need something to help you feel less stress about investing right away, think of it as dollar cost averaging on a yearly basis instead of monthly. Further, you take take comfort in knowing that you have allocated your wealth as you can instead of letting it fizzle away in real terms in a bank account.","That doesn't sound like dollar cost averaging. That sounds like a form of day trading. Dollar cost averaging is how most people add money to their 401K, or how they add money to some IRA accounts. You are proposing a form of day trading.","Your edit indicates that you may not yet be ready to get heavily involved in investing. I say this because it seems you are not very familiar with foundational finance/investing concepts. The returns that you are seeing as 'yearly' are just the reported earnings every 12 months, which all public companies must publish. Those 'returns' are not the same as the earnings of individual investors (which will be on the basis of dividends paid by the company [which are often annual, sometimes semi-annual, and sometimes quarterly], and by selling shares purchased previously. Note that over 3 months time, investing in interest-earning investments [like bank deposits] will earn you something like 0.5%. Investing in the stock market will earn you something like 2% (but with generally higher risk than investing in something earning interest). If you expect to earn significant amounts of money in only 3 months, you will not be able to without taking on extreme levels of risk [risk as high as going to a casino]. Safe investing takes time - years. In the short term, the best thing you can do to earn money is by earning more [through a better job, or a second part-time job], or spending less [budget, pay down high interest debt, and spend less than you earn]. I highly recommend you look through this site for more budgeting questions on how to get control of your finances. If you feel that doesn't apply to you, I encourage you to do a lot more research on investing before you send your money somewhere - you could be taking on more risk than you realize, if you are not properly informed.","DCA is not 10%/day over 10 days. If I read the objective correctly, I'd suggest about a 5 year plan. It's difficult to avoid the issue of market timing. And any observation I'd make about the relative valuation of the market would be opinion. By this I mean, some are saying that PE/10 which Nobel prize winner Robert Schiller made well known, if not popular, shows we are pretty high. Others are suggesting the current PE is appropriate given the near zero rate of borrowing. Your income puts long term gains at zero under current tax code. Short term are at your marginal rate. I would caution not to let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The fellow that makes too many buy/sell decisions based on his taxes is likely to lag he who followed his overall allocation goals.","According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.","Sad part is that you aren't going to make meaningful gains with small account like that unless you are putting everything into one stock and trying to squeeze out 10% gains each trade. At this point, your main focus contributing money into the account regularly. You will be able to trade more frequently as you get more money into the account.","For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.","From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:","The investment return for a given strategy is directly proportional to the amount invested. Invest twice as much, profit (or lose) twice as much. It's a straight multiplier. However, there are some strategies which are less risky with a larger investment, and some investments which have a minimum unit of purchase that puts them out of reach of smaller investors.","Theoretically, it could be daily, but depending upon the number of companies in the index, it could be anywhere between daily or once a month or so. Apart from that, there is a periodic index review that happens once every quarter. The methodology for each index is also different, and you need to be aware of it (we had positions on literally hundreds of indices, and I knew the methodology of almost each of them). If you have say, 2 billion dollars tracking a certain index, even a miniscule change in the composition would be substantial for you. But for certain others, you may just need to buy and sell $10k worth of stocks, and we would not even bother.","Its best to dollar cost average adding say 5%-10% a quarter into the fund. That's what Clark Howard would suggest. Also make sure you do not need the money for 5 years, then you should be okay. Its tough to lose money if you keep your money there for a long period of time.","\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"","\"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the \"\"buy low\"\" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)\"","I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)","If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction.","There is no reason to ever do DCA. You'll notice that no asset managers would ever dream of it. You should invest your money as soon as you get it. Throughout history, this is the utility maximizing choice. The market rises on average. Why would you keep money out of it?","\"Random deposits are a bit like playing the lotery - especially if one is frequently chasing \"\"hot tips\"\". You might make it big, but the odds are vastly against you. \"\"Random\"\" deposits into various investments won't be optimal, because such \"\"random\"\" decisions will not be properly diversified and balanced. Various investments have different rates of risk and return. \"\"Random\"\" deposits will not take this into account for an individual's personal situation. In addition to needing to research individual investments as they are made, investments also need to be considered as part of a whole financial picture. A few considerations for example: Simply put, random isn't a financial strategy.\"","Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.","I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.","There is a basis for that if you consider the power of compounding. So, the sooner you re-invest the dividends the sooner the time will give you results (through compounding). There is also the case of the commissions, if they are paid with a percentage of the amount invested they automatically gain more from you. Just my 2cents, though the other answers are probably more complete.","Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively.","If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.","One implication is the added fees if you are investing in something with a trading cost or commission, such as your stock purchase. If you pay low costs to trade (e.g. with a discount broker) and don't switch your investments often, then costs overall should remain reasonable .. but always be aware of your costs and seek to minimize them.","\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"","\"Essentially, your question is \"\"lump sum vs DCA\"\" and your tags reflect that. In the long run, lump sum, say a Jan 2 deposit each year, will beat DCA by about 1/2 the average annual market return. $12,000 will see a 10% return, vs, $1,000/month over the year seeing 6%. What hurts is when the market tanks in the first half of the year and you think DCA would have helped. This is a 'feeling' issue, not a math problem. But. By the time you have $100K invested, the difference of DCA vs lump sum with new money fades, as new deposits are small compared to the funds invested. By then, you need to know your target allocation and deposit to keep that allocation with new money.\"","True, but the number of investors who are successful with this strategy is negligible. You are basically just trading return for volatility. A well built portfolio will be better than trying to time the market, at least historically.","If you want to invest in the stock market, whether over a shorter period of 1 to 2 years or over a longer period of 10 or 20 years or longer you need to take some precautions and have a written investment plan with a risk management strategy incorporated in your plan. Others have said that 1 to 2 years is too short to invest in the stock market as the stock market can have a correction and fall by 50%. But it doesn't matter if you invest for 1 year or if you invest for 50 years, the stock market can still fall by 50% just before you plan to withdraw your funds. What you need to figure out is a way to get out before the market falls by 40% to 50%. A simple way to do this is to use technical indicators to warn you when a market trend is starting to change and that it is time to get out of the market. Two simple indicators you can use on a market index are the Rate of Change (ROC) indicator and the 100 week Moving Average (MA). Below is a 10 year weekly chart of the S&P500 with these two indicators charted. They show good times to get into the market and good times to get out. If you are using the 100 week MA you would buy in when the price crosses above the MA line and sell when the price crosses below the MA line. If you are using the ROC indicator you would buy in when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. So your investment plan could be to buy an Index ETF representing the S&P500 when the ROC moves above zero and sell when it crosses below zero. You can also place a trailing stop loss of 10% to protect you in case of a sudden fall over a couple of days. You can manage your investments in as little as 10 minutes per week by checking the chart once per week and adjusting your stop loss order. If you want to progressively add to your investment each month you could check the charts and only add any new funds if both the ROC is above zero and sloping upwards. Another option for adding new funds could be if the price is above the MA and moving further away from the MA. All these rules should be incorporated into your investment plan so that you are not basing your decisions based on emotions. There are many other Technical Analysis Indicators you could also learn about to make better educated decisions about your stock market investments. However, what I have provided here is enough for anyone to test over different indexes and time frames and do their own paper trading on to gain some confidence before placing any real money on the table.","If your investment returns are the main variable you use to determine if your advisor is doing a good job you are using his or her services incorrectly Also, if you are using a good advisor, he or she needs to know how your investments are doing, not you. However, my thoughts are based on the idea that you can't go it alone. If you are not among the people concerned about the market, waiting for the market to go down 'so you can find a better buying opportunity', or making one of many other novice mistakes, I'm not speaking directly to you with my comments.","The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.","If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. Also, CMC Markets charges $11 commission up to $10,000 trade. This is actually quite a low fee - based on your $7,000, $22 for in and out of a position would be less than 0.32% (of course you might want to buy into more than one company - so your brokerage would be slightly higher). Still this is way lower than full service brokerage which could be $100 or more in and then again out again. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first.","The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.","\"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to \"\"sell high buy low\"\" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run).\"","A general rule of thumb is to avoid having more than 5% of your investments in any single stock, to avoid excessive risk; it's usually even more risky if you're talking company stock because an adverse event could result in an inferior stock price and you getting laid off. Under other circumstances, the ideal amount of company stock is probably 0%. But there are tax benefits to waiting, as you've noted, and if you're reasonably confident that the stock isn't likely to jerk around too much, and you have a high risk tolerance (i.e. lots of extra savings besides this), and you're comfortable shouldering the risk of losing some money, it might make sense to hold onto the stock for a year - but never any longer. The real risk to holding a lot of company stock doesn't depend on how often you buy it and sell it per se, but having period purchases every month should make it easier for you to ladder the funds, and regularly sell your old shares as you purchase new shares. You might also consider a stop-loss order on the stock at or near the price you purchased it at. If the stock is at $100, then you buy at $85, and then the stock drops to $85, there are no more outstanding tax benefits and it makes no sense to have it as part of your portfolio instead of any other speculative instrument - you probably get better diversification benefits with any other speculative instrument, so your risk-adjusted returns would be higher.","You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.","Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.","You shouldn't. The Dow has gained 7% annually on average since October 1915(inflation-adjusted). It has also lost 73% of its inflation-adjusted value from 1966 to 1982 meaning that it would have lost you 4.5% annually for 16 years. Furthermore, past performance is not indicative of future results. If stock markets keep performing like they have for the past 100 years, you can expect there will be a point within the next 60-or-so years your stocks will be higher in value than they were when you bought them. With funds you are paying the people managing them which means you are guaranteed to have pyramiding losses that your gains will have to offset. In your case, you are betting with no fundamental knowledge that S&P will be higher than now whenever you need the money which is not even supported by the above assumption. Dollar averaging just means you will be placing many bets which will reduce your expected losses(and your expected gains) when compared to just buying $100K worth of S&P right now. Whatever you invest in, and whatever your time-frame, don't gamble. If you can't say this company(ies) will be $X more valuable than now in X months with probability > Y, then you shouldn't be investing in it. Nobody ever made money by losing money. There are also safer investments than the stock market, like treasury bonds, even if the returns are lousy.","You will be hit every time, once every buy order and once every sell order. Commissions to the broker are paid every time they do something for you. This is true regardless if it is a security in which you are already invested. It is true regardless if you make or lose money. It is just as sure as death and taxes.","Every time you buy or sell a share for some price, somebody must have thought that that was exactly the right moment to sell or buy that share at that price (and to trade with you). Every time a trade is made, both sides think they are doing the smart thing. Most of the time, one will turn out to be wrong, the other right. Nothing in your proposed method of trading explains why you would be the side that was right more often. So they'll probably even out. Or maybe there are people in the market who actually do have a slightly better than average method, and you'll be wrong somewhat more often than right. Each trade has transaction costs. If you simply hang on to your shares, that's more or less the same as evening out good trades and bad trades, but without the transaction costs.","There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia. First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this. Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns. Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features","It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount. In either case, your calculation is far away from reality. Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice.","Deposit $3,500 each month in a brokerage account and invest that money across a handful of diversified index funds. Rebalance those investments every quarter. The hard part is coming up with $3,500 each month; this is where your budget comes in.","You're contributing 98.2% of your contributed amount (deducting 1.8%) each month and at the end of the year, deducting a flat 15 pounds. The easiest way to do this is to use a spreadsheet. But you're missing some key information. What is your expected growth rate and what is your expected inflation rate? Is this a taxable account where you deduct (for example, 35%) of the growth annually for taxes or is this a non-taxable account?"],"string":"[\n \"Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.\",\n \"By not timing the market and being a passive investor, the best time to invest is the moment you have extra money (usually when wages are received). The market trends up. $10 fee on $2000 represents 0.5% transaction cost, which is borderline prohibitive. I would suggest running simulations, but I suspect that 1 month is the best because average historical monthly total return is more than 0.5%.\",\n \"Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.\",\n \"Note, the main trade off here is the costs of holding cash rather than being invested for a few months vs trading costs from trading every month. Let's start by understanding investing every month vs every three months. First compare holding cash for two months (at ~0% for most Canadians right now) and then investing on the third month vs being invested in a single stock etf (~5% annually?). At those rates she is forgoing equity returns of around These costs and the $10 for one big trade give total costs of $16+$8+$10=$34 dollars. If you were to trade every month instead there would be no cost for not being invested and the trading costs over three months would just be 3*$10=$30. So in this case it would be better to trade monthly instead of every three months. However, I'm guessing you don't trade all $2000 into a single etf. The more etfs you trade the more trading more infrequently would be an advantage. You can redo the above calculations spliting the amount across more etfs and including the added trading costs to get a feel for what is best. You can also rotate as @Jason suggests but that can leave you unbalanced temporarily if not done carefully. A second option would be to find a discount broker that allows you to trade the etfs you are interested in for free. This is not always possible but often will be for those investing in index funds. For instance I trade every month and have no brokerage costs. Dollar cost averaging and value averaging are for people investing a single large amount instead of regular monthly amounts. Unless the initial amount is much much larger than the monthly amounts this is probably not worth considering. Edit: Hopefully the above edits will clarify that I was comparing the costs (including the forgone returns) of trading every 3 months vs trading every month.\",\n \"To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.\",\n \"\\\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \\\"\\\"core\\\"\\\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \\\"\\\"satellite\\\"\\\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\\\"\",\n \"Securities (things you can buy on the stock market) that pay dividends usually pay every quarter (every three months), but some pay every month. (For example: PGF pays dividends each month.) IF you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you will be compounding your return. I use the feature at Scottrade to automatically reinvest the dividend each month. Using this feature at Scottrade incurs no commission for the purchases of the stock from the dividend. (saving on commissions and fees is, likely, the most important aspect of investing). US Treasuries (usually) pay interest twice a year. There is no commission when using Treasury Direct.\",\n \"\\\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \\\"\\\"want\\\"\\\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\\\"\",\n \"If markets are efficient (which they aren't, but anyways...), the frequency of DCA investments shouldn't yield any meaningful difference in return. The one possible item to note is that if you're able to invest more frequently, you'll have more money exposed to the effects of compounding for longer, which *may* increase return. However, there are also transaction costs to consider, which may render something like *continuous* DCA-ing ineffective. That same compounding effect also negates the potential benefits of DCA altogether, making it more logical to lump sum your investments. You may be conflating DCA with simply making additional cash every week that's available for investment. If that's the case, again, lump sum as early as possible should yield the best results... (this isn't financial advice, read the sidebar disclaimers)\",\n \"I'm staring at this chart and asking myself, How long a period is enough to have an average I'd be happy with regardless of the direction the market goes? 3 years? 4 years? Clearly, a lump sum investment risks a 2000 buy at 1500. Not good. Honestly, I love the question, and find it interesting, but there's likely no exact answer, just some back and forth analysis. You're investing about $40K/yr anyway. I'd suggest a 4 year timeframe is a good time to invest the new money as well. Other folk want to offer opinions? Edit - with the OP's additional info, he expects these bonuses to continue, my updated advice is to DCA quarterly if going into assets with a transaction fee or monthly if into a no-fee fund, over just a one year period.\",\n \"Powers makes a good point: trading costs may eat up a significant portion of your ROI. A fee as little as 2% can consume more than 50% of your long-term ROI! A rule of thumb is keep your fees to less than 1%. One way to do that is to buy stock in companies that have a DRIP with a Share Purchase Plan (SPP). Often the SPP allows investors to purchase shares for low fees or free. Once you have the ability to purchase shares for (virtually) free, you can use InvestMete. Roughly, you send more money to the companies whose share prices are near their 52-week low, and less money to those who are near their 52-week high. Getting back to your original question...\",\n \"\\\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \\\"\\\"index funds\\\"\\\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \\\"\\\"timing\\\"\\\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \\\"\\\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\\\"\\\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \\\"\\\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\\\"\\\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\\\"\",\n \"Okay, I think I managed to find the precise answer to this problem! It involves solving a non-linear exponential equation, but I also found a good approximate solution using the truncated Taylor series. See below for a spreadsheet you can use. Let's start by defining the growth factors per period, for money in the bank and money invested: Now, let S be the amount ready to be invested after n+1 periods; so the first of that money has earned interest for n periods. That is, The key step to solve the problem was to fix the total number of periods considered. So let's introduce a new variable: t = the total number of time periods elapsed So if money is ready to invest every n+1 periods, there will be t/(n+1) separate investments, and the future value of the investments will be: This formula is exact in the case of integer t and n, and a good approximation when t and n are not integers. Substituting S, we get the version of the formula which explicitly depends on n: Fortunately, only a couple of terms in FV depend on n, so we can find the derivative after some effort: Equating the derivative to zero, we can remove the denominator, and assuming t is greater than zero, we can divide by the constant ( 1-G t ): To simplify the equation, we can define some extra constants: Then, we can define a function f(n) and write the equation as: Note that α, β, γ, G, and R are all constant. From here there are two options: Use Newton's method or another numerical method for finding the positive root of f(n). This can be done in a number of software packages like MATLAB, Octave, etc, or by using a graphics calculator. Solve approximately using a truncated Taylor series polynomial. I will use this method here. The Taylor series of f(n), centred around n=0, is: Truncating the series to the first three terms, we get a quadratic polynomial (with constant coefficients): Using R, G, α, β and γ defined above, let c0, c1 and c2 be the coefficients of the truncated Taylor series for f(n): Then, n should be rounded to the nearest whole number. To be certain, check the values above and below n using the formula for FV. Using the example from the question: For example, I might put aside $100 every week to invest into a stock with an expected growth of 9% p.a., but brokerage fees are $10/trade. For how many weeks should I accumulate the $100 before investing, if I can put it in my high-interest bank account at 4% p.a. until then? Using Newton's method to find roots of f(n) above, we get n = 14.004. Using the closed-form approximate solution, we get n = 14.082. Checking this against the FV with t = 1680 (evenly divisible by each n + 1 tested): Therefore, you should wait for n = 14 periods, keeping that money in the bank, investing it together with the money in the next period (so you will make an investment every 14 + 1 = 15 weeks.) Here's one way to implement the above solution with a spreadsheet. StackExchange doesn't allow tables in their syntax at this time, so I'll show a screenshot of the formulae and columns you can copy and paste: Formulae: Copy and paste column A: Copy and paste column B: Results: Remember, n is the number of periods to accumulate money in the bank. So you will want to invest every n+1 weeks; in this case, every 15 weeks.\",\n \"\\\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \\\"\\\"time the market\\\"\\\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \\\"\\\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\\\"\\\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\\\"\\\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\\\"\\\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \\\"\\\"good old days\\\"\\\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\\\"\",\n \"I'm going to assume that you want to be invested all the time and each trade consists in selling a security and buying another one (similar to your example). How much commissions you are willing to pay depends on several factors, but one way to think about it is as follows. You have a position in stock A and you want to switch to stock B because you think it will perform better. If you think there's a good chance (>50%) that B will outperform A by more than x% then you can happily pay up to x/2% commissions and still make money over a long time horizon. If you like formulae, one way to express it is: Where: Example: if you tend to be right 51% of the time (hit rate), and gain 110% more than you lose on average (win loss ratio), you can see that your expected profit is: 5.1% - commissions, so you could pay 2.5% commissions on entering and closing the position and still make money*. Unfortunately, common sense, statistics and numerous studies tell us a sad truth: on average, people have a hit rate of 50% and a win/loss ratio of 100%. Which means that their expected profit per trade is 0% - commission. Based on that crude observation - unless you can prove to yourself that you are better than average - you should aim at reducing commissions paid to your broker as much as possible through: * 51% and 110% are not random numbers, they correspond to the results of the top 15% (professional) managers in a research paper using a sample of 215 funds managing $150bn.\",\n \"Assuming you have no new cash to add to your account as gyurisc has suggested, I wouldn't sweat the small amounts – it doesn't hurt to have a little cash sit idle, even if you want to theoretically be fully invested (the wisdom of doing that, or not, perhaps worthy of another question :-) If you try too hard to invest the small amounts frequently, you're likely to get killed on fees. My strategy (if you could call it that) is to simply let small amounts accumulate until there's enough to buy more shares without paying too much commission. For instance, I don't like fees to be more than 1% of the shares purchased, so with a $10 commission per trade, I prefer to make minimum $1000 purchases. I used to roll small amounts of cash into a no-load money market fund I could buy without commission, and then purchase shares when I hit the threshold, but even putting the cash in a money market fund isn't worth the hassle today with rates of return from money market funds being close to zero.\",\n \"You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.\",\n \"\\\"Plenty! Following are just a few: For things like RESP and RRSP which have an \\\"\\\"end\\\"\\\" date; as you or your children age, you should be migrating to less speculative investments and more secure ones. When children are young, for example, you might be in a \\\"\\\"growth\\\"\\\" type fund. Later on, you would likely want to switch that to an \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" fund, which is also more conservative and less likely to lose principal. Are you getting the best benefit from your credit cards? Is there another card with benefits that you would get more \\\"\\\"back\\\"\\\" from using? Is that fee-based Air miles card worth it? Is cash-back better for you? If you have regular investment withdrawals, can you increase them? Do you like the plan they are going in to? Similarly look over any other long-term debt repayment. Student loans, car loans, mortgage. What is coming up this year, what is \\\"\\\"ending\\\"\\\". If, for example, car payment will end, how will you earmark that money, so it just does not disappear into general funds. While you could go over things like these more often, once a year should be plenty often to keep tabs and not obsess. Good Luck!\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \\\"\\\"total stock market\\\"\\\" fund and a \\\"\\\"total bond fund\\\"\\\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \\\"\\\"international fund.\\\"\\\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\\\"\",\n \"The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.\",\n \"If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.\",\n \"Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here. The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions. That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc. A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees.\",\n \"This depends on the terms and conditions of your IRA account, and those of the investments you have chosen. In general, you are better off investing as quickly as is feasible given those terms. Money in your cash account doesn't earn much of a return, so the quicker you get money into something earning a return, the better. However, pay attention to the fees and costs associated with investing. If there is a per-transaction fee, you may want to consolidate, as it may be more efficient to do so - after all, if you contribute $500 at a shot, and it costs you $5 to make a trade, you're paying 1% off the top to make that trade if you make 11 of them, versus 0.1% to make 1, so the question is do you earn that 1% back over the course of the six months? That will depend on what you are investing in. More than likely you're going to earn more than 1% over the course of the six months, so it's probably worth investing it in pieces still in that situation, but if the transaction cost is higher, or the time differential lower, you may have a less clear-cut answer. I invest at Vanguard in their funds and have no transaction fees, so I have a more obvious answer (invest as soon as possible). You also need to consider whether you have minimums to pay attention to - maybe your investment is something you can only buy whole shares of, for example, or you might have a much higher fee if you make small transactions. In that case, you should wait until you have the minimum to make that transaction if the fee is more than the return you'll get. So the answer is - make the transactions as early as you can, subject to considering the fees you will pay for making them.\",\n \"That depends whether you're betting on the market going up, or down, during the year. If you don't like to bet (and I don't), you can take advantage of dollar cost averaging by splitting it up into smaller contributions throughout the year.\",\n \"If you know with 100% certainty what the market will do, then invest it all at the best time. If not, spread it out over time to avoid investing it all at the worst possible time.\",\n \"I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.\",\n \"I buy or sell a few shares whenever I have a small amount of money to transfer into out of my mutual funds. Since I'm not paying transaction fees, there is no reason not to, when that is what makes sense. If you are paying a fee for each transaction, of course it makes sense to try to wait until you have a larger amount to move so the overhead per share is lower.\",\n \"The two biggest issues that impact your question I would say are diversification and fees. If you have $10,000 to invest and only invest it in two securities, then a 20% drop in one security can have you lose 10% of your initial investment which I would consider a very high risk scenario. If you have $10,000 to invest and invest it in 20 securities, then a 20% drop in one security would only cause you to lose 1% of your initial investment. So far this is looking better from a diversification point of view. But then the issue of fees comes in. If you paid $10 per trade to buy those 20 securities you already spent 2% of your initial investment in fees! Not to mention you will pay at least another $200 to get out of all those positions. No right answer - but those are the two factors I always try to balance.\",\n \"Daily > Weekly > Monthly. This statement says that if you use daily returns you will get more noise than if you used weekly or monthly returns. Much of the research performed uses monthly returns, although weekly returns have been used as well. For HFT you would need to detrend the data in order to spot true turning points.\",\n \"It's important to remember that upward trending things spend the vast majority of their time at all time highs - intelligent, well meaning people have been regularly saying the Dow Jones has been too expensive since about 2010, often because it was now at 'all time highs': Sitting on the sidelines can end up just as expensive (if not more so) than avoiding big drops. If you are worried about a large down swing straight after investing just drip it in over a period you feel comfortable with - no one can really answer this better than that without more info on your risk tolerance and exactly what you want to invest in. Worth noting that buying anything other than transaction free funds when split into small transactions also adds a lot more fees (~£10 entry and exit in a UK ISA for example). Split these over 12 months say, and it will cost you £240 straight out of the gate (2 fund purchases per month for 12 months @£10 each) and another £240 to exit before any holding fees from the ISA platform: that's over 1% of your capital gone just to your stockbroker employing this strategy. Both the products you mention are also quite high cost in ongoing charges, so unless you have very high convictions about the management quality, will also probably lag cheaper investment types over the long run as well due to the dire performance of virtually all higher cost, active management over time.\",\n \"The fee representing the expense ratio is charged as long as you hold the investment. It is deducted daily from the fund assets, and thus reduces the price per share (NAV per share) that is calculated each day after the markets close. The investment fee is charged only when you make an investment in the fund. So, invest in the fund in one swell foop (all $5500 or $6500 for older people, all invested in a single transaction) rather than make monthly investments into the fund (hold the money in a money-market within your Roth IRA if need be). But, do check if there are back-end loads or 12b1 fees associated with the fund. The former often disappear after a few years; the latter are another permanent drain on performance. Also, please check whether reinvestment of dividends and capital gains incur the $75 transaction fee.\",\n \"\\\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \\\"\\\"growth rate\\\"\\\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\\\"\",\n \"Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.\",\n \"\\\"I up voted JoeTaxpayer but i would like add a couple of things. Dollar Cost averaging over a 5 day period is in no way practical. If you get a 1% swing in that time that would be quite a lot. Personally I think 5 years is way to long. When markets go down they go down fast. I would suggest 1 to 2 years investing quarterly. I would hate seeing you miss out on market gains for a 5 year period on the last of your money. The whole point of Dollar Cost averaging instead of market timing is the mantra \\\"\\\"Its about time in the market not timing the market\\\"\\\" So if you have money on the sidelines for years you are missing out on your time in the market.\\\"\",\n \"In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.\",\n \"Although the market discussion by other answers is correct, the tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy. However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way. If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction.\",\n \"The goal of the kelly criterion strategy is to find a balance between preservation of starting capital and returns. One of extreme you could bet the entirety of your account on one trade, which would maximize your returns if you win, but leave you unable to further invest if you lose. On the other extreme, you could bet the smallest amount of capital possible over the course of several trades to increase the probability that you'll even out to 70% accuracy over time. But this method would be extremely slow. So for your case, investing 40% each time is one way to find an optimal balance between these two extremes. Use this as a rule of thumb though, because your own situation and investing goals may differ from the goal of optimal growth.\",\n \"First off, I think you are on the right path not paying 3% to a broker; that sort of fee reduces the money you earn significantly in the long term. For your fund investing approach, 10 funds seems like a lot; one of the point of funds is that they are diversified, so I would expect that the 10th fund would give relatively little diversification over the other 9. I would think about targeting only 5 funds. To invest in the funds, rather than trying to invest in all funds every month, put all of the money into a single fund, and rotate the fund month to month. That reduces your transaction costs significantly.\",\n \"\\\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \\\"\\\"quiesced\\\"\\\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \\\"\\\"wash sales\\\"\\\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\\\"\",\n \"Canadian Couch Potato has an article which is somewhat related. Ask the Spud: Can You Time the Markets? The argument roughly boils down to the following: That said, I didn't follow the advice. I inherited a sum of money, more than I had dealt with before, and I did not feel I was emotionally capable of immediately dumping it into my portfolio (Canadian stocks, US stocks, world stocks, Canadian bonds, all passive indexed mutual funds), and so I decided to add the money into my portfolio over the course of a year, twice a month. The money that I had not yet invested, I put into a money market account. That worked for me because I was purchasing mutual funds with no transaction costs. If you are buying ETFs, this strategy makes less sense. In hindsight, this was not financially prudent; I'd have been financially better off to buy all the mutual funds right at the beginning. But I was satisfied with the tradeoff, knowing that I did not have hindsight and I would have been emotionally hurt had the stock market crashed. There must be research that would prove, based on past performance, the statistically optimal time frame for dollar-cost averaging. However, I strongly suppose that the time frame is rather small, and so I would advise that you either invest the money immediately, or dollar-cost average your investment over the course of the year. This answer is not an ideal answer to your question because it is lacking such a citation.\",\n \"As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.\",\n \"It varies. Depending on your brokerage, they may charge you per transaction, so the more transactions, the higher the cost. Though this (from what I've seen), is uncommon with many index funds. In terms of how aggressive you want to be with your investment varies on your comfort with risk, timeline of investment and many other factors beyond the scope of this question. The biggest issue you may need to be aware of is if you are looking at mutual funds, they may have minimum investments. Depending on what that minimum investment is set to, you may not be able to split your $5500 into more than one fund. A lot of this comes down to the specific funds in which your are anticipating investing, as well as the service you use to do so (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc). Ultimately, diversification can be a lot safer, but there are logistics to consider. Personally, I began with a target fund (a mutual fund with adjusted risk based on the estimated year of retirement) and add additional mutual funds, stocks and ETFs as time goes on.\",\n \"\\\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \\\"\\\"invest in knowledge\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Previously (prior to Capital One acquisition -- it's kind of like K-Mart buying Sears) Sharebuilder offered 12 automatic (i.e. pre-scheduled) stock purchases per month if you subscribed to their $12/mo \\\"\\\"Advantage\\\"\\\" plan. So, 12 trades for $1 a trade. Great deal. Except then they flattened their pricing to everyone's acclaim (that is, everyone except for the non-millionaire casual investors) and jacked it up to $4 per automatic investment. As far as I know, Sharebuilder's 12 no-fee investments for $12/mo was rather unique in the online trading world -- and now it's very sadly extinct. They do have no-fee mutual fund investing, however, for what it's worth.\\\"\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.\",\n \"Katherine from Betterment here. I wanted to address your inquiry and another comment regarding our services. I agree with JAGAnalyst - it's detrimental to your returns and potential for growth if you try to time the market. That's why Betterment offers customized asset allocation for each portfolio based on the nature of your goal, time horizon, and how much you are able to put towards your investments. We do this so regardless of what's happening in the markets, you can feel comfortable that your asset allocation plus other determining factors will get you where you need to go, without having to time your investing. We also put out quite a bit of content regarding market timing and why we think it's an unwise practice. We believe continuously depositing to your goal, especially through auto-deposits, compounding returns, tax-efficient auto-rebalancing, and reinvesting dividends are the best ways to grow your assets. Let me know if you would like additional information regarding Betterment accounts and our best practices. I am available at buck@betterment.com and am always happy to speak about Betterment's services. Katherine Buck, Betterment Community Manager\",\n \"I do the same thing with my 401k (100% S&P 500). My strategy is to check it weekly. If the S&P falls by 10%-20% (based on risk tolerance, currently mine is 19%). I'll move all of it out into cash until I see 3-consecutive months of gains, then I'll get back in. I don't have a lot of time to manage my investments, and this was the simplest strategy I've come up with so far. It served me very well in the 2008 crash. I got out around 120 and returned to the S&P on 2009-06-29 around 90.\",\n \"\\\"In many cases the expenses are not pulled out on a specific day, so this wouldn't work. On the other hand some funds do charge an annual or quarterly fee if your investment in the fund is larger than the minimum but lower than a \\\"\\\"small balance\\\"\\\" value. Many funds will reduce or eliminate this fee if you signup for electronic forms or other electronic services. Some will also eliminate the fee if the total investment in all your funds is above a certain level. For retirement funds what you suggest could be made more complex because of annual limits. Though if you were below the limits you could decide to add the extra funds to cover those expenses as the end of the year approached.\\\"\",\n \"which is a better way to structure a SIP, This is no one way better than other. SIP as you already know offers advantages in terms of averaging costs. Given that transaction costs are same, averaging daily would be better from law of averages point of view. The only flip side to doing it daily is tracking, i.e. your Bank Statement is going to look horrible, recon as to what and how much got purchased will be horrendous. Further tracking liquidity could be an issue unless you use segregated accounts. i.e. you don't know how done you are with your investments. On monthly this is more easy, once you get salary and get investments and other mandatory payments out of way, you know what you have in the account for rest of the month. In the end I would put this more of convenience than anything else.\",\n \"Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months\",\n \"Here are my re-run figures. Not counting capital gains taxes, I calculate you need to be making 1.875% per annum or 0.155% per month on your $8,000 investment to break-even on the loan. It's interesting that the return you need to gain to break-even is less than the interest you're paying, even with commission. It happens because the investment is gaining a return on an increasing amount while the load is accruing interest on a decreasing amount. Ref. r, logarithmic return\",\n \"You're completely missing the most important thing you can do: minimize fees.\",\n \"It would depend on a) Ones view on Markets and b) Ones nature. If one believes that the market would be going up in the near future then it would be best to buy all at once. If one believes the market is uncertain, it would make sense to invest over a period of time. If one is a disciplined investor and can stick to plan, it would make sense to invest over a period of time as the risk is generally less. How much less is again subjective. If one is not a disciplined investor then buying now and getting done with is a good idea. As to exactly quantifying this is absolute number for future would not be possible. One can take the data from past, however it would work advantages if the prices moves up and disadvantages if the price moves down.\",\n \"There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation).\",\n \"\\\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \\\"\\\"long term\\\"\\\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \\\"\\\"momentum\\\"\\\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \\\"\\\"daily rebalancing\\\"\\\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \\\"\\\"real world\\\"\\\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\\\"\",\n \"My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.\",\n \"\\\"The high frequency trading you reference has no adverse impact on individual investors - at least not in the \\\"\\\"going to take advantage of you\\\"\\\" way that many articles imply. If anything, high-frequency trading is generally more helpful than harmful, adding liquidity to the system, although it can cause some volatility and \\\"\\\"noise\\\"\\\" in volume and other data, and the sudden entrance or exit of this type of trading can drive some abnormal market movements. As to research and time needed for trading, most data suggests that the less you try to \\\"\\\"beat the market\\\"\\\", the better you'll do. Trade activity tends to be inversely related to returns, particularly for individuals. Your best bet is likely to learn enough about investment risks to ensure you're comfortable with them, and invest in broadly diversified asset classes, regions, and sectors, and then mostly leave them alone, or rebalance annually. You'll almost surely do a lot better that way than you will if you spend countless hours researching the \\\"\\\"right\\\"\\\" stocks to buy.\\\"\",\n \"You will maximize your expected wealth by investing all the money you intend to invest, as soon as you have it available. Don't let the mythos of dollar cost averaging induce you to allocate more much money to a savings account than is optimal. If you want the positive expected return of the market, don't put your money in a savings account. That's especially true now, when you are certainly earning a negative real interest rate on your savings account. Dollar cost averaging and putting all your money in at the beginning would have the same expected return except that if you put all your money in earlier, it spends more time in the market, so your expected return is higher. Your volatility is also higher (because your savings account would have very low volatility) but your preference for investment tells me that you view the expected return and volatility tradeoff of the stock market as acceptable. If you need something to help you feel less stress about investing right away, think of it as dollar cost averaging on a yearly basis instead of monthly. Further, you take take comfort in knowing that you have allocated your wealth as you can instead of letting it fizzle away in real terms in a bank account.\",\n \"That doesn't sound like dollar cost averaging. That sounds like a form of day trading. Dollar cost averaging is how most people add money to their 401K, or how they add money to some IRA accounts. You are proposing a form of day trading.\",\n \"Your edit indicates that you may not yet be ready to get heavily involved in investing. I say this because it seems you are not very familiar with foundational finance/investing concepts. The returns that you are seeing as 'yearly' are just the reported earnings every 12 months, which all public companies must publish. Those 'returns' are not the same as the earnings of individual investors (which will be on the basis of dividends paid by the company [which are often annual, sometimes semi-annual, and sometimes quarterly], and by selling shares purchased previously. Note that over 3 months time, investing in interest-earning investments [like bank deposits] will earn you something like 0.5%. Investing in the stock market will earn you something like 2% (but with generally higher risk than investing in something earning interest). If you expect to earn significant amounts of money in only 3 months, you will not be able to without taking on extreme levels of risk [risk as high as going to a casino]. Safe investing takes time - years. In the short term, the best thing you can do to earn money is by earning more [through a better job, or a second part-time job], or spending less [budget, pay down high interest debt, and spend less than you earn]. I highly recommend you look through this site for more budgeting questions on how to get control of your finances. If you feel that doesn't apply to you, I encourage you to do a lot more research on investing before you send your money somewhere - you could be taking on more risk than you realize, if you are not properly informed.\",\n \"DCA is not 10%/day over 10 days. If I read the objective correctly, I'd suggest about a 5 year plan. It's difficult to avoid the issue of market timing. And any observation I'd make about the relative valuation of the market would be opinion. By this I mean, some are saying that PE/10 which Nobel prize winner Robert Schiller made well known, if not popular, shows we are pretty high. Others are suggesting the current PE is appropriate given the near zero rate of borrowing. Your income puts long term gains at zero under current tax code. Short term are at your marginal rate. I would caution not to let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The fellow that makes too many buy/sell decisions based on his taxes is likely to lag he who followed his overall allocation goals.\",\n \"According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.\",\n \"Sad part is that you aren't going to make meaningful gains with small account like that unless you are putting everything into one stock and trying to squeeze out 10% gains each trade. At this point, your main focus contributing money into the account regularly. You will be able to trade more frequently as you get more money into the account.\",\n \"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.\",\n \"From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:\",\n \"The investment return for a given strategy is directly proportional to the amount invested. Invest twice as much, profit (or lose) twice as much. It's a straight multiplier. However, there are some strategies which are less risky with a larger investment, and some investments which have a minimum unit of purchase that puts them out of reach of smaller investors.\",\n \"Theoretically, it could be daily, but depending upon the number of companies in the index, it could be anywhere between daily or once a month or so. Apart from that, there is a periodic index review that happens once every quarter. The methodology for each index is also different, and you need to be aware of it (we had positions on literally hundreds of indices, and I knew the methodology of almost each of them). If you have say, 2 billion dollars tracking a certain index, even a miniscule change in the composition would be substantial for you. But for certain others, you may just need to buy and sell $10k worth of stocks, and we would not even bother.\",\n \"Its best to dollar cost average adding say 5%-10% a quarter into the fund. That's what Clark Howard would suggest. Also make sure you do not need the money for 5 years, then you should be okay. Its tough to lose money if you keep your money there for a long period of time.\",\n \"\\\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \\\"\\\"buy low, sell high\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the \\\"\\\"buy low\\\"\\\" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)\\\"\",\n \"I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)\",\n \"If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction.\",\n \"There is no reason to ever do DCA. You'll notice that no asset managers would ever dream of it. You should invest your money as soon as you get it. Throughout history, this is the utility maximizing choice. The market rises on average. Why would you keep money out of it?\",\n \"\\\"Random deposits are a bit like playing the lotery - especially if one is frequently chasing \\\"\\\"hot tips\\\"\\\". You might make it big, but the odds are vastly against you. \\\"\\\"Random\\\"\\\" deposits into various investments won't be optimal, because such \\\"\\\"random\\\"\\\" decisions will not be properly diversified and balanced. Various investments have different rates of risk and return. \\\"\\\"Random\\\"\\\" deposits will not take this into account for an individual's personal situation. In addition to needing to research individual investments as they are made, investments also need to be considered as part of a whole financial picture. A few considerations for example: Simply put, random isn't a financial strategy.\\\"\",\n \"Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.\",\n \"I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.\",\n \"There is a basis for that if you consider the power of compounding. So, the sooner you re-invest the dividends the sooner the time will give you results (through compounding). There is also the case of the commissions, if they are paid with a percentage of the amount invested they automatically gain more from you. Just my 2cents, though the other answers are probably more complete.\",\n \"Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively.\",\n \"If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.\",\n \"One implication is the added fees if you are investing in something with a trading cost or commission, such as your stock purchase. If you pay low costs to trade (e.g. with a discount broker) and don't switch your investments often, then costs overall should remain reasonable .. but always be aware of your costs and seek to minimize them.\",\n \"\\\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \\\"\\\"inner\\\"\\\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Essentially, your question is \\\"\\\"lump sum vs DCA\\\"\\\" and your tags reflect that. In the long run, lump sum, say a Jan 2 deposit each year, will beat DCA by about 1/2 the average annual market return. $12,000 will see a 10% return, vs, $1,000/month over the year seeing 6%. What hurts is when the market tanks in the first half of the year and you think DCA would have helped. This is a 'feeling' issue, not a math problem. But. By the time you have $100K invested, the difference of DCA vs lump sum with new money fades, as new deposits are small compared to the funds invested. By then, you need to know your target allocation and deposit to keep that allocation with new money.\\\"\",\n \"True, but the number of investors who are successful with this strategy is negligible. You are basically just trading return for volatility. A well built portfolio will be better than trying to time the market, at least historically.\",\n \"If you want to invest in the stock market, whether over a shorter period of 1 to 2 years or over a longer period of 10 or 20 years or longer you need to take some precautions and have a written investment plan with a risk management strategy incorporated in your plan. Others have said that 1 to 2 years is too short to invest in the stock market as the stock market can have a correction and fall by 50%. But it doesn't matter if you invest for 1 year or if you invest for 50 years, the stock market can still fall by 50% just before you plan to withdraw your funds. What you need to figure out is a way to get out before the market falls by 40% to 50%. A simple way to do this is to use technical indicators to warn you when a market trend is starting to change and that it is time to get out of the market. Two simple indicators you can use on a market index are the Rate of Change (ROC) indicator and the 100 week Moving Average (MA). Below is a 10 year weekly chart of the S&P500 with these two indicators charted. They show good times to get into the market and good times to get out. If you are using the 100 week MA you would buy in when the price crosses above the MA line and sell when the price crosses below the MA line. If you are using the ROC indicator you would buy in when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. So your investment plan could be to buy an Index ETF representing the S&P500 when the ROC moves above zero and sell when it crosses below zero. You can also place a trailing stop loss of 10% to protect you in case of a sudden fall over a couple of days. You can manage your investments in as little as 10 minutes per week by checking the chart once per week and adjusting your stop loss order. If you want to progressively add to your investment each month you could check the charts and only add any new funds if both the ROC is above zero and sloping upwards. Another option for adding new funds could be if the price is above the MA and moving further away from the MA. All these rules should be incorporated into your investment plan so that you are not basing your decisions based on emotions. There are many other Technical Analysis Indicators you could also learn about to make better educated decisions about your stock market investments. However, what I have provided here is enough for anyone to test over different indexes and time frames and do their own paper trading on to gain some confidence before placing any real money on the table.\",\n \"If your investment returns are the main variable you use to determine if your advisor is doing a good job you are using his or her services incorrectly Also, if you are using a good advisor, he or she needs to know how your investments are doing, not you. However, my thoughts are based on the idea that you can't go it alone. If you are not among the people concerned about the market, waiting for the market to go down 'so you can find a better buying opportunity', or making one of many other novice mistakes, I'm not speaking directly to you with my comments.\",\n \"The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.\",\n \"If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. Also, CMC Markets charges $11 commission up to $10,000 trade. This is actually quite a low fee - based on your $7,000, $22 for in and out of a position would be less than 0.32% (of course you might want to buy into more than one company - so your brokerage would be slightly higher). Still this is way lower than full service brokerage which could be $100 or more in and then again out again. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first.\",\n \"The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.\",\n \"\\\"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to \\\"\\\"sell high buy low\\\"\\\" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just \\\"\\\"dollar cost averaging\\\"\\\" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run).\\\"\",\n \"A general rule of thumb is to avoid having more than 5% of your investments in any single stock, to avoid excessive risk; it's usually even more risky if you're talking company stock because an adverse event could result in an inferior stock price and you getting laid off. Under other circumstances, the ideal amount of company stock is probably 0%. But there are tax benefits to waiting, as you've noted, and if you're reasonably confident that the stock isn't likely to jerk around too much, and you have a high risk tolerance (i.e. lots of extra savings besides this), and you're comfortable shouldering the risk of losing some money, it might make sense to hold onto the stock for a year - but never any longer. The real risk to holding a lot of company stock doesn't depend on how often you buy it and sell it per se, but having period purchases every month should make it easier for you to ladder the funds, and regularly sell your old shares as you purchase new shares. You might also consider a stop-loss order on the stock at or near the price you purchased it at. If the stock is at $100, then you buy at $85, and then the stock drops to $85, there are no more outstanding tax benefits and it makes no sense to have it as part of your portfolio instead of any other speculative instrument - you probably get better diversification benefits with any other speculative instrument, so your risk-adjusted returns would be higher.\",\n \"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.\",\n \"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.\",\n \"You shouldn't. The Dow has gained 7% annually on average since October 1915(inflation-adjusted). It has also lost 73% of its inflation-adjusted value from 1966 to 1982 meaning that it would have lost you 4.5% annually for 16 years. Furthermore, past performance is not indicative of future results. If stock markets keep performing like they have for the past 100 years, you can expect there will be a point within the next 60-or-so years your stocks will be higher in value than they were when you bought them. With funds you are paying the people managing them which means you are guaranteed to have pyramiding losses that your gains will have to offset. In your case, you are betting with no fundamental knowledge that S&P will be higher than now whenever you need the money which is not even supported by the above assumption. Dollar averaging just means you will be placing many bets which will reduce your expected losses(and your expected gains) when compared to just buying $100K worth of S&P right now. Whatever you invest in, and whatever your time-frame, don't gamble. If you can't say this company(ies) will be $X more valuable than now in X months with probability > Y, then you shouldn't be investing in it. Nobody ever made money by losing money. There are also safer investments than the stock market, like treasury bonds, even if the returns are lousy.\",\n \"You will be hit every time, once every buy order and once every sell order. Commissions to the broker are paid every time they do something for you. This is true regardless if it is a security in which you are already invested. It is true regardless if you make or lose money. It is just as sure as death and taxes.\",\n \"Every time you buy or sell a share for some price, somebody must have thought that that was exactly the right moment to sell or buy that share at that price (and to trade with you). Every time a trade is made, both sides think they are doing the smart thing. Most of the time, one will turn out to be wrong, the other right. Nothing in your proposed method of trading explains why you would be the side that was right more often. So they'll probably even out. Or maybe there are people in the market who actually do have a slightly better than average method, and you'll be wrong somewhat more often than right. Each trade has transaction costs. If you simply hang on to your shares, that's more or less the same as evening out good trades and bad trades, but without the transaction costs.\",\n \"There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia. First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this. Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns. Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features\",\n \"It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount. In either case, your calculation is far away from reality. Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice.\",\n \"Deposit $3,500 each month in a brokerage account and invest that money across a handful of diversified index funds. Rebalance those investments every quarter. The hard part is coming up with $3,500 each month; this is where your budget comes in.\",\n \"You're contributing 98.2% of your contributed amount (deducting 1.8%) each month and at the end of the year, deducting a flat 15 pounds. The easiest way to do this is to use a spreadsheet. But you're missing some key information. What is your expected growth rate and what is your expected inflation rate? Is this a taxable account where you deduct (for example, 35%) of the growth annually for taxes or is this a non-taxable account?\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Okay, I think I managed to find the precise answer to this problem! It involves solving a non-linear exponential equation, but I also found a good approximate solution using the truncated Taylor series. See below for a spreadsheet you can use. Let's start by defining the growth factors per period, for money in the bank and money invested: Now, let S be the amount ready to be invested after n+1 periods; so the first of that money has earned interest for n periods. That is, The key step to solve the problem was to fix the total number of periods considered. So let's introduce a new variable: t = the total number of time periods elapsed So if money is ready to invest every n+1 periods, there will be t/(n+1) separate investments, and the future value of the investments will be: This formula is exact in the case of integer t and n, and a good approximation when t and n are not integers. Substituting S, we get the version of the formula which explicitly depends on n: Fortunately, only a couple of terms in FV depend on n, so we can find the derivative after some effort: Equating the derivative to zero, we can remove the denominator, and assuming t is greater than zero, we can divide by the constant ( 1-G t ): To simplify the equation, we can define some extra constants: Then, we can define a function f(n) and write the equation as: Note that α, β, γ, G, and R are all constant. From here there are two options: Use Newton's method or another numerical method for finding the positive root of f(n). This can be done in a number of software packages like MATLAB, Octave, etc, or by using a graphics calculator. Solve approximately using a truncated Taylor series polynomial. I will use this method here. The Taylor series of f(n), centred around n=0, is: Truncating the series to the first three terms, we get a quadratic polynomial (with constant coefficients): Using R, G, α, β and γ defined above, let c0, c1 and c2 be the coefficients of the truncated Taylor series for f(n): Then, n should be rounded to the nearest whole number. To be certain, check the values above and below n using the formula for FV. Using the example from the question: For example, I might put aside $100 every week to invest into a stock with an expected growth of 9% p.a., but brokerage fees are $10/trade. For how many weeks should I accumulate the $100 before investing, if I can put it in my high-interest bank account at 4% p.a. until then? Using Newton's method to find roots of f(n) above, we get n = 14.004. Using the closed-form approximate solution, we get n = 14.082. Checking this against the FV with t = 1680 (evenly divisible by each n + 1 tested): Therefore, you should wait for n = 14 periods, keeping that money in the bank, investing it together with the money in the next period (so you will make an investment every 14 + 1 = 15 weeks.) Here's one way to implement the above solution with a spreadsheet. StackExchange doesn't allow tables in their syntax at this time, so I'll show a screenshot of the formulae and columns you can copy and paste: Formulae: Copy and paste column A: Copy and paste column B: Results: Remember, n is the number of periods to accumulate money in the bank. So you will want to invest every n+1 weeks; in this case, every 15 weeks.","\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\""],"string":"[\n \"Okay, I think I managed to find the precise answer to this problem! It involves solving a non-linear exponential equation, but I also found a good approximate solution using the truncated Taylor series. See below for a spreadsheet you can use. Let's start by defining the growth factors per period, for money in the bank and money invested: Now, let S be the amount ready to be invested after n+1 periods; so the first of that money has earned interest for n periods. That is, The key step to solve the problem was to fix the total number of periods considered. So let's introduce a new variable: t = the total number of time periods elapsed So if money is ready to invest every n+1 periods, there will be t/(n+1) separate investments, and the future value of the investments will be: This formula is exact in the case of integer t and n, and a good approximation when t and n are not integers. Substituting S, we get the version of the formula which explicitly depends on n: Fortunately, only a couple of terms in FV depend on n, so we can find the derivative after some effort: Equating the derivative to zero, we can remove the denominator, and assuming t is greater than zero, we can divide by the constant ( 1-G t ): To simplify the equation, we can define some extra constants: Then, we can define a function f(n) and write the equation as: Note that α, β, γ, G, and R are all constant. From here there are two options: Use Newton's method or another numerical method for finding the positive root of f(n). This can be done in a number of software packages like MATLAB, Octave, etc, or by using a graphics calculator. Solve approximately using a truncated Taylor series polynomial. I will use this method here. The Taylor series of f(n), centred around n=0, is: Truncating the series to the first three terms, we get a quadratic polynomial (with constant coefficients): Using R, G, α, β and γ defined above, let c0, c1 and c2 be the coefficients of the truncated Taylor series for f(n): Then, n should be rounded to the nearest whole number. To be certain, check the values above and below n using the formula for FV. Using the example from the question: For example, I might put aside $100 every week to invest into a stock with an expected growth of 9% p.a., but brokerage fees are $10/trade. For how many weeks should I accumulate the $100 before investing, if I can put it in my high-interest bank account at 4% p.a. until then? Using Newton's method to find roots of f(n) above, we get n = 14.004. Using the closed-form approximate solution, we get n = 14.082. Checking this against the FV with t = 1680 (evenly divisible by each n + 1 tested): Therefore, you should wait for n = 14 periods, keeping that money in the bank, investing it together with the money in the next period (so you will make an investment every 14 + 1 = 15 weeks.) Here's one way to implement the above solution with a spreadsheet. StackExchange doesn't allow tables in their syntax at this time, so I'll show a screenshot of the formulae and columns you can copy and paste: Formulae: Copy and paste column A: Copy and paste column B: Results: Remember, n is the number of periods to accumulate money in the bank. So you will want to invest every n+1 weeks; in this case, every 15 weeks.\",\n \"\\\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \\\"\\\"growth rate\\\"\\\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\\\"\"\n]"}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":2,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":500,"offset":200,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc2MjM5NzExNywic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL0NvbnRleHR1YWxBSS9maXFhMjAxOCIsImV4cCI6MTc2MjQwMDcxNywiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9odWdnaW5nZmFjZS5jbyJ9.wq48Npsszon30ffdyRD808Ds0pFmg2IHrrteHWtXKRmBfYY9pWDRy5yRJCiyvIvR68212QI4RSv10u2DqSh2BA","displayUrls":true,"sqlConsoleEnabled":true},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":0,"total":0},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
_id
stringlengths 1
5
| query
stringlengths 16
147
| gt_ids
listlengths 1
15
| gt_qrels
listlengths 1
15
| candidate_ids
listlengths 100
100
| candidate_docs
listlengths 100
100
| gt_docs
listlengths 1
15
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2587
|
Typically how many digits are in a cheque number?
|
[
"89326"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"89326",
"143677",
"537068",
"161088",
"372787",
"450812",
"471782",
"281529",
"377853",
"244362",
"448796",
"518079",
"88952",
"45519",
"11716",
"42353",
"572951",
"115702",
"233781",
"354103",
"522669",
"282517",
"558237",
"106161",
"220691",
"5856",
"66058",
"517428",
"573874",
"379732",
"482503",
"552216",
"34609",
"135196",
"446807",
"280699",
"552346",
"223645",
"451969",
"293122",
"361279",
"420314",
"127353",
"250285",
"176844",
"351450",
"8854",
"381813",
"93451",
"229546",
"270642",
"439540",
"137418",
"519088",
"120609",
"519133",
"402581",
"554518",
"165099",
"450009",
"277208",
"231767",
"594483",
"25397",
"143730",
"349554",
"39720",
"284694",
"498888",
"50381",
"324717",
"264263",
"494783",
"190606",
"165397",
"467509",
"319786",
"450600",
"215458",
"365462",
"511480",
"531192",
"487576",
"145232",
"16774",
"186671",
"514687",
"292989",
"91388",
"306953",
"197862",
"471439",
"544949",
"431507",
"416216",
"247085",
"412084",
"349445",
"191925",
"340329"
] |
[
"Checks are normally numbered sequentially, to keep them unique for record-keeping purposes. The check number takes as many digits as it takes, depending on how long the account has been open and thus how many checks have been written. The most recent check I looked at had a four-digit number, but as has been pointed out businesses may run through thousands per year. I recommend storing this in an unsigned long or long-long, which will probably be comparable to the bank's own limits. I don't know whether there is an explicit maximum value; we would need to find someone who knows the banking standards to answer that.",
"For the clearing house, only the routing number and the check amount [which gets encoded before its presented to clearing] is important. The check numbers were put in as a fraud prevention mechanism to ensure that one check was only presented once and that it was issued to a particular account. Typically issued in sequence. So as your account is new, the bank may have a mechanism to verify the checks [maybe based on amount and other info]. If your volume of check issuing increases, they may start putting in a check number to better track.",
"Yes, those numbers are all that is needed to withdraw funds, or at least set online payment of bills which you don't owe. Donald Knuth also faced this problem, leading him to cease sending checks as payment for finding errors in his writings.",
"Some Canadian banks (RBC for instance), will accept the format No spaces, no slashes. Transit number must be five digits, if it's not add a 0 to the front. Just had a situation where the European-based system would not accept anything but an IBAN, so I called my bank and that's what they confirmed. I know this is super late, but thought I would leave it here for future generations to discover. Edit: See comments for an example.",
"The ABA number you speak of is more accurately called the Routing Transit Number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number A routing transit number (RTN) is a nine digit bank code, used in the United States, which appears on the bottom of negotiable instruments such as checks identifying the financial institution on which it was drawn. This code was designed to facilitate the sorting, bundling, and shipment of paper checks back to the drawer's (check writer's) account. The RTN is also used by Federal Reserve Banks to process Fedwire funds transfers, and by the Automated Clearing House to process direct deposits, bill payments, and other such automated transfers. The RTN number is derived from the bank's transit number originated by the American Bankers Association, which designed it in 1910.[1] I am going to assume that the euphemistic ABA Number has been shortened by whoever told you about it and called it the ABN. Perhaps American Bank Number. Either way, the technical term is RTN. Perhaps a comment or editor can straighten me out about the ABN. There is an international number known as the SWIFT number that serves the same purpose worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9362 ISO 9362 (also known as SWIFT-BIC, BIC code, SWIFT ID or SWIFT code) defines a standard format of Business Identifier Codes approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It is a unique identification code for both financial and non-financial institutions.[1] The acronym SWIFT stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. When assigned to a non-financial institution, the code may also be known as a Business Entity Identifier or BEI. These codes are used when transferring money between banks, particularly for international wire transfers, and also for the exchange of other messages between banks. The codes can sometimes be found on account statements.",
"MICR fields are defined by their distance to the right edge of the check. The routing number is always the same distance from the right edge. Business checks are longer and have more room for auxiliary information on the left if the bank chooses to use it.",
"This is a standard check. To complete the order, I need to enter the bank routing number, my account number, name address, and phone, if I wish. The name of the bank is required for the order, but does not appear on the printed check. For checks you print, this will be no different. It's your name, and address, not the bank's, that goes on the check.",
"Account number are Unique based on the following combinations, based on manual banking practise of early days; -Country -Bank -Branch -Location -Account Number -Currency -Account Type [Savings, Checking] With the current computerization, there are quite a few items that have been coded into the number, for example Branch, Currency, Account Number and Account Type are part of account number. Overall there are some attempts to standardize the account number so that they can be unique across the world as described as littleadv.",
"Even where national law might allow such a practice, the law in an individual province or state (either for issuing or receiving bank) might not; or if that does then the receiving bank may have its own regulations or compliance practice which may not permit them to accept an altered cheque. In any case, printed numbers are usually machine-readable, and a corrected cheque would not be. The question needs a specific answer which addresses the specific circumstances involved (which are not stated, at the time of writing this), but for the general question “Should I alter a printed cheque?” the answer must be no. Cheque numbers are used for identification of the cheque. In many cases, there is no verification of uniqueness and it would be perfectly acceptable simply to use cheques with duplicate numbers: a cheque is merely an order to the bank to make a payment. But you would not be able to identify a particular payment on your statement, and neither would the issuing bank if you wanted one stopped. Where the number is verified as unique, then clearing the payment may be refused or at best delayed in order to be queried. Making an obvious amendment to a cheque’s details is likely to raise a red flag. The receiving bank would not be able to tell if you did it, or the payee; they would not know why. They may suspect that it was done in order to render the cheque unidentifiable [even though the opposite is in fact the case] and refuse to accept it. They may refuse to accept it because it could not be read automatically. Any refusal would sour your relationship with your payees. Presumably your printing house (or your bank, if they printed them) has made the error: raise it with them and have them reprint the batch. Ask your bank what to do with the incorrect cheques: they may want them returned to the bank, or they may be happy for you to keep (and even use) them. If the latter, I suggest you shred them.",
"Within the bank or group of banks owned by the same company the account number is unique. What is unique is the bank id number and account number combination. If the bank ID number doesn't match a banking institution, the transaction will not be completed. If you are unlucky and your mistake in writing the bank id number does match a bank, you have to hope the account number doesn't match. The name's do not have to match. Checks have been deposited with incorrect spelling, nick names vs formal names. Mr. and Mrs ...",
"Well technically the Bank in Europe does not care about the Beneficiary Account Number [i.e. your Account number in Canada]. Use the format that is most commonly used in Canada. Generally if you quote with Bank/Branch identifiers it would be better.",
"\"Many years ago, I worked on software that had to print the date, payee, and amounts on pre-printed checks. Other than the MICR line (which had a particular placement with respect to the bottom edge and required a particular font in a particular point size), most aspects of the check layout and format were up to the particular check provider. Then there was a desire to start using optical character recognition to further automate check handling. A standard came out, that most checks I see now seem to follow. The standard dictated the exact dollar sign glyph to be printed to the left of the amount box. This glyph was used by the OCR to locate the amount. There were specific tolerances for where you could print/write the amount relative to that dollar sign. There were also some requirements for the box containing the amount to have some clearance from the noisy backgrounds pre-printed on many checks. But what font you used inside the amount box was, as far as I could tell, unspecified. After all, customers could always hand-write the amount. Interestingly, the part of the check where you spell out the amount is known as the \"\"legal amount.\"\" If the amount in numerals and the amount in words don't match, the spelled version takes precedence, legally. (The theory being that it's easier to doctor the numerals to change the apparent value of the check than it is to change the words.) I always found it ironic that the layout standard to enable OCR standard was focused on reading the numerals rather than the legal amount. OCR has come a long way since then, so I wouldn't be surprised if, nowadays, both amounts are read, even on hand-written checks. A little search shows that current (voluntary) standards are put out by the ANSI X9 group.\"",
"\"Although not required, #2 would work best if you used magnetic ink... That is an extra cost which you may or may not want to pay for. You can often get a free checking account and a free set of checks if you can meet the minimum requirements. This often means a higher average daily balance, direct deposit, or some combination of multiple requirements. The bank is taking a risk that a client meeting those minimum requirements while likely earn the bank more in fees and services than what they give out for \"\"free\"\" such as the account and checks. My wife and I opened a Wells Fargo checking account two years ago. Back then, we were able to open the account for free along with a free set of 250 checks. I think the requirement now requires $7,500 average daily balance.\"",
"I am assuming that you are referring to Personal Checks since you do not have a business account. Generally, your full name is the minimal requirement that is needed on the top left of each check. It is best if this information is pre-printed. In fact, some businesses and banks will not honor a check if your full name is handwritten on the check. This is for obvious reasons such as fraud.",
"Many businesses will request that you get a bank-issued check for large amounts of money. The exception is often in cases where you're not going anywhere: you can write a 50,000 check for a deposit on a new house, and you'll never have a problem, but a car dealer will probably request a counter check for the same sum.",
"In theory there is no limit to the value of a cheque that you can write. However, that doesn't mean the bank will honour it even if you have sufficient funds in your account - if it appears out of the ordinary, they may block it on suspicion of fraud or money laundering.",
"From personal experience, I can tell you that bank account numbers are not unique. Someone from another branch of my bank was able to withdraw money from my account at my branch because they had the same account number. You are supposed to enter your branch number on the withdrawal slip in front of your account number. The person who got my money did not do this. Because it was at my branch, the teller debited my account for the transaction. I caught this on my monthly statement and immediately complained to my branch manager. He was able to retrieve the withdrawal slip and saw what had happened. He credited my account and said he was going to talk to the teller who should have asked for the branch number and/or should have noticed that the name and address on the withdrawal slip did not match those on my account. I would not have thought that the bank would allow this situation considering how many numbers are available to assign but they did.",
"With number of Banks increasing every country at some point in time adopted an Identification code. In US these are called ABA number because they are allocated by American Bankers Association, in UK Sort Codes ... like wise for other countries. See list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_code In some countries the numbers are given by Central Bank. To enable internationl payments, the SWIFT body apart from message formats, allocated a SWIFT BIC [Bank identification Code] so that Banks can be globally identified. Currently IBAN being adopted in Europe & Australia to identify an Account [at a Bank] Uniquely across globe. In essence these number help uniquely identify a Location/Bank/Branch. The clearing house route the payments or collection instruments to the correct Bank on the basis of this number.",
"\"That's accurate. Here is another risk with the current checking system, which many people are not aware of: Anyone who knows your checking account number can learn what your balance in that account is. (This is bank-specific, but it is possible at the major banks I've checked.) How does that work? Many banks have a phone line where you can dial up and interact with an automated voice response system, for various customer service tasks. One of the options is something like \"\"merchant check verification\"\". That option is intended to help a merchant who receives a check to verify whether the person writing the check has enough money in their account for the check to clear. If you select that option in the phone tree, it will prompt you to enter in the account number on the check and the amount of the check, and then it will respond by telling you either \"\"there are currently sufficient funds in the account to cash this check\"\" or \"\"there are not sufficient funds; this check would bounce\"\". Here's how you can abuse this system to learn how much someone has in their bank account, if you know their account number. You call up and check whether they've enough money to cash a $10,000 check (note that you don't actually have to have a check for $10,000 in your hands; you just need to know the account number). If the system says \"\"nope, it'd bounce\"\", then you call again and try $5,000. If the system says \"\"yup, sufficient funds for a $5,000 check\"\", then you try $7,500. If it says \"\"nope, not enough for that\"\", you try $6,250. Etcetera. At each step, you narrow the range of possible account balances by a factor of two. Consequently, after about a dozen or so steps, you will likely know their balance to within a few dollars. (Computer scientists know this procedure by the name \"\"binary search\"\". The rest of us may recognize it as akin to a game of \"\"20 questions\"\".) If this bothers you, you may be able to protect your self by calling up your bank and asking them how to prevent it. When I talked to my bank (Bank of America), they told me they could put a fraud alert flag on your account, which would disable the merchant check verification service for my account. It does mean that I have to provide a 3-digit PIN any time I phone up my bank, but that's fine with me. I realize many folks may terribly not be concerned about revealing their bank account balance, so in the grand scheme of things, this risk may be relatively minor. However, I thought I'd document it here for others to be aware of.\"",
"It's safe. You give people those numbers every time you write a check. If a check is forged, and doesn't have your signature on it, the bank has to return the money to you; they get it back from the other bank, who takes whatever action it deems necessary against the forger. They've been doing this for a few hundred years, remember.",
"\"Like the old American Express commercial: \"\"no preset spending limit\"\". It is really up to the bank(s) in question how big a cheque they are willing to honour. A larger amount would likely be held longer by a receiving institution to ensure that it cleared properly, but nothing written in law (in Canada, that I am aware of).\"",
"The 7 digit corporation number can be found through a business entity search on the CA SOS website (specifically, http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/) If you have a 7-digit corporation number, then you do not have a 12-digit file number. (A call to the Secretary of State's office revealed that they provide either a 7 digit corporation number or a 12 digit file number - not both.)",
"\"Nope, anything is that has the required information is fine. At a minimum you need to have the routing number, account number, amount, \"\"pay to\"\" line and a signature. The only laws are that it can't be written on anything illegal, like human skin, and it has to be portable, not carved on the side of a building ( for example) https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-20434,00.html http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/12/people-actually-cash-big-novelty-checks-even-possible/ That said, the MICR line and standard sizes will make things eaiser for they bank, but are hardly required. You could write your check on notebook paper so long as it had the right information, and the bank would have to \"\"cash it\"\". Keep in mind that a check is an order to the bank to give your money to a person and nothing more. You could write it out in sentence form. \"\"Give Bill $2 from account 12344221 routing number 123121133111 signed _________\"\" and it would be valid. In practice though, it would be a fight. Mostly the bank would try to urge you to use a standard check, or could hold the funds because it looks odd, till they received the ok from \"\"the other bank\"\". But.... If you rant to fight that fight....\"",
"I would have asked for the intended recipient's account number and pursue sending the money there. If it's the same as yours (except for one digit) that would be a good sign. But even here, the crook could send money to dozens of different accounts, all off by one digit, just to make it look authentic. I'm going with scam just to be safe. As for the checksum, it's used on paper checks (next to the last digit) but not necessarily the actual account. Credit card accounts use an algorithm, but online tools create as many legitimate character strings as you want. I used to work at a credit union, and when the time was just right, I opened account number 860000 (actual account number except for the second digit). All their account numbers were sequential, so the oldest account number was 000001. Sadly, many important systems are set up to meet the simple needs of the masses, and are easy to beat if you really want to. Check out If you dare hackers to hack you, they'll hack you good.",
"In the UK the official rule is that a cheque is valid for 3 years from the date it was wrote. However after 3 months some banks can choose to turn them down. I had a cheque once that was a year old which is when I looked it up to see whether it was stil valid, and I found the laws regarding it then. I was actually quite surprised it was 3 years! Btw if it does bounce your quite entitled to ask your employer for a replacement cheque. They owe it you and it's just sat in their account assigned to you anyway.",
"\"Although banks do not have to honor checks that are more than six months old, they often do. Limit Noted on Check. Many large corporations put the length of time that a check is valid on the face of their checks. For example, a check may state, Valid for 90 days from this date\"\" or \"\"Not valid after 180 days.\"\"\"",
"The check is just barely over 6 months old. I suspect it will go through with no issues.",
"The bottom line is to keep most of your money in accounts with no check privileges and to not give the account numbers for these accounts to anyone. Keep just enough in your checking account for the checks you are going to write.",
"\"Probably a bad assumption, but I'm assuming your in the United States. Keep in mind, that the check number is printed in 2 places on the front of each check. First, in the upper right corner, and also along the bottom edge on of the check. Since the check number is scanned by the bank from the bottom edge of the check, covering or otherwise modifying the check number on the upper left corner will have no effect on the check number that is recorded when the check is processed. And, you can't modify or cover the numbers or place any marks in the area of the numbers along the bottom of the check as this will likely interfere with processing of checks. So, modifying the check numbers will not work. Your choices are basically to: The check numbers are not used in any way in clearing the check, the numbers are only for your convenience, so processing checks with duplicate numbers won't matter. The check numbers are recorded when processed at your bank so they can be shown on your printed and online statements. The only time the check number might be important is if you had to \"\"stop payment\"\" on a particular check, or otherwise inquire about a particular check. But this should not really be an issue because by the time you have used up the first batch of checks, and start using the checks with duplicate numbers, the first use of the early duplicate numbered checks will be sufficiently long ago that there should not be any chance of processing checks with duplicate numbers at the same time. You didn't mention how many checks you have with duplicate numbers, or how frequently you actually write checks so that may play a part in your decision. In my case, 100 checks will last me literally years, so it wouldn't be a problem for me.\"",
"\"I cannot answer the original question, but since there is a good deal of discussion about whether it's credible at all, here's an answer that I got from Bank of America. Note the fine difference between \"\"your account\"\" and \"\"our account\"\", which does not seem to be a typo: The payment method is determined automatically by our system. One of the main factors is the method by which pay to recipients prefer to receive payments. If a payment can be issued electronically, we attempt to do so because it is the most efficient method. Payment methods include: *Electronic: Payment is sent electronically prior to the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Corporate Check: This is a check drawn on our account and is mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds to cover the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Laser Draft Check: This is a check drawn on your account and mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account when the pay to recipient cashes the check, just as if you wrote the check yourself. To determine how your payment was sent, click the \"\"Payments\"\" button in your Bill Pay service. Select the \"\"view payment\"\" link next to the payment. Payment information is then displayed. \"\"Transmitted electronically\"\" means the payment was sent electronically. \"\"Payment transaction number\"\" means the payment was sent via a check drawn from our account. \"\"Check number\"\" means the payment was sent as a laser draft check. Each payment request is evaluated individually and may change each time a payment processes. A payment may switch from one payment method to another for a number of reasons. The merchant may have temporarily switched the payment method to paper, while they update processing information. Recent changes or re-issuance of your payee account number could alter the payment method. In my case, the web site reads a little different: Payment check # 12345678 (8 digits) was sent to Company on 10/27/2015 and delivered on 10/30/2015. Funds were withdrawn from your (named) account on 10/30/2015. for one due on 10/30/2015; this must be the \"\"corporate check\"\". And for another, earlier one, due on 10/01/2015, this must be the laser draft check: Check # 1234 (4 digits) from your (named) account was mailed to Company on 09/28/2015. Funds for this payment are withdrawn from your account when the Pay To account cashes the check. Both payments were made based on the same recurring bill pay payment that I set up manually (knowing little more of the company than its address).\"",
"\"In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved. The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional \"\"and...\"\" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it.\"",
"\"I know of one practical difference between business checks (8\"\" check) and personal checks (6\"\" check) dealing with the paper check conversion rule to electronic debit. The National ACH Association, created a rule that allows receivers of checks without an \"\"Auxiliary On-Us\"\" field, to convert your check into an electronic debit via the ACH network. By default, 6\"\" checks (personal checks) do NOT have the AUX ON-US field, and are eligible to be converted to ACH debit. If you do not want your paper checks converted to ACH debits, then start using business checks with the AUX ON-US field populated. You can use business checks for business or personal checking accounts. More information can be found below: http://www.deluxe.com/miscfiles/pdf/AuxOnUsField.pdf http://www.achrulesonline.org/\"",
"Some answers already informed about denomination. There are currencies, doing the cut off of two digits, for example the french franc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_franc#New_franc When you look to old french movies, they often talked about 'old franc' when talking about values (at least in French original, I don't know what happens in English translations).",
"\"Checks sold as \"\"business checks\"\" are larger than checks sold as \"\"personal checks\"\". Personal checks are usually 6\"\" x 2 1/2\"\" while business checks are 8 1/2 \"\" x 3 to 4 \"\". Also, business checks typically have a tear-off stub where you can write who the check was made out to and what it was for. In this computer age that seems pretty obsolete to me, I enter the check into the computer, not write it on a stub, but I suppose there are still very small businesses out there that doesn't use a computerized record-keeping system. These days business checks are often printed on 8 1/2 by 11\"\" paper -- either one per sheet with a big tear-off or 3 per sheet with no tear off -- so you can feed them through a computer printer easily. Nothing requires you to use \"\"business checks\"\" for a business account. At least, I've always used personal checks for my business account with no problem. These days I make almost all payments electronically, I think I write like one paper check a year, so it's become a trivial issue. Oh, and I've never had any problem getting a check printer to put my business name on the checks or anything like that.\"",
"IBAN -> is International Bank Account Number. The number is constructed in such a way that it uniquely identifies your account in the world. I.e. it has a country in it, Bank (and branch) and the actual account number. This is an international standard adopted by the EU, Australia and NZ. Going forward it would be sufficient to just quote the IBAN for payment without any other details. BIC, SWIFT Code, SWIFT BIC, SWIFT ID [all mean the same] is a Bank Identifier Code [More correctly Business Identifier Code] that is again an International standard and used on all International payments. The SWIFT BIC is constructed as Hence SWIFT BIC can be 8 Chars or 11 Chars. The additional 3 Chars help bank identify the Branch where the account is held and where the payment needs to be made. So LOYDGB2L is the main head office If your branch is, say, in Canary Wharf, the SWIFT BIC would be LOYDGB21 [21-> Canary Wharf] with a 3 digit branch added.",
"They represent two distict payment processing mechanisms that just happen to be available on one product. Rather like having dvi and hdmi on you laptop. Your account number and sort code relates to the bank account. Your long number, expiry and ccv relate to the card. It is perfectly possible and not uncommon to have two different cards on the same account, which would have their own card numbers etc. The BACS, CHAPS, DirectDebit and FasterPayments systems use the account numbers. These transactions are practically irreversible and work through the interbank transfer system and should be considered 'direct money transfers' - electronic cash. The long digits are used by Mastercard, Visa, AmEx etc and go through their own payment systems. These payments are 'indirect' and may or may not be reversible as the private payment network (visa etc) has some accountability. They work like electronic cheques. This is why debit card transactions can cause you to go overdrawn - you are writing a promise to pay from an account. It is up to the bank to block the card if you have no money, vs a CHAPS payment that checks the money is there before moving it. It is easier (but still hard) to recover money lost through Visa fraud than BACS. Credit cards have only the long number etc. While savings accounts (non-checking accounts) have only account numbers. Depending on where you are different laws will likely cover debit card vs money transfer payments. In the UK Direct debit guarantee is the most common protection on the BACS system, while standing orders and faster payments give you little legal power. Debit cards will give you some protection because the payment system stands between you and the bank account, so if you didn't make the transaction you should be able to reclaim the money ('card not present fraud'). If you did make the transaction but the vendor failed to supply or goods were faulty then a Chargeback system exists where you may also be able to reclaim. A bank transfer you make is irrecoverable and refund can only be claimed through court for faulty goods.",
"This is the information required to wire money into your account from abroad. They would only need the account number and the ABA (routing) number to withdraw, and it is printed on every check you give.",
"\"I know this an old thread, but one that caught my interest as I just moved to the USA from Australia. As per the OP I had never written a check in my whole life, and upon arriving in the US I was surprised as to their proliference. In Australia pretty much all bills you receive can be paid in a number of ways: For small amounts between friends cash is probably used most, but for larger amounts direct transfer is popular. Your friend/landlord will give you their bank account number and BSB number, which identifies their bank, and then you transfer the money in. We don't have a SSN like some other countries. Cheques are still used by some however, esp by the older generations. Now that I'm in the US initially I had tried to set up direct transfer to pay my rent however the bank has a $1000 daily transfer limit. I contacted the bank to get this increased however I was informed that this limit applies to ALL accounts at the bank. I asked how do people pay their rents with this low limit and was told that most people used cheques. (This explains the strange look I got from my landlord when I asked for their bank account details so I could pay the rent!) I now have some bills to pay here and I use online banking. You enter the biller's name and address and then the bank actually prints off a cheque and posts it to the biller on your behalf! My first couple of pays here were also cheques, which were the first actual \"\"paychecks\"\" I had ever received.\"",
"As long as someone is willing to take it, you can write it! I personally wrote a check for a new car. The dealership didn't bat an eye.",
"\"First, there are not necessarily two accounts involved. Usually the receiving party can take the check to the bank on which it is drawn and receive cash. In this case, there is only one bank, it can look to see that the account on which the check is drawn has sufficient funds, and make an (essentially irrevocable) decision to pay the bearer. (Essentially irrevocable precisely because the bearer did not necessarily have to present account information.) The more usual case is that the receiving party deposits the check into an account at their own bank. The receiving party's bank then (directly or indirectly - in the US via the Federal Reserve) presents the check to the paying party's bank. At that point if the there are insufficient funds, the check \"\"bounces\"\" and the receiving party's account will be debited. The receiving party's bank knows that account number because, in this case, the receiving party is a customer of the bank. This is why funds from check deposits are typically not available for immediate withdrawal.\"",
"France is one country where cheques are common. More an more people are using credit cards for typical store payments and wire transfers are slowly gaining traction. There are several cases where cheques come handy: Sure, all these cases could ultimately be resolved with a wire transfer. Sometimes it is just simpler/faster to mail a piece of paper. This said, I believe than in 1à years from now even France will go cheque-less.",
"The only difference that I can think of is that some business checks have two signature lines. The look and feel of a business check used to be more important. So a big check with two signatures and a machine-imprinted amount was a way to screen out fraudulent transactions. Nowadays the check is scanned and shredded, so it's probably not a big deal for 90% of your transactions.",
"The very first time I bought a new car I wrote out a personal check for $5000 (this was a looong time ago!). And got a call from the sales person that he had called the bank and was told that I did not have that much money in my checking account! I explained that I had just that day transferred money from savings to checking. The sales person accepted that and there was never a problem after that.",
"The typical rule in the US is 180 days, but some banks do it differently. However, even if the check is dead, you should be able to call the payroll department for your old job. They can stop payment on the old check and issue you another one.",
"\"I sent myself an Tangerine email money transfer. They sent me an email which took me to a website. After I entered the secret answer, they asked me for the destination bank account's details. They asked me to enter the transit number once, the institution number once, and the account number twice. They also showed a bold warning message: \"\"Please ensure that the details of your Canadian Bank Account (account number and bank information) are entered correctly.\"\" Asking for the account number twice isn't a perfect safeguard, but it's better than nothing. In some countries, bank account numbers include a \"\"check digit\"\" for typo prevention, but I was unable to find any evidence online that this is true in Canada. Tangerine's system isn't 100% mistake-proof, but it's good enough that I think I'm going to use it.\"",
"\"There's something wrong with your story. The IBAN contiains two check digits, and the method used to compute them guarantees that any single digit error will be caught. So it's impossible that \"\"HSBC screwed up the last digit of my IBAN\"\" because if that were the case, the resulting IBAN would not be valid and be rejected by the computer when it was entered at your bank.\"",
"\"Technically it doesn't matter what size the check is. In fact, it doesn't even have to be written on paper. While writing it on a cow may not always fly, almost any object actually will. That said, more to the question asked - you can definitely use the smaller \"\"personal\"\"-sized checks for a business account. The larger checks formatted to the \"\"letter\"\" page size: if you cut it into three equal pieces with a tiny bit left for the binder holes - you'll get exactly three check-sized pieces. This is convenient for those printing checks, keeping carbon-copy records etc. Regarding the MICR line: I just checked my business check book, which is of a smaller \"\"personal\"\" size (that I got for free from the bank) - the check number is at the end.\"",
"I receive checks from my tenant. Also, from our medical reimbursement account. I'm sure there's an option somewhere to get that direct deposited, just haven't yet. My wife will write checks for school functions. Funny, they haven't cashed one since february, and this is the one item to look for every time I reconcile her account. A few select others don't take credit or debit cards. Our tailor (losing weight, needed pants pulled in), among others. The number of checks is surely down an order of magnitude over the years, but still not zero.",
"Normally if the amount of a cashiers check is over $5,000, a bank (like Wells Fargo) may put a 10 business day hold on it to make sure the transaction is sound.",
"\"Legally, a check just needs to have a certain list of things (be an instruction to one's bank to pay a specific amount of money to bearer or to a specific entity, have a date, have a signature, etc.) There are anecdotes around of a guy depositing a junk mail check and it accidentally qualifying as a real check (which he turned into a live show), or of writing a check on a door, cow, or \"\"the shirt off your back\"\". What kind of checks your bank will process is technically up to them. Generally, if you get your blank checks printed up by any reputable firm, they'll have similar information in similar places, as well as the MICR line (the account and routing number in magnetic ink on the bottom) to allow for bank to process the checks with automated equipment. As long as it's a standard size, has the MICR line, and has the information that a check needs, your bank is likely to be fine with it. So, there are some standards, but details like where exactly the name of the bank is, or what font is used, or the like, are up to whoever is printing the check. For details on what standards your bank requires in order to process your checks, you'd have to check with your bank directly. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if they just directed you to their preferred check printer provider, as they know that they accept their check format fine. Though as I said, any reputable check printer makes sure that they meet the standards to get processed by banks without trouble. Unless you're a business that's going to be writing a lot of checks and pay a lot of fees for the privilege, a bank is not likely to want to make exceptions for you for your own custom-printed octagonal checks written in ancient Vulcan.\"",
"A routing number and account number are on the bottom of every check. If anybody who ever handled your checks or even saw your checks could just withdraw as much money as they wanted, the whole banking system would need to be reworked. In short, just having that info is not enough. Not legally.",
"\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"",
"I tried to find that out once, and learned 'theoretically never'. The reason is that the guy who gave you the check (name him guy-1) might have deposited a check from guy-2 a day before, and without that money, his check will bounce. Now guy-2 might have deposited a check from guy-3 a day before, and without that money, his check will bounce. Repeat for a while, and then bounce the check from guy-99, and it takes the banks months to unravel it. Yes, improbable. But. A friend working in a bank explained me that, he had seen chains of three and four unravel, which took 20+ days.",
"Every class my Finance Prof writes a number on the board, I have no idea what it is other than it is related to the field of Finance. But I have it on good authority that it will be a bonus question on the final exam to find out what it is. Date | # Written ---|--- Oct. 12 | 13 Oct. 17 | 15 Oct. 19| 15 Oct. 24 | 15 Oct. 26 | 15 Nov. 2 | 11 If anyone knows please help a brother out. Dates are North American.",
"\"It depends on the bank. According to the Uniform Commercial Code, a bank is not obliged to pay a cheque after six months, but may do so if it wants to. § 4-404. BANK NOT OBLIGED TO PAY CHECK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OLD. A bank is under no obligation to a customer having a checking account to pay a check, other than a certified check, which is presented more than six months after its date, but it may charge its customer's account for a payment made thereafter in good faith. Official link to UCC 4-404 As for your second question, if you stamp \"\"void after 60 days\"\" on your cheque; I don't have a specific answer for that part (yet). Update: I can find no specific rules about someone putting an arbitrary \"\"void after xxx days\"\" on their personal check. Businesess are alllowed to, but again the overriding rule seems to be that after six months it's the bank's choice, and you certainly couldn't make a cheque expire before six months, so I don't think that putting a stamp would make any difference. It's still up to the bank in the end.\"",
"Routing number (RTN - Routing Transit Number) you're talking about is the Federal Reserve routing number. It is based on, but not equivalent to ABA numbers. The specific routing number may also be based on ABA numbers of institutions merged into BoA, which are now defunct. From wiki: The RTN number is derived from the bank's transit number originated by the American Bankers Association, which designed it in 1910.",
"I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service.",
"\"In Europe in most of the countries there is also a thing called ACH. In UK there is a thing called BACS and in other countires there are other things. Essentially every country has what is called a \"\"Low value Net Settlement System\"\" that is used to transfer funds between accounts of different banks. In US there is rounting number, in UK there is a Sort Code, in Indonesia there is a sort code. Essentially a Bank Identifier that is issued by the Governing body within respective countires. Certian identifiers like SWIFT BIC [Bank Identification Code] are Unique across world.\"",
"There is very little difference these days between account types. The fee structure and interest paid is different, but the actual mechanics, and as noted by others, the coverage by deposit insurance is identical. So look at how much money you have in the account(s) you have; are you maximizing the interest that you could be receiving, even from the small amounts that the banks will pay? If you could get more interest from the savings account, and only write one or two cheques per month, you might be better off with that account only; but given common fee structures, you likely would not want that as your primary account. Another reason for separate accounts is more psychological. You might be able to train yourself to not dip in to your savings if you don't have a chequebook.",
"You will probably not be able to figure out the bank from the account number. You can check for your name on registries of abandoned bank accounts or unclaimed money, but without more information, you don't have a lot of options.",
"I would strongly suggest you select an answer: all the above two cover everything I can possibly recommend, but perhaps my perspective as a person who was exactly in your shoes a year ago might appeal to you more. My first bank was Chase, and they usually give out a free checking account to students that come with leaves of 100 checks. Unfortunately, I was 24 at that time, and the max possible age to qualify was 23 or 21. Paying $25 for any number of checks was a big deal for me as I had no job, and transportation and rent was costing me $1k/month anyways. I came here and asked questions: lots of them. MrChrister, God bless his soul, recommended credit unions to me. I never knew they existed. A year later, I am a proud member of 3 CUs: I recommend Alliant, DCU and SchoolsFirst: I am their member and very proud of it!",
"#####&#009; ######&#009; ####&#009; [**Benford's law**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's%20law): [](#sfw) --- > >__Benford's Law__, also called the __First-Digit Law__, refers to the frequency distribution of digits in many (but not all) real-life sources of [data](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data). In this distribution, the number 1 occurs as the leading digit about 30% of the time, while larger numbers occur in that position less frequently: 9 as the first digit less than 5% of the time. Benford's Law also concerns the expected distribution for digits beyond the first, which approach a uniform distribution. >This result has been found to apply to a wide variety of data sets, including electricity bills, street addresses, stock prices, population numbers, death rates, lengths of rivers, [physical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant) and [mathematical constants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constant), and processes described by [power laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law) (which are very common in nature). It tends to be most accurate when values are distributed across multiple [orders of magnitude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude). >The graph here shows Benford's Law for [base 10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix). There is a generalization of the law to numbers expressed in other bases (for example, [base 16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal)), and also a generalization from leading 1 digit to leading n digits. >==== >[**Image**](https://i.imgur.com/Gx6oYsa.png) [^(i)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rozklad_benforda.svg) - *The distribution of first digits, according to Benford's law. Each bar represents a digit, and the height of the bar is the percentage of numbers that start with that digit.* --- ^Interesting: [^Gregory ^Benford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Benford) ^| [^Logarithm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm) ^| [^Simon ^Newcomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Newcomb) ^| [^Frank ^Benford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Benford) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjun56c) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cjun56c)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)",
"Because of the way checks are processed, you can't write a check for $100 million or more: http://www.bankingquestions.com/checksyoureceived/q_limitfunds.html The field used for 'amount' has 10 digits, so anything at/above 10^10 cents (which would require 11 digits) can't be processed, at least not by normal means.",
"As it is a cheque I don't think you can deposit online. It seems that most the banks here charge a flat fee. Bank of Queensland charges $45 plus whatever the FX rate and fees are at the time. I think most of the banks have a clearance period of up to 28 days from when you deposit the cheque to when the funds clear and you could use them. If you want a cheaper and quicker option maybe try to have the USD funds sent electronically to the Australian bank account you choose.",
"> checking account normal? Not really, only if you have a small account. It usually works that you get a monthly fee if you have under a certain amount of money in the account. So normal for poor people who the banks don't want to deal with. Not normal for people who have some money.",
"\"The address under a bank's name on a check, if there is one, is generally going to be the contact address of the bank. That will be true no matter where on the check the bank's name appears. The address of the person or business the account belongs to, if present, will appear under their name. This information block is typically near the top left corner the check, so it will be visible as the return address if the check is mailed in a \"\"window envelope\"\" designed for this purpose. The address the check is being mailed to, if it appears on the check, will generally appear low on the check and to the right, so it will be visible as the destination address when the check is mailed using a \"\"window envelope\"\" designed for this purpose. If that isn't the answer you were looking for, please clarify your question.\"",
"When the check is deposited, the bank verifies the signature in the check matches your signature in file.",
"US checking accounts are not really secure, though many people use them. One form of check fraud has been highlighted by Prof. Donald Knuth and carried out by Frank Abagnale, as portrayed in the film Catch Me If You Can. Basically, anyone can write a check that would draw from your account merely by knowing your account number and your bank's ABA routing number. With those two pieces of information (which are revealed on every check that you write), anyone can print a working check, either using a laser printer with MICR (magnetic ink character recognition) toner, or by placing an order with a check-printing company. The only other missing element is a signature, which is a pretty weak form of authentication. When presented with such a check, your bank would probably honor it before finding out, too late, that it is fraudulent. A variant of this vulnerability is ACH funds transfers. This is the mechanism through which you could have, say, your utility company automatically withdraw money from your account to pay your bill. Unfortunately, the transfer is initiated by the recipient, and the system relies largely on trust with some statistical monitoring for suspicious patterns. Basically, the whole US checking system is built with convenience rather than security in mind, since other institutions are able to initiate withdrawal transactions by knowing just the ABA number and account number. In practice, it works well enough for most people, but if you are paranoid about security, as you seem to be, you don't want to be using checks. The European system, which has largely eliminated checks in favor of payer-initiated push transactions, is safer by design.",
"\"Your bank has discretion to honor checks after 6 months, so you should talk to your bank about their specific policy. In general, banks won't accept \"\"large\"\" stale checks. The meaning of \"\"large\"\" varies -- $25,000 in NYC, as little as $2k in other places. Banks that service high-volume check issuers (like rebate companies) reject checks at 180 days. For business purposes, I think some banks will create accounts for specific mailings or other purposes as well. (i.e. 2011 refund account) The accounts close after a year.\"",
"Anyone want a 6 digit ice number? I've had it since way back the dial-up days when I was sysadmin for a bbs. Just typing that makes me feel old. But we were huge for our area, 2 T1's and a 56k Internet connection.",
"As I replied to someone else who said that: I'm often having to send stuff with the check. Paperwork, a bill etc. While that would work to a person who knows me, it's usually not going to work with a business or government who needs to know why I'm sending this check.",
"\"Read the check: it says \"\"Pay to the order of ...\"\". It's simply an order from you to your bank to give money to someone. It can be written on anything. Back in the olden days (a hundred years or so ago) it would have simply been a letter to the bank. Those rules haven't changed much with today's automation. What matters is that the order comes from you, which means it must have your signature. If the bank pays a check with a fraudulent signature they're responsible. Granted, banks don't look very carefully at checks any more (I once accidentally swapped two checks when I paid bills, and the phone company simply gave me a $700 credit on my $50-a-month account), but if they screw up it's their problem.\"",
"Typically your paychecks are direct deposited into your bank account and you receive a paycheck stub telling you how much of your money went where (taxes, insurance, 401k, etc.). Most people use debit or credit cards for purchases. I personally only use checks to transfer money to another person (family, friend, etc.) than a business. And even then, there's PayPal.",
"They are valid checks, but you're going to get hassled when you try to use them. There's a perception that people using starter checks are more likely to bounce or otherwise be troublesome. When more payments were made with checks, some vendors would not accept checks with low numbers either! Checks are very cheap to get printed these days, save yourself some trouble and get some printed.",
"\"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write \"\"pay to the order of \"\" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write \"\"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY\"\" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!\"",
"\"Keep in mind that many checks are being cashed via scanner or photo. These can be home based, business based or ATM based systems. The key requirement is that the software has to be able to distinguish the \"\"written\"\" parts from the background parts. If the image doesn't have enough contrast for the edge detection to work, the check can't be easily processed. In that case a human looks at the image and decodes the image and processes the transaction. The image is not in color. Many businesses scan the check and hand the original back to you after having the Point of Sale system process the image. Post 2001 the checks in the united states are no longer moved through the banking system, only their images. With the roll out of these image based systems, in the future almost no physical checks will be seen by banks. Therefore the actual ink color is not important, only the result.\"",
"When an someone as esteemed and smart as Donald Knuth tells you the chequing system is busted it's time to close your cheque account, or I guess live with the associated risk. Answer to question, yes your account information can be used to commit fraud on you via your bank.",
"\"You do not need to write anything on the second line. There are a variety of helpful things that you can add, e.g.: For Deposit Only. This tells the bank to deposit the check into your account and ignore other signatures. Your account number. Especially useful when added to \"\"For Deposit Only\"\". A countersignature. This tells the bank to pay the check to someone other than you. Countersigned checks used to be much more common than they are now. Someone who didn't have a bank account might ask someone who did to cash a check for them. See also: Four ways to endorse a check which gives the correct format for endorsing a check in these ways.\"",
"Every bank has uses their own number ranges and assigns account numbers as they like. That means that the same account number could be in use by basically every bank simultaneously - which makes it impossible to find out the bank from the account number. A similar situation would be to find a street name from the house number - obviously, there are many streets that have a given number.",
"It's not the legitimate checks or bounced checks that are the problem, it's phony checks issued against real accounts with actual money in them. All the security measures on the check don't amount to crap if someone can print up some legitimate looking checks with bogus amounts on them, or even just steal some printed checks and sign something resembling the authorized signature.",
"**Social Security number** In the United States, a Social Security number (SSN) is a nine-digit number issued to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary (working) residents under section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2). The number is issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration, an independent agency of the United States government. Although its primary purpose is to track individuals for Social Security purposes, the Social Security number has become a de facto national identification number for taxation and other purposes. A Social Security number may be obtained by applying on Form SS-5, Application for A Social Security Number Card. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27",
"\"The account you are looking for is called a \"\"Positive Pay\"\" account. It generally is only for business accounts, you provide a list of check numbers and amounts, and they are cross-referenced for clearing. It normally has a hefty monthly fee due to the extra labor involved.\"",
"Normally, that is the address of the person that __wrote the check = the person who is paying the money (= your address if you write the check). In this example, it is '...2063 Main Street...' You mail the check to the recipient, the person who gets the money. His name is supposed to be in the line PAY TO THE ORDER OF, but it does normally not contain any address, just a name; in this example the recipient is 'Sample Company'. The check does not carry the recipient's address anywhere; only the envelope has it. If you are sending someone money, you will have to ask them where to send it to. Some checks have the bank's name printed on the top right, but that has no influence; it is basically an advertisement ('Your bank Name'):",
"For what it's worth, 20 years ago I had a huge box of sheet-feed checks (3 or 4 per sheet) - After the divorce I kept the account, then ran the remaining checks through a Word doc that tidily blacked out the ex's name. Never had a hitch, glitch, or rejected check.",
"There's nothing particularly special about a two million dollar cheque. While they aren't commonplace, the bank certainly has experience with them. Many ATMs won't allow a deposit of that size but the bank cashiers will certainly accept them. They will typically get a supervisor to sign off on the deposit and may ask about the source of the money, for fraud prevention reasons. They may be held for longer than a smaller cheque if the bank manager chooses to do so. If there's nothing remotely suspicious (for example, it is a cheque from an insurance company for an expected payout), you should expect it will clear in about a week. On the other hand, if it is a cheque from a bank in another country and the bank manager has any reason to suspect it may not be legitimate, they may hold it for a month or more. Even then, you are not guaranteed the cheque was legitimate. This is used in a common scam.",
"This depends on the practise and applications available with the Beneficiary Bank. For a corporate customer, the details are show. For Retail customers they are generally not shown.",
"If you have an SSN and foreign passport - it's all you need to open account, so just open it and order a checkbook. It will take some time before they will issue it but most probably they'll give you some checks to use till that very moment. So basically you should: Also I strongly suggest you to open two accounts - one would be for you and one for rent exclusively. The thing is that check could be cashed any time and it's pretty annoying exercise to keep that in mind.",
"In my business (estate planning law practice), probably 60-70% of my income is in the form of checks, with the balance as credit/debit cards. I prefer to get paid by check so I don't have to pay the approx 2.5% merchant fee, but I don't push clients to choose one method over the other. I offer direct deposit to my employees but most of them choose to be paid by check. Also, check processing is becoming more and more electronic - when I get paid by check, I scan the checks in a dedicated desktop scanner, and upload the check images to the bank at the end of the day, and the checks are processed very quickly. I also make deposits to my personal credit union account by scanning checks and uploading the images. So, yes, there's technically a paper check, but I (as the merchant/recipient/depositor) keep the check for a few months to make sure there's no problem with the deposit/payment, then shred them. The bank never sees the actual paper check.",
"So the bank can (theoretically) compare that signature to the ID you provide, showing that the names and signatures match and that you are the person to whom the check was written.",
"This is just my experience but I think I have to put in the account holder's name or last name to check that I'm sending it to who I think I'm sending to.",
"Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.",
"Not really. A bank will honor a million dollar check if there are funds there to let it clear.",
"\"When banks would return the actual physical cheque, at least you had some printing / writing from the other bank on it, as some type of not-easily-Photoshopped proof. Now many (most?) banks don't return the actual cheques anyway, just an image of it - sometimes a low quality shrunken B&W photocopy-like image too. You'd have to check with a lawyer or court in your area, but I suspect any photocopy or image, as well as a written or carbon-copy duplicate, would not be good enough proof for a law court, since they could all be easily re-written or Photoshopped. So I don't think there's a real upside anyway. Only an official bank statement saying that the name/people written actually cashed the cheque might be \"\"good evidence\"\" (I'm having doubts that the bank's own low quality \"\"image\"\" would even qualify, unless it's verified as coming directly from the bank somehow). I'd agree with Nate (+1) that a big downside could be identity theft, either online or alongside phone loss/theft.\"",
"They're batched typically and about 30-90 days out typically, though the speed is routinely increasing the last few years. The flow depends from payment processor to payment processor. Generally, the cheaper the payment processing the longer the delay. The future of this stuff is blockchain if you'd like to look at that http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/blockchain/",
"Japan has not implemented the IBAN system (yet), at least according to the Wikipedia list. IBAN is a European thing, slowly spreading around the globe, and hasn't reached Japan and many other countries yet. SWIFT is your friend here. Adoption of the IBAN at various levels (as of January 1, 2014):",
"\"People who rent an apartment will typically pay by check. Probably 90% of the checks I have written are for rent. To some extent this falls under the previously mentioned \"\"payments to another person\"\" rule.\"",
"\"Answers to your questions: (1) Do bank account numbers have a checksum. NO. (2) Is it plausible that they found out your number after sending you the money by \"\"accident\"\". NO. There is no way to find out who possesses a particular bank account just by the number. Also, how they even know they made a mistake? They targeted you and knew who you were and your bank account number before the \"\"money\"\" was sent. (3 and 4) Is this a scam? YES. They never paid you any money. They forged a check for a large amount and deposited it in an account. Then divided it up, wiring pieces to multiple people, all of whom they investigated beforehand. Since it is a bank to bank transfer it clears. Once the forgery is discovered, all the transfers will be unwound. If you had sent them money, you would have lost that money. Other things to note: There is zero chance of a wire transfer going to the wrong person because the sender has to list the name and address on the account as well as the number. You basically did the right thing which is to notify your bank that you received an unauthorized transfer into your account. Never accept money into your account from someone you don't know. If money \"\"appears\"\" in your account tell the bank it is an error and probably proceeds from a forgery and they will take care of it.\"",
"Today typically a Business needs to hold accounts in more than one currency. Banks in certain countries are offering what is called a dual currency account. It is essentially 2 accounts with same account number but different currency. So One can have an account number say 123456 and have it in say AUD and USD. So the balance will always show as X AUD and Y USD. If you deposit funds [electronic, check or cash] in USD; your USD balance goes up. Likewise at the time of withdrawal you have to specify what currency you are withdrawing. Interest rates are calculated at different percentage for different currencies. So in a nutshell it would like operating 2 accounts, with the advantage of remembering only one account number. Designate a particular currency as default currency. So if you don't quote a currency along with the account number, it would be treated as default currency. Otherwise you always quote the account number and currency. Of-course bundled with other services like free Fx Advice etc it makes the entire proposition very attractive. Edit: If you have AUD 100 and USD 100, if you try and withdraw USD 110, it will not be allowed; Unless you also sign up for a auto sweep conversion. If you deposit a GBP check into the account, by default it would get converted into AUD [assuming AUD is the default currency]",
"Several things to do: Change your bank. $2 for a check? Why?? When shopping for a new bank: ask for a free checking account. College students can get free checking in almost any bank. At least the first box of checks will be free, which will give you enough checks for the next several years (I'm still not half done with the box I got from WaMu 5 years ago). Check out your neighborhood credit union. Most of them have free checking and free checks for students as well. If still no luck - check online check printing services, they'll send you a box for less than $25, that's for sure. Walmart for example (1 box - $7). Also, you can use banks' bill-pay service for any check you write, if you know the address of the person, the amount and the sum a couple of days ahead of time. That should cover rent, and probably most of your other checks.",
"\"In the United States, many banks aim to receive $ 100 per year per account in fees and interest markup. There are several ways that they can do this on a checking account. These examples assume that there is a 3 % difference between low-interest-rate deposit accounts and low-interest rate loans. Or some combination of these markups that adds up to $ 100 / year. For example: A two dollar monthly fee = $ 24 / year, plus a $ 2,000 average balance at 0.05% = $ 29 / year, plus $ 250 / month in rewards debit card usage = $ 24 / year, plus $ 2 / month in ATM fees = $ 24 / year. Before it was taken over by Chase Manhattan in 2008, Washington Mutual had a business strategy of offering \"\"free\"\" checking with no monthly fees, no annual fees, and no charges (by Washington Mutual) for using ATMs. The catch was that the overdraft fees were not free. If the customers averaged 3 overdraft fees per year at $ 34 each, Washington Mutual reached its markup target for the accounts.\""
] |
[
"Checks are normally numbered sequentially, to keep them unique for record-keeping purposes. The check number takes as many digits as it takes, depending on how long the account has been open and thus how many checks have been written. The most recent check I looked at had a four-digit number, but as has been pointed out businesses may run through thousands per year. I recommend storing this in an unsigned long or long-long, which will probably be comparable to the bank's own limits. I don't know whether there is an explicit maximum value; we would need to find someone who knows the banking standards to answer that."
] |
4047
|
Does doing your “research”/“homework” on stocks make any sense?
|
[
"417840",
"452175",
"77652",
"324779"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"417840",
"324779",
"452175",
"77652",
"259145",
"567500",
"170966",
"358846",
"284165",
"496921",
"561703",
"27201",
"307675",
"57033",
"110733",
"13046",
"11148",
"480811",
"22578",
"224366",
"98326",
"585447",
"584008",
"315568",
"217035",
"148684",
"306189",
"247360",
"444261",
"190264",
"355108",
"64961",
"588448",
"185909",
"150544",
"279713",
"469519",
"186578",
"177912",
"375876",
"484327",
"85990",
"263464",
"297231",
"485766",
"382394",
"396657",
"148348",
"285945",
"312154",
"80031",
"210241",
"94900",
"111091",
"349545",
"193463",
"377444",
"140144",
"367391",
"491843",
"61832",
"47812",
"528034",
"525318",
"75884",
"123356",
"150692",
"153348",
"283106",
"536345",
"362462",
"25671",
"301866",
"67785",
"593521",
"477716",
"44417",
"505022",
"2235",
"184338",
"305117",
"63243",
"470861",
"375290",
"112701",
"501764",
"265314",
"39660",
"224695",
"267756",
"157038",
"332467",
"523075",
"92284",
"146855",
"78249",
"210581",
"259081",
"171135",
"260983"
] |
[
"\"Doing your homework means to perform what's more accurately called \"\"fundamental analysis\"\". According to proponents of fundamental analysis (FA), it is possible to accurately determine how much a stock should trade for and then buy or sell the stock based on whether it trades above or below this target price. This target price is based on the discounted anticipated future earnings of your stock, so \"\"doing your homework\"\" means that you figure out how much future earnings you can expect from the stock and then figuring out at what rate you want to discount those future earnings (Are 1000 dollars that you'll earn next year worth $800 today or $900 or only $500? That depends on the overall economic and political climate...) So does this make any sense? Depends. I'm aware that there are a lot of anecdotes of people researching a stock, buying that stock and doing well with that stock. But poor decisions can at times lead to good outcomes... EDIT: Due to some criticism, I want to expand on a few points. So, is homework completely for naught? No!\"",
"In fact markets are not efficient and participants are not rational. That is why we have booms and busts in markets. Emotions and psychology play a role when investors and/or traders make decisions, sometimes causing them to behave in unpredictable or irrational ways. That is why stocks can be undervalued or overvalued compared to their true value. Also, different market participants may put a different true value on a stock (depending on their methods of analysis and the information they use to base their analysis on). This is why there are always many opportunities to profit (or lose your money) in liquid markets. Doing your research, homework, or analysis can be related to fundamental analysis, technical analysis, or a combination of the two. For example, you could use fundamental analysis to determine what to buy and then use technical analysis to determine when to buy. To me, doing your homework means to get yourself educated, to have a plan, to do your analysis (both FA and TA), to invest or trade according to your plan and to have a risk management strategy in place. Most people are too lazy to do their homework so will pay someone else to do it for them or they will just speculate (on the latest hot tip) and lose most of their money.",
"\"TL;DR: Sure, \"\"do your own homework\"\" is sometimes a cop out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our homework. I agree that in many cases this is a cop-out by commentators. However, even if you believe in perfect market efficiency, there is benefit in \"\"doing your homework\"\" for many reasons. One of which you already mention in the question: different stocks all with the same \"\"value\"\" might have widely ranging risk. Another factor that might vary between stocks is their tax consequences. High dividend stocks might be a better fit for some buyers than others. One stock might be priced at $40 because there is a small chance they might get regulatory approval for a new product. This might make this stock very risky with a 20% of being $150 in 12 months, and a 80% chance of being $20. Another stock might be priced at $40 because the company is a cash cow, declining in revenues but producing a large dividend of $0.40 per quarter. Low risk, but also with some potential tax disadvantages. Another stock might be priced at $40 because it's a high growth stock. This would be less risky than the first example, but more risky than the second example. And the risk would be more generalized, i.e. there wouldn't be one day or one event that would be make or break the stock. In short, even if we assume that the market is pricing everything perfectly, not all stocks are equal and not all stocks are equally appropriate to everyone. Sometimes when we hear an analyst say \"\"they should have done their homework\"\" they are really saying \"\"This was a high risk/high reward stock. They should have known that this had a potential downside.\"\" And that all assumes that we believe in 100% pure market efficiency. Which many disagree with, at least to some extent. For example, if we instead subscribe to Peter Lynch's theories about \"\"local knowledge\"\", we might believe that everyone has some personal fields of expertise where they know more than the experts. A professional stock analyst is going to follow many stocks and many not have technical experience in the field of the company. (This is especially true of small and mid cap stocks.) If you happen to be an expert in LED lighting, it is entirely feasible (at least to me) that you could be able to do a better job of \"\"doing homework\"\" on CREE than the analysts. Or if you use a specialized piece of software from a small vendor at work, and you know that the latest version stinks, then you will likely know more than the analyst does. I think it is somewhat akin to going to a doctor. We could say to ourselves \"\"the doctor is more knowledgeable about me than medicine, I'm just going to do what they tell me to do.\"\" And 99% of the time, that is the right thing to do. But if we do our \"\"homework\"\" anyway, and research the symptoms, diagnoses, and drugs ourselves as well, we can do get benefits. Sometimes we just can express our preferences amongst equal solutions. Sometimes we can ask smarter questions. And sometimes we have some piece of knowledge that the doctor doesn't have and can actually make an important discovery they didn't know. (And, just like investing, sometimes we can also have just enough knowledge to be dangerous and do ourselves harm if we go against the advice of the professionals.)\"",
"\"The markets are not as information efficient as some might have you believe. But on the contrary, looking up what the aggregate professional analysts have said is also part of \"\"doing your homework\"\"\"",
"\"Is evaluating stocks just a loss of time if the stock is traded very much? Not at all! Making sound investment decisions based on fundamental analysis of companies will help you to do decide whether a given company is right for you and your risk appetite. Investing is not a zero-sum game, and you can achieve a positive long-term (or short-term, depending on what you're after) outcome for yourself without compromising your ability to sleep at night if you take the time to become acquainted with the companies that you are investing in. How can you ensure that your evaluation is more precise than the market ones which consists of the evaluation of thousands of people and professionals? For the average individual, the answer is often simply \"\"you probably cannot\"\". But you don't have to set the bar that high - what you can do is ensure that your evaluation gives you a better understanding of your investment and allows you to better align it with your investment objectives. You don't have to beat the professionals, you just have to lose less money than you would by paying them to make the decision for you.\"",
"Do your own research There are hundreds of places where people will give you all sorts of recommendations. There is as much noise in the recommendations as there is in the stock market itself. Become your own filter. You need to work on your own instinct. Pick a couple of sectors and a few stocks in each and study them. It is useful to know where the main indexes are going, but - unless you are trading the indexes - it is the individual sectors that you should focus on more.",
"I am using the term homework generically to mean anything that is a part of school work that you should be working on independently. You can see if the people at r/investing or r/finance will answer your question",
"The only sensible reason to invest in individual stocks is if you have reason to think that they will perform better than the market as a whole. How are you to come to that conclusion other than by doing in-depth research into the stock and the company behind it? If you can't, or don't want to, reach that conclusion about particular stocks then you're better off putting your money into cheap index trackers.",
"So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!",
"\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"",
"I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.",
"If financial modelling, projections and market research were effective enough that they could predict with certainty what the price would do tomorrow, then everyone would use those techniques, buy now and make relatively risk-free profit tomorrow though, right? The point of an efficient market is that the price at any particular point in time incorporates all of the information available to the market at that moment. Given that, the price should be just as likely to go up tomorrow as go down. Whether it's reasonable to assume that the market is efficient is another question - at the very least though, I think it's reasonable to assume that people armchair investing at home don't have access to information that professional investors don't.",
"Let's ask another question: Why do you buy X at price $Y? Here are some answers: Now, another question: Are you guaranteed to get at least $Y worth of value when you buy X? Of course not! A lot of things can happen. Your car can be a lemon. Your pedigreed Dachshund can get run over by a snowblower. Or, the prices of the underlying commodity or security can go against your futures contract. You can raise your chances of getting appropriate value out of X by doing your homework and hedging your risk. The more homework you do, the less of a gamble you're taking.",
"\"The high frequency trading you reference has no adverse impact on individual investors - at least not in the \"\"going to take advantage of you\"\" way that many articles imply. If anything, high-frequency trading is generally more helpful than harmful, adding liquidity to the system, although it can cause some volatility and \"\"noise\"\" in volume and other data, and the sudden entrance or exit of this type of trading can drive some abnormal market movements. As to research and time needed for trading, most data suggests that the less you try to \"\"beat the market\"\", the better you'll do. Trade activity tends to be inversely related to returns, particularly for individuals. Your best bet is likely to learn enough about investment risks to ensure you're comfortable with them, and invest in broadly diversified asset classes, regions, and sectors, and then mostly leave them alone, or rebalance annually. You'll almost surely do a lot better that way than you will if you spend countless hours researching the \"\"right\"\" stocks to buy.\"",
"\"You should spend zero on your stock research company. If the management of the company actually had persistent skill in picking stocks, they would not be peddling their knowledge to the retail market for a few hundred dollars. They would rake in millions and billions by running a huge hedge fund and buy themselves a private island or something. Unfortunately for them, hedge fund investors are not as gullible as retail investors and are more likely to sue when they discover they have been lied to. Many stock \"\"research\"\" companies are trying to manipulate you into paying too high a price for stocks. They buy a small stock, recommend it, and then sell it at the artificially (and temporarily) high price. Others are simply recommending stocks pretty much at random. You could do that just as well as they can, and for free. Portfolio performance evaluation is a complex problem. The research company knows that its recommendations will \"\"make good money\"\" about half the time and that's enough to bring in a lot of uninformed people. To know whether your portfolio actually did well you need to know how much risk there was in the portfolio and how a competing \"\"dumb\"\" portfolio with similar characteristics fared over the same time period. And you need to repeat the experiment enough times (or long enough) to know the outcome wasn't luck. I can say confidently that your portfolio performance doesn't back up the claim that the research company has skill above and beyond luck. Much less $599 worth of skill. I can also say very confidently that there are no investors with a total of 20 thousand dollars to invest for whom purchasing stock recommendations is worth the cost, even if those recommendations do have some value. Real stock information is valuable only to large investors because the per-dollar value is low. Please do not give money to or otherwise support a semi-criminal \"\"stock research\"\" enterprise.\"",
"In theory, in a perfect world, what you state is almost true. Apart from transaction fees, if you assume that the market is perfectly efficient (ie: public information is immediately reflected in a perfect reflection of future share value, in all share prices when the information becomes available), then in theory any transaction you would choose to take is opposed by a reasonable person who is not taking advantage of you, just moving their position around. This would make any and all transactions completely reasonable from a cost-benefit perspective. ie: if the future value of all dividends to be paid by Apple [ie: the value of holding a share in Apple] exactly matches Apple's share price of $1,000, then buying a share for $1,000 is an even trade. Selling a share for $1,000 is also an even trade. Now in a perfectly efficient market, which we have assumed, then there is no edge to valuing a company using your own methods. If you take Apple's financial statements / press releases / reported information, and if you apply modern financial theory to evaluate the future dividends from Apple, you should get the same $1,000 share price that the market has already arrived at. So in this example, why wouldn't you just throw darts at a printout of the S&P 500 and invest in whatever it lands on? Because, even if the 'perfectly efficient market' agrees on the true value of something, different investments have different characteristics. As an example, consider a simple comparison of corporate bonds: Corporations make bond offerings to the public, allowing individual investors to effectively lend money to the corporation, for a future benefit. For simplicity, assume a bond with a 'face value' (the amount to be repaid to the investor on maturity) of $1,000 has these 3 defining characteristics: (1) The price [What the investor pays to acquire it]; (2) Interest payments [how much, if any, the corporation will pay to the investor before maturity, and when those payments will be made]; and (3) a bond rating [which is a third party assessment of how risky the bond is, based on the 'health' of the corporation]. Now if the bond rating agency is perfect in its risk assessment, and if the price of all bond's is fair, then why does it matter who you loan your money to? It matters because different people want different things out of their investments. If you are waiting to make a down payment on a house next year, then you don't want risk - you want to be certain that you will get your cash back, even if it means lower returns. So, even though a high-risk bond may be perfectly priced, it should only be bought by someone willing to bear that risk. If you are retired, and you need your bonds to pay you interest regularly as your sole source of income, then of course a zero-coupon bond [one that pays no interest] is not helpful to you. If you are young, and have a long time to invest, then you may want risk, because you have time to overcome losses and you want to get the most return possible. In addition, taxes are not universal between all investors. Some people benefit from things that would be tax-heavy to their neighbors. For example in Canada, there is a 'dividend tax credit' which reduces the taxes owing on dividends received by a corporation. This credit exists to prevent 'double-taxation', because otherwise the corporation would pay its ~30% of tax, and then a wealthy investor would pay another ~45% of tax. Due to the mechanics of how the credit is calculated, however, someone who makes less money, gets an even lower tax bill than they normally would. This means that someone making under the top tax bracket in Canada, has a tax benefit by receiving dividends. This means that while 2 stocks may be both fairly priced, if one pays dividends and the other doesn't [ie: if the other company instead reinvests more heavily in future projects, creating even more value for shareholders down the road], then someone in the bottom tax brackets may want the dividend paying stock more than the other. In conclusion: Picking investments yourself does require some knowledge to prevent yourself from making a 'bad buy'; this is because the market is not perfectly efficient. As well, specific market mechanics make some trades more costly than they should be in theory; consider for example transaction fees and tax mechanics. Finally, even if you assume that all of the above is irrelevant as a theoretical idea, different investors still have different needs. Just because $1,000,000 is the 'fair' price for a factory in your home town, doesn't mean you might as well convert your retirement savings to buy it as your sole asset.",
"Reading financial statements is important, in the sense that it gives you a picture of whether revenues and profits are growing or shrinking, and what management thinks the future will look like. The challenge is, there are firms that make computers read filings for them and inform their trading strategy. If the computer thinks the stock price is below the growth model, it's likely to bid the stock up. And since it's automated it's moving it faster than you can open your web browser. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? In a sense, no. The only sensible trading strategy is to assume you hold things for as long as their fundamentals exceed market value. Financial statements are where you find those fundamentals. So you should read them. But your question is, is it worth it for investors? My answer is no; the market generally factors information in quickly and efficiently. You're better off sticking to passive mutual funds than trying to trade. The better reason to learn to read these filings is to get a better sense of your employer, potential employers, competitors and even suppliers. Knowing what your margins are, what your suppliers margins and acquisitions are, and what they're planning can inform your own decision making.",
"Knowing the answer to this question is generally not as useful as it may seem. The stock's current price is the consensus of thousands of people who are looking at the many relevant factors (dividend rate, growth prospects, volatility, risk, industry, etc.) that determine its value. A stock's price is the market's valuation of the cash flows it entitles you to in the future. Researching a stock's value means trying to figure out if there is something relevant to these cash flows that the market doesn't know about or has misjudged. Pretty much anything we can list for you here that will affect a stock's price is something the market knows about, so it's not likely to help you know if something is mispriced. Therefore it's not useful to you. If you are not a true expert on how important the relevant factors are and how the market is reacting to them currently (and often even if you are), then you are essentially guessing. How likely are you to catch something that the thousands of other investors have missed and how likely are you to miss something that other investors have understood? I don't view gambling as inherently evil, but you should be clear and honest with yourself about what you are doing if you are trying to outperform the market. As people become knowledgeable about and experienced with finance, they try less and less to be the one to find an undervalued stock in their personal portfolio. Instead they seek to hold a fully diversified portfolio with low transactions costs and build wealth in the long term without wasting time and money on the guessing game. My suggestion for you is to transition as quickly as you can to behave like someone who knows a lot about finance.",
"Be cognizant of your own limitations when approaching this material. I've dealt with lawyers, doctors, engineers and other highly intelligent people from other disciplines, who then try to learn about companies and the stock market. Their own arrogance and assumption that they can just learn anything *quickly* ends up hurting them. It can take years and real classical training of finance to understand this material with any depth. Someone is wrong (a fool) in every trade. There is someone who is going to make money and lose money. Odds are the fool is you.",
"\"Yes, there are a lot of places you can research stocks online, Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, Reuters etc. It's important to understand that the price of the stock doesn't actually mean anything. Share price is just a function of the market capitalization divided by the number of shares outstanding. As an example take two companies that are both worth $1 million, but Company A has issued 10,000 shares and Company B has issued 100,000 shares. Company A has a share price of $100 while Company B has a share price of just $10. Comparing share price does nothing to indicate the relative value or health of Company A versus Company B. I know there are supposed to be no product recommendations but the dictionary area of investopedia.com is a good source of beginner investing information. And as Joe points out below the questions here with the \"\"stock\"\" tag would also be a good place to start. And while I'm on a roll, the book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a good starting point in investing in the stock market.\"",
"Before putting any significant money into stocks, I would recommend spending at least a year paper trading. It is amazing how much money you can lose trading stocks when you don't know what you are doing!",
"Before you go filling your head with useless information as there is way too much stuff out there on the stock market. First ask yourself a few questions: There is going to be a balance between the three... don't kid yourself. After you answer these questions find a trading strategy to get the returns you are looking for. Remember the higher returns you expect... the more time you have to put in. Find a trading strategy you like and that works for you. Ounce you have your strategy then find the stocks or ETF that work for that strategy.... Ignore everything else, it is designed to separate you from your money. Making money in the stock market is easy, don't let the media hype and negative people tell you any different. Find something that works for you and perfect it... stick to it.",
"\"Another thing people forget is that you can only under perform the average (aka the index) if you try. For most things in life, the harder you try, the better you do. In investing, that is not true. You can lock in \"\"average\"\" by simply buying the index fund. If you try, but you don't work as hard as everybody else who is trying or if you are not as smart as everybody else who is trying, then you will be below average. If you try, and you do better research, you are intelligent, and most importantly more disciplined, you can beat the average. That is an awful lot of work to be a few percent above average. It's like a 100 man marathon race where you can choose to come in 50th place if you don't run, it definitely beats running 26 miles only to come in 70th place. Also, note the people who know they are not very skilled will choose to be non-participants. If you are in the top 30% percentile in skill, you'll get killed if 80% of the participants choose to sit out and you are competing with the top 20%. It becomes one of these funny game theory experiments where even if you know what your rank is, do you choose to sit out or not? (Or perhaps you will choose to participate when the shoe shine boy is giving out stock advice, and take the opposite side of the bet). For most people, it doesn't make sense to try. It makes the most sense to lock in the average by putting money into index funds (stocks and bonds) over time. It certainly beats doing several hours of work a week and then getting below average. It only makes sense to try to beat the average if you are really excited about stocks (it is your job or it is your primary hobby) and you have enough capital where getting that extra +3% return over the average is significant (otherwise, just work more on your day job and you'll make more money through wages). I really cannot stress the last point enough, I know some people who are very smart and they do a lot of research on the market, and they get pretty good percentage returns. So you have to be cheap as hell or rich as hell before it makes sense to invest your own money. Otherwise, you'll spend 20-30 hours a week researching to make a few thousand dollars more than the index over a year (which consequently gets spent on celebratory drinking or something, so it never compounds). Not a wise way to spend your time.\"",
"A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.",
"Research the company. Obtain and read their current and past financial statements. Find and read news stories about them. Look for patterns and draw conclusions. Or diversify to the point where one company failing doesn't hurt you significantly. Or both.",
"\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\"",
"There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing.",
"Start by going onto google.com/finance and click through every publicly traded Fortune 500 company. Click on all their charts and look through their graphs for any patters. There will almost always be a pattern even if it is vague and fairly unpredictable. Then look for any jumps or drops in price. Look for the reason of the jump or drop. It could range commonly from news, lay off announcements, acquisitions, etc or just moving along with the market direction for the day. Looking at each stock is key because every stock has its own pattern. Trying to understand the market at a whole is quite impossible, but when you narrow it down to just one stock, it is much more doable. For practice, try updown.com(spent most of my time on it during high school) and create 10-100 accounts and use various techniques for each portfolio. Just from that, you will have much more practice than the majority of traders. It is all very time consuming, but if you truly try on it, you will do better. I have to go(large market drop today, good time to buy). I'll answer more questions later!",
"The key to good investing is you need to understand what you are investing in. That is, if you are buying a company that makes product X, you need to understand that. It is a good idea to buy stock in good companies but that is not sufficient. You need to buy stock in good companies at good prices. That means you need to understand things like price to earnings, price to revenue and price to book. Bob",
"Read the Security Analysis. I believe if you read it completely, you will have a real good chance of succeeding at making good money. If you find the book hard to read just go through it and underline under the text as you read it.",
"\"I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. \"\"With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly\"\" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market.\"",
"It's great that you have gotten the itch to learn about the stock market. There are a couple of fundamentals to understand first though. Company A has strong, growing, net earnings and minimal debt, it's trading for $100 per share. Company B has good revenue but high costs of goods and total liabilities well in excess of total assets, it's trading for $0.10 per share. There is no benefit to getting 10,000 shares or 10 shares for your $1,000. Your goal is to invest in companies that have valuable products and services run by competent management teams. Sure, the number of shares you own will dictate what percentage of the company you own, and in a number of cases, your voting power. But even a penny stock will have a market capitalization of several million dollars so voting power isn't really a concern for your $1,000 investment. There is a lot more in the three basic financial statements (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows) than revenue. Seasoned accountants can have a hard time parsing out where money is coming from and where it's going. In general there are obvious red flags, like a fast declining cash balance against a fast growing liabilities balance or expenses exceeding revenue. While some of these things are common among new and high growth companies, it's not the place for a new investor with a small bankroll. A micro-cap company (penny stocks are in this group) will receive rounds of financing via issuing preferred convertible shares which may include options on more shares. For a company worth $20mm a $5mm financing round can materially change the finances of a company, and will likely dilute your holdings in common stock. Small growth companies need new financing frequently to fund their growth strategies. Revenue went up, great... why? Did you open another store? Did you open another sales office? Did the revenue increase this quarter based on substantially the same operation that existed last quarter or have you increased the capacity of your operation? If you increased the capacity of your operation what was the cost of the increase and did revenue increase as expected? Can you expect revenue to continue to grow at this rate or was it a one time windfall from an unusual order? Sure, there are spectacular gains to be had in penny stocks. XYZ Pharma Research (or whatever) goes from $0.05 to $0.60 and you've turned your $1,000 in to $12,000. This is a really unlikely event... Buying penny stocks is akin to buying lottery tickets. Unless you are a high ranking employee at the company capable of making decisions, or one of the investors buying the preferred shares mentioned in point 3, or are one of the insiders of a pump and dump scam on the stock, penny common stocks are not a place to invest. One could argue that even a company insider should probably avoid buying common stock. Just to illustrate the points above, you mention: Doing some really heavy research into this stock has made me question the whole penny stock market. Based on your research what is the enterprise value of the company? What were the gross proceeds of the last financing round, how many shares were issued and were there any warrants attached? What do you perceive to be heavy research? What background do you have in finance/accounting to give weight to your ability to perform such research? Crawl. Walk. Then run. Don't kid yourself in to thinking that since you have some level of education you understand the contracts involved in enterprise finance.",
"The stock price is not only based on the general market trend and the stock's current profitability and prospects, but is also based on prediction of how the stock's prospects might change in the future. In almost every case, there are professional investors analysing the stock's future prospects and considering whether it's over or under values for its current price. However even professionals can be totally wrong. If you feel like you have a good grasp on whether the stock will have improving or declining prospects over time, then you might be (if you're right) equipped to make a sensible decision on whether to hold the stock or not. If you don't think you have a good understanding about the stock, then an understanding of the general market direction might at least make stock in general worth holding. Otherwise, you are simply taking a punt. If you know of another stock that has better prospects, then ask yourself why you would hold onto the stock that you think will perform worse. But also bear in mind that (in my understanding) research has shown that, on average, people who try to pick stocks rarely do better than a random selection, and more stock trades means more brokerage (which thanks to brokerage losses would mean you will end up doing worse than average unless you really do know better than the market).",
"Upselling you is how they make money. That's the price of the free content. Test their recommendations. Pretend to buy the stocks they say. How do they do? Do they ever say to sell the stocks after their buy recommendations? There are lots and lots of opinions out there. I doubt people really hear about the good ones because (a) the good ones have paid newsletters and/or (b) the good ones aren't telling a soul because they're absolutely cleaning it up. Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions. He's been buying for a while before anyone finds out.",
"\"You probably bought the stock near the peak because \"\"it's been up a lot lately.\"\" That's the easiest way to lose money. You need to go back and do some basic research. The stock appears to have been expensive around 75. Why is that? The stock seems to be in a \"\"comfortable\"\" level around 45. Why is THAT? Maybe it's too expensive around 45 (based on the P/E ratio, or other measures); maybe you should buy more at 45, where it is cheap, even though 75 is too expensive. The key is to study the stock where it is today (45-47). Ask yourself what you would do at TODAY's price, and today's \"\"fundamentals.\"\" That will also save you from paying 75 for a stock worth 45, and should save you from paying 45 for a stock if it is only worth 35.\"",
"\"Not at all impossible. What you need is Fundamental Analysis and Relationship with your investment. If you are just buying shares - not sure you can have those. I will provide examples from my personal experience: My mother has barely high school education. When she saw house and land prices in Bulgaria, she thought it's impossibly cheap. We lived on rent in Israel, our horrible apartment was worth $1M and it was horrible. We could never imagine buying it because we were middle class at best. My mother insisted that we all sell whatever we have and buy land and houses in Bulgaria. One house, for example, went from $20k to EUR150k between 2001 and 2007. But we knew Bulgaria, we knew how to buy, we knew lawyers, we knew builders. The company I currently work for. When I joined, share prices were around 240 (2006). They are now (2015) at 1500. I didn't buy because I was repaying mortgage (at 5%). I am very sorry I didn't. Everybody knew 240 is not a real share price for our company - an established (+30 years) software company with piles of cash. We were not a hot startup, outsiders didn't invest. Many developers and finance people WHO WORK IN THE COMPANY made a fortune. Again: relationship, knowledge! I bought a house in the UK in 2012 - everyone knew house prices were about to go up. I was lucky I had a friend who was a surveyor, he told me: \"\"buy now or lose money\"\". I bought a little house for 200k, it is now worth 260k. Not double, but pretty good money! My point is: take your investment personally. Don't just dump money into something. Once you are an insider, your risk will be almost mitigated and you could buy where you see an opportunity and sell when you feel you are near the maximal real worth of your investment. It's not hard to analyse, it's hard to make a commitment.\"",
"Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively.",
"You can't. Even as a technical trader you should know what events are coming up and be prepared. You can't prepare for everything but you should know when the earnings dates are. You should also pay attention to the market in general. Stocks also have personalities and you should get to know that personality. Most important thing in trading is deciding when to get out before buying and stick to it when it goes against you. It is also one of the hardest things to do.",
"It would seem that you are in a position where you are able to save money and you hope to have your money work for you. From your statement above, it is implied that you are a professional with a steady income not related to the finance field. With that said, it is better to diversify your portfolio and have your money work for you through passive investments rather than an active one, where you actively search for companies that are below market price. That research takes time and much more experience in order to properly execute. Now, if your overall goal is to trade actively, then maybe researching individual companies might be the best way to get your feet wet. But, if your goal is to create a diversified portfolio and make your money work for you, then passive is the way to go. Two passive financial Vehicles: Mutual funds and ETFs. Depending on what you are hoping to accomplish in the future, an ETF or a mutual fund will likely suite your situation. I would encourage you to do your due diligence and find out the weakness and strength of each. From there you are able to make an informed decision.",
"No. As long as you are sensible, an average person can make money on the stock market. A number of my investments (in Investment trusts) over the last 10 yeas have achieved over 200%. You're not going to turn $1000 into a million but you can beat cash. I suggest reading the intelligent investor by Graham - he was Warren Buffet's mentor",
"If you're looking to invest using stocks and shares, I recommend you set up an account at something like Google Finance - it is free and user-friendly with lots of online help. You can set up some 'virtual cash' and put it into a number of stocks which it'll track for you. Review your progress and close some positions and open others as often as you want, but remember to enter some figure for the cost of the transaction, say $19.95 for a trade, to discourage you from high-frequency trading. Take it as seriously as you want - if you stick to your original cash input, you'll see real results. If you throw in more virtual cash than you could in real life, it'll muddle the outcome. After some evaluation period, say 3 months, look back at your progress. You will learn a tremendous amount from doing this and don't need to have read any books or spent any money to get started. Knowing which stocks to pick and when to buy or sell is much more subtle - see other answers for suggestions.",
"I assert not so. Even if we assume a zero sum game (which is highly in doubt); the general stock market curves indicate the average player is so bad that you don't have to be very good to have better that 50/50 averages. One example: UP stock nosedived right after some political mess in Russia two years ago. Buy! Profit: half my money in a month. I knew that nosedive was senseless as UP doesn't have to care much about what goes on in Russia. Rising oil price was a reasonable prediction; however this is good for railroads, and most short-term market trends behave as if it is bad.",
"I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).",
"To dig a little deeper, a number of analysts within (and without) Reuters are polled for their views on individual stocks and markets on buy-hold-sell. The individual analysts will be a varied bunch of fundamentalists, technical, quant and a mixture of the three plus more arcane methodologies. There may be various levels of rumors that aren't strong enough to be considered insider trading, but all of these will give an analyst an impression of the stock/market. Generally I think there isn't much value there, except from the point of view if you are a contrarian trader, then this will form a part of the input to your trading methodology.",
"Given that hedge funds and trading firms employ scores of highly intelligent analysts, programmers, and managers to game the market, what shot does the average person have at successful investing in the stock market? Good question and the existing answers provide valuable insight. I will add one major ingredient to successful investing: emotion. The analysts and experts that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or the best hedge funds employ may have some of the most advanced analytical skills in the world, but knowing and doing still greatly differ. Consider how many of these same companies and funds thought real estate was a great buy before the housing bubble. Why? FOMO (fear of missing out; what some people call greed). One of my friends purchased Macy's and Las Vegas Sands in 2009 at around $5 for M and $2 for LVS. He never graduated high school, so we might (foolishly) refer to him as below average because he's not as educated as those individuals at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. Today M sits around $40 a share and LVS at around $70. Those returns in five years. The difference? Emotion. He holds little attachment to money (lives on very little) and thus had the freedom to take a chance, which to him didn't feel like a chance. In a nutshell, his emotions were in the right place and he studied a little bit about investing (read two article) and took action. Most of the people who I know, which easily had quintuple his wealth and made significantly more than he did, didn't take a chance (even on an index fund) because of their fear of loss. I mean everyone knows to buy low, right? But how many actually do? So knowing what to do is great; just be sure you have the courage to act on what you know.",
"How can you correlate a company stock's performance with overall market performance. No you can't. There is no simple magic formulae that will result in profits. There are quite a few statistical algorithms that specialists have built, that work most of the times. But they are incorrect most of the times as well.",
"The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below: I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term. There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing.",
"Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.",
"I read about the 90-90-90 rule aka 90% of the people lose 90% of the money in 90 days. Anything that happens in 90 days or less is speculation (effectively gambling), not investment. And the 90-90-90 thing sounds around right for inexperienced amateurs going up against professionals in that space. I don't know anyone who actually made significant amount money by investing in stocks or other financial products except those appearing in TVs. Lots and lots and lots of people do. I heard that people who actually encourage common people to invest in stocks are stock brokers and fund managers who actually gain by the fact that more people invest. No. It's true that lots of people will give you advice to by specific stocks or financial instruments that will earn them comission or fees, but the basic idea of investing in the stock market is very sound; ultimately, it's based on the ability of companies to create value and pay dividends. Could you please give some valid reasons to invest in stocks or other financial market. Thank you. Well, what else can you do with your money? Put it in an interest-bearing bank account? Effectively, you'll still be investing in the stock market, the bank is just taking most of the returns in exchange for guaranteeing that you'll never lose money even temporarily.",
"One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.",
"I'm familiar with the efficient market hypothesis. And the argument over if the markets are weak, semi-strong or strong firm efficient. Most of the evidence suggests they are semi-strong form efficient. Are you looking after fees? I'd argue before fees, you'd find a lot more that do on a regular basis. If you'd like to read something, take a look at Warren Buffets letter in the back of intelligent Investor. It's named something about Graham Doddville. He addresses your argument as to random dollar winners. Now you've made a promise you can't keep, because I'm not very wrong. :)",
"Since you seem to be interested in investing in individual stocks, this answer will address that. As for the general question of investing, the answer that @johnfx gave is just about as good as it gets. Investing in individual stocks is extremely risky and takes a LOT of work to do right. On top of the fairly obvious need to research a stock before you buy, there is the matter of keeping up with the stocks to know when you need to sell as well as myriad other facets of investing. Paid professionals spend all day, every day, doing this and they have a hard time beating an index fund. Unless you take the time to educate yourself and are willing to continually put in a good bit of effort, I would advise you to stay away from individual stocks and rely on mutual funds.",
"Buy a share - not a penny stock; rather a well known company like Coca-Cola, Kelloggs, Exxon, etc. Follow the company. Understand their business model. See the share price fall and rise. You will learn a lot having your own money at risk.",
"\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \"\"time\"\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\"",
"As JoeTaxpayer has commented, the markets are littered with the carcasses of those who buy into the idea that markets submit readily to formal analysis. Financial markets are amongst the most complex systems we know of. To borrow a concept from mathematics - that of a chaotic system - one might say that financial markets are a chaotic system comprised of a nested structure of chaotic subsystems. For example, the unpredictable behaviour of a single (big) market participant can have dramatic effects on overall market behaviour. In my experience, becoming a successful investor requires a considerable amount of time and commitment and has a steep learning curve. Your actions in abandoning your graduate studies hint that you are perhaps lacking in commitment. Most people believe that they are special and that investing will be easy money. If you are currently entertaining such thoughts, then you would be well advised to forget them immediately and prepare to show some humility. TL/DR; It is currently considered that behavioural psychology is a valuable tool in understanding investors behaviour as well as overall market trends. Also in the area of psychology, confirmation bias is another aspect of trading that it is important to keep in mind. Quantitative analysis is a mathematical tool that is currently used by hedge funds and the big investment banks, however these methods require considerable resources and given the performance of hedge funds in the last few years, it does not appear to be worth the investment. If you are serious in wanting to make the necessary commitments, then here are a few ideas on where to start : There are certain technical details that you will need to understand in order to quantify the risks you are taking beyond simple buying and holding financial instruments. For example, how option strategies can be used limit your risk; how margin requirements may force your hand in volatile markets; how different markets impact on one another - e.g., the relationship between bond markets and equity markets; and a host of other issues. Also, to repeat, it is important to understand how your own psychology can impact on your investment decisions.",
"\"Of course. \"\"Best\"\" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc.\"",
"Yes, there are very lucrative opportunities available by using financial news releases. A lot of times other people just aren't looking in less popular markets, or you may observe the news source before other people realize it, or may interpret the news differently than the other market participants. There is also the buy the rumor, sell the news mantra - for positive expected information (opposite for negative expected news), which results in a counterintuitive trading pattern.",
"For me, spending my spare time on my career offers better return on investment (time) than stock investing, so I don't have the time to try to craft strategies about stock confusion anyway. It just serves as further proof to me that trying to time the market on short time scales is doomed unless you can account for all the irrationality of human behavior.",
"\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\"",
"There is no way to find out what future will be if you have only quote from past. In other words, nobody is able to trade history successfully and nobody will be able, ever. Quote's movement is not random. Quote is not price. Because brokerage account is not actual money. Any results in past do not guarantee you anything. Brokerage accounts should only have portions of money which you are ready to loose completely. Example: Investment firms recommended buying falling Enron stocks, even when it collapsed 3 times, then - bankrupt, suddenly. What a surprise!",
"\"Yes, of course there have been studies on this. This is no more than a question about whether the options are properly priced. (If properly priced, then your strategy will not make money on average before transaction costs and will lose once transaction costs are included. If you could make money using your strategy, on average, then the market should - and generally will - make an adjustment in the option price to compensate.) The most famous studies on this were conducted by Black and Scholes and then by Merton. This work won the Nobel Prize in 1995. Although the Black-Scholes (or Black-Scholes-Merton) equation is so well known now that people may forget it, they didn't just sit down one day and write and equation that they thought was cool. They actually derived the equation based on market factors. Beyond this \"\"pioneering\"\" work, you've got at least two branches of study. Academics have continued to study option pricing, including but not limited to revisions to the original Black-Scholes model, and hedge funds / large trading house have \"\"quants\"\" looking at this stuff all of the time. The former, you could look up if you want. The latter will never see the light of day because it's proprietary. If you want specific references, I think that any textbook for a quantitative finance class would be a fine place to start. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually find your strategy as part of a homework problem. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't think you can make money with this type of trade, but your strategy will need to include more information than you've outlined here. Choosing which information and getting your hands on it in a timely manner will be the key.\"",
"The Fools have a range of advice from common-sense to speculative, aimed at different audiences (one hopes). As always, don't take anyone's word for it; think it through and decide whether the risk/reward ratio is really in your favor and how much you can afford to risk. They're good on the basics, but the more advanced they get, the more risk there is that they've got it wrong. That last is true of any advisor unless they have information that the rest of us don't. You can learn some things from their explanations of their reasoning without necessarily taking their conclusions as gospel.",
"\"As other people have posted starting with \"\"fictional money\"\" is the best way to test a strategy, learn about the platform you are using, etc. That being said I would about how Fundamental Analysis works . Fundamental Analysis is the very basis of learning about an assets true value is priced. However in my humble opinion, I personally just stick with Index funds. In layman's terms Index Funds are essentially computer programs that buy or sell the underlying assets based on the Index they are associated with in the portion of the underlying index. Therefore you will usually be doing as good or as bad as the market. I personally have the background, education, and skillsets to build very complex models to do fundamental analysis but even I invest primarily in index funds because a well made and well researched stock model could take 8 hours or more and Modern Portfolio Theory would suggest that most investors will inevitably have a regression to the mean and have gains equal to the market rate or return over time. Which is what an index fund already does but without the hours of work and transaction cost.\"",
"Its like anything else, you need to study and learn more about investing in general and the stocks you are looking at buying or selling. Magazines are a good start -- also check out the books recommended in another question. If you're looking at buying a stock for the mid/long term, look at things like this: Selling is more complicated and more frequently screwed up:",
"I remember like 20 years ago someone did an experiment where Peter Lynch, elementary school kids, and an ape, all picked stocks in a situation similar to this. The result was almost the same, with the elementary school kids coming out slightly better Picking correct stocks is a craps shoot, as the market is an emotional entity, and in the short run, even educated guesses don't give an edge. People like Peter Lynch eventually win of course because of discipline, long term goals, and knowledge of tools like derivatives",
"\"Wow, I cannot believe this is a question. Of course reading the 10Ks and 10Qs from the SEC are incredibly beneficial. Especially if you are a follower of the investing gurus such as Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Shelby Davis. Personally I only read the 10K's I copy the pertinent numbers over to my spreadsheets so I can compare multiple companies that I am invested in. I'm sure there are easier ways to obtain the data. I'm a particular user of the discounted free cash flow methodology and buying/selling in thirds. I feel like management that says what they are going to do and does it (over a period of years) is something that cannot be underestimated in investing. yes, there are slipups, but those tend to be well documented in the 10Qs. I totally disagree in the efficient market stuff. I tend to love using methodologies like Hewitt Heisermans \"\" It's Earnings that Count\"\" you cannot do his power-staircase without digging into the 10Qs. by using his methodology I have several 5 baggers over the last 5 years and I'm confident that I'll have more. I think it is an interesting factoid as well that the books most recommended for investing in stocks on Amazon all advocate reading and getting information from 10Ks. The other book to read is Peter Lynch's one-up-wall-street. The fact is money manager's hands are tied when it comes to investing, especially in small companies and learning over the last 6 years how to invest on my own has given me that much more of my investing money back rather than paying it to some money manager doing more trades than they should to get commision fees.\"",
"\"There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the \"\"high-frequency trading\"\" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)\"",
"You can try paper trading to sharpen your investing skills(identifying stocks to invest, how much money to allocate and stuff) but nothing compares to getting beaten black and blue in the real world. When virtual money is involved you mayn't care, because you don't loose anything, but when your hard earned money disappears or grows, no paper trading can incite those feelings in you. So there is no guarantee that doing paper trading will make you a better investor, but can help you a lot in terms of learning. Secondly educate yourself on the ways of investing. It is hard work and realize that there is no substitute for hard work. India is a growing economy and your friends maybe safe in the short term but take it from any INVESTOR, not in the long run. And moreover as all economies are recovering from the recession there are ample opportunities to invest money in India both good and bad. Calculate your returns and compare it with your friends maybe a year or two down the lane to compare the returns generated from both sides. Maybe they would come trumps but remember selecting a good investment from a bad investment will surely pay out in the long run. Not sure what you do not understand what Buffet says. It cannot get more simpler than that. If you can drill those rules into your blood, you mayn't become a billionaire but surely you will make a killing, but in the long run. Read and read as much as you can. Buy books, browse the net. This might help. One more guy like you.",
"\"You hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph ( the rest was good as well). Most data is garbage, but even a large amount of garbage data can tell you something. I wouldn't touch DRYS with a 9 million foot long poll, but if 9 million people said DRYS was a good buy (or said they were bullish on stock twits, or twitter). Id buy DRYS and sell it by the end of the day. People are stupid, there's no argument there, but if 9 million idiots are gonna be buying a shitty stock, I'm gonna join them, let the price get driven up based on nothing but hive mind idiocy, then drop it before they all realize they've been fooled by their own ignorance. AMD has been hilarious. I've been holding AMD since 2013, any tech geek would know AMD was a great buy back then. Now all I see are posts about \"\"Why did AMD go up today?\"\" or \"\"Will AMD hit 100 dollars a share by the end of the year\"\" or something equally ludicrous. People don't want to read. They just want to spew nonsense and be spoon fed the information (by those who are spewing nonsense)\"",
"\"Stock recommendations and price history are an unwise way to invest. People that recommend stocks are usually compensation for recommending it. They are paid directly by third parties, that can be paid in shares, they can simply own the stock themselves and if the stock goes up they can sell it to new investors at a higher price (or even a lower price, they may not actually care) Price history does not tell you a complete picture, what kind of price history are you even looking at: \"\"this stock went up, let me buy now at the very top and hope it goes higher, am I too late\"\" \"\"this stock went down let me avoid it\"\" if you don't know why, what, who, when, assets, debt, etc, you shouldn't be buying the stock.\"",
"Your understanding of the stock market is absolutely correct theoretically. However there is a lot more to it. A stock on a given day is effected by a lot of factors. These factors could really be anything. For example, if you are buying a stock in an agricultural company and there was no rainfall this year, there is a big chance that your stock will lose value. There is also a chance that a war breaks out tomorrow and due to all the government spending on the war, the economy collapses and effects the prices of stocks. Why does this happen? This happens because bad rainfall or war can get people to lose confidence in a stock market. On the other hand GDP growth and low unemployment rates can make people think positive and increase the demand in a stock driving the prices up. The main factor in the stock market is sentiment(How people perceive certain news). This causes a stock to rise or fall even before the event actually happens. (For example:- Weather pundits predicted good rainfall for next year. That news is already known to people, so if the weather pundit was correct, it might not drive the prices up. However, if the rainfall was way better than people expected it to be it would drive the price up and vice versa. These are just examples at a basic level. There are a lot of other factors which determine the price of the stock. The best way to look at it(In my personal opinion) is the way Warren Buffet puts it, i.e. look at the stock as a business and see the potential growth over a long period of time. There will be unexpected events, but in the long run, the business must be profitable. There are various ways to value a company such as Price to earnings ratios, PEG ratios, discounted cash flows and you can also create your own. See what works best for you and record your success/failure ratio before you actually put money in. Good Luck,",
"The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.",
"\"It's possible to make money in the market - even millions if you \"\"play your cards right\"\". Taking the course being offered can be educational but highly unlikely to increase your chances of making millions. Experience and knowledge of the game will make you money. The stock market is a game.\"",
"I won't be able to model stock prices using this information. The pros aren't likely to use Google as much. Even the casual investor is likely to have his own habits. For example, I've come to like how Yahoo permits me to set up a portfolio and follow the stocks I want. And the information that interests me is there, laid out nicely, price, history, insider trades, news etc. But your effort probably still has some discovery value, as it will help you understand when interest in a company suddenly swells above normal. Nothing wrong with a good project like that. Just don't expect to extract too much market-beating success from it. The pros will eat your lunch, take your money, and not even say thanks. Welcome to Money.SE.",
"From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!",
"\"As an aside, why does it seem to be difficult to get a conclusive answer to this question? I'm going to start by trying to answer this question and I think the answer here will help answer the other questions. Here is a incomplete list of the challenges involved: So my question is, is there any evidence that value investing actually beats the market? Yes there is a lot of evidence that it works and there is a lot of evidence that it does not. timday's has a great link on this. Some rules/methods work over some periods some work during others. The most famous evidence for value investing probably comes from Fama and French who were very careful and clever in solving many of the above problems and had a large persistent data set, but their idea is very different from Damodaran's, for instance, and hard to implement though getting easier. Is the whole field a waste of time? Because of the above problems this is a hard question. Some people like Warren Buffet have clearly made a lot of money doing this. Though it is worth remembering a good amount of the money these famous investors make is off of fees for investing other peoples' money. If you understand fundamental analysis well you can get a job making a lot of money doing it for a company investing other peoples' money. The markets are very random that it is very hard for people to tell if you are good at it and since markets generally go up it is easy to claim you are making money for people, but clearly banks and hedge funds see significant value in good analysts so it is likely not entirely random. Especially if you are a good writer you can make a more money here than most other jobs. Is it worth it for the average investor saving for retirement? Very, very hard to say. Your time might be better spent on your day job if you have one. Remember because of the fees and added risk involved over say index investing more \"\"Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth.\"\"\"",
"\"Consider this thought experiment: Take 10 million people and give them each $3,000. Every day they each purchase a random stock with all of their money. The next day they flip a coin and if it's heads they do nothing, and if it's tails they sell it and purchase another random stock. Repeat everyday for 5 years. After 5 years, you'll probably have many people that lost all of their money due to the fees they paid for each trade they made. A lot of people will have lost a little or won a little. Some people will have doubled or tripled their money, or even better. A very small number of people will have made \"\"millions\"\". Some of those small number of people that made millions will likely go on to write books and sell seminars on how to make money in the stock market.\"",
"The early bird catches the worm. The first person who makes use of the information gains! That is why hedge funds pay billions of dollars to place their routers right at the center of wall street. Moreover, the information is not always correct. The article you are reading may be a rumor spread by someone on wall street.Then there is speculation and that is factored into the price. For example:- In spite of all the bad news from Greece, the market still continued to rise. This was because, everyone had an idea about what was going to happen and the price was factored in way before Greece actually defaulted. The game is way more complicated than it seems. If everyone sat down and read reports, opportunities to make millions of dollars would have been lost in those few seconds. (Please note:- I do not mean reading reports is bad)",
"Given what you state you should shop around for an advisor. Think of the time required to pursue your strategies that you list? They already have studied much of what you seek to learn about. Any good investor should understand the basics. This is Canadian based but many of the concepts are universal. Hope you find it helpful. http://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca/Pages/default.aspx",
"\"Good ones, no there are not. Go to a bookstore and pick up a copy of \"\"The Intelligent Investor.\"\" It was last published in 1972 and is still in print and will teach you everything you need to know. If you have accounting skills, pick up a copy of \"\"Security Analysis\"\" by Benjamin Graham. The 1943 version was just released again with a 2008 copyright and there is a 1987 version primarily edited by Cottle (I think). The 1943 book is better if you are comfortable with accounting and the 1987 version is better if you are not comfortable and feel you need more direction. I know recent would seem better, but the fact that there was a heavy demand in 2008 to reprint a 1943 book tells you how good it is. I think it is in its 13th printing since 2008. The same is true for the 72 and 87 book. Please don't use internet tutorials. If you do want to use Internet tutorials, then please just write me a check now for all your money. It will save me effort from having to take it from you penny by penny because you followed bad advice and lost money. Someone has to capture other people's mistakes. Please go out and make money instead. Prudence is the mother of all virtues.\"",
"From my experience you don't need knowledge of accounting to pick good stocks. The type of investing you are referring to is fundamental. This is finding out about the company, this websites should help you start off: http://en.tradehero.mobi/how-to-choose-a-stock-fundamental-analysis/ Investopedia will also be a useful website in techniques. A bit of knowledge in economics will be helpful in understanding how current affairs will affect a market, which will affect stock prices. However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. For example looking at charts from previous years it shows the last time there was a huge recession the dollar did well and commodities didn't. In this recession we are entering you can see the same thing happening. Read about the different techniques before limiting yourself to just looking at financial statements you may find a better technique suited to you, like these technical analysts: http://etfhq.com/blog/2013/03/02/top-technical-analysts/ Hope this helps.",
"\"I find the question interesting, but it's beyond an intelligent answer. Say what you will about Jim Cramer, his advice to spend \"\"an hour per month on each stock\"\" you own appears good to me. But it also limits the number of stocks you can own. Given that most of us have day jobs in other fields, you need to decide how much time and education you can put in. That said, there's a certain pleasure in picking stocks, buying a company that's out of favor, but your instinct tells you otherwise. For us, individual stocks are about 10% of total portfolio. The rest is indexed. The amount that \"\"should be\"\" in individual stocks? None. One can invest in low cost funds, never own shares of individual stocks, and do quite well.\"",
"You shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place. From New York Magazine, tweeted by Ezra Klein: New evidence for that reality comes from Goldman Sachs, via Bloomberg News. The investment bank analyzed the holdings of 854 funds with $2.1 trillion in equity positions. It found, first of all, that all those “sophisticated investors” would have been better off stashing their money in basic, hands-off index funds or mutual funds last year — both of them had higher average returns than hedge funds did. The average hedge fund returned 3 percent last year, versus 14 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500. Mutual funds do worse than index funds. Tangentially-related to the question of whether Wall Street types deserve their compensation packages is the yearly phenomenon in which actively managed mutual funds underperform the market. Between 2004 and 2008, 66.21% of domestic funds did worse than the S&P Composite 1500. In 2008, 64.23% underperformed. In other words, if you had a fund manager and his employees bringing their skill and knowledge to bear on your portfolio, you probably lost money as compared to the market as a whole. That's not to say you lost money in all cases. Just in most. The math is really simple on this one. Stock picking is fun, but undiversified and brings you competing with Wall Streeters with math Ph.Ds. and twenty-thousand-dollars-a-year Bloomberg terminals. What do you know about Apple's new iPhone that they don't? You should compare your emotional reaction to losing 40% in two days to your reaction to gaining 40% in two days... then compare both of those to losing 6% and gaining 6%, respectively. Picking stocks is not financially wise. Period.",
"and this is a sure sign that their advice is worthless.. if their research was worth the paper that it is written on, they would be using that research to make money trading, instead of trying to sell their research to their clients. how many times have we said that traders that can trade will trade, but that traders that can not trade, they will teach. and the fact that they are charging so much for their research should be a sign or an indication that there is perhaps a sense of desperation in this organization to quickly raise some money quickly and desperately. people that dont really know where the treasure is buried at will sell treasure maps.. people that do know where the treasure is buried will dig for buried treasure.",
"Volume and prices are affected together by how folks feel about the stock; there is no direct relationship between them. There are no simple analysis techniques that work. Some would argue strongly that there are few complex analysis techniques that work either, and that for anyone but full-time professionals. And there isn't clear evidence that the full-time professionals do sufficiently better than index funds to justify their fees. For most folks, the best bet is to diversify, using low-overhead index funds, and simply ride with the market rather than trying to beat it.",
"\"My feeling is that you're basically agreeing to throw away a bucket of money for a lesson that doesn't have to cost a penny. Like another commenter said, you're putting the cart before the horse. I once asked a similar question to a seasoned investor, though I wasn't in the position to toss my hard-earned cash into the well yet. He told me that the difference between the winners and losers is that the winners don't need the money. I'm not trying to say that there's a \"\"rich keep getting richer ...\"\" component here, while schlubs like me get nada. The real nugget of wisdom he offered was that if anyone wants to do well as investors, we must invest in a way that we're not dependent on the money we have in the market. Instead, manage risk carefully so that you don’t get swept up in the emotional highs and lows. For you, what I applaud is that you're willing to do your research first. And part of that should be anticipating how you will handle the anxiety when you put your money in at the wrong time or get out a little later than you should. What I understand now is that you don’t need to be wealthy to “not need the money.” You just need to invest smartly and leave your emotions out of it.\"",
"It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you!",
"Okay as long as you aren't dumb enough to actually think this would be worth pursuing. I don't want you to waste your money when it could go towards something nice, like your house budget. If you really do believe they are overvalued there are much better strategies.",
"\"Below is just a little information on this topic from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": The most significant non-company-specific factor affecting stock price is the market sentiment, while the most significant company-specific factor is the earning power of the company. Perhaps it would be safe to say that technical analysis is more related to psychology/emotions, while fundamental analysis is more related to reason – that is why it is said that fundamental analysis tells you what to trade and technical analysis tells you when to trade. Thus, many stock traders use technical analysis as a timing tool for their entry and exit points. Technical analysis is more suitable for short-term trading and works best with large caps, for stock prices of large caps are more correlated with the general market, while small caps are more affected by company-specific news and speculation…: Perhaps small stock traders should not waste a lot of time on fundamental analysis; avoid overanalyzing the financial position, market position, and management of the focus companies. It is difficult to make wise trading decisions based only on fundamental analysis (company-specific news accounts for only about 25 percent of stock price fluctuations). There are only a few important figures and ratios to look at, such as: perhaps also: Furthermore, single ratios and figures do not tell much, so it is wise to use a few ratios and figures in combination. You should look at their trends and also compare them with the company’s main competitors and the industry average. Preferably, you want to see trend improvements in these above-mentioned figures and ratios, or at least some stability when the times are tough. Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market. Some may succeed purely on the basis of technical analysis, some purely due to fundamental analysis, and others from a combination of these two like most of the great stock traders have done (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen). It is just a matter of finding out what best fits your personality. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"",
"Over a period of time most mutual funds do not perform better that an index fund. Picking and buying individual stock can be a great learning experience.",
"It is only wise to invest in what you understand (ala Warren Buffet style). Depending on how much money you have, you might see fit to consult a good independent financial advisor instead of seeking advice from this website. A famous quote goes: “Those who say, do not know. Those who know, do not say”",
"You should sell all your stock immediately and reinvest the money in index funds. As of right now you're competing against prop trading shops, multinational banks, and the like, who probably know a teensy bit more about that particular stock than you do. I'm sorry, any other advice is missing the point that you shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place.",
"Okay, first of all Fair value may not be target price. Lots of things can go into a price that won't be in fair value such as expected future price. Second of all, if you were good at equity research and could make money off of doing it, you would start a hedge fund or get paid very well by some company. If you aren't good at equity research but still want to do it you do journalism and estimates on 'fair value'",
"You need to do a few things to analyze your results. First, look at the timing of the deposits, and try to confirm the return you state. If it's still as high as you think, can you attribute it to one lucky stock purchase? I have an account that's up 863% from 1998 till 2013. Am I a genius? Hardly. That account, one of many, happened to have stocks that really outperformed, Apple among them. If you are that good, a career change may be in order. Few are that good. Joe",
"I agree with the other answers, but I want to give a slightly different perspective. I believe that a lot of people are smart enough to beat the market, but that it takes a lot more dedication, patience, and self-control than they think. Before Warren Buffett buys a stock, he has read the quarterly reports for years, has personally met with management, has visited facilities, etc. If you aren't willing to do that kind of analysis for every stock you buy, then I think that you are doing little more than gambling. If you are just using the information that everyone else has, then you'll get the returns that everyone else gets (if you're lucky).",
"If you just want to save for retirement, start with a financial planning book, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 and here's my editorial on the investing part: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ If you're thinking of spending time stock-picking or trading for fun, then there are lots of options. Web site: Morningstar Premium (http://morningstar.com) has very good information. They analyze almost all large-cap stocks and some small caps too, plus mutual funds and ETFs, and have some good general information articles. It doesn't have the sales-pitch hot-blooded tone of most other sites. Morningstar analyzes companies from a value investing point of view which is probably what you want unless you're day trading. Also they analyze funds, which are probably the most practical investment. Books: If you want to be competent (in the sense that a professional investor trying to beat the market or control risk vs. the market would be) then I thought the CFA curriculum was pretty good: However, this will quickly teach you how much is involved in being competent. The level 1 curriculum when I did it was 6 or 7 thick textbooks, equivalent to probably a college semester courseload. I didn't do level 2 or 3. I don't think level 1 was enough to become competent, it's just enough to learn what you don't know. The actual CFA charter requires all three levels and years of work experience. If you more want to dabble, then Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor certainly isn't a bad place to start, but you'd also want to read some efficient markets stuff (Random Walk Down Wall Street, or something by Bogle, or The Intelligent Asset Allocator http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Asset-Allocator-Portfolio-Maximize/dp/0071362363, are some options). It wouldn't be bad to just read a textbook like http://www.amazon.com/Investments-Irwin-Finance-Zvi-Bodie/dp/0256146381 which would be the much-abridged version of the CFA level 1 stuff. If you're into day trading / charting, then I don't know much about that at all, some of the other answers may have some ideas. I've never been able to find info on this that didn't seem like it had a sketchy sales pitch kind of vibe. Honestly in a world of high-frequency trading computers I'm skeptical this is something to get into. Unless you want to program HFT computers: http://howtohft.wordpress.com/",
"The price of a shares reflects the expected future returns of that company. If it does not someone will notice and buy until it does. Look at this chart http://www.finanzen.net/chart/Arcandor (click on max), that's a former DAX company, so one of the largest german companys. Now it's bankrupt. Why do you think you are the only one who is going to notice? There are millions of people and even more computers, some a going to be smarter than you. Of course that does not happen to everyone but who knows. Is Volkswagen going to survive the current crisis? Probably. Is it coming back to former glory in the next half year? Who knows? Here comes the obvious solution: Don't buy single stocks, spread it out over many companies, some will shine, some will plument and you get the average. Oh that's an index, how convinent. Now if there were a way to save on all these transaction costs you're incurring...",
"\"It is great that you want to learn more about the Stock Market. I'm curious about the quantitative side of analyzing stocks and other financial instruments. Does anyone have a recommendation where should I start? Which books should I read, or which courses or videos should I watch? Do I need some basic prerequisites such as statistics or macro and microeconomics? Or should I be advanced in those areas? Although I do not have any books or videos to suggest to you at the moment, I will do some more research and edit this answer. In order to understand the quantitative side of analyzing the stock market to have people take you serious enough and trust you with their money for investments, you need to have strong math and analytical skills. You should consider getting a higher level of education in several of the following: Mathematics, Economics, Finance, Statistics, and Computer Science. In mathematics, you should at least understand the following concepts: In finance, you should at least understand the following concepts: In Computer Science, you should probably know the following: So to answer your question, about \"\"do you need to be advanced in those areas\"\", I strongly suggest you do. I've read that books on that topics are such as The Intelligent Investor and Reminiscences of A Stock Operator. Are these books really about the analytics of investing, or are they only about the philosophy of investing? I haven't read the Reminiscences of A Stock Operator, but the Intelligent Investor is based on a philosophy of investing that you should only consider but not depend on when you make investments.\"",
"\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"",
"10k in taser stock at $1.00 per share made those who held into the hundreds per share made millions. But think about the likelihood of you owning a $1 stock and holding it past $10.00. They (taser millionaires) were both crazy and lucky. A direct answer, better off buying a lottery ticket. Stocks are for growing wealth not gaining wealth imho. Of course there are outliers though. To the point in the other answer, if it was repeatable the people teaching the tricks (if they worked) would make much more if they followed their own advice if it worked. Also, if everyone tells you how good gold is to buy that just means they are selling to get out. If it was that good they would be buying and not saying anything about it."
] |
[
"\"Doing your homework means to perform what's more accurately called \"\"fundamental analysis\"\". According to proponents of fundamental analysis (FA), it is possible to accurately determine how much a stock should trade for and then buy or sell the stock based on whether it trades above or below this target price. This target price is based on the discounted anticipated future earnings of your stock, so \"\"doing your homework\"\" means that you figure out how much future earnings you can expect from the stock and then figuring out at what rate you want to discount those future earnings (Are 1000 dollars that you'll earn next year worth $800 today or $900 or only $500? That depends on the overall economic and political climate...) So does this make any sense? Depends. I'm aware that there are a lot of anecdotes of people researching a stock, buying that stock and doing well with that stock. But poor decisions can at times lead to good outcomes... EDIT: Due to some criticism, I want to expand on a few points. So, is homework completely for naught? No!\"",
"\"TL;DR: Sure, \"\"do your own homework\"\" is sometimes a cop out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our homework. I agree that in many cases this is a cop-out by commentators. However, even if you believe in perfect market efficiency, there is benefit in \"\"doing your homework\"\" for many reasons. One of which you already mention in the question: different stocks all with the same \"\"value\"\" might have widely ranging risk. Another factor that might vary between stocks is their tax consequences. High dividend stocks might be a better fit for some buyers than others. One stock might be priced at $40 because there is a small chance they might get regulatory approval for a new product. This might make this stock very risky with a 20% of being $150 in 12 months, and a 80% chance of being $20. Another stock might be priced at $40 because the company is a cash cow, declining in revenues but producing a large dividend of $0.40 per quarter. Low risk, but also with some potential tax disadvantages. Another stock might be priced at $40 because it's a high growth stock. This would be less risky than the first example, but more risky than the second example. And the risk would be more generalized, i.e. there wouldn't be one day or one event that would be make or break the stock. In short, even if we assume that the market is pricing everything perfectly, not all stocks are equal and not all stocks are equally appropriate to everyone. Sometimes when we hear an analyst say \"\"they should have done their homework\"\" they are really saying \"\"This was a high risk/high reward stock. They should have known that this had a potential downside.\"\" And that all assumes that we believe in 100% pure market efficiency. Which many disagree with, at least to some extent. For example, if we instead subscribe to Peter Lynch's theories about \"\"local knowledge\"\", we might believe that everyone has some personal fields of expertise where they know more than the experts. A professional stock analyst is going to follow many stocks and many not have technical experience in the field of the company. (This is especially true of small and mid cap stocks.) If you happen to be an expert in LED lighting, it is entirely feasible (at least to me) that you could be able to do a better job of \"\"doing homework\"\" on CREE than the analysts. Or if you use a specialized piece of software from a small vendor at work, and you know that the latest version stinks, then you will likely know more than the analyst does. I think it is somewhat akin to going to a doctor. We could say to ourselves \"\"the doctor is more knowledgeable about me than medicine, I'm just going to do what they tell me to do.\"\" And 99% of the time, that is the right thing to do. But if we do our \"\"homework\"\" anyway, and research the symptoms, diagnoses, and drugs ourselves as well, we can do get benefits. Sometimes we just can express our preferences amongst equal solutions. Sometimes we can ask smarter questions. And sometimes we have some piece of knowledge that the doctor doesn't have and can actually make an important discovery they didn't know. (And, just like investing, sometimes we can also have just enough knowledge to be dangerous and do ourselves harm if we go against the advice of the professionals.)\"",
"\"The markets are not as information efficient as some might have you believe. But on the contrary, looking up what the aggregate professional analysts have said is also part of \"\"doing your homework\"\"\"",
"In fact markets are not efficient and participants are not rational. That is why we have booms and busts in markets. Emotions and psychology play a role when investors and/or traders make decisions, sometimes causing them to behave in unpredictable or irrational ways. That is why stocks can be undervalued or overvalued compared to their true value. Also, different market participants may put a different true value on a stock (depending on their methods of analysis and the information they use to base their analysis on). This is why there are always many opportunities to profit (or lose your money) in liquid markets. Doing your research, homework, or analysis can be related to fundamental analysis, technical analysis, or a combination of the two. For example, you could use fundamental analysis to determine what to buy and then use technical analysis to determine when to buy. To me, doing your homework means to get yourself educated, to have a plan, to do your analysis (both FA and TA), to invest or trade according to your plan and to have a risk management strategy in place. Most people are too lazy to do their homework so will pay someone else to do it for them or they will just speculate (on the latest hot tip) and lose most of their money."
] |
3781
|
What is the rough estimate of salary value for a taxpayer to pay AMT?
|
[
"131959",
"413328"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"413328",
"55407",
"131959",
"144439",
"441718",
"398021",
"446628",
"290468",
"191965",
"201964",
"451005",
"82628",
"562957",
"28172",
"418871",
"135219",
"59843",
"16895",
"105264",
"358776",
"134026",
"505692",
"442110",
"299579",
"188988",
"246453",
"189879",
"363960",
"199397",
"223042",
"87998",
"260043",
"200131",
"176105",
"556976",
"238852",
"471257",
"324916",
"533808",
"569645",
"260795",
"65918",
"148715",
"152298",
"107520",
"99679",
"456788",
"467021",
"359465",
"463881",
"491028",
"127974",
"304479",
"478388",
"170143",
"134494",
"60750",
"175951",
"313186",
"292281",
"459740",
"438778",
"372847",
"13398",
"62281",
"319331",
"313391",
"235298",
"498834",
"12119",
"309915",
"214009",
"139906",
"307531",
"436960",
"171431",
"121621",
"103771",
"431395",
"193280",
"108273",
"298685",
"86088",
"592680",
"158227",
"484382",
"46753",
"6103",
"257443",
"448589",
"599015",
"336950",
"519534",
"161632",
"509081",
"68632",
"18570",
"266567",
"499502",
"360925"
] |
[
"\"Turbox Tax states the following: \"\"For 2015, the AMT exemption amounts are $53,600 for individual taxpayers, $83,400 for married taxpayers filing jointly and surviving spouses, and $41,700 for married persons filing separately. This is the amount you're allowed to deduct from your taxable income before applying the AMT.\"\"\"",
"According to pages 6 & 7 of the instructions for form 1040 in 2009 AMT was only temporarily patched for the year. Congress can't politically afford to drastically cut AMT exemptions by 30 to 40%, and may even retroactively change it, if it isn't passed by the end of the year (despite the constitution forbidding ex post facto laws) : What’s New for 2009 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount increased. The AMT exemption amount has increased to $46,700 ($70,950 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $35,475 if married filing separately)... What’s New for 2010 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount. The AMT exemption amount is scheduled to decrease to $33,750 ($45,000 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $22,500 if married filing separately). So, if you are married, and several regular tax deductions push your income below the AMT exemption amount of $45,000, it's quite possible you would be required to pay AMT, even if you didn't last year. There is a work sheet for AMT in the instructions for line 43, but the IRS also provides an AMT calculator. According to page 146 (E-8) of the instructions for form 1040 AMT is paid as: the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your taxable income (Form 1040, line 43). It is also the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) on Form 6251, line 29. If the [AMT calculation] is larger than your taxable income would otherwise be, enter the amount from column (c) on Form 1040, line 43 [or ...] Form 6251, line 29. As always, congress finds ways to further complicate things by making a few credits and losses deductible against the absolute minimum you're expected to pay taxes on, making the AMT a misnomer.",
"\"Alternative Minimum Tax is based not just on your income, but moreso on the deductions you use. In short, if you have above the minimum AMT threshold of income (54k per your link), and pay a tiny amount of tax, you will pay AMT. AMT is used as an overall protection for the government to say \"\"okay, you can use these deductions from your taxable income, but if you're making a lot of money, you should pay something, no matter what your deductions are\"\". This extra AMT can be used to reduce your tax payment in a future year, if you pay regular tax again. For example - if you have 60k in income, but have 60k in specific deductions from your income, you will pay zero regular tax [because your taxable income will be zero]. AMT would require you to pay some tax on your income above the minimum 54k threshold, which might work out to a few thousand bucks. Next year, if you have 60k in income, but only 15k in deductions, then you would pay some regular tax, and would be able to offset that regular tax by claiming a credit from your AMT already paid. AMT is really a pre-payment of tax paid in years when you have a lot of deductions. Unless you have a lot of deductions every single year, in which case you might not be able to get all of your AMT refunded in the end. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of AMT in the US, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax. If you think AMT is unfair (and maybe in some cases you might pay it when you think it's \"\"unfair\"\"), look at the root causes of paying AMT listed in that Wikipedia article: I am not trying to convince you that AMT is fair, just that it applies only when someone already has a very low tax rate due to deductions. If you have straight salary income, it would only apply in rare scenarios.\"",
"Depending on your income, you may owe AMT instead of the taxes from the regular code. Even if you don't do that, you may hit the place where you have to at least check if you owe AMT. As you probably know, AMT was established early on to catch the wealthiest of tax payers who were able to use various loop holes in the code to pay much less tax than one would expect. Over time the limits on AMT have not risen with the rising wage gap, and AMT catches an increasing number of tax payers each year. If the limit is not raised at all for 2010 then it will catch even more people this year. AMT has worked it's way into the upper-middle class fairly solidly, especially if you exercise stock options whose strike price is significantly different than the current sale price.",
"This may be a good or a bad deal, depending on the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise. Let's assume the FMV is $6, which is the break even point. In general this would probably be treated as two transactions. So overall you would be cash neutral, but your regular tax income would be increased by $30,000 and your AMT income by $60,000.",
"Standard deduction is $6300, and exemption is $4050, totaling $10,350. (For 2016) Twice this for a couple ($20,700). The tax on money just above this is 10%, so the few thousand above will be taxed at a few hundred dollars. Where are you getting the number you showed? Can you edit your question to clarify exactly what you are asking?",
"Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)? Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation.",
"Technically yes, in most cases you'll probably get all the AMT you pay for exercising in-the-money incentive stock options (ISOs) credited back to you. Practically, however, inflation could significantly reduce the value of the money when you get it back. Remember you can only recover the differential between regular income tax and the tentative minimum tax (TMT) each year. Depending on your situation, that could be a few thousand dollars or less, in which case $50k of AMT credit would take a while to use up. However, as you point out, if you end up selling your shares you'll likely use up all your AMT credit that year. So yes, you'd probably get your $50k of AMT back, but a lot of people don't have that much to tie up in taxes for an extended period of time.",
"You're interpreting this correctly. Furthermore, if your total tax liability is less than $1000, you can not pay estimates at all, just pay at the tax day. See this safe harbor rule in the IRS publication 17: General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months.",
"Well $100k is approximately the 80th percentile. So it's doing pretty well. But perhaps [this website](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/tax-breaks/?utm_term=.4cd4ec597815) will show how much SALT deductions benefit the rich. Just move the dial over to the $1M mark and suddenly your biggest deduction is state and local taxes.",
"The IRS has a calculator for this purpose.",
"\"An unmarried person with a total U.S.-sourced earned income under $ 37,000 during the year 2016 is likely to owe: If the original poster is not an \"\"independent contractor\"\", and is not \"\"billing corp-to-corp\"\" then: In summary: References:\"",
"If you qualify for the safe harbor, you are not required to pay additional quarterly taxes. Of course, you're still welcome to do so if you're sure you'll owe them; however, you will not be penalized. If your income is over $150k (joint) or $75k (single), your safe harbor is: Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty. Generally, if you're under that level, the following reasons suggest you will not owe the tax (from the IRS publication 505): The total of your withholding and timely estimated tax payments was at least as much as your 2013 tax. (See Special rules for certain individuals for higher income taxpayers and farmers and fishermen.) The tax balance due on your 2014 return is no more than 10% of your total 2014 tax, and you paid all required estimated tax payments on time. Your total tax for 2014 (defined later) minus your withholding is less than $1,000. You did not have a tax liability for 2013. You did not have any withholding taxes and your current year tax (less any household employment taxes) is less than $1,000. If you paid one-fourth of your last year's taxes (or of 110% of your last-year's taxes) in estimated taxes for each quarter prior to this one, you should be fine as far as penalties go, and can simply add the excess you know you will owe to the next check.",
"You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.",
"\"You can simply use the previous year's tax liability as your basis for payments. Take the amount of tax you owed the previous year, divide by four, and use that amount for your estimated payments. As long as you're paying 100% of what you owed last year, you won't have any penalty. Except if your AGI is above a certain limit ($150k for married filing jointly in 2011), then you have to pay 110%. See IRS Pub 505 for details (general rule, special rule, under \"\"Higher Income Taxpayers\"\"). (H/T to @Dilip Sarwate for pointing out the 110% exception in a comment below.)\"",
"\"In your case, I believe the answer is that you don't owe any taxes, if your deductions exceed your income. There is something called the Alternate Minimum Tax to catch \"\"rich\"\" people, who claim \"\"too many\"\" deductions. Basically, it taxes their \"\"gross\"\" income at a lower rate, but allows them no deductions if they make $175,000 or more. You are not in that tax \"\"bracket.\"\"\"",
"If you have a relatively stable income and deductions you can get a fairly good estimate using last year's tax bill. Suppose you paid $12000 of actual taxes last year and you are paid once a month. If you plan to make a similar amount of money with similar deductions, you need each monthly paycheck to have $1000 of federal income taxes withheld. I go to a paycheck calculator and find the withholding required to make sure I have that amount withheld every paycheck.",
"\"The translation scheme is detailed in IRS Publication 15, \"\"Employer's Tax Guide\"\". For the 2010 version, the information is in Section 16 on Page 37. There are two ways that employers can calculate the withheld tax amount: wage bracket and percentage. Alternatively, they can also use one of the methods defined in IRS Publication 15-A. I'll assume the person making $60k/yr with 10 allowances is paid monthly ($5000/period) and married. Using the wage bracket method, the amount withheld for federal taxes would be $83 per pay period. Using the percentage method, it would be $81.23 per pay period. I don't recommend that you use this information to determine how to fill out your W-4. The IRS provides a special online calculator for that purpose, which I have always found quite accurate. Note: \"\"allowances\"\" are not the same as \"\"dependents\"\"; \"\"allowances\"\" are a more realistic estimation of your tax deductions, taking into consideration much more than just your dependents.\"",
"\"Actually, the other answer isn't strictly correct. It's an estimate, giving a lower bound that gets less accurate as income increases. Consider: U.S. income tax is based on a progressive tax system where there are income bracket levels with increasing tax rates. Example: Given U.S. 2009 federal tax rates for an individual filing as \"\"single\"\": Imagine somebody making $100000. Assuming no other credits, deductions, or taxes, then income tax based on the above brackets & rates would be calculated as follows: Meaning the average tax rate for the single individual earning $100,000 is 21.72%. However, a pre-tax deduction from that income actually comes off at the top marginal tax rate. Consider the same calculation but with taxable income reduced to $99,000 instead (i.e. simulating a pre-tax $1000 deduction): That's a difference of $280, which is more than the $217.20 savings that would have been estimated if just using the average tax rate method. Consequently, when trying to determine how much money would be saved by a tax deduction, it makes better sense to estimate using the marginal tax rate, which in this case was 28%. It gets a little trickier if the deduction crosses a bracket boundary. (Left as an exercise to the reader :-) Finally, in the case of the deduction being discussed, it also looks like payroll FICA taxes paid by the employee (Social Security's 6.2%, and Medicare's 1.45%) would be avoided as well; so add that to the marginal tax rate savings. The surest way to know how much would be saved, though, would be to do one's income tax return calculation without the deduction, and then with, and compare the numbers. Tax software can make this very easy to do.\"",
"If you are just starting out, my tactic would be to go way high and then consider any different play money. So guess $90 and when it comes in at $60, buy a new shirt or go on a date.",
"Looking at the numbers quickly, if he makes this amount for the entire year, single, no kids, no investment income, standard deduction only, his taxable income will be about $110,000.* That puts him in the 28% tax bracket. His federal tax would be: $18,481.25 plus 28% of the amount over $90,750 Which comes out to about $23,800 in tax liability. His federal withholding is $26,047 for the year, so with absolutely no deductions whatsoever, he will be getting a tax refund of about $2200. I'm not very familiar with the California tax return, but it is entirely possible that he would get a decent sized refund from the state as well. This means that his tax refund could be about the size of an extra paycheck. He may want to consider increasing his allowances, which would make his paychecks bigger and his tax refund smaller. That having been said, taxes are high, no doubt about it. Remember that when you are in the voting booth. :) * Here is how I got the taxable income number for the year:",
"Assuming you are Resident Indian. As per Indian Income Tax As per section 208 every person whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000, shall pay his tax in advance in the form of “advance tax”. Thus, any taxpayer whose estimated tax liability for the year exceeds Rs. 10,000 has to pay his tax in advance by the due dates prescribed in this regard. However, as per section 207, a resident senior citizen (i.e., an individual of the age of 60 years or above) not having any income from business or profession is not liable to pay advance tax. In other words, if a person satisfies the following conditions, he will not be liable to pay advance tax: Hence only self assessment tax need to be paid without any interest. Refer the full guideline on Income tax website",
"75k is short of the 'highly compensated' category. Most US citizens in that pay range would consider paying someone to do their taxes as an unnecessary expense. Tax shelters usually don't come into play for this level of income. However, there are certain things which provide deductions. Some things that make it better to pay someone: Use the free online tax forms to sandbox your returns. If all you're concerned about is ensuring you pay your taxes correctly, this is the most cost efficient route. If you want to minimize your tax burden, consult with a CPA. Be sure to get one who is familiar with resident aliens from your country and the relevant tax treaties. The estimate you're looking at may be the withholding, of which you may be eligible for a refund for some part of that withholding. Tax treaties likely make sure that you get credit on each side for the money paid in the other. For example, as a US citizen, if I go to Europe and work and pay taxes there, I can deduct the taxes paid in Europe from my tax burden in the US. If I've already paid more to the EU than I would have paid on the same amount earned in the US, then my tax burden in the US is zero. By the same token, if I have not paid up to my US burden, then I owe the balance to the US. But this is way better than paying taxes to your home country and to the host country where you earned the money.",
"Your tax return will be due on April 18th of 2017 for the amounts made in 2016. Based on the figures that you have provided, assuming you are 18, and assuming you are a single taxpayer your total tax will be around $2600.00 ($2611.25 to be exact, without additional credits or deductions to AGI accounted for). The $1,234 in fed. inc. tax that you have already paid is considered to be a prepaid by the government. If at year-end you have provided more than you have made the government will refund you the excess (federal tax return).",
"The net gain isn't $0. An employer prefers candidate A over candidate B because he thinks A is worth more. To give the employer adequate incentive to go with B over A, the incentive would have to be worth about as much as A's margin over the expected duration of A's employment. That's probably not just like $5k.",
"\"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that \"\"4\"\" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means \"\"don't tax 4 x $4050\"\" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions.\"",
"I see several interesting statement in your question. A. my only income is from my Employer B. I also receive employer stock (ESPP, RSU, NSO). However, employer withholds taxes for these stock transactions through my broker (I see them broken down on my W2). C. I have been subject to Alternative Minimum Tax. A implies a simple tax return. B and C tell the opposite story. In fact if B is not done correctly The amount withheld due to payroll may be perfect but the under withholding could be due to the ESPP's, RSUs and NSOs. The AMT can throw everything else out the window. If a person has a very simple tax situation: Income doesn't change a lot from paycheck to paycheck; they take the standard deduction; the number of exemptions equals the number of people in the family. Then the withholding is very close to perfect. The role of the exemptions on the W-4 is to compensate for situations that go above the standard deduction. The role of extra withholding is when the situation requires more withholding due to situations that will bring in extra income or if the AMT is involved.",
"Most of the time, your tax only reduces by the current marginal rate - meaning you would only reduce your tax by 28% to 25% depending on which part of the bracket you're in. However, in the area around 100k, there are cases where reductions will have more of a marginal effect than that. You'll never reduce it more than 100%, but you can reduce it by 35-40% despite being in the 25% bracket. That is because of certain deductions and credits which phase out beginning around 80k-120k; things like the IRA deduction, the Child Tax Credit, Childcare Tax Credit, and similar. Since many of them phase out in this range, additional dollars cost you your marginal rate (25%) plus the percentage of the credits or deductions which phase out here, which might bring you up another 10% or so.",
"If my salary slip says that I will be paying x INR tax this financial year. Then how much minimum investment I need to do to avoid any tax? This rebate is not directly linked to investments. If your total Gross is less than Rs 5 lacs, from the total tax computed, you can claim a rebate of upto Rs 5000. Does salary slip considers this rebate amount? This depends on the company policy. Companies may already factor in the rebate and deduct less tax. However it is important to claim this when you file the Returns, else it would show up as excess tax. There is no provision in the company form 16 to show this. Further if your taxable income becomes more than Rs 5 lacs, due to say other income, you will not be eligible for this rebate and have to pay tax. Do I have to explicitly specify this claim under 87A in my ITR? Yes you have to. If you company has already factored this while deducting tax you will not get any refunds. If the company has not factored this, you will have to claim refund. If above is true, and x is not calculated by considering this rebate amount, As indicated, this is not directly linked to investments. Will this increment of tax rebate from 2000INR to 5000INR will be applicable immediately This is applicable for financial year 2016-2017 for which you would be filing returns in 2017. Edit: If you say Gross salary is say Rs 6 lacs. If you invest 1.5 lacs in 80C. Your Net taxable income is Rs 4.5 lacs. The tax on 4.5 lacs Normal individual less than 60 years will be 10% of 2 lacs. i.e. Rs 20,000. You can then claim Rs 5000 as deduction under 87A and pay only Rs 15,000 [20000-15000]. If your Gross salary is say Rs 2.8 lacs. You don't do any investments, your Net taxable income is Rs 2.8 lacs. The tax would be Rs 3000. You can claim rebate under 87A and not pay any tax.",
"The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.",
"TaxTips.ca's Federal Tax Rates page has basic information about income tax in Canada, and it states: Canadian federal income tax is calculated based on taxable income, then non-refundable tax credits are deducted to determine the net amount payable. For 2009, every taxpayer can earn taxable income of $10,320 ($9,600 in 2008) before paying any federal tax. [...] (emphasis mine) Of course there are also provincial taxes to consider, but generally each province has a basic personal exemption amount. TaxTips.ca's page for Ontario rates lists $8,881 as the basic personal exemption in Ontario, for 2009. Find other provinces here.",
"I'd recommend you use an online tax calculator to see the effect it will have. To your comment with @littleadv, there's FMV, agreed, but there's also a rate below that. One that's a bit lower than FMV, but it's a discount for a tenant who will handle certain things on their own. I had an arm's length tenant, who was below FMV, I literally never met him. But, our agreement through a realtor, was that for any repairs, I was not required to arrange or meet repairmen. FMV is not a fixed number, but a bit of a range. If this is your first rental, you need to be aware of the requirement to take depreciation. Simply put, you separate your cost into land and house. The house value gets depreciated by 1/27.5 (i.e. you divide the value by 27.5 and that's taken as depreciation each year. You may break even on cash flow, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, but the depreciation might still produce a loss. This isn't optional. It flows to your tax return, and is limited to $25K/yr. Further, if your adjusted gross income is over $100K, the allowed loss is phased out over the next $50K of income. i.e. each $1000 of AGI reduces the allowed loss by $500. The losses you can't take are carried forward, until you use them to offset profit each year, or sell the property. If you offer numbers, you'll get a more detailed answer, but this is the general overview. In general, if you are paying tax, you are doing well, running a profit even after depreciation.",
"The $250K and up are not one homogeneous group. The lower end of this group benefits from normal Schedule A itemized deductions, e.g. mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax, and charitable donations. As you mention, 401(k) ($17k employee contribution limit this year), but also things like the dependent care account ($5k limit) and flexible spending account, limited usually up to $2500 in '14. The 529 deposits are limited to the gifting limit, $14K in 2014, but one can gift up to five years' deposits up front. This isn't a tax deduction, but does pull money out of one's estate and lets it grow tax free similar to a Roth IRA. The savings from such accounts is probably in the $15k - $20K range given the 20 or so year lifetime of the account and limited deposits. At the higher end, the folks making the news are those whose income is all considered capital gains. This applies both to hedge fund managers as well as CEOs whose compensation included large blocks of stock. This isn't a tax deduction, but it's how our system works, the taxation of capital gains vs. ordinary income.",
"Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"There are few things going on here: My advice would be: with 75k income and a regular pay check there isn't a whole let you can do to adjust your tax burden. It's unlikely that any adviser will save enough money to warrant professional advice and the associated cost. Use off the shelf software for tax return and tax planning.",
"$100K is not a lot for my $335K house (now appraised at $389K after 2 years...wtf), with Taxes close to $11500 per year. I'm paying 30K per year JUST for the house+escrow. Now factor in utilities, food, cars, insurance, healthcare, etc.",
"Here's a description. The relevant discussion for tax year 2010 starts on page 22 of the 1040 instructions.",
"The average price would be $125 which would be used to compute your basis. You paid $12,500 for the stock that is now worth $4,500 which is a loss of $8,000 overall if you sell at this point.",
"\"There are way too many details missing to be able to give you an accurate answer, and it would be too localized in terms of time & location anyway -- the rules change every year, and your local taxes make the answer useless to other people. Instead, here's how to figure out the answer for yourself. Use a tax estimate calculator to get a ballpark figure. (And keep in mind that these only provide estimates, because there are still a lot of variables that are only considered when you're actually filling out your real tax return.) There are a number of calculators if you search for something like \"\"tax estimator calculator\"\", some are more sophisticated than others. (Fair warning: I used several of these and they told me a range of $2k - $25k worth of taxes owed for a situation like yours.) Here's an estimator from TurboTax -- it's handy because it lets you enter business income. When I plug in $140K ($70 * 40 hours * 50 weeks) for business income in 2010, married filing jointly, no spouse income, and 4 dependents, I get $30K owed in federal taxes. (That doesn't include local taxes, any itemized deductions you might be eligible for, IRA deductions, etc. You may also be able to claim some expenses as business deductions that will reduce your taxable business income.) So you'd net $110K after taxes, or about $55/hour ($110k / 50 / 40). Of course, you could get an answer from the calculator, and Congress could change the rules midway through the year -- you might come out better or worse, depending on the nature of the rule changes... that's why I stress that it's an estimate. If you take the job, don't forget to make estimated tax payments! Edit: (some additional info) If you plan on doing this on an ongoing basis (i.e. you are going into business as a contractor for this line of work), there are some tax shelters that you can take advantage of. Most of these won't be worth doing if you are only going to be doing contract work for a short period of time (1-2 years). These may or may not all be applicable to you. And do your research into these areas before diving in, I'm just scratching the surface in the notes below.\"",
"I agree with your strategy of using a conservative estimate to overpay taxes and get a refund next year. As a self-employed individual you are responsible for paying self-employment tax (which means paying Social Security and Medicare tax for yourself as both: employee and an employer.) Current Social Security Rate is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45%, so your Self-employment tax is 15.3% (7.65%X2) Assuming you are single, your effective tax rate will be over 10% (portion of your income under $ 9,075), but less than 15% ($9,075-$36,900), so to adopt a conservative approach, let's use the 15% number. Given Self-employment and Federal Income tax rate estimates, very conservative approach, your estimated tax can be 30% (Self-employment tax plus income tax) Should you expect much higher compensation, you might move to the 25% tax bracket and adjust this amount to 40%.",
"Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).",
"Started making $140K out of undergrad, Investment Banking. Pre-tax, of course. Would probably be similar to $80K in a smaller market. If your total comp includes an end-of-year bonus, you should follow this rule: Spend salary, bank bonus.",
"\"The $10,400 is in the question, in two pieces. His employer withheld $8000, and her employer withheld $2400. Thus they paid together $10,400 in income taxes, which are deductible if you itemize deductions and choose income taxes over sales taxes (you can deduct one or the other). There's nothing \"\"standard\"\" about the amount, though it is standard to take the income tax deduction (almost always higher than sales tax).\"",
"As a CPA I can say, without a doubt, you do not owe any federal income tax. However, assuming all of you income was from your business and therefore subject to self-employment tax and you had no healthcare coverage, you would owe: $2,523 in Self-Employment Tax 645 in Healthcare Penalty $3,168 Total Amount You Should Owe. Assuming you have given us the right numbers, $3,300 sounds too high.",
"Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)",
"Healthcare for the employee is more valuable to the employer than is providing healthcare for the rest of the family members. Depending on the family situation, you're going to see significant differences in price between out of pocket costs for insurance of just the employee, vs cost for insuring the entire family. This is because in the first instance the insurance is more subsidized by the company (as a percentage of the total cost). The costs to the company for insuring just the individual (mid-career) are in the neighborhood of $5000 per year. If this is all that's being negotiated (single person coverage) then I would use that amount as a baseline.",
"You will most likely pay around 30%, between standard income tax and payroll taxes. That is a good place to start. If you live in a state/city with income taxes, add that to the mix.",
"A $500K mortgage at 4.5% is $2533, right near the $2500 in your example. Interest the first year would be less than $22K, and your tax benefit (taking littleadv's answer into account, of course) would be $5500, max. The tax benefit is the least of the reasons to get a mortgage. On your hypothetical $100K income, and too-high mortgage, a $5500 benefit is nothing. If one needs this tax benefit to make the numbers work, they are budgeted too tightly. If you are considering trading a $1000 rent for a $500K mortgage with a $2500 payment, I'd look very carefully at the numbers. Search this board for the associated expenses of homeownership.",
"As others have said, it depends entirely on what benefits are provided, and how much of the cost of those benefits is paid by the employer and how much is paid by the employee, and compare that to what it would cost to obtain the necessary/equivalent coverage without employer assistance. In my case, my employer pays more than $10,000 per year toward the cost of medical, dental, vision, disability, and life insurance for myself and my family. That's almost 20% of the average total household income in my state, so it is not an insignificant amount at all.",
"\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \"\"federal\"\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\"",
"\"One option is to look at the IRS Witholding Calculator - As George Marian notes, this is by no means a perfect way to \"\"estimate\"\" how much you'll owe. Other key questions for you to answer: There's no silver bullet here. The best you can do is to understand the key inputs into how your taxes are calculated, and then identify the most important tax deductions that you might take. Then pray that you haven't missed some nuance and use a tax program early in January to check your assumptions so you're not completely surprised when April rolls around. A final suggestion: do your own taxes using a website like TurboTax. Take the time to \"\"itemize\"\" your tax deductions just to learn what is tax deductible. You can figure out how the big parts of tax law works by just looking at what you could deduct in the future.\"",
"There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.",
"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf",
"You have a standard deduction of $12,600 (Married filing joint, MFJ) plus $8000 in exemptions. A total of $20,600 off the top. In other words, just under $10,000 taxable unless you have other income you haven't disclosed. For MFJ, you are at the 10% bracket up to $18,450 in taxable income. I would withdraw just enough to 'top off' the 10% bracket each year, whether or not you send it to pay down the card. You don't disclose the rate, but if you are able take a low interest loan to get to a sub 5% interest rate, I'd do that.",
"In the UK, recent changes to pension taxation mean that from April 2011, people earning between £150,000 and £180,000 total and making large pension contributions (>£50,000 or so) will pay a marginal tax rate on additional salary of >100%. This is because pension contributions normally attract tax relief at the highest marginal rate - i.e. 40% if the gross salary is above about £40,000, and 50% for salaries above £150,000. But after April 2011, the rate of relief will be tapered down for gross salaries above £150,000, reaching 20% for a gross salary of £180,000. So for example if you earn £175,000 and make a contribution of £50,000, then an additional £1,000 in salary will incur £500 of direct tax, and also lead to a 1% reduction in tax relief (from 25% to 24%), costing another £500. Once you factor in National Insurance of another 1% or so, the net effect of the pay rise is negative.",
"\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \"\"Percentage Method\"\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \"\"base amount\"\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \"\"base amount\"\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \"\"effective\"\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \"\"wage base\"\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \"\"marriage advantage\"\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \"\"pre-tax deduction\"\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\"",
"The numbers you have quoted don't add up. For Rs 30,000 / month is 3,60,000 a year. The tax should be around 11,000 again this will be reduced by the contributions to PF. You have indicated a tax deductions of 18,000. There are multiple ways to save taxes. Since you are beginner, investments into section 80C should give you required tax benefits. Please read this article in Economic Times",
"Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.",
"Share options. If you get options on £200,000-worth of a company and then its share price increases five-fold then you make £800,000, which is often taxed more favourably than salary.",
"\"To answer your question point by point - I'd focus on the last point. The back of my business card - Let's focus on Single. The standard deduction and exemption add to over $10K. I look at this as \"\"I can have $250K in my IRA, and my $10K (4%) annual withdrawal will be tax free. It takes another $36,900 to fill the 10 and 15% brackets. $922K saved pretax to have that withdrawn each year, or $1.17M total. That said, I think that depositing to Roth in any year that one is in the 15% bracket or lower can make sense. I also like the Roth Roulette concept, if only for the fact that I am Google's first search result for that phrase. Roth Roulette is systematically converting and recharacterizing each year the portion of the converted assets that have fallen or not risen as far in relative terms. A quick example. You own 3 volatile stocks, and convert them to 3 Roth accounts. A year later, they are (a) down 20%, (b) up 10%, (c) up 50%. You recharacterize the first two, but keep the 3rd in the Roth. You have a tax bill on say $10K, but have $15K in that Roth.\"",
"\"There's one factor the previous posters apparently missed here: You say \"\"self-employment tax\"\"--in other words, at least some of that $16k is from self employment. In a normal employment situation the FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it's normally spot on and generally doesn't show up on your tax return. However, for the self-employed it's another matter. You pay the whole 15.3% from the first dollar and this does show up on your tax return. If it's all self employment money you would have about $2.5k in tax from this.\"",
"Craig touched on it, but let me expand on the point. Deposits, by definition, are withheld at your marginal rate. And since you can choose Roth vs Traditional right till filing time, you know with certainty the rate you are at each year. Absent any other retirement income, i.e. no pension, and absent an incredibly major change to our tax code, I know your starting rate, zero. The first $10K or so per person is part of their standard deduction and exemption. For a couple, the next $18k is taxed at 10%, and so on. Let me stop here to expand this important point. This is $38,000 for the couple, and the tax on it is less than $1900. 5%. There is no 5% bracket of course. It's the first $20K with zero tax, and that first $18,000 taxed at 10%. That $38,000 takes nearly $1M in pretax accounts to offer as an annual withdrawal. The 15% bracket starts after this, and applies to the next $57K of withdrawals each year. Over $95K in gross withdrawals of pretax money, and you still aren't in the 25% bracket. This is why 100% in traditional, or 100% in Roth aren't either ideal. I continue to offer the example I consider more optimizing - using Roth for income that would otherwise be taxed at 15%, but going pretax when you hit 25%. Then at retirement, you withdraw enough traditional to just stay at 10 or 15% and Roth for the rest. It would be a shame to retire 100% Roth and realize you paid 25% but now have no income to use up those lower brackets. Oddly, time value of money isn't part of my analysis. It makes no difference. And note, the exact numbers do change a bit each year for inflation. There's a also a good chance the exemptions goes away in favor of a huge increased standard deduction.",
"For estimating your take home salary, I suggest using one of the many free salary calculators available over the Internet. I personally use PaycheckCity.com, but there are plenty of others available. To calculate your allowances for the US Federal tax, you can use the worksheet attached to the form W-4. Similar form (with a similar worksheet) is available for state taxes, on the Illinois Department of Revenue web site.",
"A CPA or Enrolled Agent can be helpful, especially if you have a complicated situation such as owning your own business. The people at a lot of tax-prep places don't have many qualifications (they are not accountants or enrolled agents or certified financial planners or anything else). They are just trained to enter stuff into the computer. In that case, you can measure their value according to how much you prefer talking to typing. But don't expect them to get it right if your taxes involve any judgment calls or tricky stuff. I think a good strategy is to try TurboTax (or whatever program) and if you get stuck on any of the questions, find a pro to help.",
"\"Click on the ? icon next to \"\"Employer Plan\"\". This is used to determine if you can deduct your annual contributions from your taxes. For more information on how an employer plan can affect your IRA tax deduction, see the definition for non-deductible contributions. So, we look there: The total of your Traditional IRA contributions that were deposited without a tax deduction. Traditional IRA contributions are normally tax deductible. However, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401(k), your tax deduction may be limited. The $20K difference between $272K and $252K just happens to be $15% of $132,500 which is the amount of your non-deductible contributions.\"",
"TL;DR: The difference is $230. Just for fun, and to illustrate how brackets work, let's look at the differences you could see from changing when you're paid based on the tax bracket information that Ben Miller provided. If you're paid $87,780 each year, then each year you'll pay $17,716 for a total of $35,432: $5,183 + $12,532 (25% of $50,130 (the amount over $37,650)) If you were paid nothing one year and then double salary ($175,560) the next, you'd pay $0 the first year and $42,193 the next: $18,558 + $23,634 (28% of $84,410 (the amount over $91,150)) So the maximum difference you'd see from shifting when you're paid is $6,761 total, $3,380 per year, or about 4% of your average annual salary. In your particular case, you'd either be paying $35,432 total, or $14,948 followed by $20,714 for $35,662 total, a difference of $230 total, $115 per year, less than 1% of average annual salary: $5,183 + $9,765 (25% of $39,060 (the amount $87,780 - $11,070 is over $37,650)) $18,558 + $2,156 (28% of $7,700 (the amount $87,780 + $11,070 is over $91,150))",
"Your capital gain is about $40K, which (assuming your total income is under $250K) is taxed at 15% long term capital gains rate. Additional depreciation recapture of approximately $5K is taxed at 25%. So this gives us rough estimate of $7250 tax. This is Federal tax, AZ rates are somewhere between 2% and 4%, so you'll be looking at some $1.6K additional tax to AZ. If you have accumulated rental losses or other expenses, it will lower the total amount of your gain (and, accordingly, the taxes). This is all very rough estimates, and you shouldn't rely on this but verify on your own or with a professional. I suggest using professional services because while being costly, they will probably save you more in taxes than you'll have to pay them because of the knowledge of what exactly of your expenses can be deducted and how to calculate the cost basis correctly. (edit from JoeT - the home exclusion requires occupancy for 2 of prior 5 years. For the OP, the prorated $125k exclusion 'might' cover the gain, it depends when the increase in value occurred, if the gain was during the time rented, it's taxable, I believe.)",
"I've heard of handyman type people making a living this way untaxed. They move into a fixer-upper, fix it up while living there, stay over two years and sell. They can pocket $125k/yr tax free this way assuming they produce that much value in their fixing-up. (Beware, though, that this will bite you in low social security payments in retirement!)",
"\"I've been highly compensated for a while now, and I have never used a tax professional. My past complications include the year that my company was bought by a VC firm and my stock options and stock held were bought out to the tune of 5x my salary. And now I have two kids in college, with scholarships, and paying the remainder out of 529 accounts. Usually, I don't even use tax software. My typical method is to use the online software -- like turbotax online -- and let it figure out where I am. Then I use the \"\"Free File Fillable forms\"\" online to actually complete the process. Search for \"\"Free File Fillable Forms\"\" -- it's not the same as using turbotax or TaxAct for free. My suggestion to you: download the PDF form of 1040EZ and 1040A from the IRS. Print the EZ, and fill it out. This will give you a better feel for what exactly is going on. With your income, I don't think you can file the EZ, but it's a good way to get your feet wet. The way income taxes work here in the US: According to the IRS, the Personal Exemption this year is worth $4,050, and the Standard Deduction $6,300, assuming you're single. Lets assume that your salary will be in fact 75,000, and you don't pay for any benefits, but you do make a 401k contribution of 15% of your salary. Then your W-2 at the end of the year should tell you to put 63,750 in a particular box on your 1040 form. (63,750 is 85% of 75,000). Lets then assume 63,750 is your AGI after other additions and subtractions. 63,750 - 4,050 - 6,300 == 53,400. The federal Tax system is graduated, meaning there are different ranges (brackets) with different percentages. The term tax people use for taxable income of 53,400 is \"\"marginal tax rate\"\"...so the last dollar they tax at 25%. Other dollars less. According to the IRS, if you're single, then on 53,400, you pay \"\"$6,897.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,400\"\" Or 6897.50 + 750, or 7647.50. Note this is only Federal Income Tax. You will also be paying Social Security and Medicare payroll Tax. And I'm guessing you'll also be paying colorado state income tax. Each state has its own forms and methods for figuring out the taxes and stuff. By the way, when you start, you'll fill out a \"\"W-4\"\" form to \"\"help\"\" you figure out how much to withhold from every paycheck. (I find the W-4 is not helpful at all). Your company will withhold from your paycheck some mysterious amount, and the process of filling out your 1040A or 1040EZ or whatever will be, likely, to get the over-withheld amount back.\"",
"\"I think the math is wrong. Note that in Scenario #1, you are only out of pocket $1000, while in Scenario #2, you are out of pocket $1250; the contribution and the tax you paid with respect to it. A better concept than tax rate is \"\"Retention Rate\"\". This is the fraction of your money that the Feds let you keep. And Growth Factor is the how much the investment grows. So In Scenario #1, you multiply $1000 by the investment Growth Factor and then by the retirement Retention Rate. And in Scenario #2, you multiply the same $1000 by the current Retention Rate and then by the Growth Factor. Since in your approximation, the two GFs are the same, there is no saving...\"",
"> Too bad most people earning under $250k a year can't do that. For what it is worth, a top 1% income starts at about $190,000 per year. Funny that we consider even people in the top 1% to be lower class.",
"I have a very hard time believing you pay 60% of gross. Otherwise, I believe you're right in the way this works: Suppose you make $100k and pay 25% of that in taxes. 100,000 * .25 = 25,000 But if you spend $1,000 pretax, then it's as if you were paid $99,000 99,000 * .25 = $24,750 So the difference is $250. Which is the same as that $1,000 * .25.",
"I'm pretty sure his secretary pays a higher rate, not higher amount. The argument they're following the law and if you don't like it change it really kills me. When you spend money lobbying for a change to the tax code how can you then claim you're just following the law? It's ridiculous there are 7 tax brackets below &450K yet only one above it. I know families right on that line, work closer to a million and some that blow that away. They live completely different lives and should not be paying the same top tax rate on earned income.",
"In this situation I would recommend figuring out about what you would need to pay in taxes for the year. You have two figures (your salary and dependents) , but not others. Will you contribute to a 401K, do you itemize deductions, etc... If things are uncertain, I would figure my taxes as if I took the standard deduction. For argument's sake let's assume that comes out to $7300. I would then add $500 on to my total to cover potential increases in taxes/fees. You can adjust this up or down based on your ability to absorb having to pay or the uncertainty in your first calcuation. So now $7800, divide by 26 (the amount of paychecks you receive in a year) = $300 Then I would utilize a payroll calculator to adjust my exemptions and additional witholding so my federal withholding is as close as possible to this number. Or you can sit with your payroll department and do the same.",
"They are four quarterly estimated tax payments. The IRS requires that you pay your taxes throughout the year (withholding in a W-2 job). You'll need to estimate how much taxes you think you might be owing and then pay roughly 1/4 at each of the 4 deadlines. From the IRS: How To Figure Estimated Tax To figure your estimated tax, you must figure your expected AGI, taxable income, taxes, deductions, and credits for the year. When figuring your 2011 estimated tax, it may be helpful to use your income, deductions, and credits for 2010 as a starting point. Use your 2010 federal tax return as a guide. You can use Form 1040-ES to figure your estimated tax. Nonresident aliens use Form 1040-ES (NR) to figure estimated tax. You must make adjustments both for changes in your own situation and for recent changes in the tax law. For 2011, there are several changes in the law. Some of these changes are discussed under What's New for 2011 beginning on page 2. For information about these and other changes in the law, visit the IRS website at IRS.gov. The instructions for Form 1040-ES include a worksheet to help you figure your estimated tax. Keep the worksheet for your records. You may find some value from hiring a CPA to help you setup your estimated tax payments and amounts.",
">At 15K per year for the 40+ years of work from 22 or so to 65, it will be 600K. Hah. You can't take nominal terms like that. Even if you take just inflation at say, 2% a year, and a modest required rate of return of 8%, the present value of 15K a year for 40 years is 146,685. So basically if you expect to get only 15K a year more for the next 40 years, you can only afford to pay 146,685 dollars for tuition + forgone income today. That's just to break you even. And many people invest much more than that.",
"\"As a contractor, I have done this exact calculation many times so I can compare full time employment offers when they come. The answer varies greatly depending on your situation, but here's how to calculate it: So, subtracting the two and you get I've run many different scenarios with multiple plans and employers, and in my situation with a spouse and 1 child, the employer plans usually ended up saving me approximately $5k per year. So then, to answer your question: ...salary is \"\"100k\"\", \"\"with healthcare\"\", or then \"\"X\"\" \"\"with no healthcare\"\" - what do we reckon? I reckon I would want to be paid $5K more, or $105K. This is purely hypothetical though and assumes there are no other differences except for with or without health insurance. In reality, contractor vs employee will have quite a few other differences. But in general, the calculation varies by company and the more generous the employer's health benefits, the more you need to be compensated to make up for not having it. Note: the above numbers are very rough, and there are many other factors that come into play, some of which are: As a side note, many years ago, during salary talks with a company, I was able to negotiate $2K in additional yearly salary by agreeing not to take the health insurance since I had better insurance through my spouse. Health insurance in the US was much cheaper back then so I think closer to $5K today would be about right and is consistent with my above ballpark calculation. I always wondered what would have happened if I turned around and enrolled the following year. I suspect had I done that they could not have legally lowered my salary due to my breaking my promise, but I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't get a raise that year either.\"",
"The government wants money and isn't particularly interested in you getting your deductions right. Doing the worksheet on the back of the W-4 will give you a much better idea of how many deductions you can take. While many people are excited to get a tax refund, a refund means you loaned the government money all year long without getting paid interest for your generosity. The IRS will penalize you for underpaying your taxes in amounts larger than $1000 or 10% of your income, but a good ballpark estimate aiming for about ~$100 in payment at tax time is a relatively safe way to get all your money sooner than later.",
"\"First, let's look at the tax brackets for single taxpayers in 2016: The cutoff between the 25% and 28% tax bracket is $91,150. You said that your gross is $87,780. This will be reduced by deductions and exemptions (at least $10,350). Your rental income will increase your income, but it is offset in part by your rental business expenses. For this year, you will almost certainly be in the 25% bracket, whether or not you receive your backpay this year. Next year, if you receive your backpay then and your salary is $11k higher, I'm guessing you'll be close to the edge. It is important to remember that the tax brackets are marginal. This means that when you move up to the next tax bracket, it is only the amount of income that puts you over the top that is taxed at the higher rate. (You can see this in the chart above.) So if, for example, your taxable income ends up being $91,160, you'll be in the 28% tax bracket, but only $10 of your income will be taxed at 28%. The rest will be taxed at 25% or lower. As a result, this probably isn't worth worrying about too much. A bit more explanation, requested by the OP: Here is how to understand the numbers in the tax bracket chart. Let's take a look at the second line, $9,276-$37,650. The tax rate is explained as \"\"$927.50 plus 15% of the amount over $9,275.\"\" The first $9,275 of your taxable income is taxed at a 10% rate. So if your total taxable income falls between $9,276 and $37,650, the first $9,275 is taxed at 10% (a tax of $927.50) and the amount over $9,275 is taxed at 15%. On each line of the chart, the amount of tax from all the previous brackets is carried down, so you don't have to calculate it. When I said that you have at least $10,350 in deductions and exemptions, I got that number from the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount. For 2016, the standard deduction for single taxpayers is $6,300. (If you itemize your deductions, you might be able to deduct more.) Personal exemptions for 2016 are at $4,050 per person. That means you get to reduce your taxable income by $4,050 for each person in your household. Since you are single with no dependents, your standard deduction plus the personal exemption for yourself will result in a reduction of at least $10,350 on your taxable income.\"",
"I'm talking about household income. $300k is a huge amount of money for a single person to make, but $150k is certainly doable for most doctors/lawyers/engineers. If your spouse is also a high earner that will help put over the 1% threshold.",
"You must be rich. My condo was $98K. I paid about $2200 in mortgage interest last year. I opted to take the standard deduction instead. I make $80K a year and I cant even benefit from this deduction. It is really frustrating. I'm 30 with no kids and unmarried because I can't afford anything. Maybe when I'm 40 I can think about starting a family. If I'm lucky.",
"\"The annualized method allows you to take a look at each quarter independently and pay the tax in the quarter that you earned it. -- According to Linda Durand, a certified public accountant with Drolet & Associates PLLC in Washington, D.C., from the Bankrate article \"\"Paying quarterly estimated taxes\"\" And after paying annualized quarterly estimates, you can still owe up to $1000 at tax time without penalty.\"",
"I was specifically talking about property tax which doesn't increase that much with income. But state and local income taxes ratio makes a lot of sense since there are still lots of people that depend on a salary at 1million$ AGI.",
"I'll offer another answer, using different figures. Let's assume 6% is the rate of return you can expect. You are age 25, and plan to retire at age 65. If you have $0 and want $1M at retirement, you will need to put away $524.20/month, or $6,290.40/year, which is 15% of $41,936. So $41,936 is what you'd need to make per year in order to get to your target. You can calculate your own figures with a financial calculator: 480 months as your term (or, adjust this to your time horizon in months), .486755% as your interest (or, take your assumed interest rate + 1 to the 1/12th power and subtract 1 to convert to a monthly interest rate), 0 as your PV, and $1M as your FV; then solve for PMT.",
"In the UK, the government has recently announced that Child Benefit will no longer be paid to those who earn over £44k. This means that if you currently earn £43,999, and your employer offers you a raise of £10 per annum to £44,009, then you could be over £1k worse off as a result.",
"There is some magic involved in that calculation, because what health insurance is worth to you is not necessarily the same it is worth for the employer. Two examples that illustrate the extreme ends of the spectrum: let's say you or a family member have a chronic or a serious illness, especially if it is a preexisting condition - for instance, cancer. In that case, health insurance can be worth literally millions of dollars to you. Even if you are a diabetic, the value of health insurance can be substantial. Sometimes, it could even make financial sense in that case to accept a very low-paying job. On the other extreme of the scale, if you are very young and healthy, many people decide to forego insurance. In that case, the value of health insurance can be as little as the penalty (usually, 2% of your taxable income, I believe).",
"All the gory details are available here. More specifically your personal limit will be listed on you last tax assessment notice, that you would have received last April-ish when you filed last year's taxes. As a first approximation, your situation may differ, if you have never contributed anything, your limit is likely $15,000 (as the program has been running three years as of 2011).",
"\"You're asking explicitly about $250K+ wage earners. Well, believe it or not, but this is the most discriminated group of people in the US tax code. This is what is called \"\"the upper middle class\"\". People who still have to work for a living, but treated as if they're rich (I don't consider people who must work to keep up their life style as rich). Many of the deductions cannot be taken by them. Lets go over the list Keith made: You mentioned losses - you cannot deduct gambling losses (in excess of gambling income), and you cannot deduct passive (rental real estate, for example) losses. While for rental real estate there's a small amount of losses you could deduct, it phases out well below the $250K line (can be deducted against passive income, or when disposed of the property). 529 plans are not deductible (in fact, its a gift subject to the gift tax). Bottom line, being a high earner with wages only means you pay the most tax. You either find a way to become self employed and have a lot of business deductions on your schedule C/1120S, or switch to capital gains. You can marry an unemployed partner, it will make your life slightly easier.\"",
"I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income tax was not withheld. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns. My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash) would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?) and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your 2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the value of the rental during those years as additional income, and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture, but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather than in the future.",
"The safe harbor provision is based on the tax you or the prior year. So in 2016 this helped you as your tax was substantially increased from 2015. However, by the same token in 2017 your safe harbor amount is going to be very high. Therefore if 2017 is similar you will owe penalties. The solution here is to make estimated tax payments in the quarters that you realize large gains. This is exactly what the estimated tax payments are for. Your estimate tax payments do not have to be the same. In fact if you have a sudden boost in earnings in quarter 3, then the IRS expects that quarter 3 estimated tax payment to be boosted.",
"If your deductions are higher than the standard deduction, you will be able to subtract property taxes from your income. In your example, that means that taxes are computed based on $95,000. In 2011, the standard deduction varies between $5,800 (single filer) and $11,600 (married filing jointly). Tax credits are subtracted from your tax obligation. The most common tax credit for most people is student loan interest. If you pay $500 in student loan interest, that sum is subtracted from your tax bill.",
"The usual, but controversial, answer to this question is a 4% withdrawal rate. This means a net worth of ($5000 * 12 months ) / 4%, i.e., $1,500,000 If you want to play with the numbers, based on historical data, you can use the FIRECalc simulator.",
"Consider a single person with a net worth of N where N is between one and ten million dollars. has no source of income other than his investments How much dividends and interest do your investments return every year? At 5%, a US$10M investment returns $500K/annum. Assuming you have no tax shelters, you'd pay about $50% (fed and state) income tax. https://budgeting.thenest.com/much-income-should-spent-mortgage-10138.html A prudent income multiplier for home ownership is 3x gross income. Thus, you should be able to comfortably afford a $1.5M house. Of course, huge CC debt load, ginormous property taxes and the (full) 5 car garage needed to maintain your status with the Joneses will rapidly eat into that $500K.",
"\"If you are not taking any of the options in the Flexible Benefit Plan, then everything is taxable. Check about \"\"Retirals\"\", the practise differs from organization to organization. Some pay it out annually and some only pay on completion of certain duration on exit. So Deduct 47K from 7 lacs. Gross of around 653,000. Total tax for this around 53,000. After tax yearly around 600,000. Individual contribution to PF@ 12% of basic around 33,600. Net Yearly around 567,225. So net take home would be around 47,268. You can easily take items 3,6,7,8 around 62,400. Thus you will save tax of around 13,000. So take home will increase 1,080.\"",
"looks like the US tax system needs an overhaul. You cant charge yourself arbitrary amounts to even out your bottom line. Wel you and I cant, but apparently we just need to make more money to do so....thanks BK for showing me the way!!",
"There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars. These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy.",
"Don't overthink it. As an employee, whether of your own corporation or of someone else, you get a salary and there are deductions taken out. As the owner of a business you get (hopefully) business profits as well. And, in general, you often have other sources of income from investments, etc. Your estimated tax payments are based on the difference between what was withheld from your salary and what you will owe, based on salary, business income, and other sources. So, in essence, you just add up all the income you expect, estimate what the tax bill will be, and subtract what's been withheld. That's your estimated tax payment.",
"Let me offer an anecdote to this - I started helping a woman, widowed, retired, who had been paying $500/yr to get her taxes done. As I mentioned in my comment here, she got a checklist each year and provided the info requested. From where I sat, it seemed a clerk entered the info into tax software. As part of the transition to me helping her, I asked the prior guy (very nice guy, really) for a quick consult. She took the standard deduction, but also showed a nice annual donation. Didn't take advantage of the QCD, donate directly from an IRA (she was over 70-1/2) to save on the tax of this sum. That could have saved her $500. She was in the 15% bracket, with some room left for a Roth conversion. Converting just enough to 'fill' that bracket each year seemed a decent strategy as it would avoid the 25% rate as her RMDs rose each year and would push her to 25%. To both items the guy suggested that this was not his area, he was not a financial planner. Yes, I understand different expertise. With how simple her return was, I didn't understand the value he added. If you go with a professional, be sure you have an understanding of what he will and won't do for you.",
"\"It's likely you don't have to make estimated tax payments if this is your first year of contracting (extra income), and your existing salary is already having taxes withheld. If you look at the 1040-ES: General Rule In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2014 if both of the following apply. This is easier to understand if you look at the worksheet. Look at line 14b/14c and the associated instructions. 14b is your required annual payment based on last year's tax. 14c is the lesser of that number and 14a, so 14b is your \"\"worst case\"\". 14c is the amount of tax you need to prepay (withholding counts as prepayment). I'm going to apply this to your situation based on my understanding, because it's not easy to parse:\"",
"With your income so high, your marginal tax rate should be pretty easy to determine. You are very likely in the 33% tax bracket (married filing jointly income range of $231,450 to $413,350), so your wife's additional income will effectively be taxed at 33% plus 15% for self-employment taxes. Rounding to 50% means you need to withhold $19,000 over the year (or slightly less depending on what business expenses you can deduct). You could use a similar calculation for CA state taxes. You can either just add this gross additional amount to your withholdings, or make an estimated tax payment every quarter. Any difference will be made up when you file your 2017 taxes. So long as you withhold 100% of your total tax liability from last year, you should not have any underpayment penalties."
] |
[
"\"Alternative Minimum Tax is based not just on your income, but moreso on the deductions you use. In short, if you have above the minimum AMT threshold of income (54k per your link), and pay a tiny amount of tax, you will pay AMT. AMT is used as an overall protection for the government to say \"\"okay, you can use these deductions from your taxable income, but if you're making a lot of money, you should pay something, no matter what your deductions are\"\". This extra AMT can be used to reduce your tax payment in a future year, if you pay regular tax again. For example - if you have 60k in income, but have 60k in specific deductions from your income, you will pay zero regular tax [because your taxable income will be zero]. AMT would require you to pay some tax on your income above the minimum 54k threshold, which might work out to a few thousand bucks. Next year, if you have 60k in income, but only 15k in deductions, then you would pay some regular tax, and would be able to offset that regular tax by claiming a credit from your AMT already paid. AMT is really a pre-payment of tax paid in years when you have a lot of deductions. Unless you have a lot of deductions every single year, in which case you might not be able to get all of your AMT refunded in the end. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of AMT in the US, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax. If you think AMT is unfair (and maybe in some cases you might pay it when you think it's \"\"unfair\"\"), look at the root causes of paying AMT listed in that Wikipedia article: I am not trying to convince you that AMT is fair, just that it applies only when someone already has a very low tax rate due to deductions. If you have straight salary income, it would only apply in rare scenarios.\"",
"\"Turbox Tax states the following: \"\"For 2015, the AMT exemption amounts are $53,600 for individual taxpayers, $83,400 for married taxpayers filing jointly and surviving spouses, and $41,700 for married persons filing separately. This is the amount you're allowed to deduct from your taxable income before applying the AMT.\"\"\""
] |
6875
|
Where to find free Thailand stock recommendations and research?
|
[
"224392"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"517935",
"214296",
"567500",
"8653",
"408995",
"472062",
"185909",
"512895",
"77502",
"71330",
"224366",
"232460",
"422453",
"192912",
"105717",
"110733",
"465971",
"536194",
"500338",
"74554",
"171831",
"79337",
"361383",
"536345",
"79789",
"559105",
"541280",
"567090",
"535865",
"151221",
"516923",
"303649",
"373620",
"421065",
"433023",
"571620",
"131381",
"75063",
"319922",
"263464",
"255463",
"221319",
"352557",
"413423",
"484327",
"177114",
"406457",
"36679",
"201771",
"108579",
"249679",
"534418",
"499379",
"565827",
"420587",
"396985",
"40227",
"129466",
"78249",
"556770",
"49111",
"591252",
"402477",
"49893",
"14353",
"31978",
"58678",
"561703",
"148348",
"297231",
"284539",
"484599",
"555047",
"319992",
"359252",
"70185",
"281167",
"311202",
"375290",
"378427",
"287437",
"484730",
"157038",
"284165",
"184338",
"161722",
"532672",
"52940",
"494171",
"9354",
"555506",
"386299",
"170379",
"367391",
"486557",
"285590",
"423034",
"471643",
"205068",
"496921"
] |
[
"I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.",
"Here is one the links for Goldmansachs. Not to state the obvious, but most of their research is only available to their clients. http://www.goldmansachs.com/research/equity_ratings.html",
"Do your own research There are hundreds of places where people will give you all sorts of recommendations. There is as much noise in the recommendations as there is in the stock market itself. Become your own filter. You need to work on your own instinct. Pick a couple of sectors and a few stocks in each and study them. It is useful to know where the main indexes are going, but - unless you are trading the indexes - it is the individual sectors that you should focus on more.",
"I use the forum seeking alpha. http://seekingalpha.com/",
"I would recommend looking at The Motley Fool.",
"I know nice and free stock screener for UK (and 20+ exchanges) - https://unicornbay.com/screener?f=exchange_str|%3D|LSE;&s=MarketCapitalization|desc&p=1|20 from Unicorn Bay. It supports both fundamental and technical analysis.",
"Upselling you is how they make money. That's the price of the free content. Test their recommendations. Pretend to buy the stocks they say. How do they do? Do they ever say to sell the stocks after their buy recommendations? There are lots and lots of opinions out there. I doubt people really hear about the good ones because (a) the good ones have paid newsletters and/or (b) the good ones aren't telling a soul because they're absolutely cleaning it up. Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions. He's been buying for a while before anyone finds out.",
"The only recommendation I have is to try the stock screener from Google Finance : https://www.google.com/finance?ei=oJz9VenXD8OxmAHR263YBg#stockscreener",
"Most free stock screeners for UK stocks, even those mentioned above, are very poor and not worth the effort really, and searching for stock screeners on a search engine will only bring up stock screeners for USA stocks. The best free UK stock screener (registration is required although this is FREE) is without any doubt on www.digitallook.com who also provide many other features like five year fundamentals, charts, prospects, etc, which can easily be downloaded onto a spreadsheet. I really wouldn't look elsewhere to be honest unless you are prepared to pay.",
"Well, kind of XD. I usually just look through Business Week for the ADRs that are on the OTC market. I don't do anything major, but why I love them is that they have a greater reach than just ADRs on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Like for instance, if I wanted to own Thai or European stocks, many of the larger, more reputable firms are listed on the OTC market. Having said that, most other sites don't have earnings reports laid out for you. Business Week does. The only fancy thing I am interested in are options and options on futures, and Bar Chart is good for the latter.",
"\"Yes, there are a lot of places you can research stocks online, Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, Reuters etc. It's important to understand that the price of the stock doesn't actually mean anything. Share price is just a function of the market capitalization divided by the number of shares outstanding. As an example take two companies that are both worth $1 million, but Company A has issued 10,000 shares and Company B has issued 100,000 shares. Company A has a share price of $100 while Company B has a share price of just $10. Comparing share price does nothing to indicate the relative value or health of Company A versus Company B. I know there are supposed to be no product recommendations but the dictionary area of investopedia.com is a good source of beginner investing information. And as Joe points out below the questions here with the \"\"stock\"\" tag would also be a good place to start. And while I'm on a roll, the book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a good starting point in investing in the stock market.\"",
"AdvFN has one--click the Charts & Research pulldown and choose UK Screener. Free but requires login.",
"If you are looking to analyze stocks and don't need the other features provided by Bloomberg and Reuters (e.g. derivatives and FX), you could also look at WorldCap, which is a mobile solution to analyze global stocks, at FactSet and S&P CapitalIQ. Please note that I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"The motley fool is one of the best places. Other good communities are Yahoo Finance, Seeking Alpha, and Investors Place. I also recently created a chat room connected to this site to discuss stocks/funds/etc. with other money.stackexchange users. http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/263/investing",
"Yes, http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/stockscreener/ has what you're looking for.",
"\"You should spend zero on your stock research company. If the management of the company actually had persistent skill in picking stocks, they would not be peddling their knowledge to the retail market for a few hundred dollars. They would rake in millions and billions by running a huge hedge fund and buy themselves a private island or something. Unfortunately for them, hedge fund investors are not as gullible as retail investors and are more likely to sue when they discover they have been lied to. Many stock \"\"research\"\" companies are trying to manipulate you into paying too high a price for stocks. They buy a small stock, recommend it, and then sell it at the artificially (and temporarily) high price. Others are simply recommending stocks pretty much at random. You could do that just as well as they can, and for free. Portfolio performance evaluation is a complex problem. The research company knows that its recommendations will \"\"make good money\"\" about half the time and that's enough to bring in a lot of uninformed people. To know whether your portfolio actually did well you need to know how much risk there was in the portfolio and how a competing \"\"dumb\"\" portfolio with similar characteristics fared over the same time period. And you need to repeat the experiment enough times (or long enough) to know the outcome wasn't luck. I can say confidently that your portfolio performance doesn't back up the claim that the research company has skill above and beyond luck. Much less $599 worth of skill. I can also say very confidently that there are no investors with a total of 20 thousand dollars to invest for whom purchasing stock recommendations is worth the cost, even if those recommendations do have some value. Real stock information is valuable only to large investors because the per-dollar value is low. Please do not give money to or otherwise support a semi-criminal \"\"stock research\"\" enterprise.\"",
"I had the same problem and was looking for a software that would give me easy access to historical financial statements of a company, preferably in a chart. So that I could easily compare earnings per share or other data between competitors. Have a look at Stockdance this might be what you are looking for. Reuters Terminal is way out of my league (price and complexity) and Yahoo and Google Finance just don't offer the features I want, especially on financials. Stockdance offers a sort of stock selection check list on which you can define your own criterion’s. Hence it makes no investment suggestions but let's you implement your own investing strategy.",
"Check out WorldCap.org. They provide fundamental data for Hong Kong stocks in combination with an iPad app. Disclosure: I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"I've used Wikinvest before and think that's close to what you're looking for - but in Wiki-style rather than forums. Otherwise, I agree with CrimsonX that The Motley Fool is a good place to check out.",
"http://www.moneysupermarket.com/shares/CompareSharesForm.asp lists many. I found the Interactive Investor website to be excruciatingly bad. I switched to TD Waterhouse and found the website good but the telephone service a bit abrupt. I often use the data presented on SelfTrade but don't have an account there.",
"Sure, Yahoo Finance does this for FREE.",
"\"While you’re new or relatively new to this idea then the fitting idea is to perform a little research and primary get conversant in what’s possible with offshore investment opportunities. I couldn't agree more. A good way to begin this research would be to do an online search for an investment opportunity called \"\"Royal Siam Trust.\"\"\"",
"Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.",
"\"Stock recommendations and price history are an unwise way to invest. People that recommend stocks are usually compensation for recommending it. They are paid directly by third parties, that can be paid in shares, they can simply own the stock themselves and if the stock goes up they can sell it to new investors at a higher price (or even a lower price, they may not actually care) Price history does not tell you a complete picture, what kind of price history are you even looking at: \"\"this stock went up, let me buy now at the very top and hope it goes higher, am I too late\"\" \"\"this stock went down let me avoid it\"\" if you don't know why, what, who, when, assets, debt, etc, you shouldn't be buying the stock.\"",
"Wells Fargo has a good free product that you can sign up for on their website. Google Wells Fargo Economics. I think that will get you there. If you have a friend on a trading desk you can get the JPM morning note which is really good too.",
"If you are refering to company's financial reports and offerings, the required source for companies to disclose the information is the SGX website (www.sgx.com) under the Company Disclosure tab. This includes annual statements for the last 5 years, prospectus for any shares/debentures/buy back/etc which is being offered, IPO offers and shareholders meetings. You may also find it useful to check the Research section of the SGX website where some of the public listed companies have voluntarily allowed independent research firms to monitor their company for a couple of years and produce a research report. If you are referring to filings under the Companies Act, these can be found at the Accounting and Regulatory Authority (ACRA) website (www.acra.gov.sg) and you can also purchase extracts of specific filings under the ACRA iShop. To understand the Singapore public listing system and the steps to public listing, you may find it useful to purchase one of the resource documents available for Singapore law, finance, tax and corporate secretaryship which are sold by CCH (www.cch.com.sg). Specifically for public listing the Singapore Annotated Listing Manual may help. It is common practice for companies here to employ law firms and research firms to do the majority of this research instead of doing it themselves which I one of the reasons this information is online but perhaps not so visible. I hope I have understood your question correctly!",
"You can call it a stock rating of say between 0 to 5 or 0 to 10 or whatever scale you want to use. It should not be called a recommendation but rather a rating based on the criterial you have analysed. Also a scale from say 0 to 5 is better than using terms like buy, hold and sell.",
"\"First, stock prices forecasts are usually pretty subjective so in the following resources you will find differing opinions. The important thing is to read both positive and negative views and do some of your additional research and form your own opinion. To answer your question, some analysts don't provide price targets, some just say \"\"Buy\"\", \"\"Sell\"\", \"\"Hold\"\", and others actually give you a price target. Yahoo provides a good resource for collecting reports and giving you a price target. http://screener.finance.yahoo.com/reports.html\"",
"They are almost always behind paywalls. The analysts that write these reports need to get paid somehow. I'd search for reports on google by specific topic and see what you find, but no where is there a treasure trove of free information",
"www.earnings.com is helpful thinkorswim's thinkDesktop platform has a lot of earnings information tied with flags on their charts they are free.",
"I'm answering in a perspective of an End-User within the United Kingdom. Most stockbrokers won't provide Real-time information without 'Level 2' access, however this comes free for most who trade over a certain threshold. If you're like me, who trade within their ISA Holding each year, you need to look elsewhere. I personally use IG.com. They've recently began a stockbroking service, whereas this comes with realtime information etc with a paid account without any 'threshold'. Additionally, you may want to look into CFDs/Spreadbets as these, won't include the heavy 'fees' and tax liabilities that trading with stocks may bring.",
"Log in to your Scottrade account, and goto Markets --> Analyst Views --> Click the PDF link for the company. Also, there is also the 'Views and News' part of the web page which has additional information beyond what exist in the reports.",
"I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year",
"All in all it's not easy to beat the perks, service, reliability and use of cutting edge technology that you get when you join any stock trading. Choose your the best online brokers for stock trading wisely. To know more about them, log on to http://www.stocktipsblog.com/",
"Saxo Bank offers direct access to Athens Stock Exchange. Interactive Brokers is your next best bet, and as you probably already noticed, they do not have a free platform. They are open to US and non-US citizens. Although they do not currently have direct exposure to individual companies on the Athens Stock Exchange, the various european exchanges they do provide direct market access for will give a lot of exposure. There are a few Greek companies that trade on non-Greek stock exchanges, if you want exposure. There are also Greek ETFs which bundle several companies together or try to replicate Greek company indices.",
"The three sites mentioned in the second link are all professional trading workstations, not public web sites. There may not be free quotes available.",
"\"Out of your seven recommendations one is up 14%, one up 6%, four are either even or down slightly and one is down a whopping 40%. This reminds me of a recommendation earlier in the year provided by The Motley Fool to buy XRO.AX when it was around the $40 mark. I had a quick look at it and thought \"\"gee there is no way I am buying those shares\"\". Now they are just below $15. See the chart below: You have just learnt a valuable lesson by testing these recommendations without your real money - never trust investment recommendations from analysts (or anyone else). Get yourself educated so you understand what analysts are talking about and you can make a decision for yourself. Better still learn about technical analysis so you can decide for yourself whether it is the right time to buy or sell.\"",
"This is what I used during my MBA. My biggest complaint is that it is not a database for analytic (it pulls from a database). I hear think or swim has the capability to extract data and offers a free version - anyone know if that is true?",
"I'm actually building a UK stock screener right now. It's more of an exercise in finding out how to work out technical things like MACD and EMA calculations, but if those are the things you're interested in, it's at http://www.pifflevalve.co.uk/screen-builder/ As I say, it's more of a personal project than anything commercial, but it's fun to play with.",
"I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).",
"You can register with an online broker. You can usually join most online brokers for free and only have to fund your account if you decide to place a trade. You may also check out the website of the actual companies you are interested in. They will provide current and historic data of the company's financials. For BHP you can click on the link at the bottom of this webpage to get a PDF file of past dividends from 1984.",
"Security Analysis(very difficult for beginners )& Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. All about(book series by McGraw) on Stocks,Derivatives,Options,Futures,Market Timings. Reminiscence of a Stock Operator (Life of jesse Livermore). Memoirs , Popular Delusions and Madness of the Crowds by Charles Mackay. Basics of Technical analysis includig Trading Strategies via Youtube videos & Google. Also opt for Seeking alpha free version to learn about portfolio allocation under current scenario there will be few articles as it will ask for premium version if you love it then opt for it. But still these books will do.",
"Use a currency ETF. there are many. Specific to your question there is WisdomTree Dreyfus Brazilian Real Fund (BZF) I don't happen to find a currency ETF for Thailand, so the closest you could come to a Thai currency fund would be something that's an Index fund ETF that is based on an index in the Thai Market such as: MSCI Thailand Investable Market Index Fund Because that fund is investing in an index of stocks that trade on the Thai market, you are in effect investing in something denominated in Baht. This is spelled out in the prospectus where it discusses 'currency risk'. The problem is that you are however not investing in just the currency, but rather a broad index of stocks denominated in that currency. Still to the extent the market holds fairly steady, you get much the same effect of investing in just the currency. to the extent the market is moving, you get the net effect of what the thai market does, plus how the bhat trades relative to the dollar.",
"It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.",
"If you're looking to invest using stocks and shares, I recommend you set up an account at something like Google Finance - it is free and user-friendly with lots of online help. You can set up some 'virtual cash' and put it into a number of stocks which it'll track for you. Review your progress and close some positions and open others as often as you want, but remember to enter some figure for the cost of the transaction, say $19.95 for a trade, to discourage you from high-frequency trading. Take it as seriously as you want - if you stick to your original cash input, you'll see real results. If you throw in more virtual cash than you could in real life, it'll muddle the outcome. After some evaluation period, say 3 months, look back at your progress. You will learn a tremendous amount from doing this and don't need to have read any books or spent any money to get started. Knowing which stocks to pick and when to buy or sell is much more subtle - see other answers for suggestions.",
"\"Although this is an old question, it's worth pointing out that the Google Stock Screener now supports stocks traded on the London Stock Exchange. From the country dropdown on the left, select \"\"United Kingdom\"\" and use the screener as before.\"",
"I have a free account on http://optionshouse.com/ that allows me to invest fake money into different stocks and test their tracking software. It is free and easy to do, just create an account there and they give you $4000 (fake) to invest in the stock market. They do this so that you can test their tracking and other assorted tools, in hopes that you'll choose to invest your real hard earned money with them.",
"\"There are raters of stock and bond funds of which Morningstar's is the best. Standard and Poor's and Value line offer reports that aren't quite as good. If you are able to read and understand these reports yourself, you don't need a professional. Such help is necessary for people who are \"\"rank beginners\"\" in investments.\"",
"As @littleadv and @DumbCoder point out in their comments above, Bloomberg Terminal is expensive for individual investors. If you are looking for a free solution I would recommend Yahoo and Google Finance. On the other side, if you need more financial metrics regarding historic statements and consensus estimates, you should look at the iPad solution from Worldcap, which is not free, but significantly cheaper then Bloomberg and Reuters. Disclosure: I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"\"Although is not online, I use a standalone version from http://jstock.sourceforge.net It got drag-n-drop boxes, to let me design my own indicators. However, it only contain technical analysis information, not fundamental analysis information. It does come with tutorial http://jstock.sourceforge.net/help_stock_indicator_editor.html#indicator-example, on how to to build an indicator, to screen \"\"Stock which Its Price Hits Their 14 Days Maximum\"\"\"",
"\"> Although there are numerous countries that welcome investors Yes, I hear that when one's welcome has been worn out in Japan, Thailand is the place to be. Ladyboys, sluts and frauds, Bangkok is your one-stop shop to get f*cked in more ways than one! >potentially profitable options The key question being, \"\"Profitable for whom?\"\" >Another factor which can help you make up your mind when searching for a good service provider is experience. Yes, Richard Cayne's clients have undoubtedly amassed \"\"extensive experience\"\"; not much money, but experience in spades. Suggest \"\"consulting with them on a wide array\"\" of these experiences first. > Richard Cayne Meyer the manager of the world renowned Meyer International Ah yes, renowned indeed -for spamming and scamming, for cash and dash.\"",
"In general I would recommend to stay away from any video from a successful trader, at least those that claim to share their secrets. If they were that successful, why would they want company? What they have most likely discovered is that they can make more money through videos and seminars than they can through trading. While not a video, GetSmarterAboutMoney has a good basic section on Stock markets without being purely Canada centric (as I see from your profile you are in NY). I know that also in our city, there are continuing education courses that often go over the basics like this, if you have a college nearby they might have something. Cheapest of all would be to hit your local library. The fundamentals don't change that quickly that you need the latest and greatest - those are much more likely to be get-poor-quick schemes. Good Luck",
"Hi, I have all these free models and investment strategies that I really want to give you as a friend. Let me take the time to write up all the info for you. Once I send you the files we can officially be friends and then you can come hang out and play sega with me.",
"\"If you can afford the time and are looking for more deep, and fun, investment tips, check out http://gurufocus.com. Great for more fundamental analysis of \"\"Intelligent Investor\"\" type Benjamin Graham-style businesses. No use scatter-shooting the stock exchange hoping to find good value businesses. Even blue-chips have an increasingly uncertain future (except IMHO certain world dominators like KO, WMT, XO and MCD).\"",
"Moody's is now Mergent Online. It's no longer being printed, and must be accessed digitally. In order to browse the database, check with your local public library or university to see if you can get access. (A University will probably require you to visit for access). Another good tool is Value Line Reports. They are printed information sheets on public companies that are updated regularly, and are convenient for browsing and for comparing securities. Again, check your local libraries. A lot of the public information you may be looking for can be found on Yahoo Finance, for free, from home. Yahoo finance, will give financial information, ratios, news, filings, analysis, all in one place.",
"The Greek Piraeus Bank offers such services for trading stocks in Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) and in addition 26 other markets including NASDAQ, NYSE and largest European ones (full list, in Greek). Same goes for Eurobank with a list of 17 international markets and the ability to trade bonds. BETA Securities has also an online platform, but I think it's only for ASE. Some other banks (like National Bank of Greece) do have similar online services, but are usually restricted to ASE.",
"Nothing beats statistics like that found on Morning Star, Yahoo or Google Finance. When you are starting out, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pick a couple of mutual funds with good track records and start there. Keep in mind the financial press, to some degree, has a vested interest in having their readership chase the next hot thing. So while sites like Seeking Alpha, Kiplingers, or Money do provide some good advice, there is also an element that placates their advertisers. The only peer-to-peer lending I would consider is Lending Club. However, you are probably better off in the long run investing in mutual funds. One way to get involved in individual stocks without getting burned is to participate in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs). Companies that have them tend to be very well established, and they are structured to discourage trading. Buying is easy, dividend reinvestment is easy, dividend payouts are easy; but, starting and selling is kind of a pain. That is a good thing.",
"I wouldn't only consider the entry/exit cost per trade. That's a good comparison page by the way. I would also consider the following. This depends if you are planning on using your online broker to provide all the information for you to trade. I have lower expectations of my online broker, not meant to be harsh on the online brokers, but I expect brokers to assist me in buying/selling, not in selecting. Edit: to add to the answer following a comment. Here are three pieces of software to assist in stock selection",
"If you just want to save for retirement, start with a financial planning book, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 and here's my editorial on the investing part: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ If you're thinking of spending time stock-picking or trading for fun, then there are lots of options. Web site: Morningstar Premium (http://morningstar.com) has very good information. They analyze almost all large-cap stocks and some small caps too, plus mutual funds and ETFs, and have some good general information articles. It doesn't have the sales-pitch hot-blooded tone of most other sites. Morningstar analyzes companies from a value investing point of view which is probably what you want unless you're day trading. Also they analyze funds, which are probably the most practical investment. Books: If you want to be competent (in the sense that a professional investor trying to beat the market or control risk vs. the market would be) then I thought the CFA curriculum was pretty good: However, this will quickly teach you how much is involved in being competent. The level 1 curriculum when I did it was 6 or 7 thick textbooks, equivalent to probably a college semester courseload. I didn't do level 2 or 3. I don't think level 1 was enough to become competent, it's just enough to learn what you don't know. The actual CFA charter requires all three levels and years of work experience. If you more want to dabble, then Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor certainly isn't a bad place to start, but you'd also want to read some efficient markets stuff (Random Walk Down Wall Street, or something by Bogle, or The Intelligent Asset Allocator http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Asset-Allocator-Portfolio-Maximize/dp/0071362363, are some options). It wouldn't be bad to just read a textbook like http://www.amazon.com/Investments-Irwin-Finance-Zvi-Bodie/dp/0256146381 which would be the much-abridged version of the CFA level 1 stuff. If you're into day trading / charting, then I don't know much about that at all, some of the other answers may have some ideas. I've never been able to find info on this that didn't seem like it had a sketchy sales pitch kind of vibe. Honestly in a world of high-frequency trading computers I'm skeptical this is something to get into. Unless you want to program HFT computers: http://howtohft.wordpress.com/",
"Following our post yesterday which read that Thailand keeps ranking in global real estate index, you may find the following post interesting; Thai ombudsmen is drafting a carrot-and-stick law to protect Thai lands from illegal foreign nominee ownership, while developers and consultants suggest more legal transparency, a longer leasehold period and higher foreigner property taxes to prevent nominees.",
"\"http://www.interactivedata.com -> reference data No, it's not free. Nor would I consider it \"\"high quality\"\". For free data, try the Yahoo Finance API. The data you want is there, though you may need to calculate some of the fields yourself. Once you have your application working with free data you will be in a good position to evaluate whether it's worth it to shift to more detailed non-free data.\"",
"I wouldn't think so. If you read the list of features listed on the page you referred to, notice: Track Stocks It looks like it is restricted to the major U.S. stock markets. No mention of India's NSE.",
"\"1. Most of the information you want can be found in the annual report of the company. Go to their official website, look for shareholders information and then download the annual report. This will answer: \"\"number of issued stock, voting rights, if there is more than one kind of stock, etc. In summary all the legal and formal details of a given stock. 2. After reading the annual report, check on investors websites to see if you can find analyst reports written on this company. You can sometimes find them in some free newsletters. These reports will complete the information you have found in the annual report like \"\"if the dividends are always paid, etc.\"\"\"",
"About 10 years ago, I used to use MetaStock Trader which was a very sound tool, with a large number of indicators, but it has been a number of years since I have used it, so my comments on it will be out of date. At the time it relied upon me purchasing trading data myself, which is why I switched to Incredible Charts. I currently use Incredible Charts which I have done for a number of years, initially on the free adware service, now on the $10/year for EOD data access. There are quicker levels of data access, which might suit you, but I can't comment on these. It is web-based which is key for me. The data quality is very good and the number of inbuilt indicators is excellent. You can build search routines on the basis of specific indicators which is very effective. I'm looking at VectorVest, as a replacement for (or in addition to) Incredible Charts, as it has very powerful backtesting routines and the ability to run test portfolios with specific buy/sell criteria that can simulate and backtest a number of trading scenarios at the same time. The advantage of all of these is they are not tied to a particular broker.",
"thanks for the reply. I just graduated and I'm having a lot of difficulty getting any solid job. I guess I will pick firms in the area like MS, trowe, and see what would be best. My contact who told me to do this said it's very important to be passionate about it though...perhaps even if I pick a more targeted stock it won't be too valuable given my inexperience?",
"The following have been recommended to me for the UK: When I was doing my investigations, all had good reputations but Interactive Investor looked to have the nicer service and their fees seemed a bit more reasonable. TD Waterhouse has the advantage of a number of sites serving local markets (TD Ameritrade for the US, for instance).",
"of course! Currently I am running a digital media company based in Bangkok, we produce a wide array of content, some for web distribution some that is targeted for traditional distribution. I also have equity in a number of tech startups around Asia, everything from e-commerce to smart home to big data. I also recently exited a quantified self company I had built with several co-founders.",
"I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.",
"Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.",
"To dig a little deeper, a number of analysts within (and without) Reuters are polled for their views on individual stocks and markets on buy-hold-sell. The individual analysts will be a varied bunch of fundamentalists, technical, quant and a mixture of the three plus more arcane methodologies. There may be various levels of rumors that aren't strong enough to be considered insider trading, but all of these will give an analyst an impression of the stock/market. Generally I think there isn't much value there, except from the point of view if you are a contrarian trader, then this will form a part of the input to your trading methodology.",
"I can clear the Thailand side for you. These are the sale tax in Thailand: Don't forget to ask your bank in Thailand to issue an (FTFs). This document shows the money originated from abroad (before in came to your Thai account) from outside of Thailand. The land office will ask for the (FTFs).",
"Are you looking for something like Morningstar.com? They provide information about lots of mutual funds so you can search based on many factors and find good candidate mutual funds. Use their fund screener to pick funds with long track records of beating the S&P500.",
"I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.",
"For most of the people who are involved in the activity of investing in online stock trading, there will be the need of online brokers. With the investments in the online trades, people will be required to put their stock accounts in a particular platform. To know more about the best online brokers for stock trading, log on to http://www.stocktipsblog.com/",
"Hey guys, I found this website, it seems to do it for free, and they have many options. If let me know if you find something better than this. http://members.zignals.com/main/",
"I found a possible data source. It offers fundamentals i.e. the accounting ratios you listed (P/E, dividend yield, price/book) for international stock indexes. International equity indices based on EAFE definitions are maintained by Professor French of French-Fama fame, at Dartmouth's Tuck Business School website. Specifics of methodology, and countries covered is available here. MSCI is the data source. Historical time interval for most countries is from 1975 onward. (Singapore was one of the countries included). Obtaining historical ratios for international stock indices is not easily found for free. Your question didn't specify free though. If that is not a constraint, you may wish to check the MSCI Barra international stock indices also.",
"I work for a fund management company and we get our news through two different service providers Bloomberg and Thomson One. They don't actually source the news though they just feed news from other providers Professional solutions (costs ranging from $300-1500+ USD/month/user) Bloomberg is available as a windows install or via Bloomberg Anywhere which offers bimometric access via browser. Bloomberg is superb and their customer support is excellent but they aren't cheap. If you're looking for a free amateur solution for stock news I'd take a look at There are dozens of other tools people can use for day trading that usually provide news and real time prices at a cost but I don't have any direct experience with them",
"Indiabulls. Low brokerage (If you bargain) I'm user of it and I'm getting 25paisa for delivery and 5 paisa for intraday. All transactions can be done online. Also they provide an stand alone application PowerIndiabulls, which is too good and appraised by many users as best in the industry. Not sure about it, but I think Powerindiabulls application is the answer for this. Please have a look at their website for more details.",
"and this is a sure sign that their advice is worthless.. if their research was worth the paper that it is written on, they would be using that research to make money trading, instead of trying to sell their research to their clients. how many times have we said that traders that can trade will trade, but that traders that can not trade, they will teach. and the fact that they are charging so much for their research should be a sign or an indication that there is perhaps a sense of desperation in this organization to quickly raise some money quickly and desperately. people that dont really know where the treasure is buried at will sell treasure maps.. people that do know where the treasure is buried will dig for buried treasure.",
"\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"",
"Try https://sparkprofit.com/ You practice with real market prices, and it's free. Plus you can get real money pay outs if you do well. I earned 1 cent! hahaha I gave up trying to make money from it, but you get an idea of doing trades and how impossible it is to predict what the price will be. It has some tutorials and helpful things too.",
"Sounds like you are a candidate for stock trading simulators. Or just pick stocks and use Yahoo! or Google finance tools to track and see how you do. I wouldn't suggest you put real money into it. You need to learn about research and timing and a bunch of other topics you can learn about here. I personally just stick to life cycle funds that are managed products that offer me a cruise control setting for investing.",
"It is only wise to invest in what you understand (ala Warren Buffet style). Depending on how much money you have, you might see fit to consult a good independent financial advisor instead of seeking advice from this website. A famous quote goes: “Those who say, do not know. Those who know, do not say”",
"So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!",
"\"Good ones, no there are not. Go to a bookstore and pick up a copy of \"\"The Intelligent Investor.\"\" It was last published in 1972 and is still in print and will teach you everything you need to know. If you have accounting skills, pick up a copy of \"\"Security Analysis\"\" by Benjamin Graham. The 1943 version was just released again with a 2008 copyright and there is a 1987 version primarily edited by Cottle (I think). The 1943 book is better if you are comfortable with accounting and the 1987 version is better if you are not comfortable and feel you need more direction. I know recent would seem better, but the fact that there was a heavy demand in 2008 to reprint a 1943 book tells you how good it is. I think it is in its 13th printing since 2008. The same is true for the 72 and 87 book. Please don't use internet tutorials. If you do want to use Internet tutorials, then please just write me a check now for all your money. It will save me effort from having to take it from you penny by penny because you followed bad advice and lost money. Someone has to capture other people's mistakes. Please go out and make money instead. Prudence is the mother of all virtues.\"",
"Have you tried their site? Some places may have portions available though also beware that some companies may charge for some of their research pieces.",
"Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.",
"\"Google Finance certainly has data for Tokyo Stock Exchange (called TYO on Google) listings. You could create a \"\"portfolio\"\" consisting of the stocks you care about and then visit it once per day (or write a script to do so).\"",
"Bloomberg Professional seems to be very popular. It provides any kind of data you can imagine. Analysis is a subjective interpretation of the data.",
"How to find good divided stocks? Research and read. Google, Yahoo, and most likely your broker offer some sort of stock screener tool where you can look for stocks with given P/E ratios, dividend payouts, pricing, and any of a number of other filters. When you've found some that appeal to you, read what others are saying on stock talk websites like Vantagewire and Stockhouse. Read what each company is putting out as news and look at their quarterly reports. In Canada you can find a company's reports for free on Sedar. I'm afraid I don't know the U.S. equivalent. Reuters will be of help. Finding a good dividend-paying stock is the same as finding a good growth or value stock; research the company and the sector as if you were buying it to take the company over.",
"I can't provide a list, but when I took out my Stocks and Shares, I extensively researched for a good, cheap, flexible option and I went with FoolShareDealing. I've found them to be good, and their online trading system works well. I hope that's still the case.",
"\"I used to use etfconnect before they went paid and started concentrating on closed end funds. These days my source of information is spread out. The primary source about the instrument (ETF) itself is etfdb, backed by information from Morningstar and Yahoo Finance. For comparison charts Google Finance can't be beat. For actual solid details about a specific ETF, would check read the prospectus from the managing firm itself. One other comment, never trust a site that \"\"tells you\"\" which securities to buy. The idea is that you need sources of solid information about financial instruments to make a decision, not a site that makes the decision for you. This is due to the fact that everyone has different strategies and goals for their money and a single site saying buy X sell Y will probably lead you to lose your money.\"",
"Factset also provides a host of tools for analysis. Not many people know as they aren't as prevalent as Bloomberg. CapitalQ and Thomson Reuters also provide analysis tools. Most of the market data providers also provide analysis tools to analyze the data they and others provide.",
"\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\"",
"\"TDAmeritrade, an online stock broker, provides banking services within their brokerage accounts. The service offers all of what you are looking for. HOWEVER, this service is only available for free with their \"\"Apex\"\" qualification. Here is a tariff of their fees and services.\"",
"If you check out China Stock Markets Web provides details on all things that trade on there. It covers the Hang Seng Index, SSE Index, and SSE Component Index. There is also tons of information for investors on the exchange website here.",
"The Winning Investor http://winninginvestor.quickanddirtytips.com/ This is a blog and a podcast. Load a bunch of these onto your iPod and start listening. Stikky Stock Charts http://www.amazon.com/Stikky-Stock-Charts-professionals-smart/dp/1932974008 This is a beginner's guide on how to read charts. Lots of charts, not too many words.",
"Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.",
"I actually use a service called etorro, there are social trading and normal trading. It allows me to put money into the service, follow other people or just pick my own shares to buy and sell with a load other features. It does cost a small amount to extract money but the app is really good, the website is well designed and I've made a bit of money being 23, and in the It industry with no financial training ever it seems like a good way to start.",
"\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\""
] |
[
"On what basis did you do your initial allocation of funds to each stock? If you are 're-balancing' that implies returning things to their initial allocation. You can do this without any research or recommendations. If you started out with say 10 stocks and 10% of the funds allocated to each stock, then re-balancing would simply be either buying/selling to return to that initial allocation. If you are contributing to the portfolio you could adjust where the new money goes to re-balance without selling. Or if you are drawing money from the portfolio, then you could adjust what you are selling. If on the other hand you are trying to decide if you want to alter the stocks the portfolio is HOLDING, then you have an entirely different question from 're-balancing'"
] |
4142
|
Relation between inflation rates and interest rates
|
[
"586930",
"544020",
"203926",
"61346"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"87580",
"235522",
"544020",
"292475",
"586930",
"61346",
"504833",
"460755",
"285064",
"546378",
"60486",
"306197",
"428895",
"61962",
"184776",
"290585",
"555559",
"336618",
"598764",
"563407",
"430071",
"554255",
"203926",
"257716",
"126431",
"269727",
"440270",
"577201",
"117578",
"357103",
"581257",
"538895",
"241000",
"346064",
"377035",
"580591",
"176687",
"129676",
"209497",
"483218",
"214710",
"519596",
"594667",
"562938",
"74287",
"107697",
"144177",
"501461",
"23148",
"441904",
"58590",
"40768",
"62719",
"302792",
"513249",
"358736",
"65648",
"42475",
"546953",
"377488",
"152910",
"491219",
"511977",
"380071",
"93518",
"129742",
"179532",
"451923",
"2825",
"360983",
"178147",
"537898",
"515652",
"578983",
"303240",
"426559",
"519470",
"482415",
"499112",
"46291",
"212222",
"513485",
"583678",
"124940",
"363817",
"327432",
"75680",
"77992",
"215708",
"565226",
"397290",
"453913",
"45835",
"336145",
"476546",
"135536",
"500985",
"133486",
"367137",
"577051"
] |
[
"What is the relationship between inflation and interest rates? notes a relationship between inflation and interest rates that would suggest high inflation would imply higher interest rates that would mean less loans as money becomes more expensive in a sense. In contrast, in times of low inflation then rates may be low and thus there is a greater chance of people and businesses wanting loans.",
"\"It is important to distinguish between cause and effect as well as the supply (saving) versus demand (borrowing) side of money to understand the relationship between interest rates, bond yields, and inflation. What is mean by \"\"interest rates\"\" is usually based on the officially published rates determined by the central bank and is referenced to the overnight lending rate for meeting reserve requirements. In practice, what the means is, (for example) in the United States the Federal Reserve will have periodic meetings to determine whether to leave this rate alone or to raise or lower the rate. The new rate is generally determined by their assessment of current and forecast national and global economic conditions and factors in the votes of the various Regional Federal Reserve Presidents. If the Fed anticipates economic weakness they will tend to lower and keep rates lower, while when the economy seems to be overheated the tendency will be to raise rates. Bond yields are also based on the expectation of future economic conditions, but as determined by market participants. At times the market will actually \"\"lead\"\" the Fed in bidding bond prices up or down, while at other times it will react after the Fed does. However, ignoring the varying time lag the two generally will track each other because they are really the same thing. The only difference is the participants which are collectively determining what the rates/yields are. The inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation is the main reason for fluctuating rates in the first place. The Fed will tend to raise rates to try to slow inflation, and lower rates when it feels inflation is too low and economic growth should be stimulated. Likewise, when the economy is doing poorly there is both little inflationary pressure (driving interest rates down both in terms of what savers can accept to keep ahead of inflation and at) and depressed levels of borrowing (reduced demand for money, driving down rates to try to balance supply and demand), and the opposite is true when the economy is booming. Bond yields are thus positively correlated to inflation because during periods of high inflation savers won't want to invest in bonds that don't provide them with an acceptable inflation adjusted yield. But high interest rates tend to have the effect or reining in inflation because it gets more costly for borrowers and thus puts a damper on new economic activity. So to summarize,\"",
"When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations.",
"When inflation is high or is rising generally interest rates will be raised to reduce people spending their money and slow down the rate of inflation. As interest rates rise people will be less willing to borrow money and more willing to keep their money earning a good interest rate in the bank. People will reduce their spending and invest less into alternative assets but instead put more into their bank savings. When inflation is too low and the economy is starting to slow down generally interest rates will be raised to encourage more spending to restart the economy again. As interest rates drop more will take their saving out of their bank accounts as is starts to earn very little in interest rate and more will be willing to borrow as it becomes cheaper to borrow. People will start spending more and investing their money outside of bank savings.",
"Possibly but not necessarily, though that can happen if one looks at the US interest rates in the late 1970s which did end with really high rates in the early 1980s. Generally interest rates are raised when inflation picks up as a way to bring down inflation.",
"Is it true that due the to the increase in interest rates that inflation is likely to increase as well? It is typically the reverse where inflation causes interest rates to rise. Interest rates fundamentally reflect the desire for people to purchase future goods over present day goods. If I loan money to someone for 5 years I lose the ability to use that money. In order to entice me to loan the money the borrower would have to offer me an incentive, that is, they would have to give me additional money at the end of that 5 years. This additional money is the interest rate and it reflects the desire of people to spend money in the future versus the present day. If offered the same amount of money today versus 5 years from now almost everyone would chose to take the money now. Money in the present is more valuable than the same amount of money in the future. Interest rates would still exist even with a currency that could not be printed. I would still prefer to have the currency today than in the future. If the currency is continually devalued (i.e. the issuer is printing more of the currency) than borrowers may charge additional interest to compensate for the loss in purchasing power when they make a loan. Also, it is hard to compare interest rates and inflation. Inflation is very difficult to calculate. New products and services, as well as ever changing consumer desires, continually change the mixture of goods in the market so it is nearly impossible to compare a basket of goods today to a basket of goods 5, 10, 20, or 30 years ago.",
"Another simple case of reading comprehension. Both from your graph and from my post. If you're contesting that high interest rates means lower inflation, that means you have no idea how 99% of the currency is created or about the quantity theory of money. The CPI index is more of a measurement of how much money the average consumer is spending than it is the value lost of the dollar. If the average consumer spends 2% more than their basket of goods will get 2% more expensive. If wages go up 2% they will spend 2% more. CPI is a fucking joke, and anyone who believes it is either a lamen or a shill.",
"From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.",
"Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.",
"Typically developing economics are marked by moderate to high inflation [as they are growing at a faster pace], higher in savings rate and higher lending rates. If you reduce the lending rate, more business / start-up will borrow at cheaper rate, this in turn means lowers savings rate and leads to higher inflation. To combat this Central Banks make borrowing expensive, which lowers inflation and increases the saving rate. Essentially all these 3 are tied up. As to why these countries offer higher interest on USD is because most of the developing countries have trade [current account] deficit. They need to bring in more USD in the country. One of the ways is to encourage Non Resident Citizens to park their foreign earning back home, ensuring more funds USD inflow. The rate differential also acts as a guide as to how the currency would be valued against USD. For example if you get 8% on USD, less than 12% had you converted same to Rouble, at the end of say 3 years, the exchange rate between USD and Rouble would factor that 4%, ie rouble will go down. Developed countries on the other hand are marked by low inflation [they have already achieved everything] as there is no spurt in growth, it more BAU. They are also characterized by low savings and lending rates.",
"\"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens: It almost looks random. A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates. They steadily climbed and steadily fell: All that's left is inflation: First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not. Economists call this type of phenomenon \"\"sticky pricing\"\", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation. The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways. This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s. Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating. Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing. As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept \"\"low and stable\"\": But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise? Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible.\"",
"I have been charting the CPI reported inflation rate vs . the yeald on the 10-year T-note. Usually, the two like to keep pace with each other. Sometimes the T-note is a bit higher than the inflation rate, sometimes the inflation rate is a bit higher than the T-note yeald. One does not appear to follow the other, but (until recently) the two do not diverge from each other by much. But all that changed recently and I am without an explanation as to why. Inflation dropped to zero (or a bit negative) yet the yeald on the 10-year T-note seemed to seek 2%. Edit: If you give this response a downvote then please be kind enough to explain why in a comment. Edit-2: CPI and 10-year T-note are what I have tracked, and continue to track. If you do not like my answer then provide a better one, yourself.",
"Inflation is theft! It is caused when banks lend money that someone deposited, but still has claim to - called fractional reserve banking. On top of that, the Federal Reserve Bank (in the US) or the Central Bank of the currency (i.e. Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, etc.) can increase the monetary base by writing checks out of thin air to purchase debt, such as US Treasury Bonds. Inflation is not a natural phenomenon, it is completely man-made, and is caused solely by the two methods above. Inflation causes the business cycle. Lower interest rates caused by inflation cause long-term investment, even while savings is actually low and consumption is high. This causes prices to rise rapidly (the boom), and eventually, when the realization is made that the savings is not there to consume the products of the investment, you get the bust. I would encourage you to read or listen to The Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard - Great book, free online or via iTunes.",
"Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive, which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns. For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc. This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used.",
"When we speak about a product or service, we generally refer to its value. Currency, while neither a product or service, has its own value. As the value of currency goes down, the price of products bought by that currency will go up. You could consider the price of a product or service the value of the product multiplied by the value of the currency. For your first example, we compare two cars, one bought in 1990, and one bought in 2015. Each car has the same features (AC, radio, ABS, etc). We can say that, when these products were new, each had the same value. However, we can deduce that since the 1990 car cost $100, and the 2015 car cost $400, that there has been 75% inflation over 25 years. Comparing prices over time helps identify the inflation (or devaluation of currency) that an economy is experiencing. In regards to your second question, you can say that there was 7% inflation over five years (total). Keep in mind that these are absolute cumulative values. It doesn't mean that there was a 7% increase year over year (that would be 35% inflation over five years), but simply that the absolute value of the dollar has changed 7% over those five years. The sum of the percentages over those five years will be less than 7%, because inflation is measured yearly, but the total cumulative change is 7% from the original value. To put that in perspective, say that you have $100 in 2010, with an expected 7% inflation by 2015, which means that your $100 will be worth $93 in 2015. This means that the yearly inflation would be about 1.5% for five years, resulting in a total of 7% inflation over five years. Note that you still have a hundred dollar bill in your pocket that you've saved for five years, but now that money can buy less product. For example, if you say that $100 buys 50 gallons of gasoline ($2/gallon) in 2010, you will only be able to afford 46.5 gallons with that same bill in 2015 ($2.15/gallon). As you can see, the 7% inflation caused a 7% increase in gasoline prices. In other words, if the value of the car remained the same, its actual price would go up, because the value stayed the same. However, it's more likely that the car's value will decrease significantly in those five years (perhaps as much as 50% or more in some cases), but its price would be higher than it would have been without inflation. If the car's value had dropped 50% (so $50 in original year prices), then it would have a higher price (50 value * 1.07 currency ratio = $53.50). Note that even though its value has decreased by half, its price has not decreased by 50%, because it was hoisted up by inflation. For your final question, the purpose of a loan is so that the loaner will make a profit from the transaction. Consider your prior example where there was 7% inflation over five years. That means that a loan for $100 in 2010 would only be worth $93 in 2015. Interest is how loans combat this loss of value (as well as to earn some profit), so if the loaner expects 7% inflation over five years, they'll charge some higher interest (say 8-10%, or even more), so that when you pay them back on time, they'll come out ahead, or they might use more advanced schemes, like adjustable rates, etc. So, interest rates will naturally be lower when forecasted inflation is lower, and higher when forecasted inflation is higher. The best time to get a loan is when interest rates are low-- if you get locked into a high interest loan and inflation stalls, they will make more money off of you (because the currency has more value), while if inflation skyrockets, your loan will be worth less to loaner. However, they're usually really good about predicting inflation, so it would take an incredible amount of inflation to actually come out on top of a loan.",
"In simple terms, inflation is a result of too much money chasing too few goods, i.e. there is an imbalance between demand and supply. The demand exceeds the supply. With all other things being constant it leads to increase in price, i.e. inflation.",
"Yes there is an inverse relationship but that's how it's meant to work. Debt creates money. Banks do lend out customers savings for return interest as the bank can make a profit rather than the cash just sitting there. The process of Lending pumps money into the economy that wouldn't be there otherwise so it creates money. The banks will either have a cash deficit or surplus at end of each day and either need to borrow from other banks to balance their books or if in surplus lend to other banks to make interest because that's more profitable than holding the cash surplus. The overnight cash rate then determines interest rates we pay. High private debt occurs when lots of people are investing & buying things so there is stimulation and growth in the economy. A lot more tax is being paid in these periods so government debt is lower because they are getting lots of tax money. Also To stimulate the economy into this growth period the government usually sells off large cash bonds (lowering their debt) to release cash into the economy, the more cash available the less banks have to borrow to cover deficits on overnight cash market and the lower interest rates will be. Lower interest rates = more borrowing and higher Private debt. The government can't let growth get out of control as they don't want high inflation so they do the opposite to slow down growth, I.e buy up cash bonds and take money out of economy causing higher interest rates and less borrowing = More debt for government less for private.",
"If I understand what you're asking, I think you're looking at the relationship wrong. Yes, when one currency has a higher interest rate relative to another, it's value should, theoretically, appreciate. For example, if the USD interest rate is 10% and the EUR is 5%, the USD should appreciate in value against the EUR. However, the parity relationship tells you the price at which an investor would be indifferent to the difference in interest rates. So using the formula for interest rate parity: (1+r(USD))/(1+r(EUR)) = F/S and plugging in the interest rates from above and a spot rate of $1.5/EUR: (1.1)/(1.05) = F/(1.5) The 1 year forward rate would have to be $1.5714/EUR in order for the investor to be INDIFFERENT between holding USD or EUR. All this assuming interest rate parity holds. I'm not big on Econ but this is how I understood it when studying for the CFA exam the past few months. So please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.",
"I know that assets like bonds have prices that have an inverse relationship with interest rates, but what other assets do as well? I'm a bit new to finance and all that so I'm trying to learn. Would real estate prices be high as well? If so, why?",
"\"One key to trading is recognizing expectations. What you see in the market is not always a reflection of fundamentals; sometimes, it's a reflection of what people expect to occur, whether that actually happens or not, is debatable. When a currency experiences inflation, such as the CPI being higher today for the USD, it may see an increase because people expect that the central bank will raise rates. Again, this may not be the case, and the traders with this expectation could be wrong. If you're seeing a currency rise after reported inflation, more than likely, traders expect the inflation to benefit the currency in the longer run. Finally on the economics' side, and economists here can debate this, at least in the past the view was that there was a relationship between inflation and unemployment (see the Phillip's Curve). This idea, depending on who you ask, was refuted in the 70s when we had both high inflation and high unemployment (stagflation). Supposedly, if we have high unemployment, we should have low inflation, so we can always raise inflation to have low unemployment. Note that you will still find some economists who think the Phillip's Curve is true, so \"\"refuted\"\" depends on who you ask. From what I've read, Austrian economists are the only economists who see inflation as always bad (long story short, I think it's Paul Cwik who argues that deflation is actually good); like you're seeing, other economists might see it as a good sign and it's only a concern when it's very high (hyperinflation).\"",
"Inflation can go up for a number of reasons. Boom times can cause inflation, as everyone is making and spending a lot of money, so prices and inflation goes up. In times like these central banks usually increase interest rates to curb spending and thus bring down inflation. By raising interest rates the central bank is increasing the cost of borrowing money. So with high prices and a higher cost to borrowing money, most people start reducing their spending. When this happens businesses sell less stock and have increased costs (due to higher interest rates) so have to lay off staff or reduce their hours at work, so people will have even less money to spend. This causes prices to fall and reduces inflation and can result in a recession. At this point in time central banks start reducing interest rates to make the cost of borrowing money cheaper and stimulate people to start spending again. And so the cycle continues. The result in this case is that inflation itself didn't kerb demand, but was helped along by the central bank rising interest rates. Another reason causing inflation can be a restriction on the supply of certain goods or services. An example we went through about 2 years ago was when floods caused banana crops up in Northern Australia to be devastated. This caused a lack of supply in bananas for almost a year across Australia. The normal price for bananas here is between $1 to $3 per kg. During this period banana prices skyrocketed up to $14 per kg. The result: very few were buying bananas. So the increase in price here caused a reduction in demand directly.",
"Assuming constant velocity, inflation is caused by the difference between the growth in the money supply and growth in real output. In other words, this means that the money supply growing faster than output is expanding causes inflation to arise.",
"I haven't read the terms here but the question may not have a good answer. That won't stop me from trying. Call the real rate (interest rate - inflation) and you'll have what is called negative real rates. It's rare for the overnight real rate to be negative. If you check the same sources for historical data you'll find it's usually higher. This is because borrowing money is usually done to gain an economic benefit, ie. make a profit. That is no longer a consideration when borrowing money short term and is IMO a serious problem. This will cause poor investment decisions like you see in housing. Notice I said overnight rate. That is the only rate set by the BoC and the longer rates are set by the market. The central bank has some influence because a longer term is just a series of shorter terms but if you looked up the rate on long Canadian real return bonds, you'd see them with a real rate around 1%. What happens when the central bank raise or lowers rates will depend on the circumstances. The rate in India is so high because they are using it to defend the rupee. If people earn more interest they have a preference to buy that currency rather than others. However these people aren't stupid, they realize it's the real rate that matters. That's why Japan can get away with very low rates and still have demand for the currency - they have, or had, deflation. When that changed, the preference for their currency changed. So if Canada hast forex driven inflation then the BoC will have to raise rates to defend the dollar for the purpose of lowering inflation from imports. Whether it works or not is another story. Note that the Canadian dollar is very dependant on the total dollar value of net oil exports. If Canada has inflation due too an accelerating economy this implies that there are profitable opportunities so businesses and individuals will be more likely to pay a positive real rate of interest. In that scenario the demand for credit money will drive the real rate of return.",
"Basically, they all do. The relationship is much more dynamic with stocks but corporate financing costs increase, return requirements increase (risk free rate goes up). Same with real estate. Commodity demand is correlated with economic activity, which is correlated with interest rates, although not perfectly. The most important factor is, a higher risk free rate increases the discount rate, which reduces asset values",
"\"Other things equal is sometimes referred to as \"\"ceteris paribus\"\" - the scenario where you compare two currencies (or things) under the assumption that all other factors that could effect those currencies (earthquakes, revolutions, currency crises ect) are not ocurring. Its like using a control group in a lab. \"\"Real interest rates\"\" means the rate of that countries interest rate, accounting for inflation. \"\"Proportional to the strength of its home currency\"\" is referring to how countries with higher rates of interest tend to have stronger currencies (relative to other currencies) because foreign investment/capital will flood into the country seeking those higher rates of return - excess demand for the currency will cause it to appreciate. So this is also true in reverse, as capital will tend to leave a country will ultra-low interest rates.\"",
"In terms of operations, banks are indifferent to inflation. Short rates except right before a recession or near-recession are always lower than long rates, regardless of inflation level, assuming no quotas or price controls. Banks produce credit by borrowing short to lend long, so as long as short rates are lower than long rates, they can be expected to produce loans, again assuming no quotas or price controls. In short, from the banks' perspective, inflation does not affect their desire to produce credit.",
"The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low.",
"As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend.",
"\"Inflation is an attempt to measure how much less money is worth. It is a weighted average of some bundle of goods and services price's increase. Money's value is in what you can exchange it for, so higher prices means money is worth less. Monthly inflation is quoted either as \"\"a year, ending on that month\"\" or \"\"since the previous month\"\". As the values differ by more than a factor of 10, you can usually tell which one is being referred to when they say \"\"inflation in August was 0.4%, a record high\"\" or \"\"inflation in August was 3.6%\"\". You do need some context of the state of the economy, and how surprised the people talking about the numbers are. Sometimes they refer to inflation since the last month, and then annualize it, which adds to the confusion. \"\"Consumer Inflation\"\"'s value depends on what the basket of goods is, and what you define as the same \"\"good\"\". Is a computer this year the same as the last? If the computer is 10x faster, do you ignore that, or factor it in? What basket do you use? The typical monthly consumables purchased by a middle class citizen? By a poor citizen? By a rich citizen? A mixture, and if so which mixture? More detailed inflation figures can focus on inflation facing each quntile of the population by household income, split durable goods from non-durable goods from services, split wage from non-wage inflation, ignore volatile things like food and energy, etc. Inflation doesn't directly cause prices to raise; instead it is a measure of how much raise in prices happened. It can easily be a self-fullfilling prophesy, as inflation expectations can lead to everyone automatically increasing the price they charge for everything (wages, goods, etc). Inflation can be viewed as a measurement of the \"\"cost of holding cash\"\". At 10% inflation per year, holding a million dollars in cash for a year costs you 100,000$ in buying power. At 1% inflation it costs 10,000$. At 0.1% inflation, 1000$. Inflation of 10% in one year, followed by 10% the next, adds up to 1.1*1.1-1 = 21% inflation over the two years. For low inflation numbers this acts a lot like adding; the further from 0% you get the more the lower-order terms make the result larger. 1% inflation for two years adds up to 2.01%, 10% over two years 21%, 100% over two years 300%, 1000% over two years 12000%, etc. (and yes, some places suffer 1000% inflation)\"",
"\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"",
"Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.",
"Not always. You always consider economic factors in conjunction with each other rather than in isolation, which leads to weird assumptions. People spending isn't what you should look at always. When inflation is high, means government is spending. Government is spending on public projects, creating employment, increasing salaries, doling out loans. So you are putting money into the economy and into people's hands. Everybody will be spending, so it will also drive demand(Demand Pull inflation). But there are differences among economists regarding Cost push inflation, which is a dangerous phenomena. At the same time the interest rates, which are a monetary tool for central banks to increase(decrease) the money flow in the economy, are low. Under low interest rate conditions, businesses take loans to invest in projects. Because interest rates are low, people find it logical to spend now than spend later. As interest rates are low, there is an expectation that they cannot earn more in savings than investing in products which will generate benefits in the near term. These all goes on in cycles and after a period of inflation, you will see government taking action to rein in inflation. It will increase interest rates to suck money out of the economy. This is when people will curb spending, because they know they will earn a higher return while saving rather than investing.",
"The measure of change of value of a currency in relation to itself is inflation (or deflation).",
"This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past.",
"\"Okay, yes that's true. However, we don't know what inflation would have been during this period had the fed not been increasing their balance sheet. That's what I'm trying to get at it. So it's easy for them to say \"\"Low inflation , low interest rates\"\".\"",
"Inflation is what happens, it is not good or bad in and of itself. But consider the following. In a thriving economy with low unemployment, people are buying, buying, buying. People are not saving for later, they are buying now. Industry is also making purchases. Now. From economics 101: high demand for goods/services leads to relative scarcity leading to higher prices. Inflation tends to be one byproduct of a thriving economy. Governments want the thriving economy that brings inflation with it.",
"First, assuming you are making payments for a savings deposit. The present value of the deposit is the sum of the all the payments discounted to present value. In this case they would be discounted by the rate of inflation: £100 deposited next year is worth less than £100 today because it will be eroded by inflation. With a higher rate of inflation the payments are discounted more heavily, so the present value decreases. A deposit, or annuity due (see Calculating the Present Value of an Annuity Due), can be expressed mathematically like so:- ∴ by induction So for example, the following annuity has a present value of £1,136.76 The total amount that will be paid for the annuity is 12 x £100 = £1,200. With a higher rate of inflation, say 2% per month, and with the same 12 x £100 payments, the present value of the annuity decreases. In Excel (£1,078.68) A similar case is that for a loan, or ordinary annuity (see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity), except the discounting factor is the loan interest rate rather than inflation and repayments are made at the end of each period rather than at the start. The present value of a loan is the value of the all the future repayments discounted to present value. With a higher interest rate the payments are discounted more heavily, so the present value decreases. A loan can be expressed mathematically like so:- ∴ by induction So for example, the following values fulfill a loan worth £1,125.51 The total amount that will be paid for the loan is 12 x £100 = £1,200. With a higher rate of interest, say 2% per month, and the same 12 x £100 repayments, the present value of the loan that can be obtained decreases. In Excel (£1,057.53)",
"Most of the bankruptcy is due to taking [or building over a period of time] a loan that one cannot service, if the interest rates rise, then the amount of money to repay the loan increases, when one doesnt pay the revised amount and keeps paying less, the over all debt keeps shooting through the roof ... a lower interest rate means that one can continue to pay the same amount ... and few missed payments do not cause as much as damage as it does when the rates are high.",
"\"Currently, the quantity theory of money is widely accepted as an accurate model of inflation in the long run. Consequently, there is now broad agreement among economists that in the long run, the inflation rate is essentially dependent on the growth rate of money supply. However, in the short and medium term inflation may be affected by supply and demand pressures in the economy, and influenced by the relative elasticity of wages, prices and interest rates - Wikipedia: Inflation causes You also asked \"\"can you give any reference that explains that this [encouraging people to work] is one of the reasons government prints money?\"\" See the list of positive effects of inflation in that article.\"",
"The generic representative of interest rates is the 10 year treasury bond rate. (USA). As an approximation most other interest rates do tend to move up and down with the treasury rate, but with more or less sensitivity. Another prominently discussed interest rate is the short term loan rate established by the Federal Reserve for loans it makes to banks.",
"\"I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy. Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea. Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds. At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate. In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated. There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing. That's at a whole market level. Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that \"\"bond rates\"\" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks. So I've talked about the bond rate. The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate. The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment. And vice versa.\"",
"Inflation is basically this: Over time, prices go up! I will now address the 3 points you have listed. Suppose over a period of 10 years, prices have doubled. Now suppose 10 years ago I earned $100 and bought a nice pair of shoes. Now today because prices have doubled I would have to earn $200 in order to afford the same pair of shoes. Thus if I want to compare my earnings this year to 10 years ago, I will need to adjust for the price of goods going up. That is, I could say that my $100 earnings 10 years ago is the same as having earned $200 today, or alternatively I could say that my earnings of $200 today is equivalent to having earned $100 10 years ago. This is a difficult question because a car is a depreciating asset, which means the real value of the car will go down in value over time. Let us suppose that inflation doesn't exist and the car you bought for $100 today will depreciate to $90 after 1 year (a 10% depreciation). But because inflation does exist, and all prices will be 0.5% higher in 1 years time, we can calculate the true selling price of the car 1 in year as follows: 0.5% of $90 = 0.005*90 = $0.45 Therefore the car will be $90 + $0.45 = $90.45 in 1 years time. If inflation is low, then the repayments do not get much easier to pay back over time because wages have not risen by as much. Similarly the value of your underlying asset will not increase in value by as much. However as compensation, the interest rates on loans are usually lower when inflation is lower. Therefore generally it is better to get a loan in times of high inflation rather than low inflation, however it really depends on how the much the interest rates are relative to the inflation rate.",
"\"In the United States, if someone refers to the \"\"interest rate\"\", especially if heard on news or talk radio in particular, they are almost always referring to the federal funds rate, a rate set forth and maintained by the United States Federal Reserve (the \"\"fed\"\" for short). If the fed opts to raise or lower this rate, it subsequently effects all interest rates, whether by being directly connected in a chain of loans or by market demand through the efficiency of financial markets in the case of bond auctions. The FOMC meets eight times each year to determine the target for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate effects all interest rates because it is the originating rate of interest on all loans in the chain of loans. Because of this significance as a benchmark for all interest rates, it is the rate most commonly referred to as \"\"interest rate\"\" when used alone. That is why other rates are specified by what they actually are; e.g., mortgage rates; 10 year & 30 year (for 10 year treasury and 30 year treasury bond yields respectively); savings rate, auto rate, credit card rate, CD rate—all rates of interest effected by the originating loan that is the federal funds rate. This is true in the United States but will vary for other countries. In general though, it will almost always refer to the originating rate for all loans in a given country, institution, etc. Note that bonds have yields that are based on market demand that is, in turn, based on the federal funds rate. It is because of the efficiency of financial markets that the demand, and thus the yields, are correlated to the federal funds rate.\"",
"The Fed controls the base interest rate for lending to banks. It raises this rate when the economy is doing well to limit inflation, and lowers this rate when the economy is doing poorly to encourage lending. Raising the interest rate signals that the Fed believes the economy is strong/strengthening. Obviously it's more complicated than that but that's the basic idea.",
"\"If you buy a long term bond with long term fixed interest rate, and then the interest rates increase, your bond is worth less. That's not a problem, because over the years the value of the bond will go back to its nominal value. If you have a bond that doesn't pay out annually but increases its value every year, you will get exactly the amount of cash when it pays out that you expected. The problem is that if for 20 years interest rates were 8% while your bond only paid 4%, then you will have such an amount of inflation that the cash you get is worth much less than you hoped. You may have hoped that your bond would be worth \"\"one year average salary\"\", but it may be only worth \"\"six months of average salary\"\", even if the dollar amount is exactly what you expected.\"",
"The article John cites says no correlation, but this chart from the article says otherwise; One sees the rate drop from 14% to 4% and housing rise from an index of 50 to near 190. (reaching over to my TI BA-35 calculator) I see that at 14%, $1000/mo will buy $84,400 worth of mortgage, but at 4%, it will buy $209,500. 2-1/2 times the borrowing power for the same payment. But wait, my friends at West Egg tell me that inflation means I can't compare $1000 in 1980 to the same $1000 in 2010. The $1,000 inflates to $2611 (i.e. an income rising only with inflation, no more) and that can fund a mortgage for $546,900. This is 6.5 times the original borrowing power, yet the housing index 'only' rose 3.8X. See that crazy chart? Housing actually got cheaper from 1980 to the peak. Statistics can say whatever you wish. Interest rate change drove all the change in housing prices, but not quite as much as it should have. To answer your question - I expect that when rates rise (and they will) housing prices will take a hit. In today's dollars, a current $1000 borrows (at 4%) nearly $210K, but at 6%, just $167K. If rates took a jump from these record lows, that's the nature of the risk you'd take.",
"\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \"\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\"\" and \"\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\"\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \"\"stop the presses\"\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\"",
"An economy produces goods and services and people use money to pay for those goods and services. Money has value because people believe that they can buy and sell goods and services with it in that economy. How much the value of money is, is determined by how much money there is in comparison to goods and services (supply and demand). In most economies it is the job of the federal/national reserve bank to ensure that prices stay stable (ie the relationship of goods and services to how much money there is is stable); as this is necessary for a well running economy. The federal reserve bank does so by making more (printing, decreasing interest rates) or less (increasing interest rates) available to the economy. To determine how much money needs to be in the economy to keep prices stable is incredibly hard as many factors have an impact: If the reserve bank gets it wrong and there is more money compared to goods and services than previous, prices will rise to compensate; this is inflation If it's the other way round is deflation. Since it is commonly regarded that deflation is much more destabilizing to an economy than inflation the reserve banks tend to err on the side of inflation.",
"\"No, it isn't generally believed that inflation is caused by individual banks printing money. Governments manage money supply through Central Banks (which may, or may not, be independent of the state). There are a number of theories about money supply and inflation (from Monetarist, to Keynesian, and so on). The Quantity Theory of Inflation says that long-term inflation is the result of money-supply but short-term inflation is related to events/local conditions. Short-term inflation is a symptom of economic change. It's like a cough for a doctor. It simply indicates an underlying event. When prices go up it encourages new producers to enter the market, create new supply which will then act to lower prices. In this way inflation is managed by ensuring that information travels throughout the economy. If prices go up for specific goods, then - all things being equal - supply should go up since the increase implies increasing demand. If prices go down then this implies demand has gone down and so producers will reduce supply. Obviously this isn't a perfect relationship. There is \"\"stickiness\"\" which can be caused by a whole bunch of market conditions (from banning of short-selling, to inelasticity of demand/supply). Your question isn't about quantitative easing (which is a state-led way of increasing money-supply and which could increase inflation but is hoped to increase expenditure and investment) so I won't cover that here. The important take-away is that inflation is an essential price signal to investors and business people so that they can assess market cycles. Without it we would end up with vast over- or under-supply and much greater economic disruption.\"",
"Inflation is a reflection on the expansion of the money supply, aka debt, being created by a central bank. Fiat currencies usually inflate, because there is no limit to the amount of debt that can be created. The consequences of reckless money supply expansion can be seen throughout history, see Zimbabwe, though there have been many others...Brazil, Argentinia, etc...",
"Inflation is an increase in the money supply. Increases in consumer prices follow from inflation. It's not the same as inflation. Some inflation is necessary for a growing economy. If your gross national product is only $1,000, then you can get away with having less money than if your gross national product is $1 trillion. Inflation beyond this, though, is used to allow governments to live beyond their means. If there is more money chasing the same amount of goods, prices will rise. There is truth in what azcoastal says about this kind of inflation. It's theft. Governments like inflation because it allows them to pay off their debts with cheaper money.",
"\"Debt is nominal, which means when inflation happens, the value of the money owed goes down. This is great for the borrower and bad for the lender. \"\"Investing\"\" can mean a lot of different things. Frequently it is used to describe buying common stock, which is an ownership claim on a company. A company is not a nominally fixed asset, by which I mean if there was a bunch of inflation and nothing else happened (i.e., the inflation was not the cause or result of some other economic change) then the nominal value of the company will go up along with the prices of other things. Based on the above, I'd say you are incorrect to treat debt and investment returns the same way with respect to inflation. When we say equity returns 9%, we mean it returns a real 7% plus 2% inflation or whatever. If the rate of inflation increased to 10% and nothing else happened in the economy, the same equity would be expected to return 17%. In fact, the company's (nominally fixed) debts would be worth less, increasing the real value of the company at the expense of their debt-holders. On the other hand, if we entered a period of high inflation, your debt liability would go way down and you would have benefited greatly from borrowing and investing at the same time. If you are expecting inflation in the abstract sense, then borrowing and investing in common stock is a great idea. Inflation is frequently the result (or cause) of a period of economic trouble, so please be aware that the above makes sense if we treat inflation as the only thing that changed. If inflation came about because OPEC makes oil crazy expensive, millennials just stop working, all of our factories got bombed to hades, or trade wars have shut down international commerce, then the value of stocks would most definitely be affected. In that case it's not really \"\"inflation\"\" that affected the stock returns, though.\"",
"This was called Financial repression by Edward S. Shaw and Ronald I. McKinnon from Stanford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression). Financial repression is the situation, when government is stealing from people, who rely heavily on saving, rather then on spending. Meaning that your saving rates will be a lot worse then inflation rate. Financial markets are artificially hot and interest rates artificially low (average historical interest rate is 10%). This could be a possible predictor state to hyper-inflation.",
"Inflation also provides incentives for consumers to purchase now rather than later (which helps drive sales) and it provides incentive for money to be invested and put back into businesses, rather than held as cash, because you need to earn at least a little interest on your money just to break even.",
"Inflation refers to the money supply. Think of all money being air in a balloon. Inflation is what happens when you blow more air in the balloon. Deflation is what happens when you let air escape. Inflation may cause prices to go up. However there are many scenarios possible in which this does not happen. For example, at the same time of inflation, there might be unemployment, making consumers unable to pay higher prices. Or some important resource (oil) may go down in price (due to political reasons, war has ended etc), compensating for the money having less value. Similarly, peoples wages will tend to rise over time. They have to, otherwise everyone would be earning less, due to inflation. However again there are many scenarios in which wages do not keep up with inflation, or rise much faster. In fact over the past 40 years or so, US wages have not been able to keep up with inflation, making the average worker 'poorer' than 40 years ago. At its core, inflation refers to the value of the money itself. As all values of other products, services, assets etc are expressed in terms of money which itself also changes value, this can quickly become very complex. Most countries calculate inflation by averaging the price change of a basket of goods that are supposed to represent the average Joe's spending pattern. However these methods are often criticized as they would be 'hiding' inflation. The hidden inflation may come back later to bite us.",
"Companies with existing borrowings (where borrowings are on variable interest rates) or in the case with fixed interest rates - companies that get new borrowings - would pay less interest on these borrowings, so their cost will go down and profits up, making them more attractive to investors. So, in general lower interest rates will make the share market a more attractive investment (than some alternatives) as investors are willing to take on more risk for potentially higher returns. This will usually result in the stock market rising as it is currently in the US. EDIT: The case for rising interest rates A central bank's purpose when raising interest rates is to slow down an economy that is booming. As interest rates rise consumers will tighten up their spending and companies will thus have less revenue on top of higher costs for maintaining existing borrowing (with variable rates) or new borrowing (with fixed rates). If rates are higher companies may also defer new borrowings to expand their business. This will eventually lead to lower profits and lower valuation for these companies. Another thing that happens is that as banks start increasing interest for saving accounts investors will look for safety where they can get a higher return (than before) without the risk of the stock market. With lowering profits and valuations, and investor's money flowing out of shares and into the money market, so will company share prices drop (although this may lag a bit with the share market still booming due to greed. But once the boom stops watchout for the crash).",
"Increasing rates from .75% to 1% is an attempt to control debt. The new 1% rate drives down demand for bonds based on the old .75% rate and drives down demand for stocks who have decrease profit because they pay more interest on debt. This is the federal reserves primary tool controling inflation. 1% is what the banks pay to borrow money, they base their lending rates on this 1% figure. If a person can guarantee a .75% return on money borrowed at 1%, they will opt to save and instead lend their money out at 1%.",
"\"The interest rate offered by a bond is called the nominal interest rate. The so-called real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. If inflation is equal to or greater than the nominal rate at any given time, the REAL interest rate is zero or negative. We're talking about a ten year bond. It's possible for the real interest rate to be negative for one or two years of the bond's life, and positive for eight or nine. On the other hand, if we have a period of rising inflation, as in the 1970s, the inflation rate will exceed the (original) interest rate in most years, meaning that the real interest rate on the ten year bond will be negative over its whole life. People lost \"\"serious\"\" money on bonds (and loans) in the 1970s. In such situations, the BORROWERS make out. That is, they borrow money at low rates, earn inflation (plus a little more) pay back inflated dollars, and pocket the difference. For them, the money is \"\"free.\"\"\"",
"This is similar to the overnight lending rate set by the US Federal Reserve Board. If money is more expensive to borrow (higher interest rate) then less will be borrowed. Commercial and consumer loan rates follow up or down via market pressures (though possibly to a lesser extent in China) to adjust to the new central bank rate. Money creation is driven in part by fractional reserve banking: banks are required to have but a small percentage of deposits on hand in cash, and the rest can be lent out, deposited in another bank that has the same fractional reserve requirement, and that money can be lent out, etc. Higher interest rates dampen this lending activity, so inflation is toned down.",
"The Central Banks sets various rate for lending to Banks and Paying interest to Banks on excess funds. Apart from these the Central Banks also sets various other ratios that either create more liquidity or remove liquidity from Market. The CPI is just one input to the Central Bank to determine rate, is not the only deciding criteria. The CPI does not take into account the house price or the cost of renting in the basket of goods. One of the reasons could be that CPI contains basic essentials and also the fact that it should be easily mesurable over the period of time. For example Retail Price of a particular item is easily mesurable. The rent is not easily mesurable.",
"The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.",
"Mortgage or other interest rates are determined by the banks on cost of funds, risk and operating cost. The Fed raises money from the markets by issuing Tresury Bonds at a specified rate. This rate at which it raises money varies depening on the economy. Thus there are 2 rates: the rate at which banks can borrow money from the Fed, which is higher than the rate that the Fed would give banks for excess money deposited with them. So if the cost of borrowing is less, banks can borrow this money from the Fed and loan it to individuals at a slightly higher rate that would cover their costs plus a small profit. The risk associated with a mortgage is less, and hence these would be cheaper, then say a personal loan. If the cost of borrowing goes up, the mortgage rate will go up. If the cost of borrowing money goes down, the cost would come down. Banks may not always borrow money to lend. If they have existing money, they can either park it with the Fed for a lower interest rate, or loan it to individuals for a rate higher than what they would have received from the Fed.",
"\"Inflation is a bad thing. It makes it much more difficult for people to compare prices and prosperity over a long period of time. This causes people to ignore the wisdom of their elders (who remember prices from a long time ago). Back in my day, you could get a burger and fries for 15 cents -- a dime for the burger, and a nickel for the fries. But the minimum wage was only a quarter an hour! That doesn't help me decide if things have gotten better or worse. How long is \"\"a long period of time\"\"? That depends on the inflation rate. At 1 percent per year, 50 or 100 years is \"\"a long time\"\". At 10 percent per year, 5 or 10 years. At 100 percent per year, a few months. Because of the Spanish conquests of gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru, prices in the sixteenth century rose by a factor of 5.5 during the century. This inflation was recognized as causing lots of social and governmental problems. Note that this means an average inflation rate of 2 percent per year for a century is known to be a very bad thing. There are several reasons that most governments want some inflation:\"",
"\"Banks make less profit when \"\"long\"\" rates are low compared to \"\"short\"\" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) \"\"short term\"\" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money.\"",
"\"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are \"\"lending\"\" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the \"\"saver\"\" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. \"\"Savers\"\" therefore \"\"shop around\"\" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard \"\"invisible hand\"\" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!\"",
"What the comments above say is true, but one more thing is there. FD rates are directly proportional to loan rates. However, banks make money because loan rates will always be higher than FD rates.",
"\"True. My thinking is, the higher the rates are, the less people you'll have borrowing, the less chance of people defaulting, more people buying with flat cash, and of course cheaper housing prices. Whereas with low interest rates, you'll have more people borrowing (thus, increasing the likelihood of more people defaulting), more people \"\"buying\"\" homes (technically not buying, technically just \"\"borrowing\"\" money and putting down mortgages), and more expensive housing prices. Quite frankly, I think the way that the western world can solve its issue with unaffordable housing is by raising the interest rates to at least the double digits, like they once were (when housing was still cheap).\"",
"It is my understanding that banks pay less than the going rate on savings accounts and require that the person who takes out a loan pay more than the going rate. That is how the bank gets its money. Usually the going rate is affected by the current inflation rate (but that has not been true for the last few weeks). So that means that, typically, the money you have in the bank is, gradually, losing purchasing power as the bank typically pays you less than the inflation rate. So if you want your money to keep pace with inflation (or do a bit better) then you should buy bonds.",
"Inflation is bad for people with lots of cash assets. It's good for debtors, particularly debtors with unsecured debt.",
"Well as you can guess economic growth has a positive effect on the economy as a whole and tends to be measured in the change of a countries GDP ([Gross Domestic Product](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product)) [Unemployment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment) is the rate of people unemployed who should be working currently. High unemployment is bad as it shows there are people who could be making money (who would then spend it thus boosting GDP and inflation) and adding to a countries economy. [Inflation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) is an increase in the price of goods and is measured by a standardized 'basket' of goods. As people spend more and the economy heats up prices rise. You want a low but positive level of inflation, target rate in most developed countries is about 2% per year. At this level demand for goods is high and people are spending but too much higher and prices will pass the level people are willing to pay for the goods and the economy could overheat and have a downturn. Read the wikipedia articles I linked, they'll help a lot. Feel free to ask any more questions you have!",
"you understand inflation is necessary for growth? inflation is an increase in the money supply. the fed has a policy of inflation targeting. they say okay we are fine with 2% inflation lets keep it at that level. and their policies aim to keep inflation at that level.",
"If there's no inflation (or alternately there's deflation) people would tend to sit on money and wait for the prices to drop. This in pretty bad for pricier stuff like real estate/housing industry where a few percent can make a big difference. For a growing economy a small inflation is good as people would go out and buy new stuff when they want it knowing they will not get a better deal if they wait a year or so.",
"\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Low rates and QE were intended to help revive a stalled economy, but unfortunately, demand has not risen, but rather, the velocity of money has dropped like a rock. At some point, we will see the economy recover and the excess money in the system will need to be removed to avoid the inflation you suggest may occur. Of course, as rates rise to a more normal level, the price of all debt will adjust. This question may not be on topic for this board, but if we avoid politics, and keep it close to PF, it might remain.\"",
"The yield on treasury bond indicates the amount of money anyone at can make at virtually zero risk. So lets say banks have X [say 100] amount of money. They can either invest this in treasury bonds and get Y% [say 1%] interest that is very safe, or invest into mortgage loans [i.e. lend it to people] at Y+Z% [say at 3%]. The extra Z% is to cover the servicing cost and the associated risk. (Put another way, if you wanted only Y%, why not invest into treasury bonds, rather than take the risk and hassle of getting the same Y% by lending to individuals?) In short, treasury bond rates drive the rate at which banks can invest surplus money in the market or borrow from the market. This indirectly translates into the savings & lending rates to the banks' customers.",
"I've always understood inflation to be linked to individual currencies, although my only research into the subject was an intro economics course in undergrad and I don't recall seeing why that would be the case. I guess the basic principle is that currency traders are watching the printing presses and trading in exchange markets to the point that the exchange rates fall in relation to increases in money supply. There's probably something about the carry trade in there as well, but it's late and I took some medications, so someone else will have to carry that torch. I must admit I've not really paid attention to foreign currencies like HKD, but the proximity and political relationship with China probably greatly complicates your question, since part of the problem has been China's currency peg.",
"Could someone please explain to me how interest rates work? I like to think of interest rates as the price of money. It is specified as a percentage paid per unit of time (for example, 3%/year). To figure out how much interest money you get (or have to pay) for a given amount and time, multiply the amount with the interest rate and then divide by the time divided by the interest rate's specified time. That sounds awfully complicated, so let's look at a simple example instead. You deposit $1,000 at a fixed interest rate of 2% per year, for two and a half years, where the interest is paid at the end of the term. This means that you earn $1,000 * 2% = $20 per year in interest. Multiply this by [2.5 years] / [year] = 2.5, and you will have received $20 * 2.5 = $50 in interest over 2.5 years. If the interest is paid yearly, this gets slightly more complicated, but the principle is the same. Now imagine that you deposit $5,000 at a fixed 3% per year, for half a year. Again, the interest is paid at the end of the term. You now earn $5,000 * 3% [per year] * [[0.5 years] / [year]] = $75 in interest over six months. Variable interest rates makes this a little more complicated, but it is exactly the same thing in principle: calculate the interest paid for each period (taking any compounding into account), then add up all periods to get the total amount of interest paid over time. It also works the same way if you take out a loan rather than depositing money. Tax effects (capitals gains taxes or interest expense deductions) may make the actual amount paid or received different, but that does not change the fundamental aspect of how to calculate interest. Do CD's make more money with higher interest rates, or is it the other way around? Usually fixed interest rate instruments such as certificates of deposit, or loans with fixed rates, pay a higher interest rate for longer terms. This is because it is harder to judge credit risk in a longer term, so whoever gives the loan usually wants a premium for the additional risk. So a 6-month CD will normally pay a smaller percentage interest per year than a five-year CD. Note that this is not always the case; the technical term for when this does not hold is inverted yield curve. Interest rates are almost always formally specified in terms of percent per year, which makes it easy to compare rates. If you buy a $100 6-month CD paying 1% (I told you these were only examples :)) and then reinvest the money at the end of the term in another 6-month CD also paying 1%, the total amount paid will be ($100 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $100.50 for the first term, then ($100.50 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $101.0025 at the end of the second term. As you can see, the compounding of the interest makes this return slightly more than a single $100 12-month CD ($100 * 1 + 1% = $101), but unless you are dealing with large amounts of money, the difference is small enough to be negligible. If you were to put $100 in a 2% one-year CD, you'd get back $102 at the end of the year. Put the same amount in a 5% one-year CD, and you get back $105. So yes, higher interest rates means more interest money paid, for loans as well as deposits. Keep in mind that loans and deposits really are essentially the same thing, and interest calculations work the same way for both. The interest rate of a normal certificate of deposit does not change if the variable interest rates change, but rather is locked in when the money is deposited (or the CD is bought, whichever way you prefer to look at it).",
"Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds? Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall. Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss.",
"Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates. This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates. If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year. Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount. The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during.",
"Wait, if everyone isn't buying things and saving money instead, who is left to get loans to buy things at higher rates? Banks don't wag the consumer's tail. Banks will make loads more money on their variable rate loans which will hurt a lot of people. Until wages rise to incentivize buying things, loan interest rates need to be low. Only way to spur the economy is to get more money in the hands of the spenders. We keep giving it to the hoarders.",
"Think of it this way: 1) You buy 1k in call options that will let you buy 100k of stock when they expire in the money in a year. 2) You take the 99k you would have spent on the stock and invest it in a risk free savings account. 3) Assume the person who sold you the call, immediately hedges the position by buying 100k of stock to deliver when the options expire. The amount of money you could make on risk free interest needs to be comparable to the premium you paid the option writer for tying up their capital, or they wouldn't have made the trade. So higher risk free rates would mean a higher call price. NOTE: The numbers are not equal because of the risk in writing the option, but they will move the same direction.",
"\"I would say people are generally talking about the prime lending rate. I have heard the prime lending rate defined as \"\"The rate that banks charge each other when they borrow money overnight.\"\" But it often defined as the rate at which banks lend their most creditworthy customers. That definition comes with the caveat that it is not always held to strictly. Either definition has the same idea: it's the lowest rate at which anyone could currently borrow money. The rate for many types of lending is based upon the prime rate. A variable rate loan might have an interest rate of (Prime + x). The prime rate is in turn based upon the Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate that the Fed sets manually. When the news breaks that \"\"the Fed is raising interest rates by a quarter of a point\"\" (or similar) it is the Federal Funds Rate that they control. Lending institutions then \"\"fall in line\"\" and adjust the rates at which they lend money. So to summarize: When people refer to \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\" or \"\"rising\"\" interest rates they are conceptually referring to the prime lending rate. When people talk about the Fed raising/lowering interest rates (In the U.S.) they are referring specifically to the Federal Funds Rate (which ultimately sets other lending rates).\"",
"\"The setting of interest rates (or \"\"repurchase rates\"\") varies from country to country, as well as with the independence of the central bank. There are a number of measurements and indices that central bankers can take into account: This is a limited overview but should give an indication of just how complex tracking inflation is, let alone attempting to control it. House prices are in the mix but which house or which price? The choice of what to measure faces the difficulty of attempting to find a symmetrical basket which really affects the majority regularly (and not everyone is buying several new houses a year so the majority are ring-fenced from fluctuations in prices at the capital end, but not from the interest-rate end). And this is only when the various agencies (Statistics, Central Bank, Labour, etc.) are independent. In countries like Venezuela or Argentina, government has taken over release of such data and it is frequently at odds with individual experience. Links for the US: And, for Australia:\"",
"The relation between inflation and stock (or economic) performance is not well-understood. Decades ago, economists thought inflation corresponded with periods of high growth and good real returns, but since then we have had periods of low inflation and high growth and high inflation with low growth. It is generally understood among current economists that inflation levels (especially expected inflation) are neither indicative nor causative of real stock returns. Many things can affect inflation, and economic performance is only a minor one. Many things can cause economic performance, and inflation is only a minor one. It's not clear whether the overall relation between inflation and real stock returns is positive or negative. Notice, however, that in principle stock returns are real. That is, the money companies make is in inflated dollars so profit and dividends for a company whose prospects have not changed should go up and down at the same rate as inflation. This would mean if inflation goes up by 5% and nothing else changes, you would expect stock prices to go up by the same proportion so you wouldn't have strong feelings about inflation one way or the other. In real life stock prices will go up by either more or less than 5% but I'm not comfortable saying which, on average. Bottom line: current levels of inflation can't really be used to predict real stock returns, so you shouldn't let current inflation guide your decision about whether to buy stock.",
"The higher the debt, the higher inflation needs to be to wash the debt away. This is why the debt and US equities move upward hand in hand. The same goes for US housing. Just as homeowners borrow money through mortgages so that house prices rise, the banks borrow the money for mortgages through the central banks. Thus, the cycle circulates. The more debt, the higher the prices! Everybody makes money from debt. That is why the US has the highest external debt on the globe, yet they are considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world.",
"Interest rates can't remain this low. It's like having extremely low blood pressure. When you raise the rates, banks are incented to loan money and that movement of capital is good for the economy. It forces us to become savers instead of spenders, and our pensions, 401ks, social security are all getting killed by not being able to use debt to get safer stable returns. Interest rates have to come back up.",
"\"You are correct that it could refer to any of the types of interest rates that you've mentioned. In general, though, phrases such as \"\"rising interest rates\"\" and \"\"falling interest rates\"\" refer to the Federal Funds Rate or LIBOR. These are the interest rates at which banks in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, are lending money to each other.\"",
"\"There are several causes of inflation. One is called cost push — that is, if the price of e.g. oil goes up sharply (as it did in the 1970s), it creates inflation by making everything cost more. Another is called demand pull: if labor unions bargain for higher wages (as they did in the 1960s), their wage costs push up prices, especially after they start buying. The kind of inflation that the banks cause is monetary inflation. That is, for every dollar of deposits, they can make $5 or $10 of loans. So even though they don't \"\"print\"\" money (the Fed does) it's as if they did. The result could be the kind of inflation called \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\"\"",
"Indeed. So goes the theory that redistribution would lead to inflation (or run away inflation). But isn't that exactly what The Fed is trying to do? It could also or alternatively indicate that assets are way overvalued which would also be a bad situation. Which is it?",
"I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.",
"It depends. Very generally when yields go up stocks go down and when yields go down stocks go up (as has been happening lately). If we look at the yield of the 10 year bond it reflects future expectations for interest rates. If the rate today is very low but expectations are that the short term rates will go up that would be reflected in a higher yield simply because no one would buy the longer term bond if they could simply wait out and get a better return on shoter term investments. If expectations are that the rate is going down you get what's called an inverted yield curve. The inverted yield curve is usually a sign of economic trouble ahead. Yields are also influenced by inflation expectations as @rhaskett is alluding in his answer. So. If the stock market crashes because the economy is doing poorly and if interest rates are relatively high then people would expect the rates to go down and therefore bonds will go up! However, if there's rampant inflation and the rates are going up we can expect stocks and bonds to move in opposite directions. Another interpretation of that is that one would expect stock prices to track inflation pretty well because company revenue is going to go up with inflation. If we're just talking about a bump in the road correction in a healthy economy I wouldn't expect that to have much of an immediate effect though bonds might go down a little bit in the short term but possibly even more in the long term as interest rates eventually head higher. Another scenario is a very low interest rate environment (as today) with a stock market crash and not a lot of room for yields to go further down. Both stocks and bonds are influenced by current interest rates, interest rate expectations, current inflation, inflation expectations and stock price expectation. Add noise and stir.",
"Typically in a developed / developing economy if there is high overall inflation, then it means everything will rise including property/real estate. The cost of funds is low [too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation] which means more companies borrow money cheaply and more business florish and hence the stock market should also go up. So if you are looking at a situation where industry is doing badly and the inflation is high, then it means there are larger issues. The best bet would be Gold and parking the funds into other currency.",
"Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.",
"First off, inflation doesn't necessarily imply that goods and services will rise in price. The amount of goods & services increases over time as well, and this is balanced (partly), by an increase in the money supply. Without inflation you lose the incentive to invest, as your dollar would become more valuable over time. Why invest in a risky venture if I know that my dollar will buy more if I just wait it out. Might as well stick the money under the mattress. (This is bad)",
"\"Some people believe that inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply when the banks engage in fractional reserve lending. Is this correct? You are referring to the Austrian school of thought. The Austrians define inflation in terms of money supply. In other words, inflation is defined as an increase in the aggregate money supply, even if prices stay the same of fall. This is not the only definition of inflation. The mainstream defines inflation as a general increase in the prices of consumer goods. Based on the first definition, then your supposition is correct by definition. Based on the second definition, you can make a case that money supply affects prices. But keep in mind, it's just one factor affecting prices. Furthermore, economics is resistant to experimentation, so it is difficult to establish causality. Austrian economists tend to approach the problem of \"\"proof\"\" using a 2-pronged tactic: establish plausibility by explaining the mechanism, then look for historical evidence to back up that explanation. As I understand it, when there is more available money in the market, the price of goods will increase. But will a normal merchant acknowledge the increase of money supply and raise prices immediately? I posit that, in the short run, merchants won't increase prices in response to increased money supply. So, why does increased money supply lead to price inflation? The simple answer, in the Austrian school of thought, is that you have more money chasing the same amount of goods. In other words, printing money doesn't actually increase the number of widgets made. I believe the Austrian school is consistent with your supposition that prices don't increase in the short run. In other words, producers don't increase prices immediately after observing an increase in the money supply. Specifically, after the banks print more notes, where will the money be distributed first? The Austrian story goes as follows: Imagine that the first borrower is a home constructor, and he is borrowing freshly \"\"printed\"\" money to build new homes. This constructor will need to buy materials and hire labor to build homes, and in doing so he will bid against other home constructors. The increased demand for lumber, nails, tools, carpentry, etc. will ever so slightly increase the market prices for these goods and services. So the money goes first to the borrower, but then flows also to the people selling to the borrower, and the people selling to the sellers, etc. It has a ripple effect. Who will be the first one to have a need to rise their price? These producers won't need to increase their price, but they will choose to do so if the believe that demand outstrips supply. In other words if you have more orders than you can fill, then you may post higher prices because you think consumers will tolerate the higher price. You might object that competition deters any one producer from unilaterally raising prices, but in fact if all producers are failing to keep up with demand, then you can unilaterally raise prices because other producers don't have any excess inventory to undercut you with.\"",
"Inflation follows the money, chases the money. All the money in the past few years has been directed into the banking system, and so we have an inflation in banking investments -- an investment bubble. The Fed makes a big mistake putting all the money into these investment banks. Better to put it into the population directly than let these buggering bankers control it. But then, the Fed *is* the buggering bankers, just wearing a different hat. It's Wyle E. Coyote time yet again as we wait to see how long it takes these bastards to realize there isn't anything substantial under their feet and it's a long way down to the canyon floor. Again.",
"There are two things you need to keep in mind when you look at Inflation as an entity. Inflation is necessary to keep in check the value of goods. As per Moore's Law for example, a mobile phone that you buy for £100 today will be available for £50 in two years. With increased purchasing power, one needs to maintain balance between the purchasing power and its value. If you think about the 'loss' at a rate of 2% you would have £96.04 (in terms of today's value) in two years. But if you looked at the same cell phone as leverage for your business where it allowed you to do work and earn £1000 in two years - the investment would clearly offset the cost of inflation. Inflation is incentive for people to spend their money. If you for example spent all of your £100 today, it is £100 income for someone else. He has further incentive to spend it creating a chain of transactions. In theory while this is a true mathematical loss, the increasing purchasing power helps you leverage your financial asset to get a return on your investment.",
"All unsubstantiated opinions. >there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans Really. No relation whatsoever? And your background in finance letting you understand this is what? Are you telling me every bank of the [7,213](http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/) independent banks are in cahoots and none of them compete based on prices and services? Can you give me precise evidence that all those independent banks are not in competition? What should the price be for capital if the current prices are incorrect, and tell me why.",
"\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\"",
"Imagine that the existing interest rate is 5%. So on a bond with face value of 100, you would be getting a $5 coupon implying a 5% yield. Now, if let's say the interest rates go up to 10%, then a new bond issued with a face value of 100 will give you a coupon of $10 implying a 10% yield. If someone in the bond market buys your bond after interest price adjustment, in order to make the 10% yield (which means that an investor typically targets at least the risk-free rate on his investments) he needs to buy your bond at $50 so that a $5 coupon can give a 10% yield. The reverse happens when interest rates go down. I hope this somewhat clears the picture. Yield = Coupon/Investment Amount Update: Since the interest rate of the bond does not change after its issuance, the arbitrage in the interest rate is reflected in the market price of the bond. This helps in bringing back the yields of old bonds in-line with the freshly issued bonds.",
"We need to be careful what we are talking about here. Inflation on a economy-level scale at an expected rate will not change consumer habits because the price increase is manageable. You have to realize that prices are not increasing in isolation: wages will have to rise along too. High inflation that is expected will increase consumption of durable goods, as people attempt to 'get rid of their money' before the price changes on them. A good example of this was post-WWI germany, where hyperinflation was so bad that offices began to pay their employees twice daily, so they could adjust their wages, and so that their employees could go out during lunch and after work to buy something with the money before the price changed on them. Unexpected inflation may cause a temporary dip in spending until wages adjust, however consumers still need to buy, so they will likely push for higher wages, leading to consumption to stay about level. There is another effect to inflation as well: People who have savings will have their savings eroded over time if the economy is inflationary. To preserve their wealth, they will invest it. In a deflationary environment, money will increase in value simply by being hoarded, so they will be less willing to invest it. Deflation also increases the cost of interest on a loan, while inflation decreases it. So the overall effect is for an increase in spending under inflation, and a decrease under deflation. The person you have quoted is quite wrong. Price increases in a particular sector will cause consumer spending to decrease but this is a bad example, as it is not inflation, but rather a supply/demand problem of a particular consumer good. They are applying a micro-economic model (price increases of a single good) to a macroeconomic problem (price increases in the entire economy) when price increases at a global scale have the opposite effects. A good theoretical test of this is: what would happen if everyone in the US suddenly had twice as much money? (Ignoring international trade, of course). The answer: prices will double, and nothing else will change. The reason is, people will have more money to spend, but will require more money for their services, so in the end it all cancels out."
] |
[
"Possibly but not necessarily, though that can happen if one looks at the US interest rates in the late 1970s which did end with really high rates in the early 1980s. Generally interest rates are raised when inflation picks up as a way to bring down inflation.",
"When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations.",
"I haven't read the terms here but the question may not have a good answer. That won't stop me from trying. Call the real rate (interest rate - inflation) and you'll have what is called negative real rates. It's rare for the overnight real rate to be negative. If you check the same sources for historical data you'll find it's usually higher. This is because borrowing money is usually done to gain an economic benefit, ie. make a profit. That is no longer a consideration when borrowing money short term and is IMO a serious problem. This will cause poor investment decisions like you see in housing. Notice I said overnight rate. That is the only rate set by the BoC and the longer rates are set by the market. The central bank has some influence because a longer term is just a series of shorter terms but if you looked up the rate on long Canadian real return bonds, you'd see them with a real rate around 1%. What happens when the central bank raise or lowers rates will depend on the circumstances. The rate in India is so high because they are using it to defend the rupee. If people earn more interest they have a preference to buy that currency rather than others. However these people aren't stupid, they realize it's the real rate that matters. That's why Japan can get away with very low rates and still have demand for the currency - they have, or had, deflation. When that changed, the preference for their currency changed. So if Canada hast forex driven inflation then the BoC will have to raise rates to defend the dollar for the purpose of lowering inflation from imports. Whether it works or not is another story. Note that the Canadian dollar is very dependant on the total dollar value of net oil exports. If Canada has inflation due too an accelerating economy this implies that there are profitable opportunities so businesses and individuals will be more likely to pay a positive real rate of interest. In that scenario the demand for credit money will drive the real rate of return.",
"Is it true that due the to the increase in interest rates that inflation is likely to increase as well? It is typically the reverse where inflation causes interest rates to rise. Interest rates fundamentally reflect the desire for people to purchase future goods over present day goods. If I loan money to someone for 5 years I lose the ability to use that money. In order to entice me to loan the money the borrower would have to offer me an incentive, that is, they would have to give me additional money at the end of that 5 years. This additional money is the interest rate and it reflects the desire of people to spend money in the future versus the present day. If offered the same amount of money today versus 5 years from now almost everyone would chose to take the money now. Money in the present is more valuable than the same amount of money in the future. Interest rates would still exist even with a currency that could not be printed. I would still prefer to have the currency today than in the future. If the currency is continually devalued (i.e. the issuer is printing more of the currency) than borrowers may charge additional interest to compensate for the loss in purchasing power when they make a loan. Also, it is hard to compare interest rates and inflation. Inflation is very difficult to calculate. New products and services, as well as ever changing consumer desires, continually change the mixture of goods in the market so it is nearly impossible to compare a basket of goods today to a basket of goods 5, 10, 20, or 30 years ago."
] |
2460
|
What are the consequences of not respecting a notice period when leaving a job?
|
[
"584337",
"549180",
"530037"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"549180",
"584337",
"530037",
"279683",
"326225",
"18900",
"431294",
"316051",
"405702",
"272987",
"177915",
"207539",
"278622",
"511049",
"217241",
"320777",
"589518",
"87632",
"378424",
"92202",
"325371",
"190077",
"593828",
"232864",
"272344",
"22338",
"394740",
"275633",
"334893",
"421395",
"372147",
"291847",
"28749",
"13831",
"267542",
"230467",
"140266",
"231985",
"41766",
"114102",
"481896",
"123664",
"549708",
"451320",
"475265",
"86025",
"333898",
"393334",
"587143",
"539399",
"400862",
"329228",
"316870",
"369239",
"384759",
"491680",
"53215",
"346270",
"272844",
"294043",
"279089",
"154163",
"526534",
"151452",
"410459",
"514055",
"575576",
"316942",
"258720",
"77074",
"489046",
"78807",
"95885",
"383238",
"250798",
"365597",
"479739",
"96255",
"121262",
"449082",
"204740",
"102344",
"526329",
"130945",
"98372",
"369359",
"180460",
"242931",
"261189",
"388016",
"62576",
"464871",
"590500",
"349502",
"455470",
"334850",
"342390",
"467737",
"579584",
"533562"
] |
[
"It depends on your employer. They may not care to pursue matters if you don't give enough notice. They might be happy to see you go. Or they might be really sad to see you go, but not feel like they need to punish you. Or they might be really angry to see you go, and decide that they want to punish you to the full extent of the law just out of spite. Essentially, we can't tell you that, because different employers will behave differently. My advice? Be a mensch. Give the old employer as much notice as humanly possible so that they can find, hire, and train your replacement. Leave on as good terms as possible. Don't burn bridges. Chances are your new job can wait for another week or two.",
"It's provincial jurisdiction, so it can vary by province. In Manitoba, it's different when an employee quits vs. being terminated: Quiting: Being terminated: Edit: At least in Manitoba, according to the above link, an employer can't set different notice periods. Effective April 30, 2007, employers cannot have alternate notice policies. A notice policy set under the previous legislation is not valid. The only exclusion is a unionized workplace, where a collective agreement has a probationary period that is one year or less. Ontario, on the other hand doesn't have anything legislated about resignation notice except under a couple very specific circumstances. This leaves it open for contracts to put in place their own requirements. In this case, you can be sued for provable losses (minus the savings from not having to pay you.)",
"When I was pursuing my Business Degree in Canada we were told the standard notice period is 2 weeks on both sides. This means your employer is required to give you at least two weeks notice and you are required to give it as well. If you violate your notice requirement the employer can sue you for lost revenues and etc. for that time period. The converse side is if your employer failed to provide you with sufficient notice you could sue for lost wages for that time frame as well. I'm sure you can contractually agree to more than the legal minimum of two weeks.",
"If you leave without having met all the obligations in the contract they could sue you for the money. The size of the company may mean that they are experienced in collecting their debts. The insurance they made you pay for, may pay them back if they meet all the requirements in the policy. That means that you will have to read the terms of the policy to see if the insurance company will come after you for the losses. It is likely that your skipping out early while owing money will be attached to your credit history without your SSN.",
"Note that this kind of entry on your credit record may also affect your ability to get a job. Basically, you're going on record as not honoring your commitments... and unless you have a darned good reason for having gotten into that situation and being completely unable to get back out, it's going to reflect on your general trustworthiness.",
"The only consequence I could see is that they have your money until they pay you back. I'd just do what JoeTaxpayer says and get it back.",
"\"I have no problem with such agreements, but if that is the case, then there should be direct financial compensation for locking you out of your profession. They don't want you to work for anyone else for 18 months - then pay you for that period and put you on \"\"gardening leave\"\".\"",
"\"is your credit history ruined, or merely dinged? Is the blow recoverable? Any bad credit rating event is recoverable given enough time / money to solve the problem. As far as \"\"Ruined\"\" vs\"\" \"\"Dinged\"\", well, that's a matter of opinion; some people think that one bad item is the end of the world, others not so much. You will have an unpaid debt listed on your report. This will drop your score. The amount it impacts the score will depend on other factors in your report. Can the carrier try to get the money back in court? I assume you'll wind up dealing with a debt collector. Yes they could go to court, but that's unlikely at least in the short term. Far more likely is that the debt ends up sold to a debt collection agency for pennies on the dollar. The debt collection agency will harass you until you pay and they might file in court if they think the debt is more than enough to cover the court costs. Will this affect any other relationships you have? Possibly. A bad rating may make it more difficult to get credit in the future. However that depends on numerous other factors such as your entire history. It could even prevent you from being hired from certain jobs - not many of them, but some. Is it criminal? Read this: http://www.startribune.com/investigators/95692619.html The US does NOT have a debtors prison. However if the company decides to file a court case and you fail to appear or fail to abide by the court ruling then, in some states, you could be committing a crime and may be thrown in jail. At which point you are on the hook not just for the original fee but potentially a plethora of other costs. Never mind the loss of reputation when your friends, family and coworkers find out that you are sitting in jail. At the end of the day, just pay the debt. If you agreed to the plan and the plan has an early cancellation fee then the moral and ethical thing to do is pay it. Trying to see how bad it would be to ignore it isn't the right way to live.\"",
"The bank will sell your debt to a collection agency, that will then follow you everywhere you go and demand payment. They will put a negative notice on your credit report preventing you from getting any new credit, and might sue you in court and take over some or all of your assets through court judgement.",
"If I were you I would educate myself better on the ins and outs of employment law. Apparently not knowing all the details has already cost you substantial amount of money. [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits-contesting-employees-claim-30348.html](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits-contesting-employees-claim-30348.html) Of course the details can vary quite a bit by jurisdiction. Please consider consulting with an attorney who specializes in employment law who can help you protect yourself in the future.",
"Same thing as for any debt: bank sues you, you lose, you are in an even deeper hole because you now owe them for the cost of the court case, your credit rating goes into the toilet, you may even have trouble retaining/finding a job. Being stupid is always more expensive.",
"\"Anyone can sue you. Whether or not they would win the lawsuit is what matters, and to win there would have to be measurable damages. How much money could the seller possibly have lost due to this in just a few days? IMHO the most you'd realistically be out is your earnest money. BTW, your realtor gets paid only if you purchase a home, so in this case your realtor may not have your best interests in mind if the choices are: \"\"buy this house\"\" or \"\"don't buy anything\"\". Definitely talk to an attorney, and then consider notifying the seller ASAP.\"",
"Facebook may sue you or your company for not paying the bill for the ads that Facebook ran for you or your company. There is a chance they may ban you and/or your company in addition to that to get the money as there was likely an agreement you accepted to put ads on Facebook.",
"Yeah, if they actually did that - that is, defame your professional name with no merit - they would be in big trouble. Thats the kind of stuff you take to a lawyer and they have a field day with, at least if the evidence is there. I'm glad you left that place - it sounds awful. You should leave them a very honest Glassdoor review, to help future generations not have to go through the same stuff. Also, if they withheld OT wages from you, and you can prove that, and it hasnt been a extrodinary long time, I feel very confident you could wistleblow on them with your department of labor in your state and collect. I know thats probably not your style, but thats money you are owed. Hows the new job?",
"That's a disgrace. Companies can get rid of an employee with no notice, and then those employees can't find a job using the skill set they earned. Companies are trying to win your skills. That's last step before slavery",
"Strange that they're holding you personally legally liable rather than the company. That's normally a big part of the corporate veil. You need a lawyer, not a stackexchange.",
"It all depends on how you feel about your employer. Obviously you had positive feelings about yours, but often that's not the case. >It's not a good idea to leave anywhere, even if you hate it, on bad terms. It gives everyone there a bad sense of you and can come back to bite you in the future. I think this is actually bad advice. Treating bad employers well is sending them the wrong message and encourages them to continue treating people poorly. While I wouldn't suggest to set the building on fire before you leave or to leave a piece of shit in your desk drawer, there is really no need to be extra nice to an employer who has been a major dick to you. The dick employers treat their employees as inanimate replaceable resources, so it's only appropriate to return the favor by treating your employer in precisely the exact same way.",
"I work for a very large company and had a similar situation where I got threatened with my life and when I attempted to quit they wouldn't allow it. I contacted HR, and they didn't do anything. It got to the point of lawyering up to develop a lawsuit; however, filing a lawsuit would make it impossible to find another job. Best thing to do, find another job. Leave on a high note, and do whatever it takes to avoid them. If you get contacted on why, explain and leave professionally.",
"\"Well, they can. Up to six years in many countries. There can be consequences. If you went to the dentist three years ago, were happy with the bill and returned every six months, and the dentist informs you that your six $200 bills should have each been $1,200 then it is obvious that you would have looked for another dentist if the first bill had been correct; in that case you have a very good reason to refuse to pay the difference on the other five bills. (That's if you were not aware that the bill was wrong. If every time he fixed your teeth and the bill says \"\"examining your teeth\"\" which you would expect to be a lot cheaper, then maybe you should have known that the bill was wrong. Just an example).\"",
"Depending on your local laws, such a layoff may be an unlawful act. If the whole purpose of the lay-off is to strip the employees of their RSU's, the employer may be liable and get sued. However, you have to check that with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction. In many places there are no laws against this. In any case, you may claim that there was no good faith/just cause in the action and still sue the employer. Mere threat of a lawsuit may thwart the whole deal, so I suggest the employees to lawyer up and talk to the employer. That, by the way, will require to create a union - a representative body for the employees. In some places that by itself may be a just cause for termination (in some extremely anti-union jurisdictions, I would guess if there were some they would be in the US). Bottom line - talk to a lawyer.",
"What are the consequences if I ignore the emails? That would depend on how much efforts the collection agency is ready to put in. I got a social security number when I took up on campus jobs at the school and I do have a credit score. Can they get a hold of this and report to the credit bureaus even though I don't live in America? Possibly yes, they may already be doing it. Will they know when I come to America and arrest me at the border or can they take away my passport? For this, they would have to file a civil case in the court and get an injunction to arrest you. Edit: Generally it is unlikely that the court may grant an arrest warrant, unless in specific cases. A lawyer advise would be more appropriate. End Edits It is possible that the visa would also get rejected as you would have to declare previous visits and credit history is not good.",
"\"It's really not your fault for not negotiating a better salaray. It's your fault for *having a problem* and not taking care of it. You felt undervalued and unappreciated, and because of that you left your job. Do you think your employers *would have liked to know that???* How do you think that conversation would have gone? \"\"Well boss, I've been working for you for a while now, and I've stuck it out while you looked for more people, and frankly I feel insulted at the difference between what you're paying them and what you're paying me. It's really getting to me, and I'm considering looking for a different position.\"\" I can tell you how that would have gone. There are *only* three ways: The first is that the new guy is being paid for a skill or talent you don't know about that actually does make him more valuable than you. (You can respond then: how do I get those skills so I can get that kind of pay, too?) The second is that the person was hired at whatever the asking rate was because they were desperate for people, and they certainly don't want to loose you, so they'll work with you to bring your compensation in line with the going rate. The third is that they have been having problems with you, you seem poorly motivated, your work is suffering and you don't get along with anyone, so they're not interested paying any more for your services and you're welcome to look for a better deal. Come on man, the WORST outcome leaves you no worse off than what you did to yourself! The best outcome could have been worth 15K/yr! And it would have given your employer the chance to do right by you. Even if you ultimately decided to take a different position, you would have known where you stood, and almost certainly you would have left with a better taste in your mouth. Your problem is that you failed to let anyone know about your problem. Or worse, you bitched and moaned to everyone except the people who could have done something to help.\"",
"I'm used to reddit being much more harsh. I fully welcome advice. I have been struggling with my experience and I thank you for taking the time. I just figured the company would say bad things about me if I jumped shipwhen it didn't work for me and they didn't have a backup. I suppose one could sue them if they say bad things? But this place was not even following OT laws or their own OT rules and it is 9 year old company. If they get audited they will literally lose millions, and yet they never have? Idk how this stuff works.",
"\"You need to consult a lawyer in your area. Generally speaking though, if you breach the T&C, they don't have to follow them either, which means that whatever they were responsible for in those terms and conditions, they're no longer responsible. So if you get hacked, and they can prove you breached T&C by sharing your credentials, they are absolutely off the hook for your financial losses. So if they detect you're in breach, they may record it and not pursue any other action unless/until you have an issue, in which case they say, \"\"they're in breach, see here, here and here.\"\" Or there may be regulations that require they notify you of their detection of the breach. If this sort of regulation exists, I suspect that the notification would also include a termination of all accounts as well. I can also picture situation where a company might have such a policy built into the T&C so that they can steer as clear as possible from any situations involving liability and cyber-crime in the same sentence. My suggestion would be to take the terms and conditions for your banks to some kind of legal clinic and get them to explain the parts that you do not understand.\"",
"There are cases in which some Lease agreements will allow you to exit them without charge, but you cannot simply vacate a location without paying. Cases that would allow you to leave the lease, if they are stated within the lease, are usually for reasons like: If you can prove that you have a job that is over a certain distance from the place you are currently residing in, there may be a clause that would allow you to break you lease, or simply the landlord may be more willing to allow you to go. If situations have changed, and conditions are now such that you cannot safely live in the place, you may be able to break the lease. If you have a copy of your lease, look for these clauses or others near the end, that's where they appear in mine. There are also other situations where if you give sufficient notice, and have been a long time tenant, breaking a lease may be only a small fee, certainly worth looking into rather than facing any legal recourse.",
"OP, I was in a similar situation in college. Worked at a large fund doing back office stuff. It was a terrible job, place was out of whack and it was not align with my educational or professional goals. It was a six month program located in Boston and at the time I was in Albany. Had to move out there and I stuck in out for the first three months. Then I realized I wasn't making enough to continue living in Boston and I would of had to delay my graduation, miss a ton of my senior year and would not be able to play on my rugby team. I decided it wasn't worth it, I quit and got a reference from someone else at the firm. Got a full time offer with a reputable firm doing work that is more aligned with my goals. Nobody is looking out for you except you, especially in this industry.",
"It may depend on the rental agreement you signed, some agreements may include clauses that allow for early termination so check your agreement carefully. Where there is an early termination clause included it will usually have some sort of notice period or financial penalty associated with it. For example you may have to give a couple of months notice and pay rent up to the end of that period or be able to pay some sort of one-off penalty. As a more practical example I broke a US rental agreement early last Autumn and had two early termination options in my rental agreement: In my case we chose the second option since we were actually moving out of the country and it was easier to have our US finances completely settled. I'm now planning on breaking another agreement because I'm in the process of purchasing a property and the purchase will likely go through before the lease expires. In this case the early termination clause requires 2 months notice i.e. we will have to give 2 months notice and pay rent for those two months (unless we are less than 2 months from the end of the lease). As @BrenBarn points out you should also check the laws for the jurisdiction your rental agreement is in to understand what your rights and options are if your agreement does not have an early termination clause",
"Also lawyer, but I don't do any employment law. Common law concepts like unconscionability and negligence can still be actionable, even if expressly waived, right? I've seen cases where a person signed a liability waiver but was still able to pursue a suit against the other side under a theory of negligence. The case I read stated that a liability waiver didn't absolve the defendant from his duty to take reasonable precautions.",
"That is pretty extreme behavior on her part. If you really like her work, consider giving her a stern warning and discussing what it means to be employed. I don't have any tips on firing- that's never pleasant.",
"I mean I have no criminal record, I don't do drugs, and I'm a stand up employee (no missed days, no write ups, outstanding on every review) but they did do a Credit check. I have a bankruptcy on my report from a couple years ago, but I'm not going to have a job dealing with money, so I'm not sure they'll even look at mine. Maybe it's just a universal thing? Should I just tell me boss that I accepted an offer and to expect their call, however I'm NOT putting in a notice at this time?",
"You are being a scumbag steve. While you are in Korea and not Japan, little shits like you are what cause foreigners to get bad treatment by cellphone carriers, landlords, money loaning organizations, etc over here. That is what happens in Japan and I'm sure it's pretty much the same across the sea in Korea. You hurt not just the company but other people. Of course you can't judge all foreigners by what one shitty foreigner does, but this is what happens in homogeneous countries such as South Korea and Japan.",
"Unfortunately, no. Think about the numbers. If you work for me, and I pay you $1000, you owe tax on $1000. If you still work, but I don't pay you, you have no tax due, but there's no benefit for you to collect for my stealing your time.",
"\"> The worst that could happen to the employee is they could lose their job. Yes, that's my point. An employee is not going to risk saying \"\"no\"\" to a violation of labor laws when their livelihood depends on keeping the pay check coming.\"",
"The example you give would clearly be illegal, and so unenforceable in court. If a contract contains a clause which is deemed legal but so unreasonable (completely unfair) it is unenforceable by the court, then the court can replace that cause with a more reasonable clause. I think it would be a fairly expensive (and likely losing) argument to convince a court that this particular contract was unfair, but if you did it would probably mean only a change in the penalty clause to make it 'reasonable'.",
"Google ain't going to pay him anything. California is one an at will state. And even if he had a contract (which he likely did) there's likely a morality clause in it as well about following company policy.",
"Note that in the UK at least this scam - not so dissimilar from what you propose - seems be perfectly legal behaviour: Evidence to date is that both of you can expect to walk away without much consequence.",
"\"I worked for a company a few years back that insisted all of us were \"\"non-supervised exempt technical workers,\"\" and they wanted 45 hours out of each person. No matter to them that that was a 12.5% cut in hourly pay. Unfortunately, they did no research and didn't bother to actually apply for any exemptions. One of the analysts got sick of it, found another job, then turned over his timecards to the labor department. Said company had to write him a check for $10k, as well as write smaller checks for every other person working there.\"",
"Get a lawyer. If you're having legal issues - get a lawyer. If you're having contract issues - get a lawyer.",
"It may become difficult to rent a car or a hotel room. It may affect your ability to get a job. Some employers now check credit reports and disqualify candidates with a poor credit report. It may affect your ability to get a security clearance or professional bonding. It may affect your ability to find housing. Many landlords check credit reports. You may be harassed morning, noon, and night by collection agencies. This can be theoretically solved by declaring bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy court may force the sale of some of your assets to make payments towards your debt.",
"You can do that, you aren't missing anything. It is supposed to be punishment, but as you are moving to a European country your non-penalized income would likely be taxed higher as is. I don't have info on whether you will be taxed a second time by the European country.",
"Unemployment is meant for people who were laid off, not terminated. Also, the employee who claimed unemployment did so even after they had worked for another company for several months between working for me and making the claim. If I actually laid someone off I would be the first to personally help them fill out paperwork for unemployment benefits. If those benefits go to those who shouldn't receive them it hurts everyone. That 3% increase in unemployment insurance is 3% that isn't going into paying my actual employees.",
"\"Yeah most employers will say that their employment is \"\"at will\"\" and they can fire for anything but that's usually not true. If someone gets fired there has to be a reason. Those agreements that people are often required to sign when they start a job are not legally binding in any courtroom at all. Employers will usually lie about it because they are breaking the law and they know it. The only situation where they could get away with not having a reason to terminate someone is if they do not replace that person, which is a lay off. Basically any other circumstance they had a reason and they are responsible for that reason.\"",
"If it were possible for every person in the world to run their own business at the same time maybe you'd have a point, but that's not how things work. As it stands now there inherently must be more employees than business owners and the nature of that relationship inherently favours the owner. A few laws in place to somewhat balance the scales is not a bad thing. At the end of the day, the employer was breaking the law and now they have to suffer the consequences.",
"More than likely you have signed an NDA with your employer with a non-compete clause within it. From what I have seen this clause would be in place for two years following the date you left your firm. So, leaving your firm and consulting as a 1099 for your current client is more than likely a violation of your NDA for 2 years or some period of time. With that being said, there is nothing keeping you from going off on your own as an independent and finding work, so long as that work isn't from one of the current clients of your firm. I am not a lawyer and everything above is what I have seen in my personal experience.",
"Top comment in thread is about suing for an idea you haven't patented if they steal it If there's an NDA you can kinda sorta do that. I'm not saying this alone was the breach, it's about if his idea was stolen.",
"\">If you leave and pursue IBD, they will respect that and help you whether you stay or not...unless they don't give a shit. You can very easily say \"\"I don't think this is the best place for me to learn X, I need to go to Y company to achieve this. It took me Z weeks to learn this\"\" >Of course this doesn't apply if you've known this person for years beforehand, but I'm 95% sure this is what you need to be aware of. Management sucks when you aren't in their \"\"club,\"\" (which it sounds like you're not) it's a part of life. Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I understood all of it. Essentially you're saying she won't help me, period?\"",
"I work for a hedge fund, not wealth management, but I assume that client information is treated similarly. Misplacing it is a huge deal. The company will probably need to formally investigate it and inform all the clients involved. Even if they can prove that no one looked at the information it's going to make clients question the company's procedures. I could see it being a firing offense,depending on how many clients were affected and the nature of the data. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.",
"In the U.S., there are laws that protect both employees and employers. Ask for proof of overpayment, and time to respond. If you feel you have a case, consult a lawyer that specializes in wage disputes. Otherwise, let them have their money, out of your last check if necessary. You don't want to have to go to court if you really do owe them. If you tell them a lawyer has accepted your case based on evidence, they may choose to settle out of court to avoid public embarrassment and legal fees, since, if you win, they also have to pay your court fees and legal fees, plus possible punitive damages. Conversely, if you go to court, but you owe them, you'll be subject to pay back what you owe plus their legal fees, which will be far more than you intend to pay them, or even what you'd get if you won. Losing would cost you dearly. Nobody can tell you what the outcome of your specific case will be, but unless the sum is significant, I would recommend that you accept the losses and walk away. While I know this can be hard, as someone who also lives the middle class paycheck-to-paycheck life, you probably can't afford to lose, and your company has expensive lawyers. Losing a few thousand dollars is easier than losing tens of thousands (or more) in a court battle. You can always seek assistance, such as unemployment, welfare, utility assistance, and other government programs to get back on your feet. If you owe them more than you can actually repay, try to negotiate. You want to stay out of court if at all practical. Their lawyers run hundreds of dollars per hour, so if they choose to, they can bury you financially if they have a case.",
"If there was some contract in place (even a verbal agreement) that he would complete the work you asked for in return for payment, then you don't have to pay him anything. He hasn't completed the work and what he did do was stolen from another person. He hasn't held up his end of the agreement, so you don't owe squat.",
"Ask for documentation proving the amount they say you were overpaid, and ask for time to review their claim. If it is a large amount that they can prove you owe, and if you were staying, then you could ask for the repayment to be spread over multiple pay checks. This would avoid the situation where you could get a very small check or even a check for zero. Because you are leaving, you could ask for time to reimburse them, but don't count on them agreeing to that deal. The lesson is to save all time cards, especially ones in which your hours are not consistent. Also save all pay stubs for the year. What you should do now is download all the time card and pay info on the website, before you lose access to it. These should be saved on your home machine, or printed and kept at home. Check to see if they made any time card adjustments. Many systems keep track of all changes made by the employee and by management; both before and after the employee signs the time card. If there are change you should be able to ask them to explain the changes.",
"Besides spending all your money, and then not being able to find a new job when you want to and where you want to, the biggest risk is the lack of health insurance. Research your options regarding your existing insurance under COBRA. It will cover your preexisting conditions at the full price of the insurance, that means without the contribution from your employer. Make sure you have fully investigated the options to understand your out of pocket maximums, and the full price of insurance. You will also have to understand the maximum amount of time you are covered under COBRA. If your unemployment goes beyond that period of time, you will have to get individual insurance. You need to avoid a gap in coverage or when you do get a new job, the insurance may not cover some preexisting conditions. Before NASA send astronauts to the space station for months, they give the astronauts a full physical, including a visit to the dentist and eye doctor. It would be advisable to do the same before announcing to the employer that you plan on quitting. the insurance will generally transition to the COBRA program at the end of your last work day. Because both of you work you could do the transition is phases. One would quit, then spend their time getting the sabbatical site established. The insurance would come from the employed spouse during this transition. Some employers do have sabbatical programs where they will ease your transition if you are going to work on your education full time, or work for a charity. They will need you to return at the end of an agreed time period. Even if they don't have a official sabbatical period they usually have a reemployment plan. If you return before the time period expires, usually one or two years, you aren't considered a new employee. That can be important for years of service calculations for a pension, vacation and sick leave earned, 401K matching.",
"As I have worked for H&R Block I know for a fact that they record all your activity with them for future reference. If it is their opinion that you are obligated to use their service if you use some other service then this, most likely, will affect your future dealings with them. So, ask yourself this question: is reducing their income from you this year worth never being able to deal with them again in future years? The answer to that will give you the answer to your question.",
"It sounds cold, but the law has to hold people to their agreements. There are exceptions for unconscionable terms, but I don't think this gets close to that level. This is certainly audacious, but not quite shocking to the conscience. Maybe there's an argument to be made regarding whether a reasonably prudent person in the party's position would have known what they were agreeing to under the circumstances (depending upon how the provision was presented), but without a lot more information we can't say whether that angle has a snowball's chance in hell. You should read the terms governing every important agreement you enter into. It sounds like a huge burden, but for any major undertaking you really do need to grit your teeth and trawl through the whole thing. If you don't like what you find, ask for a second look from a lawyer to confirm your suspicions, or just walk away. Bank service agreements, loan/mortgage applications, major venue reservations, and employment contracts (ESPECIALLY employment contracts!) all deserve that much time. Typically the terms you might not like are address circumstances that, as a practical matter, don't really concern you, but you might be surprised at how often you find deal-breakers like this crawling around in the woodwork.",
"In my experience, the only penalty to breaking a CD is to lose a certain amount of accumulated interest. Your principal investment will be fine. Close the CD. A few days of interest is nothing.",
"I think it might come down to the contract itself. In many states in the US an employer cannot block you from practicing your trade to make a living. In many jurisdictions contract clauses that are designed to prevent you from working in your trade area are generally void and unenforceable however in cases like this only a trip in front of a judge will fix it. What I find interesting about this, is that depending on the details, Sony might have a hard time finding another spokesman in the future. I would imagine most actors would steer clear of that spot in the future if this is how Sony is going to react when they try to get new work.",
"Maybe. As other have said, doing this deliberately is fraud, but almost impossible to prove unless you've lied on the loan documents or discussed your plans with witnesses. The lender may consider negotiating a partial write-down of the loan, but that is far from their only option. Depending on the details of the loan agreement they may be able to garnish your wages, seize your property, or walk into your business with a sheriffs' deputy and empty your cash register. They may also be able to add their costs for recovering the money to your debt.",
"If this is a publicly traded company, I'd be thinking the shareholders should take a long hard look at this. This is a man who hates his employees more than he likes money. A spite-based decision is obviously going to be inferior to a money-based decision. And shareholders want money.",
"Take them to small claims court or just forget about it.",
"\"An ideal option for you would be to use as many or as few as you choose, but have all of them available to you. The service desk guy told you you can do exactly that. Problem, though: you have no proof that a representative of the company told you that. Get proof. Recording, written statement, whatever. If writing a letter, make it clear you expect a response. The time you spend \"\"being a good guy\"\" is not free, you should get something for it. No idea how to go about that - mentioning the service desk guy in a letter might give him trouble. Maybe suggest that you could allow your image to be used in a short advertising campaign, as thanks. But whatever you do get, enjoy it. Consequences? Any number of things can happen, from lifetime free meals to court cases, negative points and being banned, regardless of who is right, legally or morally. Someone in Management there might still choose to burden you with responsibility even if their own CEO declared you a saint and lifetime customer of honor. But you might never get to that bridge. For now, get proof, and use what points you know are yours anyway.\"",
"Car and health insurance, etc would be budgeted. Most people know what their monthly nut is and how long they can spend on a job search. If you really feel that your boss is treating you poorly, sometimes the best thing to do is to tighten your belt, start saving and look for new opportunities. It is not easy. Nothing worse doing is. I know people generally have difficulty saving money, but like I said, ultimately, you are responsible for your own happiness.",
"Dont pay just bounce. But make sure you leave a note and keys. Also dont leave anything thing for them to have to clean or remove. Also be prepared to surrender your security deposit. So if u want to leave in july pay julys rent and be out last week of July. Clean out etc....",
"> ... Illegal activity I don't know about that. All I can do is give you my general experience from working with a large, healthy company. If he had been turned away by management, and then by HR, and THEN corporate legal, perhaps he should've sought personal legal counsel. Instead, he chose to write this post and share it openly within the company, resulting in it being shared publicly whole the company is being investigated regarding pay fair. If nothing else, it's just bad timing. Nobody should be overly surprised that they terminated him for this.",
"I disagree that this is a bad thing. I just found a new job after a lengthy search. I was, thankfully, employed the whole time, but decided to tell my boss a while back that I was interested in finding something else. I did this for a few reasons. 1. I didn't want to screw them. I like the people at my job, just not the work. Why spring a surprise on them with a two weeks notice when you could make sure everything was ok before you leave? 2. I wanted to help in any transition. I ended up training my replacement and have full confidence that there won't be any downturn in productivity once I leave. 3. It's not a good idea to leave anywhere, even if you hate it, on bad terms. It gives everyone there a bad sense of you and can come back to bite you in the future.",
">observe their contractual obligations. If not having to pay you is part of the deal, then it's not a good deal. Clearly companies have no reason to not just keep that money, and they keep it every chance they get. Why wouldn't they?",
"\"Some of this may depend on how your employer chose to deal with your notice period. Most employers employ you for the duration (which means you'd be covered for March on your insurance). They could 'send you home' but pay you (in which case you're an employee for the duration still); or they could terminate you on your notice day, and give you effectively a severance equal to two weeks' pay. That is what it sounds like they did. They should have made this clear to you when you left (on 2/23). Assuming you work in an at-will state, there's nothing wrong (legally) with them doing it this way, although it is not something I believe is right morally. Basically, they're trying to avoid some costs for your last two weeks (if they employ you through 3/6, they pay for another month of insurance, and some other things). In exchange, you lose some insurance benefits and FSA benefits. Your FSA terminates the day you terminate employment (see this pdf for a good explanation of these issues). This means that the FSA administrator is correct to reject expenses incurred after 2/23. The FSA is in no way tied to your insurance plan; you can have one or the other or both. You still can submit claims for expenses prior to 2/23 during your runout period, which is often 60 or 90 days. In the future, you will want to think ahead when leaving employment, and you may want to time when you give notice carefully to maximize your benefits in the event something like this happens again. It's a shady business practice in my mind (to terminate you when you give notice), but it's not unknown. As far as the HSA/FSA, you aren't eligible to contribute to an HSA in a year you're also in an FSA, except that they use \"\"plan year\"\" in the language (so if your benefits period is 6/1/yy - 5/31/yy, that's the relevant 'year'). I'd be cautious about opening a HSA without advice from a tax professional, or at least a more knowledgeable person here.\"",
"\"Don't listen to the retarded \"\"do-gooder\"\" idiots on this site who think she shouldn't reneg because of some honor or morality bullshit. You have a contract between two people. It states what will happen when you pay (keep car) and what will happen when you don't (they take car). Defaulting isn't an inherent bad thing. There are consequences for it. If you decide to default or to not pay a loan and you're ok with the consequences then do it. The person writing the loan knows the risk they're getting into and they're ok with it. So do what is best for you. As for your original question, sorry I don't have an answer. I don't think anything will happen to her in the U.S. but she might have trouble later on if she decides to move back to Japan or even visit Japan. Or her family may be held accountable for it. No idea. I don't know how Japanese laws works. Hopefully someone here will help but the best thing would be to talk to a lawyer in both the U.S. and in Japan.\"",
"\">If you're in a VP+/Director position, you don't get blindsided by this shit no matter what which division you're responsible for ... \"\"Blindsided\"\" is very different from \"\"responsible for.\"\" The Director of HR might know that the CEO is tanking the company, but have no means by which to repair or stop the damage. You're just making an empty connection to justify your overly broad, \"\"tough guy\"\" fantasy. >Okay, let 'em quit. Any stock options they have / other benefits get cashed out and applied to outstanding debts accrued under them before any payout reaches them. 1) Many of those benefits may have already vested, or otherwise vest when you constructively terminate them by withholding their salary. What that means is that they no longer belong to the company, and can't just be seized to play God with. The equivalent would be your employer reaching into your 401k and clawing back vested matching. 2) You're still just engaging in tough-guy fantasy, and ignoring the problem of a rudderless, headless company. Beating you chest and roaring won't stop the employees from being fucked over even harder when inventory stops showing up in the warehouse.\"",
"This isn't really the right sub, but check your Student's Union to see if they can give you any legal help or go to the Citizen's Advice Bureau. You need to get this cleared otherwise you may have problems getting lines in the future.",
"An email stating that you'll move in is quite a bit different from signing a full lease agreement. Technically the email amounts to a legal agreement. However, as long as penalties for breaking the contract weren't part of the email conversation then you won't have any. The current tenant will really have no recourse with you.",
"Firing at the first sign of trouble is a good way to ensure high turnover. If you're concerned about her missing work for personal reasons, then you should discuss those concerns with her and see if corrective behavior doesn't solve the problem; it might simply be a matter of your policies not being as clear as they should be.",
"Pretty sure if some of the places I worked had even a fraction of the scale breach that Equifax had, they'd lose the ability to bid on our win any government contracts and would see massive layoffs as an immediate, direct result.",
"Which was why I gave the example of the PA recognized waiver for leases. PA landlord/tenant law requires 10 day notice to be given to the tenant prior to filing a court action. PA courts have recognized, for decades, that this right can be waived. Waiving your right to notice has been one of the standard clauses in PA leases for well over 3 decades.",
"It would be meaner to force myself on to someone at a threat of losing there property or possibly jail. Sadly I'm not entitled to any job I want no matter how qualified I am. I probably won't be making lots more than I'm making now.",
"What are the consequences if I ignore the emails? If you ignore the emails they will try harder to collect the money from you until they give up. Unlike what some other people here say, defaulting on a loan is NOT a crime and is NOT the same as stealing. There is a large number of reasons that can make someone unable to pay off a loan. Lenders are aware of the risk associated with default; they will try to collect the debt but at the end of the day if you don't have money/assets there is not much they can do. As far as immigration goes, there is nothing on a DS-160 form that asks you about bankruptcies or unpaid obligations. I doubt the consular officer will know of this situation, but it is possible. It is not grounds for visa ineligibility however, so you will be fine if everything else is fine. The only scenario in which unpaid student loans can come up relevant in immigration to the US is if and when you apply for US Citizenship. One of the requirements for Citizenship is having good moral character. Having a large amount of unpaid debt constitutes evidence of a poor moral character. But it is very unlikely you'd be denied Citizenship on grounds of that alone. I got a social security number when I took up on campus jobs at the school and I do have a credit score. Can they get a hold of this and report to the credit bureaus even though I don't live in America? Yes, they probably already have. How would this affect me if I visit America often? Does this mean I would not ever be able to live in America? No. See above. You will have a hard time borrowing again. Will they know when I come to America and arrest me at the border or can they take away my passport? No. Unpaid debt is no grounds for inadmissibility, so even if the CBP agent knows of it he will not do anything. And again, unpaid debt is not a crime so you will not be arrested.",
"(I am making the assumption that this is a US based question). Keep in mind that the alternative is to amend your tax forms from 2010, and 2011. The IRS and the State will want their money, they might not to wait for 78 paychecks. That is 3 years. Ask for lots of documentation, so you understand what they are doing.",
"\"For person A to be protected (meaning able to recover some or all of the money should the other party try to welsh on the deal), the two of them must have entered into a valid, binding contract where both parties acknowledge and agree to the debt and the terms. Such a contract is subject to the Statute of Frauds, a collection of laws governing contracts which is mostly borrowed from English common law. The basics are that in all cases, a \"\"contract\"\" is only formed when both parties agree, technically when one party accepts an offer made by the other party. Both the offer and acceptance must be made sincerely. For a contract, once entered, to be enforceable, proof of the contract's existence and terms must itself exist. Certain types of transactions (real estate, large amounts of money) require contracts to be in written form, and witnessed by a trusted third party (in most cases this party is required to be a notary public). And contracts must have a certain amount of quid-pro-quo; contracts that provide a unilateral benefit can be thrown out on a case-by-case basis. A contract that simply states that Person B owes Person A money, without stating what benefit Person A had provided Person B in return for the money (in this case A gives B the money to begin with), is unenforceable. The benefits must of course be legal on both sides; a contract to deliver 5 tons of cocaine will not be upheld by any court in any free country, and neither will any contract attempting to enforce hush money, kickbacks, bribery etc (though some toe the line; one could argue that a signing bonus is tantamount to bribery). In some cases even seemingly benign clauses, like \"\"escape clauses\"\" allowing one party a \"\"free out\"\", can make the contract unenforceable as they could be abused to the severe detriment of one party. There are also jurisdiction-specific rules, such as limits on \"\"finance charges\"\" for debts not owed to a \"\"bank\"\" (a bar, for instance, cannot charge 10% on an outstanding tab in the United States). This is HUGE for your example, because if Person A had specified an interest rate in excess of the allowed rate for non-bank lenders, not only will the contract get thrown out even though Person B agreed to the terms, but Person A could find themselves on the hook for punitive damages payable to Person B, FAR in excess of the contracted amount. Given that the agreement meets all tests of validity for a contract, if either party fails to perform in accordance with the contract, causing a loss or \"\"tort\"\" for the other party, the injured party can sue. Generally the two options are \"\"strict performance\"\" (the injuring party is ordered by the court to comply exactly with the terms of the contract), or payment of net actual damages and dissolution of the contract. In your example, if Person A had lent Person B money, strict performance would mean payment of the debt in the installments agreed, at the rate agreed; actual damages would be payment of the outstanding balance plus current interest charges (without any further penalty). Notice that it's \"\"net\"\" damages; if Person A was to issue the loan in installments, and missed one, causing Person B to suffer damages from the loss of expected cash flow directly resulting in their failure to pay according to the terms, then Person B's proven damages are subtracted from A's; very often, the plaintiff in a suit to recover money can end up owing the defendant for a prior failure to perform. There are further laws governing bankruptcy; basically, if the other person cannot satisfy the contract and cannot pay damages, they will pay what they can, and the contract is terminated with prejudice (\"\"no blood from a turnip\"\").\"",
"The contract should address this issue. It will specify the types of remedies and damages that would result if either side tries to back out of the deal. There can be monetary penalties, and the courts can force the seller to complete the deal. Where I have experienced this it generally takes only a gentle reminder from the agent regarding the consequences. There is also limited indirect protection via the contract between the seller and their real-estate agent. Many times that contract will require the seller to pay the agent their commission if there isn't a valid reason to cancel the deal. The contract was to find a fully qualified buyer. The threat of having to pay 6% of list price to the agent, and not selling the house can be enough to get them to complete the deal. All this assumes there was fraud, which could bring in criminal penalties.",
"\"Find another job and leave ASAP, before the situation starts spilling outside. We all tend to work in relatively small \"\"work bubbles\"\", where key people in different companies talk to each other. If you leave now, you leave with your reputation intact and can look for a job while you still have a job If the situation gets worse, you can be \"\"marked\"\" as a troublemaker, and will make your search for a job harder. Also, should you get fired, you would be looking for a job as an unemployed person, which is a much worse situation to be in. As you discovered, HR's job is to protect the company, and usually the table is tilted in favor of management (simply because they have a longer history usually and more invested in them), so fighting the situation is rarely worth it, unless you have real proof of illegal behavior. Get out now\"",
"It doesn't matter if the buyer breaches the contract during the due diligence period, because most due diligence periods allow the buyer to breach the agreement without cause. Unless there is due diligence money added to the contract (different from earnest money), then breaching the contract costs nothing to the buyer. This happened to me. I learned the hard way: until the due diligence period is over, the buyer can renege without consequences. It's one of the risks of being a seller.",
"As Pete B says, something is not adding up. If your story is correct you should still have the legitimate check from your employer. If that is the case, your solution is simple. You If you do not have the good cheque then you are in deep trouble - because then either you didn't have it (in which case you have been lying to us) or you cashed it and spent the money (which means you knew that you had given the bad cheque to the liquor store). Either of those mean you have been deliberately perpetrating a fraud. As for the consequences - be aware that passing a bad cheque is a crime, and if the store reports it as such, it is not unlikely that the police will want to investigate. If they decide you did this deliberately you could be arrested, and you might well end up in jail. We will do you the favour of assuming that you still have the good cheque, and option 1 is possible.",
"Failure? They're failing all the way to a wealthy retirement thanks to the emplyment agreements they negotiate before taking the job and then renegotiate while on the job. Failure is an outmoded concept when it comes to CEO performance. Personality disagreements and reputational smears might hurt, but performance is clearly a flexible term these days and failure no longer enters into it",
"Im thinking the same thing. It's better he find out from me than when they call him. I'm just afraid of something crazy happens and this offer is rescinded or falls through, that I'll be stuck there again, with my boss knowing I'm trying to leave.",
"\"MD-Tech answered: The answer is in your question: derivatives are contracts so are enforced in the same way as any other contract. If the counterparty refuses to pay immediately they will, in the first instance be billed by any intermediary (Prime Broker etc.) that facilitated the contract. If they still refuse to pay the contract may stipulate that a broker can \"\"net off\"\" any outstanding payments against it or pay out using deposited cash or posted margins. The contract will usually include the broker as an interested party and so they can, but don't need to, report a default (such that this is) to credit agencies (in some jurisdictions they are required to by law). Any parties to the trade and the courts may use a debt collection agency to collect payments or seize assets to cover payment. If there is no broker or the counterparty still has not paid the bill then the parties involved (the party to the trade and any intermediaries) can sue for breach of contract. If they win (which would be expected) the counterparty will be made to pay by the legal system including, but not limited to, seizure of assets, enforced bankruptcy, and prison terms for any contempts of court rulings. All of this holds for governments who refuse to pay derivatives losses (as Argentina did in the early 20th century) but in that case it may escalate as far as war. It has never done so for derivatives contracts as far as I know but other breaches of contract between countries have resulted in armed conflict. As well as the \"\"hard\"\" results of failing to pay there are soft implications including a guaranteed fall in credit ratings that will result in parties refusing to do business with the counterparty and a separate loss of reputation that will reduce business even further. Potential employees and funders will be unwilling to become involved with such a party and suppliers will be unwilling to supply on credit. The end result in almost every way would be bankruptcy and prison sentences for the party or their senior employees. Most jurisdictions allow for board members at companies in material breach of contract to be banned from running any company for a set period as well. edit: netting off cash flows netting off is a process whereby all of a party's cash flows, positive and negative, are used to pay each other off so that only the net change is reflected in account balances, for example: company 1 cash flows netting off the total outgoings are 3M + 500k = 3.5M and total incomings are 1.2M + 1.1M + 1.2M = 3.5M so the incoming cash flows can be used to pay the outgoing cash flows leaving a net payment into company1's account of 0.\"",
"I had a friend who worked for a temp company as a dental hygienist and when she left after a year or longer she ended up taking them court because they wanted her to wait like 6 months before working in any office she worked for under contract. While I can kind of understand the companies point of view, it would've been career ending for her since as a temp she worked at pretty much every dental office in the area. She ended up winning in court and they had to change their contracts to only be 30 days rather than 6 months.",
"Generally speaking, yes, you're obliged to pay rent for the remainder of the lease term. But the landlord is obliged to mitigate damages, so if you can find a suitable tenant the landlord has to let you out of the lease.",
"as in, the person you made the agreement with can no longer fulfill the contract's requirements. It's the same thing as if they went bankrupt, you would have to pursue legal channels to recover your dues. Granted in an FX forward you would only have to deliver your part at expiration, so you could hold out if you *know* the counterparty is dead/bankrupt.",
"On aspect of this is that your liability in civil suit can vary substantially based on where you live. A judgement in one jurisdiction may not follow you to another (eg I believe in Vermont they do not honor out of state judgements), so there is an option to simply allow a default judgement and not worry about it. This a pretty complex decision to get yourself the best deal. You need a lawyer to help you make the right call.",
"\"All I can say, after reading your story, is that if your boss would truly be \"\"put in a difficult position\"\" if you quit, then she's in the position to have to pay you. If the business cannot survive without an unpaid intern, you shouldn't be wasting your time there.\"",
"IANAL but I'd think common sense would say that if you take advantage of one of the special cases that allow you to withdraw from a retirement plan without penalty, and then for whatever reason you don't use the money for a legal purpose, you would have to either return the money or pay the tax penalty. And I'll go out on a limb here without any documentation and guess that if you lie to the IRS and say that you withdrew the money for an exempt purpose and instead use it to go on vacation and you get caught, that you will not only have to pay the tax penalty but will also be liable for criminal charges of tax fraud. If the law and/or IRS regulations say that the only legal exceptions are A, B, and C, that pretty clearly means that if you do D, you are breaking the law. And in the eyes of the government, failing to pay the taxes you owe is way worse than robbery, murder, or rape.",
"Regarding doing this with your HOA: the cost could be very high. In my community the annual dues is less than $100 a year. When people don't pay they are aggressive. There is a late fee after 30 days, then a higher penalty at 60 days. That 2nd notice comes from a lawyer. The community charges the homeowner the lawer's fee. After another 30 days they file a lien. With those costs a small bill has ballooned to over $1,000. Property tax has two other issues. The government can sell your house. The lender can foreclose. Neither is good.",
"\"The answer is \"\"it depends\"\". What does it depend on? If it's a breakup situation, good luck. Whatever you do, get this issue settled as quickly as possible. In the future, don't make significant purchases with people unless you have a written contract or you are married.\"",
"Is that even legal to pull out of a deal like that? I'd assume they'd have made an agreement (between the underwriter and the buyer) during the roadshow. This event I would think has large negative impacts on the firm. It delays their IPO, (provided that they try again) and it makes investors wary of reinvesting in their second IPO (oxymoron.. haha). Furthermore, if the biotech firm decides to openly publish the details of this deal (which i assume they'd have to if they want to have a chance at having a successful IPO) someone is going to be labeled as having dealt in bad faith. I understand that underwriters mostly operate on a best-efforts basis, but I don't think they can come out of this deal without facing some consequences.",
"\"Since you mention bounced checks in the beginning of your piece, it's worth mentioning that bounced checks can land you in prison, depending on various circumstances. In this case, it's because you're committing a fraud, namely offering someone a piece of paper and claiming it's worth $500 or whatever when it's really worthless (because you don't have the funds). Simply owing a debt is not considered criminal, but proffering payment that is not actually valid is considered defrauding the person you are trying to pay. This check fraud information site discusses the different penalties in each state (as this is primarily covered by laws at the state level). It is never \"\"until you have repaid the check,\"\" of course; it is in most states a misdemeanor (<= 1 year in jail), though some states do make it a felony for larger amounts or repeat violations. These penalties are also typically at the judge's discretion, and in many cases you are only fined. Some states have a minimum dollar amount for it to be a criminal offense; most seem to be around $500 or so, though there is quite a lot of variability. Some real world examples of this include former NBA player Antoine Walker and former NFL player Joey Porter.\"",
"I believe the appropriate recourse in this scenario is to bring a court case for breach of contract. The 1p repricing issue has been admitted as an error out of scope of the purpose of the software.",
"I don't want to get in the middle of a fight between you and your fiancee. Well, I suppose if she gets mad at me she can't break up with me or anything. But I'd say that you were right. Say you took the job. After 3 months there are 3 possibilities: The job becomes permanent. Hooray, everybody's happy. They say sorry, there is no long term position for you here, good bye. Now you've already quit your last job, this job is gone, and you're on the street. I don't know what the job market is like for people with your particular skills, but at the very least it would be inconvenient, and if you can't find another job quickly, you could be in serious trouble. They say they can give you a permanent job, but the pay, benefits, working conditions, whatever, will not be the same as they were for the temporary job. Now you're in a very poor negotiating position, as if you turn down any offer they make, you're unemployed. Something similar to this happened to me once: I quit my job to take a position with a contracting company. They placed me on a contract making a good salary, all around nice job. Then after a year I was told that the client wanted to turn this into a full time position. They were pleased with my work and were happy to hire me for the full-time job ... but the pay would be $15,000 less than what I was making as a contractor. I had already quit my previous job and moved to a new city. I had very little negotiating leverage. I basically had to take the job or be unemployed. @DStanley says you should have discussed this with your fiancee before making the decision. Fair enough, probably so. This is the sort of issue that can break up a relationship -- I mean radically different ideas about the proper balance between opportunity and security. Better to find out when you're engaged than after you're married. And if you were married you should certainly discuss such things with your wife and at least hear what she has to say before making a decision.",
"I can ONLY WISH this would happen to me. Get every scrap of information that you can. DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT..and then get a nice sleazy lawyer to sue the collector AND your employer if they leaked anything... Plain and simple, it's illegal and there are very nice protections in place for such.",
"Come to Oklahoma they can fire you and not hire you for what reason they please. Call at will state and by the way. I don't know about your state our country but here companies do not have to provide leave due to pregnancy.",
"You're not missing anything. Consumer protection in the US is very basic and limited, if at all. So if someone claims you owe them something, it would be really hard for you to prove otherwise unless you actually drag them to court. Especially if there actually was a relationship, and there probably is some paperwork to substantiate the claim. I suggest talking to a consumer issues attorney.",
"There IS an amount of money you can pay to make people deal with very unpleasant situations. Offer me my old pay + 50% to go back into the workplace daily and deal with my last boss? Yeah, I'll tell you to go fuck yourself. Offer me 3M+ a year to do it? Okay. I'll take that and do JUST ENOUGH to keep the job for a year or two, and then I'll never fucking work again. Or I'll get fired and laugh all the way to the bank anyway.",
"Find a way to raise the cash needed to pay the store back, plus penalties. Be humble and apologetic. You have committed fraud. Depending on the amount, it may be a felony. Be an adult, settle the debt. If not, they have grounds to open a complaint with law enforcement. Your county jail probably has a number of residents who are paper hangers."
] |
[
"It's provincial jurisdiction, so it can vary by province. In Manitoba, it's different when an employee quits vs. being terminated: Quiting: Being terminated: Edit: At least in Manitoba, according to the above link, an employer can't set different notice periods. Effective April 30, 2007, employers cannot have alternate notice policies. A notice policy set under the previous legislation is not valid. The only exclusion is a unionized workplace, where a collective agreement has a probationary period that is one year or less. Ontario, on the other hand doesn't have anything legislated about resignation notice except under a couple very specific circumstances. This leaves it open for contracts to put in place their own requirements. In this case, you can be sued for provable losses (minus the savings from not having to pay you.)",
"It depends on your employer. They may not care to pursue matters if you don't give enough notice. They might be happy to see you go. Or they might be really sad to see you go, but not feel like they need to punish you. Or they might be really angry to see you go, and decide that they want to punish you to the full extent of the law just out of spite. Essentially, we can't tell you that, because different employers will behave differently. My advice? Be a mensch. Give the old employer as much notice as humanly possible so that they can find, hire, and train your replacement. Leave on as good terms as possible. Don't burn bridges. Chances are your new job can wait for another week or two.",
"When I was pursuing my Business Degree in Canada we were told the standard notice period is 2 weeks on both sides. This means your employer is required to give you at least two weeks notice and you are required to give it as well. If you violate your notice requirement the employer can sue you for lost revenues and etc. for that time period. The converse side is if your employer failed to provide you with sufficient notice you could sue for lost wages for that time frame as well. I'm sure you can contractually agree to more than the legal minimum of two weeks."
] |
7105
|
What is the difference between fixed-income duration and equity duration?
|
[
"72652"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"72652",
"496096",
"187110",
"394702",
"493605",
"396974",
"34688",
"25441",
"370615",
"287656",
"488622",
"101943",
"311688",
"173146",
"401952",
"312893",
"212299",
"375992",
"130695",
"310601",
"125940",
"256950",
"134497",
"108040",
"327556",
"522049",
"8012",
"451301",
"160140",
"248853",
"309913",
"157347",
"102593",
"187583",
"404482",
"582553",
"83860",
"508055",
"369086",
"599414",
"403826",
"422218",
"217108",
"290562",
"146506",
"10549",
"106070",
"250939",
"237712",
"235391",
"99751",
"247759",
"490077",
"428315",
"307380",
"519470",
"174302",
"425793",
"538079",
"134607",
"400747",
"494992",
"520562",
"45468",
"481312",
"363741",
"532260",
"565598",
"175389",
"551893",
"204202",
"226248",
"285085",
"272093",
"576375",
"179855",
"113623",
"461018",
"501838",
"482415",
"94040",
"500452",
"296342",
"366509",
"101852",
"74287",
"228879",
"427819",
"128354",
"305061",
"466995",
"515788",
"495715",
"286679",
"553856",
"569948",
"451497",
"451352",
"79111",
"313892"
] |
[
"A bond has a duration that can be easily calculated. It's the time weighted average of all the payments you'll receive and helpful to understand the effect a change in rates will have on that instrument. The duration of a stock, on the other hand, is a forced construct to then use in other equations to help calculate, say, the summation of a dividend stream. I can calculate the duration of a bond and come up with an answer that's not up for discussion or dispute. The duration of a stock, on the other hand, isn't such a number. Will J&J last 50 more years? Will Apple? Who knows?",
"\"The fact that dividends grow in perpetuity does not prevent one from calculating duration. In fact, many academic papers look at exactly this problem, such as Lewin and Satchell. This Wilmott thread discusses some of the pros and cons of the concept in some detail. PS: Although I was already broadly familiar with the literature and I use the duration of equities in some of my every-day work as a professional working in finance, I found the links above doing a simple google search for \"\"equity duration.\"\"\"",
"This is a very common misconception. I've been studying equities and credits for a while now, and the simplest way to explain the difference is this: - Credit is about stable cash flows. Your investment in a bond has almost (read: almost) nothing to do with growth rate. It has everything to do with how stable the cash flows are and interest coverage. - Equity is about growth. No wonder companies with highly irregular cash flows (e.g., every single young tech company in the history of tech companies) can have the most in-demand equity while few bond investors would touch them with a ten foot pole.",
"Duration is the weighted average time until all the cash flows of a fixed income security are received. There are a few different measures of duration but generally, duration measures the sensitivity of the price of a fixed income asset to a change in the yield of that asset. If you're familiar with calculus, duration is the first derivative of price with respect to yield. Convexity is the sensitivity of the duration of bond with respect to changes in yield, or the second derivative. The first chart [here](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/convexity.asp#axzz1x4F075zM) will help. Convexity measures the curvature of the blue or pink line, the steeper the curve the higher the convexity. The more cash flows there are in a bond (higher or more frequent coupon) the lower the duration, because you are receiving more of your investment earlier as opposed to later (think time value of money). If a bond has one cash flow, meaning you get paid back only at maturity (zero coupon) then any changes in interest rates will have a greater impact on the price of the bond since you are discounting only one cash flow in the future. Think of buying a bond with no coupons and a 5% yield that matures in 5 years, or a bond with similar yield and maturity buy pays a coupon. If interest rates rise, the zero coupon bond's price will fall more than the bond with coupons. Why? Because if you own the zero coupon bond you have to wait 5 years to get your money back and reinvest it at the higher rate, while if you have the bond that pays coupons you can reinvest those incremental cash flows at the higher rate, even though at purchase they had the same yield and maturity. These are both tough concepts that took me a fair amount of time to really understand. If you're investing in bonds or any fixed income asset, these topics are crucial to understanding interest rate risk.",
"In the strictest sense, there are bills,notes, and bonds, named when issued based on their time to maturity. Even though it's called a bond ETF it may have a duration short enough to be made of T-bills, less than a year to maturity. Simply put, for bonds, risk comes from the duration, time to maturity.",
"The problem is very fundamental. Equity is traded on limit order books while fixed income is not. Meaning counterparty to counterparty, if you buy a bond off say barclays, chances are if you hit them for a price to sell it will be somewhat higher than the market as they do not want you to just take their money. Putting fixed income on a limit order book could help however there may be fundamental liquidity problems on some smaller issues.",
"\"The bond funds should tell you their duration. My 401(k) has similar choices, and right now, I'm at the short maturity, i.e. under 1 year. The current return is awful, but better than the drop the longer term funds will experience as rates come back up. Not quite mathematically correct, but close enough, \"\"duration\"\" gives you the time-weighted average maturity in a way that tells you how the value responds to a rate change. If a fund has a 10 year duration, a .1% rate rise will cause the fund value to drop 1.0%.\"",
"Okay- I follow that. When we look a shorting a name - what makes that an equity transaction rather than a debt one? I guess how does that differ from investing in a bond? I recognize the simplicity of this question. Thanks.",
"One big difference: Interest is contracted. They can change the rate in the future but for any given time period you know what you're going to get. Dividends are based on how the company did, there is no agreed-upon amount.",
"\"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a \"\"safe\"\" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities.\"",
"edit: nevermind. i glanced and thought you meant total market mutual funds. For fixed income - if you want to get a good analysis of the bond market/interest rates, i would suggest you read some of bill gross' letters off the pimco site - a lot of discussion about our current zero bound interest rates. For equities - I have the view that if the economy is doing well, people are less inclined to focus on dividend yield...thereby lowering the relative multiples on dividend/fcf yielding stocks. So total return fund may be trading slightly cheaper.",
"And the fact that if notes trade up high enough they tend to get taken out with lower yielding notes (pending the call schedule), so in theory there is more limited upside in high-yield, whereas equity could theoretically trade to infinity. The positives for high-yield is that they generate monthly cash flow via coupon payments and have less down-side relative to equities. Naturally this lower down-side comes at the expense of lower up-side as well.",
"The DLOM maybe different if the bond is more or less marketable than the equity. However, the ratio itself would be the same. So while this might affect the interest at which you are willing to lend, it would not affect the intrinsic value of the firm.",
"\"Well there are a few comments that need to be made here I suppose. Though at work now so this will be short. First there is the difference between banking, which indeed mostly looks at capital adequacy ratios and uses VaR as one of the methods to get to the risk-weighted assets. Then there is the buy side which is more interested in \"\"how much would I stand to lose in portfolio X if markets head south, and how does that relate to what a have promised my client?\"\" In the first situation it is the bank itself taking on the risk, in the second the risk lies entirely with the client. An asset manager could lose 100% on your regular old equity mandate and it wouldn't hit him except for loss in fees, whereas a significant trading loss for a bank can put it out of business.. My personal view is that all of these metrics are merely useful instruments and for a large part they all tell me the same thing. A higher duration on a fixed income mandate will give a higher VaR, a higher shortfall, more negative results on rates stress scenarios etcetera. They only really become useful when imposing limits on them, or using them to steer based on whatever the prevailing risk appetite is at a certain point in time. Or when looking at trends, or relative risk of portfolio A vs B Don't get me wrong, I too can debate for hours about VaR parameters. Confidence intervals, look back periods, return frequency, decay factors, parametric or historical / monte carlo simulation, etcetera. But I think in practise that is really of limited use. If you take any ex ante risk measure and you thoroughly understand it, make an informed choice about risk appetite and steer on it, you basically have done your job as a risk manager. Sorry I know I am not answering your questions in a structured way but am on my phone so it's hard to keep overview. PM me if you want to discuss things in detail.\"",
"\"In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as \"\"duration\"\" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds.\"",
"With the formula you are using you assume that the issued bond (bond A) is a perpetual. Given the provided information, you can't really do more than this, it's only an approximation. The difference could be explained by the repayment of the principal (which is not the case with a perpetual). I guess the author has calculated the bond value with principal repayment. You can get more insight in the calculation from the excel provided at this website: http://breakingdownfinance.com/finance-topics/bond-valuation/fixed-rate-bond-valuation/",
">Personally I think that loans are underused in today's investment world because people are too focused on getting the most out of the few big winners. I'm not sure what your point is here. The fixed income market alone is about three times the size of equity markets, and this doesn't include credit or mortgage markets.",
"The word equity always refers to the ownership of something, whether it be a company or a home. The wikipedia article is differentiating companies by how they raised money for operations. Equity companies, by their definition are those that sold an interest in the company in exchange for capital. Debt based companies, again by their definition, are those that borrow money from investors, but instead of an ownership stake they promise to pay back the money presumably with interest.",
"Since you are trying to compare corporate bonds that have a defined coupon over the specified time of the bond. Why not use a simple Net Present Value (NPV) calculation. Refer: Net Present Value (NPV) You could use the discounting factor as the current repo rate of your central bank. As I said, this would be a simple fast measure (not considering risk rating of the bonds, inflation and other considerations). Take a notional 1000 as invetment in each instrument and calculate the NPV, higher it is better the investment. Another method, in terms of percentage return would be Internal rate of Return (IRR). Though the calcualtionis a bit more complicated, it would give you a percentage figure. Note, the above 2 measures are used when the cashflow over the time period is known. It will not work for instruments where the cashflow/value over different time are not known. Like stocks.",
"Not really. You can have two bonds that have identical duration but vastly different convexity. Pensions and insurance portfolio managers are most common buyers as they're trying to deal with liability matching and high convexity allows them to create a barbell around their projected liabilities.",
"The Gordon equation does not use inflation-adjusted numbers. It uses nominal returns/dividends and growth rates. It really says nothing anyone would not already know. Everyone knows that your total return equals the sum of the income return plus capital gains. Gordon simply assumes (perfectly validly) that capital gains will be driven by the growth of earnings, and that the dividends paid will likewise increase at the same rate. So he used the 'dividend growth rate' as a proxy for the 'earnings growth rate' or 'capital gains rate'. You cannot use inflation-removed estimates of equity rates of return because those returns do not change with inflation. If anything they move in opposite directions. Eg in the 1970's inflation the high market rates caused people to discount equity values at larger rates --- driving their values down -- creating losses.",
"Bonds have multiple points of risk: This is part of the time value of money chapter in any finance course. Disclaimer - Duff's answer popped up as I was still doing the bond calculations. Similar to mine but less nerdy.",
"\"Both models understand that the value of a company is the sum total of all cashflows in the future, discounted back to the present. They vary in their definition of \"\"cash\"\". The Gordon Growth model uses dividends as a proxy for cashflow, under the assumption that this is the only true cash received by shareholders. (In theory, counting cash is meaningless if there's no eventual end-game where the accumulated cash is divvied up amongst the owners.) The Gordon model is best used to value companies that have an established, reliable dividend. The company should be stable, and the payout ratio high. GG will underestimate the value of firms that consistently maintain a low payout ratio, and instead accumulate cash. There are multiple DCF models. A firm valuation measures all cash available to both equity and debt holders. A traditional equity valuation measures all cash that can be claimed by shareholders. While the latter seems most intuitive and pertinent to a shareholder, the former is very good at showing what a company can do regardless of their choice of capital structure. A small add-on to a firm valuation is the concept of EVA, or economic value add, where the return on capital (all capital -- both debt and equity) is compared to the blended cost of capital. The DCF model is more flexible (optimistic?) than the Gordon in its approach to cash. The approach can be applied to many types of companies, at every stage in their maturity, even if they don't pay a dividend. A simplistic, or single-stage DCF is similar to the Gordon. The assumption is that the company is fully mature, growing at a rate perhaps just slightly above inflation, forever. For younger companies a multi-stage DCF can be employed, where you forecast fairly confident numbers for the next 3-5 years, then 3-5 years beyond that the forecast is less certain, but assumed to be slowing growth, and a generally maturing, stabilizing company. And then the steady-state stage is tacked on to the end. You'll want to check out Professor Aswath Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . He addresses all this and so much more, and has a big pile of spreadsheets freely downloadable to get you started. I also highly recommend his book \"\"Investment Valuation\"\". It's the bible on the topic.\"",
"In my mind its not the same. If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.",
"\"You are asking multiple questions here, pieces of which may have been addressed in other questions. A bond (I'm using US Government bonds in this example, and making the 'zero risk of default' assumption) will be priced based on today's interest rate. This is true whether it's a 10% bond with 10 years left (say rates were 10% on the 30 yr bond 20 years ago) a 2% bond with 10 years, or a new 3% 10 year bond. The rate I use above is the 'coupon' rate, i.e. the amount the bond will pay each year in interest. What's the same for each bond is called the \"\"Yield to Maturity.\"\" The price adjusts, by the market, so the return over the next ten years is the same. A bond fund simply contains a mix of bonds, but in aggregate, has a yield as well as a duration, the time-and-interest-weighted maturity. When rates rise, the bond fund will drop in value based on this factor (duration). Does this begin to answer your question?\"",
"\"Instead of \"\"stocks\"\" I would refer to that asset class as \"\"equity.\"\" Instead of bonds, I would refer to that asset class as \"\"fixed income.\"\" Given that more general terminology, GICs would fit into fixed income.\"",
"It is worth noting first that interest and short-term dividends/capital gains are all taxed at the same rate. So all the investments below I mention (even savings accounts) will be taxed at the same rate. Also, even short-term capital losses can often be harvested to reduce your tax rate in many countries. While it is worth paying attention to the taxes when investing in the short term the more important factor is how much risk that you can take or want to take with the money. Most equity portfolios like the S&P index give a much higher risk that there will be much less in the account when you need to buy. You generally have a higher expected return with equity but as you mention that return is very random over such a short period. Over such a short variable period many people will invest in short term bond-index funds or just keep the fund in a high-yielding savings account. With the savings account your money is guaranteed. Short term bond funds will have generally higher yields but a small chance you may lose money in the short term. Some people can trade short-term bond indices for free with their broker but if you can't be sure to include the trading costs when thinking about which investment to use as with how low yields are currently the fees may eat up any advantage you gain.",
"\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\"",
"\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \"\"income\"\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\"",
"The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.",
"As others have pointed out your bond funds should have short durations, preferably not more than about 2 years. If you are in a bond fund for the long haul meaning you do not have to draw on your bond fund a short time after interest rates have gone up, it is not a big issue. The fund's holdings will eventually turn over into higher interest bearing paper. If bonds do go down, you might want to add more to the fund(s) (see my comment on age-specific asset allocation below). Keep in mind that some stocks are interest sensitive, for example utility stocks which are used as an income source and their dividends compete with rates on CDs which are much safer. Right now CD rates are very low. This could change. It's possible that we may be in an unusually sensitive interest rate period that might have large effects on the stock market, yet to be determined. The reason is that rates have been so low for such a long time that folks that normally would have obtained income streams from bonds have turned to dividend bearing stocks. Some believe that recent market rises are due to such people seeking dividends to enhance cash inflows. If, and emphasis on if, this is true, we could see a sharp drop in the market as sell offs occur as those who want cash streams move from stocks to ultra safe, government insured CDs. Only time will tell if this is going to play out. If retirement for you is 15+ years in the future and the market goes down (bonds or equities), good stuff - it's a buying opportunity in whatever category has dropped. Most important is to keep an eye on your asset allocation and make sure it is appropriate to your age. You did not state the percentages in each category, so further discussion is impossible on that topic. With more than 15 years to go, I personally would be heavily weighted on the equity side, mostly mid-cap and some small equity funds or ETFs in both domestic and international markets. As you age, shuffle some equities into fixed income (bonds, CDs and the like). Work up an asset allocation plan - start thinking about it now. Don't wait.",
"The product type and transaction direction are not linked. When you short sell a stock, you are still dealing with shares of an equity security. When you take delivery of a bond, you are buying that bond and holding a long position even though it's a debt security.",
"Issuing/selling equity vs debt is often done during very different periods of a company's life cycle and for very different reasons. If I were to generalize - equity is most typically involved in the beginning and end of a business, debt in the middle. In the beginning your company has no cash flow, no track record so the only people willing to invest are angels/venture capitalists/true believers/friends & family. People who are willing to take risk either because they like you or they believe there is a chance of high risk/high reward. In the middle of the life cycle (when the company has a demonstrated track record), it is easier to issue debt because you have stable cash flows which banks find attractive. Banks are low risk, low return investors. Towards the end of a company's life cycle the owners may decide they have successfully grown a business and want to retire (or start a new business) or maybe they just want to lock in the earnings they've achieved which are sitting in the company. In this case they may sell the company entirely to a rival firm or a private equity group. I feel like OP's original question is a bit off because I don't find too many situations where a company is seriously considering both equity and debt alternatives. Usually it is a variety of equity offerings **or** a variety of debt offerings and you're trying to figure out which one is better of the company.",
"\"Compounding is just the notion that the current period's growth (or loss) becomes the next period's principal. So, applied to stocks, your beginning value, plus growth (or loss) in value, plus any dividends, becomes the beginning value for the next period. Your value is compounded as you measure the performance of the investment over time. Dividends do not participate in the compounding unless you reinvest them. Compound interest is just the principle of compounding applied to an amount owed, either by you, or to you. You have a balance with which a certain percentage is calculated each period and is added to the balance. The new balance is used to calculate the next period's interest, which again adds to the balance, etc. Obviously, it's better to be on the receiving end of a compound interest calculation than on the paying end. Interest bearing investments, like bonds, pay simple interest. Like stock dividends, you would have to invest the interest in something else in order to get a compounding effect. When using a basic calculator tool for stocks, you would include the expected average annual growth rate plus the expected annual dividend rate as your \"\"interest\"\" rate. For bonds you would use the coupon rate plus the expected rate of return on whatever you put the interest into as the \"\"interest\"\" rate. Factoring in risk, you would just have to pick a different rate for a simple calculator, or use a more complex tool that allows for more variables over time. Believe it or not, this is where you would start seeing all that calculus homework pay off!\"",
"\"Hmm, that doesn't quite answer my question -- sorry if I was unclear. Let me try rephrasing: Here's what I'm asking: is the Black-Scholes equation derived using martingale pricing methods (e.g. Girsanov's theorem, the Martingale Representation Theorem, and so on) *equivalent* to the equation derived using the method in the 1973 paper, e.g. constructing a risk-less portfolio and eliminating the drift term? I was led to believe that both of these approaches *lead to the same result*. I agree that there's an enormous difference between \"\"equilibrium\"\" and \"\"arbitrage free\"\" *term structure models*; I'm just not convinced that this is a meaningful difference in the case where market completeness holds, e.g. European equity options. As you correctly said, it's generally impossible to parameterise a Vasicek model to get it to match the observed term structure, while this is something that can be readily done with a Hull-White / Ho-Lee / Libor Market Model. Hence, the prices you get from a Vasicek will obviously be different from what you get using a Hull-White (since you won't be able to match the initial term structure). But such a difference doesn't hold with a Black-Scholes equation derived using martingale vs. the original method. Sorry if this sounds nitpicky; I just want to make sure I'm understanding these concepts correctly. EDIT: Added italics.\"",
"Very rarely would an investor be happy with a 4% yield independent of anything else that might happen in the future. For example, if in 3 years for some reason or other inflation explodes and 30 year bond yields go up to 15% across the board, they would be kicking themselves for having locked it up for 30 years at 4%. However, if instead of doing that the investor put their money in a 3 year bond at 3% say, they would have the opportunity to reinvest in the new rate environment, which might offer higher or lower yields. This eventually leads fixed income investors to have a bond portfolio in which they manage the average maturity of their bond portfolio to be somewhere between the two extremes of investing it all in super short term/ low yield money market rates vs. super long term bonds. As they constantly monitor and manage their maturing investments, it inevitably leads them to managing interest rate risk as they decide where to reinvest their incremental coupons by looking at the shape of the yield curve at the time and determining what kind of risk/reward tradeoffs they would have to make.",
"The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.",
"Credit products and securitized debt. Credit/debt is the flip side of equity but has less volatility. In today's investing environment people are not looking for a big return as much as less risk with a modest return. Another trend I think you will see is the disappearance of the wall between interest rate products/fixed income and credit products.",
"In my original question, I was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear.",
"Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.",
"For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.",
"\"value slip below vs \"\"equal a bank savings account’s safety\"\" There is no conflict. The first author states that money market funds may lose value, precisely due to duration risk. The second author states that money market funds is as safe as a bank account. Safety (in the sense of a bond/loan/credit) mostly about default risk. For example, people can say that \"\"a 30-year U.S. Treasury Bond is safe\"\" because the United States \"\"cannot default\"\" (as said in the Constitution/Amendments) and the S&P/Moody's credit rating is the top/special. Safety is about whether it can default, ex. experience a -100% return. Safety does not directly imply Riskiness. In the example of T-Bond, it is ultra safe, but it is also ultra risky. The volatility of 30-year T-Bond could be higher than S&P 500. Back to Money Market Funds. A Money Market Fund could hold deposits with a dozen of banks, or hold short term investment grade debt. Those instruments are safe as in there is minimal risk of default. But they do carry duration risk, because the average duration of the instrument the fund holds is not 0. A money market fund must maintain a weighted average maturity (WAM) of 60 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements. If you have $10,000,000, a Money Market Fund is definitely safer than a savings account. 1 Savings Account at one institution with amount exceeding CDIC/FDIC terms is less safe than a Money Market Fund (which holds instruments issued by 20 different Banks). Duration Risk Your Savings account doesn't lose money as a result of interest rate change because the rate is set by the bank daily and accumulated daily (though paid monthly). The pricing of short term bond is based on market expectation of the interest rates in the future. The most likely cause of Money Market Funds losing money is unexpected change in expectation of future interest rates. The drawdown (max loss) is usually limited in terms of percentage and time through examining historical returns. The rule of thumb is that if your hold a fund for 6 months, and that fund has a weighted average time to maturity of 6 months, you might lose money during the 6 months, but you are unlikely to lose money at the end of 6 months. This is not a definitive fact. Using GSY, MINT, and SHV as an example or short duration funds, the maximum loss in the past 3 years is 0.4%, and they always recover to the previous peak within 3 months. GSY had 1.3% per year return, somewhat similar to Savings accounts in the US.\"",
"Aah... well, then in that case you should actually integrate a monte carlo return scenario with your equity values. Ultimately it's not going to matter what your RFR is because it's going to be equal in both cases, so you're really just talking about return differences. Again, it would be impractical for these two options. Maybe just look at cash outlay - an amortization table of sorts, and that's how you'd calculate the breakeven point. You could inflate the unspent cash difference by a small margin (perhaps 0.5% to account for something like a CD or an ARS) but the big difference is going to be the interest rate with respect to a mortgage vs. a perpetual cash payment of rent that never attains any real value.",
"Edited to incorporate the comments elsewhere of @Atkins Assuming, (apparently incorrectly) that duration is time to maturity: First, note that the question does not mention the coupon rate, the size of the regular payments that the bond holder will get each year. So let's calculate that. Consider the cash flow described. You pay out 1015 at the start of Year #1, to buy the bond. At the end of Years #1 to #5, you receive a coupon payment of X. Also at the end of Year #5, you receive the face value of the bond, 1000. And you are told that the pay out equals the money received, using a time value of money of 4.69% So, if we use the date of maturity of the bond as our valuation date, we have the equation: Maturity + Future Value of coupons = Future value of Bond Purchase price 1000 + X *( (1 + .0469)^5-1)/0.0469 = 1015 * 1.0469^5 Solving this for X, we obtain 50.33; the coupon rate is 5.033%. You will receive 50.33 at the end of each of the five years. Now, we can take this fixed schedule of payments, and apply the new yield rate to the same formula above; only now, the unknown is the price paid for the bond, Y. 1000 + 50.33 * ((1 + 0.0487)^5 - 1) / .0487 = Y * 1.0487^5 Solving this equation for Y, we obtain: Y = 1007.08",
"Would bond holders differentiate in their EV/EBITDA calcs when compared to equity holders when valuing a private company? For e.g. when it comes to a company that has built a power plant, generally equity holders would take an additional haircut/discount for the lack of marketability. Would debt holders do the same? Would there be a higher valuation otherwise?",
"\"Very interesting. I'm actually glad you mentioned term structure models, because that's something I'm interested in. But I don't think the distinction you draw between \"\"equilibrium\"\" and \"\"arbitrage free\"\" models makes sense with Black-Scholes. My understanding was that the discrepancy between equilibrium and arbitrage-free term structure models arises because term structure models lack market completeness. In other words, when the market is incomplete (as it is with interest rates), you'll have a continuum of bond prices that are compatible with no arbitrage, and the exact price will depend on the market price for risk. However, in Black-Scholes, the market price for risk term basically falls out of the equation because of market completeness. Or in other words, since we have market completeness, there's a *unique* martingale measure that gives the price for the option. So when you have market completeness, there should be no difference between an equilibrium and a no-arbitrage model - they're one and the same.\"",
"\"Equity is the term to make things balance. In a simple transaction, you get $100 paid to you. Income goes up by $100 and the asset of whatever bank account or petty cash drawer you put it into also goes up by $100. Equity is unchanged. If for some reason you had to take some income into your books, but no asset increased, no debt decreased, and you had no way to take an offsetting expense into your books, then this would lower your equity. How else to explain having \"\"earned\"\" $100 but having nothing to show for it?\"",
"Investopedia has definitions for both: Debenture: A type of debt instrument that is not secured by physical asset or collateral. Bond: A debt investment in which an investor loans money to an entity (corporate or governmental) that borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a fixed interest rate. Wikipedia's entry for debenture says: In some countries [debenture] is used interchangeably with bond, loan stock or note. Seems to me that there's not much difference.",
"The difference is downside risk. Your CD, assuming you are in the US and the CD is purchased from a deposit bank, will be FDIC insured, your $10,000 is definitely coming back to you. Your stock portfolio has no such guarantee and can lose money. Your potential upside is theoretically correlated to the risk that some or all of your money may not be returned to you.",
"\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"",
"\"Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being \"\"what my stuff is worth\"\" and equity and liabilities together as being \"\"who owns it.\"\" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)\"",
"Bond information is much tougher to get. Try to find access to a Bloomberg terminal. Maybe you have a broker that can do the research for you, maybe your local university has one in their business school, maybe you know someone that works for a bank/financial institution or some other type of news outlet. Part of the reason for the difference in ease of access to information is that bond markets are dominated by institutional investors. A $100 million bond issues might be 90% owned by 10-20 investors (banks, insurance co's, mutual funds, etc.) that will hold the bonds to maturity and the bonds might trade a few times a month/year. On the other hand a similar equity offering may have several hundred or thousand owners with daily trading, especially if it's included in an active stock index. That being said, you can get some information on Fidelity's website if you have an account, but I think their junk data is limited. Good luck with the hunt.",
"Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners.",
"Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all.",
"The NYSE 20 Year Plus Treasury Bond Index (AXTWEN) is a multiple-security fixed income index that aims to track the total returns of the long-term 20 year and greater maturity range of the U.S. Treasury bond market. The index constituent bonds are weighted by their relative amounts outstanding.One cannot directly invest in an Index. Index Bond Maturities 24 to 27 Years 20.36% /27 to 29 Years 79.64% Index Duration 17.47 Years An oversimplification of how bonds value changes as rates change is they are inversely related based on the duration of the bond. Think of duration as the time-weighted average of all the coupons and the final payment. In this case, a drop in rates of about 1% will cause a rise in value of about 17.4%. Long term rates took a drop in the last year.",
"Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds? Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall. Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss.",
"Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.",
"What you choose to invest in depends largely on your own goals and time horizon. You state that your time horizon is a few decades. Most studies have shown that the equity market as a whole has outperformed most other asset types (except perhaps property in some cases) over the long term. The reason that time horizon is important is that equities are quite volatile. Who knows whether your value will halve in the next year? But we hope that over the longer term, things come out in the wash, and tomorrow's market crash will recover, etc. However, you must realize that if your goals change, and you suddenly need your money after 2 years, it might be worth less in two years than you expect.",
"Dividends are actually a very stable portion of equity returns, the Great recession and Great Depression notwithstanding: However, dividends, with lower variance have lower returns. Most of the return is due to the more variant price: So while dividends fell by 25% during the worst drop since the Great Depression, prices fell almost by 2/3. If one can accumulate enough wealth to live only off of dividend income, the price risk becomes much more manageable. This is the ideal circumstance for retirement.",
"Generally, the answer is as follows: If there is a legal obligation to pay cash flow (including the possibility of court determined restructuring), then it is debt. If the asset owner is not guaranteed any cash flow, but instead owns the *residual* cash flow from the operations of the business (I.e. the cash flow left-over), then it is equity.",
"The changes to Equity given are: Since the total change is 42,500, the difference would be change in Retained Earnings (net income), so net income is",
"\"In the quoted passage, the bonds are \"\"risky\"\" because you CAN lose money. Money markets can be insured by the FDIC, and thus are without risk in many instances. In general, there are a few categories of risks that affect bonds. These include: The most obvious general risk with long-term bonds versus short-term bonds today is that rates are historically low.\"",
"Rates are a complex field. I will assume that context wise you are talking about rates for a individual saver quantities. The two rates you are asking about are personal bank saving account and exchange traded bonds. The points you want to compare between them are. In general, a bond is what we called a fixed rate instrument. This means that for the life of the product, it will yield a fixed percentage of its face value at a regular period. Baring any extreme circumstances (such as bankruptcy), no external factors will change the payment schedule on a bond. Conversely, by placing your money into a bank, you will accrue interest rate at some value related to some published interest rate. For example, if tomorrow, the Treasury decided to try to stimulate the economy, they could slash the interest rate, this would directly affect the rate at which your savings account would accrue interest. In general, a bond has a maturity date, where the capital is finally released from the bond. Until such date, you cannot access the money directly (you can however sell the bond, but it would likely be at a discounted value). Therefore, in general, you cannot get access to the money whenever you want it. As for a saving account, normally one can access the funds instantly, if not within a few days. This seems to the reason people seem to be focusing on. For each bond, the issuer of the bond is obligated to pay you the holder of the bond fixed payments at an interval, plus the capital at the maturity. However, obligation does not mean guarantee. If the issuer, is unable to make the payments, they may go into bankruptcy to avoid paying you. There are companies setup to advise people on the likelihood of each bond issuer on their ability to honour their debts. For example Standard and Poor issues a rating which goes all the way up to AAA for bonds. Recently, many sovereign countries have lost their AAA rating from S&P. Meaning that S&P feel that the possibility of these countries going bankrupt is non-zero. Conversely, banks may also be unable to give you your money when requested. In the US, the reserve requirements means that at any one time it only holds 10% of the money it owes to its customers. This can mean that if every customer turns up to the bank to demand their money, that bank would be unable to pay. This situation is called a Bank Run. During such a situation, the bank would likely collapse and default. In many modern countries, the government put into place guarantees on the first xxx amount in saving accounts, but otherwise, your savings could be lost. There are many complex reasons to choose one instrument over another (including some I have avoided), even if at the outset, they could appear to have the same rates.",
"A bond fund has a 5% yield. You can take 1/.05 and think of it as a 20 P/E. I wouldn't, because no one else does, really. An individual bond has a coupon yield, and a YTM, yield to maturity. A bond fund or ETF usually won't have a maturity, only a yield.",
"\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"",
"I wrote about this a while back: http://blog.investraction.com/2006/10/mutual-funds-dividend-option-or-growth.html In short: Growth options of a mutual fund scheme don't pay out any money, they reinvest the dividend they receive. Dividend options pay out some money, at different intervals, based on the surplus they accumulate. In India, the options have very similar underlying portfolios, so HDFC Equity Fund (Growth) and HDFC Equity Fund (dividend) will have the same percentage allocation to each stock. Update: I also have a video you might want to see on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8QtnccfZk",
"Yes, there's a difference. If you've borrowed $100, then under inflation your salary will (presumably) increase, and tomorrow your debt will only be worth $99. But under demurrage, you'll still owe $100.",
"Profit margins. The difference goes to shareholders as new equity every quarter. You don’t need growth to see a return on equity. The consumer staple sector is a great example of this. They’ve had negative to 0 revenue growth, yet have posted respectable returns since the recession.",
"Assuming you're in the United States, then International Equity is an equity from a different country. These stocks or stock funds (which reside in a foreign country) are broken out seperately becuase they are typically influenced by a different set of factors than equities in the United States: foreign currency swings, regional events and politics of various countries.",
"A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.",
"They're exchange traded debt, basically, not funds. E.g. from the NYSE: An exchange-traded note (ETN) is a senior unsecured debt obligation designed to track the total return of an underlying market index or other benchmark, minus investor fees. Whereas an ETF, in some way or another, is an equity product - which doesn't mean that they can only expose you to equity, but that they themselves are a company that you buy shares in. FCOR for example is a bond ETF, basically a company whose sole purpose is to own a basket of bonds. Contrast that to DTYS, a bear Treasury ETN, which is described as The ETNs are unsecured debt obligations of the issuer, Barclays Bank PLC, and are not, either directly or indirectly, an obligation of or guaranteed by any third party. Also from Barclays site: Because the iPath ETNs are debt securities, they do not have any voting rights. FCOR on the other hand is some sort of company owned/managed by a Fidelity trust, though my EDGAR skills are rusty. AGREEMENT made this 18th day of September, 2014, by and between Fidelity Merrimack Street Trust, a Massachusetts business trust which may issue one or more series of shares of beneficial interest (hereinafter called the Trust), on behalf of Fidelity Corporate Bond ETF (hereinafter called the Fund), and Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc., a New Hampshire corporation (hereinafter called the Adviser) as set forth in its entirety below.",
"\"VaR is statistical, so you can set the confidence interval to 5%, 1%, 0.01%, etc. VaR is the same thing as standard deviation applied over a specific time frame, its just a matter how you come up with it. For example the 95% VaR is something like 1.65 standard deviations of the returns. as you increase the number of std dev (Z score), you're confidence interval widens and you capture more of the outliers. if you set it to 99.99%, you can envision the return distributions for all but the .01%. choose between the 2? VaR is more practical on a day to day, but shortfall is better for extreme events, like 2008 when lehman collapsed or the russian debt crisis when yields blew out. VaR has a lot of caveats about it, in that it considers everything \"\"under normal market conditions\"\". reality is, under normal market conditions, you're less concerned about risk. you want to know expectations when things go really wrong. VaR is best used as part of a risk management package, in conjunction with stress tests, duration/ DV01, liquidity analysis, etc, but its sort of leaves a lot of holes as a standalone. from a reporting and regulatory standpoint, VaR is generally accepted, and many firms reporting one day VaR in their financials (JPM, Goldman). tracking error tends to be company specific. from what i've seen, its mostly funds who have to manage to a benchmark, like a pension or FoF with a specific mandate, so they can't have too much deviation from that. you'll see this with beta too, but its the same idea. capital adequacy is slightly different from market risk. your PB or whoever will asses your portfolio holdings and apply a haircut to them based on risk and liquidity. for example you'll get close to 100% margin credit for stocks, but only a fraction of that applied to your account for a CDO^2 since liquidity is non-existent.\"",
"\"Lots of questions: In general, no. Market Capitalization and Equity represent 2 different things. Equity first, the equity of a firm is the value of the assets (what it owns) less its liabilities (what it owes) and consists (broadly) of two components - share capital (what the firm gets when it sells to investors as part of an IPO or subsequent share issue) and retained earnings (what the firm has as a result of making profits and not paying them out as dividends). This is the theoretical liquidation value of the firm - what it is worth if it stops trading, sells all its assets and pays all its debts. Market Capitalization is the current value of the future cash flow of the firm as perceived by the market - the value today of all the dividends that the firm will pay in the future for as long as it exists. This is the theoretical going concern value of the firm - what it is worth as a functioning business. In general, Market Capitalization is bigger than Equity - if it isn't the firm is worth more as scrap than as an operating business. Um ... no. If you don't have any shares then you are by definition not an owner. Having shares is what makes you an owner. What I think you mean is, is it possible for the owner(s) of a private company to sell all of its shares when it goes public? The answer is yes. It is uncommon for a start-up owner to do this but it is standard practice for \"\"corporate raiders\"\" who buy failing companies, take them private, restructure them and then take them public again - they have done their job and they are not interested in maintaining an ownership stake. Nope. See above and below. Not at all, equity is an accounting construct and market capitalization is about market sentiment. Consider the following hypothetical firm: It has $1m in equity, it makes $4m in profit and will do for the foreseeable future, it pays all of that $4m out as dividends - if we work on a simple ROI of 10% then this firm is worth $40m dollars - way more than its equity.\"",
"\"Yes, the \"\"effective\"\" and \"\"market\"\" rates are interchangeable. The present value formula will help make it possible to determine the effective interest rate. Since the bond's par value, duration, and par interest rate is known, the coupon payment can be extracted. Now, knowing the price the bond sold in the market, the duration, and the coupon payment, the effective market interest rate can be extracted. This involves solving large polynomials. A less accurate way of determining the interest rate is using a yield shorthand. To extract the market interest rate with good precision and acceptable accuracy, the annual coupon derived can be divided by the market price of the bond.\"",
"yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate. yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees. the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates. in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions.",
"\"While derivative pricing models are better modeling reality as academia invests more into the subject, none sufficiently do. If, for example, one assumes that stock returns are lognormal for the purposes of pricing options like Black Scholes does, the only true dependent variable becomes log-standard deviation otherwise known as \"\"volatility\"\", producing the infamous \"\"volatility smile\"\" which disappears in the cases of models with more factors accounting for other mathematical moments such as mean, skew, and kurtosis, etc. Still, these more advanced models are flawed, and suffer the same extreme time mispricing as Black Scholes. In other words, one can model anything however one wants, but the worse the model, the stranger the results since volatility for a given expiration should be constant across all strikes and is with better models. In the case of pricing dividends, these can be adjusted for the many complexities of taxation, but the model becomes ever more complex and extremely computationally expensive for each eventuality. Furthermore, with more complexity in any model, the likelihood of discovering a closed form in the short run is less. For equities in a low interest rate, not high dividend yield, not low volatility, low dividend tax environment, the standard swap pricing models will not provide results much different from one where a single low tax rate on dividends is assumed. If one is pricing a swap on equity outside of the bounds above, the dividend tax rate could have more of an effect, but for computational efficiency, applying a single assumed dividend tax rate would be optimal with D*(1-x), instead of D in a formula, where D is the dividend paid and x is the tax rate. In short, a closed form model is only as good as its assumptions, so if anomalies appear between the actual prices of swaps in the market and a swap model then that model is less correct than the one with smaller anomalies of the same type. In other words, if pricing equity swaps without a dividend tax rate factored more closely matches the actual prices than pricing with dividend taxes factored then it could be assumed that pricing without a dividend tax factored is superior. This all depends upon the data, and there doesn't seem to be much in academia to assist with a conclusion. If equity swaps do truly provide a tax advantage and both parties to a swap transaction are aware of this fact then it seems unlikely swap sellers wouldn't demand some of the tax advantage back in the form of a higher price. A model is no defense since volatility curves persist despite what Black Scholes says they should be.\"",
"Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).",
"stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.",
"Yield can be thought of as the interest rate you would receive from that investment in the form of a dividend for stocks or interest payments on a bond. The yield takes into account the anticipated amount to be received per share/unit per year and the current price of the investment. Of course, the yield is not a guaranteed return like a savings account. If the investment yield is 4% when you buy, it can drop in value such that you actually lose money during your hold period, despite receiving income from the dividend or interest payments.",
"Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates. This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates. If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year. Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount. The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during.",
"Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"As one of the answers described, its going to depend on many factors and the environment at the time. But there is no sure way to know which strategy is better, if any are at all. I would say over several hundred years the strategies would be equally as profitable. In a free market the longer dated bonds would be priced lower (higher yield) because they are higher risk. And over a long enough time period that higher risk may end up resulting in that bond being worth less, or maybe nothing at all. In a free market, price discovery would factor all this in, and the two strategies would become equal. The same is true for the price during inversion events Having said that, we dont live in a free market. With central bankers monetizing debt in so many countries, sometimes investing in short term bonds, including US treasuries, is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power, as these yields are below inflation and sometimes even negative.",
"Recurring deposit means you put aside a sum every month to go into your RD account. Fixed deposit means you put aside a lump sum to go into your FD account. If we take investing 12,000 for RD, means 1,000 a month, and 12,000 for FD, means putting in 12,000 straightaway, we will definitely earn more from FD. However, if you do not have a lot of capital at the start, an RD is a good way to start saving in a disciplined manner.",
"I hope that there are no significant differences between the things you list once the formulas for compounding interest are understood. I will, again, lay out these formulas below. First, definition of the variables: R means Total Return ratio. The sum of all money you get, both dividends (or interest payments) and return of initial capital. I is a ratio. It is the percent (10.4%) divided by 100 (0.104) then added to one (1.104). P means the number of periods in which the interest rate is paid and compounded. R = I^P I = R^(1/P) P = log(R) / log(I) Once you have R you multiply it by the amount of your initial investment to find out how much total money is returned. For simplicity the following amounts are approximate: 2 = 1.104^7 1.104 = 2^(1/7) 7 = log(2) / log(1.104) So to double your money in seven years you need a yearly interest rate of 10.4, if compounded yearly.",
"No. Investors purchase ETFs' as they would any other stock, own it under the same circumstances as an equity investment, collecting distributions instead of dividends or interest. The ETF takes care of the internal operations (bond maturities and turnover, accrued interest, payment dates, etc.).",
"\"If you buy a long term bond with long term fixed interest rate, and then the interest rates increase, your bond is worth less. That's not a problem, because over the years the value of the bond will go back to its nominal value. If you have a bond that doesn't pay out annually but increases its value every year, you will get exactly the amount of cash when it pays out that you expected. The problem is that if for 20 years interest rates were 8% while your bond only paid 4%, then you will have such an amount of inflation that the cash you get is worth much less than you hoped. You may have hoped that your bond would be worth \"\"one year average salary\"\", but it may be only worth \"\"six months of average salary\"\", even if the dollar amount is exactly what you expected.\"",
"you can check google scholar for some research reports on it. depends how complex you want to get... it is obviously a function of the size of the portfolio of each type of asset. do you have a full breakdown of securities held? you can get historical average volumes during different economic periods, categorized by interest rates for example, and then calculate the days required to liquidate the position, applying a discount on each subsequent day.",
"There is none, whatever sector you invest in will be subject to cyclical market difficulties, however alpha can be generated from two sources: Timing and selection. Its much easier to get the timing done over a long period of time.",
"Growth is how well the investment will grow on average. In the long term, this is a sure thing. Volatility is how much the value will jerk up and down in the short term. Do you want both... Or neither? When are you going to use the money? If it's IRA money you can't touch for 30 years, it really ought to be in the market, since growth is hugely important, and volatility is not a big concern. You're in it for the very long game, and volatility will average out, leaving pure growth. If the market drops 25% in 6 months, who cares? Stocks go up, stocks go down. It has 29 years to recover, and it will. If you are planning to buy a house in 6 months, you want that money in something like a CD, because volatility could be devastating: an untimely 25% drop in stock price could really, really suck.",
"\"The rate of the bond is fixed. But there is a risk known as \"\"interest rate risk\"\". Basically, if you have a 2 percent bond and market rates are 4 percent, you'll have to offer your bond at a discount or nobody would buy it. So if you ever needed to sell it, you'd lose a bit of money.\"",
"What you have to remember is you are buying a piece of the company. Think of it in terms of buying a business. Just like a business, you need to decide how long you are willing to wait to get paid back for your investment. Imagine you were trying to sell your lemonade stand. This year your earnings will be $100, next year will be $110, the year after that $120 and so on. Would you be willing to sell it for $100?",
"The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps",
"Means A has a much higher level of interest payments dye to either higher debt or higher cost of debt (or combination of both). MM theory suggests higher debt in a capital structure due to the tax shield but you need to consider if A's debt level is appropriate or too high and what that says about your company.",
"No citation, but I once read the average holding period of a 30 yr treasury is 8 hours. A rise in the rate by just .1% will drop the value by just under 2% wiping out nearly a full year's gains. With 29 years to go the value of the 3% bond will be worth $981 if the rate were then 3.1% It's at 3.16% the bond would drop to exactly $970 after the year, i.e. you've gotten no return at all. I view this as pretty high risk.",
"Some investors (pension funds or insurance companies) need to pay out a certain amount of money to their clients. They need cash on a periodical basis, and thus prefer dividend paying stock more.",
"A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund. Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund. The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.",
"the difference is whose money is being invested. when you deposit money in a bank, it is FDIC insured and capital requirements are set to ensure the preservation of your deposits. if the bank wants to make huge derivative bets, with leverage inherent in the instrument or provided by another bank, deposits are involved in the equation.",
"I was wondering why equity is reflecting ownership of the issuing entity? That is the definition of equity in this regard. My understanding is that for a stock/equity, its issuing entity is a company/firm that sells the stock/equity, while its receiving entity is an investor that buys the stock/equity Correct. equity reflects ownership of the receiving entity i.e. investor Incorrect. Equity reflects ownership by the receiving entity of the issuing entity. That is, when you buy stock in a company (taking an equity stake in the company) you buy a piece of the company. It would be rather odd for the company to own a piece of you when you buy their stock.",
"In the short term the market is a popularity contest In the short run which in value investing time can extend even to many years, an equity is subject to the vicissitudes of the whims by every scale of panic and elation. This can be seen by examining the daily chart of any large cap equity in the US. Even such large holdings can be affected by any set of fear and greed in the market and in the subset of traders trading the equity. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience high variance in the short rurn. in the long term [the stock market] is a weighing machine In the long run which in value investing time can extend to even multiple decades, an equity is more or less subject only to the variance of the underlying value. This can be seen by examining the annual chart of even the smallest cap equities over decades. An equity over such time periods is almost exclusively affected by its changes in value. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience low variance in the long run.",
"The market moves faster than ratings agencies. Everyday the market is trying to figure out the true value of Assets - Liabilities and thus its overall equity value. The financial crisis illustrated this perfectly when Bear Sterns got stuck in a liquidity trap. It's MBS(CDO) was still highly rated, likewise its overall credit rating was sound, however in reality the value of assets were much higher due to coming default, credit providers realized assets Bear had posted as collateral were falling in value quickly. This started the death spiral, or feedback loop in which it isn't clear if the tail wagged the dog or the dog wagged the tail, but as equity value fell Bear could no longer get access to credit markets to fund daily operations, once it got margin called and couldn't pay, it was all over. When it was sold to JPM, they basically stole the entire company at a fire sale price, everyone knew they were getting a deal, as reflected in the post buyout price jump of JPM stock. So in a technical sense you are right, they have nothing to do with each other. But in a practical sense as we see equity value collapse we are approaching bankruptcy, and thus default, and credit ratings should represent likelihood of default so the two should have a positive correlation to one another, assuming equity value is the 'true value'."
] |
[
"A bond has a duration that can be easily calculated. It's the time weighted average of all the payments you'll receive and helpful to understand the effect a change in rates will have on that instrument. The duration of a stock, on the other hand, is a forced construct to then use in other equations to help calculate, say, the summation of a dividend stream. I can calculate the duration of a bond and come up with an answer that's not up for discussion or dispute. The duration of a stock, on the other hand, isn't such a number. Will J&J last 50 more years? Will Apple? Who knows?"
] |
4813
|
Dealer Financing Fell Through on vehicle purchase: Scam?
|
[
"98356"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"98356",
"283917",
"566382",
"239061",
"290879",
"131255",
"484734",
"271658",
"154237",
"501726",
"29721",
"322249",
"357280",
"389102",
"253596",
"126559",
"113516",
"120080",
"147530",
"427884",
"469270",
"65046",
"367944",
"295355",
"421848",
"247371",
"23949",
"44085",
"87351",
"313057",
"164702",
"167834",
"430100",
"14745",
"145322",
"535208",
"139047",
"13139",
"366735",
"104221",
"490352",
"478514",
"399526",
"264822",
"9793",
"508070",
"233479",
"578527",
"146409",
"562282",
"241501",
"447222",
"41469",
"408932",
"467737",
"508896",
"567031",
"438463",
"301797",
"261673",
"335435",
"44113",
"498927",
"597215",
"123358",
"130967",
"301161",
"408027",
"175522",
"73390",
"54216",
"308006",
"9737",
"212624",
"592785",
"46680",
"182240",
"567201",
"262028",
"524723",
"400947",
"50368",
"52128",
"442625",
"160611",
"590082",
"157496",
"352291",
"451092",
"500794",
"405591",
"280405",
"501690",
"406225",
"24165",
"567973",
"68144",
"104043",
"72722",
"388899"
] |
[
"There's a good explanation of this type of scam at the following link; It's known as a Spot-Delivery scam. https://www.carbuyingtips.com/top-10-scams/scam1.htm Also, I read this one a while back, and immediately this post reminded me of it: http://oppositelock.kinja.com/when-the-dealership-steals-back-the-car-they-just-sold-1636730607 Essentially, they claim you'll get one level of financing, let you take the car home, and then attempt to extort a higher financing APR out of you or request more money / higher payments. Check your purchasing agreement, it may have a note with something along the lines of 'Subject to financing approval' or something similar. If it does, you might be 'out of luck', as it were. Contact an attorney; in some cases (Such as the 'oppositelock.kinja.com' article above) consumers have been able to sue dealers for this as theft.",
"Its not a scam. The car dealership does not care how you pay for the car, just that you pay. If you come to them for a loan they will try and service you. If you come with cash, they will sell you a car and not try to talk you into financing. If you come with a check from another bank, they will happily accept it. I would try to work with Equifax or a local credit union to figure out what is going on. Somehow she probably had her credit frozen. Here are some really good things to mitigate this situation: Oh and make sure you do #1 and forget about financing cars ever again. I mean if you want to build wealth.",
"Most states do have a cooling-off period where the buyer can rescind the purchase as well as a legally allowed limit to how long the dealer has to secure financing when they buyer has opted for dealer-financing. If the dealer did inform you during the allowed window, they will refund your down payment minus mileage fees at a state set cost per mile that you used the car. If the dealer did not inform you during the allowed window, depending on the state, they may have to refund the entire down payment. In any case, the problem is that the bank does not want to offer you the loan, you can try to negotiate and have the dealer use what leverage they have to coerce the bank, but there is probably no way for you to force the loan through. Alternatively you can seek your own financing from your own bank or credit union, which will likely allow the sale to go through. UPDATE - Colorado laws allow the dealer 10 days to inform you that they cannot obtain financing on the terms agreed upon in the original contract. That contract contained wording related to the mileage fees. You can find that info on page 8 of the linked PDF under the heading D. USAGE FEE AND MILEAGE CHARGE",
"\"At one point in my life I sold cars and from what I saw, three things stick out. Unless the other dealership was in the same network, eg ABC Ford of City A, and ABC Ford of City B, they never had possession of that truck. So, no REAL application for a loan could be sent in to a bank, just a letter of intent, if one was sent at all. With a letter of intent, a soft pull is done, most likely by the dealership, where they then attached that score to the LOI that the bank has an automated program send back an automatic decline, an officer review reply, or a tentative approval (eg tier 0,1,2...8). The tentative approval is just that, Tentative. Sometime after a lender has a loan officer look at the full application, something prompts them to change their offer. They have internal guidelines, but lets say an app is right at the line for 2-3 of the things they look at, they chose to lower the credit tier or decline the app. The dealership then goes back and looks at what other offers they had. Let's say they had a Chase offer at 3.25% and a CapOne for 5.25% they would say you're approved at 3.5%, they make their money on the .25%. But after Chase looks into the app and sees that, let's say you have been on the job for actually 11 months and not 1 year, and you said you made $50,000, but your 1040 shows $48,200, and you have moved 6 times in the last 5 years. They comeback and say no he is not a tier 2 but a tier 3 @ 5.5%. They switch to CapOne and say your rate has in fact gone up to 5.5%. Ultimately you never had a loan to start with - only a letter of intent. The other thing could be that the dealership finance manager looked at your credit score and guessed they would offer 3.5%, when they sent in the LOI it came back higher than he thought. Or he was BSing you, so if you price shopped while they looked for a truck you wouldn't get far. They didn't find that Truck, or it was not what they thought it would be. If a dealership sees a truck in inventory at another dealer they call and ask if it's available, if they have it, and it's not being used as a demo for a sales manager, they agree to send them something else for the trade, a car, or truck or whatever. A transfer driver of some sort hops in that trade, drives the 30 minutes - 6 hours away and comes back so you can sign the Real Application, TODAY! while you're excited about your new truck and willing to do whatever you need to do to get it. Because they said it would take 2-5 days to \"\"Ship\"\" it tells me it wasn't available. Time Kills Deals, and dealerships know this: they want to sign you TODAY! Some dealerships want \"\"honest\"\" money or a deposit to go get the truck, but reality is that that is a trick to test you to make sure you are going to follow through after they spend the gas and add mileage to a car. But if it takes 2 days+, The truck isn't out there, or the dealer doesn't have a vehicle the other dealership wants back, or no other dealership likes dealing with them. The only way it would take that long is if you were looking for something very rare, an odd color in an unusual configuration. Like a top end model in a low selling color, or configuration you had to have that wouldn't sell well - like you wanted all the options on a car except a cigarette lighter, you get the idea. 99.99% of the time a good enough truck is available. Deposits are BS. They don't setup any kind of real contract, notice most of the time they want a check. Because holding on to a check is about as binding as making you wear a chicken suit to get a rebate. All it is, is a test to see if you will go through with signing the deal. As an example of why you don't let time pass on a car deal is shown in this. One time we had a couple want us to find a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid in red with every available option. Total cost was about $85-90k. Only two new Red Escalade hybrids were for sale in the country at the time, one was in New York, and the other was in San Fransisco, and our dealership is in Texas, and neither was wanting to trade with us, so we ended up having to buy the SUV from one of the other dealerships inventory. That is a very rare thing to do by the way. We took a 25% down payment, around $20,000, in a check. We flew a driver to wherever the SUV was and then drove it back to Texas about 4 days later. The couple came back and hated the color, they would not take the SUV. The General Manager was pissed, he spent around $1000 just to bring the thing to Texas, not to mention he had to buy the thing. The couple walked and there was nothing the sales manager, GM, or salesman could do. We had not been able to deliver the car, and ultimately the dealership ate the loss, but it shows that deposits are useless. You can't sell something you don't own, and dealerships know it. Long story short, you can't claim a damage you never experienced. Not having something happen that you wanted to have happen is not a damage because you can't show a real economic loss. One other thing, When you sign the paperwork that you thought was an application, it was an authorization for them to pull your credit and the fine print at the bottom is boiler plate defense against getting sued for everything imaginable. Ours took up about half of one page and all of the back of the second page. I know dealing with car dealerships is hard, working at them is just as hard, and I'm sorry that you had to deal with it, however the simplest and smoothest car deals are the ones where you pay full price.\"",
"Dealerships make a lot of money in the finance department. One of the thing they play upon is your emotional reaction of purchasing a new vehicle (new to you in this case). They perform all sorts of shenanigans, like adding undercoat, selling gap insurance, or extended warranties. They entice you with a promise of a lower interest rate, but really what they are trying to do is back you into a payment. So if you can fiance 20,000, but the car you are buying is 16,000, then they will try to move that figure up to the 20K mark. In your case it sounded like some borderline (at the least) illegal activity they used to fool you into paying more. It sounds like you regret this decision which puts you a step ahead of most. How many people brag about the extended warranty or gap insurance they got included in the sale? As mentioned in another answer the best bet is to go into the dealership with financing in place. Say you were able to get a 3% loan on 16K. The total interest would be ~1600. If you avoid the finance room, you might avoid their dubious add ons that would probably cost you more then the 1600 even if you can get 0%. If you are going to buy a car on time, my advice would be to not fill out a credit app at the dealership. The dealership people through a conniption fit, but hold your ground. If need be get up and walk out. They won't let you leave. One thing I must mention, is that one feels very wealthy without that monthly pain in the a$$ payment for a car. You may want to try and envision yourself without a car payment, and make steps to making that a reality for the rest of your life.",
"I had a similar situation when I was in college. The difference was that the dealer agreed to finance and the bank they used wanted a higher interest rate from me because of my limited credit history. The dealer asked for a rate 5 percentage points higher than what they put on the paperwork. I told them that I would not pay that and I dropped the car off at the lot with a letter rescinding the sale. They weren't happy about that and eventually offered me financing at my original rate with a $1000 discount from the previously agreed-upon purchase price. What I learned through that experience is that I didn't do a good-enough job of negotiating the original price. I would suggest that your son stop answering phone calls from the dealership for at least 1 week and drive the car as much as possible in that time. If the dealer has cashed the check then that will be the end of it. He owes nothing further. If the dealer has not cashed the check, he should ask whether they prefer to keep the check or if they want the car with 1000 miles on the odometer. This only works if your son keeps his nerve and is willing to walk away from the car.",
"If the discount is only for financed car then their software application should have accepted the payment (electronic transfer ID) from financed bank. In this case the bank should have given the payment on behalf of your son. I believe the dealer know in advance about the paper work and deal they were doing with your son. Financing a car is a big process between dealer and bank.",
"They'll refund your money (though maybe with a small service charge). I'm sure they regularly deal with new car sales gone wrong.",
"Hindsight is 20/20, but I offer some suggestions for how this might have gone down. If you had told the bank what was going on they might have extended the terms of your loan until the truck was ready. Alternatively you might have taken the loan (was it secured on the truck?) and put the money in a savings account until the truck showed up, while asking the dealer to pay the interest on it until the truck showed up. Or you might asked the dealer to supply you with a rental truck until yours showed up. I'm not saying I would have thought of these under the circumstances, but worth trying.",
"In order: 1.) Speak to car dealership, demand refund. If that doesn't work, 2.) Contact the local authorities. If that doesn't work, 3.) Get in touch with a lawyer. If that doesn't work, (or if it's too expensive), 4.) Get in touch with local media, and have them run a story.",
"Fair enough. I was just trying to save them money. If it were me, I'd call up the dealer first and threaten to contact local media if they didn't void the contract. In the end though a lawyer is probably the best bet. Even just having them write a letter to send over would probably get them to nullify it.",
"\"At this point there is not much you can do. The documentation probably points to you being the sole owner and signer on the loan. Then, any civil suit will degenerate into a \"\"he said, she said\"\" scenario. Luckily, no one was truly harmed in the scenario. Obtaining financing through a car dealer is almost always not advisable. So from here, you can do what should have been done in the first place. Go to banks and credit unions so your daughter can refinance the car. You will probably get a lower rate, and there is seldom a fee. I would start with the bank/CU where she does her checking or has some other kind of a relationship. If that fails, anywhere you can actually sit and talk with a loan officer is preferable over the big corporate type banks. Car dealers lying is nothing new, it happens to everyone. Buying a car is like a battle.\"",
"I've been an F&I Manager at a new car dealership for over ten years, and I can tell you this with absolute certainty, your deal is final. There is no legal obligation for you whatsoever. I see this post is a few weeks old so I am sure by now you already know this to be true, but for future reference in case someone in a similar situation comes across this thread, they too will know. This is a completely different situation to the ones referenced earlier in the comments on being called by the dealer to return the vehicle due to the bank not buying the loan. That only pertains to customers who finance, the dealer is protected there because on isolated occasions, which the dealer hates as much as the customer, trust me, you are approved on contingency that the financing bank will approve your loan. That is an educated guess the finance manager makes based on credit history and past experience with the bank, which he is usually correct on. However there are times, especially late afternoon on Fridays when banks are preparing to close for the weekend the loan officer may not be able to approve you before closing time, in which case the dealer allows you to take the vehicle home until business is back up and running the following Monday. He does this mostly to give you sense of ownership, so you don't go down the street to the next dealership and go home in one of their vehicles. However, there are those few instances for whatever reason the bank decides your credit just isn't strong enough for the rate agreed upon, so the dealer will try everything he can to either change to a different lender, or sell the loan at a higher rate which he has to get you to agree upon. If neither of those two things work, he will request that you return the car. Between the time you sign and the moment a lender agrees to purchase your contract the dealer is the lien holder, and has legal rights to repossession, in all 50 states. Not to mention you will sign a contingency contract before leaving that states you are not yet the owner of the car, probably not in so many simple words though, but it will certainly be in there before they let you take a car before the finalizing contract is signed. Now as far as the situation of the OP, you purchased your car for cash, all documents signed, the car is yours, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what state you are in, if he's cashed the check, whatever. The buyer and seller both signed all documents stating a free and clear transaction. Your business is done in the eyes of the law. Most likely the salesman or finance manager who signed paperwork with you, noticed the error and was hoping to recoup the losses from a young novice buyer. Regardless of the situation, it is extremely unprofessional, and clearly shows that this person is very inexperienced and reflects poorly on management as well for not doing a better job of training their employees. When I started out, I found myself in somewhat similar situations, both times I offered to pay the difference of my mistake, or deduct it from my part of the sale. The General Manager didn't take me up on my offer. He just told me we all make mistakes and to just learn from it. Had I been so unprofessional to call the customer and try to renegotiate terms, I would have without a doubt been fired on the spot.",
"\"Yes, he can retract the offer - it was a cash-only offer, and if you're financing, it's no longer \"\"cash\"\". Unless, of course, you get the financing through your local bank / credit union, and they hand you a check (like on a personal loan). Then it's still cash. However, the salesman can still retract the offer unless it's in writing because you haven't signed anything yet. The price of financing will always be higher because the dealer doesn't get all their money today. Also, if you finance, you are not paying just the cost of the vehicle, you are paying interest, so your final cost will be higher (unless you were one of the lucky souls who got 0% financing atop employee pricing, and therefore are actually saving money by having a payment).\"",
"\"As others have said, if the dealer accepted payment and signed over ownership of the vehicle, that's a completed transaction. While there may or may not be a \"\"cooling-off period\"\" in your local laws, those protect the purchaser, not (as far as I know) the seller. The auto dealer could have avoided this by selling for a fixed price. Instead, they chose to negotiate every sale. Having done so, it's entirely their responsibility to check that they are happy with their final agreement. Failing to do so is going to cost someone their commission on the sale, but that's not the buyer's responsibility. They certainly wouldn't let you off the hook if the final price was higher than you had previously agreed to. He who lives by the fine print shall die by the fine print. This is one of the reasons there is huge turnover in auto sales staff; few of them are really good at the job. If you want to be kind to the guy you could give him the chance to sell you something else. Or perhaps even offer him a $100 tip. But assuming the description is correct, and assuming local law doesn't say otherwise (if in any doubt, ask a lawyer!!!), I don't think you have any remaining obligation toward them On the other hand, depending on how they react to this statement, you might want to avoid their service department, just in case someone is unreasonably stupid and tries to make up the difference that was.\"",
"There is no rule that says the dealer has to honor that deal, nor is there any that says he/she won't. However, if you are thinking of financing through though the dealership they are likely to honor the deal. They PREFER you finance it. If you finance it through the dealer the salesman just got TWO sales (a car and a loan) and probably gets a commission on both. If you finance it through a third party it makes no difference to the dealer, it is still a cash deal to them because even though you pay off the car loan over years, the bank pays them immediately in full.",
"If you know that you have a reasonable credit history, and you know that your FICO score is in the 690-neighborhood, and the dealer tells you that you have no credit history, then you also know one of two things: Either way, you should walk away from the deal. If the dealer is willing to lie to you about your credit score, the dealer is also willing to give you a bad deal in other respects. Consider buying a cheaper used car that has been checked out by a mechanic of your choice. If possible, pay cash; if not, borrow as small an amount as possible from a credit union, bank, or even a very low-interest rate credit card. (Credit cards force you to pay off the loan quickly, and do not tie up your car title. I still have not managed to get my credit union loan off of my car title, ten years after I paid it off.)",
"As mhoran_psprep and others have already said, it sounds like the sale is concluded and your son has no obligation to return the car or pay a dime more. The only case in which your son should consider returning the car is if it works in his favor--for example, if he is able to secure a similar bargain on a different car and the current dealer buys the current car back from your son at a loss. If the dealer wants to buy the car back, your son should first get them to agree to cover any fees already incurred by your son. After that, he should negotiate that the dealer split the remaining difference with him. Suppose the dealership gave a $3000 discount, and your son paid $1000 in title transfer, registration, and any other fees such as a cashier's check or tax, if applicable. The remaining difference is $2000. Your son should get half that. In this scenario, the dealer only loses half as much money, and your son gains $1000 for his trouble.",
"That is horrible. I would contact your local news stations, local authorities, and demand to talk to the owner of the dealership. Get the story out on social media and do everything you can to put bad publicly on the dealership. Maybe they will see how big of a fuck up they made and make things right. Fuck those guys.",
"Leasing is not exactly a scam, but it doesn't seem to be the right product for you. The point of leasing over buying is that it turns the capital purchase of a car which needs to be depreciated for tax purposes into what is effectively a rental expense. Rent is an expense that can be deducted directly without depreciation. If you are not operating a business where you can take advantage of leasing's tax advantages, leasing is probably not for you. Because of the tax advantages, a lease can be more profitable for the car dealer. They can get a commission or finder's fee on the lease as well as the commission on the car sale. That extra profit comes from somewhere, presumably from you. If a business, you can then pass part of that to the government. As an individual, you lose that advantage. At this point, the best financial decision that you could make would be to buy out the lease on your current car. Lease prices are set based on the assumption that the car will have been abused during the course of the lease. If you are driving the car less than expected, its value is probably higher than the cost of buying out the lease. If you buy that car, you can drive it for years. Save up some money and buy your next car for cash rather than using financing. Of course, if you really want a new car and can afford it, you may not want to buy out the lease. That is of course your decision. You don't have to maximize your current financial position if buying a new car would return more satisfaction for the money in the long run. I would try to avoid financing for what is essentially a pleasure purchase though.",
"\"Paperwork prevails. What you have is a dealer who get a kickback for sending financing to that institution. And the dealer pretty much said \"\"We only get paid our kickback at two levels of loan life, 6 and 12 months.\"\" You just didn't quite read between the lines. This is very similar to the Variable Annuity salespeople who tell their clients, \"\"The best feature about this product is that the huge commissions I get from the sale fund my kid's college tuition and my own retirement. You, on the other hand, don't really do so well.\"\" Car salesmen and VA sellers.\"",
"Go back to the dealership and leave the car there. Call your local news. They love these stories. After the news is out if they still won't give you your money back and void the contract then call the police. This is illegal and the business has violated the law. Another option is to go to the police first. After the police report then hire a lawyer to sue the dealership. Then call the local news. This method may take longer, but it will have the biggest impact.",
"\"It doesn't matter if the terms are a \"\"fair deal\"\" or are \"\"too good to be true\"\" — either way, it's definitely a scam. They are \"\"phishing\"\" for your personal information, including your banking information, and have no intention of giving you a loan. How can I tell? Simple: all such offers like this everywhere are scams. There is no economic situation other than being a scammer to do this. Why would an individual put out their money to strangers at such a high risk for even a much, much higher purported return? They wouldn't.\"",
"It is a legal issue for two reasons. In the United States if both names were on the title both people would have had to sign the paperwork in order to transfer the title. If the car was collateral for the loan, then the bank would have had to be involved in the transaction. The portion of the check need to repay the loan would have had to have been made out to the bank. If the car was sold to a dealership, then paperwork must have been forged. If the car was sold to a person then it is possible that they were too naive to know what paperwork was required, but it is likely still fraud. You need legal advice to protect your money, and your credit score. They should also be able to tell you who needs to be contacted: DMV, the police, the dealership, the bank.",
"I worked in auto finance years ago, what dealers tend to do in refinance the negative value of the customer current car to the new one. So if a car is worth 30k they may finance it for 35k. Finance company will do as not to lose the dealer and customer is happy to get a new car. I had one customer call on a car he financed for 85k, car brand new was worth 70k. Told me how he was looking to pay out the loan and go to the competition for better rates. Before offering anything I did a quick value check and no way was it worth it for us to reduce the rates. Told him good luck and he needed to pay X amount, he asked me if I'm not going to offer a better deal, I told him no. He blew up telling me the dealer told him to call 6 mouths later and the financial company would reduce the rates if he asked for a payout. Customer also had a car that dropped its value like no tomorrow, so it book value was around 60k. So over the refinance limit. 6 mouths later get a call from collection, telling me just a heads up this guy's cars was sold at the auction as he couldn't make repayments for 30k. Guy was also told by the dealer he could just hand the car back in but wasn't told he still needed to pay back the difference in the loan once he did. My god some people had no clue.",
"\"I'm sorry to hear you've made a mistake. Having read the contract of sale we signed, I do not see any remedy to your current situation. However, I'm interested in making sure I do not take advantage of you. As such, I'll return the vehicle, you can return my money plus the bank fees I paid for the cashiers check, tax, title, and registration, and I will look at buying a vehicle from another dealership. This seems to be the most fair resolution. If I were to pay for your mistake at a price I did not agree to, it would not be fair to me. If you were to allow this vehicle to go to me at the price we agreed to, it wouldn't be fair to you. If I were to return the car and begin negotiations again, or find a different car in your lot, it would be difficult for us to know that you were not going to make a similar mistake again. At this point I consider the sale final, but if you'd prefer to have the vehicle back as-is, returning to us the money we gave you as well as the additional costs incurred by the sale, then we will do so in order to set things right. Chances are good you will see them back down. Perhaps they will just cut the additional payment in half, and say, \"\"Well, it's our mistake, so we will eat half the cost,\"\" or similar, but this is merely another way to get you to pay more money. Stand firm. \"\"I appreciate the thought, but I cannot accept that offer. When will you have payment ready so we can return the car?\"\" If you are firm that the only two solutions is to keep the car, or return it for a full refund plus associated costs, I'd guess they'd rather you keep the car - trust me, they still made a profit - but if they decide to have it returned, do so and make sure they pay you in full plus other costs. Bring all your receipts, etc and don't hand over the keys until you have the check in hand. Then go, gladly, to another dealership that doesn't abuse its customers so badly. If you do end up keeping the car, don't plan on going back to that dealership. Use another dealership for warranty work, and find a good mechanic for non-warranty work. Note that this solution isn't legally required in most jurisdictions. Read your contract and all documentation they provided at the time of sale to be sure, but it's unlikely that you are legally required to make another payment for a vehicle after the sale is finalized. Even if they haven't cashed the check, the sale has already been finalized. What this solution does, though, is put you back in the driver's seat in negotiating. Right now they are treating it as though you owe them something, and thus you might feel an obligation toward them. Re-asserting your relationship with them as a customer rather than a debtor is very important regardless of how you proceed. You aren't legally culpable, and so making sure they understand you aren't will ultimately help you. Further, dealerships operate on negotiation. The primary power the customer has in the dealership is the power to walk away from a deal. They've set the situation up as though you no longer have the power to walk away. They didn't threaten with re-possession because they can't - the sale is final. They presented as a one-path situation - you pay. Period. You do have many options, though, and they are very familiar with the \"\"walk away\"\" option. Present that as your chosen option - either they stick with the original deal, or you walk away - and they will have to look at getting another car off the lot (which is often more important than making a profit for a dealership) or selling a slightly used car. If they've correctly pushed the title transfer through (or you, if that's your task in your state) then your brief ownership will show up on carfax and similar reports, and instantly reduces the car's worth. Having the title transfer immediately back to the dealership doesn't look good to future buyers. So the dealership doesn't want the car back. They are just trying to extract more money, and probably illegally, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction. Reassert your position as customer, and decide now that you'll be fine if you have to return it and walk away. Then when you communicate that to them, chances are good they'll simply cave and let the sale stand as-is.\"",
"\"So there are a few angles to this. The previous answers are correct in saying that cash is different than financing and, therefore, the dealer can rescind the offer. As for financing, the bank or finance company can give the dealership a \"\"kickback\"\" or charge a \"\"fee\"\" based on the customer's credit score. So everyone saying that the dealers want you to finance....well yes, so long as you have good credit. The dealership will make the most money off of someone with good credit. The bank charges a fee to the dealership for the loan to a customer with bad credit. Use that tactic with good credit...no problem. Use that tactic with bad credit.....problem.\"",
"Don't take the car back! The dealership wants you to take it back to try and earn more money. Simply stated, the dealerships hate paid up front cash deals. They make money on the financing. So to call back and try to up their fee is them realizing their not making a large enough profit. Say thank you and move on. The deal is done!!",
"On the surface this sounds ridiculous, which makes me suspect that there might be something that the dealer intends to cling on to; otherwise it sounds like the dealer should be ashamed to even call your son about its own incompetence. I'd recommend politely refusing the request since said mistake didn't happen on your end, and wait to see if the dealer comes back with some sort of argument.",
"\"It sounds like you're basing your understanding of your options regarding financing (and even if you need a car) on what the car salesman told you. It's important to remember that a car salesman will do anything and say anything to get you to buy a car. Saying something as simple as, \"\"You have a low credit score, but we can still help you.\"\" can encourage someone who does not realize that the car salesman is not a financial advisor to make the purchase. In conclusion,\"",
"\"Your son is in the right. But he broke the \"\"unwritten\"\" rules, which is why the car dealer is upset. Basically, cars are sold in the United States at a breakeven price. The car company makes ALL its money on the financing. If everyone bought \"\"all cash,\"\" the car companies would not be profitable. No one expected anyone, least of all your son, a \"\"young person,\"\" to pay \"\"all cash.\"\" When he did, they lost all the profit on the deal. On the other hand, they signed a contract, your son met all the FORMAL requirements, and if there was an \"\"understanding\"\" (an assumption, actually), that the car was supposed to be financed, your son was not part of it. Good for him. And if necessary, you should be prepared to back him up on court.\"",
"\"It is a legitimate practice. The dealers do get the loan money \"\"up front\"\" because they're not holding the loan themselves; they promptly sell it to someone else or (more commonly) just act as salesmen for a lending institution and take their profit as commission or origination fees. The combined deal is often not a good choice for the consumer, though. Remember that the dealer's goal is to close a sale with maximum profit. If they're offering to drop the price $2k, they either didn't expect to actually get that price in the first place, or expect at least $2k of profit from the loan, or some combination of these. Standard advice is to negotiate price, loan, and trade-in separately. First get the dealer's best price on the car, compare it to other dealer and other cars, and walk away if you don't like their offer. Repeat for the loan, checking the dealer's offer against banks/credit unions available to you. If you have an older car to unload, get quotes for it and consider whether you might do better selling it yourself. ========= Standard unsolicited plug for Consumef Reports' \"\"car facts\"\" service, if you're buying a new car (which isn't usually the best option; late-model used is generally a better value). For a small fee, they can tell you what the dealer's real cost of a car is, after all the hidden incentives and rebates. That lets you negotiate directly on how much profit they need on this sale... and focuses their attention on the fact that the time they spend haggling with you is time they could be using to sell the next one. Simply walking into the dealer with this printout in your hand cuts out a lot of nonsense. The one time I bought new, I basically walked in and said \"\"It's the end of the model year. I'll give you $500 profit to take one of those off your hands before the new ones come in, if you've got one configured the way I want it.\"\" Closed the deal on the spot; the only concession I had to make was on color. It doesn't always work; some salesmen are idiots. In that case you walk away and try another dealer. (I am not affiliated in any way with CU or the automotive or lending industries, except as customer. And, yes, this touch keyboard is typo-prone.)\"",
"Without the contract it's hard to say for sure, but Consumer Reports indicates that it's pretty easy to lose these deposits; they're not as well protected as other deposits or purchases (depending on your state and other details). You should make an effort to comply with all of the requests from the financing arm promptly, and in particular you should probably highlight that you could afford to pay for the car in cash (and be prepared to show bank/money market/investment statements to back that up). Credit is mostly a numbers game, but there is a human on the other side making the decision (assuming you're remotely close) and that makes a big difference. I would be prepared to walk away from your deposit if they come back and offer you a 5% APR or similar (and you're uncomfortable with the loan at that rate) - over 5 years, a $20k loan at 5% APR will cost you several thousand dollars; it might be worth it even if they don't give you your deposit back. And if you're clearly ready to walk away from the deposit, that might cause them to negotiate in better faith. Some tips, both from that article and my general experience:",
"My assumption here is that you paid nearly 32K, but also financed about 2500 in taxes/fees. At 13.5% the numbers come out pretty close. Close enough for discussion. On the positive side, you see the foolishness of your decision however you probably signed a paper that stated the true cost of the car loan. The truth in lending documents clearly state, in bold numbers, that you would pay nearly 15K in interest. If you pay the loan back early, or make larger principle payments that number can be greatly reduced. On top of the interest charge you will also suffer depreciation of the car. If someone offered you 31K for the car, you be pretty lucky to get it. If you keep it for 4 years you will probably lose about 40% of the value, about 13K. This is why it is foolish for most people to purchase a new vehicle. Not many have enough wealth to absorb a loss of this size. In the book A Millionaire Next Door the author debunks the assumption that most millionaires drive new cars. They tend to drive cars that are pretty standard and a couple of years old. They pay cash for their cars. The bottom line is you singed documents indicating that you knew exactly what you were getting into. Failing any other circumstances the car is yours. Talking to a lawyer would probably confirm this. You can attempt to sell it and minimize your losses, or you can pay off the loan early so you are not suffering from finance charges.",
"\"If an offer \"\"is only valid right now\"\" and \"\"if you don't act immediately, it will expire\"\" that is almost always a scam.\"",
"> Why is it not considered to be misleading business practices? because the details (of below) were either included or available online > some sort of advance loan program ...some sort of contractual agreement it's legit but high interest",
"I have in the last few years purchased several used cars from dealers. They have handled it two different ways. They accepted a small check ~$1,000 now, and then gave me three business days to bring the rest as a cashiers check. They also insisted that I submit a application for credit, in case I needed a loan. They accepted a personal check on the spot. Ask them before you drive to the dealer. Of course they would love you to get a loan from them.",
"\"In my experience when a salesperson says a particular deal is only good if you purchase right now, 100% of the time it is not true. Of course I can't guarantee that is universally the case, but if you leave and come back 5 minutes later, or tomorrow, or next week, it's extremely likely that they'll still take your money for the original price. (In fact, sometimes after you leave you get a call with even a lower price than the \"\"excellent offer\"\"...) Most of the time when you are presented with high pressure sales accompanied by a \"\"this price is only good right now\"\" pitch, it ends up being because they don't want you to go search the competition and read reviews. In this case you have already done that and deemed the item to be worthwhile. Perhaps a better tactic for the salesperson would have been to try to convince you that others are interested in the item and if you wait it might be sold to someone else at that excellent price. Sales is an art, and it requires the salesperson to size you up and try to figure out your vulnerability and exploit it. This particular salesperson obviously misjudged you and/or you don't have an easily exploitable vulnerability. I wouldn't let the shortcomings of the salesperson get in the way of your purchase. If you are worried about the scenario of someone else snatching up the item, consider offering a deposit to hold the item for a certain amount of time while you \"\"reflect\"\" and/or \"\"arrange for the funds\"\".\"",
"You should start a dispute with the credit card company, and they might be able to recover some/all of the money. Usually, if you act fast enough, credit companies (on the merchant's side) have enough of the deposits not yet disbursed to the merchant, and they'll just reverse the charge. The earlier you start the process - the more chances you have. Otherwise you'll have to sue, I'm not familiar with the Canadian legal system.",
"I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.",
"I have one additional recommendation: if the dealer continues to press the issue, tell them that they need to drop it, or you will write a Yelp review in excruciating detail about the entire experience. Used car dealers are very aware of their Yelp presence and don't like to see recent, negative reviews because it can cost them a lot of new business. (I'm assuming this is a used car. If it's a new car, you could go over their heads and bring up the problem with the manufacturer. Dealers hate it when you go directly to the manufacturer with a dealer complaint.)",
"\"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying \"\"Scam\"\" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?\"",
"You need to stop what you are doing right now and cut off contact with them! This is an extremely common scam. Here's how it works: They give you a check, maybe even a certified check. Usually in payment for something they are buying from you. The check happens to be for more than the sales price. They ask you to refund the difference, and pressure you to do so quickly. You will see why in a second. The check deposits fine and the money shows up in your account. Assuming the bank wouldn't do that if it wasn't a good check you let your guard down and pay them. In a couple of weeks, the bank detects that it is a fake check. They remove the money from your account, and may even report you for prosecution to local authorities for passing a fraudulent check. Meanwhile the person has the money you gave them and you can't find them because they gave you a fake name. To add insult to injury they may also have the property you sold them. You feel like a chump. Variants of this scam include them asking you to cash a check for them and you get to keep a part of the proceeds for your trouble. Sometimes it is presented as a work-at-home scheme. If you feel you absolutely must complete this deal, and you shouldn't. I would suggest you ask the person for a couple of forms of picture ID and tell them you need to make sure they aren't a scammer and you are going to do a background check on them with your local police to protect yourself. I predict the person will disappear and never contact you again about the money. Also, I suggest you talk to your bank immediately and inform them you think you might have been a victim of a scamming attempt so that you don't look like an accomplice when this is all said and done.",
"Oh my God. Turn. Back. Now. This is literally a textbook scam. I know you want to believe this is true. Its not. Even if it was true it would still be a high, high risk investment that would then be compounded by the fact that you would be doing it with 100% debt.",
"We have realized from our experience that rent to own is a scam. They want your money either way. We are at the buying part, and finding it difficult to find a lender to give us full money the seller is asking us for the the house. The house we have isn't valued at the same it was two years ago and now we are going to lose the house because we don't have the other $40 thousand they lied about at purchase price. We will not do this again but coming from bankruptcies in the past is hard as well.",
"Nothing will happen. It will not affect your credit score. You are not in trouble. :) Assuming that you didn't already agree to a purchase contract, you are not obligated to purchase simply because you had a pre-approval credit check done. However, even if you did, since they aren't shipping yet, you could probably cancel. If you are in doubt, talk to customer service to ensure that they aren't planning on shipping one to you. They did check your credit report (known as a hard pull), and this does temporarily affect your credit score. However, it affects it the same whether you complete the purchase or not. If you have another credit check done with another seller, it will result in another hard pull, affecting your credit score a little more. But I wouldn't worry about a few hard pulls if you need to do some shopping. Just don't go overboard, and you'll be fine.",
"The sales manager and/or finance manager applied a rebate that did not apply. It's their fault. They have internal accounts to handle these situations as they do come up from time to time. The deal is done. They have no legal ground.",
"\"This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser” payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a \"\"cost of doing business\"\" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with \"\"caveat emptor\"\" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face). But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble.\"",
"How did they violate the law if he hasn't been declared legally incompetent? I'm not saying they didn't I just don't personally know and I'm sure if she can state exactly HOW it was illegal to the dealership they would be more likely to just refund it.",
"This is normal with the dealer's financing. To add more details to littleadv's answer, what happens is when you get the financing through the dealer, at first, they will try to do the loan on your behalf with local banks in your area. This is why you see several hard inquiries; one from each back. If none of these banks wants to take the loan, then dealer's financing entity will take the loan. This was my exact experience with Hyundai. In addition, don't get surprise if you start receiving letters saying that your loan was rejected. The dealer will send the loan requests simultaneously, and some of the banks might deny the loan. This also happened to me, and I have been owning my car for around a year. Still, make sure that the letters matches with the credit inquiries.",
"The advice given at this site is to get approved for a loan from your bank or credit union before visiting the dealer. That way you have one data point in hand. You know that your bank will loan w dollars at x rate for y months with a monthly payment of Z. You know what level you have to negotiate to in order to get a better deal from the dealer. The dealership you have visited has said Excludes tax, tag, registration and dealer fees. Must finance through Southeast Toyota Finance with approved credit. The first part is true. Most ads you will see exclude tax, tag, registration. Those amounts are set by the state or local government, and will be added by all dealers after the final price has been negotiated. They will be exactly the same if you make a deal with the dealer across the street. The phrase Must finance through company x is done because they want to make sure the interest and fees for the deal stay in the family. My fear is that the loan will also not be a great deal. They may have a higher rate, or longer term, or hit you with many fee and penalties if you want to pay it off early. Many dealers want to nudge you into financing with them, but the unwillingness to negotiate on price may mean that there is a short term pressure on the dealership to do more deals through Toyota finance. Of course the risk for them is that potential buyers just take their business a few miles down the road to somebody else. If they won't budge from the cash price, you probably want to pick another dealer. If the spread between the two was smaller, it is possible that the loan from your bank at the cash price might still save more money compared to the dealer loan at their quoted price. We can't tell exactly because we don't know the interest rates of the two offers. A couple of notes regarding other dealers. If you are willing to drive a little farther when buying the vehicle, you can still go to the closer dealer for warranty work. If you don't need a new car, you can sometimes find a deal on a car that is only a year or two old at a dealership that sells other types of cars. They got the used car as a trade-in.",
"Within some limitations, the dealer is allowed to approve or deny lending to anyone that it chooses. Those constraints are the basics that you'd expect for any regulation in the US: Race Religion Nationality Sex Marital Status Age Source of income You can read more about them in this leaflet from the FDIC's Fair Lending Laws office. (Link is a pdf download.) As far as what to do in your mother's case, it sounds like it may be some slightly shady sales tactics, but it isn't entirely illegal... It's just annoying. One thing you could do to try to head off some of the crazy bait-and-switch sales tactics is to communicate with a handful of dealerships in your area about the specifics of your mother's profile as a purchaser. It's much harder to give someone the run-around if you have already agreed to something in principle by email.",
"\"Let me guess, it's a fairly large amount of money, a few thousand at least. This is a scam. This is a variation on the many fake check scams out there. You deposit the check and you think it \"\"cleared\"\" your bank, but it didn't clear. A clever fake check can take a couple weeks to bounce and the bank will demand the money back. Any money you wire back to the fraudster in the meantime will be lost forever.\"",
"Dealer financing should be ignored until AFTER you have agreed on the price of the car, since otherwise they tack the costs of it back onto the car's purchase price. They aren't offering you a $2500 cash incentive, but adding a $2500 surcharge if you take their financing package -- which means you're actually paying significantly more than 0.9% for that loan! Remember that you can borrow from folks other than the dealer. If you do that, you still get the cash price, since the dealer is getting cash. Check your other options, and calculate the REAL cost of each, before making your decisions. And remember to watch out for introductory/variable rates on loans! Leasing is generally a bad deal unless you intend to sell the car within three years or so.",
"You're not missing anything. Consumer protection in the US is very basic and limited, if at all. So if someone claims you owe them something, it would be really hard for you to prove otherwise unless you actually drag them to court. Especially if there actually was a relationship, and there probably is some paperwork to substantiate the claim. I suggest talking to a consumer issues attorney.",
"Pretty much any financial transaction where they start by calling you on the phone is a scam. They aren't doing it for your benefit and the caller is on commission.",
"This is a scam. Delete the email and don't talk to the person or keep any contact.",
"First suggestion: Investigate refinancing the auto loan with a reputable credit union or bank. I reduced my costs by changing my auto loan to Pentagon Federal Credit Union, which charges about 4% interest rate (compared to 6% which was the standard about 2 years ago). (for instructions on how to join penfed, look at my other post here.) Second suggestion: get involved with the better business bureau. 25% interest is ridiculous, I would file a complaint against the auto dealership.",
"\"Were you just offered a car loan for 1.4%, or did you sign for a car loan for 1.4%? If you signed, it's too late. If you didn't sign: You should realise that your car loan isn't really 1.4%. Nobody will give you a car loan for less than a mortgage loan. What really happened is that you gave up your chance to get a rebate on the car purchase. A car worth $18,000 will have a price tag of $20,000. You can buy it for cash and haggle the dealer down to $18,000, or you can take that \"\"cheap\"\" 1.4% loan and pay $20,000 for the car. So if at all possible, you would try to get a cheap loan from your bank, possibly through your mortgage, so you can buy the car without taking a loan from the car dealer.\"",
"\"Unfortunately, it's not unusual enough. If you're looking for a popular car and the dealer wants to make sure they aren't holding onto inventory without a guarantee for sale, then it's a not completely unreasonable request. You'll want to make sure that the deposit is on credit card, not cash or check, so you can dispute if an issue arises. Really though, most dealers don't do this, requiring a deposit, pre sale is usually one of those hardball negotiating tactics where the dealer wrangles you into a deal, even if they don't have a good deal to make. Dealers may tell you that you can't get your deposit back, even if they don't have the car you agreed on or the deal they agreed to. You do have a right for your deposit back if you haven't completed the transaction, but it can be difficult if they don't want to give you your money back. The dealer doesn't ever \"\"not know if they have that specific vehicle in stock\"\". The dealer keeps comprehensive searchable records for every vehicle, it's good for sales and it's required for tax records. Even when they didn't use computers for all this, the entire inventory is a log book or phone call away. In my opinion, I would never exchange anything with the dealer without a car actually attached to the deal. I'd put down a deposit on a car transfer if I were handed a VIN and verified that it had all the exact options that we agreed upon, and even then I'd be very cautious about the condition.\"",
"Another reason to think it's a scam: fake paypal email notifications are a thing. I've seen one that was quite convincing (but it wasn't mine to properly analyse or report), so the intial payment may be a fake from another account belonging to the scammer, and you've just transferred money to the scammer. The fake email can include links to log in to a fake paypal website, which can be quite convincing as the mark will give the login details which can be used to scrape data. Links not going to where they say is the giveaway here.",
"Are you sure the payment has actually posted and isn't sitting in a pre-auth status? If it is, it'll fall off in a few days and they're probably telling the truth. If not, and it has fully posted to your account, I agree with the others. It's very appropriate to initiate a chargeback. You can provide documentation showing they confirmed a cancellation, further, you can show proof that they had no intent of charging you. Good luck!",
"What would happen if you was to cash a check, didn’t realize it was to you and your finance company, take it to a local business that has a money center, they cash the check without even having you sign let alone having the finance companies endorsement on it . The money cleared my account like a couple months ago and it was just brought up now .. ? The reason why the check was made out the owner and the lender is to make sure the repairs were done on the car. The lender wants to make sure that their investment is protected. For example: you get a six year loan on a new car. In the second year you get hit by another driver. The damage estimate is $1,000, and you decide it doesn't look that bad, so you decide to skip the repair and spend the money on paying off debts. What you don't know is that if they had done the repair they would have found hidden damage and the repair would have cost $3,000 and would have been covered by the other persons insurance. Jump ahead 2 years, the rust from the skipped repair causes other issues. Now it will cost $5,000 to fix. The insurance won't cover it, and now a car with an outstanding loan balance of $4,000 and a value of $10,000 if the damage didn't exist needs $5,000 to fix. The lender wants the repairs done. They would have not signed the check before seeing the proof the repairs were done to their satisfaction. But because the check was cashed without their involvement they will be looking for a detailed receipt showing that all the work was done. They may require that the repair be done at a certified repair shop with manufacturer parts. If you don't have a detailed bill ask the repair shop for a copy of the original one.",
"You mean auto dealer bailouts? Has happened multiple times already. Also dealerships have been doing this type of lending with banks for years.. which is why direct sales is likely a mu have better model than dealership model...but hey I didn't invent this.",
"If you buy a car using a loan, the dealer gets benefited by the financing institution by the way of referring fee paid to the dealer by the institution, and that too if the dealer has helped in financing the purchase. Otherwise for the dealer it doesn't matter if one pays in full or through financing. The dealer is paid in full in either cases. Hence the dealer may slightly get disappointed that you are not taking a loan.",
"From what you have written, it could be a boiler room company. These operate with fancy website and have proper book keeping systems but are elaborate scams. How did you find about this broker. If there was a seller when you purchased the shares, there is no reason you can't be seller",
"This is a scam, I'm adding this answer because I was scammed in this fashion. The scammer sent me a check with which I was to deposit. When the money showed up in my account, I would withdraw the scammer's share, and wire the cash to its destination. However, it takes a couple days for a check to clear. Banks, however, want you to see that money, so they might give it to you on good faith before the check actually clears. That's how the scam works, you withdraw the fake money the bank has fronted before the check clears. A couple days later, the check doesn't clear, and you wake up with an account far into the negatives, the scammer long gone.",
"The sting here is definitely in the tail, the PS that says We are starting to call you from the same day when we get your details. The initial email doesn't ask for details, it asks for commitment. Once committed, you will be more relaxed about providing details. This makes me think that this is more serious than a simple financial scam. This is an effort to steal your identity, and that could be much more serious than the one-off loss of a few thousand dollars. Here's why: 1. The scammer could get numerous credit cards and store cards in your name, run up thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges, and leave you stuck with explaining what happened. I know someone who went from being a multi-millionaire to a pauper in a few months when his identity was stolen - and he is no fool. 2. It will take you years to clear your name. Meanwhile, your credit is shot, and you might have trouble getting a job, renting an apartment, or simply getting a cellphone contract. 3. Once you've repaired your credit, the scammer can just go through his old files and do it all over again. 4. Cloaked in your identity, and therefore being seen as you, the scammer can pull any number of scams, for which you will eventually be blamed. Then as well as dealing with credit bureaus, you will be dealing with another, more serious bureau: the FBI.",
"I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name.",
"Where do I stand with this? The money was not your's. So co-operate with the bank to get this sent back ASAP. It is good that the equipment is still with you. Yes Bank would need evidence that you were a victim and not party to this crime. Co-operate with the relevant authorities and get this resolved. It is a lesson learnt where luckily no money was lost, but quite a bit of hassle and personal time lost.",
"If they're making 100k a month in sales, why do they need your 92k so badly that they're willing to pay 200% annual interest? Going to a loanshark or the mob would be cheaper, to say nothing of all the legal options available to them. Or they could just wait three weeks for revenue to cover it. Nothing about this adds up to anything other than a scam. Your friend might be well-meaning, but someone along the line is looking for a sucker.",
"Yes, that would qualify as a scam to me. I didn't think they could do most of those things, especially buying insurance without your permission. When my area was reclassified as a flood area, they told me I had to provide proof of flood insurance, and if I didn't, they would get it for me at a price that might be higher than if I did it myself. But there was no problem with my choice of an online flood insurance company that was much cheaper than my AAA insurance for the same. I think that at least some of the rules are from the underwriter (?) like Fannie Mae or whoever it is that they work through. I don't really know all the ins and outs, though. I do know that when I had a loan through Wells Fargo, I had to increase my insurance in one area to match the value in another - I forget the details, but I think I could have reduced coverage in an alternate category if I had so desired.",
"100% scam. Run away. If you have already given the bank account, inform the bank and close the account. Else just close the new account opened. Do not contact the scammer or reply back.... Just ignore ... Don't read any of scammer email, they are very convincing in why it's right and why it's not a scam.",
"Well no because the auto dealers aren't on the hook are they, they've offloaded the loans onto some investment vehicle somewhere out in the ether. Let's be clear this all nets a massive loss. The car has already depreciated by 50% of the retail value, plus you have the costs of recovery and the margin of the guy who's going to re-sell it. And what did you gain? You squeezed a fraction of the price of the car out of the lender who was making minimum repayments before he defaulted. The upshot is that *someone* just bought a lot of cars that are now worth less than what they paid for them. Who's going to take the hit, Wells and Fargo?",
"This is a variation of a very common scam. The principle of the scam is this: I give you a check for a huge amount of money which you pay in your account. Then I ask you to pay some money from your account into a third account. Two months later the bank detects that my check was forged / stolen / cancelled / whatever and takes the huge amount of money away from your account. But you paid the money from your account, and that money is gone from your account and irrevocably ended up in my account.",
"I would steer well clear of this. The risk is that they take your money but don't pay the bank. This wouldn't require dishonesty - what if they run into financial trouble? Any money of yours that they have that hasn't gone on to the bank yet might end up paying off other debts instead of yours. It's not clear if the idea is that you are paying them all the money up front or will be making payments over time, but either way if they don't clear the lien with the bank then the bank can come after the car no matter who is in physical possession of it. That would leave you without either the money or the car. In theory you'd have a legal claim against the seller, but in reality you'd probably find it hard to collect.",
"It is possible that the person you were on the phone with was in possession of the credentials of a paypal account that was not actually theirs. The sad truth is that there are a lot of scammers out there and they can be very convincing while talking to you on their burner phone. Then they send you money and before the actual owner of the account can do anything the scammer gets you to surrender your goods. Then the payment gets reversed and when you call that phone number they used no one answers, or the phone is not in service. For this reason do not release the product until you actually have the money. For software work use an escrow account at a reputable bank to ensure that the funds will be available when you complete the work.",
"\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \"\"sniff test\"\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \"\"strike\"\"; too many \"\"strikes\"\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\"",
"\"For the future: NEVER buy a car based on the payment. When dealers start negotiating, they always try to have you focus on the monthly payment. This allows them to change the numbers for your trade, the price they are selling the car for, etc so that they maximize the amount of money they can get. To combat this you need to educate yourself on how much total money you are willing to spend for the vehicle, then, if you need financing, figure out what that actually works out to on a monthly basis. NEVER take out a 6 year loan. Especially on a used car. If you can't afford a used car with at most a 3 year note (paying cash is much better) then you can't really afford that car. The longer the note term, the more money you are throwing away in interest. You could have simply bought a much cheaper car, drove it for a couple years, then paid CASH for a new(er) one with the money you saved. Now, as to the amount you are \"\"upside down\"\" and that you are looking at new cars. $1400 isn't really that bad. (note: Yes you were taken to the cleaners.) Someone mentioned that banks will sometimes loan up to 20% above MSRP. This is true depending on your credit, but it's a very bad idea because you are purposely putting yourself in the exact same position (worse actually). However, you shouldn't need to worry about that. It is trivial to negotiate such that you pay less than sticker for a new car while trading yours in, even with that deficit. Markup on vehicles is pretty insane. When I sold, it was usually around 20% for foreign and up to 30% for domestic: that leaves a lot of wiggle room. When buying a used car, most dealers ask for at least $3k more than what they bought them for... Sometimes much more than that depending on blue book (loan) value or what they managed to talk the previous owner out of. Either way, a purchase can swallow that $1400 without making it worse. Buy accordingly.\"",
"Yes it is a scam. There is no money. They are after your personal details so that they can get your money.",
"This sounds like a scam. Did they email you out of the blue to offer you this 'job', by any chance, and you'd never heard of them before? That's an incredibly large red flag in and of itself. While I don't know quite what the scam is likely to be, here's how I would suggest it might work: Other variants are possible - say using a cheque rather than PayPal, or having Person A be the scammer as well. But this being a legitimate transaction is very unlikely.",
"This sounds like a scam. C.f. Craigslist for normal warning signs of an on-line scam",
"\"Scammers know you're not stupid enough to fall for this. So when you balk, he'll understand and offer to send you a check. When he sends you a check, he'll say cash it, keep $XXX for yourself, then forward him the rest for some other expense (or even possibly send it to someone else). Know in advance that that's a scam, too. When his fake check bounces you'll already be out the money and he'll be long gone. \"\"If it's too good to be true, it probably is\"\"\"",
"\"This is not only a scam but it is potentially fraud that may get you in trouble. This \"\"friend\"\" of yours will wire you some money in which you do not know where this money is really from. It's obvious from other answers that his story is fictitious. Thus it is likely that this money was stolen through another scam/hack in which now he wants to wash this money through your bank account. If it turns out that is was stolen, any money you withdrawal for your \"\"cut\"\", will have to be returned and your account will be frozen.\"",
"Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)",
"Ask the dealer to drive to the bank with you, if they really want cash.",
"From your viewpoint you paying the dealer directly is better. You know that the check went to the dealer, and was used to purchase a car. If you give the check to your friend they may say I can't find the car I want this week, so I will purchase it next week but first let me by groceries and a new suit. I will replace the funds after my next paycheck. Next thing you know they are still short of funds. This might not happen, but it could. From your friends viewpoint getting a check from you allows them to potentially keep your part of the transaction out of view of the dealer/lender. In a mortgage situation the lender will take a look at your bank account to make sure there isn't a hidden loan, but I am not sure they do when they are approving a car loan. What you want to avoid is being a co-signer for the loan. As a co-signer you will be responsible for all payments; and missed payments will hurt your credit score.",
"\"You need to talk to your bank. If you're unable to contact your bank until Monday, then wait until Monday. Don't fixate on the idea that the transaction may \"\"hard post\"\" on Monday. If it happens, it happens, but it's not the end of the world. Even if the transaction posts, it's not the end of the world. If the retailer is legit, they will refund your money, although it may take some time for things to get sorted out. Even if the transaction posts and the retailer is not legit, it's still not the end of the world. Your bank may help you in trying to recover the funds. That's why you need to talk to your bank. As you have realized, blindly calling the number in the email is not a good idea, because if it's fake, you're calling the scammers. Instead, what you should do is try to contact your bank through known trusted channels. That is, look on your bank's website. Do they have a phone number listed for fraud reporting or related inquiries? Is it the same number you see in the email? If so, you can call it. If it is not the same number, but the number on your bank's website is a 24-hour number, you can call them at that number and tell them the situation. Based on what you've described, my own guess would be that the retailer is legit, but that the unusual large transaction was flagged by your bank as potentially fraudulent, which is why you got the email. The fact that you happened to get the email just after canceling the order could be a coincidence. This is especially true if all this happened in a short time. Information about these transactions can't be transmitted and analyzed instantaneously, nor can emails be sent instantaneously; there may have been a delay in sending the email so it only arrived after the cancellation. As far as your worries about how \"\"enfact\"\" got your info, it is likely a fraud-detection service used by your bank. Doing a bit of googling reveals that it appears to be a legit service, but there have also been instances of phishing attacks using faked \"\"enfact\"\" emails. However, from what I see, these worked by trying to get you to click on a link, not call a phone number. Also, if a scammer is able to send you a scam email that includes your actual order details, that's not a phish, it's an outright hack. In that case the bank and/or retailer (whichever was hacked) would certainly want to know about it and would likely fall all over themselves trying to refund your money to avoid negative PR.\"",
"With new cars it's usually the other way around: finance at a low APR or get cash back when you buy it outright. With used cars you usually don't know how much they have invested in the car, so it's more difficult to know how low they're willing to go. Regardless, I do think it's odd that they would knock 2K off the price if you finance with them, but not if you pay cash. The only reason they would do that is if they intend to make at least 2K in interest over the life of the loan, but they have no way of guaranteeing you won't refi. Therefore, I suspect they are bluffing and would probably close the deal if you wrote them a check (or put the cash on the table) for 2K less. However, if they won't budge and will only knock off 2K if you finance, you could finance and pay it off in full a week later. Just make sure they don't have any hidden origination fees or pay-off-early fees.",
"The terms of the offer are a contract, so they are applicable in determining whether it's fraud or not. That said, your situation is not fraud, because fraud requires intentionality. Only the case where someone knew they were violating the terms of the offer (as with the story here) is fraud.",
"\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\"\"yes\"\".\"",
"The car dealership doesn't care where you get the cash; they care about it becoming their money immediately and with no risk or complications. Any loan or other arrangements you make to raise the cash is Your Problem, not theirs, unless you arrange the loan through them.",
"\"It is a scam. Not only will it get your personal information, which could allow him to impersonate you (like, using your identity as the generous lender on a future scam), in order to fulfill the loan, a \"\"small payment\"\" for some documents will be needed. And next another for a certificate necessary for lending, and so on. Their goal is to get your money, not lending you any. Aganju hit the nail: how would such person ensure that you will pay back, when he knows absolutely nothing about you? That would have been the #1 priority for someone that decided to invest using such unbelievable schema.\"",
"Let me get this straight. I would stand my ground. Your son negotiated in good faith. Either they messed up, or they are dishonest. Either way your son wasn't the one supposed to know all the internal rules. I don't think it matters if they cashed the check or not. I would tell them if they have cashed it, that is even more evidence the deal was finalized. But even if they they didn't cash it, it only proves they are very disorganized. If for some reason your son feels forced to redo the deal, have him start the negotiations way below the price that was agreed to. If the deal for some strange reason gets voided don't let him agree to some sort of restocking fee.",
"Update: here is a message the seller just sent me. Does this make sense? I spoke with my bank again and they explained it a little better for me. I guess how it works is they will print out something for you that is called an affidavit in lieu of title that states they are no longer the lein holder and to release it to you. You then take that to the dol and they get it put in your name. He says that's how they do it all the time. When we get to the bank, the teller just verifies the check and I deposit it and they release the funds to pay off the account and that's when you would get the paperwork. You would be there for the whole process so nothing is sketchy. Sorry it's such a pain, I didn't understand how that worked. We've never sold a car with a loan on it before.",
"Yes, it’s a scam. Best case you will end up with nothing, worst case you wil end up losing money and facing criminal charges for fraud and/or money laundering. Do not contact him again or respond to further contact. Forward his details to your local law enforcement if you have provided any of your personal information to him already.",
"First, if your account has been closed you should not be able to use your debit card in any format. As you mentioned that you are able to use that so your back account is active. So this indicates it is a scam In case account is closed, bank confirms your address and will send you a cheque for the amount in your account. Don't worry. You money will never be lost",
"You were the subject of a typical scam - you cashed a check that was drawn on a stolen account, and then you forwarded the money to a second account or via other means (Western Union etc). The owner of the stolen account informed their bank and the check was reversed, returning the original money from your account, leaving you completely out of pocket. If you forwarded the money by bank transfer or check, contact your bank and report the fraud. If you forwarded the money via another means, such as Western Union, then these methods are usually non-reversible and you will remain out of pocket. You will not be able to get the money back from the stolen account, that was their bank reversing a fraudulent check, they wont do anything to help you. Talk to your bank. Talk to the police.",
"\"Without the specifics of the contract, as well as the specifics of the country/state/city you're moving to, it's hard to say what's legal. But this also isn't law.se, so I'll answer this from the point of view of personal finance, and what you can/should do as next steps. Whenever paying an application fee or a deposit, you need to ensure that you have in writing exactly what you're applying for or putting a deposit in for. Whether this is an apartment, a car, or a loan, before any money changes hands, you need to get in writing exactly what you're putting that money to. So for a car, you'd want to have the complete specifications - make, model, year, color, extra packages, and any relevant loan information if applicable. You wouldn't just hand a dealer $2000 for \"\"a Toyota Camry\"\", you'd make sure it was specified which one, in writing, as well as the total you're expecting to pay. Same for an apartment: you should have, in writing (email is fine) the specific unit you are putting a deposit for, and the specific rate you'll be paying, and the length of time the lease is for. This is to avoid a common tactic: bait and switch, which is what it looks like you've run into. A company puts forth a \"\"nice\"\" model, everything looks good, you get far enough in that it seems like you're locked in - and then it turns out you're really getting a less nice model that's not as ideal as whatever you signed up for. Now if you want to get what you originally signed up for you need to pay extra - presumably \"\"something was wrong in the original ad\"\", or something like that. And all you can hear in the background is Darth Vader... \"\"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.\"\" So; what do you do when you've been bait-and-switched? The best thing to do is typically to walk away. Try to get your application fee back; you may or may not be able to, but it's worth a shot, and even if you cannot, walk away anyway. Someone who is going to bait-and-switch on you is probably not going to be a good landlord; my guess is that rent is going to keep going up beyond the level of the market, and you probably can kiss your security deposit goodbye. Second, if walking away isn't practical for whatever reason, you can find out what the local laws are. Some locations (though very few, sadly) require advertised prices to be accurate; particularly the fact that they re-advertised the unit again for the same rate suggests they are falling afoul of that. You can ask around, search the internet, or best yet talk to a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing; some of them will be willing to at least answer a few questions for free (hoping to score your business for an easy, profitable lawsuit). Be aware that it's not exactly a good situation to be in, to be suing your landlord; second only to suing your employer, in my opinion, in terms of bad things to do while hoping to continue the relationship. Find an alternative as soon as you can if you go this route. In the future, pay a lot of attention to detail when making application fees. Often the application fee is needed before you get into too much detail - but pick a location that has reasonable application fees, and no extras. For example, in my area, it's typical to pay a $25 application fee, nonrefundable, to do the credit check and background check, and a refundable $100-$200 deposit to hold the unit while doing that; a place that asks for a non-refundable deposit is somewhere I'd simply not apply at all.\"",
"\"Lachlan has $600 cash and a car worth $500. That's $1,100. The new car is priced at $21,800. Lachlan needs a loan for $20,700. However, the finance company insists that the buyer must pay a 10% deposit, which is $2,180. Lachlan only has $1,100, so no loan. The car dealer wants to make a sale, so suggests some tricks. The car dealer could buy Lachlan's old banger for $1,500 instead of $500, and sell the new car for $22,800 instead of $21,800. Doesn't make a difference to the dealer, he gets the same amount of cash. Now Lachlan has $600 cash and $1,500 for his car or $2,100 in total. He needs 10% of $22,800 as deposit which is $2,280. That's not quite there but you see how the principle works. Lachlan is about $200 short. So the dealer adds $1,200 to both car prices. Lachlan has $600 cash and a car \"\"worth\"\" $1,700, total $2,300. The new car is sold for $23,000 requiring a $2,300 deposit which works out exactly. How could we have found the right amount without guessing? Lachlan had $1,100. The new car costs $21,800. The dealer increases both prices by x dollars. Lachlan has now $1,100 + x deposit. The car now costs $21,800 + x. The deposit should be 10%, so $1,100 + x = 10% of ($21,800 + x) = $2,180 + 0.1 x. $1,100 + x = $2,180 + 0.1 x : Subtract $1,100 x = $1,080 + 0.1 x : Subtract 0.1 x 0.9 x = $1,080 : Divide by 0.9 x = $1,080 / 0.9 = $1,200 The dealer inflates the cost of the new car and the value of the old car by $1,200. Now that's the theory. In practice I don't know how the finance company feels about this, and if they would be happy if they found out.\""
] |
[
"There's a good explanation of this type of scam at the following link; It's known as a Spot-Delivery scam. https://www.carbuyingtips.com/top-10-scams/scam1.htm Also, I read this one a while back, and immediately this post reminded me of it: http://oppositelock.kinja.com/when-the-dealership-steals-back-the-car-they-just-sold-1636730607 Essentially, they claim you'll get one level of financing, let you take the car home, and then attempt to extort a higher financing APR out of you or request more money / higher payments. Check your purchasing agreement, it may have a note with something along the lines of 'Subject to financing approval' or something similar. If it does, you might be 'out of luck', as it were. Contact an attorney; in some cases (Such as the 'oppositelock.kinja.com' article above) consumers have been able to sue dealers for this as theft."
] |
9556
|
How does pre-market trading work?
|
[
"37040"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"37040",
"218670",
"241059",
"538915",
"57520",
"448952",
"516113",
"265365",
"515579",
"227304",
"114319",
"310636",
"16806",
"127160",
"202913",
"186495",
"434596",
"31933",
"200879",
"181238",
"137175",
"9683",
"236133",
"373862",
"240744",
"362212",
"502147",
"158297",
"535525",
"533730",
"498014",
"99757",
"63403",
"471978",
"321639",
"202375",
"331714",
"274091",
"525231",
"49127",
"529210",
"494295",
"163905",
"382067",
"565568",
"186392",
"251100",
"307828",
"190619",
"91831",
"212685",
"237635",
"414036",
"577573",
"50196",
"208907",
"359190",
"203573",
"554207",
"284235",
"413041",
"294867",
"78053",
"473776",
"413132",
"236543",
"378342",
"235576",
"367547",
"306104",
"378889",
"69696",
"131225",
"110966",
"21167",
"230163",
"21376",
"322798",
"153185",
"507357",
"483488",
"355319",
"502607",
"365463",
"466143",
"402482",
"144685",
"260153",
"437682",
"137984",
"230589",
"197839",
"78842",
"460014",
"63909",
"538537",
"63565",
"230456",
"301985",
"224672"
] |
[
"\"First of all, not all brokers allow trading during pre-market and post-market. Some brokers only allow trading during the regular hours (9:30am - 4pm ET). Second of all, while you can place orders using limit orders and market orders during regular trading hours, you can only use limit orders during pre-market and post-market. This is because the liquidity is much lower during pre-market and post-market, and using market orders could result in some trades filling at horrible prices. So brokers don't allow using market orders outside of regular trading hours. Third, some brokers require you to specify that you want your order to be executed during pre-market or post-market. For example, my broker allows me to specify either \"\"Day\"\" or \"\"Ext\"\" for my orders. \"\"Day\"\" means I want my order to execute only during regular trading hours, and \"\"Ext\"\" means I want my order to execute at any time - pre-market, regular trading hours, or post-market. Finally, if your broker allows pre/post market trading, and you place a limit order while specifying \"\"Ext\"\", then your trade can happen in real-time during pre-market or post-market. Per your example, if a stock is trading at $5 at 8am, and you put in a limit order (while specifying \"\"Ext\"\") to buy it at $5 at 8am, then your order will execute at that time and you will buy that stock at 8am.\"",
"the data source is the same as the live market trading. pre and after market trading are active markets and there are actual buyers and sellers getting their orders matched.",
"\"NASDAQ has Pre and After market : NASDAQ Trading Schedule Regular Trading Session Schedule The NASDAQ Stock Market Trading Sessions (Eastern Time) Pre-Market Trading Hours from 4:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Market Hours from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. After-Market Hours from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Quote and order-entry from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Quotes are open and firm from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. You can trade in Pre/After Market but liquidity is very low. If an \"\"unexpected world events\"\" occurs, the volume/liquidity will most certainly increase. Another example is the Forex Market that's open 24/7 around the world. As one major forex market closes, another one opens. According to GMT, for instance, forex trading hours move around the world like this: available in New York between 01:00 pm – 10:00 pm GMT; at 10:00 pm GMT Sydney comes online; Tokyo opens at 00:00 am and closes at 9:00 am GMT; and to complete the loop, London opens at 8:00 am and closes at 05:00 pm GMT. This enables traders and brokers worldwide, together with the participation of the central banks from all continents, to trade online 24 hours a day. src\"",
"\"Market price is just the bid or offer price of the last sell or buy order in the market. The price that you actually receive or pay will be the price that the person buying the stock off you or selling it to you will accept. If there are no other participants in the market to make up the other side of your order (i.e. to buy off you if you are selling or to sell to you if you are buying) the exchange pays large banks to be \"\"market makers\"\"; they fulfil your order using stocks that they don't want to either buy or sell just so that you get your order filled. When you place an order outside of market hours the order is kept on the broker's order books until the market reopens and then, at market opening time there is an opening \"\"auction\"\" at which orders are matched to opposing orders (i.e. each buy order will be matched with a sell) at a price determined by auction. You will not know what price the order was filled at until it has been filled. If you want to guarantee a price you can do so by placing a limit order that says not to pay more than a certain price for any unit of the stock.\"",
"Pre-Market trading activity is shown on the site from 4:15 - 9:30 AM (actual trading starts at 4:00 AM EST) The NASDAQ Stock Market Trading Sessions (Eastern Time) Pre-Market Trading Hours from 4:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Market Hours from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. After-Market Hours from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/about/trading-schedule.aspx#ixzz38OtcISrq In this case GOOG did not trade in the Pre-market until that time and FB was.",
"I don't think that the trading volume would impact a broker's ability to find shares to short. You might think that a lot more people are trying to short a stock during regular trading hours than in the pre-market, and that's probably true. But what's also true is that a lot more people are covering their shorts during regular trading hours than in the pre-market. For stocks that have difficulty in finding shares to short, any time someone covers a short is an opportunity for you to enter a short. If you want to short a stock and your broker is rejecting your order because they can't find shares to short, then I would recommend that you continue placing that order throughout the day. You might get lucky and submit one of those orders right after someone else has covered their short and before anyone else can enter a short. I have had success doing this in the past.",
"You can make a purchase at the after market price by sending an order that gets executed in after market. Often times these are called Extended orders, or EXT. With an EXT limit order it will place the bid on the after market hours order book. If you get filled, then you have the shares. This is the answer.",
"There are several reasons it is not recommended to trade stocks pre- or post-market, meaning outside of RTH (regular trading hours). Since your question is not very detailed I have to assume you trade with a time horizon of at least more than a day, meaning you do not trade intra-day. If this is true, all of the above points are a non-issue for you and a different set of points becomes important. As a general rule, using (3) is the safest regardless of what and how you trade because you get price guarantee in trade for execution guarantee. In the case of mid to longer term trading (1 week+) any of those points is viable, depending on how you want to do things, what your style is and what is the most comfortable for you. A few remarks though: (2) are market orders, so if the open is quite the ride and you are in the back of the execution queue, you can get significant slippage. (1) may require (live) data of the post-market session, which is often not easy to come by for the entire US stock universe. Depending on your physical execution method (phone, fax, online), you may lack accurate information of the post-market. If you want to execute orders based on RTH and only want to do that after hours because of personal schedule constraints, this is not really important. Personally I would always recommend (3), independent of the use case because it allows you more control over your orders and their fills. TL;DR: If you are trading long-term it does not really matter. If you go down to the intra-day level of holding time, it becomes relevant.",
"If I understand you correctly, you are noticing that a stock's price can change drastically when the time changes from pre-market trading hours to open market hours. This could occur because a much smaller pool of investors make trades during pre-market and after-market hours. When the regular market opens there is a large influx of trades, causing the prices to jump.",
"Quoted from money.howstuffworks.com: NASDAQ has come up with an auction approach called the opening cross. Here's how it works. In the morning, a computer program looks at all the orders that have come in overnight in each different stock. Based on those orders, the program picks a price level that would be the best opening price. However, it also looks to see if there's a trade imbalance. For example, if a company announced bad news after the market closed, there might be 10 times more sell orders than buy orders. NASDAQ then broadcasts the price and imbalance information to its network of dealers with the goal of offsetting the imbalance. It then lets dealers place orders. This all happens very quickly, in a time window of two minutes or so, right before the market opens. Dealers can place orders, and those orders are factored into the opening price. Further reading here: Opening Price calculation",
"It's done by Opening Auction (http://www.advfn.com/Help/the-opening-auction-68.html): The Opening Auction Between 07.50 and a random time between 08.00 and 08.00.30, there will be called an auction period during which time, limit and market orders are entered and deleted on the order book. No order execution takes place during this period so it is possible that the order book will become crossed. This means that some buy and sell orders may be at the same price and some buy orders may be at higher prices than some sell orders. At the end of the random start period, the order book is frozen temporarily and an order matching algorithm is run. This calculates the price at which the maximum volume of shares in each security can be traded. All orders that can be executed at this price will be filled automatically, subject to price and priorities. No additional orders can be added or deleted until the auction matching process has been completed. The opening price for each stock will be either a 'UT' price or, in the event that there are no transactions resulting form the auction, then the first 'AT' trade will be used.",
"You can*, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. *The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1.",
"I would never trade after hours and I have 30 years of trading experience. It is a very volatile emotion driven market without a lot of the big players that arbitrage wrong pricing. If I were you I would simply use limit orders you input while the market is closed. If you want to get kute you can put in low-ball offers (and vice versa) to see if they get filled in the volatility at market open. Then check in (when?) when you wake up (or before you go to bed, etc) and revise the limit if not filled. In other words don't 'trade'. Know what your company is worth and put in orders that reflect that.",
"The best thing to do is not worry about what time is best to buy but put in a conditional order before the market opens. If your conditions are met during the trading day your order will go through and you will buy the shares. This keeps your emotions out of your trading and will stop you from either chasing the market or buying when you consider the wrong time. As you have already done your analysis and made your decision before market open, thus you should place your conditional orders and stop losses before market opens as well.",
"Graphs are nothing but a representation of data. Every time a trade is made, a point is plotted on the graph. After points are plotted, they are joined in order to represent the data in a graphical format. Think about it this way. 1.) Walmart shuts at 12 AM. 2.)Walmart is selling almonds at $10 a pound. 3.) Walmart says that the price is going to reduce to $9 effective tomorrow. 4.) You are inside the store buying almonds at 11:59 PM. 5.) Till you make your way up to the counter, it is already 12:01 AM, so the store is technically shut. 6.) However, they allow you to purchase the almonds since you were already in there. 7.) You purchase the almonds at $9 since the day has changed. 8.) So you have made a trade and it will reflect as a point on the graph. 9.) When those points are joined, the curves on the graph will be created. 10.) The data source is Walmart's system as it reflects the sale to you. ( In your case the NYSE exchange records this trade made). Buying a stock is just like buying almonds. There has to be a buyer. There has to be a seller. There has to be a price to which both agree. As soon as all these conditions are met, and the trade is made, it is reflected on the graph. The only difference between the graphs from 9 AM-4 PM, and 4 PM-9 AM is the time. The trade has happened regardless and NYSE(Or any other stock exchange) has recorded it! The graph is just made from that data. Cheers.",
"During the 12 plus hours the market was closed news can change investors opinion of the stock. When the market reopens that first trade could be much different than the last trade the day before.",
"In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.",
"The Limit Order are matched based on amount and time. The orders are listed Highest to Lowest on the Buy Side. The orders are listed Lowest to Highest on the Sell Side. If there are 2 Sell orders for same amount the order which is first in time [fractions of milliseconds] is first. The about is the example as to how the orders would look like on any exchange. Now the highest price the buyer is ready to pay is 20.21 and the lowest price a seller is ready to sell for is 20.25. Hence there is no trade. Now if a new Buy order comes in at 20.25, it matches with the sell and the deal is made. If a new Buy order comes in at 20.30, it still matches at 20.25. Similarly if a Sell order come in at 20.21, it matches and a deal is made. If a Sell order come in at 20.11, it still matches 20.21. Incase of market order, with the above example if there is a Buy order, it would match with the lowest sell order at 20.25, if there is not enough quantity , it would match the remaining quantity to the next highest at 20.31 and continue down. Similarly if there is a Sell market order, the it would match to the maximum a seller is ready to buy, ie 20.21, if there is not sufficient buy quantity at 20.21, it will match with next for 20.19 If say there are new buy order at 20.22 and sell orders at 20.24, these will sit first the the above queue to be matched. In your above example the Lowest Sell order was at 20.10 at time t1 and hence any buy order after time t1 for amount 20.10 or greater would match to this and the price would be 20.10. However if the Buy order was first ie at t1 there was a buy order for 20.21 and then at time later than t1, there is a sell order for say 20.10 [amount less than or equal to 20.21] it would match for 20.21. Essentially the market looks at who was the first to sell at lower price or who was the first to buy at higher price and then decide the trade. Edit [To Clarify xyz]: Say if there is an Sell order at $10 Qty 100. There is a buyer who is willing to pay Max $20 and is looking for Qty 500. Your key assumption that the Buyer does not know the current SELL price of $10 is incorrect. Now there are multiple things, the Buyer knows the lowest Sell order is at $10, he can put a matching Buy order at $10 Qty 100, and say $11 Qty 100 etc. This is painful. Second, lets say he puts a Buy order at $10 Qty 100, by the time the order hits the system someone else has put the trade at $10 and his order is fulfilled. So this buyer has to keep looking at booking and keep making adjustments, if its a large order, it would be extremely difficult and frustrating for this Buyer. Hence the logic of giving preference. The later Buy order says ... The Max I can pay is $20, match eveything at the current price and get the required shares.",
"The next day the market opens trading at 10.50, You haven't specified whether you limit order for $10.10 is to buy or sell. When the trading opens next day, it follows the same process of matching the orders. So if you have put a limit order to buy at $10.10 and there is no sell order at that price, your trade will not go through. If you have placed a limit sell order at $10.10 and there is a buyer at or higher price, it would go through. The Open price is the price of the first trade of the day.",
"\"The shares available to short are a portion of those shares held by the longs. This number is actually much easier to determine outside of active trading hours, but either way doesn't really impact the matter at hand since computers are pretty good at counting things. If your broker is putting up obstacles to your issuing sell short limit orders in the pre-market then there is likely some other reason (maybe they reserve that function to \"\"premium\"\" account holders?)\"",
"If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.",
"[Brute Force](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack) Sending random hits to a server over and over again. Three order books. One happens earlier, the other two simultaneously. Bid ABT 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid APPL 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid AET 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid ACT 105.00x1000 **Filled** The aforementioned happens before all else. Act's current value is 100.01.* Ask Act 100.00x1000 **Limit order denied** Ask Act 109.00x1000 **Filled** The third order book is simply testing the waters to see what the guy making the ask is willing to pay. *As well as all the cancelled orders, for the illustration.",
"\"I place a trade, a limit order on a thinly traded stock. I want to buy 1000 shares at $10. The current price is $10.50. Someone places a market order for 500 shares. Another trader has a limit order for $10.10 for 400 shares. His order fills, and I get 100 at my price. I wait another day to see if I get any more shares. This is just an example of how it can work. I can place my order as \"\"all or none\"\" if I wish to avoid this.\"",
"Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).",
"First you will need a plan stating three main points: You will have to decide what criteria you will use to answer these points. You might use Fundamental Analysis to find what to buy and Technical Analysis to decide when to buy and when to sell (your buy and sell triggers). Once you have a Trading Plan in place you would need to find a broker with conditional orders. You can place conditional buy orders to get in a trade (for example if the price moves above or below a target price). You can place conditional stop loss orders if your trade goes against you, and you can also place conditional profit target stops to automatically get out if rises to your desired profit target. You can place one, two or many conditional orders after hours which will enable you to trade without being in front of your screen all day long.",
"Buying stocks is like an auction. Put in the price you want to pay and see if someone is willing to sell at that price. Thing to remember about after hours trading; There is a lot less supply so there's always a larger bid/ask price spread. That's the price brokers charge to handle the stocks they broker over and above the fee. That means you will always pay more after the market closes. Unless it is bad news, but I don't think you want to buy when that happens. I think a lot of the after market trading is to manipulate the market. Traders drive up the price overnight with small purchases then sell their large holdings when the market opens.",
"Your order may or may not be executed. The price of stock can open anywhere. Often yesterday's close is a good indication of today's open, but with a big event overnight, the open may be somewhere quite different. You'll have to wait and see like the rest of us. Also, even if it doesn't execute at the open, the price could vary during the day and it might execute later.",
"There isn't a formula like that, there is only the greed of other market participants, and you can try to predict how greedy those participants will be. If someone decided to place a sell order of 100,000 shares at $5, then you can buy an additional 100,000 shares at $5. In reality, people can infer that they might be the only ones trying to sell 100,000 shares right then, and raise the price so that they make more money. They will raise their sell order to $5.01, $5.02 or as high as they want, until people stop trying to buy their shares. It is just a non-stop auction, just like on ebay.",
"No, it's not even remotely accurate in the current sense. Both markets have counterparties directly executing against one another, and both have auctions. The auction mechanics are different (with NYSE's Specialist/DMM model) but during normal market hours there isn't much difference.",
"I deleted my previous comment. Here's an illustration: Let's say you're betting in a horse race. This horse race allows anyone who's willing to take bets during the race to do so. So you bet on horse A Another guy bets on horse B Your horse (a) runs the race normally. The guy on horse B, however, notices his horse will lose but that C is going to win. So he sends a bunch of his friends to the ticket counter ahead of time. Then, when he wants to be on C he just has a friend bet for him. He can do that while you're stuck at the back of the line. In the market, they can distribute the orders among each other in the same way. The friends are just servers but they let everyone know when the orders are coming in. They don't know before he places the order but once he does they're already in line faster than you can be in line.",
"It looks like GOOG did not have a pre-market trade until 7:14 am ET, so Google Finance was still reporting the last trade it had, which was in the after-hours session yesterday. FB, on the other hand, was trading like crazy after-hours yesterday and pre-market today as it had an earnings report yesterday.",
"I don't have all the answers. On a illiquid stock, such situations do arise and there are specific mechanisms used by exchanges to match the order. It is generally not advisable to use market order on illiquid stock. There are lots of different variations here. I guess this comes down to specifications for individual exchanges, but I'm wondering if there's a standard here or a way to approach it from basic rules that clears up all these situations. There are quite a few variations and different treatments. Market order that are placed when the market is closed or just around market opening are traded at Market Open price that each exchange has a formulae to calculate. In the process Market Buy are matched to Market Sell at the Exchange calculated price. Not all order get matched and there could be spill over's. These are then matched to limit orders. Is this determined based on which sell order came first, or based on which would result in the best deal for the incoming buyer? Generally Market orders have highest priority of execution.",
"\"People must simply be willing to match your orders if they know about it. You can sniff orders out if you can see them or predict them. For instance, you can look at an order book and decide who you want to get filled at, especially if you are looking at different quotes from different exchanges. So you can get a \"\"better\"\" fill just by looking at what someone is willing to pay to enter/exit their order as well as what exchange they placed their order through, and send an order to that specific exchange to match them. You (or a program) can just watch the level 2's and place an order as soon as you see one you like. The orders on the level2's do not reveal ALL interested market participants. Also many brokers have difficulty updating options quotes. Finally, options & market volatility can inflate or decrease the price of options by large percentages very quickly.\"",
"\"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"",
"Most stocks are not actively trades by lots of people. When you buy or sell a stock the price is set by the “order book” – that is the other people looking to trade in the given stock at the same time. Without a large number of active traders, it is very likely the pricing system will break down and result in widely changing prices second by second. Therefore for the market to work well, it need most people to be trading at the same time.",
"That's true. So instead, they brute force the exchange with buy orders before they know if there's even any demand for the equity. Most of these get cancelled. If they see someone else placing a large buy order, they let theirs go through and do not cancel. They meet the ask and get the order because they don't care about getting the best deal. The buy order the HFT sent through is for the entire book. The HFT can then demand the highest price possible. After that, they dump the unsought portion of the book back into the market. Regulation have cracked down on this practice. However, that just means HFT have decided to build their own exchanges. The HFT buy order was placed before they even knew there was anyone else looking for the same buy.",
"In simple terms, this is how the shares are traded, however most of the times market orders are placed. Consider below scenario( hypothetical scenario, there are just 2 traders) Buyer is ready to buy 10 shares @ 5$ and seller is ready to sell 10 shares @ 5.10$, both the orders will remain in open state, unless one wish to change his price, this is an example of limit order. Market orders If seller is ready to sell 10 shares @ 5$ and another 10 shares @5.05$, if buyer wants to buy 20 shares @ market price, then the trade will be executed for 10 shares @ 5$ and another 10 shares @ 5.05$",
"They are not required to fulfill the trade that they have intended to execute. They are able to cancel or modify the trade at any point. Example: This is how insiders are able to manipulate the price of shares through there buying and selling intentions. A CEO would be able to disclose a buy order for a month from now, or whatever time period is required. This would most likely increase the price of the stock as investors would see this as a good sign of company performance. Up until the point when the buy order is scheduled to execute the CEO can then cancel the order and create a new sell order. Since the stock is high in price, his new order is likely to make him money based on the manipulation from his trading intentions. I am not an expert on the subject and only know as much as I do through personal research. Here is an interesting article about this kind of insider trading and manipulation:http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/the-fine-line-between-legal-and-illegal-insider-trading/?_r=0",
"\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,[email protected]), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"",
"\"Trading on specific ECNs is the easy part - you simply specify the order routing in advance. You are not buying or selling the *exact* same shares. Shares are fungible - so if I simultaneously buy one share and sell another share, my net share position is zero - even if those trades don't settle until T+3. PS \"\"The Nasdaq\"\" isn't really an exchange in the way that the CME, or other order-driven markets are. It's really just a venue to bring market makers together. It's almost like \"\"the internet,\"\" as in, when you buy something from Amazon, you're not buying it from \"\"the internet,\"\" but it was the internet that made your transaction with Amazon possible.\"",
"\"Well, they don't have to enter a market order. I was just saying that for your benefit. In practice what will really happen is they'll say to themselves \"\"I want ABC for no more than 70.00\"\" The current bid is at 69.60 They'll use a limit order on 10,000 shares. If anyone offers them more than 70.00 the computer program they're using will not accept. However, the shares won't be bought all at once. A limit order for 10,000 shares will be spit into 1,000 shares at 69.70 and 10,000 for 69.65 The HFT can then make a reasonable guess someone is buying in bulk. So then the HFT sends out a sell order saying \"\"10 shares at 70.10\"\". The guy doesn't want that so they do it over again at 70.09 Eventually they notice when the guy accepts at 70.00 So now they knew this guy is willing to pay that. Then HFT buys all the shares they can. ALL SHARES, not just the amount the guy wants. They buy it all at 69.95, which is higher than the 69.70 the guy just paid or whatever. They then sell it all back to the guy at 70.00 The guy has no choice because all the shares are now gone. He has to pay his highest price. Once the guy gets his order the HFT just dumps the rest of the shares back at the price they bought them at. edit: Another way to pull this off is to just literally build your own exchange. Then you can do all of this without any clever tricks. You can just outright give yourself preference over everyone else because you can truly decide what order the trades are being executed.\"",
"There are a couple of things you could do, but it may depend partly on the type of orders your broker has available to you. Firstly, if you are putting your limit order the night before after close of market at the top of the bids, you may be risking missing out if bid & offer prices increase by the time the market opens the next day. On the other hand, if bid & offer prices fall at the open of the next day you should get your order filled at or below your limit price. Secondly, you could be available at the market open to see if prices are going up or down and then work out the price you want to buy at then and work out the quantity you can buy at that price. I personally don't like this method because you usually get too emotional, start chasing the market if prices start rising, or start regretting buying at a price and prices fall straight afterwards. My preferred method is this third option. If your broker provides stop orders you can use these to both get into and out of the market. How they work when trying to get into the market is that once you have done your analysis and picked a price that you would want to purchase at, you put a stop buy order in. For example, the price closed at $9.90 the previous day and there has been resistance at $10.00, so you would put a stop buy trigger if the price goes over $10, say $10.01. If your stop buy order gets triggered you can have either a buy market order or a limit order above $10.01 (say $10.02). The market order would go through immediately whilst the limit order would only go through if the price continues going to $10.02 or above. The advantage of this is that you don't get emotional trying to buy your securities whilst sitting in front of the screen, you do your analysis and set your prices whilst the market is closed, you only buy when the security is rising (not falling). As your aim is to be in long term you shouldn't be concerned about buying a little bit higher than the previous days close. On the other hand if you try and buy when the price is falling you don't know when it will stop falling. It is better to buy when the price shows signs of rising rather than falling (always follow the trend).",
"\"The simple answer is, there are many ways for trades to take place. Some systems use order-matching software that employs proprietary algorithms for deciding the order of processing, others use FIFO structures, and so on. Some brokerages may fill customer orders out of their own accounts (which happens more frequently than you might imagine), and others put their orders into the system for the market makers to handle. There's no easy all-encompassing answer to your question, but it's still a good one to ask. By the way, asking if the market is \"\"fair\"\" is a bit naive, because fairness depends on what side of the trade you came out on! (grin) If your limit order didn't get filled and you missed out on an opportunity, that's always going to seem unfair, right?\"",
"Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day.",
"\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"",
"This is too lengthy for a comment. The following quoted passages are excerpted from this Money SE post. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. No. The NYSE and AMEX were deep, liquid and transparent for nearly 75 years prior to high frequency trading (HFT), in 2000 or so. The same is true for NASDAQ, but not for as many years, as NASDAQ is newer, being an electronic market. The point is that it existed, and thrived, prior to HFT. The NASDAQ can be active and functional, WITH or WITHOUT high frequency trading. This is not historically true, nor is it true now: Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade... Market makers, also known as specialists, were responsible for hitting the bid and taking the offer on whatever security they covered. They had a responsibility assigned to them by the exchange. Yes, it was lucrative! There was risk, and they were rewarded for bearing it. There is a trade-off though. Specialists provided greater stability on a systemic level, although other market participants paid for that cost. Prior to HFT, traders who were not market makers were often bounded by, boxed in, by the toll paid to market makers. Market makers had different, much higher capital and solvency requirements than other traders. Most specialists/market makers had seats, or shared a seat on the NYSE or AMEX. Remember that market makers/specialists are specific to stock markets, whereas HFT is not. If this is true, then we are in trouble: HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker Why? Because trading volume is LOWER now than it was in the 1990's! EDIT In the comments, I noticed that OP was asking about the difference between I suggest reading this very accurate, well-written answer to a related question, The spread goes to the market maker, is the market maker the exchange? That explains the difference between",
"In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"The futures market trades 24 hours a day, 5.5 days a week. S&P 500 futures market continues trading, and this gives pricing exposure and influences the individual stocks when they resume trading in US session.",
"Is it possible that mutual funds account for a significant portion of this volume. Investors may decide to buy or sell anytime within a 24 hour period, but the transaction only happened at the close of the market. Therefore at 3:59 pm the mutual fund knows if they will be buying or selling stocks that day. As nws pointed out the non-market hours are longer and therefore accumulate more news event. Some financial news is specifically given during the time the market is closed. Therefore the reaction to that news has to either be in the morning when the market opens or in the late afternoon if they are trying to anticipate the news. Also in the US market the early morning trader may be reacting to European market activities.",
"A stock's price does not move in a completely continuous fashion. It moves in discrete steps depending on who is buying/selling at given prices. I'm guessing that by opening bell the price for buying/selling a particular stock has changed based on information obtained overnight. A company's stock closes at $40. Overnight, news breaks that the company's top selling product has a massive defect. The next morning the market opens. Are there any buyers of the stock at $40? Probably not. The first trade of the stock takes place at $30 and is thus, not the same as the previous day's close.",
"At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)",
"I have heard of this, but then the broker is short the shares if they weren't selling them out of inventory, so they still want to accumulate the shares or a hedge before EOD most likely - In that case it may not be the client themselves, but that demand is hitting the market at some point if there isn't sufficient selling volume. Whether or not the broker ends up getting all of them below VWAP is a cost of marketing for them, how they expect to reliably get real size below vwap is my question.",
"\"During market hours, there are a lot of dealers offering to buy and sell all exchange traded stocks. Dealers don't actually care about the company's fundamentals and they set their prices purely based on order flow. If more people start to buy than sell, the dealer notices his inventory going down and starts upping the price (both his bid and ask). There are also traders who may not be \"\"dealers\"\", but are willing to sell if the price goes high enough or buy if the price goes low enough. This keeps the prices humming along smoothly. During normal trading hours, if you buy something and turn around and sell it two minutes later, you'll probably be losing a couple cents per share. Outside normal market hours, the dealers who continue to have a bid and ask listed know that they don't have access to good price information -- there isn't a liquid market of continuous buying and selling for the dealer to set prices he considers safe. So what does he do? He widens the spread. He doesn't know what the market will open tomorrow at and doesn't know if he'll be able to react quickly to news. So instead of bidding $34.48 and offering at $34.52, he'll move that out to $33 and $36. The dealer still makes money sometimes off this because maybe some trader realized that he has options expiring tomorrow, or a short position that he's going to get a margin call on, or some kind of event that pretty much forces him to trade. Or maybe he's just panicking and overreacting to some news. So why not trade after hours? Because there's no liquidity, and trading when there's no liquidity costs you a lot.\"",
"\"You can interpret prices in any way you wish, but the commonly quoted \"\"price\"\" is the last price traded. If your broker routes those orders, unlikely because they will be considered \"\"unfair\"\" and will probably be busted by the exchange, the only way to drive the price to the heights & lows in your example is to have an overwhelming amount of quantity relative to the order book. Your orders will hit the opposing limit orders until your quantity is exhausted, starting from the best price to the worst price. This is the functional equivalent to a market order.\"",
"Depending on your strategy, it could be though there is also something to be said for what kind of order are you placing: Market, limit or otherwise? Something else to consider is whether or not there is some major news that could cause the stock/ETF to gap at the open. For example, if a company announces strong earnings then it is possible for the stock to open higher than it did the previous day and so a market order may not to take into account that the stock may jump a bit compared to the previous close. Limit orders can be useful to put a cap on how much you'll pay for a stock though the key would be to factor this into your strategy of when do you buy.",
"That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up.",
"I would say it's a bit more complicated than that. Do you understand what a market maker does? An ECN (electronic communication network) is a virtual exchange that works with market makers. Using a rebate structure that works by paying for orders adding liquidity and charges a fee for removing liquidity. So liquidity is created by encouraging what are essentially limit orders, orders that are outside of the current market price and therefore not immediately executable. These orders stay in the book and are filled when the price of the security moves and triggers them. So direct answer is NYSE ARCA is where market makers do their jobs. These market makers can be floor traders or algorithmic. When you send an order through your brokerage, your broker has a number of options. Your order can be sent directly to an ECN/exchange like NYSE ARCA, sent to a market making firm like KCG Americas (formerly Knight Capital), or internalized. Internalization is when the broker uses an in house service to execute your trade. Brokerages must disclose what they do with orders. For example etrade's. https://content.etrade.com/etrade/powerpage/pdf/OrderRouting11AC6.pdf This is a good graphic showing what happens in general along with the names of some common liquidity providers. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-20/how-your-buy-order-gets-filled",
"But how does the quantity matching happen? For example, if I want to buy 1000 shares at $100, but there is only one seller to sell 10 shares at $100, what happens then? This depends on the type of order you've placed. If you placed a fill-or-kill order, your order to buy or sell a certain number of shares is routed to the trading floor for immediate execution. If the order cannot be immediately filled, it is cancelled (killed) automatically. Note that the order must be filled in its entirety. Partial fills are not allowed. In your example, your buy order wouldn't be filled because it couldn't be matched to a sell order of the same volume. This is similar to an all-or-none order, which is an order that contains A condition instructing the broker to fill the order completely or not at all. If there is insufficient supply to meet the quantity requested by the order then it is canceled at the close of the market. In this case, if your order wasn't matched to an order of the same volume by the time the market closes, it's cancelled. If you simply placed a market/limit order, and (in the case of the limit order), part of your order was matched to another order with the right price, that part of your order will be filled, while the rest will remained unfilled.",
"When there is a difference between the two ... no trading occurs. Let's look at an example: Investor A, B, C, and D all buy/sell shares of company X. Investor A wants to sell 10 shares at $20 a share (Ask price $20 x10). Investor B wants to buy 15 shares at $10 a share (Bid price $10 x15). Since the bid price and ask price are different, no sale is made. Next Investor C comes along and wants to sell 5 shares at $14 (Ask price $14 x5). Still no sale. Investor D comes along and wants to buy 5 shares for $14 each. So a sale is finally made. At this point, the stock quote moves to $14. The ask price is $20 x10 and the bid price is $10 x15. No further trading will occur until another investor is willing to buy at $20 or sell at $10. Another discussion of this topic is shown on this post.",
"\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"",
"Market Makers are essentially just there to process the buys and sells of traders, so just like you and I buy and sell at the ask and bid prices they do to. They are just completing the process of making our orders a reality. Market makers are just representative of brokers, meaning that when you place your order at ask or bid, you are placing that particular brokers order at ask or bid. People often say that certain brokers have too many shares and claim that they are games when really that just means that there happen to be a lot of people using a particular broker all at once, or more troubling, perhaps even company execs using a broker, to sell a large amount of shares.",
"You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.",
"\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\"",
"Because someone smarter than you by 50 IQ points (a quant) will depart their larger position long before you have a chance to see it coming. Your stop losses are useless as the market will open with the issue below your sell price. Your trade even if place at the same mine would settle after theirs. don't piss in the tall grass with the big dogs. If they are wrong or right does not matter you will be haircut or whipsawed.",
"The order book looks fine, if it were a liquid market. However, a bid that matches with an ask will always be met on a first come first serve basis. There's no other way to do it. Most traders don't like doing that because they want to try to get a lower price. HFT don't have to worry about meeting the ask because they're just going to pass that cost on to the guy on the hook. By the time the HFT makes the buy they already know the guy wants to buy at 70.00 They did not know that at the time they placed the buy order. If the buy order from the HFT hasn't been cancelled it means they already found someone. How? By testing the market with sell orders at the same time they were sending buy orders. They keep a little bit of stock in reserve to perform these tests.",
"During a circuit breaker, no trading occurs. These policies have been implemented to maintain exchange liquidity since the NYSE nearly went bankrupt during the 1987 crash because many members had become insolvent. If an order is filled before the halt, it will stand unless busted. During the Flash Crash, many orders were busted.",
"You can have a pretty good guess by looking at price pattern and order flow (size of the trades) a) price should be traded in a range b) relatively large size orders, speed.",
"More on a technical note, but the spread on an ETF tends to be worst at market open and near market close. (assuming the ETF constituents are traded on a synchronous basis.) If possible, it's often best to let market makers get up and running before allowing your order to flow into market.",
"\"Exchange A has 100 shares of a stock at $10, the next 100 shares cost $10.01. Exchange B has the same pricing structure. A fund manager wants to buy 200 shares of the stock, and decides that buying 100 shares at $10 from each exchange will be cheaper than staying in one exchange and paying $10.01 for the second half of his order. The manager places two separate orders. Let's say the first order reaches exchange A, and the trade executes at $10. Traders (algorithms) on exchange B see this happen, and adjust their price up to $10.01 accordingly. Now, when the manager's order reaches exchange B, there will no longer be any shares trading at $10. Some people say that this is front running, but if the manager only wanted 100 shares, the price would have still shifted. Some say this creates a more efficient market with tighter spreads due to the decreased risk to the market maker, but it also means the aggregate bid-ask offers across multiple exchanges are not necessarily accurate, creating a \"\"false liquidity\"\". You can decide for yourself whether or not this is a good thing.\"",
"Not that I am aware. There are times that an option is available, but none have traded yet, and it takes a request to get a bid/ask, or you can make an offer and see if it's accepted. But the option chain itself has to be open.",
"\"Often these types of trades fall into two different categories. An error by broker or exchange. Exchange clearing out part of their books incorrectly is an example. Most exchanges make firms reopen their positions for after market hours. There may have been an issue doing so or exchange could incorrectly cancel positions. I was in the direct feed industry for years and this was a big issue. At the same time the broker can issue a no limit buy on accident (or has software that is prospecting and said software has a bug or written poorly). unscrupulous parties looking to feign an upswing or downswing in market. Let's say you hold 500k shares in a stock that sells for $11. You could possibly buy 100 shares for $13. Trust me you will find a seller. Then you are hoping that people see that trade as a \"\"norm\"\" and trade from there, allowing you to rake in $1M for spending an extra $200 - NOTE this is not normal and an extreme example. This was so common in the early days of NASDAQ after hours that they discontinued using the after hours trades as part of historical information that they keep like daily/yearly high or closing price. The liquidity allows for manipulation. It isn't seen as much now since this has been done a million times but it does still happen.\"",
"You said the decision will be made by EOD. If you've made the decision prior to the market close, I'd execute on the closing price. If you are trading stocks with any decent volume, I'd not worry about the liquidity. If your strategy's profits are so small that your gains are significantly impacted by say, the bid/ask spread (a penny or less for liquid stocks) I'd rethink the approach. You'll find the difference between the market open and prior night close is far greater than the normal bid/ask.",
"Double check with your broker, but if a series isn't open yet for trading, you can't trade it. If there is a series trading without open interest (rare), simply work your open, as options are created at trade. If you have enough money, do this https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/21839/list-of-cflex-2-0-brokers",
"\"Nobody has mentioned the futures market yet. Although the stock market closes at 4pm, the futures market continues trading 24 hours a day and 5.5 days a week. Amongst the products that trade in the future market are stock index futures. That includes the Dow Jones, the S&P 500. These are weighted averages of stocks and their sectors. You would think that the price of the underlying stock dictates the price of the average, but in this day and age, the derivative actually changes the value of the underlying stock due to a very complex combination of hedging practices. (this isn't meant to be vague and mysterious, it is \"\"delta hedging\"\") So normal market fluctuations coupled with macroeconomic events affect the futures market, which can ripple down to individual stocks. Very popular stocks with large market caps will most certainly be affected by futures market trading. But it is also worth mentioning that futures can function completely independently of a \"\"spot\"\" price. This is where things start to get complicated and long winded. The futures market factor is worth mentioning because it extends even outside of the aftermarket and pre-market hours of stock trading.\"",
"You typically need to specify that you want the GTC order to be working during the Extended hours session. I trade on TD Ameritrade's Thinkorswim platform, and you can select DAY, GTC, EXT or GTC_EXT. So in your case, you would select GTC_EXT.",
"Ethereum trades are not subject to the same rules as securities are. Thats the primary flaw in your assessment. Yes, cryptocurrency is a free trading arena where you can actually take advantage of market inefficiencies yourself 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at massive profits. The equity securities markets are not like that, and can't be used as a comparison. If you have a preference for flexibility, then it is already clear which markets work better for you. Market makers can make stub quotes, brokers can easily block their retail customers from doing it themselves. Even the dubious market manipulation excuse is reference to a sanction exclusive to the equity markets. The idea that it went through a week earlier probably triggered the compliance review. Yes, a broker can refuse to place your limit order.",
"But what about the following scenario which is my paraphrasing of a Nanex article (I'm hoping you can help clarify this for me). 1. I observe a 1,000 lot @$10 advertised for Sell on a lit exchange. 2. I try to lift the 1,000 by placing a limit order @10. 3. My order goes through some kind of order routing process. First, 3 orders get executed on a dark pool. Let's say I got a 50 lot filled (so available offer reduces to 950). 4. My order hits a lit exchange. I get a partial fill for 100 (offer shrinks to 850); but the offered size shrinks instead to 500. Or 0. 5. Now, in order to execute my trade, I will have to take a higher price than the original advertised liquidity. My question (maybe you can answer this) is why did my original order size of 1,000 appear in smaller blocks? Is this because the order routing algorithm breaks up the size? Or is it that market makers only post offers in small block sizes (e.g. 100) So even if the order book looked like: 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 All the way to 1,000 total -- as soon as the first 100 shares were lifted, the MM can immediately cancel the remainder of the advertised liquidity -- in practical terms making it impossible to execute large orders at an advertised price.",
"\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"",
"\"If the price used to be 2.50 but by the time you get in an order it's 2.80, you're going to have to pay 2.80. You can't say, \"\"I want to buy it at the price from an hour ago\"\". If you could, everybody would wait for the price to go up, then buy at the old price and have an instant guaranteed profit. Well, except that when you tried to sell, I suppose the buyer could say, \"\"I want to pay the lower price from last July\"\". So no, you always buy or sell at the current price. If you submit an order after the markets close, your broker should buy the stock for you as soon as possible the next morning. There's no strict queue. There are thousands of brokers out there, they don't take turns. So if your broker has 1000 orders and you are number 1000 on his list, while some other broker has 2 orders and number 1 is someone else wanting to buy the same stock, then even if you got your order in first, the other guy will probably get the first buy. LIFO and FIFO refer to any sort of list or queue, but don't really make sense here. When the market opens a broker has a list of orders he received overnight, which he might think of as a queue. He presumably works his way down the list. But whether he follows a strict and simple first-in-first-out, or does biggest orders first, or does buys for stocks he expects to go up today and sells for stocks he expects to go down today first, or what, I don't know. Does anybody on this forum know, are there rules that say brokers have to go through the overnight orders FIFO, or what is the common practice?\"",
"Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.",
"The NYSE is not the only exchange in the world (or even the only one in the USA). Amazingly, the London stock exchange works on London time, the Shanghai exchange works on Shanghai time and the Australian stock exchange works on Sydney time. In addition futures exchanges work overnight.",
"One of the fundamental of technical analysis suggests that holding a security overnight represents a huge commitment. Therefore it would follow that traders would tend to close their positions prior to market close and open them when it opens.",
"No, Mark is right, if you place a market order there will always be someone to buy or sell at the market price. Only if you place a limit order on the price can it not sell or be bought. Just research on your computer and you will find your answer. You must be specify about open order or limit order when asking.",
"> we make a trade-off between time to execute and market impact. Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. > we will join the bid for some fraction of our size, and also hit the offer when it looks like the price might be moving away from us So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? > In some certain situations we will even sweep the book several levels deep to avoid tipping off market makers and having them adjust in anticipation of the rest of our order. Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... I have a few other questions I would appreciate your insight on. Just trying to ascertain how orders are filled when, as you put it, time is more important than market impact to the client - when they need to take a large amount of liquidity as quickly as possible and as orderly as possible. Let me know if you'd rather I pm you about this or the additional questions, I work in the industry as well so I know privacy is paramount.",
"Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction.",
"You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer.",
"One other issue you may face is when the company announces poor financial results and begins to tank, you will not be able to sell until the US market open and could incur a lot of pain.",
"\"You can choose to place successively lower buy limit orders, but whether they get filled or not is not a given; it depends on whether sellers care to accept your bid. In your example of a 49.98 / 50.01 spread, if you place a buy with limit of 49.99, it won't get filled (if the order reaches the market while still at 49.98 / 50.01) immediately, but will be added to the order book. By being added to the order book, the markets bid and ask become 49.99 / 50.01. Your order won't get filled until some seller places a market order or a sell limit order of 49.99 or less. No guarantee that that will happen, and even if it does, there's nothing to say that your follow-up buy at 49.98 will ever be filled. In fact, your 49.98 buy order queues up at the \"\"end of the line\"\" behind all previously pending 49.98 bids, since your order arrived after those other bids. Since the initial conditions you supposed had a 49.98 bid, such an order exists (or at least did exist; it might have been cancelled in the intervening moment. Basically, your first buy at 49.99, if it happens, has essentially no influence on whether your second buy at 49.98 will happen. You can't expect to move the market lower by making a bid that is higher (49.99) than the existing best bid (49.98). Whatever influence your 49.99 order has is to raise the market's price, not lower it.\"",
"If #2 is how it really worked I would approve. In the real world, entities who have the money to purchase access have systems which are in a position to execute strategies which shave pennies of of people who want to make real trades. I want to sell for $61.15 and someone wants to buy for $61.10 and the HFT traders force both hands and make their money on that nickel in between us.",
"\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"",
"You want to sell for 61.15, but the most the best buyer will pay is 61.10? The HFT trader forces you both to trade over a gap of a nickel AND makes a nickel in profit?? How does he do that, with magic?",
"As far as i understand the big companies on the stock markets have automated processes that sit VERY close to the stock feeds and continually processes these with the intention of identifying an opportunity to take multiple small lots and buy/sell them as a big lot or vice/versa and do this before a buy or sell completes, thus enabling them to intercept the trade and make a small profit on the delta. With enough of these small gains on enough shares they make big profits and with near zero chance of losing.",
"If you're talking about an ETF trading on Arca, it's probably because of the opening auction: The match price is the price that maximizes the volume that can be executed within the Auction Collars. The Core Open Auction will use the match price closest to the closing price of the previous trading day (based on normal market hours) if more than one indicative match price is valid. The core opening auction doesn't really take the opening session activity into account, as you can see - the market runs an auction and whatever price clears the most volume, within certain limits, is the opening print.",
"Stop order is triggered when the market reaches the price you set. Until then - its not on the books. Your understanding is wrong in that you don't go to read the definition of the term.",
"\"In the first situation you describe, any intelligent routing algo will send a 1000 lot order to the lit exchange in step 1. Then you get filled 1000@$10. After the fill occurs, the matching engine tells everyone what happened. If the order book consists of 100 orders of 1 lot @ $10, and you place a \"\"buy 100 lots\"\" order, here is what happens: 1. The matching engine receives your order. 2. The matching engine matches your order against the 100 individual orders on the book. 3. The matching engine broadcasts 100 trade notifications. No one has any opportunity to cancel their orders since they only hear of the fill after it happened. The only way someone would have the opportunity to cancel is if there was 500 lots on one exchange and 500 on another. Then someone might observe a trade on exchange #1 and cancel their sell order on exchange #2 in response.\"",
"\"If you read the first sentence of the article, you'll notice that the orders were placed, then canceled. The only reason this is done is to front run real incoming orders and get in. \"\"Translation: the ultimate goal of many of these programs is to gum up the system so it slows down the quote feed to others and allows the computer traders (with their co-located servers at the exchanges) to gain a money-making arbitrage opportunity.\"\" If you are an investor without access to floor space within 3 meters of the exchange computer to place a computer of your own, you are being defrauded of the true market price by this machine.\"",
"\"My original answer contained a fundamental error: it turns out that it is not true that any exchange can create its own product to track any underlying index. If the underlying index is copyrighted (such as the S&P indices, Russell indices, Dow Jones indices, etc.) then the exchange must enter into a licensing agreement (usually exclusive) with the copyright holder in order to use the index's formula (and name). Without such a license the exchange would only be able to approximate the underlying index, and I don't think that happens very much (because how would you market such a product?). The CME offers several futures (and other derivatives) whose face value is equivalent to some multiple of the S&P500's value on the date when the product expires. When such a product is actively traded, it may serve as a reasonable indicator of the \"\"market\"\"'s expectation of the S&P500's future value. So, you could pay attention to the front month of the CME's S&P 500 Mini future, which trades from 17:00-16:00 Chicago time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But remember that the prices quoted there are As another example, if you care about the Russell 2000 index, until 2017 the ICE Exchange happened to hold the license for its derivatives. They traded from 20:00-17:30 New York time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But in mid-2017 CME bought that license as well, so now you'll want to track it here. Moral: There's almost always some \"\"after hours\"\" product out there tracking whatever index you care about, but you may have to do some digging to find it, and it might not be all that useful for your specific purpose.\"",
"\"Trading at the start of a session is by far higher than at any other time of the day. This is mostly due to markets incorporating news into the prices of stocks. In other words, there are a lot of factors that can affect a stock, 24 hours a day, but the market trades for only 6.5 hours a day. So, a lot of news accumulates during the time when people cannot trade on that news. Then when markets finally open, people are able to finally trade on that news, and there is a lot of \"\"price discovery\"\" going on between market participants. In the last minutes of trading, volumes increase as well. This can often be attributed to certain kinds of traders closing out their position before the end of the day. For example, if you don't want to take the risk a large price movement at the start of the next day affecting you, you would need to completely close your position.\"",
"Stock trades are always between real buyers and real sellers. In thinly-traded small stocks, for example, you may not always be able to find a buyer when you want to sell. For most public companies, there is enough volume that individual investors can just about always fill their market orders.",
"\"For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to \"\"wannabees.\"\" Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their \"\"bid\"\" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first (\"\"sold to the highest bidder\"\"). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their \"\"offer\"\" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a \"\"match\"\" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders.\""
] |
[
"\"First of all, not all brokers allow trading during pre-market and post-market. Some brokers only allow trading during the regular hours (9:30am - 4pm ET). Second of all, while you can place orders using limit orders and market orders during regular trading hours, you can only use limit orders during pre-market and post-market. This is because the liquidity is much lower during pre-market and post-market, and using market orders could result in some trades filling at horrible prices. So brokers don't allow using market orders outside of regular trading hours. Third, some brokers require you to specify that you want your order to be executed during pre-market or post-market. For example, my broker allows me to specify either \"\"Day\"\" or \"\"Ext\"\" for my orders. \"\"Day\"\" means I want my order to execute only during regular trading hours, and \"\"Ext\"\" means I want my order to execute at any time - pre-market, regular trading hours, or post-market. Finally, if your broker allows pre/post market trading, and you place a limit order while specifying \"\"Ext\"\", then your trade can happen in real-time during pre-market or post-market. Per your example, if a stock is trading at $5 at 8am, and you put in a limit order (while specifying \"\"Ext\"\") to buy it at $5 at 8am, then your order will execute at that time and you will buy that stock at 8am.\""
] |
7344
|
How is the Dow divisor calculated?
|
[
"14368",
"108403"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"14368",
"159166",
"378974",
"150430",
"501032",
"253926",
"108403",
"404840",
"305983",
"591089",
"332567",
"369762",
"239137",
"25817",
"96697",
"197480",
"69655",
"412657",
"326125",
"169754",
"392851",
"195089",
"368848",
"531066",
"144005",
"60098",
"288604",
"575237",
"477637",
"386309",
"482871",
"112342",
"215659",
"374330",
"90570",
"138487",
"459351",
"182747",
"408610",
"292805",
"521274",
"29306",
"354857",
"503780",
"33628",
"395437",
"566579",
"379232",
"276860",
"143302",
"559884",
"11184",
"21103",
"576184",
"171645",
"418150",
"457873",
"113150",
"476260",
"197970",
"422904",
"215486",
"589481",
"116675",
"176070",
"65618",
"432642",
"77963",
"313421",
"158523",
"245117",
"61193",
"597653",
"154927",
"165187",
"599651",
"223823",
"249273",
"394151",
"389077",
"243797",
"281841",
"370569",
"373034",
"2810",
"583080",
"402466",
"132219",
"535659",
"162916",
"42390",
"276593",
"532616",
"206727",
"532139",
"573928",
"133943",
"456667",
"89602",
"535697"
] |
[
"Have you actually read the Wikipedia article? To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Early on, the initial divisor was composed of the original number of component companies; which made the DJIA at first, a simple arithmetic average. The present divisor, after many adjustments, is less than one (meaning the index is larger than the sum of the prices of the components). That is: DJIA = sum(p) / d where p are the prices of the component stocks and d is the Dow Divisor. Events such as stock splits or changes in the list of the companies composing the index alter the sum of the component prices. In these cases, in order to avoid discontinuity in the index, the Dow Divisor is updated so that the quotations right before and after the event coincide: DJIA = sum(p_old) / d_old = sum(p_new) / d_new The Dow Divisor was 0.14602128057775 on December 24, 2015.[40] Presently, every $1 change in price in a particular stock within the average, equates to a 6.848 (or 1 ÷ 0.14602128057775) point movement. Knowing the old prices, new prices (e.g. following a split), and old divisor, you can easily compute the new divisor... Edit: Also, the detailed methodology is published by SP Indices (PDF). Edit #2: For simplicity's sake, assume the DJIA is an index that contains 4 stocks, with a price of $100.00 each. One of the stocks splits 2:1, meaning the new price/share is $50.00. Plugging the numbers into the above equation, we can determine the new Dow Divisor: 400 / 4 = 350 / d => d = 3.5",
"The methodology for divisor changes is based on splits and composition changes. Dividends are ignored by the index. Side note - this is why, in my opinion, that any discussion of the Dow's change over a long term becomes meaningless. Ignoring even a 2% per year dividend has a significant impact over many decades. The divisor can be found at http://wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-djiahourly.html",
"Calculation. To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA.",
"The current Dow divisor is in Historical Divisor Changes. The OpenOffice GetQuote function offers fields for current dividend either in dollars or yield.",
"From Wikipedia - To calculate the value of the S&P 500 Index, the sum of the adjusted market capitalization of all 500 stocks is divided by a factor, usually referred to as the Divisor. For example, if the total adjusted market cap of the 500 component stocks is US$13 trillion and the Divisor is set at 8.933 billion, then the S&P 500 Index value would be 1,455.28. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the divisor is not canceling out the units, and the S&P index is dollar denominated even though it's never quoted that way. A case in point is that the S&P is often said to have a P/E, and especially an E, the earnings attributed to one 'unit' of S&P. And if you buy a mutual fund sporting a low expense ratio, you can invest exactly that much money (the current S&P index value) and see the dividends accrue to your account, less the fee.",
"\"The dow jones is an index of 30 stocks that's weighted based on the price per share of these stocks. To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Prices are the result of supply and demand. Demand is defined as simply as \"\"I want this badly enough to pay cash for it\"\", \"\"supply is \"\"I own this and don't want to own it, therefore I'll sell it\"\" When investors go about deciding they'd like to buy some stock from people who own it and are wanting to sell it, a market is generated and a price both are willing to sell/buy at is found. If the price is too high/low, you won't sell or buy. The price has to be \"\"right\"\" based on your own personal valuation. Since these trades are done through an exchange and are so common, literally millions of shares are traded per day, you get the best price available at that moment for your shares. If person A is only willing to give you 100 dollars and person B is willing to give you 100.01, screw person A. I'm selling shares to person B. When this done on a macro-level (millions of shares traded per day) the exchanges will track and make public the \"\"price movement\"\" of what the market is willing to give for each and every publicly traded stock. TLDR: SUPPLY AND DEMAND. DOW USES THEIR OWN METHODS.\"",
"The details of the DJIA methodology is outlined in the official methodology document on their website. In addition, you will need their index mathematics document, which gives the nitty-gritty details of any type of adjustments that must be made. Between the two you should have the complete picture in as fine a detail as you want, including exactly what is done in response to various corporate actions like splits and structural changes.",
"Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.",
"According to Active Equity Management by Zhou and Jain: When a stock pays dividend, the adjusted price in Yahoo makes the following adjustment: Let T be the ex-dividend date (the first date that the buyers of a stock will not receive the dividend) and T-1 be the last trading day before T. All prices before T are adjusted by a multiplier (C_{T-1} - d_T)/C_{T-1}, where C_{T-1} is the close price at T-1 and d_T is the dividend per share. This, of course means that the price before T decreases.",
".INX (the S&P 500 index itself) does not include reinvested dividens. You can figure total return by going to Yahoo finance, historical data. Choose the start year, and end year. You should find that data for SPY (going back to 1993) will show an adjusted close, and takes dividends into account. This isn't perfect as SPY has a .09% expense ratio, but it's better than just the S&P index. One of the more popular Dow ETF is DIA, this will let you similarly track the Dow while accounting for dividends.",
"You simply add the dividend to the stock price when calculating its annual return. So for year one, instead of it would be",
"\"There's no need for an index to have a currency as its purpose is not to act as an asset but rather to signal investors about the performance of a collection of stocks. An index can be price-weighted, meaning that its value equals the (arithmetic) average of the prices of each stock in the index. With no stock splits, the return on this index is the same as the return on a portfolio composed of one share of each stock. If there is a stock split, however instead of dividing by the number of stocks, as you normally would when taking the arithmetic average, you divide it by the number that will make the value of the index pre-stock-split (arithmetic average) equal to the value post stock split. Then use that dividing number for all periods until a new stock split occurs. An index can be value-weighted, meaning that its changes in value track the percentage changes in total market capitalization of the stocks in the index. Price weighted indexes ignore for \"\"firm size\"\" and percentage changes in price weighted indexes are not robust to stock-splits. Value weighted indexes take \"\"firm size\"\" into account and are robust to stock-splits. DJIA is price-weighted. S&P 500 is value-weighted.\"",
"If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price.",
"\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"",
"Technically you should take the quarterly dividend yield as a fraction, add one, take the cube root, and subtract one (and then multiple by the stock price, if you want a dollar amount per share rather than a rate). This is to account for the fact that you could have re-invested the monthly dividends and earned dividends on that reinvestment. However, the difference between this and just dividing by three is going to be negligible over the range of dividend rates that are realistically paid out by ordinary stocks.",
"\"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \"\"per share\"\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\"",
"About 3.87% annualized, actually. But hey, let's get a head start and since the DOW is a price-weighted average, we could swap out the lowest priced stocks on the DOW (i.e. Pfizer and Cisco) with Berkshire Hathaway A shares and Amazon. Presto! The DOW is dumb.",
"Prices are adjusted for return and not payout. So if you take the ratio of the close price and the adjusted close price, it should remain constant. The idea behind a total return (back-)adjustment is to give you a feeling how much money you would have needed back then to reach the price today under the premise that all distributions (dividends, spin-offs, etc.) are reinvested instantly and that reinvestment doesn't cost anything.",
"The share-price weighting of the DJIA is a historical artifact. The DJIA remains share-price weighted today because that's the way it has always been done, and we're talking about an index with more than a hundred years' history. The DJIA was first calculated on May 26, 1896. Perhaps, back then, price-weighting was the most straight-forward & feasible way to calculate it each day. You're right that it doesn't make a lot of sense, and that's why the S&P500 and other indexes are better barometers.",
"\"Good observation. In fact, the S&P index itself is guilty of not including dividends. So when you look at the index alone, the delta between any two points in time diverges, and the 20 return observed if one fails to include dividends is meaningless, in my my humble opinion. Yahoo finance will let you look at a stock ticker and offer you an \"\"adjusted close\"\" to include the dividend effect.\"",
"So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells.",
"Willis Group Holdings Set to Join the S&P 500; Fossil Group to Join S&P MidCap 400; Adeptus Health to Join S&P SmallCap 600 notes in part for the S & P case: Willis Group Holdings plc (NYSE:WSH) will replace Fossil Group Inc. (NASD:FOSL) in the S&P 500, and Fossil Group will replace Towers Watson & Co. (NASD:TW) in the S&P MidCap 400 after the close of trading on Monday, January 4. Willis Group is merging with Towers Watson in a deal expected to be completed on or about that date pending final conditions. Post merger, Willis Group Holdings will change its name to Willis Towers Watson plc and trade under the ticker symbol “WLTW”. Fossil has a market capitalization that is more representative of the midcap market space. As of Jan. 8, Fossil is about $1.44B in market cap and Willis is $21.02B for those wondering. Apple with a market cap of $540.58B is 3.26% of the index making the entire index worth approximately $16,582.21B, so Fossil is worth .00868% of the overall index for those wanting some numbers here. Thus, if a company acquires another and becomes bigger than there can be replacements made in those indices that have an artificial number of small members. Alternatively, a member may be removed for lack of representation where it is just so small compared to other companies that may be a better fit as some indices could be viewed as actively managed in a sense. In contrast, there are indices like those from Russell, known for the Russell 2000 small-cap index: Q: Why don't you reconstitute the indexes more often than once a year? A: Maintaining representative indexes must be weighed against the costs associated with making frequent changes to index constituents (namely, buying and selling stocks). The Russell Indexes are annually reconstituted because our research has shown that this strikes a reasonable balance between accuracy and cost. We originally reconstituted our indexes quarterly, then semi-annually, but found these options to be suboptimal. Our extensive research demonstrates that annual reconstitution accurately represents the capitalization segments and minimizes the turnover required to reflect the segments as they change. Thus there can be different scenarios. Then there can be the effect on index funds when price-weighted indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average has a member that does a stock split that causes some rebalancing too. On the DJIA Divisor: The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a price-weighted index that is calculated by dividing the sum of the prices of the 30 component stocks (Dow Jones Industrial Average components) by a number called the DJIA Divisor or Dow Divisor . The index divisor is updated periodically and adjusted to offset the effect of stock splits, bonus issues or any change in the component stocks included in the DJIA. This is done in order to keep the index value consistent.",
"What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.",
"\"This page from simplestockinvesting.com gives details of total returns for the S&P500 for each decade over the last 60 years, including total returns for the entire 60 year period. It is important to understand that, from an investors point of view, the total return includes both the change in index value (capital gain) plus dividends received. This total then needs to be adjusted for inflation to give the \"\"total real return\"\". As noted in the analysis provided, 44% of the total return from the S&P500 over the last 80 years comes from dividends. For the DowJones30, this site provides a calculator for total returns and inflation adjusted total returns for user selected periods. Finding comparable analysis for the NASDAQ market is more difficult. The NASDAQ market site provides gross values for total returns over fixed periods, but you will then need to do the arithmetic to calculate the equivalent average annual total returns. No inflation adjusted values for \"\"real\"\" returns are provided, so again you will need to combine inflation data from elsewhere and do the arithmetic.\"",
"As I write this, the NASDAQ Composite is at 2790.00, down 6.14 points from yesterday. To calculate the percentage, you take 6.14 and divide by yesterday's close of 2796.14 to yield 0.22%. In your example, if SPY drops from 133.68 to 133.32, you use the difference of -0.36 and divide by the original, i.e. -0.36/133.68 = -0.27%. SPY is an ETF which you can invest in that tracks the S&P 500 index. Ideally, the index would have dropped the same percentage as SPY, but the points would be different (~10x higher). To answer your question about how one qualifies a point, it completely depends on the index being discussed. For example, the S&P 500 is a market-capitalization weighted index of the common stock of 500 large-cap US public companies. It is as if you owned every share of each of the 500 companies, then divide by some large constant to create a number that's easily understood mentally (i.e. 1330). The NASDAQ Composite used the same methodology but includes practically all stocks listed on the NASDAQ. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of 30 large-cap companies. It's final value is modified using a divisor known as the Dow Divisor, which accounts for stock splits and similar events that have occurred since a stock has joined the index. Thus, points when referring to an index do not typically represent dollars. Rather, they serve as a quantitative measure of how the market is doing based on the performance of the index constituents. ETFs like SPY add a layer of abstraction by creating an investible vehicle that ideally tracks the value of the underlying index directly. Finally, neither price nor index value is related to volume. Volume is a raw measurement of the total number of shares traded for a given stock or the aggregate for a given exchange. Hope this helps!",
"The dividend is for a quarter of the year, three months. 80 cents is 3.9% of $20.51. Presumably the Div/yield changes as the stock price changes. On Yahoo, they specify that the yield is based on a particular stated date. So it's only the exact number if the stock trades at the price on that date.",
"Should be noted that pacoverflow's answer is wrong. Yahoo back-adjusts all the previous (not current or future) values based on a cumulative adjustment factor. So if there's a dividend ex-date on December 19, Yahoo adjusts all the PREVIOUS (December 18 and prior) prices with a factor which is: 1 - dividend / Dec18Close",
"Indices such as SP500 are typically including dividends - the payment of dividends doesn't impact the value of the index. Where can I find data on these dividends? I found data on dividend yields, but these give me access only to the sum of dividends over the last year. This in turn can change either because there are new dividends being paid, or because you stop counting last year's dividends...",
"Various types of corporate actions will precipitate a price adjustment. In the case of dividends, the cash that will be paid out as a dividend to share holders forms part of a company's equity. Once the company pays a dividend, that cash is no longer part of the company's equity and the share price is adjusted accordingly. For example, if Apple is trading at $101 per share at the close of business on the day prior to going ex-dividend, and a dividend of $1 per share has been declared, then the closing price will be adjusted by $1 to give a closing quote of $100. Although the dividend is not paid out until the dividend pay date, the share price is adjusted at the close of business on the day prior to the ex-dividend date since any new purchases on or after the ex-dividend date are not entitled to receive the dividend distribution, so in effect new purchases are buying on the basis of a reduced equity. It will be the exchange providing the quote that performs the price adjustment, not Google or Yahoo. The exchange will perform the adjustment at the close prior to each ex-dividend date, so when you are looking at historical data you are looking at price data that includes each adjustment.",
"This answer contains three assumptions: New Share Price: Old Share Price * 1.0125 Quarterly Dividend: (New Share Price*0.01) * # of Shares in Previous Quarter Number of Shares: Shares from Previous Quarter + Quarterly Dividend/New Share Price For example, starting from right after Quarter One: New share price: $20 * 1.0125 = 20.25 1000 shares @ $20.25 a share yields $20.25 * 0.01 * 1000 = $202.5 dividend New shares: $202.5/20.25 = 10 shares Quarter Two: New share price: $20.503 1010 shares @ 20.503 yields $20.503*0.01*1010 = $207.082 dividend New shares: $207.082/20.503 = 10.1 shares Repeat over many cycles: 8 Quarters (2 years): 1061.52 shares @ $21.548 a share 20 Quarters (5 years): 1196.15 shares @ $25.012 a share 40 Quarters (10 years): 1459.53 shares @ $32.066 a share Graphically this looks like this: It's late enough someone may want to check my math ;). But I'd also assert that a 5% growth rate and a 4% dividend rate is pretty optimistic.",
"\"Yahoo's \"\"Adj Close\"\" data is adjusted for splits, but not for dividends. Despite Yahoo's webpage's footnote saying *Close price adjusted for dividends and splits. we can see empirically that the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is only adjusted for splits. For example, consider Siemens from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 15, 2017: The Adj Close adjusts for splits: On any particular day, the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is equal to the \"\"Close\"\" price divided by the cumulative product of all splits that occurred after that day. If there have been no splits after that day, then the \"\"Adj Close\"\" equals the \"\"Close\"\" price. Since there is a 2-for-1 split on Mar 14, 2017, the Adj Close is half the Close price for all dates from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 13, 2017. Note that if Siemens were to split again at some time in the future, the Adj Close prices will be readjusted for this future split. For example, if Siemens were to split 3-for-1 tomorrow, then all the Adj Close prices seen above will be divided by 3. The Adj Close is thus showing the price that a share would have traded on that day if the shares had already been split in accordance with all splits up to today. The Adj Close does not adjust for dividends: Notice that Siemens distributed a $1.87 dividend on Feb 02, 2017 and ~$3.74 dividend on Jan 30, 2017. If the Adj Close value were adjusted for these dividends then we should expect the Adj Close should no longer be exactly half of the Close amount. But we can see that there is no such adjustment -- the Adj Close remains (up to rounding) exactly half the Close amount: Note that in theory, the market reacts to the distribution of dividends by reducing the trading price of shares post-dividend. This in turn is reflected in the raw closing price. So in that sense the Adj Close is also automatically adjusted for dividends. But there is no formula for this. The effect is already baked in through the market's closing prices.\"",
"This is called the gordon growth model (or dividend discount model). This is one way to value a stock, but in practice no one uses it because the assumptions are that companies will return value to investors solely via regular dividends, and that the growth rate and the required rate of return from investors are constants; among other issues.",
"To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar",
"The yield on Div Data is showing 20% ((3.77/Current Price)*100)) because that only accounts for last years dividend. If you look at the left column, the 52 week dividend yield is the same as google(1.6%). This is calculated taking an average of n number of years. The data is slightly off as one of those sites would have used an extra year.",
"The adjusted close price takes into account stock splits (and possibly dividends). You want to look at the adjusted close price. Calculating percentage changes gets computationally tricky because you need to account for splits and dividends.",
"Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result",
"A one year period of study - Stock A trades at $100, and doesn't increase in value, but has $10 in dividends over the period. Stock B starts at $100, no dividend, and ends at $105. However you account for this, it would be incorrect to ignore stock A's 10% return over the period. To flip to a real example, MoneyChimp shows the S&P return from Jan 1980 to Dec 2012 as +3264% yet, the index only rose from 107.94 to 1426.19 or +1221%. The error expands with greater time and larger dividends involved, a good analysis won't ignore any dividends or splits.",
"\"A Bloomberg terminal connected to Excel provides the value correcting splits, dividends, etc. Problem is it cost around $25,000. Another one which is free and I think that takes care of corporate action is \"\"quandl.com\"\". See an example here.\"",
"\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \"\"quarterly dividends,\"\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\"",
"\"For the S&P and many other indices (but not the DJIA) the index \"\"price\"\" is just a unitless number that is the result of a complicated formula. It's not a dollar value. So when you divide said number by the earnings/share of the sector, you're again getting just a unitless number that is incomparable to standard P-E ratios. In fact, now that I think about, it kinda makes sense that each sector would have a similar value for the number that you're computing, since each sector's index formula is presumably written to make all the index \"\"price\"\"s look similar to consumers.\"",
"But I wish to know why the parameter is dividend/market price rather than just 'dividend'? What 'extra' info you can uncover by looking at dividend/market price that you cannot get from 'dividend'? Consider two stocks A and B. A offers a dividend of $1 per year. B offers a dividend of $2 per year. Let's remove all complications aside and assume that this trend continues. If you were to buy each of these stocks you will get the following amounts over its life (assumed infinity for simplicity): cash flows from A = $1/(0.04) = $25, assuming risk free is 4% per annum cash flows from B = $2/(0.04) = $50, assuming risk free is 4% per annum The price you buy them at is an important factor to consider because let's say if A was trading for $10 and B for $60, then A would look like a profitable nvestment while B won't. Of course, this is a very simplistic view. Dividend rates are not constant and many companies pose a significant risk of going bust but this should help illustrate the general idea behind the D/P ratio. P.S.:- The formula I have used is one for computing the NPV of a perpetuity.",
"No - there are additional factors involved. Note that the shares on issue of a company can change for various reasons (such as conversion/redemption of convertible securities, vesting of restricted employee shares, conversion of employee options, employee stock purchase programs, share placements, buybacks, mergers, rights issues etc.) so it is always worthwhile checking SEC announcements for the company if you want an exact figure. There may also be multiple classes of shares and preferred securities that have different levels of dividends present. For PFG, they filed a 10Q on 22 April 2015 and noted they had 294,385,885 shares outstanding of their common stock. They also noted for the three months ended March 31 2014 that dividends were paid to both common stockholders and preferred stockholders and that there were Series A preferred stock (3 million) and Series B preferred stock (10 million), plus a statement: In February 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $150.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased under these programs are accounted for as treasury stock, carried at cost and reflected as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Therefore the exact amount of dividend paid out will not be known until the next quarterly report which will state the exact amount of dividend paid out to common and preferred shareholders for the quarter.",
"You could take these definitions from MSCI as an example of how to proceed. They calculate price indices (PR) and total return indices (including dividends). For performance benchmarks the net total return (NR) indices are usually the most relevant. In your example the gross total return (TR) is 25%. From the MSCI Index Defintions page :- The MSCI Price Indexes measure the price performance of markets without including dividends. On any given day, the price return of an index captures the sum of its constituents’ free float-weighted market capitalization returns. The MSCI Total Return Indexes measure the price performance of markets with the income from constituent dividend payments. The MSCI Daily Total Return (DTR) Methodology reinvests an index constituent’s dividends at the close of trading on the day the security is quoted ex-dividend (the ex-date). Two variants of MSCI Total Return Indices are calculated: With Gross Dividends: Gross total return indexes reinvest as much as possible of a company’s dividend distributions. The reinvested amount is equal to the total dividend amount distributed to persons residing in the country of the dividend-paying company. Gross total return indexes do not, however, include any tax credits. With Net Dividends: Net total return indexes reinvest dividends after the deduction of withholding taxes, using (for international indexes) a tax rate applicable to non-resident institutional investors who do not benefit from double taxation treaties.",
"\"Dividend rate is \"\"dividend per share\"\" over a specified time period, usually a year. So in the first example, if the company paid a $1/share dividend over the year before the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $100, while if it paid the $1/share the year after the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $105. The company could have achieved the same thing by paying total dividends of $1.05/share, which is what the last phrase of the last quoted paragraph is saying. Here's an Investopedia page on dividend rate. Also, what you're calling \"\"payout ratio\"\" is really \"\"dividend yield\"\". \"\"Payout ratio\"\" is how much of the company's net earnings are paid out in dividends. That's all in the US, I could see the terms being used differently outside the US.\"",
"\"For MCD, the 47¢ is a regular dividend on preferred stock (see SEC filing here). Common stock holders are not eligible for this amount, so you need to exclude this amount. For KMB, there was a spin-off of Halyard Health. From their IR page on the spin-off: Kimberly-Clark will distribute one share of Halyard common stock for every eight shares of Kimberly-Clark common stock you own as of the close of business on the record date. The deal closed on 2014-11-03. At the time HYH was worth $37.97 per share, so with a 1:8 ratio this is worth about $4.75. Assuming you were able to sell your HYH shares at this price, the \"\"dividend\"\" in the data is something you want to keep. With all the different types of corporate actions, this data is extremely hard to keep clean. It looks like the Quandl source is lacking here, so you may need to consider looking at other vendors.\"",
"I am also confused by what he says. The DJIA has not been at 900 for decades. However a $36 dividend is 4% per unit if you get $9 per unit per quarter. 2/3 of 4% is 6%,so that is inside his 7.5% to 5.5%. How much you have in dividend paying stocks vs. Bonds most often is a function of your age. For example, I have heard the advice of subtracting your age in years from 110 and that would be the percent you hold in dividend paying stocks. At age 30 you would have 80% in stocks. At age 60 you would be 50% in stocks. There are retirement funds that do this for you. But the 'bottom line' all depends on your risk tolerance. I have a large tolerance for risk. So even though I am currently retired I only have 10% of my money in a 'safe' investment (ticker=PGF). It pays 5.5% per year. The rest is in a leveraged junk bond fund (PHK) that pays 15.5% per year.",
"The official source for the Dow Jones P/E is Dow Jones. Unfortunately, the P/E is behind a pay-wall and not included in the free registration. The easiest (but only approximate) solution is to track against an equivalent ETF. Here's a list of popular indexes with an equivalent ETF. Source",
"\"$36 dividend/900 DJIA = 4% 5.5% bond yield = ($36 dividend/660 DJIA) Graham wrote this at a very different time in financial markets- interest rates were much higher, and the DJIA much lower. In addition, bonds were yielding more than stocks, unlike today when the DJIA % the 10yr Treasury yield 2.63% and 2.13% respectively. In addition, his \"\"weigher of the odds\"\" suggests waiting to invest until equity prices are lower (usually dividends aren't reduced), and therefore the DJIA dividend yield would rise relative to bond yields.\"",
"However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%",
"\"Total Return is the percent change in value (including andy dividends) of an instrument. The \"\"trailing 12-month\"\" means that your starting point is the value 12 months ago. So the formula is: where V is the value of the instrument on the reference date, V0 is the value of the instrument 12 months prior to the reference date, and D is the amount of dividends paid between the two dates.\"",
"The dividend quoted on a site like the one you linked to on Yahoo shows what 1 investor owning 1 share received from the company. It is not adjusted at all for taxes. (Actually some dividend quotes are adjusted but not for taxes... see below.) It is not adjusted because most dividends are taxed as ordinary income. This means different rates for different people, and so for simplicity's sake the quotes just show what an investor would be paid. You're responsible for calculating and paying your own taxes. From the IRS website: Ordinary Dividends Ordinary (taxable) dividends are the most common type of distribution from a corporation or a mutual fund. They are paid out of earnings and profits and are ordinary income to you. This means they are not capital gains. You can assume that any dividend you receive on common or preferred stock is an ordinary dividend unless the paying corporation or mutual fund tells you otherwise. Ordinary dividends will be shown in box 1a of the Form 1099-DIV you receive. Now my disclaimer... what you see on a normal stock quote for dividend in Yahoo or Google Finance is adjusted. (Like here for GE.) Many corporations actually pay out quarterly dividends. So the number shown for a dividend will be the most recent quarterly dividend [times] 4 quarters. To find out what you would receive as an actual payment, you would need to divide GE's current $0.76 dividend by 4 quarters... $0.19. So you would receive that amount for each share of stock you owned in GE.",
"\"The Dividend Discount Model is based on the concept that the present value of a stock is the sum of all future dividends, discounted back to the present. Since you said: dividends are expected to grow at a constant rate in perpetuity ... the Gordon Growth Model is a simple variant of the DDM, tailored for a firm in \"\"steady state\"\" mode, with dividends growing at a rate that can be sustained forever. Consider McCormick (MKC), who's last dividend was 31 cents, or $1.24 annualized. The dividend has been growing just a little over 7% annually. Let's use a discount, or hurdle rate of 10%. MKC closed today at $50.32, for what it's worth. The model is extremely sensitive to inputs. As g approaches r, the stock price rises to infinity. If g > r, stock goes negative. Be conservative with 'g' -- it must be sustainable forever. The next step up in complexity is the two-stage DDM, where the company is expected to grow at a higher, unsustainable rate in the early years (stage 1), and then settling down to the terminal rate for stage 2. Stage 1 is the present value of dividends during the high growth period. Stage 2 is the Gordon Model, starting at the end of stage 1, and discounting back to the present. Consider Abbott Labs (ABT). The current annual dividend is $1.92, the current dividend growth rate is 12%, and let's say that continues for ten years (n), after which point the growth rate is 5% in perpetuity. Again, the discount rate is 10%. Stage 1 is calculated as follows: Stage 2 is GGM, using not today's dividend, but the 11th year's dividend, since stage 1 covered the first ten years. 'gn' is the terminal growth, 5% in our case. then... The value of the stock today is 21.22 + 51.50 = 72.72 ABT closed today at $56.72, for what it's worth.\"",
"\"Instead of using the actual index, use a mutual fund as a proxy for the index. Mutual funds will include dividend income, and usually report data on the value of a \"\"hypothetical $10,000 investment\"\" over the life of the fund. If you take those dollar values and normalize them, you should get what you want. There are so many different factors that feed into general trends that it will be difficult to draw conclusions from this sort of data. Things like news flow, earnings reporting periods, business cycles, geopolitical activity, etc all affect the various sectors of the economy differently.\"",
"Dow Jones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_components_of_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average NASDAQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASDAQ-100 (scroll down) S&P Tricky. From what I can find, you need to be in Harvard Business School, a member of CRSP, or have access to Bloomberg's databases. S&P did have the info available years ago, but no longer that I can find.",
"\"Here is one study http://rfs.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/4/711.short I quote from the abstract \"\"In a variety of tests, marginal price drop is not significantly different from the dividend amount. Thus, over the last several decades, one-for-one marginal price drop has been an excellent (average) rule of thumb.\"\"\"",
"If a stock that makes up a big part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average decided to issue a huge number of additional shares, that will make the index go up. At least this is what should happen, since an index is basically a sum of the market cap of the contributing companies. No, indices can have various weightings. The DJIA is a price-weighted index not market-cap weighted. An alternative weighting besides market-cap and price is equal weighting. From Dow Jones: Dow Jones Industrial Average™. Introduced in May 1896, the index, also referred to as The Dow®, is a price-weighted measure of 30 U.S. blue-chip companies. Thus, I can wonder what in the new shares makes the index go up? If a stock is split, the Dow divisor is adjusted as one could easily see how the current Dow value isn't equal to the sum or the share prices of the members of the index. In other cases, there may be a dilution of earnings but that doesn't necessarily affect the stock price directly as there may be options exercised or secondary offerings made. SO if the index, goes up, will the ETF DIA also go up automatically although no additional buying has happened in the ETF itself? If the index rises and the ETF doesn't proportionally, then there is an arbitrage opportunity for someone to buy the DIA shares that can be redeemed for the underlying stocks that are worth more in this case. Look at the Creation and Redemption Unit process that exists for ETFs.",
"One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero. For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index. Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways. Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't. Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.",
"For stock splits, let's say stock XYZ closed at 100 on February 5. Then on February 6, it undergoes a 2-for-1 split and closes the day at 51. In Yahoo's historical prices for XYZ, you will see that it closed at 51 on Feb 6, but all of the closing prices for the previous days will be divided by 2. So for Feb 5, it will say the closing price was 50 instead of 100. For dividends, let's say stock ABC closed at 200 on December 18. Then on December 19, the stock increases in price by $2 but it pays out a $1 dividend. In Yahoo's historical prices for XYZ, you will see that it closed at 200 on Dec 18 and 201 on Dec 19. Yahoo adjusts the closing price for Dec 19 to factor in the dividend.",
"\"This is the same answer as for your other question, but you can easily do this yourself: ( initial adjusted close / final adjusted close ) ^ ( 1 / ( # of years sampled) ) Note: \"\"# of years sampled\"\" can be a fraction, so the one week # of years sampled would be 1/52. Crazy to say, but yahoo finance is better at quick, easy, and free data. Just pick a security, go to historical prices, and use the \"\"adjusted close\"\". money.msn's best at presenting finances quick, easy, and cheap.\"",
"\"DJIA is a price weighted index (as in the amount of each component company is weighted by its price) and the constituents change occasionally (51 times so far). With these two effects you would not get anything like the same return by equally weighting your holdings and would have to rebalance every so often. Note that your premise was most obviously flawed thinking the number of near bankruptcies there have been in that time. More details of the differing make-ups of the index are available on Wikipedia. When you ask about the \"\"average investment\"\" you would have to be a lot more specific; is it limited just to US shares, to shares, to shares and fixed income securities, should I include all commodities, etc. see also What's the justification for the DJIA being share-price weighted?\"",
"How S&P 500 returns are calculated is jotted down here. You should follow the same methodology i.e. base-weighted aggregate methodology to calculate your own returns. Anything different and it would be an incorrect comparison.",
"Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.",
"I don't think the method falls short, it's the premise that is wrong. If the dividend stream really did grow faster than the cost of capital indefinitely, eventually the company behind the share would become larger than the entire economy. Logically, at some point, the growth must slow down.",
"Dividend yield is a tough thing to track because it's a moving target. Dividends are paid periodically the yield is calculated based on the stock price when the dividend is declared (usually, though some services may update this more frequently). I like to calculate my own dividend by annualizing the dividend payment divided by my cost basis per share. As an example, say you have shares in X, Co. X issues a quarterly dividend of $1 per share and the share price is $100; coincidentally this is the price at which you purchased your shares. But a few years goes by and now X issues it's quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share, and the share price is $160. However your shares only cost you $100. Your annual yield on X is 6%, not the published 3.75%. All of this is to say that looking back on dividend yields is somewhat similar to nailing jello to the wall. Do you look at actual dividends paid through the year divided by share price? Do you look at the annualized dividend at the time of issue then average those? The stock price will fluctuate, that will change the yield; depending on where you bought your stock, your actual yield will vary from the published amount as well.",
"You can create something like that by: You'll have to determine the PE ratio manually from the financial statements. To get the PE ratio for each company, you can try the Edgar database, though I doubt it goes as far back as 1950. This blog has a graph of the DJIA PE ratio from 1929 - 2009.",
"I assume that when you say 'the DOW' that you actually mean the general market. The ticker symbol for the general market is SPY (called a 'Spider'). The ticker symbol for Nasdaq is QQQ. SPY currently pays 2.55% in dividends in a year. QQQ currently pays 1.34% in dividends in a year.",
"\"I had both closing price and adjusted price of Apple showing the same amount after \"\"download data\"\" csv file was opened in excel. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1463599361&period2=1495135361&interval=div%7Csplit&filter=split&frequency=1d Its frustrating. My last option was to get the dividends history of the stock and add back to the adjusted price to compute the total return for a select stock for the period.\"",
"In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.",
"\"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index. That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the \"\"Dow divisor\"\". (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.) This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price. That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google. It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share. Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index. That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day. Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share. At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share. So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index. Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason. (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now. Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go. Most indices are weighted by market capitalization. That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value. This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok. Also, notice that I said \"\"company\"\" and not \"\"stock\"\". When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow. (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500. The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations. The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand. If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked. (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)\"",
"In the context of EDV, 4.46 is the indicated dividend rate. The indicated dividend rate is the rate that would be paid per share throughout the next year, assuming dividends stayed the same as prior payment. sources:",
"The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.",
"Do not confuse the DIV (%) value and the dividend yield. As you can see from this page, the DIV (%) is, as you say, 165%. However, the dividend yield is 3.73% at the time of writing. As the Investopedia page referenced above says: The payout ratio is calculated as follows: Annual Dividends per Share / Earnings per Share. which means that the dividends being paid out are more than the earnings of the company: In extreme cases, dividend payout ratios exceed 100%, meaning more dividends were paid out than there were profits that year. Significantly high ratios are unsustainable.",
"The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.",
"While the S&P500 is not a total return index, there is an official total return S&P500 that includes reinvested dividends and which is typically used for benchmarking. For a long time it was not available for free, but it can currently be found on yahoo finance using the ticker ^SP500TR.",
"\"In addition to the answers provided above, the weight the Dow uses to determine the index is not the market capitalization of the company involved. That means that companies like Google and Apple with very high share prices and no particular inclination to split could adversely effect the Dow, turning it into essentially the \"\"Apple and Google and then some other companies\"\" Industrial Average. The highest share price Dow company right now, IIRC, is IBM. Both Google and Apple would have three times the influence on the Index as IBM does now.\"",
"Points are index based. Simple take the total value of the stocks that compose the index, and set it equal to an arbitrary number. (Say 100 or 1000) This becomes your base. Each day, you recalculate the value of the index basket, and relate it to the base. So if our index on day 0 was 100, and the value of the basket went up 1%, the new index would be 101 points. For the example given, the percentage change would be (133.32 -133.68 ) / 133.68 * 100% = -0.27% Keep in mind that an index basket will change in composition over time. Assets are added and removed as the composition of the market changes. For example, the TSX index no longer includes Nortel, a stock that at one time made up a significant portion of the index. I'm not sure if a percentage drop in an index is really a meaningful statistic because of that. It is however, a good way of looking at an individual instrument.",
"PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.",
"Dow Jones is a meaningless index that is only ever referenced in the media. It’s fundamentally flawed because the index constituents are weighted by share price, which is nonsensical (ie a $100 stock has a bigger impact on the index than a $50 stock) as opposed to the S&P500 which is market cap weighted (a $100 billion company has a bigger impact than a $50 billion company). People in the investment industry focus on the S&P index and pay zero attention to the Dow.",
"If you download the historical data from Yahoo, you will see two different close prices. The one labeled 'Close' is simply the price that was quoted on that particular day. The one labeled 'Adj Close' is the close price that has been adjusted for any splits and dividends that have occurred after that date. For example, if a stock splits 10:1 on a particular date, then the adjusted close for all dates prior to that split will have been divided by 10. If a dividend is paid, then all dates prior will have that amount subtracted from their adjusted quote. Using the adjusted close allows you to compare any two dates and see the true relative return.",
"Whenever a website mentions Hypothetical Growth of $100, $1,000, or $10,000, it assumes that that investor himself will reinvest the dividend. This is true whether you look at Morningstar or Financial Times. Unless the website does not have dividend data, e.g. Google Finance. If you want to compare the account value after withdrawing dividends: Since the Income class pays dividends annually, there will be 1 jumps per year. For example, the 2013 dividend payment: and the 2014 dividend payment:",
"\"MD-Tech's answer is correct. Let me only point out that there are easier ways to invest in the DJIA index without having to buy individual stocks. You can buy a mutual fund or ETF that will track the index and your return will be almost identical to the performance of the underlying index. It's \"\"almost\"\" identical because the fund will take a small management fee, you will have to pay annual taxes on capital gains (if you hold the investment in a taxable account), and because the fund has to actually invest in the underlying stocks, there will be small differences due to rounding and timing of the fund's trades. You also ask: Assuming that I calculated those numbers correctly, is this gain approximately better, equal to, or worse than an average investment for that timespan? While people argue about the numbers, index funds tend to do better than average (depends on what you call \"\"average\"\", of course). They do better than most actively managed funds, too. And since they have low management fees, index funds are often considered to be an important part of a long-term investment portfolio because they require very little activity on your part other than buying and holding.\"",
"\"The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the \"\"basket\"\" of investments that a share in the fund represents. Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the \"\"DJI 30\"\" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index.\"",
"Adjustments can be for splits as well as for dividends. From Investopedia.com: Historical prices stored on some public websites, such as Yahoo! Finance, also adjust the past prices of the stock downward by the dividend amount. Thus, that could also be a possible factor in looking at the old prices.",
"\"You can't do this automatically; you want to understand whether the drop is from a short-term high. is likely to be a short-term low, or reflects an actual change in how folks expect the company to do in the future. Having said that, some people do favor a strategy which resembles this, betting on what are known as \"\"the dogs of the Dow\"\" in the assumption that they're well trusted but not as strongly sought and therefore perhaps not bid up as strongly. I have no opinion on it; I'm just mentioning it for comparison.\"",
"The author is using the simple Dietz method, (alternatively the modified Dietz), with the assumption that the net cash-flow occurs halfway through the time period. Let's say the time period is one year for illustration, so the cash-flow would be at the end of the second quarter. The money-weighted method gives a more accurate return, but has to be solved by trial-and-error or using a computer. The money-weighted return is 11.2718 % and the simple or modified Dietz return is 11.2676 %. When the sums are done backwards to check, the Dietz is half a dollar out with a final value of $11,999.50 while the money-weighted return recalculates exactly $12,000. It is worth pointing out that the return changes if the cash-flow is not in the middle of the time period. A case with the cash-flow at the end of Q3 is added to illustrate.",
"As yet another explanation of why it does not really matter, you can look at this from the valuation point of view. Stock price is the present value of its future cash flows (be it free cash flow of the firm or dividends, depending on the model). Let's have a look at the dividends case. Imagine, the price of the stock is based on only three dividends streams $5 dollars each: dividend to be paid today, in year 1, and in year 2. Each should be discounted back to today (say, at 10%), except today's dividend, since today is now. Once that dividend is paid, it is no longer in the stream of cash flows. So if we just delete that first $5 from the formula, the price will adjust itself down by the amount of the dividend to $8.68. NOTE that this is a very simple example, since in reality cash flows streams are arguably infinite and because there are many other factors affecting stock price. But simply for your understanding, this example should provide you with the reason simply from the valuation perspective.",
"Here's a few demo steps, first calculating the year to date return, then calculating the Q4 quarterly return based on the cumulative returns for Q3 and Q4. It's fine to use closing price to closing price as return periods.",
"Calculating and adjusting cost basis accurately is a daunting task, but there is a (paid) online tool, NetBasis, which will automatically calculate and adjust your cost basis. It is used by brokerage firms and Fortune 500 companies and is available to the public. Go to netbasis.com. All you need are the purchase and sale dates and shares of the stock or mutual fund and the system has the rest of the information, such as corporate actions (splits, spin-offs, etc), pricing, and dividends and it also will apply the appropriate IRS rules for inherited and gifted shares. The regulation also gives investors the option to choose calculation methods. Not only does NetBasis automatically calculate the method you choose, it will also give the results for all options and allow you to choose the best result. NetBasis also provides you with detailed supporting documentation which shows all of the calculations and the adjustments in chronological order. NetBasis has data going back as far as 1925, so it will accurately calculate cost basis for your old American Telegraph and Telephone shares. NetBasis also handles complex investment scenarios such as wash sales, short sales, return of capital, etc. Moderator's note: Disclosure: The answerer's profile indicates they are affiliated with NetBasis.",
"Is my math correct? The Math is correct, however Dividends don't work this way. The Yield is Post Facto. i.e. Given the dividend that is declared every quarter, once calculates the yield. The dividends are not fixed or guaranteed. These change from Quarter to Quarter or at times they are not given at all. The yield is 3.29% and the value is $114 per share. Assuming that the price remains exactly the same for an entire year, and that I purchase only one share, then this should be the math for calculating the yield: 114 x 0.0329 = 3.7506 What the Link is showing is that last dividend of MCD was 0.94 for Q3; that means total for a year will be 0.94*4 [3.76], this means yield will be 3.29%. Note this year there were only 3 Dividend was 0.89 on 26-Feb, 0.89 on 2-Jun and 0.94 on 29-Nov. It is unlikely that there will be one more dividend this year. So for this year the correct post facto calculation would be 0.89+0.89+.94 = 2.72 and hence an yield of 2.38% Also, are there any fees/deductions, or would I receive the amount in full, which should be $3.75? There are no fee deducted. Not sure about US tax treatment on Dividends.",
"In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.",
"The total number of shares on April 1st is 100 + 180 + 275 = 555. The price on April 1st is required. The current price is stated as $2, but $2 * 555 = $1110 and the current fund values is stated as $1500. Opting to take the current value as $1500, the price on April 1st can be calculated as $1500/555 = $2.7027. The amounts invested as number of shares x share price are: (Note these investment amounts do not match the example scenario's investment amounts, presumably because the example numbers are just made up.) The monthly returns can be calculated: The current values for each investor as invested amount x returns are: Checking the total:",
"You could look up the P/E of an equivalent ETF, or break the ETF into components and look those up. Each index has its own methodology, usually weighted by market cap. See here: http://www.amex.com/etf/prodInf/EtAllhold.jsp?Product_Symbol=DIA",
"At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.",
"http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=EDV+Historical+Prices shows this which matches Vanguard: Mar 24, 2014 0.769 Dividend Your download link doesn't specify dates which makes me wonder if it is a cumulative distribution or something else as one can wonder how did you ensure that the URL is specifying to list only the most recent distribution and not something else. For example, try this URL which specifies date information in the a,b,c,d,e,f parameters: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=EDV&a=00&b=29&c=2014&d=05&e=16&f=2014&g=v&ignore=.csv",
"The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate.",
"( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago. Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2. That will give you total return over 12 months.",
"\"You're missing a very important thing: YEAR END values in (U.S.) $ millions unless otherwise noted So 7098 is not $7,098. That would be a rather silly amount for Coca Cola to earn in a year don't you think? I mean, some companies might happen upon random small income amounts, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume they'll earn (or lose) millions or billions, not thousands. This is a normal thing to do on reports like this; it's wasteful to calculate to so many significant digits, so they divide everything by 1000 or 1000000 and report at that level. You need to look on the report (usually up top left, but it can vary) to see what factor they're dividing by. Coca Cola's earnings per share are $1.60 for FY 2014, which is 7,098/4450 (use the whole year numbers, not the quarter 4 numbers; and here they're both in millions, so they divide out evenly). You also need to understand that \"\"Dividend on preferred stock\"\" is not the regular dividend; I don't see it explicitly called out on the page you reference. They may not have preferred stock and/or may not pay dividends on it in excess of common stock (or at all).\"",
"You've flipped the numerator and denominator around, and need to multiply by 100 to get percentage rather than 10: I like to use a simple example to assess reasonableness of an approach, if you had invested $100 and after 1 year had $150, your approach would yield: But since $50 is half of $100, we know the rate of return should be 50%, so we know that approach is off. But, flipping the numerator and denominator and multiplying by 100 gets us the 50% we expected: Edit: Good catch by @DJohnM you've called it 9 years, but it's actually 11, so you'd want to adjust accordingly.",
"\"An index is just a mathematical calculation based on stock prices. Anyone can create such a calculation and (given a little effort) publish it based on publicly available data. The question of \"\"open source\"\" is simply whether or not the calculator chooses to publish the calculation used. Given how easy an index is to create, the issue is not the \"\"open source\"\" nature or otherwise, but its credibility and usefulness.\"",
"It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date."
] |
[
"Have you actually read the Wikipedia article? To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Early on, the initial divisor was composed of the original number of component companies; which made the DJIA at first, a simple arithmetic average. The present divisor, after many adjustments, is less than one (meaning the index is larger than the sum of the prices of the components). That is: DJIA = sum(p) / d where p are the prices of the component stocks and d is the Dow Divisor. Events such as stock splits or changes in the list of the companies composing the index alter the sum of the component prices. In these cases, in order to avoid discontinuity in the index, the Dow Divisor is updated so that the quotations right before and after the event coincide: DJIA = sum(p_old) / d_old = sum(p_new) / d_new The Dow Divisor was 0.14602128057775 on December 24, 2015.[40] Presently, every $1 change in price in a particular stock within the average, equates to a 6.848 (or 1 ÷ 0.14602128057775) point movement. Knowing the old prices, new prices (e.g. following a split), and old divisor, you can easily compute the new divisor... Edit: Also, the detailed methodology is published by SP Indices (PDF). Edit #2: For simplicity's sake, assume the DJIA is an index that contains 4 stocks, with a price of $100.00 each. One of the stocks splits 2:1, meaning the new price/share is $50.00. Plugging the numbers into the above equation, we can determine the new Dow Divisor: 400 / 4 = 350 / d => d = 3.5",
"The details of the DJIA methodology is outlined in the official methodology document on their website. In addition, you will need their index mathematics document, which gives the nitty-gritty details of any type of adjustments that must be made. Between the two you should have the complete picture in as fine a detail as you want, including exactly what is done in response to various corporate actions like splits and structural changes."
] |
9088
|
Brokerage account for charity
|
[
"569461",
"561377"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"453455",
"390089",
"236186",
"174543",
"326167",
"569461",
"221427",
"329849",
"264271",
"556109",
"90591",
"21416",
"511760",
"48893",
"361383",
"311834",
"62079",
"234851",
"367206",
"167879",
"361639",
"389004",
"231814",
"214217",
"121187",
"295115",
"107215",
"206270",
"561377",
"233871",
"46381",
"257258",
"216441",
"47579",
"486557",
"354280",
"438408",
"468898",
"123237",
"31703",
"594442",
"75476",
"410543",
"153121",
"526847",
"370212",
"515144",
"158091",
"333508",
"371922",
"375777",
"277581",
"109968",
"431389",
"161330",
"430868",
"580056",
"434066",
"328060",
"209789",
"593475",
"65702",
"144965",
"158968",
"358154",
"211414",
"319458",
"413681",
"553380",
"461821",
"12268",
"443757",
"84800",
"454661",
"478736",
"34467",
"395782",
"274987",
"546509",
"327600",
"225162",
"45674",
"281423",
"426713",
"113644",
"467169",
"518451",
"340210",
"406457",
"168001",
"581127",
"401724",
"414429",
"532672",
"231972",
"252176",
"261583",
"262521",
"328703",
"122679"
] |
[
"In the US the best way to solve the problem, IMHO, would be via a trust. Talk to a properly licensed trust/estate attorney and a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Using intermediary who's not a 501(c) organization may pose income tax issues to that intermediary as providing support to the needy is not a valid business expense. It may also pose gift tax issues, since the aggregate amounts may exceed the statutory exemption limits. Using a (non-revokable) trust you can avoid these issues, but others may come up (such as what to do with the trust income or undistributed moneys). Talk to the advisers about how to avoid them.",
"In the US, if it's a large donation to a tax-exempt organization (401c3 or equivalent), you may want to consider giving appreciated equities (stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares which are now worth more than you paid for them). You get to claim the deduction's value at the time you transfer it to their account, and you avoid capital gains tax. They would pay the capital-gains tax when they redeem it for cash... but if exempt, they get the full value and the tax is completely avoided. Effectively, your donation costs you less for the same impact. It does take a bit of work to coordinate this with the receiving organization, and there may be brokerage fees, so it probably isn't worth doing for small sums.)Transfers within the same brokerage house may avoid those feee.) So again, you should talk to the charity about what's best. But for larger donations, where larger probably starts at a few thou, it can save you a nice chunk of change.",
"The best way is to ask the charity and the custodian of the retirement account. Both will want to make sure it is done correctly. The charity will want to be able to not have the account go through the probate process. Probate can delay to transfer of money for months or longer. Items in the will could be contested.",
"\"It really depends on what your goals are. If your intent is to benefit the charity, I'm sure that they would tell you that the sooner you give them the money, the better. If they think that the money would do them more good invested then spent, they will invest it. The money you have sitting in your \"\"charitable account\"\" doesn't benefit anyone until you give it away. It really doesn't benefit you, either. You take your tax deduction when you contribute, and it is really out of your hands at this point. The only reason I could see for using a charitable account this way is if you don't know who you want to give money to. If this is the case, you can contribute money to your charitable account now and take the tax deduction now, and wait to identify a worthy charity later. But if I were you, I wouldn't wait too long to find someone to give the money to. There are lots of good organizations that would do a lot of good with that money, and the sooner they get it, the better. If you skip the charitable account and donate directly to them on a regular basis, you can experience the joy of partnering with a charity to help people. If you decide in the future to switch to a different charity, then you do so. Waiting until the \"\"right time\"\" to donate doesn't really do anyone any good.\"",
"\"In the US: In the UK: You can set up a CAF (Charities Aid foundation) Charity Account. This allows you to donate to charities anonymously, while still allowing the recipient to benefit from Gift Aid (where they can reclaim the income tax you'd paid on the donation). You can even use this account to donate to overseas charities if you're donating at least £250. Or you can use a different intermediary such as BT MyDonate or The Big Give or another intermediary. See the Wikipedia article \"\"Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom\"\". In Canada: If there's a United Way charity in your country, it may have a donor choice program which may be able to forward a designated donation to any other charity in your country. The United Way probably charges a fee for this service. I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would be willing to keep you anonymous, and I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would add you to its mailing list. More details may be available elsewhere online.\"",
"If the charity accepts stock, you can avoid the tax on the long term cap gain when you donate it. e.g. I donate $10,000 in value of Apple. I write off $10,000 on my taxes, and benefit with a $2500 refund. If I sold it, I'd have nearly a $1500 tax bill (bought long enough ago, the basis is sub $100). Any trading along the way, and it's on you. Gains long or short are taxed on you. It's only the final donation that matters here. Edit - to address Anthony's comment on other answer - I sell my Apple, with a near $10,000 gain (it's really just $9900) and I am taxed $1500. Now I have $8500 cash I donate and get $2125 back in a tax refund. By donating the stock I am ahead nearly $375, and the charity, $1500.",
"With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?",
"\"There are some banks that offer \"\"pot\"\" accounts like this (off the top of my head I think Intelligent Finance does, although they call them \"\"jars\"\"). The other option for charity specifically would be a CAF account: https://www.cafonline.org/my-personal-giving/plan-your-giving/individual-charity-account.aspx\"",
"This might be blasphemy in the context of an audience that may be most focused on the gift itself, but you should be donating in a manner that helps advance the landscape, as well as your particular favourite charity. Almost 90% of businesses are in the process of trying to move away from issuing and receiving checks, and several countries in the world have already stopped using them. Checks are inefficient, costly and in a resource constrained environment like that facing most charities, create an opportunity cost that is even higher than the manual processing cost that flows directly. As donors, we need to think about scale in a manner that many individual charities don't. Send your donation via ACH!",
"In the United States investing towards donation is a great idea because you can donate appreciated securities directly rather than donating cash. Notice how much this can benefit you: So you get to both (a) donate untaxed money and then (b) deduct that unrealized money from your income total on your tax return. With the above in mind, a good strategy for investing towards this type of donation would be to pick securities that are likely to increase in market value but not likely to produce any other sort of income. So bonds (which produce lots of interest income), or stocks with dividends, or equity mutual funds (which distribute dividends as capital gains) would all be suboptimal for this purpose. Of course, an even better strategy would be to establish a widely diversified investment portfolio without thought to future donations. Then, once a year (or whenever), evaluate all your investments and find some where the market value has increased. Then donate some of those shares. No special advance planning necessary. Note that your tax consequences could be more complicated depending on your exact situation. Read the section about Capital Gain Property in IRS Pub. 26 for all the details. There may be special limits on the amount you can deduct. Also, donations of short term capital gains are treated much less favorably, so make sure you donate only long term capital gain property.",
"\"I know your pain oh, so much. I literally have a 14 gallon rubbermaid container FULL of solicitations I have received. Even worse, for-profit fundraising companies send most of those mailings! They take the money, and deduct their \"\"expenses\"\", rigged to consume almosts all your gift. Some companies have been caught passing as little as 9% to the charity. First let's talk about a few issues. Authentication. Is that outfit really a tax deductible 501c3 charity? Address. Is this their genuine address, or is it the dropbox of a scammer or one of those evil for-profit fundraising companies? Acknowledgement. For gifts over a certain size, you need a thank-you letter from them to show the IRS that you really donated. Will you get it? The limit is $250 (no letter, deduction rejected) but as a practical thing, it helps in an audit to show as many donation letters as possible. Charities cannot issue them retroactively, but can issue you second copies of ones they sent previously. If the charity drops the ball, you lose. Obviously enough, you go to the post office and spend $1 on a money order. This does not authenticate them as a charity. It does not assure it goes to their real address. You can do both these things yourself, by checking their data on the IRS website or on guidestar.org. You don't get an acknowledgement. I mention these because donation websites work much the same way. DAFs require a higher one-time commitment but are much simpler and more efficient after that. If you are planning to give $5000 in a single year, save it up and open a Donor Advised Fund account. A DAF is itself a charity. You donate to the DAF, and take the tax deduction for charitable contributons. Then, you tell the DAF to donate it to other charities on your behalf, or anonymously. Their concept is, you use the DAF as a \"\"buffer\"\" so you can easily make the tax-deductible donation when you need to for tax purposes, then at your leisure research charities and support them. However, I asked my DAF - most people donate and then immediately re-donate the money, leaving the fund at zero balance. My DAF doesn't mind that at all, and they charge zero fees for this. (Its expenses are paid by those of us who leave money sitting around in the DAF. Mine charges 0.6% a year. This money can be invested sort of like in a 401K, and each investment also has an expense ratio, such as 0.18% a year in my chosen index fund.) Websites like \"\"justgive.org\"\" will take any amount of your money and re-donate it to the charity you select. They deduct 3-5% for their expenses (notably paper, stamps, and the 2-3% it costs them to process your credit card).\"",
"The simplest way to handle this would be to buy money orders, make them out to the charities, and leave your name off them. Money orders don't require you to put your name on them, just the name of whoever they're being paid to. You can mail them with no return address as well if you're sure you have the charity's proper mailing address. This way you can still feel good about giving and leave no trace of who you are for anyone to use for future marketing. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"Anytime you invest in stocks, you do that inside an investment account - such as the type you might open at ETrade, Vanguard, Fidelity or Charles Schwab. Once you have the account and fund it, you can tell the system to invest some/all of your money in When you open your investment account, their first question will be whether this is a cash account, traditional IRA, or Roth IRA. The broker must report this to the IRS because the tax treatment is very different.",
"In the United States, the stock certificate is updated to include beneficiary information. I expect it to be similar with other markets. TOD (Transfer on Death) From: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/avoid-probate-book/chapter3-2.html (emphasis added) If you have a brokerage account, contact the broker for instructions. Most likely, the broker will send you a form on which you’ll name beneficiaries to inherit your account. From then on, the account will be listed in your name, with the beneficiary’s name after it, like this: “Evelyn M. Meyers, TOD Jason Meyers.” If you have the actual stock certificates or bonds in your possession (most people don’t), you must get new certificates issued, showing that you now own the stock in beneficiary form. Ask your broker for help; if that doesn’t work, contact the transfer agent for the stock. You can get the address from your broker or the investor relations office of the corporation. The transfer agent will probably have you send in the certificates, a form called a stock or bond power (some stock certificates have the power printed on the back), and a letter explaining what you want to do.",
"Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.",
"Some brokerages will let you withdraw/deposit in multiple jurisdictions. e.g. I used to use Interactive Brokers. I could deposit/withdraw to US and UK bank accounts, in the appropriate currencies. It helps to have a brokerage that provides good rates on forex exchange also, and they were very good on the bid/ask spread. It was possible to get interbank rates plus a very low commission.",
"\"The most common way to handle this in the US is with a UTMA account. UTMA is the Uniform Transfers / Gifts to Minors Act (\"\"UTMA\"\" or \"\"UGMA\"\") which is a standard model law that most states have passed for special kinds of accounts. Once you open an account, anyone can contribute. Usually parents and grandparents will contribute $13,000 or less per year to make it a tax free transfer, but you can transfer more. The account itself would just be a standard brokerage account of any sort, but the title of the account would include your son's name, the applicable law depending on your state, and the name of the custodian who would control the account until your son turned 18. When your son does turn 18, the money is his. Until then, the money is his, but you control how it's invested. I'm a huge fan of Vanguard for UTMA/UGMAs. You may prefer to diversify a bit away from one company by selling the GE shares and buying an index mutual fund so that your child's education is not jeopardized by a rogue trader bringing down General Electric sometime in the next decade...\"",
"You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.",
"You should ask your broker of choice for paperwork to move funds to them. You can't move into an account that doesn't exist, so when I wanted to move my money from an old pension plan to an IRA I set up the IRA with the broker first. When I told them it was to receive this money, they weren't asking for any initial deposit. You then have a broker and account number to give the old company to set up the move.",
"There are a number of benefits to this type of account. If one has highly appreciated stock (think Apple), donations of the stock are taken at current value, so for example, I donate $10,000 worth of shares, which cost me $100. In the 28% bracket, and itemizing, I see a $2800 benefit. But, I also avoid a $9900 capital gain and the 15% tax on that, or $1485. In this example, the fund comes into play as it would allow me to break up that $10,000 into smaller donations, and over a number of years. Next example - In my article some years ago Fun with Schedule A I describe how a strategy of 'bunching' ones itemized deductions every other year can help push people into the ability to itemize where normally they just miss doing so. Using the charitable fund can help people smooth out their contributions to the end charities while actually making the out of pocket withdrawal every other year. Last - there are many whose income is irregular for whatever reason. This type of account can be useful to help people in this situation make a deposit in high income/high tax rate years, skipping the deposit in low income/low rate years, but still keep up with the annual charity support. Obviously, one's goal is to help the charities they wish to support, it's silly to donate 'for the deduction.' But, for those who are charitable, these strategies help them divert more money to the charity and less to Uncle Sam. Sorry, I'm not sure about the math to show that 6.46%. My answer was to share the benefits of using these types of accounts.",
"Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.",
"Pool their money into my own brokerage account and simply split the gains/losses proportional to the amount of money that we've each contributed to the account. I'm wary of this approach due to the tax implications and perhaps other legal issues so I'd appreciate community insight here. You're right to be wary. You might run into gift tax issues, as well as income tax liability and appropriation of earnings. Not a good idea at all. Don't do this. Have them set up their own brokerage account and have them give me the login credentials and I manage the investments for them. This is obviously the best approach from a tracking and tax perspective, but harder for me to manage; to be honest I'm already spending more time than I want to managing my own investments, so option 1 really appeals to me if the drawbacks aren't prohibitive. That would also require you to be a licensed financial adviser, at least to the best of my understanding. Otherwise there's a lot of issues with potential liability (if you make investments that lose money - you might be required to repay the losses). You should do this only with a proper legal and tax advice - from an attorney and/or CPA/EA licensed in your state. There are proper ways to do this (limited partnership or LLC, for example), but you have to cover your ass-ets with proper operating agreements in place that have to be reviewed by legal counsel of each of the members/partners,",
"It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf",
"I was going to comment on the commission-free ETF answer, which I agree with, but I don't have enough reputation. TD Ameritrade has a list of commission-free ETFs and has no minimum deposit required to open an account. Another idea is to keep gifts in cash until a certain threshold is reached. For instance, $100 for birthday, $100 for Christmas, $100 for next birthday, $100 for next Christmas, now execute the trade. Sharebuilder has $4 scheduled trades, so you'd be at about 1% overhead for that. If other people give money, you'll reach the threshold faster of course. For what it's worth, I do something similar for my 2 nieces. I combined their account and prepay Christmas plus birthday, so I do 1 trade a year. I have my account at Sharebuilder because my idea predated the commission-free ETFs that are now pretty popular. I should really transfer the account... hm.",
"An S-corp doesn't pay income tax -- taxation is pass-through. This being the case, there are no tax deductions it could take for charitable giving. The solution would be for you to make the contribution out of your own pocket and then personally claim the deduction on your own taxes.",
"You should talk to a lawyer. One solution I can think of is using a trust. Keep in mind that that may complicate things (non-revocable trusts are taxed on income not distributed, and revocable trust means you effectively keep the owenership of the stock). If you don't mind paying taxes on the dividends and keep the stocks in a living trust - that would be, IMHO, the simplest solution. That would, however, invoke the gift/estate tax at the value of the stock when the ownership actually passes to the intended receipient (i.e.: you die/gift the stock to the child). It would be very hard to pay the gift tax now and avoid getting the childs SSN and opening an account for the child with it.",
"According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.",
"Since I am having the same question so I made couple of phone calls based on some answers above. The 1st one was TD Amertrade: They don't directly accept money from China. The 2nd one was Charles Schwab: NO FEES to accept the money from China whatsoever! Open an account is free with ACH function and more. Hope it helps for anyone who needed.",
"I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric.",
"Everything else can be held inside or outside your registered account depending on your investment or tax needs",
"\"The definite answer if you want to give a larger amount of money is: Ask the charity. Just drop them a mail with something like: Dear Sirs, I've decided to donate you $1,000,000 because I like what you do. Could you please tell me which option is more convenient and less costly for you? I can do either an online debit/credit card payment, send you a check by mail, or make a bank transfer [cross out whichever you can't do]. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully, Even if you give \"\"just\"\" $2,000, it's surely enough to be worth for them writing you a reply and clarifying whichever way they prefer, so you don't waste neither their time nor the money this way.\"",
"You would need to use Trading Accounts. You can enable this, File->Properties->Account settings tab, and check Use Trading Accounts. For more details see the following site: http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Trading_Accounts",
"Assuming this will be a taxable account (since you want to pull income off of it, although this will lower wealth growth), you could open a brokerage account at some place like Vanguard (free on their ETFs) and look at tax efficient index fund ETFs (such as total stock market or their 500 fund), including some international (foreign tax credit is nice in taxable) and muni funds for the (tax advantaged) income, although CDs are likely better for the income at this point.",
"It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms.",
"\"TDAmeritrade, an online stock broker, provides banking services within their brokerage accounts. The service offers all of what you are looking for. HOWEVER, this service is only available for free with their \"\"Apex\"\" qualification. Here is a tariff of their fees and services.\"",
"\"Usually the new broker will take care of this for you. It can take a couple of weeks. If you are planning to go with Vanguard, you probably want to actually get an account at Vanguard, as Vanguard funds usually aren't \"\"No Transaction Fee\"\" funds with many brokers. If you are planning to invest in ETFs, you'll get more flexibility with a broker.\"",
"how many transactions per year do you intend? Mixing the funds is an issue for the reasons stated. But. I have a similar situation managing money for others, and the solution was a power of attorney. When I sign into my brokerage account, I see these other accounts and can trade them, but the owners get their own tax reporting.",
"\"Agreed. One of the comments for this question Good books for learning about tax strategy/planning uses the phrase: \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" It applies to charitable donations. Donate because it is expected by your church; donate because it makes you feel good; but don't donate just to save money on your taxes. Once you have decided to donate take the steps necessary to be able to deduct your donation. Get the receipt or use a check or credit card so you can deduct the donation.\"",
"If you go through the web pages of some online brokers, you will find out that some of them allow you to manage friends/relatives accounts from your account as a trusteer. That should really solve your underlying problem, you will need only one login, etc. (Example: https://www.interactivebrokers.com/ff/en/main.php) If I understand it right it will even allow you to make one trade splitting the cost and returns among the other accounts, but you would have to verify that. Anyways, that will save you a lot of trouble and your broker can probably help you with the legal necessities.",
"It depends what you want to do with them. If you are just simply going to drip-feed into pre-identified shares or ETFs every few months at the market price, you don't need fancy features: just go with whoever is cheaper. You can always open another account later if you need something more exotic. Some brokerages are associated with banks and that may give you a benefit if you already deal with that bank: faster transfers (anz-etrade), or zero brokerage (westpac brokerage on westpac structured products.) There's normally no account fee so you can shop around.",
"\"In the UK, one quirky option in this area (OK, admittedly it's not a passive) is the \"\"Battle Against Cancer Investment Trust\"\" (BACIT). Launched in 2012, it's basically a fund-of-funds where the funds held charge zero management charges or performance fees to the trust, but the trust then donates 1% of NAV to charity each year (half to cancer research, investors decide the other half).\"",
"I am not going to discuss legality, because with family members you are able to give a lot of guidance and assistance without running into legal issues. The biggest problem is that when they transfer the funds to you and you invest the money, all the tax rates and tax limits are determined by your situation; plus you have more investments than you should have so you hit those limits and brackets quicker. For example: In the United states a person can put $5,500 or $6,500 into a IRA or Roth IRA each year. If you combine the funds for three with your funds then you are giving up three quarters of the amount that you can invest in that type of account. The decision regarding Roth or not depends on age and income level. But now their decision is related to what is best based on your situation. The ability to even deduct IRA deposits would be based on your situation. Of course for taxable accounts the tax rate is determined by your income, not theirs. If they want you to have the ability to make investment decisions for them, then power of attorney is the way to go. The money is deposited in their name, and all the rules and tax rates are determined by their situation. You make sure they have all the information they need to login and review the accounts, but you make the all the moves within and between accounts.",
"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.",
"\"Can you get a cashier's check from your bank, made out in the charity's name, and mail it to the charity? From what I recall of the last few times I've gotten a cashier's check from the bank, it didn't have anything on it that identified me. A determined person could probably trace it back to you, but you're not really looking for strong anonymity. Another possibility would be a postal money order, but I'm not sure whether you can leave the \"\"From\"\" section blank. The money order would have a fee, but the cashier's check should be free. (It is at both my local bank and my CU.)\"",
"I had this problem when I finished my job in Canada in Sept 2013. You'll likely have to open the account in person in Canada, at least if you don't already have a relationship with a broker there. DO NOT go to Virtual Brokers. They told me that my US citizenship was no problem, but right before I left Canada to double check. It wasn't until I asked specifically which US states they were licensed in that they realized they were licensed in NO US STATES. They told me that they'd freeze my account when I left. I then moved my (former) pension to a locked-in RRSP at BMO. As of September 2010 BMO could handle residents of most US states, but it took some tooth pulling to get the list out of them. However, after I flew to the USA, BMO called to demand more ID. My account was frozen until I flew back to Canada in person just to show ID. Annoyed, I closed the BMO account and moved it to TD Waterhouse. TD waterhouse can handle accounts for residents of all the US states EXCEPT Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. (I only got the complete list of exceptions when I made my first trade, since the guys at the trading desk are much more knowledgeable about such things than the guys in the branch.) TD was extremely friendly about my USA citizenship/residence. (Many Canadian brokers simply won't accept US residents, at least as of the end of 2013.) Whichever broker you choose, BRING LOTS MORE ID than they require. Insist that they zerox it all. Make sure to include your social security card. You don't want them to demand more ID after you've left the country, like BMO did. They may even make such a move simply to get rid of US customers, because the FATCA is a pain for foreign banks.",
"Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.",
"If seeing all of your balances in one place matters that much to you, go to a broker that has an online bank like Schwab, ING or ETrade. If you're not comfortable with online banking, I'd suggest dropping the requirement to see everything on one statement/website. All of the major brokers have easy ways to transfer money to and from their accounts. I have accounts at Schwab and TD Ameritrade, which both offer online transfer via ACH transactions for no fee. It's just like paying a credit card online. Investments are a profit center for banks, you pay a higher cost and the guy who signs you up gets points towards his incentive vacation to the Caribbean.",
"Since you are not starting with a lot of cash the commissions may eat into your account. So go with somebody that has no inactivity fee and low/free commission. I think there are number of sites and the ING sharebuilder.com comes to mind. Scottrade also one of the cheaper ones that i used.",
"Yes, this is a way to avoid the pattern day trader regulation. The only downside being that your broker will have different commission rates and your capital will be split amongst several places.",
"\"I will give a slightly different answer which is actually an addendum to JoeTaxpayer's (soon-to-be-edited) answer. Do NOT go to your financial advisor and ask him \"\"How do I go about transferring my Roth IRA to ....\"\"? where .... is whichever broker or mutual fund family that you have chosen from the list that Joe has suggested. Instead, go to the website of the new group (or call their toll-free number) and tell them \"\"I want to open a Roth IRA account with you and fund it by transferring all the money in my Roth IRA from First Clearing.\"\" Your new Roth IRA custodian will take care of all the paperwork and get the money transferred over at no cost to you except possibly fielding a weepy call from your current financial advisor because he had just ordered his new Lamborghini and now will have difficulty making payments on his auto loan. \"\"Why are you leaving me? After all the years we have had together?\"\" You will need to choose some place to put the money, and I suggest that you use their S&P 500 Index Fund, not the S&P 500 ETF, just the standard vanilla S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund. This recommendation is almost heresy in this forum, but it is better to pay the extra 0.01% fee that the Fund charges over and above the ETF until you become a little more savvy and are ready to branch out into individual stocks (which is when you really need a brokerage account). Revelation: I have never made the transition and invest only in mutual funds which does not require a brokerage account. After doing all this, pay no attention whatsoever to your Roth IRA investment or how the S&P 500 Index is doing for the next 20 years. This will help avoid the temptation of taking all your money out just because the Index went down a little. Everybody is told \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" but far too many folks end up doing exactly the opposite: buying because the stock market is up and selling when it starts going down.\"",
"Is there a better vehicle for this than an index fund? Seems like a good choice to me, unless you want to protect it from market risk since it's in essence an emergency fund, in which case maybe you'd want to keep some of it in CD's. Are significant downsides to keeping the money in our name until he needs it? The main downside would be if you had need to dole out more than the maximum annual gift exclusion amount in a single year (currently $14,000), you'd have to report it as a taxable gift on your tax return and it'd count toward your lifetime gift exclusion. You and your wife can each give a gift, and if your brother were married you and your wife could each give to both he and his spouse, so 2-4x the annual gift limit before this becomes an issue. Additionally you can pay medical/education expenses directly and that is not counted toward the annual exclusion. Are there any other considerations that we are overlooking? There's always a risk that gift-giving can create expectation and/or resentment. I'd think you'd want to make instances of giving not sound like something you planned for, but something you are sacrificing for. Not sure what the best strategy is there, every family is different when it comes to dealing with finances.",
"A 529 plan! The savings can only be used for education purposes, but you can use them for ANYONE and even change the beneficiary. Distributions are tax free, and contributions are usually state tax free.",
"\"i think separate accounts is the simplest way to go. if the tax breaks are significant, then the inconvenience should be worth it. you could gift or loan money back and forth. done properly, it should be technically legal (or grey enough to not cause irs trouble). specifically, they could gift you 100k$ in january and then you could gift them 110k$ in december, leaving a net gift of 10k$ for the year from you to them, which is under the annual gift tax exclusion. based on market performance, you could gift back exactly enough to hit the gift tax exclusion and keep the rest in their \"\"account\"\" with you. loans would work similarly, but the irs tends to treat undocumented or interest-free loans as weird gifts. but honestly, you might just be trading day-to-day overhead for tax audit risk. lastly, no offense meant, but i suspect that your strategy is probably just some form of martingale betting system, and you might cause some serious family strife when you eventually meet your gambler's ruin. even if everything goes smoothly, it would take some serious trust for your family to assume that you only netted them 10% roi, when your spending habits make it look like you are getting 30%. even if you used a single account, documenting the trades to their satisfaction might be more hassle than maintaining a separate account. personally, i would not trade family accord for another 2% roi.\"",
"Question One: Question Two: Your best reference for this would be a brokerage account with data privileges in the markets you wish to trade. Failing that, I would reference the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group (CME Group) website. Question Three: Considering future tuition costs and being Canadian, you are eligible to open a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP). While contributions to this plan are not tax deductible, any taxes on income earned through investments within the fund are deferred until the beneficiary withdraws the funds. Since the beneficiary will likely be in a lower tax bracket at such a time, the sum will likely be taxed at a lower rate, assuming that the beneficiary enrolls in a qualifying post secondary institution. The Canadian government also offers the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG) in which the federal government will match 20% of the first $2500 of your annual RESP contribution up to a maximum of $500.",
"No, it doesn't work like this. Your charitable contribution is limited to the FMV. In your scenario your charitable contribution is limited by the FMV, i.e.: you can only deduct the worth of the stocks. It would be to your advantage to sell the stocks and donate cash. Had your stock appreciated, you may be required to either deduct the appreciation amount from the donation deduction or pay capital gains tax (increasing your basis to the FMV), depending on the nature of your donation. In many cases - you may be able to deduct the whole value of the appreciated stock without paying capital gains. Read the link below for more details and exceptions. In this scenario, it is probably more beneficial to donate the stock (even if required to pay the capital gains tax), instead of selling and donating cash (which will always trigger the capital gains tax). Exceptions. However, in certain situations, you must reduce the fair market value by any amount that would have been long-term capital gain if you had sold the property for its fair market value. Generally, this means reducing the fair market value to the property's cost or other basis. You must do this if: The property (other than qualified appreciated stock) is contributed to certain private nonoperating foundations, You choose the 50% limit instead of the special 30% limit for capital gain property, discussed later, The contributed property is intellectual property (as defined earlier under Patents and Other Intellectual Property ), The contributed property is certain taxidermy property as explained earlier, or The contributed property is tangible personal property (defined earlier) that: Is put to an unrelated use (defined later) by the charity, or Has a claimed value of more than $5,000 and is sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of by the qualified organization during the year in which you made the contribution, and the qualified organization has not made the required certification of exempt use (such as on Form 8282, Donee Information Return, Part IV). See also Recapture if no exempt use , later. See more here.",
"If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.",
"Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you don't need to move your assets into a new type of account to accomplish your goal of letting your money grow in a low cost vanguard index fund. Simply reallocate your assets within the Inherited IRA. If the brokerage you're in doesn't meet your needs (high transaction fees, no access to the Vanguard funds you're interested in) you can always move to a low cost brokerage. The new brokerage can help you transfer your assets so that the Inherited IRA remains intact. You will not have a tax burden if you do this reallocation and you'll be able to feel good about your diversification with a low cost index fund. You will, however, have to pay taxes on your RMD. Since you're young I can't imagine that your RMD will be greater than the $5k you can invest in a Roth IRA. If it is, you can open a personal account and keep letting the the money grow.",
"\"My Schwab panel has the following options: As an example, when I go in to \"\"Wire Transfer,\"\" it prompts me to select which Schwab account, then Domestic or International wire, then amount etc. This will likely depend on the brokerage, I don't think Scottrade or Zecco/Tradeking was this integrated. Personally, I keep brokerage funds pretty well segregated from the remainder of my finances. I transfer money in and out from a more used checking account to keep the accounting more simple.\"",
"For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.",
"Many brokers allow you to transfer shares to another broker without selling them. It depends on what kind of account and who the broker is for what forms you might have to fill out and what other hoops you might have to jump through.",
"There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes: I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50 to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan. List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have? There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here.",
"\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"",
"\"You are opening up a large can of worms with how you are doing this. In very positive years, you'll have taxes based on your income, potential Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), etc. Each of the family members may be in a lower bracket, perhaps even needing to pay zero on capital gains. Even if you are 100% honest, if you are subject to a lawsuit, these funds are all in your name, and you'd be in a tough situation explaining to a court that these assets aren't \"\"really\"\" yours, but belong to family. And last, the movement of large chunks of money needs to be accounted for, and can easily run afoul of gifting rules. As mhoran stated, a Power of Attorney (POA) avoids this. When my father-in-law passed, I took over my mother-in-law's finances, via POA. I sign in to my brokerage account, and her accounts are there. I can trade, deal with her Individual Retirement Account (IRA) Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) each year, and issue checks to her long term care facility. It's all under her social security number - our money isn't intermingled.\"",
"People put conditions on donations all the time. They donate to the Red Cross for a specific disaster. The donate money to a church for the building fund. They donate money to a hospital to buy a new x-ray machine. They donate money to the scouts for a new dining hall. It is possible to donate money to a non-profit for a specific purpose. If the non-profit doesn't want to accept the money with those strings they can refuse. Generally these specific projects are initiated by the non-profit. But there is no requirement that the idea originate with the non-profit. It is also up to the non-profit and their legal advisers regarding how strictly they view those strings. If you donate money for web design and they don't spend it all, can they pay net years hosting bill with the money, or must they hold it for a few years for when they need a designer again? If the company wants to provide the service, they can structure the project to pay their employees for their time. They pay employees for $100 of labor while deigning the website. The pay and benefits reduce profit thus lowering taxes. Donating money to the non-profit to be given back to the company doesn't seem to be the best way to structure transaction. At best it is a wash. Donating money to a charity and then directing exactly which contractor will perform the service starts to look like money laundering, and most charities will get wary.",
"\"You can start investing with any amount. You can use the ShareBuilder account to purchase \"\"partial\"\" stocks through their automatic investment plan. Usually brokers don't sell parts of stock, and ShareBuilder is the only one allowing it IMHO using its own tricks. What they do basically is buy a stock and then divide it internally among several investors who bought it, while each of the investors doesn't really own it directly. That's perfect for investing small amounts and making first steps in investing.\"",
"\"For any accounts where you have a wish to keep track of dividends, gains and losses, etc., you will have to set up a an account to hold the separately listed securities. It looks like you already know how to do this. Here the trading accounts will help you, especially if you have Finance:Quote set up (to pull security prices from the internet). For the actively-managed accounts, you can just create each managed account and NOT fill it with the separate securities. You can record the changes in that account in summary each month/year as you prefer. So, you might set up your chart of accounts to include these assets: And this income: The actively-managed accounts will each get set up as Type \"\"Stock.\"\" You will create one fake security for each account, which will get your unrealized gains/losses on active accounts showing up in your trading accounts. The fake securities will NOT be pulling prices from the internet. Go to Tools -> Securities Editor -> Add and type in a name such as \"\"Merrill Lynch Brokerage,\"\" a symbol such as \"\"ML1,\"\" and in the \"\"Type\"\" field input something like \"\"Actively Managed.\"\" In your self-managed accounts, you will record dividends and sales as they occur, and your securities will be set to get quotes online. You can follow the general GnuCash guides for this. In your too-many-transactions actively traded accounts, maybe once a month you will gather up your statements and enter the activity in summary to tie the changes in cost basis. I would suggest making each fake \"\"share\"\" equal $1, so if you have a $505 dividend, you buy 505 \"\"shares\"\" with it. So, you might have these transactions for your brokerage account with Merrill Lynch (for example): When you have finished making your period-end summary entries for all the actively-managed accounts, double-check that the share balances of your actively-managed accounts match the cost basis amounts on your statements. Remember that each fake \"\"share\"\" is worth $1 when you enter it. Once the cost basis is tied, you can go into the price editor (Tools -> Price Editor) and enter a new \"\"price\"\" as of the period-end date for each actively-managed account. The price will be \"\"Value of Active Acct at Period-End/Cost of Active Acct at Period-End.\"\" So, if your account was worth $1908 but had a cost basis of $505 on Jan. 31, you would type \"\"1908/505\"\" in the price field and Jan. 31, 2017 in the date field. When you run your reports, you will want to choose the price source as \"\"Nearest in Time\"\" so that GnuCash grabs the correct quotes. This should make your actively-managed accounts have the correct activity in summary in your GnuCash income accounts and let them work well with the Trading Accounts feature.\"",
"I've found you can give the money to charity. If you text REDCROSS to 90999 for example you can give $10 to the redcross",
"You can have a way for people to pay, i.e. some kind of payment gateway. Run as Business: Best create a company and get the funds there. This would be treated as income of the website and would be taxed accordingly. One can deduct expenses for running the website, etc. Run as Charity: Register as one, however the cause should be considered as charitable one by the tax authorities. Only then the donations would be tax free.",
"Unless you are a client with boatloads of money, I don't think service like you are asking about is very common. And I kind of assume that if you did have the boatloads of money, you would already have had such a relationship with a brokerage or accountant or similar financial professional. When I have taken money from brokerage accounts, I have had to call them to ask for it or requested it online. For both, the only option was to receive a check in the mail made out to the account holder (me). This usually takes about a week, although that does include waiting for the funds to settle after a stock sale which itself is about 3 business days. I know a lot of brokerages do have banks affiliated with them and one of the benefits of having a bank account with that affiliated bank is quicker transfers in and out of your bank account. But if you aren't willing to do that, I don't think you have many other choices other than receive a check in the mail.",
"Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.",
"As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.",
"Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation.",
"\"Your broker, Ameritrade, offers a variety of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that you can buy and sell with zero commission. An ETF is like a mutual fund, but you buy and sell shares the same way you buy and sell shares of stocks. From your point of view, the relevance of this is that you can buy and sell as many or as few shares as you like, even down to a single share. Note that to get the commission-free trades on the available ETFs you have to sign up for it in your account profile. Be sure to do that before you enter any buy orders. You'll want to start by looking at the Ameritrade's list of commission-free ETFs. Notice that they are divided into different categories: stocks, bonds, international, and commodities. Which categories you pick from will depend on your personal investing goals, time horizon, risk tolerance, and so on. There are lots of questions and answers on this site that talk about asset allocation. You should read them, as it is the most important decision you will make with your portfolio. The other thing you want to be aware of is the expense ratio for each fund. These expenses reduce the fund's return (they are included in the calculation of the net asset value of the shares), so lower is definitely better. Personally, I wouldn't even consider paying more than about 0.10% (commonly read \"\"10 basis points\"\" or \"\"10 bp\"\") for a broad-based domestic stock fund. For a sectoral fund you might put up with as much as 20 bp in expenses. Bond funds tend to be a little more expensive, so maybe allow as much as 25 bp, and likewise for international funds. I've never invested in commodity funds, so I'll let someone else opine on appropriate expense ratios for those. Once you've decided what funds you want (and have signed up for commission-free trades), all you have to do is enter the trade orders. The website where you manage your account has tutorials on how to do that. After that you should be all set. Good luck with your investing!\"",
"As stated above, the IRA accounts themselves are individual. But if you want to simulate a joint account, the following actions would help: Make sure to setup each account with the other spouse as the beneficiary so that each account goes to any surviving spouse should the unexpected happen. Some brokers (I know TDA does this) allow you to grant access to your account to another login, so that effectively one spouse could make the invest decisions for all your accounts. This is better than simply sharing your username and password, which is against many T&Cs. If you do this in both directions, each spouse has access to all accounts.",
"There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website",
"You could just commingle your funds. That way, she also learns how to keep track of things and how to figure things out, rather just learning to have the guy at the brokerage hand her an account statement which she blindly accepts. It might cause some tax problems though if the money grows to be substantial.",
"They will not open an account if you come in wanting to open an account for a third party. Your sister will have to do it herself. Assuming she has a SSN and credit history to verify her identity, she'll easily be able to do it online, and use whatever address she wants to send mail to (she can have separate mailing and residence addresses). There are also Israeli institutions who provide investment accounts to Israelis with ability to trade in the US. That might be easier for her than having an account in the US and filing tax returns in Israel every year. Unless she evades taxes in Israel, that is...",
"I personally like Schwab. Great service, low fees, wide variety of fund are available at no fee. TD Ameritrade is good too.",
"Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.) Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing.",
"I recommend opening a UTMA investment account with any of the major discount brokerage firms (Schwab, Fidelity, etc) and making regular deposits into an index or target fund. Have the statements sent to your niece's address so she can see the growth over time. The custodian of the account will have control until she turns 18 or 21, then she will have full use of the money. You have other options (like a 529 account), but those come with restrictions on how the money can be spent.",
"Assuming a USA taxable account: Withdrawing funds from a brokerage account has nothing to do with taxes. Taxes are owed on the profit when you sell a stock, no matter what you do with the funds. Taxes are owed on any dividends the stock produces, no matter what you do with the dividend. The brokerage sends you a form 1099 each year that shows the amounts of dividends and profits. You have to figure out the taxes from that.",
"I don't know what you are on about, as most online brokers should offer standard brokerage without margin. As trading with magin is considered more risky by most (especially if you don't know what you are doing), so one would have to fill out additional application forms and possibly undergo some training before getting a margin account open. A quick search on the net provided some examples, here is one - IG, who provide 3 type of accounts - Spread Betting and CFDs (both leveraged) and Stockbroking (which is non-leveraged).",
"\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"You definitely do not need human interaction to open an account at Schwab. You just need to provide a social security number and US drivers license. See http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/accounts/brokerage_account You can do it online or through the mail. They usually have some questions about your level of experience with investing. They are required to ask these questions to ensure that you don't get confused and put your money in inappropriate investments.",
"OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.",
"Once you become NRI or know for sure you would be one, you can't hold ordinary accounts. Convert existing savings account into NRO. Open new NRE account so it's easier to move funds. In simple terms an NRE type of account means you can repatriate the funds outside of India anytime without any paperwork, there are some tax benefits as well. MFU platform can be used for operating demat, else you need a brokerage account. If you have stocks, then existing demat need to be converted to NONPINS account, it's actually open new, move, close old. Any new stock you need to open a PINS Demat account. You can use NRO account of MFU, it creates some complexity of taxes... MFU NRE would be more easier for taxes and flexible for repatriation",
"Jason I think your doing a great thing. Based on what your describing I would look further into a 501(c)(3). Chapter 3 from the IRS Publication 557 offers information. This Wikipedia gives a quick understanding of 501(c)(3) and how to apply. Here is a great article from ehow it has some suggestions for someone who is just starting out. Maybe going through an organization already existing within your community might be a better, perhaps a church or some religious organization.",
"You might what to check out Interactive Brokers. If your India stock is NSE listed they might be able to do it since they support trading on that exchange. I would talk to a customer service rep there first. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=exchanges&p=asia",
"I have a free account on http://optionshouse.com/ that allows me to invest fake money into different stocks and test their tracking software. It is free and easy to do, just create an account there and they give you $4000 (fake) to invest in the stock market. They do this so that you can test their tracking and other assorted tools, in hopes that you'll choose to invest your real hard earned money with them.",
"You'll need to talk to your broker about registering positions you already hold. I would personally expect this will cost you a not-insignificant fee. And I don't think you'll be able to do this on any shares held in a tax-advantaged account. That said, I'd recommend you go to the Investors sections of the company's website in question. This will usually tell you who the registrar of the company's stock is, and if they offer any direct-purchase, or DRIP, programs. You should find out from these contacts and program details how the direct program works and what it's costs are. I suspect, but have no firsthand knowledge that this will be true, that you'll end up with lower costs if you just sell the shares in your brokerage, take the cash out, send the cash to the registrar and re-purchase shares that way. I say this only because I know, from inheritance situations, that de-registering stock cost me a $75 fee at my brokerage, whereas transactions at the registrar were $19.95. My answers to your direct questions: (Edited to fully answer the question with itemized answers.)",
"A public company should have a link for investor relations, which should help provide a trail of basis if this is a matter of company buyout, takeover, etc. This gets you close, but if you don't have an exact date, it will just be close, not exact. One clean way out of this, assuming the goal is to get rid of the stock and move on, is to donate the shares to charity. You will take the present value as a deduction, and be done. You can use a charitable gift fund such as those offered by Schwab or Fidelity, so if say, the shares are worth $20K, and you typically donate $5K per year, the fund lets you do this transaction at once, then send to the charities you wish over the next few years.",
"\"There are two issues. The first is that you can manage all of your family's money. The second issue arises if you now \"\"own\"\" all of your family's money. As far as entities go, it is best to keep money or assets in as many different hands as possible. Right now, if someone sued you and won, they could take away not only your money, but your parents' and brother's money, under your name. Also, there are gift, estate and inheritance tax consequences to your parents and brother handing all their money to you. You should have three or four separate \"\"piles\"\" of money, one for yourself, one for your brother and one for each of your parents, or at least both of them as a couple. If someone sued one parent, the other parent, your brother and you are protected. You can have all these piles of money under your management. That is, your parents and brother should each maintain separate brokerage accounts from yours, and then give you the authorization to trade (but not withdraw from) their accounts. This could all be at the same brokerage house, to make the reporting and other logistics relatively easy.\"",
"\"Uniform Transfer to Minors Act (UTMA) and Uniform Gift to Minors Act (UGMA) accounts in the United States are accounts that belong to your child, but you can deposit money into. When the child attains his/her majority, the money becomes theirs to spend however they wish. Prior to attaining their majority, a custodian must sign off on withdrawals. Now, they are not foolproof; legally, you can withdraw money if it is spent on the child's behalf, so that can be gamed. What you can do to protect against that is to make another person the custodian (or, perhaps make them joint custodians with yourself, requiring both signatures for withdrawals). UTMA/UGMA accounts do not have to be bank savings accounts; for example, both of my children have accounts at Vanguard which are effectively their college savings accounts. They're invested in various ETFs and similar kinds of investments; you're welcome to choose from a wide variety of options depending on risk tolerance. Typically these accounts have relatively small fees, particularly if you have a reasonable minimum balance (I think USD$10k is a common minimum for avoiding larger fees). If you are looking for something even more secure than a UGMA or UTMA account, you can set up a trust. These have several major differences over the UGMA/UTMA accounts: Some of course consider the second point an advantage, some a disadvantage - we (and Grandma) prefer to let our children make their own choices re: college, while others may not prefer that. Also worth noting as a difference - and concern to think about - in these two. A UGMA or UTMA account that generates income may have taxable events - interest or dividend income. If that's over a relatively low threshhold, about $1050 this year, those earnings will be taxed (on the child's own tax return). If it's over $2100 (this year), those earnings will be taxed at the parents' tax rate (\"\"kiddie tax\"\"). Trusts are slightly different; trusts themselves are taxed, and have their own tax returns. If you do set one of those up, the lawyer who helps you do so should inform you of the tax implications and either hook you up with an accountant or point you to resources to handle the taxes yourself.\"",
"Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.",
"Many brokers offer a selection of ETFs with no transaction costs. TD Ameritrade and Schwab both have good offerings. Going this route will maximize diversification while minimizing friction.",
"\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"",
"You'll have to take cash from your Credit Card account and use that to trade. I doubt any brokerage house will take credit cards as it's trading without any collateral (since credit cards are an unsecured credit)",
"Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.",
"Yes, depending on what you're trying to achieve. If its just a symbolic gift - you can use a service like this. There are several companies providing this service, look them up, but the prices are fairly the same. You'll end up getting a real stock certificate, but it will cost a lot of overhead (around $40 to get the certificate, and then another $40 to deposit it into a brokerage account if you want to sell it on a stock exchange). So although the certificate is real and the person whose name on it is a full-blown shareholder, it doesn't actually have much value (unless you buy a Google or Apple stock, where the price is much much higher than the fees). Take into account that it takes around 2 months for the certificate to be issued and mailed to you, so time accordingly. Otherwise, you can open a custodial brokerage account, and use it to buy stocks for the minor. Both ways are secure and legal, each for its own purpose and with its own fees.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested."
] |
[
"If the charity accepts stock, you can avoid the tax on the long term cap gain when you donate it. e.g. I donate $10,000 in value of Apple. I write off $10,000 on my taxes, and benefit with a $2500 refund. If I sold it, I'd have nearly a $1500 tax bill (bought long enough ago, the basis is sub $100). Any trading along the way, and it's on you. Gains long or short are taxed on you. It's only the final donation that matters here. Edit - to address Anthony's comment on other answer - I sell my Apple, with a near $10,000 gain (it's really just $9900) and I am taxed $1500. Now I have $8500 cash I donate and get $2125 back in a tax refund. By donating the stock I am ahead nearly $375, and the charity, $1500.",
"I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric."
] |
4845
|
What is the difference between fund and portfolio?
|
[
"40424",
"339928",
"41625"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"40424",
"339928",
"271997",
"569948",
"41625",
"180196",
"367960",
"25029",
"106863",
"370244",
"15169",
"106665",
"160140",
"336218",
"408524",
"43781",
"586851",
"368124",
"270992",
"132089",
"479420",
"374204",
"60232",
"454224",
"274859",
"536853",
"99528",
"5710",
"330743",
"469141",
"96926",
"429929",
"283893",
"578728",
"358997",
"297290",
"55769",
"8891",
"216581",
"27930",
"298350",
"314085",
"372677",
"413521",
"106864",
"438582",
"331008",
"104254",
"199493",
"237712",
"155242",
"437875",
"472663",
"246253",
"119392",
"153112",
"110343",
"363741",
"179986",
"315627",
"40158",
"538830",
"500486",
"274392",
"574383",
"475640",
"201679",
"288679",
"294314",
"280530",
"475426",
"403870",
"513818",
"322826",
"208977",
"296401",
"322806",
"195191",
"241996",
"353337",
"492506",
"576008",
"179664",
"567362",
"392465",
"159471",
"416569",
"334919",
"153660",
"45970",
"345954",
"495473",
"539263",
"598272",
"260880",
"241928",
"63577",
"387492",
"312942",
"466472"
] |
[
"\"A \"\"Fund\"\" is generally speaking a collection of similar financial products, which are bundled into a single investment, so that you as an individual can buy a portion of the Fund rather than buying 50 portions of various products. e.g. a \"\"Bond Fund\"\" may be a collection of various corporate bonds that are bundled together. The performance of the Fund would be the aggregate of each individual item. Generally speaking Funds are like pre-packaged \"\"diversification\"\". Rather than take time (and fees) to buy 50 different stocks on the same stock index, you could buy an \"\"Index Fund\"\" which represents the values of all of those stocks. A \"\"Portfolio\"\" is your individual package of investments. ie: the 20k you have in bonds + the 5k you have in shares, + the 50k you have in \"\"Funds\"\" + the 100k rental property you own. You might split the definition further buy saying \"\"My 401(k) portfolio & my taxable portfolio & my real estate portfolio\"\"(etc.), to denote how those items are invested. The implication of \"\"Portfolio\"\" is that you have considered how all of your investments work together; ie: your 5k in stocks is not so risky, because it is only 5k out of your entire 185k portfolio, which includes some low risk bonds and funds. Another way of looking at it, is that a Fund is a special type of Portfolio. That is, a Fund is a portfolio, that someone will sell to someone else (see Daniel's answer below). For example: Imagine you had $5,000 invested in IBM shares, and also had $5,000 invested in Apple shares. Call this your portfolio. But you also want to sell your portfolio, so let's also call it a 'fund'. Then you sell half of your 'fund' to a friend. So your friend (let's call him Maurice) pays you $4,000, to invest in your 'Fund'. Maurice gives you $4k, and in return, you given him a note that says \"\"Maurice owns 40% of atp9's Fund\"\". The following month, IBM pays you $100 in dividends. But, Maurice owns 40% of those dividends. So you give him a cheque for $40 (some funds automatically reinvest dividends for their clients instead of paying them out immediately). Then you sell your Apple shares for $6,000 (a gain of $1,000 since you bought them). But Maurice owns 40% of that 6k, so you give him $2,400 (or perhaps, instead of giving him the money immediately, you reinvest it within the fund, and buy $6k of Microsoft shares). Why would you set up this Fund? Because Maurice will pay you a fee equal to, let's say, 1% of his total investment. Your job is now to invest the money in the Fund, in a way that aligns with what you told Maurice when he signed the contract. ie: maybe it's a tech fund, and you can only invest in big Tech companies. Maybe it's an Index fund, and your investment needs to exactly match a specific portion of the New York Stock Exchange. Maybe it's a bond fund, and you can only invest in corporate bonds. So to reiterate, a portfolio is a collection of investments (think of an artist's portfolio, being a collection of their work). Usually, people refer to their own 'portfolio', of personal investments. A fund is someone's portfolio, that other people can invest in. This allows an individual investor to give some of their decision making over to a Fund manager. In addition to relying on expertise of others, this allows the investor to save on transaction costs, because they can have a well-diversified portfolio (see what I did there?) while only buying into one or a few funds.\"",
"\"A fund is a portfolio, in that it is a collection, so the term is interchangeable for the most part. Funds are made up of a combination of equities positions (i.e., stocks, bonds, etc.) plus some amount of un-invested cash. Most of the time, when people are talking about a \"\"fund\"\", they are describing what is really an investment strategy. In other words, an example would be a \"\"Far East Agressive\"\" fund (just a made up name for illustration here), which focuses on investment opportunities in the Far East that have a higher level of risk than most other investments, thus they provide better returns for the investors. The \"\"portfolio\"\" part of that is what the stocks are that the fund has purchased and is holding on behalf of its investors. Other funds focus on municipal bonds or government bonds, and the list goes on. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"Mutual funds are funds composed of financial assets and the funds of investors, and are managed by a firm, usually a large wealth management firm. They are generally accessible to anyone. Hedge funds are private investment funds with limited access, and are subject to fewer regulations. They are usually legally set up as their own firm.",
"A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund. Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund. The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.",
"\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"",
"Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments. The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser. Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates. And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.",
"\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"",
"\"Technically, no. According to the dictionary, a folio is a single sheet, and a portfolio is a folder or case for keeping your folios. In finance, your collection of investments is called your portfolio, probably because your broker (before the digital age) would keep the records of what each of his clients held in separate portfolios. However, I have seen the word folio used as a short colloquialism for portfolio, and if you google \"\"investment folio\"\" you will see it used this way, mainly in trademarked names of financial firms.\"",
"The main difference between a mutual fund and an ETF are how they are bought and sold (from the investors perspective). An ETF is transacted on the open market. This means you normally can't buy partial shares with your initial investment. Having to transact on the open market also means you pay a market price. The market price is always a little bit different from the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund. During market hours, the ETF will trade at a premium/discount to the NAV calculated on the previous day. Morningstar's fund analysis will show a graph of the premium/discount to NAV for an ETF. With a mutual fund on the other hand, your investment goes to a fund company, which then grants you shares while under the hood buying the underlying investments. You pay the NAV price and are allowed to buy partial shares. Usually an ETF has a lower expense ratio, but if that's equal and any initial fees/commissions are equal, I would prefer the mutual fund in order to buy partial shares (so your initial investment will be fully invested) and so you don't have to worry about paying premium to NAV",
"Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.",
"\"The difference between dividend and growth in mutual funds has to do with the types of stocks the mutual fund invests in. Typically a company in the early stages are considered growth investments. In this phase the company needs to keep most of its profits to reinvest in the business. Typically once a company gets a significant size the company's growth prospects are not as good so the company pays some of its profits in the form of a dividend to the shareholders. As far as which is the best buy is totally a personal choice. There will be times when one is better then the other. Most likely you will want to \"\"diversify\"\" and invest in both types.\"",
"Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks'). Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different. They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks. (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets. Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.",
"\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \"\"income\"\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\"",
"Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.",
"Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.",
"@Victor above has provided a very good answer, I shall try and highlight some differences. The differences are specific to a country, however, it does offer some insight regarding the difference between investing in retirement fund vis-a-vis investing in stock directly: In many countries the retirement fund is mandated by the govt. and has to be invested in (in form of direct deduction from salary) ~ Investing in stock is up to the individual In many cases (if not most) capital gain/interest accrual in retirement funds are not taxable ~ Depending upon current laws capital gain (long term/short term) from stocks are taxable Retirement funds are managed and are (in general) more stable in their returns ~ Returns from direct stock investments are dependent on investment decisions of the investor Retirement funds tend to, (though this is very country specific) return somewhat less than market, as an example, in India Public Provident Fund (PPF)/Employee Provident Fund (EPF) return 8.68% tax free ~ As for direct investment on stocks, Nifty has returned approx. 17% CAGR over 15-20 years. Given the above, if you can invest in stock by taking informed calls and you have a good understanding of the financial markets and their underpinning and (probably) looking at long term investment, then investing directly in stock could fetch returns that might not be paralled by retirement funds. If on the other hand, if you feel investing in stock is not for you, then it probably is better to stick with retirement funds and other low risk investments. Either way, you probably have to (and may be you should) carry some portion of your portfolio as retirement funds.",
"@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you.",
"\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \"\"market rate of return\"\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\"",
"The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.",
"There is no research or scientific data to arrive at how much in Single Fund is good, how much is more risky. Its a question of risk appetite, how much money if you loose you are fine. This is similar to making a decision as to how much diversified should a portfolio be ... i.e. what mix of FD/Mutual Funds/Shares/Gold/Real Estate one should have.",
"Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.",
"Close-end funds just means there's a fixed number of shares available, so if you want to buy some you must purchase from other existing owners, typically through an exchange. Open-end funds mean the company providing the shares is still selling them, so you can buy them directly from the company. Some can also be traded on exchanges as well.",
"Thanks for the huge insight. I am still a student doing an intern and this was given as my first task, more of trying to give the IA another perspective looking at these funds rather than picking. I was not given the investors preference in terms of return and risk tolerances so it was really open-ended. However, thanks so much for the quick response. At least now I have a better idea of what I am going to deliver or at least try to show to the IA.",
"A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker.",
"Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:",
"\"Asset management typically refers to the \"\"product\"\" group e.g. Mutual fund, etf, etc., like invesco offering qqq or some emerging market mutual fund. Capital management is more vague and can refer to a wide range of financial products and services including asset management and stuff like ptfl planning, wealth advisory etc. That said they are both used interchangeably and not like anyone would correct you if you used one vs the other...\"",
"I misspoke, but really when you look at the exact same securities what other advantage does a fund have over a moderately wealthy investor than leverage and managerial clout? That and professional analysts can only give you so much of an edge.",
"\"As Michael Pryor answered, a bond fund is a mutual fund that invests in bonds. I'd also consider an ETF based on bonds to be a bond fund, but I'm not sure that all investors would consider these as \"\"bond funds\"\". Not all bond funds are the same -- just like stock funds. You can classify bond funds based on the issuer of the bonds: You can also classify funds based on the time to maturity: In general, bond funds have lower risk and lower expected return than stock funds. Sometimes bond funds have price movements that are not tightly correlated to the price movements in the equity markets. This can make them a decent hedge against declines in your equity investments. See Michal Pryor's answer for some info on how you can get tax free treatment for your bond fund investments.\"",
"There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.",
"When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself.",
"The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.",
"While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs.",
"If this is the case, then shouldn't the difference between their annualized returns be same year on year? In general yes, however there difference has a compounding effect. i.e. if the difference if 5% first year, this money is invested and it would generate more of the said returns. However in reality as the corpus size of direct funds is very small, there difference is not very significant as other factors come into play.",
"The simple answer is: YES, the JP Morgan emerging markets equity fund is a mutual fund. A mutual fund is a pooling of money from investors to invest in stocks and bonds. Investors in mutual funds arrive there in different ways. Some get there via their company 401K, others by an IRA, still others as a taxable account. The fund can be sold by the company directly or through a broker. You can also have a fund of funds. So the investors are other funds. Some investors are only indirect investors. They are owed a pension by a past or current employer, and the pension fund has invested in a mutual fund.",
"What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.",
"\"There is a lot of interesting information that can be found in a fund's prospectus. I have found it very helpful to read books on the issue, one I just finished was \"\"The Boglehead's Guide to Investing\"\" which speaks mostly on mutual and index funds. Actively managed funds mean that someone is choosing which stocks to buy and which to sell. If they think a stock will be \"\"hot\"\" then they buy it. Research has shown that people cannot predict the stock market, which is why many people suggest index based funds. An index fund generally tracks a group of companies. Example: an index fund of the S&P 500 will try to mimic the returns that the S&P 500 has. Overall, managed funds are more expensive than index funds because the fund manager must be paid to manage it. Also, there is generally more buying and selling so that also increases the tax amount you would owe. What I am planning on doing is opening a Roth IRA with Vanguard, as their funds have incredibly low fees (0.2% on many). One of the most important things you do before you buy is to figure out your target allocation (% of stocks vs % of bonds). Once you figure that out then you can start narrowing down the funds that you wish to invest in.\"",
"A closed-end fund is a collective investment scheme that is closed to new investment once the fund starts operating. A typical open-ended fund will allow you to buy more shares of the fund anytime you want and the fund will create those new shares for you and invest your new money to continue growing assets under management. A closed-end fund only using the initial capital invested when the fund started operating and no new shares are typically created (always exception in the financial community). Normally you buy and sell an open-end fund from the fund company directly. A closed-end fund will usually be bought and sold on the secondary market. Here is some more information from Wikipedia Some characteristics that distinguish a closed-end fund from an ordinary open-end mutual fund are that: Another distinguishing feature of a closed-end fund is the common use of leverage or gearing to enhance returns. CEFs can raise additional investment capital by issuing auction rate securities, preferred shares, long-term debt, and/or reverse-repurchase agreements. In doing so, the fund hopes to earn a higher return with this excess invested capital.",
"There are two independent sets of terms we need to define in order to answer your question. I am trying to understand the difference between Value, Blend, and Growth These are different categories of mutual funds: Value: discounted or undervalued stocks. This is often measured by a difference between the stock's price and the Net Asset Value (NEV). Growth: stocks that fund managers believe are poised for significant growth (increase in stock price and NEV). Blend: a blend of two categories of stocks. In this context it probably refers to a combination of growth and value stocks, but it just depends on the context. I want to receive dividend and Growth These are ways to receive earnings from a stock or fund. Dividend: a direct cash payment from owning a stock or a fund. Stocks and funds who pay out 100% of their profits don't have any money leftover to grow themselves and either stagnate or shrink. Growth: an increase manifesting itself in capital gains. If a stock or fund pays out zero dividends, then all profits are invested back into the company for fund, increasing its value. If you intend to automatically reinvest dividends, then receiving dividends is essentially the same as receiving profit through capital gains. If you intend to sell stocks or funds periodically to get some extra spending cash, then receiving profits through capital gains is essentially the same as dividends.",
"Mutual funds are only traded once per day, while other securities can be traded any time during the day. Mutual funds are actually a collection of other things that have value, such as stocks. The price of a mutual fund is calculated at the end of the day after the market closes by looking at how much the collection of things changed in value during the day.",
"Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.",
"\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"",
"\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"",
"The fund prospectus is a good place to start.",
"I think you have to refer to it (i.e. a hedge fund) as more of a legal structure rather than from an investment perspective. Hedge Funds are generally private investment vehicles that require large capital contributions (whether the hedge fund is set up as a 3c(7) or a 3c(1) structure). Doesn't matter what the relative investment strategy is (long only, long/short, levered, distressed debt, model defined, etc.) 3(c)(7) = qualified purchaser status = Min worth of $25,000,000 3(c)(1) = accredited investor status = less than qualified purchaser status, but still requires certain income limits. Just my two cents.",
"In my opinion the difference is semantic. A professional, or someone wanting to present an air of competence, is more likely to talk about investing in shares, as the word investment carries with it connotations of effort, energy and a worthwhile result. Whereas, the word speculation implies the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.",
"I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.",
"\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"",
"Many folks use bonds to diversify their portfolio since bonds rise and fall in value at different times and for different reasons than stocks. Bonds pay interest on a regular basis (usually monthly or quarterly) and so some people invest in bonds in order to match the interest payments to some regular expense they might have. The interest payment does not change (fixed income). For individual bonds, there is a maturity date at which you can expect to receive the face value of the bond (the issuer's creditworthiness is important here). You can make a little money on a bond by buying it when its value is lower than its face value and either selling later for a higher value, or waiting for it to mature. Often the minimum investment for a single bond is high, so if you don't have a large enough amount, you can still get the performance of bonds through a bond fund. These do not mature, so you don't have a guarantee of a return of your investment. However, they have access to more bonds than retail investors, so the funds can keep your money more fully invested. If you don't need the income, you can reinvest the dividends and have a little extra capital growth this way.",
"Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.",
"The difference is downside risk. Your CD, assuming you are in the US and the CD is purchased from a deposit bank, will be FDIC insured, your $10,000 is definitely coming back to you. Your stock portfolio has no such guarantee and can lose money. Your potential upside is theoretically correlated to the risk that some or all of your money may not be returned to you.",
"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.",
"An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"",
"\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"",
"Generally a diversified portfolio will give you a better overall return --a couple of factors that may address what you are looking at - 1) Correlation - The correlation between your two funds is still very high -- it's partially a function of how global economies are related and many companies are now multi-national. It may help if you diversified into other types of products. 2) Diversification - Following up from before, you may want to also look into diversifying into some bonds, commodities, reits, etc. They will have a much smaller correlation with a total domestic stock fund. 3) Returns - I'm not sure if by dominate you mean that it has better overall returns, but the point of diversification is to to get you the highest returns. It's really the ability to limit the risk for the returns - this really translates to limiting the volatility. This may mean that overall your max returns could be lower-- ie: maybe VTSAX gives potential average returns between 3%-11%. A diversified portfolio may give you potential average returns of 5%-9%. A similar article debating the merits of 'smart beta ETFs' if you are curious. Hope that helps.",
"The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.",
"A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).",
"I wrote about this a while back: http://blog.investraction.com/2006/10/mutual-funds-dividend-option-or-growth.html In short: Growth options of a mutual fund scheme don't pay out any money, they reinvest the dividend they receive. Dividend options pay out some money, at different intervals, based on the surplus they accumulate. In India, the options have very similar underlying portfolios, so HDFC Equity Fund (Growth) and HDFC Equity Fund (dividend) will have the same percentage allocation to each stock. Update: I also have a video you might want to see on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8QtnccfZk",
"may result in more taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable account. When the fund manager decides to sell shares of a stock, and those shares have grown in value, that growth is a capital gain. If that fund is part of a taxable account then the investors in the fund will have to declare that income/gain on their tax forms. That could require the investors to have to pay taxes on those gains. Of course if the investors are holding the fund shares in a IRA or 401K then there are no taxes due in the near term. A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction costs... ...These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating expenses or in the previous expense examples, reduce the Fund’s performance. The annual fund operating expenses are the expenses that they can assume will happen every year. They include salaries, the cost of producing statements, paperwork required by the government, research... It doesn't include transaction costs. Which they can't estimate what they will be in advance. If the fund invests in a particular segment of the market, and there is a disruption in that segment, they may need to make many new investments. If on the other hand last year they made great choices the turnover may be small this year. During the most recent fiscal year, the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate was 3% of the average value of its portfolio. That may be your best indicator.",
"Note that many funds just track indexes. In that case, you essentially don't have to worry about the fund manager making bad decisions. In general, the statistics are very clear that you want to avoid any actively managed fund. There are many funds that are good all-in-one investments. If you are in Canada, for example, Canadian Couch Potato recommends the Tangerine Investment Funds. The fees are a little high, but if you don't have a huge investment, one of these funds would be a good choice and appropriate for 100% of your investment. If you have a larger investment, to the point that Tangerine's MER scares you a little, you still may well look at a three or four fund (or ETF) portfolio. You may choose to use an actively-managed fund even though you know there's virtually no chance it'll beat a fund that just tracks an index, long-term. In that case, I'd recommend devoting only a small portion of your portfolio to this fund. Many people suggest speculating with no more than 10% of your combined investment. Note that other people are more positive on actively-managed funds.",
"\"This is another semantics question. Again what matters is how the words are commonly used, as the usage came about long before the technical definitions. In this case, when people say \"\"mutual fund,\"\" they are often including both unit investment trusts and closed end funds. Despite the labels the SEC has given in order to differentiate them, I'd say it's common (typical) practice to think of a closed-end fund as a type of mutual fund, rather than a different category altogether. That's the way I've seen it used, anyway.\"",
"This is probably the best, most concise and yet detailed answer to this oft-posed question I've seen on this sub. Have an upvote. Only thing I'd add is that HFs' comparatively more active approach creates a moat vs. mutual funds, which are seen as more long-term, passive investments. This means they can charge fees and have higher expense ratios (though obviously anyone in finance who has been conscious in the last five years knows that this is changing)",
"First, it's not always the case that ETFs have lower expenses than the equivalent mutual funds. For example, in the Vanguard family of funds the expense ratio for the ETF version is the same as it is for the Admiral share class in the mutual fund version. With that in mind, the main advantages of a mutual fund over an equivalent ETF are: From a long-term investor's point of view, the main disadvantage of mutual funds relative to ETFs is the minimum account sizes. Especially if the fund has multiple share classes (i.e., where better classes get lower expense ratios), you might have to have quite a lot of money invested in the fund in order to get the same expense ratio as the ETF. There are some other differences that matter to more active investors (e.g., intraday trading, options, etc.), but for a passive investor the ones above are the major ones. Apart from those mutual funds and ETFs are pretty similar. Personally, I prefer mutual funds because I'm at a point where the fund minimums aren't really an issue, and I don't want to deal with the more fiddly aspects of ETFs. For investors just starting out the lower minimum investment for an ETF is a big win, as long as you can get commission-free trades (which is what I've assumed above.)",
"Some years your portfolio may perform better than the benchmark, and some years it may be the other way around. Without a benchmark you will never know. And by the way if you choose poorly, you will never beat the benchmark. If the benchmark goes up 20% but your fund/investment only went up 3% you did make money, but you might want to reevaluate your strategy.",
"Mutual funds are a collection of other assets, such as stocks, bonds and property. Unless the fund is a type that is traded on an exchange, you will only be able to buy into the fund by applying for units with the fund manager and sell out by contacting the fund manager. These type of non-traded funds are usually updated at the end of the day once the closing prices of all the assets in it are known.",
"All mutual funds disclose their investments, funds are large cap only or midcsp etc. So it depends on what funds you choose.",
"Mutual Funds are relatively evaluated and this is likely what you want. Your answer is likely the information ratio. If your interested, Active Portfolio Management by Grinold, Kahn is probably a good book to read. That being said, hedge funds will generally have absolute mandates and will be more likely to use a sharpe ratio.",
"ETFs are both liquid (benefits active traders) and a simple way for people to invest in funds even if they don't have the minimum balance needed to invest in a mutual fund (EDIT: in which purchases are resolved at the end of the trading day). One big difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you must buy ETFs in whole units, whereas you can add $100 to a mutual fund and the fund will determine -- usually to 4 decimal places -- how many shares you've purchased.",
"Funds built of dividend-paying stocks are normally called income funds.",
"Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money.",
"\"Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(\"\"symbol\"\", \"\"attribute\"\", \"\"start_date\"\", \"\"num_days|end_date\"\", \"\"interval\"\") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that.\"",
"Fund performance at NAV (%) for latest quarter, YTD, and average annual total returns for 1, 3, 5, 10 years. P/E ratio (1 yr. forecast), P/B ratio, Beta, Sharpe ratio, Wtd. avg. market cap, fund assets. I guess I would want to calculate all these things based off of the data that I would be working with. I will assume I am working with daily fund values per share over 10+ years.",
"Stock portfolios have diversifiable risk and undiversifiable risk. The market rewards investors for taking undiversifiable risk (e.g. owning an index of oil producing companies) and does not reward investors for assuming diversifiable risk (e.g. owning a single oil producing company). The market will not provide investors with any extra return for owning a single oil company when they can buy an oil index fund at no additional cost. Similarly, the market will not reward you for owning a small-cap index fund when you can purchase a globally diversified / capitalization diversified index fund at no additional cost. This article provides a more detailed description. The Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund is a much better staring point for an equity portfolio. You will need to make sure that the asset allocation of your overall portfolio (e.g. stocks, bonds, P2P lending, cash) is consistent with your time horizon (5-10 years).",
"As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index:",
"Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment. An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.",
"Google Portfolio does the job: https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio You can add transaction data, view fundamentals and much more.",
"\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"",
"Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.",
"A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.",
"\"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial \"\"advisor\"\" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower \"\"capital gains\"\" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an \"\"expense ratio\"\", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here.\"",
"\"Taking examples from this loosely Googled page: http://www.fundlibrary.com/features/columns/page.asp?id=14406 If you find, or calculate, the standard deviation (volatility) of the returns from your various investment classes you will find they range from low-risk (low volatility), such as Cash, to high-risk (high volatility), such as Strategic Growth. The risk rating (volatility) is a good indicator of how reactive to market conditions your investment is likely to be. As you can see below, from mid-2010 to mid-2011 the High Risk index performed really well, but it was also most reactive when the market subsequently turned down. The medium risk indices performed the best over the chart period, 2010 to 2013, but it could have turned out different. Generally, you choose your investment according to your \"\"risk appetite\"\" - how much you're willing to risk. You might play safe with, say, 30% cash, 60% medium risk, 10% high risk. (Then again, are you paying someone to manage cash, which you might be able to do for free in a bank?) Assuming, for a moment, European (3.) and Intnl Equity Tracker (9.) had the same medium risk profile, then holding 50% & 50% would also add some currency diversification, which is usually advisable. However, the main choice is down to risk appetite. To address your specific question: \"\"my main interest for now is between Stockmarket Growth and Strategic Growth\"\", first thing to do is check their volatilities. For a further level of sophistication you can check how they are correlated against each other. If they are inversely correlated, i.e. one goes up when the other goes down, then holding some of each could be a good diversification. FYI: An Introduction to Investment Theory The historical returns are important too, but the investment classes your pension fund is offering will probably be reasonably aligned on a risk-return basis. You should check though. I.e. do they line up on a plot of 3 year Return vs Volatility? e.g. the line through SA Cash - SA Bonds - Vol Target 20 - SA Equity. Source\"",
"Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.",
"Private Equity is simply some type of an investment company, which is owned in a way not accessible to the public. ie: Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hatheway, which is an investment company which itself is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This means that anyone can buy shares in the company, and own a small fraction of it. If Warren Buffet owned all the shares of Berkshire Hatheway, it would be a Private Equity company. Note that 'Equity' refers to the ownership of the company itself; a private investment company may simply buy Bonds (which are a form of Debt), in which case, they would not be technically considered a 'Private Equity' company. A Hedge Fund is a very broad term which I don't believe has significant meaning. Technically, it means something along the lines of an investment fund (either public or private) which attempts to hedge the risks of its portfolio, by carefully considering what type of investments it purchased. This refers back to the meaning of 'hedge', ie: 'hedging your bets'. In my opinion, 'Hedge Fund' is not meaningfully different from 'investment fund' or other similar terms. It is just the most popular way to refer to this type of industry at the present time. You can see the trend of using the term 'investment fund' vs 'hedge fund' using this link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=hedge%20fund,investment%20fund Note that the high-point of the use of 'hedge fund' occurred on October 2008, right at the peak of the global financial crisis. The term evokes a certain image of 'high finance' / 'wall-street types' that may exploit various situations (such as tax legislation, or 'secret information') for their own gain. Without a clear definition, however, it is a term without much meaning. If you do a similar comparison between 'hedge fund' and 'private equity', you can see that the two correlate very closely; I believe the term 'private equity' is similarly misused to generally refer to 'investment bankers'. However in that case, 'private equity' has a more clear definition on its own merits.",
"A proper world porfolio is a non-trivial task. No one answer exists which is the best one and how one should construct it. World? The problem with world portfolio is that it is not well-defined. Providers use it as they wish and people use it as they wish, read the history for further ado (messy stuff). You can build yourself world portfolio but warning it is getting harder. You can use this tool by selecting global equity to search through global funds -- it is very useful and allows you to find the low-cost funds with PE/PB/Div.yield. Also, investigate topic more with this tool, less spam.",
"\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"",
"Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.",
"The biggest benefit to having a larger portfolio is relatively reduced transaction costs. If you buy a $830 share of Google at a broker with a $10 commission, the commission is 1.2% of your buy price. If you then sell it for $860, that's another 1.1% gone to commission. Another way to look at it is, of your $30 ($860 - $830) gain you've given up $20 to transaction costs, or 66.67% of the proceeds of your trade went to transaction costs. Now assume you traded 10 shares of Google. Your buy was $8,300 and you sold for $8,600. Your gain is $300 and you spent the same $20 to transact the buy and sell. Now you've only given up 6% of your proceeds ($20 divided by your $300 gain). You could also scale this up to 100 shares or even 1,000 shares. Generally, dividend reinvestment are done with no transaction cost. So you periodically get to bolster your position without losing more to transaction costs. For retail investors transaction costs can be meaningful. When you're wielding a $5,000,000 pot of money you can make your trades on a larger scale giving up relatively less to transaction costs.",
"Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious.",
"\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \"\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\"\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \"\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\"\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\"",
"\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \"\"actively managed\"\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \"\"time the market\"\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\"",
"Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more. If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around",
"\"an account balance is your total in the account. The word balance means \"\"to be equal\"\". The use in finance stem from accounting. However you do not need to know why its called a balance to understand that a balance is equal to something. IE: your \"\"account balance\"\" is your total account weather its savings, electric bill, or investment portfolio. A position in your investment portfolio is what you are invested in. IE: If I went 100 shares long(I bought) Apple then I have a 100 share position in Apple. Your position is added to your account balance within your investment portfolio.\"",
"There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.",
"An emergency fund is your money, sitting in a bank, that you can use for emergency purposes. A line of credit is somebody else's money, that they've provisionally promised to let you borrow. But they can change their mind at any time.",
"The two terms seem to be used interchangeably. Even the IRS' website uses them interchangeably from one sentence to the next (emphasis mine): Many 401(k) plans allow employees to make a hardship withdrawal because of immediate and heavy financial needs. Generally, hardship distributions from a 401(k) plan are limited to the amount of the employees' elective contributions only ... It might a difference in perspective: The account holder withdraws the money, but the fund manager distributes it. Another way to look at it would be for cases that are only in transition to another tax-advantaged account. You can withdraw the money without it becoming a taxable distribution if you get it into another tax-advantaged account within a certain time limit.",
"The portfolio manager at Value Research Online does this very nicely. It tracks the underlying holdings of each fund, yielding correct calculations for funds that invest across the board. Take a look at the screenshot from my account: If you have direct equity holdings (e.g., not through a mutual fund), that too gets integrated. Per stock details are also visible.",
"\"YES.. Management fees cut directly into your profits. A fund which achieves 8% growth but costs 1% to maintain delivers only 7% to you. Compounded over years, even a relatively small difference can add up to a significant amount of money. This is one of the advantages index funds have. They may not be as \"\"sophisticated\"\" as human-managed funds, but their expense ratio is so much lower that the end result for the investor is often as good as or better than the more expensive products. In fact, at least one study found that, for each category they researched, low expense ratio was a better predictor of good return on investment than anything else they looked at. That doesn't mean cheapest is always best or most expensive is always worst .... but it does mean you should be very, very sure an expensive fund really is that much better before choosing it. And sticking with simple index funds may be a perfectly reasonable choice.\"",
"\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"",
"Diversified is relative. Alfred has all his money in Apple. He's done very well over the last 10 years, but I think most investors would say that he's taking an incredible risk by putting everything on one stock. Betty has stock in Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Compared to Alfred, she is diversified. Charlie looks at Betty and realizes that she is only investing in one particular industry. All the companies in an individual industry can have a downturn together, so he invests everything in an S&P 500 index fund. David looks at Charlie and notes that he's got everything in large, high-capitalization companies. Small-cap stocks are often where the growth happens, so he invests in a total stock market fund. Evelyn realizes that David has all his money tied up in one country, the United States. What about the rest of the world? She invests in a global fund. Frank really likes Evelyn's broad approach to equities, but he knows that some portion of fixed-income assets (e.g. cash deposits, bonds) can reduce portfolio volatility—and may even enhance returns through periodic rebalancing. He does what Evelyn does, but also allocates some percentage of his portfolio to fixed income, and intends to maintain his target allocations. Being diversified enough depends on your individual goals and investing philosophy. There are some who would say that it is wrong to put all of your money in one fund, no matter what it is. Others would say that a sufficiently broad index fund is inherently diversified as-is.",
"\"Most mutual funds are designed to make the investment banks that sell them money, not to make investers money. They do this by taking significant fees out. Because they make lots of money on these funds, they advertise them a lot, and give them important-sounding names, like \"\"Advanced technology global diversity long term appreciation\"\". Index funds are the exception; they attempt to mirror the performance of a specific index (such as the S&P 500 index). They generally have very low fees.\""
] |
[
"\"A \"\"Fund\"\" is generally speaking a collection of similar financial products, which are bundled into a single investment, so that you as an individual can buy a portion of the Fund rather than buying 50 portions of various products. e.g. a \"\"Bond Fund\"\" may be a collection of various corporate bonds that are bundled together. The performance of the Fund would be the aggregate of each individual item. Generally speaking Funds are like pre-packaged \"\"diversification\"\". Rather than take time (and fees) to buy 50 different stocks on the same stock index, you could buy an \"\"Index Fund\"\" which represents the values of all of those stocks. A \"\"Portfolio\"\" is your individual package of investments. ie: the 20k you have in bonds + the 5k you have in shares, + the 50k you have in \"\"Funds\"\" + the 100k rental property you own. You might split the definition further buy saying \"\"My 401(k) portfolio & my taxable portfolio & my real estate portfolio\"\"(etc.), to denote how those items are invested. The implication of \"\"Portfolio\"\" is that you have considered how all of your investments work together; ie: your 5k in stocks is not so risky, because it is only 5k out of your entire 185k portfolio, which includes some low risk bonds and funds. Another way of looking at it, is that a Fund is a special type of Portfolio. That is, a Fund is a portfolio, that someone will sell to someone else (see Daniel's answer below). For example: Imagine you had $5,000 invested in IBM shares, and also had $5,000 invested in Apple shares. Call this your portfolio. But you also want to sell your portfolio, so let's also call it a 'fund'. Then you sell half of your 'fund' to a friend. So your friend (let's call him Maurice) pays you $4,000, to invest in your 'Fund'. Maurice gives you $4k, and in return, you given him a note that says \"\"Maurice owns 40% of atp9's Fund\"\". The following month, IBM pays you $100 in dividends. But, Maurice owns 40% of those dividends. So you give him a cheque for $40 (some funds automatically reinvest dividends for their clients instead of paying them out immediately). Then you sell your Apple shares for $6,000 (a gain of $1,000 since you bought them). But Maurice owns 40% of that 6k, so you give him $2,400 (or perhaps, instead of giving him the money immediately, you reinvest it within the fund, and buy $6k of Microsoft shares). Why would you set up this Fund? Because Maurice will pay you a fee equal to, let's say, 1% of his total investment. Your job is now to invest the money in the Fund, in a way that aligns with what you told Maurice when he signed the contract. ie: maybe it's a tech fund, and you can only invest in big Tech companies. Maybe it's an Index fund, and your investment needs to exactly match a specific portion of the New York Stock Exchange. Maybe it's a bond fund, and you can only invest in corporate bonds. So to reiterate, a portfolio is a collection of investments (think of an artist's portfolio, being a collection of their work). Usually, people refer to their own 'portfolio', of personal investments. A fund is someone's portfolio, that other people can invest in. This allows an individual investor to give some of their decision making over to a Fund manager. In addition to relying on expertise of others, this allows the investor to save on transaction costs, because they can have a well-diversified portfolio (see what I did there?) while only buying into one or a few funds.\"",
"\"A fund is a portfolio, in that it is a collection, so the term is interchangeable for the most part. Funds are made up of a combination of equities positions (i.e., stocks, bonds, etc.) plus some amount of un-invested cash. Most of the time, when people are talking about a \"\"fund\"\", they are describing what is really an investment strategy. In other words, an example would be a \"\"Far East Agressive\"\" fund (just a made up name for illustration here), which focuses on investment opportunities in the Far East that have a higher level of risk than most other investments, thus they provide better returns for the investors. The \"\"portfolio\"\" part of that is what the stocks are that the fund has purchased and is holding on behalf of its investors. Other funds focus on municipal bonds or government bonds, and the list goes on. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\""
] |
5067
|
LLC: Where should the funds for initial startup costs come from?
|
[
"547301"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"237760",
"71569",
"523158",
"272076",
"547301",
"1873",
"31694",
"503476",
"390015",
"320616",
"172594",
"127686",
"285255",
"436119",
"135411",
"40044",
"290228",
"229436",
"127584",
"547622",
"269146",
"275249",
"413229",
"133299",
"374443",
"73427",
"350819",
"368649",
"401505",
"490489",
"220165",
"77088",
"88400",
"278629",
"290325",
"546372",
"106733",
"510701",
"101748",
"575869",
"224438",
"192888",
"403848",
"119034",
"234510",
"503419",
"362778",
"484470",
"501015",
"107584",
"333616",
"61768",
"264075",
"60300",
"204169",
"589862",
"72724",
"18792",
"294753",
"515402",
"331898",
"372909",
"1681",
"540334",
"25061",
"366830",
"447167",
"429555",
"583519",
"321566",
"178586",
"53225",
"559522",
"135595",
"321500",
"32057",
"157233",
"318347",
"236375",
"254158",
"325677",
"564475",
"599874",
"580817",
"396982",
"207997",
"397963",
"304843",
"129503",
"73002",
"90789",
"377802",
"258611",
"203446",
"204541",
"293005",
"97083",
"215920",
"574941",
"474795"
] |
[
"You don't even need to formally loan the LLC any money. You pay for the setup costs out of pocket, and then once the LLC is formed, you reimburse yourself (just like with an expense report). Essentially you submit an expense report to the LLC for the startup costs, and the LLC pays out a check to you, categorized for the startup expenses.",
"You can move money in and out of the business at will, just keep track of every transaction. Ideally you'd use an accounting software like QuickBooks or similar. Create a Capital Contributions account and every time you put money into the business checking account record it as a Capital Contribution. Likewise, if you take money out of the business, it comes from your capital accounts. (You can create a separate Capital Distributions account in your accounting software, or just use a single account for contributions and distributions). Money coming in and out of those capital accounts is not taxable because you will pay taxes based on net earnings regardless of whether or not you have distributed any profits. So there's no need to make a loan to the company, which would have tax consequences. To reimburse yourself for purchases already made, submit an expense report to the company. If the company is unfunded right now, you can make a capital contribution to cover current expenses, submit the expense report, and wait until you have some profits before paying out the expense report or making any distributions. Welcome to entrepreneurship.",
"You can either borrow money... credit card, line of credit, re-finance your home, home equity line of credit, loan, mortgage, etc. Or you have other invest in your company as equity. They will contribute $X to get Y% of your company and get Z% of the profits. Note amount of profits does not necessarily have to equate to percentage owned. This makes sense if they are a passive investor, where they just come up with the money and you do all the work. Also voting rights in a company does not have to equate to percentage owned either. You can also have a combination of equity and debt. If you have investors, you would need to figure out whether the investor will personally guarantee the debt of your company - recourse vs non-recourse. If they have more risk, they will want more of a return. One last way to do it is crowdfunding, similar to what people do on Kickstarter. Supporters/customers come up with the money, then you deliver the product. Consulting practices do something similar with the concept of retainers. Best of luck.",
"There is no such thing as a startup loan. You take personal loans, and borrow money from friends and family. That's it. No one else is stupid enough to fund your insane scheme. And if they are, they want 60% of the company for a pittance.",
"\"Like you said, it's important to keep your personal assets and company assets completely separate to maintain the liability protection of the LLC. I'd recommend getting the business bank account right from the beginning. My wife formed an LLC last year (also as a pass-through sole proprietorship for tax purposes), and we were able to get a small business checking account from Savings Institute and Trust that has no fees (at least for the relatively low quantity of transactions we'll be doing). We wrote it a personal check for startup capital, and since then, the LLC has paid all of its own bills out of its checking account (with associated debit card). Getting the account opened took less than an hour of sitting at the bank. Without knowing exactly where you are in Kentucky, I note that Googling \"\"kentucky small business checking\"\" and visiting a few banks' web sites provided several promising options for no-fee business checking.\"",
"\"I expect the company wanted to pay you for a product (on a purchase order) rather than as a contract laborer. Whatever. Would they be willing to re-issue the check to you as a sole proprietor of a business named ABC Consulting (or anything like that)? You can register your sole proprietor business with the state using a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA, or fictitious name), and then open the bank account for your business using the check provided by the customer as the first deposit. (There is likely a smaller registration fee for the DBA.) If they won't re-issue the check and you have to go the LLC route... Scrounge up $125 doing odd jobs or borrowing from a friend or parents. Seriously, anyone can earn that amount of money in a week or two. Besides the filing fee for the LLC, your bank may require you to provide an Operating Agreement (which is not required by the State). The Operating Agreement can be simple, or more complex if you have a partner (even if it's a spouse). If you do have a partner, it is essential to have such an agreement because it would specify the responsibilities and benefits allocated to each partner, particularly in the event of equity distributions (taking money out of the business, or liquidating and ending the LLC). There are websites that will provide you a boilerplate form for Operating Agreements. But if your business is anything more than just single member LLC, you should pay an attorney to draw one up for you so the wording is right. It's a safeguard against potential future lawsuits. And, while we're at it, don't forget to obtain a EIN (equivalent to a SSN) from the IRS for your LLC. There's no cost, but you'll have to have it to file taxes as a business for every year the LLC exists and has income. Good luck!\"",
"If I understand you right, people are giving the LLC money for an ownership share. That is NOT income - it would go under equity on the balance sheet. It is analogous to getting a loan from the bank. It is not income - you get cash (an asset) and have an increase to debt (a liability)",
"\"If your business is structured as a partnership or sole proprietorship you call this investment \"\"partner equity\"\". If instead it is structured as a corporation, then the initial investment is called \"\"paid-in capital\"\". Either way, this represents the capital the initial investors or partners provided to the company in exchange for their ownership stake. The most important thing in your case is that since that initial investment is in the form of inventory, you are going to have to document the value of that investment somehow. You will definitely need a comprehensive manifest of what you contributed, including titles and condition, and if possible you should document the prices at which similar items are being offered for sale at the time you start operating. Having this information will support your claims as to the fair market value of the start-up contribution, should the tax authorities decide to question it.\"",
"I'd have a good look at how much anonymity an LLC offers in your state - as far as I'm aware this varies from state to state. Out here in NV an LLC owner's privacy is supposedly fairly well protected, but in other states, not quite as much. Also keep in mind that while the LLC offers some protection (and I'm a big advocate of this sort of structure if you're taking larger risks that might have a big impact on your overall personal finances), this might not apply to financing. A lot of banks tend to require an LLC's owner to guarantee loans to an LLC once they go over a certain amount or even in general. Do some research in this area because the LLC would be worth less as a protective shield to you if you're on the hook for the full amount of the loans anyway.",
"\"It'll be just like any other loan you make, on your end, and receive, on your LLC's end. You pay taxes on the interest received, and your LLC can deduct the interest paid. Do make sure you set it up properly, however: If you want to loan money to your business, you should have your attorney draw up paperwork to define the terms of the loan, including repayment and consequences for non-repayment of the loan. It should be clear that the loan is a binding obligation on the part of the company. As a recent Tax Court case notes, the absence of such paperwork negates the loan. For tax purposes, the loan is an \"\"arms length\"\" transaction, being treated like any other debt. From: http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/financingyourstartup/f/investinbusiness.htm\"",
"\"One thing I would add to TTT's answer: One of the benefits of using an LLC for your business is right there in the name - \"\"limited liability\"\". It provides a level of protection for your personal assets should your business go bankrupt, get sued, and so forth. However, if someone can show that there's no real separation between your LLC's activities and your personal activities, then they can \"\"pierce the corporate veil\"\" and go after your personal assets. If this loan is really purely personal and not related to your business activities, you may create a paper trail that can later be used in this way. My advice would be to just avoid the whole thing and make the loan from personal funds. I don't see any upside to doing this out of the LLC funds.\"",
"\"+1 for noting that you are in it for the long haul. I also think this is a great project and activity to do with friends. Setting up and start-up investment company could be done as a simple LLC. The decision making process can be decided among the members -- if you want to defer to the others then so be it. Make it flexible so that you can change your mind in the future. If this is not intended to be a source of revenue or income for you (note your \"\"in it for the long haul\"\") One way of sourcing the capital and managing the resulting taxes you might want to consider is setting up a self-directed retirement account and making the investment from there. proceeds as you and your friends choose to take them would flow back into the retirement account. As with most investment and tax related questions we should all take the little extra time and money to follow up on internet-based advice with your own lawyer, investment adviser and accountant. These licensed individuals when under contract assume a degree of responsibility for their answer which is not available online. :)\"",
"\"I'm afraid the great myth of limited liability companies is that all such vehicles have instant access to credit. Limited liability on a company with few physical assets to underwrite the loan, or with insufficient revenue, will usually mean that the owners (or others) will be asked to stand surety on any credit. However, there is a particular form of \"\"credit\"\" available to businesses on terms with their clients. It is called factoring. Factoring is a financial transaction whereby a business sells its accounts receivable (i.e., invoices) to a third party (called a factor) at a discount in exchange for immediate money with which to finance continued business. Factoring differs from a bank loan in three main ways. First, the emphasis is on the value of the receivables (essentially a financial asset), not the firm’s credit worthiness. Secondly, factoring is not a loan – it is the purchase of a financial asset (the receivable). Finally, a bank loan involves two parties whereas factoring involves three. Recognise that this can be quite expensive. Most banks catering to small businesses will offer some form of factoring service, or will know of services that offer it. It isn't that different from cheque encashment services (pay-day services) where you offer a discount on future income for money now. An alternative is simply to ask his clients if they'll pay him faster if he offers a discount (since either of interest payments or factoring would reduce profitability anyway).\"",
"It looks like you'd just be charging yourself interest and paying yourself back, because it's a pass-through entity, as I'm sure you know. (This assumes you're the only member of the LLC.) It all depends on how much money you want inside the protective cover of the LLC, and for how long. It doesn't seem to make much difference how you get the cash in or out, or how complicated or easy you make it for yourself.",
"\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"",
"You may also want to consider Delaware and Nevada as possible corporate homes. They are common choices for out of state corporations. You may find that they are better options. Will earnings prior to forming the LLC have to be claimed as self-employment income? If so, would it be easier to wait until the next calendar year to form the LLC? Earnings after forming the Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) will probably have to be claimed as self-employment income. See How LLC Members Are Taxed for more discussion. In particular, read the section on self-employment taxes: The current rule is that any owner who works in or helps manage the business must pay this tax on his or her distributive share (rightful share of profits). However, owners who are not active in the LLC -- that is, those who have merely invested money but don't provide services or make management decisions for the LLC -- may be exempt from paying self-employment taxes on their share of profits. The regulations in this area are a bit complicated, but if you actively manage or work in your LLC, you can expect to pay self-employment tax on all LLC profits allocated to you. As I read it, you actively work in the LLC, so it is unlikely that you can avoid paying self-employment taxes. So it shouldn't make any difference when you officially start an LLC. You'll have to pay self-employment taxes before and after creating the LLC regardless. If you don't want to pay self-employment taxes, you may want to consider forming a Subchapter C corporation. They don't have the same tax structure as Subchapter S corporations or LLCs. You would be paid some kind of wage, salary, or commission and the corporation would pay the employer's side of the payroll taxes. Note that Subchapter S corporations and LLCs exist because they usually pay less in tax than Subchapter C corporations do. Even including the self-employment taxes that you owe. A CPA should be able to guide you in making these decisions and help you with setup. The one time that I started a corporation, I just paid a few hundred dollars to a service and they filed the paperwork for me. That included state fees and notice costs. The CPA probably has a service association already.",
"\"Chris's answer is a great start. Keep in mind that when you withdraw from a Roth IRA, you \"\"shrink\"\" the size of the IRA (i.e. if the start up flourishes, you can't put the $10k you withdrew back, as you're limited to ~$5k in contributions per year). You may want to consider funding your startup with a credit card (ideally a balance transfer of $10k at 0% interest). If you need to, you can always pay your card off with your Roth balance, but if the startup takes off, your IRA is unharmed. (On a side note, I wouldn't feel comfortable quitting my job to do a startup with only $10k in savings, but to each his own!)\"",
"Typically you give a loan to the company from yourself as a private person, and when the company makes money the company pays it back to you. Then the company pays for all the expenses with the money from the loan. Even if you don't want a business account yet, you can probably ask your bank for a second account (mine in the UK did that without any problems).",
"Yes you can. You should talk to your tax advisor re the specific expenditures that can be accounted as startup-costs (legal fees are a good candidate, for example). If they add up to significant amounts (>$5K), you'll have to capitalize them over a certain period of time, and deduct from your business' income. This is not a tax advice.:-)",
"You'll most likely need additional funding at some point in the future so that'll dilute your position below 51%. I think it's best to do what you can with what you've got before you NEED those additional funds from outside investors. They only cause trouble and if they're focused on short-term results & getting their cash back as soon as possible rather than long-term sustainability, it'll be a nightmare dealing with them.",
"No. But the scenario is unrealistic. No bank will give the LLC any loan unless the members personally co-sign to guarantee it. In which case, the members become personally liable in addition to the LLC.",
"\"There are three (or four) ways that a company can grow: (Crowdfunding is a relatively new (in mainstream businesses) alternative financing method where people will finance a company with the expectation that they will benefit from the product or service that they provide.) Obviously a startup has no prior income to use, so it must either raise money through equity or debt. People say that one must borrow contingent on their salary. Banks lend money based on the ability to pay the loan back plus interest. For individuals, their income is their primary source of cash flow, so, yes, it is usually the determining factor in getting a loan. For a business the key factor is future cash flows. So a business will borrow money, say, to buy a new asset (like a factory) that will be used to generate cash flows in the future so that they can pay down the debt. If the bank believes that the use of the money is going to be profitable enough that they will get their money back with interest, they'll loan the money. Equity investors are essentially the same, but since they don't get a guaranteed payback (they only get paid through non-guaranteed dividends or liquidation), their risk is higher and they are looking for higher expected returns. So the question I'd have as a bank or equity investor is \"\"what are you going to do with the money?\"\" What is your business strategy? What are you going to do that will make profits in the future? Do you have a special idea or skill that you can turn into a profitable business? (Crowdfunding would be similar - people are willing to give you money based on either the social or personal benefit of some product or service.) So any business either starts small and grows over time (which is how the vast majority of businesses grow), or has some special idea, asset, skill, or something that would make a bank willing to take a risk on a huge loan. I know, again, that people here tend to turn blind eyes on unfortunate realities, but people do make giant businesses without having giant incomes. The \"\"unfortunate reality\"\" is that most startups fail. Which may sound bad, but also keep in mind that most startups are created by people that are OK with failing. They are people that are willing to fail 9 times with the thought that the 10th one will take off and make up for the losses of the first 9. So I would say - if you have some great idea or skill and a viable strategy and plan to take it to market, then GO FOR IT. You don't need a huge salary to start off. You need something that you can take to market and make money. Most people (myself included) either do not have that idea or skill to go out on their own, or don't have the courage to take that kind of risk. But don't go in assuming all you need is a loan and you'll be an instant millionaire. You might, but the odds are very long.\"",
"You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).",
"Payment of taxes for your personal return filed with the IRS always come from your personal account, regardless of how the money was earned. Sales tax would be paid from your business account, so would corporate taxes, if those apply; but if you're talking about your tax payments to the IRS for your personal income that should be paid from your personal account. Also, stating the obvious, if you're paying an accountant to handle things you can always ask them for clarification as well. They will have more precise answers. EDIT Adding on for your last part of the question I missed: In virtually all cases LLC's are what's called a pass through entity. For these entities, all income in the eyes of the federal government passes directly through the entity to the owners at the end of each year. They are then taxed personally on this net income at their individual tax rate, that's the very abridged version at least. The LLC pays no taxes directly to the federal government related to your income. Here's a resource if you'd like to learn more about LLC's: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.html",
"Based on your question details, I doubt you'll like this answer...but first things first, you need to focus on rebuilding your credit and your savings. $1K isn't a huge loan amount, so I'm going to assume you've made some poor decisions in the past to get to this point. I'm a small business owner, and I make it a goal to have 3-6 months of expected expenses in an account, should my circumstances ever drastically change or something happen that would keep me from working. Without knowing your living situation and daily expenses, here's some general advice on building a small business without a loan: 1) Find steady, gainful employment anywhere you can. 2) Pay off outstanding debts and rebuild a savings account to rebuild your credit score. 3) If you need fast cash, sell some stuff you don't need (gaming systems, home electronics, etc.). Also, minimize your unnecessary expenses (dining out, etc.). 4) Once your debts are paid off, create a business startup savings plan (put away as much as you can afford every week, until you reach your goal. 5) Once your goal is reached, you can begin your flipping business. Open a bank account, and separate your profits into buckets for operations, self-pay, and taxes (if you declare this income, which I hope you do). For myself, I put away 35% for income taxes, which I do not touch until my taxes are paid. I put 40% away for daily operations -- this keeps my business running, allowing me to pay for the equipment I need, the products I deliver, and advertising to keep my business running. I pay myself 25%. This is a simple method, but it works well for me.",
"Funds earned and spent before opening a dedicated business account should be classified according to their origination. For example, if your business received income, where did that money go? If you took the money personally, it would be considered either a 'distribution' or a 'loan' to you. It is up to you which of the two options you choose. On the flip side, if your business had an expense that you paid personally, that would be considered either a 'contribution of capital' or a 'loan' from you. If you choose to record these transactions as loans, you can offset them together, so you don't need two separate accounts, loan to you and loan from you. When the bank account was opened, the initial deposit came from where? If it came from your personal funds, then it is either a 'contribution of capital' or a 'loan' from you. From the sound of your question, you deposited what remained after the preceding income/expenses. This would, in effect, return the 'loan' account back to zero, if choosing that route. The above would also be how to record any expenses you may pay personally for the business (if any) in the future. Because these transactions were not through a dedicated business bank account, you can't record them in Quickbooks as checks and deposits. Instead, you can use Journal Entries. For any income received, you would debit your capital/loan account and credit your income account. For any expenses, you would debit the appropriate expense account and credit your distribution/loan account. Also, if setting up a loan account, you should choose either Current Asset or Current Liability type. The capital contribution and distribution account should be Equity type. Hope this helps!",
"Banks will usually look at 2 years worth of tax returns for issuing business credit. If those aren't available (for instance, for recently formed businesses), they will look at the personal returns of the owners. Unfortunately, it sounds like your friend is in the latter category. Bringing in another partner isn't necessarily going to help, either; with only two partners / owners, the bank would probably look at both owners' personal tax returns and credit histories. It may be necessary to offer collateral. I'm sorry I can't offer any better solutions, but alternative funding such as personal loans from family & friends could be necessary. Perhaps making them partners in exchange for capital.",
"\"For example, Biff Spoiles started an animation studio and production developing company to produce animations -- something in the ballpark of $12,000,000.00 U.S.D. -- and he had a $12K/yearly salary. I have no clue what you mean, as others have mentioned. (I'm not sure what the \"\"12 million\"\" refers to? Do you mean \"\"total cost of animations created by the company in a year\"\" or? If so, \"\"12 million\"\" would amount to say 5 to 20 major, brand name TV commercials, for example. Do you mean the \"\"cost of plant\"\" - so, for a \"\"TV commercial production company\"\" you mean purchasing desks, drawing pads, Porsches, and so on?) Your specific example of a \"\"film or TV-commercial production company\"\" is a bad example, it's not really a \"\"business\"\" - that is to say, it does not rely on capital and return on capital. The way famous \"\"film or TV-commercial production companies\"\" happens is precisely like this: A young guy/girl G (perhaps a designer or filmmaker) is working, just as you say, for a menial wage at a film company. (G got that first job perhaps out of art school.) G gets a chance at doing a photo shoot, animation, or helping direct a TV commercial. G does a fantastic job. Later that year, a large important animation or commercial job arrives at the company; due to the earlier excellent result, G is allowed to work on the new one. G again he does a fantastic job. Soon, within that company, G is a highly-regarded animator or director and has attracted fame amongst colleagues and clients. Eventually, G hears of a company (XYZ Hotel) that needs a TV ad made. (Or an animation, or whatever.) G says to XYZ, look, you could spend $230,000 with a production company, and in reality they'd have me direct it anyway. I'm leaving to work independently, so I will do your job for only $190,000. In a word, XYZ says \"\"Yes\"\" and hands over a cheque for $190,000. G spends $160,000 on the usual actors, cameramen, editing, etc, and uses 2 months of G's own time, and pockets $5000 after tax. G then doesn't get a job for a couple months, and then gets three more in the new year. Because the commercial for XYZ was so good, XYZ gave him another couple to do, for another product line. Eventually G has just enough money coming in that he \"\"hires\"\" a few freelance people for a few weeks here and there ... a cameraman, illustrator, gopher, and so on. Eventually G has enough TV ads solidly booked G can risk actually hiring long-time friend P as a producer. P spends most of her time actually bringing in more work - and it builds from there. Eventually. You have a very busy, well-known in the industry, TV commercial production company with many staff and endless clients (example, say, http://rsafilms.com) It might be at some point in there (say, around year three), G would like to borrow the odd million bucks to basically \"\"help with cashflow.\"\" The answer to that is nothing more than \"\"through business contacts, G knows a wealthy dentist/whoever who is prepared to do that.\"\" But note carefully that at that point, G's company is already very firmly established, famous for doing 20 spectacular animations/commercials, and so on. (Note too that 999 times out of 1000 when this happens, the money evaporates and the dentist D never sees a penny back. In that case G \"\"apologizes\"\".) Only much much later once the company has many, many staff and great cashflow, could the production company actually borrow from a bank, or perhaps from \"\"actual investors\"\", which is more what you have in mind. regarding your four categories. Numbers 1 and 3 are totally wrong; they do not work at all like you are asking. indeed the very simple answer is: \"\"borrow money\"\" to start a category 1 or 3 type of business. It's totally inconceivable. (The only exception would be if you literally just have an extremely rich Uncle, who loans you a few million to \"\"start an animation studio\"\" - which would be completely whacky. Because in that example: company XYZ could not care less if you \"\"have\"\" an animation studio (ie: your Uncle has given you a platinum card, and you bought a building, some drawing pads, and a few dozen Macs). XYZ just couldn't care less. All they care about is your folio of work. In this example, RSA would get the job :) ) My guess is you're thinking people somehow magically go around \"\"borrowing money\"\" to get businesses like that started. (Your examples 1 and 3.) The simple answer is they don't and can't - your fears are assuaged! :)\"",
"> You'll probably find that the majority of tech startups are looking for under $100k to get going. Check out kickstarter.com sometime. Not from employees. By the time you're ready to hire, you should be past the point where $100k in sweat equity dribbled out over a four-year vesting period is worth bothering with another shareholder. Those kind of arrangements are normally reserved for founders. People on kickstartr are looking for cash, not cheap labor. Founders usually lack the former and have plenty of their own time to supply the latter.",
"\"Before filing your first business tax return, you will need to choose a taxation method, either corporation or partnership. If you choose a partnership, then it's moot - your business income flows through to your personal taxes via form K-1. Also, regardless of your taxation method, you should consult a legal expert, since having your business pay off your personal debt would almost always be counted as income to you, and may cause you to lose the personal liability protections provided by the LLC (aka \"\"piercing the corporate veil\"\"). Having a single-member LLC with no employees, you have to be very careful how you manage the finances of the business. Any commingling of personal and business could jeopardize your protections.\"",
"It is a bit of work and expense to form a LLC. In the long run it is the best approach because it shields your personal assets from business liability. In the short run, you can form as a sole proprietor and operate that way, and later convert to a LLC.",
"Well, to get money, you need to leverage your assets. So your options basically are: - Asset: Cash. Well, I figure if you had, you wouldn't have asked how to get more of it, but its always worth mentioning. Don't forget about cash that can be in tricky places to tap, like 401ks, IRAs, investment accounts, etc. There is usually some way to get at the cash, but it may not be worth it and you could end up sacrificing long term financial stability if you do. - Asset: Job Skills and Initiative. Get a job and and earn the cash. $2k is not a ton, and if you live frugally you should be able to save it. There are tons of websites dedicated to living frugally and earning extra cash on the side. My personal favorite is r/beermoney. - Asset: Good Credit. Borrow the money from a traditional bank. Signature loans go up to $35k at most banks, just ask what it would take to qualify. You could also get a credit card for that amount, and use it to start up the business. - Asset. Bad Credit. If you've got bad credit, you can still take out a loan from a place like Prosper or Lending Club or Sofi (these places are handy if you have good credit, too). Your rates will be much higher, but they will still lend to you. - Asset: Property. If you own stuff, you can sell it and get cash. Clean out your attic (or ask relatives if you can have the stuff in theirs!) and sell it. If you own fancy stuff, you can borrow against it (home, car, boat, etc.). - Asset: Your Charm and Winning Smile. If you have a good, solid business plan (written down and professional looking), ask around and see if you can find an investor. It could be friends or family, but it could also be someone who is looking to invest. Be professional, and be sure to draw up the appropriate business docs if you do a partnership or take a private loan. - Asset: Your Government. If you live in the US, there are federal programs that offer Small Business Loans. Check out sba.gov for more info. You will need a business plan and will have to meet the criteria of the loan or grant. Not sure if your Ecommerce business will meet the criteria, as the intent of these types of programs are to spur the economy by allowing small business owners to hire workers. But its worth checking out.",
"From your question, it seems your problem is that you have a company that wants to make a deal, but does not currently have enough money to go through with it. Therefore it needs to raise capital. Assuming that you cannot get a loan from a bank and you do not want to seek funding from other sources, the two owners must provide the funds themselves somehow. Option A: The easiest and fairest way to do this is for the two shareholders to provide 75%, and 25% of the funding as a loan to the company. They will provide this loan knowing it may not be paid back if the company goes under. Note that it would not be fair for one of the shareholders to provide more, as that shareholder would be taking all the risk, while the other still reaps the rewards (although you could add a large interest rate to account for this). Option B: But say one of the shareholders cannot provide additional funds. In that case, the company should issue new shares, and each shareholder can purchase however many of the new shares he/she wants (each shareholder is entitled to purchase at least 75% or 25% respectively, but does not have to). The result of this may be that company ownership percentages have changed after the capital raising. This is more complex as it require valuing the company accurately to be fair, and probably requires reporting to a government (depending on the jurisdiction).",
"Question (which you need to ask yourself): How well are your friends paid for their work? What would happen if you just took your money and bought a garage, and hired two car mechanics? How would that be different from what you are doing? The money that you put into the company, is that paid in capital, or is it a loan to the company that will be repaid?",
"Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?",
"You better consult with a tax adviser (EA or CPA) on this, my answer doesn't constitute such an advice. Basically, you're selling stuff on Kickstarter. No matter how they call it (projects, pledges, rewards - all are just words), you're selling stuff. People give you money (=pledges) and in return you're giving them tangible or intangible goods (=rewards). All the rest is just PR. So you will pay taxes on all the money you get, and you will be able to deduct some of the expenses (depends on whether its a business or a hobby, the deduction may be full or limited). It doesn't matter if you use LLC or your own account from the financial/taxation point of you, but it matters legally. LLC limits your personal liability, but do get a legal advice on this issue, and whether it is at all relevant for you. If you raise funds in 2012 you pay taxes on the money in 2012. If you go into production in 2013 - you can deduct expenses in 2013. If you're classified as a hobby, you'll end up paying full taxes in 2012 and deducting nothing in 2013. Talk to a tax adviser.",
"it sounds like you don't have experience in this, and neither does your *investor*; which is a recipe for disaster (pun intended). Your first order of business is to check whether your investor is an *Accredited Investor* (google to see what it means), if s/he's not, **walk away**. If s/he's an accredited investor, find a lawyer who can help you navigate this process, however these are the issues: * lawyers are expensive, and lawyers who have experience in these type of transactions are even more expensive * you actually need 2 lawyers, one for you and one for the investor * if neither of you have experience, there will be a lot more billable hours from the lawyers..... In principle this can go 3 ways: 1. The investors give you a loan, you pay them interests on a periodic basis, and then also principal. Items to be negotiated: interest rates, repayment schedule, collateral, personal guarantees. Highly unlikely this is what the investors wants. 2. The Investors get equity. items to be negotiated: your compensation, % of ownership, how profits are divided, how profits are paid; who gets to decide what. 3. A combination of 1 and 2 above, a *Convertible Note*. There's a lot more, too much for a Reddit post. There's not an easy ELI5.",
"\"The primary advantage is protection of your personal assets. If your LLC gets sued, they can't take your house/car/dog/wife. There aren't really any financial incentives to be an LLC; because of the pass-thru taxing structure, you wind up paying the same in taxes either way. \"\"The cost\"\" will depend on where you're located, and usually involves a few factors -- Expect to pay $300-500 to start it, depending on your state and who you register with (technically, you can usually register for free at the secretary of state, but wouldn't you rather pay an expert?), and \"\"State Franchise Tax\"\", which will can be a minimum of up to $1000/year depending on the state, plus even more if your LLC earns more than $xxx,000. EDIT -- As an aside, I'll mention that I'm based in California, and our state franchise tax starts at $800/yr. I'm all-web-based, so I've been investigating incorporating in Nevada or Delaware instead (no franchise tax, lower filing fees), but from what I've found, it's hardly worth the trouble. In addition to having to pay a Registered Agent (someone to act as my permanent mailing address in that state for ~$100/yr), apparently California likes to search for people just like me, and charge them $800 anyway. You can fight that, of course, and claim that your business really is done in Nevada, but do you really want to?\"",
"I don't think there is a legal requirement that you need a separate bank account. Just remember that you can only take money from your LLC as salary (paying tax), as dividend (paying tax), or as a loan (which you need to repay, including and especially if the LLC goes bankrupt). So make very sure that your books are in order.",
"\"Basically, you either borrow money, or get other people to invest in your business by buying stock or something analogous. Sometimes you can get people to \"\"park\"\" money with you. For example, many people deposit money in a bank checking account. They don't get any interest or other profit from this, they just do it because the bank is a convenient place to store their money. The bank then loans some percentage of this money out and keeps the interest. I don't doubt that people have come up with more clever ways to use other people's money. Borrowing money for an investment or business venture is risky because if you lose money, you may be unable to pay it back. On the other hand, investors expect a share of the profit, not just a fixed interest rate.\"",
"for starters get a cheap easy accounting software pack like quickbooks and have the salesmen train you on it's use and set-up. the 50k you put into the company will count as paid up share capital. then any future withdrawal from company account will show as loan to director.",
"Since you're not loaning the company the money, the correct category is Equity. It's not an income type account, rather it represents the balance of Assets - Liabilities = Owner's Equity So you'd put down £100 as the starting balance of Owner's Equity, and then a Cash Balance of £100 in a cash account.",
"Impossible. There is no such thing as a business loan without proper collateral. There are a couple of exceptions: Friends, and Family members. But you want to be absolutely 100% sure your business plan can be executed successfully, and that your business plan is awesome. You don't have a business plan? Then you're just going to be stealing money from your family and friends.",
"Hello Reddit friends, family & future guests of The Greenhouse Inn, Asbury Park's (NJ) first eco-friendly bed and breakfast. I have wonderful news from the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the local community bank, as they have agreed to finance 90% of the startup costs to open The Greenhouse Inn. Woo hoo! They have affirmed their support, and are ready to get the ball rolling, but I will need to supply 10% of the projects total cost in equity. For instance, a bank will usually lend only if you have 10% of the amount you require. Therefore, if we have $1,000, getting a bank loan of up to $10,000 should be feasible. This is oversimplified, but in a way, it means that every single dollar contributed gives The Greenhouse access to ten more. If we make $20,000 dollars on RocketHub, we might be able to get a loan of $200,000 dollars!",
"\"TL;DR: Get a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for tax issues, and a lawyer for the Operating Agreement, labor law and contract related issues. Some things are not suitable for DIY unless you know exactly what you're doing. We both do freelance work currently just through our personal names. What kind of taxes are we looking into paying into the business (besides setup of everything) compared to being a self proprietor? (I'm seeing that the general answer is no, as long as income is <200k, but not certain). Unless you decide to have your LLC taxed as a corporation, there's no change in taxes. LLC, by default, is a pass-through entity and all income will flow to your respective tax returns. From tax perspective, the LLC will be treated as a partnership. It will file form 1065 to report its income, and allocate the income to the members/partners on schedules K-1 which will be given to you. You'll use the numbers on the K-1 to transfer income allocated to you to your tax returns and pay taxes on that. Being out of state, will she incur more taxes from the money being now filtered through the business? Your employee couldn't care less about your tax problems. She will continue receiving the same salary whether you are a sole proprietor or a LLC, or Corporatoin. What kind of forms are we looking into needing/providing when switching to a LLC from freelance work? Normally we just get 1099's, what would that be now? Your contract counterparts couldn't care less about your tax problems. Unless you are a corporation, people who pay you more than $600 a year must file a 1099. Since you'll be a partnership, you'll need to provide the partnership EIN instead of your own SSN, but that's the only difference. Are LLC's required to pay taxes 4 times per year? We would definitely get an accountant for things, but being as this is side work, there will be times where we choose to not take on clients, which could cause multiple months of no income. Obviously we would save for when we need to pay taxes, but is there a magic number that says \"\"you must now pay four times per year\"\". Unless you choose to tax your LLC as a corporation, LLC will pay no taxes. You will need to make sure you have enough withholding to cover for the additional income, or pay the quarterly estimates. The magic number is $1000. If your withholding+estimates is $1000 less than what your tax liability is, you'll be penalized, unless the total withholding+estimates is more than 100% of your prior year tax liability (or 110%, depending on the amounts). The LLC would be 50% 50%, but that work would not always be that. We will be taking on smaller project through the company, so there will be times where one of us could potentially be making more money. Are we setting ourselves up for disaster if one is payed more than the other while still having equal ownership? Partnerships can be very flexible, and equity split doesn't have to be the same as income, loss or assets split. But, you'll need to have a lawyer draft your operational agreement which will define all these splits and who gets how much in what case. Make sure to cover as much as possible in that agreement in order to avoid problems later.\"",
"\"You're probably not going to be able to get a loan from any kind of bank if your credit is bad. On top of bad credit if you don't own a home or car that only decreases your chances of getting a loan. On top of all this you don't have a job. I don't mean to be blunt but I don't see any way you could get a loan from a bank of any kind. Also what makes this business a good investment? Have you read over the business plan? Have you looked over financials to see what your investment would be helping with? Are you familiar with the legality of the business and make sure they have proper documentation. There's no guarantees in business and you saying there's all this free money out there is honestly not true. Do your homework, don't just throw your money into something because there is \"\"free money\"\". Also money and friends is not kosher at all i would not suggest borrowing that kind of money from anyone close to you. One last question, will you be a part owner in this business if you invest this kind of money?\"",
"The major reason to start an LLC for side work is if you want the additional personal liability protection afforded by one. If you're operating as a sole proprietor, you may be exposing yourself to liability: debts and judgments against your business can put your personal assets at risk! So, if you're intending to continue and grow your side work in the future, you ought to consider the LLC sooner than later. It's also an important legal decision and you should consider seeking a professional opinion. The Wall Street Journal has a brief guide titled How to Form an LLC. Here are some notable excerpts: A limited liability company, or LLC, is similar to a partnership but has the legal protections of personal assets that a corporation offers without the burdensome formalities, paperwork and fees. [...] Some states charge annual fees and taxes that can diminish the economic advantage of choosing to become an LLC. Among LLC advantages: pass-through taxation – meaning the profits and losses “pass through” the business to the individuals owning the business who report this information on their own personal tax returns. The result can be paying less in taxes, since profits are not taxed at both the business level and the personal level. Another plus: Owners aren’t usually responsible for the company’s debts and liabilities. [...] Also check out onstartups.com's Startup 101: Should You Form An Inc. or An LLC? Here are some additional articles that discuss the advantages / disadvantages of forming an LLC:",
"The answer lies entirely with how the loan paperwork reads. The way I'd set it up, there's would need to be a large enough downpayment so the bank was willing to offer a loan strictly to the LLC with non-recourse to the members.",
"Thanks for the response - ok so maybe the funds could be partially crowd-sourced and partially funded by an accredited investor? Also yes - having an experienced adviser and a plan in place to replace existing directors sound like good plot devices. There doesn't really have to be a limitation to banks, the idea comes from the protagonists being upset with the status quo of banking practices (foreclosures, fees, investing in weapons/warzones etc.) what would you suggest?",
"or just input it in my accounting software along with receipts, and then when I'm doing taxes this would go under the investment or loses (is it somewhere along that line)? Yes, this. Generally, for the long term you should have a separate bank account and charge card for your business. I started my business (LLC) by filing online, and paying a fee for a registration, and that makes it a business cost right? Startup cost. There are special rules about this. Talk to your tax adviser. For the amounts in question you could probably expense it, but verify.",
"You can make a capital contribution, not a loan. It's not a taxable event, no interest, and you can take a distribution later when the business has the money to pay you back. So yes, transfer the money. If you use software like Quickbooks, make use of unique accounts for tracking the contribution",
"\"You should really be talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about taxes and to a lawyer about the liability protection. You won't find answers from neither of theses here. Besides the liability protection, how do these 2 options affect taxes? There's no liability protection difference between the two (talk to a lawyer to verify) since you'll be cosigning them personally either way. In the first case (loan to the LLC) - everything goes on the 1065 and you get the bottom line on K-1 which transfers to you own tax return. In the second case the loan interest is your personal investment expense (Schedule A deduction) while the loan proceeds you moved to the LLC add to your basis. I'd suggest getting the loan directly in the LLC name, if you can. However, the Lawyers seem to agree that this would void the mortgage because of the \"\"Due on Sale\"\" clause in mortgage loans. \"\"Due on sale\"\" may or may not be invoked, but that's a risk you'd be taking, yes. LLC is a separate legal entity (as opposed to a living trust, to which your second quote seems to be referring), so it is definitely a possibility for a lender to call on the loan if you re-title it.\"",
"How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.",
"Quite a bit as in, $100K+? If you're a sole operator, not sure what constitutes a real likelihood that a risk of liability will materialize, and in need of a lot of up front financing, I am genuinely concerned that you're going to a lay a giant egg on this one. What is it your business is going to be doing? I don't really want to give a free consultation, but I'm worried you're either misunderstanding something or about to make a mistake, and I don't want to see that happen.",
"A firm is a separate legal person from its shareholders or owners (but doesn't get invited to parties much). Owners invest capital to get shares in the firm or may get shares for investing time, effort etc. but those shares are on a limited liability basis. That means that shareholders are only liable up to the value of their shares and that the firm itself is responsible for any expenses or liabilities. The firm will have working capital from its initial investors (i.e. any capital invested to get shares) and can borrow money on the bond market or issue new shares to cover outgoings. Share ownership simply entitles the owner to a proportion of the residual equity of the company and voting rights (for non-prefered equity). In a firm that I previously worked for, for example, one of the partners owned 51% of the firm but put up 100% of the firm's equity capital. The other partner owned 49% and provided 90% of the intellectual capital of the firm. They both took decisions equally. The distribution of ownership should, therefore, have no bearing on who finances deals. The owners (or managers in larger firms) should decide together how to use the company's capital for spending because it is exactly that; the company's capital; not any one of the investor's. Limited liability of owners is one of the major benefits of forming a company.",
"Yep, you need to hire a lawyer and an accountant, honestly. When I was starting my business, I hired one who was BOTH. Not really for cost-savings, though it did save $$$, but it was super convenient and it's nice to have someone knowledgable in both. It totally depends on your area, but don't overthink it or get intimidated. It won't take as much $$$ as you think to hire someone, maybe $500-$1,000 or so upfront, then a small hourly fee probably every month if you need help with sales tax or accounts or whatever... you need to make sure the gov is getting theirs though from day 1 re: taxes, otherwise you're gonna regret it. Much cheaper to get it all in place now.",
"Your best bet is to look for incubators in your area. Incubators are scaled down versions of private equity firms that provide mentorship and seed money to promising startups. They are usually affiliated with a city because they are trying to attract entrepreneurs to it.",
"\"You are confining the way you and the other co-founders are paid for guaranteeing the loan to capital shares. Trying to determine payments by equity distribution is hard. It is a practice that many small companies particularly the ones in their initial stage fall into. I always advise against trying to make payments with equity, weather it is for unpaid salary or for guaranteeing a loan such as your case. Instead of thinking about a super sophisticated algorithm to distribute the new shares between the cofounders and the new investors, given a set of constraints, which will most probably fail to make the satisfactory split, you should simply view the co-founders as debt lenders for the company and the shareholders as a capital contributor. If the co-founders are treated as debt lenders, it will be much easier to determine the risk compensation for guaranteeing the loan because it is now assessed in monetary units and this compensation is equal to the risk premium you see fit \"\"taking into consideration the probability of default \"\". On the other hand, capital contributors will gain capital shares as a percentage of the total value of the company after adding SBA loan.\"",
"I'm not certain I understand what you're trying to do, but it sounds like you're trying to create a business expense for paying off your personal debt. If so - you cannot do that. It will constitute a tax fraud, and if you have additional partners in the LLC other than you and your spouse - it may also become an embezzlement issue. Re your edits: Or for example, can you create a tuition assistance program within your company and pay yourself out of that for the purposes of student loan money. Explicitly forbidden. Tuition assistance program cannot pay more than 5% of its benefits to owners. See IRS pub 15-B. You would think that if there was a way to just incorporate and make your debts pre-tax - everyone would be doing it, wouldn't you?",
"\"Watch out for PO financing. A lot of those contracts have nasty terms like \"\"I agree that SCAM CAPITAL will be my sole source of credit for the next 2 years.\"\" that can get in the way of using bank debt or credit cards. They may even tell you otherwise to get you to sign, but they are the payday lenders of the business world. It can be great when it works, but there are a lot of shark men. While you can grow your company on po financing, understand that those companies exist to suck all the profit out of small, non-innovative companies, who needed a hand and their terms reflect that. If your business is that good maybe you can get someone to buy in instead? The second benefit to this is that if things go tits-up, then you don't have any personal guarantee. You will likely have to guarantee PO financing in most parts of the country.\"",
"Legally, I can't find any reason that the LLC could not lend money to an individual. However, I believe the simplest course of action is to first distribute money from your company to your personal account, and then make it a personal loan. Whether the loan is done through the business or personally, financially I don't think there is much difference as to which bucket the interest income goes into, since your business and personal income will all get lumped together anyway with a single person LLC. Even if your friend defaults on the loan, either the business or you personally will have the same burden of proof to meet that the loan was not a gift to begin with, and if that burden is met, the deduction can be taken from either side. If a debt goes bad the debtor may be required to report the debt as income.",
"\"What exactly would the financial institution need to see to make them comfortable with these regulations The LLC Operating Agreement. The OA should specify the member's allocation of equity, assets, income and loss, and of course - managerial powers and signature authorities. In your case - it should say that the LLC is single-member entity and the single member has all the managerial powers and authorities - what is called \"\"member-managed\"\". Every LLC is required to have an operating agreement, although you don't necessarily have to file it with the State or record it. If you don't have your own OA, default rules will apply, depending on your State law. However, the bank will probably not take you as a customer without an explicit OA.\"",
"If you just make a capital contribution to the company it is not a taxable event. If you're the owner, lending only makes sense if you want the company to pay you interest (if you have partners who aren't lending money, for example) and you want to be compensated for lending, a loan would allow that. But the interest is taxable as income to you (1099-int) and the company can expense it. But a capital contribution is much easier and you can take a distribution later to get paid back. Neither event is taxed, but you cannot take interest.",
"\"There are TWO parts to an LLC or any company structure. This being the entire point of creating an LLC. The context is that a lawyer is after your LLC, and he's arguing that the LLC is not genuine, so he can go after your personal assets - your house, car, IRAs, tap your wife's salary etc. This is called \"\"piercing the corporate veil\"\". What would he use to claim the LLC is not genuine? The determination here is between you and the judge in a lawsuit. Suffice it to say, the way you withdraw money must consider the above issues, or you risk breaking the liability shield and becoming personally liable, which means you've been wasting the $25 every year to keep it registered. The IRS has a word for single member LLCs: \"\"Disregarded entity\"\". The IRS wants to know that the entity exists and it's connected to you. But for reporting tax numbers, they simply want the LLC's numbers folded into your personal numbers, because you are the same entity for tax purposes. The determination here is made by you. *LLCs are incredible versatile structures, and you can actually choose to have it taxed like a corporation where it is a separate \"\"person\"\" which files its own tax return. * The IRS doesn't care how you move money from the LLC to yourself, since it's all the same to them. The upshot is that while your own lawyer prohibits you from thinking of the assets as \"\"all one big pile\"\", IRS requires you to. Yes, it's enough to give you whiplash.\"",
"1. this is not the correct sub, try /r/Entrepreneurs or similar 2. Banks only care about 1 thing: collaterals with personal guarantee from the owners/shareholders of the business. Nothing else matters, don't waste your time with a business plan. (Yes ELI: bank only give money to people who have money).",
"First, you should probably have a proper consultation with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). In fact you should have had it before you started, but that ship has sailed. You're talking about start-up expenses. You can generally deduct up to $5000 in the year your business starts, and the expenses in excess will be amortized over 180 months (15 years). This is per the IRC Sec. 195. The amortization starts when your business is active (i.e.: you can buy the property, but not actually open the restaurant - you cannot start the depreciation). I have a couple questions about accounting - should all the money I spent be a part of capital spending? Or is it just a part of it? If it qualifies as start-up/organizational expenses - it should be capitalized. If it is spent on capital assets - then it should also be capitalized, but for different reasons and differently. For example, costs of filing paperwork for permits is a start-up expense. Buying a commercial oven is a capital asset purchase which should be depreciated separately, as buying the tables and silverware. If it is a salary expense to your employees - then it is a current expense and shouldn't be capitalized. Our company is LLC if this matters. It matters to how it affects your personal tax return.",
"In the United states the US government has the Small Business Administration. They also have Small Business Development Centers SMDC to help. These are also supported by state governments and colleges and universities. SBDCs provide services through professional business advisors such as: development of business plans; manufacturing assistance; financial packaging and lending assistance; exporting and importing support; disaster recovery assistance; procurement and contracting aid; market research services; aid to 8(a) firms in all stages; and healthcare information. SBDCs serve all populations, including: minorities; women; veterans, including reservists, active duty, disabled personnel, and those returning from deployment; personnel with disabilities; youth and encore entrepreneurs; as well as individuals in low and moderate income urban and rural areas. Based on client needs, local business trends and individual business requirements, SBDCs modify their services to meet the evolving needs of the hundreds of small business community in which they are situated. SBDC assistance is available virtually anywhere with 63 Host networks branching out with more than 900 service delivery points throughout the U.S., the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands,. Your local SBDC should be able to help you identify local sources of funds, including government backed loans for small businesses.",
"\"I am asking because startups are super risky and 99% of the times you fail and lose the money. First of all, that 99% number is exaggerated. Only 96% of companies fail within ten years. But starting your own business is not a pure game of chance. It mostly depends on how good your business idea is and if you have the necessary skills and resources to succeed with it. Yes, there is luck involved, but a smart businessman can calculate the risks and possible rewards and then decide if a certain business idea is a good or a bad gamble. Also, a business failing does not necessarily mean that the business owner failed. A good business owner knows when to fold. A business might be profitable at first, but market circumstances might change at any time making it unprofitable. A smart business owner notices that early, liquidates the unprofitable business as quickly as possible and refocuses on their next business idea. Only those who can not let go of an unprofitable business or take too long to notice that it is failing are those who get dragged down with it. So should you have a \"\"startup fund\"\"? Saving your disposable income is never a mistake. If you never end up starting a business, it will eventually serve you as a retirement fund. So yes, you should save a part of your money each month. But should you start a company with it? That depends on whether or not you have a business idea where you know you will succeed. How do you know that? When you answered yes to all of these questions, then you might want to consider it.\"",
"Is it really necessary? If $800 / year registration fee is too much to you, an LLC is apparently not something you need right now. Many people conduct web-based business online on personal terms. My suggestion is that you focus on your business first and try to grow it as much as you can before you get down to a company.",
"In addition to asking an accountant, I would also ask a lawyer. When exploring the same question for myself, I found that one of the benefits of incorporating or forming an LLC is that your personal assets are better protected. Including asset protection, here are 5 reasons to incorporate: Initially, I thought that as I had so few assets, I should not be concerned. I was glad I was able to do a free consult with a lawyer who advised me to look into forming an LLC. (Ultimately, my planned business idea never panned out. So, I never went the incorporation/LLC route.) Hope this helps!",
"> Umm, one of the benefits of creating a corporation is to keep personal money separate from the business. you missed the key statement from that little link you posted. Here, I'll help you out: > An owner of a corporation can be held personally liable if he or she: personally guarantees a bank loan or a business debt on which the corporation defaults And for a brand new company, you can sure as shit guarantee that as an owner, you'll be held personally liable.",
"One approach would be to create Journal Entries that debit asset accounts that are associated with these items and credit an Open Balance Equity account. The value of these contributions would have to be worked out with an accountant, as it depends on the lesser of the adjusted basis vs. the fair market value, as you then depreciate the amounts over time to take the depreciation as a business expense, and it adjusts your basis in the company (to calculate capital gains/losses when you sell). If there were multiple partners, or your accountant wants it this way, you could then debit open balance equity and credit the owner's contribution to a capital account in your name that represents your basis when you sell. From a pure accounting perspective, if the Open Balance Equity account would zero out, you could just skip it and directly credit the capital accounts, but I prefer the Open Balance Equity as it helps know the percentages of initial equity which may influence partner ownership percentages and identify anyone who needs to contribute more to the partnership.",
"\"It will depend somewhat on the rules where the company is formed, and perhaps how much you're talking about investing. I don't know about Canada, but when I've formed businesses in the U.S., I've been advised to invest some of the money as an equity investment, and the bulk of the remainder as a loan. You say \"\"more shares\"\", so it sounds like you've already invested some money and need to inject another round. If you make a loan to the company, make sure everything is done at arm's length -- you'll need to wear the hat of the Company Management and sign a contract with yourself, use a market-based interest rate, and make sure the company is paying you back with interest. An alternative which may work if you expect cash flow soon is to pay for certain expenses personally and then submit an expense report to the company, which will pay you back. Overall, a quick consultation with your accountant should be a relatively inexpensive way to get the best answer for your specific circumstances.\"",
"There are several questions to answer before help can be given. How much revenue did you have this year? What is expected revenue growth for next few years? Are you operating as a sole proprietor, partnership or corporation? If a corporation did you maintain your books on the cash basis or accrual? I recommend you seek a CPA not a bookkeeper. And, don't wait until end of year to fund one.",
"\"What you're asking about is called a \"\"distribution\"\" when it comes to an LLC. It's basically you paying yourself some or all of the proceeds of the business, depending on how you're set up. You can pay yourself distributions on a regular schedule, say monthly, or you can do it at the end of the year. Whatever you do in this regard, what you take out as distributions is reported on your personal income tax as taxable income. LLCs in the U.S. use pass-through taxation (unless you intentionally elect to have the LLC treated as a corporation for tax purposes, which some people do), so whatever the principals receive in distribution is personally taxable. Keep in mind that you'll have to pay ALL of the taxes normally covered by an employer, such as self-employment tax (usually about 15%), social security tax, and so on. This is in addition to income tax, so remember that. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"You need to first visit the website of whatever state you're looking to rent the property in and you're going to want to form the LLC in that particular state. Find the Department of Licensing link and inquire about forming a standard LLC to register as the owner of the property and you should easily see how much it costs. If the LLC has no income history, it would be difficult for the bank to allow this without requiring you to personally guarantee the loan. The obvious benefit of protecting yourself with the LLC is that you protect any other personal assets you have in your name. Your liability would stop at the loan. The LLC would file its own taxes and be able to record the income against the losses (i.e. interest payments and other operating expenses.). This is can be beneficial depening on your current tax situation. I would definitely recommend the use of a tax accountant at that point. You need to be sure you can really afford this property in the worst case scenario and think about market leasing assumption, property taxes, maintenance and management (especially if you've moved to another state.)",
"\"An LLC is overkill for 99% of 1 man small businesses. Side-businesses should remain as sole proprieterships until they get much larger and need the benefits of the LLC laws. You can still bill through a company name if you want to start building a brand: And set aside 25% of your gross income for Uncle Sam. He wants you to file a Schedule C with your regular 1040 at tax time. He doesn't care about your company. He just wants your social security number with a big fat check stuck to it. Be sure to maximize your tax savings by tracking your expenses like a hawk. Every mile is worth 50 cents. I recommend using a tracking system like the TaxMinimiser.com (buy the $4 version to see if you like it). Bottom line: EARN MONEY. Don't set up a \"\"corporation\"\".\"",
"\"In most cases, startups are growth companies. That's because they are founded with an idea and a little money. Outside investors are paying for a piece of the founders' \"\"idea,\"\" and the hope that the idea will make a little money grow into a lot of money. There are exceptions. Startups in hard assets companies such as real estate and oil and gas are value investments. That is, they take \"\"ideas\"\" that are solidly proven, so you are getting a lot of \"\"house\"\" or oil drilling equipment for your money. Unlike the standard startup, you're not paying for the \"\"idea.\"\"\"",
"Okay I will asap. And yes, to getting the business off the ground. I've done all the marketing and will be for some time to come. Not just sweaty hands, but also ideas that shape our marketing strategies and also bringing in loyal customers that I personally know who are going to be consistent with us. But I'll talk to a lawyer and have that figured out. I just dont want to get screwed over and I'm new to this being only 19 so.",
"The LLC will file its own business taxes which may or may not have business level income and expenses. At the end, the LLC will issue Schedule K-1 tax forms to the members, that based on their percentage ownership, will reflect the percentage share of the income/losses. From an individual standpoint, the members need only worry about the K-1 form they receive. This has quite a few pass-through categories from the LLC, but the Income/Loss may be the only used one. The individual will likely include the K-1 by filing a Schedule-E along with their 1040 form. The 1040 Schedule-E has some ability to deduct expenses as an individual. Generally it's best not to commingle expenses. Additional schedule-E expense reporting is generally for non-reimbursed, but related business expenses. If a member paid certain fees for the LLC, it is better for the LLC to reimburse him and then deduct the expense properly. Schedule-E is on a non-LLC, personal level.",
"Mods decided to leave it here, so I'll summarize some of my answers on this question given @OnStartups. You can find them here, here and here. Your options are : You and your business are one and the same. You report your income and expenses for taxes on a Schedule C (for each sole proprietorship a separate schedule), and taxed at your personal rates. There's no liability protection or legal separation between you and your business, and you don't need to have any bureaucratic overhead of managing an entity. You can use your own bank account and have checks written to you directly. You can register for DBA if you want a store-front name to be different from your own name. Depending on State, can cost a lot or close to nothing. Provides certain liability protection (depending on State, single-member and multi-member LLC's may have different liability protections). You can chose to be taxed as either a sole-proprietor (partnership, for multi-member) or as a corporation. You have to separate your activities, have a separate bank account, and some minimal bureaucracy is required to maintain the entity. Benefits include the limited liability, relatively easy to add partners to the business or sell it as a whole, and provides for separation of your personal and business finances. Drawbacks - bureaucracy, additional fees and taxes (especially in CA), and separation of assets. Corporation is an entirely separate entity from yourself, files its own tax returns, has separate bank accounts and is run by the board of directors (which in some cases may require more than 1 person to be on the board, check your state laws on that). As an officer of the corporation you'll have to pay salary to yourself. S-Corp has the benefit of pass-through taxation, C-Corp doesn't and has double taxation. Benefits - liability protection, can sell shares to investors, legally distinct entity. Disadvantages - have to deal with payroll, additional accounting, significant bureaucracy and additional layer of taxes for C-Corp (double taxation). Selling corporate assets is always a taxable event (although in your case it is probably not of an importance). You have to talk to a lawyer in your state about the options re the liability protection and how to form the entities. The formation process is usually simple and straight forward, but the LLC/Partnership operating agreements and Corporation charters/bylaws must be drafted by a lawyer if you're not going to be the sole owner (even if you are - better get a lawyer draft something for you, its just easier to fix and change things when you're the sole owner). You have to talk to a CPA/EA in your state about the taxes and how the choice of entity affects them.",
"\"You can file an LLC yourself in most states, although it might be helpful to use a service if you're not sure what to do to ensure it is correct. I filed my LLC here in Colorado online with the Secretary of State's office, which provided the fill-in-the-blank forms and made it easy. In the U.S., taxation of an LLC is \"\"pass-through\"\", meaning the LLC itself does not have any tax liability. Taxes are based on what you take out of the LLC as distributions to yourself, so you pay personal income tax on that. There are many good books on how to form and then operate an LLC, and I personally like NoLo (link to their web site) because they cater to novices. As for hiring people in India, I can't speak to that, so hopefully someone else can answer that specific topic. As for what you need to know about how to run it, I'll refer back to the NoLo books and web site.\"",
"Looks like it's $500 to start (certificate of organization) and $500 per year after that (for an annual report). Start here: http://1.usa.gov/haxLUB And that's just for the state to recognize you as an LLC.",
"\"Not all of the reason to start an LLC is liability (although that is implicit). There are two main reasons as far as I have experienced it: I always recommend that people set things up properly from the beginning. If you do start to grow, or if you need to cut your losses, it can be very difficult to separate yourself from the company if it isn't set up entirely apart from you. I was once told, \"\"Run your small company as you would wish it to be.\"\" Don't get into bad habits at the beginning. They become bad habits in big companies later on.\"",
"\"Getting a specific service recommendation is off-topic, but the question of what type of professional you need seems on-topic to me. You may be looking for more than one professional in this case, but you could try these to start your search: Different people do things differently, but I think it would be pretty common to have a relationship (i.e. contract, retainer agreement, at least have met the person in case you have an \"\"emergency\"\") with a business law attorney and either a CPA or tax attorney. You may try not to use them too much to keep costs down, but you don't want to be searching for one after you have an issue. You want to know who you're going to call and may establish at least a basis working relationship.\"",
"You can ask the client to pay you through the LLC. In that case you should invoice them from the LLC and have them pay the invoice. If they pay you personally, you can always make a capital contribution to the LLC and use that money to buy equipment. The tax implications for a single person LLC providing professional services are the same for you either way: income is income whether it's from your LLC or an employer. It's different for the employer if they are giving you a W2 vs a 1099. So it doesn't matter much for you. If the LLC is buying equipment, make sure you get enough revenue through the LLC to at least offset those expenses.",
"You want to regard loans as short-term, last-ditch, desperate effort for when you get caught in a bad spot and have a good, workable plan to get out of it. You don't ever want to start a business on borrowed money, unless you're an expert in the field of your business with a lot of experience in running businesses in that sector. The best thing to do is to get a job and save all your money to start a business that will make you enough money to start the business you really want. You may need to start a business to get the money to start a business to get the money to start a business to get the money to start the business you want. Whatever it takes, really. Just do it all yourself. Don't accept loans or favors. Also, the whole world (except Amazon) is moving from brick-and-mortar to the internet, and you're trying to move internet sales to brick-and-mortar. It's a little backward-looking. It could work, but there's probably some research you could do to test the feasibility of this idea. You need to be creative in designing effective, science-based ways to predict your success or failure. Don't worry about licensing issues with wholesalers. That's not something to be worried about, at this point.",
"Exactly. I mean, angel investors can be great, but you shouldn't be doing that unless you already have a proven model and revenue stream. I think an angel investor that would give someone money for an idea at the stage of having made $0 isn't really aware of what they're doing, and they're probably a friend or family that you may most likely end up letting down.",
"\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"",
"An hour of lawyer's time plus an estimate, provided you know what you're going to ask and for what purpose, is going to be pretty cheap. I would start there, and he/she could probably refer you to an experienced accountant as well, which you'll also want to have on retainer more than likely.",
"Good answer. I set up an S-Corp on my own, but I intend to transfer our intellectual property to an LLC at a later date. I would say hiring an attorney to draft an operating agreement is a must and worth the expense.",
"> Have enough funds to run the business and pay yourself the first year, plus 30% This is going to vary wildly depending on the particular business. So much so that a rule of thumb would be impossible to define.",
"The cost will be around $300-$500 if you do it correctly it in Florida and can be over a $1,000 if you do it in New York (New York is more expensive due to a publication requirement that New York has for LLC’s). The price ranges I’ve given include filing, state fees, getting a tax ID number (EIN), operating agreement, membership certificates, registered agent fees and publication fees if done in New York. Each state also have licensing boards and city fees that are applicable, so you would want to also make sure that you are keeping compliant there. Yearly paperwork to keep the LLC running won’t be so expensive, expect the state to charge a yearly fee and require some basic information to be submitted. I had a quick look at Florida, and with someone filing it for you, expect around $200 to $250 a year, plus registered agent fees. If you are late in Florida the penalty is $400 so you definitely would want a service that provides compliance calendar notifications to make sure you are on time with fees. In regards to bookkeeping and taxes, yearly tax filing will start at $250 to $500 for an LLC and move up from there depending on the services being offered and the amount of time of work. I recently referred someone to an accountant that will charge $250 to file an almost zero tax return on an LLC. I think $40 an hour is a little low for a bookkeeper but it all depends on where you are. I know in some major cities bookkeepers expect $75 an hour or higher. So the expectation in Miami and Manhattan will probably be more expensive than Jacksonville and Albany. If you doing a little business don’t expect the cost to be too much on the bookkeeping. So, breakdown: $300-$500 (FL) - $1,000 (NY) Registration of LLC + any business license, city or other registrations $250 Yearly Fee + Yearly Registered Agent + any business licenses, city or other fee $500 Tax Return + Bookkeeping Fee Banks will charge more than a personal account so expect $120 a year plus. In regards to service I would look at companies that specialize in foreigners setting up businesses in the US, because they will have services designed to help you more than services that primarily specialize with US clients. You are going to have some different needs, based on not having a Social Security Number or establishing from overseas.",
"\"If you are using software like QuickBooks (or even just using spreadsheets or tracking this without software) use two Equity accounts, something like \"\"Capital Contributions\"\" and \"\"Capital Distributions\"\" When you write a personal check to the company, the money goes into the company's checking account and also increases the Capital Contribution account in accordance with double-entry accounting practices. When the company has enough retained earnings to pay you back, you use the Capital Distributions equity account and just write yourself a check. You can also make general journal entries every year to zero out or balance your two capital accounts with Retained Earnings, which (I think) is an automatically generated Equity account in QuickBooks. If this sounds too complex, you could also just use a single \"\"Capital Contributions and Distributions\"\" equity account for your contributions and distributions.\"",
"The value of the company is ill-defined until it actually has some assets and/or product. You give the investors whatever equity stakes you and they negotiate as appropriate for their investment based on how convinced they are by your plan and how badly you need their money.",
"The IRA custodian is supposed to pay the formation costs. If the IRA owner does it then there is a problem. In some structures, the IRA owner, custodian, trustee, administrator, etc may involve some of the same people. Pay very close attention to these words in the structure you are setting up.",
"\"especially considering it has a mortgage on it (technically a home equity loan on my primary residence). I'm not following. Does it have a mortgage on it, or your primary residence (a different property) was used as a security for the loan? If it is HELOC from a different property - then it is really your business what to do with it. You can spend it all on casinos in Vegas for all that the bank cares. Is this a complicated transaction? Any gotchas I should be aware of before embarking on it? Obviously you should talk to an attorney and a tax adviser. But here's my two cents: Don't fall for the \"\"incorporate in Nevada/Delaware/Wyoming/Some other lie\"\" trap. You must register in the State where you live, and in the State where the property is. Incorporating in any other State will just add complexity and costs, and will not save you anything whatsoever. 2.1 State Taxes - some States tax LLCs. For example, in California you'll pay at least $800 a year just for the right of doing business. If you live in California or the property is in California - you will pay this if you decide to set up an LLC. 2.2 Income taxes - make sure to not elect to tax your LLC as a corporation. The default for LLC is \"\"disregarded\"\" status and it will be taxed for income tax purposes as your person. I.e.: IRS doesn't care and doesn't know about it (and most States, as well). If you actively select to tax it as a corporation (there's such an option) - it will cost you very dearly. So don't, and if someone suggest such a thing to you - run away from that person as fast as you can. Mortgages - it is very hard to get a mortgage when the property is under the LLC. If you already have a mortgage on that property (the property is the one securing the loan) - it may get called once you transfer it into LLC, since from bank's perspective that would be transferring ownership. Local taxes - transferring into LLC may trigger a new tax assessment. If you just bought the property - that will probably not matter much. If it appreciated - you may get hit with higher property taxes. There are also many little things - once you're a LLC and not individual you'll have to open a business bank account, will probably need a new insurance policy, etc etc. These don't add much to costs and are more of an occasional nuisance.\"",
"An LLC or an S corp will result in the same tax obligations because both are pass-through tax entities. An LLC is more flexible for the situation you describe because the member and manager responsibilities can be detailed in the operating agreement. You really should get a business attorney to help you get your operating agreement in order. There's also a startups beta site on Stack Exchange that may be able to help you with questions about ways to handle your operating agreement.",
"Awesome info, this is what I was looking for. I live in FL so i will look into LLC laws. Is there a difference in obtaining loans for multi-unit properties, or any special requirements? This would be my first purchase so I'm trying to decide if I should start with a multi-unit or a large home. I read something about a first time home buyers and the FHA allowing one to put down less of an initial investment. Im assuming this is if you are actually going to be living in the home or property? Would it make sense to have separate entities for specific types of units? For example One separate corporation per multi-unit property, but have multiple single family homes under another single entity? Thanks for the help. *quick add-on, would you know how long the corporation would have had to exist before being able to obtain a loan? For example, would XYZ, LLC. have to have been around for 3 years prior to the loan, or could i just incorporate the month before going to the bank?",
"Think about how loans work for you personally. When you charge a $50 dinner for two to your Visa card, you did not earn $50 in income. You did not pay income tax on that $50. The money you use to pay back that $50 at the end of the month is not tax deductible. Interest on a loan is a business expense. Repayment of principal is not a business expense, just as receiving the loan in the first place is not business income. Effectively this means the LLC repays the loan with after-tax dollars. Just like you do with your Visa card. When I do corporate accounting, payment of loan interest shows up on the expense side of the Profit/Loss statement, and it makes the Balance Sheet net assets go down. However payment of loan principal is effectively null. It doesn't appear on the Profit/Loss at all -- and it's a wash on the Balance Sheet, as both Assets and Liabilities fall by the same amount."
] |
[
"\"Like you said, it's important to keep your personal assets and company assets completely separate to maintain the liability protection of the LLC. I'd recommend getting the business bank account right from the beginning. My wife formed an LLC last year (also as a pass-through sole proprietorship for tax purposes), and we were able to get a small business checking account from Savings Institute and Trust that has no fees (at least for the relatively low quantity of transactions we'll be doing). We wrote it a personal check for startup capital, and since then, the LLC has paid all of its own bills out of its checking account (with associated debit card). Getting the account opened took less than an hour of sitting at the bank. Without knowing exactly where you are in Kentucky, I note that Googling \"\"kentucky small business checking\"\" and visiting a few banks' web sites provided several promising options for no-fee business checking.\""
] |
3503
|
Is there any instance where less leverage will get you a better return on a rental property?
|
[
"345294",
"297764",
"63091",
"177563",
"482077",
"360621",
"89509"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"360621",
"89509",
"63091",
"345294",
"297764",
"26339",
"329226",
"482077",
"177563",
"178501",
"445887",
"587358",
"393591",
"167896",
"306815",
"253028",
"286632",
"248448",
"85745",
"469125",
"111899",
"268835",
"465648",
"62955",
"129149",
"412624",
"148299",
"49069",
"228341",
"23522",
"87324",
"427300",
"279488",
"475192",
"565691",
"196455",
"283048",
"242524",
"88190",
"112271",
"505172",
"45727",
"501973",
"473865",
"558057",
"198442",
"329923",
"65137",
"63427",
"88428",
"559718",
"290584",
"457584",
"570178",
"119247",
"191759",
"116930",
"86909",
"141876",
"513991",
"105634",
"499331",
"431296",
"368696",
"507029",
"498236",
"539208",
"462403",
"232944",
"552496",
"282101",
"297898",
"266268",
"438073",
"168639",
"481194",
"327177",
"475566",
"402984",
"255252",
"452562",
"361858",
"92397",
"317399",
"157190",
"485008",
"556072",
"198007",
"560195",
"330533",
"130388",
"418024",
"47230",
"341003",
"581251",
"558088",
"19837",
"475634",
"151482",
"347198"
] |
[
"\"QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged. This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs. This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs. Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become \"\"upside-down,\"\" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income. Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates. Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank. Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate. In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to \"\"eat\"\" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset. If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value.\"",
"If you are calculating simple ROI, the answer is straightforward math. See This Answer for some examples, but yes, with more leverage you will always see better ROI on a property IF you can maintain a positive cash flow. The most complete answer is to factor in your total risk. That high ROI of a leveraged property is far more volatile and sensitive to any unexpected expenses. Additionally, a loss of equity in the property (or an upside-down mortgage) will further impact your long term position. To put this more simply (as noted in the comments below), your losses will be amplified. You cannot say a leveraged property will always give you a better ROI because you cannot predict your losses.",
"More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money.",
"There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.",
"\"Leverage means you can make more investments with the same amount of money. In the case of rental properties, it means you can own more properties and generate more rents. You exchange a higher cost of doing business (higher interest fees) and a higher risk of total failure, for a larger number of rents and thus higher potential earnings. As with any investment advice, whenever someone tells you \"\"Do X and you are guaranteed to make more money\"\", unless you are a printer of money that is not entirely true. In this case, taking more leverage exposes you to more risk, while giving you more potential gain. That risk is not only on the selling front; in fact, for most small property owners, the risk is primarily that you will have periods of time of higher expense or lower income. These can come in several ways: If you weather these and similar problems, then you will stand to make more money using higher leverage, assuming you make more money from each property than your additional interest costs. As long as you're making any money on your properties this is likely (as interest rates are very low right now), but making any money at all (above and beyond the sale value) may be challenging early on. These sorts of risks are magnified for your first few years, until you've built up a significant reserve to keep your business afloat in downturns. And of course, any money in a reserve is money you're not leveraging for new property acquisition - the very same trade-off. And while you may be able to sell one or more properties if you did end up in a temporarily bad situation, you also may run into 2008 again and be unable to do so.\"",
"It is easier to get a loan on a rental than a flip, which is a huge advantage to rental properties. Leverage allows you to increase your returns and make more money off appreciation and higher rents. I use ARMs to finance my rental properties that are amortized over 30 years. I have to put 20 percent down, but my portfolio lender lets me get as many loans as I want. Because I put 20 percent down on my rental properties and they still have great cash flow I can buy three times as many properties as I could with cash purchases. Buying more rental properties amplifies the other advantages like cash flow, equity pay down and the tax advantages.",
"Diversification is one aspect to this question, and Dr Fred touches on its relationship to risk. Another aspect is leverage: So it again comes down to your appetite for risk. A further factor is that if you are successfully renting out your property, someone else is effectively buying that asset for you, or at least paying the interest on the mortgage. Just bear in mind that if you get into a situation where you have 10 properties and the rent on them all falls at the same time as the property market crashes (sound familiar?) then you can be left on the hook for a lot of interest payments and your assets may not cover your liabilities.",
"\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\"",
"\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\"",
"I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business. As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too! Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year",
"\"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today. Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)? It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible. Scott W is correct on a number of counts. The \"\"cost\"\" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul. Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth. They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to. $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year. Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it. Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim. If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in \"\"rent\"\" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, \"\"But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here.\"\" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess.\"",
"The answer to your question depends on your answer to this question: Would you be willing to take out a loan at that interest rate and invest that money straight into stocks? That's basically what you're planning to do. You leverage your stock investment, which is a valid and often used way to improve returns. Better returns ALWAYS come with more risk. Depending on your location there might be a tax advantage to a mortage, which you can take into account.",
"\"It's called leverage. Here's an example from real estate. The underlying appreciation on a house in certain parts of America is something like 7% a year. So if you bought the house \"\"all cash,\"\" your return would be something like 7% a year. (Actually, a little more, because of the rent you would be collecting, or saving, if you were the \"\"renter.\"\") Suppose you buy the same house, 20% down, 80% mortgage. The rent pays for your mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc. like it is supposed to. The house goes up the same 7% each year. But now your rate of return is 35%, that is 7%/20% (your down payment). You get the whole appreciation but put up only 20% of the money. The bank (and your renter) did the rest.\"",
"If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal! However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen. This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income. The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed). Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400. A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service. So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month. Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service. This is suspiciously like 2K per year. Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest. For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs. So you have two ways to profit: rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income. What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay? What happens if you have greater than expected repairs? What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment? Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks. If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment. Where does the money come from? Your pocket. At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more. Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership.",
"Yes, more leverage increases the variance of your individual portfolio (variance of your personal net worth). The simple way to think about it is that if you only own only 50% of your risky assets, then you can own twice as many risky assets. That means they will move around twice as much (in absolute terms). Expected returns and risk (if risk is variance) both go up. If you lend rather than borrow, then you might have only half your net worth in risky assets, and then your expected returns and variation in returns will go down. Note, the practice of using leverage differs from portfolio theory in a couple important ways.",
"The investment return for a given strategy is directly proportional to the amount invested. Invest twice as much, profit (or lose) twice as much. It's a straight multiplier. However, there are some strategies which are less risky with a larger investment, and some investments which have a minimum unit of purchase that puts them out of reach of smaller investors.",
"Yes. Borrowing more against your home means you will pay more interest for your home. Specifically: Does this increase the amount of interest on my home loan by $144.56 per month to start with? Yes, that is exactly what it means. As to whether or not that is a good use of the money, I can't say. You're making various assumptions here... They could be accurate or, if this is your first rental home, they could be wildly optimistic (100% occupancy rate? that won't last). Additionally, houses are physical goods which depreciate. Put another way, they fall apart, and you (as the owner) are responsible for fixing it. You have the basic idea right, I just think you should plan for a worst-case scenario, and it looks like you're planning for the best.",
"\"You are suggesting that a 1% return per month is huge. There are those who suggest that one should assume (a rule of thumb here) that you should assume expenses of half the rent. 6% per year in this case. With a mortgage cost of 4.5% on a rental, you have a forecast profit of 1.5%/yr. that's $4500 on a $300K house. If you buy 20 of these, you'll have a decent income, and a frequently ringing phone. There's no free lunch, rental property can be a full time business. And very lucrative, but it's rarely a slam dunk. In response to OP's comment - First, while I do claim to know finance fairly well, I don't consider myself at 'expert' level when it comes to real estate. In the US, the ratio varies quite a bit from area to area. The 1% (rent) you observe may turn out to be great. Actual repair costs low, long term tenants, rising home prices, etc. Improve the 1.5%/yr to 2% on the 20% down, and you have a 10% return, ignoring appreciation and principal paydown. And this example of leverage is how investors seem to get such high returns. The flip side is bad luck with tenants. An eviction can mean no rent for a few months, and damage that needs fixing. A house has a number of long term replacement costs that good numbers often ignore. Roof, exterior painting, all appliances, heat, AC, etc. That's how that \"\"50% of rent to costs\"\" rule comes into play.\"",
"There are two components to any non-trivial financial decision: Assuming that all things remain equal, borrowing money at a low rate while investing for a higher return is a no-brainer. The problem is, all things do not remain equal. For example: I think that you need to assess your position and preferences. I'd err on the side of being in less debt.",
"Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses).",
"It's not an easy calculation so I made this demonstration that compares a fixed investment with a 100% mortgage, for a simple case. (Obviously if you lessen the mortgage with a deposit it's somewhere between the extremes.) The demonstrations shows some definite differences at higher interest rates. You can probably decipher the calculations in the code if you're interested. It's intended to be legible. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/",
"I don't think it's all or none. First, 15 year mortgages are sub-3% right now, even for an investment property you'd get under 4%. shop around, do the math, a 1% drop is $1000 a year to start, nothing to sneeze at. Don't let the tax tail wag the decision dog. If you could invest the $100K at a taxable 5.5% in this economy, you would. In this case, that's your return on prepayments on this mortgage. Personally, I'd like to see a refinance and pay down of principal so the cash flow is at least positive. Beyond that, you need to decide how much cash you're comfortable having or not having in savings. I'd also consider when to start investing long term, in equities. (low cost ETFs is what I prefer).",
"Even after the real estate crash, there are banks that lend money outside of the rules I'll share. A fully qualified mortgage is typically run at debt to income ratios of 28/36, where 28% of your gross monthly income can apply to the mortgage, property tax, and insurance, and the 36% is the total monthly debt (including the mortgage, etc) plus car loan student loan, etc. It's less about the total loan on the potential than about these ratios. The bank may allow for 75% of monthly rent so until rentals are running at a profit, they may seem a loss, even while just breaking even. This is just an overview, each bank may vary a bit.",
"The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline). The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level. However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back. So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%. Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par. This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great. And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.",
"I wrote this in another thread but is also applicable here. In general people make some key mistakes with property: Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well or be prepared to lose the whole thing in a disaster. Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth (in your example, they could well be lagging inflation/barely growing if you are not pricing in upkeep and depreciation properly). Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20 yr+ contracts/landlord activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential. Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close (and they are here), it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds.",
"Go for 15 years loan - Lower interest rate over 2-5 years period. If you can afford to pay 20% down then please do. Do not assume the average ROI will +(8-10%). It all depends on market and has variable factors like city, area and demand.",
"\"So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the \"\"normal\"\" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years? Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less? If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property. The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses. Another way to think about it: If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?\"",
"A loan with modest interest is better than paying by cash if there are better alternatives for investment. For example, suppose you are buying a house. Consider two extremes: a) you pay the house entirely by cash, b) the entire buy is financed by the bank. Historically, real (subtracting inflation) house prices (at least in the U.S.) have not risen at all in the long run, and investing all of your own capital in this way may not be optimal. Notice that we are looking at a situation where one is buying a house and living in it in any case. Rent savings are equal in cases a) and b). If instead you were buying a house not for yourself, but as a separate investment for renting out, then you would receive rent. In the case a), the real return on your capital will be zero, whereas in case b), you can invest the cash in e.g. the stock market and get, on average, 7% (the stock market has yielded a 7% real return annually including dividends) annually minus the bank's interest rate. If the interest is lower than 7%, it may be profitable to take the loan. Of course, the final decision depends on your risk preferences.",
"\"Financing a portfolio with debt (on margin) leads to higher variance. That's the WHOLE POINT. Let's say it's 50-50. On the downside, with 100% equity, you can never lose more than your whole equity. But if you have assets of 100, of which 50% is equity and 50% is debt, your losses can be greater than 50%, which is to say more than the value of your equity. The reverse is true. You can make money at TWICE the rate if the market goes up. But \"\"you pay your money and you take your chances\"\" (Punch, 1846).\"",
"I would just like to point out that the actual return should be compared to your down payment, not the property price. After all, you didn't pay $400K for that property, right? You probably paid only 20%, so you're collecting $20K/year on a $80K investment, which works out to 25%. Even if you're only breaking even, your equity is still growing, thanks to your tenants. If you're also living in one of the units, then you're saving rent, which frees up cash flow. Your increased savings, combined with the contributions of your tenants will put you on a very fast track. In a few years you should have enough to buy a second property. :)",
"In general you do not want to show a taxable gain on rental properties if you can avoid it. One of the more beneficial advantages of owning cash flowing rental properties, is that the income is tax deferred because of the depreciation. I say deferred, because depreciation affects the cost basis of your property. Also since you are considering financing, it sounds like you don't need the cash flow currently. You usually can get better returns by financing and buying more rental properties, especially with investment mortgages at historical lows (Win via inflation over time)",
"I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.",
"To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.",
"I'd suggest taking all the money you have saved up and putting in a mutual fund and hold off on buying a rental property until you can buy it outright. I know it seems like this will take forever, but it has a HUGE advantage: I know it seems like it will take forever to save up the money to buy a property for cash, but in the long run, its the best option by far.",
"The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different.",
"\"This is a great question, considering that all of your expenses including PITA, Maintenance, etc. are paid by a tenant, your cash flow is $0. Most people would stop and assume your investment is not performing and your only chance at making money is through appreciation. Your question eliminates appreciation so here are the returns you would get on your investment. The math will probably surprise many that you are actually earning a return on your money. Annual Return = [((Future Value)/(Initial Investment))^((Periods per Year)/(Number of Periods) -1]*100 % 5.51% = [($200,000/$40,000)^(12/360)-1]*100 % As Chris Rea commented: The subtlety that some would miss is that while \"\"income covers expenses exactly\"\", embedded in the \"\"expenses\"\" is actually a repayment of the loan principal (and technically, that's not an \"\"expense\"\") so not all of the income is \"\"lost\"\" covering the \"\"expenses\"\". That repayment of principal portion of the rental income constitutes the return on the original capital invested.\"",
"First problem I see is you'd be getting that rent per month, so you get 12% a year before taxes and related expenses. Loans will allow you to leverage your capital, so you can cover the mortgage payments with rent and still have money left over. Do this a couple times, and you can make serious money. Obviously, I don't know the specifics but this is just my viewpoint of RE in general. There could potentially be many downfalls.",
"Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.",
"Considering that we are in a low-interest rate period (the lowest in history), it's smart to loan money from the bank to reinvest in property or other investments as far as you get a better yield (ROI) than the interest.",
"I would go with the 2nd option (put down as little as possible) with a small caveat: avoid the mortgage insurance if you can and put down 20%. Holding your rental property(ies)'s mortgage has some benefits: You can write off the mortgage interest. In Canada you cannot write off the mortgage interest from your primary residence. You can write off stuff renovations and new appliances. You can use this to your advantage if you have both a primary residence and a rental property. Get my drift? P.S. I do not think it's a good time right now to buy a property and rent it out simply because the housing prices are over-priced. The rate of return of your investment is too low. P.S.2. I get the feeling from your question that you would like to purchase several properties in the long-term future. I would like to say that the key to good and low risk investing is diversification. Don't put all of your money into one basket. This includes real estate. Like any other investment, real estate goes down too. In the last 50 or so years real estate has only apprepriated around 2.5% per year. While, real estate is a good long term investment, don't make it 80% of your investment portfolio.",
"The answer is mathematics. Let's say you have $100 capital to invest with.. With a mortgage: With a unit trust (assuming you don't put in borrowed money): 5% growth on the property is $25, but a $25 profit on a unit trust requires 25% growth. Well, that's assuming zero interest and zero fees. Let's say interest is 3% but so are trust fees. A property now requires 8% growth for $25 profit in a year, where a unit trust now requires 29% growth for $25 profit. Which one is more likely? The above calculations don't take in to consideration all associated costs and is obviously exaggerated but it shows the answer is not black and white but is instead just mathematics on a bunch of variables. Debt isn't a bad thing so don't be afraid of using debt. With debt you can borrow more to invest. Having a fully paid off house is not a good investment if some of that equity could be earning you more else where (if the math makes sense).",
"The banks see small apartments as a higher risk because usually very small apartments are harder to sell, especially during a falling market when there is an oversupply of these apartments. The price of small apartments will also fall a lot quicker in a falling market. Regarding yield vs capital growth - the emphasis here is manly on high yielding properties in small country towns with small populations. How many properties can you buy with cash? Properties with good growth will enable you to build equity quicker and enable you to build a larger portfolio. In my opinion you need a combination of good yield and reasonable growth, because without yield you cannot replace your earned income with passive income, but without growth you can't expand your portfolio. So a combination of good yield with reasonable growth will give the best outcome.",
"A lot of people do this. For example, in my area nice townhouses go for about $400K, so if you have $80,000 you can buy one and rent it. Here are the typical numbers: So you would make $350 per month or $4,200 per year on $80,000 in capital or about 5% profit. What can go wrong: (1) The property does not rent and sits vacant. You must come up with $2100 in mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance every month without fail or default. (2) Unexpected expenses. A new furnaces costs over $5,000. A new roof costs $7,000. A new appliance costs $600 to $2000 depending on how upscale your property is. I just had a toilet fixed for a leaky plunger. It cost me $200. As you can see maintenance expenses can quickly get a lot higher than the $50 shown above... and not only that, if you fix things as cheaply as possible (as most landlords do), not only does that decrease the rentability of the property, but it causes stuff to break sooner. (3) Deadbeats. Some people will rent your property and then not pay you. Now you have a property with no income, you are spending $2100 per month to pay for it, AND you are facing steep attorney fees to get the deadbeats evicted. They can fight you in court for months. (4) Damage, wear and tear. Whenever a tenant turns over there is always a lot of broken or worn stuff that has to be fixed. Holes in the wall need to be patched. Busted locks, broken windows, non-working toilets, stains on the carpet, stuck doors, ripped screens, leaky showers, broken tiles, painting exterior trim, painting walls, painting fences, etc. You can spend thousands every time a tenant changes. Other caveats: Banks are much more strict about loaning to non home owners. You usually have to have reserve income. So, if you have little or no income, or you are stretched already, it will be difficult to get commercial loans. For example, lets say your take-home pay is $7,000 and you have no mortgage at all (you rent), then it is fine, the bank will loan you the money. But lets say you only have $5,000 in take home pay and you have an $1,800 mortgage on your own home. In that case it is very unlikely a bank will allow you to assume a 2nd mortgage on a rental property. The more you try to borrow, the more reserve income the bank will require. This tends to set a limit on how much you can leverage.",
"\"Respectfully, I am of the opinion that you are mixing issues. Paying a mortgage off early vs investing is a question that's been well discussed at Money.SE. If you project a higher tax adjusted return on the investments than your current mortgage rate, invest. Else, pay the mortgage down. If the rent covers the mortgage, you can maintain the investing. It doesn't matter for this discussion if the rent produces a profit, so long as all expenses are covered. Renting aside, in the US, now, my mortgage is 3.5%. 2.6% after taxes. So long as I expect a return well above this level long term, I'll stay investing, and let the mortgage die its slow death. Another decade or so. I'm sorry I can offer a formula, it's \"\"less\"\" \"\"about the same\"\" or \"\"more.\"\" The mortgage is fixed, right? But the market return is unknown.\"",
"yes. you can take out 500,000 form your paid of house. you pay back 500,000 at 3.5. percent. you do get a tax break for not owning your house. it is less then 3.5 you are paying back the back. about one forth of that, BUT you take the 500,000 in invest. Now cd low 1 percent, stock is risky. You can do REIT, with are about 8 to 12 every year. so even at 8 - tax 1.5 is 6.5 - 3.5 bank loan. that 3 percent on your 500,000 thousand, plus tax break, but that only at 8 percent. or 500,000 and buy a apartment building, again about 7 to 10 percent, so that 2 to 3 percent profit, but the building goes up over years.",
"\"The best answer for you is going to depend completely on your financial goals. Do you want to be debt free? Are you comfortable with the risks of long-distance rentals? Do you have good resources to take care of any issues where the properties are at? You can't directly compare the returns of risky investments versus the risk-free \"\"return\"\" of paying off debt. The expected return of the property might be higher that the interest on the loan, but when you incorporate risk, there's a decent chance that you'll make less money on the property than you pay on the loan. Other things to consider: Another way to think about it is: If you did not have the debt or the houses, Would you borrow money at 4% (or whatever your student loan is at) to buy a rent house in Arizona?\"",
"What I meant by leverage was not borrowing money in order to buy more. What I am getting at is the purchasing power your dollar has in relation to the number of dollars you have (which may mean using leverage, but not per se).",
"\"Congratulations, you are in great shape financially at a very young age. Great income, nice equity in a home, and mostly debt free. It seems like you are looking at taking out a loan of 400K, and to do so you will have to put your own home at risk as you do not have the 80K cash for a down payment. Correct? It also looks like after 2.1K per year without regard to taxes, maintenance, bad tenants, or vacancies. As such this will likely be a negative cash flow situation. I would say you should plan on a 912/month cost. Are you okay with that? While your income can probably cover this, no problem, is that your objective to have this property have a negative return for the next 10-15 years or so? For me, this is a no. Way too much risk for a negative cash flow. It is hard to talk to the upside as you did not give any profit predictions and I am unsure of the market. Why would you risk jeopardizing your great financial situation with a \"\"hail mary\"\" attempt to make money? Slow down, you will get there. Save for a few years so there is no need to tap your home's equity to make a down payment. It would really bother me to owe 600K on a 121K salary (75K+20K+26K).\"",
"You have to have 9% ROI for your investment to break even. That's pretty steep. I'd pay the loan, where you have 9% promised return. Just make sure that there are no pre-payment penalties, and that you're comfortable enough with not having that money available.",
"Buying individual/small basket of high dividend shares is exposing you to 50%+ and very fast potential downswings in capital/margin calls. There is no free lunch in returns in this respect: nothing that pays enough to help you pay your mortgage at a high rate won’t expose you to a lot of potential volatility. Main issue here looks like you have very poorly performing rental investments you should consider selling or switching up rental usage/how you rent them (moving to shorter term, higher yield lets, ditching any agents/handymen that are taking up capital/try and refinance to lower mortgage rates etc etc). Trying to use leveraged stock returns to pay for poorly performing housing investments is like spraying gasoline all over a fire. Fixing the actual issue in hand first is virtually always the best course of action in these scenarios.",
"It's generally a bad idea to use low-risk credit (low-risk in sense you're practically guaranteed to be forced to pay it off) to buy high-risk shares. In optimistic scenario, the profit from shares would be higher than your credit percentages. In less optimistic scenario you come with nothing. In worse scenario you have worthless shares and another credit to pay. If your only problem is the non-profitable property, you can always sell it and get rid of negative cash flow. It won't affect your quality of life negatively. In your high-risk scenario you trade the opportunity for a bit better life with for a risk of turning it into disaster for you and your family.",
"There may be specific answers that can be determined based on the interest rates, amounts, tax provisions, etc. But I'm here to tell you... It is much easier (i.e., less stressful) to own a home when you have less debt. Pay off any and every debt you can before purchasing a home because there will always be something requiring you to spend money once you own one.",
"\"The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why? Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of \"\"assuming risk\"\" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also. But that's not an excuse to go leveraged anyway; it's a reason to hold back. In fact, regular stocks are sufficiently risky that most people probably shouldn't be holding a 100% stock portfolio. They should be tempering that risk with bonds, instead, and increasing the size of their bond holdings over time. The appropriate time to use leverage is when you have information which limits your risk. You have done research, and have reason to believe that you understand the future of an individual stock/index better than the rest of the stock market does. You calculate that the potential for achieving returns with leverage outweighs the risks. Then you dump your money into the leveraged position. (In exchange for this, the market receives information about anticipated future returns of this instrument, because of the price movement which occurs as a result of someone putting his money where his mouth is.) If you're just looking to dump money into broad market indicies in a leveraged fashion, you're doing it wrong. There is no free money. (Ed. Which is not to say there's not money. There's lots of money. But if you go looking for the free kind, you won't find it, and may end up with money that you thought was free but was actually quite expensive.) Edit. Okay, so you don't like my answer. I'm not surprised. I'm giving you a real answer instead of a \"\"make free money\"\" answer. Okay. Here's your \"\"how to make free money\"\" answer. Assume you are using a constant leverage ratio over the length of time you've invested your money, and you don't get to just jump into and out of the market (that's market-timing, not leverage) so you have to stay invested. You're going to have a scenario which falls into one of these categories: The S&P500 historically rises over time. The average rate of return probably exceeds the average interest rate. So the ideal leverage ratio is infinite. Of course, this is a stupid answer in real life because you can't pull that off. Your risk tolerance is too low and you will have trouble finding a lender willing to lend you unsecured money, and you'll probably lose all your money in a crash sooner or later. Ultimately it's a stupid answer because you're asking the wrong question. You should probably ask a better question: \"\"when I use leverage to gain additional exposure to risk, am I being properly compensated for assuming that risk?\"\"\"",
"At the most basic level of financing a business -- you are trying to acquire capital as cheaply as you can to invest in your projects. The measure for how expensive your capital is to acquire is Weighted Average Cost of Capital. The formula for WACC: Equity Ratio * Cost of Equity + Debt Ratio * Cost of Debt * (1 - Tax Rate) This is also your discount rate when you're making a DCF model. Debt tends to be cheaper than equity when you don't already have any, and is also advantaged by tax rates since you don't pay taxes on interest. In the real world, banks and lenders will ratchet up rates the more debt you acquire, or shut you out once you've taken on too much and your debt service coverage is too low for them. In a classroom though, most teachers are too lazy to make a curvilinear formula for borrowing and will just state a rate for borrowing so you can load up on debt so long as you don't fall below being able to service your debt (cash flow to make your debt payments). This will ultimately juice the returns on equity. Realistically, you would find lenders would let you have ~20% equity in the business and ~80% debt without raising your teacher's eyebrow. If you haven't taken accounting yet; be careful about the difference between cash and revenue in your analyses. Revenue is recognition for work done; not cash in hand. You can have all the revenue in the world but if no one's paid you for it yet, you can't pay anyone.",
"Our two rentals have yielded 8.5% over the past two years (averaged). That is net, after taxes, maintenance, management, vacancy, insurance, interest. I am only interested in cash flow - expenses / original investment. If you aren't achieving at least 4.5-5% net on your original investment you probably could invest elsewhere and earn a better return on a similar risk profile.",
"use all cash I have This is a horrible idea. Any problem requiring money will turn into a really big problem. For example any bigger problem with newly bought 2 room flat (emergency repair, damage by renter) will both reduce income and be impossible to fix until some money is secured. Whatever contribution higher than minimal depends on many factors (risks, alternative sources of money, loan conditions etc). But spending all cash and living paycheck to paycheck is unlikely to be worth it. it can be assumed, that I will always be able to find someone to rent my flats This is a very optimistic assumption.",
"There are a few ways to look at this question. Assumptions. Per the original post's assumptions, this answer: In other words, if the owner paid the mortgage on its original schedule, the deal could boil down to a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for $ 200,000 of equity after 30 years. Or the deal could boil down to a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for a $ 810.70 monthly payment starting in 30 years. While the owner is paying down the mortgage, the return on equity is the principal payment divided by the equity. The principal payment is the net rent minus non-financing costs and interest, so it is actually a profit. The initial return on equity is 6.321 % APR, or 6.507 % APY. This is calculated by dividing the $ 210.70 monthly principal payment by the initial $ 40,000 equity, and converting from monthly return to annual return. After 30 years, the return on equity is 4.864 % APR, or 4.974 % APY. This is calculated by dividing the $ 810.70 monthly cash flow (which is no longer reduced by mortgage payments) by the $ 200,000 equity after 30 years, and converting from monthly return to annual return. The cap rate is the same as the return on equity in the absence of debt. In this example, 4.864 % APR, or 4.974 % APY. The return on equity declines from 6.507 % APY initially to 4.974 % APY after 30 years. This is because the cap rate exceeds the note rate (4.974 % APY vs. 4.594 % APY), and the leverage decreases from 5x to 1x. The weighted average compound annual growth rate of the equity during the 30 years is 5.511 % APY. Per the original poster's answer, this is computed by taking the 30th root of the 5-fold increase in equity. Because the owner made no extra principal payments (besides those already discussed), the relevant amounts are the initial $ 40,000 owner payment and the final $ 200,000 owner equity. 5.511 % APY corresponds to a 5.377 % APR. The internal rate of return if the owner never sells can be computed by treating the deal as a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for an $ 810.70 monthly payment starting in 30 years. The internal rate of return (IRR) is not a very useful number, because it assumes that you can somehow reinvest the eventual dividends at the same rate. In this example, the IRR is 5.172 % APR, or 5.296 % APY. In this example, the IRR is calculated by (iteratively) finding an interest rate for which (initial investment) * (1 + IRR) ^ (number periods before dividends start) = (periodic dividend) / (IRR - growth rate of dividend). For example: $ 40,000 * (1.004309687)^360 = $ 810.70 / (0.004309687 - 0) = $ 188,111 I then converted the 0.431 % monthly IRR to an annual IRR. The deal can be thought of as a return on equity, plus a return on paying down the mortgage. When computing the return from paying down the mortgage, the initial equity is irrelevant. It does not matter whether you start with a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 160,000 property, a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 200,000 property, or a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 1,000,000 property. All that matters is the note rate on the mortgage, which is the applicable compound interest rate. The return on paying down the mortgage equals the note rate of the mortgage. For a 4.5% note rate, this works out to a 4.594% annual percentage yield (APY). You can confirm this by looking at your amortization schedule. Suppose you have a $ 160,000 mortgage with a fixed 4.5% APR note rate for 360 months. Your monthly payment is $ 810.70. In the first month, $ 600 goes toward interest, and $ 210.70 reduces the principal. In other words, the $ 210.70 principal payment eliminated the need for a $ 810.70 payment 30 years later. Notice that: . $ 210.70 * (1 + 0.045 / 12)^360 = $ 210.70 * (1.00375)^360 = $ 210.70 * 3.8477 = $ 810.71 which is within rounding error of $ 810.70. The interest rate is 3/8 % per month, which is an APR of 4.5%, and an APY of 4.594 %.",
"I don't see anything in this forum on the leverage aspect, so I'll toss that out for discussion. Using generic numbers, say you make a $10k down payment on a $100,000 house. The house appreciates 3% per year. First year, it's $103,000. Second year, $106090, third it's 109,272.70. (Assuming straight line appreciation.) End of three years, you've made $9,272.70 on your initial $10,000 investment, assuming you have managed the property well enough to have a neutral or positive cash flow. You can claim depreciation of the property over those rental years, which could help your tax situation. Of course, if you sell, closing costs will be a big factor. Plus... after three years, the dreaded capital gains tax jumps in as mentioned earlier, unless you do a 1031 exchange to defer it.",
"You put 20% down and already owe the 80% or $80k, so you don't have the ability to borrow $100k or even $20k for that matter. As LittleAdv stated, the banks have really tightened their lending criteria. Borrowing out more than 80% carries a high premium if you can get it at all. In your example, you want the property to increase in value by at least 10% to borrow $10K.",
"\"Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of \"\"here is a nice house, live in it\"\". Which do you need more of? If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)\"",
"Risk. That's it. No guarantees on the fund performance, while the mortgage has a guaranteed return of -3%. I'm doing this very thing. Money is cheap, I think it's wise to take advantage of it, assuming your exercise proper risk management.",
"This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example.",
"Approximately Yes. However as you are paying more, the interest accrused would be less.",
"If you think of it in terms of trying to get an annual return on your investment over the long haul, you can do a simple net present value analysis to decide your buy price. If you're playing conservative with the investments and taking safety over returns, you will still have some kind of expectation of that return will be. Paying slightly more will drag down your returns, perhaps less than what you want to get. If you really want to get your desired X%, then stick to your guns and don't go down the slippery slope of reaching. If 1% off isn't bad, then 2% off isn't all that bad, and maybe 3% is OK too for the right situation, etc. Gotta have rules and stick to them. You never know what opportunities will be around tomorrow. The possible drops in value should be built into your return expectations.",
"In general people make a few key mistakes with property: 1) Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well. 2) Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth. 3) Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. 4) Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. 5) Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. 6) Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20yr+ contracts/activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential – particularly in fast moving jobs like software development. Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close, it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds.",
"\"I disagree. I believe money should be invested, not spent. Investing is something you should do as early as possible, even (especially) before incurring personal debt, such as cars, houses, student loans, etc. As Warren Buffet says, delaying investment until you are all paid up, is like saving sex for your old age. Remember that you are considering an investment, not another expense. The only consideration is whether or not the property will be cashflow-positive, i.e. \"\"does it make more in rent than it costs to maintain?\"\". If it is, buy it. You can use the income to pay off those debts faster, and at the end you will still have the income stream. Second, it makes no sense to use all your cash when the bank is willing to lend you money. There is nothing wrong with debt, as long as it is attached to an asset, i.e. something that makes more money than it costs. If you have that much cash, buy several apartment buildings, hire a management company, and retire.\"",
"Lucky you - here where I live that does not work, you put money on the table year 1. Anyhow... You HAVE to account for inflation. THat is where the gain comes from. Not investment increase (value of item), but the rent goes higher, while your mortgage does not (you dont own more moeny in 3 years if you keep paying, but likely you take more rent). Over 5 or 10 years the difference may be significant. Also you pay back the mortgage - that is not free cash flow, but it is a growth in your capital base. Still, 1 flat does not make a lot ;) You need 10+, so go on earning more down payments.",
"I can't think of any more negatives apart from what you mentioned, but the positives might include higher cost base for when you sell the place (this only applies in Australia if it is an investment property) thus having to pay less tax on the capital gains, and being able to borrowing extra funds which may help with your cashflow (especially if you keep the extra funds in an 100% offset account so your interest payable is not increased until you really need the extra funds).",
"It may be possible to get more cash than you currently have. For example, If you have $200,000, you could buy a distressed property for $150,000, spend $50,000 on renovations, get it appraised for $300,000 and then cash out refi $240,000 (keeping 20% equity to avoid MIPs) to invest. This would be analogous to flipping a house for yourself. Normally flippers buy a house for cheap, then sell it to someone else for way more than their total outlay in purchase + improvements. The only difference here is there's no 3rd party - you stay in the house and essentially buy it from yourself with the mortgage.",
"\"Step 2 is wrong. Leverage is NOT necessary. It increases possible gain, but increases risk of loss by essentially the same amount. Those two numbers are pretty tightly linked by market forces. See many, many other answers here showing that one can earn \"\"market rate\"\" -- 8% or so -- with far less risk and effort, if one is patient, and some evidence that one can do better with more effort and not too much more risk. And yes, investing for a longer time horizon is also safer.\"",
"this would make sense assuming debt payments incl. interest to the market for the debt assumed to purchase said boat/yacht is less than the lease payments over the life of both terms. If your lease payments are lower than term loan pmts incl. interest (or a similar debt instrument) then OP would still be right. TVM is irrespective of a competitors (or lessor in this case) Kc. Although, this goes completely out the window if it's a bond-like debt vehicle since those cash flows are distributed in a completely different manner.",
"I just wanted to add one factor to the other answers. The cost of maintenance etc. is not a fraction of the cost of financing - it is more likely a fraction of the value of the house, and a function of its age. If you say you need to replace a roof every 25 years, and that costs $10,000 (depends on the size of the house, obviously), then you need to set aside $400 a year for roof repair. Other costs (painting, flooring, kitchen, bathrooms, water heaters, heating, AC, yard upkeep etc) can be roughly estimated in the same way. A rule of thumb is 1% of the value of the house per year to cover all big-ticket maintenance. If you pay 4% mortgage, that would increase the reserve by 25%; but if interest rates rise, the fraction may be smaller (I remember paying over 10% mortgage...). In general, whether keeping a property for long term rental income (with the potential for appreciation - but prices can go up and down) is a good idea will largely depend on your ability to predict future costs and value. If you have a variable mortgage, that will be harder to do.",
"Yeah thanks. Since we are on an upswing now I'm refinancing to pay everything off faster and taking money out for capital improvements. My guess is everything will be paid off at the end of the next downswing so I have the luxury to hold.",
"\"Condensed to the essence: if you can reliably get more income from investing the cost of the house than the mortgage is costing you, this is the safest leveraged investment you'll ever make. There's some risk, of course, but there is risk in any financial decision. Taking the mortgage also leaves you with far greater flexibility than if you become \"\"house- rich but cash-poor\"\". (Note that you probably shouldn't be buying at all if you may need geographic flexibility in the next five years or so; that's another part of the liquidity issue.) Also, it doesn't have to be either/or. I borrowed half and paid the rest in cash, though I could have taken either extreme, because that was the balance of certainty vs.risk that I was comfortable with. I also took a shorter mortgage than I might have, again trading off risk and return; I decided I would rather have the house paid off at about the same time that I retire.\"",
"Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.",
"but the flat would be occupied all the time. Famous last words. Are you prepared to have a tenant move in, and stop paying rent? In the US, it can take 6 months to get a tenant out of the apartment and little chance of collecting back rent. I don't know how your laws work, but here, they do not favor the landlord. The tiny sub 1% profit you make while funding principal payments is a risky proposition. It seems to me that even normal repairs (heater, appliances, etc) will put you to the negative. On the other hand, if this property has bottomed in terms of price and it rises in value, you may have a nice profit. But if you are just renting it out, it feels like it's too close to call. By the way, if you can go with a 30yr fixed, I'd suggest that. This would get you to a better cash flow sooner. A shorter mortgage simply means more money to principal each month. EDIT - as far as equity goes, at the beginning it seems the equity build up is really from your pocket, definitely so by switching from the 30 to the 15. What is your goal? The assumption I may have made is you wish to be a real estate investor with multiple properties. Doing so means saving up for the next down payment. Given the payoff time even if the property ran a high profit, I imagine you'd want to focus on cash flow, minimize the monthly expense, maximize what you can take each month to save for the next down payment. It's your choice, years from now to have one paid property, or 3 properties each with that 30% down payment, and let time be your friend.",
"Seems like a bad deal to me. But before I get to that, a couple of points on your expenses: Onward. You value a property by calculating its CAP rate. This is what you're calculating, except it does NOT include interest like you did -- that's a loan to you, and has no bearing on whether the unit itself is a good investment. It also includes estimations of variable expenses like maintenance and lack of income from vacancies. People argue vociferously on exactly how much to calculate for those. Maintenance will vary by age of the building and how damaging your tenets are. Vacancies vary based on how desirable the location is, how well you've done the maintenance, and how low the rent is. Doing the math based on your numbers, with just the fixed expenses: 8400 rent - 2400 management fee - 100 insurance = 5900/year income. 5900/150000 = 0.0393 = 3.9% CAP rate. And that's not even counting the variable expenses yet! So, what's a good CAP rate? Generally, 10% CAP rate is a good deal, and higher is a great deal. Below that you have to start to get cautious. Some places are worth a lower rate, for instance when the property is new and in a good location. You can do 8% on these. Below 6% CAP rate is usually a really bad investment. So, unless you're confident you can at least double the rent right off the bat, this is a terrible deal. Another way to think about it You're looking to buy with your finances in just about the best position possible -- a huge down payment and really low interest. Plus you haven't accounted for maintenance, taxes (if any), and vacancies. And still you'd make only a measly 1.2% profit? Would you buy a bond that only pays out 1.2%? No? What about a bond that only pays 1.2%, but also from time to time can force YOU to pay into IT a much larger amount every month?",
"\"I put about that down on my place. I could have purchased it for cash, but since my investments were returning more interest than the loan was costing me (much easier to achieve now!), this was one of the safest possible ways of making \"\"leverage\"\" work for me. I could have put less down and increased the leverage, but tjis was what I felt most comfortable with. Definitely make enough of a down payment to avoid mortgage insurance. You may want to make enough of a down payment that the bank trusts you to handle your property insurance and taxes yourself rather than insisting on an escrow account and building that into the loan payments; I trust myself to mail the checks on time much more than I trust the bank. Beyond that it's very much a matter of personal preference and what else you might do with the money.\"",
"I don't really see it as worth it at any level because of the risk. If you take $10,000,000 using the ratios you gave making 2% return. That is a profit of $200,000. Definitely not worth it, but lets go to 20% profit that is $2,000,000. To me the risk involved at beint 10 million in debt isn't worth it to make $2,000,000 quickly it would be pretty easy doing something wrong to wipe out everything.",
"Here are my re-run figures. Not counting capital gains taxes, I calculate you need to be making 1.875% per annum or 0.155% per month on your $8,000 investment to break-even on the loan. It's interesting that the return you need to gain to break-even is less than the interest you're paying, even with commission. It happens because the investment is gaining a return on an increasing amount while the load is accruing interest on a decreasing amount. Ref. r, logarithmic return",
"It depends on your equity(assets - liabilities). If you have a lot of equity, banks will be happy to lend you money because they now they can always seize your assets. If you don't have a lot of equity another option is to go to hard money lenders. They charge high rates and some of them lend-to-own, but is an option. And consider what Pete said, you might be a little optimistic.",
"\"I've never heard of rent quoted per week. Are you in the US? In general, after the down payment, one would hope to take the rent, and be able to pay the mortgage, tax, insurance, and then have enough left each year to at least have a bit of emergency money for repairs. If one can start by actually pocketing more than this each year, that's ideal, but to start with a rental, and only make money \"\"after taxes\"\" is cutting it too close in my opinion. The 19 to 1 \"\"P/E\"\" appears too high, when I followed such things I recall 12 or under being the target. Of course rates were higher, and that number rises with very low rates. In your example, a $320K mortgage at 4% is $1527/mo. $400/wk does not cut it.\"",
"Having both purchased income properties and converted prior residences into rental properties I have found that it is difficult to get the banks to consider the potential rental income in qualifying you for a loan. It helps if you have prior rental experience but in many cases you will have to qualify outright (i.e. without consideration of the potential income). The early 2000s were great for responsible borrows/investors but today's regulations make it much more difficult to finance income property.",
"The major drawback to borrowing to invest (i.e. using leverage) is that your return on investment must be high enough to overcome the cost of finance. The average return on the S&P 500 is about 9.8% (from CNBC) a typical unsecured personal loan will have an interest rate of around 18-36% APR (from NerdWallet). This means that on average you will be paying more interest than you are receiving in returns so are losing money on the margin investment. Sometimes the S&P falls and over those periods you would be paying out interest having lost money so will have a negative return! You may have better credit and so be able to get a lower rate but I don't know your loan terms currently. Secured loans, such as remortgaging your house, will have lower costs but come with more life changing risks. The above assumes that you are getting financing by directly borrowing money, however, it is also possible to trade on margin. This is where you post a proportion of the value that you wish to trade with as collateral against a loan to buy the security. This form of finance is normally used by day traders and other short term holders of stocks. Although the financing costs here are low (I am not charged an interest rate on intraday margin trading) there are very high costs if you exceed the term of the loan. An example is that I am charged a fee if I hold a position overnight and my profits and losses are crystallised at that time. If I am in a losing position at that time the crystallisation process and fee can result in not having enough margin to recover the position and the loss of a potentially profit making position. Additionally if the amount of collateral cash (margin) posted is insufficient to cover the expected losses as calculated by your broker they will initiate a margin call asking for more collateral money. If you do not (or cannot) post this extra margin your losing position will be cashed out and you will take as a loss the total loss at that time. Since the market can change very rapidly, such as in a flash crash, this can result in your losing more money than you had in the first place. As this is essentially a loan you can be bankrupted by this. Overall using leverage to invest magnifies your potential profits but it also magnifies your potential losses. In many cases this magnification could be sufficient to lose you more money than you had originally invested. In addition to magnification you need to consider the cost of finance and that your return over the course of the loan needs to be higher than your cost of finance as well as inflation and other opportunity costs of capital. The S&P 500 is a relatively low volatility market in general so is unlikely to return losses in any given period that will mean that leverage of 1.25 times will take you into losses beyond your own capital investment but it is not impossible. The low level of risk automatically means that your returns are lower and so your cost of capital is likely to be a large proportion of your returns and your returns may not completely cover the cost of capital even when you are making money. The key thing if you are going to trade or invest on leverage is to understand the terms and costs of your leverage and discount them from any returns that you receive before declaring to yourself that you are profitable. It is even more important than usual to know how your positions are doing and whether you are covering your cost of capital when using leverage. It is also very important to know the terms of your leverage in detail, especially what will happen when and if your credit runs out for whatever reason be it the end of the financing period (the length of the loan) or your leverage ratio gets too high. You should also be aware of the costs of closing out the loan early should you need to do so and how to factor that into your investing decisions.",
"I sold my house and had been in the market looking for a replacement house for over 6 months after I sold it. I found someone willing to give me a short term, 3 month lease, with a month to month after that, at an equitable rate, as renters were scarcer than buyers.By the time I found a house, there were bidding wars as surplus had declined (can be caused seasonally), and it was quite difficult to get my new house. However, appraisers help this to a degree because whatever the seller wants, is not necessarily what they get, even if you offer it. I offered $10k over asking just to get picked out of the large group bidding on the house. Once the appraisal came in at $10k below my offer, I was able to buy the house at what I expected. Of course I had to be prepared if it came in higher, but I did my homework and knew pretty much what the house was worth. The mortgage is the same as the lease I had, the house is only 10 years' old and has a 1 year warranty on large items that could go wrong. In the 3 months I've been in the house, I have gained nearly $8k in equity....and will have a tax writeoff of about $19,000 off an income off a salary of $72,000, giving me taxable income of $53,000... making by tax liability go down about $4600. If I am claiming 0 dependents I will get back about $5,000 this year versus breaking even.",
"Except for unusual tax situations your effective interest rate after taking into account the tax deduction will still be positive. It is simply reduced by your marginal rate. Therefore you will end up paying more if the house is financed than if it is bought straight out. Note this does not take into account other factors such as maintaining liquidity or the potential for earning a greater rate of return by investing the money that would otherwise be used to pay for the house",
"It depends what rate mortgage you can get for any extra loans... If you remortgage you are likely to get a rate of 3.5-4%... depending who you go with. With deposit accounts in the UK maying around 1% (yes, you can get more by tying it up for longer but not a huge amount more) clearly you're better off not having a mortgage rather than money in the bank. Does your 8k income allow for tax? If it does, you are getting 6% return on the money tied up in the flat. If you are getting 6% after tax on the invested money, that's way better than you would get on any left over cash paid into an investment. Borrowing money on a mortgage would cost you less than 6%... so you are better off borrowing rather than selling the flat. If you are getting 6% before tax... depending on your tax rate... it probably makes very little difference. You'd need to work out how much an extra 80k mortgage would cost you, how much the 50k on deposit would earn you and how much you make after tax. There is a different route. Set up a mortgage on the rental flat. You can claim the interest payment off the flat's income... reduce your tax bill so the effective mortgage rate on the flat would be less than what you could get with a mortgage on the new house. Use the money from the flat's mortgage to finance the difference in house price. In fact from a tax view, you may be better off having a mortgage free house and maxing out the mortgage on the flat so you can write off as much as possible against your tax bill. All of the above assume ... that the flat is rented all the time. The odd dry spell on the flat could influence the sums a lot. All of the above assume that your cash flow works whichever route you choose. As no-one on stack exchange has all of the numbers for your specific circumstances it may be worth talking to a tax accountant. They could advise you properly, knowing the numbers, which makes the best sense for you in terms of overall cost, cash flow, risk and so on.",
"\"Generally, when you own something - you can give it as a collateral for a secured loan. That's how car loans work and that's how mortgages work. Your \"\"equity\"\" in the asset is the current fair value of the asset minus all your obligations secured by it. So if you own a property free and clear, you have 100% of its fair market value as your equity. When you mortgage your property, banks will usually use some percentage loan-to-value to ensure they're not giving you more than your equity now or in a foreseeable future. Depending on the type and length of the loan, the LTV percentage varies between 65% and 95%. Before the market crash in 2008 you could even get more than 100% LTV, but not anymore. For investment the LTV will typically be lower than for primary residence, and the rates higher. I don't want to confuse you with down-payments and deposits as it doesn't matter (unless you're in Australia, apparently). So, as an example, assume you have an apartment you rent out, which you own free and clear. Lets assume its current FMV is $100K. You go to a bank and mortgage the apartment for a loan (get a loan secured by that apartment) at 65% LTV (typical for condos for investment). You got yourself $65K to buy another unit free and clear. You now have 2 apartments with FMV $165K, your equity $100K and your liability $65K. Mortgaging the new unit at the same 65% LTV will yield you another $42K loan - you may buy a third unit with this money. Your equity remains constant when you take the loan and invest it in the new purchase, but the FMV of your assets grows, as does the liability secured by them. But while the mortgage has fixed interest rate (usually, not always), the assets appreciate at different rates. Now, lets be optimistic and assume, for the sake of simplicity of the example, that in 2 years, your $100K condo is worth $200K. Voila, you can take another $65K loan on it. The cycle goes on. That's how your grandfather did it.\"",
"\"Risk is the capital you have staked in pursuit of profit. The danger is that you lose what you have risked. For some bets (risks), you can get insurance to cover for losses. Now the \"\"game\"\" of Landlord and Tenant requires you to play fully by the rules set forth by your legislators. In your case, that is the legislators of the State of Texas. Without knowing those rules, you could be liable (open to civil prosecution) for violating those rules. Tenants could be savvy to those rules or savvy enough to hire someone, a lawyer, who knows those rules. As well, in the game of Landlord and Tenant, you must ascertain the creditworthiness of your would-be tenant. If the tenant fails to pay rent, that tenant can detain the residence. You will incur additional outlays to gain possession of your property (ownership in your rental). Now the game of Landlord vs Landlord is different. You can't pick up houses easily enough and even if you could, likely the expense of doing so could wipe out any would profits from having the house as a rental. So, in Landlord vs Landlord, you get constrained by where your rental sits. Thus you must forecast what will the neighborhood look like in five, ten, fifteen years.\"",
"There is a positive not being mentioned above: the depreciation vs your regular earned income. Disclaimer: I am not a tax attorney or an accountant, nor do I play one on the internet. I am however a landlord. With that important caveat out of the way: Rental properties (and improvements to them) depreciate in value on a well-defined schedule. You can claim that depreciation as a phantom loss to lower the amount of your taxable regular income. If you make a substantial amount of the latter, it can be a huge boon in the first few years you own the property. You can claim the depreciation as if the property were new. So take the advice of a random stranger on the internet to your accountant/attorney and see how much it helps you.",
"To avoid risk from rising interest rates, get a fixed rate mortgage. For the life of the mortgage your principal and interest payments will remain the same. Keep in mind that the taxes and insurance portion of your monthly payment may still go up. Because you own the property, the costs to maintain the property are your responsibility. If you rented this would be the responsibility of the owner of the property; if the cost to repair and maintain goes up so does the rent. Because you are the owner your annual costs to repair and maintain may go up over time. The way to eliminate risk of loss of value is to never move, until the mortgage is paid off. You will know exactly what principal and interest will cost you over the life of the loan. When you sell that will be essentially return on your payments. You don't know if the loss of value is due to world, national, regional, local or individual circumstances. so hedging is tough. If the fact that the mortgage is 95% is what makes you nervous, your biggest risk is risk of being upside down. That risk is greatly reduced by increasing the amount of the down payment. That decreases the risk that the value will be below the mortgage amount if due to unforeseen circumstances you have to sell immediately. The money will still be lost due to decrease in value, but you aren't forced to bring cash to the settlement table if you need to sell.",
"It depends on your situation. Situations may change. There are also other factors: Being free and clear is nice, but there is an opportunity cost.",
"Never buy a house unless you really want to buy that house. If you want to buy a rental, look around and find the right rental to buy; saving a few hundred on moving costs isn't a good reason to buy the wrong property at the wrong price.",
"The best way to look at it is this: I would suspect most people would say no. Most people do not have the time, skill, or risk tolerance to be able to leverage capital as large as the value of their own home. Remember that a 15-year fixed has a slightly lower interest rate than a 30-year fixed (difference of 0.5–1%). If you won't have the discipline to invest every cent left in your pocket, then you are better off with the 15-year and the lower rate.",
"Real Estate is all local. In the United States, I can show you houses so high the rent on them is less than 1/3% of their value per month, eg. $1M House renting for less than $3500. I can also find 3 unit buildings (for say $200K) that rent for $3000/mo total rents. I might want to live in that house, but buy the triplex to rent out. You need to find what makes sense, and not buy out of impulse. A house to live in and a house to invest have two different sets of criteria. They may overlap, but if the strict Price/Rent were universal, there would be no variation. If you clarify your goal, the answers will be far more valuable.",
"Properties do in fact devaluate every year for several reasons. One of the reasons is that an old property is not the state of the art and cannot therefore compete with the newest properties, e.g. energy efficiency may be outdated. Second reason is that the property becomes older and thus it is more likely that it requires expensive repairs. I have read somewhere that the real value depreciation of properties if left practically unmaintained (i.e. only the repairs that have to absolutely be performed are made) is about 2% per year, but do not remember the source right now. However, Properties (or more accurately, the tenants) do pay you rent, and it is possible in some cases that rent more than pays for the possible depreciation in value. For example, you could ask whether car leasing is a poor business because cars depreciate in value. Obviously it is not, as the leasing payments more than make for the value depreciation. However, I would not recommend properties as an investment if you have only small sums of money. The reasons are manyfold: So, as a summary: for large investors property investments may be a good idea because large investors have the ability to diversify. However, large investors often use debt leverage so it is a very good question why they don't simply invest in stocks with no debt leverage. For small investors, property investments do not often make sense. If you nevertheless do property investments, remember the diversification, also in time. So, purchase different kinds of properties and purchase them in different times. Putting a million USD to properties at one point of time is very risky, because property prices can rise or fall as time goes on.",
"There are tax strategies you could take advantage of if you own the property. Find local real estate investors that like 'buy and hold'. Additional strategy is to buy a property and sell it with owner financing (you use a Residential Mortgage Loan Officer to facilitate.) What is great is you can get a great % real return on your money without being a landlord.",
"For Option 2 - do you really think you can guarantee an average return of 8% here. Historical returns are no guarantee of future returns. Even if you could get higher returns for option 2 than the interest rate on the mortgage, are you able to cover all the additional fees with the PMI in placing such a low down payment? The wiser choice in my opinion would be to chose option 1.",
"the total principal is also dropping - you mean you're paying it down, right? All else the same, if you found a house whose payments are less than rent, and planned to stay long term, buying can make sense. But let's not forget the other costs and risks. How badly do you want to be a homeowner? Adding image from another post here: This shows that housing prices have fallen below the long term trend line and equilibrium level.",
"Surely the yield should be Yield = (Rent - Costs) / Downpayment ? As you want the yield relative to your capital not to the property value. As for the opportunity cost part you could look at the risk free rate of return you could obtain, either through government bonds or bank accounts with some sort of government guarantee (not sure what practical terms are for this in Finland). The management fee is almost 30% of your rent, what does this cover? Is it possible to manage the property yourself, as this would give you a much larger cushion between rent and expenses."
] |
[
"There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.",
"\"Leverage means you can make more investments with the same amount of money. In the case of rental properties, it means you can own more properties and generate more rents. You exchange a higher cost of doing business (higher interest fees) and a higher risk of total failure, for a larger number of rents and thus higher potential earnings. As with any investment advice, whenever someone tells you \"\"Do X and you are guaranteed to make more money\"\", unless you are a printer of money that is not entirely true. In this case, taking more leverage exposes you to more risk, while giving you more potential gain. That risk is not only on the selling front; in fact, for most small property owners, the risk is primarily that you will have periods of time of higher expense or lower income. These can come in several ways: If you weather these and similar problems, then you will stand to make more money using higher leverage, assuming you make more money from each property than your additional interest costs. As long as you're making any money on your properties this is likely (as interest rates are very low right now), but making any money at all (above and beyond the sale value) may be challenging early on. These sorts of risks are magnified for your first few years, until you've built up a significant reserve to keep your business afloat in downturns. And of course, any money in a reserve is money you're not leveraging for new property acquisition - the very same trade-off. And while you may be able to sell one or more properties if you did end up in a temporarily bad situation, you also may run into 2008 again and be unable to do so.\"",
"More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money.",
"\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\"",
"\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\"",
"\"QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged. This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs. This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs. Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become \"\"upside-down,\"\" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income. Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates. Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank. Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate. In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to \"\"eat\"\" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset. If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value.\"",
"If you are calculating simple ROI, the answer is straightforward math. See This Answer for some examples, but yes, with more leverage you will always see better ROI on a property IF you can maintain a positive cash flow. The most complete answer is to factor in your total risk. That high ROI of a leveraged property is far more volatile and sensitive to any unexpected expenses. Additionally, a loss of equity in the property (or an upside-down mortgage) will further impact your long term position. To put this more simply (as noted in the comments below), your losses will be amplified. You cannot say a leveraged property will always give you a better ROI because you cannot predict your losses."
] |
3615
|
My previous and current employers both use Fidelity for 401(k). Does it make sense to rollover?
|
[
"518379",
"335991"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"335991",
"518379",
"224434",
"291578",
"439402",
"304780",
"13275",
"122114",
"67220",
"217661",
"105011",
"168890",
"329497",
"226547",
"510615",
"392894",
"332605",
"581973",
"387876",
"551545",
"4181",
"470267",
"463007",
"577839",
"74583",
"434734",
"192627",
"505943",
"183856",
"88550",
"483268",
"357555",
"127664",
"426189",
"391835",
"64459",
"222082",
"425703",
"344526",
"302619",
"165159",
"295522",
"391896",
"401498",
"9861",
"60119",
"221117",
"567255",
"361037",
"568322",
"244084",
"388028",
"475748",
"397553",
"553576",
"85658",
"567410",
"195515",
"72160",
"465439",
"355373",
"72402",
"217557",
"591168",
"554739",
"576263",
"89202",
"389202",
"424766",
"367355",
"399917",
"42537",
"6471",
"117158",
"448544",
"195687",
"456526",
"577837",
"372474",
"92941",
"195366",
"344698",
"385251",
"323934",
"181624",
"319182",
"66470",
"327509",
"591383",
"287781",
"179606",
"175252",
"63532",
"79375",
"84642",
"547218",
"490867",
"24404",
"160786",
"485248"
] |
[
"I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan.",
"I would check to see what the fee schedule is on your previous employer's 401k. Depending on how it was setup, the quarterly/annual maintenance fee may be lower/higher than your current employer. Another reason to rollover/not-rollover is that selection of funds available is better than the other plan. And of course always consider rolling over your old plan into a standard custodial rollover IRA where the management company gives you a selection of investment options. At least look at the fees and expense ratios of your prior employer's plan and see if anything reaches a threshold of what you consider actionable and worth your time. Note: removed reference to self directed IRA as vehicle is more complicated account type allowing for more than just stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Not for your typical retail investor.",
"My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule.",
"\"Rolling an old 401k into a new 401k is generally only for ease of management. For example, how many bank accounts do you really want? As long as the funds are reasonably allocated I've found it can be a useful \"\"mind game\"\" to leave it separate. Sometimes it's desirable to ignore an account and let it grow, and it is a nice surprise when finally adding all the account balances together. In other words, I keep thinking I've got X (the amount of my biggest or current 401k), which affects/helps my habits and desire to save. When I add them all together I'm shocked to find out I've got Y (the total of all accounts). Personally, I've had big paperwork problems transferring an old 403b (same type process as 401k) even when I had an adviser helping me move it. In the end it was worth moving it, because I'm having the adviser manage it. I'm actually writing this answer specifically because I recently moved a big 401k into a Traditional IRA. A rep from the brokerage, representing my previous employer, kept calling me to find out how they could help (I didn't brush him off). I found that using an IRA provided me with the opportunity to do self-guided investments in funds or even individual stocks, well beyond the limited selection of the old company's 401k. It was useful/interesting to me to invest in low-fee vehicles such as index funds (ie: the Buffett recommendation), and I'll find some stocks as well. Oh and when the old company 401k has certain funds being discontinued, I didn't want to notice the mandated changes years later. So, I'd suggest you consider management and flexibility of the 401k or equivalent, and any of your special personal circumstances/goals. If you end up with a few retirement accounts, I suggest you use an account aggregating website to see or follow your net worth. I know many who, based on various concerns and their portfolio, find an acceptable website to use.\"",
"Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed. Also the desire to roll over money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too -- far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to another if one so desires. Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests.",
"\"In the case of Fidelity, the answer is \"\"no.\"\" Although when you leave your employer and roll over the account to an IRA, leaving it with Fidelity allowed me to keep money in those closed funds. My Roth IRA was not able/allowed to buy those funds.\"",
"I've changed jobs several times and I chose to rollover my 401k from the previous employer into an IRA instead of the new employer's 401k plan. The biggest reason not to rollover the 401k into the new employer's 401k plan was due to the limited investments offered by 401k plans. I found it better to roll the 401k into an IRA where I can invest in any stock or fund.",
"\"Good question. And it depends a bit on your current plan, your future income, and the plan you are moving too. Mostly you want to roll out of your existing 401K. There will likely be a fee, and your investment choices are limited. You will want to do a direct transfer, and going with a quality company such as Fidelity or Vanguard. Both of those have zero fees for accounts and pretty good customer service. However, if your future income is likely to be high there is something else to consider. If you are over the limits do a ROTH, and are considering doing a \"\"Backdoor ROTH\"\" a key success for this strategy is keeping your roll over IRA balance low (or zero). So you may want to either leave the 401K where it is, or roll it to your new 401K plan. In that case you will have to call the two 401K custodians, and select the best choice as far as fees and fund choice.\"",
"rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.",
"No that is not a rollover. Many employees have experienced a change of management companies. Sometimes these switches are due to a merger, an acquisition, or just to save money. It is understandable that the old employer would like to see you transfer your funds to either your new employer, or roll them over into a IRA/Roth IRA. So it is not unexpected that they will take this opportunity to nudge you. The thing that congress was trying to prevent were serial rollovers of IRAs. These people would use the 60 day window to have in essence a loan. Some would do this multiple times a year; always making sure they replaced the money in time. The IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the number of IRAs you own (Announcement 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. Direct transfers of IRA money are not limited This change won’t affect your ability to transfer funds from one IRA trustee directly to another, because this type of transfer isn’t a rollover (Revenue Ruling 78-406, 1978-2 C.B. 157). The one-rollover-per-year rule of Internal Revenue Code Section 408(d)(3)(B) applies only to rollovers. Note that the law doesn't mention 401K/403B or the federal TSP. When the 401K changes management companies that is not a rollover.",
"What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls. The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013. Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard.",
"Companies usually have a minimum account balance required to keep a 401k for former employees. You will have to check whether $10k is sufficient to keep your funds in your former employer's 401k. If you are below their threshold, you will have to move your money. One option is to rollover into the new employer's 401k. You can rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA account that is independent of your employer. A traditional IRA has the same tax benefits as a 401k; it grows tax-free until you withdraw money from the account. Companies that offer IRAs include Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA. Many companies have significant overhead costs in the their 401k management. It may be better for you to rollover your money into an IRA to save on these costs. I am not knowledgeable about loaning from retirement accounts, so I cannot help with that.",
"You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there.",
"\"The biggest reason why one might want to leave 401k money invested in an ex-employer's plan is that the plan offers some superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere, e.g. some mutual funds that are not open to individual investors such as S&P index funds for institutional investors (these have expense ratios even smaller than the already low expense ratios of good S&P index funds) or \"\"hot\"\" funds that are (usually temporarily) closed to new investors, etc. The biggest reason to roll over 401k money from an ex-employer's plan to the 401k plan of a new employer is essentially the same: the new employer's plan offers superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere. Of course, the new employer's 401k plan must accept such roll overs. I do not believe that it is a requirement that a 401k plan must accept rollovers, but rather an option that a plan can be set up to allow for or not. Another reason to roll over 401k money from one plan to another (rather than into an IRA) is to keep it safe from creditors. If you are sued and found liable for damages in a court proceeding, the plaintiff can come after IRA assets but not after 401k money. Also, you can take a loan from the 401k money (subject to various rules about how much can be borrowed, payment requirements etc) which you cannot from an IRA. That being said, the benefits of keeping 401k money as 401k money must be weighed against the usually higher administrative costs and usually poorer and more limited choices of investment opportunities available in most 401k plans as Muro has said already.\"",
"Adding to justkt's answer. The big difference to you during the rollover is that moving the money to a Roth IRA, unless it was a Roth 401K, is going to require you pay a lot of taxes on the money you move. I'd suggest not doing that without guidance from a financial advisor.",
"You can probably roll it over into the new company's 401k too, so just talk to your HR rep there. I set up a separate Vangard IRA so when I changejobs or anything, I just dump my investments into that account and don't have to worry about keep track of them all over the place.",
"Yes, that's exactly what you can/should do. The only question is whether the 401(k) has good investment choices and low fees, if so, go for it.",
"I've rolled mine over into IRAs, and once you have one rollover account you can roll further 401ks into it-- I've done that.",
"You need to check with your employer. It is called an in-service rollover and it is up to your employer on whether or not it is allowed. There are a lot of articles on it but I would still talk to a professional before making the decision. And there are some new laws in place that put at least some responsibility on your employer to provide a 401k with reasonable options and fees. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-edison-401k-fees-20150519-story.html We'll see if it has legs.",
"401(k)'s can be rolled over into IRAs. You can roll all of your former company 401(k)'s into a single IRA, managed by whatever company you like. Many employers will not let you transfer money out of your 401(k) while you're still a current employee, though, so you may be stuck with the 401(k) used by your current company until you leave. You'll have to check with your 401(k) administrator to be sure. You won't incur any taxes as long as you execute the rollovers properly. The best way to do it is to coordinate the transfer directly between your old 401(k) and your new IRA, so the check is never sent directly to you.",
"\"As other responders said, you can certainly roll over multiple 401(k) into a single account. An added benefit of such rollover (besides the ease of tracking) is that you can shop around for your Rollover IRA provider and find the one that gives you the specific mutual funds that you want to invest in, the lowest expenses, etc. - in short, find the best fit to your priorities. There are also \"\"lemon\"\" 401(k) plans and if you are in one of them, get out! And rollover is the way out. There is also one possibility to keep an eye on as it happens rarely, but it does happen - rolling a 401(k) over into another 401(k). I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. At the same time I kept a Rollover IRA, combining the 401(k) from all other jobs; it had more investment options and provided some flexibility.\"",
"Direct roll-overs / trustee to trustee transfers are typically initiated by the receiving institution. Therefore you need to work with Vanguard. They will have a form in which you provide them with your fidelity account info and they will then contact Fidelity and initiate the transfer. Do not take the option of being sent a check made out to you by Fidelity (an indirect rollover). There are too many ways to muck up and get hit with penalties if you are the middleman in the process. I believe in most, if not all, cases the IRS now requires a 20% withholding on indirect 401k rollovers. This is because too many times people would initiate a roll over but not complete it either at all or within the allowed 60 day window and then come tax time be unable to pay the tax and penalty on the distribution. The tricky part of that withholding is that you still have to deposit that amount into the new account otherwise it becomes a distribution subject to tax and penalties (and that means coming up with the money from other accounts). So in summary talk to Vanguard and set up an institution to institution transfer. They souls make this very easy as they want your money. And do not do any kind of rollover where you come into personal possession of the money. If the check is made out to Vanguard but sent to you to resend to Vanguard that should not be an issue as that is still a trustee to trustee transfer. Fidelity may have a minor account closer fee that will be deducted from the value of the account before it is sent.",
"I don't know about keeping different rollover IRAs separate. But I know that there is a reason to keep rollover IRAs separate from other traditional IRAs -- if you want to roll them back into a 401(k) in the future, some 401(k)s only allow funds that were rolled over from a 401(k) originally.",
"You can do a direct transfer from one fund to another within Fidelity very easily. You will have to see if the two funds have any sales or redemption fees. If you want to leave Fidelity, they should be able to transfer the funds directly to the other IRA custodian. You don't want the money to go to you, instead you want to send them send the money directly to the other firm. The new custodian will be more than happy to help facilitate the transfer. The only fee for doing so should be if the funds you are investing in have fees for buying or selling shares. There are many options that don't have these transaction costs, both with Fidelity and with other companies.",
"I agree with harmanjd – best to roll it over to an IRA. Not only does that afford you better control of your money as pointed out already, but: If you choose your IRA provider wisely, you can get an account that provides you with a much wider array of investing choices, including funds and ETFs that charge much lower fees than what you would have had access to in an employer 401(k) plan. But here's one thing to consider first: Do you hold any of your previous employer's stock in your old 401(k)? There are special rules you might want to be aware of. See this article at Marketwatch: If your 401(k) includes your company's stock, a rollover may be a bad move. Additional Resource:",
"I assume that with both companies you can buy stock mutual funds, bonds mutual funds, ETFs and money market accounts. They should both offer all of these as IRAs, Roth IRAs, and non-retirement accounts. You need to make sure they offer the types of investments you want. Most 401K or 403b plans only offer a handful of options, but for non-company sponsored plans you want to have many more choices. To look at the costs see how much they charge you when you buy or sell shares. Also look at the annual expenses for those funds. Each company website should show you all the fees for each fund. Take a few funds that you are likely to invest in, and have a match in the other fund family, and compare. The benefit of the retirement accounts is that if you make a less than perfect choice now, it is easy to move the money within the family of funds or even to another family of funds later. The roll over or transfer doesn't involve taxes.",
"You can't roll it over to a Roth IRA without tax penalties. The best thing to do is roll it to an IRA that isn't tied to work at all. Second best is to roll it into your new employer's 401k. The reason that an IRA makes sense is that it gives you the same tax savings as a 401k, but it allows you to remain in control of the money regardless of your employment status.",
"As to the rollover question. Only rollover to a ROTH if you have other funds you can use to pay the taxes you will be hit with if you do that. DO NOT pay the taxes out of the funds in the 401k. If you don't have a way to pay the taxes, then roll it to a traditional IRA. You never want to pay the government any taxes 'early' and you don't want to reduce the balance. beyond that, A lot depends on how long you figure you will be with that company. If it's only a few years, or if you and other employees can make enough of a fuss that they move the fund to someplace decent (any of the big no-load companies such as Vanguard would be a better custodian), then I'd go ahead and max it out. If you figure to be there for a long while, and it looks like someone is in bed with the custodian and there's no way it will be changed, then maybe look to max out a Roth IRA instead.",
"Once you roll the money from the 401K into a rollover IRA don't mix it with new funds. The money from the 401K will be treated differently depending on if the funds are pre-tax, post-tax, Roth, or matching. (Yes, Post-tax and Roth are not the same thing). In the future an employer may allow you to roll IRA or 401K money into their program. They don't have to allow it, and they can put restrictions on the types of money they will accept.",
"I'd argue that you should be focusing on avoiding taxation and maximizing employer matching funds as your first objective. Over a longer period, quality of investment options and fees will both drive your account value. A personal IRA account is usually a better value over time -- so contribute as much as possible to your IRA, and rollover 401k accounts whenever you have an opportunity to do so.",
"The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company.",
"If you plan to continue contributing to a 401(k) and are no longer self-employed, then you need to start a new 401(k) at your new business. You can't contribute to the old one any more. About the money in the old one, you have a few options. If both 401(k) plans have good investment options and low fees, then there's little reason to think one of these strategies is better than the other. If, like me, at least one of your 401(k) providers has very few available funds and those funds have high expense ratios, then it's a good idea to move your money where the investments are best. As a rule, IRA's are better than 401(k) plans because most IRA's will allow you to invest in practically anything you want while most 401(k) plans only allow you to invest in the funds that have taken your company's HR people to the best lobster dinners or went to the same school as them. Most organizations do an absolutely horrible job at selecting a reasonable set of funds because the decision-makers generally have no finance background and no incentive to do a good job. For that reason I like IRA's. Of course, some solo 401(k) plans are also very good so just leaving it where it is may be best for you. This has the added advantage of being ready to go if you end up self-employed again at some point.",
"\"Your employment status is not 100% clear from the question. Normally, consultants are sole-proprietors or LLC's and are paid with 1099's. They take care of their own taxes, often with schedule C, and they sometimes can but generally do not use \"\"employer\"\" company 401(k). If this is your situation, you can contact any provider you want and set up your own solo 401(k), which will have great investment options and no fees. I do this, through Fidelity. If you are paid with a W2, you are not a consultant. You are an employee and must use your employer's 401(k). Figure out what you are. If you are a consultant, open a solo 401(k) at the provider of your choice. Make sure beforehand that they allow incoming rollovers. Roll all of your previous 401(k)s and IRA's into it. When you have moved your 401(k) to a better provider, you won't be paying any extra fees, but you will not recoup any fees your original provider charged. I'm not sure why you mention a Roth IRA. If you try to roll your 401(k) into a Roth instead of a traditional IRA or 401(k), be aware that you will be taxed on everything you roll. ---- Edit: a little info about IRA's in response to your comment ---- Tax advantaged retirement accounts come in two flavors: one is managed by your company and the money is taken out of your paycheck. This is usually a 401(k) or 403(b). You can contribute up to $18K per year and your company can also contribute to it. The other flavor is an IRA. You can contribute $5,500 per year to this for you and $5,500 for your spouse. These are outside of your company and you make the deposits yourself. You choose your own provider, so competition has driven prices way down. You can have both a 401(k) and an IRA and contribute the max to both (though at high incomes you lose the ability to deduct IRA contributions). These accounts are tax advantaged because you only pay taxes once. With a regular brokerage account, you pay income tax in the year in which you earn money, then you pay tax every year on dividends and any capital gains that have been realized by selling. There are two types of tax-advantaged accounts: Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k). You do not pay income tax on this money in the year you earn it, nor do you pay capital gains tax. Instead you pay tax only in the year in which you take the money out (in retirement). Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). You do pay income tax on money on this money in the year in which you earn it. But then you don't pay tax on any gains or withdrawals ever again. When you leave your job (and sometimes at other times) you can move your money out of a 401(k) into your IRA, where you can do a better job managing it. You can also move money from your IRA into a 401(k) if your 401(k) provider will allow you to. Whether traditional or Roth is better depends on your tax rate now and your tax rate at retirement. However, if you choose to move money from a traditional account into a Roth account, you must pay tax on it in that year as if it was income because traditional and Roth accounts are taxed at different times. For that reason, if you are just trying to move money out of your 401(k) to save on fees, the logical place to put it is in a traditional IRA. Moving money from a traditional to a Roth may make sense, for example, if your tax rate is temporarily low this year, but that would be a separate decision from the one you are looking at. You can always roll your traditional IRA into a Roth later if that does become the case. Otherwise, there's no reason to think your traditional 401(k) should be rolled into a Roth IRA according to what you have described.\"",
"Yes you can rollover as many different 401ks into a single IRA account. I have done it personally and it really cuts down on the overhead of keeping up with lots of different accounts. Your brokerage or mutual fund company should be able to help you with it. If you are using a company that just gives you forms and those forms don't mention an easy way to combine. Then I suggest rolling over one 401k first then once that's finished you can rollover the other 401k into that same account.",
"I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme.",
"You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match.",
"There are a few things to consider. The answers others gave here are correct, but I'll offer some reasons you may not want to roll to an IRA:",
"I tried to roll my funds to my new company. But my hr department from my old job would not work with me on getting it straightened out. So I decided to either pull it all out or roll it into a 401 k and use it as a trial for stocks and investments. Simce it isn't a large amount of money to begin with",
"Rolling a 401(k) to an IRA should be your default best option. Rolling a 401(k) to another 401(k) is rarely the best option, but that does happen. I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. In all other cases, I rolled 401(k)s from previous jobs to my Rollover IRA, which gave me the most freedom of investment options. Finally, with 401(k)-to-Roth IRA rollovers, it's important to decouple two concepts so you can analyze it as a sum of two transactions:",
"It doesn't make a difference if you will be keeping it in the 401K or transferring it to an IRA, it is still retirement money that you plan on investing for decades. Pre-Enron many employees invested significant amounts of their retirement funds with the employer. One of the risks was that if a single stock was down at the wrong time, you were hurt if you needed to sell. If you are going from an S&P 500 in the 401K to an S&P 500 in the IRA, it doesn't matter if the the market is up or down, the two funds will be pretty much in synch.",
"Yes for sure. It would be redundant. I have three of them, so what. Its just more money in retirement. I would prefer a ROTH IRA in your tax bracket and you next employer may not offer that. And yes there are tax breaks either putting money in to a IRA or if you go the Roth route, on the way out. So if you put money in a Roth now you will have some money at your tax rate in 40 years from now. And if you put money in a traditional IRA when you are an employee you will save on the tax rate you are at then. So you are hedging you bets on tax rates by paying them in two different decade. Personally we are probably all on a tax holiday right now and I would be that taxes will be higher in the future as they are historically pretty low right now.",
"I don't really see the big deal in taking the check. Fidelity will issue you a check, made payable to VANGUARD FBO [Your Name]. All you have to do is simply hand the check over to Vanguard to deposit into your new IRA. Simple and done. To answer your question: Whether or not a custodian, tpa, or recordkeeper will do a direct-deposit or transfer of your funds is completely at their discretion. My company rarely does direct transfers. We issue a check to you. It's just the way we do it. You can talk to Vanguard and see if they can initiate the direct transfer with Fidelity - but honestly, this may just delay getting your funds moved and you're going to end up with a check anyways. And if Vanguard does somehow convince Fidelity to do the wire transfer - there is still going to be a fee. Wires are expensive. Unless Vanguard is willing to pick up the wire fee for you (doubtful). Other's have also mentioned that TPA's will withhold a mandatory 20% federal tax withholding if they send you a check. This is only true if the check gets made payable in your name. But the taxes should not be withheld as long as the check is made payable to your new Vanguard IRA. So my final opinion: Just take the check and give it to your Vanguard rep. It's literally that simple.",
"Your question is very widely scoped, making it difficult to reply to, but I can provide my thoughts on at least the following part of the question: I have a 401k plan with T. Rowe Price, should I use them for other investments too? Using your employer's decision, on which 401k provider they've chosen, as a basis for making your own decision on a broker for investing $100k when you don't even know what kind of investments you want seems relatively unwise to me, even if one of your focuses is simplicity. That is, unless your $100k is tax-advantaged (e.g. an IRA or other 401k) and your drive for simplicity means you'd be happy to add $100k to any of your existing 401k investments. In which case you should look into whether you can roll the $100k over into your employer's 401k program. For the rest of my answer, I'll assume the $100k is NOT tax-advantaged. I assume you're suggesting this idea because of some perceived bundling of the relationship and ease of dealing with one company & website? Yes, they may be able to combine both accounts into a single login, and you may be able to interact with both accounts with the same basic interface, but that's about where the sharing will end. And even those benefits aren't guaranteed. For example, I still have a separate site to manage my money in my employer's 401k @ Fidelity than I do for my brokerage/banking accounts @ Fidelity. The investment options aren't the same for the two types of accounts, so the interface for making and monitoring investments isn't either. And you won't be able to co-mingle funds between the 401k and non-tax-advantaged money anyway, so you'll have two different accounts to deal with even if you have a single provider. Given that you'll have two different accounts, you might as well pick a broker/provider for the $100k that gives you the best investment options, lowest fees, and best UI experience for your chosen type/goal of investments. I would strongly recommend figuring out how you want to invest the $100k before trying to figure out which provider to use as a broker for doing the investment.",
"You can do a trustee to trustee exchange. You will need to contact both companies to coordinate the paperwork. As long as both accounts are the same type (traditional\\Roth) you are fine. You can also do a rollover where you have the check but there are some limitations and deadlines which are avoided by the trustee to trustee exchange. For example the IRS limits the number of rollovers to one a year. You can have multiple accounts of the same type. The annual contribution limits can be split across accounts. Rollovers and transfers are not part of annual contribution limits.",
"I am assuming that you are talking about rolling a 401k over to an IRA since if you were rolling over to another 401k you probably would not have a choice as to where it would be. Ameriprise will generally have lower fees than JPMorgan. (Probably why your husband's mutual fund is with Ameriprise.) Additionally having both accounts with Ameriprise will better allow them to assist you with your long term financial planning. For these two reasons I would recommend rolling your account over to Ameriprise. No, I do not work for Ameriprise",
"Can't see why would you need to track the sources of the original funds. Can't think of a reason not to consolidate, if at all it will only make the management of your IRA more convenient, and may be even cheaper (if the fees depend on the account value...).",
"I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature.",
"It sounds like the two best options would be to roll it over into a traditional IRA or roll it over into your new 401(k). If there isn't much money in your SIMPLE IRA, it might make more sense to just roll it over into your 401(k) so you have fewer retirement accounts to keep track of. However, if you do have a significant amount of money in the SIMPLE IRA then you may wish to take advantage of the greater freedom in investment options that IRAs offer over most 401(k) plans. Keep in mind the 2-year rule for SIMPLE IRAs. You will face tax penalties if you roll it and it hasn't yet been 2 years since the SIMPLE IRA was opened.",
"When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits. You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover.",
"There is little advantage to waiting or combining accounts. If it makes sense to put money into a Roth now (which I can easily believe because your current tax rate is crazy low) go ahead and do so. Your later opportunities for investment in a 401(k) do not affect your optimal decision today. There's nothing wrong with having multiple types of retirement accounts and many people do. Over time the best place to put money can change. After retirement you can roll all your Roth style investments into a single Roth IRA and your traditional investments (IRA and 401k) into a single traditional IRA.",
"\"Yes. Two years after your first contribution to the SIMPLE IRA, you can roll it to a traditional IRA. You can still contribute \"\"pre-tax\"\", but the mechanism will be slightly different, since with an employer plan the contribution was automatically deducted from your paycheck. With an individual plan, you make the contributions yourself and then get a tax deduction when you file. Since contributions to traditional and Roth IRAs combined are capped at $5,500 if you're under 50, some sort of employer-sponsored plan might be better from a contribution standpoint. If your institution offers some sort of plan other than a 401(k), you might still want to roll to a traditional IRA, since you will have much more flexibility in the investments you choose. On the flip side, if that thought is overwhelming, having a smaller set of options might be better for your peace of mind.\"",
"Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees? Regarding the 401K funds from the previous employer, you can: Future investments: Roll overs don't have limits, but new investments do.",
"Adapted from an answer to a somewhat different question. Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over your 401k assets into an IRA. But I don't think that is the case here. If you had a Traditional 401k, the assets will roll over into a Traditional IRA; if it was a Roth 401k, into a Roth IRA. If you had started a little earlier, you could have considered considered converting part or all of your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA (assuming that your 2012 taxable income will be smaller this year because you have quit your job). Of course, this may still hold true in 2013 as well. As to which custodian to choose for your Rollover IRA, I recommend investing in a low-cost index mutual fund such as VFINX which tracks the S&P 500 Index. Then, do not look at how that fund is doing for the next thirty years. This will save you from the common error made by many investors when they pull out at the first downturn and thus end up buying high and selling low. Also, do not chase after exchange-traded mutual funds or ETFs (as many will likely recommend) until you have acquired more savvy or interest in investing than you are currently exhibiting. Not knowing which company stock you have, it is hard to make a recommendation about selling or holding on. But since you are glad to have quit your job, you might want to consider making a clean break and selling the shares that you own in your ex-employer's company. Keep the $35K (less the $12K that you will use to pay off the student loan) as your emergency fund. Pay off your student loan right away since you have the cash to do it.",
"T. Rowe is my new 401 k company and they have been pretty professional the problem was they required information from my old employer who refused to give it to them. But I am in touch my my old 401 k account and will be doing some more research into the companies and processes you guys have given me amd try to choose what is best for me",
"Don’t do anything that causes taxes or penalties, beyond that it’s entirely personal choice and other posters have already done a great job enumerating then. I recently switched jobs in June and rolled over a 401k from my old company to new company and the third party managing the account at the new company was much more professional and walked me through all the required steps and paperwork.",
"401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.",
"Since its such a small amount, they may require you to move it. A common cutoff is $5k, but it varies from plan to plan. I would roll it over into an IRA. The problem with withdrawing it is that opportunity to save is gone. Especially for IRAs, which have a low maximum contribution, its hard to make it up in the future.",
"Comparing retirement savings to ordinary investment is not an apples-to-apples comparison - retirement savings are savings for retirement - if you want to invest in things now and live off of (or reinvest) those earnings, then retirement accounts are not the right vehicle. That said, here are some benefits of the main types of retirement accounts: Benefits of a 401(k): Benefits of a tratitional IRA: Benefits of a ROTH 401(k): Benefits of a ROTH IRA: (the benefits above are not exhaustive, there are other benefits such as using a ROTH IRA for higher ed. expenses, etc. but those are the highlights) If you have a plan for how you hope to use the money now rather than later does it make sense to hold onto it? If your plan is meant to provide income at retirement, and earns returns higher than the returns plus matches and tax benefits you get from retirement accounts, then yes, it may make more sense, but those benefits are generally very hard to beat. Plus, having the money locked away in an account that is painful to tap can be a good thing - you're less tempted to use that money for foolish decisions (which everyone makes at some point).",
"\"If it was me, I would drop out. You can achieve a better kind of plan when there is no match. For example Fidelity has no fee accounts for IRAs and Roths with thousands of investment choices. You can also setup automatic drafts, so it simulates what happens with your 401K. Not an employee of Fidelity, just a happy customer. Some companies pass the 401K fees onto their employees, and all have limited investment choices. The only caveat is income. There are limits to the deductibility of IRAs and Roth contributions if you make \"\"too much\"\" money. For Roth's the income is quite high so most people can still make those contributions. About 90% of households earn less than $184K, when Roths start phasing out. Now about this 401K company, it looks like the labor department has jurisdiction over these kinds of plans and I would research on how to make a complaint. It would help if you and other employees have proof of the shenanigans. You might also consult a labor attourney, this might make a great class.\"",
"That would be my suggestion (and what I've personally done), but I can't tell you what's right for you. As an aside, you don't usually need to manually fund an IRA (traditional *or* Roth) to open it for a rollover - Just tell them you're doing a rollover, and they'll set you up and tell you where to have the 401k checks sent (and sometimes even arrange it all *for* you).",
"The simplest thing is to transfer to your current account. You'll have the ability to borrow (assuming employer allows) 50% of the balance if you need to, and one less account to worry about. Transferring to an IRA is the other common choice. This offers the ability to convert to a Roth IRA and to invest any way you choose. The 401(k) options may be limited. Without more details, it's tough to decide. For example, if you are in the 15% bracket, the Roth conversion can be a great idea. And the 401(k) might be not so great, just deposit to the match, and then use the IRA. For example.",
"No, the situation is not different, the roll-over rules are the same. It won't be taxable (as opposed to traditional to Roth roll-over), but other than that it's the same. Whether the 401k allows rolling over or not while you're still employed - you have to check with the plan administrator (ask your payroll/HR for details). Usually, the deferred compensation cannot be rolled over out of the 401k while you're still employed.",
"You generally cant roll funds from a 401k with a company you're still employed with. Some companies allow it depending on the custodial agreement but it's rare. Generally you need to wait until retirement or separation to roll funds out of a 401k.",
"\"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"",
"\"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\"",
"\"Does your current 401(k) have low fees and good investment choices? If so you might be able to \"\"roll-in\"\" your rollover IRA to your 401(k), then do a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. A Roth IRA would be far more useful than a non-deductible traditional IRA.\"",
"For this rollover, there are no restrictions of age/income/etc. You need to know - the transfer must be direct, i.e. if you get a physical check, it should be payable not to you, but to the new custodian (broker) for your benefit. Direct is preferable and faster. The assets may not be transferable 'in kind.' This phrase simply means that you may move the value, but if the assets are not shares that are held by the public, but special 401(k) class shares, they must be liquidated before moving, and moved as cash. This is a risk people with large accounts take should the market move dramatically during the time they are liquidated, and why, for them, I suggest doing it piecemeal.",
"The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match. If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks).",
"\"You can rollover money from a 401(k) to Traditional IRA and back to a 401(k). There are likely account closure fees associated with this, so it's not completely free. As long as you're rolling from one tax deferred account to another there are no penalties. The IRS has a handy chart showing what accounts can roll where. Note, starting next year, you can only do one IRA rollover per year. The IRS has additional general information on retirement account rollovers. One additional comment - on the concept of your money being \"\"locked\"\" into an IRA. Generally you have far more options with an IRA than a 401(k). If you go with a large, low cost provider like Vanguard you're likely to be much better off than in a small company 401(k) that only offers costly funds that are likely selected primarily to benefit the administrator of the plan. Choose your IRA provider and the investments with them wisely, and leave that money there for a very long time.\"",
"Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes: In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later.",
"Every plan administrator has their own procedures for rollovers. In any case, you would start by browsing their website or calling them seeking information on rollover. You will need to arrange it with both your current and prior administrators. Usually the administrator will send the money directly to your current plan provider, keeping you out of the chain and minimizing any risks of tax complications. It may happen, though, that they have to send the check to you. In that case you will have a limited amount of time to provide it to your current plan.",
"The simplest way to consolidate the funds your old 401(k) plans is by doing what's called a Direct Rollover (whereby the funds go directly into the new plan and skips you completely) from each of the old plans into either an IRA that you establish with a provider of your choice or even into your current employer's 401(k) plan if that is available. That way, the funds are in one central account and available to invest. Plus it eliminates the mandatory 20% withholding if the rollover is indirect and is sent to you first before the deposit into the new plan. It is important to bear in mind that you have 60 calendar days from the date of distribution to get the full amount into the new plan and a rollover is considered a tax reportable, but not necessarily a taxable event provided you deposit the funds within the time frame allotted.",
"Do not take the cash! You might be able to leave the money with the large company. Ask the HR people at the company. If you are satisfied with their work, no sense leaving if you don't have to. I have coworkers that have 401K all over from all the buyouts the company went through. If you don't want to leave it behind, do a rollover into your own account with a low cost carrier. (Vanguard, Fidelity and Charles Schwab are popular) Whoever you choose for your own account can help you rollover the funds without penalty. (Schwab helped me over the phone, it was pretty simple) More about rolling over a Roth 401K",
"It is typically very easy to roll a 401(k) into an IRA. Companies that provide IRA's are very experienced with it, and I would expect that they will take your calls from overseas. You will likely be able to do it over the internet without using a phone at all. Just open an IRA with any brokerage company (Scottrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Schwab, Ameritrade, etc.) and follow instructions to roll your 401(k) into it. Most likely they will need your signature, but usually a scan of a form you have filled out will do. Be sure to have information on your 401(k) provider, including your account number there, on hand. These companies are all very reputable and this is not a difficult transaction. There's really no downside to rolling into an IRA. 401(k) plans usually have more limited options and/or worse fee structures and are frequently harder to work with, as you have observed.",
"Would anything happen if you bring this issue to the attention of the HR department? Everyone in the company who participates in the 401(k) is affected, so you'd think they'd all be interested in switching to a another 401k provider that will make them more money.",
"You could check with the new 401k provider to see if they allow rollover-in contributions. You can likely take the exact amount of the rollover check that was put in the IRA and put it in the new 401k and then take a loan. Loan amount is calculated as 1/2 vested balance less any outstanding loans or $50k, whichever is less. Hopefully this helps...",
"\"You're confusing between \"\"individual\"\" 401k (they're called \"\"Solo-401k\"\" and are intended for self-employed), and Individual Retirement Account (IRA). You can't open a solo-401k without being self employed. You can open an IRA and roll over money from your old 401k to it. You cannot get a loan from IRA. You can ask the 401k plan manager to reissue the checks to the new trust, shouldn't be a problem. Make sure the checks are issued to the trust, not to you, to avoid withholding and tax complications. This is what is called a \"\"direct\"\" rollover. You might be able to roll the money over to the 401k of your new employer, it is not always allowed and you should check. You can probably then take a loan from that 401k. However, it diminishes the value of your retirement savings and you should only do it if you have no other choice (being evicted from your home, your children are starving, can't pay for your chemo, etc... this kind of disasters). Otherwise, I'd suggest rolling over to IRA, investing in funds with significantly lower fees (Vanguard target retirements funds for example, or index funds/ETF's), and reassessing your spending and budgeting habits so that you won't need loans from your 401k. Re companies - ETrade is nice, consider also Scottrade, TDAmeriTrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Sharebuilder, and may be others. These are all discount brokers with relatively low fees, but each has its own set of \"\"no-fee\"\" funds.\"",
"You can't get a loan from an IRA. You cannot get a loan from your 401(k) plan with your previous employer; 401(k) plans do not give loans to ex-employees, only current employees. Thus, if you want to have the flexibility of getting a loan from the money in the 401(k) plan with your ex-employer, your only option is to roll it over into the 401(k) plan of your current employer. But be aware of the negatives in doing so, some of which are discussed in the answers to Why would you not want to rollover a previous employer's 401(k) when changing jobs?.",
"ok if you haven't rolled in the 401k assets yet, you're fine and should put them into a traditional. if your earnings + roth conversions will put you at or below your anticipated tax bracket during retirement, then the roth conversion might make sense. in some cases, employers will give you a roth 401k option, but you are right that it's not the default.",
"Former pension/retirement/401(k) administrator here. 1. If you don't want to bother with maintaining your own investments, you can 'roll-over' your existing 401(k) into *your new company's 401(k) plan*. Then you will choose your investments in the new plan, you will be 100% vested in 'rollover account'. 2. If you want control over your own investments (recommended!) you can roll over your existing 401(k) into an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Then *your entire account* will go into your new IRA. 3. You can take part, or all, of your existing account as cash, paid directly to you. Note that this will trigger *20% mandatory Federal Withholding* on whatever goes straight to you. So some of your money is going to the IRS.",
"AFAIK, individual 401k accounts are supposed to be funded from self-employment earnings, not from rollovers from 401k plans of previous employers. So, check with your accountant before making opening an individual 401k account and getting your previous 401k plan to re-issue the checks to be payable to your individual 401k account. You might also want to ask about whether loans are permitted from individual 401k accounts (my guess is they are not because the possibility of abuse of the privilege is too high since the employer and employee are the same individual). In any case, loans against 401k plans are generally not a good idea, and many people on this forum have blogged about this matter.",
"It sounds like they are matching your IRA contribution dollar for dollar up to 1% of your salary. Think of that as an instant 100% yield on your investment. (Your money instantly doubles.) My 401(k) has been doing pretty well over the last year, but it will take several years before my money doubles. So you can let it sit in cash for a year, then take some pretty hefty fees and you will probably still come out ahead. (Of course it's hard to say without knowing all of the fees.)",
"I would not recommend borrowing your 401(k) money to buy a house for two reasons: When you borrow money from your 401(k), it is no longer invested. Yes, you pay yourself interest, but you miss out on the investment gains for the life of the loan. If you leave your job, the loan is due in full shortly thereafter. If you do not pay it back, you are hit with taxes and penalties. If I were you, I would roll it over into an IRA for the reasons you mentioned.",
"\"Open an investment account on your own and have them roll the old 401K accounts into either a ROTH or traditional IRA. Do not leave them in old 401k accounts and definitely don't roll them into your new employer's 401K. Why? Well, as great as 401K accounts are, there is one thing that employers rarely mention and the 401K companies actively try to hide: Most 401K plans are loaded with HUGE fees. You won't see them on your statements, they are often hidden very cleverly with accounting tricks. For example, in several plans I have participated in, the mutual fund symbols may LOOK like the ones you see on the stock tickers, but if you read the fine print they only \"\"approximate\"\" the underlying mutual fund they are named for. That is, if you multiply the number of shares by the market price you will arrive at a number higher than the one printed on your statement. The \"\"spread\"\" between those numbers is the fee charged by the 401K management company, and since employees don't pick that company and can't easily fire them, they aren't very competitive unless your company is really large and has a tough negotiator in HR. If you work for a small company, you are probably getting slammed by these fees. Also, they often charge fees for the \"\"automatic rebalancing\"\" service they offer to do annually to your account to keep your allocation in line with your current contribution allocations. I have no idea why it is legal for them not to disclose these fees on the statements, but they don't. I had to do some serious digging to find this out on my own and when I did it was downright scary. In one case they were siphoning off over 3% annually from the account using this standard practice. HOWEVER, that is not to say that you shouldn't participate in these plans, especially if there is an employer match. There are fees with any investment account and the \"\"free money\"\" your employer is kicking in almost always offsets these fees. My point here is just that you shouldn't keep the money in the 401K after you leave the company when you have an option to move it to an account with much cheaper fees.\"",
"There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.",
"\"I'm assuming that all the savings are of 'defined contribution' type, and not 'defined benefit' as per marktristan's comment to the original question. Aside from convenience of having all the pension money in one place, which may or may not be something you care about, there may be a benefit associated with being able to rebalance your portfolio when you need do. Say you invest your pension pot in a 60%/40% of equities and bonds respectively. Due higher risk/reward ratio of the equities part, in the long run equities tend to get 'overweight' turning your mix into 70%/30% or even 80%/20%, therefore raising your overall exposure to equities. General practice is to rebalance your portfolio every now and then, in this case, by selling some equities and buying more bonds (\"\"sell high, buy low\"\"). Now if you have few small pockets of pension money, it makes it harder to keep track of the overall asset allocation and actually do the rebalancing as you cannot see and trade everything from one place.\"",
"Right you **don't** ever want to use that account for your traditional 401k rollovers. Realistically, you could *probably* still have it reclassified as a traditional IRA and roll your traditional 401ks into it, which was basically your original idea except none of the funds would be Roth; but if you see yourself ever potentially contributing to a Roth IRA going forward (which makes all the more sense if you have only traditional 401k funds in your retirement portfolio so far), there's nothing *wrong* with having both types of IRA at the same time. But no, don't cross the streams! :)",
"I think it comes down to whether you are happy with the investment choices in the 401k. If you are, there is no reason not to invest there. Additionally, it doesn't have to be an either-or choice. You can invest up to the maximum in both accounts. BTW, congratulations on thinking about retirement at your age. I wish I had been in a position to do that.",
"If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.",
"Considering the combined accounts you're contributing $100 per month and they want $100 per year to administer them... that's 8.3% of your contributions gone to fees each year. To me, that's a definite no. Without getting in to bad mouthing the adviser for even making the suggestion, the scale of your account doesn't warrant a fee that high. Fees are very meaningful to the little fish investors. There are LOADS of IRA account providers. With that level of competition, there are several that have very reasonable account minimums, no annual maintenance fees, and a suite of no fee, no load, no commission, low expense ratio funds to choose from. Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard come to mind. I know Schwab is running a big ad campaign right now as it's reduced some of it's already low expense ratios. If I were you, yes I would move the account because you can even get rid of the $10/year/account fee. But, no, I would not move it to a higher fee situation. In my opinion on a $3,600 account + $1,200 per year in contributions, you don't need advise. You need a good broad market low fee index fund, and enough discipline to understand that retirement is 25 years away so you keep contributing even when news is bad and the market is going down. In 10 years maybe talk to an adviser. Using the S&P500 index daily close historical data from calendar year 2016, considering first of the month monthly deposits and a starting balance of $3,600, you would come out at the end of the year with about $5,294. That's $494 in gain on your total contributions of $4,800. They'd take $100, that's about 20% of your gain. Compared to a no fee account with a reasonable expense ratio of 0.1% the fee would be just $5.30. Bearing in mind also that your $100 per year account will probably be invested in funds that also have an expense ratio fee structure further zapping gains. Further, you lose the compounding effect of the $100 fee over time which adds up to a significant of retirement funds considering a 25 year period. If all you did was put that $100 fee in to a 1% savings account each year for 25 years you'd end up with $2,850. (Considering the average 7% return of the S&P you'd have $6,964 on just your $100 per year fees) This is why you should be so vigilant about fees.",
"If you really want to use the money roll it over to the new companies 401k and then take a 401k loan out for whatever the expense is. (Assuming the retirement plan allows them.) Generally 401k loans are frowned upon for all sorts of reasons however if the alternative is to just flat out withdraw the money it is a slightly better solution.",
"My advice would be to invest in the 401k with the same type of funds you'd purchase when you rollover to your IRA. They are both retirement accounts. If the stock market tanks, your 401k balance will be low but you'll also be purchasing stocks at a much cheaper price when you establish your roth. You should create an asset allocation based on your age, not on the type of retirement account you have. One question to consider: When you do become a student, you'll likely be a in lower tax bracket. Can you contribute pre-tax dollars and then rollover to a ROTH in the year that you're a student?",
"You cannot roll over your 401k money in an employer's 401k plan into an IRA (of any kind) while you are still employed by that employer. The only way you can start on the conversion before you retire (as Craig W suggests) is to change employers and start rolling over money in the previous employer's 401k into your Roth IRA while possibly contributing to the 401k plan of your new employer. Since the amount rolled over is extra taxable income (that is, in addition to your wages from your new job), you may end up paying more tax (or at higher rates) than you expect.",
"The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.",
"\"Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the \"\"Freedom Funds\"\" offered. They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds. That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account. All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older. If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here? Let's do a quick example. Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%). I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds. Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year! Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company. This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee. Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund). Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA. That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want. Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those. Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!\"",
"The general advise is to contribute to the 401K up to the match limit. Then put money into a Roth IRA. Then put the rest into the 401K above the match. Yes you can have an IRA and a 401K. You can even have Roth and non-Roth versions. You do have to watch the limits, and exclusions, but there is nothing stopping you from contributing to multiple types in one year. Over a long career you may find your self with all the possible types of accounts. When you re-qualify for the company 401K, there is no need to roll over the IRA money into the 401K. Just keep the IRA.",
"Having gone though this type of event a few times it won't be a problem. On a specific date they will freeze your accounts. Then they will transfer the funds from custodian X to custodian Y. It should only take a day or two, and they will work it around the paydays so that by the time the next paycheck is released everything is established in the new custodian. Long before the switch over they will announce the investment options in the new company. They will provide descriptions of the options, and a default mapping: S&P 500 old company to S&P 500 new company, International fund old company to international fund new company... If you do nothing then on the switchover they will execute the mapped switches. If you want to take this an an opportunity to rebalance, you can make the changes to the funds you invest in prior to the switch or after the switch. How you contributions are invested will follow the same mapping rules, but the percentage of income won't change. Again you can change how you want to invest your contributions or matching funds by altering the contribution forms, but if you don't do anything they will just follow the mapping procedures they have defined. Loans terms shouldn't change. Company stock will not be impacted. The only hiccup that I would worry about is if the old custodian had a way for you to transfer funds into any fund in their family, or to purchase any individual stock. The question would be does the new custodian have the same options. If you have more questions ask HR or look on the company benefits website. All your funds will be moved to the new company, and none of these transfers will be a taxable event. Edit February 2014: based on this question: What are the laws or rules on 401(k) loans and switching providers? I reviewed the documents for the most recent change (February 2014). The documents from the employer and the new 401K company say: there are no changes to the loan balances, terms, and payment amounts. Although there is a 2 week window when no new loans can be created. All employees received notice 60 days prior to the switchover regarding new investments options, blackout periods.",
"For the rollover, you should probably talk to the recipient manager. This would be your broker or whomever (your new employer if rolling into another 401k). They should be able to update you on progress and let you know if you need to do anything. In a comment, you say I could be putting in money but instead im lossing. There is no requirement that an IRA have 401k money in it. Just put the money in without the existing money. Eventually the rollover will complete and add that money to whatever you contribute to the IRA. The rollover should not affect your future contributions in any way.",
"JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.",
"Wells Fargo offers to rollover existing HSA accounts without mentioning the need to be changing plans, jobs, or providers so I don't think you need a life event to make the switch but you can check with your new provider to make sure prior to opening the account. Like most things HSA-related the rules for rollovers are probably similar to the rules for an IRA but once again your best bet is to check with your new provider. HSA Administrators allows you to invest in a large variety of Vanguard funds and were the best I found for investing when I was looking."
] |
[
"I would check to see what the fee schedule is on your previous employer's 401k. Depending on how it was setup, the quarterly/annual maintenance fee may be lower/higher than your current employer. Another reason to rollover/not-rollover is that selection of funds available is better than the other plan. And of course always consider rolling over your old plan into a standard custodial rollover IRA where the management company gives you a selection of investment options. At least look at the fees and expense ratios of your prior employer's plan and see if anything reaches a threshold of what you consider actionable and worth your time. Note: removed reference to self directed IRA as vehicle is more complicated account type allowing for more than just stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Not for your typical retail investor.",
"I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan."
] |
2330
|
How can I determine if a debt consolidation offer is real or a scam?
|
[
"478514",
"104221"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"478514",
"104221",
"367944",
"513980",
"145322",
"352429",
"430911",
"65605",
"391655",
"405591",
"120837",
"524723",
"374049",
"508896",
"393152",
"26581",
"295210",
"272862",
"219119",
"409761",
"361698",
"501690",
"160611",
"264822",
"204735",
"349866",
"163904",
"588026",
"289982",
"298365",
"553756",
"49082",
"546028",
"504776",
"567031",
"153640",
"406867",
"441836",
"235119",
"257483",
"50368",
"269917",
"571246",
"58664",
"52128",
"9737",
"364316",
"234247",
"41094",
"400950",
"535234",
"381899",
"426944",
"185616",
"467141",
"73821",
"308964",
"456783",
"68144",
"220853",
"151514",
"198269",
"408027",
"355605",
"26263",
"362721",
"596001",
"349932",
"300107",
"5049",
"142582",
"178127",
"567201",
"212810",
"123418",
"145937",
"378432",
"13325",
"189662",
"511072",
"364567",
"249643",
"228100",
"544956",
"293628",
"220138",
"41469",
"431682",
"531863",
"209849",
"442152",
"401125",
"472243",
"266372",
"301161",
"54216",
"97582",
"137078",
"546261",
"751"
] |
[
"\"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying \"\"Scam\"\" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?\"",
"I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.",
"\"It doesn't matter if the terms are a \"\"fair deal\"\" or are \"\"too good to be true\"\" — either way, it's definitely a scam. They are \"\"phishing\"\" for your personal information, including your banking information, and have no intention of giving you a loan. How can I tell? Simple: all such offers like this everywhere are scams. There is no economic situation other than being a scammer to do this. Why would an individual put out their money to strangers at such a high risk for even a much, much higher purported return? They wouldn't.\"",
"If you are trying to weed out companies that are fronts for scams, one way is to look for a physical address that checks out with the phone book and a phone number posted on the site that connects you to an actual person. By itself this isn't a guarantee that the company is legit, but it will weed out a large number of fraudulent companies hiding behind PO boxes. That is, companies that defraud a lot of people don't usually make it very easy to track them down or contact them to complain or sue them.",
"\"If an offer \"\"is only valid right now\"\" and \"\"if you don't act immediately, it will expire\"\" that is almost always a scam.\"",
"Whenever you're not sure, you can always contact the regulatory agency in the location of the lender and see if they are registered. Organizations that lend out money tend to get oversight and have reporting obligations. Reputable banks in the United States will be a member of the FDIC. However, without even looking anything up, I can already tell this is a scam. An actual lender would be required to identify who you are beyond a doubt (this is called KYC), and in addition would have to report your loan to some sort of tax authority. That means they must ask you for a tax identifier number of some kind, and would probably want your full date of birth instead of just your age.",
"A good resource for this type of help is the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC). They provide free and low-cost credit counselors who can... Most importantly, avoid those for-profit debt consolidation companies. They are ripoffs.",
"\"I would accept the offer provided that it is a BONA FIDE offer. Some issues to consider: 1) Make sure the debt is actually yours. 2) Make sure that there is a meaningful period of time left on the statute of limitations (10 years). Because if this \"\"settlement\"\" doesn't work, the clock goes back to time zero for the debt, minus the amount you paid. In other words, don't pay off a debt \"\"by the end of the month\"\" that will expire on the fifteenth. 3) I'm not a lawyer, and therefore, in your shoes, I would consider consulting a lawyer. 4) If using a lawyer isn't cost effective, then I would set up an escrow account, deposit the settlement amount, and then release it upon receipt of a letter that says that the amount in escrow fully satisfies the debt. Such a letter will help your record with credit agencies. It will also establish a record that you've paid, and paid in full. Based on what you've said about the original letter, the debt collector would be willing to do this. If he reneges, he's \"\"playing games.\"\"\"",
"How you check if a broker is legitimate: 1) Are they a registered broker dealer? Broker dealers have to be registered with FINRA and the SEC , which have their own databases for you to look up individuals and companies. here is FINRA's http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/ FINRA is a self-regulatory agency, the SEC is a federal government agency. All things considered, they pretty much have similar legislative authority over the industry. But thats a different story. If the broker isn't able to produce information that would confirm their registration status, or if you can't readily find it in the regulators database, then that is a major red flag. The biggest red flag of them all. 2) If brokers are also acting as a consumer bank, such as how Merrill Lynch is now part of Bank of America and the accounts can be linked pretty easily, then they should will also be regulated by the FDIC. This means that you will be able to find the capital ratio that the company has, letting you know how stable it is as an institution. Physical locations, the name, and duration of existence, or their rating on BBB have nothing to do with it.",
"\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\"\"yes\"\".\"",
"The debt on Credit Cards is pretty high. Its in the range of 30-40% APR. There could also be a case very high personal loan for medical or other personal emergencies at a rate in excess of 15%. The debt consolidation would offer this at a very low APR There are institutions that offer debt consolidation services that would consolidate all your debt into a single loan at a lower rate of interest. They would also negotiate with all your lenders to waive charges and accrued interests to the max extent. The benefit to the institution offering this service is that they have a larger loan on books and hence the servicing cost is less. Most of the time the debt consolidation is offered with some asset as the guarantee for the new loan. By doing this the advantages are: Of course if you are looking for the balance transfer on cards to new one, then its same and in fact may at times be more expensive.",
"Yes it is a scam. There is no money. They are after your personal details so that they can get your money.",
"This is definitely a scam. I had a friend sign up for a very similar offer and what they did was send a fake check and then asked to transfer the same amount to them. So now you just send them a couple grand and you're holding a fake check.",
"Pretty much any financial transaction where they start by calling you on the phone is a scam. They aren't doing it for your benefit and the caller is on commission.",
"Well, these can range from loan broker to outright scams. It is pretty typical that loan broker just take some fee in the middle for their service of filling your applications for a bunch of real loan provider companies. Because making a web page costs nothing, a single loan broker could easily have many web pages with a bit different marketing so that they can get as many customers as possible. But of course some of the web pages can be actual scams. As soon as you provide enough information for taking out a loan, they can go to a real financial institution, take out the loan and run with the money. In most countries consumer protection laws do not apply to business-to-business transactions, so you have to be even more wary of scams than usual.",
"\"The only thing I'd be concerned about is whether or not the credit report site offers a loan consolidation option right next to the statement that \"\"too many installment loans are lowering your score.\"\" If it is, then the site stands to get a kickback for referring you, and you might question whether or not the advice is correct. But if not, then take that statement at face value and look to consolidate. Just run the numbers to see what it will cost (or save) you.\"",
"Is there more information that I could review and become more knowledgeable about this type of scam? In response to this, anytime anyone ask you to send money, for a bank password, bank account numbers, etc... It is most likely a scam. For more education this search turned up an number of excellent resources.",
"It depends greatly from place to place, but nothing beats the Internet reviews' research. If you can't find anything digging slightly deeper than the impressive home page, then you probably should be worried. As it seems that you are. Specifically, I do these: @JohnFX mentions a valid point: check for physical presence. Check that the office address is a real office and not a PO box or residential; call the number and see who answers it (if you call several times during different hours and the same person answers - that's probably a one-man operation). But that doesn't always help because short-term renting an office is not all that hard and getting a call-centre outsourced to a third-world country doesn't cost all that much. It definitely helps if you're dealing with someone local, but if you're in Sweden and checking out a suspicious operation in Cyprus - this is definitely not enough.",
"If they are a debt collector, they must follow the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In particular, they must provide you with verification of the debt at your written request. If they won't give you a way to do this, they are in violation of the law, and you should contact proper authorities. If they are not a debt collection agency, it does sound like a scam, in which case you should also contact the appropriate law enforcement agency.",
"\"Any time someone starts asking you to provide personal information, such as a birth date, it could very well be a scam. This is especially true if it's someone you don't even know. Be very careful about getting involved in such situations. There is always some kind of almost believable story to what the scammers tell you, and unless you're willing to look deeper into it then it's easy to get pulled in. On top of that, you have to ask yourself, \"\"why did they pick me for this?\"\", because that's the real question. You have no idea what else the software they're asking you to download might do that you wouldn't know about, but offering to pay you something is a good way for them to get you to bypass your own security by installing it yourself. If the offer sounds too good to be true or too easy, you have to question it, and in such cases, your best bet is to stay away from it altogether.\"",
"Short-term, getting a balance transfer will help. It'll reduce the interest you pay. You can also reduce the interest you pay on your cars if you are able to consolidate your debt into a personal loan. To your question about debt consolidation companies, as far as I know, that's all they do. However, long-term, there's only two ways to stay on top of debt: increase your income, or reduce your spending. Basically, if you can't or won't get a raise or a job that pays more (or a second job), you need to cut back on your spending. You might need to do something radical, like move somewhere with cheaper rent (as long as increased travel costs doesn't offset the saving). But you'll be much better off in the long run if you step back and take a look at your situation now, and make adjustments accordingly.",
"\"It is a scam. Not only will it get your personal information, which could allow him to impersonate you (like, using your identity as the generous lender on a future scam), in order to fulfill the loan, a \"\"small payment\"\" for some documents will be needed. And next another for a certificate necessary for lending, and so on. Their goal is to get your money, not lending you any. Aganju hit the nail: how would such person ensure that you will pay back, when he knows absolutely nothing about you? That would have been the #1 priority for someone that decided to invest using such unbelievable schema.\"",
"Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)",
"Oh my God. Turn. Back. Now. This is literally a textbook scam. I know you want to believe this is true. Its not. Even if it was true it would still be a high, high risk investment that would then be compounded by the fact that you would be doing it with 100% debt.",
"This is almost surely a scam. Among other things:",
"In my book if it comes in the mail with official looking envelopes, language and seals to try and get you to open it, the company isn't trust worthy enough for my business. I get a pile of these for my VA loan every week, I imagine FHA loans get similar junk mail. Rates are very low at the moment so it is likely that rates from reputable lenders are 1 to 2% lower than say a year or 2 years ago. In general if a lender gives you a GFE the numbers on it are going to be pretty accurate and there isn't a great deal of wiggle room for the lender so the concerns with reputation should focus on is this outfit some type of scam and then reviews on how good or bad their customer service is. Chances of running into a scam seem pretty low but the costs could be really high. As far as checking if an unknown lender is any good it is kind of tough to do. There is a list of Lenders on HUD's site. Checking BBB can't hurt but I wouldn't put a lot of stock into their recommendations. Doing some general Google searches certainly can't hurt but aren't fool proof either. Personally I would start by checking what prevailing rates are for your current situation. You could go to your proffered bank or to any number of online sites to get a couple of quotes.",
"\"The answers here are all correct. This is 100% scam, beyond any reasonable doubt. Don't fall for it. However, I felt it valuable to explain what would happen were you to fall for this. It's not all that hard to understand, but it involves understanding some of the time delays that exist in modern banking today. The most important thing to understand is that depositing a check does not actually put dollars in your account, even though it appears to. A check is not legal tender for debts public and private. It's a piece of paper known as a \"\"bill of exchange.\"\" It's an authorization for a payee (you), to request that their bank pay you the amount on the check. A transaction made with a check does not actually draw to a close until your bank and their bank communicate and cause the actual transfer of funds to take place. This process is called \"\"clearing\"\" the check. Despite living in the modern times, this process is slow. It can take 7-10 days to clear a check (especially if it is an international bank). This is not good for the banking business. You can imagine how difficult it would be to tell a poor client, who is living paycheck to paycheck, that he can't have his pay until the check clears a week later. Banks have an interest in hiding this annoying feature of the modern banking system, so they do. When you deposit a check, the bank will typically advance you the money (an interest free loan, in effect) while the check \"\"floats\"\" (i.e. until it clears). This creates the illusion that the money is actually in your account for most intents and purposes. (presumably a bank would distinguish between the floating check and a cleared check if you tried to close out your account, but otherwise it looks and feels like the money is in your hands). Of course, if the check is dishonored (because the payer had insufficient funds, or the account simply did not exist), your bank will not get the money. At this moment, they will cancel any advances you received and notify you that the check bounced. Again, this happens 7-10 days later. The general pattern of this scam is that they will pay you by a method which clears slowly, like a check. They will then ask you to withdraw the money using a faster clearing method (like a wire transfer or withdrawing the cash). Typically they will be encouraging you to move quickly (they are on a timetable... when their check bounces, the game is up!) At this time, it will appear as though the account has a positive balance, but in fact it has a negative balance plus an advance on the check. This looks great until 7-10 days later, when the check bounces. At that time, the bank will cancel the advance, and reality will set in. You will now have an open bank account, legally opened by you in your own name, which is deeply in debt. Meanwhile, the scammer walks away with all the money that you sent them (which cleared quickly). There are many variants which can hide the details. Some can play games with check kiting to try to make your first check clear (then try to rope you in for a more painful hit). Some will change the instruments they use (checks are the easy ones, so they're simply most common). Don't try to think \"\"maybe this one is legit.\"\" These scammers literally make a living off of making shady transactions look legit. Things I would recommend looking out for:\"",
"It's marketing or SCAM tentative. Please check with extreme attention before clicking any link present in the communication.",
"\"In addition to dpassage's excellent advice on dealing with your debt in the most efficient manner, you may also want to consider Consumer Credit Counseling Services (CCCS). These are non-profit agencies (free or low-cost) that can work with you and your creditors to come up with payment plans and sometimes negotiate lower interest rates to help you get out from under the debt. You should definitely avoid for-profit \"\"debt consolidation\"\" companies, but the National Foundation for Credit Counseling can refer you to non-profit services in your area.\"",
"It is absolutely a scam. Anyone who tells you they can give you a large amount of money for free is trying to scam you. Additional warning signs include:",
"Repairing your credit takes time. Companies that offer to do it for you (for money) generally succeed mostly at getting money from you. Nonprofit agencies will help you with advice and encouragement and will not want money from you. They may be able to help you apply for a consolidation loan, but to be honest that is rarely the best first step. Over time, you need to The last step may happen months or years after the first two.",
"I have prepared a report on scam's like this. I'd be happy to deliver a copy of the report to your home. Just give me your address and mail me the keys to your house and I'll drop by and leave it in your home. Oh, and tell me a time when you won't be home, so I won't bother you when I come by. It might also be helpful if you tell me if you have any cash, jewelry, or other valuables in the house and where you keep them, so I can give you advice on security measures. :-)",
"\"Use with moderation. Powerful stuff. Your caller could be an offshore scammer too. Summarizing from http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/debt-validation.shtml: You can dispute the debt, and demand that the collector give you the name and address of the original creditor and show that it isn't past the statute of limitations. If they can't \"\"validate\"\" the debt by providing that info, in writing, they must drop it until they can do so. You can sue (though generally not for very much) if they don't. You may have to make this request in writing, so it has a paper trail. A valid verification respond must include: If they don't respond within 30 days, they are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FDCPA section 809b), and you can send registered mail threatening them with a lawsuit if they don't immediately drop it and remove it from your credit report. They should respond to that within two weeks, and if they don't have darned good evidence will probably cave. If they can prove you do owe the money ... Well, you can hope they aren't licensed to collect in your state; if they aren't you can try to challenge them on that basis. Unlikely to work. If they agree, remember to send a copy of the letter to the credit reporting agencies to make sure it's taken off your record. If this isn't enough to resolve it, you'll probably need to bring suit. That's another long list of steps; I'm going to refer you to the linked site rather than summarize them here since at that point you should get a lawyer involved to make sure it's done promptly.\"",
"I agree with you: it sounds like a scam. Those terms are too good to be true. Online, it is too easy to pretend to be someone you are not. When choosing a bank to work with, you need to be confident of its legitimacy. Make sure you have heard of it someplace other than their own website and can trust it. In this case, this isn't even a bank; it is just an individual stranger. I can't see how this could possibly be legitimate. With the information that they are asking for, they could potentially impersonate you and steal your money. I would stay away from this.",
"This is a scam. Delete the email and don't talk to the person or keep any contact.",
"This is a scam. Do not give them any money. A quick search on this site will yield many examples of this scam.",
"The debt consolidation programs that are offered by leading companies prove a great option for small businesses to take care of all their previous obligations. The loans offered by such companies are not only suitable for reducing monthly payments but retain the cash flow your business needs to grow.",
"You should also look outside the box. There are non profit credit relief organizations that will give you free credit counseling. Don't pay for it though. There are some organizations that are shady in offering counseling but they wreck your credit by asking you to stop making your payments. Some of the legitimate organizations out there have ties to credit unions and banks that can offer you some loans to consolidate your debt at rates lower than those you mentioned in your questions. You should probably also approach a credit union directly and discuss debt consolidation loan options. Even if you can only knock out the debts with the highest interest rate, that's a good first step.",
"Anything where the initial step of someone trying to get you into anything financial is to send you an e-mail. There are valid situations in which e-mails may be used to introduce you to a financial product or offer, such as if you have signed up for an electronic newsletter that includes such information. But in that particular case, the e-mail isn't the first step; rather, whatever caused you to sign up for the newsletter was. Even in a valid, legitimate scenario, you should obviously still perform due diligence and research the offer before committing any of your money. But the odds that someone is contacting you out of the blue via e-mail with a legitimate financial offer are tiny. The odds that a lawyer, a banker or someone similar in a remote country would initially contact you via e-mail are yet smaller; I'd call those odds infinitesimal. Non-zero, but unlikely enough that it is probably more likely that you would win the grand prize in the state lottery four times in a row. Keep in mind that responding in any way to spam e-mails will simply confirm to the sender that your e-mail address is valid and is being read. That is likely to cause you to receive more spam, not less, no matter the content of your response. Hence, it is better to flag the e-mail as spam or junk if your e-mail provider offers that feature, or just delete it if they don't. The same general principles as above also apply to social media messaging and similar venues, but the exact details are highly likely to differ somewhat.",
"\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\"",
"This sounds like a scam. C.f. Craigslist for normal warning signs of an on-line scam",
"\"This is totally a scam. I didn't read the whole thing. Didn't need to after I read \"\"abandoned sum of 22.5 million\"\" which implied part of it was yours to take after you do something for them.. Logically speaking.. No stranger would disclose this to you.\"",
"To confirm: you say you have credit card debt of $18,000 with min. repayment of $466.06, plus on top of this you are also paying off a car loan and another personal loan. From my calculations if your monthly interest on your credit card is $237, the interest on your credit card should be about 15.8% p.a. Is this correct? Balance Transfer If you did a balance transfer of your $18,000 to a new credit card with 0% for 14 months and keep your repayments the same ($466) you would have saved yourself a bit over $3020 in interest over those 14 months. Your credit card balance after 14 months would be about $11,471 (instead of $14,476 with your current situation). If your interest after the 14 months went back to 15.8% you would be able to pay the remaining $11,471 in 2.5 more years (keeping repayments at $466), saving 10 months off your repayments and a total of $4,781 in interest over 3 years and 8 months. The main emphasis here is that you are able to keep your repayments at least the same so you are able to pay off the debt quicker, and that your interest rate on the new credit card after the 14 months interest free is not more than your current interest rate of 15.8%. Things you should be careful about if you take this path: Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your personal loan and credit card (and possibly your car loan) into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. As you already have you credit card and personal loan with CBA talk to them to see what kind of deal they can give you. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians.",
"Yes. It is a scam. The story makes no sense. They just want your info to steal your money. regarding requests to know how it works: the scammer is requesting: username, password, routing number, checking account number, and security question/answers. they now have access to your bank account. they will have access until you are able to shut it down. Once they have your password, they can change it to whatever they want. it can be used to launder money, steal money from other accounts you have, proof of identity...",
"\"Scammers know you're not stupid enough to fall for this. So when you balk, he'll understand and offer to send you a check. When he sends you a check, he'll say cash it, keep $XXX for yourself, then forward him the rest for some other expense (or even possibly send it to someone else). Know in advance that that's a scam, too. When his fake check bounces you'll already be out the money and he'll be long gone. \"\"If it's too good to be true, it probably is\"\"\"",
"100% scam. Run away. If you have already given the bank account, inform the bank and close the account. Else just close the new account opened. Do not contact the scammer or reply back.... Just ignore ... Don't read any of scammer email, they are very convincing in why it's right and why it's not a scam.",
"So while these companies are not a scam, 30% feels pretty darn high. How about you negotiate a much lower rate? 10% or 15%? Here is why: You will spend time and effort (which technically isn't free) to find the money. I bet you can find it if you look hard enough. But you could also just collect it and give this company a cut for their expertise. However if 30% bugs you (and it would bug me) then consider their reality. They spent money to find the funds and contact you. HOWEVER, that is a sunk cost. It is already spent. You can find it on your own and they get zip. Or you negotiate a lower percentage, they get enough to cover their costs and make some profit and you save a ton of time. Since they took the time to explain themselves here, they are either scammers trying to bully you into compliance, or they are legit. It is field that people might look down on, but it isn't criminal. I would look for the money if it were me, but I feel I have enough free time that it would be worth it.",
"It's got every sign of a scam. Signatures are needed on contracts, so you should only place them on below one. Free money sounds too good to be true. Money evading banks is a typical sign of money laundering; why are they trying to avoid paper trails? The normal way to gift money is to just hand it over or pay it to a bank account. If anything, you sign a tax declaration, but you would send that to the taxman yourself.",
"100% scam. This is classic of mixing real (Exxon) with fiction. This gives credibility to story. Don't give any thing, there is no damage yet. If you take the bait, there are multiple ways to get money from you.",
"Yes. It is a scam, and here is how it will work. They will deposit a phony check into the account which will appear to clear. You will send money to Africa from the account. The check will take a while to bounce, but it will bounce. They will take it back out of your account (and may try to prosecute you for a fake check). At best, your account balance will go negative and you will owe the money back to the bank that you sent. The people you sent the money to will vanish.",
"\"Any advertisement for a \"\"business opportunity\"\" is nearly always a scam of some kind. In such deals, the seller is the one making the money. They rely on the fantasy of the average person who imagines themself with a profitable business. Real businessmen do not get their businesses from flyers on the sides of telephone poles. Real businessmen already know every aspect and detail of their business already. They do not need to pay some clown $10,000 to \"\"get them started\"\". If you are reading such advertisements, it means you have money, but do not know what to do with it. Although I cannot tell you what to do with your money. I can tell you this: giving it to somebody who advertises a \"\"great business opportunity\"\" would be a mistake.\"",
"Of course it is a scam. They don't need your password to give you money. Even giving them the rest is enough information for them to try and withdraw money from your bank by automatic transfer.",
"No, we did not apply for the loan. So, this is why we thought it was a bit strange a company just sending you a real check for $30K. It does not say anywhere in big red letters that it is a loan. Probably something in very small letters on a back of a paper. This is really horrible. Especially,if your customers do pay you by check and small business relies on online statement to determine who paid what. I can easily imagine a small outfit that just takes all the checks to the bank, cash them, and then use online statement to update their books. I do not see how it is helpful to businesses to receive pre-approved credit that is so poorly marked. Especially in the age of electronic transfers!!! I am trying to understand why I feel so offended by this, and I guess it all comes down to disgust: I refuse to believe that any serious company would use these sort of tactics and instead of us spending more time developing a better product, we have to put more time and effort into ensuring we do not fall victim to this.",
"This is very possibly a scam. The way the scam works is that the scammers send you a letter and demand you call the telephone number. But the telephone number belongs to the scammers, not the bank. When you call the number, they will 'authenticate' you by asking you a bunch of questions. They will then have enough information to call the bank and pretend to be you, and transfer out all of your money. What you need to do is to find the telephone number for your bank without making use of this letter. For example, look at a previous bank statement, or find the telephone number on the bank's website. Call that number and discuss this letter. If you have already called the number in the letter and if you have the slightest reason to believe it is not valid, stop reading. This is an emergency. Immediately call a legitimate number at the bank. Explain the situation and note that you believe your information has been compromised. Why are you still reading? Do it now.",
"In Order To Be Safe From A Fraudulent Stock Loss Recovery Firms, You Need To Be Careful And Notice Some Warning Signs Beforehand. Aggressive Unexpected calls, asking advance fee, self-praise online and elsewhere all these are characteristics of such a firm",
"\"Ask yourself one question - \"\"Why me?\"\" Say I had no friends or family (that I liked). I have money and I'm dying. There are a half dozen charities I'd write checks to. Under what circumstances would I ever contact a stranger to try to give my money away? That answers why this is a scam.\"",
"\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \"\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\"\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \"\"all securities firms\"\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \"\"Active\"\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \"\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\"\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\"",
"\"This is obviously a spam mail. Your mortgage is a public record, and mortgage brokers and insurance agents were, are and will be soliciting your business, as long as they feel they have a chance of getting it. Nothing that that particular company offers is unique to them, nothing they can offer you cannot be done by anyone else. It is my personal belief that we should not do business with spammers, and that is why I suggest you to remember the company name and never deal with them. However, it is up to you if you want to follow that advice or not. What they're offering is called refinance. Any bank, credit union or mortgage broker does that. The rates are more or less the same everywhere, but the closing fees and application fees is where the small brokers are making their money. Big banks get their money from also servicing the loans, so they're more flexible on fees. All of them can do \"\"streamline\"\" refinance if your mortgage is eligible. None if it isn't. Note that the ones who service your current mortgage might not be the ones who own it, thus \"\"renegotiating the rate\"\" is most likely not an option (FHA backed loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the original lenders continue servicing them - but don't own them). Refinancing - is a more likely option, and in this case the lender will not care about your rate on the old mortgage.\"",
"First, if your account has been closed you should not be able to use your debit card in any format. As you mentioned that you are able to use that so your back account is active. So this indicates it is a scam In case account is closed, bank confirms your address and will send you a cheque for the amount in your account. Don't worry. You money will never be lost",
"Reading stuff like this makes me want to go into the debt collection business. Just send letters to random people demanding money. Sounds like an easy way to make a living. What's your name and address? Just kidding. If they are sending stuff to a Virginia PO Box, close the box with no forwarding address and consider it case closed. If they are targetting you personally in New Hampshire, the best thing to do is to sue proactively before it goes to collection. New Hampshire has strict anti-debt-collection laws. Basically, what you do is go to small claims court and fill out a one-page form. Sue them for $2000, $3000 or whatever is convenient. Do not hire a lawyer. You can do this in 2 hours of your own time. Your grounds are: (1) Violation of the creditor of NH FDCA laws. According to the laws the creditor has to put all kinds of specific stuff in their threat letters. Since they are not doing this, they have violated NH FDCA. Read the FDCA so you know which specific items they are violating. (2) Extortion. Since you do not owe them any money, demanding money from you is extortion which is both criminally and civilly actionable. You sue them for mental anguish due to extortion. The validity of your claims is irrelevant. You just need to get them in court. There are two possibilities: (A) They fail to show up. In this case you win and they owe you $3000 or whatever. Not only that if they later try to collect from you send a copy of the judgement to the credit bureau or collector or whatever and that is proof you owe them no money. (B) They hire some stooge local lawyer who appears. Accept the court's offer for arbitration. When you go into arbitration with the lawyer tell him you will drop the lawsuit if they send you a check for $500 and a hand-written guarantee from him that you will never hear from his client again. Either way, you come out ahead. By the way, it is absolutely guaranteed that the enemy lawyer will accept your offer in (B) above because the SEO company is already paying him $5000 to show up to answer your lawsuit, and the lawyer does not want to hang around all morning in court waiting for the case to be heard. If he can get out of there in half an hour for only $500 he will do it. -------------------------------UPDATE If all you are getting is calls and the caller refuses to identify themself, then it is definitely an illegal scam. It is illegal in New Hampshire to make collection calls and refuse to full identify who is calling. The phone company has methods for dealing with illegal calls. First you have to file a police report. Then you call Verizon Security at 1-800-518-5507 (or whatever your phone company is). They will trace the call and identify the caller. They you can make a criminal complaint in their jurisdiction unless the call is from Pakistan or something.",
"You can't cash the check silly. How can you go off on a rant when you can't even tell the difference between a real check and a promotional tool. If you don't want to call in an get info throw it away....simple. This thread made me laugh. Thanks for that. Good day.",
"Call your bank and inquire if they send out the kinds of notices like the one you received. Don't call the number in the message, because if it is a scam, you're calling the scammers themselves, more than likely. Be very cautious about this situation, and if your bank is local then it might not hurt to pay a visit to a local branch to talk to someone in person. Print out the message(s) you receive to show them and let their fraud division look into it.",
"The sting here is definitely in the tail, the PS that says We are starting to call you from the same day when we get your details. The initial email doesn't ask for details, it asks for commitment. Once committed, you will be more relaxed about providing details. This makes me think that this is more serious than a simple financial scam. This is an effort to steal your identity, and that could be much more serious than the one-off loss of a few thousand dollars. Here's why: 1. The scammer could get numerous credit cards and store cards in your name, run up thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges, and leave you stuck with explaining what happened. I know someone who went from being a multi-millionaire to a pauper in a few months when his identity was stolen - and he is no fool. 2. It will take you years to clear your name. Meanwhile, your credit is shot, and you might have trouble getting a job, renting an apartment, or simply getting a cellphone contract. 3. Once you've repaired your credit, the scammer can just go through his old files and do it all over again. 4. Cloaked in your identity, and therefore being seen as you, the scammer can pull any number of scams, for which you will eventually be blamed. Then as well as dealing with credit bureaus, you will be dealing with another, more serious bureau: the FBI.",
"\"My answer is similar to Ben Miller's, but let me make some slightly different points: There is one excellent reason to get a consolidation loan: You can often get a lower interest rate. If you are presently paying 19% on a credit card and you can roll that into a personal loan at 13.89%, you'll be saving over 5%, which can add up. I would definitely not consolidate a loan at 12.99% into a loan at 13.89%. Then you're just adding 1% to your interest rate. What's the benefit in this? Another good reasons for a consolidation loan is psychological. A consolidation loan with fixed payments forces you to pay that amount every month. You say you have trouble with credit cards. It's very easy to say to yourself, \"\"Oh, just this month I'm going to pay just the minimum so I can use my cash for this other Very Important Thing that I need to buy.\"\" And then next month you find something else that you just absolutely have to buy. And again the next month, and the next, and your determination to seriously pay down your debt keeps getting pushed off. If you have a fixed monthly payment, you can't. You're committed. Also, if you have many credit cards, juggling payments on all of them can get complex and confusing. It's easy to lose track of how much you owe and to budget for payments. At worst, when there are many bills to pay you may forget one. (Personally I now have 3 bank cards, an airline card, and 2 store cards, and managing them is getting out of hand. I have good reasons for having so many cards: the airline card and the store cards give me special discounts. But it's confusing to keep track of.) As to adding $3,000 to the consolidation loan: Very, very bad idea. You are basically saying, \"\"I have to start seriously paying down my debt ... tomorrow. Today I need a some extra cash so I'm going to borrow just a little bit more, but I'm going to get started paying it off next month.\"\" This is a trap, and the sort of trap that leads people into spiraling debt. Start paying off debt NOW, not at some vague time in the future that never seems to come.\"",
"Get in touch with a reliable company if you are looking for a range of small business financing solutions. Such companies offer consolidation loans to help smaller businesses take care of their previous obligations and this way manage their finances better",
"Yes, it is a scam. Think about it: Why would a stranger offer to give you money? Why would she need you to pay her own employees? She wouldn't. It is a scam. You have more to lose than just the $25 that is in the account. Just as has happened to your dad before, you will be receiving money that is not real, but paying real money out somewhere else. One more thing: If your dad has fallen for these scams so many times that he can't get a bank account anymore, why are you still taking financial advice from him?",
"So you think there is a business that can take $X and in two weeks turn it into $10X plus their profit. That means that in two weeks you can turn $1,000 into $10,000. So every two weeks you add a zero, in six weeks you add 3 zeros. In 12 weeks total your $1,000 is now $1,000,000,000; and in a few weeks after that you are richer than Bill Gates. All Guaranteed! Run away.",
"This is very similar to what was asked in this question: Scam or real? This is a real winner of a scam, because it always finds someone gullible enough to fall for it. No stranger sends you money just to be a nice guy. This version of the scam is one I've seen on job-hunting sites. They'll promise you a job, and then they say they'll send you a check for equipment and supplies, but you need to send most of the money back to them. As long as they find victims, they'll continue to find more refined techniques to stay ahead of the authorities, and it'll change just enough that people won't recognize it for what it is. AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS!! I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"I know this is broad, but this isn't a scam -- it's a workshop/educational thing about teaching people of investing in the real estate market, and how to profit The scam is that the free or cheap class doesn't give you enough info to make money; so they sell you a more advanced and expensive class that gets you almost enough info; but the goal of the 2nd class is to get you to pay for the specialized seminar and coaching sessions that either fail to materialize or are so basic they aren't worth the money.",
"Yes, it is a scam. There is no doubt about it. Never give your bank password to anyone, especially strangers. You will lose your money if you fall for this.",
"His credit is likely impacted already for the fact it's in collection. My real concern is that he be 100% certain the debt collector actually has ownership of the debt. At first glance this sounds like it may be a scam, but if the debt was written off, it may have been sold for pennies on the dollar. So to the collector 20% of face value is a tidy profit.",
"\"The comments are getting too much, but to verify that you are not insane, you are being bullied. It sounds like this is a sub-prime loan, of which you are wisely trying to get out of. It also sounds like they are doing everything in their power to prevent you from doing so. For them you are a very profitable customer. This might take some legwork for you, but depending on how bad they are violating the law they might be willing to forgive the loan. What I am trying to say, it might be very worth your while! Your first step will be looking for any free resources at your disposal: Just be cautious as many \"\"credit representation\"\" type business are only offering loan consolidation. That is not what you need. Fight those bastards!\"",
"\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \"\"sniff test\"\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \"\"strike\"\"; too many \"\"strikes\"\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\"",
"Of course, it is a scam. Regardless of how the scam might work, you already know that the person on the other end is lying, and you also know that people in trouble don't contact perfect strangers out of the blue by e-mail for help, nor do they call up random phone numbers looking for help. Scammers prey on the gullibility, greed, and sometimes generosity of the victims. As to how this scam works, the money that the scammer would be depositing into your father's account is not real. However, it will take the bank a few days to figure that out. In the mean time, your father will be sending out real money back to the scammer. When the bank figures out what is going on, they will want your father to pay back this money.",
"\"(I answered a similar question before.) Essentially, you shouldn't trust a site you find on the Internet merely because it looks professional and real. Before signing up with any new service provider you found online, you should verify the authenticity of both the organization itself and their web site address. Even if the name displayed by a web site represents a legitimate brokerage firm, any site you happen to come across on the Internet could be an elaborate spoof of a real company, intended to capture your personal details (or worse). First, to check if a brokerage firm is in fact registered to trade securities – in the United States – you can consult FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake ... after you convince yourself that FINRA is legitimate. A meta-problem ;-) Then, if you want to know if the web site address is authentic, one way is to contact that broker offline using the contact information found from a trusted source, such as the FINRA BrokerCheck details. Unfortunately, those details do not currently appear to contain the broker's web site URL. (Else, that could be useful.) Another thing to look at is the site's login or sign-up page, for a valid SSL certificate that is both issued to the correct legal name of the brokerage firm as well as has been signed by a well-known certificate authority (e.g. VeriSign). For a financial services firm of any kind, you should look for and expect to see an Extended Validation Certificate. Any other kind of certificate might only assert that the certificate was issued to the domain-name owner, and not necessarily to an organization with the registered legal name. (Yes, anybody can register a domain with a similar name and then acquire a basic SSL certificate for that domain.) FWIW, Scottrade and ShareBuilder are both legitimate brokers (I was aware already of each, but I also just checked in the FINRA tool), and the URLs currently linked to by the question are legitimate web site addresses for each. Also, you can see their EV certificates in action on secured pages here and here. As to whether your investments with those brokers would be \"\"safe\"\" in the event of the broker failing (e.g. goes bankrupt), you'll want to know that they are members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (Wikipedia). (Of course, this kind of protection doesn't protect you if your investments simply go down in value.) But do your own due diligence – always.\"",
"\"The bottom line is that this just does not work, and as such you should not do it. Here is a question that you really need to think about: How will you handle non-payments? How will you handle it when they talk about purchases they made or vacations they went on when they have been short for the last three months? Yes, it will happen. The majority of people who engage in debt consolidation, which you are proposing, end up with the consolidated debt and more consumer debt. One cannot borrow themselves out of debt. Carrying credit card debt is a sign of poor money management and improper spending behavior. That behavior will not change if you \"\"bail them out\"\" with the consolidation. They need to find a way to work their way out of this situation by budgeting, living a more austere lifestyle, and earning more. Encouraging them to do so will serve them far better then your generous attempts to reduce the pain of their own making. In the end it is always a parent's desire to help their children. If you can afford to give, then it is well within your right to do so. It is also within your right to qualify that giving with behavioral conditions. However, if you cannot afford to give, it is best not to loan.\"",
"Definitely sounds like scam. Odds are are high that the page he gave you the link to is a fake and this app is pure identity theft. Run away, unless you are interested enough to do the work to check with the company and confirm this is legitimate. Nobody contacts strangers with this kind of story without it being a scam. The fact that this one sounds shady is an attempt to keep you from questioning it too closely. Think about it: if it was at all legitimate, couldn't he find a friend of a friend? If it sounds too good to be true, it ain't true. Never download software unless you know exactly where it is coming from. It could be anything from ransomware, to something that first steals all you financial info, then uss you mail account to send a similar pitch to all your friends, to a botnet that uses your machine to attack other machines.",
"I can't imagine any scenario under which this wouldn't be a scam, and frankly I'm a bit surprised to be talking about it once again. Any time someone you don't know and who doesn't know you wants to give you money for no good reason and asks you to provide personal information and bank info, there should be enough alarms going off for a five-alarm fire. Worse still this guy wants you to send half the money back to him. One simple question: WHY??? For what reason would they want you to send anything back? Why not just send you the money he wants you to have and keep the rest for himself? For heaven's sake, don't fall for this. Stay away from the whole mess and save yourself a bunch of grief.",
"\"First of all, whatever you do, DON'T PAY! Credit reporting agencies operate on aged records, and paying it now will most certainly not improve your score. For example, let's say that you had an unpaid debt that was reported as a \"\"charge-off\"\" to the credit bureaus. After, say, six months, the negative effect on your score is reduced. It is reduced even further after a year or two, and after two years, the negative effect on your score is negligible. Now, say you were to pay the debt after the two years. This would \"\"refresh\"\" the record, and show as a \"\"paid charge-off\"\". Sure, now it shows as paid, but it also shows the date of the record as being today, which increases the effect on your credit drastically. In other words, you would have just shot yourself in the foot, big-time. As others have noted, the best option is to dispute the item. If, for some reason, it isn't removed, you are allowed to submit an annotation to the item, explaining your side of the story. Anyone pulling your credit record would see this note, which can help you in some instances. In any case, these scam artists don't deserve your money. Finally, you should check who is the local ombusdman, and report this agent to them. She could lose her license for such a practice.\"",
"Both Scottrade and ING Direct (CapitalOne) have physical branches. Scottrade are wide-spread, ING/CapitalOne are less common (in California where I live, I have a bunch of Scottrade branches around where I live, but the only ING presence I know of is in LA on Sepulveda at Santa Monica). So one way to verify the company is legit is to go to their physical location and talk to the people there. Similarly, you can find physical locations in major metropolitan areas for many other web-based discount brokers. In my area (SF Bay Area) we have Scottrade, ETrade, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and that's just those I've actually seen with my own eyes. You can just walk in and talk to the people there about their options and their web operations. It is hard and unlikely for a sting operation to set up a web of brick-and-mortar offices across the nation. Even Madoff had only one or two offices. Of course I totally agree with Chris's answer, especially with regards to the SSL certificates' verification and spoofing and phishing avoidance.",
"Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her.",
"In a perfect the world, the most ideal solution would be to find a way to pay back all of your debt so that your credit will not be affected any further. Unfortunately, it does not work this way most of the time. Debt settlement is where you work with a creditor to settle your a credit card debt for less than the full amount owed. This could be a very viable solution for you instead of filing for bankruptcy. However, there are many scams out there when it applies to debt settlement so you must tread carefully. Debt settlement can only occur when you're behind on your payments. If you are currently paying off your payments successfully, the creditor has no obligation to settle when they think you should be able to pay it fully back.",
"It is a scam organization praying on fear of the simple minded. The facts Edelson presents are not accurate - http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/ia-2525.pdf",
"If one does pay, one should only pay after they get a letter stating such a payment fully satisfies the debt. Then, one should only pay via money order or cashiers check. Never pay by personal check or credit card. Send such a payment via certified mail to ensure delivery. As stated in other answers: There might be an issue of honoring your debts, but that doesn't come into play here. You already didn't pay your debt, and the original owner of the note already took money. Paying this debt is only money in pocket of the debt collector. The scammier they are, and the worse they treat you would factor in.",
"\"It's a scam. Here are the many signs: The bank will never ask for your password. They can access your account without it. The bank will never use a customer's account for their own business. They have their own accounts. \"\"Some guy\"\" is not a bank employee. Bank employees are people that you meet at the bank. Banks do not hand out thousands of dollars for free to customers, especially customers with nothing in their accounts. Even if you have no money in the account, this crook that you would give access to your account can do lots of illegal things in your name, such as writing bad checks, laundering money, running scams on other people through your account, etc. If you have already given your account info to this person, you need to go to the bank immediately and inform them. Since you have no money in the account, you should close it.\"",
"\"Some additional information for the people who may read this question in the future : The situation is weird, to say the least. I'm going to assume 2 things : Now, look at these classic its-a-scam red flags : In these conditions, it is not safe to give even the smallest shred of information to such people. I'd advise you to ignore this person (best option), or to offer to get them in touch with an official (most scammers will run away at this point) or threaten to report them (not recommended, the scammer may take insult and try to \"\"get back at you\"\"). Hope this post helps and nobody gets scammed! EDIT: Thank you for the amazing welcome! If I'd have known I'd get such a huge response, I'd have written a better answer ;) (I hope I'm not breaking any rules by this edit)\"",
"\"Let me guess, it's a fairly large amount of money, a few thousand at least. This is a scam. This is a variation on the many fake check scams out there. You deposit the check and you think it \"\"cleared\"\" your bank, but it didn't clear. A clever fake check can take a couple weeks to bounce and the bank will demand the money back. Any money you wire back to the fraudster in the meantime will be lost forever.\"",
"One can never be too cautious when when choosing a financial adviser. For example, has the company your adviser claims to represent ever been sanctioned by the local financial authorities? Does your adviser reside in the country in which he purports to operate? Have you thoroughly researched his background? It is also important to bear in mind what venues a company uses for advertising - if the company resorts to advertising by spamming, then their overall business practices are likely unethical and this could lead to trouble down the line. Finally, one should also research how the company's clientele has been built up. Was it through word of mouth or was the client data acquired by other means?",
"The idea that you should pay $5,000 up front to convert your shares and sell them to ultimately receive some larger amount is crazy. If in fact the shares need to be converted (unlikely), they should be able to deduct the fees from the proceeds of your transaction, and you would not be out-of-pocket anything at all. You didn't provide much in numbers, so I will make some up: For example: If you have 2,000 shares valued at $10 each, your account should be worth $20,000. If the liquidation cost is $5,000, they should be able to sell everything, deduct the liquidation cost, and send you a check for $15,000. You should NOT have to pay money up front to get your own money, and that is a sure sign of a scam. If the liquidation cost is $5,000, they should be able to sell everything, deduct the liquidation cost, and send you a check for $15,000. You should NOT have to pay money up front to get your own money, and that is a sure sign of a scam.",
"Consolidation makes sense, if your friend has his act together and isn't going to run up more debt. Finding a lender will be tough. I'd suggest trying local credit unions, making sure first that there has been NO late or missed payments for 6-9 months. You need to talk to a human at a local lender who will give you informal guidance about what you need to approve, so you don't end up getting lots of declinations. If its more than $10k, it will be hard to get a loan like this from anyone. In that case, you need to focus on the smallest debts first, because your friend's cash flow is going to be pinched by making payments to multiple creditors. It's critical to pay all creditors on time for at least the minimum amount due. The problem is, once you start paying things down, the creditors will start ratcheting down credit limits. When that happens, you're at greater risk for getting nabbed with fees and higher minimum payments, which may be considered a universal default by other lenders. There isn't alot of detail here, but depending on income and the amount of debt, your friend should be prepared to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.",
"\"If you must play with these scammers, be sure to open a new account, at a new bank, in order to supply \"\"personal banking information\"\". If it does pan out and they give you some money, you can always move it to your real bank account. Be sure to deposit into the new account no more than you're willing to lose to them.\"",
"Do not provide any personal information. If the debt is not yours, ask the caller to provide all the identifying information they have over the phone to verify whether they have your information, or are just following up on similar names. Even if they have information that is yours, do not provide more information. Always make them tell you what they know. If they provide information that is not yours, simply state that it is not your information and politely end the call. If they persist in calling you, there are local agencies you can report them to. If they have your information, then ask for all of the details of the debt -- who is it owed to, when was the debt incurred, what was the original amount of the debt, what is the current balance, when was the last activity on the account, what is their relation to creditor. Once you know the creditor, you can contact them directly for more information. It is possible they may have written off the account and closed it, selling it to a debt collector in order to get some sort of return on debt. If they truly have a debt that is yours, and you did not incur it, then you will need to file a police report for a case of identity theft. Be prepared for some scrutiny.",
"If you too want to avoid losing your money again in the stock loss recovery scams that have been going on then there are a few tips to keep in mind. Be diligent about researching the company thoroughly online, know about its owners, teams and what others have said about it. This can help you be safe from fraudulent firms.",
"Meh... how about telling us how they actually run scams? What to watch out for? Some real info. What's here is, mostly, obvious top level stuff. What I want is the dirt. Real details. Real content. Come on, give it to us.",
"This is a scam, I'm adding this answer because I was scammed in this fashion. The scammer sent me a check with which I was to deposit. When the money showed up in my account, I would withdraw the scammer's share, and wire the cash to its destination. However, it takes a couple days for a check to clear. Banks, however, want you to see that money, so they might give it to you on good faith before the check actually clears. That's how the scam works, you withdraw the fake money the bank has fronted before the check clears. A couple days later, the check doesn't clear, and you wake up with an account far into the negatives, the scammer long gone.",
"If they're making 100k a month in sales, why do they need your 92k so badly that they're willing to pay 200% annual interest? Going to a loanshark or the mob would be cheaper, to say nothing of all the legal options available to them. Or they could just wait three weeks for revenue to cover it. Nothing about this adds up to anything other than a scam. Your friend might be well-meaning, but someone along the line is looking for a sucker.",
"Yes, this is a scam. Tell your dad not to pay any money. There will likely be a large deposit in his account, but if he withdraws the money from his account, the bank will come after him looking for the money when the transfer to his account is reversed.",
"\"Here's what's going to happen: At the last minute, he's going to \"\"discover\"\" that for some reason first you must send him $10,000. He'll tell you not to worry, as he's still going to send you $40,000... now $50,000. In fact, he's going to tell you that he'll send you $60,000 and tell you to keep the $10,000 as a \"\"finders fee\"\". Then you will send him, $10,000 and he will walk away with your $10,000. You'll never hear from him again. This is a very common scam. The best way to avoid it is not to tell him you won't do it for IRS reasons. The best thing to do is to stop accepting email from him and (optionally) report him to law enforcement.\"",
"Based on my personal experience with that particular offer, I can say that it's not really a scam. I signed up for an Amazon Credit Card to get $70 off a purchase, but then never used the card. In fact, I never even called to activate it! After a few months, I then called to cancel it. I did not see a significant hit to my credit. However if you do shop frequently at Amazon it may be in your best interest to use their card, because it has other discounts associated with it.",
"If some one ever offers High returns and low risk they are either extremely stupid or scamming you. If they did find a high return low risk investment a smart person would buy it then repackage it as a low return low risk investment and then sell it to you. People would still buy and they would make a ton. Either they are lying (scam) or a fool(about as bad)"
] |
[
"\"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying \"\"Scam\"\" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?\"",
"I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return."
] |
9824
|
Where can end-of-day data be downloaded for corporate bonds?
|
[
"574777"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"574777",
"247759",
"49111",
"381362",
"89591",
"37959",
"580133",
"575018",
"571620",
"240086",
"182747",
"334383",
"485054",
"466255",
"146780",
"329582",
"346345",
"373620",
"596106",
"577075",
"189341",
"526377",
"546379",
"350680",
"487074",
"516379",
"420587",
"491257",
"170379",
"577090",
"491973",
"169772",
"562259",
"54225",
"279785",
"437465",
"535343",
"253135",
"386655",
"468490",
"315334",
"465971",
"423841",
"75063",
"79789",
"492262",
"272318",
"422453",
"161411",
"215416",
"517161",
"475916",
"568043",
"405572",
"431459",
"274733",
"171831",
"494171",
"151221",
"394814",
"413423",
"109796",
"6826",
"564773",
"168347",
"161428",
"167586",
"537111",
"51063",
"557770",
"345217",
"146188",
"92593",
"260726",
"52940",
"38545",
"304153",
"201771",
"395786",
"161722",
"364672",
"286335",
"354832",
"1355",
"489706",
"295993",
"38726",
"15112",
"517935",
"370304",
"9938",
"399907",
"71553",
"519652",
"321028",
"343489",
"310151",
"96467",
"85484",
"156816"
] |
[
"Here is one from a Bloomberg partnership, it is free. To get the end of day prices, you may need some programming done. PM me if you need help with that. Getting bond quotes and general information about a bond issue is considerably more difficult than researching a stock or a mutual fund. A major reason for this is that there is not a lot of individual investor demand for the information; therefore, most bond information is available only through higher level tools that are not accessible to the average investor. Read more: Where can I get bond market quotes? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bondquote.asp#ixzz3wXVwv3s5",
"Bond information is much tougher to get. Try to find access to a Bloomberg terminal. Maybe you have a broker that can do the research for you, maybe your local university has one in their business school, maybe you know someone that works for a bank/financial institution or some other type of news outlet. Part of the reason for the difference in ease of access to information is that bond markets are dominated by institutional investors. A $100 million bond issues might be 90% owned by 10-20 investors (banks, insurance co's, mutual funds, etc.) that will hold the bonds to maturity and the bonds might trade a few times a month/year. On the other hand a similar equity offering may have several hundred or thousand owners with daily trading, especially if it's included in an active stock index. That being said, you can get some information on Fidelity's website if you have an account, but I think their junk data is limited. Good luck with the hunt.",
"\"http://www.interactivedata.com -> reference data No, it's not free. Nor would I consider it \"\"high quality\"\". For free data, try the Yahoo Finance API. The data you want is there, though you may need to calculate some of the fields yourself. Once you have your application working with free data you will be in a good position to evaluate whether it's worth it to shift to more detailed non-free data.\"",
"I also searched for some time before discovering Market Archive, which AFAIK is the most affordable option that basically gives you a massive multi-GB dump of data. I needed sufficient data to build a model and didn't want to work through an API or have to hand-pick the securities to train from. After trying to do this on my own by scraping Yahoo and using the various known tools, I decided my time was better spent not dealing with rate-limiting issues and parsing quirks and whatnot, so I just subscribed to Market Archive (they update the data daily).",
"I am mostly interested in day to day records, and would like the data to contain information such as dividend payouts, and other parameters commonly available, such as on : http://finviz.com/screener.ashx ... but the kind of queries you can do is limited. For instance you can only go back two years.",
"FINRA lets you view recent trades, but as stated in the other answer bonds are illiquid and often do not trade frequently. Therefore recent trades prices are only a rough estimate of the current price that would be accepted. http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp",
"I think Infochimps has what you are looking for: NYSE and NASDAQ.",
"Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D",
"The three sites mentioned in the second link are all professional trading workstations, not public web sites. There may not be free quotes available.",
"Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.",
"\"A Bloomberg terminal connected to Excel provides the value correcting splits, dividends, etc. Problem is it cost around $25,000. Another one which is free and I think that takes care of corporate action is \"\"quandl.com\"\". See an example here.\"",
"Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API. EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST**** trades **but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system. I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.",
"You can get this data from a variety of sources, but likely not all from 1 source. Yahoo is a good source, as is Google, but some stock markets also give away some of this data, and there's foreign websites which provide data for foreign exchanges. Some Googling is required, as is knowledge of web scraping (R, Python, Ruby or Perl are great tools for this...).",
"You'd have to buy that information. Quoting from this page, Commercial Historical Data Higher resolution and more complete datasets are generally not available for free. Below is a list of vendors which have passed our quality screening (in total, we screened over a dozen vendors). To qualify, the vendor must aggregate data from all US national/regional exchanges as only complete datasets are suitable for research use. The last point is especially important as there are many vendors who just get data from a couple sources and is missing important information such as dark pool trades. They offer some alternatives for free data: Daily Resolution Data 1) Yahoo! Finance– Daily resolution data, with split/dividend adjustments can be downloaded from here. The download procedure can be automated using this tool. Note, Yahoo quite frequently has errors in its database and does not contain data for delisted symbols. 2) QuantQuote Free Data– QuantQuote offers free daily resolution data for the S&P500 at this web page under the Free Data tab. The data accounts for symbol changes, splits, and dividends, and is largely free of the errors found in the Yahoo data. Note, only 500 symbols are available unlike Yahoo which provides all listed symbols. And they list recommendations about who to buy the data from.",
"This amazing site will answer all your data questions. You will need some patience and willingness to spend to get the data that you want. A lot of data is available for free too` https://www.quandl.com/",
"Bonds are extremely illiquid and have traditionally traded in bulk. This has changed in recent years, but bonds used to be traded all by humans not too long ago. Currently, price data is all proprietary. Prices are reported to the usual data terminals such as Bloomberg, Reuters, etc, but brokers may also have price gathering tools and of course their own internal trade history. Bonds are so illiquid that comparable bonds are usually referenced for a bond's price history. This can be done because non-junk bonds are typically well-rated and consistent across ratings.",
"If you want to go far upstream, you can get mutual fund NAV and dividend data from the Nasdaq Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). This isn't for end-users but rather is offered as a part of the regulatory framework. Not surprisingly, there is a fee for data access. From Nasdaq's MFQS specifications page: To promote market transparency, Nasdaq operates the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). MFQS is designed to facilitate the collection and dissemination of daily price, dividends and capital distributions data for mutual funds, money market funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), annuities and structured products.",
"I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year",
"A number of places. First, fast and cheap, you can probably get this from EODData.com, as part of a historical index price download -- they have good customer service in my experience and will likely confirm it for you before you buy. Any number of other providers can get it for you too. Likely Capital IQ, Bloomberg, and other professional solutions. I checked a number of free sites, and Market Watch was the only that had a longer history than a few months.",
"Bloomberg terminal is a pretty standard way nowadays to get this information (and a lot more) pretty much in real time.",
"Another possibly more flexible option is Yahoo finance here is an example for the dow.. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=9&b=1&c=1928&d=3&e=10&f=2012&g=d&z=66&y=0 Some of the individual stocks you can dl directly to a spreadsheet (not sure why this isn't offer for indexs but copy and paste should work). http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=ACTC.OB+Historical+Prices",
"You can buy the data and process it on your own. http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/Daily-TAQ",
"Google Finance and Yahoo Finance have been transitioning their API (data interface) over the last 3 months. They are currently unreliable. If you're just interested in historical price data, I would recommend either Quandl or Tiingo (I am not affiliated with either, but I use them as data sources). Both have the same historical data (open, close, high, low, dividends, etc.) on a daily closing for thousands of Ticker symbols. Each service requires you to register and get a unique token. For basic historical data, there is no charge. I've been using both for many months and the data quality has been excellent and API (at least for python) is very easy! If you have an inclination for python software development, you can read about the drama with Google and Yahoo finance at the pandas-datareader group at https://github.com/pydata/pandas-datareader.",
"\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"",
"Ya, that's a lot of data - especially considering your relative lack of experience and the likely fact that you have no idea what to do with what you're given. How do you even know you need minute or tick-based bid-ask data? You can get a lot more than OHLC/V/Split/Dividend. You can get: * Book Value; * Dividend information (Amount, yield, ex date, pay date); * EBITDA; * EPS (current AND estimates); * Price/sales ratio; * Price/book value; * Price/earnings ratio; * PEG ratio; * Short ratio; * Market cap. Among other things, all for free.",
"Trading data can be had cheaply from: http://eoddata.com/products/historicaldata.aspx The SEC will give you machine readable financial statements for American companies for free, but that only goes back 3 or 4 years. Beyond that, you will have to pay for a rather expensive service like CapitalIQ or CRSP or whatever. Note that you will need considerable programming knowledge to pull this off.",
"Moody's is now Mergent Online. It's no longer being printed, and must be accessed digitally. In order to browse the database, check with your local public library or university to see if you can get access. (A University will probably require you to visit for access). Another good tool is Value Line Reports. They are printed information sheets on public companies that are updated regularly, and are convenient for browsing and for comparing securities. Again, check your local libraries. A lot of the public information you may be looking for can be found on Yahoo Finance, for free, from home. Yahoo finance, will give financial information, ratios, news, filings, analysis, all in one place.",
"Yes, Alpha Vantage. As MasticatedTesticle points out, it is worth asking where it originally comes from, but it looked to me like a solid source for, in particular, intraday trading data. Additionally, Yahoo finance is done on R (zoo, PerformanceAnalytics libraries don't work anymore as far as I can tell). The numbers look right to me tho, let me know if things are off.",
"Factset also provides a host of tools for analysis. Not many people know as they aren't as prevalent as Bloomberg. CapitalQ and Thomson Reuters also provide analysis tools. Most of the market data providers also provide analysis tools to analyze the data they and others provide.",
"http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.",
"even in Bloomberg intraday data you're limited to 140days. If you want more you need cash, a lot of cash. Just the sheer size of data is ridiculous. Unless you're Blackrock or some big firms like that then probably can't afford to buy it and store it - it won't fit on one Excel file haha",
"Hi, I'm trying to obtain daily time series for CZK Swap zero curve through Bloomberg Terminal for my thesis, dating at least 120 days back. I have basically zero experience working with the Terminal, and so far I have managed only to get data for one day (using BCurve and BCurvestrip functions in excel). I have also tried to message the support team, however their answer led me just to the functions I have already used. Here is a screenshot of what I want to get for each [day](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1yzQM.jpg), from 1st of July until today.",
"There are several Excel spreadsheets for downloading stock quotes (from Yahoo Finance), and historical exchange rates at http://investexcel.net/financial-web-services-kb",
"\"At the bottom of Yahoo! Finance's S & P 500 quote Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT. See also delay times for other exchanges. All information provided \"\"as is\"\" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by Morningstar, Inc. Orderbook quotes are provided by BATS Exchange. US Financials data provided by Edgar Online and all other Financials provided by Capital IQ. International historical chart data, daily updates, fundAnalyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial Network. All data povided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo! and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Thus, yes there is a DB being accessed that there is likely an agreement between Yahoo! and the providers.\"",
"Go to http://finance.google.com, search for the stock you want. When you are seeing the stock information, in the top left corner there's a link that says 'Historical prices'. Click on it. then select the date range, click update (don't forget this) and 'Download to spreadsheet' (on the right, below the chart). For example, this link takes you to the historical data for MSFT for the last 10 years. http://finance.yahoo.com has something similar, like this. In this case the link to download a CSV is at the bottom of the table.",
"Yahoo provides dividend data from their Historical Prices section, and selecting Dividends Only, along with the dates you wish to return data for. Here is an example of BHP's dividends dating back to 1998. Further, you can download directly to *.csv format if you wish: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=BHP.AX&a=00&b=29&c=1988&d=06&e=6&f=2015&g=v&ignore=.csv",
"Yahoo Finance's Historical Prices section allows you to look up daily historical quotes for any given stock symbol, you don't have to hit a library for this information. Your can choose a desired time frame for your query, and the dataset will include High/Low/Close/Volume numbers. You can then download a CSV version of this report and perform additional analysis in a spreadsheet of your choice. Below is Twitter report from IPO through yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=TWTR&a=10&b=7&c=2013&d=08&e=23&f=2014&g=d",
"\"Where can I download all stock symbols of all companies \"\"currently listed\"\" and \"\"delisted\"\" as of today? That's incredibly similar . You can also do it with a Bloomberg terminal but there's no need to pay to do this because he data changes so slowly.\"",
"Multiple overlapping indices exist covering various investment universes. Almost all of the widely followed indices were originally created by Lehman Brothers and are now maintained by Barclays. The broadest U.S. dollar based bond index is known as the Universal. The Aggregate (often abbreviated Agg), which is historically the most popular index, more or less includes all bonds in the Universal rated investment grade. The direct analog to the S&P 500 would be the U.S. Corporate Investment Grade index, which is tracked by the ETF LQD, and contains exactly what it sounds like. Citigroup (formerly Salomon Brothers) also has a competitor index to the Aggregate known as Broad Investment Grade (BIG), and Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America) has the Domestic Master. Multiple other indices also exist covering other bond markets, such as international (non-USD) bonds, tax-exempts (municipal bonds), securitized products, floating rate, etc.",
"\"Try the general stock exchange web page. http://www.aex.nl I did a quick trial myself and was able to download historical data for the AEX index for the last few years. To get to the data, I went to the menu point \"\"Koersen\"\" on the main page and chose \"\"Indices\"\". I then entered into the sub page for the AEX index. There is a price chart window in which you have to choose the tab \"\"view data\"\". Now you can choose the date range you need and then download in a table format such as excel or csv. This should be easy to import into any software. This is the direct link to the sub page: http://www.aex.nl/nl/products/indices/NL0000000107-XAMS/quotes\"",
"If you're willing to shell out some cash, vendors will be quite happy to sell you everything you need. Picking one out of thin air, and no idea if this is a good price or not, the CBOE will sell you EOD data for every option for $40 for one day, and at a discount for multiple days. Beyond the high/low/close for each contract, you get the volume. Or a month of TAQ data will run your $1550, for what that's worth, which probably isn't a lot for a retail strategy.",
"I had the same problem and was looking for a software that would give me easy access to historical financial statements of a company, preferably in a chart. So that I could easily compare earnings per share or other data between competitors. Have a look at Stockdance this might be what you are looking for. Reuters Terminal is way out of my league (price and complexity) and Yahoo and Google Finance just don't offer the features I want, especially on financials. Stockdance offers a sort of stock selection check list on which you can define your own criterion’s. Hence it makes no investment suggestions but let's you implement your own investing strategy.",
"You can get this information through Bloomberg, but it's a paid service.",
"This is what I used during my MBA. My biggest complaint is that it is not a database for analytic (it pulls from a database). I hear think or swim has the capability to extract data and offers a free version - anyone know if that is true?",
"Wells Fargo has a good free product that you can sign up for on their website. Google Wells Fargo Economics. I think that will get you there. If you have a friend on a trading desk you can get the JPM morning note which is really good too.",
"There are about 250 trading days in a year. There are also about 1,900 stocks listed on the NYSE. What you're asking for would require about 6.2M rows of data. Depending on the number of attributes you're likely looking at a couple GB of data. You're only getting that much information through an API or an FTP.",
"Those are the expected yields; they are not guaranteed. This was actually the bread and butter of Graham Newman, mispriced bonds. Graham's writings in the Buffett recommended edition of Securities Analysis are invaluable to bond valuation. The highest yielder now is a private subsidiary of Société Générale. A lack of financial statements availability and the fact that this is the US derivatives markets subsidiary are probably the cause of the higher rates. The cost is about a million USD to buy them. The rest will be similar cases, but Graham's approach could find a diamond; however, bonds are big ticket items, so one should expect to pay many hundreds of thousands of USD per trade.",
"If you are looking to analyze stocks and don't need the other features provided by Bloomberg and Reuters (e.g. derivatives and FX), you could also look at WorldCap, which is a mobile solution to analyze global stocks, at FactSet and S&P CapitalIQ. Please note that I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"",
"Just look at the filing date of the 10Q and then Yahoo the closing price or Google it. I assume you are looking for market reactions to SEC filings? If you want to look at the closing stock price for the end of the period which the filing covers, it's like on the first page of the filing when the period (either quarterly or yearly) ends. This data is generally less useful, however, because it really is just another day in the market for the company. The actual release of the data to the public is more important.",
"\"Considering the fact that you are so unaware of how to find such data, I find it very very hard to believe that you actually need it. \"\"All trade and finance data for as much tickers and markets as possible.\"\" Wtf does that even mean. You could be referencing thousands of different types of data for any given \"\"ticker\"\" with a statement so vague. What are you looking for?\"",
"you could try [FRED](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=HO7), or maybe try the CME and ICE's websites for some decent data.. haven't looked just suggestions - pretty sure the symbol for the Libor futures is EM, you could approximate from that so long as it's not a doctoral thesis",
"\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \"\"time and sales,\"\" or \"\"TNS,\"\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \"\"time and quotes,\"\" or \"\"TNQ\"\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\"",
"The biggest issue with Yahoo Finance is the recent change to the API in May. The data is good quality, includes both dividend/split adjusted and raw prices, but it's much more difficult to pull the data with packages like R quantmod than before. Google is fine as well, but there are some missing data points and you can't unadjust the prices (or is it that they're all unadjusted and you can't get adjusted? I can't recall). I use Google at home, when I can't pull from Bloomberg directly and when I'm not too concerned with accuracy. Quandl seems quite good but I haven't tried them. There's also a newer website called www.alphavantage.co, I haven't tried them yet either but their data seems to be pretty good quality from what I've heard.",
"I don't know of any free API's for these data, but I'll provide what information I can. Compiling all of this information from the EDGAR system and exposing an interface to it requires a fair amount of work and maintenance, so it's usually market data companies that have the motivation and resources to provide such interfaces. I know of a few options that may or may not be close to what you're looking for. The SEC provides FTP access to the EDGAR system. You could download and parse the text files they provide. Yahoo Finance provides summary files of financial statements (e.g., GOOG) as well as links to the full statements in the EDGAR system. Once again, parsing may be your only option for these data. Xignite, a proprietary market data provider, provides a financial statement API. If you need these data for a commercial application, you could contact them and work something out. (Frankly, if you need these data for a commercial application, you're probably better off paying for the data) The Center for Research into Security Prices provides data from financial statements. I believe it's also exposed through several of their API's. As with most financial data, CRSP is sort of a gold standard, although I haven't personally used their API to fetch data from financial statements, so I can't speak for it specifically. This answer on StackOverflow mentions the quantmod R package and mergent. I can't vouch for either of those options personally. Unfortunately, you'll probably have to do some parsing unless you can find a paid data provider that's already compiled this information in a machine-readable format.",
"The trick is real time. I like to wake up in the morning, turn on my computer and see at a glance the gain or loss data on each of my stock and bond at that moment. Companies like Ameritrde offer them, but you have to enroll and trade stock in them.",
"Sure, Yahoo Finance does this for FREE.",
"Bloomberg Professional seems to be very popular. It provides any kind of data you can imagine. Analysis is a subjective interpretation of the data.",
"www.earnings.com is helpful thinkorswim's thinkDesktop platform has a lot of earnings information tied with flags on their charts they are free.",
"well, you know the problem lies with bonds maturing. The issue is not the function COMP but the security itself. You have to use existing total return indices that reflect a constant 10yr maturity position. >perpetually rolled the principal once the bond matured until the present? That would mean your 10y becomes 7y, 5y, 3y, 1y, matured then you reinvest. Not the same. Use SECF to find something like MLT1US10 Index or go to the IND page to see Merrill Lynch's bond indices. They're some of the best.",
"It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.",
"You might have better luck using Quandl as a source. They have free databases, you just need to register to access them. They also have good api's, easier to use than the yahoo api's Their WIKI database of stock prices is curated and things like this are fixed (www.quandl.com/WIKI ), but I'm not sure that covers the London stock exchange. They do, however, have other databases that cover the London stock exchange.",
"Generally Google gets their data, directly from the exchanges (Nasdaq, NYSE). This is really expensive -- tens of thousands of dollars a month just for the license from the exchange, and lots of telecom costs on top of that.",
"Yeah, I mean the real issue is that for probably 30% of users (conservatively) it's and IM system and how they get market data. Anyone that uses BDHs or backtesting does not have a reliable alternative. The analytical tools FS offers for those functions cost almost as much. Also, index level data is very expensive, separated and priced by the index managers themselves. The degree to which this 'debate' has been dumbed down is remarkable.",
"I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories. It has more info available for free than some may realize. Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats. (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number. That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC. (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here. You can do a search to find the Zacks website. I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice. It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer. I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist. It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it. littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free. Maybe this is a project that needs to happen. With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API. But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter. So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF! A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings? Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent. I know that SE prides itself on focused answers. A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate.",
"You're only counting one year. Let's say 30 years of data, minutewise, for 2,000 stocks, and 50 characters per data line. That's 1.5TB of data. Since the market has grown, that's an overestimate - 30 years ago there weren't 2,000 stocks in the NYSE - but it still gives us ballpark of roughly 1 TB. Not an easy download.",
"Check the answers to this Stackoverflow question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/754593/source-of-historical-stock-data a number of potential sources are listed",
"I know of no free source for 10 years historical data on a large set of companies. Now, if it's just a single company or small number that interest you, contact Investor Relations at the company(ies) in question; they may be willing to send you the data for free.",
"It's an over-the-counter stock quote system. Read all about it. Or visit it.",
"As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.",
"Right, that's my understanding of the problem too. I tried some of the indices last night (not necessarily the ones you are suggesting), but when pulling them into COMP it only provided the price return, not the total return including coupons. This latter part is still the challenge.",
"Here is a list to Yahoo! Finance API. Not sure how much longer this will be support though: https://code.google.com/p/yahoo-finance-managed/wiki/YahooFinanceAPIs",
"Edgar Online is the SEC's reporting repository where public companies post their forms, these forms contain financial data Stock screeners allow you to compare many companies based on many financial metrics. Many sites have them, Google Finance has one with a decent amount of utility",
"To quote their disclaimer: Data is provided by financial exchanges and may be delayed as specified by financial exchanges or our data providers. Google does not verify any data and disclaims any obligation to do so. That means that they buy it from a reseller such as IDC. It probably differs in source between the different exchanges depending on price and availability factors. They do specify in some cases which reseller they use and one of those happens to be Interactive Data (IDC) who are also the data provider used in my day job!",
"\"Google Finance certainly has data for Tokyo Stock Exchange (called TYO on Google) listings. You could create a \"\"portfolio\"\" consisting of the stocks you care about and then visit it once per day (or write a script to do so).\"",
"\"Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though. The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of \"\"quants\"\" doing simple algorithms \"\"that execute within milliseconds\"\" for banks and funds. Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal.\"",
"I wrote one to check against the N3 to N6 bonds: http://capitalmind.in/2011/03/sbi-bond-yield-calculator/ Things to note:",
"As @littleadv and @DumbCoder point out in their comments above, Bloomberg Terminal is expensive for individual investors. If you are looking for a free solution I would recommend Yahoo and Google Finance. On the other side, if you need more financial metrics regarding historic statements and consensus estimates, you should look at the iPad solution from Worldcap, which is not free, but significantly cheaper then Bloomberg and Reuters. Disclosure: I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"I am very familiar with the Bloomberg terminal service and agree that their info on securities & markets, especially fixed income, is unparalleled. However, their news and editorial departments espouse the viewpoints of Michael Bloomberg such as being permabullish in the face of data, pro gun control, pro immigration (legal+illegal), pro Israel, and pro Sunni monarchies (Saudi et al).",
"Have you tried their site? Some places may have portions available though also beware that some companies may charge for some of their research pieces.",
"If you would like to find data on a specific industry/market sector, a good option is IBISworld reports. You can find their site here. You can find reports on almost any major US sector. The reports include historical data as well as financial ratios. In college projects, they were very useful for getting benchmark data to compare an individual business against an industry as a whole.",
"I couldn't find historical data either, so I contacted Vanguard Canada and Barclays; Vanguard replied that This index was developed for Vanguard, and thus historical information is available as of the inception of the fund. Unfortunately, that means that the only existing data on historical returns are in the link in your question. Vanguard also sent me a link to the methodology Barclay's uses when constructing this index, which you might find interesting as well. I haven't heard from Barclays, but I presume the story is the same; even if they've been collecting data on Canadian bonds since before the inception of this index, they probably didn't aggregate it into an index before their contract with Vanguard (and if they did, it might be proprietary and not available free of charge).",
"We buy data various providers (sharadar and quotemedia to name a few) and to answer your second question how we pay for it — with credit card :-) If you mean where we take money from; from our personal budgets. We want to introduce subscriptions in future but what is free currently will stay free forever (at least thats our plan).",
"Good god it's that expensive for CapIQ? Its pretty lame, I have to use it at work (large val shop), but its hit and miss. Have you tried Compustat or Factset? I've worked with both in the past, they seem cheaper and either may provide more reasonable pricing.",
"The point of a total return index is that it already has accounted for the capital gains + coupon income. If you want to calculate it yourself you'll have to find the on-the-run 10y bond for each distinct period then string them together to calc your total return. Check XLTP if they have anything",
"ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information.",
"\"I hope people don’t see this as being facetious but invest some time in learning to do that with Excel. Most financial information websites (Yahoo, MSN, etc.) will allow you to extract all the data you need into excel. This way you can learn to do analysis with something that isn’t a \"\"black box\"\" (as to mean you don’t know the exact equations behind the outputs) whereas with excel you can delve into and really understand the equations behind the numbers you are looking at. If you use Bloomberg it does all that for you but if you are just starting out you may not truly understand what it means and how everything is connected. If you create the same with excel you have no choice but to deeply understand because you built it from scratch! I'm certian there are plenty of tutorials to help you out there as every analyst who has worked in finance since the advent of excel has had to create these at one time or another. Good luck!\"",
"Neither site offers index futures or options pricing. Your best best is likely to get the quote from a broker who supports trading those vehicles. Free sites usually limit themselves to stocks and sometimes to options chains -- the exception is Reuters where just about any security for which you have the reuters formatted trading symbol can be quoted.",
"I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.",
"I've never seen a dividend, split or other corporate action during the day, but I have seen trade suspended a few times when something big happened. The market opening price is not in general the same as the close of the previous day. It can gap up or down and does frequently. I don't know of an api to find out if the dividend was cash or stock, but stock dividends are a lot less common.",
"The best source of financial statements would be from the company in question. On corporate websites of public listed companies, you can find such financial statements uploaded in the Investor's Relations section of their website. If their company does not have an online presence, another alternative would be to go to the website of the exchange the company is trading in (e.g. NYSE or NASDAQ) for financial data.",
"For immediate availability, by far the fastest (and cheapest) way to get macroeconomic figures as they are released, is by following (verified) Twitter accounts of the respective Central bank and institutions alike. Indeed, Twitter is the new trader tape.",
"You may refer to project http://jstock.sourceforge.net. It is open source and released under GPL. It is fetching data from Yahoo! Finance, include delayed current price and historical price.",
"I've seen this tool. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can just get a list of all the companies. For example, you can get up to 100 results at a time, if I just search latest filings for 10-K. This isn't really an efficient way to go about what I want.",
"Depends on the exchange, and it's usually not going to be free. I use IB's API, and I've heard good things about IQFeed. You can get some free book data from Bats, but again you probably won't see your own transactions go by. http://batstrading.com/market_data/",
"\"The prices quoted are for currency pairs traded on the foreign exchange market. For currencies traded on these exchanges, the exchange rates of a given currency pair are determined by the market, so supply and demand, investor confidence, etc. all play a role. EBS and Reuters are the two primary trading platforms in the foreign exchange market, and much of the data on exchange rates comes from them. Websites will usually get their data either from these sources directly or from a data provider that in turn gets it from EBS, Reuters, or another data source like Bloomberg or Haver Analytics. These data sources aren't free, however. In the US, many contracts, transactions, etc. that involve exchange rates use the exchange rate data published by the Federal Reserve. You might see this in contracts that specify to use \"\"the exchange rate published by the Federal Reserve at 12 pm (noon) on date --some date--\"\". You can also look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data, which maintains data series of historical daily, weekly, and monthly exchange rates for major currency pairs. These data are free, although they aren't realtime. Data for each business day is mostly updated the next business day.\"",
"Not really in corporate finance, but I can see this being use to academics if it's good. As you mention, professionals usually have access to Bloomberg terminals and other data tools which kind of obsolete a third party project. Academics, on the other hand, are often lacking access to those kinds of resources.",
"you can try CME DataSuite. Your broker gives you real time options quotes. If you do not have one you can open a scottrade account with just $500 deposit. When I moved my money from scottrade to ameritrade they did not close my account even till this day I can access my scottrade account and see real time quotes and the same research they offered me before. You can try withdrawing your deposit and see if it stays open like mine did.",
"\"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues. You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important. Only certain trade condition codes contribute towards the day's open/high/low/close and some others only contribute towards the volume data. The Consolidated Tape Association is very clear on which trades should contribute towards each value - but some vendors have their own interpretation (or just simply an erroneous interpretation of the specifications). It may surprise you to find that the majority of trading volume for many stocks is not on their primary-listed exchange. For example, on 2 Mar 2015, NASDAQ:AAPL traded a total volume across all venues was 48096663 shares but trading on NASDAQ itself was 12050277 shares. Trades can be cancelled. Some data vendors do not modify their data to reflect these busted trades. Some data vendors also \"\"snapshot\"\" their feed at a particular point in time of the data. Some exchanges can provide data (mainly corrections) 4-5 hours after the closing bell. By snapshotting the data too early and throwing away any subsequent data is a typical cause of data discrepancies. Some data vendors also round prices/volumes - but stocks don't just trade to two decimal places. So you may well be comparing two different sets of trades (with their own specific inclusion rules) against the same stock. You need to confirm with your data sources exactly how they do things. Disclosure: Premium Data is an end-of-day daily data vendor.\"",
"The cause of incomplete/inaccurate financial data's appearing on free sites is that it is both complicated and expensive to obtain and parse these data. Even within a single country, different pieces of financial data are handled by different authorities. In the US, for example, there is one generally recognized authority for stock prices and volumes (CQS), but a completely different authority for corporate earnings data (SEC). For futures and options data the only authority is each individual exchange. Each of these sources might have a vastly different interface to their data; some may have websites, others may have FTPs, others may have TCP datastreams to which you must subscribe, etc. Now throw in the rest of the world and all their exchanges and regulatory agencies, and you can see how it's a difficult job to gather all this information, parse it on a daily (or more frequent) basis, and check it all for errors. There are some companies (e.g. Bloomberg) whose entire business model is to do the above. They spend tens of millions of dollars per year to support the infrastructure and manpower required to keep such a complex system working, and they charge their consumers a pretty penny in return. Do Google/Yahoo pay for Bloomberg data access just to display information that we then consume for free? Maybe. Maybe they pay for some less expensive reduced data set. Or a data set that is less rigorously checked for errors. Even if they pay for the best data available, there's no guarantee that a company's last earnings report didn't have a glitch in it, or that Bloomberg's latest download from the Canadian Agency for Corporate Dividends and Moose Census-Taking didn't get cut off in the middle, or that the folks at Yahoo built a robust system that can handle a particular file's not arriving on time. Bloomberg has dozens or even hundreds of employees focused on just this one task; Yahoo probably has 5. Moral: If you really need the best available data you must go to the source(s), or you must pay a provider to whom you can then complain when something is wrong. With free data you get what you pay for."
] |
[
"Here is one from a Bloomberg partnership, it is free. To get the end of day prices, you may need some programming done. PM me if you need help with that. Getting bond quotes and general information about a bond issue is considerably more difficult than researching a stock or a mutual fund. A major reason for this is that there is not a lot of individual investor demand for the information; therefore, most bond information is available only through higher level tools that are not accessible to the average investor. Read more: Where can I get bond market quotes? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bondquote.asp#ixzz3wXVwv3s5"
] |
4968
|
Reasons behind a large price movement of a penny stock without any recent news releases?
|
[
"387022"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"387022",
"544506",
"248217",
"291220",
"65667",
"278889",
"151723",
"115772",
"118232",
"88677",
"42347",
"378889",
"389104",
"569627",
"133204",
"417407",
"372703",
"393140",
"553066",
"532211",
"261640",
"515579",
"33357",
"68187",
"389562",
"358164",
"366315",
"118521",
"562113",
"78648",
"460241",
"580920",
"183999",
"546400",
"235531",
"189915",
"407759",
"251813",
"462135",
"117576",
"589533",
"541991",
"18335",
"319599",
"445943",
"530318",
"152688",
"515095",
"129481",
"86408",
"584901",
"588384",
"313544",
"67069",
"350067",
"239502",
"91363",
"527470",
"64943",
"347992",
"45830",
"400614",
"114439",
"5948",
"193404",
"555226",
"133440",
"514271",
"383162",
"63044",
"228983",
"104901",
"488928",
"55820",
"471289",
"78816",
"466883",
"416767",
"152097",
"275525",
"379994",
"349147",
"576131",
"341424",
"222363",
"261679",
"541730",
"169561",
"253339",
"357583",
"286527",
"6369",
"384583",
"538750",
"100590",
"592535",
"128888",
"509430",
"65147",
"398446"
] |
[
"\"Yes, in my humble opinion, it can be \"\"safe\"\" to assume that — but not in the sense that your assumption is necessarily or likely correct. Rather, it can be \"\"safe\"\" in the respect that assuming the worst — even if wrong! — could save you from a likely painful and unsuccessful speculation in the highly volatile stock of a tiny company with no revenue, no profits, next to no assets, and continued challenges to its existence: \"\"There is material uncertainty about whether the Company will be able to obtain the required financing. This material uncertainty casts significant doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.\"\" As a penny stock, they are in good company. Still, there are a variety of other reasons why such a stock might have gone up, or down, and no one [here] can say for sure. Even if there was a news item, any price reaction to news could just amount to speculation on the part of others having enough money to move the stock. There are better investments out there, and cheaper thrills, than most penny stocks.\"",
"according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.",
"It could be an endless number of reasons for it. It could simply just be a break through a long term resistance causing technical traders to jump in. It could be an analyst putting out a buy recommendation. If fundamentals have not changed then maybe the technicals have changed. Momentum could have reached an oversold position causing new buyers to enter the market. Without knowing the actual stock, its fundamentals and its technicals, no one will ever know exactly why.",
"\"With debts exceeding assets by a billion dollars, this activity likely comes from penny stock speculators and \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemers. There is no rational expectation that the stock is even worth multiple pennies when the company is that far upside-down on its debts. Even if the debts could be restructured in a chapter 11, the equity shares would likely lose all of their value in the bankruptcy proceedings. Shareholders are at the bottom of the totem-pole when debts are being adjusted by the courts.\"",
"\"The simple answer could be that one or more \"\"people\"\" decided to buy. By \"\"people,\"\" I don't mean individual buyers of 100 shares like you or me, but typically large institutional investors like Fidelity, who might buy millions of shares at a time. Or if you're talking about a human person, perhaps someone like Warren Buffett. In a \"\"thinly\"\" traded small cap stock that typically trades a few hundred shares in a day, an order for \"\"thousands\"\" could significantly move the price. This is one situation where more or less \"\"average\"\" people could move a single stock.\"",
"\"Changing my answer based on clarification in comments. It appears that some of the securities you mentioned, including GEAPP, are traded on what is colloquially known as the Grey Market. Grey Sheets, and also known as the \"\"Gray Market\"\" is another category of OTC stocks that is completely separate from Pink Sheets and the OTCBB. From investopedia The grey market is an over-the-counter market where dealers may execute orders for preferred customers as well as provide support for a new issue before it is actually issued. This activity allows underwriters and the issuer to determine demand and price the securities accordingly before the IPO. Some additional information on this type of stocks. (Source) Unlike other financial markets... No recent bid or ask quotes are available because no market makers share data or quote such stocks. There is no quoting system available to record and settle trades. All Grey sheet trading is moderated by a broker and done between consenting individuals at a price they agree on. The only documentation that can be publicly found regarding the trades is when the last trade took place. No SEC registration and little SEC regulation. Regulation of Grey Sheet stocks takes place mainly on a state level. Unlike Pink Sheets, these stocks have no SEC registration to possess a stock symbol or to possess shares or trade shares of that stock. Such penny stocks, similar to Pink Sheets, are not required to file SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) financial and business reports. These stocks may not be solicited or advertised to the public unless a certain number of shares are qualified to be traded publicly under 504 of Regulation D. Extremely Illiquid. Gray sheet trading is infrequent, and for good reason... Difficult to trade, not advertised, difficult to follow the price, the least regulation possible, hard to find any information on the stock, very small market cap, little history, and most such stocks do not yet offer public shares. The lack of information (bids, history, financial reports) alone causes most investors to be very skeptical of Gray Sheets and avoid them altogether. Gray Sheets are commonly associated with Initial public offering (IPO) stocks or start up companies or spin-off companies, even though not all are IPO's, start-ups or spin-offs. Grey Sheets is also Home to delisted stocks from other markets. Some stocks on this financial market were once traded on the NASDAQ, OTCBB, or the Pink Sheets but ran into serious misfortune - usually financial - and thus failed to meet the minimum requirements of the registered SEC filings and/or stock exchange regulations for a financial market. Such stocks were delisted or removed and may begin trading on the Grey Sheets. So to answer your question, I think the cause of the wild swings is that: Great question, BTW.\"",
"First, If you buy $10K of a penny stock and try to sell it that afternoon, you probably won't get your money back. The bid/ask spread may cost you dearly. On the shady side, if you are able to afford to trade enough shares to attract attention, the interest of those who believe the volume is an indication of some real event happening, you may pump it high enough to make some nice money, selling into the ensuing rise. This is a classic pump and dump (which often but not always, includes posts on message boards) and it is illegal. The same way this volume attracts traders, it can also attract the attention of the SEC. This should be read as a narrative, not as advice. If anything, it's advice on what not to do.",
"Insiders (those who are aware of non-public material information, not necessarily employees) are the ones who actually cannot sell once they learned about whatever, by law. Martha Stewart went to jail for that. Any such deviation from the norm triggers abnormal response and avalanche of rumors, so by default investors assume something bad and try to minimize the loss. When dealing with a tiny company (market cap of less than 15M) with a tiny market volume (6.2M), the swings can be very significant. For such a small company, it is safe to assume that something happened that lead them to delay the conference call, and since they didn't tell what happen, investors assume the worst. It might end up as the CEO and CFO having bad stomach after celebrating 100% growth in revenue they were going to announce, but you'll have to wait and see....",
"\"Note that we do not comment on specific stocks here, and have no place doing so. If your question is only about that specific stock then it is off topic. I have not tried to answer that part below. The key to valuation is predicting the net present value of all of a company's cash flows; i.e. of their future profits and losses. Through a number of methods to long to explain here investment banks and hedge funds work out what they expect the company's cash flows to be and trade so that these future profits, losses etc. are priced into the stock price. Since future cash flows, profits or whatever you want to call them are priced in, the price of a stock shouldn't move at all on an earnings statement. This begs the question \"\"why do some stock prices move violently when they announce earnings?\"\" The models that the institutional investors use are not perfect and cannot take into account everything. An unexpected craze for a product or a supply chain agreement breaking down on not being as good as it seems will not be factored into this pricing and so the price will move based on the degree to which expectation is missed or exceeded. Since penny socks are speculative their value is based far more on the long term expected cash flows and less on the short run cash flows. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the highest market capitalisation penny stocks are those making consistent losses. This means that they can be far less susceptible to price movements after an earnings announcement even if it is well out of the consensus range. Higher (potential) future value comes with the higher risks of penny stocks which discounts current value. In the end if people's expectation of the company's performance reflects reality then the profitability is priced in and there will be no price movement. If the actuality is outside of the expected range then there will be a price movement.\"",
"It doesn't sound fishy at all to me. Just seems like you may be dealing with a company that has relatively light trading volume to begin with, meaning that small trades could easily make the price drop 8% (which isn't much if you're talking about a stocks in the $5 or less range. If someone sells at the bid and the bid happens to be 8% lower than the current price, that bid is now the price, hence the drop. The bid moving up afterward, just means that someone is now willing to place a higher order than what the last trade was, to try to get in.",
"Something to consider is that in the case of the company you chose, on the OTC market, that stock is thinly traded and with such low volume, it can be easy for it to fluctuate greatly to have trades occur. This is why volume can matter for some people when it comes to buying shares. Some OTC stocks may have really low volume and thus may have bigger swings than other stocks that have higher volume.",
"\"Often these types of trades fall into two different categories. An error by broker or exchange. Exchange clearing out part of their books incorrectly is an example. Most exchanges make firms reopen their positions for after market hours. There may have been an issue doing so or exchange could incorrectly cancel positions. I was in the direct feed industry for years and this was a big issue. At the same time the broker can issue a no limit buy on accident (or has software that is prospecting and said software has a bug or written poorly). unscrupulous parties looking to feign an upswing or downswing in market. Let's say you hold 500k shares in a stock that sells for $11. You could possibly buy 100 shares for $13. Trust me you will find a seller. Then you are hoping that people see that trade as a \"\"norm\"\" and trade from there, allowing you to rake in $1M for spending an extra $200 - NOTE this is not normal and an extreme example. This was so common in the early days of NASDAQ after hours that they discontinued using the after hours trades as part of historical information that they keep like daily/yearly high or closing price. The liquidity allows for manipulation. It isn't seen as much now since this has been done a million times but it does still happen.\"",
"\"There tends to be high volume around big changes in stock price. The volume of a stock does not remain constant and the term \"\"fat fingers\"\" can influence price.--> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-01/that-japanese-fat-finger-can-absolutely-happen-in-u-s-.html That being said keshlam is 99% right when it comes to a stock moving when their is no news or earnings announcements. Check out these papers. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6803.2010.01285.x/full They do a time series analysis to try and predict future prices off of past demand during news events. They forecast using auto-regressive models. google \"\"forecasting autoregressive model\"\" and the upenn lecture will be helpful. I would post another link but I cannot because I do not have enough rep/ This is more of a quant question. Hope this helps. JL\"",
"Volumes are used to predict momentum of movement, not the direction of it. Large trading volumes generally tend to create a price breakout in either positive or negative direction. Especially in relatively illiquid stocks (like small caps), sudden volume surges can create sharp price fluctuations.",
"\"Probably the biggest driver of the increased volumes that day was a change in sentiment towards the healthcare sector as a whole that caused many healthcare companies to experience higher volumes ( https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2017-07-11/asset-acquisitions-accelerate-in-healthcare-sector-boosting-potential-revenue-growth ). Following any spike, not just sentiment related spikes, the market tends to bounce back to about where it had been previously as analysts at the investment banks start to see the stock(s) as being overbought or oversold. This is because the effect of a spike on underlying ratios such as the Sharpe ratio or the PE ratio makes the stock look less attractive to buyers and more attractive to sellers, including short sellers. Note, however, that the price is broadly still a little higher than it was before the spike as a result of this change in sentiment. Looking at the price trends on Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/CDNA:US) the price had been steadily falling for the year prior to the spike but was levelling out at just over $1 in the few months immediately prior to the spike. The increased interest in the sector and the stock likely added to a general change in the direction of the price trend and caused traders (as opposed to investors) to believe that there was a change in the price trend. This will have lead to them trading the stock more heavily intraday exacerbating the spike. Note that there traders will include HFT bots as well as human traders. You question the legality of this volume increase but the simple answer is that we may never know if it was the target of traders manipulating the price or a case of insider trading. What we can see is that (taking \"\"animal spirits\"\" into account) without any evidence of illegality there are plenty of potential reasons why the spike may have occurred. Spikes are common where traders perceive a change in a trend as they rush to cash in on the change before other traders can and then sell out quickly when they realise that the price is fundamentally out of sync with the firm's underlying position. You yourself say that you have been watching the stock for some time and, by that fact alone, it is likely that others are for the same reasons that you are. Otherwise you wouldn't be looking at it. Where people are looking at a stock expecting it to take off or drop you expect volatility and volatility means spikes!\"",
"\"As you know, the market is in turmoil today. At this moment, 11:45 am, the S&P is down 2.3%, 45 points. But, premarket, it was down 100 points. Now, premarket, I heard Jim Cramer say, \"\"today is not the day to use market orders.\"\" Yes, on Mad Money, he seems a bit eccentric, but he does offer some wise advice at times. In my opinion, your stock had some people that did just that. A market order. And, regardless of the fundamentals of this company, buyers had no orders to buy. Except a couple wise guys (in both senses) that put in buys at crazy prices. And they filled. With an Apple, trading around $100, the book probably has millions of shares on order with a buy at $80 or higher. Just an example. I'd bet there were a number of stocks that had the profile of yours, i.e. a chart reflecting trades similar to a flash crash. There are some traders smiling ear to ear, and some crying in their beer. (Note - I use the phrase \"\"in my opinion.\"\" This is the only explanation I can imagine. Occam's Razor.)\"",
"A few days ago they launched Fannie Mae Guaranteed Multifamily Structures (link) but who knows? It's a penny stock now. Google Finance is pretty good at marking news right on the chart for a particular stock. That's how I tracked that piece of news down. Can't say that it precipitated a lot of people buying the stock, but Google Finance isn't a bad place to start looking.",
"Yes it is possible but with a caveat. It is a pattern that can be observed in many lightly traded stocks that usually have a small market cap. I am talking about a stock that trades less than 2,000 shares per day on average.",
"SEC forms are required when declaring insider activity. An insider is defined by the SEC to be a person or entity which (i) beneficially owns 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the company, (ii) is an officer or director of the company, or (iii), in the case of insider trading, does so based on knowledge which is not otherwise publically available at the time. At any rate, the person or entity trading the stock is required to file certain forms. Form 3 is filed when a person first transitions into the status of an insider (by becoming an officer, director, or beneficial owner of a certain percentage of stock). Form 4 is filed when an existing insider trades stock under the company's symbol. Form 5 is filed when certain insider trades of small value are reported later than usual. *More information can be found at the SEC's website. Another possibility is that a large number of options or derivatives were exercised by an officer, director, or lending institution. In the cases of officers or directors, this would need to be declared with an SEC form 4. For an institution exercising warrants obtained as a result of a lending agreement, either form 3 or 4 would need to be filed. In addition to the above possibilities, username passing through pointed out a very likely scenario in his answer, as well.",
"The reality that the share price did not move shows that there is nothing nefarious going on. It is most likely some mutual fund offloading their position to another fund. You can commonly see the play out at market openings if you have access to level II data. You will see a big block sitting on both sides of the same bid/ask. If you put in a higher bid (or vice versa) the two positions will move to match yours. And when the market opens their trade will be transacted BEFORE yours, even though you are thinking ... 'well I put in my bid first'. Obviously they have agreed to swap and agreed to use whatever value the market decides.",
"\"The penny/pink sheet stocks you tend to see promoted are the ones a) with small public floats or, b) they are thinly traded. This means that any appreciable change in buy/sell volume will have an outsized effect on the stock's share price, even when the underlying fundamentals are not so great. Promoters are frequently paid based on how much they can move a stock's price, but such moves are not long-lasting. They peter out when the trading volumes return to more normal ranges for the stock because all of the hype has died out. There are some small-cap NASDAQ stocks which can be susceptible to promotion for the same reason -- they have small floats and/or are thinly traded. Once someone figures out the best targets, they'll accumulate a position and then start posting all kinds of \"\"news\"\" on the web in an effort to drum up interest so they can sell off their position into the buying that follows. The biggest problem with penny/pink sheet stocks is that they frequently fail to publish reliable financial statements, and their ownership is of a dubious nature. In the past, these types of stocks have been targeted by organized crime syndicates, which ran their own \"\"pump and dump\"\" operations as a way to make relatively easy money. This may still be true to some extent today. Be wary of investing in any publicly-traded firm that has to use promoters to drum up investor interest, because it can be a serious red flag. Even if it means missing out on a short-term opportunity, research the company before investing. Read its financials, understand how it has behaved through its trading history, learn about the products/services it is selling. Do your homework. Otherwise you are doing the investing equivalent of taking your money and lighting it on fire. Remember, there's a good reason these companies are trading as penny/pink sheet stocks, and it generally has nothing to do with the notion (the promoters will tell you) that somehow the \"\"market has missed out on this amazing opportunity.\"\" Pump and dump schemes, which lie at the heart of almost all stock promotion, rely on convincing you, the investor, that you're smart enough to see what others haven't. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"If I understand you correctly, you are noticing that a stock's price can change drastically when the time changes from pre-market trading hours to open market hours. This could occur because a much smaller pool of investors make trades during pre-market and after-market hours. When the regular market opens there is a large influx of trades, causing the prices to jump.",
"This can arise with very thinly traded stocks for large blocks of shares. If the market only has a few thousand dollars available at between 8.37 and 12.5 the price is largely meaningless for people who want to invest in hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars worth, as the quoted price can't get them anywhere near the number of shares they want. How liquid is the stock in question?",
"\"Am I being absurd? No. Should I be worrying? Yes. If I sell in the morning, I've only lost a couple hundred dollars, and learned a valuable lesson. Is there any reason to believe it won't be that simple? If you're lucky, you'll be able to dump your stocks to someone like you who'll be punching himself in the face tomorrow night. If not - you're stuck. You may end up selling them to your broker as worthless. You might have become a victim of a \"\"pump and dump\"\" fraud. Those are hard to identify in real-time, but after been burned like that myself (for much lesser amounts than you though), I avoid any \"\"penny\"\" stocks that go up for no apparent (and verifiable) reason. In fact, I avoid them altogether.\"",
"If the period is consistent for company X, but occurs in a different month as Company Y, it might be linked to the release of their annual report, or the payment of their annual dividend. Companies don't have to end their fiscal year near the end of the Calendar year, therefore these end of year events could occur in any month. The annual report could cause investors to react to the hard numbers of the report compared to what wall street experts have been predicting. The payment of an annual dividend will also cause a direct drop in the price of the stock when the payment is made. There will also be some movement in prices as the payment date approaches.",
"\"The effect of making a single purchase, of size and timing described, would not cause market disequilibrium, it would only hurt you (and your P&L). As @littleadv said, you would be unlikely to get your order filled. You asked about making a \"\"sudden\"\" purchase. Let's say you placed the order and were willing to accept a series of partial fills e.g. in 5,000 or 10,000 share increments at a time, over a period of hours. This would be a more moderate approach. Even spread out over the span of a day, this remains unwise. A better approach would be to buy small lots over the course of a week or month. But your transaction fees would increase. Investors make money in pink sheets and penny stocks due to increases in share price of 100% (on the low end), with a relatively small number of shares. It isn't feasible to earn speculator profits by purchasing huge blocks (relative to number of shares outstanding) of stock priced < $1.00 USD and profit from merely 25% price increases on large volume.\"",
"\"Investors are \"\"forever\"\" comparing the prices of stocks to other stocks. As others have pointed out, this is done faster and more frequently nowadays with high-speed computer programs. There may be no \"\"fresh\"\" news on stock A, but if there is fresh news on stock B (as there usually is), the news on B affects the COMPARISON with stock A. That could be what causes trading in stock A that has \"\"no news.\"\"\"",
"\"And now it is at about $3. Many times \"\"skeletons\"\" are bought and inflated for various reasons. Some are legitimate (for example a private business merging into a defunct but public corporation to avoid wasting resources on going public), some are not (mainly pump-and-dump scams that are using \"\"skeletons\"\"). I don't know what was the case here (probably speculation based on the new marijuana laws in the US), but clearly the inflated price was completely unjustified since it went crashing down.\"",
"\"Certain brokers allow for hidden orders to be placed in the market. It is as simple as that. Refer to Interactive Brokers as one example. If you press on the \"\" i \"\" next to \"\"Hidden\"\" you will get the following description. Some brokers may represent the hidden orders by an * next to the price level. Sometimes large orders are place as these hidden orders to avoid large movements in the stock price (especially if the stock is illiquid as per your observation).\"",
"It's the buying and selling of the stock that causes the fluctuation in prices, not the news. People buy and sell all the time, and not just for newsworthy reasons. They may have to send a child to college, or fix a roof, etc. Or they may be technical traders looking for signals. All kinds of reasons.",
"\"Or it could be a Robinhood user just messing around with their free commissions. I've seen \"\"people that work for organizations\"\" and other analysts go crazy over some completely benign activity. It is like playing poker with a newbie, unpredictable.\"",
"Here are some significant factors affect the company stock price performance: Usually, profitability is known to the public through the financial statements; it won't be 100% accurate and people would also trade the stock with the price not matching to the true value of the firm. Still there are dozens of other various reasons exist. People are just not behaving as rational as what the textbook describes when they are trading and investing.",
"\"Be wary of pump and dump schemes. This scheme works like this: When you observe that \"\"From time to time the action explodes with 100 or 200% gains and volumes exceeding one million and it then back down to $ 0.02\"\", it appears that this scheme was performed repeatedly on this stock. When you see a company with a very, very low stock price which claims to have a very bright future, you should ask yourself why the stock is so low. There are professional stock brokers who have access to the same information you have, and much more. So why don't they buy that stock? Likely because they realize that the claims about the company are greatly exaggerated or even completely made up.\"",
"Yeah I get that. But there are literally people who make a very good living by simply shorting small/micro caps that pop for no particular reason. Imagine if you shorted DCTH after it went from .05 to .31 Now it sits at .16 and will likely fall to .10 and under. Those are where the money making opportunities are now. Hit a home run on the way up and double your gains on the way back down.",
"RonJohn is right, all shares are owned by someone. Depending on the company, they can be closely held so that nobody wants to sell at a given time. This can cause the price people are offering to rise until someone sells. That trade will cause an adjustment in the ticker price of that stock. Supply and demand at work. Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. The number of shares is low, the demand for them is high, the price per share is high.",
"Many of the above comments are correct about illiquidity. If someone needs to trade at a time of low liquidity, for instance when the markets are closed, the bid/ask spread can often be large to induce someone to trade at odd times. Especially as the broker/bank on the other side of the trade can't immediately go to the market to close out the risk as they often prefer to do. In this case the jump is actually is large but not that large (~4%). Note this trade price is near the close price on the day before. The system I use shows a trade that evening for 5 shares near the price on the graph. If you called me after I was done with work and tried to buy 5 shares I'd quote you a bad price too.",
"You have just answered your question in the last sentence of your question: More volume just means more people are interested in the stock...i.e supply and demand are matched well. If the stock is illiquid there is more chance of the spread and slippage being larger. Even if the spread is small to start with, once a trade has been transacted, if no new buyers and sellers enter the market near the last transacted price, then you could get a large spread occurring between the bid and ask prices. Here is an example, MDG has a 50 day moving average volume of only 1200 share traded per day (obviously it does not trade every day). As you can see there is already an 86% spread from the bid price. If a new bid price is entered to match and take out the offer price at $0.039, then this spread would instantly increase to 614% from the bid price.",
"\"Orders large enough to buy down the current Bid and Ask Book are common. This is the essential strategy through which larger traders \"\"Strip\"\" the Bid or Ask in order to excite motion in a direction that is favorable to their interests. Smaller traders will often focus on low float/small cap tickers, as both conditions tend to favor volatility on relatively small volume.\"",
"\"Because more people bought it than sold it. That's really all one can say. You look for news stories related to the event, but you don't really know that's what drove people to buy or sell. We're still trying to figure out the cause of the recent flash crash, for example. For the most part, I feel journalism trying to describe why the markets moved is destined to fail. It's very complicated. Stocks can fall on above average earnings reports, and rise on dismal annual reports. I've heard a suggestion before that people \"\"buy on the rumor, sell on the news\"\". Which is just this side of insider trading.\"",
"\"A stock split can force short sellers of penny stocks to cover their shorts and cauuse the price to appreciate. Example: Someone shorts a worthless pump and dump stock, 10,000 shares at .50. They have to put up $25,000.00 in margin ($2.50 per share for stocks under $2.50). The company announces a 3 to 1 split. Now the short investor must come up with $50,000.00 additional margin or be be \"\"bought in\"\". The short squeeze is on.\"",
"I think it's because there are a lot of retail investors in this stock. They are the ones that tend to overreact on news cycles, so creating bad press or over-hyping bad press really makes the stock price swing.",
"As a general principle the stock price on the stock market is controlled by an agreement between buyers and sellers. Some initial observations on this stock So, my take on this is one/more of the following My suspicion is the latter.",
"Two reasons why I think that's irrelevant: First, if it was on 3/31/2012 (two other sources say it was actually 4/3/2012), why the big jump two trading days later? Second, the stock popped up from $3.10 to $4.11, then over the next several trading days fell right back to $3.12. If this were about the intrinsic value of the company, I'd expect the stock to retain some value.",
"Well I'm not going to advise whether it's a good idea to invest in this company (though often OTC is pretty scary), but it DOES have a product (vivio, an ad blocker), it did post financials and it's trading on the OTC-QB (which is better than the pink sheets), so you need to look these over and study up on the product to decide if it is overpriced or not. What might have occurred (viz the Patriot Berry Farm becoming Cyberfort) is that the latter bought up the stock of the former (this is, I believe, called using a shell, which is not necessarily a bad thing) and is using this as a way to be registered, i.e. sell to non-accredited investors via the OTC market. So I'm really just answering your third question: yes, you have to do a lot of due diligence to see if buying this stock is a good deal or not. It might be the next big thing. Or it might not. It certainly is the case that low trading volume allows a relatively small trade to really change the stock price, so the penny stocks do tend to be easier to 'inflate'. Side comment: the bid/ask spreads are pretty big, with a best bid of 0.35 and best ask of 0.44.",
"\"Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the \"\"rules of the game\"\" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior.\"",
"\"Institutions may be buying large quantities of the stock and would want the price to go up after they are done buying all that they have to buy. If the price jumps before they finish buying then they may not make as great a deal as they would otherwise. Consider buying tens of thousands of shares of a company and then how does one promote that? Also, what kind of PR system should those investment companies have to disclose whether or not they have holdings in these companies. This is just some of the stuff you may be missing here. The \"\"Wall street analysts\"\" are the investment banks that want the companies to do business through them and thus it is a win/win relationship as the bank gets some fees for all the transactions done for the company while the company gets another cheerleader to try to play up the stock.\"",
"Because it's a declining company and used as an institutional sized pump and dump with a new toxic financing every week. Look up Kalani Investments - they're behind it all.",
"Extremely low volume and market cap is a big problem, especially when the information about the company is well hidden. Most penny stocks are shell corps with someone manipulating the prices. Although there are some big companies that sell different kind of shares on the otc market which might be worth looking into",
"I'm going to guess that you found this because of a stock screener. This company went through a 1:20 reverse split on June 30, so every 20 shares outstanding became a single share. Where before you had 20 shares worth $100 you now have 1 share worth $100, the value of the company doesn't change because of a split. This company was never trading for $30+ per share. Reverse splits are typical of a floundering company trading on an exchange that has a minimum share price requirement. While reverse splits don't change the value of the company, just the number of shares outstanding and the price per share, no healthy company performs a reverse split. Reverse splits are generally a massive signal to jump ship... The company seems to be trading for $1 right now, why the value fell from a pre-split $1.65 ($33/20) to $1 is anyone's guess; how the company ever got to $1.65 is also anyone's guess. But looking at the most recent 10-Q there are numerous causes for concern: Note 2. Capital Stock On March 6, 2017, the Company issued as compensation for services provided a total of 650,000 common shares with a fair value of $390,000 to a third party. The fair value of the shares was based on the price quoted on the OTC pink sheets on the grant date. this indicates a share price of $0.60 ($390,000/650,000) as of 3/6/2017, just to reinforce that the google price chart doesn't show the true past but a past adjusted for the split Results of Operations The three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016 For the three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016, total revenues were $0 and $0, respectively, and net losses from operations were $414,663 and $26,260, respectively. The net losses were attributable to costs attributable to operating as a public company, in particular, common stock with a valuation of $390,000 that was issued to an investor relations firm in the first quarter of 2017. Going Concern As of March 31, 2017, there is substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern as we have not generated sufficient cash flow to fund our proposed business. We have suffered recurring losses from operations since our inception. In addition, we have yet to generate an internal cash flow from our business operations or successfully raised the financing required to develop our proposed business. As a result of these and other factors, our independent auditor has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Liquidity and Capital Resources We had no cash as of the date of March 31, 2017. Additionally, since there is no balance sheet in the last 10-Q (another bad sign), the last annual report 10-K has this balance sheet: So the company: So why did the stock value plummet? It's anyones' guess but there is no shortage of ways to justify it. In fact, it's reasonable to ask how is this company still worth $3mm ($1 * 3mm shares outstanding)...",
"\"When you look at those results you'll see that it lists the actual market cap for the stocks. The ones on the biggest price move are usually close the the $1B capitalization cut-off that they use. (The don't report anything with less than $1B in capitalization on these lists.) The ones on the biggest market cap are much larger companies. So, the answer is that a 40% change in price on a company that has $1B capitalization will be a $400M change in market cap. A 4% change on a company with $100B capitalization will be a $4B change in market cap. The one that moved 40% will make the \"\"price\"\" list but not the market cap list and vice versa.\"",
"News about a company is not the only thing that affects its stock's price. There is also supply and demand. That, of course, is influenced by news, but it is not the only actor. An insider, with a large position in their company's stock, may want to diversify his overall portfolio and thus need to sell a large amount of stock. That may be significant enough to increase supply and likely reduce the stock's price somewhat. That brings me to another influence on stock price: perception. Executives, and other insiders with large positions in their company's stock, have to be careful about how and when they sell some of that stock as to not worry the markets. Many investors watch insider selling to gauge the health of the company. Which brings me to another important point. There are many things that may be considered news which is material to a certain company and its stock. It is not just quarterly filings, earnings reports and such. There is also news related to competitors, news about the economy or a certain sector, news about some weather event that affects a major supplier, news about a major earthquake that will impact the economy of a nation which can then have knock-on effects to other economies, etc... There are also a lot of investors with varying needs which will influence supply and demand. An institutional investor, needing to diversify, may reduce their position in a stock and thus increase supply enough that it impacts the stock's price. Meanwhile, individual investors will make their transactions at varying times during the day. In the aggregate, that may have significant impacts on supply and demand. The overall point being that there are a lot of inputs and a lot of actors in a complicated system. Even if you focus just on news, there are many things that fall into that category. News does not come out at regular intervals and it does not necessarily spread evenly. That alone could make for a highly variable environment.",
"These stocks have no value to them, are just waiting for paper work to liquefy and vanish. The other gamblers are bots waiting for some sucker to buy so they can sell right away. So maybe a fresh new penny stock that hasn't been botted yet gives some higher chance of success, but you probably need to be a bot to sell it quickly enough. All in all not that much different from buying regular stocks...",
"\"If you own a stake large enough to do that, you became regulated - under Section 13(d) of the 1934 Act and Regulation (in case of US stock) and you became regulated. Restricting you from \"\"shocking\"\" market. Another thing is that your broker will probably not allow you to execute order like that - directed MKT order for such volume. And market is deeper than anyone could measure - darkpools and HFTs passively waiting for opportunities like that.\"",
"If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.",
"This happens on dark pools quite often. If I am a large institutional investor with tens of millions of shares, I may want to unload slowly and limit the adverse affects on the price of the stock. Dark pools offer anonymity and have buyers / sellers that can handle large volume. In the case of a day trader, they often trade stocks with light volume (since they have large fluctuations that can be quite profitable throughout the session). At the end of the session, many traders are unwilling to hold positions on margin and want to unload fast.",
"In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price.",
"As said previously, most of the time volume does not affect stock prices, except with penny stocks. These stocks typically have a small volume in the 3 or 4 figure range and because of this they typically experience very sharp rises and drops in stock prices, contrasting normal stocks that go up and down constantly every minute. Volume is not one thing you should be looking at when analyzing a stock in most cases, since it is simply the number of people of trades made in a day. That has no effect on the value of the company, whereas looking at P/E ratios, dividend growth, etc all can be analyzed to see if a company is growing and is doing well in its field. If I buy an iPhone, it doesn't matter if 100 other people or 100,000 other people have bought it as well, since they won't really affect my experience with the product. Whereas the type of iPhone I buy will.",
"Does the market automatically assume a rescheduled call means something major, like the auditors aren't signing the financials, is going on? Yes. (If so, why?) People - including investors - are emotional. And suspicious. And paranoid. Financial discussions tend to make everything sound like a cold, clinical science, and to some degree that is true. But you should never look past something much more simple - people are people. And of course, once all is said and done, acts like a reschedule often do mean something is up. So you've now got a nice mix of fact and emotion. Does it mean that 95% of the shares' holders are insiders who all decided to sell when they learned about whatever is causing the delay in the con call? No. See Littleadv's answer.",
"This seemed very unrealistic, I mean who would do that? But to my immense surprise the market price increased to 5.50$ in the following week! Why is that? This is strange. It seems that people mistakenly [?] believe that the company should be at 5.5 and currently available cheap. This looks like irrational behaviour. Most of the past 6 months the said stock in range bound to 4.5 to 5. The last time it hit around 5.5 was Feb. So this is definitely strange. If the company had set a price of 6.00$ in the rights offering, would the price have increased to 6$? Obviously the company thinks that their shares are worth that much but why did the market suddenly agree? Possibly yes, possible no. It can be answered. More often the rights issue are priced at slight discount to market price. Why did this happen? Obviously management thinks that the company is worth that much, but why did the market simply believe this statement without any additional information? I don't see any other information; if the new shares had some special privileges [in terms of voting rights, dividends, etc] then yes. However the announcements says the rights issues is for common shares.",
"A stock is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it trades different values on different days, that means someone was willing to pay a higher price OR someone was willing to sell at a lower price. There is no rule to prevent a stock from trading at $10 and then $100 the very next trade... or $1 the very next trade. (Though exchanges or regulators may halt trading, cancel trades, or impose limits on large price movements as they deem necessary, but this is beside the point I'm trying to illustrate). Asking what happens from the close of one day to the open of the next is like asking what happens from one trade to the next trade... someone simply decided to sell or pay a different price. Nothing needs to have happened in between.",
"Apparent data-feed issues coming out of NASDAQ in the after hours market. Look at MSFT, AMZN, AAPL, heck even Sears. Funny thing though, is that you see traces of irregular prices during the active session around 10:20am on stocks like GOOG.",
"You have to look at stocks just like you would look at smaller and more illiquid markets. Stock trade in auction markets. These are analogous to ebay or craigslist, just with more transparency and liquidity. There is no guarantee that a market will form for a particular stock, or that it will sustain. When a stock sells off, and there are no bids left, that means all of the existing bidder's limit orders got filled because someone sold at those prices. There is nothing fishy about that. It is likely that someone else wants to sell even more, but couldn't find any more bidders. If you put a bid you would likely get filled by the shareholder with a massive position looking for liquidity. You could also buy at the ask.",
"You may simply be asking why stocks 'gap up' or 'gap down' when the stock market opens. This is because the price adjusts to news that occurred while the exchanges were closed overnight. Perhaps Asian stocks crashed, or perhaps a news story was released in the New York Times about some major company. There are thousands of factors that affect market sentiment, and the big gaps that happen at the open of every trading day is the price of the stocks catching up to those factors.",
"An old buddy of mine used to trade penny's and supposedly made a killing. Was taking trips all over the country, bought a place at the beach, always had NBA tickets to the best games. Later found out that he was actually selling drugs instead and was basically making nothing on the penny stock trading.",
"Pump-and-dump scams are indeed very real, but the scale of a single scam isn't anywhere near the type of heist you see in movies like Trading Places. Usually, the scammer will buy a few hundred dollars of a penny stock for some obscure small business, then they'll spam every address they have with advice that this business is about to announce a huge breakthrough that will make it the next Microsoft. A few dozen people bite, buy up a few thousand shares each (remember the shares are trading for pennies), then when the rise in demand pushes up the price enough for the scammer to make a decent buck, he cashes out, the price falls based on the resulting glut of stock, and the victims lose their money. Thus a few red flags shake out that would-be investors should be wary of:",
"\"I've alway thought that it was strange, but the \"\"price\"\" that gets quoted on a stock exchange is just the price of the last transaction. The irony of this definition of price is that there may not actually be any more shares available on the market at that price. It's also strange to me that the price isn't adjusted at all for the size of the transaction. A transaction of just 1 share will post a new price even if just seconds earlier 100,000 shares traded for a different price. (Ok, unrealistic example, but you get my point.) I've always believed this is an odd way to describe the price. Anyway, my diatribe here is supposed to illustrate the point that the fluctuations you see in price don't really reflect changing valuations by the stock-owning public. Each post in the exchange maintains a book of orders, with unmatched buy orders on one side and unmatched sell orders on the other side. If you go to your broker and tell him, \"\"fill my order for 50,000 shares at market price\"\", then the broker won't fill you 50,000 shares at .20. Instead, he'll buy the 50 @ .22, then 80 @ .23, then 100 @ .30, etc. Because your order is so large compared to the unmatched orders, your market order will get matched a bunch of the unmatched orders on the sell side, and each match will notch the posted price up a bit. If instead you asked the broker, \"\"open a limit order to buy 50000 shares at .20\"\", then the exchange will add your order to the book: In this case, your order likely won't get filled at all, since nobody at the moment wants to sell at .20 and historically speaking it's unlikely that such a seller will suddenly appear. Filling large orders is actually a common problem for institutional investors: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_16/b3929113_mz020.htm http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mkearns/papers/vwap.pdf (Written by a professor I had in school!)\"",
"\"At any moment, the price is where the supply (seller) and demand (buyer) intersect. This occurs fast enough you don't see it as anything other than bid/ask. What moves it? News of a new drug, device, sandwich, etc. Earning release, whether above or below expectations, or even dead-on, will often impact the price. Every night, the talking heads try to explain the day's price moves. When they can't, they often report \"\"profit taking\"\" for a market drop, or other similar nonsense. Some moves are simple random change.\"",
"\"It's a form of market manipulation. It makes it look like there is high trading volume, which gets attention from speculators and technical traders who see a ton of volume and think that there is some kind of news announcement or something. People start buying it so they don't miss out on whatever it is that \"\"everyone else\"\" is doing, and the price goes up.\"",
"\"EDIT: It was System Disruption or Malfunctions August 24, 2015 2:12 PM EDT Pursuant to Rule 11890(b) NASDAQ, on its own motion, in conjunction with BATS, and FINRA has determined to cancel all trades in security Blackrock Capital Investment. (Nasdaq: BKCC) at or below $5.86 that were executed in NASDAQ between 09:38:00 and 09:46:00 ET. This decision cannot be appealed. NASDAQ will be canceling trades on the participants behalf. A person on Reddit claimed that he was the buyer. He used Robinhood, a $0 commission broker and start-up. The canceled trades are reflected on CTA/UTP and the current charts will differ from the one posted below. It is an undesired effect of the 5-minute Trading Halt. It is not \"\"within 1 hour of opening, BKCC traded between $0.97 and $9.5\"\". Those trades only occurred for a few seconds on two occasions. One possible reason is that when the trading halt ended, there was a lot of Market Order to sell accumulated. Refer to the following chart, where each candle represents a 10 second period. As you can see, the low prices did not \"\"sustain\"\" for hours. And the published halts.\"",
"You'd need millions of dollars to trade the number of shares it would take to profit from these penny variations. What you bring up here is the way high frequency firms front-run trades and profit on these pennies. Say you have a trade commission of $5. Every time you buy you pay $5, every time you sell you pay $5. So you need a gain in excess of $10, a 10% gain on $100. Now if you wanted to trade on a penny movement from $100 to $100.01, you need to have bought 1,000 shares totaling $100,000 for the $0.01 price movement to cover your commission costs. If you had $1,000,000 to put at risk, that $0.01 price movement would net you $90 after commission, $10,000,000 would have made you $990. You need much larger gains at the retail level because commissions will equate to a significant percentage of the money you're investing. Very large trading entities have much different arrangements and costs with the exchanges. They might not pay a fee on each transaction but something that more closely resembles a subscription fee, and costs something that more closely resembles a house. Now to your point, catching these price movements and profiting. The way high frequency trading firms purportedly make money relates to having a very low latency network connection to a particular exchange. Their very low latency/very fast network connection lets them see orders and transact orders before other parties. Say some stock has an ask at $101 x 1,000 shares. The next depth is $101.10. You see a market buy order come in for 1,000 shares and place a buy order for 1,000 shares at $101 which hits the exchange first, then immediately place a sell order at $101.09, changing the ask from $101.00 to $101.09 and selling in to the market order for a gain of $0.09 per share.",
"\"In a sense, yes. There's a view in Yahoo Finance that looks like this For this particular stock, a market order for 3000 shares (not even $4000, this is a reasonably small figure) will move the stock past $1.34, more than a 3% move. Say, on the Ask side there are 100,000 shares, all with $10 ask. It would take a lot of orders to purchase all these shares, so for a while, the price may stay right at $10, or a bit lower if there are those willing to sell lower. But, say that side showed $10 1000, $10.25 500, $10.50 1000. Now, the volume is so low that if I decided I wanted shares at any price, my order, a market order will actually drive the market price right up to $10.50 if I buy 2500 shares \"\"market\"\". You see, however, even though I'm a small trader, I drove the price up. But now that the price is $10.50 when I go to sell all 2500 at $10.50, there are no bids to pay that much, so the price the next trade will occur at isn't known yet. There may be bids at $10, with asking (me) at $10.50. No trades will happen until a seller takes the $10 bid or other buyers and sellers come in.\"",
"There's an interesting paper, Does Investor Attention Affect Stock Prices? (Sandhya et al), where researchers look at related stock tickers. When a large cap, better-known stock jumps, smaller firms with similar symbols also rise. Pretty nuts -- I interviewed the author of the paper [here](http://www.tradestreaming.com/?p=3745). There's also a transcript.",
"Promotion of any stock should be treated with extreme suspicion, since the purpose is generally to make money for the promoter, not to inform the public.",
"This is just a shot in the dark but it could be intermarket data. If the stock is interlisted and traded on another market exchange that day then the Yahoo Finance data feed might have picked up the data from another market. You'd have to ask Yahoo to explain and they'd have to check their data.",
"Should go up, because people want to buy stock in company doing well. A company could be complete shit. But if Trump said, everyone buy this stock, it's going to save the seconded amendment and outlaw abortion. That shit would go through the fucking roof.",
"Large volume just means a lot of market participants believe they know where the stock price will be (after some amount of time). The fact that the price is not moving just means that about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving up, and about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving down.",
"\"Note: the answer below is speculative and not based on any first-hand knowledge of pump-and-dump schemes. The explanation with spamming doesn't really makes sense for me. Often you see a stock jump 30% or more in a single day at a particular moment in time. Unlikely that random people read their emails at that time and decide to buy. What I think happens is the pumper does a somewhat risky thing: starts buying a lot of shares of a stock that has declined a lot and had low volumes during the previous days. As the price starts to increase other people start to notice the jump and join the buying spree (also don't forget that some probably use buy-stop orders which are triggered when the price reaches a particular level). Also there should be some automatic trading involved (maybe HFT firms do pump-and-dumps) as you have to trade a big volume in a relatively short time span. I think it is unlikely to be done by human operators. Another explanation would be that there is a group of pumpers (to spread the risk so to speak). Update: As I think more of it, it is not necessary to buy \"\"a lot of shares\"\". You could buy some shares, sell them to another pumper and buy from them again at a higher price in several iterations. I think this could also work if you do it fast enough. These scheme makes sense only you previously bought many shares at the low price, possibly during several weeks. Once the price is pumped high enough you can start selling the shares you previously bought (in the days preceding the pump).\"",
"\"The Indian regulator (SEBI) has banned trading in 300 shell companies that it views as being \"\"Shady\"\", including VB Industries. According to Money Control (.com): all these shady companies have started to rally and there was a complaint to SEBI that investors are getting SMSs from various brokerage firms to invest in them This suggests evidence of \"\"pump and dump\"\" style stock promotion. On the plus side, the SEBI will permit trading in these securities once a month : Trading in these securities shall be permitted once a month (First Monday of the month). Further, any upward price movement in these securities shall not be permitted beyond the last traded price and additional surveillance deposit of 200 percent of trade value shall be collected form the Buyers which shall be retained with Exchanges for a period of five months. This will give you an opportunity to exit your position, however, finding a buyer may be a problem and because of the severe restrictions placed on trading, any bid prices in the market are going to be a fraction of the last trade price.\"",
"How can they reduce the number of shares I hold? They may have purchased them. You don't say what stock it is, so we can only speculate. Let's say that the stock is called PENNY. So they may have taken your 1600 PENNY shares and renamed them to 1600 PENNYOLD shares. Then they created a new $5 PENNY share and gave you .2357 shares of that in exchange for your 1600 PENNYOLD shares. This suggests that your old shares were worth $1.1785 or less than a tenth of a cent each. As an example, MYLAN did this in 2015 as part of their tax inversion (moved official headquarters from the US to Europe). They did not change the number of shares at that time, but MYLAN is not a penny stock. This is the kind of thing that might happen in a bankruptcy. A reverse split (where they give you one share in exchange for more than one share) is also possible, although you received an odd amount for a reverse split. Usually those produce rounder numbers. A number like .2357 sounds more like a market price, as those can be bizarre.",
"Any time a large order it placed for Buy, the sell side starts increasing as the demand of Buy has gone up. [Vice Versa is also true]. Once this orders gets fulfilled, the demand drops and hence the Sell price should also lower. Depending on how much was the demand / supply without your order, the price fluctuation would vary. For examply if before your order, for this particular share the normal volume is around 100's of shares then you order would spike things up quite a bit. However if for other share the normal volume is around 100000's then your order would not have much impact.",
"You say: Every time it seems the share price dips. Does it? Have you collected the data? It may just be that you are remembering the events that seem most painful at the time. To move the market with your trade you need to be dealing in a large amount of shares. Unless the stock is illiquid (e.g most VCT in the UK), I don’t think you are dealing in that large a number; if you were then you would likely have access to a real time feed of the order book and could see what was going on.",
"\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"",
"Nanex just doesn't have the data. Some guy at CNBC, knowing that this stuff is great fodder for pageviews, *particularly* when there is a mysterious unnamed firm (its much too boring when there is an actual firm named, and the reason turns out to be something mundane like a slow market data feed), scooped it up and packaged it into a fear mongering story, and here we are.",
"It has got to do with market perceptions and expectation and the perceived future prospects of the company. Usually the expectation of a company's results are already priced into the share price, so if the results deviate from these expectations, the share price can move up or down respectfully. For example, many times a company's share price may be beaten down for increasing profits by 20% above the previous year when the expectation was that it would increase profits by 30%. Other times a company's share price may rise sharply for making a 20% loss when the expectation was that it would make a 30% loss. Then there is also a company's prospects for future growth and performance. A company may be heading into trouble, so even though they made a $100M profit this year, the outlook for the company may be bleak. This could cause the share price to drop accordingly. Conversely, a company may have made a loss of $100M but its is turning a corner after reducing costs and restructuring. This can be seen as a positive for the future causing the share price to rise. Also, a company making $100M in profits would not put that all into the bank. It may pay dividends with some, it may put some more towards growing the business, and it might keep some cash available in case cash-flows fluctuate during the year.",
"\"In addition to what @George Marian said, a very large portion of trades are from computer programs trained to make trades when certain apparent patterns are observed. Since these programs are not all designed in the same way, much of the supply and demand is a result of different algorithms with different \"\"opinions\"\" on what the stock is doing.\"",
"\"Once upon a time I ran my own micro hedge fund for a very short time. I can't recall the term commonly used in the industry for such info, but a few individuals, including the prime brokerage firm's founder, offered information of questionable character. I refused to trade on any of it, not only because of the borderline illegality, but also because I didn't trust any of it... seemed to be more rumor mill type nonsense than anything else. Moreover, if they already have that info, then it's already up/down... so it then goes the reverse direction as they take profits. As is commonly said even in normal investor circles: \"\"buy the rumor, sell the news.\"\"\"",
"Consider the case where a stock has low volume. If the stock normally has a few hundred shares trade each minute and you want to buy 10,000 shares then chances are you'll move the market by driving up the price to find enough sellers so that you can get all those shares. Similarly, if you sell way more than the typical volume, this can be an issue.",
"The price gaps up because the offer is for a price above the current price. Therefore people want to buy now before the price jumps to the offer level. Of course it does depend on the tone of the announcement, which party is making the announcement, and are they announcing an offer or a deal. If the price is $10, and the offer is for $12; then the price may quickly jump. The early buyers will make the most quick money. They hope that the deal is done quickly, or if not the final price ends up higher. There are risks. The company could reject the offer. The due diligence could expose a problem. The regulators could reject the deal based on anti-trust issues. The deal could take many months to complete. Or the final deal could be for shares in the new company. The risks are one reason people sell after the deal/offer is announced. In other cases the seller finally is seeing a profit, or a smaller loss and wants out while they can.",
"Aside from the market implications Victor and JB King mention, another possible reason is the dividends they pay. Usually, the dividends a company pays are dependent on the profit the company made. if a company makes less profit, the dividends turn out smaller. This might incite unrest among the shareholders, because this means that they get paid less dividends, which makes that share more likely to be sold, and thus for the price to fall.",
"Short-term, the game is supply/demand and how the various participants react to it at various prices. On longer term, prices start to better reflect the fundamentals. Within something like week to some month or two, if there has not been any unique value affecting news, then interest, options, market maker(s), swing traders and such play bigger part. With intraday, the effects of available liquidity become very pronounced. The market makers have algos that try to guess what type of client they have and they prefer to give high price to large buyer and low price to small buyer. As intraday trader has spreads and commissions big part of their expenses and leverage magnifies those, instead of being able to take advantage of the lower prices, they prefer to stop out after small move against them. In practise this means that when they buy low, that low will soon be the midpoint of the day and tomorrows high etc if they are still holding on. Buy and sell are similar to long call or long put options position. And options are like insurance, they cost you. Also the longer the position is held the more likely it is to end up with someone with ability to test your margin if you're highly leveraged and constantly making your wins from the same source. Risk management is also issue. The leveraged pros trade through a company. Not sure if they're able to open another such company and still open accounts after the inevitable.",
"Simple, there is no magic price adjustment after sales - why do you expect the stock price to change? The listed price of a stock is what someone was willing to pay for it in the last deal that was concluded. If any amount of stock changes ownership, this might have the effect that other people are willing to buy it for a higher price - or not. It is solely in the next buyer's decision what he is willing to pay. Example: if you think Apple stocks are worth 500$ a piece, and I buy a million of them, you might still think they are worth 500$. Or you might see this as a reason that they are worth 505$ now.",
"Most penny stocks go to zero because most businesses fail. You stated in your original post that you were wondering specifically about companies with no assets. These are exactly the kind that fail and go to zero. There are many holes within the regulatory structure that allow for many accounting tricks in penny stock land. And even in areas that are adequately regulated, there will be few to no remedies for the optimistic penny stock shareholder speculator.",
"No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.",
"\"Many people assume that if the price of something is $10 and they have 1,000 of that thing, they should expect to be able to sell them for something around $10,000. Such an assumption may hold much of the time, but it doesn't always. Worse, the cases where it fails to hold are often those where it would be relied upon most heavily. Such an assumption should thus be considered dangerous. In a liquid market, the quantity of a something that people would be willing to buy at something close to the market price will be large relative to the quantity that people would seek to sell in the short term. If at some moment in time one person in the market was willing to immediately buy 500 shares at $9.98 and another was willing to immediately buy 750 at $9.97, someone seeking to sell 1,000 shares could immediately receive $997.50 for them (selling 500 to the first person and 500 to the second, who would then be ready to buy 250 more from the first person who was willing to sell for $9.97). Such behavior would be in line with what many people's assumptions. In an illiquid market, however, the quantity of something that people would be willing to buy near market price could be surprisingly low. This is more often a problem in the marketplace of things like collectibles than of stocks, but the same thing can happen in the stock market. If there's one potential buyer for a stock who thinks it's overpriced but has potential and would be worth $9.50, but that person only has $950 to spend, and nobody else thinks the stock would be worth more than $0.02/share, then until people sold a total of 100 shares the price would be $9.50, but after that the price would drop instantly to $0.02. There would be no \"\"cushioning\"\" of the fall. If the person with 1,000 shares was first in line, he'd get to sell 100 shares for $950 to the aforementioned seller, but would be unable to get more than $18 for the remaining 900. A major danger with markets is that markets which are perceived as liquid attract people to the buying side, while those which are seen as illiquid repel people. The danger in the latter is obvious (having people flee a seemingly-illiquid market will reduce its liquidity further) but the former is just as bad. Having people flock to a market because of its perceived liquidity will increase its liquidity, but can also create a \"\"false price floor\"\", causing demand to appear much stronger than it actually is. Unless real demand increases to match the false price floor, the people who buy at the higher price will never be able to recoup their investment.\"",
"\"You are interpreting things wrong. Indian Infotech and Software Ltd (BOM:509051) clearly has volume and trades. The MoneyControl site says Your words like \"\"Nobody is selling the stock\"\" and \"\"no trade going on\"\" are completely unfounded.\"",
"yea pure speculation for now. ICO price of (icnonomi coin) ICN at .14 cents a share, 8 months later it hits $1.50 then $5.18 per share. smh it's wild. $5,000 @ .14cents => 35,000 shares $185,000 profit off of $5,000 in 8ish months, just insane. worth the risk for a quick flip? maybe hence all the wild speculators and dumb money coming to the market after hearing about over night millionaires. Also attracts the sharks and smart traders, the mob gets scared really easy in these exchanges.",
"It is because 17th was Friday, 18th-19th were weekends and 20th was a holiday on the Toronto Stock Exchange (Family Day). Just to confirm you could have picked up another stock trading on TMX and observed the price movements.",
"\"Pump-and-Dump strategy is happening everywhere. Less so in developed market. I can tell an experience from Emerging Market perspective. Usually several securities brokers work together to pump several \"\"penny\"\" stocks (5 - 7 stocks). They conspire together and searching for several investors, who have money and willing to participate in this scheme. These investors will then agree to invest (usually with Margin from securities) to start pumping the stocks. The stocks will be pumped until several Research Analysts take interest in it. Once the news were spread out regarding these highly speculative stocks. The investors gradually dumps the stocks (with help of their brokers). The things that you need to keep an eye for: - Low trading volume in the previous 3 - 6 months (relative to their peers) - Low P/E ratio with unremarkable earning growth - No positive catalyst or material news regarding the company - Stocks have high momentum (observe on weekly rather daily returns) Pump-and-dump usually last between 3 months to 6 months.\"",
"At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders. Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread. As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00. If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation. A number of buyers cancel their orders. Now the highest buy order is $7. There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7. That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000. Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share). Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock. Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1. Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money. Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE.",
"Honestly this sounds like a bug. In the early days of HFT, quote stuffing looked like this, but everyone created anti manipulation algos that do Fourier transforms to catch that kind of behavior. Modern manipulation is much cleverer than this. Source: I have designed anti manipulation algos for a HFT firm."
] |
[
"\"Yes, in my humble opinion, it can be \"\"safe\"\" to assume that — but not in the sense that your assumption is necessarily or likely correct. Rather, it can be \"\"safe\"\" in the respect that assuming the worst — even if wrong! — could save you from a likely painful and unsuccessful speculation in the highly volatile stock of a tiny company with no revenue, no profits, next to no assets, and continued challenges to its existence: \"\"There is material uncertainty about whether the Company will be able to obtain the required financing. This material uncertainty casts significant doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.\"\" As a penny stock, they are in good company. Still, there are a variety of other reasons why such a stock might have gone up, or down, and no one [here] can say for sure. Even if there was a news item, any price reaction to news could just amount to speculation on the part of others having enough money to move the stock. There are better investments out there, and cheaper thrills, than most penny stocks.\""
] |
7928
|
If I believe a stock is going to fall, what options do I have to invest on this?
|
[
"480967",
"118633",
"501504",
"499811"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"480967",
"24563",
"427808",
"499811",
"118633",
"171784",
"172338",
"140371",
"137073",
"501504",
"30427",
"510006",
"353224",
"485760",
"443926",
"410404",
"158006",
"357739",
"12542",
"292338",
"268802",
"39265",
"393083",
"95415",
"275768",
"421285",
"230666",
"166597",
"451203",
"139914",
"31432",
"388613",
"115652",
"461062",
"69395",
"350366",
"437208",
"30305",
"516227",
"294688",
"260384",
"66219",
"564214",
"308859",
"358586",
"184557",
"549422",
"546637",
"519461",
"556810",
"528754",
"363719",
"485791",
"228217",
"27401",
"428786",
"480879",
"253998",
"387141",
"92267",
"163433",
"249185",
"570173",
"470226",
"502164",
"179919",
"259706",
"532907",
"423513",
"13260",
"221881",
"173745",
"160169",
"526574",
"247902",
"267113",
"517873",
"232880",
"364421",
"39402",
"199642",
"432111",
"298866",
"136042",
"276314",
"162768",
"216065",
"215118",
"565417",
"84853",
"591229",
"100103",
"594303",
"118039",
"376162",
"281533",
"584090",
"568299",
"55535",
"272547"
] |
[
"\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"",
"Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15.",
"If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.",
"Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.",
"\"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \"\"hard to borrow,\"\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\"",
"\"Depends on how far down the market is heading, how certain you are that it is going that way, when you think it will fall, and how risk-averse you are. By \"\"better\"\" I will assume you are trying to make the most money with this information that you can given your available capital. If you are very certain, the way that makes the most money for the least investment from the options you provided is a put. If you can borrow some money to buy even more puts, you will make even more. Use your knowledge of how far and when the market will fall to determine which put is optimal at today's prices. But remember that if the market stays flat or goes up you lose everything you put in and may owe extra to your creditor. A short position in a futures contract is also an easy way to get extreme leverage. The extremity of the leverage will depend on how much margin is required. Futures trade in large denominations, so think about how much you are able to put to risk. The inverse ETFs are less risky and offer less reward than the derivative contracts above. The levered one has twice the risk and something like twice the reward. You can buy those without a margin account in a regular cash brokerage, so they are easier in that respect and the transactions cost will likely be lower. Directly short selling an ETF or stock is another option that is reasonably accessible and only moderately risky. On par with the inverse ETFs.\"",
"The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online.",
"To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.",
"Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up. Selling short allows for unlimited losses. Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game. If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense. For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign. Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live. Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up.",
"What financial instruments are there that are profitable when an underlying assets falls? The instrument you are looking for is called an Option, specifically a Put Option. It allows you, within the validity date, to sell ('Put') the respective shares to the option giver, at the predefined Strike Price. For example, let's assume APPL trades currently at 100 $ per share, and you think they will go down a lot. You buy one Put Option for 100 shares (they always come for larger amounts like 100s) for a Strike Price of 90 $, and pay 5 $ for it (it would be cheap if nobody believes they will fall that much). Note the last sentence under 2. - it is rather easy and very common when trading options to make complete losses. You have been warned. Are they available for IPOs? They could be available for IPOs, even before the IPO. However, someone has to put them out (some large bank, typically), which is some effort, and they would only do that if they expect enough interest and volume in the trade. most of the time, there will be no such options on the market. Are they available for foreign stocks?Yes, but again only selectively - only if the stock is well known and interesting enough for a broad audience.",
"You don't have to think it is going down, it is currently trending down as on a weekly chart there are lower lows and lower highs. Until there is a higher low with confirmation of a higher high, the downtrend will continue. The instrument you use to profit from a market drop depends on your risk profile, the time frame you are looking at, and your trading plan and risk management. With a put option your loss is limited to your initial premium and your potential profits can be quite large compared to the premium paid, however your timeframe is limited to the expiry of the option. You could buy a longer dated option but this will cost more in the premium you pay. With inverse ETF you are not restricted by an expiry date, but if you don't have appropriate risk management in place your potential losses can be large. With a leveraged inverse ETF again you are not restricted by an expiry date, you can potentially make higher percentage profits than with an standard ETF. but once again your losses can be very large (larger than you initial investment) if you don't have appropriate risk management in place.",
"The problem with short options is they expire and have to be covered. An inverse ETF is the way to go in my opinion. Because the real issue isn't if the market is overvalued but when will it correct. That's the risk and no one knows that answer",
"\"Yes, you could sell what you have and bet against others that the stock price will continue to fall within a period of time \"\"Shorting\"\". If you're right, your value goes UP even though the stock price goes down. This is a pretty darn risky bet to make. If you're wrong, there's no limit to how much money you can owe. At least with stocks they can only fall to zero! When you short, and the price goes up and up and up (before the deadline) you owe it! And just as with stocks, someone else has to agree to take the bet. If a stock is pretty obviously tanking, its unlikely that someone would oppose your bet. (It's probably pretty clear that I barely know what I'm talking about, but I was surprised not to see this listed among the answers.)\"",
"\"Do you want to do it pre or post correction? If you're bearish on the market the obvious thing to do is short an index. I would say this is kind of dumb. The main problem is that it may take months or years for the market to crash, and by then it will have gone up so much that even the crash doesn't bring you profit, and you're paying borrowing fees meanwhile as well. You need to watch the portfolio also, when you short sell you'll get a bunch of cash, which you most likely will want to invest, but once you invest it, the market can spike and pummel your short position, resulting in negative remaining cash (since you already spent it). At that point you get a margin call from your broker. If you check your account regularly, not a big deal, but bad things can happen if you treat it as a fire and forget strategy. These days they have inverse funds so you don't have to borrow anything. The fund manager borrows for you. I'd say those are much better. The less cumbersome choice is to simply sell call options on the index or buy puts. These are even cash options, so when you exercise you get/lose money, not shares. You can even arrange them so that your potential loss is capped. (but honestly, same goes for shorts - it's called a stop loss) You could also wait for the correction and buy the dip. Less worrying about shorts and such, but of course the issue is timing the crash. Usually the crashes are very quick, and there are several \"\"pre-crashes\"\" that look like it bottomed out but then it crashes more. So actually very difficult thing to tell. You have to know either exactly when the correction will be, or exactly what the price floor is (and set a limit buy). Hope your crystal ball works! Yet another choice is finding asset classes uncorrelated or even anticorrelated with the broader market. For instance some emerging markets (developing countries), some sectors, individual stocks that are not inflated, bonds, gold and so on can have these characteristics where if S&P goes down they go up. Buying those may be a safer approach since at least you are still holding a fundamentally valuable thing even if your thesis flops, meanwhile shorts and puts and the like are purely speculative.\"",
"If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand.",
"There are 2 primary ways to bet against a stock if you think it will decline. The first is to short sell shares of that stock the second is to buy put options (I would also add that selling naked call options would also be a bet against but I don't believe that is as common as the other 2 mentioned methods). The problem with short selling an IPO is that you first have to borrow the shares you are going to sell. Since the shares are privately held prior to the IPO that can be problematic. Even after the IPO you may have to wait a bit before shares become available to borrow. The problem with options (either buying puts or seeking naked calls) is similar. Options are traded on a different exchange than the stock and they have their own requirements that a stock must meet to have options traded. Both of these problems eventually correct themselves however, not in time for you to catch the initial fall you seem to be looking for.",
"There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged. For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500. (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well. For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility. As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises. One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX.",
"While I am not an advocate of shorting anything (unlimited downside, capped upside), you can:",
"Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).",
"If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.",
"Without commenting on your view of the TV market: Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure: 1.Short the stocks Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet 2.Options a. Write Calls b. Buy puts Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta 3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts. Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain",
"In addition to the higher risk as pointed out by @JamesRoth, you also need to consider that there are regulations against 'naked shorting' so you generally need to either own the security, or have someone that is willing to 'loan' the security to you in order to sell short. If you own a stock you are shorting, the IRS could view the transaction as a Sell followed by a buy taking place in a less than 30 day period and you could be subject to wash-sale rules. This added complexity (most often the finding of someone to loan you the security you are shorting) is another reason such trades are considered more advanced. You should also be aware that there are currently a number of proposals to re-instate the 'uptick rule' or some circuit-breaker variant. Designed to prevent short-sellers from driving down the price of a stock (and conducting 'bear raids etc) the first requires that a stock trade at the same or higher price as prior trades before you can submit a short. In the latter shorting would be prohibited after a stock price had fallen a given percentage in a given amount of time. In either case, should such a rule be (re)established then you could face limitations attempting to execute a short which you would not need to worry about doing simple buys or sells. As to vehicles that would do this kind of thing (if you are convinced we are in a bear market and willing to take the risk) there are a number of ETF's classified as 'Inverse Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's) for a variety of markets that via various means seek to deliver a return similar to that of 'shorting the market' in question. One such example for a common broad market is ticker SH the ProShares Short S&P500 ETF, which seeks to deliver a return that is the inverse of the S&P500 (and as would be predicted based on the roughly +15% performance of the S&P500 over the last 12 months, SH is down roughly -15% over the same period). The Wikipedia article on inverse ETF's lists a number of other such funds covering various markets. I think it should be noted that using such a vehicle is a pretty 'aggressive bet' to take in reaction to the belief that a bear market is imminent. A more conservative approach would be to simply take money out of the market and place it in something like CD's or Treasury instruments. In that case, you preserve your capital, regardless of what happens in the market. Using an inverse ETF OTOH means that if the market went bull instead of bear, you would lose money instead of merely holding your position.",
"Some ADRs have standardized options that trade on US exchanges. If your stock/ADR is one of those, then you find the put option through most brokerages that deal with stock options and trade the option like you would on a regular stock. If your ADR does not have standardized options, then your options will depend on where the ADR trades. If it's OTC, you might not even be able to short it. If it trades on a major exchange, the shorting the ADR may be a viable choice.",
"\"You may look into covered calls. In short, selling the option instead of buying it ... playing the house. One can do this on the \"\"buying side\"\" too, e.g. let's say you like company XYZ. If you sell the put, and it goes up, you make money. If XYZ goes down by expiration, you still made the money on the put, and now own the stock - the one you like, at a lower price. Now, you can immediately sell calls on XYZ. If it doesn't go up, you make money. If it does goes up, you get called out, and you make even more money (probably selling the call a little above current price, or where it was \"\"put\"\" to you at). The greatest risk is very large declines, and so one needs to do some research on the company to see if they are decent -- e.g. have good earnings, not over-valued P/E, etc. For larger declines, one has to sell the call further out. Note there are now stocks that have weekly options as well as monthly options. You just have to calculate the rate of return you will get, realizing that underneath the first put, you need enough money available should the stock be \"\"put\"\" to you. An additional, associated strategy, is starting by selling the put at a higher than current market limit price. Then, over a couple days, generally lowering the limit, if it isn't reached in the stock's fluctuation. I.e. if the stock drops in the next few days, you might sell the put on a dip. Same deal if the stock finally is \"\"put\"\" to you. Then you can start by selling the call at a higher limit price, gradually bringing it down if you aren't successful -- i.e. the stock doesn't reach it on an upswing. My friend is highly successful with this strategy. Good luck\"",
"Put Options. They're less risky than shorting, and have similar upsides. The major difference is that if the price goes up, you're just out the underwriting price. You'll also need to know when the event will happen, or you risk being outwaited. More traditionally, an investor would pull their money out of the market and move into Treasury bonds. Recall that when the market tanked in 2008, the price of treasuries jumped. Problem is, you can only do that trade once, and it hasn't really unwound yet. And the effect is most pronounced on short term treasuries, so you have to babysit the investment. Because of this, I think some people have moved into commodities like gold, but there's a lot of risk there. Worst case scenario you have a lot of shiny metal you can't eat or use.",
"Invest in an etf called SPXS and hope for a market correction in the next month. Or if you know a lot about markets and trends, select from this list of leveraged etfs available from Direxion.",
"There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company. These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts. Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts. An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio. As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish. Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss). Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff. If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them. Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place. Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both:",
"Options are contractual instruments. Most options you'll run into are contracts which allow you to buy or sell stock at a given price at some time in the future, if you feel like it (it gives you the option). These are Call and Put options, respectively (for buying the stock and selling the stock). If you have a lot of money in an index fund ETF, you may be able to protect your portfolio against a market decline by (e.g.) buying Put options against the ETF for a substantially lower price than the index fund currently trades at. If the market crashes and your fund falls in value significantly, you can exercise the options, selling the fund at the price that your option has specified (to the counter-party of your contract). This is the risk that the option mitigates against. Even if you don't have one particular fund with your investments, you could still buy a put option on a similar fund, and resell it to another person in lieu of exercise (they would be capable of buying the stock and performing the exercise themselves for profit if necessary). In general, if you are buying an option for safety, it should be an option either on something you own, or something whose price behavior will mimic something you own. You will note that options are linked to the price of stocks. Futures are contracts whose values are linked to the price of other things, typically commodities such as oil, gold, or orange juice. Their behaviors may diverge. With an option you can have a contractual guarantee on the exact investment you're trying to protect. (Additionally, many commodities' value may fall at the same time that stock investments fall: during economic contractions which reduce industrial activity, resulting in lower profits for firms and less demand for commodities.) You may also note that there are other structures that options may have - PUT options on index funds or similar instruments are probably most specifically relevant to your interests. The downside of protecting yourself with options is that it costs money to buy this option, and the option eventually expires, so you may lose money. Essentially, you are buying safety and risk-tolerance from the option contract's counterparty, and safety is not free. I cannot inform you what level of safety is appropriate for your portfolio's needs, but more safety is more expensive.",
"Another option is to short whatever interest rate you think will go up. For example, if you think that interest on treasuries will go up, then short treasuries.",
"\"I think what you really want to look into is put options. You can essentially replicate the same thing, without worrying about margin calls. Check out this site http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/options/options-basic-charts.php a quick glance seems to show it to be pretty good. The way you would limit downside risk is to buy a put option, allowing you to sell anytime within the next n months for the current price (assuming american). This will allow you to limit downside risk, however, potential profits do go down due to fees as another answer suggests this could be cost prohibitive. This type of strategy is also known as a \"\"protective put\"\". http://www.optionseducation.org/strategies_advanced_concepts/strategies/protective_put.html If you wanted to be more refined you could use Ak's bands, although you have to be looking for that specific outcome. Also due to complexity, this can become a taxing (in terms of time invested) and risky (if you are wrong) investment. Either way I think you need to study payoff curves a little more.\"",
"The time when you might want to do this is if you think BBY is undervalued already. If you'd be happy buying the stock now, you'd be happy buying it lower (at the strike price of the put option you sold). If the stock doesn't go down, you win. If it does, you still win, because you get the stock at the strike price. If I recall correctly Warren Buffett did this with Coca-Cola. But that's Warren Buffett.",
"If you were certain you would probably do best by short selling an ETF that tracked the index for the market you think was about to tank. You'd certainly make a lot more money on that strategy than precious metals. If you were feeling super confident and want to make your money earn even more, you could also buy a bunch of put options on those same ETF funds. Obligatory Warning: Short selling and options can be extremely risky. While most investments cap your potential losses to your total investment, a short sale has no theoretical limit to the amount of money you can lose.",
"\"Of the two, an option is a more reliable but more expensive means to get rid of a stock. As sdg said, a put option is basically an insurance policy on the stock; you pay a certain price for the contract itself, which locks in a sale price up to a particular future date. If the stock depreciates significantly, you exercise the option and get the contract price; otherwise you let the contract expire and keep the stock. Long-term, these are bad bets as each expired contract will offset earnings, but if you foresee a near-term steep drop in the stock price but aren't quite sure, a put option is good peace of mind. A sell stop order is generally cheaper, but less reliable. You set a trigger price, say a loss of 10% of the stock's current value. If that threshold is reached, the stop order becomes a sell order and the broker will sell the stock on the market, take his commission (or a fixed price depending on your broker) and you get the rest. However, there has to be a buyer willing to buy at that price at the moment the trigger fires; if a stock has lost 10% rapidly, it's probably on the way down hard, and the order might not complete until you realize a 12% loss, or a 15%, or even 20%. A sell stop limit (a combination stop order and limit order) allows you to say that you want to sell if the stock drops to $X, but not sell if it drops below $X-Y. This allows you to limit realized losses by determining a band within which it should be sold, and not to sell above or below that price. These are cheaper because you only pay for the order if it is executed successfully; if you never need it, it's free (or very cheap; some brokers will charge a token service fee to maintain a stop or stop limit). However, if the price drops very quickly or you specify too narrow a band, the stock can drop through that band too quickly to execute the sell order and you end up with a severely depreciated stock and an unexercised order. This can happen if the company whose stock you own buys another company; VERY quickly, both stocks will adjust, the buying company will often plummet inside a few seconds after news of the merger is announced, based on the steep drop in working capital and/or the infusion of a large amount of new stock in the buying company to cover the equity of the purchased company. You end up with devalued stock and a worthless option (but one company buying another is not usually reason to sell; if the purchase is a good idea, their stock will recover). Another option which may be useful to you is a swaption; this basically amounts to buying a put option on one financial instrument and a call on another, rolled into one option contract specifying a swap. This allows you to pick something you think would rise if your stock fell and exchange your stock for it at your option. For example, say the stock on which you buy this swaption is an airline stock, and you contract the option to swap for oil. If oil surges, the airline's stock will tank sharply, and you win both ways (avoiding loss and realizing a gain). You'd also win if either half of this option realized a gain over the option price; oil could surge or the airline could tank and you could win. You could even do this \"\"naked\"\" since its your option; if the airline's stock tanks, you buy it at the crashed price to exercise the option and then do so. The downside is a higher option cost; the seller will be no fool, so if your position appears to be likely, anyone who'd bet against you by selling you this option will want a pretty high return.\"",
"\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \"\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\"\"\"",
"\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"",
"If you want to make money while European equities markets are crashing and the Euro itself is devaluing: None of these strategies are to be taken lightly. All involve risk. There are probably numerous ways that you can lose even though it seems like you should win. Transaction fees could eat your profits, especially if you have only a small amount of capital to invest with. The worst part is that they all involve timing. If you think the crash is coming next week, you could, say, buy a bunch of puts. But if the crash doesn't come for another 6 months, all of your puts are going to expire worthless and you've lost all of your capital. Even worse, if you sell short an index ETF this week in advance of next week's impending crash, and some rescue package arrives over the weekend, equity prices could spike at the beginning of the week and you'd be screwed.",
"Adding on to all the fine answers, you can consider selling a covered call. You will have to own a minimum of 100 shares. It will offer a bit of protection, but limit your upside. If your confident long term, but expect a broader market pull back then a covered call might give you that small protection your looking for.",
"Buy puts on stock holdings buy puts on indexes look at volatility etfs and silver/gold etf s. Calling a market top is hard people hVe tried for 8 years now. 90 of protection via options expires worthless. Who knows if we have another crash. I don't call tops or bottoms if we start falling then I'll look at protection and play the downside",
"(buy these when you expect the price to go down) You 'lock in' the price you can sell at. If the price goes down below the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the new low price and sell at the higher 'locked-in' price; make money. (buy these when you expect the price to go up) You 'lock in' the price you can buy at. If the price goes up above the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the 'locked-in' price and sell at the new higher price, make money.",
"The only use of options that I will endorse is selling them. If you believe the market is going down then sell covered, out of the money, calls. Buying calls or buying puts usually wastes money. That is because of a quality called Theta. If the underlying security stays the same the going price of an option will decrease, every day, by the Theta amount. Think of options as insurance. A person only makes money by selling insurance, not by buying it.",
"\"Yes, you can insure against the fall in price of stock by purchasing a put option. You pay for a put and if the price of the share falls below the \"\"strike price\"\" of the put, then you can exercise the put. On exercise, the person who sold you the put contract agrees to buy the stock for the strike price, even though that strike price is higher than the market price. You can adjust the level of insurance by buying put options at higher or lower prices, or buying fewer put options than shares you own (leaving some shares uninsured). Alternatively, you can minimize your risk exposure by investing in an index or other fund, which gives you partial ownership in a large number of shares. That means on any given day, lots of shares do worse and lots of shares do better. You can reduce the need for insurance by purchasing a lower-risk, lower-growth financial product.\"",
"If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.",
"In India the only way to short a stock is using F&O which I personally find to be sufficient for any shorting needs. However, Futures can be generally sold for upto 3 months but options have more choices which are even upto 5 years you can buy a put of a longer duration and when you want to do buy-back, you can directly sell the same option by squaring-off the trade before expiry date. You generally get approximately the same profit as shorting but you get to limit your risk.",
"\"Could have done a [put option](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put_option) if you wanted to bet against it in another way. It's not technically \"\"shorting\"\", but in a layman-shorthand it's the same thing - making money gambling on the \"\"pessimistic side\"\" of possibility. You don't actually need to borrow any shares to do that, just find someone who thinks the price at some later date will be higher than you think it will be.\"",
"\"I saw that an answer hasn't been accepted for this yet: Being bearish is a good hedging strategy. But being hedged is a better hedging strategy. The point being that not everything in investments is so binary (up, and down). A lot of effective hedges can have many more variables than simply \"\"stock go up, stock go down\"\" As such, there are many ways to be bearish and profit from a decline in market values without subjecting yourself to the unlimited risk of short selling. Buying puts against your long equity position is one example. Being long an ETF that is based on short positions is another example.\"",
"Make a portfolio with gold and put options for gold. If the price rises again, sell a part of your gold and use it to buy new put options. If the price goes down, then use your put options to sell gold at a favorable price.",
"\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\"",
"Depends on your time scale, but generally, I don't think it would work. What you'd really be betting on in this case is mean-reversal, which does not hold true in the equity universe (atleast not in the long run). If you look at the historical prices of the S&P, you'll notice it increases in terms of absolute dollar value. On the short term, however, if you feel the market has significantly undervalued or overvalued a security, then mean-reversal might be a reasonable bet to make. In that scenario, however, it seems to me that you are really looking for a volatility trade, in which case you might want to consider a straddle position using options. Here, the bet you'd be making is that the price at expiration will be inside a certain band (or outside the band, depending on your position).",
"A specific strategy to make money on a potentially moderately decreasing stock price on a dividend paying stock is to write covered calls. There is a category on Money.SE about covered call writing, but in summary, a covered call is a contract to sell the shares at a set price within a defined time range; you gain a premium (called the time value) which, when I've done it, can be up to an additional 1%-3% return on the position. With this strategy you're collecting dividends and come out with the best return if the stock price stays in the middle: if the price does not shoot up high enough that your option is called, you still own the stock and made extra return; if the price drops moderately, you may still be positive.",
"If you are worried about elections think about writing some calls against your long positions to help hedge. If you have MSFT (@ $51.38 right now) you could write a MSFT Call for lets say $55. You can bank $170 per 100 shares (let's say you write it at 1.70) (MSFT 01/20/2017 55.00 C 1.73 +0.01 Bid: 1.69 Ask: 1.77) If MSFT goes down a lot you will have lost $170 less per 100 shares than you would have because you wrote an option for $170. You will in fact be break even if the stock falls to 49.68 on the Jan Strike Date. If MSFT goes up $3.50 you will have made $170 and still have your MSFT stock for a net gain of $520. $170 in cash for the premium and your stock is now worth $350 more. If MSFT goes up $3.62 or more you will have made the max $530ish and have no MSFT left potentially losing additional profit if the stock goes up like gang busters. So is it worth it for you to get $170 in cash now and risk the stock going up more than $5 between now and Jan. That is the decision to make here.",
"You can employ a hedging strategy using short selling, put options, or other methods that will partially neutralize your exposure to the overall market. e.g. You could short sell a market-wide index such as the S&P500, while going long (buying) the company you are interested in. Investopedia has a nice primer on this: Also, see this related question here:",
"\"As ChrisInEdmonton describes, shorting has an asymmetric risk/reward ratio. And put options have a time cost, if you think the market is overvalued and buy lots of puts, but they expire before the market finally corrects, you can lose your entire investment. Betting on market timing of any kind is extremely difficult to do, some would argue it's impossible. \"\"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent\"\" is a favorite wall street trader saying. Instead of playing a game that's difficult to win, the better option is to play one you can win. That's to learn how to value individual investments well and accumulate cash until you can find investments that are under-valued to invest in. The best way to learn to value investments is to read Graham and Buffett. \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a good starting point, and you can read all of Buffett's investor letters for the last 30 years + for free on the Berkshire Hathaway web site. Finally the textbook on valuing stocks and other investments is \"\"Securities Analysis\"\" the 6th edition is only version to get, it was updated with Buffett and other leading value investors oversight. A basic overview of valuing investments is that every investment has an \"\"intrinsic value\"\" consisting of it's future cash flows, discounted for the time it takes to receive them. The skill is being able to estimate how likely those cash flows are to happen. a) Is it a good business? Does it have a moat, i.e. barriers that make it hard for competitors to duplicate it? b) Will management invest or distribute those cash flows wisely? Then your strategy is to not even worry about the market, spend your time looking at individual stocks and investments and wait until some come along that's well undervalued. That may be during a market correction, or it may be tomorrow. And it's not just good enough to intelligently value your investments, you also have to have psychological fortitude to not panic and to think for yourself. Buffett describes it best. Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his. Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you. But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game. Lastly learning to value investments isn't just useful in the stock market, they are applicable to investing in any investment such as bonds, real estate, and even buying your home or running a business.\"",
"The only problem with writing puts is that you need to buy the futures, and at the moment at least that is what I am trying to avoid (trying to be as frugal with my investing dollars). I will however consider that strategy, since it does make sense.",
"Put options are basically this. Buying a put option gives you the right but not the obligation to sell the underlying security at a certain date for a fixed price, no matter its current market value at that time. However, markets are largely effective, and the price of put options is such that if you bought them to cover you the whole time, you would on average pay more than you'd gain from the underlying security. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment.",
"\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"",
"How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.",
"> The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire You're on to something: the reason why some prefer to write (sell) options instead of buying. Neutral to bullish on crude oil? Sell puts on /CL at 90-95% probability OTM. You keep your money if the underlying moves up or does nothing, within the days to expiration.",
"\"> It just has to finish below the strike price of the short (which can be higher than the stock's current price). You're talking about a put option. That's one \"\"short\"\" strategy, but it's not shorting a stock, so the terminology is a little jumbled. There are reasons to not do straight options, because they can be quite risky, and you have to get the time frame correct.\"",
"Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!",
"The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.",
"There are many stategies with options that you have listed. The one I use frequently is buy in the money calls and sell at the money staddles. Do this ONLY on stocks you do not mind owning because that is the worse thing that can happen and if you like the company you stand less of a chance of being scared out of the trade. It works well with high quality resonable dividend paying stocks. Cat, GE, Mrk, PM etc. Good luck",
"Marketwatch reports that the 108 strike call option sells for 1.45, down 1.53 from yesterday. If we split the bid and ask you get 1.415. That is what that contract will, likely, trade at. The biggest problems with options are commissions and liquidity. I have seen a commission as high as $45 per trade. I have also seen open interest disappear overnight. Even if you obtain contracts that become worth more than you paid for them you may find that no one wants to pay you what they are worth. Track your trade over a few weeks to see how you would have done. It is my experience that the only people who make money on options are the brokers.",
"If your broker lets you, you could just short GLD shares. The borrow cost is de minimis (it looks like it's basically zero at the moment), and there's no real upfront cost aside from the margin you'd have to post against the position. Don't forget to set a stop, though. You can also look at buying lower-strike puts (the lower the strike, the cheaper the cost). Don't go selling calls - that's probably outside your risk profile.",
"Apple closed Friday 9/23 at $403.40. This is what the Puts look like, note the 2013 expiration. (The rest is hypothetical, I am not advising this.) As a fan of Apple and feeling the stock may stay flat but won't tank, I sell you the $400 put for $64.65. In effect I am saying that I am ready willing and able to buy aapl for $400 (well, $40,000 for 100 shares) and I have enough margin in my account to do so, $20,000. If Apple keeps going up, I made my $6465 (again it's 100 shares) but no more. If it drops below $400, I only begin to lose money if it goes below $335.35. You, the put buyer are betting it will drop by this amount (more than 15% from today) and are willing to pay the price for this Put today.",
"I am very surprised no one mentioned the Stock Repair Option Strategy which has real benefits and is one of the mainstream Option Strategies. Quote: Who Should Consider Using the Stock Repair Strategy? In a nutshell, you are buying call options with current strike price (at-the-money) and sell call options with higher strike price (out-of-the-money), all with the same expiry dates. The only reason to also sell call options here is to recover your premium paid for the other call options. If you are comfortable paying that premium, you just buy the call options without selling the others. In case your stock will rise moderately to a price between the two strike prices, your call option will rise together with your stock, so you will be faster to recover your money. This is the main reason it is called Repair. If you have sold any call options, as the price rises, you have to be careful when it reaches the strike price of the options sold, as from there on you will begin incurring losses. It is however exactly the lucky outcome you were hoping for, your stock is higher, and you can buy back those loss making options - then or shortly before. If you didn't sell any options and payed your premium, you don't need to worry at all at this stage. WARNING It should be noted that the Stock Repair Strategy offers no protection for your stock price further falling down. In that case all those options will expire worthless or you can sell back the ones your bought but likely not for much. In order to have the downside protection for your stock, there are other strategies, the simplest one being buying a Put Option at-the-money or slightly lower. That will effectively cut your possible losses to the Option Premium (which is the main use of that option). Again, if you hate to pay that premium, you can offset it by selling other options that you either hope won't be exercised or take steps to protect you against those.",
"For a cheaper hedge , you can try a call spread. e.g if you shorted a stock at 40 but are worried that it can get bought out for 60. then buy a 50-60 bull call spread with appropriate number of contracts or even 50-55. this is better than just buying a 50 call as it will be expensive. Also the other option is not to short but buy a debit bear put spread 40-30 near the money and then buy an out of money call spread ( 55-60).",
"\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"",
"PST, or any of the Ultra Short/Long funds aren't actually holding any traditional securities -- just swaps that are betting on the underlying asset. They also don't track the value of the underlying security over time -- just for one day. (And they're not even guaranteed to do that!) IEF is an actual treasury bond fund that holds real-life treasury securities, not swaps. Shorting a fund like IEF is one option, another is to buy options on a fund like IEF. Be very careful investing with ETFs, and don't buy any until you fully read and understand the prospectus. I got burned by an Ultra Long ETF because I didn't do my homework.",
"If you are looking for a simple formula or buying order / strategy to guarantee a lower buying price, unfortunately this does not exist. Otherwise, all investors would employ this strategy and the financial markets would no longer have an validity (aka arbitrage). Buying any investment contains a certain level of risk (other than US treasuries of course). Having said that, there are many option buying strategies that can employed to help increase your ROR or hedge an existing position. Most of these strategies are based a predicted future direction of a stock on the investor's part. For example, you hold the Ford stock and feel they are releasing their earnings report next week. You feel that they will not meet investors' expectations. You don't want to sell your shares but what you can do is buy put options. If the stock does indeed go down then you make money on your put options. Here is a document on options. It is moderately technical but very good if you want a good introduction on the subject. The strategy that I described above is on pg 33. http://www.m-x.ca/f_publications_en/en.guide.options.pdf",
"Options reflect expectations about the underlying asset, and options are commonly priced using the Black-Scholes model: N(d1) and N(d2) are probability functions, S is the spot (current) price of the asset, K is the strike price, r is the risk free rate, and T-t represents time to maturity. Without getting into the mathematics, it suffices to say that higher volatility or expectation of volatility increases the perceived riskiness of the asset, so call options are priced lower and put options are priced higher. Think about it intuitively. If the stock is more likely to go downwards, then there's an increased chance that the call option expires worthless, so call options must be priced lower to accommodate the relative change in expected value of the option. Puts are priced similarly, but they move inversely with respect to call option prices due to Put-Call parity. So if call option prices are falling, then put option prices are rising (Note, however, that call prices falling does not cause put prices to rise. The inverse relationship exists because of changes in the underlying factors and how pricing works.) So the option action signifies that the market believes the stock is headed lower (in the given time frame). That does not mean it will go lower, and option traders assume risk whenever they take a particular position. Bottom line: gotta do your own homework! Best of luck.",
"\"Covered calls, that is where the writer owns the underlying security, aren't the only type of calls one can write. Writing \"\"uncovered calls,\"\" wherein one does NOT own the underlying, are a way to profit from a price drop. For example, write the call for a $5 premium, then when the underlying price drops, buy it back for $4, and pocket the $1 profit.\"",
"Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.",
"Yes, theoretically you can flip the shares you agreed to buy and make a profit, but you're banking on the market behaving in some very precise and potentially unlikely ways. In practice it's very tricky for you to successfully navigate paying arbitrarily more for a stock than it's currently listed for, and selling it back again for enough to cover the difference. Yes, the price could drop to $28, but it could just as easily drop to $27.73 (or further) and now you're hurting, before even taking into account the potentially hefty commissions involved. Another way to think about it is to recognize that an option transaction is a bet; the buyer is betting a small amount of money that a stock will move in the direction they expect, the seller is betting a large amount of money that the same stock will not. One of you has to lose. And unless you've some reason to be solidly confident in your predictive powers the loser, long term, is quite likely to be you. Now that said, it is possible (particularly when selling puts) to create win-win scenarios for yourself, where you're betting one direction, but you'd be perfectly happy with the alternative(s). Here's an example. Suppose, unrelated to the option chain, you've come to the conclusion that you'd be happy paying $28 for BBY. It's currently (June 2011) at ~$31, so you can't buy it on the open market for a price you'd be happy with. But you could sell a $28 put, promising to buy it at that price should someone want to sell it (presumably, because the price is now below $28). Either the put expires worthless and you pocket a few bucks and you're basically no worse off because the stock is still overpriced by your estimates, or the option is executed, and you receive 100 shares of BBY at a price you previously decided you were willing to pay. Even if the list price is now lower, long term you expect the stock to be worth more than $28. Conceptually, this makes selling a put very similar to being paid to place a limit order to buy the stock itself. Of course, you could be wrong in your estimate (too low, and you now have a position that might not become profitable; too high, and you never get in and instead just watch the stock gain in value), but that is not unique to options - if you're bad at estimating value (which is not to be confused with predicting price movement) you're doomed just about whatever you do.",
"Buying a put is hedging. You won't lose as much if the market goes down, but you'll still lose capital: lower value of your long positions. Buying an ultrashort like QID is safer than shorting a stock because you don't have the unlimited losses you could have when you short a stock. It is volatile. It's not a whole lot different than buying a put; it uses futures and swaps to give the opposing behavior to the underlying index. Some places indicate that the tax consequences could be severe. It is also a hedge if you don't sell your long positions. QID opposes the NASDAQ 100 which is tech-heavy so bear (!) that in mind. Selling your long positions gets you out of equities completely. You'll be responsible for taxes on capital gains. It gets your money off of the table, as opposed to playing side bets or buying insurance. (Sorry for the gambling analogy but that's a bit how I feel with stock indices now :) ).",
"If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.",
"The nature of options requires you to understand that they are essentially a bet. In one sense, so is investing in stocks. We imagine a bell curve (first mistake) with a median return at 10%/yr and a standard deviation of about 14%. Then we say that odds are that over some period of time a monte-carlo simulation can give us the picture of the likely returns. Now, when you buy short term options, say one month or so, you are hoping the outcome is a rise in price that will yield some pretty high return, right? There was a time I noticed a particular stock would move a large percent based on earnings. And earnings were a day before options expiration. So I'd buy the call that was just out of the money and if the surprise was up, I'd make 3-4X my money. But I was always prepared to lose it all and often did. I never called this investing. I know of no recovery strategy. Sorry.",
"You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises. You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position. It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.)",
"A long put - you have a small initial cost (the option premium) but profit as the stock goes down. You have no additional risk if the shock rises, even a lot. Short a stock - you gain if the stock drops, but have unlimited risk if it rises, the call mitigates this, by capping that rising stock risk. The profit/loss graph looks similar to the long put when you hold both the short position and the long call. You might consider producing a graph or spreadsheet to compare positions. You can easily sketch put, call, long stock, short stock, and study how combinations of positions can synthetically look like other positions. Often, when a stock has no shares to short, the synthetic short can help you put your stock position in place.",
"Roll it into another put with a lower strike and hope it keeps going down. At the very least it will defray the cost of the long position. Ps I think you're looking for the word hedge not lever.",
"It definitely depends on your risk appetite as Joe Taxpayer pointed out in his answer. Covered calls are a good choice for someone who already own's the stock, because the premium collected reduces the cost basis for the position. The downside is that if the calls are exercised, there is a good chance that you are missing out on additional upside in the stock price (because the strike is obviously below the market value for the stocks). Another good option trade is the spread option. This would allow you to capture the difference between the two strikes of the options in the spread. This is also one of the less risky choices because your initial cost an potential profit/loss are known in advance of entering the position.",
"By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call. For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price. The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.",
"I do this often with shares that I own - mostly as a learning/experience-building exercise, since I don't own enough individual stocks to make me rich (and don't risk enough to make me broke). Suppose I own 1,000 shares of X. I don't expect my shares to go down, but I want to be compensated in case they do go down. Sure, I could put in a stop-loss order, but another option is to sell a call above where the stock is now (out-of-the-money). So I get the premium regardless of what happens. From there three things can happen: So a covered call essentially lets you give up some upside for some compensation against downward moves. Mathematically it's roughly equivalent to selling a put option - you make a little money (from the premium) if the stock goes up but can lose a lot if the stock plummets. So you would sell call options if:",
"I think that those options might well be your best bet, given the potential 700% return in one year if you're right. You could look and see if any Synthetic Zeros (a Synthetic Zero is a derivative that will pay out a set amount if the underlying security is over a certain price point) exist for the share but chances are if they do they wouldn't offer the 700% return. Also might be worth asking the question at the quant stack exchange to see if they have any other ideas.",
"Yes, if the call expires worthless, leaving you with stock. Then you can exercise your put when the stock goes below put strike price.",
"Selling options is a great idea, but tweak it a bit and sell credit spreads on both sides of the market, i.e. sell OTM bear call spreads and OTM bull put spreads. This is also known as an iron condor, and limits risk, and allows for much more flexibility.",
"The strategy looks good on paper but in reality, the 150 call will have some time value particularly if it has got some time to mature. Let us say this time value is 0.50 , so the call costs 3.50. If the stock stays above 150 (actually above 149.50) , by the expiration of the call, you will lose this 0.50 . Then you need to keep buying calls over and over and hope one day a big down move will more than make up for all this lost premium. It is possible, but not entirely predictable. You may get lucky, but it may take many months to produce a significant move to make up for all the lost premium. If a big down move were to happen and the market had any indication of that in advance, that would be priced into the call already, so the 150 call may cost 4$ or 4.50$ if the market had wind of a big move. (a.k.a high implied volatility)",
"You should also consider what the cost of the Put is, especially if the strike price is set at the current price, vs the average price delta of the security during the period between when you buy the put, and the expiration date. Also note the prices for puts on stocks with a lot of price volatility. There are a good number of situations where you may come out behind. If the stock stays the same price, you are out the premium you paid for the put. If the stock price rises less than the premium, you are out the difference between the two. If the stock price falls less than the premium, you are out the difference between the two. In order to be 'in the money' when writing a protective put, the stock has to either rise more than the premium you paid for the put (and you MUST sell, or hold and write off the expense of the put) or the stock price has to fall below the strike price to a level lower than the premium you paid, and you must SELL via the exercising the option. and you've protected yourself from a loss (presuming you were going to sell and not hold and see if the stock recovers. And since selling is required in both cases, if you've held the stock less than a year, then pay on any profits at short term rates (taxed as regular income) and if the price went down, you can't claim any loss (unless strike price was below your buy price), and would still need to pay if you had a net gain, and you likely can't deduct the price you paid for the put.",
"\"Bull means the investor is betting on a rising market. Puts are a type of stock option where the seller of a put option promises to buy 100 shares of stock from the buyer of the put option at a pre-agreed price called the strike price on any day before expiration day. The buyer of the put option does not have to sell (it is optional, thats why it is called buying an option). However, the seller of the put is required to make good on their promise to the buyer. The broker can require the seller of the put option to have a deposit, called margin, to help make sure that they can make good on the promise. Profit... The buyer can profit from the put option if the stock price moves down substantially. The buyer of the put option does not need to own the stock, he can sell the option to someone else. If the buyer of the put option also owns the stock, the put option can be thought of like an insurance policy on the value of the stock. The seller of the put option profits if the stock price stays the same or rises. Basically, the seller comes out best if they can sell put options that no one ends up using by expiration day. A spread is an investment consisting of buying one option and selling another. Let's put bull and put and spread together with an example from Apple. So, if you believed Apple Inc. AAPL (currently 595.32) was going up or staying the same through JAN you could sell the 600 JAN put and buy the 550 put. If the price rises beyond 600, your profit would be the difference in price of the puts. Let's explore this a little deeper (prices from google finance 31 Oct 2012): Worst Case: AAPL drops below 550. The bull put spread investor owes (600-550)x100 shares = $5000 in JAN but received $2,035 for taking this risk. EDIT 2016: The \"\"worst case\"\" was the outcome in this example, the AAPL stock price on options expiry Jan 18, 2013 was about $500/share. Net profit = $2,035 - $5,000 = -$2965 = LOSS of $2965 Best Case: AAPL stays above 600 on expiration day in JAN. Net Profit = $2,035 - 0 = $2035 Break Even: If AAPL drops to 579.65, the value of the 600 JAN AAPL put sold will equal the $2,035 collected and the bull put spread investor will break even. Commissions have been ignored in this example.\"",
"Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.",
"You can buy out of the money put options that could minimize your losses (or even make you money) in the event of a huge crash. Put options are good in that you dont have to worry about not getting filled, or not knowing what price you might get filled with a stop-loss order, however, put options cost money and their value decays over time. It's just like buying insurance, you always have to pay up for it.",
"I would make a change to the answer from olchauvin: If you buy a call, that's because you expect that the value of call options will go up. So if you still think that options prices will go up, then a sell-off in the stock may be a good point to buy more calls for cheaper. It would be your call at that point (no pun intended). Here is some theory which may help. An options trader in a bank would say that the value of a call option can go up for two reasons: The VIX index is a measure of the levels of implied volatility, so you could intuitively say that when you trade options you are taking a view on two components: the underlying stock, and the level of the VIX index. Importantly, as you get closer to the expiry date this second effect diminishes: big jumps up in the VIX will produce smaller increases in the value of the call option. Taking this point to its limit, at maturity the value of the call option is only dependent on the price of the underlying stock. An options trader would say that the vega of a call option decreases as it gets closer to expiry. A consequence of this is that if pure options traders are naturally less inclined to buy and hold to expiry (because otherwise they would really just be taking a view on the stock price rather than the stock price & the implied volatility surface). Trading options without thinking too much about implied volatities is of course a valid strategy -- maybe you just use them because you will automatically have a mechanism which limits losses on your positions. But I am just trying to give you an impression of the bigger picture.",
"Firstly, going short on a stock and worrying if the price suddenly gaps up a lot due to good news is the same as being long on a stock and worrying that the price will suddenly collapse due to bad news. Secondly, an out of the money call option would be cheaper than an in the money call option, in fact the further out of the money the cheaper the premium will be, all other things being equal. So a good risk management strategy would be to set your stop orders as per your trading plan and if you wish to have added protection in case of a large gap is to buy a far out of the money call option. The premium should not be too expensive. Something you should also consider is the time until expiry for the option, if your time frame for trading is days to weeks you make consider a cheaper option that expires in about a month, but if you are planning on holding the position for more than a month you might need a longer expiry period on the option, which will increase the premium. Another option to consider, if your broker offers it, is to use a guaranteed stop loss order. You will pay a little premium for this type of order and not all brokers offer it, but if it is offered you will be protected against any price gaps past your guaranteed stop loss price.",
"Options, both puts and calls, are typically written/sold at different strike prices. For example, even though the stock of XYZ is currently trading at $12.50, there could be put options for prices ranging from $0.50 to $30.00, just as an example. There are several factors that go into determining the strike prices at which people are willing to write options. The writer/seller of an option is the person on the other side of the trade that has the opposite opinion of you. If you are interested in purchasing a put on a stock to hedge your downside, that means the writer/seller of the put is betting that you are wrong and that the stock price will rise instead.",
"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.",
"They can sell a lower price call if they expect the stock to plummet in the near term but they are bullish on the longer term. What they are looking to do is collect the call premium and hope it expires worthless. And then again 'hope' that the stock will ultimately turn around. So yes, a lot of hoping. But can you explain what you mean by 'my brokerage gives premiums for prices lower than the current price'? Do you mean you pay less in commissions for ITM calls?",
"\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"",
"An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time.",
"If you already own shares in a company and sell some, you won't be short selling these shares if sold from the same brokerage account, because your existing shares with that broker need to be sold first before you are able to short sell any. If you own a portfolio of shares however, you may be able to short sell an index to hedge your current portfolio. Also, if you have your existing shares in a company but don't want to sell your existing shares, for example you don't want to crystallise a capital gain, you can always hedge you current shares by short selling them through a different broker. Some other hedging options possibly available to you include: buying put options over the shares, writing cover call options, or short selling some other derivatives like CFDs (if your country allows them).",
"If the position starts losing money as soon as it is put on, then I would close it out ,taking a small loss. However, if it starts making money,as in the stock inches higher, then you can use part of the premium collected to buy an out of money put, thereby limiting your downside. It is called a collar.",
"\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \"\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\"\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \"\"Don't do this\"\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\""
] |
[
"\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"",
"\"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \"\"hard to borrow,\"\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\"",
"What financial instruments are there that are profitable when an underlying assets falls? The instrument you are looking for is called an Option, specifically a Put Option. It allows you, within the validity date, to sell ('Put') the respective shares to the option giver, at the predefined Strike Price. For example, let's assume APPL trades currently at 100 $ per share, and you think they will go down a lot. You buy one Put Option for 100 shares (they always come for larger amounts like 100s) for a Strike Price of 90 $, and pay 5 $ for it (it would be cheap if nobody believes they will fall that much). Note the last sentence under 2. - it is rather easy and very common when trading options to make complete losses. You have been warned. Are they available for IPOs? They could be available for IPOs, even before the IPO. However, someone has to put them out (some large bank, typically), which is some effort, and they would only do that if they expect enough interest and volume in the trade. most of the time, there will be no such options on the market. Are they available for foreign stocks?Yes, but again only selectively - only if the stock is well known and interesting enough for a broad audience.",
"Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out."
] |
9771
|
Is there any emprical research done on 'adding to a loser'
|
[
"263955",
"28740"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"263955",
"498075",
"156398",
"445439",
"178105",
"432665",
"239714",
"505509",
"71924",
"106740",
"28740",
"351137",
"511159",
"62706",
"280626",
"222639",
"12201",
"385095",
"299367",
"563271",
"150544",
"306705",
"336722",
"199020",
"8857",
"524238",
"312154",
"61832",
"38287",
"370995",
"192307",
"276883",
"507507",
"71873",
"69308",
"593521",
"535998",
"491843",
"191066",
"109455",
"138096",
"548673",
"133373",
"237450",
"423229",
"214003",
"280483",
"473504",
"319793",
"117491",
"17184",
"212450",
"440882",
"396657",
"304918",
"221869",
"373034",
"18532",
"555639",
"491567",
"272091",
"573612",
"116647",
"594935",
"532485",
"60728",
"496209",
"221238",
"378173",
"267113",
"474981",
"594159",
"292609",
"483394",
"379994",
"349545",
"545143",
"176254",
"482517",
"502358",
"493043",
"285259",
"207325",
"289989",
"484897",
"465320",
"13299",
"102757",
"365025",
"145458",
"440805",
"371195",
"588569",
"442830",
"306189",
"368348",
"442727",
"550468",
"207788",
"386985"
] |
[
"\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \"\"trade\"\" turned into an \"\"investment\"\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\"",
"\"The response to this question will be different depending which of the investment philosophies you are using. Value investors look at the situation the company is in and try to determine what the company is worth and what it will be worth in the future. Then they look at the current stock price and decide whether or not the stock is priced at a good deal or not. If the stock price is priced lower than they believe the company is worth, they would want to buy stock, and if the price rises above what they believe to be the true value, they would sell. These types of investors are not looking at the history or trend of what the price has done in the past, only what the current price is and where they believe the price should be in the future. Technical analysis investors do something different. It is their belief that as stock prices go up and down, they generally follow patterns. By looking at a chart of what a stock price has been in the past, they try to predict where it is headed, and buy or sell based on that prediction. In general, value investors are longer-term investors, and technical analysis investors are short-term investors. The advice you are considering makes a lot of sense if you are using technical analysis. If you have a stock that is trending down, your strategy probably tells you to sell; buying more in the hopes of turning things around would be seen as a mistake. It is like the gambler in Vegas who keeps playing a game he is losing, hoping that his luck changes. However, for the value investor, the historical price of a stock, and even the amount you currently have gained or lost in the stock, are essentially ignored. All that matters is whether or not the stock price is above or below the true value determined by the investor. For him, if the stock price falls and he believes the company still has a high value, it could be a signal to buy more. The above advice doesn't really apply for them. Many investors don't follow either of these strategies. They believe that it is too difficult and risky to try to predict the future price of an individual stock. Instead, they invest in many companies all at once using index mutual funds, believing that the stock market as a whole always heads up over a long time frame. Those investors don't care at all if the prices of stock are going up or down. They simply keep investing each month, and hold until they have another use for the money. The above advice isn't useful for them at all. No matter which kind of investing you are doing, the most important thing is to pick a strategy you believe in and follow the plan without emotion. Emotions can cause investors to make mistakes and start buying when their strategy tells them to sell. Instead of trying to follow fortune cookie advice like \"\"Don't throw good money after bad,\"\" choose an investment strategy, make a plan, test it, and follow it, cautiously (after all, it may be a bad plan). For what it is worth, I am the third type of investor listed above. I don't buy individual stocks, and I don't look at the stock prices when investing more each month. Your description of your own strategy as \"\"buy and hold\"\" suggests you might prefer the same approach.\"",
"\"There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to \"\"win it back\"\" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate.\"",
"\"A key principle of economics is: Sunk costs are irrelevant. You bought the stock at 147 and it has now fallen to 144. That's too bad. This has nothing to do with whether it is wise or foolish to buy shares at 144. The only relevant thing to consider is: Do I expect the stock to go up or down from 144? You have lost $3 per share on the original buy. Buying more shares will not \"\"reduce your loss\"\" in any way. Suppose you bought 100 shares at 147. The price then drops to 144. You have lost $3 per share, or $300 total. You buy another 50 more shares at 144. The price stays at 144. So your average purchase price is now (147 x 100 + 144 x 50) / 150 = 146. So I guess you could say that your \"\"average loss per share\"\" is now only $2. But it's $2 x 150 shares instead of $3 x 100 shares. You still lost $300. You didn't reduce your loss by a penny. Maybe it made you feel better that you reduced your average loss per share, but this is just an arithmetic game. If you believe that the stock will continue to drop, than buying more shares just means you will lose even more money. Your average loss per share may go down, but you're just multiplying that average by more and more shares. Of course if you believe that the stock is now at an unjustifiably low price and it will likely go back up, then sure, buy. If you buy at 144 and it goes back up to 147, then you'll be making $3 per share on the new shares you purchased. But I repeat, whether or not you buy more shares should have nothing to do with your previous buy. Buy more shares if you think the price will go up from the present price; don't buy more shares if you don't think it will go up. The decision should be exactly the same as if you had never previously bought shares. (I'm assuming here that you are a typical small investor, that you not buying enough shares to have any significant effect on the market, nor that you are in a position to buy enough shares to take control of the company.)\"",
"\"If you buy a call, that's because you expect that the stock will go up. If it does not go up, then forget about buying more calls as your initial idea seems to be wrong. And I don't think that buying a put to make up for the loss will work either, the only thing that is sure is that you will pay another premium (on a stock that could stay where it is). Even if you are 100% sure that the stock will go up again, don't do anything, as John Maynard Keynes stated: \"\"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent\"\". My idea is: wait until the expiration date. The good things about options is that you won't lose more than the premium that you paid for it and that until it reaches its maturity you can still make money if the market turns around. More generally, when you are purely speculating, adding to a position when it goes against you is called \"\"averaging down\"\". I sincerely discourage you to do that : If the stocks goes in the wrong direction, that means that your initial idea was wrong in the first place (or you were not right at the right moment). In my opinion, adding up to a wrong idea is not the right thing to do. When you are losing, just take your loss and don't add up to your position based on your emotions. On the other hand, adding to your position more when the stock goes in your direction is called \"\"pyramiding\"\" and is, in my opinion, a better way of doing things (you bought, you were right, let's buy more). But at some point you will have to take your profits. There are plenty of other stocks on which you can try to invest and the market will still be here tomorrow, there will be other opportunities to make profits. Rushing things by constantly trying to have a position is not a good idea. Not doing anything is also a strategy.\"",
"Don't throw good money after bad. If you bought on the peak of an event like news/earnings hoping for more and ignored its value than you might be doomed. Determine the stocks value and see it as a buying opportunity if it's still sweet. If not buy more carefully. Those kinds of moves in that range you must have been involved in micro-small caps like biotechs. Thats where money goes to talk to itself and chew on its arm. You win big by finding an alien chip under your skin to reverse engineer or far more likely just wind up eating yourself. If your not holding inside info or at the higher levels of a pyramid for a pump/dump you really shouldn't let your greed take you there. I can expect and stomach w/o worry being wrong at my buy time as much as 10-15% and live with it for a year or more because I see I'm buying a quarter for a dime and will continue to buy into it without staking everything though). I bought in heavy when netflix (prior to split) was $50 or so hoping for a quick bounce and it sunk to like 20 something. No I didn't buy more, I felt like I just got my own .com bubble experience. I stopped looking at it,helpless to do anything other than eat a huge loss I adopted an out of sight out of mind thinking. I no longer wished to be in it, I felt like an ass for getting myself into it, it did NOT look good at the time and I risked a huge amount of capital for what I felt wrongly was a nice quick trade to make some thousands off. Checked it one day, must have wanted to hurt myself, and it was near $300 a share. My extreme loss had turned into something wonderful. A big tax bomb. Netflix eventually split and rose even more meteorically. I held on and only exited a while back and my worst mistake became my best success. Yet still, you trade like that, on unsound things, don't rely on getting the winning ticket because they are few and all others are losers. If your in for a penny you need to be in for the pound and help yourself immensely by sticking to sound stocks and currencies. You trade on news you may find yourself in Zimbabwe dollars with Enron stock. Bad footing, no matter the news or excitement is bad footing.",
"\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. This is over simplified statement to explain the concept. What is essentially says is; Say I hold stocks of XYZ; 100 units worth say USD 1000. This has lost me x% [say 50%]. The general tendency is to buy 100 more units in anticipation / hope that the price will go up. This is incorrect. However on case to case basis, this maybe the right decisions. On a periodic basis [or whenever you want to invest more money]; say you have USD 1000 and did not have the stock of XYZ, will you buy this at current price and outlook of the company. If the answer is Yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if the answer is no sell the stock at current market price and take the loss. The same applies when the price has appreciated. If you have USD 1000; given the current price and future outlook, will you buy the specific stock. If yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if answer is no sell the stock and book profit. Off-course I have not overlaid the various other considerations when buying stocks like diversification, risk profiles of individual stocks / segments, tax implications etc that are also essential even if you decide to buy or sell specific stock.\"",
"The principle behind the advice to not throw good money after bad is better restated in economics terms: sunk costs are sunk and irrelevant to today's decisions. Money lost on a stock is sunk and should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Similarly, the stock going up should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Any advice other than this is assuming some kind of mispricing or predictability in the market. Mispricings in general cannot be reliably identified and stock returns are not normally predictable. The only valid (efficient markets) reason I know of to allow money you have lost or made on a stock to affect your decision today is the tax implications (you may want to lock in gains if your tax rate is temporarily low or vice versa).",
"\"A big part of the answer depends on how \"\"beaten down\"\" the stock is, how long it will take to recover from the drop, and your taste for risk. If you honestly believe the drop is a temporary aberration then averaging down can be a good strategy to lower your dollar-cost average in the stock. But this is a huge risk if you're wrong, because now you're going to magnify your losses by piling on more stock that isn't going anywhere to the shares you already own at a higher cost. As @Mindwin pointed out correctly, the problem for most investors following an \"\"average down\"\" strategy is that it makes them much less likely to cut their losses when the stock doesn't recover. They basically become \"\"married\"\" to the stock because they've actualized their belief the stock will bounce back when maybe it never will or worse, drops even more.\"",
"\"TL;DR; There is no silver bullet. You have to decide how much to invest and when on your own. Averaging down definition: DEFINITION of 'Average Down' The process of buying additional shares in a company at lower prices than you originally purchased. This brings the average price you've paid for all your shares down. BREAKING DOWN 'Average Down' Sometimes this is a good strategy, other times it's better to sell off a beaten down stock rather than buying more shares. So let us tackle your questions: At what percentage drop of the stock price should I buy more shares. (Ex: should I wait for the price to fall by 5% or 10% to buy more.) It depends on the behaviour of the security and the issuer. Is it near its historical minimum? How healthy is the issuer? There is no set percentage. You can maximize your gains or your losses if the security does not rebound. Investopedia: The strategy is often favored by investors who have a long-term investment horizon and a contrarian approach to investing. A contrarian approach refers to a style of investing that is against, or contrary, to the prevailing investment trend. (...) On the other side of the coin are the investors and traders who generally have shorter-term investment horizons and view a stock decline as a portent of things to come. These investors are also likely to espouse trading in the direction of the prevailing trend, rather than against it. They may view buying into a stock decline as akin to trying to \"\"catch a falling knife.\"\" Your second question: How many additional shares should I buy. (Ex: Initially I bought 10 shares, should I buy 5,10 or 20.) That depends on your portfolio allocation before and after averaging down and your investor profile (risk apettite). Take care when putting more money on a falling security, if your portfolio allocation shifts too much. That may expose you to risks you shouldn't be taking. You are assuming a risk for example, if the market bears down like 2008: Averaging down or doubling up works well when the stock eventually rebounds because it has the effect of magnifying gains, but if the stock continues to decline, losses are also magnified. In such cases, the investor may rue the decision to average down rather than either exiting the position or failing to add to the initial holding. One of the pitfalls of averaging down is when the security does not rebound, and you become too attached to be able to cut your losses and move on. Also if you are bullish on a position, be careful not to slip the I down and add a T on said position. Invest with your head, not your heart.\"",
"\"It works if after the price has halved and you buy more the price then rises, however if you are attempting to do this you are basing you \"\"doubling down\"\" on hope, and if you are basing a purchase on hope you are gambling. In many cases if the price has halved it could be because there is something very wrong with the company, so the price could easly half again. In that case it hasn't worked. You are better off waiting to see if the company makes a turn around and starts improving. Wait for confirmation that the stock price is heading back up before buying.\"",
"I haven't seen anyone mention tax considerations and that's why I'm answering this. The rest of my answer is probably covered in the aggregate of other responses. Here's how I would look at this in a taxable (not an IRA) account: This could be an opportunity to harvest the tax losses to offset taxable gains this year or in future years. Unless I have compelling reasons to believe that the price will recover by at least (Loss% x ApplicableTaxRate) in the next 31 days then I would take the known - IRS tables - opportunities over the unknown. Here's what I would consider for all accounts: Is this the most likely place to earn a good return on my money and is it contributing to a strategy that fits my risk tolerance? You might need to get some emotional distance from the pain to make this determination objectively. As you consider your trading and investment strategy going forward consider that when it hurts and you have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps to think clearly about your situation, you were most likely trading with too much size for you in that particular position. I'm willing to make exceptions to that rule of thumb, but it's a good way to use the painful losses as a gut check on how your strategy fits your real situation. P.S. All traders experience individual losses that hurt and find their way to the most suitable strategies for them through these painful experiences.",
"\"I think that \"\"memoryless\"\" in this context of a given stock's performance is not a term of art. IMO, it's an anecdotal concept or cliche used to make a point about holding a stock. Sometimes people get stuck... they buy a stock or fund at 50, it goes down to 30, then hold onto it so they can \"\"get back to even\"\". By holding the loser stock for emotional reasons, the person potentially misses out on gains elsewhere.\"",
"\"You can do several things: After the fact: If you believe the stock will go up, you can buy more stock now, it's what's called \"\"averaging\"\". So, you bought 100 at $10, now it's at $7. To gain money from your original investment it needs to raise to over $10. But if you really think it'll go up, you can buy and average. So you buy, say, 100 more stock at $7, now you have 200 shares at $8.50 average so you gain money on your investment when the stock goes over $8.50 instead of $10. Of course, you risk losing even more money if the stock keeps going down. Before the fact: When you buy stock, set 'triggers'. In most trading houses you can set automatic triggers to fire on conditions you set. When you buy 100 shares at $10, you can set a trigger to automatically sell the 100 shares if it drops below $9, so you limit your losses to 10% (for example).\"",
"To expand a bit on what TripeHound said in the comment section, past performance is not indicative of future performance, which is why the best advice is to ignore if you already own the stock or not. If the stock goes down, but you've done your research and think it will come back, then investing more isn't a bad idea. If the stock is doing well and it will continue to do well, then invest more. Treat investing more into a stock you already own as a new investment and do your research. TL;DR of your question, it's a very case-by-case basis",
"\"For some studies on why investors make the decisions they do, check out For a more readable, though less rigorous, look at it, also consider Kahneman's recent book, \"\"Thinking, Fast and Slow\"\", which includes the two companion papers written with Tversky on prospect theory. In certain segments (mostly trading) of the investing industry, it is true that something like 90% of investors lose money. But only in certain narrow segments (and most folks would rightly want traders to be counted as a separate beast than an 'investor'). In most segments, it's not true that most investors lose money, but it still is true that most investors exhibit consistent biases that allow for mispricing. I think that understanding the heuristics and biases approach to economics is critical, both because it helps you understand why there are inefficiencies, and also because it helps you understand that quantitative, principled investing is not voodoo black magic; it's simply applying mathematics for the normative part and experimental observations for the descriptive part to yield a business strategy, much like any other way of making money.\"",
"Sorry to necro this thread but you were totally right - I found this study that confirms buying puts loses money at a faster rate than is predicted by CAPM. Conversely, writing puts earns superior risk-adjusted returns compared to the market portfolio. The study is about writing straddles but it's a similar concept. I'm just posting here in case someone searches this thread in 6 months https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/74142/0022-1082.00352.pdf?sequence=1",
"\"I primarily intend to add on to WBT's answer, which is good. It has been shown that \"\"momentum\"\" is a very real, tangible factor in stock returns. Stocks that have done well tend to keep doing well; stocks that are doing poorly tend to keep doing poorly. For a long-term value investor, of course fundamental valuation should be your first thing to look at - but as long as you're comfortable with the company's price as compared to its value, you should absolutely hang onto it if it's been going up. The old saying on Wall Street is \"\"Cut your losses, and let your winners ride.\"\" As WBT said, there may be some tangible emotional benefit to marking your win while you're ahead and not risking that it tanks, but I'd say the odds are in your favor. If an undervalued company starts rising in stock price, maybe that means the market is starting to recognize it for the deal it is. Hang onto it and enjoy the fruits of your research.\"",
"As an investor you must remember to forgive yourself. However, you must not only forgive but make it up to yourself by putting in the hours of study necessary to ensure that what you are forgiving yourself for will not happen again. Studying (finance, fundamental analysis, statistics, etc.)will also help you to worry less. Once you have put in the hours of study necessary, you can turn to any of a number of still relatively conservative strategies, such as seeking out undervalued blue-chip stocks to purchase or selling covered call options. Good luck.",
"If you're a person of normal means, being a short-term trader/speculator is a game that you are going to lose. Don't do it -- do some research on investing.",
"\"You probably bought the stock near the peak because \"\"it's been up a lot lately.\"\" That's the easiest way to lose money. You need to go back and do some basic research. The stock appears to have been expensive around 75. Why is that? The stock seems to be in a \"\"comfortable\"\" level around 45. Why is THAT? Maybe it's too expensive around 45 (based on the P/E ratio, or other measures); maybe you should buy more at 45, where it is cheap, even though 75 is too expensive. The key is to study the stock where it is today (45-47). Ask yourself what you would do at TODAY's price, and today's \"\"fundamentals.\"\" That will also save you from paying 75 for a stock worth 45, and should save you from paying 45 for a stock if it is only worth 35.\"",
"a) Are there any predictive factors for the success/failure of your trades. i.e. Volatility has some predictive power on the failure of the trades, therefore, you may want to fine tune the strategy such that when vol > x, it stays out (or even reverses). b) i'll make a quick subreddit.",
"Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.",
"\"It would be useful to forget about the initial price that you invested - that loss happened, it's over and irreversible, it's a sunk cost; and anchoring on it would only cause you to make worse decisions. Getting \"\"back\"\" from a loss is done exactly the same as growing an investment that didn't have such a loss. You have x units of stock that's currently priced $46.5 - that is your blank slate; you need to decide wether you should hold that stock (i.e., if $46.5 is undervalued and likely to increase) or it's likely to fall further and you should sell it. The decision you make should be exactly the same as if you'd bought it a bit earlier for $40.\"",
"Is investing more money into a stock that you already have a stake, in which has gone up in price a good idea? What you describe here is a good idea when the stock keeps up-trending. The way to do it is say you have originally bought $1000 worth of shares, then the next purchase you buy $500 worth, then $250 worth. It is called pyramiding into your trades. However, this system would not be the best with simply a buy and hold when you keep holding even if the price starts freefalling. You would need to have a trailing stop loss on your initial trade, and then as you buy each additional trade your trailing stop loss would incorporate the additional trade and move to a level where if you get stopped out you will make an overall profit. With each additional trade your trailing stop will move higher and higher for higher protected profits. The whole point behind pyramid trading is to keep buying more of a stock that keeps performing well to increase your profits. However, each additional purchase is half the previous one so that you don't eat too much into existing profits (in the case of the uptrend reversing) and so as to not overcapitalise on the one stock. So you are using part of your existing profits in an attempt to make more profits.",
"Have the reasons you originally purchased the stock changed? Is the company still sound? Does the company have a new competitor? Has the company changed the way they operate? If the company is the same, except for stock price, why would you change your mind on the company now? ESPECIALLY if the company has not changed, -- but only other people's PERCEPTION of the company, then your original reasons for buying it are still valid. In fact, if you are not a day-trader, then this COMPANY JUST WENT ON SALE and you should buy more. If you are a day trader, then you do care about the herd's perception of value (not true value) and you should sell. DAY TRADER = SELL BUY AND HOLD (WITH INTELLIGENT RESEARCH) = BUY MORE",
"One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.",
"\"Yes, of course there have been studies on this. This is no more than a question about whether the options are properly priced. (If properly priced, then your strategy will not make money on average before transaction costs and will lose once transaction costs are included. If you could make money using your strategy, on average, then the market should - and generally will - make an adjustment in the option price to compensate.) The most famous studies on this were conducted by Black and Scholes and then by Merton. This work won the Nobel Prize in 1995. Although the Black-Scholes (or Black-Scholes-Merton) equation is so well known now that people may forget it, they didn't just sit down one day and write and equation that they thought was cool. They actually derived the equation based on market factors. Beyond this \"\"pioneering\"\" work, you've got at least two branches of study. Academics have continued to study option pricing, including but not limited to revisions to the original Black-Scholes model, and hedge funds / large trading house have \"\"quants\"\" looking at this stuff all of the time. The former, you could look up if you want. The latter will never see the light of day because it's proprietary. If you want specific references, I think that any textbook for a quantitative finance class would be a fine place to start. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually find your strategy as part of a homework problem. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't think you can make money with this type of trade, but your strategy will need to include more information than you've outlined here. Choosing which information and getting your hands on it in a timely manner will be the key.\"",
"I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.",
"\"My theory is that for every stock you buy, you should have an exit strategy and follow it. It is too hard to let emotions rule if you let your default strategy be \"\"let's see what happens.\"\" and emotional investing will almost never serve you well. So before buying a stock, set a maximum loss and maximum gain that you will watch for on the stock, and when it hits that number sell. At the very least, when it hits one of your numbers, consciously make a decision that you are effectively buying it again at the current price if you decide to stay in. When you do this, set a new high and low price and repeat the above strategy.\"",
"\"The price at which a stock was purchased is a sunk cost--that is, you cannot go back in time and reverse the decision you made to purchase that stock. Another example of a sunk cost would be purchasing a non-refundable, non-transferable movie ticket. Sunk costs have the tendency to create a cognitive bias in which we feel that the amount we paid at some point in the past should have some sort of bearing on the decision we make now--the purchaser of the ticket feels he must go see the movie even if he no longer wishes too, lest the ticket \"\"go to waste\"\"... the investor hopelessly clings to a battered stock for that tiny chance that just maybe some day it will return to its former glory. This is referred to as the \"\"sunk cost fallacy\"\" and is considered to be irrational behavior by economists. Keeping this in mind, your hopes and dreams for the stock at the time you purchased it should have no bearing on the decision you make now. Similarly, whether the stock has risen or fallen in price since your purchase date should have no bearing. Instead, you must consider what you expect the stock to do from this very moment on into the future--that is, you must act at the margin. You've indicated that you are faced with two choices--sell the stock now, incur the loss, but benefit from the tax break (Option A). This benefit is quite easily quantifiable--it is your marginal tax rate multiplied by the additive inverse of the loss (assuming you have/will have other gains to offset). Let's just assume that you incurred a $1000 loss, at a marginal tax rate of 20%, which means your tax benefit for the loss is $200. The second choice--to hold the stock in hopes of it rising in price (Option B)--is a bit harder to quantify. You must assume that today is day zero, and that every cent in price the stock rises is a gain to you, and every cent in price the stock looses is a loss to you. If you believe that the stock will rise to a price that will net your more than your tax benefit from option A, then holding the stock is more favorable than selling it at a loss today. Conversely, if you believe this stock will fall even further in the future, or not rise enough to net you $200 (per the example), then Option A is preferable. Granted, there are some additional complications that play into your decision. By selling the stock today, you not only get a tax benefit from the loss, but you've also freed up the funds previously used to purchase that stock to be invested elsewhere (in hopefully a better performing asset). If you choose to stick with your current stock, then the gains you may have netted elsewhere must be considered as an opportunity cost associated with Option B. Finally, the tax benefit is essentially guaranteed (so in our example, a $200 risk free return), while sticking with the stock in Option B still comes with some risk.\"",
"Personally, I have been in that situation too often that now I am selling at the first tick down! (not exactly but you get the idea..) I have learned over the years to not fall in love with any stock, and this is a very hard thing to do. Limit your losses and take profit when you are satisfied with them. Nothing prevents you from buying back in this stock but why buying when it is going down? Just my 2 cents.",
"Only average down super blue chips with a long history or better still, ETFs or index type funds. I do it with income producing funds as I'm a retiree. Other people may have much shorter horizins.",
"You will lose out on your spread, you always pay a spread. Also, if you are looking at a strategy for using stop losses, try taking into account the support lines if you are going long. So, if the stock is on an upward trend but is dropping back from profit taking, your best best is to take a position closest to the next support line. You place your stop just below the support. this will give you the best chance of a winning position as most technical analysts will have looking towards the support as a buy back area. Obviously, in a bear market the opposite is true. If you have taken your position and the market move past the first resistance line, then bring your stop to just below that line as once resistance is broken, it then becomes support. You then have a profitable position with profit locked in. Leave the position to break the next resistance and repeat.",
"Like @chirs, I'm of the opinion that you might want to buy more. I've done this a couple of times, price dropped a bunch, and I said, heck, I bought some last week, and this week I can get twice as much stock for about the same price. Brought down my average cost per share, and when the company was taken private, I actually didn't lose money - unlike some other people I know, who only bought at one price, watched the drop, and held on awaiting a recovery (which didn't happen in time before the big money swooped in on it). But to do this, you need to keep cash reserves (that, like @afforess says, you can afford to lose all of) on hand, awaiting buying opportunities. This, too, is a cost - an opportunity cost.",
"From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!",
"Thanks. Just to clarify I am looking for a more value-neutral answer in terms of things like Sharpe ratios. I think it's an oversimplification to say that on average you lose money because of put options - even if they expire uselessly 90% of the time, they still have some expected payoff that kicks in 10% of the time, and if the price is less than the expected payoff you will earn money in the long term by investing in put options (I am sure you know this as a PhD student I just wanted to get it out there.)I guess more formally my question would be are there studies on whether options prices correspond well to the diversification benefits they offer from an MPT point of view.",
"There is no way to find out what future will be if you have only quote from past. In other words, nobody is able to trade history successfully and nobody will be able, ever. Quote's movement is not random. Quote is not price. Because brokerage account is not actual money. Any results in past do not guarantee you anything. Brokerage accounts should only have portions of money which you are ready to loose completely. Example: Investment firms recommended buying falling Enron stocks, even when it collapsed 3 times, then - bankrupt, suddenly. What a surprise!",
"Hopefully, before you invested in this stock, you evaluated the company. You looked at the financial information about the company and where the company was headed, and evaluated whether the stock was undervalued or overvalued. Hopefully, you determined that the stock was undervalued at the time you bought it. The thing to do now is to reevaluate the stock. Do you think the stock is overvalued or undervalued right now? If you didn't own it, would you buy it today? Instead of looking at the past performance of the stock, you want to try to determine which direction the stock will go from today. If you wouldn't buy it today at it's current price, then you should sell. If you have no idea how to do this evaluation, neither do I. For me, with the investing knowledge I have right now, investing in an individual stock would be way too risky. If you don't know how to evaluate a stock and determine if it is a good buy or not, then you should stay away from individual stocks and instead invest in stock mutual funds, which lower the risk by diversifying over lots of stocks.",
"\"You have heard the old adage \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\", right? That sounds so obvious that you'd have to wonder why they would ever bother coining such an expression. It should rank up there with \"\"Don't walk in front of a moving car\"\" on the Duh scale of advice. Well, your question demonstrates exactly why it isn't quite so obvious in the real world and that people need to be reminded of it. So, in your example, the stock prices are currently low (relative to what they have been). So per that adage, do you sell or buy when prices are low? Hint: It isn't sell. Yes. Your gut is going to tell you the exact opposite thanks to the fact that our brains are unfortunately wired to make us susceptible to the loss aversion fallacy. When the market has undergone a big drop is the WORST time to stop contributing (buying stocks). This example might help get your brain and gut to agree a little more easily: If you were talking about any other non-investment commodity, cars for instance. Your question equates to.. I really need a car, but the prices have been dropping like crazy lately. Maybe I should wait until the car dealers start raising their prices again before I buy one. Dollar Cost Averaging As littleadv suggested, if you have an automatic payroll deduction for your retirement account, you are getting the benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging. Because you are investing the same amount on a scheduled interval, you are buying more shares when they are cheap and fewer when they are expensive. It is like an automatic buy low strategy is built into the account. The alternative, which you are implying, is a market timing strategy. Under this strategy, instead of investing regularly you try to get in and out of investments right before they go up/drop. There are two MAJOR flaws with this approach: 1) Your brain will work against you (see above) and encourage you to do the exact opposite of what you should be doing. 2) Unless you are clairvoyant, this strategy isn't much better than gambling. If you are lucky it can work, but because of #1, the odds are stacked against you.\"",
"\"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"",
"\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in, which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a \"\"blip\"\", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are \"\"wrong\"\" and that the \"\"true price\"\" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are \"\"sound\"\"). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a \"\"balanced\"\" portfolio -- without putting \"\"all your eggs in one basket\"\" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio.\"",
"It has got to do with the irrationality of humans. The so called long term investor is in it for the long term, they are not worried about market fluctuations nor timing the market. But yet they will aim to try to get a bargain when they buy in. It is contradictory in a way. Think about it; if I buy a stock and it drops by 30% I am not worried because I am in it for the long term, but I am worried about getting 1% off when I buy it. They usually tend to buy when the stock starts falling. However, what they don’t realise is when a stock starts falling there is no telling when it will stop. So even if they get a bargain for that day, it is usually quickly wiped out a few days later. Instead, of waiting for the price to find support and start recovering, they are eager to buy what they think is a bargain. I think this type of long term investing is very risky, and the main reason is because the investor has no plan. They just try to buy so called bargain stocks and hold them until they need the money (usually in retirement). But what happens if the stock price is lower when they want to retire than when they bought it? I hope no long term investor was trying to retire in 2008. If they simply had a plan to indicate when they would buy and under what conditions they would sell, and have a risk management plan in place, then maybe they could reduce their risk somewhat and conserve their capital. A good article to read on this is What's Wrong With Long-Term Investing.",
"From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.",
"It looks like the advice the rep is giving is based primarily on the sunk cost fallacy; advice based on a fallacy is poor advice. Bob has recognised this trap and is explicitly avoiding it. It is possible that the advice that the rep is trying to give is that Fund #1 is presently undervalued but, if so, that is a good investment irrespective if Bob has lost money there before or even if he has ever had funds in it.",
"\"For personal investing, and speculative/ highly risky securities (\"\"wasting assets\"\", which is exactly what options are), it is better to think in terms of sunk costs. Don't chase this trade, trying to make your money back. You should minimize your loss. Unwind the position now, while there is still some remaining value in those call options, and take a short-term loss. Or, you could try this. Let's say you own an exchange traded call option on a listed stock (very general case). I don't know how much time remains before the option's expiration date. Be that as it may, I could suggest this to effect a \"\"recovery\"\". You'll be long the call and short the stock. This is called a delta hedge, as you would be delta trading the stock. Delta refers to short-term price volatility. In other words, you'll short a single large block of the stock, then buy shares, in small increments, whenever the market drops slightly, on an intra-day basis. When the market price of the stock rises incrementally, you'll sell a few shares. Back and forth, in response to short-term market price moves, while maintaining a static \"\"hedge ratio\"\". As your original call option gets closer to maturity, roll it over into the next available contract, either one-month, or preferably three-month, time to expiration. If you don't want to, or can't, borrow the underlying stock to short, you could do a synthetic short. A synthetic short is a combination of a long put and a short call, whose pay-off replicates the short stock payoff. I personally would never purchase an unhedged option or warrant. But since that is what you own right now, you have two choices: Get out, or dig in deeper, with the realization that you are doing a lot of work just to trade your way back to a net zero P&L. *While you can make a profit using this sort of strategy, I'm not certain if that is within the scope of the money.stachexchange.com website.\"",
"\"If i do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. The \"\"random walk\"\"/EMH theory that you are assuming is debatable. Among many arguments against EMH, one of the more relevant ones is that there are actually winning trading strategies (e.g. momentum models in trending markets) which invalidates EMH. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. It's only true if the market is truly an independent stochastic process. As mentioned above, there are empirical evidences suggesting that it's not. is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? The ability to profit is more than just being able to make a right call on which direction the market will be going. Even beginners can have a >50% chance of getting on the right side of the trades. It's the position management that kills most of the PnL.\"",
"You are very correct, rebalancing is basically selling off winners to buy losers. Of course the thinking is that selling a winner that has already increased 100% on the basis that it has doubled so it is likely to go down in the near future. However, just look at Apple as an example, if you bought Apple in June 2009 for $20 (adjusted price) and sold it as part of rebalancing when it rose to $40 (adjusted price) in September 2010, you would have missed out on it reaching over $95 2 years later. Similarly you look to rebalance by buying assets which have been battered (say dropped by 50%) on the basis that it has dropped so much that it should start increasing in the near future. But many times the price can fall even further. A better method would be to sell your winners when they stop being winners (i.e. their uptrend ends) and replace them with assets that are just starting their winning ways (i.e. their downtrend has ended and are now starting to Uptrend). This can be achieved by looking at price action and referring to the definitions of an uptrend and a downtrend. Definition of an uptrend - higher highs and higher lows. Definition of a downtrend - lower lows and lower highs.",
"You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits.",
"Someone entering a casino with $15 could employ a very simple strategy and have a better-than-90% chance of walking out with $16. Unfortunately, the person would have a non-trivial chance (about one in 14) of walking out with $0. If after losing $15 the person withdrew $240 from the bank and tried to win $16, the person would have a better-than-90% chance of succeeding and ending up ahead (holding the original $15, plus the additional $240, plus $1) but would have at that point about a one in 14 chance from that point of losing the $240 along with the original $15. Measured from the starting point, you'd have about a 199 out of 200 chance of gaining $1, and a one out of 200 chance of losing $240. Market-timing bets are like that. You can arrange things so you have a significant chance of making a small profit, but at the risk of a large downside. If you haven't firmly decided exactly how much downside you are willing to accept, it's very easy to simultaneously believe you don't have much money at risk, but that you'll be able to win back anything you lose. The only way you can hope to win back anything you lose is by bringing a lot more money to the table, which will of course greatly increase your downside risk. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $15 of downside risk to earn $1 is about 93%. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $255 worth of risk is about 99.5%. It's easy to see that there are ways of playing which have a 99.5% chance of winning, and that there are ways of playing that only have a 15:1 downside risk. Unfortunately, the ways of playing that have the smaller risk don't have anything near a 99.9% chance of winning, and those that have a better chance of winning have a much larger downside risk.",
"\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \"\"for tax purposes\"\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\"",
"The mental approach should be that you always knew the risk of gambling and it was extra money that you had (or should have had). Now think that the 'horse' race is not over and in the near future it will pick up pace against the others and be back on track.",
"\"Easiest thing ever. In fact, 99% of people are loosing money. If you perform worse then 10% annually in cash (average over 5-10 years), then you better never even think about trading/investing. Most people are sitting at 0%..-5% annually. They win some, loose some, and are being outrun by inflation and commissions. In fact, fall of market is not a big deal, stock indexes are often jump back in a few months. If you rebalance properly, it is mitigated. Your much bigger enemy is inflation. If you think inflation is small, look at gold price over past 20 years. Some people, Winners at first, grow to +10%, get too relaxed and start to grow already lost position. That one loose trade eats 10% of their portfolio. Only there that people realize they should cut it off, when they already lost their profits. And they start again with +0%. This is hard thing to accept, but most of people are not made for that type of business. Even worse, they think \"\"if I had bigger budget, I would perform better\"\", which is kind of self-lie.\"",
"The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below: I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term. There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing.",
"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"\"If the stock is below its purchase price, there is no way to exit the position immediately without taking losses. Since presumably you had Good Reasons for buying that stock that haven't changed overnight, what you should probably do is just hold it and wait for the stock to come back up. Otherwise you're putting yourself into an ongoing pattern of \"\"buy high, sell low\"\", which is precisely what you don't want to do. If you actually agree with the market that you made a mistake and believe that the stock will not recover any part of the loss quickly (and indeed will continue going down), you could sell immediately and take your losses rather than waiting and possibly taking more losses. Of course if the stock DOES recover you've made the wrong bet. There are conditions under which the pros will use futures to buffer a swing. But that's essentially a side bet, and what it saves you has to be balanced against what it costs you and how certain you are that you NOW can predict the stock's motion. This whole thing is one of many reasons individuals are encouraged to work with index funds, and to buy-and-hold, rather than playing with individual stocks. It is essentially impossible to reliably \"\"time the market\"\", so all you can do is research a stock to death before making a bet on it. Much easier, and safer, to have your money riding on the market as a whole so the behavior of any one stock doesn't throw you into a panic. If you can't deal with the fact that stocks go down as well as up, you probably shouldn't be in the market.\"",
"\"You can't do this automatically; you want to understand whether the drop is from a short-term high. is likely to be a short-term low, or reflects an actual change in how folks expect the company to do in the future. Having said that, some people do favor a strategy which resembles this, betting on what are known as \"\"the dogs of the Dow\"\" in the assumption that they're well trusted but not as strongly sought and therefore perhaps not bid up as strongly. I have no opinion on it; I'm just mentioning it for comparison.\"",
"Every time you buy or sell a share for some price, somebody must have thought that that was exactly the right moment to sell or buy that share at that price (and to trade with you). Every time a trade is made, both sides think they are doing the smart thing. Most of the time, one will turn out to be wrong, the other right. Nothing in your proposed method of trading explains why you would be the side that was right more often. So they'll probably even out. Or maybe there are people in the market who actually do have a slightly better than average method, and you'll be wrong somewhat more often than right. Each trade has transaction costs. If you simply hang on to your shares, that's more or less the same as evening out good trades and bad trades, but without the transaction costs.",
"This image is an advertisement from this week's Barron's. The broker would want to put himself in the best light, correct? This shows you that of their current accounts, 53.5% are not profitable. And these guys have the best track record of the list. Also keep in mind that their client base isn't random. The winners tend to stay, so even if it were 50/50, the 50% of losers might represent many times that number of people who came to the table, lost their money and left.",
"Ignore sunk costs and look to future returns. Although it feels like a loss to exit an investment from a loss position, from a financial standpoint you should ignore the purchase price. If your money could be better invested somewhere else, then move it there. You shouldn't look at it as though you'll be more financially secure because you waited longer for the stock to reach the purchase price. That's psychological, not financial. Some portion of your invested wealth is stuck in this particular stock. If it would take three months for the stock to get back to purchase price but only two months for an alternate investment to reach that same level, then obviously faster growth is better. Your goal is greater wealth, not arbitrarily returning certain investments to their purchase price. Investments are just instrumental. You want more wealth. If an investment is not performing, then ignore purchase price and sunken costs. Look at the reasonable expectations about an investment going forward.",
"If you know you have picked a bad stock, the sooner you sell the better. There is a tendency to hold a bad stock in the hope that it will pick up again. Most of us fall into this trap. The best way one needs to look at things are;",
"\"I reread your question. You are not asking about the validity of selling a particular stock after a bit of an increase but a group of stocks. We don't know how many. This is the S&P for the past 12 months. Trading at 1025-1200 or so means that 80-100 points is an 8% move. I count 4 such moves during this time. The philosophy of \"\"you can't go wrong taking a gain\"\" is tough for me to grasp as it offers no advice on when to get (back) in. Studies by firms such as Dalbar (you can google for some of their public material) show data that supports the fact that average investors lag the market by a huge amount. 20 years ending 12/31/08 the S&P returned 8.35%, investor equity returns showed 1.87%. I can only conclude that this is a result of buying high and selling low, not staying the course. The data also leads me to believe the best advice one can give to people we meet in these circumstances is to invest in index funds, keeping your expenses low as you can. I've said this since read Jack Bogle decades ago, and this advice would have yielded about 8.25% over the 20 years, beating the average investor by far, by guaranteeing lagging the average by 10 basis points or so. A summary of the more extensive report citing the numbers I referenced is available for down load - QAIB 2015 - Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior. It's quite an eye-opener and a worthy read. (The original report was dated 2009, but the link broke, so I've updated to the latest report, 2015)\"",
"\"The game is not zero sum. When a friend and I chop down a tree, and build a house from it, the house has value, far greater than the value of a standing tree. Our labor has turned into something of value. In theory, a company starts from an idea, and offers either a good or service to create value. There are scams that make it seem like a Vegas casino. There are times a stock will trade for well above what it should. When I buy the S&P index at a fair price for 1000 (through an etf or fund) and years later it's 1400, the gain isn't out of someone else's pocket, else the amount of wealth in the world would be fixed and that's not the case. Over time, investors lag the market return for multiple reasons, trading costs, bad timing, etc. Statements such as \"\"90% lose money\"\" are hyperbole meant to separate you from your money. A self fulfilling prophesy. The question of lagging the market is another story - I have no data to support my observation, but I'd imagine that well over 90% lag the broad market. A detailed explanation is too long for this forum, but simply put, there are trading costs. If I invest in an S&P ETF that costs .1% per year, I'll see a return of say 9.9% over decades if the market return is 10%. Over 40 years, this is 4364% compounded, vs the index 4526% compounded, a difference of less than 4% in final wealth. There are load funds that charge more than this just to buy in (5% anyone?). Lagging by a small fraction is a far cry from 'losing money.' There is an annual report by a company named Dalbar that tracks investor performance. For the 20 year period ending 12/31/10 the S&P returned 9.14% and Dalbar calculates the average investor had an average return of 3.83%. Pretty bad, but not zero. Since you don't cite a particular article or source, there may be more to the story. Day traders are likely to lose. As are a series of other types of traders in other markets, Forex for one. While your question may be interesting, its premise of \"\"many experts say....\"\" without naming even one leaves room for doubt. Note - I've updated the link for the 2015 report. And 4 years later, I see that when searching on that 90% statistic, the articles are about day traders. That actually makes sense to me.\"",
"\"From some of your previous questions it seems like you trade quite often, so I am assuming you are not a \"\"Buy and Hold\"\" person. If that is the case, then have you got a written Trading Plan? Considering you don't know what to do after a 40% drop, I assume the answer to this is that you don't have a Trading Plan. Before you enter any trade you should have your exit point for that trade pre-determined, and this should be included in your Trading Plan. You should also include how you pick the shares you buy, do you use fundamental analysis, technical analysis, a combination of the two, a dart board or some kind of advisory service? Then finally and most importantly you should have your position sizing and risk management incorporated into your Plan. If you are doing all this, and had automatic stop loss orders placed when you entered your buy orders, then you would have been out of the stock well before your loss got to 40%. If you are looking to hang on and hoping for the stock to recover, remember with a 40% drop, the stock will now need to rise by 67% just for you to break even on the trade. Even if the stock did recover, how long would it take? There is the potential for opportunity loss waiting for this stock to recover, and that might take years. If the stock has fallen by 40% in a short time it is most likely that it will continue to fall in the short term, and if it falls to 50%, then the recovery would need to be 100% just for you to break even. Leave your emotions out of your trading as much as possible, have a written Trading Plan which incorporates your risk management. A good book to read on the psychology of the markets, position sizing and risk management is \"\"Trade your way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp (I actually went to see him talk tonight in Sydney, all the way over from the USA).\"",
"\"How often do investors really lose money? All the time. And it's almost always reason number 1. Let's start with the beginner investor, the person most likely to make some real losses and feel they've \"\"learned\"\" that investing is no better than Vegas. This person typically gets into it because they've been given a hot stock tip, or because they've received a windfall, decided to give this investing lark a try, and bought stock in half a dozen companies whose names they know from their everyday lives (\"\"I own a bit of Google! How cool is that?\"\"). These are people who don't understand the cyclic nature of the market (bear gives way to bull gives way to bear, and on and on), and so when they suddenly see that what was $1000 is now $900 they panic and sell everything. Especially as all the pundits are declaring the end of the world (they always do). Until the moment they sold, they only had paper losses. But they crystallised those losses, made them real, and ended at a loss. Then there's the trend-follower. These are people who don't necessarily hit a bear market, or even a downturn, in their early days, but never really try to learn how the market works in any real sense. They jump into every hot stock, then panic and sell out of anything that starts to go the wrong way. Both of these reactive behaviours seem reasonable in the moment (\"\"It's gone up 15% in the past week? Buy buy buy!\"\" and \"\"I've lost 10% this month on that thing? Get rid of it before I lose any more!\"\"), but they work out over time to lots of buying high and selling low, the very opposite of what you want to do. Then there's the day-trader. These are people who sit in their home office, buying and selling all day to try and make lots of little gains that add up to a lot. The reason these people don't do well in the long run is slightly different to the other examples. First, fees. Yes, most platforms offer a discount for \"\"frequent traders\"\", but it still ain't free. Second, they're peewees playing in the big leagues. Of course there are exceptions who make out like bandits, but day traders are playing a different game than the people I'd call investors. That game, unlike buy-and-hold investing, is much more like gambling, and day-traders are the enthusiastic amateurs sitting down at a table with professional poker players – institutional investors and the computers and research departments that work for them. Even buy-and-hold investors, even the more sophisticated ones, can easily realise losses on a given stock. You say you should just hold on to a stock until it goes back up, but if it goes low enough, it could take a decade or more to even just break even again. More savvy stock-pickers will have a system worked out, something like \"\"ok, if it gets down to 90% of what I bought it for, I cut my losses and sell.\"\" This is actually a sensible precaution, because defining hard rules like that helps you eliminate emotion from your investing, which is incredibly important if you want to avoid becoming the trend-follower above. It's still a loss, but it's a calculated one, and hopefully over time the exception rather than the rule. There are probably as many other ways to lose money as there are people investing, but I think I've given you a taste. The key to avoiding such things is understanding the psychology of investing, and defining the rules that you'll follow no matter what (as in that last example). Or just go learn about index investing. That's what I did.\"",
"As you mentioned in the title, what you're asking about comes down to volatility. DCA when purchasing stock is one way of dealing with volatility, but it's only profitable if the financial instrument can be sold higher than your sunk costs. Issues to be concerned with: Let's suppose you're buying a stock listed on the NYSE called FOO (this is a completely fake example). Over the last six days, the average value of this stock was exactly $1.00Note 1. Over six trading days you put $100 per day into this stockNote 2: At market close on January 11th, you have 616 shares of FOO. You paid $596.29 for it, so your average cost (before fees) is: $596.29 / 616 = $0.97 per share Let's look at this including your trading fees: ($596.29 + $30) / 616 = $1.01 per share. When the market opens on January 12th, the quote on FOO could be anything. Patents, customer wins, wars, politics, lawsuits, press coverage, etc... could cause the value of FOO to fluctuate. So, let's just roll with the assumption that past performance is consistent: Selling FOO at $0.80 nets: (616 * $0.80 - $5) - ($596.29 + $30) = $123.49 Loss Selling FOO at $1.20 nets: (616 * $1.20 - $5) - ($596.29 + $30) = $107.90 Profit Every day that you keep trading FOO, those numbers get bigger (assuming FOO is a constant value). Also remember, even if FOO never changes its average value and volatility, your recoverable profits shrink with each transaction because you pay $5 in fees for every one. Speaking from experience, it is very easy to paper trade. It is a lot harder when you're looking at the ticker all day when FOO has been $0.80 - $0.90 for the past four days (and you're $300 under water on a $1000 portfolio). Now your mind starts playing nasty games with you. If you decide to try this, let me give you some free advice: Unless you have some research (such as support / resistance information) or data on why FOO is a good buy at this price, let's be honest: you're gambling with DCA, not trading. END NOTES:",
"Ask yourself a better question: Under my current investment criteria would I buy the stock at this price? If the answer to that question is yes you need to work out at what price you would now sell out of the position. Think of these as totally separate decisions from your original decisions to buy and at what price to sell. If you would buy the stock now if you didn't already hold a position then you should keep that position as if you had sold out at the price that you had originally seen as your take profit level and bought a new position at the current price without incurring the costs. If you would not buy now by those criteria then you should sell out as planned. This is essentially netting off two investing decisions. Something to think about is that the world has changed and if you knew what you know now then you would probably have set your price limit higher. To be disciplined as an investor also means reviewing current positions frequently and without any sympathy for past decisions.",
"So far the answer is: observe the general direction of the market, using special tools if needed or you have them available (.e.g. Bollinger bands to help you understand the current trend) at the right time per above, do the roll with stop loss in place (meaning roll at a pre-determined max loss), and also a trailing stop loss if the roll works in your favor, to capture the profits on the roll. This trade was a learning experience. I sold the option at $20 thinking I'd get back in later in the day with the further out option at a good price, as the market goes back and forth. The underlying went up and never came back. I finally gritted my teeth and bought the new option at 23.10 (when it would have cost me about 20.20 before), i.e. a miss/loss of $3 on $20. The underlying continued to rise, from that point (hasn't been back), and now the option price is $29. Of course one needs to make sure the Implied Volatility of the option being left and the option going to is good/fair, and if not, either roll further out in time, nearer in time, our up / down the strike prices, to find the right target option. After doing that, one might do the strategy above, i.e. any good trade mgmt type strategy: seek to make a good decision, acknowledge when you were wrong (with stop loss), and act. Or, if you're right, cash in smartly (i.e. trailing stops).",
"\"If you are already invested in a particular stock, I like JoeTaxpayer's answer. Think about it as if you are re-buying the stocks you own every day you decide to keep them and don't set emotional anchor points about what you paid for them or what they might be worth tomorrow. These lead to two major logical fallacies that investor's commonly fall prey to, Loss Aversion and Sunk Cost, both of which can be bad for your portfolio in the long run. To avert these natural tendencies, I suggest having a game plan before you purchase a stock based on on your investment goals for that stock. For example a combination of one or more of the following: I'm investing for the long term and I expect this stock to appreciate and will hold it until (specific event/time) at which point I will (sell it all/sell it gradually over a fixed time period) right around the time I need the money. I'm going to bail on this stock if it falls more than X % from my purchase price. I'm going to cash out (all/half/some) of this investment if it gains more than x % from my purchase price to lock in my returns. The important thing is to arrive at a strategy before you are invested and are likely to be more emotional than rational. Otherwise, it can be very hard to sell a \"\"hot\"\" stock that has suddenly jumped in price 25% because \"\"it has momentum\"\" (gambler's fallacy). Conversely it can be hard to sell a stock when it drops by 25% because \"\"I know it will bounce back eventually\"\" (Sunk Cost/Loss Aversion Fallacy). Also, remember that there is opportunity cost from sticking with a losing investment because your brain is saying \"\"I really haven't lost money until I give up and sell it.\"\" When logically you should be thinking, \"\"If I move my money to a more promising investment I could get a better return than I am likely to on what I'm holding.\"\"\"",
"The nature of options requires you to understand that they are essentially a bet. In one sense, so is investing in stocks. We imagine a bell curve (first mistake) with a median return at 10%/yr and a standard deviation of about 14%. Then we say that odds are that over some period of time a monte-carlo simulation can give us the picture of the likely returns. Now, when you buy short term options, say one month or so, you are hoping the outcome is a rise in price that will yield some pretty high return, right? There was a time I noticed a particular stock would move a large percent based on earnings. And earnings were a day before options expiration. So I'd buy the call that was just out of the money and if the surprise was up, I'd make 3-4X my money. But I was always prepared to lose it all and often did. I never called this investing. I know of no recovery strategy. Sorry.",
"\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"",
"I did a historical analysis a few years back of all well-known candlestick patterns against my database of 5 years worth of 1-minute resolution data of all FTSE100 shares. There wasn't a single pattern that showed even a 1% gain with 60% reliability. Unfortunately I don't have spread data other than for a handful of days where I recorded live prices rather than minutely summaries, but my suspicion is that most of the time you wouldn't even earn back the spread on such a trade.",
"The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite",
"What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)",
"You say: Every time it seems the share price dips. Does it? Have you collected the data? It may just be that you are remembering the events that seem most painful at the time. To move the market with your trade you need to be dealing in a large amount of shares. Unless the stock is illiquid (e.g most VCT in the UK), I don’t think you are dealing in that large a number; if you were then you would likely have access to a real time feed of the order book and could see what was going on.",
"As JoeTaxpayer has commented, the markets are littered with the carcasses of those who buy into the idea that markets submit readily to formal analysis. Financial markets are amongst the most complex systems we know of. To borrow a concept from mathematics - that of a chaotic system - one might say that financial markets are a chaotic system comprised of a nested structure of chaotic subsystems. For example, the unpredictable behaviour of a single (big) market participant can have dramatic effects on overall market behaviour. In my experience, becoming a successful investor requires a considerable amount of time and commitment and has a steep learning curve. Your actions in abandoning your graduate studies hint that you are perhaps lacking in commitment. Most people believe that they are special and that investing will be easy money. If you are currently entertaining such thoughts, then you would be well advised to forget them immediately and prepare to show some humility. TL/DR; It is currently considered that behavioural psychology is a valuable tool in understanding investors behaviour as well as overall market trends. Also in the area of psychology, confirmation bias is another aspect of trading that it is important to keep in mind. Quantitative analysis is a mathematical tool that is currently used by hedge funds and the big investment banks, however these methods require considerable resources and given the performance of hedge funds in the last few years, it does not appear to be worth the investment. If you are serious in wanting to make the necessary commitments, then here are a few ideas on where to start : There are certain technical details that you will need to understand in order to quantify the risks you are taking beyond simple buying and holding financial instruments. For example, how option strategies can be used limit your risk; how margin requirements may force your hand in volatile markets; how different markets impact on one another - e.g., the relationship between bond markets and equity markets; and a host of other issues. Also, to repeat, it is important to understand how your own psychology can impact on your investment decisions.",
"\"Here's the slippage I was talking about - - - this is when I was trading DXO or around that time. the ultra shares----interesting read at least. \"\"Based on data from October 22, 2008 to January 26, 2009, the S&P 500 had a daily standard deviation of 3.62%. If you were to invest in SDS, an UltraShort ETF which has the S&P 500 as its underlying index, and were to hold it for a year, you should expect to lose between 34% and 74% of your money, if the S&P 500 is flat for that period. This assumes that there are no transaction costs, and that the expense ratio is 0% (in fact, it's 0.91%.) My experiment also assumed that daily stock market returns follow a normal distribution. In fact, the the distribution of daily stock market returns is leptokurtotic (it has fat tails.) According to my mathematical intuition (the Ph.D. is in math, in case you were curious,) if I had performed the experiment with a leptokurtotic distribution, the losses would have been larger. Obviously, this could be checked, but the results are bad enough as it is.\"\" http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/02/ultrapromises_fall_short.html\"",
"The earlier answers answered the question on how a more practical trader can lose money. Here I'd like to mention some obtuse ways Using debt to buy stocks. If one is borrowing at a higher rate than they are getting back, from an economics prospective their stocks are losing money even if the value of those stocks are going up. Using debt to buy stocks. I'll simplify the nightmare situation. I know someone who has Y dollars of cash. Their broker will loan them X. With their X+Y money, they purchase some equities through the broker. The agreement of the loan is that if the value of those equities drops below a certain percentage of the outstanding debt (ex 150%), the broker will automatically and without notification, sell some equities indiscriminately to reduce the outstanding debt. Being in high-interest debt but buying stocks. There are millions of people who are paying 15+% interest rates on consumer debt while investing and getting 5% returns or less on average. Similar to an earlier point, from an economics prospective the choice to buy equities is a profit losing choice.",
"\"If we can agree that 2010 was closer to the low of 2009 than 2007 then the rich did all the buying while the super-rich did all the selling. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Looks like the rich cleaned up during the Tech Crash too, but it looks like the poor lost faith. That limited data makes it look like the best investors are the rich. Market makers are only required by the exchanges to provide liquidity, bids & asks. They aren't required to buy endlessly. In fact, market makers (at least the ones who survive the busts) try to never have a stake in direction. They do this by holding equal inventories of long and shorts. They are actually the only people legally allowed to naked short stock: sell without securing shares to borrow. All us peons must secure borrowed shares before selling short. Also, firms involved in the actual workings of the market like bookies but unlike us peons who make the bets play by different margin rules. They're allowed to lever through the roof because they take on low risk or near riskless trades and \"\"positions\"\" (your broker, clearing agent, etc actually directly \"\"own\"\" your financial assets and borrow & lend them like a bank). http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p004001.pdf This is why market makers can be assumed not to load up on shares during a decline; they simply drop the bids & asks as their bids are hit.\"",
"On Black Friday, 1929,the market fell from over 350 to just above 200. If you were following your plan then you would buy in at about 200. But look what the market did for two years after Black Friday. It went down to about 50. You would have lost around 75% of your capital.",
"It seems to be that your main point is this: No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? In general, yes, that is true, but... Consider this very bad strategy: Buy one share of stock and sell it one minute later, and repeat this every minute of the day. Obviously you would bleed your account dry with fees. However, even this horrible strategy still meets your criteria because: if this bad strategy had an edge beyond the transaction fees you would likely still make a profit. In other words, your conclusion reduces to an uninteresting statement: If there were no transactions fees, then if your trading system has an edge then you will likely make a profit. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IMHO, that statement, and others made in the question are just obvious things stated in convoluted ways. I don't want to discourage you from thinking about these things though. I personally really enjoy these type of thought experiments. I just feel you missed the mark on this one...",
"This is the S&P a bit over 20 years. If you've discovered a way to sell at 1400 in 2000, buy at 800 or so in 2003, sell again, well, you get the idea. There's strong evidence the typical investor hears the S&P is making new highs and rushes in. It's this influx that may send stocks higher from here, until the smart money senses 'overbought' and bails. I am not the smart money, but my ability to ignore emotion, and use asset allocation naturally had me selling a bit into each run up, and of course buying during downturns. Not all or none, and not with any perfect timing, just at year end when I'm rebalancing. I am not a fan of short term timing, although I do respect Victor's observations and excellent example of when it's been shown to work.",
"Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.",
"If the stock has dropped from $10 to $2 and now is range trading between $2 and $3, and you were not able to sell your shares earlier, then I would no be holding on to them now. As soon as the price hit $3 sell them. After you have sold them and you noticed the stock still range trading one strategy you could apply is to go long after the price bounces off the $2 support placing a stop just below $2, then as the price moves up you trail your stop up with the price. As it starts getting close to $3 tighten your stop. If it keeps range trading and bounces off the resistance at $3 and you get stopped out, you can either go short and reverse the process or wait for it to bounce off the support at $2 again. One word of warning though, the longer a stock range trades, the bigger the outbreak out of the rage (either up or down) will be, that is the reason why you should first wait for confirmation that the price has bounced off support/resistance before opening a position, and secondly why you should use a stop loss to get you out instead of just selling when it hits $3, because if it breaks through $3 you can continue profiting as it moves up.",
"To answer your original question: There is proof out there. Here is a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that might be worth a read. It has a lot of references to other publications that might help answer your question(s) about TA. You can probably read the whole article then research some of the other ones listed there to come up with a conclusion. Below are some excerpts: Abstract: This article introduces the subject of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market, with emphasis on its importance for questions of market efficiency. “Technicians” view their craft, the study of price patterns, as exploiting traders’ psychological regularities. The literature on technical analysis has established that simple technical trading rules on dollar exchange rates provided 15 years of positive, risk-adjusted returns during the 1970s and 80s before those returns were extinguished. More recently, more complex and less studied rules have produced more modest returns for a similar length of time. Conventional explanations that rely on risk adjustment and/or central bank intervention do not plausibly justify the observed excess returns from following simple technical trading rules. Psychological biases, however, could contribute to the profitability of these rules. We view the observed pattern of excess returns to technical trading rules as being consistent with an adaptive markets view of the world. and The widespread use of technical analysis in foreign exchange (and other) markets is puzzling because it implies that either traders are irrationally making decisions on useless information or that past prices contain useful information for trading. The latter possibility would contradict the “efficient markets hypothesis,” which holds that no trading strategy should be able to generate unusual profits on publicly available information—such as past prices—except by bearing unusual risk. And the observed level of risk-adjusted profitability measures market (in)efficiency. Therefore much research effort has been directed toward determining whether technical analysis is indeed profitable or not. One of the earliest studies, by Fama and Blume (1966), found no evidence that a particular class of TTRs could earn abnormal profits in the stock market. However, more recent research by Brock, Lakonishok and LeBaron (1992) and Sullivan, Timmermann an d White (1999) has provided contrary evidence. And many studies of the foreign exchange market have found evidence that TTRs can generate persistent profits (Poole 6 (1967), Dooley and Shafer (1984), Sweeney (1986), Levich and Thomas (1993), Neely, Weller and Dittmar (1997), Gençay (1999), Lee, Gleason and Mathur (2001) and Martin (2001)).",
"well well, good question, worth a discussion, the more filters you add to your strategy (volatility in this case), the lower its predictive power. i mean, one could further filter it by day of the week, whether prices are above or below a 200 day moving average...etc.",
"\"First: do you understand why it dropped? Was it overvalued before, or is this an overreaction to some piece of news about them, or about their industry, or...? Arguably, if you can't answer that, you aren't paying enough attention to have been betting on that individual stock. Assuming you do understand why this price swing occurred -- or if you're convinced you know better than the folks who sold at that price -- do you believe the stock will recover a significant part of its value any time soon, or at least show a nice rate of growth from where it is now? If so, you might want to hold onto it, risking further losses against the chance of recovering part or all of what is -- at this moment -- only a loss on paper. Basically: if, having just seen it drop, you'd still consider buying it at the new price you should \"\"buy it from yourself\"\" and go on from here. That way at least you aren't doing exactly what you hope to avoid, buying high and selling low. Heck, if you really believe in the stock, you could see this as a buying opportunity... On the other hand, if you do not believe you would buy it now at its new price, and if you see an alternative which will grow more rapidly, you should take your losses and move your money to that other stock. Or split the difference if you aren't sure which is better but can figure out approximately how unsure you are. The question is how you move on from here, more than how you got here. What happened happened. What do you think will happen next, and how much are you willing to bet on it? On the gripping hand: This is part of how the market operates. Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on. If this is really stressing you out, you may not want to play with individual stocks. Mutual funds have some volatility too, but they're inherently diversified to a greater or lesser extent. They will rarely delight you, but they won't usually slap you this way either.\"",
"You bought the stock at some point in the past. You must have had a reason for this purchase. Has the recent change in price changed the reason you bought the stock? You must assume your losses are sunk costs. No matter what action you take, you can not recover your losses. Do not attempt to hold the stock in the hopes of regaining value, or sell it to stop losses. Instead approach this event as if this very day, you were given shares of the company's stock at their current market value for free as a gift. In this hypothetical situation, would you hold the shares, or sell them? Use that to judge your options. Not everyone, myself included, can handle the mental stress of watching share prices change. You can always consider trading index funds instead, which are much less volatile but will provide consistent, albeit, boring returns. This may or may not be you, but it's an option. Finally, do not keep money in the market you are not prepared to lose. It seems obvious, but if you lost 40% today, you could lose 100% tomorrow.",
"\"Finding statistics is exceedingly hard, because the majority of traders lose money. That is, not only they don't \"\"beat the markets\"\", not only they don't \"\"beat the benchmark\"\" (S&P 500 being used a lot as reference): they just lose money. Finding exact numbers, quality statistics and so on is very difficult. Finding recent ones, is almost impossible. With enormous effort I have found two references that might help make an idea. One is very recent, Forex \"\"centered\"\" and has been prepared by a large finance group for the the Europen Central Bank (ECB). It's available on their website, at an obscure download location. The document is stated to be confidential, but its download location has been disclosed to the public by CNBC. I can't post CNBC's link because I have just joined this Stack Exchange portal so I don't have enough reputation. You can find it by looking for their article about FXCM Forex broker debacle due to the Swiss Central Bank removing the EUR/CHF peg at 1.20. The second is a 2009-ish paper about Taiwanese retail traders profitability statistics published by Oxford University Press and talks about stocks. Both documents focus on retail traders. I strongly suggest you to immediately save those documents because they tend to disappear after a while. We had a fantastic and complete statistics report made by a group of German Banks in 2011... they pulled it off in 2012.\"",
"If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.",
"\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"",
"\"The only general rule is \"\"If you would buy the stock at its current price, hold and possibly buy. If you wouldn't, sell and buy something you believe in more strongly.\"\" Note that this rule applies no matter what the stock is doing. And that it leaves out the hard work of evaluating the stock and making those decisions. If you don't know how to do that evaluation to your own satisfaction, you probably shouldn't be buying individual stocks. Which is why I stick with index funds.\"",
"\"I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an \"\"ill-posed problem.\"\" It makes it a challenge to answer. The short answer is \"\"no.\"\" We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval. The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period. A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker. To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble. You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die. For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers. Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt. Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker. Maybe you are seeing a pattern here. The phrase \"\"market maker\"\" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies. In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money. Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it. So your long currency holdings will depreciate. Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered. Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player. There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts. There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large. You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random. While we teach \"\"fair\"\" coins and \"\"fair\"\" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist. If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi. It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game. Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem. A \"\"frequency\"\" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing. Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time. Even if you are trying to be \"\"fair,\"\" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss, I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were \"\"fair,\"\" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability. Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law. As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls. The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically. A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money. The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a \"\"mean return.\"\" A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an \"\"all-or-nothing\"\" cost function to evaluate your methodology.\"",
"Unless you are buying millions of dollars worth of a stock at a time, your transaction is a drop in the bucket, unlikely to have any noticable effect on the stock price. As Ian says, it's more likely that you are just remembering the times when the price dropped after you bought. If you keep careful track, I suspect you will find that the price goes up more often than it goes down, or at least, that the stocks you buy go up as often as the average stock on the market goes up. If you actually kept records and found that's not true, the most likely explanation is bad luck. Or that someone has placed a voodoo curse on you. I suppose one could imagine other scenarios. Like, if you regularly buy stock based on recommendations by well-known market pundits, you could expect to see a temporary increase in price as thousands or millions of people who hear this recommendation rush to buy, and then a few days or weeks later people move on to the next recommendation, the market setttles down, and the price reverts to a more normal level. In that case, if you're on the tail end of the buying rush, you could end up paying a premium. I'm just speculating here, I haven't done a study to find if this actually happens, but it sounds plausible to me.",
"There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing.",
"Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it.",
"\"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. \"\"Past performance does not predict future results.\"\" Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have \"\"underperformed\"\" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying \"\"you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement.\"\" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired.\"",
"No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.",
"\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"",
"\"In a perfect world of random stock returns (with a drift) there is no reason to \"\"take profit\"\" by exiting a position because there is no reason to think price appreciation will be followed by decline. In our imperfect world, there are many rules of thumb that occasionally work but if any one of them works consistently over a long period of time, everyone starts to practice that rule and then it stops working. Therefore, there are no such rules of thumb that work reliably and consistently over long periods of time and are expected to continue doing so. Finding such a rule is and always has been a moving target. The rational, consistently sensible reasons to sell a stock are: These rules are very different from my interpretation of the \"\"walk with your chips\"\" behavior mentioned in your question.\""
] |
[
"\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \"\"trade\"\" turned into an \"\"investment\"\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\"",
"\"It works if after the price has halved and you buy more the price then rises, however if you are attempting to do this you are basing you \"\"doubling down\"\" on hope, and if you are basing a purchase on hope you are gambling. In many cases if the price has halved it could be because there is something very wrong with the company, so the price could easly half again. In that case it hasn't worked. You are better off waiting to see if the company makes a turn around and starts improving. Wait for confirmation that the stock price is heading back up before buying.\""
] |
9391
|
Should I replace bonds in a passive investment strategy
|
[
"136515",
"283202",
"248158",
"503637"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"248158",
"136515",
"535518",
"283202",
"420316",
"480318",
"31581",
"225536",
"506298",
"553734",
"31139",
"296420",
"115517",
"342485",
"52941",
"20354",
"543619",
"466403",
"155242",
"142631",
"269550",
"112369",
"549270",
"503637",
"500815",
"487616",
"545760",
"333931",
"303037",
"107424",
"392885",
"510268",
"108845",
"315716",
"565667",
"140189",
"590364",
"570546",
"480887",
"392826",
"12623",
"108859",
"207779",
"427707",
"222076",
"553318",
"97729",
"430854",
"577832",
"431386",
"31954",
"228488",
"579319",
"498848",
"34925",
"133093",
"481683",
"344511",
"166885",
"461364",
"462612",
"478509",
"394814",
"27037",
"551590",
"55441",
"401952",
"107751",
"405212",
"418528",
"387277",
"599436",
"9465",
"186575",
"220602",
"564938",
"559927",
"309913",
"499418",
"208224",
"269851",
"425234",
"277",
"48529",
"118999",
"403977",
"335064",
"500986",
"273575",
"293320",
"218747",
"386423",
"263390",
"104254",
"62530",
"137736",
"130201",
"500452",
"505597",
"78520"
] |
[
"No. That's the point of a passive strategy: you maintain a more or less constant mix of assets and don't try to figure out what's going to move where.",
"\"Bonds still definitely have a place in many passive portfolios. While it is true that interest rates have been unusually low, yields on reasonable passive bond exposures are still around 2-4%. This is significantly better than both recent past inflation and expected inflation both of which are near zero. This is reasonable if not great return, but Bonds continue to have other nice properties like relatively low risk and diversification of stock portfolios (the \"\"offset[ing] losses\"\" you mention in the OP). So to say that bonds are \"\"no longer a good idea\"\" is certainly not correct. One could say bonds may no longer be a good idea for some people that have a particularly high risk tolerance and very high return requirements. However, to some extent, that has always been true. It is worth remembering also that there is some compelling evidence that global growth is starting to broadly slow down and many people believe that future stock returns and, in general, returns on all investments will be lower. This is much much harder to estimate than bond returns though. Depending on who you believe, bond returns may actually look relatively better than the have in the past. Edit in response to comment: Corporate bond correlation with stocks is positive but generally not very strong (except for high-yield junk bonds) so while they don't offset stock volatility (negative correlation) they do help diversify a stock portfolio. Government bonds have essentially zero correlation so they don't really offset volatility as much as just not add any. Negative correlation assets are generally called insurance and you tend to have to pay for them. So there is no free lunch here. Assets that reduce risk cost money, assets that add little risk give less return and assets that are more risky tend to give more return in the long run but you can feel the pain. The mix that is right for you depends on a lot of things, but for many people that mix involves some corporate and government bonds.\"",
"\"Investment strategies abound. Bonds can be part of useful passive investment strategy but more active investors may develop a good number of reasons why buying and selling bonds on the short term. A few examples: Also, note that there is no guarantee in bonds as you imply by likening it to a \"\"guaranteed stock dividend\"\". Bond issuers can default, causing bond investors to lose part of all of their original investment. As such, if one believes the bond issuer may suffer financial distress, it would be ideal to sell-off the investment.\"",
"\"The fact that some asset (in this case corporate bonds) has positive correlation with some other asset (equity) doesn't mean buying both isn't a good idea. Unless they are perfectly correlated, the best risk/reward portfolio will include both assets as they will sometimes move in opposite directions and cancel out each other's risk. So yes, you should buy corporate bonds. Short-term government bonds are essentially the risk-free asset. You will want to include that as well if you are very risk averse, otherwise you may not. Long-term government bonds may be default free but they are not risk free. They will make money if interest rates fall and lose if interest rates rise. Because of that risk, they also pay you a premium, albeit a small one, and should be in your portfolio. So yes, a passive portfolio (actually, any reasonable portfolio) should strive to reduce risk by diversifying into all assets that it reasonably can. If you believe the capital asset pricing model, the weights on portfolio assets should correspond to market weights (more money in bonds than stocks). Otherwise you will need to choose your weights. Unfortunately we are not able to estimate the true expected returns of risky assets, so no one can really agree on what the true optimal weights should be. That's why there are so many rules of thumb and so much disagreement on the subject. But there is little or no disagreement on the fact that the optimal portfolio does include risky bonds including long-term treasuries. To answer your follow-up question about an \"\"anchor,\"\" if by that you mean a risk-free asset then the answer is not really. Any risk-free asset is paying approximately zero right now. Some assets with very little risk will earn a very little bit more than short term treasuries, but overall there's nowhere to hide--the time value of money is extremely low at short horizons. You want expected returns, you must take risk.\"",
"Write off the entire asset class of corporate bonds? Finance theory says yes, the only two asset classes that you need are stocks and treasury bills (very short-term US government bonds). See the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).",
"IMHO bonds are not a good investment at this present time, nor generally. Appreciate for a moment that the yield of an investment is DIRECTLY related to the face/trading value. If a thing (bond/stock) trades for $100 and yields 3%, it pays $3. In the case of a bond, the bond doesn't pay a % amount, it pays a $ amount. Meaning it pays $3. SO, for the yield to rise, what has to happen to the trading price? It has to decrease. As of 2013/14 bonds are trading at historically LOW yields. The logical implication of this is if a bond pays a fixed $ amount, the trading price of the bond has to have increased. So if you buy bonds now, you will see a decrease in its face value over the long term. You may find the first tool I built at Simple Stock Search useful as you research potential investments.",
"When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.",
"This is just a pedestrian (my) opinion: Yes, It is wise to invest in bond funds even in a low interest environment. Check out the lazy man's portfolio on bogleheads. The reason is:",
"A very simple and safe, though boring, approach is to hold cash rather than bonds, and move out of cash later once higher yields have lowered asset prices.",
"Yes, you're absolutely right. For such small amounts and such large fees, almost any investment choice is pointless. Some brokers allow for commission free ETF trading. Seek them out. As you've noticed, bond interest rates are almost 0%. This is a far cry from the days of Benjamin Graham, where the USD acted more like gold, with much more frequent booms and busts. During Graham's heyday, one could sell one's bonds at super low interest rates and buy them back again when high. In his day, interest rates would be very high one year like in 2008 and next to nothing the next like in 2009, cycling back and forth, until the 1960s hit, and he didn't know what to do. Graham preferred to wait for the reversion to the mean, and act only when far from it. Those opportunities are few and far between now since fiat currencies are far better managed than they were then, the Fed-caused 2009 total destruction as an outlier to recent times. In your case, it's best to leave the bonds to the insurance companies and buy equities. If you want less volatility, buy a buy-write ETF. Bonds will surely disappoint unless one is lucky enough to hold bonds while interest rates fall from ~6% to ~3%, an eventuality that shouldn't be expected to occur again, as Bill Gross is painfully discovering.",
"It depends a lot on your investment period and the quality of the bonds that you want to invest. For example, if you want to invest until the maturity of the bonds, and the bonds are very safe (i.e. they are not expected to default), it does not matter that the interest rate rise. That is because at the maturity of the bond it will converge to its maturity value which will be independent of the change of the interest rates (although on the middle of the life the price of the bond will go down, but the coupon should remain constant -unless is a floating coupon bond-). An option could be to invest in an ETF with short term bonds (e.g. 1 year) with AAA credit rating (high quality, so very low default rate). It won't yield much, but is more than 0% if you hold it until maturity.",
"At a risk of stating the obvious: a passive portfolio doesn't try to speculate on such matters.",
"just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way.",
"It is difficult to actually 'answer' your (or any other) investment question as investment outlook and objectives are different from one individual to another. I shall put down some of my thoughts and probably you shall be able to factor them in while you take your decision. As for your last paragraph, in general from investment perspective, the younger you are more kisk you can take and bond gives a stable base to a portfolio. One good way to estimate the proportionality of bond:stock is (your age):(100-your age). However for 2-3 years you could ignore the above and invest in good quality stocks for long term.",
"\"You ask a question, \"\"Is there any real purpose in purchasing bonds?\"\" and then appear to go off on a rant. Before the question is closed by members here, let me offer this: This chart reflects the 10 year bond rate. From 1960-2004 (give or take) the coupon rate was over 4%. Asset allocation suggests a mix of stocks and bonds seeking to avoid the risk of having \"\"all of one's eggs in one basket.\"\" To that end, the simplest approach is a stock/bond mix. Over time, a 70/30 mix provides nearly 95% of the long tern return, but with a much lower volatility. I'm not going to suggest that a 2% 10 year bond is an exciting investment, but bonds may have a place in one's portfolio. I'm not going to debate each and every point you attempted, but #5 is especially questionable. If you feel this is true, you should short bonds. Or you should at least 99% of the time. Do you have data to back up this statement?\"",
"I've had the same thoughts recently and after reading Investing at Level 3 by James Cloonan I believe his thesis that for the passive investor you're giving up too much if you're not 100% in equities. He is clear to point out that you need to be well aware of your withdrawal horizons and has specific tactics for shifting the portfolio when you know you must have the money in the next five years and wouldn't want to pull money out when you're at a market low. The kicker for me was shifting your thought to a plotting a straight line of reasonable expectations on your return. Then you don't worry about how far down you are from your high (or up from your low) but you measure yourself against the expected return and you'll find some real grounding. You're investing for the long term so you're going to see 2-3 bear markets. That isn't the the time to get cold feet and react. Stay put and it will come back. The market gets back to the reasonable expectations very quickly as he confirms in all the bear markets and recessions of any note. He gives guidelines for a passive investing strategy to leverage this mentality and talks about venturing into an active strategy but doesn't go into great depth. So if you're looking to invest more passively this book may be enough to get you rolling with thinking differently than the traditional 70/30 split.",
"It looks like an improvement to me, if for no other reason than lowering the expenses. But if you are around 35 years away from retirement you could consider eliminating all bond funds for now. They will pay better in a few years. And the stock market(s) will definitely go up more than bonds over the next 35 years.",
"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.",
"As a general rule of thumb, age and resiliency of your profession (in terms of high and stable wages) in most cases imply that you have the ABILITY to accept higher than average level of risk by investing in stocks (rather than bonds) in search for capital appreciation (rather than income), simply because you have more time to offset any losses, should you have any, and make capital gains. Dividend yield is mostly sough after by people at or near retirement who need to have some cash inflows but cannot accept high risk of equity investments (hence low risk dividend stocks and greater allocation to bonds). Since you accept passive investment approach, you could consider investing in Target Date Funds (TDFs), which re-allocate assets (roughly, from higher- to lower-risk) gradually as the fund approaches it target, which for you could be your retirement age, or even beyond. Also, why are you so hesitant to consider taking professional advice from a financial adviser?",
"Buy a fund of bonds, there are plenty and are registered on your stockbroker account as 'funds' rather than shares. Otherwise, to the individual investor, they can be considered as the same thing. Funds (of bonds, rather than funds that contain property or shares or other investments) are often high yield, low volatility. You buy the fund, and let the manager work it for you. He buys bonds in accordance to the specification of the fund (ie some funds will say 'European only', or 'global high yield' etc) and he will buy and sell the bonds regularly. You never hold to maturity as this is handled for you - in many cases, the manager will be buying and selling bonds all the time in order to give you a stable fund that returns you a dividend. Private investors can buy bonds directly, but its not common. Should you do it? Up to you. Bonds return, the company issuing a corporate bond will do so at a fixed price with a fixed yield. At the end of the term, they return the principal. So a 20-year bond with a 5% yield will return someone who invests £10k, £500 a year and at the end of the 20 years will return the £10k. The corporate doesn't care who holds the bond, so you can happily sell it to someone else, probably for £10km give or take. People say to invest in bonds because they do not move much in value. In financially difficult times, this means bonds are more attractive to investors as they are a safe place to hold money while stocks drop, but in good times the opposite applies, no-one wants a fund returning 5% when they think they can get 20% growth from a stock.",
"\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"",
"For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds.",
"I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio.",
"How much money do you have in your money market fund and what in your mind is the purpose of this money? If it is your six-months-of-living-expenses emergency fund, then you might want to consider bank CDs in addition to bond funds as an alternative to your money-market fund investment. Most (though not necessarily all, so be sure to check) bank CDs can be cashed in at any time with a penalty of three months of interest, and so unless you anticipate being laid off very soon, you might get a slightly better rate of interest, FDIC insurance (which mutual funds do not have), and with any luck you may never have to break a CD and lose the interest. Building a ladder of CDs with one maturing each month might be another way to reduce the risk of loss. On the other hand, bond mutual funds are a risky bet now because your investment will lose value if interest rate go up, and as JohnFx points out, interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Finally, the amount of the investment is something that you might want to consider before making changes. If you have $50K put away as your six-month fund, you are talking of $500 versus $350 per annum in changing to a riskier investment with a 1% yield from a safer investment with a 0.7% yield. Whether bragging rights at neighborhood parties are worth the trouble is something for you to decide.",
"Maximizing income could mean a lot of things. What you really want is to maximize wealth. Doesn't matter if it comes from your bond appreciating in value or as dividends. In order to maximize your wealth (that's today's wealth), you need to make decisions based on the net present value of these bonds. The market is fairly priced, especially for a tight market like government bonds. That means if your bond falls in price, it has fallen by precisely the amount necessary so that an investor would be indifferent between purchasing it now, at its current price, and purchasing a new bond with a higher dividend. The bonds with higher dividends will simply have a higher price, so more of the money comes as dividends than as price appreciation (at maturity it will sell for face value). In other words, the animals are out of the barn and you have lost (or made) money already. Changing from one bond to another will not change your wealth one way or the other. The only potential effect of changing bonds will be changing the risk of your portfolio. If you buy a bond that matures later or has a lower dividend than your current bond, you will be adding additional interest rate risk to your portfolio. That risk should be compensated, so you will have a higher expected return as well. But regardless of your choice you will not be made wealthier or less wealthy by changing from one bond to another. Should you buy bonds that will earn you the most possible? Sure, if you are below your risk tolerance. Even among default free bonds, the longer the maturity and the lower the dividend, the greater the effect of future changes in interest rates on your bond. That makes them riskier, but also makes them earn more money on average. TL;DR: In terms of your wealth, which is what matters, it doesn't matter whether you hold your bond or buy a new one.",
"Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house.",
"You need to have a lot of money to play with direct bond investing safely. Trading bonds is not for amateurs, and the layman-friendly publications don't provide a lot of guidance. Unless you're prepared to hold a bond to maturity, the prices of even high quality bonds swing wildly. If you need a source of income, but not necessarily the ability to make money trading the bonds, look at Savings Bonds (specifically I-Bonds).",
"Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.",
"The Barclay's 20+ Year Treasury Bond inception date was July 21, 2002. You aren't going to find treasury bond information going back to 1900 because Treasury Bills have only been issued since 1929. The U.S. Department of the Treasury will give you data back to 1990. There's a good article in the Globe and Mail which covers why you may want to buy bonds as part of your portfolio. The key is diversification. Historically, stocks have done better than bonds long-term, but when stocks fall, bonds tend to (though do not always) go up. If you are investing for 30 years, the risk of putting money into bonds is that you will not make as much money as if you had put the money into stocks. Historically (in the US or Canada), you'd have seen positive returns, just not as high as investing in the stock market. There are many investment strategies. I live in Canada and personally favour the one described in the Canadian Couch Potato, a passive index investment strategy where I invest my money in Canadian, U.S. and International equity (stock market mutual funds) and also in a Canadian bond fund. There are, of course, plenty of people who will tell you to take a radically different strategy with your investments.",
"\"20-year Treasury Bonds are not equivalent to cash, not even close. Even though the bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, they are long-term debt and therefore their principal value will fluctuate considerably as market interest rates change. When interest rates rise, the market value of 20-year bonds will drop, and drop more than shorter-term bonds would. Your principal is not protected in the short term. Principal is only guaranteed returned at the 20-year maturity of those bonds. But, oops, there is no maturity on the 20-year bond ETFs because every year the ETF rolls the 19-year positions into new 20-year positions! ;-) For an \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" piece of a portfolio, I'd want my principal to be intact over the short term, and continually reinvested at the higher short-term rates as rates are rising. Reinvesting at short-term rates can be an inflation-hedge. But, money locked in for 20-years is a sitting duck for inflation. Still, inflation aside, why do we want our \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" position to be relatively liquid and principal-protected? When it comes time to rebalance your portfolio after disastrous equity and/or bond returns, you've got in your cash component some excess weighting since it was unaffected by the disastrous performance. That excess cash is ready to be deployed to purchase equities and/or bonds at the lower current prices. Rebalancing from cash can add a bonus to your returns and smooth volatility. If you have no cash component and only equities and bonds, you have no money to deploy when both equities and bonds are depressed. You didn't keep any powder dry. And, BTW, I would personally keep a bit more than 3% of my powder dry. Consider a short-term cash deposit or good money-market fund for your \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" position.\"",
"The answer may be a compromise... if your goal is to make bonds a larger part of your portfolio, sell both stocks and bonds in a 4:1 ratio. or (3:1 or whatever works for you) Also, just as you dollar-cost-average purchases of securities, you can do the same thing on the way out. Plan your sales and spread them over a period of time, especially if you have mutual funds.",
"IMHO your thinking is spot on. More than likely, you are years away from retirement, like 22 if you retire somewhat early. Until you get close keep it in aggressive growth. Contribute as much as you can and you probably end up with 3 million in today's dollars. Okay so what if you were retiring in a year or two from now, and you have 3M, and have managed your debt well. You have no loans including no mortgage and an nice emergency fund. How much would you need to live? 60 or 70K year would provide roughly the equivalent of 100K salary (no social security tax, no commute, and no need to save for retirement) and you would not have a mortgage. So what you decide to do is move 250K and move it to bonds so you have enough to live off of for the next 3.5 years or so. That is less than 10% of your nest egg. You have 3.5 years to go through some roller coaster time of the market and you can always cherry pick when to replenish the bond fund. Having a 50% allocation for bonds is not very wise. The 80% probably good for people who have little or no savings like less than 250k and retired. I think you are a very bright individual and have some really good money sense.",
"Do your homework on all types bonds and other lower-risk instruments, including bond funds and ETFs. I left too much money sitting around as cash over the last 5 years.",
"I recommend that you just leave the 401K where it is - a S&P 500 is a nice simple fund with very low expenses, and over the long term, I think that's a good choice for a 401K. I don't think it makes sense to put money in bonds at your age.",
"\"If I don't need this money for decades, meaning I can ride out periodical market crashes, why would I invest in bonds instead of funds that track broad stock market indexes? You wouldn't. But you can never be 100% sure that you really won't need the money for decades. Also, even if you don't need it for decades, you can never be 100% certain that the market will not be way down at the time, decades in the future, when you do need the money. The amount of your portfolio you allocate to bonds (relative to stocks) can be seen as a measure of your desire to guard against that uncertainty. I don't think it's accurate to say that \"\"the general consensus is that your portfolio should at least be 25% in bonds\"\". For a young investor with high risk tolerance, many would recommend less than that. For instance, this page from T. Rowe Price suggests no more than 10% bonds for those in their 20s or 30s. Basically you would put money into bonds rather than stocks to reduce the volatility of your portfolio. If you care only about maximizing return and don't care about volatility, then you don't have to invest in bonds. But you probably actually do care about volatility, even if you don't think you do. You might not care enough to put 25% in bonds, but you might care enough to put 10% in bonds.\"",
"Bonds released at the same time have different interest rates because they have different levels of risks and liquidity associated. Risk will depend on the company / country / municipality that offers the bond: their financial position, and their resulting ability to make future payments & avoid default. Riskier organizations must offer higher interest rates to ensure that investors remain willing to loan them money. Liquidity depends on the terms of the loan - principal-only bonds give you minimal liquidity, as there are no ongoing interest payments, and nothing received until the bond's maturity date. All bonds provide lower liquidity if they have longer maturity dates. Bonds with lower liquidity must have higher returns to compensate for the fact that you will have to give up your cash for a longer period of time. Bonds released at different times will have different interest rates because of what the general 'market rate' for interest was in those periods. ie: if a bond is released in 2016 with interest rates approaching 0%, even a high risk bond would have a lower interest rate than a bond released in the 1980s, when market rates were approaching 20%. Some bonds offer variable interest tied to some market indicator - those will typically have higher interest at the time of issuance, because the bondholder bears some risk that the prevailing market rate will drop. Note regarding sale of bonds after market rates have changed: The value of your bonds will fluctuate with the market. If a bond was offered with 1% interest, and next year interest rates go up and a new identical bond is offered for 2% interest, when you sell your old bond you will take a loss, because the market won't want to pay full price for it anymore. Whether you should sell lower-interest rate bonds depends on how you feel about the factors above - do you want junk bonds that have stock-like levels of returns but high risks of default, maturing in 30 years? Or do you want AAA+ Bonds that have essentially 0% returns maturing in 30 days? If you are paying interest on debt, it is quite likely that you could achieve a net income benefit by selling the bonds, and paying off debt [assuming your debt has a higher interest rate than your low-rate bonds]. Paying off debt is sometimes referred to as a 'zero risk return', because essentially there is no real risk that your lender would otherwise go bankrupt. That is, you will owe your bank the car loan until you pay it, and paying it is the only thing you can do to reduce it. However, some schools of thought suggest that maintaining savings + liquid investments makes sense even if you have some debt, because cash + liquid investments can cover you in some emergencies that credit cards can't help you with. ie: if you lose your job, perhaps your credit could be pulled and you would have nothing except for your liquid savings to tide you over. How much you should save in this way is a matter of opinion, but often repeated numbers are either 3 months or 6 months worth [which is sometimes taken as x months of expenses, and sometimes as x months of after-tax income]. You should look into this issue further; there are many questions on this site that discuss it, I'm sure.",
"0% bonds are desirable for some individuals. It depends on your situation. 0% bonds are usually sold well below par value (eg a 100$ face value bond for 2020 might sell for 90$ today) Hence, your gains will be CAPITAL GAINS. A similar investment paying interest would be taxed as INCOME, and smaller portion of capital gains. In many countries (US, Canada) Capital gains are taxed at a more favourable rate then income. This is especially true when holding these investments in corporations.",
"In theory, yes, it makes sense to sell your current bonds in pursuit of higher yields. In practice, there are a lot of smart people out there who own bonds, and the market is very efficient, so you won't see opportunities to trade new bonds for old bonds with better yields from the same issuer. If you do find someone willing to buy your old bond for a higher amount, it probably points to a change in the contract that the new bonds were issued under. (see Argentina for an example)",
"It doesn't matter which way you use. As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters. (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.)",
"I would say your decision making is reasonable. You are in the middle of Brexit and nobody knows what that means. Civil society in the United States is very strained at the moment. The one seeming source of stability in Europe, Germany, may end up with a very weakened government. The only country that is probably stable is China and it has weak protections for foreign investors. Law precedes economics, even though economics often ends up dictating the law in the long run. The only thing that may come to mind is doing two things differently. The first is mentally dropping the long-term versus short-term dichotomy and instead think in terms of the types of risks an investment is exposed to, such as currency risk, political risk, liquidity risk and so forth. Maturity risk is just one type of risk. The second is to consider taking some types of risks that are hedged either by put contracts to limit the downside loss, or consider buying longer-dated call contracts using a small percentage of your money. If the underlying price falls, then the call contracts will be a total loss, but if the price increases then you will receive most of the increase (minus the premium). If you are uncomfortable purchasing individual assets directly, then I would say you are probably doing everything that you reasonably can do.",
"\"Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - \"\"growing economy\"\" High growth and high inflation - \"\"overheating economy\"\" Low growth and high inflation - \"\"stagflation\"\" Low growth and low inflation - \"\"recession\"\" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns.\"",
"tl,dr: I-bonds do not fit well into most personal finance plans. First the questions (succinct reference): I like your thought process weighing your liquidity and risk versus your return. This is very important. However, I think you might be sidetracked a bit by I-Bonds. I-Bonds are not generally good for personal investment as they are not marketable when necessary, have redemption penalties and hold lower overall yields in general. Finally, they are significantly harder to trade as you can buy and hold a TIPS ETF and get exposure to all maturities and get the current competitive rate all in one purchase. Inflation protection is in general an interesting problem. While inflation-protected bonds sound like they are great for inflation protection (after all it is in the name), they may not be the best instruments for long/medium term protection. It is really important to remember that inflation protected bonds have significantly lower returns and one form of inflation protection is to just have more money in the future. TIPS really protect against large inflation changes as normal bonds have the future expected inflation already baked in their higher rates. Also, when you own a stock you own part of a company and inflation will increase the value of the company relative to the inflated currency. Foreign stocks can give even more protection if you think inflation in your local currency is going to be higher then the foreign currency. Stocks in the past have had significantly higher return overall than inflation protected bonds but have higher risk as well. As a medium term, low-risk portfolio, it is worth looking into some combination of TIPS, normal bonds and a small to medium allocation of local/foreign stocks all done through low-fee mutual funds or index ETFs.",
"The 'appropriate' amount of cash/bonds to hold will be largely a matter of opinion, but here are the general reasons why having at least some is a good idea: Cash is very liquid, and bonds are often mostly liquid. This means you can access them very quickly, without taking on losses. To get the most liquidity out of your bonds, you can do what is called 'laddering'. This means that you take out different bond amounts with different maturity dates, and periodically renew them on a schedule, so that you always have some bonds maturing, which you can access without paying an interest penalty. You can look this term up online for more details. Cash and bonds are low risk. If you have absolutely no low-risk assets, then in the event of, say, a market crash, you may have no savings to fall back on. By owning some bonds, and some equities, you are able to earn a modest return, without being too risky. However, note that some bonds are just as risky as equities - any bond which pays an abnormally high interest rate does so because the entity backing the repayment (government, company, whomever) is thought to not be guaranteed to be able to do so. The 25% figure given by your author is his opinion on the appropriate mix of cash/bonds to equities, but there are many views on the matter. Consider that any 'rule of thumb' in personal finance should be for general consideration only.",
"They made an analysis of my readiness to assume a risk and found out that I am willing to take only small risks. I would agree with this analysis. You really should rethink this part. At your age, you have no rational reason whatsoever to be risk-averse! Especially since any reasonably diversified fund already eliminates actual risk (of complete loss) almost completely. Going into bonds and real estate does not reduce risk at all; it reduces volatility - and you're giving up a lot of money merely to avoid seeing your investments go down temporarily(!)",
"Avoiding fees would not be the primary reason to buy bonds yourself. No, the reason to buy bonds yourself in a retirement account is that you can hold them to maturity. Bond funds can and do lose value if interest rates rise (and gain it if interest rates fall). Of course the same happens with the bond that you hold, but you can hang on to it until maturity and get the face value out of it. That said, it would take some effort to put together a decent bond portfolio, especially if you were going to buy anything rated lower than the absolute best. I think it'd be fun to do, but I'm weird that way.",
"You can look at TIPS (which have some inflation protection built in). Generally short term bonds are better than long if you expect rates to rise soon. Other ways that you can protect yourself are to choose higher yield corporate bonds instead of government bonds, or to use foreign bonds. There are plenty of bond funds like Templeton Global or ETFs that offer such features. Find one that will work for you.",
"The standard advice is that stocks are all over the place, and bonds are stable. Not necessarily true. Magazines have to write for the lowest common denominator reader, so sometimes the advice given is fortune-cookie like. And like mbhunter pointed out, the advertisers influence the advice. When you read about the wonders of Index funds, and see a full page ad for Vanguard or the Nasdaq SPDR fund, you need to consider the motivation behind the advice. If I were you, I would take advantage of current market conditions and take some profits. Put as much as 20% in cash. If you're going to buy bonds, look for US Government or Municipal security bond funds for about 10% of your portfolio. You're not at an age where investment income matters, you're just looking for some safety, so look for bond funds or ETFs with low durations. Low duration protects your principal value against rate swings. The Vanguard GNMA fund is a good example. $100k is a great pot of money for building wealth, but it's a job that requires you to be active, informed and engaged. Plan on spending 4-8 hours a week researching your investments and looking for new opportunities. If you can't spend that time, think about getting a professional, fee-based advisor. Always keep cash so that you can take advantage of opportunities without creating a taxable event or make a rash decision to sell something because you're excited about a new opportunity.",
"Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.",
"\"TL;DR: If your currently held bond's bid yield is smaller than another bonds' ask yield. You can swap your bond for bigger returns. Let's imagine you buy a long bond for $12000 (face value of $10000) and it has 6% coupon. The cash flows will have an internal return rate of 4.37%, this is the published \"\"ask yield\"\" in 2014 of the bond. After six years, prices have fallen, inflation and yields went up. So you can sell it for only $10000. If you would do it, the IRR will be only 2.55%, so there will be less return, than if you keep it. But if you would \"\"undo\"\" the transaction, then the future cash flows would yield 6.38%. This is the \"\"bid yield\"\" in 2020 of the bond. If you can find an offer that yields more than 6.38%, you have better returns if you sell your bond and invest that $10000 in the other bond. But as other answers pointed it out, you rarely have this opportunity as the market is very effective. (Assuming everything else is equal.)\"",
"\"I think Swenson's insight was that the traditional recommendation of 60% stocks plus 40% bonds has two serious flaws: 1) You are exposed to way too much risk by having a portfolio that is so strongly tied to US equities (especially in the way it has historically been recommend). 2) You have too little reward by investing so much of your portfolio in bonds. If you can mix a decent number of asset classes that all have equity-like returns, and those asset classes have a low correlation with each other, then you can achieve equity-like returns without the equity-like risk. This improvement can be explicitly measured in the Sharpe ratio of you portfolio. (The Vanguard Risk Factor looks pretty squishy and lame to me.) The book the \"\"The Ivy Portfolio\"\" does a great job at covering the Swenson model and explains how to reasonably replicate it yourself using low fee ETFs.\"",
"You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)",
"There many asset allocation strategies to chose from that beat lifestyle funds. For example: Relative Strength Asset Allocation keeps your money in Stocks when stocks perform well, bonds when they outperform stocks, and cash when both bonds and stocks are under-performing. The re-allocation happens on a monthly basis.",
"There is a thing called the Sharpe Ratio. This Ratio takes return/risk with risk being defined as the standard deviation of prices over time. According to Financial theory the investment with the highest (best) Sharpe Ratio is a market portfolio. Technically accepting the lower risk of a treasury is accepting an amplified lower return(market sharpe would be 1 than tbill sharpe would be at most .9999999999999). Because of this, unless there are liquidity restraints (don't buy ETFs with your payroll money DUH) you should ALWAYS be in market funds, otherwise you are leaving money on the table. Everything else is just speculation. Now the real question is value or growth.......",
"One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market.",
"How is it possible that long term treasury bonds, which the government has never defaulted on, can hold more risk as an ETF then the stock market index? The risk from long-term bonds isn't that the government defaults, but that interest rates go up before you get paid, so investors want bonds issued more recently at higher interest rates, rather than your older bonds that pay at a lower rate (so the price for your bonds goes down). This is usually caused by higher inflation rates which reduce the value of the interest that you will be paid. Do you assume more risk investing in bond ETFs than you would investing in individual bonds? If you are choosing the right ETFs, there should be a lower amount of risk because the ETFs are taking care of the difficult work of buying a variety of bonds. Are bond ETFs an appropriate investment vehicle for risk diversification? Yes, if you are investing in bonds, exchange traded funds are an appropriate way to buy them. The markets for ETFs are usually very liquid.",
"\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \"\"lost\"\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \"\"make money\"\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \"\"make\"\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \"\"worst\"\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\"",
"“Burt Malkiel is still the high priest of passive investing,” said Jakub Jurek, vice president for research at Wealthfront. “To be absolutely clear, we’re not stock pickers. There are decades of research on active investors, which show they underperform.” So ... not really straying, just promoting a somewhat more sophisticated model based on algos (robo-investors?)",
"You have no idea where interest rates will go. A year or two ago people thought 3% was absurdly low, why buy them? And then interest rates dropped even further, so the people who bought then got more interest AND the present value went up since then. If you'd done nothing you would have lost money. Now, rates are REALLY absurdly low. What do? Well, they could drop even more! It's possible. We could also have 20 years of flatline - see Japan. Sitting on your hands loses money. What else should you do? Put your money in risky equities? A lot of people these days are buying dividend paying stocks now. It's extremely foolhardy to treat stocks as fixed income because they are very far from it. Overextending yourself and taking on too equity risk, IMO, is FAR more risky than accepting low interest rates+interest rate risk. Finally: I don't exactly use bonds to make money, I use it as a safe haven while I wait for stocks to do something. Stocks go up, I sell some and buy bonds. Bonds go up I sell them and buy more stock. It's nice to get a little interest on the side but not critical. I could use cash (or 1month tbills) but I'm comfortable with the amount of risk-return that 5-10year bonds provide.",
"Since you are looking at preserving the principal, I would recommend laddered CDs and short term treasuries (TIPs/iBonds)",
"You don't say what kinds of mutual funds, or what bonds. You don't say how old you are. You seem to have enough cushion to strike out on your own comfortably. This is good. Compared with Vanguard's management fees, the fees you're paying are pretty high. The bottom line of what to invest in rests with you. If you outsource it, it's still your money. The managers get paid whether you make money or not. You have lots of other options: real estate from a distressed seller, commodities, currencies, websites, or other things where you have a knowledge advantage. For the time being, though, if you're concerned about your main income stream, I wouldn't get terribly risky with your money. Cash is just peachy in that case.",
"Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks.",
"well, you know the problem lies with bonds maturing. The issue is not the function COMP but the security itself. You have to use existing total return indices that reflect a constant 10yr maturity position. >perpetually rolled the principal once the bond matured until the present? That would mean your 10y becomes 7y, 5y, 3y, 1y, matured then you reinvest. Not the same. Use SECF to find something like MLT1US10 Index or go to the IND page to see Merrill Lynch's bond indices. They're some of the best.",
"Series I Savings Bonds would be another option that have part of their return indexed to inflation though currently they are yielding 1.64% through April 30, 2016 though some may question how well is that 3% you quote as an inflation rate. From the first link: Series I savings bonds are a low-risk savings product. While you own them they earn interest and protect you from inflation. You may purchase electronic I bonds via TreasuryDirect or paper I bonds with your IRS tax refund. As a TreasuryDirect account holder, you can purchase, manage, and redeem I bonds directly from your web browser. TIPS vs I Bonds if you want to compare these products that are rather safe in terms of avoiding a nominal loss. This would be where a portion of the funds could go, not all of them at once.",
"\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"",
"The average joe wouldn't... we would bury our cash in a mayonaise jar before we would take a guaranteed loss... (although the argument could be made that a positive return that doesnt outpace inflation IS a negative return)... big corporations with billions on hand dont have that luxury however... some investments may also guarantee investors that a certain percentage be allocated to bonds... and in times of deflation a negative return could still provide a net positive return...",
"\"In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as \"\"duration\"\" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds.\"",
"When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.",
"\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"\"regress to the mean\"\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\"",
"\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \"\"buy low\"\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\"",
"ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.",
"\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"",
"If the ship is sinking, switching cabins with your neighbor isn't necessarily a good survival strategy. Index funds have sucked, because frankly just about everything has sucked lately. I still think it is a viable long term strategy as long as you are doing some dollar cost averaging. You can't think about long term investing as a steady climb up a hill, markets are erratic, but over long periods of time trend upwards. Now is your chance to get in near the ground floor. I can completely empathize that it is painful right now, but I am a believer in market efficiency and that over the long haul smart money is just more expensive (in terms of fees) than set-it-and-forget it diversified investments or target funds.",
"You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.",
"The idea with passive investing in ETFs is to eliminate the all important firm specific risk. I agree with him that it surely creates a herd mentality and might over/understate the fundamental prices for individual stocks. If fund managers could consistently maintain alpha, lower their 2/20, and not shutdown when they can't reach their high water mark, then maybe investors might come back to them. As it stands now, the money goes where it can get the best return with only market risk to worry about.",
"Yes. If you're still 20 years off from retirement, it wouldn't make sense to liquidate everything; it'd be an attempt to time the market. If you're *very* worried and retirement is soon, then it'd be something to consider (albeit bonds would make more sense at that point).",
"If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider moving them into an online saving account. You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible. Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks). If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be. Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio. It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments. If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate. Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value.",
"As others have pointed out your bond funds should have short durations, preferably not more than about 2 years. If you are in a bond fund for the long haul meaning you do not have to draw on your bond fund a short time after interest rates have gone up, it is not a big issue. The fund's holdings will eventually turn over into higher interest bearing paper. If bonds do go down, you might want to add more to the fund(s) (see my comment on age-specific asset allocation below). Keep in mind that some stocks are interest sensitive, for example utility stocks which are used as an income source and their dividends compete with rates on CDs which are much safer. Right now CD rates are very low. This could change. It's possible that we may be in an unusually sensitive interest rate period that might have large effects on the stock market, yet to be determined. The reason is that rates have been so low for such a long time that folks that normally would have obtained income streams from bonds have turned to dividend bearing stocks. Some believe that recent market rises are due to such people seeking dividends to enhance cash inflows. If, and emphasis on if, this is true, we could see a sharp drop in the market as sell offs occur as those who want cash streams move from stocks to ultra safe, government insured CDs. Only time will tell if this is going to play out. If retirement for you is 15+ years in the future and the market goes down (bonds or equities), good stuff - it's a buying opportunity in whatever category has dropped. Most important is to keep an eye on your asset allocation and make sure it is appropriate to your age. You did not state the percentages in each category, so further discussion is impossible on that topic. With more than 15 years to go, I personally would be heavily weighted on the equity side, mostly mid-cap and some small equity funds or ETFs in both domestic and international markets. As you age, shuffle some equities into fixed income (bonds, CDs and the like). Work up an asset allocation plan - start thinking about it now. Don't wait.",
"\"> Basically, the whole idea of passive/mindless (\"\"set it and forget it\"\") gains from investments being the path to \"\"wealth\"\" has to go bye-bye -- it was never really \"\"real\"\" to begin with (unless you \"\"timed\"\" the market just right), and the vast majority of the gains were nominal anyway. Couldn't have said it much better. > a lucky generation or two got away with it (sheerly by accident in the timing of their birth, something they really had no input into). While I agree a majority was luck to be born at the right time, Boomers are to blame (IMHO) for the loss of \"\"guaranteed retirement.\"\" Pensions were one of the greatest things that came out of the industrialization and unionization of the late 19th-mid 20th century and Boomers allowed government to change regulations that permitted corporations to raid pension funds, monkey around with them, and then cry about them being burdensome after they hollowed them out. The vast majority of people are not smart enough to save sufficiently for their future and pensions were the safeguard for that. Boomers let that go for higher immediate take home and, now, will be reliant on SSI and meager savings. > Instead I think one will ALWAYS need to be \"\"working\"\" in some manner or another -- actively overseeing ones investments and remaining \"\"agile\"\" in response. And of course there is risk involved in that (as if there is really any reason we should expect there NOT to be? Anyone who thinks that way IMO is simply ignorant of the vast scope of human history). For those of us here, that is feasible. However, most people will not have the interest or ability to manage their own investments. Where does this requirement leave them? Still working and, in doing so, keeping those jobs from opening up for new graduates/new people entering the workforce. > The best I think one can do is to TRULY diversify (and that does NOT mean \"\"mutual funds\"\") -- to separate your eggs into various \"\"baskets\"\", holding some major part in solid (as solid as can be) form (even with the possibility of zero return and/or some \"\"loss\"\" -- i.e. owning primary housing clear of debt, some PM's in physical form, etc); having other assets in what are fairly solid \"\"bets\"\" (based on demographic trends, company quality, etc); and then some things (several small bets) that are \"\"long shots\"\" but potentially high-return things (where just one \"\"win\"\" can not only offset a dozen non-performers/losers, but gain you a substantial real profit). I could not agree more. I have done the same thing and used the same argument; even to the point of purchasing a whole life insurance policy. Diversification, in case one or multiple investments tank, is the only way to survive. I have also decided that, for some of my assets, I am just a DCA/DRIP buy and hold guy of 10-20 diversified stocks from different industries. Leave it up to time and compounding over my own ability to time/pick. Anyway, I guess that's the whole answer; there is no right answer. Diversification and continued diligence are key. Good discussing with you. Best of luck.\"",
"\"I don't like buying individual bonds for my own portfolio. I actually used to buy long-term government strip bonds (Canadas or provincial bonds) but I stopped. Here are some reasons why: My broker allows me to purchase bonds via their web application. However, to sell a bond, I had to call in to the fixed-income trading desk. That was inconvenient. (But your broker may be different.) Bonds don't typically trade on a formal exchange. So, there's no cheap & easy way (as far as I know) to get an independent quote for a bond's value – I had to trust what my broker said my bond was worth when assessing my portfolio performance. I asked my broker once how they arrive at the \"\"market value\"\" shown – i.e. whether it was last bid, ask, or actual trade – and I was told they use a third party bond quotation / valuation information provider for the data, and that quotes are an estimate of what the bond would be worth, based on similar bonds. I quickly learned that wasn't the value I could actually get when selling it: When you're dealing with your broker to buy and sell bonds, you're likely dealing with theirs or a related investment bank which makes a market for specific issues of bonds. While I wasn't being charged an explicit commission to buy or sell bonds, it was evident the broker makes money off the spread: That is, the difference between what they would be willing to sell a bond for and what they would be willing to buy that same bond for. They will buy your bond back from you cheaper than what they could turn around and sell it to somebody else for. That's why they don't charge an explicit commission... it's built in and hidden! Anyway, when I finally discovered my broker would seldom actually offer me the \"\"market value\"\" quoted for my bonds (typically, it would be bought back for a few percent less than it were theoretically worth), I gave up. I don't think bonds simply are liquid enough, nor the costs transparent enough for retail investors. (Or maybe it's just me :-) However, I do think bonds remain an important part of a diversified portfolio: Bonds ought to be represented in a diversified portfolio using low-cost bond index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. Since these funds buy & sell bonds in large quantities, they get a better deal on the spreads. So, while you do pay an explicit management fee for a fund, you are probably saving since you're not getting shafted on the spreads.\"",
"Being in the same situation, and considering that money doesn't need to be available until 2025, I just buy stocks. I plan to progressively switch to safer options as time passes.",
"US government bonds and bonds issued by companies with a safe track record and consistently high ratings, for the past years, by credit agencies. But the time line of your investment, which is quite short, maybe a factor of choosing the right bonds. If you are not going to touch the money then CD maybe an option or an interest bearing savings account.",
"My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.",
"\"Junk Bonds (aka High Yield bonds) are typically those bonds from issues with credit ratings below BBB-. Not all such companies are big risks. They are just less financially sound than other, higher rated, companies. If you are not comfortable doing the analysis yourself, you should consider investing in a mutual fund, ETF, or unit trust that invests in high yield bonds. You get access to \"\"better quality\"\" issues because a huge amount of the debt markets goes to the institutional channels, not to the retail markets. High yield (junk) bonds can make up a part of your portfolio, and are a good source of regular income. As always, you should diversify and not have everything you own in one asset class. There are no real rules of thumb for asset allocation -- it all depends on your risk tolerance, goals, time horizon, and needs. If you don't trust yourself to make wise decisions, consult with a professional whom you trust.\"",
"\"To be completely honest, I think that a target of 10-15% is very high and if there were an easy way to attain it, everyone would do it. If you want to have such a high return, you'll always have the risk of losing the same amount of money. Option 1 I personally think that you can make the highest return if you invest in real estate, and actively manage your property(s). If you do this well with short term rental and/or Airbnb I think you can make healthy returns BUT it will cost a lot of time and effort which may diminish its appeal. Think about talking to your estate agent to find renters, or always ensuring your AirBnB place is in good nick so you get a high rating and keep getting good customers. If you're looking for \"\"passive\"\" income, I don't think this is a good choice. Also make sure you take note of karancan's point of costs. No matter what you plan for, your costs will always be higher than you think. Think about water damage, a tenant that breaks things/doesn't take care of stuff etc. Option 2 I think taking a loan is unnecessarily risky if you're in good financial shape (as it seems), unless you're gonna buy a house with a mortgage and live in it. Option 3 I think your best option is to buy bonds and shares. You can follow karancan's 100 minus your age rule, which seems very reasonable (personally I invest all my money in shares because that's how my father brought me up, but it's really a matter of taste. Both can be risky though bonds are usually safer). I think I should note that you cannot expect a return of 10% or more because, as everyone always says, if there were a way to guarantee it, everyone would do it. You say you don't have any idea how this works so I'd go to my bank and ask them. You probably have access to private banking so that should mean someone will be able to sit you down and talk you through. Also look at other banks that have better rates and/or pretend you're leaving your bank to negotiate a better deal. If I were you I'd invest in blue chips (big international companies listed on the main indeces (DAX, FTSE 100, Dow Jones)), or (passively managed) mutual funds/ETFs that track these indeces. Just remember to diversify by country and industry a bit. Note: i would not buy the vehicles/plans that my bank (no matter what they promise, and they promise a lot) suggest because if you do that then the bank always takes a cut off your money. TlDr, dont expect to make 10-15% on a passive investment and do what a lot of others do: shares and bonds. Also make sure you get a lot of peoples opinions :)\"",
"I'd say neither. Index Funds mimic whatever index. Some stocks that are in the index are good investment opportunities, others not so much. I'm guessing the Bond Index Funds do the same. As for Gold... did you notice how much gold has risen lately? Do you think it will keep on rising like that? For which period? (Hint: if your timespan is less than 10 years, you really shouldn't invest). Investing is about buying low, and selling high. Gold is high, don't touch it. If you want to invest in funds, look at 4 or 5 star Morningstar rated funds. My advisors suggest Threadneedle (Lux) US Equities DU - LU0096364046 with a 4 star rating as the best American fund at this time. However, they are not favoring American stocks at this moment... so maybe you should stay away from the US for now. Have you looked at the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries?",
"If your main goal is to avoid taxes, municipal bonds are a good strategy, it's not the best way to make more than 1-2% in gains. And kudos for putting money back into the community.",
"\"This is always a judgement call based on your own tolerance for risk. Yes, you have a fairly long time horizon and that does mean you can accept more risk/more volatility than someone closer to starting to draw upon those savings, but you're old enough and have enough existing savings that you want to start thinking about reducing the risk a notch. So most folks in your position would not put 100% in stocks, though exactly how much should be moved to bonds is debatable. One traditional rule of thumb for a moderately conservative position is to subtract your age from 100 and keep that percentage of your investments in stock. Websearch for \"\"stock bond age\"\" will find lots of debate about whether and how to modify this rule. I have gone more aggressive myself, and haven't demonstrably hurt myself, but \"\"past results are no guarantee of future performance\"\". A paid financial planning advisor can interview you about your risk tolerance, run some computer models, and recommend a strategy, with some estimate of expected performance and volatility. If you are looking for a semi-rational approach, that may be worth considering, at least as a starting point.\"",
"Last year was a great opportunity for dividend stocks and MLPs. I have a few which are earning 6-9% of my investment basis cost. Municipal bonds are a good value now. If you have the connections, passive investments in convenience franchises or other commercial property are a good income stream. A Dunkin Donuts used to be an amazing money printing machine.",
"The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity. Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option.",
"It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term. The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss. If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce. It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured.",
"\"First, I'd recommend that you separate \"\"short-term\"\" assets from \"\"long-term\"\" assets in your head. Short-term assets are earmarked for spending on something specific in the near future or are part of your emergency fund. These should be kept in cash or short bond funds. Long-term assets are assets that you can take some risks with and aren't going to spend in the next few years. Under normal circumstances, I'd recommend 80% stocks/20% bonds or even 70/30 for someone your age, assuming you're saving mainly for retirement and thus have a correspondingly long time horizon. These portfolios historically are much less risky than 100% stock and only return slightly less. Right now, though, I think that anyone who doesn't absolutely need safety keep 100% of their long-term assets in stocks. I'm 26 and this is my asset allocation. Bond yields are absolutely pathetic by historical standards. Even ten year treasury yields are comparable to S&P 500 dividend yields and likely won't outperform inflation if held to maturity. The stock market is modestly undervalued when measured by difference between current P/E ratio and the historical average and more severely undervalued when you account for the effects of reduced inflation, transaction costs and capital gains taxes on fair valuation. Therefore, the potential reward for taking risk is much higher now than it usually is.\"",
"I would suggest looking into Relative Strength Asset Allocation. This type of investment strategy keeps you invested in the best performing asset classes. As a result of investing in this manner it removes the guesswork and moves naturally (say into cash) when the stock market turns down. There is a good whitepaper on this subject by Mebane Faber titled Relative Strength Strategies for Investing.",
"Many folks use bonds to diversify their portfolio since bonds rise and fall in value at different times and for different reasons than stocks. Bonds pay interest on a regular basis (usually monthly or quarterly) and so some people invest in bonds in order to match the interest payments to some regular expense they might have. The interest payment does not change (fixed income). For individual bonds, there is a maturity date at which you can expect to receive the face value of the bond (the issuer's creditworthiness is important here). You can make a little money on a bond by buying it when its value is lower than its face value and either selling later for a higher value, or waiting for it to mature. Often the minimum investment for a single bond is high, so if you don't have a large enough amount, you can still get the performance of bonds through a bond fund. These do not mature, so you don't have a guarantee of a return of your investment. However, they have access to more bonds than retail investors, so the funds can keep your money more fully invested. If you don't need the income, you can reinvest the dividends and have a little extra capital growth this way.",
"It's a what-if? sort of question. What if rates stay down or trend only slightly higher, despite no QE? look at other countries response to tepid economies. My experience as professional advisor (25 yrs) tells me the future is unknowable and diversity is good. Make alternative choices- they all won't work wonderfully, but some will.",
"\"A great deal of analysis on this question relies on misunderstandings of the market or noticing trends that happened at the same time but were not caused by each other. Without knowing your view, I'll just give the basic idea. The amount of active management is self-correcting. The reason people have moved out of actively managed funds is that the funds have not been performing well. Their objective is to beat their benchmarks by profiting as they correct mispricing. They are performing poorly because there is too much money chasing too few mispricings. That is why the actively managed industry is shrinking. If it gets small enough, presumably those opportunities will become more abundant and mispricing correction will become more profitable. Then money will flow back into active funds. Relevant active management may not be what a lay person is thinking of. At the retail level, we are observing a shift to passive funds, but there is still plenty of money in other places. For example, pension and endowment funds normally have an objective of beating a market benchmark like the Russell 3000. As a result they are constantly trying to find opportunities to invest in active management that really can outperform. They represent a great deal of money and are nothing like the \"\"buy and forget\"\" stereotype we sometimes imagine. Moreover, hedge funds and propreitary trading shops explicitly and solely try to correct mispricings. They represent a very, very large bucket of money that is not shrinking. Active retail mutual funds and individual investors are not as relevant for pricing as we might think. More trading volume is not necessarily a good thing, nor is it the measure of market quality. One argument against passive funds is that passive funds don't trade much. Yet the volume of trading in the markets has risen dramatically over time as a result of technological improvements (algorithmic traders, mostly). They have out-competed certain market makers who used to make money on inefficiencies of the market. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, prices are more efficient now and it appears that these computers are more responsive to price-relevant information than people used to be. So even if trading volume does decrease, I see no reason to worry that prices will become less efficient. That's not the direction things have gone, even as passive investing has boomed. Overall, worries about passive investing rely on an assumption that there is not enough interest in and resources for making arbitrage profits to keep prices efficient. This is highly counterfactual and always will be. As long as people and institutions want money and have access to the markets, there will be plenty of resources allocated to price correction.\"",
"The only reason I can think of is that the bonds are bought automatically by some investment pools, groups or institutions. That will stop very quickly once the management finds some other place to put the money.",
"As one of the answers described, its going to depend on many factors and the environment at the time. But there is no sure way to know which strategy is better, if any are at all. I would say over several hundred years the strategies would be equally as profitable. In a free market the longer dated bonds would be priced lower (higher yield) because they are higher risk. And over a long enough time period that higher risk may end up resulting in that bond being worth less, or maybe nothing at all. In a free market, price discovery would factor all this in, and the two strategies would become equal. The same is true for the price during inversion events Having said that, we dont live in a free market. With central bankers monetizing debt in so many countries, sometimes investing in short term bonds, including US treasuries, is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power, as these yields are below inflation and sometimes even negative.",
"\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"",
"FI funds don't always drop in rising rate environments, and can outperform thanks to simple bond math and the way the indexes are built. It's one of the places where it's very easy to argue in favour of some form of active management."
] |
[
"\"Bonds still definitely have a place in many passive portfolios. While it is true that interest rates have been unusually low, yields on reasonable passive bond exposures are still around 2-4%. This is significantly better than both recent past inflation and expected inflation both of which are near zero. This is reasonable if not great return, but Bonds continue to have other nice properties like relatively low risk and diversification of stock portfolios (the \"\"offset[ing] losses\"\" you mention in the OP). So to say that bonds are \"\"no longer a good idea\"\" is certainly not correct. One could say bonds may no longer be a good idea for some people that have a particularly high risk tolerance and very high return requirements. However, to some extent, that has always been true. It is worth remembering also that there is some compelling evidence that global growth is starting to broadly slow down and many people believe that future stock returns and, in general, returns on all investments will be lower. This is much much harder to estimate than bond returns though. Depending on who you believe, bond returns may actually look relatively better than the have in the past. Edit in response to comment: Corporate bond correlation with stocks is positive but generally not very strong (except for high-yield junk bonds) so while they don't offset stock volatility (negative correlation) they do help diversify a stock portfolio. Government bonds have essentially zero correlation so they don't really offset volatility as much as just not add any. Negative correlation assets are generally called insurance and you tend to have to pay for them. So there is no free lunch here. Assets that reduce risk cost money, assets that add little risk give less return and assets that are more risky tend to give more return in the long run but you can feel the pain. The mix that is right for you depends on a lot of things, but for many people that mix involves some corporate and government bonds.\"",
"\"The fact that some asset (in this case corporate bonds) has positive correlation with some other asset (equity) doesn't mean buying both isn't a good idea. Unless they are perfectly correlated, the best risk/reward portfolio will include both assets as they will sometimes move in opposite directions and cancel out each other's risk. So yes, you should buy corporate bonds. Short-term government bonds are essentially the risk-free asset. You will want to include that as well if you are very risk averse, otherwise you may not. Long-term government bonds may be default free but they are not risk free. They will make money if interest rates fall and lose if interest rates rise. Because of that risk, they also pay you a premium, albeit a small one, and should be in your portfolio. So yes, a passive portfolio (actually, any reasonable portfolio) should strive to reduce risk by diversifying into all assets that it reasonably can. If you believe the capital asset pricing model, the weights on portfolio assets should correspond to market weights (more money in bonds than stocks). Otherwise you will need to choose your weights. Unfortunately we are not able to estimate the true expected returns of risky assets, so no one can really agree on what the true optimal weights should be. That's why there are so many rules of thumb and so much disagreement on the subject. But there is little or no disagreement on the fact that the optimal portfolio does include risky bonds including long-term treasuries. To answer your follow-up question about an \"\"anchor,\"\" if by that you mean a risk-free asset then the answer is not really. Any risk-free asset is paying approximately zero right now. Some assets with very little risk will earn a very little bit more than short term treasuries, but overall there's nowhere to hide--the time value of money is extremely low at short horizons. You want expected returns, you must take risk.\"",
"No. That's the point of a passive strategy: you maintain a more or less constant mix of assets and don't try to figure out what's going to move where.",
"I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio."
] |
928
|
How can I determine if a FHA loan refinance offer is from a reputable lender
|
[
"349866",
"11572"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"349866",
"11572",
"456783",
"352429",
"354434",
"391655",
"446137",
"320953",
"233561",
"562798",
"251466",
"272862",
"513980",
"104221",
"422770",
"540929",
"563380",
"340831",
"367944",
"331255",
"221431",
"185217",
"254152",
"195053",
"538005",
"114428",
"393152",
"381386",
"549151",
"123418",
"115111",
"77232",
"565762",
"53945",
"308964",
"394460",
"581033",
"457081",
"586647",
"297046",
"23675",
"101600",
"465905",
"503444",
"108511",
"160132",
"481977",
"114908",
"461177",
"187201",
"175693",
"403033",
"266358",
"468894",
"511072",
"178127",
"431682",
"578885",
"323269",
"38712",
"504776",
"158591",
"160611",
"129480",
"400083",
"501690",
"65605",
"161861",
"230297",
"203876",
"49059",
"65659",
"489479",
"170511",
"316872",
"508896",
"253317",
"467141",
"426944",
"309588",
"205665",
"455952",
"567201",
"368504",
"188845",
"441227",
"588026",
"264010",
"42465",
"275127",
"219119",
"446646",
"374049",
"525247",
"96666",
"58368",
"366215",
"19781",
"188756",
"536863"
] |
[
"In my book if it comes in the mail with official looking envelopes, language and seals to try and get you to open it, the company isn't trust worthy enough for my business. I get a pile of these for my VA loan every week, I imagine FHA loans get similar junk mail. Rates are very low at the moment so it is likely that rates from reputable lenders are 1 to 2% lower than say a year or 2 years ago. In general if a lender gives you a GFE the numbers on it are going to be pretty accurate and there isn't a great deal of wiggle room for the lender so the concerns with reputation should focus on is this outfit some type of scam and then reviews on how good or bad their customer service is. Chances of running into a scam seem pretty low but the costs could be really high. As far as checking if an unknown lender is any good it is kind of tough to do. There is a list of Lenders on HUD's site. Checking BBB can't hurt but I wouldn't put a lot of stock into their recommendations. Doing some general Google searches certainly can't hurt but aren't fool proof either. Personally I would start by checking what prevailing rates are for your current situation. You could go to your proffered bank or to any number of online sites to get a couple of quotes.",
"Start with the list of mortgage companies approved to work in your area. There are 80 within 10 miles of my house, and more than 100 in my county. Pick ones you know because they are established businesses in your area, region, or even nationally. A good place to start might be with your current lender. The risk you seem to be worried about is a scam or a trick. In the recent past the scams were ones where the home owner didn't understand teaser rates, and the risk of interest only and pick-your-payment loans. The simpler the bells and whistles, the less likely you are to be embarking on a risky transaction. It can't hurt to ask an organization like the BBB or neighbors, but realize that many people loved their exotic mortgage until the moment it blew up in their face. So for 5 years your neighbor would have raved about their new mortgage until they discovered how underwater they were. Regarding how smoothy the transaction is accomplished, is hard to predict. There is great variation in the quality of the loan officers, so a great company can have rookie employees. Unless you can get a recommendation for a specific employee it is hard know if your loan officer is going to give great service. When getting a mortgage for a purchase, the biggest risk is getting a mortgage that results in a payment you can't afford. This is less of a risk with a refinance because you already have a mortgage and monthly payment. But keep in mind some of the monthly savings is due to stretching out the payments for another 30 years. Know what you are trying to do with the refinance because the streamlined ones cant be used for cash out.",
"\"This is obviously a spam mail. Your mortgage is a public record, and mortgage brokers and insurance agents were, are and will be soliciting your business, as long as they feel they have a chance of getting it. Nothing that that particular company offers is unique to them, nothing they can offer you cannot be done by anyone else. It is my personal belief that we should not do business with spammers, and that is why I suggest you to remember the company name and never deal with them. However, it is up to you if you want to follow that advice or not. What they're offering is called refinance. Any bank, credit union or mortgage broker does that. The rates are more or less the same everywhere, but the closing fees and application fees is where the small brokers are making their money. Big banks get their money from also servicing the loans, so they're more flexible on fees. All of them can do \"\"streamline\"\" refinance if your mortgage is eligible. None if it isn't. Note that the ones who service your current mortgage might not be the ones who own it, thus \"\"renegotiating the rate\"\" is most likely not an option (FHA backed loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the original lenders continue servicing them - but don't own them). Refinancing - is a more likely option, and in this case the lender will not care about your rate on the old mortgage.\"",
"Whenever you're not sure, you can always contact the regulatory agency in the location of the lender and see if they are registered. Organizations that lend out money tend to get oversight and have reporting obligations. Reputable banks in the United States will be a member of the FDIC. However, without even looking anything up, I can already tell this is a scam. An actual lender would be required to identify who you are beyond a doubt (this is called KYC), and in addition would have to report your loan to some sort of tax authority. That means they must ask you for a tax identifier number of some kind, and would probably want your full date of birth instead of just your age.",
"If you're refinancing a conforming (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) mortgage, don't go with an FHA. Try a HARP refinance, which won't increase your mortgage insurance even if your home has lost value. HARP also limits the risk-based pricing adjustments that can be charged, so your rate should be very competitive. With an FHA mortgage, even once you get the loan-to-value ratio down to 80 percent, you still have mortgage insurance for several years, plus the upfront costs. In your case, I think it's a bad deal.",
"How you check if a broker is legitimate: 1) Are they a registered broker dealer? Broker dealers have to be registered with FINRA and the SEC , which have their own databases for you to look up individuals and companies. here is FINRA's http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/ FINRA is a self-regulatory agency, the SEC is a federal government agency. All things considered, they pretty much have similar legislative authority over the industry. But thats a different story. If the broker isn't able to produce information that would confirm their registration status, or if you can't readily find it in the regulators database, then that is a major red flag. The biggest red flag of them all. 2) If brokers are also acting as a consumer bank, such as how Merrill Lynch is now part of Bank of America and the accounts can be linked pretty easily, then they should will also be regulated by the FDIC. This means that you will be able to find the capital ratio that the company has, letting you know how stable it is as an institution. Physical locations, the name, and duration of existence, or their rating on BBB have nothing to do with it.",
"If you can deal with phone calls instead of a face to face meeting, for the average person with an average refinance online tools just offer another way to shop for deals. For new mortgages, I think having a person you can meet face to face will avoid problems, but for just a simple refi, online is one of the places you should check. Compete your current mortgage company, your bank (hopefully credit union), a local broker or two and the online places. The more competition you have, the more power you have in making a good choice.",
"Make sure you shop around and ask a lot of places for a good faith estimate. Last I knew, the good faith document is the same everywhere and long form that makes it easy enough to compare the hard numbers from place to place. I have gotten several estimates for various scenarios and I have had them hand written and printed. (I discounted the hand written ones because that broker seemed pretty disorganized in general) Learn the terms online, and start comparing. Use the good faiths as a negotiation tool to get lower rates or lower costs from other brokers. See how accurate the person is at listening to you and filling out the paperwork. See how responsive they are to you when you call with questions and want some changes. Check with at least four places. The more places you shop, the better idea you will have of what fees are high and what interest rates are low. I might pay a higher fee to get a lower interest rate, so there are lots of trade offs to consider.",
"Look for people who have done business with them. If you don't know anyone who has used their services, look for a company that at least has a brick and mortar branch in your area. Being able to deal with them face to face is a must. Have you checked with your local bank?",
"Check your local better business bureau. They can tell you who is in business, who's bonded, and who has had a lot of complaints levied against them for shoddy practices.",
"For what its worth, I recently closed on a 30 year refinance mortage with an agent I found through Zillow. The lender has a perfect 5/5 reputation score, whose office was located within 5 miles of my house, and as suggested by justkt on MrChrister's response, I checked out the business on the better business bureau and its online presence prior to going forward with the bank. The process was relatively painless, and the APR and closing costs were less than my previous loan with a federal credit union which I've used in the past. I can't say if the bank I'll be using going forward is as good as the one I've used in the past, but overall I'm quite happy with it. I never met the individual in person but this saved both of us a fair amount of time honestly.",
"It depends greatly from place to place, but nothing beats the Internet reviews' research. If you can't find anything digging slightly deeper than the impressive home page, then you probably should be worried. As it seems that you are. Specifically, I do these: @JohnFX mentions a valid point: check for physical presence. Check that the office address is a real office and not a PO box or residential; call the number and see who answers it (if you call several times during different hours and the same person answers - that's probably a one-man operation). But that doesn't always help because short-term renting an office is not all that hard and getting a call-centre outsourced to a third-world country doesn't cost all that much. It definitely helps if you're dealing with someone local, but if you're in Sweden and checking out a suspicious operation in Cyprus - this is definitely not enough.",
"If you are trying to weed out companies that are fronts for scams, one way is to look for a physical address that checks out with the phone book and a phone number posted on the site that connects you to an actual person. By itself this isn't a guarantee that the company is legit, but it will weed out a large number of fraudulent companies hiding behind PO boxes. That is, companies that defraud a lot of people don't usually make it very easy to track them down or contact them to complain or sue them.",
"I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.",
"Run the numbers in advance. Understand what are the current rates for an additional 2nd mortgage, what are the rates for a brand new mortgage that will cover the additional funds. Understand what they are for another lender. Estimate the amount of paperwork involved in each option (new first, new 2nd, and new lender). Ask the what are the options they can offer you. Because you have estimated the costs in money and time for the different options, you can evaluate the offer they make. What they offer you can range from everything you want to nothing you would accept. What they offer will depend on several factors: Do they care to keep you as a customer?; Do they expect you to walk away?; are they trying to get rid of mortgages like the one you have?; Can they make more money with the plan they are offering you? You will be interested in the upfront costs, the monthly costs, and the amount of time required for the process to be completed.",
"Check with you local bank where you have an account. Sometimes they can offer a discount that results in a good rate. I just refinanced a month ago with Bank Of America and their rates were very competitive. What set them aside from the rest was their low closing fees. Otherwise I would shop around on bankrate.com and it will show you results of both local and online mortgage brokers. It will list the rates and expected fees. The also list an average national rate so you can compare the rate you are considering and see if there could be a better deal elsewhere.",
"I second the suggestions for your local credit union and asking co-workers who might also be in the process of a home purchase. Additionally, you want to educate yourself as much as possible so that you can ask questions about the calculations responsible for the differences. I got different values starting from the various online automatic quotes all the way through to the GFE and it was not obvious to me. You can also sign-up for free workshops for first time home buyers, though most of the material will be a breeze it helps you get worksheets going and lists going for documentation that you need to gather. You might want to start at the HUD site and explore. Especially the Borrower's Rights. The cost booklet was very helpful for me to interpret the GFE, but honestly I didn't appreciate it the first time it was handed to me. Finally, you might meet qualifications to take advantage of FHA programs; the waitlists discourage everyone including the loan brokers, but you want to at least be aware of programs that can help.",
"At least five of my co-workers are currently re-financing through Amerisave. Four have had a wonderful experience. The fifth has been dealing with a representative who constantly misunderstands him, asks for duplicate paperwork, and is in general fairly annoying to deal with. He is willing to go through the hassle because he found the lowest rates through them. All five co-workers recommend Amerisave despite this one co-worker's difficulties. Another person I know has refinanced through mortgagefool.com twice with good results. In general I think online lenders are like brick and mortar lenders in that some will be good, some will be not-so-good.",
"\"It doesn't matter if the terms are a \"\"fair deal\"\" or are \"\"too good to be true\"\" — either way, it's definitely a scam. They are \"\"phishing\"\" for your personal information, including your banking information, and have no intention of giving you a loan. How can I tell? Simple: all such offers like this everywhere are scams. There is no economic situation other than being a scammer to do this. Why would an individual put out their money to strangers at such a high risk for even a much, much higher purported return? They wouldn't.\"",
"Streamline refinance is the way to go. You don't have to stay with the same bank to do so either. The big advantage of the streamline is the original appraisal is used for the refinance, so as long as you didn't have negative amortization(impossible in FHA anyways), you're good to go. It will be much less paperwork and looser credit standards. The ONLY downside is that upfront and monthly FHA mortgage insurance ticked up from where it was 2 years ago. If you're under a 80% LTV however you won't have to worry about it.",
"As per my comments, I think this is up to you and how much work you want to put forth. I do not feel it is trivial to provide documentation even with 90% of it will be the same among lenders. See this question: First answer, third and fourth paragraphs. You need to go as far as understanding the total cost of the loan, you probably need a good faith estimate. I would also compare a minimum of three lenders.",
"If a bank is evaluating a persons qualifications to qualify for a loan they have to follow the FDIC and HUD guidelines for equal opportunity credit. If they offer mortgages they will use the phrase equal housing. from the lending club website (fine print area): 2 This depiction is a summary of the processes for obtaining a loan or making an investment. Loans are issued by WebBank, an FDIC insured Utah-chartered industrial bank located in Salt Lake City, Utah, Equal Housing Lender. Investors do not invest directly in loans. Investors purchase Member Dependent Notes from Lending Club. Loans are not issued to borrowers in IA and ID. Individual borrowers must be a US citizen or permanent resident and at least 18 years old. Valid bank account and social security number/FEIN are required. All loans are subject to credit review and approval. Your actual rate depends upon credit score, loan amount, loan term, credit usage and history. LendingClub notes are issued pursuant to a Prospectus on file with the SEC. You should review the risks and uncertainties described in the Prospectus related to your possible investment in the notes. Currently only residents of the following states may invest in Lending Club notes: AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, NV, NY, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, or WY. Our mailing address is: Lending Club, 71 Stevenson, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105.",
"First of all, think of anyone you know in your circle locally who may have gotten a mortgage recently. Ask him, her, or them for a recommendation on what brokers they found helpful and most of all priced competitively. Second of all, you may consider asking a real estate agent. Note that this is generally discouraged because agents sometimes (and sometimes justifiably) get a bad reputation for doing anything to get themselves the highest commission possible, and so folks want to keep the lender from knowing the agent. Yet if you have a reputable, trustworthy agent, he or she can point you to a reputable, trustworthy broker who has been quoting your agent's other clients great rates. Third of all, make sure to check out the rates at places you might not expect - for example, any credit unions you or your spouse might have access to. Credit unions often offer very competitive rates and fees. After you have 2-3 brokers lined up, visit them all within a short amount of time (edit courtesy of the below comments, which show that 2 weeks has been quoted but that it may be less). The reason to visit them close together is that in the pre-approval process you will be getting your credit hard pulled, which means that your score will be dinged a bit. Visiting them all close together tells the bureaus to count all the hits as one new potential credit line instead of a couple or several, and so your score gets dinged less. Ask about rates, fees (they are required by law to give you what is called a Good Faith Estimate of their final fees), if pre-payment of the loan is allowed (required to re-finance or for paying off early), alternative schedules (such as bi-weekly or what a 20 year mortgage rate might be), the amortization schedule for your preferred loan, and ask for references from past clients. Pick a broker not only who has the best rates but also who appears able to be responsive if you need something quickly in order to close on a great deal.",
"Subprime lenders who are also known as high risk home mortgage lenders offer service to people having poor credit. Through the website of the lenders such as http://www.highlandsmtg.com/, you can ask for quotes by just asking few simple questions. These quotes will help you in narrowing down your list of mortgage lenders who can be finally approached.",
"How do you find an ethical, honest practitioner of any business? One: Make a small transaction with them and see how they treat you. If they cheat you on something small, don't give them a chance with something big. Two: Ask family and friends for recommendations. Three: Get information from public sources, like web sites where people post reviews of businesses, consumer advocacy organizations, groups like the Better Business Bureau, etc. Personally I consider all these of questionable value as you're asking one stranger to advise you on the reliability of another stranger, but better than nothing.",
"If you have good credit, you already know the rate -- the bank has it posted in the window. If you don't have good credit, tell the loan officer your score. Don't have them run your credit until you know that you're interested in that bank. Running an application or prequal kicks off the sales process, which gets very annoying very quickly if you are dealing with multiple banks. A few pointers: You're looking for a plain vanilla 30 year loan, so avoid mortgage brokers -- they are just another middleman who is tacking on a cost. Brokers are great when you need more exotic loans. Always, always stay away from mortgage brokers (or inspectors or especially lawyers) recommended by realtors.",
"Well, these can range from loan broker to outright scams. It is pretty typical that loan broker just take some fee in the middle for their service of filling your applications for a bunch of real loan provider companies. Because making a web page costs nothing, a single loan broker could easily have many web pages with a bit different marketing so that they can get as many customers as possible. But of course some of the web pages can be actual scams. As soon as you provide enough information for taking out a loan, they can go to a real financial institution, take out the loan and run with the money. In most countries consumer protection laws do not apply to business-to-business transactions, so you have to be even more wary of scams than usual.",
"Usually your best bet for this sort of thing is to look for referrals from people you trust. If you have a lawyer or other trusted advisor, ask them.",
"Purchase loans tend to be more challenging to get the best possible rate, because you have to balance closing the loan and getting the contract. So there isn't as much time to shop around as when you do a refinance. I disagree with the sentiment to go with your local bank. Nothing wrong with asking at your local bank and using their numbers as a baseline, but chances are they won't be competitive. There are many reputable online mortgage originators that will show accurate fees and rates upfront assuming you provide accurate information. In the past there were a lot of issue with Good Faith Estimates being pretty much worthless. There were a fair number of horror stories about people showing up to closing and finding out fee or rates had increased dramatically. There was a law passed after the housing debacle that severely limits the shenanigans that lenders can do at closing and so there is less risk when going with a lesser known lender. In fact I would say the only real risk with a lender now days is choosing one that happens to be overloaded and or just has poor customer service in general. Personally I have found the most competitive rates from Zillow's mortgage service and the now defunct Google mortgage. The lenders tend to be smaller, but highly efficient. They are very much dependent on their online reputations. I have heard good things about a number of larger online lenders, but I don't have personal experience so I will leave them off. I personally wouldn't worry much about whether the loan is sold or not. Outside of refinancing I don't think I have ever talked to the bank servicing my mortgage about my mortgage. There just isn't much need to talk to them.",
"\"(I answered a similar question before.) Essentially, you shouldn't trust a site you find on the Internet merely because it looks professional and real. Before signing up with any new service provider you found online, you should verify the authenticity of both the organization itself and their web site address. Even if the name displayed by a web site represents a legitimate brokerage firm, any site you happen to come across on the Internet could be an elaborate spoof of a real company, intended to capture your personal details (or worse). First, to check if a brokerage firm is in fact registered to trade securities – in the United States – you can consult FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake ... after you convince yourself that FINRA is legitimate. A meta-problem ;-) Then, if you want to know if the web site address is authentic, one way is to contact that broker offline using the contact information found from a trusted source, such as the FINRA BrokerCheck details. Unfortunately, those details do not currently appear to contain the broker's web site URL. (Else, that could be useful.) Another thing to look at is the site's login or sign-up page, for a valid SSL certificate that is both issued to the correct legal name of the brokerage firm as well as has been signed by a well-known certificate authority (e.g. VeriSign). For a financial services firm of any kind, you should look for and expect to see an Extended Validation Certificate. Any other kind of certificate might only assert that the certificate was issued to the domain-name owner, and not necessarily to an organization with the registered legal name. (Yes, anybody can register a domain with a similar name and then acquire a basic SSL certificate for that domain.) FWIW, Scottrade and ShareBuilder are both legitimate brokers (I was aware already of each, but I also just checked in the FINRA tool), and the URLs currently linked to by the question are legitimate web site addresses for each. Also, you can see their EV certificates in action on secured pages here and here. As to whether your investments with those brokers would be \"\"safe\"\" in the event of the broker failing (e.g. goes bankrupt), you'll want to know that they are members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (Wikipedia). (Of course, this kind of protection doesn't protect you if your investments simply go down in value.) But do your own due diligence – always.\"",
"\"You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a \"\"good faith estimate\"\" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application. On the other hand, government regulations make the \"\"good faith estimates\"\" somewhat misleading. (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to \"\"bring to the closing table\"\".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic \"\"appraisal value\"\". Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications. (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt. Banks tend to round up the minimum payments. Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income. Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years. Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns. There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay. Many banks are willing to lower your \"\"note rate\"\" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front. The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan. These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher \"\"note rate\"\". Unless you ask for a \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers. Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount. Divide that percentage by 4. Add that percentage to the \"\"note rate\"\" for a loan with \"\"no points\"\". Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers. (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay \"\"points\"\" to lower the \"\"note rate\"\".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application. Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day. You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:\"",
"Start with the bank where you have your checking and savings account. They can streamline some of the paperwork, because they can see how much you make, and have access to several years worth of bank statement. Legitimate mortgage companies do publish their rates. But there is no guarantee that you will qualify for the best rate without them knowing your credit score, salary, and down payment information. There is no way to know that you have the best rate because of the time lag involved. You will pick the best one you can work with, but the rates can change every day. Even when you lock in the rates, other companies can drift lower. Once you have started down the application process you will reach a point where switching companies will cost you time and money. Once you decide to purchase a house, the contract usually only gives you a few weeks to prove that you have financing in place. Therefore you will have to start the process before deciding on the house. Some advance work is needed to give you an idea of the maximum monthly payment you can afford, which will then based on the rate and down payment determine the maximum house you can buy. I have had good luck with my credit union, but there is no guarantee that yours will be competitive. Keep in mind that while rates are very important, some people also value customer service, and also like that the mortgage won't be sold to out of town investors.",
"It might be worth talking to a mortgage broker, even if you don't actually end up doing business with them. Upfront Mortgage Brokers explained Finding an upfront broker near you In a nutshell, upfront brokers disclose what they are paid for their services openly and transparently. Many brokers don't, and you can't be too careful. But a consultation should be free. An experienced broker can help you to navigate the pros and cons mentioned by the other responders. Personally, I would never do business with a broker who can't/won't show me a rate sheet on the day of the lock. That's my personal acid test. You might be surprised by what the broker has to say regarding your situation. That was my experience, anyway.",
"Read about Upfront Mortgage Brokers. That site has a bunch of information on mortgages and brokers, including mistakes to avoid when shopping for a mortgage. You can also find lenders with upfront pricing. I've used it for shopping and you will find very competitive rates. I'm wary of brokers. When we sold our house, the buyers (young first time buyers) got screwed by an unscrupulous broker and didn't actually have a loan lined up. Delayed closing by 2 days while they scrambled to find a legit lender who could put together funding. The one time we used a broker (our first time), we got a deal that wasn't really as good as it should have been. (Hindsight.)",
"\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \"\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\"\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \"\"all securities firms\"\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \"\"Active\"\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \"\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\"\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\"",
"\"Rather than trying to indirectly game your credit score, I would instead shop around and see if there are other lenders that will pre-qualify you with your credit the way it is today. BofA and other large banks can be very formulaic in how they qualify loans; a local bank or credit union may be more willing to bend the traditional \"\"rules\"\" and pre-qualify you. I'm thinking about using FHA. If you can put 20% down then a conventional mortgage will likely be cheaper than an FHA loan since FHA loans have mortgage insurance built-in while conventional mortgages typically don't require it if you borrow less than 80% of the house's value. I would shop around before jumping to an FHA loan.\"",
"If you've been in your house for a few years (and have built some equity up) and the market is active in your area, online is probably fine. The local banks will be better if it's not obvious to someone in Bangor, ME that your neighborhood in San Diego is worth substantially more than the crappy area 2 miles away. I've had 3 mortgages, one from a regional bank, one from a broker-sourced national mortgage company and another from a local bank. The bigger banks had better statements and were easier to do stuff with online. The smaller bank has been a better overall value, because the closing costs were low and they waived some customary fees. In my case, the national mortgage company had a better APR, but my time horizon for staying in the house made the smaller bank (which had a competitive APR, about a half point higher than the lowest advertised) a better value due to much lower up-front costs.",
"tl;dr: I think you can find a much better deal. Doing a strait refi will cost you some amount of money. However, a 2.5% fee ont top of closing costs seems really high. You can get a quote from Quicken loans pretty quick and compare their fee. Also I would check with a local bank, preferably one you already do business with. The 2.5% is probably their commission for originating the loan. If you are in the Southeast I have had great luck with Regions bank. They are large enough, but also small enough. Please know that I have no affiliation with either company. BTW the rate also seems high. Doing a quick search of Bank Rate, it seems you can get 3.25% with zero fee as of this writing. The worse deal they show is 3.46 with a .75% fee, much better than you were quoted. If you can afford it I would also encourage you to think outside the box. A client of mine was able to obtain a Home Equity Loan (not line of credit) to replace their mortgage. They went for a 7 year pay off, with the loan in first position, at a rate about .75 below the then current 15 year rate. The key was there was zero closing costs. It saved them quite a bit of money. Also look at a 10 year fixed. It might not be much more than you are paying now.",
"\"Your headline question \"\"How do you find best mortgage without damaging credit score?\"\" has a simple answer. If you have all your ducks in a row, and know what you are doing, you will get qualified. If you are like a recent client of mine, low FICO, low downpayment, random income, you might have issues. If your self-prequalification is good, you are in control, go find the best rate/ total cost, no need to put in multiple applications. If, for some reason you do, FICO sees that you are shopping for a single loan, and you are not dinged.\"",
"Studying seek out internet handheld economic, and there is a number of handheld personal personal loan companies, all the things you want to do will be be sure the net handheld personal giver established fact and also given the green light by customers. Tend not to depend the particular on-site testimonies to be able to evaluate the caliber of the particular program.",
"I asked my realtor, but she recommends to go with just one banker (her friend), and not to do any rate shopping. You need a new realtor. Anyone who would offer such advice is explicitly stating they are not advocating on your behalf. I'd do the rate shopping first. When you make an offer, once it's accepted, time becomes critical. The seller expects you to go to closing in so many days after signing the P&S. The realtor is specifically prohibited from pushing a particular lender on you. She should know better. In response to comment - Rate Shopping can be as simple as making a phone call, and having a detailed conversation. Jasper's list can be conveyed verbally. Prequalification is the next step, where a bank actually writes a letter indicating they have a high confidence you will qualify for the loan.",
"The only certain way is to have the issuer confirm it. You'd think there would be a better way, but no there isn't. I suggest you read this story about what can happen even if you are the innocent victim trying to cash a fraudulent Cashier's Check. The consequences included some jail time and huge attorney fees for this unlucky person.",
"When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years. If you are in the early years of the mortgage, you may be owed a refund for the unused years. HUD has a Fact sheet discussing this, and a page to help you determine if they owe you a refund. If you are refinancing back into a HUD/FHA mortgage they will not give you a refund, but will roll the refund back into your new loan. FHA to FHA Refinances: When an FHA loan is refinanced, the refund from the old premium may be applied toward the up-front premium required for the new loan. Note: Depending on the year of the original loan the government has different lengths they used for coverage and refunds. I suggest you use the webpage to determine if you are due a refund, or a roll over.",
"Find today's latest refinance rates and new home loan rates and learn more from featured lenders. Our program is designed to assist future and current homeowners with the process of managing their credit and determining a house payment that is right for you. Therefore, if you are seeking for financial assistance in Delaware, you must seek the consultation of Highlands’s mortgage in order to get the best deal and that too at lower prices.",
"\"The usual rule of thumb is that you should start considering refinance when you can lower the effective interest rate by 1% or more. If you're now paying 4.7% this would mean you should be looking for loans at 3.7% or better to find something that's really worth considering. One exception is if the bank is willing to do an \"\"in-place refinance\"\", with no closing costs and no points. Sometimes banks will offer this as a way of retaining customers who would otherwise be tempted to refinance elsewhere. You should still shop around before accepting this kind of offer, to make sure it really is your best option. Most banks offer calculators on their websites that will let you compare your current mortgage to a hypothetical new one. Feed the numbers in, and it can tell you what the difference in payment size will be, how long you need to keep the house before the savings have paid for the closing costs, and what the actual savings will be if you sell the house in any given year (or total savings if you don't sell until after the mortgage is paid off). Remember that In addition to closing costs there are amortization effects. In the early stages of a standard mortgage your money is mostly paying interest; the amount paying down the principal increases over the life of the loan. That's another of the reasons you need to run the calculator; refinancing resets that clock.\"",
"Are you currently trapped under the type of attractiveness to a lender,? Take action to improve your current conditions. One of the ways that you could re-establish your credit rating would be to advantageous all of your obligations quickly. The very best on the internet poor credit financial loans businesses are frequently certified through the condition.",
"That seems a very bad offer, it borders on fraud. In the current US economy, you should be able to get between 3 and 4 % APR (and that number is what you should look at). That means that for $300,000 over 30 years, you'd pay $1,265 to $1,432 per month. If you are able to pay more than that monthly rate, you should go for less than 30 years - 20, 15, 10, whatever you can afford - but don't overextend yourself. Google 'mortgage calculator' to do your own calculations.",
"There are many good brokers available in the market and many spammers too. Personally I have been associated with FXCM since 2001 and have never faced any problem. But everyone has their own personal choice and I recommend you to make your own. But the question is how to find out which broker is a good broker and would provide you with a timely and reliable service? Online google check? Not really. There is so much competition between brokerage firms that they keep writing rubbish about each other on blogs and websites. Best thing is to is check with regulator's website. For US: NFA is a regulator for all forex firms. Information about any regulated forex firm could be found here. http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/welcome.aspx For UK: Its FSA. Information on all regulated Uk based firm could be found here. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmSearchForm.do Remember in many countries its not compulsory for a forex firm to be regulated but being regulated ensure that the govt. has a watch on the operations of the firm. Also most of the firms out there provide accounts for large as well as small traders so there is nothing much to look for even if you are a small trader. Do keep in mind that if you are a US Citizen you are restricted by the US Govt. to trade only with a broker within US. You are not allowed to trade with any brokerage firm that is based outside the country. Forex Trading involves a significant amount of risk make sure you study the markets well and get yourself educated properly before risking your money. While I have made a lot of money trading forex I have seen a lot of people loosing everything. Please understand the risk and please make sure you only trade with the money which you can afford to loose.",
"I had a pretty good experience with Lending Tree, although they are a mortgage broker, not a lender themselves.",
"You would need to check the original mortgage papers you signed with the originators. Chances are you agreed to allow the mortgage to be sold and serviced by other parties. Refinancing would also put you in the same boat unless you got them to take that clause out of the mortgage/refinance papers. Also, chances are most small banks and originators simply can not keep mortgages on their books. There are also third parties that service loans too that do not actually own the mortgages as well. This is another party that could be involved out of many in your mortgage. I would also not worry about 127/139 complaints out of 1,100,000 loans. Most probably were underwater on their mortgage but I am sure a few are legitimate complaints. Banks make mistakes (I know right!). Anyway, good luck and let me know if you find out anything different.",
"It seems like you are asking two different questions, one is, how do I know if I can afford a house? The other is, how do I know what type of mortage to get? The first question is fairly simple to answer, there's plenty of calculators out there that will tell you what you can afford, but rule of thumb is 30% of income can goto housing. Now what type of mortgage to get can be much more confusing, because the mortgage industry makes money off of these confusing products. The best thing to do in my opionion in situations like this is to keep it simple. You need to be careful buying a house. So much money is changing hands and there are so many parasites involved in the transaction I would be extremely wary of anybody who is going to tell you what mortgage to get. I've never heard of a fee only independent mortgage broker, and if I found one that claimed to be I wouldn't believe him. I would just ignore all the exotic non-conforming products and just answer one simple question. Are you the type of person that buys an insurance policy or that likes to self insure? If you like insurance, get a 30 year fixed mortgage. If you like to self insure, get a 7 year ARM. The average lenghth someone owns a house is 7 years, plus in 7 years time, it might not adjust up, and even if it does, you can just accelerate your payments and pay it off quickly (this is the self insurance part of it). If you're like me, I'm willing to pay an extra .5% for the 30 year so that my payment never changes and I'm never forced to move (which is admitedly extremely unlikely, but I like the safety). I don't like 15 year term loans because rates are so low, you can get way better returns in the stock market right now, so why pay off sooner then you need to. Heck, if I had a paid off house right now I'd refi into a 30 year and invest the money. In summary, pick 30 year or ARM, then just shop around to find the lowest rate (which is extremely easy).",
"We are one of the best advisory firm that provide mod gauges and refinancing at lowest possible rates. If you are certainly looking forward to get Mortgage Lenders or rental, loans to higher professional settlement in the world of Rate business as a professional agent, Highland can not only take care of your specific rates and loaning services. To know more information about services, please visit at http://www.highlandsmtg.com",
"I would recommend you look at Credit Karma and assess your situation. The site is free and will offer a score similar to your FICO score enabling you to best judge when to apply. They advertise, like any web site, and will offer credit card signups, which is how they make money. Disclaimer - I am a blogger and have written about Credit Karma, but no payment from them. I've actually been out drinking with their marketing team, but that was it. Nice bunch.",
"A professional home inspection will clue you in on any problems you might be buying, so it's important in any real estate transaction. If the seller finances the loan, you need a lawyer. It might be a nice opportunity - being in the right place at the right time. You just have to investigate all angles.",
"Both Scottrade and ING Direct (CapitalOne) have physical branches. Scottrade are wide-spread, ING/CapitalOne are less common (in California where I live, I have a bunch of Scottrade branches around where I live, but the only ING presence I know of is in LA on Sepulveda at Santa Monica). So one way to verify the company is legit is to go to their physical location and talk to the people there. Similarly, you can find physical locations in major metropolitan areas for many other web-based discount brokers. In my area (SF Bay Area) we have Scottrade, ETrade, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and that's just those I've actually seen with my own eyes. You can just walk in and talk to the people there about their options and their web operations. It is hard and unlikely for a sting operation to set up a web of brick-and-mortar offices across the nation. Even Madoff had only one or two offices. Of course I totally agree with Chris's answer, especially with regards to the SSL certificates' verification and spoofing and phishing avoidance.",
"\"The comments are getting too much, but to verify that you are not insane, you are being bullied. It sounds like this is a sub-prime loan, of which you are wisely trying to get out of. It also sounds like they are doing everything in their power to prevent you from doing so. For them you are a very profitable customer. This might take some legwork for you, but depending on how bad they are violating the law they might be willing to forgive the loan. What I am trying to say, it might be very worth your while! Your first step will be looking for any free resources at your disposal: Just be cautious as many \"\"credit representation\"\" type business are only offering loan consolidation. That is not what you need. Fight those bastards!\"",
"One can never be too cautious when when choosing a financial adviser. For example, has the company your adviser claims to represent ever been sanctioned by the local financial authorities? Does your adviser reside in the country in which he purports to operate? Have you thoroughly researched his background? It is also important to bear in mind what venues a company uses for advertising - if the company resorts to advertising by spamming, then their overall business practices are likely unethical and this could lead to trouble down the line. Finally, one should also research how the company's clientele has been built up. Was it through word of mouth or was the client data acquired by other means?",
"The key word you are looking for is that you want to refinance the loan at a lower rate. Tell banks that and ask what they can offer you.",
"Ask for at least 10 references. Ask for 10 because it will be harder for them to refer you to ringer references like their family or friends.",
"\"The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is \"\"reasonable\"\" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender. Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an \"\"education expense\"\", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now. Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans.\"",
"I agree with you: it sounds like a scam. Those terms are too good to be true. Online, it is too easy to pretend to be someone you are not. When choosing a bank to work with, you need to be confident of its legitimacy. Make sure you have heard of it someplace other than their own website and can trust it. In this case, this isn't even a bank; it is just an individual stranger. I can't see how this could possibly be legitimate. With the information that they are asking for, they could potentially impersonate you and steal your money. I would stay away from this.",
"\"I'm of the same line of thinking. The reddit community has been an amazing resource for me in the past on items like this. I have my areas of expertise (as a lawyer I have a \"\"binders full of precedents\"\"), but loan proposals are not one of those areas. And when I deal in areas I don't have mastered, I like to consider examples where professionals might consider the job \"\"well done\"\" in order to question, push back, or assist my own professionals.\"",
"Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)",
"Are my mortgage terms locked in? Who oversees this? Yes your terms like rate, balance, penalties, due dates, are all covered in the mortgage documents. Those will not change. If the mortgage is an adjustable or has a balloon payment those terms will be followed by the new company. That being said, mistakes can be made. Double check everything. I had a transfer get messed up once, and all the terms were wrong. It took a few months but everything was worked out. In fact because they first tried to stonewall me I was able to negotiate some additional concessions out of them. Running your own escrow account is one thing you always want to do. That makes sure that the taxes and insurance are always paid by you, even if the servicing company has a glitch. Generally you have to have enough equity to not have PMI in order to get them to agree to the self-escrow option. If you have a problem with the servicing company then contact the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau a part of the US Government. They have only been a round a few years, thus I have no experience with them. Have an issue with a financial product or service? We'll forward your complaint to the company and work to get a response from them. The last few times I applied for a mortgage or refinanced a mortgage the lender had to reveal as part of the application stage the percentage of recent mortgages they still own/service. Check those numbers the next time you apply.",
"I don't know that FHA loans have better rates than conventional loans. I've never heard that and some quick googling didn't yield anything (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if you have the necessary down payment to get a conventional loan, I'm not sure I see any benefit for looking at FHA loans. I think the only benefit outside of a low down payment is the ability to (possibly) get a loan with a lower credit score.",
"\"It is a scam. Not only will it get your personal information, which could allow him to impersonate you (like, using your identity as the generous lender on a future scam), in order to fulfill the loan, a \"\"small payment\"\" for some documents will be needed. And next another for a certificate necessary for lending, and so on. Their goal is to get your money, not lending you any. Aganju hit the nail: how would such person ensure that you will pay back, when he knows absolutely nothing about you? That would have been the #1 priority for someone that decided to invest using such unbelievable schema.\"",
"\"I would accept the offer provided that it is a BONA FIDE offer. Some issues to consider: 1) Make sure the debt is actually yours. 2) Make sure that there is a meaningful period of time left on the statute of limitations (10 years). Because if this \"\"settlement\"\" doesn't work, the clock goes back to time zero for the debt, minus the amount you paid. In other words, don't pay off a debt \"\"by the end of the month\"\" that will expire on the fifteenth. 3) I'm not a lawyer, and therefore, in your shoes, I would consider consulting a lawyer. 4) If using a lawyer isn't cost effective, then I would set up an escrow account, deposit the settlement amount, and then release it upon receipt of a letter that says that the amount in escrow fully satisfies the debt. Such a letter will help your record with credit agencies. It will also establish a record that you've paid, and paid in full. Based on what you've said about the original letter, the debt collector would be willing to do this. If he reneges, he's \"\"playing games.\"\"\"",
"\"My guess is they are fishing for business for their in-house finance person. In the UK, all the estate agency chains (and many of the smaller outfits) have financial advice firms they are affiliated with, often to the extent that a desk in each branch will be for 'the finance guy' (it's usually a guy). The moment you show any sign of not quite having the finances for a place you like, they will offer you a consultation with the finance guy, who \"\"will be able to get you a deal\"\". On commission, of course. What you need to say with regards to financing is (delete as applicable) \"\"I am a cash buyer\"\" / \"\"I have an Agreement In Principle\"\". And that's it. They do not 'need' to know any more, and they are under obligation to pass your offer on to the vendor.\"",
"\"tl;dr: Your best course of action is probably to do a soft pull (check your own credit) and provide that to the lender for an unofficial pre-approval to get the ball rolling. The long of it: The loan officer is mostly correct, and I have recent personal evidence that corroborates that. A few months ago I looked into refinancing a mortgage on a rental property, and I allowed 3 different lenders to do a hard inquiry within 1 week of each other. I saw all 3 inquires appear on reports from each of the 3 credit bureaus (EQ/TU/EX), but it was only counted as a single inquiry in my score factors. But as you have suggested, this breaks down when you know that you won't be purchasing right away, because then you will have multiple hard inquiries at least a few months apart which could possibly have a (minor) negative impact on your score. However minor it is, you might as well try to avoid it if you can. I have played around with the simulator on myfico.com, and have found inquiries to have the following effect on your credit score using the FICO Score 8 model: With one inquiry, your scores will adjust as such: Two inquiries: Three inquiries: Here's a helpful quote from the simulator notes: \"\"Credit inquiries remain on your credit report for 2 years, but FICO Scores only consider credit inquiries from the past 12 months.\"\" Of course, take that with a grain of salt, as myfico provides the following disclaimer: The Simulator is provided for informational purposes only and should not be expected to provide accurate predictions in all situations. Consequently, we make no promise or guarantee with regard to the Simulator. Having said all that, in your situation, if you know with certainty that you will not be purchasing right away, then I would recommend doing a soft pull to get your scores now (check your credit yourself), and see if the lender will use those numbers to estimate your pre-approval. One possible downside of this is the lender may not be able to give you an official pre-approval letter based on your soft pull. I wouldn't worry too much about that though since if you are suddenly ready to purchase you could just tell them to go ahead with the hard pull so they can furnish an official pre-approval letter. Interesting Side Note: Last month I applied for a new mortgage and my score was about 40 points lower than it was 3 months ago. At first I thought this was due to my recent refinancing of property and the credit inquiries that came along with it, but then I noticed that one of my business credit cards had recently accrued a high balance. It just so happens that this particular business CC reports to my personal credit report (most likely in error but I never bothered to do anything about it). I immediately paid that CC off in full, and checked my credit 20 days later after it had reported, and my score shot back up by over 30 points. I called my lender and instructed them to re-pull my credit (hard inquiry), which they did, and this pushed me back up into the best mortgage rate category. Yes, I purposely requested another hard pull, but it shouldn't affect my score since it was within 45 days, and that maneuver will save me thousands in the long run.\"",
"If you don't mind, sign the form and move on. If you would rather make a point, go to another lender. You lender had certain boxes they have to check off as they go through the paperwork process: the two things your lender cares about are those boxes and getting paid. Take your money elsewhere and they don't get paid. But seriously, just sign the agreement. Focus your intelligence and productivity on something more worthwhile than your pride.",
"I said it in the comments, but I think it stands as a possible answer; if the bank's the only one telling you you are ineligible for HARP, get a second opinion. The bank is making lots of money off of you, at a time when the pickings are otherwise slim. The bank doesn't want you to refinance, and will do anything it can to convince you that you can't. Many of the big lenders have been taken to task (and to court) by the government for actively hindering these loan modification programs. So, don't trust the bank's word alone. Go to http://www.harpprogram.org and check the eligibility criteria, and if you think you meet them, fill out an application. The basic criteria are: Some caveats:",
"I work in banking for the private bank division for a major bank as a banker. I have been helping clients with these types of transactions for years. I believe that large transactions like this are best left to the big boys. That is where the talented bankers/loan officers/underwriters are, and that is the type of transaction they specialize in. I know for a fact that your credit union will not be able to suit your needs, and a smaller bank will be tough to deal with. I wouldn't worry at all about the credit pulls as much as picking a rock solid bank with lots of experiences doing these kinds of deals. That is my 2 cents, albeit a little bit biased, but it is also coming from experience. History with the bank definitely matters, but what business you can bring to the bank along with the lending (deposits, 401k management, personal investments, business services, etc) matter just as much and can make or break the approval/decline or even the terms being favorable or not favorable to your company.",
"When evaluating a refinance, you need to figure out the payback time. Refinancing costs money in closing costs. The payback time is the time it takes to recover the closing costs with the amount of money you are saving in interest. For example, if the closing costs are $2,000, your payback time is 2 years if it takes 2 years to save that amount in interest with the new interest rate vs. the old one. To estimate this, look at the difference in interest rate between your mortgage and the new one, and your mortgage balance. For example, let's say that you have $100,000 left on your mortgage, and the new rate is 1% lower than your current rate. In one year, you will save roughly $1,000 in interest. If your closing costs are $2,000, then your payback time is somewhere around 2 years. If you plan on staying in this house longer than the payback time, then it is beneficial to refinance. There are mortgage refinance calculators online that will calculate payback time more precisely. One thing to watch out for: when you refinance, if you expand the term of your mortgage, you might end up paying more interest over the long term, even though your rate is less and your monthly payment is less. For example, let's say you currently have 8 years left on a 15-year mortgage. If you refinance to a new 15-year mortgage, your monthly payment will go down, but if you only pay the new minimum payment for the next 15 years, you could end up paying more in interest than if you had just continued with your old mortgage for the next 8 years. To avoid this, refinance to a new mortgage with a term close to what you have left on your current mortgage. If you can't do that, continue paying whatever your current monthly payment is after you refinance, and you'll pay your new mortgage early and save on interest.",
"FHA insured loans must 'go hand in hand' with PMI, because the FHA element is the insurance itself. The FHA isn't actually giving you a loan, that's coming from a lender; instead, the FHA is insuring the loan, at some cost to you - but allowing a loan to folks who may not be able to afford it normally (lower down payment requirements and a somewhat cheaper PMI). FHA-insured loans may be lower rates in some cases than non-FHA insured loans because of this backing; that's because they make it easier for people of poorer credit histories with smaller down payments to get a house in the first place. Those people would tend to have a harder time getting a loan, and be charged sometimes usurious rates to get it. Low down payment and mediocre credit history (think 580-620) mean higher risk, even beyond the risk directly coming from the poor loan to value ratio. Comparing this table of Freddie Mac rates to this table of FHA-backed loan rates, the loan rates seem comparable (though somewhat lagging in changes in some cases). FHA loans are not nearly the size or complexity of loan population as Freddie Mac, so be wary of making direct comparisons. Looking into this in more detail, pre-collapse (before 12/07), FHA rates were a bit lower - average rate was about .5 points lower - but starting with 12/07, FHA average rates were usually higher than Freddie Mac rates for 30 year fixed loans: in 1/2009 for example they were almost a point higher. As of the last data I see (5/13) the rates were within 0.1 points most months. This may be in part because Freddie Mac had looser requirements to get a loan pre-collapse, then tightened significantly, then started to loosen some (also around June 2013, rates climbed significantly due to some signals from the Fed, although they're almost back to their lows thanks to the Fed again). These are averages across all loans, so you get some noise as a result. Loan interest rates are very personal, in general: they depend on your credit, your house and down payment, and your bank (which varies by your location). The best thing to do is to shop around yourself and just see what you get, and ask your lender any questions you have: if you pick a local lender with a good service history and who is willing to talk to you in person (ie, has a direct phone number), you'll have no trouble getting answers.",
"Firstly, call up the company and speak to them over the phone. The right questions must be asked as this will make great difference. Questions are important because you would be able to get every possible information, so that you take the right decision.",
"Pretty much any financial transaction where they start by calling you on the phone is a scam. They aren't doing it for your benefit and the caller is on commission.",
"My first thought is: email? Are you sure it is legitimate? Verify everything. Assuming it is legitimate:",
"In Order To Be Safe From A Fraudulent Stock Loss Recovery Firms, You Need To Be Careful And Notice Some Warning Signs Beforehand. Aggressive Unexpected calls, asking advance fee, self-praise online and elsewhere all these are characteristics of such a firm",
"No, we did not apply for the loan. So, this is why we thought it was a bit strange a company just sending you a real check for $30K. It does not say anywhere in big red letters that it is a loan. Probably something in very small letters on a back of a paper. This is really horrible. Especially,if your customers do pay you by check and small business relies on online statement to determine who paid what. I can easily imagine a small outfit that just takes all the checks to the bank, cash them, and then use online statement to update their books. I do not see how it is helpful to businesses to receive pre-approved credit that is so poorly marked. Especially in the age of electronic transfers!!! I am trying to understand why I feel so offended by this, and I guess it all comes down to disgust: I refuse to believe that any serious company would use these sort of tactics and instead of us spending more time developing a better product, we have to put more time and effort into ensuring we do not fall victim to this.",
"Taking the help of experts is the best possible offer that an individual can look forward to. In that case calculating the current mortgage interest rates in MN becomes more important. Best home refinancing company, MN offers you the scope to deal with mortgage calculators. These are modern and tech savvy tools that take into consideration various factors related to the same.",
"\"Don't do this if haven't talked about investments and don't learn quickly. Don't do this if you don't like cold calling. Don't do this if they want you to pump and dump. Don't do this if you don't think you can convince gamblers to invest with you. Don't do this if you have a better opportunity. I checked their website. Maybe double check with FINRA and SIPC to see that they're really members if you're really skeptical and you're still interested. Just dial and keep asking until you get a better answer than \"\"If they say so then yes.\"\" Oh, and don't do this if they're giving you a shitty deal on commissions. Ask for a tour of the premises too.\"",
"Applying for a mortgage is a bit of paperwork, but not too bad of an experience. Rates are pretty tight, if one lender were more that 1/4% lower than another, they'd be inundated with applications. Above a certain credit score, you get the 'best' rate, a search will show you the rates offered in your area. If you are a first time buyer, there are mortgages that might benefit you. If you are a vet (for non-native English readers, a veteran who served in the US armed forces, not a veterinarian, who is an animal doctor) there are mortgages that offer low-to-no down payment with attractive rates. Yes, avoid PMI, it's a crazy penalty on your overall expense of home purchase. If banks qualify you for different amounts, it shouldn't be a huge difference, a few percent variation. But, the standard ratios are pretty liberal even today, and getting the most you'd qualify for is probably too much. Using the standard 28/36% ratios, a bank will qualify you for 4X your income as a loan. e.g you make $50K, they'll lend you $200K. This is a bit too much in my opinion. If you come up short, you are really looking to borrow too much, and should probably wait. If you owe a bit on loans, it should squeeze in between those two ratios, 28/36. But I wouldn't borrow on a credit line to add to the purchase, that's asking for trouble.",
"\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \"\"sniff test\"\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \"\"strike\"\"; too many \"\"strikes\"\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\"",
"Have you looked at conventional financing rather than VA? VA loans are not a great deal. Conventional tends to be the best, and FHA being better than VA. While your rate looks very competitive, it looks like there will be a .5% fee for a refinance on top of other closing costs. If I have the numbers correct, you are looking to finance about 120K, and the house is worth about 140K. Given your salary and equity, you should have no problem getting a conventional loan assuming good enough credit. While the 30 year is tempting, the thing I hate about it is that you will be 78 when the home is paid off. Are you intending on working that long? Also you are restarting the clock on your mortgage. Presumably you have paid on it for a number of years, and now you will start that long journey over. If you were to take the 15 year how much would go to retirement? You claim that the $320 in savings will go toward retirement if you take the 30 year, but could you save any if you took the 15 year? All in all I would rate your plan a B-. It is a plan that will allow you to retire with dignity, and is not based on crazy assumptions. Your success comes in the execution. Will you actually put the $320 into retirement, or will the needs of the kids come before that? A strict budget is really a key component with a stay at home spouse. The A+ plan would be to get the 15 year, and put about $650 toward retirement each month. Its tough to do, but what sacrifices can you make to get there? Can you move your plan a bit closer to the ideal plan? One thing you have not addressed is how you will handle college for the kids. While in the process of long term planning, you might want to get on the same page with your wife on what you will offer the kids for help with college. A viable plan is to pay their room and board, have them work, and for them to pay their own tuition to community college. They are responsible for their own spending money and transportation. Thank you for your service.",
"\"2.5%? Whoa, you are being robbed there. Straight-up, stripped-down, and bent-over-a-table robbed. Never agree to \"\"fees\"\". If they don't want to do the work to give you a loan, there are other lenders who do. Rarely agree to \"\"points\"\". If you know -- and I don't mean \"\"think\"\", I mean \"\"know\"\" -- if you know that you are going to hold that loan much longer than it would take to repay those points, then maybe. For example, if they are charging one point to lower your rate 0.25%, you want to be totally sure you will stay in the house at least four years, and probably more like six or eight years before moving or refinancing. It's more-or-less OK to pay for the appraisal. If something goes wrong with the loan application, the appraisal will be valid for a few more months, you can try again. I once had 14% cash for a down-payment. The loan officer said if I could come up with 15%, the rate would be reduced by 0.25%. To get the money, I took a \"\"reverse point\"\", which paid me 1% but raised my the rate by 0.25%. The loan officer, who wasn't too bright, asked, \"\"Why did you do that? The two things cancel each other out.\"\" \"\"I did it,\"\" I explained, \"\"because you paid me 1% of the value of my house to sign my name twice.\"\"\"",
"Most likely no. Just make sure to read the fine print. I'm in exactly the same boat, I have a house with an FHA loan and will be refinancing to conventional then using it as an investment. To refinance, you usually have to own 25% of your property before you can refinance, or buy another property with FHA financing. If you are planning on refinancing with FHA, then things might not work. The only way around this is if you move like you said you might. Take a look at this article section (A) for Relocations, good stuff: http://portal.hud.gov/FHAFAQ/controllerServlet?method=showPopup&faqId=1-6KT-879",
"It's marketing or SCAM tentative. Please check with extreme attention before clicking any link present in the communication.",
"What are you missing? Volume. Bank of America is more than willing to refinance a loan from Wells Fargo as long as the loan is still profitable. There are some caveats with that, though. For one, many land have penalties if they are paid off within two or three years. Additionally, the fact that banks are offering to refinance at great rates doesn't mean that you'll be approved, or that you'll get those rates. If you could post some actual numbers, we could help you see if it's a good deal to refi, and explain exactly where the bank expects it's profit.",
"The Loan You Want With the Rate You Deserve. Skip the middle man! Our proprietary algorithm searches over 6,000 lending sources worldwide placing you in direct contact with the absolute best lender. Any type of loan, Anywhere in the World. It's fast and Easy. No Dream Deferred, asisloans.com",
"No that will not count as a short sale although it may still affect your chances of getting a loan because some lenders wont want to see it on your credit if you are pursuing a new FHA loan. In the best case scenario you will need an explanation letter of why you did this. In the worst case scenario the lender will want you to wait to get financing. Try and find a lender with NO FHA overages which means they don't put additional restrictions on giving you an FHA insured loan. That type of lender will be your best choice because they just follow FHA rules and don't add any additional requirements.",
"If they are a debt collector, they must follow the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In particular, they must provide you with verification of the debt at your written request. If they won't give you a way to do this, they are in violation of the law, and you should contact proper authorities. If they are not a debt collection agency, it does sound like a scam, in which case you should also contact the appropriate law enforcement agency.",
"Definitely don't borrow from your 401K. If you quit or get laid off, you have to repay the whole amount back immediately, plus you are borrowing from your opportunity cost. The stock market should be good at least through the end of this year. As one of the commentators already stated, have you calculated your net savings by reducing the interest rate? You will be paying closing costs and not all of these are deductible (only the points are). When calculating the savings, you have to ask yourself how long you will be hanging on the property? Are you likely to be long term landlords, or do you have any ideas on selling in the near future? You can reduce the cost and principal by throwing the equivalent of one to two extra mortgage payments a year to get the repayment period down significantly (by years). In this way, you are not married to a higher payment (as you would be if you refinanced to a 15 year term). I would tend to go with a) eat the appraisal cost, not refinance, and b) throw extra money towards principal to get the term of the loan to be reduced.",
"This is definitely a scam. I had a friend sign up for a very similar offer and what they did was send a fake check and then asked to transfer the same amount to them. So now you just send them a couple grand and you're holding a fake check.",
"The answer is generally yes. Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to get help through a federal, state, or lender program that:",
"You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.",
"Yes, take the new rate, but instead of using the new 30 year term, calculate the payment as though the new mortgage were at the remaining term. 3 years into a 30? You calculate the payment as if the new mortgage were 27 years. This will tell you what you are really saving. Now, take that savings and divide into your closing costs if any. That will give you the break even. Will you be in the house that long? If you can find a no closing cost deal, it's worth it for even 1/8% savings.",
"Do you have any legal options? Not really. Citi is under no obligation to refinance your loan on your terms. But that goes both ways, and you are under no obligation to refinance with Citi! Get more quotes from another lender. It'll feel really good when you find a lender that wants your business. You might get a better deal. And think how good it will feel to cut ties with Citi!",
"Is this an unusual amount to pay for refinancing a home loan? Yes, I would say it seems pretty high. Although credit unions usually have pretty good deals, I would shop around a bit. Is refinancing not worth it if you might move in the next year or two? Totally not worth it if you'll be moving in a year or two. You need to think realistically about what you could sell your house for though. If you bought it 4 years ago, it's likely gone down in value significantly (depending on your locale). Are you prepared to take a significant loss to sell? If not, you might be forced to stick it out for 3-5 years or more.",
"Its a huuuuuuuuuuuge topic, and to answer your question in full will require a book, with a small booklet of legal advice attached to it. I'm not going to write it here, but I'll give you some very specific points to start your research with: ARM/Baloon - big NO NO. Don't touch that. Get rid of those you have any way you can, and then never ever do it again. That's the kind of crap that got us into the housing bubble mess to begin with. Especially with the rates as low as now, the only future with ARM/Baloon is that you're going to pay more, way more, than your initial period payments. Rates - the rates now are very low. They were even lower 12-24 months ago, but are still extremely low. Make sure you get a fixed rate loan, in order to lock these rates in for the remainder of the loan. Any ARM loan will have higher rates in the future. So go with FIXED RATE. Period - fixed rate loans are given for periods up to 30 years. The shorter the period, the lower the rate. However, at the level they're now, you're practically getting money for free (the APR is comparable to the inflation) even for 30 yr/fixed loans. PMI - private mortgage insurance - since you don't have much equity, the lender is likely to require you paying PMI. This is a significant amount of money you pay until you have at least 20% equity. It changes from lender to lender, so shop around and compare. Government assistance - that's what the broker was referring to. There were programs allowing people refinance even under-water mortgages. Check what programs are still available in your area. Some banks will not refinance with less than 20% equity, but some government assistance programs may help you get a loan even if you don't have enough equity. Closing fees and points - that's the money out of your pocket. Shop around, these vary wildly. Generally, Credit Unions, being non-profits, are cheaper on this item specifically, while comparable to big banks on everything else.",
"\"Check out the Mortgage Professor's website, in particular Calculator 11a: Who This Calculator is For: Borrowers who want to know whether they will save or lose money over a specified period by paying points in order to reduce the interest rate on an FRM. What This Calculator Does:This calculator shows the costs and benefits of paying points to reduce the rate on an FRM, and the minimum period they must hold an FRM before it makes sense to pay additional points (the \"\"break-even period\"\").\""
] |
[
"In my book if it comes in the mail with official looking envelopes, language and seals to try and get you to open it, the company isn't trust worthy enough for my business. I get a pile of these for my VA loan every week, I imagine FHA loans get similar junk mail. Rates are very low at the moment so it is likely that rates from reputable lenders are 1 to 2% lower than say a year or 2 years ago. In general if a lender gives you a GFE the numbers on it are going to be pretty accurate and there isn't a great deal of wiggle room for the lender so the concerns with reputation should focus on is this outfit some type of scam and then reviews on how good or bad their customer service is. Chances of running into a scam seem pretty low but the costs could be really high. As far as checking if an unknown lender is any good it is kind of tough to do. There is a list of Lenders on HUD's site. Checking BBB can't hurt but I wouldn't put a lot of stock into their recommendations. Doing some general Google searches certainly can't hurt but aren't fool proof either. Personally I would start by checking what prevailing rates are for your current situation. You could go to your proffered bank or to any number of online sites to get a couple of quotes.",
"Start with the list of mortgage companies approved to work in your area. There are 80 within 10 miles of my house, and more than 100 in my county. Pick ones you know because they are established businesses in your area, region, or even nationally. A good place to start might be with your current lender. The risk you seem to be worried about is a scam or a trick. In the recent past the scams were ones where the home owner didn't understand teaser rates, and the risk of interest only and pick-your-payment loans. The simpler the bells and whistles, the less likely you are to be embarking on a risky transaction. It can't hurt to ask an organization like the BBB or neighbors, but realize that many people loved their exotic mortgage until the moment it blew up in their face. So for 5 years your neighbor would have raved about their new mortgage until they discovered how underwater they were. Regarding how smoothy the transaction is accomplished, is hard to predict. There is great variation in the quality of the loan officers, so a great company can have rookie employees. Unless you can get a recommendation for a specific employee it is hard know if your loan officer is going to give great service. When getting a mortgage for a purchase, the biggest risk is getting a mortgage that results in a payment you can't afford. This is less of a risk with a refinance because you already have a mortgage and monthly payment. But keep in mind some of the monthly savings is due to stretching out the payments for another 30 years. Know what you are trying to do with the refinance because the streamlined ones cant be used for cash out."
] |
6715
|
What does it mean if “IPOs - normally are sold with an `underwriting discount` (a built in commission)”
|
[
"568526",
"13732"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"13732",
"568526",
"351055",
"209863",
"169548",
"476829",
"89533",
"5685",
"499154",
"77631",
"195455",
"111773",
"319471",
"502713",
"361843",
"518242",
"155461",
"592187",
"475700",
"491644",
"243115",
"498752",
"3495",
"25195",
"68094",
"533357",
"203139",
"57387",
"599156",
"320472",
"570064",
"569303",
"538551",
"524513",
"212470",
"334162",
"131421",
"130303",
"436536",
"327952",
"58686",
"544172",
"432727",
"189979",
"464871",
"282565",
"481339",
"90519",
"568252",
"11075",
"220187",
"237220",
"31242",
"335631",
"428017",
"553896",
"571001",
"389268",
"482399",
"132180",
"407911",
"313414",
"64943",
"200894",
"576999",
"584135",
"508868",
"304276",
"305061",
"386398",
"146628",
"466711",
"434799",
"21975",
"287858",
"474670",
"529402",
"210219",
"258563",
"573079",
"201226",
"216307",
"250164",
"575554",
"376162",
"125355",
"333605",
"48564",
"239502",
"584295",
"451898",
"48569",
"390817",
"91208",
"151132",
"43432",
"312154",
"569874",
"317365",
"301062"
] |
[
"\"Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission? The buyer doesn't get a commission. The buyer pays a commission. So normally a buyer would say, \"\"I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.\"\" The broker would then charge the buyer a commission. Assuming 4%, the commission would be So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000. The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission. In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission. So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission. The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140. Total paid to the seller is $1860. Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction. That's a reasonable outlook. A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller. In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker. In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter). Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one. As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock. The broker still expects a commission. But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission. So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer). The broker has more work to do than normal. They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation. In most purchases, you just say something like \"\"I want to offer $20 a share\"\" or \"\"I want to purchase at the market price.\"\" In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share. And they may do that multiple times. Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price. And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested. Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day. Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price. If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission. However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO. Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97. I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible. And once they do that, they're out of the picture. Your broker will still be your broker later. So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day. The broker doesn't care much either way. They want you to buy and sell something. The IPO or something else. They don't care much as to what. The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return. If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that. All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result. They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day. But it might not. These numbers may not be accurate. Obviously the $20 stock price is made up. But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate. Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage. The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year). The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission. If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission.\"",
"\"When an IPO happens, the buyers pay some price (let's say $20 per share) and the seller (the company) receives a different price ($18.60). Who paid the commission? Well, the commission caused a spread between buyer and seller. It doesn't matter who technically pays the commission because it costs both parties. In an IPO, the company technically pays the commission, but they use buyers' money to do it and the buyer must pay more than he/she would if there was no commission. The same thing happens when you buy a home. Technically the seller pays both realtors' commissions but it came from money the buyer gave the seller and the commissions pushed up the price, so didn't the buyer pay the commission? They both did. The second paragraph suggests that if the investment bankers act as a simple broker, buying public securities instead of newly issued shares for their clients, then the commissions will be much lower. Obviously. I wonder if this is really the right interpretation, though, as no broker charges 4% to a large client for this service. I would need more context to be sure that's what's meant. The gyst is that IPOs generate a lot of money for the investment bankers who act as intermediaries. If you are participating in the transaction, that money is in some way coming out of your pocket, even if it doesn't show up as a \"\"brokerage fee\"\" on your statement.\"",
"Thanks for the link. The way I interpretet is like this: IPOs are underpriced to make sure they will sell all the shares to the market, avoiding lose of face. (short term andslide 4) But that doesn't mean it is a good investment in the long run, because these companies have their reasons to go public, and one of those reasons could be that they think the market is overpricing stocks (long term and slide 5) There are of course other reasons, one of them to finance the business. By the way, I think the data is heavily skewed because of the dotcom crash, but interesting nonetheless.",
"\"IPO's are priced so that there's a pop\"\" on the opening day.\"\" If I were IPOing my company and the price \"\"popped\"\" on the open, I would think the underwriter priced it too low. In fact if I were to IPO, I'd seek an underwriter whose offerings consistently traded on the first day pretty unchanged. That means they priced it correctly. In the 90's IPO boom, there were stocks that opened up 3X and more. The original owners must have been pretty upset as the poor pricing guidance the underwriter offered.\"",
"Your impression about banks and bankers is very wrong. Wall street banks can and often do lose in transactions. In fact, banks go bankrupt and/or require massive bailouts to survive because they sometimes lose a ton of money. The business of investment banking often involves bearing risk for customers, which, by definition, means they lose some of the time. Generally the risks they take on individual transactions are not large enough to bring the whole bank down, but sometimes they are. Banking is a job like any other, except that it has more risk than most. Anyway, to your point, how do underwriters make money on shares that fall in value before the sale? On the commission. The issuing company will normally pay the investment bank a percentage of the funds raised in the offering, regardless of the price. Of course, it's possible for the bank to still lose money if their contract stipulates a minimum price and they are not able to meet it. In that case, the bank may lose on that offering, contradicting your preconceived notion. By the way, one other question implicit in your post: Why was the secondary offering considered bad news? If the CEO and other insiders have private information that indicates that the stock is overvalued, then doing a secondary offering at the inflated price will greatly enrich them. Because this happens some times, investors are wary about secondary offerings. This makes companies that would otherwise do a secondary offering shy away from it, even if shares are not overpriced. Therefore if a company is doing a secondary offering, the market is likely to worry that the stock is overvalued even at a reduced price.",
"There's an unwritten rule among IPO underwriters that they will not go below a 7% underwriting fee. They act like an oligopoly, artificially keeping the price high to avoid losing future underwriting revenue. Additionally, the most famous example of a reverse auction IPO was Google's. Despite a lot of concerns leading up to the IPO, it was priced rather high and did very well following the IPO.",
"underwriters aren't subject to lock-up. They actually don't hold anything. They oversell at IPO, with their short position covered by the green shoe (an option from the company). If the deal does well, the underwriters exercise the green shoe to cover their short. If the deal runs into some pressure, they step in to support the price by buying back shares... thereby covering their short. So they are doing price support in the early days of a deal, but it is almost always paid for by the company granting them an option. But the underwriters aren't taking stock. Correct that typically all insiders and existing investors are expected to sign-up a lock-up.",
"A consortium of investment banks go on a road show to their clients to see who's interested at which price in the IPO. The arrange this price through various financial models to determine the market value of the company. The banks price the offering deliberately low to ensure a pop on the open of trading to send a positive signal to the market. This is their story at least, IPOs mispriced on the low side result in less money for the company making the offering. I think a better way to perform an IPO is the way google did the theirs; a reverse auction. This is the same way the treasury sells bonds and definitely would put more money in the companies and less in the banks. Unfortunately the banks don't love the idea and you need a lot of clout to get them to change their minds.",
"\"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price. However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock. That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock. If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, \"\"Friends and Family\"\" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (\"\"fixed price method\"\"), or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data compiled by the bookrunner (\"\"book building\"\"). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of \"\"initial underpricing\"\" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO \"\"mania\"\" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (\"\"syndicate\"\") arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that \"\"theglobe.com\"\" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially.\"",
"\"Usually the big institution that \"\"floats\"\" the stock on the market is the one to offer it to you. The IPO company doesn't sell the stock itself, the big investment bank does it for them. IPO's shareholders/employees are generally not allowed to sell their shares at the IPO until some time passes. Then you usually see the sleuth of selling.\"",
"\"The company gets the proceeds from the sales of shares on the open market. If a company is selling 1,000,000 shares at $12/share then they will receive $12,000,000 from the underwriter minus some fees that the underwriter will collect. The part that ties into valuation is to consider what percentage is the company selling of itself that is coming from its own holdings. If the company is putting out 10% of its shares in the IPO from treasury holdings on a $10B valuation then it will get $1B minus the fees I'd suspect. Where I worked in late 1990s/early 2000s had an IPO where the underwriter did a bridge loan and the IPO so that the company didn't get all the money raised but did get enough to run operations for a while before ending operations. Public Offering notes that after an IPO other offerings would be called \"\"seasoned equity offering\"\" that may or may not be dilutive as they could come from new or existing shares.\"",
"There are different types of agreements. Sometimes an underwriter will simply try to find buyers. Other times an underwriter will guarantee that all shares will be sold at some price. If this is the case and they do not find enough buyers, the underwriter will buy the remaining shares.",
"I think the definition of overcollateralization on investopedia will answer this question for you. Namely this part: For example, in the case of a mortgage backed security, the principal amount of an issue may be $100 million while the principal value of the mortgages underlying the issue may be equal to $120 million. The bond is packed with more mortgages than the face value indicates. It's effectively sold at a discount to underlying value.",
"The goal of a good IPO underwriter is to set the price such that it brings as much money as possible to the company. * Too low: Early stock flippers get the money that should be going to the company. * Too high: Not all the stock gets sold. By that definition, **Facebook should be recorded as the most successful IPO of all time**. The problem is investors have gotten used to incompetent and/or corrupt underwriters that set the price too low. The company gets screwed, but the underwriter’s buddies make some quick cash on the flip.",
"A company generally sells a portion of its ownership in an IPO, with existing investors retaining some ownership. In your example, they believe that the entire company is worth $25MM, so in order to raise $3MM it is issuing stock representing 12% of the ownership stake (3/25), which dilutes some or all of the existing stockholders' claims.",
"\"There are two kinds of engagements in an IPO. The traditional kind where the Banks assume the risks of unsold shares. Money coming out of their pockets to hold shares no one wants. That is the main risk. No one buying the stock that the bank is holding. Secondly, there is a \"\"best efforts\"\" engagement. This means that bank will put forth its best effort to sell the shares, but will not be on the hook if any don't sell. This is used for small cap / risky companies. Source: Author/investment banker\"",
"\"There are no \"\"rules\"\" about how the price should act after an IPO, so there are no guarantee that a \"\"pop\"\" would appear at the opening day. But when an IPO is done, it's typically underpriced. On average, the shares are 10% up at the end of the first day after the IPO (I don't have the source that, I just remember that from some finance course). Also, after the IPO, the underwriter can be asked to support the trading of the share for a certain period of time. That is the so called stabilizing agent. They have few obligations like: This price support in often done by a repurchase of some of the shares of poorly performing IPO. EDIT: Informations about the overallotment pool. When the IPO is done, a certain number of client buy the shares issued by the company. The underwriter, with the clients, can decide to create an overallotment pool, where the clients would get a little more shares (hence \"\"overallotment\"\"), but this time the shares are not issued by the company but by the underwriter. To put it another way, the underwriter oversell and becomes short by a certain number of shares (limited to 15% of the IPO). In exchange for the risk taken by this overallotment, the underwriter gets a greenshoe option from the clients, that will allows the underwriter to buy back the oversold shares, at the price of the IPO, from the clients. The idea behind this option is to avoid a market exposure for the underwriter. So, after the IPO: If the price goes down, the underwriter buys back on the market the overshorted shares and makes a profits. If the price goes up, the company exercise the greenshoe option buy the shares at the IPO prices (throught the overallotment pool, that is, the additional shares that the clients wanted ) to avoid suffering a loss.\"",
"\"In an IPO the seller is the Company selling new shares. Some of the IPOs also include something called \"\"secondary\"\" sales which are existing holders selling at the same time at the IPO price. But that is a but more unusual. And as someone noted, the $68 is the price paid for the people who bought at the IPO (the aggregate group usually called the syndicate). The $85 is the price that it is trading at once there is trading in the open market. People that are able to get into the syndicate to buy the stock at $68 sometimes quickly sell if the price is much higher when trading starts. This is called \"\"flipping\"\" the stock. Hedge funds do this much more often than institutional buyers like Fidelity.\"",
"Underwriters cannot win. If the stock goes down, people blame them for overpricing and fleecing the investors. If the stock goes up, people blame them for underpricing and fleecing the company. They are playing both sides, so one side is likely to be more happy than the other side. They are bankers, so people will always find a reason to hate them.",
"Underwriters get blamed for underpriced IPOs, management for overpriced. People tend to target their opprobrium at whomever benefits the most, whether that opprobrium is fair or not. Kind of silly because the real discussion should be about how to find a new way of doing IPOs that actually works.",
"Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.",
"After a company goes public, if it wants to raise more money, then it does this by secondary public offering or rights issue. In subscription rights issue gives the right to existing share holders to buy new shares at equal proportion. So if every one buys, they maintain the same percentage of ownership. Generally the pricing is at discount to current market price. Not sure why the price is high, unless the price for this stock fell sharply recently.",
"When a company IPOs the underwriters sell a given percentage on IPO day and shortly thereafter. Whatever is sold on IPO day trades freely. Insiders, employees and investors who bought before the IPO only sell a percentage of their shares on IPO day. They all also agree to 'lock up' the remainder for a period of time, so that not everyone is rushing to the exits right away. Well, if you're an employee you don't per-se agree, it's just how your stock options are setup and you don't really have a say in the matter.",
"\"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down). If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not \"\"stealing\"\", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it.\"",
"Depending on your perspective of it, I can see reasons for and against this idea. Only with the benefit of hindsight can one say how wise or unwise it is to do so. Earlier in my career, I invested and lost it all. Understand if you do buy when would you be able to sell, do you have to have an account with the underwriter, what fees may there be in having such an account, and would there be restrictions on when you could sell.",
"There is no reason to try to build a commission discount into the contract when you are not represented by a buyer's agent. Make your offer is 3% lower than it would be otherwise. Then the seller's agent becomes your best ally. He knows he'll get the whole commission, so it's in his best interest to make the deal happen. Even if he believes another unrepresented buyer will come along, the difference in his commission will be minuscule and probably not worth his time. If you get the price you offered, does it matter whose pocket the discount came out of? On the other hand, if you enter negotiations that stall at an amount less than half of the commission, then mention a discounted commission. At that point the deal is so close that the seller and agent may be able to bridge the gap themselves.",
"One major benefit to being able to buy discounted company stock is that you can sell in-the-money covered calls and potentially make more than you would selling at strike.",
"\"For new shares to be successfully sold, the price has to be below market price. If you currently own shares of that company, you should always get an option to buy those newly sold shares at that discounted price. The number of options depends on the relative number of shares you hold. Lets say you own 100 out of 1000 shares, currently priced at $10. 100 new shares are to be sold at $9. Since you are holding 10% of all shares, you have the option (i.e. the right) to buy 10 new (cheaper) shares (10% of 100) before anybody else can buy them. Theoretically, the money you save by getting the shares at a discounted price is equal to the money you lose by the share's value being diluted. So, if you're a shareholder and the company is increasing it's capital, you're given the right to \"\"go with it\"\".\"",
"It's 5% free money, if you believe the company's stock is fairly valued and likely to grow and/or return reasonable dividends until you're ready to sell it. There's usually a minimum holding period of a few months to a year before these discounted shares can be sold; take that into account",
"\"In the case of an \"\"initial public offering\"\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \"\"slightly under price\"\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \"\"rights issue\"\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \"\"rights\"\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\"",
"This was a really unusual deal because a fund owned by one of the owners of the company was buying much of the shares. Seems that maybe someone at the company realized that they could get an IPO for much less than 7% because the bank wasn't really doing much work or taking much risk for their cut. And that nobody figured to put contingencies for this in a contract because how often does it happen. Edit: do people even read the articles for these things? >>When you do an IPO where an existing shareholder (and company director) is buying half the deal, that's not quite the same as doing an IPO where the banks are just selling shares to investors that the banks dig up. And when that shareholder decides that he'd rather not buy, his escape is not so much refusing to pay for his shares as it is trying to get the deal pulled. If VBL sues the banks, they can turn around and sue VBL saying that this is a backdoor way of getting out of their contract.",
"I see another way of looking at this that hasn't been addressed yet. By offering the discount, the company is attempting to change your behavior into doing something irrational, that benefits them at your expense. The company hopes for one (or more) of the following psychological effects to happen to you: The proper thing to do, if you have enough capital to prevent margin calls, it to short-sell the stock at the same instant the price is set, thus locking in the profit. Eventually you can take possession of the shares and deliver them to offset the short -- hopefully before you get a margin call from the stock dropping.",
"The way to do this is to make your best offer and let the seller and his/her agent do the negotiation between them. If you try to build in the discount in your offer, you will come across as cheap.",
"\"Yeah, you're right. Which is interesting in this case anyway, in that many analysts were highlighting the lack of fundamentals supporting the IPO price. To me, that speaks to the willingness of the underwriters to ignore that lack of fundamentals, and perhaps base the value on something else (e.g. \"\"Zuck's a wunderkind, he'll figure it out\"\"). I guess my point is that the lack of foundation (that the market has since priced into the share price) was not hidden from the underwriters.\"",
"A 15% discount does not necessarily mean it is a good investment. The stock price can go down at any point. 15% discount might mean you are getting a little better deal than the average cat.",
"Here is an example for you. We have a fictional company. It's called MoneyCorp. Its job is to own money, and that's all. Right now it owns $10,000. It doesn't do anything special with that $10,000 - it stores it in a bank account, and whenever it earns interest gives it to the shareholders as a dividend. Also, it doesn't have any expenses at all, and doesn't pay taxes, and is otherwise magic so that it doesn't have to worry about distractions from its mathematical perfection. There are 10,000 shares of MoneyCorp, each worth exactly $1. However, they may trade for more or less than $1 on the stock market, because it's a free market and people trading stock on the stock market can trade at whatever price two people agree on. Scenario 1. MoneyCorp wants to expand. They sell 90,000 shares for $1 each. The money goes in the same bank account at the same interest rate. Do the original shareholders see a change? No. 100,000 shares, $100,000, still $1/share. No problem. This is the ideal situation. Scenario 2: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for less than the current price, $0.50 each. Do the original shareholders lose out? YES. It now has something like $55,000 and 100,000 shares. Each share is now worth $0.55. The company has given away valuable equity to new shareholders. That's bad. Why didn't they get more money from those guys? Scenario 3: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for more than the current price, $2 each, because there's a lot of hype about its business. MoneyCorp now owns $190,000 in 100,000 shares and each share is worth $1.90. Existing shareholders win big! This is why a company would like to make its share offering at the highest price possible (think, Facebook IPO). Of course, the new shareholders may be disappointed. MoneyCorp is actually a lot like a real business! Actually, if you want to get down to it, MoneyCorp works very much like a money-market fund. The main difference between MoneyCorp and a random company on the stock market is that we know exactly how much money MoneyCorp is worth. You don't know that with a real business: sales may grow, sales may drop, input prices may rise and fall, and there's room for disagreement - that's why stock markets are as unpredictable as they are, so there's room for doubt when a company sells their stock at a price existing shareholders think is too cheap (or buys it at a price that is too expensive). Most companies raising capital will end up doing something close to scenario 1, the fair-prices-for-everyone scenario. Legally, if you own part of a company and they do something a Scenario-2 on you... you may be out of luck. Consider also: the other owners are probably hurt as much as you are. Only the new shareholders win. And unless the management approving the deal is somehow giving themselves a sweetheart deal, it'll be hard to demonstrate any malfeasance. As an individual, you probably won't file a lawsuit either, unless you own a very large stake in the company. Lawsuits are expensive. A big institutional investor or activist investor of some sort may file a suit if millions of dollars are at stake, but it'll be ugly at best. If there's nothing evil going on with the management, this is just one way that a company loses money from bad management. It's probably not the most important one to worry about.",
"That's a very good question.. of which I didn't know the answer. I didn't pay very close attention when they actually IPO'ed, so I researched just now and I couldn't believe the amount of public complaining the banks did about Google's IPO structure. Hilarious in retrospect. Either way, in a very satisfying development, Google only paid 3% on the underwrite. The offering was worth almost $3B which means $100m for the banks, but they didn't have to do a road show or make a single call to sell the thing, so I'd say that was more than fair. {[Source](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2004/07/frugal_google.html)} >Google's IPO price will thus be set naturally by all interested market participants, not artificially by underwriters. Google—and not well-connected investors—will receive the full benefit of investors' enthusiasm for the stock. To add insult to the injury of the chastened investment bankers, Google has decreed that it'll only pay a 3 percent underwriting fee.",
"The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.",
"Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop.",
"The offering price is the price at which that IPO is, well, offered. Think of it as a suggested retail price. The opening price is the actual price at which trading begins, on a particular day, for a stock. That price depends on demand/overnight-orders/what-have-you. Think of this as the actual price in the store.",
"That's the problem with IPOs. Professionals are very bad at valuing companies, particularly prospectively. That's Daniel Kahneman's whole point about how no one beats the market. Yet, we expect the same types of professionals who can't beat the market to set the price for the market.",
"Did you see the I don't know part, as in, I don't know what the right solution? The ups were probably from people like me, who aren't experts in the market either, but still see a fundamental disconnect between what's happening now and what the presumed purpose of the market was claimed to be - a funds raising mechanism for companies.",
"\"Shares sold to private investors are sold using private contracts and do not adhere to the same level of strict regulations as publicly traded shares. You may have different classes of shares in the company with different strings attached to them, depending on the deals made with the investors at the time. Since public cannot negotiate, the IPO prospectus is in fact the investment contract between the company and the public, and the requirements to what the company can put there are much stricter than private sales. Bob may not be able to sell his \"\"special\"\" stocks on the public exchange, as the IPO specifies which class of stock is being listed for trading, and Bob's is not the same class. He can sell it on the OTC market, which is less regulated, and then the buyer has to do his due diligence. Yes, OTC-sold stocks may have strings attached to them (for example a buy back option at a preset time and price).\"",
"I didn't say only the IPO I just said public offerings. Trades between secondary investors would be taxed at a higher level. I also understand the difference between loaning money to a company and investing in equity. Personally I think that loans are underused in today's investment world because people are too focused on getting the most out of the few big winners.",
"Is that even legal to pull out of a deal like that? I'd assume they'd have made an agreement (between the underwriter and the buyer) during the roadshow. This event I would think has large negative impacts on the firm. It delays their IPO, (provided that they try again) and it makes investors wary of reinvesting in their second IPO (oxymoron.. haha). Furthermore, if the biotech firm decides to openly publish the details of this deal (which i assume they'd have to if they want to have a chance at having a successful IPO) someone is going to be labeled as having dealt in bad faith. I understand that underwriters mostly operate on a best-efforts basis, but I don't think they can come out of this deal without facing some consequences.",
"A company typically goes public in order to bring in additional capital. In an IPO, the company (through its officials) will typically do so by issuing additional shares, and offering to sell those to investors. If they did not do that, then there would be no net capital gain for the company; if person A sells share in company C to person B, then company C does not benefit directly from the exchange. By issuing and selling additional shares, the total value of all stock in the company can increase. Being publicly traded also greatly increases the confidence in the valuation of the company, as a consequence of the perfect market theory. There is nothing in this that says that initial investors (cofounders, employees, etc.) need to sell their shares in the process. They might choose to do so, or they might not; or they might be prevented from doing so by terms of any agreements that they have signed or by insider trading laws. Compare What happens to internal stock when a company goes public? Depending on specifics, it might be reasonable for the company to perform a share split prior to the initial public offering. That, however, doesn't affect the total value of the shares, only the price per share.",
"There's an odd anomaly that often occurs with shares acquired through company plans via ESPP or option purchase. The general situation is that the share value above strike price or grant price may become ordinary income, but a sale below the price at day the shares are valued is a capital loss. e.g. in an ESPP offering, I have a $10 purchase price, but at the end of the offering, the shares are valued at $100. Unless I hold the shares for an additional year, the sale price contains ordinary W2 income. So, if I see the shares falling and sell for $50, I have a tax bill for $90 of W2 income, but a $50 capital loss. Tax is due on $90 (and for 1K shares, $90,000 which can be a $30K hit) but that $50K loss can only be applied to cap gains, or $3K/yr of income. In the dotcom bubble, there were many people who had million dollar tax bills and the value of the money netted from the sale couldn't even cover the taxes. And $1M in losses would take 300 years at $3K/yr. The above is one reason the lockup date expiration is why shares get sold. And one can probably profit on the bigger companies stock. Edit - see Yelp down 3% following expiration of 180 day IPO lock-up period, for similar situation.",
"\"IPO is \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\". Just so you know. The valuations are done based on the company business model, intellectual property, products, market shares, revenues and profits, assets, and future projections. You know, the usual stuff. Yes, it is. And very frequently done. In fact, I can't think of any company that is now publicly traded, that didn't start this way. The first investor, the one who founds the company, is the first one who invests in it after raising the capital (even if it is from his own bank account to pay the fees for filing the incorporation papers). What is the difference between \"\"normal\"\" investor and \"\"angel\"\"? What do you refer to as \"\"angel\"\"? How is it abnormal to you? Any investor can play a role, depending on the stake he/she has in the company. If the stake is large enough - the role will be significant. If the stake is the majority - the investor will in fact be able major decisions regarding the company. How he bought the stocks, whether through a closed offering, initial investment or on a stock exchange - doesn't matter at all. You may have heard of the term \"\"angels\"\" with regards to high-tech start up companies. These are private investors (not funds) that invest their own money in start ups at very early stages. They're called \"\"angels\"\" because they invest at stages at which it is very hard for entrepreneurs to raise money: there's no product, no real business, usually it is a stage of just an idea or a patent with maybe initial prototype and some preliminary business analysis. These people gamble, in a sense, and each investment is very small (relatively to their wealth) - tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes a hundred or two thousands, and they make a lot of these. Some may fail and they lose the money, but those that succeed - bring very high returns. Imagine investing 10K for 5% stake at Google 15 years ago. Those people are as investors as anyone else, and yes, depending on their stake in the company, they can influence its decisions.\"",
"you know, i'm curious. why did you feel it was overpriced? if it opened at $50 a share and you thought that was too high, might you buy 2 shares if it opened at $25 instead? would there be any notable difference in what you owned?",
"In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk.",
"\"a lot of companies will \"\"class\"\" their shares and the founders will hold on to the A class shares so that they can distribute more than 50% but still retain the majority of control over company decisions. A lot of this stuff is set out in the underwriting.\"",
"\"I don't usually pay much attention to IPOs. Is it normal for a software company to declare their intent to sell themselves as part of \"\"gaming industry consolidation\"\"? I get it as a pitch to angel investors for a start-up. Building to a certain point to then GTFO is a business as usual model. I just haven't seen it applied to an IPO before.\"",
"Many people have criticized the Groupon IPO model because it doesn't make sense as an investment, unless you are an insider with cheap shares. Basically, you have:",
"Oh, I see what you mean. It depends which side you look at it from: the company, or the individual investor. For the individual investor, I guess it doesn't matter. As you said, you only buy the amount of stocks you can afford. What matters afterwards is whether the price of your stocks goes up or down. That's when the company valuation comes into play. If a company is overvalued, the stock prices are going to go down until they reach the [equilibrium point](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium). Or, rephrasing, stocks go down when more people will want to sell than buy, creating an excess supply, so sellers will be willing to offer lower prices so you buy from them. Stocks go up when the opposite happens, more people will want to buy than sell, so buyers will have to offer more money to convince sellers to sell. In essence, Facebook was overvalued, and not enough people were buying their shares, creating excess supply, so, sellers had to offer lower prices. Had Facebook been properly valued, people would've felt the stocks were a good price, everyone would've rushed to purchase, and stock prices would've gone up.",
"\"I think the first misconception to clear up is that you are implying the price of a stock is set by a specific person. It is not. The price of a stock is equal to the value that someone most recently traded at. If Apple last traded at $100/share, then Apple shares are worth $100. If good news about Apple hits the market and people holding the shares ask for more money, and the most recent trade becomes $105, then that is now what Apple shares are worth. Remember that generally speaking, the company itself does not sell you its shares - instead, some other investor sells you shares they already own. When a company sells you shares, it is called a 'public offering'. To get to your actual question, saying something is 'priced in' implies that the 'market' (that is, investors who are buying and selling shares in the company) has already considered the impacts of that something. For example, if you open up your newspaper and read an article about IBM inventing a new type of computer chip, you might want to invest in IBM. But, the rest of the market has also heard the news. So everyone else has already traded IBM assuming that this new chip would be made. That means when you buy, even if sales later go up because of the new chip, those sales were already considered by the person who chose the price to sell you the shares at. One principle of the stock market (not agreed to by all) is called market efficiency. Generally, if there were perfect market efficiency, then every piece of public information about a company would be perfectly integrated into its stock price. In such a scenario, the only way to get real value when buying a company would be to have secret information of some sort. It would mean that everyone's collective best-guess about what will happen to the company has been \"\"priced-in\"\" to the most recent share trade.\"",
"Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora.",
"An Initial Public Offering (IPO), is the perfect first marketing of shares by the secretly purchased company to the public. The companies going public hick finance through IPO's for working capital, debt repayment, acquisitions, and a manager of other uses. If you want to learn the fundamental of the IPO best site is W3Teachers.com. For more INFO. visit :-http://www.w3teachers.com/IPO/IPO-DASHBOARD",
"\"An order is your command to the broker to, say, \"\"sell 100 shares of AAPL\"\". An executed order (or partially executed order) is when all (or some) of that command is successfully completed. A transaction is an actual exchange of shares for money, and there may be one or more transactions per executed order. For example, the broker might perform all of the following 5 transactions in order to do what you asked: On the other hand, if the broker cannot execute your order, then 0 transactions have taken place. The fee schedule you quote is saying that no matter how many transactions the broker has to perform in order to fill your order -- and no matter what the share prices are -- they're only going to charge you $0.005 per share ($0.50 in this example of 100 shares), subject to certain limits. However, as it says at the top of the page you linked, Our Fixed pricing for stocks, ETFs (Exchange Traded Products, or ETPs) and warrants charges a fixed amount per share or a set percent of trade value, and includes all IB commissions, exchange and most regulatory fees with the exception of the transaction fees, which are passed through on all stock sales. certain transaction fees are passed through to the client. The transaction fee you included above is the SEC fee on sales. Many (but not all) transaction fees DO depend on the prices of the shares involved; as a result they cannot be called \"\"fixed\"\" fees. For example, if you sell 100 shares of AAPL at $150 each, But if you sell 100 shares of AMZN at $940 each, So the broker will charge you the same $0.50 on either of those orders, but the SEC will charge you more for the expensive AMZN shares than for the cheaper AAPL shares. The reason this specific SEC fee mentions aggregate sales rather than trade value is because this particular SEC fee applies only to the seller and not to the buyer. So they could have written aggregate trade value, but they probably wanted to highlight to the reader that the fee is only charged on sells.\"",
"\"Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"",
"Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere.",
"I'm going to have to take you to task for this post. If someone is incapable of determining the implied current P/E in the IPO price then they should not be buying stocks. You cannot blame Wall Street for the greed and stupidity of the public.",
"This seemed very unrealistic, I mean who would do that? But to my immense surprise the market price increased to 5.50$ in the following week! Why is that? This is strange. It seems that people mistakenly [?] believe that the company should be at 5.5 and currently available cheap. This looks like irrational behaviour. Most of the past 6 months the said stock in range bound to 4.5 to 5. The last time it hit around 5.5 was Feb. So this is definitely strange. If the company had set a price of 6.00$ in the rights offering, would the price have increased to 6$? Obviously the company thinks that their shares are worth that much but why did the market suddenly agree? Possibly yes, possible no. It can be answered. More often the rights issue are priced at slight discount to market price. Why did this happen? Obviously management thinks that the company is worth that much, but why did the market simply believe this statement without any additional information? I don't see any other information; if the new shares had some special privileges [in terms of voting rights, dividends, etc] then yes. However the announcements says the rights issues is for common shares.",
"By definition, an IPO'd stock is publicly traded, and you can buy shares if you wish. There's often an excitement on the first day that doesn't carry over to the next days or weeks. The opening price may be well above the IPO price, depending on that demand.",
"First, I suggest that the route gives you the discount. You work the block with goldman and they say that if you work 20 blocks with them you get 50bps back, regardless of the issue. Also, as a hedge fund you have a very different model than an ETF or MF. That said, how exactly would that this be disclosed to the investor? Is there a standard in place for that?",
"\"I personally think that this is how IPOs are going to work going forward. Company ownership trading will happen behind closed doors, then the hype is built in the limelight way above expectations, then the over valued IPO will drop allowing the backroom deal makers to cash out of the company, The problem isn't social networking, it is \"\"the next big thing\"\" mindset of Wall Street\"",
"Rebates are offered on exchange to promote liquidity offers so that aggressive buy/sell can be done, otherwise a sizable sell/buy would crash the price of a stock with no liquidity, it is perfectly normal for a firm to attempt look for the rebate if the customer is willing to wait longer for the execution to happen. The Author clearly has no freaking idea what the hell he is talking about.",
"\"The answer, like many answers, is \"\"it depends\"\". Specifically, it depends on the broker, and the type of account you have with the broker. Most brokers will charge you once per transaction, so a commission on the buy, and a commission (and SEC fee in the US) on the sale. However, if you place a Good-til-Canceled (GTC) order, and it's partially filled one day, then partially filled another day, you'll be charged two commissions. There are other brokers (FolioFN comes to mind) that either have trading \"\"windows\"\", where you can make any number of trades within that window, or that have a fixed monthly fee, giving you any (probably with some upper limit) number of trades per month. There are other brokers (Interactive Brokers for example), that charge you the standard commission on buy and another commission and fee on sell, but can refund you some of that commission for making a market in the security, and pay you to borrow the securities. So the usual answer is \"\"two commissions\"\", but that's not universal. However, while commissions are important, with discount brokers, you'll find the percent you're paying for commissions is minimal, which losses due to slippage and poor execution can swamp.\"",
"\"The rate of the bond is fixed. But there is a risk known as \"\"interest rate risk\"\". Basically, if you have a 2 percent bond and market rates are 4 percent, you'll have to offer your bond at a discount or nobody would buy it. So if you ever needed to sell it, you'd lose a bit of money.\"",
"$38 was the IPO price. This was price per share for those investors who bought directly from the underwriters (Morgan Stanley, etc.) $42.06 was the first secondary market price, the price at which two private parties first exchanged the shares on an exchange, in this case NASDAQ.",
"\"I would differentiate between pricing and valuation a bit more: Valuation is the result of investment analysis and the result of coming up with a fair value for a company and its shares; this is done usually by equity analysts. I have never heard about pricing a security in this context. Pricing would indicate that the price of a product or security is \"\"set\"\" by someone (i.e. a car manufacturer sets the prices of its new cars). The price of a security however is not set by an analyst or an institution, it is solely set by the stock market (perhaps based on the valuations of different analysts). There is only one exception to this: pricing an IPO before its shares are actually traded on an exchange. In this case the underwriting banks set the price (based on the valuation) at which the shares are distributed.\"",
"Because buying at discount provides a considerable safety of margin -- it increases the likelihood of profiting. The margin serves to cushion future adverse price movement. Why is so much effort made to get a small percentage off an investment, if one is then willing to let the investment drop another 20% or more with the reason of being in it for the long term? Nobody can predict the stock price. Now if a long term investor happens to buy some stocks and the market crashes the next day, he could afford to wait for the stock prices to bounce back. Why should he sells immediately to incur a definite loss, should he has confidence in the underlying companies to recover eventually? One can choose to buy wisely, but the market fluctuation is out of his/her control. Wouldn't you agree that he/she should spend much efforts on something that can be controlled?",
"\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"\"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of \"\"shares\"\" of equity in the company. Usually, these \"\"shares\"\" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of \"\"controlling interests\"\". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For \"\"private\"\" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For \"\"public\"\" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about \"\"dilution\"\". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The \"\"privately-held\"\" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the \"\"controlling interests\"\" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, \"\"common\"\" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. \"\"Preferred stock\"\" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the \"\"common\"\" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to \"\"class\"\" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue \"\"superstock\"\" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a \"\"superstock\"\" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues \"\"superstock\"\", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available \"\"common stock\"\" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The \"\"ideal\"\" form of this is a \"\"stock split\"\"; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering.\"",
"The original investors and founders own them. Think about it this way - When you hear that an IPO priced at $10 opened at $50, is that 'good or 'bad'? Of course, it depends who you are. If you are the guy that got them at $10, you're happy. If you are the founder of the company, you are thinking the banker you paid to determine a market price for the IPO failed. Big. He blew it, basically as you just sold your company for 20% of the perceived value. But, instead of selling all the shares, just sell, say, 5%. Now, the IPO opening price is just a way to understand the true value of your company while keeping 95% of the upside once the market settles down to a regular trading pattern. You can slowly sell these shares into the market or you can use them as cash to take over other companies by buying with these shares instead of actual cash. Either way, the publicly traded shares should trade based on the total value of the company and the fraction they represent.",
"Of course, this calculation does not take into consideration the fact that once the rights are issues, the price of the shares will drop. Usually this drop corresponds to the discount. Therefore, if a rights issue is done correctly share price before issuance-discount=share price after issuance. In this result, noone's wealth changes because shareholders can then sell their stock and get back anything they had to put in.",
"It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.",
"\"Real target of commisions is providing \"\"risk shelter\"\". It is kind of \"\"insurance\"\", which is actually last step for external risks to delete all your money. In part it cuts some of risks which you provide, brokers track history of all your actions for you (nobody else does). When brokerage firm fails, all your money is zero. It depends from case to case if whole account goes zero, but I wouldn't count on that.\"",
"Should do it through a limit auction book. Management and shareholders pre ipo submit sealed limit sell orders. Buyers submit sealed limit buy orders, nobody can see where the price is going. At 9AM, the price is calculated and whomever fills get filled and ta da everyone is trading at 9:30 when the market is open.",
">Suppose they had priced it at $25 and limited the number of shares they would have gotten less money but they'd also be looking at a massively successful pop on their share price. ...which would've benefited them how, exactly? Sell a share for $38 and it drops to $25, the company gets $38. Sell a share for $25 and it goes to $150, the company gets $25.",
"\"All discount brokers offer a commission structure that is based on the average kind of order that their target audience will make. Different brokers advertise to different target audiences. They could all have a lot lower commissions than they do. The maximum commission price for the order ticket is set at $99 by the industry securities regulators. When discount brokers came along and started offering $2 - $9.99 trades, it was simply because these new companies could be competitive in a place where incumbents were overcharging. The same exists with Robinhood. The market landscape and costs have changed over the last decade with regulation NMS, and other brokerage firms never needed to update drastically because they could continue making a lot on commissions with nobody questioning it. The conclusion being that other brokers can also charge a lot less, despite their other overhead costs. Robinhood, like other brokerage firms (and anyone else trading directly with the exchanges), are paid by the exchanges for adding liquidity. Not only are many trades placed with no commission for the broker, they actually earn money for placing the trade. If Robinhood was doing you any favors, they would be paying you. But nobody questions free commissions so they don't. Robinhood, like other brokerage firms, sells your trading data to the highest bidder. This is called \"\"payment for order flow\"\", these subscribers see your order on the internet in route to the exhange, and before your order gets to the exchange, the subscriber sends a different order to the exchange so they either get filled before you do (analogous to front running, but different enough to not be illegal) or they alter the price of the thing you wanted to buy or sell so that you have to get a worse price. These subscribers have faster computers and faster internet access than other market participants, so are able to do this so quickly. They are also burning a lot of venture capital like all startups. You shouldn't place too much faith in the idea they are making [enough] money. They also have plans to earn interest off of balances in a variety of ways and offer more options at a price (like margin accounts).\"",
"**Lock-up period** A lock-up period, also known as a lock in, lock out, or locked up period, is a predetermined amount of time following an initial public offering where large shareholders, such as company executives and investors representing considerable ownership, are restricted from selling their shares. Generally, a lock-up period is a condition of exercising an employee stock option. Depending on the company, the IPO lock-up period typically lasts between 90–180 days before these shareholders are allowed the right, but not the obligation, to exercise the option. Lockups are designed to prevent insiders from liquidating assets too quickly after a company goes public. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24",
"When a stock is going to become public there's a level of analysis required to figure out the range of IPO price that makes sense. For a company that's somewhat mature, and has a sector to compare it to, you can come up with a range that would be pretty close. For the recent linkedin, it's tougher to price a somewhat unique company, running at a loss, in a market rich with cash looking for the next great deal. If one gives this any thought, an opening price that's so far above the IPO price represents a failure of the underwriters to price it correctly. It means the original owners just sold theirvshares for far less than the market thought they were worth on day one. The day of IPO the stock opens similar to how any stock would open at 9:30, there are bids and asks and a price at which supply (the ask) and demand (bid) balance. For this IPO, it would appear that there were enough buyers to push the price to twice the anticipated open and it's maintained that level since. It's possible to have a different system in which a Dutch auction is used to make the shares public, in theory this can work, it's just not used commonly.",
"Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company. Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future). From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off. That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend). And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important. A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners. But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value.",
"They can sell a lower price call if they expect the stock to plummet in the near term but they are bullish on the longer term. What they are looking to do is collect the call premium and hope it expires worthless. And then again 'hope' that the stock will ultimately turn around. So yes, a lot of hoping. But can you explain what you mean by 'my brokerage gives premiums for prices lower than the current price'? Do you mean you pay less in commissions for ITM calls?",
"No, you trade the warrant and the warrant price of $11.50 for one stock. The warrant is a little like an option, but with a longer term. If you buy a IPOA.WS warrant then that warrant gives you the option to buy one share of class A stock at $11.50 at a future date. If in the future, the stock is worth $20, then you make $20 - $11.50 - per share. If you buy one IPOA.U, then you get 1/3 of a warrant and 1 share of stock, the warrants will be useless unless you buy in groups of 3 for the IPOA.U. I didn't see the timeframe of the warrant, they're usually good for 10+ years, and they're currently trading in the $1.5-1.8 range. To confirm, here's a decent article about how warrants work: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/04/021704.asp",
"\"After the initial public offering, the company can raise money by selling more stock (equity financing) or selling debt (e.g. borrowing money). If a company's stock price is high, they can raise money with equity financing on more favorable terms. When companies raise money with equity financing, they create new shares and dilute the existing shareholders, so the number of shares outstanding is not fixed. Companies can also return money to shareholders by buying their own equity, and this is called a share repurchase. It's best for companies to repurchase their shared when their stock price is low, but \"\"American companies have a terrible track record of buying their own shares high and selling them low.\"\" The management of a company typically likes a rising stock price, so their stock options are more valuable and they can justify bigger pay packages.\"",
"\"This was a \"\"bought deal\"\" by the 2 investment banks running the book. They had a legal obligation to fund the IPO, they reneged. They will get sued and probably settle out of court. Either way, a black mark on their reputation.\"",
"In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price.",
"There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.",
"\"Discussing individual stocks is discouraged here, so I'll make my answer somewhat generic. Keep in mind, some companies go public in a way that takes the shares that are held by the investment VCs (venture capitalists) and cashes them out of their positions, i.e. most if not all shares are made public. In that case, the day after IPO, the original investors have their money, and, short of the risk of being sued for fraud, could not care less what the stock does. Other companies float a small portion up front, and retain the rest. This is a way of creating a market and valuing the company, but not floating so many shares the market has trouble absorbing it. This stock has a \"\"Shares Outstanding\"\" of 2.74B but has only floated 757.21M. The nearly 2 billion shares held by the original investors certainly impact their wallets with how this IPO went. See the key statistics for the details.\"",
"Most businesses want to grow, and there are a variety of ways to raise the money needed to hire new employees and otherwise invest in the business to increase the rate of that growth. You as a stock holder should hope that management is choosing the least expensive option for growth. Some of the options are debt, selling equity to venture capitalists, or selling equity on the open market (going public). If they choose debt, they pay interest on that debt. If they choose to sell equity to venture capitalists, then your shares get diluted, but hopefully the growth makes up for some of that dilution. If they choose to go public, dilution is still a concern, but the terms are usually a little more favorable for the company selling because the market is so liquid. In the US, current regulations for publicly traded companies cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1M/year, so that's the rule of thumb for considering whether going public makes sense when calculating the cost of fundraising, but as mentioned, regulations make it less advantageous for executives who choose to sell their shares after the company goes public. (They can't sell when good spot prices appear.) Going public is often considered the next step for a company that has grown past the initial venture funding phase, but if cash-flow is good, plenty of companies decide to just reinvest profits and skip the equity markets altogether.",
"The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.",
"Berkshire Hathaway issues first ever-negative coupon security from back in 2002 had this part: The warrants will give the holder the right to purchase either shares of the Company's class A or class B common stock at the holder’s option. The initial exercise price represents a 15% premium over the closing price of the class A shares on the NYSE on May 21, 2002. The Notes will pay holders a 3.0% interest rate per annum and holders will pay 3.75% installment payments per annum on the warrants. The warrant payments due from holders will be greater than the coupon on the senior notes, effectively making SQUARZ the first negative coupon security. Berkshire Hathaway will use the net proceeds from the issuance for general corporate purposes, including possible acquisitions, none of which are pending. This would be an example where the strike price was 15% higher than the closing price yet the security sold well.",
"\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"",
"\"People in this case, are large institutional investors. The \"\"bid ask\"\" spread is for \"\"small traders\"\" like yourself. It is put out by the so-called specialists (or \"\"market makers\"\") and is typically good for hundreds or thousands of shares at a time. Normally, 2 points on a 50 stock is a wide spread, and the market maker will make quite a bit of money on it trading with people like yourself. It's different if a large institution, say Fidelity, wants to sell, say 1 million shares of the stock. Depending on market conditions, it may have trouble finding buyers willing to buy in those amounts anywhere near 50. To \"\"move\"\" such a large block of stock, they may have to put the equivalent of K-Mart's old \"\"Blue Light Special\"\" on, several points below.\"",
"One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.",
"\"Oh, I've gotten the \"\"massive upside\"\" in writing - you get 10,000 shares of this thing! Just sign here! But then it turns out that they can water those shares down whenever they want, or of course they're worth nothing when the thing tanks. The fact that it's a pretty sophisticated game is not always obvious, especially to those who are new to it.\"",
"\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"Yield is almost always the mean rate of return. Then 1.65% yield means that you will see that rate of return inclusive of any coupons. The way I like think of is that yield is the discount rate used to value the instrument at market value. DONT CONFUSE THE COUPON RATE WITH YIELD. Those are two completely separate things."
] |
[
"\"When an IPO happens, the buyers pay some price (let's say $20 per share) and the seller (the company) receives a different price ($18.60). Who paid the commission? Well, the commission caused a spread between buyer and seller. It doesn't matter who technically pays the commission because it costs both parties. In an IPO, the company technically pays the commission, but they use buyers' money to do it and the buyer must pay more than he/she would if there was no commission. The same thing happens when you buy a home. Technically the seller pays both realtors' commissions but it came from money the buyer gave the seller and the commissions pushed up the price, so didn't the buyer pay the commission? They both did. The second paragraph suggests that if the investment bankers act as a simple broker, buying public securities instead of newly issued shares for their clients, then the commissions will be much lower. Obviously. I wonder if this is really the right interpretation, though, as no broker charges 4% to a large client for this service. I would need more context to be sure that's what's meant. The gyst is that IPOs generate a lot of money for the investment bankers who act as intermediaries. If you are participating in the transaction, that money is in some way coming out of your pocket, even if it doesn't show up as a \"\"brokerage fee\"\" on your statement.\"",
"\"Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission? The buyer doesn't get a commission. The buyer pays a commission. So normally a buyer would say, \"\"I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.\"\" The broker would then charge the buyer a commission. Assuming 4%, the commission would be So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000. The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission. In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission. So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission. The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140. Total paid to the seller is $1860. Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction. That's a reasonable outlook. A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller. In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker. In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter). Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one. As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock. The broker still expects a commission. But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission. So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer). The broker has more work to do than normal. They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation. In most purchases, you just say something like \"\"I want to offer $20 a share\"\" or \"\"I want to purchase at the market price.\"\" In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share. And they may do that multiple times. Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price. And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested. Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day. Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price. If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission. However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO. Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97. I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible. And once they do that, they're out of the picture. Your broker will still be your broker later. So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day. The broker doesn't care much either way. They want you to buy and sell something. The IPO or something else. They don't care much as to what. The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return. If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that. All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result. They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day. But it might not. These numbers may not be accurate. Obviously the $20 stock price is made up. But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate. Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage. The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year). The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission. If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission.\""
] |
10183
|
How are various types of income taxed differently in the USA?
|
[
"66858",
"314342"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"314342",
"66858",
"60929",
"558867",
"374676",
"24462",
"76480",
"11401",
"45190",
"418951",
"477172",
"59317",
"321114",
"42521",
"295988",
"530146",
"111967",
"553253",
"112231",
"116017",
"575899",
"272028",
"175951",
"41509",
"277464",
"266898",
"57263",
"583626",
"536390",
"65875",
"508219",
"106320",
"18790",
"575527",
"115922",
"437907",
"332314",
"228503",
"537916",
"109305",
"442447",
"565410",
"587120",
"6891",
"134494",
"6103",
"405342",
"395686",
"37508",
"61438",
"569188",
"181294",
"304479",
"160555",
"553332",
"594784",
"264554",
"526661",
"118878",
"358286",
"101578",
"199173",
"114302",
"534391",
"218730",
"285913",
"355365",
"333425",
"195767",
"43508",
"384644",
"169240",
"235470",
"363748",
"67276",
"322049",
"381405",
"429037",
"495864",
"272458",
"577475",
"519123",
"423929",
"557361",
"81886",
"463881",
"97842",
"505617",
"583230",
"518310",
"578317",
"544439",
"459677",
"342411",
"418630",
"370469",
"481283",
"430189",
"205229",
"431676"
] |
[
"\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\"",
"\"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \"\"Net Investment Tax\"\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\"",
"\"In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about \"\"the fiscal cliff\"\" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year.\"",
"I'm not sure where you are, but in the United States capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income. On the 1040, captial gains income is separated from earned income, and income tax is calculated just on earned income. Then capital gains tax is calculated on capital gains income, and then added to income tax afterward.",
"\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"",
"You first compute your Ordinary Income (which includes Dividends, since they are taxed as OI), then you apply the standard tax bracket function to it, which is a piecewise linear function f() such that TAX = f(INCOME). It can be found at About.com. You can transform this into NET_INCOME = g(INCOME) = INCOME - TAX = INCOME - f(INCOME). Presumably g() is what you want to graph. I've actually graphed it before: Not too interesting, even on a LogLog scale. More interesting is the marginal tax rate, which is the derivative of f(), or the negative of the derivative of g(): ST (straight tax) shows what the marginal tax rate would look like if f() was just f(x)=kx or f(x)=kx+c, i.e. a straight/flat tax. The net tax rate (f(x)/x) actually gets more interesting if you also include [federal subsidies/deductions](Src: http://fbheron.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/fedassistance_ft.jpg) as a negative tax: Capital Gains are taxed separately and have (almost) nothing to do with this function. Corporate tax is not payed by you (although the burden of the tax [technical term] may fall upon you). Sorry I couldn't simplify; taxes are just complicated.",
"Well, whats the source of income from? Social security? Dividends? At 40k that's the good thing about a progressive tax, you wouldn't be taxed heavily. Even 40k of capital gains, which lets be honest is mostly high income individuals, is barely taxed at a higher level than that 40,000k from a fixed income source. Again, that's the gain (aka profit) one is receiving from selling shares of a company.",
"Lets just get to the point...Ordinary income (gains) earned from S-Corp operations (i.e. income earned after all expenses for providing services or selling products) is passed through to the owners/shareholders and taxed at the owner's personal tax rate. Separately, if an S-Corp earns capital gains (i.e. the S-Corp buys and sells stock, earns dividends from investments, etc), those gains are passed through to the owners and taxed at a capital gains rate Capital gains are not the same as ordinary income (gains). Don't get the two confused, they are as different for S-Corp taxation as they are for personal taxation. In some cases an exception occurs, but only when the S-Corp was formally a C-Corp and the C-Corp had non-distributed earnings or losses. This is a separate issue whereas the undistributed C-Corp gains/losses are treated differently than the S-Corp gains/losses. It takes years of college coursework and work experience to grasp the vast arena of tax. It should not be so complex, but it is this complex. It is not within the scope of the non-tax professional to make sense of this stuff. The CPA exams, although very difficult and thorough, only scrape the surface of tax and accounting. I hope this provides some perspective on any questions regarding business tax for S-Corps and any other entity type. Hire a good CPA... if you can find one.",
"\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\"",
"\"The $100,000 is taxed separately as \"\"ordinary income\"\". The $350,000 is taxed at long-term capital gains of 15%. Capital gains is not taxed at 20% until $415,050. Even though $100,000 + 350,000 = $450,000, only $350,000 can be taxed at capital gains. The total ordinary income tax burden will be $31,986 if single, in California. Caveat: By creating a holdings corporation (C-corp), you can section 351 that $100,000 into the C-corp for tax deferment, which won't be taxed until you take money from the corporation. Since you will hold 100% of the voting stock, all distributions will be considered pro rata. Additionally, you can issue yourself a dividend under the rules of 26 USC §§243-246 (a greather-than-80% shareholder who receives a dividend can write-off 100% of said dividend). As long as that dividend doesn't trigger §§1.243-246 of The Regulations by keeping the distribution just under 10% of E&P i.e. $10,000. Wages are deductible against basis so pay yourself $35,000 and keep $55,000 in the corporation and you can decrease the total liabilities down to $22,000 from $31,000, which includes the CA franchise tax. You don't have to pay yourself any money out a corporation to use the money.\"",
"The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040. This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed. Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW. Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part. The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936. This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here.",
"This depends on the nature of the income. Please consult a professional CPA for specific advise.",
"If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.",
"\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"There's an economic reason you don't want to tax income differently than capital gains. Capital gains are created by taking risk, and encouraging risk is encouraging entrepreneurial spirit, which as a country you want to inncentivize. However, after a certain amount of money is made via capital gains the rate should approach income, but never equal it.",
"Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.",
"How is not different? You want to retire early; hence, you will save what you deem necessary to retire early. On the other hand, if you turn your retirement savings into capital gains; that's good. Nonetheless, if you start to earn capital gains that is detrimental to the economic value of the state; then, your taxes should be at higher rate to compensate for that. Everyone encourages business; rarely anyone would encourage a monopoly. Earning wealth is good business, hoarding wealth is a monopoly.",
"E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.",
"It would be fairer to the average person if we paid our normal tax rate on the amount we contributed to the IRA and paid at the capital gains rate for the difference. The same as people that invest outside of the IRA. Most IRAs aren't that large and most people are going to have a rough time living on the reduced social security. It seems like we are taxing the average Joe at a higher rate than the rich.",
"In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.",
"Found a great article (with bibliography) that covers taxation on investment activity by non resident aliens - even covers the special 15% tax on dividends for Canadian residents. It's (dividend tax rate) generally 30% for other NRAs (your 2nd question). And it confirmed my suspicion that there are no capital gains taxes for NRAs. (1st Q) Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-non-us-nat.html",
"More likely I miswrote. Yes, we're talking about capital gains. But who, outside of the moneyed elite, have enough capital gains to incur substantial taxes? Many don't and never will despite how hard they work or how productive they are. Also, doesn't taxing income more than capital gains discourage production? I always hear how high capital gains tax discourages investment and growth.",
"Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.",
"You need to report the income from any work as income, regardless of if you invest it, spend it, or put it in your mattress (ignoring tax advantaged accounts like 401ks). You then also need to report any realized gains or losses from non-tax advantaged accounts, as well as any dividends received. Gains and losses are realized when you actually sell, and is the difference between the price you bought for, and the price you sold for. Gains are taxed at the capital gains rate, either short-term or long-term depending on how long you owned the stock. The tax system is complex, and these are just the general rules. There are lots of complications and special situations, some things are different depending on how much you make, etc. The IRS has all of the forms and rules online. You might also consider having a professional do you taxes the first time, just to ensure that they are done correctly. You can then use that as an example in future years.",
"Basically, yes. That doesn't mean that it's easy to do. The government provides a dividend tax credit since an individual takes on more risk to invest in dividend-paying corporations rather than trading their human capital for an income. Thus, for the most part, $1 earned from dividends is taxed much less than $1 earned from income or interest. Finally, note that foreign dividends are not eligible for the dividend tax credit, and are not preferentially taxed.",
"Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.",
"\"US federal tax law distinguishes many types of income. For most people, most of their income is \"\"earned income\"\", money you were paid to do a job. Another category of income is \"\"capital gains\"\", money you made from the sale of an asset. For a variety of reasons, capital gains tax rates are lower than earned income tax rates. (For example, it is common that much of the gain is not real profit but inflation. If you buy an asset for $10,000 and sell it for $15,000, you pay capital gains tax on the $5,000 profit. But what if prices in general since you bought the asset have gone up 50%? Then your entire profit is really inflation, you didn't actually make any money -- but you still have to pay a tax on the paper gain.) So if you make your money by investing in assets -- buying and selling at a profit -- you will pay lower taxes than if you made the same amount of money by receiving a salary from a job, or by running a business where you sell your time and expertise rather than an asset. But money made from assets -- capital gains -- is not tax free. It's just a lower tax. It MIGHT be that when combined with other deductions and tax credits this would result in you paying no taxes in a particular year. Maybe you could avoid paying taxes forever if you can take advantage of tax loopholes. But for most people, making money from capital gains could result in lower taxes per dollar of income than someone doing more ordinary work. Or it could result in higher taxes, if you factor in inflation, net present value of money, and so on. BTW Warren Buffet's \"\"secretary\"\" is not a typist. She apparently makes at least $200,000 a year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/#ab91f3718b8a. And side note: if Warren Buffet thinks he isn't paying enough in taxes, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more? The government has a web site where citizens can voluntarily pay additional taxes. In 2015 they received $3.9 million in such contributions. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm\"",
"I don't see a tag for United States, so I'm having to assume this is US taxes. It doesn't matter what app you use, IRS trades are all calculated the same. First, you have to report each trade on a 8949 and from that the totals go into a schedule D. Short term trades are stocks that you've kept exactly one year or less, long term trades are for 1 year + 1 day or more. Trades where you sold a stock for a loss, then bought that stock back again under 30 days don't get to count as a loss. This only affects realized capital gains and losses, you don't count fees. First, take all of your short term gains then offset them by all of your short term losses. Do the same for long term gains and losses. Short and long term gains are taxed at different rates. You can deduct losses from short term to your long term and vice versa. Then you can deduct the total losses up to $3000 (household, $1500 married, filing separately) per year on your regular income taxes or other dividend taxes. If you have over $3000 in losses, then you need to carry that over to subsequent years. Edited per Dave's comments: thanks Dave",
"No matter what, you owe taxes on the gains, known as capital gains. How much, depends on how long you invested it for. In your example, each month is treated separately - each month you contribute starts a new clock on that set of investments. If you hold it for longer than a year, the taxes are treated as long-term, and less than a year is short-term. Short term taxes are at your marginal rate, and long term taxes are different, usually 15%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400/tc409",
"\"Taxes are a tool for achieving social policy goals. While Americans consider \"\"Socialism\"\" to be a curse, the US is in fact quite socialistic. Mostly towards corporations, but sometimes even the normal people, not only the \"\"Corporation are people, my friend\"\" (M. Romney) get some discounts. The tax deduction on mortgage interest comes as a tool to encourage Americans to own their homes. It is important, socially, for people to own their home to be independent, and in general contributes to the stability of the society. As anything, when taken to the extreme, it in fact achieves exactly the opposite, as we've seen in 2008, but when balanced - works well. Capital gain is taxed in the US, because it is income. Generally, any income is taxed. However, gain sourced from the sale of primary residence is excluded, up to a certain (quite large) amount from this tax (if lived in the residence long enough - 3 of the last 5 years prior to sale). This, again, to encourage Americans to upgrade their houses and make it easier for Americans to relocate when needed (sell one house and buy another without losing cash on taxes). As to \"\"asset producing income\"\" - that is true in the US as well. You cannot deduct your personal expenses, in general. Mortgage interest on primary residence is a notable exception, because it serves a social cause. Similarly, medical expenses are allowed as a deduction, if they're above certain limit, and many other things (for example - if a US person totals his car, and insurance doesn't cover the loss - it is tax deductible, above certain limit, the higher the income - the higher the limit). These are purely social policy breaks. Socialism, something Americans like to have, and love to hate. Many \"\"anti-socialists\"\" in the US are in fact taking advantage of these specific tax breaks the most, because for rich folks these are limited or non-existent (mortgage interest limited up to 1 million, medical expenses are allowed only above certain percentage of income, etc).\"",
"\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\"",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-12/why-american-workers-pay-twice-as-much-in-taxes-as-wealthy-investors) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The U.S. has a progressive tax system in the sense that well-paid workers sacrifice much more than poor workers on their &quot;Ordinary income.&quot; But Americans with so-called unearned income-qualified dividends and long-term capital gains-get a break. > By lowering taxes on investors, you shift more of the tax burden to well-paid workers. > Taxing workers more than investors is fair, conservatives also argue, because investors and workers are really the same people at different stages of their lives. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70kd8a/why_american_workers_pay_twice_as_much_in_taxes/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~211279 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **tax**^#1 **more**^#2 **work**^#3 **rate**^#4 **investor**^#5\"",
"One of the main tax loopholes more readily available to the wealthy in the U.S. is the fact that long-term capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate. Certainly, people making less than $250,000/year can take advantage of this as well, but the fact is that people making, say, $60,000/year likely have a much smaller proportion of their income available to invest in, say, indexed mutual funds or ETFs. You may wish to read Wikipedia's article on capital gains tax in the United States. You can certainly make the argument that the preferential tax rate on capital gains is appropriate, and the Wikipedia article points out a number of these. Nevertheless, this is one of the main mechanisms whereby people with higher wealth in the U.S. typically leverage the tax code to their advantage.",
"\"Most well-off people have investments which they have held for long periods of time, often of very substantial value such as a large part of a company. They also have influence on legislators and officials through various social contacts, lobbyists, and contributions. They managed to convince these law makers to offer a lower tax on income derived from sales of such investments. The fig leaf covering this arrangement is that it \"\"contributes to the growth of economy by encouraging long-term investment in new enterprises.\"\"\"",
"Tax brackets refer to the range of taxable within which you fall. An income tax bracket usually refers to federal or state tax, not the combined rate. I have put here the tax brackets for 2016 for IRS and State of California. https://www.irs.com/articles/2016-federal-tax-rates-personal-exemptions-and-standard-deductions https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2016-california-tax-rates-and-exemptions.shtml According to those, a taxable income of 100,000USD would fall in the 28% bracket for the IRS and 9.30% for State of California. The combined rate is therefore 37.3%. However, this does not mean you would pay 37,300USD. First of all, your applicable tax rate applies only for each dollar in your tax bracket (e.g. 28% * 8,849USD for IRS). Therefore, to calculate your combined taxes you would need to do: Therefore, your effective tax rate would be much lower than the combined tax rate of 37.3%. Now do note that this is an example to illustrate tax brackets and is nowhere near the amount of taxes you would be required to pay because of various credits and deductions that you would be able to benefit from. Edit: As suggested in the comments, a note on marginal tax rate (referred to here as combined tax rate). This is the rate of taxes paid on an additional dollar of income. Here, every additional dollar of income would be taxed at 37.3%, leaving you with 62.7 cents.",
"The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.",
"If you have income in the US, you will owe US income tax on it, unless there is a treaty with your country that says otherwise.",
"Much of this inequality would be reduced if we moved from income taxation to a wealth/asset tax. We could exempt a person's main residence and retirement savings (similar to the way we do now with the home mortgage deduction and capital gains exemption and with IRAs). This would also obviate the need for a separate capital gains tax.",
"\"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \"\"Wash Sale Rule\"\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\"",
"\"IRA is a tax-deferred account. I.e.: you're not paying any taxes on the income within the account (as long as you don't withdraw it) and you can deduct the investment (with certain limitation on how much, depending on your total AGI). It is taxed when you withdraw it - at ordinary rates for the \"\"traditional\"\" IRA and with 0% rate for ROTH, as long as the withdrawal is qualified (if not qualified - you pay ordinary rate tax for ROTH and additional 10% tax for both on the taxable amounts). The details are a bit complicated (there's deductible IRA, non-deductible IRA, roll-overs, etc etc), but that's the basic. Regular investment accounts are taxed currently on any income, but you get the \"\"better\"\" capital gains rates on many things. So which one is better depends how long your investment is going to be, what is your tax situation now, and what you anticipate it to be later when you retire.\"",
"\">No they pay less Except they don't. Just look at the tax brackets. It's progressive. The more you make, the higher your tax rate. 10% $0 to $9,275 $0 to $13,250 15% $9,276 to $37,650 $13,251 to $50,400 25% $37,651 to $91,150 28% $91,151 to $190,150 33% $190,151 to $413,350 35% $413,351 to $415,050 39.6% $415,051 or more See how the % increases with increased income? That's called a progressive tax system. Can you say \"\"progressive\"\"?\"",
"Some more considerations: (1) Tax rates (both ordinary and capital gains) are likely to be different when you retire. (2) Your marginal tax rate may be different when you retire depending on how much income you have at the time. In retirement your income may be structured completely differently than when you are working. For example, you may also have a Roth IRA/401K to pull from.",
"\"What you're talking about is called \"\"tax gain harvesting,\"\" and it is considered good tax management. From The Oblivious Investor, investors in the 10% or 15% bracket pay 0% tax on long-term capital gains. For an interesting take on never paying income taxes again, check out Go Curry Cracker. You can claim up to $70,000 or so in capital gains before paying any taxes if you are the 10% or 15% tax bracket.\"",
"Were capital gains taxes not lower, companies would have an incentive to minimize the portion of the value they create that materializes as capital gains. They would do this by using more debt financing (since interest is deductible) than equity financing. This would have a destabilizing effect on the economy. Low capital gains taxes help encourage investment over spending. This is believed to improve economic growth. Given these factors, it is generally believed that the current capital gains tax rate is very close to the optimal rate. That is, a higher tax rate would not result in greater tax revenue. Bluntly, a higher income tax rate on earned income does not really discourage people from working harder and earning more money. But a higher rate on capital gains does discourage investment. Essentially, it's because investment is more discretionary.",
"\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \"\"Percentage Method\"\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \"\"base amount\"\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \"\"base amount\"\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \"\"effective\"\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \"\"wage base\"\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \"\"marriage advantage\"\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \"\"pre-tax deduction\"\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\"",
"\"You're asking explicitly about $250K+ wage earners. Well, believe it or not, but this is the most discriminated group of people in the US tax code. This is what is called \"\"the upper middle class\"\". People who still have to work for a living, but treated as if they're rich (I don't consider people who must work to keep up their life style as rich). Many of the deductions cannot be taken by them. Lets go over the list Keith made: You mentioned losses - you cannot deduct gambling losses (in excess of gambling income), and you cannot deduct passive (rental real estate, for example) losses. While for rental real estate there's a small amount of losses you could deduct, it phases out well below the $250K line (can be deducted against passive income, or when disposed of the property). 529 plans are not deductible (in fact, its a gift subject to the gift tax). Bottom line, being a high earner with wages only means you pay the most tax. You either find a way to become self employed and have a lot of business deductions on your schedule C/1120S, or switch to capital gains. You can marry an unemployed partner, it will make your life slightly easier.\"",
"\"If you only have to pay 23k federal taxes on 100k, that means you are in the long term capital gains tax rate, which is the lower of the tax rates available. First you get your federal income tax marginal tax rate, and then find the matching long term capital gains tax rate. For example, if your marginal federal income tax rate is 28%, your capital gains tax rate would be 15%. Or rather, if the amount of the gain would put you in the 28% rate, then your long term capital gains tax rate is 15%. You can reduce that by having more losses. If you have anything else invested anywhere that is taking a loss, then you can sell that this year and it will offset the other gains you have realized. The only note is that your losses have to be long term capital losses too. Tax loss harvesting takes this to an extreme where you sell something at a loss to lock in the tax loss, but you didn't really want to get rid of that investment, so then you buy a nearly identical investment. ie. if you owned shares of \"\"Direxion Tech Sector ETF\"\" and it was at a loss, you would sell that and then immediately buy \"\"ProShares Tech Sector ETF\"\", the competing product that does the exact same thing. Then there is charity. This still requires spending money and you not having it any longer. If you feel that a cause can use the money more directly than the US government, you can donate an appreciated asset to the charity - not report a gain and also take a charitable deduction.\"",
"I think you're misunderstanding how tax brackets work. If you make $1 more and that bumps you into a higher bracket, only THAT particular dollar will be taxed at the higher tax bracket rate... Not your entire income. Short term capital gains are treated as income. Long term capital gains have a special tax rate currently.",
"I know that if you make more, you pay more, but do those who have more, not make more, pay higher income tax? In general, no. In most locales, income tax is based on income, not on wealth. I am retired. I have little income but a fair amount of wealth. I play very little income tax. (But I do pay other kinds of taxes.) Here's a scenario. 2 people of average wealth with similar situations have the same job with equal pay. After 5 years, their situations haven't changed and they still earn equal pay, but now one has $40,000 in their account and the other $9,000. Does one now pay higher income tax because he has more in his account or does he pay the same because he makes the same? In most locales, you pay income tax on everything that is counted as income. Your salary is income. In some cases, earned interest is income. But aside from the earned interest from your bank accounts, neither the $40,000 nor the $9,000 is income. Your huge mansion isn't income. Your expensive car isn't income. The huge amount of land you own isn't income. The pricey artwork on your walls isn't income. You don't pay income tax on any of these, but your local may impose other taxes on these (such as property tax, etc.) [Note: consult the tax laws of your specific locale if you want to know details.]",
"Consult with a CPA in your local community, since determining how your income is reported is dependent on how it was earned, and how much it was and other factors. The details are personal, should not be shared on the internet, and don't affect the way we can answer this question. A CPA might be able to help you with some other advice. Things like how to structure your expenses to minimize tax burden, while staying within the rules.",
"I don't see the connection between the investment capital and the income you receive from it, and why one part should be free from taxation just because the other was taxed. I mean with that logic everything I do with my after-tax money is hopefully providing me some form of anticipated benefit, so I guess I shouldn't have to pay taxes on any part of my income that i spend or put at risk... why is making a capital investment any different in this regard than paying for education, buying a tangible asset (like a home), buying food to keep me alive so i can continue to work, etc? Basically, you're going to have to explain why that makes sense to you.",
"\"This is actually (to me) an interesting point to note. While the answer is \"\"that's what Congress wrote,\"\" there are implications to note. First, for many, the goal of tax deferral is to shift 25% or 28% income to 15% income at retirement. With long term gains at 15%, simply investing long term post tax can accomplish a similar goal, where all gain is taxed at 15%. Looking at this from another angle, an IRA (or 401(k) for that matter) effectively turns long term gains into ordinary income. It's a good observation, and shouldn't be ignored.\"",
"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf",
"\"There is nothing legal you can do in the United States to avoid the tax burden of income earned as an employee other than offsetting it with pre-tax contributions (which it sounds like you're already doing), making charitable contributions, or incurring investment losses (which is cutting off your nose to spite your face). So that $660K can't be helped. As for the $80K in stock dividends, you could move those investments into \"\"growth\"\" companies rather than \"\"value\"\" companies. Growth companies are those that pay less in dividends, where the primary increase in wealth occurs only in share price increase. This puts off your tax bill until you finally sell your shares, and (depending on how the tax laws are at that time) your tax bill will be lower on those capital gains than they are currently on these dividends. Regarding rental income I know nothing, but I think you're entitled to depreciate your property's value over time and count that against the taxes you owe on the rents. And you can deduct all the upkeep expenses. As with employment income, intentionally incurring rental losses to lower your tax bill is not logical: for every dollar you earn, you only have to give about 50 cents to the government, whereas for every dollar you lose, you've lost a dollar.\"",
"Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.",
"If you're a US citizen/resident - you pay taxes on your worldwide income regardless of where you live. The logic is that Americans generally don't agree to the view that there's more than one country in the world. If you're non-US person, not physically present in the US, and provide contract work for a US employer - you generally don't pay taxes in the US. The logic is that the US doesn't actually have any jurisdiction over that money, you didn't earn it in the US. That said, your employer might withheld tax and remit it to the IRS, and you'll have to chase them for refund. If you receive income from the US rental property or dividends from a US company - you pay income tax to the US on that income, and then bargain with your home tax authority on refunds of the difference between what you paid in the US and what you should have paid at home. You can also file non-resident tax return in the US to claim what you have paid in excess. The logic is that the money sourced in the US should be taxed in the US. You earned that money in the US. There are additional rules to more specific situation, and there are also bilateral treaties between countries (including a US-Canadian treaty) that supersede national laws. Bottom line, not only that each country has its own laws, there are also different laws for different situations, and if some of the international treaties apply to you - it further complicates the situation. If something is not clear - get a professional advice form a tax accountant licensed in the relevant jurisdictions (in your case - any of the US states, and the Canadian province where you live).",
"\"I pay taxes on revenue. You do have the ability to deduct expenses, though it's not as comprehensive as what companies can do: These figures apply to everybody, so those that earn more get taxed more on thee additional income in each bracket (meaning the first $100,000 of taxable income is taxed the same for everybody at one rate, the next $100,000 at a different rate, etc.) So you do get to deduct personal expenses and get taxed on \"\"profit\"\" - but since the vast majority of people don't keep detailed records of what they spend, it's much simpler just to use blanket deduction amounts for everyone. Companies have much more detailed systems in place to track and categorize expenses, so it's easier to just tax on net profit. Plus, the corporate tax rate is much higher than the average individual tax rate - would you trade more deductions for a higher tax rate?\"",
"\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"",
"\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"",
"\">Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to. Most of the American public believes that the bulk of taxes are federal income taxes. That's what they fixate on when evaluating the \"\"fairness\"\" of taxation. The fact remains that the very wealthy and very large corporations are structured so that they don't pay that particular type of tax. That's why Mitt Romney's tax returns are being squinted at. Mitt pays capital gains tax, not income tax and tripling the tax rate on the upper-most tax bracket wouldn't really affect him. You know this. I know this. But most people don't and few people are interested in learning how it works. If you want to \"\"tax the rich\"\" just create a progressive scale for capital gains instead of a flat 15%.\"",
"First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.",
"Yet, if you are wealthy enough to have already accumulated the bulk of your savings, they're going to treat your capital gains much more favorably than the wage income of the poor shlub who's still trying to make these contributions. I can't wait to see how they attempt to sell this to the average taxpayer.",
"\"Massachusets does no such thing. The 5.25% tax is only on realized gains. \"\"Unearned\"\" means \"\"doesn't tie to your trade/business\"\", i.e.: is not gained through your personal performance.\"",
"Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?",
"\"Most (if not all states) in the US are only interested in source income. If you worked in that state they want to tax it. Many states have reciprocity agreements with neighboring states to exempt income earned when a person works in lets say Virginia, but lives in a state that touches Virginia. Most states don't consider interest and dividends for individuals as source income. They don't care where the bank or mutual fund branch is located, or headquartered.If it is interest from a business they will allocate it to the state where the business is located. If you may ask you to allocate the funds between two states if you move during the year, but most people will just divide the interest and dividends based on the number of days in each state unless there is a way to directly allocate the funds to a particular state. Consider this: Where is the money when it is in a bank with multiple branches? The money is only electronic, and your actual \"\"$'s\"\" may be in a federal reserve branch. Pension funds are invested in projects all over the US.\"",
"Pennsylvania is one of the states that divide the land up in to thousands of jurisdictions all of which have the power to tax. Where you live (or work) is located in either a county, city, township or borough. They can tax you based on either your income, your property. You can also be taxed by the school district which can encompass multiple jurisdictions. You should get local tax help to make sure that all the appropriate taxes are being covered.",
"Those compensated by commission, not your moneyed elite. Those types are going to get out of taxes anyway. Capital gains crush the middle and upper middle class like no other. BTW, now you sound even less like you know what you're talking about.",
"As mentioned by Dilip, you need to provide more details. In general for transacting on stocks; Long Term: If you hold the stock for more than one year then its long term and not taxable. There is a STT [Securities Transaction Tax] that is already deducted/paid during buying and selling of a stock. Short Term: If you hold the stock for less than one year, it's short term gain. This can be adjusted against the short term loss for the financial year. The tax rate is 10%. Day Trading: Is same as short term from tax point of view. Unless you are doing it as a full time business. If you have purchased multiple quantities of same stock in different quantities and time, then when you selling you have to arrive at profit or loss on FIFO basis, ie First in First Out",
"@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.",
"\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"",
"Here are three key factors that you do not explicitly state: So while I cannot say exactly why the tax law is the way it is, I can infer that it encourages long-term investments rather than short-term, which would seem to be a good thing for society overall. The fast that capital gains are taxed at all somewhat discourages cashing out investments (although I suspect it's more of a nuisance factor - the cash received is likely more on an incentive that the tax is a disincentive).",
"You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.",
"how is it double taxation when you didn't start off with that extra $100? it's double taxation if they taxed you on the total amount you pulled out of the market, not the profit you made. explain the math on your last part, please.",
"The trickiest thing is the federal tax. It's typical to withhold 25% federal on this type of event. If your federal marginal rate was already towards the top of that bracket, you'll owe the missing 3% as you enter the 28% bracket. Nothing awful, just be aware.",
"\"Your real question, \"\"why is this not discussed more?\"\" is intriguing. I think the media are doing a better job bringing these things into the topics they like to ponder, just not enough, yet. You actually produced the answer to How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? so you understand how it works. I am a fan of bracket topping. e.g. A young couple should try to top off their 15% bracket by staying with Roth but then using pretax IRA/401(k) to not creep into 25% bracket. For this discussion, 2013 numbers, a blank return (i.e. no schedule A, no other income) shows a couple with a gross $92,500 being at the 15%/25% line. It happens that $20K is exactly the sum of their standard deduction, and 2 exemptions. The last clean Distribution of Income Data is from 2006, but since wages haven't exploded and inflation has been low, it's fair to say that from the $92,000 representing the top 20% of earners, it won't have many more than top 25% today. So, yes, this is a great opportunity for most people. Any married couple with under that $92,500 figure can use this strategy to exploit your observation, and step up their basis each year. To littleadv objection - I imagine an older couple grossing $75K, by selling stock with $10K in LT gains just getting rid of the potential 15% bill at retirement. No trading cost if a mutual fund, just $20 or so if stocks. The more important point, not yet mentioned - even in a low cost 401(k), a lifetime of savings results in all gains being turned in ordinary income. And the case is strong for 'deposit to the match but no no more' as this strategy would let 2/3 of us pay zero on those gains. (To try to address the rest of your questions a bit - the strategy applies to a small sliver of people. 25% have income too high, the bottom 50% or so, have virtually no savings. Much of the 25% that remain have savings in tax sheltered accounts. With the 2013 401(k) limit of $17,500, a 40 year old couple can save $35,000. This easily suck in most of one's long term retirement savings. We can discuss demographics all day, but I think this addresses your question.) If you add any comments, I'll probably address them via edits, avoiding a long dialog below.\"",
"I think this question is very nearly off-topic for this site, but I also believe that a basic understanding of the why the tax structure is what it is can help someone new to investing to understand their actual tax liability. The attempt at an answer I provide below is from a Canadian & US context, but should be similar to how this is viewed elsewhere in the world. First note that capital gains today are much more fluid in concept than even 100 years ago. When the personal income tax was first introduced [to pay for WWI], a capital gain was viewed as a very deliberate action; the permanent sale of property. Capital gains were not taxed at all initially [in Canada until 1971], under the view that income taxes would have been paid on income-earning assets all along [through interest, dividends, and rent], and therefore taxing capital gains would be a form of 'double-taxation'. This active, permanent sale was also viewed as an action that an investor would need to work for. Therefore it was seen as foolish to prevent investors from taking positive economic action [redistributing their capital in the most effective way], simply to avoid the tax. However today, because of favourable taxation on capital gains, many financial products attempt to package and sell capital gains to investors. For example, many Canadian mutual funds buy and sell investments to earn capital gains, and distribute those capital gains to the owners of the mutual fund. This is no longer an active action taken by the investor, it is simply a function of passive investing. The line between what is a dividend and what is a capital gain has been blurred by these and similar advanced financial products. To the casual investor, there is no practical difference between receiving dividends or capital gain distributions, except for the tax impact. The notional gain realized on the sale of property includes inflation. Consider a rental property bought in 1930 for $100,000, and sold in 1960 for $180,000, assuming inflation between 1930 and 1960 was 70%. In 1960 dollars, the property was effectively bought for 170k. This means the true gain after accounting for inflation is only $10k. But, the notional gain is $80k, meaning a tax on that capital gain would be almost entirely a tax on inflation. This is viewed by many as being unfair, as it does not actually represent true income. I will pause to note that any tax on any investment at all, taxes inflation; interest, for example, is taxed in full even though it can be almost entirely inflationary, depending on economic conditions. A tax on capital gains may restrict market liquidity. A key difference between capital gains and interest/rent/dividends, is that other forms of investment income are taxed annually. If you hold a bond, you get taxed on interest from that bond. You cannot gain value from a bond, deferring tax until the date it matures [at least in Canada, you are deemed to accrue bond interest annually, even if it is a 0 coupon bond]. However, what if interest rates have gone down, increasing the value of your bond, and you want to sell it to invest in a business? You may choose not to do this, to avoid tax on that capital gain. If it were taxed as much as regular income, you might be even more inclined to never sell any asset until you absolutely have to, thus restricting the flow of capital in the market. I will pause here again, to note that laws could be enacted to minimize capital gains tax, as long as the money is reinvested immediately, thus reducing this impact. Political inertia / lobbying from key interests has a significant impact on the tax structure for investments. The fact remains that the capital gains tax is most significantly an impact on those with accrued wealth. It would take significant public support to increase capital gain tax rates, for any political party to enact such laws. When you get right down to it, tax laws are complex, and hard to push in the public eye. The general public barely understands that their effective tax rate is far lower than their top marginal tax rate. Any tax increases at all are often viewed negatively, even by those who would never personally pay any of that tax due to lack of investment income. Therefore such changes are typically made quietly, and with some level of bi-partisan support. If you feel the capital gains tax rules are illogical, just add it to the pile of such tax laws that exist today.",
"> The fact remains that the very wealthy and very large corporations are structured so that they don't pay that particular type of tax. Going to have to stop you right there. Most Fortune 500 companies pay a LOT of tax. Additionally, they get targeted for audits quite a bit because of their size and complexity. But at the end of the day, if it shows a net profit on their income statement, they're generally paying tax. Individual tax law is quite a bit different and not my current area of expertise, though I did prepare individual tax returns before I started working for the government and I can say that there are quite a few more provisions for avoiding tax for an individual. Regardless, if you're playing by the rules, there can be a variety of reasons why your 'effective rate' is lower. A progressive scale for capital gains will just lead to high-income individuals transferring the form of income to something else.",
"What about changing the income tax to a national sales tax and putting different products and services on a tiered system. Basic necessities would be taxed at a lower rate (if at all), then you work up the tiers towards purely luxury items that are taxed at a much higher rate? That would give us the benefits of a sales tax while, at the same time, not placing an extra burden on the lower class (who would, presumably, need to spend a higher portion of their income on basic necessities).",
"So. You might be looking at the world of investing after tax deductions are gone. Buy index funds, or a few stable stocks of your choice. (Index funds have minimal turnover, so you won't realize as many uncontrollable tax events throughout the year). The top long-term capital gains rate is presently 15% (will it go up to 20% soon? who knows! it might. That's up to Congress and Obama, really.) If you can control when you realize it (say, in a year when you don't have a lot of other income) the tax consequences aren't toooo horrible. (It also helps if you live in a state that doesn't tax the gains themselves, e.g. not California?) Or buy real estate, if you don't own the house where you live already (and your lifestyle permits). You shouldn't expect impressive capital appreciation, but you don't have to pay tax on the imputed rent (the rent money you avoid paying by owning the place yourself).",
"\"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"",
"In short, I suggest you take a look at your W-4 form and adjust it properly. And yes you can claim your self as a dependent, unless someone else is claiming you. But here is a more detailed explanation of how it works. How Income Tax Works. While most people tend to only think about the tax system and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as the month of April approaches, it's actually a never-ending process. For our purposes, a good way to explain how the system works is to give an example of one American income earner, we will call him Joe. The tax process begins when Joe starts his new job. He and his employer agree on his compensation, which will be figured into his gross income at the end of the year. One of the first things he has to do when he's hired is fill out all of his tax forms, including a W-4 form. The W-4 form lists all of Joe's withholding allowance information, such as his number of dependents and child care expenses. The information on this form tells your employer just how much money it needs to withhold from your paycheck for federal income tax. The IRS says that you should check this form each year, as your tax situation may change from year to year. Once Joe is hired and given a salary, he can estimate how much he will pay in taxes for the year. Here's the formula: At the end of each pay period, Joe's company takes the withheld money, along with all of withheld tax money from all of its employees, and deposits the money in a Federal Reserve Bank. This is how the government maintains a steady stream of income while also drawing interest on your tax dollars. Toward the end of the tax year, Joe's company has to send him a W-2 form in the mail. This happens by January 31. This form details how much money Joe made during the last year and how much federal tax was withheld from his income. This information can also be found on Joe's last paycheck of the year, but he'll need to send the W-2 to the IRS for processing purposes. At some point between the time Joe receives his W-2 and April 15, Joe will have to fill out and return his taxes to one of the IRS service and processing centers. Once the IRS receives Joe's tax returns, an IRS employee keys in every piece of information on Joe's tax forms. This information is then stored in large magnetic tape machines. If Joe is due a tax refund, he is sent a check in the mail in the next few weeks. If Joe uses e-File or TeleFile, his refund can be direct-deposited into his bank account.",
"\"I had been pondering this recently myself too. This question motivated me to do a little research. It appears that what happens is that (take a deep breath) the capital gain does push you into the next tax bracket, but the capital gain is always interpreted as the \"\"last\"\" income you received, so that if your non-capital-gains income is less than the threshold, it will all be taxed in the lower bracket, and only your capital gain will be taxed in the higher bracket (but it will be taxed at the capital-gains rate of that higher bracket). In short, a capital gain can only push capital gains into higher capital-gains tax brackets; it cannot push ordinary income into higher ordinary-income tax brackets. In addition, the amount of the capital gain is taxed in a marginal fashion, such that any portion of the gain that will \"\"fit\"\" into a lower bracket will be taxed at a lower level, with only the topmost portion of any gain being taxed at the top rate. This site is one claiming this: Will capital gain or dividend income push my other income into a higher tax bracket? No, the tax rates apply first to your “ordinary income” (income from sources other than long-term capital gains or qualifying dividends) so these items that are taxed at special rates won’t push your other income into a higher tax bracket. If my ordinary income puts me in the 15% tax bracket, can I receive an unlimited amount of long-term capital gain at the 0% rate? No, the 0% rate applies only to the amount of long-term capital gain and dividend income needed to “fill up” the 15% tax bracket. For example, if your ordinary income is $4,000 below the figure that would put you in the 25% bracket and you have a $10,000 long-term capital gain, you’ll pay 0% on $4,000 of your capital gain and 15% on the rest. There are several Bogleheads forum threads (here, here, here and here) that also touch on the same issue. The last of those links to the IRS capital gains worksheet. I traced through the logic and I believe it confirms this. Here's how it works: (In conclusion, we now know Mitt Romney's secret.)\"",
"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)",
"Here's how the CBO says the top 1% got their income in 2013 (latest data): Source|% from source :--------|---------: Cash Wages and Salaries|33.4% Business Income|23.2% Capital Gains|19.1% Capital Income|11.2% Corporate Tax Borne by Capital|7.3% Other Income|3.2% Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes|0.9% Employee's Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plans|0.7% Employer's Contributions to Health Insurance|0.5% And here are there definitions of the types of income: * Labor income—Cash wages and salaries, including those allocated by employees to 401(k) plans; employer-paid health insurance premiums; the employer’s share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes; and the share of corporate income taxes borne by workers. * Business income—Net income from businesses and farms operated solely by their owners, partnership income, and income from S corporations. * Capital gains—Profits realized from the sale of assets. Increases in the value of assets that have not been realized through sales are not included in the Congressional Budget Office’s measure of market income. * Capital income (excluding capital gains)—Taxable and tax-exempt interest, dividends paid by corporations (but not dividends from S corporations, which are considered part of business income), positive rental income, and the share of corporate income taxes borne by owners of capital. * Other income—Income received in retirement for past services and other sources of income.",
"\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \"\"federal\"\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\"",
"Income and Capital are taxed separately in the uk. You probably can't get dividends paid gross even in ISA's you pay the basic rate of tax on dividends only higher rate tax payers get tax benefit from dividends. What you could do is invest in splits (Spilt capital investment trusts ) in the share class where all the return comes as capital and use up some of your yearly CGT allowance that way.",
"Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money. So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option.",
"In a traditional IRA (or 401k or equivalent), income tax is not taken on the money when it is deposited or when dividends are reinvested, but money you take out (after you can do do without penalty) is taxed as if it were ordinary income. (I believe that's true; I don't think you get to take the long-term investment rate.) Note that Roth is the opposite: you pay income tax up front before putting money into the retirement account, but you will eventually withdraw without paying any additional tax at that time. Unlike normal investments, neither of these requires tracking the details to know how much tax to pay. There are no taxes due on the reinvested dividends, and you don't need to track cost basis.",
"Long term gains are taxed at 15% maximum. Losses, up to the $3K/yr you cited, can offset ordinary income, so 25% or higher, depending on your income. Better to take the loss that way. With my usual disclaimer: Do not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.",
"It is important to remember that the tax brackets in the U.S. are marginal. This means that the first part of your income is taxed at 10%, the next part at 15%, next at 25%, etc. Therefore, if you find yourself just on the edge of a tax bracket, it really does not make any difference which side of that line you end up falling on. That having been said, of course, reducing your taxable income reduces your taxes. There are lots of deductions you can take, if you qualify. Depending on what type of health insurance coverage you have, a Health Savings Account (HSA) is a great way to shelter some income from taxes. Charitable contributions are also an easy way to reduce your taxes; you don't really personally benefit from them, but if you'd rather send your money to a good cause than to Uncle Sam, that's an easy way to do it.",
"\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \"\"tax havens\"\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\"",
"\"This is an excellent topic as it impacts so many in so many different ways. Here are some thoughts on how the accounts are used which is almost as important as the as calculating the income or tax. The Roth is the best bang for the buck, once you have taken full advantage of employer matched 401K. Yes, you pay taxes upfront. All income earned isn't taxed (under current tax rules). This money can be passed on to family and can continue forever. Contributions can be funded past age 70.5. Once account is active for over 5 years, contributions can be withdrawn and used (ie: house down payment, college, medical bills), without any penalties. All income earned must be left in the account to avoid penalties. For younger workers, without an employer match this is idea given the income tax savings over the longer term and they are most likely in the lowest tax bracket. The 401k is great for retirement, which is made better if employer matches contributions. This is like getting paid for retirement saving. These funds are \"\"locked\"\" up until age 59.5, with exceptions. All contributed funds and all earnings are \"\"untaxed\"\" until withdrawn. The idea here is that at the time contributions are added, you are at a higher tax rate then when you expect to withdrawn funds. Trade Accounts, investments, as stated before are the used of taxed dollars. The biggest advantage of these are the liquidity.\"",
"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.",
"\"Most states that have income tax base their taxes on the income reported on your federal return, with some state-specific adjustments. So answering your last question first: Yes, if it matters for federal, it will matter for state (in most cases). For estimating the tax liability, I would not use the effective rate but rather use the rate for your highest tax bracket and apply that to your estimated hobby income, assuming that you primary job income won't be wildly higher or lower than last year. As @keshlam noted in a comment, this income is coming on top of whatever else you earn, so it will be taxed at your top rate. Finally, I'd check again whether this is really \"\"hobby\"\" income or if it is \"\"self-employment\"\" income. Self-employment income will be subject to self-employment tax, which comes on top of the regular income tax.\"",
"Milliondollarjourney.com has a couple of articles on this topic. How Investing Taxes Work part 1 and part 2. The following is a summary of that article. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at a preferred rate, while interest tax is taxed at your regular rate. Interest is taxed at your marginal rate, but capital gains are taxed at only 50% of your marginal rate. That means that it makes sense to place the interest bearing account inside the RRSP but keep stocks outside. Additionally, you can claim your losses on your capital appreciating stocks against your gains if they are outside of your RRSP. Hopefully, your stocks will never go down but that's not very realistic. Dividends from Canadian companies are eligible for a dividend tax credit, but not dividends from foreign companies. [I actually understood that dividends from U.S. companies are treated as a special case] It's not clear to me from reading the article how much of this applies to mutual funds. The summary is as follows:",
"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.",
"As per Indian tax laws; income, expense, gain and loss constitute the basic pillars of every individual’s economic life. There are very few cases under which this new 'income' is non taxable. Based on the circumstances, you might have to pay capital gains tax.",
"In Virginia the maximum tax rate on income is 5.75% which is the same as the capital gains rate. http://www.tax.virginia.gov/income-tax-calculator",
"In Canada, it is similarly taxed as CQM states. Mining is considered business income and you need to file a T1 form. Capital appreciation is no different than treating gains from stock."
] |
[
"\"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \"\"Net Investment Tax\"\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\"",
"\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\""
] |
1877
|
As a Sole Proprietor, will “employer” Solo 401k contributions count towards gross income?
|
[
"178697"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"178697",
"336917",
"181652",
"247473",
"396968",
"191993",
"590310",
"143862",
"367556",
"290105",
"315780",
"518562",
"195637",
"367577",
"62281",
"507476",
"509772",
"410421",
"221938",
"406561",
"279538",
"369879",
"349847",
"2369",
"244412",
"505617",
"200898",
"463892",
"308255",
"513981",
"582191",
"104934",
"17166",
"595875",
"330874",
"372014",
"436701",
"251564",
"504317",
"163566",
"413348",
"109546",
"413694",
"440839",
"390368",
"388704",
"593356",
"361509",
"75766",
"523831",
"578798",
"99233",
"441632",
"189989",
"280021",
"195366",
"115884",
"597574",
"194955",
"203232",
"595822",
"110114",
"42999",
"58964",
"491700",
"470898",
"288968",
"213185",
"127347",
"436562",
"457701",
"205341",
"110202",
"158409",
"136804",
"316286",
"510441",
"254280",
"56558",
"15841",
"470826",
"19306",
"256448",
"520924",
"289064",
"512151",
"101490",
"448038",
"252843",
"316932",
"31462",
"79610",
"180293",
"568771",
"379911",
"191447",
"175470",
"525426",
"534336",
"174025"
] |
[
"\"This seems to depend on what kind of corporation you have set up. If you're set up as a sole proprietor, then the Solo 401k contributions, whether employee or employer, will be deducted from your gross income. Thus they don't reduce it. If you're set up as an S-Corp, then the employer contributions, similar to large employer contributions, will be deducted from wages, and won't show up in Box 1 on your W-2, so they would reduce your gross income. (Note, employee contributions also would go away from Box 1, but would still be in Box 3 and 5 for FICA/payroll tax purposes). This is nicely discussed in detail here. The IRS page that discusses this in more (harder to understand) detail is here. Separately, I think a discussion of \"\"Gross Income\"\" is merited, as it has a special definition for sole proprietorships. The IRS defines it in publication 501 as: Gross income. Gross income is all income you receive in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax. If you are married and live with your spouse in a community property state, half of any income defined by state law as community income may be considered yours. For a list of community property states, see Community property states under Married Filing Separately, later. Self-employed persons. If you are self-employed in a business that provides services (where products are not a factor), your gross income from that business is the gross receipts. If you are self-employed in a business involving manufacturing, merchandising, or mining, your gross income from that business is the total sales minus the cost of goods sold. In either case, you must add any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. So I think that regardless of 401(k) contributions, your gross income is your gross receipts (if you're a contractor, it's probably the total listed on your 1099(s)).\"",
"\"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \"\"Deductible\"\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \"\"compensation\"\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \"\"deducted\"\" - deferred).\"",
"If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way.",
"I can only address this part of it: For instance with a 10k net income, 9293 is the limit for 401k from employee. How is this calculated? I believe this limit is total for all sources too, which I'm confused about. How it's calculated is that when you are self-employed you also pay the employer portion of the FICA taxes. This comes off above the line and is not considered income. The 401k contribution limit takes this into account.",
"Basically, no. You have retirement plan options and can either go with a Roth option, which won't change your current tax burden, or go with a traditional plan, which is tax deductible but won't change your business deductions or self-employment taxes. This article has an explanation of options for setting up SEP or Solo 401k plans. Key quote for all the pre-tax retirement plans: Because pre-tax employer and employee contributions are deducted in the same way, neither one is more tax-efficient than the other. The article goes on to say that if you were an S Corp or LLC that elected to be taxed as an S Corp, a Solo 401(k) plan would allow the business to make an employer contribution to your 401(k) and even then there's no tax advantage to the employer contribution. Conclusion for S-corps: [Employer contributions] would reduce the amount of income from the S-corporation that would be passed through to you as the owner, thereby reducing your income tax. But, because this income is not subject to payroll taxes in the first place, these contributions will not reduce your payroll taxes.",
"A Solo 401k plan requires self-employment income; you cannot put wages into it.",
"Alright, team! I found answers to part 1) and part 2) that I've quote below, but still need help with 3). The facts in the article below seem to point to the ability for the LLC to contribute profit sharing of up to 25% of the wages it paid SE tax on. What part of the SE tax is that? I assume the spirit of the law is to only allow the 25% on the taxable portion of the income, but given that I would have crossed the SS portion of SE tax, I am not 100%. (From http://www.sensefinancial.com/services/solo401k/solo-401k-contribution/) Sole Proprietorship Employee Deferral The owner of a sole proprietorship who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A sole proprietorship may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (1) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (2) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k) plan. A business entity’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline. Single Member LLC Employee Deferral The owner of a single member LLC who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A single member LLC business may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (i) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (ii) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k). A single member LLC’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline.",
"You're on the right track, and yes, that small difference is subject to income taxes. Do you use a payroll service? I do the same thing and use my payroll software to tweak the salary until the paycheck is just a few dollars every month (we run payroll once a month), with the rest going to the 401(k) and payroll taxes. So we're rounding up just a bit just so there's an actual paycheck with a positive number, and a bit does get withheld for fed/state income tax. Also keep in mind you can make a company match. If your plan is a solo 401(k) with just you and your wife as the sole employees, consider the 25% match for both of you. The match is not subject to payroll taxes because it is a company expense. IRS web page: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/One-Participant-401(k)-Plans",
"\"There are two types of 401(k) contributions: \"\"elective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the employee and \"\"nonelective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the company. Elective contributions are summed across all the plans she is contributing to. So she can contribute $18,000 minus whatever she put in her 403(b). Additionally she can contribute 20% of the net profit of the company (before the elective contributions) as nonelective contributions (these contributions must be designated as such). You will notice that the IRS document says 25%, but that's what you can do if her business is incorporated. For a sole proprietorship, nonelective contributions ends up being limited at 20% of profit. Additionally, the sum of these two and her contribution to her 403(b) cannot exceed $53,000. Example: line 31 of her schedule C is $30,000 and she has contributed $10,000 to her 403(b). Maximum contribution to her solo 401(k) is ($18,000 - $10,000) + 0.2 * $30,000 = $14,000 Her total contributions for the year are $10,000 from her 403(b) plus $14,000 in her solo 401(k). This is less than $53,000 so this limit does not bind. If she made a ton of 1099 money, her contribution maximum would follow the above until it hit $53,000 and then it would stop there. The IRS describes this in detail in Publication 560, which also has a worksheet for figuring out your maximum explicitly. It's unpleasant reading and the worksheets are painful, but if you do it right, it will end up being as I just described it. Using the language of that publication, hers is a \"\"qualified plan\"\" of the \"\"defined contribution\"\" variety.\"",
"I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings.",
"With this level of income, you might consider a Solo 401(k). It would allow you a much higher level of contributions and is more appropriate for your savings than the limited IRA deposits. It also offers a considerable number of options not available for IRAs. A loan for example.",
"What is the question? Are you just trying to confirm that for self-employed, a Solo 401(k) is flexible, and a great tool to level out your tax rates? Sure. A W2 employee can turn on and off his 401(k) deduction any time, and bump the holding on each check as high as 75% in some cases. So in a tight stretch, I'd save to the match, but later on, top off the maximum for the year. To the points you listed - Your observation is interesting, but a bit long for what you seem to be asking. Keep in mind, there are 2 great features that you don't mention - a Roth Solo 401(k) flavor which offers even more flexibility for variable income, and loan provisions, up to $50,000 available to borrow from the account. My fellow blogger The Financial Buff offered an article Solo 401k Providers and Their Scope of Services that did a great job addressing this.",
"In addition to the normal limits, A Solo 401(k) allows you to contribute up to 20% of net profits (sole proprietor) or 50% of salary (if a corporation), up to $49,000. Note that the fees for 401(k) accounts are higher than with the IRA. See 401(k)s for small business.",
"\"I'm not a tax lawyer, but from what I can tell it looks like you'd be eligible to use your contractor income to fund a Solo 401(k). http://www.irafinancialgroup.com/whatissolo401k.php \"\"To access these benefits an investor must meet two eligibility requirements: The presence of self employment activity. The absence of full-time employees.\"\" And from the IRS itself (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/forum08_401k.pdf)\"",
"\"Click on the ? icon next to \"\"Employer Plan\"\". This is used to determine if you can deduct your annual contributions from your taxes. For more information on how an employer plan can affect your IRA tax deduction, see the definition for non-deductible contributions. So, we look there: The total of your Traditional IRA contributions that were deposited without a tax deduction. Traditional IRA contributions are normally tax deductible. However, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401(k), your tax deduction may be limited. The $20K difference between $272K and $252K just happens to be $15% of $132,500 which is the amount of your non-deductible contributions.\"",
"If you're simply trading with your own money and have not incorporated, then you are not eligible for a solo 401(k). Nerdwallet has an excellent Q&A on the topic here for example. Solo 401(k) is only allowed to be funded with earned income, and capital gains are not earned income. From the IRS page on One Participant 401(k) plans: Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit Earned income is defined by the IRS here: But not including: Even more clearly, that page notes: There are two ways to get earned income: You work for someone who pays you or You own or run a business or farm Capital gains are certainly neither of these. Now, I have read several articles suggesting one way to go about using the Solo 401k. All of them suggest that you would need to incorporate in some fashion that would require a Schedule C tax return, though, and be trading with the company's money rather than your own, and then pay yourself a wage from that. In that case you would be eligible for a Solo 401(k), and you might even be better off as a result of all that maneuvering (even though you'll be taxed at a higher rate for any income you do keep, likely, and have to pay self-employment tax).",
"The reason your 401k match is always counted as pre-tax whether you are contributing to a traditional 401k or a Roth is that the money is contributed by the employer and is not counted as income, and that contribution is not taxed as income. Should you wish to pay taxes on it and convert it to a Roth, you can do that, though perhaps not until you change jobs.",
"You can deduct retirement contributions (above the line even), but not as a business expense. So you can't avoid the SE taxes, sorry.",
"Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.",
"\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"",
"\"Yes, you can deduct up to your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) or your contribution limit, whichever is lower. Note that this reduces your taxable income, not your taxes. This is self-employment income, which is included as compensation for IRA purposes. You still have to pay self-employment taxes (Social Security and Medicare) though. You pay those before calculating AGI. So this won't entirely shield your 1099 income from taxes, just from income taxes. Note that if you have both W-2 and 1099-MISC income, you don't get to pick which gets \"\"shielded\"\" from taxes. It all gets mixed together in the same bucket. There may be additional limitations if you are covered by a retirement plan at work.\"",
"The 1099 income is subject to the same total limit on IRA deposits. If you are looking to shelter more than $5500, you might consider a Solo 401(k). It offers higher limits and other potential advantages.",
"Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching. You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016).",
"So I learned that your employer CAN force you to make employee contributions. However, this source seems to think that the mandatory employee contributions do not count against the 402(g) limit of $18,000.",
"My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000. There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation. The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans.",
"Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money. So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option.",
"In addition to JoeTaxpayer's thorough answer, I just want to tackle one particular question that was also asked: ...all employer contributions are pretax? There are a few main reasons that employer contributions go into the traditional bucket instead of the Roth bucket: The only way an employer could logically contribute to your Roth directly would be by increasing your W2 wages by the same amount, but if they did that then you could just contribute to your own Roth with the extra money (up to the annual limit which is currently $18K).",
"Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.",
"Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans. You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site: S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp. I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B. The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions: Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions. I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000. Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP. Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help.",
"All distributions from a regular (non-Roth) 401k are regular income. IRS: Distributions, including earnings, are includible in taxable income at retirement (except for qualified distributions of designated Roth accounts).",
"You can open a self-employed 401k, here's an example. You can deposit up to 50K (including the personal cap and the profit sharing/matching portion).",
"Please note that if you are self employed, then the profit sharing limit for both the SEP and Solo 401(k) is 20% of compensation, not 25%. There is no need for a SEP-IRA in this case. In addition to the 401(k) at work, you have a solo-401(k) for your consulting business. You can contribute $18,000 on the employee side across the two 401(k) plans however you wish. You can also contribute profit sharing up to 20% of compensation in your solo 401(k) plan. However, the profit sharing limit aggregates across all plans for your consulting business. If you max that out in your solo 401(k), then you cannot contribute to the SEP IRA. In other words, the solo 401(k) dominates the SEP IRA in terms of contributions and shares a limit on the profit-sharing contribution. If you have a solo 401(k), there is never a reason to have a SEP for the same company. Example reference: Can I Contribute to a solo 401(k) and SEP for the same company?",
"According to the 401K information from the IRS' website, it seems that you could seemingly get away with a salary as low as $53,000. It's tough, and I'd suggest speaking with an Accounting professional to get the clear answers, because as Brick's answer suggests, the IRS isn't super clear about it. An excerpt from a separate page regarding 401K contributions: The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: There are separate, smaller limits for SIMPLE 401(k) plans. Example 1: Greg, 46, is employed by an employer with a 401(k) plan and he also works as an independent contractor for an unrelated business. Greg sets up a solo 401(k) plan for his independent contracting business. Greg contributes the maximum amount to his employer’s 401(k) plan for 2015, $18,000. Greg would also like to contribute the maximum amount to his solo 401(k) plan. He is not able to make further elective deferrals to his solo 401(k) plan because he has already contributed his personal maximum, $18,000. He has enough earned income from his business to contribute the overall maximum for the year, $53,000. Greg can make a nonelective contribution of $53,000 to his solo 401(k) plan. This limit is not reduced by the elective deferrals under his employer’s plan because the limit on annual additions applies to each plan separately. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits",
"If it were my money, I wouldn't put it in a 401(k) for this purpose. If you were working at a company that provided 401(k) matching, then it might be worth it to put the money in your employer's 401(k) because the employer chips in based on what you put in. But you're self-employed, so there's no matching unless you match it yourself. (Correct?) So, given that there's no matching, a 401(k) arrangement would have more restrictions than a non-tax-advantaged account (like a bank account, or a taxable money market account). This would be taxable in the year you earn the money, but then that's it. If you're expecting to pull out the money pre-retirement, I wouldn't put it in in the first place.",
"Your question doesn't make much sense. The exceptions are very specific and are listed on this site (IRS.GOV). I can't see how you can use any of the exceptions regularly while still continuing being employed and contributing. In any case, you pay income tax on any distribution that has not been taxed before (which would be a Roth account or a non-deductible IRA contribution). Including the employer's match. Here's the relevant portion: The following additional exceptions apply only to distributions from a qualified retirement plan other than an IRA:",
"You cannot contribute directly to that 401k account if you no longer work at the sponsoring company - you have to be on their payroll. You can, however, roll the 401k over into an IRA, and contribute to the IRA. Note that in both cases, you are only allowed to contribute from earned income (which includes all the taxable income and wages you get from working or from running your own business). As long as you are employed (and have made more than $5k this year) you should have no problem. I am not certain whether contributing your $5k to a roth IRA would help you achieve your tax goals, someone else here certainly can advise.",
"Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year.",
"question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.",
"Having an EIN does not make the LLC a corporation -- your business can have an EIN even when treated like a sole proprietorship. An EIN is required to have a Individual 401(k), for example. But you can still be an LLC, taxed as a sole proprietor, and have a 401(k). You would need to file a Form 2553 with the IRS to elect S Corporation status. If you don't do that, you're still treated as a disregarded LLC. Whether or not you should make the election is another question.",
"\"You have a Solo 401(k). You can fund it with cash, or I believe, with shares of your own company. You can't pull in other assets such as the ISOs from another employer. I see why that's desirable, but it's not allowed. You wrote \"\"this will mitigate all tax complications with employee stock options.\"\" But - you can't transfer the ISOs from your job into your Solo 401(k). As littleadv notes, it's self dealing. Once the ISO is exercised there's no hiding the gain into that 401(k).\"",
"On re-reading the question, I see that you're self-employed, decent income, but only have an IRA. Since the crux of the question appears to be related to your wanting to put aside more money, I suggest you open a Solo 401(k) account. The current year limit is $17,000, and you can still have an IRA if you wish.",
"I'm not sure I am fully understanding the nuance of your question, but based on your answer in the comments you and your business are not separate legal entities. So your income is the full $70K, there is no distinct business to have income. If you clarify your question to include why you want to know this I might be able to give a more meaningful answer for your situation.",
"\"The \"\"hire a pro\"\" is quite correct, if you are truly making this kind of money. That said, I believe in a certain amount of self-education so you don't follow a pro's advice blindly. First, I wrote an article that discussed Marginal Tax Rates, and it's worth understanding. It simply means that as your income rises past certain thresholds, the tax rate also will change a bit. You are on track to be in the top rate, 33%. Next, Solo 401(k). You didn't ask about retirement accounts, but the combined situations of making this sum of money and just setting it aside, leads me to suggest this. Since you are both employer and employee, the Solo 401(k) limit is a combined $66,500. Seems like a lot, but if you are really on track to make $500K this year, that's just over 10% saved. Then, whatever the pro recommends for your status, you'll still have some kind of Social Security obligation, as both employer and employee, so that's another 15% or so for the first $110K. Last, some of the answers seemed to imply that you'll settle in April. Not quite. You are required to pay your tax through the year and if you wait until April to pay the tax along with your return, you will have a very unpleasant tax bill. (I mean it will have penalties for underpayment through the year.) This is to be avoided. I offer this because often a pro will have a specialty and not go outside that focus. It's possible to find the guy that knows everything about setting you up as an LLC or Sole Proprietorship, yet doesn't have the 401(k) conversation. Good luck, please let us know here how the Pro discussion goes for you.\"",
"\"IANAL, but no, this is not sound legal advice. There are a few things that stick out to me as fishy. First off: you are calculating the 3% safe-harbor on the 2017 compensation limit of $270k, but limiting yourself to $53k in total contributions which is the 2016 limit. It's hard to tell what tax year you're working in here. If you're planning for 2017, fine, but if you're wrapping up 2016 then you need to use 2016 limits. Secondly (and this is something I think your counsel should know already): you don't take Employer contributions out of gross wages (box 1) on the W-2. They aren't even reported there in the first place! With your base scenario the 2 employees' W-2s would look like this: Employee A's W-2 Gross Wages (box 1) = 280,000 - 14,966.67 = 265,033.33 Employee B's W-2 Gross Wages (box 1) = 280,000 - 0 = 280,000 Elective deferrals are the only thing that should come out of wages. Not the SH 3% or Match. Thirdly: Retirement Plan expenses really aren't an \"\"above the line\"\" expense. They are not included in cost of goods sold. Even if you establish a \"\"pool\"\" for that expense, it's still not a direct cost attributable to the production of whatever your company sells. Also: Employee B should not have to contribute to the retirement account of Employee A! The only situation I can see where Employee A and B would be required to fund the match equally, were if Employee A & B are both 50% owners and the company has no funds of its own with which to fund the match. The company has obligated itself to fund the match, and if the company doesn't have any money then the money still has to come from somewhere (ie. the owners pony up more funds for the match they promised their employees, it just happens that the employees are also the owners). Even in this situation though, I still stand behind my first 3 points.\"",
"As a sole proprietor, the tax liability of your business is calculated based on combining your business income with your personal income together. It is good advice to keep all personal and business financial matters separate. This makes it easier to prove to the IRS that all your business expenses are actually business related. In this case however, the two items [tax payment for personal income vs tax payment for business income] are inseparable. What you can do, however, for your own personal records, is calculate how much of your tax payment relates to your business. I wouldn't get complicated about this; I would simply take the net income of your business as a % of your taxable income, and multiply that against your tax payment. ie: if your business net income is $10,000, and your total taxable income is $50,000, and you paid $6,000 in taxes, I would record that 20% of the $6k was related to business income. If you have a separate bank account for your sole proprietorship, you could make a transfer to your personal account of $1,200, and then make the $6k payment from your personal account. Remember that tax payments for either your sole proprietorship and your personal income will be treated the same: federal tax payments are not tax deductible, and state tax payments are tax deductible, whether they were paid for your sole proprietorship or the rest of your personal income. So even though this method is simplistic [for example, it doesn't factor in that different investment income types earned personally will have a lower rate than your sole proprietorship income], any difference wouldn't have an impact on any future tax liability. This would only be for your own personal record keeping.",
"\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\"",
"Fidelity Investments offers Solo 401(k) plans without any management fees. The plan administrator is typically the employer itself (so, your business, or you as the principal manager). You (as the individual employee) are the participant.",
"\"if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). \"\"the timing is just different\"\" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money.\"",
"They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.",
"Read this. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans The example makes it very clear.",
"All of your 401k income is taxable and no more than 85% of your SS income. You can use the worksheets in IRS: Publication 915 to determine what percentage of your SS is taxable. Just as with ordinary income, deductions/exemptions apply and not all that is taxable will be taxed. When you begin drawing SS you'll have the option to have taxes withheld at various rates, more convenient than quarterly estimated payments in my opinion.",
"\"This has to do with the type of plan offered: is it a 401(k) plan or a profit-sharing plan, or both? If it's 401(k) I believe the IRS will see this distribution as elective and count towards the employee's annual elective contribution limit. If it's profit sharing the distribution would be counted toward the employer's portion of the limit. However -- profit sharing plans have a formula that's standard across the board and applied to all employees. i.e. 3% of company profits given equally to all employees. One of the benefits of the profit sharing plans is also that you can use a vesting schedule. I'd consult your accountant to see how this specifically impacts your business - but in the case you describe this sounds like an elective deferral choice by an employee and I don't see how (or why) you'd make this decision for them. Give them the bonus and let them choose how it's paid out. Edit: in re-reading your question it actually sounds like you're wanting to setup a profit sharing type situation - but again, heed what I said above. You decide the amount of \"\"profit\"\" - but you also have to set an equation that applies across the board. There is more complication to it than this brief explanation and I'd consult your accountant to see how it applies in your situation.\"",
"You're correct about the 401(k). Your employer's contributions don't count toward the $18k limit. You're incorrect about the IRAs though. You can contribute a maximum of $5500 total across IRA and Roth IRA, not $5500 to each. There are also limits once you reach higher levels of income. from IRS.gov: Retirement Topics - IRA Contribution Limits: For 2015, 2016, and 2017, your total contributions to all of your traditional and Roth IRAs cannot be more than:",
"Are the $18,000 401k 2017 limit and the $5,500 IRA limit mutually exclusive for a combined limit of $23,500 (under 49)? Yes, but the amount that you can deduct from a traditional IRA depends on your gross income and marital status - See publication 590-A for details. Also note that the limit applies to your combined traditional and Roth IRA contributions (meaning you can't contribute $5,500 to both; just a total of $5,500 between the two). I'm also assuming employee match $ count towards these limits - is this correct No - the limit for combined contributions between you and your employer is $54,000 in 2017. So if you contribute $18,000 your employer can only contribute $36,000.",
"I think this article explains it pretty well: Contributions to a SEP are limited to 20% of your business income (which is business income minus half of your self-employment tax), up to a maximum of $45,000. With a solo 401(k), on the other hand, you can contribute up to $15,500 plus 20% of your business income (defined the same way as above), with a maximum contribution of $45,000 in 2007. You can make an extra $5,000 catch-up contribution if you're 50 or older",
"AFAIK, individual 401k accounts are supposed to be funded from self-employment earnings, not from rollovers from 401k plans of previous employers. So, check with your accountant before making opening an individual 401k account and getting your previous 401k plan to re-issue the checks to be payable to your individual 401k account. You might also want to ask about whether loans are permitted from individual 401k accounts (my guess is they are not because the possibility of abuse of the privilege is too high since the employer and employee are the same individual). In any case, loans against 401k plans are generally not a good idea, and many people on this forum have blogged about this matter.",
"For a 401(k), only contributions that you make for the current tax year through payroll deduction are tax-deductible. Those contributions are subtracted off of your income for your W-2 Box 1 income amount. If you make a manual contribution to your 401(k) outside of that, it is not tax deductible, and there is nowhere on your Form 1040 to deduct it. Your commuter benefits are also paid for out of payroll deduction and deducted on your W-2, so this is not an option, either. You could contribute to a traditional IRA for last year up to your tax return deadline, and deduct the amount on Form 1040 Line 32. However, because you have access to a retirement plan at work, your IRA contribution is only tax deductible if your income is below certain limits.",
"The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500",
"Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.",
"If you had a retirement plan at any time in 2013 you are considered covered by an plan. Are You Covered by an Employer's Retirement Plan? You’re covered by an employer retirement plan for a tax year if your employer (or your spouse’s employer) has a: Defined contribution plan (profit-sharing, 401(k), stock bonus and money purchase pension plan) and any contributions or forfeitures were allocated to your account for the plan year ending with or within the tax year; IRA-based plan (SEP, SARSEP or SIMPLE IRA plan) and you had an amount contributed to your IRA for the plan year that ends with or within the tax year; or Defined benefit plan (pension plan that pays a retirement benefit spelled out in the plan) and you are eligible to participate for the plan year ending with or within the tax year. Box 13 on the Form W-2 you receive from your employer should contain a check in the “Retirement plan” box if you are covered. If you are still not certain, check with your (or your spouse’s) employer. The limits on the amount you can deduct don’t affect the amount you can contribute. However, you can never deduct more than you actually contribute. Additional Resources: Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs)",
"Payroll taxes are only paid on salary, so you will be paying SS Tax and Medicare only on the $60,000 you pay yourself. You will still pay income tax on the distribution, of course, but the payroll tax savings seem significant (~$13K according to the calculator below). While tinkering with a new web technology some time ago, I created this JsFiddle application. I can't swear to its correctness, but I'm pretty sure it's solid (use the UI in the bottom right quadrant of the screen): http://jsfiddle.net/psandler/NKAZd/",
"All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage.",
"After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk.",
"From the IRS: You do not include in your gross income qualified distributions or distributions that are a return of your regular contributions from your Roth IRA(s). It's not just that the particular money you take from the IRA isn't taxable. It's not counted as part of your income at all, so it won't have any effect on the taxation of other income.",
"If by exempt, you're just referring to the fact that the income is less than your standard deduction and personal exemption, then yes, that money can be used to fund a Roth. Great time to do it. To be clear, in 2014 the limit for an under 50 year old, is $5500 ($6500 if 50 or older). Only earned income may be used for deposits. No interest, dividends, etc.",
"To clarify that legality of this (for those that question it), this is directly from IRS Publication 926 (2014) (for household employees): If you prefer to pay your employee's social security and Medicare taxes from your own funds, do not withhold them from your employee's wages. The social security and Medicare taxes you pay to cover your employee's share must be included in the employee's wages for income tax purposes. However, they are not counted as social security and Medicare wages or as federal unemployment (FUTA) wages. I am sorry this does not answer your question entirely, but it does verify that you can do this. UPDATE: I have finally found a direct answer to your question! I found it here: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sh/ar01.html Form W-2 and Form W-3 If you file one or more Forms W-2, you must also file Form W-3. You must report both cash and noncash wages in box 1, as well as tips and other compensation. The completed Forms W-2 and W-3 in the example (in these instructions) show how the entries are made. For detailed information on preparing these forms, see the General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3. Employee's portion of taxes paid by employer. If you paid all of your employee's share of social security and Medicare taxes, without deducting the amounts from the employee's pay, the employee's wages are increased by the amount of that tax for income tax withholding purposes. Follow steps 1 through 3 below. (See the example in these instructions.) Enter the amounts you paid on your employee's behalf in boxes 4 and 6 (do not include your share of these taxes). Add the amounts in boxes 3, 4, and 6. (However, if box 5 is greater than box 3, then add the amounts in boxes 4, 5, and 6.) Enter the total in box 1.",
"In the same way that you are taxed on the actual amount of money you convert from the Traditional IRA to the Roth IRA -- rather than on the amount of money that you initially contributed to your 401(k) or on the amount of money that you rolled over to your Traditional IRA -- that converted amount becomes the contributions to your Roth. So (3) is the correct answer. It doesn't matter how you accumulated the money in the first place; as long as the IRS has had the opportunity to dig their claws into it, it counts as a contribution to your Roth.",
">Hey, sole proprietorships called A sole proprietorship could incorporate as a Single Member LLC and elect to be taxed as a corporation. But you would still be subject to both sides of the FICA/Medicare taxes. >and they're going to suck out five percent MORE of my GROSS How exactly does a LLC suck out 5% more of your gross? >your payroll costs go through the roof. Again, payroll expenses are generally tax deductible. I'm just trying to help you here.",
"From your comment: My salary through 7/31 could pass for an annual salary for the industry. I suppose that’s relevant? That information would certainly be relevant if you were the owner since the beginning of the year. If that were the case then I would say you'd be fine skipping the salary for the rest of the year. It would be equivalent to simply front-loading your salary. However, since you didn't own any part of the company during the time you received the salary, I believe you should think of that salary as if it came from an entirely different company. This means that during the 5 months you owned the company you will have taken $0 in salary, and I believe that would not be reasonable if this job is your main source of income. As a side note, regarding this statement you made: During this time, I'd like to avoid the employer half of FICA taxes incurred by paying myself through payroll. You'd actually be avoiding both the employer and employee portion of FICA, since both sides of FICA are paid for employee compensation. FICA is not paid by either side on company profits.",
"There are two problems with your understanding: The companies I have worked for match based on a percentage of your salary. That is a percentage of your gross pay. It was not based on the percentage of your net pay or after-tax pay. Net pay would be too hard to know. What I mean is the amount of insurance, HSA, Flex spending accounts, etc. determine how much is taxable and thus what is your after-tax pay . In fact if you split between the Roth and Pre-tax forms of the 401K your retirement contribution would influence the amount of the after tax contribution. All matching funds no matter the nature of the contribution (pre-tax, post-tax, Roth) are always considered pre-tax. You didn't pay taxes on the money when it was credited to your account.",
"SEP IRA deduction goes to line 28 of your 1040, which is above the line (i.e.: pre-AGI). It should not be included in your taxable income (AGI) for Federal purposes.",
"\"Am I on crack, or do the perceived tax savings via S-Corp distributions really not matter at a certain level of business income? You're not on crack. Generally, if all the income is generated by your own personal services - this is the outcome. The benefit of S-Corp is when you have employees who generate your income, and you distribute to yourself profits that come out of other's personal services. In this case your distributions are exempt from FICA since it is not in fact a self-employment income. You'd still have to pay yourself a reasonable salary for your position (as a manager/officer), but it wouldn't have to cover all of the available profits. So if the IRS takes a position against you it would be that your salary should be to include the whole profits, since it is the compensation to you for the personal services that produced the income to the corporation (you). In many cases they might agree that a salary at the SS maximum limit would be reasonable - but that's only a speculation of mine. In that case you might gain some portion of the medicare tax (with the recent law changes at the levels you're talking about you'll pay some medicare anyway). There are a lot of accountants who take more aggressive position saying that not all of the distributions are liable for SE taxes, even if you're the sole employee of the corporation. These cases often end up in the Tax Court, and whatever the outcome, your legal fees become higher than the FICA savings. What is probably missing in your picture is the SS limit of (currently $112K) above which you don't pay social security tax, so whether you get it as a salary or as a distribution - that limit is the same. That is why you don't see a significant difference. I know there are a lot of accountants who'd disagree, but I would argue that for a sole employee of your company, S-Corp doesn't provide significant benefits over the disregarded LLC taxation, but has some additional overhead that adds to your expenses. Here's a link to a lawyer's blog where he suggests (and says many accountants follow) 60/40 division between salary and distributions. I.e.: his take, similarly to mine, is that most of the earnings have to be treated as salary. In your case, when the total is about 300K - you indeed will not get any FICA savings with such a division other than some of the medicare. Unusually low wages when compared to distributions can draw unwanted IRS scrutiny and an audit. An unfavorable audit will likely result in some portion of the distributions being reclassified as earned income for federal income tax purposes, which results in a deficiency assessment (i.e., a tax bill), interest on those unpaid taxes, and IRS penalties. The article also talks about the Watson case (one of the Tax Court cases I referred to), which can be used as the guidelines for determining the \"\"reasonable\"\" compensation. Talk to your tax adviser. I'm neither a tax adviser nor a tax professional. For a tax advice contact a CPA/EA licensed in your state. This is not a tax advice, just my personal opinion.\"",
"There's no additional income tax burden created when you decide to make Roth IRA contributions, your Roth IRA contributions are taxed at the same time all your income is taxed. If you earned that $100 by working a job, then your employer likely withheld taxes when they paid you. If you earned it through self-employment, then you'll pay estimated taxes on that income quarterly, etc. In any case when you file your annual tax return the actual taxes owed vs taxes paid gets reconciled and you're left with a refund or owe an additional sum.",
"You do not need to file 1099-MISC to yourself if you're running as a sole proprietor - you are yourself. However, you do not deduct this amount from your business income and report it as royalties either. Your self-published book is your business income subject to SE tax. You can only deduct the actual costs of producing/writing, and the remaining amount is your Schedule C income.",
"Technically you owe 'self-employment' taxes not FICA taxes because they are imposed under a different law, SECA. However, since SE taxes are by design exactly the same rates as combining the two halves of FICA (employer and employee) it is quite reasonable to treat them as equivalent. SE taxes (and income tax also) are based on your net self-employment income, after deducting business expenses (but not non-business items like your home mortgage, dependent exemptions, etc which factor only into income tax). You owe SE Medicare tax 2.9% on all your SE net income (unless it is under $400) adjusted down by 7.65% to compensate for the fact that the employer half of FICA is excluded from gross income before the employee half is computed. You owe SE Social Security tax 12.4% on your adjusted SE net income unless and until the total income subject to FICA+SECA, i.e. your W-2 wages plus your adjusted SE net income, exceeds a cap that varies with inflation and is $127,200 for 2017. OTOH if FICA+SECA income exceeds $200k single or $250k joint you owe Additional Medicare tax 0.9% on the excess; if your W-2 income (alone) exceeds this limit your employer should withhold for it. However the Additional Medicare tax is part of 'Obamacare' (PPACA) which the new President and Republican majorities have said they will 'repeal and replace'; whether any such replacement will affect this for TY 2017 is at best uncertain at this point. Yes SE taxes are added to income tax on your 1040 with schedule SE attached (and schedule C/CEZ, E, F as applicable to your business) (virtually so if you file electronically) and paid together. You are supposed to pay at least 90% during the year by having withholding increased on your W-2 job, or by making 'quarterly' estimated payments (IRS quarters are not exactly quarters, but close), or any combination. But if this is your first year (which you don't say, but someone who had gone through this before probably wouldn't ask) you may get away with not paying during the year as normally required; specifically, if your W-2 withholding is not enough to cover your increased taxes for this year (because of the additional income and SE taxes) but it is enough to cover your tax for the previous year and your AGI that year wasn't over $150k, then there is a 'safe harbor' and you won't owe any form-2210 penalty -- although you must keep enough money on hand to pay the tax by April 15. But for your second year and onwards, your previous year now includes SE amounts and this doesn't help. Similar/related:",
"Yes, provided you're not over the IRA deductibility limit as well. – JoeTaxpayer♦ Aug 4 at 18:02 Note that if you get refunded for excess contributions, it usually happens in the following year, in which case it doesn't affect the year where these contributions occured -- rather, the refund counts as taxable income in the year you received the refund. – user102008 Aug 11 at 8:11",
"The only possibility that I've seen in the past is if some of the income is for deferred services which are to be delivered in the following tax year, a portion of the income can be deferred. Also, agree that you should be an S-corp and talk to another CPA if yours hasn't told you that yet.",
"\"The instructions do specifically mention them, but not as exclusive plans. Pension and annuity payments include distributions from 401(k), 403(b), and governmental 457(b) plans. The instructions also mention this: An eligible retirement plan is a governmental plan that is a qualified trust or a section 403(a), 403(b), or 457(b) plan. 414(h) plans are \"\"qualified\"\" plans. Employee contribution to a 414(h) plan is qualified under 403(b). Report it there and mark it as \"\"Rollover\"\". Talk to a licensed (EA/CPA licensed in your state) professional when in doubt.\"",
"\"Because 401k's are also used by self employed. A person who has a schedule C profitable income can open a 401k and \"\"match\"\" in whatever ratio he wants, up to 25% of the net profits or the limits you stated. This allows self-employed to defer more income taxes to the future. Why only self-employed? Good question. Ask your congressman. My explanation would be that since they're self-employed they're in much more danger of not having income, especially later in life, if their business go south. Thus they need a bigger cushion than an average W2 employee who can just find another job.\"",
"I have worked for companies that have done this. One did have a match and the other did not. When they figured their profit at the end of the year a portion was given to the employees as a 401K deposit. retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits Total annual contributions (annual additions) to all of your accounts in plans maintained by one employer (and any related employer) are limited. The limit applies to the total of: elective deferrals employer matching contributions employer nonelective contributions allocations of forfeitures The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $54,000 ($60,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2017; $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2016. So as long as everything stays below that $54,000 limit you are good. In one case the decision was made by the company for the employee, the other company gave us the option of bonus check or 401K. I heard that most of the employees wanted the money in the 401K.",
"The company match is not earnings. My company deposits 5% of my income into my 401(k) and it appears nowhere except on the paperwork for the 401(k). To be clear, it doesn't appear on any paystub or W2.",
"\"Even if your employer decides not to include the HSA contributions in Box 12, the IRS will still be informed how much went into your HSA when the form 5498-SA gets filed. So you don't need to worry about the IRS; they'll get the information they want. As for you, if you already know how much the \"\"employer contributions\"\" (both what the employer contributed and what you contributed through payroll deduction) were, and you know how much you contributed directly, then once you get your form 1099-SA you'll have all the information you need to complete your tax return.\"",
"Their paperwork should help you along. Schwab is the broker and custodian, you are the administrator. There's virtually no paperwork after the account is opened, until you hit $250K in value, and then there's one extra IRS form you need to fill out each year. See One-Participant 401(k) Plans for a good IRS description of form 5500. Disclosure - I use the Schwab Solo 401(k) myself, and the only downsides, in my opinion, the don't offer a Roth flavor, and no loans are permitted. Both of these features would offer flexibility.",
"I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point.",
"\"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \"\"Individual 401k\"\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\"",
"Just from my own experience (I am not an accountant): In addition to counting as 'business income' (1040 line 12 [1]) your $3000 (or whatever) will be subject to ~15% self-employment tax, on Schedule SE. This carries to your 1040 line ~57, which is after all your 'adjustments to income', exemptions, and deductions - so, those don't reduce it. Half of the 15% is deductible on line ~27, if you have enough taxable income for it to matter; but, in any case, you will owe at least 1/2 of the 15%, on top of your regular income tax. Your husband could deduct this payment as a business expense on Schedule C; but, if (AIUI) he will have a loss already, he'll get no benefit from this in the current year. If you do count this as income to you, it will be FICA income; so, it will be credited to your Social Security account. Things outside my experience that might bear looking into: I suspect the IRS has criteria to determine whether spousal payments are legit, or just gaming the tax system. Even if your husband can't 'use' the loss this year, he may be able to apply it in the future, when/if he has net business income. [1] NB: Any tax form line numbers are as of the last I looked - they may be off by one or two.",
"I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process.",
"\"IRA contribution must be from your earned income in the sense that you cannot contribute to IRA more than you have in earned income. If all your income is capital gains - you cannot contribute anything to IRA. Once you're within the income limit restriction, it doesn't matter what other money you have, because as you said - once in your account, its all just money. But what you're describing is basically \"\"I deposit $850 from my salary into an IRA and then go pay for my gas with the $850 I have from the capital gains\"\", so you're not paying any less taxes here. If it makes you feel any better, you can describe it to yourself the way you did. It doesn't really matter.\"",
"FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do.",
"As a sole trader you would fill out an Individual Tax Return and complete the Business and Professional Items Section P1 to P19, then enter the amounts from that section into Item 15 in the Supplementary Section of the Tax Return. Any business income as a sole trader will be included into your taxable income for the year together with other sources of income you may have earned in the same income year. Whether you get a tax refund will depend on the amount of taxable income you make, the amount of tax you have already paid in instalments throughout the year, and any tax deductions and tax offsets you can claim.",
"\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"",
"For the 1st part of your question. Yes the other taxes still apply. You are only deferring your income tax, not the other taxes. Read the 3rd paragraph: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Sponsor/401(k)-Resource-Guide-Plan-Sponsors-401(k)-Plan-Overview",
"Yes sir, been there did that. Now a Roth account is considered income if you it pull out. It is your money and you have to report if you pull it out. FYI, open a savings account, and put it in that so if you need it this will not happen.",
"Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..",
"\"The error in the example is here: \"\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\"\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\"",
"Employer match doesn't incur FICA tax (social security, medicare) for you at all - either current year or when you withdraw. All you have to pay is income tax when you withdraw after retirement age. (Disclaimer - I'm not tax professional but has done my research)",
"I’m specifically curious as to how employer matches for Roth 401(k)s would work. Even if an employee contributes to a Roth 401(k), matching contributions by the employer must be treated as traditional 401(k) contributions. So even if the treatment of Roth accounts is unchanged, those of us who get an employer match on our Roth 401(k) contributions may still be impacted.",
"Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.",
"\"You must have $x of taxable income that year in order to make a contribution of $x to IRA for that year. It doesn't matter where the actual \"\"money\"\" that you contribute comes from -- for tax purposes, all that matters is the total amount of taxable income and the total amount of contributions; how you move your money around or divide it up is irrelevant.\"",
"You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer."
] |
[
"\"This seems to depend on what kind of corporation you have set up. If you're set up as a sole proprietor, then the Solo 401k contributions, whether employee or employer, will be deducted from your gross income. Thus they don't reduce it. If you're set up as an S-Corp, then the employer contributions, similar to large employer contributions, will be deducted from wages, and won't show up in Box 1 on your W-2, so they would reduce your gross income. (Note, employee contributions also would go away from Box 1, but would still be in Box 3 and 5 for FICA/payroll tax purposes). This is nicely discussed in detail here. The IRS page that discusses this in more (harder to understand) detail is here. Separately, I think a discussion of \"\"Gross Income\"\" is merited, as it has a special definition for sole proprietorships. The IRS defines it in publication 501 as: Gross income. Gross income is all income you receive in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax. If you are married and live with your spouse in a community property state, half of any income defined by state law as community income may be considered yours. For a list of community property states, see Community property states under Married Filing Separately, later. Self-employed persons. If you are self-employed in a business that provides services (where products are not a factor), your gross income from that business is the gross receipts. If you are self-employed in a business involving manufacturing, merchandising, or mining, your gross income from that business is the total sales minus the cost of goods sold. In either case, you must add any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. So I think that regardless of 401(k) contributions, your gross income is your gross receipts (if you're a contractor, it's probably the total listed on your 1099(s)).\""
] |
4125
|
Alternative means of salary for my employees
|
[
"344648",
"72046"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"396255",
"551064",
"428079",
"571362",
"313186",
"465196",
"166166",
"490630",
"177528",
"543085",
"522768",
"99233",
"207144",
"107564",
"462255",
"65795",
"98629",
"499189",
"528727",
"290325",
"599684",
"18792",
"312765",
"127347",
"482638",
"24323",
"272117",
"386869",
"315552",
"345795",
"253045",
"74958",
"384280",
"595822",
"562211",
"129503",
"511696",
"293843",
"120714",
"18647",
"470898",
"479972",
"263361",
"229054",
"8859",
"197782",
"87102",
"418580",
"163881",
"582166",
"516548",
"520584",
"30201",
"528472",
"260848",
"291847",
"526982",
"345603",
"75642",
"532515",
"12212",
"441568",
"441591",
"344648",
"373949",
"129540",
"568771",
"501636",
"164895",
"408724",
"287709",
"224406",
"291949",
"93853",
"550345",
"598241",
"297535",
"506853",
"260385",
"245451",
"344380",
"156747",
"169587",
"562820",
"129196",
"565540",
"58906",
"407654",
"413534",
"276327",
"277305",
"50944",
"419319",
"25316",
"453829",
"212464",
"36608",
"304479",
"447812",
"285214"
] |
[
"Interesting. What is your view of this idea: institute a bonus program which allocates to each employee scrip proportionate to the number of dependents (plus 1 for themselves, of course); this scrip would be valid for one year and to earn it one needs meet some basic work requirements and can be used to purchase whatever goods and services the workers prefer. (This is only a rough description of what I have in mind. Feel free to ask questions for more details. I feel we have much to learn from each other on this topic.)",
"My firm has more than five thousand employees globally, and this is how we pay people, except for the very top directors. We were one of glassdoor's top firms to work for last year, and have scored extremely highly on lots of other rankings for being a top place to work. So clearly it works well, and trust me we have no problem recruiting.",
"Their motivation should be the same as yours, just moderated for the fact that they don't have ownership. The fairest thing is likely a percentage of revenue (.5 moving up to 1 or higher depending on competency, off of gross, not net) plus getting some of the expense account for lunches and whatnot when something big gets done. This will also make them less likely to leave when other offers or opportunities come around. Retaining the best staff you can possibly get will almost certainly pay for itself ten times over with happy clients who don't have to deal with bureaucratic bullshit, and when they do, they know the person who is responsible for it is likable and competent, and don't complain as much.",
"Purchase capital asset (deductible expense). Sell capital asset next year, then use the proceeds of the sale to pay your employees. Unless you buy in a quickly gentrifying area you'll have a fair amount of unrecoverable expenses like closing costs, repairs, etc that you won't make up with an increase in property value. Plus property taxes, utilities, etc. And who knows how quickly you can sell the place, might end up with a bloated useless asset and no money to pay employees. And in an audit an asset purchased with no actual use to the business will get disallowed. Either retain the earnings and take the tax hit, or make a deal with your employees to pre pay them their next year's salary. Of course if you fire someone or they quit good luck getting the overpaid portion back.",
"Share options. If you get options on £200,000-worth of a company and then its share price increases five-fold then you make £800,000, which is often taxed more favourably than salary.",
"Nice work! I would not propose anything related to revenue growth, as it will be difficult to tell where that growth came from. If you want a performance aspect you could tie a bonus to particular KPI's that you both agree to. It could be a website done by a certain time along with a certain amount of likes/shares on facebook and instagram followers. Yelp and Google Reviews would probably also be a good place to add value. I would think an insta account would be a no brainer with a tap house, so much easy stuff to photo. Just my 2 cents, if I'm the owner I want this to be easy, so I'd go for base pay and a bonus.",
"Honestly, get a ln employment lawyer, preferably one with a MBA. If you're having to ask these questions, and considering giving away equity, get proper business legal advice. I've seen several lucrative companies torn apart because things were sloppy when it was originally set up. Also remember employees don't need equity to spur them on; that what a paycheck and meaningful employment is for. And certainly don't give anything from the outset.",
"Perhaps an example will help make it more clear. Any given year: Revenue: 200K, profit 60K You get 40K in profit, plus any salary, he gets 20K Next year you attract the attention of a competitor and they offer and you accept to sell. You would get 100% of the proceeds. This is kind of a bad deal for him as you could easily play accounting tricks to diminish the company's profits and reduce his pay. For the given example, you could pay yourself a 60K bonus and reduce the profit to zero and eliminate his compensation. There should probably be a revenue metric included in his compensation. Edit: It is really nice to hear you have a desire to treat this person fairly. Honesty in business is necessary for long term success. I would simply make his salary dependent upon the revenue he generates. For example, lets say you can make a widget for 4 and you expect to sell them for 10. Your profit would be 6, and with the suggested split he would receive $2, you $4. Instead I would have him receive like 15% of the revenue generated This allows for some discounts for bulk items and covers the cost of processing sales. It also allows him to share revenue with his staff. Alternatively you could also do a split. Perhaps 7.5% of revenue and 10% of profit.",
"Founder makes available 100% equity, but uses a reasonable amount of the proceeds to pay him/herself a salary (or wage) and from that salary invests in the same initial offering to acquire shares for him/herself. I see several problems. What is a reasonable salary? Also, this leaves the door open to the following scam: Founders say that they are going to follow this plan. However, instead of buying shares, they simply quit after being paid the salary. They use knowledge gained from this business to start a competitor. Investors are left holding an empty company. Tax consequences. The founder would pay income tax on the salary. By contrast, if the founder instead sells shares, that would be capital gains tax, which is lower in many countries (e.g. the United States). Why would I want to invest in a business where the founders don't believe in it enough to take a significant equity stake? Consider the Amazon.com example. Jeff Bezos makes a minimal salary, around $80,000 a year, less than many of his employees. But he has a substantial ownership position. If the company doesn't make money, he won't. Would investors really value the stocks with a P/E of 232.10 in 2016 if they didn't trust him to make the right long term decisions? It's also worth noting that most initial public offerings (IPOs) are not made when the founder is the only employee. A single employee company instead looks for private investors, often called angel investors. Companies generally don't go public until they are established in some way, often making money. Negotiating with angel investors is different from negotiating with the public. They can personally review the books and once invested tend to have input on how the money is spent. In other words, this is mostly solving the wrong problem if you talk about IPOs. This might make more sense with a crowdfunded venture, as that replaces a few angel investors with many individuals. But most crowdfunded ventures tend to approach things from the opposite direction. Instead of looking for investors, they look for customers. If they offer a useful product, they will get customers. If not, they never get the money. Beyond all this, if a founder is only going to get a fair salary some of the time, then why put in any sweat equity? This works fine if the company looks valuable after a year. What if it doesn't? The founder is out a year of sweat equity and has nothing in return. That happens now too, but the possibility of the big return offsets it. You're taking out the big return. I don't think that this is good for either founders or investors. The founder trades a potentially good or even great return for a mediocre return. The investors trade a situation where both they and the founder benefit from a successful company to one where they benefit a lot more than the founder. That's not good for either side.",
"Since you brought up the salary thing a few times; yes, if the manager was hired at a 50k salary, he should still be taking home his 50k, plus his tips. That's the difference between being an owner and just an employee. If you want your managers more invested, try a small salary + % over profits each month as a bonus. $400/week + 10% of profits, defined as over X amount in sales each month. Or something more appropriate pay and expectation wise for your location.a",
"Let's look at the two options. It sounds like, at this time, the company has enough cash to pay you a salary or pay your loan off, but not both at the same time. Ideally, in the future, there will be enough cash flow to be able to do both at the same time. If you start your salary now, when the cash flow increases to the point where the company can pay off your loan, you will continue to receive your salary while the loan is being repaid. So it is probably most advantageous to you to start the salary now and wait with the loan payments. (If you think that the company is not going to make it and there is a danger of not ever getting the loan repaid, this could change; however, you are probably optimistic about the company, or you wouldn't have made the loan and agreed to work for free in the first place.) With the other option, the company gets out of debt quicker and cheaper. I can totally understand your brother wanting to eliminate this debt ASAP. It looks like you and your brother had different expectations about what was going to happen. That's why it is so critical to put these kinds of agreements in writing. If you had had a payment schedule in your written loan agreement, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, the issue of how long you would continue to work for free would still be there, but this could also have been decided ahead of time. As is, you have two different things going on that were left up in the air with no formal agreement. As to what is fair, that is something only you and he can work out. Perhaps you can propose a payment schedule for your loan that the company can afford now while paying your salary; that way, you will start getting paid for working, and the company will start moving toward eliminating the debt. I hope that you will be able to agree to a solution without ruining the relationship you have with your brother. Besides the fact that family relationships are important, a rift between the two of you would certainly be disastrous for the company and, as a result, your and his finances.",
"\"This has to do with the type of plan offered: is it a 401(k) plan or a profit-sharing plan, or both? If it's 401(k) I believe the IRS will see this distribution as elective and count towards the employee's annual elective contribution limit. If it's profit sharing the distribution would be counted toward the employer's portion of the limit. However -- profit sharing plans have a formula that's standard across the board and applied to all employees. i.e. 3% of company profits given equally to all employees. One of the benefits of the profit sharing plans is also that you can use a vesting schedule. I'd consult your accountant to see how this specifically impacts your business - but in the case you describe this sounds like an elective deferral choice by an employee and I don't see how (or why) you'd make this decision for them. Give them the bonus and let them choose how it's paid out. Edit: in re-reading your question it actually sounds like you're wanting to setup a profit sharing type situation - but again, heed what I said above. You decide the amount of \"\"profit\"\" - but you also have to set an equation that applies across the board. There is more complication to it than this brief explanation and I'd consult your accountant to see how it applies in your situation.\"",
"Companies theoretically have an infinite number of equity units at their disposal. Issuance must be approved according to its founding contracts. If an equity is trading on an open market then the price of each unit issued in lieu of cash compensation is known. Even if an equity doesn't trade openly, bidders can be solicited for a possible price or an appraisal. This can be a risky route for the potentially compensated. Market capitalizations are frequently generally approximately equal to the sales of a company. Salaries and wages are frequently generally two thirds of sales. It is indeed expensive for the average company to compensate with equity, thus so few do, usually restricting equity compensation to executives and exceptional laborers. Besides, they frequently have enough cash to pay for compensation, avoiding transaction costs. For companies in growth industries such as technology or medicine, their situations are usually reversed: cash constrained yet equity abundant because of large investment and dearly priced equities. For a company trading at a market capitalization multiplied by forty times the revenue, compensating with equity is inexpensive.",
"I found some UK personal accounts offer up to 3% interest (no names here, but it is well known bank with red logo). You can take out directors loan from your company, put the cash into that personal account and earn interest. Just don't forget to return this loan before end of financial year, so this interest does not become your dividends.",
"I'm not business-savvy, but that seems like a very good idea. My wife works for a not-for-profit company, yet the CEO still makes $8,000,000 a year, *not* counting bonuses. I think in a for-profit, the CEO could easily afford to pay more employees to fill the gap made by decreasing the free labor he's used to.",
"It should go without saying (should being the key word) that you must pay employees enough so that they stop thinking about money. If your people are under that thresshold, these points aren't as powerful. Underpaid people will always underperform, mentally check-out, look for a new job, etc. Being underpaid is like being on fire. Before anything else can happen, this must be addressed. Once they're above the thresshold and money is no longer a motivator, that's when you need these things to happen. Compensation sort of falls into the law of diminishing return. More is always better...to a point. I've read that point cited at $75-77k in the US. After that, people aren't working solely for compensation anymore.",
"This isn't complicated. You either pay her a full wage and take the cost on your end or you pay her less of a wage and give her equity. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. It's called greed. As long as you are aware of your stance feel free to screw her over as much as you're comfortable with.",
"In theory the integration of taxes make the tax implications of paying salary or dividends equal. This is what happens when you calculate the taxes using a generic tax calculator, however, the theory breaks down in certain cases. If you are earning less than $100k there is very little difference and paying out a salary is usually the better option. In a large stable company the most efficient option is almost always a mix of both. If you are earning more than $100k a year it depends on a number of factors: 1) Are your companies annual earnings over $500,000? In Canada, private companies that earn more than $500,000 annually are taxed at a higher rate than those earning less than $500,000. If the earnings are above $500,000 generally you should reduce the earning to under $500,000 by paying a salary. However, this depends on the province, the other income of the owners are and how much more than $500,000 your company earns. 2) Are you eligible for deductions or benefits only available on earned income? Earned income is income that you have worked for, which does not include dividends. RRSP contribution room, child care expense deductions, CPP, and many other benefits under the CRA rules are only available to people who have an earned income. It is worth taking advantage of these deductions when they are available. 3) Is your company eligible for any tax deductions? The same as with your personal tax deductions and your personal benefits of earning income, having a corporate income is also a benefit. There are a number of tax credits and tax deductions that corporations can take advantage of and when available these should be taken advantage of before paying everything out in salary. Once all these questions are answered the calculation is based on your marginal tax rate and the tax rate of the Corporation. One other reason to have at least a portion of you salary as a dividend is that if you incur capital loss in your corporation you can pass them to your personal taxes. If you were payed 100% in salary this does not work. Other strategies to be more tax efficient: Income splitting (Pay a salary/dividend to yourself, your wife, your children your parents, or anyone you support). Rolling-over property with taxable gains into your private corporation. Buying insurance policies that gives a return of premium or increase your Capital Dividend Account (CDA).",
"So thinking on this a little more, I guess it's not completely cut and dried. For example, if the sales position was commission only, a bonus might be a way to ensure the sales team earn a base minimum income. This would allow them to have some level of comfort that they would be able to meet financial obligations like mortgages, kids school etc.",
"Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?",
"\"What they are doing is wrong. The IRS and the state might not be happy with what they are doing. One thing you can ask for them to do is to give you a credit card for business and travel expenses. You will still have to submit receipts for expenses, but it will also make it clear to the IRS that these checks are not income. Keep the pay stubs for the year, or the pdf files if they don't give you a physical stub. Pay attention to the YTD numbers on each stub to make sure they aren't sneaking in the expenses as income. If they continue to do this, ask about ownership of the items purchased, since you will be paying the tax shouldn't you own it? You can in the future tell them \"\"I was going to buy X like the customer wanted, but I just bought a new washer at home and their wasn't enough room on the credit card. Maybe next month\"\"\"",
"\"You are confining the way you and the other co-founders are paid for guaranteeing the loan to capital shares. Trying to determine payments by equity distribution is hard. It is a practice that many small companies particularly the ones in their initial stage fall into. I always advise against trying to make payments with equity, weather it is for unpaid salary or for guaranteeing a loan such as your case. Instead of thinking about a super sophisticated algorithm to distribute the new shares between the cofounders and the new investors, given a set of constraints, which will most probably fail to make the satisfactory split, you should simply view the co-founders as debt lenders for the company and the shareholders as a capital contributor. If the co-founders are treated as debt lenders, it will be much easier to determine the risk compensation for guaranteeing the loan because it is now assessed in monetary units and this compensation is equal to the risk premium you see fit \"\"taking into consideration the probability of default \"\". On the other hand, capital contributors will gain capital shares as a percentage of the total value of the company after adding SBA loan.\"",
">But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, Which means the insurance bought by employees must get a whole lot cheaper, I guess, as there would be direct competition and lots of shopping around. >, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up So the employers suddenly don't need to compete on the employee marketplace? I mean in times with high unemployment not, but this is orthogonal to this - in times with high unemployment they don't need to compete with benefits either, I guess? Although in reality I agree with you, let me offer a different but supporting perspective: it is much easier to haggle a salary than to haggle anything else. I've always lived in European countries with different amounts of government-mandated paid holidays and I have never ever heard of a person who succesfully haggled a week of extra holiday in his package, or a VIP-level additional private health insurance above the basic social-security-paid one (the one that gets people more comfortable hospital rooms and better hospital food etc. - if people buy it here, they always buy it privately, not by the employer), or really anything but money. The only extra I ever heard about is the private usage of a company car, and even that is rare, and that has more to do with easier accounting than anything else. Sometimes people get lunch tickets, but that is usually because they are tax-free. I don't know why, but it seems to be the general law: either the government mandates some non-monetary benefit, or the employer decides to provide it because of competition, but people privately can pretty much never haggle for it, not even when they are badly needed. Strange. A possible explanation: business are used to buying stuff with a simple monetary price. As a buyer, you have no other responsibilities than to pay. For example a programming company will not demand that the client gives them a detailed specification, they will gladly write one, for a price. So if anyone comes and tries to sell something, and wants anything else but money, it gets weird. And I figure it is the same for employees.",
"From your comment: My salary through 7/31 could pass for an annual salary for the industry. I suppose that’s relevant? That information would certainly be relevant if you were the owner since the beginning of the year. If that were the case then I would say you'd be fine skipping the salary for the rest of the year. It would be equivalent to simply front-loading your salary. However, since you didn't own any part of the company during the time you received the salary, I believe you should think of that salary as if it came from an entirely different company. This means that during the 5 months you owned the company you will have taken $0 in salary, and I believe that would not be reasonable if this job is your main source of income. As a side note, regarding this statement you made: During this time, I'd like to avoid the employer half of FICA taxes incurred by paying myself through payroll. You'd actually be avoiding both the employer and employee portion of FICA, since both sides of FICA are paid for employee compensation. FICA is not paid by either side on company profits.",
"For alternative financing, pursue a line of credit or a Home Equity Line of Credit. (From the comments of @ChrisInEdmonton and @littleadv on the original question)",
"\"The personal checks may be due to their bank not issuing the company checks yet and there may also not be a payroll system in place at this time. So far as the W2's are concerned you should probably ask the owner if they plan on distributing them to the employees. If the owner has no interest in making you proper \"\"on the books employees\"\" let them know that they should probably be paying you in cash so that if the IRS comes you wont be tied to it. Obviously working in cash (off the books) has its drawbacks (no rights or protections) and benefits (no taxes).\"",
"There are a few reasons, dependent on the location of the company. The first, as you mentioned is that it means that the employee is invested in the companies success - in theory this should motivate the employee to work hard in order to increase the value of their holdings. Sometimes these have a vestment period which requires that they hold the stock for a certain amount of time before they are able to sell, and that they continue working at the company for a certain amount of time. The second, is that unlike cash, providing stocks doesn't come out of the companies liquid cash. While it is still an expense and does devalue the shares of other shareholders, it doesn't effect the daily working capital which is important to maintain to ensure business continuity. And the third, and this is for the employee, is tax reasons. In particular for substantial amounts. Of course this is dependent on jurisdiction but you can often achieve lower tax rates on receiving shares vs a cash equivalent sum, as you can draw out the money over time lowering your tax obligation each year, or other methods which aren't possible to look into now. Hope this helps.",
"It doesn't make much difference in the end. Imagine you have $100 of revenue in your company. You can either pay it to yourself as salary, meaning that you don't pay corporate tax on it, or you can keep it in the company, pay corporate tax on it, then pay yourself a dividend of what is left. While that dividend will be treated better than salary, remember that the company already paid tax on it. You paying less on what's left doesn't equate to paying less overall. Go ahead and run the numbers using your actual corporate tax rate and your personal income tax rate. Try doing your whole salary as dividends - not dollar for dollar, but as how much the company would have as profit to give you a dividend if it didn't spend (and deduct) salary money on you. You are unlikely to see any difference at all. The net final money in your pocket, and the amount that went to the government, will probably be the same. If paying dividends keeps your earned income low, you may find that you can't use RRSP or childcare deductions. You are also not getting CPP credit. That's an argument for salary, or at least a certain minimum amount of salary. You have to deduct taxes at source on salary and send it along to the government, which is an argument for dividends if you feel you could invest that money and use it well before the taxes get around to being due. Possibly you may discover an edge case where you move a few thousand from one marginal tax rate to another and clear a few hundred extra as a result. I don't discourage you from doing the math, I just point out that the various percentages (tax rates, grossups, deductions etc) have all been carefully chosen so that it pretty much works out the same, or gives a small preference to salary. We give excess money to ourselves as bonus rather than dividend having run the numbers a few times. There's no secret trick here.",
"Sounds you need to read up on S corp structures. I think this would benefit you if you generate income even after you physically stopped working which is incomes from membership fees, royalties % of customer revenue, middle man etc... Under the Scorp, you as the sole member must earn a wage that fair and at current market value. You pay social security and Medicare on this wage. The interesting thing here is that an Scorp can pay out earning dividends without having to pay payroll taxes but the catch is that you, as the sole employee must earn a fair wage. As for paying the other member you may want to look into 1099 contract work plus a finders fee. The 1099 hourly wage does not require you to pay Medicare and SS. The common fee I'm used to is 5% of gross invoice. Then you would pay her an hourly wage. The company then bills these hours multiplied by 2 or 3 (or whatever you think is fair) to the client. Deduct expenses from this and that's your profit. Example. Contractor brings Client A which is estimated as a 100 hour project with $100 cost in supplies and requires 2 hours of your time @ $40/hr. You quote 100 hours @ $50 to client, client agrees and gives you down payment. You then present the contract work to your contractor, they complete the work in 100 hours and bill you at $25. You pay your contractor 2500 plus the 5% ($250) and your company earns $2070 (5000 - 2500 - 100-80) And you'll earn $80 minus the payroll tax. Then at the end of the quarter or year or however you want to do earning payouts your LLC- Scorp will write you a check for $2070 or whatever earning % you want to take. This is then taxed at your income tax bracket. One thing to keep in mind is what is preventing this other person from becoming your competition? A partnership would be great motivation to try and bring in as much work under the LLC. But if you start shafting people then they'll just keep the work and cut you out.",
"\"Part of your first link has this statement that I suspect you are missing: However, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. Note that executive is in that list. As for the additional note: To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week. Generally which means, \"\"in most cases; usually.\"\" is not a universal qualifier and thus exceptions can exist. I'd imagine that restricted stock could be a way around some of the rules as there would be a monetary value there in the case of the stock for companies of a particular size.\"",
"Obviously you don't know the full extent of our company, but I'd be forgoing my salary for a year. Is that worth it to get 10%? I mean assuming it becomes a 1 Million Dollar Idea, I'd get 100k while he gets 700k, working the same amount of time. Then i'd get put on salary.",
"In addition to taking into account your deductions, as mentioned by @bstpierre, you also need to account for vacation, and other time off such as sick days. You also need to estimate what percentage of the year you expect to be working and pro-rate your salary accordingly. For example it is not uncommon to use 40 weeks out of the year which is about 77% of the time. Also check to see if you would be eligible for unemployment for the times you are not working. I suspect not. But in any case, you might want to use worst case scenario figures to see if it is worth it, especially in this economy.",
"\"Comission is a must when doing sales. That is the best (and only good) incentive to sell more. How much you want to give all depends on margins, the salary level that is accepted in your state/country and what sellers you have (young or old). Salary costs at 30 - 35% of total order value is normal including salary tax and all tax oriented costs around that employee. There are 2 ways of doing it. Only high commission and fixed salary + lower commission. Even if you use fixed salary + commission you can have \"\"restrictions\"\" so they have to sell above a certain level to get that commission. That means that you don't take any risks. An example of a salary model that I found was popular. (The numbers are just made up according to what is normal to have in Sweden). It's a step-model. If you sell for: Step 1: 0 - $3000 you get high commission 20% of everything you sell Step 2: $3000 - $4000 you get fixed salary of $1000 + 10% commission Step 3: $4000 - $6000 you get fixed salary of $1700 + 15% commission And so on. Your weakest points are when going to a higher step. You have to change the steps so it works with your salary statistics so you have most people under a step to motivate them to go to the next instead of having them exactly above one step. As you can see, with a step model, you just put a disquise on the commission model but make it more attractive. What the seller think is that they have a fixed salary. If a seller is happy, he/she is selling a lot. I have also had a criteria saying that if you can keep youself at 1 step for more than 3 months you will start there each month. Then it's up to the team leader to warn if that seller IS good or just LUCKY.\"",
"Payroll taxes are only paid on salary, so you will be paying SS Tax and Medicare only on the $60,000 you pay yourself. You will still pay income tax on the distribution, of course, but the payroll tax savings seem significant (~$13K according to the calculator below). While tinkering with a new web technology some time ago, I created this JsFiddle application. I can't swear to its correctness, but I'm pretty sure it's solid (use the UI in the bottom right quadrant of the screen): http://jsfiddle.net/psandler/NKAZd/",
"\"The truly fun part is that it's actually illegal for me to work more than I bill - it raises issues of liability, workman's comp, employment taxes, etc. I've gone back and forth over fifteen years, but I am *done* with salaried work. Unless you're an executive with piles of stock options or in sales, \"\"salary\"\" just means \"\"please do lots of work for us for free.\"\"\"",
"\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"",
"I also reckon the tax situation is a relevant difference. I'd rather take shares over a wage when, you know, I'm not / minimally taxed for capital gains, at a rate way lower than what I should be paying for the equivalent as income tax.",
"\"> It should go without saying (should being the key word) that you must pay employees enough so that they stop thinking about money. I agree with that. At my retail job I would often think, \"\"I don't get paid enough to do that, so I'm not going to.\"\" Now I'm in a tech job and money isn't even a thought. I just do my work.\"",
"They are thinking they'll do an hourly rate in the beginning until we get sales and can make sure it's profitable, and then switch to solely being paid the percentage of the business I would own. If it was a salary AND 15-20% I'd be happy with that :)",
"One possibility that I use: I set up an LLC and get paid through that entity. Then I set up a payroll service through Bank of America and set up direct deposit so that it is free. I pay myself at 70% of my hourly rate based on the number of hours I work, and the payroll service does all the calculations for me and sets up the payments to the IRS. Typically money is left over in my business account. When tax time rolls around, I have a W2 from my LLC and a 1099 from the company I work for. I put the W2 into my personal income, and for the business I enter the revenue on the 1099 and the payroll expenses from paying myself; the left over in the business account is taxed as ordinary income. Maybe it's overkill, but setting up the LLC makes it possible to (a) set up a solo 401(k) and put up to $51k away tax-free, and (b) I can write off business expenses more easily.",
"To clarify that legality of this (for those that question it), this is directly from IRS Publication 926 (2014) (for household employees): If you prefer to pay your employee's social security and Medicare taxes from your own funds, do not withhold them from your employee's wages. The social security and Medicare taxes you pay to cover your employee's share must be included in the employee's wages for income tax purposes. However, they are not counted as social security and Medicare wages or as federal unemployment (FUTA) wages. I am sorry this does not answer your question entirely, but it does verify that you can do this. UPDATE: I have finally found a direct answer to your question! I found it here: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sh/ar01.html Form W-2 and Form W-3 If you file one or more Forms W-2, you must also file Form W-3. You must report both cash and noncash wages in box 1, as well as tips and other compensation. The completed Forms W-2 and W-3 in the example (in these instructions) show how the entries are made. For detailed information on preparing these forms, see the General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3. Employee's portion of taxes paid by employer. If you paid all of your employee's share of social security and Medicare taxes, without deducting the amounts from the employee's pay, the employee's wages are increased by the amount of that tax for income tax withholding purposes. Follow steps 1 through 3 below. (See the example in these instructions.) Enter the amounts you paid on your employee's behalf in boxes 4 and 6 (do not include your share of these taxes). Add the amounts in boxes 3, 4, and 6. (However, if box 5 is greater than box 3, then add the amounts in boxes 4, 5, and 6.) Enter the total in box 1.",
"According to the TN DOL FAQ, the employer can choose how to pay wages. Other options include checks and cash. However, it is the employer's choice, not the employees, on how to pay the wages. In case of direct deposit, the employee can choose the bank at which to receive the money. Why would opening an account be unpractical is beyond me. You can also use services like AMEX Serve, NetSpend, or even Walmart's MoneyCard.",
"Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E.",
"It's all about keeping your employees happy and ensuring they feel like they're part of something other than a job. Make them feel like they're part of a family and support system. Throw in other things besides pizza parties once a month. Have corporate parties at your house on a weekend, or frequent happy hours. Have an employee of a month kind of thing or recognize your employees for the hard work they do. BUILD, SUPPORT, and SUSTAIN.",
"Welcome to the real world :-) There really aren't all that many ways for ordinary employees to lower taxes. You could put more in your 401k, buy a house (for the mortgage interest deduction, which lets you deduct some other things instead of taking standard deduction), or move to a different state to get rid of the state tax.",
"\"Here's an alternative. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of contract engineering firms (\"\"job shops\"\") in the United States, probably hundreds in California alone. They are in the business of doing what your \"\"employer\"\" wants you to do, they know how to do it, they have been doing it for decades, working with the biggest, most-established companies in the country. They have forgotten more about providing engineering services to clients, and paying the engineers, than you can learn in a lifetime. Call a few of them. Set up meetings. Budget a few hours for it. You want to talk with the most experienced recruiter in the office, the Old Guy Who Has Been There And Done That. Explain your situation, and tell them that, rather than go through all of the headaches yourself, you want to investigate the possibility of THEM handling all the headaches, for their usual markup of course. (You can probably word this better than I can, but you get the idea.) The shop may or may not be willing to talk about their markup. My personal opinion is that this is perfectly OK. What they make off of you, after your rate is paid, is THEIR business. Also, talk about what you do, and your recommended rate. It would not surprise me to learn that you are currently grossly underpaid. AND, mention that, if the client declines, you're going to be available immediately, and you'd certainly be open to working with them. (You will see this again.) In fact, if they have any current leads that you fit, you would certainly be interested in hearing about them. (They may already have a req from another client, for which you fit, for which the client is willing to pay much more than your current \"\"employer\"\".) If it were me, personally, I'd start with Yoh, Belcan, and maybe TAD Technical. These are three of the oldest and best. I'd also hit up CE Weekly, get a subscription, and find some other shops with offices in your area. Once you have a shop lined up, then ask your \"\"employer\"\" if, rather than you setting up a personal corporation, they'd be willing to work with an established Contract Engineering firm, who does this kind of thing for a living, who does this every day, who has been doing this for decades. Doing this is simpler for everyone, and, by going through an established firm, they avoid having to teach you how to do business with them. They also avoid the risk of having you reclassified by IRS as an employee, which exposes them to all kinds of legal and financial liability. If they say \"\"No\"\", WALK AWAY FROM THEM. Immediately. They've just thrown up a HUGE red flag. This is where the other discussions with the shop come into play.\"",
"If you are in the US and a regular employee, this will have to show up on your year-end W2 form as income. If it doesn't, there is some funky accounting business going and you should probably consult a professional for advice.",
"I would recommend pre-paid debit cards. Every quarter a fixed amount of money is loaded onto the card (or a new card is issued). This prevents any large-scale fraud from occurring.",
"\"Since you're also looking for alternative means of funding, have you considered doing part-time work -- during the holidays or on some of the weekends? With this kind of financing you have to watch out that the work does not interfere with your study. On the other hand it can be valuable work experience that can come in handy later in your life, such as when applying for your first \"\"real\"\" job. The kind of work you can do will depend a lot on the subject you are studying and what qualifications you have. For example, if you are studying computer science, there are a lot of freelance opportunities in programming. One of these could lead right to your first job after university. The two broad types of work you can do are: For freelance: Try searching for \"\"[subject] student freelance\"\" and look at sites like oDesk. Read up on tax concerns, research how to price your time, and start doing! For employment: Browse the job boards at your university. Contact businesses to ask for part-time opportunities. Hope this helps to open one of the alternative paths here. If you go down this road, remember to keep your priorities in mind. Especially the freelance work can easily interfere with your study and delay you unnecessarily. Good luck!\"",
"\"Fantastic find. The only thing is that gold and other precious metals would \"\"make sense\"\" as a potential way to deliver dividends (highly liquid, seen as borderline synonymous with cash, etc.). I wonder if anything more illiquid, such as my example, has been done or would make sense.\"",
"The IRS defines income quite specifically. On the topic What is Taxable and Nontaxable Income, they note: You can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. This section discusses many kinds of income that are taxable or nontaxable. It includes discussions on employee wages and fringe benefits, and income from bartering, partnerships, S corporations, and royalties. Bartering, or giving someone wages (or similar) in something other than currency (or some other specifically defined things, like fringe benefits), is taxed at fair market value: Bartering Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. For additional information, Refer to Tax Topic 420 - Bartering Income and Barter Exchanges. Bartering is more specifically covered in Topic 420 - Bartering Income: You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return. More details about income in general beyond the above articles is available in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income. It goes into great detail about different kinds of income. In your example, you'd have to calculate the fair market value of an avocado, and then determine how much cash-equivalent you were paid in. The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards. The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value. While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant. Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency. If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income. Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars.",
"IANAL (and nor am I an accountant), so I can't give a definitive answer as to legality, but AFAIK, what you propose is legal. But what's the benefit? Avoiding corporation tax? It's simplistic – and costly – to think in terms like that. You need to run the numbers for different scenarios, and make a plan. You can end up ahead of the game precisely by choosing to pay some corporate tax each year. Really! Read on. One of the many reasons that self-employed Canadians sometimes opt for a corporate structure over being a sole proprietor is to be able to not pay themselves everything the company earns each year. This is especially important when a business has some really good years, and others, meh. Using the corporation to retain earnings can be more tax effective. Example: Imagine your corporation earns, net of accounting & other non-tax costs except for your draws, $120,000/year for 5 years, and $0 in year 6. Assume the business is your only source of income for those 6 years. Would you rather: Pay yourself the entire $120,000/yr in years 1-5, then $0 in year 6 (living off personal savings you hopefully accumulated earlier), subjecting the $120,000/yr to personal income tax only, leaving nothing in the corporation to be taxed? Very roughly speaking, assuming tax rates & brackets are level from year to year, and using this calculator (which simplifies certain things), then in Ontario, then you'd net ~$84,878/yr for years 1-5, and $0 in year 6. Overall, you realized $424,390. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600,000 was 29.26%. vs. Pay yourself only $100,000/yr in years 1-5, leaving $20,000/yr subject to corporation tax. Assuming a 15.5% combined federal/provincial corporate tax rate (includes the small business deduction), then the corp. is left with $16,900/yr to add to retained earnings in years 1-5. In year 6, the corp. has $84,500 in retained earnings to be distributed to you, the sole owner, as a dividend (of the non-eligible kind.) Again, very roughly speaking, you'd personally net $73,560/yr in years 1-5, and then on the $84,500 dividend in year 6, you'd net $73,658. Overall, you realized $441,458. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600K was 26.42%. i.e. Scenario 2, which spreads the income out over the six years, saved 2.84% in tax, or $14,400. Smoothing out your income is also a prudent thing to do. Would you rather find yourself in year 6, having no clients and no revenue, with nothing left to draw on? Or would you rather the company had saved money from the good years to pay you in the lean one?",
"You're talking about NQO - non-qualified stock options. Even assuming the whole scheme is going to work, the way NQO are taxed is that the difference between the fair market value and the strike price is considered income to you and is taxed as salary. You'll save nothing, and will add a huge headache and additional costs of IPO and SEC regulations.",
"Sure you can, esp if you are creating a special class of unsecured creditor. Its going to piss off businesses and add an additional factor when validating the credit-worthiness (thus credit does cost a bit more) of a company but that may not be a bad thing considering that screwing over your employees for some cash should be more of a black mark than it is.",
"\"If you're really interested in the long-term success of your business, and you can get by in your personal finances without taking anything from the business for the time being, then don't. There is no \"\"legal requirement\"\" to pay yourself a prevailing wage if doing so would put the company out of business. it is common for a company's principals not to draw wages from the business until it is viable enough to sustain payroll. I was in that situation when I first began my business, so the notion that somehow I'm violating a law by being fiscally responsible for my own company is nonsense. Be wise with your new business. You didn't state why you feel the need to take some kind of payment out, but this can be a crucial mistake if it imperils your business or if that money could be better spent on marketing or some other areas which improve revenues. You can always create a salary deferral agreement between yourself and your own company which basically states that the company owes you wages but you are, for the time being, willing to defer accepting them until such time that the company has sufficient revenues to pay you. That's one solution, but the simplest answer is, if you don't need the money you're thinking of paying yourself, don't do it. Let that money work for you in the business so that it pays off better in the long run. Good luck!\"",
"Unfortunately, no. Think about the numbers. If you work for me, and I pay you $1000, you owe tax on $1000. If you still work, but I don't pay you, you have no tax due, but there's no benefit for you to collect for my stealing your time.",
"Here are the main ways of doing this that I've encountered. I've met advocates of each. You might be interested in this set of articles: http://www.slate.com/id/2281885/ which looks at some different ways of doing this and the financial - and other - effects.",
"I probably can, but I realized I also do have a commission sheet from the month of June which shows how much I made in just commissions, and then I could tell them I also get my 300 a week salary. Do you think that would suffice?",
"If you are referring to salaried employees, the overall salary generally is higher if overtime is required on a regular basis. All hourly paid employees in most jurisdictions under normal rules are entitled to over-time pay if the work more than 40 hrs, even highly skilled positions.",
"Interest payments You can make loans to people and collect interest.",
"I don't believe there exists a tax-advantage for paying employees a bonus instead of increased salary. It's all expense to the employer, it's all income to you, and it's taxed the same (bonus checks might have more withheld, but your end of year tax burden doesn't change). It does benefit your employer to delay a significant portion of your pay until the end of the year, delaying payment provides buffer in case of delays in getting paid by the client. Your employer could even put the extra money to work earning more money over the year. It would depend on your contract, but are you due your bonus if you were to leave your job before year-end? If not, that's a great reason to delay payment, because it makes you less likely to leave mid-year, and should you not work out they can keep the difference.",
"manage the company properly. If you aren't much aware about company rules and regulation or tax matters, get an accountant so that you don't mess up later. better off paying my self a dividend of 100% profit or as an employee? That depends on how much salary you intend to pay yourself, your dividend or how much business expenses you will incur while running the business. Generally speaking you are better off paying your self a minimum salary and pay the rest as dividends. But check out the dividend tax and the income tax you might need to pay and compare which situation you are better off. If you have a partner, using the dividend way will reduce your NI outgoes. ethical and legal? Ethically the dividend way might burn your conscience but it is perfectly legal way of doing things.",
"''that WE THE PEOPLE did not become owners of the PUBLICLY TRADED companies.'' This statement is inaccurate. The government received stocks, corporate bonds and the likes for every company they helped during the last financial statement. One article I read even suggest that we made a return on our investment with the capital gains , dividend and interest we received. Also dividend is a form of income so you're not giving a new idea you are just changing a word. How would you calculate those dividend? With what money would you pay such a program?",
"You can't Your problem is that no one will value you new currency call it bytecoin. People will ask why is the bytecoin worth anything and you don't have an answer. You employees will have worthless currency and be effectively making under minimum wage. Its the same as if you printed Charles dollars with your face instead of George Washington, no one would take them for real money or be willing to trade them for services or food. Bitcoin's basis of value is that many people will trade real services or other currencies for it, but it took decades for this willingness to use bitcoin to build, and mostly because of the useful features of bitcoin, it can protect anonymity is easy to transfer world wide and many more. Even with those features the value of bitcoin is very volatile and unreliablie because it lacks backing. How many decades are your employees willing to wait, what amazing new features will you nontechnical staff add that bitcoin lacks?",
"Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO.",
"\"The first rule I follow is pretty simple: Get paid for what you do. Earn a return on what you own. If you are running your company prudently, you should earn a salary for the position and responsibilities you hold within the business. This salary should be competitive. You should be able to replace yourself in the business at this salary. If your title is \"\"President\"\" or \"\"CEO\"\" - look for market rate salaries for others in that position within your industry and company size. If you wear multiple hats in a small business, you will likely have to blend this salary based on those various positions. Based on how you run your business, the money left over at the end of the year after you and your team takes a competitive wage is your profit. If there isn't any profit, then you might want to do some work on your business model. But if their is a profit, then it's a clear return on what you own and not just a payment for work completed. The idea would be that you could exit the business as an operator, pay someone else to do exactly what you do, and you would continue to get that profit return at the end of the year. This is when a business acts like a true asset. Whether you take your money in salary or profit distributions (or dividends) depending on your structure, taxes are about the same. W2'd salaries get normal employee contributed taxes, but then of course the company matches these. It is identical if you take a guaranteed payment or distribution that gets hit with self employment taxes. Profits are also going to get hit with the same taxes. Follow ups: 1) A fair salary would be a competitive market wage for the position you hold within the business. What is left over would be considered true profits and not just fabricated profits by taking a lower than market wage to boost the appearance of profitability. 2) Shareholders requesting salary information would be covered in your Operating Agreement or Shareholder Agreement. This might be terms you set with your investors. Or you might simply set a term that you only need approval if a single salary exceeds a cap (like $250,000). Which would mean you would need to present why you deserve a higher salary and have your board approve (if you are governed by said board via your investors). Profitability is a different ballpark. Your investors most likely have a right to see a monthly, quarterly, and/or annual Profit & Loss statement which should clearly state profitability. I can't imagine running a completely closed book company to my investors. Actually... I can't really imagine ever investing in a company where I am not permitted to see the financials. Something to also consider here is the threat of trying to keep your profit numbers low in order to not pay taxes or to pay yourself a higher salary. If you ever plan to sell or exit the company, most widely accepted valuations of a business are done from profits (or EBIDTA). You might think you are saving yourself a couple points on taxes by avoiding profits in the short term, but if you exit the business and get a 3-5X (or even up to 12X in some cases) multiplier on your annual profits, you might be kicking yourself for trying to hide them through your accounting practices. Buyers will often sniff out an owner who created false profits by not paying themselves, but what's harder to do is figure out how much profits should have been when there were none on the books. By saving yourself $100,000 in taxes this year, could add up to close to $1,000,000 in an acquisition. Good luck.\"",
"Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..",
"There is currently a bill in Washington that will change the limit for salaried employees receiving overtime pay. It will be raised to $50400. I work 4 hours of overtime each week, which if the bill is passed, equates to an additional $7800 annually. If my company raises my salary to just above the limit then they would not have to pay the overtime. That would only be a raise of approx. $3000. Why would I want to take the raise, and still have to work the overtime, when I can choose to not take the raise and possibly not have to work it any longer. I would rather have the time off, but if I'm going to have to work it, then I'll take the more than double overtime pay.",
"DRiPs come to mind as something that may be worth examining. If you take the Microsoft example, consider what would happen if you bought additional shares each year by re-investing the dividends and the stock also went up over the years. A combination of capital appreciation in the share price plus the additional shares purchased over time can produce a good income stream over time. The key is to consider how long are you contributing, how much are you contributing and what end result are you expecting as some companies can have larger dividends if you look at REITs for example.",
"You can't be doing it yourself. Only your employer can do it. If the employer doesn't provide the option - switch employers. The only way for you to do it yourself is if you're the employer, i.e.: self-employed.",
"If my experience playing tycoon games is any indication, there is usually a point when you can't help but hoard more money faster even if you do nothing. Also, giving money to employees could have unpredictable effects. It might boost morale in the short term, but in the mid-long term it could mess up with whatever HR or managers are trying to do in managing their team and culture. It will also make your brightest people leave faster to set up new competitors..",
"It would depend on the health insurance that was being offered, and if it covers your family or just you. We pay around $500-600 for individual health insurance for our employees (families cost north of 1500 a month). It's extremely expensive. Provide more details on the stock purchase plan as well (it sounds to me like in that case you'd only be getting for free what it would cost to purchase the stock... but that's only $10-15, so negligible in this case.)",
"This is called imputed income, which is generally not taxed in the US.",
"If you have a mortgage, making part of it a mortgage-backed overdraft (ANZ call theirs a Flexi loan) is worth looking at. I'm in a similar situation, consulting since 2010. I pay GST and provisional tax every six months. If I've budgeted right, the balance on the mortgage-backed overdraft loan goes to zero right before I send the massive payment to the tax department in May and October. One problem is that some banks don't like to give these accounts to sole traders. Using a mortgage broker may help get around that restriction.",
"Salaries and etc are a business expense and chargeable against revenue for tax purposes. It is NOT tax deductible but it is an expense on an income statement in calculating net profit (after tax). You could say salary & etc are tax effective but not tax deductible.",
"To fairly compare a comp-only job to a job that offers insurance, get a quote for health insurance. Call your local insurance broker and find out what it would cost. Because if you aren't getting insurance from your employer, you'll have to get it elsewhere. If you get a quote on an HSA, don't forget to add in the annual deductible as part of the cost. On the ESPP, I'd count it as zero. The rationale being that so much of your financial status is tied to your employer that you don't really want to tie up too much more in company stock. (I.e. Company hits hard times, stock tanks, and then they lay you off. Double whammy -- both your assets and income.) But given that I've only been employed by companies that no longer exist in their original form, my perspective may be warped.",
"If you are regularly taking payments of $10,000 I'm very surprised you aren't already set up to accept credit card payments. If you are going to be doing this much in the future it would be a good thing to investigate. Some other options might be:",
"I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation. Not sure what you are referring to.",
"We don't make enough to really consider it a salary, but I've heard using a draw without a salary is a bad idea. As any other illegal action, not paying yourself a reasonable salary when being a corporate officer is indeed a bad idea. I have no idea what I need to do to actually get some money in our pockets. The answer is simple. You need to earn more money. Since it is S-Corp, it doesn't matter if you keep the profits on the corporate account or distribute - the profits will be taxed to you. You are also, as I said above, required by law to pay yourself a reasonable salary. Reasonable meaning corresponding to market rates. Paying a CPA or a Software Engineer a minimum wage will not be reasonable. That is, of course, if you're profitable, you're not required to pay yourself more money than the corporation actually has. Just to be clear, my answer refers to the question asked, and the confusing answer above that made a claim that has no substantiation in the law. I do not intend to write a thesis about pros and cons of using S-Corp every time a question about reasonable salary is asked.",
"Many countries have employers report their employees' salaries and withhold some money for income tax purposes (it's called “pay as you earn”, “withholding taxes” or taxing “at the source”). Often the system is designed in such a way that most people actually pay too much and can get money back at the end of the year. In that case, the salary you receive can certainly be considered a “net salary”. Depending on the tax system, individuals might need to file a separate tax returns to report any other income (investments, rents, whatever) or benefit from tax incentives but it can also be optional. If you live in such a country and your situation is simple enough that there are no applicable deductibles, you might simply choose to forgo it and let your employer take care of everything.",
"Ask your accountant about convertable preference shares. This would permit you to loan money to your company and then convert the debt to equity, should you so choose, at a later stage. As with the answer by bstpierre, these are all contractual arrangements conducted at arms-length.",
"\"Equity could mean stock options. If that's the case if the company makes it big, you'll have the option to buy stocks cheap (which can then be sold at a huge profit) How are you going to buy those without income? 5% equity is laughable. I'd be looking for 30-40% if not better without salary. Or even better, a salary. To elaborate, 5% is fine, and even normal for an early employee taking a mild pay cut in exchange for a chance at return. That chance of any return on the equity is only about 1/20 (94% of startups fail) There is no reason for an employee to work for no pay. An argument could be made for a cofounder, with direct control and influence in the company to work for equity only, but it would be a /lot/ more (that 30-40%), or an advisory role (5% is reasonable) I also just noticed you mentioned \"\"investing\"\" in the startup with cash. As an angel investor, I'd still expect far more than 5%, and preferred shares at that. More like 16-20%. Read this for more info on how equity is usually split.\"",
"Erisa laws protect your retirement just like something should mandate what minimum ownership should be to classify yourself as exempt from labor laws. I like this idea a lot....however how does 1 employee present enough value to actually effect the price of their company stock? This would only work for top brass positions....which is probably the way it should be.",
"There is also babysitting, dog walking and house sitting. Depending on their age of course. You should also investigate what is required to get them the ability to setup their own Roth IRA. I know one of the requirements is you can't put more into the Roth then was earned in income in the year. They might also have to file an income tax return (not sure about that one). Just think of how far ahead of the game they will be if they can get a couple of grand or more in a Roth account while in their early teens.",
"I certainly do not agree and you are making some sweeping statements without backing them up. What I am saying is that a company cannot make a promise of credit to an employee without having something to back that up. If you don't have that then you cannot offer pensions or other futures that you cannot ensure are going to be properly funded. No one forces a company to offer pensions in this day and age (there are exceptions of course) so they do not need to offer it at all. Things like pensions are often used as incentives that can be provided in lieu of cash payments to the employee. If we are going to make cash like exchanges of value then that value should be just as guaranteed as it is when the company promises to pay back a loan. In short you should not be able to hire employees on a financial promise you cannot keep in good faith. If for some reason you cannot keep that promise, just like with standard credit it should hurt you. Or you know, as a company don't make BS promises and just pay people what they are worth.",
"Rather than discuss whether you're thinking about things incorrectly, I'll just show you how to answer the question you asked: Now as to what wage to pay yourself to meet your expenses, do the same thing but only using personal components:",
"\"I can say from personal experience that, as an employee, I would prefer a system like this for determining pay scale. I had a situation happen to me that was similar to the Yak driver analogy in the article: I had been at a software company for a little while, and they were always hiring with a chronic shortage of talent. Finally they hired some new guys, but still had open positions. One of the new guys who came on was making a full $15k more in salary than me, for doing the exact same job-- and no, he wasn't a lead, Sr., or anything like that. No matter how I tried to not let this get to me, it was hard not to let it affect my morale, and I finally ended up leaving the company. So yeah, I'm sure guys like Ntang would say it's my fault for not negotiating a better salary, but since that's impossible (due to the bureaucracy) in most jobs, the fact is that the best way to \"\"negotiate a better salary\"\" is usually to just look elsewhere.\"",
"Sure you can. Obviously it means your company will make less profit, saving you 20% corporation tax, while your personal income will be higher, meaning you will likely spend more than 20% in income tax and National Insurance contributions.",
"\"I write software myself and was involved in a couple of start ups. One failed, another was wildly successful, but I did not receive much in compensation. The former I received stock, but since it failed, it was worthless anyway. There should be compensation for your time in addition to equity in a company. Any agreement needs be in writing. In the later situation I was told to expect about a 17%/year bonus, but nothing could be guaranteed. Translation: \"\"It will never happen.\"\" It didn't, but I meet my lovely wife there so I have that for a bonus. Agreements need to address the bad things can happen. What happens if one of you is no longer interested in continuing? What happens if one of you die, or addicted to something? What happens if one of you gets thrown in jail or disabled? Right now you are full of optimism and hope, but bad things happen. Cover those things while you still like each other. It might be enough to have a good salary, and some stock options. You man not be interested in running the day to day business. Most of all good luck, I wish you all the best!\"",
"Yeah, not all small businesses are barely scraping by. On another note, I know in some places restaurants, regulations and laws have been introduced which lowers minimum wage for tip earners (like servers). It's an interesting thought but I'm not sure how well it works.",
"Hah, good luck getting those kind of terms. There's always another fresh-faced new grad with dollar signs in his eyes who doesn't know enough to ask about outstanding shares, dilution, or preferences. Very few startups are looking for penny-ante 'investor' employees who can only put <$100k. That's what co-founders are for. Actual employees are lucky if they can properly value their options, let alone control how much it ends up being worth in the end.",
"He's trying to create a compensation system that is as fair as possible. >I can see certain benefits too, but look - as an employee, I want to work in an environment where I can advocate for myself and, occasionally, negotiate for better compensation. **Some people aren't good at these things, and frankly, that sucks for them. I'll eat their lunch if they let me.** What you're saying is you want to work at a place that rewards the skills **you** have. This is a very selfish perspective, but at least you're honest about it. Of course you want to work somewhere that pays you more than other people. However I don't see how it benefits the company to reward employees that are good at negotiating salary. I'd rather have employees that are good at making product.",
"My understanding (I am not a lawyer or tax expert) is that you are not allowed to work for free, but you can pay yourself minimum wage for the hours worked. There are probably National Insurance implications as well but I don't know. The main thing is, though, that if HMRC think that you've set up this system as a tax avoidance scheme then they're allowed to tax you as though all the income had been yours in the first place. If you are considering such a setup I would strongly advise you to hire a qualified small business accountant who will be familiar with the rules and will be able to advise you on what is and is not possible / sensible. Falling outside the rules (even inadvertently) leaves you liable to a lot of hassle and potentially fines etc.",
"In the UK at least, we have Credit Unions. Credit Unions are not-for-profit organisations that don't pay interest on your balance, but instead give you a share of their profits at the end of the year (or at least my local branch do). This normally equates to around 1% of my balance.",
"At the most basic level, the employee is getting a share of ownership in the company and would get a percentage of the sales price. That said, as littleadv alluded to, different share classes have different priorities and get paid in different orders. In a bankruptcy, for example, some classes almost never get paid in practice because they are so far down the ladder of priority. The first step you should take would be to try to clarify what you are getting with the company itself. Failing that, contact a financial professional or an attorney in your area who can read the terms and give you a better understanding of the contract before you sign.",
"Yes, there is indeed a great alternative for all European residents: getting a Revolut account. Revolut is a fully-online bank who's main benefits include the lack of fees (with some limits) and a great exchange rate for all currency operations (better than what you would get at any brick and mortar bank in Europe). In your particular scenario it would work as following: This is what I personally use to handle a salary in EUR while living in Czech Republic. Things might change in the future once they run out of investor money, but for now it's the only solution I know for converting currencies without a loss.",
"I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime. 3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.",
"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf",
"I'm guessing you're talking about options given to employees. The company can issue stock options at whatever strike price it wants. The difference between the strike price and the actual market value is considered income to the employee. You can get the options at $0 strike just as well (although companies generally just give RSUs instead in this case).",
"The company could use registered shares with restricted transferability, i.e. shares that require the consent of the issuing company for a change of ownership."
] |
[
"You can't Your problem is that no one will value you new currency call it bytecoin. People will ask why is the bytecoin worth anything and you don't have an answer. You employees will have worthless currency and be effectively making under minimum wage. Its the same as if you printed Charles dollars with your face instead of George Washington, no one would take them for real money or be willing to trade them for services or food. Bitcoin's basis of value is that many people will trade real services or other currencies for it, but it took decades for this willingness to use bitcoin to build, and mostly because of the useful features of bitcoin, it can protect anonymity is easy to transfer world wide and many more. Even with those features the value of bitcoin is very volatile and unreliablie because it lacks backing. How many decades are your employees willing to wait, what amazing new features will you nontechnical staff add that bitcoin lacks?",
"There are several local currency initiatives in the US list here. Most are attempts to normalize a value as a living wage, or encourage local consumption networks. If you are in the catchment region of one of these, see if you can get a grant or loan to get started (if you are willing to buy into the philosophy of the group such as a $10 minimum wage) m"
] |
8934
|
Dividend yield for multiple years?
|
[
"244334",
"116675"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"244334",
"116675",
"221477",
"144775",
"374330",
"341192",
"368848",
"189142",
"239137",
"408610",
"102138",
"60098",
"437465",
"561850",
"38586",
"420097",
"276860",
"49312",
"223477",
"404840",
"389077",
"245117",
"95278",
"378427",
"575237",
"532616",
"145096",
"501838",
"378508",
"244754",
"15785",
"101188",
"531066",
"226264",
"99084",
"386309",
"535659",
"284982",
"458345",
"55499",
"476260",
"146091",
"350607",
"313248",
"561140",
"503780",
"50253",
"11032",
"371210",
"150430",
"202329",
"61193",
"448044",
"206727",
"42427",
"154927",
"328182",
"415511",
"215486",
"21103",
"4735",
"154450",
"76457",
"395437",
"197047",
"332567",
"490798",
"96697",
"591089",
"107218",
"69771",
"428315",
"542667",
"597687",
"509879",
"330856",
"403826",
"347510",
"285238",
"176070",
"471322",
"553331",
"565765",
"105391",
"62346",
"158523",
"129327",
"456667",
"168347",
"234893",
"169754",
"584128",
"521274",
"317666",
"523303",
"379232",
"249360",
"120297",
"46774",
"537111"
] |
[
"I've recently discovered that Morningstar provides 5yr avgs of a few numbers, including dividend yield, for free. For example, see the right-hand column in the 'Current Valuation' section, 5th row down for the 5yr avg dividend yield for PG: http://financials.morningstar.com/valuation/price-ratio.html?t=PG®ion=usa&culture=en-US Another site that probably has this, and alot more, is YCharts. But that is a membership site so you'll need to join (and pay a membership fee I believe.) YCharts is supposedly pretty good for long-term statistical information and trend graphs for comparing and tracking stocks.",
"Dividend yield is a tough thing to track because it's a moving target. Dividends are paid periodically the yield is calculated based on the stock price when the dividend is declared (usually, though some services may update this more frequently). I like to calculate my own dividend by annualizing the dividend payment divided by my cost basis per share. As an example, say you have shares in X, Co. X issues a quarterly dividend of $1 per share and the share price is $100; coincidentally this is the price at which you purchased your shares. But a few years goes by and now X issues it's quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share, and the share price is $160. However your shares only cost you $100. Your annual yield on X is 6%, not the published 3.75%. All of this is to say that looking back on dividend yields is somewhat similar to nailing jello to the wall. Do you look at actual dividends paid through the year divided by share price? Do you look at the annualized dividend at the time of issue then average those? The stock price will fluctuate, that will change the yield; depending on where you bought your stock, your actual yield will vary from the published amount as well.",
"I second the Yahoo! Finance key stats suggestion, but I like Morningstar even better: http://quote.morningstar.com/stock/s.aspx?t=roic They show projected yield, based on the most recent dividend; the declared and ex-dividend dates, and the declared amount; and a table of the last handful of dividend payments. Back to Yahoo, if you want to see the whole dividend history, select Historical Prices, and from there, select Dividends Only. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=ROIC&a=10&b=3&c=2009&d=00&e=4&f=2012&g=v",
"Dividends yield and yield history are often neglected, but are very important factors that you should consider when looking at a stock for long-term investment. The more conservative portion of my portfolio is loaded up with dividend paying stocks/MLPs like that are yielding 6-11% income. In an environment when deposit and bond yields are so poor, they are a great way to earn reasonably safe income.",
"The yield on Div Data is showing 20% ((3.77/Current Price)*100)) because that only accounts for last years dividend. If you look at the left column, the 52 week dividend yield is the same as google(1.6%). This is calculated taking an average of n number of years. The data is slightly off as one of those sites would have used an extra year.",
"\"In the case of a specific fund, I'd be tempted to get get an annual report that would disclose distribution data going back up to 5 years. The \"\"View prospectus and reports\"\" would be the link on the site to note and use that to get to the PDF of the report to get the data that was filed with the SEC as that is likely what matters more here. Don't forget that mutual fund distributions can be a mix of dividends, bond interest, short-term and long-term capital gains and thus aren't quite as simple as stock dividends to consider here.\"",
"What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.",
"\"Dividend yields can also reflect important information about the company's status. For example, a company that has never lowered or stopped paying dividends is a \"\"strong\"\" company because it has the cash/earnings power to maintain its dividend regardless of the market. Ideally, a company should pay dividends for at least 10 years for an investor to consider the company as a \"\"consistent payer.\"\" Furthermore, when a company pays dividend, it generally means that it has more cash than it can profitably reinvest in the business, so companies that pay dividends tend to be older but more stable. An important exception is REIT's and their ilk - to avoid taxation, these types of funds must distribute 90% of their earnings to their shareholders, so they pay very high dividends. Just look at stocks like NLY or CMO to get an idea. The issue here, however, is two fold: So a high dividend can be great [if it has been paid consistently] or risky [if the company is new or has a short payment history], and dividends can also tell us about what the company's status is. Lastly, taxation on dividend income is higher than taxation on capital gains, but by reinvesting dividends you can avoid this tax and lower your potential capital gain amount, thus limiting taxes. http://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/papers/highdiv_research.pdf is an excellent paper on dividend yields and investing.\"",
"If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price.",
"\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \"\"quarterly dividends,\"\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\"",
"\"Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a \"\"normal\"\" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap.\"",
"The dividend is for a quarter of the year, three months. 80 cents is 3.9% of $20.51. Presumably the Div/yield changes as the stock price changes. On Yahoo, they specify that the yield is based on a particular stated date. So it's only the exact number if the stock trades at the price on that date.",
"Yahoo provides dividend data from their Historical Prices section, and selecting Dividends Only, along with the dates you wish to return data for. Here is an example of BHP's dividends dating back to 1998. Further, you can download directly to *.csv format if you wish: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=BHP.AX&a=00&b=29&c=1988&d=06&e=6&f=2015&g=v&ignore=.csv",
"You can use Yahoo! Finance to pull this information in my use. It is listed under Key Statistics -> Dividends & Splits. For example here is Exxon Mobile (XOM): Dividend Payout Information",
"What you want is the distribution yield, which is 2.65. You can see the yield on FT as well, which is listed as 2.64. The difference between the 2 values is likely to be due to different dates of updates. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CORP:LSE:USD",
"Dividend yield is not the only criteria for stock selection. Companies past performance, management, past deals, future expansion plans, and debt equity ratio should be considered. I would also like to suggest you that one should avoid making any investment in the companies that are directly affected by frequent changes in regulations released by government. All the above mentioned criteria are important for your decision as they make an impact on your investment and can highly affect the profits.",
"However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%",
"Usually I've seen people treat the dividend like a separate cash flow, which is discounted if the company doesn't have a well-established dividend history. I've never really seen dividends rolled into a total return chart (except in the context of an article), probably because dividend reinvestment is a nightmare of record-keeping in a taxable account, and most folks don't do it. One of my brokers (TD Ameritrade) does allow you to plot dividend yield historically on their charts.",
"\"For free, 5 years is somewhat available, and 10 years is available to a limited extent on money.msn.com. Some are calculated for you. Gurufocus is also a treasure trove of value statistics that do in fact reach back 10 years. From the Gurufocus site, the historical P/E can be calculated by dividing their figure for \"\"Earnings per Share\"\" by the share price at the time. It looks like their EPS figure is split adjusted, so you'll have to use the split adjusted share price. \"\"Free cash\"\", defined in the comments as money held at the end of the year, can be found on the balance sheet as \"\"Cash, Cash Equivalents, Marketable Securities\"\"; however, the more common term is \"\"free cash flow\"\", and its growth rate can be found at the top of the gurufocus financials page.\"",
"Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.",
"Whenever a website mentions Hypothetical Growth of $100, $1,000, or $10,000, it assumes that that investor himself will reinvest the dividend. This is true whether you look at Morningstar or Financial Times. Unless the website does not have dividend data, e.g. Google Finance. If you want to compare the account value after withdrawing dividends: Since the Income class pays dividends annually, there will be 1 jumps per year. For example, the 2013 dividend payment: and the 2014 dividend payment:",
"The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.",
"The sum of the dividend yield plus capital growth is called total return. In your examples, you get to a total return of 7% through several different (and theoretically equivalent) paths. That is the right way of thinking.",
"\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"",
"Indices such as SP500 are typically including dividends - the payment of dividends doesn't impact the value of the index. Where can I find data on these dividends? I found data on dividend yields, but these give me access only to the sum of dividends over the last year. This in turn can change either because there are new dividends being paid, or because you stop counting last year's dividends...",
"At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.",
"From the hover text of the said screen; Latest dividend/dividend yield Latest dividend is dividend per share paid to shareholders in the most recent quarter. Dividend yield is the value of the latest dividend, multiplied by the number of times dividends are typically paid per year, divided by the stock price. So for Ambev looks like the dividend is inconsistantly paid and not paid every quarter.",
"Yield can be thought of as the interest rate you would receive from that investment in the form of a dividend for stocks or interest payments on a bond. The yield takes into account the anticipated amount to be received per share/unit per year and the current price of the investment. Of course, the yield is not a guaranteed return like a savings account. If the investment yield is 4% when you buy, it can drop in value such that you actually lose money during your hold period, despite receiving income from the dividend or interest payments.",
"You might want to look up Dividend Yield Trap. Many stocks with high dividend yields got that way not because they decided to increase their dividend, but because their prices have dropped. Usually the company is not in good shape and will reduce their dividend, and you're stuck with a low-yield stock which has also decreased in price.",
"You can use long-term options called LEAPS to increase dividend yield. Here's how it works: Let's say you buy a dividend-yielding stock for $38 that pays an annual dividend of $2 for a 5.3% yield. Next, you SELL a deep-in-the-money LEAPS options. In this hypothetical we'll sell the $25 call option for $13. That now reduces our cost basis from $38 to $25. Since the dividend remains @ $2, our yield is now $2/$25 = 8%. Now there are issues that may need to be dealt with like early assignment of the option where rolling the option may be necessary. More details of this strategy can be found on my website.",
"Price doesn't mean anything. Price is simply total value (market capitalization) divided by number of shares. Make sure you consider historical dividends when hunting for big yields. It's very possible that the data you're pulling is only the annualized yield on the most recent dividend payment. Typically dividends are declared in dollar terms. The total amount of the dividend to be issued is then divided by the number of shares and paid out. Companies rarely (probably never but rarely to avoid the peanut gallery comments about the one company that does this) decide dividend payments based on some proportion of the stock price. Between company A and company B paying approximately the same historical yield, I'd look at both companies to make sure neither is circling the tank. If both look strong, I'd probably buy a bit of both. If one looks terrible buy the other one. Don't pick based on the price.",
"Look at their dividend history. The chart there is simply reporting the most recent dividend (or a recent time period, in any event). GF for example: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gf/dividend-history It's had basically two significant dividends and a bunch of small dividends. Past performance is not indicative of future returns and all that. It might never have a similar dividend again. What you're basically looking at with that chart is a list of recently well-performing funds - funds who had a good year. They obviously may or may not have such a good year next year. You also have funds that are dividend-heavy (intended explicitly to return significant dividends). Those may return large dividends, but could still fall in value significantly. Look at ACP for example: it's currently trading near it's 2-year low. You got a nice dividend, but the price dropped quite a bit, so you lost a chunk of that money. (I don't know if ACP is a dividend-heavy fund, but it looks like it might be.) GF's chart is also indicative of something interesting: it fell off a cliff right after it gave its dividend (at the end of the year). Dropped $4. I think that's because this is a mutual fund priced based on the NAV of its holdings - so it dividended some of those holdings, which dropped the share price (and the NAV of the fund) by that amount. IE, $18 a share, $4 a share dividend, so after that $14 a share. (The rest of the dividends are from stock holdings which pay dividends themselves, if I understand properly). Has a similar drop in Dec 2013. They may simply be trying to keep the price of the fund in the ~$15 a share range; I suspect (but don't know) that some funds have in their charter a requirement to stay in a particular range and dividend excess value.",
"\"This page from simplestockinvesting.com gives details of total returns for the S&P500 for each decade over the last 60 years, including total returns for the entire 60 year period. It is important to understand that, from an investors point of view, the total return includes both the change in index value (capital gain) plus dividends received. This total then needs to be adjusted for inflation to give the \"\"total real return\"\". As noted in the analysis provided, 44% of the total return from the S&P500 over the last 80 years comes from dividends. For the DowJones30, this site provides a calculator for total returns and inflation adjusted total returns for user selected periods. Finding comparable analysis for the NASDAQ market is more difficult. The NASDAQ market site provides gross values for total returns over fixed periods, but you will then need to do the arithmetic to calculate the equivalent average annual total returns. No inflation adjusted values for \"\"real\"\" returns are provided, so again you will need to combine inflation data from elsewhere and do the arithmetic.\"",
"CHN is a Closed-End Fund. CHN actually pays out three types of distributions: In the case of CHN, they appear to be paying yearly. The most recent dividend, with exdate of 18 Dec 2014, consisted of $3.4669 of Long-term capital gains and $0.2982 cash dividend. Prior to that, the dividend with exdate of 19 Dec 2013 consisted of $2.8753 long-term capital gains and $0.4387 cash dividend. For a standard dividend yield you typically would not expect short-term and long-term capital events to be included in a yield calculation, as these events really only occur in relation to a fund rebalancing (changing its investments) and are not really due to the actual performance of the fund in any way. Most free sites that provide dividend information do not make a distinction on the dividend type. Data source: Premium Data Full Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Premium Data/Norgate.",
"Join me for a look at the Quote for SPY. A yield of 1.82%. So over a year's time, your $100K investment will give you $1820 in dividends. The Top 10 holdings show that Apple is now 3% of the S&P. With a current dividend of 2.3%. Every stock in the S&P has its own different dividend. (Although the zeros are all the same. Not every stock has a dividend.) The aggregate gets you to the 1.82% current dividend. Dividends are accumulated and paid out quarterly, regardless of which months the individual stocks pay.",
"This answer contains three assumptions: New Share Price: Old Share Price * 1.0125 Quarterly Dividend: (New Share Price*0.01) * # of Shares in Previous Quarter Number of Shares: Shares from Previous Quarter + Quarterly Dividend/New Share Price For example, starting from right after Quarter One: New share price: $20 * 1.0125 = 20.25 1000 shares @ $20.25 a share yields $20.25 * 0.01 * 1000 = $202.5 dividend New shares: $202.5/20.25 = 10 shares Quarter Two: New share price: $20.503 1010 shares @ 20.503 yields $20.503*0.01*1010 = $207.082 dividend New shares: $207.082/20.503 = 10.1 shares Repeat over many cycles: 8 Quarters (2 years): 1061.52 shares @ $21.548 a share 20 Quarters (5 years): 1196.15 shares @ $25.012 a share 40 Quarters (10 years): 1459.53 shares @ $32.066 a share Graphically this looks like this: It's late enough someone may want to check my math ;). But I'd also assert that a 5% growth rate and a 4% dividend rate is pretty optimistic.",
"Is my math correct? The Math is correct, however Dividends don't work this way. The Yield is Post Facto. i.e. Given the dividend that is declared every quarter, once calculates the yield. The dividends are not fixed or guaranteed. These change from Quarter to Quarter or at times they are not given at all. The yield is 3.29% and the value is $114 per share. Assuming that the price remains exactly the same for an entire year, and that I purchase only one share, then this should be the math for calculating the yield: 114 x 0.0329 = 3.7506 What the Link is showing is that last dividend of MCD was 0.94 for Q3; that means total for a year will be 0.94*4 [3.76], this means yield will be 3.29%. Note this year there were only 3 Dividend was 0.89 on 26-Feb, 0.89 on 2-Jun and 0.94 on 29-Nov. It is unlikely that there will be one more dividend this year. So for this year the correct post facto calculation would be 0.89+0.89+.94 = 2.72 and hence an yield of 2.38% Also, are there any fees/deductions, or would I receive the amount in full, which should be $3.75? There are no fee deducted. Not sure about US tax treatment on Dividends.",
"Dividend yields are a product of the dollar amount paid to shareholders and the stock price. Dividends yields rise when a company is shunned by investors. It may be shunned because the earnings and/or dividend are at risk. Recent examples are SDRL and KMI. Most investors would love an 8% yield so I would wonder why the stock is being ignored or shunned.",
"Great answers. Here's my two cents: First, don't forget to look at the overall picture, not just the dividend. Study the company's income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the last few years. Make sure they have good earnings potential, and are not carrying too much debt. I know it's dull, but it's better to miss an opportunity than to buy a turkey and watch the dividends and the share price tank. I went through this with BAC (Bank of America) a couple of years ago. They had a 38-year history of rising dividends when I bought them, and the yield was about 8%. Then the banking crisis happened and the dividend went from $2.56/share to $0.04, and the price fell from $40 to $5. (I stuck with it, continuing to buy at lower and lower prices, and eventually sold them all at $12 and managed to break even, but it was not a pleasant experience) Do your homework. :) Still, one of the most reliable ways to judge a company's dividend-paying ability is to look at its dividend history. Once a company has started paying a dividend there is a strong expectation from shareholders that these payments will continue, and the company's management will try very hard to maintain them. (Though sometimes this doesn't work out, e.g. BAC) You should see an uninterrupted stream of non-decreasing payments over a period of at least 5 years (this timeframe is just a rule of thumb). Well-established, profitable companies also tend to increase their dividends over time, which has the added benefit of pushing up their share price. So you're getting increasing dividends and capital gains. Next, look at the company's payout ratio over time, and the actual cost of the dividend. Can the projected earnings cover the dividend cost without going above the payout ratio? If not, then the dividend is likely to get reduced. In the case of CIM, the dividend history is short and erratic. The earnings are also all over the place, so it's hard to predict what will happen next year. The company is up to its eyeballs debt (current ratio is .2), and its earnings have dropped by 20% in the last quarter. They have lost money in two of the last three years, even though earning have jumped dramatically. This is a very young company, and in my opinion it is too early for them to be paying dividends. A very speculative stock, and you are more likely to make money from capital gains than dividends. AAE is a different story. They are profitable, and have a long dividend history, although the dividend was cut in half recently. This may be a good to buy them hoping the dividend comes back once the economy recovers. However, they are trading at over 40 times earnings, which seems expensive, considering their low profit margins. Before investing your money, invest in your education. :) Get some books on interpretation of financial staments, and learn how to read the numbers. It's sort of like looking at the codes in The Matrix, and seeing the blonde in the red dress (or whatever it was). Good luck!",
"\"Someone (I forget who) did a study on classifying total return by the dividend profiles. In descending order by category, the results were as follows: 1) Growing dividends. These tend to be moderate yielders, say 2%-3% a year in today's markets. Because their dividends are starting from a low level, the growth of dividends is much higher than stocks in the next category. 2) \"\"Flat\"\" dividends. These tend to be higher yielders, 5% and up, but growing not at all, like interest on bonds, or very slowly (less than 2%-3% a year). 3) No dividends. A \"\"neutral\"\" posture. 4) Dividend cutters. Just \"\"bad news.\"\"\"",
"\"This is the same answer as for your other question, but you can easily do this yourself: ( initial adjusted close / final adjusted close ) ^ ( 1 / ( # of years sampled) ) Note: \"\"# of years sampled\"\" can be a fraction, so the one week # of years sampled would be 1/52. Crazy to say, but yahoo finance is better at quick, easy, and free data. Just pick a security, go to historical prices, and use the \"\"adjusted close\"\". money.msn's best at presenting finances quick, easy, and cheap.\"",
"\"zPesk has a great answer about dividends generally, but to answer your question specifically about yield traps, here are a few things that I look for: As with everything, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. A 17% yield is pretty out of this world, even for a REIT. And I wouldn't bet on it holding up. Compare a company's yield to that of others in the same industry (different industries have different \"\"standards\"\" for what is considered a high or low yield) Dividends have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is cash flow. Look at the company's financial statements. Do they have sufficient cash flow to pay the dividend? Have there been any recent changes in their cash flow situation? How are earnings holding up? Debt levels? Cash on hand? Sudden moves in stock price. A sudden drop in the stock price will cause the yield to rise. Sometimes this indicates a bargain, but if the drop is due to a real worry about the company's financial health (see #2) it's probably an indication that a dividend cut is coming. What does their dividend history look like? Do they have a consistent track record of paying out good dividends for years and years? Companies with a track record of paying dividends consistently and/or increasing their dividend regularly are likely to continue to do so.\"",
"\"The key is to look at total return, that is dividend yields plus capital growth. Some stocks have yields of 5%-7%, and no growth. In that case, you get the dividends, and not a whole lot more. These are called dividend stocks. Other stocks pay no dividends. But if they can grow at 15%-20% a year or more, you're fine.These are called growth stocks. The safest way is to get a \"\"balanced\"\" combination of dividends and growth, say a yield of 3% growing at 8%-10% a year, for a total return of 11%-13%. meaning that you get the best of both worlds.These are called dividend growth stocks.\"",
"Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio.",
"Having a good dividend yield doesn't guarantee that a stock is safe. In the future, the company may run into financial trouble, stop paying dividends, or even go bankrupt. For this reason, you should never buy a stock just because it has a high dividend yield. You also need some criteria to determine whether that stock is safe to buy. Personally, I consider a stock is reasonably safe if it meets the following criteria:",
"\"Dividend rate is \"\"dividend per share\"\" over a specified time period, usually a year. So in the first example, if the company paid a $1/share dividend over the year before the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $100, while if it paid the $1/share the year after the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $105. The company could have achieved the same thing by paying total dividends of $1.05/share, which is what the last phrase of the last quoted paragraph is saying. Here's an Investopedia page on dividend rate. Also, what you're calling \"\"payout ratio\"\" is really \"\"dividend yield\"\". \"\"Payout ratio\"\" is how much of the company's net earnings are paid out in dividends. That's all in the US, I could see the terms being used differently outside the US.\"",
"There have been many interesting and correct answers but to give a direct answer to your first question, dividend yield is simply dividend over current share price. So, if the share price drops, your dividend yield increases proportionately. Dividend yield is not something one should use as the only source of information of whether a stock is a good/bad buy. It does not show many important factors: the riskiness of the company business, its financial position, profitability, ability to generate cash. Furthermore, dividend yield is just a snapshot of an income gain at a given point in time. It does not mean that this very dividend policy is going to continue in the future (especially not so if the company finances this dividend payments using not its own cash reserves but outside capital by issuing debt securities, which is unsustainable).",
"\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\"",
"The Money Chimp site lets you choose two points in time to see the return. i.e. you give it the time (two dates) and it tells you the return. One can create a spreadsheet to look at multiple time periods and answer your question that way, but I've not seen it laid out that way in advance. For what it's worth, I am halfway to my retirement number. I can tell you, for example that at X%, I hit my number in Y years. 8.73% gets me 8/25/17 (kid off to college) 3.68% gets me 8/25/21 (kid graduates), so in a sense, we're after the same type of info. With the long term return being in the 10% range, you're going to get 3 years or so as average, but with a skewed bellish curve when run over time.",
"The current Dow divisor is in Historical Divisor Changes. The OpenOffice GetQuote function offers fields for current dividend either in dollars or yield.",
"The S&P report (aka STARS report) for each company has 10 years of financial data. These reports are available free at several online brokers (like E-Trade) if you have an account with the brokerage.",
"Do not confuse the DIV (%) value and the dividend yield. As you can see from this page, the DIV (%) is, as you say, 165%. However, the dividend yield is 3.73% at the time of writing. As the Investopedia page referenced above says: The payout ratio is calculated as follows: Annual Dividends per Share / Earnings per Share. which means that the dividends being paid out are more than the earnings of the company: In extreme cases, dividend payout ratios exceed 100%, meaning more dividends were paid out than there were profits that year. Significantly high ratios are unsustainable.",
"Check out the NASDAQ and NYSE websites(the exchange in which the stock is listed) for detailed information. Most of the websites which collate dividend payments generally have cash payments history only e.g. Dividata. And because a company has given stock dividends in the past doesn't guarantee such in the future, I believe you already know that.",
"http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=EDV+Historical+Prices shows this which matches Vanguard: Mar 24, 2014 0.769 Dividend Your download link doesn't specify dates which makes me wonder if it is a cumulative distribution or something else as one can wonder how did you ensure that the URL is specifying to list only the most recent distribution and not something else. For example, try this URL which specifies date information in the a,b,c,d,e,f parameters: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=EDV&a=00&b=29&c=2014&d=05&e=16&f=2014&g=v&ignore=.csv",
"Sources such as Value Line, or S&P stock reports will show you dividend payout ratios (the American usage. These are the inverse of dividend cover ratios, with dividends being in the numerator, and earnings in the denominator. For instance, if the dividend cover ratio is 2, the dividend payout ratio is 1/2= 50%.",
"While the S&P500 is not a total return index, there is an official total return S&P500 that includes reinvested dividends and which is typically used for benchmarking. For a long time it was not available for free, but it can currently be found on yahoo finance using the ticker ^SP500TR.",
"\"I have 3 favorite sites that I use. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mcd/dividend-history - lists the entire history of dividends and what dates they were paid so you can predict when future dividends will be paid. http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/restaurants/mcd-mcdonalds/ - this site lists key stats like dividend yield, and number of years dividend has increased. If the next dividend is announced, it shows the number of days until the ex-dividend date, the next ex-div and payment date and amount. If you just want to research good dividend stocks to get into, I would highly recommend the site seekingalpha.com. Spend some time reading the articles on that site under the dividends section. Make sure you read the comments on each article to make sure the author is not way off base. Finally, my favorite tool for researching good dividend stocks is the CCC Lists produced by Seeking Alpha's David Fish. It is a giant spreadsheet of stocks that have been increasing dividends every year for 5+, 10+, or 25+ years. The link to that spreadsheet is here: http://dripinvesting.org/tools/tools.asp under \"\"U.S. Dividend Champions\"\".\"",
"Dividends. There are blue chip companies that have paid and raised their dividends for 20 or more years. As an example: Altria (MO). There are also ETFs that specialize in such stocks such as SDY.",
"Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.",
"\"Instead of using the actual index, use a mutual fund as a proxy for the index. Mutual funds will include dividend income, and usually report data on the value of a \"\"hypothetical $10,000 investment\"\" over the life of the fund. If you take those dollar values and normalize them, you should get what you want. There are so many different factors that feed into general trends that it will be difficult to draw conclusions from this sort of data. Things like news flow, earnings reporting periods, business cycles, geopolitical activity, etc all affect the various sectors of the economy differently.\"",
"\"I keep spreadsheets that verify each $ distribution versus the rate times number of shares owned. For mutual funds, I would use Yahoo's historical data, but sometimes shows up late (a few days, a week?) and it isn't always quite accurate enough. A while back I discovered that MSN had excellent data when using their market price chart with dividends \"\"turned on,\"\" HOWEVER very recently they have revamped their site and the trusty URLs I have previously used no longer work AND after considerable browsing, I can no longer find this level of detail anywhere on their site !=( Happily, the note above led me to the Google business site, and it looks like I am \"\"back in business\"\"... THANKS!\"",
"There isn't a single hard and fast return to expect. Securities, like all things in a free market, compete for your money. As the Fed sets the tone for the market with their overnight Fed funds rate, you might want to use a multiple of the 'benchmark' 10-year T-note yeald. So let's suppose that a good multiple is four. The current yeald on the 10-year T-note is hovering around two. That would give a target yeald of eight. http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24UST10Y&p=W&b=5&g=0&id=p47115669808",
"There are dividend newsletters that aggregate dividend information for interested investors. Other than specialized publications, the best sources for info are, in my opinion:",
"I am also confused by what he says. The DJIA has not been at 900 for decades. However a $36 dividend is 4% per unit if you get $9 per unit per quarter. 2/3 of 4% is 6%,so that is inside his 7.5% to 5.5%. How much you have in dividend paying stocks vs. Bonds most often is a function of your age. For example, I have heard the advice of subtracting your age in years from 110 and that would be the percent you hold in dividend paying stocks. At age 30 you would have 80% in stocks. At age 60 you would be 50% in stocks. There are retirement funds that do this for you. But the 'bottom line' all depends on your risk tolerance. I have a large tolerance for risk. So even though I am currently retired I only have 10% of my money in a 'safe' investment (ticker=PGF). It pays 5.5% per year. The rest is in a leveraged junk bond fund (PHK) that pays 15.5% per year.",
"Ok you're looking at this in a very confusing way. First, as said by CapitalNumb3rs, the dividend yield is the dividends paid in the year as a percent of the stock price. Given this fact then if the stock price moves down and the dividend stays the same then the yield increases. Company's don't usually pay out on a yield basis, that's mostly just a calculation to measure how strong a dividend is. This could mean either A. The stock is underpriced and will rise which will lower the yield to a more normal level or B. the company is not doing as well and eventually the dividends will decrease to a point where the yield again looks more normal. Second off let's look at it in a more realistic way that still takes into account your assumptions: **YEAR 1** 1. Instead of assuming buying 35% let's put this into a share amount. Let's say there are 1,000,000 shares so you just bought 350k shares for $700k. You paid a price of $2/share. Let's assume the market decides that's a fair price and it stays that way through the end of year 1. This gives us a market capitalization of $2 million. 2. The dividend paid out at year 1 is $60k so you could calculate on a per share basis which would be a dividend of $60k / 1 million shares or a $0.06 dividend per share. Our stock price is still at $2.00 so our yield comes out to $0.06 / $2.00 or 3.0% **YEAR 2** Assuming no additional shares issued there are still a total of 1 million shares outstanding. You owned 350k and now want to purchase another 50k (5% of outstanding share float). The market price you are able to purchase the 50k shares at has now changed which means that share price is now valued at $1.50 / share. We have a dividend paid out at $100k, which comes out to a dividend per share of $0.10. We have a share value of $1.50 and the $0.10 dividend per share giving us a new yield of 6.66%. **CONCLUSION:** There are many factors that can cause a company's stock price to fluctuate, some of it is hype based but some of it is a result of material changes. In your case the stock went down 25%. In most scenarios where a stock would have that much decline it would likely either not have been paying a dividend in the first place or would maybe not be paying one for much longer. Most companies that pay dividends are larger and more mature companies with a steady, healthy and predictable cash flow. Also most companies that are that size would not trade a stock under $3.00, I know this is just an example but the scenario is definitely a bit extreme in terms of the price drop and dividend increase. Again the yield is just a calculation that depends on the dividend that is usually planned in advance and the stock price that can fluctuate for many reasons. I hope this made everything more clear and let me know if you have any other questions.",
"You simply add the dividend to the stock price when calculating its annual return. So for year one, instead of it would be",
"\"The mathematics site, WolframAlpha, provides such data. Here is a link to historic p/e data for Apple. You can chart other companies simply by typing \"\"p/e code\"\" into the search box. For example, \"\"p/e XOM\"\" will give you historic p/e data for Exxon. A drop-down list box allows you to select a reporting period : 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, all data. Below the chart you can read the minimum, maximum, and average p/e for the reporting period in addition to the dates on which the minimum and maximum were applicable.\"",
"Technically you should take the quarterly dividend yield as a fraction, add one, take the cube root, and subtract one (and then multiple by the stock price, if you want a dollar amount per share rather than a rate). This is to account for the fact that you could have re-invested the monthly dividends and earned dividends on that reinvestment. However, the difference between this and just dividing by three is going to be negligible over the range of dividend rates that are realistically paid out by ordinary stocks.",
".INX (the S&P 500 index itself) does not include reinvested dividens. You can figure total return by going to Yahoo finance, historical data. Choose the start year, and end year. You should find that data for SPY (going back to 1993) will show an adjusted close, and takes dividends into account. This isn't perfect as SPY has a .09% expense ratio, but it's better than just the S&P index. One of the more popular Dow ETF is DIA, this will let you similarly track the Dow while accounting for dividends.",
"It is a bit more complicated than whether it pays more or less dividends. You should make your decision based on how well the company is performing both fundamentally and technically. Concentrating mainly on the fundamental performance for this question, most good and healthy companies make enough profits to both pay out dividends and invest back into the company to keep growing the company and profits. In fact a good indication of a well performing company is when their dividend per share and earnings per share are both growing each year and the dividends per share are less than the earnings per share (that way you know dividends are being paid out from new profits and not existing cash holdings). This information can give you an indication of both a stable and growing company. I would rather invest in a company that pays little or no dividends but is increasing profits and growing year after year than a company that pays higher dividends but its profits are decreasing year after year. How long will the company continue to pay dividends for, if it starts making less and less profits to pay them with? You should never invest in a company solely because they pay dividends, if you do you will end up losing money. It is no use making $1 in dividends if you lose $2+ because the share price drops. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more for a stable and growing company.",
"Just look at the published annualized returns, which are inclusive of distributions and fees. From the Vanguard website: Average annual returns include changes in share price and reinvestment of dividends and capital gains.",
"Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all.",
"There are strategies based on yields. Dogs of the Dow being a specific example while Miller Howard has a few studies around dividends that may be of use if you additional material. Selling off a portion of the holding can run into problems as how could one hold 10 shares, selling a non-zero whole number every year for over 20 years if the stock doesn't ever pay a dividend in additional shares or cash?",
"Morningstar has that 10 history at http://financials.morningstar.com/ratios/r.html?t=JNJ®ion=usa&culture=en-US",
"You should never invest in a stock just for the dividend. Dividends are not guaranteed. I have seen some companies that are paying close to 10% dividends but are losing money and have to borrow funds just to maintain the dividends. How long can these companies continue paying dividends at this rate or at all. Would you keep investing in a stock paying 10% dividends per year where the share price is falling 20% per year? I know I wouldn't. Some high dividend paying stocks also tend to grow a lot slower than lower or non dividend paying stocks. You should look at the total return - both dividend yield and capital return combined to make a better decision. You should also never stay in a stock which is falling drastically just because it pays a dividend. I would never stay in a stock that falls 20%, 30%, 50% or more just because I am getting a 5% dividend. Regarding taxation, some countries may have special taxation rules when it comes to dividends just like they may have special taxation rules for longer term capital gains compared to shorter term capital gains. Again no one should use taxation as the main purpose to make an investment decision. You should factor taxation into your decision but it should never be the determining factor of your decisions. No one has ever become poor in making a gain and paying some tax, but many people have lost a great portion of their capital by not selling a stock when it has lost 50% or more of its value.",
"Ok so I used Excel solver for this but it's on the right track. Latest price = $77.19 Latest div = $1.50 3-yr div growth = 28% g = ??? rs = 14% So we'll grow out the dividend 3 years @ 28%, and then capitalize them into perpetuity using a cap rate of [rs - g], and take the NPV using the rs of 14%. We can set it up and then solve g assuming an NPV of the current share price of $77.19. So it should be: NPV = $77.19 = [$1.50 / (1+0.14)^0 ] + [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^1 / (1+0.14)^1 ] + ... + [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^3 / (1+0.14)^3 ] + [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^3 x (1+g) / (0.14-g) / (1+0.14)^4 ] Which gives an implied g of a little under 9%. Let me know if this makes sense, and definitely check the work...",
"For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.",
"Not quite. The EPS is noted as ttm, which means trailing twelve months --- so the earnings are taken from known values over the previous year. The number you quote as the dividend is actually the Forward Annual Dividend Rate, which is an estimate of the future year's dividends. This means that PFE is paying out more in the coming year (per share) than it made in the previous year (per share).",
"Yes, if your IRR is 5% per annum after three years then the total return (I prefer total rather than your use of actual) over those three years is 15.76%. Note that if you have other cashflows in and out, it gets a bit more complicated (e.g. using the XIRR function in Excel), but the idea is to find an effective annual percentage return that you're getting for your money.",
"You can create something like that by: You'll have to determine the PE ratio manually from the financial statements. To get the PE ratio for each company, you can try the Edgar database, though I doubt it goes as far back as 1950. This blog has a graph of the DJIA PE ratio from 1929 - 2009.",
"You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.",
"Your cons say it all. I would not be buying stocks based soley on a high dividend yield. In fact companies with very high dividend yields tend to do poorer than companies investing at least part of their earnings back into the company. Make sure at least that the company's earnings is more than the dividend yield being offered.",
"I think you are mixing up forward looking statements with the actual results. The funds objective The fund invests primarily in stocks that tend to offer current dividends. It focuses on high-quality companies that have prospects for long-term total returns as a result of their ability to grow earnings and their willingness to increase dividends over time Obviously in 1993 quite a few companies paid the dividends and hence VDIGX was able to give dividends. Over the period of years in some years its given more and in some years less. For example the Year 2000 it gave $ 1.26, 1999 it gave $ 1.71 and in 1998 it gave $ 1.87 The current economic conditions are such that companies are not making huge profts and the one's that are making prefer not to distribute dividends and hold on to cash as it would help survive the current economic conditions. So just to clarify this particular funds objective is to invest in companies that would give dividends which is then passed on to fund holders. This fund does not sell appreciated stocks to convert it into dividends.",
"MoneyChimp is great for this. It only offers full year returns, but it compounds the results correctly, including dividends. For mid year results, just adjust a bit based on the data you can find from Google or Yahoo to add some return (or loss) for the months.",
"A 20% dividend yield in most companies would make me very suspicious. Most dividend yields are in the 2-3% range right now and a 20% yield would make me worry that the company was in trouble, the stock price had crashed and the dividend was going to be cut, the company was going to go out of business or both.",
"In the context of EDV, 4.46 is the indicated dividend rate. The indicated dividend rate is the rate that would be paid per share throughout the next year, assuming dividends stayed the same as prior payment. sources:",
"Your example shows a 4% dividend. If we assume the stock continues to yield 4%, the math drops to something simple. Rule of 72 says your shares will double in 18 years. So in 18 years, 1000 shares will be 2000, at whatever price it's trading. Shares X (1.04)^N years = shares after N years. This is as good an oversimplification as any.",
"You've flipped the numerator and denominator around, and need to multiply by 100 to get percentage rather than 10: I like to use a simple example to assess reasonableness of an approach, if you had invested $100 and after 1 year had $150, your approach would yield: But since $50 is half of $100, we know the rate of return should be 50%, so we know that approach is off. But, flipping the numerator and denominator and multiplying by 100 gets us the 50% we expected: Edit: Good catch by @DJohnM you've called it 9 years, but it's actually 11, so you'd want to adjust accordingly.",
"I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories. It has more info available for free than some may realize. Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats. (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number. That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC. (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here. You can do a search to find the Zacks website. I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice. It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer. I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist. It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it. littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free. Maybe this is a project that needs to happen. With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API. But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter. So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF! A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings? Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent. I know that SE prides itself on focused answers. A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate.",
"While Ford and the other auto makers have a bad few years, some companies want to have a cash dividend. It appeals to certain investors. Others have tried to avoid dividends: Microsoft didn't start until ~2003; Apple only from mid 80's until mid 90's.; Google never has had a cash dividend. The desire to keep the dividend, or even to increase it, make some companies continue the practice; even when it doesn't make complete sense. Here is a list of stocks that have INCREASED their dividend for the last 25+ years: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/25-year-dividend-increasing-stocks.php Some have had good years, others bad years, in the last 25+ years.",
"\"Good observation. In fact, the S&P index itself is guilty of not including dividends. So when you look at the index alone, the delta between any two points in time diverges, and the 20 return observed if one fails to include dividends is meaningless, in my my humble opinion. Yahoo finance will let you look at a stock ticker and offer you an \"\"adjusted close\"\" to include the dividend effect.\"",
"Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time. This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out. On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE: If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends. Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest. So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees. The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund. Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly. So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value.",
"But I wish to know why the parameter is dividend/market price rather than just 'dividend'? What 'extra' info you can uncover by looking at dividend/market price that you cannot get from 'dividend'? Consider two stocks A and B. A offers a dividend of $1 per year. B offers a dividend of $2 per year. Let's remove all complications aside and assume that this trend continues. If you were to buy each of these stocks you will get the following amounts over its life (assumed infinity for simplicity): cash flows from A = $1/(0.04) = $25, assuming risk free is 4% per annum cash flows from B = $2/(0.04) = $50, assuming risk free is 4% per annum The price you buy them at is an important factor to consider because let's say if A was trading for $10 and B for $60, then A would look like a profitable nvestment while B won't. Of course, this is a very simplistic view. Dividend rates are not constant and many companies pose a significant risk of going bust but this should help illustrate the general idea behind the D/P ratio. P.S.:- The formula I have used is one for computing the NPV of a perpetuity.",
"tl;dr: The CNN Money and Yahoo Finance charts are wildly inaccurate. The TD Ameritrade chart appears to be accurate and shows returns with reinvested dividends. Ignoring buggy data, CNN most likely shows reinvested dividends for quoted securities but not for the S&P 500 index. Yahoo most likely shows all returns without reinvested dividends. Thanks to a tip from Grade Eh Bacon, I was able to determine that TD Ameritrade reports returns with reinvested dividends (as it claims to do). Eyeballing the chart, it appears that S&P 500 grew by ~90% over the five year period the chart covers. Meanwhile, according to this S&P 500 return estimator, the five year return of S&P 500, with reinvested dividends, was 97.1% between July 2012 to July 2017 (vs. 78.4% raw returns). I have no idea what numbers CNN Money is working from, because it claims S&P 500 only grew about 35% over the last five years, which is less than half of the raw return. Ditto for Yahoo, which claims 45% growth. Even stranger still, the CNN chart for VFINX (an S&P 500 index fund) clearly shows the correct market growth (without reinvesting dividends from the S&P 500 index), so whatever problem exists is inconsistent: Yahoo also agrees with itself for VFINX, but comes in a bit low even if your assume no reinvestment of dividends (68% vs. 78% expected); I'm not sure if it's ever right. By way of comparison, TD's chart for VFINX seems to be consistent with its ABALX chart and with reality: As a final sanity check, I pulled historical ^GSPC prices from Yahoo Finance. It closed at $1406.58 on 27 Aug 2012 and $2477.55 on 28 Aug 2017, or 76.1% growth overall. That agrees with TD and the return calculator above, and disagrees with CNN Money (on ABALX). Worse, Yahoo's own charts (both ABALX and VFINX) disagree with Yahoo's own historical data.",
"\"Why there is this huge difference? I am not able to reconcile Yahoo's answer of 5.75%, even using their definition for ROA of: Return on Assets Formula: Earnings from Continuing Operations / Average Total Equity This ratio shows percentage of Returns to Total Assets of the company. This is a useful measure in analyzing how well a company uses its assets to produce earnings. I suspect the \"\"Average Total Equity\"\" in their formula is a typo, but using either measure I cannot come up with 5.75% for any 12-month period. I can, however, match MarketWatch's answer by looking at the 2016 fiscal year totals and using a \"\"traditional\"\" formula of Net Income / Average Total Assets: I'm NOT saying that MatketWatch is right and Yahoo is wrong - MW is using fiscal year totals while Yahoo is using trailing 12-month numbers, and Yahoo uses \"\"Earnings from Continuing Operations\"\", but even using that number (which Yahoo calculates) I am not able to reconcile the 5.75% they give.\"",
"\"$36 dividend/900 DJIA = 4% 5.5% bond yield = ($36 dividend/660 DJIA) Graham wrote this at a very different time in financial markets- interest rates were much higher, and the DJIA much lower. In addition, bonds were yielding more than stocks, unlike today when the DJIA % the 10yr Treasury yield 2.63% and 2.13% respectively. In addition, his \"\"weigher of the odds\"\" suggests waiting to invest until equity prices are lower (usually dividends aren't reduced), and therefore the DJIA dividend yield would rise relative to bond yields.\"",
"You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.",
"How do you find good quality dividend stocks? That is an easy one. Past performance has always been my key to this answer. also remember why you are investing in the first place. Do you want cash flow, security or capital growth. Also let's not forget... how much time do you want to devote to this venture. There is going to be a balance in your investing and your returns. More time in... the higher returns you get. As for finding good dividend stocks, look to the Dividend Aristocrats or the Dividend Contenders. These companies have consistently increased their payouts to their investors for years. There is a trading strategy that could escalate your returns. Dividend Capturing, simply put... You buy the stock before the ex-date and sell after date of record. Thus collecting a dividend and moving on to the next one. Warning: though this is a profitable strategy, it only works with certain stocks so do your research or find a good source.",
"This looks more like an aggregation problem. The Dividends and Capital Gains are on quite a few occassions not on same day and hence the way Yahoo is aggregating could be an issue. There is a seperate page with Dividends and capital gains are shown seperately, however as these funds have not given payouts every year, it seems there is some bug in aggregating this info at yahoo's end. For FBMPX http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=FBMPX&b=2&a=00&c=1987&e=17&d=01&f=2014&g=v https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fees-and-prices/316390681 http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=FBMPX",
"I know of no free source for 10 years historical data on a large set of companies. Now, if it's just a single company or small number that interest you, contact Investor Relations at the company(ies) in question; they may be willing to send you the data for free."
] |
[
"I've recently discovered that Morningstar provides 5yr avgs of a few numbers, including dividend yield, for free. For example, see the right-hand column in the 'Current Valuation' section, 5th row down for the 5yr avg dividend yield for PG: http://financials.morningstar.com/valuation/price-ratio.html?t=PG®ion=usa&culture=en-US Another site that probably has this, and alot more, is YCharts. But that is a membership site so you'll need to join (and pay a membership fee I believe.) YCharts is supposedly pretty good for long-term statistical information and trend graphs for comparing and tracking stocks.",
"Dividend yield is a tough thing to track because it's a moving target. Dividends are paid periodically the yield is calculated based on the stock price when the dividend is declared (usually, though some services may update this more frequently). I like to calculate my own dividend by annualizing the dividend payment divided by my cost basis per share. As an example, say you have shares in X, Co. X issues a quarterly dividend of $1 per share and the share price is $100; coincidentally this is the price at which you purchased your shares. But a few years goes by and now X issues it's quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share, and the share price is $160. However your shares only cost you $100. Your annual yield on X is 6%, not the published 3.75%. All of this is to say that looking back on dividend yields is somewhat similar to nailing jello to the wall. Do you look at actual dividends paid through the year divided by share price? Do you look at the annualized dividend at the time of issue then average those? The stock price will fluctuate, that will change the yield; depending on where you bought your stock, your actual yield will vary from the published amount as well."
] |
2964
|
Unmarried Couple Splitting up with Joint Ownership of Home
|
[
"302409",
"95116"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"349607",
"214071",
"181608",
"95116",
"465950",
"168453",
"477657",
"219274",
"53840",
"530570",
"546568",
"302409",
"194444",
"219272",
"285745",
"186487",
"432573",
"417228",
"208981",
"321565",
"144731",
"361547",
"62576",
"573199",
"75235",
"59116",
"89872",
"110283",
"391370",
"60163",
"447358",
"537831",
"498818",
"222423",
"466138",
"159590",
"170119",
"363285",
"415104",
"372615",
"127957",
"280177",
"217067",
"202818",
"274901",
"570964",
"150598",
"278236",
"129177",
"86482",
"256890",
"498659",
"209684",
"337286",
"158153",
"24883",
"599725",
"87157",
"147422",
"52942",
"61782",
"267592",
"516849",
"268865",
"457543",
"270844",
"154266",
"111454",
"434257",
"34722",
"183877",
"427505",
"427110",
"278991",
"191064",
"494832",
"352613",
"487590",
"13975",
"319159",
"544663",
"410874",
"223841",
"474837",
"594595",
"478737",
"515383",
"28083",
"580932",
"504419",
"323238",
"547533",
"598547",
"385658",
"315017",
"477603",
"141189",
"128772",
"200211",
"118246"
] |
[
"I cannot emphasize enough how important it is, when you buy a house with someone you are not married to, to make a legal agreement on how the money should be divided when you sell. I know it's too late for you, but I write this for anyone else reading this answer. From a legal point of view, if you made no agreement otherwise, you each own 50% of the house. If you want to divide it any other way, you will have to agree what an appropriate division is. Dividing according to the amount each of you paid towards it is a good way. Decide for yourselves if that means just mortgage payments, or also taxes, repairs, utilities etc. You should also be aware that if you have been living together a long time, like more than a year, some jurisdictions will allow one party to sue the other as if they were getting divorced. Then the courts would be involved in the division of property.",
"\"Both names are on the deed, so the property is jointly owned. You're going to need the second person's signature to be able to sell the property. Ideally the way to know \"\"what happens now\"\" is to consult the written agreement you made before you purchased the house together. The formula for dividing up assets when dissolving your partnership is whatever you agreed to up front. (Your up-front agreement could have said \"\"if you move out, you forfeit any claim to the property\"\".) It sounds like you don't have that, so you'll have to come to some (written) agreement with your partner before you proceed. If you can't come to an agreement, then you'll end up in court, a judge will split up the assets, and the only winners there are the lawyers...\"",
"I can't quite follow your question, so I'm proceeding under the following assumptions: - You paid £31,000 - Your partner paid £4,242 - You have at least one mortgage, which you both pay equally. If the relationship terminates, sell the property. You are reimbursed £31,000 and your partner is reimbursed £4,242. Any remaining proceeds from the sale are split 50-50. If the result is a net loss (i.e. you are underwater on your mortgage), you split the debt 50-50. If you are not both paying the same toward the mortgage, I'd split the profit or loss according to how much you each pay toward the mortgage. Of course, this is not the only possible way you can split things up. You can use pretty much any way you both think is fair. For example, maybe you should get more benefits from a profit because you contributed more up-front. The key thing, though, is that you must both agree in writing, in advance. This is reasonable; this is what I did, for example. Note that if the relationship ends, one or the other of you may wish to keep the property. I'd suggest including a clause in your written agreement simply disallowing this; specify criteria to force a sale. But I know lots of people are happy to allow this. They treat that situation as a forced sale from both people to one person. For example, if your partner chooses to stay in the house, he or she must buy the property from you at prevailing market rates.",
"Because you're not married, its a partnership agreement, and unless there's a written contract, either the two of you agree on how to handle the home, or it's off to court you go. If you were both supposed to pay for the home, and he failed to for a a while, that would put him in breach of contract which I would think gives you a good position in court. On the other hand, if you are at all concerned about your safety from this louse, remember, he knows exactly where the house is.",
"This is typically an issue for local law and regulation. Once one person moves out, I would recommend one of the following options: Generally speaking, if there are clear records of all of the payments made by both parties, all of the costs associated with the maintenance and who made what use of the place, the final ownership can be resolved fairly even in the absence of a clear agreement. The pain and hassle to do it, though, is generally not worth the effort - even if it's an amicable relationship between the two owners. Your best bet is to agree as early as possible on what you plan to do, and to write it down - if you didn't have a contract before moving in together, write one up now.",
"i would recommend that you establish a landlord/tenant relationship instead of joint ownership (ie 100% ownership stake for one of you vs 0% for the other). it is much cleaner and simpler. basically, one of you can propose a monthly rent amount and the other one can chose to be either renter or landlord. alternatively, you can both write down a secret rental price offer assuming you are the landlord, then pick the landlord who wrote down the smaller rental price. if neither of you can afford the down payment, then you can consider the renter's contribution an unsecured loan (at an agreed interest rate and payment schedule). if you must have both names on the financing, then i would recommend you sell the property (or refinance under a single name) as quickly as possible when the relationship ends (if not before), pay the renter back any remaining balance on the loan and leave the landlord with the resulting equity (or debt). in any case, if you expect the unsecured loan to outlive your relationship, then you are either buying a house you can't afford, or partnering on it with someone you shouldn't.",
"This is something you should decide as part of entering a partnership with someone. Ideally before you make the initial purchase you have a detailed contract written up. If you have already bought the house and someone is now ready to move out the easiest thing to do is sell the house. If that is not an option, you'll have to decide on a plan together and then get it in writing.",
"Definitely get a lawyer to write up all the details of the partnership in a formal agreement. If your ex does not want to do this, that is a bad sign. You both need to be clear about expectations and responsibilities in this partnership, and define an exit strategy in the case one of you wants out. This is the most fair to both parties. Generally, what is common is that property is split cleanly when the relationship ends. I would strongly recommend you both work towards a clean split with no joint property ownership. How this looks depends on your unique situation. To address your questions 2 and 3: You have two roles here - tenant and owner. As a 50% owner, you are running a business with a partner. That business will have assets (home), income, expenses, and profit. You basically need to run this partnership as a simple business. All the rent income (your rent and the other tenant's) should go into a separate account. The mortgage and all other housing expenses are then paid from only this account. Any excess is then profit that may be split 50/50. All expenses should be agreed upon by both of you, either by contract or by direct communication. You should see a financial professional to make sure accounting and taxes are set up properly. Under this system, your ex could do work on the house and be paid from the business income. However, they are responsible to you to provide an estimate and scope of work, just like any other contractor. If you as a joint owner agree to his price, he then could be paid out of the business income. This reduces the business cash flow for the year accordingly. You can probably see how this can get very complicated very fast. There is really no right or wrong answer on what both of you decide is fair and best. For the sake of simplicity and the least chance of a disaster, the usual and recommended action is to cleanly split all property. Good Luck!",
"Well, it sounds like you have two options: 1) Continue to jointly own the house. 2) Compensate her for her equity and get the title transferred. I hate to tell you this, but she is entitled to half of the equity regardless of how much she paid into it. That said, she is still on the hook equally for the loan amount, but it won't do you any good if she is not willing to pay. Also, option 2 probably isn't a good deal for your co-signer as she would still be liable for the entire loan loan (just as you are) regardless of the title.",
"Get a lawyer to put this in contract form, with everything spelled out explicitly. What is fair is what the two of you agree upon. My own suggestion: Divide the property into things which are yours, his, and shared, then have each of you be responsible for all your costs plus half the shared costs, but get all the benefits of your half. That would mean that if he rents out his half, all the rental income is his; if you decide to live in your half, all the savings of not paying rent are yours. Each of you pays your half of mortgage, insurance, and other shared costs. Repairs to shared infrastructure should be done by someone both of you trust. If you agree the work is needed and he does it rather than your hiring someone, you owe him the appropriate percentage of the costs; the two of you will need to agree on whether you owe him for that percentage of his time as well. Make sure you agree on some mechanism for one person offering to buy the other out, or to sell their half to the other party... or potentially to someone else entirely. (Personally, I would try to do that at soonest opportunity, to avoid some of the ways this can go wrong -- see past comments about the hazards of guaranteeing a loan; this works or doesn't work similarly.) Does that address your question?",
"To add to ChrisInEdmonton's answer: Your conveyancing solicitor should be able to advise on the details, but a typical arrangement involves: As an alternative to the numbers in Chris' answer, it could be argued that you should first be reimbursed for the fees you paid (accounting for inflation), but that any remaining profits from the property itself should be divided in proportion to your individual investments (so 51.6% to you, and 48.4% to your partner, assuming you contribute to the loans equally).",
"\"Despite the unmarried status, you need to see a lawyer. Essentially you have a business with this person owning a home as the asset, and a mortgage for which you are responsible for. A lawyer needs to examine any paperwork you have and with knowledge of your particular jurisdiction's laws can advise you on the proper course of action. You paint a really ugly picture of this guy. I bet you are correct that he is kind of a horrible person. \"\"Tough love\"\" time: You willingly entered into a long term contract with this person. Why would you do such a thing? Perhaps some self reflection and counseling is in order. This is probably more important than worrying about your credit. All that being said, it is good of you to want to break ties with this person. You can rebuild. All will be good if you concentrate on the right things.\"",
"I second (or fifth?) the answers of the other users in that this should have been foreseen and discussed prior to entering the partnership. But to offer a potential solution: If the mortgage company allows you to assume the whole mortgage (big if) you could buy the other partner out. To determine what a fair buyout would be, take the current value of the house less the remaining mortgage to get the current equity. Half that is each partner's current gain (or potentially loss), and could be considered a fair buyout. At this point the partner realizes any gains made in the last 5 years, and from now on the whole house (and any future gains or losses) will be yours. Alternatively your partner could remain a full partner (if s/he so desires) until the house sells. You would see the house as a separate business, split the cost as you have, and you would pay fair market rent each month (half of which would come back to you). A third option would be to refinance the house, with you as a sole mortgage holder. To factor in how much your partner should receive out of the transaction, you can take his/her current equity and subtract half of the costs associated with the refi. I would also recommend both of you seek out the help of a real estate lawyer at this point to help you draft an agreement. It sounds like you're still on good terms, so you could see a lawyer together; this would be helpful because they should know all the things you should look out for in a situation like this. Good luck!",
"Let's look at the logical extreme. Two people get a house, no money down, 10 year mortgage. One moves out the day after the closing, and the gal left pays the full mortgage. Why in the world would the one who left be entitled to a dime? You offer no information about the downpayment or amount paid during the time both lived there. That's the data needed to do any math.",
"\"Its best to seek a lawyer, but it is unlikely you can force him to pay. You probably know couples, that are in some part of the divorce process, that have trouble obtaining court ordered payments. In your case you have less of a legal standing (exception: if you have children together). As far as the house goes, the two of you entered into some sort of business arrangement and it will be difficult to \"\"force\"\" him to pay. One thing that works for you is that he has excellent credit. If he is interested in keeping a high credit rating he will ensure that no payments are late on the home. Your question suggests that the two of you are not getting along very well right now, and that needs to stop. The best financial decision you can make right now is to get along with him. It seems that the two of you have not officially broken up. If you do decide to depart ways, do so as amicably as possible. You will have to work to get the home in your name only, and him off the deed. This benefits both of you as you will have sole control of the house and this ill advised business decision can end. He will have the home off his credit and will not be responsible if you miss a payment and can also buy a home or whatever of his own. Good luck and do your best to work this out. Seeking peace will cost you a lot less money in the long run. Fighting in court cost a lot of money. Giving in to semi-reasonable demands are far cheaper then fighting. Here is an example. Lets say he normally contributes $500 to the mortgage, and he decides to move out. I would ask him to contribute $200 until you can get his name off the loan, say 6 months at the most. After that you will put the house up for sale if you cannot obtain a mortgage in your own name and will split any profits.\"",
"Sorry, but I think you really do need an attorney here. This is the kind of minefield where knowing all the precedents and edge cases can make a huge difference in what you can or can't do, and a misplaced comma can make or break your case. Note that AT BEST you could sell your own interest in the house -- owning the note does not mean owning the property, it only means that they issued the note on the strength of your share of the property. And a half-interest in a single family house has little value outside the family, except to sell it to whoever owns the other half. Which is probably the best answer: Sell your half to your Aunt, if she can afford to buy it. She then gets sole control of the house, and you get the money you seem to need right now, and everyone in the family is much less stressed.",
"Market value and assessments are two different things. No matter how amical the agreement seems on buying and selling, the future could result in damaged relationships without an absolute sale. I would strongly recommend getting into an agreement to split the purchase of a house as a means to save money. If it's too late, sell immediately.",
"\"To quote Judge Judy: \"\"Our courts are not in the business of settling assets of couples who decide to play house\"\". This is one of the reasons we put off buying houses with a partner until we are married. The courts have rules for couples who marry, then split, but none for those who don't. In the scenerio you spelled out, you are at the mercy of your ex-boyfriend as far as getting your downpayment back. Legally, you are entitled to 50% of the funds remaining after the sale and expenses.\"",
"If she is a legitimate owner, you can't force her to sell her interest in the house. You can communicate indirectly with her, perhaps through a lawyer, and see if she is willing to sign something authorizing you to sell. Unless she is mentally incompetent, you will likely have a very difficult time of proceeding with a legal challenge. At minimum she should be paying you rent, if she is the sole occupant, and if she is unwilling to let you live in the house or pay you rent as co-owners, you could possibly proceed with a suit along those lines. This is a good example of why it's not ideal to co-own a home with someone you aren't legally married to, including a relative or someone you are dating, because there is no (relatively) simple process similar to divorce which determines the allocation of property in the case of a serious dispute. If living together, it may be preferable to have one party own the home and rent it to another. If inherited, it may be preferable for one party to buy out the others and rent it back to them or arrange for a portion of any money made through the sale or rental of the home. Best of luck - I hope you are able to reach an agreeable outcome.",
"There is no standard way to divide property under these circumstances. This is why lawyers recommend agreeing how property will be divided up front, and why they make so much money sorting out issues like this when couples divorce. Incidentally, you don't say which country you are in, but in many countries if you have lived together for five years, your breakup can be treated like a divorce, legally speaking. If you can't agree on how to divide the property, the courts will be involved. You are faced with a choice. Either find some way to come to an agreement you can both accept, or hire lawyers and argue it out in court. You might want to consider finding someone to act as mediator who will help you to come to an agreement. Professional mediation services exist, or you could consider a person you both respect and with the skills to do this.",
"\"I will expand on Bacon's comment. When you are married, and you acquire any kind of property, you automatically get a legal agreement. In most states that property is owned jointly and while there are exceptions that is the case most of the time. When you are unmarried, there is no such assumption of joint acquisition. While words might be said differently between the two parties, if there is nothing written down and signed then courts will almost always assume that only one party owns the property. Now unmarried people go into business all the time, but they do so by creating legally binding agreements that cover contingencies. If you two do proceed with this plan, it is necessary to create those documents with the help of a lawyer. Although expensive paying for this protection is a small price in relation to what will probably be one of the largest purchases in your lives. However, I do not recommend this. If Clayton can and wants to buy a home he should. Emma can rent from Clayton. That rent could any amount the two agree on, including zero. If the two do get married, well then Emma will end up owning any equity after that date. If they stay together until death, it is likely that she (or her heirs) will own half of it anyway. Also if this house is sold, the equity pass into larger house they buy after marriage, then that will be owned jointly. If they do break up, the break up is clean and neat. Presumably she would have paid rent anyway, so nothing is lost. Many people run into trouble having to sell at a bad time in a relationship that coincides with a weak housing market. In that case, both parties lose. So much like Bacon's advice I would not buy jointly. There is no upside, and you avoid a lot of downside. Don't play \"\"house\"\" by buying a home jointly when you are unmarried.\"",
"this seems like a bad idea. Example: You want to sell. He doesn't. But he doesn't have enough money to buy you out. What will you do? You might want to sell because you need money, you have to move, you want to get married, you want to start a new business, etc. You two are not equals (you need a place to live), so this is unlikely to work.",
"\"The answer is \"\"it depends\"\". What does it depend on? If it's a breakup situation, good luck. Whatever you do, get this issue settled as quickly as possible. In the future, don't make significant purchases with people unless you have a written contract or you are married.\"",
"\"The Solicitor involved up front should be able to place constrictions as your suggesting. I think you should look carefully at the desired wording. You deserve a return on your £100k. Say, the day after you buy (this is hypothetical, please bear with me) a developer says he needs the property and will give you £460k. Your wording here says you get £100k, and then, after the mortgage split £230k, but it seems more reasonable that your deposit doubles to £200k, the remaining £260k pays the mortgage, and the £130k left is split, £65k each. My method accounts for the value of your £100k. Some would ask, why not apply the mortgage rate to that deposit? Because the home value may grow at a different rate. In my opinion, it's fair to apply the home value growth to the £100k deposit. \"\"Fair\"\" means different things to different people. This is my opinion, and a suggestion. Consider it, and do what you and your partner wish. Use a solicitor. Put it in writing.\"",
"The ownership of the house depends on what the original deed transferring title at the time of purchase says and how this ownership is listed in government records where the title transfer deed is registered. Hopefully the two records are consistent. In legal systems that descended from British common law (including the US), the two most common forms of ownership are tenancy in common meaning that, unless otherwise specified in the title deed, each of the owners has an equal share in the entire property, and can sell or bequeath his/her share without requiring the approval of the others, and joint tenancy with right of survivorship meaning that all owners have equal share, and if one owner dies, the survivors form a new JTWROS. Spouses generally own property, especially the home, in a special kind of JTWROS called tenancy by the entirety. On the other hand, the rule is that unless explicitly specified otherwise, tenancy in common with equal shares is how the owners hold the property. Other countries may have different default assumptions, and/or have multiple other forms of ownership (see e.g. here for the intricate rules applicable in India). Mortgages are a different issue. Most mortgages state that the mortgagees are jointly and severally liable for the mortgage payments meaning that the mortgage holder does not care who makes the payment but only that the mortgage payment is made in full. If one owner refuses to pay his share, the others cannot send in their shares of the mortgage payment due and tell the bank to sue the recalcitrant co-owner for his share of the payment: everybody is liable (and can be sued) for the unpaid amount, and if the bank forecloses, everybody's share in the property is seized, not just the share owned by the recalcitrant person. It is, of course, possible to for different co-owners to have separate mortgages for their individual shares, but the legalities (including questions such as whose lien is primary and whose secondary) are complicated. With regard to who paid what over the years of ownership, it does not matter as far as the ownership is concerned. If it is a tenancy in common with equal shares, the fact that the various owners paid the bills (mortgage payments, property taxes, repairs and maintenance) in unequal amounts does not change the ownership of the property unless a new deed is recorded with the new percentages. Now, the co-owners may decide among themselves as a matter of fairness that any money realized from a sale of the property should be divided up in accordance with the proportion that each contributed during the ownership, but that is a different issue. If I were a buyer of property titled as tenancy in common, I (or the bank who is lending me money to make the purchase) would issue separate checks to each co-seller in proportion to the percentages listed on the deed of ownership, and let them worry about whether they should transfer money among themselves to make it equitable. (Careful here! Gift taxes might well be due if large sums of money change hands).",
"Equity means having ownership, and I think that's a REALLY bad idea in the scenario that you described. If you stay together, there's really no upside to either of you in this scheme. If you break-up then you'll have a terrible mess, especially if the break-up goes badly. If she's really building equity, you're going to be faced with several hard questions: If this went bad at the end, it might be worse than a divorce in some sense since at least in the divorce you have established law to sort out the issues. You'll be on your own here without a formal contract. (Marriage being a special case of a contract for our purposes here.) If she wants to share costs (which seems perfectly fair) then agree to rent and a split on utilities. If you really insist on going down the path that you described, I think that you'll need some sort of contract, which probably involves a lawyer. Anything short of that could not be considered having equity at all and will be completely unenforceable in the event of a bad break-up. (There is some notion of a verbal contract, but that's very hard to prove and subject to misunderstanding and misremembering.) Aside from all of these potential problems in event of a break-up, you would probably also be violating the terms of your mortgage, if you have one. From the bank's perspective, you are selling the property that is the collateral for that loan, which you're almost surely not allowed to do.",
"\"Personally I would advise only buying what you can afford without borrowing money, even if it means living in a tent. Financially, that is the best move. If you are determined to borrow money to buy a house, the person with income should buy it as sole owner. Split ownership will create a nightmare if any problems develop in the relationship. Split ownership has the advantage that it doubles the tax-free appreciation deduction from $250,000 to $500,000, but in your case my sense is that that is not a sufficient reason to risk dual ownership. Do not charge your \"\"partner\"\" rent. That is crazy.\"",
"I suggest that you first decide on what %'s of the home value you each have a legal claim to. Then split the mortgage using the same %'s. Then, if someone feels their % is slightly higher, they are compensated because they 'own' a correspondingly higher share of the house. Use the same %'s for downpayments (which may mean that an 'adjustment' payment might be required to bring your initial cash outlay from 70/30 into the %'s that you agree to). Tenant income gets split the same way. Utilities are a bit more difficult - as heating depends more on square feet, but water and hydro depend more on how many people are there. You can try to be really precise about working out the %'s, or just keep it simple by using the same %'s as the mortgage.",
"This is not a finance issue, it is a legal one. You need to talk to a lawyer. To save your credit you can pay off the bank now and fight out the details with your ex later. The bank is still owed their money.",
"You are thinking about this very well. With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract. What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance? If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person. (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one. The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own. If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage. Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic.",
"You should have drafted a contract of purchase that stipulated out equity stake in the home based of his down payment and yours, along with future monthly payments. But morally, if the house sells, yielding 100,000 profit (after fees/taxes/etc), you should get ( To Calculate Your Cut: (20,000 + Your Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle) / (1,900 + His Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle Only) * Profit on Sale of House After All Fees = Your Cut His would be: (1,900 + His Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle Only) / (20,000 + Your Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle) * Profit on Sale of House After All Fees = His Cut You'd then take mortgage payment totals for each; and calculate the payments made towards interest; and claim the correct amount each of you paid on payments for the mortgage interest deduction when you file your taxes. Although, depending on how the loan is written, the banks may issue 1099s which dont reflect actual payments made... Talk to an accountant.",
"In effect, you are paying for 70% of the house but he gets half the gain. On the flip side, you're living there, so that probably makes up this difference. It will be toughest if the house jumps in value, to the point you might be forced to sell. You might want to think about that a bit.",
"Sure, form an LLC with an attorney's advice. You need a buyout clause, operating agreement, etc. If you're not married, never buy a home for personal use with someone else.",
"Once your sister and you make your first payments, you've paid $20,645, and your sister has paid $1400. But your sister also owes rent. Zeroth order estimate for rent is that it's equal to mortgage payment, so that's $2045 (I assume that $2045 is actually your total payment, not just your escrow payment. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the term means, $2045 is an absurdly high amount for a monthly escrow payment.) So your sister now has made a net capital contribution of ... negative $645. So you're giving your sister a gift of $7740 each year, and are the sole equity owner of the house. There's a $14000/year gift tax exclusion, and I think that both you and your husband can claim it separately, so every year you could declare your sister to have $20260 added to her capital contribution, or more if you're willing to pay gift tax. But as it stands, if there are any losses from the property, they will be borne exclusively by you; therefore, any profits should be enjoyed exclusively by you. Any other arrangement is you giving a gift to your sister. If the price of the house were to shoot up to $1,000,000 after a year, and you were to split the profits with your sister 50:50, and not pay a gift tax, you WOULD be violating tax law.",
"How did the house pass to them? Was it held in Trust? Were they both jointly listed on the deed? If no to both, then the house should have gone into probate..assuming this is going on in the US...where the probate court would reassign ownership. Until this happens the house cannot be sold and is formally owned by the estate. I agree with the former post suggesting you find an estate attorney in the area to see if this dispute can be amicably settled. Tying it up in litigation will be EXPENSIVE and take a great deal of time",
"Is she entitled to more of the equity because she made more? No. Equity should be determined by how much each paid. But she is entitled to more of the equity if she paid more. And that may be what she is saying. That she contributed more to the household's finances than you did. If you always paid the mortgage out of the joint account, you could presumably go back and look at the account to find out how much each of you contributed to it. That would give you a reasonable split for the remainder of the equity after your initial investment. If you both put your entire paychecks into the joint account every time, then it will be the same as the ratio of what you each made. That would also make sense for splitting up whatever remains in that account. While you're doing that, you may want to ask for more for your original $65,000. By my calculation, if your mortgage was 3.5%, that $65,000 saved the household more than $12,000 in interest that became equity instead. So you could reasonably bump your return on the initial investment up to $77,000 while making the concession on the rest of the equity. This is just a suggestion for a framework for splitting the equity. If you can agree on a split, it will almost certainly be easier than going to a mediator or court.",
"The two of you inherited the house. unless the will specified otherwise, it's half each.",
"\"Time for a lawyer. Essentially, regardless of the situation \"\"it's not right\"\" for him to be paying the mortgage and only get half the value out of the equity in the house. All other things aside, no court I can think of would allow that. The \"\"could happens\"\" are many, but the most common include; Keep in mind that if he keeps paying the mortgage ling enough most courts will end up giving him ownership outright. Essentially, they will say he has already bought her out by paying her half of the debt. Unfortunately, any way he goes he is going to need to take action. When there is a missed mortgage payment, a bad tax year, or some other legal issue (some one is injured on the property), the last thing he is going to want is for the courts to decide the issue for him. For example, John breaks an arm while climbing a tree on the property line. John takes the owners of the property to court. \"\"He\"\" says \"\"but my sister owns half\"\" and the courts decide then and there that because he's been paying the mortgage alone he owns the house alone. Seems like a win, except now he owns the liability alone, and owns John $1,000,000 for a silly lawsuit alone. Point is this. Ownership of property comes with risks and responsibilities. \"\"He\"\" really needs to get those risks and responsibilities under control so he can mitigate them, or he could end up in a very nasty situation in the years to come.\"",
"He doesn't have to follow through on this, but he could tell this sister that he will stop making mortgage payments, which will result in foreclosure and sale at lower price than might be realized by a voluntary sale. Translation: the house will sold, sis. Do you want to maximize your share of the proceeds? And, as I said in a comment above: I hope that he is keeping careful records of mortgage an utility payments, as he might (should) be entitled to a refund from the proceeds of an eventual sale (possibly adjusted by the fair rent value of the time which he spent living there)",
"If there was no question of improvements to the property, the problem would be simple. Each person invests whatever amount. Calculate the percentage of each person's investment out of the entire investment, and that's what share each one owns. Like: A puts in $10,000 for the deposit and pays $5,000 toward the mortgage over the next however many years. B puts in $5,000 toward the deposit but pays $7,000 of the mortgage. C puts in $15,000 but pays only $1,000 of the mortgage payments. So total investments: A - $15,000, B - $12,000, C - $16,000. Total - $43,000. So A's share of the house is 15,000/43,000 = 34.9%. Etc. If you then sell it you pay off any outstanding debt, and then everybody gets their share of what's left. But once you start making improvements, there is no simple formula. Suppose you put down new flooring in the dining room. You pay $500 for materials and put in 20 hours of labor. Presumably you have now added something more than $500 to your share, but how much more? How much are the hours worth? What if someone damages the house -- puts a hole in the all or something -- and then fixes it. Does the time and effort they put into fixing it add to their investment, or did that just cancel out the damage they did? What if one person does a lot to keep the house in generally good condition in small snippets of time, like cleaning furnace filters and polishing the floors, while another does nothing and lets their share get run down and dirty? It gets very complicated. Theoretically you could come up with a rate at which you value your work -- like say every hour spent maintaining the house is worth $10 or $20 or whatever. But who's going to keep track of it over the course of potentially many years? And what if one person does a small number of big, easily quantifiable jobs, while another does many small, hard-to-count jobs? Like if A mops the floor every week for 2 years, is that worth more or less than B installing 3 ceiling fans, a door, and 2 windows? You could go around and around on this sort of thing.",
"There is no issue - and no question - if you get married. The question is only relevant in the event that you go separate ways. Should that happen, you imply that you would want to refund whatever amount your girlfriend has paid toward the mortgage. The solution, then, would seem to be to exempt her from any payments, as you will either give that money back to her (if you break up) or make her a co-owner of the condo (if you get married). If you actually need her contributions to the monthly nut, you could give her a written agreement whereby you would refund her money (plus interest) at her discretion.",
"There is no issue whatsoever, getting a mortgage this way as an unmarried couple. This is very similar to what I did while my wife and I were engaged. We we're on the title as joint tenants. I would expect them to have her as a signee to the mortgage. She won't be able to claim 50% ownership and make things hard on the lender. The title will be contingent on the mortgage being paid. What will be harder is if you guys decide to split. It's not at all uncommon for unmarried couples to buy a house together. Find a broker and get their advice.",
"With no agreement in place, the other person can go after half the equity in the house. In my opinion, wanting their down payment back seems reasonable.",
"He needs to go see a lawyer to find out what all his options are, and the consequences of any of them. Then he needs to get help extricating himself from this situation, in whatever fashion he chooses: buyout, giveaway, what have you. This situation involves property, which involves money, so definitely get professional advice on this. Otherwise, 20 years from now, he could be hit with a bill for back taxes or what have you, if whatever he does, isn't done correctly and completely. The situation does stink, on ice. Either he's going to be the pissed-off party in this situation, or she is, or they both are...but there's money involved, and property involved, and at least one recalcitrant family member involved. Best case scenario, he writes up the story and sells the plot to Lifetime for a movie-of-the-week. (If I were in this situation, I would donate my half of the property to some charitable group, then have a lawyer send Sis a letter saying that it had been donated. Maybe even pick a charitable group aligned with Sis' interests, so that if Sis does want to try and negotiate with them to buy it out, she's giving the sales money to a group/cause that she believes in. But...then, it would No Longer Be My Problem. But that has consequences of its own, and your boyfriend needs to be aware of all of them, including any tax implications for him, before taking any such step.)",
"Sit down with professional with knowledge about eldercare issues. Know how your options regarding the property ownership can impact the services they qualify for. Even making a change in ownership can impact their eligibility for certain programs. Some of which can reach back to events in the recent past. Also if you own it but she will get some of the profits when you sell, she could still be considered an owner, which can impact eligibility for programs. This is in addition to the issues with the lender, the IRS, and your estate.",
"The best answer to this question will depend on you and your wife. What is 'fair' for some may not be 'fair' for others. Some couples split expenses 50:50. Some split proportionately based on income. Some pool everything together. What works best for you will depend on your relative incomes, your financial goals, living standards, and most importantly, your personal beliefs. Here is a great question with various viewpoints: How to organize bank accounts with wife. It doesn't touch heavily on home ownership / pre-nuptial agreements, but might be a good starting point to getting you to think about your options. Consider providing another loan to your wife for additional investments in the home. It seems you are both comfortable with the realities of the pre-nuptial agreement; one of those realities seems to be that in the event of divorce you would lose access to the house. Loaning money has the benefit of allowing for the improvements to be done immediately, while clearly delineating what you have spent on the home from what she has spent on the home. However, this may not be 'fair', depending on how you both define the term. Have you discussed how expenses and savings would be split between you? Since there is no mortgage on the house, she has effectively contributed her pre-marital assets towards paying substantially all of your housing costs. It may be 'fair' for you to contribute to housing costs by at least splitting maintenance 50:50, or it may not be. Hopefully you talked about finances before you got married, and if not, now would be the best time to start. I personally would hate to have an 'uneasy' feeling about a relationship because I failed to openly communicate about finances.",
"\"This is fine, just have a plan before you go into it. Look up a co-ownership agreement contract off LegalZoom, they are like $15, or get a lawyer if you want. Decide if you want to be \"\"Joint tenants\"\" or \"\"Tenants in common\"\". You probably want to be joint tenants so that if one of you dies the property goes to the other person. Go through the agreement, make any changes you want, and then both sign it. These documents outline what happens if someone dies, or if you break up, or if you are allowed to sell your ownership, and anything else. Keep a record of who has paid what % of equity towards the house. Also look into tax laws, if the mortgage or house is only truly in 1 person's name they may get a tax break that the other person will not get. The co-ownership agreement is essentially the same agreement that happens when you're married, the only difference is that it happens automatically and implicitly when you're married. It's interesting that some people are saying this is a horrible idea when it's practically the same as the agreement you'd have if you were married. Whether you're single or married, if you own a house with another person and you break up, it's going to be a bit complicated. Get a contract in place beforehand so that things go as smoothly as possible. If you are both rational adults you shouldn't have any problems.\"",
"You need to talk to a local attorney specializing in real estate matters. The contract needs to ensure that your interests are protected. How you do that is too complex for an answer here and varies from state to state, or even jurisdictions within a state. There are all sorts of options. Sometimes deals like this are structured so that you can actually sell your remaining equity in the property to a third party later on. If the property has value, but the banks aren't interested in lending right now, you could potentially make money on it down the road.",
"between two people purchasing a house together, one with good and one with bad credit, will having both persons on the loan raise the interest rates. If the house deed is on both names, generally the Bank would insist the loan should also be on both of your names. This to ensure that Bank has enough leverage to recover the house in case of default. If one of you has bad credit, bank would raise the interest rate, assumption that bad credit would drag the good credit and force him to some activities / actions that could stretch the finance of one with good credit. If timely payments are not made, it would make your good credit to bad. If the house deed is on only on your name and you can get the loan on your own, this would be a better position. If the house deed is on only on your name and you would like to loan to be on both names, then the positive side is credit score of the person with bad credit would start showing improvement over period, provided both of you make timely payments. As pointed out by keshlam, there are enough question where people have entered into agreement without deciding what would happen if they separate. There is no right / wrong answer. It would be best you decide how it would be with respect to the ownership in the house and with respect to payments and if in worst case you part ways, how the settlement should look like.",
"There's no objectively correct answer to this question, given your circumstances. Ideally, the stepmom would put in 60% of the downpayment and 60% of the monthly maintenance costs and mortgage. You and your partner would evenly split the 40%. Then, it is very obvious. However, my guess is that this isn't going to be the situation. Without knowing the numbers, I suggest that, upon sale of the house, the exact value of each person's downpayment is immediately returned without interest. What's left of the equity is returned to everyone as per the amount they paid in mortgage. The monthly maintenance costs are excluded from this calculation entirely. You are, of course, free to take any other approach all three of you deem to be fair. In my example, consider a home that costs $200,000. Your stepmom puts in $40,000 for a downpayment, you put in $10,000, and your parter puts in $10,000. The mortgage payments are $1500/month. Your stepmom puts in $500 a month, you put in $250 a month, and your partner puts in $750 a month. You sell the place for $300,000 after paying off the entire mortgage. Your stepmom gets $40,000 + $80,000. You get $10,000 + $40,000. Your partner gets $10,000 + $120,000. Keep in mind, though, that you may have to sell the house for a loss. In which case, some or all of the downpayment may not even be returned. In fact, you may end up having to cover money over and above the downpayment and the payments you've made. Any good lawyer will make you consider this. Additionally, any good lawyer will make you spell out under what circumstances, people can force sale of the home.",
"\"The prenup complicates things. The traditional vow of a marriage is \"\"What's mine is yours, what's yours is mine\"\". With such a traditional marriage it doesn't matter too much which partner's name something is in, in the event of a divorce the assets of the couple would be considered as a whole and then split. But you have a prenup which is presumably intended to change this traditional arrangement (and may or may not actually be enforceable). I think you are as such right to be wary. I think your only way forward long term is to amend the prenup and/or the legal status of the house to recognize it as a shared asset that you will both be contributing to and that it's value should be split in some way in the event of a divorce. In exchange you should probably be contributing some or all of the cash pile you have from selling your house to the common pot. Another loan may seem like a good option in the short term but in the long term the appreciation on a house is likely to be worth more than any interest on the loan (assuming you are using an interest rate comparable to commercial mortgage deals), plus any interest may well end up being taxable.\"",
"It seems likely that the mortgage is not in your boyfriend's name because he never would have qualified if he can't even afford utilities after paying the mortgage. It also seems unfair that his sister continues to have a 50% share of the equity if your boyfriend has been making the entire payment on the mortgage every month. What would happen if your boyfriend stopped making the payments? His sister would have no choice if the property went into foreclosure. Your boyfriend has all the leverage he needs by simply refusing to continue making the payments. Why he won't push his sister to make a deal is the real question you need to ask him. In the meantime, if he wants out, all he has to do is decide not to keep paying whether his sister feels attached or not.",
"\"I'm not an attorney or a tax advisor. The following is NOT to be considered advice, just general information. In the US, \"\"putting your name on the deed\"\" would mean making you a co-owner. Absent any other legal agreement between you (e.g. a contract stating each of you owns 50% of the house), both of you would then be considered to own 100% of the house, jointly and severally: In addition, the IRS would almost certainly interpret the creation of your ownership interest as a gift from your partner to you, making them liable for gift tax. The gift tax could be postponed by filing a gift tax return, which would reduce partner's lifetime combined gift/estate tax exemption. And if you sought to get rid of your ownership interest by giving it to your partner, it would again be a taxable gift, with the tax (or loss of estate tax exemption) accruing to you. However, it is likely that this is all moot because of the mortgage on the house. Any change to the deed would have to be approved by the mortgage holder and (if so approved) executed by a title company/registered closing agent or similar (depending on the laws of your state). In my similar case, the mortgage holder refused to add or remove any names from the deed unless I refinanced (at a higher rate, naturally) making the new partners jointly liable for the mortgage. We also had to pay an additional title fee to change the deed.\"",
"\"We’re buying the home right over $200,000 so that means he will only need to put down (as a ‘gift’) roughly $7000. I'm with the others, don't call this a gift unless it is a gift. I'd have him check with the bank that previously refused him a mortgage if putting both of you on a mortgage would allay their concerns. Your cash flow would be paying the mortgage payment and if you failed to do so, then they could fall back on his. That may make more sense to them, even if they would deny each of you a loan on your own. This works for them because either of you is responsible for the whole loan. It works for him because he was already willing to be responsible for the whole loan. And your alternative plan makes you responsible for the whole loan, so this is just as good for you. At what percentage would you suggest splitting ownership and future expenses? Typically a cash/financing partnership would be 50/50, but since it’s only a 3.5% down-payment instead of 20% is that still fair? Surprisingly enough, a 3.5% down-payment that accumulates is about half the equity of a 20% down-payment. So your suggestion of a 25%-75% split makes sense if 20% would give a 50%-50% split. I expected it to be considerably lower. The way that I calculated it was to have his share increase by his equity share of the \"\"rent\"\" which I set to the principal plus interest payment for a thirty year loan. With a 20% down-payment, this would give him 84% equity. With 3.5%, about 40% equity. I'm not sure why 84% equity should be the equivalent of a 50% share, but it may be a side effect of other expenses. Perhaps taking property taxes out would reduce the equity share. Note that if you increase the down-payment to 20%, your mortgage payment will drop substantially. The difference in interest between 3.5% and 20% equity is a couple hundred dollars. Also, you'll be able to eliminate any PMI payment at 20%. It could be argued that if he pays a third of the monthly mortgage payment, that that would give him the same 50% equity stake on a 3.5% down-payment as he would get with a 20% down-payment. The problem there is that then he is effectively subsidizing your monthly payment. If he were to stop doing that for some reason, you'd have what is effectively a 50% increase in your rent. It would be safer for you to handle the monthly payment while he handles the down-payment. If you couldn't pay the mortgage, it sounds like he is in a position to buy out your equity, rent the property, and take over the mortgage payment. If he stopped being able to pay his third of the mortgage, it's not evident that you'd be able to pick up the slack from him much less buy him out. And it's unlikely that you'd find someone else willing to replace him under those terms. But your brother could construct things such that in the face of tragedy, you'd inherit his equity in the house. If you're making the entire mortgage payment, that's a stable situation. He's not at risk because he could take over the mortgage if necessary. You're not at risk because you inherit his equity share and can afford the monthly payment. So even in the face of tragedy, things can go on. And that's important, as otherwise you could lose your equity in the house.\"",
"I think the first step is to be thankful that your relationship with this person has not degenerated into lawsuits and bickering. That would greatly affect your cash flow and valuations! It also seems that this person is open to a variety of solutions. This truly is a gift. I see two options without taking a mortgage or fronting cash: The key here is if the 65% property already has a mortgage. Does it have enough equity to provide 15% cash out, and cover the existing mortgage? What is the interest rate? Can you get a lower rate that will reduce the impact of a higher mortgage payment will have on your income? Can you have your partner finance the 15%? In the end there really isn't a way to divest this company without impacting your income.",
"\"I just wanted to give you a different perspective, as I own a house (purchased with a mortgage), with my girlfriend. I think it can be done safely and fairly, but you do need to involve legal help to do it right. There really is nothing to be terrified about, the extra cost to set this up was almost irrelevant in the bigger picture of legal costs around purchasing and the documents describing the ownership scheme are quite straightforward. Maybe it's a UK thing, but it seems rather commonplace here. We've chosen to hold this as \"\"tenants in common\"\" and use a trust deed for this when we purchased. We had a solicitor write the trust deed and it clearly states what percentage of the house is owned by either party and exactly what the steps would be taken, should we decide to end the trust (e.g. in case of a split-up). This includes things like the right to buy out the other person before selling on the market etc. We also had to make wills separately to indicate what should happen with our percentage of the property in case one of us died as with this type of ownership it doesn't automatically go to the other person. Finally we're both on the mortgage, which I guess is the main difference versus your situation. But again, you could get legal advice as to how this should best be handled.\"",
"How about a third approach: Figure the buyout as above. Figure what percentage of the value of the house the buyout constitutes. When the house sells the other party gets that percentage of the sales price.",
"Save yourself a lot of trouble you both agree on a Real Estate Attorney to prepare all the paperwork (ie. contract) and conduct the closing for or with the Title Company. Then you both split the normal costs of the transaction. (Real simple professionally handled and you both save the 6%)",
"\"A 30-yr mortgage IS a committment. So, you are willing to commit to a place, but not your long-term girlfriend??? Either you don't do this \"\"cheap\"\" scheme idea, or you set up as a business arrangement, or you get married. This is quite a laissez-faire statement you make... \"\"Maybe we will eventually get married, maybe we will eventually break up, who knows.\"\" Anything or anyone that is a \"\"who knows\"\" is not what you make a 30-yr committment on. I mean, unless you just want to risk throwing your money away. Now, man up, hire the lawyer to do official paperwork or else get a legal certificate of civil union or marriage or whatever you want to call it. If you try to do your cockamamie scheme \"\"on the cheap\"\" now, it will most surely cost you dearly in the future! Mixing money (particulary huge sums of 200,000 $!) when there is no legal obligation like marriage or a business contract, is a fool's errand! Now, grow up and do it the right way if you want to help her - and yourself too.\"",
"First step is determine how much equity is in the car (positive or negative). Then for your car payments has that been paid out of money that has already been split or is it from a pool that is still to be slit. If the later, then it is irrelevant to this discussion since it was from a joint pool. If the money has already been split then adjust her half of the equity in the car by what you have been paying an make her that offer for her half of the car. I recommend showing her the calculations so as to explain how you came with what she is owed and then let her make a counter offer.",
"I think what you have here is actually TWO agreements with your sister, and explicitly splitting it into two agreements will bring some clarity. The first is ownership of and responsibility for the building. The second is each of your personal use of a unit. Here's what you do: Treat ownership as if you're not living there. Split the down payment, the monthly mortgage, taxes and insurance, responsibility for cost of maintenance, etc. as well as the ownership and benefit of the building 70%/30%. Put all that in a contract. Treat it like a business. Second, lease those units to yourselves as if you were tenants. And yes, I means even with leases. This clarifies your responsibilities in a tenant capacity. More to the point, each of you pays rent at the going rate for the unit you occupy. If rent from all three units equals the monthly expenses, nothing more needs to be done. If they're more than the monthly expenses, then each of you receives that as business income on that 70%/30% breakdown. If those three rents are less than the monthly expenses, then each of you are required to make up the difference, again at 70%/30%. Note: if any of those expenses are utilities, then they should be apportioned via the rent -- just as you would if you'd rented out the whole building to strangers. 2nd note: all that can be done with ledger entries, rather than moving money around, first as rent, then as expense payments, then as payouts. But, I think it will benefit all of you to explicitly pay rent at first, to really clarify your dual relationship as joint owners and as tenants. Final note: I think this is a stickier situation than you may think it is. Familial relationships have been destroyed both by going into business together, and by renting to family members. You're doing both, and mixing the two to boot. I'm not saying it will destroy your relationship, but that there's a solid risk there. Relationship destruction comes from assumptions and vague verbal agreements. Therefor, for the sake of all of you, put everything in writing. A clear contract for the business side, and clear leases for the tenant side. It's not about trust -- it's about understood communication and positive agreement on all important points.",
"In this case can the title of the home still be held by both? Yes, it is possible to have additional people on title that are not on the mortgage. Would the lender (bank) have any reservations about this since a party not on the mortgage has ownership of the property? Possibly, but there is a very simple way to avoid this. Clayton could simply purchase the home himself, and add Emma to the title after closing by recording a quitclaim deed. The lender can't stop that, and from their point of view it's actually better, since they have two people to go after in the case of default. (But despite it being better they often make it difficult to purchase Tip, when you have an attorney draft the quitclaim document, have them draft the reverse document too. (Emma relinquishing the property back to Clayton.) There is usually no extra charge for this and then you have it if you need it. For example, you may need to file the reverse forms if you want to refinance. As a side note, I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's and Pete B.'s in recommending that Clayton and Emma do not do this. Once they are married the property will either be automatically jointly owned, or a spouse can be added to the title easily, and until they are married there are no pros but many cons to doing this. Reasons not to do it: As a side note, in a comment it was proposed: ...suppose Clayton loves Emma so much that he wants her name to be on the house... I understand the desire to do this from an emotional point of view, but realize this does not make sense from a financial point of view.",
"\"If you and your parents both put up money to buy a house or anything else, what share each of you owns would be a subject for negotiation and agreement between you. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that says \"\"if person X pays the down payment and person Y pays the monthly payments, than X owns 40% and Y owns 60%\"\" or any other specific numbers. Parents often give their children money to help with a down payment on a house or a car with the understanding that this is a gift and the child still owns 100% of the item. Other times they are unwilling or unable to just give the money and want some stake in exchange. In the case of a house or a car, there's a title that identifies the owner, and legally the owner is the person or people named on the title. I'd suggest that if you want to have split ownership, like if your parents are saying that they'll help with the down payment but they want to get that money back when you sell or some such, that you come up with a written agreement saying who owns what percentage and you both sign it. If there was a dispute -- if you never had an agreement about what share each owned and now you're selling the house and you're arguing over how much of the money each of you should get, or your parents want you to sell the house so they can get their money back but you don't want to sell, or whatever -- ultimately a court would decide. Presumably the judge would consider how much you had each paid in, but he might also consider who's been paying property taxes, how much work each has done to maintain the place, etc. It's better to have a written and signed agreement, something that everyone involved is satisfied with and where you all know exactly what you're agreeing to, rather than having a nasty surprise when a judge says no, you're not getting what you were assuming you were getting.\"",
"The fact that your ex is on the mortgage limits their ability to get more loans. While you have been making the payments on time, if you had any problems making those payments it would have also impacted their credit score. It is understandable that they would like to be released from the mortgage. The options that they have are limited. You would have to refinance the mortgage. Lenders don't just drop borrowers from a mortgage, unless they have determined that the remaining people on the mortgage can make the payments. Besides the mortgage ownership documents were probably filed with the local government. The refinancing process will require a signature by your ex, unless the earlier agreement documents removed your ex as an owner, and those were filed with the authorities. Regarding an exchange of funds: it can be negotiated. An attempt was done with the earlier agreement. If the documents that were signed are proof of the agreement can't be determined by the internet. How this is settled, is outside the scope of this site. It depends on what documents have been signed in the past; the jurisdiction involved; And the state of the relationship at the time of the purchase and at the time of the refinancing.",
"In my opinion, since she will live in one apartment, as will you and your husband, the simplest method is to divide the ratio exactly the same as the area for your living space. If it's 40/60, she puts 40% down, you put 60%. And you split expenses the same. The tenant income can be applied to the house expenses, as it's no different than giving her 40% and you keep 60%. No matter how well you get along, it's easy for someone to feel a split of expenses isn't fair unless it's discussed and agreed up front.",
"\"Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did \"\"not amount to much\"\" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share. Conclusion: Don't make assumptions, consider posting a question on https://law.stackexchange.com/ , consider legal advice, and consider having a formal contract in place which states the exact intentions of the parties. It is a general principle of these kinds of cases that the parties need to have intended for the person lacking legal title to acquire a beneficial interest, and proof to the contrary should make such a claim likely to fail. Alternatively, decide that the risk is low and that it's not worth worrying about. But make a considered decision either way.\"",
"I would contribute this money to the deposit, but wouldn’t pay anything else-more, and want to know if they do the house up, and it increases in value how does my share gets worked out if I want it out in about l0 years? This can be simple; You have contributed 9K out of 260 K. You own Approx. 3.4% of equity in the house. Whenever this gets sold, you will get back 3.4%. Now the real trick comes in, if the house is not being sold, ie your Sister would continue using it, and you want out, then one would need to decide the fair market value. You could agree to consult some lists or agree of the fair value based on sale price of similar properties in the area. This is where it normally gets difficult and can cause disputes. we do not have much money for solicitors / lawyers, and we don't really really need them It is advisable to get a lawyer as one doesn't know what happens 10 years in future, things may go wrong between you and your sister, or your sister is no more and her fiancé may not honor the agreement you have. There are other considerations; It would be advisable you have your name on the property. It would help from Tax point of view in future. If you are not having your name on the property, then the money you are giving would be loan or gift and needs to have the right paper work If its a gift you can't have it back. Your sister would have to make a gift back to you later whenever you want out. So it can really be complicated and it would be worth the money you spend on lawyer",
"You say that one property is 65% of the value of the two properties and the other is 35%. But how much of that do the two of you actually own? If you have co-signed mortgages on both properties, then your equity is going to be lower. If you sold both properties, then your take away would be just half of that equity. And while the 35% property may be less valuable, if you bought it first, it may actually have more equity. It's the equity that matters here, not the value of the property. With a mortgage, the bank is more of an owner than you are until you've paid down most of the loan. You may find that the bank won't agree to a single-owner refinance. A co-signed mortgage is a lot easier for them to collect, as they can hold either of you responsible for the entire loan. If you sell the 65% property, then you can pay off any mortgage on that property and use the equity payout from that to buy out your relative on the 35% property. If you currently have no mortgage, you'd even have cash back. This is your fewest strings option. Let's say that you have no mortgage now. So this mortgage would be the only mortgage on the property. It's not so much, as 15:65 is 3:13 or 18.75% of the value of the property. That's more of a home equity loan than a mortgage. You should be able to get a good rate. It might reduce your short term profit, but it should be survivable if you have other income. If you don't have other income, then seriously consider selling the 65% property and diversifying the payout into something else. E.g. stocks and bonds. Perhaps your relative would be willing to float you the loan. That would save you bank fees and closing costs. Write up a contract and agree to take assignment of the title at payoff. You'll need to pay a lawyer to write up the contract (paying a modest amount now to cover the various future possibilities), but that should still be cheaper. There's a certain amount of trust required on both sides, but this gives you some separation. And of course it takes your relative out of the day-to-day management entirely. Perhaps the steady flow of cash would provide what they need. If your relative is willing to remain that involved, that can work. Note that they may not want to do this, so don't get too attached to the idea. Be prepared for a no. This would be a great option for you, as you pretty much get everything you have now. They get back the time meeting with you to make decisions, but they also give up control over those decisions. Some people would not like that tradeoff. The one time I was involved with a professional managing a property for me, the fee was around 7% of the rent. If that fits your area, you might reasonably charge 5%. That gives a discount for family and not being a professional. There's a relatively easy way to find out what fits your area. Look around and see what companies offer multiple listings. Call until you find a couple that will do management for you. Get quotes for managing your properties. Now you'll know the amounts. The big failing though is that this may not describe the issue that your relative has. If the real problem is that the two of you have different approaches to property management, then making you the only decision maker may be the wrong direction. This is certainly financially feasible, but it still may not be the right solution for your relationship. If you get a no on this, I'd recommend moving on to other solutions immediately. This may simply be too favorable to you.",
"\"Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!). A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments? This actually isn't as hard as it sounds, thanks to the nature of a partnership and proper business accounting. With a good foundation the rest of the building proceeds quite cleanly. On month 1 your sister pays $1400 into the partnership, while you pay $645 into the partnership. FP will record an increase in assets (cash) of $1800, an increase in liability to your sister of $1400, and an increase in liability to you of $645. FP will then record a decrease in cash assets of $1800 to pay the mortgage, with a matching increase in cost account for the mortgage. No net change in equity, but your individual contributions are still preserved. Let's say that now after only 1 month you decide to sell the property - someone makes an offer you just can't refuse of $350,000 dollars (we'll pretend all the closing costs disappeared in buying and selling, but it should be clear how to account for those as I mention earlier). Now what happens? FP gets an increase in cash assets of $350,000, decreases the house asset ($320,000 - original purchase price), and pays off the mortgage - for simplicity let's pretend it's still $300,000 somehow. Now there's $50,000 in cash left in the partnership - who's money is it? By accounting for the house this way, the answer is easily determined. First all investments are paid back - so you get back $20,000 for the down payment, $645 for your mortgage payments so far, and your sister gets back $1400 for her mortgage payment. There is now $27,995 left, and by being equal partners you get to split it - 13,977 to you and your husband and the same amount to your sister (I'm keeping the extra dollar for my advice to talk to a lawyer/CPA). What About Getting To Live There? The fact is that your sister is getting a little something extra out of the deal - she get's the live there! How do you account for that? Well, you might just be calling it a gift. The problem is you aren't in any way, shape, or form putting that in writing, assigning it a value, nothing. Also, what do you do if you want to sell/cash out or at least get rid of the mortgage, as it will be showing up as a debt on your credit report and will effect your ability to secure financing of your own in the future if you decide to buy a house for your husband and yourself? Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this \"\"investment\"\" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can. I would thus strongly advise you, your husband, and your sister to spend the comparatively tiny amount of extra money to get advice from a real estate/investment lawyer/CPA to get you set up right. Keep all receipts and you can pay a book keeper or the accountant to do end of the year taxes, and answer questions that will come up like how to properly account for things like depreciation on taxes. Your intuition that you should make sure things are formally written up in times when everyone is on good terms is extremely wise, so please follow it up with in-person paid consultation from an expert. And no matter what, this deal as presently structured has a really large built-in potential for heartache as you have three partners AND one of the partners is also renting the property partially from themselves while putting no money down? This has a great potential to be a train wreck, so please do look into what would happen if these went wrong into some more detail and write up in advance - in a legally binding way - what all parties rights and responsibilities are.\"",
"\"This will probably require asking the SO to sign a quitclaim and/or to \"\"sell\"\" him her share of the vehicle's ownership and getting it re-titled in his own name alone, which is the question you actually asked. To cancel the cosigner arrangement, he has to pay off the loan. If he can't or doesn't want to do that in cash, he'd have to qualify for a new loan to refinasnce in his name only, or get someone else (such as yourself) to co-sign. Alternatively, he might sell the car (or something else) to pay what he still owes on it. As noted in other answers, this kind of mess is why you shouldn't get into either cosigning or joint ownership without a written agreement spelling out exactly what happens should one of the parties wish to end this arrangement. Doing business with friends is still doing business.\"",
"If your sister refuses to discuss the matter, I can't imagine how you'll resolve it without going to court. I'd guess that ultimately a judge would say that if you can't all agree on what to do, that the property must be sold and the money distributed between you. As others here have said, you really want to get a lawyer.",
"I'm glad that you feel like being fair and equitable to your party. Other answerers are, of course, correct that being fair and equitable to your girlfriend is not in your best interests but that's not what you're trying to do here and I commend you for it. There is nothing that stops you drawing up a simple legal contract giving your girlfriend a share of the value of your house in return for her payments. Just get it signed and witnessed and checked over by a legal representative. You can include reasonable terms for the money to be paid back if you separate - perhaps when you sell the property or within two years of the breakup - that don't put you in immediate danger of losing the property. Just make clear that this contract is between you and her for a sum of money linked to the value of your house; it does not establish any legal claim on your house itself. A reasonable level for her to claim the property would be one half of the change in equity between when you start joint paying and when you separate - should that happen.",
"Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do. If your name was on the mortgage, you owe the money, regardless of who kept the house. They can (and likely will) come after you for the money as well. A bit late in your case, but that's why when people divorce, refinancing the house into one person's name (and the other quit-claiming their interest) is usually part of the settlement. ETA: As others have mentioned, since you are in California, it appears that they cannot come after you for the difference.",
"\"There are several areas of passive fraud by being unclear on what you are doing. When a citizen buys a house, the mortgage lender wants all the details as to how the buyer rounded up the money. That is so they can use their own formulas to assess the buyer's creditworthiness and the probability that the buyer will be able to keep up on payments, taxes and maintenance; or have they overextended themselves. The fraud is in the withholding of that info. By way of tricking them into making a favorable decision, when they might not have if they'd had all the facts. Then there's making this sound all lovey-dovey, good intentions, no strings attached, no expectations. You're lying to yourself. What you've actually done is put money between yourselves, because you have not laid down FAIR rules to cover every possibility. You're not willing to plan for failure because you don't want to admit failure is possible, which is vain. Once you leap into this bell jar, the uncertainty of \"\"what happens if...\"\" will intrude itself into everyone's thoughts, slowly corroding your relationship. It's a recipe for disaster. That uncertainty puts her in a very uncomfortable position. She has to labor to make sure the issue doesn't explode, so she's tiptoeing around you to avoid fights. Every fight, she'll wonder if you'll play the breakup card and threaten to demand the money back. The money will literally come between you. This is what money does. Thinking otherwise is a young person's mistake of inexperience. Don't take my word on it, contact Suze Orman and see what she says. Your lender is also not going to like those poorly defined lovers' promises, because they've seen it all before, and don't want to yet again foreclose on a house that fighting lovers trashed. (it's like, superhero battles are awesome unless you own the building they trashed.) This thing can still be done, but to remove this fraud of wishful thinking, you need to scrupulously plan for every possibility, agree to outcomes that are fair and achievable, put it in writing and share it with a neutral third party. You haven't done it, because it seems like it would be awkward as hell - and it will be! - Or it will test your relationship by forcing direct honesty about a bunch of things you haven't talked about or are afraid to - and it will! - And to be blunt, your relationship may not be able to survive that much honesty. But if it does, you'll be in much better shape. The other passive fraud is taxes. By not defining the characteristics of the payment, you fog up the question of how your contribution will be taxed (if it will be taxed). A proper contract with each other will settle that. (there's an argument to be made for involving a tax advisor in the design of that contract, so that you can work things to your advantage.) As an example, defining the payment as \"\"rent\"\" is about the worst you could do, as you will not be able to deduct any home expenses, she will need to pay income tax on the rent, but she can cannot take landlord's tax deductions on anything but the fraction of the house which is exclusively in your control; i.e. none.\"",
"@Dilip Sarwate mentioned tenants in common in a comment. This appears to be in fact the answer I required. I found a friendly article on it here: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1594984/Tenants-common.html. This appears to allow me to have a percentage based amount of the property, e.g. £100k deposit, plus half of remainder (130k halved) means I own £165k on the initial £230k value of the property, i.e. 71.7% of the property. I will be asking the conveyancing solicitor if they are able to enact this.",
"\"With regard to worries about ownership: I'll point you towards this - The Cohabitants Rights Bill currently in First Reading at the House of Lords. Without a date for even the second reading yet. In short the Bill is attempting to redress is the lack of rights when a non-married relationship ends when compared to married relationships; that is that one of the \"\"cohabitants\"\" can end up with basically nothing that they don't have their name on. So currently you're in the clear and (Part 2) Section 6.2.a says the Bill cannot be used retroactively against you if your relationship is over before it becomes law (I expect with Brexit etc, this Bill isn't a high priority - it's been a year since the first reading). Section 6.2.a: This Part does not apply to former cohabitants where the former cohabitants have ceased living together as a couple before the commencement date; However, if you're still together if/when this Bill becomes Law then basically all of (Part 1) Section 2 may be relevant as it notes the conditions you will fall into this bill: Section 2.1.a: live together as a couple and Section 2.2.d: have lived together as a couple for a continuous period of three years or more. and the \"\"have lived together\"\" at that point counts from the start of your cohabitation, not the start of the Bill being law: Section 2.4.a: For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), in determining the length of the continuous period during which two people have lived together as a couple - any period of the relationship that fell before the commencement date (of the Bill) is to be taken into account If you have kids at some point, you'd also fall under 2.2.a through 2.2.c too. After that, the financial parity decided upon by the court depends on a whole bunch of conditions as outlined in the Bill, but Section 8.1.b is pretty clear: Section 8.1.b: (b)the court is satisfied either— (i)that the respondent has retained a benefit; or (ii)40that the applicant has an economic disadvantage, as a result of qualifying contributions the applicant has made I'm not qualified to say whether your partner helping to pay off your mortgage in lieu of paying rent herself would count as just paying rent or giving you an economic benefit. Sections 12, 13, and 14 discuss opt-outs, also worth a read. The a major disclaimer here in that Bills at this early stage have the potential to be modified, scrapped and/or replaced making this info incorrect. As an additional read, here's an FT article from Feb 2016 discussing this lack of rights of a cohabitant which should alleviate any current concerns.\"",
"\"I think you have succumbed to a category error. The rational course forward is to classify all property as either his, hers, or family's. Each contributes a portion of wages to the family. Each logs hours spent performing familial duties and is \"\"paid\"\" in virtual dollars into their family account at market rates for that service. At any point actual plus virtual dollars are summed to assess the value of the family and percentages are allocated to each party on this basis. Put this into a pre-nuptual agreement. At the time of the inevitable divorce you leave with yours, she leaves with hers, family's assets are divided as described, and division of children should be as King Solomon suggested. Or you could do what I did: Put all your property (and debts) into one pot. Make sure each partner can competently manage bookkeeping and investments. Accumulate a family net worth sufficient to divide in two and each have financial independence. (I'm working on this last step.)\"",
"Ah ok. Sounds like you guys need to have a heart to heart. I'd consider setting up a contract with regards to execute a buy-out at a given date. It may require some compromise on both of your guys' side. Good luck and Happy Cake day!",
"\"Imagine that, a car dealership lied to someone trusting. Who would have thought. A big question is how well do you get along with your \"\"ex\"\"? Can you be in the same room without fighting? Can you agree on things that are mutually beneficial? The car will have to be paid off, and taken out of his name. The mechanics on how to do this is a bit tricky and you may want to see a lawyer about it. Having you being the sole owner of the car benefits him because he is no longer a cosigner on a loan. This will help him get additional loans if he chooses, or cosign on his next gf's car. And of course this benefits you as you \"\"own\"\" the car instead of both of you. You will probably have to refinance the car in your name only. Do you have sufficient credit? Once this happens can you pay off the car in like a year or so? If you search this site a similar questions is asked about once per month. Car loans are pretty terrible, in the future you should avoid them. Cosigning is even worse and you should never again participate in such a thing. Another option is to just sell the car and start over with your own car hopefully paid for in cash.\"",
"Ultimately the bank will have first call on the house and you will be the only one on the hook directly to the bank if you don't make the mortgage payments. There's nothing you can do to avoid that if you can't get a joint mortgage. What you could do is make a side agreement that your girlfriend would be entitled to half the equity in the house, and would be required to make half the payments (via you). You could perhaps also add that she would be part responsible for helping you clear any arrears. But in the end it'd just be a deal between you and her. She wouldn't have any direct rights over the house and she wouldn't be at risk of the bank pursuing her if you don't pay the mortgage. You'd probably also need legal advice to make it watertight, but you could also not worry about that too much and just write it all down as formally as possible. It really depends if you're just trying to improve your feelings about the process or whether you really want something that you could both rely on in the event of a later split. I don't think getting married would make any make any real difference day-to-day. In law, with rare exceptions, the finances of spouses are independent from each other. However in the longer term, being married would mean your now-wife would have a stronger legal claim on half the equity in the house in the event of you splitting up.",
"\"This is more of a long comment but may answer user's situation too. I have dealt with joint mortgages before in 3 states in the US. Basically in all three states if one party wants to sell, the home goes up for sale. This can be voluntary or it can go up via auction (not a great choice). In 2 of the 3 states the first person to respond to the court about the property, the other party pays all legal fees. Yes you read this right. In one case I had an ex who was on my mortgage, she had no money invested in the house ($0 down and still in college with no job). [If she wasn't on the mortgage I wouldn't have gotten loan - old days of dumb rules] When we split her lawyer was using the house as a way to extort other money from me. Knowing the state's laws I already filed a petition for the property but put it on hold with the clerk. Meaning that no one else could file but if someone tried mine would no longer be on hold. My ex literally spent thousands of dollars on this attorney and they wanted to sell the house and get half the money from the house. So sale price minus loan amount divided between us. This is the law in almost every state if there is no formal contract. I was laughing because she wanted what would be maybe 50-75K for paying no rent, no money down, and me paying for her college. Finally I broke her attorney down (I didn't lawyer up but had many friends who were lawyers advising). After I told her lawyer she wasn't getting anything - might have said it in not a nice way - her lawyer gave me her break down. To paraphrase she said, \"\"We are going to file now. My assistant is in the court clerk's office. You can tell the court whatever you want. Maybe they will give you a greater percentage since you put the money down and paid for everything but you are taking that chance. But you will pay for your lawyer and you will need one. And you will pay for me the entire time. And this will be a lengthy process. You would be better served to pay my client half now.\"\" Her office was about 2 blocks from court. I laughed at her and simply told her to have her assistant do whatever she wanted. I then left to go to clerk's office to take the hold off. She had beat me to the office (I moved my car out of her garage). By the time I got there she was outside yelling at her assistant, throwing a hissy fit, and papers were flying everywhere. We \"\"settled\"\" the next day. She got nothing other than the things she had already stolen from me. If I wouldn't have known about this loophole my ex would have gotten or cost me through attorney's fees around 40-50K for basically hiring a lawyer. My ex didn't really have any money so I am pretty sure lawyer was getting a percent. Moral of the story: In any contract like this you always want to be the one bringing in the least amount of money. There are no laws that I know of in any country where the person with the least amount on a contract will come out worse (%-wise). Like I said in the US the best case scenario that I know of for joint property is that the court pays out the stakeholder all of their contributions then it splits things 50/50. This is given no formal contract that the court upholds. Don't even get me started with hiring attorneys because I have seen the courts throw out so many property contracts it isn't even funny. One piece of advice on a contract if you do one. Make it open and about percentages. Party A contributes 50K, Party B 10K, Party A will pay this % of mortgage and maintenance and will get this % when home is sold. I have found the more specific things are the more loopholes for getting out of them. There are goofy ass laws everywhere that make no sense. Why would the person first filing get their lawyers paid for??? The court systems in almost all countries can have their comical corners. You will never be able to write a contract that covers everything. If the shower handle breaks, who pays for it? There is just too many one-off things with a house. You are in essence getting in a relationship with this person. I hear others say it is a business transaction. NO. You are living with this person. There is no way to make it purely business. For you to be happy with this outcome both of you must remain somewhat friends and at the very least civil with each other. To add on to the previous point, the biggest risk is this other person's character and state of mind. They are putting in the most money so you don't exactly have a huge money risk. You do have a time and a time-cost risk. Your time or the money you do have in this may be tied up in trying to get your money out or house sold. A jerk could basically say that you get nothing, and make you traverse the court system for a couple years to get a few thousand back. And that isn't the worst case scenario. Always know your worst case scenario. Yours is this dude is in love with you. When he figures out 2-3 years later after making you feel uncomfortable the entire time that you are not in love with him, he starts going nuts. So he systematically destroys your house. Your house worth plummets, you want out, you can't sell the house for price of loan, lenders foreclose or look to sue you, you pay \"\"double rent\"\" because you can't live with the guy, and you have to push a scooter to get to work. That is just the worst case scenario. Would I do this if I were 25 and had no family? Yea, why not if I trusted the other person and was friends with them? If it were just a co-worker? That is really iffy with me. Edit: Author said he will not be living with the person. So wording can be changed to say \"\"potentially\"\" in front of living with him in my examples.\"",
"\"all the other answers are spot on, but look at it this way. really all you mean when you say \"\"building equity\"\" is \"\"accumulating wealth\"\". if that is the goal, then having her invest the money in a brokerage (e.g. ira) account makes a lot more sense. if you can't afford the apartment without her, then you can't afford to pay out her portion of the equity in the future. which means she is not building equity, you are just borrowing money from her. the safest and simplest thing for you to do is to agree on a number that does not include \"\"equity\"\". to be really safe, you might want to both sign something in writing that says she will never have an equity stake unless you agree to it in writing. it doesn't have to be anything fancy. in fact, the shorter the better. i am thinking about 3 sentences should do the trick. if you feel you absolutely have to borrow money from her on a monthly basis to afford your mortgage, then i recommend you make it an unsecured loan. just be sure to specify the interest rate (even if it is zero), and the repayment terms (and ideally, late payment penalties). again, nothing fancy, 10 sentences maybe. e.g. \"\"john doe will borrow x$ per month, until jane doe vacates the apartment. after such time, john doe will begin repaying the loan at y$ per month....\"\" that said, borrowing money from friends and family almost never turns out well. at the very least, you need to save up a few months of rent so that if you do break up, you have time to find another roommate. disclaimer: i do not have any state-issued professional licenses.\"",
"The first and most important thing to consider is that this is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION, and needs to be treated as such. Nail down Absolutely All The Details, specifically including what happens if either of you decides it's time to move and wants to sell off your share of the property. Get at least one lawyer involved in drawing up that contract, perhaps two so there's no risk of conflict of interest. What's your recourse, or his, if the other stops making their share of the payments? Who's responsible for repairs and upkeep? If you make renovations, how does that affect the ownership percentage, and what kind of approval do you need from him first, and how do you get it, and how quickly does he have to respond? If he wants to do something to maintain his investment, such as reroofing, how does he negotiate that with you -- especially if it's something that requires access to the inside of the house? Who is the insurance paid by, or will each of you be insuring it separately? What are the tax implications? Consider EVERY possible outcome; the fact that you're friends now doesn't matter, and in fact arguments over money are one of the classic things that kill friendships. I'd be careful making this deal with a relative (though in fact I did loan my brother a sizable chunk of change to help him bridge between his old house and new house, and that's registered as a mortgage to formalize it). I'd insist on formalizing who owns what even with a spouse, since marriages don't always last. With someone who's just a co-worker and casual friend, it's business and only business, and needs to be both evaluated and contracted as such to protect both of you. If you can't make an agreement that you'd be reasonably comfortable signing with a stranger, think long and hard about whether you want to sign it at all. I'll also point out that nobody is completely safe from long-term unemployment. The odds may be low, but people do get blindsided. The wave of foreclosures during and after the recent depression is direct evidence of that.",
"I'm not an attorney, nor am I a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you talk to these two types of professionals. From my limited knowledge, without proper documentation/organization, I can't see how the IRS/State will not consider this as a rent payment. The mortgage responsibility is of the person signing the mortgage contract, and you're under no obligation to pay that person anything. Had you not lived at the property, you might argue that it was a gift (although I'm not sure if it would stand), but since you do live in the property - it is quite obviously a rent payment. Putting your name on the deed may mitigate this slightly but I'm not sure how much - since you're still not obligated to pay the mortgage. However this is probably moot since it is unlikely for a bank to give a mortgage on a property to person A when it is also owned by a person B, without that person B being side to the mortgage contract.",
"The issue is that the lender used two peoples income, debts, and credit history to loan both of you money to purchase a house. The only way to get a person off the loan, is to get a new loan via refinancing. The new loan will then be based on the income, debt, and credit history of one person. There is no paperwork you can sign, or the ex-spouse can sign, that will force the original lender to remove somebody from the loan. There is one way that a exchange of money between the two of you could work: The ex-spouse will have to sign paperwork to prove that it is not a loan that you will have to payback. I picked the number 20K for a reason. If the amount of the payment is above 14K they will have to document for the IRS that this is a gift, and the amount above 14K will be counted as part of their estate when they die. If the amount of the payment is less than 14K they don't even have to tell the IRS. If the ex-souse has remarried or you have remarried the multiple payments can be constructed to exceed the 14K limit.",
"Rent the property?? Is that a possible solution? Since selling the house is not an option and living in it isn't either, then perhaps renting it is the way to go? Since no explanation for the sister's motives is given, i'd speculate it is a mixture of emotional and financial concerns. Maybe mostly emotional. I imagine letting go of the one physical thing that has memories of you and your parents attached to it is very difficult. I don't think getting a lawyer or doing what's convenient for only your boyfriend is the way to go...But that's my own personal opinion. Clearly, he only has one close family member left alive. Creating permanent wounds in that relationship will cost more along the way. And quite frankly, if the house is owned 50-50, don't you need both owners to sign the deed to sell the house anyways? If renting is not an option, then maybe refinancing the mortgage to lower payments? Or Airbnb it only half the time? Or rent it out for events to help with payments? Or ask the sister for a little money...Not for half the mortgage, but at least a few hundred dollars to maintain the house and heat. If she is indeed concerned with the property, then maintaining it to prevent serious damagae is in her interests, no matter her income.",
"Sounds like you need to contact your ex and sort it out. If you have co-signed the loan, changes are you are equally responsible even if on party chooses not to pay, then the bank will come after the other one. If you no longer wish to be part of the arrangement and your ex still wants the car, she will have to buy you out of the car and become fully responsible for the liability.",
"Depending on jurisdiction, the fact that you made some payments might give you an ownership share in the house in your own right. What share would be a complex question because you might need to consider both the mortgage payments made and maintenance. Your sister might also be able to argue that she was entitled to some recompense for the risk she describes of co-signing, and that's something that would be very hard to quantify, but clearly you would also be entitled to similar recompense in respect of that, as you also co-signed. For the share your mother owned, the normal rules of inheritance apply and by default that would be a 50-50 split as JoeTaxpayer said. You imply that the loan is still outstanding, so all of this only applies to the equity previously built up in the house prior to your mother's death. If you are the only one making the ongoing payments, I would expect any further equity built up to belong solely to you, but again the jurisdiction and the fact that your sister's name is on the deeds could affect this. If you can't resolve this amicably, you might need to get a court involved and it's possible that the cost of doing so would outweigh the eventual benefit to you.",
"\"I'll chime in here with the \"\"don't do it crowd.\"\" I think it's fraught with ugly possibilities. However, you may, for various reasons, decide to say, \"\"to hell with it, we'll make it work.\"\" If that is the case, treat it like a business transaction and not an emotional transaction. Work up a binding contract with your attorney for how the two of you will handle issues such as: Of absolutely critical importance is the bail-out clause: how will you handle it when one person says, \"\"Sayonara.\"\" None of this ensures a smooth road - god knows I wouldn't do it - but it could help protect your sanity and some of your investment down the road. Good luck.\"",
"For sure you should get a lawyer on this one, but it would seem to me that the simplest path forward would be to convert the business to a partnership where both spouses are owners, and to write a clause into the partnership agreement stipulating what happens upon death of a partner. Such an approach really should be done with a lawyer to make sure that it's all legally sound and will stand up in court if needed.",
"Have her pay something like a friendly monthly rent. This should be less than half of the monthly mortgage cost, since you are assuming the risk (and benefits) of a mortgage and closer to the rent of similar places near you. For when you get married and she is to have half the apartment, have a pre-agreed way to calculate a lump-sum that she needs to provide to match your own contributions up to that time, as if you two had equal contributions from the beginning. The financially precise way to do it would be to have her pay more than the mere sum of the amount (since she will be providing the amount at a later time than you), but I would be generous and skip this in your place if the difference is not too big. If you break up, she will have payed what would be a fair amount of rent, as if you two were renting, so, in this sense, it is fair that she would not have a claim on the apartment. In case that you two would like that she keeps the apartment, you can just sell it to her, having her pay this same amount as above and assume responsibility for the rest of the mortgage.",
"\"You've laid out several workable options. You might try going to mortgage broker and looking at what offers you get each way. I can say that it sounds like your partner will have a difficult time qualifying for a mortgage. That puts you on the first and third options. Forget about \"\"building equity.\"\" You cannot rely on the house you're living in to provide a return on investment. Housing is an expense, even if you own it outright. Keep that in mind when you consider taking from the stream of money contributing to your retirement. This link is to a blog which really clarifies the \"\"rent vs. own, which is better?\"\" question. The answer is, it depends on the individual and the location, and the blogger in the link explains how to answer that question for your situation. One of the key advantages of ownership is that it gives you freedom to modify the interior, exterior, and grounds (limited by local building codes of course.)\"",
"does your sister agree to sell her share of the house? Will you live in the house or rent it out? In Australia if you rent out the house you can claim on expenses such as interest deductions, advertising cost, advertising to get tenants in, maintenance cost, water & sewerage supply charge, Land tax, stamp duty, council rates. A percentage of these expenses can be used to reduce your gross income and therefore reduces your tax liability (called negative gearing). Not sure how other countries handle investment properties. If you plan to live in the house and not rent it out and you have spare cash to buy outright then do so. You don't want to be in debt to the bank",
"\"This answer assumes (based partly on your commants and some simplifying assumptions) As I see it you have a few options. Get a mortgage to buy your sister out. This avoids any ongoing involvement of your sister which may or may not be a good thing. It means you will be paying interest to a bank (or similar financial institution). Make an arrangement to buy the house in installments, possiblly in combination with some kind of rent. Likely to be a complex option to set up. Buy the house using a loan from your sister. potentially agree a \"\"private mortgage\"\" to protect your sister in the event you fail to pay. If interest is paid then it is likely to attract tax. Simply pay your sister rent, let her keep ownership of her half of the house either forever or until you have saved up the cash to buy her out. Rent is likely to attract tax. Whatever option you go with I would reccomend you get proffesional advice on any local legal/tax issues and drawing up the contracts. If you do go into an arrangement that keeps your sister involved make sure you discuss the what-ifs upfront and build them into your agreement. If you can't/won't pay what happens? can she insist that the house is sold and the proceeds split in some way? can she rent our her half of the house to someone else?\"",
"It depends on the bank - In some cases(mine included :) ) the bank allowed for this but Emma had to sign on a document waiving the rights for the house in case the bank needs to liquidate assets in to recover their mortgage in case of delays or non-payment of dues in time. This had to be signed after taking independent legal advice from a legal adviser.",
"How is the business organized? If as a General Partnership or LLC that reports as a partnership, you will be getting distributed to you each year your % ownership of the earnings or loss. But note, this is a paperwork transfer on the form K-1, which must then carryover to your tax return, it does not require the transfer of cash to you. If organized as an S-Corp, you should be holding shares of the company that you may sell back to the S-Corp, generally as outlined in the original articles of incorporation. The annual 'dividend' (earnings remaining after all expenses are paid) should be distributed to you in proportion to the shares you hold. If a C-Corp and there is only one class of stock that you also hold a percentage of, the only 'profits' that must be distributed proportionally to you are declared dividends by the board of directors. Most family run business are loosely formed with not much attention paid to the details of partnership agreements or articles of incorporation, and so don't handle family ownership disputes very well. From my experience, trying to find an amicable settlement is the best...and least expensive....approach to separation from the business. But if this can't be done or there is a sizable value to the business, you may have to get your own legal counsel.",
"The key here is the bank, they hold the title to the car and as such have the final say in things. The best thing you can do is to pay off the loan. Could you work like crazy and pay off the car in 6 months to a year? The next best thing would be to sell the car. You will probably have to cover the depreciation out of pocket. You will also need to have some cash to buy a different car, but buy it for cash like you should have done in the first place. The worst option and what most people opt for, which is why they are broke, is to seek to refinance the car. I am not sure why you would have to wait 6 months to a year to refinance, but unless you have truly horrific credit, a local bank or credit union will be happy for your business. Choose this option if you want to continue to be broke for the next five years or so. Once any of those happen it will be easy to re-title the car in your name only provided you are on good terms with the girlfriend. It is just a matter of going to the local title office and her signing over her interest in the car. My hope is that you understand the series of foolish decisions that you made in this vehicle purchase and avoid them in the future. Or, at the very least, you consciously make the decision to appear wealthy rather than actually being wealthy.",
"Both seem to be reasonable. To decide you need to guess if the value of the house will go up or down between now and when you sell. If you think the value will go up - reach a calculation agreement now. If you think the value will go down - wait until the house is actually sold. So ya pays yer money, and ya takes yer chances... I think I understand the two scenarios Unless you are absolutely confident that you understand both scenarios - make sure your lawyer gets involved and explains them to you until you do understand.",
"You actually have a few options. First, you can do a share split and then sell an equal number of shares from both you and your wife to maintain parity. Second, you can have the company issue additional shares/convert shares and then have the company sell the appropriate percentage to the third party while the rest is distributed to you and your wife. Third, you can have the company issue a separate class of stock. For example there are companies that have voting stock and non-voting stock. Depending on your goal, you could just issue non-voting stock and sell that. Best bet is to contact a lawyer who specializes in this type of work and have them recommend a course of action. One caveat that has not been mentioned is that what/how you do this will also depend on the type of corporation that you have created.",
"If it's in your name and you don't live there, there's a number of issues. If you charge her rent, it needs to be at fair value to treat it as a rental property. If she lives there for the next 20 years, it will (or we hope) gain value. If she passes while it's in her name you get to step up the basis, and avoid tax. If in your name , the gain would be taxable."
] |
[
"\"Despite the unmarried status, you need to see a lawyer. Essentially you have a business with this person owning a home as the asset, and a mortgage for which you are responsible for. A lawyer needs to examine any paperwork you have and with knowledge of your particular jurisdiction's laws can advise you on the proper course of action. You paint a really ugly picture of this guy. I bet you are correct that he is kind of a horrible person. \"\"Tough love\"\" time: You willingly entered into a long term contract with this person. Why would you do such a thing? Perhaps some self reflection and counseling is in order. This is probably more important than worrying about your credit. All that being said, it is good of you to want to break ties with this person. You can rebuild. All will be good if you concentrate on the right things.\"",
"Because you're not married, its a partnership agreement, and unless there's a written contract, either the two of you agree on how to handle the home, or it's off to court you go. If you were both supposed to pay for the home, and he failed to for a a while, that would put him in breach of contract which I would think gives you a good position in court. On the other hand, if you are at all concerned about your safety from this louse, remember, he knows exactly where the house is."
] |
7880
|
Are there index tracking funds that avoid the “buy high - sell low” problem?
|
[
"272790",
"85319"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"81458",
"384893",
"272790",
"551590",
"206744",
"71545",
"65587",
"241202",
"9465",
"18303",
"17923",
"231863",
"298350",
"501153",
"227748",
"70194",
"452122",
"296426",
"379311",
"242835",
"7208",
"116865",
"237450",
"148721",
"322070",
"503725",
"438582",
"311527",
"138775",
"98704",
"479461",
"330743",
"220486",
"83807",
"145458",
"320778",
"435746",
"526859",
"32615",
"14185",
"515191",
"100341",
"568624",
"379213",
"470758",
"416839",
"187061",
"98978",
"188497",
"304398",
"308071",
"199751",
"263784",
"172374",
"315126",
"437875",
"368124",
"276983",
"473504",
"385955",
"378075",
"71510",
"336722",
"403864",
"545760",
"312406",
"183910",
"328308",
"408524",
"440779",
"236594",
"195631",
"285259",
"334919",
"507777",
"599701",
"568315",
"122679",
"579319",
"410461",
"14748",
"36534",
"41625",
"85319",
"246531",
"58690",
"554674",
"108721",
"335294",
"452939",
"524030",
"474305",
"501536",
"427819",
"403977",
"458244",
"175576",
"135646",
"574327",
"330023"
] |
[
"\"Usually, the amswer to \"\"why sell it\"\" is \"\"to maintain the specific distribution balance, or to track the index, that this fund was designed to offer.\"\" A \"\"buy and hold\"\" fund could only buy when users are actively putting money into it. That limits their ability to follow those approaches. And I think there would be problems msking withdrawls/redeptions \"\"fair\"\", in terms of what shares are sold and how the costs for selling them are distributed, that don't arise for a single buy-and-hold investor. If you're willing to accept the limitations of the former, and can overcome the latter, it's an interesting idea... But note that one of the places index funds save money is that, since the composition of indexes changes rately, they are already operating mostly in buy-and-hold mode.It's unclear how much your variant would save. Worth exploring in greater depth, though. I think.\"",
"The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.",
"\"In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by \"\"fundamental indexation\"\" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is \"\"price-weighted\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by \"\"fundamentals\"\" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan.\"",
"\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"",
"In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index.",
"I have only found solution for UK residents so far, see the article on This Is Money: Cheapest index-tracking funds: Trackers with the lowest charges - and the best ways to invest in them",
"Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.",
"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000. I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year. Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200. Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance. Repeat that activity every 12-18 months. This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets. This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining.",
"If the ship is sinking, switching cabins with your neighbor isn't necessarily a good survival strategy. Index funds have sucked, because frankly just about everything has sucked lately. I still think it is a viable long term strategy as long as you are doing some dollar cost averaging. You can't think about long term investing as a steady climb up a hill, markets are erratic, but over long periods of time trend upwards. Now is your chance to get in near the ground floor. I can completely empathize that it is painful right now, but I am a believer in market efficiency and that over the long haul smart money is just more expensive (in terms of fees) than set-it-and-forget it diversified investments or target funds.",
"Dogma always disappoints. The notion that an index fund is the end-all, be-all for investing because the expense ratios are low is a flawed one. I don't concern myself with cost as an independent factor -- I look for the best value. Bogle's dogma lines up with his business, so you need to factor that in as well. Vendors of any product spend alot of time and money convincing you that unique attributes of their product are the most important thing in the world. Pre-crash, the dogmatics among us were bleating about how Fixed-date Retirement Funds were the new paradigm. Where did they go?",
"Passive implies following an index. Your question seems to ask about a hypothetical fund that starts, say, as an S&P fund, but as the index is adjusted, the old stocks stay in the fund. Sounds simple enough, but over time, the fund's performance will diverge from the index. The slight potential gain from lack of cap gains will be offset by the fund being unable to market itself. Keep in mind, the gains distributed each year are almost exclusively long term, taxed at a favorable rate.",
"\"The \"\"ideal world\"\" index fund of any asset class is a perfect percentage holding of all underlying assets with immediate rebalancing that aligns to every change in the index weighting while trading in a fully liquid market with zero transaction costs. One finance text book that describes this is Introduction to Finance: Markets, Investments, and Financial Management, see chapter 11. Practically, the transaction costs and liquidity make this unworkable. There are several deviations between what the \"\"ideal world algorithm\"\" (\"\"the algorithm\"\") says you should do and what is actually done. Each of these items addresses a real-world solution to various costs of managing a passive index fund. (And they are good solutions.) However, any deviation from the ideal index fund will have a risk. An investor evaluating their choices is left to pick the lowest fees with the least deviation from the ideal index fund. (It is customary to ignore whether the results are in excess or deficit to the ideal). So your formula is: This is also described in the above book.\"",
"\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"",
"\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"",
"Many mutual funds include such mechanisms. However, the higher fees for those funds (when compared to simple index funds) may cancel out any improvement the hedging strategy offers.",
"Now, if I'm not mistaken, tracking a value-weighted index is extremely easy - just buy the shares in the exact amount they are in the index and wait. Yes in theory. In practise this is difficult. Most funds that track S&P do it on sample basis. This is to maintain the fund size. Although I don't have / know the exact number ... if one wants to replicate the 500 stocks in the same %, one would need close to billion in fund size. As funds are not this large, there are various strategies adopted, including sampling of companies [i.e. don't buy all]; select a set of companies that mimic the S&P behaviour, etc. All these strategies result in tracking errors. There are algorithms to reduce this. The only time you would need to rebalance your holdings is when there is a change in the index, i.e. a company is dropped and a new one is added, right? So essentially rebalance is done to; If so, why do passive ETFs require frequent rebalancing and generally lose to their benchmark index? lets take an Index with just 3 companies, with below price. The total Market cap is 1000 The Minimum required to mimic this index is 200 or Multiples of 200. If so you are fine. More Often, funds can't be this large. For example approx 100 funds track the S&P Index. Together they hold around 8-10% of Market Cap. Few large funds like Vangaurd, etc may hold around 2%. But most of the 100+ S&P funds hold something in 0.1 to 0.5 range. So lets say a fund only has 100. To maintain same proportion it has to buy shares in fraction. But it can only buy shares in whole numbers. This would then force the fund manager to allocate out of proportion, some may remain cash, etc. As you can see below illustrative, there is a tracking error. The fund is not truly able to mimic the index. Now lets say after 1st April, the share price moved, now this would mean more tracking error if no action is taken [block 2] ... and less tracking error if one share of company B is sold and one share of company C is purchased. Again the above is a very simplified view. Tracking error computation is involved mathematics. Now that we have the basic concepts, more often funds tracking S&P; Thus they need to rebalance.",
"More importantly, index funds are denominated in specific currencies. You can't buy or sell an index, so it can be dimensionless. Anything you actually do to track the index involves real amounts of real money.",
"It's important to remember that upward trending things spend the vast majority of their time at all time highs - intelligent, well meaning people have been regularly saying the Dow Jones has been too expensive since about 2010, often because it was now at 'all time highs': Sitting on the sidelines can end up just as expensive (if not more so) than avoiding big drops. If you are worried about a large down swing straight after investing just drip it in over a period you feel comfortable with - no one can really answer this better than that without more info on your risk tolerance and exactly what you want to invest in. Worth noting that buying anything other than transaction free funds when split into small transactions also adds a lot more fees (~£10 entry and exit in a UK ISA for example). Split these over 12 months say, and it will cost you £240 straight out of the gate (2 fund purchases per month for 12 months @£10 each) and another £240 to exit before any holding fees from the ISA platform: that's over 1% of your capital gone just to your stockbroker employing this strategy. Both the products you mention are also quite high cost in ongoing charges, so unless you have very high convictions about the management quality, will also probably lag cheaper investment types over the long run as well due to the dire performance of virtually all higher cost, active management over time.",
"Now company A has been doing ok for couple of weeks, but then due to some factors in that company its stock has been tanking heavily and doesn't appear to have a chance to recover. In this kind of scenario, what does happen? In this scenario, if that company is included in the index being tracked, you will continue holding until such time that the index is no longer including that company. Index funds are passively managed because they simply hold the securities contained in the index and seek to keep the allocations of the fund in line with the proportions of the index being tracked. In an actively managed fund the fund manager would try to hedge losses and make stock/security picks. If the manager thought a particular company had bad news coming maybe they would offload some or all the position. In an index fund, the fund follows the index on good days and bad and the managers job is to match the asset allocations of the index, not to pick stocks.",
"\"Which is one reason why I don't sell stock until I need to. A couple months ago, my largest index fund investment dropped pretty hard, and I just said \"\"well, I'll just wait for it to come up again.\"\"\"",
"Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.",
"\"They pretty much already have what you are looking for. They are called Unit Investment Trusts. The key behind these is (a) the trust starts out with a fixed pool of securities. It is completely unmanaged and there is no buying or selling of the securities, (b) they terminate after a fixed period of time, at which time all assets are distributed among the owners. According to Investment Company Institute, \"\"securities in a UIT are professionally selected to meet a stated investment objective, such as growth, income, or capital appreciation.\"\" UITs sell a fixed number of units at one-time public offering. Securities in a UIT do not trade actively, rather, UITs use a strategy known as buy-and-hold. The UIT purchases a certain amount of securities and holds them until its termination date. Holdings rarely change throughout the life of the trust so unit holders know exactly what they're investing in, and the trust lists all securities in its prospectus. Unit trusts normally sell redeemable units - this obligates the trust to re-purchase investor's units at their net asset value at the investors request.\"",
"From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.",
"\"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices. From an investors point of view, this is not important. What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage. In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%. Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the \"\"compare\"\" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500. You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds. Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing.\"",
"\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\"",
"In a word, yes. You can buy very low cost index ETFs, like VTI, VEA, BND, FBND and rebalance in proportion to your age and risk tolerance. Minimal management and low cost.",
"I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.",
"Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.",
"You will have to rebalance every time your Boolean Buy flag is true. You buy 20% of each fund then next week you have to sell down to 10% of your first 5 funds and buy 10% of the second 5.",
"\"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now. In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not \"\"pure stocks\"\": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done \"\"by hand,\"\" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard. (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice.\"",
"\"The S&P 500 is an index. This refers to a specific collection of securities which is held in perfect proportion. The dollar value of an index is scaled arbitrarily and is based off of an arbitrary starting price. (Side note: this is why an index never has a \"\"split\"\"). Lets look at what assumptions are included in the pricing of an index: All securities are held in perfect proportion. This means that if you invest $100 in the index you will receive 0.2746 shares of IBM, 0.000478 shares of General Motors, etc. Also, if a security is added/dropped from the list, you are immediately rebalancing the remaining money. Zero commissions are charged. When the index is calculated, they are using the current price (last trade) of the underlying securities, they are not actually purchasing them. Therefore it assumes that securities may be purchased without commission or other liquidity costs. Also closely related is the following. The current price has full liquidity. If the last quoted price is $20 for a security, the index assumes that you can purchase an arbitrary amount of the security at that price with a counterparty that is willing to trade. Dividends are distributed immediately. If you own 500 equities, and most distributed dividends quarterly, this means you will receive on average 4 dividends per day. Management is free. All equities can be purchased with zero research and administrative costs. There is no gains tax. Trading required by the assumptions above would change your holdings constantly and you are exempt from short-term or long-term capital gains taxes. Each one of these assumptions is, of course, invalid. And the fund which endeavors to track the index must make several decisions in how to closely track the index while avoiding the problems (costs) caused by the assumptions. These are shortcuts or \"\"approximations\"\". Each shortcut leads to performance which does not exactly match the index. Management fees. Fees are charged to the investor as load, annual fees and/or redemptions. Securities are purchased at real prices. If Facebook were removed from the S&P 500 overnight tonight, the fund would sell its shares at the price buyers are bidding the next market day at 09:30. This could be significantly different than the price today, which the index records. Securities are purchased in blocks. Rather than buying 0.000478 shares of General Motors each time someone invests a dollar, they wait for a few people and then buy a full share or a round lot. Securities are substituted. With lots of analysis, it may be determined that two stocks move in tandem. The fund may purchase two shares of General Motors rather than one of General Motors and Ford. This halves transaction costs. Debt is used. As part of substitution, equities may be replaced by options. Option pricing shows that ownership of options is equivalent to holding an amount of debt. Other forms of leverage may also be employed to achieve desired market exposure. See also: beta. Dividends are bundled. VFINX, the largest S&P 500 tracking fund, pays dividends quarterly rather than immediately as earned. The dividend money which is not paid to you is either deployed to buy other securities or put into a sinking fund for payment. There are many reasons why you can't get the actual performance quoted in an index. And for other more exotic indices, like VIX the volatility index, even more so. The best you can do is work with someone that has a good reputation and measure their performance.\"",
"There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.",
"\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \"\"index includes 500 leading companies\"\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\"",
"\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"",
"If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.",
"Buy low, sell high - the problem, of course, finding a crystal ball that will tell you when the highs and lows are going to happen :-) You could, for instance, save your money in cash and wait for the occasional sharp drop, but then you've lost profits & dividends from having that cash under the mattress all those years you were waiting. About the closest I've ever gotten to market timing, and I think the closest anyone can get in real life, is that I cut personal spending to the bone from 2008 to 2011, and invested every spare cent. But such opportunities only come along a few times in a lifetime. The other thing is to avoid what a lot of people do, which you might call anti-timing. When the market is high, they jump on the bandwagon, then when it drops they panic-sell, and lose money.",
"The top ten holdings for these funds don't overlap by even one stock. It seems to me they are targeting an index for comparison, but making no attempt to replicate a list of holdings as would, say, a true S&P index.",
"Excellent Question! I agree with other repliers but there are some uneasy things with index funds. Since your view is death, I will take extremely pessimist view things that may cause it (very big may): I know warnings about stock-picking but, in imperfect world, the above things tend to happen. But to be honest, they feel too much paranoia. Better to keep things simple with good diversification and rebalancing when people live in euphoria/death. You may like Bogleheads.org.",
"\"P/E alone would not work very well. See for example http://www.hussmanfunds.com/html/peak2pk.htm and http://www.hussmanfunds.com/rsi/profitmargins.htm (in short, P/E is affected too much by cyclical changes in profit margins, or you might say: booms inflate the E beyond sustainable levels, thus making the P/E look more favorable than it is). Here's a random blog post that points to Schiller's normalized earnings measure: http://seekingalpha.com/article/247257-s-p-500-is-expensive-using-normalized-earnings I think even Price to Sales is supposed to work better than P/E for predicting 10-year returns on a broad index, because it effectively normalizes the margins. (Normalized valuation explains the variance in 10-year returns better than the variance in 1-year returns, I think I've read; you can't rely on things \"\"reverting to mean\"\" in only 1 year.) Another issue with P/E is that E is more subject to weird accounting effects than for example revenues. For example whether stock compensation is expensed or one-time write-offs are included or whatever can mean you end up with an economically strange earnings number. btw, a simple way to do what you describe here would be to put a chunk of money into funds that vary equity exposure. For example John Hussman's fund has an elaborate model that he uses to decide when to hedge. Say you invest 40% bonds, 40% stocks, and 20% in Hussman Strategic Growth. When Hussman fully hedges his fund, you would effectively have 40% in stocks; and when he fully unhedges it, you would have 60% in stocks. This isn't quite the whole story; he also tries to pick up some gains through stock picking, so when fully hedged the fund isn't quite equivalent to cash, more like a market-neutral fund. (For Hussman Funds in particular, he's considered stocks to be overvalued for most of the last 15 years, and the fund is almost always fully hedged, so you'd want to be comfortable with that.) There are other funds out there doing similar stuff. There are certainly funds that vary equity exposure though most not as dramatically as the Hussman fund. Some possibilities might be PIMCO All-Asset All-Authority, PIMCO Multi-Asset, perhaps. Or just some value-oriented funds with willingness to deviate from benchmarks. Definitely read the prospectus on all these and research other options, I just thought it would be helpful to mention a couple of specific examples. If you wanted to stick to managing ETFs yourself, Morningstar's premium service has an interesting feature where they take the by-hand bottom-up analysis of all the stocks in an ETF, and use that to calculate an over- or under-valuation ratio for the ETF. I don't know if the Morningstar bottom-up stuff necessarily works; I'm sure they make the \"\"pro\"\" case on their site. On the \"\"con\"\" side, in the financial crisis bubble bursting, they cut their valuation on many companies and they had a high valuation on a lot of the financials that blew up. While I haven't run any stats and don't have the data, in several specific cases it looked like their bottom-up analysis ended up assuming too-high profit margins would continue. Broad-brush normalized valuation measures avoided that mistake by ignoring the details of all the individual companies and assuming the whole index had to revert to mean. If you're rich, I think you can hire GMO to do a varied-equity-exposure strategy for you (http://www.gmo.com/America/). You could also look at the \"\"fundamental indexing\"\" ETFs that weight by dividends or P/E or other measures of value, rather than by market cap. The bottom line is, there are lots of ways to do tactical asset allocation. It seems complex enough that I'm not sure it's something you'd want to manage yourself. There are also a lot of managers doing this that I personally am not comfortable with because they don't seem to have a discipline or method that they explain well enough, or they don't seem to do enough backtesting and math, or they rely on macroeconomic forecasts that probably aren't reliable, or whatever. All of these tactical allocation strategies are flavors of active management. I'm most comfortable with active management when it has a fairly objective, testable, and logical discipline to it, such as Graham&Buffett style value investing, Hussman's statistical methods, or whatever it is. Many people will argue that all active management is bad and there's no way to distinguish among any of it. I am not in that camp, but I do think a lot of active managers are bad, and that it's pretty hard to distinguish among them, and I think active management is more likely to help with risk control than it is to help with beating the market. Still you should know (and probably already do know, but I'll note for other readers) that there's a strong argument smart people make that you're best off avoiding this whole line of tactical-allocation thinking and just sticking to the pure cap-based index funds.\"",
"Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.",
"You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.",
"According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.",
"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.",
"\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"",
"\"One approach is to invest in \"\"allocation\"\" mutual funds that use various methods to vary their asset allocation. Some examples (these are not recommendations; just to show you what I am talking about): A good way to identify a useful allocation fund is to look at the \"\"R-squared\"\" (correlation) with indexes on Morningstar. If the allocation fund has a 90-plus R-squared with any index, it probably isn't doing a lot. If it's relatively uncorrelated, then the manager is not index-hugging, but is making decisions to give you different risks from the index. If you put 10% of your portfolio in a fund that varies allocation to stocks from 25% to 75%, then your allocation to stocks created by that 10% would be between 2.5% to 7.5% depending on the views of the fund manager. You can use that type of calculation to invest enough in allocation funds to allow your overall allocation to vary within a desired range, and then you could put the rest of your money in index funds or whatever you normally use. You can think of this as diversifying across investment discipline in addition to across asset class. Another approach is to simply rely on your already balanced portfolio and enjoy any downturns in stocks as an opportunity to rebalance and buy some stocks at a lower price. Then enjoy any run-up as an opportunity to rebalance and sell some stocks at a high price. The difficulty of course is going through with the rebalance. This is one advantage of all-in-one funds (target date, \"\"lifecycle,\"\" balanced, they have many names), they will always go through with the rebalance for you - and you can't \"\"see\"\" each bucket in order to get stressed about it. i.e. it's important to think of your portfolio as a whole, not look at the loss in the stocks portion. An all-in-one fund keeps you from seeing the stocks-by-themselves loss number, which is a good way to trick yourself into behaving sensibly. If you want to rebalance \"\"more aggressively\"\" then look at value averaging (search for \"\"value averaging\"\" on this site for example). A questionable approach is flat-out market-timing, where you try to get out and back in at the right times; a variation on this would be to buy put options at certain times; the problem is that it's just too hard. I think it makes more sense to buy an allocation fund that does this for you. If you do market time, you want to go in and out gradually, and value averaging is one way to do that.\"",
"Most funds keep a certain amount in cash at all times to satisfy outflows. Net inflows will simply be added to the cash balance while net outflows subtract. When the cash gets too low for the manager's comfort level (depends on the typical pattern of net inflows and outflows, as well as anticipated flows based on recent performance), the manager will sell some of his least favorite holdings, and when the cash gets too high he will buy some new holdings or add to his favorite existing holdings. A passive fund works similarly, except the buys/sells are structured to minimize tracking error.",
"What makes the S&P 500 Index funds have low expenses ratios is that the amount of money spent by the mutual fund company on research is Zero. Standard and Poors does the research, the fund companies piggy back on that research. Another big factor in keeping expenses low is the fact the companies that makeup the index don't change very often. If the fund frequently changes the makeup of the investments not only can that trigger tax considerations but there are costs associated with all those transactions. The question is: do the other algorithms overcome the additional costs due to higher expenses and taxes.",
"\"As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your \"\"S&P 500\"\" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks.\"",
"The idea of an index is that it is representative of the market (or a specific market segment) as a whole, so it will move as the market does. Thus, past performance is not really relevant, unless you want to bank on relative differences between different countries' economies. But that's not the point. By far the most important aspect when choosing index funds is the ongoing cost, usually expressed as Total Expense Ratio (TER), which tells you how much of your investment will be eaten up by trading fees and to pay the funds' operating costs (and profits). This is where index funds beat traditional actively managed funds - it should be below 0.5% The next question is how buying and selling the funds works and what costs it incurs. Do you have to open a dedicated account or can you use a brokerage account at your bank? Is there an account management fee? Do you have to buy the funds at a markup (can you get a discount on it)? Are there flat trading fees? Is there a minimum investment? What lot sizes are possible? Can you set up a monthly payment plan? Can you automatically reinvest dividends/coupons? Then of course you have to decide which index, i.e. which market you want to buy into. My answer in the other question apparently didn't make it clear, but I was talking only about stock indices. You should generally stick to broad, established indices like the MSCI World, S&P 500, Euro Stoxx, or in Australia the All Ordinaries. Among those, it makes some sense to just choose your home country's main index, because that eliminates currency risk and is also often cheaper. Alternatively, you might want to use the opportunity to diversify internationally so that if your country's economy tanks, you won't lose your job and see your investment take a dive. Finally, you should of course choose a well-established, reputable issuer. But this isn't really a business for startups (neither shady nor disruptively consumer-friendly) anyway.",
"Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.",
"Why not figure out the % composition of the index and invest in the participating securities directly? This isn't really practical. Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 Those two indices represent 2500 stocks. A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks. Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments. Index funds provide inexpensive diversity.",
"that index fund providers don’t have incentive to push companies to change for the better and create shareholder value. And yet we see countless share buybacks. Dividend yield on the S&P that has been rising since the year 2000. I don't buy the argument of it's devouring capitalism...I do however buy the argument it is helping distort the market, as mentioned with shorting/negative positions.",
"I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.",
"If you just want to track an index, then ETFs are, generally speaking, the better way.",
"\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"",
"An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \"\"market rate of return\"\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\"",
"You haven't looked very far if you didn't find index tracking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on the Toronto Stock Exchange. There are at least a half dozen major exchange-traded fund families that I'm aware of, including Canadian-listed offerings from some of the larger ETF providers from the U.S. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) maintains a list of ETF providers that have products listed on the TSX.",
"You are very correct, rebalancing is basically selling off winners to buy losers. Of course the thinking is that selling a winner that has already increased 100% on the basis that it has doubled so it is likely to go down in the near future. However, just look at Apple as an example, if you bought Apple in June 2009 for $20 (adjusted price) and sold it as part of rebalancing when it rose to $40 (adjusted price) in September 2010, you would have missed out on it reaching over $95 2 years later. Similarly you look to rebalance by buying assets which have been battered (say dropped by 50%) on the basis that it has dropped so much that it should start increasing in the near future. But many times the price can fall even further. A better method would be to sell your winners when they stop being winners (i.e. their uptrend ends) and replace them with assets that are just starting their winning ways (i.e. their downtrend has ended and are now starting to Uptrend). This can be achieved by looking at price action and referring to the definitions of an uptrend and a downtrend. Definition of an uptrend - higher highs and higher lows. Definition of a downtrend - lower lows and lower highs.",
"\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\"",
"It would involve manual effort, but there is just a handful of exclusions, buy the fund you want, plug into a tool like Morningstar Instant X Ray, find out your $10k position includes $567.89 of defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and sell short $567.89 of Lockheed Martin. Check you're in sync periodically (the fund or index balance may change); when you sell the fund close your shorts too.",
"\"Value averaging has you shift the balance of your portfolio over time, not the amount of contributions. So you can only do it if you have a portfolio holding both risky assets (shares etc) and some cash. You start out by making a plan about how much you will contribute every month and at what rate you expect the share part of the portfolio to grow. Perhaps based on 20th century data you think an 8% growth rate is reasonable. Or alternatively if you know your desired final amount obviously you can work backwards to a desired rate from that. If in any month the share part is falling below its expected growth path, you would put more money into it: possibly your whole paycheck contribution plus some from the savings cash account. On the other hand if the share component is growing \"\"too fast\"\" you would put all your additional savings into cash. So if your investments are doing well, you're not supposed to spend the excess money, but rather to put it aside into a dedicated cash account to top up your share component when prices fall. In theory, this has the auto-levelling benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging, but even better: when prices are high, you'll automatically buy fewer shares, or even sell some; conversely when prices are low you'll buy extra shares from your reserve account. If it turns out your estimate was unreasonably optimistic, and over your lifetime shares only ever average 3%, you'll end up with an entirely share portfolio, and a bumpier ride than you might have liked. If you have horrible luck and over your entire investing life shares return less than cash (which has happened, though not yet in the USA), then this will be worse than a standard balanced portfolio. The original book Value Averaging by Edelson has a pretty good explanation of various cases, though I would say some of the examples are worked in excessive detail. I have not implemented this myself, one reason being that the amount I'm able to save from year to year varies, as it probably does for you, and so predicting a path is not quite so simple as he assumes. You could still do it I suppose. I think you could get a very crude approximation to this by simply directing your savings into cash when the share market's rate of growth over the last several years is above what you think is the long term average.\"",
"Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.",
"Like an S&P 500 ETF? So you're getting in some cash inflow each day, cash outflows each day. And you have to buy and sell 500 different stocks, at the same time, in order for your total fund assets to match the S&P 500 index proportions, as much as possible. At any given time, the prices you get from the purchase/sale of stock is probably going to be somewhat different than the theoretical amounts you are supposed to get to match, so it's quite a tangle. This is my understanding of things. Some funds are simpler - a Dow 30 fund only has 30 stocks to balance out. Maybe that's easier, or maybe it's harder because one wonky trade makes a bigger difference? I'm not sure this is how it really operates. The closest I've gotten is a team that has submitted products for indexing, and attempted to develop funds from those indexes. Turns out finding the $25-50 million of initial investments isn't as easy as anyone would think.",
"Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house.",
"This is the chart going back to the first full year of this fund. To answer your question - yes, a low cost ETF or Mutual fund is fine. Why not go right to an S&P index? VOO has a .05% expense. Why attracted you to a choice that lagged the S&P by $18,000 over this 21 year period? (And yes, past performance, yada, yada, but that warning is appropriate for the opposite example. When you show a fund that beat the S&P short term, say 5 years, its run may be over. But this fund lagged the S&P by a significant margin over 2 decades, what makes you think this will change?",
"The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.",
"In my opinion, the ability to set a sell or buy price is the least of my concerns. Your question of whether to choose individual stocks vs funds prompts a different issue for me to bring to light. Choosing stocks that beat the market is not simple. In fact, a case can be made for the fact that the average fund lags the market by more and more over time. In the end, conceding that fact and going with the lowest cost funds or ETFs will beat 90% of investors over time.",
"Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.",
"Minimizing tracking error and offering good redemption liquidity is the priority. A few concerns off the top of my head are entrants and exits of the S&P 500. Vanguard needs to dump a good amount of one stock quickly and purchase another big stake simultaneously. Everyone also knows that the large orders are coming so trying to do it efficiently is one challenge. When a company in the S&P 500 spins off a stock as a dividend, you could be holding on to a bunch of shares in a new stock that you need to get rid off. Again, a lot of selling at once, need to keep costs of that low.",
"\"The tricky part is that it's NAV is quite high these days, almost close to its 52 week high You will find, if you look historically, most markets are often close to their 52 week or even historical highs. This is an important consideration. \"\"The markets are at their all-time high!\"\" has been true a large percentage of the past decades. Everyone wants to buy low, sell high. But the reality is, buying low often will be \"\"buying at close to the highest point\"\" as no one has a crystal ball.\"",
"\"The way I've implemented essentially \"\"value averaging\"\", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash.\"",
"This is the S&P a bit over 20 years. If you've discovered a way to sell at 1400 in 2000, buy at 800 or so in 2003, sell again, well, you get the idea. There's strong evidence the typical investor hears the S&P is making new highs and rushes in. It's this influx that may send stocks higher from here, until the smart money senses 'overbought' and bails. I am not the smart money, but my ability to ignore emotion, and use asset allocation naturally had me selling a bit into each run up, and of course buying during downturns. Not all or none, and not with any perfect timing, just at year end when I'm rebalancing. I am not a fan of short term timing, although I do respect Victor's observations and excellent example of when it's been shown to work.",
"Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious.",
"\"I think the answer to your question is no, in theory. By screening out funds, you must actively manage the investments. To then try to ensure you track the index closely enough, you have to do further management. Either you spend your own time to do this or you pay someone else. This is ok, but it seems contrary to the primary reasons most people choose an index fund and why the product exists. You want a specific type of ethical investment(s) that has lower fees and performs well. I think you can get close, it just won't be like an \"\"index fund\"\". Don't expect equal results.\"",
"No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.",
"In your case I think you are doing just fine. Index funds, by their nature, have lower transaction costs and fewer taxable events than actively managed funds, good work. Index funds do not preclude the generation of dividends, and by their nature they probably generate slightly more than actively managed funds. You could take capital gain or dividend or both distributions, rather than reinvest them, if paying the taxes are a hardship. Otherwise look at the taxes you pay as your contributions to these funds. It stinks, but this is why 401K/IRA were rather revolutionary when they were formed. It was a really good deal to not have people's capital gains eaten by taxes when they occurred. Now its old hat, but it was pretty darn cool at the time. Should you prefer VTMSX rather than VFIAX? We can't really make the call on that one. Which one will perform better after taxes? Its anyone's guess. It is kind of a good problem to have.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"There many asset allocation strategies to chose from that beat lifestyle funds. For example: Relative Strength Asset Allocation keeps your money in Stocks when stocks perform well, bonds when they outperform stocks, and cash when both bonds and stocks are under-performing. The re-allocation happens on a monthly basis.",
"\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"",
"\"That's great that you have saved up money. You are ahead of your peers. I would advise against investing in an index fund. The attraction of the idea is that you will get the same return as the base item. For example, an index fund of gold would supposedly give you the same return as if you bought gold. In reality this is not true. The return of an index fund is always significantly below the return of the underlying commodity. Your best strategy is to invest in something you know and understand. There are two books that can help you learn how to do this: \"\"One Up on Wall Street\"\" by Peter Lynch and \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. Buying, reading and following the guidance in these two books is your best investment of time and money.\"",
"\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"",
"\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"",
"\"There are some index funds out there like this - generally they are called \"\"equal weight\"\" funds. For example, the Rydex S&P Equal-Weight ETF. Rydex also has several other equal weight sector funds\"",
"As I recall, the Scottrade minimum is only $500. (By the way, Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends which the securities pay) Once you have an account, you can buy into an index fund. SPY tracks the S&P 500. It is also currently paying nearly 2% in dividends. You can shop for other alternatives here: http://seekingalpha.com/insight/etf_hub/etf_guide/selector/article/39431-core-building-blocks-large-mid-small-cap-us-etfs",
"\"The problem with daily-rebalanced \"\"inverse\"\" or \"\"leveraged\"\" ETFs is that since they rebalance every day, you can lose money even if your guess as to the market's direction is correct. Quoting from FINRA'S guide as to why these are a bad idea: How can this apparent breakdown between longer term index returns and ETF returns happen? Here’s a hypothetical example: let’s say that on Day 1, an index starts with a value of 100 and a leveraged ETF that seeks to double the return of the index starts at $100. If the index drops by 10 points on Day 1, it has a 10 percent loss and a resulting value of 90. Assuming it achieved its stated objective, the leveraged ETF would therefore drop 20 percent on that day and have an ending value of $80. On Day 2, if the index rises 10 percent, the index value increases to 99. For the ETF, its value for Day 2 would rise by 20 percent, which means the ETF would have a value of $96. On both days, the leveraged ETF did exactly what it was supposed to do—it produced daily returns that were two times the daily index returns. But let’s look at the results over the 2 day period: the index lost 1 percent (it fell from 100 to 99) while the 2x leveraged ETF lost 4 percent (it fell from $100 to $96). That means that over the two day period, the ETF's negative returns were 4 times as much as the two-day return of the index instead of 2 times the return. That example is for \"\"just\"\" leveraging 2x in the same direction. Inverse funds have the same kind of issue. An example from Bogleheads Wiki page on these kinds of funds says that over 12/31/2007 to 12/31/2010, The funds do exactly what they say on any given day. But any losses get \"\"locked in\"\" each day. While normally a 50% loss needs a 100% gain to get back to a starting point, a fund like this needs more than a 100% gain to get back to its starting point. The result of these funds across multiple days doesn't match the index it's matching over those several days, and you won't make money over the long term. Do look at the further examples at the links I've referenced above, or do your own research into the performance of these funds during time periods both when the market is going up and going down. Also refer to these related and/or duplicate questions:\"",
"If you find a particular stock to be overvalued at $200 for example and a reasonable value at $175, you can place a limit order at the price you want to pay. If/when the stock price falls to your desired purchase price, the transaction takes place. Your broker can explain how long a limit order can stay open. This method allows you to take advantage of flash crashes when some savvy stock trader decides to game the market. This tactic works better with more volatile or low-volume stocks. If it works for an S&P500 tracking ETF, you have bigger problems. :) Another tactic is to put money into your brokerage cash account on a regular basis and buy those expensive stocks & funds when you have accumulated enough money to do so. This money won't earn you any interest while it sits in the cash account, but it's there, ready to be deployed at a moment's notice when you have enough to purchase those expensive assets.",
"Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.",
"\"Since you have emphasized that you don't mind about variability, and that you have other funds you could liquidate, then I think a solution is to do with this money the same thing that you are already doing with those other funds. Then when you need the money, if the market has gone up sell the lots that were part of your original \"\"other funds\"\", which presumably have aged enough to qualify for long term gains rates, and let the newly purchased shares take their place.\"",
"\"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"",
"John Bogle never said only buy the S&P 500 or any single index Q:Do you think the average person could safely invest for retirement and other goals without expert advice -- just by indexing? A: Yes, there is a rule of thumb I add to that. You should start out heavily invested in equities. Hold some bond index funds as well as stock index funds. By the time you get closer to retirement or into your retirement, you should have a significant position in bond index funds as well as stock index funds. As we get older, we have less time to recoup. We have more money to protect and our nervousness increases with age. We get a little bit worried about that nest egg when it's large and we have little time to recoup it, so we pay too much attention to the fluctuations in the market, which in the long run mean nothing. How much to pay Q: What's the highest expense ratio that one should pay for a domestic equity fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent maybe. Q: For an international fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent. Q: For a bond fund? A: One-half of 1 percent. But I'd shave that a little bit. For example, if you can buy a no-load bond fund or a no-load stock fund, you can afford a little more expense ratio, because you're not paying any commission. You've eliminated cost No. 2....",
"No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments.",
"Picking yourself is just what all the fund managers are trying to do, and history shows that the majority of them fails the majority of the time to beat the index fund. That is the core reason of the current run after index funds. What that means is that although it doesn’t sound so hard, it is not easy at all to beat an index consistently. Of course you can assume that you are better than all those high-paid specialists, but I would have some doubt. You might be luckier, but then you might be not.",
"There is none, whatever sector you invest in will be subject to cyclical market difficulties, however alpha can be generated from two sources: Timing and selection. Its much easier to get the timing done over a long period of time.",
"I'd say neither. Index Funds mimic whatever index. Some stocks that are in the index are good investment opportunities, others not so much. I'm guessing the Bond Index Funds do the same. As for Gold... did you notice how much gold has risen lately? Do you think it will keep on rising like that? For which period? (Hint: if your timespan is less than 10 years, you really shouldn't invest). Investing is about buying low, and selling high. Gold is high, don't touch it. If you want to invest in funds, look at 4 or 5 star Morningstar rated funds. My advisors suggest Threadneedle (Lux) US Equities DU - LU0096364046 with a 4 star rating as the best American fund at this time. However, they are not favoring American stocks at this moment... so maybe you should stay away from the US for now. Have you looked at the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries?",
"\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"",
"If you have a lump sum, you could put it into a low risk investment (which should also have low fluctuations) right away to avoid the risk of buying at a down point. Then move it into a higher risk investment over a period of time. That way you'll buy more units when the price is lower than when it's higher. Usually I hear dollar cost averaging applied to the practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of an investment every week or month right out of your salary. The effect is pretty minimal though, except on the highest growth portfolios, and is generally just used as a sales tool by investment councilors (in my opinion).",
"Yeah, that's what I do, just buy the indices and forget it. My portfolio is so boring it's elegant, and makes money too. 4.5% YTD and 5.9% in 2016, not bad for a 30/70 stock bond split for this 70-year-old. Oh, did I tell you my costs are .06%! I am enjoying the freedom of my retirement.",
"\"First, what structure does your index fund have? If it is an open-end mutual fund, there are no bid/ask spread as the structure of this security is that it is priced once a day and transactions are done with that price. If it is an exchange-traded fund, then the question becomes how well are authorized participants taking advantage of the spread to make the fund track the index well? This is where you have to get into the Creation and Redemption unit construct of the exchange-traded fund where there are \"\"in-kind\"\" transactions done to either create new shares of the fund or redeem out shares of the fund. In either case, you are making some serious assumptions about the structure of the fund that don't make sense given how these are built. Index funds have lower expense ratios and are thus cheaper than other mutual funds that may take on more costs. If you want suggested reading on this, look at the investing books of John C. Bogle who studied some of this rather extensively, in addition to being one of the first to create an index fund that became known as \"\"Bogle's Folly,\"\" where a couple of key ones would be \"\"Common Sense on Mutual Funds: New Imperatives for the Intelligent Investor\"\" and \"\"Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor.\"\" In the case of an open-end fund, there has to be a portion of the fund in cash to handle transaction costs of running the fund as there are management fees to come from running the fund in addition to dividends from the stocks that have to be carefully re-invested and other matters that make this quite easy to note. Vanguard 500 Index Investor portfolio(VFINX) has .38% in cash as an example here where you could look at any open-end mutual fund's portfolio and notice that there may well be some in cash as part of how the fund is managed. It’s the Execution, Stupid would be one of a few articles that looks at the idea of \"\"tracking error\"\" or how well does an index fund actually track the index where it can be noted that in some cases, there can be a little bit of active management in the fund. Just as a minor side note, when I lived in the US I did invest in index funds and found them to be a good investment. I'd still recommend them though I'd argue that while some want to see these as really simple investments, there can be details that make them quite interesting to my mind. How is its price set then? The price is computed by taking the sum value of all the assets of the fund minus the liabilities and divided by the number of outstanding shares. The price of the assets would include the closing price on the stock rather than a bid or ask, similar pricing for bonds held by the fund, derivatives and cash equivalents. Similarly, the liabilities would be costs a fund has to pay that may not have been paid yet such as management fees, brokerage costs, etc. Is it a weighted average of all the underlying stock spreads, or does it stand on its own and stems from the usual supply & demand laws ? There isn't any spread used in determining the \"\"Net Asset Value\"\" for the fund. The fund prices are determined after the market is closed and so a closing price can be used for stocks. The liabilities could include the costs to run the fund as part of the accounting in the fund, that most items have to come down to either being an asset, something with a positive value, or a liability, something with a negative value. Something to consider also is the size of the fund. With over $7,000,000,000 in assets, a .01% amount is still $700,000 which is quite a large amount in some ways.\"",
"\"Dollar cost averaging is a fancy name someone came up with to say \"\"Invest all of the time\"\". I would not bother with spreading out purchases. If the market is too expensive right now ...so what? The items you sell will bring top dollar. The fund you buy will cost top dollar. It all evens out. You could sell your assets and just sit on cash, but that would require knowing when the next market drop is coming..which no one knows. Also, it never really is cash; it goes into a money market fund which is not guaranteed. I would rather own companies(VSTAX) and collect the dividend.\""
] |
[
"\"In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by \"\"fundamental indexation\"\" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is \"\"price-weighted\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by \"\"fundamentals\"\" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan.\"",
"\"There are some index funds out there like this - generally they are called \"\"equal weight\"\" funds. For example, the Rydex S&P Equal-Weight ETF. Rydex also has several other equal weight sector funds\""
] |
8475
|
Why I cannot find a “Pure Cash” option in 401k investments?
|
[
"494655",
"240562",
"293320",
"104793",
"437427",
"444107",
"481728"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"104793",
"494655",
"444107",
"481728",
"240562",
"437427",
"370494",
"477175",
"67220",
"546150",
"19190",
"499827",
"293320",
"242529",
"84967",
"420891",
"194776",
"1277",
"253391",
"552887",
"344698",
"259072",
"445573",
"341146",
"155676",
"525426",
"513474",
"554739",
"466308",
"85658",
"34986",
"466619",
"471472",
"422941",
"79375",
"222485",
"363652",
"425703",
"135823",
"12316",
"225395",
"142658",
"61745",
"391835",
"576807",
"541783",
"380615",
"598440",
"534795",
"402046",
"534725",
"178340",
"570115",
"251273",
"493578",
"584627",
"238360",
"43974",
"332605",
"576391",
"216520",
"434395",
"65006",
"389019",
"149357",
"130118",
"28720",
"71926",
"435463",
"444044",
"128077",
"443903",
"530703",
"564759",
"545184",
"18449",
"590711",
"517516",
"247051",
"106611",
"280492",
"144824",
"479728",
"566573",
"469138",
"369502",
"486367",
"61524",
"396835",
"163566",
"551145",
"394549",
"327509",
"535972",
"72160",
"134109",
"160786",
"332152",
"519963",
"392885"
] |
[
"This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.",
"\"Holding pure cash is a problem for 401K companies because they would then have follow banking rules because they would be holding your cash on their balance sheets. They don't want to be in that business. Instead, they should offer at least one option as a cash equivalent - a money market fund. This way the money is held by the fund, not by 401K administrator. Money Market funds invest in ultra-short term paper, such as overnight loans between banks and other debt instruments that mature in a matter of days. So it is all extremely liquid, as close to \"\"Money\"\" as you can get without actually being money. It is extremely rare for a money market fund to lose value, or \"\"break the buck.\"\" During the crisis of 2008, only one or two funds broke the buck, and it didn't last long. They had gotten greedy and their short term investments were a little more aggressive as they were trying to get extra returns. In short, your money is safe in a money market fund, and your 401K plan should offer one as the \"\"cash\"\" option, or at least it should offer a short-term bond fund. If you feel strongly that your money should be in actual cash, you can always stop contributing to the 401K and put the money in the bank. This is not a good idea though. Unless you're close to retirement, you'll be much better off investing in a well diversified portfolio, even through the ups and downs of the market.\"",
"\"Technically there could be a true cash fund, but the issue is it would need to have some sort of cost associated with it, which would mean it would have negative yield or would charge a fee. In some cases, this might be preferable to having it invested in \"\"cash equivalents,\"\" which as you note are not cash. It is important to note that there is nothing, even cash or physical precious metals, that is considered zero risk. They all just have different risks associated with them, that may be an issue under certain circumstances. In severe deflation, cash is king, and all non-cash asset classes and debt could go down in value. Under severe inflation, cash can become worthless. One respondent mentioned an alternative of stopping contributing to a 401k and depositing money in a bank, but that is not the same as cash either. In recent decades, people have been led to believe that depositing your money in the bank means you hold that in cash at the bank. That is untrue. They hold your deposit on their books and proceed to invest/loan that money, but those investments can turn sour in an economic and financial downturn. The same financial professionals would then remind you that, while this is true, there is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that will make you whole should the bank go under. Unfortunately, if enough banks went under due to lack of reserves, the FDIC may be unable to make depositors whole for lack of reserves. In fact, they were nearing this during the last financial crisis. The sad thing is that the financial industry is bias against offering what you said, because they make money by using your money. Fractional reserve banking. You are essentially holding IOUs from your bank when you have money on deposit with them. Getting back to the original question; you could do some searching and see if there is an institution that would act as a cash depository for physical cash in your IRA. There are IRA-approved ways of holding physical precious metals, which isn't all too different of a concept from holding physical cash. 401k plans are chosen by your company and often have very limited options available, meaning it'd be unlikely you could ever hold physical cash or physical precious metals in your 401k.\"",
"\"My 401k allows cash holdings to 100% if desired. I'm not sure why some won't, they are making money on your money after all. If you are looking to the funds vehicles for investing suggestions however, they will never allow cash. I found you must go into \"\"Invest on my own\"\" vehicle to make that change. I have beaten and timed this market several times by sitting with cash on the sidelines. The only time I missed it was when I talked to a fund administrator in 2008 dot com crash and stayed in at this suggestion. I told him I didn't see where the market could go much higher as I had made 12-28% on some funds. He was dead wrong of course and I lost 50% that year. Now, trust me, in 2017, assets are grossly overvalued. If they won't let you deposit to cash, don't invest and just save your money until the next crash.\"",
"Your employer decides what options you have in the 401k. You can talk to your HR about that. There are requirements for diversity of various types of investments, money-market funds is being one of them. That is the investment account equivalent of cash. While it is not really cash but rather short term bonds - the term is generally very short and the risk is very limited. You can't earn much there, and you can't lose much there - so for all intents and purposes you can treat is as a cash-equivalent.",
"\"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment. You would do well to get this out of your head now. Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a \"\"Pure Cash - No investment option\"\" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever). Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund. These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund. Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market. Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do. Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again. Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work. Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong. If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein. He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets. His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation.\"",
"My employer matches 1 to 1 up to 6% of pay. They also toss in 3, 4 or 5 percent of your annual salary depending on your age and years of service. The self-directed brokerage account option costs $20 per quarter. That account only allows buying and selling of stock, no short sales and no options. The commissions are $12.99 per trade, plus $0.01 per share over 1000 shares. I feel that's a little high for what I'm getting. I'm considering 401k loans to invest more profitably outside of the 401k, specifically using options. Contrary to what others have said, I feel that limited options trading (the sale cash secured puts and spreads) can be much safer than buying and selling of stock. I have inquired about options trading in this account, since the trustee's system shows options right on the menus, but they are all disabled. I was told that the employer decided against enabling options trading due to the perceived risks.",
"I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.",
"rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.",
"I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!",
"My two-cents, read your plan document or Summary Plan Description. The availability of in-service withdrawals will vary by document. Moreover, many plans, especially those compliant with 404(c) of ERISA will allow for individual brokerage accounts. This is common for smaller plans. If so, you can request to direct your own investments in your own account. You will likely have to pay any associated fees. Resources: work as actuary at a TPA firm",
"The other alternative: just invest it in tax-efficient investments. You will have limited tax-deferral options outside of your 401k, but don't let that limit you. You can invest in a variety of ETFs, stocks and mutual funds for growth, and tax-free investments like municipal bonds as you get older and need to draw income.",
"The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity. Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option.",
"\"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the \"\"riches\"\") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above).\"",
"My employer matches 6% of my salary, dollar for dollar. So you have a great benefit. The self-directed side has no fees but $10 trades. No option trading. Yours basically allows you to invest your own funds, but not the match. It's a restriction, agreed, but a good plan.",
"\"A \"\"covered put\"\" of the form of being short, and buying at the strike price if the \"\"put ... is put\"\" (excercise), is off the table simply because you can't do shorts in the retirement account. Even if you feel you \"\"win\"\" the argument that you're hedged by being short, any broker can say, \"\"we simply forbid shorts\"\" and that's that. A \"\"covered put\"\" of the form of posting the cash, and spending it to buy at the strike price if the \"\"put ... is put\"\" (excercise), might be forbidden by brokerages because, frankly, how do you account for the \"\"dedicated\"\" cash? Is it locked down like margin is, or escrow, or what? I don't know offhand how I would address that in my very own firm. Thus, any broker could say, \"\"we forbid it\"\" and that's that. The other answers are very interesting in conjunction with this. JoeTaxpayer says, very paraphrased, 'just cuz it's legal doesn't mean we have to offer it.' Jaydles says (again, completely paraphrasing), 'complex stuff for a safe little retirement savings account;' 'difficult to administer' (as I said, how do you account for it); and 'tradition' So maybe look at Scott, per Thorn's answer, LOL. It appears that you can shop around on this issue.\"",
"The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that.",
"Another option if it is available is a Roth 401k. It is similar to a Roth IRA in that you pay taxes up front, but the withdrawals are tax free.",
"401(k) contributions are pre-tax dollars, but at the cost of locking the money up. So you wouldn't have to pay taxes on it, but the funds wouldn't be available either.",
"My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more.",
"It sounds like they are matching your IRA contribution dollar for dollar up to 1% of your salary. Think of that as an instant 100% yield on your investment. (Your money instantly doubles.) My 401(k) has been doing pretty well over the last year, but it will take several years before my money doubles. So you can let it sit in cash for a year, then take some pretty hefty fees and you will probably still come out ahead. (Of course it's hard to say without knowing all of the fees.)",
"What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.",
"\"I think it would be worth it for you to look into something called a \"\"Self-directed IRA\"\" before you make any decisions. Sometimes the costs can be a little higher, but you may find the flexibility worth it. Basically, instead of being limited to a small set of mutual funds from which to choose, having the money in a self-directed IRA would let you branch out into real estate, gold, or other vehicles that aren't part of the usual 401K landscape. And count me as another vote for not taking the cash. MrChrister is right, there are plenty of other ways to pay that off without the penalty.\"",
"While tax deferral is a nice feature, the 401k is not the Holy Grail. I've seen plenty of 401k's where the investment options are horrible: sub-par performance, high fees, limited options. That's great that you've maxed out your Roth IRA. I commend you for that. As long as the investment options in your 401k are good, then I would stick with it.",
"I feel you. There are some good companies out there, but they all seem really expensive. I am 30% cash right now, stockpiling some dry powder for the next crash. But if everyone is doing what I am doing, well, there may not be a next crash.",
"Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.",
"\"Most people advocate a passively managed, low fee mutual fund that simply aims to track a given benchmark (say S&P 500). Few funds can beat the S&P consistently, so investors are often better served finding a no load passive fund. First thing I would do is ask your benefits rep why you don't have an option to invest in a Fidelity passive index fund like Spartan 500. Ideally young people would be heavy in equities and slowly divest for less risky stuff as retirement comes closer, and rebalance the portfolio regularly when market swings put you off risk targets. Few people know how to do this and actually do so. So there are mutual funds that do it for you, for a fee. These in are called \"\"lifecycle\"\" funds (The Freedom funds here). I hesitate to recommend them because they're still fairly new. If you take a look at underlying assets, these things generally just reinvest in the broker's other funds, which themselves have expenses & fees. And there's all kinds personal situations that might lead to you place a portion with a different investment.\"",
"\"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\"",
"Why not just roll over part of your IRA to a bank? I don't know about Capital One, but Bank of America seems to offer a bank-based IRA. In broker-based IRAs, the closest that I've seen to a savings account is a money market fund. They often set those as the default investment until money is allocated to more specific funds. It is conceivably possible that a money market could lose money, but it has never happened.",
"401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.",
"When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments. What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed.",
"Any fee based financial adviser should be able to help you. I don't think you need to worry about finding a 401K specific adviser. I'm not even sure that's a thing. A good place to start is the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors. The reason I specifically mentioned a fee based adviser is that the free ones are working on sales commissions, which may influence them to give advice that is in their own best interest more than yours.",
"A 401(k) is just a container. Like real-world containers (those that are usually made out of metal), you can put (almost) anything you want in it. Signing up for your employer's match is a great thing to do. Getting into the habit of saving a significant portion of your take-home pay early in your career is even better; doing so will put you lightyears ahead of lots of people by the time you approach retirement age. Even if you love your job, that will give you options you otherwise wouldn't have. There is no real reason why you can't start out by putting your retirement money in a short-term money-market fund within that 401(k). By doing so you will only earn a pittance, probably not even enough to keep up with inflation in today's economic environment, but at this point in your (savings and investment) career, that doesn't really matter much. What really matters is getting into the habit of setting that money aside every single time you get paid and not thinking much of it. And that's a lot easier if you start out early, especially at a time when you likely have received a significant net pay increase (salaried job vs college student). I know, everyone says to get the best return you can. But if you are just starting out, and feel the need to be conservative, then don't be afraid to at least start out that way. You can always rebalance into investment classes that have the potential for higher return -- and correspondingly higher volatility -- in a few years. In the meantime, you will have built a pretty nice capital that you can move into the stock market eventually. The exact rate of return you get in the first decade matters a lot less than how much money you set aside regularly and that you keep contributing. See for example Your Investment Plan Means Nothing If You Don’t Do This by Matt Becker (no affiliation), which illustrates how it takes 14 years for saving 5% at a consistent 10% return to beat saving 10% at a consistent 0% return. So look through what's being offered in terms of low-risk investments within that 401(k). Go ahead and pick a money-market fund or a bond fund if you want to start out easy. If it gets you into the habit of saving and sticking with it, then the overall return will beat the daylights out of the return you would get from a good stock market fund if you stop contributing after a year or two. Especially (but not only) if you do pick an interest-bearing investment, do make sure to pick one that has as low fees as you can possibly find for what you want, because otherwise the fees are going to eat a lot into your potential returns, benefiting the bank or investment house rather than yourself. Just keep an open mind, and very strongly consider shifting at least some of your investments into the stock market as you grow more comfortable over the next several years. You can always keep a portion of your money in various interest-bearing investments to act as a cushion in case the market slumps.",
"\"The \"\"pure play\"\" would be using interest rate options. http://www.cboe.com/Products/InterestRateOptionsSpecs.aspx\"",
"The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.",
"You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters.",
"You can actually hold cash in your account as long as the manager has reason to believe it is awaiting investment. As for your question, some near cash equivalents are: It's difficult to go into more detail about which investments are eligible due to the variety of risk characteristics, but you can certainly find investment opportunities in the assets mentioned above. A good money manager can advise you better since he'll have an idea of their risk characteristics as well as tax status.",
"I tried to roll my funds to my new company. But my hr department from my old job would not work with me on getting it straightened out. So I decided to either pull it all out or roll it into a 401 k and use it as a trial for stocks and investments. Simce it isn't a large amount of money to begin with",
"\"Those advantages you've described (tax treatment and employee match) are what you receive in exchange for \"\"locking up\"\" the money. Ultimately it's a personal choice of whether that tradeoff makes sense for you situation (I'll echo the response that the real answer to your question is planning). Roth options (either 401K or IRA) may be good compromises for you, since you can withdraw those contributions (but not the earnings) without any penalty, since you've already paid taxes on them. Another avenue to explore may be a self-directed IRA or a Solo 401(k), depending on your circumstances and eligibility. In both cases, there are plan providers that structure the plan to allow you to use the money to invest in things besides traditional stocks, bonds, and mutual funds (often referred to as \"\"checkbook control\"\" accounts). They are very commonly used among Real Estate investors (this thread from BiggerPockets has quite a bit of info). You'd want to consult with an accountant or financial adviser before going down that path.\"",
"Considering it's all to risky for me, outside of a blind 401k, just having money to try it with is a bigger risk than I'm willing to take. I see this complaint a lot and my response is about the same every time, if you know of something better, please share, so next time we can make it more realistic.",
"\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"",
"It's still tax-deferred savings, unless the fees are terrible it's going to be better than investments that aren't tax deferred.",
"Variable Annuities would be one option though there are SEC warnings about them, for an option that is tax-deferred and intended to be used for long-term investing such as retirement. There is a bit of a cost to gain the tax-deferral which may not always make them worthwhile.",
"I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme.",
"Another option to a human advisor is FutureAdvisor, a web service that (if it supports your 401k plan) gives personalized algorithmic advice on what you should hold in your 401(k) and other retirement accounts. If it doesn't support your 401(k) plan just yet you can sign up to be emailed when your plan is added. [Disclosure: I work here, but I believe in the product and it's designed to solve this exact problem so I'm mentioning it here] Note from JoeTaxpayer - bolu's disclosure is much appreciated. The fee is $39/yr, with a free trial. Consider that a commissions based advisor won't even take on a $10K level account, and at $100K, you'd be hard pressed to gain by more than his 1% fee. So while I've not dug deeper into this site, a rules-based methodology is likely to be worth the cost if over time it gains you even a fraction of a percent compared to what you'd have done blindly.",
"One big pie chart. Traditional (pretax) 401(k) and IRA, Roth 401(k) and IRA, and non-tax favored accounts. All of these need to be viewed holistically, the non-favored money is where I'd keep cash/low return safe instruments, Roth IRA for highest growth.",
"401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not.",
"Overall I think your idea is sound. The key here is to choose that 401k provider wisely and have a specific asset allocation plan (like Joe mentioned) Summary of this approach: Pluses: Minuses: I'd consider Vanguard for simple, no frills investing. If you're looking to get into choosing stocks, check out the Motley Fool.",
"401Ks and IRAs are types of retirement accounts. They have rules regarding maximum amount of investments per year; who can invest; destructibility; and the tax treatment of the growth. Stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs are all types of investments that can exist either inside or outside of the retirement account. Some 401Ks restrict the type of investments you can have, others allow you to own almost anything. Any investment is a risk, and there is no guarantee that it will grow. Look around the site for beginning investment advice. You should start with the 401K offered by your company especially if they have matching funds. That is free money. Many suggest you invest enough to get the match, then invest with an IRA. Look into IRAs because under US tax law you can still make a 2013 investment up until tax day 2014. Take the time before tax day to decide on Roth or Regular IRA. The more exotic investments take more time to understand and should not be a concern until you have laid out your basic retirement accounts.",
"Ending up with nothing is an unlikely situation unless you invest 100% in a company stock and the company goes under. In order to give you a good answer we need to see what options your employer gives for 401k investments. The best advice would be to take a list of all options that your employer allows and talk with a financial advisor. Here are a few options that you may or may not have as an option from an employer: Definitions from wikipedia: A target-date fund – also known as a lifecycle, dynamic-risk or age-based fund – is a collective investment scheme, usually a mutual fund, designed to provide a simple investment solution through a portfolio whose asset allocation mix becomes more conservative as the target date (usually retirement) approaches. An index fund or index tracker is a collective investment scheme (usually a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund) that aims to replicate the movements of an index of a specific financial market... An exchange-traded fund (ETF) is an investment fund traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks.[1] An ETF holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds, and trades close to its net asset value over the course of the trading day. Most ETFs track an index, such as a stock index or bond index. ETFs may be attractive as investments because of their low costs, tax efficiency, and stock-like features. The capital stock (or stock) of an incorporated business constitutes the equity stake of its owners. Which one can you lose everything in? You can lose everything in stocks by the company going under. In Index funds the entire market that it follows would have to collapse. The chances are slim here since the index made up of several companies. The S&P 500 is made up of 500 leading companies publicly traded in the U.S. A Pacific-Europe index such as MSCI EAFE Index is made up of 907 companies. The chances of losing everything in an ETF are also slim. The ETF that follows the S&P 500 is made up of 500 companies. An Pacific-Europe ETF such as MSCI EAFE ETF is made up of 871 companies. Target date funds are also slim to lose everything. Target date funds are made up of several companies like indexes and etfs and also mix in bonds and other investments depending on your age. What would I recommend? I would recommend the Index funds and/or ETFs that have the lowest fee that make up the following strategy for your age: Why Not Target Date Funds or Stocks? Target date funds have high fees. Later in life when you are closer to retirement you may want to add bonds to your portfolio. At that time if this is the only option to add bonds then you can change your elections. Stocks are too risky for you with your current knowledge. If your company matches by buying their stock you may want to consider reallocating that stock at certain points to your Index funds or ETFs.",
"Question: My job that I've been with for 2 1/2 yrs offers a 401k, but doesn't match. I have an account, but it's still sitting with my old employer. The fact that my new job doesn't match and how I've heard so many mixed things about 401k has lead me to not signing up. I'm 40; I need to be doing something to save for retirement. Any advice would be appreciated. Should I invest in 401 anyway or put the money I was going to put in there someplace else? If someplace else, where? Also who would I talk to about money someplace else. I, admittedly, am really bad about all of this stuff, but need to change. My wife and I make 100k combined and should be getting things more together for our future. She has a 401k going, but that's about all we have. Thanks again",
"First, if it's just about the income limit, you can deposit to a regular IRA and soon after (like next day) convert it to a Roth. So long as you have no pretax IRA money out there, there will be no tax consequence, a cent on a day's interest, perhaps. As far as the 401(k) goes, are the options any good? Some 401(k) investment choices are so awful it's best to stop after getting full matching. Mine has an S&P index fund with a .05%/yr expense ratio. That's less than I can find in the best ETF out there. Keep in mind, if you invest long term, the dividends are favored, 15% rate, and the capital gain is both controllable (you decide when to take it, by selling) and also favored, 15%. The magic of 401(k) and IRAs, whatever kind is a bit overplayed in the media. Your investing rate and asset choices are far more important.",
"\"I would want a clause that says you can't endanger my portfolio, but that would never happen I guess. I've just started what I hope to be a long and successful career and I'm considering opting out of the company pension and managing it myself. Some economics people want to make this an \"\"every man for himself\"\" situation. Right now I pay $400 per month into a pension, and at any point it may not exist. I don't think I'm alone in the idea that I can manage my own portfolio at least as well as that, and my own pension will stay with me no matter what, no matter how many companies I work for.\"",
"\"There are a lot of unintended consequences of fairly arbitrary IRS guidelines when it comes to 401Ks, they both close and create tons of loopholes and many companies are left to implement their own policy around these laws. Ultimately what you are left with are a lot of random things, interpreted differently by every single company in the country, that aren't directly codified by the IRS or Congress. If you have a choice regarding what brokerage firm manages your 401(k), then just call around. Be sure to ask the pencil pusher on the phone to double check because they might say \"\"OF COURSE you can get paperless statements it is 2015\"\" but then when you sign up it becomes \"\"ooohhh sorry due to recent guidelines this kind of account isn't eligible for paperless statements\"\"\"",
"\"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\"\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \"\"play money\"\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\"",
"the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you. You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns. I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement. Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees - 1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better. The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years. They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice.",
"The investments offered in 401K are usually limited to a selection of mutual funds offered by a 401K provider. The 401K providers and the mutual funds charge fees. The mutual fund industry has a lobbying group that will push for increased 401K contributions to direct money into their mutual funds to collect fees. The top 401 K provider in 2005 was fidelity. It managed $337 billion in 401Ks of which $334 billion was directed into mutual funds. Although I would have to use some of the same providers to open an IRA, I would not have to invest in the providers' mutual funds when I open an IRA. I can buy a stock and hold onto it for 10, 20, 50 years inside of my IRA. Thus, the only fee the investment company would collect from me would be from when I purchased the stock and when I sold the stock. Not nearly as profitable as mutual fund fees.",
"Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle. Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you.",
"Yes, that's exactly what you can/should do. The only question is whether the 401(k) has good investment choices and low fees, if so, go for it.",
"You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!",
"With 30 years until retirement I would not be very concerned about the 3% cash rule. If you do want to follow that advice I would just keep that money in a cash equivalent like a money market fund or short term cd.",
"With a 1/4 million you should be looking at staying fully invested and doing income draw down you can safely take 3 or 4 % Basing your retirement income 100% on cash investments is very risky I can remember when inflation hit 15% in the UK and it has been at similar levels in the usa around 14% in 79.",
"There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.",
"If there is no match and you are disciplined enough to contribute without it coming directly out of your paycheck, dump the 401K. The reason: Most 401K plans have huge hidden fees built into the investment prices. You won't see them directly, but 3% is not uncommon. 3% is a horrible drag on your investment performance. Get an IRA or Roth IRA and pick something with low fees. Bonus: You will have a lot more investment choices!",
"\"While I can appreciate you're coming from a strongly held philosophy, I disagree strongly with it. I do not have any 401k or IRA I don't like that you need to rely on government and keep the money there forever. A 401k and an IRA allows you to work within the IRS rules to allow your gains to grow tax free. Additionally, traditional 401ks and IRAs allow you to deduct income from your taxes, meaning you pay less taxes. Missing out on these benefits because the rules that established them were created by the IRS is very very misguided. Do you refuse to drive a car because you philosophically disagree with speed limits? I am planning on spending 20k on a new car (paying cash) Paying cash for a new car when you can very likely finance it for under 2% means you are loosing the opportunity to invest that money which can conservatively expect 4% returns annually if invested. Additionally, using dealership financing can often be additional leverage to negotiate a lower purchase price. If for some reason, you have bad credit or are unable to secure a loan for under 4%, paying cash might be reasonable. The best thing you have going for you is your low monthly expenses. That is commendable. If early retirement is your goal, you should consider housing expenses as a part of your overall plan, but I would strongly suggest you start investing that money in stocks instead of a single house, especially when you can rent for such a low rate. A 3 fund portfolio is a classic and simple way to get a diverse portfolio that should see returns in good years and stability in bad years. You can read more about them here: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio You should never invest in individual stocks. People make lots of money to professionally guess what stocks will do better than others, and they are still very often wrong. You should purchase what are sometimes called \"\"stocks\"\" but are really very large funds that contain an assortment of stocks blended together. You should also purchase \"\"bonds\"\", which again are not individual bonds, but a blend of the entire bond market. If you want to be very aggressive in your portfolio, go with 100-80% Stocks, the remainder in Bonds. If you are nearing retirement, you should be the inverse, 100-80% bonds, the remainder stocks. The rule of thumb is that you need 25 times your yearly expenses (including taxes, but minus pension or social security income) invested before you can retire. Since you'll be retiring before age 65, you wont be getting social security, and will need to provide your own health insurance.\"",
"I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments.",
"Bottom line is our system is broken. For three years running I am 0% return with over 600k in. Yet, the 401k admin institution charges us all enormous fees that most aren't even aware exist. A helpful tip is to also check out your expense ratios and learn how those work as well so you know how much you are paying in hidden fees.",
"Like keshlam mentioned Insurance and Investment should not generally be mixed. Term Insurance is the best and cheapest insurance. This would work out better than Money Back Option you have. i.e. Take a Term Insurance for the same amount, invest the difference between the Premium of Term Insurance and Money Back option. Even if you invest this difference in Bank FD's the return is much more than what your Money Back policy gives. Pension Plans are not advisable. Although IRDA has in recent times streamlined quite a bit of it, there is still some amount that goes into commission, plus the returns from Annuity providers [the yearly payment you get after retirement] is less than what you get from FD's. i.e. currently the Annuity rates are in the range of 5-6% and one year FD's are in the range of 7-8%. The only reason one need to go with Pension plan or Money Bank plan would be if one is not financially disciplined or can't reconcile to the fact that Term Insurance in-spite of not giving any returns is much better.",
"Ask the folks administering your plan. They're the ones who define and implement the available choices for that specific plan.",
"It is not necessarily proportional. 401k are all unique per the plan and how they are set up. It is impossible to find any two exactly alike. You should have separate buckets of the money types. Pre tax, after tax, roth, employer contribution,etc... If the plan is good you may have a Source Specific Withdraw option which allows you to take only roth or pretax at your choosing. They should track the growth of each bucket separately. It does indeed appear complicated but just think of it as different buckets of cash store in the same vault. Most people end up rolling over the 401k into an ira when they retire for flexibility to get out from under the plan rules. When you do this you will create a roth ira and a traditional ira. Then you can pick and choose when you want to take what type of money.",
"\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\"",
"Advantage of cash: You can spend the money without having to pay any fees or taxes to get it out. Disadvantage: When inflation is greater than zero, which it has been for many decades, your cash is continually losing value. Advantages of an IRA (Roth or classic): Your money will usually grow as the investments return a profit. You get special tax benefits. Disadvantages: There's risk -- you may lose money. There are tax penalties for withdrawing the money before retirement. In general, you should only put money in an IRA if you expect to leave it there until you retire. Or at least, for a long time. Whole life is a combination of a life insurance policy and an investment. Advantages: Combines insurance and investment into one convenient monthly payment. Disadvantages: The investment portion typically has lower returns than you could get elsewhere. If you have no need for life insurance -- if you're not supporting anyone or you're confidant they could get along without you or you don't like them and don't care what happens to them when you're gone or whatever -- then there's no point buying life insurance, whole or term. You're paying for a product that you don't need. It's pretty common advice to tell people that instead of buying a whole life policy, they should buy a term policy with the same coverage, and then invest the difference in the premium. For example, if you were considering getting a $100,000 whole life policy that costs $50 per month (just making up numbers, of course it depends on your age, health, etc), and you see you could get a $100,000 term life policy for $30 per month, you will almost certainly do better in the long run to buy the $30 term policy and put the other $20 into investments. The catch to this plan is that there are usually transaction costs to investing. Even a discount broker like Ameritrade or Scott Trade charges around $10 per transaction. So if you tried to invest $20 each month, you'd lose half of it to transaction fees. Which means that in practice, you'd have to save that money up until you had at least a few hundred. And at that point many people find other things always seem to come up to spend the money on, so that while they start out with every intention of investing this money, they don't.",
"One of the strengths of 401K accounts is that you can move from investment X in the program to investment Y in the program without tax consequences. As you move through your lifetime you will tend to want to lower risk by investing in funds that are less aggressive. The only way this works is if there is an ability to move funds. If there were only one or two funds to pick from or that you were locked in to your initial choices that would be a very poor 401K to be enrolled in. On your benefits/401K website you should be able to adjust three sets of numbers: Some have you enter the current money as a percentage others allow you to enter it in dollars. They might limit the number of changes you can do in a month to the current money balances to avoid the temptation to try and time the market. These changes usually happen within 1 business day. Regarding new and match money they could limit the lowest non zero percent to 5% or 10%, but they might allow numbers as low as 1%. These changes take place generally with the next paycheck.",
"\"You cannot dump $450K of cash into any type of retirement account. Retirement accounts have maximum annual contribution limits and earned income requirements. If the $450K is already in a retirement account you may be able to \"\"rollover\"\" these funds into a different type of account. I personally invest in dividend paying stocks and recommend the strategy for just about everyone. $450K earning 4% in dividends would generate ~$18K in annual dividends the first year and, compounded, would generate ~$220K in dividends over a 10-year period. All this being said, I am not a registered professional of any kind and you should consult a professional before making any decisions. And yes, I know this question is from 2012 :)\"",
"As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.",
"\"It's all about access to capital: You can borrow against 401ks up to an extent. You can borrow against CDs outside of tax sheltered retirement plans. You can't borrow against an IRA, although there is a situation with a very small time frame that would still be state sanctioned with no tax penalties. I wouldn't recommend it. Annuities come with penalties. I've looked at many possibilities of accessing retirement capital without penalty, and 401k's offer that ability, but its also good to just have savings accounts and investments that are not tax-deferred. Borrowing against 401k pros: http://www.ehow.com/how_2075551_borrow-money-from-401k.html cons: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/06/eightreasons401k.asp#axzz29TtJPoXO Outside of your general expenses and play money, money you put toward - say... - a house should be non-tax deferred. Because if you like borrowing, you can always borrow against the house, or any property. The root of the problem is liquidity and access to capital, understanding those fundamental concepts will answer most questions. \"\"Am I liquid? Yes/No\"\" \"\"Can I be liquid without losing money? Yes/No\"\" As usual, more is more, adjust your priorities accordingly.\"",
"\"As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad. The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase. I am on the side of \"\"don't do it\"\" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more. Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA.\"",
"I am not required to hold any company stock. I also have an ESOP plan carrying a similar number of shares in company stock. So if it were to be sold, what would the recommendation be to replace it? I can move the shares into any option shown, and have quite a few others. Not dealing with any huge amounts, just a 4.5% contribution over three years (so far).",
"At your age, I don't think its a bad idea to invest entirely in stocks. The concern with stocks is their volatility, and at 40+ years from retirement, volatility does not concern you. Just remember that if you ever want to call upon your 401(k) for anything other than retirement, such as a down payment on a home (which is a qualified distribution that is not subject to early distribution penalties), then you should reconsider your retirement allocations. I would not invest 100% into stocks if I knew I were going to buy a house in five years and needed that money for a down payment. If your truly saving strictly for a retirement that could occur forty years in the future, first good for you, and second, put it all in an index fund. An S&P index has a ridiculously low expense ratio, and with so many years away from retirement, it gives you an immense amount of flexibility to choose what to do with those funds as your retirement date approaches closer every year.",
"\"Retirement accounts often can be invested with pretax money, with the exception of Roth accounts that use post-tax and have tax-free growth if you follow the rules, rather than after tax money as well as provide a shelter so that you aren't having to pay annual taxes on dividends and other possible distributions. Another point would be to consider how much money you'd be investing as some funds may have institutional versions that can be much cheaper than others, e.g. compare Vanguard's index funds that the 500 Index in Investor shares, Admiral shares and institutional forms where the tickers would be VFINX, VFIAX, VINIX, VIIIX to consider. Some companies may have access to the institutional funds that aren't what you'd have unless you are investing millions of dollars upfront. Lastly, if there isn't an employer plan and you make a ton of cash, you may not qualify for a deductible IRA or Roth IRA contribution for something else that may happen if you want to start playing with, \"\"What if.\"\"\"",
"\"In your situation, you probably should not cash in your IRA and 401(k). A good mortgage lender will want to see that you have \"\"reserves\"\" -- money that you could fall back on if you hit a very rough patch. Your current savings and retirement accounts might add up to a suitable reserve. You might want to do something like this instead: By the way, instead of cashing in a 401(k), it is usually better to: This method avoids large tax penalties, and encourages you to rebuild your 401(k). Unfortunately, your large debt balances might prevent you from getting the PLOC. But even in the worst case scenario (where you cannot use a PLOC to pay off a 401(k) balloon payment), it postpones the tax hit until after the balloon payment.\"",
"There are not as many options here as you fear. If you have no other investments outside this 401K it is even easier. Outside accounts include IRA, Roth IRA, taxable investments (mutual funds, ETF, individual stocks), Employee stock purchase plans. Amount: make sure you put enough in to get all the company match. I assume that in your case the 9% will do so, but check your documents. The company match will be with pre-tax funds. Roth vs Regular 401K? Most people in their lifetime will need a mix of Roth and Regular retirement accounts. You need to determine if it is better for you to pay the tax on your contributions now or later. Which accounts? If you are going to invest in a target date fund, you can ignore the rest of the options. The target date fund is a mixture of investments that will change over the decades. Calculate which one fits your expected retirement date and go with it. If you want to be able to control the mix, then you will need to pick several funds. The selection depends on what non-401K investments you have. Now here is what I considered the best advice. Decide Roth or regular, and just put the money into the most appropriate target date fund with the Roth/regular split you want. Then after the money starts flowing into your account, research the funds involved, the fees for those funds, and how you want to invest. Then move the money into the funds you want. Don't waste another day deciding how to invest. Just get started. The best part of a 401K, besides the match, is that you can move money between funds without worrying about taxes. If you realize that you want to put extra emphasis on the foreign stocks, or Mid-cap; just move the funds and redirect future contributions.",
"Depends. What are the options available for the 401k? If they are low expense ratio options, that can be a great start. Otherwise, just do your own tax deductible IRA At 40, with no retirement savings other than one 401k, you're likely behind. Its time to get serious; no reason you can't with that income. Look into an IRA at Vanguard to start for up to 5500 a year per person if the 401(k) is no good.",
"The issue is the time frame. With a one year investment horizon the only way for a fund manager to be confident that they are not going to lose their shirt is to invest your money in ultra conservative low volatility investments. Otherwise a year like 2008 in the US stock market would break them. Note if you are willing to expand your payback time period to multiple years then you are essentially looking at an annuity and it's market loss rider. Of course those contacts are always structured such that the insurance company is extremely confident that they will be able to make more in the market than they are promising to pay back (multiple decade time horizons).",
"The 401(k) has the advantage that you don't pay any tax until you take it out. That lets the gains multiple. Two examples: If any of your stocks pay dividends, these are directly taxable if you don't have a 401(k). In the 401(k), the full dividends accumulate and are reinvested. If you sell any stocks and get capital gains, they are also directly taxable in a normal account. Having said that, if you don't get any match, I would consider doing a 50/50; put half of your money in the 401(k), in something simple like an index fund, and invest the rest. That's assuming you have an index fund available in your 401(k).",
"You can anything you want with your 401K. It is not a good idea to borrow against yourself unless there are some critical situations you are facing.",
"As you point out, the main benefits of a pension/retirement account over a traditional cash/taxable account are the legal and tax benefits. Most Western countries establish a specific legal definition for an account which is often taxed less or not at all relative to taxable accounts and which contains some protection for the owner in case of a bankruptcy. The typical drawbacks for investing within such structures are limited investment choice, limited withdrawal rights (either in terms of age or rate of withdrawal), and maximum contributions. The benefits are usually very clear, and your decision whether or not to open a pension/retirement account should depend on a careful weighing of the benefits and drawbacks. As to whether you may end up with less than you started, that depends on what you invest in. As with all of finance, you must take more risk to get more return. Although the choices inside a pension/retirement account may be worded somewhat differently, they are usually fundamentally no different than some of the most popular investments available for ordinary taxable accounts.",
"\"See if they offer a \"\"Target Date\"\" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually \"\"exchange\"\" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon.\"",
"If you have kids, there are also 529 funds to consider. They aren't pre-tax, but do have tax advantages. If your employer doesn't have a 401k, chances are they don't offer Health Savings Accounts, but that is another thing to look at.",
"\"You have a Solo 401(k). You can fund it with cash, or I believe, with shares of your own company. You can't pull in other assets such as the ISOs from another employer. I see why that's desirable, but it's not allowed. You wrote \"\"this will mitigate all tax complications with employee stock options.\"\" But - you can't transfer the ISOs from your job into your Solo 401(k). As littleadv notes, it's self dealing. Once the ISO is exercised there's no hiding the gain into that 401(k).\"",
"None of your options seem mutually exclusive. Ordinarily nothing stops you from participating in your 401(k), opening an IRA, qualifying for your company's pension, and paying off your debts except your ability to pay for all this stuff. Moreover, you can open an IRA anywhere (scottrade, vanguard, etrade, etc.) and freely invest in vanguard mutual funds as well as those of other companies...you aren't normally locked in to the funds of your IRA provider. Consider a traditional IRA. To me your marginal tax rate of 25% doesn't seem that great. If I were in your shoes I would be more likely to contribute to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth. This will save you taxes today and you can put the extra 25% of $5,500 toward your loans. Yes, you will be taxed on that money when you retire, but I think it's likely your rate will be lower than 25%. Moreover, when you are retired you will already own a house and have paid off all your debt, hopefully. You kind of need money now. Between your current tax rate and your need for money now, I'd say a traditional makes good sense. Buy whatever funds you want. If you want a single, cheap, whole-market fund just buy VTSAX. You will need a minimum of $10K to get in, so until then you can buy the ETF version, VTI. Personally I would contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the match and anything else to an IRA (usually they have more and better investment options). If you max that out, go back to the 401(k). Your investment mix isn't that important. Recent research into target date funds puts them in a poor light. Since there isn't a good benchmark for a target date fund, the managers tend to buy whatever they feel like and it may not be what you would prefer if you were choosing. However, the fund you mention has a pretty low expense ratio and the difference between that and your own allocation to an equity index fund or a blend of equity and bond funds is small in expectation. Plus, you can change your allocation whenever you want. You are not locked in. The investment options you mention are reasonable enough that the difference between portfolios is not critical. More important is optimizing your taxes and paying off your debt in the right order. Your interest rates matter more than term does. Paying off debt with more debt will help you if the new debt has a lower interest rate and it won't if it has a higher interest rate. Normally speaking, longer term debt has a higher interest rate. For that reason shorter term debt, if you can afford it, is generally better. Be cold and calculating with your debt. Always pay off highest interest rate debt first and never pay off cheap debt with expensive debt. If the 25 year debt option is lower than all your other interest rates and will allow you to pay off higher interest rate debt faster, it's a good idea. Otherwise it most likely is not. Do not make debt decisions for psychological reasons (e.g., simplicity). Instead, always chose the option that maximizes your ultimate wealth.",
"\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"",
"I think it comes down to whether you are happy with the investment choices in the 401k. If you are, there is no reason not to invest there. Additionally, it doesn't have to be an either-or choice. You can invest up to the maximum in both accounts. BTW, congratulations on thinking about retirement at your age. I wish I had been in a position to do that.",
"I would point this out to the committee or other entity in charge of handling this at work. They do have a fiduciary responsibility for the participant's money and should take anything reasonable seriously. The flip side to this is 95% of participants -- especially participants under 35 or so -- really pay next to no attention to this stuff. We consider it a victory to get people to pony up the matching contributions. Active participation in investment would blow our minds.",
"\"If it was me, I would drop out. You can achieve a better kind of plan when there is no match. For example Fidelity has no fee accounts for IRAs and Roths with thousands of investment choices. You can also setup automatic drafts, so it simulates what happens with your 401K. Not an employee of Fidelity, just a happy customer. Some companies pass the 401K fees onto their employees, and all have limited investment choices. The only caveat is income. There are limits to the deductibility of IRAs and Roth contributions if you make \"\"too much\"\" money. For Roth's the income is quite high so most people can still make those contributions. About 90% of households earn less than $184K, when Roths start phasing out. Now about this 401K company, it looks like the labor department has jurisdiction over these kinds of plans and I would research on how to make a complaint. It would help if you and other employees have proof of the shenanigans. You might also consult a labor attourney, this might make a great class.\"",
"\"401(k) doesn't have a \"\"return rate\"\", because 401(k) is not a type of investment -- it is a vehicle for investment, with certain tax treatments. Just like your money that's not in a 401(k), you can invest it in either the bank, a CD, stocks, mutual funds, bonds, etc., you can similarly (depending on the options given to you by your 401(k) plan) invest the money in the 401(k) in a cash account, buy stocks, mutual funds, etc. Your return is dependent on how you invest your money, not whether it's in a 401(k) or not. Whether it's in a (Roth or Traditional) 401(k) simply affects when and how it gets taxed. (It is true that most 401(k) plans offer little variety in types of investments you can choose; however, this is not a big deal, as chances are that in a few years, you will leave your company, at which point you are able to rollover the 401(k) into an IRA, at which point you will have many, many options for how to invest it.) To make a valid comparison, you should be comparing the same type of investment in both cases. That means, you should assume the same return for both the money outside the 401(k), and the money inside the 401(k), and only consider the taxes and penalties (if you plan to withdraw early).\"",
"JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.",
"Most 401k plans (maybe even all 401k plans as a matter of law) allow the option of moving the money in your 401k account from one mutual fund to another (within the group of funds that are in the plan). So, you can exit from one fund and put all your 401k money (not just the new contributions) into another fund in the group if you like. Whether you can find a fund within that group that invests only in the companies that you approve of is another matter. As mhoran_psprep's answer points out, changing investments inside a 401k (ditto IRAs, 403b and 457 plans) is without tax consequence which is not the case when you sell one mutual fund and buy another in a non-retirement account.",
"I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier.",
"\"20-year Treasury Bonds are not equivalent to cash, not even close. Even though the bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, they are long-term debt and therefore their principal value will fluctuate considerably as market interest rates change. When interest rates rise, the market value of 20-year bonds will drop, and drop more than shorter-term bonds would. Your principal is not protected in the short term. Principal is only guaranteed returned at the 20-year maturity of those bonds. But, oops, there is no maturity on the 20-year bond ETFs because every year the ETF rolls the 19-year positions into new 20-year positions! ;-) For an \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" piece of a portfolio, I'd want my principal to be intact over the short term, and continually reinvested at the higher short-term rates as rates are rising. Reinvesting at short-term rates can be an inflation-hedge. But, money locked in for 20-years is a sitting duck for inflation. Still, inflation aside, why do we want our \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" position to be relatively liquid and principal-protected? When it comes time to rebalance your portfolio after disastrous equity and/or bond returns, you've got in your cash component some excess weighting since it was unaffected by the disastrous performance. That excess cash is ready to be deployed to purchase equities and/or bonds at the lower current prices. Rebalancing from cash can add a bonus to your returns and smooth volatility. If you have no cash component and only equities and bonds, you have no money to deploy when both equities and bonds are depressed. You didn't keep any powder dry. And, BTW, I would personally keep a bit more than 3% of my powder dry. Consider a short-term cash deposit or good money-market fund for your \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" position.\""
] |
[
"\"Holding pure cash is a problem for 401K companies because they would then have follow banking rules because they would be holding your cash on their balance sheets. They don't want to be in that business. Instead, they should offer at least one option as a cash equivalent - a money market fund. This way the money is held by the fund, not by 401K administrator. Money Market funds invest in ultra-short term paper, such as overnight loans between banks and other debt instruments that mature in a matter of days. So it is all extremely liquid, as close to \"\"Money\"\" as you can get without actually being money. It is extremely rare for a money market fund to lose value, or \"\"break the buck.\"\" During the crisis of 2008, only one or two funds broke the buck, and it didn't last long. They had gotten greedy and their short term investments were a little more aggressive as they were trying to get extra returns. In short, your money is safe in a money market fund, and your 401K plan should offer one as the \"\"cash\"\" option, or at least it should offer a short-term bond fund. If you feel strongly that your money should be in actual cash, you can always stop contributing to the 401K and put the money in the bank. This is not a good idea though. Unless you're close to retirement, you'll be much better off investing in a well diversified portfolio, even through the ups and downs of the market.\"",
"Your employer decides what options you have in the 401k. You can talk to your HR about that. There are requirements for diversity of various types of investments, money-market funds is being one of them. That is the investment account equivalent of cash. While it is not really cash but rather short term bonds - the term is generally very short and the risk is very limited. You can't earn much there, and you can't lose much there - so for all intents and purposes you can treat is as a cash-equivalent.",
"The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity. Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option.",
"This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.",
"\"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment. You would do well to get this out of your head now. Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a \"\"Pure Cash - No investment option\"\" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever). Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund. These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund. Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market. Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do. Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again. Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work. Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong. If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein. He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets. His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation.\"",
"\"Technically there could be a true cash fund, but the issue is it would need to have some sort of cost associated with it, which would mean it would have negative yield or would charge a fee. In some cases, this might be preferable to having it invested in \"\"cash equivalents,\"\" which as you note are not cash. It is important to note that there is nothing, even cash or physical precious metals, that is considered zero risk. They all just have different risks associated with them, that may be an issue under certain circumstances. In severe deflation, cash is king, and all non-cash asset classes and debt could go down in value. Under severe inflation, cash can become worthless. One respondent mentioned an alternative of stopping contributing to a 401k and depositing money in a bank, but that is not the same as cash either. In recent decades, people have been led to believe that depositing your money in the bank means you hold that in cash at the bank. That is untrue. They hold your deposit on their books and proceed to invest/loan that money, but those investments can turn sour in an economic and financial downturn. The same financial professionals would then remind you that, while this is true, there is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that will make you whole should the bank go under. Unfortunately, if enough banks went under due to lack of reserves, the FDIC may be unable to make depositors whole for lack of reserves. In fact, they were nearing this during the last financial crisis. The sad thing is that the financial industry is bias against offering what you said, because they make money by using your money. Fractional reserve banking. You are essentially holding IOUs from your bank when you have money on deposit with them. Getting back to the original question; you could do some searching and see if there is an institution that would act as a cash depository for physical cash in your IRA. There are IRA-approved ways of holding physical precious metals, which isn't all too different of a concept from holding physical cash. 401k plans are chosen by your company and often have very limited options available, meaning it'd be unlikely you could ever hold physical cash or physical precious metals in your 401k.\"",
"\"My 401k allows cash holdings to 100% if desired. I'm not sure why some won't, they are making money on your money after all. If you are looking to the funds vehicles for investing suggestions however, they will never allow cash. I found you must go into \"\"Invest on my own\"\" vehicle to make that change. I have beaten and timed this market several times by sitting with cash on the sidelines. The only time I missed it was when I talked to a fund administrator in 2008 dot com crash and stayed in at this suggestion. I told him I didn't see where the market could go much higher as I had made 12-28% on some funds. He was dead wrong of course and I lost 50% that year. Now, trust me, in 2017, assets are grossly overvalued. If they won't let you deposit to cash, don't invest and just save your money until the next crash.\""
] |
6644
|
How to know precisely when a SWIFT is issued by a bank?
|
[
"175035"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"110198",
"346035",
"271596",
"132167",
"475527",
"350396",
"497522",
"218761",
"41383",
"508670",
"334061",
"317651",
"240098",
"187497",
"592796",
"320904",
"589616",
"429172",
"186671",
"86262",
"78297",
"298587",
"373271",
"44768",
"484129",
"314492",
"355870",
"291695",
"106016",
"475429",
"175035",
"379732",
"97988",
"431507",
"118396",
"184386",
"198705",
"94809",
"130466",
"446807",
"542932",
"506631",
"313437",
"486979",
"473605",
"352927",
"96547",
"591809",
"141289",
"573600",
"90700",
"416216",
"399907",
"372787",
"65227",
"530879",
"506831",
"381859",
"525576",
"356276",
"476233",
"293653",
"448769",
"205669",
"274576",
"542466",
"467647",
"277475",
"207559",
"117145",
"64025",
"264800",
"47373",
"233145",
"36880",
"39783",
"101600",
"147981",
"6765",
"115702",
"578024",
"390456",
"152689",
"554518",
"234632",
"323389",
"253317",
"54948",
"352649",
"118383",
"446887",
"20670",
"163896",
"13582",
"327623",
"522753",
"3243",
"127559",
"281727",
"315555"
] |
[
"No. You can initiate SWIFT payments from Bank A, whenever Bank A is open for business. The transaction takes around 2-5 days for it to complete depending on the currency pair and countries involved. Once you initiate the payment, the Bank A sends it to SWIFT Network which in turn send it to Bank B. Whenever Bank B is open for business it would process the payment.",
"I have the PDF of Wells Fargo bank sent by my client which also quotes the SWIFT Confirmation #. This is just the internal reference maybe from SWIFT terminal. It just means SWIFT received the message. Nothing more. What may have happened ? It could have got stuck somewhere in correspondent Bank chain. Or may have reached ICICI NY and they are not able to apply funds to your account in the ICICI India branch for whatever reasons. What are my next steps here ? You would need to do 2 things; First contact your ICICI bank branch with this details and ask them if they can trace it for you. Second contact your client and ask them to raise a BCNR [Beneficiary Claims Non Receipt] for this transaction with Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo is bound to investigate this. Depending on your Clients relationship with Wells Fargo, there maybe charges of around 30-50 USD. This would trace the payment via Wells Fargo to the next in chain and can identify where it was stuck or when it was credited. What more information should I ask for The information in confirmation is quite less. Talk to your client and see if you are request for Sender Reference Number [This is preserved from Wells Fargo to your ICICI bank], BIC of Wells Fargo, Immediate routing [or sender Correspondent]; i.e. which Bank the payment was sent to [Wells Fargo may send it to other Bank and then it would reach ICICI]",
"The SWIFT format has multiple place holders. The Beneficiary Bank and Account can be specified using Local Sort Codes [ABA number in this example]. However you would still need to specify the Correspondent Bank and its BIC.",
"\"This is not a problem. SWIFT does not need the Beneficiary Account Currency. The settlement account [or the Instruction amount] is of interest to the Banks. As I understand your agreement with client is they pay you \"\"X\"\" EUR. That is what would be specified on the SWIFT along with your details as beneficiary [Account Number etc]. Once the funds are received by your bank in Turkey, they will get EUR. When they apply these funds to your account in USD, they will convert using the standard rates. Unless you are a large customer and have special instructions [like do not credit if funds are received in NON-USD or give me a special rate or Call me and ask me what I want to do etc]. It typically takes 3-5 days for an international wire depending on the countries and currencies involved. Wait for few more days and then if not received, you have to ask your Client to mention to his Bank that Beneficiary is claiming non-receipt of funds. The Bank that initiated the transfer can track the wire not the your bank which is supposed to receive the funds.\"",
"The bank number is part of the IBAN number, so the SWIFT code is actually redundant. It is still required for international payments because every country has its own payment infrastructure. The SWIFT code helps to route it to the correct region without having to know every single bank in that region. It is usually not needed for national payments, but banks ask for it anyway so that both national and international payments follow the same process. When you enter a wrong SWIFT, then this is what will happen: When the SWIFT code does exist, then: In the internet age, it should be possible for all of this to happen within seconds, but it will still take a few days because... reasons. IBAN numbers are globally unique, so when you entered the correct IBAN there is no chance that the money will arrive on a different account than you intended to (Also, the first two digits after the country code are a checksum, so when you accidently make a typo while entering an IBAN, there is a 99% chance that this will be detected automatically).",
"\"Yesterday I have received a call from my local bank. They told the the payment had arrived, but the money sender failed to specify my account number. They have only specified SWIFT code and my address. And in order to receive my money, money sender has to send an additional SWIFT message, where my account number must be specified. And the money transfer will remain \"\"frozen\"\" (or \"\"blocked\"\") until such a message would be received. In this case normally your local bank has to send a SWIFT MT199 to the sending Bank that the account number quoted is missing. The Sending Bank would contact the company and send back a SWIFT message with required info.\"",
"If the payment is sent to incorrect swift code, the receiving bank will return the payment.",
"Those fields are used in a bank-to-bank transfers that do not use SWIFT. SWIFT is a messaging system, however with the fields you have listed, banks can exchange messages directly without having to use SWIFT. Your bank may not support bank-to-bank transfers, in which you need to notify your client that it needs to be a SWIFT transfer.",
"The money is transferred through an electronic funds transfer, which is an umbrella term that encompasses wire transfers, direct debits, etc. The application form for Key Trade Bank (the only place I can find that uses that exact phrasing) lists a SWIFT number. This usually indicates that the transfer of funds is done through an international wire transfer. In the most basic sense, the process works like this: Key Trade Bank uses the SWIFT number to notify your current bank of the transfer. Your bank instructs the settlement bank, e.g. the central bank of your country, where your bank is located, to transfer funds to Key Trade. If Key Trade is in another country from your current country, your central bank will send money to the central bank where Key Trade is located, which will in turn send the money to Key Trade. Otherwise, your central bank deposits the money into the account that Key Trade also has with them, and the transfer is complete.",
"International wires using SWIFT are reliable way of getting funds. The issue could be because you are not giving the right details to your counterparty. Any incorrect details on wires would get it rejected. The timelines typically would be around 2-4 days depending on various things. There are alternatives like getting a paper check mailed to you and you cash it [this takes more time] or depending on which countries you operate in, there could be special remittance services.",
"I have taken to using the service TransferWise. I have found them to be faster and cheaper and easier than using SWIFT, given the US Banking's... antiquated system of doing things. I've made dozens of transfers between my international accounts with TransferWise over the past 18 months. Some of them very large and some of them tiny, and even when there's been an issue (I once wrote an offensive joke in my narration for the transfer and they noticed) they have handled it respectfully and quickly. Prior to transferring money to US accounts, I used the SWIFT system - but SWIFT has a pretty spotty record in the US. Some banks you can do it all online but other banks, as Dheer mentioned, you have to go into the bank and sometimes find a senior staff member before you can find someone who even knows what SWIFT is.",
"When setting these up for my own bill payment, I was surprised, after the fact, to see that a couple I thought would be a mailed check were actually instant transfers, and for others, vice versa. On line banking typically asks you for the due date and they handle from there. If you need this detail before the payment, I'd ask the bank. Else, it's easy to see after the fact for a given payee.",
"Right now the SEPA Credit Transfers take 3 days excluding holidays. In future this would be reduced to 2 days and then eventually to same day. Your bank would have acknowledged sending out the transaction. It would go into the clearing house and then to the recipient's bank. Once the receiver's bank receives the funds, they would notify the receiver.",
"You need your transit, branch account and SWIFT code. Example, CIBC: To get this information as it pertains to you, it is best to go to your bank in person.",
"Transfers are defined to arrive on a specific number of business days, nearly always one business day (if you submit it before the cutoff time). The exact number of days depends on the receiver bank, but when you try to create a transfer, it will tell you when it will arrive, before you send it out.",
"\"Its best to check with your company what details they need. Generally for SWIFT Transfers, the below is sufficient; Additionally any transfers to India require a \"\"Purpose of Remittance\"\" to be filled by the company paying to money.\"",
"Ask them to send a SWIFT payment [aka International Wire]. You would need to give them your bank details, essentially Bank Account, Bank Name & Address, SWIFT BIC, etc. Almost all Public Sector Bank and all leading Private scetor banks are members of SWIFT and can give you a the SWIFT BIC. If you are not sure about other party, it would be wise to open a new account and give the details of this account rather than your normal account.",
"The person you're talking to is probably someone in the company. They need to convey the message to their bank. So you need to explain it to them as if they were 3 year old kids. You may be used to SWIFT transactions because that's how you always get paid, but unless the UK firm regularly employes Russian freelancers, this is probably the first time ever they have heard of it. Similarly, someone in the local branch of their community bank has probably never heard of it before either. In Europe they use IBANs and SWIFTs are rather uncommon. Be patient, explain the issue and the solution in as many words as you can, and suggest them putting you on speaker at the bank so that you could talk directly to the person executing the transaction. If you do the same on your side and let the bankers talk directly to each other - that would probably be ideal.",
"This depends on the practise and applications available with the Beneficiary Bank. For a corporate customer, the details are show. For Retail customers they are generally not shown.",
"The SWIFT network is federated. The connection routing is via country server to regional servers. All these are maintained by SWIFT. The Banks have corresponded relationship with other banks. They play a role in actual settlement and take some risk. L/C is very risky business. It is expensive.",
"You can lookup SWIFT codes here. Based on the search I conducted on March 30, 2015, PayPay US's SWIFT is PPALUS66, and PayPal Europe's SWIFT is PPLXLULL. Since they have two listed, it would be safe to contact PayPal directly and ask which SWIFT they would like to be used.",
"My account is with Indian Bank, if that's relevant. Indian Bank already has SWIFT BIC. Is there any way I can receive such international transfers in my account if the bank branch itself is not SWIFT enabled? The Branch need not be SWIFT enabled. However the Bank needs to be SWIFT enabled. Indian Bank is SWIFT enabled and has several Correspondent Banks in US. See this link on Indian Bank Website Select USD as filter in bottom page. It will list quite a few Banks that are correspondent to the Indian Bank. Click on the Link and it will give you more details. For example with Citi Bank as Correspondent. In the Beneficiary account details fill in your account details etc and send this to the company and they should be able to send you a payment based on this.",
"Generally in a SWIFT transaction, there are 4 Banks involved [at times 2 or 3 or at times even 6]. The 4 Banks are Sender [Originator of Payment]; Sender's correspondent, Receiver's Correspondent, Receiver [Or beneficiary Bank] All these 4 Banks charge for making a transfer. In SHA; the charges of Sender and Senders correspondent are levied to Customer [who initiates the payment] and the Receivers Correspondent and Receiver charges are to beneficiary. In OUR all the charges of 4 Banks are to the Customer and in BEN all the charges of 4 Banks are to the Beneficiary. Or am I wrong to assume that transaction costs would be covered by that 15USD and in reality the 15USD are on top of transaction costs? As explained above it is incorrect assumption. In this case, the charges will be more. So best is go with SHA. This gives a better view of charges. On a EUR to USD transactions, there would typically be only 3 Banks in the chain. And depending on the Bank, it could also be just 2 Banks involved.",
"A SWIFT code helps but it is not always necessary. In the early 2000s I worked in Hong Kong. All a Hong Kong bank needed to wire money to the USA was the ABA number, which was the check routing number from the bottom of a US check, the bank account number, and the name on the destination account.",
"BIC and IBANN are used in EU (and some other OECD countries) for inter bank transfers. SWIFT is used everywhere for interbank transfers. In the US - IBAN system is not (yet, hopefully) available, so you have to use SWIFT. The codes may look the same, but these are different systems. More details here.",
"Generally in International transfers there are 4 Banks involved. Customer's Bank [Customer who initiating the payment], also called Sender Bank. There is Sender's Correspondent Bank. Then there is Beneficiary Bank also called Receiver Bank [Bank where Beneficiary holds account]. There is Receiver's Correspondent Bank. So Person A-> A's Bank -> A's Correspondent bank -> B's Correspondent Bank -> B's Bank -> Person B. Depending on the currency, at times there is only one correspondent Bank. The Chain of Correspondent Bank is common knowledge and quite often if you don't provide all the details; your Bank or other Bank will fill in default details and processes the payments. However it all depends on which bank and whether they are inclined to do so. Some bank specifically insist to use a preferred correspondent bank so if you don't specify any they may return / reject it.",
"Have a look at swift codes website, but on wikipedia, there seems to be some variation in the interpretation of the standard. Broadly, it should be that a swift code refers to a particular branch, but it is possible that there is a cost associated with running a swift code, so some banks may prefer to share swift codes across branches. You should check and confirm.",
"Transfer of Millions of USD in and out is not possible for Individuals. There are limits on how much money an individual Indian Ordinary Citizen can send or receive. If an corporate wants to send money, depending on the services offered, they would have to initiate a SWIFT transaction. It typically takes 2-3 days for settlement of International wire.",
"My bank claims they cannot trace since the money never reached them. Your bank is right. They can't generally trace this. I asked the sender to initiate a trace with Natwest, but no results for 3 days now. Natwest should be able to trace and confirm it. This usually takes anywhere from 7 to 10 days.",
"I am not exactly sure what the true motivation of your question is as to give you a really helpful answer. But yes, sender data (name of the sending account holder) is always provided. Everything else would open the door to money laundering.",
"I think technically the MIR includes the date of issuance but not the time, see the references here. What you have there looks like a timestamp followed by the MIR. If you look at this example from IBM they also show the input time as a separate field.",
"\"I cannot answer the original question, but since there is a good deal of discussion about whether it's credible at all, here's an answer that I got from Bank of America. Note the fine difference between \"\"your account\"\" and \"\"our account\"\", which does not seem to be a typo: The payment method is determined automatically by our system. One of the main factors is the method by which pay to recipients prefer to receive payments. If a payment can be issued electronically, we attempt to do so because it is the most efficient method. Payment methods include: *Electronic: Payment is sent electronically prior to the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Corporate Check: This is a check drawn on our account and is mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds to cover the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Laser Draft Check: This is a check drawn on your account and mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account when the pay to recipient cashes the check, just as if you wrote the check yourself. To determine how your payment was sent, click the \"\"Payments\"\" button in your Bill Pay service. Select the \"\"view payment\"\" link next to the payment. Payment information is then displayed. \"\"Transmitted electronically\"\" means the payment was sent electronically. \"\"Payment transaction number\"\" means the payment was sent via a check drawn from our account. \"\"Check number\"\" means the payment was sent as a laser draft check. Each payment request is evaluated individually and may change each time a payment processes. A payment may switch from one payment method to another for a number of reasons. The merchant may have temporarily switched the payment method to paper, while they update processing information. Recent changes or re-issuance of your payee account number could alter the payment method. In my case, the web site reads a little different: Payment check # 12345678 (8 digits) was sent to Company on 10/27/2015 and delivered on 10/30/2015. Funds were withdrawn from your (named) account on 10/30/2015. for one due on 10/30/2015; this must be the \"\"corporate check\"\". And for another, earlier one, due on 10/01/2015, this must be the laser draft check: Check # 1234 (4 digits) from your (named) account was mailed to Company on 09/28/2015. Funds for this payment are withdrawn from your account when the Pay To account cashes the check. Both payments were made based on the same recurring bill pay payment that I set up manually (knowing little more of the company than its address).\"",
"Look for EU banks that have US branches. Open an account there and look for the SWIFT code of your bank in US. Withdraw money using SWIFT US code.",
"They're batched typically and about 30-90 days out typically, though the speed is routinely increasing the last few years. The flow depends from payment processor to payment processor. Generally, the cheaper the payment processing the longer the delay. The future of this stuff is blockchain if you'd like to look at that http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/blockchain/",
"I don't believe they're right. For international wire transfers you'd need either IBAN or SWIFT codes. I don't think any US bank participates in the IBAN network (mostly Europe and the Far East), so SWIFT is they way to go with the US. Credit unions frequently don't know what and how to do with international transactions because they don't have them that often. Some don't even have SWIFT codes of their own (many, in fact) and use intermediaries to receive money.",
"\"I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. I think you're asking this: \"\"A US bank receives a wire transfer from a Chinese bank. How does the US bank ensure there's any money in fact arriving before crediting the destination account?\"\" Well, the way wire transfers work is that the US bank would debit the senders' account with that US bank. So the US bank in fact transfers the money between two internal accounts: debit to the Chinese bank's account with that US bank and credit the destination customer account. If the Chinese bank doesn't have an account with the destination US bank - a third party intermediary is used that both banks have accounts with. Such third party will charge an additional fee (hence sometimes the wire transfer fees are slightly higher than you initially know when sending the money, the third party would debit from the transfer amount). \"\"Regular\"\" IBAN/ACH transfers work through regulatory channels that ensure integrity and essentially use a regulatory bank as that third party. But because they're done in batches and not on-line, they're much cheaper, and the accounting is for the whole batch and not each transfer separately. But batch processing means it will take a day or two of processing, while wire transfer takes hours at most.\"",
"Are you sure this is not a scam. It is expensive to transfer 10 EUR by SWIFT. It will cost 30 EUR in Banks fees. If this is genuine ask them to use remittance service or western union or you open a PayPal account and ask them to transfer money.",
"From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_transfer: The entity wishing to do a transfer approaches a bank and gives the bank the order to transfer a certain amount of money. IBAN and BIC codes are given as well so the bank knows where the money needs to be sent. The sending bank transmits a message, via a secure system (such as SWIFT or Fedwire), to the receiving bank, requesting that it effect payment according to the instructions given. The message also includes settlement instructions. The actual transfer is not instantaneous: funds may take several hours or even days to move from the sender's account to the receiver's account. Either the banks involved must hold a reciprocal account with each other, or the payment must be sent to a bank with such an account, a correspondent bank, for further benefit to the ultimate recipient. Banks collect payment for the service from the sender as well as from the recipient. The sending bank typically collects a fee separate from the funds being transferred, while the receiving bank and intermediate banks through which the transfer travels deduct fees from the money being transferred so that the recipient receives less than what the sender sent. The last point may not be relevant in domestic transfers.",
"\"How can I make sure? You can't make sure. Here is what is promised: (Obviously things have to be done in this order). Here is what will actually happen: The only way to \"\"make sure\"\" is to give all the information and watch the money disappear from your account. I advise against that.\"",
"IBAN -> is International Bank Account Number. The number is constructed in such a way that it uniquely identifies your account in the world. I.e. it has a country in it, Bank (and branch) and the actual account number. This is an international standard adopted by the EU, Australia and NZ. Going forward it would be sufficient to just quote the IBAN for payment without any other details. BIC, SWIFT Code, SWIFT BIC, SWIFT ID [all mean the same] is a Bank Identifier Code [More correctly Business Identifier Code] that is again an International standard and used on all International payments. The SWIFT BIC is constructed as Hence SWIFT BIC can be 8 Chars or 11 Chars. The additional 3 Chars help bank identify the Branch where the account is held and where the payment needs to be made. So LOYDGB2L is the main head office If your branch is, say, in Canary Wharf, the SWIFT BIC would be LOYDGB21 [21-> Canary Wharf] with a 3 digit branch added.",
"Each bank is different, so your question needs to be more specific. For instance, I believe Paypal and Chase settles at 7pm EST on business days. Bank of America at 5PM.",
"\"It means that you are expected to have received a separate piece of communication (\"\"advice\"\") which confirms who the payment came from. This is common with CHAPS payments and overseas transactions.\"",
"I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc.. 1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently.",
"The check clears when the receiving bank successfully pulled the money from the issuing account. However, the receiving bank may hold the money for an additional time before giving it to you. Sometimes this is done for good reasons (to prevent Check kiting) and sometimes this is about the bank having the money interest free for a bit, or just their own processing convenience.",
"I'd certainly take a look at companies like UK Forex for transferring funds internationally. Even if you get free wire transfers, the currency rates banks offer can be bad. My experience was transferring from NatWest to an Australian bank - saved my self hundreds of pounds by not using their swift service.",
"Generally, unless you're doing a wire transfer, bank transactions are processed in batches overnight. So the credit card company won't be able to confirm your transfer until the next business day (it may take even longer for them to actually receive the money).",
"Inform the company that you didn't receive the payment. Only they can trace the payment via their bank.",
"It is a rather complex system, but here is a rough summary. Interbank tranfers ultimately require a transfer of reserves at the central bank. As a concrete example, the bank of england system is the rtgs. Only the clearing banks and similar (e.g. bacs) have access to rtgs. You can send a chaps payment fairly quickly, but that costs. Chaps immediately triggers an rtgs transfer once the sending bank agrees and so you can be certain that the money is being paid. Hence its use for large amounts. Bacs also sits on the rtgs but to keep costs down it batches tranfers up. Because we are talking about bank reserve movements, checks have to be in place and that can take time. Furthermore the potential for fraud is higher than chaps since these are aggregrated transactions a layer removed, so a delay reduces the chance of payment failing after apparently being sent. Faster payments is a new product by bacs that speeds up the bacs process by doing a number of transfers per day. Hence the two hour clearing. For safety it can only be used for up to 10k. Second tier banks will hold accounts with clearing banks so they are another step down. Foreign currency transfers require the foreign Central Bank reserve somewhere, and so must be mediated by at least one clearing bank in that country. Different countries are at different stages in their technology. Uk clearing is 2h standard now but US is a little behind I believe. Much of Europe is speeding up. Rather like bitcoin clearing, you have a choice between speed and safety. If you wait you are more certain the transaction is sound and have more time to bust the transfer.",
"You should contact Chase and ask them. As long as it's not on your account - it hasn't arrived.",
"The first moment of trading usually occurs even later than that. It may take a few hours to balance the current buy/sell orders and open the stock. Watch CNBC when a hot IPO is about to open and you'll see the process in real time. If you miss it, look at a one day Yahoo chart to see when the open occurred.",
"The IRS has a website called Where is my refund? Get up-to-date refund information using Where's My Refund? or the IRS2Go mobile app. Where's My Refund? is updated once every 24 hours, usually overnight. Refunds are generally issued within 21 days after we receive your tax return. You should only call if it has been longer. I don't know what information you see on this site if you owe them money. Are you expecting a check from them, or did you send them money electronically? If you sent them money you should check your bank or card statement.",
"Japan has not implemented the IBAN system (yet), at least according to the Wikipedia list. IBAN is a European thing, slowly spreading around the globe, and hasn't reached Japan and many other countries yet. SWIFT is your friend here. Adoption of the IBAN at various levels (as of January 1, 2014):",
"For immediate availability, by far the fastest (and cheapest) way to get macroeconomic figures as they are released, is by following (verified) Twitter accounts of the respective Central bank and institutions alike. Indeed, Twitter is the new trader tape.",
"The ABA number you speak of is more accurately called the Routing Transit Number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number A routing transit number (RTN) is a nine digit bank code, used in the United States, which appears on the bottom of negotiable instruments such as checks identifying the financial institution on which it was drawn. This code was designed to facilitate the sorting, bundling, and shipment of paper checks back to the drawer's (check writer's) account. The RTN is also used by Federal Reserve Banks to process Fedwire funds transfers, and by the Automated Clearing House to process direct deposits, bill payments, and other such automated transfers. The RTN number is derived from the bank's transit number originated by the American Bankers Association, which designed it in 1910.[1] I am going to assume that the euphemistic ABA Number has been shortened by whoever told you about it and called it the ABN. Perhaps American Bank Number. Either way, the technical term is RTN. Perhaps a comment or editor can straighten me out about the ABN. There is an international number known as the SWIFT number that serves the same purpose worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9362 ISO 9362 (also known as SWIFT-BIC, BIC code, SWIFT ID or SWIFT code) defines a standard format of Business Identifier Codes approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It is a unique identification code for both financial and non-financial institutions.[1] The acronym SWIFT stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. When assigned to a non-financial institution, the code may also be known as a Business Entity Identifier or BEI. These codes are used when transferring money between banks, particularly for international wire transfers, and also for the exchange of other messages between banks. The codes can sometimes be found on account statements.",
"It depends on the bank and network. Banks are to provide outgoing data at the certain time for the processing by the central clearing house (the Federal Reserve system, for ACH), which then distributes incoming data back to the banks. All this has to be done between the closing of the business day and the opening of the next one. If the transaction hasn't completed the full path during that time - it will wait at the position it was stuck at until the next cycle - next night. That's why sometimes ACH transactions take more than 1 day to complete (if, for example, multiple Fed banks have to be involved).",
"Most definitely all wire transfer above a significant amount would be flagged as a suspicious transaction. Nevertheless, as long you provide the Final beneficiary information (name and account number), the bank will process the remittance.",
"IBAN is enough within SEPA and it should be so for your bank as well. Tell them to join our decade, or change bank. I received bank transfers from other continents to my SEPA account in the past and I don't remember ever needing to say more than my IBAN and BIC. Banks can ask all sorts of useless information, but if your bank doesn't have a standard (online) form for the operation then it probably means you're going to spend a lot.",
"Show your Bank passbook, preferably signed one, to relevant money sender.",
"There are quite a few ways; each has its own pro's and con's SWIFT: Fast reliable payment. Higher Charges. If payments are large and routine the charges can be less Remittance Service: Ideal for person to person transfer. Can be used by Companies to transfer to Individuals. Less Faster compared to SWIFT. Quite Cheaper compared to SWIFT Check's: Long time is getting it cleared in India. Typically around month. Quite Cheap. Almost NIL charges.",
"I contacted Virgin Money to ask if the prepaid card you mentioned offers a Swift/BIC code, and they gave me this response: We do not have a Swift or BIC number for the Virgin Prepaid Card. You are unable to transfer funds from the Prepaid Card to another bank but you can set up a bank transfer to the Prepaid Card. Once you receive your card you can log onto your online account and you will have a form you can print off. On the form you will have an account number, sort code and a unique reference number for your bank to set up the transfer. This may work for your purposes, or it may not. If you want more information about that specific card, your best bet is to contact them and ask any other specific questions you have. The same strategy should work for any prepaid card company. Just call or email them, describe your situation, and ask if their card will work.",
"\"This is based on my experience with Chase and may not be applicable to other banks. As you mentioned Chase as one of the banks you do business with hopefully this will be helpful to you. The money does come out of your account immediately. If the check isn't cashed in a certain amount of time, the check expires and you get the money credited back to your account. Once you have made a bill payment online you can check on the status of your check by looking at your payment activity, finding the payment in question, and following the \"\"proof of payment\"\" link. There is will provide you with information on your payment which you can submit to your payee to prove when you submitted the payment, and which they can use to verify with the bank that you really did send the payment as you claimed. Once the check is cashed, this page will also contain images of the front and back of the cashed check, so you can prove that the recipient really did cash it. You can see from this info that the check is being funded from a different account number than your own, which is good for security purposes since (per Knuth, 2008) giving someone else your bank routing number and account number as found on your personal checks basically provides them with all they need to (fraudulently, of course) clean out your account.\"",
"After transferring, do we need to file any forms to IRS regarding money transfer? Not immediately. Do we need to file any forms in US as part of tax returns for this transfer? In case the recipient and the sender are not the same person, the recipient must attach form 3520A to his/her tax return. If you are transferring between your own accounts - you're good to go. However, this NRE account must have been reported on your FBAR and form 8938 attached to your tax return. Do we need to inform my local bank in USA regarding the transfer in advance? You probably want to confirm the transfer instructions with them (SWIFT instructions, routing info, etc).",
"If you are looking at domestic transfers, all Banks hold accounts with the Central Bank [Reserve Bank] , in US the Central Bank is called Federal Reserve. The money from account of Bank of America held with Fed is debited and the account of Citi held with Fed is credited.",
"Check with your bank, usually a statement is either at the same day of month (e.g.: every 15th of the month), or every 30 days (e.g: March 15th, April 14th, May 14th, so forth). From my experience, most credit cards use the same day of month strategy. Keep in mind that if the day is not a business day (e.g.: weekend), the statement is closed either the previous or the next business day.",
"\"This is incorrect. The timeline is as follows: Party A sends a message to an exchange. The exchanges receives the message. The exchange broadcasts the (anonymized) message to party A, B, C, etc on the multicast feed. The exchange broadcasts the (private confirm) to party A. (The last two steps can happen in any order.) It's impossible for anyone to \"\"beat A to the punch\"\" because they don't hear what A did until after it's done.\"",
"\"This seems almost overkill, but if you want to... I suppose one thing you could do is create a separate money in transit account, similar to Account Payable and Account Receivable. In your bookkeeping, transfer the money from the source account to the holding account on the date that the source bank withdraws it, and then transfer the money to the destination account on the date that the target bank deposits it. This both makes it clear that there is money going between places, and ensures that the daily balance on each \"\"physical\"\" account is accurate. For cash withdrawals and deposits, I'd just use the date when you make the withdrawal, since that is the day from which the money is available in the new location rather than the old one. Note: I don't know if this is the \"\"proper\"\" way to do it in a random jurisdiction, but I doubt being this explicit can get you into trouble.\"",
"All the items listed are required for International Wire transfer. In wrong hands this info along with other info can cause issues. Most of the times you trust the person with this info and hence is less cause to worry. So the key is if you don't trust, don't give the details. Use alternatives like; Best open an account for receiving funds. Share the details, once the funds are received move it to an account where the details have not been shared. Alternatively paypal or other such services can help.",
"One of my friend is sending 100000 pounds to India, Although you haven't asked, this is a large amount of funds and depending on why it is, there could be taxes to you or lot of paperwork. He is asking for RIB and IBAN and I am not aware of it. India does not have IBAN. IBAN is mostly in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. You would need to give Bank Account Number and SWIFT BIC. The details can be found here. Best talk to your Branch to understand.",
"I did receive TurboTax's automatically generated confirmation of successfully completing tax filing electronically the day I did my tax on their web site. About 24 to 48 hours after you push the button at TurboTax the IRS should either confirm or reject the initial check of the tax documents. You should return to the TurboTax website to make sure the IRS has accepted the reutrn. Next review either the confirmation you received when you pushed the button or the information at the TurboTax site. It should specify when the money would be withdrawn. You were given options regarding payment method and date you want to make the payment. Many people who finish their tax paperwork early, but owe money wait until the last day to submit. Now it is possible to submit paperwork early but specify a date just before the deadline. Print out or even better save an electronic copy of the information at the TurboTax website. I have no idea how long it takes the IRS to actually pull the money from an account, once the day you specified has occurred. You have to plan as if the withdraw will happen on the exact date, but with millions of tax payers making transactions it may be delayed by a day or two.",
"\"If you want your bank to pay $1 to a beneficiary Bob, then the service (no matter how implemented) needs to result in Bob's bank saying to Bob \"\"Hey, I owe you $1\"\". The usual way how this is done consists of two parts - your bank needs to somehow tell Bob's bank \"\"hey guys, do us a favor and please give Bob $1 with a message from the sender\"\", and your bank needs to convince the other bank that they'll pay for (cover) that. This is the main source for the delays in international payments - there are thousands of banks, and most of possible pairs have no legal contact between themselves whatsoever, no bilateral agreements, no trust and no reasonable enforcement mechanism for small claims. If I'm Bob's bank, then a random bank from anywhere from Switzerland to Nigeria can send me an instruction \"\"give Bob $1, we'll make it up for you\"\", the SWIFT network is a common way of doing this. However, most likely I'm going to give Bob the money only after I receive the funds somehow, which means that they have given the money to some institution I work with. For payments within a single country, it often is a centralized exchange or a central bank, and the payment speed is then determined by the details of that particular single payment network - e.g. UK Faster Payments or the various systems used in USA. For international payments, it may require a chain of multiple intermediaries (correspondent banks) - for example, a payment of $1mm from Kazakhstan to China will likely involve the Kazakhstan bank asking their main correspondent in USA (some major bank such as Chase JPMorgan) to give the money to the relevant chinese bank's correspondent in USA (say, Citi) to then give the money to that chinese bank to then give the money to the actual recipient. Each of those steps can happen because those entities have bilateral agreements, trust and accounts with each other; and each of those steps generally takes time and verification. If you want all payments to happen instantly, then you need all institutions to join a single binding payment system. It's not as easy as it sounds, as it is a nightmare of jurisdiction - for example, if you'd want me (as Bob's bank) to credit Bob instantly, then the system needs to provide solid guarantees that I would get paid even if (a) the payer institution changes its mind, made a mistake or intentional fraud; (b) the payer institution goes insolvent; (c) the system provider gets insolvent. Providing such guarantees is expensive, they need to be backed by multi-billion capital, and they're unrealistic to enforce across jurisdictions (e.g. would an Iranian bank get recourse if some funds got blocked because of USA sanctions). The biggest such project as far as I know is SEPA, across most of Europe. Visa and MasterCard networks perform the same function - a merchant gets paid by the CC network even if the payer can't pay his CC bill or the paying bank goes insolvent.\"",
"It takes about 4-5 workdays, maybe it depends on the day also when you start the transfer. I transferred an amount last Wednesday, and the same amount on Thursday too. Both transactions hit the destination account on the next Tuesday, with a difference of 2 minutes.",
"I phoned Tangerine; they enlightened me. It generally takes 2 hours for the email to arrive. Next, the recipient must open the email, click the link, and enter their bank account number. They'll generally receive the money 2-3 business days after that. This forum post suggests that the delays are due to systemic risk management, tendering, and clearing.",
"\"If the answer were \"\"no,\"\" you still found the 'black swan' type exception that proves the answer to be \"\"yes,\"\" right? My experience is this - again just my experience, my bank - When by balance goes below $10, I have the account trigger an email. I wrote a check I forgot to register and subtract, so the email was sent and the account balance in fact showed negative. I transferred to cover the check and the next day, there was a history that didn't go negative, the evening deposit was credited prior to check clearing. I set up my bills on line. I set a transfer in advance for the same dollar amount as a bill that was due, e.g. $1000 transfer for a $1000 bill. I woke up to an email, and the account showed the bill was paid prior to the transfer. So one line showed going -$900, and the next line +$100 after transfer. Even though it's the same online process. Again, the next day the history re-ordered to look like I was never negative. But even on a day I know I'm having payments issued, I can never just ignore that email. The first time this happened, I asked the bank, and they said if the negative went until the next day, I'd get an overdraft/short balance notice. This is a situation to ask your bank how they handle this.\"",
"I assume you kept the receipt for your money order, in which case there's no reason you can't call the issuer and find out if the money order has been posted for payment. It does beg the question as to why you didn't send it registered mail or by some other means which would allow you to at least verify it was received by the IRS. As someone else mentioned, why can't you simply call the IRS and ask them if the money order was received and applied?",
"Currency exchange is rather the norm than the exception in international wire transfers, so the fact that the amount needs to be exchanged should have no impact at all. The processing time depends on the number of participating banks and their speeds. Typically, between Europe and the US, one or two business days are the norm. Sending from Other countries might involve more steps (banks) which each takes a bit of time. However, anything beyond 5 business days is not normal. Consider if there are external delays - how did you initiate the sending? Was it in person with an agent of the bank, who might have put it on a stack, and they type it in only a day later (or worse)? Or was it online, so it is in the system right away? On the receiver side, how did you/your friend check? Could there be a delay by waiting for an account statement? Finally, and that is the most common reason, were all the numbers, names, and codes absolutely correct? Even a small mismatch in name spelling might trigger the receiving bank to not allocate the money into the account. Either way, if you contact the sender bank, you will be able to make them follow up on it. They must be able to trace where they money went, and where it currently is. If it is stuck, they will be able to get it ‘unstuck’.",
"There are two unique identifiers for a bank account: SWIFT code + bank internal identifier, or IBAN code. IBAN is mostly used within European banking system, and the whole code provides a direct and unique identification of the account. SWIFT is an international network where each bank/bank branch has its own address, and account number is a metadata added to the message for the receiving bank to handle. Usually the name of the recipient and additional information are required when wiring money through the SWIFT network, to match the records and make sure there's no mistake. Account numbers don't have to be unique, not even within the same bank. There's always something else in addition to uniquely identify them.",
"The only certain way is to have the issuer confirm it. You'd think there would be a better way, but no there isn't. I suggest you read this story about what can happen even if you are the innocent victim trying to cash a fraudulent Cashier's Check. The consequences included some jail time and huge attorney fees for this unlucky person.",
"the financial information is generally filed via SEDAR (Canada) or SEC (US) before the conference call with the investment community. This can take before either before the market opens or after the market closes. The information is generally distribute to the various newswire service and company website at the same time the filing is made with SEDAR/SEC.",
"Is it standard for a bank to need the cheque to cancel it? (what about if it was intercepted, surely you can cancel before you're plundered?) Generally it makes life easy for the Bank. They can physically see the cheque and are assured that it has not been cashed. Bank can put a hold / stop on the cheque. However given today's Banking it is complex with multiple systems and specially with international clearing taking months ... the cheque could have been cashed and the Bank that issued may only get to know about it month later. Is there any way to bypass this? Best is for your friend to correspond in writing. The rejection email from your Bank should also go into the communication. And follow-ups every 15 days all in writing. Generally after tons of follow-up Banks would pay it off.",
"With number of Banks increasing every country at some point in time adopted an Identification code. In US these are called ABA number because they are allocated by American Bankers Association, in UK Sort Codes ... like wise for other countries. See list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_code In some countries the numbers are given by Central Bank. To enable internationl payments, the SWIFT body apart from message formats, allocated a SWIFT BIC [Bank identification Code] so that Banks can be globally identified. Currently IBAN being adopted in Europe & Australia to identify an Account [at a Bank] Uniquely across globe. In essence these number help uniquely identify a Location/Bank/Branch. The clearing house route the payments or collection instruments to the correct Bank on the basis of this number.",
"A US buyer wanted to import Gold from Ghana but due to insufficient working capital they were unable to obtain a Standby LC from their local bank. They contacted BWT for help & we facilitated their Gold deal by providing Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC, MT760) in favor of their Ghana Seller.",
"Both Wells Fargo and Chase are participants in clearXchange, which enables the various QuickPay type services to work with each other. They may be using this system rather than an ACH wire transfer to transfer your money (and to verify the account).",
"This is normal for credit cards. As long as you make the credit card company's cutoff time, they will make the funds available on your credit card rather than make you wait for them to actually get the funds from your bank. The amount of time this takes actually can vary significantly from bank to bank. You do want to make sure funds are available in your bank account for them to withdraw when they do take them though. If not, the payment would get returned and can set red flags on your credit card account that take a while to drop off.",
"\"In Europe in most of the countries there is also a thing called ACH. In UK there is a thing called BACS and in other countires there are other things. Essentially every country has what is called a \"\"Low value Net Settlement System\"\" that is used to transfer funds between accounts of different banks. In US there is rounting number, in UK there is a Sort Code, in Indonesia there is a sort code. Essentially a Bank Identifier that is issued by the Governing body within respective countires. Certian identifiers like SWIFT BIC [Bank Identification Code] are Unique across world.\"",
"Short answer: No. Some of those 'automatic' payments you've agreed to (presumably by signing a PAD form) are initiated in batch by the company whom you're buying from (phone company, cable company etc). So no, the bank has no indication from one day to the next what is coming through. And the request goes from say, your cable company to THEIR merchant bank to YOUR bank. Typically you have a monthly bill date which is fixed, and they should have terms established when it is due. If a payment comes back NSF they can retry once - but only for the same amount and I believe it is 14 days from the initial payment attempt. It makes it predictable, and you'd figure banks would clue in and start to predict for you when things may come out - but strictly speaking your bank doesn't know when or how much.",
"\"Ally Bank $0 - from their website (emphasis mine): To receive a wire transfer from a non-U.S. bank: Incoming wire transfers from a non-US bank are processed by our designated receiving bank, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. You'll need to provide the following information to the person or business sending the wire transfer to you: Receiving Bank: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ABA/Routing Number: 021000021 Address: 1 Chase Manhattan PLZ, New York, NY 10005 SWIFT Code or Bank Identification Code: CHASUS33 Beneficiary Account Number: 802904391 Beneficiary Name: List 'Ally Bank' since the wire is being processed by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Further Credit: Your Ally Bank Account Number and your name as it appears on your Ally Bank account. Note: We won't charge you to receive a wire transfer into your Ally account. https://www.ally.com/help/search.html?term=SWIFT&console=false&context=Help&domain=www.ally.com§ion=Help+%26+FAQs Alliant Credit Union $0 - from their website (emphasis mine): Direct international wire transfers International wire transfers are handled through our correspondent bank for processing. International wires can take up to 10 business days to be credited to the receiving institution. Funds should be wired to: Northern Trust ABA# 071000152 \"\"Note: US Banks do not use SWIFT codes. This ABA # is used in place of SWIFT codes for US Banks.\"\" 50 South La Salle Street, Chicago, IL 60603 For further credit: Alliant Credit Union Account Number 35101804 11545 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60666 For final credit: Member’s name and complete address (No P.O. Box) Member’s 14-digit account number Destination of funds (checking, savings or loan number) Incoming wire transfers: Wire transfers received Monday - Friday, 7:00am - 3:00pm, CT, will be credited to your account the same day. Wire transfers received after 3:00pm, CT, Monday - Friday and on the weekend will be credited the next business day. Fees: We do not charge a fee to receive incoming wire funds. However, the financial institution wiring the funds may charge for this service. http://www.alliantcreditunion.org/help/receiving-a-wire-transfer-to-your-alliant-account\"",
"My first thought is: email? Are you sure it is legitimate? Verify everything. Assuming it is legitimate:",
"I would use the withdrawal date to record, as it represents you no longer have these funds in your account whether you have written a check and/or transferred money you should count the funds as no longer being in your account.",
"I may be moving to Switzerland soon and would like to know if there's a similar system to move money between a Swiss bank account and a U.S bank account. There is no easy way. The most common method is International Wire or SWIFT. These kinds of transfer are generally charged in the range of USD 20 to USD 50 per transfer. It generally takes 2 to 5 days to move the money. Some Banks have not yet given the facility to initiate a International Wire from Internet banking platforms. One has to physically walk-in. So if this is going to be frequent, make sure both your banks offer this. As the volume between US and Switzerland is less, there may not be any dedicated remittance service providers [these are generally low cost].",
"It seems that your Organizers are not familiar with dealing transfers outside of Euro Zone. You are right IBAN is not used in India. A Bank in France can initiate an International Wire. There are few Banks that offer this online, for most one has to visit the Branch. See this https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/questions/2862/international-money-transfer-online-from-a-french-bank I am not aware of any other term used in France for International Wire, try explaining; Its also called BIC. It would help if you also provide your Correspondent Bank details [This will be a Bank in Europe]. This should be available on your Indian Bank's website.",
"This is one of the things that central banks do. For example, see here for a full description of how the Bank of England manages settlements of inter-bank transactions.",
"\"•Have you had any problems with bills not being paid? NO •If you had issues, were they addressed satisfactorily? Answer: A big issue that blindsided me: With my bank, the funds come out of my account right away, but the actual payment is done through a third-party service. On my bank's online site it appears that the payment has been made, but that does not necessarily mean that the intended recipient has cashed it. Looking online at my credit union's site is useless, because all I can tell is that the payment has been sent. The only way to verify payment is to contact the intended recipient. Or I may telephone the online bill pay representative at my bank/credit union, who has access to the third party service. If I do nothing, after 90 days, the check is void, at which time the third party service notifies the bank/credit union and the funds will eventually end up back in my account. I learned this today, after a third-party paper check to a health care provider was returned to me via mail by the recipient (because insurance had already paid and I did not owe them anything). The money was in the hands of the third-party service, not in my account, nor that of my credit union nor the recipient. At first my credit union told me that I would have to contact the third-party service myself and work it out. I said \"\"NO WAY\"\" and the credit union did get the money back into account the same day. This is a sweet deal for the third party, who has my money interest-free anywhere from a few days to three months. And risk-free as well, because the money goes directly from my account to the third party service.\"",
"Generally it goes by when they receive the check, not when they cash the check. Though if the check was received prior to midnight on December 31st, but after the bank closes, they would probably let the tax payer decide to count it for the next year. Of course if the check is from person A to person B then the only issue is gift tax, or annual limit calculations. If it is company to person then income tax could be involved. The IRS calls this Constructive receipt Income Under the cash method, include in your gross income all items of income you actually or constructively receive during your tax year. If you receive property or services, you must include their fair market value in income. Example. On December 30, 2011, Mrs. Sycamore sent you a check for interior decorating services you provided to her. You received the check on January 2, 2012. You must include the amount of the check in income for 2012. Constructive receipt. You have constructive receipt of income when an amount is credited to your account or made available to you without restriction. You do not need to have possession of it. If you authorize someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are treated as having received it when your agent received it. Example. Interest is credited to your bank account in December 2012. You do not withdraw it or enter it into your passbook until 2013. You must include it in your gross income for 2012. Delaying receipt of income. You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar property from one tax year to another to avoid paying tax on the income. You must report the income in the year the property is received or made available to you without restriction. Example. Frances Jones, a service contractor, was entitled to receive a $10,000 payment on a contract in December 2012. She was told in December that her payment was available. At her request, she was not paid until January 2013. She must include this payment in her 2012 income because it was constructively received in 2012. Checks. Receipt of a valid check by the end of the tax year is constructive receipt of income in that year, even if you cannot cash or deposit the check until the following year. Example. Dr. Redd received a check for $500 on December 31, 2012, from a patient. She could not deposit the check in her business account until January 2, 2013. She must include this fee in her income for 2012. In general it is best not to cut it close. If the check is to be counted as an January event it is best to send it in January. If it is to be December event it is best to send it early enough to be able to say with confidence that the check arrived at the destination before the end of the year.",
"tl;dr: Be patient, money is probably sitting somewhere, and it will eventually be credited back to your account. I had a similar problem about 10 years ago. I sent an international wire transfer, from my own bank account in Germany to my bank account in Central America. I had done this before, and there had been no issues, but in this case, even though all the information was correct, the bank rejected the wire because it was above $10K, and in that case, the bank needs written proof from the owner of the receiving account (me) , and so didn't know where the funds were coming from. I had to call the local Sparkasse bank in Germany, as well as an intermediary bank in London to sort it all out, and in total, had to wait about 3-4 weeks to get the money back in my Sparkasse bank account. At one point I thought I may never see that money back, especially since there was an intermediary bank to deal with, but it all worked out in the end.",
"Most of the credit unions and small banks in USA do not have the connectivity to swift network and thus does not have a Swift Code, IBAN or other international routing codes. They can still receive international wire transfers. Sender's international financial institution should have a correspondent bank in the US (which acts as an intermediary bank) to which they can wire the money The intermediary bank will send the money domestically (within USA) using aba routing numbers of the small bank or credit union.",
"The IBAN uniquely identifies a Bank and Account number Globally. Technically only IBAN should be sufficient. However in real world, today the way application have got developed [over a last 30 years without IBAN being in place], require Beneficiary Bank Code [identifiers], because based on that they determine how the payment needs to be processed. Although IBAN has been adopted by more countries in Europe [plus Australia, New Zealand and more], there applications have not yet undergone the required change to fully support the real purpose or essence of IBAN. It would still be quite some time for IBAN to be truly functional.",
"I would presume this goes entirely through the credit card network rather than the banking network. I am guessing that it's essentially the same operation as if you had returned something purchased on a card to the store for credit, but I'm not sure whether it really looks like a vendor credit to the network or if it is marked as a different type of transaction.",
"\"Why? Because they can get away with it, of course. In short - why not? You may want to read the answers to this similar question (my answer is the one accepted by the OP). Who has the money? The banks, who else. I have found that some banks are capable of sending/receiving ACH transfers faster than others. I have accounts in two banks, lets call them A and B. If I send money (push) from A to B, it may take several days. But if I decide to pull the money from A to B by originating the transaction through my account at B - the money arrives the next day! So the actual transfer only takes a night, one business day. Its just the direction that matters - if the bank has to give the money out, it will do all it can (including taking 2-3 days for \"\"processing\"\") to keep the money as long as possible. But when another bank charges them - they have no choice but to pay. By the way, bank B behaves better - when I send the money from my account at B, it arrives to A the next day as well. Try a similar experiment. Instead of originating the transaction at the sender bank - try to originate it at the receiver bank, see how long it takes then for the money to appear on your account after it disappeared from the other one.\"",
"\"You have received some good answers, but since your concern is proper protocol, keep everything in writing (emails, not phone calls). Also, you'll get a quick response by contacting the University \"\"Accounts Payable\"\" department, confirm the situation with a summary as you posted here and ask for the ABA routing number for the transfer. The routing number, email, and you bank statement is all the records you need to cover your but.\"",
"As Nathan has correctly noted, ACH processes transactions in daily batches. The reason for that is accounting - the money doesn't actually change hands for each transaction. All the transactions are aggregated and calculated in the batch process, and the money only changes hands for the difference. Consider this: If each transaction was to be handled separately, each time banks would have to adjust their books to account for the money movement. But if we do it in batch we have this: The resulting inter-bank transfers: Total for the original 30 transactions - 2 transactions between the banks: A->B and C->A. If you need money to be transferred immediately (relatively) - you can use wire transfer. Some banks will still aggregate and batch-process those, but more than once a day. They'll charge you additional fee for their inconvenience."
] |
[
"I think technically the MIR includes the date of issuance but not the time, see the references here. What you have there looks like a timestamp followed by the MIR. If you look at this example from IBM they also show the input time as a separate field."
] |
2070
|
Advantage of credit union or local community bank over larger nationwide banks such as BOA, Chase, etc.?
|
[
"136438",
"363678",
"30253"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"249839",
"136438",
"252629",
"578357",
"18749",
"587737",
"74509",
"550303",
"30253",
"26578",
"590209",
"469515",
"258581",
"261389",
"197087",
"416233",
"35267",
"408166",
"65659",
"182866",
"68472",
"403077",
"295750",
"366475",
"532804",
"506113",
"95715",
"331616",
"597571",
"149258",
"147343",
"160448",
"550924",
"9484",
"151435",
"335859",
"158",
"230973",
"562585",
"340620",
"571625",
"381102",
"540485",
"25316",
"277208",
"176061",
"438740",
"5644",
"127144",
"121230",
"145789",
"146035",
"269447",
"291290",
"528132",
"528840",
"469731",
"581033",
"382827",
"163152",
"580935",
"219665",
"270866",
"100593",
"413722",
"393467",
"315363",
"310112",
"484313",
"288126",
"241035",
"373697",
"61350",
"89510",
"505562",
"556519",
"20432",
"562194",
"151121",
"9561",
"152186",
"165904",
"29399",
"60829",
"433933",
"564709",
"335774",
"309047",
"449630",
"130128",
"258121",
"290325",
"406219",
"67728",
"354560",
"438400",
"395021",
"311690",
"213182",
"384018"
] |
[
"My favorite part about using a local credit union is, if I have an account issue, I can just call up and talk to someone who works five minutes from my house without *ever* punching numbers into an automated answering system. Good luck doing that with Bank of America.",
"Banks, the big ones, have shareholders and the board to answer to. Credit Unions have members and the board to answer to. You become a member by joining a CU. Banks' prime objective is profit maximization, a credit union's prime objective is members' welfare. Personal experience: I didn't mind that the banks charge fees, what was frustrating was keeping up with the policy changes. Have X amount to avoid Y fees. Once you fulfill that, do something else to avoid some other fees. You miss one notice and you'll pay dearly! This constant jumping of hoops was enough to switch. Not saying CUs don't change rules, but in my opinion, not as frequently as big banks. On fee, for instance, my overdraft with my CU is $5. With BofA it was something like $35 before regulations put a cap on such ridiculous fees.",
"> accessing all atms fee free, having services available 24/7, having robust, safe and audited online services, and having a big enough bank that all major third party tools interface with it. You just described my single state credit union I've been with for 19 years now, and not the big bank I was with before (Wells Fargo).",
"\"Note that many credit unions participate in a \"\"branch exchange\"\" program, which lets you access you CU's accounts and services thru the offices of the others. My CU is two states away, but there has been only one case where I felt a need to drive back there. Find out if your has joined this network, and encourage them to do so if they haven't yet. It makes credit unions fully competitive with interstate banks. The shared-branch CU locations may not be maximally convenient, but more keep joining, and the most common transactions can be done by mail or ATM anyway. The biggest advantages of a local CU or bank are that they know the local rules for mortgages, and they may have safe deposit boxes for rent. That, and having a place to unload the pocket change that piles up, are why I've got an account with a small local bank a few blocks from my house as well. Though I keep thinking about joining my alma mater's credit union, and will if the ever get on the shared-branch system.\"",
"I'd add that bigger banks tend to have experience doing more complicated things. As an example, my local credit union (~12 offices), simply didn't have the software to wire money to a Canadian bank, as where Chase did. The Canadian routing number wasn't in the format of a US institution, and their software user interface just didn't allow for that number to be entered. Also, most smaller banks don't have international toll free (in-country) numbers for foreign access. Smaller banks also tend to have less sophisticated business banking tools and experience. If you take a Treasury bond approval to a small bank, they'll generally look at you like you have three heads. So the international side of things is definitely in the favor of big banks; they have a lot more money to dump on services.",
"I'm always hesitant to use local credit unions because I love accessing all atms fee free, having services available 24/7, having robust, safe and audited online services, and having a big enough bank that all major third party tools interface with it. Joe Schmo Local Credit Union has a lot of good services, but audited and secure online banking? No fee nationwide ATMs? Native interfacing to major tools? I just don't see it often. I shudder to think of the security at small bank websites, frankly.",
"Besides, if you don't like how your Credit Union is investing your money, you can always agitate for change by asking members to change the board that governs it. Being a member of a Credit Union gives you a vote on how the institution runs itself.",
"\"Small community banks are absolutely vital to our economy. Plenty of people these days talk about \"\"buying local,\"\" but you never hear them talking about banking local. My friends, for the most part, lean left of center politically, so they constantly complain about Wal-Mart and other large brick and mortar chains, but when I called them out on their banking by asking them to pull out their debit cards, they all banked with larger banks; Chase, PNC, Key; the only person (beside myself) who didn't bank with a large national/multi - national bank uses Huntington, which is still a very large regional bank with over $100 billion in assets. They said they didn't want to have to pay ATM fees, to which I responded that many community banks will reimburse the customer for those fees up to a certain amount (like my bank does.) They just shrugged and said they liked the convenience of it, so I asked them why do they think people shop at Wal-Mart? I didn't really get a good answer to that; they just said \"\"it's different.\"\" The best way to invest in your community is to bank with a local community bank. Those mom and pop shops you love so much; the plumber who lives down the street; the micro brewery that just opened up all do their banking with the local community bank.\"",
"Fees mostly. BOA, for example, just announced $5/month for for all debit cards. Chase has foreign transaction fees, mostly hidden. BOA once famously raised interest rates on credit card holders to 28%, legally. Also, some people do not like patronizing a bank with CEOs that bankrupt the company and then get multi-million dollar golden parachutes. Finally some people have a problem with banks or institutions that suspend accounts based on political or unproven legal proceedings (ala Wikileaks and BOA). Credit unions are less like to be involved in this sort of activity since they are not privately traded, and as such they are not ruled by shareholders who demand bottom line results at all costs.",
"Financial Aid - the government gives you better interest rates and is a better lender. Credit Cards - are for idiots. Mortgage and Loans - Credit Unions give a much better deal. They actually re-invest in the community. You can take you big banks and shove em' up your ass.",
"Why is OP still using BoA? I got a large check when my grandfather died, my credit union told me that there'd be a delay because it was so large. I said no problem. Then a lady called me later that day to make sure I didn't need some of the money immediately. I again demurred, but they really went the extra mile. Why? Because local credit unions actually give a shit about their customers. Anyone who uses BoA for banking gets what they deserve. How many more stories do you need to read?",
"\"In practical terms, these days, a credit union IS a small \"\"savings and loan\"\" bank -- the kind of bank that used to exist before bankers started making money on everything but writing loans. They aren't always going to offer higher interest and/or cheaper loans than the bank-banks, but they're almost always going to be more pleasant to deal with since they consider the depositors and borrowers their stockholders, not just customers. There are minor legal differences (different insurance fund, for example), and you aren't necessarily eligible to open an account at a randomly-chosen credit union (depending on how they've defined the community they're serving), but they will rarely affect you as an account holder. The main downside of credit unions is that, like other small local banks, they will only have a few branches, usually within a limited geographic area. However, I've been using a credit union 200 miles away (and across two state lines on that route, one if I take a large detour) for decades now, and I've found that between bank-by-mail, bank-by-internet, ATM machines, and the \"\"branch exchange\"\" program (which lets you use branches of participating credit unions as if they were branches of your own) I really haven't felt a need to get to the branch. I did find that, due to network limitations of $50K/CU/day, drawing $200,000 worth of bank checks on a single day (when I purchased the house) required running around to four separate branch-exchange credit unions. But that's a weird situation where I was having trouble beating the actual numbers out of the real estate agents until a few days before the sale. And they may have relaxed those limitations since... though if I had to do it again, I'd consider taking a scenic drive to hit an actual branch of my own credit union. If you have the opportunity to join a credit union, I recommend doing so. Even if you don't wind up using it for your \"\"main\"\" accounts, they're likely to be people you want to talk to when you're shopping for a loan.\"",
"Credit unions operate for the benefit of their depositors, who are the actual owners of the institution, whereas conventional banks operate for the benefit of their shareholders, who of course are not necessarily depositors. So credit unions will typically give a benefit or service for free if it is free or extremely cheap to them, whereas conventional banks will charge for it if they think it will not lose them depositors.",
"\"I agree -- personally, at the expense of some of the convenience you speak of, I use credit unions exclusively. However, my credit union more than makes up for that with 1) online check deposit (only thing you ever need to go to a bank for) 2) ATM fee reimbursement With those two amenities, I don't need a branch on every corner. I am pretty disappointed with BofA's practices (profiting off of those who are \"\"less responsible\"\" -- to me it's wrong to profit off of people's 'stupidity'), so I would never bank with them. It's just a personal preference because 1) I don't need them and 2) I wouldn't want to indirectly support their business. I can understand why people stick with them, and frankly don't really care, to be honest... I just think they're a fundamentally bad company through and through and would rather keep my money away from them.\"",
"Generally a credit union will tend to have lower rates, since they are owned by the members, and not having to make a profit for some rich bankers or a bunch of shareholders. OTOH their funds are often more limited than a bank, and they may be pickier about who they loan to. still that's just 'generally', it always pays to shop around",
"\"Not exactly. In a credit union, all members are \"\"shareholders.\"\" The CUs \"\"pass\"\" onto their shareholders in the form of significantly lower interest rates, higher savings interest rates, complementary perks like paid life insurance, and others depending on your CU.\"",
"I hear this a lot but how does it work exactly? Is it the more money you have in your share (savings) account the more weight your vote carries? Or does each member get one vote? I've been a credit union member for 15 years and have never had any say in anything. I also work for a small bank and both institutions are basically the same. My bank has better rates than my credit union on lended money but my CU pays higher rates on my money. My bank is also a publicly traded company and has regular meetings in which any shareholders can come voice their opinion, I've never heard anything about such activity with my credit union.",
">I shudder to think of the security at small bank websites, frankly. I had a local credit union for years as my main account and before that I had TD Bank. I 100% trust my local credit union over TD Bank any day to protect me from foreign intrusion or fraud.",
"I work in banking for the private bank division for a major bank as a banker. I have been helping clients with these types of transactions for years. I believe that large transactions like this are best left to the big boys. That is where the talented bankers/loan officers/underwriters are, and that is the type of transaction they specialize in. I know for a fact that your credit union will not be able to suit your needs, and a smaller bank will be tough to deal with. I wouldn't worry at all about the credit pulls as much as picking a rock solid bank with lots of experiences doing these kinds of deals. That is my 2 cents, albeit a little bit biased, but it is also coming from experience. History with the bank definitely matters, but what business you can bring to the bank along with the lending (deposits, 401k management, personal investments, business services, etc) matter just as much and can make or break the approval/decline or even the terms being favorable or not favorable to your company.",
"\"When I deposit my paycheck in CapOne I have an email before I am out of the app that they received my check. I have access to some portion of the cash now and the rest the next business day, however they put things in order to NOT overdraft me. For instance, if I am overdrawn $150 but the charge is \"\"pending\"\", putting the check in they will deposit the check before posting the charge that would overdraft me. Plus I can use Apple Pay with it. My local CUs have app deposit, but it takes DAYS for a deposit to just show up. Plus, no Apple Pay.\"",
"My car loan, much to my disappointment, was through Wells Fargo. I went to my credit union and refinanced (with a .1% increase of interest) and I feel a lot better about my payments. In reality, it pays for itself because my credit union is customer-owned, and my dividends offset the extra cost. :)",
"they may be willing to issue mortgages with smaller deposits, but may take longer to make a decision That cannot be farther from the truth. If you are getting a mortgage on a smaller deposit, you will be paying a higher interest rate. Time to take a decision depends very much on your credit situation, earnings, spending and the amount of loan you want to avail of. advantages and disadvantages compared to banks today Nothing specifically that is obvious. You deposits are guaranteed by FSCS, which is primarily everybody's biggest concern. One thing I did observe was they generally have saving accounts which pay better than the big banks, but that is for one to compare and find out. In ownership structure you own a part of the building society because you are a member by having an account(bank/mortgage) with them. Not the case with a big bank though unless you own any shares. You can make a case for the difference of the big bank's multiple business as compared to a building society.",
"\"I know many people who would recommend joining a credit union. They're typically local and are not-for-profit entities (not non-profit like a charity). The \"\"customers\"\" are actually members who cooperatively provide financial services to the other members. Oftentimes if there's a surplus of profits at the end of the year, they divvy them up to the members based on how many accounts they have, what their balances are, loans, etc.\"",
"I've been with my credit union for 8 years now and I love it! I also don't deal with any of the problems you are talking about. I don't pay fees at any atm, at least not ultimately. If an atm charges me a fee then it's refunded to me at the end of the month. My online banking is very good, even have an app that allows me to remote deposit checks. Oh, and my loan interest rates are really decent too. While the banks are nickel and dimeing you to death my CU pays me every month and charges no fees.",
"Some credit unions also offer them and support Business banking as well. First Tech Credit Union is a great example. They also have the most security-oriented banking website I've seen to date. https://www.firsttechfed.com/ As a side note I've found that Credit Unions are a MUCH better deal for personal and business banking.",
"I switched to a credit union for a year and the only complaint that I had was that the service was absolutely horrible when compared with my previous bank. Flow time in the drive through and help when going inside were pretty bad. The credit union was UFCU, has anyone else experienced this and switched back to their old bank? I realize that many people can do almost all of their banking online, and that credit unions probably benefit those people. But, for those that need to go to the bank several times a month I wouldn't recommend it. I switched back for this reason.",
"When traveling you can use any flavor of credit card or exchange usd to local currency. When you move, just switch to a new local credit union. Leaving big banks for a credit union might not personally give you a different experience, but at least you can know you're not supporting scum.",
"CUs are now starting to adopt some of the bank's tricks, like using a longer float during online bill paying and for outside transfers. Also for overdrafts they are now starting to kick into fees or automatic loans rather than transferring money from your savings account. I've been a member for decades and my CUs weren't doing this previously.",
"First, if you live in/around a reasonably populated urban area, and you're in the United States, I can't see why you would choose to bank with Chase, B of A, or another large commercial bank. I think you would be much better served by banking at a reasonably large credit union. There are many differences between banks and credit unions, but in a nutshell, credit unions are owned by the members, and operate primarily to provide benefits to their members, whereas a bank is owned by the shareholders, and operates primarily to make profits for the shareholders (not to benefit the customers). The banking industry absolutely hates the credit unions, so if you've ever been nickeled-and-dimed with this fee and that charge by your bank, I have to ask why you're still banking with a company that irritates you and/or actively tries to screw you out of your money? I live in California, and I've banked at credit unions almost exclusively since I started working nearly 30 years ago. Every time I've strayed and started banking at a for-profit bank, I've regretted it. For example, a few years ago I opened a checking account at a now-defunct bank (WaMu) just for online use: eBay and so forth. It was a free checking account. When Chase bought WaMu, the account became a Chase account, and it seemed that every other statement brought new fees, new restrictions, and so forth. I finally closed it when they imposed some stupid fee for not carrying enough of a balance. I found out by logging in to their Web site and seeing a balance of zero dollars; they had imposed the fee a few statements back, and I had missed it, so they kept debiting my account until it was empty. At this point, I do about 90% of my banking at a fairly large credit union. I have a mortgage with a big bank, but that was out of my hands, as the lender/originator sold the mortgage and I had no say in the matter. My credit union has a highly functional Web site, permits me to download my account activity to Quicken, and even has mobile apps which allow me to deposit a check by taking a picture of it, or check my account activity, etc. They (my credit union) are part of a network of other credit unions, so as long as I am using a network ATM, I never pay a fee. In sum, I can't see any reason to go with a bank. Regarding checks, I write a small number of checks per year, but I recently needed to reorder them. My credit union refers members directly to Harland-Clarke, a major-league player in the check printing business. Four boxes of security checks was around $130 plus shipping, which is not small money. However, I was able to order the very same checks via Costco for less than half that amount. Costco refers members to a check printing service, which is a front/subsidiary of Harland-Clarke, and using a promo code, plus the discount given for my Costco membership, I got four boxes of security checks shipped to me for less than $54. My advice would be to look around. If you're a Costco member, use their check printing service. Wal*mart offers a similar service to anyone, as does Sam's Club, and you can search around to find other similar services. Bottom line, if you order your checks via your bank or credit union, chances are you will pay full retail. Shop around, and save a bit. I've not opened a new account at a credit union in some time, but I would not be surprised if a credit union offered a free box of checks when you open a new account with them.",
"I would have been tempted to dismiss your claim, but the data I found shows that you're correct. On the plus side, the growth rate in credit union market share is higher in New York than it is in California. While there is no question that bankers hate credit unions, I can't tell you why credit unions have a smaller market share in NY. Maybe the regulatory environment is part of it. Banks have a big lobby, and they pay a lot of taxes in NYC.",
"Nope. Credit Unions are for the customers. Since the customers own them, the credit union does what is best for the members. They aren't giving you money, they are loaning it to you for for interest. Furthermore then judged you like any other bank would. High horse moment: I believe the only reason you have to open an account, is because the banking industry didn't want to compete and got legislation to limit the size and reach of a credit union. The credit union wants your business, and they want to work for you, but they are required to have these membership requirements because their lobby isn't as powerful as regular banks.",
"\"I second what \"\"powercow\"\" and \"\"Osetic\"\" said. I switched away from Wells Fargo to Patelco (Pacific Telephone Company, i'm in the bay area). They are world's better. My biggest issue with WF was the overdrafts, how much they charged, and the way in which they processed incoming transactions (which they are being sued in a class action for, btw). I had my new account setup so it could never overdraft, it would just decline. In my first month with Patelco, I ordered checks. When that charge processed, it dipped my account into the negative due to it being an internal CU charge and their system not performing all the checks/balances first. They called me about 24hrs after it happened to let me know: * How sorry they were * That they would refund me the amount of the checks * That they added $10 on top of the refund to ensure I understood it was a mistake * If there was anything else they could do to make the situation right And like others here, I have shorter lines, more helpful tellers, a more inviting atmosphere, oh and free coffee. You gotta find a better CU, yo\"",
"Ya small local banks effectively do not exist in Canada. We do however have a number of credit unions. I'm actually going to be defensive of the big five as they are actually well run (or rather well regulated). Our banking context is in many ways radically different up north.",
"A fucking credit union. Even if they use an all paper system and have no website, no phone app, and can only be contacted by fax or telephone, use a credit union. Even if the only place you can get your money is a 45 minute drive to the next town, use a credit union. Its not about finances, its about reclaiming basic human dignity in the world of American Finance.",
"\"A credit Union makes loans exactly the same ways a bank does. A portion of the money deposited in checking, savings, money market, Certificate of Deposit, or IRA is then used to make loans for cars, boats, school, mortgages, 2nd mortgages, lines of credit... The government dictates the percentage of each type of deposit that must be held in reserve for non-loan transactions. The Credit Union members are the share holders of the \"\"company\"\". There are no investors in the \"\"company\"\" because the goal is not to make money. In general the entire package is better because there is no pressure to increase profits. Fees are generally lower because they are there to discourage bad behavior, not as a way to make a profit off of the bad behavior. Dividends/interest are treated the same way as bank interest. The IRS forms are the same, and it is reported the same way. Some of bizarre rules they have to follow: maximum number of transactions between accounts, membership rules, are there because banks want to make it harder to be a member of a credit union.\"",
"As has been stated, you don't need to actively bank with a credit union to apply for one of their credit cards. That said, one benefit to having account activity, and significant capital with a CU, is to increase the likelihood of having a larger credit line granted to you, when you do apply. If you are going to use the card sparingly however, then this is a non issue. That said, if you really want to maximize card benefits, then you want to look for cards with large sign up bonuses (e.g. Chase Sapphire, or Ink Bold if you have a business) and sign up exclusively for those bonuses. These cards offer rewards in excessive value of $1000 in travel services (hotels/plane tickets), or $500 cash back if you prefer straight cash back redemptions. If you prefer to keep it really simple, you can sign up for a cash back card, like the Amex Fidelity, which offers 2% cash back everywhere, with no annual fee (albeit the cash back is through their investment account, which you don't actually have to 'invest' with). Personally, I have the Penfed card, and use it exclusively for gas (5% cash back). I also have a Charles Schwab bank account, which I keep funded exclusively for ATM withdrawals (free ATM usage, worldwide, 100% fee reimbursement). I use the accounts exclusively for the benefit they provide me, and no more and have never had an issue. I also have 3 dozen other credit cards which I signed up for exclusively for the sign up bonus, but that's outside the scope of this question. I only mention it because you seem to believe it is difficult to get approved for a new credit line. If your credit is good however, you won't have a problem. For a small idea, of how to maximize credit card bonus categories, I would advise you read this. As mentioned in the article, its possible to get rewards almost everywhere you shop. In short, anytime you use cash, you are missing out on a multitude of benefits a credit card offers you (e.g. see the benefits of a visa signature card) in addition to points/cash back.",
"In the US, I would say the risk is exactly the same. If your accounts are withing the FDIC amount (currently $250,000) your balance is 100% covered in case of a failure. You are giving up a larger network of ATMs in some cases. You are also perhaps giving up the number of branches you can visit, the hours the bank is open and maybe how well the website works. The features might be less, but the protection for your deposits is the same.",
"According to the Credit Union National Association (NCUA), in recent years there has been a noticeable trend of credit unions lending money to credit union members for business. Some of these credit unions have already lent billions in business loans. The size of an average loan of this type is approximately $200,000. It appears that this trend will continue since credit unions seem willing to lend more. In some cases credit unions have even gone as far as creating new divisions specifically to work with small business owners.",
"It sounds like you've found a decent bank. I suspect some may not realize they don't have to bank with the big 8 (or however many there are). Once enough people start moving their money elsewhere the banks will begin to wake up and change their behavior.",
"I don't have an account with either of those CUs, but I do have membership at 2 different CUs. If they accept credit card payments online via transfer from another institution, there's no reason to move your money, unless there are other benefits (higher interest rates). All the CUs would likely require is membership ($5 deposit minimum?). If you were to get a card through Chase or Capital One, you wouldn't be expected to open a checking/savings account with them and transition over to those accounts.",
"\"I can't find a citation, but from memory (EDIT: and reading the newspapers at the time it happened): up until around 1980, banks couldn't cross state borders. In my state, at least, they were also very local, only staying within one county. This was to enforce \"\"localness\"\", the thought being that local bankers would know local people and the local situation better than far away people who only see numbers and paperwork.\"",
"The one those investors said 'hey instead of pricing Tesla 10 years out, we will pool in and create jobs, by founding a $5b bank with locations nationwide'. I use them because they give great rates at places I shop. Such as if I buy a new tv from that new company founded by that hedge fund that pulled out of netflixes 10 year pricing and started an electronics firm I save 25%!!",
"Their loans and rates are not very good for a credit Union. They are the most bank like in the way they operate (in a bad way). Customer service has always be excellent the issue I have is with their services. It is very easy to find a better credit Union with far better services.",
"In the UK at least, we have Credit Unions. Credit Unions are not-for-profit organisations that don't pay interest on your balance, but instead give you a share of their profits at the end of the year (or at least my local branch do). This normally equates to around 1% of my balance.",
"I would strongly suggest you select an answer: all the above two cover everything I can possibly recommend, but perhaps my perspective as a person who was exactly in your shoes a year ago might appeal to you more. My first bank was Chase, and they usually give out a free checking account to students that come with leaves of 100 checks. Unfortunately, I was 24 at that time, and the max possible age to qualify was 23 or 21. Paying $25 for any number of checks was a big deal for me as I had no job, and transportation and rent was costing me $1k/month anyways. I came here and asked questions: lots of them. MrChrister, God bless his soul, recommended credit unions to me. I never knew they existed. A year later, I am a proud member of 3 CUs: I recommend Alliant, DCU and SchoolsFirst: I am their member and very proud of it!",
"\"Yeah the credit union near me sucks too. Short hours, long lines and impossible parking to go with the subpar online banking and lack of ATMs. Just because the sign reads \"\"credit union\"\" doesn't mean it's a good business. Not all credit unions are created equally.\"",
"I haven't heard of these before! (And I'm on the board of a Credit Union.) The 0.99% on loans is great. It's especially great on a used car: the steep part of the depreciation curve was paid by the first owner. The network probably have a business relationship with the credit union. Credit unions do indirect lending -- approval of loans that happens at the point of sale, which then the credit union gets as assets. Depending on the cost of that program, it probably won't hurt. Your credit union wants to keep your business, because they know that you have a lot of options for where you bank and where you get loans.",
"\"Your instructor's numbers do not seem to have any basis in current reality. At this page you can see a comparison of interest rates offered by banks and credit unions. In the most recent table for June 2014, banks paid an average interest rate of 0.12 percent on savings accounts, while credit unions paid an average of 0.13 percent. If you look back further, you will see that interest rates paid by banks and credit unions are generally comparable. Credit union rates tend to be a little bit higher, but certainly not 7 times higher. The last time any financial institution paid as much as 15% on a savings account would probably be the early 1980s. You can see here a historical chart of the \"\"prime rate\"\" for lending. Savings account rates (at either banks or credit unions) would typically be lower. (This is based on the US, in accordance with your tag. Interest rates in other places, especially developing countries with less stable currencies, can be dramatically different.)\"",
"I love working for a CU. Our CRO revels in articles like this. He will post them and tell us this is why we do what we do. We would rather be financial physicians. Our job is heal financial worries and get people on the right path. I have seen our lenders convince folks to not take a loan best that is truly in their best interest. I have seen our investment group tell folks that their investment goals and personal goal don't line up and honestly they should wait. We also do crazy stuff like identifying folks who live in the flood zones and offer them 90 day loan deferment with no fees. That and a care loan for repairs. It's an insanely low interest loan (2%) to help folks get their repairs done. We also lowered our credit requirements for that to where just about every who needs it qualifies. It's also hard to get fired. If you don't hit your sales goal it's ok. You will not lose your job. Yes we are encouraged to meet our goals with incentives but we pretty much get paid something no matter what you do. Pretty much the only way to get fired is to pull a Wells Fargo. If you do something like that your ass is not only fired, the CRO will personally come down and will kick you out the door. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if if he then tied you to his car and dragged you down the street. And you know what, it's working. We are repeatedly breaking every record we set for ourselves. Record loans, record deposits, record account openings. And you better believe that is heavily audit internally and externally. We actually hire auditors to make sure this crap doesn't even start. TLDR; Wells Fargo is the devil. Credit Unions Rule!!!!!",
"\"Here are some things you want to look at for evaluating a bank or credit union for your regular spending accounts: Convenience. Do they have a branch in a convenient location for you? Do they have no-fee ATMs near you? Website. If you are like me, you will spend more time on the bank's website than you do inside a branch. Some bank's websites are great, some are terrible. Unfortunately, this is generally difficult to evaluate until you actually get an account. You want a website that is easy to use. It should allow you to easily move money between your accounts, get instant lists of transactions, show you your monthly statements, and have a billpay feature that works well. If you use budgeting software that interfaces online with your bank, you want to ensure that it works well with your bank. Fee structure. Some banks will nickel-and-dime you to death. Watch out for minimum balance fees and ATM fees. Banks and credit unions usually have a fee schedule page on their website that lists every fee they charge, making it easy to compare different banks. I would not be very concerned about interest rates for savings. Currently, all savings accounts have a universally terrible interest rate. Therefore, I wouldn't base my bank choice on the interest rate. Sure, one might offer double the interest rate of another, but double \"\"next-to-nothing\"\" is still \"\"next-to-nothing.\"\" When you accumulate enough savings that you want to start maximizing your earnings, you can look for a better rate at another bank to move your savings to, and you can keep your checking account at the bank with the best convenience and fee structure. In my limited experience, I have had better luck with credit unions than with banks when it comes to fees.\"",
"Go to your local credit union and open an account there! Why do people put up with banks? Big banks are for business not for regular folks, they will nickel and dime you all the time, and that's the honest ones, the scum like WF will just trash you.",
"> Please read the other comments about That's all very well, and I **did** read the article - thank you very much for your suggestion; but my comment was not related to the other comments, it was a reply to a specific comment about smaller businesses being more responsive to customer complaints than smaller ones, something that I have not found to be true. In fact, it is often quite the opposite. Perhaps in your neck of the woods, small businesses are always polite and perfect, and never require your time. My opinion is different. For example, if a small business makes a mistake, then I definitely need to take time off work to try to fix it; possibly, I'll need to even personally go in. On the other hand, my large banks have people available nights and weekends, making it easier.",
"Credit unions are mutually-owned (i.e. customer owned) financial institutions that provide banking services. They take deposits from their members (customers) and loan them to other members. Members vote on a board of directors who manage operations. They are considered not-for-profit, but they pay interest on deposits. They get some preferential tax treatment and regulation and their deposits are insured by a separate organization if federally accredited. State-chartered credit unions don't have to maintain deposit insurance at all. Their charters specify who can join. They can be regionally based, employer based, or based on some other group with common interests. Regulators restrict them so that they don't interfere too much with banks. Otherwise their preferential tax and regulatory treatment would leave banks uncompetitive. Other organizations with similar limits have gone on to be competitive when the limits were released. For example, there used to be an insurance company just for government employees, the Government Employees Insurance Company. You may know it better as GEICO (yes, the one with the gecko advertisements). Now they offer life and auto insurance all over. Credit unions would like looser limitations (or no limitations at all), but not enough to give up their preferential tax treatment. Banks oppose looser limitations and have as much political clout as credit unions.",
"Credit Unions are structured such that the account holders are in fact the owners of the institution. Thus, the money invested in your savings account is in fact a share of ownership, and the interest paid to you is dividend. Tax-wise, these dividends are usually treated as interest income.",
"\"Credit Unions turn a profit by lending money at a higher interest rate than their savings do, just like banks do. It is an amoral feat, completely parallel to any moral weights you have assigned to \"\"the system\"\". If the most favorable circumstance is you receiving access to capital, then you can easily achieve that with zero reservations about the system that granted it to you.\"",
"I've had all my account with the same bank for all my life. Generally, the disadvantage is that if I want some kind of product like a credit extension or a mortgage, I have the one bank to go to and if they don't want to help me I'm out of luck. However, occasionally there are also perks like the bank spontaneously offering you increased credit or even a whole line of credit. They can do this because they have your whole history and trust you.",
"\"This is unfortunately the truth, and I spend a lot of time with my clients trying to help them through this process. One of the key metrics that banks judge themselves on is \"\"products per household.\"\" The more things you have attached to them, the less likely you are to leave, and they deliberately tie you in with more and more services, e.g. direct deposit, billpay, debit cards, credit cards, etc. If you want to switch but are held back by the daunting task of all the stuff you need to do, it's easier than most people think, and bankers at those smaller banks who are getting your accounts should be more than happy to do about 80% of the work for you. *The other 20% can only be done by you personally due to privacy laws, but your banker can guide you through that too. A prime example: A customer of mine wanted to switch, but he didn't want to go to the old bank to actually wait in line and go through with the nonsense of actually closing the account. I see that anxiety over confrontation a lot, by the way. So I have saved on my desktop a form letter is a simple request by the customer to close their account at 2B2F bank. They sign it, I notarize it, and send it off to the branch. The branch of receipt has to close the account per the request. Before we send that letter, we get everything set up with the new bank, draw the old one down to $10 or so, and give instructions to the old bank to remit a check payable to the customer and mail it to me. Then the old account is closed, and I just deposit that nominal amount into the customer's account. The customer literally never has to set foot in the old bank again. The unfortunate thing is that not everyone knows that these kinds of things are even possible: that your banker should help you with this stuff, or that you can do pretty much everything remotely. Plus, if you look at the smaller banks and CUs these days, they have eliminated the need or ubiquity (i.e. \"\"but their ATMs are everywhere!\"\") because a good bank or CU will never allow you to get charged to get your money, they will give you the direct line and email address of your branch manager, and a lot of places have mobile apps that allow you to deposit checks remotely.\"",
"If you've been in your house for a few years (and have built some equity up) and the market is active in your area, online is probably fine. The local banks will be better if it's not obvious to someone in Bangor, ME that your neighborhood in San Diego is worth substantially more than the crappy area 2 miles away. I've had 3 mortgages, one from a regional bank, one from a broker-sourced national mortgage company and another from a local bank. The bigger banks had better statements and were easier to do stuff with online. The smaller bank has been a better overall value, because the closing costs were low and they waived some customary fees. In my case, the national mortgage company had a better APR, but my time horizon for staying in the house made the smaller bank (which had a competitive APR, about a half point higher than the lowest advertised) a better value due to much lower up-front costs.",
"All Companies Can Take Advantage of [Local Business Listing](http://come2ourdeals.com.au/) .First of all, a company is not a enterprise. While we will discuss this in more details later on, we have to keep in mind that nation wide businesses with regional lifetime are also reliant upon the regional financial system for their income.",
"They are pretty good. But for better rates, shop around. I'd suggest Ally or Alliant Credit Union.",
"Online banks are the future. As long as you don't need a clerk to talk to (and why would you need?) there's nothing you can't do with an online bank that you can with a brick and mortar robbers. I use E*Trade trading account as a checking account (it allows writing paper checks, debit card transactions, ACH in/out, free ATM, etc). If you don't need paper checks that often you can use ING or something similar. You can always go to a local credit union, but those will wave the fee in exchange for direct deposit or high balance, and that you can also get from the large banks as well, so no much difference there. Oh where where did Washington Mutual go....",
"I had a modest car loan with Chase. I always felt like they were trying to fuck me over. They charged for electronic payments, would mail the payment coupon (the bill) less than two weeks before it was due each month, the payment schedule seemed to wander, etc. I was constantly stressing that I was going to miss a payment and incur a large late fee. This was on just a small car loan. I've heard they've gotten better (electric payments don't cost extra anymore) but it definitely made me feel very adversarial with banks.",
"http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:",
"\"If it makes you feel any better, I now bank with a credit union. These WF assholes called me one day to tell me that someone had tried to withdraw $500 from my account and that I needed to sign up for a more secure account, of course with a $16 monthly charge. So I did what anybody would do... went to the bank and ask questions right? After I got there and mention the problem they told me that nothing was wrong with my account, that no transactions were attempted and even if they did attempt them and were canceled they would still show up but they didn't. Few minutes later I got another call from that guy and he was telling me that the problem was taken care of and that I didn't need to go to the bank. After that I was just suspicious. Basically what it came down to was that somebody was trying to set me up for accounts that I didn't ask for just so he can get promoted at my expense. They gave me a opportunity to report him but I didn't because I knew him personally, he was one of my \"\"friends\"\" and at the time he had two kids. I didn't want him to lose his job. I told him that what he did was completely fucked up and that you don't do that to people outside of WF. That same day I withdrew all my money. I still remember cutting the conversation short after WF tried to convince me all kinds of ways not to do that. I been with a Credit Union about 3 years now and so far so good.\"",
"There are 2 credit unions in the Metro NY area that are open to everyone: You might also want to check out aSmarterChoice.org to see if there are other credit union options based on where you live, work, worship & more.",
"\"If you want to deposit checks or conduct business at a window, you should look at a local savings bank or credit union. Generally, you can find one that will offer \"\"free\"\" checking in exchange for direct deposit or a minimum balance. Some are totally free, but those banks pay zippo for interest. If you don't care about location, I would look at Charles Schwab Bank. I've been using them for a couple of years and have been really satisfied with them. They provide free checking, ATM fee reimbursement, free checks and pre-paid deposit envelopes. You also can easily move money between Schwab brokerage or savings accounts. Other brokers offer similar services as well.\"",
"How do credit unions work in the US? Why not just get rid of deposit insurance for commercial banks and keep it for credit unions. Restrict credit unions ability to filter money to the new 'investment bank' sector by keeping them out of repo and money markets (not sure if this is done currently) and bang - Corporates/institutions can still lend short and banks can still lend long in the professional world, while unsophisticated retail customer's checking accounts at least are protected from the inevitable crash.",
"\"The first consideration for the banking part of your portfolio is safety. In the United States that is FDIC protection, or the equivalent for a Credit Union. The second consideration is does it have the level of service you need. For this I mean the location of branches, ATMs, or its online services meet your needs for speed, accuracy, and ability to access or move the money as you need. The rest are then balanced on the extras. For your situation those extras include the ability to make free trades. For other it might be a discount on their mortgage. For others it is free checking. In your current situation if the first two things are met, and you are using those extra benefits then don't change. For me the free trades wouldn't be a benefit, so any major degradation in the safety and service would cause me to leave. Keep in mind that free services exist to entice you to make a deposit: which they can then make money by lending it out; or they offer a free service to entice you to use a service they can charge you to use. All Free services come with a cost. I earned a completely paltry $3.33 YTD over the last 9 months on my savings at my bank presumably in exchange for these \"\"free\"\" trades. Without knowing how much you had deposited in your savings account there is no way to know how much you could have made at the bank across the street. But with the low rates of the last decade there is not big money to be made off the emergency savings of a typical american family.\"",
"Why don't people switch banks? It's honestly not that hard. Once I switched to a local credit union, I'll never use a big bank again. The service is amazing and there are pretty much no fees for anything.",
"\"Yes, definitely. Many municipalities and local governments issue bonds to fund various projects (schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc). You can buy these bonds and in that way invest in these things. In the US these kinds of bonds are tax-free, i.e.: the income they provide is not taxed (by the US government, may be taxed by your State, check local tax laws). There are also dedicated mutual funds that that is all they invest in, if you don't want to deal with picking individual bonds. As to mom-and-pop stores - that would not be as easy, as mom-and-pop stores are by definition family owned and you can invest in them only if you are personally acquainted with them. Instead, you can invest in small regional/local chains, that while not being mom-and-pop, still small enough to be considered \"\"local\"\", but are publicly traded so that you can easily invest in them. You'll have to look for these. You can also use social lending platforms, like Lending Club, which I reviewed on my blog, or others, where you can participate in a lending pool to other people. You can invest in a credit union by opening an account there. Credit unions are owned by their account holders.\"",
"They've already taken your money, and your purchasing power. The Fed's balance sheets is filled with $4 trillion worth of toxic mortgage derivatives and US treasuries that were purchased at all time highs. Move your money to a credit union.",
"\"Are there still people who keep significant amounts of money in a bank savings account? You could get ~1% by just choosing the right bank. ING Direct, for example, gives 0.8%, 4 times more than your credit union, with the same FDIC insurance! If you do want to invest in something slightly more long-term, you can get a CD. At the same ING Direct, you can get a 5-year CD with 1% APR. Comes with the same FDIC insurance. Note that I mention ING Direct just because I accidentally had their site open right in front of me, their rates are definitely not the highest right now. If you want to give up the FDIC insurance and take some more risks, you can invest your money in municipal bonds or various kinds of \"\"low risk\"\" mutual funds, which may yield 3-5% a year. If you want to take even more risks - there's a whole stock market available for you, with ETF's, mutual funds and individual stocks. Whether you should - that only you can tell. But you can have a NO-RISK investment yielding 4-5 times more than what you have right now, just saying.\"",
"If you go traditional financing there is a chance it'd be syndicated amongst a bank group. That is going to add a little depth to your credit agreement id imagine. You thinking a term loan with a 7-10 amortization? I've never seen a LOC more than 5 years out.",
"DCU, Alliant Credit Union has completely scan only options (no need to mail in checks later). BofA, SchoolsFirstCU allow initial scan, but you need to mail in checks later. All these are no fee.",
"I don't know that. I know mine has a great mobile app where I can deposit a check online. And all the smaller banks I've seen dont build their own sites or apps, they white label generic ones from common vendors.",
"Searching for Banks or Credit Unions based on their high interest accounts is likely to be a giant waste of your time. The highest you might find is 1.5% not clearing inflation. For anything less than 100k youre better off putting it in a money market fund until you know what you want to do with it, which you can find anywhere.",
"\"I would hold off on making that threat (closing your account). First, because as others have said, it's not likely to help. And second, assuming you're willing to make good on that threat, you should only play that card as a final absolute last resort, because if it fails, and you close your account, there is little to nothing else you can try to get what you want. First, talk one-on-one with a personal banker at your local BA branch. You might be surprised at how helpful they can be. Next, try talking to customer service on the phone. After that, you might try sending a letter to corporate HQ. A lot depends on the particular \"\"feature\"\" you are talking about and why they removed it. It could be that 1) the bank finds the feature is just too costly provide for free, 2) there may be a technical reason why they can no longer provide it, 3) it could be as simple as that few to none of their customers (excluding you) are actually using the feature, or 4) it could be that due to changing regulation, or market forces, no bank is offering that feature anymore. Also, while they may not care specifically about your business, the local branch has an incentive to not drive customers away if it can be reasonably avoided.\"",
"\"Chase allows you to take a picture of checks and deposit into your accounts (free for personal checking customers) works on iPhone + android Obviously, they have bill payment. You can ACH money to/from YOUR accounts at other banks. You get the benefit of finding a branch in many cities around the world. As for \"\"web interface that doesn't suck\"\", well... that's kinda personal. I think it's not too bad.\"",
"Bank of America is the worst. Once I had a joint account with another individual that I had funded out of my account to make payroll. When I found out that he had screwed two other people by stealing the payroll money I decided to disburse it myself and transferred it back to my corporate account on which I was the only signer. He went back to the bank and effected a withdrawal from my account to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, put the money in the joint account and removed me as a signer. The bank wouldn't give me my money back and I never collected from him. Another time I tried to close my sons' accounts which were in inactive status. Every day for a week they told me they could not close the account until it was active, but they were working on making it active. Chase could do this in a minute. I finally went to a branch and loudly informed the manager that maybe the bank was insolvent and that I should call the FDIC to see why they won't release my money. He wanted to take me into his office. I told him loudly, I know all about DDAs, Savings and CDs, I have run deposit operations for a major bank and wrote software to process them. Just put a hold on the account, write me two cashiers check and offset them with a suspense voucher. You do know how to write a suspense voucher don't you? It's just a general ledger entry to a suspense account. Well he was so embarassed he would do anything to get me out of the branch and gave me the cashier's checks. Fuck B of A.",
"How can banks be expected to make good decisions when they are not responsible for creating their own reserve? Do you think that the banking system could run without FDIC? And why? And what is your opinion on local banking vs. big corp banking?",
"Social Lending may help you qualify for a loan, but doesn't necessarily provide better rates. You have to shop around to get the best rates, this is a market as any other, so don't expect one place to be consistently below the market - either the market will move, or the place will move eventually, everyone wants to earn the most for the buck.",
"\"Credit Unions have long advocated their services based on the fact that they consider your \"\"character.\"\" Unfortunately, they are then at a loss to explain how they determine the value of your character, other than to say that you're buddies & play pool together so they'll give you a loan. Your Credit History / Score is as accurate a representation of your character in business dealings as can be meaningfully quantified. It tracks your ability to effectively use and manage debt, and your propensity to pay it back responsibly or default on obligations. While it isn't perfect, it is certainly one of the best means currently available for determining someone's trustworthiness when it comes to financial matters.\"",
"Re #2, consider an account at a credit union rather than a bank or brokerage firm. Whether you choose a savings account or a money market account, you're likely to get an account with lower fees (so it doesn't cost you money), and rates that are typically similar.",
"For some reason, I've always had a negative feeling about Chase; I don't really know why, but I think I'll continue to avoid them. :) My banks seem to be West Coast banks, mainly Wells Fargo who I've used since the 70s (because they had a small branch in Yosemite Valley, a place I frequented at that time). I haven't had as much luck with other banks, mainly HSBC which I used briefly. Maybe the west coast banks are more laid back or something. Or maybe it's just Chase being incompetent. Banks like that deserve to fail.",
"I agree with JoeTaxpayer that you will be better off in the end if you can just not use your card you are better off in the long run. That said if you are determined to get a card you can control go to a credit union or local bank. Most of them will give you the credit limit you want. This may provide you with a card that you can make use of but know that you can not go wild. The down side is most of these will not be reward cards but my local credit union gave me a 7% card where my Chase card is at 18%(was 5% before the changes to credit card regulations).",
"Politicians are for sale and regulations are useless when they are not enforced. Community banks and credit unions have to comply or get hammered by the state and federal governments. The mega banks soldier on under an utterly feckless and corrupt congress. People should never pay fees or credit card interest, pay off their loans, and get out from under banker's thumbs. They are giant impoverishing machines.",
"Pay attention to nickel-and-dime charges (atm fees, low balance fees, limit on atm transactions per month, charge for human teller transaction, charge for paper statements or tax records). Consider that a financial company will spend on the order of $100-500 to sign up a good customer. Are you getting this in a cash bonus, competitive high interest rate, reasonable other gift, or advertising directed at your eyeballs? A variation in rates less than 1% easily fits into a marketing cost and there doesn't have to be any other magic to it.",
"I've had good experiences with a regional bank. All the perks of Wells but without the bullshit fees (except ATMs unfortunately but I just get cash back in the rare instance that a card / my phone won't cut it).",
"\"From my experience, payments from banks and other financial entities, such as loyalty programs, generally aren't as large as payments that go the other direction from consumer to bank. Thus, keeping a bank account open simply for some reward/loyalty points may just be changing your behavior for the wrong reasons. The more important scenario is whether or not you have any automated ACH payments or whether your bank account is linked to other services. Perhaps the biggest tell that you're in the clear is when those transactions start occurring from your credit union account. For example: If you had a direct deposit to your BMO bank account, make sure you see deposits start to appear in the credit union account. If you're making automatic withdraws to an online savings or brokerage account, make sure those transfers are stopped and that you instead see them coming out of your new credit union account. You shouldn't need to move the auto loan, but you will need to make sure you can pay it from the new account. Some financial advisors, such as in this BankRate article titled, Lenders can tap bank account for mortgage, even recommend keeping liabilities and assets at different locations. If for whatever reason your financial situation turned bleak, it would be more difficult for the bank to help itself to what's in your checking account. To avoid getting nickel and dimed to death by \"\"payment processing fees\"\", I tend to pay insurance bills yearly or semi-annually. Thus, consider if there is anything that may be coming due in the next 6 months. If so, you might want to get your new account hooked up while you still have all the routing numbers and account numbers in your head. It's a pain to dig this stuff up while also rushing to not be late. If all that is in order, close the account.\"",
"Generally, if you watch for the detail in the fine print, and stay away from non-FDIC insured investments, there is little difference, so yes, pick the highest you can get. The offered interest rate is influenced by what the banks are trying to accomplish, and how their current and desired customer base thinks. Some banks have customer bases with very conservative behavior, which will stick with them because they trust them no matter what, so a low interest rate is good enough. The disadvantage for the bank is that such customers prefer brick-and-mortar contact, which is expensive for the bank. Or maybe the bank has already more cash than they need, and has no good way to invest it. Other banks might need more cash flow to be able to get stronger in the mortgage market, and their way of getting that is to offer higher interest rates, so new customers come and invest new money (which the bank in turn can then mortgage out). They also may offer higher rates for online handling only. Overall, there are many different ways to make money as a bank, and they diversify into different niches with other focuses, and that comes with offering quite different interest rates.",
"\"First off, I originally brought up Wells Fargo to show that big banks may not want to open the floodgates for lower level employees and management to have free reign to profit off customers in less than responsible ways. I didn't mean or want to get into a debate about past govt. oversight of Wells Fargo's practices. [But to your point:](https://www.housingwire.com/articles/39782-cordray-answers-charges-that-cfpb-didnt-take-lead-on-wells-fargo-scandal) >He explained that the bureau first received a whistleblower tip in July 2013. The exposé by the LA Times wasn’t published until December. > >Cordray did add that the LA Times coverage was a “splendid piece of investigative reporting” and that investigative reporting often aides government investigations. > >After that first whistleblower tip, Cordray explained that the Wells Fargo case over time grew into something bigger. > >As the CFPB watched Wells Fargo through 2014 and 2015 in supervisory activity, it became clear the situation was serious enough to migrate into an enforcement action, he said. I'm not sure what you're talking about here: >And what are you talking about freedom to \"\"compete\"\" against the big guys? What are you even talking about and how is that freedom threatened? I'm saying they *will* have freedom to compete in ways that may have negative impact on clients who have chosen to move their investments from bigger banks to smaller ones. As for the list of \"\"positives\"\" you gave surrounding this bill, [there are also negatives:](http://fortune.com/2017/06/07/financial-choice-act/) >Congress this week is considering the Choice Act, which would roll back regulations enacted after the 2007 financial crisis, particularly those designed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Yet, the legislation goes even further and limits consumer access to information that could help them make better choices. > >One of the hallmarks of conservative regulatory philosophy is that educated and empowered consumers are preferable to government bureaucrats, regulations, and prohibitions. Yet, the conservatives in the House of Representatives appears ready to pass the CHOICE Act this week and in the process legally prohibit publishing data the government collects on consumer complaints on financial services. This is a mistake and would cost consumers and businesses. It would also go against the universal values of fair markets and informed consumers. But [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/business/dealbook/house-financial-regulations-dodd-frank.html) is what I find most concerning: >The bill would also eliminate the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, which requires brokers to act in the best interest of their clients when providing investment advice about retirement. The first parts of the rule are scheduled to go into effect on Friday. The rule was completed last spring under Mr. Obama after years of development. My point, before you started arguing something different, was that larger banks often *need* the oversight conducted by their customers and the government in order to help them nip bad practices in the bud before it becomes a much larger issue. This may not be as much of an issue for smaller banks, but in the end, they all deal in the same industry and present the same danger to their customers if things go bad and employees don't take their intrinsic fiduciary responsibility seriously.\"",
"Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?",
"I would suggest your local credit union or local bank for security and liquidity. Liquidity is probably the most important issue for a emergency fund.",
"There are two basic types of lines of credit typically offered at a retail bank: Overdraft line of credit is essentially a revolving personal loan that you can draw upon as needed or automatically draw on when you overdraw on your checking account. Typically with a commercial bank there is a fee to use the automatic overdraft in addition to interest. Some credit unions don't charge a fee. Interest is typically computed using average daily balance. A Home equity line of credit is a revolving loan that is secured against your home. Interest on home-improvement related expenses is deductible. Since the bank gets a lien on your home, the rates are low. Sometimes you can even get debit cards that will hit the line. I think these are a good idea if:",
"I've had loans from B of A and Wells Fargo, and both have always been quick to correct any mistakes and work with me on any problems. I think it may be partly due to the fact that I understand the problem, can clearly tell them what I expect, and I treat them like an equal that would want to help fix the problem. Some people seen to always have problems, and others seem to never have them. I believe there is a reason for that.",
"Most larger corporations need to focus on the bottom line to appease their current and prospective investors. It can actually be quite the vicious cycle, and why people would be better off as a whole if we had more mom and pop stores.",
"No. There's no inherent reason to link the place that you bank with any other financial service. There may occasionally be benefits; for instance you can sometime get lower rates on mortgages or loans by having a a checking account with an institution. Or perhaps it'll be easier for you to make a same-day payment on a credit account. There could be some negatives as well. If you fall behind on a loan account, the bank may take money from your savings/checking account to satisfy your debt. Choose a bank or CU that's convenient to you. Choose a credit card from whatever bank or CU provides you with the best benefits. If that credit card is coming from a CU that requires a savings account for membership, open a minimum balance savings account and apply for the product you're interested in. If your credit is as good as you claim, they'll be happy to offer you the credit card regardless of whether you do your day-to-day banking with them.",
"Most of these blogs/websites that you mention above promote banks that pay a commission and hence you never realize there are better banks out there that offer a higher rate. I went through the same exercise to find the bank that paid the best rate and realized the truth I mention above. I currently bank with Alliant Credit Union, which doesn't pay a commission or have affiliate fees. If you find a bank that pays a higher rate than ACU, let me know, I'd like to switch to that bank as well! To give an example, ACU's regular savings rate is equivalent to EverBank's 2 year CD! See what I mean when I say affiliate and commissions run the show? Disclosure: BTW, I'm a customer of this bank, not an employee. I do have a blog if you wish to read my experience with ACU.",
"It is always a good idea if you are worried about customer service and hidden gotchas to visit http://getsatisfaction.com - they operate as an independent complaint board for many companies. http://getsatisfaction.com/bankofamerica for example alerts you to many problems with using BofA. In addition, googling for common complaint terms is a great idea. It's easy to learn why bank of america sucks and to see that not too many people think bank of america rocks.",
"To put it simply interest is the fee you get for loaning money to the bank / government / company / person or whomever you lend it to. A dividend is the money that a company pays out to its owners. For some cooperatives (may or may not apply to your credit union) you become an owner through using it, such that they'll pay you a dividend instead of or as well as interest. Which could explain them using the term interchangeably ."
] |
[
"Banks, the big ones, have shareholders and the board to answer to. Credit Unions have members and the board to answer to. You become a member by joining a CU. Banks' prime objective is profit maximization, a credit union's prime objective is members' welfare. Personal experience: I didn't mind that the banks charge fees, what was frustrating was keeping up with the policy changes. Have X amount to avoid Y fees. Once you fulfill that, do something else to avoid some other fees. You miss one notice and you'll pay dearly! This constant jumping of hoops was enough to switch. Not saying CUs don't change rules, but in my opinion, not as frequently as big banks. On fee, for instance, my overdraft with my CU is $5. With BofA it was something like $35 before regulations put a cap on such ridiculous fees.",
"Don't switch just because you hear people panicking on the talk shows. Banks are competitive business and won't start charging for using debit cards too fast. If and when they decide to do such a thing after all - then start shopping and see who doesn't catch up with the fees and still provides the services you want for the price you're willing to pay.",
"Fees mostly. BOA, for example, just announced $5/month for for all debit cards. Chase has foreign transaction fees, mostly hidden. BOA once famously raised interest rates on credit card holders to 28%, legally. Also, some people do not like patronizing a bank with CEOs that bankrupt the company and then get multi-million dollar golden parachutes. Finally some people have a problem with banks or institutions that suspend accounts based on political or unproven legal proceedings (ala Wikileaks and BOA). Credit unions are less like to be involved in this sort of activity since they are not privately traded, and as such they are not ruled by shareholders who demand bottom line results at all costs."
] |
9598
|
How do index funds actually work?
|
[
"379311"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"498597",
"334919",
"298350",
"308071",
"591325",
"427629",
"501153",
"220486",
"379213",
"367960",
"466472",
"574327",
"403864",
"479461",
"368124",
"379311",
"454596",
"452939",
"188497",
"47985",
"315126",
"570787",
"81458",
"322070",
"27930",
"44617",
"148721",
"408524",
"307465",
"231863",
"437875",
"551590",
"558130",
"297290",
"65587",
"357979",
"438582",
"362579",
"144261",
"524525",
"88228",
"416839",
"63577",
"70194",
"85319",
"241202",
"238963",
"272790",
"515191",
"576008",
"122679",
"471964",
"501536",
"14185",
"35053",
"452122",
"327237",
"87261",
"341544",
"241996",
"330890",
"281841",
"79083",
"39569",
"255946",
"435746",
"336218",
"187061",
"505993",
"173967",
"479420",
"275334",
"526859",
"525578",
"440779",
"461313",
"568624",
"199751",
"45970",
"523810",
"424131",
"312591",
"585405",
"147282",
"17923",
"311527",
"153660",
"172569",
"301580",
"172374",
"107462",
"262180",
"516880",
"87238",
"192125",
"557820",
"366847",
"214522",
"112208",
"385955"
] |
[
"An index fund is just copying the definition of an index. The group that defines the index determines how to weight the different parts of the index. The index fund just makes sure they invest the same way the index creator wants. Think of a non-investment scenario. A teacher can grade tests, quizzes, homework, in-class assignments, research papers. They decide how much weight to give each category and how much weight to give each part of each category. when a student wants to see how they are doing they take the information in the syllabus, and generate a few formulas in a spreadsheet to calculate their current grade. They can also calculate what they need to get on the final exam to get the grade they want.",
"Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious.",
"\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"",
"Why not figure out the % composition of the index and invest in the participating securities directly? This isn't really practical. Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 Those two indices represent 2500 stocks. A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks. Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments. Index funds provide inexpensive diversity.",
"I was just wondering if the managers of big index funds use automation to balance the stocks and so on. To me it seems like a ton of work for a human but pretty easy to automate. sry for my bad english",
"In general, the goal of an S&P 500 index fund is to replicate the performance of the S&P 500 Index. To do this, the fund will buy the same stocks in the same proportions as the weighting of the Index. The S&P 500 Index is free-float capitalization weighted. This means that the higher capitalization stocks (based on publicly traded shares only) are more heavily weighted and factor into the Index value more heavily than the smaller capitalization stocks, or the stocks that have a smaller publicly traded value. For example, companies like Apple, ExxonMobil, and Microsoft have a much larger weight in the index value than smaller companies. Alternatively, there are some S&P index funds that are equal-weighted. In these funds, the managers have chosen to purchase all 500 of the stocks in the index, but in equal proportions instead of the weighted proportions of the index. These equal-weighted funds will not as closely match the index price as the traditionally weighted index funds. Instead, they might do better or worse than the index, depending on how the individual stocks do. You'll need to look at the prospectus of the index funds you are interested in to see which approach the fund is taking.",
"\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"",
"\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \"\"index includes 500 leading companies\"\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\"",
"\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"",
"\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"",
"\"Most mutual funds are designed to make the investment banks that sell them money, not to make investers money. They do this by taking significant fees out. Because they make lots of money on these funds, they advertise them a lot, and give them important-sounding names, like \"\"Advanced technology global diversity long term appreciation\"\". Index funds are the exception; they attempt to mirror the performance of a specific index (such as the S&P 500 index). They generally have very low fees.\"",
"\"First, what structure does your index fund have? If it is an open-end mutual fund, there are no bid/ask spread as the structure of this security is that it is priced once a day and transactions are done with that price. If it is an exchange-traded fund, then the question becomes how well are authorized participants taking advantage of the spread to make the fund track the index well? This is where you have to get into the Creation and Redemption unit construct of the exchange-traded fund where there are \"\"in-kind\"\" transactions done to either create new shares of the fund or redeem out shares of the fund. In either case, you are making some serious assumptions about the structure of the fund that don't make sense given how these are built. Index funds have lower expense ratios and are thus cheaper than other mutual funds that may take on more costs. If you want suggested reading on this, look at the investing books of John C. Bogle who studied some of this rather extensively, in addition to being one of the first to create an index fund that became known as \"\"Bogle's Folly,\"\" where a couple of key ones would be \"\"Common Sense on Mutual Funds: New Imperatives for the Intelligent Investor\"\" and \"\"Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor.\"\" In the case of an open-end fund, there has to be a portion of the fund in cash to handle transaction costs of running the fund as there are management fees to come from running the fund in addition to dividends from the stocks that have to be carefully re-invested and other matters that make this quite easy to note. Vanguard 500 Index Investor portfolio(VFINX) has .38% in cash as an example here where you could look at any open-end mutual fund's portfolio and notice that there may well be some in cash as part of how the fund is managed. It’s the Execution, Stupid would be one of a few articles that looks at the idea of \"\"tracking error\"\" or how well does an index fund actually track the index where it can be noted that in some cases, there can be a little bit of active management in the fund. Just as a minor side note, when I lived in the US I did invest in index funds and found them to be a good investment. I'd still recommend them though I'd argue that while some want to see these as really simple investments, there can be details that make them quite interesting to my mind. How is its price set then? The price is computed by taking the sum value of all the assets of the fund minus the liabilities and divided by the number of outstanding shares. The price of the assets would include the closing price on the stock rather than a bid or ask, similar pricing for bonds held by the fund, derivatives and cash equivalents. Similarly, the liabilities would be costs a fund has to pay that may not have been paid yet such as management fees, brokerage costs, etc. Is it a weighted average of all the underlying stock spreads, or does it stand on its own and stems from the usual supply & demand laws ? There isn't any spread used in determining the \"\"Net Asset Value\"\" for the fund. The fund prices are determined after the market is closed and so a closing price can be used for stocks. The liabilities could include the costs to run the fund as part of the accounting in the fund, that most items have to come down to either being an asset, something with a positive value, or a liability, something with a negative value. Something to consider also is the size of the fund. With over $7,000,000,000 in assets, a .01% amount is still $700,000 which is quite a large amount in some ways.\"",
"Like an S&P 500 ETF? So you're getting in some cash inflow each day, cash outflows each day. And you have to buy and sell 500 different stocks, at the same time, in order for your total fund assets to match the S&P 500 index proportions, as much as possible. At any given time, the prices you get from the purchase/sale of stock is probably going to be somewhat different than the theoretical amounts you are supposed to get to match, so it's quite a tangle. This is my understanding of things. Some funds are simpler - a Dow 30 fund only has 30 stocks to balance out. Maybe that's easier, or maybe it's harder because one wonky trade makes a bigger difference? I'm not sure this is how it really operates. The closest I've gotten is a team that has submitted products for indexing, and attempted to develop funds from those indexes. Turns out finding the $25-50 million of initial investments isn't as easy as anyone would think.",
"\"The S&P 500 is an index. This refers to a specific collection of securities which is held in perfect proportion. The dollar value of an index is scaled arbitrarily and is based off of an arbitrary starting price. (Side note: this is why an index never has a \"\"split\"\"). Lets look at what assumptions are included in the pricing of an index: All securities are held in perfect proportion. This means that if you invest $100 in the index you will receive 0.2746 shares of IBM, 0.000478 shares of General Motors, etc. Also, if a security is added/dropped from the list, you are immediately rebalancing the remaining money. Zero commissions are charged. When the index is calculated, they are using the current price (last trade) of the underlying securities, they are not actually purchasing them. Therefore it assumes that securities may be purchased without commission or other liquidity costs. Also closely related is the following. The current price has full liquidity. If the last quoted price is $20 for a security, the index assumes that you can purchase an arbitrary amount of the security at that price with a counterparty that is willing to trade. Dividends are distributed immediately. If you own 500 equities, and most distributed dividends quarterly, this means you will receive on average 4 dividends per day. Management is free. All equities can be purchased with zero research and administrative costs. There is no gains tax. Trading required by the assumptions above would change your holdings constantly and you are exempt from short-term or long-term capital gains taxes. Each one of these assumptions is, of course, invalid. And the fund which endeavors to track the index must make several decisions in how to closely track the index while avoiding the problems (costs) caused by the assumptions. These are shortcuts or \"\"approximations\"\". Each shortcut leads to performance which does not exactly match the index. Management fees. Fees are charged to the investor as load, annual fees and/or redemptions. Securities are purchased at real prices. If Facebook were removed from the S&P 500 overnight tonight, the fund would sell its shares at the price buyers are bidding the next market day at 09:30. This could be significantly different than the price today, which the index records. Securities are purchased in blocks. Rather than buying 0.000478 shares of General Motors each time someone invests a dollar, they wait for a few people and then buy a full share or a round lot. Securities are substituted. With lots of analysis, it may be determined that two stocks move in tandem. The fund may purchase two shares of General Motors rather than one of General Motors and Ford. This halves transaction costs. Debt is used. As part of substitution, equities may be replaced by options. Option pricing shows that ownership of options is equivalent to holding an amount of debt. Other forms of leverage may also be employed to achieve desired market exposure. See also: beta. Dividends are bundled. VFINX, the largest S&P 500 tracking fund, pays dividends quarterly rather than immediately as earned. The dividend money which is not paid to you is either deployed to buy other securities or put into a sinking fund for payment. There are many reasons why you can't get the actual performance quoted in an index. And for other more exotic indices, like VIX the volatility index, even more so. The best you can do is work with someone that has a good reputation and measure their performance.\"",
"\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \"\"market rate of return\"\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\"",
"Now company A has been doing ok for couple of weeks, but then due to some factors in that company its stock has been tanking heavily and doesn't appear to have a chance to recover. In this kind of scenario, what does happen? In this scenario, if that company is included in the index being tracked, you will continue holding until such time that the index is no longer including that company. Index funds are passively managed because they simply hold the securities contained in the index and seek to keep the allocations of the fund in line with the proportions of the index being tracked. In an actively managed fund the fund manager would try to hedge losses and make stock/security picks. If the manager thought a particular company had bad news coming maybe they would offload some or all the position. In an index fund, the fund follows the index on good days and bad and the managers job is to match the asset allocations of the index, not to pick stocks.",
"\"There still is some buying and selling to do in a passively-managed fund. The stocks might pay dividends. If the fund manager didn't reinvest these dividends, the fund would begin to accumulate a cash position, which would cause it to stray from being an index fund. Stocks come and go from an index as well; if the fund is to maintain a composition that matches a particular index, this must be taken into account as well. The role of the manager is to ensure that the fund maintains the composition that it was intended to replicate. It doesn't involve as much \"\"stock picking\"\" that active managers do. The manager has less leeway as to what s/he buys and sells, but there still is work involved.\"",
"\"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"",
"The idea of an index is that it is representative of the market (or a specific market segment) as a whole, so it will move as the market does. Thus, past performance is not really relevant, unless you want to bank on relative differences between different countries' economies. But that's not the point. By far the most important aspect when choosing index funds is the ongoing cost, usually expressed as Total Expense Ratio (TER), which tells you how much of your investment will be eaten up by trading fees and to pay the funds' operating costs (and profits). This is where index funds beat traditional actively managed funds - it should be below 0.5% The next question is how buying and selling the funds works and what costs it incurs. Do you have to open a dedicated account or can you use a brokerage account at your bank? Is there an account management fee? Do you have to buy the funds at a markup (can you get a discount on it)? Are there flat trading fees? Is there a minimum investment? What lot sizes are possible? Can you set up a monthly payment plan? Can you automatically reinvest dividends/coupons? Then of course you have to decide which index, i.e. which market you want to buy into. My answer in the other question apparently didn't make it clear, but I was talking only about stock indices. You should generally stick to broad, established indices like the MSCI World, S&P 500, Euro Stoxx, or in Australia the All Ordinaries. Among those, it makes some sense to just choose your home country's main index, because that eliminates currency risk and is also often cheaper. Alternatively, you might want to use the opportunity to diversify internationally so that if your country's economy tanks, you won't lose your job and see your investment take a dive. Finally, you should of course choose a well-established, reputable issuer. But this isn't really a business for startups (neither shady nor disruptively consumer-friendly) anyway.",
"\"Index funds do leech a \"\"free ride\"\" on the coattails of active traders. Consider what would happen if literally everyone bought index funds. For a company there would be no motivation to excel. Get listed; all the index funds are forced to buy your stock; now sit on your derriere playing Freecell, or otherwise scam/loot the company. Go bankrupt. Rinse wash repeat. This \"\"who cares who John Galt is\"\" philosophy would kill the economy dead. Somebody has to actually buy stocks based on research, analysis and value. Company managers need to actively fear, respect and court those people. They don't need to be mutual-fund managers, but they do need to be somebody. Maybe activist investors like Warren Buffett will suffice. Maybe retirement fund or endowment managers like CalPERS or Harvard can do this. Better be somebody! I'm all for index funds... Just saying only a fraction of the market's capital can be in index funds before it starts into a tragedy of the commons.\"",
"\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"",
"Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.",
"\"Usually, the amswer to \"\"why sell it\"\" is \"\"to maintain the specific distribution balance, or to track the index, that this fund was designed to offer.\"\" A \"\"buy and hold\"\" fund could only buy when users are actively putting money into it. That limits their ability to follow those approaches. And I think there would be problems msking withdrawls/redeptions \"\"fair\"\", in terms of what shares are sold and how the costs for selling them are distributed, that don't arise for a single buy-and-hold investor. If you're willing to accept the limitations of the former, and can overcome the latter, it's an interesting idea... But note that one of the places index funds save money is that, since the composition of indexes changes rately, they are already operating mostly in buy-and-hold mode.It's unclear how much your variant would save. Worth exploring in greater depth, though. I think.\"",
"\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\"",
"Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.",
"\"There are no guarantees in the stock market. The index fund can send you a prospectus which shows what their results have been over the past decade or so, or you can find that info on line, but \"\"past results are not a guarantee of future performance\"\". Returns and risk generally trade off against each other; trying for higher than average results requires accepting higher than usual risk, and you need to decide which types of investments, in what mix, balance those in a way you are comfortable with. Reinvested dividends are exactly the same concept as compounded interest in a bank account. That is, you get the chance to earn interest on the interest, and then interest on the interest on the interest; it's a (slow) exponential growth curve, not just linear. Note that this applies to any reinvestment of gains, not just automatic reinvestment back into the same fund -- but automatic reinvestment is very convenient as a default. This is separate from increase in value due to growth in value of the companies. Yes, you will get a yearly report with the results, including the numbers needed for your tax return. You will owe income tax on any dividends or sales of shares. Unless the fund is inside a 401k or IRA, it's just normal property and you can sell or buy shares at any time and in any amount. Of course the advantage of investing through those special retirement accounts is advantageous tax treatment, which is why they have penalties if you use the money before retirement. Re predicting results: Guesswork and rule of thumb and hope that past trends continue a bit longer. Really the right answer is not to try to predict precise numbers, but to make a moderately conservative guess, hope you do at least that well, and be delighted if you do better... And to understand that you can lose value, and that losses often correct themselves if you can avoid having to sell until prices have recovered. You can, of course, compute historical results exactly, since you know how much you put in when, how much you took out when, and how much is in the account now. You can either look at how rate of return varied over time, or just compute an average rate of return; both approaches can be useful when trying to compare one fund against another... I get an approximate version of this reported by my financial management software, but mostly ignore it except for amusement and to reassure myself that things are behaving approximately as expected. (As long as I'm outperforming what I need to hit my retirement goals, I'm happy enough and unwilling to spend much more time on it... and my plans were based on fairly conservative assumptions.) If you invest $3k, it grows at whatever rate it grows, and ten years later you have $3k+X. If you then invest another $10k, you now have $3k+X+10k, all of which grows at whatever rate the fund now grows. When you go to sell shares or fractional shares, your profit has to be calculated based on when those specific shares were purchased and how much you paid for them versus when they were sold and how much you sold them for; this is a more annoying bit of record keeping and accounting than just reporting bank account interest, but many/most brokerages and investment banks will now do that work for you and report it at the end of the year for your taxes, as I mentioned.\"",
"\"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices. From an investors point of view, this is not important. What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage. In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%. Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the \"\"compare\"\" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500. You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds. Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing.\"",
"Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.",
"Although you can't invest in an index, you can invest in a fund that basically invests in what the index is made up of. Example: In dealing with an auto index, you could find a fund that buys car companies's stock. The Google Finance list of funds dealing with INDEXDJX:REIT Although not pertaining to your quetion exactly, you may want to consider buying into Vanguard REIT ETF I hope this answers your question.",
"\"The \"\"ideal world\"\" index fund of any asset class is a perfect percentage holding of all underlying assets with immediate rebalancing that aligns to every change in the index weighting while trading in a fully liquid market with zero transaction costs. One finance text book that describes this is Introduction to Finance: Markets, Investments, and Financial Management, see chapter 11. Practically, the transaction costs and liquidity make this unworkable. There are several deviations between what the \"\"ideal world algorithm\"\" (\"\"the algorithm\"\") says you should do and what is actually done. Each of these items addresses a real-world solution to various costs of managing a passive index fund. (And they are good solutions.) However, any deviation from the ideal index fund will have a risk. An investor evaluating their choices is left to pick the lowest fees with the least deviation from the ideal index fund. (It is customary to ignore whether the results are in excess or deficit to the ideal). So your formula is: This is also described in the above book.\"",
"An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"",
"How do (index and active) mutual funds trade? Do they buy stocks as soon as a I buy a share in the mutual fund, or do they have fixed times they trade, such as once every week/month/quarter? Is it theoretical possible for someone to front run mutual funds, if someone holds individual stocks? Let's say an institutional investor creates an order of $100m in a mutual fund, how likely can a broker, which holds a fraction of the fund's portfolio, front run and take advantage of that trade? It is more likely to front run that fund if it's an active small cap fund, but how likely is it to front run trades for index funds?",
"\"There is a lot of interesting information that can be found in a fund's prospectus. I have found it very helpful to read books on the issue, one I just finished was \"\"The Boglehead's Guide to Investing\"\" which speaks mostly on mutual and index funds. Actively managed funds mean that someone is choosing which stocks to buy and which to sell. If they think a stock will be \"\"hot\"\" then they buy it. Research has shown that people cannot predict the stock market, which is why many people suggest index based funds. An index fund generally tracks a group of companies. Example: an index fund of the S&P 500 will try to mimic the returns that the S&P 500 has. Overall, managed funds are more expensive than index funds because the fund manager must be paid to manage it. Also, there is generally more buying and selling so that also increases the tax amount you would owe. What I am planning on doing is opening a Roth IRA with Vanguard, as their funds have incredibly low fees (0.2% on many). One of the most important things you do before you buy is to figure out your target allocation (% of stocks vs % of bonds). Once you figure that out then you can start narrowing down the funds that you wish to invest in.\"",
"Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.",
"Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund",
"I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.",
"Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.",
"\"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say \"\"diversify\"\" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked \"\"why diversify at all?\"\", and that is entirely a different question from your original \"\"what diversification is?\"\". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time.\"",
"Loads of financial advisors advise holding index funds they may advise other things as well, but low fee index funds are a staple portfolio item. I can't speak to the particulars of Canada, but in the US you would just open a brokerage account (or IRA or SEP IRA in the case of a small business owner) and buy a low cost S&P index ETF or low/no fee/commission S&P index mutual fund. There's no magic to it. Some examples in no particular order are, Vanguard's VOO, Schwab's SWPPX, and iShares' IVV. There are also Canadian index equities like Vanguard's VCN and iShare's XIC.",
"With regard to commodity futures, a paper released in January 2010 by Aulerich, Irwin, and Garcia, concluded that index funds have essentially no impact on commodity futures. Looking at stocks, a stock that gets included in a major index does increase in price. It increases its turnover by 27% and increases its price by between 2.7% and 5.5%, according to information cited by Kula in this paper, though it looks like the price increase tends to happen in the lead up to the stock being included. Interestingly, I have read an article but cannot now locate it, which states that there's a measurable, albeit fairly small, price bubble on stocks included in common indexes, on Monday mornings, Friday afternoons, and at the start and end of the month. That is, the times when mutual funds are most likely to rebalance their holdings. This almost certainly applies to a lesser extent to other stocks, too. My understanding is that the price difference was very small, however. Generally speaking, stocks which make part of well-known indexes will tend to be in higher demand than stocks which do not. It remains the case that almost all actively-managed mutual funds are unable to consistently beat the indexes, even with this taken into account.",
"Most funds keep a certain amount in cash at all times to satisfy outflows. Net inflows will simply be added to the cash balance while net outflows subtract. When the cash gets too low for the manager's comfort level (depends on the typical pattern of net inflows and outflows, as well as anticipated flows based on recent performance), the manager will sell some of his least favorite holdings, and when the cash gets too high he will buy some new holdings or add to his favorite existing holdings. A passive fund works similarly, except the buys/sells are structured to minimize tracking error.",
"\"YES.. Management fees cut directly into your profits. A fund which achieves 8% growth but costs 1% to maintain delivers only 7% to you. Compounded over years, even a relatively small difference can add up to a significant amount of money. This is one of the advantages index funds have. They may not be as \"\"sophisticated\"\" as human-managed funds, but their expense ratio is so much lower that the end result for the investor is often as good as or better than the more expensive products. In fact, at least one study found that, for each category they researched, low expense ratio was a better predictor of good return on investment than anything else they looked at. That doesn't mean cheapest is always best or most expensive is always worst .... but it does mean you should be very, very sure an expensive fund really is that much better before choosing it. And sticking with simple index funds may be a perfectly reasonable choice.\"",
"Now, if I'm not mistaken, tracking a value-weighted index is extremely easy - just buy the shares in the exact amount they are in the index and wait. Yes in theory. In practise this is difficult. Most funds that track S&P do it on sample basis. This is to maintain the fund size. Although I don't have / know the exact number ... if one wants to replicate the 500 stocks in the same %, one would need close to billion in fund size. As funds are not this large, there are various strategies adopted, including sampling of companies [i.e. don't buy all]; select a set of companies that mimic the S&P behaviour, etc. All these strategies result in tracking errors. There are algorithms to reduce this. The only time you would need to rebalance your holdings is when there is a change in the index, i.e. a company is dropped and a new one is added, right? So essentially rebalance is done to; If so, why do passive ETFs require frequent rebalancing and generally lose to their benchmark index? lets take an Index with just 3 companies, with below price. The total Market cap is 1000 The Minimum required to mimic this index is 200 or Multiples of 200. If so you are fine. More Often, funds can't be this large. For example approx 100 funds track the S&P Index. Together they hold around 8-10% of Market Cap. Few large funds like Vangaurd, etc may hold around 2%. But most of the 100+ S&P funds hold something in 0.1 to 0.5 range. So lets say a fund only has 100. To maintain same proportion it has to buy shares in fraction. But it can only buy shares in whole numbers. This would then force the fund manager to allocate out of proportion, some may remain cash, etc. As you can see below illustrative, there is a tracking error. The fund is not truly able to mimic the index. Now lets say after 1st April, the share price moved, now this would mean more tracking error if no action is taken [block 2] ... and less tracking error if one share of company B is sold and one share of company C is purchased. Again the above is a very simplified view. Tracking error computation is involved mathematics. Now that we have the basic concepts, more often funds tracking S&P; Thus they need to rebalance.",
"\"There are some index funds out there like this - generally they are called \"\"equal weight\"\" funds. For example, the Rydex S&P Equal-Weight ETF. Rydex also has several other equal weight sector funds\"",
"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000. I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year. Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200. Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance. Repeat that activity every 12-18 months. This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets. This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining.",
"For index funds to be a poor investment, they would have to perform worse than your alternative investments. In this case, we'll assume the alternative to be the individual stocks. Obviously, it must be possible to pick just the winning stocks and avoid the losing stocks, raising your rate of return... however, several studies have shown that individuals are horrible at picking winners. We let our emotions, are biases, and are suppositions get in the way. You could literally throw a dart, but then you either win big or lose big. Picking the fund evens that out for you, so you don't win or lose big, but just get a consistently boring (yet consistently good) return. If you have a lot of time to put into the research, and are confident in your ability to pick winning stocks, then you can do better than the index funds. Otherwise, sticking with the index fund is probably a smart choice.",
"\"In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by \"\"fundamental indexation\"\" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is \"\"price-weighted\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by \"\"fundamentals\"\" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan.\"",
"You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.",
"Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.",
"Picking yourself is just what all the fund managers are trying to do, and history shows that the majority of them fails the majority of the time to beat the index fund. That is the core reason of the current run after index funds. What that means is that although it doesn’t sound so hard, it is not easy at all to beat an index consistently. Of course you can assume that you are better than all those high-paid specialists, but I would have some doubt. You might be luckier, but then you might be not.",
"Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.",
"When you are putting your money in an index fund, you are not betting your performance against other asset classes but rather against competing investments withing the SAME asset class. The index fund always wins due to two factors: diversity, and lower cost. The lower cost attribute is essentially where you get your performance edge over the longer run. That is why if you look at the universe of mutual funds (where you get your diversification), very few will have beaten the index, assuming they have survived. -Ralph Winters",
"More importantly, index funds are denominated in specific currencies. You can't buy or sell an index, so it can be dimensionless. Anything you actually do to track the index involves real amounts of real money.",
"The short answer to your question is yes. Index funds are about the easiest and most efficient diversified way to invest your money. Vanguard's are among the cheapest and best. Be aware, though, that passive income doesn't mean you do nothing for your money. In the case of investing, what you are doing is bearing risk. That is, you are being paid (on average) to put your money in a situation where you may lose money. If you keep your eye on the long-term prize, then when (not if) you sustain losses in your investment account, you will have the patience to leave the money in there. I'm a little confused by your wording about increasing your salary. Normally we think of index funds as a way to increase our wealth. If you are making new investments, presumably you have more salary than you need right now. Normal index funds will reinvest dividends automatically, so you will see the value of your investments rise but will not see any cash flows per se unless you are selling your holdings. If you want actual cash coming out of your investment, you can use ETF's to achieve the same type of investment and treat the dividends as a supplement to your income. Note, however, that some gains in your ETF will be in the form of capital gains and some will be dividends. Think more like 2% year per in dividend payments and the rest in capital gains. If your objective is to save for retirement, please consider investing through an IRA, Roth IRA, or through your 401(k). No need to give uncle sam a gift from your hard-earned money.",
"S & P Index Announcements would have notes on when there are changes to the index. For example in the S & P Small-cap 600 there is a change that takes affect on Feb. 19, 2013. As for how index funds handle changes to the fund, this depends a bit on the nature of the fund as open-end mutual funds would be different than exchange-traded funds. The open-end fund would have to sell and purchase to keep tracking the index which can be interesting to see how well this is handled to keep the transaction costs down while the ETFs will just unload the shares in the redemption units of the stock leaving the index while taking in new shares with creation units of the newly added stock to the index.",
"Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.",
"A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.",
"\"who computes the S&P 500? Standard and Poor's. Why are they sharing this information and Because that's what they do. This is a financial research company. how do they recuperate the costs inherent in computing the S&P 500? By charging clients for other information. The computing of the index itself is not all that complicated, its coming up with the index that's a problem. Once they've come up with the formula, and it became widely accepted, the computation itself is not an issue. But the fact that its so popular leads to the S&P brand recognition, and people come and pay good money for their other services (ratings and financial analysis of securities). They do more work for free. For example, the ratings of various government debts are being done by S&P for free (governments don't pay for that), while private bonds are rated for a fee (corporations pay to have their bonds rated). Also, as noted by JBKing, there are probably some licensing fees for using the index name in the fund name (and other users are probably paying the licensing fee, like the news agencies and the exchanges). S&P500 is a registered trademark, and as such cannot be used without the owner's permission. Why is then \"\"active management\"\" not required for indexed funds Because no research and stock picking is required. In fact, these funds don't really require a manager, they can be managed by a simple script. and how does it lower taxes? (perhaps this could be a different question if this has become too broad) Actively managed funds perform a lot more buy/sell operations, each leading to tax consequences to the fund (which rolls them over to the investors). Index funds only buy and sell to re-balance back to the index (or when the makeup of the index changes, usually once a year or half a year), leading to much lesser realized capital gains to the fund, thus much lesser tax consequences.\"",
"\"The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the \"\"basket\"\" of investments that a share in the fund represents. Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the \"\"DJI 30\"\" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index.\"",
"\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"",
"\"There's nothing to rebalance, the index fund rebalances itself to continue matching the index. However, you need to understand that such an investment is not diversified and you only invest in a very specific market, and very specific stocks on that market. S&P 500 is large (500 different companies, most of the time), but still not as broadly diversified as your retirement investment portfolio should be. You should talk to a financial adviser (CFP for example), many companies provide access to these for 401k plan participants. But in any case, I'd suggest considering \"\"target date\"\" funds - funds that are investing based on your expected retirement year, and become more conservative as you get closer to that year.\"",
"It's very simple. The low cost index funds are generally the best investments for investors, but - because of the low fees and the fact that the offerings of different companies are nearly identical - they are the worst for the investment houses. Therefore, the investment houses spend a lot of money convincing investors to choose other funds. If you remember that investment houses are all in the business of making money for themselves, not for the investor, then the whole financial system will make much more sense.",
"The top ten holdings for these funds don't overlap by even one stock. It seems to me they are targeting an index for comparison, but making no attempt to replicate a list of holdings as would, say, a true S&P index.",
"Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.",
"What makes the S&P 500 Index funds have low expenses ratios is that the amount of money spent by the mutual fund company on research is Zero. Standard and Poors does the research, the fund companies piggy back on that research. Another big factor in keeping expenses low is the fact the companies that makeup the index don't change very often. If the fund frequently changes the makeup of the investments not only can that trigger tax considerations but there are costs associated with all those transactions. The question is: do the other algorithms overcome the additional costs due to higher expenses and taxes.",
"Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks). Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table.",
"The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself. The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index. This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment. SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund. There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere.",
"Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.",
"If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.",
"Excellent Question! I agree with other repliers but there are some uneasy things with index funds. Since your view is death, I will take extremely pessimist view things that may cause it (very big may): I know warnings about stock-picking but, in imperfect world, the above things tend to happen. But to be honest, they feel too much paranoia. Better to keep things simple with good diversification and rebalancing when people live in euphoria/death. You may like Bogleheads.org.",
"Mutual funds generally have a minimum amount you must start with to own any of the fund. For Vanguard funds, they have a $1,000 minimum for certain target date funds and $3,000 for most everything else. What you would do is open an account at Vanguard (or other brokerage that handles Vanguard funds) and send them a check for $3,000. After it clears you can specify which fund you want it to go into and it buys what the price at end of day was divided into your account balance number of shares. Fractional share are fine and your balance will not usually be an even number of shares. Most brokerages will let you set up an automatic transfer where some amount out of your paycheck is put into your account each pay period. You can specify which of the funds you own it goes into. Once you've got the minimum to be in the fund you can add whatever amount you like each month.",
"Minimizing tracking error and offering good redemption liquidity is the priority. A few concerns off the top of my head are entrants and exits of the S&P 500. Vanguard needs to dump a good amount of one stock quickly and purchase another big stake simultaneously. Everyone also knows that the large orders are coming so trying to do it efficiently is one challenge. When a company in the S&P 500 spins off a stock as a dividend, you could be holding on to a bunch of shares in a new stock that you need to get rid off. Again, a lot of selling at once, need to keep costs of that low.",
"I tried direct indexing the S&P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal.",
"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.",
"that index fund providers don’t have incentive to push companies to change for the better and create shareholder value. And yet we see countless share buybacks. Dividend yield on the S&P that has been rising since the year 2000. I don't buy the argument of it's devouring capitalism...I do however buy the argument it is helping distort the market, as mentioned with shorting/negative positions.",
"\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \"\"actively managed\"\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \"\"time the market\"\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\"",
"Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.",
"You do not need to have 'high net value', and yes, you can invest in it. Typically, fund companies require a minimum investment, that could be 100, it could be a 1000. 5000 should be enough for 99.9 % of all funds for an initial investment. What you need is an investment company that manages the account for you. I cannot name those for your country, but they should be easy to find (companies like IMG, and Fidelity might serve your country). You then open an account with the company of your choice, transfer the money, and tell them which fund it shall go in; all this is possible online. You can also go to see an agent in person, and he will fill the forms for you, and handle all the action, but he might take a fee for it.",
"\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"",
"Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.",
"Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror. The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings. Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index.",
"Passive implies following an index. Your question seems to ask about a hypothetical fund that starts, say, as an S&P fund, but as the index is adjusted, the old stocks stay in the fund. Sounds simple enough, but over time, the fund's performance will diverge from the index. The slight potential gain from lack of cap gains will be offset by the fund being unable to market itself. Keep in mind, the gains distributed each year are almost exclusively long term, taxed at a favorable rate.",
"Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.",
"\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \"\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\"\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \"\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\"\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\"",
"There are hundreds if not thousands of index funds and ETFs in the EU, far too many to enumerate here. It's worth pointing out that Vanguard themselves operate in the UK. The minimum investment if you go direct to Vanguard is £100,000, but you can make smaller investments through a number of fund platforms.",
"By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider:",
"If you just want to track an index, then ETFs are, generally speaking, the better way.",
"So, why or why should I not invest in the cheaper index fund? They are both same, one is not cheaper than other. You get something that is worth $1000. To give a simple illustration; There is an item for $100, Vanguard creates 10 Units out of this so price per unit is $10. Schwab creates 25 units out of this, so the per unit price is $4. Now if you are looking at investing $20; with Vanguard you would get 2 units, with Schwab you would get 5 units. This does not mean one is cheaper than other. Both are at the same value of $20. The Factors you need to consider are; Related question What differentiates index funds and ETFs?",
"\"Put the whole lot into a couple of low-cost broad index funds with dividends reinvested (also known as accumulation funds) and then don't look at them. Invest through a low-cost broker. There are a number to choose from and once you start googling around the theme of \"\"index fund investing\"\" you'll find them. The S&P 500 is a popular index to start with.\"",
"There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost.",
"what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition] This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?",
"I used to work on the software in the front office (and a bit of the middle office) of a brokerage firm. This page describes the process pretty well. Basically there are three parts: So to your question: how does an order get executed? ETFs work the same since they are effectively shares of a mutual fund's assets. True mutual fund shares work differently since they don't get traded in the market. They get traded at the end of the market as just a bookkeeping exercise.",
"My plan is that one day I can become free of the modern day monetary burdens that most adults carry with them and I can enjoy a short life without these troubles on my mind. If your objective is to achieve financial independence, and to be able to retire early from the workforce, that's a path that has been explored before. So there's plenty of sources that you might want to check. The good news is that you don't need to be an expert on security analysis or go through dozens of text books to invest wisely and enjoy the market returns. This is the Bogleheads philosophy. It's widely accepted by people in academia, and thoroughly tested. Look into it further if you want to see the rationale behind, but, to sum it up: It doesn't matter how expert you are. The idea of beating the market, that an index fund tracks, is about 'outsmarting' the rest of investors. That would be difficult, even if it was a matter of skill, but when it comes to predicting random events we're all equally clueless. *Total Expense Ratio: It gives an idea of how expensive is a given fund in terms of fees. Actively managed funds have higher TER than indexed ones. This doesn't mean there aren't index funds with, unexplainable, high TER out there.",
"\"private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment. This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this \"\"index ETF parasitism\"\" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue. Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies.\"",
"\"Because they track an index. Edited: The definition of the word in this case meaning \"\"something used or serving to point out; a sign, token, or indication\"\" from Meaning #3 I presume therefore you are asking what an index is? There are many variations of what makes up an Index but in short it is a representation of some part of a market. An extremely simplistic calculation would be to take a basket of stocks, and sum their prices. If one stock moves up a dollar, and one moves down a dollar, the index has effectively not changed, as it is presumed that the loss in one is offset by the gain in the other.\"",
"You can check the website for the company that manages the fund. For example, take the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB). iShares publishes the complete list of the fund's holdings on their website. This information isn't always easy to find or available, but it's a place to start. For some index funds, you should just be able to look up the index the fund is trying to match. This won't be perfect (take Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO); the fund holds 503 stocks, while the S&P 500 index is comprised of exactly 500), but once again, it's a place to start. A few more points to keep in mind. Remember that many ETF's, including equity ETF's, will hold a small portion of their assets in cash or cash-equivalent instruments to assist with rebalancing. For index funds, this may not be reflected in the index itself, and it may not show up in the list of holdings. VOO is an example of this. However, that information is usually available in the fund's prospectus or the fund's site. Also, I doubt that many stock ETF's, at least index funds, change their asset allocations all that frequently. The amounts may change slightly, but depending on the size of their holdings in a given stock, it's unlikely that the fund's manager would drop it entirely.",
"\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\""
] |
[
"Now company A has been doing ok for couple of weeks, but then due to some factors in that company its stock has been tanking heavily and doesn't appear to have a chance to recover. In this kind of scenario, what does happen? In this scenario, if that company is included in the index being tracked, you will continue holding until such time that the index is no longer including that company. Index funds are passively managed because they simply hold the securities contained in the index and seek to keep the allocations of the fund in line with the proportions of the index being tracked. In an actively managed fund the fund manager would try to hedge losses and make stock/security picks. If the manager thought a particular company had bad news coming maybe they would offload some or all the position. In an index fund, the fund follows the index on good days and bad and the managers job is to match the asset allocations of the index, not to pick stocks."
] |
5993
|
Why would anyone want to pay off their debts in a way other than “highest interest” first?
|
[
"94373",
"367375",
"287571",
"224918",
"128574",
"431212",
"272866",
"230215",
"55084",
"160193",
"5827",
"352638",
"63690",
"426120",
"63501"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"94373",
"5827",
"128574",
"160193",
"287571",
"494306",
"223380",
"431212",
"490648",
"416796",
"544858",
"63690",
"197796",
"31189",
"886",
"340484",
"224918",
"343208",
"256323",
"535742",
"230215",
"319773",
"394474",
"486161",
"272866",
"440620",
"581697",
"59786",
"106495",
"199248",
"342210",
"93271",
"463085",
"188015",
"466707",
"396889",
"569240",
"60720",
"63501",
"427206",
"599499",
"175768",
"55084",
"98294",
"306808",
"26816",
"538014",
"398090",
"574585",
"115267",
"85353",
"28230",
"453627",
"431884",
"361692",
"557506",
"517361",
"586626",
"50964",
"213907",
"449294",
"367375",
"353911",
"310361",
"596936",
"229572",
"36826",
"96720",
"463260",
"457945",
"101363",
"7597",
"20610",
"525557",
"549359",
"508453",
"47565",
"390655",
"537171",
"337876",
"333391",
"78361",
"114592",
"135954",
"149500",
"373554",
"467857",
"499752",
"345895",
"311558",
"402659",
"436793",
"293531",
"241326",
"37852",
"563009",
"577323",
"331093",
"470716",
"95321"
] |
[
"\"It is true that all else being equal, you will pay a lower amount of total interest by paying down your highest interest rate debts first. However, all else is not always equal. I'm going to try to come up with some reasons why it might be better in some circumstances to pay your debts in a different order. And I'll try to use as much math as possible. :) Let's say that your goal is to eliminate all of your debt as fast as possible. The faster you do this, the lower the total interest that you will pay. Now, let's consider the different methods that you could take to get there: You could pay the highest interest first, you could pay the lowest interest first, or you could pay something in the middle first. No matter which path you choose, the quicker you pay everything off, the lower total interest you will pay. In addition to that, the quicker you pay everything off, the difference in total interest paid between the most optimal method and the least optimal method will be less. To put this in mathematical notation: limt→0 Δ Interest(t) = 0 Given that, anything we can do to speed up the time it takes to get to \"\"debt free\"\" is to our advantage. When paying large amounts of debt as fast as possible, sacrifice is needed. And this means that psychology comes into play. I don't know about you, but for me, gamifying the system makes everything easier. (After all, gamification is what gets us to write answers here on SE.) One way to do this is to eliminate individual debts as quickly as possible. For example, let's say that I've got 10 debts. 5 of them are for $1k each. 3 of them are for $5k each, 1 is a $20k car loan, and 1 is a $100k mortgage. Each one has a monthly payment. Let's say that I've got $3k sitting in the bank that I want to use to kickstart my debt reduction. I could pay all $3k toward one of my larger loans, or I could immediately pay off 3 of my 10 loans. Ignore interest for the moment, and let's say that we are going to pay off the smallest loans first. When I eliminate these three loans, three of my monthly payments are also gone. Now let's say that with the money I was paying toward these eliminated debts, and some other money I was able to scrape together $500 a month that I want to use toward debt reduction. In four months, I've eliminated the last two $1k debts, and I'm down to 5 debts instead of 10. Achievement Unlocked! Instead of this strategy, I could have paid toward my largest interest rate. Let's say that was one of the $5k loans. I paid the $3k toward the bank to it, and because I still had all the monthly payments after that, I was only able to scrape together $400 a month extra toward debt reduction. In four months, I still have 10 debts. Now let's say that after these four months, I have a bad month, and some unexpected expenses come up. If I've eliminated 5 of my debts, my monthly payments are less, and I'll have an easier month then I would have had if I still had 10 monthly payments to deal with. Each time I eliminate a debt, the amount extra I have each month to tackle the remaining debts gets bigger. And if your goal is eliminating debt quickly, these early wins can really help motivate you on. It really feels like you are getting somewhere when your monthly bills go down. It also helps you with the debt free mindset. You start to see a future where you aren't sending payments to the banks each month. This method of paying your smaller debts first has been popularized in recent years by Dave Ramsey, and he calls it the debt snowball method. There might be other reasons why you would pick one debt over another to pay first. For example, let's say that one of your loans is with a bank that has terrible customer service. They don't send you bills on time, they process your payment late, their website stinks, they are a constant source of stress, and you are getting sick of them. That would be a great reason to pay that debt first, and never set foot in that bank again. In conclusion: If you have a constant amount of extra cash each month that you are going to use to reduce your debt, and this will never change, then, yes, you will save money over the long run by paying the highest interest debt first. However, if you are trying to eliminate your debt as fast as possible, and you are sacrificing in your budget, sending every extra penny you can scrape together toward debt reduction, the \"\"snowball\"\" method of knocking out the small debts first can help motivate you to continue to sacrifice toward your goal, and can also ease the cash flow situation in difficult months when you find yourself with less extra to send in.\"",
"Let's say I have two loans (say 2 car loans), and the high interest loan has a higher balance. Both have a monthly payment of, say, $500. My income fluctuates a lot, so occasionally I only have $750. I get hit with big fees those months, or maybe I just have to eat beans for those months. I come on some extra money. Maybe enough to get rid of the low interest small loan. Paying off the smaller loan frees up cash. I don't have to eat beans on the bad months.",
"There are non-financial costs to having a debt: you need to remember to make monthly payments, perhaps keep track of changing interest rates, be aware of conditions of the debt, archive the related paperwork. Life is simpler with fewer debts, and that has value. Of course, if the difference in interest rate is large, then that is more important and the higher interest should be paid off first. But if the difference is only half a percentage point or so, you may decide that having fewer debts is in itself worth the bit of extra interest you pay.",
"\"It may be the case that some of your debts have a flat regular fee in addition to the interest, which will go away when the debt is completely paid. For example, my mortgage has an approximately $400/year \"\"package fee\"\" as well as its (quite low) interest. When I finish paying the mortgage, I won't have to pay that fee anymore, so it is theoretically possible that spending extra money on paying off my mortgage would be better than spending it on paying off some other debt. I think it's unlikely that it would actually ever be my optimal move in practice, but the point is, there may be an advantage, financial or otherwise, to getting rid of a particular debt, other than merely removing the burden of interest. Those are special situations, though, and in the majority of cases, starting with the highest interest loan will be the right move.\"",
"\"In some cases, it might be rational to pay low-interest debt first, because the consequences of defaulting on that debt are worse. Consider this simplified example. Suppose you have two debts: a low-interest mortgage, secured by your house, and a high-interest unsecured credit card debt, both of which are within a few years of being paid off. There is a chance that sometime between now and then, something will happen to disrupt your income (e.g. medical problems), and it won't be possible to make the payments on either loan. Defaulting on the credit card loan will result in a lower credit score and calls from collection agencies. Defaulting on the mortgage will result in the foreclosure or forced sale of your house, at best forcing you to move, and at worst leaving you homeless, at a time when you are also facing other (e.g. medical) problems. So you might rationally judge that losing your house is much worse than bad credit. Therefore, you might rationally conclude that it would be better to direct extra income toward paying down the mortgage, to increase the chances that, if and when an income disruption might occur, the mortgage would already be paid off. In other words, you shorten the window of time where income disruption results in foreclosure. You might decide that this increased security is worth the extra interest you will pay, compared to the strategy where you pay the high-interest loan first. This is a fairly special situation, but you asked \"\"Why might it be a good idea to do this?\"\", and I am just giving an example where it could rationally be considered a good idea. (Of course, in a real-life version of this example, there might be other options available, such as refinancing the mortgage. If you like, you could imagine a more extreme example where the lower-interest debt is owed to Joey Knuckles the loanshark, who will come and break your kneecaps if you miss a payment.)\"",
"No. It means each month the total amount you owe goes up by a factor of (1+0.298/12). So if you owed $23K at the beginning of the month, at the end you owe a total of 23K*1.0248=$23,571. Then subtract the $804 you are paying. If you want to think of it in terms of interest and principal, you are paying $571 a month in interest and 233 toward principle, I guess. Paying off debt with a lower interest rate using debt with a higher interest rate is throwing a lot of money away and impoverishing yourself needlessly. Psychology can't get around that. If you want a psychological aid, decide how much you are going to pay toward these debts and have it automatically deducted from your paycheck so you never see it. Make the minimum payment on every debt you have except the one with the highest interest rate. Pay the very most you can toward that. Then when it is paid off, move to the next highest. Do all your spending out of the lowest rate card, or avoid using these credit cards until your financial discipline and resources allow you to pay all credit cards off completely at the end of each month.",
"It's very simple, line up your debt in the order of interest rate, tax adjusted, and start with the highest rate. Too simple? If knocking off the $7500 loan feels better to you than the fact that you are still paying 9% on $7500 (as part of the $20K) makes you feel bad, just pay off the $7500. I'd rather be ahead $210/yr. (A celebrity advocates the small wins promoting good feelings and encouragement. If that actually works for some, I won't criticize it here) If freeing up the $200/mo payment enables you to do something else that's beneficial, that's another story. I've written how $10,000 of student loan can keep you from qualifying for $30K or more of mortgage. In isolation, highest rate. With the rest of the picture, other advice might be more suitable. Welcome to Money.SE",
"If you have a debt that has very low interest now, but you are aware that it's not going to stay that way (0% introductory APR on a credit card, for example), it can make sense to pay that off before the higher rate kicks in.",
"See many past answers: you will usually save the most money by paying off the highest-intetest-rate loan first. (Remember to allow for tax effects, if any, when comparing real interest rates.) Some folks are more motivated to simplify their finances than to save money; in that case you might pay off the smallest loan first.",
"\"Pay off the highest rate debt. Interest on both are charged on the balance owed, nothing more complicated than that. There are those who would call a mortgage \"\"front loaded\"\" but that's nonsense. Of course most of the payment is interest at the beginning because the debt is higher and you start with a 30 year term. The fastest way to pay off multiple debts is always from highest rate first and then the next and so on.\"",
"\"Dave Ramsey would tell you to pay the smallest debt off first, regardless of interest rate, to build momentum for your debt snowball. Doing so also gives you some \"\"wins\"\" sooner than later in the goal of becoming debt free.\"",
"This is a slightly different reason to any other answer I have seen here about irrationality and how being rationally aware of one's irrationality (in the future or in different circumstances) can lead you to make decisions which on the face of it seem wrong. First of all, why do people sometimes maintain balances on high-interest debt when they have savings? Standard advice on many money-management sites and forums is to withdraw the savings to pay down the debt. However, I think there is a problem with this. Suppose you have $5,000 in a savings account, and a $2,000 credit card balance. You are paying more interest on the credit card than you get from the savings account, and it seems that you should withdraw some money from the savings account, and pay off the cc. However, the difference between the two scenarios, other than the interest you lose by keeping the cc balance, is your motivation for saving. If you have a credit card balance of $2,000, you might be obliged to pay a minimum payment of $100 each month. If you have any extra money, you will be rewarded if you pay more in to the credit card, by seeing the balance go down and understanding that you will soon be free from receiving this awful bill each month. To maintain your savings goal, it's enough to agree with yourself that you won't do any new spending on the cc, or withdraw any savings. Now suppose that you decide to pay off the cc with the savings. There is now nothing 'forcing' you to save $100 each month. When you get to the end of the month, you have to motivate yourself that you will be adding spare cash to your $3,000 savings balance, rather than that you 'have to' pay down your cc. Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend.",
"Ditto to Victor. The simple rule is: Pay the minimums on all so you don't get any late fees, etc, then pay off the highest interest rate loan first. A couple of special cases do come to mind: If one or more of these are credit cards, then, here in the U.S. at least, credit cards charge you interest on the average daily balance, unless you pay off the balance entirely, in which case you pay zero interest. So for example say you had two credit cards, both with 1% per month interest, with debt of $2000 and $1000. You have $1500 available. Ignoring minimum payments for the moment, if you put that $1500 against the larger balance, you would still pay interest on the full amount for the current month, or $30. But if you paid off the smaller and put the difference against the larger, then your interest for the current month would be only $15. (Either way, your interest for NEXT month would be the same -- 1% of the $1500 remaining balance or $15 -- assuming you couldn't pay off the other card.) If one or more of the loans are mortgage loans on which you are paying mortgage insurance, then when you get the balance below a certain point -- usually 80% of the original loan amount -- you no longer have to pay mortgage insurance premiums. Thus the amount you are paying on such premiums needs to be factored into the calculation. There may be other special cases. Those are the ones that I've run into.",
"\"It is typically best to pay minimum payments to 2 of the loans and pay aggressively on the third loan. Some will tell you to pay the highest interest rate loan off first because \"\"personal finance\"\" is about \"\"finance\"\" and mathematically that saves you the most interest. Some will tell you to pay the smallest balance loan off first because \"\"personal finance\"\" is \"\"personal\"\" and the psychological \"\"win\"\" of paying off a loan is more valuable than the small amount of interest difference between this strategy and paying off the loan with the highest interest rate first.\"",
"I believe this argument is most often used when considering which debts to pay back first, or when there are other options available such as investment options, building up an emergency fund, or saving for a large purchase. In that case, it's simply justifying making minimum payments and paying more over the life of the loan in exchange for larger liquidity in the present. Unfortunately, when it comes to choosing between which debts to pay (e.g. My mom pays more than the minimum on her car because she can't deduct auto loan interest, despite her mortgage carrying a higher interest rate), it's only beneficial if the tax savings offsets the interest savings difference. The formula for that is: tax bracket > (1 - (target loan interest rate / mortgage interest rate)) That said, most people don't think in the long term, either by natural shortsightedness, or by necessity (need to have an emergency fund).",
"\"Allen, welcome to Money.SE. You've stumbled into the issue of Debt Snowball, which is the \"\"low balance\"\" method of paying off debt. The other being \"\"high interest.\"\" I absolutely agree that when one has a pile of cards, say a dozen, there is a psychological benefit to paying off the low balances and knocking off card after card. I am not dismissive of that motivation. Personal Finance has that first word, personal, and one size rarely fits all. For those who are numbers-oriented, it's worth doing the math, a simple spreadsheet showing the cost of the DS vs paying by rate. If that cost is even a couple hundred dollars, I'll still concede that one less payment, envelope, stamp, etc, favors the DS method. On the other hand, there's the debt so large that the best payoff is 2 or 3 years away. During that time, $10000 paid toward the 24% card is saving you $2400/yr vs the $500 if paid toward 5% debt. Hard core DSers don't even want to discuss the numbers, strangely enough. In your case, you don't have a pile of anything. The mortgage isn't even up for discussion. You have just 2 car loans. Send the $11,000 to the $19K loan carrying the 2.5%. This will save you $500 over the next 2 years vs paying the zero loan down. Once you've done that, the remaining $8000 will become your lowest balance, and you should flip to the Debt Snowball method, which will keep you paying that debt off. DS is a tool that should be pulled out for the masses, the radio audience that The David (Dave Ramsey, radio show host) appeals to. They may comprise the majority of those with high credit card debt, and have greatest success using this method. But, you exhibit none of their symptoms, and are best served by the math. By bringing up the topic here, you've found yourself in the same situation as the guy who happens to order a white wine at a wedding, and finds his Mormon cousin offering to take him to an AA meeting the next day. In past articles on this decision, I've referenced a spreadsheet one can download. It offers an easy way to see your choice without writing your own excel doc. For the situation described here, the low balance total interest is $546 vs $192 for the higher interest. Not quite the $500 difference I estimated. The $350 difference is low due to the small rate difference and relatively short payoffs. In my opinion, knowledge is power, and you can decide either way. What's important is that if you pay off the zero interest first, you can say \"\"I knew it was a $350 difference, but I'd rather have just one outstanding loan for the remain time.\"\" My issue with DS is when it's preached like a religion, and followers are told to not even run the numbers. I wrote an article, Thinking about Dave Ramsey a number of years back, but the topic never gets old.\"",
"TL/DR Yes, The David popularized the Debt Snowball. The method of paying low balance first. It's purely psychological. The reward or sense of accomplishment is a motivator to keep pushing to the next card. There's also the good feeling of following one you believe to be wise. The David is very charismatic, and speaks in a no-nonsense my way or the highway voice. History is riddled with religious leaders who offer advice which is followed without question. The good feeling, in theory, leads to a greater success rate. And really, it's easier to follow a plan that comes at a cost than to follow one that your guru takes issue with. In the end, when I produce a spreadsheet showing the cost difference, say $1000 over a 3 year period, the response is that it's worth the $1000 to actually succeed. My sole purpose is to simply point out the cost difference between the two methods. $100? Go with the one that makes you feel good. $2000? Just think about it first. If it's not clear, my issue is less with the fact that the low balance method is inferior and more with its proponents wishing to obfuscate the fact that the high interest method is not only valid but has some savings built in. When a woman called into The David's radio show and said her friend recommended the high rate first method, he dismissed it, and told her that low balance was the only way to go. The rest of this answer is tangent to the real issue, answered above. The battle reminds me of how people brag about getting a tax refund. With all due respect to the Tax Software people, the goal should be minimizing one's tax bill. Getting a high refund means you misplanned all year, and lent Uncle Sam money at zero interest(1). And yet you feel good about getting $3000 back in April. (Disclosure - when my father in law passed away, I took over my mother in law's finances. Her IRA RMD, and taxes. First year, I converted some money to Roth, and we had a $100 tax bill. Frowny face on mom. Since then, I have Schwab hold too much federal tax, and we always get about $100 back. This makes her happy, and I'll ignore the 27 cents lost interest.) (1) - I need to acknowledge that there are cases where the taxpayer has had zero dollars withheld, yet receives a 'tax refund.' The earned income tax credit (EITC) produces a refundable benefit, i.e. a payment that's not conditional on tax due. Obviously, those who benefit from this are not whom I am talking about. Also, in response to a comment below, the opportunity cost is not the sub-1% rate the bank would have paid you on the money had you held on to it. It's the 18% card you should be paying off. That $3000 refund likely cost over $400 in the interest paid over the prior year.",
"\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\"",
"Pay the highest rate debt first, it's as simple as that. When that debt is paid (the 24% card in this case) pay off the next one. As far as having an emergency fund is concerned, I consider it a second priority. If one owes 24% money, that $2000 emergency fund is costing $480/yr. Ouch. Avoid the behaviors that got you into debt in the first place, and pay the cards off as fast as you can. When you have no balance, start to save, first into the emergency account, then toward retirement.",
"Excellent question and it is a debate that is often raised. Mathematically you are probably best off using option #1. Any money that is above and beyond minimum payments earns a pretty high interest rate, about 6.82% in the form of saved interest payments. The problem is you are likely to get discouraged. Personal finance is a lot about behavior, and after working at this for a year, and still having 5 loans, albeit a lower balance, might take a bit of fight out of you. Paying off such a large balance, in a reasonable time, will take a lot of fight. With the debt snowball, you pay the minimum to the student loan, save in an outside account, and when it is large enough, you execute option #2. So a year from now you might only have three loans instead of five. If you behaved exactly the same your balance would be higher after that year then using the previous method. However often one does not behave the same. Because the goals are shorter and more attainable it is easier to delay some gratification. The 8 dollars you are saving in your weekly gas budget, because of low prices, is meaningful when saving for a 4K goal, where it is meaningless when looking at it as a 74K goal. With the 4K goal you are more apt to put that money in your savings, where the 74K goal you might spend it on a latte. For me, the debt snowball worked really well. With either option make sure that excess payments actually go to a reduction in principle not a prepayment of interest. Given this you may be left with no option. For example if method #1 you only prepay interest, you are forced to use option #2.",
"Another unmentioned reason: flexibility and liquidity. There is a fundamental difference between installment and revolving debt, such that it could be rational to pay revolving debt before an amortizing loan. Lets say you have 100K in cash, a 100K mortgage at 4% and 4 25K credit cards at maximum balance and a 0% promotional rate (at least for now). If you pay off the mortgage, you may not get liquidity if you need it. This path is not necessarily reversible. If you pay off the credit cards, you have 100K of credit available to you. You can reverse to the case of having 100K in cash, and 200K in debt.",
"I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? I have never heard that, however, the financial institutions (who are charging you an amount of interest which was at one time in the not so distant past classified and punishable in state criminal codes) really enjoy you thinking that way. You are clearly capable of doing the math yourself. While I don't know the exact numbers, I am totally confident that you will find in about 5 or 10 minutes (if that long) that eliminating debt of any kind in your life will pay an immediate return that beats the great majority of other investments in terms of risk/reward. After the immediate financial return, there is a quieter, subtler, and even greater long term benefit. Basic principle: Highest Rates First Perhaps this decision could be considered slightly less important than deciding not to smoke during your youth; but I would put it as a close second. You are already in a position where you can see the damage that your prior decisions (about financial debt) have produced. Run the clock back to the time in your life when you were debt free. Now, pay off that debt with the big check, and start from zero. Now, turn on your psychic powers and predict the same amount of time, in the future, with the same amount of money (don't even try to adjust for inflation; just use flat dollars) WITHOUT losing the money which you have given to the financial institutions during this previous part of your life. Do you now see why the financial institutions want you to think about slowly paying them off instead of waking up tomorrow without owing them anything ?",
"Others have suggested paying off the student loan, mostly for the satisfaction of one less payment, but I suggest you do the math on how much interest you would save by paying early on each of the loans: When you do the calculations I think you'll see why paying toward the debt with the highest interest rate is almost always the best advice. Whether you can refinance the mortgage to a lower rate is a separate question, but the above calculation would still apply, just with different amortization schedules.",
"My take is that there are many factors to consider when deciding whether to accelerate payment of a debt beyond the require minimum. Ideally you would want to be debt-free with a home owned outright, a pension big enough to lead a nice life for the rest of your days and plenty of savings to cover any unexpected expenses. Being debt-free is not a bad thing but it should not come at the expense of your overall financial health.",
"I recently paid off a line of credit on an investment property that I own. I had some surplus cash and decided to pay off the line of credit rather than to make a principal payment on the primary mortgage with a higher interest rate. The interest rate on the line of credit was tiny and the balance was also pretty low. My reasoning was that by paying off the line of credit I would be done with that account and would have one less bill to pay each month, one less risk of something going wrong and a late payment hurting my credit, one less statement to reconcile each month, and one less bookkeeping core to manage. I could have grown my net worth by few couple of dollars each month had I kept the line of credit and made a principal payment on the primary loan. I judged that it wasn't worth the hassle and risks.",
"If you have the money and the determination to pay off all the cards in six months, then the order will make little difference to your credit score, and to your finances. If you had less money available (say you could pay off $500 a month in total), then it would be good for financial reasons to pay off the credit card with the highest interest rate first, so you pay less interest. It would be good for psychological reasons to pay the card with the smallest amount first (so you feel successful quickly, and some people need that feeling of success to continue paying off, just psychological). And if these things contradict each other, figure out what is more important. And whatever you do, paying back your debt is better than not paying it back. So if you can't make up your mind, then you pay #1, then #2, then #3, then #4, then #5.",
"\"First to actually answer the question \"\"how long at these rates/payments?\"\"- These is nothing magic or nefarious about what the bank is doing. They add accrued interest and take your payment off the new total. I'd make higher payments to the 8.75% debt until it's gone, $100/mo extra and be done. The first debt, if you bump it to $50 will be paid in 147 months, at $75/mo, 92 months. Everything you pay above the minimum goes right to the principal balance and gets you closer to paying it off. The debt snowball is not the ideal way to pay off your debt. Say I have one 24% credit card the bank was nice enough to give me a $20,000 line of credit on. I also have 20 cards each with $1000 in credit, all at 6%. The snowball dictates that the smallest debt be paid first, so while I pay the minimum on the 24% card, the 6% cards get paid off one by one, but I'm supposed to feel good about the process, as I reduce the number of cards every few months. The correct way to line up debt is to pay off the (tax adjusted) highest rate first, as an extra $100 to the 24% card saves you $2/mo vs 50 cents/mo for the 6% cards. I wrote an article discussing the Debt Snowball which links to a calculator where you can see the difference in methods. I note that if the difference from lowest to highest rate is small, the Snowball method will only cost you a small amount more. If, by coincidence, the balances are close, the difference will also be small. The above aside, it's the rest of your situation that will tell you the right path for you. For example, a matched 401(k) deposit should take priority over most debt repayment. The $11,000 might be better conserved for a house downpayment as that $66/mo is student loan and won't count as the housing debt, rather \"\"other debt\"\" and part of the higher ratio when qualifying for the mortgage. If you already have taken this into account, by all means, pay off the 8.75% debt asap, then start paying off the 3% faster. Keep in mind, this is likely the lowest rate debt one can have and once paid off, you can't withdraw it again. So it's important to consider the big picture first. (Are you depositing to a retirement account? Is it a 401(k) and are you getting any matching from the company?)\"",
"pay off one of the cards completely. there are several reasons why:",
"\"There are two solutions. One is financially better, the other is psychologically better. Financially better: You should pay off loans in the order of interest rate, so the 9% first, then the six percent, then the 3-4%. If you pay back $1000, the first one saves you $90 a year in interest, the second saves you $60, the third $30-$40 a year. Every year until everything is paid back. Psychologically better: Some people have psychological problems paying back debt, and it is better for them to pay back small loans first. If you feel better having two loans instead of three, and feeling better makes you able to save money and pay back the other loans, while having three loans would make you depressed and unable to make savings - pay back the smaller loan. If you don't have that kind of problem, use the \"\"financially better\"\" method.\"",
"\"My advice: IMO, all things being somewhat equal, you should always try to retire debts as quickly as possible in most cases, so start with the small cases. The method of calculating credit card interest is written on the statement. Usually it is \"\"average daily balance method\"\". Don't sweat the details. Just pay the things off.\"",
"Do you have any other debt besides your mortgage such as credit card debt, student loans, or a car payment? Unless those are lower interest than your mortgage, pay them off first. There are a lot of other considerations besides just mortgage and emergency fund. Do you have some money for the things in life that happen - car repairs, unexpected medical bills, your next vehicle purchase, and the eventual replacing of those big ticket items in your home that will break eventually? A bit of savings towards each of those each month is not a bad idea. Then there is your retirement. Are you on track to make enough to support yourself in retirement plus pay for the cost of health care as it applies in your country (more in some countries, less in others)? There is also the cost of higher education for your children if you have any or are planning on having any. If so, were you planning on contributing to their higher eduction? Do you have a savings plan in place for that? Paying off the house is a great thing to do - in my mind it's great even if it reduces your mortgage deduction, although others disagree. It's just not the number one financial priority anyone should have.",
"If we're including psychological considerations, then the question becomes much more complicated: will having a higher available credit increase the temptation to spend? Will eliminating 100% of a small debt provide more positive reinforcement than paying off 15% of a larger debt? Etc. If we're looking at the pure financial impact, the question is simpler. The only advantage I see to prioritizing the lower interest card is the float: when you buy something on a credit card, interest is often calculated for that purchase starting at the beginning of the next billing cycle, rather than immediately from the purchase date. I'm not clear on what policies credit card companies have on giving float for credit cards with a carried balance, so you should look into what your card's policy is. Other than than, paying off the higher interest rate card is better than paying off the lower interest rate. On top of that, you should look into whether you qualify for any of the following options (presented from best to worst):",
"\"I don't have enough reputation in this community to comment yet, so this \"\"answer\"\" is really just a minor furtherance of JoeTaxpayer's comment... THe only thing I might add to this great answer - make all minimum payments, and send all extra available cash to the highest interest card. If OP will pay in full after 6 month, this may make little difference, but it will be a few dollars in his pocket instead of the bank. – JoeTaxpayer♦ Dec 2 at 17:42 ...on Ben Miller's excellent answer. Once you have taken JoeTaxpayer's advice and ordered your cards by interest rate and have paid off the highest interest card first, take that same payment and add it to your next-highest card's minimum payment. Once THAT is payed off, take the combined amounts that you were paying to cards one and two and apply it all to card three along with its minimum payment. You see where this is going. By aggregating your payments thusly, each card will get paid off successively more quickly than the previous one, without increasing your overall payments to the cards, and you are retiring the highest-interest debt first. Your last card will then be paid off in record time, because you have combined all of the payments for cards 1-4. One other amplification: Since we don't know which account has which interest rate, it may be more advantageous to order them by balance, with the smallest first. That way you retire the first card quickly, which gives you a sense of accomplishment, and by the time you reach your highest balance card, you have snowballed all of your payments and are now throwing boulders instead of pebbles at it. You'll have to do that math to see which method has the most benefit. Then roll it all into the car payment. Then roll it into your student debt. Etc.\"",
"This is a case where human nature and arithmetic lead to different results. Depending on the your income, the effective interest rate on the mortgage is probably right around 2.5%. So purely by arithmetic, the absolute cheapest way to go is to put the $11k to the bigger car loan, then pay off the mortgage, then the smaller car loan. The Debt Snowball is more effective however, because it works better for people. Progress is demonstrated quickly, which maintains (and often enhances) motivation to continue. I can say as a case in point, having tried both methods, that if does indeed work. So, I am with you ... pay off the car loan first, and roll that payment into the bigger car loan. If you add no extra dollars, you should get the small loan paid off in 6 to 8 months and the bigger car loan in another 16 to 18 months. It sounds like from your message that you have another $1500 or so a month. If that is the case ... small loan paid off in two months, bigger loan paid off in another year. If you stick with the Ramsay program, you then build an emergency fund and start investing. Good luck!",
"Strictly from a fastest payback standpoint, the rule is to make all minimum payments and send any extra funds to the highest interest loan next. This will result in the lowest interest paid each year. The decision to consolidate depends on the impact it will have to both your payment and overall payoff schedule. It sounds like your priority might need to be cash flow and not overall savings. e.g. taking a 4% loan that has a high payment, but stretching it over more time can lower the payment, even at a bit higher rate. You just need to be aware of the cost and decide based on what you can live with. I hope you are in a good field that would see improvements to your income over these next few years.",
"\"Welcome to Money.SE. Your question is similar to a number of others. The \"\"How do I pay my debt down?\"\" and \"\"How do I invest extra money?\"\" is a bit of a continuum since there's no consensus than one should pay off the last cent of debt before investing. Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing offers a good look at this. You see, Pete's answer on your question is perfectly fine, but, since you make no mention of, say, a matched 401(k), I'd suggest that any answer to a question like yours should first take a step back and evaluate the bigger picture. A dollar for dollar matched 401(k) beats paying off even an 18% credit card. Absent any tangents, any thought of investing, saving for anything else, etc, my answer is simple, line up the debt, highest interest rate to lowest. Keep in mind the post-tax rate, i.e. a 6% student loan you can deduct, is an effective 4.5% if you are in the 25% bracket.\"",
"Keep in mind that you NEED to have a cash reserve. Blindly applying all stray cash to debt reduction is a bad idea. Your lenders do not care about your balance. All they care about is your NEXT payment. It is therefore imperative that you have a cash reserve that can carry these payments for several months. Having zero cash reserves puts you at high risk for such simple things as the payroll clerk at work missing the monthly deposit (Rare, but it happens.) I've also been in situations where a major client had a cash flow issue and delayed payment, and our company had to borrow to meet payroll that month. Fortunately, we were in good standing with the bank and had low debt, but it could have been catastrophic for any employees living paycheque to paycheque.",
"The Avalanche method does not work because most people don't have enough money to make an avalanche. If you somehow had a windfall that was greater or equal to your highest credit card balance, then by all means pay that one off. However, most people do not have that kind of situation. Instead they should use the debt snow ball method. They only have regular income that is typically much smaller then the balances. Another part of your plan that is especially troubling is that you are continuing to utilize credit cards. You need to cut them up, and stop using them. First of course save $1000 for a small emergency fund, the pay them off smallest to largest. Do a budget each and every month. Work an extra job or three. Any extra money that hubby brings in goes towards one of the credit cards. BTW you don't have a math problem you have a behavior problem.",
"\"If the balance on the low rate loan is very high (say, an IBR student loan at 6% that accumulates interest every year), and the balance on the high rate loan (say, a CC at 18%) is comparatively very small, then you'd want to make sure that you've at least \"\"stopped the bleeding\"\" on the high balance loan before starting to pay off the CC.\"",
"Pay off your highest-interest debt first: credit card, car, maybe even mortgage. Pay minimums on all else. Student loans are typically low interest, so pay off anything else first, but double-check your rate of course. Even if you have no other debt, you may still want to hang on to your savings instead of paying down your student loans if getting rid of your savings causes you to accrue debt. For example, if you have a low income and no savings, you may accrue credit card debt (high interest). Or you may want to buy a car with cash instead of getting a loan. Even if this is not an issue, consider what you can do with your savings that others who lack them cannot do. You can put it into mutual funds, which may offer higher rate of return (albeit with risk) than your student loan interest. Or you may pay a down payment on a home. The very low interest rates of student loans are, to a person with savings, essentially a source of cheap money that doesn't need to be justified to a bank. You can use it as seed money to start a business, as funds for travel, for living expenses while in the Peace Corps, or whatever else. But if you pay down that principal, you bind yourself. In short, pay down your student loans when there is no better use for the money.",
"This is more of an interesting question then it looks on first sight. In the USA there are some tax reliefs for mortgage payments, which we don’t have in the UK unless you are renting out the property with the mortgage. So firstly work out the interest rate on each loan taking into account any tax reliefs, etc. Then you need to consider the charges for paying off a loan, for example often there is a charge if you pay off a mortgage. These days in the UK, most mortgagees allow you to pay off at least 10% a year without hitting such a charge – but check your mortgage offer document. How interest is calculated when you make an early payment may be different between your loans – so check. Then you need to consider what will happen if you need another loan. Some mortgages allow you to take back any overpayments, most don’t. Re-mortgaging to increase the size of your mortgage often has high charges. Then there is the effect on your credit rating: paying more of a loan each month then you need to, often improves your credit rating. You also need to consider how interest rates may change, for example if you mortgage is a fixed rate but your car loan is not and you expect interest rates to rise, do the calculations based on what you expect interest rates to be over the length of the loans. However, normally it is best to pay off the loan with the highest interest rate first. Reasons for penalties for paying of some loans in the UK. In the UK some short term loans (normally under 3 years) add on all the interest at the start of the loan, so you don’t save any interest if you pay of the loan quicker. This is due to the banks having to cover their admin costs, and there being no admin charge to take out the loan. Fixed rate loans/mortgagees have penalties for overpayment, as otherwise when interest rates go down, people will change to other lenders, so making it a “one way bet” that the banks will always loose. (I believe in the USA, the central bank will under right such loans, so the banks don’t take the risk.)",
"Starting up a company is fun, stressful, and exciting. It's also often a lot harder than you expect. Income, revenue, and cash flow are big concerns, and you need to be able to eat while you're hunting down your first paying customers. Don't pay off all the debt if that will leave you without any money for living expenses. Perhaps a compromise is in order? Pay off the high-interest loans first, and continue to make payments on the lower-interest loans while you start up. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.",
"I wouldn't advocate it, but one reason to pay a lower interest rate is if you have $990 on a $1000 limit credit card with 6% interest and $5000 on a $15k limit card at 10% interest. Having $500 to pay in a month and putting it on the lower interest would free up a greater percentage of credit on that card and could potentially help your credit rating I believe. I think having $1000 on 10 different credit cards w/ $15k limit reflects better than $10k on one $15k card, regardless of interest rates. Personally I think that's dumb b/c having the extra credit available is an opportunity to get into trouble a lot easier.",
"Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:",
"It's pretty simple - the less money you owe the less interest you pay. Paying down debt gives a guaranteed return of the interest rate of the debt. So paying off your starter loan is equivalent to a 4% return. That's not a bad return in the current environment so it makes sense to do it unless you can find an investment which you think is likely to pay significantly better. (Note this is a general answer, not Netherlands-specific. There may be other considerations, around tax for example, which have to be factored into the calculation).",
"\"I bought a house when I was 22, I also had $10k in student load debt. After the down payment, I had $1,500 to my name and $82k worth of debt. All the advice pointed to \"\"pay the minimum payment and invest the rest.\"\" I discarded the advice and scrimped and put everything extra to those bills. I paid it all off by the time I was 31, and now at 34 I'm self employed, have about $110,000 saved up, a house worth $105,000, 2 cars worth a total of $8,000 and no debt. Keep in mind most of those years I was making $24-$30k a year I might have lost out on a couple years of investments, but right now there are no money worries... wouldn't you rather be like that instead of worrying if you might lose your job?\"",
"Not that I doubted everyone's assumption but I wanted to see the math so I did some spreadsheet hacking. I assumed a monthly payments for 30 years which left us with total payments of 483.89. I then assumed we'd pay an extra $200/month in one of two scenarios. Scenario 1 we just paid that $200 directly to the lender. In scenario 2 we set the extra $200 aside every month until we were able to pay off the $10k at 7%. I assumed that the minimum payments were allocated proportionately and the overpayments were allocated evenly. That meant we paid off loan 5 at about month 77, loan 4 in month 88, loan 3 in month 120, loan 2 in month 165, and loan 1 in month 170. Getting over to scenario 2 where we pay $483.89 to lender and save $200 separately. In month 48 we've saved $9600 relative to the principle remaining in loan 3 of $9547. We pay that off and we're left with loan 1,2,4,5 with a combined principle of about $60930. At this point we are now going to make payments of 683.89 instead of saving towards principle. Now our weighted average interest rate is 6.800% instead of 6.824%. We can calculate the number of payments left given a principle of 60930, interest of 6.8%, and payment of 683.89 to be 124.4 months left for a total of 172.4 months Conclusion: Scenario 1 pays off the debt 3 months sooner with the same monthly expenditure as scenario 2.",
"\"A few points Yes, as a rule, it is better to pay down high interest accounts first, as this will yield lower cost in the long run. Credit card balance transfers usually come at a cost (typically something like \"\"3% or $50, whichever is higher\"\"). So instead of transferring the debt, maybe try purchasing items with your card instead of cash, and using the cash to pay down the debt. This has the added benefit of giving you points or cash back on the card (typically you won't get these for a balance transfer). Caveat: Only do this if you are very disciplined! It is very easy to run up high CC balances and forget to save the cash. You should leave a bit of unused credit line on your credit cards in case of emergencies. I'm doubting you can use your high interest loans in the same way.\"",
"Debt creates risk. Plain and simple. Comparing interest rates of debt vs. possible investing. To me, it is all meaningless. When you are in debt, you options are limited. If you are not in debt, you have more freedom. To me, it is a no brainer. Become debt free ASAP.",
"Paying off debts will reduce your monthly obligation to creditors (less risk) and also remove the possibility of foreclosure / repossession / lawsuit if you ever lost access to income (less risk). Risk is an important part of the equation that can get overlooked. It sounds like pulling that money out of the market will reduce your yearly tax bill as well.",
"\"I will add one thought on to this thread. This is a financial concept called \"\"Net Present Value\"\". In plain English, it means \"\"What's the best use for your money right now?\"\" So, let's say you have an extra €300/month which is not being spent on living expenses. If you leave that money under your pillow (or spend it on beer or fancy electronics!) instead of paying off your startersloan early, that is costing you 300*(0.04/12) per month, every month. So €1/month, or €12/year. This is cumulative for the life of your loan. So not paying €300 this month will ultimately cost you €120 assuming you keep the loan open for 10 years. If you're saying \"\"pay my debts or spend the money on a snappy smartphone?\"\" the answer is that you should pay your debts. Now, here's the important part. Let's suppose you have a better use for the money than beer or electronics. Let's suppose you have a mutual fund which will reliably provide you with a return of 10% a year. If you put that €300/month into a high-yield fund, and if the returns are consistent, you are STILL paying that €12/year (because you invested elsewhere and didn't pay your debts), but you are realizing profits of 300*(0.1/12)=€2.5/month on the invested money. €2.5-1=€1.5/month, which is a net gain. So, in some cases, paying off your debt may not be the best use of your money. There are a number of other questions involved which are related to your exposure to capital gains taxes, incentives or disincentives for holding debt, &c. &c. These are generally country specific. A poster above who seems to be familiar with Netherlands law did a good explanation of some of those incentives. I'm in the US, and our incentive and disincentive system is different. TL;DR: It depends.\"",
"I am answering this in light of the OP mentioning the desire to buy a house. A proper mortgage uses debt to income ratios. Typically 28/36 which means 28% of monthly gross can go toward PITI (principal, interest, tax, insurance) and the total debt can go as high as 36% including credit cards and car payment etc. So, if you earn $5000/mo (for easy math) the 8% gap (between 28 and 36) is $400. If you have zero debt, they don't let you use it for the mortgage, it's just ignored. So a low interest long term student loan should not be accelerated if you are planning to buy a house, better put that money to the down payment. But for credit cards, the $400/mo carries $8000 (banks treat it as though the payment is 5% of debt owed). So, I'd attack that debt with a vengeance. No eating out, no movies, beer, etc. Pay it off as if your life depended on it, and you'll be happier in the long run.",
"If you want to pay them off as quickly as possible, pay the minimum payment on the larger two and dump as much as you can into the one with the 8.75% interest. Then, even though it has a slightly lower interest rate, I would attack the one with the next smallest balance after that, while continuing to make the minimum payment on the one with the largest balance.",
"\"Although there is no single best answer to your situation, several other people have already suggest it in some form: always pay off your highest after-tax (!) interest loan first! That being said, you probably also have heard about the differentiation for good debt vs. bad debt. Good debt is considered a mortgage for buying your primary home or, as is the case here, debt for education. As far as I am concerned, those are pretty much the only two types of debt I'd ever tolerate. (There may be exceptions for health/medical reasons.) Everything else is consumer debt and my personal rule is, don't buy it if you don't have the money for it! Meaning, don't take on consumer debt. One other thing you may consider before accelerating paying off your student debt, the interest paid on it may be tax deductible. So you should look at what the true interest is on your student loan after taxes. If it is in the (very) low single digits, meaning between 1-3%, you may consider using the extra money towards an automatic investment plan into an ETF index fund. But that would be a question you should discuss with your tax accountant or financial adviser. It is also critical in that case that you don't view the money invested as \"\"found\"\" money later on, unless you have paid off all your debt. (This part is the most difficult for most people so be very cautious and conscious if you decide to go this route!) At any rate, congratulations on making so much progress paying off your debt! Keep it going.\"",
"You're focusing on the wrong thing here. You should be paying off debt, not borrowing. Thus your credit score is of almost no relevance. There is no lasting effect from credit utilization, one cycle after you have everything paid off it's going to have the same credit score no matter what order you pay them off in. I would look at which of the first three has the highest interest rate and pay it off first. You can pay any of them off in one month so whichever you pick you get one card down to $0 and restore it's grace period. After that, sort them by interest rate.",
"\"From a purely financial standpoint (psychology aside) the choice between paying off debt and investing on risky investments boils down to a comparison of risk and reward. Yes, on average the stock market has risen an average of 10% (give or take) per year, but the yearly returns on the S&P 500 have ranged from a high of 37.6% in 1995 to a low of -37% in 2008. So there's a good chance that your investment in index funds will get a better return than the guaranteed return of paying off the loan, but it's not certain, and you might end up much worse. You could even calculate a rough probability of coming out better with some reasonable assumptions (e.g. if you assume that returns are normally distributed, which historically they're not), but your chances are probably around 30% that you'll end up worse off in one year (your odds are better the longer your investment horizon is). If you can tolerate (meaning you have both the desire and the ability to take) that risk, then you might come out ahead. The non-financial factors, however - the psychology of debt, the drain on discretionary cash flow, etc. cannot be dismissed as \"\"irrational\"\". Paying off debt feels good. Yes, finance purists disagree with Dave Ramsey and his approaches, but you cannot deny the problems that debt causes millions of households (both consumer debt and student loan debt as well). If that makes them mindless \"\"minions\"\" because they follow a plan that worked for them then so be it. (disclosure - I am a listener and a fan but don't agree 100% with him)\"",
"I see some merit in the other answers, which are all based on the snowball method. However, I would like to present an alternative approach which would be the optimal way in case you have perfect self-control. (Given your amount of debt, most likely you currently do not have perfect self-control, but we will come to that.) The first step is to think about what the minimum amount of emergency funds are that you need and to compare this number with your credit card limit. If your limits are such that your credit cards can still cover potential emergency expenses, use all of the 4000$ to repay the debt on the loan with the higher interest rate. Some answer wrote that Others may disagree as it is more efficient to pay down the 26%er. However, if you pay it all of within the year the difference only comes to $260. This is bad advice because you will probably not pay back the loan within one year. Where would you miraculously obtain 20 000$ for that? Thus, paying back the higher interest loan will save you more money than just 260$. Next, follow @Chris 's advice and refinance your debt under a lower rate. This is much more impactful than choosing the right loan to repay. Make sure to consult with different banks to get the best rate. Reducing your interest rate has utmost priority! From your accumulated debt we can probably infer that you do not have perfect self-control and will be able to minimize your spending/maximize your debt repayments. Thus, you need to incentivize yourself to follow such behavior. A powerful way to do this is to have a family member or very close friend monitor your purchase and saving behavior. If you cannot control yourself, someone else must. It should rather be a a person you trust than the banks you owe money.",
"You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses). Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive. You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses. Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment. Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach. Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach. Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both. You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K. Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy.",
"Put yourself in this position - if you had no debts and no investments, would you borrow money at those rates to invest in the stock market? If no, then pay off the debts. If yes, then keep them.",
"It's definitely NOT a good idea to pay off one of the smaller loans in your case - a $4k payment split across all the loans would be better than repaying the 5% / $4k loan completely, as it's the most beneficial of your loans and thus is last priority for repayment. A payment that splits across all the loans equally is, in effect, a partial repayment on a loan with an interest rate of 6.82% (weighed average rate of all your loans). It's not as good as repaying a 7% loan, but almost as good. It might be an option to save up until you can repay one of your 7% loans, but it depends - if it takes a lot of time, then you would've paid unneccessary interest during that time.",
"If you can get a rate of savings that is higher than your debt, you save. If you can't then you pay off your debt. That makes the most of the money you have. Also to think about: what are you goals? Do you want to own a home, start a family, further your education, move to a new town? All of these you would need to save up for. If you can do these large transactions in cash you will be better off. If it were me I would do what I think is a parroting of Dave Ramsay's advice Congratulations by the way. It isn't easy to do what you have accomplished and you will lead a simpler life if you don't have to worry about money everyday.",
"\"Very good Ben, in a more simplistic form: If debt was about math only, we would not have payday lenders, 21% + credit cards, or sub-prime car loans. Yet these things are prevalent. Debt reduction is often about behavior modification. As such small wins are necessary to keep going much like a 12 step program; or, gamification as Ben pointed out. The funny thing is that if a person becomes and stays intense on a debt reduction program, interest rate \"\"inefficiency\"\" is dwarfed by extra income or increased austerity.\"",
"It does make sense to combine debts and pay off the worst (highest interest rate). However, if you can't get any loan, you should focus on the worst debt and pay that off. Then take the same amount of money you were paying to the next worse debt, and so on until you're clean. Let's look at an example. Debt A is at 5%, Debt B is at 10% and Debt C is at 15%. You are paying AB and C. On a monthly basis, you save 100€ to pay off C. Once C is payed off, you keep on saving 100€ and add whatever you were paying to Debt C to those savings. This way, you can pay off Debt B at an increased rate. When B is cleared, you save 100€ + whatever you were paying to Debt B and Debt C to clear Debt A. That's the theory.",
"It has to do with return. I don't know if Canada has a matching feature on retirement accounts, but in the US many companies will match the first X% you put in. So for me, my first $5000 or so is matched 100%. I'll take that match over paying down any debt. Beyond that, of course it's a simple matter of rate of return. Why save in the bank at 2% when you owe at 10-18%? One can make this as simple or convoluted as they like. My mortgage is a tax deduction so my 5% mortgage costs me 3.6%. I've continued to invest rather than pay the mortgage too early, as my retirement account is with pre-tax dollars. So $72 will put $100 in that account. Even in this last decade, bad as it was, I got more than 3.6% return.",
"In my opinion, it generally makes sense to focus all of your debt-reduction energy and funds on one loan at a time. There are two reasons for this: It will allow you to more quickly move from 4 loans to 3 loans, and then 2, and then 1, providing you with a sense of progress and motivation. As you reduce the number of loans that you have, your monthly minimum payment obligations will be reduced. Then, if you have a month with an emergency expense, you will have more income available to you for your emergency without getting behind on your loans. There is debate about whether to pay loans in order of the loan balance or in order of interest rate (you can read about this here and here), but in your case, your highest interest loans also have the lowest balance, so either method would have you picking the same loans first. You have already chosen, wisely, to start with the $1500, 6.8% loans. Send all of your $1000 to one of these loans, and continue to work aggressively to knock out all four as quickly as possible.",
"The only real consideration I would give to paying off the debt as slowly as possible is if inflation were much higher than it is now. If you had a nice medium to low interest (fixed rate) loan, like yours, and then inflation spiked to 7-8%, for example, then you're better off not paying it now because it's effectively making you money (and then when inflation calms back down, you pay it off with your gains). However, with a fairly successful and active Federal Reserve being careful to avoid inflation spikes, it seems unlikely that will occur during your time owing this debt - and certainly isn't anywhere near that point now. Make sure you're saving some money not for the return but for the safety net (put it in something very safe), and otherwise pay off your debt.",
"\"Your companies are declining to lower your rates because you are describing it as being kind. When I was in a similar situation, I called each one, starting with the highest rate, and said this: For the last little while things have been tight and my balances have crept up on all my cards. Now I'm about to start a fairly dramatic paydown. I'm going to be doing highest-rate fastest, which is you. Are you able to lower my rate so that you can continue to collect it? Some said no. Some said \"\"ask again when you've paid more than the minimum three months in a row.\"\" Most said yes, and sometimes by a dramatic amount. It made a real difference to getting things under control. I agree with the other answers that $50 extra on each card is just not as fulfilling as putting all the extra to a single card. If you must still use a card (to put gas in your car, buy groceries etc) getting one card to zero will return you to not paying interest even when you use it, so you might want to start with your lowest balance and then go to highest-rate once you have one clear one you can use. (If your balances are all so high that it will take a year or more to get one to zero, then maybe not. But if one is low drive it down first.) As for the consolidation loan, for some people it's the key to saving interest and getting the debt behind them. For others it's a chance to catch their breath and run up even more debt. Most people cannot predict in advance which they will be or which others will be. Be aware that it is a risk. You can vow that you will never again cover payroll with a cash advance from the company credit card (or your personal one) but when push comes to shove, you just might anyway.\"",
"I would also consider the following factors: How stable is your income? Are you in an industry that could vanish in the near future? How long would it take you to replace this income? If you are at risk, then you need to consider that your lenders do not care how fast you've paid down your debt. All the care about is that you make next month's payment. You need to have liquid reserves available to weather any storm. (current wisdom is 3-6 months expenses). It may be prudent to put this money in GICs or T-bills. There may be an early withdrawal penalty, but at least you won't lose your house. (obviously, this isn't as important when you can actually retire all debt) What's your debt level? If it's more than 3x income, then reducing that number might be the most prudent. On another note, what is your expected retirement income? IRAs defer the tax to a later year. BUT, if you expect a great pension, it is feasible that you might be in a higher tax bracket on retirement (when you withdraw the funds) than you are now -- A situation that makes Indexed Retirement planning counterproductive. (Rich people don't buy IRAs)",
"The answer will vary person to person and situation to situation. But the basic concept to always consider is this: What interest rate am I paying on my debt? 10%? 18%? And what interest rate am I making on my savings/investment, etc? 3%? 7%? It won't give you a hard and fast answer, but will definitely let you know if you should take a closer look at it. I'd suggest talking to a financial planner about it. Find a fee-based planner that you can turn to intermittently to make sure you are on the right track...not a commission-based planner, a fee-based one. (with respectful apologies to any commission-based planners who may read this.) My instinct is usually to pay off the debt, try to clean everything up so you don't have anything outstanding that is charging you interest. Debt is clutter, it's stressful, it can be a reminder of money you wish you hadn't spent. As long as you have access to money in case of emergency, job loss, etc, get your debt paid off and keep it paid off. You'll sleep much better.",
"Depends upon the debt cost. Assuming it is consumer debt or credit card debt, it is better to pay that off first, it is the best investment you can make. Let's say it is credit card debt. If you pay 18% interst and have for example a $1,000 amount. If you pay it off you save $180 in interest ($1,000 times 18%). You would have to earn 18% on 1,000 to generate $180 if it was in aninvestment. Here is a link discussing ways of reducing debt Once you have debt paid off you have the cashflow to begin building wealth. The key is in the cashflow.",
"It isn't always clear cut that you should pay off a debt at all, particularly a mortgage. In simple terms, if you are making a better return than what the bank is charging you, and the investment meets your risk criteria, then you should not pay back the debt. In the UK for example, mortgage rates are currently quite low. Around 2.5 - 3% is typical at the moment. On the other hand, you might reasonably expect a long run average return of around 9 - 11% on property (3 - 5% rental yield, and the rest on capital gains). To make the decision properly you need take into account the following:",
"So, in general, pay to the higher interest rate. Some contrived reasons you would want to pay your auto loan more could be:",
"Without knowing your credit situation or your full budget it's a little difficult, but i'd go with the snowball method for now: It may seem like not a big deal to have this kind of debt but you really should be looking at it as if your walking around with your hair on fire. It's a HUGE emergency. Debt, especially looming CC debt with high rates, can make things worse (think water on grease fire) really quickly so the faster you get rid of it the better. Good luck!",
"Pay off your car loan. Here is why: As you mentioned, the interest on your home mortgage is tax deductible. This may not completely offset the difference in interest between your two loans, but it makes them much closer. Once your car debt is gone, you have eliminated a payment from your life. Now, here's the trick: take the money that you had been paying on your car debt, and set it aside for your next car. When the time comes to replace your car, you'll be able to pay cash for your car, which has several advantages.",
"\"There is no magic formula to this, quite simply: earn, cut expenses, and pay. It sounds like you can use a little bit of help in the earning area. While it sounds like you are career focused (which is great) what else can you do to earn? Can you start a low cost of entry side business? Examples would include tutoring, consulting, or even baby sitting. Can you work a part time job that is outside of your career field (waiter, gas station, etc...)? One thing that will help greatly is a written budget each and every month. Have a plan on where to spend your money. Then as you pay off a loan throw that money at the next one. No matter if you use the smallest loan first or highest interest rate first method if you do that your debt payments will \"\"snowball\"\", and you will gain momentum. I'd encourage you to keep good records and do projections. Keeping good records will give you hope when you begin to feel discouraged (it happens to just about everyone). Doing projections will give you goals to meet and then exceed. The wife and I had a lot of success using the cash envelope system and found that we almost always had money left over at the end of the pay cycle. For us that money went to pay off more debt. Do you contribute to a 401K? I'd cut that to at least the match, and if you want to get crazy cut it to zero. The main thing to know is that you can do it. I'd encourage you to pay off all your loans not just the high interests ones.\"",
"I know your question is about your credit score, but practically speaking, you should pay of the debt with the highest interest rate first. Doing do will save you money, which is the same net effect as making more money. Your time frame to pay it all off is short (you said 6 month), but just in case it takes longer, take care of the expensive debt first.",
"It is one thing to take the advice of some numb-skulls on a web site, it is another thing to take the advice of someone who is really wealthy. For myself, I enjoy a very low interest rate (less than 3%) and am aggressively paying down my mortgage. One night I was contemplating slowing that down, and even the possibility of borrowing more to purchase another rental property. I went to bed and picked up Kevin O'Leary's book(Cold Hard Truth On Men, Women, and Money: 50 Common Money Mistakes and How to Fix Them), which I happened to be reading at the time. The first line I read, went something like: The best investment anyone can make is to pay off their mortgage early. He then did some math with the assumption that the person was making a 3% mortgage payment. Any conflicting advice has to be weighted against what Mr. O'Leary has accomplished in his life. Mark Cuban also has a similar view on debt. From what I heard, 70% of the Forbes richest list would claim that getting out of debt is a critical step to wealth building. My plan is to do that, pay off my home in about 33 (September '16) more weeks and see where I can go from there.",
"Pay the debt down. Any kind of debt equals risk. No debt equals no risk and a better chance to have that money earn you income down the road once it's invested. That and you will sleep so much better knowing you have ZERO debt. You 6 month emergency fund is probably good. Remember to keep it at 6 months living expenses (restaurants don't count as living expenses).",
"As others mentioned, the only clear reason to remain in debt is if you can find an investment that yields more than what you're paying to maintain the debt. This can happen if a debt was established during low-rate period and you're in a high-rate period (not what is happening now.) A speculative reason to keep debt is as an inflation bet. If you believe money will shortly lose value, you are better off postponing repayment until the drop occurs. However you're not likely to be able to make these bets successfully. Hope this helps",
"I think sometimes this is simply ignorance. If my marginal tax rate is 25%, then I can either pay tax deductible interest of $10K or pay income tax of $2.5K. I think most americans don't realize that paying $10K of tax deductible interest (think mortgage) only saves them $2.5K in taxes. In other words, I'd be $7.5K ahead if I didn't have the debt, but did pay higher taxes.",
"You are on the right path. Especially for the fact that you are paying the highest rate card with highest priority. As long as your credit score will not stop you from getting the credit union loan, this is a great idea. It will turn the highest rate card(s) into something more reasonable and let you continue to attack principal instead of mostly paying interest.",
"The chances are good that the interest you are going to pay on the debt is going to be higher than the interest you are going to receive on any type of short term investments. That would make the paying off of the debt worth more to you in the long run than saving your money. Note that without the particulars of your situation this is all just theory crafting so consult the details of you loan agreements. I cannot imagine that a credit provider did not discuss this with you before you put pen on paper.",
"The best approach depends on how much of an emergency fund you have. If you have no emergency fund Calculate how much you need in order to pay your expenses for 1 month and put at least that amount in a savings account. 3-6 months' worth of expenses is better. Put the remainder towards one credit card. If you have less than 3 months' worth of expenses in your emergency fund Deposit 1 additional month's worth of expenses into your savings account and apply the rest to one card. If you have an emergency fund that you're completely comfortable with Pay $8000 towards one card and $2000 towards the other one. Paying off one card fully gets rid of a bill that you have to think about each month, even if the two cards are otherwise identical.",
"Without knowledge of the special provisions of your loan contract, the one with the highest interest rate should be paid first. Or, if one's fixed payment is much larger than the other, and it is a burden, then it should be paid first, but refinancing may be an option. Socially speaking and possibly even economically since it could affect your reputation, it is probably best to either refinance the cosigned loan or pay that off as rapidly as possible. Economically speaking, I would recommend no prepayment since the asset that is leveraged is your mind which will last many decades, probably exceeding the term of the loan, but some caveats must be handled first: Many would disagree, but I finance the way I play poker: tight-aggressive.",
"I see two advantages to not paying student loan debt off more quickly: For #1, however, there are plenty of other ways to build credit and I don't see this as being worth the downsides of not paying off the debt more quickly. In fact, in the United States student loan debt cannot be written off if you go bankrupt. This is important to know and understand. I would generally advise you to pay down your student loans as quickly as you can reasonably do so.",
"If what you are paying in interest on the debt is a higher percentage than what your investments are returning, the best investment you can make is to pay off the debt. If you're lucky enough to be paying historically low rates (as I am on my mortgage) and getting good returns on the investments so the latter is the higher percentage, the balance goes the other way and you'd want to continue paying off the debt relatively slowly -- essentially treating it as a leveraged investment. If you aren't sure, paying off the debt should probably be the default prefrence.",
"I would pay the minimum amounts on all loans then pay off the $5,500 @ 7.25% (highest interest rate), then pay any remainder on the $2,000 @ 5.5%. Even though (1) and (3) are at the same rate, I would pay (3) off first as it is a smaller amount and thus can be paid off sooner - giving you less loans to concentrate on paying off .",
"With all due respect to The David, the $1000 is best put against 20%+ debt, no sitting in checking as part of some emergency fund. I'd agree with the decision to pay off the lower rate card. Why? Because we can do the math, and can see the cost in doing so. Low enough that other factors come in, namely, a freed up card. That card can function as the emergency one in the short term. Long term, once these high rate cards are paid off, you'll build your proper emergency fund, but the cost is too high right now. The $4000 is a nice start, but the most important thing is to get your budget under control. Only you can decide how much you can cut back, and go after this debt as if it were life or death.",
"\"I have never double-answered till now. This loan can't be taken out of context. By the way, how much is it? What rate? \"\"Debt bad.\"\" Really? Line the debt up. This is the highest debt you have. But, you work for a company that offers a generous match, i.e. the match to your 401(k). Now, it's a choice, pay off 6% debt or deposit that money to get an immediate 100% return. Your question has validity. In the end, we can tell you when to pay off the debt. After - The issue is that you are quoting a third party without having the discussion or ever being privy to it. In court, this is called 'hearsay.' The best we can do is offer both sides of the issue and priority for the payments. Welcome to Money.SE, nice first question.\"",
"If you have (other) high interest debt, say over 8%, pay it back first. Else, you are likely best off paying this loan back and getting the money working for you long term.",
"One other factor to consider is that Mortgage debt can be wiped out in a bankruptcy, but student loan debt can not. Financially it is simple math to figure out which one makes more sense to pay off based on the total expenditures on interest minus tax savings from deductible mortgage interest. However, in terms of risk it might be best to pay off the student loans first.",
"I think everyone else answered before you added the info about your car loan in your comment. While it makes sense to pay off loans with the highest interest rate first, keep in mind that in most cases you can deduct mortgage interest from your taxable income. So the after-tax rate of interest that you're paying on your 8.6% second mortgage will be less than your 7% car loan, assuming that your tax bracket is more than 18% (federal and state combined). If you plan to use your funds to pay down debt, definitely attack the car loan first.",
"\"Agree with Randy, if debt and debt reduction was all about math, nobody would be in debt. It is an emotional game. If you've taken care of the reasons you're in debt, changed your behaviors, then start focusing on the math of getting it done faster. Otherwise, if you don't have a handle on the behaviors that got you there, you're just going to get more rope to hang yourself with. I.e., makes sense to take a low-interest home equity loan to pay off high-interest credit card debt, but more likely than not, you'll just re-rack up the debt on the cards because you never fixed the behavior that put you into debt. Same thing here, if you opt not to contribute to \"\"pay off the cards\"\" without fixing the debt-accumulating behaviors, what you're going to do is stay in debt AND not provide for retirement. Take the match until you're certain you have your debt accumulation habits in check.\"",
"Your goal of wanting to eliminate your debts early is great. Generally, you can save more money by paying off loans with higher interest rates first. However, it sounds like you are excited about the idea of eliminating one of your car loans in two months. There is nothing wrong with that; it is good to be excited about eliminating debt. I like your plan. Pay off the $14.6k loan first, then apply the $635 monthly payment to the $19.4k loan. You'll have that loan paid off almost 3 years early. Perhaps you'll find some additional money to apply to it and get rid of it even earlier. After you've eliminated both car loans, save up that $1000/month for your next car. That will allow you to pay cash for it, which will allow you to negotiate the best price and save interest. 0% loans are not free money. Other answers will tell you to wait as long as possible to pay off your 0% loan, but I think there can be good reasons to eliminate smaller loans first, regardless of interest.",
"Having no debt should be the ultimate goal for every household, IMHO, but at what cost? As an example, I had some clients (before they started working with me) that had outstanding debt when they retired and were gung-ho to pay it off. They opted to take it out of their retirement accounts. They didn't set aside enough for taxes which was their first mistake. After a few years, they now have realized they should not have paid off everything as now they have other medical issues that have arisen and not enough in their retirement accounts to satisfy their monthly requirement.",
"Ponder this. Suppose that a reputable company or government were to come out and say hey, we are going to issue some 10 year bonds at 6.4%. Anyone interested in buying some? Assume that the company or government is financially solid and there is zero chance that they will go bankrupt. Think those bonds would sell? Would you be interested in buying such a bond? Well, I would wager that these bonds would sell like hotcakes, despite the fact that the long term stock market return beats it by a half percent. Heck, vanguard's junk bond fund is hot right now. It only yields 4.9% and those are junk bonds, not rock solid companies (see vanguard high yield corporate bond fund) Every time you make an extra principal payment on your student loan, you are effectively purchasing a investment with a rock solid, guaranteed 6.4% return for 10 years (or whatever time you have left on the loan if make no extra payments). On top of that, paying off a loan early builds your credit reputation, improves your monthly cash flow once the loan is paid, may increase your purchasing power for a house or car, and if nothing else, it frees you from being a slave to that debt payment every month. Edit Improved wording based on Ross's comment",
"\"I'll use similar logic to Dave Ramsey to answer this question because this is a popular question when we're talking about paying off any debt early. Also, consider this tweet and what it means for student loans - to you, they're debt, to the government, they're assets. If you had no debt at all and enough financial assets to cover the cost, would you borrow money at [interest rate] to obtain a degree? Put it in the housing way, if you paid off your home, would you pull out an equity loan/line for a purchase when you have enough money in savings? I can't answer the question for you or anyone else, as you can probably find many people who will see benefits to either. I can tell you two observations I've made about this question (it comes a lot with housing) over time. First, it tends to come up a lot when stocks are in a bubble to the point where people begin to consider borrowing from 0% interest rate credit cards to buy stocks (or float bills for a while). How quickly people forget what it feels (and looks like) when you see your financial assets drop 50-60%! It's not Wall Street that's greedy, it's most average investors. Second, people asking this question generally overlook the behavior behind the action; as Carnegie said, \"\"Concentration is the key to wealth\"\" and concentrating your financial energy on something, instead of throwing it all over the place, can simplify your life. This is one reason why lottery winners don't keep their winnings: their financial behavior was rotten before winning, and simply getting a lot of money seldom changes behavior. Even if you get paid a lot or little, that's irrelevant to success because success requires behavior and when you master the behavior everything else (like money, happiness, peace of mind, etc) follows.\"",
"\"But in the debt-payoff-first scenario, I'd be wiping out my debt in two years. It would take several more years if I were to just pay the minimums and put the extra money toward investing instead. Right. The idea is that in 2 years, you are likely to have more in the savings/stock account than you owe on the loan. But. The range of returns for X years has a smaller standard deviation the greater X is. e.g. any year has about a 1 in 3 chance of being negative. A 10 year period had a negative return (-1% CAGR) in the '00s recently, but the 15 year return even around that decade would have been successful. Jan 1 '96 - Dec 31 2010 returned 6.76% CAGR, Jan 1 2001 - Dec 31 2015 returned 4.96% CAGR. This tells you that the time frame is as important as your sleep factor. Your 2 years? I'd just kill the loans. A 10-15 year horizon? I'd ask how you \"\"feel\"\" about that debt. The cost of going after a potential higher return may not be worth the risk to many. For some, it's fine. I retired, with a mortgage still in place, but the money in my 401(k) that could have paid off the mortgage is now about twice the remaining balance. So I sleep like a baby. In the end, I'm a fan of investing for the long term vs paying off low rate debt, but it's a choice based on the individual.\"",
"If the savings rate is the same as the loan rate, mathematically it doesn't make any difference whether you pay down the loan more and save less or vice versa. However, if the loan rate is higher than the savings rate it's better to pay it down as fast as possible. The chart below compares paying down the loan and saving equally (the gradual scenario), versus paying down the loan quickly at 2 x $193 and then saving 2 x $193. The savings rate, for illustration, is 2%. Paying quickly pays down the loan completely by month 51. On the other hand, in the gradual scheme the loan can't be paid down (with the savings) until month 54, which then leaves 3 months less for saving. In conclusion, it's better to pay down the higher rate loan first. Practically speaking, it may be useful to have some savings available.",
"The other answers have offered some great advice, but here is an alternative that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm assuming that you have an adequately-sized emergency fund in savings, and that your cars are your only non-mortgage debt. Since you still have car debt, you probably don't have anything saved for buying a new car when your current cars are at the end-of-life. Consider paying off your car loans early, then begin saving for your next car. Having cash in the bank for a car is very freeing, and it changes your mindset when it comes time to purchase a car, as it is easy to waste a lot of money on something that depreciates rapidly when you aren't paying for it immediately. This approach might be counterintuitive if your car loan interest rate is less than your mortgage rate, but you will probably need another car before you need another house, and paying cash for a car is worth doing."
] |
[
"\"It is true that all else being equal, you will pay a lower amount of total interest by paying down your highest interest rate debts first. However, all else is not always equal. I'm going to try to come up with some reasons why it might be better in some circumstances to pay your debts in a different order. And I'll try to use as much math as possible. :) Let's say that your goal is to eliminate all of your debt as fast as possible. The faster you do this, the lower the total interest that you will pay. Now, let's consider the different methods that you could take to get there: You could pay the highest interest first, you could pay the lowest interest first, or you could pay something in the middle first. No matter which path you choose, the quicker you pay everything off, the lower total interest you will pay. In addition to that, the quicker you pay everything off, the difference in total interest paid between the most optimal method and the least optimal method will be less. To put this in mathematical notation: limt→0 Δ Interest(t) = 0 Given that, anything we can do to speed up the time it takes to get to \"\"debt free\"\" is to our advantage. When paying large amounts of debt as fast as possible, sacrifice is needed. And this means that psychology comes into play. I don't know about you, but for me, gamifying the system makes everything easier. (After all, gamification is what gets us to write answers here on SE.) One way to do this is to eliminate individual debts as quickly as possible. For example, let's say that I've got 10 debts. 5 of them are for $1k each. 3 of them are for $5k each, 1 is a $20k car loan, and 1 is a $100k mortgage. Each one has a monthly payment. Let's say that I've got $3k sitting in the bank that I want to use to kickstart my debt reduction. I could pay all $3k toward one of my larger loans, or I could immediately pay off 3 of my 10 loans. Ignore interest for the moment, and let's say that we are going to pay off the smallest loans first. When I eliminate these three loans, three of my monthly payments are also gone. Now let's say that with the money I was paying toward these eliminated debts, and some other money I was able to scrape together $500 a month that I want to use toward debt reduction. In four months, I've eliminated the last two $1k debts, and I'm down to 5 debts instead of 10. Achievement Unlocked! Instead of this strategy, I could have paid toward my largest interest rate. Let's say that was one of the $5k loans. I paid the $3k toward the bank to it, and because I still had all the monthly payments after that, I was only able to scrape together $400 a month extra toward debt reduction. In four months, I still have 10 debts. Now let's say that after these four months, I have a bad month, and some unexpected expenses come up. If I've eliminated 5 of my debts, my monthly payments are less, and I'll have an easier month then I would have had if I still had 10 monthly payments to deal with. Each time I eliminate a debt, the amount extra I have each month to tackle the remaining debts gets bigger. And if your goal is eliminating debt quickly, these early wins can really help motivate you on. It really feels like you are getting somewhere when your monthly bills go down. It also helps you with the debt free mindset. You start to see a future where you aren't sending payments to the banks each month. This method of paying your smaller debts first has been popularized in recent years by Dave Ramsey, and he calls it the debt snowball method. There might be other reasons why you would pick one debt over another to pay first. For example, let's say that one of your loans is with a bank that has terrible customer service. They don't send you bills on time, they process your payment late, their website stinks, they are a constant source of stress, and you are getting sick of them. That would be a great reason to pay that debt first, and never set foot in that bank again. In conclusion: If you have a constant amount of extra cash each month that you are going to use to reduce your debt, and this will never change, then, yes, you will save money over the long run by paying the highest interest debt first. However, if you are trying to eliminate your debt as fast as possible, and you are sacrificing in your budget, sending every extra penny you can scrape together toward debt reduction, the \"\"snowball\"\" method of knocking out the small debts first can help motivate you to continue to sacrifice toward your goal, and can also ease the cash flow situation in difficult months when you find yourself with less extra to send in.\"",
"\"Very good Ben, in a more simplistic form: If debt was about math only, we would not have payday lenders, 21% + credit cards, or sub-prime car loans. Yet these things are prevalent. Debt reduction is often about behavior modification. As such small wins are necessary to keep going much like a 12 step program; or, gamification as Ben pointed out. The funny thing is that if a person becomes and stays intense on a debt reduction program, interest rate \"\"inefficiency\"\" is dwarfed by extra income or increased austerity.\"",
"\"In some cases, it might be rational to pay low-interest debt first, because the consequences of defaulting on that debt are worse. Consider this simplified example. Suppose you have two debts: a low-interest mortgage, secured by your house, and a high-interest unsecured credit card debt, both of which are within a few years of being paid off. There is a chance that sometime between now and then, something will happen to disrupt your income (e.g. medical problems), and it won't be possible to make the payments on either loan. Defaulting on the credit card loan will result in a lower credit score and calls from collection agencies. Defaulting on the mortgage will result in the foreclosure or forced sale of your house, at best forcing you to move, and at worst leaving you homeless, at a time when you are also facing other (e.g. medical) problems. So you might rationally judge that losing your house is much worse than bad credit. Therefore, you might rationally conclude that it would be better to direct extra income toward paying down the mortgage, to increase the chances that, if and when an income disruption might occur, the mortgage would already be paid off. In other words, you shorten the window of time where income disruption results in foreclosure. You might decide that this increased security is worth the extra interest you will pay, compared to the strategy where you pay the high-interest loan first. This is a fairly special situation, but you asked \"\"Why might it be a good idea to do this?\"\", and I am just giving an example where it could rationally be considered a good idea. (Of course, in a real-life version of this example, there might be other options available, such as refinancing the mortgage. If you like, you could imagine a more extreme example where the lower-interest debt is owed to Joey Knuckles the loanshark, who will come and break your kneecaps if you miss a payment.)\"",
"TL/DR Yes, The David popularized the Debt Snowball. The method of paying low balance first. It's purely psychological. The reward or sense of accomplishment is a motivator to keep pushing to the next card. There's also the good feeling of following one you believe to be wise. The David is very charismatic, and speaks in a no-nonsense my way or the highway voice. History is riddled with religious leaders who offer advice which is followed without question. The good feeling, in theory, leads to a greater success rate. And really, it's easier to follow a plan that comes at a cost than to follow one that your guru takes issue with. In the end, when I produce a spreadsheet showing the cost difference, say $1000 over a 3 year period, the response is that it's worth the $1000 to actually succeed. My sole purpose is to simply point out the cost difference between the two methods. $100? Go with the one that makes you feel good. $2000? Just think about it first. If it's not clear, my issue is less with the fact that the low balance method is inferior and more with its proponents wishing to obfuscate the fact that the high interest method is not only valid but has some savings built in. When a woman called into The David's radio show and said her friend recommended the high rate first method, he dismissed it, and told her that low balance was the only way to go. The rest of this answer is tangent to the real issue, answered above. The battle reminds me of how people brag about getting a tax refund. With all due respect to the Tax Software people, the goal should be minimizing one's tax bill. Getting a high refund means you misplanned all year, and lent Uncle Sam money at zero interest(1). And yet you feel good about getting $3000 back in April. (Disclosure - when my father in law passed away, I took over my mother in law's finances. Her IRA RMD, and taxes. First year, I converted some money to Roth, and we had a $100 tax bill. Frowny face on mom. Since then, I have Schwab hold too much federal tax, and we always get about $100 back. This makes her happy, and I'll ignore the 27 cents lost interest.) (1) - I need to acknowledge that there are cases where the taxpayer has had zero dollars withheld, yet receives a 'tax refund.' The earned income tax credit (EITC) produces a refundable benefit, i.e. a payment that's not conditional on tax due. Obviously, those who benefit from this are not whom I am talking about. Also, in response to a comment below, the opportunity cost is not the sub-1% rate the bank would have paid you on the money had you held on to it. It's the 18% card you should be paying off. That $3000 refund likely cost over $400 in the interest paid over the prior year.",
"There are non-financial costs to having a debt: you need to remember to make monthly payments, perhaps keep track of changing interest rates, be aware of conditions of the debt, archive the related paperwork. Life is simpler with fewer debts, and that has value. Of course, if the difference in interest rate is large, then that is more important and the higher interest should be paid off first. But if the difference is only half a percentage point or so, you may decide that having fewer debts is in itself worth the bit of extra interest you pay.",
"If you have a debt that has very low interest now, but you are aware that it's not going to stay that way (0% introductory APR on a credit card, for example), it can make sense to pay that off before the higher rate kicks in.",
"I recently paid off a line of credit on an investment property that I own. I had some surplus cash and decided to pay off the line of credit rather than to make a principal payment on the primary mortgage with a higher interest rate. The interest rate on the line of credit was tiny and the balance was also pretty low. My reasoning was that by paying off the line of credit I would be done with that account and would have one less bill to pay each month, one less risk of something going wrong and a late payment hurting my credit, one less statement to reconcile each month, and one less bookkeeping core to manage. I could have grown my net worth by few couple of dollars each month had I kept the line of credit and made a principal payment on the primary loan. I judged that it wasn't worth the hassle and risks.",
"Another unmentioned reason: flexibility and liquidity. There is a fundamental difference between installment and revolving debt, such that it could be rational to pay revolving debt before an amortizing loan. Lets say you have 100K in cash, a 100K mortgage at 4% and 4 25K credit cards at maximum balance and a 0% promotional rate (at least for now). If you pay off the mortgage, you may not get liquidity if you need it. This path is not necessarily reversible. If you pay off the credit cards, you have 100K of credit available to you. You can reverse to the case of having 100K in cash, and 200K in debt.",
"I wouldn't advocate it, but one reason to pay a lower interest rate is if you have $990 on a $1000 limit credit card with 6% interest and $5000 on a $15k limit card at 10% interest. Having $500 to pay in a month and putting it on the lower interest would free up a greater percentage of credit on that card and could potentially help your credit rating I believe. I think having $1000 on 10 different credit cards w/ $15k limit reflects better than $10k on one $15k card, regardless of interest rates. Personally I think that's dumb b/c having the extra credit available is an opportunity to get into trouble a lot easier.",
"\"It may be the case that some of your debts have a flat regular fee in addition to the interest, which will go away when the debt is completely paid. For example, my mortgage has an approximately $400/year \"\"package fee\"\" as well as its (quite low) interest. When I finish paying the mortgage, I won't have to pay that fee anymore, so it is theoretically possible that spending extra money on paying off my mortgage would be better than spending it on paying off some other debt. I think it's unlikely that it would actually ever be my optimal move in practice, but the point is, there may be an advantage, financial or otherwise, to getting rid of a particular debt, other than merely removing the burden of interest. Those are special situations, though, and in the majority of cases, starting with the highest interest loan will be the right move.\"",
"Let's say I have two loans (say 2 car loans), and the high interest loan has a higher balance. Both have a monthly payment of, say, $500. My income fluctuates a lot, so occasionally I only have $750. I get hit with big fees those months, or maybe I just have to eat beans for those months. I come on some extra money. Maybe enough to get rid of the low interest small loan. Paying off the smaller loan frees up cash. I don't have to eat beans on the bad months.",
"\"There are a number of bona fide reasons to consider here. If there is a cost to discharging a security packet, or a mortgage, it may not be convenient if we are advanced in the repayment schedule. Early exit fees may apply, or the interest may be \"\"pre-determined\"\". As a rule of thumb, when we are talking about rates above 10% p.a. then arrangements should be short (bridging finance - keep it short and charge 'em heaps), and for personal arrangements, small.\"",
"This is a slightly different reason to any other answer I have seen here about irrationality and how being rationally aware of one's irrationality (in the future or in different circumstances) can lead you to make decisions which on the face of it seem wrong. First of all, why do people sometimes maintain balances on high-interest debt when they have savings? Standard advice on many money-management sites and forums is to withdraw the savings to pay down the debt. However, I think there is a problem with this. Suppose you have $5,000 in a savings account, and a $2,000 credit card balance. You are paying more interest on the credit card than you get from the savings account, and it seems that you should withdraw some money from the savings account, and pay off the cc. However, the difference between the two scenarios, other than the interest you lose by keeping the cc balance, is your motivation for saving. If you have a credit card balance of $2,000, you might be obliged to pay a minimum payment of $100 each month. If you have any extra money, you will be rewarded if you pay more in to the credit card, by seeing the balance go down and understanding that you will soon be free from receiving this awful bill each month. To maintain your savings goal, it's enough to agree with yourself that you won't do any new spending on the cc, or withdraw any savings. Now suppose that you decide to pay off the cc with the savings. There is now nothing 'forcing' you to save $100 each month. When you get to the end of the month, you have to motivate yourself that you will be adding spare cash to your $3,000 savings balance, rather than that you 'have to' pay down your cc. Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend.",
"One reason to not do that is if you consider that one of the loans is at risk of being called in early. e.g. You have a line of credit which is close to its limit, and the bank decides to reduce that limit, forcing you to quickly come up with the money to pay it down below the new limit, which can really throw a wrench into your plans.",
"\"If the balance on the low rate loan is very high (say, an IBR student loan at 6% that accumulates interest every year), and the balance on the high rate loan (say, a CC at 18%) is comparatively very small, then you'd want to make sure that you've at least \"\"stopped the bleeding\"\" on the high balance loan before starting to pay off the CC.\""
] |
1824
|
Is there a way to open a U.S. bank account for my LLC remotely?
|
[
"244808"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"244808",
"43716",
"344928",
"239572",
"205719",
"142561",
"310103",
"496015",
"275846",
"311358",
"295822",
"545990",
"131483",
"547301",
"463222",
"582551",
"251063",
"161221",
"372909",
"357938",
"298638",
"1873",
"295250",
"281045",
"431230",
"288145",
"20283",
"122449",
"80609",
"508754",
"158169",
"574711",
"226568",
"514687",
"364378",
"327199",
"452983",
"71338",
"248624",
"192332",
"484535",
"258611",
"564475",
"579313",
"101748",
"395782",
"163831",
"48840",
"346134",
"338096",
"334606",
"468049",
"401454",
"300705",
"485949",
"264075",
"459967",
"154988",
"510485",
"295624",
"73663",
"328517",
"152027",
"237514",
"334902",
"573498",
"35079",
"464449",
"417455",
"294359",
"321581",
"72375",
"405996",
"377357",
"340857",
"361978",
"276060",
"360973",
"589123",
"261856",
"330476",
"384192",
"197870",
"583519",
"43217",
"155531",
"30996",
"585899",
"442989",
"40044",
"269146",
"287540",
"348480",
"233561",
"143568",
"410543",
"158079",
"326833",
"450036",
"28578"
] |
[
"\"Yes, it is possible. Although there may be red tape for a business account, Alliant Credit Union offers completely online signup and their representatives are reachable by email. You'll probably need to send in the LLC articles this way http://www.alliantcu.com/checking-accounts.html (as pointed out by @littleadv this site defaults to \"\"personal checking\"\" accounts, there is a business checking tab which doesn't generate a direct link, some might miss that) And even if there are a ton of regulations that some pencil pushers at larger banks anecdotally cite (without citing), there will be enough banks that don't care. Good Luck\"",
"\"We use Cater Allen for our business banking (recommended/introduced by our accountants so we've saved the standard \"\"minimum funds per month\"\" limit) which was set up all remotely - our accountants sent us the forms (which you can get from Cater Allen's site), we photocopied the identity documents (driving licence etc) and sent them off. Within a couple of weeks we had the account open. Cater Allen hasn't got any physical branches, so that's \"\"one way\"\" of working around the \"\"come into a branch\"\" solution - pick a bank without branches! Girobank (which became Alliance and Leicester Business Banking and then became part of Santander) used to allow all account creations remotely - but that was back in the 90s and I've got no idea if Santander still do. Since you've setup an Ltd company, you are probably looking for an accountant too (even if it just to do your year end or payroll) - ask them for their recommendations.\"",
"\"Wyoming is a good state for this. It is inexpensive and annual compliance is minimal. Although Delaware has the best advertising campaign, so people know about it, the reality is that there are over 50 states/jurisdictions in the United States with their own competitive incorporation laws to attract investment (as well as their own legislative bodies that change those laws), so you just have to read the laws to find a state that is favorable for you. What I mean is that whatever Delaware does to get in the news about its easy business laws, has been mimicked and done even better by other states by this point in time. And regarding Delaware's Chancery Court, all other states in the union can also lean on Delaware case law, so this perk is not unique to Delaware. Wyoming is cheaper than Delaware for nominal presence in the United States, requires less information then Delaware, and is also tax free. A \"\"registered agent\"\" can get you set up and you can find one to help you with the address dilemma. This should only cost $99 - $200 over the state fees. An LLC does not need to have an address in the United States, but many registered agents will let you use their address, just ask. Many kinds of businesses still require a bank account for domestic and global trade. Many don't require any financial intermediary any more to receive payments. But if you do need this, then opening a bank account in the United States will be more difficult. Again, the registered agent or lawyer can get a Tax Identification Number for you from the IRS, and this will be necessary to open a US bank account. But it is more likely that you will need an employee or nominee director in the United States to go in person to a bank and open an account. This person needs to be mentioned in the Operating Agreement or other official form on the incorporation documents. They will simply walk into a bank with your articles of incorporation and operating agreement showing that they are authorized to act on behalf of the entity and open a bank account. They then resign, and this is a private document between the LLC and the employee. But you will be able to receive and accept payments and access the global financial system now. A lot of multinational entities set up subsidiaries in a number of countries this way.\"",
"It is possible, i've contacted different banks, and only one bank (Wells Fargo) didn't say that they need all members in person, but gave me a form which my colleague filled to authorize me to open an account.",
"First, yes, your LLC has to file annual taxes to the US government. All US companies do, regardless of where their owners live. Second, you will also probably be liable to personally file a return in the US and unless the US has a tax treaty with India (which I don't believe it does) you may end up paying taxes on your same income to both countries. Finally, opening a US bank account as a foreign citizen can be very tricky. You need to talk to a US accountant who is familiar with Indian & US laws.",
"yes you can open bank account you should have a address in us and personally visit bank to deposite $1500 only to get you a debit card.you are required to maintain min balance of $1500 only. I have done it",
"\"It's generally not possible to open a business account in the UK remotely. It's even difficult (near impossible) for a non-resident (even if a citizen) to open a business or personal bank account while visiting the UK. A recent report says that it may be possible to open an account via Barclays Offshore in the Isle of Man. This requires a large deposit, and probably lots of paperwork and fees (most offshore locations have stricter \"\"know your customer\"\" rules than major countries). Note that while the Isle of Man is inside the UK banking system (for sort codes, account numbers), it is a separate territory that doesn't have the same deposit guarantees as the UK. There is no legal reason why a UK company has to bank within the UK banking system, although many companies paying the company would expect it or require it, and an account in anything other than sterling would complicate the accounts. It could have an account in your home country. It's not even a legal requirement that the company has an account in its own name at all. Some people use a (separate) personal account for this purpose. There are plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea (for example it's unclear who/what owns the money in the account, and can give the appearance of director's loans), but it's a work-around. Most inbound electronic payments only require a sort code and account number, the account owner name is not checked. The UK does have a much simpler and cheaper company registry than most European countries, but the near-impossibility of opening a bank account for a business in the UK as a non-resident has made it an unsuitable place to register a small international company.\"",
"Opening Bank Account in US without physically being present is difficult. I'm having number of clients in USA to pay for my work, but I’m really confused to get money from my clients to my saving bank account. You can get money via PayPal or if they are repeat customers, ask them to send via remittance services like Money2India or Remit2India etc.",
"You can open an account in US without having SSN. You need to be physically present to open the account.",
"See this website. In my opinion you should physically exist there to open your account.The bank needs to fulfill all requirements such as checking your identity, taking your signatures for future transactions etc. However, there might be some exceptions as Banking industry works pretty much on personal relations and money power. Also check these links: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=722141 http://askville.amazon.com/open-bank-account-abroad/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7004217 and http://www.talkgold.com/forum/r18761-.html",
"Stripe Atlas helps with this. They form US companies for foreign solo entrepreneurs and get them US bank accounts. Another thing to remember with banks though, it doesn't matter what the compliance documents say, money talks. So your troubles will more likely stem from the amount of money you need to put in banks, more so than what the rules are.",
"I have just established a limited company (three directors spread around the UK) and I am in the process of setting up a business account. We will be able to arrange everything over the phone and each of us will have to appear in one of the branches with original documents: passport, bank statement. We are EU citizens and have UK bank accounts for over 5 years. That would probably be a problem for you. But still, you can try to call around and see if you can find a company to help you. You can also setup an account on one of the online currency exchange websites and then provide your customers with the website's bank account details with appropriate reference. You would have to check the legal side of this solution.",
"The LLC will not be liable for anything, it is disregarded for tax purposes. If you're doing any work while in the US, or you (or your spouse) are a green card holder or a US citizen - then you (not the LLC) may be liable, may be required to file, pay, etc. Unless you're employing someone, or have more than one member in your LLC, you do not need an EIN. Re the bank - whatever you want. If you want you can open an account in an American bank. If you don't - don't. Who cares?",
"\"Like you said, it's important to keep your personal assets and company assets completely separate to maintain the liability protection of the LLC. I'd recommend getting the business bank account right from the beginning. My wife formed an LLC last year (also as a pass-through sole proprietorship for tax purposes), and we were able to get a small business checking account from Savings Institute and Trust that has no fees (at least for the relatively low quantity of transactions we'll be doing). We wrote it a personal check for startup capital, and since then, the LLC has paid all of its own bills out of its checking account (with associated debit card). Getting the account opened took less than an hour of sitting at the bank. Without knowing exactly where you are in Kentucky, I note that Googling \"\"kentucky small business checking\"\" and visiting a few banks' web sites provided several promising options for no-fee business checking.\"",
"Royal Bank in Canada can open an account for you in the US through RBC (the US affiliate to Royal Bank of Canada) I think it's called RBC Access USA.",
"You cannot open an account in USA unless you have an address to provide to the bank in USA, You need ID, such as US Driver's License.",
"There are several major US banks including Bank of America, citi and Banco Popular that will open an account for people without a SSN. Most will require an in branch visit to open the account. As some one else mentioned American Express will open accounts in other countries based on an existing relationship or at least they used to.",
"Many enterprise owners inside the United States select to form their enterprise as a Delaware LLC because of the felony advantages from the state’s predictable enterprise friendly legal guidelines. Delaware LLC formation is easy, too — there's no need to visit the kingdom and minimal data is needed to form your LLC in Delaware. The method may be accomplished online; IncNow can assist shape a Delaware LLC in your enterprise in just five mins. You can form an LLC in Delaware without visiting, opening an office, or maintaining a bank account in Delaware.",
"\"What exactly would the financial institution need to see to make them comfortable with these regulations The LLC Operating Agreement. The OA should specify the member's allocation of equity, assets, income and loss, and of course - managerial powers and signature authorities. In your case - it should say that the LLC is single-member entity and the single member has all the managerial powers and authorities - what is called \"\"member-managed\"\". Every LLC is required to have an operating agreement, although you don't necessarily have to file it with the State or record it. If you don't have your own OA, default rules will apply, depending on your State law. However, the bank will probably not take you as a customer without an explicit OA.\"",
"From my experience, I opened a business account to handle my LLC which owns a rental property. The account process and features were similar to shopping for a personal checking account. There would be fees for falling below a minimum balance, and for wanting a paper statement. In my case, keeping $2000 avoids the fee, and I pull the statements online and save the PDFs. Once open for a certain amount of time, you might be able to get credit extended based on the money that flows through that account. The online access is similar to my personal checking, as is the sending of payments electronically.",
"Your sister-in-law should know that anybody, US citizen or not, can open a US bank account. She should do that and then pay her 20k fee to the company. I'm a Canadian citizen and I have a US bank account and I don't even live nor work in the United States. I only use it when I travel for leisure and order online. This looks like a scam, but if you know well your sister-in-law, it may not be.",
"\"I expect the company wanted to pay you for a product (on a purchase order) rather than as a contract laborer. Whatever. Would they be willing to re-issue the check to you as a sole proprietor of a business named ABC Consulting (or anything like that)? You can register your sole proprietor business with the state using a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA, or fictitious name), and then open the bank account for your business using the check provided by the customer as the first deposit. (There is likely a smaller registration fee for the DBA.) If they won't re-issue the check and you have to go the LLC route... Scrounge up $125 doing odd jobs or borrowing from a friend or parents. Seriously, anyone can earn that amount of money in a week or two. Besides the filing fee for the LLC, your bank may require you to provide an Operating Agreement (which is not required by the State). The Operating Agreement can be simple, or more complex if you have a partner (even if it's a spouse). If you do have a partner, it is essential to have such an agreement because it would specify the responsibilities and benefits allocated to each partner, particularly in the event of equity distributions (taking money out of the business, or liquidating and ending the LLC). There are websites that will provide you a boilerplate form for Operating Agreements. But if your business is anything more than just single member LLC, you should pay an attorney to draw one up for you so the wording is right. It's a safeguard against potential future lawsuits. And, while we're at it, don't forget to obtain a EIN (equivalent to a SSN) from the IRS for your LLC. There's no cost, but you'll have to have it to file taxes as a business for every year the LLC exists and has income. Good luck!\"",
"set up a US company (WY is cheap and easy), go south and open a personal and business bank account, ask for the itin form. file for the itin. set up your EIN for the company. get a credit card for both. pay some mail forwarding service with it. file for taxes in the next year using your itin. prepaid cards do not link to your tax id",
"\"The answer is, unfortunately, along the lines of \"\"it depends\"\". It does depend a little on the bank - I've had a US bank account for years before moving to the US, and I didn't have an SSN or any status when I opened the account. What I did have however was an address in the US that they could send the statements to, and proof that I was living abroad (oh, and US citizen wife that had an account with the same bank). Not all banks will open a bank account for a foreigner with no status in the US, but it is generally possible. You will have to check with several banks and basically have paperwork showing your foreign address and proof of id (passport, possibly a drivers license as well).\"",
"You don't need a Visa to create or own US property. Your registered agent will be able to take care of most of this, and your new entity will use the registered agent's address where applicable, but you may need your own separate address which can be your office in the UK. If you want privacy then you'll want a separate address, which can also be a PO Box or an address the registered agent also provides. US corporations, especially in Delaware, have a lot more compliance issues than the LLC product. Delaware has a lot more costs for formation and annual reports than most other united states. There are definitely a lot of states to choose from, but more people will have information for Delaware.",
"*Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. *Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations.",
"As an Indian resident you can open an Resident Foreign Currency Account, i.e. an USD account. This facility is provided by all major banks. I am not sure if PayPal would transfer money to these accounts or would convert. The alternative is to give this account number along with other Bank details to the company in US and ask them to send money via remittance services.",
"There are a few company they can help you open an offshore account. I searched and found rtrsupportslimited.com on another discussion forum. It is a company which does the exact same thing. I got my own company incorporation and bank account from them.",
"Can you get a bank account in the US? Yes. Can you get a bank account with a specific bank in the US? That depends on the bank. There's more paperwork involved, and not all banks offer the service. I would guess that the big retail banks (US Bank, Bank of America, JP Morgan / Chase, et al) are most likely to, but they are also the ones with the worst reputations for customer service.",
"\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"",
"Speaking from experience, yes (this was 9 years ago though and may have changed due to stricter laws). I lived in London and was moving to NYC and wanted to have a functioning bank account upon arrival. I banked in London with HSBC and asked them if they could set me up. They connected me with the right people in the US and after many forms I had a fully functional US bank account with a foreign address and without having a social security number - and I was (am) just your average person. You will most likely not be able to get a credit card through them because of lack of credit history (unless you are ridiculously rich or go for a secured credit card), but a debit card should be possible.* My advice is to talk to your local bank and see if they can help you, although it will help if they operate in the US. Good luck! *I have heard from various expats that American Express may be willing to issue cards in the states based on their existing relation with clients in other countries, but I digress. If you have an Amex in Switzerland or Sweden I would recommend talking to them.",
"It can be done, but I believe it would be impractical for most people - i.e., it would likely be cheaper to fly to Europe from other side of the world to handle it in person if you can. It also depends on where you live. You should take a look if there are any branches or subsidiaries of foreign banks in your country - the large multinational banks most likely can open you an account in their sister-bank in another country for, say, a couple hundred euro in fees.",
"\"It is unusual to need a consultant to open a bank account for you, and I would also be concerned that perhaps the consultant could take the money and do nothing, or continue to demand various sums of money for \"\"expenses\"\" like permits, licenses, identity check, etc. until you give up. Some of the more accepted ways to open a bank account are: A: Call up an established bank and follow their instructions to open a personal account . Make sure you are calling on a real bank, one that has been around a while. Hints: has permanent locations, in the local phone book, and has shares traded on a national stock exchange. Call the bank directly, don't use a number given to you by a 3rd party consultant, as it may be a trick... Discuss on the phone and find out if you can open an account by mail or if you need to visit in person. B: Create a company or branch office in the foreign country, assuming this is for business or investing. and open an account by appointing someone (like a lawyer or accountant or similar professional) in the foreign country to represent the company to open an account in person. If you are a US citizen, you will want to ask your CPA/accountant/tax lawyer about the TD F 90-22.1 Foreign Account Bank Report form, and the FATCA Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. There can be very large fines for not making the required reports. The requirements to open a bank account have become more strict in many countries, so don't be surprised if they will not open an account for a foreigner with no local address, if that is your situation.\"",
"If you have an SSN and foreign passport - it's all you need to open account, so just open it and order a checkbook. It will take some time before they will issue it but most probably they'll give you some checks to use till that very moment. So basically you should: Also I strongly suggest you to open two accounts - one would be for you and one for rent exclusively. The thing is that check could be cashed any time and it's pretty annoying exercise to keep that in mind.",
"As an LLC you are required to have a separate bank account (so you can't have one account and mix personal and business finances together as you could if you were a sole trader) - but there's no requirement for it to be a business bank account. However, the terms and conditions of most high street bank personal current accounts specifically exclude business banking, so unless you could find one that would allow it, you'd have to open a business bank account.",
"Are you talking about domicile? An LLC is treated differently than a corporation in the terms of citizenship of the law. An LLC is a citizen of whichever state it's members (shareholders) are citizens. I would recommend you just spend the money on a business attorney to ensure that all the t's are crossed correctly so it doesn't end up costing you more later on.",
"With the recent drive in AML [Anti Money Laundering], quite a few countries being signatories; the central banks in almost all countries[that matter] have put in stronger KYC guidelines. This means you will not be able to remotely open a Bank Account in Thailand. More info at below links http://www.bangkokbank.com/BANGKOKBANK/PERSONALBANKING/SPECIALSERVICES/FOREIGNCUSTOMERS/Pages/Openinganaccountnew.aspx http://www.samuifinder.com/en/koh-samui-info/money-in-thailand/bank-account-thailand/",
"I am from India. I visited US 6-8 times on business VISA and then started 2 Member LLC. Myself and My wife as LLC Members. We provide Online Training to american students from India. Also Got EIN number. Never employed any one. Do i need to pay taxes? Students from USA pays online by Paypal and i am paying taxes in India. Do i need to pay Taxes in US? DO i need to file the Tax returns? Please guide me. I formed LLC in 2010. I opened an Office-taken Virtual office for 75 USD per month to open LLC in 2010. As there is physical virtual address, am i liable for US taxes? All my earning is Online, free lancing.",
"\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\"",
"\"Since as you say, an LLC is a pass-through entity, you will be making income in the U.S. when you sell to U.S. customers. And so you will need to file the appropriate personal tax forms in the US. As well as potentially in one or more States. The US government does not register LLCs. The various States do. So you'll be dealing with Oregon, Wisconsin, Wyoming, one of those for the LLC registration. You will also need to have a registered agent in the State. That is a big deal since the entire point of forming an LLC is to add a liability shield. You would lose the liability shield by not maintaining the business formalities. Generally nations aim to tax income made in their nation, and many decline to tax income that you've already paid taxes on in another nation. A key exception: If money is taxed by the U.S. it may also be taxed by one of the States. Two States won't tax the same dollar. Registering an LLC in one State does not mean you'll pay state taxes there. Generally States tax income made in their State. It's common to have a Wyoming LLC that never pays a penny of tax in Wyoming. Officially, an LLC doing business in a State it did not form in, must register in that State as a \"\"foreign LLC\"\" even though it's still in the USA. The fee is usually the same as for a domestic LLC. \"\"Doing business\"\" means something more than incidental sales, it means having a presence specifically in the State somehow. It gets complicated quick. If you are thinking of working in someone's app ecosystem like the Apple Store, Google Play, Steam etc. Obviously they want their developers coding, not wrestling with legalities, so some of them make a priority out of clearing and simplifying legal nuisances for you. Find out what they do for you.\"",
"Opening account in foreign bank is possible, but you must have strong proofs you use it for legitimate purposes. More chances to get an account if you visit Europe and able to stay, for example, for a week, to visit bank in person and wait for all the checks and approvals. Also keep in mind that there will be deposit/withdraw limits and fees applicable, that are significantly stricter and larger for non-EU citizen. In my opinion, if your amounts are not large, it might not worth it. If amounts are large, you might consider business account rather than personal, as is the example of strong proof I meant.",
"The cost will be around $300-$500 if you do it correctly it in Florida and can be over a $1,000 if you do it in New York (New York is more expensive due to a publication requirement that New York has for LLC’s). The price ranges I’ve given include filing, state fees, getting a tax ID number (EIN), operating agreement, membership certificates, registered agent fees and publication fees if done in New York. Each state also have licensing boards and city fees that are applicable, so you would want to also make sure that you are keeping compliant there. Yearly paperwork to keep the LLC running won’t be so expensive, expect the state to charge a yearly fee and require some basic information to be submitted. I had a quick look at Florida, and with someone filing it for you, expect around $200 to $250 a year, plus registered agent fees. If you are late in Florida the penalty is $400 so you definitely would want a service that provides compliance calendar notifications to make sure you are on time with fees. In regards to bookkeeping and taxes, yearly tax filing will start at $250 to $500 for an LLC and move up from there depending on the services being offered and the amount of time of work. I recently referred someone to an accountant that will charge $250 to file an almost zero tax return on an LLC. I think $40 an hour is a little low for a bookkeeper but it all depends on where you are. I know in some major cities bookkeepers expect $75 an hour or higher. So the expectation in Miami and Manhattan will probably be more expensive than Jacksonville and Albany. If you doing a little business don’t expect the cost to be too much on the bookkeeping. So, breakdown: $300-$500 (FL) - $1,000 (NY) Registration of LLC + any business license, city or other registrations $250 Yearly Fee + Yearly Registered Agent + any business licenses, city or other fee $500 Tax Return + Bookkeeping Fee Banks will charge more than a personal account so expect $120 a year plus. In regards to service I would look at companies that specialize in foreigners setting up businesses in the US, because they will have services designed to help you more than services that primarily specialize with US clients. You are going to have some different needs, based on not having a Social Security Number or establishing from overseas.",
"\"You can file an LLC yourself in most states, although it might be helpful to use a service if you're not sure what to do to ensure it is correct. I filed my LLC here in Colorado online with the Secretary of State's office, which provided the fill-in-the-blank forms and made it easy. In the U.S., taxation of an LLC is \"\"pass-through\"\", meaning the LLC itself does not have any tax liability. Taxes are based on what you take out of the LLC as distributions to yourself, so you pay personal income tax on that. There are many good books on how to form and then operate an LLC, and I personally like NoLo (link to their web site) because they cater to novices. As for hiring people in India, I can't speak to that, so hopefully someone else can answer that specific topic. As for what you need to know about how to run it, I'll refer back to the NoLo books and web site.\"",
"In addition to the other answers, Harris Bank (now owned by BMO) allows Canadians living in Canada to open accounts, perhaps they consider other countries as well. They have excellent customer service.",
"I don't think there is a legal requirement that you need a separate bank account. Just remember that you can only take money from your LLC as salary (paying tax), as dividend (paying tax), or as a loan (which you need to repay, including and especially if the LLC goes bankrupt). So make very sure that your books are in order.",
"They will not open an account if you come in wanting to open an account for a third party. Your sister will have to do it herself. Assuming she has a SSN and credit history to verify her identity, she'll easily be able to do it online, and use whatever address she wants to send mail to (she can have separate mailing and residence addresses). There are also Israeli institutions who provide investment accounts to Israelis with ability to trade in the US. That might be easier for her than having an account in the US and filing tax returns in Israel every year. Unless she evades taxes in Israel, that is...",
"HSBC will open you an account in the UK while you are still in the US. You can transfer your money before you leave the US. Your credit report and cards can also be transferred with HSBC, I think they have a mastercard. You can keep all your accounts in the US, and use online banking.",
"You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says. You will not without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements.",
"Your bank doesn't care about your immigration status, it cares about your tax status. You're a US tax resident and will open a US-resident account, not an international account (regardless of where the money comes from).",
"\"If you intend to do business \"\"outside the country\"\", why establish an LLC \"\"here\"\" at all? You should establish a business in your home country if you desire business organization for sequestering liabilities or something. With or without a business organization, you will presumably be taxed for domestic income \"\"there\"\", wherever that is.\"",
"Generally speaking, most banks will require all of the signers on the account to be present. However, and this is the big however, the signers do not necessarily need to be the same people as the members. You could have one of the members be the sole signer. You could have an outside accountant be the signer. Etc. Regardless of who your signers are (ie, even if they are the same as the members) you will absolutely need a resolution from the members giving the signers authority to be signers. So, for instance, if you personally will be present but the other member won't be, you will both need to sign the resolution appointing you as the signer.",
"I realize this is a stale topic, but to anybody who may swing by looking for an answer to this question (on the recently revised W-8BEN), a foreign taxpayer can get an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) without being resident in the US. However, an ITIN will often not be necessary for W-8BEN purposes if you have a tax number from your local jurisdiction. Check the Form W-8BEN instructions for your specific situation, but some taxpayers will need neither a US-issued ITIN nor a foreign-issued TIN. Forming a Delaware or Nevada LLC would be expensive and generally subject to federal and state tax and filing obligations. It would also moot the need for a W-8BEN, which only applies to foreign taxpayers; the equivalent form for domestic taxpayers is Form W-9.",
"\"I'm pretty sure that the banks here will only allow a joint account with either all citizens or all \"\"foreign resident\"\" or tourists. You may be able to do something with Leumi since they have a US branch in NYC. What many people do (who are US citizens) is open a bank account either at a physical branch or online and then it can be managed all online. Make sure no monthly balance fees or atm fees etc. If you need to transfer money most banks will \"\"buy\"\" a US check (I have done this with Leumi) or you can go to the ATM and pull out a few thousand shekel from the USA account and deposit it right back into the Israeli account. My wife and I did this when we first arrived. Discount Bank seemed to have no fees for pulling money out and a good USD/ILS rate. Just make sure you don't have foreign transaction fees / high rates on the US account. If you need to deposit checks for him you can use the remote deposit feature and just take a picture. בהצלחה!\"",
"Yes you can. I'm a foreigner who uses a tourist visa to enter America and Bank of America opened a checking account for me. I had to go into the branch with my passport and a driving license and it was opened with $100. You do need to give a US address so statements can be sent out but that's about it.",
"The LLC portion is completely irrelevant. Don't know why you want it. You can create a joint/partnership trading account without the additional complexity of having LLC. What liability are you trying to limit here? Her sisters will file tax returns in the us using the form 1040NR, and only reporting the dividends they received, everything else will be taxed by Vietnam. You'll have to investigate how to file tax returns there as well. That said, you'll need about $500,000 each to invest in the regional centers. So you're talking about 1.5 million of US dollars at least. From a couple of $14K gifts to $1.5M just by trading? I don't see how this is feasible.",
"How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.",
"If you only need to buy stuff online you could consider using paypal perhaps? If you really need an bank account, you could also look at an offshore bank account, HSBC has accounts in multiple currencies, but you will need to be eligible (have a ton of money and provide some documentation).",
"Someone I know had an idea to open a savings account as an LLC or corporation to receive better interest rates on savings, and set up a system where anyone can pool money in and receive a larger cut through savings interest than with a personal account. Is this legal/feasible in any way?",
"Depending what country you are from, there may be better alternatives to transfer money internationally. Opening a bank account is complicated, costs money, and international bank transfers are remarkably expensive.",
"This is an older question but I thought I'd give the correct response for anyone else that might look. Yes there definitely could be issues. You can form in friendly states such as Delaware and Nevada without having a physical location in the state but you can't run a business from another state without having to 'qualify' to do business in that State. To give a bit more clarification. Lets say you open a Delaware LLC. But you answer the phone when it rings on your New York phone and money comes into your New York bank account and your suppliers and vendors all use your New York address to send invoices and correspondence. Well you can pretty much count that you fall into the definition of doing business in New York and expected to pay New York taxes and qualify to do business in the state. The solution would be to set up your business to truly 'operate' from the state you would rather be in.",
"Anyone who has that kind of money to blow probably has a CPA with a power of attorney who could provide such a service. I don't have that kind of money but I do have a CPA with a POA who would gladly charge me and arm and a leg to deliver money to me.",
"Doing business in united state is not so much easy many time business owner wants to do their business by choosing Delaware llc Online incorporation so that they can able to get many legel benefits and also able to get the state predictable business friendly laws. As forming the Delaware llc is very much easy and it also requires minimal information for forming the llc in the Delaware.",
"It seems that you're complicating things quite a bit. Why would you not create a business entity, open one or more bank accounts for it, and then have the money wired into those accounts? If you plan on being a company then set up the appropriate structure for it. In the U.S., you can form an S-corporation or an LLC and choose pass-through taxation so that all you pay is income tax on what you receive from the business as personal income. The business itself would not have tax liability in such a case. Co-mingling your personal banking with that of your business could create real tax headaches for you if you aren't careful, so it's not worth the trouble or risk.",
"\"There are very few circumstances where forming an out of state entity is beneficial, but a website is within these circumstances in certain instances. Businesses with no physical operations do not need to care what jurisdiction they are registered in: your home state, a better united state or non-united state. The \"\"limited liability\"\" does it's job. If you are storing inventory or purchasing offices to compliment your online business, you need to register in the state those are located in. An online business is an example of a business with no physical presence. All states want you to register your LLC in the state that you live in, but this is where you need to read that state's laws. What are the consequences of not registering? There might be none, there might be many. In New York, for example, there are no consequences for not registering (and registering in new york - especially the city - is likely the most expensive in the USA). If your LLC needs to represent itself in court, New York provides retroactive foreign registrations and business licenses. So basically, despite saying that you need to pay over $1000 to form your LLC \"\"or else\"\", the reality is that you get the local limited liability protection in courts whenever you actually need it. Check your local state laws, but more times than not it is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut, the representative is always going to say \"\"yes, you do\"\" while the law, and associated case law, reveals that you don't. The federal government doesn't care what state your form an LLC or partnership in. Banks don't care what state you form an LLC or partnership in. The United States post office doesn't care. Making an app? The Apple iTunes store doesn't care. So that covers all the applicable authorities you need to consider. Now just go with the cheapest. In the US alone there are 50 states and several territories, all with their own fee structures, so you just have to do your research. Despite conflicting with another answer, Wyoming is still relevant, because it is cheap and has a mature system and laws around business entity formation. http://www.incorp.com has agents in every state, but there are registered agents everywhere, you can even call the Secretary of State in each state for a list of registered agents. Get an employer ID number yourself after the business entity is formed, it takes less than 5 minutes. All of this is also contingent on how your LLC or partnership distributes funds. If your LLC is not acting like a pass through entity to you and your partner,but instead holding its own profits like a corporation, then again none of this matters. You need to form it within the state you live and do foreign registrations in states where it has any physical presence, as it has becomes its own tax person in those states. This is relevant because you said you were trying to do something with a friend.\"",
"There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.",
"You need a proof of address and also they ask you for a letter from employer. But usually you dont need any of that... there are always correct answers to all the questions, but you still need an address where they will send you your papers along with debit card etc. So need to rent a place or have some mail forwarding service would help. Here is what people usually do in London: Go to a branch of lets say Lloyds TSB that is not in the center of London, use some far away branch, Like Morden or so. Say that you arrived a month/week ago and looking for a job.(not laborer) Say that need your account to send money from abroad to support your living during the Job search. hand in your passport and your account will be ready the same day, while you can wait for your card 1week. Your pin number for the card +2/3days Hope that helps.",
"Each country will have different rules. I can only speak about the Netherlands. There, there are two options as a resident to open an account. You needed a BSN (Dutch ID number) or a strong reference from an international company sponsoring your residence there at a bank branch that dealt frequently with foreign customers. It was not possible to open an account as a nonresident although high wealth customers probably get special treatment. Recent US reporting requirements have made European banks very unwilling to deal with US people. I have received a letter from my Dutch bank saying they will continue my current products but not offer me anything new. If I call the bank, the normal staff cannot see anything about my accounts. I need to call a special international department even for mundane questions.",
"If you can make the trip to BC yourself, I'd recommend opening an account with TD Canada Trust. They allow non-citizens to make accounts — apparently the only Canadian bank to do so. The customer service is great and they have a good online banking site that will allow you to manage it from the US. If you have an account with TD Bank in the US, it's also very easy to set up a TD Canada account through them that will be linked on their online site (though you will still have separate logins for both and manage them separately). I've done the reverse as a Canadian living in the US. You can set it up over the phone; their Cross-Border Banking number is listed here. They also offer better currency conversion rates than their standard ones when you do a cross-border transfer. You could also look into HSBC as well. They operate in Washington as well as across the border in BC. If you can't open a CAD account locally, they can help you open and manage one in Canada from the US. It may or may not require having a small business account instead of a personal account.",
"Many European countires allow you to an account for non-residents. You have to appear in the bank personally to open it, some of them even to get your own tax number for non-residents from the local government. I'm not sure if you get a Visa (Electron) chip card immediatelly or you have to wait for like 3 months before being issued one. I've heard that getting a tax number for non-residents and opening a bank account is easily done in one day in Brezice, Republic of Slovenia. They seem to have agile local bureaucracy and banks, since many pople from neighbouring (non-EU) countries (used to) come there to open an EU bank account. Funds can be transfered via Internet banking - US banks have that, do they? SWIFT and IBAN codes are used for international money transfer. But it takes some time (days!) for it to arrive to destination. Tansfers below $20000 per month or per transaction are considered normal, but for amouts above that the destination bank might ask you to explain the purpose, to prove it is not illegal. Some of them accept the explanaiton in writing (they forward it to the regulator that tracks such large transfers), some of them ask you to appear there in person for an interview and to sign a statement. Can't believe US banks are still issuing paing magnet stripe cards like it's still 1980s. I'd expect Europe to be 10 years behind USA in technology, but this seems to be a weird reverse. I've beed using Internet banking with one-time passwd tokens and TAN lists for almost 10 years, and chip cards exclusivley for over 5y. Can't remeber the last time I've seen mag stripe card only. American Express (event the regular green one) got the chip at least 5 years ago. And it is accepted regularly in Europe. Alegedly it's more popular in Europe (although Mastercard is a definite #1, with Visa close to that) that in USA.",
"\"I think you will find it hard to do. There are money laundering regulations which require you to provide proof of address when opening an account. I don't know for certain if they require an UK address, but even if they don't, it's very likely that individual banks etc will require that. I doubt that they will view you as a profitable customer for them, since you would not be using the account as your \"\"main\"\" account. Although having a job isn't a legal requirement, in practice I think it's the only way you can get an account without having been resident in the country for a while. My company employs a significant number of people from abroad and they typically need support from the company to open an account when they first move. One thing you could investigate is opening an account with some international bank with branches both in Hungary and the UK, and asking them to arrange the UK account for you. One example of such a bank is HSBC. However such banks will typically charge you a significant amount for the privilege - for example with HSBC you need a \"\"premier account\"\" to get this kind of service.\"",
"\"If \"\"Bank of America\"\" is truly a hard-and-fast requirement, the best solution is to go to a branch and see what they can do. If they turn you down, it likely can't be done.\"",
"\"I think your best bet here would be HSBC. They will provide the required currencies, credit/debit cards, and very easy to use online banking transfers. This includes an online \"\"Global Account View\"\" which features all of your accounts on a single screen and allows you to \"\"drag and drop\"\" money between accounts. Regarding fees, I suspect you will need to be a \"\"Premier Account\"\" holder in order to avoid any fees imposed on transactions such as money transfers and exchanging money between currencies. In my experience HSBC offers extremely good exchange rates when exchanging \"\"large\"\" amounts of money ( greater than $10,000 / GBP 5,000 ). Exchanging small amounts will carry a larger spread but still much better than most banks offer. In my experience, exchanging GBP 5000 will have a spread of about 0.50-to-0.75 percent, while exchanging more than GBP10,000 will have a spread of as little as 0.10-to-0.20 percent. In order to qualify for a \"\"Premier Account\"\", if my memory of HSBC UK serves me correctly, you will need to have at least GBP 50,000 net across all of your HSBC managed accounts, including stockbroking and other investment accounts. In order to open a banking Swiss account, you will need to travel to Switzerland and apply in person. You cannot open a foreign bank account remotely. With a foreign investment account, I believe you can open accounts remotely. For example, I opened an account with Fidelity Switzerland using my Fidelity UK account directly from the UK, however obviously Fidelity does not provide banking services so this is not of interest to you. The simplest thing to do is to visit your local HSBC branch and discuss it with them in person. Other UK banks, such as Barclays, will also provide such services, but in my experience they are not as competitive on fees.\"",
"I have always assumed that there is a regulation that either prohibits, or makes noncompetitive, internet bank business accounts. All of the 1%+ savings accounts offered at the banks listed are internet only. If you broaden the search to include other internet only banks like Capital One 360, American Express Savings, Goldman Sachs Savings, Discover Savings, you'll find they all also only offer accounts to individuals (some may allow a trust to own the account) not businesses.",
"\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"",
"Well first off, I would advice you to do this research yourself. You should not base your selection off someone's opinion such as mines. With that being said, these are some factors I suggest you consider and research before talking to an offshore bank account: Now, when opening an offshore account most offshore banks do not require you to be present at all. You can open an account simply by calling them or filling out their application online. However, be prepared to provide them with some information to verify who you are and the nature of your business such as a notarized passport along with other various forms of information that they may require. Just think of what your local bank requires is generally what they will ask as well. Here is a compiled list of offshore bank accounts to consider: These banks overall have a range between $0 - $1 million (domestic currency) minimum deposits. Most of them ranging from $1000-$5000. It all depends on the type of account, the nature of the account, and the business associated with the account.",
"I know that there are a lot service on the internet helping to form an LLC online with a fee around $49. Is it neccessarry to pay them to have an LLC or I can do that myself? No, you can do it yourself. The $49 is for your convenience, but there's nothing they can do that you wouldn't be able to do on your own. What I need to know and what I need to do before forming an LLC? You need to know that LLC is a legal structure that is designed to provide legal protections. As such, it is prudent to talk to a legal adviser, i.e.: a Virginia-licensed attorney. Is it possible if I hire some employees who living in India? Is the salary for my employees a expense? Do I need to claim this expense? This, I guess, is entirely unrelated to your questions about LLC. Yes, it is possible. The salary you pay your employees is your expense. You need to claim it, otherwise you'd be inflating your earnings which in certain circumstances may constitute fraud. What I need to do to protect my company? For physical protection, you'd probably hire a security guard. If you're talking about legal protections, then again - talk to a lawyer. What can I do to reduce taxes? Vote for a politician that promises to reduce taxes. Most of them never deliver though. Otherwise you can do what everyone else is doing - tax planning. That is - plan ahead your expenses, time your invoices and utilize tax deferral programs etc. Talk to your tax adviser, who should be a EA or a CPA licensed in Virginia. What I need to know after forming an LLC? You'll need to learn what are the filing requirements in your State (annual reports, tax reports, business taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc). Most are the same for same proprietors and LLCs, so you probably will not be adding to much extra red-tape. Your attorney and tax adviser will help you with this, but you can also research yourself on the Virginia department of corporations/State department (whichever deals with LLCs).",
"\"Do you know anyone in the US, still? If so, ask them to close it for you. $2.38 is well within the \"\"if anybody I knew asked me to I would\"\" range, and probably is for anyone you know well. Offer to send them money via a wire transfer (or Western Union or whatever), but odds are if it's a friend or coworker they won't care about $2.\"",
"Go to the states on vacation. Get a virtual (or friend's) address. Get an ITIN from the IRS. Open a bank account. Get a secured credit card on your next trip from Capital One – add as much money as you can afford. One year later, you should have a decent credit score.",
"\"As you said, in the US LLC is (usually, unless you elect otherwise) not a separate tax entity. As such, the question \"\"Does a US LLC owned by a non-resident alien have to pay US taxes\"\" has no meaning. A US LLC, regardless of who owns it, doesn't pay US income taxes. States are different. Some States do tax LLCs (for example, California), so if you intend to operate in such a State - you need to verify that the extra tax the LLC would pay on top of your personal tax is worth it for you. As I mentioned in the comment, you need to check your decision making very carefully. LLC you create in the US may or may not be recognized as a separate legal/tax entity in your home country. So while you neither gain nor lose anything in the US (since the LLC is transparent tax wise), you may get hit by extra taxes at home if they see the LLC as a non-transparent corporate entity. Also, keep in mind that the liability protection by the LLC usually doesn't cover your own misdeeds. So if you sell products of your own work, the LLC may end up being completely worthless and will only add complexity to your business. I suggest you check all these with a reputable attorney. Not one whose business is to set up LLCs, these are going to tell you anything you want to hear as long as you hire them to do their thing. Talk to one who will not benefit from your decision either way and can provide an unbiased advice.\"",
"Banks has to complete KYC. In case you want to open a bank account, most will ask for proof of address. I also feel it is difficult for bank to encash a cheque payable to a business in your account. Opening a bank account in the name of your business or alternatively obtaining a cheque payable to your personal name seems the only alternatives to me.",
"The LLC can be formed within just 24 hrs from the time of submitting of the form. It mainly includes all the business presence packages which is very much important for doing Incorporating your business so that the business can able to setup and startup very easily and quickly. It also help in protecting the assests and other liabilities that are the part of the Delaware llc.",
"Technically, it's only when you need to pass money through. However consider that the length the account has been open builds history with the financial institution, so I'd open ASAP. Longer history with the bank can help with getting approved for things like business credit lines, business cards, and other perks, though if you're not making money with that business, seek out a bank that does not charge money to have a business account open with them.",
"The best way is for X to work as Independent consultant fro c.com from India by raising monthly invoices for the work done. This will avoid the complications and paperwork associated by registering a LLC in US by XF and then employing X as independent consultant in India. X may need to fill out W8-BEN forms so that there is no withholding in US Edit: Independent consultant means without having to register any legal entity either in India or in US. There are no legal regulations in US or in India to hire an independent contractor / consultant. There maybe internal policy of C.com not to have independent consultants. Payments can be made via transfer to Bank account.",
"Is it really necessary? If $800 / year registration fee is too much to you, an LLC is apparently not something you need right now. Many people conduct web-based business online on personal terms. My suggestion is that you focus on your business first and try to grow it as much as you can before you get down to a company.",
"There's no requirement of US citizenship to open a bank account in the US. Any person, citizen or not, can do that. I don't know where this assumption of yours come from, but it is false. So the easiest solution is to open a bank account for your nephew next time he visits the US and get him an ATM card from that account. You can then deposit money to that account as much as you want (beware of the gift tax consequences). If he doesn't want to travel to the US and cannot open a US bank account remotely from Russia (which is probably the case), then follow the @BrenBarn's suggestion: have him open a bank account in Russia and just wire money there. Having a foreigner tapping freely into your own personal bank account may cause legal issues both with regards to gift tax and money laundering provisions that require you to certify that the money on the account is yours only. Also, check if there's an issue for a Russian resident to have control over foreign accounts (there's definitely such an issue for a US resident, Russians are generally not far behind when it comes to government oppression).",
"LLC in NJ. You are awesome my friend. I have the LLC started. Im just getting the low voltage waiver and deciding on the payment system but this seems to work. I can just simply print them out the invoice. I gotta check with Amazon but this was extremely helpful.",
"There are no legal restrictions on doing this. If you're living in the UK, just open an account like any other resident of the UK would.",
"In this case not only that you must register in California (either as domestic, or as foreign if you decided to form elsewhere), you'll also be on the hook for back-taxes if you didn't do it from the start. FTB is notorious for going after out-of-state LLCs that Californians open in other States trying to avoid the $800 fee.",
"Many business owners in the USA choose to form their business as a Delaware LLC due to the legal benefits from the state’s predictable Incorporating your business. Delaware LLC incorporation is easy, too — there is no required to visit the state and minimal information is required. Delaware LLC, for example, does not have yearly conferences and minutes, yet other types of development do. You must follow appropriate techniques to employ workers, and this will require filling out the documentation to obtain a company recognition number.",
"You may also want to consider Delaware and Nevada as possible corporate homes. They are common choices for out of state corporations. You may find that they are better options. Will earnings prior to forming the LLC have to be claimed as self-employment income? If so, would it be easier to wait until the next calendar year to form the LLC? Earnings after forming the Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) will probably have to be claimed as self-employment income. See How LLC Members Are Taxed for more discussion. In particular, read the section on self-employment taxes: The current rule is that any owner who works in or helps manage the business must pay this tax on his or her distributive share (rightful share of profits). However, owners who are not active in the LLC -- that is, those who have merely invested money but don't provide services or make management decisions for the LLC -- may be exempt from paying self-employment taxes on their share of profits. The regulations in this area are a bit complicated, but if you actively manage or work in your LLC, you can expect to pay self-employment tax on all LLC profits allocated to you. As I read it, you actively work in the LLC, so it is unlikely that you can avoid paying self-employment taxes. So it shouldn't make any difference when you officially start an LLC. You'll have to pay self-employment taxes before and after creating the LLC regardless. If you don't want to pay self-employment taxes, you may want to consider forming a Subchapter C corporation. They don't have the same tax structure as Subchapter S corporations or LLCs. You would be paid some kind of wage, salary, or commission and the corporation would pay the employer's side of the payroll taxes. Note that Subchapter S corporations and LLCs exist because they usually pay less in tax than Subchapter C corporations do. Even including the self-employment taxes that you owe. A CPA should be able to guide you in making these decisions and help you with setup. The one time that I started a corporation, I just paid a few hundred dollars to a service and they filed the paperwork for me. That included state fees and notice costs. The CPA probably has a service association already.",
"No. But the scenario is unrealistic. No bank will give the LLC any loan unless the members personally co-sign to guarantee it. In which case, the members become personally liable in addition to the LLC.",
"I still have my bank account active in usa. Can my company legally deposit my salary in my bank account? Of course they can. Where they deposit is of no consequence (in the US, may be in India). It is who they deposit it for that matters. You need to file form W8 with the company, and they may end up withholding portion of that pay for IRS. You'll need to talk to a tax adviser in India about how to report the income back at home, and you may need to talk to a tax adviser in the US about what to do if the company does indeed remit withholding from your earnings.",
"\"Yes, you can create a PayPal business account without having formalized a business with government filings and whatnot. At its simplest terms, \"\"having a business\"\" is simply \"\"doing business as\"\" (D/B/A) a trade name. You can use the address of a Private Mail Box such as those provided at the UPS Store. Ask any kid with a lemonade stand or a box of Girl Scout cookies - you only need to engage in government formalities like registering an LLC or getting a tax EIN when you cross certain thresholds of activity, and paying for things is generally not it. Also, some of businesses, for some relationships, will require the business formalities like an EIN, which in turn will require creating a trade name and registering it with the state. For instance if you set up a traditional credit card merchant account, they'll probably want that.\"",
"Look for people who have done business with them. If you don't know anyone who has used their services, look for a company that at least has a brick and mortar branch in your area. Being able to deal with them face to face is a must. Have you checked with your local bank?",
"Incorporating your business The LLC can be formed within just 24 hrs from the time of submitting of the form. It mainly includes all the business presence packages which is very much important for doing Incorporating your business so that the business can able to setup and startup very easily and quickly. It also help in protecting the assests and other liabilities that are the part of the Delaware llc.",
"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.",
"Generally speaking, if you have significant revenue outside the US, then you're better off incorporating out of the US. The US has significantly higher corporate tax rates, and taxes on worldwide income not just revenue in the US. Setting up in an offshore country would have no corporate tax but would cost about $1000 a year in fees. For any non-US company, your US partner would need to file a 5471 form with his US personal tax which reports the company's finances. That costs about $1000 a year for an accountant to prepare. So you still need accounting on the company, even if you are not paying corporate tax. Setting up the company is reasonably easy, you just use a broker. The bank account may be more difficult but they can help with that too. You may find that your optimal personal tax strategy and your US partner's strategy are different. For example, if your partner is living overseas, then they are not taxed on salary in the US, but are taxed on dividends. So they would prefer to take any money out of the company as salary, resulting in no corporate profits. You, on the other hand, might prefer dividends.",
"The workaround that I use in a recent time is very simple, effective and it is spreading very quickly - Payoneer. What you will need is http://www.payoneer.com/USPService.aspx which will get you US bank account that you can link to your paypal account.",
"EDIT: This answer is outdated and is no longer valid due to that all new & existing accounts in Jersey must be owned by a resident from Guernsey or Jersey due to anti-tax-dodging laws. Link Open an offshore account in a Bank in Jersey. Mime is with lloydstsb-offshore.com. It will cost you £70 a year, but for that price you can get 3 accounts: one in $, one in £ and one in €. You can move money between the accounts without any cost and you can have a chip and pin card on both the Euro and the £ accounts. And there is no residency restrictions. Downsides: The anti laundering checks are annoying. Don't forget to tell the IRS about every single cent you get in interest and religiously pay your tax on it. The revenue service doesn't like people with off-shore accounts...",
"You can remotely close the account and transfer the money out to your account in home country. If you have netbanking you can also setup remittance service to your country"
] |
[
"\"Yes, it is possible. Although there may be red tape for a business account, Alliant Credit Union offers completely online signup and their representatives are reachable by email. You'll probably need to send in the LLC articles this way http://www.alliantcu.com/checking-accounts.html (as pointed out by @littleadv this site defaults to \"\"personal checking\"\" accounts, there is a business checking tab which doesn't generate a direct link, some might miss that) And even if there are a ton of regulations that some pencil pushers at larger banks anecdotally cite (without citing), there will be enough banks that don't care. Good Luck\""
] |
5808
|
How do you calculate return on investment for a share of stock?
|
[
"251824"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"251824",
"170652",
"573928",
"175107",
"438547",
"242849",
"204761",
"149211",
"368848",
"112342",
"478480",
"332567",
"215659",
"525094",
"542764",
"354857",
"129327",
"386309",
"521590",
"187583",
"180249",
"435096",
"476260",
"143302",
"219927",
"583913",
"88575",
"422467",
"533140",
"138487",
"158520",
"249360",
"559168",
"402466",
"336284",
"550642",
"501838",
"477426",
"466995",
"276860",
"35971",
"113623",
"597653",
"198606",
"563169",
"257722",
"69506",
"589234",
"408610",
"446948",
"535697",
"178519",
"60495",
"456667",
"532139",
"517637",
"403826",
"480515",
"531066",
"404840",
"445353",
"435722",
"556235",
"70657",
"223823",
"239137",
"42390",
"394715",
"580586",
"140769",
"95278",
"19613",
"197389",
"2810",
"248342",
"8003",
"469599",
"394961",
"171135",
"523303",
"459351",
"220025",
"245648",
"526681",
"51602",
"527519",
"215486",
"452479",
"563056",
"245117",
"565487",
"77963",
"205070",
"576136",
"350607",
"554734",
"272116",
"113457",
"11184",
"130695"
] |
[
"To figure this out, you need to know the price per share then vs the price per share now. Google Finance will show you historical prices. For GOOG, the closing price on January 5, 2015 was $513.87. The price on December 31, 2015 was $758.88. Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated with this formula: ROI = (Proceeds from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment Using this formula, your return on investment would be 47.7%. Since the time period was one year, this number is already an annualized return. If the time period was different than one year, you would normally convert it to an annualized rate of return in order to compare it to other investments.",
"\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"",
"( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago. Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2. That will give you total return over 12 months.",
"If you just want to know total return, either as dollars or a percentage, just add up the total amount spent on buys and compare this to current value plus money received on sales. In this case, you spent (310 x $3.15 + $19.95) + (277 x $3.54 + $19.95). So your total investment is ... calculator please ... $1996.98. You received 200 x $4.75 on the sale minus the $19.95 = $930.05. The present value of your remaining shares is 387 x $6.06 = $2345.22. So you have realized plus unrealized value of $2345.22 + $930.05 = $3275.27. Assuming I didn't mix up numbers or make an arithmetic mistake, your dollar gain is $3275.27 - $1996.98 = $1278.29, which comes to 1278.29 / 1996.98 = 64%. If you want to know percentage gain as an annual rate, we'd have to know buy and sell dates, and with multiple buys and sells the calculation gets messier.",
"There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital.",
"Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.",
"\"You can calculate the \"\"return on investment\"\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\"",
"Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.",
"What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.",
"This is called the gordon growth model (or dividend discount model). This is one way to value a stock, but in practice no one uses it because the assumptions are that companies will return value to investors solely via regular dividends, and that the growth rate and the required rate of return from investors are constants; among other issues.",
"Rate of return is (Current value - initial value) divided by initial value. Buy $10,000 worth of put options and sell them for $15,000, and your rate of return is 0.5, or 50%.",
"You simply add the dividend to the stock price when calculating its annual return. So for year one, instead of it would be",
"To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar",
"\"RoR for options you bought is fairly easy: (Current Value-Initial Cost)/Initial Cost gives you the actual return. If you want the rate of return, you need to annualize that number: You divide the return you got above by the number of days the investment was in place, and then multiply that number by the number of days in a year. (365 if you're using calendar days, about 255 if you're using trading days.) RoR for options you sold is much more complex: The problem is that RoR is basically calculating the size of your return relative to the capital it tied up to earn it. That's simple when you bought something; the capital tied up is the money you put up. It's more complex on a position like a short option, where the specific transaction in question generates cash when it's put on. The correct way to deal with this is to A) Bundle your strategy (options, stock and collateral) into one RoR where appropriate, and B) include any needed collateral to support the short option in the calculation. So, if you sell a \"\"cash-secured\"\" put, where you have to post the money that you'd need to take delivery of the shares if they were put to you, the initial cost is the total amount you'd need to put the trade on: in this case, it's the cash amount, less the premium you collected for selling the put. That's just one example. But the approach holds more broadly: if you're using covered calls, your original cost is the cost of the stock less the premium generated by the sale of the call.\"",
"\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\"",
"You could take these definitions from MSCI as an example of how to proceed. They calculate price indices (PR) and total return indices (including dividends). For performance benchmarks the net total return (NR) indices are usually the most relevant. In your example the gross total return (TR) is 25%. From the MSCI Index Defintions page :- The MSCI Price Indexes measure the price performance of markets without including dividends. On any given day, the price return of an index captures the sum of its constituents’ free float-weighted market capitalization returns. The MSCI Total Return Indexes measure the price performance of markets with the income from constituent dividend payments. The MSCI Daily Total Return (DTR) Methodology reinvests an index constituent’s dividends at the close of trading on the day the security is quoted ex-dividend (the ex-date). Two variants of MSCI Total Return Indices are calculated: With Gross Dividends: Gross total return indexes reinvest as much as possible of a company’s dividend distributions. The reinvested amount is equal to the total dividend amount distributed to persons residing in the country of the dividend-paying company. Gross total return indexes do not, however, include any tax credits. With Net Dividends: Net total return indexes reinvest dividends after the deduction of withholding taxes, using (for international indexes) a tax rate applicable to non-resident institutional investors who do not benefit from double taxation treaties.",
"Your example shows a 4% dividend. If we assume the stock continues to yield 4%, the math drops to something simple. Rule of 72 says your shares will double in 18 years. So in 18 years, 1000 shares will be 2000, at whatever price it's trading. Shares X (1.04)^N years = shares after N years. This is as good an oversimplification as any.",
"This answer contains three assumptions: New Share Price: Old Share Price * 1.0125 Quarterly Dividend: (New Share Price*0.01) * # of Shares in Previous Quarter Number of Shares: Shares from Previous Quarter + Quarterly Dividend/New Share Price For example, starting from right after Quarter One: New share price: $20 * 1.0125 = 20.25 1000 shares @ $20.25 a share yields $20.25 * 0.01 * 1000 = $202.5 dividend New shares: $202.5/20.25 = 10 shares Quarter Two: New share price: $20.503 1010 shares @ 20.503 yields $20.503*0.01*1010 = $207.082 dividend New shares: $207.082/20.503 = 10.1 shares Repeat over many cycles: 8 Quarters (2 years): 1061.52 shares @ $21.548 a share 20 Quarters (5 years): 1196.15 shares @ $25.012 a share 40 Quarters (10 years): 1459.53 shares @ $32.066 a share Graphically this looks like this: It's late enough someone may want to check my math ;). But I'd also assert that a 5% growth rate and a 4% dividend rate is pretty optimistic.",
"You probably want the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return which is the compound interest rate that would produce your return. You can compute it in a spreadsheet with XIRR(), I made an example: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvuTW2HtDQfYdEsxVlM0RFdrRk1QS1hoNURxZkVFN3c&hl=en You can also use a financial calculator, or there are probably lots of web-based calculators such as the ones people have mentioned.",
"\"Compounding is just the notion that the current period's growth (or loss) becomes the next period's principal. So, applied to stocks, your beginning value, plus growth (or loss) in value, plus any dividends, becomes the beginning value for the next period. Your value is compounded as you measure the performance of the investment over time. Dividends do not participate in the compounding unless you reinvest them. Compound interest is just the principle of compounding applied to an amount owed, either by you, or to you. You have a balance with which a certain percentage is calculated each period and is added to the balance. The new balance is used to calculate the next period's interest, which again adds to the balance, etc. Obviously, it's better to be on the receiving end of a compound interest calculation than on the paying end. Interest bearing investments, like bonds, pay simple interest. Like stock dividends, you would have to invest the interest in something else in order to get a compounding effect. When using a basic calculator tool for stocks, you would include the expected average annual growth rate plus the expected annual dividend rate as your \"\"interest\"\" rate. For bonds you would use the coupon rate plus the expected rate of return on whatever you put the interest into as the \"\"interest\"\" rate. Factoring in risk, you would just have to pick a different rate for a simple calculator, or use a more complex tool that allows for more variables over time. Believe it or not, this is where you would start seeing all that calculus homework pay off!\"",
"Is the following correct? The firm needs $20,000 for the investment. It borrows $6,000 @ 7%, and supplies $14,000 in equity. The interest expense on the borrowing is $420 ($6,000 times 7%). After one year, the firm receives $26,500 from its investment. Subtract $6,420 (return borrowings plus interest). The firm is left with $20,080. Divide by starting equity of $14,000. Subtract 1 from the ratio. **Levered return on equity is 43.4%.**",
"You are looking for the Internal Rate of Return. If you have a spreadsheet like Microsoft Excel you can simply put in a list of the transactions (every time money went in or out) and their dates, and the spreadsheet's XIRR function will calculate a percentage rate of return. Here's a simple example. Investment 1 was 100,000 which is now worth 104,930 so it's made about 5% per year. Investment 2 is much more complicated, money was going in and out, but the internal rate of return was 7% so money in that investment, on average, grew faster than money in the first investment.",
"\"This is the same answer as for your other question, but you can easily do this yourself: ( initial adjusted close / final adjusted close ) ^ ( 1 / ( # of years sampled) ) Note: \"\"# of years sampled\"\" can be a fraction, so the one week # of years sampled would be 1/52. Crazy to say, but yahoo finance is better at quick, easy, and free data. Just pick a security, go to historical prices, and use the \"\"adjusted close\"\". money.msn's best at presenting finances quick, easy, and cheap.\"",
"\"Total Return is the percent change in value (including andy dividends) of an instrument. The \"\"trailing 12-month\"\" means that your starting point is the value 12 months ago. So the formula is: where V is the value of the instrument on the reference date, V0 is the value of the instrument 12 months prior to the reference date, and D is the amount of dividends paid between the two dates.\"",
"You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).",
"\"Month to date For the month to date (MTD), the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 and the price on March 16th is $4.61 so the return is which can be written more simply as The position is 1000 shares valued at $4580 on Feb 28th, so the profit on the month to date is Calendar year to date For the calendar year to date (YTD), the price on Dec 31st is $4.60 and the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 so the return to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is 0.655022 % so the year to date return is or more directly So the 2011 YTD profit on 1000 shares valued at $4600 on Dec 31st is Year to date starting Dec 10th For the year to date starting Dec 10th, the starting value is and the value on Dec 31st is 1000 * $4.60 = $4600 so the return is $4600 / $4510 - 1 = 0.0199557 = 1.99557 % The year to date profit is therefore Note - YTD is often understood to mean calendar year to date. To cover all the bases state both, ie \"\"calendar YTD (2011)\"\" and \"\"YTD starting Dec 10th 2010\"\". Edit further to comment For the calendar year to date, with 200 shares sold on Jan 10th with the share price at $4.58, the return from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is The return from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is The profit on 1000 shares from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is $4600 * -0.00434783 = -$20 The profit on 800 shares from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is zero. The profit on 800 shares from Feb 28th to March 16th is So the year to date profit is $4.\"",
"\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"",
"The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit",
"If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.",
"Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result",
"There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]",
"You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.",
"\"So, there is no truly \"\"correct\"\" way to calculate return. Professionals will often calculate many different rates of return depending on what they wish to understand about their portfolio. However, the two most common ways of calculating multi-period return though are time-weighted return and money-weighted return. I'll leave the details to this good Investopeadia article, but the big picture is time-weighted returns help you understand how the stock performed during the period in question independent of how you invested it it. Whereas money-weighted return helps you understand how you performed investing in the stock in question. From your question, it appears both methods would be useful in combination to help you evaluate your portfolio. Both methods should be fairly easy to calculate yourself in a spread sheet, but if you are interested there are plenty of examples of both in google docs on the web.\"",
"Here's a few demo steps, first calculating the year to date return, then calculating the Q4 quarterly return based on the cumulative returns for Q3 and Q4. It's fine to use closing price to closing price as return periods.",
"\"the \"\"how\"\" all depends on your level of computer savvy. Are you an Excel spreadsheet user or can you write in programming languages such as python? Either approach have math functions that make the calculation of ROI and Volatility trivial. If you're a python coder, then look up \"\"pandas\"\" (http://pandas.pydata.org/) - it handles a lot of the book-keeping and downloading of end of day equities data. With a dozen lines of code, you can compute ROI and volatility.\"",
"If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.",
"Yield can be thought of as the interest rate you would receive from that investment in the form of a dividend for stocks or interest payments on a bond. The yield takes into account the anticipated amount to be received per share/unit per year and the current price of the investment. Of course, the yield is not a guaranteed return like a savings account. If the investment yield is 4% when you buy, it can drop in value such that you actually lose money during your hold period, despite receiving income from the dividend or interest payments.",
"\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \"\"value\"\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \"\"book value\"\" is your compensation for a low \"\"interest\"\" rate.\"",
"What you have to remember is you are buying a piece of the company. Think of it in terms of buying a business. Just like a business, you need to decide how long you are willing to wait to get paid back for your investment. Imagine you were trying to sell your lemonade stand. This year your earnings will be $100, next year will be $110, the year after that $120 and so on. Would you be willing to sell it for $100?",
"However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%",
"Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.",
"Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).",
"The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.",
"The number you are trying to calculate is called the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Google Spreadsheets (and excel) both have an XIRR function that can do this for you fairly simply. Setup a spreadsheet with 1 column for dates, 1 column for investment. Mark your investments as negative numbers (payment to invest). All investments will be negative. Mark your last row with today's date and today's valuation (positive). All withdrawals will be positive, so you are pretending to withdrawal your entire account for the purpose of calculation. Do not record dividends or other interim returns unless you are actually withdrawing money. The XIRR function will calculate your internal rate of return with irregularly timed investments. Links: Article explaining XIRR function (sample spreadsheet in google docs to modify)",
"If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.",
"\"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method: Discounted Cash Flows Calculator. Description: This calculator finds the fair value of a stock investment the theoretically correct way, as the present value of future earnings. You can find company earnings via the box below. [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article: Investment Valuation: A Little Theory. Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders for the same reason that a bond is valuable to bondholders: both are expected to generate cash for years into the future. Company profits are more volatile than bond coupons, but as an investor your task is the same in both cases: make a reasonable prediction about future earnings, and then \"\"discount\"\" them by calculating how much they are worth today. (And then you don't buy unless you can get a purchase price that's less than the sum of these present values, to make sure ownership will be worth the headache.) [...]\"",
"Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.",
"Treat each transaction as separate, with its own principal, its own gain, and its own number of days. Then the total annualized return is just a weighted average of each annualized return, with the weighting related to the number of shares in that transaction.",
"\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \"\"quarterly dividends,\"\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\"",
"Powers makes a good point: trading costs may eat up a significant portion of your ROI. A fee as little as 2% can consume more than 50% of your long-term ROI! A rule of thumb is keep your fees to less than 1%. One way to do that is to buy stock in companies that have a DRIP with a Share Purchase Plan (SPP). Often the SPP allows investors to purchase shares for low fees or free. Once you have the ability to purchase shares for (virtually) free, you can use InvestMete. Roughly, you send more money to the companies whose share prices are near their 52-week low, and less money to those who are near their 52-week high. Getting back to your original question...",
"It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.",
"You can make a rough calculation of the annual turnover rate of stocks by calculating the institutional investors holding of that stock. Institutional investors are the only firms that are required to provide such data. The good this is they usually make the lion share of trading activity. On the other hand, this task might proof arduous A different ratio that could be used as a substitute Share Turnover which is calculated as: Share Turnover gives the number of shares traded as a fraction of the number of shares outstanding. For example, if you compare the results of stock turnover for three companies and the results came as follows: Company A-share turnover: 1.5 Times Company B share turnover: 3 times Company C share turnover: 0.3 times From the results, we can conclude that for a particular period, company C had the least activity and the number of shares traded for that period was only a small fraction of the shares outstanding while other traders of company C hold most shares and never trade them. If you make a cross sectional analysis of a list of businesses you intend to invest in, you could figure which one has the least number of rapidity in the shares traded.",
"Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.",
"You've flipped the numerator and denominator around, and need to multiply by 100 to get percentage rather than 10: I like to use a simple example to assess reasonableness of an approach, if you had invested $100 and after 1 year had $150, your approach would yield: But since $50 is half of $100, we know the rate of return should be 50%, so we know that approach is off. But, flipping the numerator and denominator and multiplying by 100 gets us the 50% we expected: Edit: Good catch by @DJohnM you've called it 9 years, but it's actually 11, so you'd want to adjust accordingly.",
"The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate.",
"\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"",
"For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.",
"\"One of two things is true: You own less than 5% of the total shares outstanding. Your transaction will have little to no effect on the market. For most purposes you can use the current market price to value the position. You own more than 5% of the total shares outstanding. You are probably restricted on when, where, and why you can sell the shares because you are considered part owner of the company. Regardless, how to estimate (not really \"\"calculate,\"\" since some of the inputs to the formula are assumptions a.k.a. guesses) the value depends on exactly what you plan to with the result.\"",
"\"This page from simplestockinvesting.com gives details of total returns for the S&P500 for each decade over the last 60 years, including total returns for the entire 60 year period. It is important to understand that, from an investors point of view, the total return includes both the change in index value (capital gain) plus dividends received. This total then needs to be adjusted for inflation to give the \"\"total real return\"\". As noted in the analysis provided, 44% of the total return from the S&P500 over the last 80 years comes from dividends. For the DowJones30, this site provides a calculator for total returns and inflation adjusted total returns for user selected periods. Finding comparable analysis for the NASDAQ market is more difficult. The NASDAQ market site provides gross values for total returns over fixed periods, but you will then need to do the arithmetic to calculate the equivalent average annual total returns. No inflation adjusted values for \"\"real\"\" returns are provided, so again you will need to combine inflation data from elsewhere and do the arithmetic.\"",
"Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.",
"Your question has already been answered, you divide the amount of shares you own * 100% by the total amount of shares. However, I feel it is somewhat misleading to talk about owning a percentage of the company by owning shares. Strictly speaking, shares do not entitle you to a part of the company but instead give you a proportional amount of votes at shareholder meetings (assuming no funky share classes). What this means is that someone who owns 30% of a company's shares can't just grab 30% of the company's assets (factories, offices and whatever) and say that they are entitled to own this. What they actually own is 30% of the voting rights in this company, this means that they control 30% of all available votes when the company calls a vote on corporate actions, choosing a new director etc. which is how shareholders exert their influence on a company.",
"what do you mean exactly? Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown. It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds. You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important. The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20. For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable. The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH",
"\"Well depends but \"\"on average\"\" the stock market has historically returned somewhere around 10% per year. Note, this can vary wildly from year to year see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500#Market_statistics So it would be roughly 2.8 years to get your 30% if you happen to get the average market return for those 3 years, but the chances of that happening exactly are slim to none. You could end up with +50% or -30% over that ~3 year period of time - so the calculation doesn't do you that much good for that short period of time, but if you are talking a span of 30 years then you could plan using that as a very rough ballpark. Good rule of thumb is you shouldn't put any money in the stock market you think you will need anytime in the next 5 years. Formula to figure out total gain would be Principal x (1+ rate of return) ^ years\"",
"The term 'interest' tends to be used loosely when discussing valuation of stocks. Especially when referring to IRAs which are generally the purvey of common-folk who aren't in the finance industry. Often it is used colloquially to include: Using this definition (which is what I'm guessing your IRA Calculator is doing), your stock would have increased in value by a total of $26 over the course of 10 months. Still not terribly good (only a couple percent increase), but certainly not a couple cents.",
"PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.",
"If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price.",
"The total number of shares on April 1st is 100 + 180 + 275 = 555. The price on April 1st is required. The current price is stated as $2, but $2 * 555 = $1110 and the current fund values is stated as $1500. Opting to take the current value as $1500, the price on April 1st can be calculated as $1500/555 = $2.7027. The amounts invested as number of shares x share price are: (Note these investment amounts do not match the example scenario's investment amounts, presumably because the example numbers are just made up.) The monthly returns can be calculated: The current values for each investor as invested amount x returns are: Checking the total:",
"Do what's outlined here. The capital asset pricing model will reveal how an asset (a stock in this instance) performed relative to the market performance for that time period. This by itself will answer your assignment's question but allowing you to traverse much deeper in the intricate details of the field. You'll learn a few interesting things on the way! Good luck :)",
"A couple ideas: Use excel - it has an IRR (internal rate of return) that can handle a table of inputs as you describe, along with dates deposited to give you a precise number. Go simple - track total deposits over the year, assume half of that was present in January. So, for example, your account started the year with $10k, ended with $15k, but you deposited $4k over the year. It should be clear the return (gain) is $1k, right? But it's not 10%, as you added during the year. I'd divide $1k/$12k for an 8.3% return. Not knowing how your deposits were structured, the true number lies between the 10% and 6.7% as extremes. You'll find as you get older and have a higher balance, this fast method gaining accuracy, as your deposits are a tinier fraction of your account and likely spread out pretty smoothly over the year anyway.",
"Instead of a price chart can use a performance chart, which is usually expressed as a percentage increase from the original purchase price. To factor in the dividends, you can either add in all of your dividends to the final price, or subtract the accumulated dividends from your cost basis (the initial price).",
"The sum of the dividend yield plus capital growth is called total return. In your examples, you get to a total return of 7% through several different (and theoretically equivalent) paths. That is the right way of thinking.",
"You should use the Gordon Growth model, but you are using the wrong rate. required return = rf + market premium x Beta rm = 0,12, premium = 0,08 --> rf = 0,04 thus rr = 0.04 + 0.08 * 1.5 = 0.16 then you get $15/(0.16-0.05) = $136,36",
"Let's suppose your friend gave your $100 and you invested all of it (plus your own money, $500) into one stock. Therefore, the total investment becomes $100 + $500 = $600. After few months, when you want to sell the stock or give back the money to your friend, check the percentage of profit/loss. So, let's assume you get 10% return on total investment of $600. Now, you have two choices. Either you exit the stock entirely, OR you just sell his portion. If you want to exit, sell everything and go home with $600 + 10% of 600 = $660. Out of $660, give you friend his initial capital + 10% of initial capital. Therefore, your friend will get $100 + 10% of $100 = $110. If you choose the later, to sell his portion, then you'll need to work everything opposite. Take his initial capital and add 10% of initial capital to it; which is $100 + 10% of $100 = $110. Sell the stocks that would be worth equivalent to that money and that's it. Similarly, you can apply the same logic if you broke his $100 into parts. Do the maths.",
"The author is using the simple Dietz method, (alternatively the modified Dietz), with the assumption that the net cash-flow occurs halfway through the time period. Let's say the time period is one year for illustration, so the cash-flow would be at the end of the second quarter. The money-weighted method gives a more accurate return, but has to be solved by trial-and-error or using a computer. The money-weighted return is 11.2718 % and the simple or modified Dietz return is 11.2676 %. When the sums are done backwards to check, the Dietz is half a dollar out with a final value of $11,999.50 while the money-weighted return recalculates exactly $12,000. It is worth pointing out that the return changes if the cash-flow is not in the middle of the time period. A case with the cash-flow at the end of Q3 is added to illustrate.",
"\"**Warning:** Really fucking simplified (like undergrad \"\"intro to corp finance\"\" simple). Tell them they are running a company. Say they just received a huge pile of cash (end of year earnings or some shit). Tell them they have two options: * Invest the money to expand current operations (say they make footballs) and continue making 10% ROE or w/e return their current operations make. * Invest the money into a new project, say expanding products and making soccer balls. Now ask them what rate of return from soccer balls would they need to receive to make it justifiable to pursue that project instead of just putting that cash back in footballs? I mean, ask them if they received only a 5% ROE from soccer balls, would it make sense to produce them instead of expanding football production? The required rate of return on the soccer ball project would be whatever return they'd make from their other project option (expanding football production).\"",
"Knowing the log return is useful - the log return can help you to work out the annual return over the period it was estimated - and this should be comparable between stocks. One should just be careful with the calculation so that allowance for dividends is made sensibly.",
"The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return.",
"\"at $8.50: total profit = $120.00 *basis of stock, not paid in cash, so not included in \"\"total paid\"\" at $8.50: total profit = $75.00\"",
"\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"",
"\"Why there is this huge difference? I am not able to reconcile Yahoo's answer of 5.75%, even using their definition for ROA of: Return on Assets Formula: Earnings from Continuing Operations / Average Total Equity This ratio shows percentage of Returns to Total Assets of the company. This is a useful measure in analyzing how well a company uses its assets to produce earnings. I suspect the \"\"Average Total Equity\"\" in their formula is a typo, but using either measure I cannot come up with 5.75% for any 12-month period. I can, however, match MarketWatch's answer by looking at the 2016 fiscal year totals and using a \"\"traditional\"\" formula of Net Income / Average Total Assets: I'm NOT saying that MatketWatch is right and Yahoo is wrong - MW is using fiscal year totals while Yahoo is using trailing 12-month numbers, and Yahoo uses \"\"Earnings from Continuing Operations\"\", but even using that number (which Yahoo calculates) I am not able to reconcile the 5.75% they give.\"",
"A one year period of study - Stock A trades at $100, and doesn't increase in value, but has $10 in dividends over the period. Stock B starts at $100, no dividend, and ends at $105. However you account for this, it would be incorrect to ignore stock A's 10% return over the period. To flip to a real example, MoneyChimp shows the S&P return from Jan 1980 to Dec 2012 as +3264% yet, the index only rose from 107.94 to 1426.19 or +1221%. The error expands with greater time and larger dividends involved, a good analysis won't ignore any dividends or splits.",
"Since you have the balance at equal periods and the cash flows at the period ends, the best return calculation in this case is the true time-weighted return. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-weighted_return#Formulae So, notwithstanding some ambiguity about your figures, here is a calculation using the first three periods from your second table. Giving a total return over the three periods of -23.88% If the periods are months, multiply by four to annualise.",
"It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.",
"As mentioned, dividends are a way of returning value to shareholders. It is a conduit of profit as companies don't legitimately control upward appreciation in their share prices. If you can't wrap your head around the risk to the reward, then this simply means you partially fit the description for a greater investment risk profile, so you need to put down Warren Buffett's books and Rich Dad Poor Dad and get an investment book that fits your risk profile.",
"\"Dividends can also be automatically reinvested in your stock holding through a DRIP plan (see the wikipedia link for further details, wiki_DRIP). Rather than receiving the dividend money, you \"\"buy\"\" additional stock shares your with dividend money. The value in the DRIP strategy is twofold. 1) your number of shares increases without paying transaction fees, 2) you increase the value of your holding by increasing number of shares. In the end, the RIO can be quite substantial due to the law of compounding interest (though here in the form of dividends). Talk with your broker (brokerage service provider) to enroll your dividend receiving stocks in a DRIP.\"",
"First, the earnings are per year, not per quarter. Why would you expect to get a 100% per year return on your money? The earnings can go one of two ways. They can be retained, reinvested in the company, or they can be distributed as a dividend. So, the 'return' on this share is just over 5%, which is competitive with the rate you'd get on fixed investments. It's higher, in fact, as there's the risk that comes with holding the stock.",
"Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.",
"There is no formula for calculating a stock price based on the financials of a company. A stock price is set by the market and always has a component built into it that is based on something outside of the current valuation of a company using its financials. Essentially, the stock price of a company per share is whatever the best price it can get on the open market. If you are looking at how to evaluate if a stock is a good value at the current price, then look at some of the answers, but I wanted to answer this based on the way you phrased the question.",
"An investment trust is quoted just like a share. You just compare what you paid (your book cost) with its current share price, not the NAV, as a trust's price can be at a premium greater than the actual share price or a discount.",
"The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.",
"ROI and volatility should be calculated over a representative period of time, for example 3 or 5 years, depending on data availability. The ROI is simple, for example, over 5 years:- For the 5 year annualised volatility you can refer to the ESMA SRRI methodology. Box 1 (page 3) m is the annualisation factor. Stock volatility calculated from weekly data should not be compared with volatility calculated from monthly data. Also, for reference: How to Calculate your Portfolio's Rate of Return",
"In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.",
"Thanks to this youtube video I think I understood the required calculation. Based on following notation: then the formula to find x is: I found afterwards an example on IB site (click on the link 'How to Determine the Last Stock Price Before We Begin to Liquidate the Position') that corroborate the formula above.",
"When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble...",
"\"The key is to look at total return, that is dividend yields plus capital growth. Some stocks have yields of 5%-7%, and no growth. In that case, you get the dividends, and not a whole lot more. These are called dividend stocks. Other stocks pay no dividends. But if they can grow at 15%-20% a year or more, you're fine.These are called growth stocks. The safest way is to get a \"\"balanced\"\" combination of dividends and growth, say a yield of 3% growing at 8%-10% a year, for a total return of 11%-13%. meaning that you get the best of both worlds.These are called dividend growth stocks.\"",
"A good way to measure the performance of your investments is over the long term. 25-30% returns are easy to get! It's not going to be 25-30% in a single year, though. You shouldn't expect more than about 4% real (inflation-adjusted) return per year, on average, over the long term, unless you have reason to believe that you're doing a better job of predicting the market than the intellectual and investment might of Wall Street - which is possible, but hard. (Pro tip: It's actually quite easy to outdo the market at large over the short term just by getting lucky or investing in risky askets in a good year. Earning this sort of return consistently over many years, though, is stupidly hard. Usually you'll wipe out your gains several years into the process, instead.) The stock market fluctuates like crazy, which is why they tell you not to invest any money you're likely to need sooner than about 5 years out and you switch your portfolio from stocks to bonds as you approach and enter retirement. The traditional benchmark for comparison, as others have mentioned, is the rate of return (including dividends) from the Standard and Poors 500 Index. These are large stable companies which make up the core of larger United States business. (Most people supplement these with some smaller companies and overseas companies as a part of the portfolio.)",
"The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can sell it and make more money than dividends.",
"I believe the following formula provides a reasonable approximation. You need to fill in the following variables: The average annual return you need on investing the 15% = (((MP5 - MP20) * 12) + (.0326 * .95 * PP / Y)) / (PP *.15) Example assuming an interest rate of 4% on a 100K home: If you invest the $15K you'll break even if you make a 9.86% return per year on average. Here's the breakdown per year using these example numbers: Note this does not consider taxes.",
"\"The Dividend Discount Model is based on the concept that the present value of a stock is the sum of all future dividends, discounted back to the present. Since you said: dividends are expected to grow at a constant rate in perpetuity ... the Gordon Growth Model is a simple variant of the DDM, tailored for a firm in \"\"steady state\"\" mode, with dividends growing at a rate that can be sustained forever. Consider McCormick (MKC), who's last dividend was 31 cents, or $1.24 annualized. The dividend has been growing just a little over 7% annually. Let's use a discount, or hurdle rate of 10%. MKC closed today at $50.32, for what it's worth. The model is extremely sensitive to inputs. As g approaches r, the stock price rises to infinity. If g > r, stock goes negative. Be conservative with 'g' -- it must be sustainable forever. The next step up in complexity is the two-stage DDM, where the company is expected to grow at a higher, unsustainable rate in the early years (stage 1), and then settling down to the terminal rate for stage 2. Stage 1 is the present value of dividends during the high growth period. Stage 2 is the Gordon Model, starting at the end of stage 1, and discounting back to the present. Consider Abbott Labs (ABT). The current annual dividend is $1.92, the current dividend growth rate is 12%, and let's say that continues for ten years (n), after which point the growth rate is 5% in perpetuity. Again, the discount rate is 10%. Stage 1 is calculated as follows: Stage 2 is GGM, using not today's dividend, but the 11th year's dividend, since stage 1 covered the first ten years. 'gn' is the terminal growth, 5% in our case. then... The value of the stock today is 21.22 + 51.50 = 72.72 ABT closed today at $56.72, for what it's worth.\"",
"Since you are trying to compare corporate bonds that have a defined coupon over the specified time of the bond. Why not use a simple Net Present Value (NPV) calculation. Refer: Net Present Value (NPV) You could use the discounting factor as the current repo rate of your central bank. As I said, this would be a simple fast measure (not considering risk rating of the bonds, inflation and other considerations). Take a notional 1000 as invetment in each instrument and calculate the NPV, higher it is better the investment. Another method, in terms of percentage return would be Internal rate of Return (IRR). Though the calcualtionis a bit more complicated, it would give you a percentage figure. Note, the above 2 measures are used when the cashflow over the time period is known. It will not work for instruments where the cashflow/value over different time are not known. Like stocks."
] |
[
"To figure this out, you need to know the price per share then vs the price per share now. Google Finance will show you historical prices. For GOOG, the closing price on January 5, 2015 was $513.87. The price on December 31, 2015 was $758.88. Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated with this formula: ROI = (Proceeds from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment Using this formula, your return on investment would be 47.7%. Since the time period was one year, this number is already an annualized return. If the time period was different than one year, you would normally convert it to an annualized rate of return in order to compare it to other investments."
] |
10558
|
Investment strategy for 401k when rolling over soon
|
[
"222485",
"483268"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"483268",
"175252",
"122114",
"335991",
"222485",
"475748",
"550083",
"74583",
"344526",
"425703",
"192627",
"492659",
"67220",
"355373",
"105011",
"363753",
"465439",
"518379",
"88550",
"357555",
"332605",
"581973",
"598440",
"449828",
"398520",
"510615",
"323934",
"392894",
"127664",
"291578",
"567255",
"361037",
"20606",
"92941",
"505943",
"144824",
"217310",
"263390",
"13275",
"221117",
"399564",
"576391",
"262322",
"225395",
"226547",
"388028",
"97805",
"216365",
"20323",
"493578",
"401450",
"591168",
"63532",
"140917",
"302619",
"264476",
"85658",
"246109",
"495062",
"61524",
"277",
"553576",
"42537",
"307409",
"168890",
"526271",
"183856",
"167194",
"434279",
"48226",
"247051",
"128077",
"89202",
"565667",
"178340",
"4181",
"509837",
"367355",
"551545",
"499827",
"570117",
"231928",
"7748",
"119165",
"521014",
"155242",
"385251",
"130118",
"391835",
"436331",
"576263",
"64459",
"389202",
"224434",
"195687",
"586029",
"313923",
"117158",
"6471",
"545760"
] |
[
"The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company.",
"My advice would be to invest in the 401k with the same type of funds you'd purchase when you rollover to your IRA. They are both retirement accounts. If the stock market tanks, your 401k balance will be low but you'll also be purchasing stocks at a much cheaper price when you establish your roth. You should create an asset allocation based on your age, not on the type of retirement account you have. One question to consider: When you do become a student, you'll likely be a in lower tax bracket. Can you contribute pre-tax dollars and then rollover to a ROTH in the year that you're a student?",
"\"Good question. And it depends a bit on your current plan, your future income, and the plan you are moving too. Mostly you want to roll out of your existing 401K. There will likely be a fee, and your investment choices are limited. You will want to do a direct transfer, and going with a quality company such as Fidelity or Vanguard. Both of those have zero fees for accounts and pretty good customer service. However, if your future income is likely to be high there is something else to consider. If you are over the limits do a ROTH, and are considering doing a \"\"Backdoor ROTH\"\" a key success for this strategy is keeping your roll over IRA balance low (or zero). So you may want to either leave the 401K where it is, or roll it to your new 401K plan. In that case you will have to call the two 401K custodians, and select the best choice as far as fees and fund choice.\"",
"I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan.",
"You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters.",
"Adapted from an answer to a somewhat different question. Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over your 401k assets into an IRA. But I don't think that is the case here. If you had a Traditional 401k, the assets will roll over into a Traditional IRA; if it was a Roth 401k, into a Roth IRA. If you had started a little earlier, you could have considered considered converting part or all of your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA (assuming that your 2012 taxable income will be smaller this year because you have quit your job). Of course, this may still hold true in 2013 as well. As to which custodian to choose for your Rollover IRA, I recommend investing in a low-cost index mutual fund such as VFINX which tracks the S&P 500 Index. Then, do not look at how that fund is doing for the next thirty years. This will save you from the common error made by many investors when they pull out at the first downturn and thus end up buying high and selling low. Also, do not chase after exchange-traded mutual funds or ETFs (as many will likely recommend) until you have acquired more savvy or interest in investing than you are currently exhibiting. Not knowing which company stock you have, it is hard to make a recommendation about selling or holding on. But since you are glad to have quit your job, you might want to consider making a clean break and selling the shares that you own in your ex-employer's company. Keep the $35K (less the $12K that you will use to pay off the student loan) as your emergency fund. Pay off your student loan right away since you have the cash to do it.",
"\"I would create a \"\"Rollover IRA\"\". These IRAs are designed to take funds from a 401k and allow you to invest them without incurring a cash out penalty nor a tax due. You will have more choices than if you leave it at your old 401k. If you cash out the 401k, you'll have much less to invest ($1500 - penalty - taxes) vs. doing a rollover 401k where you'll still have $1500 to invest. Then, once the money is inside the new Rollover IRA you can invest in whatever you please. If you want to invest in Vanguard funds, I recommend opening the Rollover IRA at Vanguard. Here is Vanguard's information page about rollovers from 401ks: https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/401k-rollovers/401k-403b-to-ira-rollover-benefits When you next change jobs and have another 401k with funds in it, you can roll it into the same Rollover IRA.\"",
"I agree with harmanjd – best to roll it over to an IRA. Not only does that afford you better control of your money as pointed out already, but: If you choose your IRA provider wisely, you can get an account that provides you with a much wider array of investing choices, including funds and ETFs that charge much lower fees than what you would have had access to in an employer 401(k) plan. But here's one thing to consider first: Do you hold any of your previous employer's stock in your old 401(k)? There are special rules you might want to be aware of. See this article at Marketwatch: If your 401(k) includes your company's stock, a rollover may be a bad move. Additional Resource:",
"Rolling a 401(k) to an IRA should be your default best option. Rolling a 401(k) to another 401(k) is rarely the best option, but that does happen. I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. In all other cases, I rolled 401(k)s from previous jobs to my Rollover IRA, which gave me the most freedom of investment options. Finally, with 401(k)-to-Roth IRA rollovers, it's important to decouple two concepts so you can analyze it as a sum of two transactions:",
"I tried to roll my funds to my new company. But my hr department from my old job would not work with me on getting it straightened out. So I decided to either pull it all out or roll it into a 401 k and use it as a trial for stocks and investments. Simce it isn't a large amount of money to begin with",
"You can't roll it over to a Roth IRA without tax penalties. The best thing to do is roll it to an IRA that isn't tied to work at all. Second best is to roll it into your new employer's 401k. The reason that an IRA makes sense is that it gives you the same tax savings as a 401k, but it allows you to remain in control of the money regardless of your employment status.",
"Your question implies that you are 70-1/2, and not employed by this company. (Note - if you remain employed, the mandatory distribution is delayed) The best thing to do is to open an IRA and transfer the 401(k) to it. You then have all the investing choices you can ask for including low risk gov securities, right up to high risk leveraged ETFs (don't buy those, just saying). Make sure the transfer is direct, so no tax withholding. Make sure you request it goes to a Traditional IRA, not Roth. If you wish to transfer to Roth over time, that's another discussion.",
"rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.",
"The simplest thing is to transfer to your current account. You'll have the ability to borrow (assuming employer allows) 50% of the balance if you need to, and one less account to worry about. Transferring to an IRA is the other common choice. This offers the ability to convert to a Roth IRA and to invest any way you choose. The 401(k) options may be limited. Without more details, it's tough to decide. For example, if you are in the 15% bracket, the Roth conversion can be a great idea. And the 401(k) might be not so great, just deposit to the match, and then use the IRA. For example.",
"What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls. The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013. Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard.",
"Don't over think about your choices. The most important thing to start now and keep adjusting and tuning your portfolio as you move along in your life. Each individual's situation is unique. Start with something simple and straight forward, like 100 - your age, in Total Stock market Index fund and the remaining total bond market index fund. For your 401k, at least contribute so much as to get the maximum employer match. Its always good if you can contribute the yearly maximum in your 401k or IRA. Once you have built up a substantial amount of assets (~ $50k+) then its time to think more about asset allocation and start buying into more specific investments as needed. Remember to keep your investment expenses low by using index funds. Also remember to factor in tax implications on your investment decisions. eg. buying an REIT fund in a tax advantaged account like 40k is more tax efficient than buying it in a normal brokerage account.",
"That would be my suggestion (and what I've personally done), but I can't tell you what's right for you. As an aside, you don't usually need to manually fund an IRA (traditional *or* Roth) to open it for a rollover - Just tell them you're doing a rollover, and they'll set you up and tell you where to have the 401k checks sent (and sometimes even arrange it all *for* you).",
"I would check to see what the fee schedule is on your previous employer's 401k. Depending on how it was setup, the quarterly/annual maintenance fee may be lower/higher than your current employer. Another reason to rollover/not-rollover is that selection of funds available is better than the other plan. And of course always consider rolling over your old plan into a standard custodial rollover IRA where the management company gives you a selection of investment options. At least look at the fees and expense ratios of your prior employer's plan and see if anything reaches a threshold of what you consider actionable and worth your time. Note: removed reference to self directed IRA as vehicle is more complicated account type allowing for more than just stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Not for your typical retail investor.",
"I'd argue that you should be focusing on avoiding taxation and maximizing employer matching funds as your first objective. Over a longer period, quality of investment options and fees will both drive your account value. A personal IRA account is usually a better value over time -- so contribute as much as possible to your IRA, and rollover 401k accounts whenever you have an opportunity to do so.",
"If you plan to continue contributing to a 401(k) and are no longer self-employed, then you need to start a new 401(k) at your new business. You can't contribute to the old one any more. About the money in the old one, you have a few options. If both 401(k) plans have good investment options and low fees, then there's little reason to think one of these strategies is better than the other. If, like me, at least one of your 401(k) providers has very few available funds and those funds have high expense ratios, then it's a good idea to move your money where the investments are best. As a rule, IRA's are better than 401(k) plans because most IRA's will allow you to invest in practically anything you want while most 401(k) plans only allow you to invest in the funds that have taken your company's HR people to the best lobster dinners or went to the same school as them. Most organizations do an absolutely horrible job at selecting a reasonable set of funds because the decision-makers generally have no finance background and no incentive to do a good job. For that reason I like IRA's. Of course, some solo 401(k) plans are also very good so just leaving it where it is may be best for you. This has the added advantage of being ready to go if you end up self-employed again at some point.",
"Yes, that's exactly what you can/should do. The only question is whether the 401(k) has good investment choices and low fees, if so, go for it.",
"I've rolled mine over into IRAs, and once you have one rollover account you can roll further 401ks into it-- I've done that.",
"Overall I think your idea is sound. The key here is to choose that 401k provider wisely and have a specific asset allocation plan (like Joe mentioned) Summary of this approach: Pluses: Minuses: I'd consider Vanguard for simple, no frills investing. If you're looking to get into choosing stocks, check out the Motley Fool.",
"\"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"",
"Don’t take the cash deposit whatever you do. This is a retirement savings vehicle after all and you want to keep this money designated as such. You have 3 options: 1) Rollover the old 401k to the new 401k. Once Your new plan is setup you can call who ever runs that plan and ask them how to get started. It will require you filling out a form with the old 401k provider and they’ll transfer the balance of your account directly to the new 401k. 2) Rollover the old 401k to a Traditional IRA. This involves opening a new traditional IRA if you don’t already have one (I assume you don’t). Vanguard is a reddit favorite and I can vouch for them as Well. Other shops like Fidelity and Schwab are also good but since Vanguard is very low cost and has great service it’s usually a good choice especially for beginners. 3) Convert the old 401k to a ROTH IRA. This is essentially the same as Step 2, the difference is you’ll owe taxes on the balance you convert. Why would you voluntarily want to pay taxes f you can avoid them with options 1 or 2? The beauty of the ROTH is you only pay taxes on the money you contribute to the ROTH, then it grows tax free and when you’re retired you get to withdraw it tax free as well. (The money contained in a 401k or a traditional IRA is taxed when you withdraw in retirement). My $.02. 401k accounts typically have higher fees than IRAs, even if they own the same mutual funds the expense ratios are usually more in the 401k. The last 2 times I’ve changed jobs I’ve converted the 401k money into my ROTH IRA. If it’s a small sum of money and/or you can afford to pay the taxes on the money I’d suggest doing the same. You can read up heavily on the pros/cons of ROTH vs Traditional but My personal strategy is to have 2 “buckets” or money when I retire (some in ROTH and some in Traditional). I can withdraw as much money from the Traditional account until I Max out the lowest Tax bracket and then pull any other money I need from the ROTH accounts that are tax free.This allows you to keep taxes fairly low in retirement. If you don’t have a ROTH now this is a great way to start one.",
"Adding to justkt's answer. The big difference to you during the rollover is that moving the money to a Roth IRA, unless it was a Roth 401K, is going to require you pay a lot of taxes on the money you move. I'd suggest not doing that without guidance from a financial advisor.",
"\"Open an investment account on your own and have them roll the old 401K accounts into either a ROTH or traditional IRA. Do not leave them in old 401k accounts and definitely don't roll them into your new employer's 401K. Why? Well, as great as 401K accounts are, there is one thing that employers rarely mention and the 401K companies actively try to hide: Most 401K plans are loaded with HUGE fees. You won't see them on your statements, they are often hidden very cleverly with accounting tricks. For example, in several plans I have participated in, the mutual fund symbols may LOOK like the ones you see on the stock tickers, but if you read the fine print they only \"\"approximate\"\" the underlying mutual fund they are named for. That is, if you multiply the number of shares by the market price you will arrive at a number higher than the one printed on your statement. The \"\"spread\"\" between those numbers is the fee charged by the 401K management company, and since employees don't pick that company and can't easily fire them, they aren't very competitive unless your company is really large and has a tough negotiator in HR. If you work for a small company, you are probably getting slammed by these fees. Also, they often charge fees for the \"\"automatic rebalancing\"\" service they offer to do annually to your account to keep your allocation in line with your current contribution allocations. I have no idea why it is legal for them not to disclose these fees on the statements, but they don't. I had to do some serious digging to find this out on my own and when I did it was downright scary. In one case they were siphoning off over 3% annually from the account using this standard practice. HOWEVER, that is not to say that you shouldn't participate in these plans, especially if there is an employer match. There are fees with any investment account and the \"\"free money\"\" your employer is kicking in almost always offsets these fees. My point here is just that you shouldn't keep the money in the 401K after you leave the company when you have an option to move it to an account with much cheaper fees.\"",
"You can probably roll it over into the new company's 401k too, so just talk to your HR rep there. I set up a separate Vangard IRA so when I changejobs or anything, I just dump my investments into that account and don't have to worry about keep track of them all over the place.",
"\"Your employment status is not 100% clear from the question. Normally, consultants are sole-proprietors or LLC's and are paid with 1099's. They take care of their own taxes, often with schedule C, and they sometimes can but generally do not use \"\"employer\"\" company 401(k). If this is your situation, you can contact any provider you want and set up your own solo 401(k), which will have great investment options and no fees. I do this, through Fidelity. If you are paid with a W2, you are not a consultant. You are an employee and must use your employer's 401(k). Figure out what you are. If you are a consultant, open a solo 401(k) at the provider of your choice. Make sure beforehand that they allow incoming rollovers. Roll all of your previous 401(k)s and IRA's into it. When you have moved your 401(k) to a better provider, you won't be paying any extra fees, but you will not recoup any fees your original provider charged. I'm not sure why you mention a Roth IRA. If you try to roll your 401(k) into a Roth instead of a traditional IRA or 401(k), be aware that you will be taxed on everything you roll. ---- Edit: a little info about IRA's in response to your comment ---- Tax advantaged retirement accounts come in two flavors: one is managed by your company and the money is taken out of your paycheck. This is usually a 401(k) or 403(b). You can contribute up to $18K per year and your company can also contribute to it. The other flavor is an IRA. You can contribute $5,500 per year to this for you and $5,500 for your spouse. These are outside of your company and you make the deposits yourself. You choose your own provider, so competition has driven prices way down. You can have both a 401(k) and an IRA and contribute the max to both (though at high incomes you lose the ability to deduct IRA contributions). These accounts are tax advantaged because you only pay taxes once. With a regular brokerage account, you pay income tax in the year in which you earn money, then you pay tax every year on dividends and any capital gains that have been realized by selling. There are two types of tax-advantaged accounts: Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k). You do not pay income tax on this money in the year you earn it, nor do you pay capital gains tax. Instead you pay tax only in the year in which you take the money out (in retirement). Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). You do pay income tax on money on this money in the year in which you earn it. But then you don't pay tax on any gains or withdrawals ever again. When you leave your job (and sometimes at other times) you can move your money out of a 401(k) into your IRA, where you can do a better job managing it. You can also move money from your IRA into a 401(k) if your 401(k) provider will allow you to. Whether traditional or Roth is better depends on your tax rate now and your tax rate at retirement. However, if you choose to move money from a traditional account into a Roth account, you must pay tax on it in that year as if it was income because traditional and Roth accounts are taxed at different times. For that reason, if you are just trying to move money out of your 401(k) to save on fees, the logical place to put it is in a traditional IRA. Moving money from a traditional to a Roth may make sense, for example, if your tax rate is temporarily low this year, but that would be a separate decision from the one you are looking at. You can always roll your traditional IRA into a Roth later if that does become the case. Otherwise, there's no reason to think your traditional 401(k) should be rolled into a Roth IRA according to what you have described.\"",
"\"Rolling an old 401k into a new 401k is generally only for ease of management. For example, how many bank accounts do you really want? As long as the funds are reasonably allocated I've found it can be a useful \"\"mind game\"\" to leave it separate. Sometimes it's desirable to ignore an account and let it grow, and it is a nice surprise when finally adding all the account balances together. In other words, I keep thinking I've got X (the amount of my biggest or current 401k), which affects/helps my habits and desire to save. When I add them all together I'm shocked to find out I've got Y (the total of all accounts). Personally, I've had big paperwork problems transferring an old 403b (same type process as 401k) even when I had an adviser helping me move it. In the end it was worth moving it, because I'm having the adviser manage it. I'm actually writing this answer specifically because I recently moved a big 401k into a Traditional IRA. A rep from the brokerage, representing my previous employer, kept calling me to find out how they could help (I didn't brush him off). I found that using an IRA provided me with the opportunity to do self-guided investments in funds or even individual stocks, well beyond the limited selection of the old company's 401k. It was useful/interesting to me to invest in low-fee vehicles such as index funds (ie: the Buffett recommendation), and I'll find some stocks as well. Oh and when the old company 401k has certain funds being discontinued, I didn't want to notice the mandated changes years later. So, I'd suggest you consider management and flexibility of the 401k or equivalent, and any of your special personal circumstances/goals. If you end up with a few retirement accounts, I suggest you use an account aggregating website to see or follow your net worth. I know many who, based on various concerns and their portfolio, find an acceptable website to use.\"",
"It sounds like the two best options would be to roll it over into a traditional IRA or roll it over into your new 401(k). If there isn't much money in your SIMPLE IRA, it might make more sense to just roll it over into your 401(k) so you have fewer retirement accounts to keep track of. However, if you do have a significant amount of money in the SIMPLE IRA then you may wish to take advantage of the greater freedom in investment options that IRAs offer over most 401(k) plans. Keep in mind the 2-year rule for SIMPLE IRAs. You will face tax penalties if you roll it and it hasn't yet been 2 years since the SIMPLE IRA was opened.",
"When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits. You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover.",
"I am currently a non-voluntary member of four different retirement plans in two different countries. There are a few aspects to this (Caveat: this may be different for each country and change over time) I would consider the following strategy",
"Former pension/retirement/401(k) administrator here. 1. If you don't want to bother with maintaining your own investments, you can 'roll-over' your existing 401(k) into *your new company's 401(k) plan*. Then you will choose your investments in the new plan, you will be 100% vested in 'rollover account'. 2. If you want control over your own investments (recommended!) you can roll over your existing 401(k) into an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Then *your entire account* will go into your new IRA. 3. You can take part, or all, of your existing account as cash, paid directly to you. Note that this will trigger *20% mandatory Federal Withholding* on whatever goes straight to you. So some of your money is going to the IRS.",
"As to the rollover question. Only rollover to a ROTH if you have other funds you can use to pay the taxes you will be hit with if you do that. DO NOT pay the taxes out of the funds in the 401k. If you don't have a way to pay the taxes, then roll it to a traditional IRA. You never want to pay the government any taxes 'early' and you don't want to reduce the balance. beyond that, A lot depends on how long you figure you will be with that company. If it's only a few years, or if you and other employees can make enough of a fuss that they move the fund to someplace decent (any of the big no-load companies such as Vanguard would be a better custodian), then I'd go ahead and max it out. If you figure to be there for a long while, and it looks like someone is in bed with the custodian and there's no way it will be changed, then maybe look to max out a Roth IRA instead.",
"There are not as many options here as you fear. If you have no other investments outside this 401K it is even easier. Outside accounts include IRA, Roth IRA, taxable investments (mutual funds, ETF, individual stocks), Employee stock purchase plans. Amount: make sure you put enough in to get all the company match. I assume that in your case the 9% will do so, but check your documents. The company match will be with pre-tax funds. Roth vs Regular 401K? Most people in their lifetime will need a mix of Roth and Regular retirement accounts. You need to determine if it is better for you to pay the tax on your contributions now or later. Which accounts? If you are going to invest in a target date fund, you can ignore the rest of the options. The target date fund is a mixture of investments that will change over the decades. Calculate which one fits your expected retirement date and go with it. If you want to be able to control the mix, then you will need to pick several funds. The selection depends on what non-401K investments you have. Now here is what I considered the best advice. Decide Roth or regular, and just put the money into the most appropriate target date fund with the Roth/regular split you want. Then after the money starts flowing into your account, research the funds involved, the fees for those funds, and how you want to invest. Then move the money into the funds you want. Don't waste another day deciding how to invest. Just get started. The best part of a 401K, besides the match, is that you can move money between funds without worrying about taxes. If you realize that you want to put extra emphasis on the foreign stocks, or Mid-cap; just move the funds and redirect future contributions.",
"You'll want to roll the 401k over to a specifically designated rollover IRA. Rollover IRAs differ from an ordinary IRA account because they have NO contribution limit per year. Also Rolling over a 401k to a Roth IRA has consequences. There won't be a penalty but you will have to pay taxes on the amount being rolled over. The choice of Roth or Traditional IRA depends on your current tax situation as well as your expected taxes at retirement. Typically if you are in a low tax bracket and expect to be in a higher tax bracket at retirement a Roth IRA is suggested as withdrawals are tax free. With a rollover conversion you will have to evaluate whether paying taxes now outweighs the potential benefits of tax free withdrawals when you retire.",
"I would suggest looking into Relative Strength Asset Allocation. This type of investment strategy keeps you invested in the best performing asset classes. As a result of investing in this manner it removes the guesswork and moves naturally (say into cash) when the stock market turns down. There is a good whitepaper on this subject by Mebane Faber titled Relative Strength Strategies for Investing.",
"I've changed jobs several times and I chose to rollover my 401k from the previous employer into an IRA instead of the new employer's 401k plan. The biggest reason not to rollover the 401k into the new employer's 401k plan was due to the limited investments offered by 401k plans. I found it better to roll the 401k into an IRA where I can invest in any stock or fund.",
"I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature.",
"Your best bets are a Roth IRA or traditional IRA. If you roll it to a Roth, you will have to pay taxes on the amount you roll over (unless it was a Roth 401k), however what is in the Roth will grow tax free and it will be tax free when you withdraw. With a traditional IRA, you won't owe taxes on the money now but will pay taxes when you withdraw. You won't be able to withdraw this money until 59 1/2 years of age without paying a penalty, the same goes for your current 401k. If you take the money (for mortgage, other investment, etc.) and don't roll it over to a qualified account, you will owe taxes on it plus a 10% penalty. So you will only get between 60% and 70% of its value.",
"You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!",
"\"Assuming you are below retirement age, you typically cannot roll money from a Roth IRA into a 401k nor transfer money out of a 401k until you leave the company. Your best bet is to leave your exising roth ira separate from your 401k. A good strategy for retirement accounts is whenever able (typically when you switch jobs) roll your 401k into a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" (not a roth). Then you can manage your investments with more options than the 5-20 funds provided in the 401k. I would recommend against rolling funds into a 401k because of the lack of options in most 401k plans. Also, 401k is pre-tax and Roth is post-tax. Pre and post tax investments don't mix before withdrawal unless you do a conversion of some kind.\"",
"\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"",
"\"The biggest reason why one might want to leave 401k money invested in an ex-employer's plan is that the plan offers some superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere, e.g. some mutual funds that are not open to individual investors such as S&P index funds for institutional investors (these have expense ratios even smaller than the already low expense ratios of good S&P index funds) or \"\"hot\"\" funds that are (usually temporarily) closed to new investors, etc. The biggest reason to roll over 401k money from an ex-employer's plan to the 401k plan of a new employer is essentially the same: the new employer's plan offers superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere. Of course, the new employer's 401k plan must accept such roll overs. I do not believe that it is a requirement that a 401k plan must accept rollovers, but rather an option that a plan can be set up to allow for or not. Another reason to roll over 401k money from one plan to another (rather than into an IRA) is to keep it safe from creditors. If you are sued and found liable for damages in a court proceeding, the plaintiff can come after IRA assets but not after 401k money. Also, you can take a loan from the 401k money (subject to various rules about how much can be borrowed, payment requirements etc) which you cannot from an IRA. That being said, the benefits of keeping 401k money as 401k money must be weighed against the usually higher administrative costs and usually poorer and more limited choices of investment opportunities available in most 401k plans as Muro has said already.\"",
"Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees? Regarding the 401K funds from the previous employer, you can: Future investments: Roll overs don't have limits, but new investments do.",
"If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well.",
"At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.",
"If you invest in a 401(k), the shares in that plan are yours for as long as you live, or until you pull them out. So, if the employer is offering any sort of matching and those matched funds remain yours after you leave, then definitely contribute; that's an immediate return on your money. If the employer is NOT matching funds, then usually it is better to contribute to an IRA instead; you get the same income tax benefits from the deduction, without the headaches of going through your company (or the company from 3 jobs ago or whoever bought them) to get to your money. If I were in your position, the most I personally would do after I quit the company (which I'm assuming you'd be doing if you were going back to your country of origin) would be to have the 401k shares rolled over into a traditional IRA; that way I'd have more control over it from outside the country. Just keep the bank holding your IRA apprised of your movements around the world and how they can get ahold of you (it may be wise to grant a limited power of attorney to someone who will be staying in the U.S. if you don't want the bank mailing your statements all around the world), and the money can stay in an American account while you do whatever you have to outside it. As long as you don't take the money out in cash before you're 59 1/2 years old, you don't need to pay taxes or penalties on it. If you were to need it to cover unexpected expenses (perhaps relating to the aforementioned family emergency), then that decision can be made at that time. If you think that's even remotely likely, you may consider a Roth IRA. With a Roth, you pay the income taxes on your contributions, but the money is then yours; you can withdraw anything up to the total amount of your contributions without any additional taxes or penalties, and once you hit 59 and a half the interest also becomes available, also tax- and penalty- free. So if you had to leave the country and take a lot of cash with you, you could get out everything you actually put into a Roth with only minor if any transaction fees, and the interest will still be there compounding.",
"\"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\"\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \"\"play money\"\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\"",
"I would suggest you rollover your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then pay off your debt before investing anymore money. In the long run you will be better off to have all your debt paid off. But I would not withdraw from the Roth 401k to pay down your debt. The penality is too steep.",
"\"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"",
"You cannot roll over your 401k money in an employer's 401k plan into an IRA (of any kind) while you are still employed by that employer. The only way you can start on the conversion before you retire (as Craig W suggests) is to change employers and start rolling over money in the previous employer's 401k into your Roth IRA while possibly contributing to the 401k plan of your new employer. Since the amount rolled over is extra taxable income (that is, in addition to your wages from your new job), you may end up paying more tax (or at higher rates) than you expect.",
"Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).",
"It doesn't make a difference if you will be keeping it in the 401K or transferring it to an IRA, it is still retirement money that you plan on investing for decades. Pre-Enron many employees invested significant amounts of their retirement funds with the employer. One of the risks was that if a single stock was down at the wrong time, you were hurt if you needed to sell. If you are going from an S&P 500 in the 401K to an S&P 500 in the IRA, it doesn't matter if the the market is up or down, the two funds will be pretty much in synch.",
"It's best to roll over a pension plan, you don't want to pay the penalties especially when you are young. Rolling over into another scheme, or rolling over into a scheme that is somewhat self directed would avoid the penalty and could help you achieve higher returns should you feel you will perform better. Making regular monthly or biweekly contributions is imperative so that you catch compounded returns on your investments. Since you state that you are inexperienced, I would suggest rolling over into the new scheme and sitting with the pension advisor for the company, ie Prudential, etc. Telling them some key information like your age, in how many years you expect to retire, your current income, your desired pension income per year and such will greatly help them ensure that you come as close to your goal as possible, providing nothing horrendous happens in the market.",
"401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.",
"\"You will hear a lot about diversifying your portfolio, which typically means having a good mix of investment types, areas of investments, etc. I'd like to suggest that you should also diversify your sources. Sad to say but the defined benefit pension is not a rock solid, sure fire source of security in your retirement planning. Companies go bankrupt, government agencies are reorganized, and those hitherto-untouchable assets are destroyed overnight. So, treat your new investment strategy as if you were starting over, and invest accordingly, for example, aggressively for a few years, then progressively safer as you get older. There are other strategies too, depending on factors like your taste for risk: you might prefer to be conservative until you reach some safety threshold to reach \"\"certain safety\"\" and then start making riskier investments. You may also consider different investment vehicles and techniques such as index funds, dollar cost averaging, and so on.\"",
"As others mentioned, I am not sure what you mean by stating that your 401K was rolled over to a money market account. Assuming that it was rolled over to an IRA account, you can roll it over to another IRA account with a financial institution of your choice (either a brokerage or a bank.) Alternatively, you can withdraw these funds, but since you are under 59.5 years old, you would have to cough up 10% penalty to IRS for this unqualified withdrawal. Therefore, I would strongly recommend for you to wait till you reach this eligible age. Other qualified (penalty-free) withdrawals are: purchase of the first home, college tuition, medical insurance premiums for unemployed individuals, disability, and medical expenses exceeding 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income. I would assume that your 401K was a Traditional 401K account (before tax contributions), and not ROTH 401K, so yo would also have to pay taxes upon withdrawing funds whether you do it now or after you are 59.5 y.o.",
"\"See if they offer a \"\"Target Date\"\" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually \"\"exchange\"\" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon.\"",
"My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.",
"Don’t do anything that causes taxes or penalties, beyond that it’s entirely personal choice and other posters have already done a great job enumerating then. I recently switched jobs in June and rolled over a 401k from my old company to new company and the third party managing the account at the new company was much more professional and walked me through all the required steps and paperwork.",
"The simplest way to consolidate the funds your old 401(k) plans is by doing what's called a Direct Rollover (whereby the funds go directly into the new plan and skips you completely) from each of the old plans into either an IRA that you establish with a provider of your choice or even into your current employer's 401(k) plan if that is available. That way, the funds are in one central account and available to invest. Plus it eliminates the mandatory 20% withholding if the rollover is indirect and is sent to you first before the deposit into the new plan. It is important to bear in mind that you have 60 calendar days from the date of distribution to get the full amount into the new plan and a rollover is considered a tax reportable, but not necessarily a taxable event provided you deposit the funds within the time frame allotted.",
"\"JoeTaxpayer's advice is solid - reallocating to your target asset allocation is the right move. You should have an Investor Policy Statement (IPS) that maps out your financial objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity constraints, etc. From the IPS, you can determine your target asset allocation and rebalance accordingly. A few more comments: It sounds like 100% of your 401k is in US stocks. You might have other accounts that make your overall portfolio globally diversified, but if not, you want to make sure to set a target asset allocation for a global portfolio. Your statement \"\"If this were in my brokerage account I'd probably cash out some of the profits and hold onto it and buy more shares as the market eventually comes back down. But this being a 401k which has semi-monthly deposits from my paycheck, do I just leave it?\"\" is a bit counterintuitive. If you are going to try to time the market (a very hard task), it is better to use a retirement account, so you don't have to realize capital gains. Timing the market is probably a bad idea, but if you engage in market timing, it is probably better to use a retirement account than a brokerage account. If you would like to tilt your asset allocation based on the market valuation, I recommend researching Shiller's Cyclically Adjusted Price to Earnings ratio.\"",
"Companies usually have a minimum account balance required to keep a 401k for former employees. You will have to check whether $10k is sufficient to keep your funds in your former employer's 401k. If you are below their threshold, you will have to move your money. One option is to rollover into the new employer's 401k. You can rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA account that is independent of your employer. A traditional IRA has the same tax benefits as a 401k; it grows tax-free until you withdraw money from the account. Companies that offer IRAs include Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA. Many companies have significant overhead costs in the their 401k management. It may be better for you to rollover your money into an IRA to save on these costs. I am not knowledgeable about loaning from retirement accounts, so I cannot help with that.",
"Rather than rolling the 401(k) to a new employer's plan, you should roll it into a traditional IRA. You get more options for the money, there's no limit on how much you can roll over, and you have more control over the money. If you do a direct rollover, there's no taxes or penalties involved. I'd recommend against taking any money out of the 401(k). With the numbers you give above, it's like borrowing money at 31.5% interest, which is pretty high, and you're sacrificing your future retirement. If you leave that money alone to grow with compounding, you'll have a lot more when you retire. If you're not familiar with the concept of compound interest, it's worth reading up on - the numbers will blow you away. At the very least, if you desperately need to get $3000 out of it, take out just enough to net $3000 after taxes and penalties (not quite $4400 using the numbers you give) and do a rollover with the rest. At least that way, you're keeping more in the IRA (just over $8600, vs the $5000 in your proposed scenario). Overall, I really recommend you find a way to accomplish your goals without touching your retirement savings.",
"Once you roll the money from the 401K into a rollover IRA don't mix it with new funds. The money from the 401K will be treated differently depending on if the funds are pre-tax, post-tax, Roth, or matching. (Yes, Post-tax and Roth are not the same thing). In the future an employer may allow you to roll IRA or 401K money into their program. They don't have to allow it, and they can put restrictions on the types of money they will accept.",
"Since you're 20-30 years out of retirement, you should be 90% to 100% in stocks, and in one or two broad stock market funds likely. I'm not sure about the minimums at TD Ameritrade, but at Vanguard even $3k will get you into the basic funds. One option is the Targeted Retirement Year funds, which automatically rebalance as you get closer to retirement. They're a bit higher expense usually than a basic stock market fund, but they're often not too bad. (Look for expenses under 0.5% annually, and preferably much lower - I pay 0.05% on mine for example.) Otherwise, I'd just put everything into something simple - an S&P500 tracker for example (SPY or VOO are two examples) that has very low management fees. Then when your 401(k) gets up and running, that may have fewer options and thus you may end up in something more conservative - don't feel like you have to balance each account separately when they're just starting, think of them as one whole balancing act for the first year or two. Once they're each over $10k or so, then you can balance them individually (which you do want to do, to allow you to get better returns).",
"\"Here is the \"\"investing for retirement\"\" theoretical background you should have. You should base your investment decisions not simply on the historical return of the fund, but on its potential for future returns and its risk. Past performance does not indicate future results: the past performance is frequently at its best the moment before the bubble pops. While no one knows the specifics of future returns, there are a few types of assets that it's (relatively) safe to make blanket statements about: The future returns of your portfolio will primarily be determined by your asset allocation . The general rules look like: There are a variety of guides out there to help decide your asset allocation and tell you specifically what to do. The other thing that you should consider is the cost of your funds. While it's easy to get lucky enough to make a mutual fund outperform the market in the short term, it's very hard to keep that up for decades on end. Moreover, chasing performance is risky, and expensive. So look at your fund information and locate the expense ratio. If the fund's expense ratio is 1%, that's super-expensive (the stock market's annualized real rate of return is about 4%, so that could be a quarter of your returns). All else being equal, choose the cheap index fund (with an expense ratio closer to 0.1%). Many 401(k) providers only have expensive mutual funds. This is because you're trapped and can't switch to a cheaper fund, so they're free to take lots of your money. If this is the case, deal with it in the short term for the tax benefits, then open a specific type of account called a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" when you change jobs, and move your assets there. Or, if your savings are small enough, just open an IRA (a \"\"traditional IRA\"\" or \"\"Roth IRA\"\") and use those instead. (Or, yell at your HR department, in the event that you think that'll actually accomplish anything.)\"",
"\"As some of the other answers pointed out, company 401(k) accounts can sometimes have poor investment choices so if the company isn't doing some sort of matching and you only have a limited set of options, I would likely recommend that you roll the money over to a different 401(k) account so you have better investment options. Why choice from tens of funds when you may have the full market worth of options as your disposal? Likewise, if you have electronic deposit you might be able to have the 10% automatically deposited to that account out of your paycheck so you will still be getting the advantage of having \"\"forced savings\"\" from a young age. In regards to a Roth IRA, as others have pointed out, they are a bit of a gamble and you can't ensure that you will come out ahead at the end of the day in regards to taxes; however, you also need to take your own career goals into account when you make that decision. If you see yourself getting up there in the income bracket of the course of your career it doesn't hurt to have a Roth IRA now and start putting some money in it (limited amount though, maybe only $100 a month) but if you don't see yourself getting up that high in the income brackets then it might not be worth the overhead of having multiple accounts to keep track of. That said though, make sure that you aren't just saving for retirement, you should have another savings account that you are putting money away for rainy days, houses, and the like.\"",
"At your age, I don't think its a bad idea to invest entirely in stocks. The concern with stocks is their volatility, and at 40+ years from retirement, volatility does not concern you. Just remember that if you ever want to call upon your 401(k) for anything other than retirement, such as a down payment on a home (which is a qualified distribution that is not subject to early distribution penalties), then you should reconsider your retirement allocations. I would not invest 100% into stocks if I knew I were going to buy a house in five years and needed that money for a down payment. If your truly saving strictly for a retirement that could occur forty years in the future, first good for you, and second, put it all in an index fund. An S&P index has a ridiculously low expense ratio, and with so many years away from retirement, it gives you an immense amount of flexibility to choose what to do with those funds as your retirement date approaches closer every year.",
"\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\"",
"For this rollover, there are no restrictions of age/income/etc. You need to know - the transfer must be direct, i.e. if you get a physical check, it should be payable not to you, but to the new custodian (broker) for your benefit. Direct is preferable and faster. The assets may not be transferable 'in kind.' This phrase simply means that you may move the value, but if the assets are not shares that are held by the public, but special 401(k) class shares, they must be liquidated before moving, and moved as cash. This is a risk people with large accounts take should the market move dramatically during the time they are liquidated, and why, for them, I suggest doing it piecemeal.",
"I recommend that you just leave the 401K where it is - a S&P 500 is a nice simple fund with very low expenses, and over the long term, I think that's a good choice for a 401K. I don't think it makes sense to put money in bonds at your age.",
"First, if it's just about the income limit, you can deposit to a regular IRA and soon after (like next day) convert it to a Roth. So long as you have no pretax IRA money out there, there will be no tax consequence, a cent on a day's interest, perhaps. As far as the 401(k) goes, are the options any good? Some 401(k) investment choices are so awful it's best to stop after getting full matching. Mine has an S&P index fund with a .05%/yr expense ratio. That's less than I can find in the best ETF out there. Keep in mind, if you invest long term, the dividends are favored, 15% rate, and the capital gain is both controllable (you decide when to take it, by selling) and also favored, 15%. The magic of 401(k) and IRAs, whatever kind is a bit overplayed in the media. Your investing rate and asset choices are far more important.",
"\"As other responders said, you can certainly roll over multiple 401(k) into a single account. An added benefit of such rollover (besides the ease of tracking) is that you can shop around for your Rollover IRA provider and find the one that gives you the specific mutual funds that you want to invest in, the lowest expenses, etc. - in short, find the best fit to your priorities. There are also \"\"lemon\"\" 401(k) plans and if you are in one of them, get out! And rollover is the way out. There is also one possibility to keep an eye on as it happens rarely, but it does happen - rolling a 401(k) over into another 401(k). I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. At the same time I kept a Rollover IRA, combining the 401(k) from all other jobs; it had more investment options and provided some flexibility.\"",
"You need to look at all your investment as a whole. The 401K, IRA, and any taxable account need to be a part of the diversification and re-balancing. The fact you have regular deposits into the 401K needs to also be a part of your strategy. Regardless of how much specific investments have gone up this year, you need to first determine how you want to be invested in large cap stock, small cap stock, bond, international, emerging markets... Then you need to see where you are today compared to those investment percentages. You then move the money in the retirement accounts to get to your desired percentage. And set the 401K deposits to be consistent with your goals. Many times the deposits are allocated the same way the balances are, but that is more complex if one of the sectors you are investing in exists completely outside the 401K. When you re-balance in the future you will be selling sectors that grew the most and buying those that grew the least compared to their planned percentages. If all the moves are within the 401K and IRA then capital gains are not a concern. Don't think of the different accounts as separate baskets, but think of them as a whole investment strategy.",
"Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes: In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later.",
"401(k)'s can be rolled over into IRAs. You can roll all of your former company 401(k)'s into a single IRA, managed by whatever company you like. Many employers will not let you transfer money out of your 401(k) while you're still a current employee, though, so you may be stuck with the 401(k) used by your current company until you leave. You'll have to check with your 401(k) administrator to be sure. You won't incur any taxes as long as you execute the rollovers properly. The best way to do it is to coordinate the transfer directly between your old 401(k) and your new IRA, so the check is never sent directly to you.",
"The other alternative: just invest it in tax-efficient investments. You will have limited tax-deferral options outside of your 401k, but don't let that limit you. You can invest in a variety of ETFs, stocks and mutual funds for growth, and tax-free investments like municipal bonds as you get older and need to draw income.",
"The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house.",
"You should never roll a 401(k) to a Roth IRA. If the intention is to do so, you are better off rolling to a traditional IRA, and then converting. (Per the comment below, I should add - if the 401(k) contained post tax money, this portion rolls to a Roth, not a Tradition IRA. You then have the exercise of converting/recharacterizing just the TIRA money, as the Roth stands aside) This preserves the ability to recharacterize back to a traditional IRA. You might wish to do this if: The answers so far are great, but I'll add what I see missing -",
"\"For your first question, the general guidelines I've seen recommended are as follows: As to your second question, portfolio management is something you should familiarize yourself with. If you trust it to other people, don't be surprised when they make \"\"mistakes\"\". Remember, they get paid regardless of whether you make money. Consider how much any degree of risk will affect you. When starting out, your contributions make up most of the growth of your accounts; now is the time when you can most afford to take higher risk for higher payouts (still limiting your risk as much as possible, of course). A 10% loss on a portfolio of $50k can be replaced with a good year's contributions. Once your portfolio has grown to a much larger sum, it will be time to dial back the risk and focus on preserving your capital. When choosing investments, always treat your porfolio as a whole - including non-retirement assets (other investment accounts, savings, even your house). Don't put too many eggs from every account into the same basket, or you'll find that 30% of your porfolio is a single investment. Also consider that some investments have different tax consequences, and you can leverage the properties of each account to offset that.\"",
"I don't like your strategy. Don't wait. Open an investment account today with a low cost providers and put those funds into a low cost investment that represents as much of the market as you can find. I am going to start by assuming you are a really smart person. With that assumption I am going to assume you can see details and trends and read into the lines. As a computer programmer I am going to assume you are pretty task oriented, and that you look for optimal solutions. Now I am going to ask you to step back. You are clearly very good at managing your money, but I believe you are over-thinking your opportunity. Reading your question, you need a starting place (and some managed expectations), so here is your plan: Now that you have a personal retirement account (IRA, Roth IRA, MyRA?) and perhaps a 401(k) (or equivalent) at work, you can start to select which investments go into that account. I know that was your question, but things you said in your question made me wonder if you had all of that clear in your head. The key point here is don't wait. You won't be able to time the market; certainly not consistently. Get in NOW and stay in. You adjust your investments based on your risk tolerance as you age, and you adjust your investments based on your wealth and needs. But get in NOW. Over the course of 40 years you are likely to be working, sometimes the market will be up, and sometimes the market will be down; but keep buying in. Because every day you are in, you money can grow; and over 40 years the chances that you will grow substantially is pretty high. No need to wait, start growing today. Things I didn't discuss but are important to you:",
"If you do not need the money in the 401k right away and are interested in avoiding penalties on the amounts accumulated, roll over the 401k monies into a Roth IRA (your contributions and growth thereof) and a Traditional IRA (company match a d growth thereof). You can choose to take out money from the Traditional IRA not as a lump sum (penalties in addition to lots of income tax in the year of taking the distribution) but as series of equal payments over your life expectancy (no penalty but US income tax is still due each year). Be aware that he who rides a tiger cannot dismount: if you opt for this method, you must take a distribution every year whether you need the money or not, and the amount of the distribution must match what the IRS wants you to take exactly; excess withdrawals lead to penalties etc. Publication 590 says Annuity. You can receive distributions from your traditional IRA that are part of a series of substantially equal payments over your life (or your life expectancy), or over the lives (or the joint life expectancies) of you and your beneficiary, without having to pay the 10% additional tax, even if you receive such distributions before you are age 59.5. You must use an IRS-approved distribution method and you must take at least one distribution annually for this exception to apply. The “required minimum distribution method,” when used for this purpose, results in the exact amount required to be distributed, not the minimum amount. Be aware that, depending on your country of residence/citizenship, you may be required to close all foreign accounts within x months of return, and if so, this stratagem will not work.",
"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.",
"I would not recommend borrowing your 401(k) money to buy a house for two reasons: When you borrow money from your 401(k), it is no longer invested. Yes, you pay yourself interest, but you miss out on the investment gains for the life of the loan. If you leave your job, the loan is due in full shortly thereafter. If you do not pay it back, you are hit with taxes and penalties. If I were you, I would roll it over into an IRA for the reasons you mentioned.",
"I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments.",
"I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme.",
"I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer. Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html). The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years. On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period. At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K. If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home. Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away.",
"\"Does your current 401(k) have low fees and good investment choices? If so you might be able to \"\"roll-in\"\" your rollover IRA to your 401(k), then do a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. A Roth IRA would be far more useful than a non-deductible traditional IRA.\"",
"You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match.",
"The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match. If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks).",
"My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule.",
"You could check with the new 401k provider to see if they allow rollover-in contributions. You can likely take the exact amount of the rollover check that was put in the IRA and put it in the new 401k and then take a loan. Loan amount is calculated as 1/2 vested balance less any outstanding loans or $50k, whichever is less. Hopefully this helps...",
"I agree with others here that suggest that you should be taking higher risk since it is repaid with higher returns. You have 40 years or so to go before you might switch to safer but lower return funds. I suggest that you look at the Morningstar rating for the funds you are considering: http://www.morningstar.com/ A fund rated five stars means that the fund performs in the top 20% compared to all similar funds. I prefer five star funds. Next, check the management fees. Here is an example from one of the funds you mentioned; https://www.google.com/finance?cid=466533039917726 Next, I suggest you compare how each fund has performed compared to a benchmark. Here are some common indices: Compare an equity fund to, for example, the S&P 500. Has your fund beat or closely matched the S&P for 1, 5 and 10 years? If not, you may as well buy an index fund, such as SPY.",
"Pay the 401(k) loan back as soon as possible. To be clear, the money from your 401(k) loan is no longer invested and working for you. It doesn't make sense to pull money out of your 401(k) investments and then invest it in something else. If you want to invest for retirement, pay back the loan and invest that money inside your 401(k). If you leave your job, the 401(k) loan needs to be paid back in full, or else taxes and penalties will apply. If you have put the funds in an IRA, they won't be available to you should you need to pay back the loan early. Instead of making a monthly payment to the 401(k) loan, pay off the loan and then make a monthly investment to an IRA.",
"It is typically very easy to roll a 401(k) into an IRA. Companies that provide IRA's are very experienced with it, and I would expect that they will take your calls from overseas. You will likely be able to do it over the internet without using a phone at all. Just open an IRA with any brokerage company (Scottrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Schwab, Ameritrade, etc.) and follow instructions to roll your 401(k) into it. Most likely they will need your signature, but usually a scan of a form you have filled out will do. Be sure to have information on your 401(k) provider, including your account number there, on hand. These companies are all very reputable and this is not a difficult transaction. There's really no downside to rolling into an IRA. 401(k) plans usually have more limited options and/or worse fee structures and are frequently harder to work with, as you have observed.",
"Do not take the cash! You might be able to leave the money with the large company. Ask the HR people at the company. If you are satisfied with their work, no sense leaving if you don't have to. I have coworkers that have 401K all over from all the buyouts the company went through. If you don't want to leave it behind, do a rollover into your own account with a low cost carrier. (Vanguard, Fidelity and Charles Schwab are popular) Whoever you choose for your own account can help you rollover the funds without penalty. (Schwab helped me over the phone, it was pretty simple) More about rolling over a Roth 401K",
"Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house."
] |
[
"You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters.",
"The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company."
] |
766
|
Will the ex-homeowner still owe money after a foreclosure?
|
[
"2996",
"387218",
"550172"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"127461",
"2996",
"427110",
"482755",
"387218",
"27987",
"90579",
"125032",
"308231",
"366448",
"53966",
"299591",
"578906",
"275127",
"425528",
"391644",
"66665",
"227533",
"519231",
"391251",
"249788",
"64189",
"180003",
"552768",
"375618",
"60176",
"439999",
"56126",
"75686",
"254684",
"420851",
"245917",
"212827",
"80544",
"461049",
"565428",
"494458",
"535331",
"92659",
"247778",
"525247",
"95778",
"325296",
"273567",
"102155",
"473318",
"510805",
"278236",
"246882",
"209063",
"493075",
"382558",
"305520",
"422468",
"157456",
"54332",
"382255",
"256295",
"438217",
"141320",
"80840",
"574438",
"107699",
"152446",
"404487",
"156143",
"521680",
"439295",
"255171",
"104857",
"263934",
"200775",
"577139",
"191632",
"268865",
"294097",
"274870",
"6882",
"491680",
"42129",
"310871",
"31911",
"534099",
"446553",
"100474",
"517299",
"290584",
"422484",
"525630",
"145404",
"140038",
"141627",
"350588",
"274435",
"205542",
"57913",
"458960",
"252082",
"14662",
"403749"
] |
[
"I walked away from a house last year and don't regret it a single bit. I owed $545,000 and the bank sold it a month after moving out for $328,900. So technically I guess I can be on the hook to someone for the missing $216,100 for many years to come. Oh well. They can come after me if they want and I'll declare bankruptcy then.",
"Yes, the borrower is responsible for paying back the full amount of the loan. Foreclosure gives the bank possession of the property, which they can (and do) sell. Any shortfall is still the borrower's responsibility. But, no, the bank can't sell the property for a dollar; they have to make a reasonable effort. Usually the sale is done through a sheriff's sale, that is, a more or less carefully supervised auction. Bankruptcy will wipe out the shortfall, and most other debts, but the downside is that most of the rest of your assets will also be sold to help pay off what you owe. Details of what you can keep vary from state to state. If you want to go this route, hire a lawyer.",
"Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do. If your name was on the mortgage, you owe the money, regardless of who kept the house. They can (and likely will) come after you for the money as well. A bit late in your case, but that's why when people divorce, refinancing the house into one person's name (and the other quit-claiming their interest) is usually part of the settlement. ETA: As others have mentioned, since you are in California, it appears that they cannot come after you for the difference.",
"According to the Trulia reference on the issue, New York is a recourse state. Recourse means that the lender can go after you for the difference between the foreclosure discharge amount (in New York - the higher of the FMV or the actual sale price) and the debt balance. That includes garnishing your wages, seizing your assets, and any other method of collecting the judgement. The relevant law is in the New York Consolidated Laws - RPA Article 13. The option you're talking about is the option any lender has anywhere - not to sue you for the difference (provision 3 of the paragraph): If no motion for a deficiency judgment shall be made as herein prescribed the proceeds of the sale regardless of amount shall be deemed to be in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt and no right to recover any deficiency in any action or proceeding shall exist. So if during the foreclosure they didn't sue you for the difference - they cannot change their mind after that. If you're not sure you can repay the loan - you should probably walk away from the deal.",
"\"Generally, yes, although not in all states. According to this article in Time: But in non-recourse states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington — the bank has no recourse beyond the repossession of the property. As for the question about what price the bank can sell it: again, each state makes its own rules, and states may have rules against selling it for much below market value. Quick Google for \"\"ohio state law foreclosure deficiency judgement market value\"\" turned this up: Limitation on Deficiency Judgments. The property cannot be sold at foreclosure sale for less than two-thirds of the appraised fair market value. (Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2329.20, 2329.17). (source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/deficiency-judgments-after-foreclosure-ohio.html)\"",
"Foreclosure is at a high level the bank declaring that the debtor cannot pay their promissory note (their debt). This is shortly followed by default, which is the removal of debtors rights to the property. After the debtor has defaulted, he either chooses to voluntarily remove himself and his belongings from the property, or is forcibly evicted. In the US eviction is carried out by local law enforcement, such as the sheriff's office. The bank is now the sole owner of the property, and proceeds to sell it, in an attempt to recoup their investment. If the bank cannot recoup their investment by selling the house, the rest may be converted to unsecured debt against the debtor. If the bank chooses to forgive the remaining debt, the debtor may have a tax liability for cancellation of debt. Also the debtor may also be liable for any appreciation the house did before it was sold, but this likely to be nontaxable if the house in question is the debtor's primary residence. They also send the credit bureaus the notice of foreclosure, which is how your credit score is hurt. Private Mortgage Insurance or Lenders Mortgage Insurance will pay the lender some amount back to cover their losses. See Also:",
"California is a non-recourse state, so they won't be coming after you for the balance. If the terms of you divorce were written out that your wife got the house, perhaps a lawyer can get your credit cleared, but that is a long shot. Your chances depend very much on how long your wife made payments, if there is a provable history and the length of that history might help you out. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_states_are_non-recourse_states_for_mortgage_debt",
"The reason the loan amount is showing is because it is a default - the fact that you live in a non-recourse state doesn't change the fact that a loan obligation that had your name on it was defaulted upon. I don't think there is much you can do now given that your name was still on the mortgages.",
"No, it is not true. It depends on the market, the banks' inventory, the original debt that was owed, etc etc. The banks generally want to recover their money, so in case of underwater properties they may end up hold a property for years until prices bounce back (as it happened during the last crisis when many houses were boarded for months/years until banks put them back on the market hoping to sell at a price that would allow them to recover their losses).",
"Yes. A mortgage is a kind of debt. Someone lends you money to buy your house, and you owe them the money, so you have debt.",
"\"To put a different spin on it, suppose you loaned someone $100K, expecting that they would pay it back, and then a little later they decided not too. They are perfectly capable of paying back the money, but just decided they didn't want to, and it seems the laws of your state said you couldn't make them. How would you feel about that? Since this is supposed to be an answer to the question, the answer is: \"\"only if you can't afford to repay it\"\". That's what foreclosure is supposed to be about, not you deciding you would rather not pay your debts. Let's not forget who pays that bill for you - every one of your bank's other customers. EDIT:For the people decrying the moral aspect and saying \"\"it's perfectly alright because the law says that's the punishment and I'm willing to pay it\"\", the law also says \"\"if you kill someone, you go to prison for life\"\". Does that mean that someone who decides they are going to kill someone has a perfect right to do it as long as they are prepared to take the consequences?\"",
"The home owner does not start foreclosure, the bank decides when to foreclose. Therefore you cannot really decide a time to foreclose if you are trying to time the decision. The process You miss payments, and the banks will send you a late notice for the missing payments. Expect many notices. The bank will call you at home, on your cell phone and at work. They will mail you letters regarding the missing payments. If you continue to miss payments, the bank will probably demand the loan be paid in full. You will owe the bank the full balance of the principle, all past due interest, all past due late charges and junk fees. The bank won't even take a normal monthly payment from you should you try to pay your regular payment again. Some law enforcement will notify you on the bank's intent to foreclose. The bank has begun legal proceedings. Legal notices are published in the local newspaper. Soon the notices and the legal waiting period will expire. Court proceedings happen. The court will then allow the bank to foreclose. Notices to into the paper again about the updated status of the foreclosure. The house is sold at auction. Money from the auction is used to pay taxes owned, then mortgages, then other liens or creditors who file. Further debt for the home owner Taxes When sold, if the mortgage debt exceeds the home's fair market value, US Federal Tax rules say the selling price as the fair market value. The fair market value can still be higher than the tax basis (which I think is the value of the house at the time of original purchase plus improvements.). If the fair market value is higher, you will own taxes on sale. However tax rules in the US say if you have owned the home more than two years and make less than $250,000 in the transaction ($500,000 if married) you will not owe any tax. State taxes can be different. Additionally, if the mortgage lender forgives the debt and doesn't create a deficiency, that income is taxable as well. This is more an more common these days. There are exceptions if the home is your primary residence. This whole process an take several months to occur, but depends on where you live. If you continue to live in the home after the auction, the new owner must evict you from the property which is another set of legal proceedings. Your credit and ability to buy are home will be damaged for the next several years. I am not so sure on how PMI works for the banks, but I know they are getting some money back.",
"I would tell the former owner that you will sell him the house for you current loan balance. He wants the home, he may be willing to pay what you owe. You can't really do a short sale unless you are behind on your payments. Banks only agree to a short sale when they think they are going to have to foreclose on the property. Not to mention a short sale is almost as bad as a foreclosure and will wreck your credit. If the former buying is not willing to buy the house for what you owe your only real option is to come up with the difference. If he offers you say $50K less than you owe, you will have to give the mortgage holder the remaining balance $50K in this example for them to release the property. Another problem you will face, if the former owner is willing to pay more than what the house is worth, and he is going to finance it, he will have to have enough cash to put down so that the loan amount is not more than the property is worth. Finally if none of that works you can just hold on to the property until the value comes up or you mortgage is payed down enough to make the balance of the mortgage less than the value of the house. Then offer the property to the former owner again.",
"No that will not count as a short sale although it may still affect your chances of getting a loan because some lenders wont want to see it on your credit if you are pursuing a new FHA loan. In the best case scenario you will need an explanation letter of why you did this. In the worst case scenario the lender will want you to wait to get financing. Try and find a lender with NO FHA overages which means they don't put additional restrictions on giving you an FHA insured loan. That type of lender will be your best choice because they just follow FHA rules and don't add any additional requirements.",
"I think the statute of limitations is 2 years so I suspect that she may not qualify, also BOA was not the last bank to hold her mortgage. I doubt she'll receive anything. She's just glad the whole mess is behind her.",
"Insurance you purchase is paid to you. However, even if the home is destroyed, you still owe all the money to the bank, and you no longer have the house as part of the land's value to guarantee the loan. So depending on how much the land is still worth versus how much you owe -- and exactly what the terms of the loan are -- you may need to use some or all of that money to repay enough of the loan to bring it back within the bank's policies. Read the terms of the loan -- consider asking a lawyer to clarify it for you if necessary; having a lawyer review that kind of major contract is always wise anyway. –",
"Dan - there are other choices. What rate do you have on this mortgage? And what is the value of the home? With a bit of patience and effort, you may be able to lower your rate and save some portion of that $100k you think you can grab. There is no factual answer here. The negative will show for 7 years, and only you can determine whether that's worth it. If in that time the value comes back you may very well be in a worse position, looking to buy a new home that's now well above where it is today. It's possible the current prices are overshooting on the downside, if unemployment drops and consumer confidence returns, you may be back to break-even sooner than you think. As an aside, I find it curious that the Trumps of this world can manipulate the system, creating multiple entities, filing for bankruptcy, yet protecting his own assets, and his wealth is applauded. Yet, asking the question here so many attack you, verbally. The Donald has saved himself billions through his dealings, I don't judge you for asking this question when it comes to $100k. When Trump's net worth was negative, he should have had his property taken away, and been handed a broom.",
"You still owe the money because there is a high probability that some other organization bough the account and assets of the failed creditor. That means they will have bought your debt. I have to assume there is language in your note that explains that they might sell your debt. But what should one do if they don't know who bought the entity? You can't pay a non-existent entity, but if you don't have an address, how can you pay the new owner of the debt? First step, is to assume there will be a new owner. A government, a company, an individual; somebody will buy that debt. Read the news and see if you can't figure out what other entity owns your note. You might have to contact them to enquire about where to send payment. Keep records of any such contact. If you put in an honest effort, but just cannot figure out who owns your note, I'd suggest continuing to make regular on-time payments. But put your payments into a new bank account that you open just for this purpose. So when the new owner of the debt does come calling, you'll have reasonable proof you were attempting to pay. You simply settle up from the special account. Any reasonable company will just take the money, and if anybody gets unreasonable and you have to appear in court, you have a paper trail indicating your attempts to honour the debt. You'd have to consult a lawyer if nobody comes asking for the money. There are probably statutes of limitation, but I wouldn't count on that ever happening.",
"\"It depends on whether the loan is written as a non-recourse debt and what collateral was pledged. \"\"Non-recourse\"\" debt means that the issuer is limited to seizing the pledged collateral but cannot extend beyond those pledged assets. A \"\"recourse debt\"\" allows the issuer to seize the collateral and potentially other assets of those signed to the loan. In your example, a non-recourse loan would stop the issuer at seizing the property pledged as collateral (for instance the land remaining after the golden condor took your house), and it would stop there if that was the entirety of the collateral pledged. In the case of a recourse debt, each of you who signed loan are most likely going to be held responsible for the rest of the debt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonrecourse_debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recourse_debt\"",
"The loan itself is not tax deductible; unless you took it as part of a mortgage, anyway, it's just a regular loan. Mortgage and Student Loan Interest deductions are special cases explicitly given tax-deductible status; other loans are not deductible (unless part of a business expense or other qualifying reason). If this were a short sale (which you note it was not but included for completeness' sake), and some of your debt was cancelled, that may have tax implications. You cannot take a capital loss on your personal residence, so the loss itself is not deductible.",
"You're not responsible for the mortgages on the property - those are agreements between the lender and the borrower. The risk you have is that the title search missed something. If the seller (i.e., the bank or banks who foreclosed) did not have full rights to sell the property, and there was another party who had a lien on the property or had an interest in it in some fashion, that party could make a claim that would interfere with your purchase. You wouldn't be responsible for the loan, but you might not end up with the title to the property if that happened.",
"Very few people's credit is worth $100,000. The average homeowner's credit (family of four with good to very good credit) is worth about $30,000. This is a pure business decision. The bank knew the law when they extended the mortgage to you, and part of the amount they're charging you goes to cover the risk that you might opt to walk away. The mortgage was an agreement between you and the bank and it specified the penalty for you walking away. Taking the agreed upon penalty for an action specifically contemplated in the agreement is also keeping the agreement.",
"No. As long as you live in the house for 3 years, it's yours to keep. Financing has nothing to do with that.",
"If the foreclosed property is sold for more than is owed, then the borrower is entitled to the excess. If sold for what is owed or less, then the borrower gets nothing. Any money that you are entitled to would be determined by your contract with the mortgaged owner, but the bank is the first lien-holder, they get made whole first, and if there is excess then you may see some of your money back depending on your contract with the mortgaged owner. Since the bank owns the property until the mortgage is paid off, you would have had to work with the bank in order to have legal ownership of a portion of the house and approving partial sale of a house is not something most banks would likely care to do. A contract you worked up with the borrower doesn't give you legal claim to the house (in foreclosure, at least), due to the bank's lien. You'd have to contact a lawyer for firm answers, but it sounds bleak.",
"- it devistates you're credit record (good luck getting even a car loan) - rents are artificially high due to the foreclosure backlog and those who haven't let go yet, so there might not be any relief by defaulting - they will be prohibited from buying another house for at least 7 years - it is very possible that they will be pursued by the banks in court for years to come and may end up having tax refunds and pay checks garnished for decades to come (again impacting their ability to obtain loans or get credit), effectively turning them into renters for the remainder of their working life.",
"And then there is the issue of people who actually don't intend to reduce the size of their loan. They only want to pay the interest, so their debt with the bank remains constant. If you are upside down, it means you will not have the financial means to remove the debt. If, for some reason, you are no longer able to pay the bank, you might lose the house. After that you will have no house, but you still have a debt with the bank.",
"\">So people buying houses with inflated prices that they couldn't really afford isn't the problem? I don't know the guy's exact financial situation besides the fact that he is upside down and he has good credit but I'd wager that for this gentlemen it's not a matter of him \"\"not being able to afford the home\"\" but a matter of he can't get a lower interest rate from his bank. If he couldn't afford the home, he would have declared bankruptcy a long time ago when the bubble burst.\"",
"That may depend largely in which country you are in, the legislation in that country and the state of the economy and property market (more specifically) at the time of the foreclosure. In Australia, where we do not have non-recourse loans (except in SMSFs) the banks are obliged to recoup as much as possible for the mortgagee, however they would not hold on to the property indefinitely, as that could cause other problems and they have to return the mortgagee portion of the funds back to them (if there is any funds left after the bank takes their portion). In 2008, when the property market here was weak we had bought some foreclosure houses and were able to get them 20% to 25% below what they were selling at the year before. If there was a forclosure in today's strong market in Australia (and especially in Sydney), I dought you would get much of a discount at all. So it may largly depend on the demand and supply at the time of the forclosure.",
"Are there any other losses that can be expected beyond the above? The lender may have to invest some money into the house in order to get it in shape to sell. Also, while the lender possesses the house they are liable to the property taxes and possibly utilities. are there any statutes or pressures to motivate the financial institution to get fair price when the property is sold? The lender is motivated to at least break even when selling the property in order to limit losses on their investment. This means they are very motivated to seek a higher price, but they're also motivated to sell the property quickly in order to limit their losses due to property taxes. Usually the lender takes a loss of the investment if foreclosure occurs; only 10 percent to 20 percent of auctioned foreclosed houses did yield a surplus. When the lender sells the foreclosed property using a realtor, they're motivated to sell it as quickly as possible so long as they break even. In this case there is little motivation to sell the property for a surplus. If the property is being sold via auction, then time is not a factor and the lender will just sell to the highest bidder.",
"\"I can answer this question for my jurisdiction (Florida, USA), because I lived through it. My Dad (\"\"Alice\"\") passed away in 2008, just as the housing crisis was starting to heat up. What happened to the Mortgage? My Dad had a will in place. It was an old will (from the 1980's), but never-the-less, a will. We had to provide paperwork to the court that my Mom had already passed away, and my oldest brother was living out-of-state (he would have been the executor, otherwise). With the proper paperwork, I became the Executor, and the property passed in to probate. At this point, the \"\"Estate\"\" was responsible for the house and the mortgage on it (meaning me, as I was the Executor). We decided to sell the house, so we hired a realtor, and set an asking price about $40k over what was owed on it. As we waited for it to sell, I had to make monthly mortgage payments, and payments to the HOA (otherwise the HOA could put a lien on the property, making it more difficult to sell, should we find a buyer). Is it Automatically Transferred? In most jurisdictions, I would say not \"\"automatic\"\". I definitely had get an estate lawyer and file the proper legal paperwork with the local county courthouse. Some states have an easier probate process (\"\"Summary Administration\"\" in Florida), that eases the requirements for small estates. Is Bob expected to pay it off all at once? No, the mortgage holder was happy for me to make payments (out of other estate assets) in lieu of my Dad. The were earning interest, after all. This is probably true in most cases. Can the House be Foreclosed on? Yes. In our case, being 2008, we had a hard time selling the property. The asking price quickly went from $40k over what was owed, to $20k over, to $10k over, then to being equal to the mortgage value. Finally, I approached the bank about options. They suggested a \"\"Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure\"\" process. It was easier for us, and the bank had to pay less lawyers and such. Otherwise, a \"\"Deed in Lieu\"\" is effectively the same as a Foreclosure. At that point, we stopped making payments. Eventually, me and all my siblings (the \"\"heirs\"\") had to sign the proper paperwork giving the house over to the bank. In our case, the bank did not pursue us (or rather, the Estate) for the difference between final (auction) sale price and the mortgage balance (it was an FHA loan, so the US Government wound up picking up the difference). From what I understand, this could have happened, and we would have wound up with basically nothing out of the Estate. Can the Lender Force the Sale? I can't give a definite answer on this, but it probably depends. If you don't pay? Yes they sure can--it's usually part of the standard mortgage contract! I see 2 other options:\"",
"Yes, you are. When someone is bankrupt their assets are being sold to satisfy the creditors. Your note is an asset, and will be sold. You'll be making payments to the entity that buys it.",
">wasn't told he still needed to pay back the difference in the loan once he did Ouch. Even though sometimes you dont have to pay the difference if the collateral wasnt sold in a commercially reasonable manner. Its been a while since ive read title 9, but there are a lot if rules about selling collateral after repossession. It sounds like the collection company really screwed him over by selling way under market.",
"\"I expect that the loan documents show both you and your ex-partner as \"\"jointly and severally liable\"\" for the debt, and thus you're both responsible for it. It doesn't really matter what other paperwork you have that says otherwise or what other promises might have been made. Certainly, the other agreements give you legal ground to go after your ex-partner for the money, but they give you no leverage with the bank. If you end up paying this debt off to save your credit, you need to make sure that the account is closed. Make sure you have paperwork showing it as closed, and showing that it was paid in full, and then keep that paperwork forever. Re #1: I think it will eventually show up on your credit report. You could ask the bank for proof that you owe the money, if you like, but that will probably just delay the inevitable. Re #2: His bankruptcy filing really has no bearing on you and your obligation to repay the loan. If he didn't list this debt, then he is still liable for it as well (and you can still go after him under your other agreements). But either way, you're still on the debt.\"",
"whenever these securities are bought by the govt, they are retired. Treasury sells bonds to the private sector market, if the central bank buys them back from the private sector market, then they are retired. Treasury no longer are beholden to them. When central bank buys toxic mortgages bonds, they bought only enough to ensure stability and trust again in the banking system. The homeowners mortgages should be forgiven since the US govt bought them, but, since we don't know who owns what due to mixing of the MBS and grading them triple A etc.., and the MERS program is such a mess, then it's up to the individual homeowners to fight in the courts that they should be absolved of the mortgage. For the homeowners that don't have money to pay lawyers, then they gets foreclosed upon.",
"You haven't mentioned the country. As a general premise, you own them money and the fact that the account was closed has no bearing on the fact that you own them money. My suggestion would be pay them off.",
"\"Debts do not inherit to the children. You are absolutely not liable for your parent's debt, in any way whatsoever. ** Collection agents will lie about this; tricking you is their job, and your job is to tell them Heck no, do I look like an idiot? When a person dies, all their personal assets (and debts) go to a fictitious entity called the Estate. This is a holder for the person's assets until they can be dispositioned finally. The estate is managed by a living person, sometimes a company (law firm), called an Executor. Similar to a corporation which is shutting down business, the Executor's job is to act on behalf of the Estate, and in the Estate's best interest (not his own). For instance he can't decide, in his capacity as executor, to give all the estate's money to himself. He has to loyally and selflessly follow state law and any living-trust or wills that may be in place. This role is not for everyone. You can't just decide \"\"la la la, I'm going to live in their house now\"\", that is squatting. The house is an asset and someone inherited that, as dictated by will, trust or state law. That has to be worked out legally. Once they inherit the house, you have to negotiate with them about living there. If you want to live there now, negotiate to rent the house from the estate. This is an efficient way to funnel money into the estate for what I discuss later.** The Estate has assets, and it has debts. Some debts extinguish on the death of the natural person, e.g. student loans, depending on the contract and state law. Did you know corporations are considered a \"\"person\"\"? (that's what Citizens United was all about.) So are estates - both are fictitious persons. The executor can act like a person in that sense. If you have unsecured debt, how can a creditor motivate you to pay? They can annoy and harass you. They can burn your credit rating. Or they can sue you and try to take your assets - but suing is also expensive for them. This is not widely understood, but anyone at any time can go to their creditors and say \"\"Hey creditor, I'm not gonna pay you $10,000. Tough buffaloes. You can sue me, good luck with that. Or, I'll make you a deal. I'll offer you $2000 to settle this debt. What say you? And you'll get one of two answers. Either \"\"OK\"\" or \"\"Nice try, let's try $7000.\"\" If the latter, you start into the cycle of haggling, \"\"3000.\"\" \"\"6000.\"\" \"\"4000.\"\" \"\"5000. \"\"Split the difference, $4500.\"\" \"\"OK.\"\" This is always a one-time, lump sum, one-shot payoff, never partial payments. Creditors will try to convince you to make partial payments. Don't do it. Anyone can do that at any time. Why don't living people do this every day? How about an Estate? Estates are fictitious persons, they don't have a \"\"morality\"\", they have a fiduciary duty. Do they plan on borrowing any more money? Nope. Their credit rating is already 0. They owe no loyalty to USBank. Actually, the executor's fiduciary duty is to get the most possible money for the assets, and settle the debts for the least. So I argue it's unethical to fail to haggle down this debt. If an executor is \"\"not a haggler\"\" or has a moral issue with shortchanging creditors, he is shortchanging the heirs, and he can be sued for that personally - because he has a fiduciary duty to the heirs, not Chase Bank. Like I say, the job is not for everyone. The estate should also make sure to check the paperwork for any other way to escape the debt: does it extinguish on death? Is the debt time-barred? Can they really prove it's valid? Etc. It's not personal, it's business. The estate should not make monthly payments (no credit rating to protect) and should not pay one dime to a creditor except for a one-shot final settlement. Is it secured debt? Let them take the asset. (unless an heir really wants it). When a person dies with a lot of unsecured debt, it's often the case that they don't have a lot of cash lying around. The estate must sell off assets to raise the cash to settle with the creditors. Now here's where things get ugly with the house. ** The estate should try to raise money any other way, but it may have to sell the house to pay the creditors. For the people who would otherwise inherit the house, it may be in their best interest to pay off that debt. Check with lawyers in your area, but it may also be possible for the estate to take a mortgage on the house, use the mortgage cash to pay off the estate's debts (still haggle!), and then bequeath the house-and-mortgage to the heirs. The mortgage lender would have to be on-board with all of this. Then, the heirs would owe the mortgage. Good chance it would be a small mortgage on a big equity, e.g. a $20,000 mortgage on a $100,000 house. Banks love those.\"",
"Wow. People with mortgages could at least get a foreclosure and ~~walk~~ limp away. Now there are legions of people with debt on the same order of magnitude that are chained to it for life. Feeling the tension of that bubble yet?",
"\"No idea what you are trying to say here. You default on a loan, student or otherwise, by not paying. That is what creates the default, but you still owe it. Student loans actually can be discharged, but it is very uncommon and an uphill battle. You have to prove \"\"undue hardship\"\" which has a rather high standard. The last firm I worked at did manage to get a large amount of student loans discharged for someone who was in a car wreck and became a quadriplegic after incurring the student loan. And even that was not an easy case, my old firm was actually rather pleased at their success.\"",
"From MyFICO: A foreclosure remains on your credit report for 7 years, but its impact to your FICO® score will lessen over time. While a foreclosure is considered a very negative event by your FICO score, it's a common misconception that it will ruin your score for a very long time. In fact, if you keep all of your other credit obligations in good standing, your FICO score can begin to rebound in as little as 2 years. The important thing to keep in mind is that a foreclosure is a single negative item, and if you keep this item isolated, it will be much less damaging to your FICO score than if you had a foreclosure in addition to defaulting on other credit obligations. (personal note - I tip my hat to you, sir. Regardless of party, we owe our Vets a debt of gratitude. If I had my way, a VA loan would ignore the past short sale. I wish you well. And thank you for serving)",
"It's sad. My mother lost her job after a brutal divorce. BOA bought up Countrywide, then when my mother pleaded for assistance BOA said they could not help her unless she was behind/in default of her mortgage. She tried to do a deed-in-lieu with a lawyer and BOA refused to accept the deed-in-lieu many times. Then BOA sold her mortgage to Green Tree (?) and they refused her deed-in-lieu as well. This went on for over 2 years and they foreclosed on the house. I told my mother to sue because they should have accepted her deed-in-lieu because it was approved by the court in her bankruptcy but she was tired of trying to save her house that she just walked away. 6 months after she left and moved in with my sister Green Tree called her offering a refinance at a lower rate and a mortgage payment that was less than a typical car payment. Now 5 years later my mom is just going to pay cash for her house and never do a mortgage again.",
"The answer is generally yes. Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to get help through a federal, state, or lender program that:",
"\"The expression \"\"in debt\"\" when talking about a person's financial affairs means that the sum of debit balances on all accounts exceeds the sum of credit balances on all accounts. A mortgage account is not excluded from that. This definition also does not consider whether any of the debt is secured, or ownership of assets (shares, property, chattels, etc). So, someone with a mortgage of one million dollars for a home that is worth two million is in debt by one million dollars, until they they sell the home (for that amount) and pay down the mortgage. That means \"\"in debt\"\" is not necessarily a statement about net worth.\"",
"\"First of all you do not \"\"co-sign a car\"\". I assume what you mean by this is that you co-signed a loan, and the money was used to buy a car. Once you signed that loan YOU OWED THE MONEY. Once a loan exists, it exists, and you will owe the money until the loan is paid. If you do not want to owe the money, then you need to pay back the money you borrowed. You may not think \"\"you\"\" borrowed the money because the car went to someone else. THE BANK AND THE COURTS DO NOT CARE. All they care about is that YOU signed the loan, so as far as they are concerned YOU owe the money and you owe ALL of the money to the bank, and the only way to change that is to pay the money back.\"",
"Sample Numbers: Owe $100k on house. House (after 'crash') valued at: $50K. Reason for consternation: What rational person pays $100k for property that is only worth half that amount? True Story: My neighbor paid almost $250K (a quarter-of-a-million dollars - think about that..) for a house that when he walked (ran!) away from it was sold by the bank for $88K. Unless he declares bankruptcy (and forgoes all his other assets, including retirement savings) he still owes the bank the difference. And even with bankruptcy, he may still owe the bank - this should cause anyone to be a bit concerned about being up-side down in a mortgage loan.",
"The house becomes an asset belonging to the estate of Alice. The debt also goes with the estate. The executor of the will should arrange for the debt to be paid off as part of sorting out the estate - they can't just hand out all the assets and leave nothing to pay off the debts. This could be done by selling the house. But in practice, the executor and the mortgage lender may both be happy if Bob takes out a mortgage, uses that to pay the debt, then inherits the house.",
"But now you have cash on hand that wasn't used to pay debt, no change in net worth. In fact, if you refuse to pay your mortgage for two years until you're kicked out of your underwater house, your net worth goes up.",
"\"A short-sale seems like an extreme and unethical course to take. You should read your mortgage documents or work with your attorney to read the mortgage and determine whether it is an \"\"assumable\"\" mortgage. If so, you might be able to get the former owner to take over the mortgage.\"",
"You need to talk to a local attorney specializing in real estate matters. The contract needs to ensure that your interests are protected. How you do that is too complex for an answer here and varies from state to state, or even jurisdictions within a state. There are all sorts of options. Sometimes deals like this are structured so that you can actually sell your remaining equity in the property to a third party later on. If the property has value, but the banks aren't interested in lending right now, you could potentially make money on it down the road.",
"I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating.",
"My advice to you? Act like responsible adults and owe up to your financial commitments. When you bought your house and took out a loan from the bank, you made an agreement to pay it back. If you breach this agreement, you deserve to have your credit score trashed. What do you think will happen to the $100K+ if you decide to stiff the bank? The bank will make up for its loss by increasing the mortgage rates for others that are taking out loans, so responsible borrowers get to subsidize those that shirk their responsibilities. If you were in a true hardship situation, I would be inclined to take a different stance. But, as you've indicated, you are perfectly able to make the payments -- you just don't feel like it. Real estate fluctuates in value, just like any other asset. If a stock I bought drops in value, does the government come and bail me out? Of course not! What I find most problematic about your plan is that not only do you wish to breach your agreement, but you are also looking for ways to conceal your breach. Please think about this. Best of luck with your decision.",
"The government gets part of it. The remainder: Borrower relief will be in the form of mortgage modifications, including first-lien principal and forbearance forgiveness and second-lien extinguishments, low- to moderate-income mortgage originations, and community reinvestment and neighborhood stabilization efforts, with initiatives focused on communities experiencing, or at risk of, urban blight. This includes lien releases, uninhabitable and abandoned property demolition, and remediation and property donations. Also, Bank of America will support the expansion of available affordable rental housing. Bank of America has committed to complete delivery of the relief by no later than August 31, 2018. The consumer relief will be subject to oversight by an independent monitor. - See more at: http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/press-releases/corporate-and-financial-news/bank-america-reaches-comprehensive-settlement-us-departm#sthash.AR7aJl3o.dpuf",
"\"Short Answer: You're going to end up paying taxes on it. Despite the home being your primary residence, you don't meet the ownership test, and it isn't noted that you have had a change in employment, health, or other unforeseen circumstances that are \"\"forcing\"\" you to sell. Otherwise, you could qualify for a reduced maximum exclusion that might allow you to walk away without owing taxes, or with a reduced tax bill. You can't even do a 1031 exchange to re-invest into a new primary residence. You should check with a tax professional to see what adjustments you can make to the cost basis of the property to minimize your reported net profits. During the 5-year period prior to the sale, you must have: These periods do not necessarily have to coincide (You don't to live in it as your main house for 2 consecutive years, just 2 years worth of time of the last 5).\"",
"\"You also want to make sure that the loan is being re-amortized (sometimes called \"\"recasting\"\"). Without this, you are still responsible for the interest payments according to the original amortization table. If you re-amortize the loan with a principal that is lower than on the table, you will reduce the amount of interest you owe each period, which means that if you maintain the same payment you will pay less in total interest. It's important to realize that most people re-amortize to reduce the payment amount but not the term. Also, not all loans can be re-amortized, and some banks limit how often it can be done.\"",
"\"In some cases perhaps, but in others not. Several homes near me were sold over and over again during the bubble years (at incrementally higher and higher sale prices) -- the last owners in nearly all cases defaulted and the banks (after dragging their feet for a couple of years) finally foreclosed and sold the homes off cheap. In all but one of the \"\"distressed sale\"\" cases, the people buying the houses now ARE in fact moving into them as their primary home (the exception being a current resident who bought the adjacent home with the intentions of fixing it up & renting it out, I believe at least initially to a family member); but in ALL cases (in no small part due to the fact that they were able to purchase the properties cheap) these new owners are investing substantial money into fixing them up (new roof & gutters, new windows & doors, paint and/or siding, often all new carpeting, some landscaping, etc). Also, from the perspective of our homeowners association, all of these new people think our annual HOA fees are a \"\"bargain\"\", whereas the previous bubble-era \"\"homeowners\"\" (if, having invested almost nothing, they could truly be called that) did nothing but whine and complain (well, and once they began defaulting on their mortgages, they also defaulted on their HOA fees). So it's a win-win for our neighborhood. We're getting good, solid residents who are planning on taking care of their properties... the exact opposite of what you are claiming. (The \"\"house-flippers\"\" you decry were the ones buying with \"\"no money down\"\" during the bubble era -- and they nearly killed the neighborhood.)\"",
"Time value of money means it's a no brainer: if it doesn't cost you anything extra (ie. Interest) then you pay over time. You must pay it. It is not optional. You won't be able to fight it and win. Someone paid taxes in your behalf and you are obligated to reimburse them. Not paying is a great way to trigger a foreclosure. You will be considered in default of your mortgage if you do not pay them.",
"That's why they're taking the deal. But it's not like they completely stole all that money. I don't have any stats, but I'd assume most of those people who got their loans are still in their homes. (Sorry, I could be way off. Please correct) But they still are bastards for not letting me refinance. Could have just been because they saw this penalty coming.",
"First the good news: based on the time involved, and the amount of potential profits; you will not owe any tax on the sale of the house no matter which option you pick. Now the details. When determining if there are any capital gains the IRS cares about the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. The amount of the loan, the final balance of the loan, or the lack of loan don't factor into the calculation. To complicate matters the government does factor into the equation any improvements you have made to the house (like a new deck) and the cost of buying and selling the house (real estate agents). If a single person has less than 250K in capital gains and has used the house as their main residence for 2 of the the previous 5 years their tax is zero. For a couple the tax free gain is $500K. For your situation since the sale price is less than $250K, the capital gains will also be less than $250K. You do have one potential area of concern. If the house is worth significantly more than $150K, the government could claim that the difference between what you charged your parents and what you could have charged was a gift. Assuming that there are no other factors that you didn't include in the original question it would appear that you will not face any taxes. Regarding your two options, neither will impact the taxes. Though draining your savings or investments could make it difficult to meet an emergency during the time between the sending of the $95K to the mortgage company and the closing on the deal with your parents. If the money came from retirement account it could have an even greater impact on your taxes and retirement situation.",
"If you sell your home and it has equity, meaning the price you sell at is higher than the mortgage remaining on the property, then the money the purchaser pays you for the propery goes to pay off the remaining mortgage and any other fees owing (including commissions), and any balance left over (equity) is what you receive from the sale.",
"I am; I bought the house as a preforeclosure (short sell) at 120000; 100% financed with a USDA loan and lived there for about 5 years before my wife and I took a job in Birmingham. With a 30 yr fixed rate... 119000 is about as low as I can go before I would have to come out of pocket at closing to get the lien released... and the problem is there's nothing left in my pockets..",
"I wouldn't like to say either way what you should do, not being an financial advisor or lawyer, but I did find an interesting article on nytimes.com: Walk Away From Your Mortgage! that you might also find helpful to frame your decision. It has some interesting information on defaults, it says this: Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them. In some states, lenders also have recourse to the borrowers’ unmortgaged assets, like their car and savings accounts. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that defaults are lower in such states, apparently because lenders threaten the borrowers with judgments against their assets. But actual lawsuits are rare. And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis.",
"Talk to your parents, and find out if you are reducing the debt or not. Find buyers, sell the place now and get out the deal. Of course you will have to wait to get a good price on it. Short term you haven't lost that much, but long term you will. Take your 25%, and use it as a down payment on a regular bank mortgage. Lesson learned move on.",
"\"It's a decision that only you can make. What are the chances that you'll want to take another loan (any loan - car, credit card, installment plan for new fridge, whatever else)? What are the chances that with the bad credit you'll find it hard to rent a place (and in Cali it's hard to rent a place right now, believe me, I bought a place just to save on the rent)? What are the chances that the prices will bounce and your \"\"on-paper\"\" loss will be recovered by the time you actually need/want to sell the house? You have to check all these and make a wise decision considering all the pros and cons in your personal case.\"",
"What if you felt you were cheated by the bank? What if you had something terrible unexpected happen to you financially? Also a loan is not a promise. A loan is a contract. The contract has outs for all parties. I never understood why people felt a loan was a promise. Many people were sold home mortgages that they did not understand. Of course it is their fault for not understanding what they were getting into.",
"\"If the default happens through mass monetary inflation rather than openly (\"\"We're not paying interest on our bonds\"\") then make sure you pay off your house. There may not be a very long window to do so. If the currency becomes worthless, then it depends on what you have of value that would be accepted by the lender as payment. If you don't have anything, the lender will take it back, as they're probably entitled to on the notes.\"",
"A short sale will be pretty bad for your credit report. It will linger for 7 years. This may ruin your opportunity to buy in the new area. On the other hand you need to run the numbers, the last I looked into this, the bank will look at rent and discount it by 25%. So the shortfall of $800/mo (after adjustment) will reduce your borrowing power if you rent it out. In general this is the idea. You rent for a year, and buy into the new area. If you short sell after this, while your credit is trashed, you still have your new home, and $50K less debt. (Disclaimer - There are those who question the ethics of this, a willing short sale. I am offering a purely business answer and making no judgment either way. I owed $90K on a condo where others were selling for $20K. I paid until it came up enough that a lump sum got me out upon sale. The bank got its money in full) An article on the differences between foreclosure and short sale.",
"It is also possible that the settlement company didn't tell the local government where to send the new tax bill. This would worry me because what else was missed regarding filing the proper documents with the lenders and the local government. It could also be a problem with the local government. Contact the settlement company or your attorney to get the issue resolved. If you owe the money you want to know; if the new owner owes the money they don't want to face a tax lien because the settlement company made a mistake. Generally this is split between the parties based on the number of days each will own the home. At settlement the money should move from one party to the other based on what has been deposited into escrow and when the actual bills are due. For example the payment for the first half of the year due July 1st may be sent in June. If the settlement was in June The new owner would give money to the old owner. But if settlement was in early July Money would move the other way.",
"Most house transactions require the taxes due to be paid off during closing. This would normally be taken from the proceeds of the sale. Since you have plenty of equity you won't have to come up with cash to do this. Depending on your location taxes are sometimes paid up to the date of sale or in advance or arrears by up to six months. In any event you should have plenty of money to pay off any taxes you may owe. Your real estate agent should be able to give you a definitive answer (or the title agency if you are selling it yourself).",
"Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No, they're almost always sold for more than that. The buyer will take a loss if the homeowner pays off the loan immediately, but that's very unlikely. The buyer is hoping that the owner will payoff the loan as scheduled and they'll make a tidy profit from the interest charged. The originator now makes their profit immediately and has their capital back so they can make more loans.",
">Umm actually asking to be refinanced at a lower rate IS asking them to forgive/give up part of the mortgage. Either my knowledge of finance is wrong or how interest rates work is wrong if that statement is true. Here is why your statement is not true: * The interest rate is money the bank makes on the loan. For example, say you buy a home valued at $250,000, put 10% down and your interest rate is 5% for 30 years. Well now you've got a mortgage ($225,000) that you pay $1,207.85 monthly. Now expand this out to 30 years, which means you'll make 360 payments for a total balance of $434,825.5. So even though you have a mortgage of $225,000 and your home is only valued at $250,000 due to the interest rate on that loan, you will be giving the bank $209,825.5 in profit for that $225,000 loan. Refinancing the loan at a lower rate is not debt forgiveness or a write off. >Peoples greed in getting themselves into upside down mortgages are why we have problems, not the banks not helping them out enough. Actually it's the bank's greed which is wanting to keep the homeowner at the higher interest rate because it will make them more money over the long run. If the bank was to reduce the interest rate on the loan, they would be reducing their potential profits. And now you know why I support non profit banks.",
"\"A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not \"\"new debt\"\"; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks. It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself \"\"on the hook\"\" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a \"\"loan modification\"\" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a \"\"streamlining\"\" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these \"\"toxic assets\"\". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date.\"",
"I wish this was the case in Canada. I lost about 60k on my home in one year and have to sell now to move for work. In the US I could simply default and the bank takes the loss. In Canada if I default, CMHC pays the bank, then I'm sued by CMHC and stuck with the bad debt. Simply put - here the onus of repayment is on the lender, not the lending institution. It sounds good until you are the one looking at losing your shirt.",
"Looks like this settlement is broken down in cash and assistance to homeowners. This usually means BOA can count delinquent mtg debt on homes that are underwater as part of the settlement. Debt they normally would have written off anyway. Nice thought that they are going after an individual of the firm",
"If you give money to a person or entity, and they don't have the ability to pay you back, it doesn't matter if they are legally required to pay you.",
"What exactly does consumer relief mean? In my mind it means they are going to write off loans/debt/fees/payments they have no chance of collecting. Relief also does not even come close to repairing the damage caused to families pushed into fraudulent loans.",
"The fact that your ex is on the mortgage limits their ability to get more loans. While you have been making the payments on time, if you had any problems making those payments it would have also impacted their credit score. It is understandable that they would like to be released from the mortgage. The options that they have are limited. You would have to refinance the mortgage. Lenders don't just drop borrowers from a mortgage, unless they have determined that the remaining people on the mortgage can make the payments. Besides the mortgage ownership documents were probably filed with the local government. The refinancing process will require a signature by your ex, unless the earlier agreement documents removed your ex as an owner, and those were filed with the authorities. Regarding an exchange of funds: it can be negotiated. An attempt was done with the earlier agreement. If the documents that were signed are proof of the agreement can't be determined by the internet. How this is settled, is outside the scope of this site. It depends on what documents have been signed in the past; the jurisdiction involved; And the state of the relationship at the time of the purchase and at the time of the refinancing.",
"If it is your primary residence and you lived there continuously and for more than 2 years out of the last 5 - then you can exclude the gain under the IRC Sec. 121. In this case, you'll pay no taxes on your gain. If the property has been a rental or you haven't lived there long enough, the rules become more complicated but you may still be able to exclude some portion of the gain, even all of it, depends on the situation. So it doesn't look like 1031 exchange is good for you here, you don't want to carry excluded gain - you want to recognize it and get the tax benefit. However, refinancing after purchase with cash-out money affects the deductability of the loan interest. You can only deduct interest on money used to buy, not cash-out portion. I believe there's a period (60 days IIRC) during which you can do the cash-out refinance and still count it as purchase money, but check with a licensed tax advier (EA/CPA licensed in your State).",
"\"Mortgage is a (secured) debt, a combination of a promissory note, and a security interest providing the mortage holder a secured interest in the property. Yes, you are \"\"in debt\"\". But that depends upon whether you define the term \"\"in debt\"\" as a debt appearing on the balance sheet, or the net of assets - liabilities is less than zero, whether you have a \"\"debt\"\" expense on the income statement (budget), or whether the net of income - expenses is less than zero. One person might look at their budget, find the (monthly) mortgage payment listed, and judge that they have a debt payment, and thus are \"\"in debt\"\". Or they might look at their expenses, find they exceed their income, and judge that they are \"\"in debt\"\". Another person might look at their balance sheet, compare assets to liabilities, and only say they were \"\"in debt\"\" when their liabilities exceeded their assets. Some people view mortgage debt as \"\"good debt\"\", as they view certain debts as \"\"good\"\" and others as \"\"bad\"\". Trust me, having a high mortgage payment (higher 30% of your net income) is hard, and over 40% is bad. Consider you balance sheet and your income statement. On your balance sheet, the house appears on the \"\"asset\"\" side with an (estimated) value, while the \"\"mortgage\"\" (really, the promissory note part of the mortgage) appears on the \"\"liability\"\" side. On your income statement, your house does not appear on the income side, but the mortgage (promissory note) payment appears on the expense side. So, you clearly have both a \"\"liability\"\" with a clearly-defined value and an \"\"expense\"\" with a clearly-defined payment. But do you have an \"\"asset\"\"? According to an accountant, you have an \"\"asset\"\" and a \"\"liability\"\". But you do not have a business asset that is producing revenue (income), nor do you have a business asset that can be amortized and expensed to reduce taxable income. When we think about an asset, does the word have the connotation of some thing with value, something that produces income? Well, by that measure, a house only provides income when we rent it out, and only has value when we consider selling it. As millions of families discovered during the housing (price) collapse, when the market price of your \"\"asset\"\" falls substantially, your personal financial status can fall negative and you can be \"\"broke\"\".\"",
"In the US, a surviving family member that inherits the entire property may also assume the mortgage. If the new mortgagee fails to uphold the terms of the mortgage (i.e. make timely payments), the mortgagor can begin foreclosure proceedings. There is generally no requirement to pay off the mortgage quickly. This is obviously the simple case where one person inherits the entire property. If the estate is split and no one person inherits the house, or if the house is left to a non-relative, things get more complicated. Effectively in that case the house is either sold to pay off the mortgage or the inheritor needs to take out a new mortgage to pay off the old one.",
"Maybe. As other have said, doing this deliberately is fraud, but almost impossible to prove unless you've lied on the loan documents or discussed your plans with witnesses. The lender may consider negotiating a partial write-down of the loan, but that is far from their only option. Depending on the details of the loan agreement they may be able to garnish your wages, seize your property, or walk into your business with a sheriffs' deputy and empty your cash register. They may also be able to add their costs for recovering the money to your debt.",
"Nearly every state in the US is full-recourse. If one doesn't seek bankruptcy protection, creditors can seek judgement, and collect assets. Foreclosures frequently sell for approximately half the market price. Considering unemployment risk, homes can be risky. A far better way to accumulate wealth is with equities (stocks). However, the risk converts from insolvency to liquidation since during times of high unemployment, equities are also cheap, causing any liquidation used to fund current expenses to be potentially ruinous.",
"I have this exact same issue. Event the dollar amounts are close. Here is how I am looking at the problem. Option 1: Walk away. Goodbye credit for 7+ years. Luckily I can operate in cash with the extra $800 per month, but should I have a non medical emergency I might be SOL. With a family I am not sure I am willing to risk it. What if my car dies the month after I quit paying and the bank chooses to foreclose? What if my wife or I lose our job and we have no credit to live? Option 2: Short sale. Good if I can let it happen. I might or might not be on the hook for the balance depending on the state. If I am on the hook, okay, suck but I could live. If I am not on the hook, it is going to hurt my credit the same as foreclosure. It isn't easy, you need an experienced real estate agent and a willing bank. Option 3: Keep paying. I am going for this. At the moment I can still afford the house even though it is at the expense of some luxuries in my live. (Cable TV, driving to work, a new computer). I am wagering the market fixes itself in the next several years. Should the S hit the fan in most any manner, the mortgage is the first thing I stop paying. I don't know what other options I have. I can't re-fi; too upside down. I can't sell; the house isn't worth the mortgage (and I don't have the cash for the balance). I can't walk away; the credit hit wouldn't be worth the monthly money gain. I have no emotions about the house. I am in a real bad investment and getting out now seems like a good idea, but I am going to guess that having the house 10 years from now is better than not. I don't care about the bank at all, nor do I feel I owe them the money because I took the loan. They assumed risk loaning me the money in the first place. The minute it gets worse for me than for the bank; I will stop paying. Summary Not much to do without a serious consequence. I would suggest holding out for the very long term if you feel you can. The best way to minimize the bad investment is to ride it out and pray it gets better. I am thinking I am a landlord for the next 10 years.",
"Yeah, it ends up being a bail out. But then again, the tax payers bailed out the banks during the financial crisis (a crisis that was largely perpetuated by them) so should it be okay not to help bail these homeowners out during an actual natural disaster...",
"If you owe money to someone else then you are in debt, at least in the common meaning of the word. What you happen to own, or what you spent that money on doesn't alter that fact. Are people considered in debt if their only 'debt' is the mortgage/loan for their house, or are these people excluded from the statistic? The only way to answer that for sure is to look at who compiled the statistic and exactly what methodology they used.",
"When your debt is forgiven, you have to consider the amount written off as an ordinary income item (with the exclusion of the debt originated from the purchase of primary home). If you're trying to write the debt off from your taxes - then it won't work. Even if you can expense the debt forgiveness, you will incur tax liability on your personal taxes side, and in addition you'll be out of cash in your business. So basically you'll end up paying it with after tax money, exactly the thing you're trying to avoid. In addition, you're dealing with related persons here, which means that the loss deduction might not be allowed (depends on the actual details of the transaction), so you might actually end up paying more taxes with this scheme that just paying off the loan directly (if your business pays taxes separately from your person). A loss on the sale or exchange of property between related persons is not deductible. This applies to both direct and indirect transactions, but not to distributions of property from a corporation in a complete liquidation. For the list of related persons, see Related persons next.",
"You're speaking as a private individual. If you owe money to a friend or family member, IOW if it's a *personal* loan from someone you *personally* know, then yes, there is an absolute moral obligation to pay it back if at all possible. But the big banks are not 'people you know'. They treat you like a set of numbers- no more and no less. You are an opportunity for them to make money. They will take from you all they can legally get (or less than legally if they can get away with it). They have no reciprocating feeling of 'personal resposibility'. Banks are not humans even if humans work for them. They follow the coldly rational, impersonally merciless path of greatest profit in the most immediate term, without the slightest concern for *your* humanity or needs.",
"You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance.",
"There may be specific answers that can be determined based on the interest rates, amounts, tax provisions, etc. But I'm here to tell you... It is much easier (i.e., less stressful) to own a home when you have less debt. Pay off any and every debt you can before purchasing a home because there will always be something requiring you to spend money once you own one.",
"\"Time-Barred Debts and STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATION ON COLLECTING DEBTS are good places to start on the issues of what can be collected and for how long. What seems to be at issue is bankruptcy vs. time-barred debts vs. what creditors (original debt owners, not collection agencies or those who buy debt) can do. You should also check out The Fair Credit Reporting Act which governs some of the question. The Fair Credit Reporting Act and the section on time-barred debts applies to collection agencies, etc. (so-called debt owners as pointed out by @littleadv, since they buy debt from the creditors) not actual creditors (those the debt is/was originally owed to). Creditors (those to whom the debt was originally owed) have different rules than debt collectors and can do things debt collectors can't. State law generally governs what creditors, as original owners of the debt, can do legally and for how long. Bankruptcy Bankruptcy is a legal action that frees someone from paying all or part of debt owed (they are crying \"\"Uncle!\"\" and stating they don't have enough money to pay their creditors). On a credit report, accounts will generally be updated to show “included in bankruptcy\"\" or similar. Debt that is determined to still be owed often will be reduced in amount/payments. Time-barred Debts Time-barred debts are debts that are still owed, but cannot be collected through direct legal action (suing). Each state has its own statute of limitations on how long different types of debt can be collected by suing after initial default before being considered time-barred. This period is typically 3-6 years but a few states such as Kentucky allow much longer time periods (up to 15 years). Being a time-barred debt does NOT prevent a collector from contacting someone about a debt. Collectors can still try to collect a debt forever -- and probably will -- but they can't normally sue and collect payment once the statute of limitations period has passed. There are gotchas with time-barred debts regarding collection, however, which can make them still legally actionable. Making any payment, no matter how small, making a verbal commitment to pay or even acknowledging the time-barred debt is often enough to make the debt legally collectable, even if it would normally be past the statute of limitations for collection. This is again state-dependent, but it is a pitfall for many people. The process of making a debt collectable again is often called \"\"re-aging\"\". Re-aging essentially means the clock starts anew on the statute of limitations, extending the time that a creditor may use the courts to collect that debt. If someone is taken to court over a time-barred debt that is legally noncollectable (has not been legally re-aged), nothing happens to them. However, being time-barred does not prevent legal action in the sense that you still have to prove the debt is time-barred and noncollectable in court if your sued over it. Being time-barred does not mean the debt \"\"dissolves\"\". A debt is always owed unless the debt has been forgiven or discharged in bankruptcy court. This means that, combined with the ability of debt collectors to contact someone about out of statute debt and the pitfalls of re-aging, it is entirely possible for a debt collector to get a 20 year old debt actionable again. Also note that while someone is trying to dodge a debt to make it time-barred (e.g. by not paying anything), creditors and debt collectors can still take legal action to sue over the debt, and if they get a judgment against someone, this can extend the debt indefinitely. Judgements will eventually lapse, but often only after 10 years or more, and many states allow dormant judgements to be \"\"revived\"\" within that time period. Credit Reports Regarding credit reports, whether someone owes a debt and whether it appears on a credit report are two separate things. As previously stated, no debt \"\"dissolves\"\" or goes away unless some sort of legal action makes it so. As far as reporting is concerned, however, most \"\"bad\"\" credit stops being reported after seven years (by federal law). That is, accounts on a credit report will be deleted seven years from the original delinquency dates of the accounts regardless of being included in bankruptcy or as time-barred debt. This assumes no legal process allows the account to continue being reported (as is often the case with re-aging). As an FYI, a bankruptcy discharge date has nothing to do with when account information will be removed from your credit report. Note that some debts, such as tax liens, can be reported indefinitely. Should bankruptcy be considered? The decision to do bankruptcy is mostly a matter of how severe the debt is. If it is an extremely large amount and assets are very small, bankruptcy is a good route in so far as it will legally take care of a lot of loose ends and likely relieve most or all of the burden of actually owing the money. Credit-wise, 10 years is the maximum a bankruptcy (specifically) will appear on a credit report. Accounts may drop off a credit report before bankruptcy because they are past the seven years they can be legally reported. Debts owed to the state such as child support, student loans, income tax, etc. generally cannot be written off and aren't subject normal debt statute of limitations on collection. Finally, bad credit is bad credit -- there is likely to be little difference in terms of ability to get loans between bankruptcy and attempting to dodge legal action to make debts time-barred. If the debt is significant, bankruptcy may be the only sensible option.\"",
"I'm not as concerned, no, precisely because you can't discharge that debt with bankruptcy. That's why lenders demanded that. I also think that when borrowers are held accountable for the economic consequences of their actions, they make better decisions on balance.",
"\"Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't \"\"revenue\"\" until the interest is calculated for each month and \"\"accrues\"\" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured \"\"signature loan\"\" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider \"\"stores of value\"\" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the \"\"broken window\"\" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely \"\"distressed\"\" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called \"\"toxic assets\"\"; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a \"\"strategic default\"\"; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales.\"",
"Yes, if their record keeping is faulty or failed. It is best to keep all records of repayment. Incomplete records such as signing for a loan yet no repayment receipt can be at least a headache and at most expensive. The most important document is a record of 0 balance then there is nothing that the courts will allow creditors to collect if their records are faulty.",
"No, if you purchase it with all taxes and leins dismissed, in Pa, it usually goes up for sale 3 times before they drop all leins and taxes. Before you purchase the house, check eith sheriff and make sure they are selling with the above dismissed, otherwise, you can get youself in a real mess.",
"\"Well, I suppose it depends on your idea of a \"\"lost cause\"\". Are you planning to lose the house to foreclosure? If so, then yes, it's a lost cause. Don't waste your money paying down the principal. In any other scenario* you should absolutely pay down the principal to the extent that you'd pay down any loan with nearly 9% interest (in other words, moderately aggressively). The fact is, you owe someone $265,000 unless you plan on losing the home to foreclosure. You can manage the amount of interest you pay while you hold that debt by paying it down. * Short sale and bankruptcy would be special conditions as well, but not exactly the same effect as foreclosure.\"",
"Well, he could negotiate with the bank to pay off the loan before the foreclosure takes effect. That would obviously cost him a large pile of cash but might remove the foreclosure, and possibly the late payments, from his record. But the real answer is that, having signed the note, he should have been making sure payments occurred so it never got close to foreclosure. That's what he promised the bank he would do. Having failed to do so, he really isn't in a position to complain when they tell other businesses that he didn't meet that promise.",
"Can I give the bank the $300,000 to clear the mortgage, or must I pay off the total interest that was agreed upon for the 30 year term? This depends on the loan agreement. I had one loan where I was on the hook regardless. Early payment was just that, early payment. It would have allowed me to skip months without making payments (because I had already made them). Most loans charge interest on the remaining balance. If you pay early, it reduces your balance, decreasing the interest. If you pay it off early, there's no more balance and no more interest. I'm curious why the bank would let you do this, since they will lose out on a lot of profit. But they have their money back and can loan it out again. If they maintained the loan, they aren't guaranteed of getting their money. Interest is rent that you pay for the loan of the money. Once you return the money, why pay more rent? While some apartment leases require paying through the entire term, most allow for early termination with proper notice. You give back the apartment; the landlord rents it out again. Why should they get paid two rents? Another issue is that if someone with a mortgage switches jobs to a new location, that person will likely prefer to sell the current house and buy one in the new location. This is actually the typical way for a mortgage to end. If the bank did not allow that, they would essentially force the family to rent out the mortgaged house and rent a new house. So the bank would go from an owner-occupied house that the inhabitants want to keep maintained to a rental, where the inhabitants only care to the extent of their legal liability. Consider the possibility that the homeowners lose one of their jobs. They can't afford the house. So they sell it and close out the mortgage. Should the bank refuse to allow the sale and attempt to recover the interest from the impoverished homeowners? That situation would almost guarantee an expensive foreclosure. Once there is any early termination clause for any reason, it makes sense for the bank to structure the loan to include the possibility. That way they don't have to investigate whatever excuse is involved. Loan regulators may require this as well, particularly on mortgages.",
"You have to pay off the balance on the loan first. Also, FHA loans are not supposed to be used for rental properties. I don't know how you living there for a number of years changes things or how often is that rule enforced but you might need to refinance even if you rent it out.",
"\"Do you still enjoy living in your home? Can you afford the mortgage payments? Is there a reason for you to move, such as a relocation for work, or your third kid is on the way and your current house is already crowded with two? Those questions are more important than \"\"Is my home worth more than what I owe on it\"\". Ultimately, it's your home. You probably chose it for more than just its price, and those qualities should still make it valuable to you in some way beyond the monetary value which goes up and down with the market. You have a few options:\"",
"Yes it most cases it is legal. Plus depending on how you look at it, the last payment of 1000 can be principal paid and interest was paid in initial installments.",
"I doubt it, they never knew who those loans belonged to even a decade ago . .there is no way the underlying assets even if identifiable will be performing or marketable. It was a simple bank fraud, where banks bundled up all their worthless shit in alphabet soup and the rating agencies rated it aaa and it blew up . . its still the same worthless shit",
"What can you do? Pay the loan or face the debt collectors. The finance company don't care who now keeps the car, or who drives it. There's money outstanding on the loan, and your signature on the loan form. That's why co-signing a loan for someone else so often ends in tears."
] |
[
"Yes, the borrower is responsible for paying back the full amount of the loan. Foreclosure gives the bank possession of the property, which they can (and do) sell. Any shortfall is still the borrower's responsibility. But, no, the bank can't sell the property for a dollar; they have to make a reasonable effort. Usually the sale is done through a sheriff's sale, that is, a more or less carefully supervised auction. Bankruptcy will wipe out the shortfall, and most other debts, but the downside is that most of the rest of your assets will also be sold to help pay off what you owe. Details of what you can keep vary from state to state. If you want to go this route, hire a lawyer.",
"\"Generally, yes, although not in all states. According to this article in Time: But in non-recourse states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington — the bank has no recourse beyond the repossession of the property. As for the question about what price the bank can sell it: again, each state makes its own rules, and states may have rules against selling it for much below market value. Quick Google for \"\"ohio state law foreclosure deficiency judgement market value\"\" turned this up: Limitation on Deficiency Judgments. The property cannot be sold at foreclosure sale for less than two-thirds of the appraised fair market value. (Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2329.20, 2329.17). (source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/deficiency-judgments-after-foreclosure-ohio.html)\"",
"It is in the bank's interest to sell the property for as much as they can (although it is doubtful they will put as much effort/time into selling it as the owner might). They will certainly not sell it for $1. The main reason for this is that the bank would prefer to own $100k, than a loan to them from a customer for $100k. Banks have to discount the value of loans to take into account the likelihood of the loan not being repaid. They classify certain loans as riskier than others, and these are discounted more heavily. An unsecured home loan to a customer that has already defaulted, has no collateral, and now needs to pay rent AND loan repayments would count as an extremely risky loan."
] |
1416
|
US resident with Canadian income via T4A-NR
|
[
"326717"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"259602",
"427442",
"439502",
"430728",
"284085",
"518624",
"228445",
"382295",
"86621",
"282844",
"452350",
"5762",
"353926",
"192083",
"506755",
"95724",
"239030",
"111531",
"352266",
"102287",
"160899",
"56044",
"211147",
"237785",
"385320",
"416511",
"183477",
"303287",
"240796",
"548299",
"9158",
"130934",
"510599",
"332314",
"594784",
"182374",
"19245",
"557647",
"522578",
"108890",
"243498",
"34338",
"116181",
"367562",
"72135",
"575899",
"341960",
"1011",
"475410",
"459953",
"172872",
"506368",
"495827",
"104128",
"437907",
"432562",
"82344",
"444300",
"570639",
"526714",
"372744",
"500357",
"156444",
"185384",
"235266",
"395483",
"352052",
"266516",
"386941",
"202019",
"310190",
"452899",
"475115",
"196321",
"347186",
"465106",
"64672",
"115333",
"403948",
"501801",
"377753",
"46386",
"585356",
"274359",
"422603",
"293652",
"447940",
"59303",
"365603",
"415309",
"11654",
"357797",
"588327",
"59317",
"84310",
"496036",
"541682",
"478408",
"230566",
"294738"
] |
[
"I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.",
"There are two parts in this 1042-S form. The income/dividends go into the Canada T5 form. There will be credit if 1042-S has held money already, so use T2209 to report too.",
"Citizenship matter for US reporting, but not for Canadian taxes. If you are an American resident then you need only worry about US taxes and rules. s",
"\"What do you mean by \"\"Canadian income\"\"? Was it income paid to you as wages for the job you did in the US? Or rental/interest income in Canada? If the former - then it doesn't go to NEC, it goes to the main part of the return. If the latter - it doesn't appear on your NR return at all. Yes, it is to validate your residency status. It has no other effect on your taxes.\"",
"You need to file IRS Form 1040-NR. The IRS's website provides instructions.",
"\"The other answer has mentioned \"\"factual resident\"\", and you have raised the existence of a U.S./Canada tax treaty in your comment, and provided a link to a page about determining residency. I'd like to highlight part of the first link: You are a factual resident of Canada for tax purposes if you keep significant residential ties in Canada while living or travelling outside the country. The term factual resident means that, although you left Canada, you are still considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes. Notes If you have established ties in a country that Canada has a tax treaty with and you are considered to be a resident of that country, but you are otherwise a factual resident of Canada, meaning you maintain significant residential ties with Canada, you may be considered a deemed non-resident of Canada for tax purposes. [...] I'll emphasize that \"\"considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes\"\" means you do need to file Canadian income tax returns. The Notes section does indicate the potential treaty exemption that you mentioned, but it is only a potential exemption. Note the emphasis (theirs, not mine) on the word \"\"may\"\" in the last paragraph above. Please don't assume \"\"may\"\" is necessarily favorable with respect to your situation. The other side of the \"\"may\"\" coin is \"\"may not\"\". The Determining your residency status page you mentioned in your comment says this: If you want the Canada Revenue Agency's opinion on your residency status, complete either Form NR74, Determination of Residency Status (Entering Canada) or Form NR73, Determination of Residency Status (Leaving Canada), whichever applies, and send it to the International and Ottawa Tax Services Office. To get the most accurate opinion, provide as many details as possible on your form. So, given your ties to Canada, I would suggest that until and unless you have obtained an opinion from the Canada Revenue Agency on your tax status, you would be making a potentially unsafe assumption if you yourself elect not to file your Canadian income tax returns based on your own determination. You could end up liable for penalties and interest if you don't file while you are outside of Canada. Tax residency in Canada is not a simple topic. For instances, let's have a look at S5-F1-C1, Determining an Individual’s Residence Status. It's a long page, but here's one interesting piece: 1.44 The Courts have stated that holders of a United States Permanent Residence Card (otherwise referred to as a Green Card) are considered to be resident in the United States for purposes of paragraph 1 of the Residence article of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention. For further information, see the Federal Court of Appeal's comments in Allchin v R, 2004 FCA 206, 2004 DTC 6468. [...] ... whereas you are in the U.S. on a TN visa, intended to be temporary. So you wouldn't be exempt just on the basis of your visa and the existence of the treaty. The CRA would look at other circumstances. Consider the \"\"Centre of vital interests test\"\": Centre of vital interests test [...] “If the individual has a permanent home in both Contracting States, it is necessary to look at the facts in order to ascertain with which of the two States his personal and economic relations are closer. Thus, regard will be had to his family and social relations, his occupations, his political, cultural or other activities, his place of business, the place from which he administers his property, etc. The circumstances must be examined as a whole, but it is nevertheless obvious that considerations based on the personal acts of the individual must receive special attention. If a person who has a home in one State sets up a second in the other State while retaining the first, the fact that he retains the first in the environment where he has always lived, where he has worked, and where he has his family and possessions, can, together with other elements, go to demonstrate that he has retained his centre of vital interests in the first State.” [emphasis on last sentence is mine] Anyway, I'm acquainted with somebody who left Canada for a few years to work abroad. They assumed that living in the other country for that length of time (>2 years) meant they were non-resident here and so did not have to file. Unfortunately, upon returning to Canada, the CRA deemed them to have been resident all that time based on significant ties maintained, and they subsequently owed many thousands of dollars in back taxes, penalties, and interest. If it were me in a similar situation, I would err on the side of caution and continue to file Canadian income taxes until I got a determination I could count on from the people that make the rules.\"",
"Yes, you have to file a tax return in Canada. Non residents that have earned employment income in Canada are required to file a Canadian personal income tax return. Usually, your employer will have deducted sufficient taxes from your pay-cheques, resulting in a tax refund upon filing your Canadian tax return. You will also receive a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid in Canada.",
"Since you were a nonresident alien student on F-1 visa then you will be considered engaged in a trade or business in the USA. You must file Form 1040NR. Here is the detailed instruction by IRS - http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Nonresident-Aliens",
"Residents of Canada must pay Canadian income tax on their worldwide income (source: Wikipedia). However, there is a tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada; I haven't read it, but my guess is that it will allow you to claim a tax credit in Canada for the capital gains tax you have paid to the U.S.",
"If you have non Residency status in Canada you don't need to file Canadian tax return. To confirm your status you need to contact Canada Revenue (send them letter, probably to complete some form).",
"Your first step should be meeting with a CPA or tax attorney who specializes in the taxation of dual citizens. Your local accountant can probably refer you to someone. There are many people in that situation, and while I'm not familiar with the details, I know there are tax treaties between the U.S. and Canada designed to address your situation.",
"\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"",
"Yes, you can still file a 1040nr. You are a nonresident alien and were: engaged in a trade or business in the United States Normally, assuming your withholding was correct, you would get a minimal amount back. Income earned in the US is definitely Effectively Connected Income and is taxed at the graduated rates that apply to U.S. citizens and resident aliens. However, there is a tax treaty between US and India, and it suggests that you would be taxed on the entirety of the income by India. This suggests to me that you would get everything that was withheld back.",
"It's not just the US based mailing address for registration or US based credit-card or bank account: even if you had all these, like I do, you will find that these online filing companies do not have the infrastructure to handle non-resident taxes. The reason why the popular online filing companies do not handle non-resident taxes is because: Non-residents require a different set of forms to fill out - usually postfixed NR - like the 1040-NR. These forms have different rules and templates that do not follow the usual resident forms. This would require non-trivial programming done by these vendors All the NR forms have detailed instructions and separate set of non-resident guides that has enough information for a smart person to figure out what needs to be done. For example, check out Publication 519 (2011), U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens. As a result, by reading these most non-residents (or their accountants) seem to figure out how the taxes need to be filed. For the remaining others, the numbers perhaps are not significant enough to justify the non-trivial programming that need to be done by these vendors to incorporate the non-resident forms. This was my understanding when I did research into tax filing software. However, if you or anyone else do end up finding tax filing software that does allow non-resident forms, I wil be extremely happy to learn about them. To answer your question: you need to do it yourself or get it done by someone who knows non-resident taxes. Some people on this forum, including me for gratis, would be glad to check your work once you are done with it as long as you relieve us of any liability.",
"\"1040 or 1040NR depends on whether you are a resident alien or nonresident alien -- 1040/1040A/1040EZ for resident aliens, and 1040NR/1040NR-EZ for nonresident aliens. Determining whether you are a resident is somewhat complex, and there is not enough information in your question to determine it. Publication 519 is the guide for taxes for aliens. (It hasn't been updated for 2014 yet, so mentally shift all the years in the publication up by one year when you read it.) Since you don't have a green card, whether you are a resident is determined by the Substantial Presence Test. The test says that if (the number of days you were in the U.S. in 2014) + 1/3 of (the number of days you were in the U.S. in 2013) + 1/6 of (the number of days you were in the U.S. in 2012) >= 183 days (half a year), then you are a resident alien for 2014. However, there are exceptions to the test. Days that you are an \"\"exempt individual\"\" are not counted toward the Substantial Presence Test. And \"\"exempt individuals\"\" include international students, trainees, teachers, etc. However, there are exceptions to the exceptions. Students are not \"\"exempt individuals\"\" for a year if they have been exempt individuals for any part of 5 previous calendar years. (Different exceptions apply for teachers and trainees.) So whether you are an \"\"exempt individual\"\" for one year inductively depends on whether you have been an \"\"exempt individual\"\" in previous years. Long story short, if before you came to the U.S. as an F-1 student, you haven't been in the U.S. on F-1 or J-1 status, then you will be a nonresident alien for the first 5 calendar years (calendar year = year with a number, not 365 days) that you've been on F-1. We will assume this is the case below. So if you started your F-1 in 2009 (any time during that year) or before, then you would have already been an exempt individual for 5 calendar years (e.g. if you came in 2009, then 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 are your 5 years), so you would not be an exempt individual for any part of 2014. Since you were present in the U.S. for most of 2014, you meet the Substantial Presence Test for 2014, and you are a resident alien for all of 2014. If, on the other hand, you started your F-1 in 2010 (any time during that year) or after, then you would still be an exempt individual for the part of 2014 that you were on F-1 status (i.e. prior to October 2014. OPT is F-1.). Days in 2014 in H1b status (3 months) are not enough for you to satisfy the Substantial Presence Test for 2014, so you would be a nonresident alien for all of 2014. If you fall into the latter case (nonresident alien), there are some alternative choices you have. If you were in the U.S. for most of those last 3 months, then you are eligible to choose to use the \"\"First-Year Choice\"\". I will not go into the steps to use this choice, but the result is that it makes you dual-status for 2014 -- nonresident until October, and resident since October. If you are single, then making this choice pretty much gives you no benefit. However, if you are married, then making this choice allows you to subsequently make another choice to become a resident for all of 2014. Being resident gives you some benefits, like being able to file as Married Filing Jointly (nonresidents can only file separately), being able to use the Standard Deduction, being able to use many other deductions and credits, etc. Though, depending on what country you're from, it may affect your treaty benefits, so check that before you consider it.\"",
"You won't be paying any taxes for income generated in the US as long as you are not-resident in India. You pay US taxes. You can file a null return in India just in case (all zeroes). If you have any income in India - bank deposits in your name, house rental income and so on - that needs to be declared and tax needs to be paid in India.",
"\"Congrats on the upcoming wedding! Here is the official answer to this question, from the IRS. They note that you can choose to treat your spouse as a US resident for tax purposes and file jointly if you want to, by attaching a certain declaration to your tax return. Though I'm not a tax expert, if your partner has significant income it seems like this might increase your taxes due. You can also apply for an SSN (used for tax filings, joint or separate return) at a social security office or US consulate, by form SS-5, or file form W-7 with the IRS to get a Taxpayer Identification Number which is just as useful for this purpose. Without that, you can write \"\"Non Resident Alien\"\" (or \"\"NRA\"\") in the box for your partner's SSN, and mail in a paper return like that. See IRS Publication 17 page 22 (discussions on TurboTax here, here, etc.).\"",
"\"From what you've described, your spouse is a non-resident alien for US tax purposes. You have two choices: Use the Nonresident Spouse Treated As Resident election and file as Married Filing Jointly. Since your spouse doesn't have, and doesn't currently qualify for, an SSN, he/she will need to apply for an ITIN together with the tax filing. Note that by becoming a resident alien, your spouse's worldwide income the whole year would be subject to US taxes, and would need to be reported on your joint tax filing, though he/she will be able to use the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion to exclude $100k of her foreign earned income, since he/she will have been out of the US for 330 days in a 12-month period. Or, file as Married Filing Separately. You write \"\"NRA\"\" for your spouse's SSN on your tax return. As a nonresident alien, if your spouse doesn't have any US income, he/she doesn't have to file a US tax return, and doesn't need to apply for an ITIN. Which one is better is up to you to figure out.\"",
"Canada doesn't tax non-residents on income earned/incurred outside of Canada. So, your sister should start with this page to determine the residency status. If she is indeed determined to be non-resident - she should look here to see her obligations. If all she earns she earns outside of Canada - her obligations will be very little, if at all. This is similar to almost any other country in the world, with the notable exception of the United States of America. US citizens are taxed regardless of their residency status, everywhere in the world on worldwide income (unless tax treaty says otherwise).",
"\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"",
"As far as the RRSP goes, see my answer in self directed RRSP for a non resident Don't forget to file your FBAR and form 8938, if applicable. -Jon",
"\"When I was in this situation, I always did Married Filing Separately. In the space for spouse you just write \"\"non resident alien\"\". I'm assuming you don't make more than the Foreign Earned Income exclusion (about $100k), so the fact that you don't qualify for certain exemptions is probably irrelevant for you. As a side note, now that you are married you have \"\"a financial interest in\"\" all her bank accounts so if her and your foreign bank accounts had an aggregate value of over $10k at any point in 2015 you have until June 30th to file an FBAR, listing both her and your accounts. If you have a decent amount of assets you might need to fill out form 8938 with your tax return too. Here is a link with the reporting thresholds. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Summary-of-FATCA-Reporting-for-U.S.-Taxpayers\"",
"In the end, I filled out the form with a foreign TIN (my UK National Insurance Number) on line 6, as well as a short sentence detailing my claim for 0% tax withholding according to the relevant section of the UK-US tax treaty. It looks like this was good enough; the prize money arrived in my account a few days ago, and it seems that no tax was withheld!",
"As you have indicated, the 1042-S reflects no income or withholding. As such, you are not required to file a US tax return unless you have other income from the US. Gains on stocks are not reported until realized upon sale. FYI, your activity does not fit the requirements of being engaged in a trade or business activity. While the definition is documented in several places of the Code, I have attached Publication 519 which most accurately represents the application to your situation as you have described it. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch04.html#en_US_2016_publink1000222308",
"I do NOT know the full answer but I know here are some important factors that you need to consider : Do you have a physical location in the United States? Are you working directly from Canada? With a office/business location in the United States your tax obligation to the US is much higher. Most likely you will owe some to the state in which your business is located in Payroll Tax : your employer will likely want to look into Payroll tax, because in most states the payroll tax threshold is very low, they will need to file payroll tax on their full-time, part-time employees, as well as contractor soon as the total amount in a fiscal year exceeds the threshold Related to No.1 do you have a social security number and are you legally entitled to working in the States as an individual. You will be receiving the appropriate forms and tax withholding info Related to No.3 if you don't have that already, you may want to look into how to obtain permissions to conduct business within the United States. Technically, you are a one person consulting service provider. You may need to register with a particular state to obtain the permit. The agency will also be able to provide you with ample tax documentations. Chances are you will really need to piece together multiple information from various sources to resolve this one as the situation is specific. To start, look into consulting service / contractor work permit and tax info for the state your client is located in. Work from state level up to kick start your research then research federal level, which can be more complex as it is technically international business service for Canada-US",
"\"As a Canadian resident, the simple answer to your question is \"\"yes\"\" Having worked as a tax auditor and as a Certified Financial Planner, you are required to file an income tax return because you have taxable employment income. All the employer is doing is deducting it at source and remitting it on your behalf. That does not alleviate your need to file. In fact, if you don't file you will be subject to a no filing penalty. The one aspect you are missing is that taxpayers may be entitled to tax credits that may result in a refund to you depending on your personal situation (e.g spousal or minor dependents). I hope this helps.\"",
"\"I would suggest to get an authoritative response from a CPA. In any case it would be for your own benefit to have at least the first couple of years of tax returns prepared by a professional. However, from my own personal experience, in your situation the income should not be regarded as \"\"US income\"\" but rather income in your home country. Thus it should not appear on the US tax forms because you were not resident when you had it, it was given to you by your employer (which is X(Europe), not X(USA)), and you should have paid local taxes in your home country on it.\"",
"Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.",
"You should consult a US CPA to ensure your situation is handled correctly. It appears, the money is Israel source income and not US source income regardless if you receive it while living in the U.S. If you file the correct form, I suspect the form is 1040NR and your state form to disclose your income, if any, in 2015 and 2016, it should not be a problem. Having said that, if you do earn any type of income while in the U.S. , you are required to disclose it to both the IRS and state.",
"\"Can I use the foreign earned income exclusion in my situation? Only partially, since the days you spent in the US should be excluded. You'll have to prorate your exclusion limit, and only apply it to the income earned while not in the US. If not, how should I go about this to avoid being doubly taxed for 2014? The amounts you cannot exclude are taxable in the US, and you can use a portion of your Norwegian tax to offset the US tax liability. Use form 1116 for that. Form 1116 with form 2555 on the same return will require some arithmetic exercises, but there are worksheets for that in the instructions. In addition, US-Norwegian treaty may come into play, so check that out. It may help you reduce the tax liability in the US or claim credit on the US taxes in Norway. It seems that Norway has a bilateral tax treaty with the US, that, if I'm reading it correctly, seems to indicate that \"\"visiting researchers to universities\"\" (which really seems like I would qualify as) should not be taxed by either country for the duration of their stay. The relevant portion of the treaty is Article 16. Article 16(2)(b) allows you $5000 exemption for up to a year stay in the US for your salary from the Norwegian school. You will still be taxed in Norway. To claim the treaty benefit you need to attach form 8833 to your tax return, and deduct the appropriate amount on line 21 of your form 1040. However, since you're a US citizen, that article doesn't apply to you (See the \"\"savings clause\"\" in the Article 22). I didn't even give a thought to state taxes; those should only apply to income sourced from the state I lived in, right (AKA $0)? I don't know what State you were in, so hard to say, but yes - the State you were in is the one to tax you. Note that the tax treaty between Norway and the US is between Norway and the Federal government, and doesn't apply to States. So the income you earned while in the US will be taxable by the State you were at, and you'll need to file a \"\"non-resident\"\" return there (if that State has income taxes - not all do).\"",
"I believe that tax will be withheld (at 30%?) on dividends paid to non-residents. You can claim it back if your country has a tax treaty with the USA, but you will need to file. You probably also need to file a W-series withholding form (eg a W9-BEN). Interesting question. I would like to hear a more definitive answer.",
"Do I pay tax to the US and then also pay it in India for my income, or does my American partner, who holds 15% of the monthly income, pay tax in the US for his income? Of course you do, what kind of question is this? You have income earned in the US by a US entity, and the entity is taxed. Since LLC is a disregarded entity - the tax shifts to you personally. You should file form 1040NR. You should also talk to a tax professional who's proficient in the Indo-US tax treaty, since it may affect your situation.",
"A) a tax treaty probably covers this for the avoidance of double taxation. Tax treaties can be very cryptic and have little precedence clarifying them http://www.irs.gov/businesses/international/article/0,,id=169552,00.html B) I'm going to say NO since the source of your income is going to be US based. But the UK tax laws might also have specific verbage for resident source income. sorry it is an inconclusive answer, but should be some factors to consider and point you in the right direction.",
"If you have income in the US, you will owe US income tax on it, unless there is a treaty with your country that says otherwise.",
"If you're a US citizen/resident - you pay taxes on your worldwide income regardless of where you live. The logic is that Americans generally don't agree to the view that there's more than one country in the world. If you're non-US person, not physically present in the US, and provide contract work for a US employer - you generally don't pay taxes in the US. The logic is that the US doesn't actually have any jurisdiction over that money, you didn't earn it in the US. That said, your employer might withheld tax and remit it to the IRS, and you'll have to chase them for refund. If you receive income from the US rental property or dividends from a US company - you pay income tax to the US on that income, and then bargain with your home tax authority on refunds of the difference between what you paid in the US and what you should have paid at home. You can also file non-resident tax return in the US to claim what you have paid in excess. The logic is that the money sourced in the US should be taxed in the US. You earned that money in the US. There are additional rules to more specific situation, and there are also bilateral treaties between countries (including a US-Canadian treaty) that supersede national laws. Bottom line, not only that each country has its own laws, there are also different laws for different situations, and if some of the international treaties apply to you - it further complicates the situation. If something is not clear - get a professional advice form a tax accountant licensed in the relevant jurisdictions (in your case - any of the US states, and the Canadian province where you live).",
"If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.",
"You're not subject to the US tax laws, and since the income is not US-sourced, it is not subject to withholding. Your employer doesn't need any form, but if they insist - you can provide them a W8-BEN to certify your non-resident status. Keep in mind that if you do come to the US, the money you earn while in the US is US-sourced and subject to the US taxes and withholding, even if you're non-resident.",
"Depending on what software you use. It has to be reported as a foreign income and you can claim foreign tax paid as a foreign tax credit.",
"Assuming your tax status in India is Non-Resident. The funds are deposited in an NRE account, there is nothing that needs to be done. If you have any income in India, then you would need to file a tax return.",
"There is a tax treaty between Canada and the US that recognizes RRSPs as retirement accounts. You won't be taxed on the gains in your RRSP like you would be if it was in a TFSA. So you don't really have to do anything (except fill out a form for the IRS every year). The problem that usually arises is if you want to buy something else. I don't know of any Canadian brokerage that will sell products to a US resident. It's a question of where they're licensed. However the SEC has issued an exemption so you can try to argue with your broker to get a trade done. Link to SEC order With such a small amount in the account you may be paying fees or have it invested in funds with higher fees. You will have to do the math on whether or not you should just withdraw the money and invest in cheaper funds and accounts in the US. When you withdraw the money Canada will withhold a flat rate of 25% or in some circumstances 15%. For more info go to Serbinski (a cross border tax specialist).",
"I think the general rule for Canada resident to receive foreign inheritance don't have tax effect and you don't have to declare it. It's a little different from US global tax regulation. ref: intuit.ca",
"\"If you live outside the US, then you probably need to deal with foreign tax credits, foreign income exclusions, FBAR forms (you probably have bank account balances enough for the 10K threshold) , various monsters the Congress enacted against you like form 8939 (if you have enough banking and investment accounts), form 3520 (if you have a IRA-like local pension), form 5471 (if you have a stake in a foreign business), form 8833 (if you have treaty claims) etc ect - that's just what I had the pleasure of coming across, there's more. TurboTax/H&R Block At Home/etc/etc are not for you. These programs are developed for a \"\"mainstream\"\" American citizen and resident who has nothing, or practically nothing, abroad. They may support the FBAR/FATCA forms (IIRC H&R Block has a problem with Fatca, didn't check if they fixed it for 2013. Heard reports that TurboTax support is not perfect as well), but nothing more than that. If you know the stuff well enough to fill the forms manually - go for it (I'm not sure they even provide all these forms in the software though). Now, specifically to your questions: Turbo tax doesn't seem to like the fact that my wife is a foreigner and doesn't have a social security number. It keeps bugging me to input a valid Ssn for her. I input all zeros for now. Not sure what to do. No, you cannot do that. You need to think whether you even want to include your wife in the return. Does she have income? Do you want to pay US taxes on her income? If she's not a US citizen/green card holder, why would you want that? Consider it again. If you decide to include here after all - you have to get an ITIN for her (instead of SSN). If you hire a professional to do your taxes, that professional will also guide you through the ITIN process. Turbo tax forces me to fill out a 29something form that establishes bonafide residency. Is this really necessary? Again in here it bugs me about wife's Ssn Form 2555 probably. Yes, it is, and yes, you have to have a ITIN for your wife if she's included. My previous state is California, and for my present state I input Foreign. When I get to the state tax portion turbo doesn't seem to realize that I have input foreign and it wants me to choose a valid state. However I think my first question is do i have to file a California tax now that I am not it's resident anymore? I do not have any assets in California. No house, no phone bill etc If you're not a resident in California, then why would you file? But you might be a partial resident, if you lived in CA part of the year. If so, you need to file 540NR for the part of the year you were a resident. If you have a better way to file tax based on this situation could you please share with me? As I said - hire a professional, preferably one that practices in your country of residence and knows the provisions of that country's tax treaty with the US. You can also hire a professional in the US, but get a good one, that specializes on expats.\"",
"\"If you are a permanent resident (and it wasn't taken away or abandoned), then you are a resident alien for U.S. tax purposes. (One of the two tests for being a resident alien is the \"\"green card test\"\".) Being a resident alien means all your worldwide income is subject to U.S. taxes, regardless of where you live or work. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to actually pay taxes on your income again if you've already paid it -- you may be able to use the Foreign Tax Credit to reduce your taxes by the amount already paid to a foreign government -- but you need to report it on U.S. tax forms just like income from the U.S., and you can then apply any tax credits that you may qualify for. As a resident alien, you file taxes using Form 1040. You are required to file taxes if your income for a particular year is above a certain threshold. This threshold is described in the first few pages of the 1040 instructions for each year. For 2013, for Single filing status under 65, it is $10000. The only way you can legally not file is if your income the whole year was below this amount. You should go back and file taxes if you were required to but failed to. Having filed taxes when required is very important if you want to naturalize later on. It is also one component of demonstrating you're maintaining residency in the U.S., which you're required to do as a permanent resident being outside the U.S. for a long time, or else you'll lose your permanent residency. (Even filing taxes might not be enough, as your description of your presence in the U.S. shows you only go there for brief periods each year, not really living there. You're lucky you haven't lost your green card already; any time you go there you run a great risk of them noticing and taking it away.)\"",
"I can only answer about the U.S. For question 2, I believe the answer is no. If you are a non-resident alien for tax purposes, then only income connected to the U.S. is reported as income on the tax return. Unless there were any non-deductible contributions to your pre-tax IRAs, when you convert to Roth IRA, the entire amount of the conversion is added to your income. So the tax consequence is the same as if you had that much additional U.S. income. If you are a non-resident alien with no other income in the U.S., then the income you have to report on your U.S. tax return will basically consist of the conversion. Non-resident aliens do not have a standard deduction. However, all people have a personal exemption. If we take 2013 as an example, the exemption is $3900 per person. We will assume that you will file as single or married filing separately (non-resident aliens cannot file as married filing jointly). The first $3900 of income is covered by the exemption, and is not counted in taxable income. For single and MFS, the next $8925 of income is taxed at 10%, then next $27325 of income is taxed at 15%, and so on. So if you convert less than the personal exemption amount every year ($3900 in 2013), then in theory you do not pay any taxes. If you convert a little bit more, then some of the conversion will be taxed at 10%, etc.",
"Yes, you do. Since you've been a green card holder since the beginning of the year - your whole worldwide income for the whole year is taxable in the US. You can take credit for the taxes paid in the UK (use form 1116) to reduce your US tax liability.",
"Found a great article (with bibliography) that covers taxation on investment activity by non resident aliens - even covers the special 15% tax on dividends for Canadian residents. It's (dividend tax rate) generally 30% for other NRAs (your 2nd question). And it confirmed my suspicion that there are no capital gains taxes for NRAs. (1st Q) Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-non-us-nat.html",
"To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.",
"\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"",
"You can always take deduction for foreign tax paid on Schedule A, or calculate foreign tax credit using form 1116. Credit is usually more beneficial, but in some cases you will be better of with a deduction. However, in very specific cases, you can claim the credit directly on your 1040 without using the form 1116. Look at the 1040 instructions for line 47: Exception. You do not have to complete Form 1116 to take this credit if all of the following apply. All of your foreign source gross income was from interest and dividends and all of that income and the foreign tax paid on it were reported to you on Form 1099-INT, Form 1099-DIV, or Schedule K-1 (or substitute statement). The total of your foreign taxes was not more than $300 (not more than $600 if married filing jointly). You held the stock or bonds on which the dividends or interest were paid for at least 16 days and were not obligated to pay these amounts to someone else. You are not filing Form 4563 or excluding income from sources within Puerto Rico. All of your foreign taxes were: Legally owed and not eligible for a refund or reduced tax rate under a tax treaty, and Paid to countries that are recognized by the United States and do not support terrorism. For more details on these requirements, see the Instructions for Form 1116.",
"As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.",
"This person must pay taxes in both the overseas country and in the U.S. This is unusual; generally, only the U.S. demands this. Depending on the specific country, he would likely not be taxed twice as the U.S. generally recognises tax paid in a different country. Note there are some gotchas, though. For example, although Canada has a generally higher tax scheme than the U.S., you may still end up owing tax if you use the Tax-Free Savings Account system in Canada, as that is not recognised in the U.S. As to whether or not this person should form a company, that is far too broad a question. It's going to depend in large part on the tax situations of the countries involved. This person needs to consult an accountant specialising in this situation. That is, on personal versus business tax and on tax involving U.S. citizens. Yes, this person can and indeed must file and pay taxes in the U.S., from outside the U.S.",
"I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.",
"\"Its not for US citizens - its for US residents. If the US considers you as a tax resident - you'll be treated the same as a US citizen, regardless of your immigration status. The question is very unclear, since it is not mentioned whether your US sourced income \"\"from the Internet\"\" is sales in the US, sales on-line, services you provide, investments, or what else. All these are treated differently. For some kinds of US-sourced income you should have paid taxes in the US already, regardless of where you physically reside. For others - not. In any case, if you become US tax resident, you'll be taxed on your worldwide income, not only the $10K deposited in the US bank account. ALL of your income, everywhere in the world, must be declared to the US government and will be taxed. You should seek professional advice, before you move to the US, in order to understand your responsibilities, liabilities and rights. I suggest looking for a EA/CPA licensed in California and experienced with taxation of foreigners (look for someone in the SF or LA metropolitan areas). Keep in mind that there may be a tax treaty between the US and your home country that may affect your Federal (but not California) taxes.\"",
"Short answer: it's complicated. The UK govt pages on foreign income are probably your best starting point: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/LeavingOrComingIntoTheUK/DG_10027480 As you can see, it depends on your precise residence status here. (There is a tax treaty between the UK and the US so you wouldn't be double taxed on the income either way. But there might still be reporting obligations).",
"The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.",
"My wife and I are both Canadian citizens living in the US with green card status. I still have a Canadian RRSP and bank account in Canada that are dormant for the most part. We use the Canadian debit card only when traveling (which is quite helpful). Neither of us file any paperwork in Canada anymore. But as others have mentioned, we do file the FBAR form... this takes about 10 minutes and gets mailed somewhere in Michigan if I recall correctly. (Keep the balance less than $10k total among all foreign accounts and you relieve yourself of this too.) As far as taxes go, we make less interest in our Canadian account than in our US accounts, so the tax burden is less.",
"Generally, report your $150,000. If/when the the tax collectors notice the anomaly, they'll attempt to contact you to remedy it. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, it's pretty orderly. The IRS requests additional information or proof and only open it up into a full blown audit if the suspect wrongdoing. In your case, you could show a business agreement detailing the revenue split proving you correctly reported. This is only for your consideration. I strongly recommending finding and keeping a professional tax advisor.",
"\"Read up on filing an \"\"amended tax return\"\". Essentially you'll fill out the entire return as it should have been originally, then fill out form 1040X stating what has changed (and pay the additional tax due if needed). According to TurboTax's website, they have partnered with Sprintax for non-resident tax prep. I am not vouching for the service; just offering it as information.\"",
"\"Transferring the money or keeping it in US does has no effect on taxes. Your residency status has. Assuming you are Resident Alien in US for tax purpose and have paid the taxes to IRS and you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" Indian for tax purposes in India as you are more than 182 outside India. How would it effect my Tax in US and India If you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" in India for tax purposes, there is no tax liability of this in India. I have transferred an amount of approx 15-20k$ to Indian Account (not NRE) By RBI regulation, if you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" then you should get your savings account converted to \"\"NRO\"\". You may not may not choose to open an NRE account. To keep the paper work clear it helps that you open an NRE account in India. Any investment needed ? Where do i need to declare if any ? These are not relevant. Note any income generated in India, i.e. interest in Savings account / FDs / Rent etc; taxes need to be paid in India and declared in US and taxes paid in US as well. There is some relief under DTAA. There are quite a few question on this site that will help you clarify what needs to be done.\"",
"An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.",
"If you want to prove the actual tax liability you have in the US - you have to file a tax return. If the Romanian government believes you that the withholding is your actual tax - fine, but that would be a lie. Withholding is not a tax. The American payers must withhold from foreigners enough to have transferred more than the actual tax the foreigners would have paid. The standard withholding is 30%, but the actual tax on dividends varies. In case the tax treaty limits the tax on dividends - the withholding is usually up to the maximum of the tax allowed by the treaty. But allowed doesn't mean that would be the actual tax. In many cases it is not. So if you want to claim the US tax paid as a credit towards your Romanian tax - you'll need to file a tax return in the US, calculate the actual tax liability and that would be the amount of credit you can claim. The difference between that amount and the amount withheld by the payer will be refunded to you by the IRS. You don't have to file a US tax return, that is true. But the withholding is not the tax, the actual tax liability may have been less, and the Romanian tax authority may deny your credit, in whole or in part, based on the fact that you haven't filed a US tax return and as such have no proof of your actual tax paid. You had some experience with the UK tax treaty, and you think all the treaties are the same. That may be a reasonable line of thought, but it is incorrect. Treaties are not the same. More importantly, even if the treaty is the same - the tax law is not. While in the UK the tax on dividends may be flat and from the first pound - in the US it is neither flat nor from the first dollar. Thus, while in the UK you may have been used to paying tax at source and that's it - in the US it doesn't work that way at all.",
"As a non-resident, you need to file a form 1040NR in any year that you have a distribution (withdrawal) from your HSA. From the Instructions for Form 1040NR, Who Must File: You also must file a return if you received HSA, Archer MSA, or Medicare Advantage MSA distributions. You file a form 8889 with your 1040NR, and on that form you report how much money you took out of the HSA and how much of that was used for qualified medical expenses. If these distributions are used for qualified medical expenses, even in your home country, they are tax free. Any part of the distribution that is not used for medical expenses is taxable, and you would need to send in a tax payment with your 1040NR. If you just cash out your HSA with no medical expenses, you will pay tax on the amount plus a 20% penalty. If you have no other U.S. connected income, your tax rate will be based solely on the amount of your distribution (probably 10-15%), so you are looking at a total tax of 30-35%. It may be worth your while to leave the HSA in place and just withdraw it as you have medical expenses. You'll need to file a tax return each year you take money out until the HSA is gone, but you won't pay any tax.",
"\"It's pretty easy. In the Interview Setup for Ufile, check the box for \"\"Self-employment business income\"\". Then during the process of filling everything out, you'll get a Self-Employment screen. It'll ask for the name of your business, but just put your own name since you don't have one. For the 6-digit classification code, click the ? button and look through the list for the industry that best matches the one for whom you wrote the technical report. Or you can go with 711500: Independent artists, writers and performers. It doesn't really matter that much so don't worry if it's a poor match. It will also ask you for your income and expenses. I don't know exactly what costs you might have incurred to write your report, but you can likely claim a very tiny amount of \"\"home office\"\" expenses. Costs like rent (or mortgage interest + property tax), utilities, and home insurance can be claimed, but they have to be pro-rated for the time you were actually doing the work, and are based on the amount of space you used for the work. For example, if you paid $1000 rent and $200 utilities for the month in which the work was done, and it took you 20 of the 31 days in that month to actually do the work, and you used a room that makes up about 10% of the square footage of your home, then you can claim: $1200 * 20/31 * 0.1 = $77.42 for your home office expenses. If you also used that room for non-business purposes during that time, then you reduce it even further. Say, if the room was also used for playing video games 50% of the time, then you'd only claim $38.71\"",
"Technically, if you earn in US (being paid there, which means you have a work visa) and live in other country, you must pay taxes in both countries. International treaties try to decrease the double-taxation, and in this case, you may pay in your country the difference of what you have paid in US. ie. your Country is 20% and USA is 15%, you will pay 5%, and vice-versa. This works only with certain areas. You must know the tax legislation of both countries, and I recommend you seek for advisory. This site have all the basic information you need: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion Good luck.",
"In the general case if you have income coming in from a foreign source you need to declare it on your Canadian tax form, and nominally pay tax on it. However Canada has a tax agreement with the UK to ensure that you are not taxed twice. You also declare how much tax you have paid to the UK, and that is deducted from your Canadian tax bill. You may need to consult a tax professional, or maybe just read the Revenue Canada website to get the details. If you are holding this money for a friend, then you may find that this does not count as income to you. If you are getting it transferred to you in Canada, and then immediately passed on to your friend, it probably doesn't count as income (though again a tax professional will probably be helpful). This would mean you don't have to pay Canadian tax. But it's also a bummer because you've paid UK tax, which you might also have avoided, and you can't get that back without a lot of form filling. If this is going to be an ongoing situation, and the amount is significant, then you might look at getting your friend's money (and any you have in a UK account yourself) transferred to an offshore account, where UK tax is not automatically deducted. Most UK banks will do this for non-UK residents.",
"\"Whether you do decide to go with a tax advisor or not, be sure to do some research on your own. When we moved to the US about 5 years ago, I did find the taxes here pretty complicated and confusing. I went ahead and read up all different tax documents and did some calculations of my own before hiring a CPA (at that point, I just wanted a second opinion to make sure I got the calculations right). However, when the office of the CPA was finished with my taxes, I found they had made a mistake! When I went back to their office to point it out, the lady just shrugged, corrected her numbers on the form and said \"\"You seem to know a lot about this stuff already. Why are you here?\"\" I swore to never use them again - not this particular CPA at least. Now, I am not saying all CPAs are the same - some of them are pretty darn good at their job and know what they are doing. All I am saying is it helps to be prepared and know some basic stuff. Just don't go in all blind. After all, they are also humans prone to mistakes and your taxes are your liability in the end. My suggestion is to start with a good tool that supports tax filing for non-residents. Most of them provide a step-by-step QA based tool. As you go through the steps, Google each question you don't understand. It may take more time than hiring a tax advisor directly but in the end it will all be worth it.\"",
"There's nothing wrong with your reasoning except that you expect the tax laws to make perfect sense. More often than not they don't. I suggest getting in touch with a professional tax preparer (preferably with a CPA or EA designation), who will be able to understand the issue, including the relevant portions of the French-US tax treaty, and explain it to you. You will probably also need to do some reporting in France, so get a professional advice from a French tax professional as well. So, in my tax return, can I say that I had no US revenue at all during this whole year? I doubt it.",
"Every country has its own tax code. Consult a professional in each country regarding income earned in that country. Anything else is speculation.",
"To answer my own question, at least to the extent of my understanding. Here the IRS says that all income for a foreign person from a US-based company is taxable with 30%. Here the IRS says that this tax should be withhold at source by whomever pays you. In case there is a tax treaty with the country, the tax can even be waived in the US. Of course, if you don't declare it in your home country, the US bank could probably give information requested by the home country authorities. For the other two cases (when there's no US party involved) I can't find anything on the IRS website, which kind of make sense. If I am using an account in the US just to receive and send money shouldn't imply any tax. Thanks to @litteadv for pointing me into the right direction.",
"Your wife doesn't need to file a 2014 tax return because she's a nonresident and she didn't have any U.S. income. Her visa is irrelevant; it only matters what her status was (if she was in the U.S., but she wasn't) and if she had U.S. income. Your child doesn't need to file a tax return because she didn't have any income. There's a certain income threshold below which she doesn't have to file. Children generally never file their own tax returns. I don't know who told you otherwise. You may have to file if you had income (maybe including fellowship income and stuff like that) in the U.S. during the year? Did you? If you didn't then you probably don't need to file a tax return. Also, you said you're nonresident for the year. Are you sure about that? Students are generally nonresident for the first 5 calendar years, and resident thereafter. So if you came in 2009 or before, you would be resident for all of 2014; but if you came in 2010 or after, you would be nonresident for all of 2014. If you were in the first 5 calendar years of being a student, you also need to file Form 8843 regardless of whether you need to file a tax return. Nonresidents generally can't claim dependents. Residents can, however. A dependent will provide you with an exemption (it reduces your taxable income by a certain amount). You can also get the Child Tax Credit if your income is low enough. There is a U.S.-Sweden tax treaty. It has a section covering students. It may exempt some or all of your income from U.S. tax. Most universities provide free international tax programs for their international students and scholars. You should look to see if your school offers this. Don't go to outside tax filing places because those generally don't know anything about how to file for nonresidents.",
"If treaties are involved for something other than exempting student wages on campus, you shouldn't do it yourself but talk to a licensed US tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) who's well-versed in the specific treaty. Double taxation provisions generally mean that you can credit the foreign tax paid to your US tax liability, but in the US you can do that regardless of treaties (some countries don't allow that). Also, if you're a US tax resident (or even worse - a US citizen), the royalties related treaty provision might not even apply to you at all (see the savings clause). FICA taxes are generally not part of the income tax treaties but totalization agreements (social security-related taxes, not income taxes). Most countries who have income tax treaties with the US - don't have social security totalization agreements. Bottom line - talk to a licensed professional.",
"If your gross income is only $3000, then you don't need to file: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf That said, pay careful attention to: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad You should be reporting ALL income, without regard to WHERE you earned it, on your US taxes. Not doing so could indeed get you in trouble if you are audited. Your level of worry depends on how much of the tax law you are willing to dodge, and how lucky you feel.",
"Per the IRS instructions on filing as Head of Household as a Citizen Living Abroad, if you choose to file only your own taxes, and you qualify for Head of Household without them, the IRS does not consider you married: If you are a U.S. citizen married to a nonresident alien you may qualify to use the head of household tax rates. You are considered unmarried for head of household purposes if your spouse was a nonresident alien at any time during the year and you do not choose to treat your nonresident spouse as a resident alien. However, your spouse is not a qualifying person for head of household purposes. You must have another qualifying person and meet the other tests to be eligible to file as a head of household. As such, you could file as Married Filing Separately (if you have no children) or Head of Household (if you have one or more children, a parent, etc. for whom you paid more than half of their upkeep - see the document for more information). You also may choose to file as Married Filing Jointly, if it benefits you to do so (it may, if she earns much less than you). See the IRS document Nonresident Spouse Treated As Resident for more information. If you choose to treat her as a resident, then you must declare her worldwide income. In some circumstances this will be beneficial for you, if you earn substantially more than her and it lowers your tax rate overall to do so. Married Filing Separately severely limits your ability to take some deductions and credits, so it's well worth seeing which is better.",
"\"What theyre fishing for is whether the money was earned in the U.S. It's essentially an interest shelter, and/or avoiding double taxation. They're saying if you keep income you make outside the US in a bank inside the US, the US thanks you for storing your foreign money here and doesn't tax the interest (but the nation where you earned that income might). There is no question that the AirBNB income is \"\"connected with a US trade or business\"\". So your next question is whether the fraction of interest earned from that income can be broken out, or whether IRS requires you to declare all the interest from that account. Honestly given the amount of tax at stake, it may not be worth your time researching. Now since you seem to be a resident nonresident alien, it seems apparent that whatever economic value you are creating to earn your salary, is being performed in the United States. If this is for an American company and wages paid in USD, no question, that's a US trade or business. But what if it's for a Swedish company running on Swedish servers, serving Swedes and paid in Kroner to a Swedish bank which you then transfer to your US bank? Does it matter if your boots are on sovereign US soil? This is a complex question, and some countries (UK) say \"\"if your boots are in our nation, it is trade/income in our nation\"\"... Others (CA) do not. This is probably a separate question to search or ask. To be clear, the fact that your days as a teacher or trainee do not count toward residency, is a separate question from whether your salary as same counts as US income.\"",
"Tax liability in US: You would need to determine if you are a resident alien or non resident alien. Resident alien are taxed normally as per US citizens. For the annual remuneration you have quoted it would be in the range of 25%. Refer http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm To determine if you are resident alien or non resident alien, you need to be present for certain period in US. There is also an exemption even if you meet this you can still be treated as non resident alien if your tax home is outside US [India in this case] Refer to the link for details to determine your category, the durations are for number of days in financial year, hence it matters when you are in US and the exact durations. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html Also note that if you are assessed as resident alien, even the income from India will be taxed in US unless you declare there is no income in India. Tax liability in India: The tax liability in India would be depending on your NRI status. This again is tied to the financial year and the number of days you are in country. While the year you are going out of India you need to be away for atleast 183 days for you be considred are NRI. So if you are treated as Indian resident, you would have to pay tax in India on entire income. In the worst case, depending on the period you travel and the dates you travel, you could get classified as citizen in US as well as India and have to pay tax at both places. India and US do not have a dual tax avoidance treaty for individuals. Its there for certain category like small business and certain professions like teacher, research etc.",
"Yes, you still need to pay income tax on your capital gain regardless of whether you converted your USD proceeds back into CAD. When you calculate your gains for tax purposes, you'll need to convert all of your gains to Canadian dollars. Generally speaking, CRA will expect you to use a historical USD to CAD exchange rate published by the Bank of Canada. At that page, notice the remark at right: Are the Exchange Rates Shown Here Accepted by Canada Revenue Agency? Yes. The Agency accepts Bank of Canada exchange rates as the basis for calculations involving income and expenses that are denominated in foreign currencies.",
"\"Income code 09 is dividends, so yes - it is the same as line 1 of the US form 1099-DIV. 1a or 1b however depends on whether the requirements for qualified dividends are met. If they're met - its 1b, if not - 1a. These are treated and taxed differently. See here on what are the qualification requirements. Note that Canada has a tax treaty with the US making Canadian corporations \"\"qualified foreign corporations\"\".\"",
"With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.",
"If you hold this money in USD and spend it in the US as USD, then there is no tax liability or reporting requirement at all. You are not subject to any tax on foreign exchange gains and losses because you have not performed any foreign exchange. CRA says a foreign exchange gain or loss happens when the fx transaction occurs—not as the currency’s value fluctuates while on deposit - and since you are never performing an fx transaction, no such issues will arise. The CRA is not interested in how you spend your money, only the money that you earn. The only possible tax liability that would arise in the circumstances that you describe would be the tax liability arising from interest earned while the cash in on deposit. If this interest exceeds the threshold of reportability, then your bank will issue you with a T-slip to be included in your tax return.",
"\"Ed: Saw your comment, thank you. The short answer (a rough simplification), seems to be that you pay PA income tax for income made in PA. You pay IL income tax for income made in IL, not income made across both states. And you make sure the IL amount paid is correct via a credit calculated on Schedule CR. It looks to me (bear with me, I am no expert on tax law in IL, PA, or in general, so consult a professional for \"\"good\"\" advice :), like you basically do this on Schedule CR: It looks like there may be some more pertinent info on Publication 111, so that may potentially change the math a bit too. This check is 2014 income, during which you are a resident of IL. It's income from a PA employer. You must file a tax return in PA regardless, since you \"\"earned income in PA\"\". Did your former employer withhold PA income taxes on this particular paycheck? I'm not seeing where it says you should not include tax withheld; could you please point that out? Perhaps they mean you should only include tax actually considered \"\"due\"\" on the PA tax return. From IL's Schedule CR instructions: What is the purpose of Schedule CR? Schedule CR, Credit for Tax Paid to Other States, allows you to take a credit for income taxes you paid to other states on income you received while a resident of Illinois. You are allowed this credit only if you filed a required tax return with the other state. You must use information from the tax return you filed with the other state to complete Schedule CR. ... What taxes qualify for the credit? Taxes that qualify for the credit are income taxes you paid to another state of the United States,\"",
"Most of the years I filed while a non-resident of the US, I didn't owe a dime to the US government. Same was actually true for Canada, though I did have some income there that was eligible for taxation. AFAIK, even if I hadn't, I would have been required to file, but perhaps that isn't necessary for everyone.",
"Do I need to declare it to IRS? The account? No. You do need to file a form W8-BEN with the bank though and make sure you maintain the correct information on it (it has your address there, so if you move - update it). Your account may be frozen until the form is provided, especially if it has activity on it. The 2-nd and 3-rd scenario would come as a result of some freelancing activity done while I am out of the US (definitely would qualify for Non-Resident Alien status). This you do have to report to the IRS. I'm guessing the payer is in the US, and would not know that you're a foreigner. In this case you're liable for taxes (if the payer knows you're a foreigner - they must withhold the taxes on your behalf). The payer will report payments to the IRS, so you have to submit your own tax return for a match. If there's activity on your account that might be suspicious, it will be reported to money laundering unit in the US Treasury Department, that may come after you through the treaties the US might have with your home country (tax treaty, extradition treaty, etc).",
"\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"",
"The data provided in your question is irrelevant. The data that you provided in the comments (that you're physically present in the US while doing the work) is the only relevant information needed to answer your question. You will need to pay taxes in the US for the earnings. The company invoicing the US client will also need to pay taxes in the US for its earnings from these invoices. You can transfer between bank accounts and deposit whatever you want anywhere you want, no-one cares (with respect to the US taxes, check with Indian tax accountant about Indian requirements).",
"If you're paying a foreign person directly - you submit form 1042 and you withhold the default (30%) amount unless the person gives you a W8 with a valid treaty claim and tax id. If so - you withhold based on the treaty rate. From the IRS: General Rule In general, a person that makes a payment of U.S. source income to a foreign person must withhold the proper amount of tax, report the payment on Form 1042-S and file a Form 1042 by March 15 of the year following the payment(s). I'd suggest to clarify this with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who's familiar with this kind of issues, and not rely on free advice on the Internet or DIY. Specific cases require specific advice and while the general rule above holds in most cases - in some there are exceptions.",
"\"You are considered a Canadian resident if you have \"\"significant residential ties to Canada\"\". Because your wife lives in Canada, you therefore are a resident. Even by working temporarily in the US, you are still considered a \"\"factual resident\"\" of Canada. Due to that, your second question is irrelevant.\"",
"\"Yes, it will be taxable in the US. You will report your worldwide income, and will be able to take credit for any Indian tax paid. However, the portions that are tax-free in India will be fully taxable for you in the US. Keep in mind, in addition to the taxes, the FBAR requirements and the FATCA forms you may need to be filing as well. Failure to file (regardless of if any tax is actually owed) will trigger a $10K penalty. I suggest you have a US-licensed EA/CPA (tax adviser) to help you with your US tax return. Keep in mind that a \"\"regular\"\" American tax preparer knows very little of the specific requirements for foreigners and may land you in trouble. Similarly, the \"\"off-the-shelf\"\" tax software or tax preparation outlets (like H&R Block) are ill-suited for foreigners in the US. It would be best to talk to a EA/CPA who is also familiar with Indian financial terms and Indo-US tax treaty.\"",
"The DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) Article 20 will apply to the Provident Fund money received while you were a resident in the US. Yes, you will add the Interest received on PF (Interest only for the year/s when you were a resident of US, and not when you were a Resident in India) in your 1040 and claim exemption under the treaty. Do not add all of your PF contribution for last 10 years or 10 years of interest to 1040, as this was not contributed/earned when you were a US Resident. Consider, just the Interest Earned in the year when you become a Resident of US and then claim exemption under the treaty.",
"Completely different. Canadians can be deemed non-residents by severing their residential ties with Canada and emigrating to another country, and no longer required to file unless they have certain sources of Canadian income. *See* http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/living-abroad/taxation No such classifications exist with US citizenship. You file a return no matter what, even if you haven't stepped foot in the US in decades.",
"FBAR should be filed if total balance of all your foreign accounts is more than $10000 any time during the year (even if only for one day). My TurboTax handled that well last year, including filling the FBAR for me. Shouldn't be an issue, just don't forget to file it (not with your IRS package, it goes to a different place), if you need to. On the tax forms (1040 Schedule B, Part III) you should check a checkbox that you have a foreign bank account.",
"\"You will need to file a US income tax return, and declare all income world-wide. Whether this results in any tax owed depends on your particular circumstances, and the effect of any tax treaties between the US and India. There are additional requirements for the filing of information on the amounts in foreign accounts held by \"\"US tax persons\"\". Depending on the nature of these accounts, the complexity of the forms, and the penalties for non-compliance can be quite high... Short version: Consult a professional well-qualified in US/India tax matters...\"",
"Indian PF is a social security scheme, and as per the US India DTAA Article 20, is not taxable by the US. The exact text says as under - This clearly states that any social security benefit paid by any of the two contracting states to a resident of the other contracting state is taxable only in the first mentioned state. In other words, US cannot tax Indian social security benefits (and vice versa). Therefore, you are liable for taxes only in India even though you have to declare to the US that you were given the social security (PF) benefit by India.",
"The United States taxes nonresident aliens on two types of income: First, a nonresident alien who is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is taxed on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business. Second, certain types of U.S.-source payments are subject to income tax withholding. The determination of when a nonresident alien is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is highly fact-specific and complex. However, keeping assets in a U.S. bank account should not be treated as a U.S. trade or business. A nonresident alien's interest income is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30 percent under Section 1441 of the tax code. Interest on bank deposits, however, benefit from an exception under Section 1441(c)(10), so long as that interest is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Even though no tax needs to be withheld on interest on a bank deposit, the bank should still report that interest each year to the IRS on Form 1042-S. The IRS can then send that information to the tax authority in Brazil. Please keep in mind that state and local tax rules are all different, and whether interest on the bank deposits is subject to state or local tax will depend on which state the bank is in. Also, the United States does tax nonresident aliens on wages paid from a U.S. company, if those wages are treated as U.S.-source income. Generally, wages are U.S.-source income if the employee provides services while physically present in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they depend on the amount of wages and other factors that are specific to the employee's situation. This is an area where you should really consult with a U.S. tax advisor before the employment starts. Maybe your company will pay for it?",
"This depends on the nature of the income. Please consult a professional CPA for specific advise.",
"After that I moved to the Middle East on March 23rd, 2015 As an NRI, one should not hold any Savings account. Please have this converted to NRO Account. Additionally it is advised that you open an NRE account. Both these can be done remotely. If I transfer money from here to a non NRE/NRO account then is it taxable? Assuming its income earned when you are NRI, it is not taxable. However if there is audit enquiry you would need to have sufficient proof to back that this income is earned during your period as NRI and hence not taxable. As indicate above, holding a savings account when you are NRI is a breach of FEMA regulation. I have been getting mail from myITreturns.com to file income tax returns. Since I am considered as NRI, do I have to fill any non return form online? If there is a source of income in India, interest on savings account etc, it is taxable and you would need to file appropriate returns. Even if you have zero income, it is safe to file a NIL return. For the year 2014 do I have to file income tax returns? For the financial year 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015, you are still a resident Indian for tax purposes. You should have filed the return by June 2015 if there was tax due, else by March 2016. If you have not done so, please do this ASAP and regularise it.",
"You should add it to all the other income and continue paying taxes as you would on your Irish salary. That is true for both the US and the Irish sides of the equation. In case you didn't know - your Irish earnings are taxable in the US, since the US taxes all of your income. Your Amazon.com earnings are taxable in Ireland since that's where you earned it. You can use the FEIE/FTC as appropriate on your US tax return to reduce your tax liability, but all of your income should be reported.",
"If you are paid by foreigners then it is quite possible they don't file anything with the IRS. All of this income you are required to report as business income on schedule C. There are opportunities on schedule C to deduct expenses like your health insurance, travel, telephone calls, capital expenses like a new computer, etc... You will be charged both the employees and employers share of social security/medicare, around ~17% or so, and that will be added onto your 1040. You may still need a local business license to do the work locally, and may require a home business permit in some cities. In some places, cities subscribe to data services based on your IRS tax return.... and will find out a year or two later that someone is running an unlicensed business. This could result in a fine, or perhaps just a nice letter from the city attorneys office that it would be a good time to get the right licenses. Generally, tax treaties exist to avoid or limit double taxation. For instance, if you travel to Norway to give a report and are paid during this time, the treaty would explain whether that is taxable in Norway. You can usually get a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries against your US taxes, which helps avoid paying double taxes in the USA. If you were to go live in Norway for more than a year, the first $80,000/year or so is completely wiped off your US income. This does NOT apply if you live in the USA and are paid from Norway. If you have a bank account overseas with more than $10,000 of value in it at any time during the year, you owe the US Government a FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR). This is pretty important, there are some large fines for not doing it. It could occur if you needed an account to get paid in Norway and then send the money here... If the Norwegian company wires the money to you from their account or sends a check in US$, and you don't have a foreign bank account, then this would not apply.",
"\"My employer decided to pay my salary in India after I submit a form W-8BEN. This means that the wages / salary is deemed accrued for work from India. Hence your employer need not withhold and pay taxes on this wage in US. Is this payment taxable in the States since I am staying outside of States? Should I declare this income to IRS in case if I go back to the States later this year? No tax is due as the work is done outside on US. If you go back this would be similar to as you had gone first. Depending on your \"\"tax residency status\"\" you would have to declare all assets. If my US employer wires my US salary to my NRE account is that taxable in India? This is still taxable in India. It is advised that you have the funds transferred into a regular savings account. Please note you have to pay taxes in advance as per prescribed due dates in Sept, Dec, March. how does the Indian tax man identify if it is a taxable income and not just the regular remittance. This question is off topic here. Whether income taxes finds out about this is irrelevant. By law one is required to pay taxes on income earned in India.\"",
"If you aren't a US National (citizen or Green Card holder or some other exception I know not of), you're an alien, no matter where else you may or may not be a citizen. If you don't meet the residency tests, you're nonresident. Simple as that.",
"Residents pay tax on all of the income they receive during the calendar year from all sources, so you'll at least need to file and pay New York state income taxes on this money regardless. I can't answer whether you'll need to file and pay Colorado state income tax on this money as well. Generally speaking, you need to file a return for each state in which you live, receive income, or have business interests. If you are required to file a Colorado state income tax return, however, you can claim a credit for taxes paid to another state on your New York state income tax return using form IT-112-R (see the form and instructions)."
] |
[
"As per the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty (the “Treaty”), a U.S. corporation carrying on business in Canada is only subject to taxation on income earned in Canada through a fixed place of business or permanent establishment. Therefore, if a U.S. company does not have a permanent establishment (PE) in Canada then their Canadian source business income is not subject to Canadian federal tax. https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/USA_-eng.asp"
] |
5356
|
Historical stock prices: Where to find free / low cost data for offline analysis?
|
[
"279785",
"71553",
"381362",
"312405",
"562259"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"279785",
"535343",
"466255",
"240086",
"546379",
"516379",
"49111",
"381362",
"167586",
"109796",
"537111",
"560108",
"334383",
"485054",
"189341",
"529877",
"168347",
"596106",
"487074",
"465971",
"146780",
"562259",
"71553",
"580133",
"437465",
"89591",
"405572",
"171831",
"182747",
"159966",
"468490",
"226749",
"223477",
"491257",
"571620",
"47798",
"75063",
"491973",
"373620",
"577090",
"146188",
"575018",
"492262",
"413423",
"568043",
"480121",
"255463",
"391171",
"517935",
"201771",
"420587",
"215540",
"299109",
"261858",
"239137",
"532616",
"108579",
"432642",
"4735",
"543227",
"560213",
"459239",
"343619",
"315334",
"161428",
"451429",
"370569",
"557770",
"431459",
"151221",
"517161",
"553377",
"170379",
"225818",
"67365",
"471643",
"342258",
"42440",
"51063",
"202329",
"67785",
"235015",
"263829",
"38545",
"526377",
"354832",
"256996",
"422453",
"346345",
"253135",
"70185",
"574732",
"49893",
"574777",
"364672",
"359252",
"156816",
"490798",
"376396",
"54225"
] |
[
"Go to http://finance.google.com, search for the stock you want. When you are seeing the stock information, in the top left corner there's a link that says 'Historical prices'. Click on it. then select the date range, click update (don't forget this) and 'Download to spreadsheet' (on the right, below the chart). For example, this link takes you to the historical data for MSFT for the last 10 years. http://finance.yahoo.com has something similar, like this. In this case the link to download a CSV is at the bottom of the table.",
"Yahoo Finance's Historical Prices section allows you to look up daily historical quotes for any given stock symbol, you don't have to hit a library for this information. Your can choose a desired time frame for your query, and the dataset will include High/Low/Close/Volume numbers. You can then download a CSV version of this report and perform additional analysis in a spreadsheet of your choice. Below is Twitter report from IPO through yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=TWTR&a=10&b=7&c=2013&d=08&e=23&f=2014&g=d",
"You'd have to buy that information. Quoting from this page, Commercial Historical Data Higher resolution and more complete datasets are generally not available for free. Below is a list of vendors which have passed our quality screening (in total, we screened over a dozen vendors). To qualify, the vendor must aggregate data from all US national/regional exchanges as only complete datasets are suitable for research use. The last point is especially important as there are many vendors who just get data from a couple sources and is missing important information such as dark pool trades. They offer some alternatives for free data: Daily Resolution Data 1) Yahoo! Finance– Daily resolution data, with split/dividend adjustments can be downloaded from here. The download procedure can be automated using this tool. Note, Yahoo quite frequently has errors in its database and does not contain data for delisted symbols. 2) QuantQuote Free Data– QuantQuote offers free daily resolution data for the S&P500 at this web page under the Free Data tab. The data accounts for symbol changes, splits, and dividends, and is largely free of the errors found in the Yahoo data. Note, only 500 symbols are available unlike Yahoo which provides all listed symbols. And they list recommendations about who to buy the data from.",
"Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.",
"Google Finance and Yahoo Finance have been transitioning their API (data interface) over the last 3 months. They are currently unreliable. If you're just interested in historical price data, I would recommend either Quandl or Tiingo (I am not affiliated with either, but I use them as data sources). Both have the same historical data (open, close, high, low, dividends, etc.) on a daily closing for thousands of Ticker symbols. Each service requires you to register and get a unique token. For basic historical data, there is no charge. I've been using both for many months and the data quality has been excellent and API (at least for python) is very easy! If you have an inclination for python software development, you can read about the drama with Google and Yahoo finance at the pandas-datareader group at https://github.com/pydata/pandas-datareader.",
"Trading data can be had cheaply from: http://eoddata.com/products/historicaldata.aspx The SEC will give you machine readable financial statements for American companies for free, but that only goes back 3 or 4 years. Beyond that, you will have to pay for a rather expensive service like CapitalIQ or CRSP or whatever. Note that you will need considerable programming knowledge to pull this off.",
"\"http://www.interactivedata.com -> reference data No, it's not free. Nor would I consider it \"\"high quality\"\". For free data, try the Yahoo Finance API. The data you want is there, though you may need to calculate some of the fields yourself. Once you have your application working with free data you will be in a good position to evaluate whether it's worth it to shift to more detailed non-free data.\"",
"I also searched for some time before discovering Market Archive, which AFAIK is the most affordable option that basically gives you a massive multi-GB dump of data. I needed sufficient data to build a model and didn't want to work through an API or have to hand-pick the securities to train from. After trying to do this on my own by scraping Yahoo and using the various known tools, I decided my time was better spent not dealing with rate-limiting issues and parsing quirks and whatnot, so I just subscribed to Market Archive (they update the data daily).",
"Check the answers to this Stackoverflow question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/754593/source-of-historical-stock-data a number of potential sources are listed",
"You might have better luck using Quandl as a source. They have free databases, you just need to register to access them. They also have good api's, easier to use than the yahoo api's Their WIKI database of stock prices is curated and things like this are fixed (www.quandl.com/WIKI ), but I'm not sure that covers the London stock exchange. They do, however, have other databases that cover the London stock exchange.",
"I know of no free source for 10 years historical data on a large set of companies. Now, if it's just a single company or small number that interest you, contact Investor Relations at the company(ies) in question; they may be willing to send you the data for free.",
"An alternative to paying thousands of dollars for historical prices by the minute: Subscribe to real time data for as low as USD$1.5/month from your broker, then browse the chart.",
"Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API. EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST**** trades **but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system. I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.",
"You can get this data from a variety of sources, but likely not all from 1 source. Yahoo is a good source, as is Google, but some stock markets also give away some of this data, and there's foreign websites which provide data for foreign exchanges. Some Googling is required, as is knowledge of web scraping (R, Python, Ruby or Perl are great tools for this...).",
"Another possibly more flexible option is Yahoo finance here is an example for the dow.. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=9&b=1&c=1928&d=3&e=10&f=2012&g=d&z=66&y=0 Some of the individual stocks you can dl directly to a spreadsheet (not sure why this isn't offer for indexs but copy and paste should work). http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=ACTC.OB+Historical+Prices",
"\"For those on a budget, check if your local library has access to / or a copy of the \"\"Standard & Poor's Daily Stock Price Record\"\". Access to that or a similar service may be available as part of your library patronage. If not available it may be available at your metropolitan central library. Comprehensive stock pricing data which provides adjustments for splits, mergers, capital distributions and other relevant events is still a premium product. External link to New York Public Library blog post on subject: http://www.nypl.org/blog/2012/04/09/finding-historical-stock-prices\"",
"I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories. It has more info available for free than some may realize. Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats. (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number. That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC. (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here. You can do a search to find the Zacks website. I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice. It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer. I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist. It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it. littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free. Maybe this is a project that needs to happen. With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API. But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter. So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF! A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings? Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent. I know that SE prides itself on focused answers. A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate.",
"A number of places. First, fast and cheap, you can probably get this from EODData.com, as part of a historical index price download -- they have good customer service in my experience and will likely confirm it for you before you buy. Any number of other providers can get it for you too. Likely Capital IQ, Bloomberg, and other professional solutions. I checked a number of free sites, and Market Watch was the only that had a longer history than a few months.",
"Ya, that's a lot of data - especially considering your relative lack of experience and the likely fact that you have no idea what to do with what you're given. How do you even know you need minute or tick-based bid-ask data? You can get a lot more than OHLC/V/Split/Dividend. You can get: * Book Value; * Dividend information (Amount, yield, ex date, pay date); * EBITDA; * EPS (current AND estimates); * Price/sales ratio; * Price/book value; * Price/earnings ratio; * PEG ratio; * Short ratio; * Market cap. Among other things, all for free.",
"I had the same problem and was looking for a software that would give me easy access to historical financial statements of a company, preferably in a chart. So that I could easily compare earnings per share or other data between competitors. Have a look at Stockdance this might be what you are looking for. Reuters Terminal is way out of my league (price and complexity) and Yahoo and Google Finance just don't offer the features I want, especially on financials. Stockdance offers a sort of stock selection check list on which you can define your own criterion’s. Hence it makes no investment suggestions but let's you implement your own investing strategy.",
"This amazing site will answer all your data questions. You will need some patience and willingness to spend to get the data that you want. A lot of data is available for free too` https://www.quandl.com/",
"There are several Excel spreadsheets for downloading stock quotes (from Yahoo Finance), and historical exchange rates at http://investexcel.net/financial-web-services-kb",
"You may refer to project http://jstock.sourceforge.net. It is open source and released under GPL. It is fetching data from Yahoo! Finance, include delayed current price and historical price.",
"I think Infochimps has what you are looking for: NYSE and NASDAQ.",
"Yahoo provides dividend data from their Historical Prices section, and selecting Dividends Only, along with the dates you wish to return data for. Here is an example of BHP's dividends dating back to 1998. Further, you can download directly to *.csv format if you wish: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=BHP.AX&a=00&b=29&c=1988&d=06&e=6&f=2015&g=v&ignore=.csv",
"I am mostly interested in day to day records, and would like the data to contain information such as dividend payouts, and other parameters commonly available, such as on : http://finviz.com/screener.ashx ... but the kind of queries you can do is limited. For instance you can only go back two years.",
"The biggest issue with Yahoo Finance is the recent change to the API in May. The data is good quality, includes both dividend/split adjusted and raw prices, but it's much more difficult to pull the data with packages like R quantmod than before. Google is fine as well, but there are some missing data points and you can't unadjust the prices (or is it that they're all unadjusted and you can't get adjusted? I can't recall). I use Google at home, when I can't pull from Bloomberg directly and when I'm not too concerned with accuracy. Quandl seems quite good but I haven't tried them. There's also a newer website called www.alphavantage.co, I haven't tried them yet either but their data seems to be pretty good quality from what I've heard.",
"Sure, Yahoo Finance does this for FREE.",
"\"A Bloomberg terminal connected to Excel provides the value correcting splits, dividends, etc. Problem is it cost around $25,000. Another one which is free and I think that takes care of corporate action is \"\"quandl.com\"\". See an example here.\"",
"Yes, past option prices are available for many options, but as far as I know not for free. You can get them from, for example, OptionMetrics. Probably there are other providers as well, which may be cheaper for an individual or small institution. OptionMetrics data comes from the National Best Bid and Offer. Probably there are some over-the-counter options that are not included here, but for someone asking this question, OptionMetrics will most likely have the option you are interested in.",
"\"Try the general stock exchange web page. http://www.aex.nl I did a quick trial myself and was able to download historical data for the AEX index for the last few years. To get to the data, I went to the menu point \"\"Koersen\"\" on the main page and chose \"\"Indices\"\". I then entered into the sub page for the AEX index. There is a price chart window in which you have to choose the tab \"\"view data\"\". Now you can choose the date range you need and then download in a table format such as excel or csv. This should be easy to import into any software. This is the direct link to the sub page: http://www.aex.nl/nl/products/indices/NL0000000107-XAMS/quotes\"",
"Robert Shiller published US Stock Market data from 1871. Ken French also has historical data on his website. Damodaran has a bunch of historical data, here is some historical S&P data.",
"\"For free, 5 years is somewhat available, and 10 years is available to a limited extent on money.msn.com. Some are calculated for you. Gurufocus is also a treasure trove of value statistics that do in fact reach back 10 years. From the Gurufocus site, the historical P/E can be calculated by dividing their figure for \"\"Earnings per Share\"\" by the share price at the time. It looks like their EPS figure is split adjusted, so you'll have to use the split adjusted share price. \"\"Free cash\"\", defined in the comments as money held at the end of the year, can be found on the balance sheet as \"\"Cash, Cash Equivalents, Marketable Securities\"\"; however, the more common term is \"\"free cash flow\"\", and its growth rate can be found at the top of the gurufocus financials page.\"",
"Yes, Alpha Vantage. As MasticatedTesticle points out, it is worth asking where it originally comes from, but it looked to me like a solid source for, in particular, intraday trading data. Additionally, Yahoo finance is done on R (zoo, PerformanceAnalytics libraries don't work anymore as far as I can tell). The numbers look right to me tho, let me know if things are off.",
"The three sites mentioned in the second link are all professional trading workstations, not public web sites. There may not be free quotes available.",
"Center for Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for where to go for US stock price history. Major Asset Classes 1926 - 2011 - JVL Associates, LLC has a PDF with some of the classes you list from the data dating back as far as 1926. There is also the averages stated on a Bogleheads article that has some reference links that may also be useful. Four Pillars of Investing's Chapter 1 also has some historical return information in it that may be of help.",
"This is what I used during my MBA. My biggest complaint is that it is not a database for analytic (it pulls from a database). I hear think or swim has the capability to extract data and offers a free version - anyone know if that is true?",
"even in Bloomberg intraday data you're limited to 140days. If you want more you need cash, a lot of cash. Just the sheer size of data is ridiculous. Unless you're Blackrock or some big firms like that then probably can't afford to buy it and store it - it won't fit on one Excel file haha",
"I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year",
"http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.",
"Here is a list to Yahoo! Finance API. Not sure how much longer this will be support though: https://code.google.com/p/yahoo-finance-managed/wiki/YahooFinanceAPIs",
"Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D",
"There are about 250 trading days in a year. There are also about 1,900 stocks listed on the NYSE. What you're asking for would require about 6.2M rows of data. Depending on the number of attributes you're likely looking at a couple GB of data. You're only getting that much information through an API or an FTP.",
"It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.",
"\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \"\"time and sales,\"\" or \"\"TNS,\"\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \"\"time and quotes,\"\" or \"\"TNQ\"\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\"",
"I assume you're after a price time series and not a list of S&P 500 constituents? Yahoo Finance is always a reasonable starting point. Code you're after is ^GSPC: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history?p=^GSPC There's a download data button on the right side.",
"You can register with an online broker. You can usually join most online brokers for free and only have to fund your account if you decide to place a trade. You may also check out the website of the actual companies you are interested in. They will provide current and historic data of the company's financials. For BHP you can click on the link at the bottom of this webpage to get a PDF file of past dividends from 1984.",
"\"You can find gold historical prices on the kitco site. See the \"\"View Data\"\" button.\"",
"I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.",
"As @littleadv and @DumbCoder point out in their comments above, Bloomberg Terminal is expensive for individual investors. If you are looking for a free solution I would recommend Yahoo and Google Finance. On the other side, if you need more financial metrics regarding historic statements and consensus estimates, you should look at the iPad solution from Worldcap, which is not free, but significantly cheaper then Bloomberg and Reuters. Disclosure: I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"Moody's is now Mergent Online. It's no longer being printed, and must be accessed digitally. In order to browse the database, check with your local public library or university to see if you can get access. (A University will probably require you to visit for access). Another good tool is Value Line Reports. They are printed information sheets on public companies that are updated regularly, and are convenient for browsing and for comparing securities. Again, check your local libraries. A lot of the public information you may be looking for can be found on Yahoo Finance, for free, from home. Yahoo finance, will give financial information, ratios, news, filings, analysis, all in one place.",
"\"There are several reasons to pay for data instead of using Yahoo Finance, although these reasons don't necessarily apply to you if you're only planning to use the data for personal use. Yahoo will throttle you if you attempt to download too much data in a short time period. You can opt to use the Yahoo Query Language (YQL), which does provide another interface to their financial data apart from simply downloading the CSV files. Although the rate limit is higher for YQL, you may still run into it. An API that a paid data provider exposes will likely have higher thresholds. Although the reliability varies throughout the site, Yahoo Finance isn't considered the most reliable of sources. You can't beat free, of course, but at least for research purposes, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) at UChicago and Wharton is considered the gold standard. On the commercial side, data providers like eSignal, Bloomberg, Reuters also enjoy widespread popularity. Although both the output from YQL and Yahoo's current CSV output are fairly standard, they won't necessarily remain that way. A commercial API is basically a contract with the data provider that they won't change the format without significant prior notice, but it's reasonable to assume that if Yahoo wanted to, they could make minor changes to the format and break many commercial applications. A change in Yahoo's format would likely break many sites or applications too, but their terms of use do state that Yahoo \"\"may change, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Yahoo! Finance Modules at any time, including the availability of any Yahoo! Finance Modules. Yahoo! may also impose limits on certain features and services or restrict your access to parts or all of the Yahoo! Finance Modules or the Yahoo! Web site without notice or liability.\"\" If you're designing a commercial application, a paid provider will probably provide technical support for their API. According to Yahoo Finance's license terms, you can't use the data in a commercial application unless you specifically use their \"\"badges\"\" (whatever those are). See here. In this post, a Yahoo employee states: The Finance TOS is fairly specific. Redistribution of data is only allowed if you are using the badges the team has created. Otherwise, you can use YQL or whatever method to obtain data for personal use. The license itself states that you may not: sell, lease, or sublicense the Yahoo! Finance Modules or access thereto or derive income from the use or provision of the Yahoo! Finance Modules, whether for direct commercial or monetary gain or otherwise, without Yahoo!'s prior, express, written permission In short, for personal use, Yahoo Finance is more than adequate. For research or commercial purposes, a data provider is a better option. Furthermore, many commercial applications require more data than Yahoo provides, e.g. tick-by-tick data for equities, derivatives, futures, data on mergers, etc., which a paid data source will likely provide. Yahoo is also known for inaccuracies in its financial statements; I can't find any examples at the moment, but I had a professor who enjoyed pointing out flaws in the 10K's that he had come across. I've always assumed this is because the data were manually entered, although I would assume EDGAR has some method for automatic retrieval. If you want data that are guaranteed to be accurate, or at least have a support contract associated with them so you know who to bother if it isn't, you'll need to pay for it.\"",
"Good day! Did a little research by using oldest public company (Dutch East India Company, VOC, traded in Amsterdam Stock Exchange) as search criteria and found this lovely graph from http://www.businessinsider.com/rise-and-fall-of-united-east-india-2013-11?IR=T : Why it is relevant? Below the image I found the source of data - Global Financial Data. I guess the answer to your question would be to go there: https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/index.html Hope this helps and good luck in your search!",
"$500 per package, with a package representing 100 stocks, or $5k for the entire market from a single source (NYSE, for example). IIRC that was the neighborhood when I went looking. I actually only needed one index in great detail - I chose the S&P 500, and found a source for well under $100.",
"If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price.",
"At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.",
"\"Although is not online, I use a standalone version from http://jstock.sourceforge.net It got drag-n-drop boxes, to let me design my own indicators. However, it only contain technical analysis information, not fundamental analysis information. It does come with tutorial http://jstock.sourceforge.net/help_stock_indicator_editor.html#indicator-example, on how to to build an indicator, to screen \"\"Stock which Its Price Hits Their 14 Days Maximum\"\"\"",
"\"I had both closing price and adjusted price of Apple showing the same amount after \"\"download data\"\" csv file was opened in excel. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1463599361&period2=1495135361&interval=div%7Csplit&filter=split&frequency=1d Its frustrating. My last option was to get the dividends history of the stock and add back to the adjusted price to compute the total return for a select stock for the period.\"",
"\"I keep spreadsheets that verify each $ distribution versus the rate times number of shares owned. For mutual funds, I would use Yahoo's historical data, but sometimes shows up late (a few days, a week?) and it isn't always quite accurate enough. A while back I discovered that MSN had excellent data when using their market price chart with dividends \"\"turned on,\"\" HOWEVER very recently they have revamped their site and the trusty URLs I have previously used no longer work AND after considerable browsing, I can no longer find this level of detail anywhere on their site !=( Happily, the note above led me to the Google business site, and it looks like I am \"\"back in business\"\"... THANKS!\"",
"I've used BigCharts (now owned by MarketWatch.com) for a while and really like them. Their tools to annotate charts are great.",
"Think I had to sign an NDA on pricing w them so can't get specific. Depends if you want realtime or just historical data. Historical obviously cheaper, realtime more. The prices aren't crushing though, one of cheapest tick data vendors around. You get pros and cons to that though - data is time stamped at 25ms and sent over WAN. But they also have self healing tapes w backfill etc so if your server knocks offline for a while you fill the gap when back up etc.",
"FreeStockCharts.com keeps some intra-day trading history. You have to create an account to look up individual stocks. Once you create a free account you can get intra-day trading history for the last month (Hourly for past month, 15 minutes for past week, 1 minute for past day). Going back past one month and it only keeps daily close history. Here is Family Dollary's (FDO) hourly intra-day chart for the past month:",
"You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records, AULT (Ault Inc) began as an OTC stock in the 1980s prior it having an official NASDAQ listing. It was delisted on 27 Jan 2006. Its final traded price was $2.94. It was taken over at a price of $2.90 per share by SL Industries. Source: Symbol AULT-200601 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical price data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.",
"If you're willing to shell out some cash, vendors will be quite happy to sell you everything you need. Picking one out of thin air, and no idea if this is a good price or not, the CBOE will sell you EOD data for every option for $40 for one day, and at a discount for multiple days. Beyond the high/low/close for each contract, you get the volume. Or a month of TAQ data will run your $1550, for what that's worth, which probably isn't a lot for a retail strategy.",
"You're only counting one year. Let's say 30 years of data, minutewise, for 2,000 stocks, and 50 characters per data line. That's 1.5TB of data. Since the market has grown, that's an overestimate - 30 years ago there weren't 2,000 stocks in the NYSE - but it still gives us ballpark of roughly 1 TB. Not an easy download.",
"You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records, Lawson Software Inc listed on the NASDAQ on 7 Dec 2001 and delisted on 6 Jul 2011. Its final traded price was $11.23. It was taken over by Infor who bid $11.25 per share. Source: Symbol LWSN-201107 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.",
"Adjustments can be for splits as well as for dividends. From Investopedia.com: Historical prices stored on some public websites, such as Yahoo! Finance, also adjust the past prices of the stock downward by the dividend amount. Thus, that could also be a possible factor in looking at the old prices.",
"As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.",
"I don't know of any free API's for these data, but I'll provide what information I can. Compiling all of this information from the EDGAR system and exposing an interface to it requires a fair amount of work and maintenance, so it's usually market data companies that have the motivation and resources to provide such interfaces. I know of a few options that may or may not be close to what you're looking for. The SEC provides FTP access to the EDGAR system. You could download and parse the text files they provide. Yahoo Finance provides summary files of financial statements (e.g., GOOG) as well as links to the full statements in the EDGAR system. Once again, parsing may be your only option for these data. Xignite, a proprietary market data provider, provides a financial statement API. If you need these data for a commercial application, you could contact them and work something out. (Frankly, if you need these data for a commercial application, you're probably better off paying for the data) The Center for Research into Security Prices provides data from financial statements. I believe it's also exposed through several of their API's. As with most financial data, CRSP is sort of a gold standard, although I haven't personally used their API to fetch data from financial statements, so I can't speak for it specifically. This answer on StackOverflow mentions the quantmod R package and mergent. I can't vouch for either of those options personally. Unfortunately, you'll probably have to do some parsing unless you can find a paid data provider that's already compiled this information in a machine-readable format.",
"www.earnings.com is helpful thinkorswim's thinkDesktop platform has a lot of earnings information tied with flags on their charts they are free.",
"\"Considering the fact that you are so unaware of how to find such data, I find it very very hard to believe that you actually need it. \"\"All trade and finance data for as much tickers and markets as possible.\"\" Wtf does that even mean. You could be referencing thousands of different types of data for any given \"\"ticker\"\" with a statement so vague. What are you looking for?\"",
"\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"",
"Factset also provides a host of tools for analysis. Not many people know as they aren't as prevalent as Bloomberg. CapitalQ and Thomson Reuters also provide analysis tools. Most of the market data providers also provide analysis tools to analyze the data they and others provide.",
"You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records 20 Feb 2006 was not a trading day - it was Preisdent's Day and the US exchanges were closed. The prior trading date to this was 17 Feb 2006 where the stock had the following data: Open: 14.40 High 14.46 Low 14.16 Close 14.32 Volume 1339800 (consolidated volume) Source: Symbol NVE-201312 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.",
"Goldprice.org has different currencies and historical data. I think silverprice.org also has historical data.",
"Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.",
"\"I'd start with a Google search for \"\"best backtesting tools.\"\" Does your online brokerage offer anything? You already understand that the data is the important part. The good stuff isn't free. But yeah, if you have some money to spend you can get more than enough data to completely overwhelm you. :)\"",
"You can give YQL a try. I'm not sure it can do the query you want, but for example you can do: (try it here) And this best thing about it - it's free.",
"It's an over-the-counter stock quote system. Read all about it. Or visit it.",
"The S&P report (aka STARS report) for each company has 10 years of financial data. These reports are available free at several online brokers (like E-Trade) if you have an account with the brokerage.",
"I won't be able to model stock prices using this information. The pros aren't likely to use Google as much. Even the casual investor is likely to have his own habits. For example, I've come to like how Yahoo permits me to set up a portfolio and follow the stocks I want. And the information that interests me is there, laid out nicely, price, history, insider trades, news etc. But your effort probably still has some discovery value, as it will help you understand when interest in a company suddenly swells above normal. Nothing wrong with a good project like that. Just don't expect to extract too much market-beating success from it. The pros will eat your lunch, take your money, and not even say thanks. Welcome to Money.SE.",
"\"Real-time equity (or any other market) data is not available for free anywhere in the US. It is always delayed by 10-15 minutes. On the other hand, online brokers who target the \"\"day trader\"\" (Interactive Brokers, TD Ameritrade, etc.) offer much closer to real-time data AND feature all the tools/alerts/charts/etc. you could ever possibly dream of. I bet the type of alert you're asking for is available with just a couple of clicks on one of these brokers' platforms. Of course, accounts with these online brokers are not free; you must pay for these sophisticated tools and fast market access. Another down side is that the data feeds sent to you by even the most sophisticated online broker are still delayed by tens of seconds compared to the data feeds used by big banks and professional investors. Not to mention that the investment arm of the broker you use will be making its own trades based on the data feeds before relaying them on to you. So this begs the question: why do you need real-time information? Are you trying to \"\"day trade\"\" -- i.e. profit from minute-to-minute fluctuations in the stock market? (I can't in good conscience recommend that, but best of luck to you.) If on the other hand you don't truly need \"\"real-time\"\" data for your application, then I support @ChrisDegnen's approach -- use public data feeds and write your own software. You probably will not find any free tools for the sort of alerting you're looking for because most folks who want these types of alerts also need faster feeds and are therefore already using an online broker's tools.\"",
"Yes, there are plenty of sites that will do this for you. Yahoo, and MarketWatch are a few that come to mind first. I'm sure you could find plenty of others.",
"\"Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though. The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of \"\"quants\"\" doing simple algorithms \"\"that execute within milliseconds\"\" for banks and funds. Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal.\"",
"You can buy the data and process it on your own. http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/Daily-TAQ",
"We buy data various providers (sharadar and quotemedia to name a few) and to answer your second question how we pay for it — with credit card :-) If you mean where we take money from; from our personal budgets. We want to introduce subscriptions in future but what is free currently will stay free forever (at least thats our plan).",
"You will most likely not be able to avoid some form of format conversion, regardless of which data you use since there is, afaik, no standard for this data and everyone exports it differently. One viable option would be, like you said yourself, using the free data provided by Dukascopy. Please take into consideration that those are spot currency rates and will most likely not represent the rate at which physical and business-related exchange would have happened at this time.",
"If you are looking to analyze stocks and don't need the other features provided by Bloomberg and Reuters (e.g. derivatives and FX), you could also look at WorldCap, which is a mobile solution to analyze global stocks, at FactSet and S&P CapitalIQ. Please note that I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"If you want to go far upstream, you can get mutual fund NAV and dividend data from the Nasdaq Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). This isn't for end-users but rather is offered as a part of the regulatory framework. Not surprisingly, there is a fee for data access. From Nasdaq's MFQS specifications page: To promote market transparency, Nasdaq operates the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). MFQS is designed to facilitate the collection and dissemination of daily price, dividends and capital distributions data for mutual funds, money market funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), annuities and structured products.",
"\"Where can I download all stock symbols of all companies \"\"currently listed\"\" and \"\"delisted\"\" as of today? That's incredibly similar . You can also do it with a Bloomberg terminal but there's no need to pay to do this because he data changes so slowly.\"",
"I found a possible data source. It offers fundamentals i.e. the accounting ratios you listed (P/E, dividend yield, price/book) for international stock indexes. International equity indices based on EAFE definitions are maintained by Professor French of French-Fama fame, at Dartmouth's Tuck Business School website. Specifics of methodology, and countries covered is available here. MSCI is the data source. Historical time interval for most countries is from 1975 onward. (Singapore was one of the countries included). Obtaining historical ratios for international stock indices is not easily found for free. Your question didn't specify free though. If that is not a constraint, you may wish to check the MSCI Barra international stock indices also.",
"\"As JoeTaxpayer says, there's a lot you can do with just the stock price. Exploring that a bit: Stock prices are a combination of market sentiment and company fundamentals. Options are just a layer on top of that. As such, options are mostly formulaic, which is why you have a hard time finding historical option data -- it's just not that \"\"interesting\"\", technically. \"\"Mostly\"\" because there are known issues with the assumptions the Black-Scholes formula makes. It's pretty good, and importantly, the market relies on it to determine fair option pricing. Option prices are determined by: Relationship of stock price to strike. Both distance and \"\"moneyness\"\". Time to expiration. Dividends. Since dividend payments reduce the intrinsic value of a company, the prospect of dividend payments during the life of a call option depresses the price of the option, as all else equal, without the payments, the stock would be more likely to end up in the money. Reverse the logic for puts. Volatility. Interest rates. But this effect is so tiny, it's safe to ignore. #4, Volatility, is the biggie. Everything else is known. That's why option trading is often considered \"\"volatility trading\"\". There are many ways to skin this cat, but the result is that by using quoted historical values for the stock price, and the dividend payments, and if you like, interest rates, you can very closely determine what the price of the option would have been. \"\"Very closely\"\" depending on your volatility assumption. You could calculate then-historical volatility for each time period, by figuring the average price swing (in either direction) for say the past year (year before the date in question, so you'd do this each day, walking forward). Read up on it, and try various volatility approaches, and see if your results are within a reasonable range. Re the Black-Scholes formula, There's a free spreadsheet downloadable from http://optiontradingtips.com. You might find it useful to grab the concept for coding it up yourself. It's VBA, but you can certainly use that info to translate in your language of choice. Or, if you prefer to read Perl, CPAN has a good module, with full source, of course. I find this approach easier than reading a calculus formula, but I'm a better developer than math-geek :)\"",
"About 10 years ago, I used to use MetaStock Trader which was a very sound tool, with a large number of indicators, but it has been a number of years since I have used it, so my comments on it will be out of date. At the time it relied upon me purchasing trading data myself, which is why I switched to Incredible Charts. I currently use Incredible Charts which I have done for a number of years, initially on the free adware service, now on the $10/year for EOD data access. There are quicker levels of data access, which might suit you, but I can't comment on these. It is web-based which is key for me. The data quality is very good and the number of inbuilt indicators is excellent. You can build search routines on the basis of specific indicators which is very effective. I'm looking at VectorVest, as a replacement for (or in addition to) Incredible Charts, as it has very powerful backtesting routines and the ability to run test portfolios with specific buy/sell criteria that can simulate and backtest a number of trading scenarios at the same time. The advantage of all of these is they are not tied to a particular broker.",
"Here is one from a Bloomberg partnership, it is free. To get the end of day prices, you may need some programming done. PM me if you need help with that. Getting bond quotes and general information about a bond issue is considerably more difficult than researching a stock or a mutual fund. A major reason for this is that there is not a lot of individual investor demand for the information; therefore, most bond information is available only through higher level tools that are not accessible to the average investor. Read more: Where can I get bond market quotes? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bondquote.asp#ixzz3wXVwv3s5",
"If you would like to find data on a specific industry/market sector, a good option is IBISworld reports. You can find their site here. You can find reports on almost any major US sector. The reports include historical data as well as financial ratios. In college projects, they were very useful for getting benchmark data to compare an individual business against an industry as a whole.",
"Hey guys, I found this website, it seems to do it for free, and they have many options. If let me know if you find something better than this. http://members.zignals.com/main/",
"The cause of incomplete/inaccurate financial data's appearing on free sites is that it is both complicated and expensive to obtain and parse these data. Even within a single country, different pieces of financial data are handled by different authorities. In the US, for example, there is one generally recognized authority for stock prices and volumes (CQS), but a completely different authority for corporate earnings data (SEC). For futures and options data the only authority is each individual exchange. Each of these sources might have a vastly different interface to their data; some may have websites, others may have FTPs, others may have TCP datastreams to which you must subscribe, etc. Now throw in the rest of the world and all their exchanges and regulatory agencies, and you can see how it's a difficult job to gather all this information, parse it on a daily (or more frequent) basis, and check it all for errors. There are some companies (e.g. Bloomberg) whose entire business model is to do the above. They spend tens of millions of dollars per year to support the infrastructure and manpower required to keep such a complex system working, and they charge their consumers a pretty penny in return. Do Google/Yahoo pay for Bloomberg data access just to display information that we then consume for free? Maybe. Maybe they pay for some less expensive reduced data set. Or a data set that is less rigorously checked for errors. Even if they pay for the best data available, there's no guarantee that a company's last earnings report didn't have a glitch in it, or that Bloomberg's latest download from the Canadian Agency for Corporate Dividends and Moose Census-Taking didn't get cut off in the middle, or that the folks at Yahoo built a robust system that can handle a particular file's not arriving on time. Bloomberg has dozens or even hundreds of employees focused on just this one task; Yahoo probably has 5. Moral: If you really need the best available data you must go to the source(s), or you must pay a provider to whom you can then complain when something is wrong. With free data you get what you pay for.",
"\"The mathematics site, WolframAlpha, provides such data. Here is a link to historic p/e data for Apple. You can chart other companies simply by typing \"\"p/e code\"\" into the search box. For example, \"\"p/e XOM\"\" will give you historic p/e data for Exxon. A drop-down list box allows you to select a reporting period : 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, all data. Below the chart you can read the minimum, maximum, and average p/e for the reporting period in addition to the dates on which the minimum and maximum were applicable.\"",
"I dont know if this data is available for the 1980s, but this response to an old question of mine discusses how you can pull stock related information from google or yahoo finance over a certain period of time. You could do this in excel or google spreadsheet and see if you could get the data you're looking for. Quote from old post: Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period.",
"\"At the bottom of Yahoo! Finance's S & P 500 quote Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT. See also delay times for other exchanges. All information provided \"\"as is\"\" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by Morningstar, Inc. Orderbook quotes are provided by BATS Exchange. US Financials data provided by Edgar Online and all other Financials provided by Capital IQ. International historical chart data, daily updates, fundAnalyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial Network. All data povided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo! and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Thus, yes there is a DB being accessed that there is likely an agreement between Yahoo! and the providers.\""
] |
[
"Go to http://finance.google.com, search for the stock you want. When you are seeing the stock information, in the top left corner there's a link that says 'Historical prices'. Click on it. then select the date range, click update (don't forget this) and 'Download to spreadsheet' (on the right, below the chart). For example, this link takes you to the historical data for MSFT for the last 10 years. http://finance.yahoo.com has something similar, like this. In this case the link to download a CSV is at the bottom of the table.",
"You may refer to project http://jstock.sourceforge.net. It is open source and released under GPL. It is fetching data from Yahoo! Finance, include delayed current price and historical price.",
"I also searched for some time before discovering Market Archive, which AFAIK is the most affordable option that basically gives you a massive multi-GB dump of data. I needed sufficient data to build a model and didn't want to work through an API or have to hand-pick the securities to train from. After trying to do this on my own by scraping Yahoo and using the various known tools, I decided my time was better spent not dealing with rate-limiting issues and parsing quirks and whatnot, so I just subscribed to Market Archive (they update the data daily).",
"I also prefer to crunch the numbers myself. Here are some resources:",
"There are several Excel spreadsheets for downloading stock quotes (from Yahoo Finance), and historical exchange rates at http://investexcel.net/financial-web-services-kb"
] |
5503
|
Tax considerations for selling a property below appraised value to family?
|
[
"146277",
"64279"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"146277",
"64279",
"497530",
"57036",
"382255",
"30610",
"31221",
"285186",
"71601",
"318741",
"481902",
"503056",
"594529",
"581380",
"458851",
"219421",
"276073",
"256010",
"464204",
"591157",
"14732",
"427270",
"360193",
"59795",
"142201",
"259627",
"169695",
"290691",
"232322",
"598607",
"468047",
"293621",
"154774",
"36341",
"398206",
"87324",
"274901",
"213339",
"281166",
"341947",
"416787",
"346449",
"260043",
"475042",
"478802",
"147999",
"348107",
"528553",
"382558",
"496166",
"401961",
"454068",
"153281",
"300855",
"61623",
"385310",
"484613",
"158732",
"451588",
"549272",
"280685",
"36481",
"526499",
"47572",
"161330",
"435830",
"446553",
"474837",
"101557",
"101764",
"582340",
"222423",
"25513",
"218622",
"125454",
"118246",
"297652",
"100128",
"139644",
"484596",
"170096",
"591377",
"99448",
"181360",
"372834",
"30163",
"265239",
"525959",
"349674",
"438666",
"253224",
"70697",
"214934",
"210149",
"9353",
"534280",
"25172",
"444369",
"165100",
"267067"
] |
[
"\"Is this legal? Why not? But you might have trouble deducting losses on your taxes, especially if you sell to someone related to you in some way (which is indeed what you're doing). See the added portion below regarding dealing with \"\"related person\"\" (which a sibling is). The state of Maryland has a transfer/recordation tax of 1.5% for each, the buyer and seller. Would this be computed on the appraised or sale value? You should check with the State. In California property taxes are assessed based on sale value, but if the sale value is bogus the assessors have the right to recalculate. Since you're selling to family, the assessors will likely to intervene and set a more close to \"\"fair market\"\" value on the transaction, but again - check the local law. Will this pose any problem if the buyer needs financing? Likely, banks will be suspicious.Since you're giving a discount to your sibling, it will likely not cause a problem for financing. If it was an unrelated person getting such a discount, it would likely to have raised some questions. Would I be able to deduct a capital loss on my tax return? As I said - it may be a problem. If the transaction is between related people - likely not. Otherwise - not sure. Check with a professional tax adviser (EA or CPA licensed in Maryland). You mentioned in the comment that the buyer is a sibling. IRS Publication 544 has a list of what is considered \"\"related person\"\", and that includes siblings. So the short answer is NO, you will not be able to deduct the loss. The tax treatment is not trivial in this case, and I suggest to have a professional tax adviser guide you on how to proceed. Here's the definition of \"\"related person\"\" from the IRS pub. 544: Members of a family, including only brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, spouse, ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.), and lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.). An individual and a corporation if the individual directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. Two corporations that are members of the same controlled group as defined in section 267(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. A trust fiduciary and a corporation if the trust or the grantor of the trust directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. A grantor and fiduciary, and the fiduciary and beneficiary, of any trust. Fiduciaries of two different trusts, and the fiduciary and beneficiary of two different trusts, if the same person is the grantor of both trusts. A tax-exempt educational or charitable organization and a person who directly or indirectly controls the organization, or a member of that person's family. A corporation and a partnership if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership. Two S corporations if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. Two corporations, one of which is an S corporation, if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. An executor and a beneficiary of an estate unless the sale or exchange is in satisfaction of a pecuniary bequest. Two partnerships if the same persons directly or indirectly own more than 50% of the capital interests or profits interests in both partnerships. A person and a partnership if the person directly or indirectly owns more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership.\"",
"Is this legal? If the purpose of the sale at that price is to defraud somebody else, you could have a legal issue. For example if the purpose was to make yourself appear poorer to make you eligible for government aid; Or to increase your chances of getting a college grant; or to not have to pay money to your spouse as part of a divorce settlement; or if there is an unwritten part of the transaction for the sibling to sell the house back to in a few years when you no longer need to appear poor. The answer by @littleadv covers the tax complications. I do have one additional point. The sale can't be a short sale. The bank will never approve. The short sale can only be approved when the bank is convinced that there are no viable purchasers at a level to get all their money back. Your sibling is not an arms length transaction.",
"When property changes hands the sale prices may or may not be used to determine the appraised value of the property, and they may or may not be used to determine the appraised value of other properties. Because of the nature of the transaction: you already have an existing business relationship, the local government is likely to ignore the data point provided by your transaction when determining values of similar properties. They have no idea if there was some other factor used to determine the price. They will also not include in the calculation transactions that are a result of foreclosure becasue the target price is the loan value not the true value. California and some other jurisdictions do add another wrinkle. You will need to determine if the transaction will trigger a reevaluation of the property value. In some states the existing laws of the state limited the annual growth of the assessment, but that could now be recaptured if the jurisdiction rules that this is a new ownership: California Board of Equalization - Change in Ownership - Frequently Asked Questions How does a change in ownership affect property taxes? Each county assessor's office reviews all recorded deeds for that county to determine which properties require reappraisal under the law. The county assessors may also discover changes in ownership through other means, such as taxpayer self-reporting, field inspections, review of building permits and newspapers. Once the county assessor has determined that a change in ownership has occurred, Proposition 13 requires the county assessor to reassess the property to its current fair market value as of the date ownership changed. Since property taxes are based on the assessed value of a property at the time of acquisition, a current market value that is higher than the previously assessed Proposition 13 adjusted base year value will increase the property taxes. Conversely, if the current market value is lower than the previously assessed Proposition 13 adjusted base year value, then the property taxes on that property will decrease. Only that portion of the property that changes ownership, however, is subject to reappraisal. For example, if 50 percent of the property is transferred, the assessor will reassess only 50 percent of the property at its current fair market value as of the date of the transfer, and deduct 50 percent from any existing Proposition 13 base year value. In most cases, when a person buys a residence, the entire property undergoes a change in ownership and 100 percent of the property is reassessed to its current market value.",
"tldr; Is the purpose of doing this to ultimately avoid any sort of capital gains paid by someone in your family? Your plan accomplishes this if your dad is single and you are married, but if your dad is married this is probably unnecessary. One side effect of this plan is both you and your dad are unnecessarily giving up a portion of your lifetime gift tax exclusion. Your dad is giving up somewhere between 97-56= $41K of his exclusion (if both you and he are married) and 97-14= $85K (if neither you or your dad is married) and when you give the $430K back you are giving up to that amount minus somewhere between 14-56K. If your dad is married and you were to simply purchase the home from your dad for $430K you would both avoid dipping into your lifetime max, and your dad wouldn't realize any capital gains. If he isn't married, but you are, then your plan works in avoiding any capital gains paid by anyone in your family, unless you end up selling the home in the future for more than $597K. The plan also hinges on:",
"First the good news: based on the time involved, and the amount of potential profits; you will not owe any tax on the sale of the house no matter which option you pick. Now the details. When determining if there are any capital gains the IRS cares about the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. The amount of the loan, the final balance of the loan, or the lack of loan don't factor into the calculation. To complicate matters the government does factor into the equation any improvements you have made to the house (like a new deck) and the cost of buying and selling the house (real estate agents). If a single person has less than 250K in capital gains and has used the house as their main residence for 2 of the the previous 5 years their tax is zero. For a couple the tax free gain is $500K. For your situation since the sale price is less than $250K, the capital gains will also be less than $250K. You do have one potential area of concern. If the house is worth significantly more than $150K, the government could claim that the difference between what you charged your parents and what you could have charged was a gift. Assuming that there are no other factors that you didn't include in the original question it would appear that you will not face any taxes. Regarding your two options, neither will impact the taxes. Though draining your savings or investments could make it difficult to meet an emergency during the time between the sending of the $95K to the mortgage company and the closing on the deal with your parents. If the money came from retirement account it could have an even greater impact on your taxes and retirement situation.",
"I'm not familiar with US tax law in particular, but the general principle around the world tends to be that interest-free or low-interest loans are taxed as gifts of the difference between a commercial interest charge and the actual interest charged. You could also forgive ($13,000 - waived interest) of the loan each year. Also, remember that there's a lifetime exemption (covering inheritance as well) of $1,000,000 which can be used for any amounts over the $13,000.",
"That's tricky, actually. First, as the section 1015 that you've referred to in your other question says - you take the lowest of the fair market value or the actual donor basis. Why is it important? Consider these examples: So, if the relative bought you a brand new car and you're the first title holder (i.e.: the relative paid, but the car was registered directly to you) - you can argue that the basis is the actual money paid. In essence you got a money gift that you used to purchase the car. If however the relative bought the car, took the title, and then drove it 5 miles to your house and signed the title over to you - the IRS can argue that the car basis is the FMV, which is lower because it is now a used car that you got. You're the second owner. That may be a significant difference, just by driving off the lot, the car can lose 10-15% of its value. If you got a car that's used, and the donor gives it to you - your basis is the fair market value (unless its higher than the donor's basis - in which case you get the donor's basis). You always get the lowest basis for losses (and depreciation is akin to a loss). Now consider the situation when your relative is a business owner and used the car for business. He didn't take the depreciation, but he was entitled to. IRS can argue that the fact that he didn't take is irrelevant and reduce the donor's basis by the allowable depreciation. That may bring your loss basis to below the FMV. I suggest you take it to a tax professional licensed in your state who will check all the facts and circumstances of your situation. Your relative might be slapped with a gift tax as well, if the car FMV is above certain amount (currently the exemption is $14000).",
"Assuming you're in the US, you can buy the house from your parents for $100k with a mortgage, and the excess value (less annual gift limit) will count against your unified federal gift and estate tax exemption. So at $300k value you'd take $172k against your total exemption ($200k value over price paid, less $14k per parent). No gift tax liability on your parents' end, unless the exemption has already been used up.",
"\"And my CPA is saying no way, it will cost me many thousands in taxes and doesn't make any sense. I'd think so too. It looks like it converts from capitol gains at 14% to something else at about 35% Can be, if your gain under the Sec.1231 rules is classified as depreciation recapture. But, perhaps the buyers will be saving this way? Not your problem even if they were, which they aren't. I would not do something my CPA says \"\"no-way\"\" about. I sometimes prefer not doing some things my CPA says \"\"it may fly\"\" because I'm defensive when it comes to taxes, but if your CPA is not willing to sign something off - don't do it. Ever.\"",
"\"Yes, you're correct and yes they will. Note that it will be considered as \"\"sale\"\" with gains being taxable income to you.\"",
"In 2015 there's a $5.43M (That's million, as in 6 zeros) estate exemption. Even though it's $14K per year with no paperwork required, if you go over this, a bit of paperwork will let you tap your lifetime exemption. There's no tax consequence from this. The Applicable Federal Rate is the minimum rate that must be charged for this to be considered a loan and not a gift. DJ's answer is correct, otherwise, and is worth knowing as there are circumstances where the strategy is applicable. If the OP were a high net worth client trying to save his estate tax exemption, this (Dj's) strategy works just fine.",
"It's a short sale. See these for good overviews: http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg335 http://homebuying.about.com/od/4closureshortsales/a/shortsalebasics.htm You'll want input from your lawyer and accountant (assuming the lender says they would accept such a sale). Best of luck - sounds like this could be a great opportunity for you if it all comes together. DO NOT talk to a realtor.",
"1) You parents will have to pay tax on the gain as it wasn't their primary home. You don’t pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply: As I look at it, it is your parents are the ones who own the property and they will have to pay on £60000. But as you say you pay part of the mortgage, I would go to a tax advisor/accountant to confirm if they will only pay on the £15000. I couldn't find any guidance on that matter on gov.uk 2) Inheritance tax will not be levied on it as it is below £325000, but tax will be levied on £325000, less £3000 annual gift allowance. Two articles for further information - GOV.UK's Tax when you sell your home Money.co.UK's Gifting money to your children: FAQs",
"You continue with this form. The fact that the trade in value is less than market value doesn't mean that you don't have taxable income from the sale. Since you depreciated the car before selling it, you need to compare the trade in value not to the market value, but to your cost basis, which may be lower.",
"It would be better for you to sell yourself and pay capital gains tax than to transfer to your parents and pay the gift tax. Also, sham transfer (you transfer to your mother only so that she could sell and transfer back to you without you paying taxes) will be probably categorized as tax evasion, which is a criminal offense that could lead to your deportation. What the US should or should not claim you can take to your congressman, but the fact is that the US does claim tax on capital gains even if you bought the asset before becoming US tax resident, and that's the current law.",
"No tax consequences to you. Tax consequences to your sister. From your comment: My sister is single, but my wife and I have a son. So we can avail $14000 x3 = $42000 without the need to report it. The remainder ($70000-$42000) = $28000 will be reported against the lifetime exclusion by my sister on her return. Per my understanding, the $28000 is also not subject to any gift tax It is subject to gift tax, and she must submit gift tax return (form 709) to the IRS. On that return she can choose to apply part of the lifetime exemption and reduce the lifetime limit, or pay the tax and keep the lifetime limit. If she applies the exemption, she needs to keep track of it, so that it could be properly applied next time, or when she passes away. The lifetime exemption is in fact intended for the estate tax. But people can chose and apply it to gifts during lifetime and reduce the exemption for estate. This is something of consequence to take into account. Yearly $14K cap is not related to the lifetime exemption and is for gifts per donor per donee. Breaking the gift into several occasions over several years helps reducing the tax burden on the donor without touching the lifetime exclusion and affecting the estate tax. But if you don't have the time...",
"First, the basis is what was paid for the house along with any documented upgrades, any improvements not consider maintenance. Any gain from that point is taxable. This is the issue with gifting a house before one passes. It's an awful mistake. The fact that there was a mortgage doesn't come into play here nor does the $15K given away. Your question is great, and the only missing piece is what the house cost. Keep in mind, depending on the state, you MIL may have gotten a step-up on the passing of her husband. On a very personal note - my grandparents bough a family house. 4 apartments. 1938 at a cost of $4000. My grandmother transferred 1/2 share to my father well before she died. And before my father's death it was put into my mother's name. Now that she's in her last years, I explained that since moved it to my sister's name already, there's no step up in basis. This share is now worth over $600,000, and after 4 deaths, no step up. When my sister sells, she will have a gain on nearly 100% of the sale price. In my opinion, there's a special place in hell for lawyers that quit claim property like this. For a bit of paperwork, the house could have been put into a trust to avoid probate, avoid being an asset for medicaid, and still get the step up. Even a $2000 cost for a good lawyer to set up a trust would yield a return of nearly $100,000 in taxes avoided. (And as my sister's keeper, I'd have paid the $2,000 myself, no issue that she gets the house. She needs it, I don't. And when the money's gone, I'm all she has anyway.)",
"Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. There is risk in exchanging this (known) property for another (unknown) property. That risk may be more than $9000 worth of risk. Tax considerations are important, but most important is that your investments make money. If you intend to continue as a landlord, you had better be sure you are finding a better deal elsewhere if you are going to trade this property up. I should also mention that you have a 5 year window in which you need to have lived in the home for 2 years. You have time and might be able to sell for a higher price if you wait a little longer.",
"It is taxable to your brother (assuming he's a US tax resident). Transfer of any amount over $14k per year to any single person (other than spouse) triggers gift tax liability.",
"Sale of a stock creates a capital gain. It can be offset with losses, up to $3000 more than the gains. It can be deferred when held within a retirement account. When you gift appreciated stock, the basis follows. So when I gifted my daughter's trust shares, there was still tax due upon sale. The kiddy tax helped reduce but not eliminate it. And there was no quotes around ownership. The money is gone, her account is for college. No 1031 exchange exists for stock.",
"\"You uncle is liable to pay \"\"Capital-Gains\"\" tax. Essentially the sale price less of cost would be treated as gains. The gains are taxed at 10% without indexation and 20% with Indexation. The capital gains tax can be avoided if your uncle invests the gains into specified \"\"Infrastructure bonds\"\" or buys another property within a period of 3 years. The funds need to be kept in a separate \"\"Capital Gains\"\" account and not a regular savings account till you buy another property within 3 years.\"",
"I understand $14k/yr $5.4M max This isn't the right way to say it. Your dad has a $5.4 million estate tax exclusion that can be used for gift tax. In addition to that (not instead or as part of), he and his wife each have a $14k/year gift tax exclusion. So if you aren't paying for two years from today, you actually have three years of gift tax exclusion: 2017; 2018; 2019. So that's 3 * 2 * $14k = $84k that he (and his wife) can give you without using any of the estate tax exclusion. But I give my cousin/dad $430k from the mortgage According to this, you don't want your dad to give you any money. You want to pay the entire $430k. In that case, don't file gift tax forms. He's not giving you money. He's loaning you money. I agree with the others. The cleanest solution is for your cousin to loan you money to buy the house from your dad. Pay a lawyer (or have your cousin/dad do it) so that it's legally written as a mortgage and you can get your interest deduction. You start paying off the loan in two years. Until then, interest accrues. So instead of a $430k debt, you'd owe something like $470k. Maybe more if your cousin pays the property taxes as well. Your cousin is out $430k plus possibly property taxes, but apparently he can afford that. You have a house and a mortgage. Your dad has money to buy his Florida house. Note that if your dad wanted to give you money, he could. He could collect $346k from you (borrowed from your cousin) and give you $28k equity immediately and then two more payments in 2018 and 2019. But that assumes that $346k is enough for him to buy his Florida house. If not, just do the mortgage. He can give you money by check which you can send to your cousin if he wants to do that.",
"AS PER IRS PUBLICATION: Question: Is money received from the sale of inherited property considered taxable income? Answer: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: For information on the FMV of inherited property on the date of the decedent’s death, contact the executor of the decedent’s estate. Also, note that in 2015, Congress passed a new law that, under certain circumstances, requires an executor to provide a statement identifying the FMV of certain inherited property to the individual receiving that property. Check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040), Capital Gains and Losses, and on Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets: Under the new law passed by Congress in 2015, an accuracy-related penalty may apply if an individual reporting the sale of certain inherited property uses a basis in excess of that property’s final value for federal estate tax purposes. Again, check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. For estates of decedents who died in 2010, basis is generally determined as described above. However, the executor of a decedent who died in 2010 may elect out of the estate tax rules for 2010 and use the modified carryover of basis rules. Under this special election, the basis of property inherited from a decedent who died during 2010 is generally the lesser of: Under this special election for estates of decedents who died in 2010, the executor of the decedent’s estate may increase the basis of certain property that beneficiaries acquire from a decedent by up to $1.3 million (plus certain unused built-in losses and loss carryovers, if applicable), but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor may also increase the basis of certain property that the surviving spouse acquires from a decedent by up to an additional $3 million, but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor of the decedent’s estate is required to provide a statement to all heirs listing the decedent’s basis in the property, the FMV of the property on the date of the decedent’s death, and the additional basis allocated to the property. Contact the executor to determine what the basis of the asset is. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040) and on Form 8949, as described above. Additional Information:",
"As your is a very specific case, please get an advice of CA. It should not cost you much and make it easier. The sale of agriculture land is taxable in certain conditions and exempt from tax in other cases. Sale of agricultural land is subject to capital gains tax. But there are certain exemptions under Section 54B, subject to conditions, which are as follows: If deemed taxable, you can avail indexation, ie the price at which you grandfather got [the date when he inherited it as per indexation] and pay 10% on the difference. If the price is not known, you can take the govt prescribed rate. As there is a large deposit in your fathers account, there can be tax queries and need to be answered. Technically there is no tax liable even if your grandfather gifts the money to your father. More details at http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130401/jsp/business/story_16733007.jsp and http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/publications/4_compute_your_capital_gains/chapter2.asp",
"IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value. You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.",
"The money your tenants spent on repairs and maintenance that is otherwise your responsibility is considered rent paid to you (and deductible to the extent you can deduct maintenance expenses, provided you have documentation etc etc). The money your tenants spent on utilities, which is their responsibility anyway, is not considered rent paid to you. Since in your question you seem to be mixing both together, it is hard to accept a claim that the additional $300 spent on utilities and maintenance is enough to bring the rent to the FMV level. Especially since the transaction is between related persons, it may bring additional scrutiny of the IRS.",
"Anyone considering this approach needs to talk to a lawyer before going ahead; certainly, you don't want to trust anything I say as legal advice as I have no legal training. This is not a gift. All the CRA has to show is that there was a reasonable expectation that the property would be sold and the money returned to the parent. That's obviously the case here; in your timeline, the evidence is in the two bank accounts after approximately six months. As to whether you'd get away with tax fraud of this nature, that depends on how careful the CRA is willing to investigate. There's another risk, too. Canada's at risk of a market correction on real-estate prices, where prices might drop 20-40%, or worse if you are pessimistic. That's speculation, of course, but such corrections are common-place over the long-term. If you buy a house today with the expectation of improving it and flipping it in six months, you run a very real risk of not recovering your initial investment, let alone the time and materials invested. Heck, you might not be able to sell the house at all. And from the parent's point of view, there's nothing to be done. They can't claim this was a gift, and now claim any sort of obligation whatsoever. The child isn't obligated to sell at a loss, and may not be able to sell in any case.",
"\"I'm guessing since I don't know the term, but it sounds like you're asking about the technique whereby a loan is used to gather multiple years' gift allowance into a single up-front transfer. For the subsequent N years, the giver pays the installments on the loan for the recipient, at a yearly amount small enough to avoid triggering Gift Tax. You still have to pay income tax on the interest received (even though you're giving them the money to pay you), and you must charge a certain minimum interest (or more accurately, if you charge less than that they tax you as if the loan was earning that minimum). Historically this was used by relatively wealthy folks, since the cost of lawyers and filing the paperwork and bookkeeping was high enough that most folks never found out this workaround existed, and few were moving enough money to make those costs worthwhile. But between the \"\"Great Recession\"\" and the internet, this has become much more widely known, and there are services which will draw up standard paperwork, have a lawyer sanity-check it for your local laws, file the official mortgage lien (not actually needed unless you want the recipient to also be able to write off the interest on their taxes), and provide a payments-processing service if you do expect part or all of the loan to be paid by the recipient. Or whatever subset of those services you need. I've done this. In my case it cost me a bit under $1000 to set up the paperwork so I could loan a friend a sizable chunk of cash and have it clearly on record as a loan, not a gift. The amount in question was large enough, and the interpersonal issues tricky enough, that this was a good deal for us. Obviously, run the numbers. Websearching \"\"family loan\"\" will find much more detail about how this works and what it can and can't do, along with services specializing in these transactions. NOTE: If you are actually selling something, such as your share of a house, this dance may or may not make sense. Again, run the numbers, and if in doubt get expert advice rather than trusting strangers on the web. (Go not to the Internet for legal advice, for it shall say both mu and ni.)\"",
"\"you have 2 concerns: the lender and the irs. either way you should be fine the lender just wants to know that you have no legal claim to the property or other compensation. simply signing a gift declaration should clear that up, making this a \"\"gift\"\" from their perspective. they probably have some standard form you can sign. otherwise, just a simple note that says \"\"i, so-and-so, gave whats-er-name x$ on the y of june, 20## as a gift, with no expectation of repayment\"\". then, only way you could get charged with \"\"fraud\"\" is if you seek compensation for this \"\"gift\"\" in the future. even then, the bank would probably have to find out about the compensation and complain pretty strongly to get a prosecutor interested in a small dollar misrepresentation case with little or no provable intent. a bigger concern is the bank being uncomfortable with the future renter also giving a gift. that just \"\"smells weird\"\". and bankers hate anything weird. it probably won't prevent the mortgage from getting approved, but it might delay the underwriters a few days while the wring their hands about it. the irs is a bit more complicated. they tend to be the \"\"heads we win, tails you lose\"\" types. assuming they consider this a gift, then you are fine, since it is under the annual gift exclusion (~14k$ these days); you don't even have to tell them about it. however, if she gives you a large financial gift in the near future, they may decide to interpret those two events as a single transaction turning this into a no interest loan. even then, you should be fine since the irs generally doesn't care about loans under 100k$ with \"\"missing\"\" interest under 1k$/yr. since this is a small loan and interest rates are so low, you have no worries. further irs reading on gift loans: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7872\"",
"So I want to sell my 100 shares of AAPL to him at a price of 10 or even 1 US Dollar. Is that legal/allowed? Of course. It's your stocks - do with it what you want. if the two persons are not served by a same broker. You'll have to talk to your broker about the technicalities of the transaction. if the person who sell are US citizen and the person who buy are not, and and vice-versa Since you asked specifically about US citizenship, I'll assume you're in the US or the transaction is taking place in the US. Citizenship has nothing to do with it (except may be for economic sanctions against Russians or Iranians that may come into play). What is important is the tax residency status. Such a transfer is essentially a gift, and if you're a US tax resident (which doesn't correlate to your immigration status necessarily) - you'll have to deal with the gift tax consequences on the discount value. For example - you have 100 shares of AAPL which you sold to your friend for $1 each when the fair market value (FMV) was $501. So essentially, the friend got $50,100 value for $100. I.e.: $50K gift. Since this amount is above the annual $14K exemption - you'll have to deal with the gift tax and file gift tax return. There are also consequences for the capital gains tax for both you and your friend. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics given your circumstances. If you (or the recipient) are also a foreign citizen/tax resident - then that country's laws also may affect your situation.",
"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.",
"\"Your actual question is a bit confusing, but parts of it are answerable. If your parents give you cash to buy a home, you use it for a cash sale, and you then repay them, then if they don't charge you interest (above and beyond any they may pay - treat their loan as entirely separate from yours.) that amount of not-charged interest is considered a gift. You can look up these rates here, on the IRS website, called \"\"Applicable Federal Rates\"\"; currently it's around 2.30% APR. If the interest is that much, the interest isn't a gift, but part of a loan - though your parents will have to file some paperwork and you will also. Search for more information about \"\"Intra-Family Loans\"\" for full details - and talk to a real estate lawyer. Separately, if your parents are the primary/only signors on the mortgage, and are thus effectively the property owner, there are two separate issues. First, you're welcome to pay off the mortgage while you live there, and no tax issues exist (then) in terms of gift, though it's still owned in your parents' name - so you don't get the house, they'd have to gift that to you separately, though they can do that in stages to avoid gift tax ($14k worth of equity per year, or whatever the current year's annual limit is, per parent and per you/wife if applicable). H&R Block discusses the concept of Equitable Ownership, which determines who is able to take the property tax and mortgage interest deductions on the house. Tax Almanac goes into a bit more detail on the subject. Ultimately, another issue for a real estate attorney probably (or at least a CPA or tax attorney): you need to be very careful if you're going to try and get the tax deductions (which would be probably far more than the savings of a half percent of interest rate or whatnot). In general, there are a lot of options for exactly how you structure the purchase, payments, and equity, and you should talk to a professional to find out exactly the right way to structure it. This mortgage info site has some good tips for several different ways to structure things, just as an example. I would in particular suggest you pay attention to deductability of mortgage interest and property taxes, as those two can be a huge amount of tax savings and you can lose that very easily if you're not careful.\"",
"For case 1, there is no tax due as you sold the book for less than your cost basis. If you had sold for more than $100, then you would have had a profit. For case 2, that depends on the value of the gift card with respect to the value of your fare. Most likely that gift card is less than the cost of the fare. And in that case it would generally be treated as a reduction in the purchase price. The same way that rebates and cash back on credit card are treated. Note if for some reason a 1099 was generated that would change the situation and you would need to consult a tax professional. Since that would indicate that the other party to the transaction had a different view of the situation.",
"The purpose of the transfer determines the taxability. If this is happening to frequent, it is advisable to keep proper records of the transaction so that if there is an enquiry from Tax authorities you can explain. Unless you explain the why the transfer is being made, I have put out some broad categories.",
"Your question is best asked of a tax expert, not random people on the internet. Such an expert will help you ask the right questions. For example you did not point out the country or state in which you live. That matters. First point is that you will not pay tax on 60K, its expensive to transact real estate, so your net proceeds will be closer to 40K. Also you can probably the deduct the costs of improvements. You implied that you really like this rental property. If that is the case, why would you sell...ever? This home could be a central part of your financial independence plan. So keep it until you die. IIRC when it passes to your heirs, a new cost basis is formed thereby not passing the tax burden onto them. (Assuming the property is located in the US.)",
"In general you do not want to show a taxable gain on rental properties if you can avoid it. One of the more beneficial advantages of owning cash flowing rental properties, is that the income is tax deferred because of the depreciation. I say deferred, because depreciation affects the cost basis of your property. Also since you are considering financing, it sounds like you don't need the cash flow currently. You usually can get better returns by financing and buying more rental properties, especially with investment mortgages at historical lows (Win via inflation over time)",
"Sit down with professional with knowledge about eldercare issues. Know how your options regarding the property ownership can impact the services they qualify for. Even making a change in ownership can impact their eligibility for certain programs. Some of which can reach back to events in the recent past. Also if you own it but she will get some of the profits when you sell, she could still be considered an owner, which can impact eligibility for programs. This is in addition to the issues with the lender, the IRS, and your estate.",
"Of course you can transfer it, and it will be legal. There's no taxes on transferring your own money. There's income tax on gains you realized by selling the property, but that is money you already owe, it doesn't matter where the proceeds are. It also doesn't matter how you acquired the property (except for figuring out your basis). What matters is that you had gains, and these gains are taxable in the US. You need to figure out the value of the property when your father bought it, and that is your basis. The difference between what you sold it for and that basis is your taxable gain, and you already owe taxes on that gain.",
"a. Depends on whether it is a gift (no tax, but need to file gift tax form against his lifetime exclusion) or a loan (in which case he needs to charge fair market interest, which he can forgive as a gift with no gift tax form, but for which will need to pay tax on the forgiven income. b. This is a definite possibility. Probably depends on the specific lender, but I would imagine this might be questioned, especially if there is an expectation of paying him back. c. Relationships. I would always avoid mixing family and finances in this way. Do you want your family gatherings to be tainted by owing him money? What if you fall on hard times? What if you go on a nice vacation instead of paying him back faster?",
"You are going to need a lawyer anyway so check with him. But here is a path you might be able to go down. Put the house in your name right from the get go. He gives you the money but you sign over a promissory note to him so that you net less than $14000 (gift tax annual exclusion for the calendar year). He can gift everyone in your household 14k per year tax free and he could gift it to you and your partner in less than 7 years. You can pay him back in anyway you like or not at all as the promissory note could be reduced by 28k per year. I think a CPA and lawyer in your state would be able to confirm that this would work for you.",
"What you are looking for is a 1031 exchange. https://www.irs.gov/uac/like-kind-exchanges-under-irc-code-section-1031 Whenever you sell business or investment property and you have a gain, you generally have to pay tax on the gain at the time of sale. IRC Section 1031 provides an exception and allows you to postpone paying tax on the gain if you reinvest the proceeds in similar property as part of a qualifying like-kind exchange. Gain deferred in a like-kind exchange under IRC Section 1031 is tax-deferred, but it is not tax-free. You may also sell your house for bitcoin and record the sales price on the deed with an equal or lesser amount that you bought it for.",
"I've done this, but on the other side. I purchased a commercial property from someone I had a previous relationship with. A traditional bank wouldn't loan me the money, but the owner was willing to finance it. All of the payments went through a professional escrow company. In our case it was a company called Westar, but I'm sure there are plenty out here. They basically serve as the middle-man, for a fee (something like $5 a payment, plus something to set it up). They have the terms of the loan, and keep track of balances, can handle extra principle payments and what that does to the term of the loan, etc. You want to have a typical mortgage note that is recorded with the local clerk's office. If you look around, you should be able to find a real estate lawyer who can set all this up for you. It will cost you a bit up front, but it is worth it to do this right. As far as taxes, my understanding is that the property itself is taxed the same as any other property transfer. You would owe taxes on the difference between the value of the property when you inherited it and when you sold it. The interest you get from the loan would be taxed as regular income. The escrow company should send you tax forms every year listing the amount of interest that you received. There are also deductions you can take for expenses in the process.",
"I'd recommend you use an online tax calculator to see the effect it will have. To your comment with @littleadv, there's FMV, agreed, but there's also a rate below that. One that's a bit lower than FMV, but it's a discount for a tenant who will handle certain things on their own. I had an arm's length tenant, who was below FMV, I literally never met him. But, our agreement through a realtor, was that for any repairs, I was not required to arrange or meet repairmen. FMV is not a fixed number, but a bit of a range. If this is your first rental, you need to be aware of the requirement to take depreciation. Simply put, you separate your cost into land and house. The house value gets depreciated by 1/27.5 (i.e. you divide the value by 27.5 and that's taken as depreciation each year. You may break even on cash flow, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, but the depreciation might still produce a loss. This isn't optional. It flows to your tax return, and is limited to $25K/yr. Further, if your adjusted gross income is over $100K, the allowed loss is phased out over the next $50K of income. i.e. each $1000 of AGI reduces the allowed loss by $500. The losses you can't take are carried forward, until you use them to offset profit each year, or sell the property. If you offer numbers, you'll get a more detailed answer, but this is the general overview. In general, if you are paying tax, you are doing well, running a profit even after depreciation.",
"Is it a gift or a loan? Either way, ask the same lawyer who will do the closing to record a mortgage on the property, your mother holds it. You are required to pay her market interest, 4% or so should pass IRS scrutiny. If it's truly a loan, decide on the payoff time and calculate the payments, she'll have a bit of interest income which will be taxable to her, and you might have a write-off if you itemize, which is unlikely. If it's a gift, since you mentioned gift concerns, she can forgive the interest, and principal each year to total $13K, or file the popular Form 709 to declare the whole gift against her $1M unified lifetime gift exclusion (which negates the whole mortgage/lien thing)",
"I gift my daughter stock worth $1000. No tax issue. She sells it for $2000, and has a taxable gain of $1000 that shows up on her return. Yes, you need to find out the date of the gift, as that is the date you value the fund for cost basis. The $3500 isn't a concern, as the gift seems to have been given well before that. It's a long term capital gain when you sell it. And, in a delightfully annoying aspect of our code, the dividends get added to basis each year, as you were paying tax on the dividend whether or not you actually received it. Depending on the level of dividends, your basis may very well be as high as the $6500 current value. (pls ask if anything here needs clarification)",
"To answer the last question first: there are no tax consequences to you. If your family member is married (or has a joint owner of the funds), and so are you, each of them can give each of you the $14K annual gift, which would be $56K. The remainder of the $70K would be subject to either (1) Gift Tax for the tax year in which it was given, or (2) applied to the lifetime exclusion. Either way would require filing a form with the IRS.",
"It's a gift if there are no strings attached. If you are rationalizing it to try to make it a gift for tax or any other purpose when there really is a connection between the transactions, or when you expect any kind of value or benefit in return for it, then it's not a gift... don't make it one and don't call it one. That would indeed likely be fraud. Play be the rules and sleep easy, is how I like to live.",
"As others have suggested, if you're considering taking a 50% discount on a revenue stream you feel is low risk because you're having cash flow issues paying those property taxes - I'd recommend you seriously separating these two unrelated concerns and deal with each in most financially astute manner individually. You'll keep more of your hard earned cash You don't have the hassle factor and uncertainty of trying to become proficient in an esoteric field of financial knowledge by Christmas!",
"\"Short Answer: You're going to end up paying taxes on it. Despite the home being your primary residence, you don't meet the ownership test, and it isn't noted that you have had a change in employment, health, or other unforeseen circumstances that are \"\"forcing\"\" you to sell. Otherwise, you could qualify for a reduced maximum exclusion that might allow you to walk away without owing taxes, or with a reduced tax bill. You can't even do a 1031 exchange to re-invest into a new primary residence. You should check with a tax professional to see what adjustments you can make to the cost basis of the property to minimize your reported net profits. During the 5-year period prior to the sale, you must have: These periods do not necessarily have to coincide (You don't to live in it as your main house for 2 consecutive years, just 2 years worth of time of the last 5).\"",
"\"Obviously you have done well financially in order to be able to purchase a condo for cash, presumably, without risk of your other obligations. To put things in perspective, we are probably talking about less than $5,000 in tax savings. If she is on the title then she is a co-owner. Are you okay with that? You would essentially be giving this child a 50% stake in a property without compensation. Will your other children be okay with it? As your question stated you would prefer to not have her as an owner. However, is it better to not have her as an owner, So I would buy the condo without her on the title and just pay the extra $100 per month in property tax. It is probably \"\"small potatoes\"\" in comparison to your net worth. I would also only charge her at most your cost of carrying the property as rent. While you will create income all of it (and probably more) could be written off as costs. There should be no income tax burden created from this situation. Your accountant can help with any paperwork that needs to be filed.\"",
"\"Property sold at profit is taxed at capital gains rate (if you held it for more than a year, which you have based on your previous question). Thus deferring salary won't change the taxable amount or the tax rate on the property. It may save you the 3% difference on the salary, but I don't know how significant can that be. The 25% depreciation recapture rate (or whatever the current percentage is) is preset by your depreciation and cannot be changed, so you'll have to pay that first. Whatever is left above it is capital gains and will be taxed at discounted rates (20% IIRC). You need to make sure that you deduct everything, and capitalize everything else (all the non-deductible expenses and losses with regards to the property). For example, if you remodeled - its added to your basis (reduces the gains). If you did significant improvements and changes - the same. If you installed new appliances and carpets - they're depreciated faster (you can appropriate part of the sale proceeds to these and thus reduce the actual property related gain). Also, you need to see what gain you have on the land - the land cannot be depreciated, so all the gain on it is capital gain. Your CPA will help you investigating these, and maybe other ways to reduce your tax bill. Do make sure to have proper documentation and proofs for all your claims, don't make things up and don't allow your CPA \"\"cut corners\"\". It may cost you dearly on audit.\"",
"This will be a complex issue and you will need to sit down with a professional to work through the issues: When the house was put up for rent the initial year tax forms should have required that the value of the house/property be calculated. This number was then used for depreciation of the house. This was made more complex based on any capital improvements. If the house wasn't the first he owned, then capital gains might have been rolled over from previous houses which adds a layer of complexity. Any capital improvements while the house was a rental will also have to be resolved because those were also depreciated since they were placed in service. The deprecation will be recaptured and will be a part of the calculation. You have nowhere near enough info to make a calculation at this time.",
"No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge).",
"\"You can exclude up to $250000 ($500000 for married filing jointly) of capital gains on property which was your primary residence for at least 2 years within the 5 years preceding the sale. This is called \"\"Section 121 exclusion\"\". See the IRS publication 523 for more details. Gains is the difference between your cost basis (money you paid for the property) and the proceeds (money you got when you sold it). Note that the amounts you deducted for depreciation (or were allowed to deduct during the period the condo was a rental, even if you chose not to) will be taxed at a special rate of 25% - this is called \"\"depreciation recapture\"\", and is discussed in the IRS publication 544.\"",
"You need to determine for the taxing jurisdiction when the next tax appraisal will be done. In some cases the appraisal is done every year, or two, or three. In other cases it is also done when the property is sold. The county tax office website should contain this information. They will also have information on how to appeal. Most jurisdictions do have a way of looking up not only the rates but the value of the property in question. You will also be interested in determining if the tax value of the property is lower due to local/state laws that limit the growth in value from one assessment to another. A sale of the property could trigger a catchup for the value. It is possible that the degraded value of the home has already been factored into the assessment. It is also possible that it hasn't. Keep in mind that taxes in some jurisdictions can be more complicated because there is also a town/city/county component, and some places that also breakout other items on the tax bill like storm water management, schools, pest spraying. These other items can be based on value, square footage of the lot, or a flat amount. You should get a local opinion on the likelihood of a successful appeal, and how much adjustment you would be able to get. Depending on the sale date and the due date for the taxes, you may be forced to pay the higher tax rate for a while until either the next re-appraisal or the next appeal window. Note: the fact that it is being auctioned may mean that what you pay for the house may be immaterial because the tax authorities could determine that the motivation to sell quickly could have depressed the value. This type of sale will not impact the value of other houses and can't be used as a basis for determining the value of other properties.",
"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.",
"Ok, have your father 'sell' you the house with a RECORDED land contract for x dollars and a gift of equity(GOE) of y. He writes of the max he can each year for the GOE (ask a tax attorney on this one), and your cousin lends him the money for his FL prop. Consult a tax attorney on the capital gains, but you can write off the actualized gains at sale if you LIVED in the prop for 2 of the last 5 or 7 years (I can't remember) and were on title. Years later, you use the recorded land contract, with the verifiable on time payments you've been making, to a conforming lender and do a R&T refi.",
"\"I can't vouch for Australian law, but in the US there is actually a recognized mechanism for \"\"in-family loans\"\" which ensures that it's all fully documented for tax purposes, including filing it as an official second mortgage. (Just did that recently in my own family, which is why I'm aware of it.) We're required to charge at least some interest (there's a minimum set, currently around 0.3%), and the interest is taxable income, and it is wise to get a lawyer to draw up the paperwork (there are a few services which specialize in this, charging a flat fee of about US$700 if the loan is standard enough that they can handle it as fill-in-the-blank), but outside of that it's pretty painless. This can also be used as a way of shifting gift limits from year to year -- if you issue a loan, and then gift the recipient with the payments each year (including the payments), you've effectively spread the immediate transfer of money over multiple years of taxes. Of course it does cost you the legal paperwork and the tax in the interest (which they're still \"\"paying\"\" out of your gift), but it can be a useful tool, and it's one that wasn't well known until recently. Again: This is all US codes, posted only for comparison (and for the benefit of US readers). It may be completely irrelevant. But it may be worth investigating whether Oz has something similar.\"",
"You don't get any tax benefit. When you are helping a relative or a friend in such situations the income is just gone. The only way to get around this is if you contribute to a charity, and they give it to your mom. You can then deduct the contributions to that charity. However, the IRS has cracked down on such situations and it probably is not worth pursuing. By the recent tax rules, that charity can use those contributions in which every way they choose, they cannot guarantee they go to your mom. Given that you are closed to your allowed exclusion (14K for 2017), I would work to keep your number under that. If you are married, you each get that exclusion so you can give up to 28K. I can't really speak to the reduction of benefits part as I am knowledgeable and more details on the type of transfer payments she receives would be germane to the discussion.",
"The money you will be bringing to the US will be classified as your own money, and will not be taxable. The proceeds from the sale are taxable to you, probably as capital gains. The fact that you kept the proceeds out of the US is irrelevant for that purpose (it is relevant for FBAR/FATCA etc). Since you had no basis in the property, all the proceeds are taxable to you at the time of the sale and should be reported on your tax return.",
"\"There's no objective definition of what your house is worth between sales. If you sell it for $107K, then that's the current functional definition of its worth. There is not \"\"extra\"\" money to be had because you sold it for less than it was worth. If the buyer is able to flip it for more, then the value of the house effectively went up and he will pocket the difference when he sells it. EDIT This turned out to be unexpectedly controversial, so let me be more precise in my answer. I think this is important because it seems like many people misunderstand equity and how it figures (or doesn't) into the value of their home, which then leads to significant confusion and errors in what's many people's largest single investment. At any given time there are several possible ways to put a dollar value on your home. A non-exclusive list that includes: Some of these obviously are more \"\"official\"\" than others. It would not be strange for these different values to vary by quite a bit at any given time. (This is what I meant in my original answer when I said there's \"\"no objective definition of what your house is worth between sales.\"\") The interesting thing - and what I meant in my original answer when I wrote \"\"current functional definition of its worth\"\" - is that none of these factor directly into the transaction that the OP described of selling his house except for the last. Using the numbers from the OP's example, that means the $107K. Wherever the OP got the number $155K (either from one of the options on my list above or somewhere else), it won't be directly part of the sale between him and his friend. (For completeness, with a nod to Eric's comments on my original answer, some of these numbers may indirectly influence the sale. For example, the buyer typically won't be able to get a mortgage for a value greater than the appraised value of the house, and so that might influence what he's willing and able to bid. There may also be tax consequences if the price is artificially low, like, say, a gift. As further expounded below, however, that's not directly relevant to answering the OP's stated question.) Now, the OP seemed to believe that there is an \"\"extra\"\" $48K in cash up for grabs in this scenario. That comes from the $155K value that the OP claims his house has and the $107K price of the actual proposed sale. This is a complete misconception. When the buyer and seller sit down at closing and the title agent sums up who owes and who receives cash in this transaction, the $155K \"\"theoretical\"\" value will not enter into the calculation and therefore no one will pocket it. Subsequently, however, after the buyer takes possession, he may sell it. If it's true that he \"\"got a deal\"\" on the transaction at $107K, then he maybe able to flip it and turn a profit. But if that happens, it will be in a completely separate, subsequent transaction. Even if you look to this hypothetical second sale, however, the $155K doesn't really figure. The new owner will have to find his own buyer, and they will have to agree on a price. That might happen to be $155K, but there's no real reason to believe that it will or it won't.\"",
"a) He can loan you the money tax free he can even give you and your wife 29k a year tax free. Many people do a loan for lets say 100k and then they forgive the load 14.5k a year to avoid the taxes. b) Yes when they see that deposit they will give you a hard time potentially. I got a hard time for my Real Estate tax refund. c) Just putting stress on the family potentially.",
"The rental income is indeed taxable income, but you reduce the taxable portion of it by deducting expenses (including mortgage interest, maintenance, insurance, HOA, real estate tax, and of course depreciation). Due to the depreciation, you may end up breaking even, or having very little taxable income. Note that when you sell the property, your basis is reduced by the depreciation you were allowed to deduct (even if you haven't deducted it for whatever reason), and also the personal residence exclusion might no longer be applicable - i.e.: you'll have to pay capital gains tax. You will not be able to deduct a loss though if you sell now, so it may be better to depreciate it as a rental, rather then sell at a loss that won't affect your taxes. Also, consider the fact that the basis for the depreciation is not the basis you currently have in the property (because you're under water). You have to remember that when calculating the taxes. This is not a tax advice, and you should seek a professional help.",
"When you purchase a mortgage, you have to prove the source of your down payment. Primarily this is so that the mortgage lender knows that there are no other outstanding liens against the property. If you show that some or part of your down payment was a gift, there is no fraud, but it may affect your qualification for the mortgage. Consult a lawyer in your area to determine if there is a legal way to gift the money that is not taxed. If all else fails you could just pay the tax. Also, you should research whether your gift is above the floor of taxable gifts.",
"No, it doesn't work like this. Your charitable contribution is limited to the FMV. In your scenario your charitable contribution is limited by the FMV, i.e.: you can only deduct the worth of the stocks. It would be to your advantage to sell the stocks and donate cash. Had your stock appreciated, you may be required to either deduct the appreciation amount from the donation deduction or pay capital gains tax (increasing your basis to the FMV), depending on the nature of your donation. In many cases - you may be able to deduct the whole value of the appreciated stock without paying capital gains. Read the link below for more details and exceptions. In this scenario, it is probably more beneficial to donate the stock (even if required to pay the capital gains tax), instead of selling and donating cash (which will always trigger the capital gains tax). Exceptions. However, in certain situations, you must reduce the fair market value by any amount that would have been long-term capital gain if you had sold the property for its fair market value. Generally, this means reducing the fair market value to the property's cost or other basis. You must do this if: The property (other than qualified appreciated stock) is contributed to certain private nonoperating foundations, You choose the 50% limit instead of the special 30% limit for capital gain property, discussed later, The contributed property is intellectual property (as defined earlier under Patents and Other Intellectual Property ), The contributed property is certain taxidermy property as explained earlier, or The contributed property is tangible personal property (defined earlier) that: Is put to an unrelated use (defined later) by the charity, or Has a claimed value of more than $5,000 and is sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of by the qualified organization during the year in which you made the contribution, and the qualified organization has not made the required certification of exempt use (such as on Form 8282, Donee Information Return, Part IV). See also Recapture if no exempt use , later. See more here.",
"\"Please Note: Before taking any steps towards a transaction involving possible capital gains tax exclusions, please consult your CPA, attorney or tax advisor. I am not a CPA or Tax Advisor. Since you have only lived in it 11 months, you don't meet the \"\"use test\"\" for full exclusion. However, even if you haven't lived in it that long, you may be able to exclude some of the gains due to a \"\"unforeseen circumstance\"\", not just because you wanted to move. You say you are \"\"ready for a change\"\" and so that means it's an arbitrary decision, not a forced one. To calculate the partial exclusion, take the number of months you lived there before the sale and divide it by 24. (11/24 = 0.45). So for an unmarried person, you can exclude up to $250,000. Multiply that by .45 and you get $112,500. If your profit after everything is taken out is only $35,000 then you can exclude that from capital gains because it is less than $112,500. All that being said, you will need documentation in case you get audited. For more information, see IRS Publication 551, Basis of Assets, and look for the section on real property. See also this IRS Tax Topic on Sale of Your Home\"",
"When your debt is forgiven, you have to consider the amount written off as an ordinary income item (with the exclusion of the debt originated from the purchase of primary home). If you're trying to write the debt off from your taxes - then it won't work. Even if you can expense the debt forgiveness, you will incur tax liability on your personal taxes side, and in addition you'll be out of cash in your business. So basically you'll end up paying it with after tax money, exactly the thing you're trying to avoid. In addition, you're dealing with related persons here, which means that the loss deduction might not be allowed (depends on the actual details of the transaction), so you might actually end up paying more taxes with this scheme that just paying off the loan directly (if your business pays taxes separately from your person). A loss on the sale or exchange of property between related persons is not deductible. This applies to both direct and indirect transactions, but not to distributions of property from a corporation in a complete liquidation. For the list of related persons, see Related persons next.",
"I'm not an attorney, nor am I a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you talk to these two types of professionals. From my limited knowledge, without proper documentation/organization, I can't see how the IRS/State will not consider this as a rent payment. The mortgage responsibility is of the person signing the mortgage contract, and you're under no obligation to pay that person anything. Had you not lived at the property, you might argue that it was a gift (although I'm not sure if it would stand), but since you do live in the property - it is quite obviously a rent payment. Putting your name on the deed may mitigate this slightly but I'm not sure how much - since you're still not obligated to pay the mortgage. However this is probably moot since it is unlikely for a bank to give a mortgage on a property to person A when it is also owned by a person B, without that person B being side to the mortgage contract.",
"\"In general, insurance payouts you receive in compensation for damage to your vehicle are not taxable income (see for instance this Nolo page). However, I don't see how that is related to your three bullet points about how your sister should buy her car. You can transfer the money to her in any way that's convenient to both of you. Whether the dealership will accept cash is something you'll have to ask them about, but my impression is most dealers are eager to accept cash. As long as the car you are getting from her is not worth substantially more than the $8500 you're giving her, I don't see that you'll be in trouble income-tax-wise. As mentioned in the question you linked to, you can give each other up to $14k per year tax-free. So if you give her a $8500 and she gives you a car worth roughly the same amount, no problem. If you actually do it as a sale, even better, since then the only amount that will count as a gift to either of you is whatever one party gets above and beyond the fair value of the car. (That is, if the car is worth $10000 but she sells it to you for $8500, she effectively gave you a gift of $1500 in car value. If it's worth $7000 but she sells it to you for $8500, you gave her a gift of $1500 in cash.) As Rocky pointed out in a comment, if you do a sale it may be subject to sales tax depending on what state you're in. In practice it is very common for people to not deal with sales tax in informal transactions like this between family members, but you do owe it if your state's laws require it, and the state could theoretically come after you for it. Another edit: I see from your comment you are in Michigan. According to this page from the Michigan Secretary of State, \"\"no tax is due if you purchase a vehicle from an immediate family member\"\". So you would not owe sales tax if you do it as a sale.\"",
"\"When you give a gift to another person or receive a gift from another person there is no impact on your taxes. You do not have to report certain amounts in your income, including the following: ... -most gifts and inheritances; http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/rprtng-ncm/nttxd-eng.html If you give a gift to a charity or similar organization you can reduce your taxes. It is my recollection that when a family member gives a large amount of money to a child, tax on the income that money earns (typically interest) should be paid by the giver, not the child, but I can't find any publications to that effect on the CRA Site. There is a bit of language about \"\"Gifts\"\" from an employer that are really employment income: Gifts and other voluntary payments 1.3 The term gift is not defined in the Act. In common law jurisdictions, the courts have said that a bona fide gift exists when: •There is a voluntary transfer of property, •A donor freely disposes of his or her property to a donee, and •The donee confers no right, privilege, material benefit, or advantage on the donor or on a person designated by the donor. 1.4 Whether a transfer of property has been made voluntarily is a question of fact. In order for a transfer to be considered voluntary, there must be no obligation to make such a transfer. Amounts received as gifts, that is, voluntary transfers without consideration and which cannot be attributed to an income-earning source, are not subject to tax in the hands of the recipient. 1.5 However, sometimes individuals receive a voluntary payment or other valuable transfer or benefit by virtue of an office or employment from an employer, or from some other person. In such cases, the amount of the payment or the value of the transfer or benefit is generally included in employment income pursuant to subsection 5(1) or paragraph 6(1)(a). (See also Guide T4130, Employers’ Guide - Taxable Benefits and Allowances.) Similarly, voluntary payments (or other transfers or benefits) received by virtue of a profession or in the course of carrying on a business are taxable receipts. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/tchncl/ncmtx/fls/s3/f9/s3-f9-c1-eng.html#N10244 If the people in question are adults who are not related to each other and don't have a business or employment relationship, then you should find that regardless of the amount of the gift, neither giver nor recipient will have a tax consequence.\"",
"\"I had the same thing happen to my house. I bought it in 2011 for 137,000, which was the same as the FHA appraised value (because FHA won't guarantee a loan for more than their appraiser thinks its worth). January of last year, I get the letter from the tax office and see that my house has been assessed at only 122,000. I was shocked too, until I read a similar document that Phil told you to read. The short of it is, no matter what the tax assessor calls their calculation, it is an assessment. It was mass-produced along with everyone else's in your neighborhood by looking at its specs on paper (acreage, house square footage, age, beds/baths) and by driving by your home to see its general condition. The fact that your lawn may be less well-kept than the last time they drove by could have affected the decision a little. It's very unlikely to have been a major determinant of the assessment. The assessment value affects taxes, and taxes only. It is, in most states, a matter of public record, and so it could be used by a potential buyer to negotiate a lower price. However, everyone in the housing business knows that the assessed value is not the market value, and the buyer's agent will be encouraging their client to make a more realistic bid. This \"\"assessed value\"\" is not an \"\"appraisal value\"\". An appraisal is done by someone actually walking into and through your home, inspecting the general condition inside and out, to try to make a fair evaluation of what the home is actually worth. That number is almost always going to be more than the assessment value, because it takes into account all the amenities of the home; the current fixtures, the well-kept (or recently-replaced) flooring, the energy-efficient HVAC and hot water system, etc etc. It also takes into account recent comparables; what have other houses, with the same general statistics, the same amenities, relatively close in location, sold for recently? That will still generally be different from the true market value of the home. That value is nothing more or less than what a potential buyer will pay to have it at the time you decide to sell it, and that in turn depends 100% on your potential buyers' myriad situations. Someone may lowball even the assessed value because they're looking for a deal and hoping you're desperate; you just reject the offer. Someone may be looking at comparables indicating the house is maybe overpriced by $10k. You can counter and try to come to an agreement. Or, your potential buyer could work five minutes from your house, and be willing to pay at or above your asking price because the next best possibility is another 10 miles away. Since you aren't looking to sell the home, none of this matters, except to determine any escrow payments you might be making towards property taxes. Just keep making your mortgage payment, and don't worry about it. If you really wanted to, you could petition the state for a second opinion, but you think the value should be higher; if they agree with you, they'll raise the assessed value and you'll pay more in taxes. Why in the world would you want to do that?\"",
"Once your sister and you make your first payments, you've paid $20,645, and your sister has paid $1400. But your sister also owes rent. Zeroth order estimate for rent is that it's equal to mortgage payment, so that's $2045 (I assume that $2045 is actually your total payment, not just your escrow payment. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the term means, $2045 is an absurdly high amount for a monthly escrow payment.) So your sister now has made a net capital contribution of ... negative $645. So you're giving your sister a gift of $7740 each year, and are the sole equity owner of the house. There's a $14000/year gift tax exclusion, and I think that both you and your husband can claim it separately, so every year you could declare your sister to have $20260 added to her capital contribution, or more if you're willing to pay gift tax. But as it stands, if there are any losses from the property, they will be borne exclusively by you; therefore, any profits should be enjoyed exclusively by you. Any other arrangement is you giving a gift to your sister. If the price of the house were to shoot up to $1,000,000 after a year, and you were to split the profits with your sister 50:50, and not pay a gift tax, you WOULD be violating tax law.",
"If the person gifting the property owed any debt to Canada Revenue Agency on the date of gift, you may getting a nice letter from Canada Revenue Agency advising you to settle the donor's tax liability with the property gifted.",
"\"When a house is sold at a foreclosure auction, the selling bank usually does not provide the guarantees that a normal house seller provides. Furthermore, the previous owner may have neglected the property, and/or spitefully damaged the property. Bank-owned properties are often neglected and/or vandalized. Banks are usually too short-sighted to properly market the real estate they own, and do a poor job of making it easy to buy the property. Thus, foreclosure sales usually happen at a price that is significantly below the \"\"fair market value\"\" of sales between competent households. It is common for a house that is worth $ 125,000 (even in a depressed market) to sell for only $ 100,000 in a short sale or foreclosure. It is possible that this property sold for an even larger discount. It is also possible that the tax assessor is (inadvertently) comparing a run-down property with well-maintained properties that have extra expensive features, without fully adjusting for the properties' conditions and features. In the latter scenario, the property owner can ask the tax assessor to re-consider the assessment. Usually this request is called an \"\"appeal\"\".\"",
"They may be able to transfer the land to a charitable remainder trust, which then enters into the transaction and pays them an income stream over their lifetime -- but definitely hire a professional before you attempt to do this.",
"If it's in your name and you don't live there, there's a number of issues. If you charge her rent, it needs to be at fair value to treat it as a rental property. If she lives there for the next 20 years, it will (or we hope) gain value. If she passes while it's in her name you get to step up the basis, and avoid tax. If in your name , the gain would be taxable.",
"Ditto Rocky. Also: Break the sale up over several tax years so that you don't have a spike in your income pushing you into a higher tax bracket. Don't sell it until you retire, when you're probably in a lower tax bracket. (If you're 20, this may be impractical.) Get some other deductions, like medical expenses, charity, etc. Failing that, maybe a couple of other ideas that neither of us thought of, I think the real answer is: suck it up and pay the taxes. If there was a way to reduce your taxes just by checking the right box on a tax form or some such, everybody would do it and the government wouldn't collect any taxes.",
"Here's an excerpt from the Charles Schwab website which I think will help evaluate your position: The simple answer to your question is no, the value of a gift of stock for gift tax liability is NOT the donor's cost basis, but rather the fair market value of the stock at the time the gift is given. So let's say you purchased 100 shares of XYZ stock at $50 a share. Your cost basis is $5,000. Now the stock is $80 a share and you give it as a gift. The value of your gift for gift tax purposes is $8,000. In 2015, you can give up to $14,000 to an unlimited number of individuals each year without paying a gift tax or even reporting the gifts. If you give over that amount to any individual, however, you must report the gift on your tax return, but you don't have to pay taxes until you give away more than the current lifetime limit of $5,430,000—for the amount above and beyond $14,000 per person per year. So in the example above, there would be no gift tax liability. However, if the stock happened to be $150 a share, the value of the gift would be $15,000. You'd then have to report it and $1,000 would be applied toward your $5,430,000 lifetime exclusion. You will need to pay a gift tax on the current value of the stock. I'm not familiar with the tax laws in India, but if your brother was in the US, he wouldn't pay taxes on that gift until he sells the stock. The recipient doesn’t have to worry about gift taxes. It's when the recipient decides to sell the stock that the issue of valuation comes up—for income taxes. And this is where things can get a bit more complicated. In general, when valuing a gift of stock for capital gains tax liability, it's the donor's cost basis and holding period that rules. As an example, let's say you receive a gift of stock from your grandfather. He bought it for $10 a share and it's worth $15 a share on the day you receive it. If you then sell the stock, whether for a gain or a loss, your cost basis will be the same as your grandfather’s: $10 per share. Sell it at $25 and you'll pay tax (at the short- or long-term rate, depending on how long he owned the stock) on a gain of $15 a share; sell it at $8 and your capital loss will be $2 a share. Ultimately, with a gift this large that also crosses international borders, you really should hire a professional who is experienced with these types of transactions. Their fees/commission will be completely offset by the savings in risk and paperwork. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-Do-You-Value-a-Gift-of-Stock-It-Depends-on-Whether-You-re-the-Giver-or-the-Receiver",
"Also you would need to consider any taxation issues. As he will be paying you rent you will need to include this as income, plus any capital gains tax on the re-sale of the property may need to be paid.",
"\"Assuming USA: It is possible to make the interest deductible if you go to the trouble of structuring, and filing, the loan as an actual mortgage on a primary residence. Websearching \"\"intra-family loan\"\" will find several firms which specialize in this. It costs about $700 for all the paperwork and filing fees as of last time I checked, so unless you're going to pay at least three times that in interest over the life of the loan it probably isn't worth considering. (For an additional fee they'll take care of the payment processing, if you'd really rather be hands-off about it.) I have no idea whether the paperwork fees and processing fees can be deducted from the interest as a cost of producing that income. In theory that ought to be true, but I Am Not A Lawyer. Or accountant. Note: one of the interesting factors here is that the IRS sets a minimum interest rate on intra-family loans. It's pretty low (around 0.3%), so in most cases you can say you gifted the difference if you'd prefer to charge less... but that does set a floor on what the IRS will expect the lender to declare, and pay taxes on. There's a lot more that can be said about this, but since I am NOT an expert I'll refer you to those who are. I have no affiliation with any of this except as a customer, once; it seemed pretty painless but I can't claim to know whether they were really handling everything exactly correctly. The website seemed to do a pretty good job of explaining what choices had to be made and their effects, as well as discussing how these can be used to avoid excess gift taxes by spreading the gift over a number of years.\"",
"\"For this type of loan, to be considered \"\"arm's length,\"\" the rate needs to be fair (you got that covered), the loan must be secured against the house, via a lien, else it may be considered a non-deductible personal loan, and last, you need the 1099. You might get away with the first 2, as he's claiming the interest, but the lien is key.\"",
"\"For the USA part of the equation the \"\"fair market value\"\" is the value at the time you inherited it (time of death), and thus there is no capital gain.\"",
"\"Apparently box 39 does not receive half of box 38 if \"\"The price of the share or unit is less than its fair market value when the agreement was made.\"\" - the last point in paragraph 110(1)(d): *http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/fnncl/scrty/stckpt03-eng.html#dspst The employee can claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act if all of the following conditions are met:\"",
"\"Can't vouch for LA, but property typically is taxed at either the appraised value, the most recent purchase price (\"\"if it wasn't worth that much, you wouldn't have paid that much\"\"), or some combination of the two (usually highest of the two, to prevent \"\"$1 and other goods and services\"\" from lowering the tax to zero). You have now explicitly paid a total of $125k for the property; the fact that you bought it in two stages shouldn't be relevant. But \"\"should\"\" and law are only tangentially connected. I'd recommend asking a tax accountant who know your local practices, unless someone here can give you an authoritative answer.\"",
"\"The real answer why the government is \"\"allowed\"\" to do something is because they are the government and they make the rules. There are lots of laws that I think make no sense. I ran into a similar situation to yours. I bought a house during a time when the market in my area was way down. The previous owner had paid $140,000 but I got it for only $80,000. The government appraised it for, I forget the exact number, but over $100,000. I appealed, and the argument I made to the appeal board was that the law says it is supposed to be appraised for \"\"fair market value\"\". The definition of \"\"fair market value\"\" is the amount that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, absent special conditions like a sweetheart sale to a relative. The house had been advertised for a higher price and the seller had to drop the price several times before getting an offer, and finally accepting mine. This is pretty much the definition of \"\"fair market value\"\". The appeals board replied that it was not FMV because the market was bad at this particular time and so I got a good deal. I said that that's the definition of market value: it goes up and down as market conditions change. If the market happened to be up when someone bought a house and they had to pay a high price, would the government assess the house at a lower value because that was an unusually high price? I doubt it. They ended up reducing the assessed value, but not to what I actually paid. All that said, arguably a foreclosure sale might be considered special conditions. Prices at a foreclosure sale tend to be lower than \"\"ordinary\"\" sales. In a foreclosure, the bank is usually trying to get rid of the property quickly because they don't want to be in the property-management business, they want to be in the money lending and management business. Of course you could say that sort of thing about conditions surrounding many sales. Maybe the price is low because the seller needed cash now to start a business. Maybe the price is high because the buyer was too lazy to shop around. Maybe the price is low because the buyer is a very skilled negotiator. Etc etc. My watch just broke and while I was shopping for a new one I found two listings for the exact same watch, I mean exact same manufacturer and model number, identical picture, on the same web site, one giving the price as $24 and the other as $99. What is the market value of that watch? I presume anyone who saw both listings would pick the $24 one, but I presume some number of people pay the higher price because they never see the lower price. In real life there isn't really one, exact, fair market value. That's an abstraction.\"",
"You bought a rental property in 2001. Hopefully you paid fair value else other issues come into play. Say you paid $120K. You said you have been taking depreciation, which for residential real estate is taken over 27.5 years, so you are about halfway through. Since you don't depreciate land, you may have taken a total $50K so far. With no improvements, and no transaction costs, you have $50K in depreciation recapture, taxed at a maximum 25% (or your lower, marginal rate) and a cap gain of the 5-10K you mentioned. Either can be offset by losses you've been carrying forward if you suffered large stock losses at some point.",
"Presumably this house is a great deal for you for some reason if you are willing to go to great lengths such as these to acquire it. I suggest you have your father purchase the house with cash, then you purchase the house from him. You might want to discuss this with the title company, it's possible that there are some fees that they will waive if you close both sales through them in a short period of time. If the home will appraise for a higher amount than purchase, then you may be able to get a mortgage without a significant down-payment. If not, then you will need to owe your father at least the amount of the down-payment at closing time.",
"When you sell the spec home, you will owe taxes on the sales price minus the cost of the home, including the land, materials, paid labor, and other expenses. The fact that you pay for this with with the inheritance in the money market account won't affect the taxes you owe when you sell the spec house.",
"Does allowing family to stay at the rental jeopardize my depreciation? No, accumulated depreciation that hasn't been deducted reduces your basis in the event of sale. That doesn't go anywhere. Accumulating more may not be allowed though. If the property is no longer rental (i.e.: personal use, your family member lives there for free), you cannot claim expenses or depreciation on it. If you still rent it out to your family member, but not at the fair market value, then you can only claim expenses up to the rental income. I.e.: you can only depreciate up to the extent the depreciation (after all the expenses) not being over the income generated. You cannot generate losses in such case, even if disallowed. If you rent to your family member at the market rate (make sure it is properly documented), then the family relationship really doesn't matter. You continue accumulating expenses as usual.",
"When you sell your primary residence, you are required to capitalize any loss or gain at that point; you do not carry over your loss or gain (as you might in an investment property). As such, the timing of the purchase of the next house is not relevant in this discussion: you gained however much you gained already. This changed from the other (rollover) method in 1997 (see this bankrate article for more details.) However, as discussed in IRS Tax Topic 701, you can exclude up to $250,000 (single or filing separately) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) of gain if it is your primary residence and meets a few requirements (mostly, that you owned it for at least 2 years in the past 5 years, and similarly used it as your main home for at least 2 years of the past 5 years). So given you reported 25% gain, as long as your house is under a million dollars or so, you're fine (and if it's over a million dollars, you probably should be paying a CPA for this stuff). For California state tax, it looks like it is the same (see this Turbotax forum answer for a good explanation and links to this California Franchise Tax Board guide which confirms it: For sale or exchanges after May 6, 1997, federal law allows an exclusion of gain on the sale of a personal residence in the amount of $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly). The taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence as a principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years before the sale. California conforms to this provision. However, California taxpayers who served in the Peace Corps during the 5 year period ending on the date of the sale may reduce the 2 year period by the period of service, not to exceed 18 months.",
"\"As you do not have any relation to your Uncle, It will be treated as \"\"Gift\"\" to your uncle. He has to pay a Gift Tax on the amount received. Under the Gift Tax, if the total value of Gifts [including assets like shares etc or Immovable assets like land / house etc] exceeds Rs 50,000/- for a year, all the amount will be taxable at the income tax slab. If your Uncle has no other source of Income, then in the current financial year, the zero percent slab is till Rs 3,00,000. Hence No Tax.\"",
"Are you planning on paying your son back? If so, this is a loan from him. If not, it is a gift. Both have possible and different tax implications. For example, gifts above $14,000 ($28,000 if your son is married) per calendar year may be subject to a gift tax. If it is a loan, the IRS has rules about the interest rate you must pay him and taxes get more complicated if it is too low (or zero). Edit: Notice that if you are also married, I believe your son and his wife can give $14k each to each of you and your spouse. If the house is in her name as well you may be able to pay as much as $56K without the gift tax. Notice that this is a yearly amount, so if this was December you could get $56k in December and $56K in January.",
"The difference is whether or not you have a contract that stipulates the payment plan, interest, and late payment penalties. If you have one then the IRS treats the transaction as a load/loan servicing. If not the IRS sees the money transfer as a gift.",
"In response to one of the comments you might be interested in owning the new home as a rental property for a year. You could flip this thinking and make the current home into a rental property for a period of time (1 year seems to be the consensus, consult an accountant familiar with real estate). This will potentially allow for a 1031 exchange into another property -- although I believe that property can't then be a primary residence. All potentially not worth the complication for the tax savings, but figured I'd throw it out there. Also, the 1031 exchange defers taxes until some point in the future in which you finally sell the asset(s) for cash.",
"How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).",
"Owing money to family members can create serious problems. Taking out a purchase-money mortgage to pay your sister for her share is the best way to avoid future friction and, possibly, outright alienation.",
"The transaction will be taxable in India. You will have to pay Capital Gains tax. I am assuming that you purchased the house while you were Indian Resident for tax purposes. As such its needs more paper work to get the money back to US. Consult a CA in India who will help with the paperwork. You haven't mentioned your tax status in US, one you update it, someone will post a US tax aspects of the transaction.",
"An issue with the initial plan was that the house was gifted to you. Therefore you owned it. Now two years later you wanted to get a mortgage. The IRS would look at it as a home equity debt not a home Acquisition debt, and the interest on the first $100,000 of home equity dept is deductible. This is from IRS pub 936 Mortgage treated as used to buy, build, or improve home. A mortgage secured by a qualified home may be treated as home acquisition debt, even if you do not actually use the proceeds to buy, build, or substantially improve the home. This applies in the following situations. You buy your home within 90 days before or after the date you take out the mortgage. The home acquisition debt is limited to the home's cost, plus the cost of any substantial improvements within the limit described below in (2) or (3). (See Example 1 later.) You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage before the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within 24 months before the date of the mortgage. You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage within 90 days after the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within the period beginning 24 months before the work is completed and ending on the date of the mortgage. (See Example 2 later.) Example 1. You bought your main home on June 3 for $175,000. You paid for the home with cash you got from the sale of your old home. On July 15, you took out a mortgage of $150,000 secured by your main home. You used the $150,000 to invest in stocks. You can treat the mortgage as taken out to buy your home because you bought the home within 90 days before you took out the mortgage. The entire mortgage qualifies as home acquisition debt because it was not more than the home's cost. At two years you would be way outside the 90 day limit. The pub also gives example on how calculate the amount of interest you can deduct.",
"It depends on the selling price, but if we can assume the property will be sold at a profit, they are getting a pretty sweet deal at your expense. They are both getting about 5.2% interest on their money, plus the lion's share of any property appreciation. I would say that fair would be either of:",
"In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different."
] |
[
"\"Is this legal? Why not? But you might have trouble deducting losses on your taxes, especially if you sell to someone related to you in some way (which is indeed what you're doing). See the added portion below regarding dealing with \"\"related person\"\" (which a sibling is). The state of Maryland has a transfer/recordation tax of 1.5% for each, the buyer and seller. Would this be computed on the appraised or sale value? You should check with the State. In California property taxes are assessed based on sale value, but if the sale value is bogus the assessors have the right to recalculate. Since you're selling to family, the assessors will likely to intervene and set a more close to \"\"fair market\"\" value on the transaction, but again - check the local law. Will this pose any problem if the buyer needs financing? Likely, banks will be suspicious.Since you're giving a discount to your sibling, it will likely not cause a problem for financing. If it was an unrelated person getting such a discount, it would likely to have raised some questions. Would I be able to deduct a capital loss on my tax return? As I said - it may be a problem. If the transaction is between related people - likely not. Otherwise - not sure. Check with a professional tax adviser (EA or CPA licensed in Maryland). You mentioned in the comment that the buyer is a sibling. IRS Publication 544 has a list of what is considered \"\"related person\"\", and that includes siblings. So the short answer is NO, you will not be able to deduct the loss. The tax treatment is not trivial in this case, and I suggest to have a professional tax adviser guide you on how to proceed. Here's the definition of \"\"related person\"\" from the IRS pub. 544: Members of a family, including only brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, spouse, ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.), and lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.). An individual and a corporation if the individual directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. Two corporations that are members of the same controlled group as defined in section 267(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. A trust fiduciary and a corporation if the trust or the grantor of the trust directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. A grantor and fiduciary, and the fiduciary and beneficiary, of any trust. Fiduciaries of two different trusts, and the fiduciary and beneficiary of two different trusts, if the same person is the grantor of both trusts. A tax-exempt educational or charitable organization and a person who directly or indirectly controls the organization, or a member of that person's family. A corporation and a partnership if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership. Two S corporations if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. Two corporations, one of which is an S corporation, if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. An executor and a beneficiary of an estate unless the sale or exchange is in satisfaction of a pecuniary bequest. Two partnerships if the same persons directly or indirectly own more than 50% of the capital interests or profits interests in both partnerships. A person and a partnership if the person directly or indirectly owns more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership.\"",
"Is this legal? If the purpose of the sale at that price is to defraud somebody else, you could have a legal issue. For example if the purpose was to make yourself appear poorer to make you eligible for government aid; Or to increase your chances of getting a college grant; or to not have to pay money to your spouse as part of a divorce settlement; or if there is an unwritten part of the transaction for the sibling to sell the house back to in a few years when you no longer need to appear poor. The answer by @littleadv covers the tax complications. I do have one additional point. The sale can't be a short sale. The bank will never approve. The short sale can only be approved when the bank is convinced that there are no viable purchasers at a level to get all their money back. Your sibling is not an arms length transaction."
] |
7594
|
Converting annual interbank rates into monthly rates
|
[
"573899"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"573899",
"50912",
"454072",
"197336",
"349611",
"132950",
"311866",
"18939",
"465059",
"179365",
"125100",
"478339",
"574974",
"245648",
"263949",
"179733",
"220176",
"443689",
"96697",
"109454",
"511122",
"597459",
"193053",
"23564",
"316363",
"310714",
"550642",
"299563",
"19999",
"190790",
"214446",
"131723",
"374956",
"200875",
"492801",
"281329",
"260569",
"170167",
"446687",
"546356",
"500475",
"117391",
"472646",
"94630",
"86636",
"25863",
"534552",
"272093",
"415738",
"270233",
"335667",
"235314",
"397774",
"252496",
"521590",
"106310",
"340254",
"445348",
"409434",
"445593",
"266319",
"242849",
"563169",
"106078",
"16051",
"460738",
"160842",
"427410",
"300412",
"395128",
"366509",
"123395",
"191564",
"593844",
"220025",
"361069",
"595476",
"416661",
"42639",
"318191",
"476260",
"517637",
"36405",
"87675",
"562080",
"24006",
"292790",
"68802",
"351698",
"518896",
"57305",
"209238",
"392936",
"20054",
"57922",
"223032",
"468225",
"242903",
"139871",
"55091"
] |
[
"The formula you're looking for is Thus, from 3% p.a. you get ca. 0.247% per month. However, as you see 0.25% is a good approximation (generally, small rates give good approximation).",
"This is more a question for /r/personalfinance, but I'll answer it anyways. Just use the RATE formula in excel. =RATE(numperiods,monthly payment,amount financed)*12 Just make sure the number of periods is in months, the payment is negative, and to multiply the whole thing by 12 to get the annual interest rate.",
"If the APR is an effective rate. If the APR is a nominal rate compounded monthly, first convert it to an effective rate.",
"\"There is no formula that can be applied to most variations of the problem you pose. The reason is that there is no simple, fixed relationship between the two time periods involved: the time interval for successive payments, and the time period for successive interest compounding. Suppose you have daily compounding and you want to make weekly payments (A case that can be handled). Say the quoted rate is 4.2% per year, compounded daily Then the rate per day is 4.2/365, or 0.0115068 % So, in one week, a debt would grow through seven compoundings. A debt of $1 would grow to 1 * (1+.000225068)^7, or 1.000805754 So, the equivalent interest rate for weekly compounding is 0.0805754% Now you have weekly compounding, and weekly payments, so the standard annuity formulas apply. The problem lies in that number \"\"7\"\", the number of days in a week. But if you were trying to handle daily / monthly, or weekly / quarterly, what value would you use? In such cases, the most practical method is to convert any compounding rate to a daily compounding rate, and use a spreadsheet to handle the irregularly spaced payments.\"",
"I would like to know how they calculated such monthly payment The formula is: Your values would come out to be: r = (1+3.06/(100*365))^31-1=0.002602 (converting your annual percentage to a monthly rate equivalent of daily compounded interest) PV = 12865.57 n = 48 Inserting your values into the formula: P = [r*(PV)]/[1-(1+r)^(-n)] P = [0.002602*(12865.57)]/[1-(1.002602)^(-48)] P = 285.47",
"> 1)What is the formula to turn the annualized rate into a monthly rate? What do you *think* it is? > 2)What is the formula to find out the NPV of monthly cash flows? Same one as usual. Remember, value can only be summed if it's *at the same point in time.* > For example, if I get $1000, $2000, and $3000 in months 1, 2, and 3, how do I calculate how much each of those are equal to as a present value if the annual discount rate is 8%? Think it through.",
"it means that 20% of my closing balance each day will be added up over the course of a month and then given once the month is over. Yes apart from the typo 0.20% of every day balance. The rate itself is quoted for a year, so for a day it will be (Px0.20)/(100x365). Where P = The principal amount of every day. The credits will be every month-end. For leap year will be 366. Check with your Bank quite a few Banks still use the old convention of 360 days in year.",
"Average rates of return usually assume compounding, so your formula would be for annual compounding ,or for continuous compounding.",
"The 1.140924% is calculated by taking 13.69%/12 = 1.140924%. Dividing this number by 100 gives you the answer 1.140924 / 100 = .01140924. When dealing with decimals it's important to remember the relationship between a decimal and a percent. 1% = .01 To return .01 to a percent you must multiple that number by 100. So .01 x 100 = 1% In order to get a decimal from a percent, which is what is used in calculations, you must divide by 100. So, here if we are trying to calculate how much interest you are paying each month we can do this: 9800 * .1369 = $1341.62 (interest you will pay that year IF the principal balance never changed) 1341.62 / 12 = ~111.81 Now, month two 9578.34 * .1369 = 1311.274746 1311.274746 / 12 = 109.28 In order to get your monthly payments (which won't change) for the life of the loan, you can use this formula: Monthly payment = r(PV) / (1-(1+r)^-n) Where: r= Interest Rate (remember if calculating monthly to do .1369/12) PV= Present Value of loan n=time of loan ( in your case 36 since we are talking monthly and 12*3 = 36) from here we get: [(.1369/12)*9800]/(1-(1+.1369/12)^-36) = $333.467 when rounding is $333.47 As far as actual applied interest rate, I'm not even sure what that number is, but I would like to know once you figure out, since the interest rate you're being charged is most definitely 13.69%.",
"You need to solve the money-weighted return equation. It cannot be expressed as a formula for the interest, but it can be solved numerically as shown here. Using the OP's figures, with monthly withdrawals of $100,000. The summation for the withdrawals can be replaced with the standard annuity formula. The resulting monthly return is converted to a nominal annual return compounded monthly. Money-weighted return equation with start and end balances s0 and s1 The interest is 2.63282 % per annum, nominal compounded monthly. Selectable equation",
"It's all about the question's wording. Here they are saying interest is 1.25% *per month* - not per year. This is why in your earlier post, I encouraged you to internalize what P/Y and C/Y mean in the solver. It's best to think of things in terms of *per period of time*. I hope this helps, but more practice certainly will.",
"I have a discounted cash flow that's monthly. My annualized discount rate is 8%. 1)What is the formula to turn the annualized rate into a monthly rate? 2)What is the formula to find out the NPV of monthly cash flows? For example, if I get $1000, $2000, and $3000 in months 1, 2, and 3, how do I calculate how much each of those are equal to as a present value if the annual discount rate is 8%?",
"Annualize quarterly returns: AR = (1+QR)^4 Where *QR* is a decimal return, e.g. 0.05. Standard deviations are similar: Annual SD = SD * sqrt(T) If you have quarterly deviations, *T=4*, if you have daily, *T=252*, etc. As an aside, for work with money riding on it, it is *not* okay to aggregate standard deviations if there's autocorrelation amongst observations at a smaller time scale. Volatility is often quoted this way and that's fine, but it is dangerous to do any sort of risk management with this and you'll require more due diligence. It's a good enough approximation for napkin math, though.",
"It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.",
"\"Banks have to disclose up front the Annual Percentage Rate or interest rate that will be charged if you have an outstanding balance on a credit card. However, the APR of 19.9% is not charged all at once. For example if you had a $100 dollar balance on your credit card you would not be charged 19.9% interest or 19.90 making your new balance 119.90. Instead you would be charged the periodic rate which is one month's interest. You can easily calculate the period rate by dividing the APR by 12. So, 19.9% equals 1.65833% per month. This means if you had a $100 balance you would be charged 1.65833% interest or 1.66 making your new balance 101.66. Ask the bank or look on the website for a document called \"\"Cardholders Agreement\"\". If you can't find a link ask them for a copy so you can read all the fine print ahead of time.\"",
"I have answered your question in detail here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12396422/apr-calculation-formula The annuity formula in FDIC document is at first finding PVIFAD present value annuity due factor and multiplying it with annuity payment and then dividing it by an interest factor of (1+i) to reduce the annuity to an ordinary annuity with end of period payments They could have simply used PVIFA and multiplying it with annuity payment to find the present value of an ordinary annuity In any case, you should not follow the directions in FDIC document to find interest rate at which the present value of annuity equals the loan amount. The method they are employing is commonly used by Finance Professors to teach their students how to find internal rate of return. The method is prone to lengthy trial and error attempts without having any way of knowing what rate to use as an initial guess to kick off the interest rate calculations So this is what I would suggest if you are not short on time and would like to get yourself familiar with numerical methods or iterative techniques to find internal rate of return There are way too many methods at disposal when it comes to finding interest rates some of which include All of the above methods use a seed value as a guess rate to start the iterative calculations and if results from successive calculations tend to converge within a certain absolute Error bound, we assume that one of the rates have been found as there may be as many rates as the order of the polynomial in this case 36 There are however some other methods that help find all rates by making use of Eigenvalues, but for this you would need a lengthy discourse of Linear Algebra One of the methods that I have come across which was published in the US in 1969 (the year I was born :) ) is called the Jenkins Traub method named after the two individuals who worked jointly on finding a solution to all roots of a polynomial discarding any previous work on the same subject I been trying to go over the Jenkins Traub algorithm but am having difficulty understanding the complex nature of the calculations required to find all roots of the polynomial In summary you would be better of reading up on this site about the Newton Raphson method to find IRR",
"The periodic rate (here, the interest charged per month), as you would enter into a finance calculator is 9.05%. Multiply by 12 to get 108.6% or calculate APR at 182.8%. Either way it's far more than 68%. If the $1680 were paid after 365 days, it would be simple interest of 68%. For the fact that payment are made along the way, the numbers change. Edit - A finance calculator has 5 buttons to cover the calculations: N = number of periods or payments %i = the interest per period PV = present value PMT = Payment per period FV= Future value In your example, you've given us the number of periods, 12, present value, $1000, future value, 0, and payment, $140. The calculator tells me this is a monthly rate of 9%. As Dilip noted, you can compound as you wish, depending on what you are looking for, but the 9% isn't an opinion, it's the math. TI BA-35 Solar. Discontinued, but available on eBay. Worth every cent. Per mhoran's comment, I'll add the spreadsheet version. I literally copied and pasted his text into a open cell, and after entering the cell shows, which I rounded to 9.05%. Note, the $1000 is negative, it starts as an amount owed. And for Dilip - 1.0905^12 = 2.8281 or 182.8% effective rate. If I am the loanshark lending this money, charging 9% per month, my $1000 investment returns $2828 by the end of the year, assuming, of course, that the payment is reinvested immediately. The 108 >> 182 seems disturbing, but for lower numbers, even 12% per year, the monthly compounding only results in 12.68%",
"\"The author is using an approximation to what you have exactly, which is called a \"\"true\"\" time-weighted rate of return. You have expressed the total time-weighted return for the period in question. In order to express this as an annual rate, you may annualize it by adding one, raising to the 1/y power, and subtracting one again, for a period of y years. The alternative to a time-weighted return is a money-weighted return, which is actually another name for the internal rate of return.\"",
"Technically you should take the quarterly dividend yield as a fraction, add one, take the cube root, and subtract one (and then multiple by the stock price, if you want a dollar amount per share rather than a rate). This is to account for the fact that you could have re-invested the monthly dividends and earned dividends on that reinvestment. However, the difference between this and just dividing by three is going to be negligible over the range of dividend rates that are realistically paid out by ordinary stocks.",
"I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%). Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above.",
"3% in a year. 3% a month would be an enormously high interest rate.",
">I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%). I know it was wrong, so how would you approach it? >Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above. All the relevant details I received for the case are here. What other info are you looking for?",
"I was typing up a long response and lost it to a backspace.. so, I apologize but I don't intend on rewriting it all. You'll have to use a method called bootstrapping to get the forward rates. Essentially you're looking at the spot rate today, and the forward rates, then filling in what must be the rate to make them equal out in the end. Sorry I'm not more help!",
"\"The libor swap rates show the fixed rate you would have to pay if you entered into a swap agreement where you received the floating 3-month libor rate. From the link in your question: Two Year: 0.478 Three Year: 0.549 Five Year: 0.842 For example, if I wanted to enter into a two year interest rate swap I would have to pay a fixed rate of 0.478 % for two years and in return I would receive interest payments based on the 3-month LIBOR rate (currently 0.4551 %). My interest payments would be fixed while the money I received from the swap would be variable based on the 3-month libor rate. \"\"Mid-market\"\" refers to the value halfway between highest bid and the lowest offer. Semi-annual means the swap settles interest payments every 6 months.\"",
"Question is, what is this number 0.01140924 13.69/12=0.01140924 In addition, how does one come out with the EIR as 13.69% pa? When calculating payments, PV = 9800, N=36 (months), PMT=333.47, results in a rate of 1.140924% per period, and rate of 13.69%/yr. No idea how they claim 7.5% In Excel, type =RATE(36,333.47,-9800,0,0) And you will get 1.141% as the result. 36 = #payments, 333.47 = payment per period, -9800 is the principal (negative, remember this) And the zeros are to say the payments are month end, second zero is the guess. Edit - I saw the loan is from a Singapore bank. It appears they have different rules on the rates they quote. As quid's answer showed the math, here's the bank's offer page - The EIR is the rate that we, not just US, but most board members, are used to. I thought I'd offer an example using a 30 year mortgage. Yo can see above, a 6% fixed rate somehow morphs into a 3.86% AR. No offense to the Singapore bankers, but I see little value in this number. What surprises me most, is that I've not seen this before. What's baffling is when I change a 15yr term the AP drops to less than half. It's still a 6% loan and there's nothing about it that's 2 percent-ish, in my opinion. Now we know.",
"\"Yes if and only if you properly use P/Y and C/Y. For your familiarity, I recommend also trying it with I = 7.56% / 12, and P/Y and C/Y = 1. I like to think of P/Y and C/Y as \"\"per period\"\" and prefer to divide the interest rate by the number of periods per year, but so long as you keep everything coherent in the solver, you will get the correct answer with both approaches.\"",
"If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.",
"If it's number of years and the interest is per-annum the formula is the same as the normal one. this should work on most hand-held calculators.",
"You need the Present Value, not Future Value formula for this. The loan amount or 1000 is paid/received now (not in the future). The formula is $ PMT = PV (r/n)(1+r/n)^{nt} / [(1+r/n)^{nt} - 1] $ See for example http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/financial/loan-calculator.php With PV = 1000, r=0.07, n=12, t=3 we get PMT = 30.877 per month",
"Today's rate is 23.21 bps. I'm going to list years forward, spot rate, forward rate. 1, 30.27, 61.77 2, 63.64, 155.73 3, 107.15, 228.04 4, 143.16, 266.31 5, 172.55, 290.12 These are bids, but mids are all within a basis point",
"R = I ^ P R = return (2 means double) I = (Intrest rate / 100) + 1 [1.104 = 10.4%] P = number of periods (7 years) 2 = 1.104 ^ 7 (you double your money in seven years with a yearly Intrest rate of 10.4%) I = R^(1/P) 1.104 = 2^(1/7) P = log(R) / log(I) 7 = log(2) / log(1.104)",
"Interest rates are always given annually, to make them comparable. If you prefer to calculate the rate or the total interest for the complete time, like 10 years or 15 years or 30 years, it is simple math, and it tells you the total you will pay, but it is not helpful for picking the better or even the right offer for your situation. Compare it to your car's gas mileage- what sense does it make to provide the information that a car will use 5000 gallons of gas over its lifetime? Is that better than a car that uses 6000 gallons (but may live 2 years longer?)",
"\"I could not figure out a good way to make XIRR work since it does not support arrays. However, I think the following should work for you: Insert a column at D and call it \"\"ratio\"\" (to be used to calculate your answer in column E). Use the following equation for D3: =1+(C3-B3-C2)/C2 Drag that down to fill in the column. Set E3 to: =(PRODUCT(D$3:D3)-1)*365/(A3-A$2) Drag that down to fill in the column. Column E is now your annual rate of return.\"",
"Interest per month is 12th root of annual interest, or a multiplier of about 1.0327%. At end of 1st month, you start with $0, add interest on $0, and add $600, getting $600. 2nd month: start with $600, add 0.0327% interest plus $600, getting $1219.62. 3rd: balance plus interest plus deposit yields $1859.50 Repeat ad nauseam. Easier with a spreadsheet or a bit of trivial programming. Or you can try to re-derive the formulas, but that is left as an exercise for the student.",
"\"I was afraid of this. If you are using 12 P/Y and 12 C/Y, then your interest rate should not be divided by 12. Also, you should use \"\"END\"\" as this means monthly payments are made at the end of the month - a usual default.\"",
"Perhaps there is no single formula that accounts for all the time intervals, but there is a method to get formulas for each compound interest period. You deposit money monthly but there is interest applied weekly. Let's assume the month has 4 weeks. So you added x in the end of the first month, when the new month starts, you have x money in your account. After one week, you have x + bx money. After the second week, you have x + b(x + bx) and so on. Always taking the previous ammount of money and multiplying it by the interest (b) you have. This gives you for the end of the second month: This looks complicated, but it's easy for computers. Call it f(0), that is: It is a function that gives you the ammount of money you would obtain by the end of the second month. Do you see that the future money inputs are given with relation to the previous ones? Then we can do the following, for n>1 (notice the x is the end of the formula, it's the deposit of money in the end of the month, I'm assuming it'll pass through the compound interest only in the first week of the next month): And then write: There is something in mathematics called recurrence relation in which we can use these two formulas to produce a simplified one for arbitrary b and n. Doing it by hand would be a bit complicated, but fortunately CASes are able to do it easily. I used Wolfram Mathematica commands: And it gave me the following formula: All the work you actually have to do is to figure out what will be f(0) and then write the f(n) for n>0 in terms of f(n-1). Notice that I used the command FullSimplify in my code, Mathematica comes with algorithms for simplyfing formulas so if it didn't find something simpler, you probably won't find it by yourself! If the code looks ugly, it's because of Mathematica clipboard formatting, in the software, it looks like this: Notice that I wrote the entire formula for f(0), but as it's also a recurrence relation, it can be written as: That is: f(0)=g(4). This should give you much simpler formulas to apply in this method.",
"In this case, it looks like the interest is simply the nominal daily interest rate times number of days in the period. From that you can use a spreadsheet to calculate the total payment by trial and error. With the different number of days in each period, any formula would be very complicated. In the more usual case where the interest charge for each period is the same, the formula is: m=P*r^n*(r-1)/(r^n-1) where * is multiplication ^ is exponentiation / is division (Sorry, don't know if there's a way to show formulas cleanly on here) P=original principle r=growth factor per payment period, i.e. interest rate + 100% divided by 100, e.g. 1% -> 1.01 n=number of payments Note the growth factor above is per period, so if you have monthly payments, it's the rate per month. The last payment may be different because of rounding errors, unequal number of days per period, or other technicalities. Using that formula here won't give the right answer because of the unequal periods, but it should be close. Let's see: r=0.7% times an average of 28.8 days per period gives 20.16% + 1 = 1.2016. n=5 P=500 m=500*1.2016^5*(1.2016-1)/(1.2016^5-1) =167.78 Further off than I expected, but ballpark.",
"If your APR is quoted as nominal rate compounded monthly, the APR is 108.6 %. Here is the calculation, (done in Mathematica ). The sum of the discounted future payments (p) are set equal to the present value (pv) of the loan, and solved for the periodic interest rate (r). Details of the effective interest rate calculation can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_interest_rate#Calculation",
"The interest payments received in an account depend both upon on how interest is accrued, as well as how it is paid. The annual interest statement indicates how often interest is paid. It does not, however, indicate how that interest is calculated or accrued. Commonly in this type of account in Canada, the interest is calculated monthly based on the lowest balance you had for that month. If you need specifics, you should check with your financial institution, or check the fine print of the account in question. Good Luck",
"You've got the right idea, except that the stated interest rate is normalized for a 1-year investment. Hence if you buy a 4-week bill, you're getting something closer to 4/52 of what you've computed in your question. More precisely, the Treasury uses a 360 day year for these calculations, so you multiply the stated rate by (number of days until maturity)/360 to get the actual rate of return.",
"\"Something I found helpful when I learned this, is to just use Excel to expand the series. So start with A1 as \"\"175\"\", then in A2 put \"\"=175+(A1*1.004308)\"\" and paste that same formula down for a few hundred rows. You'll find your answer on A216. Most non-math-centric people don't have an intuitive grasp of how exponents (aka \"\"compounding\"\"... and never mind the natural logarithms this is all derived from) behave; but you can play with the numbers \"\"unrolled\"\" in Excel to get a better idea of how they work. That formula is just applying 0.4308% interest every period (row), and adding in a fresh $175.\"",
"\"19500 - The balance isn't held all month. It's held on average for half a month (assuming the days money was spent was randomly distributed). 260/(1.5% - 4%/(24)) Edit: That answer only works if they pay off their balance at the end of the month - 260/(1.5% - 4%*(3/24)) gives 26000 if the average balance is held for a month and a half. But either way, leaving out the \"\"half a month\"\" results in a messy number.\"",
"Using the standard loan formula with 21% APR nominal, compounded weekly. Calculate an adjusted loan start value by adding 31 - 7 = 24 extra days of daily interest (by converting the nominal compounded weekly rate to a daily rate). For details see Converting between compounding frequencies Applying the standard formula r (pv)/(1 - (1 + r)^-n) = 189.80 So every weekly payment will be 189.80 Alternatively Directly arriving at the same result by using the loan formula described here, The extension x is 31 - 7 = 24 daily fractions of an average week (where 7 daily fractions of an average week equal one average week). As before, the weekly payment will be 189.80 Both methods are effectively the same calculation.",
"This looks correct to me, for simple interest. If you are dealing with compound interest, the formula would be: So, A = 500000(1+0.036/365)^(30), or 501,481.57, or an interest of 1481.57, assuming the 3.6% is the annual nominal interest rate and it is compounded daily. Note that you are ignoring the depreciation and also ignoring the percentage of customers who will forfeit their debt in the 30 - 60 day period.",
"**Using your Time Value of Money functions on your calculator** N = 3x2 = 6 PV = -914 PMT = (.16 x 1000)/2 = 80 FV = 1000 Compute I/Y Or **Step by step calculations** 1) Compute the PV of **(FV of Bond)**1000 in **(3x2)**6 periods at **(16%/2)**8% with no payments 2) Compute the PV of an Annuity of **(.16/2x1000)**$80 payments over **(3x2)**6 periods with an interest rate of **(16%/2)**8% and 0 Future Value 3) Combine the values from Steps 1 and 2",
"It depends on your bank and the details in the agreement, but typically, interest is calculated daily. So if you borrow 1000 EUR for 1 day, you pay 15% * 1000 EUR * 1/360 = 42 Cent (41.666667 cent to be exact). You can simply multiply these 42 cent up with the number of days you plan and the number of 1000s EUR. Note that weekend days count too, even if you cannot pay them back on the weekend. The exact value will be very slightly different, as the interest is added monthly to the principal, and there is compound interest on the interest. Banks also often consider all months 30 days long for interest calculations.",
"The calculation can be made on the basis that the loan is equal to the sum of the repayments discounted to present value. (For more information see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity.) With Deriving the loan formula from the simple discount summation. As you can see, this is the same as the loan formula given here. In the UK and Europe APR is usually quoted as the effective interest rate while in the US it is quoted as a nominal rate. (Also, in the US the effective APR is usually called the annual percentage yield, APY, not APR.) Using the effective interest rate finds the expected answer. The total repayment is £30.78 * n = £1108.08 Using a nominal interest rate does not give the expected answer.",
"\"Yes, the \"\"effective\"\" and \"\"market\"\" rates are interchangeable. The present value formula will help make it possible to determine the effective interest rate. Since the bond's par value, duration, and par interest rate is known, the coupon payment can be extracted. Now, knowing the price the bond sold in the market, the duration, and the coupon payment, the effective market interest rate can be extracted. This involves solving large polynomials. A less accurate way of determining the interest rate is using a yield shorthand. To extract the market interest rate with good precision and acceptable accuracy, the annual coupon derived can be divided by the market price of the bond.\"",
"In this case the market interest rate is the discount rate that sets equal the market price (current value) of the bond to its present value. To find the market interest rate which is also referred to as promised yield YTM you would have solve for the interest rate in the bond price formula A market price of bond is the sum of discounted coupons and the terminal value of the bond. Most spreadsheet programs and calculators have a RATE function that makes possible finding this market interest rate. First see this for finding a coupon paying bond price The coupon payments are discounted so is the par value of the bond and sum of such discounts is the market price of the bond. The TVM functions in Excel and calculators make this possible using the following equation Let us take your data, 9% $100,000 coupon with 5 years remaining to maturity with market interest rate of 10%. Bonds issued in the US mostly pay two coupons per year. Thus we are finding the present value of 10 coupons each worth $4500 and par value of $100,000. The semi-annual market interest rate is 10%/2 or 5% The negative sign indicate money going out of hand Now solving for RATE is only possible using numerical methods and the RATE function is programmed using Newton-Raphson method to find one of the roots of the bond price equation. This rate will be the periodic rate in this case semi-annual rate which you have to multiply by 2 to get the annual rate. Do remember there is a difference between annual nominal rate and an annualized effective rate. To find the market interest rate If you don't have Excel or a financial calculator then you may opt to use my version of these financial functions in this JavaScript library tadJS",
"\"The \\^ symbol means exponentiation. You're multiplying by 216 instead. So rephrasing that in Excel functions (without just using \"\"=FV(0.004308,216,-175)\"\"), you'd have \"\"=((POWER(1.004308,216)-1)/0.004308)*175\"\". Note that I originally mentioned the difference between .004308 and 0.0517/12 because it makes roughly a $2.56 difference in the answer.\"",
"There's no standard formula. You can compare the going rates on the market for unsecured LOCs and take that as the starting anchor. Unsecured lines of credit run in the US at about 8-18%. Your risk should be reflected in the rate, and I see no reason why the rate would change throughout the loan. As to the amount of principal changing? Just chose one of the standard compounding options - daily (most precise, but most tedious to calculate), monthly average balance, etc.",
"The MWRR that you showed in your post is calculated incorrectly. The formula that you use... ($15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000) / ($15,000 + 0.5 x $4,000) Translates into a form of the DIETZ formula of (EMV-BMV-C)/(BMV + .5 x C) The BMV is the STARTING balance. And as a matter of fact, the starting balance was NOT 15,000. It was IN FACT 11,000. See, the starting value for a month MUST BE the ending value of the prior month. So the BMV of 11,000 would give you the correct answer. Because if you added 4,000 at the start of the month (on day 1), it would have to have been ADDED to the 11,000 of the PRIOR month's ENDING value. Make sense? That would also mean that the addition of 4000 to the 11000 would imply that you started day 1 with 11,000. Make sense? Summary: When doing the calculations, you may use the ending value on the last day of the month to get your EMV. BUT YOU MAY NOT take the ending value on day 1 to get the BMV. That simply can not make sense since you already added a bunch of money during the day. Think about it. Davie",
"\"I really does depend on the bank. Here is a fairly typical page on interest calculations. The key phrase is: Interest is calculated on each day's final balance and paid monthly. So at the end of each day the amount of interest is calculated for that day, based on how much is in the account. At the end of the month the amount of interest for each day is totalled, and added to the account balance. That calculation is extremely similar to duffbeer703's \"\"compound monthly using the average balance for the month\"\", provided the account doesn't have tiered interest rates and the balance doesn't go negative. The software that banks use is easily sophisticated enough to handle that kind of calculation. Your bank should be able to give you a statement of exactly how the interest is calculated.\"",
"This is of course using 'new math'. Namely, if I lend you $100 and you keep it for a month, I've lent you $100. In fact, if I loan you $100 for a year I've loaned you $100. But if I lend you $100 overnight, you pay me back in the morning, I lend you $100 overnight, you pay me back in the morning and we repeat that for a month, I've supposedly lent you $3,000. That's some interesting math for sure.",
"You probably want the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return which is the compound interest rate that would produce your return. You can compute it in a spreadsheet with XIRR(), I made an example: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvuTW2HtDQfYdEsxVlM0RFdrRk1QS1hoNURxZkVFN3c&hl=en You can also use a financial calculator, or there are probably lots of web-based calculators such as the ones people have mentioned.",
"A lease payment is composed of an interest portion (borrowed money) and depreciation amount (purchase - residual). The Monthly payment is then Monthly Interest Cost + Monthly Depreciation Cost The Money Factor is used to estimate the amount of interest due in a single month of a lease so you can figure out the monthly payment. If you are borrowing $100,000 then over the entire loan of repayment from a balance of $100,000 to a balance of $0, the average amount you owed was $50,000 (1/2 of principal). You are repaying this loan monthly (1/12 of a year) and percents are expressed as decimals (1/100). 6 * 1/2 (for principal) * 1/12 (for monthly) * 1/100 (to convert percentage from 6% to .06) = 6 * 1/2400. 2400 is the product of 3 consecutive conversion (1/2 * 1/12 * 1/100) to convert from an interest rate to a money factor. 6/2400 = Money factor of 0.0025 which can be multiplied against the total amount being borrowed to know what the monthly interest would roughly equal. Some Money Factor info: https://www.alphaleasing.com/resources/articles/MoneyFactor.asp",
"From here The formula is M = P * ( J / (1 - (1 + J)^ -N)). M: monthly payment RESULT = 980.441... P: principal or amount of loan 63963 (71070 - 10% down * 71070) J: monthly interest; annual interest divided by 100, then divided by 12. .00275 (3.3% / 12) N: number of months of amortization, determined by length in years of loan. 72 months See this wikipedia page for the derivation of the formula",
"This calculation arrives at the correct answer. However, it uses the formula for an annuity due. This means the payments are made at the beginning of the month and the last month of the 10 year period has interest accrued. See the section, Calculating the Future Value of an Annuity Due. The rate is given as an effective rate. with In Excel, =FV((1+0.12)^(1/12)-1,120,3500,0,1)",
"TWRR = (2012Q4 x 2013Q1 x 2013Q2) ^ (1/3) = ?? (1.1 * .809 * 1.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 or 4.7% return. No imaginary numbers needed. But. Your second line there is wrong $15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000 ? The $15K already contains the $4k, why did you subtract it again? This a homework problem?",
"Well, what you are asking is EMI, which comes to 30.78 in your case. The formula you are applying is of compounding a value, which is completely different. In EMI, person keeps paying money every month or any other period as specified. This amount is firstly allocated towards the interest for the period and the balance for principal amount. So, in effect principal keeps decreasing and subsequently interest thereon. Also, since, interest is getting paid every time it becomes due, compounding actually do not happen at all. In the case of compounding, interest gets applied at certain interval, but do not get paid. So, in effect every time when interest gets applied, it applies on complete Principal outstanding as well as interest unpaid. Hence, this complete amount gets payable at the end. In this case, total amount payable is obviously high, because of 2 reasons: 1. Since, Principal gets unpaid during whole period, you are paying interest on complete amount for complete period. 2. You will be paying interest on interest (compounding of interest) since you are not paying it as it is becoming due. Hence, both are different. You need to find EMI calculator or EMI formula, to achieve your purpose. EDIT: The formula for calculating EMI: Assuming a loan of Rs. 1 lakh at 9 % per annum, repayable in 15 years, the EMI calculation using the formula will be: EMI = (1,00,000 × 0.0075) × [(1 + 0.0075) 180 ÷ {(1+0.0075) 180 } - 1] = 750 × [3.838 ÷ 2.838] = 750 × 1.35236 = 1,014",
"The equation for the payment is This board does not support Latex (the number formatting code) so the above is an image, the code is M is the payment calculated, n is the number of months or periods to pay off, and i is the rate per period. You can see that with i appearing 3 times in this equation, it's not possible to isolate to the form i=.... so a calculator will 'guess,' and use, say, 10%. It then raises or lowers the rate until the result is within the calculator's tolerance. I've observed that unlike other calculations, when you hit the button to calculate, a noticeable time lag occurs. I hope I haven't read too much into your question, it seemed to me this was what you asked.",
"Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.",
"If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.",
"The interest in your account is usually calculated based on the average monthly balance. What the bank will do is try to figure out how much money did you have on average over the month and give you interest on that amount. For example, if you had 10k on deposit and took it out half way through the month, you will still receive interest on about 5k, based on a monthly rate. What I would do is read in detail your agreement with the bank to figure out if your interest is based on an average annual balance and is paid at the end of the year or if it is based on a different measurement. Also, I would be very careful if this is a CD account, since they will have early withdrawal fees. Hope this helps.",
"The formula for determining the number of payments (months) you'll need to make on your loan is: where i=monthly interest rate (annual rate / 12), A=loan amount (principal), and P=monthly payment. To determine the total interest that you will pay, you can use the following formula: where P=monthly payment, N=number of payments (from above formula), and A=loan amount (principal). A quick example: using the numbers in the screenshot above ($10,000 loan, $500 monthly payment, 10% APR), the number of payments ends up to be 21.97 (which means that payment number 22 is slightly less than the rest). In the second formula, you take that number times your $500 payment and determine that you have paid $10,984.81 over the course of the entire loan period. Subtracting the principal, you have paid $984.81 in total interest. On your spreadsheet, the function you are looking for is NPER: NPER(rate, payment_amount, present_value, [future_value, end_or_beginning]) rate - The interest rate. (This should be the monthly rate, or the annual rate divided by 12.) payment_amount - The amount of each payment made. (For a loan payment, this should be a negative number.) present_value - The current value of the annuity. (The initial principal of the loan) future_value - [ OPTIONAL ] - The future value remaining after the final payment has been made. (This should be 0, the default if omitted.) end_or_beginning - [ OPTIONAL - 0 by default ] - Whether payments are due at the end (0) or beginning (1) of each period.",
"If it's anything IG that's likely an annualized figure. I previously sold CP over short term windows at 1% annualized. Else, it would generate a high long term gain, but you need to weigh a variety of factors versus gains, particularly if you're investing any meaningful sum of money. I'm not a bond trader. Unless it's some kind of payday loan...",
"Nine years of investment would span Jan 1 2007 to Jan 1 2016. Taking the following valuation dates with The annual effective interest rate is 4.268 %",
"Are you geometrically linking the spot rates for each spot period over of the next year? I.e. are you looking at the spot strip, or just taking today's spot rate and annualizing it? If you are looking at the spot strip, then a YTM for a bond maturing in one year should equal the return from investing in rolling one month spot rates for the next year - more or less. If this variance is large, then there is scope for arbitrage.",
"It's easiest to get your payment from the PMT function in Excel or Google Sheets. So a $100,000 30 year mortgage at 3% looks like this: The basic calculation is pretty simple. You take the annual interest rate, say 3%, divided by 12, times the existing principal balance: The idea is that borrowers would like to have a predictable payment. The earlier payments are proportionally more interest than principal than later payments are but that's because there is much more principal outstanding on month 1 than on month 200.",
"\"To calculate the balance (not just principal) remaining, type into your favorite spreadsheet program: It is important that the periods for \"\"Periods\"\" and \"\"Rate\"\" match up. If you use your annual rate with quarterly periods, you will get a horribly wrong answer. So, if you invest $1000 today, expect 6% interest per year (0.5% interest per month), withdraw $10 at the end of each month, and want to know what your investment balance will be 2 years (24 months) from now, you would type: And you would get a result of $872.84. Or, to compute it manually, use the formula found here by poster uart: This is often taught in high-school here as a application of geomentric series. The derivation goes like this. Using the notation : r = 1 + interest_rate_per_term_as_decimal p = present value a = payment per term eot1 denotes the FV at end of term 1 etc. eot1: rp + a eot2: r(rp + a) + a = r^2p + ra + a eot3: r(r^2p + ra + a) + a = r^3p + r^2a + ra + a ... eotn: r^np + (r^(n-1) + r^(n-2) + ... 1)a = p r^n + a (r^n - 1)/(r-1) That is, FV = p r^n + a (r^n - 1)/(r-1). This is precisely what exel [sic] computes for the case of payments made at the end of each term (payment type = 0). It's easy enough to repeat the calculations as above for the case of payments made at the beginning of each term. This won't work for changing interest rates or changing withdrawal amounts. For something like that, it would be better for you (if you don't want online calculators) to set up a table in a spreadsheet so you can adjust different periods manually.\"",
"I hope that there are no significant differences between the things you list once the formulas for compounding interest are understood. I will, again, lay out these formulas below. First, definition of the variables: R means Total Return ratio. The sum of all money you get, both dividends (or interest payments) and return of initial capital. I is a ratio. It is the percent (10.4%) divided by 100 (0.104) then added to one (1.104). P means the number of periods in which the interest rate is paid and compounded. R = I^P I = R^(1/P) P = log(R) / log(I) Once you have R you multiply it by the amount of your initial investment to find out how much total money is returned. For simplicity the following amounts are approximate: 2 = 1.104^7 1.104 = 2^(1/7) 7 = log(2) / log(1.104) So to double your money in seven years you need a yearly interest rate of 10.4, if compounded yearly.",
"The formula you need is: M = (r * PV) / (1 - ((1+r)^(-n))) M = monthly payment ($350) r = interest per period (7.56% / 12) = 0.63% n = number of periods (36 months) PV = present value, or here, your max loan amount given M Therefore: $350 = (0.63% * PV) / (1 - ((1+0.63%)^(-36))) The denominator on the right ends up equal to ~ 0.2025 when you do the math in your calculator. Carry that over to the by multiplying both sides of the equation by 0.2025 This results in $70.82 = 0.63% * PV Divide $70.82 by 0.63% to get PV = $11,242 (roughly). Hope this helps explain it algebraically!!",
"\"It means that at the end of each month, the APY, divided by 365 (366 for leap years) is multiplied by your account's ending balance on each day of that month, then those interest amounts are summed up and paid out. It's exactly equivalent to the \"\"Average Daily Balance\"\" method; at the end of each month, the balance of your account on each day is summed, divided by the number of days in the month, then that number is multiplied by the APY / 365 * (number of days in the month). If you write out all these terms and simplify, you'll find the two boil down to exactly the same calculation being performed in different order (possibly with differing potential for rounding error). The only difference between them is whether the daily interest percentage is distributed to each daily balance or applied to the sum, and whether there's an additional redundant pair of steps of dividing and then multiplying by the number of days in the month.\"",
"When you do finance problems the first thing you need to think about is how the interest is accrued. Is it monthly semi annually or yearly? Once you understand the period of time on the interest and payments it’ll help you understand these problems more. Also a good thing to memorize is converting from EAR to APR. and APR to EAR. You’ll use that a lot. Good luck!",
"Since you have the balance at equal periods and the cash flows at the period ends, the best return calculation in this case is the true time-weighted return. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-weighted_return#Formulae So, notwithstanding some ambiguity about your figures, here is a calculation using the first three periods from your second table. Giving a total return over the three periods of -23.88% If the periods are months, multiply by four to annualise.",
"Happy to help. I always recommend you try and solve these types of problems by hand over financial calculators so that you can get a feel for how terms in the equation relate to one another. That's important while you're studying/learning. But for work--by all means you should use the fastest method, which is probably excel.",
"\"The \"\"Actual Applied Rate\"\" of 7.5% is the total amount of interest charged over the life of the loan, $2,204.82, divided by the loan amount divided by three years. This amount is lower than the actual interest rate of 13.69% because interest charges are based on loan principle which reduces over the life of the loan.\"",
"Another, perhaps simpler approach to the same result as @BenMiller. Firstly, if you can pay off the debt today, for 1695.70 cash, then that is the amount of your debt to the hospital. There is no such thing as a discount for cash; just extra money to pay if don't pay immediately. This extra money is called interest, and the hospital is indeed charging you interest. Use any mortgage program to find the interest rate if you pay off a debt of 1695.70 with 60 monthly payments of 37.68. The program should tell you that you are paying 12.64% effective annual interest. If you can earn more than that, after taxes, with your money somewhere else, then invest the cash there and pay off the hospital over time. If you can't, then pay off the debt immediately, and avoid writing 60 cheques. EDIT: Incorrect calculation revised as per @Ben Miller",
"You cannot use continuous compounding for returns less than or equal to 100% because a natural logarithm can only be taken for a positive amount. This answer includes the accurate way to ascertain r, for which many people use an approximation. For example, using -20% monthly return for 12 months:- -0.2 -0.223144 0.0687195 Checking: 0.0687195 True Now trying -100% monthly return:- -1. Indeterminate Why? Because a natural logarithm can only be taken for a positive amount. So the latter calculation can not be done using (logarithmic) continuous compounding. Of course, the calculation can still be done using regular compounding. For -100% the results go to zero in the first month, but -150% produces a more interesting result: -1.5 -11920.9",
"No, it means that each year (Annual Payment Rate) you are accruing interest at 29.8%. If your principal is $10,000, that means you are gaining $3,000 of debt per year in addition to this, excluding payments you make/interest on interest.",
"\"This is the same answer as for your other question, but you can easily do this yourself: ( initial adjusted close / final adjusted close ) ^ ( 1 / ( # of years sampled) ) Note: \"\"# of years sampled\"\" can be a fraction, so the one week # of years sampled would be 1/52. Crazy to say, but yahoo finance is better at quick, easy, and free data. Just pick a security, go to historical prices, and use the \"\"adjusted close\"\". money.msn's best at presenting finances quick, easy, and cheap.\"",
"\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"",
"Damn, helpful Harry above me. So, in general, when compounding the value of an investment, if you're seeing an annualized interest rate of 4%, and the interest compounds monthly (or n number of times per year), you're going to multiply the Principal P by the growth rate (the interest rate), adjusted for the number of periods that your investment grows in a year. P_end = P * (1 + 0.04/n)^(n * t), where n = number of periods, and t = number of years. If the interest compounds annually, you earn P *(1.04), if it compounds monthly, you earn (1 + 0.04/12)^(12 * 1). Apply this logic to discounting future cash flows to their net present value. When discounting future cash flows, you're essentially determing the opportunity cost of now being unable to put your investment elsewhere and earning that corresponding interest (discount) rate. Thus, you would discount $1000 by (1 + 0.08/12)^1, and $2000, $3000 in a similar fashion. Then, as icing on the cake, sum up to get your cumulative net present value. Please let me know if any portion of my explanation is unclear; I would be happy to elaborate!",
"Same question had popped up in our office,and we got an answer from one of the senior colleague. He said that we can call it CARC (Compounded Annual Rate of Change).",
"That's a rearrangement of the fisher equation; which is the correct way to determine real rates. However, people often use the approximation real ≈ nominal - inflation; and if you're doing this for homework on software that is looking for exactly 1 numerical answer, they may be expecting you to use that instead. Real interest rate is less formal nomenclature and refers to using the approximation. Inflation-adjusted return is the equation. In the real world you will use the approximation when you're figuring out a real rate while you're talking mid-sentence during a meeting; and use the equation in spreadsheets/calculations.",
"Part A solution: Assume no turnover in A.: Average Balance * Annual Interest - Average Balance * Annual Cost of funds + Annual Fee = Profit from A Profit From A = Average Balance * Interest Rate - Cost of Funds * Average Balance + Annual Fee So for B here is the sneaky thing, the Average Balance is 1/12 of the Volume... That makes it really simple... Volume * InterChange - Average Balance * Cost of Funds + Annual Fee = Profit From A Volume = 12 x Average Balance So: 12 x Average Balance * Interchange (0.015) - Average Balance * Cost of Funds (0.04) + Annual Fee (Say 50)= Profit From A (260) 0.18* Average Balance - 0.04 * Average Balance = 210 Average Balance = 210/.14 Annual turnover = 12* Average Balance Come @ me bro :p",
"It depends on your bank and your mortgage contract details if they are willing to handle it that way, but you are correct in your assumption that you should be able to save the interest for the twenty days, which accumulates to significant savings. A rough estimate for the overall saving is 20 years x 3% x 20/30 of the days = (one time) 40% of your monthly payment.",
"Two ways to solve this. Look at the answer. If the answer says 3 months, then using ceiling for similar questions. You have to act according to the exam conventions, not according to own feelings. Whether or not the answer is reasonable and applicable in real life is out of the question. Ask yourself, did the investment double after 14 years 2 months? i.e. FV >= 2PV. Does a person who ran 99.72 meters in a 100-meter dash counted as touching the finish line?",
"With the $2000 downpayment and interest rate of 11.5% nominal compounded monthly the monthly payments would be $970.49 As you state, that is a monthly rate of 0.9583% Edit With the new information, taking the standard loan equation where Let Now setting s = 98000, with d = 990.291 solve for r",
"How does compounding of annual interest work? answers this question. It's not simple compound interest. It's a time value of money calculation similar to mortgage calculations. Only the cash flow is the other way, a 'deposit' instead of 'payment'. When using a finance calculator such as the TI-BA35 (Note, it's no longer manufactured, but you can find secondhand. It was the first electronic device I ever loved. Seriously) you enter PV (present value) FV (future value) Int (the interest rate) nPer (number of periods) PMT (payment). For a mortgage, there's a PV, but FV = $0. For you, it's reversed. PMT on this model is a positive number, for you it's negative, the amount you deposit. You also need to account for the fact that a mortgage is paid on day 31, but you start deposits on Day 1. See the other answer (I linked at start) for the equations.",
"\"It appears the interest is not compounded daily. Each period of interest has the loan amount calculated on the \"\"capital\"\" remaining on the start of period, for each day in the period. The Excel finance functions don't handle irregular periods that well, but I can reconstruct the interest calculations:\"",
"The general concept is that your money will grow at an accelerating rate because you start getting interest paid on your returns in addition to the original investment. As a simple example, assume you invest $100 and get 10% interest per year paid annually. -At the end of the first year you have your $100 + $10 interest for a total of $110. -So you start the second year with $110 and so 10% would be $11 for a total of $121. -The third year you start with $121 so 10% would be $12.10 for a total of $133.10 See how the amount it goes up each year increases? If we were talking a higher initial amount or a larger number of years that can really add up. That is essence is compound interest. Most of the complicated looking formulas you see out there for compound interest are just shortcuts so you don't have to iteratively go through the above exercise a bunch of times to find out how much you would have after some number of years. This formula tells you how much you would have(A) after a certain number of years(t) at a given interest rate(r) assuming they pay interest n times per year, for example you would use 12 for n if it paid interest monthly instead of yearly. P represents the amount you started out with. If you keep investing monthly (as shown in your example) instead of just depositing it and letting it sit, you have to use a more complicated formula. Finance people refer to this as calculating the future value of an annuity. That formula looks like this: A = PMT [((1 + r)N - 1) / r] x (1+r) A : Is the amount you would have at the end of the time period. N : The number of compounding periods (months if you get interest calculated monthly) PMT : The total amount you are putting in each period (N) r: Just like before, the interest rate you are getting paid. Be sure to adjust this to a monthly number if N represents months (divide APR by 12)* *Most interest rates are quoted as APR, which is the annualized interest rate not counting compounding. Don't confuse this with APY, which has compounding built into it and is not appropriate for use in this formula. Inserting your example: r (monthly interest rate) = 15% APR / 12 = .0125 n = 30 years * 12 months/year = 360 months A = $150 x [((1 + .0125)360 - 1) / .0125] x (1+.0125) A = $1,051,473.09 (rounded)",
"If you get an INR 1000 discount for paying up front versus paying over six months, you can consider that INR 1000 interest. Your annualized rate comes out to about 14.76%. If you can earn better than 14.76% on that money by using it elsewhere in the mean time, then you should pay over six months. If not, you should pay the whole price up front. You may also elect to pay the interest if you do not have the full amount now, but the use of the phone for the next six months will earn you more than the INR 1000 premium that you pay to defer the full purchase price.",
"See the Mortgage Professor's calculators (#3). Go to bankrate and look up rates so you know what to punch in to those calculators.",
"Since the compounding period and payment period differs (Compounded Daily vs Paid Monthly), you need to find the effective interest rate for one payment period (month). This means that each month you pay 0.33387092772% of the outstanding principal as interest. Then use this formula to find the number of months: Where PV = 21750, Pmt = 220, i = 0.0033387092772 That gives 120 Months. Depending on the day count convention, (30/360 or 30.416/365 or Actual/Actual), the answer may differ slightly. Using Financial Calculator gives extremely similar answer. The total cash paid in the entire course of the loan is 120 x $220 = $26,400",
"If the base rate is USD LIBOR, you can compute this data directly on my website, which uses futures contracts and historical data to create interest rates scenarios for the calculations: http://www.mortgagecalculator3.com/ If your rate index is different, you can still create your own scenarios and check what would happen to your payments.",
"That's a rearrangement of the fisher equation; which is the correct way to determine real rates. However, people often use the approximation real ≈ nominal - inflation; and if you're doing this for homework on software that is looking for exactly 1 numerical answer, they may be expecting you to use that instead. Real interest rate is less formal nomenclature and refers to using the approximation. Inflation-adjusted return is the fisher equation. In the real world you will use the approximation when you're figuring out a real rate while you're talking mid-sentence during a meeting; and use the fisher equation in spreadsheets/calculations.",
"Using the following loan equations where and With the balance b[n] in period n given by Applying the OP's figures Check & demonstration Switching to $96 payment every 10 days, with 365.2422 days per year Paying $96 every 10 days saves $326.85 and pays the loan down 2.68 months quicker.",
"It's not clear the cost of funds is a annual or monthly rate. If it is a monthly rate the answers do not converge and you lose money assuming the customer spending is linear. Let's assume you spent $100 a month (evenly spread out). You generate $1.50 in interchange fees. What's my cost of funds within that month? Subtract that from your interchange fee number. (I think calculus might be the best option for calculating this). There's your notional income off of $100, which can easily be solved for $260/year.",
"It depends on the country and possibly the bank. In the United States, my savings accounts compound monthly, using the average balance for the month. You should have an account agreement or terms document that details how the bank does computations like interest payments."
] |
[
"The formula you're looking for is Thus, from 3% p.a. you get ca. 0.247% per month. However, as you see 0.25% is a good approximation (generally, small rates give good approximation)."
] |
1321
|
Are social media accounts (e.g. YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) considered assets?
|
[
"216456",
"292065"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"216456",
"292065",
"351672",
"593708",
"369884",
"531667",
"559738",
"962",
"192696",
"439231",
"39004",
"442433",
"367558",
"440893",
"50735",
"22263",
"77618",
"466430",
"234834",
"468141",
"100849",
"578725",
"358962",
"96563",
"597742",
"399198",
"90687",
"282208",
"330288",
"241648",
"513362",
"192918",
"381322",
"449997",
"290325",
"278280",
"480732",
"430868",
"92819",
"259108",
"191368",
"231133",
"336742",
"304941",
"555915",
"517726",
"270926",
"482464",
"313509",
"210743",
"424272",
"291949",
"378400",
"318741",
"521823",
"23279",
"41875",
"570285",
"28764",
"261415",
"576673",
"209591",
"83350",
"278538",
"427469",
"293282",
"465802",
"513960",
"586455",
"169370",
"501107",
"62967",
"400641",
"321566",
"526823",
"452743",
"479130",
"186718",
"321969",
"573537",
"213535",
"564117",
"380548",
"217296",
"374887",
"374372",
"210019",
"173132",
"282115",
"523624",
"84117",
"464769",
"501407",
"450381",
"207533",
"552343",
"247809",
"589377",
"235082",
"427202"
] |
[
"Assets with zero value, perhaps. Unless you can prove that they have resale value. Good luck with that. In other words, not worth spending time on.",
"The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.",
"\"This depends on your definitions of assets and liabilities. The word \"\"asset\"\" has a fairly straight forward definition. Generally speaking, an asset in finance is something that you own/control that has economic value. The asset has value because it is generating income for you or because you expect that it will be worth something to someone in the future. \"\"Liability\"\" is tougher to define, and depends on context. In accounting, a liability is a debt or obligation that is owed. It is essentially the opposite of an asset; where an asset represents something of value that you own, increasing your balance sheet, a liability is a value that you owe, decreasing your balance sheet. In that sense, a website or domain name that you own is an asset, not a liability, because it is something you own that has some value. It is not a debt. Many people use the word \"\"liability\"\" informally to refer to a bad asset: something that is losing value or is causing more in expenses than it is generating in income. (See definition #5 on Wiktionary.) With this definition, you might consider a website or a domain name a liability if it is losing money. Alternatively, depending on your business, you might not consider it an asset or a liability, but an expense instead. An expense is a cost of doing business. For example, if your business is selling something, you might need a website to make that happen. The website isn't purchased as an investment, and it might not have any value apart from your business. It is simply a necessary expense for your business.\"",
"You are purchasing an Asset, I believe.",
"They aren't too big to fail. They are in the process of failing right now and have been for the past 2 years. If something doesn't change they are going to be bankrupt very soon. I don't know much about Instagram as I've never used it but I imagine they aren't making money either if all they're doing is hosting images for free. However they probably have some kind of premium plans with more storage options that keeps them afloat. A media storing service can sell that, micro-blogging is worthless tho.",
"\"Nah. You can make a shit tonne of dough from social media!! Build a following for \"\"influencer based marketing\"\" gigs, or use targeted PPC ads to sell products / services. Source: I do sales and marketing stack automation and use social as the largest sales channel for maaaaany companies around the world. It works well.\"",
"\"I've been saying for awhile now, social media is dead. You can't make money from social media. Why anyone thought you could make money from social media is a bizarre mystery. There are only two revenue models in existence currently, subscriptions, and why would anyone pay for service when there's a thousand free sites, and advertising. Advertising on the internet is dead, that means social media as a for-profit industry is dead. And good riddance. Social media is _stupid_. If you want to blog, make a blog. OWN your blog. People can still \"\"follow\"\" it using this amazing technology known as RSS which has been around for a really long time. Facebook and Twitter are both doomed. Neither one makes a dime from their core product, which is micro-blogging. Facebook only makes money because they're an umbrella company that owns a lot of other products. Twitter doesn't make money and is going to vanish in the coming years. I hope this is a lesson to everyone. The internet is not a magical ATM machine, just because you don't know how it works. You still need to create value to create wealth.\"",
"\"If the value of these hard assets is significant you probably have them insured, and for significant art work you should have had them appraised as part of getting them insured. Therefore the process of adding them into the net worth calculation would be trivial. Your goals should be a mix of liquid assets, and assets that are harder to sell, such as real estate. It should also include those items you are more reluctant to sell. In some cases these \"\"investments\"\" do need to be included in official calculations, such as applying for a student loan or financial aid, required financial disclosure statements for some government jobs, or applications for government assistance.\"",
"I think there is a huge difference to what Google does with intangible assets as compared to a company such as Facebook. Facebook floated and as people thought it was highly overvalued the share price plummeted. Google on the other hand has many years of relatively stable growth and share price in a market that is generally pretty well informed. So I disagree.",
"Yeah, lots of value in companies is much less tangible than it used to be. But then i think we put too much faith in tangible value. EG a coal mining company my buddy invested in cos it had so much tangible value; had precisely zero tangible value when it collapsed tho",
"The Dutch Financial Times published an article about how intangible assets are the most important value-determining factor of an organization, however investments, innovation and attention to these assets lack. This is contradicting but shows the challenge as well, because more than 75 percent of the average market value is from intangible assets. The challenge is that these aren’t quantified in financial metrics. Intangible assets consists of human-, organizational- and information capital.",
"Yes and no. There is no actual money involved - just assumed value. Imagine you own a picture that you painted yourself, and all your friends agree it is worth 1000 $. You feel like you have a 1000 $-picture. Now a guy with some more knowledge visits you, and tells you that it is really only worth about a 100 $. Did you just lose 900 $? If yes, where did the money go?",
"Yes, it's considered the students asset, regardless of the custodian aspect. I don't know how you'd propose to put it in a retirement account, even with the earned income to facilitate this, the limit is $5500/yr. The larger issue is parental income. That and parental assets. Tough to game that part of the system to get aid. In the end, one should look to scholarships, both merit and non merit based to maximize college support.",
"In an accounting position, a domain name would fall under an intangible asset. Copyrights and patents are intangible, while tangible assets would be buildings or land (also known as property, plant, and equipment). Noting above, you can list it as an expense for personal reasons, but that would be poor classification. Tangible and intangible assets come with expenses such as legal fees and design. In these instances, you would expense the cost, or fee, but add back that value to the tangible or intangible as it would be considered maintenance. Please read here for tax treatment of a domain name. Please read here for what an intangible asset is. Also read here on page 11 for more clarification by IFRS.",
"You could also look at your growth in online subscribers as a metric for valuing your company. A progressive increase in subscribers is one of the signs of a healthy online business, and vice versa. Your subscriber growth, site visitations, returning customer percentages and other subscriber based metrics should not be ignored when valuing your company.",
"Yes. The real question is whether you should. You should consider your investment options, and take into the account that there's much more hype than value in many companies.",
"\"Believe it or not, unless you directly contact an accountant with experience in this field or a lawyer, you may have a tough time getting a direct answer from a reputable source. The reason is two fold. First, legally defining in-game assets is exceptionally difficult from a legal/taxation stand point. Who really owns this data? You or the company that has built the MMO and manages the servers containing all of the data? You can buy-and-sell what is effectively \"\"data\"\" on their servers but the truth is, they own the code, the servers, the data, your access rights, etc. and at any point in time could terminate everything within their systems. This would render the value of your accounts worthless! As such, most countries have overwhelmingly avoided the taxation of in-game \"\"inventory\"\" because it's not really definable. Instead, in game goods are only taxed when they are exchanged for local currency. This is considered a general sale. There may be tax codes in your region for the sale of \"\"digital goods\"\". Otherwise, it should be taxed as sale a standard good with no special stipulations. The bottom line is that you shouldn't expect to find much reliable information on this topic, on the internet. Law's haven't been welled defined, regarding in-game content worth and taxing of sales and if you want to know how you should pay your taxes on these transactions, you need to talk to a good accountant, a lawyer or both.\"",
"This comment makes zero sense. No one values equities from the balance sheet, unless you're trying to justify why you'd invest in sears or something (i.e. b/s vastly understates market value of real estate holdings and you're hoping for a liquidity event). Certainly not a tech company or really anything as a going concern.",
"He was referring to tech companies. I am referring to old-school companies that haven't missed a dividend payment for 30 years. Anyway Facebook is probably a good bet – they have an even trying to monetize it other than to cover costs. Let someone else bet on that. it turns out that a lot of people open accounts and are active for about the first 30 days and that's it. But the accounts remain on the books. Linkedin – talk about worst in breed. Anyway, I still don't know what Facebook has that MySpace didn't.",
"To understand the answer we first have to understand what Goodwill is. Goodwill in a companies balance sheet is an intangible asset that represents the extra value because of a strong brand name, good customer relations, good employee relations and any patents or proprietary technology. An article from The Economist explains this very well and actually talks about Time Warner directly - The goodwill, the bad and the ugly When one firm buys another, the target’s goodwill—essentially the premium paid over its book value—is added to the combined entity’s balance-sheet. Goodwill and other intangibles on the books of companies in the S&P 500 are valued at $2.6 trillion, or 10% of their total assets, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs. As the economy deteriorates and more firms trade down towards (or even below) their book value, empire-builders are having to mark down the value of assets they splashed out on in rosier times. A recently announced $25 billion goodwill charge is expected to push Time Warner into an operating loss for 2008, for instance. Michael Moran of Goldman Sachs thinks such hits could amount to $200 billion or more over the cycle. Investors have so far paid little attention to intangibles, but as write-downs proliferate they are likely to become increasingly wary of industries with a high ratio of goodwill to assets, such as health care, consumer goods and telecoms. How bad things get will depend on the beancounters. American firms used to be allowed to amortise goodwill over many years. Since 2002, when an accounting-rule change ended that practice, goodwill has had to be tested every year for impairment. In this stormy environment, with auditors keener than ever to avoid being seen to go easy on clients, companies are being told to mark down assets if there is any doubt about their value. The sanguine point out that this has no effect on cashflow, since such charges are non-cash items. Moreover, some investors take goodwill write-offs with a pinch of salt, preferring to look past such non-recurring costs and accept the higher “normalised” earnings numbers to which managers understandably cling. The largest companies are thus able to survive thumping blows that might otherwise floor them, such as the $99 billion loss that the newly formed but ill-conceived AOL Time Warner, as it then was, reported for 2002. But the impact can be all too real, as write-downs reduce overall book value and increase leverage ratios, a particular concern in these debt-averse times.",
"Good points. I'm sure twitter has data on the value of Trumps account, but IMO the data for how much value Trump keeps away from Twitter is much less readily available. Anecdotally, I know many people that have either not gotten a twitter account or quit using the service altogether because of him. And I live in a red state. I'd think if the investors proved the economic value of the account was actually damaging to twitter user growth, they could have a case. One way would be to see where people are going for news, or creating new accounts, or time spent on the platform vs others like Facebook.",
"You don't. My budget for the year takes my gross income and nets out tax, spending, etc to account for every dollar. My assets (and the target of the savings during the year) are a balance sheet item. The sum already there isn't part of each year's budget.",
"\"It's a certified accountant who has passed the CPA exam in order to hold the designation. If you don't pay taxes on your income, you'll be completely fucked down the line. If you're self reporting and it's not automatically deducted, definitely speak to a CPA. They may even recommend filing taxes quarterly. The sub you're using is more for high finance and capital markets, I'd suggest /r/personalfinance for your situation. Also, far be it from me to say, because $2k/mo is great for an 18 year old who is presumably in college, but you won't get in trouble as long as you pay taxes. If you mean in a long-term sense of financial stability, yeah that could be bad. $24k is absolutely amazing now and if being hot on instagram can pay for your college, then 100000% do it, that's fucking awesome. Just make sure to get a degree because if you're still only making $24k in your mid 20's, yes you could be in \"\"trouble\"\" as in dire financial straits. That's not much to live off of when you finally have lots of bills to pay.\"",
"\"Today sure, but that market is similar to day trading in it's volatility. It's great for individuals to make some money in the short term but it's not a good product to build a company around. Especially since the corporate giants already own the entire marketplace. And you need to take seriously that they have a 50/50 success/fail rate. Facebook is succeeding, Twitter is failing. That's not an indication of stability. Anyway you need to understand the technology and the consumer marketplace to really know what you're talking about and I suspect you don't. No offense intended. I've been using the internet since before computers were \"\"cool\"\" and I do know what I'm talking about.\"",
"Activists generally take stakes larger than 2% and have a lot of experience in influencing boards; there's also a self-fulfilling prophecy where successful activists are known to be successful and so, other investors tend to support their suggestions. Furthermore, activist investors often fail to advance their policies and give up. In any case, making shareholders happy only matters as far as preventing them from actually putting together a solid proxy challenge -- professional activist investors with solid economic arguments can make a credible threat of that whereas activists with non-economic goals present a much less credible threat. Additionally, you say the demand is so low but IMO, Trump using Twitter keeps it in the news and prevents it from sliding even further into irrelevance. I suspect the value of that one account is greater than their whole marketing budget. Think not just of Trump but of people retweeting, rebutting, arguing, etc -- that whole ecosystem is huge! I'd imagine that if Trump announced tomorrow that he's no longer using Twitter and instead will post on Facebook or Instagram or whatever, Twitter's stock would slide by 10% at least.",
"How and why is this considered fair (and/or legal)? Let's use an analogy. The issue is not fairness, it is just the rules. The assets you own and the cash you receive are reported differently. If the rules don't make sense, I suggest you hire an adviser that can teach you and help you get the most out of your investments.",
"Technically it's an asset - a note you hold and your friend promised to repay you.",
"Mining is income at the value at time of earning, I would use an index like XBX to determine price. Asset appreciation is capital gains. These aspects of crypto-assets are not a gray area in the US financial sector, and have been addressed for almost half a decade now.",
"I must say that this is a question that you should hire a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to answer. It is way above our amateurs' pay-grade. That said, I'll tell you what I personally think on the issue. I'm not a licensed tax adviser, and nothing that I write here can be used in any way as a justification for any action. Read the full disclaimer in my profile. I believe you're right to treat those as assets. You bought them as an investment, and you intend to sell them for profit. Here the good news for you end. As we decided to define the domains as an asset, we need to decide what type of asset it is. I believe you're holding a Sec. 197 asset. This is because domain is essentially akin to franchise and trademark, and as such falls under the Sec. 197 definition. That means that your amortization period is 15 years. Your expenses related to these domains should also be amortized, on the same schedule. When you sell a domain, you can deduct the portion that you have not yet deducted from the amortization schedule from your proceeds. Keep in mind passive loss limitations, since losses from assets held as investment cannot offset Schedule C income.",
"Future income would impact the price you'd negotiate for the sale. And it may turn to profit for the buyer, but it has no impact on you today. You have the sale price, and whatever cost hasn't been written off. The time you put into it doesn't matter either, an hour to write the program or 5 years. Only your out of pocket cost is written off against the sale price. If the sales are steady, why so low, 13 trailing month's revenue, with potential for growth, is a very low multiple. It's in the store, what is your cost to maintain the product?",
"Yes, the business can count that as an expense but you will need to count that as income because a computer = money.",
"Feel free to shoot me a message anytime. Also good point to note that social networks excel at brand awareness, not necessarily sales. They can have a direct return on investment and often do but the value lies in more and more people seeing you thanks to your growing community. Also, demographic info is huge. I use the PEW research all the time to see what network is right for which client based on how it lines up with their target market.",
"Instagram is one of the most popular social sites among many others such as Facebook, Twitter Snap Chat and Google+. All these websites play a very important role in the conduct of business organizations. In particular, Instagram has several ways in which it has advantages to promote their services and possessions. They consist of likes, comments and followers.",
"\"SEC filings do not contain this information, generally. You can find intangible assets on balance sheets, but not as detailed as writing down every asset separately, only aggregated at some level (may be as detailed as specifying \"\"patents\"\" as a separate line, although even that I wouldn't count on). Companies may hold different rights to different patents in different countries, patents are being granted and expired constantly, and unless this is a pharma industry or a startup - each single patent doesn't have a critical bearing on the company performance.\"",
"Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?",
"I don't buy Twitter. Their revenue and profit is all based on active users who will see ads on their twitter feed. Yet we know millions of twitter accounts are fake bots. Even with Trump blowing up twitter and making it so relevant, I don't see this as a profitable business.",
"That's true, I concede that point. It wasn't the case in my case study, and I don't think it's the case with these gift cards, but I could be wrong, since I'm not an accountant, and I don't even have my Masters in Finance yet.",
"If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.",
"I was only able to find Maryland form 1 to fit your question, so I'll assume you're referring to this form. Note the requirement: Generally all tangible personal property owned, leased, consigned or used by the business and located within the State of Maryland on January 1, 201 must be reported. Software license (whether time limited or not, i.e.: what you consider as rental vs purchase) is not tangible property, same goes to the license for the course materials. Note, with digital media - you don't own the content, you merely paid for the license to use it. Design books may be reportable as personal tangible property, and from your list that's the only thing I think should be reported. However, having never stepped a foot in Maryland and having never seen (or even heard of) this ridiculous form before, I'd suggest you verify my humble opinion with a tax adviser (EA/CPA) licensed in the State of Maryland to confirm my understanding of this form.",
"I would trust...Twitter should stay relevant until 2020 election, but I'd get out of any investments after that. They should get a small bump when they increase character limit, but I don't see them turning any corners in the next 5 yrs. Still in better shape than Vine.",
"Net worth is interesting as it can have a different number assigned depending on your intent. The number I focus on is my total retirement account and any brokerage account. I purposely exclude the value of my house.* This tells me how much I'm able to invest. My heir would look at it a bit differently. She'd have the cash not only from the house, but from every bit of our possessions that can be sold. For my own purposes, knowing I have a piece of art that might sell for $xxx doesn't mean much, except for insurance purposes. In your case, if the coins are gold, and held for investment, count them. If they were your grandfather's and you plan to leave them to your own grandkids, I'd leave them out. * I make this point for two reasons - as someone with an eye toward retirement, the house doesn't get included in the 4% return math that I apply to the retirement and stock accounts. Also, in our situation, even when we downsize at retirement, the move isn't likely to pull much cash out of the house, it will be a lateral move. For those who plan to move from a McMansion in the suburbs of NY or Boston to a modest home in a lower cost of living elsewhere, that difference may be very important, and should be taken into account. This is simply how we handle this.",
"You are not asking for insurance purposes. So I'll go with this - I have two asset numbers I track. All investments, retirement accounts, etc, the kind that are valued at day's end by the market, etc. From that number I subtract the mortgage. This produces the number that I can say is my net worth with a paid in full house. The second number simply adds back the house's value, give or take. Unless I owned art that was valued in the six figures, it seems pointless to me to add it up, except for insurance. If my wife and I died tomorrow, the kid can certainly auction our stuff off, but knowing that number holds no interest for us. When most people talk 'net worth', I don't see them adding these things up. Cars, maybe, but not even that.",
"Hi I have a question about net worth value of rich people on those forbes lists. For example most of those rich people have high net worth because they are shareholders. Do they take into account that if they want to sell all their assets then actually they would receive much less in cash (as the stock price would drastically drop) or is it just the nominal net worth (i.e. the value of all their at the current price)",
"\"An \"\"asset\"\" is something which you own that has a monetary value. Some examples would be your car, your house, the money in your wallet, and yes the pile of gold in your garage. Assets also include intangible things such as money owed to you for instance; although these are calculated somewhat differently. \"\"liabilities\"\" are what you owe. For instance, your car loan, your mortgage, and your student loan. Liabilities can also include future debts which you may not be paying at the moment.\"",
"You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.",
"Thanks for your informed perspective on this. >Twitter is a massive time suck to market on I'm curious if you happen to know if bot presence on Twitter makes advertising on the service even less advantageous. Do you think Instagram has a long term strategy to keep their users interacting with the service? What do you think will drive this over time? I work for a game development company (on the side) and we tend to get a lot more interactions with our posts on Instagram, but are suspicious of the actual benefit these interactions have from a marketing perspective by comparison.",
"No. Share are equity in companies that usually have revenue streams and/or potential for creating them. That revenue can be used to pay out dividends to the shareholders or to grow the company and increase its value. Most companies get their revenue from their customers, and customers rarely give their money to a company without getting some good or service in exchange.",
"I'll give the credit to @Quid in the comments section of the question. You put out $10k, you got back $20k, that's a cash gain of $10k, how the asset was valued between your purchase and sale isn't relevant. From an accounting perspective, the company is the only party that is realizing the loss (as they have sold the asset for 40K less than par). You the buyer, only get to see the initial buy and sale of such capital asset. Example: A company purchases a car for $20,000 and after depreciation it is worth (book valued at) $2,000. It is then sold to a customer for $3,000. Does the customer realize a loss of $1,000? No. Does the company realize a gain of $1,000? Yes. Your bank analogy is flawed in two ways:",
"No link ~ I agree. That's the average style of marketing on social that most small business owners and clients do. I had a social media client I was managing. I provided them with authentic and creative content. All for brand awareness tailored to generate real live traffic into the business. It was doing well until they canceled my service because they felt that the lower tier text based discount and promotion content would be better. ~ Its sad that the average entrepreneur does not understand the principles of providing authentic real value over cheapening their business to make a buck. Its not a long term mentality.",
"There are two ways that an asset can generate value. One is that the asset generates some revenue (e.g. you buy a house for $100,000 and rent it out for $1,000 per month) and the second way is that the asset appreciates (e.g you buy a house for $100,000, you don't rent it out and 5 years later you sell it for $200,000). Stocks are the same.",
"\"Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting. By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is \"\"very similar\"\" to Asset. You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0. You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset. Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet. You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting. Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity.\"",
"This is called imputed income, which is generally not taxed in the US.",
"Well it depends on whether or not your differentiating against. If its capital stock or stock as in a share certificate in the company. If its a share in the company then in my opinion using Equity would be best as it is a form of an asset and does refer to a piece of ownership of the entity. I wouldn't consider a share of stock a service, since the service to you is say Facebook or the broker who facilitates the transaction of buying or selling FB stock. I also would not consider it a Capital Good, as the Capital Good's would be the referring to the actual capital like the servers,other computer equipments etc.",
"\"Yes, you're correct and yes they will. Note that it will be considered as \"\"sale\"\" with gains being taxable income to you.\"",
"Social media marketing is the best way to promote your business on the social platforms. There are many free social platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram. Where all businessmen can use to directly engage with their clients. Social media for business has many advantages that it allows you to reach out to a large set of the online audience base. You can get in touch with online society and interact with a large number of the potential client.",
"\"There is no objective \"\"should\"\". You need to be clear why you're tracking these numbers, and the right answer will come out of that. I think the main reason an individual would add up their assets and net worth is to get a sense of whether they are \"\"making progress\"\" or whether they are saving enough money, or perhaps whether they are getting close to the net worth at which they can make some life change. Obviously shares or other investment property ought to be counted in that. Buying small-medium consumer goods like furniture or electronics may improve your life but it's not especially improving your financial position. Accounting for them with little $20 or $200 changes every month or year is not necessarily useful. Things like cars are an intermediate case because firstly they're fairly large chunks of money and secondly they commonly are things people sell on for nontrivial amounts of money and you can reasonably estimate the value. If for instance I take $30k out of my bank account and buy a new car, how has my net worth changed? It would be too pessimistic to say I'm $30k worse off. If I really needed the money back, I could go and sell the car, but not for $30k. So, a good way to represent this is an immediate 10-20% cost for off-the-lot depreciation of the car, and then another 12% every year (or 1% every month). If you're tracking lifestyle assets that you want to accumulate, I think monetary worth is not the best scale, because it's only weakly correlated with the value you get out of them. Case in point: you probably wouldn't buy a second-hand mattress, and they have pretty limited resale value. Financially, the value of the mattress collapses as soon as you get it home, but the lifestyle benefit of it holds up just fine for eight years or so. So if there are some major purchases (say >$1000) that you want to make, and you want to track it, what I would do is: make a list of things you want to buy in the future, and then tick them off when you either do buy them, or cross them out when you decide you actually don't want them. Then you have something to motivate saving, and you have a chance to think it over before you make the purchase. You can also look back on what seemed to be important to you in the past and either feel satisfied you achieved what you wanted, or you can discover more about yourself by seeing how your desires change. You probably don't want to so much spend $50k as you want to buy a TV, a dishwasher, a trip to whereever...\"",
"Even assuming you were reading the balance sheet correctly it means nothing. What banks mostly care about is cash flow. Do they have enough extra money to make the payments on whatever they borrow? I have never had a credit card company ask me about assets--they don't care. They care about income with which to pay the credit card bill. Have a solid record of paying your bills and enough income to pay back what you are trying to borrow and you'll have an excellent credit rating no matter what your net worth. Whether you are one person or a megacorporation makes no difference.",
"It's based on potential. Things like market share, market size, competitive analysis and growth opportunity. Ex: being as big as reddit is + the fact they are a large player = how they could leverage this to drive even more value than they currently have in the future Also everything is inflated right now and the value factors in how much someone might (over) pay to acquire them.",
"You would report it as business income on Schedule C. You may be able to take deductions against that income as well (home office, your computer, an android device, any advertising or promotional expenses, etc.) but you'll want to consult an accountant about that. Generally you can only take those kinds of deductions if you use the space or equipment exclusively for business use (not likely if it's just a hobby). The IRS is pretty picky about that stuff.",
"Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.",
"You have to consider a case where you just cannot sell it. Think of it as a bad piece of real estate in Detroit. If there are absolutely no buyers, you cannot sell it (until a buyer shows up)",
"If you plan on trading it, it's a social construct. If you plan on keeping it for yourself, then the value is personal. Not always easy to disentangle the two. Sometimes people are more willing to risk personal safety to rescue items of sentimental value...",
"A website is the front page of your services. people usually tend to visit your website first before viewing your youtube uploads. So to answer your question yes it is important to have an updated website which has a blog attached but it does not have to be too fancy. A simple business site is all that is required.",
"Facebook the company is probably better understood as a capital good - it is a collection of software and servers and a well-known brand name with a snazzy network effect under reasonably competent corporate governance that can produce final goods and services (mostly services) that actually have value. A share of Facebook stock is a share of ownership in that capital. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_good which makes some concessions for the difference between capital goods and capital services, so it's kind of a fuzzy thing.",
"If significant amounts are involved, that would be a good time to consult a tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state). Generally, sale of a business is an ordinary income and you can only deduct tangible expenses, as Joe said. That would be laptops, bills, expenses per receipt, of course they must all be directly attributable to the business. You will need to be able to show that the laptops has only been used in business, recapture depreciation, etc. Same with all the rest of the expenses. If you're incorporated (i.e.: you hold this software under an S-Corp), then you're selling stocks, not business, and the tax treatment may be different, but I'm guessing this is not the case for you.",
"\"Valuation by definition is what an item is worth, not what you paid for it. Net worth should be market value for fixed assets or \"\"capital\"\" goods. I would consider this cars, real property, furniture, jewelry, appliances, tools, etc. Everything else can be valued by liquidation value. You can use valuation guides for tax deductions as a way to guide your valuation. Insurance companies usually just pick a percentage of your home's value as a guesstimate for content value. I could see doing this as a way to guide purchase decisions for appliances, cars or the like. But if you are trying to figure out the market value of your socks and underwear, I would argue that you're doing something that's a little silly.\"",
"Purchase accounting requires that you mark assets, including PP&E to fair value. So let's say you bought a machine 5 years ago for $1,000 - you might have depreciated it to $250 on your balance sheet but it might actually be worth $900.",
"While I think this percentage is a little bit strong of an overestimate, if social media and website building companies can make it easy to prove ROI for their products, then it'll certainly increase over time.",
"I don't think so in your case. Unless the account generates so much interest income that it became reportable (I don't know the exact limit, but I think it's in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars, you might get a 1099 form if it generates over $10 of interest income, but you don't have to file taxes if your overall income is too low anyways). The US does not typically tax assets, only income. There are some states (Florida is the only one I can think of) that has odd tax treatment of intangible assets, but I doubt that would apply in your case. If this were a large enough amount, usually over $10,000, it might trigger some reporting requirements (possibly by your home country).",
"Doesnt matter - their main asset is a database of US. To liquidate it, who do they sell it to? How many copies do they sell? Where are the backups? Them having it is bad enough, but them selling it off is worse.",
"Buying assets doesn't affect your profit, because the money stays on your balance sheet as capital assets instead of cash in bank (unless your tax authorities let you report your accounts on a cashflow basis, which for example they do for very small businesses in the UK). You need to actually spend the money on something you can't turn back to cash later for it to reduce your profit.",
"\"Normally these are only generated upon an acquisition. When you acquire a business, all the tangible and intangible assets are market to \"\"fair value\"\", with goodwill as the plug to total to the actual purchase price. So the cash out the door is the purchase price. Then the asset is amortized. In the normal course you wouldn't create the intangible - the sales people salary would just be an expense.\"",
"I agree with the comments so far. Access doesn't equal ownership. There are also different levels of access. E.g. your financial advisor can have access to your retirement account via power of attorney, but only ability to add or change things, not withdraw. Another consideration is when a creditor tries to garnish wages / bank accounts, it needs to find the accounts first. This could be done by running a credit report via SSN. My guess is an account with access-only rights won't show up on such a report. I suppose the court could subpoena bank information. But I'm not an attorney so please check with a professional.",
"In addition to asking an accountant, I would also ask a lawyer. When exploring the same question for myself, I found that one of the benefits of incorporating or forming an LLC is that your personal assets are better protected. Including asset protection, here are 5 reasons to incorporate: Initially, I thought that as I had so few assets, I should not be concerned. I was glad I was able to do a free consult with a lawyer who advised me to look into forming an LLC. (Ultimately, my planned business idea never panned out. So, I never went the incorporation/LLC route.) Hope this helps!",
"\"Stocks, as an asset, represent the sum of the current market value of all of your holdings. If your portfolio is showing unrealized gains and losses, then that net amount is inherently reflected in the current market value of your holdings. That's not to say cost basis is not important. Any closed trades, realized gains or losses, will of course have an impact on your taxable income. So, it couldn't hurt to keep track of your cost basis from a tax standpoint, but understand that the term \"\"asset\"\" refers to the current market values and does not consider base amounts. Taxes do. Perhaps consider making separate cells for cost basis, but also bear in mind that most if not all of the major online discount brokers will provide transferring of cost basis information electronically to the major online tax service providers.\"",
"Nah, not true mate either - have some clients that sell in excess of AUD1M per month almost all of which done via social media ads, and they've been around years before Facebook was a thing. You're totally right though when you talk about some companies being behemoths - but social media and PPC platforms allow the playing field to be amazingly level when competing against them. AI is the next tool to be transforming sales and marketing - and again, it will be done via social media platforms - were seeing it already where Facebook and Watson can be connected within a few minutes to provide basic conversational customer service bots that can take payment for suggested products or services it gives as a result of that conversation. Now you may not like that aspect, but it's here already and only getting more advanced. Social media will morph and change - largely driven by AI and AR and better universal wireless connectivity - but the tools will be connected into 2B+ people via whatever social media channels continue tk be adopted - be it facebook or Instagram or whatever else emerges. kinda cool.",
"I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/talkbusiness] [I just made a public DropBox w\\/ DMR reports for the following social media channels: Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, & facebook. (Enjoy!)](https://np.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/795ezw/i_just_made_a_public_dropbox_w_dmr_reports_for/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)",
"If a business owner works for no salary, put time and effort into the business, can those hours be considered a capital investment? No.",
"That guy seems unusually shortsighted to me. Instagram may be worth a billion or not, no one can tell at this time. Who would have guessed in 1975 that there was such a huge market for personal computers? Or in 1990, who would have bet on the on-line search business? All new technology is doubtful at best, anyone who bet on flying cars would have lost everything, but no one knows in advance. It's really stupid to disparage innovations like that. 90% of them may lead nowhere, but the ones that are successful will bring 1000% profits, and no one can tell which one is doomed to failure or not.",
"How do we define worth? To stock traders and some investors it has value either as a transaction or as a piece in an asset allocation strategy. Is is likely to generate long term revenues and profits that reflect the historical relationship between those factors and stock price performance? Unlikely. It might be a good short term play for the nimble investor but the real test of 'worth' will be after the initial hype dies down. It is what happens to the stock 90 days after it goes public that matters for the long term. Forgetting contributions to society, knowledge and culture, the markets will at that point make their determination about value.",
"\"This is typically referred to as the \"\"market value\"\" of your holdings--it is the revenue you would generate if you sold your holdings at that moment (less any transaction costs, of course)\"",
"Not sure either :( I see you're a student too, do you know of any other subreddit or forum where I could ask for advice? Tbf right now I'm just compiling a list of papers about valuation of loss firms or intangibles and I'll read them tomorrow. I'd like to find a model to test too. Here's what I got (I'm still only just scratching the surface): https://we.tl/UaXmvSdwiF I'm trying to get some stuff on loss firms valuation, intangibles impact, and discrepancies between market expectations and traditional models valuation.",
"I would put it under advertising. Technically the domain name should be amortized over its useful life... you can't really expense it all in the first year, unless it fits within Section 179.",
"\"...the social media part of their business remains unprofitable - what are you on about mate? Facebook is in the business of selling fine-tuned and targeted ads, based on a vast amount of big data they collect from their user base. If by \"\"the social media part\"\" you are referring to Facebook as a utility for online social interaction, then your argument is invalid due to the fact that Facebook is free of charge.\"",
"\"so I believe it should be under \"\"No Financial Interest Account Information.\"\" section ? Why? It's your account in your name. From legal perspective it is your personal account and you have financial interest in it.\"",
"Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity.",
"It's a good point to make with bot presence. For the most part Twitter is made of people, even if there are a lot of false or bot accounts. That being said I don't find it as strong a marketing channel because of the nature of Twitter at its core. If you follow 1000 people you're likely to have nearly 10,000 tweets going through your feed. It's hard to really fight for attention but you can still get decent response and views when done right. As for Instagram... I think in the long term, just as any other social network, the lifespan of it depends on the content. As long as people are having new experiences and taking photos of them there will always be more content. That being said there are tons of accounts that pretty much post the same content. It saturates things like the explore feature because they're using less than kosher tactics to get likes. Ultimately I think policing of Instagram as they have been is the best strategy for keeping it going. Even though I'm a marketer, I'm also a Millennial with pretty typical values. Blatant advertising is annoying and intrusive when it comes to user experience and many young people today feel that way. By policing things like auto-engaging, false locations (you used to be able to just type locations like 'Follow Me') and being very keen on following through with reports of spam accounts is a good way to keep younger people on it. Unless you're paying for ads marketing on Instagram typically consists of native content that looks good on feeds and needs engagement to rise up. This is a good way to curb marketing while still maintaining a good user experience. As a side note, part of why I use Snapchat less is how they shove ads down your throat, which gets old pretty fast. Ads on snapchat pretty much ruined the platform for me personally aside from using it for communication. As long as Instagram maintains this balance based around the user and not the advertisers I think it will be going for quite some time.",
"\"My opinion: including the value of depreciating property one owns in a net worth calculation is silly - but could be interesting You don't expect your TV or laptop to gain value. Instead, you expect them to decrease in value every year until you replace them. Anything you expect to hold or increase in value (art, a house, etc) is a different story. If you'd like to really get anal about this, you can track your net worth like a business would track its balance sheet. I'm not going to go into detail, but the general idea is that when you purchase an item, you debit the cost from \"\"cash\"\" and add the value paid to \"\"assets\"\" (so your net worth doesn't change when you make a purchase). You then depreciate the value of the item under \"\"assets\"\" according to a depreciation schedule. If you plan on replacing your laptop every three years, you might subtract 33% of the value every year. This could be an interesting exercise (i.e. even if you make money, your net worth may decrease because of all the depreciating junk you own), but my hunch is that it wouldn't be worth the effort it requires.\"",
"I suggest that you use your own judgement on this. You can assign a reasonable percentage since it is impossible to monitor the hours using those assets. Example: 40 personal and 60 for business. It's really your call. I also suggest that you should be conservative on valuing the assets. Record the assets at it's lowest value. This is one of the most difficult scenarios in making your own financial statements. You can also use this approach, i will record the assets at its original cost then use a higher depreciation rate or double declining method of depreciation. If the assets have a depreciation rate of 20% per year (useful life of 5 years), i will make it 30%. the other 10% will add more expense and helps you not to overstate your Financial Statement. You can also use the residual value of the asset, but if you do this, you should figure out the reliable amount. I understand that this is not for tax reporting purposes. Therefore, there's no harm if you overstate your Financial statement. And even if you overstate, you can still adjust the cost of the asset. Along the way (in the middle of the year or year end), you will figure out the cost of the asset if it's over valued once the financial statement is done.",
"> Advertising on the internet is dead, that means social media as a for-profit industry is dead. This is the single most clueless statement I've read this week. Good job! You are aware that online advertising spending recently overtook tv, right? It had a lot of people in the ad world screaming that tv advertising is dead and online is the only possible future.",
"If there's a market for it, then it has value. No reason that it shouldn't be used, unless that market is just too volatile to ensure future value; which, I don't think is the case with fine art. If anything, there is almost the certainty that their value with increase with time.",
"No. The above calculation does not hold good. When financial statements are prepared they are prepared on a going concern basis, i.e. a business will run normally in the foreseeable future. Valuation of assets and liabilities is done according to this principle. When a bankruptcy takes places or a business closes down, immediately the valuation method will change. For assets, the realizable value will be more relevant. For example, if you hold 100 computers, in an normal situation, they will depreciated at the normal rate. Every year, some portion of the cost is written off as depreciation. When you actually go to sell these computers you are likely to realize much less than what is shown in the statement. Similarly, for a building, the actual realizable value may be more. For liabilities, they tend to increase in such situation. Hence just a plain computation can give you a very broad idea but the actual figure may be different.",
"It's income. Create an income account for it, or use a broader “miscellaneous income” account, depending on how precise you want to be.",
"You seem to think that the term “held”is used correctly. There lies your logical fallacy. I made no such assumption. In my question I test both the use of the term “US economy” AND the term “held”. It is obvious you can’t “hold” income but if you want to get down to technicalities, both asset and income/expenses are types of accounts while the notion of “trust” is a legal construct to limit the rights of external creditors.",
"No. Unless you actually laid out cash for it, you can't write it off.",
"This is a tough question SFun28. Let's try and debug the metric. First, let's expand upon the notion share price is determined in an efficient market where prospective buyers and sellers have access to info on an enterprises' cash balance and they may weigh that into their decision making. Therefore, a desirable/undesirable cash balance may raise or lower the share price, to what extent, we do not know. We must ask How significant is cash/debt balance in determining the market price of a stock? As you noted, we have limited info, which may decrease the weight of these account balances in our decision process. Using a materiality level of 5% of net income of operations, cash/debt may be immaterial or not considered by an investor. investors oftentimes interpret the same information differently (e.g. Microsoft's large cash balance may show they no longer have innovative ideas worth investing in, or they are well positioned to acquire innovative companies, or weather a contraction in the sector) My guess is a math mind would ignore the affect of account balances on the equity portion of the enterprise value calculation because it may not be a factor, or because the affect is subjective.",
"Social Media has evolved and matured rapidly over the last 2-3 years and today is developing the way businesses are marketing their products and services to a wide yet highly selected viewers of online users. The early days of social media and the limited capabilities of platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Pinterest, and Twitter meant that brands focused their social media marketing in dubai efforts around customer service and customer communication. While these elements are still extremely important, the platforms now allow targeted communication via text and video that bring businesses closer than ever to both existing and potential customers.",
"It would depend on whether it's considered capital gains or not. A brief Google search suggests that it is; this means you're only required to pay tax on it once it's traded for actual currency, goods, or services. It also means you get some nice tax advantages as long as you hold it for longer than a year.",
"\"Profitability is not magical. It's not a mystical thing that requires a 4 or 8 year degree in business to understand. Twitter will never make money. You cannot make money with Social Media. All of the steps necessary to make social media profitable are the same steps which will drive your users to other platforms that remain free. Twitter is already losing users to a new software called \"\"Mastodon\"\" which is not controlled by any single corporation, it's open source and anyone can operate their own federated server. It allows much larger 'posts' which enables people to have actual, valuable conversations on it, instead of brain-vomiting. Twitter's largest mistake is probably their reluctance to abandon the 140 character limit 3 or 4 years ago when they should have. But it's too late now. It would take a miracle to save them. Social Media as a marketplace is saturated. there's 4 or 5 sites you've heard of and 5000 you haven't and they're all free. How can anyone make money in that market? You can't. And if all of the social media sites suddenly became subscription based, users would stop using them, they'd set up their own blogs using services like Wordpress.com or self-hosting them with software like WordPress.org or Ghost, and they'd use free open source software based on protocols like RSS or ATOM which have been around for a very long time to achieve the same sort of \"\"Friends and follower\"\" networks that Social Media giants want you to believe require their service. Social Media has always been a bad business model, and it will always be a bad business model. Facebook has only found success because of their puppet companies and side-projects, the social media part of their business remains unprofitable.\"",
"If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation."
] |
[
"Assets with zero value, perhaps. Unless you can prove that they have resale value. Good luck with that. In other words, not worth spending time on.",
"The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it."
] |
9644
|
If early exercise is a bad idea, why American option is more expensive than European [duplicate]
|
[
"194605"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"590453",
"353467",
"193303",
"368230",
"72789",
"529958",
"484362",
"358520",
"6771",
"345410",
"284540",
"194605",
"364575",
"278373",
"157759",
"44530",
"258975",
"135363",
"420722",
"541928",
"36453",
"271109",
"100021",
"333408",
"388362",
"247870",
"243714",
"446856",
"362049",
"350748",
"195392",
"558542",
"575408",
"477011",
"26095",
"181924",
"103013",
"460946",
"514831",
"442823",
"147361",
"401447",
"50798",
"36346",
"383328",
"428399",
"157504",
"373585",
"305770",
"78769",
"382381",
"236176",
"387801",
"41967",
"320184",
"259178",
"493202",
"548688",
"496458",
"352700",
"162771",
"413899",
"414448",
"596203",
"477588",
"33394",
"212025",
"576364",
"70443",
"189858",
"63363",
"340264",
"310980",
"538054",
"43497",
"386762",
"16081",
"91208",
"173745",
"412951",
"380427",
"535998",
"61919",
"382098",
"374797",
"30070",
"344753",
"192721",
"483147",
"521644",
"565926",
"277359",
"52458",
"247738",
"25080",
"21608",
"475108",
"519745",
"388754",
"415705"
] |
[
"If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0). For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1. If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2. Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0. But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model.",
"Think of it this way, if you traveled back through time one month - with perfect knowledge of AAPL's stock price over that period - which happens to peak viciously then return to its old price at the end of the period - wouldn't you pay more for an American option? Another way to think about options is as an insurance policy. Wouldn't you pay more for a policy that covered fire and earthquake losses as opposed to just losses from earthquakes? Lastly - and perhaps most directly - one of the more common reasons people exercise (as opposed to sell) an American option before expiration is if an unexpected dividend (larger than remaining time value of the option) was just announced that's going to be paid before the option contract expires. Because only actual stockholders get the dividends, not options holders. A holder of an American option has the ability to exercise in time to grab that dividend - a European option holder doesn't have that ability. Less flexibility (what you're paying for really) = lower option premium.",
"The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc). Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option. However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price.",
"\"An option is an instrument that gives you the \"\"right\"\" (but not the obligation) to do something (if you are long). An American option gives you more \"\"rights\"\" (to exercise on more days) than a European option. The more \"\"rights,\"\" the greater the (theoretical) value of the option, all other things being equal, of course. That's just how options work. You could point to an ex post result, and and say that's not the case. But it is true ex ante.\"",
"Differences in liquidity explain why American-style options are generally worth more than their European-style counterparts. As far as I can tell, no one mentioned liquidity in their answer to this question, they just introduced needlessly complex math and logic while ignoring basic economic principles. That's not to say the previous answers are all wrong - they just deal with periphery factors instead of the central cause. Liquidity is a key determinant of pricing/valuation in financial markets. Liquidity simply describes the ease with which an asset can be bought and sold (converted to cash). Without going into the reasons why, treasury bills are one of the most liquid securities - they can be bought or sold almost instantly at any time for an exact price. The near-perfect liquidity of treasuries is one of the major reasons why the price (yield) of a t-bill will always be higher (lower yield) than that of an otherwise identical corporate or municipal bond. Stated in general terms, a relatively liquid asset is always worth more than an relatively illiquid asset, all else being equal. The value of liquidity is easy to understand - we experience it everyday in real life. If you're buying a house or car, the ability to resell it if needed is an important component of the decision. It's the same for investors - most people would prefer an asset that they can quickly and easily liquidate if the need for cash arises. It's no different with options. American-style options allow the holder to exercise (liquidate) at any time, whereas the buyer of a European option has his cash tied up until a specific date. Obviously, it rarely makes sense to exercise an option early in terms of net returns, but sometimes an investor has a desperate need for cash and this need outweighs the reduction in net profits from early exercise. It could be argued that this liquidity advantage is eliminated by the fact that you can trade (sell) either type of option without restriction before expiration, thus closing the long position. This is a valid point, but it ignores the fact that there's always a buyer on the other side of an option trade, meaning the long position, and the right/restriction of early exercise, is never eliminated, it simply changes hands. It follows that the American-style liquidity advantage increases an options market value regardless of one's position (call/put or short/long). Without putting an exact number on it, the general interest rate (time value of money) could be used to approximate the additional cost of an American-style option over a similar European-style contract.",
"\"Black-Scholes is \"\"close enough\"\" for American options since there aren't usually reasons to exercise early, so the ability to do so doesn't matter. Which is good since it's tough to model mathematically, I've read. Early exercise would usually be caused by a weird mispricing for some technical / market-action reason where the theoretical option valuations are messed up. If you sell a call that's far in the money and don't get any time value (after the spread), for example, you probably sold the call to an arbitrageur who's just going to exercise it. But unusual stuff like this doesn't change the big picture much.\"",
"I'm sorry, but your math is wrong. You are not equally likely to make as much money by waiting for expiration. Share prices are moving constantly in both directions. Very rarely does any stock go either straight up or straight down. Consider a stock with a share price of $12 today. Perhaps that stock is a bad buy, and in 1 month's time it will be down to $10. But the market hasn't quite wised up to this yet, and over the next week it rallies up to $15. If you bought a European option (let's say an at-the-money call, expiring in 1 month, at $12 on our start date), then you lost. Your option expired worthless. If you bought an American option, you could have exercised it when the share price was at $15 and made a nice profit. Keep in mind we are talking about exactly the same stock, with exactly the same history, over exactly the same time period. The only difference is the option contract. The American option could have made you money, if you exercised it at any time during the rally, but not the European option - you would have been forced to hold onto it for a month and finally let it expire worthless. (Of course that's not strictly true, since the European option itself can be sold while it is in the money - but eventually, somebody is going to end up holding the bag, nobody can exercise it until expiration.) The difference between an American and European option is the difference between getting N chances to get it right (N being the number of days 'til expiration) and getting just one chance. It should be easy to see why you're more likely to profit with the former, even if you can't accurately predict price movement.",
"Really all you need to know is that American style can be exercised at any point, European options cannot be exercised early. Read on if you want more detail. The American style Call is worth more because it can be exercised at any point. And when the company pays a dividend, and your option is in the money, if the extrinsic value is worth less than the dividend you can be exercised early. This is not the case for a European call. You cannot be exercised until expiration. I trade a lot of options, you wont be exercised early unless the dividend scenario I mentioned happens. Or unless the extrinsic value is nothing, but even then, unless the investor really wants that position, he is more likely to just sell the call for an equivalent gain on 100 shares of stock.",
"Conceptually, yes, you need to worry about it. As a practical matter, it's less likely to be exercised until expiry or shortly prior. The way to think about paying a European option is: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike is in the money at expiry] Whereas the American option can be thought of as: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike price is in the money at expiry] + ( [odds that strike price is in the money prior to expiry] * [odds that other party will exercise early] ). This is just a heuristic, not a formal financial tool. But the point is that you need to consider the odds that it will go into the money early, for how long (maybe over multiple periods), and how likely the counterparty is to exercise early. Important considerations for whether they will exercise early are the strategy of the other side (long, straddle, quick turnaround), the length of time the option is in the money early, and the anticipated future movement. A quick buck strategy might exercise immediately before the stock turns around. But that could leave further gains on the table, so it's usually best to wait unless the expectation is that the stock will quickly reverse its movement. This sort of counter-market strategy is generally unlikely from someone who bought the option at a certain strike, and is equivalent to betting against their original purchase of the option. So most of these people will wait because they expect the possibility of a bigger payoff. A long strategy is usually in no hurry to exercise, and in fact they would prefer to wait until the end to hold the time value of the option (the choice to get out of the option, if it goes back to being unprofitable). So it usually makes little sense for these people to exercise early. The same goes for a straddle, if someone is buying an option for insurance or to economically exit a position. So you're really just concerned that people will exercise early and forgo the time value of the American option. That may include people who really want to close a position, take their money, and move on. In some cases, it may include people who have become overextended or need liquidity, so they close positions. But for the most part, it's less likely to happen until the expiration approaches because it leaves potential value on the table. The time value of an option dwindles at the end because the implicit option becomes less likely, especially if the option is fairly deep in the money (the implicit option is then fairly deep out of the money). So early exercise becomes more meaningful concern as the expiration approaches. Otherwise, it's usually less worrisome but more than a nonzero proposition.",
"The crucial insight is that the alternative to early exercise of an American call is not necessarily to hold it to expiry, but to sell it. And selling it, at its value, is always better than exercising it. Note that this holds only for options on assets that don't pay dividends. Here's the proof, using Put-Call-Parity. We know that at expiry T, we have (using a Call and a Put both struck at K): C(T) - P(T) = S(T) - K (if this is not clear to you, consider the case where S is less than, equal to, or greater than K at maturity, and go through each of them.) If the stock S doesn't pay any dividends (and there is no cost of carry etc.), we can replicate both sides now at time 0; we just buy one call, sell one put (that gives us the left hand side), buy the stock, and borrow money so that at time T we have to repay K (that gives us the right hand side). That means that now, we only need to borrow df * K, where df is the discount factor, and is less than one (assuming the good old pre-2009 world where interest rates are positive). Thus: C(0) - P(0) = S(0) - df * K. Rearranging gives: C(0) = S(0) - df * K + P(0). That's the value of the call, if we sell it (or hold it). However, if we exercise, we only get: C_ex = S(0) - K Now, we see that C(0) > C_ex, because we subtract less (df*K < K), and add P(0).",
"An option gives you an option. That is, you aren't buying any security - you are simply buying an option to buy a security. The sole value of what you buy is the option to buy something. An American option offers more flexibility - i.e. it offers you more options on buying the stock. Since you have more options, the cost of the option is higher. Of course, a good example makes sense why this is the case. Consider the VIX. Options on the VIX are European style. Sometimes the VIX spikes like crazy - tripling in value in days. It usually comes back down pretty quick though - within a couple of weeks. So far out options on the VIX aren't worth just a whole lot more, because the VIX will probably be back to normal. However, if the person could have excercised them right when it got to the top, they would have made a fortune many times what their option was worth. Since they are Euroopean style, though, they would have to wait till their option was redeemable, right when the VIX would be about back to normal. In this case, an American style option would be far more valuable - especially for something that is difficult to predict, like the VIX.",
"There are a few situations in which it may be advantageous to exercise early. Wikipedia actually has a good explanation: Option Style, Difference in value To account for the American's higher value there must be some situations in which it is optimal to exercise the American option before the expiration date. This can arise in several ways, such as: An in the money (ITM) call option on a stock is often exercised just before the stock pays a dividend that would lower its value by more than the option's remaining time value. A put option will usually be exercised early if the underlying asset files for bankruptcy.[3] A deep ITM currency option (FX option) where the strike currency has a lower interest rate than the currency to be received will often be exercised early because the time value sacrificed is less valuable than the expected depreciation of the received currency against the strike. An American bond option on the dirty price of a bond (such as some convertible bonds) may be exercised immediately if ITM and a coupon is due. A put option on gold will be exercised early when deep ITM, because gold tends to hold its value whereas the currency used as the strike is often expected to lose value through inflation if the holder waits until final maturity to exercise the option (they will almost certainly exercise a contract deep ITM, minimizing its time value).[citation needed]",
"OK, my fault for not doing more research. Wikipedia explains this well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_style#Difference_in_value Basically, there are some cases where it's advantageous to exercise an American option early. For non-gold currency options, this is only when the carrying cost (interest rate differential aka swap rate or rollover rate) is high. The slight probability that this may occur makes an American option worth slightly more.",
"\"According to the book of Hull, american and european calls on non-dividend paying stocks should have the same value. American puts, however, should be equals to, or more valuable than, european puts. The reason for this is the time value of money. In a put, you get the option to sell a stock at a given strike price. If you exercise this option at t=0, you receive the strike price at t=0 and can invest it at the risk-free rate. Lets imagine the rf rate is 10% and the strike price is 10$. this means at t=1, you would get 11.0517$. If, on the other hand, you did'nt exercise the option early, at t=1 you would simply receive the strike price (10$). Basically, the strike price, which is your payoff for a put option, doesn't earn interest. Another way to look at this is that an option is composed of two elements: The \"\"insurance\"\" element and the time value of the option. The insurance element is what you pay in order to have the option to buy a stock at a certain price. For put options, it is equals to the payout= max(K-S, 0) where K=Strike Price and St= Stock price. The time value of the option can be thought of as a risk-premium. It's difference between the value of the option and the insurance element. If the benefits of exercising a put option early (i.e- earning the risk free rate on the proceeds) outweighs the time value of the put option, it should be exercised early. Yet another way to look at this is by looking at the upper bounds of put options. For a european put, today's value of the option can never be worth more than the present value of the strike price discounted at the risk-free rate. If this rule isn't respected, there would be an arbitrage opportunity by simply investing at the risk-free rate. For an american put, since it can be exercised at any time, the maximum value it can take today is simply equals to the strike price. Therefore, since the PV of the strike price is smaller than the strike price, the american put can have a bigger value. Bear in mind this is for a non-dividend paying stock. As previously mentioned, if a stock pays a dividend it might also be optimal to exercise just before these are paid.\"",
"For a deep in the money, it almost makes no difference because the intrinsic value, the price of the option, is seldom far above the liquidation value, the price of the underlying less the strike price. For an at the money, ceteris paribus, an early exercise would immediately cut the value of the option to 0; however, life is not so simple as JB King has shown. Purely theoretically, for an at or near the money option, an early exercise will be an instantaneous cost because the value after exercise is less than the previously trading or implied option price.",
"Yes, and there's a good reason they might. (I'm gonna use equity options for the example; FX options are my thing, but they typically trade European style). The catch is dividends. Imagine you're long a deep-ITM call on a stock that's about to pay a dividend. If that dividend is larger than the time value remaining on the option, you'd prefer to exercise early - giving you the stock and the dividend payment - rather than hanging on to the time value of the option. You can get a similar situation in FX options when you're long a deep-ITM American call on a positive-carry currency (say AUDJPY); you might find yourself so deep in the money, with so little time value left on the option, that you'd rather exercise the option and give up the remaining time value in return for the additional carry from getting the spot position early.",
"as no advantage from exerting American call option early,we can use Black schole formula to evaluate the option.However, American put option is more likely to be exercised early which mean Black schole does not apply for this style of option",
"Investopedia states: While early exercise is generally not advisable, because the time value inherent in the option premium is lost upon doing so, there are certain circumstances under which early exercise may be advantageous. For example, an investor may choose to exercise a call option that is deeply in-the-money (such an option will have negligible time value) just before the ex-dividend date of the underlying stock. This will enable the investor to capture the dividend paid by the underlying stock, which should more than offset the marginal time value lost due to early exercise. So the question is how well do you see the time value factor here?",
"\"Exercising an option early if you can't sell the underlying stock being purchased is generally not advisable. You're basically locking in the worst price you can possibly pay, plus you're losing the time value on your money (which is, admittedly fairly low right now, but still). Let's say you have a strike price of $50. I get that you believe the stock to be worth more than $50. Let's assume that that's probably, but not certainly right. Whether it's worth $51, $151, or $5,100 when your options are going to expire, you still get the profit of $1, $101, or $5,050 if you wait until expiration and exercise then. By exercising now, you're giving up two things: The interest on the money you pay to exercise from now until expiration. The guarantee that you can't lose anything. If you buy it now, you get all the upside above your strike, but have all the downside below it. If you buy it later (at expiration), you still have all the upside above your strike, but no downside - in the (assumed to be unlikely) event that it's worth less than the strike you can simply do nothing, instead of having something you bought at the strike that's worth less now and taking that loss. By exercising early, you take on that loss risk, and give up the interest (or \"\"carry\"\" on the money you spend to exercise) for no additional updside. It's possible that there are tax benefits, as other posters mention, but the odds that \"\"starting the clock\"\" for LTCG is worth as much as the \"\"optionality\"\", or loss protection, plus the \"\"carry\"\", or interest that you're giving up is fairly unlikely.\"",
"American options (like those on ADBE) can be exercised by the holder anytime before expiration. They will be exercised automatically at expiration if they are in the money. However, if there is still time before expiration (as in this case), and they are not extremely in the money, there is probably extrinsic value to the option, and you should sell it, not exercise it. European options are only automatically exercised at expiration, and only if they are in the money. These are usually cash settled on products like SPX or VIX. They can not be exercised before expiration, but can be sold anytime.",
"When you exercise a put, you get paid the strike price immediately. So you can invest that money and earn some interest, compared to only exercising at expiry. So the benefit to exercising early is that extra interest. The cost is the remaining time value of the option, along with any dividend payments you miss. As @JoeTaxpayer points out, there might be tax considerations that make it better to exercise at one time rather than another. But those would likely be personal to you, so if the option would intrinsically have more value unexercised, in many cases you could sell it on rather than exercise it. The exception might be if it wasn't very liquid and the transaction costs of doing that outweighed the theoretical value.",
"The put vs call assignment risk, is actually the reverse: in-the-money calls are more likely to be exercised early than puts. Exercising a call locks in profit for the option holder because they can buy the shares at below market price, and immediately sell them at the higher market price. If there are dividends due, the risk is even higher. By contrast, exercising an in-the-money put locks in a loss for the holder, so it's less common.",
"\"The difference between an American and European option is that the American option can be exercised at any time, whereas the European option can be liquidated only on the settlement date. The American option is \"\"continuous time\"\" instrument, while the European option is a \"\"point in time\"\" instrument. Black Scholes applies to the latter, European, option. Under \"\"certain\"\" (but by no means all) circumstances, the two are close enough to be regarded as substitutes. One of their disciples, Robert Merton, \"\"tweaked\"\" it to describe American options. There are debates about this, and other tweaks, years later.\"",
"Owners of American-style options may exercise at any time before the option expires, while owners of European-style options may exercise only at expiration. Read more: American Vs. European Options",
"\"The other two answers seem basically correct, but I wanted to add on thing: While you can exercise an \"\"American style\"\" option at any time, it's almost never smart to do so before expiration. In your example, when the underlying stock reaches $110, you can theoretically make $2/share by exercising your option (buying 100 shares @ $108/share) and immediately selling those 100 shares back to the market at $110/share. This is all before commission. In more detail, you'll have these practical issues: You are going to have to pay commissions, which means you'll need a bigger spread to make this worthwhile. You and those who have already answered have you finger on this part, but I include it for completeness. (Even at expiration, if the difference between the last close price and the strike price is pretty close, some \"\"in-the-money\"\" options will be allowed to expire unexercised when the holders can't cover the closing commission costs.) The market value of the option contract itself should also go up as the price of the underlying stock goes up. Unless it's very close to expiration, the option contract should have some \"\"time value\"\" in its market price, so, if you want to close your position at this point, earlier then expiration, it will probably be better for you to sell the contract back to the market (for more money and only one commission) than to exercise and then close the stock position (for less money and two commissions). If you want to exercise and then flip the stock back as your exit strategy, you need to be aware of the settlement times. You probably are not going to instantly have those 100 shares of stock credited to your account, so you may not be able to sell them right away, which could leave you subject to some risk of the price changing. Alternatively, you could sell the stock short to lock in the price, but you'll have to be sure that your brokerage account is set up to allow that and understand how to do this.\"",
"No, if you are trading options to profit solely off the option and not own the underlying, you should trade it away because it costs more to exercise:",
"\"The answer to the question, can I exercise the option right away? depends on the exercise style of the particular option contract you are talking about. If it's an American-style exercise, you can exercise at any moment until the expiration date. If it's an European-style exercise, you can only exercise at the expiration date. According to the CME Group website on the FOPs on Gold futures, it's an American-style exercise (always make sure to double check this - especially in the Options on Futures world, there are quite a few that are European style): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_contractSpecs_options.html?optionProductId=192#optionProductId=192 So, if you wanted to, the answer is: yes, you can exercise those contracts before expiration. But a very important question you should ask is: should you? Option prices are composed of 2 parts: intrinsic value, and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is defined as by how much the option is in the money. That is, for Calls, it's how much the strike is below the current underlying price; and for Puts, it's how much the strike is above the current underlying price. Extrinsic value is whatever amount you have to add to the intrinsic value, to get the actual price the option is trading at the market. Note that there's no negative intrinsic value. It's either a positive number, or 0. When the intrinsic value is 0, all the value of the option is extrinsic value. The reason why options have extrinsic value is because they give the buyer a right, and the seller, an obligation. Ie, the seller is assuming risk. Traders are only willing to assume obligations/risks, and give others a right, if they get paid for that. The amount they get paid for that is the extrinsic value. In the scenario you described, underlying price is 1347, call strike is 1350. Whatever amount you have paid for that option is extrinsic value (because the strike of the call is above the underlying price, so intrinsic = 0, intrinsic + extrinsic = value of the option, by definition). Now, in your scenario, gold prices went up to 1355. Now your call option is \"\"in the money\"\", that is, the strike of your call option is below the gold price. That necessarily means that your call option has intrinsic value. You can easily calculate how much: it has exactly $5 intrinsic value (1355 - 1350, undelrying price - strike). But that contract still has some \"\"risk\"\" associated to it for the seller: so it necessarily still have some extrinsic value as well. So, the option that you bought for, let's say, $2.30, could now be worth something like $6.90 ($5 + a hypothetical $1.90 in extrinsic value). In your question, you mentioned exercising the option and then making a profit there. Well, if you do that, you exercise your options, get some gold futures immediately paying $1350 for them (your strike), and then you can sell them in the market for $1355. So, you make $5 there (multiplied by the contract multiplier). BUT your profit is not $5. Here's why: remember that you had to buy that option? You paid some money for that. In this hypothetical example, you payed $2.30 to buy the option. So you actually made only $5 - $2.30 = $2.70 profit! On the other hand, you could just have sold the option: you'd then make money by selling something that you bought for $2.30 that's now worth $6.90. This will give you a higher profit! In this case, if those numbers were real, you'd make $6.90 - $2.30 = $4.60 profit, waaaay more than $2.70 profit! Here's the interesting part: did you notice exactly how much more profit you'd have by selling the option back to the market, instead of exercising it and selling the gold contracts? Exactly $1.90. Do you remember this number? That's the extrinsic value, and it's not a coincidence. By exercising an option, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. You are going to convert all the extrinsic value into $0. So that's why it's not optimal to exercise the contract. Also, many brokers usually charge you much more commissions and fees to exercise an option than to buy/sell options, so there's that as well! Always remember: when you exercise an option contract, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. So it's never optimal to do an early exercise of option contracts and individual, retail investors. (institutional investors doing HFT might be able to spot price discrepancies and make money doing arbitrage; but retail investors don't have the low commissions and the technology required to make money out of that!) Might also be interesting to think about the other side of this: have you noticed how, in the example above, the option started with $2.30 of extrinsic value, and then it had less, $1.90 only? That's really how options work: as the market changes, extrinsic value changes, and as time goes by, extrinsic value usually decreases. Other factors might increase it (like, more fear in the market usually bring the option prices up), but the passage of time alone will decrease it. So options that you buy will naturally decrease some value over time. The closer you are to expiration, the faster it's going to lose value, which kind of makes intuitive sense. For instance, compare an option with 90 days to expiration (DTE) to another with 10 DTE. One day later, the first option still has 89 DTE (almost the same as 90 DTE), but the other has 9 DTE - it relatively much closer to the expiration than the day before. So it will decay faster. Option buyers can protect their investment from time decay by buying longer dated options, which decay slower! edit: just thought about adding one final thought here. Probabilities. The strategy that you describe in your question is basically going long an OTM call. This is an extremely bullish position, with low probability of making money. Basically, for you to make money, you need two things: you need to be right on direction, and you need to be right on time. In this example, you need the underlying to go up - by a considerable amount! And you need this to happen quickly, before the passage of time will remove too much of the extrinsic value of your call (and, obviously, before the call expires). Benefit of the strategy is, in the highly unlikely event of an extreme, unanticipated move of the underlying to the upside, you can make a lot of money. So, it's a low probability, limited risk, unlimited profit, extremely bullish strategy.\"",
"Yes. If I own a call, an American call option can be exercised at my wish. A European call can only be exercised at expiration, by the way. Your broker doesn't give you anything but a current quote for a given strike price. There are a number of good option related questions here. A bit of searching and reading will help you understand the process.",
"On the US markets, most index options are European style. Most stock and ETF options are, as you noted, American style.",
"\"This is because volatility is cumulative and with less time there is less cumulative volatility. The time value and option value are tied to the value of the underlying. The value of the underlying (stock) is quite influenced by volatility, the possible price movement in a given span of time. Thirty days of volatility has a much broader spread of values than two days, since each day benefits from the possible price change of the prior days. So if a stock could move up to +/- 1% in a day, then compounded after 5 days it could be +5%, +0%, or -5%. In other words, this is compounded volatility. Less time means far less volatility, which is geometric and not linear. Less volatility lowers the value of the underlying. See Black-Scholes for more technical discussion of this concept. A shorter timeframe until option expiration means there are fewer days of compounded volatility. So the expected change in the underlying will decrease geometrically. The odds are good that the price at T-5 days will be close to the price at T-0, much more so than the prices at T-30 or T-90. Additionally, the time value of an American option is the implicit put value (or implicit call). While an \"\"American\"\" option lets you exercise prior to expiry (unlike a \"\"European\"\" option, exercised only at expiry), there's an implicit put option in a call (or an implicit call in a put option). If you have an American call option of 60 days and it goes into the money at 30 days, you could exercise early. By contract, that stock is yours if you pay for it (or, in a put, you can sell whenever you decide). In some cases, this may make sense (if you want an immediate payoff or you expect this is the best price situation), but you may prefer to watch the price. If the price moves further, your gain when you use the call may be even better. If the price goes back out of the money, then you benefited from an implicit put. It's as though you exercised the option when it went in the money, then sold the stock and got back your cash when the stock went out of the money, even though no actual transaction took place and this is all just implicit. So the time value of an American option includes the implicit option to not use it early. The value of the implicit option also decreases in a nonlinear fashion, since the value of the implicit option is subject to the same valuation principles. But the larger principle for both is the compounded volatility, which drops geometrically.\"",
"Here is the answer for #3 from my brokerage: Your math is correct. Typically, option traders never take delivery of the stock simply to then turn around and sell it at the higher price that the stock is trading at. You wold always expect the option to have a higher value that simply selling the stock at market price. There are many factors involved in options pricing and the math behind it is quite complicated, but unless it is right at expiration, the option will have a higher price than the stock itself.",
"One reason this happens is due to dividends. If the dividend amount is greater than the time value left on a call, it can make sense to exercise early to collect the dividend. Deep in the money puts also may get exercised early. There's usually little premium on a deep in the money put and the spread on the bid-ask might erase what little premium there is. If you have stock worth $5,000 but own puts on them that will give you $50,000 upon exercise (and no spread to worry about), the interest you can gain on the $50k might be more than the little to no time value left on the position... even at several weeks to expiration.",
"An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules.",
"When you can exercie your option depends on your trading style. In the american options trading style (the most popular) you're allowed to exercice your options and make profit (if any) whenever you want before the expiration date. Thus, the decision of exercising your option and make a profit out of it does not rely only on the asset price. The reason is, you already paid for the premium to get the option. So, if taken into account the underlying price AND your premium, your investment is profitable then you can exercice your contract anytime.",
"\"A minor tangent. One can claim the S&P has a mean return of say 10%, and standard deviation of say 14% or so, but when you run with that, you find that the actual returns aren't such a great fit to the standard bell curve. Market anomalies producing the \"\"100-year flood\"\" far more often than predicted over even a 20 year period. This just means that the model doesn't reflect reality at the tails, even if the +/- 2 standard deviations look pretty. This goes for the Black-Sholes (I almost abbreviated it to initials, then thought better, I actually like the model) as well. The distinction between American and European is small enough that the precision of the model is wider than the difference of these two option styles. I believe if you look at the model and actual pricing, you can determine the volatility of a given stock by using prices around the strike price, but when you then model the well out of money options, you often find the market creating its own valuation.\"",
"Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously. It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock. The equality goes both ways. If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs).",
"If you look at it from the hedging perspective, if you're unsure you're going to need to hedge but want to lock in an option premium price if you do need to do so, I could see this making sense.",
"Just a few observations within the Black-Scholes framework: Next, you can now use the Black-Scholes framework (stock price is a Geometric Brownian Motion, no transaction costs, single interest rate, etc. etc.) and numerical methods (such as a PDE solver) to price American style options numerically, but not with a simple closed form formula (though there are closed-form approximations).",
"\"You've described the process fairly well. It's tough to answer a question that ultimately is 'how is this fair?' It's fair in that it's part of the known risk. And for the fact that it applies to all, pretty equally. In general, this is not very common. (No, I don't have percents handy, I'm just suggesting from decades of trading it's probably occurring less than 10% of the time). Why? Because there's usually more value to the buyer in simply selling the option and using the proceeds to buy the stock. The option will have 2 components, its intrinsic value (\"\"in the money\"\") and the time premium. It takes the odd combination of low-to-no time premium, but desire of the buyer to own the stock that makes the exercise desirable.\"",
"An expiration 2 years out will have Sqr(2) (yes the square root of 2!) times the premium of the 1 year expiration. So if the option a year out sell for $1.00, two is only $1.41. And if the stock trades for $10, but the strike is $12, why aren't you just waiting for expiration to write the next one?",
"\"Yes, long calls, and that's a good point. Let's see... if I bought one contract at the Bid price above... $97.13 at expiry of $96.43 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $113 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.00 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $77 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.14 option = in the money by 1-cent=$1/contract profit - option price(x100) = $1-$58 = $57 loss The higher strike prices have much lower losses if they expire with the underlying stock at- or near-the-money. So, they carry \"\"gentler\"\" downside potential, and are priced much higher to reflect that \"\"controlled\"\" risk potential. That makes sense. Thanks.\"",
"SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price.",
"/u/NotMyRealFaceBook As a sniff test, I threw the following assumptions into a Black-Scholes options pricing calculator: * Stock Price and Strike Price = $200 * Valuation date = 10/31/2017 * Expiration date = 10/29/2027 (European style - no early exercise) * Volatility = 20% (on the low end for a tech. company - but again see the non-log-normal assumption point above) * Interest rate = 4% (on the high end - which means the option seller is over-charging you) * Dividend yield = 0% The calculator's theoretical call option price results in $82. Unless the company in question has a materially skewed upside given today's starting valuation, my opinion is the options you are offered are being priced via a Black-Scholes model and are over-priced.",
"Not necessarily though, since you can simply adjust the premium. I'm thinking an embedded option is just an option with longer maturity, and the increased price of that adjusted option can be reflected (like any other option) in the strike price or the premium. Am I missing something?",
"The fact that the option is deep in the money will be reflected in the market price of the option so you can just sell it at a profit. If there's a (n almost) guaranteed profit to be had, however, you can always find someone who will lend you the money to cover the exercise... they'll charge you interest, however!",
"An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.",
"\"One thing I would like to clear up here is that Black Scholes is just a model that makes some assumptions about the dynamics of the underlying + a few other things and with some rather complicated math, out pops the Black Scholes formula. Black Scholes gives you the \"\"real\"\" price under the assumptions of the model. Your definition of what a \"\"real\"\" price entails will depend on what assumptions you make. With that being said, Black Scholes is popular for pricing European options because of the simplicity and speed of using an analytic formula as opposed to having a more complex model that can only be evaluated using a numerical method, as DumbCoder mentioned (should note that, for many other types of derivative contracts, e.g. American or Bermudan style exercise, the Black Scholes analytic formula is not appropriate). The other important thing to note here is that the market does not necessarily need to agree with the assumptions made in the Black Scholes model (and they most certainly do not) to use it. If you look at implied vols for a set of options which have the same expiration but differing strike prices, you may find that the implied vols for each contract differ and this information is telling you to what degree the traders in the market for those contracts disagree with the lognormal distribution assumption made by Black Scholes. Implied vol is generally the thing to look at when determining cheapness/expensiveness of an option contract. With all that being said, what I'm assuming you are interested in is either called a \"\"delta-gamma approximation\"\" or more generally \"\"Greek/sensitivities based profit and loss attribution\"\" (in case you wanted to Google some more about it). Here is an example that is relevant to your question. Let's say we had the following European call contract: Popping this in to BS formula gives you a premium of $4.01, delta of 0.3891 and gamma of 0.0217. Let's say you bought it, and the price of the stock immediately moves to 55 and nothing else changes, re-evaluating with the BS formula gives ~6.23. Whereas using a delta-gamma approximation gives: The actual math doesn't work out exactly and that is due to the fact that there are higher order Greeks than gamma but as you can see here clearly they do not have much of an impact considering a 10% move in the underlying is almost entirely explained by delta and gamma.\"",
"My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described.",
"Options can have a negligible time premium. For American1 calls the time premium is never negative. If it had a negative premium it would be profitable to exercise it immediately. A deep in the money call has a delta of exactly one. That is, it's price movements completely mirror the price movements of the underlying stock. That means an option seller can buy stock and completely hedge his short option position. The seller of the option may be in an position to buy with very little margin and take your money and invest it. For example, consider a stock trading at $7.50, with its January 2014 $4 call option trading at $3.50. For one option, representing 100 shares, a trader could take your 350 dollars and invest it, and only use a small portion of the money to buy the stock on margin. Market-makers can typically borrow money at very low interest rates. If you have high borrowing costs, or are unable to buy on margin, then buying deep in the money calls can be a good strategy. Long story short, option sellers are making money off selling these deep in the money calls even with almost zero time premium. So, in general, there's no way to make money by buying them. 1. An American call is a call that can be exercised at any time up to and including its expiration date.",
"The question is always one of whether people think they can reliably predict that the option will be a good bet. The closer you get to its expiration, the easier it is to make that guess and the less risk there is. That may either increase or decrease the value of the option.",
"\"You are thinking about it this way: \"\"The longer I wait to exericse, the more knowledge and information I'll have, thus the more confidence I can have that I'll be able to sell at a profit, minimizing risk. If I exercise early and still have to wait, there may never be a chance I can sell at a profit, and I'll have lost the money I paid to exercise and any tax I had to pay when I exercised.\"\" All of that is true. But if you exercise early: The fair market value of the stock will probably be lower, so you may pay less income tax when you exercise. (This depends on your tax situation. Currently, ISO exercises affect your AMT.) If the company goes through a phase where the value is unusually high, you'll be able to sell and still get the tax benefits because you exercised earlier. You avoid the nightmare scenario where you leave the company (voluntarily or not) and can't afford to exercise your options because of the tax implications. In many realistic cases, exercising earlier means less risk. Imagine if you're working at a company that is privately held and you expect to be there for another year or so. You are very optimistic about the company, but not sure when it will IPO or get acquired and that may be several years off. The fair market value of the stock is low now, but may be much higher in a year. In this case, it makes a lot of sense to exercise now. The cost is low because the fair market value is low so it won't result in a huge tax bill. And then when you leave in a year, you won't have to choose between forfeiting your options or borrowing money to pay the much higher taxes due to exercise them then.\"",
"In the first case, if you wish to own the stock, you just exercise the option, and buy it for the strike price. Else, you can sell the option just before expiration, it will be priced very close to its in-the-money value.",
"In the scenario you describe, and really, in any scenario, by the nature of how option contracts work: a higher strike put will necessarily be more expensive than the lower strike put (everything else being equal). the lower strike call will necessarily be more expensive than the higher strike call (everything else being equal). In put options, the buyer has the right to sell stock for the strike price. So the higher the strike price, the more money the buyer of the put option can make by selling the shares of stock at a higher price. In call options, it's the exact opposite: buyers of the call option have the right to buy stock at the strike price. The lower the strike price, the better for the buyer: they have the right to buy stock for a lower amount of money. So it must be worth more.",
"For listed options in NYSE,CBOE, is it possible for an option holder to exercise an option even if it is not in the money? Abandonment of in-the-money options or the exercise of out-of-the-money options are referred as contrarian instructions. They are sometimes forbidden, e.g. see CME - Weekly & End-of-Month (EOM) Options on Standard & E-mini S&P 500 Futures (mirror): In addition to offering European-style alternatives (which by definition can only be exercised on expiration day), both the weekly and EOM options prohibit contrarian instructions (the abandonment of in-the-money options, or the exercise of out-of-the-money options). Thus, at expiration, all in-the-money options are automatically exercised, whereas all options not in-the-money are automatically abandoned.",
"If you think about it, the value of an option comes from the chance that the price at the expiration date can exceed the strike price. As it gets closer to the expiration date, the chance is getting smaller, because there is simply not enough time for an out-of-money option to hit that strike. Therefore, the value of an option decays.",
"You bought the right – but not the obligation – to buy a certain number of shares at $15 from whomsoever sold you the option, and you paid a premium for it. You can choose whether you want to buy the shares at $15 during the period agreed upon. If you call for the shares, the other guy has to sell the shares to you for $15 each, even if the market price is higher. You can then turn around and promptly resell the purchased shares at the higher market price. If the market price never rises above $15 at any time while the option is open, you still have the right to buy the shares for $15 if you choose to do so. Most rational people would let the option expire without exercising it, but this is not a legal requirement. Doing things like buying shares at $15 when the market price is below $15 is perfectly legal; just not very savvy. You cannot cancel the option in the sense of going to the seller of the option and demanding your premium money back because you don't intend to exercise the option because the market price is below $15. Of course, if the market price is above $15 and you tell the seller to cancel the contract, they will be happy to do so, since it lets them off the hook. They may or may not give you the premium back in this case.",
"The buyer pays $1.99/share for the option of selling a share of AMD to the seller for $10 which is currently $1.94 higher than the price of $8.06/share. If you bought the put and immediately exercised it, you would come out of the deal losing $.05/share.",
"Well, yes -- you've implicitly made many assumptions (such as that the embedded option has longer maturity). The important thing to consider is when this option pays out; the premium will obviously be adjusted. For a concrete example, consider an equity option-on-an-option. The outer option has strike 110, the inner option has strike 100 (spot = forward = 100). Then the inner strike pays out when spot_T > 100, but the outer option has zero value there; the overall option only pays out if spot_T > 110, reducing the structure to a call option with strike 110.",
"The main reason is that you move from the linear payoff structure to a non-linear one. This is called convexity in finance. With options you can design a payoff structure in almost any way to want it to be. For example you can say that you only want the upside but not the downside, so you buy a call option. It is obvious that this comes at a price, the option premium. Or equivalently you buy the underlying and for risk management reasons buy a put option on top of it as an insurance. The price of the put could be seen as the insurance premium. You can of course combine options in more complicated ways so that you e.g. profit as long as the underlying moves strongly enough in either direction. This is called a straddle.",
"It depends how deep in the money it is, compared to the dividend. Even an in the money call has some time premium. As the call holder, if I exercise instead of selling the call, I am trading the potential for a dividend, which I won't receive, for getting that time premium back by selling. Given the above, you'll notice a slight distortion in options pricing as a dividend date approaches, as the option will reflect not just the time premium, but the fact that exercising with grab the dividend. Edit to address your comment - $10 stock, $9 strike, 50 cent div. If the option price is high, say $2, because there's a year till expiration, exercising makes no sense. If it's just $1.10, I gain 40 cents by exercising and selling after the dividend.",
"As other uses have pointed out, your example is unusual in that is does not include any time value or volatility value in the quoted premiums, the premiums you quote are only intrinsic values. For well in-the-money options, the intrinsic value will certainly be the vast majority of the premium, but not the sole component. Having said that, the answer would clearly be that the buyer should buy the $40 call at a premium of $10. The reason is that the buyer will pay less for the option and therefore risk less money, or buy more options for the same amount of money. Since the buyer is assuming that the price will rise, the return that will be realised will be the same in gross terms, but higher in relative terms for the buyer of the $40 call. For example, if the underlying price goes to $60, then the buyer of the $40 call would (potentially) double their money when the premium goes from $10 to $20, while the buyer of the $30 call would realise a (potential) 50% profit when the premium goes from $20 to $30. Considering the situation beyond your scenario, things are more difficult if the bet goes wrong. If the underlying prices expires at under $40, then the buyer of the $40 call will be better off in gross terms but may be worse off in relative terms (if it expires above $30). If the underlying price expires between $40 and $50, then the buy of the $30 will be better off in relative term, having lost a smaller percentage of their money.",
"On July 20, when you posted this question, AAPL was trading almost at 115. The market charges an extra premium for buying an option that is in the money (or on the money like this case) over one that is out of the money. In order for the 130 Call to be worth something the market has to go up 15 points. Otherwise you lose 100% of your premium. On the other hand with the 115 every point that the market goes up means that you recover some of that premium. It is much more likely that you recover part of your premium with the 115 than with the 130. With the higher probability of losing part of the premium, the sellers are going to be reluctant to write the option unless they receive larger compensation.",
"First, in the money options are scarcely created because most options trade at the money with the rest evenly distributed between in and out, so they are at best half the market when created. They are also closed before expiration. The reason is still unknown, but one theory is: Barely in the money options carry enormous exercise risk because the chance that could be turned into a potentially solvency threatening unhedged liability is great; therefore, option sellers prefer to close barely in the money options so not to take on unhedged liability risk. Statistically, option sellers are risk avoiders.",
"The value at expiration does not depend on the price path for a plain vanilla European or American option. At expiration, the value would simply be: max[K - S_T, 0], where: K is the strike price, and S_T is the underlying price at expiration.",
"\"Yes, if it's an American style option. American style options may be exercised at any time prior to expiration (even if they're not in-the-money). Generally, you are required to deliver or accept delivery of the underlying by the beginning of the next trading day. If you are short, you may be chosen by the clearinghouse to fulfill the exercise (a process called \"\"assignment\"\"). Because the clearinghouse is the counter-party to every options trade, you can be assigned even if the specific person who purchased the option you wrote didn't exercise, but someone else who holds a long position did. Similarly, you might not be assigned if that person did exercise. The clearinghouse randomly chooses a brokerage to fulfill an assignment, and the brokerage will randomly choose an individual account. If you're going to be writing options, especially using spreads, you need to have a plan ahead of time on what to do if one of your legs gets assigned. This is more likely to happen just before a dividend payment, if the payment is more than the remaining time value.\"",
"If you're talking about ADBE options, that is an American style option, which can be exercised at any time before expiration. You can exercise your options by calling your broker and instructing them to exercise. Your broker will charge you a nominal fee to do so. As an aside, you probably don't want to exercise the option right now. It still has a lot of time value left, which you'll lose if you exercise. Just sell the option if you don't think ADBE will keep going up.",
"The difference is whether your options qualify as incentive stock options (ISOs), or whether they are non-qualifying options. If your options meet all of the criteria for being ISOs (see here), then (a) you are not taxed when you exercise the options. You treat the sale of the underlying stock as a long term capital gain, with the basis being the exercise price (S). There is something about the alternative minimum tax (AMT) as they pertain to these kinds of options. Calculating your AMT basically means that your ISOs are treated as non-qualifying options. So if your exercise bumps you into AMT territory, too bad, so sad. If you exercise earlier, you do get a clock ticking, as you put it, because one of the caveats of having your options qualify as ISOs is that you hold the underlying stock (a) at least two years after you were granted the options and (b) at least one year after you exercise the options.",
"\"You're forgetting the fundamental issue, that you never have to actually exercise the options you buy. You can either sell them to someone else or, if they're out of the money, let them expire and take the loss. It isn't uncommon at all for people to buy both a put and call option (this is a \"\"straddle\"\" when the strike price of both the put and call are the same). From Investopedia.com: A straddle is an options strategy in which the investor holds a position in both a call and put with the same strike price and expiration date, paying both premiums. This strategy allows the investor to make a profit regardless of whether the price of the security goes up or down, assuming the stock price changes somewhat significantly. Read more: Straddle http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/straddle.asp#ixzz4ZYytV0pT\"",
"Intuitive? I doubt it. Derivatives are not the simplest thing to understand. The price is either in the money or it isn't. (by the way, exactly 'at the money' is not 'in the money.') An option that's not in the money has time value only. As the price rises, and the option is more and more in the money, the time value drops. We have a $40 stock. It makes sense to me that a $40 strike price is all just a bet the stock will rise, there's no intrinsic value. The option prices at about $4.00 for one year out, with 25% volatility. But the strike of $30 is at $10.68, with $10 in the money and only .68 in time premium. There's a great calculator on line to tinker with. Volatility is a key component of options trading. Think about it. If a stock rises 5%/yr but rarely goes up any more or less, just steady up, why would you even buy an option that was even 10% out of the money? The only way I can describe this is to look at a bell curve and how there's a 1/6 chance the event will be above one standard deviation. If that standard deviation is small, the chance of hitting the higher strikes is also small. I wrote an article Betting on Apple at 9 to 2 in which I describe how a pair of option trades was set up so that a 35% rise in Apple stock would return 354% and Apple had two years to reach its target. I offer this as an example of options trading not being theory, but something that many are engaged in. What I found curious about the trade was that Apple's volatility was high enough that a 35% move didn't seem like the 4.5 to 1 risk the market said it was. As of today, Apple needs to rise 13% in the next 10 months for the trade to pay off. (Disclosure - the long time to expiration was both good and bad, two years to recover 35% seemed reasonable, but 2 years could bring anything in the macro sense. Another recession, some worldwide event that would impact Apple's market, etc. The average investor will not have the patience for these long term option trades.)",
"While open interest usually correlates to volume, the mark of liquidity is the bid ask spread. Even when trading options with spreads as large as an ask 2x the bid, a more realistic price that traders are willing to accept lies somewhere in the middle. Any option can easily be exited at intrinsic value: underlying price - exercise price for calls, exercise price - underlying price for puts. For illiquid options, this will be the best price obtained. For longer term options, something closer to the theoretical price is still possible. If an underlying is extremely liquid, yet the options aren't quite then options traders will be much more ready to trade at the theoretical price. For exiting illiquid options, small, < 4 contracts, and infrequent, > 30 minute intervals, orders are more likely to be filled closer to the theoretical price; however, if one's sells are the only trades, traders on the other side will take note and accept ever lowering implied volatilities. With knowledge of what traders will accept, it is always more optimal to trade out of options rather than exercise because of the added costs and uncertainty involved with exercising and liquidating.",
"See how you can only make the premium amount but your risk is the same as holding the stock when writing a put option.",
"That is a weird one. Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option. One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options. This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options. However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US. I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share. Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees",
"This is still unknown. One theory is that the risk adjusted premium is at an equilibrium allowing the seller and buyer to receive the best risk-adjusted premium. Deep in the monies have lower premiums, so this spurns sellers. Deep out the monies have lower probabilities of expiring in the money, so this spurns buyers. Risk adjusted, not at the monies cost more.",
"It is possible to exercise an out of the money option contract. Reasons to do this: You want a large stake of voting shares at any price without moving the market and could not get enough options contracts at a near the money strike price, so you decided to go out of the money. Then exercised all the contracts and suddenly you have a large influential position in the stock and nobody saw it coming. This may be favorable if the paper loss is less than the loss of time value that would have been incurred if you chose contracts near the money at further expiration dates, in search of liquidity. Some convoluted tax reason.",
"The general rule with stock options is that it's best to wait until expiration to exercise them. The rationale depends on a few factors and there are exceptions. Reasons to wait: There would be cases to exercise early: Tax implications should be checked with a professional advisor specific to your situation. In the employee stock option plans that I have personally seen, you get regular income tax assessed between exercise price and current price at the time you exercise. Your tax basis is then set to the current price. You also pay capital gains tax when you eventually sell, which will be long or short term based on the time that you held the stock. (The time that you held the options does not count.) I believe that other plans may be set up differently.",
"It's a matter of risk and reward. And its origin goes back to the Black Scholles equation, which is sort of a bell curve of possible outcomes. Do you see that from $36 to $34 strike, you are putting up over 35% more money to lower your break even by 30 cents? If I were to bet* $2000, I could buy 3 of the $34 contracts but almost 5 of the $36 strike. If the stock went to $45, I'd be far better off. *I say 'bet' because simply buying puts or calls, absent any underlying asset, is akin to gambling, not investing. I do it all the time, but with my Vegas money.",
"1.45 and 1.40 are the last trade prices. The last trade (1.45) for the 27 strike call must have occurred earlier than the last trade (1.40) for the 26 strike call. These options have low liquidity and don't trade very often. You have to look at the bid and ask prices to see what people are currently bidding and asking for those options. As you can see, the premium based on the bids and asks does decrease the further you go out of the money.",
"Berkshire Hathaway issues first ever-negative coupon security from back in 2002 had this part: The warrants will give the holder the right to purchase either shares of the Company's class A or class B common stock at the holder’s option. The initial exercise price represents a 15% premium over the closing price of the class A shares on the NYSE on May 21, 2002. The Notes will pay holders a 3.0% interest rate per annum and holders will pay 3.75% installment payments per annum on the warrants. The warrant payments due from holders will be greater than the coupon on the senior notes, effectively making SQUARZ the first negative coupon security. Berkshire Hathaway will use the net proceeds from the issuance for general corporate purposes, including possible acquisitions, none of which are pending. This would be an example where the strike price was 15% higher than the closing price yet the security sold well.",
"Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.",
"Let's say a stock trades at $100 right now, and you can buy a $100 call option. When you buy the call option (and the money you paid is gone), one of two things can happen: The share price goes up, or the share price goes down. If the share price goes up, you profit. If the share price goes down, you don't lose! Because once the shares are below $100, you don't exercise the call option, and you don't lose any money. So if you have a share that is rock solid at $100, you don't make money. If you have a share where the company owner took some ridiculous risk, and the shares could go to $200 or the company could go bankrupt, then you have a 50% chance to make $100 and a 50% chance to not lose anything. That's much more preferable.",
"One way is to compare the implied volatility with the realised volatility over a period similar to the time left to expiry. However there are plenty of reasons why the implied may be higher than the historical, for example because the market volatility has increased overall or because the underlying company is going to report their results before the option expires.",
"Thanks. Just to clarify I am looking for a more value-neutral answer in terms of things like Sharpe ratios. I think it's an oversimplification to say that on average you lose money because of put options - even if they expire uselessly 90% of the time, they still have some expected payoff that kicks in 10% of the time, and if the price is less than the expected payoff you will earn money in the long term by investing in put options (I am sure you know this as a PhD student I just wanted to get it out there.)I guess more formally my question would be are there studies on whether options prices correspond well to the diversification benefits they offer from an MPT point of view.",
"\"Alternatively you could exercise 12000 shares for $36000 and immediately sell 7200 shares to recover your exercise price. Then you use the remaining 4800 share to pay the exercise price of the remaining 8000 options. Both scenarios are equivalent but may have different fees associated, so it's worth checking the fine print. Tax wise: The above example is \"\"cash neutral before taxes\"\". The taxes associated with these transaction are substantial, so it's highly recommended to talk with a tax adviser. \"\"cash neutral after taxes\"\" depends highly on your specific tax situation.\"",
"Consider the black-scholes-merton result. Notice that the expected value of the bond is its present value, discounted from the expiration date. The same is not applied to the price of the stock. The further in the future you go, the less value the bond carries because it's being discounted into oblivion. Now, looking at d1, as time tends towards infinity, so does d1. N(d1) is a probability. The higher d1, the higher the probability and vice versa, so as time increases, the probability for S trends to 100% while K is discounted away. Note that the math doesn't yet fully model reality, as extremely long dated options such as the European puts Buffett wrote were traded at ~1/2 the value the model said he should've. He still had to take a GAAP loss: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2008ltr.pdf",
"\"There's no free lunch. Here are some positions that should be economically equivalent (same risk and reward) in a theoretically-pure universe with no regulations or transaction costs: You're proposing to buy the call. If you look at the equivalent, stock plus protective put, you can quickly see the \"\"catch\"\"; the protective put is expensive. That same expense is embedded in the call option. See put-call parity on Wikipedia for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity You could easily pay 10% a year or more for the protection, which could easily eat up most of your returns, if you consider that average returns on a stock index might be about 10% (nominal, not real). Another way to look at it is that buying the long call and selling a put, which is a synthetic long position in the stock, would give you the put premium. So by not selling the put, you should be worse off than owning the stock - worse than the synthetic long - by about the value of the put premium. Or yet another way to look at it is that you're repeatedly paying time value on the long call option as you roll it. In practical world instead of theory world, I think you'd probably get a noticeable hit to returns just from bid-ask and commissions, even without the cost of the protection. Options cost more. Digressing a bit, some practical complications of equivalency between different combinations of options and underlying are: Anyway, roughly speaking, any position without the \"\"downside risk\"\" is going to have an annual loss built in due to the cost of the protection. Occasionally the options market can do something weird due to supply/demand or liquidity issues but mostly the parity relationships hold, or hold closely enough that you can't profit once expenses are considered. Update: one note, I'm talking about \"\"vanilla\"\" options as traded in the US here, I guess there are some somewhat different products elsewhere; I'm not sure exactly which derivatives you mean. All derivatives have a cost though or nobody would take the other side of the trade.\"",
"I often sell covered calls, and if they are in the money, let the stock go. I am charged the same fee as if I sold online ($9, I use Schwab) which is better than buying back the option if I'm ok to sell the stock. In my case, If the option is slightly in the money, and I see the options are priced well, i.e. I'd do another covered call anyway, I sometimes buy the option and sell the one a year out. I prefer to do this in my IRA account as the trading creates no tax issue.",
"i will not calculate it for you but just calculate the discounted cash flow (by dividing with 1.1 / 1.1^2 / 1.1^3 ...)of each single exercise as stated and deduct the 12.000 of the above sum. in the end compare which has the highest npv",
"It's an artifact of risk-neutral pricing, but the intuition is this: A call option can be viewed as a levered equity position - meaning, you can get the same exposure by borrowing money and buying the stock. Say you can buy some call options for $150 with a position delta of 1 (so it looks just like the stock). You could also buy the stock outright for $1000 (by borrowing $850 at the risk-free rate and using your $150 cash). If the risk-free rate rises, your cost of carry on the stock position increases. In the case of the call option, the change in price can be viewed as the cost of *leverage* increasing.",
"\"No, because you didn't lose anything. When you exercise ISO \"\"at loss\"\" you're buying stock without a discount, that's it.\"",
"Buying the underlying asset will not completely hedge you, only what lies above 155 dollars (strike + price of option) - you still have the risk of losing everything but 5. You have a maximum earnings-potential of 55 dollars (strike of 150 - investment of 100 + option of 5) but you have a risk of losing 95$ (investment of 100 - option of 5). Say chance of winning everything or losing everything is 50-50, your expected outcome is 0.5 x -95 + 0.5 x 55 = -20$. Is this a great investment? Sure you don't know your odds - otherwise it would be a sure thing. You shouldn't sell the call option if you do not expect prices to go up - but in that case - why not just buy the underlying alone? Speculating in options is a dangerous game with infinite earnings-potential but also infinite loss potential. (Consider selling a call option and not buying the underlying and the price goes from 100 to 1.000.000.000).",
"In a simple world yes, but not in the real world. Option pricing isn't that simplistic in real life. Generally option pricing uses a Monte Carlo simulation of the Black Scholes formula/binomial and then plot them nomally to decide the optimum price of the option. Primarily multiple scenarios are generated and under that specific scenario the option is priced and then a price is derived for the option in real life, using the prices which were predicted in the scenarios. So you don't generate a single price for an option, because you have to look into the future to see how the price of the option would behave, under the real elements of the market. So what you price is an assumption that this is the most likely value under my scenarios, which I predicted into the future. Because of the market, if you price an option higher/lower than another competitor you introduce an option for arbitrage by others. So you try to be as close to the real value of the option, which your competitor also does. The more closer your option value is to the real price the better it is for all. Did you try the book from Hull ? EDIT: While pricing you generally take variables which would affect the price of your option. The more variables you take(more nearer you are to the real situation) the more realistic your price will be and you would converge on the real price faster. So simple formula is an option, but the deviations maybe large from the real value. And you would end up loosing money, most of the time. So the complicated formula is there for getting a more accurate price, not to confuse people. You can use your formula, but there will be odds stacked against you to loose money, from the onset, because you didn't consider the variables which might/would affect the price of your option.",
"Think about it this way. If the strike price is $200, and cost of the option is $0.05. $200 + $0.05 is $200.05. That does not mean that the price of buying the option is more. Neither is the option writer going to pay you $70 to buy the contract. When you are buying options, you can only have a limited downside and that is the premium that you pay for it. In case of the $115 contract, your total loss could be a maximum of $19.3. In case of the $130 contract, your total loss could be a maximum of $9.3. This is due to the fact that the chances of AAPL going to hit $130 is less than the chance of AAPL hitting $115. Therefore, option writers offer the lower probability contracts at a lower price. Long story short, you do not pay for the Strike price. You only pay the premium and that premium keeps getting lower with and increase in Strike price(Or decrease if it is a put option). Strike price is just a number that you expect the stock or index to break. I would suggest you to read up a little more on pricing from here",
"> But, it seems like the pool is adding value out of nowhere! Options don't simply exercise in the void. There are proceeds from the exercise (option-holders must pay into the company). This amount is an additional investment in the company that hasn't precisely materialized yet, but is generally expected to (and is difficult to alter, as it's likely part of an employment contract).",
"Time premium is the difference between the market value of the option and its intrinsic value the amount you would get if it expired right now. Lets think about three cases for buying call options: Purchasing put options works similarly but in reverse.",
"When volatility is higher, the option is more likely to end up in-the-money. Moreover, when it ends up in-the-money, it is likely to be over the strike price by a greater amount. Consider a call option. With high volatility, moves in the stock price are big - both up moves and down moves. If the stock moves up by a lot, the call option holder will benefit greatly. On the other hand, when the stock moves down, below a certain point the option holder does not care how big a down move the stock has. His downside is limited. Hence, the value of the option is increased by high volatility. I know everyone who searches this is looking for this answer. Bump so people are able to get this concept instead of looking all over the web for it.",
"\"Yeah. This shorting the box nonsense is an extremely expensive way to capture downside. If I just drop $1000 on a long-dated out-of-the-money put I have significantly more downside exposure for much much less than the [100 X $160 - (call premium)]. That's like 16 grand dude!!! It does keep you more delta neutral, but still, stupid way to go about it, especially if you are concerned about \"\"cheap\"\".\"",
"> “If the [Black-Scholes] formula is applied to extended time periods….it can produce absurd results.” > -Warren Buffett, 2008 Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders I will give your question more thought, and come back with a quantitative solution. It may be most fruitful to apply a backward-induction options pricing model with detailed scenario-based discounted cash flow valuation models supported by pro forma financial statement and investment analysis. Nonetheless, my initial reaction is inline with Warren Buffett's belief that in the long-run an assumption of the Black-Scholes options pricing model is invalid (see [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.1657&rep=rep1&type=pdf) and [here](http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academics/business/economics/faculty/kurt/OptionValuationBuffetCritique_123113.pdf)). The perceived invalid assumption is that the distribution of expected future stock prices is *not* log-normal in the long-run. This non-log-normal view is especially true for a single company stock. This invalid assumption results in over-valuation of options prices from Black-Scholes - which makes it much better to sell long-term options than to buy them if market participants are using Black-Scholes pricing models. Again, without having done the math yet, my gut tells me if the option seller is using Black-Sholes pricing for long-dated options, you would be best to avoid buying them as the prices will be inflated compared to an economic reality fair price.",
"Yes, selling premium is selling an option that contains premium over it's intrinsic value. Out-of-the-money options contain no intrinsic value, at the money and near the money options contain premium over the intrinsic value. The deeper in-the-money go, the less premium there is.",
"\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \"\"margin\"\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \"\"good faith\"\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\"",
"\"Firstly \"\"Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock.\"\" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be \"\"short VEGA\"\" or \"\"short volatility\"\". So one way to think about \"\"buying\"\" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is \"\"money\"\" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to \"\"warrants\"\" rather than \"\"options\"\", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer.\""
] |
[
"There are a few situations in which it may be advantageous to exercise early. Wikipedia actually has a good explanation: Option Style, Difference in value To account for the American's higher value there must be some situations in which it is optimal to exercise the American option before the expiration date. This can arise in several ways, such as: An in the money (ITM) call option on a stock is often exercised just before the stock pays a dividend that would lower its value by more than the option's remaining time value. A put option will usually be exercised early if the underlying asset files for bankruptcy.[3] A deep ITM currency option (FX option) where the strike currency has a lower interest rate than the currency to be received will often be exercised early because the time value sacrificed is less valuable than the expected depreciation of the received currency against the strike. An American bond option on the dirty price of a bond (such as some convertible bonds) may be exercised immediately if ITM and a coupon is due. A put option on gold will be exercised early when deep ITM, because gold tends to hold its value whereas the currency used as the strike is often expected to lose value through inflation if the holder waits until final maturity to exercise the option (they will almost certainly exercise a contract deep ITM, minimizing its time value).[citation needed]"
] |
8974
|
As a 22-year-old, how risky should I be with my 401(k) investments?
|
[
"140738",
"216365",
"523331",
"134931",
"356595",
"170625",
"10476",
"478242"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"134931",
"216365",
"102501",
"96110",
"140738",
"124762",
"128077",
"336144",
"345597",
"10476",
"115378",
"478242",
"248799",
"586029",
"463943",
"584627",
"210917",
"247051",
"501395",
"385702",
"500986",
"142631",
"591313",
"81304",
"222076",
"484823",
"7748",
"325612",
"17823",
"523331",
"579848",
"576391",
"327925",
"285918",
"135790",
"214264",
"571217",
"426461",
"228488",
"386423",
"192652",
"534795",
"184288",
"136270",
"502170",
"324066",
"418551",
"118800",
"363753",
"60032",
"108845",
"539680",
"168968",
"305804",
"526808",
"284591",
"199237",
"242310",
"471472",
"500863",
"251003",
"175226",
"34241",
"454871",
"466552",
"575435",
"397846",
"150475",
"418003",
"369342",
"409959",
"55513",
"129255",
"119940",
"234979",
"239891",
"204866",
"499166",
"565667",
"134542",
"527786",
"187039",
"400356",
"129997",
"272070",
"5602",
"382384",
"124042",
"176110",
"246253",
"452126",
"534837",
"399543",
"201391",
"144009",
"52941",
"370171",
"580313",
"178303",
"512458"
] |
[
"At 22yo, unless you have a terminal illness, you have many years to earn and save a lot more that you will have in your 401k right now (unless you have already been extremely lucky in the market with your 401k investments). This means that even if you lost everything in your 401k right now, it probably wouldn't hurt you that much over the long term. The net present value of all your future savings should far exceed the net present value of your 401k, if you plan to earn and save responsibly. So take as much risk as you want with it right now. There is no real benefit to playing safe with investments at your age. If you were asking me how much risk should you be taking with a $10m inheritance and no income or much prospects of an income, then I'd be giving you a very different answer.",
"At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.",
"Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary.",
"If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?",
"\"At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts. Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question. I seek high return rather than protection of principal. If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover. But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like. If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars). Will you have low or high monthly expenses? Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties? Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year. You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund. You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years. You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times. Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies. There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities. In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say \"\"how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire\"\"? The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future. You are off to a good start. Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting. The rest will follow. After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future.\"",
"he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance. It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work. Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion. Period. It says nothing about your age. Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone. In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case. At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable. With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio. Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing.",
"\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\"",
"\"Why it is good to be risky The reason why it is good to be risky is because risky investments can result in higher returns on your money. The problem with being risky, is there is a chance you can lose money. However, in the long term you can usually benefit from higher returns even if you have a few slip ups. Let me show you an example: These two lines are based off of placing $2,000 in a retirement fund at age of 20 and then at age of 25 start investing $6,500 a year (based off of a salary of $65,000 with a company that will 1 to 1 match up to 5% IRA contribution, presumably someone with a Master's should be able to get this) and then being able to increase your contribution amount by $150 a year as your salary begins to increase as well. The blue line assumes that all of this money that you are putting in a retirement account has a fixed 3% interest (compounded yearly for simplicity sake) every year until you retire. The red line is earning a 12% interest rate while you are 20 years old and then decreasing by 0.5% per year until you retire. Since this is using more risky investments when you are younger, I have even gone ahead and included losing 20% of your money when you are 24, another 20% when you are 29, and then again another 20% when you are 34. As you can see, even with losing 20% of your money 3 different times, you still end up with more money then you would have had if you stuck with a more conservative investment plan. If I change this to 50% each 3 times, you will still come out about equal to a more conservative investment. Now, I do have these 3 loses placed at a younger age when there is less to lose, but this is to be expected since you are being more risky when you are young. When you are closer to retirement you have less of a chance of losing money since you will be investing more conservatively. Why it is OK to be risky when you are young but not old Lets say you loose 20% of your $2,000 when you are young, you have 30-40 years to make that back. That's roughly $1 a month extra that you are having to come up with. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are young, you have plenty of time to account for it before you retire. Now lets say you have $1,000,000 when you are 5 years from retiring and loose 20% of it, you have to come up with an extra $3,333 a month if you want to retire on time. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are close to retiring, you will most likely have to work for many more years just to be able to recover from your loses. What to invest in This is a little bit more difficult question to answer. If there was one \"\"right\"\" way to invest your money, every one would be doing that one \"\"right\"\" way and would result in it not turning out to be that good of investment. What you need to do is come up with a plan for yourself. My biggest advice that I can give is to be careful with fees. Some places will charge a fixed dollar amount per trade, while others might charge a fixed dollar amount per month, while even others might charge a percentage of your investment. With only having $2,000 to invest, a large fee might make it difficult to make money.\"",
"I would not advise any stock-picking or other active management (even using mutual funds that are actively managed). There is a large body of knowledge that needs learning before you even attempt that. Stay passive with index funds (either ETFs or (even better) low-cost passive mutual funds (because these prevent you from buying/selling). But I have not problem saying you can invest 100% in equity as long as your stomach can handle the price swings. If you freek out after a 25% drop that does not recover within a year, so you sell at the market bottom, then you are better off staying with a lot less risk. It is personal. There are a lot of valid reasons for young people to accept more risk - and equally valid reason why not. See list at http://www.retailinvestor.org/saving.html#norisk",
"As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old).",
"I'd say that because you are young, even the 'riskier' asset classes are not as risky as you think, for example, assuming conservatively that you only have 30 years to retirement, investing in stocks index might be a good option. In short term share prices are volatile and prone to bull and bear cycles but given enough time they have pretty much always outperformed any other asset classes. The key is not to be desperate to withdraw when an index is at the bottom. Some cycles can be 20 years, so when you need get nearer retirement you will need to diversify so that you can survive without selling low. Just make sure to pick an index tracker with low fees and you should be good to go. A word of warning is of course past performance is no indication of a future one, but if a diversified index tracker goes belly up for 20+ years, we are talking global calamity, in which case buy a shotgun and some canned food ;)",
"At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty.",
"\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"\"buckets.\"\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"\"target retirement\"\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"\"equity premium\"\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\"",
"I agree with others here that suggest that you should be taking higher risk since it is repaid with higher returns. You have 40 years or so to go before you might switch to safer but lower return funds. I suggest that you look at the Morningstar rating for the funds you are considering: http://www.morningstar.com/ A fund rated five stars means that the fund performs in the top 20% compared to all similar funds. I prefer five star funds. Next, check the management fees. Here is an example from one of the funds you mentioned; https://www.google.com/finance?cid=466533039917726 Next, I suggest you compare how each fund has performed compared to a benchmark. Here are some common indices: Compare an equity fund to, for example, the S&P 500. Has your fund beat or closely matched the S&P for 1, 5 and 10 years? If not, you may as well buy an index fund, such as SPY.",
"\"A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/\"\"aggression\"\" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite.\"",
"the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you. You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns. I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement. Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees - 1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better. The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years. They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice.",
"\"First of all, \"\"going risky\"\" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into \"\"blue chips\"\" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one.\"",
"At your age, I don't think its a bad idea to invest entirely in stocks. The concern with stocks is their volatility, and at 40+ years from retirement, volatility does not concern you. Just remember that if you ever want to call upon your 401(k) for anything other than retirement, such as a down payment on a home (which is a qualified distribution that is not subject to early distribution penalties), then you should reconsider your retirement allocations. I would not invest 100% into stocks if I knew I were going to buy a house in five years and needed that money for a down payment. If your truly saving strictly for a retirement that could occur forty years in the future, first good for you, and second, put it all in an index fund. An S&P index has a ridiculously low expense ratio, and with so many years away from retirement, it gives you an immense amount of flexibility to choose what to do with those funds as your retirement date approaches closer every year.",
"\"Those who say a person should invest in riskier assets when young are those who equate higher returns with higher risk. I would argue that any investment you do not understand is risky and allows you to lose money at a more rapid rate than someone who understands the investment. The way to reduce risk is to learn about what you want to invest in before you invest in it. Learning afterward can be a very expensive proposition, possibly costing you your retirement. Warren Buffet told the story on Bloomberg Radio in late 2013 of how he read everything in his local library on investing as a teenager and when his family moved to Washington he realized he had the entire Library of Congress at his disposal. One of Mr. Buffett's famous quotes when asked why he doesn't invest in the tech sector was: \"\"I don't invest in what I do not understand.\"\". There are several major asset classes: Paper (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, currency), Commodities (silver, gold, oil), Businesses (creation, purchase or partnership as opposed to common stock ownership) and Real Estate (rental properties, flips, land development). Pick one that interests you and learn everything about it that you can before investing. This will allow you to minimize and mitigate risks while increasing the rewards.\"",
"The reason that you are advised to take more risk while you are young is because the risk is often correlated to a short investment horizon. Young people have 40-50 years to let their savings grow if they get started early enough. If you need the money in 5-15 years (near the end of your earning years), there is much more risk of a dip that will not correct itself before you need the money than if you don't need the money for 25-40 years (someone whose career is on the rise). The main focus for the young should be growth. Hedging your investments with gold might be a good strategy for someone who is worried about the volatility of other investments, but I would imagine that gold will only reduce your returns compared to small-cap stocks, for example. If you are looking for more risk, you can leverage some of your money and buy call options to increase the gains with upward market moves.",
"\"This is always a judgement call based on your own tolerance for risk. Yes, you have a fairly long time horizon and that does mean you can accept more risk/more volatility than someone closer to starting to draw upon those savings, but you're old enough and have enough existing savings that you want to start thinking about reducing the risk a notch. So most folks in your position would not put 100% in stocks, though exactly how much should be moved to bonds is debatable. One traditional rule of thumb for a moderately conservative position is to subtract your age from 100 and keep that percentage of your investments in stock. Websearch for \"\"stock bond age\"\" will find lots of debate about whether and how to modify this rule. I have gone more aggressive myself, and haven't demonstrably hurt myself, but \"\"past results are no guarantee of future performance\"\". A paid financial planning advisor can interview you about your risk tolerance, run some computer models, and recommend a strategy, with some estimate of expected performance and volatility. If you are looking for a semi-rational approach, that may be worth considering, at least as a starting point.\"",
"As a general rule of thumb, age and resiliency of your profession (in terms of high and stable wages) in most cases imply that you have the ABILITY to accept higher than average level of risk by investing in stocks (rather than bonds) in search for capital appreciation (rather than income), simply because you have more time to offset any losses, should you have any, and make capital gains. Dividend yield is mostly sough after by people at or near retirement who need to have some cash inflows but cannot accept high risk of equity investments (hence low risk dividend stocks and greater allocation to bonds). Since you accept passive investment approach, you could consider investing in Target Date Funds (TDFs), which re-allocate assets (roughly, from higher- to lower-risk) gradually as the fund approaches it target, which for you could be your retirement age, or even beyond. Also, why are you so hesitant to consider taking professional advice from a financial adviser?",
"Short Answer: Length of Time invested and risk should be correlated. From what I am hearing this is pretty good game plan for your age. Minutia: Once you get closer to retirement lets say in 20 years. You might want to treat two lumps of money with different risk. For me at 49 I have a lump of money for 55-70 that carries a lot less risk then another lump of money for when I hit 80. This way I can wait and take Social Security at 70 when it pays the most per month. Then I'll have another pile of money for when my care costs start being very expensive. Or I think most people would benefit from making sure you have the funds you need for the next 5 years in items with extremely low risk and funds you need 6 years out or more you can have some risk tolerance there. Best laid plans though.",
"You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here.",
"They made an analysis of my readiness to assume a risk and found out that I am willing to take only small risks. I would agree with this analysis. You really should rethink this part. At your age, you have no rational reason whatsoever to be risk-averse! Especially since any reasonably diversified fund already eliminates actual risk (of complete loss) almost completely. Going into bonds and real estate does not reduce risk at all; it reduces volatility - and you're giving up a lot of money merely to avoid seeing your investments go down temporarily(!)",
"For me the aggressive approach makes sense since I have a longer time horizon before I need to withdraw the funds. This style should also match your personality and you should have the patience and appetite to deal with market fluctuations which can be wild in some cases (as we saw in 2008-2009). Not an easy question to answer since everyone's situation is different and everyone has to make their own decisions.",
"\"For your first question, the general guidelines I've seen recommended are as follows: As to your second question, portfolio management is something you should familiarize yourself with. If you trust it to other people, don't be surprised when they make \"\"mistakes\"\". Remember, they get paid regardless of whether you make money. Consider how much any degree of risk will affect you. When starting out, your contributions make up most of the growth of your accounts; now is the time when you can most afford to take higher risk for higher payouts (still limiting your risk as much as possible, of course). A 10% loss on a portfolio of $50k can be replaced with a good year's contributions. Once your portfolio has grown to a much larger sum, it will be time to dial back the risk and focus on preserving your capital. When choosing investments, always treat your porfolio as a whole - including non-retirement assets (other investment accounts, savings, even your house). Don't put too many eggs from every account into the same basket, or you'll find that 30% of your porfolio is a single investment. Also consider that some investments have different tax consequences, and you can leverage the properties of each account to offset that.\"",
"I'm going to diverge from most of the opinions expressed here. It is common for financial advisors to assume that your portfolio should become less risky as you get older. Explanations for this involve hand-waving and saying that you can afford to lose money when young because you have time to make up for it later. However, the idea that portfolios should become less risky as you get older is not well-grounded in finance theory. According to finance theory, regardless of your age and wealth, returns are desirable and risk is undesirable. Your risk aversion is the only factor that should decide how much risk you put in your portfolio. Do people become more risk averse as they get older? Sometimes. Not always. In fact, there are theoretical reasons why people might want more aggressive portfolios as they age. For example: As people become wealthier they generally become less risk averse. Young people are not normally very wealthy. When you are young, most of your wealth is tied up in the value of your human capital. This wealth shifts into your portfolio as you age. Depending on your field, human capital can be extremely risky--much riskier than the market. Therefore to maintain anything like a constant risk profile over your life, you may want very safe investments when young. You mention being a hedge fund manager. If we enter a recession, your human capital will take a huge hit because you will have a hard time raising money or getting/keeping a job. No one will value your skills and your future career prospects will fall. You will not want the double whammy of large losses in your portfolio. Hedge fund managers are clear examples of people who will want a very safe personal portfolio during their early working years and may be willing to invest very aggressively in their later working and early retirement years. In short, the received wisdom that portfolios should start out risky and get safer as we age is not always, and perhaps not even usually, true. A better guide to how much risk you should have in your portfolio is how you respond to questions that directly measure your risk aversion. This questions ask things like how much you would pay to avoid the possibility of a 20% loss in your portfolio with a certain probability.",
"\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"",
"Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.",
"You are only 33, with plenty of time to generate long-term returns. A correction is an opportunity for you to buy more at a lower price. My advice: invest about half in an index fund (S&P 500, for example) and half in a target fund (pick your retirement age), keep saving regularly, and in 30 years you'll be very happy you did. 5-10K a month is fine until all of the money is invested. (You said this is a retirement account, so invest the entire amount. Keep a rainy day fund in your non-retirement savings.) You can fiddle around with how you invest the money and I'm sure you'll get variations on my answer. My above suggestions may not be the absolute best option, but they are certainly not the worst option. Given that you are very risk-averse, keep in mind that you are in this for the long term and should be investing in something where you can safely ignore short-term downswings.",
"You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!",
"\"I didn't even have access to a 401(k) at age 24. You're starting early and that's good. You're frugal and that's good too. Retirement savings is really intended to be a set it and forget it kind of arrangement. You check in on it once a year, maybe adjust your contributions. While I applaud your financial conservatism, you're really hamstringing your retirement if you're too conservative. At age 24 you have a solid 30 years before retirement will even approach your radar and another 10 years after that before you have to plan your disbursements. The daily, monthly, quarterly movements of your retirement account will have literally zero impact on your life. There will be money market type savings accounts, bond funds, equity funds, and lifecycle funds. The lifecycle fund rolls your contributions to favor bonds and other \"\"safer\"\" investments as you age. The funds available in retirement accounts will all carry something called an expense ratio. This is the amount of money that the fund manager keeps for maintaining the fund. Be mindful of the expense ratios even more than the published performance of the fund. A low fee fund will typically have an expense ratio around 0.10%, or $1 per $1,000 per year in expense. There will be more exotic funds targeting this or that segment, they can carry expense ratios nearing 1% and some even higher. It's smart to take advantage of your employer's match. Personally, at age 24, at a minimum I would contribute the match to a low-fee S&P index fund.\"",
"I am in a very similar situation as you (software engineer, high disposable income). Maximize your contributions to all tax-advantaged accounts first. From those accounts you can choose to invest in high risk funds. At your age and date-target funds will invest in riskier investments on your behalf; and they'll do it while avoiding the 30%+/- haircut that you'll be paying in taxes anyhow. If, after that, you're looking for bigger risk plays then look into a brokerage account that will let you buy and sell options. These are big risk swingers and they are sophisticated, complicated products which are used by many people who likely understand finance far better than you. You can make money with them but you should consider it akin to gambling. It might be more to your liking to maintain a long position in a stock and then trade options against your long position. Start with trading covered calls, then you could consider buying options (defined limited downside risk).",
"With painful 20/20 hindsight, I earnestly say - max it out hard. The reason is the sheer opportunity of it. As a young person you have time on your side - you have so many years for the earnings to compound! It is many times more advantageous to max it out now, than fail to do so and be in your 40s trying to catch up. Use the Roth 401K if your company supports that. After that, max out a Roth IRA if your income is low enough to use them. Otherwise, max out a traditional IRA (this will not be tax deductible because your income is too high), and the next day, convert it to Roth. That conversion will be tax-free since you already paid taxes on that money. 401K money is untouchable. No one can ever take it from you - not with a lawsuit, not with bankruptcy. As such, never give it up willingly by borrowing from it or cashing it out early, no matter how serious the problem seems in the short term. How do you invest a 401K when the market is so scary? I found out when I became a Board member overseeing management of an endowment. Turns out there's a professional gold standard for ultra-long-term, high growth, volatility-be-damned investing. Who knew?",
"I believe it is because you can withstand a loss in your early life better than you can in your retirement. If you lose 25% in your 20s it is a lot less than 25% in your 60s. You, hopefully earn more in your 60s and you have a lot more already in the bank in your 60s.",
"\"The vanguard funds are all low fee your employer has done a good job selecting their provider for 401(k). I would do a roth if you can afford it as taxes are at a historical low. Just pick the year you want to get your money if you will need your money in 2040 pick Vanguard Target Retirement 2040 Fund. Its that simple. This is not a \"\"thing\"\" ( low-risk, and a decent return ). Risk and reward are correlated. Get the vanguard and every year it rebalances so that you take less risk every year. Lastly listen to the Clark Howard podcast if you are having trouble making decisions or contact their 45 hour a week free advice email/phone help.\"",
"\"Between \"\"fresh out of college\"\" and \"\"I have no debts, and a support system in place which because of which I can take higher risks.\"\" I would put every penny I could afford in the riskiest investment platform I was willing to. Holding onto money in a bank account is likely to cost you %1-%2 a year depending on what interest rates are and what inflation looks like. Money invested in a market could loose it all for you or you could become an overnight millionaire. Loosing it all would suck but you are young you will bounce back. Losing it slowly to inflation is just silly when you are young. If there is something you know you have to do in the next few years start to save for it but otherwise use the fact that you are young and have a safety net to try to make money.\"",
"You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)",
"\"First, I'd recommend that you separate \"\"short-term\"\" assets from \"\"long-term\"\" assets in your head. Short-term assets are earmarked for spending on something specific in the near future or are part of your emergency fund. These should be kept in cash or short bond funds. Long-term assets are assets that you can take some risks with and aren't going to spend in the next few years. Under normal circumstances, I'd recommend 80% stocks/20% bonds or even 70/30 for someone your age, assuming you're saving mainly for retirement and thus have a correspondingly long time horizon. These portfolios historically are much less risky than 100% stock and only return slightly less. Right now, though, I think that anyone who doesn't absolutely need safety keep 100% of their long-term assets in stocks. I'm 26 and this is my asset allocation. Bond yields are absolutely pathetic by historical standards. Even ten year treasury yields are comparable to S&P 500 dividend yields and likely won't outperform inflation if held to maturity. The stock market is modestly undervalued when measured by difference between current P/E ratio and the historical average and more severely undervalued when you account for the effects of reduced inflation, transaction costs and capital gains taxes on fair valuation. Therefore, the potential reward for taking risk is much higher now than it usually is.\"",
"If you spent your whole life earning the same portfolio that amounts $20,000, the variance and volatility of watching your life savings drop to $10,000 overnight has a greater consequence than for someone who is young. This is why riskier portfolios aren't advised for older people closer to or within retirement age, the obvious complementary group being younger people who could lose more with lesser permanent consequence. Your high risk investment choices have nothing to do with your ability to manage other people's money, unless you fail to make a noteworthy investment return, then your high risk approach will be the death knell to your fund managing aspirations.",
"401Ks and IRAs are types of retirement accounts. They have rules regarding maximum amount of investments per year; who can invest; destructibility; and the tax treatment of the growth. Stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs are all types of investments that can exist either inside or outside of the retirement account. Some 401Ks restrict the type of investments you can have, others allow you to own almost anything. Any investment is a risk, and there is no guarantee that it will grow. Look around the site for beginning investment advice. You should start with the 401K offered by your company especially if they have matching funds. That is free money. Many suggest you invest enough to get the match, then invest with an IRA. Look into IRAs because under US tax law you can still make a 2013 investment up until tax day 2014. Take the time before tax day to decide on Roth or Regular IRA. The more exotic investments take more time to understand and should not be a concern until you have laid out your basic retirement accounts.",
"It has been hinted at in some other answers, but I want to say it explicitly: Volatility is not risk. Volatility is how much an investment goes up and down, risk is the chance that you will lose money. For example, stocks have relatively high volatility, but the risk that you will lose money over a 40 year period is virtually zero (in particular if you invest in index funds). Bonds, on the other hand, have basically no volatility (their cash flow is totally predictable if you trust the future of your government), but there is a significant risk that they will perform worse than stocks over a longer period. So, volatility equals risk only if you are day trading. A 401(k) is literally the opposite of that. For further reading: Never confuse risk and volatility Also, investing is not gambling. Gambling is bad because the odds are stacked against you. You need more than average luck to actually win and the longer you play, the more you will lose. Investing means buying productive capital that will produce further value. The odds are in your favor. Even if you do a moderately bad job at investing, the longer you stay, the more you will win.",
"The vanilla advice is investing your age in bonds and the rest in stocks (index funds, of course). So if you're 25, have 75% in stock index fund and 25% in bond index. Of course, your 401k is tax sheltered, so you want keep bonds there, assuming you have taxable investments. When comparing specific funds, you need to pay attention to expense ratios. For example, Vanguard's SP 500 index has an expense ratio of .17%. Many mutual funds charge around 1.5%. That means every year, 1.5% of the fund total goes to the fund manager(s). And that is regardless of up or down market. Since you're young, I would start studying up on personal finance as much as possible. Everyone has their favorite books and websites. For sane, no-nonsense investment advise I would start at bogleheads.org. I also recommend two books - This is assuming you want to set up a strategy and not fuss with it daily/weekly/monthly. The problem with so many financial strategies is they 1) don't work, i.e. try to time the market or 2) are so overly complex the gains are not worth the effort. I've gotten a LOT of help at the boglehead forums in terms of asset allocation and investment strategy. Good luck!",
"\"Since you already have an emergency fund in place, focus your extra funds on paying off debts like student loans. While some have advised you to play the stock market, not one person has mentioned the word \"\"risk\"\". You are gambling (\"\"investing\"\") your money in the hopes your money will grow. Your student loan is real liability. The longer you keep the loan, the more interest you will pay. You can pay off your student loan in 21 months if you pay $1,100 each month. After the 21 months, you can almost fully fund a 401(k) each year. That will be amazing at your age. Our company gives us the Vanguard Retirement Fund with a low expense ratio of 0.19%. It is passive automated investing where you don't have to think about it. Just add money and just let it ride.\"",
"\"You could end up with nothing, yes. I imagine those that worked at Enron years ago if their 401(k) was all in company stock would have ended up with nothing to give an example here. However, more likely is for you to end up with less than you thought as you see other choices as being better that with the benefit of hindsight you wish you had made different choices. The strategies will vary as some people will want something similar to a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" kind of investment and there may be fund choices where a fund has a targeted retirement date some years out into the future. These can be useful for people that don't want to do a lot of research and spend time deciding amongst various choices. Other people may prefer something a bit more active. In this case, you have to determine how much work do you want to do, do you want to review fund reviews on places like Morningstar, and do periodic reviews of your investments, etc. What works best for you is for you to resolve for yourself. As for risks, here are a few possible categories: Time - How many hours a week do you want to spend on this? How much time learning this do you want to do in the beginning? While this does apply to everyone, you have to figure out for yourself how much of a cost do you want to take here. Volatility - Some investments may fluctuate in value and this can cause issues for some people as it may change more than they would like. For example, if you invest rather aggressively, there may be times where you could have a -50% return in a year and that isn't really acceptable to some people. Inflation - Similarly to those investments that vary wildly there is also the risk that with time, prices generally rise and thus there is something to be said for the purchasing power of your investment. If you want to consider this in more detail consider what $1,000,000 would have bought 30 years ago compared to now. Currency risk - Some investments may be in other currencies and thus there is a risk of how different denominations may impact a return. Fees - How much do your fund's charge in the form of annual expense ratio? Are you aware of the charges being taken to manage your money here?\"",
"\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"",
"I think we resolved this via comments above. Many finance authors are not fans of target date funds, as they have higher fees than you'd pay constructing the mix yourself, and they can't take into account your own risk tolerance. Not every 24 year old should have the same mix. That said - I suggest you give thought to the pre-tax / post tax (i.e. traditional vs Roth) mix. I recently wrote The 15% solution, which attempts to show how to minimize your lifetime taxes by using the split that's ideal for your situation.",
"Don't over think about your choices. The most important thing to start now and keep adjusting and tuning your portfolio as you move along in your life. Each individual's situation is unique. Start with something simple and straight forward, like 100 - your age, in Total Stock market Index fund and the remaining total bond market index fund. For your 401k, at least contribute so much as to get the maximum employer match. Its always good if you can contribute the yearly maximum in your 401k or IRA. Once you have built up a substantial amount of assets (~ $50k+) then its time to think more about asset allocation and start buying into more specific investments as needed. Remember to keep your investment expenses low by using index funds. Also remember to factor in tax implications on your investment decisions. eg. buying an REIT fund in a tax advantaged account like 40k is more tax efficient than buying it in a normal brokerage account.",
"\"This turned out be a lot longer than I expected. So, here's the overview. Despite the presence of asset allocation calculators and what not, this is a subjective matter. Only you know how much risk you are willing to take. You seem to be aware of one rule of thumb, namely that with a longer investing horizon you can stand to take on more risk. However, how much risk you should take is subject to your own risk aversion. Honestly, the best way to answer your questions is to educate yourself about the individual topics. There are just too many variables to provide neat, concise answers to such a broad question. There are no easy ways around this. You should not blindly rely on the opinions of others, but rather use your own judgment to asses their advice. Some of the links I provide in the main text: S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns 10-year index fund returns The Motley Fool Risk aversion Disclaimer: These are the opinions of an enthusiastic amateur. Why should I invest 20% in domestic large cap and 10% in developing markets instead of 10% in domestic large cap and 20% in developing markets? Should I invest in REITs? Why or why not? Simply put, developing markets are very risky. Even if you have a long investment horizon, you should pace yourself and not take on too much risk. How much is \"\"too much\"\" is ultimately subjective. Specific to why 10% in developing vs 20% in large cap, it is probably because 10% seems like a reasonable amount of your total portfolio to gamble. Another way to look at this is to consider that 10% as gone, because it is invested in very risky markets. So, if you're willing to take a 20% haircut, then by all means do that. However, realize that you may be throwing 1/5 of your money out the window. Meanwhile, REITs can be quite risky as investing in the real estate market itself can be quite risky. One reason is that the assets are very much fixed in place and thus can not be liquidated in the same way as other assets. Thus, you are subject to the vicissitudes of a relatively small market. Another issue is the large capital outlays required for most commercial building projects, thus typically requiring quite a bit of credit and risk. Another way to put it: Donald Trump made his name in real estate, but it was (and still is) a very bumpy ride. Yet another way to put it: you have to build it before they will come and there is no guarantee that they will like what you built. What mutual funds or index funds should I investigate to implement these strategies? I would generally avoid actively managed mutual funds, due to the expenses. They can seriously eat into the returns. There is a reason that the most mutual funds compare themselves to the Lipper average instead of something like the S&P 500. All of those costs involved in managing a mutual fund (teams of people and trading costs) tend to weigh down on them quite heavily. As the Motley Fool expounded on years ago, if you can not do better than the S&P 500, you should save yourself the headaches and simply invest in an S&P 500 index fund. That said, depending on your skill (and luck) picking stocks (or even funds), you may very well have been able to beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Of course, you may have also done a whole lot worse. This article discusses the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 60 years. As you can see, the past 10 years have been a very bumpy ride yielding in a negative return. Again, keep in mind that you could have done much worse with other investments. That site, Simple Stock Investing may be a good place to start educating yourself. I am not familiar with the site, so do not take this as an endorsement. A quick once-over of the material on the site leads me to believe that it may provide a good bit of information in readily digestible forms. The Motley Fool was a favorite site of mine in the past for the individual investor. However, they seem to have turned to the dark side, charging for much of their advice. That said, it may still be a good place to get started. You may also decide that it is worth paying for their advice. This blog post, though dated, compares some Vanguard index funds and is a light introduction into the contrarian view of investing. Simply put, this view holds that one should not be a lemming following the crowd, rather one should do the opposite of what everyone else is doing. One strong argument in favor of this view is the fact that as more people pile onto an investing strategy or into a particular market, the yields thin out and the risk of a correction (i.e. a downturn) increases. In the worst case, this leads to a bubble, which corrects itself suddenly (or \"\"pops\"\" thus the term \"\"bubble\"\") leading to quite a bit of pain for the unprepared participants. An unprepared participant is one who is not hedged properly. Basically, this means they were not invested in other markets/strategies that would increase in yield as a result of the event that caused the bubble to pop. Note that the recent housing bubble and resulting credit crunch beat quite heavily on the both the stock and bond markets. So, the easy hedge for stocks being bonds did not necessarily work out so well. This makes sense, as the housing bubble burst due to concerns over easy credit. Unfortunately, I don't have any good resources on hand that may provide starting points or discuss the various investing strategies. I must admit that I am turning my interests back to investing after a hiatus. As I stated, I used to really like the Motley Fool, but now I am somewhat suspicious of them. The main reason is the fact that as they were exploring alternatives to advertising driven revenue for their site, they promised to always have free resources available for those unwilling to pay for their advice. A cursory review of their site does show a decent amount of general investing information, so take these words with a grain of salt. (Another reason I am suspicious of them is the fact that they \"\"spammed\"\" me with lots of enticements to pay for their advice which seemed just like the type of advice they spoke against.) Anyway, time to put the soapbox away. As I do that though, I should explain the reason for this soapboxing. Simply put, investing is a risky endeavor, any way you slice it. You can never eliminate risk, you can only hope to reduce it to an acceptable level. What is acceptable is subject to your situation and to the magnitude of your risk aversion. Ultimately, it is rather subjective and you should not blindly follow someone else's opinion (professional or otherwise). Point being, use your judgment to evaluate anything you read about investing. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If someone purports to have some strategy for guaranteed (steady) returns, be very suspicious of it. (Read up on the Bernard Madoff scandal.) If someone is putting on a heavy sales pitch, be weary. Be especially suspicious of anyone asking you to pay for their advice before giving you any solid understanding of their strategy. Sure, many people want to get paid for their advice in some way (in fact, I am getting \"\"paid\"\" with reputation on this site). However, if they take the sketchy approach of a slimy salesmen, they are likely making more money from selling their strategy, than they are from the advice itself. Most likely, if they were getting outsized returns from their strategy they would keep quiet about it and continue using it themselves. As stated before, the more people pile onto a strategy, the smaller the returns. The typical model for selling is to make money from the sale. When the item being sold is an intangible good, your risk as a buyer increases. You may wonder why I have written at length without much discussion of asset allocation. One reason is that I am still a relative neophyte and have a mostly high level understanding of the various strategies. While I feel confident enough in my understanding for my own purposes, I do not necessarily feel confident creating an asset allocation strategy for someone else. The more important reason is that this is a subjective matter with a lot of variables to consider. If you want a quick and simple answer, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The best approach is to educate yourself and make these decisions for yourself. Hence, my attempt to educate you as best as I can at this point in time. Personally, I suggest you do what I did. Start reading the Wall Street Journal every day. (An acceptable substitute may be the business section of the New York Times.) At first you will be overwhelmed with information, but in the long run it will pay off. Another good piece of advice is to be patient and not rush into investing. If you are in a hurry to determine how you should invest in a 401(k) or other such investment vehicle due to a desire to take advantage of an employer's matching funds, then I would place my money in an S&P 500 index fund. I would also explore placing some of that money into broad index funds from other regions of the globe. The reason for broad index funds is to provide some protection from the normal fluctuations and to reduce the risk of a sudden downturn causing you a lot pain while you determine the best approach for yourself. In this scenario, think more about capital preservation and hedging against inflation then about \"\"beating\"\" the market.\"",
"IMHO your thinking is spot on. More than likely, you are years away from retirement, like 22 if you retire somewhat early. Until you get close keep it in aggressive growth. Contribute as much as you can and you probably end up with 3 million in today's dollars. Okay so what if you were retiring in a year or two from now, and you have 3M, and have managed your debt well. You have no loans including no mortgage and an nice emergency fund. How much would you need to live? 60 or 70K year would provide roughly the equivalent of 100K salary (no social security tax, no commute, and no need to save for retirement) and you would not have a mortgage. So what you decide to do is move 250K and move it to bonds so you have enough to live off of for the next 3.5 years or so. That is less than 10% of your nest egg. You have 3.5 years to go through some roller coaster time of the market and you can always cherry pick when to replenish the bond fund. Having a 50% allocation for bonds is not very wise. The 80% probably good for people who have little or no savings like less than 250k and retired. I think you are a very bright individual and have some really good money sense.",
"\"There is no rule-of-thumb that fits every person and every situation. However, the reasons why this advice is generally applicable to most people are simple. Why it is good to be more aggressive when you are young The stock market has historically gone up, on average, over the long term. However, on its way up, it has ups and downs. If you won't need your investment returns for many years to come, you can afford to put a large portion of your investment into the volatile stock market, because you have plenty of time for the market to recover from temporary downturns. Why it is good to be more conservative when you are older Over a short-term period, there is no certainty that the stock market will go up. When you are in retirement, most people withdraw/sell their investments for income. (And once you reach a certain age, you are required to withdraw some of your retirement savings.) If the market is in a temporary downturn, you would be forced to \"\"sell low,\"\" losing a significant portion of your investment. Exceptions Of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines. If you are a young person who can't help but watch your investments closely and gets depressed when seeing the value go down during a market downturn, perhaps you should move some of your investment out of stocks. It will cost you money in the long term, but may help you sleep at night. If you are retired, but have more saved than you could possibly need, you can afford to risk more in the stock market. On average, you'll come out ahead, and if a downturn happens when you need to sell, it won't affect your overall situation much.\"",
"I know it may not last longer but i was able to 2.5x my wealth over last 2 years.(2016, 2017 cont) I was successfully able to convert 70k into 452k in 21months. Now at this amount, I am really worried and want to take all the profit. I agree that I have been lucky with these returns but it was not all outright luck. Now my plan is to take 100k of it and try high risk investments while investing 350k in index funds.",
"You've thought it through and you know the risks, so more power to you. I'd only add that recovering from big downdrafts gets harder as you age, and you're also depending on the S&P 500's pretty impressive history to repeat. To me the 6%-9% long-run historical range of S&P 500 returns doesn't match up well with the new era of weaker, 2%-ish economic growth since the early 2000s. Insofar as growth is driven by secular trends such as worsening demographics and fewer productivity advances, you're depending on other factors (globalization driving earnings power, central banks continuing to distort asset prices indefinitely, etc.) to get to that long-run 6%-9%. If the S&P enters a leaner couple of decades, it will be much harder to recover from losses.",
"Given your timeframe, risk tolerance, and the fact that you don't need this money, I would suggest a balanced approach. Something like: If you want to have fun investing, you could look into things like lendingclub, or bonds, or stocks, etc. But an allocation like I've outlined above is a pretty good balance of risk and reward over that timeframe.",
"What is the importance or benefit of the assumption that high-risk is preferable for younger people/investors instead of older people? Law of averages most high risk investments [stocks for examples, including Mutual funds]. Take any stock market [some have data for nearly 100 years] on a 15 year or 30 years horizon, the year on year growth is around 15 to 18 percentage. Again depends on which country, market etc ... Equally important every stock market in the same 15 year of 30 year time, if you take specific 3 year window, it would have lost 50% or more value. As one cannot predict for future, someone who is 55 years, if he catches wrong cycle, he will lose 50%. A young person even if he catches the cycle and loses 50%, he can sit tight as it will on 30 years average wipe out that loss.",
"\"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it. By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions. But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution. I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things \"\"average out\"\" over time. If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical. Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return. You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion. When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks? In many cases, less risks. This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills). When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk. Buying risky securities adds to that risk. When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky. You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so. But I can't be sure.\"",
"\"Its important to note that aggression, or better yet volatility, does not necessarily offer higher returns. One can find funds that have a high beta (measure of volatility) and lower performance then stock funds with a lower beta. Additionally, to Micheal's point, better performance could be undone by higher fees. Age is unimportant when deciding the acceptable volatility. Its more important as to when the money is to be available. If there might be an immediate need, or even less than a year, then stick to a savings account. Five years, some volatility can be accepted, if 10 years or more seek to maximize rate of return. For example assume a person is near retirement age. They are expected to have 50K per year expenses. If they have 250K wrapped up in CDs and savings, and another 250K in some conservative investments, they can, and should, be \"\"aggressive\"\" with any remaining money. On the contrary a person your age that is savings for a house intends to buy one in three years. Savings for the down payment should be pretty darn conservative. Something like 75% in savings accounts, and maybe 25% in some conservative investments. As the time to buy approaches they can pull the money out of the conservative investments at a optimal time. Also you should not be investing without an emergency fund in place. Get that done first, then look to invest. If your friend does not understand these basic concepts there is no point in paying for his advice.\"",
"A 401(k) is just a container. Like real-world containers (those that are usually made out of metal), you can put (almost) anything you want in it. Signing up for your employer's match is a great thing to do. Getting into the habit of saving a significant portion of your take-home pay early in your career is even better; doing so will put you lightyears ahead of lots of people by the time you approach retirement age. Even if you love your job, that will give you options you otherwise wouldn't have. There is no real reason why you can't start out by putting your retirement money in a short-term money-market fund within that 401(k). By doing so you will only earn a pittance, probably not even enough to keep up with inflation in today's economic environment, but at this point in your (savings and investment) career, that doesn't really matter much. What really matters is getting into the habit of setting that money aside every single time you get paid and not thinking much of it. And that's a lot easier if you start out early, especially at a time when you likely have received a significant net pay increase (salaried job vs college student). I know, everyone says to get the best return you can. But if you are just starting out, and feel the need to be conservative, then don't be afraid to at least start out that way. You can always rebalance into investment classes that have the potential for higher return -- and correspondingly higher volatility -- in a few years. In the meantime, you will have built a pretty nice capital that you can move into the stock market eventually. The exact rate of return you get in the first decade matters a lot less than how much money you set aside regularly and that you keep contributing. See for example Your Investment Plan Means Nothing If You Don’t Do This by Matt Becker (no affiliation), which illustrates how it takes 14 years for saving 5% at a consistent 10% return to beat saving 10% at a consistent 0% return. So look through what's being offered in terms of low-risk investments within that 401(k). Go ahead and pick a money-market fund or a bond fund if you want to start out easy. If it gets you into the habit of saving and sticking with it, then the overall return will beat the daylights out of the return you would get from a good stock market fund if you stop contributing after a year or two. Especially (but not only) if you do pick an interest-bearing investment, do make sure to pick one that has as low fees as you can possibly find for what you want, because otherwise the fees are going to eat a lot into your potential returns, benefiting the bank or investment house rather than yourself. Just keep an open mind, and very strongly consider shifting at least some of your investments into the stock market as you grow more comfortable over the next several years. You can always keep a portion of your money in various interest-bearing investments to act as a cushion in case the market slumps.",
"Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.",
"\"Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward. That is not true. Roughly, the mathematical analogue of \"\"higher risk and higher reward\"\" is \"\"higher standard deviation and higher mean\"\". In other words, the aggressive strategy does have a higher expected rate of return (higher mean). Its disadvantage is that it has a higher likelihood of incurring intermediate losses (and/or higher magnitude of intermediate losses) on the way. This is classically illustrated with the following chart - from Vanguard. You can see that the average return is greater the riskier the portfolio (i.e., the more allocated to stocks relative to bonds), but this higher average return comes at the price of a greater range of possible returns. With an aggressive portfolio, you take a greater risk of losses at any given moment for a greater chance of gains over a long period. Given this, it should be obvious why the advice is to be aggressive early on. Early in life, you don't care about whether your current position is up or down, because you're not taking the money out. If your portfolio is down, you just leave the money in there until it goes back up again. Later in life, you need to spend the money; you now care about whether your current position is up or down, because you can't afford to wait out a down market and may have to realize a loss by selling. It's important to note that the expected return is always greater for a higher-risk portfolio, as is the expected risk; the expected rate of return doesn't magically change as you age. What changes is your ability to absorb losses to hold out for later gains.\"",
"\"As JoeTaxpayer notes in his comment, \"\"answers\"\" to this are really just opinions, so here's mine, for what it's worth. If your risk tolerance is 5 out of 5, you shouldn't have anything in Treasuries. Those are basically the most conservative of all investments. This would probably mean no TIPS as well. If you're more like 4.5 out of 5, you could have some, but just a little; a 30% allocation to government securities is quite conservative. If you want to diversify across different asset classes, you could consider a bond fund like (for instance VBMFX, the Vanguard total bond market index fund). Your portfolio doesn't currently contain any (non-government) bonds, which is something to consider. 20% seems like quite a large allocation to REITs. Most sample portfolios I've seen allocate no more than 10% to REITs, often no more than 5%. There are some that have more like the 20% you're envisioning, but you might want to ponder that a bit more especially in light of your concerns about REITs being at an all-time high. As for your question about all-time highs, it's reasonable to think about, but I think waiting for 30-50% off all-time highs is unrealistic. Looking at a chart of VFINX (essentially the S&P 500), I see that at the nadir of the recent downturn, in early 2009, the market was at about 50% of its pre-crash all-time high. At the nadir of the dot-com bust, the market was about 45% off its pre-crash high. If you're waiting for it to be 50% off it's all-time high, you're not just waiting for \"\"a good time to invest\"\", you're waiting for a major crash. It could certainly make sense not to immediately put everything into US stocks, but that doesn't mean you should put nothing in. As Trevor Wilson commented, you could put some of the money in and then gradually add the rest over time, reducing the risk of unluckily buying at the peak. (This can also reduce the psychological angst of worrying about whether you're doing the right thing, which is worth taking into account.) Also note that if you get rid of the treasuries, you eliminate a good chunk of the stuff that you thought was too close to the peak anyway. Your two basic points (asset allocation and low-cost funds) have a strong Boglehead flavor. You may already have looked at the Bogleheads wiki; if not you should take a look. If you are comfortable with that philosophy (and I think it's a sound one), you should remember that part of that philosophy is not worrying about \"\"timing the market\"\". You pursue a buy-and-hold strategy if you believe the market will go up in the long term and don't care much about what it does in the short term. That said, as mentioned above, you might want to ease in your investment over time, rather than buying all at once, if only to avoid tearing your hair out if the market goes down in the short term. Incidentally, your proposed portfolio is similar to this one that they mention, although as I said above I think this is too conservative if you are 30 years old and consider yourself a \"\"5 out of 5\"\" in terms of risk tolerance. I'm not sure if you already saw that in your research, but since that portfolio apparently has a name and is known, you might be able to find information about its risks and benefits by searching for discussion of it by name.\"",
"\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \"\"quiesced\"\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \"\"wash sales\"\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\"",
"The safest investment is probably a money market fund [originally I said a TIPS fund but they appear to be riskier than I had thought]. But you might not want to invest everything there because the returns are not going to be great. High returns come with high risk. The best portfolio has some percentage (which may be 0) of your money in a safe asset like a money market and some in a risky portfolio (this percentage may also be zero for some people). You should consult your own risk aversion and decide how much money to put in each. If you are super risk-averse, put almost all of it in the money market. If you want a little more return, put more of it in the risky portfolio. This is a fundamental result of finance theory. What's the risky asset? A fully diversified portfolio of bonds and stocks. People don't agree on exactly what the weights should be. The rule of thumb back in the day was 60% stock and 40% bonds. These days lots of financial planners recommend 120 minus your age in stock and the rest in bonds. But no one really knows what the perfect weights in the risky portfolio should be (the rules of thumb I just gave have little or no theoretical foundation) so you have to choose for yourself what you think makes sense.",
"I'd keep the risk inside the well-funded retirement accounts. Outside those accounts, I'd save to have a proper emergency fund, not based on today's expenses, but on expenses post house. The rest, I'd save toward the downpayment. 20% down, with a reserve for the spending that comes with a home purchase. It's my opinion that 3-5 years isn't enough to put this money at risk.",
"The target date investment will automatically reduce equity exposure and increase bond exposure as it approaches retirement date. If you are unlikely to make adjustments as you get older, you may be setting yourself up for more risk down the road. Only you can decide what level of risk you can tolerate as you chase higher gains.",
"As others have said, this opinion is predicated on an assumption that early in your life you have no need to actually USE the money, so you are able to take advantage of compounding interest (because the money is going to be there for many many years) and you are far more tolerant of loss (because you can simply wait for the markets to recover). This is absolutely true of a pension pot, which is locked away for a great many years. But it is absolutely NOT true of general investments. Someone in the mid-20s to mid-30s is very likely to want to spend that money on, say, buying a house. In which case losing 10% of your deposit 3 months before you start looking for a house could potentially be a disaster. Liekwise, in your mid-40s if your child's school/college fund goes up in smoke that's a big deal. It is a very commonly espoused theory, but I think it is also fundamentally flawed in many scenarios.",
"\"You have a high risk tolerance? Then learn about exchange traded options, and futures. Or the variety of markets that governments have decided that people without high income are too stupid to invest in, not even kidding. It appears that a lot of this discussion about your risk profile and investing has centered around \"\"stocks\"\" and \"\"bonds\"\". The similarities being that they are assets issued by collections of humans (corporations), with risk profiles based on the collective decisions of those humans. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the different kinds of asset classes to invest in. Bonds? boring. Bond futures? craziness happening over there :) Also, there are potentially very favorable tax treatments for other asset classes. For instance, you mentioned your desire to hold an investment for over a year for tax reasons... well EVERY FUTURES TRADE gets that kind of tax treatment (partially), whether you hold it for one day or more, see the 60/40 rule. A rebuttal being that some of these asset classes should be left to professionals. Stocks are no different in that regards. Either educate yourself or stick with the managed 401k funds.\"",
"I've read a nice rule of thumb somewhere that you should consider: You should invest (100-YOURAGE)% of your money in stock The rest should be something less volatile and more liquid, so you have some money when the stock market goes down and you need some money nevertheless. So you would start with buying about 75% stock and balance your stock percentage over time by buing more secure assets to keep the stock percentage at the desired level. At some time you might need to sell stock to rebalance and invest in more secure assets.",
"Sorry to be boring but you have the luxury of time and do not need high-risk investments. Just put the surplus cash into a diversified blue-chip fund, sit back, and enjoy it supporting you in 50 years time. Your post makes me think you're implicitly assuming that since you have a very high risk tolerance you ought to be able to earn spectacular returns. Unfortunately the risks involved are extremely difficult to quantify and there's no guarantee they're fairly discounted. Most people would intuitively realise betting on 100-1 horses is a losing proposition but not realise just how bad it is. In reality far fewer than one in a thousand 100-1 shots actually win.",
"\"RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that \"\"you believe these will continue\"\" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market. In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this). Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits. Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous.\"",
"Conventional wisdom says (100-age) percentage of your saving should go to Equity and (age) percentage should go to debt. My advice to you is to invest (100-age) into index fund through SIP and rest in FD. You can re-balance your investment once a year. Stock picking is very risky. And so is market timing. Of cource you can change the 100 into a other number according to your risk tolerance.",
"Investing is really about learning your own comfort level. You will make money and lose money. You will make mistakes but you will also learn a great deal. First off, invest in your own financial knowledge, this doesn't require capital at all but a commitment. No one will watch or care for your own money better than yourself. Read books, and follow some companies in a Google Finance virtual portfolio. Track how they're doing over time - you can do this as a virtual portfolio without actually spending or losing money. Have you ever invested before? What is your knowledge level? Investing long term is about trying to balance risk while reducing losses and trying not to get screwed along the way (by people). My personal advice: Go to an independent financial planner, go to one that charges you per hour only. Financial planners that don't charge you hourly get paid in commissions. They will be biased to sell you what puts the most money in their pockets. Do not go to the banks investment people, they are employed by the banks who have sales and quota requirements to have you invest and push their own investment vehicles like mutual funds. Take $15k to the financial planner and see what they suggest. Keep the other $5K in something slow and boring and $1k under your mattress in actual cash as an emergency. While you're young, compound interest is the magic that will make that $25k increase hand over fist in time. But you need to have it consistently make money. I'm young too and more risk tolerant because I have time. While I get older I can start to scale back my risk because I'm nearing retirement and preserve instead of try to make returns.",
"In addition to what quid said, I think your risk tolerance should depend on how likely you are to need the funds in the near future. Say that you have $100k saved up and you want to decide how to invest it. Then you should ask yourself: The idea here is that if you invest say in stocks (high risk) then the value of your position could drop significantly and you'd potentially have to wait for a long time before it recovers. If you are forced to sell you could make a substantial loss. If you don't urgently need this cash, however, then you can feel relaxed and just wait for the market to reverse again. This is viewing risk through the lens of how likely it is that you'll have to wait a long time to get a substantial amount of your money back, which itself is a function of how likely it is for a substantial downturn to occur in a certain market.",
"There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation).",
"\"Defining risk tolerance is often aided with a series of questions. Such as - You are 30 and have saved 3 years salary in your 401(k). The market drops 33% and since you are 100% S&P, you are down the same. How do you respond? (a) move to cash - I don't want to lose more money. (b) ride it out. Keep my deposits to the maximum each year. Sleep like a baby. A pro will have a series of this type of question. In the end, the question resolves to \"\"what keeps you up at night?\"\" I recall a conversation with a coworker who was so risk averse, that CDs were the only right investment for her. I had to explain in painstaking detail, that our company short term bond fund (sub 1 year government paper) was a safe place to invest while getting our deposits matched dollar for dollar. In our conversations, I realized that long term expectations (of 8% or more) came with too high a risk for her, at any level of her allocation. Zero it was.\"",
"What are the risks pertaining to timing on long term index investments? The risks are countless for any investment strategy. If you invest in US stocks, and prices revert to the long term cyclically adjusted average, you will lose a lot of money. If you invest in cash, inflation may outpace interest rates and you will lose money. If you invest in gold, the price might go down and you will lose money. It's best to study history and make a reasonable decision (i.e. invest in stocks). Here are long term returns by asset class, computed by Jeremy Siegel: $1 invested in equities in 1801 equals $15.22 today if was not invested and $8.8 million if it was invested in stocks. This is the 'magic of compound interest' and cash / bonds have not been nearly as magical as stocks historically. 2) How large are these risks? The following chart shows the largest drawdowns (decreases in the value of an asset) since 1970 (source): Asset prices decrease in value frequently. Financial assets are volatile, but historically, they have increased over time, enabling investors to earn compounded returns (exponential growth of money is how to get rich). I personally view drawdowns as an excellent time to buy - it's like going on a shopping spree when everything in the store is discounted. 3) In case I feel not prepared to take these risks, how can I avoid them? The optimal asset allocation depends on the ability to take risk and your tolerance for risk. You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high. From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk). Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source): Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors. For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended. Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value.",
"It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.",
"I recommend that you just leave the 401K where it is - a S&P 500 is a nice simple fund with very low expenses, and over the long term, I think that's a good choice for a 401K. I don't think it makes sense to put money in bonds at your age.",
"\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \"\"risk apettite\"\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\"",
"There are a few flaws in your reasoning: I know my portfolio will always keep going up, No, it won't. You'll have periods of losses. You are starting your investing in a bull market. Do NOT be fooled into believing that your successes now will continue indefinitely. The more risky your portfolio, the bigger the losses. The upside of a risky portfolio is that the gains generally outweigh the losses, but there will be periods of losses. I honestly don't believe that it's possible for me to end up losing in the long term, regardless of risk. I think you vastly underestimate the risk of your strategy and/or the consequences of that risk. There's nothing wrong with investing in risky assets, since over time you'll get higher-than-average returns, but unless you diversify you are exposing yourself to catastrophic losses as well.",
"\"The person who told you \"\"no-load funds\"\" had the right idea. Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a \"\"value\"\" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a \"\"growth\"\" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund \"\"usually\"\" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager. Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money. For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of \"\"short term\"\". Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days. Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse. You don't need this money. For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it. You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%. For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero. Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now? Any recreation or hobby or activity. Maybe your rent or your tuition. Why spend it for a vague sense of \"\"safety\"\", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?\"",
"\"Your funds are in a retirement account. Withdrawals from your IRA will be penalized if you withdraw before you turn 59.5 years old, and you appear to be decades away from that age. The general advice I would give you is to pick a \"\"target year fund\"\" that targets the year you turn 59.5. The stock market is more volatile, but its average gains will protect you from inflation just eating your funds. Bonds are in counterpoint to your stocks - more stable, and protecting you from the chance that stocks dip right before you want to withdraw. Target year funds start with higher amounts of stock, and gradually rebalance towards bonds over time. Thus, you take your market risks earlier while you can benefit from the market's gains, and then have stability when you actually would want to retire and depend on the savings.\"",
"I can understand your fears, and there is nothing wrong with taking action to protect yourself from them. How much income do you need in retirement? For arguments sake, lets say you need to pull 36K per year from your 401K or 3K per month. Lets also assume that you current contribute (with any match) 1,000 per month. Please adjust to your actual numbers accordingly. One option would be to pull out 48K right now and put it in a money market. With your contributions, I would then put half into the money market and half into more aggressive investments. In 10 years, you would have about 110K in your money market account. You could live off of that for three years. If the market does crash, this should give you plenty of time to recover. Taking this option opens you to another risk, which is being beat up by inflation or lack of growth on a nice pile of cash. My time frame is not that different then yours (I am about 12 years away), but am still all in stocks. Having 48K and more with not opportunity for growth frightens me more than any temporary stock market crash. Having said that I think it would be a horrible mistake to get completely out of stocks. Many of those destroyed in 2008 also missed 2012 through 2014 which were awesome years. So do some. Set aside a year or three of income in something nice and safe. Maybe one year of income in money market, one in bonds and preferred stocks, and one in blue chips.",
"There's two reasons. One is that you have a longer time horizon, other answers cover that. The second is that for someone who is younger, most of their capital is human capital in terms of their future work output (and earnings). If you're 25 and your $20,000 portfolio gets wiped out, that's only a small amount of your total earnings. You still have 45 years in which to earn money (and invest it). If you're 65 and your $1,000,000 portfolio gets wiped out, you're in much bigger trouble. Note that this means that in certain circumstances, a younger investor would want to be more conservative. If you're 25, but got a million dollar settlement for an injury which means you can't work anymore, you want to be more conservative than your average 25-year-old. If you're 65, and just sold a business for which you get $1,000,000 in two years, you can be more aggressive with your currently invest-able portfolio.",
"You're losing money. And a lot of it. Consider this: the inflation is 2-4% a year (officially, depending on your spending pattern your own rate might be quite higher). You earn about 1/2%. I.e.: You're losing 3% a year. Guaranteed. You can do much better without any additional risk. 0.1% on savings account? Why not 0.9%? On-line savings account (Ally, CapitalOne-360, American Express, E*Trade, etc) give much higher rates than what you have. Current Ally rates are 0.9% on a regular savings account. 9 times more than what you have, with no additional risk: its a FDIC insured deposit. You can get a slightly higher rate with CDs (0.97% at the same bank for 12 months deposit). IRA - why is it in CD's? Its the longest term investment you have, that's where you can and should take risks, to maximize your compounding returns. Not doing that is actually more risky to you because you're guaranteeing compounding loss, of the said 3% a year. On average, more volatile stock investments have shown to be not losing money over periods of decades, even if they do lose money over shorter periods. Rental - if you can buy a property that you would pay the same amount of money for as for a comparable rental - you should definitely buy. Your debt will be secured by the property, and since you're paying the same amount or less - you're earning the equity. There's no risk here, just benefits, which again you chose to forgo. In the worst case if you default and walk away from the property you lost exactly (or less) what you would have paid for a rental anyway. 14 years old car may be cheaper than 4 years old to buy, but consider the maintenance, licensing and repairs - will it not some up to more than the difference? In my experience - it is likely to. Bottom line - you think you're risk averse, but you're exactly the opposite of that.",
"\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"",
"Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).",
"Since there is no match on the 401k, it seems to me that your first priority should be your IRA (Roth or otherwise). I don't know what your salary is, but most 22 year-olds won't be maxing out both an IRA and 401k on only 10% of their incomes, so the rest of the list may be irrelevant.",
"\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"",
"To expand on mhoran's answer - Once you mention the 401(k), we're compelled to ask (a) what is the match, if any, and (b) what are the expenses within the funds offered. Depositing to get the full match is going to get you the biggest return on your money. It's common to get a dollar for dollar match on the first 5 or 6% of your income. If the fees are high, you stop at the match, and move to an IRA for the next money you wish to save. At 22, I'd probably focus on the Roth. If you have access to a Roth 401(k), that's great, the match will be pre tax dollars and you'll get started with a decent tax status mix. These accounts can form the core of your investing. Most people have little left over once their retirement accounts are fully funded. And yes, reading to understand stocks is great, but also to understand why stock indexing is the best choice for most investors.",
"One should fund a 401(k) or matched retirement account up to the match, even if you have other debt. Long term, you will come out ahead, but you must be disciplined in making the payments. If one wants to point out the risk in a 401(k), I'd suggest the money need not be invested in stocks, there's always a short term safe option.",
"Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.",
"\"I can't find a decent duplicate, so here are some general guidelines: First of all by \"\"stocks\"\" the answers generally mean \"\"equities\"\" which could be either single stocks or mutual funds that consist of stocks. Unless you have lots of experience that can help you discern good stocks from bad, investing in mutual funds reduces the risk considerably. If you want to fine-tune the plan, you can weigh certain categories higher to change your risk/return profile (e.g. equity funds will have higher returns and risk than fixed income (bond) funds, so if you want to take a little more risk you can put more in equity funds and less in fixed income funds). Lastly, don't stress too much over the individual investments. The most important thing is that you get as much company match as you can. You cannot beat the 100% return that comes from a company match. The allocation is mostly insignificant compared to that. Plus you can probably change your allocation later easily and cheaply if you don't like it. Disclaimer: these are _general_ guidelines for 401(k) investing in general and not personal advice.\"",
"It also depends on what kind of investment account you are putting this in. Since a TFSA account doesn't get taxed on the return, it might make sense to put higher risk investments in that account. Of course, MDJ's comment about looking at tax brackets is also important...",
"It is difficult to actually 'answer' your (or any other) investment question as investment outlook and objectives are different from one individual to another. I shall put down some of my thoughts and probably you shall be able to factor them in while you take your decision. As for your last paragraph, in general from investment perspective, the younger you are more kisk you can take and bond gives a stable base to a portfolio. One good way to estimate the proportionality of bond:stock is (your age):(100-your age). However for 2-3 years you could ignore the above and invest in good quality stocks for long term.",
"High risk, high reward doesn't really mean anything. The reason that investments are risky is that the investor is clueless. As you gain more information and experience, you reduce the risk. To answer your question, you can consider BRIC ETF's (Brazil, Russia, India and China). They are correlated to the U.S. economy. However, over the long term (say, 40 years), they may make sense. It depends on your outlook. Do you think India and China will have bigger economies in than the U.S. in 40 years? Many people do. Do you think that countries that are rich in commodity resources like oil will do well in the next 5 years? If so, then those countries may do better than the U.S. It's not a clear answer to your question, but maybe it can help lead to a good solution for you.",
"you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.",
"\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\"",
"\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\""
] |
[
"\"At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts. Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question. I seek high return rather than protection of principal. If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover. But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like. If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars). Will you have low or high monthly expenses? Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties? Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year. You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund. You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years. You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times. Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies. There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities. In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say \"\"how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire\"\"? The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future. You are off to a good start. Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting. The rest will follow. After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future.\"",
"At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.",
"Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.",
"At 22yo, unless you have a terminal illness, you have many years to earn and save a lot more that you will have in your 401k right now (unless you have already been extremely lucky in the market with your 401k investments). This means that even if you lost everything in your 401k right now, it probably wouldn't hurt you that much over the long term. The net present value of all your future savings should far exceed the net present value of your 401k, if you plan to earn and save responsibly. So take as much risk as you want with it right now. There is no real benefit to playing safe with investments at your age. If you were asking me how much risk should you be taking with a $10m inheritance and no income or much prospects of an income, then I'd be giving you a very different answer.",
"Whatever you do, don't take your retirement savings to Vegas. Second, you should also consider investment expenses. Your investments profit after the managers pay themselves. Get the lowest expense ratio mutual funds you can. Third, most active managers do not beat the market. Index funds are your friends. They also tend to have the lower expense ratios.",
"\"+1 on all the answers above. You're in a great position and have the right attitude. A good book on the subject is A Random Walk Down Wall Street - well worth a read. Essentially, go for low tax paying in, low tax taking out approach (in the uk that's a SIPP or ISA), a low cost well diversified unit fund (like a Vanguard LifeStrategy 100), on a low cost platform (\"\"Annual Management Charge\"\" in be UK). Keep paying a regular amount and let compound interest take care of things. I'd also add that you should think about what lifestyle you would want at specific ages and work out what you need to save to achieve these - even though they are probably a long time in the future, it makes your goals \"\"real\"\". Read Mr Money Moustache for some ideas http://www.mrmoneymustache.com\"",
"As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old).",
"At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty."
] |
813
|
Income Tax and Investments
|
[
"106501",
"436701"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"417751",
"477940",
"315105",
"97842",
"66858",
"199397",
"101578",
"321114",
"60929",
"419856",
"537916",
"495864",
"548705",
"264820",
"443407",
"587120",
"314342",
"536390",
"553332",
"202645",
"507276",
"334154",
"86887",
"436701",
"558867",
"106501",
"337993",
"259341",
"563986",
"76480",
"190687",
"160555",
"569188",
"60750",
"257274",
"370469",
"557361",
"399203",
"162176",
"42521",
"561999",
"250603",
"448659",
"56412",
"170916",
"27671",
"59317",
"116017",
"97233",
"235004",
"586756",
"561636",
"41509",
"523461",
"196427",
"322311",
"138835",
"80664",
"474981",
"552747",
"437907",
"374676",
"423929",
"144114",
"99632",
"144009",
"291214",
"451314",
"18724",
"24462",
"553253",
"508219",
"120899",
"405342",
"300721",
"441120",
"430189",
"144313",
"428913",
"2040",
"342411",
"537371",
"95724",
"37508",
"162668",
"550468",
"62966",
"312626",
"83177",
"123000",
"145787",
"326559",
"526661",
"465313",
"397340",
"365193",
"509346",
"93073",
"179262",
"45190"
] |
[
"Factors to consider: For the taxable investments:",
"Consider the individual who pays $1,000,000 in taxes. His/her income must be substantial. That is what one should aim for. Investments for the most part, do not lower ones taxes. In one of John Grisham's novels, tax shelters are being discussed. Sorry, I do not remember which book. The discussion goes something like this: There are a few investments which can lower your taxes. Purchase a house. Mortgage interest on your principle residence is deductible (if you itemize deductions). If you don't itemize, focus on increasing income to the point where itemizing benefits you. In general, businesses have more deductions than individuals. Own a small business. You (or your accountant) will discover many deductions. Hint: the company should lease a car/truck, many meals are now deductible. This is not the reason to own a business.",
"Not exactly. There are a few ways to manage your taxes with investments. 1) For most investments you get taxed on any gain in value in the investment or dividends paid by that investment. Most investments (with some exceptions for mutual funds) you don't take the tax hit until you sell the investment and realize the gain. For bonds, cds, and other cash type investments you have to pay taxes in the year they pay out the interest or dividend. 2) You can put money (up to a certain limit) in a traditional IRA and can subtract that amount from your income for tax calculation for the year you invest it. However, you are going to pay taxes on it when you take the money out at retirement. It really just delays the taxes. 3) If you put the money in a Roth IRA, you don't get a tax break now, but you don't have to pay any taxes on the money or the gains when you take it out at retirement. 4) The gains from some mutual funds can be tax exempt, but that just saves you from paying tax on the increase in value. 5) Don't fall for scams that try to use insurance policies as investments to avoid taxes. The fees are ginormous, which usually makes them a ripoff.",
"Income and Capital are taxed separately in the uk. You probably can't get dividends paid gross even in ISA's you pay the basic rate of tax on dividends only higher rate tax payers get tax benefit from dividends. What you could do is invest in splits (Spilt capital investment trusts ) in the share class where all the return comes as capital and use up some of your yearly CGT allowance that way.",
"\"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \"\"Net Investment Tax\"\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\"",
"If my salary slip says that I will be paying x INR tax this financial year. Then how much minimum investment I need to do to avoid any tax? This rebate is not directly linked to investments. If your total Gross is less than Rs 5 lacs, from the total tax computed, you can claim a rebate of upto Rs 5000. Does salary slip considers this rebate amount? This depends on the company policy. Companies may already factor in the rebate and deduct less tax. However it is important to claim this when you file the Returns, else it would show up as excess tax. There is no provision in the company form 16 to show this. Further if your taxable income becomes more than Rs 5 lacs, due to say other income, you will not be eligible for this rebate and have to pay tax. Do I have to explicitly specify this claim under 87A in my ITR? Yes you have to. If you company has already factored this while deducting tax you will not get any refunds. If the company has not factored this, you will have to claim refund. If above is true, and x is not calculated by considering this rebate amount, As indicated, this is not directly linked to investments. Will this increment of tax rebate from 2000INR to 5000INR will be applicable immediately This is applicable for financial year 2016-2017 for which you would be filing returns in 2017. Edit: If you say Gross salary is say Rs 6 lacs. If you invest 1.5 lacs in 80C. Your Net taxable income is Rs 4.5 lacs. The tax on 4.5 lacs Normal individual less than 60 years will be 10% of 2 lacs. i.e. Rs 20,000. You can then claim Rs 5000 as deduction under 87A and pay only Rs 15,000 [20000-15000]. If your Gross salary is say Rs 2.8 lacs. You don't do any investments, your Net taxable income is Rs 2.8 lacs. The tax would be Rs 3000. You can claim rebate under 87A and not pay any tax.",
"First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.",
"If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.",
"\"In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about \"\"the fiscal cliff\"\" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year.\"",
"Assuming you are in the US, and are an average joe, the answer to your question is no. Investment costs do not reduce your taxable income for the year you make the investment. They do factor in to the cost basis of your investment and so will affect your taxes in the year you sell the investment. If you want to reduce your taxable income, you could contribute the $5000 to a traditional ira, or 401k, assuming you qualify. Depending on where the account is held, you may then be able to use that $5k to purchase stock in the company you are interested in. The stock would be held in your IRA or 401k account, and would be subject to more restrictions than a normal brokerage account.",
"\"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \"\"Wash Sale Rule\"\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\"",
"So. You might be looking at the world of investing after tax deductions are gone. Buy index funds, or a few stable stocks of your choice. (Index funds have minimal turnover, so you won't realize as many uncontrollable tax events throughout the year). The top long-term capital gains rate is presently 15% (will it go up to 20% soon? who knows! it might. That's up to Congress and Obama, really.) If you can control when you realize it (say, in a year when you don't have a lot of other income) the tax consequences aren't toooo horrible. (It also helps if you live in a state that doesn't tax the gains themselves, e.g. not California?) Or buy real estate, if you don't own the house where you live already (and your lifestyle permits). You shouldn't expect impressive capital appreciation, but you don't have to pay tax on the imputed rent (the rent money you avoid paying by owning the place yourself).",
"This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.",
"\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"",
"How you pay Income Tax Pay As You Earn (PAYE) Most people pay Income Tax through PAYE. This is the system your employer or pension provider uses to take Income Tax and National Insurance contributions before they pay your wages or pension. Your tax code tells your employer how much to deduct. Your tax code can take account of state benefits, so if you owe tax on them (eg the State Pension) it’s usually taken automatically from your other income. Self Assessment tax returns If your financial affairs are more complex (eg you’re self-employed or have a high income) you may pay Income Tax and National Insurance through Self Assessment. You’ll need to fill in a tax return every year. Income Tax on savings and investment interest Income Tax is usually taken from interest on savings and investments automatically. Income that’s not automatically taxed You must fill in a tax return if your untaxed income is over £2,500, or if you don’t pay tax through your wages or pension. You must contact the Income Tax helpline if it’s less than £2,500.",
"\"What you're talking about is called \"\"tax gain harvesting,\"\" and it is considered good tax management. From The Oblivious Investor, investors in the 10% or 15% bracket pay 0% tax on long-term capital gains. For an interesting take on never paying income taxes again, check out Go Curry Cracker. You can claim up to $70,000 or so in capital gains before paying any taxes if you are the 10% or 15% tax bracket.\"",
"\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\"",
"No matter what, you owe taxes on the gains, known as capital gains. How much, depends on how long you invested it for. In your example, each month is treated separately - each month you contribute starts a new clock on that set of investments. If you hold it for longer than a year, the taxes are treated as long-term, and less than a year is short-term. Short term taxes are at your marginal rate, and long term taxes are different, usually 15%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400/tc409",
"Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.",
"For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.",
"\"Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any \"\"Income tax\"\" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under \"\"Taxable money for FY Income tax\"\"? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain. Will the \"\"Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back\"\" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay \"\"Dividend Distribution Tax\"\"? Paid by the company. What is \"\"Capital Gains\"\"? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security.\"",
"If you are using the money to invest in a property (even abroad) then you can claim tax exemption. while some people will tell you that the reinvestment should be in India only, it have been ruled that the property can be purchased abroad too..",
"\"The money you invested in your Roth was taxed as income when you filed your income tax. A Roth contribution is \"\"post-tax\"\" as opposed to a standard IRA or 401k contribution which are \"\"pre-tax\"\". Pre-tax contributions lower your taxable income for the year. In example, you had income of $100,000 and made a standard IRA contribution of $5000. Your taxable income would be $95,000. In the case of a Roth contribution, the same $5000 investment would not reduce your taxable income for the year.\"",
"Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year.",
"I'm not sure where you are, but in the United States capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income. On the 1040, captial gains income is separated from earned income, and income tax is calculated just on earned income. Then capital gains tax is calculated on capital gains income, and then added to income tax afterward.",
"The $50k is subject to the appropriate income taxes, which may include FICA taxes including the employer share if you are self employed. The after tax money can then be invested with the amount invested being the cost basis (I.e., if you invest $40k you will have a cost basis of $40k). In future years you will have taxes due if any of those investments pay dividends (or capital gain distributions). Once you sell you will have a capital gain or loss that you will pay taxes on (or take a deduction if a loss). Now you can improve this picture if you are able to put some of your money into a retirement account (either a tax deductible or a ROTH). With retirement accounts you do not pay tax on the capital gains or dividends. If you use a tax deferred account your tax is higher but that is because you were also investing Uncle Sam's portion of your pay check.",
"\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"",
"\"Some investment trusts have \"\"zero dividend preference shares\"\" which deliver all their gains as capital gains rather than income, even if the trust was investing in income yielding stocks. They've rather gone out of fashion after a scandal some years ago (~2000). Good 2014 article on them here includes the quote \"\"Because profits from zero dividend preference shares are taxed as capital gains, they can be used tax efficiently if you are smart about how you use your annual capital gains tax allowance.\"\"\"",
"But is the money saved taxable? Not sure I understand the Question. If say you have salary of Rs 5 Lacs, after paying taxes and expenses, lets say you save Rs 1 lacs. If you keep this 1 lacs in savings account. You will get interest. If this interest is less than Rs 10,000/- it is not taxable. If it is more that Rs 10,000 then the additional amount is taxable. i.e. if you get a savings bank interest of Rs 15,000/- the difference Rs 15,000 minus Rs 10,000; i.e. Rs 5000 is taxable. Note if you keep the 1 lacs in Fixed Deposits, then all interest even if you get Rs 1 is taxable. Edit: If you invest the Rs 1 lacs in Tax Saving FD [lock-in period of 6 years], then Yes. You can claim deduction under section 80C.",
"Well, whats the source of income from? Social security? Dividends? At 40k that's the good thing about a progressive tax, you wouldn't be taxed heavily. Even 40k of capital gains, which lets be honest is mostly high income individuals, is barely taxed at a higher level than that 40,000k from a fixed income source. Again, that's the gain (aka profit) one is receiving from selling shares of a company.",
"\"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \"\"tax exempt\"\", but each time you sell, you \"\"reset the counter\"\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\"",
"\"There is nothing legal you can do in the United States to avoid the tax burden of income earned as an employee other than offsetting it with pre-tax contributions (which it sounds like you're already doing), making charitable contributions, or incurring investment losses (which is cutting off your nose to spite your face). So that $660K can't be helped. As for the $80K in stock dividends, you could move those investments into \"\"growth\"\" companies rather than \"\"value\"\" companies. Growth companies are those that pay less in dividends, where the primary increase in wealth occurs only in share price increase. This puts off your tax bill until you finally sell your shares, and (depending on how the tax laws are at that time) your tax bill will be lower on those capital gains than they are currently on these dividends. Regarding rental income I know nothing, but I think you're entitled to depreciate your property's value over time and count that against the taxes you owe on the rents. And you can deduct all the upkeep expenses. As with employment income, intentionally incurring rental losses to lower your tax bill is not logical: for every dollar you earn, you only have to give about 50 cents to the government, whereas for every dollar you lose, you've lost a dollar.\"",
"I don't see the connection between the investment capital and the income you receive from it, and why one part should be free from taxation just because the other was taxed. I mean with that logic everything I do with my after-tax money is hopefully providing me some form of anticipated benefit, so I guess I shouldn't have to pay taxes on any part of my income that i spend or put at risk... why is making a capital investment any different in this regard than paying for education, buying a tangible asset (like a home), buying food to keep me alive so i can continue to work, etc? Basically, you're going to have to explain why that makes sense to you.",
"The numbers you have quoted don't add up. For Rs 30,000 / month is 3,60,000 a year. The tax should be around 11,000 again this will be reduced by the contributions to PF. You have indicated a tax deductions of 18,000. There are multiple ways to save taxes. Since you are beginner, investments into section 80C should give you required tax benefits. Please read this article in Economic Times",
"\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"",
"Milliondollarjourney.com has a couple of articles on this topic. How Investing Taxes Work part 1 and part 2. The following is a summary of that article. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at a preferred rate, while interest tax is taxed at your regular rate. Interest is taxed at your marginal rate, but capital gains are taxed at only 50% of your marginal rate. That means that it makes sense to place the interest bearing account inside the RRSP but keep stocks outside. Additionally, you can claim your losses on your capital appreciating stocks against your gains if they are outside of your RRSP. Hopefully, your stocks will never go down but that's not very realistic. Dividends from Canadian companies are eligible for a dividend tax credit, but not dividends from foreign companies. [I actually understood that dividends from U.S. companies are treated as a special case] It's not clear to me from reading the article how much of this applies to mutual funds. The summary is as follows:",
"Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)",
"\"J.K. Lasser's Your Income Tax is, remarkably, a great read. It's a line by line review of the tax forms, and offers commentary and examples for every scenario. Of course, it's updated every year to reflect new rules and numbers. I actually read it from cover to cover the first year I started working. It's not going to offer convoluted strategies to use, but, you'll understand your tax return well enough to respond to the advice you encounter elsewhere. To mhoran's point - \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Taxes are important, but should take a back step to earning and investing. Those who didn't sell at the height of the dotcon bubble \"\"to avoid the big tax bill\"\" only saw in hindsight that paying taxes is part of success not failure.\"",
"If you're maxing out your 401k, just save in tax-efficient investments like stocks and tax efficient funds. If you live in a state with income taxes, look at municipal bond funds for some tax-free income. In 2011, be careful with bond funds and look for short duration funds.",
"\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"\"You cannot get \"\"your investment\"\" out and \"\"leave only the capital gains\"\" until they become taxable at the long-term rate. When you sell some shares after holding them for less than a year, you have capital gains on which you will have to pay taxes at the short-term capital gains rate (that is, at the same rate as ordinary income). As an example, if you bought 100 shares at $70 for a net investment of $7000, and sell 70 of them at $100 after five months to get your \"\"initial investment back\"\", you will have short-term capital gains of $30 per share on the 70 shares that you sold and so you have to pay tax on that $30x70=$2100. The other $4900 = $7000-$2100 is \"\"tax-free\"\" since it is just your purchase price of the 70 shares being returned to you. So after paying the tax on your short-term capital gains, you really don't have your \"\"initial investment back\"\"; you have something less. The capital gains on the 30 shares that you continue to hold will become (long-term capital gains) income to you only when you sell the shares after having held them for a full year or more: the gains on the shares sold after five months are taxable income in the year of sale.\"",
"In India, assuming that you have already paid relevant [Income/Capital gains] tax and then deposited the funds into your Bank [Savings or Current] Account; there is NO INCOME tax payable for amount. Any interest earned on this amount is taxable as per Income Tax rules and would be taxed at your income slabs. Wealth Tax is exempt from funds in your Savings Account. I am not sure about the funds into Current Account of individual, beyond a limit they may get counted and become part of Wealth Tax. More details here http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/personal-finance/Do-you-have-to-pay-wealth-tax/articleshow/21444111.cms",
"I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.",
"There are quite a few things you would need to do; Estimate how much you are earned, find out the tax liability and pay the tax in advance to Income Tax. You can do it online as well, go to the Income Tax website The interest you earn is also taxable and Bank would deduct a nominal amount, ensure that you have PAN registered with the Bank Account. You need to add this to your overall income and pay tax. You would also need to file returns every year.",
"If you don't pull the money out of an IRA or 401(k) until you hit retirement age, there are no tax consequences at all. No matter how you invest or ignore it, it won't affect your return. Same for a Roth IRA, unless you move money out of the account before age 59 ½ it's essentially invisible to the IRS. (Because some of a Roth has already had taxes paid, the rules are more complicated if you do pull out the money, whereas the others are just a straight tax penalty with few exceptions.)",
"\"For an RRSP, you do not have to pay taxes on money or investments until you withdraw the money. If you do not reinvest the dividends but instead, take them out as cash, that would be withdrawing the money. For mutual funds, you would normally reinvest the dividends if holding the investment inside an RRSP. For stocks, I believe the dividends would end up sitting in the cash part of your RRSP account (and you'd probably use the money to buy more stocks, though would not be required to do so). Either way, you do not pay tax on this investment income unless you withdraw it from your RRSP. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your RRSP. You get the tax benefit from doing so. You get dividends of $1,000 (hey, it was a good year), and use these to buy more stock. As the money never left your RRSP account, you are considered to have invested only your initial $10,000. If instead, you withdraw the $1,000 in dividends, you are taxed on $1000 income. TFSA are slightly more complicated. You don't get a tax benefit from your initial contribution, but then do not pay tax when you withdraw from the TFSA. Your investment income is still tax-free, and you are (generally) much more limited in how much you can contribute. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your TFSA. You get dividends of $1,000, and use these to buy more stock. Your total contributions to your TFSA remains at $10,000 as the money never left your account. You could instead withdraw the $1000 from your TFSA and would not pay tax on it. In the next calendar year (or later) after the withdrawal, you could \"\"repay\"\" the $1000 you took out without suffering an overcontribution penalty. This makes TFSA an excellent place to park emergency funds, as you can withdraw and subsequently replace the investment while continuing to get the tax benefits on your investment income. RRSPs are better for retirement or for the home buyers plan. In general, you should not be withdrawing money from either your TFSA or RRSP, except in emergencies, when retiring, or when purchasing a home. I prefer indexed mutual funds or money market accounts for both my RRSP and TFSA rather than individual stocks, but that's up to you.\"",
"This depends on the nature of the income. Please consult a professional CPA for specific advise.",
"In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.",
"The issue only arises when the investments grow in size. A small amount won't trigger the higher tax rates. If the amount is large enough, then consider using either: Insurance products that are 'segregated', or RRSPs in your own name after your business pays you wages, or Gifting to other family members.",
"Every economy wants growth and for growth to come you need investments. So, you must provide some motive for people to risk their money (every investment has inherently a degree of risk or if you want uncertainty about the outcome). As a result the tax on capital gains is lower than on other types of income (because the risk is almost zero). The tax is considered in the calculation of the net interest rate. And you can see this as the interest which the investors demand in order to invest their money.",
"Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.",
"You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.",
"You need to report the income from any work as income, regardless of if you invest it, spend it, or put it in your mattress (ignoring tax advantaged accounts like 401ks). You then also need to report any realized gains or losses from non-tax advantaged accounts, as well as any dividends received. Gains and losses are realized when you actually sell, and is the difference between the price you bought for, and the price you sold for. Gains are taxed at the capital gains rate, either short-term or long-term depending on how long you owned the stock. The tax system is complex, and these are just the general rules. There are lots of complications and special situations, some things are different depending on how much you make, etc. The IRS has all of the forms and rules online. You might also consider having a professional do you taxes the first time, just to ensure that they are done correctly. You can then use that as an example in future years.",
"My question is, how income tax is calculated for partial redemption. Same as normal. The redemption should always be treated as FIFO. Say you are buying 10 units every month [I know the units maybe in fraction and price would be different every month and you are investing fixed amount]. After say 9 months you have 90 units. Now when you sell say 45 units, you are actually selling 10 units from first 4 months and 5 units from 5th month. So calculate the price at which you purchased these units. This becomes your cost. Now when you sell, you know the price. So subtract the sell price from cost price. This is your taxable income. Short term capital gains is taxed as per your tax bracket. So add this taxable income to your other income and calculate taxes accordingly. You have to pay tax in advance and not wait till year end. You can do this online as well.",
"Capital gains tax is an income tax upon your profit from selling investments. Long-term capital gains (investments you have held for more than a year) are taxed significantly less than short-term gains. It doesn't limit how many shares you can sell; it does discourage selling them too quickly after buying. You can balance losses against gains to reduce the tax due. You can look for tax-advantaged investments (the obvious one being a 401k plan, IRA, or equivalent, though those generally require leaving the money invested until retirement). But in the US, most investments other than the house you are living in (which some of us argue isn't really an investment) are subject to capital gains tax, period.",
"I will add one point missing from the answers by CQM and THEAO. When you take a loan and invest the proceeds, the interest that you pay on the loan is deductible on Schedule A, Line 14 of your Federal income tax return under the category of Investment Interest Expense. If the interest expense is larger than all your investment earnings (not just those from the loan proceeds), then you can deduct at most the amount of the earnings, and carry over the excess investment interest paid this year for deduction against investment earnings in future years. Also, if some of the earnings are long-term capital gains and you choose to deduct the corresponding investment interest expense, then those capital gains are taxed as ordinary income instead of at the favored LTCG rate. You also have the option of choosing to deduct only that amount of interest that offsets dividend (and short-term capital gain) income that is taxed at ordinary rates, pay tax at the LTCG rate on the capital gains, and carry over rest of the interest for deduction in future years. In previous years when the tax laws called for reduction in the Schedule A deductions for high-income earners, this investment interest expense was exempt from the reduction. Whether future tax laws will allow this exemption depends on Congress. So, this should be taken into account when dealing with the taxes issue in deciding whether to take a loan to invest in the stock market.",
"If you expect to pay tax on dividends move dividend producing assets into your ISA. If have a lot of investments you can Look at Zeros (zero dividend preference share) issued by splits (split capital trusts), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_capital_investment_trust",
"By the time you've earned the income, it is basically too late to decide who it belongs to[*]. If the assets belong to one person, income from those assets must be declared by that person. If you earn interest on a shared account, you must declare 50% of it each. And so on. (If you're tempted to fudge it bear in mind that banks report to the ATO about interest paid and account ownership.) I don't think Family Tax Benefits are taxable income, but I don't get them myself so I don't know. What you can do is think about how you want things arranged going forward. That means making a prediction about who will have the higher income; it sounds like that's going to be you, and she will be working at most part time. Therefore she should hold anything that generates taxable income (bank accounts etc) and you should hold anything that generates losses (negatively-geared investments, charitable deductions, etc). You could look into making a voluntary super contribution into her account which (imbw) will be deductible for you and get it into a lower-tax area. If you're earning on the order of $30k per annum in interest you're looking at paying $11500 tax on it if it's in your name vs $5k if it's in hers, so it's not a moot point. $420k in cash is arguably quite a lot, and perhaps you want to look at putting some of it into a low-cost balanced managed fund, such as those from Vanguard. That will be somewhat more tax effective, though less stable. If you're looking to buy a new house within a few years perhaps cash is the best place for it. [*] One kind-of exception is that if you have a family trust, the trust can decide at the end of the year to whom it will distribute its income. However, you still have to decide to establish a trust in advance.",
"\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"",
"Income Tax would only be levied on the 10% commission that you earn and not on the total amount kept in the Escrow Account.",
"The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.",
"\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"",
"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"As you are in UK, you should think in terms of Tax Free (interest and accumulated capital gains) ISA type investments for the long term AND/OR open a SIPP (Self Invested Pension Plan) account where you get back the tax you have paid on the money you deposit for your old age. Pensions are the best bet for money you do not need at present while ISAs are suitable for short term 5 years plus or longer.",
"So would it be more sensible to park the money in 3 separate fixed deposits created each month or to invest this money as usual in debt and mutual funds and instead just liquidate the recurring deposit and use it to pay my taxes in July? Most taxes would already have been paid by March 31. So what you are talking here is less than Rs 10,000/- of taxes. The optimization you are looking at is very small and you are better of choosing one that is more convenient.",
"It also depends on what kind of investment account you are putting this in. Since a TFSA account doesn't get taxed on the return, it might make sense to put higher risk investments in that account. Of course, MDJ's comment about looking at tax brackets is also important...",
"I'm answering your second and third point. For first point it depends on case by case basis from which organization you are opening your trust. Trust Account are of different type: To earn interest you account should be of below type. Interest in possession trusts and Income Tax Trustees are responsible for declaring and paying Income Tax on income received by the trust. They do this on a Trust and Estate Tax Return each year. There are different rates depending on the type of income - as shown below. Type of income Income Tax rate 2014 to 2015 tax year Rent, trading and savings 20% (basic rate) UK dividends (such as income from stocks and shares) 10% (dividend ordinary rate)",
"Without more information about what tax bracket you are in, I cannot make a recommendation about what your best option is, but here are a few things to consider:",
"I am assuming you are an NRI from tax perspective. Any income NRI earns is non-taxable in India. It is irrelevant whether the funds were transferred to India or not and whether they were transferred to NRO or NRE account is not relevant.",
"You first compute your Ordinary Income (which includes Dividends, since they are taxed as OI), then you apply the standard tax bracket function to it, which is a piecewise linear function f() such that TAX = f(INCOME). It can be found at About.com. You can transform this into NET_INCOME = g(INCOME) = INCOME - TAX = INCOME - f(INCOME). Presumably g() is what you want to graph. I've actually graphed it before: Not too interesting, even on a LogLog scale. More interesting is the marginal tax rate, which is the derivative of f(), or the negative of the derivative of g(): ST (straight tax) shows what the marginal tax rate would look like if f() was just f(x)=kx or f(x)=kx+c, i.e. a straight/flat tax. The net tax rate (f(x)/x) actually gets more interesting if you also include [federal subsidies/deductions](Src: http://fbheron.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/fedassistance_ft.jpg) as a negative tax: Capital Gains are taxed separately and have (almost) nothing to do with this function. Corporate tax is not payed by you (although the burden of the tax [technical term] may fall upon you). Sorry I couldn't simplify; taxes are just complicated.",
"E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.",
"\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\"",
"Since you have already paid tax to the Government of Uk, no tax will be levied on the money earned outside India. As per the Income tax act, any income received in India in all cases is taxable irrespective of the tax payer's residential status. A NRI after receiving income from outside India cannot be taxed as income because of remittance of such income to India.",
"\"If you only have to pay 23k federal taxes on 100k, that means you are in the long term capital gains tax rate, which is the lower of the tax rates available. First you get your federal income tax marginal tax rate, and then find the matching long term capital gains tax rate. For example, if your marginal federal income tax rate is 28%, your capital gains tax rate would be 15%. Or rather, if the amount of the gain would put you in the 28% rate, then your long term capital gains tax rate is 15%. You can reduce that by having more losses. If you have anything else invested anywhere that is taking a loss, then you can sell that this year and it will offset the other gains you have realized. The only note is that your losses have to be long term capital losses too. Tax loss harvesting takes this to an extreme where you sell something at a loss to lock in the tax loss, but you didn't really want to get rid of that investment, so then you buy a nearly identical investment. ie. if you owned shares of \"\"Direxion Tech Sector ETF\"\" and it was at a loss, you would sell that and then immediately buy \"\"ProShares Tech Sector ETF\"\", the competing product that does the exact same thing. Then there is charity. This still requires spending money and you not having it any longer. If you feel that a cause can use the money more directly than the US government, you can donate an appreciated asset to the charity - not report a gain and also take a charitable deduction.\"",
"This is ideal placement for your allocation to income investments or those with nonqualified dividends: bonds, REITS, MLPS, other partnerships, and so forth. These are all taxed at income rate, generally throw off more income than capital gains, so you get the deferment without losing the cap gains rate.",
"That's not especially high income, and while I can't speak for Canadians, most of us south of the border just pay the tax. There are tax-advantged retirement savings plans, and charitable donations are often offset by a tax credit, and there are some tax incentives for mortgages, and so on.. but generally the right answer is to just accept that the income tax money was never yours to begin with.",
"As per Indian tax laws; income, expense, gain and loss constitute the basic pillars of every individual’s economic life. There are very few cases under which this new 'income' is non taxable. Based on the circumstances, you might have to pay capital gains tax.",
"Generally it is advisable to mention what country you're asking about, as tax laws differ. To the best of my knowledge, however, this particular issue is handled consistently in every tax jurisdiction I'm familiar with. You invested X, it appreciated and is now worth X + Y. In your example, X = $10,000 and Y = $40,000. Total X + Y = $50,000. When you withdraw an amount, say A (in your example A = $10,000), it is considered a withdrawal of both the earnings and the original capital, in proportion to the total of your account. Taxable portion of the withdrawal is proportional to the earnings. Lets mark it T. In your example, T = $10,000 - $10,000 * $10,000/$50,000 = $8,000. I.e.: 80% of the withdrawal will be attributed to earnings and would be taxable (short term in your case, if you're in the US), and 20% to the original capital. This will keep the proportion of the remained the same - 20% of the remaining amount will be attributed to the original capital (accidentally, it will be $8,000), and the remaining 80% will be attributed to the earnings. The withdrawn amount attributed to the capital ($2,000), and the remaining amount attributed to the capital ($8,000) will equal exactly to the invested amount.",
"Distributions of interest from bonds are taxable as income by the Federal, state and municipal (if applicable) government. End of year fund distributions are subject to capital gains taxes as well. You can minimize taxation by: Note that the only bonds that are guaranteed safe are US Government obligations, as the US government has unlimited taxation powers and the ability to print money. Municipal obligations are generally safe, but there is a risk that municipal governments will default. You can also avoid taxation by not realizing gains. If you buy individual stocks or tax-efficient mutual funds, you will have minimal tax liability until you sell. Also, just wanted to point out that bonds do not equal safety and money markets do not pay sufficient interest to offset inflation, you need a diversified portfolio. Five year treasury notes are only paying 1.3% now, and bond prices drop when interest rates go up. Given the level of Federal spending and the wind-down of the war, its likely that rates will rise.",
"I was thinking to do mix of ELSS and Tax Saving FDs. But is my choice correct? Also what other options I am left with? This depends on individual's choice and risk appetite. Generally at younger age, investment in ELSS / PPF is advisable. Other options are Life Insurance, Retirement Plans by Mutual Funds, NSC, etc",
"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.",
"No Tax would have been deducted at the time of purchase/sale of shares. You would yourself be required to compute your tax liability and then pay taxes to the govt. In case the shares sold were held for less than 1 year - 15% tax on capital gains would be levied. In case the shares sold were held for more than 1 year - No Tax would be levied and the income earned would be tax free. PS: No Tax is levied at the time of purchase of shares and Tax is only applicable at the time of sale of shares.",
"You won't be paying any taxes for income generated in the US as long as you are not-resident in India. You pay US taxes. You can file a null return in India just in case (all zeroes). If you have any income in India - bank deposits in your name, house rental income and so on - that needs to be declared and tax needs to be paid in India.",
"I know that if you make more, you pay more, but do those who have more, not make more, pay higher income tax? In general, no. In most locales, income tax is based on income, not on wealth. I am retired. I have little income but a fair amount of wealth. I play very little income tax. (But I do pay other kinds of taxes.) Here's a scenario. 2 people of average wealth with similar situations have the same job with equal pay. After 5 years, their situations haven't changed and they still earn equal pay, but now one has $40,000 in their account and the other $9,000. Does one now pay higher income tax because he has more in his account or does he pay the same because he makes the same? In most locales, you pay income tax on everything that is counted as income. Your salary is income. In some cases, earned interest is income. But aside from the earned interest from your bank accounts, neither the $40,000 nor the $9,000 is income. Your huge mansion isn't income. Your expensive car isn't income. The huge amount of land you own isn't income. The pricey artwork on your walls isn't income. You don't pay income tax on any of these, but your local may impose other taxes on these (such as property tax, etc.) [Note: consult the tax laws of your specific locale if you want to know details.]",
"\"You'd want the money to be \"\"liquid\"\" and ready for you to use when tax time comes around. You also don't want to lose \"\"principal\"\", i.e. if you put it into stocks and have the value of what you put in be less than what you invested—which is possible—when you need the money, again, at tax time. That doesn't leave you with many good choices or an amazingly good way to profit from investing your savings that you put aside for taxes. CDs are steady but will not give you much interest and they have a definite deposit timeframe 6 months, 1 yr, 2 yrs and you can't touch it. So, the only reasonable choice you have left is an interest bearing checking or savings account with up to 1% interest (APR)—as of this writing Ally Bank offers 1% interest in an online interest savings acct.—which will give you some extra money on your deposits. This is what I do.\"",
"No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.",
"when investing in index funds Index fund as the name suggests invests in the same proportion of the stocks that make up the index. You can choose a Index Fund that tracks NYSE or S&P etc. You cannot select individual companies. Generally these are passively managed, i.e. just follow the index composition via automated algorithms resulting in lower Fund Manager costs. is it possible to establish an offshore company Yes it is possible and most large organization or High Net-worth individuals do this. Its expensive and complicated for ordinary individuals. One needs and army of International Tax Consultants / International Lawyers / etc but do I have to pay taxes from the capital gains at the end of the year? Yes Canada taxes on world wide income and you would have to pay taxes on gains in Canada. Note depending on your tax residency status in US, you may have to pay tax in US as well.",
"Use your line of credit (LOC) to purchase more investments (non RRSP). That way, all of your LOC interest use to purchase those investments becomes tax deductible. Then use the money from your tax return to pay down the LOC.",
"In my opinion, I would: If the income is from this year, you can tax shelter $59,000 plus somewhere between $50,000 and $300,000 depending on age, in a 401(k) and defined benefit plan. This will take care of the current tax burden. Afterwards, set aside your remaining tax liability in cash. The after-tax money should be split into cash and the rest into assets. The split depends on your level of risk tolerance. Build a core portfolio using highly liquid and non-correlated ETFs (think SPY, TLT, QQQ, ect.). Once these core positions are locked in. Start lowering your basis by systematically selling a 1 standard deviation call in the ETF per 100 units of underlying. This will reduce your upside, extend your breakeven, and often yield steady income. Similarly, you can sell 1 standard deviation iron condors should the VIX be high enough. Point is, you have the money to deploy a professional-type, systematic strategy that is non-correlated, and income generating.",
"The only way to avoid paying the corporation tax is buying a house for say $100,000 and then letting it burn down by accident. So your money is gone without anything to show for it, your profits are gone, and you pay no corporation tax. You pay corporation tax on profits. Profits that you invest are still profits.",
"Probably the biggest tax-deferment available to US workers is through employee-sponsored investment plans like the 401k. If you meet the income limits, you could also use a Traditional IRA if you do not have a 401k at work. But keep in mind that you are really just deferring taxes here. The US Government will eventually get their due. :) One way which you may find interesting is by using 529 plans, or other college investment plans, to save for your child's (or your) college expenses. Generally, contributions up to a certain amount are deductible on your state taxes, and are exempt from Federal and State taxes when used for qualifying education expenses. The state deduction can lower your taxes and help you save for college for your children, if that is a desire of yours.",
"The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).",
"\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"",
"I think the answer you are looking for is: You are not taxed on the original basis (purchase cost) of your investment. If you pay $30 a share, and sell at $35, the $5 per share gain is taxable at time of sale. But the $30 basis cost doesn't enter into tax calculations at all. (So it's important to keep good records on your investments and how much you paid for them at purchase.)",
"So, my question is what is the limit below which I don't have to pay taxes while trading. I just invested $10. Do I have to pay taxes for this too? what are the slabs? Any income is subject to tax. That said, investing $10 will probably not generate much of income, even at the discount brokers most of it will be wasted on commissions... I am also having an assistantship. So is holding two sources of income legitimate? Thanks You can have as many sources of income as you want. Working is what is restricted when you're on a student visa. As long as you don't open a business as a day trader or start working for someone trading stocks - you're fine.",
"> taxation has caused unproductive investing practices It certainly can. It's well established that capital gains taxes do cause investors to leave capital in mediocre or even fairly-bad investments, as suffering, say, a potential 20% loss for business reasons can be preferable to creating a guaranteed, irreversible 37% loss due to state and federal LTCG taxes.",
"What do you think of the argument that corporations shouldn't pay any tax, since investors pay tax on the dividends, and if the corporations paid too, that would be double taxation? Of course, not all corporate income goes to pay dividends. Much of the rest is deducted as business expense. Is there some corporate income which should properly be taxed?",
"You can invest more that 20,000 in Infrastructure bonds, however the tax benefit is only on 20,000. Further the interest earned is taxable. The best guaranteed post tax returns is on PPF. So invest a substantial sum in this. As your age group low you can afford to take risk and hence could also look at investing in ELSS [Mutual Fund]. A note on each of these investments: LIC: If you have taken any of the endowment / Money Back plan, remember the returns are very low around 5-6%. It would make more sense to buy a pure term plan at fraction of the cost and invest the remaining premium into even PPF or FD that would give you more return. NSC/Postal Savings: They are a good option, however the interest is taxable. There is a locking of 6 years. PPF: The locking is large 15 years although one can do partial withdrawals after 7 years. The interest is not taxable. ULIP: These are market linked plans with Insurance and balance invested into markets. The charges for initial few years is quite high, plus the returns are not comparable to the normal Mutual Funds. Invest in this only if one needs less paper and doesn't want to track things separately. ELSS/Mutual Fund: These offer good market returns, but there is a risk of market. As you are young you can afford to take the risk. Most of the ELSS have given average results that are still higher than FD or PPF. Pension Plan: This is a good way to accumulate for retirement. Invest some small amount in this and do not take any insurance on it. Go for pure equity as you can still take the risk. This ensures that you have a kit for retirement. Check out the terms and conditions as to how you need to purchase annuity at the term end etc.",
"\"This answer is based on Australian tax, which is significantly different. I only offer it in case others want to compare situations. In Australia, a popular tax reduction technique is \"\"Negative Gearing\"\". Borrow from a bank, buy an investment property. If the income frome the new property is not enough to cover interest payments (plus maintenance etc) then the excess each year is a capital loss - which you claim each year, as an offset to your income (ie. pay less tax). By the time you reach retirement, the idea is to have paid off the mortgage. You then live off the revenue stream in retirement, or sell the property for a (taxed) lump sum.\"",
"\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\""
] |
[
"The $50k is subject to the appropriate income taxes, which may include FICA taxes including the employer share if you are self employed. The after tax money can then be invested with the amount invested being the cost basis (I.e., if you invest $40k you will have a cost basis of $40k). In future years you will have taxes due if any of those investments pay dividends (or capital gain distributions). Once you sell you will have a capital gain or loss that you will pay taxes on (or take a deduction if a loss). Now you can improve this picture if you are able to put some of your money into a retirement account (either a tax deductible or a ROTH). With retirement accounts you do not pay tax on the capital gains or dividends. If you use a tax deferred account your tax is higher but that is because you were also investing Uncle Sam's portion of your pay check.",
"Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year."
] |
2713
|
Physical Checks - Mailing
|
[
"29372",
"388147"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"216200",
"584170",
"284528",
"29372",
"313887",
"66251",
"165691",
"48866",
"88952",
"264271",
"272807",
"176383",
"349554",
"564301",
"78139",
"324717",
"309269",
"473538",
"526817",
"58271",
"379732",
"381813",
"163896",
"597571",
"20791",
"45519",
"36917",
"498888",
"66058",
"299578",
"14466",
"191925",
"122182",
"534144",
"487576",
"444962",
"11716",
"91707",
"591416",
"3763",
"501230",
"548681",
"359952",
"199069",
"451969",
"359713",
"571371",
"5219",
"525851",
"138934",
"132657",
"531918",
"514260",
"292989",
"471782",
"558237",
"174384",
"514687",
"500403",
"309928",
"552216",
"72464",
"517428",
"313310",
"165397",
"153121",
"494783",
"41944",
"229546",
"481052",
"161667",
"466317",
"384251",
"322086",
"565133",
"277208",
"404366",
"224983",
"428696",
"263174",
"338898",
"93972",
"135196",
"386095",
"467509",
"473274",
"453641",
"400230",
"462050",
"260499",
"107887",
"475054",
"152827",
"285317",
"145232",
"25391",
"264075",
"365462",
"247085",
"5856"
] |
[
"No you do not insure the cheque. A cheque is just standardized form that instructs a bank to transfer money. It is no more important than an ordinary letter. A cheque carries no commercial value, especially when it has a designated recipient. No mail insurance will cover the financial loss as a result of bank fraud. It is a kind of indirect loss. Just tell her to write your account number at the back of the paper, walk into your bank's branch and tell the teller to deposit it. There is no need of mailing.",
"just FYI i have a simple account where you can generate a check to a person and they will send it via regular mail. this is not getting away from check but it makes process simpler of not writing a check and sticking a stamp and then putting it in a mailbox",
"The US Postal Service to my recollection recommends only mailing cash or items with cash-like characteristics using Registered Mail service. Registered mail is expensive and a pain in the butt for everyone, as it requires an audit trail for each individual who touches the mailing. If you're doing a lot of business and word gets out that you're accepting cash payments via the mail, you'll probably attract unwanted attention from the tax authorities as well. It's fairly unusual.",
"\"Lets say you owed me $123.00 an wanted to mail me a check. I would then take the check from my mailbox an either take it to my bank, or scan it and deposit it via their electronic interface. Prior to you mailing it you would have no idea which bank I would use, or what my account number is. In fact I could have multiple bank accounts, so I could decide which one to deposit it into depending on what I wanted to do with the money, or which bank paid the most interest, or by coin flip. Now once the check is deposited my bank would then \"\"stamp\"\" the check with their name, their routing number, the date, an my account number. Eventually an image of the canceled check would then end up back at your bank. Which they would either send to you, or make available to you via their banking website. You don't mail it to my bank. You mail it to my home, or my business, or wherever I tell you to mail it. Some business give you the address of another location, where either a 3rd party processes all their checks, or a central location where all the money for multiple branches are processed. If you do owe a company they will generally ask that in the memo section in the lower left corner that you include your customer number. This is to make sure that if they have multiple Juans the money is accounted correctly. In all my dealings will paying bills and mailing checks I have never been asked to send a check directly to the bank. If they want you to do exactly as you describe, they should provide you with a form or other instructions.\"",
"A cheque/check is just a piece of paper. There's nothing whatsoever stopping her from sticking it in an envelope, putting a stamp on it and sending it via the regular post. The important question is what happens if it goes astray? How easy would it be for her to stop and replace the check? How easy is it for a dishonest party to deposit the check elsewhere? It sounds like the people quoting you a high price to insure are treating the check as being as good as cash - if that's true then you'd be taking a big risk sending it uninsured. On the other hand if it's not true and the check is easily replaceable and essentially worthless to anyone other than you then there would seem to be no need to insure it in transit.",
"Checks are on the way out. The liability for even sending someone a check is worrying. Banks really do not look at these things very closely before cashing them, it's insane. If you're defrauded you will usually get restitution but it can take a long time to get them to pay up.",
"\"Firstly, it isn't so generous. It is a win-win, but the bank doesn't have to mail me a free box of checks with my new account, or offer free printing to compete for my business. They already have the infrastructure to send out checks, so the actual cost for my bank to mail a check on my behalf is pretty minimal. It might even save them some cost and reduce exposure. All the better if they don't actually mail a check at all. Per my bank Individuals and most companies you pay using Send Money will be mailed a paper check. Your check is guaranteed to arrive by the delivery date you choose when you create the payment. ... A select number of companies–very large corporations such as telecoms, utilities, and cable companies–are part of our electronic biller network and will be paid electronically. These payments arrive within two business days... So the answer to your question depend on what kind of bill pay you used. If it was an electronic payment, there isn't a realistic possibility the money isn't cashed. If your bank did mail a paper check, the same rules would apply as if you did it yourself. (I suppose it would be up to the bank. When I checked with my bank's support this was their answer.) Therefore per this answer: Do personal checks expire? [US] It is really up to your bank whether or not they allow the check to be cashed at a later date. If you feel the check isn't cashed quickly enough, you would have to stop payment and contact whoever you were trying to pay and perhaps start again. (Or ask them to hustle and cash the check before you stop it.) Finally, I would bet a dime that your bank doesn't \"\"pre-fund\"\" your checks. They are just putting a hold on the equivalent money in your account so you don't overdraw. That is the real favor they do for you. If you stopped the check, your money would be unfrozen and available. EDIT Please read the comment about me losing a dime; seems credible.\"",
"I have been using Bill Pay from BoA, Chase, and a local Credit Union, all for at least five years (maybe even 10), and never had any issues with lost checks. Sometimes, an address given to me was incorrect, and what happens is either nothing (meaning, after 90 days, the check is considered outdated and the money gets reimbursed in the account) the bank notifies me after about two weeks that the check was returned as 'recipient not found at that address' or 'invalid address', and the money gets restored right then. That is no guarantee, of course, that nothing will ever happen. But banks are not supposed to accept checks where the recipient name does not match. Also, you should consider using 'Quick Pay' or 'Pay an individual' instead, whatever your bank calls it. That will transfer the money same or next day to your other account, without ever mailing a check. You do not need to enter account information across banks, it works by both banks contacting you through your logins/emails.",
"\"Although not required, #2 would work best if you used magnetic ink... That is an extra cost which you may or may not want to pay for. You can often get a free checking account and a free set of checks if you can meet the minimum requirements. This often means a higher average daily balance, direct deposit, or some combination of multiple requirements. The bank is taking a risk that a client meeting those minimum requirements while likely earn the bank more in fees and services than what they give out for \"\"free\"\" such as the account and checks. My wife and I opened a Wells Fargo checking account two years ago. Back then, we were able to open the account for free along with a free set of 250 checks. I think the requirement now requires $7,500 average daily balance.\"",
"This might be blasphemy in the context of an audience that may be most focused on the gift itself, but you should be donating in a manner that helps advance the landscape, as well as your particular favourite charity. Almost 90% of businesses are in the process of trying to move away from issuing and receiving checks, and several countries in the world have already stopped using them. Checks are inefficient, costly and in a resource constrained environment like that facing most charities, create an opportunity cost that is even higher than the manual processing cost that flows directly. As donors, we need to think about scale in a manner that many individual charities don't. Send your donation via ACH!",
"While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.",
"Checks are awesome things in that, even if it gets lost the money doesn't change hands until the check is cashed. I would highly recommend NOT signing a check over and putting it in the mail though. Essentially putting your signature on it is saying yes, pay to whomever. Theoretically acceptable, rarely a good idea. Call the insurance company and have them cancel current check to reissue to the correct people. Don't forget to write VOID (in huge letters) on the check before throwing away and/or tearing it up.",
"\"The address under a bank's name on a check, if there is one, is generally going to be the contact address of the bank. That will be true no matter where on the check the bank's name appears. The address of the person or business the account belongs to, if present, will appear under their name. This information block is typically near the top left corner the check, so it will be visible as the return address if the check is mailed in a \"\"window envelope\"\" designed for this purpose. The address the check is being mailed to, if it appears on the check, will generally appear low on the check and to the right, so it will be visible as the destination address when the check is mailed using a \"\"window envelope\"\" designed for this purpose. If that isn't the answer you were looking for, please clarify your question.\"",
"The paper check method also allows the bank to use your money while the check is in the mail. My bank debits my account immediately, so while my $100 utility bill is traveling the U.S. Postal System for two days, they can make use of my $100 in whatever slush fund they like.",
"One thing I didn't see mentioned - my major bills are all electronic transfer, i.e. there is no check mailed. A bill due in 2 days can be set up now, and still paid the day after tomorrow. Try that with a check. There are smaller companies that are not done that way and a check mailed, but you state the due date not the mailing date. So the bank still has the obligation to get it there. This is how my particular bank works.",
"As I replied to someone else who said that: I'm often having to send stuff with the check. Paperwork, a bill etc. While that would work to a person who knows me, it's usually not going to work with a business or government who needs to know why I'm sending this check.",
"Yes it should be a ACH or other electronic transfer. However, it not unusual to have checks sent for large amounts in corporate banking. Large companies don't give large checks to tellers, they have it sent to a lockbox. However, lockboxes are suited for payment of invoices and I never heard of a billion dollar invoice. edit: Also, I believe that some of the bailouts were done in checks, but honestly I'm not 100% on that.",
"If you have the ability to pay online with a guaranteed date for the transaction, go for it. My bank will let me pay a bill on the exact date i choose. When using the mail, of course, this introduces a level of risk. I asked about rates as the US currently has a near zero short term rate. At 3.6%, $10,000, this is $30/month or $1/day you save by delaying. Not huge, but better in your pocket than the bank's.",
"You mentioned depositing the check and then sending a personal check. Be sure to account for time, since any deposit over $10,000 the money will be made available in increments, so it may take 10-14 days to get the full amount in your account before you could send a personal check. I would not recommend this option regardless, but if you do, just a heads up.",
"The cost for publication is US$ 25, which they accept only via money order or check. I only own a saving account in an Indian bank. India does not have International Money Order to US. If check's are fine, walk into your Branch and request for a US Dollar Banks Check. They should be able to arrange for one, there are fees associated with this. You can then mail this out to the US Organization.",
"\"I cannot answer the original question, but since there is a good deal of discussion about whether it's credible at all, here's an answer that I got from Bank of America. Note the fine difference between \"\"your account\"\" and \"\"our account\"\", which does not seem to be a typo: The payment method is determined automatically by our system. One of the main factors is the method by which pay to recipients prefer to receive payments. If a payment can be issued electronically, we attempt to do so because it is the most efficient method. Payment methods include: *Electronic: Payment is sent electronically prior to the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Corporate Check: This is a check drawn on our account and is mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds to cover the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Laser Draft Check: This is a check drawn on your account and mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account when the pay to recipient cashes the check, just as if you wrote the check yourself. To determine how your payment was sent, click the \"\"Payments\"\" button in your Bill Pay service. Select the \"\"view payment\"\" link next to the payment. Payment information is then displayed. \"\"Transmitted electronically\"\" means the payment was sent electronically. \"\"Payment transaction number\"\" means the payment was sent via a check drawn from our account. \"\"Check number\"\" means the payment was sent as a laser draft check. Each payment request is evaluated individually and may change each time a payment processes. A payment may switch from one payment method to another for a number of reasons. The merchant may have temporarily switched the payment method to paper, while they update processing information. Recent changes or re-issuance of your payee account number could alter the payment method. In my case, the web site reads a little different: Payment check # 12345678 (8 digits) was sent to Company on 10/27/2015 and delivered on 10/30/2015. Funds were withdrawn from your (named) account on 10/30/2015. for one due on 10/30/2015; this must be the \"\"corporate check\"\". And for another, earlier one, due on 10/01/2015, this must be the laser draft check: Check # 1234 (4 digits) from your (named) account was mailed to Company on 09/28/2015. Funds for this payment are withdrawn from your account when the Pay To account cashes the check. Both payments were made based on the same recurring bill pay payment that I set up manually (knowing little more of the company than its address).\"",
"I receive checks from my tenant. Also, from our medical reimbursement account. I'm sure there's an option somewhere to get that direct deposited, just haven't yet. My wife will write checks for school functions. Funny, they haven't cashed one since february, and this is the one item to look for every time I reconcile her account. A few select others don't take credit or debit cards. Our tailor (losing weight, needed pants pulled in), among others. The number of checks is surely down an order of magnitude over the years, but still not zero.",
"Generally it goes by when they receive the check, not when they cash the check. Though if the check was received prior to midnight on December 31st, but after the bank closes, they would probably let the tax payer decide to count it for the next year. Of course if the check is from person A to person B then the only issue is gift tax, or annual limit calculations. If it is company to person then income tax could be involved. The IRS calls this Constructive receipt Income Under the cash method, include in your gross income all items of income you actually or constructively receive during your tax year. If you receive property or services, you must include their fair market value in income. Example. On December 30, 2011, Mrs. Sycamore sent you a check for interior decorating services you provided to her. You received the check on January 2, 2012. You must include the amount of the check in income for 2012. Constructive receipt. You have constructive receipt of income when an amount is credited to your account or made available to you without restriction. You do not need to have possession of it. If you authorize someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are treated as having received it when your agent received it. Example. Interest is credited to your bank account in December 2012. You do not withdraw it or enter it into your passbook until 2013. You must include it in your gross income for 2012. Delaying receipt of income. You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar property from one tax year to another to avoid paying tax on the income. You must report the income in the year the property is received or made available to you without restriction. Example. Frances Jones, a service contractor, was entitled to receive a $10,000 payment on a contract in December 2012. She was told in December that her payment was available. At her request, she was not paid until January 2013. She must include this payment in her 2012 income because it was constructively received in 2012. Checks. Receipt of a valid check by the end of the tax year is constructive receipt of income in that year, even if you cannot cash or deposit the check until the following year. Example. Dr. Redd received a check for $500 on December 31, 2012, from a patient. She could not deposit the check in her business account until January 2, 2013. She must include this fee in her income for 2012. In general it is best not to cut it close. If the check is to be counted as an January event it is best to send it in January. If it is to be December event it is best to send it early enough to be able to say with confidence that the check arrived at the destination before the end of the year.",
"First, if you live in/around a reasonably populated urban area, and you're in the United States, I can't see why you would choose to bank with Chase, B of A, or another large commercial bank. I think you would be much better served by banking at a reasonably large credit union. There are many differences between banks and credit unions, but in a nutshell, credit unions are owned by the members, and operate primarily to provide benefits to their members, whereas a bank is owned by the shareholders, and operates primarily to make profits for the shareholders (not to benefit the customers). The banking industry absolutely hates the credit unions, so if you've ever been nickeled-and-dimed with this fee and that charge by your bank, I have to ask why you're still banking with a company that irritates you and/or actively tries to screw you out of your money? I live in California, and I've banked at credit unions almost exclusively since I started working nearly 30 years ago. Every time I've strayed and started banking at a for-profit bank, I've regretted it. For example, a few years ago I opened a checking account at a now-defunct bank (WaMu) just for online use: eBay and so forth. It was a free checking account. When Chase bought WaMu, the account became a Chase account, and it seemed that every other statement brought new fees, new restrictions, and so forth. I finally closed it when they imposed some stupid fee for not carrying enough of a balance. I found out by logging in to their Web site and seeing a balance of zero dollars; they had imposed the fee a few statements back, and I had missed it, so they kept debiting my account until it was empty. At this point, I do about 90% of my banking at a fairly large credit union. I have a mortgage with a big bank, but that was out of my hands, as the lender/originator sold the mortgage and I had no say in the matter. My credit union has a highly functional Web site, permits me to download my account activity to Quicken, and even has mobile apps which allow me to deposit a check by taking a picture of it, or check my account activity, etc. They (my credit union) are part of a network of other credit unions, so as long as I am using a network ATM, I never pay a fee. In sum, I can't see any reason to go with a bank. Regarding checks, I write a small number of checks per year, but I recently needed to reorder them. My credit union refers members directly to Harland-Clarke, a major-league player in the check printing business. Four boxes of security checks was around $130 plus shipping, which is not small money. However, I was able to order the very same checks via Costco for less than half that amount. Costco refers members to a check printing service, which is a front/subsidiary of Harland-Clarke, and using a promo code, plus the discount given for my Costco membership, I got four boxes of security checks shipped to me for less than $54. My advice would be to look around. If you're a Costco member, use their check printing service. Wal*mart offers a similar service to anyone, as does Sam's Club, and you can search around to find other similar services. Bottom line, if you order your checks via your bank or credit union, chances are you will pay full retail. Shop around, and save a bit. I've not opened a new account at a credit union in some time, but I would not be surprised if a credit union offered a free box of checks when you open a new account with them.",
"There is no reason you must buy the bank's printed check. There are many places both physical stores and on line the offer check printing. From what I've seen, the requirement is the use of a magnetic ink the bank's equipment can properly scan. I may not even be correct there if they've all gone fully optical. The checks you buy on line are a fraction of the cost the bank would charge you. Edit - On searching, I find VistaPrint offers free checks. I've not ordered checks from them, but I suspect free orders require you pay shipping. I've used VistaPrint for business cards, promotional items, and holiday cards. I can say, I've been pleased with their quality. Update - The free checks from VistaPrint are no longer available.",
"I am assuming that you are referring to Personal Checks since you do not have a business account. Generally, your full name is the minimal requirement that is needed on the top left of each check. It is best if this information is pre-printed. In fact, some businesses and banks will not honor a check if your full name is handwritten on the check. This is for obvious reasons such as fraud.",
"It all depends on the trust level you have in them handling it correctly. If they never deposit it, it doesn't matter what happens to the check, they could frame it and hang it on the wall. The risk is that someone someday deposits it (incorrectly double-charging you), and you need to do what think is appropriate to avoid this risk. If your trust in them is too small, only sending it back to you makes sure that you physically control the check.",
"\"Your bank has discretion to honor checks after 6 months, so you should talk to your bank about their specific policy. In general, banks won't accept \"\"large\"\" stale checks. The meaning of \"\"large\"\" varies -- $25,000 in NYC, as little as $2k in other places. Banks that service high-volume check issuers (like rebate companies) reject checks at 180 days. For business purposes, I think some banks will create accounts for specific mailings or other purposes as well. (i.e. 2011 refund account) The accounts close after a year.\"",
"The check is just barely over 6 months old. I suspect it will go through with no issues.",
"Traveller check require one signature at top when the check are purchased. Matching signature at bottom when you want to encash. So if there is no signature, you would need to get her signature, or as suggested mail it to her and get a regular check.",
"Checking account holders must be aware that when you order bank checks online, you will be required to provide some sensitive personal and financial information. When I order my checks online, I make sure to think about the consequences of providing the information being demanded. Considering that identity theft remains the top threat for checking account holders, it would be wise to pause for a moment before submitting the information.",
"Several things to do: Change your bank. $2 for a check? Why?? When shopping for a new bank: ask for a free checking account. College students can get free checking in almost any bank. At least the first box of checks will be free, which will give you enough checks for the next several years (I'm still not half done with the box I got from WaMu 5 years ago). Check out your neighborhood credit union. Most of them have free checking and free checks for students as well. If still no luck - check online check printing services, they'll send you a box for less than $25, that's for sure. Walmart for example (1 box - $7). Also, you can use banks' bill-pay service for any check you write, if you know the address of the person, the amount and the sum a couple of days ahead of time. That should cover rent, and probably most of your other checks.",
"\"To answer length validity and security implications of draft checks issued and negotiated within the United States, I am heavily addressing the common erroneous assumptions of where the funds sit while they're \"\"in\"\" a draft check and how to get them out. Tl;Dr The existing answers are incomplete and in some ways dangerously misleading. Jerry can still be potentially defrauded by Tom, and even if the check is legitimately drawn and negotiable, Jerry may still experience delayed access to the funds. The funds sit in an account held by the issuing bank. As long as the bank has sufficient funds, the check does. However, there are significantly more factors that go into whether a check will be returned unpaid (\"\"bounce\"\"). If I hand you $5000 in cash, will you give me $5000 in cash? Probably, and you'd probably be pretty safe. How about I give you a $5000 draft check, will you give me $5000 in cash without doing anything except looking at it to verify the check? I hope not (Cash America sure wouldn't) but people sell expensive goods with the \"\"same as cash\"\" attitude. Remember: The only non-cash form of payment which cannot somehow be held, reversed or returned unpaid in the U.S. without consent of the receiving party is a payment order (a.k.a wire transfer)! The draft check is \"\"as good as cash\"\" in the sense that the money for a draft check is withdrawn from your account before the check is negotiated (deposited). This does NOT mean that a draft check will not bounce, so Jerry is NOT as secure in handing the goods to Tom as if Tom had handed him cash, as it is still a check. Jerry's bank will not receive the funds for Tom's draft check for an average 3 to 5 business days, same as a personal check. Jerry will probably have access to the first $5000 within two business days... provided that he deposits the draft check in person at his bank's branch or in a bank-owned ATM. In the United States, Regulation CC governs funds availability. Regarding official, draft, or tellers checks: \"\"If the customer desires next-day availability of funds from these checks, [your bank] may require use of a special deposit slip.\"\" Mobile deposit availability in the U.S. is NOT regulated in this way and will likely be subject to a longer hold on more, if not all, of the check! Draft checks, don't, as a habit, \"\"bounce\"\" in the colloquial sense of \"\"returned for insufficient funds.\"\" This is because they are prepaid and drawn upon a financial institution's account. Banks are insolvent far less frequently than other businesses or individuals. Draft checks, tellers checks, official checks, bank checks, etc CAN, however, be returned unpaid if one of the following is true: As an aside: an institution is not obligated to honor a stale dated check, but may do so at its discretion. If you have a personal check outstanding for over 6 months, it may still clear and potentially overdraw your account. In this case, contact your bank ASAP to process a reversal. The depositing bank mis-scans the check and the issuing bank refuses the resulting data. I have seen systems mis-read which data field is which, or its contents. Also, there is the possibility the image if the check will be illegible to the issuing bank. The draft check has been cancelled (stop paid). This can happen if: a) The check was fraudulently bought from the issuing bank using Tom's account b) Tom has completed an indemnification agreement that the check was lost or otherwise not used for its intended purpose, without fraud having occurred against Tom c) The draft check is escheated (paid to the state as unclaimed property). This case is a subset of case 1, but will lead to a different return reason stamped on the (image replacement document of) the check. The draft check was never any good in the first place. Because of the perception that draft checks are as good as cash (they're not but are a lot better than personal checks), forgery and attempted fraud is shockingly common. These aren't actually underwritten by a real bank, even if they appear to be. The only money \"\"in\"\" them is what the fraudster can get out of you. Jerry did not properly endorse the check before presenting it for deposit or otherwise negotiating it. In my time in banking, I most commonly saw cases 3 and 4. Unlike most counterfeit cash, case 3 will fool Jerry and Jerry's teller. Tom gets an immediate payout (a car, a wire transfer, a payday loan, etc) and Jerry's bank doesn't know the check isn't valid until they call the alleged issuing bank to verify its negotiability, or in the case of smaller checks into lower-risk accounts, it is simply returned unpaid as fraudulently drawn. To conclude: Call the alleged issuing bank's verification line before handing over the goods, always properly endorse your deposits, and address what happens if one does not receive or collect on prompt payment in your contracts.\"",
"How to order Checks online in a Quick, Safe, and Straightforward Manner? Many people have difficulty when it comes time to reorder checks, when in fact this process merely takes a few minutes to complete. The most common issues that most folks encounter after they order checks or reorder them are as follows: -Provider/Supply -Price -Check styles",
"Normally, that is the address of the person that __wrote the check = the person who is paying the money (= your address if you write the check). In this example, it is '...2063 Main Street...' You mail the check to the recipient, the person who gets the money. His name is supposed to be in the line PAY TO THE ORDER OF, but it does normally not contain any address, just a name; in this example the recipient is 'Sample Company'. The check does not carry the recipient's address anywhere; only the envelope has it. If you are sending someone money, you will have to ask them where to send it to. Some checks have the bank's name printed on the top right, but that has no influence; it is basically an advertisement ('Your bank Name'):",
"Many banks offer online payment. He can add a payee and just type your name and address in. The bank will mail the check out if they cannot deliver payment electronically. Edit: Recently I came across this (Citibank Global Transfer), you and your friend should see if your bank offers a similar service. Citibank requires both of you to have an account with them.",
"Many businesses will request that you get a bank-issued check for large amounts of money. The exception is often in cases where you're not going anywhere: you can write a 50,000 check for a deposit on a new house, and you'll never have a problem, but a car dealer will probably request a counter check for the same sum.",
"All banks in the US that I have ever worked with will allow you to deposit checks if: In your case, you have 3 options:",
"\"No functional difference. Only impression/convenience. \"\"Business checks\"\" are checks in larger format (8\"\" instead of the regular 5\"\" checks), they can be from your personal account just as well. I didn't have any problem using the small \"\"individual\"\"-standard checks for my company (I actually did get them for free from Wells Fargo, but that was a gesture, not by policy).\"",
"Thanks to the online world, check ordering is much easier and less expensive.On our CheckOrdering.net website, we will show you the most effective way to check ordering. You’ll be able to order checks for personal or business use. you will not need to concern yourself with having someone else do this once arduous task.",
"How? Basically all banks nowadays allow online deposits from a smartphone - you take a picture from the front and back of the check, and submit it, and that's it. You still have the paper check, and it looks pristine, but it is deposited (and the paper is worthless).",
"If your old bank has online billpay, you might be able to either use that to send a check to yourself, or do an ACH transfer directly into your new account.",
"Essentially you can send a Check by mail, you brother deposits into Bank account. It costs very little, the time required would be around 1-2 months. You can do International Wire [Via SWIFT] it would reach in few days, fees are high. You can use specialized remittance services like Money2india, remit2india, or western union etc. The fees are low and generally funds reach in a week.",
"I still use checks to pay rent and occasionally some bills/liabilities. That said, I did notice an (elderly) lady paying by check at the supermarket a while ago. So is it really common to get a paycheck in the sense that you get a piece of paper? Yes and no. There are some people that opt for the physical paycheck. Even if they do not, there is a pay stub which serves as a record of it. My last employer went to online pay stubs and a bunch of us opted out, sticking with the good old paper in an envelope. We sure were glad of that when there were technical issues and security concerns with the online service.",
"As long as someone is willing to take it, you can write it! I personally wrote a check for a new car. The dealership didn't bat an eye.",
"\"Based on past case law, a check made payable to qualified charity and delivered (e.g., placed in the mail on 12/31 would count as delivered as it is out of the hands of the donor) would fall under the \"\"constructive receipt doctrine\"\". However, for non-charitable gifts (e.g., gifts to family members) it is the date the check is cashed (honored by the receiving bank). This is important as the annual gift exclusion is just that \"\"Annual\"\". Therefore, if I gift my child $14,000 by writing a check on 12/31/2014 but they deposit it on 1/3/2015 then I have used my annual gift exclusion for 2015 and not 2014. This means I could not gift them anything further in 2015. BTW the annual gift amount is for ALL gifts cash and non-cash. Most people don't seem to realize this. If I give $14,000 of cash to my child and then also give them Christmas gifts with a value of $1,000 I have exceeded my annual gift exclusion to that child. Usually there are ways around this issue as I can give $14,000 to each and every person I want and if married my spouse can do the same. This allows us to give $14,000 from each of us to each child plus $14,000 from each of us to their spouse if married and $14,000 from each of us to each of their children if they have any.\"",
"Eh that's what I thought. Makes sense given how much mail they probably receive and how busy they are. Just looking for new ways to network with people at that level, considering I knew emails were filtered. Someone high up at an investment bank I know said he gets a lot of emails that get unread/deleted, but he opens all his own mail so it's a good way to get someone's attention. Wasn't sure if it was applicable at this level, guess not. That's quite a bit of walls to get through to reach someone haha. What would you recommend to reach these types for business networking?",
"Most US banks don't allow you the ability to draft a foreign currency check from USD. Though, I know Canadian banks are more workable. For instance, TD allows you to do this from CAD to many other currencies for a small fee. I believe even as a US Citizen you can quite easily open a TD Trust account and you'd be good to go. Also, at one time Zions bank was one of the few which lets US customers do this add-hoc. And there is a fee associated. Even as a business, you can't usually do this without jumping thru hoops and proving your business dealings in foreign countries. Most businesses who do this often will opt to using a payment processor service from a 3rd party which cuts checks in foreign currencies at a monthly and per check base. Your other option, which may be more feasible if you're planning on doing this often, would be to open a British bank account. But this can be difficult if not impossible due to the strict money laundering anti-fraud regulations. Many banks simply won't do it. But, you might try a few of the newer British banks like Tesco, Virgin and Metro.",
"\"Probably she asked for some kind of registered delivery, someone asked her, \"\"what are the contents worth?\"\", in order to get a number to put into the insurance calculator, and she said \"\"$60000\"\". If that's true, meaning that if the letter goes astray, you can't get a new one issued, then yes you should insure it to the value of $60000 (or rather, since the insurance is so much, you should not post it at all. Your girlfriend could perhaps return it to her client and agree with them another way to transfer money). I'm also not sure what happens when a letter hits US customs with a declared value of $60000! However, it's probably not true. This is a check (or, if drawn on a bank here in the UK, a cheque), not a bearer bond. If it goes missing then (with some trouble and expense) she can almost certainly get another one issued. So the correct answer to \"\"what's this worth?\"\" is the cost of replacing it, not the amount of money that it instructs the bank to transfer. As for whether it'll cause a red flag for you, I'm afraid I don't know enough about US banking to say. Here in the UK there should be no problem with a cheque for that amount, unless one of the banks involved has reason to suspect money laundering or related financial crime, in which case they're required to report it. But if the cheque is from a non-US account and you're paying it into your US account, then maybe you need to make a customs declaration?\"",
"When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.",
"What would you do if you had the check? Probably destroy it. The goal is to render it uncashable. One way to do such is to have it shredded. If you are uncomfortable leaving them to destroy it, then swing by and pick it up. Alternatively offer to send them a self addressed and stamped envelope. I am sure they will accommodate if you ask nicely.",
"There are some people that still get an old-fashioned paycheck but for the most part if you are an employee at a company you get a paystub while the money is direct deposited into your accounts. Paying for stuff at a store with a check is not very common. Most people use credit cards for that purpose. A significant percentage of the population still use checks for paying there regular bills through the mail. Although the more internet savvy people will most likely use online bill pay from their bank so they don't have to mail checks. Personally I have only written about 15 checks in 5 years. Mostly to people and not to businesses setup for receiving bill payments electronically.",
"Check use is declining here too, but it still has some practical advantages over electronic means:",
"In my business (estate planning law practice), probably 60-70% of my income is in the form of checks, with the balance as credit/debit cards. I prefer to get paid by check so I don't have to pay the approx 2.5% merchant fee, but I don't push clients to choose one method over the other. I offer direct deposit to my employees but most of them choose to be paid by check. Also, check processing is becoming more and more electronic - when I get paid by check, I scan the checks in a dedicated desktop scanner, and upload the check images to the bank at the end of the day, and the checks are processed very quickly. I also make deposits to my personal credit union account by scanning checks and uploading the images. So, yes, there's technically a paper check, but I (as the merchant/recipient/depositor) keep the check for a few months to make sure there's no problem with the deposit/payment, then shred them. The bank never sees the actual paper check.",
"This is a standard check. To complete the order, I need to enter the bank routing number, my account number, name address, and phone, if I wish. The name of the bank is required for the order, but does not appear on the printed check. For checks you print, this will be no different. It's your name, and address, not the bank's, that goes on the check.",
"\"Nope, anything is that has the required information is fine. At a minimum you need to have the routing number, account number, amount, \"\"pay to\"\" line and a signature. The only laws are that it can't be written on anything illegal, like human skin, and it has to be portable, not carved on the side of a building ( for example) https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-20434,00.html http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/12/people-actually-cash-big-novelty-checks-even-possible/ That said, the MICR line and standard sizes will make things eaiser for they bank, but are hardly required. You could write your check on notebook paper so long as it had the right information, and the bank would have to \"\"cash it\"\". Keep in mind that a check is an order to the bank to give your money to a person and nothing more. You could write it out in sentence form. \"\"Give Bill $2 from account 12344221 routing number 123121133111 signed _________\"\" and it would be valid. In practice though, it would be a fight. Mostly the bank would try to urge you to use a standard check, or could hold the funds because it looks odd, till they received the ok from \"\"the other bank\"\". But.... If you rant to fight that fight....\"",
"Many banks here have some kind of service that will do this for you. For example, Wells Fargo has 'Bill Pay On Line'. You can use this to make regular payments - for your rent or mortgage, car payment, utilities and so on. You can also go on line and pay any company or person. If they don't have the facilities to accept electronic payment, the bank will actually mail them a check. See https://www.wellsfargo.com/online-banking/bill-pay/ and https://www.wellsfargo.com/wfonline/tour/olb/high_flash?deep_link=2 Bank of America has something similar, but this forum won't let me post more than two links. Go to google and search the name of the bank with 'send payments' or 'pay on line'.",
"If you have an SSN and foreign passport - it's all you need to open account, so just open it and order a checkbook. It will take some time before they will issue it but most probably they'll give you some checks to use till that very moment. So basically you should: Also I strongly suggest you to open two accounts - one would be for you and one for rent exclusively. The thing is that check could be cashed any time and it's pretty annoying exercise to keep that in mind.",
"Not illegal. With respect to littleadv response, the printing of a check isn't illegal. I can order checks from cheap check printers, and they have no relationship to any bank, so long as they have my routing number and checking account number, they print. Years ago (25+) I wrote my account details on a shirt in protest to owing the IRS money, and my bank cashed it. They charged a penalty of some nominal amount, $20 or so for 'non-standard check format' or something like that. But, in fact, stupid young person rants aside, you may write a check out by hand on a piece of paper and it should clear. The missing factor is the magnetic ink. But, I often see a regular check with a strip taped to the bottom when the mag strip fails, proving that bad ink will not prevent a check from clearing. So long as the person trying to send you the funds isn't going to dispute the transaction (and the check is made out to you, so I suppose they couldn't even do that) this process should be simple. I see little to no risk so long as the image isn't intercepted along the way.",
"For an individual its not automatic. One needs to ask the Bank, return the check. For Corporate Customer depending on how big the relationship is, many a times this is given as a service and there is an automatic return",
"\"I know of one practical difference between business checks (8\"\" check) and personal checks (6\"\" check) dealing with the paper check conversion rule to electronic debit. The National ACH Association, created a rule that allows receivers of checks without an \"\"Auxiliary On-Us\"\" field, to convert your check into an electronic debit via the ACH network. By default, 6\"\" checks (personal checks) do NOT have the AUX ON-US field, and are eligible to be converted to ACH debit. If you do not want your paper checks converted to ACH debits, then start using business checks with the AUX ON-US field populated. You can use business checks for business or personal checking accounts. More information can be found below: http://www.deluxe.com/miscfiles/pdf/AuxOnUsField.pdf http://www.achrulesonline.org/\"",
"The last time I checked (more than a year ago), Wells Fargo had the best rates and they provide next day delivery. They also have international ATMs in New York City.",
"The bottom line is to keep most of your money in accounts with no check privileges and to not give the account numbers for these accounts to anyone. Keep just enough in your checking account for the checks you are going to write.",
"I had a situation like this also. A client deposited an IRA check to his local P.O. prior to collection p/up, thinking this meant it would be postmarked April 15. It may have been picked up, but wasn't postmarked until the next day, and my firm refused to consider it as timely. I do remember discussing it w/my Retirement Services Dept. Maybe they made an exception for me and my client, but maybe not. I don't remember. Good luck.",
"\"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write \"\"pay to the order of \"\" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write \"\"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY\"\" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!\"",
"\"Can you get a cashier's check from your bank, made out in the charity's name, and mail it to the charity? From what I recall of the last few times I've gotten a cashier's check from the bank, it didn't have anything on it that identified me. A determined person could probably trace it back to you, but you're not really looking for strong anonymity. Another possibility would be a postal money order, but I'm not sure whether you can leave the \"\"From\"\" section blank. The money order would have a fee, but the cashier's check should be free. (It is at both my local bank and my CU.)\"",
"Typically your paychecks are direct deposited into your bank account and you receive a paycheck stub telling you how much of your money went where (taxes, insurance, 401k, etc.). Most people use debit or credit cards for purchases. I personally only use checks to transfer money to another person (family, friend, etc.) than a business. And even then, there's PayPal.",
"> I think if you do a new passport application, or you need to include new photos you can't do the whole thing online and need to do some verification steps (but you can do those at post offices IIRC..). Your solution to mailing in documents and a check is for me to go to the post office? I'm trying to save time, not simply figure out how to eliminate checks from my life.",
"\"Legally, a check just needs to have a certain list of things (be an instruction to one's bank to pay a specific amount of money to bearer or to a specific entity, have a date, have a signature, etc.) There are anecdotes around of a guy depositing a junk mail check and it accidentally qualifying as a real check (which he turned into a live show), or of writing a check on a door, cow, or \"\"the shirt off your back\"\". What kind of checks your bank will process is technically up to them. Generally, if you get your blank checks printed up by any reputable firm, they'll have similar information in similar places, as well as the MICR line (the account and routing number in magnetic ink on the bottom) to allow for bank to process the checks with automated equipment. As long as it's a standard size, has the MICR line, and has the information that a check needs, your bank is likely to be fine with it. So, there are some standards, but details like where exactly the name of the bank is, or what font is used, or the like, are up to whoever is printing the check. For details on what standards your bank requires in order to process your checks, you'd have to check with your bank directly. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if they just directed you to their preferred check printer provider, as they know that they accept their check format fine. Though as I said, any reputable check printer makes sure that they meet the standards to get processed by banks without trouble. Unless you're a business that's going to be writing a lot of checks and pay a lot of fees for the privilege, a bank is not likely to want to make exceptions for you for your own custom-printed octagonal checks written in ancient Vulcan.\"",
"\"You should check if your card issuer provides a \"\"Bill Pay\"\" service. I have a CapitalOne card, and I know they don't. But Wells Fargo may, I don't know. However, for that to work your biller must accept credit cards as payments, at least that's the restriction I have with such a feature on my USBank card. That means, that if the company doesn't accept credit cards directly - they're likely not to participate in the credit cards' bill-pay system as well. Some credit cards are actually mailing these balance transfer checks quite frequently trying to \"\"seduce\"\" you into taking advantage of your available credit. Unless you really don't have any other choice - you shouldn't. But if that's the only way you have of paying - go for it. That willwill not be treated as a cash advance but rather as balance transfer. You can call the customer service and have them a check mailed to you. You may want to consider talking to your bank and checking if they can give you a line of credit. That would be similar to the credit card (i.e.: revolving credit line) from your credit report/score perspective, but may have lower interest rates.\"",
"This kind of questions keeps repeating itself on this site and the answer is generally it doesn't matter. As you said yourself, there are costs either way, and these costs are comparable. Generally, merchant fees differ tremendously between the different kinds of merchants, and while gas stations and video rentals may pay up to 5% and even more, charitable organizations and community services are usually not considered as high fraud risk operation and are charged much lower fees. Either way, paying employees, managing cash/check deposits or paying merchant fees is part of the charity operational expenses. Together with maintaining offices, postal office boxes, office supplies, postage expenses and formal stationary and envelopes needed for physical donations handling. I would guess that if the charity's majority of donations come on-line as credit card/paypal payments - check handling will be more expensive. So I suggest you take the route you consider majority of donors pay - that would be the cheapest for them to handle. I would guess, credit cards being the most convenient - would be the way to go.",
"buy a cashiers check with the cash (a CRT will be nec if over 10 K) and deposit the cashiers check",
"There are certain standards that modern checks need to meet. These aren't required by law, but banks today generally insist on them. If you are able to meet these standards and print your own checks at home, you are allowed to do so. One way this is commonly done is with purchased check blanks and check printing software. Office supply stores sell check blanks that fit into standard computer printers. This check paper includes the necessary security features of checks, and using the check printing software, you can print your personal information, including your name & address, your bank's name and address, and your account numbers. The account numbers on the bottom of the checks are called the MICR code, which stands for Magnetic Ink Character Recognition. Normally, these numbers were printed with special magnetic ink, which was used in automated check reading machines. Checks that you purchase from your bank still use magnetic ink; however, modern check readers are optical, and don't require magnetic ink. So you should be able to print checks with your printer using standard ink/toner, and not have a problem. Without purpose-specific check printing software, you could still buy blank check paper from the store, and with a little trial-and-error you could print using Excel. The biggest challenge with doing this would be printing the MICR code: you would probably need to install an MICR font on your computer and play around with the size and location until you get it where you want it. Doing a little Googling, I see that there are some check printing Excel templates out there, but I haven't tried any of these, and it is unclear to me whether they actually print the MICR, or whether they assume that you have blank checks with the MICR account number and check numbers already printed. Without purchasing blank check paper, you won't have any of the security features, such as microprinting, watermarks, erasure protection, anti-photocopying background, etc. As you mentioned, if you are depositing checks via mobile phone app, as some banks now allow, none of these security features are doing any good. The problem, however, is that you are not writing checks for yourself; you are writing checks to other people, and you have no way of knowing whether or not their banks are going to give them trouble with your checks. There is enough check fraud out there that lots of bank tellers are very cautious. I recommend sticking with check paper that has the security features because, if nothing else, it will make your check look more like a real check.",
"you're correct in that email & www is one of the reasons for the decline in first class mail. but while convenient to get electronic statements, and payments, I don't do them for the following reasons. there's no float on your funds, two a bill by mail is a legal document, in many cases with electronic payments if there is a dispute you have to request in writing, by mail the item(s) that in dispute. lastly, like any business these days, its not like they're passing on any savings to you for the costs they've saved by not using a friggin stamp. its like the self checkout.. shouldn't you get a discount for checking out your own groceries? also i'd be remised if i did not point out the sorry state of the adoption and availability of broadband in this country. 15% are still on dialup. anyway..",
"In the united states, they may request a check written by the bank to the other party. I have had to make large payments for home settlements, or buying a car. If the transaction was over a specified limit, they wanted a cashiers check. They wanted to make sure it wouldn't bounce. I have had companies rebate me money, and say the maximum value of the check was some small value. I guess that was to prevent people from altering the check. One thing that has happened to me is that a large check I wanted to deposit was held for a few extra days to make sure it cleared. I wouldn't have access to the funds until the deadline passed.",
"I would strongly suggest you select an answer: all the above two cover everything I can possibly recommend, but perhaps my perspective as a person who was exactly in your shoes a year ago might appeal to you more. My first bank was Chase, and they usually give out a free checking account to students that come with leaves of 100 checks. Unfortunately, I was 24 at that time, and the max possible age to qualify was 23 or 21. Paying $25 for any number of checks was a big deal for me as I had no job, and transportation and rent was costing me $1k/month anyways. I came here and asked questions: lots of them. MrChrister, God bless his soul, recommended credit unions to me. I never knew they existed. A year later, I am a proud member of 3 CUs: I recommend Alliant, DCU and SchoolsFirst: I am their member and very proud of it!",
"Banks may still honor the check, depending on state law. Your obligation to pay has not been fulfilled. To get your money back, you need to wait a specified period of time and file a document reporting the check lost. There is probably a fee for this service.",
"I agree with you that smartphone deposits make you more vulnerable to a variety of issues. Checks are completely insecure, since anyone with your routing/account number can create a check, and individuals are less likely to shred or otherwise secure the check properly. Ways to control this risk are:",
"I would recommend wire transfer. I was in your position some years ago, and the US$ cheque took 6 weeks to clear. Wire transfer fees are generally a few tens of pounds, depending on the banks involved.",
"US banks are often helpless with international checks, so I would recommend to do a wire transfer instead. Otherwise you might end up being in the US with no money and a worthless piece of paper in your hand. First, set up your european account to allow wire transfers to the US, if that needs any action. Speak to someone in the bank in person, to make sure you can later initiate such a transfer remotely/online. After travelling, set up your US account, and then remote trigger a wire transfer. Costs are relatively small, for example with Postbank you pay less than 30 $, and get the bank currency exchange ratio (which is much better than the exchange ratio for paper money). The wire transfer cost is partly proportional to the amount, and partly constant, so don't split it in many pieces - make one larger transfer.",
"Unfortunately, I can't simply write a check. Why not? Getting a certified check or a money draft from your original bank would be the safest way of transferring money. You can also get it wired directly -- talk to your new bank and see if they can get something set up for you.",
"Checks actually have a limited lifespan before the bank no longer has to honor them, which simplifies this question. After about 6 months you assume that check won't be cashed. If they find it after that, you write them a new check. If they don't, you really should pester them to do so.",
"\"Checks sold as \"\"business checks\"\" are larger than checks sold as \"\"personal checks\"\". Personal checks are usually 6\"\" x 2 1/2\"\" while business checks are 8 1/2 \"\" x 3 to 4 \"\". Also, business checks typically have a tear-off stub where you can write who the check was made out to and what it was for. In this computer age that seems pretty obsolete to me, I enter the check into the computer, not write it on a stub, but I suppose there are still very small businesses out there that doesn't use a computerized record-keeping system. These days business checks are often printed on 8 1/2 by 11\"\" paper -- either one per sheet with a big tear-off or 3 per sheet with no tear off -- so you can feed them through a computer printer easily. Nothing requires you to use \"\"business checks\"\" for a business account. At least, I've always used personal checks for my business account with no problem. These days I make almost all payments electronically, I think I write like one paper check a year, so it's become a trivial issue. Oh, and I've never had any problem getting a check printer to put my business name on the checks or anything like that.\"",
"I have only been comfortable using my credit unions online bill payment system where the service they use already has the target in the database. When I enter the name of the company and the zip code from the bill, the system responds with the address that matches what is on the bill. In most cases the money is not sent via mail, but it is sent electronically. This eliminates the case of somebody finding the check. Though electronic delivery doesn't guarantee that I didn't type the wrong account number. When adding a new target, I like to pick those that also have an online system that I can check in a few days to make sure the money was received and properly credited. Recently a company failed to credit my account in a timely manner, my credit union actually noticed that the payment hadn't been cashed, and alerted me. I asked the credit union about mistakes, either by me or by them. They claimed that the payment is treated like any other check, and that if there was a problem the money could be pulled back, and my account credited with the funds. Your bank should have a disclosure document stating the risks and protections with the service.",
"\"Keep in mind that many checks are being cashed via scanner or photo. These can be home based, business based or ATM based systems. The key requirement is that the software has to be able to distinguish the \"\"written\"\" parts from the background parts. If the image doesn't have enough contrast for the edge detection to work, the check can't be easily processed. In that case a human looks at the image and decodes the image and processes the transaction. The image is not in color. Many businesses scan the check and hand the original back to you after having the Point of Sale system process the image. Post 2001 the checks in the united states are no longer moved through the banking system, only their images. With the roll out of these image based systems, in the future almost no physical checks will be seen by banks. Therefore the actual ink color is not important, only the result.\"",
"No, most check deposits are processed that way. Banks transmit the pictures of the checks between themselves, and allow business customers to deposit scans for quite some time now. I see no reason for you to be concerned of a check being in a dusty drawer, it's been deposited, cannot be deposited again. If you're concerned of forgery - well, nothing new there.",
"\"My revised, bottom-line advice: offer to send a 2nd payment (preferably in the form of money order or cashier's check) for the difference you are agreeing to pay. I cannot imagine any reason why they would object to this - there is no fee to cash a check, there's less risk of error, and less work involved. Alternatively, offer to send a new check only once the other has been returned. Don't issue one more full-amount check while the other is still outstanding. There is a good reason not to accept partial payment by them, which is that accepting a partial payment of a debt comes with a varieties of strings attached depending on the nature of the debt (such as with evictions, court processes may need to be restarted, etc). They likely want to avoid such a situation - but this does not provide any support for why they can't just take a second payment and then cash it all at once as a single, full settlement of the debt. In a perfect world, you could skip all the non-sense by simply having your bank put a stop-payment on the old check before sending a new one. Unfortunately, this might not work with 100% accuracy - but in your case if the \"\"partial payment\"\" is a significant amount of money to you, I'd go ahead and spend the $20-40 to put in the order now as an extra safety on them not doing what they claim, if for some incredibly stupid reason you can't handle this with a 2nd payment instead of one single full one. It turns out banks have lots of surprising and stupid rules, like stop payments on a check expiring in 6 months (and they may even cash stale checks over a year old), no guarantee of a stop being successful, etc. The real rule is: they might cash the check unless you close the account. Sigh - this is one of many reasons I never, ever use checks. I am not aware of any law that requires a check to be physically returned if requested, or proof or destruction provided, or anything like that. It's a large part of the reason why we have the ability to stop payment on a check, and so void it through the bank without having any physical access to the check - but this process is spotty and imperfect, and cannot be relied upon. You can request them to do whatever you like, like void it and send it back, or destroy it, and they can just refuse - or say they'll do it and then just not do it, and you have no real useful recourse. The main goal should be to avoid losing money if someone \"\"accidentally\"\" (or intentionally) cashes both checks. So you can ask, or demand (refuse to pay until they return the check), etc - and they can respond more or less any way they want. As a final piece of future advice, consider no longer using checks for purposes like this. Switch to using something like a cashier's check or money order offered by your bank, which (by their very nature) takes the money out of your account immediately, severs all ongoing connection to your bank account, and is effectively like cash with the added benefit of a paper trail. Keep the stub and and receipt from the cashier's check/money order, in case it is lost or they claim they didn't get the money.\"",
"\"IANAL, but. As you note, when you open a new account, they give you temporary checks that are usually blank in the upper left. I've used such checks and the bank has honored them. Therefore, I conclude that there must not be any legal requirement for anything to appear there, nor does the bank require it. Businesses are often reluctant to accept such temporary checks, for the obvious reason that anyone could go to the bank, open an account with $10, write checks for thousands of dollars, and disappear. At least if they've waited long enough to get the permanent checks in, there's some reason to believe that they plan to stick around. In any case, it's not clear what you are trying to accomplish. You want to hand-write either your business name or your personal name depending on whether the check is for personal or business purposes? I don't see what that gains. You could always use a personal check for business purposes. If you're afraid someone will say, \"\"Hey, that doesn't look very professional, what kind of fly-by-night company is this that uses personal checks?\"\", surely a hand-written company name would look even less professional. Why not just open a business account and have your personal checks printed with your personal name and your business checks with your business name? I don't know where you live, but I have a business account on which I pay zero fees. The only cost is getting checks printed. There's the small hassle of having to make one trip to the bank to open the account. Well, the biggest hassle I have is that the bank won't let me transfer money between my personal and business accounts over the Internet, so I have to either go to the bank to move money back and forth, or I have to write a check from one account to the other and deposit through an ATM.\"",
"\"The easiest and least expensive way of doing this, similar to the answer from Randy Coulman, is to write a check and deposit it into the Canadian Institution. Since this transfer is between accounts you own the easiest thing to do is to do a deposit by mail. Contact your current institution on where you would need to mail your deposit to. You can then write yourself a check on the US bank and mail it to the Canadian bank; be sure to write \"\"For Deposit Only\"\" along with your account number (and Branch Number for Canada) on the back. This is the slowest, but cheapest method. An alternative option is to use Wire Transfers, but they can be very costly (you'll usually incur a fee when sending and when receiving). I only recommend them when you need the money in the account fast (they are usually settled within an hour).\"",
"I don't know, ask the various companies I'm forced to do business with why in the hell they want me to stop by their office so I can drop a check off vs just using some means of digital payment. I would fucking LOVE to ditch paper checks.",
"\"the easiest thing would be to go to walmart and stock up on 1000$ money orders paying a 70 cents fee for each. your landlord would almost certainly accept money orders, but double check first just in case. i say stock up because you can't get a money order for more than 1000$ and they usually won't let you buy more than 3 per day. alternatively, you can probably open a bank account using your ssn and your passport. look for any bank offering \"\"free\"\" checking, and they should be able to give you a few \"\"starter\"\" checks on the spot when you open the account. in any case, they can certainly get you a cashier's check for free or a small fee. side note: if you want to shop around for a checking account, look for a bank or credit union offering a \"\"kasasa\"\" account.\"",
"It is recommended that you get this using Wire Transfer. The fees is slightly high, it should be in the range of USD 20 - 30. You would get the funds faster, about 3-5 days after the payment is initiated. The Fx conversion would be applied without your knowledge so you would have very little control over it. If you are getting by paper cheque, it would take around 7 - 10 days for the mail to arrive. You would have to deposit this in local Bank, complete a form giving out the details as to why you received the cheque, along with a letter to request the cheque to be cashed ... Generally it takes around 25 days for the funds to get credited. As you would be speaking to someone in Bank, you can try and negotiate a better Fx rate, however for such amounts Bank will not go out of the way, so you may not know what rate gets applied, it would be the standard rate some 20 days later when the actual cheque gets processed. The fees are relatively less in the range of Rs 500 to Rs 1000.",
"\"Generally when you open a new account, you'd be given a checkbook (usually \"\"starter\"\" checks with no personal information, but some banks will later mail you a proper checkbook with your personal details) and a debit card (again, some banks will give you a \"\"starter\"\" one on the spot with a personalized following up in the mail, others will mail you). With the debit card you can use your bank's ATM to withdraw cash from your account, or use it for purchases (will debit, as the name says, directly from your account). You can also use it in other ATMs, but that will usually be with significant fees ($2-$5 per withdrawal to both the ATM owner and your bank). Checks - you can write a check to someone or use the check to go to the cashier in the bank and withdraw money (although usually they have special withdrawal slips for that in the branches, so you don't really need to waste your own checks). As to how to deposit money in your home country - you'll have to check with the bank you have an account at back at home. Usually, you can \"\"wire\"\" transfer money from your BoA account to the account back home, but that is usually comes at a fee of about $30-$50 per transfer (in the US, additional fees may be charged at the receiving end + currency conversion costs). You can also write yourself a check and deposit that check at the home country bank, but that depends on the specific bank whether it is possible, how much it would cost, and how long it would take for them to credit the money to your account after they take your check - may take weeks with personal checks.\"",
"I have no choice but to write a few checks a month. That's the only way the recipient will allow me to pay them. It's annoying af but I have no alternative. I suspect that's the same for many people. It's not us who wants to retain checks, it's stupid corporations and government agencies who will only accept checks or who charge extra for paying with a debit or credit card.",
"For what it's worth, 20 years ago I had a huge box of sheet-feed checks (3 or 4 per sheet) - After the divorce I kept the account, then ran the remaining checks through a Word doc that tidily blacked out the ex's name. Never had a hitch, glitch, or rejected check.",
"In the United States, post-dating a check, on its own, has no valid use. It can be cashed at any time at the discretion of the bank. You would need to send a notice of postdating to your bank describing the check. This doesn't prevent the recipient of cashing the check, but it does prevent your bank from charging your account until the date you specify NOTE: This may be considered a form of stop payment, and you may be subject to the fees noted by your institution. Source: [Uniform Commercial Code - Article 4A § 4-401] (c) A bank may charge against the account of a customer a check that is otherwise properly payable from the account, even though payment was made before the date of the check, unless the customer has given notice to the bank of the postdating describing the check with reasonable certainty. [...] If a bank charges against the account of a customer a check before the date stated in the notice of postdating, the bank is liable for damages for the loss resulting from its act. The loss may include damages for dishonor of subsequent items under Section 4-402.",
"How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.",
"It's not the legitimate checks or bounced checks that are the problem, it's phony checks issued against real accounts with actual money in them. All the security measures on the check don't amount to crap if someone can print up some legitimate looking checks with bogus amounts on them, or even just steal some printed checks and sign something resembling the authorized signature.",
"\"People who rent an apartment will typically pay by check. Probably 90% of the checks I have written are for rent. To some extent this falls under the previously mentioned \"\"payments to another person\"\" rule.\"",
"\"Although banks do not have to honor checks that are more than six months old, they often do. Limit Noted on Check. Many large corporations put the length of time that a check is valid on the face of their checks. For example, a check may state, Valid for 90 days from this date\"\" or \"\"Not valid after 180 days.\"\"\""
] |
[
"\"Lets say you owed me $123.00 an wanted to mail me a check. I would then take the check from my mailbox an either take it to my bank, or scan it and deposit it via their electronic interface. Prior to you mailing it you would have no idea which bank I would use, or what my account number is. In fact I could have multiple bank accounts, so I could decide which one to deposit it into depending on what I wanted to do with the money, or which bank paid the most interest, or by coin flip. Now once the check is deposited my bank would then \"\"stamp\"\" the check with their name, their routing number, the date, an my account number. Eventually an image of the canceled check would then end up back at your bank. Which they would either send to you, or make available to you via their banking website. You don't mail it to my bank. You mail it to my home, or my business, or wherever I tell you to mail it. Some business give you the address of another location, where either a 3rd party processes all their checks, or a central location where all the money for multiple branches are processed. If you do owe a company they will generally ask that in the memo section in the lower left corner that you include your customer number. This is to make sure that if they have multiple Juans the money is accounted correctly. In all my dealings will paying bills and mailing checks I have never been asked to send a check directly to the bank. If they want you to do exactly as you describe, they should provide you with a form or other instructions.\"",
"\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \"\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\"\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\""
] |
2296
|
How does a bank make money on an interest free secured loan?
|
[
"396853",
"106424",
"400009",
"119298",
"83330",
"366594",
"279897",
"253563",
"130850"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"400009",
"106424",
"61235",
"119298",
"396853",
"551485",
"366594",
"10948",
"336847",
"467778",
"83330",
"130850",
"354298",
"68853",
"68963",
"8496",
"279897",
"474059",
"95975",
"546874",
"340329",
"175824",
"340436",
"175982",
"221113",
"516957",
"430689",
"185107",
"392980",
"172761",
"411462",
"549040",
"420440",
"52343",
"376579",
"246374",
"503040",
"236778",
"91201",
"12378",
"520952",
"73652",
"158363",
"390397",
"232797",
"438392",
"121716",
"15034",
"162616",
"141331",
"201968",
"238484",
"51337",
"323731",
"261846",
"242023",
"361114",
"108087",
"568047",
"23551",
"91724",
"107504",
"395769",
"251338",
"19702",
"346114",
"177137",
"37484",
"123071",
"321199",
"555734",
"278828",
"553328",
"350655",
"149723",
"167492",
"420484",
"192379",
"543153",
"253563",
"104388",
"225809",
"458235",
"542180",
"100132",
"438740",
"513079",
"380945",
"335774",
"94230",
"91477",
"185686",
"295085",
"228565",
"368010",
"69683",
"129742",
"139871",
"147806",
"171374"
] |
[
"Generally speaking, an interest-free loan will be tied to a specific purchase, and the lender will be paid something by the vendor. The only other likely scenario is an introductory offer to try to win longer-term more profitable business, such as an initial interest-free period on a credit card. Banks couldn't make money if all their loans were interest-free, unless they were getting paid by the vendors of whatever was being purchased with the money that was lent.",
"Most 0% interest loans have quite high interest rates that are deferred. If you are late on a payment you are hit with all the deferred interest. They're banking on a percentage of customers missing a payment. Also, this is popular in furniture/car sales because it's a way to get people to buy who otherwise wouldn't, they made money on the item sale, so the loan doesn't have to earn them money (even though some will). Traditional banks/lenders do make money from interest and rely on that, they would have to rely on fees if interest were not permitted.",
"There is nothing called free lunch. The 2% fee indirectly covers the cost of funds and in effect would be a personal loan. Further the repayment period would typically be 3 months and roughly would translate into 7-9% loan depending of repayment schedule etc. There is no harm in trying to get the fee waived, however one thing can lead to another and they may even go and do an credit inquiry etc, so be cautious.",
"The bank depends on the laws of large numbers. They don't need to make money on every customer -- just on average. There are several ways that zero interest makes sense to them: You asked about banks, and I don't think you see this last scheme in use very much by a bank. Here's why. First, customers absolutely hate it - and when you drop the interest bomb, they will warn their friends away, blow you up on social media, call the TV news consumer protectors, and never, ever, ever do business with you again. Which defeats your efforts in customer acquisition. Second, it only works on that narrow range of people who default just a little bit, i.e. who have an auto-pay malfunction. If someone really defaults, not only will they not pay the punishment interest, they won't pay the principal either! This only makes sense for secured loans like furniture or cars, where you can repo that stuff - with unsecured loans, you don't really have any power to force them to pay, short of burning their credit. You can sue them, but you can't get blood from a stone.",
"\"A \"\"true\"\" 0% loan is a losing proposition for the bank, that's true. However when you look at actual \"\"0%\"\" loans they usually have some catches: There might also be late payment fees, prepayment penalties, and other clauses that make it a good deal on average to the bank. Individual borrowers might be able to get away with \"\"free money\"\", but the bank does not look to make money on each loan, they look to make money on thousands of loans overall. For a retailer (including new car sellers). the actual financing costs will be baked into the sales price. They will add, say, 10% to the sales price in exchange for an interest-free loan. They can also sell these loans to an investment bank or other entity, but they would be sold at a deep discount, so the difference will be made up in the sales price or other \"\"fees\"\". It's possible that they would just chalk it up to promotional discounts or customer acquisition costs, but it would not be a good practice on a large scale.\"",
"This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due.",
"\"Other answers didn't seem to cover it, but most \"\"0%\"\" bank loans (often offered to credit card holders in the form of balance transfer checks), aside from less-obvious fees like already-mentioned late fees, also charge an actual loan fee, typically 2-3% (or a minimum floor amount) - that was the deal with every single transfer 0% offer I ever saw from a bank. So, effectively, even if you pay off the loan perfectly, on time, and within 0% period, you STILL got a 3% loan and not 0% (assuming 0% period lasts 12 months which is often the case).\"",
"\"The purpose of taking a \"\"secured loan\"\" is to build credit. This might be done by someone who had a bad stain on their credit history such as a bankruptcy or foreclosure, or possibly by someone just out of school (presumably with few or no student loans),and no credit history. Not everyone needs to, or should do this, however. The advantage for a borrower is that s/he gets to create a record of repaying a loan that will partly mitigate the bad credit history. The advantage for the bank is that it is \"\"no risk,\"\" because the savings account is the security for the loan. That would make it willing to \"\"lend\"\" to a bad credit risk.\"",
"our mortgage has been sold to a secondary market player. There are multiple ways in which the deal is struck. At times the risk of default is with Original FI [with recourse], at times it is with secondary FI [without recourse]. The rate can be discounted. So the Original FI collects the EMI as per 3.75 and pays to the secondary FI at 3.25. Or it can also be one time fixed amount. How could this possibly be financially beneficial for the original loan holder? As indicated, there are multiple ways the Original FI makes money, either one time or over the period, depending on how the deal is struck. Are they truly making enough money from the mortgage fees and first payment's interest to to warrant their need to clear up their credit line for new mortgages? Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No broadly speaking the mortgage fees cover the cost for initiating the loan. There may be a very small amount banks may make. This is incidental. The actual money is made in the interest that is collected every month. If a Bank as say 5 loans for 100K each. It is very reputed brand and 10 people need 100K loans. Then it makes sense for the First FI to give loan to 5 people for 100K each, and sell this at profit to secondary FI. Take the 100K * 5 and give it off to new 5 people. Effectively making more money on the original 500K the bank had.",
"borrow money from the Central Bank Wrong premise. They cannot borrow as much as they want and they cannot borrow without collateral i.e. government debt instruments they hold or any other instrument with value. And banks don’t have unlimited collateral to borrow against. Secondly central banks aren’t in the business of lending unlimited money. The more money they lend out, the more is the money supply which stokes inflation which will eventually lead them to stop lending. At any point of time they want a certain amount of money movement, so they can control inflation and interest rates within an agreed limit and as limited by their economy. No sane central bank would want to stoke hyperflation by printing money at will e,g, Helicopter money. So the only other way for banks is to accept deposits from private individuals. You can also argue that banks make money by connecting lenders and borrowers and make their profit by being the middleman without using their assets. So you can say they are making a profit with the minimum usage of their capital. Albeit they have the central bank looking over their shoulder to police their behaviour. While some banks do charge fees for keeping deposits Yes but many provide certain extra services for which they charge. That is how they differentiate between no fee accounts and fee paying accounts.",
"If interest rates are negative, a 0% load might still be profitable.",
"Very good answers as to how 0% loans are typically done. In addition, many are either tied to a specific large item purchase, or credit cards with a no interest period. On credit card transactions the bank is getting a fee from the retailer, who in turn is giving you a hidden charge to cover that fee. In the case of a large purchase item like a car, the retailer is again quite likely paying a fee to cover what would be that interest, something they are willing to do to make the sale. They will typically be less prone to deal as low a price in negotiation if you were not making that deal, or at times they may offer either a rebate or special low to zero finance rates, but you don't get both.",
"As of now you are doing that. When you start earning larger sums of money, you will not withdraw and keep it in your house. You will leave it in the bank and they will earn money on it( By lending it out at a higher interest rate). When you are broke, that same bank will offer you a credit card or some other instrument that will help you survive. They will charge you money on that and make interest of you. When you have too much money and you start wiring money they will charge you a wire transfer fees. There are more than 500 ways in which banks make money off you. If you plan receiving $100 and $250 all your life and withdraw it immediately and don't plan doing anything else all your life, then you will probably not let the bank make any money off you. However, there are a very few people like that and banks barely lose anything accepting those customers.",
"They will make money from brokerage as usual and also from the interest they charge you for lending you the money for you to buy your shares on margin. In other words you will be paying interest on the $30,000 you borrowed from your broker. Also, as per Chris's comment, if you are shorting securities through your margin account, your broker would charge you a fee for lending you the securities to short.",
"\"The difference it makes is in the magnitude of risk difference people will need in order to overcome the amount they're paying to keep their money \"\"safe\"\". For example, if someone charged me $100 to keep $10,000 of my money \"\"safe\"\", such that I felt very very confident in getting $9,900 back at the end of a year, I might go for that if the only alternatives are to move it somewhere where there's a good chance I get less than $9,900 back at the end of a year. In short, I might feel I lose less by paying that -1% interest rate.\"",
"They immediately make money by charging you the initial 2.39% fee. In the long term they make money because a surprisingly large number of customers don't pay the balance off, or otherwise violate the terms of the offer, so that the 18.95% rate applies. And sometimes, depending on card policies, they make money when the consumer makes new purchases on the card which accrue interest immediately at the 18.95% rate while payments only go to paying down the 0% rate balance.",
"Car dealers as well as boat dealers, RV dealers, maybe farm vehicle dealers and other asset types make deals with banks and finance companies to they can make loans to buyers. They may be paying the interest to the finance companies so they can offer a 0% loan to the retail customer for all or part of the loan term. Neither the finance company nor the dealer wants to make such loans to people who are likely to default. Such customers will not be offered this kind of financing. But remember too that these loans are secured by the asset - the car - which is also insured. But the dealer or the finance company holds that asset as collateral that they can seize to repay the loan. So the finance company gets paid off and the dealer keeps the profit he made selling the car. So these loans are designed to ensure the dealer nor the finance company looses much. These are called asset finance loans because there is always an asset (the car) to use as collateral.",
"Since there was no sale, where does the money actually come from? From the refinancing bank. It's a new loan. How does a bank profit from this, i.e. why would they willingly help someone lower their mortgage payments? Because they sell a new loan. Big banks usually sell the mortgage loans to the institutional investors and only service them. So by creating a new loan - they create another product they can sell. The one they previously sold already brought them profits, and they don't care about it. The investors won't get the interest they could have gotten had the loan been held the whole term, but they spread the investments so that each refi doesn't affect them significantly. Credit unions usually don't sell their mortgages, but they actually do have the interest to help you reduce your payments - you're their shareholder. In any case, the bank that doesn't sell the mortgages can continue making profits, because with the money released (the paid-off loan) they can service another borrower.",
"Good comparable. Interest Rate Swap very often also come at a charge i.e. the hedging counterparty typically charges you a 'credit' and 'execution' charge ontop of what you pay them (fixed rate). This means that the Mafia-like Bully is going to keep some money in his own pocket for dealing with the 'variable' bully and overall he will take a bit of a profit from this deal.",
"\"Banks are in it to make money. But they're expected to provide a social good which powers our economy: secure money storage (bank accounts) and cashless transactions (credit/debit cards). And the government does not subsidize this. In fact, banks are being squeezed. Prudent customers dislike paying the proper cost of their account's maintenance (say, a $50/year fee for a credit card, or $9/month for a checking account) - they want it free. Meanwhile government is pretty aggressive about preventing \"\"fine print\"\" trickery that would let them recover costs other ways. However there isn't much sympathy for consumers who make trivial mistakes - whether they be technical (overdraft, late fee) or money-management mistakes (like doing balance transfers or getting fooled by promotional interest rates). So that's where banks are able to make their money: when people are imprudent. The upshot is that it's hard for a bank to make money on a prudent careful customer; those end up getting \"\"subsidized\"\" by the less-careful customers who pay fees and buy high-margin products like balance transfers. And this has created a perverse incentive: banks make more money when they actively encourage customers to be imprudent. Here, the 0% interest is to make you cocky about running up a balance, or doing balance transfers at a barely-mentioned fee of 3-5%. They know most Americans don't have $500 in the bank and you won't be able to promptly pay it off right before the 0% rate ends. (or you'll forget). And this works - that's why they do it. By law, you already get 0% interest on purchases when you pay the card in full every month. So if that's your goal, you already have it. In theory, the banks collect about 1.5% from every transaction you do, and certainly in your mind's eye, you'd think that would be enough to get by without charging interest. That doesn't work, though. The problem is, such a no-interest card would attract people who carry large balances. That would have two negative impacts: First the bank would have to spend money reborrowing, and second, the bank would have huge exposure to credit card defaults. The thing to remember is the banks are not nice guys and are not here to serve you. They're here to use you to make money, and they're not beneath encouraging you to do things that are actually bad for you. Caveat Emptor.\"",
"\"In the United States, many banks aim to receive $ 100 per year per account in fees and interest markup. There are several ways that they can do this on a checking account. These examples assume that there is a 3 % difference between low-interest-rate deposit accounts and low-interest rate loans. Or some combination of these markups that adds up to $ 100 / year. For example: A two dollar monthly fee = $ 24 / year, plus a $ 2,000 average balance at 0.05% = $ 29 / year, plus $ 250 / month in rewards debit card usage = $ 24 / year, plus $ 2 / month in ATM fees = $ 24 / year. Before it was taken over by Chase Manhattan in 2008, Washington Mutual had a business strategy of offering \"\"free\"\" checking with no monthly fees, no annual fees, and no charges (by Washington Mutual) for using ATMs. The catch was that the overdraft fees were not free. If the customers averaged 3 overdraft fees per year at $ 34 each, Washington Mutual reached its markup target for the accounts.\"",
"Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low. Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account. The bank must maintain branches with tellers. The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities). The bank has to pay salaries. The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change. And pay for insurance against robbery. All of that costs money. At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money. Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out. At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin. They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts. An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees. But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable. So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead. UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed.",
"You bet if it was so simple. This is when financial acumen comes into its true form. The bank would never ever want to go insolvent. What it does is, take insurance against the borrower defaulting. Remember the financial crisis of 2008 which was the outcome of borrowers defaulting. The banks had created derivatives based on the loans distributed. CDO, CDS are some of the simple derivatives banks sell to cover their backs in case of defaults. There are derivatives using these derivatives as underlyings which they then sold it across to other buyers including other banks. Google for Fabrice Tourre and you would realise how much deep the banks go to save themselves from defaulters. If everything fails then go to the government for help. That was what happened when the US government doled out $600 billion to save the financial sector.",
"Banks can't simply make loans in the void. This is how the cash flow works, generally: 1. Depositers *add* cash into the bank. The Bank now has cash. 10% of that cash is held on *reserve* per law. This cash is held on the balance sheet as an *asset* (cash) *and a liability* (demand deposits). 2. Someone requests a loan. The loan is funded from the non-reserved cash of these deposits. This results in a lessening of an asset (cash), and the creation of a new asset (loan). 3. Traditionally, as the debtor pays back the loan, the interest is distributed in some sort of split between the bank and the depositors. This means cash in from the loan and interest, and a liability (deposits) also go up. 4. Alternatively, while the above still happens, the bank can *securitize* the loan and sell that to investors. Investors then get access to the loan and its income, and the bank collects a fee. However, this means more cash on hand for the bank to originate additional loans without going near the reserve requirement. If a bank extends too many loans and its reserve is threatened, it must borrow either from the fed or from other banks. These loans must be paid back.",
">if I loan you $500 a night every night for 5 days and those loans allow you to earn $100 totally risk free how much have I loaned you? Does it even matter, because the end of result is I essentially gave you $100. A bank lends me $10k to start a business. I eventually make $5 million dollars with my business. How much was my loan? DOESN'T MATTER, THE BANK GAVE ME $5 MILLION.",
"Because you slice all the bad loans and intersperse them with the good ones. Then you sell all that sliced and diced paper trash as AAA securities on an open market. It's like free money. Well... at least while the music is still playing. Do you know anything about CDOs? It's basically an out and out scam, and the banks got away with it and got bailed out to boot.",
"Sure, you'd make an $8.33 during that first month with little extra risk. Sounds like free money, right? (Assuming no hidden fees in the fine print.) I don't know that the extra money is worth the time you will spend monitoring the account, especially after inflation claims its share of your pie. If you're going to use leverage to invest, you should probably pick an investment that will return at a much higher rate. If you can get an unsecured line of credit at 1%, there aren't a lot of downsides. Hopefully interest rates don't rise high enough to eat your earnings, but if they do, you can always liquidate your investments and pay the remainder of the loan.",
"\"It can be a good thing for the bank to refinance your loan for you - since you will be keeping the loan at that particular institution. This gives them more time to enjoy the free money you pay them in interest for the remaining life of the loan. Banks that offer \"\"No closing costs\"\" are betting that mortgage payers will move their mortgage to get the lower interest rates - and whomever holds the loan, gets the interest payments.\"",
"\"Your plan as proposed will not work, because it goes against how banks make money. Banks make money in two ways: (1) Fees [including account fees, investment advice fees, mortgage application fees, etc.]; and (2) Interest Rate Spread. They borrow money for x%, and they lend it out for x+y%. In a simple form, someone gives the bank a deposit, and earns 1%. The bank turns around to the next person in line and loans the money to them for 4%. You are asking them to turn the interest rate spread into a cost instead of their main source of profit: You are asking the bank to borrow money from another person paying them 1.2% interest, and then loan the money to you, paying you 0.6% interest and keeping 0.6% for themselves. The bank would lose money doing this. Technically yes, you can borrow from a bank and invest it in something earning above the 4% interest they will charge you. You can then pay the bank's interest off of your earnings, and make some profit for yourself. BUT this carries an inherent risk: If your investment loses money, you still owe the bank, effectively increasing the negative impact of your investment. This tactic is called \"\"Leveraging\"\"; you can look it up on this site or on google. It is not something you should do if you do not fully understand the risks you are taking on. Given that you are asking this question, I would suggest tactfully that you are not yet well informed enough to make this sort of investment. You run serious risk of losing everything if you over-leverage (assuming the banks will even lend you money in the first place).\"",
"\"Banks make money on load origination fees. The \"\"points\"\" you pay or closing costs are the primary benefit to the banks. A vast majority of the time risks associated with the mortgage are sold to another party. FYI, the same is true with investment banks. In general, the transaction costs (which are ignored by modern finance theory) are the main thing running the incentives for the industry.\"",
"It's so wonderful. Through the magic of fractional reserve banking, a bank the vast majority of the time is loaning out money they created from thin air. And if you don't pay the obligation, they get a yacht, personal jet, or racehorse in return! Now, of course having to repossess something might be undesirable in an accounting context, but it still beggars belief that basically the entire economy and money supply of the developed world is based on obligations backed by nothing, by private parties, created out of thin air.",
"\"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \"\"borrowing\"\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \"\"lending\"\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\"",
"Banks make money by charging fees on products and charging interest on loans. If you keep close to a $0 average balance in your account, and they aren't charging you any fees, then yes, your account is not profitable for them. That's ok. It's not costing them much to keep you as a customer, and some day you may start keeping a balance with them or apply for a loan. The bank is taking a chance that you will continue to be a loyal customer and will one day become profitable for them. Just be on the lookout for a change in their fee structure. Sometimes banks drop customers or start charging fees in cases like yours.",
"No. The WSJ prime rate is 4.25%, even the Fed prime rate is 1.75%, way above the 1.20% you'll be making from your savings account. If you are high worth individual with great credit history, the bank might give you a personal loan at 4.25%. They won't care what you do with it as long as they get their payments. If you are not that creditworthy, they'll ask for a collateral, you can mortgage your house for example. It ends up being the sames thing, you get your money and do what you want with it. If you can make more than the interest rate the bank gave you, great, you made profit. The bank however won't agree to lend you money at 0.6% (1/2 of the 1.2% APY your savings account will bring). Why would they when they can loan that at prime rate of 4.25%?? The closest you can get to something like this is if you are a hot-shot wall street money manager with track record of making big profits. In that case the bank might put some money in your fund for you to manage, but that's not something a regular person can do.",
"Such loans are of course possible. They exist because the lender gains something other than interest from them: What would happen to the economy if these were common? These are common, common as anything. In fact where it's not banks lending the money, these are the default. So, nothing would happen to the economy, this is one of the ways the economy works all over the world. If you're more interested in a loan from a bank or other financial institution, made to you for whatever purpose you want - here's $10,000, have fun, give it back ten years from now - ask yourself what the bank would get from that? Perhaps they could do it as a perk when you do something else with them like get a mortgage or keep $1000 in your chequing account all the time. But in the absence of any other relationship, what would be their reason for taking on the overhead and paperwork of approving you for a loan and keeping track of whether you're paying it back or not, for no return, whether financial or intangible? No return? It doesn't happen.",
"The money created by the Federal government is spent on public programs increasing the wealth of the general population. Banks loan money to the general population and make back more money in interests, thus gaining a part of the increased money created by the government. The bank can now pay back more that what the borrowed from the government.",
"\"Whether or not the specific card in question is truly 0% interest rate for the first 12 months, such cards do exist. However, the bank does make money out of it on the average: Still, 12 months of not having to think about paying the bill. Nice. This is exactly what they want you to do. Then in 12 months, when you start thinking about it, you may find out that you don't have the cash immediately available and end up paying the (usually very large) interest. It is possible to game this system to keep the \"\"free\"\" money in investments for the 12 months, as long as you are very careful to always follow the terms and dates. Because even one mishap can take away the small profits you could get for a 12 month investment of a few thousand dollars, it is rarely worth the effort.\"",
"\"They aren't actually. It appears to be a low interest rate, but it doesn't cover their true cost of capital. It is a sales tactic where they are raising the sticker price/principal of the car, which is subsidizing the true cost of the loan, likely 4% or higher. It would be hard to believe that the true cost of a car loan would be less than for a mortgage, as with a mortgage the bank can reclaim an asset that tends to rise in value, compared to a used car, which will have fallen in value. This is one reason why you can generally get a better price with cash, because there is a margin built in, in addition to the fact that with cash they get all their profit today versus a discount of future cash flows from a loan by dealing with a bank or other lending company. So if you could see the entire transaction from the \"\"inside\"\", the car company would not actually be making money. The government rate is also so low that it often barely covers inflation, much less operating costs and profit. This is why any time you see \"\"0% Financing!\"\", it is generally a sales tactic designed to get your attention. A company cannot actually acquire capital at 0% to lend to you at 0%, because even if the nominal interest rate were 0%, there is an opportunity cost, as you have observed. A portion of the sticker price is covering the real cost, and subsidizing the monthly payment.\"",
"In this example you are providing 4x more collateral than you are borrowing. Credit score shouldn't matter, regardless of how risky a borrower you are. Sure it costs time and money to go to auction, but this can be factored into your interest rate / fees. I don't see how the bank can lose.",
"Firstly, the banks are far less risky than the people they lend to. Most of the interest banks charge borrowers covers defaults, but banks rarely default to the fed, especially those able to borrow from the Fed. Secondly, most banks borrowing is in the form of overnight loans to cover short term reserve fluctuations; they are not borrowing dollars to lend to you. Thirdly, if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, so are the true value of those loans. Since there are a significant number of banks that I can borrow from with a multitude of options in how to borrow, there is likely still decent competition for my business. Finally, the Fed funds rate is not currently 0%, so the banks are not getting interest free money.",
"\"This type of structured product is called a capital protection product. It's like an insurance product - where you give up some upside for protection against losses in certain cases. From the bank's perspective they take your investment, treat it as an \"\"interest-free loan\"\" and buy derivatives (like options) that give them an expected return greater then They make their money: With this product, you are giving up some potential upside in order to protect against losses (other than catastrophic losses if the lower index drops by 50% or more). What's the catch? There's not really a catch. It's a lot like insurance, you might come out ahead (e.g. if the market goes down less than 50%), but you might also give up some upside. The bank will sell enough of these in various flavors to reduce their risk overall (losses in your product will be covered by gains in another). Note that this product won't necessarily sell for $1,000. You might have to pay $1,100 (or $1,005, or whatever the bank can get people to buy them for) for each note whenever it's released. That's where the gain or loss comes into play. If you pay $1,100 but only get $1,000 back because the index didn't go up (or went down) you'd have a net loss of $100. It's subtle, but it is in the prospectus: The estimated value of the notes is only an estimate determined by reference to several factors. The original issue price of the notes will exceed the estimated value of the notes because costs associated with selling, structuring and hedging the notes are included in the original issue price of the notes. These costs include the selling commissions, the projected profits, if any, that our affiliates expect to realize for assuming risks inherent in hedging our obligations under the notes and the estimated cost of hedging our obligations under the notes.\"",
"The precise answer depends on the terms and conditions of the loan, and whether you can reasonably expect to meet them. For example, if you keep the loan, make no payments, there is a good chance that - eventually - you will trigger a clause in the contract, and suddenly be charged fees or a significant interest rate. If you don't need to pay anything for a time, odds are you will forget to monitor the loan (after all it is not costing you anything) and suddenly get hit with an unexpected expense. Most loan contracts are structured - by professionals - to benefit the loan provider. The purpose of a loan provider is to make a profit. They do that by encouraging you to pay more - up front, over the longer term, or both. Personally, I would never take out a zero-interest loan. It is specifically designed to appear like a gift from the loan provider, while actually (and almost covertly) costing more at some point. If I was in your position (i.e. if I had taken out such a loan) I'd pay off the loan as fast as possible. If you have more than one loan, however, prioritise by working out which actually costs you more over time. And pay the worst ones first. You'll have to look closely at the terms and conditions - possibly with the help of a professional - to work out which is actually work.",
"Borrow the overpriced bond promising to repay the lender $1000 in one year. Sell the bond immediately for $960. Put $952.38 in the bank where the it will gain enough to be worth $1000 in one year. You have +$7.62 immediate cash flow. In one year repay the bond lender with the $1000 from the bank.",
"Because the federal government won't use the money to buy a car thus generating profits for the car company. The aim of cheap loans is to drive sales of cars. The difference between the amount of interest paid on the loan, and the amount they could have got by investing it elsewhere, is simply a reduction in the profit. This is true whatever the actual interest rates are.",
"No. The intro rate is a gambit by the bank - they accept losing money in the short term but expect to gain money in the long term when your intro is over and you (hopefully) start paying interest. There's not much in it for them if you never get around to paying interest. Same can be said for people who close the card after their intro period, but that's different - the bank is correctly expecting that most people won't bother.",
"The question isn't sales but profits. Banks traditionally profit by making loans. Just as with a physical product, there are costs involved, income produced, and the difference between the two is gross profit. From there you can get net profit, and from there you can look at efficiency or profit per share or whatever other metric floats your boat. Or you can just buy index funds, get average rates of return, and not have to think about it.",
"\"No... that's just what I'm owed for letting them use my principal. If I wanted to enjoy the opportunity cost of 0% interest for 13 plus years, I'd just keep the money in my \"\"savings\"\" account (where the 8th wonder of world, miracle of compound interest no longer exists). The bigger question posited by my snark was if/when the bond market will stop trading them as legitimate paper.\"",
"They also eliminate the risk associated with that loan, and get the money back to find a loan to someone else, possibly at a higher rate. It really is just about financially neutral for them.",
"No free lunch You cannot receive risk-free interest on more money than you actually put down. The construct you are proposing is called 'Carry Trade', and will yield you the interest-difference in exchange for assuming currency risk. Negative expectation In the long run one would expect the higher-yielding currency to devalue faster, at a rate that exactly negates the difference in interest. Net profit is therefore zero in the long run. Now factor in the premium that a (forex) broker charges, and now you may expect losses the size of which depends on the leverage chosen. If there was any way that this could reliably produce a profit even without friction (i.e. roll-over, transaction costs, spread), quants would have already arbitraged it away. Intransparancy Additionaly, in my experience true long-term roll-over costs in relation to interest are a lot harder to compute than, for example, the cost of a stock transaction. This makes the whole deal very intransparant. As to the idea of artificially constructing a USD/USD pair: I regret to tell you that such a construct is not possible. For further info, see this question on Carry Trade: Why does Currency Carry Trade work?",
"In principle, the US taxes both income and gifts. Simply thinking good thoughts is not necessarily sufficient to avoid filing or payment obligations. Giving somebody money with no repayment date, no interest, and no enforceable note looks an awful lot like either income or a gift. A loan normally has interest, money sitting in a savings account is insured, and other investments generally have an expected return. Why would somebody give a loan with no interest, with only flexible or informal payment expectations, in a way where it has neither deposit insurance nor any expectation of net returns? That looks a lot like a gift - at the very least, a gift of the time value and the default risk. The IRS definitely polices loan rates. The latest release is Revenue Ruling 2014-13. The AFR is useful for tax concepts such as Original Issue Discount (when issuers sell low-interest or no-interest bonds or loans at less than face value, attempting to recharacterize interest income as return of principal), various grantor trusts (e.g. GRATs), and so forth. It's a simple way for the IRS to link to market rates of interest. Documentation and sufficient interest, as well as clear payment schedule (and maybe call or demand rights) make it a bona fide loan. There is no real way for the IRS to distinguish between an informal arrangement and a post-hoc lie to conceal a gift. Moreover, an undocumented loan is generally difficult to enforce, so it looks less like a true loan. The lender declares the interest payments as income on his Form 1040, line 8a and if necessary Schedule B.",
"\"When you refinance, there is cost (guess: around $2000-$3000) to cover lawyers, paperwork, surveys, deed insurance, etc. etc. etc. Someone has to pay that cost, and in the end it will be you. Even if you get a \"\"no points no cost\"\" loan, the cost is going to be hidden in the interest rate. That's the way transactions with knowledgeable companies works: they do business because they benefit (profit) from it. The expectation is that what they need is different from what you need, so that each of you benefits. But, when it's a primarily cash transaction, you can't both end up with more money. So, unless value will be created somewhere else from the process (and don't include the +cash, because that ends up tacked onto the principle), this seems like paying for financial entertainment, and there are better ways to do that.\"",
"\"Every bank/financial institution uses different terms but I read \"\"cost of carry\"\" as the 'risk' cost of the portfolio. that is, what is the equivalent maturity risk-free rate + the principal-weight probability of default (or to make it more complex, loss give default) %. If this summed % is less than the rate earned on the portfolio of loans you would buy loans. The difference is your spread or profit.\"",
"By your logic, if a loan of £100 is new money dilutes your purchasing power, then the repayment of £110 is a reduction of the money supply that increases your purchasing power. Indeed, ultimately the increase in purchasing power upon repayment is greater than the initial reduction, so you are 'better off' every time a loan is made and successfully repaid. The effect on you is tiny, but the collective benefit you get from all the loans being repaid with interest is more or less equivalent to the purchasing power reduction of the loans that are never repaid. Therefore you do not lose out and are indeed compensated (in a tiny way) for the tiny risk you incurred. The bank incurs a substantial risk and is thus compensated in a substantial way.",
"If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.",
"\"Their banking systems basically avoid usury, which is essentially interest, because it is immoral. So how the lenders make money is by being a \"\"partner\"\" and getting a pre-agreed to amount of profit. However, risk of failure is still on the borrower. In the end the numbers come out the same, they just call it something different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Islamic_banking\"",
"What can you give them as security? 1. A fixed/floating charge over assets 2. Negative covenants/Non-subordination agreements 3. Real Mortgage 4. Chattel Mortgage 5. Personal or inter-business Guarantees Essentially a bond is just a debt agreement, it is when you sell standardised bonds over a market that regulation comes into it. Now I am from Australia, so I can't comment on US policies etc...",
"\"Not at these rates. The motto used to be 3/6/3: \"\"Borrow at 3%, Loan out at 6%, and then be at the golf course by 3pm\"\". So they get 3% on the spread, minus fixed costs. Now, they borrow at near 0% and loan out at slightly above 0%. Those fixed costs starts becoming an issue. It isn't cheap to have all these ATMs, bank branches, tellers, computer systems, etc. Also, a lot of the money cannot be loaned out at all because there are not enough creditworthy borrowers. You might have recalled a few months ago, several banks started charging for deposits. They don't want more money that will just lay there while they have to pay the costs of maintaining the accounts. Some bank CEOs have stated that they would be better off if the Fed raised rates up to 1%.\"",
"They make money off you by increasing the spread you buy and sell your stocks through them. So for example, if the normal spread for a stock was $10.00 for a buy and $10.02 for a sell, they might have a spread of $9.98 for the buy and $10.02 for the sell. So for an order of 1000 shares (approx. $10000) they would make $0.02 per share which would equal $20.00.",
"\"The short answer is: banks are less concerned about the interest earned on any single mortgage than they are for the interest earned over time from a collection of mortgages. Let's look at a repayment schedule for a 30-year mortgage at 4% for $100,000. (source: http://web5.vlending.com/loancenter-calculators-amort.aspx. Any mortgage calculator should produce a similar schedule, however.) A few things to note: The interest due in the last 6 years is less than the interest due in the first year alone. Banks are getting a disproportionate amount of the expected interest up front. Banks can make multiple loans; the money collected from existing borrowers can be aggregated to make new loans before the old ones are paid off, and those new loans start, of course, at the interest-heavy end of the repayment schedule. Suppose the bank lends out $1,000,000 to 10 borrowers. In the first two years, they will collect a total of $114588.90 from the 10 borrowers in principal and interest. That's enough to make an additional loan to an 11th borrower while keeping $14,588.90 as \"\"profit\"\". The new borrower is making payments at the year-one rate. A bank may lose a little interest on a single loan that gets repaid early, but that is generally made up by the fact that a new loan can be issued that much sooner as a result.\"",
"A Loan is an loan that gives some kind of benefit as an assurance to a loaning organization. So when you put in an application for a credit, you likewise advocate that in case that you can not pay, you've some form of benefit that will cover the default sum.",
"I got $26,000/month for Group B. If they spend $26,000 that gives $390 in fees. It will take on average 1.5 months for them to pay the credit card company. With a monthly cost of funds of .04 divide that by 12 and multiply by 1.5, to get a .5% cost for every dollar of customer B spending on cost of funds. This leads to a $130 cost for a total profit of $260. I'm sorry for the lost job. Things like that happen to lots of people. As long as you're still alive, there's always going to be more opportunities. Most people only notice a tiny percentage of the opportunities that come their way, and even fewer take advantage of them.",
"Trick question dude. Can't be done. Sorry to tell you. I've been hit with this. Credit card companies do not make money on these customers. Why does Amex have an annual fee on all cards and an abnormally large transaction fee for merchants? Because they don't allow you to carry a balance (On traditional cards). Meaning they don't make money on interest, like the customers in question here.",
"\"Auto loans are secured agains the car. \"\"Signature\"\" loans, from a bank that knows and trusts you, are typically unsecured. Unsecured loans other than informal ones or these are fairly rare. Most lenders don't want to take the additional risk, or balance that risk with a high enough interest rate to make the unsecured loan unattractive.\"",
"They made their money one of two ways. Either they got a commission from the original owner (similar to how a buyer's agent in a real estate transaction gets a commission from the original owner of the house and/or a share of the seller's agent's commission), or they actually participated in the transaction directly (buying from the original owner, selling to you at a higher price). Storing it in the vault free of charge of course has an expectation that a certain percentage of those who do so will use that broker to complete the eventual sale.",
"As others have already pointed out, the bank isn't getting your money upfront - the cash goes to the dealer and the bank will be financing you a much smaller amount. They really don't have any incentive to give you a better interest rate, but it never hurts to ask. The more important (and unasked) question is should you do this? Keeping in mind that a loan with good credit could be in the 1.8% range. Average long-term returns in the market are over 3x that, so by paying upfront you're trading the opportunity for 6%+ returns for the ability to save -2% fees.",
"Maybe they don't make much, but they make some for sure. In addition to what duffbeer703 says, they also have a warm body at the end of the line and will sell your contact info (or at least access to your eyeballs) to marketers. They stuff advertisements into your bill for example. If nothing else, you are brand value for them as they can convince merchants (who get charged monthly) that X billion people carry their card and that merchant would be missing out on sales by not accepting their product. If you have a rewards card that pays you for using it, the merchant has higher corresponding fees.",
"I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost.",
"> if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, You cannot really believe this. There is no sector more artificial than banking, and under the current regime there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans. Rates have been artificially depressed across the spectrum using every available manipulation, and we are experiencing a coordinated money-printing/government bailout operation on a global scale. To say that rates anywhere have any relation to the real cost and/or demand for capital is absurd.",
"Remember that due to inflation you are paying back the loan with cheaper dollars in the future. If there are no gimmicks in the loan like early payment penalties, or must pay by a certain date or that the credit was for a store that sold the products at a higher price than you could get elsewhere then you are not just getting free money they are paying you to take the money.",
"\"When you buy something with your credit card, the store pays a fee to the credit card company, typically a base fee of 15 to 50 cents plus 2 to 3% of the purchase. At least, that's what it was a few years back when I had a tiny business and I wanted to accept credit cards. Big chain stores pay less because they are \"\"buying in bulk\"\" and have negotiating power. Just because you aren't paying interest doesn't mean the credit card company isn't making money off of you. In fact if you pay your monthly bill promptly, they're probably making MORE off of you, because they're collecting 2 or 3% for a month or less, instead of the 1 to 2% per month that they can charge in interest. The only situation I know where you can get money from a credit card company for free is when they offer \"\"convenience checks\"\" or a balance transfer with no up-front fee. I get such an offer every now and then. I presume the credit card company does that for the same reason that stores give out free samples: they hope that if you try the card, you'll continue using it. To them, it's a marketing cost, no different than the cost of putting an ad on television.\"",
"This is basically the same as any other loan out there that defers payments. The bank doesn't care because your balance with them keeps going up along with their future profits when you pay that balance back. The only point where this becomes a problem for them is when you get to a point where your monthly income no longer supports the minimum payment required. (BTW, this is basically a study of what the US Treasury is doing with the national debt and the annual budget deficit, but I will go over to politics.stackexchange.com before commenting on the wisdom of this.)",
"your money in a bank gets used to fund other investments. So basically you either make money, or you're making money for someone else. Sorry i'm such a dick for not foreseeing 100,000% APR interest in bank accounts with no inflation, god i feel stupid now.",
"\"I am neither a lawyer nor a tax accountant, and if you're dealing with serious money I suggest you consult a professional. But my understanding is: If you make a loan at zero interest or at below-market rates, the IRS will consider the difference between the interest that you do charge and the market rate to be a gift. That is, if someone could get a loan from a bank and he'd pay $1000 in interest for the year, but instead you loan him the money as a friend interest free, than as far as the IRS is concerned you have given him a $1000 gift, and you could potentially have to pay gift tax. Or they might \"\"impute\"\" the interest to you and tax you on $1000 of additional income. If you have no agreement on repayment terms, if it's all, \"\"Hey Joe, just pay me back when you can\"\", then the IRS is likely to consider the entire \"\"loan\"\" to be a gift. There's an annual exclusion on gifts -- I think it's now $13,000 -- so if you loan your buddy fifty bucks to tide him over until next pay day, the IRS isn't going to get involved in that. They're worried about more serious money. And yes, the IRS does \"\"police loan rates\"\". The IRS examines exact numbers for all sorts of things. If, say, you go on a 100-mile overnight business trip, and the company gives you $10,000 for travel expenses, the IRS is likely to say that this is not a tax-deductible travel expense at all but a sham to hide part of your salary from taxes. Or if you donate a pair of old socks to charity and declare a $500 charitable contribution deduction, the IRS will say that that is not a realistic value for a pair of old socks and disallow the deduction. Etc. A small discrepancy from market rates can be justified for any number of reasons. If the book value of a used car is $5000 and you sell it to your neighbor for $4900, the IRS is unlikely to question it, there are any number of legitimate business reasons why you had to give a discount to make the sale. But if you sell it to him for $50, they may declare that this is not a sale but a gift. Etc.\"",
"They charge merchants a transaction fee, typically between 1% and 3%, for processing every credit card transaction. And of course they make money on interest charged to customers even if they pay on time, as long as the customers don't pay off their balance in full every month.",
"\"With (1), it's rather confusing as to where \"\"interest\"\" refers to what you're paying and where it refers to what you're being paid, and it's confusing what you expect the numbers to work out to be. If you have to pay normal interest on top of sharing the interest you receive, then you're losing money. If the lending bank is receiving less interest than the going market rate, then they're losing money. If the bank you've deposited the money with is paying more than the going market rate, they're losing money. I don't see how you imagine a scenario where someone isn't losing money. For (2) and (3), you're buying stocks on margin, which certainly is something that happens, but you'll have to get an account that is specifically for margin trading. It's a specific type of credit with specific rules, and you if you want to engage in this sort of trading, you should go through established channels rather than trying to convert a regular loan into margin trading. If you get a personal loan that isn't specifically for margin trading, and buy stocks with the money, and the stocks tank, you can be in serious trouble. (If you do it through margin trading, it's still very risky, but not nearly as risky as trying to game the system. In some cases, doing this makes you not only civilly but criminally liable.) The lending bank absolutely can lose if your stocks tank, since then there will be nothing backing up the loan.\"",
"\"They say that banks earn 4 - 5% on deposits, so with lower costs they can give away 2-4%. They cite [this article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-banking-industry-annual-profit-hit-record-in-2016-1488295836) which says that \"\"return on equity [for banks] up at 9.32%, the highest level since 2013\"\". But [net interest margin](https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/qbp/2017mar/chart4.html) is lower (2.5%-4.5%). And that's in a good year. They elaborate in a blog post: \"\"Fed Funds rates are supposed to affect deposit rates that banks pay to their customers, as, after all, deposit is a form of short term loan from depositor to the bank (see the explanation in our recent blog). However, as WalletHub notes in their recent report, it has not actually happened recently. As the report notes, for traditional branch-based banks, savings and checking account rates are virtually unchanged. You are probably getting the same 0.01% in your checking or savings account? Meanwhile, rates on your credit card went up by 0.53% since December 2015.\"\" \"\"So why aren’t deposit rates increasing? One reason often cited, is actually the relative decrease in the levels of competition in the U.S. market (as we described in our earlier blog). While there are still thousands of banks in the U.S., 4 control ~40% of the assets and close to half of the assets (loans). The other reason could be, perhaps, that after almost 10 years of getting close to zero in your bank account, you will forget that it could be any different. In fact, bank executives are puzzled why consumers are not “demanding” more on their deposits. You can walk to the branch and “demand” more money from your bank, but you may end up in county jail. The only other viable option is to take your deposits elsewhere, or vote with your feet.\"\" (https://blog.meetbeam.com/draft-why-are-lending-rates-going-up-but-deposit-rates-are-not-76e050b382af) \"\"Beam makes money by providing value-added services to our partnering bank and other financial service partners in the banking ecoysystem.\"\" That sounds like they might be selling your data?\"",
"I've wondered the same thing. And, after reading the above replies, I think there is a simpler explanation. It goes like this. When the bank goes to make a loan they need capital to do it. So, they can get it from the federal reserve, another bank, or us. Well, if the federal reserve will loan it to them for lets say 0.05%, what do you think they are going to be willing to pay us? Id say maybe 0.04%. Anyway, I could be wrong, but this makes sense to me.",
"\"I don't think it would be counted as income, and if it's a short-term loan it doesn't really matter as the notional interest on the loan would be negligible. But you can avoid any possible complications by just having two accounts in the name of the person trying to get the account benefits, particularly if you're willing to just provide the \"\"seed\"\" money to get the loop started.\"",
"You are losing something - interest on your deposit. That money you are giving to the bank is not earning interest so you are losing money considering inflation is eating into it.",
"\"In addition to all the points made in other answers, in some jurisdictions (including the UK where I live) the consumer credit laws require the lender to allow the borrower to pay off the loan at any time. If the lender charges interest and the borrower pays off the loan early then the lender loses the interest that would have been paid during the rest of the loan period. However if the actual interest is baked into the sale price of an item and the loan to pay for it is nominally \"\"0%\"\" then the borrower still pays all the interest even if they pay off the loan immediately. If you think this game is being played then you can ask for a \"\"cash discount\"\" (or similar wording: I once had problems with a car salesman who thought I meant a suitcase full of used £20s), meaning you want to avoid paying the interest as you are not taking a loan.\"",
"I'm not an expert on reverse mortgages but from my understanding the closing costs are much higher than traditional mortgages and the LTV is generally pretty low. So the bank makes money by not loaning out all that much compared to the value of the property and by charging high fees on the front end.",
"I could be mistaken on this, but after the GM bailout and others, weren't laws put in place to essentially force companies to maintain a certain level of liquidity? Also, that 0% is probably closer to .25~.50 through way of credit swaps, no? Or if we assume it's earning .1%, that's still $6,666,667/month ($80,000,000,000 x .001/12).",
"Sounds like a poorly written piece at best... The way you make money with a mortgage, if you're careful and/or lucky and/or patient, is to use that loan to make leveraged investments. If the return on the investments is higher than the interest on the loan, you win. Of course if the investments don't do well you can lose money on this deal... but at current interest rates it isn't that hard to make a profit on this arrangement, especially if you can get the tax deductability helping you.",
"\"Maybe not the official solution satisfying int'l convention / legislation, but at least has some logic to it (though I myself am not 100% convinced as yet): Liabilities ! ... but is it really a liability? Rationale: And simultaneously ups my liabilities: since what difference does it make if I borrow some money (to use it or not use it, repay later) or if someone just wants to \"\"store\"\" some money with me: w.r.t. balance sheet I'd say: zero... ... with the one caveat that it might make a difference w.r.t. taxation ?\"",
"They had the loans insured. The only way they could lose is if US gov't didn't bail out AIG. The customers may have a high risk of default, but there was little risk of the banks losing their money. Besides, like AnythingApplied says, those are the kinds of people they can charge all sorts of fees to, they're a fucking gold mine.",
"I haven't heard of these before! (And I'm on the board of a Credit Union.) The 0.99% on loans is great. It's especially great on a used car: the steep part of the depreciation curve was paid by the first owner. The network probably have a business relationship with the credit union. Credit unions do indirect lending -- approval of loans that happens at the point of sale, which then the credit union gets as assets. Depending on the cost of that program, it probably won't hurt. Your credit union wants to keep your business, because they know that you have a lot of options for where you bank and where you get loans.",
"\"There are normally three key factors that define different kinds of loans, these factors affect the risk that the lender takes on and so the interest rate. The interest rate on any loan is linked to market interest rates; the lender shouldn't be able to receive a higher rate of interest for lending the money at no risk, and the level of risk that the lender believes the borrower to have. The three features of a particular loan are: These reduce the risk of complete or total non-payment (default) of the principal or any missed interest payments. Taken in order: Amortising Here some of the monthly payment pays a proportion of the underlying principal of the loan. This reduces the amount outstanding and so reduces the capacity for default on the full principal as part of the principal has already been paid. Security In a secured loan there is an asset such as a car, house, boat, gold, shares etc. that has a value on resale that is held against the loan. The lender may repossess the security if the borrower defaults and recover their money that way. This also acts as a \"\"stick\"\" using the loss of property to convince the borrower that it is better to keep paying the interest. The future value of the security will be taken into account when deciding how much this reduces the interest rate. Guarantor A guarantor to a loan guarantees that the borrower will repay the loan and interest in full and, if the borrower does not fulfil that obligation, the lender is able to seek legal redress from the guarantor for the borrower's debts. Each of these reduce the risk of the loan as detailed and so reduce the interest rate. The interest rate, then, is made up of three parts; the market interest rate (m) plus the interest rate premium for the borrower's own credit worthiness (c) minus the value of the features of the loan that help to reduce risk (l). The interest rate of the loan (r) is categorised as: r = m + c - l. Credit ratings themselves are an inexact science and even when two lenders are looking at the same credit score for the same person they will give a different interest rate premium. This is mostly for business reasons, and the shape of their loan book, that are too tedious to go through here. All in all the different types of loan give flexibility at the cost of a different interest rate. If you don't want the chance of your car being repossessed you don't take a secured loan, if you have a family member who can help and doesn't mind taking on your risk take a guaranteed loan.\"",
"\"There is a substantial likelihood over the next several years that the US Dollar will experience inflation. (You may have heard terms like \"\"Quantitative Easing.\"\") With inflation, the value of each dollar you have will go down. This also means that the value of each dollar you owe will go down as well. So, taking out a loan / issuing a bond at a very good rate, converting it into an asset that's a better way to store value (possibly including stock in a big stable company like MSFT) and then watching inflation reduce the (real) value of the loan faster than the interest piles up... that's like getting free money. Combine that with the tax-shelter games alluded to by everyone else, and it starts to look like a very profitable endeavour.\"",
"Pay attention to nickel-and-dime charges (atm fees, low balance fees, limit on atm transactions per month, charge for human teller transaction, charge for paper statements or tax records). Consider that a financial company will spend on the order of $100-500 to sign up a good customer. Are you getting this in a cash bonus, competitive high interest rate, reasonable other gift, or advertising directed at your eyeballs? A variation in rates less than 1% easily fits into a marketing cost and there doesn't have to be any other magic to it.",
"If the question is where banks get the money used to pay interest they owe: they do so by lending that money to us at a higher interest rate. They make a gross profit from the interest we pay, they pass part of that to their depositors as interest, part of it goes to service their own debts, part of it may go to stockholders as dividends, and the rest is net profit.",
"This is more a question about economics than about personal finance. The answer, though, is straight-forward. Samsung makes enough profit on the phones that they are willing to eat the costs of a 0% loan, with the attendant risk of non-payment and the loss due to inflation. By offering financing, they expect to sell more phones. So, it's a slight cost to Samsung, but one they can easily afford due to the markups and increased volume of sales.",
"1- Wells Fargo does not own our current mortgage. They have bundled it and sold it as an investment. 2- They make their money from 'servicing' the loan. Even if they only get $50 per month to service it (3% of our monthly payment), that adds up to $50,000,000 per month if they have a million homes under management. That is $600 million per year for each million homes being serviced 3- Managing the escrow gets them additional profit, because they can invest it and earn 2-3%. If 1,000,000 homes have an average balance of $2,000 in their escrow accounts, they can earn up to $60 per year, or $60,000,000 annually. 4- They make $1,000 every time they refinance the home. This is the approximate profit after paying real closing costs. Refinance those million homes, and you make a cool billion in profit! 5- They also want to be sure that they keep us as a customer. By lowering our payment, they decrease the likelyhood that we will refinance with someone else, and we are less likely to default. (Not that they lose if we default, because they don't own the loan!) 6- they make additional profit by paying off the old loan (they don't own it… remember), then packaging and selling the new mortgage. Since they are selling it as a security, they sell for future value, meaning they sell our $200,000 loan for a valuation of $360,000. This means that they sell for $200,000 PLUS some fraction of the additional $160,000. Let's say they only want a 10% premium of the $360,000 valuation. That means they sell our $200,000 loan for $236,000. They pocket $36,000. If they make a million of these transactions every year, that is $36 billion dollars in profit So… Wells fargo refinances one million homes every year, and they make: $36,000,000,000 initial profit for selling the loan (with absolutely no risk!), plus $1,000,000,000 for doing the loan $660,000,000 annually to service the loan (Very little risk, since it is being paid by the owner of the loan as a service fee) If they can retain the loans for their entire life (keep us from refinancing with someone else…), they can make $19,800,000,000 (that is 19.8 billion dollars in servicing fees) The profit they make in a refinance is much greater than the money then can make by holding the loan for 30 years.",
"I dunno. Borrow $65,000 with zero collateral, string the lender along for 20+ years, then die? Sounds like a great decision to me. I wonder why a bank would ever take the other end of that lemon of a deal? Oh, right...",
"Yes, you do. Unless you actually donate it, the loan will be repaid and as such - is an asset for you. On your taxes you report the interest you got paid for the loan. You can claim the interest as a charitable deduction, if you don't effectively charge any (IRS dictates minimum statutory interests for arm-length loan transactions).",
"You're not missing any concepts! It sounds like you are contributing a piece of collateral to the business, and you want to know a fair way to value how much this contribution of collateral is worth. Technically the economic answer would be the difference in interest between a secured loan and an unsecured loan. So for example suppose that the business could get a loan at 17% without the collateral (maybe just on a credit card) but with the duplex as collateral it is able to get the loan at 10.5%. In principle, the value of this collateral is (17% - 10.5%) or 6.5%, because it has allowed the business to pay 6.5% less interest on its loan.",
"While I might have to agree with PiratesSayARRR from below about missing case details, I have to say, your math seems to check out to me. Although the numbers aren't rouded off and pretty, they back out. $22,285.71 generates $334.28 of fees in a month; subtract from that the monthly cost of funds (.003333 x $22285.71)= $74.28... $334.28-74.28 = $260.00. Hate to say it, but maybe they didn't hire you for a different reason?",
"What the comments above say is true, but one more thing is there. FD rates are directly proportional to loan rates. However, banks make money because loan rates will always be higher than FD rates.",
"It's not clear the cost of funds is a annual or monthly rate. If it is a monthly rate the answers do not converge and you lose money assuming the customer spending is linear. Let's assume you spent $100 a month (evenly spread out). You generate $1.50 in interchange fees. What's my cost of funds within that month? Subtract that from your interchange fee number. (I think calculus might be the best option for calculating this). There's your notional income off of $100, which can easily be solved for $260/year.",
"\"This model would work fine under a couple of assumptions: that market interest rates never change, and that the borrower will surely make all the payments as agreed. But neither of those assumptions are realistic. Suppose Alice loans $1,000,000 to Bob at 4% under the terms you describe. Bob chooses to make interest-only payments of $40,000 per year. Some time later, prevailing interest rates go up to 10%. Now Alice would really like Bob to repay the entire principal as quickly as possible, because that money could be earning her $100,000 per year instead of only $40,000, but under the contract she has no way to force Bob to do so. And Bob has no incentive to repay any of the principal, because he can earn more interest on it than he has to pay to Alice. So Alice is not going to be very happy about this. You might say, but at least Alice is only losing \"\"potential\"\" money; she's still turning a profit of $10,000 per year, since her bank only charges her 3% interest. Ah, but you're assuming that Alice can get a bank loan with a rate of 3% fixed forever. The bank doesn't want to make such a loan either, for exactly the same reasons. So in practice, any loan like this would be expected to have a variable interest rate. There's a flip side, too. Suppose instead that market rates drop to 1%. Now Alice would like Bob to repay the principal as slowly as possible, because she's earning 4% on that money, which is better than any other options available to her. But Bob now has every incentive to repay it as fast as he can - or even to refinance by taking out another loan at, say, 2%, and using the proceeds to repay the entire principal to Alice. (This risk still applies with most traditional loans, since the borrower usually always has the right to pay early, but some loans include a \"\"prepayment penalty\"\" in such cases to help compensate the lender.) Thus, when Bob has all the power to decide when to pay, Alice is sure to lose no matter which way interest rates move. A loan with a fixed term helps insulate Alice against this risk. She may be able to make a guess about the likelihood of interest rates going up to 10% in the next 15 or 30 years, and increase Bob's fixed rate to account for this; that's much easier than trying to account for the possibility of interest rates going up to 10% ever. (And if she does have to try to account for this, she's probably going to have to set the interest rate extremely high; so Bob might accept a fixed term of repayment in exchange for a more reasonable rate.) Even if we suppose that Alice has done the best possible credit check and that Bob is a perfectly trustworthy fellow who would never dream of defaulting on his loan, catastrophes do happen. Maybe Bob is robbed of all his money by an evil accountant, or has a mid-life crisis and spends it all on opera tickets. Whatever, Bob is now bankrupt and Alice is never going to get her principal back, nor any further interest payments either. Even if the loan is secured by some collateral, there's still a risk since the collateral might lose value. Alice has some chance of estimating the risk of this happening in the next 15 or 30 years, and can set the interest rate to compensate for it. But it is harder for her to estimate the risk of this happening ever, and if she tries, she'll have to set the rate so high that Bob might prefer a fixed term and a lower rate. (There's a side issue as to what happens if Bob dies with the loan still outstanding. If it's an unsecured loan, typically Alice can try to collect the principal from Bob's estate, but if there isn't enough, too bad for Alice; she can't force Bob's heirs to continue making payments. If it's a secured loan, Alice may be able to have Bob's heirs continue paying or else she seizes the collateral; but she still has the risk of the collateral losing value.)\"",
"\"Not everyone pays their balance in full every month. They may not make interest off of you or me but they do make interest off of a lot of cardholders. In many cases, the interest is variable and the larger your (running) balance, the higher your rate. If you're close to your limit and making minimum payments, you can literally take decades to pay off $2,000 or so. Some people don't pay at all every month and end up paying late fees. Some people use their cards overseas and pay foreign transaction fees. Ever take a cash advance? Me neither but they charge you interest right away for that instead of waiting until your statement. The list of fees and charges is as long as my arm and in tiny print. That's how they make money. The points/bonus/cash back and other rewards programs are to get you in the door. It's like when you see a luxury car advertised for a \"\"too good to be true\"\" price and you get to the lot and find out that the one they are selling for that price is a manual transmission without AC or a radio, they only had one and they sold it an hour before you got there. It got you on the lot though. The rewards programs function in much the same way (minus the disappearing part), they get you interested in their offering among a sea of virtually identical products but rest assured, if the card issuers were losing money because of them, they wouldn't exist for very long.\""
] |
[
"\"A \"\"true\"\" 0% loan is a losing proposition for the bank, that's true. However when you look at actual \"\"0%\"\" loans they usually have some catches: There might also be late payment fees, prepayment penalties, and other clauses that make it a good deal on average to the bank. Individual borrowers might be able to get away with \"\"free money\"\", but the bank does not look to make money on each loan, they look to make money on thousands of loans overall. For a retailer (including new car sellers). the actual financing costs will be baked into the sales price. They will add, say, 10% to the sales price in exchange for an interest-free loan. They can also sell these loans to an investment bank or other entity, but they would be sold at a deep discount, so the difference will be made up in the sales price or other \"\"fees\"\". It's possible that they would just chalk it up to promotional discounts or customer acquisition costs, but it would not be a good practice on a large scale.\"",
"Most 0% interest loans have quite high interest rates that are deferred. If you are late on a payment you are hit with all the deferred interest. They're banking on a percentage of customers missing a payment. Also, this is popular in furniture/car sales because it's a way to get people to buy who otherwise wouldn't, they made money on the item sale, so the loan doesn't have to earn them money (even though some will). Traditional banks/lenders do make money from interest and rely on that, they would have to rely on fees if interest were not permitted.",
"Generally speaking, an interest-free loan will be tied to a specific purchase, and the lender will be paid something by the vendor. The only other likely scenario is an introductory offer to try to win longer-term more profitable business, such as an initial interest-free period on a credit card. Banks couldn't make money if all their loans were interest-free, unless they were getting paid by the vendors of whatever was being purchased with the money that was lent.",
"The bank depends on the laws of large numbers. They don't need to make money on every customer -- just on average. There are several ways that zero interest makes sense to them: You asked about banks, and I don't think you see this last scheme in use very much by a bank. Here's why. First, customers absolutely hate it - and when you drop the interest bomb, they will warn their friends away, blow you up on social media, call the TV news consumer protectors, and never, ever, ever do business with you again. Which defeats your efforts in customer acquisition. Second, it only works on that narrow range of people who default just a little bit, i.e. who have an auto-pay malfunction. If someone really defaults, not only will they not pay the punishment interest, they won't pay the principal either! This only makes sense for secured loans like furniture or cars, where you can repo that stuff - with unsecured loans, you don't really have any power to force them to pay, short of burning their credit. You can sue them, but you can't get blood from a stone.",
"If interest rates are negative, a 0% load might still be profitable.",
"\"Other answers didn't seem to cover it, but most \"\"0%\"\" bank loans (often offered to credit card holders in the form of balance transfer checks), aside from less-obvious fees like already-mentioned late fees, also charge an actual loan fee, typically 2-3% (or a minimum floor amount) - that was the deal with every single transfer 0% offer I ever saw from a bank. So, effectively, even if you pay off the loan perfectly, on time, and within 0% period, you STILL got a 3% loan and not 0% (assuming 0% period lasts 12 months which is often the case).\"",
"Car dealers as well as boat dealers, RV dealers, maybe farm vehicle dealers and other asset types make deals with banks and finance companies to they can make loans to buyers. They may be paying the interest to the finance companies so they can offer a 0% loan to the retail customer for all or part of the loan term. Neither the finance company nor the dealer wants to make such loans to people who are likely to default. Such customers will not be offered this kind of financing. But remember too that these loans are secured by the asset - the car - which is also insured. But the dealer or the finance company holds that asset as collateral that they can seize to repay the loan. So the finance company gets paid off and the dealer keeps the profit he made selling the car. So these loans are designed to ensure the dealer nor the finance company looses much. These are called asset finance loans because there is always an asset (the car) to use as collateral.",
"\"In addition to all the points made in other answers, in some jurisdictions (including the UK where I live) the consumer credit laws require the lender to allow the borrower to pay off the loan at any time. If the lender charges interest and the borrower pays off the loan early then the lender loses the interest that would have been paid during the rest of the loan period. However if the actual interest is baked into the sale price of an item and the loan to pay for it is nominally \"\"0%\"\" then the borrower still pays all the interest even if they pay off the loan immediately. If you think this game is being played then you can ask for a \"\"cash discount\"\" (or similar wording: I once had problems with a car salesman who thought I meant a suitcase full of used £20s), meaning you want to avoid paying the interest as you are not taking a loan.\"",
"Very good answers as to how 0% loans are typically done. In addition, many are either tied to a specific large item purchase, or credit cards with a no interest period. On credit card transactions the bank is getting a fee from the retailer, who in turn is giving you a hidden charge to cover that fee. In the case of a large purchase item like a car, the retailer is again quite likely paying a fee to cover what would be that interest, something they are willing to do to make the sale. They will typically be less prone to deal as low a price in negotiation if you were not making that deal, or at times they may offer either a rebate or special low to zero finance rates, but you don't get both."
] |
4823
|
Close to retirement & we may move within 7 years. Should we re-finance our mortgage, or not?
|
[
"104726",
"362919",
"561929"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"561929",
"362919",
"434519",
"104726",
"60088",
"267348",
"108511",
"243203",
"361126",
"446646",
"520430",
"489479",
"412142",
"139559",
"384185",
"35834",
"529551",
"513499",
"437630",
"58368",
"19781",
"217636",
"156301",
"569691",
"294076",
"444148",
"185107",
"573974",
"35388",
"549512",
"578488",
"68640",
"423628",
"403735",
"26051",
"302093",
"164434",
"91504",
"58785",
"117417",
"145186",
"320831",
"562934",
"543616",
"303795",
"105707",
"473427",
"477048",
"104577",
"368504",
"418024",
"327115",
"359433",
"354434",
"110400",
"305226",
"158838",
"408518",
"341003",
"299536",
"576846",
"121505",
"82824",
"247449",
"78518",
"368590",
"301192",
"294097",
"222476",
"40312",
"244254",
"595455",
"268835",
"497436",
"201982",
"372921",
"67607",
"390474",
"458506",
"64267",
"62498",
"352638",
"354796",
"417964",
"510959",
"431811",
"384371",
"99521",
"300660",
"21457",
"570415",
"205522",
"458960",
"463885",
"542461",
"217553",
"412624",
"435576",
"331255",
"356669"
] |
[
"I would think it depends on when within the 7 years you're planning to move. If you want to move within a year or two, the closing costs for the new mortgage may postpone the break even until after your move date; that wouldn't be a financially smart decision. If your plans suggest you're going to move after the break even point I'd definitely refi sooner rather than later and would try to reduce the term, either by overpaying or by choosing a 15 year mortgage that should have an even lower interest rate anyway.",
"Refinance, definitely. Go for Fixed 15 years, which will leave you with the same remaining time for the loan that you have now, but a much lower interest (you can find below 4%, if you look hard enough). You might end up with lower payments and higher portion of interest to deduct from your taxes. win-win. If you're confident you're able to pay it off within 7 years, you can get an even better rate with an ARM 10/1 or 7/1.",
"It would help if we had numbers to walk you through the analysis. Current balance, rate, remaining term, and the new mortgage details. To echo and elaborate on part of Ben's response, the most important thing is to not confuse cash flow with savings. If you have 15 years to go, and refinance to 30 years, at the rate rate, your payment drops by 1/3. Yet your rate is identical in this example. The correct method is to take the new rate, plug it into a mortgage calculator or spreadsheet using the remaining months on the current mortgage, and see the change in payment. This savings is what you should divide into closing costs to calculate the breakeven. It's up to you whether to adjust your payments to keep the term the same after you close. With respect to keshlam, rules of thumb often fail. There are mortgages that build the closing costs into the rate. Not the amount loaned, the rate. This means that as rates dropped, moving from 5.25% to 5% made sense even though with closing costs there were 4.5% mortgages out there. Because rates were still falling, and I finally moved to a 3.5% loan. At the time I was serial refinancing, the bank said I could return to them after a year if rates were still lower. In my opinion, we are at a bottom, and the biggest question you need to answer is whether you'll remain in the house past your own breakeven time. Last - with personal finance focusing on personal, the analysis shouldn't ignore the rest of your balance sheet. Say you are paying $1500/mo with 15 years to go. Your budget is tight enough that you've chosen not to deposit to your 401(k). (assuming you are in the US or country with pretax retirement account options) In this case, holding rates constant, a shift to 30 years frees up about $500/mo. In a matched 401(k), your $6000/yr is doubled to $12K/year. Of course, if the money would just go in the market unmatched, members here would correctly admonish me for suggesting a dangerous game, in effect borrowing via mortgage to invest in the market. The matched funds, however are tough to argue against.",
"Think of your mortgage this way - you have a $130K 16 year mortgage, at 6.75%. At 4%, the same payment ($1109 or so) will pay off the loan in 12.4 years. So, I agree with littleadv, go for a 15yr fixed (but still make the higher payment) or 10 yr if you don't mind the required higher payment. Either way, a refinance is the way to go. Edit - My local bank is offering me a 3.5% 15 yr loan with fees totaling $2500. For the OP here, a savings of 3.25% or first year interest savings of $4225. 7 months to breakeven. It's important not to get caught up in trying to calculate savings 15-20 years out. What counts today is the rate difference and looking at it over the next 12 months is a start. If you break even to closing costs so soon, that's enough to make the decision.",
"When evaluating a refinance, it all comes down to the payback. Refinancing costs money in closing costs. There are different reasons for refinancing, and they all have different methods for calculating payback. One reason to finance is to get a lower interest rate. When determining the payback time, you calculate how long it would take to recover your closing costs with the amount you save in interest. For example, if the closing costs are $2,000, your payback time is 2 years if it takes 2 years to save that amount in interest with the new interest rate vs. the old one. The longer you hold the mortgage after you refinance, the more money you save in interest with the new rate. Generally, it doesn't pay to refinance to a lower rate right before you sell, because you aren't holding the mortgage long enough to see the interest savings. You seem to be 3 years away from selling, so you might be able to see some savings here in the next three years. A second reason people refinance is to lower their monthly payment if they are having trouble paying it. I see you are considering switching from a 15 year to a 30 year; is one of your goals to reduce your monthly payment? By refinancing to a 30 year, you'll be paying a lot of interest in your first few years of payments, extending the payback time of your lower interest rate. A third reason people refinance is to pull cash out of their equity. This applies to you as well. Since you are planning on using it to remodel the home you are trying to sell, you have to ask yourself if the renovations you are planning will payoff in the increased sale price of your home. Often, renovations don't increase the value of their home as much as they cost. You do renovations because you will enjoy living in the renovated home, and you get some of your money back when you sell. But sometimes you can increase the value of your home by enough to cover the cost of the renovation. Talk to a real estate agent in your area to get their advice on how much the renovations you are talking about will increase the value of your home.",
"You probably won't save much, if anything at all, by getting another fixed-term mortgage. The last part of a mortgage is mostly principal payments. If you borrowed $200k (guessing) at 4.75% then during the last five years you'll pay about $10.5k in interest, as opposed to $41.7k in the first five years and $27.9k in the second five. Another fixed rate loan won't get you a whole lot lower than 4.75%. If you can score a teaser rate (say 2.5% for the first five years) on the balance at the beginning of year 11, and pay the same amount that you were before ($1,555) then you'd knock out the mortgage in 57 months and save yourself a little under $5k. If the refinance costs only a few hundred, then you might make out. Anyway, you may find other similar options that have a low teaser rate but (goody for you) you won't be around long enough to see it jump up. Just watch for prepayment penalties. I'd probably just bump up my payments, though. I went through a refinance and I felt like my hand was forced a lot in that process, but your mileage may vary. :)",
"\"The usual rule of thumb is that you should start considering refinance when you can lower the effective interest rate by 1% or more. If you're now paying 4.7% this would mean you should be looking for loans at 3.7% or better to find something that's really worth considering. One exception is if the bank is willing to do an \"\"in-place refinance\"\", with no closing costs and no points. Sometimes banks will offer this as a way of retaining customers who would otherwise be tempted to refinance elsewhere. You should still shop around before accepting this kind of offer, to make sure it really is your best option. Most banks offer calculators on their websites that will let you compare your current mortgage to a hypothetical new one. Feed the numbers in, and it can tell you what the difference in payment size will be, how long you need to keep the house before the savings have paid for the closing costs, and what the actual savings will be if you sell the house in any given year (or total savings if you don't sell until after the mortgage is paid off). Remember that In addition to closing costs there are amortization effects. In the early stages of a standard mortgage your money is mostly paying interest; the amount paying down the principal increases over the life of the loan. That's another of the reasons you need to run the calculator; refinancing resets that clock.\"",
"Shop around a bit. You can probably do better than $5k. See this calculator to decide if your payoff period will happen before you think you'll move. If you're at 8% now it may come sooner than you think -- especially if you can lower that closing cost estimate and still get a good rate.",
"Here is something that should help your decision: Currently you are 57, suppose that means that you will still work for 10 years, and then be retired for another 20 before you sell the house. Your retirement account is nearly flat, so you will have to support yourself with your own income. If there are no surprises, you and your wife could expect to earn 1.16 million over the next 10 years. There will be interest on your savings, but also inflation, so to simplify I will ignore both. That means you will have an average of 40k (gross?) per year available to live from during the next 30 years. If you get a mortgage where you only pay nett 3% interest (no payback of the loan), that would cost you 6k per year on interest (based on 350k-150k), if you also want to pay back the 200k difference within 30 years, it would totally be close to 13k in annual interest+payback. Now consider whether you would rather live on 40k per year in your current place, or on a lower amount in a bigger place. Personally I would not choose to make a 200k investment at this point, perhaps after trying to live on a budget for a while. (This has the additional benefit that you can even build some cash reserve before buying anything.)",
"Definitely don't borrow from your 401K. If you quit or get laid off, you have to repay the whole amount back immediately, plus you are borrowing from your opportunity cost. The stock market should be good at least through the end of this year. As one of the commentators already stated, have you calculated your net savings by reducing the interest rate? You will be paying closing costs and not all of these are deductible (only the points are). When calculating the savings, you have to ask yourself how long you will be hanging on the property? Are you likely to be long term landlords, or do you have any ideas on selling in the near future? You can reduce the cost and principal by throwing the equivalent of one to two extra mortgage payments a year to get the repayment period down significantly (by years). In this way, you are not married to a higher payment (as you would be if you refinanced to a 15 year term). I would tend to go with a) eat the appraisal cost, not refinance, and b) throw extra money towards principal to get the term of the loan to be reduced.",
"The new payment on $172,500 3.5% 15yr would be $1233/mo compared to $1614/mo now (26 bi-weekly payments, but 12 months.) Assuming the difference is nearly all interest, the savings is closer to $285/mo than 381. Note, actual savings are different, the actual savings is based on the difference in interest over the year. Since the term will be changing, I'm looking at cash flow, which is the larger concern, in my opinion. $17,000/285 is 60 months. This is your break even time to payoff the $17000, higher actually since the $17K will be accruing interest. I didn't see any mention of closing costs or other expenses. Obviously, that has to be factored in as well. I think the trade off isn't worth it. As the other answers suggest, the rental is too close to break-even now. The cost of repairs on two houses is an issue. In my opinion, it's less about the expenses being huge than being random. You don't get billed $35/mo to paint the house. You wake up, see too many spots showing wear, and get a $3000 bill. Same for all high cost items, Roof, HVAC, etc. You are permitted to borrow 50% of your 401(k) balance, so you have $64K in the account. I don't know your age, this might be great or a bit low. I'd keep saving, not putting any extra toward either mortgage until I had an emergency fund that was more than sufficient. The fund needs to handle the unexpected expenses as well as the months of unemployment. In general, 6-9 months of these expenses is recommended. To be clear, there are times a 401(k) loan can make sense. I just don't see that it does now. (Disclaimer - when analyzing refis there are two approaches. The first is to look at interest saved. After all, interest is the expense, principal payments go right to your balance sheet. The second is purely cash flow, in which case one might justify a higher rate, and going from 15 to 30 years, but freeing up cash that can be better deployed. Even though the rate goes up say 1/2%, the payment drops due to the term. Take that savings and deposit to a matched 401(k) and the numbers may work out very well. I offer this to explain why the math above may not be consistent with other answers of mine.)",
"When evaluating a refinance, you need to figure out the payback time. Refinancing costs money in closing costs. The payback time is the time it takes to recover the closing costs with the amount of money you are saving in interest. For example, if the closing costs are $2,000, your payback time is 2 years if it takes 2 years to save that amount in interest with the new interest rate vs. the old one. To estimate this, look at the difference in interest rate between your mortgage and the new one, and your mortgage balance. For example, let's say that you have $100,000 left on your mortgage, and the new rate is 1% lower than your current rate. In one year, you will save roughly $1,000 in interest. If your closing costs are $2,000, then your payback time is somewhere around 2 years. If you plan on staying in this house longer than the payback time, then it is beneficial to refinance. There are mortgage refinance calculators online that will calculate payback time more precisely. One thing to watch out for: when you refinance, if you expand the term of your mortgage, you might end up paying more interest over the long term, even though your rate is less and your monthly payment is less. For example, let's say you currently have 8 years left on a 15-year mortgage. If you refinance to a new 15-year mortgage, your monthly payment will go down, but if you only pay the new minimum payment for the next 15 years, you could end up paying more in interest than if you had just continued with your old mortgage for the next 8 years. To avoid this, refinance to a new mortgage with a term close to what you have left on your current mortgage. If you can't do that, continue paying whatever your current monthly payment is after you refinance, and you'll pay your new mortgage early and save on interest.",
"One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.",
"There is another factor to consider when refinancing is the remaining term left on your loan. If you have 20 years left, and you re-fi into another 30 year loan that extends the length that you will be paying off the house for another 10 years. You are probably better off going with 20, or even 15. If this is a new loan, that is less of an issue, although if you moving and buying a house in a similar price range it is still something to consider. My goal is to have my house paid off before I retire (hopefully early semi-retirement around 55).",
"You don't say what the time remaining on the current mortgage is, nor the expense of the refi. There are a number of traps when doing the math. Say you have 10 years left on a 6% mortgage, $200K balance. I offer you a 4% 30 year. No cost at all. A good-intentioned person would do some math as follows: Please look at this carefully. 6% vs 4%. But you're out of pocket far more on the 4% loan. ?? Which is better? The problem is that the comparison isn't apples to apples. What did I do? I took the remaining term and new rate. You see, so long as there are no prepayment penalties, this is the math to calculate the savings. Here, about $195/mo. That $195/mo is how you judge if the cost is worth it or the break-even time. $2000? Well, 10 months, then you are ahead. If you disclose the time remaining, I am happy to edit the answer to reflect your numbers, I'm just sharing the correct process for analysis. Disclosure - I recently did my last (?) refi to a 15yr fixed 3.5%. The bank let the HELOC stay. It's 2.5%, and rarely used.",
"If you had originally borrowed $100k at 4.75% for 15 years, the last 5 years would include a total of $3,300-$3,500 in interest payment. That is the total universe of savings available to you if you were able to get a 0.0% mortgage. Unless the mortgage is huge, I think that in most scenarios the upfront closing costs, taxes and other fees would immediately exceed any savings. If you have the money, pay it down. Otherwise, keep on truckin' -- you have 60 short months to go.",
"\"Another option would be to not refinance but also not pay any extra each month but to continue as you are making the existing payments and just put the \"\"extra\"\" you would have paid aside in an investment of some type (something you are comfortable with) This as the added benefit of not tying up this extra money in your house should you need it in the next few years for something else. You would then have the option in 2 or 3 years of continuing on this path or closing the investment and paying off the remaining principal in one lump sum. If nothing else that big payment would be a really fun check to write.\"",
"If interest rates have gone up, don't sell when you move. Refinance to lock in a low rate and rent out your current house when you move. Let the rent pay your new mortgage.",
"The typical process is to look at the savings and see how many months it will take to break even on the closing costs. Since you've stated there are no costs, even 1/8% drop in rates is going to save you money. A savings of over 1.5% even on a sub 100K loan is nothing to ignore. You first year interest savings will exceed $1200. How many hours does it take you to earn that much money? (this is a rhetorical question, if that wasn't obvious)",
"Yes, take the new rate, but instead of using the new 30 year term, calculate the payment as though the new mortgage were at the remaining term. 3 years into a 30? You calculate the payment as if the new mortgage were 27 years. This will tell you what you are really saving. Now, take that savings and divide into your closing costs if any. That will give you the break even. Will you be in the house that long? If you can find a no closing cost deal, it's worth it for even 1/8% savings.",
"Is this an unusual amount to pay for refinancing a home loan? Yes, I would say it seems pretty high. Although credit unions usually have pretty good deals, I would shop around a bit. Is refinancing not worth it if you might move in the next year or two? Totally not worth it if you'll be moving in a year or two. You need to think realistically about what you could sell your house for though. If you bought it 4 years ago, it's likely gone down in value significantly (depending on your locale). Are you prepared to take a significant loss to sell? If not, you might be forced to stick it out for 3-5 years or more.",
"There's several different trade-offs wrapped up in your question. In general, refinancing a mortgage to a lower interest rate makes sense if you are certain you'll be living in the house for N years. N depends on your closing costs and points. Basically you need to calculate the break-even point for when the savings from the reduced interest rate exceeds the cost of the re-fi. When I refinanced, the broker did the calculations for me for a range of options, maybe yours could as well. The trade off in selecting 30-year vs. 15-year is between monthly payment and total outlay. A 15-year mortgage will have a higher monthly payment, but the total money that is paid out the bank (rather than to your equity) will be less. Using the Heloc to do the down payment seems sketchy; plus then you have two loan payments you're making each month. Why not keep it simple and look for a $250k loan with 5% down? Presumably with the current mortgage you already put in a good down payment, and have built some equity up.",
"You didn't answer my questions above, but the biggest factor if the two interest rates are similar is what it will cost you for mortgage insurance if you do not include a 20% down-payment on your next house purchase. I would take the extra money from the proceeds of the other sale to get to a 15-year loan on your next house, then put all of your extra money into paying down the student loans ahead of the 7 year schedule.",
"\"Interest rates are at a record low and the government is printing money. You can get a fixed rate loan at a rate equal to inflation in a healthy economy. Unless you know that you are moving in < 5 years, why would you expose yourself to interest rate risk when rates are about as close to zero as they can be? If your thought with respect to mitigating interest rate risk is: \"\"What's the big deal, I'll just refinance!\"\", think again, because in a market where rates are climbing, you may not be able to affordably refinance at the LTV that you'll have in 5-7 years. From 1974-1991, 30 year mortgages never fell below 9%, and were over 12% from 1979 to 1985. Think about what those kinds of rates -- which reduce a new homeowner's buying power by over 40%, would do to your homes value.\"",
"Keep in mind the number of months or years before you break even. You pay money to lower the interest rate, and lower the monthly cost. But it takes a number of months, using your numbers $7,000 to save $160 a month will take ~43 months. That is before figuring in the future or present value. If you sell or refinance the mortgage, the initial points to lower the rate is gone.",
"The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself. Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you. Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings.",
"\"It can be a good thing for the bank to refinance your loan for you - since you will be keeping the loan at that particular institution. This gives them more time to enjoy the free money you pay them in interest for the remaining life of the loan. Banks that offer \"\"No closing costs\"\" are betting that mortgage payers will move their mortgage to get the lower interest rates - and whomever holds the loan, gets the interest payments.\"",
"The proper answer is that you run the numbers and see whether what you'll save in interest exceeds the closing costs by enough to be interesting. Most lenders these days have calculations that can help with this on their websites and/or would be glad to help if asked. Rule of thumb: if you can reduce interest rate by 1% or more it's worth investing.",
"You can't transfer mortgages when you purchase a new property. You can purchase a new property now, or you can refinance your current property now and leverage yourself as far as possible while rates are low. The higher rates you are worried about may not be as bad as you think. With higher interest rates, that may put downward pressure on housing prices, or when rates do rise, it may simply move from historic lows to relative lows. I had a mortgage at 4.25% that I never bothered refinancing even though rates went much lower because the savings in interest paid (minus my tax deduction for mortgage interest) didn't amount to more than the cost of refinancing. If rates go back up to 5%, that will still be very affordable.",
"Nope. If there is no prepayment penalty go for it. Find another credit source to use (like a credit card you pay off every month) if you want to get a long history. Saving money on interest is more important to me than minutia in a credit score.",
"Here's one way of looking at it. The first years of a 30-year mortgage are mostly interest payments. Even with a 4% 30-year loan -- I seem to recall seeing rates that low! -- the interest part of your payments for the first five years are double the principal part. You will pay less in interest if you throw extra money at the mortgage. How much extra? Let's say you have a loan of $100,000 for 30 years at 4.5%. The monthly payment is $506.69. After five years, you've paid $8,842.43 toward principal and $21,558.97 toward interest. Let's bump that payment up $200 per month to $706.69. Now, after five years, you've paid $22,284.24 toward principal and $20,128.56 toward interest. You've saved yourself from paying $1,430.41 in interest. But if you can swing $706.69, can you swing $752.28? That's the payment on a fifteen year mortgage at 4.25%. After five years you'll have paid $26,562.31 on principal and $18,574.49 in interest: $1,500 less in interest than even paying an extra $200/month on your 30-year. Now, another way of looking at it. If you're getting a 30-year, get one. Pay only the minimum, and save what you would have paid toward your mortgage to fund a down payment for your next house, since you're planning to get out in 5-7 years. Rather than try to sell your current house, rent it out. Rents go up, but your mortgage payment won't. Fixed-rate mortgages are a great protection against inflation.",
"What does your cash flow look like? If you can comfortably afford to pay the extra cost and ride out the mortgage, it can be a nice investment. Better if you can manage the property yourself and are somewhat handy. Realize you should be able to raise rents over time so that it is cash flow even eventually. If cash flow is tight, sell it and re-fi your current place",
"A: Rollover the cash from the previous account into the new one a low-cost IRA like Vanguard. This, and only this. Because your mortgage is, less than 4%, while your retirement plan will earn 7% over the long term. I have no 'retirement' plans because Because you're 28. and essentially will be happy working until I die Unless circumstances change. but as far as I see it this is not such a bad deal because it is like paying taxes on income. (Principal says I will lose up to 30%) You're ignoring the 10% early withdrawal penalty. I am wise with my money for the most part Then don't piss away $3,000 just for a temporary feel good. I earn a high salary in a tech job. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. So -- after building up an Emergency Fund -- throw as much as possible of your high salary against your mortgage to get rid of the PMI.",
"\"You can definitely do it. But: Refinancing would make more sense to you, you can refinance at no cost and get rates below 4%, so you'll be saving 1% a year, without paying anything extra. If you pay the fees you'll get even lower rates, but then you need to check whether its worth it. I've just refinanced to a 15 years fixed mortgage at no cost a couple of months ago, and got 3.875% rate (in California), so its definitely worth looking into, don't just dismiss it. This will limit your flexibility though, because paying 30yrs loan \"\"as if\"\" is much more flexible than committing on 15yes loan - you can always go back to your original payments if you want to spread it out a bit more. You can add a HELOC once you've accumulated some equity to back you up, that's what I did.\"",
"Our mortgage provider actually took the initiative to send us a refinance package with no closing costs to us and nothing added to the note; took us from a 30-year-fixed ~6.5% note to a 15-year-fixed ~5% note, and dropped the monthly payment in the process. You might talk to your existing lender to see if they would do something like that for you; it gives them a chance to keep your business, and it cuts your costs.",
"Another thing to consider is how much longer you wish to stay in this home & what you will do with it when you move. I had planned on doing exactly this, but we are more likely to keep our home when we move out and use it as rental property. If we went down this route, we would have a lot of equity (perhaps even paid off) in our home, but would have little left to save towards the next home down payment.",
"$33K, $227 payment is 7.33%. But is that right? You're also stretching out the remaining loan back to 30 years. Now, if the bank just let you do the stretch, you'd owe $95K / 4.75% / 360 mo / PMT = $495.56 - this would be a neutral move, same rate. You now have: $128K / 5.625% / 360 / PMT = $737 so to my thinking, the delta is: $33K / X rate / 360 / PMT = $241.44 and the rate is 7.97% If you have enough equity to refi, you have enough to take that in a HELOC, and pay it off aggressively, why give up the great rate? The $227/mo you will pay the HELOC off in 22 years even at 6%. My HELOC is 2.5%. I'd use any raise or bonus to hack away at it. I tried to spell out my thought process on the math. If any savvy reader (you all are, I know) wants to look at this and offer a better method, I'm open minded. There's a fallacy that comes with refinancing, certainly money appears in the payment stream as a result of extending the term. Somewhere that needs to be accounted for, else a higher rate at a longer term appears favorable, so my approach is to normalize the numbers one way or another. Here, producing that first step of calculating the payment on the extended term (an interim step that's a mental process only, that loan is hypothetical). Comments welcome.",
"You are weighting a certain cost of the mortgage interest versus the possible gain of the value of the house. Take the interest you pay per month and divide it by the current value of the house. Say your interest is 3% of the value of the house (may be more or less depending on the balance owed and the interest rate of your mortgage). Say the average appreciation in your area is also 3%. But that means that there's only a 50% chance that the actual appreciation will be more than that (assuming the odds are equal either way), and there's a 50% change that you'll be worse off. Generally, trading a risk-free loss for a risky gain of equal size is not a good investment; you generally can find better average returns on risky investments, so your best bet is to sell now and pay of the mortgage.",
"If you have a mortgage backed by FHA, Fannie, or Freddie I would hold off. There is talk of a new plan that would allow refi's on mortages that were underwater. I would expect rates to stay about the same for the forseeable future. Take that money you would spend each month on the personal loan and stick it into your mortgage payment to bring down your debt on it. Your home may be underwater on paper but once the economy comes back, or hyperinflation sets in (one of the 2 will happen) you will have equity in your home again soon after.",
"If you get a mortgage on the new property, you can almost surely get better than 9% today. I refinanced my house a year or so ago at 4%. You didn't say how much the new house will cost or how much of your cash you're willing to put to it, but just to make up a number say the house costs $200,000 and you'll pay $100,000 with cash. So you could keep the $50,000 at 9% and get a new $100,000 at 4%, or you could pay off the old loan so you have $0 at 9% and $150,000 at 4%. Clearly plan B is significantly less interest -- 5% x $50,000 = $2,500 per year. If you can afford to buy the new house without getting a loan at all, it gets more complicated. By not getting a loan, you avoid closing costs, typically several thousand dollars. Would the amount you save on closing costs be more than the difference in interest? I think probably not, but I'd check into it. If paying off the old loan means that your down payment on the new place is now low enough that you have to pay mortgage insurance, you'd have to factor that in. I can't say without knowing the numbers, but I'd guess PMI would be less than the interest savings, but maybe not. Oh, I assume that you're planning to keep the old house. If you sell it, this whole question becomes a moot point, as most mortgages have a due-on-sale clause.",
"If you decide you need the extra money, you can always go refinance and get more cash out. At the end of the day, though, if you pay off your house sooner you can invest more of your income sooner; that's just a matter of discipline.",
"Taking a slightly different approach, I would have the following priorities: I'm not sure it's worth the hassle to renogotiate either the HELOC or the mortgage if you think you are only going to have them for a year. If you can renegotiate the HELOC with the same lender that might be worth it.",
"Congratulations on saving up $75,000. That requires discipline and tenacity. There are a lot of factors that would go into making your decision. First and foremost is the security of the income stream you have now. Being leveraged during times of hardship is not a pleasant experience. Unexpected job losses can and do happen. Only you can determine how secure your and your spouse's situation is. Second, I would consider the job market in the location that you live. If you live in a small town it will be hard to find income levels like you have now. Rental properties are additional ties to an area. Are you happy in the area in which you live? If you were laid off are there opportunities in the same area. Being a long distance landlord is again not a pleasant experience. I can throw being forced to sell to relocate at a reduced price into this same bucket. Third, you need to have 3 to 6 months of expenses saved for emergencies. This is in addition to having no consumer debt (credit cards, car loans, student loans). $75,000 feels like a lot. Life can throw you curve balls. You need to be prepared for them because of the fundamental nature of Murphy's Law. If you were to be a landlord you should err closer to the six month end of the scale. I own two rentals and can speak to people being late a given month, heating and air problems, plumbing issues, washers and dryers breaking, weather related issues, and even a tenant leaving behind for truckloads of trash. Over 20 years I guess I have seen it all. A rental agency will only act as a minor buffer. Fourth, your family situation is important. I personally save 10% of my income for my child's education. If you haven't started doing so or have different feelings on what you might contribute think about it before any financial move. Fifth, any mortgage payment you are making should be 25% or less than your take home pay for a 15 year fixed rate mortgage. Anything less than 20% down and you start burning up money on PMI insurance. 'House Poor' is a term for people that make high incomes but have too much being spent for housing. It is the cause of a lot of financial stress. Sixth, you need to save for retirement. The absolute minimum I recommend is 15% of your income. Even if the match is 6% you should invest the full 15% making it 21%. Social Security is a scary thing and depending on it is not wise. I think your income still qualifies you for contributions to a Roth IRA. If you aren't personally contributing 15% do so before making a move. There is an old joke that homeless people who have a 0 net worth often are richer than people driving fancy cars and living in fancy houses. Ultimately no one can tell you the right answer. Every situation is unique. You have a complex tapestry to your financial life that no else one knows.",
"It depends on how long it will take you to pay off the personal loan, the rate for the personal loan, the refi rate you think you can get, how much principal you will have to add to get the refi (may have gone up since then). Since you did not provide all the necessary details, the general answer is to sketch out your total payments (mortgage + personal loan) with and without the refi over the life of the mortgage and see if you end up with more money in your pocket with the refi. My overall impression based on the details you did provide is that you will probably find it worthwhile to do the refi.",
"Let's say you owe $200K (since you didn't mention balance. If you do, I'd edit my response), and can get 4.5%. You'd save 1.5% or about $3K/yr the first few years. If a $12K paydown is all that's between you and and refi I'd figure out a way. There are banks that are offering refi's under the HARP program if your current mortgage is owned by FNMA or FMAC which permit even if under water. So, the first step is research to see if you can refi exactly what's owed, failing that, shop around. A 401(k) loan will not appear as a loan on your credit report, that may be one way to raise the $12K. The best thing you can do is put all the savings into the 401(k) to really get it going.",
"\"I often say \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" I need to change that phrase a bit to \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the mortgage dog.\"\" Getting a tax deduction on a 4% mortgage basically results (assuming you already itemize) in an effective 3% rate mortgage. The best way to avoid tax is save pretax in a 401(k), IRA, or both. You are 57, and been through a tough time. You're helping your daughter through college, which is an expense, and admirable kindness to her. But all this means you won't start saving $10K/yr until age 59. The last thing I'd do is buy a bigger home and take on a mortgage. Unless you told me the house you want has an in-law apartment that will bring in a high rent, or can be used to rent rooms and be a money maker, I'd not do this. No matter how small the mortgage, your property tax bill will go up, and there would be a mortgage to pay. Even a tiny mortgage payment, $400, is nearly half that $10K potential annual savings plan. Your income is now excellent. Can your wife do anything to get hers to a higher level? In your situation, I'd save every cent I can.\"",
"I read your question that you have a comfortable amount toward retirement. If not, pad your retirement accounts if possible. If your loan rate is locked at 2.67%, invest that money in the market and pay the loan as agreed. So long as you feel comfortable in your employment and income status for the next few years, I would bet you will get a lot more out of your cash investing in diversified, low cost funds or ETFs that you will save in interest on that loan. Finally, if you decide to lower your debt instead of increasing investments (based on your tolerance for risk) why not pay more on the mortgage? If you owe most of your mortgage and it is typically long term, you might cut many years off of the mortgage with a large payment.",
"You could consider turning your current place into a Rental Property. This is more easily done with a fixed rate loan, and you said you have an ARM. The way it would work: If you can charge enough rent to cover your current mortgage plus the interest-difference on your new mortgage, then the income from your rental property can effectively lower the interest rate on your new home. By keeping your current low rate, month-after-month, you'll pay the market rate on your new home, but you'll also receive rental income from your previous home to offset the increased cost. Granted, a lot of your value will be locked up in equity in your former home, and not be easily accessible (except through a HELOC or similar), but if you can afford it, it is a good possibility.",
"Does it cost money to refi? I know there are quite a few deals out there, I refi'd in June for $500, not bad. But sometimes can cost couple grand. If so, you have up front costs, plus the cost of the personal loan, that probably would break even at some point after your refi, but at what point? Will you sell before then, or even think about it? Or would you break even next year, then its a no brainer. As mentioned by others, do the numbers.",
"Have you looked at conventional financing rather than VA? VA loans are not a great deal. Conventional tends to be the best, and FHA being better than VA. While your rate looks very competitive, it looks like there will be a .5% fee for a refinance on top of other closing costs. If I have the numbers correct, you are looking to finance about 120K, and the house is worth about 140K. Given your salary and equity, you should have no problem getting a conventional loan assuming good enough credit. While the 30 year is tempting, the thing I hate about it is that you will be 78 when the home is paid off. Are you intending on working that long? Also you are restarting the clock on your mortgage. Presumably you have paid on it for a number of years, and now you will start that long journey over. If you were to take the 15 year how much would go to retirement? You claim that the $320 in savings will go toward retirement if you take the 30 year, but could you save any if you took the 15 year? All in all I would rate your plan a B-. It is a plan that will allow you to retire with dignity, and is not based on crazy assumptions. Your success comes in the execution. Will you actually put the $320 into retirement, or will the needs of the kids come before that? A strict budget is really a key component with a stay at home spouse. The A+ plan would be to get the 15 year, and put about $650 toward retirement each month. Its tough to do, but what sacrifices can you make to get there? Can you move your plan a bit closer to the ideal plan? One thing you have not addressed is how you will handle college for the kids. While in the process of long term planning, you might want to get on the same page with your wife on what you will offer the kids for help with college. A viable plan is to pay their room and board, have them work, and for them to pay their own tuition to community college. They are responsible for their own spending money and transportation. Thank you for your service.",
"It depends on your situation. Situations may change. There are also other factors: Being free and clear is nice, but there is an opportunity cost.",
"You would have to do the specific math with your specific situation to be certain, but - generally speaking it would be smarter to use extra money to pay down the principle faster on the original loan. Your ability to refinance in the future at a more favorable rate is an unknowable uncertainty, subject to a number of conditions (only some of which you can control). But what is almost always a complete certainty is that paying off a debt is, on net, better than putting the same money into a low-yield savings account.",
"\"In the first years of a loan, most of what you're paying is interest, so my guess is that this is a bad idea. But there are lots of mortgage calculators offered for free on the web (your bank's website may have one) so I'd suggest that you spend some time running actual numbers before deciding. Reminder: Most renovations do NOT pay for themselves in increased sales price, not least because you'll lose the buyers who don't like what you've done but would have been happy to renovate it themselves to their own tastes. Unless there is something which will actively impair your ability to sell the house, you should usually renovate when you plan to stay there for a while and take your returns in enjoying the house more, NOT on the way out. (There's been some recent discussion of this over in Home Improvement, pointing out that the changes which return more than they cost are usually simple things like refreshing the paint, \"\"staging\"\" the house so it looks lived in but not cluttered, replacing damaged blinds, washing windows, putting out a few more flowers, and so on.)\"",
"If you're refinancing a conforming (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) mortgage, don't go with an FHA. Try a HARP refinance, which won't increase your mortgage insurance even if your home has lost value. HARP also limits the risk-based pricing adjustments that can be charged, so your rate should be very competitive. With an FHA mortgage, even once you get the loan-to-value ratio down to 80 percent, you still have mortgage insurance for several years, plus the upfront costs. In your case, I think it's a bad deal.",
"It seems you understand the risks, it seems like a fine enough idea. Hopefully it works out for you. However, you may want to talk to a few local banks about getting a short term home equity loan. I know someone who was able to do this getting a very low rate for 7 years. At the time of the loan, the prevailing rate for a 15 year was 3.25, but they were able to get the HEL at 2.6 fixed. There was no closing costs. The best part about it was the payment was not that much more. While going from ~1200 to ~1800 is a 50% increase it was not that much in dollars in relationship to his household income. Note that I did not say Home Equity Line of Credit, which are vairable rates and amount borrowed.",
"\"Assume they do not overwithhold. You pay in $500/mo, and every time it hits $3000, they pay the tax. Engineers call this a sawtooth function, it looks like this. The average balance is not $3000, but close to $1500. The very simple math is $1500 * rate * years. It looks like your equation except it's not 58, it's just the years. And the question is whether you can make more than $850 on $1500 average before you sell. I wouldn't be so quick to plug in 29 years, as the average home ownership is 7 years, and depending, who knows if a refinance is in your future? The bottom line - How long would it take you to get a 57% return (2350/1500)? Ironically, the most responsible (and risk averse) person would say \"\"decades. Banks offer less than 1%.\"\" even an 8% market return, while not guaranteed, is close to 7 years. But, if you carry 18% credit card debt, you can pay it down a bit each month and let it float back up every 6 months. Less than 4 years to break even.\"",
"\"Here is the thing if in 2020-2040 you can buy CD's that pay 4% then you would kick yourself for paying your mortgage early and costing you a no risk 1% revenue on your money. Think about this? You have a 4% mortgage that is costing you less than 3% after tax deduction\"\" in 2025 you are buying 10 year notes at 7% which is not out of the question. You will be making 4% on your money with virtually no risk. Personally I agree with JoeTaxpayer. I have gone a step further and done so with two houses and I netted myself over 20 grand in 30 months. So in short you have to ask yourself \"\"Can I make more than 3% on my money?\"\"\"",
"It looks like with the sale of your current home you have enough liquidity to obtain credit on the best terms without tapping your wife's IRA. The biggest factor to consider is the deduction on mortgage interest which reduces the effective interest on your mortgage significantly, particularly as you jump into a higher tax bracket. Along these lines, deferred retirement savings should have a higher priority than paying down the mortgage or your student loans. Student loans should probably be your biggest priority to pay down. With the mortgage deduction, a 4% rate becomes effectively a 3.4% rate if you are in the 15% bracket, but as low as 2.6% effective rate if you are in the 35% bracket. Both of these are lower than the 3.5% rate that you can get on the student loans after refinancing. This also assumes you aren't hit with the AMT. This is probably worth the cost of a quick consultation with a tax professional to go over these options and how they affect your taxes.",
"The best way to look at it is this: I would suspect most people would say no. Most people do not have the time, skill, or risk tolerance to be able to leverage capital as large as the value of their own home. Remember that a 15-year fixed has a slightly lower interest rate than a 30-year fixed (difference of 0.5–1%). If you won't have the discipline to invest every cent left in your pocket, then you are better off with the 15-year and the lower rate.",
"I can probably rent the house out for about $1,600. If sell now I can get 180k at the most. My mortgage will be $1,800 with tax and insurance. If I use the 180k to pay off the house, I can refinance the loan for a lower interest rate too. I think I know what I want to do but just need a second opinion. Thanks btw",
"To me, the simple answer might be to tap the equity in the $400k home you owe $77k on and use the proceeds to purchase the new retirement home. Even if you were to do that, you'd still have almost $100k in untapped equity in the existing home, no mortgage on the retirement home, nothing out of pocket (other than refi fees), and probably no more of a mortgage payment than you already have on the house with equity. I don't see any reason why the bank wouldn't go for that, especially if you've got a good payment history on your existing mortgage. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"First, check with your lender to see if the terms of the loan allow early payoff. If you are able to payoff early without penalty, with the numbers you are posting, I would hesitate to refinance. This is simply because if you actually do pay 5k/month on this loan you will have it paid off so quickly that refinancing will probably not save you much money. Back-of-the-napkin math at 5k/month has you paying 60k pounds a year, which will payoff in about 5 years. Even if you can afford 5k/month, I would recommend not paying extra on this debt ahead of other high-interest debt or saving in a tax-advantaged retirement account. If these other things are being taken care of, and you have liquid assets (cash) for emergencies, I would recommend paying off the mortgage without refinancing.",
"You have a loan. You can probably assume you're going to have to repay that loan, every dollar. And every dollar that's outstanding on that loan costs you interest. So assuming you're not hit by any pre-payment penalty, any dollar that you pay down on your house right now saves you a compounded R% a year, where R is your mortgage rate. It doesn't really matter whether you're planning to sell it in a few years or not. If you pay $N, you'll save the interest + $N taken from the sale price and sent to the bank when you sell the house and move (though you might get a tax deduction on the interest). If you have a better place to park your money and earn a decent rate of return, it would be worth it to do that instead of paying down the mortgage. If you had another loan with higher interest rates, that's probably a better loan to pay off. If you can spend some of all of it on something that's actually genuinely worth R% of its purchase price a year (plus whatever the wear and tear takes away from its value, if anything) then spend it on that instead; that'd be a better investment. (For instance, investments in the stock market may offer better returns. However, that's risky! Observe that you can't lose money paying down your mortgage, and that Safety is usually relatively expensive these days, so it's not a bad deal. But if you're talking about using it for long-term retirement savings that are tax-advantaged to boot, that's another matter.) If you already have ample emergency funds and were just planning on putting the money into a savings account to rot at ~1.35% taxable interest, it's definitely worth it to pay down your balance now, unless you're about to sell (so the savings are slight) and it's a real inconvenience.",
"\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"",
"There are several factors that you need to consider: If you have already decided on the house. Did you prequalify for the mortgage loan - If so, did you lock in the rate. If you have not already done than your research is still valid. Consider two calculators first - Affordability + Mortgage calculator Advice : If you can afford to pay 20% down then please do, Lesser monthly mortgage payment, you can save approx 400 $ per month, the above calculator will give you an exact idea. If you can afford go for 15 years loan - Lower interest rate over 2-5 years period. Do not assume the average ROI will + 8-10%. It all depends on market and has variable factors like city, area and demand. In terms of Income your interest payment is Tax deductible at the end of the year.",
"what other pieces of info should I consider If you don't have liquid case available for unexpected repairs, then you probably don't want to use this money for either option. The 7% return on the stocks is absolutely not guaranteed. There is a good amount of risk involved with any stock investment. Paying down the mortgage, by contrast, has a much lower risk. In the case of the mortgage, you know you'll get a 2.1% annual return until it adjusts, and then you can put some constraints on the return you'll get after it adjusts. In the case of stocks, it's reasonable to guess that it will return more than 2.1% annually if you hold it long enough. But there will be huge swings from month to month and from year to year. The sooner you need it, the more guaranteed you will want the return to be. If you have few or no stock (or bond)-like assets, then (nearly) all of your wealth is in your house, and that is independent of the remaining balance on your mortgage. If you are going to sell the house soon, then you will want to diversify your assets to protect you against a drop in home value. If you are going to stay in the house forever, then you will eventually need non-house assets to consume. Ultimately, neither option is inherently better; it really depends on what you need.",
"My opinion is to hold off. I don't see housing market rising anytime soon, possibly even going lower, so you don't have to worry about getting in before it rises. Pay off the credit card debt, maybe even earlier if possible, then that flexibility will be there, the divorce proceedings may have an end in sight, and therefore you'll know more about any outcomes from that. The economy is still shaky, the flexibility of renting may come in real handy.",
"If it is your primary residence and you lived there continuously and for more than 2 years out of the last 5 - then you can exclude the gain under the IRC Sec. 121. In this case, you'll pay no taxes on your gain. If the property has been a rental or you haven't lived there long enough, the rules become more complicated but you may still be able to exclude some portion of the gain, even all of it, depends on the situation. So it doesn't look like 1031 exchange is good for you here, you don't want to carry excluded gain - you want to recognize it and get the tax benefit. However, refinancing after purchase with cash-out money affects the deductability of the loan interest. You can only deduct interest on money used to buy, not cash-out portion. I believe there's a period (60 days IIRC) during which you can do the cash-out refinance and still count it as purchase money, but check with a licensed tax advier (EA/CPA licensed in your State).",
"\"Generally it is not recommended that you do anything potentially short-term deleterious to your credit during the process of seeking a mortgage loan - such as opening a new account, closing old accounts, running up balances, or otherwise applying for any kind of loan (people often get carried away and apply for loans to cover furniture and appliances for the new home they haven't bought yet). You are usually OK to do things that have at least a short-term positive effect, like paying down debt. But refinancing - which would require applying for a non-home loan - is exactly the sort of hard-pull that can drop your credit rating. It is not generally advised. The exception to this is would be if you have an especially unusual situation with an existing loan (like your car), that is causing a deal-breaking situation with your home loan. This would for example be having a car payment so high that it violates maximum Debt-to-Income ratios (DTI). If your monthly debt payments are more than 43% of your monthly income, for instance, you will generally be unable to obtain a \"\"qualified mortgage\"\", and over 28-36% will disqualify you from some lenders and low-cost mortgage options. The reason this is unusual is that you would have to have a bizarrely terrible existing loan, which could somehow be refinanced without increasing your debt while simultaneously providing a monthly savings so dramatic that it would shift your DTI from \"\"unacceptable\"\" to \"\"acceptable\"\". It's possible, but most simple consumer loan refis just don't give that kind of savings. In most cases you should just \"\"sit tight\"\" and avoid any new loans or refinances while you seek a home purchase. If you want to be sure, you'll need to figure out your DTI ratio (which I recommend anyway) and see where you would be before and after a car refinance. If this would produce a big swing, maybe talk with some mortgage loan professionals who are familiar with lending criteria and ask for their opinion as to whether the change would be worth it. 9 times out of 10, you should wait until after your loan is closed and the home is yours before you try to refinance your car. However I would only warn you that if you think your house + car payment is too much for you to comfortably afford, I'd strongly recommend you seriously reconsider your budget, current car ownership, and house purchasing plans. You might find that after the house purchase the car refi isn't available either, or fine print means it wouldn't provide the savings you thought it would. Don't buy now hoping an uncertain cost-saving measure will work out later.\"",
"I would personally look at consolidating your debt at a lower interest rate by refinancing your mortgage. I would leave any retirement funds alone unless it was absolutely necessary to touch it with no other avenues available. However, once you have consolidated your debt into the mortgage I would pay more than the minimum amount so that you don't take too long to pay it off. I would put about 50% of the freed-up cash flow back into the repayments, that way you will be paying more debt off quicker and you will have additional cash flow to help your monthly budget. Another good point would be to go through your monthly budget to see if there is any expenses you could reduce or eliminate.",
"The thing with your last option is that the cash-out mortgage is treated differently than purchase mortgage, with regards to taxes. Specifically, tax deduction is limited to $100K mortgage instead of $1M (or a bit higher even). Other than that - you've covered your options, and its up to you to decide what to do.",
"I know you say you are aware of secured and unsecured debt and you've made your decision. Did you do the numbers? You will pay 44k over the life of the mortgage for that 24k (Based on 4.5% APR mortgage). Once you refinance your mortgage, do you plan on using credit for a while? Lots of Americans are hyperfocused on credit scores. The only times it affects your life are when you finance something, when you apply to rent a house or apartment, and sometimes when you apply for a job. Credit score should not be a factor in this decision. You're borrowing the money at a lower rate to pay off the high rate cards because you want to pay less in interest. Considering #1 is there any reason NOT to pay off the cards immediately, if not sooner?",
"I don't think it's all or none. First, 15 year mortgages are sub-3% right now, even for an investment property you'd get under 4%. shop around, do the math, a 1% drop is $1000 a year to start, nothing to sneeze at. Don't let the tax tail wag the decision dog. If you could invest the $100K at a taxable 5.5% in this economy, you would. In this case, that's your return on prepayments on this mortgage. Personally, I'd like to see a refinance and pay down of principal so the cash flow is at least positive. Beyond that, you need to decide how much cash you're comfortable having or not having in savings. I'd also consider when to start investing long term, in equities. (low cost ETFs is what I prefer).",
"I’d say No, it’s not crazy. I did that even for a mortgage, because the bank tended to lose my checks or let them sit for some days, and then claim I paid late. They were known on the internet for their poor processing department, so I decided to avoid that monthly hassle with calling and arguing, and refinanced. Compare the pain with the cost for refinancing, and if you think it’s worth it, change. You might even get a cheaper credit, and save on it.",
"Take the consolidation loan and pay it off. Don't close the card. Opening a new account will have no bearing on your mortgage a year or two down the road. Keep paying on time -- that will make a big difference! JohnFX's suggestion to open a new card and do a transfer is a great idea if you have good credit. Just read the fine print -- most cards charge a 3-5% transfer fee and some cards accrue interest if you don't pay within the promotional period.",
"\"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the \"\"what-ifs\"\". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the \"\"pay-off-early\"\" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%.\"",
"You don't say how long your mortgage has to go until it's paid off, but presumably it's only five or ten years. Hopefully that means your payments now represent a smaller fraction of your income than they did ten years ago. That means your risk level may have changed. How bad would it be for you if your mortgage payments went up by 50%? Would it be disastrous, or could you survive by some means. If higher mortgage payments wouldn't break you, now may be the time to look at a variable rate mortgage. Variable rates are typically than fixed rates on average, because you are assuming some of the risk. Rates are probably going up over the next five years, but they are probably going to be less than 4.75% on average - otherwise the banks wouldn't be offering 4.75% 5 year fixed rates. The downside is that rates MIGHT go up to much more than 4.75%. So you need to be in a position where you can take the worst the markets might throw at you - but if you can, then on average you will come out ahead.",
"\"The logic \"\"the interest rate on the mortgage was so low it didn't make sense not to buy\"\" is one reason the housing bubble happened. The logic was that it made the house affordable even at high prices. Once the prices collapsed people still had affordable payments, but were unable to sell because they were upside down on the mortgage. If you can refinance to a 15-year mortgage, or from a adjustable mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage. it can make sense. You can save on the monthly payment, and on the total cost of the mortgage. But don't buy to take advantage of rates; or to save on taxes; or to build a guaranteed equity. These can be false economies or things that can't be gaurenteed. Of course if nobody spends money, the economy will stay poor. As to hidden details. Only purchase housing you want to own for the long haul. If you expect to flip it in a few years, you might not be able to. You might end up stuck as a long distance landlord.\"",
"If you're a bit into the loan, then they're probably hoping that you'll take longer to pay off the loan. Is there a fee for refinancing the loan? If so, be sure to take that into account. A smart way to approach it (assuming that the fees are low or zero) would be to continue making the same payment you had been before the refinance. Then you'll end your loan ahead of schedule. (This assumes that there's no prepayment penalty.)",
"The fact that you are planning to sell the property does not make paying down the mortgage a bad idea. Reducing the principal immediately reduces the amount of interest you are paying every month. Run the numbers to see how much money that actually saves you over the time you expect to hold the loan.",
"Two reasons are typically cited (I've heard these from Dave Ramsey): So I wouldn't refinance to a 15-year loan just for item 2, but would definitely look at it for the better interest rates.",
"\"There are a number of bona fide reasons to consider here. If there is a cost to discharging a security packet, or a mortgage, it may not be convenient if we are advanced in the repayment schedule. Early exit fees may apply, or the interest may be \"\"pre-determined\"\". As a rule of thumb, when we are talking about rates above 10% p.a. then arrangements should be short (bridging finance - keep it short and charge 'em heaps), and for personal arrangements, small.\"",
"\"The advice to pay off near-7% debt is tough to argue against. That said, I'd project out a few years to understand the home purchase. Will you plan for the 20% down John recommends? The Crazy Truth about PMI can't be ignored. The way the math works, if you put 15% down, the PMI costs you so much, it's nearly like paying 20% interest on that missing 5%. If your answer is that you intend to save for the full downpayment, 20%, and can still knock off the student loan, by all means, go for it. I have to question the validity of \"\"we will definitely be in a higher tax bracket when we retire.\"\" By definition, pretax deposits save tax at the marginal rate. i.e. If you are in the 25% bracket, a $1000 deposit saves you $250 in tax that year. But, withdrawals come at your average rate, i.e. your tax bill divided by gross income. There's the deductions for itemized deductions or the standard. Then 2 exemptions if you are married. Then the 10% bracket, etc. Today, a couple grossing $100K may be in the 25% bracket, but their average rate is 12%. I read this Q&A again and would add one more observation - Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote in response to a friend's similar question. With the OP having plan to buy a house, paying off the loan may be more costly in the long run. It may keep him from qualifying for the size mortgage he needs, or from having enough money to put 20% down, as I noted earlier. With finance, there are very few issues that are simply black and white. It's important to understand all aspects of one's finances to make any decision. Even if thee faster payoff is the right thing, it's not a slam-dunk, the other points should be considered.\"",
"Don't do it. I would sell one of my investment houses and use the equity to pay down your primary mortgage. Then I would refinance my primary mortgage in order to lower the payments.",
"Disclaimer - I am going to refer you to Fairmark's web page. I have no relationship with this company, but the page is great to show you your marginal rate. Updated for 2011 and you can go back to prior years. I would first ask you what tax bracket you are in. And then, I'd likely suggest you withdraw only enough to 'top off' that bracket and pay the mortgage down. Doing it all at once can create a bad situation, where you pay far more in taxes than you might otherwise. I'd also ask- are your property taxes high enough to put you into itemized deduction land? If so, you have a bit of math to do. That 6% may be costing you 4.5% or less, and long term, you are better off not paying early, although I admit, I prefer to be mortgage free by retirement.",
"The mathematically correct answer is to invest, because you'll get a higher rate of return. I think that answer is bunk -- owning your home free and clear is a huge burden lifted off of your shoulders. You're at an age where you may find a new job, business, personal or other opportunities will be easier to take advantage of without that burden.",
"There are banks that will do 5-year fixed. Alternatively, if you pay off a 15-year mortgage as if it were a five-year fixed, with the extra money going to pay down principal, the cost isn't very different and you have more safety buffer. Talk to banks about options, or find a mortgage broker who'd be willing to research this for you. Just to point out an alternative: refinancing at lower rate but without shortening the duration would lower your payments; investing the difference, even quite conservatively, is likely to produce more income than the loan would be costing you at today's rates. This is arguably the safest leveraged investment you'll ever have the opportunity to make. (I compromised: I cut my term from 20 years to 15ish, lowered the interest rate to 3.5ish, and am continuing to let the loaned money sit in my investments and grow.)",
"With an annual income of $120,000 you can be approved for a $2800 monthly payment on your mortgage. The trickier problem is that you will save quite a bit on that mortgage payment if you can avoid PMI, which means that you should be targeting a 20% down-payment on your next purchase. With a $500,000 budget for a new home, that means you should put $100,000 down. You only have $75,000 saved, so you can either wait until you save another $25,000, or you can refinance your current property for $95k+ $25k = $120k which would give you about a $575 monthly payment (at 30 years at 4%) on your current property. Your new property should be a little over $1,900 per month if you finance $400,000 of it. Those figures do not include property tax or home owners insurance escrow payments. Are you prepared to have about $2,500 in mortgage payments should your renters stop paying or you can't find renters? Those numbers also do not include an emergency fund. You may want to wait even longer before making this move so that you can save enough to still have an emergency fund (worth 6 months of your new higher expenses including the higher mortgage payment on the new house.) I don't know enough about the rest of your expenses, but I think it's likely that if you're willing to borrow a little more refinancing your current place that you can probably make the numbers work to purchase a new home now. If I were you, I would not count on rental money when running the numbers to be sure it will work. I would probably also wait until I had saved $100,000 outright for the down-payment on the new place instead of refinancing the current place, but that's just a reflection of my more conservative approach to finances. You may have a larger appetite for risk, and that's fine, then rental income will probably help you pay down any money you borrow in the refinancing to make this all worth it.",
"Go where your money is treated best. If you can lower your APR, great. It should help a little bit with getting a mortgage if you can reduce your payment. Your debt-to-income ratio would go down.",
"Given that utilizing all the funds available to you drains your retirement and leaves you with very little cushion for unforeseen events (as already noted), it may be best to use a smaller amount for closing and just deal with the PMI for a couple years. PMI is likely less than the taxes/penalties incurred from withdrawing a full 20% + closing costs. Let alone the lost earning on the accounts (above your mortgage interest rate); but personally I think the stability of significant home equity is worth more than anticipated stock gains. I would recommend pulling enough to buy the house comfortably without dipping too deeply in any one area, while still paying down your balance to where you can eliminate PMI quickly (say 2-3 years). Your limits for each account are approximately: Roth IRAs: Traditional IRAs: Brokerage (non-retirement): Checking: Things to consider: If you are current on your payments, you can request PMI removal once your loan-to-value drops below 80% - it also terminates automatically when it is scheduled to drop below 78% (not if it actually has). Many loans have a 2 year minimum PMI period though, regardless of your Loan To Value (LTV) changes. LTV changes could be from:",
"\"So either scenario has about $10K upfront costs (either realtor/selling expenses or fixing up for rental). Furthermore, I'm sure that the buyers would want you to fix all these things anyway, or reduce the price accordingly, but let's ignore this. Let's also ignore the remaining mortgage, since it looks like you can comfortably pay it off. Assuming 10% property management and 10% average vacancy (check your market), and rental price at $1000 - you end up with these numbers: I took very conservative estimates both on the rent (lower than you expect) and the maintenance expense (although on average over the years ,since you need to have some reserves, this is probably quite reasonable). You end up with 2.7% ROI, which is not a lot for a rental. The rule of thumb your wife mentioned (1% of cash equity) is indeed usually for ROI of leveraged rental purchase. However, if rental prices in your area are rising, as it sounds like they are, you may end up there quite soon anyway. The downside is that the money is locked in. If you're confident in your ability to rent and are not loosing the tax benefit of selling since it sounds like you've not appreciated, you may take out some cash through a cash-out refi. To keep cash-flow near-0, you need to cash out so that the payments would be at or less than the $3200/year (i.e.: $266/month). That would make about $50K at 30/yr fixed 5% loan. What's best is up to you to decide, of course. Check whether \"\"you can always sell\"\" holds for you. I.e.: how stable is the market, what happens if one or two large employers disappear, etc.\"",
"What you propose is to convert unsecured debt into secured debt. Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt is not generally a good idea (several reasons). The debt you currently owe does not have assets securing the debt, so the creditor knows they are exposed to risk, and may be more willing to negotiate or relax terms on the debt, should you encounter problems. When you provide an asset to secure debt, you lose freedom to sell that asset. When you incur debt their is usually a spending problem that needs to be corrected, which is typically not fixed when a refinance solution is used. You do not mention interest rate, which would be one benefit to conversion of unsecured to secured debt, so you probably are not gaining adequate benefit from the conversion strategy. This strategy is often contemplated using 'cash-out' refinancing to borrow against a home you already own, and the (claimed) benefit is often to lower the interest rate on the debt. Your scenario is more complicated in that you have not purchased the home (yet). Though it may be a good idea to purchase a home, that choice depends on a different set of considerations (children, job stability, rental vs. buy costs, lifestyle, expected appreciation, etc) from how to best handle a large debt (income vs. expenses, how to increase income or reduce expenses, lifestyle, priorities, etc). Another consideration is that you already have a problem with the large debt owed to one (set of) creditor(s), and you have a plan which would shift the risk/exposure to another (set of) creditor(s) who may have been less complicit in accruing the original debt. Was the debt incurred jointly during the marriage, and something you accepted responsibility to repay? You mention that you make great income, and you specify one expense (rent), but you neither provided the amount of income, total of all your expenses, nor your free cash flow amount, nor any indication of percentages spent on rent, essential expenses, lifestyle, nor amount available to retire debt. Since you did not provide specifics, we can take a look at three scenarios, scenario #1, $4000/month income scenario #1, $6000/month income scenario #1, $8000/month income Depending upon your income and choices, you might have < $500/month to pay towards debt, or as much as $3000/month to pay towards debt, and depending upon interest rate (which OP did not provide), this debt could take < 2 years to pay or > 5 years to pay. Have you accepted the responsibility for the debt? It will be a tough task to repay the debt. And you will learn that debt comes with a cost as you repay it. One problem people often encounter when they refinance debt is they have not changed the habits which produced the debt. So they often continue their spending habits and incur new unsecured debt, landing them back in the same problem position, but with the increased secured debt combined with additional new unsecured debt. Challenge yourself to repay a specific portion of the debt in a specific time, and consider ways to reduce your expenses (and/or increase your income) to provide more money to repay the debt quicker. As you also did not disclose your assets, it is hard to know whether you could repay a portion of the debt from assets you already own. It makes sense to sell assets that have a low (or zero) return to repay debt that has a high interest rate. Perhaps you have substantial assets that you are reluctant to sell, but that you could sell to repay a large part of the debt?",
"\"Do you still enjoy living in your home? Can you afford the mortgage payments? Is there a reason for you to move, such as a relocation for work, or your third kid is on the way and your current house is already crowded with two? Those questions are more important than \"\"Is my home worth more than what I owe on it\"\". Ultimately, it's your home. You probably chose it for more than just its price, and those qualities should still make it valuable to you in some way beyond the monetary value which goes up and down with the market. You have a few options:\"",
"Your current loan is for a new car. Your refinanced loan would probably be for a used car. They have different underwriting standards and used car loan rates are usually higher because of the higher risks associated with the loans. (People with better credit will tend to buy new cars.) This doesn't mean that you can't come out ahead after refinancing but you'll probably have to do a bit of searching. I think you should take a step back though. 5% isn't that much money and five years is a long time. Nobody can predict the future but my experience tells me that the **** is going to hit the fan at least once over any five year period, and it's going to be a really big dump at least once over any ten year period. Do you have savings to cover it or would you have to take a credit card advance at a much higher interest rate? Are you even sure that's an option - a lot of people who planned to use their credit card advances as emergency savings found their credit limits slashed before they could act. I understand the desire to reduce what you pay in interest but BTDT and now I don't hesitate to give savings priority when I have some excess cash. There's no one size fits all answer but should have at least one or two months of income saved up before you start considering anything like loan prepayments.",
"I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:",
"You might try to refinance some of those loans. It sounds like you are serious about minimizing interest expense, if you think you will be able to pay those loans in full within five years you might also try a loan that is fixed for five years before becoming variable. If you do not think you can repay the loans in full before that time, you should probably stick with the fixed rates that you have. It may even be profitable to refinance those loans through another lender at the exact same fixed rate because it gets around their repayment tricks that effectively increase your interest on those two smaller loans.",
"Go for 15 years loan - Lower interest rate over 2-5 years period. If you can afford to pay 20% down then please do. Do not assume the average ROI will +(8-10%). It all depends on market and has variable factors like city, area and demand.",
"\"You seem to really have your financial act together. Your combination of assets, and ongoing savings makes you the ideal candidate for paying it off. One way to look at it is that your mortgage offers you a place to 'invest' at a fixed 2-7/8% rate. \"\"I'd really like to not have a house payment\"\" is all I need to hear. The flip side is the lecture that talks about long term market returns, the fact that the combination of your deductible mortgage, but 15% cap gain rate means you need 2.5% return to break even, and odds are pretty high that will occur over the next 15 years. \"\"pretty high\"\" does not equal \"\"guaranteed\"\". And I won't debate the value of sleeping soundly vs an excess 5-8% return on this money that you'd maybe achieve. You haven't missed anything. In fact, though I advocate saving first, you are already doing that. This is above and beyond. Good work.\"",
"Streamline refinance is the way to go. You don't have to stay with the same bank to do so either. The big advantage of the streamline is the original appraisal is used for the refinance, so as long as you didn't have negative amortization(impossible in FHA anyways), you're good to go. It will be much less paperwork and looser credit standards. The ONLY downside is that upfront and monthly FHA mortgage insurance ticked up from where it was 2 years ago. If you're under a 80% LTV however you won't have to worry about it.",
"The financially best choice depends on which has a lower interest rate and what your other debts are. If you have significant other debts with a higher interest rate, it may make good sense to sign up for the longer-term loan and use your extra money to pay those down first. Then pay down your mortgage with large payments. If you don't have significant other debts, then it is likely a good idea to take a shorter term loan because those tend to have lower interest rates. In either case, remember that the required loan payments are the minimum payments. You can always pay more, and in many cases you should. The objective here is to pay as little interest over the course of your life as is feasible. I don't think it makes too much sense to gamble on whether or not interest rates will rise in the future. They may or may not over the life of your loan and you are not in a position to know which. They are low now, so they can be compared to your existing loans usefully. That is enough information to make rational decisions today."
] |
[
"Think of your mortgage this way - you have a $130K 16 year mortgage, at 6.75%. At 4%, the same payment ($1109 or so) will pay off the loan in 12.4 years. So, I agree with littleadv, go for a 15yr fixed (but still make the higher payment) or 10 yr if you don't mind the required higher payment. Either way, a refinance is the way to go. Edit - My local bank is offering me a 3.5% 15 yr loan with fees totaling $2500. For the OP here, a savings of 3.25% or first year interest savings of $4225. 7 months to breakeven. It's important not to get caught up in trying to calculate savings 15-20 years out. What counts today is the rate difference and looking at it over the next 12 months is a start. If you break even to closing costs so soon, that's enough to make the decision.",
"Refinance, definitely. Go for Fixed 15 years, which will leave you with the same remaining time for the loan that you have now, but a much lower interest (you can find below 4%, if you look hard enough). You might end up with lower payments and higher portion of interest to deduct from your taxes. win-win. If you're confident you're able to pay it off within 7 years, you can get an even better rate with an ARM 10/1 or 7/1.",
"I would think it depends on when within the 7 years you're planning to move. If you want to move within a year or two, the closing costs for the new mortgage may postpone the break even until after your move date; that wouldn't be a financially smart decision. If your plans suggest you're going to move after the break even point I'd definitely refi sooner rather than later and would try to reduce the term, either by overpaying or by choosing a 15 year mortgage that should have an even lower interest rate anyway."
] |
5782
|
Pay off credit cards in one lump sum, or spread over a few months?
|
[
"172084",
"379891",
"319773",
"448614",
"595455"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"172084",
"487621",
"319773",
"448614",
"121233",
"352363",
"288268",
"59786",
"262026",
"188676",
"76248",
"467772",
"114592",
"508510",
"329249",
"552674",
"274108",
"325185",
"495595",
"459257",
"117007",
"54027",
"529229",
"261697",
"538014",
"450372",
"417785",
"440620",
"529418",
"361692",
"145220",
"439942",
"213159",
"190553",
"305862",
"320703",
"227132",
"81206",
"93271",
"244650",
"162631",
"11824",
"319915",
"379891",
"508453",
"156873",
"55084",
"321027",
"290069",
"576694",
"480586",
"498567",
"365851",
"433213",
"159762",
"167473",
"199248",
"343208",
"36826",
"110386",
"532414",
"286843",
"434082",
"414674",
"494306",
"54189",
"44895",
"595455",
"92157",
"442923",
"498728",
"551175",
"137414",
"379892",
"474573",
"124705",
"273631",
"504293",
"232811",
"565367",
"197494",
"364708",
"273095",
"502773",
"377659",
"206449",
"164729",
"159264",
"233544",
"330049",
"142653",
"275356",
"363691",
"463085",
"114303",
"486419",
"366477",
"16277",
"170481",
"343748"
] |
[
"\"Should I allow the credit cards to be paid out of escrow in one lump sum? Or should I take the cash and pay the cards down over a few months. I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? Will the money you save by increasing your credit score (assuming this statement is true) be larger than by eliminating the interest payments for the credit card payments over \"\"a few months\"\" (13% APR at $24,000 is $3120 a year in interest; $260 a month, so if \"\"a few months\"\" is three, that would cost over $700 - note that as you pay more principal the overall amount of interest decreases, so the \"\"a year\"\" in interest could go down depending on the principal payments). Also, on a related note regarding credit score, it doesn't look good to have more than a third of a credit line available balance exceeded (see number 2 here: http://credit.about.com/od/buildingcredit/tp/building-good-credit.htm).\"",
"So my advice for your financial situation depends on your aims. Are you aiming to: - Completely clear your debt - Clear one card to free up more monthly income. - Clear some debt to allow further controlled spending - Clear one card and focus on just using one, having 2nd as emergency. There are other things you may wish to do but you said to pay off some / all of 2 credit card bills. If you want to contact me I can plan this more precisely. Some seem the same but other factors can come into play as well. Differing rates of interest make the options clearer. My first advice would be to call the card companies and see if you can get better rates first. SCENARIO (some figures made up for visual) Credit Card Debts 8,000 8,000 Monthly payment 100 100 APR % 10 10 Ignoring APR this will be 80 months to repay (otherwise 140 months using my example amounts above) £28,000 repaid over 11 years 8 months. Your Suggestion As per your suggestion originally, paying off cards equally will allow smaller debt on both cards. Credit Card Debt 3,000 3,000 Monthly payment 100 100 APR % 10 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 2 years 6 months. Cards are available to get free balance transfers, need to look into this. With the 10% APR this would take 3 years 1 month. £10,000 lump and £7,400 repaid over 3 years 1 month (saving £10,600 and 8 years 7 months) AIM: To clear debt completely. My advice here is to use the £10,000 lump sum to pay off one credit card, the remaining £2,000 can then come off the other card. This will free up your outgoings (was 2 x £100) by £100. But then use this £100 to pay off the card, this will result in the following: Credit Card Debt 6,000 Monthly payment 200 APR % 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 2 years 6 months. Cards are available to get free balance transfers, need to look into this. With 10% APR this would take roughly 3 years 1 month. £10,000 lump and £7,400 repaid over 3 years 1 month (saving £10,600 and 8 years 7 months). This option is the same as above, but you have the options on the odd tight month to reduce payments to £100. This also will allow the 2nd card to be used interest free for an emergency purchase (to be paid off without any interest charge) If rates are different, pay of the one with the higher APR AIM: Clear one card to free up more monthly income. AIM: Clear one card and focus on just using one, having 2nd as emergency. Same as above, but don’t increase to £200, leave monthly payment at £100. Credit Card Debt 6,000 Monthly payment 100 APR % 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 5 years. With the 10% APR this would take 88 months (7 years 4 months) £10,000 lump and £8,800 repaid over 7 years and 4 months (saving £9,200 and 4 years 4 months). This also allows for some extra spending (even racking back up the debt – although not advised) AIM: Clear some debt to allow further controlled spending As above apart from this will allow you to spend to get back up to full £16,000 debt. NOTE My figures are theoretical, paying off £500 (£250x2) a month instead of the £100 (10%APR) would take: Lump sum 10,000, remaining 6,000 – 14 months (£17,000 paid) Lump sum 5,000, remaining 2 x 5,500 – 26 months (£18,000 paid) Lump Sum 0, remaining 2 x 8,000 – 40 months (£20,000 paid) Now I have finished waffling, I hope you have an idea on what you are aiming to achieve and a better idea of what to do when you receive the income Stephen.",
"I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? I have never heard that, however, the financial institutions (who are charging you an amount of interest which was at one time in the not so distant past classified and punishable in state criminal codes) really enjoy you thinking that way. You are clearly capable of doing the math yourself. While I don't know the exact numbers, I am totally confident that you will find in about 5 or 10 minutes (if that long) that eliminating debt of any kind in your life will pay an immediate return that beats the great majority of other investments in terms of risk/reward. After the immediate financial return, there is a quieter, subtler, and even greater long term benefit. Basic principle: Highest Rates First Perhaps this decision could be considered slightly less important than deciding not to smoke during your youth; but I would put it as a close second. You are already in a position where you can see the damage that your prior decisions (about financial debt) have produced. Run the clock back to the time in your life when you were debt free. Now, pay off that debt with the big check, and start from zero. Now, turn on your psychic powers and predict the same amount of time, in the future, with the same amount of money (don't even try to adjust for inflation; just use flat dollars) WITHOUT losing the money which you have given to the financial institutions during this previous part of your life. Do you now see why the financial institutions want you to think about slowly paying them off instead of waking up tomorrow without owing them anything ?",
"it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. This is a myth. Will it make much of a difference? You are paying additional interest even though you have the means to pay off the cards completely. Credit score is a dynamic number and it really only matters if you are looking to make a big purchase (vehicle, home), or perhaps auto insurance or employment. Pay off your credit cards, consolidate your debt, and buy yourself a beer with the money you will be saving. :)",
"A few things for you to consider: (1) Yes, if your average daily balance is lower [because you paid it off when you received your paycheck, then slowly used the card for the remainder of the month, until it's at the same balance next paycheck, vs just having the card at a flat $5k the whole month], you will accrue less interest, thereby allowing you to pay it off faster by reducing your interest payments. BUT: (2) Carrying a balance on your credit card is a big financial no-no, and eliminating it should be an immediate priority for you. If there is anything you can do (step 1: budget your expenses and then track actuals to see where you stand - step 2: see what expenses you can reduce - step 3: see if you can increase your income - step 4: rebudget with your new goals, determine how long it would take to pay off the card, possibly considering consolidating/refinancing your debt at a lower interest rate) to pay it off faster, then do it. However (3) If you have absolutely zero cash on hand, then taking your paycheck and immediately paying down your credit card, and then relying on that card to pay for things until the next paycheck, puts you at risk of your available credit changing. ie: if you have 5k on the card, and pay it down to 4.25k, then what happens to you if the credit card company [because they view you as a risk, or for whatever other reason - including a temporary hold because of fraudulent activity at no fault of your own] reduces your available credit to 4.5k? Suddenly, you will only have $250 in available spending power until your next paycheck. Therefore it may be wise for you to hold onto some amount of cash that you do not touch except for emergencies, even before you pay off your credit card. I really recommend you search this site for other questions related to budgeting and credit cards. There are many good answers, and some of what I've said above is just opinion, so you shouldn't just take my word for it, you should try to become familiar with these topics yourself. Good luck!",
"Paying $12,000 in lump sumps annually will mean a difference of about $250 in interest vs. paying $1,000 monthly. If front-load the big payment, that saves ~$250 over paying monthly over the year. If you planned to save that money each month and pay it at the end, then it would cost you ~$250 more in mortgage interest. So that's how much money you would have to make with that saved money to offset the cost. Over the life of the loan the choice between the two equates to less than $5,000. If you pay monthly it's easy to calculate that an extra $1,000/month would reduce the loan to 17 years, 3 months. That would give you a savings of ~$400,000 at the cost of paying $207,000 extra during those 17 years. Many people would suggest that you invest the money instead because the annual growth rates of the stock market are well in excess of your 4.375% mortgage. What you decide is up to you and how conservative your investing strategy is.",
"1. you want /r/personalfiance 2. 1 payment or 4-5 makes no difference 3. what makes the difference are a) interest rate b) pay as much as possible every month 4. pay as much as you can into the credit card with the highest interest rate, and the minimum payment on the rest; as you pay off a credit card, make as big of a payment to the one that has the highest interest rate 5. stop charging anything on any credit card and stop getting into any kind of debt 6. as you pay off a credit card, call the company and cancel it.",
"pay off one of the cards completely. there are several reasons why:",
"Should I pay off the credit cards now or do the monthly payments thing? It need not be a binary choice; you could take the middle ground. Assuming that an emergency fund of $10-15k is sufficient, you could pay off one credit card and do the monthly payment for the other cards. With one card cleared, you may feel better. I would choose to clear the card with the highest interest, followed by the smallest debt first as it's the mathematically optimum way. I should also let you know that there's this debt-snowball method which is not as optimum but has some valid reasons for existing. Choose the optimum way if you're financially disciplined. p.s. I'm not trained financially, nor am I in the industry. Just my two cents.",
"\"It is going to save you more money in the long run to pay at once with cash. If you take out a loan, you will pay interest on the balance, costing you money. If you pay off the balance immediately, there is no difference between the options and your question becomes irrelevant. There is no credit rating benefit to placing large purchases on your cards, especially since your credit is fine. My advice is to pay in cash in this case, mostly because it makes you 'feel' the purchase. This is what you are describing in your question. This instinct helps you recognize potential problems, instead of masking them with debt. Questions like: \"\"Do I need this?\"\" \"\"Am I overextending myself financially with this purchase?\"\" \"\"Am I holding enough cash-on-hand for emergencies?\"\" You may be fine in these areas, but I would still argue that cash makes you a better buyer because the expense feels much more significant, making you more cautious and discerning. You are right to feel these things before dropping a large sum of money. Let it inform you and help you make better decisions. Don't mask it or be paralyzed by it!\"",
"First, before we talk about anything having to do with the credit score, we need the disclaimer that the exact credit score formulas are proprietary secrets that have not been revealed. Therefore, all we have to go on are broad generalities that FICO has given us. That having been said, the credit card debt utilization portion of your score generally has at least two components: an overall utilization, and a per-card utilization. Your overall utilization is taken by adding up all your credit card debt and all your credit limits and dividing. Using your numbers above, you are sitting at about 95%. The per-card utilization is the individual utilization of each card. Your five cards range in utilization from 69% to 100%. Paying one card over another has no affect on your overall utilization, but obviously will change the per-card utilization of the one you pay first. So, to your question: Is it better on the credit score to have one low-util card and one high-util card, or to have two medium-util cards? I haven't read anything that definitively answers this question. Here is my advice to you: The big problem you have is the debt, not the credit score. Your credit card debt should be treated like an emergency that needs to be taken care of as quickly as you possibly can. Instead of trying to optimize your credit score, you should be trying to minimize the number of days until all of your credit cards are completely paid off. The credit score will take care of itself once you get your financial situation back on track. There is debate about the order in which one should pay off their debts, but the fact of the matter is that the order is not as significant as the intensity at which you pay them all off. Dedicate yourself to getting rid of the debts as fast as possible, and it won't matter much which order they get paid off in. Finally, to answer your question, I recommend that you attack the card debt one at a time instead of trying to pay them off evenly. Not because it will optimize your credit score, but because it will help you focus your debt-reduction energy as you work on resolving your debt emergency. Fortunately, the credit utilization portion of the credit score has no history, so once you pay all of these off, the utilization portion of your score will get better immediately, and the path you took to get there will be irrelevant. After the credit cards are completely paid off, and you have resolved never to spend money that you don't have again, it is time to work on the student loans....",
"If you have a credit card with no interest free period, there is no drawback as you will be saving interest the sooner you pay it off. However, if you have a credit card with an interest free period, the drawback on paying it earlier than the due date (such as when you first get the statement) is that you lose out on interest. For the period between when you first recieve the statement to when it is due, you could have your money earning you interest in a high interest paying savings account. Depending on how much you spend on your credit card each month and the interest rate you get, this may add up to quite a bit of additional cash each year.",
"The best approach depends on how much of an emergency fund you have. If you have no emergency fund Calculate how much you need in order to pay your expenses for 1 month and put at least that amount in a savings account. 3-6 months' worth of expenses is better. Put the remainder towards one credit card. If you have less than 3 months' worth of expenses in your emergency fund Deposit 1 additional month's worth of expenses into your savings account and apply the rest to one card. If you have an emergency fund that you're completely comfortable with Pay $8000 towards one card and $2000 towards the other one. Paying off one card fully gets rid of a bill that you have to think about each month, even if the two cards are otherwise identical.",
"If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments. The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards. Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk.",
"In your scenario, I would do the following: If, in the short term, something should happen, you can always tap into a line of credit or even a cash advance on the credit card. But, you should in no way be paying $70 a month in interest. Assume you want to pay off the Credit card over 12 payments, you would need to pay about 450 a month, which costs 400 in interest. At the end of the year, you have $5000 in savings, and $0 debt. The alternative, is to pay off the credit card right now, and put that $450 into savings, you would have $5400 in savings, and $0 debt. I'm usually the last to recommend a $0 safety net, but I make an exception in the case of retirable credit card debt. In the worst case, you are no worse off than you are now, in the best case, you're up about $400 at the end of the year.",
"Yes, this will reduce your total interest. But not by much. Scenario 1: You run up bills for the month totaling $750, and then at the end of the month you get paid and pay $750. Scenario 2: You pay $750 at the beginning of the month. Then over the course of the month you run up bills totaling $750. Assume you have carryover debt of over $750 so you don't have a credit balance at any point. Either way, the net change in your balance for the month is zero. Assuming you spent about the same amount of money each day, the difference in your average daily balance will be $750. If you're paying 18% -- I think that's a fairly typical credit card rate -- that's 1 1/2% per month, so the difference in interest will be about $10. Note this is the most extreme case, the difference between paying on the first day of the billing period and paying on the last day of the billing period, and assuming that you pay all your bills by credit card. So in real life the difference in the interest will probably be less. You're talking about a technique to save maybe five bucks a month. I suppose every dollar helps. But the real solution is to get your credit cards paid off so you're not paying ANY interest.",
"Can I pay $12,000 extra once a year or $1000 every month - which option is better? Depends when. If you mean 12K now vs 1K a month over the next 12 months, repeating this each year, now wins. If you mean saving 1K a month for 12 months then doing a lumpsum, the 1K a month wins. Basically, a sooner payment saves you more money than a later payment. The first option does sound better, but for a 30 year mortgage, is it that significant? Your number one issue is that you have a thirty year mortgage. The interest you pay on it is monstrous. For the 30 year term, you pay around 500K in interest. A 15-year mortgage is 300K cheaper (only 200K in interest will be paid). The monthly payment would be 1250 more. How much money and years on a mortgage can I save? When is the best time to pay? At the end of each year? You can knock off about a dozen years. Save I think ~250K. You can find mortgage calculators online or talk to your mortgage advisor to play around with the numbers.",
"We can't know the future, of course, but we know that on average it's better to invest a lump sum. We can look at some periods of recent history to get a sense of the difference between a lump sum 450k investment and maybe say 5 years of 90k. Using S&P 500 return rates, let's say you started investing on Jan 1, 2008: Here, spreading your investing over 5 years earns you an extra $163k. Starting a year later, the same strategy would earn you $327k less than a lump investment: I looked at some other periods, but the story doesn't change from what we already knew; you can reduce risk of losing a big chunk due to a bad year, but it comes at the cost of potential gains. Perhaps you could make a killing by waiting for the next down-turn and buying on the cheap, or maybe you'll just be wasting time and money as the market enjoys sustained growth. I'd go with a lump, trusting the averages; but you're right, another 2008 with no recovery would suck. As for holding $50k back it depends primarily on your monthly budget, many people suggest a 3-8 month liquid emergency fund, I like 6 months. Go with what you're comfortable with.",
"If your payment schedule would have you pay the car off after 11 months then you might be best served by leaving a small final payment for July. The loan will appear on your credit for 7 years but the bump to your score will be reduced more after 2 years if you pay it off in less than 12 months. If you would have several payment left after you have the ability to pay it off then just pay it off. The reduction is not severe or worth the price of interest unless you have <1%. Unused credit has an attrition factor. If you continue to use your credit in a healthy way (>0 <20% balance, no late payments, long term accounts) then you should not even realize much of a negative change.",
"I am going to break rank slightly with the consensus so far. Here's the deal, it probably DOES help your credit slightly to pay it multiple times per month if it isn't a hassle, but the bump is likely to be minimal and very temporary. Here's why: A key component of your score is your credit usage ratio. That is the ratio of how much of your credit limits you are using. You want to keep this number down as low as possible. Now here is where it gets tricky. Although you have a grace period to pay off your card with no interest, the credit card companies don't generally report the balance as of the due date. They either report the high balance or an average balance over the month. That is, it is based on how much you use, not how much balance you carry over each month. It isn't very intuitive, but that's just how it is. So technically, keeping that balance lower over the course of the month WILL probably help you, but the credit usage ratio is generally a rolling average over the last x months, so the effect will wear off quickly. So it is probably not worth doing unless you know you are going to apply for a loan in the next 6 months and need a temporary, small bump. Another consideration is that paying early provides no real financial benefit in terms of finance charges, but you are giving up liquidity which does have some value. 1) You probably could get at least a little interest for keeping the money in your account a few more weeks. 2) If you have a major financial emergency, e.g. broken down car, you might appreciate the fact that you kept your options open to carry that balance over a month.",
"I think is an excellent idea. Use free money or almost free to do a lump sump payment. My recommendation is to have a reminder to pay credit card before, almost finishing, the 0% APR period.",
"If you have a minimum monthly payment amount of $190, then you have to make a payment every month. If you pay only every 3 months (even if you pay 3 times the minimum amount, or much more), you would not be making the minimum monthly payment for each month: one month would get the minimum monthly payment, plus a lot more, then the following 2 months you would be in default because you didn't pay the minimum amount for that month! Interest is usually accrued daily, so you want to make the payments as early as possible. Pay back as much as you can afford each month, as soon as the money comes in. When computing how much you can afford, if you haven't already done so, it may be a good idea to keep a little bit aside (at least the first few months, to build up a little security pillow), just in case you need it (you won't be able to get money back from those overpayments if you need any money for an emergency).",
"\"Given the exact formula that goes into the 'Fair Issac\"\" calculation is a closely guarded trade secret, AND that each agency has their own formula, I'm not sure there's really any 100% for sure authoritative answer to the question in terms of which option would be best. There are a lot of balancing factors, like how long you've had accounts, payment history over time, etc. Stuff that is known to HURT a score can include things like closing a longstanding account. If you have a very low interest loan (like some car companies offer now and then) I'd just make the normal payments. If you have something at a higher interest rate, especially above 6-7%, then I'd worry less about credit score and more about how much I'm going to pay in interest and pay it off as rapidly as I could. The big key is 'never pay late' more than anything else, Followed by how much of your debt capacity is used (which paying down any account, loan or credit card, will help), and long standing relationships (length of history) See this (approximate) chart and notice that any early payoff is basically going lower your 'capacity used', possibly reduce the types of credit used (if it's the last loan of that type), all of which should help your score.\"",
"I would say it depends on what your long term plans and goals are. If you are trying to get rid of credit cards and never use them again, then I would say to keep $1000 as an emergency fund, pay the cards off and then save to build your emergency fund up to 3-6 months expenses. However, if you are just going to run the balances back up, I would save save 3-6 months expenses out of the money you just received and pay down the higher interest cards with what is left over.",
"Not that I doubted everyone's assumption but I wanted to see the math so I did some spreadsheet hacking. I assumed a monthly payments for 30 years which left us with total payments of 483.89. I then assumed we'd pay an extra $200/month in one of two scenarios. Scenario 1 we just paid that $200 directly to the lender. In scenario 2 we set the extra $200 aside every month until we were able to pay off the $10k at 7%. I assumed that the minimum payments were allocated proportionately and the overpayments were allocated evenly. That meant we paid off loan 5 at about month 77, loan 4 in month 88, loan 3 in month 120, loan 2 in month 165, and loan 1 in month 170. Getting over to scenario 2 where we pay $483.89 to lender and save $200 separately. In month 48 we've saved $9600 relative to the principle remaining in loan 3 of $9547. We pay that off and we're left with loan 1,2,4,5 with a combined principle of about $60930. At this point we are now going to make payments of 683.89 instead of saving towards principle. Now our weighted average interest rate is 6.800% instead of 6.824%. We can calculate the number of payments left given a principle of 60930, interest of 6.8%, and payment of 683.89 to be 124.4 months left for a total of 172.4 months Conclusion: Scenario 1 pays off the debt 3 months sooner with the same monthly expenditure as scenario 2.",
"Much money is made by creditors on the transaction value of a client in addition to interest value. Knowing that, I pay off all my cards every month, have never made a late payment, and get a number of offers every year for reward type cards. Don't ever be worried about paying off your card in full, just be sure you're using your card and that you pay on time, every time.",
"If the rate is the same, then clearing one card to zero does have one advantage: getting your grace period back. Generally when you owe money on your credit card, and you make a new purchase that new purchase get charged interest starting on day one. But if you are not carrying a balance, in other words you pay off the charges every month, then new purchases aren't charged until you fail to pay the balance by the due date. That grace period can be 25 to 55 days depending where you are in the billing cycle. Having one clean card will allow you to use that card when you have no other choice. Lets say you have an emergency car repair while away from home. You don't have $500 in cash so you put it on the clean card. When you get home you know that you can pay the bill and not have been charged interest.",
"If you have the money and the determination to pay off all the cards in six months, then the order will make little difference to your credit score, and to your finances. If you had less money available (say you could pay off $500 a month in total), then it would be good for financial reasons to pay off the credit card with the highest interest rate first, so you pay less interest. It would be good for psychological reasons to pay the card with the smallest amount first (so you feel successful quickly, and some people need that feeling of success to continue paying off, just psychological). And if these things contradict each other, figure out what is more important. And whatever you do, paying back your debt is better than not paying it back. So if you can't make up your mind, then you pay #1, then #2, then #3, then #4, then #5.",
"The typical case would be - as you expected - that the interest goes down equally dramatically, and you would pay much less interest. Note that that does not remove your obligation to pay the full 1000 every month - even though you could argue that you are 90 months ahead in paying, you still need to deliver 1000 a month, until it is fully paid. Some mortgages are made differently - they do not allow that. Basically, if you pay a large amount at once, it is considered a 'pre-payment' for the next x month. As a result, you are now x months ahead (and could stop paying for that much time), but your interest stays high. The latter type 'protects' the bank against 'losing' the interest income they already planned for. As a balance, those type of mortgages are typically slightly cheaper (because the bank is in a better position). You did not specify a country; in Germany, typically all mortgages are of the second type; but - you can get 1.35% mortgages... In the US, most are the first. You need to check which type you have, best before you pay a large amount. In the latter case, it is better to invest that money and use it to pay off as soon as you reach the threshold; in the first case, any extra payoff is to your advantage.",
"You're focusing on the wrong thing here. You should be paying off debt, not borrowing. Thus your credit score is of almost no relevance. There is no lasting effect from credit utilization, one cycle after you have everything paid off it's going to have the same credit score no matter what order you pay them off in. I would look at which of the first three has the highest interest rate and pay it off first. You can pay any of them off in one month so whichever you pick you get one card down to $0 and restore it's grace period. After that, sort them by interest rate.",
"If you've got the money to pay off your credit cards, do it. Today, if possible. There is no need to pay another penny of interest to them. They may or may not cancel your cards. That is up to them. We can't know what will trigger an individual bank to cancel your card. The answers you got on your other question offer some speculation on why some banks might cancel, but this is not something banks reveal. Anything you do on your own to try to keep the cards open is just a guess, and may or may not succeed. But ask yourself: why do you want to keep these cards? Is it for the convenience of the card? I agree that credit cards (paid in full monthly) are convenient, but when they start costing you money, they aren't worth it anymore, in my opinion. Debit cards have most of the same conveniences of credit cards, and are free. If it is for emergencies, I recommend instead building up an emergency cash fund. That way, if an emergency arises, you won't be forced to borrow money at high credit card interest rates. If the reason you want to hang on to the credit card is so you can spend more than you have, then you will find yourself in the same situation again. If I were you, I would pay off the cards ASAP. If the banks cancel your cards, just switch to a debit card and be thankful that you are no longer continuously leaking money to the banks.",
"Two cases: You take the credit and reinvest the cash equivalent (be it a savings account or otherwise), yielding you the x% at virtually zero risk. Unless of course you consider possibility of your own negligence a risk (in case of missed payments, etc.). You pay by cash and have the peace of mind at the cost of that x%. The ultimate decision depends on which you value more - the $ you get from x%, or the peace of mind.",
"I feel this is best. Credit card is an immediate debt and you has the finds to wipe it out. the Student loans are a longer term debt and you have the money to pay it all off. So yes, pay cc, and keep loan on scheduled payments. Plus it helps your credit",
"Typically the power of capitalized interest would work in your favor and you could carry the loan paying it down while investing the original sum which would earn interest. BUT you aren't going to get any sort of return to compare with 15% so pay off that loan immediately. Also contrary to popular belief (and reiterated here) paying off incurred balance on your credit card every month is responsible use of credit but it will not do much for your credit score. The score ultimately means your ability to pay your bills and most importantly your willingness to pay interest, i.e. revolving the borrowed money. At least in the consumer market where the product they want you to buy is paying monthly interest charges.",
"\"I'd recommend hitting the loan the hardest, but getting something invested as well. It's tempting to see these decisions as binary, so it's good to see you wondering if a \"\"mix\"\" is best. I admit to being a spreadsheet junky, but I think this is a good candidate for working up various scenarios to see where the pain/pleasure point is and once you've identified it, move forward with it (e.g., let's say it's a 10K lump sum you're dealing with, what does 5k on the loan and 5k invested look like over the next 6 months, 12 months, 24 months (requires assumptions on investment performance)? What about 6K loan, 4K invested? 7K loan, 3K invested? etc)\"",
"Keep in mind that by fully paying off one of your loans, you will reduce your minimum repayments. This will make you feel richer than you actually are. This will make you buy stuff that it seems like you can afford, probably putting some of it on credit. As you can't actually afford this, this will leave you, in a years time, with the same amount of debt you have now or more, but with a slightly bigger tv. Assuming your home loan has no penalties for paying off extra, then put all 11k into there to keep your monthly repayments as high as possible.",
"If the $300 due on a credit card is due at the end of the month and you make 2 payments of $150 during the month, the first half way through the month and the second at the end of the month, then yes you will save on interest. Note, if this is a Credit Card with an interest free period and you are paying the total amount due before the due date, then it will not save you anything by paying part of it earlier. Interest on Credit Card is calculated daily, so if you pay $150 half way through the month then you will pay 2.5% x $150 / 365 days x 15 days = $0.15 less in interest than if you paid the full $300 at the end of the month. The higher the interest rate and the more you pay early the higher the savings will be.",
"When paying off multiple debts there is a protocol that many support. Payoff your debts according to the snowball method. The snowball method proposes that you make minimum payments on all debts except the smallest one. Payoff the smallest debt as quickly as possible. As smaller debts are paid off, that makes one less minimum payment you need to make, leaving you with more money to put against the next smallest debt. So in your case, pay off the smaller debt completely, then follow up on the larger one by making regular payments at least equal to the sum of your two current minimum payments. You'll see immediate progress in tackling your debt and have one less minimum to worry about, which can serve as a little safety of it's own if you have a bad month. As to saving the thousand dollars, that is pragmatic and prudent. It's not financially useful (you won't make any money in a savings account), but having cash on hand for emergencies and various other reasons is an important security for modern living. As suggested in another answer, you can forgo saving this thousand and put it against debt now, because you will have a freed up credit card. Credit can certainly give you that same security. This is an alternative option, but not all emergencies will take a credit card. You typically can't make rent with your credit card, for example. Good luck paying your debts and I hope you can soon enjoy the freedom of a debt free life.",
"If we're including psychological considerations, then the question becomes much more complicated: will having a higher available credit increase the temptation to spend? Will eliminating 100% of a small debt provide more positive reinforcement than paying off 15% of a larger debt? Etc. If we're looking at the pure financial impact, the question is simpler. The only advantage I see to prioritizing the lower interest card is the float: when you buy something on a credit card, interest is often calculated for that purchase starting at the beginning of the next billing cycle, rather than immediately from the purchase date. I'm not clear on what policies credit card companies have on giving float for credit cards with a carried balance, so you should look into what your card's policy is. Other than than, paying off the higher interest rate card is better than paying off the lower interest rate. On top of that, you should look into whether you qualify for any of the following options (presented from best to worst):",
"Some credit card rewards programs will not give you rewards for balances paid off early. I have a Capitol One Platinum card, and once paid off the full balance; both the full amount due for the recently ended billing period, and the amount that had accrued for the current billing period. I never received any reward points for the additional amount. Though this sounds like it's paying even earlier than you're talking about.",
"Mostly to play devil's advocate, I will recommend something different than everybody else. If you can pay off the entire $3,000 balance and are torn between saving that money somewhere that will earn a return and paying it off now to be debt-free, why not a little of both? What if you pay half now and then save the other half and make a big payment at the end. Essentially that becomes two $1,500 payments: one now, one right before the 0% due date. To me, the half up-front significantly reduces the risk, but leaves some cash available to grow.",
"It depends, generally for consumer goods it is advisable to pay money in one go and avoid paying installments as there are charges for it.",
"\"There's a cliche, \"\"out of the frying pan and into the fire\"\". I've never had the occasion to use it till now. I understand some people find they have a dozen cards and struggle to keep organized. An extra percent or two seems worth the feeling of just one payment to make. In your case, 3 checks (or online payments) per month shouldn't push you to a bad decision. Twice the interest? No thanks. Just make the minimum payments on the two lower rate cards, and pay all you can to the highest rate. Do all you can to cut expenses. The only way out of this is to change your habits avoiding what got you here in the first place.\"",
"Pay them off immediately. But, as I note in my article Too Little Debt?, a zero utilization is actually a negative hit. So you want to just use the cards to get over 1%. i.e. if the lines add to $38K, just charge say, gas and some groceries, $100/wk. Pay in full every month. It's the amount on the statement that counts, not the amount carried month to month accruing interest, which, I hope is zero for you from now on.",
"I know your question is about your credit score, but practically speaking, you should pay of the debt with the highest interest rate first. Doing do will save you money, which is the same net effect as making more money. Your time frame to pay it all off is short (you said 6 month), but just in case it takes longer, take care of the expensive debt first.",
"\"With the scenario that you laid out (ie. 5% and 10% loans), it makes no sense at all. The problem is, when you're in trouble the rates are never 5% or 10%. Getting behind on credit cards sucks and is really hard to recover from. The problem with multiple accounts is that as the banks tack on fees and raise your interest rate to the default rate (usually 30%) when you give them any excuse (late payment, over the limit, etc). The banks will also cut your credit lines as you make payments, making it more likely that you will bump over the limit and be back in \"\"default\"\" status. One payment, even at a slightly higher rate is preferable when you're deep in the hole because you can actually pay enough to hit principal. If you have assets like a house, you'll get a much better rate as well. In a scenario where you're paying 22-25% interest, your minimum payment will be $150-200 a month, and that is mostly interest and penalty. \"\"One big loan\"\" will usually result in a smaller payment, and you don't end up in a situation where the banks are jockeying for position so they get paid first. The danger of consolidation is that you'll stop triggering defaults and keep making your payments, so your credit score will improve. Then the vultures will start circling and offering you more credit cards. EDIT: Mea Culpa. I wrote this based on experiences of close friends whom I've helped out over the years, not realizing how the law changed in 2009. Back around 2004, a single late payment would trigger universal default on most cards, jacking all rates up to 30% and slashing credit lines, resulting in over the limit and other fees. Credit card banks generally apply payments (in order, to interest on penalties, penalties, interest on principal, principal) in a way that makes it very difficult to pay down principal for people deep in debt. They would also offer \"\"payment plans\"\" to entice you to pay Bank B vs. Bank A, which would trigger overlimit fees from Bank A. Another change is that minimum payments were generally 2% of statement balance, which often didn't cover the monthly finance charge. The new law changed that, resulting in a payment of 1% of balance + accrued interest. Under the old regime, consolidation made it less likely that various circumstances would trigger default, and gave the struggling debtor one throat to choke. With the new rules, there are definitely a smaller number of scenarios where consolidation actually makes sense.\"",
"I wouldn't advocate it, but one reason to pay a lower interest rate is if you have $990 on a $1000 limit credit card with 6% interest and $5000 on a $15k limit card at 10% interest. Having $500 to pay in a month and putting it on the lower interest would free up a greater percentage of credit on that card and could potentially help your credit rating I believe. I think having $1000 on 10 different credit cards w/ $15k limit reflects better than $10k on one $15k card, regardless of interest rates. Personally I think that's dumb b/c having the extra credit available is an opportunity to get into trouble a lot easier.",
"The difference in interest is not a huge factor in your decision. It's about $2 per month. Personally I would go ahead and knock one out since it's one less to worry about. Then I would cancel the account and cut that card up so you are not tempted to use it again. To address the comments... Cutting up the card is NOT the ultimate solution. The solution is to stop borrowing money... Get on a strict budget, live on less than what you bring home, and throw everything you can at this high-interest debt. The destroying of the card is partly symbolic - it's a gesture to indicate that you're not going to use credit cards at all, or at least until they can be used responsibly, not paying a DIME of interest. It's analogous to a recovering alcoholic pouring out bottles of booze. Sure you can easily get more, but it's a commitment to changing your attitude and behavior. Yes leaving the card open will reduce utilization and improve (or not hurt) credit score - but if the goal is to stop borrowing money and pay off the other card, then once that is achieved, your credit score will be significantly improved, and the cancelling of the first card will not matter. The card (really both cards) should never, ever be used again.",
"If both cards have the same interest rate, there's likely no practical difference here. Very likely, the required minimum payment is calculated the same on both cards. Pay off one card and put the rest on the other, or split the payment across both cards. My personal preference would be to entirely pay off one card and put the rest on the other. It feels like a bigger accomplishment. If one card has a significantly different interest rate, obviously you'd try to pay that one down first. Alternatively, if you owe less on one card, you may choose to pay that off and then cut up the card, if you are trying to recover from a poor financial situation. This way, you have achieved a specific goal. But again, in your case, it sounds like your two cards are entirely interchangeable. Either way you do it, well done on putting your money where it'll make the most difference right now.",
"Remember, carrying debt on a credit card and waiting to pay it is increased risk in the event something happens and you can't pay it off. I have 1 CC and I have it set to auto-pay on the day it's due (paid in full each month as I don't carry debt anymore - learned that lesson a hard way :) ). So the day it's due it auto-drafts out of my checking. No worries of late payments, missed payments, etc. If you feel that having any balance is bad then by all means pay it off the minute you get your statement. It should come at the same time each month (or close to the same time) and you should be able to setup an auto-payment to pay it off in full as soon as the new statement goes live. To be honest, those extra few days of supposed interest saved by keeping the money in your checking account is so minimal that's it's probably not worth it. Most checking is horrible in interest (all my 'high interest' checking accounts are now less than 1% APR. boo.) and if you're late 1 day then bam! All that earned interest is gone in 1 late fee...",
"Rule of thumb, the earlier you pay down your balance, the less interest you will accrue and the faster you will pay off the debt as a whole. But lets play with some real numbers here. You cited $5000 balance and a $750 payment, but with various bills and things adding onto the balance over the course of a month. Now if your purchases and payments add up to the same number, you are in a losing game, so for the sake of argument I am going to say you are putting $500 + interest on the card each month and making a $750 payment. We also need an interest rate to work with, I am going to use 1%/month and 30 day months to keep the math a bit easier to follow. You basically have two choices in this scenario, you can pay 750 a month on the card, then use it to make your $500 in purchases/other payments over time as you suggest in your question. Or you can pay $250, and hold back $500 to make those other payments directly without running them through the card, as has been suggested in some other answers. So let us compare the two... If I start the cycle at $5000, make a $250 payment on the first day of the cycle, then have no other activity, I will have a balance of $4750 for the month and accrue $47.50 in interest at the close of the cycle. Balance going into the next period is now $4797.50. Carry this out for a year, and your balance at the close of the 12th cycle is $2431.79, and $431.79 of your payments went to interest. By contrast, if you pay $750 at the start of the month, then add $100 back every 6 days so that you spend $500 over the course of the cycle. You will have an average daily balance of $4466.67, which results in $44.67 in interest charges being accrued at the end of the month. This gives you a balance of $4794.67 going into the next cycle, putting you about $3 ahead of the previous method. Push this pattern out for a year and your ending balance is 2395.86, with 395.86 going to interest. Resulting in a savings of ~$36 over making the smaller payment and paying cash for your other expenses. If this happens to be a rewards card, you also have gained whatever rewards benefit it gives you. This demonstrates that by the strict numbers game, the scenario you propose should come out a small but measurable distance ahead of making a smaller payment in order to avoid putting things back on the card. So why do so many people adamantly advise you to not do this? Most of it has to do with psychology and risk. The cash method does not leave any room for you to over spend. You have shredded or locked up the credit card so it can’t be used casually, and when you run out of cash, you can’t spend any more. Which forces you to pay much closer attention to where your money is going. When you are running things through the credit card, you generally don’t have that hard stop unless you are up against your credit limit, and even then most issuers are quite happy to let you go over and charge you extra fees for doing so. So if you have this plan where you are intending to put $500 on the card in a month, then lose track of something you did early in the month, and inadvertently spend $800, you are digging yourself deeper into the hole instead of climbing your way out. There is also a risk in terms of income loss. In the cash method, you no longer have the money to spend, and you are forced to make the hard decisions about where to allocate what you do have, making you much more likely to cut back on luxury items to preserve the necessities. In the card method, it is easy to say “eh, the card has room, I can catch up again later” and not realize the mess you are causing yourself until you are in way over your head. I personally have run all my bills through a credit card in the past so that I could have one single payment to make. Then I was unemployed for six months, and ended up moving before I found a new job. Everything in between, including the move, went on the card. Next thing I know I am carrying a balance of $15k where I used to always have it paid in full. It took roughly 10 years, including several years of working strictly in cash, to get that back under control. I currently have a card that is carrying a balance, and I am running select expenses (such as fuel and food) through it while I whittle the balance back down. Most of my main bills are still paid directly from cash, specifically so that I don’t fall back into the same trap I did before. Even so, there were several months in the past year where the balance was creeping up instead of down, because we were not paying that close of attention to our spending. Then my wife lost her job, and it forced us to closely evaluate where our money was going. We still run certain things through said card, but we are much stricter about it being only those select things, and the balance is trending down again. The main reason we are still channeling those expenses that way is because this is a cash back reward card, and we will be getting roughly $1000 back here in a couple more months.",
"There are been many tests about invest all the money immediately and average it out during a period of time. The results favor to invest the lump sum immediately, so your money starts to work and produce income with dividends. Cash don't produce any income.",
"I have money withdrawn near when the bill is due (not early at all) and my credit score is top-notch. It's far, far more important that you don't pay late. I don't think paying early earns you brownie points with FICO. Now, if you have an interest-bearing checking account, and if you pay your balance in full each month, and are very, very organized, then paying at the last minute, but on time, lets you take full advantage of the free float that the credit card issuer gives you. If you have trouble rubbing two brain cells together when it comes to bills (like I do sometimes) then either set up auto-deduct from your checking account or pay the bill as soon as it comes in.",
"Carrying a small balance is generally better for your credit score that paying off in full every month by virtue of the statistics and models that give you a credit score for a certain product. Banks don't want to lend to customers that aren't going to be profitable, in my experience customers who can show that they have credit over time are generally awarded a higher score. So my advice would be to keep a small, manageable balance on the credit card, paying off the balance and then spending a little again on the card to keep at roughly constant balance. This revolving credit is the purpose of the product, and by showing you can use it sensibly, you will be rewarded over time. Source: I build credit scoring models for a big UK lender, specialising in credit cards and personal loan modelling.",
"\"When is the best time to pay? At the end of each year? If you save $1,000 each month at 1% so as to pay $12,000 at EOY on a 4.75% loan, you've lost \"\"4.75% - 1% = 3.75%\"\" over that year. (And that's presuming you put the money in a \"\"high yield\"\" online savings account.) Thus, the best time to pay is as soon as you have the money. EDIT: This all assumes that you have an emergency fund (more than the bare minimum $1K), zero other debt with a higher rate than 4.75% and that you are getting the full company match from 401(k).\"",
"It's very simple: The whole purpose of a credit card for the credit card company is that you borrow money and then pay them extortionate interest for the rest of your life. The way you describe yourself, you are the perfect victim. So the obvious thing for you to do is to not touch credit cards with a barge pole. IF you decide to use a credit card, then what you should really, really do is to pay back the maximum amount possible all the time. Best is to pay off the credit card in full if at all possible. Consider this: If you owe them money, the interest rate is so high that with the minimum payment, your debt will be growing all the time. Spend $1,000, pay $10 a month, and next year you owe $1,100 without having used the credit card at all. If you pay $32 a month as you mentioned, your $1,000 purchase is actually a multi-year loan. If you need a multi-year loan for a $1,000 purchase, an ordinary loan from your bank will be much, much cheaper.",
"\"My advice: IMO, all things being somewhat equal, you should always try to retire debts as quickly as possible in most cases, so start with the small cases. The method of calculating credit card interest is written on the statement. Usually it is \"\"average daily balance method\"\". Don't sweat the details. Just pay the things off.\"",
"\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\"",
"\"Your companies are declining to lower your rates because you are describing it as being kind. When I was in a similar situation, I called each one, starting with the highest rate, and said this: For the last little while things have been tight and my balances have crept up on all my cards. Now I'm about to start a fairly dramatic paydown. I'm going to be doing highest-rate fastest, which is you. Are you able to lower my rate so that you can continue to collect it? Some said no. Some said \"\"ask again when you've paid more than the minimum three months in a row.\"\" Most said yes, and sometimes by a dramatic amount. It made a real difference to getting things under control. I agree with the other answers that $50 extra on each card is just not as fulfilling as putting all the extra to a single card. If you must still use a card (to put gas in your car, buy groceries etc) getting one card to zero will return you to not paying interest even when you use it, so you might want to start with your lowest balance and then go to highest-rate once you have one clear one you can use. (If your balances are all so high that it will take a year or more to get one to zero, then maybe not. But if one is low drive it down first.) As for the consolidation loan, for some people it's the key to saving interest and getting the debt behind them. For others it's a chance to catch their breath and run up even more debt. Most people cannot predict in advance which they will be or which others will be. Be aware that it is a risk. You can vow that you will never again cover payroll with a cash advance from the company credit card (or your personal one) but when push comes to shove, you just might anyway.\"",
"\"Stop spending on the CC with the revolving balance. After the discussion below I feel I should clarify that what I am advocating is that you make your \"\"prepayment\"\" (though I disagree with calling it that) to the existing CC. Then, rather than spending on that card, spend somewhere else so you won't accrue any interest related to your spending. At the end of the month, send any excess to the account that has a balance. This question is no different than I have $X of cash, should I let it sit in a savings account or should I send it to my CC balance? Yes, 100%, you should send this $750 to your CC balance. Then, stop spending on that CC and move your daily spending to cash or some other place that won't accrue interest at all. The first step to paying off debt is to stop adding to the balance that accrues interest. It's not worth the energy to determine the change in the velocity of paydown by paying more frequently when you could simply spend on a separate card that doesn't accrue any interest because you pay the entire balance every month. The reason something like this may be advisable on a HELOC but not a CC is the interest rate. A HELOC might run you 4% or 5% while your CC is probably closer to 17%. In one situation your monthly interest is 0.4% and in the other your monthly interest is 1.4%. The velocity of interest accrual at CC rates is just too high to justify ever putting regular spending on top of an existing revolving balance. Additionally, I doubt there is anyone who is advocating for anyone to charge their HELOC for daily spending. You would move daily spending to somewhere that isn't accruing interest no matter what. You would use a HELOC to pay down your CC debt in a lump or make a large purchase in a lump. Your morning coffee should never be spent in a way that will accrue interest immediately, ever. Stop spending on the CC(s) that are carrying a balance. (period) Generally credit cards have a grace period before interest is charged. As long as a balance isn't carried from one statement period to the next you maintain your grace period. If you spend $100 in the first month you have your card, say the period is January 1 to January 31, you'll get a statement saying you owe $100 for January and payment is due by Feb 28. If you pay your $100 statement balance before February 28 you won't pay any interest, even if you charged an additional $500 on February 15; you'll simply get your February statement indicating your statement balance is $500 and payment is due by March 31, still no interest. BUT. If you pay $99 for January, leaving just a single dollar to roll over, you now owe interest on your entire average daily balance. So now you'll receive your February statement indicating $501 + interest on approximately $233.14 of average daily balance ($1 carried + $500 charged on Feb 15) due by March 31. That $1 you let roll over just cost you $3.26 in interest ($233.14 * 0.014). AND. Now that balance is continuing to accrue interest in the month of March until the day you make a payment. It typically takes two consecutive months of payment-in-full before the grace period is restored. There is no sense in continuing to spend on a CC that is carrying a balance and accruing interest even if you intend to pay all of your current month spending entirely. You can avoid 100% of the interest related to your regular spending by simply using a different card, and no rewards will beat the interest you're charged.\"",
"Scenario A: get a $60 tank of gas once a month, immediately pay it off when I get home Scenario B: Spend about $300 in $25-$50 increments throughout the month on things like groceries, food, gas, etc, but immediately pay it off every time Would my credit get better and/or faster in Scenario B due to the more use?",
"There are a few potential downsides but they are minor: If you forget to make the payment the interest hit the following month could be significant. With many cards the new charges will be charged interest from the start if the previous payment was late/missed. Just make sure you don't forget to pay the entire bill. If the $5K in monthly bills is a large portion of the credit limit for that credit card you could run into a problem with the grace period. During the three weeks between when the monthly bill closes and the payment is due, new charges will keep rolling in. Plan on needing a credit limit for the card of 2x the monthly bills. Of course you don't have to wait for the due date. Just go online and pay the bill early. If the monthly bills are a significant portion of the total credit limit for all credit cards, it can decrease your credit score because of the high utilization rate. The good news is that over time the credit card company will increase your credit limit thus reducing the downsides of the last two items. Also keep in mind you generally can't pay a credit card bill or loan with a credit card, but many of the other bills each month can be handled this way.",
"Banks only send your balance to credit bureaus once a month; usually a few days after your statement date. Thus, as long as your usage is below 10% in that date range, you're ok. Regarding paying it off early: sure. Every Sunday night, I pay our cards' charges from the previous week. (The internet makes this too easy.)",
"Pay it all off now before you change your mind. Having an emergency fund is important but that assumes you'll have the discipline to leave it alone. Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't have amassed $36k in cc debt. Regardless of the rates, your icome or any other factor, that's just way too much and a pretty good indication that you've got problems managing money. Pay them off now while you still can!",
"No. It means each month the total amount you owe goes up by a factor of (1+0.298/12). So if you owed $23K at the beginning of the month, at the end you owe a total of 23K*1.0248=$23,571. Then subtract the $804 you are paying. If you want to think of it in terms of interest and principal, you are paying $571 a month in interest and 233 toward principle, I guess. Paying off debt with a lower interest rate using debt with a higher interest rate is throwing a lot of money away and impoverishing yourself needlessly. Psychology can't get around that. If you want a psychological aid, decide how much you are going to pay toward these debts and have it automatically deducted from your paycheck so you never see it. Make the minimum payment on every debt you have except the one with the highest interest rate. Pay the very most you can toward that. Then when it is paid off, move to the next highest. Do all your spending out of the lowest rate card, or avoid using these credit cards until your financial discipline and resources allow you to pay all credit cards off completely at the end of each month.",
"\"In the U.S., when you receive your credit card bill each month there's a \"\"minimum payment amount.\"\" That minimum payment is usually the greater of $25 or 1% of the new balance on the card plus new interest and fees. As long as you pay the minimum payment amount, you can pay as much as you want each month. Note, in your example, you would be required to pay more than $1000 to pay off the balance, as interest would accrue each month on the unpaid principal. How much more is dependent on the interest rate of the card.\"",
"How much can I save? Depends on inflation and what other investment opportunities you have. It could end up costing you millions. Can I pay $12,000 extra once a year or $1000 every month - which option is better? It depends on how risk adverse you are. The first option does sound better, but for a 30 year mortgage, is it that significant? How much of your time is it going to cost you to do it every month? What is keeping you from doing it every day? How much is your time worth to you. Giving the bank its money sooner is always better than giving it it's money from a saving interest perspective. When is the best time to pay? See above.",
"I know you say you are aware of secured and unsecured debt and you've made your decision. Did you do the numbers? You will pay 44k over the life of the mortgage for that 24k (Based on 4.5% APR mortgage). Once you refinance your mortgage, do you plan on using credit for a while? Lots of Americans are hyperfocused on credit scores. The only times it affects your life are when you finance something, when you apply to rent a house or apartment, and sometimes when you apply for a job. Credit score should not be a factor in this decision. You're borrowing the money at a lower rate to pay off the high rate cards because you want to pay less in interest. Considering #1 is there any reason NOT to pay off the cards immediately, if not sooner?",
"Unless you can have your savings earning more than the transfer fees, you should just pay the credit cards off before the interest free period ends. Also, there is the difficulty in finding new cards offering 0% interest continuously. You are better off paying off all your bad debt as soon as possible, start saving and investing, instead of wasting your time and energy trying to find new offers of 0% for your transfers before it expires. Rule of Thumb: Get rid of your Bad Debts as soon as possible; Keep your Good Debts as long as possible (as long as you can afford them).",
"\"I did a rough model and in terms of total $$ paid (interest + penalty - alternative investment income) both options are almost the same with the \"\"paying it all upfront\"\" being perhaps a $300 or so better ($9200 vs $8900) However, that doesn't factor in inflation or tax considerations. Personally I'd go with the \"\"no-penalty\"\" scenario since you have more flexibility and can adjust along the way if anything else comes up in the meantime.\"",
"Assuming you would still have a line of credit, it makes plenty of sense to pay off the loan. You're paying 16 percent for money you don't need right now. Pay it all off and you can start rebuilding your savings account. So what do you do in a future emergency? Well first off, you can use the savings you have rebuilt up to that point to fund some portion of it. The rest you can borrow again, as long as you have a line of credit somewhere. The icing on the cake though, is that once you stop carrying a balance, your credit card purchases will have grace periods again. Once that grace period kicks in, it's an effective short term free loan, and if you really wanted to, you could move money that would otherwise immediately go to purchases into savings. The difference is that you're paying in full again, and aren't charged any interest on the float. Just remember, that if you fail to pay in full by the due date, they charge retroactive interest and fees. An alternative is to find a way to consolidate your credit card bill into a collateralized loan. HELOCs for example. The rates are much cheaper than your CC bill, but require you to have some equity in the home. One thing to consider is that HELOCs are an open line of credit that can't be easily taken away. The interest is also tax deductible, unlike your credit card interest. There's also unsecured lines of credit from banks and credit unions, and if you have the credit score the can be cheaper than credit cards. I think I've shown here that there's plenty of alternatives to carrying credit card debt for the unexpected in life. Pay it off!",
"Is it possible to pay off my balance more than once in a payment period in order to increase the amount I can spend in a payment period? Yes you can pay off the balance more than once even if its not due. This will get applied to outstanding and you will be able to spend again. If so, is there a reason not to do this? There is no harm. However note that it generally takes 2-3 days for the credit to be applied to the card. Hence factor this in before you make new purchases. I just got a credit card to start rebuilding my credit. Spending close to you credit limit does not help much; compared to spending less than 10% of your credit limit. So the sooner you get your limit on card increased the better.",
"\"The weird thing is that if you use the credit impact simulators with the credit monitoring services, they show that the impact of paying your credit cards off completely is more negative than carrying a small balance, which doesn't make a great deal of sense, one would think. From what I can gather, the rationale is that carrying a small balance shows you making payments over time, as opposed to having a zero balance. This doesn't quite compute with me, but I don't truly understand the inner workings of the scoring models. To confirm this, I used simulators with both TransUnion and Experian, and both showed this. I know that it's easy to find people on both sides of this argument, so I can't say which is the best option (certainly whichever side someone falls on is the one they'll argue is the right one! chuckle). In all fairness, your best tool is time. The effects of your prior bad decisions will lessen over time as they move further away in your history and then disappear altogether. Obtaining a credit card just because you think you need one is not a compelling argument, by any means. If you can't rationalize reasons why you need it then maybe you should question the wisdom of such a decision. If you don't have a particular need for better credit right now, why be in a hurry to take on debt? Whatever the formulas are for calculating credit scores, the specific details are a pretty closely-guarded secret (they're proprietary for starters, plus it theoretically prevents people from \"\"gaming the system\"\" for a better score), but if you do enough research online, you can get a pretty good sense of how they work in general. Whatever you do with your credit should be in line with your overall financial goals. If you want to remain debt-free (at least for now) then having a credit card you can't otherwise justify a need for just introduces temptations which could prove tough to resist (\"\"wants\"\" quickly turn into \"\"needs\"\" when you can put it on a card you pay later), then you're right back in the same place you were earlier in your life. Instead of trying to figure out the \"\"best strategy\"\" for a credit card, first ask yourself how necessary it is to you right now in light of your financial objectives, then go from there. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"From what I have heard on Clark Howard if you pay your balance off before the statement's closing date it will help your utilization score. He has had callers confirm this but I don't have first hand knowledge for this to be true. Also this will take two months to make the difference. So it will be boarder line if you will get the benefit in time. Sign up for credit karma if you like. You can get suggestions on how to help your score.",
"\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\"",
"You'd only be left with €2,000 in the bank, so paying it off completely in a lump sum now would be unwise. However, dropping, for example, €35,000 onto it is a reasonable option. That would give you still €42,000 is the bank (an excellent emergency fund), save you a lot of interest, and greatly speed up the repayment schedule. (Changing subjects: how much interest is it earning in the bank.)",
"The optimal way to pay off all cards in the least amount of time is a waterfall approach, with the most money going to the account with the highest interest rate, or in the event of a tie, the lowest balance. Then when that account is paid off, go to the next one. There's a bit of wiggle room if one is tax deductible, but in this case, there shouldn't be. So, what you should do is pay off card 2, then 1, then 3, using the waterfall scheme. You have correctly identified that card 2 will be paid off in 18 months. Figure out what the balance will be on Card 1 at that time, and how long the new payment of $1105 will take to get it paid off. Then figure out how long it'll take to pay off card 3 with $1365. Without crunching the numbers myself, I'm guessing you'll be debt free in about 26 months or so, that card 3 will be paid off before you are done with Card 1. So what you'd do in that case is pay off card 1 using the combined total payment.",
"This is a good idea, but it will barely affect your credit score at all. Credit cards, while a good tool to use for giving a minor boost to your credit score and for purchasing things while also building up rewards with those purchases, aren't very good for building credit. This is because when banks calculate your credit report, they look at your long-term credit history, and weigh larger, longer-term debt much higher than short-term debt that you pay off right away. While having your credit card is better than nothing, it's a relatively small drop in the pond when it comes to credit. I would still recommend getting a credit card though - it will, if you haven't already started paying off a debt like a student or car loan, give you a credit identity and rewards depending on the credit card you choose. But if you do, do not ever let yourself fall into delinquency. Failing to pay off loans will damage your credit score. So if you do plan to get a credit card, it is much better to do as you've said and pay it all off as soon as possible. Edit: In addition to the above, using a credit card has the added benefit of having greater security over Debit cards, and ensures that your own money won't be stolen (though you will still have to report a fraudulent charge).",
"\"One key point that other answers haven't covered is that many credit cards have a provision where if you pay it off every month, you get a grace period on the interest. Interest doesn't accrue at all unless you rollover a non-zero balance. But if you do, you pay interest on the average balance, not the rolled-over balance, for the entire month. You have to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with your credit history? Are you trying to maximize your \"\"buying power\"\" (really, leverage)? Or are you trying to make sure that you get the best terms on a moderately sized loan (house mortgage, car note)? As JohnFx and losthorse already noted, it's in the banker's best interest to maximize the profit they make off of you. Of course, that is not in your best interest. Keeping a credit card balance from month to month definitely feeds the greedy nature of the financing beast. And makes them willing to take more risks, because the returns are also higher. But those returns cost you. If you are planning to get sensible loans in the future, that you can comfortably afford, you won't need a maxed credit score. You won't get the largest loan amounts, but because you are doing the sensible thing and making a large down payment, the risk is also very low and you'll find lenders willing to give you a low interest rate. Because even though the reward is lower than the compulsive purchaser who pays an order of magnitude more in financing fees, the return/risk ratio is still very favorable to the bank. Don't play the game that maximizes their return. That happens when you have a loan of maximum size, high interest rate, and struggle to make payments, end up missing a couple and paying late fees, or request forbearance which compounds the interest. Play to minimize risk.\"",
"\"Is there any practical reason... to hold off on making payments until I receive a billing statement? Yes, a few: As for a zero balance, FICO consumer affairs manager Barry Paperno says, \"\"The idea here is the lower, the better, in terms of the utilization percentage, but something is better than nothing....The score wants to see some kind of activity.\"\" How low should you go? In a recent interview, FICO spokesman Craig Watts said, \"\"If your utilization is 10 percent or lower, you're in great shape as far as utilization goes.\"\" That being said, there are downsides especially if you wind up forgetting to make a payment. The easiest thing to do (also from a time management perspective) is to get your billing statement once a month, verify the purchases on it, and at that time you receive the statement schedule an online bill payment so that it will be paid in full before the due date. As Aganju points out, you don't have to wait for a paper bill in hand or even an e-mail notification; you can go online after your statement date to get the statement. This makes sure you won't have extra costs related to unreliability of mail (if you still receive paper statements)/e-mail, though it does require remembering to check (and/or setting a recurring calendar reminder). Paying much in advance of that, as is your current practice, might be a good idea to free up available balance if you are planning a purchase that would take you over your credit limit, but this should be relatively rare (and some credit card companies will raise that limit if you have been paying well and ask nicely, though find out first if they do a \"\"hard pull\"\" of your credit report for that).\"",
"I could be mistaken, but since card #1 and card #2 have the same interest rate, it doesn't matter which one you pay more towards, both in terms of time it will take you to pay it down and how much interest you pay. Basically you'll be paying $1105 each month towards a total debt of $27,459 at 2%, irrespective of how you divide the payments up over the cards (just make sure you observe minimum payment requirements). The situation would be different if they had different interest rates or if the low rate on one of them would expire quicker than on the other one.",
"I think the answer depends on whether you're trying to get out of debt and stay out, or if you just want this card paid off. That is, are you changing the way you deal with money and debt for good? If you just want this card paid off, and you're OK with going back into debt later, then @Mike Scott's advice is one way to go. I'd personally be nervous about leaving myself with no cash reserves at all. If you are planning to get out of debt and stay out, then you don't want to put yourself in a position where you're tempted to go back into debt as soon as you hit a speed bump. So, you need some cushion so that an emergency doesn't push you right back to the credit cards. If you've got a budget that you can live on, and that covers your usual expenses, and your job is relatively stable, then $1000 is probably enough of a cushion for most things. You can then pay off most of the credit card using the rest of your savings. If you're in an unstable job situation, then you'll want to keep more, if not all, of your savings as protection against the instability. Once the situation stabilizes, then throw the surplus savings at the debt. $1000 doesn't cover all possible emergencies, but it's generally a good tradeoff between prudence and paranoia.",
"I'm going to suggest a slightly different approach. Most answers seem to suggest paying off the lower rate card to clear it. Some answers / comments also talk about emergency funds. One risk of paying off a card is that the card issuer may choose to reduce your credit limit if they see you as high risk, to prevent you re-spending the money. If you don't trust yourself with the card then this could be a good thing (and remember you're always free to ask for a limit decrease). But if you want access to emergency funds, then I would suggest paying half onto each card. That way if one card cuts you off, you have a chance of still having access to the other in an emergency.",
"Both Credit Card and Mortgage work on same principle. The interest is calculated on the remaining balance. As the balance reduces the interest reduces. The Mortgage schedule is calculated with the assumption that you would be paying a certain amount over a period of years. However if you pay more, then the balance becomes less, and hence the subsequent interest also reduces. This means you would pay the loan faster and also pay less then originaly forecasted. The other type of loan, typically personal loans / auto loans in older days worked on fixed schedule. This means that you need to pay principal + Pre Determined interest. This is then broken into equal monthly installment. However in such a schedule, even if you pay a lumpsum amount in between, the total amount you need to pay remains same. Only the tenor reduces.",
"It would depend on a) Ones view on Markets and b) Ones nature. If one believes that the market would be going up in the near future then it would be best to buy all at once. If one believes the market is uncertain, it would make sense to invest over a period of time. If one is a disciplined investor and can stick to plan, it would make sense to invest over a period of time as the risk is generally less. How much less is again subjective. If one is not a disciplined investor then buying now and getting done with is a good idea. As to exactly quantifying this is absolute number for future would not be possible. One can take the data from past, however it would work advantages if the prices moves up and disadvantages if the price moves down.",
"At the moment, you are paying about $1,300 interest each month (£431k @ 3.625% / 12) on your mortgage and repaying capital at about $1,500 per month. Paying $11,000 off your mortgage would save you about $9,000 as it is reduces your balance by about seven monthly capital repayments: but you will only see this benefit at the end of the mortgage because you will pay it off seven months earlier. There is only about $1,000 interest remaining on your car loans. Paying the $11,000 off your interest free loan then paying extra agianst the interest bearing loan brings that down to $500 and paying it off your interest bearing loan brings it down to $200. Either way, both car loans would be finished by early 2018. In summary, if you use the $11,000 against your car loans, you will save $8,500-$8,800 less than paying it off the mortage, but you will have no car loans in one year rather than three. Google spreadsheet for calculations here.",
"Also, unless I missed it and someone already mentioned it, do keep in mind the impact of these credit cards balances on your credit score. Over roughly 75% usage on a given credit account reflects badly on your score and has a pretty large impact on how your worthiness is calculated. It gives the impression that you are a person that lives month to month on cards, etc. If you could get both cards down to reasonable balances to where you could begin paying on them regularly and work them down over time, that will not only look incredible for your credit report but also immediately begin making your credit worthiness begin to raise due to the fact that you will not have accounts that (I'm assuming here) are at very high usage (over 75% of your total limit.) If you have to get one card knocked out just to get breathing room, and you're boxed in here -- or honestly even if the mental stress is causing you incredible hardship day to day, then I suppose blow one card out of the water, reassess and start getting to work on that second card. I hope this helped, I'm no expert, but I have had every kind of luck with credit cards and accounts you could think of, so I can only give my experience from the rubber-meets-the-road perspective. Good luck!",
"I'm really going to go against the crowd here--paying it too fast could be a problem. The thing is you want them reporting that you paid the bill as agreed. To do that you need to pay the bills--which means you need to leave the charges there to get billed for. Paying less than the total is fine, paying as soon as they bill you but before you even get the bill is fine.",
"There is a reason - your credit score. If you ever take out a mortgage, you might pay dearly for your behavior. The bank where you have the credit card reports the amount on the bill to the credit rating agencies. If you pay before the bill date, they will always report zero. You should wait at least till the day after the billing cycle ends, and then pay off (you don't need to have the paper bill in your hands - you can see online when the cycle closed). Depending on your other financial behavior, this will have between zero and significant effect, on the percentages you get offered for car loans, mortgages, etc.",
"I am like you with not acknowledging balances in my accounts, so I pay my credit card early and often. Much more than once a month. With my banks bill pay, I can send money to the credit card for free and at any time. I pay it every two weeks (when I get paid), and I will put other extra payments on there if I bought a large item. It helps me keep my balances based in reality in Quicken. For example, I saved the cash for my trip, put the trip on my credit card, then paid it all off the day after I got home. I used the card because I didn't want to carry the cash, I wanted the rewards cash back, I wanted the automatic protection on the car rental, and I couldn't pay for a hotel with cash. There are many good reasons to use credit cards, but only if you can avoid carrying a balance.",
"\"The monthly bill should reduce as required by Loan A no longer requiring payment. This will occur only when Loan A is fully payed off, not before. If you're going to do this, make sure you tell them that any extra money is principal reduction, and not \"\"prepayment\"\" Lets say you do pay off loan A, and you continue to pay $11 a month. If you specify \"\"principle reduction\"\" for the $1 extra, they must reduce the loan balance by $1. If you do not specify, or you specify \"\"prepayment\"\", they \"\"may\"\" apply $0.20 to principal reduction and $0.80 to interest.\"",
"If you can use and pay off your credit card in full every month, there are plenty of benefits including improved credit, reward points and more. Many fall into the trap of just making the minimum payments and facing high interest charges or missing payments and getting a hit on their credit reports. To start off, put something small that you know you can pay off every month. It could be your Netflix or your gas. Make sure you pay it off before any interest is accrued. Over time, you can ask for higher limits to boost your utilization rate.",
"I think you got the message mixed up a little: Racking up big balances can hurt your scores, regardless of whether you pay your bills in full each month. What's typically reported to the credit bureaus, and thus calculated into your scores, are the balances reported on your last statements. (That doesn't mean paying off your balances each month isn't financially smart -- it is -- just that the credit scores don't care.) You typically can increase your scores by limiting your charges to 30% or less of a card's limit. -- from 7 Ways to Fix Your Credit Score In other words, ALWAYS pay off your balance if you can. But don't fill up your card to the max of your credit limit each month. i.e. if your credit limit is $5000, only spend $2000 each month.",
"\"I don't have enough reputation in this community to comment yet, so this \"\"answer\"\" is really just a minor furtherance of JoeTaxpayer's comment... THe only thing I might add to this great answer - make all minimum payments, and send all extra available cash to the highest interest card. If OP will pay in full after 6 month, this may make little difference, but it will be a few dollars in his pocket instead of the bank. – JoeTaxpayer♦ Dec 2 at 17:42 ...on Ben Miller's excellent answer. Once you have taken JoeTaxpayer's advice and ordered your cards by interest rate and have paid off the highest interest card first, take that same payment and add it to your next-highest card's minimum payment. Once THAT is payed off, take the combined amounts that you were paying to cards one and two and apply it all to card three along with its minimum payment. You see where this is going. By aggregating your payments thusly, each card will get paid off successively more quickly than the previous one, without increasing your overall payments to the cards, and you are retiring the highest-interest debt first. Your last card will then be paid off in record time, because you have combined all of the payments for cards 1-4. One other amplification: Since we don't know which account has which interest rate, it may be more advantageous to order them by balance, with the smallest first. That way you retire the first card quickly, which gives you a sense of accomplishment, and by the time you reach your highest balance card, you have snowballed all of your payments and are now throwing boulders instead of pebbles at it. You'll have to do that math to see which method has the most benefit. Then roll it all into the car payment. Then roll it into your student debt. Etc.\"",
"what you aim to do is a great idea and it will work in your favor for a number of reasons. First, paying down your loan early will save you lots in interest, no brainer. Second, keeping the account open will improve your credit score by 1) increases the number of installment trade lines you have open, 2)adds to your positive payment history and 3) varies your credit mix. If your paid your car off you will see a DROP in your credit score because now you have one less trade line. To address other issues as far as credit scoring, it does not matter(much) for your score if you have a $1000 car loan or a $100,000 car loan. what matters is whether or not you pay on time, and what your balance is compared to the original loan amount. So the quicker you pay DOWN the loans or mortgages the better. Pay them down, not off! As far how the extra payments will report, one of two things will happen. Either they will report every month paid as agreed (most likely), or they wont report anything for a few years until your next payment is due(unlikely, this wont hurt you but wont help you either). Someone posted they would lower the amount you paid every month on your report and thus lower your score. This is not true. even if they reported you paid $1/ month the scoring calculations do not care. All they care is whether or not you're on time, and in your case you would be months AHEAD of time(even though your report cant reflect this fact either) HOWEVER, if you are applying for a mortgage the lower monthly payment WOULD affect you in the sense that now you qualify for a BIGGER loan because now your debt to income ratio has improved. People will argue to just pay it off and be debt free, however being debt free does NOT help your credit. And being that you own a home and a car you see the benefits of good credit. You can have a million dollars in the bank but you will be denied a loan if you have NO or bad credit. Nothing wrong with living on cash, I've done it for years, but good luck trying to rent a car, or getting the best insurance rates, and ANYTHING in life with poor credit. Yeah it sucks but you have to play the game. I would not pay down do $1 though because like someone else said they may just close the account. Pay it down to 10 or 20 percent and you will see the most impact on your credit and invest the rest of your cash elsewhere.",
"\"You don't need to have a bunch of credit cards lying around; just a couple is fine. Get a \"\"rewards\"\" card (without annual fee) that pays you back for use, and use it regularly to buy groceries, for example. Pay it off promptly each month, using the rewards, if you like, to reduce the amount you have to send in. Or you can use the rewards for other purchases; some merchants offer $25 worth of merchandise for $20 in rewards. It used to be the case that you could negotiate a discount for paying cash rather than use a credit card, but that is a lot harder to do now, in many cases because credit-card company contracts with merchants prohibit this practice. Also, merchants often prefer credit cards rather than cash because money-handling is an issue (pay for an armored car to come pick up the day's receipts, or risk getting mugged on the way to the bank, possible burglaries if you leave the money overnight in the store, daily balancing of cash-register trays, etc.) So, not being in debt and being rich enough to not need to be in debt are laudable goals, and you have my best wishes that you will reach them soon, but getting rid of all your credit cards as a part of not being in debt may be more trouble than it is worth. Keep a couple, pay them off promptly, and if you are concerned about being in debt, you can time your charges so that you are in debt at most 2 or 3 days each month.\"",
"It is COMPLETELY no use to pay earlier (during a billing cycle) to better your credit score! Your credit score gets affected ONLY once a month from each creditor, and that happens when they post your monthly statement. Thus, no matter what you do or pay and how many times a month or how many days earlier than your due date, it has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on your score. Anything you do will be reflected only after the statement. What you pay in between those two statements is irrelevant. So, as far as credit score goes IT DOESN'T MATTER. However, if you want to save on interest being charged, it is wise to pay as early as possible, so your balance is as low as possible for day-by-day calculation of your interest.",
"The only time the utilization percentage makes a difference is when the data is being pulled for a credit check. During the months leading up to the loan application through the settlement date of the loan keeping this percentage low makes sense. The number reported is the current value of the ratio not an average. You can pre-fund the credit card but don't go overboard. If you keep a negative balance (lets say they owe you $100) for a few months they may decide to send you a check for the balance they owe you.",
"Good credit is calculated (by many lenders) by taking your FICO score which is calculated based upon what is in your credit report. Building credit generally means building up your FICO score. Your FICO score is impacted my many factors, one small one of which is your utilization ratio of your installment loans like student loans. This is the ratio of the current balance to your original balance. To improve your score (slightly) you would want a lower ratio. I would recommend paying your student loan down to 75% ratio as fast as you can and then you can go back to $50/month. A much better way to improve your FICO score is to have revolving credit. Your student loans are not revolving, they are installment loans. Therefore, you should open at least one credit card (assuming you currently have none) right away. The longer you have had a credit card open, the better your FICO score gets. Your revolving credit utilization ratio is way more important than your installment loan ratio. Therefore, to maximize your FICO, try to never have more than 10% utilization on your revolving credit report to the credit bureaus each month. Only the current month's ratio affects your score at any given moment. You can ensure you don't go above 10% by paying your balance before the statement cuts each month to get it below 10% way before any payment would be due. (You should always pay your remaining credit card statement balance in full each month by the due date after the statement cuts to avoid any interest charges.) Note that there is a slight FICO advantage to having at least one major bank credit card instead of just only credit union credit cards. Also, never let all your revolving credit report a zero balance in a month, you must always have at least $1 reporting to the credit bureaus on at least one of your open credit cards or your FICO score will take a big negative hit. If you cannot get a normal credit card, go to a credit union and find one that offers secured credit cards, or a bank that does. A secured credit card is where you place a deposit with the bank that they hold and give you a credit limit to match your security. Ideally it would be a card that graduates to unsecured after your demonstrate good history with them. For example, the Navy Federal Credit Union secured card unsecures for many people. I also believe the Wells Fargo Bank credit card (you can join if there is a family member who served or a roomate who did) also will unsecure. The reason you want it to unsecure and not be forced to open a new account to get an unsecured account is that you want your average age and oldest age of open revolving credit accounts to be as high as possible as this is another impact on your FICO score. Credit unions that anyone can join include, Digital Federal Credit Union, the Pentagon Federal Credit Union (which offers a secured card that does not graduate), and The State Department Federal Credit Union (also offers secured card that I think does not graduate). One other method to boost your FICO score is to get added as an authorized user on one of your parent's credit cards that has been open a long time. Not all lenders will report such an authorized user, however, ones that are known to do so are: Bank of America, Citi Bank, and Capital One. It is a good sign that it will report if they ask for the social security number of the authorized user. However, note that the Authorized User addition can have no impact if the lender is using one of the newer versions of the FICO scoring model, only the older versions reward you for the age of accounts for which you are an authorized user. A very long term boost is to open your first American Express card underwritten directly by Amex such as their Zync card which is pretty easy to get. The advantage of American express is that they remember the date your first credit card was opened with them and if you open new accounts in the future they will back date the date of their opening to match the date your first card was opened. If you let your membership lapse, be sure to record the account number and date opened in your personal files so that you can help them locate it again if you reopen as they can have trouble if it has been on the order of ten years or more. Finally, note that the number of accounts opened in the last twelve months is a small negative mark on your score (along with number of inquiries), so if you open a lot of accounts all at once, in addition to bringing down your average age of accounts, you will also get dinged for how many were opened in the last year.",
"This is what your car loan would look like if you paid it off in 14 months at the existing 2.94% rate: You'll pay a total of about $277 in interest. If you do a balance transfer of the $10,000 at 3% it'll cost you $300 up front, and your payment on the remaining $5,000 will be $363.74 to pay it off in the 14 month period. Your total monthly payment will be $1,099.45; $5,000 amortized at 2.94% for 14 months plus $10,300 divided by 14. ($363.74 + 735.71). Your interest will be about $392, $300 from the balance transfer and $92 from the remaining $5,000 on the car loan at 2.94%. Even if your lender doesn't credit your additional payment to principal and instead simply credits future payments, you'd still be done in 15 months with a total interest expense of about $447. So this additional administration and additional loan will save you maybe about $55 over 14 or 15 months."
] |
[
"\"Should I allow the credit cards to be paid out of escrow in one lump sum? Or should I take the cash and pay the cards down over a few months. I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? Will the money you save by increasing your credit score (assuming this statement is true) be larger than by eliminating the interest payments for the credit card payments over \"\"a few months\"\" (13% APR at $24,000 is $3120 a year in interest; $260 a month, so if \"\"a few months\"\" is three, that would cost over $700 - note that as you pay more principal the overall amount of interest decreases, so the \"\"a year\"\" in interest could go down depending on the principal payments). Also, on a related note regarding credit score, it doesn't look good to have more than a third of a credit line available balance exceeded (see number 2 here: http://credit.about.com/od/buildingcredit/tp/building-good-credit.htm).\"",
"Pay them off immediately. But, as I note in my article Too Little Debt?, a zero utilization is actually a negative hit. So you want to just use the cards to get over 1%. i.e. if the lines add to $38K, just charge say, gas and some groceries, $100/wk. Pay in full every month. It's the amount on the statement that counts, not the amount carried month to month accruing interest, which, I hope is zero for you from now on.",
"I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? I have never heard that, however, the financial institutions (who are charging you an amount of interest which was at one time in the not so distant past classified and punishable in state criminal codes) really enjoy you thinking that way. You are clearly capable of doing the math yourself. While I don't know the exact numbers, I am totally confident that you will find in about 5 or 10 minutes (if that long) that eliminating debt of any kind in your life will pay an immediate return that beats the great majority of other investments in terms of risk/reward. After the immediate financial return, there is a quieter, subtler, and even greater long term benefit. Basic principle: Highest Rates First Perhaps this decision could be considered slightly less important than deciding not to smoke during your youth; but I would put it as a close second. You are already in a position where you can see the damage that your prior decisions (about financial debt) have produced. Run the clock back to the time in your life when you were debt free. Now, pay off that debt with the big check, and start from zero. Now, turn on your psychic powers and predict the same amount of time, in the future, with the same amount of money (don't even try to adjust for inflation; just use flat dollars) WITHOUT losing the money which you have given to the financial institutions during this previous part of your life. Do you now see why the financial institutions want you to think about slowly paying them off instead of waking up tomorrow without owing them anything ?",
"it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. This is a myth. Will it make much of a difference? You are paying additional interest even though you have the means to pay off the cards completely. Credit score is a dynamic number and it really only matters if you are looking to make a big purchase (vehicle, home), or perhaps auto insurance or employment. Pay off your credit cards, consolidate your debt, and buy yourself a beer with the money you will be saving. :)",
"I know you say you are aware of secured and unsecured debt and you've made your decision. Did you do the numbers? You will pay 44k over the life of the mortgage for that 24k (Based on 4.5% APR mortgage). Once you refinance your mortgage, do you plan on using credit for a while? Lots of Americans are hyperfocused on credit scores. The only times it affects your life are when you finance something, when you apply to rent a house or apartment, and sometimes when you apply for a job. Credit score should not be a factor in this decision. You're borrowing the money at a lower rate to pay off the high rate cards because you want to pay less in interest. Considering #1 is there any reason NOT to pay off the cards immediately, if not sooner?"
] |
5085
|
What is vested stock and yearly dividends?
|
[
"102436"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"102436",
"113623",
"180733",
"376314",
"168561",
"211343",
"340730",
"97942",
"503780",
"292559",
"558233",
"453521",
"475560",
"350607",
"499286",
"57534",
"332567",
"38711",
"481169",
"84937",
"534597",
"522792",
"575741",
"408610",
"238903",
"108040",
"295082",
"322417",
"259560",
"63296",
"31037",
"407551",
"361482",
"13822",
"33208",
"451301",
"92516",
"56118",
"399345",
"96121",
"576136",
"1198",
"342379",
"188232",
"402477",
"549528",
"120395",
"368848",
"497060",
"432080",
"535697",
"286296",
"15635",
"294314",
"143655",
"271153",
"72189",
"414505",
"311069",
"416125",
"599156",
"60495",
"335606",
"104188",
"593455",
"110343",
"578261",
"107218",
"42521",
"472470",
"124368",
"428315",
"532139",
"503649",
"308693",
"51602",
"95889",
"103437",
"478291",
"566205",
"276860",
"248853",
"84213",
"515788",
"248393",
"139387",
"365627",
"352484",
"213927",
"199206",
"483890",
"15030",
"45472",
"469036",
"23355",
"536196",
"584128",
"51205",
"417838",
"163354"
] |
[
"Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started.",
"Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).",
"\"This is what is called \"\"stock dividend\"\". In essence the company is doing a split, the difference is in financial accounting and shouldn't concern you much as an individual investor. \"\"Fully paid up\"\", in this context, probably means \"\"unconditioned\"\", aka fully vested.\"",
"Vesting typically stops after you quit. So, if your plan vests 20% per year for 5 years, and you received a one-time stock grant as part of this plan (i.e., ignoring the fact that these often involve new grants each year that vest separately), and you were hired in 2014 and leave at the end of 2016, then you vested 20% in 2015 and 20% in 2016, so would have 40% of the stock vested when you quit, and would never have more than that.",
"On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always 100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table 2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20 percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6 years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years. Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions follow one of the vesting schedules noted above.",
"Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares).",
"When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well...",
"It might, but it also might not. The Board of Directors gets to decide whether and how much dividends are paid to stockholders. So this will vary from company to company and may change over time. I suggest you ask the person making the offer. That said: It looks like they offered you OPTIONS, not Shares. An option is just the right to buy stock at a given price in the future. It is extremely unlikely that you would be entitled to any dividends since you don't have an ownership stake, just a potential to be a shareholder.",
"\"Dividend rate is \"\"dividend per share\"\" over a specified time period, usually a year. So in the first example, if the company paid a $1/share dividend over the year before the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $100, while if it paid the $1/share the year after the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $105. The company could have achieved the same thing by paying total dividends of $1.05/share, which is what the last phrase of the last quoted paragraph is saying. Here's an Investopedia page on dividend rate. Also, what you're calling \"\"payout ratio\"\" is really \"\"dividend yield\"\". \"\"Payout ratio\"\" is how much of the company's net earnings are paid out in dividends. That's all in the US, I could see the terms being used differently outside the US.\"",
"The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell.",
"I've been offered a package that includes 100k stock options at 5 dollars a share. They vest over 4 years at 25% a year. Does this mean that at the end of the first year, I'm supposed to pay for 25,000 shares? Wouldn't this cost me 125,000 dollars? I don't have this kind of money. At the end of the first year, you will generally have the option to pay for the shares. Yes, this means you have to use your own money. You generally dont have to buy ANY until the whole option vests, after 4 years in your case, at which point you either buy, or you are considered 'vested' (you have equity in the company without buying) or the option expires worthless, with you losing your window to buy into the company. This gives you plenty of opportunity to evaluate the company's growth prospects and viability over this time. Regarding options expiration the contract can have an arbitrarily long expiration date, like 17 years. You not having the money or not isn't a consideration in this matter. Negotiate a higher salary instead. I've told several companies that I don't want their equity despite my interest in their business model and product. YMMV. Also, options can come with tax consequences, or none at all. its not a raw deal but you need to be able to look at it objectively.",
"A stock dividend converts some of the reserves and surplus on the company's balance sheet into paid-up capital and securities premium account without involving any actual cash outflow to the shareholders. While cash dividends are eyed by the investors due to their cash yield, issuance of stock dividends are indicators of growing confidence of the management and the shareholders in the company. The fact that shareholders want to convert free cash sitting on the balance sheet (which can ideally be taken out as dividends) into blocked money in exchange for shares is symbolic to their confidence in the company. This in turn is expected to lead to an increase in market price of the stock.",
"\"Recently, I asked about what the company valuation is and how many shares does my 4% represent.CFO told me that there is no point to talk about \"\"shares\"\" or \"\"stock\"\" since the company is not public. Is it right? No, it is wrong. Shares and stocks exist regardless of how they can be traded. Once a company is formed, there are stocks that belong to the owners in the proportion of the ownership. They may not exist physically, but they do exist on paper. As an owner of 5% of the company, you own 5% of the company stocks. I asked if my investor portion equity will be subjected under a vesting schedule, CFO said yes. That doesn't make sense to me, because I bought those 4%? Aren't those supposed to be fully vested? I agree to my employee equity to be vested. Doesn't make sense to me either, since your money is already in their pocket. But I'm not sure if its illegal. If that's what is written in the signed contract - then may be its possible to have that situation. But it doesn't make much sense, because these shares are granted to you in return to your money, not some potential future work (as the 1% employee's portion). You already gave the money, so why wouldn't they be vested? Best to read the contract upon which you gave them your money, I really hope you have at least that and not just gave them a check....\"",
"\"The key is to look at total return, that is dividend yields plus capital growth. Some stocks have yields of 5%-7%, and no growth. In that case, you get the dividends, and not a whole lot more. These are called dividend stocks. Other stocks pay no dividends. But if they can grow at 15%-20% a year or more, you're fine.These are called growth stocks. The safest way is to get a \"\"balanced\"\" combination of dividends and growth, say a yield of 3% growing at 8%-10% a year, for a total return of 11%-13%. meaning that you get the best of both worlds.These are called dividend growth stocks.\"",
"Is the Grant Date or the Vest Date used when determining the 12-month cutoff for long-term and short-term capital gains? You don't actually acquire the stock until it's vested, so that is the date and price used to determine your cost basis and short-term/long-term gain/loss. The grant date really has no tax bearing. If you held the stock (time between vesting and sale) for more than one year you will owe long-term CG tax, if less than one year you will owe short-term CG tax.",
"There are two dates that matter for vesting in this situation: If you left the company on 12/31/16, you would be entitled to none of the company contributions. If you left on 1/1/17, you would be entitled to all $20k. This is sometimes known as a cliff vesting schedule. Some companies do a stair step - 20% after year 1, 40% after year 2, etc. This is known as graded vesting. But, that is not the case based on the language here.",
"You simply add the dividend to the stock price when calculating its annual return. So for year one, instead of it would be",
"Fidelity has a good explanation of Restricted Stock Awards: For grants that pay in actual shares, the employee’s tax holding period begins at the time of vesting, and the employee’s tax basis is equal to the amount paid for the stock plus the amount included as ordinary compensation income. Upon a later sale of the shares, assuming the employee holds the shares as a capital asset, the employee would recognize capital gain income or loss; whether such capital gain would be a short- or long-term gain would depend on the time between the beginning of the holding period at vesting and the date of the subsequent sale. Consult your tax adviser regarding the income tax consequences to you. So, you would count from vesting for long-term capital gains purposes. Also note the point to include the amount of income you were considered to have earned as a result of the original vesting [market value then - amount you paid]. (And of course, you reported that as income in 2015/2016, right?) So if you had 300 shares of Stock ABC granted you in 2014 for a price of $5/share, and in 2015 100 of those shares vested at FMV $8/share, and in 2016 100 of those shares vested, current FMV $10/share, you had $300 in income in 2015 and $500 of income in 2016 from this. Then in 2017 you sold 200 shares for $15/share:",
"Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units. So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares. The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash. An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend. However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares. The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend. (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers. It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.",
"The stock will slowly gain that $1 during the year. Suppose we have the highly theoretical situation that a company's stock is worth exactly $10 right after it paid its dividend, its dividend is always $1 per stock, and the company and everything else is so stable that its value never changes. Then the stock value right before the next dividend is paid will be close to $11 -- after all, it's worth a certain $1 dividend the next day, plus the $10 stock. And in between, half a year after the dividend was paid, it will be in between, say $10.50, or actually slightly less than that (because people like to buy in late so they can make money some other way with the money first). But the point holds -- the price decrease on the day that dividend is paid had been building up the whole period before that decrease. So stock dividends do make you money.",
"\"A dividend is one method of returning value to shareholders, some companies pay richer dividends than others; some companies don't typically pay a dividend. Understand that shareholders are owners of a company. When you buy a stock you now own a portion (albeit an extremely small portion) of that company. It is up to you to determine whether holding stock in a company is worth the risk inherent to equity investing over simply holding treasury notes or some other comparable no risk investment like bank savings or CDs. Investing isn't really intended to change your current life. A common phrase is \"\"investing in tomorrow.\"\" It's about holding on to money so you'll have it for tomorrow. It's about putting your money to work for you today, so you'll have it tomorrow. It's all about the future, not your current life.\"",
"No, it is not. If that were the case, you would have no such thing as a growth stock. Dividends and dividend policies can change at any time. The primary reason for investment in a company is access to a firm's earnings, hence the idea of P/E. Dividends are factored in with capital appreciation, but studies have shown that dividends are actually detrimental to future growth. They tend to allow easier access to shareholders because of the payouts, reducing the cost of equity. But, if you reduce the growth rate as well, sensitivity tables can demonstrate deterioration or stagnation over time. Some good examples are GE and Microsoft.",
"\"You were probably not given stock, but stock options. Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed. Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year. Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share. However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich. I was given generous grants, but decided to leave. I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money. Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway. When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data. This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company. Myself and other employees received options that were \"\"underwater\"\" or worth far less than the strike price. You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question.\"",
"\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \"\"quarterly dividends,\"\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\"",
"The sale of shares on vesting convolutes matters. In a way similar to how reinvested dividends are taxed but the newly purchased fund shares' basis has to be increased, you need to be sure to have the correct per share cost basis. It's easy to confuse the total RSU purchase with the correct numbers, only what remained. The vesting stock is a taxable event, ordinary income. You then own the stock at that cost basis. A sale after that is long or short term and the profit is the to extent it exceeds that basis. The fact that you got these shares in 2013 means you should have paid the tax then. And this is part two of the process. Of course the partial sale means a bit of math to calculate the basis of what remained.",
"In my mind its not the same. If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.",
"Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).",
"\"Yes, they are, and you've experienced why. Generally speaking, stocks that pay dividends will be better investments than stocks that don't. Here's why: 1) They're actually making money. They can finagle balance sheets and news releases, but cash is cash, it tells no lies. They can't fake it. 2) There's less good they can do with that money than they say. When a business you own is making money, they can do two things with it: reinvest it into the company, or hand it over to you. All companies must reinvest to some degree, but only a few companies worth owning can find profitable ways of reinvesting all of it. Having to hand you, the owner, some of the earnings helps keep that money from leaking away on such \"\"necessities\"\" like corporate jets, expensive printer paper, or ill-conceived corporate buyouts. 3) It helps you not freak out. Markets go up, and markets go down. If you own a good company that's giving you a nice check every three months, it's a lot easier to not panic sell in a downturn. After all, they're handing you a nice check every three months, and checks are cash, and cash tells no lies. You know they're still a good company, and you can ride it out. 4) It helps others not freak out. See #3. That applies to everyone. That, in turn means market downturns weigh less heavily on companies paying solid dividends than on those that do not. 5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it? But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you? 6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend. Which means that if, say, they reliably raise dividends 10%/year, that measly 3% dividend turns into a 6% dividend seven years later (on your initial investment). At year 14, it's 12%. Year 21, 24%. See where this is going? Companies like that do exist, google \"\"Dividend Aristocrats\"\". 7) Dividends make growth less important. If you owned a company that paid you a 10% dividend every year, but never grew an inch, would you care? How about 5%, and it grows only slowly? You invest in companies, not dividends. You invest in companies to make money. Dividends are a useful tool when you invest -- to gauge company value, to smooth your ride, and to give you some of the profit of the business you own. They are, however, only part of the total return from investing -- as you found out.\"",
"\"I'm in the US, so there may be idiosyncrasies with UK taxes that I'm not familiar with, but here's how I've always treated stock I get as compensation. Suppose the vested shares are worth X. If I had X in cash, would I buy my company's stock as an investment? Usually the answer is no, not because I think the stock will tank, but because there's better things I can do with that cash (pay off debt, unfortunately). Therefore I sell the shares and use the cash for something else. You have stock options. So suppose the stock value is X but you can buy it for Y. You can either: Therefore, the math is the same. If you had X in cash, would you buy your company's stock as an investment? If so, then option 2 is best, because you can get X in stock for a lower cost. (Option 3 might be better if the gain on the stock will be taxed higher, but they're pretty much equivalent if there's no chance that the stock will drop below Y) If not, then option 4 is best since you will likely get more than X-Y from selling the options that by exercising them and selling the stock (since options have time value). If option 4 is not a possibility, then option 1 is best - you pocket X-Y as \"\"income\"\" and invest it however you see fit.\"",
"\"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. \"\"But wait,\"\" you say, \"\"that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!\"\" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, \"\"no we're not done, we're still building our business!\"\". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market.\"",
"My friend Harry Sit wrote an excellent article No Tax Advantage In RSU. The punchline is this. The day the RSUs vested, it's pretty much you got $XXX in taxable income and then bought the stock at the price at that moment. The clock for long term gain starts the same as if I bought the stock that day. Historical side note - In the insane days of the Dotcom bubble, people found they got RSUs vested and worth, say, $1M. Crash. The shares are worth $100K. The $1M was ordinary income, the basis was $1M and the $900K loss could offset cap gains, not ordinary income above $3000/yr. Let me be clear - the tax bill was $250K+ but the poor taxpayer had $100K in stock to sell to pay that bill. Ooops. This is the origin of the 'sell the day it vests' advice. The shares you own will be long term for capital gain a year after vesting. After the year, be sure to sell those particular shares and you're all set. No different than anyone selling the LT shares of stock when owning multiple lots. But. Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you feel it's time to sell, you can easily lose the tax savings while watching the stock fall waiting for the clock to tick to one year.",
"\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\"",
"Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss.",
"During the course of the year, the S&P individual stocks will have some dividends. Not every last stock but a good number of them. Enough that the average dividend for the S&P has been about 2% recently. So if the S&P index goes up, say 10%, an S&P fund should go up closer to 12%. For a fund holder, you'd normally see a declared dividend and cap gain distribution toward the end of each year. When you hold shares in a 401(k), dividends are reinvested into the fund, usually with no involvement from the members.",
"The dividend goes into the IRA (either reinvested automatically or remains as cash until you invest it, per your choice). You're not taxed on this dividend (IRA is a taxed-deferred account - you're taxed on the distributions, but not on the capital gains within the account).",
"\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\"",
"First, you need to understand that not every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in companies that pay a regular dividend and use that income while keeping his investment intact. Imagine this: Let's say I own a profitable company, and I offer to sell you part ownership in that company. However, I tell you this upfront: no matter how much profit our company makes, you will never get a penny from me. You will be getting a stock certificate - a piece of paper - and that's it. You can watch the company grow, and you can tell yourself you own it, but the only way you will personally benefit from your investment would be to sell your piece to someone else, who would also never see a penny in profit. Does that sound like a good investment? The fact of the matter is, stocks in companies that do not distribute dividends do have value, but this value is largely based on the potential of profits/dividends at some point in the future. If a company vows never ever to pay dividends, why would anyone invest? An investment would be more of a donation (like Kickstarter) at that point. A company that pays dividends is possibly past their growth stage. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have stopped growing altogether, but remember that an expansion project for any company does not automatically yield a good result. If a company does not have a good opportunity currently for a growth project, I as an investor would rather get a dividend than have the company blow all the profit on a ill-fated gamble.",
"Let's work from the inside out. Options are not stock. Options are a contract that give you the right to own the stock. For options to have value they have to be exercised. Straight line means that each quarter 1/16th of the option grant becomes yours and the company cannot take it away. Four quarters in a year times four years is 16 quarters. 'Grant' means they are giving you the options at no cost to you. 'Nonqualified' means that there is nothing you have to do, or be, in order to get the options. (Some options are only for management.)",
"A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't. A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything. The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash. It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low.",
"\"If you mean, If I invest, say, $1000 in a stock that is growing at 5% per year, versus investing $1000 in an account that pays compound interest of 5% per year, how does the amount I have after 5 years compare? Then the answer is, They would be exactly the same. As Kent Anderson says, \"\"compound interest\"\" simply means that as you accumulate interest, that for the next interest cycle, the amount that they pay interest on is based on the previous cycle balance PLUS the interest. For example, suppose you invest $1000 at 5% interest compounded annually. After one year you get 5% of $1000, or $50. You now have $1050. At the end of the second year, you get 5% of $1050 -- not 5% of the original $1000 -- or $52.50, so you now have $1102.50. Etc. Stocks tend to grow in the same way. But here's the big difference: If you get an interest-bearing account, the bank or investment company guarantees the interest rate. Unless they go bankrupt, you WILL get that percentage interest. But there is absolutely no guarantee when you buy stock. It may go up 5% this year, up 4% next year, and down 3% the year after. The company makes no promises about how much growth the stock will show. It may show a loss. It all depends on how well the company does.\"",
"When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble...",
"Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments.",
"Stocks aren't just paper -- they're ownership of a company. Getting cash from a stock that doesn't pay dividends basically means reducing your stake in the company. If the stock pays dividends, on the other hand, you still have the same shares, but now you have cash too. You can choose to buy more of the company...or, more importantly, to use it elsewhere if that's what you want to do.",
"\"Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves \"\"dividend investors\"\"? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends. Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad.\"",
"\"1. Most of the information you want can be found in the annual report of the company. Go to their official website, look for shareholders information and then download the annual report. This will answer: \"\"number of issued stock, voting rights, if there is more than one kind of stock, etc. In summary all the legal and formal details of a given stock. 2. After reading the annual report, check on investors websites to see if you can find analyst reports written on this company. You can sometimes find them in some free newsletters. These reports will complete the information you have found in the annual report like \"\"if the dividends are always paid, etc.\"\"\"",
"\"Dividends are declared by the board of directors of a corporation on date A, to stock holders of record on date B (a later date). These stockholders then receive the declared dividend on date C, the so-called payment date. All of these dates are announced on the first (declaration) date. If there is no announcement, no dividend will be paid. The stock typically goes down in price by approximately the amount of the dividend on the date it \"\"goes ex,\"\" but then moves in price to reflect other developments, including the possibility of another declaration/payment, three months hence. Dividends are important to some investors, especially those who live on the income. They are less important to investors who are out for capital gains (and who may prefer that the company reinvest its money to seek such gains instead of paying dividends). In actual fact, dividends are one component of \"\"total\"\" or overall return. The other component is capital gains, and the sum of the two represents your return.\"",
"A company is basically divided into shit the company owns (assets) and shit the company owes to people (liabilities). So what about ownership? Ownership is called equity and on a simplistic level equity = asset - liabilities. But a better view of that should be asset = liabilities + equity. Which means a company's assets is separated into things owned by debtors (e.g. Banks) and things owned by owners(founders and you). So when you are offered one percent, you are basically owning one percent of the company. Not the best explanation, but should be a simplified one. Here's where the options come in. When you are offered options. That means you have the option of redeeming the shares at a lower price than market. However these options are not usually immediately redeemable, there's usually a minimum amount of time you have to work at a company to be able to use these options. This period is called the vesting period.",
"What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.",
"One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.",
"If the contributions were yours, they are vested immediately. Otherwise, there are some rules laid out on the Department of Labor website: ww.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/wyskapr.htm",
"It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.",
"A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.",
"\"The simplest thing to do here is to speak to your employer about what is allowed. This should be spelt out in your company's \"\"Stock Options Plan\"\" documentation. In particular, this document will include details of the vesting schedule. For example, the schedule may only allow you to exercise 25% in the first year, 25% in the second year, and the remainder in the third year. Technically I can see no reason to prevent you from the mix-and-match approach you are suggesting. However, this may not be the case according to the schedule specification.\"",
"Funds built of dividend-paying stocks are normally called income funds.",
"\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"",
"Dividend Stocks like any stock carry risk and go both up and down. It is important to choose a stock based on the company's potential and performance. And, if they pay a dividend it does help. -RobF",
"Why do people talk about stock that pay high dividends? Traditionally people who buy dividend stocks are looking for income from their investments. Most dividend stock companies pay out dividends every quarter ( every 90 days). If set up properly an investor can receive a dividend check every month, every week or as often as they have enough money to stagger the ex-dates. There is a difference in high $$ amount of the dividend and the yield. A $1/share dividend payout may sound good up front, but... how much is that stock costing you? If the stock cost you $100/share, then you are getting 1% yield. If the stock cost you $10/share, you are getting 10% yield. There are a lot of factors that come into play when investing in dividend stocks for cash flow. Keep in mind why are you investing in the first place. Growth or cash flow. Arrange your investing around your major investment goals. Don't chase big dollar dividend checks, do your research and follow a proven investment plan to reach your goals safely.",
"\"The key difference I've found between a stock split and a stock dividend – of the exact same stock and class, as opposed to a spin-off – seems to be from the company's own accounting perspective. There doesn't appear to be any actual transfer of value to the shareholder with either kind of transaction; i.e. in theory, each transaction would be immaterial to the value of your holdings. With respect to the company's accounting, a stock split affects the par value of the shares, whereas a stock dividend reduces the retained earnings account in order to increase paid-in or contributed capital. I found a good online source which explains the history behind this accounting difference: McGraw-Hill - Intermediate Accounting eBook, 6/e - Chapter 18 - Stock Dividends and Splits. Small quote: [...] Besides being based on fallacious reasoning, accounting for stock dividends by artificially reclassifying “earned” capital as “invested” capital conflicts with the reporting objective of reporting shareholders' equity by source. Despite these limitations, this outdated accounting standard still applies. Since neither the corporation nor its shareholders apparently benefits from stock dividends, why do companies declare them?23 Occasionally, a company tries to give shareholders the illusion that they are receiving a real dividend. Another reason is merely to enable the corporation to take advantage of the accepted accounting practice of capitalizing retained earnings. Specifically, a company might wish to reduce an existing balance in retained earnings—otherwise available for cash dividends—so it can reinvest the earned assets represented by that balance without carrying a large balance in retained earnings. [...] There's a lot more on that page, before and after, worth reading. From another book: Google Books - Comparative Income Taxation, a Structural Analysis - page 314 - Stock Dividends. Small quote: The distribution of dividends in the form of stock or \"\"bonus\"\" shares to existing shareholders typically involves a transfer for corporate law purposes of retained earnings into stated capital. It can been [sic] viewed as a deemed distribution of a cash dividend to the shareholders followed by a corresponding contribution to capital or as solely as an event at the corporate level which has no effect on the shareholders whose economic interest in the corporation is unchanged by the receipt of additional shares. The systems have taken varied approaches to the stock dividend problem. The treatment is in part a function of the rules dealing with distributions of stated capital. [emphases above are mine] [... continues w/descriptions of different countries' tax treatments of the kinds of stock dividends. Includes U.S., Sweden, Japan, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany. ...] As far as why a corporation might want to capitalize earnings and reduce the equity otherwise available for dividends, I can only imagine that, ignoring taxes for a moment, that it may have something to do with capital ratios that need to be maintained for financing or regulatory purposes? Yet, I remain curious. If I discover more on this then I'll update my answer. Additional resources:\"",
"> You also have to think about tax on dividends from these stock options, which is only 15%, which is paltry to regular incometax rate that the rich pay on their salaries dividends is just cash being removed from companies and being paid out directly to the stockholder if dividends get taxed at a higher rate, every company would just use that same cash to buy back shares since that would be more tax efficient - the stockholder would receive compensation in higher stock prices which they could then sell instead of receiving a dividend. Thus, they would pay capital gains rate instead of your new dividend rate. The dividend rate must be the same as capital gains rate for this reason. They are not free money since the stock price gets decreased when a dividend is paid out - the company gets poorer when they pay out the dividend.",
"The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets.",
"It's 5% free money, if you believe the company's stock is fairly valued and likely to grow and/or return reasonable dividends until you're ready to sell it. There's usually a minimum holding period of a few months to a year before these discounted shares can be sold; take that into account",
"Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.",
"Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:",
"This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part. Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you. Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action. If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares. There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise. In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company. Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say. But either way, there is nothing you can or should do.",
"You buy stocks for dividends over the long term. If a share of stock pays $1.00 in dividends every quarter, that's four dollars a year. If you bought it for $40, it pays out $4 in a year, and it's still worth roughly $40 at the end of the year, you're $4 richer. People will often invest large amounts of money in stable stocks not planning to sell it, but only collect the dividends which are either re-invested or pulled out as income.",
"A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).",
"It comes down to the practical value of paying dividends. The investor can continually receive a stream of income without selling shares of the stock. If the stock did not pay a dividend and wanted continual income, the investor would have to continually sell shares to gain this stream of income, incurring transaction costs and increased time and effort involved with making these transactions.",
"It is a bit more complicated than whether it pays more or less dividends. You should make your decision based on how well the company is performing both fundamentally and technically. Concentrating mainly on the fundamental performance for this question, most good and healthy companies make enough profits to both pay out dividends and invest back into the company to keep growing the company and profits. In fact a good indication of a well performing company is when their dividend per share and earnings per share are both growing each year and the dividends per share are less than the earnings per share (that way you know dividends are being paid out from new profits and not existing cash holdings). This information can give you an indication of both a stable and growing company. I would rather invest in a company that pays little or no dividends but is increasing profits and growing year after year than a company that pays higher dividends but its profits are decreasing year after year. How long will the company continue to pay dividends for, if it starts making less and less profits to pay them with? You should never invest in a company solely because they pay dividends, if you do you will end up losing money. It is no use making $1 in dividends if you lose $2+ because the share price drops. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more for a stable and growing company.",
"\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"Stock acquired through a (non-taxable) stock dividend has the same holding period as the stock on which the dividend was paid.",
"You can argue that cash dividend is a kind of split as well by this logic. The stock price on ex-dividend gets a hit coincidental with the dividend to be paid, so one can argue that the investor has the same cash value on the day the dividend was paid as if it wouldn't be paid at all. However, for the company to distribute stocks instead of cash may be advantageous if they have low cash reserves but significant amount of treasury stocks, and the stocks are of high liquidity. It is also a way for the company to release treasury stocks without diluting the current shareholders and creating taxable income to the company, that's an important factor to consider. This is in fact the real answer to your question. The main difference between split and stock dividend is that in split, the stock distributions proportions don't change. With stock dividend - they do. While the outstanding share proportions do not change, total proportions do, because of the treasury stocks being distributed. So company has less stocks in its vaults, but everyone else still has the same proportions of ownership. Compare this to split: company's treasury stocks would be split as well, and it would continue essentially sitting on the same proportion of stocks. That shift of treasury stocks to the outside shareholders - this is what makes it a dividend.",
"Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all.",
"The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate.",
"There are many stocks that don't have dividends. Their revenue, growth, and reinvestment help these companies to grow, and my share of such companies represent say, one billionth of a growing company, and therefore worth more over time. Look up the details of Berkshire Hathaway. No dividend, but a value of over $100,000. Not a typo, over one hundred thousand dollars per share.",
"1) What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? When the company earns cash beyond what is needed for expenses, the value of the firm increases. As a shareholder, you own a piece of that increased value as soon as the company earns it. When the dividend is paid, the value of the firm decreases, but you break even on the dividend transaction. The benefit to you in holding the company's shares is the continually increasing value, whether paid out to you, or retained. Be careful not to confuse the value of the firm with the stock price. The stock price is ever-changing, in the short-term driven mostly by investor emotion. Over the long term, by far the largest effect on stock price is earnings. Take an extreme, and simplistic example. The company never grows or shrinks, earnings are always the same, there is no inflation :) , and they pay everything out in dividends. By the reasoning above, the firm value never changes, so over the long-term the stock price will never change, but you still get your quarterly dividends.",
"\"Dividends can also be automatically reinvested in your stock holding through a DRIP plan (see the wikipedia link for further details, wiki_DRIP). Rather than receiving the dividend money, you \"\"buy\"\" additional stock shares your with dividend money. The value in the DRIP strategy is twofold. 1) your number of shares increases without paying transaction fees, 2) you increase the value of your holding by increasing number of shares. In the end, the RIO can be quite substantial due to the law of compounding interest (though here in the form of dividends). Talk with your broker (brokerage service provider) to enroll your dividend receiving stocks in a DRIP.\"",
"It's important to remember what a share is. It's a tiny portion of ownership of a company. Let's pretend we're talking about shares in a manufacturing company. The company has one million shares on its register. You own one thousand of them. That means that you own 1/1000th of the company. These shares are valued by the market at $10 per share. The company has machinery and land worth $1M. That means that for every dollar of the company you own, 10c of that value is backed by the physical assets of the company. If the company closed shop tomorrow, you could, in theory at least, get $1 back per share. The other $9 of the share value is value based on speculation about the future and current ability of the company to grow and earn income. The company is using its $1M in assets and land to produce goods which cost the company $1M in ongoing costs (wages, marketing, raw cost of goods etc...) to produce and make $2M per year in sales. That means the company is making a profit of $1M per annum (let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this profit is after tax). Now what can the company do with its $1M profit? It can hand it out to the owners of the company (which means you would get a $1 dividend each year for each share that you own) or it can re-invest that money into additional equipment, product lines or something which will grow the business. The dividend would be nice, but if the owners bought $500k worth of new machinery and land and spent another $500k on ongoing costs and next year we would end up with a profit of $1.5M. So in ten years time, if the company paid out everything in dividends, you would have doubled your money, but they would have machines which are ten years older and would not have grown in value for that entire time. However, if they reinvested their profits, the compounding growth will have resulted in a company many times larger than it started. Eventually in practice there is a limit to the growth of most companies and it is at this limit where dividends should be being paid out. But in most cases you don't want a company to pay a dividend. Remember that dividends are taxed, meaning that the government eats into your profits today instead of in the distant future where your money will have grown much higher. Dividends are bad for long term growth, despite the rather nice feeling they give when they hit your bank account (this is a simplification but is generally true). TL;DR - A company that holds and reinvests its profits can become larger and grow faster making more profit in the future to eventually pay out. Do you want a $1 dividend every year for the next 10 years or do you want a $10 dividend in 5 years time instead?",
"Here is how it should look: 100 shares of restricted stock (RSU) vest. 25 shares sold to pay for taxes. W2 (and probably paycheck) shows your income going up by 100 shares worth and your taxes withheld going up by 25 shares worth. Now you own 75 shares with after-tax money. If you stop here, there would be no stock sale and no tax issues. You'd have just earned W2 income and withheld taxes through your W2 job. Now, when you sell those 75 shares whether it is the same day or years later, the basis for those 75 shares is adjusted by the amount that went in to your W2. So if they were bought for $20, your adjusted basis would be 75*$20.",
"\"In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a \"\"loss harvesting\"\" strategy. So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax \"\"benefits\"\" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends. You have precise control of the realization of gains. However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch. One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses. Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly. While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule. If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?\"",
"\"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the \"\"dividend day\"\" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 \"\"refund\"\". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the \"\"normal\"\" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the \"\"normal\"\" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life.\"",
"However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%",
"The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.",
"\"Dividend paying stocks are not \"\"better\"\" In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations. The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares. Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field. IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money.\"",
"The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps",
"ISOs (incentive stock options) can be closed out in a cashless transaction. Say the first round vests, 25,000 shares. The stock is worth $7 but your option is to buy at $5 as you say. The broker executes and sells, you get $50,000, with no up front money. Edit based on comment below - you know they vest over 4 years, but how long before they expire? It stands to reason the longer you are able to hold them, the better a chance the company succeeds, and the price rises. The article Understanding employer-granted stock options (PDF) offers a nice discussion of different scenarios supporting my answer.",
"\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\"",
"\"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just \"\"bought a dividend:\"\" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend. So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000. What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier. Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend. What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased.\"",
"\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"",
"\"It sounds like \"\"bonus shares\"\" are the same as a stock dividend. Stock dividends are equivalent to a stock split except for accounting treatment (good explanation here: http://www.accountingcoach.com/online-accounting-course/17Xpg05.html). As an investor, the only likely effect of a stock dividend is to make it more complex to keep track of cost basis and do your taxes. There's no economic effect, it's just rearranging accounting numbers.\"",
"It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price.",
"Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated). You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A. However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.",
"Advantage: more money. The financial tradeoff is usually to your benefit: Given these, for having your money locked up for the average length of the vesting periods (some is locked up for 3 months, some is locked up for nearly 0), you get a 10% return. Overall, it's like a 1.5% bonus for the year, assuming you were to sell everything right away. Of course, whether or not you wish to keep the stock depends on how you value MSFT as an investment. The disadvantage lies in a couple parts:",
"Here in Australia a stock price is usually highest just before a dividend and lowest just after a dividend. If you buy just after the dividend then you missed out until next time. There may be many other reasons why a stock may exhibit yearly, quarterly and monthly cycles.",
"\"I'd early-exercised 75% of my grant at $5 and (later) exercised the remaining portion at $2. So did you actually pay the money and got \"\"X\"\" unvested shares? I'll be leaving the company; and they'll be unwinding half of the grant, so I'll get some money back, but now the question is: Do they pay me back from the $5 shares or the $2 shares? This would depend on what your contract says on unvested shares. There can be numerous combinations. More Often these are forfeited. i.e. you are not granted the shares. At times if you have paid then the guideline would give the details what would happen; i.e. only half vest and are priced at market and you are forced to encash them.\"",
"The vesting date. Look at publication 525, under stock options, where they talk about ESPP: Your basis is equal to the option price at the time you exercised your option and acquired the stock. The timing and amount of pay period deductions do not affect your basis.",
"Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.",
"Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time. This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out. On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE: If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends. Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest. So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees. The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund. Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly. So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value.",
"Here's what Investopedia says about payouts for ex-dividend stocks: A stock trades ex-dividend on or after the ex-dividend date (ex-date). At this point, the person who owns the security on the ex-dividend date will be awarded the payment, regardless of who currently holds the stock. After the ex-date has been declared, the stock will usually drop in price by the amount of the expected dividend. Read more: Ex-Dividend Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ex-dividend.asp#ixzz4Nl4J3s4k I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"\"The main thing is the percentage of the company represented by the shares. Number of shares is meaningless without total shares. If you compute percentage and total company value you can estimate the value of the grant. Or perhaps more useful for a startup is to multiple the percentage by some plausible \"\"exit\"\" value, such as how much the company might sell for or IPO for. Many grants expire when or soon after you leave the company if you don't \"\"cash out\"\" vested shares when you leave, this is standard, but do remember it when you leave. The other major thing is vesting. In the tech industry, vesting 1/4 after a year and then the rest quarterly over 3 more years is most common.\"",
"Victor, Yes the drop in price does completely cancel the dividend at first. However, as others have noted, there are other forces working on the price as well. If dividends were pointless then the following scenario would be true: Let's assume, hypothetically, two identical stocks, only one of which pays a 2% annual dividend quarterly. At the end of the year we would expect the share price of the dividend stock to be 2% lower than the non-dividend stock. And an equal investment in both stocks would yield exactly the same amount of money. So that is a hypothetical, and here is real market example: I compared, i.e. took the ratio of Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO) closing price to the S&P 500 Index closing price from sep 9, (2010-2014), after accounting for the VOO 2013 split. The VOO pays a quarterly dividend(about 2%/year), the S&P is an index, hence no dividend. The VOO share price, reduced each quarter by the dividend, still grew more than the S&P each year except 2012 to 2013, but looking at the entire 4yr period the VOO share price grew 80.3987% while S&P grew 80.083% (1/3 of 1% more for VOO). VOO does drop about 1/2% relative to S&P on every ex date, but obviously it makes it up. There are other forces working on VOO. VOO is trade-able, therefore subject to supply/demand pressures, while the S&P 500 is not. So for the VOO ETF the data does not indicate pointless dividends but instead implies dividends are free money. StockCharts.com supports this. S&P500 for last 1244 days (9/8/2010) shows 90% growth http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?%24SPX while VOO for last 1244 days shows 105% growth http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?VOO"
] |
[
"Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started."
] |
594
|
Should a retail trader bother about reading SEC filings
|
[
"377322",
"534059"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"377322",
"11148",
"123356",
"64881",
"534059",
"373312",
"548596",
"306961",
"349181",
"191677",
"314898",
"248349",
"268241",
"295738",
"161411",
"341148",
"86281",
"377444",
"406481",
"505022",
"524050",
"92593",
"559198",
"31516",
"511117",
"288926",
"579110",
"186578",
"293842",
"328919",
"567500",
"46211",
"507368",
"549017",
"319818",
"541640",
"297231",
"146076",
"57033",
"22578",
"527105",
"520165",
"309199",
"143334",
"190264",
"224695",
"553066",
"77652",
"584523",
"56292",
"259145",
"384583",
"585447",
"424439",
"496921",
"404341",
"148348",
"221319",
"137984",
"215416",
"483916",
"169013",
"35093",
"384536",
"527120",
"148019",
"251303",
"7926",
"518448",
"582479",
"563843",
"312154",
"212390",
"333916",
"56932",
"8653",
"347523",
"283106",
"305117",
"327814",
"303649",
"113099",
"306189",
"11263",
"78249",
"534587",
"71330",
"367657",
"396622",
"220772",
"559105",
"396768",
"408995",
"434337",
"263464",
"67785",
"441155",
"488519",
"536099",
"452175"
] |
[
"\"There are many different kinds of SEC filings with different purposes. Broadly speaking, what they have in common is that they are the ways that companies publicly disclose information that they are legally required to disclose. The page that you listed gives brief descriptions of many types, but if you click through to the articles on individual types of filings, you can get more info. One of the most commonly discussed filings is the 10-K, which is, as Wikipedia says, \"\"a comprehensive summary of a company's financial performance\"\". This includes info like earnings and executive pay. One example of a form that some people believe has potential utility for investors is Form 4, which is a disclosure of \"\"insider trading\"\". People with a privileged stake in a company (executives, directors, and major shareholders) cannot legally buy or sell shares without disclosing it by filing a Form 4. Some people think that you can make use of this information in the sense that if, for instance, the CEO of Google buys a bunch of Twitter stock, they may have some reason for thinking it will go up, so maybe you should buy it too. Whether such inferences are accurate, and whether you can garner a practical benefit from them (i.e., whether you can manage to buy before everyone else notices and drives the price up) is debatable. My personal opinion would be that, for an average retail investor, readng SEC filings is unlikely to be useful. The reason is that an average retail investor shouldn't be investing in individual companies at all, but rather in mutual funds or ETFs, which typically provide comparable returns with far less risk. SEC filings are made by individual companies, so it doesn't generally help you to read them unless you're going to take action related to an individual company. It doesn't generally make sense to take action related to an individual company if you don't have the time and energy to read a large number of SEC filings to decide which company to take action on. If you have the time and energy to read a large number of SEC filings, you're probably not an average retail investor. If you are a wheeler dealer who plays in the big leagues, you might benefit from reading SEC filings. However, if you aren't already reading SEC filings, you're probably not a wheeler dealer who plays in the big leagues. That said, if you're a currently-average investor with big dreams, it could be instructive to read a few filings to explore what you might do with them. You could, for instance, allocate a \"\"play money\"\" fund of a few thousand dollars and try your hand at following insider trades or the like. If you make some money, great; if not, oh well. Realistically, though, there are so many people who make a living reading SEC filings and acting on them every day that you have little chance of finding a \"\"diamond in the rough\"\" unless you also make a living by doing it every day. It's sort of like asking \"\"Should I read Boating Monthly to improve my sailing skills?\"\" If you're asking because you want to rent a Hobie Cat and go for a pleasure cruise now and then, sure, it can't hurt. If you're asking because you want to enter the America's Cup, you can still read Boating Monthly, but it won't in itself meaningfully increase your chances of winning the America's Cup.\"",
"Reading financial statements is important, in the sense that it gives you a picture of whether revenues and profits are growing or shrinking, and what management thinks the future will look like. The challenge is, there are firms that make computers read filings for them and inform their trading strategy. If the computer thinks the stock price is below the growth model, it's likely to bid the stock up. And since it's automated it's moving it faster than you can open your web browser. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? In a sense, no. The only sensible trading strategy is to assume you hold things for as long as their fundamentals exceed market value. Financial statements are where you find those fundamentals. So you should read them. But your question is, is it worth it for investors? My answer is no; the market generally factors information in quickly and efficiently. You're better off sticking to passive mutual funds than trying to trade. The better reason to learn to read these filings is to get a better sense of your employer, potential employers, competitors and even suppliers. Knowing what your margins are, what your suppliers margins and acquisitions are, and what they're planning can inform your own decision making.",
"\"Wow, I cannot believe this is a question. Of course reading the 10Ks and 10Qs from the SEC are incredibly beneficial. Especially if you are a follower of the investing gurus such as Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, Shelby Davis. Personally I only read the 10K's I copy the pertinent numbers over to my spreadsheets so I can compare multiple companies that I am invested in. I'm sure there are easier ways to obtain the data. I'm a particular user of the discounted free cash flow methodology and buying/selling in thirds. I feel like management that says what they are going to do and does it (over a period of years) is something that cannot be underestimated in investing. yes, there are slipups, but those tend to be well documented in the 10Qs. I totally disagree in the efficient market stuff. I tend to love using methodologies like Hewitt Heisermans \"\" It's Earnings that Count\"\" you cannot do his power-staircase without digging into the 10Qs. by using his methodology I have several 5 baggers over the last 5 years and I'm confident that I'll have more. I think it is an interesting factoid as well that the books most recommended for investing in stocks on Amazon all advocate reading and getting information from 10Ks. The other book to read is Peter Lynch's one-up-wall-street. The fact is money manager's hands are tied when it comes to investing, especially in small companies and learning over the last 6 years how to invest on my own has given me that much more of my investing money back rather than paying it to some money manager doing more trades than they should to get commision fees.\"",
"There are a whole host of types of filings. Some of them are only relevant to companies that are publicly traded, and other types are general to just registered corps in general. ... and many more: http://reportstream.io/explore/has-form Overall, reading SEC filings is hard, and for some, the explanations of those filings is worth paying for. Source: I am currently trying to build a product that solves this problem.",
"I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.",
"I agree with @STATMATT. Financial statements are the only thing that Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger read. To answer your question though, really depends on what type of investor you are and what information are you trying to extract. It is essential for the Buffett style (buy & hold). But if you are a short term or technical investor then I don't see it being of much value.",
"For months prior to going public a company has to file financial documents with the SEC. These are available to the public at www.sec.gov on their Edgar database. For instance, Eagleline is listed as potentially IPOing next week. You can find out all the details of any IPO including correspondence between the company and the SEC on Edgar. Here's the link for Eagleline (disclaimer, I have not investigated this company. It is an example only) https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001675776&owner=exclude&count=40 The most important, complex, and thorough document is the initial registration statement, usually an S-1, and subsequent amendments that occur as a result of new information or SEC questions. You can often get insight into a new public company by looking at the changes that have occurred in amendments since their initial filings. I highly advise people starting out to first look at the filings of companies they work for or know the industry intimately. This will help you to better understand the filings from companies you may not be so familiar with. A word of caution. Markets and company filings are followed by very large numbers of smart people experienced in each business area so don't assume there is fast and easy money to be made. Still, you will be a bit ahead if you learn to read and understand the filings public companies are required to make.",
"SEC Form 3 and SEC Form 4 are filed when insiders make share/derivatives acquisitions, transfers, sells and buys There is a time limit AFTER the action where they can be filed, such as 12 business days, so this can be a substantial amount of time after the effect on the market, depending on your strategy. You can aggregate these forms from SEC sources or from third party websites and services. In some cases, types of insider trading are permissible at certain intervals, so if you learn about when certain shares become unlocked, you can try to predict what insider actions will be and share price movements around those times.",
"The most important filings are: Form 10-K, which is the annual report required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Form 10-Q, for the interim quarters.",
"10-Q is the quarterly report, and accordingly is filed quarterly. Similarly, 10-K is the annual report. 8-K is a general form for notification of material events. It is filed every time a material event is required to be reported to the shareholders. It may accompany the periodical reports, but doesn't have to. It can be filed on its own. If you're only interested in the financial statements, then you should be looking for the 10K/10Q forms. SEC will tell you when the forms were filed (dates), but it won't tell you what's more material and what's less. So you can plot a stock price graph on these dates, and see what was deemed more material by the investors based on the price fluctuations, but be prepared to find fluctuations that have no correlation to filings - because the market as a whole can drag the stock up or down. Also, some events may not be required to be reported to SEC, but may be deemed material by the investors. For example, a Cupertino town hall meeting discussing the zoning for the new AAPL HQ building may be deemed material by the investors, based on the sentiments, even if no decision was made to be reported to SEC.",
"If you're researching a publicly traded company in the USA, you can search the company filings with the SEC. Clicking 'Filings' should take you here.",
"\"Yes, especially if you are a value investor. The importance and relevance of financial statements depends on the company. IMO, the statements of a troubled \"\"too big to fail\"\" bank like Citibank or Bank of America are meaningless. In other industries, the statements will help you distinguish the best performers -- if you understand the industry. A great retail example was Bed, Bath and Beyond vs. Linens and Things. Externally, the stores appeared identical -- they carried the same product and even offered the same discounts. Looking at the books would have revealed that Linens and Things carried an enormous amount of debt that fueled rapid growth... debt that killed the company.\"",
"It does raise the question of whether investment bank analysts are doing their job when advising clients on IPOs. Sadly, no one, and I literally mean not a single person, reads a registration statement in its entirety. That's why I find this criticism of the JOBS Act particularly stupid. The problem isn't that enough information isn't getting out, it's that too few investors and analysts actually do anything with it.",
"\"Financial statements provide a large amount of specialized, complex, information about the company. If you know how to process the statements, and can place the info they provide in context with other significant information you have about the market, then you will likely be able to make better decisions about the company. If you don't know how to process them, you're much more likely to obtain incomplete or misleading information, and end up making worse decisions than you would have before you started reading. You might, for example, figure out that the company is gaining significant debt, but might be missing significant information about new regulations which caused a one time larger than normal tax payment for all companies in the industry you're investing in, matching the debt increase. Or you might see a large litigation related spending, without knowing that it's lower than usual for the industry. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - if you know how to process them, and how to use the information, then you already have the answer to your question. I'd say, the more important question to ask is: \"\"Do I have the time and resources necessary to learn enough about how businesses run, and about the market I'm investing in, so that financial statements become useful to me?\"\" If you do have the time, and resources, do it, it's worth the trouble. I'd advise in starting at the industry/business end of things, though, and only switching to obtaining information from the financial statements once you already have a good idea what you'll be using it for.\"",
"\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"",
"I say, before investing your real capital into the Stock Market, play around on the virtual stock exchange game. It let's you invest with virtual capital and you can gain experience with the stock market. I wouldn't start investing in stock until I'm sure I can cover losses though. If you do intend to invest stocks so early in your career, then you should learn how to read SEC filings (not necessary, but helpful in understanding how investors think) such as 8-K/10-K/10-Q documents so you can predict profitability and growth of companies you invest in. Once you become a veteran of the stock market game, you probably won't need to read the SEC filings into too much detail - especially if you have a diverse portfolio. Good Luck. The one takeaway from this message would probably be: Stop! and play around on virtual stocks before immersing yourself in the real thing.",
"You can use the Securities Exchange Commission's EDGAR search engine to search all available SEC related filings. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Top tip: use the fast search on the right to search for the company ticker rather than by company name.",
"Yes, there are very lucrative opportunities available by using financial news releases. A lot of times other people just aren't looking in less popular markets, or you may observe the news source before other people realize it, or may interpret the news differently than the other market participants. There is also the buy the rumor, sell the news mantra - for positive expected information (opposite for negative expected news), which results in a counterintuitive trading pattern.",
"Exec Insiders have to file with the SEC and some sites like secform4.com track it. But many insiders have selling programs where the sell the same amount every month or quarter so you would have to do your homework to determine if there are real signals in the activity.",
"The early bird catches the worm. The first person who makes use of the information gains! That is why hedge funds pay billions of dollars to place their routers right at the center of wall street. Moreover, the information is not always correct. The article you are reading may be a rumor spread by someone on wall street.Then there is speculation and that is factored into the price. For example:- In spite of all the bad news from Greece, the market still continued to rise. This was because, everyone had an idea about what was going to happen and the price was factored in way before Greece actually defaulted. The game is way more complicated than it seems. If everyone sat down and read reports, opportunities to make millions of dollars would have been lost in those few seconds. (Please note:- I do not mean reading reports is bad)",
"Regulators? SEC, in the US. Its public records for public companies.",
"Edgar Online is the SEC's reporting repository where public companies post their forms, these forms contain financial data Stock screeners allow you to compare many companies based on many financial metrics. Many sites have them, Google Finance has one with a decent amount of utility",
"I think your comment sounded a lot more reasonable and aware of how it goes than the writer; and yes it does makes sense that for little investors like retailers, there is not really a point to consider it, as you said. I don't think it redeems the article at all.",
"You can take a look at EDGAR (Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval), a big database run by the SEC where all companies, foreign and domestic, are required to file registration statements, periodic reports, and other forms electronically.",
"Whether or not you want to abstain or throw away the proxy, one reason it's important to at least read the circular is to find out if any of the proposals deal with increasing the company's common stock. When this happens, it can dilute your shares and have an effect on your ownership percentage in the company and shareholder voting control.",
"But it's the fact the company calls it a material concern, and hasn't disclosed material information to investors that puts this into a potential SEC issue. So yes, author hangs a lot on that line, but that line is what makes it most interesting to investors.",
"\">he believes that Facebook’s IPO is a clear sign that capital markets are rigged against ordinary “mom and pop” retail investors. Should mom and pop be investing in IPOs in the first place? And if they are then shouldn't they be expected to read all the SEC filings just like any sophisticated market participant? I think the FB IPO sucked really badly and damaged capital markets but NOT because \"\"mom and pop\"\" didn't read all the filings.\"",
"You can't. Even as a technical trader you should know what events are coming up and be prepared. You can't prepare for everything but you should know when the earnings dates are. You should also pay attention to the market in general. Stocks also have personalities and you should get to know that personality. Most important thing in trading is deciding when to get out before buying and stick to it when it goes against you. It is also one of the hardest things to do.",
"\"You have to read some appeals court cases see scholar.google.com , as well as SEC enforcement actions on sec.gov to get an understanding of how the SEC operates. http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml There are court created guidelines for how insider trading would be proven There is no clear line, but it is the \"\"emergency asset injunctions\"\" (freezing your assets if you nailed a suspiciously lucrative trade) you really want to avoid, and this is often times enforced/reported by the brokers themselves since the SEC does not have the resources to monitor every account's trading activities. There are some thin lines, such as having your lawyer file a lawsuit, and as soon as it is filed it is technically public so you short the recipient's stock. Or having someone in a court room updating you on case developments as soon as possible so you can make trades (although this may just be actually public, depending on the court). But the rules create the opportunities Also consider that the United States is the most strict country in this regard, there are tons of capital markets and the ideals or views of \"\"illegal insider trading\"\" compared to \"\"having reached a level of society where you are privileged to obtain this information\"\" vary across the board contains charts of countries where an existing insider trading prohibition is actually enforced: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=articles https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charvey/Teaching/BA453_2005/BD_The_world.pdf Finally, consider some markets that don't include equities, as trading on an information advantage is only applicable to things the SEC regulates, and there are plenty of things that agency doesn't regulate. So trying to reverse engineer the SEC may not be the most optimal use of energy\"",
"This conversation is about energy futures, not generic securities. A moderately wealthy dilettante without a background in the subject is at an extreme disadvantage - since as a trader your edge is being able to identify market inefficiencies and profit from them, it's difficult to imagine being able to do this in a market you do not understand.",
"Do your own research There are hundreds of places where people will give you all sorts of recommendations. There is as much noise in the recommendations as there is in the stock market itself. Become your own filter. You need to work on your own instinct. Pick a couple of sectors and a few stocks in each and study them. It is useful to know where the main indexes are going, but - unless you are trading the indexes - it is the individual sectors that you should focus on more.",
"You can access financial statements contained within 10K and 10Q filings using Last10K.com's mobile app: Last10K.com/mobile Disclosure: I work for Last10K.com",
"\"I like Muro questions! No, I don't think they do. Because for me, as a personal finance investor type just trying to save for retirement, they mean nothing. If I cannot tell what the basic business model of a company is, and how that business model is profitable and makes money, then that is a \"\"no buy\"\" for me. If I do understand it, they I can do some more looking into the stock and company and see if I want to purchase. I buy index funds that are indexes of industries and companies I can understand. I let a fund manager worry about the details, but I get myself in the right ballpark and I use a simple logic test to get there, not the word of a rating agency. If belong in the system as a whole, I could not really say. I could not possibly do the level of accounting research and other investigation that rating agencies do, so even if the business model is sound I might lose an investment because the company is not an ethical one. Again, that is the job of my fund manager to determine. Furthermore and I mitigate that risk by buying indexes instead of individual stock.\"",
"There's a lot of hate on the SEC in this thread, but having had to deal with various daily reports generated by several different clearing firms -- I think a story about of all the different methods of delivery and file formats used in the industry would be worthy of TheDailyWTF. There seriously needs to be some industry standardization here. It's a nightmare for everyone involved.",
"\"Some history: In the US, this is very tightly controlled and regulated. Although stock market securities insider trading is a relatively new crime around the world (20-30 year old), the United States is exceptional for offering the longest sentences for it, although it is still far more lucrative than and carries lower sentences than something like petty larceny. The perception of illegal insider trading has changed in the US over the years, although it is based on much older fraud statutes the regulators and the courts have only really developed modern case law against insider trading in the past 20-30 years. The US relies on its vast network of registered broker-dealers to detect and report abnormal trading activity and the regulator (SEC) can quickly obtain emergency court orders from rent-a-judges (Administrative Law Judges) to freeze trader's assets to prevent them from withdrawing, or quickly enacting sanctions. So this reality helps deter trading on material inside information. So for someone that needs to get an information advantage on the market, it is [simply] necessary for them to rationalize how this information could be inferred from public sources. Similarly there is a thin line between non-public information and public information, the \"\"lab experiment\"\" example would be material insider information, but the fact that there will be litigation over a company's key patents may be \"\"public\"\" as soon as the lawyer submits the complaint to the court system. It is also worth noting that there are A LOT of financial products trading in the capital markets, and illegal insider trading laws only applies to trading of shares of a company. So if a major holder in gold is about to liquidate all their holdings, being short gold futures is not subject to civil and criminal sanctions. Hope this helps. The above examples should help you understand what kind of information is material inside information and what kind is not, and how it is relevant to trading decisions.\"",
"lol information overload how about we share some of our frequent reads? i personally read Mike Shedlock's blog for global macro trends, albeit his content is leaning a bit to perma-bear and mercenary traders for trading related contents. I absolutely love their articles on trading systems,mentality etc etc. It played a critical role in building my very own profitable trading system, and forging the trader mindset i have today. I would not have gone far without these guys.",
"To dig a little deeper, a number of analysts within (and without) Reuters are polled for their views on individual stocks and markets on buy-hold-sell. The individual analysts will be a varied bunch of fundamentalists, technical, quant and a mixture of the three plus more arcane methodologies. There may be various levels of rumors that aren't strong enough to be considered insider trading, but all of these will give an analyst an impression of the stock/market. Generally I think there isn't much value there, except from the point of view if you are a contrarian trader, then this will form a part of the input to your trading methodology.",
"\"Publicly traded companies files 10-Ks with the SEC, searchable on the EDGAR system. If you want basic financial statement info then look for 10-Ks that are marked \"\"Interactive Data\"\", as for those the SEC has broken everything out by statement into standard formats. You could also use marketwatch which puts everything in financial statements into the same or as similar of categories as it can to make it easier to compare companies.\"",
"\"The high frequency trading you reference has no adverse impact on individual investors - at least not in the \"\"going to take advantage of you\"\" way that many articles imply. If anything, high-frequency trading is generally more helpful than harmful, adding liquidity to the system, although it can cause some volatility and \"\"noise\"\" in volume and other data, and the sudden entrance or exit of this type of trading can drive some abnormal market movements. As to research and time needed for trading, most data suggests that the less you try to \"\"beat the market\"\", the better you'll do. Trade activity tends to be inversely related to returns, particularly for individuals. Your best bet is likely to learn enough about investment risks to ensure you're comfortable with them, and invest in broadly diversified asset classes, regions, and sectors, and then mostly leave them alone, or rebalance annually. You'll almost surely do a lot better that way than you will if you spend countless hours researching the \"\"right\"\" stocks to buy.\"",
"Be cognizant of your own limitations when approaching this material. I've dealt with lawyers, doctors, engineers and other highly intelligent people from other disciplines, who then try to learn about companies and the stock market. Their own arrogance and assumption that they can just learn anything *quickly* ends up hurting them. It can take years and real classical training of finance to understand this material with any depth. Someone is wrong (a fool) in every trade. There is someone who is going to make money and lose money. Odds are the fool is you.",
"I would echo @Victor's comments. One book and 1000 web pages doesnt make you a good investor/trader. There are some basic things you should be aware of and read up on There are a few books that I would recommend I have been trading for over 10 years, my dad for over 30 years and we are both continually learning new things. Don't read one book and assume you know it all. Bear in mind that there are always new indicators being thought up and new ways of using and interpreting the same information, so keep reading and educating yourself.",
"I'd start with learning how to read a company's financial statement and their annual report. I would recommend reading the following: All three books are cheap and readily available. If you really want to enhance your learning, grab a few annual reports from companies' websites to reference as you learn about different aspects of the financial statements.",
"It is very important to note the strength and reputation of the country's regulatory agency. You cannot assume the standards of say the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) apply in other countries (even well-developed ones). These regulations force companies to disclose certain information to inform and protect investors. The standards for such practices vary internationally.",
"You should not trade based on what news is just released, if you try you will be too slow to react most of the time. In many cases the news is already priced into the stock during the anticipation of the news being released. Other times as soon as the news is released the price will gap up or down in response to the news. Some times when you think that the news is good, like new record profits have been achieved, but the share price goes down instead of up. This may be due to the expectation of the record profits by analysts to be 20% more than last year, but the company only achieves 10% more than last year. So the news is actually seen as bad because, even though record profits, it hasn't met expectations. The same can happen in the other direction, a company may make a loss and the share price goes up. This may be because it was expected to make a 50% loss but only made a 20% loss due to cost cutting, so this is seen as a good thing and the price can shoot up, especially if it had been beaten down for months. An other example is when the Federal Reserve in the USA put up interest rates earlier this month. Some may have seen this as bad news and expected share prices to fall, but instead prices rallied. This was actually seen as good news, firstly because it had been expected for a long time, and secondly and more importantly because a small rise in interest rates after many years of near zero rates is a sign of the economy finally starting to improve. If the economy is improving, that means more people will have jobs, more people will be spending more money, companies will start to make higher revenues and start to expand, which means higher profits and higher share prices. A better way to trade is to have a written trading plan and use technical analysis to develop a set of buy and sell criteria that you follow to the tea. Then back test your trading plan through various market conditions to make sure you get a positive expectancy.",
"Read the Security Analysis. I believe if you read it completely, you will have a real good chance of succeeding at making good money. If you find the book hard to read just go through it and underline under the text as you read it.",
"\"Below is just a little information on this topic from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": The most significant non-company-specific factor affecting stock price is the market sentiment, while the most significant company-specific factor is the earning power of the company. Perhaps it would be safe to say that technical analysis is more related to psychology/emotions, while fundamental analysis is more related to reason – that is why it is said that fundamental analysis tells you what to trade and technical analysis tells you when to trade. Thus, many stock traders use technical analysis as a timing tool for their entry and exit points. Technical analysis is more suitable for short-term trading and works best with large caps, for stock prices of large caps are more correlated with the general market, while small caps are more affected by company-specific news and speculation…: Perhaps small stock traders should not waste a lot of time on fundamental analysis; avoid overanalyzing the financial position, market position, and management of the focus companies. It is difficult to make wise trading decisions based only on fundamental analysis (company-specific news accounts for only about 25 percent of stock price fluctuations). There are only a few important figures and ratios to look at, such as: perhaps also: Furthermore, single ratios and figures do not tell much, so it is wise to use a few ratios and figures in combination. You should look at their trends and also compare them with the company’s main competitors and the industry average. Preferably, you want to see trend improvements in these above-mentioned figures and ratios, or at least some stability when the times are tough. Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market. Some may succeed purely on the basis of technical analysis, some purely due to fundamental analysis, and others from a combination of these two like most of the great stock traders have done (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen). It is just a matter of finding out what best fits your personality. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"",
"SEC forms are required when declaring insider activity. An insider is defined by the SEC to be a person or entity which (i) beneficially owns 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the company, (ii) is an officer or director of the company, or (iii), in the case of insider trading, does so based on knowledge which is not otherwise publically available at the time. At any rate, the person or entity trading the stock is required to file certain forms. Form 3 is filed when a person first transitions into the status of an insider (by becoming an officer, director, or beneficial owner of a certain percentage of stock). Form 4 is filed when an existing insider trades stock under the company's symbol. Form 5 is filed when certain insider trades of small value are reported later than usual. *More information can be found at the SEC's website. Another possibility is that a large number of options or derivatives were exercised by an officer, director, or lending institution. In the cases of officers or directors, this would need to be declared with an SEC form 4. For an institution exercising warrants obtained as a result of a lending agreement, either form 3 or 4 would need to be filed. In addition to the above possibilities, username passing through pointed out a very likely scenario in his answer, as well.",
"\"The markets are not as information efficient as some might have you believe. But on the contrary, looking up what the aggregate professional analysts have said is also part of \"\"doing your homework\"\"\"",
"Well, my experience says otherwise. I ran a micro hedge fund with just 100k... my prime broker and at least one other offered me information (what is the freakin term they used? Uggh). I heard from another micro hedge fund that they received good info from him. As stated earlier, I would never trade on such info though.",
"\"Edgar Online has this information for companies under SEC regulations and they are reported in \"\"Form 4\"\" so that should help guide your search\"",
"\"Is evaluating stocks just a loss of time if the stock is traded very much? Not at all! Making sound investment decisions based on fundamental analysis of companies will help you to do decide whether a given company is right for you and your risk appetite. Investing is not a zero-sum game, and you can achieve a positive long-term (or short-term, depending on what you're after) outcome for yourself without compromising your ability to sleep at night if you take the time to become acquainted with the companies that you are investing in. How can you ensure that your evaluation is more precise than the market ones which consists of the evaluation of thousands of people and professionals? For the average individual, the answer is often simply \"\"you probably cannot\"\". But you don't have to set the bar that high - what you can do is ensure that your evaluation gives you a better understanding of your investment and allows you to better align it with your investment objectives. You don't have to beat the professionals, you just have to lose less money than you would by paying them to make the decision for you.\"",
"No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.",
"Before you go filling your head with useless information as there is way too much stuff out there on the stock market. First ask yourself a few questions: There is going to be a balance between the three... don't kid yourself. After you answer these questions find a trading strategy to get the returns you are looking for. Remember the higher returns you expect... the more time you have to put in. Find a trading strategy you like and that works for you. Ounce you have your strategy then find the stocks or ETF that work for that strategy.... Ignore everything else, it is designed to separate you from your money. Making money in the stock market is easy, don't let the media hype and negative people tell you any different. Find something that works for you and perfect it... stick to it.",
"Every listed company needs to maintain book of accounts, when you are investing in companies you would have to look at what is stated in the books and along with other info decide to invest in it.",
"\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"",
"Read Warren Buffett's letters to his shareholders - they are such an interesting read and I guarantee you'll learn more than financial modelling - you will learn how to think about these businesses. Must be what 700-800 pages in total?",
"Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.",
"Security Analysis(very difficult for beginners )& Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. All about(book series by McGraw) on Stocks,Derivatives,Options,Futures,Market Timings. Reminiscence of a Stock Operator (Life of jesse Livermore). Memoirs , Popular Delusions and Madness of the Crowds by Charles Mackay. Basics of Technical analysis includig Trading Strategies via Youtube videos & Google. Also opt for Seeking alpha free version to learn about portfolio allocation under current scenario there will be few articles as it will ask for premium version if you love it then opt for it. But still these books will do.",
"\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"",
"Just look at the filing date of the 10Q and then Yahoo the closing price or Google it. I assume you are looking for market reactions to SEC filings? If you want to look at the closing stock price for the end of the period which the filing covers, it's like on the first page of the filing when the period (either quarterly or yearly) ends. This data is generally less useful, however, because it really is just another day in the market for the company. The actual release of the data to the public is more important.",
"\"ER it might have some bearing on, depending on where you're looking to work. M&A, no, not really. EDIT: Just caught the \"\"level 1\"\" bit. No, probably not. Level 1 is a relatively general look at finance overall (lots of information, but not necessarily very deep).\"",
"Very important. Returning again to the example of the farmer, efficient, liquid markets that fairly reflect the price of a given asset allow that farmer to run his business as cost effectively as he can. That (in theory) lowers the price of his goods for the consumer. If he wasn't able to efficiently hedge, he would have to charge a premium to reflect the price risk he takes on between planting and harvesting his corn. Being pedantic here but single stock futures markets are extremely quiet. If you were the owner of a company and you traded *options* on your company stock (a hilariously common form of insider trading) yes, that would be illegal and the SEC would certainly come after you.",
"\"I'm a senior majoring in accounting and management information systems. Here is a question I answered a while back about financial statements and employee retention. In the answer that I provided at the bottom it was to assess a company's ability to pay by use of ratios. Likewise, similar accounting methods need to be understood and implemented when assessing stocks(which is where I believe Mr. Buffet was going with this). As we can see the severity of the questions decreases, but if you can not answer question 3 then you should study accounting principles. So how much is enough just to get started? You will never have enough knowledge to start, period. You will have to continuously be learning, so start sooner than later. However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. A comment on @Veronica's post. Understanding economics and accounting are fundamental. Analysis, seeing trends, and copying are instinctual human traits that helped us evolve (we are very good at pattern recognition). Taking an intro economic and accounting course at a local community college is an excellent place to start when breaking the mold of pattern-thinking. You have to be critical in understanding what elements move a company's A/R in the statement of cash flows. Read. Literally, don't stop reading. Latest edition of of Kesio's accounting principles? Read it. Cover to cover. Tax policies on Section 874, 222, 534? Read it. Take a class, read a book, ask questions! Good Luck, \"\"Welcome to [the] Science [of Business], you're gonna like it here\"\" - Phil Plait\"",
"Since you seem determined to consider this, I'd like to break down for you why I believe it is an incredibly risky proposition: 1) In general, picking individual stocks is risky. Individual stocks are by their nature not diversified assets, and a single company-wide calamity (a la Volkswagen emissions, etc.) can create huge distress to your investments. The way to mitigate this risk is of course to diversify (invest in other types of assets, such as other stocks, index funds, bonds, etc.). However, you must accept that this first step does have risks. 2) Picking stocks on the basis of financial information (called 'fundamental analysis') requires a very large amount of research and time dedication. It is one of the two main schools of thought in equity investing (as opposed to 'technical analysis', which pulls information directly from stock markets, such as price volatility). This is something that professional investors do for a living - and that means that they have an edge you do not have, unless you dedicate similar resources to this task. That information imbalance between you and professional traders creates additional risk where you make determinations 'against the grain'. 3) Any specific piece of public information (and this is public information, regardless of how esoteric it is) may be considered to be already 'factored into' public stock prices. I am a believer in market efficiency first and foremost. That means I believe that anything publically known related to a corporation ['OPEC just lowered their oil production! Exxon will be able to increase their prices!'] has already been considered by the professional traders currently buying and selling in the market. For your 'new' information to be valuable, it would need to have the ability to forecast earnings in a way not already considered by others. 4) I doubt you will be able to find the true nature of the commercial impact of a particular event, simply by knowing ship locations. So what if you know Alcoa is shipping Aluminium to Cuba - is this one of 5 shipments already known to the public? Is this replacement supplies that are covering a loss due to damaged goods previously sent? Is the boat only 1/3 full? Where this information gets valuable, is when it gets to the level of corporate espionage. Yes, if you had ship manifests showing tons of aluminum being sold, and if this was a massive 'secret' shipment about to be announced at the next shareholders' meeting, you could (illegally) profit from that information. 5) The more massive the company, the less important any single transaction is. That means the super freighters you may see transporting raw commodities could have dozens of such ships out at any given time, not to mention news of new mine openings and closures, price changes, volume reports, etc. etc. So the most valuable information would be smaller companies, where a single shipment might cover a month of revenue - but such a small company is (a) less likely to be public [meaning you couldn't buy shares in the company and profit off of the information]; and (b) less likely to be found by you in the giant sea of ship information. In summary, while you may have found some information that provides insight into a company's operations, you have not shown that this information is significant and also unknown to the market. Not to mention the risks associated with picking individual stocks in the first place. In this case, it is my opinion that you are taking on additional risk not adequately compensated by additional reward.",
"Yea read a few books or watch some videos on YouTube on fundamental analysis and try it using excel. It's probably not what you'll be doing if you get a degree in finance, and you might even end up in accounting like I did, but its a good place to start to see if you like it or not. It also exposes you to accounting, business, the politics of business, taxation, financial statements, EDGAR and all the other interesting and important stuff. You might want to pick up a study guide for the CPA exam BEC. Lots of very interesting stuff in there about business in general including how the board of directors works, and taxation. It's an awesome read.",
"Technical Analysis in general is something to be cognizant of, I don't use a majority of studies and consider them a waste of time. I also use quantitative analysis more so than technical analysis, and prefer the insight it gives into the market. The markets are more about predicting other people's behavior, psychology. So if you are trading an equity that you know retail traders love, retail traders use technical analysis and you can use their fabled channel reversals and support levels against them, as examples. Technical analysis is an extremely broad subject. So I suggest getting familiar, but if your historical pricing charts are covered in various studies, I would say you are doing it wrong. A more objective criticism of technical analysis is that many of the studies were created in the 1980s or earlier. Edges in the market do not typically last more than a few weeks. On the other side of that realization, some technical analysis works if everyone also thinks it will work, if everyone's charts say buy when the stock reaches the $90 price level and everyone does, the then stock will go higher. But the market makers and the actions of the futures markets and the actions of options traders, can undermine the collective decisions of retail traders using technical analysis.",
"You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk.",
"This is interesting. The application I'm putting together is more along the lines of automating the research process for a financial professional using a personal algorithm of his. The end goal is to provide him an alert to email when a new report is filed and if his criteria are met based on that report and past reports. Thanks anyway.",
"\"I like how it said at the very end of the article \"\"the SEC declined to comment on if it was going to investigate\"\". Shouldn't the answer be an automatic \"\"yes\"\" since they are the ones tasked with investigating insider trading. This situation is extremely disheartening and concerning.\"",
"It's a really big stretch to assume that a particular 10Q release will have the exact same impact on trading volume, trading price, and volatility as a prior release, in a different quarter, under a different set of circumstances and a different set of results, which is what you seem to be implying when you suggest that a lack of volume in response to one quarter's results should therefore be used as a benchmark. I think traders and the HFT firms are a lot smarter than you think.",
"The headline mentions Harbinger Capital because they were making news this weekend because of an on-going SEC investigation. [Harbinger Capital Partners has been put on notice by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it could face a lawsuit for securities-fraud violations, according to published media reports.] (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11340855/1/harbinger-capital-gets-wells-notices.html)",
"One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.",
"\"If you are interested in a career in algorithmic trading, I strongly encourage you to formally study math and computer science. Algorithmic trading firms have no need for employees with financial knowledge; if they did, they'd just be called \"\"trading\"\" firms. Rather, they need experts in machine learning, statistical modeling, and computer science in general. Of course there are other avenues of employment at an algorithmic trading firm, such as accounting, clearing, exchange relations, etc. If that's the sort of thing you're interested in, again you'll probably want a formal education in those areas as opposed to just reading about finance in the news. If you edit your question or add a comment below with information about your particular background, I could perhaps advise you in a bit more detail. ::edit:: Given your comment, I would say you have a fine academic background for the industry. When hiring mathematicians, firms care most about the ease with which you can explore and extract features from massive datasets (especially time series) regardless of what the dataset might represent. An intelligent firm will not care whether you arrive at their doorstep with zero finance knowledge; they will want to teach you everything from scratch anyway. Nonetheless, some domain knowledge could be helpful, but you're not going to get \"\"more\"\" of it from reading any mass market news source, whether you have to pay for it or not. That's because Some non-mass-market news sources in the industry are These are subscription-only and actually discuss real information that real professional investors care about. They are loaded with industry jargon, they're extremely opinionated, and (in my opinion) they're useless. I can't imagine trying to learn about the industry from them, but if you want to spend money for news in order to be exposed to the innards of the industry, then either of these is far better than the Financial Times. Despite requiring a subscription, the Financial Times still does not cover the technical details of professional trading. Instead of trying to learn from news, then, I would suggest some old favorites: and, above all else, Read everything in the navigation box on the right side under Financial Markets and Financial Instruments.\"",
"Let me first give you my definitions of the words 'investor' and 'speculator'. To me, anyone looking to 'buy low, sell high' is a speculator. Only 'buy and hold' people are investors. The news agencies love to report on changes in the price of a stock. This gives them something to talk about. So speculation is encouraged by the news media. What investors care about is dividends. In my opinion whatwhat news agencies should report on are changes to the dividend provided by a security. I used to be a speculator, but now that I am retired I am an investor.",
"A Random Walk Down Wall Street Barbarians at the Gate Liar's Poker King of Capital The Big Short No need to even consider CFP or CFA if you don't have a degree/full time job that requires it. They are costly.",
"I use the forum seeking alpha. http://seekingalpha.com/",
"according to the SEC: Shareholder Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund respectively must provide shareholders with annual and semi-annual reports 60 days after the end of the fund’s fiscal year and 60 days after the fund’s fiscal mid-year. These reports contain updated financial information, a list of the fund’s portfolio securities, and other information. The information in the shareholder reports will be current as of the date of the particular report (that is, the last day of the fund’s fiscal year for the annual report, and the last day of the fund’s fiscal mid-year for the semi-annual report). Other Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund must file a Form N-Q each quarter and a Form N-PX each year on the SEC’s EDGAR database, although funds are not required to mail these reports to shareholders. Funds disclose portfolio holdings on Form N-Q. Form N-PX identifies specific proposals on which the fund has voted portfolio securities over the past year and discloses how the fund voted on each. This disclosure enables fund shareholders to monitor their funds’ involvement in the governance activities of portfolio companies. which means that sixty days after the end of each quarter they will tell you what they owned 60 days ago. This makes sense; why would they want to tell the world what companies they are buying and selling.",
"\"You hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph ( the rest was good as well). Most data is garbage, but even a large amount of garbage data can tell you something. I wouldn't touch DRYS with a 9 million foot long poll, but if 9 million people said DRYS was a good buy (or said they were bullish on stock twits, or twitter). Id buy DRYS and sell it by the end of the day. People are stupid, there's no argument there, but if 9 million idiots are gonna be buying a shitty stock, I'm gonna join them, let the price get driven up based on nothing but hive mind idiocy, then drop it before they all realize they've been fooled by their own ignorance. AMD has been hilarious. I've been holding AMD since 2013, any tech geek would know AMD was a great buy back then. Now all I see are posts about \"\"Why did AMD go up today?\"\" or \"\"Will AMD hit 100 dollars a share by the end of the year\"\" or something equally ludicrous. People don't want to read. They just want to spew nonsense and be spoon fed the information (by those who are spewing nonsense)\"",
"From my experience you don't need knowledge of accounting to pick good stocks. The type of investing you are referring to is fundamental. This is finding out about the company, this websites should help you start off: http://en.tradehero.mobi/how-to-choose-a-stock-fundamental-analysis/ Investopedia will also be a useful website in techniques. A bit of knowledge in economics will be helpful in understanding how current affairs will affect a market, which will affect stock prices. However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. For example looking at charts from previous years it shows the last time there was a huge recession the dollar did well and commodities didn't. In this recession we are entering you can see the same thing happening. Read about the different techniques before limiting yourself to just looking at financial statements you may find a better technique suited to you, like these technical analysts: http://etfhq.com/blog/2013/03/02/top-technical-analysts/ Hope this helps.",
"First utilize a security screener to identify the security profiles you are looking to identify for identifying your target securities for shorting. Most online brokers have stock screeners that you can utilize. At this point you may want to look at your target list of securities to find out those that are eligible for shorting. The SHO thresold list is also a good place to look for securities that are hard to borrow to eliminate potential target securities. http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html Also your broker can let you know the stocks that are available for borrowing. You can then take your target securities and then you can look at the corporate filings on the SEC's Edgar site to look for the key words you are looking for. I would suggest that you utilize XBRL so you can electronically run your key word searched in an automated manner. I would further suggest that you can run the key word XBRL daily for issuer filings of your target list of securities. Additional word searches you may want to consider are those that could indicate a dilution of the companies stock such as the issuance of convertible debt. Also the below link detailing real short interest may be helpful. Clearing firms are required to report short interest every two weeks. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/short-interest.aspx",
"Log in to your Scottrade account, and goto Markets --> Analyst Views --> Click the PDF link for the company. Also, there is also the 'Views and News' part of the web page which has additional information beyond what exist in the reports.",
"\"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following \"\"market conditions\"\" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about.\"",
"There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing.",
"The actual financial statements should always be referenced first before opening or closing a position. For US companies, they are freely available on EDGAR. Annual reports are called 10-Ks, and quarterly reports are called 10-Qs. YHOO and GOOG do a great job of posting financials that are quickly available, but money.msn has the best. These should be starting point, quick references. As you can see, they may all have the same strange accounting. Sometimes, it's difficult to find the information one seeks in the consolidated financial statements as in this case, so searching through the filing is necessary. The notes can be helpful, but Ctrl-F seems to do everything I need when I want something in a report. In AAPL's case, the Interest expense can be found in Note 3.",
"If you just want to save for retirement, start with a financial planning book, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 and here's my editorial on the investing part: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ If you're thinking of spending time stock-picking or trading for fun, then there are lots of options. Web site: Morningstar Premium (http://morningstar.com) has very good information. They analyze almost all large-cap stocks and some small caps too, plus mutual funds and ETFs, and have some good general information articles. It doesn't have the sales-pitch hot-blooded tone of most other sites. Morningstar analyzes companies from a value investing point of view which is probably what you want unless you're day trading. Also they analyze funds, which are probably the most practical investment. Books: If you want to be competent (in the sense that a professional investor trying to beat the market or control risk vs. the market would be) then I thought the CFA curriculum was pretty good: However, this will quickly teach you how much is involved in being competent. The level 1 curriculum when I did it was 6 or 7 thick textbooks, equivalent to probably a college semester courseload. I didn't do level 2 or 3. I don't think level 1 was enough to become competent, it's just enough to learn what you don't know. The actual CFA charter requires all three levels and years of work experience. If you more want to dabble, then Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor certainly isn't a bad place to start, but you'd also want to read some efficient markets stuff (Random Walk Down Wall Street, or something by Bogle, or The Intelligent Asset Allocator http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Asset-Allocator-Portfolio-Maximize/dp/0071362363, are some options). It wouldn't be bad to just read a textbook like http://www.amazon.com/Investments-Irwin-Finance-Zvi-Bodie/dp/0256146381 which would be the much-abridged version of the CFA level 1 stuff. If you're into day trading / charting, then I don't know much about that at all, some of the other answers may have some ideas. I've never been able to find info on this that didn't seem like it had a sketchy sales pitch kind of vibe. Honestly in a world of high-frequency trading computers I'm skeptical this is something to get into. Unless you want to program HFT computers: http://howtohft.wordpress.com/",
"SE:Personal Finance user Ray K says in a comment on this question that his or her broker said: a company cannot release any significant news in a share-holder meeting that is not publicly accessible / open, similar to how earnings releases are available to the entire public at the same time, not just to a few attending a meeting.",
"Well, kind of XD. I usually just look through Business Week for the ADRs that are on the OTC market. I don't do anything major, but why I love them is that they have a greater reach than just ADRs on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Like for instance, if I wanted to own Thai or European stocks, many of the larger, more reputable firms are listed on the OTC market. Having said that, most other sites don't have earnings reports laid out for you. Business Week does. The only fancy thing I am interested in are options and options on futures, and Bar Chart is good for the latter.",
"If it became a choice of reading books versus finding internships in the industry I would choose the latter. If it is supplemental material to the internship I think that the ones you have listed are fine. Reading a book about an ever changing industry really isn't going to get you ahead. Experience is. That being said topics related to liquidity, repo transactions, and risk management to be key if you are entering the financial industry. For prop trading there aren't going to be too many people writing about a how to manual on the industry because then they have more competition with their experience. IMO That is why you need to work with these people and acquire the knowledge firsthand. Trading is not something you can read about you need to do it. Especially when you are competing with people who have done it their whole lives.",
"I don't know, maybe saving for 30+ years you'd want to see how your investments are doing to plan for retirement? Or should I just use an interest calc on google and expect that average market return on my deposits will be there in 2045. Looking at the statements builds trust with the advisor. What makes them trusted?",
"\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \"\"earnings smoothing\"\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \"\"interesting\"\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\"",
"If you are refering to company's financial reports and offerings, the required source for companies to disclose the information is the SGX website (www.sgx.com) under the Company Disclosure tab. This includes annual statements for the last 5 years, prospectus for any shares/debentures/buy back/etc which is being offered, IPO offers and shareholders meetings. You may also find it useful to check the Research section of the SGX website where some of the public listed companies have voluntarily allowed independent research firms to monitor their company for a couple of years and produce a research report. If you are referring to filings under the Companies Act, these can be found at the Accounting and Regulatory Authority (ACRA) website (www.acra.gov.sg) and you can also purchase extracts of specific filings under the ACRA iShop. To understand the Singapore public listing system and the steps to public listing, you may find it useful to purchase one of the resource documents available for Singapore law, finance, tax and corporate secretaryship which are sold by CCH (www.cch.com.sg). Specifically for public listing the Singapore Annotated Listing Manual may help. It is common practice for companies here to employ law firms and research firms to do the majority of this research instead of doing it themselves which I one of the reasons this information is online but perhaps not so visible. I hope I have understood your question correctly!",
"I have ScottradeElite on my desktop. I have played around with it but no longer use it. The transactions that I make through Scottrade are more dependent on my goals for the securities than what the market is doing at the moment. Keep in mind that there will always be others out there with better access to price changes than you. They also will have better hardware. We cannot beat them at their game.",
"I would recommend looking at The Motley Fool.",
"It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter. Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends). One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described. But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities. That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that. We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios. That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices. It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.",
"I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).",
"I won't be able to model stock prices using this information. The pros aren't likely to use Google as much. Even the casual investor is likely to have his own habits. For example, I've come to like how Yahoo permits me to set up a portfolio and follow the stocks I want. And the information that interests me is there, laid out nicely, price, history, insider trades, news etc. But your effort probably still has some discovery value, as it will help you understand when interest in a company suddenly swells above normal. Nothing wrong with a good project like that. Just don't expect to extract too much market-beating success from it. The pros will eat your lunch, take your money, and not even say thanks. Welcome to Money.SE.",
"Schedule 13D (or the abbreviated version, schedule 13G) would be the most likely place to find this info. When a person or group of persons acquires beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a voting class of a company’s equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they are required to file a Schedule 13D with the SEC. Schedule 13D reports the acquisition and other information within ten days after the purchase. Any material changes in the facts contained in the schedule require a prompt amendment. You can find the Schedules 13D for most publicly traded companies in the SEC’s EDGAR database. A 1% change in the amount of ownership is considered material.",
"Get really good at Excel. Make it a goal to have it become a specialty of yours. Practice the basics, learn to create models, read books on it, watch videos etc. As far as publications, just try and get to the usual suspects on a daily basis. WSJ, Economist, CNN Money, Yahoo Finance, Seeking Alpha, etc.",
"\"I agree that retail looks for orderly markets, but orderly markets have really never existed. Really study market history, and you'll see that markets are more orderly today than they ever have been. The stuff that used to take place was just insane and happened before computers--let alone HFT. Let me state that, while it may seem like I'm defending HFT, my algos are actually much longer-term and wouldn't be hurt by any of your proposals. I think many of the HFT guys are no better than those three-card monte sharks who used to fill Times Square. But they're just playing the game. They're not good, but they're also not bad; they're just another segment of players. In orderly markets (up and down), they really do add liquidity. When things go awry as they tend to do in the markets, the HFTs step aside. But don't fool yourself--market makers have always done the exact same thing. And also remember that many markets don't even have market makers; traders provide all liquidity. Here's the thing. Retail investors swarm to the markets when everything is going up and up. They believe they can do no wrong and that prices will go up forever. Then the market gets a bit tougher, retail investors (and most \"\"pros,\"\" by the way) start to lose, and then retail investors cry foul. Markets were never intended to be a nice, safe playground for the masses. They were designed for those who dedicate their lives to understanding them. I don't pretend that I can litigate a legal case, operate on someone's brain, or build a bridge. Experts have studied those areas for decades and are quite good at those things. But retail investors have always thought of Wall Street as some sort of \"\"safe Las Vegas.\"\" In reality, it's survival of the fiercest. I'll say to you what I say to every one of my friend's who wants me to \"\"show them a few things about trading\"\": If you aren't going to really commit thousands of hours to understanding the markets, then stay out. Invest money that you don't need for some time in a few good mutual funds. Keep your debt to a minimum. Don't chase quick profits if you don't understand the game.\"",
"\"TL;DR: Sure, \"\"do your own homework\"\" is sometimes a cop out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our homework. I agree that in many cases this is a cop-out by commentators. However, even if you believe in perfect market efficiency, there is benefit in \"\"doing your homework\"\" for many reasons. One of which you already mention in the question: different stocks all with the same \"\"value\"\" might have widely ranging risk. Another factor that might vary between stocks is their tax consequences. High dividend stocks might be a better fit for some buyers than others. One stock might be priced at $40 because there is a small chance they might get regulatory approval for a new product. This might make this stock very risky with a 20% of being $150 in 12 months, and a 80% chance of being $20. Another stock might be priced at $40 because the company is a cash cow, declining in revenues but producing a large dividend of $0.40 per quarter. Low risk, but also with some potential tax disadvantages. Another stock might be priced at $40 because it's a high growth stock. This would be less risky than the first example, but more risky than the second example. And the risk would be more generalized, i.e. there wouldn't be one day or one event that would be make or break the stock. In short, even if we assume that the market is pricing everything perfectly, not all stocks are equal and not all stocks are equally appropriate to everyone. Sometimes when we hear an analyst say \"\"they should have done their homework\"\" they are really saying \"\"This was a high risk/high reward stock. They should have known that this had a potential downside.\"\" And that all assumes that we believe in 100% pure market efficiency. Which many disagree with, at least to some extent. For example, if we instead subscribe to Peter Lynch's theories about \"\"local knowledge\"\", we might believe that everyone has some personal fields of expertise where they know more than the experts. A professional stock analyst is going to follow many stocks and many not have technical experience in the field of the company. (This is especially true of small and mid cap stocks.) If you happen to be an expert in LED lighting, it is entirely feasible (at least to me) that you could be able to do a better job of \"\"doing homework\"\" on CREE than the analysts. Or if you use a specialized piece of software from a small vendor at work, and you know that the latest version stinks, then you will likely know more than the analyst does. I think it is somewhat akin to going to a doctor. We could say to ourselves \"\"the doctor is more knowledgeable about me than medicine, I'm just going to do what they tell me to do.\"\" And 99% of the time, that is the right thing to do. But if we do our \"\"homework\"\" anyway, and research the symptoms, diagnoses, and drugs ourselves as well, we can do get benefits. Sometimes we just can express our preferences amongst equal solutions. Sometimes we can ask smarter questions. And sometimes we have some piece of knowledge that the doctor doesn't have and can actually make an important discovery they didn't know. (And, just like investing, sometimes we can also have just enough knowledge to be dangerous and do ourselves harm if we go against the advice of the professionals.)\""
] |
[
"\"There are many different kinds of SEC filings with different purposes. Broadly speaking, what they have in common is that they are the ways that companies publicly disclose information that they are legally required to disclose. The page that you listed gives brief descriptions of many types, but if you click through to the articles on individual types of filings, you can get more info. One of the most commonly discussed filings is the 10-K, which is, as Wikipedia says, \"\"a comprehensive summary of a company's financial performance\"\". This includes info like earnings and executive pay. One example of a form that some people believe has potential utility for investors is Form 4, which is a disclosure of \"\"insider trading\"\". People with a privileged stake in a company (executives, directors, and major shareholders) cannot legally buy or sell shares without disclosing it by filing a Form 4. Some people think that you can make use of this information in the sense that if, for instance, the CEO of Google buys a bunch of Twitter stock, they may have some reason for thinking it will go up, so maybe you should buy it too. Whether such inferences are accurate, and whether you can garner a practical benefit from them (i.e., whether you can manage to buy before everyone else notices and drives the price up) is debatable. My personal opinion would be that, for an average retail investor, readng SEC filings is unlikely to be useful. The reason is that an average retail investor shouldn't be investing in individual companies at all, but rather in mutual funds or ETFs, which typically provide comparable returns with far less risk. SEC filings are made by individual companies, so it doesn't generally help you to read them unless you're going to take action related to an individual company. It doesn't generally make sense to take action related to an individual company if you don't have the time and energy to read a large number of SEC filings to decide which company to take action on. If you have the time and energy to read a large number of SEC filings, you're probably not an average retail investor. If you are a wheeler dealer who plays in the big leagues, you might benefit from reading SEC filings. However, if you aren't already reading SEC filings, you're probably not a wheeler dealer who plays in the big leagues. That said, if you're a currently-average investor with big dreams, it could be instructive to read a few filings to explore what you might do with them. You could, for instance, allocate a \"\"play money\"\" fund of a few thousand dollars and try your hand at following insider trades or the like. If you make some money, great; if not, oh well. Realistically, though, there are so many people who make a living reading SEC filings and acting on them every day that you have little chance of finding a \"\"diamond in the rough\"\" unless you also make a living by doing it every day. It's sort of like asking \"\"Should I read Boating Monthly to improve my sailing skills?\"\" If you're asking because you want to rent a Hobie Cat and go for a pleasure cruise now and then, sure, it can't hurt. If you're asking because you want to enter the America's Cup, you can still read Boating Monthly, but it won't in itself meaningfully increase your chances of winning the America's Cup.\"",
"I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read."
] |
9701
|
How to bet against the London housing market?
|
[
"387141",
"357739"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"387141",
"300703",
"427808",
"24563",
"484266",
"510006",
"357739",
"137073",
"308859",
"268802",
"172338",
"408865",
"410404",
"150632",
"546637",
"565417",
"171784",
"353224",
"480967",
"384000",
"421285",
"473883",
"12782",
"422820",
"118633",
"460839",
"25582",
"570173",
"388613",
"485760",
"350366",
"140371",
"412502",
"451203",
"158006",
"372457",
"499811",
"516214",
"99200",
"532907",
"39265",
"292338",
"275768",
"184557",
"40856",
"258048",
"461062",
"251482",
"12542",
"230666",
"263852",
"455856",
"186031",
"139914",
"541718",
"528754",
"420672",
"253711",
"95415",
"363719",
"30427",
"187806",
"66219",
"443926",
"108486",
"225682",
"358586",
"220795",
"190891",
"270979",
"19711",
"103183",
"32944",
"333496",
"133572",
"108399",
"536043",
"247902",
"298866",
"320450",
"583918",
"281338",
"470475",
"521641",
"549422",
"467926",
"365298",
"265267",
"39660",
"556621",
"272547",
"588836",
"421268",
"228217",
"73283",
"194322",
"367103",
"192299",
"92267",
"350332"
] |
[
"Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!",
"The most obvious route is to short the lenders, preferably subprime. Since there are no lenders that operate exclusively in San Francisco, you could look north at Canada. The Canadian real estate market (esp. Vancouver) is just as overheated as the San Francisco market. As a start, famous short seller Marc Cohodes recommends HCG (Home Capital Group) as an opportune short.",
"If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.",
"Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15.",
"You could short home builders who do a lot of their business in Northern California. (Not just San Francisco, Silicon Valley, or even the Bay Area.) Home prices in Sacramento and the northern San Joaquin Valley are correlated with Bay Area home prices. Many of these builders went broke during the last bust, so you might have trouble finding a publicly traded home builder that is concentrated in just one market.",
"The problem with short options is they expire and have to be covered. An inverse ETF is the way to go in my opinion. Because the real issue isn't if the market is overvalued but when will it correct. That's the risk and no one knows that answer",
"While I am not an advocate of shorting anything (unlimited downside, capped upside), you can:",
"Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up. Selling short allows for unlimited losses. Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game. If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense. For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign. Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live. Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up.",
"\"Could have done a [put option](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put_option) if you wanted to bet against it in another way. It's not technically \"\"shorting\"\", but in a layman-shorthand it's the same thing - making money gambling on the \"\"pessimistic side\"\" of possibility. You don't actually need to borrow any shares to do that, just find someone who thinks the price at some later date will be higher than you think it will be.\"",
"Without commenting on your view of the TV market: Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure: 1.Short the stocks Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet 2.Options a. Write Calls b. Buy puts Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta 3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts. Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain",
"The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online.",
"Be radical! (I assume you are not working for a city bank getting paid “city wages” – e.g. you are one of the 99% of people in London or more “normal” income.) House prices and rents in London and anywhere within reasonable commuting distances are now so high that couples in reasonable jobs often have to rent rooms in shared houses (HMOs). This is due to so many people wishing to live/work in London and there not being enough new homes built. If you are looking at buying a property to rent out, you need the rent to be about double the interest payments on the mortgage – otherwise you will not be able to afford repairs, or cope when interest rates increase – (you could also get a tax bill that is more the your profit). Finding such a property is very hard in London, as the prices of homes have gone up a lot more in London then rents have. There are still some flats where the rent will cover the landlord’s costs, but not many. (Any landlord that brought more than a few years ago, is making a very nice profit in London, as the rents have gone up a lot since they brought – but are you willing to bet your life on the rents going up even more?) Moving a short distance out of London, does not help much. So look at somewhere like Manchester or Birmingham",
"There are 2 primary ways to bet against a stock if you think it will decline. The first is to short sell shares of that stock the second is to buy put options (I would also add that selling naked call options would also be a bet against but I don't believe that is as common as the other 2 mentioned methods). The problem with short selling an IPO is that you first have to borrow the shares you are going to sell. Since the shares are privately held prior to the IPO that can be problematic. Even after the IPO you may have to wait a bit before shares become available to borrow. The problem with options (either buying puts or seeking naked calls) is similar. Options are traded on a different exchange than the stock and they have their own requirements that a stock must meet to have options traded. Both of these problems eventually correct themselves however, not in time for you to catch the initial fall you seem to be looking for.",
"You can hedge your house price from losing value if you believe that the housing market is correlated with major stock indices. Speak with a commodities broker because they will be able to help you buy puts on stock indices which if correlated with housing prices will offer somewhat of a hedge. Example. House prices drop 30% because of weak economy, stocks will generally drop around that same amount 30%. If you have enough exposure to in the puts compared to your house value you will be protected. You can also buy calls in 30 year bonds for interest rate lock if you are not on a fixed interest rate. Many investors like warren buffet and carl icahn have been protecting them selves from a potential market downward turn. Speak to a local commodity broker to get some detailed advice, not etrade or any discount brokers they won't be able to help you specialize your trades. look for a full time commodity broker house.",
"Depends on your time scale, but generally, I don't think it would work. What you'd really be betting on in this case is mean-reversal, which does not hold true in the equity universe (atleast not in the long run). If you look at the historical prices of the S&P, you'll notice it increases in terms of absolute dollar value. On the short term, however, if you feel the market has significantly undervalued or overvalued a security, then mean-reversal might be a reasonable bet to make. In that scenario, however, it seems to me that you are really looking for a volatility trade, in which case you might want to consider a straddle position using options. Here, the bet you'd be making is that the price at expiration will be inside a certain band (or outside the band, depending on your position).",
"Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.",
"\"Depends on how far down the market is heading, how certain you are that it is going that way, when you think it will fall, and how risk-averse you are. By \"\"better\"\" I will assume you are trying to make the most money with this information that you can given your available capital. If you are very certain, the way that makes the most money for the least investment from the options you provided is a put. If you can borrow some money to buy even more puts, you will make even more. Use your knowledge of how far and when the market will fall to determine which put is optimal at today's prices. But remember that if the market stays flat or goes up you lose everything you put in and may owe extra to your creditor. A short position in a futures contract is also an easy way to get extreme leverage. The extremity of the leverage will depend on how much margin is required. Futures trade in large denominations, so think about how much you are able to put to risk. The inverse ETFs are less risky and offer less reward than the derivative contracts above. The levered one has twice the risk and something like twice the reward. You can buy those without a margin account in a regular cash brokerage, so they are easier in that respect and the transactions cost will likely be lower. Directly short selling an ETF or stock is another option that is reasonably accessible and only moderately risky. On par with the inverse ETFs.\"",
"\"Yes, you could sell what you have and bet against others that the stock price will continue to fall within a period of time \"\"Shorting\"\". If you're right, your value goes UP even though the stock price goes down. This is a pretty darn risky bet to make. If you're wrong, there's no limit to how much money you can owe. At least with stocks they can only fall to zero! When you short, and the price goes up and up and up (before the deadline) you owe it! And just as with stocks, someone else has to agree to take the bet. If a stock is pretty obviously tanking, its unlikely that someone would oppose your bet. (It's probably pretty clear that I barely know what I'm talking about, but I was surprised not to see this listed among the answers.)\"",
"\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"",
"If you are interested in short term trading and live in the UK you can do some Spread Betting. If you know what you are doing you can make money no matter which way the market is moving. Note that most people don't know what they are doing and lose their money pretty quickly.",
"Invest in an etf called SPXS and hope for a market correction in the next month. Or if you know a lot about markets and trends, select from this list of leveraged etfs available from Direxion.",
"NB - I live in Surrey and bought my house in January 2014. If you don't have a very social life, it does pay to stay outside London. Places outside London are cheap and you will get a better deal in relation to houses or flats as compared to London. I feel very priced out of the market regarding London mortgages I will strongly question you logic behind this ? Why only London ? Why not live in the commuter belt outside London. Good places to reside, good schools, nice neighbourhood and away from the hustle and bustle of London. Many of my colleagues commute from Cambridge and Oxford daily into Central London and they laugh at people who want to buy a house in London, just for the sake of buying a house. It seems that the housing market is generally in a bubble due to being distorted by the finance market London house market is different from the rest of UK. People from overseas tend to invest in London property market, so it is always inflated. Even the property tax hasn't deterred many. I could look into buying somewhere and renting it out You are trying to join the same people, because of whom you have been put out of the housing market. I strictly question this logic unless your mortgage is less than the rent you pay and what rent you get. Buy a roof over your head first, then think of profiting from property.",
"Your question may have another clue. You are bullish regarding the real estate market. Is that for your city, your state, your nation or for the whole world? Unless you can identify particular properties or neighborhoods that are expected to be better than the average return for your expected bull market in real estate, you will be taking a huge risk. It would be the same as believing that stocks are about to enter a bull market, but then wanting to put 50% of your wealth on one stock. The YTD for the DOW is ~+7%, yet 13 of the 30 have not reached the average increase including 4 that are down more than 7%. Being bullish about the real estate segment still gives you plenty of opportunities to invest. You can invest directly in the REIT or you can invest in the companies that will grow because of the bullish conditions. If your opinion changes in a few years it is hard to short a single property.",
"\"How can one offset exposure created by real-estate purchase? provides a similar discussion. Even if such a product were available in the precise increments you need, the pricing would make it a loser for you. \"\"There's no free lunch\"\" in this case, and the cost to insure against the downside would be disproportional to the true risk. Say you bought a $100K home. At today's valuations, the downside over a given year might be, say, 20%. It might cost you $5000 to 'insure' against that $20K risk. Let me offer an example - The SPY (S&P ETF) is now at $177. A $160 (Dec '14) put costs $7.50. So, if you fear a crash, you can pay 4%, but only get a return if the market falls by over 14%. If it falls 'just' 10%, you lose your premium. With only 5% down, you will get a far better risk-adjusted return by paying down the mortgage to <78% LTV, and requesting PMI, if any, be removed. Even if no PMI, in 5 years, you'll have 20% more equity than otherwise. Over the long term, 5 year's housing inflation would be ~ 15% or so. This process would help insure you are not underwater in that time. Not guarantee, but help.\"",
"\"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \"\"hard to borrow,\"\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\"",
"\"Google \"\"forex broker\"\" and find one of the thousands that allows you to trade on Gold futures. Then use one of them to short Gold... just watch your leverage. I would certainly wait before you're shorting gold. Why tie up capital in a bubble that you think will burst in the next few years. Wait for the price to increase and monitor for actual signs of the bubble bursting. Right now with the Euro possibly collapsing shorting gold probably isn't your best bet.\"",
"Short the Pound and other English financial items. Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well. You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard. Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash.",
"If your broker lets you, you could just short GLD shares. The borrow cost is de minimis (it looks like it's basically zero at the moment), and there's no real upfront cost aside from the margin you'd have to post against the position. Don't forget to set a stop, though. You can also look at buying lower-strike puts (the lower the strike, the cheaper the cost). Don't go selling calls - that's probably outside your risk profile.",
"If you were certain you would probably do best by short selling an ETF that tracked the index for the market you think was about to tank. You'd certainly make a lot more money on that strategy than precious metals. If you were feeling super confident and want to make your money earn even more, you could also buy a bunch of put options on those same ETF funds. Obligatory Warning: Short selling and options can be extremely risky. While most investments cap your potential losses to your total investment, a short sale has no theoretical limit to the amount of money you can lose.",
"\"Do you want to do it pre or post correction? If you're bearish on the market the obvious thing to do is short an index. I would say this is kind of dumb. The main problem is that it may take months or years for the market to crash, and by then it will have gone up so much that even the crash doesn't bring you profit, and you're paying borrowing fees meanwhile as well. You need to watch the portfolio also, when you short sell you'll get a bunch of cash, which you most likely will want to invest, but once you invest it, the market can spike and pummel your short position, resulting in negative remaining cash (since you already spent it). At that point you get a margin call from your broker. If you check your account regularly, not a big deal, but bad things can happen if you treat it as a fire and forget strategy. These days they have inverse funds so you don't have to borrow anything. The fund manager borrows for you. I'd say those are much better. The less cumbersome choice is to simply sell call options on the index or buy puts. These are even cash options, so when you exercise you get/lose money, not shares. You can even arrange them so that your potential loss is capped. (but honestly, same goes for shorts - it's called a stop loss) You could also wait for the correction and buy the dip. Less worrying about shorts and such, but of course the issue is timing the crash. Usually the crashes are very quick, and there are several \"\"pre-crashes\"\" that look like it bottomed out but then it crashes more. So actually very difficult thing to tell. You have to know either exactly when the correction will be, or exactly what the price floor is (and set a limit buy). Hope your crystal ball works! Yet another choice is finding asset classes uncorrelated or even anticorrelated with the broader market. For instance some emerging markets (developing countries), some sectors, individual stocks that are not inflated, bonds, gold and so on can have these characteristics where if S&P goes down they go up. Buying those may be a safer approach since at least you are still holding a fundamentally valuable thing even if your thesis flops, meanwhile shorts and puts and the like are purely speculative.\"",
"If you want to make money while European equities markets are crashing and the Euro itself is devaluing: None of these strategies are to be taken lightly. All involve risk. There are probably numerous ways that you can lose even though it seems like you should win. Transaction fees could eat your profits, especially if you have only a small amount of capital to invest with. The worst part is that they all involve timing. If you think the crash is coming next week, you could, say, buy a bunch of puts. But if the crash doesn't come for another 6 months, all of your puts are going to expire worthless and you've lost all of your capital. Even worse, if you sell short an index ETF this week in advance of next week's impending crash, and some rescue package arrives over the weekend, equity prices could spike at the beginning of the week and you'd be screwed.",
"To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.",
"\"I was in a similar situation, and used FX trading to hedge against currency fluctuations. I bought the \"\"new\"\" currency when the PPP implied valuation of my \"\"old\"\" currency was high, and was able to protect quite a bit of purchasing power that I would have lost without the hedge. Unfortunately you get taxed for the \"\"gain\"\" you made, but still helpful. In terms of housing market, you could look into a Ireland REIT index, but it may not correlate well with the actual house prices you are looking for.\"",
"Another option is to short whatever interest rate you think will go up. For example, if you think that interest on treasuries will go up, then short treasuries.",
"There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged. For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500. (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well. For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility. As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises. One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX.",
"Just buy a FTSE-100 tracker. It's cheap and easy, and will hedge you pretty well, as the FTSE-100 is dominated by big mining and oil companies who do most of their business in currencies other than sterling.",
"Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.",
"\"TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK. According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London. That sounds like a terrible deal to me. I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks. For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.). If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to \"\"lose everything\"\" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: \"\"I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.\"\" Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold. In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend. Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money? In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment? If not, you will be speculating, not investing. Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing. I don't recommend speculating.\"",
"I am relative newbie in the financial market trading and as I understand it, the response from Victor is accurate in respect of trading CFD contracts. However, there is also the option to 'trade' through a financial spread betting platform which as its name suggests is purely a bet based upon the price of the underlying stock/asset. As such, I believe that your theory to short a stock just prior to its ex-dividend date may be worth investigating further... Apart from that, it's worthwhile mentioning that financial spread betting is officially recognised by HMRC as gambling and therefore not currently [2015/16] subject to capital gains tax. This info is given in good faith and must not be relied upon when making any investment and/or trading decision(s). I hope this helps you make a fortune - if it does; then please remember me!",
"PST, or any of the Ultra Short/Long funds aren't actually holding any traditional securities -- just swaps that are betting on the underlying asset. They also don't track the value of the underlying security over time -- just for one day. (And they're not even guaranteed to do that!) IEF is an actual treasury bond fund that holds real-life treasury securities, not swaps. Shorting a fund like IEF is one option, another is to buy options on a fund like IEF. Be very careful investing with ETFs, and don't buy any until you fully read and understand the prospectus. I got burned by an Ultra Long ETF because I didn't do my homework.",
"In addition to the higher risk as pointed out by @JamesRoth, you also need to consider that there are regulations against 'naked shorting' so you generally need to either own the security, or have someone that is willing to 'loan' the security to you in order to sell short. If you own a stock you are shorting, the IRS could view the transaction as a Sell followed by a buy taking place in a less than 30 day period and you could be subject to wash-sale rules. This added complexity (most often the finding of someone to loan you the security you are shorting) is another reason such trades are considered more advanced. You should also be aware that there are currently a number of proposals to re-instate the 'uptick rule' or some circuit-breaker variant. Designed to prevent short-sellers from driving down the price of a stock (and conducting 'bear raids etc) the first requires that a stock trade at the same or higher price as prior trades before you can submit a short. In the latter shorting would be prohibited after a stock price had fallen a given percentage in a given amount of time. In either case, should such a rule be (re)established then you could face limitations attempting to execute a short which you would not need to worry about doing simple buys or sells. As to vehicles that would do this kind of thing (if you are convinced we are in a bear market and willing to take the risk) there are a number of ETF's classified as 'Inverse Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's) for a variety of markets that via various means seek to deliver a return similar to that of 'shorting the market' in question. One such example for a common broad market is ticker SH the ProShares Short S&P500 ETF, which seeks to deliver a return that is the inverse of the S&P500 (and as would be predicted based on the roughly +15% performance of the S&P500 over the last 12 months, SH is down roughly -15% over the same period). The Wikipedia article on inverse ETF's lists a number of other such funds covering various markets. I think it should be noted that using such a vehicle is a pretty 'aggressive bet' to take in reaction to the belief that a bear market is imminent. A more conservative approach would be to simply take money out of the market and place it in something like CD's or Treasury instruments. In that case, you preserve your capital, regardless of what happens in the market. Using an inverse ETF OTOH means that if the market went bull instead of bear, you would lose money instead of merely holding your position.",
"If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.",
"Put Options. They're less risky than shorting, and have similar upsides. The major difference is that if the price goes up, you're just out the underwriting price. You'll also need to know when the event will happen, or you risk being outwaited. More traditionally, an investor would pull their money out of the market and move into Treasury bonds. Recall that when the market tanked in 2008, the price of treasuries jumped. Problem is, you can only do that trade once, and it hasn't really unwound yet. And the effect is most pronounced on short term treasuries, so you have to babysit the investment. Because of this, I think some people have moved into commodities like gold, but there's a lot of risk there. Worst case scenario you have a lot of shiny metal you can't eat or use.",
"Make a portfolio with gold and put options for gold. If the price rises again, sell a part of your gold and use it to buy new put options. If the price goes down, then use your put options to sell gold at a favorable price.",
"SeekingAlpha has a section dedicated to Short ETFs as well as others. In there you will find SH, and SDS. Both of which are inverse to the S&P 500. Edit: I linked to charts that compare SH and SDS to SPY.",
"\"First of all, bear in mind that there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you keep your money in the bank, you'll struggle to get a return that keeps up with inflation. The same is true for other \"\"safe\"\" investments like government bonds. Gold and silver are essentially completely speculative investments; over the years their price tends to vary quite wildly, so unless you really understand how those markets work you should steer well clear. They're certainly not low risk. Repeatedly buying a property to sell in a couple of years time is almost certainly a bad idea; you'll end up paying substantial transaction fees each time that would wipe out a lot of the possible profit, and of course there's always the risk that prices would go down not up. Buying a property to keep - and preferably live in - might be a decent option once you have a good deposit saved up. It's very hard to say where prices will go in future, on the one hand London prices are very high by historical standards, but on the other hand supply is likely to remain severely constrained for years to come. I tend to think of a house as something that I need one of for the rest of my life, and so in one sense not owning a house to live in is a gamble that house prices and rents won't go up substantially. If you own a house, you're insulated from changes in rent etc and even if prices crash at least you still have somewhere to live. However that argument only works really well if you expect to keep living in the same area under most circumstances - house prices might crash in your area but not elsewhere.\"",
"\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \"\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\"\"\"",
"First I would be very careful using a short ETF. There could be some serious tracking error, especially if its levered. Second, when it comes to forex you are in the world of PIPS and high leverage. You would need to have significant capital to be able to hold out the swings as banks do their interventions. Plenty of people have been short waiting, and waiting, and waiting, unless you think you know something the market doesn't this seems like a pretty high risk strategy. I'd suggest buying options instead, but they will be expensive given the volatility.",
"Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).",
"There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company. These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts. Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts. An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio. As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish. Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss). Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff. If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them. Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place. Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both:",
"Unless you have insider information (ILLEGAL!!!) don't go high risk over this time frame. It makes about as much sense as betting on the horses. Stick it in a 3 or 6 month GIC at the pathetic rates the banks are giving.",
"Shorting the Euro is the same as staying long the dollar, so if you're in the US you don't need to do anything. If you want to make some serious money you would want to either short specific European bank stocks, or buy puts on some of the European indices.",
"It is almost a sure thing that the housing market will crash again hugely.For this reason I prefer to own several houses that way when it does no one can ask for their money back and leave me homeless. Current economics suggest a fall of between 40-60% from 2011 prices meaning that if you have bought a house in the last 12 years you can wave bye bye to any and all equity, and this will happen very soon. I recommend saving your money and buying a house outright (like I did 3 times) from someone who has spent 12 years or so paying a mortgage.",
"\"I think what you really want to look into is put options. You can essentially replicate the same thing, without worrying about margin calls. Check out this site http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/options/options-basic-charts.php a quick glance seems to show it to be pretty good. The way you would limit downside risk is to buy a put option, allowing you to sell anytime within the next n months for the current price (assuming american). This will allow you to limit downside risk, however, potential profits do go down due to fees as another answer suggests this could be cost prohibitive. This type of strategy is also known as a \"\"protective put\"\". http://www.optionseducation.org/strategies_advanced_concepts/strategies/protective_put.html If you wanted to be more refined you could use Ak's bands, although you have to be looking for that specific outcome. Also due to complexity, this can become a taxing (in terms of time invested) and risky (if you are wrong) investment. Either way I think you need to study payoff curves a little more.\"",
"Leveraged ETFs are prone to volatility decay, also known as leverage decay: http://blog.quantumfading.com/2009/07/12/measuring-leveraged-etf-decay/ You can increase your chances by using a non-leveraged short ETF like TBF or simply shorting the long ETF. Beware: shorting bonds ETFs will result in you having the pay the dividends, which can be substantial. Edit: SBND has recently appeared on the market. It is leveraged 3x monthly. In theory, monthly leverage should be less destructive than daily leverage.",
"You can employ a hedging strategy using short selling, put options, or other methods that will partially neutralize your exposure to the overall market. e.g. You could short sell a market-wide index such as the S&P500, while going long (buying) the company you are interested in. Investopedia has a nice primer on this: Also, see this related question here:",
"One simplest way is to to do Forex trading. You can do this by buying Foreign Currency Futures when you feel Rupee is going down or by selling those Futures when you feel Rupee will go up.",
"Depending on the Price of the ETF and the hedging you may well simply be guaranteed to make a small loss.",
"\"You may look into covered calls. In short, selling the option instead of buying it ... playing the house. One can do this on the \"\"buying side\"\" too, e.g. let's say you like company XYZ. If you sell the put, and it goes up, you make money. If XYZ goes down by expiration, you still made the money on the put, and now own the stock - the one you like, at a lower price. Now, you can immediately sell calls on XYZ. If it doesn't go up, you make money. If it does goes up, you get called out, and you make even more money (probably selling the call a little above current price, or where it was \"\"put\"\" to you at). The greatest risk is very large declines, and so one needs to do some research on the company to see if they are decent -- e.g. have good earnings, not over-valued P/E, etc. For larger declines, one has to sell the call further out. Note there are now stocks that have weekly options as well as monthly options. You just have to calculate the rate of return you will get, realizing that underneath the first put, you need enough money available should the stock be \"\"put\"\" to you. An additional, associated strategy, is starting by selling the put at a higher than current market limit price. Then, over a couple days, generally lowering the limit, if it isn't reached in the stock's fluctuation. I.e. if the stock drops in the next few days, you might sell the put on a dip. Same deal if the stock finally is \"\"put\"\" to you. Then you can start by selling the call at a higher limit price, gradually bringing it down if you aren't successful -- i.e. the stock doesn't reach it on an upswing. My friend is highly successful with this strategy. Good luck\"",
"\"As ChrisInEdmonton describes, shorting has an asymmetric risk/reward ratio. And put options have a time cost, if you think the market is overvalued and buy lots of puts, but they expire before the market finally corrects, you can lose your entire investment. Betting on market timing of any kind is extremely difficult to do, some would argue it's impossible. \"\"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent\"\" is a favorite wall street trader saying. Instead of playing a game that's difficult to win, the better option is to play one you can win. That's to learn how to value individual investments well and accumulate cash until you can find investments that are under-valued to invest in. The best way to learn to value investments is to read Graham and Buffett. \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a good starting point, and you can read all of Buffett's investor letters for the last 30 years + for free on the Berkshire Hathaway web site. Finally the textbook on valuing stocks and other investments is \"\"Securities Analysis\"\" the 6th edition is only version to get, it was updated with Buffett and other leading value investors oversight. A basic overview of valuing investments is that every investment has an \"\"intrinsic value\"\" consisting of it's future cash flows, discounted for the time it takes to receive them. The skill is being able to estimate how likely those cash flows are to happen. a) Is it a good business? Does it have a moat, i.e. barriers that make it hard for competitors to duplicate it? b) Will management invest or distribute those cash flows wisely? Then your strategy is to not even worry about the market, spend your time looking at individual stocks and investments and wait until some come along that's well undervalued. That may be during a market correction, or it may be tomorrow. And it's not just good enough to intelligently value your investments, you also have to have psychological fortitude to not panic and to think for yourself. Buffett describes it best. Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his. Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you. But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game. Lastly learning to value investments isn't just useful in the stock market, they are applicable to investing in any investment such as bonds, real estate, and even buying your home or running a business.\"",
"You don't have to think it is going down, it is currently trending down as on a weekly chart there are lower lows and lower highs. Until there is a higher low with confirmation of a higher high, the downtrend will continue. The instrument you use to profit from a market drop depends on your risk profile, the time frame you are looking at, and your trading plan and risk management. With a put option your loss is limited to your initial premium and your potential profits can be quite large compared to the premium paid, however your timeframe is limited to the expiry of the option. You could buy a longer dated option but this will cost more in the premium you pay. With inverse ETF you are not restricted by an expiry date, but if you don't have appropriate risk management in place your potential losses can be large. With a leveraged inverse ETF again you are not restricted by an expiry date, you can potentially make higher percentage profits than with an standard ETF. but once again your losses can be very large (larger than you initial investment) if you don't have appropriate risk management in place.",
"Are you trolling right now? If you knew what you were doing when you made that bet, you might consider reinvesting that money. 24yr olds don't buy first-time houses anymore. Houses today are meant for existing landowners and wealthy foreign investors willing to pay cash.",
"If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.",
"If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand.",
"\"Note: I am making a USA-assumption here; keep in mind this answer doesn't necessarily apply to all countries (or even states in the USA). You asked two questions: I'm looking to buy a property. I do not want to take a risk on this property. Its sole purpose is to provide me with a place to live. How would I go about hedging against increasing interest rates, to counter the increasing mortgage costs? To counter increasing interest rates, obtaining a fixed interest rate on a mortgage is the answer, if that's available. As far as costs for a mortgage, that depends, as mortgages are tied to the value of the property/home. If you want a place to live, a piece of property, and want to hedge against possible rising interest rates, a fixed mortgage would work for these goals. Ideally I'd like to not lose money on my property, seeing as I will be borrowing 95% of the property's value. So, I'd like to hedge against interest rates and falling property prices in order to have a risk neutral position on my property. Now we have a different issue. For instance, if someone had opened a fixed mortgage on a home for $500,000, and the housing value plummeted 50% (or more), the person may still have a fixed interest rate protecting the person from higher rates, but that doesn't protect the property value. In addition to that, if the person needed to move for a job, that person would face a difficult choice: move and sell at a loss, or move and rent and face some complications. Renting is generally a good idea for people who (1) have not determined if they'll be in an area for more than 5-10 years, (2) want the flexibility to move if their living costs rises (which may be an issue if they lose wages), (3) don't want to pay property taxes (varies by state), homeowner's insurance, or maintenance costs, (4) enjoy regular negotiation (something which renters can do before re-signing a lease or looking for a new place to live). Again, other conditions can apply to people who favor renting, such as someone might enjoy living in one room out of a house rather than a full apartment or a person who likes a \"\"change of scenes\"\" and moves from one apartment to another for a fresh perspective, but these are smaller exceptions. But with renting, you have nothing to re-sell and no financial asset so far as a property is concerned (thus why some real estate agents refer to it as \"\"throwing away money\"\" which isn't necessarily true, but one should be aware that the money they invest in renting doesn't go into an asset that can be re-sold).\"",
"\"No. Rural Scotland has exactly the same monetary system, and not the same bubble. Monaco (the other example given) doesn't even have its own monetary system but uses the Euro. Look instead to the common factor: a lot of demand for limited real estate. Turning towards the personal finance part of it, we know from experience that housing bubbles may \"\"burst\"\" and housing prices may drop suddenly by ~30%, sometimes more. This is a financial risk if you must sell. Yet on the other hand, the fundamental force that keeps prices in London higher than average isn't going away. The long-term risk often is manageable. A 30% drop isn't so bad if you own a house for 30 years.\"",
"\"I saw that an answer hasn't been accepted for this yet: Being bearish is a good hedging strategy. But being hedged is a better hedging strategy. The point being that not everything in investments is so binary (up, and down). A lot of effective hedges can have many more variables than simply \"\"stock go up, stock go down\"\" As such, there are many ways to be bearish and profit from a decline in market values without subjecting yourself to the unlimited risk of short selling. Buying puts against your long equity position is one example. Being long an ETF that is based on short positions is another example.\"",
"For long periods of time a short ETF's performance will not match the negative of the long ETF, e.g. funding costs and the fact that they 'only' match daily returns will result in a suboptimal performance. If possible use other derivatives like a put on a long gold etf (fgriglesnickerseven)",
"\"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average \"\"spread\"\" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either. Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right.\"",
"The whole point of buying puts is cheaper cost and lower downside risk. If you short the box, you are assuming he already holds gold holdings to short against. It's not the same as short selling where you borrow shares. Either way, you are far more vulnerable to downside risk if you are short the stock (whether you borrowed or shorted already owned shares). If Gold suddenly has a 20% pop over the next year, which could be possible given the volatility and uncertainty in the marketplace, you have big trouble. Whereas, if you buy puts, you only lose your costs for the contracts. The amount that you miss by in your bet isn't going to factor into anything.",
"\"I think the closest you can come is to buy health insurance, which had the company's bet on trends in healthcare costs already built into it. But as you've posed the question, I agree that the answer is \"\"no\"\" -- at best you might find someone willing to give you short odds that the rate increases over 20% or long odds that it doesn't go up at all, or something of that sort... and that isn't a bet the markets are designed to handle.\"",
"Is used cmc markets application (via my bank at the time) to gain leveraged exposure to the financial markets, with no tax payable as its classed as gambling. I am sure there are other websites/application offering the same. The results weren't particularly pretty for me, but the concept is sound imo.",
"\"To short: Of course, you may always buy some index correlated ETF that eliminates the above. They use stock futures on the index, and you simply buy the \"\"shorting ETF\"\" in your non-margin account. However, they are surprisingly high cost, and despite the intended correlation, have significant drag. It's a much safer way to short the market (you have great choice in which market ETF) and eliminates the single stock risk.\"",
"\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"",
"If you have a rental property, take the income from that property and then invest it in a dividend fund, or sell the property and invest those proceeds. Borrowing against a house or other property is just not a great idea. Rule 1: Don't borrow against a house. Rule 2: For any substantial advice, go to a financial advisor, not reddit. Rule 3: Don't borrow against a house.",
"Some highly pessimistic things worth noting to go alongside all the stability and tax break upside that homes generally provide: Negative equity is no joke and basically the only thing that bankrupts the middle classes consistently en masse. The UK is at the end of a huge housing bull run where rents are extremely cheap relative to buying (often in the 1% range within the M25), Brexit is looming and interest rates could well sky rocket with inflation. Borrowing ~500k to buy a highly illiquid asset you might have to fire sale in case of emergency/job loss etc for 300k in a few years when lots of (relatively) cheap rental housing is available to rent risk free, could be argued to be a highly lopsided and dangerous bet vs the alternatives. Locking in 'preferential' mortgage rates can be a huge trap: low interest rates generally increase asset values. If/when they rise, assets fall in value as the demand shrinks, making you highly exposed to huge losses if you need to sell before it is paid off. In the case of housing this can be exceptionally vicious as the liquidity dramatically dries up during falls, meaning fire sales become much more severe than they are for more liquid assets like stock. Weirdly and unlike most products, people tend to buy the very best house they can get leverage for, rather than work out what they need/want and finding the best value equivalent. If a bank will lend you £20 a day to buy lunch, and you can just afford to pay it, do you hunt out the very best £20 lunch you can every day, or do you make some solid compromises so you can save money for other things etc? You seem to be hunting very close to the absolute peak amount you can spend on these numbers. Related to above, at that level of mortgage/salary you have very little margin for error if either of you lose jobs etc. Houses are much more expensive to maintain/trade than most people think. You spend ~2-5% every time you buy and sell, and you can easily spend 2-20k+ a year depending what happens just keeping the thing watertight, paid for, liveable and staying up. You need to factor this in and be pessimistic when you do. Most people don't factor in these costs to the apparent 'index' rise in house values and what they expect to sell for in x years. In reality no buy and hold investor can ever realise even close to the quoted house price returns as they are basically stocks you have to pay 5% each time you buy or sell and then 1-20% percent a year to own - they have to rise dramatically over time for you to even break even after all the costs. In general you should buy homes to make memories, not money, and to buy them at prices that don't cause you sleepless nights in case of disasters.",
"The opposite of a hedge is leverage (aka gearing). A hedge is where you spend money to reduce your exposure. Leverage is where you spend money to increase your exposure. Spread bets are a form of leverage - that's what makes them such an effective way to lose all your money, quickly.",
"If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.",
"I think that those options might well be your best bet, given the potential 700% return in one year if you're right. You could look and see if any Synthetic Zeros (a Synthetic Zero is a derivative that will pay out a set amount if the underlying security is over a certain price point) exist for the share but chances are if they do they wouldn't offer the 700% return. Also might be worth asking the question at the quant stack exchange to see if they have any other ideas.",
"You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!",
"\"Ultimately you are as stuck as all other investors with low returns which get taxed. However there are a few possible mitigations. You can put up to 15k p.a. into a \"\"normal\"\" ISA (either cash or stocks & shares, or a combination) if your target is to generate the depost over 5 years you should maximise the amount you put in an ISA. Then when you come to buy, you cash in that part needed to top up your other savings for a deposit - i.e. keep the rest in for long term savings. The help to buy ISA might be helpful, but yes there is a limit on the purchase price which in London will restrict you. Several banks are offering good interest on limited sums in current accounts - Santander is probably the best you can get 3% (taxed) on up to 20K - this is a good \"\"safe\"\" return. Just open a 123 Account, arrange to pay out a couple of DDs and pay in £500 a month (you can take the £500 straight out again). I think Lloyds and TSB also offer similar but on much smaller ammounts. Be warned this strategy taken to the limit will involve some complexity checking your various accounts each month. After that you will end up trading better returns for greater risk by using more volatile stock market investments rather than cash deposits.\"",
"Another European financial ETF that you could sell short is the iShares MSCI Europe Financials Sector Index Fund (EUFN). It's traded on American exchanges, so it should be easier to access if you're in the United States. It is a relatively low-volume issue, however, so it may be difficult to locate shares to short, and the bid/ask spread could be a significant factor.",
"Hedge means protecting downside, and that generally comes at a cost that translates into less upside. Amount of downside you are protecting is directly co-related to the quality of your hedge. For your example to work, the market should invert while you are still solvent; remember Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent And yes, there is nothing guaranteed in life - except tax and death of-course!",
"Apart from some of the excellent things others say, you could borrow money in AUD and invest that in another currency (that's risky but interesting) if the AUD interest rate is low and the other countries interest rate is higher, you'll eventually win. Also, look at what John Paulson did in 2007, 2008... I wish I'd thought of that when I was in your position (predicting a housing crisis)",
"\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\"",
"\"An important point yet to be mentioned is that, with a standard investment, the most you can lose of your £100 stake is £100 (if the company literally goes bust, say). With shorting on the other hand, your downside is not limited to your initial stake. You could \"\"invest\"\" £100, but end up owing £200, £500, or, well, the sky's the limit. Shorting is dangerous even for experienced investors. For a beginner, it is about the worst possible investment strategy I can think of!\"",
"\"Diversify into leveraged short/bear ETFs and then you can quit your job and yell at your boss \"\"F you I'm short your house!\"\" edit: this is a quote from Greg Lippmann and mentioned in the book \"\"The Big Short\"\"\"",
"\"Perhaps buying some internationally exchanged stock of China real-estate companies? It's never too late to enter a bubble or profit from a bubble after it bursts. As a native Chinese, my observations suggest that the bubble may exist in a few of the most populated cities of China such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, the price doesn't seem to be much higher than expected in cities further within the mainland, such as Xi'an and Chengdu. I myself is living in Xi'an. I did a post about the urban housing cost of Xi'an at the end of last year: http://www.xianhotels.info/urban-housing-cost-of-xian-china~15 It may give you a rough idea of the pricing level. The average of 5,500 CNY per square meter (condo) hasn't fluctuated much since the posting of the entry. But you need to pay about 1,000 to 3,000 higher to get something desirable. For location, just search \"\"Xi'an, China\"\" in Google Maps. =========== I actually have no idea how you, a foreigner can safely and easily profit from this. I'll just share what I know. It's really hard to financially enter China. To prevent oversea speculative funds from freely entering and leaving China, the Admin of Forex (safe.gov.cn) has laid down a range of rigid policies regarding currency exchange. By law, any native individual, such as me, is imposed of a maximum of $50,000 that can be converted from USD to CNY or the other way around per year AND a maximum of $10,000 per day. Larger chunks of exchange must get the written consent of the Admin of Forex or it will simply not be cleared by any of the banks in China, even HSBC that's not owned by China. However, you can circumvent this limit by using the social ID of your immediate relatives when submitting exchange requests. It takes extra time and effort but viable. However, things may change drastically should China be in a forex crisis or simply war. You may not be able to withdraw USD at all from the banks in China, even with a positive balance that's your own money. My whole income stream are USD which is wired monthly from US to Bank of China. I purchased a property in the middle of last year that's worth 275,000 CNY using the funds I exchanged from USD I had earned. It's a 43.7% down payment on a mortgage loan of 20 years: http://www.mlcalc.com/#mortgage-275000-43.7-20-4.284-0-0-0.52-7-2009-year (in CNY, not USD) The current household loan rate is 6.12% across the entire China. However, because this is my first property, it is discounted by 30% to 4.284% to encourage the first house purchase. There will be no more discounts of loan rate for the 2nd property and so forth to discourage speculative stocking that drives the price high. The apartment I bought in July of 2009 can easily be sold at 300,000 now. Some of the earlier buyers have enjoyed much more appreciation than I do. To give you a rough idea, a house bought in 2006 is now evaluated 100% more, one bought in 2008 now 50% more and one bought in the beginning of 2009 now 25% more.\"",
"Okay as long as you aren't dumb enough to actually think this would be worth pursuing. I don't want you to waste your money when it could go towards something nice, like your house budget. If you really do believe they are overvalued there are much better strategies.",
"If you have a view on housing you can buy a real estate investment trust and use proceeds to pay rent. Downside is, depending on where you live, you'll have to pay tax on dividend income from REITs. So if you invest the same amount in a REIT as in a house you'll effectively loose some money due to the tax. You can also think of it this way: you wouldn't pay tax on the rent that you don't have to pay as a result of owning a house, but you pay tax on rent that other people pay you.",
"\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \"\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\"\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \"\"Don't do this\"\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\"",
"Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short). Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?",
"The best advice I can give you is to ignore gold right now. You really don't and can't have all the information you would need to support an argument for shorting gold. How much fiat cash have the central banks injected into the word economy? Billions? Trillions? Tens of Trillions? Maybe not much at all as the banks repay overnight? Anyway.. Without going on a full on rant why would you touch gold on a short? I can understand speculating on long position based on all the news out there but I'd hesitate to be a contraian in this market. Just find a nice little company that makes money, has a good product and a pretty little balance sheet. It will take longer to research but fuck if I'm betting on a huge drop in gold any time soon. What reasons do you have to believe gold is headed for any significant slide?",
"Put options are basically this. Buying a put option gives you the right but not the obligation to sell the underlying security at a certain date for a fixed price, no matter its current market value at that time. However, markets are largely effective, and the price of put options is such that if you bought them to cover you the whole time, you would on average pay more than you'd gain from the underlying security. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment.",
"\"For diversification against local currency's inflation, you have fundamentally 3 options: Depending on how sure you are on your prediction, and what amount of money you're willing to bet to \"\"short the country\"\", you might also consider a mix of approaches from the above. Good luck.\"",
"tl;dr: Unfortunately, there is little available to the retail investor that fits your description. Institutional investors can use swaps to gain leverage on the above trade. A bank will build a basket of long MSFT and short SPY and then quote a rate against LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) and a margin requirement. So at the end of the swap the bank will pay the difference in total return between MSFT and SPY and the investor will pay some amount of cash back. The nice thing for the investor is that the margin requirement will often be fairly small if their credit is good so the investor can lever the trade up significantly. A retail investor could call up your broker and try to get the above but on the off chance they let you the margin requirement might be higher than just going short the SPY. If you aren't a retail investor, you might be able to do something like be long a 3X tech ETF and short 3X SPY ETF. If you are very clever you might be able to combine multiple levered tech ETFs to get something like 3X MSFT. However, I would strongly caution against levered etfs for most retail investors as the fees are high and levered etfs tend to strongly drift away from the index against the investor over anything but the shortest time periods.",
"\"Depending on where you live in the UK, buying a house sooner might be a better option. I would echo the advice about putting some money away into a \"\"rainy day\"\" fund etc. above but I know that in my area house prices are going up by around 7% per year. I bought a house two years ago and I'm paying 4% interest on my mortgage so I'm effectively making money by owning my house. Given that you want to buy a house soonish, if your money sits in an account somewhere making no interest, you're effectively losing 7% of your cash each year by not keeping up with house prices, meaning you'll be able to afford a smaller house with the same money. Do bear in mind though that buying a house costs around £4k in lawyers fees, surveys, mortgage setup fees etc. and selling a house can be more since estate agents will take a % of the sale cost. If you live somewhere where house prices are not increasing as quickly then this will not be as good an option than if you live in e.g. London where house prices are currently skyrocketing. If you don't want to live in the house, you may be able to do a buy-to-let as an investment. Generally the rent will cover the mortgage payments and probably a letting agent/property management company's fees, so while you won't see any actual net income, the people renting will be paying the mortgage off and you'll be building equity on the home. It's not entirely without risk though as tenants can trash homes etc.\"",
"If you are looking for a European financials ETF to short, you could take a look at the iShares EURO STOXX Banks, which is traded on a a few German stock exchanges (Frankfurt etc.): iShares Euro Stoxx Banks Website You find its current holdings here: holdings.",
"The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.",
"\"If you do as you propose you are going to get burned. You need to sell, then start to rent. amongst other things. Since 2008, the economy never \"\"recovered,\"\" but was sort of stabilized temporarily like a fighter on the ropes. The economy is beginning to collapse again, and that collapse will accelerate around the Fall. The dollar too will also begin its delayed downward fall come Autumn. Just one example of what I speak: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART I would be happy to tell you more if you like, but I am already going to get pilloried for what I have already said. I do not sell anything, or push anything, but since you asked, and I follow this day in and day out, I thought that I would give you my very well informed answer. Take it for what it's worth. So let me know if you want more.\""
] |
[
"Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!",
"While I am not an advocate of shorting anything (unlimited downside, capped upside), you can:"
] |
18
|
1 EIN doing business under multiple business names
|
[
"88124"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"88124",
"203820",
"537687",
"8415",
"459689",
"141642",
"504317",
"366761",
"377152",
"268257",
"55500",
"407378",
"511651",
"58611",
"78486",
"140097",
"248624",
"596549",
"431685",
"244856",
"494880",
"419272",
"505761",
"453961",
"3336",
"83346",
"75920",
"86760",
"89503",
"200023",
"354314",
"391403",
"510913",
"334902",
"415514",
"1873",
"188167",
"189887",
"130503",
"397510",
"408434",
"178942",
"264659",
"93638",
"353004",
"594414",
"195207",
"389192",
"165465",
"268026",
"492178",
"21284",
"325677",
"309023",
"131483",
"269575",
"523564",
"334603",
"438408",
"546277",
"542213",
"243949",
"109546",
"305721",
"226530",
"423639",
"502283",
"157233",
"220877",
"295250",
"327199",
"175164",
"385484",
"392484",
"389516",
"508754",
"540634",
"438975",
"407844",
"308113",
"468959",
"254158",
"466718",
"411063",
"348480",
"480992",
"490489",
"399848",
"352760",
"43967",
"517289",
"107817",
"486443",
"380226",
"314352",
"128435",
"476262",
"100764",
"442142",
"251392"
] |
[
"You're confusing a lot of things here. Company B LLC will have it's sales run under Company A LLC, and cease operating as a separate entity These two are contradicting each other. If B LLC ceases to exist - it is not going to have it's sales run under A LLC, since there will be no sales to run for a non-existent company. What happens is that you merge B LLC into A LLC, and then convert A LLC into S Corp. So you're cancelling the EIN for B LLC, you're cancelling the EIN for A LLC - because both entities cease to exist. You then create a EIN for A Corp, which is the converted A LLC, and you create a DBA where A Corp DBA B Shop. You then go to the bank and open the account for A Corp DBA B Shop with the EIN you just created for A Corp. Get a better accountant. Before you convert to S-Corp.",
"\"Small businesses are often governed by local regulations and state law. In a low liability small quantity arena, you should be able to get away with a DBA (doing business as) arrangement, such as DBA \"\"Jay's Gem's\"\". A small business license may come with a state Tax ID and satisfy your supplier, but a Federal EIN can be obtained from the IRS, and may be necessary to apply for the business license. It wouldn't hurt to talk to the local chamber of commerce or state small business agencies if you have questions about local requirements.\"",
"The short answer is you are not required to. The longer answer depends on whether you are referring to your organization as a sole proprietorship in your state, or for federal taxation. For federal tax purposes, I would suggest filing each side job as a separate Sch C though. The IRS uses the information you provide about your sole proprietorship to determine whether or not your categorization of expenses makes sense for the type of business you are. This information is used by the IRS to help them determine who to audit. So, if you are a service based business, but you are reporting cost of goods sold, you are likely to be audited.",
"Do NOT use the same LLC. By default he would own 1/2 of the DBA so you would have to hire an attorney to section it off. Then you have to worry about him changing his mind later and suing you if the DBA is sucessful. Not to mention the EIN controls the cash and tax flow and the DBA would be using the same EIN so it gets really murky. Don't even consider it, just create a new LLC.",
"Is this for the US? Or does it apply here in the UK in a general sense? Obviously I think we are using different terms, but this is just a general run down of the different business types really right? I'm wondering if the use of a name thing matters here in the UK or not. I'm happy to trade under my actual name, but would prefer a name for the business that is separate to my own name.",
"Get another LLC. Not that hard and well worth it. I have one business endeavor but have 3 different LLC's to handle the three different aspects of it. That way, should something go wrong with one of the three (and it has in the past), I can kill it without hurting the entire operation. Then start another LLC to take over the aspect of the operation that was killed.",
"Having an EIN does not make the LLC a corporation -- your business can have an EIN even when treated like a sole proprietorship. An EIN is required to have a Individual 401(k), for example. But you can still be an LLC, taxed as a sole proprietor, and have a 401(k). You would need to file a Form 2553 with the IRS to elect S Corporation status. If you don't do that, you're still treated as a disregarded LLC. Whether or not you should make the election is another question.",
"I called the IRS (click here for IRS contact info) and they said I do not need to get a new EIN. I could have just filed the appropriate employer federal tax return (940/941) and then the filing requirements would have been updated. But while I was on the phone, they just updated the filing requirements for my LLC so I am all good now (I still need to file the correct form and make the correct payments, etc. but I can use this same EIN going forward). Disclaimer: Don't trust me (or this answer) for tax advice (your situation may be different). The IRS person on the phone was very helpful so I recommend calling them if you are in a similar situation. FYI, I have found calling the IRS to always be very helpful.",
"\"According to IRS Publication 1635, Understanding your EIN (PDF), under \"\"What is an EIN?\"\" on page 2: Caution: An EIN is for use in connection with your business activities only. Do not use your EIN in place of your social security number (SSN). As you say your EIN is for your business as a sole proprietor, I would also refer to Publication 334, Tax Guide for Small Business, under \"\"Identification Numbers\"\": Social security number (SSN). Generally, use your SSN as your taxpayer identification number. You must put this number on each of your individual income tax forms, such as Form 1040 and its schedules. Employer identification number (EIN). You must also have an EIN to use as a taxpayer identification number if you do either of the following. Pay wages to one or more employees. File pension or excise tax returns. If you must have an EIN, include it along with your SSN on your Schedule C or C-EZ as instructed. While I can't point to anything specifically about bank accounts, in general the guidance I see is that your SSN is used for your personal stuff, and you have an EIN for use in your business where needed. You may be able to open a bank account listing the EIN as the taxpayer identification number on the account. I don't believe there's a legal distinction between what makes something a \"\"business\"\" account or not, though a bank may have different account offerings for different purposes, and only offer some of them to entities rather than individuals. If you want to have a separate account for your business transactions, you may want them to open it in the name of your business and they may allow you to use your EIN on it. Whether you can do this for one of their \"\"personal\"\" account offerings would be up to the bank. I don't see any particular advantages to using your EIN on a bank account for an individual, though, and I could see it causing a bit of confusion with the bank if you're trying to do so in a way that isn't one of their \"\"normal\"\" account types for a business. As a sole proprietor, there really isn't any distinction between you and your business. Any interest income is taxable to you in the same way. But I don't think there's anything stopping you legally other than perhaps your particular bank's policy on such things. I would suggest contacting your bank (or trying several banks) to get more information on what account offerings they have available and what would best fit you and your business's needs.\"",
"For purposes of the EIN the address is largely inconsequential. The IRS cannot (read: won't) recover the EIN if you fail to write it down after the website generates it for you. On your actual tax form the address is more consequential, and this is more so a question of consistency than anything. But an entity can purchase property anywhere and have a different address subsequent years. Paying the actual taxes means more than the semantical inconsistencies. The whole purpose of separate accounts is to make an audit easier, so even if someone imagines that some action (such as address ambiguity) automatically triggers an audit, all your earnings/purchases are not intermingled with personal stuff, which just streamlines the audit process. Consequences (or lack thereof) aside, physical means where physical property is. So if you have an actual mailing address in your state, you should go with that. Obviously, this depends on what arrangement you have with your registered agent, if all addresses are in Wyoming then use the Wyoming address and let the Registered Agent forward all your mail to you. Don't forget your $50 annual report in Wyoming ;) How did you open a business paypal without an EIN? Business bank accounts? Hm... this is for liability purposes...",
"If the business activities are closely related you could combine them into a single Schedule C, but in your case it sounds like it should be two separate Schedule C's. The loss from one will offset profit from the other, and your self-employment and income taxes will be based on the net of the two businesses. Any business can generate losses, make sure your expenses are reasonable and documented, there are plenty of resources out there for helping you decide which expenses are proper for each business. There is some truth to the warning that not showing profit in 2/5 of years can raise flags at the IRS, and they may deem your business a hobby, which disallows losses. That is not a hard rule, legitimate businesses can lose money for years on end without issue, if you're trying to make money at it, you'll likely be fine.",
"I am not a lawyer or a tax accountant, but from the description provided it sounds to me like you have created two partnerships: one in which you share 50% of Bob's revenue, and another in which you share 50% of the revenue from the first partnership. If this is the case, then each partnership would need to file form K-1 and issue a copy to the partners of that partnership. I think, but I'm not sure, that each partnership would need an Employer Identification Number (EIN; you can apply for and receive these online with the IRS). You would only pay tax on the portion of profits that are assigned to you on the K-1. (If you've accidentally created a partnership without thinking through all the ramifications, you probably want to straighten this out. You can be held liable for the actions of your partners.) On the other hand, if your contract with Bob explicitly makes you a contractor and not a partner, then Bob should probably be issuing a 1099 to you. Similarly for you and Joe -- if your contract with Joe makes him a subcontractor, then you may need to get an EIN and issue him a 1099 at the end of the year. The money you pay to Joe is a business expense, and would be deducted from the profits you show on your Schedule C. In my opinion, it would be worth the $200 fee paid to a good CPA to make sure you get this right.",
"Possible alternative: In my case, the part-time locksmithing is a small enough portion of my I come that I just submit it as hobby income, rather than trying to track it as a separate entity.",
"Can I still use the old EIN from partnership times for the new sole proprietorship? Or should I apply for a new EIN? You cannot use the same EIN. Unless you have employees, you should use your SSN for the sole proprietorship. If you have employees - you should get a new EIN (if you don't have one already for yourself as a sole proprietor - you can only have one). Can I actually start to use my SSN in this situation for the sole proprietorship? In this particular case, not only you can - you should.",
"Given your clarifying points, it sounds like you are running both businesses as one combined business. As such, you should be able to get just a single HST number and use that. However, let me please urge you to contact a professional accountant and possibly a lawyer, as it is very unusual to be performing these services without a business license, and you may be exposing yourself to civil penalties and placing your personal assets (e.g. your house) at risk. Additionally, it may be beneficial for you to run these as businesses as you can likely write off (more of) your expenses.",
"To answer your question 2, I can't think of any advantage of using your SSN over an EIN, but there are some advantages to having an EIN as a sole proprietor. So depending on the answer to question 1, you may want to consider either keeping your existing EIN or getting a new one, even if you are allowed to use your SSN instead.",
"\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\"",
"You actually don't have to open a business account with your bank, you can have a personal account with the bank and have your business funds go into it, whether it be from cheques or from Eftpos\\Credit Card Facilities. You just have to get your customers to make the cheque out under your name (the same name used for your bank account). If you are trading as a sole trader and you trade under a name other than your own name, then officially you are supposed to register that name with Fair Trading in your state. However, if you are trading using another name and it is not registered, Fair Trading will only become aware of it if someone (usually one of your customers) makes a compliant about you, and they will then ask you to either stop using that name as your trading name or have it registered (if not already registered by someone else).",
"You don't need to notify the IRS of new members, the IRS doesn't care (at this stage). What you do need, if you have a EIN for a single-member LLC, is to request a new EIN since your LLC is now a partnership (a different entity, from IRS perspective). From now on, you'll need to file form 1065 with the IRS in case of business related income, on which you will declare the membership distribution interests on Schedules K-1 for each member.",
"No. When you file your Articles of Organization, simply state that your business will operate under the law. You don't need to give any further specification.",
"Your question mixes up different things. Your LLC business type is determined by how you organize your business at the state level. Separately, you can also elect to be treated in one of several different status for federal taxation. (Often this automatically changes your tax status at the state level too, but you need to check that with your state tax authority.) It is true that once you have an EIN, you can apply to be taxed as a C Corp or S Corp. Whether or not that will result in tax savings will depend on the details of your business. We won't be able to answer that for you. You should get a professional advisor if you need help making that determination.",
"This depends on whether you are interested in having two partners in the same company. Either way, each software should get its own business for liability etc. However, the parent company can be with three partners. Just makes sure you get voting control in the agreements.",
"Just type in the forms as they are, separately. That would be the easiest way both to enter the data without any mistakes, and ensure that everything matches properly with the IRS reports.",
"\"Is it possible if (After getting EIN) I change my LLC type (disregarded entity or C type or S type or corporation or change in number of members) for tax saving ? You marked your question as \"\"real-estate\"\", so I'm guessing you're holding rental properties in your LLC. That means that you will not be able to qualify for S-Corp, only C-Corp treatment. That in turn means that you'll be subject to double taxation and corporate tax rate. I fail to see what tax savings you're expecting in this situation. But yes, you can do it, if you so wish. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) before you make any changes, because it will be nearly impossible to reverse the check-the-box election once made (for at least 5 years).\"",
"\"Yes, kinda. Talk to local banks about a business account, and tell them you want to enable certain employees to make deposits but not withdrawals. They don't need to know you're all the same person. For instance I have a PayPal account for business. These allow you to create \"\"sub accounts\"\" for your employees with a variety of access privileges. Of course I control the master account, but I also set up a \"\"sub account\"\" for myself. That is the account I use every day.\"",
"\"For practical purposes, I would strongly suggest that you do create a separate account for each business you may have that is used only for business purposes, and use it for all of your business income and expenses. This will allow you to get an accurate picture of whether you are making money or not, what your full expenses really are, how much of your personal money you have put into the business, and is an easy way to keep business taxes separate. You will also be able to get a fairly quick read on what your profits are without doing much accounting by looking at the account balance less future taxes and expenses, and less any personal money you've put into the account. Check out this thread from Paypal about setting up a \"\"child\"\" account that is linked to your personal account and can be set up to autosweep payments into your main account, should you like. You will still be able to see transactions for each child account. NOTE: Do be careful to make sure you are reserving the proper amount out of any profits your startup may have for taxes - you don't want to mix this with personal money and then later find out that you owe taxes and have to scramble to come up with the money if you have already spent it This is one of the main reasons to segregate your startup's revenues and profits in the business account. For those using \"\"brick and mortar\"\" banking services rather than a service like Paypal: You likely do not need a business checking account if you are a startup. Most likely, you can simply open a second personal account with your bank in your name, and name it \"\"John Doe DBA Company Name\"\" (DBA = Doing Business As). This way, you can pay expenses and accept payments in the name of your startup. Check with your banker for additional details (localized information).\"",
"Yes, use a separate Form 8829 for each home used for business during the year. The top of 8829 includes that exact instruction.",
"Kate - you should get a EIN. It will give you a layer of anonymity. If you are getting the occasional check like this, it's a way to have a number that function like an SS number, but would not be used for credit, and far tougher to use for fraud. By coincidence, I glanced at my twitter feed and a fellow blogger posted How (and Why) to Apply for an EIN Number which goes into a bit more detail.",
"You really shouldn't be using class tracking to keep business and personal operations separate. I'm pretty sure the IRS and courts frown upon this, and you're probably risking losing any limited liability you may have. And for keeping separate parts of the business separate, like say stores in a franchise, one approach would be subaccounts. Messy, I'm sure.",
"If you do business under your name, you don't need to register your business. Your business will be treated as a sole proprietorship. If your revenue exceeds 30,000 (or wish to collect GST for the government) then you will have to register with the CRA for a GST account, but that is free.",
"I am assuming this is USA. While it is a bit of a pain, you are best off to have separate accounts for your business and personal. This way, if it comes to audit, you hand the IRS statements for your business account(s) and they match your return. As a further precaution I would have the card(s) you use for business expenses look different then the ones you use for personal so you don't mess another one up.",
"\"In most cases you cannot do \"\"reverse lookup\"\" on tax id in the US. You can verify, but for that you need to have more than just the FEIN/SSN. You should also have a name, and some times address. Non-profits, specifically, have to publish their EIN to donors, so it may be easier than others to identify those. Other businesses may not be as easy to find just by EIN.\"",
"You have to file and issue each one of them a 1099 if you are paying them $600 or more for the year. Because you need to issue a 1099 to them (so they can file their own taxes), I don't think there's a way that you could just combine all of them. Additionally, you may want to make sure that you are properly classifying these people as contractors in case they should be employees.",
"There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.",
"\"You need one \"\"company file\"\" for each company that you want to track through QuickBooks. Looks like, in your case, that is at least the PM and the PH (as you labeled them in your question). The companies that just hold property and pay utilities might be simple enough that you don't need the full power of QB, in which case you might just track their finances on a spread sheet. Subsidiary companies will probably appear as \"\"assets\"\" of some sort on the books of the parent company. This set-up probably does limit liability at some level, but it's going to create a lot of overhead for your that incurs some expense either in your time or in actual fees paid. You should really consider whether the limitations on liability balance against those costs. (Think ahead to what you're going to do when you have to file taxes on this network of companies, whether you need separate insurance policies for each instead of getting one policy covering multiple properties, etc.)\"",
"\"I expect the company wanted to pay you for a product (on a purchase order) rather than as a contract laborer. Whatever. Would they be willing to re-issue the check to you as a sole proprietor of a business named ABC Consulting (or anything like that)? You can register your sole proprietor business with the state using a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA, or fictitious name), and then open the bank account for your business using the check provided by the customer as the first deposit. (There is likely a smaller registration fee for the DBA.) If they won't re-issue the check and you have to go the LLC route... Scrounge up $125 doing odd jobs or borrowing from a friend or parents. Seriously, anyone can earn that amount of money in a week or two. Besides the filing fee for the LLC, your bank may require you to provide an Operating Agreement (which is not required by the State). The Operating Agreement can be simple, or more complex if you have a partner (even if it's a spouse). If you do have a partner, it is essential to have such an agreement because it would specify the responsibilities and benefits allocated to each partner, particularly in the event of equity distributions (taking money out of the business, or liquidating and ending the LLC). There are websites that will provide you a boilerplate form for Operating Agreements. But if your business is anything more than just single member LLC, you should pay an attorney to draw one up for you so the wording is right. It's a safeguard against potential future lawsuits. And, while we're at it, don't forget to obtain a EIN (equivalent to a SSN) from the IRS for your LLC. There's no cost, but you'll have to have it to file taxes as a business for every year the LLC exists and has income. Good luck!\"",
"\"Do not use a shared bank account. One of you can cash/deposit the check in your personal account and then either pay the others in the group cash or write them a check. You open yourself up to many, many problems sharing a bank account and/or money. Treat it like a business as far as income goes, but I would not recommend any type of formal business, LLC, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc. For federal taxes, you just keep track of how much \"\"you\"\" personally are paid and report that at the end of the year as income, most likely on a 1040EZ 1040SE, along with any other income you have.\"",
"\"You're a partnership. You should ask the money to be paid to the partnership. You'll have to fill partnership income tax return (form 1065) and each of you will get a K-1 schedule with your own personal portion of the income. For example, you're Adam, Ben and Clara. You work together on a project and are being paid. You get a check for $300 issued to \"\"Adam, Ben and Clara, DBA ABC Partnership\"\". You don't have to have a DBA, it just makes it easier to show you as a single entity. You then deposit the check to an account you set up for your partnership, and from that account you transfer $100 to each of you. Year end, you file form 1065, showing $300 income, and attach K-1 for each of the partners showing $100 income. That $100 income will flow to your individual tax returns. The overhead here is setting up a partnership account, potentially making a DBA, and filing the extra tax return. That's the proper way to do it, especially if it is something you're going to do regularly. For a one-time thing, one of you can get paid, report it as income on his/her Schedule C, and issue 1099 to the rest of you for your parts, and deduct the amount as his/her expense. Here, the overhead is Schedule C for each of you (instead of Schedule E if handling it as a partnership), extra 1099 forms (instead of 1065 and K-1s), and a risk of one partner defrauding the others (depends on how much you trust each other). With proper documentation, each of these is equally legal, and tax-wise the costs are the same (i.e.: either way you pay the same taxes). With partnership the overhead is a bit more expensive (DBA+1065 extra cost), but in the long term it will make your life easier if you do this kind of thing regularly. You may want to consider setting up your partnership as a LLC/LLP (depending on what your State allows), but that would require State paperwork and potentially more fees.\"",
"\"It is your name, or the fictitious name under which you operate. For example, if your freelance front end is called \"\"Zolani the 13th, LLC\"\", then that's the name you want to appear on the check, and not \"\"Mr. John Zolani Doe\"\" that is written in your birth certificate.\"",
"You should not form a company in the U.S. simply to get the identification number required for a W-8BEN form. By establishing a U.S.-based company, you'd be signing yourself up for a lot of additional hassle! You don't need that. You're a European business, not a U.S. business. Selling into the U.S. does not require you to have a U.S. company. (You may want to consider what form of business you ought to have in your home country, however.) Anyway, to address your immediate concern, you should just get an EIN only. See businessready.ca - what is a W8-BEN?. Quote: [...] There are other reasons to fill out the W8-BEN but for most of you it is to make sure they don’t hold back 30% of your payment which, for a small company, is a big deal. [...] How do I get one of these EIN US taxpayer identification numbers? EIN stands for Employer Identification Number and is your permanent number and can be used for most of your business needs (e.g. applying for business licenses, filing taxes when applicable, etc). You can apply by filling out the Form SS-4 but the easier, preferred way is online. However, I also found at IRS.gov - Online EIN: Frequently Asked Questions the following relevant tidbit: Q. Are any entity types excluded from applying for an EIN over the Internet? A. [...] If you were incorporated outside of the United States or the U.S. territories, you cannot apply for an EIN online. Please call us at (267) 941-1099 (this is not a toll free number) between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time. So, I suggest you call the IRS and describe your situation: You are a European-based business (sole proprietor?) selling products to a U.S.-based client and would like to request an EIN so you can supply your client with a W-8BEN. The IRS should be able to advise you of the correct course of action. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Consider seeking professional advice.",
"You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.",
"If your business name is your name, you are automatically considered a sole-proprietorship and any income you generate and expenses you incur can be calculated on your personal tax return. You can use QuickTax Home & Business tax software to lead you through the steps; you don't even need an accountant. One drawback of a sole-proprietorship in your name is liability. You are personally responsible for the business because you are the business. If you get sued, you can lose everything. To limit that liability you can look into opening a corporation. If the corporation gets sued you are insulated from that; the corporation goes bankrupt, not you. A lawyer and an accountant will be required to give you solid advice on this direction.",
"It will come down the percentage of time you use a specific area in your home. For each business you will be asked to first designate a percentage of your home you use for that business, then the percentage of time you use it. The space for both businesses might be the same, but the percentage of use would not. You could not claim 100% for both businesses. The combined petcentage of use could not exceed 100%.",
"You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"Set up a company or partnership. Generally what you describe is a classic partnership. In the US - the partnership itself is not taxed (as opposed to a corporation), and each partner is taxed separately on the distributions. That is, the partners as a whole will be taxed on the income of one, if it is distributed through the partnership. Exactly what you want. Do consult with a tax adviser familiar with the Federal and the State laws with the specifics of setting it up and managing it, maybe you'll get a better advice from a professional (which I am not, of course).",
"\"Here's an excerpt from VISA's Card Acceptance Guidelines for Visa Merchants (PDF) The merchant name is the single most important factor in cardholder recognition of transactions. Therefore, it is critical that the merchant name, while reflecting the merchant’s “Doing Business As” (DBA) name, also be clearly identifiable to the cardholder. This can minimize copy requests resulting from unrecognizable merchant descriptors. Merchant applications typically list the merchant name as the merchant DBA. This may differ from the legal name (which can represent the corporate owner or parent company), and may differ from the owner’s name which, for sole proprietorships, may reflect the business owner. I think that the key statement above is \"\"Therefore, it is critical that the merchant name [...] be clearly identifiable to the cardholder.\"\" Since this merchant was not clearly identifiable to the cardholder, they are in breach of a critical point in these guidelines. This is from VISA, but I would assume that all other major credit cards would have similar guidelines for their merchants. However keep in mind that these are \"\"guidelines\"\", and not (necessarily) rules.\"",
"Do you have a separate bank account for your business? That is generally highly recommended. I have a credit card for my single-member LLC. I prefer it this way because it makes the separation of personal and business expenses very clear. Using a personal credit card, but using it for only business expenses seems to be a reasonable practice. You may be able to do one better though... For your sole proprietorship, you can file a DBA which establishes the business name. The details of this depend on your state. With a DBA, I believe you can open a bank account in the name of your business and you may also be able to open a credit card account in the name of the business. I'm not sure what practical difference it makes, but it does make the personal/business distinction clearer. Though, at that point, you might as well just do the LLC...",
"What, if anything, do I need to do? Thanks! Nothing really. Depending on what information you provided on SS-4, the IRS may come asking for payroll tax returns etc. In that case you'll have to respond describing the situation. If they don't - you won't.",
"\"If you \"\"do business\"\" in a state, then you need to register your business in that state. I suspect that you have a misconception of what it means to \"\"do business\"\" in a state. If you are a 1-man shop, then you very likely are not doing business in any state except the one state where you work. Examples of when you are doing business in a state include having an office in the state or having employees in the state. Merely selling something to a client in that state is NOT enough to be doing business in the state. Each state is different, but unless you are doing something that is, in some sense, close to having an office or an employee in a state, then you have nothing to worry about. For example, if you regularly travel to a state to do work for a client then it is possible that you could be doing business in that state (I have no idea if that would be sufficient in any state). But if you are just working out of your basement running a website, then you are only doing business in your own state.\"",
"\"If you sign the check \"\"For Deposit Only\"\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \"\"payable name\"\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \"\"Pay to the Order Of\"\" line on checks. Say the church's \"\"legal name\"\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \"\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\". You'll get offering checks made out to \"\"Saint Barnabas\"\", \"\"Saint B's\"\", \"\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\", \"\"Red Bluff Episcopal\"\", \"\"Youth Group Fund\"\", \"\"Pastor Frank\"\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \"\"earmarked\"\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \"\"discretionary fund\"\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\"",
"open a bank account under the business name and put tthe money in there You can probably simply speak to the banker about having a business account and setting aside money for taxes,, etc no rocket science there just don't lie about your income is most important, or many It's not how much you make its how much you deposit in a bank, that's the first thing the tax man might look at IMO",
"For reporting to the IRS, every bank account has a primary tax ID number associated with it. When there are multiple joint owners, they (the owners) usually pick a person at random to be the primary, unless there is a large amount of interest involved, in which case I would suggest consulting a tax attorney. As for the online banking, it depends on your institution's software. My institution allows every individual to have a separate ID; if this is important to you (and it would be to me), then look for another bank that offers it.",
"Mods decided to leave it here, so I'll summarize some of my answers on this question given @OnStartups. You can find them here, here and here. Your options are : You and your business are one and the same. You report your income and expenses for taxes on a Schedule C (for each sole proprietorship a separate schedule), and taxed at your personal rates. There's no liability protection or legal separation between you and your business, and you don't need to have any bureaucratic overhead of managing an entity. You can use your own bank account and have checks written to you directly. You can register for DBA if you want a store-front name to be different from your own name. Depending on State, can cost a lot or close to nothing. Provides certain liability protection (depending on State, single-member and multi-member LLC's may have different liability protections). You can chose to be taxed as either a sole-proprietor (partnership, for multi-member) or as a corporation. You have to separate your activities, have a separate bank account, and some minimal bureaucracy is required to maintain the entity. Benefits include the limited liability, relatively easy to add partners to the business or sell it as a whole, and provides for separation of your personal and business finances. Drawbacks - bureaucracy, additional fees and taxes (especially in CA), and separation of assets. Corporation is an entirely separate entity from yourself, files its own tax returns, has separate bank accounts and is run by the board of directors (which in some cases may require more than 1 person to be on the board, check your state laws on that). As an officer of the corporation you'll have to pay salary to yourself. S-Corp has the benefit of pass-through taxation, C-Corp doesn't and has double taxation. Benefits - liability protection, can sell shares to investors, legally distinct entity. Disadvantages - have to deal with payroll, additional accounting, significant bureaucracy and additional layer of taxes for C-Corp (double taxation). Selling corporate assets is always a taxable event (although in your case it is probably not of an importance). You have to talk to a lawyer in your state about the options re the liability protection and how to form the entities. The formation process is usually simple and straight forward, but the LLC/Partnership operating agreements and Corporation charters/bylaws must be drafted by a lawyer if you're not going to be the sole owner (even if you are - better get a lawyer draft something for you, its just easier to fix and change things when you're the sole owner). You have to talk to a CPA/EA in your state about the taxes and how the choice of entity affects them.",
"\"Depending on how the check was made out, you may be able to file a DBA (\"\"doing business as\"\"), which would give you the business name locally. Then open an account under that name and deposit the check. Or simply go back to the customer and say \"\"hey, I don't have yhe company bak account open yet; could I exchange this check for one made out to me personally?\"\" That's how I've been handling hobby income under a company name. (I really do ned to file that DBA!)\"",
"The LLC will not be liable for anything, it is disregarded for tax purposes. If you're doing any work while in the US, or you (or your spouse) are a green card holder or a US citizen - then you (not the LLC) may be liable, may be required to file, pay, etc. Unless you're employing someone, or have more than one member in your LLC, you do not need an EIN. Re the bank - whatever you want. If you want you can open an account in an American bank. If you don't - don't. Who cares?",
"Based on the additional comment you gave, I would recommend that you keep the capital from the businesses separate as much as possible. It sounds like you won't get into any trouble legally if you make 'loans' or transfers of capital from one business into the other. But I would suggest that you keep detailed records of any transfers that you do make. The reason why is that in any business, it is important to know the economics of how your business makes money. If you find yourself making transfers repeatedly, then your business model may be bad. Even if your transfers are only to deal with the cost of poor customers, it could still mean that your business model needs to be adjusted. But if it's a question of the timing of cash flows, then there's really nothing wrong with taking some of the money from your successful pants operation and building up more working capital in your stationery shop.",
"\"While she can certainly get an LLC or EIN, it isn't necessarily required or needed. She can file as a sole-proprietor on her (or your joint) taxes by filling out a schedule-C addition to the 1040. Any income or losses will pass through to your existing income situation (from W-2's and such). The general requirement for filing as a business in this regard has nothing to do with any minimum income, revenue, or size. It is simply the intent to treat it as a business, and unlike a hobby, the overall intent to earn a profit eventually. If you're currently reporting the 1099-MISC income, but not deducting the expenses, this would be a means for you to offset the income with the expenses you mentioned (and possibly other legitimate ones). There is no \"\"2% AGI\"\" restriction for schedule-C.\"",
"\"If you have a single member LLC there is no need to separate expenses in this way since it is simply treated as part of the owner's normal tax returns. This is the way I've been operating. Owner of Single-Member LLC If a single-member LLC does not elect to be treated as a corporation, the LLC is a \"\"disregarded entity,\"\" and the LLC's activities should be reflected on its owner's federal tax return. If the owner is an individual, the activities of the LLC will generally be reflected on: Form 1040 Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship) (PDF) Form 1040 Schedule E, Supplemental Income or Loss (PDF) Form 1040 Schedule F, Profit or Loss from Farming (PDF) An individual owner of a single-member LLC that operates a trade or business is subject to the tax on net earnings from self employment in the same manner as a sole proprietorship. If the single-member LLC is owned by a corporation or partnership, the LLC should be reflected on its owner's federal tax return as a division of the corporation or partnership. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/single-member-limited-liability-companies\"",
"how many transactions per year do you intend? Mixing the funds is an issue for the reasons stated. But. I have a similar situation managing money for others, and the solution was a power of attorney. When I sign into my brokerage account, I see these other accounts and can trade them, but the owners get their own tax reporting.",
"Note: This is not professional tax advice. If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000? US$100,000? I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own. Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation. Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising. Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors. Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned. Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes. BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder).",
"\"From the IRS perspective, there's no difference between \"\"your taxes\"\" and \"\"your sole proprietorship's taxes\"\", they're all just \"\"your taxes\"\". While I could see it being very useful and wise to track your business's activities separately, and use separate bank accounts and the like, this is just a convenience to help you in your personal accounting, and not something that needs to relate directly to how tax forms are completed or taxes are paid. When calculating your taxes, if you want to figure out how much \"\"you\"\" owe vs. how much \"\"your business\"\" owes, you'll have to do so yourself. One approach might be just to take the amount that your Schedule C puts as income on your return and multiply by your marginal tax rate. Another approach might be to have your tax software run the calculations as though you had no business income, and see what just \"\"your personal\"\" taxes would have been without the business. If you think of the business income as being \"\"first\"\" and should use up the lower brackets rather than your personal income, maybe do it the other way around and have your software run the calculations as though you had only the business income and no other personal/investment income, and see what the amount of taxes would be then. Once you've figured out a good allocation, the actual mechanics of paying some \"\"personal tax amount\"\" from your personal bank account and some \"\"business tax amount\"\" from your business bank account are up to you. I'd probably just transfer the money from my business account to my personal account and pay all the taxes from the personal account. Writing two separate checks, one from each account, that total to the correct amount, I'm sure would work just fine as well. You can probably make separate payments from each account electronically through Direct Pay or EFTPS as well. As long as all taxes are paid by the deadline, I don't think the IRS is too picky about the details of how many payments are made.\"",
"There are a few different ways to organize this, but mostly I think you need to talk to a lawyer. The 50/50 split thing should be in writing along with a bunch of other issues. You could have one of you doing a sole proprietorship where the other person is a contractor that receives half of all revenues/profits. The person that owns the sole proprietorship may be entitled to deduct certain costs of running the entity. The other person would then be 1099'd his share of revenues. You could set up a partnership, again legal paperwork is necessary. You could also setup an S-Corp, where each of you is a 50% owner. You could also setup an LLC that is organized as any of the above. I would only do this if you can self fund some additional tax preparation costs. Figure about $600/year at a minimum. There are a lot of options with a sole proprietorship being the easiest. Your first step on the new venture would be to apply for an EIN (free), and then opening a business bank account. Good luck.",
"I'm not sure I am fully understanding the nuance of your question, but based on your answer in the comments you and your business are not separate legal entities. So your income is the full $70K, there is no distinct business to have income. If you clarify your question to include why you want to know this I might be able to give a more meaningful answer for your situation.",
"You may be able to, depending on what state you're in, but it is going to be 10x more complicated than just forming a new LLC. I don't see an advantage to this approach - if you're imagining it will be cheaper, you are imagining wrong.",
"If it is Texas company, you can try doing a taxable entity search on the Texas Comptroller website.",
"In Germany you can register a Einzelunternehmen and receive payments into your personal bank account with a German bank. Apple will certainly be able to transfer to accounts in Germany as payments go via the European SEPA standard. Tax wise if you are living in Germany you will need to pay tax in Germany, so this is really the easiest way of doing it.",
"\"They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a \"\"sole proprietorship\"\" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're \"\"Zolani Enterprises\"\", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a \"\"Limited Liability Company\"\". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your \"\"avatar\"\" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a \"\"disregarded entity\"\". Most one-man LLCs are typically \"\"disregarded\"\", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an \"\"employee\"\" would get). Nothing can be \"\"retained\"\" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to \"\"own\"\" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an \"\"employee\"\" of your own company, and pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies \"\"retained\"\" by the company, or paid out to members as \"\"dividends\"\", is \"\"profit\"\" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a \"\"distribution\"\" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple \"\"members\"\" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different.\"",
"\"An LLC is overkill for 99% of 1 man small businesses. Side-businesses should remain as sole proprieterships until they get much larger and need the benefits of the LLC laws. You can still bill through a company name if you want to start building a brand: And set aside 25% of your gross income for Uncle Sam. He wants you to file a Schedule C with your regular 1040 at tax time. He doesn't care about your company. He just wants your social security number with a big fat check stuck to it. Be sure to maximize your tax savings by tracking your expenses like a hawk. Every mile is worth 50 cents. I recommend using a tracking system like the TaxMinimiser.com (buy the $4 version to see if you like it). Bottom line: EARN MONEY. Don't set up a \"\"corporation\"\".\"",
"LLC doesn't explain the tax structure. LLCs can file as a partnership (1065) Scorp (1120S) or nothing at all, if it's a SMLLC. (Single Member LLC). I really enjoy business, and helping people get started. If you PM me your contact information, id be more than happy to go over any issues you may have, and help you with your current issue.",
"set up a US company (WY is cheap and easy), go south and open a personal and business bank account, ask for the itin form. file for the itin. set up your EIN for the company. get a credit card for both. pay some mail forwarding service with it. file for taxes in the next year using your itin. prepaid cards do not link to your tax id",
"Are you talking about domicile? An LLC is treated differently than a corporation in the terms of citizenship of the law. An LLC is a citizen of whichever state it's members (shareholders) are citizens. I would recommend you just spend the money on a business attorney to ensure that all the t's are crossed correctly so it doesn't end up costing you more later on.",
"You put your Michigan address. The incorporation address is of no concern for the IRS, they couldn't care less where you're incorporated - it has no effect on your tax liability. The address is used when audited, and the IRS expects you to give the address where the records are (i.e.: where the business, aka you, is physically located).",
"\"Open a personal account to link SQUARE with, open a savings account with same bank. Register as \"\"PERSONAL USE\"\", make as many transactions you want for whatever you want $5.00 to $1,000.00 or more, you get paid, square collects a fee. Money is in your \"\"personal account\"\" in 24 hrs, transfer it to your savings acct. 2 years now no issue. I've done the EIN, vendors license, registering business crap, if you work for yourself for private citizens it's none of anyone else's concern.\"",
"You would report the overall income on your T1 general income tax return, and use form T2125 to report income and expenses for your business. Form T2125 is like a mini income-statement where you report your gross revenue and subtract off expenses. Being able to claim legitimate expenses as a deduction is an important tax benefit for businesses big and small. In terms of your second question, you generally need to register for a business number at least once you cross the threshold for GST / HST. If you earn $30,000/year (or spread over four consecutive quarters) then charging GST / HST is mandatory; see GST/HST Mandatory registration. There are other conditions as well, but the threshold is the principal one. You can also register voluntarily for GST / HST even if you're below that threshold; see GST/HST Voluntary registration. The advantage of registering voluntarily is that you can claim input tax credits (ITC) on any GST that your business pays, and remit only the difference. That saves your business money, especially if you have a lot of expenses early on. Finally, in terms of Ontario specifically (saw that on your profile), you might want to check out Ontario Sole Proprietorship. There are specific cases in which you need to register a business: e.g. specific types of businesses, or if you plan on doing business under a name other than your own. Finally, you may want to consider whether incorporating might be better for you. Here's an interesting article that compares Sole Proprietorship Versus Incorporation. Here's another article, Choosing a business structure, from the feds.",
"An LLC is a pass-through entity in the USA, so profits and losses flow through to the individual's taxes. Thus an LLC has a separate TIN but the pass-through property greatly simplifies tax filings, as compared to the complicated filings required by C-corps.",
"\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"",
"IRS has it spelled out Business or Hobby?",
"Goddady.com will gladly accept payment from your personal account. They don't really care, as long as you approve the charge, whose name the account is in. I'm not sure PayPal even check the names on the invoice and the account to match, they just want you to login. However, depending on your local laws, you may be required to have a separate business account. In the US, for example, corporations must have their own accounts. For other entities with limited liability (like LLC or LLP) it is advised to have a separate account to avoid piercing corporate veil. Also, if your business name is not your personal name - clients may want to verify that the checks/transfers are deposited under your business name. In some countries checks written out to X cannot be endorsed by X to be transferred to Y. That may affect your decision as well. You'll have to get a proper legal advice valid in your jurisdiction to know the answer to your question.",
"I would prefer to see you register in your home state, and then focus on making money, rather than spending time looking to game the system to save a few bucks. People worry way too much about these trivial fees when they should be focused on making their business successful. Get registered, get insurance, and then pour it on and start making money. Make $650 your target for a week's income - you can do it! Next year's goal should be spending $50 a month on a payroll service because you're SO BUSY you can't take the extra time to pay your own social security taxes.",
"Havoc P's answer is good (+1). Also don't forget the other aspects of business income: state filing fees, county/city filing fees, business licenses, etc. Are there any taxes you have to collect from your customers? If you expect to make more this year, then you should make estimated quarterly tax payments. The first one for 2011 is due around the same time as your federal income tax filing.",
"Can he use an existing credit card in his name for all his business expenses, or does that pierce the corporate veil? That would be a question to a lawyer, since there's no definitive answer but rather circumstantial. Generally it is safer to separate the finances completely than to try and guess what the court would rule if it comes to that. It is not hard to get a separate card for a LLC (especially if it is a sole proprietorship). We are going to buy a house soon, so I don't want any extra inquiries. I guess it depends on the bank and the type of card. My Citi business card doesn't show up on my personal credit report.",
"The LLC will file its own business taxes which may or may not have business level income and expenses. At the end, the LLC will issue Schedule K-1 tax forms to the members, that based on their percentage ownership, will reflect the percentage share of the income/losses. From an individual standpoint, the members need only worry about the K-1 form they receive. This has quite a few pass-through categories from the LLC, but the Income/Loss may be the only used one. The individual will likely include the K-1 by filing a Schedule-E along with their 1040 form. The 1040 Schedule-E has some ability to deduct expenses as an individual. Generally it's best not to commingle expenses. Additional schedule-E expense reporting is generally for non-reimbursed, but related business expenses. If a member paid certain fees for the LLC, it is better for the LLC to reimburse him and then deduct the expense properly. Schedule-E is on a non-LLC, personal level.",
"\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \"\"hobby.\"\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\"",
"Through your question and then clarification through the comments, it looks like you have a U.S. LLC with at least two members. If you did not elect some other tax treatment, your LLC will be treated as a partnership by the IRS. The partnership should file a tax return on Form 1065. Then each partner will get a Schedule K-1 from the partnership, which the partner should use to include their respective shares of the partnership income and expenses on their personal Forms 1040. You can also elect to be taxed as an S-Corp or a C-Corp instead of a partnership, but that requires you to file a form explicitly making such election. If you go S-Corp, then you will file a different form for the company, but the procedure is roughly the same - Income gets passed through to the owners via a Schedule K-1. If you go C-Corp, then the owners will pay no tax on their own Form 1040, but the C-Corp itself will pay income tax. As far as whether you should try to spend the money as business expense to avoid paying extra tax - That's highly dependent on your specific situation. I'd think you'd want to get tailored advice for that.",
"\"Yes, you can create a PayPal business account without having formalized a business with government filings and whatnot. At its simplest terms, \"\"having a business\"\" is simply \"\"doing business as\"\" (D/B/A) a trade name. You can use the address of a Private Mail Box such as those provided at the UPS Store. Ask any kid with a lemonade stand or a box of Girl Scout cookies - you only need to engage in government formalities like registering an LLC or getting a tax EIN when you cross certain thresholds of activity, and paying for things is generally not it. Also, some of businesses, for some relationships, will require the business formalities like an EIN, which in turn will require creating a trade name and registering it with the state. For instance if you set up a traditional credit card merchant account, they'll probably want that.\"",
"\"Subchapter S Corporations are a special type of corporation; the difference is how they are taxed, not how they relate to their vendors or customers. As a result, they are named the same way as any other corporation. The rules on names of corporations vary by state. \"\"Corporation\"\" and \"\"Incorporated\"\" (and their abbreviations) are allowed by every state, but some states allow other names as well. The Wikipedia article \"\"Types of business entity\"\" lists an overview of corporation naming rules for each state. The S-Corp that I work for has \"\"Inc.\"\" at the end of its name.\"",
"\"Before filing your first business tax return, you will need to choose a taxation method, either corporation or partnership. If you choose a partnership, then it's moot - your business income flows through to your personal taxes via form K-1. Also, regardless of your taxation method, you should consult a legal expert, since having your business pay off your personal debt would almost always be counted as income to you, and may cause you to lose the personal liability protections provided by the LLC (aka \"\"piercing the corporate veil\"\"). Having a single-member LLC with no employees, you have to be very careful how you manage the finances of the business. Any commingling of personal and business could jeopardize your protections.\"",
"If this activity were to generate let's say 100K of profit, and the other corporate activities also generate 100K of revenue, are there any issues tax-wise I need to be concerned about? Yes. Having 25% or more of passive income in 3 consecutive years will invalidate your S-Corp status and you'll revert to C-Corp. Can I deduct normal business expenses from the straddles (which are taxed as short term capital gains) profit? I don't believe you can. You can deduct investment expenses from the investment income. On your individual tax return it will balance out, but you cannot mix types of income/expense on the corporate return or K-1.",
"There are two methods of doing this Pulling out the money and paying the penalty if any, and going on your way. Having the Roth IRA own the business, and being an employee. If you go with the second choice, you should read more about it on this question.",
"\"Why would you file four K-1s for each partner? You file one K-1 per partner, on which you report the total of income attributed to that partner. It shouldn't and cannot \"\"vary\"\". There's no variables here, the income you report is the income already earned and attributed to that partner. What's there to vary? How you decide the attribution of income is governed by your operating agreement, the IRS only needs the bottom line.\"",
"\"As long as you didn't \"\"forget\"\" to report any income with regards to these accounts, you should be fine doing that. See more information and specific instructions on this IRS site.\"",
"You should look into an LLC. Its a fairly simple process, and the income simply flows through to your individual return. It will allow you to deduct supplies and other expenses from that income. It should also protect you if someone sues you for doing shoddy work (even if the work was fine), although you would need to consult a lawyer to be sure. For last year, it sounds like your taxes were done wrong. There are very, very few ways that you can end up adding more income and earning less after taxes. I'm tempted to say none, but our tax laws are so complex that I'm sure you can do it somehow.",
"My answer is with respect to the United States. I have no idea about India's regulatory environment. You are opening yourself up to massive liabilities and problems if you deposit their money in your account. I managed investment accounts as a private investment advisor for years (those with less than 15 clients were not required to register) until Dodd-Frank changed the rules. Thus you would have to register as an advisor, probably needing to take the series 65 exam (or qualifying some other way, e.g. getting your CFP/CFA/etc...). I used a discount broker/dealer (Scottrade) as the custodian. Here's how it works: Each client's account was their own account, and I had a master account that allowed me to bill their accounts and manage them. They signed paperwork making me the advisor on their account. I had very little accounting to handle (aside from tracking basis for taxed accounts). If you take custody of the money, you'll have regulatory obligations. There are always lots of stories in the financial advisor trade publications about advisors who go to jail for screwing their clients. The most common factor: they took custody of the assets. I understand why you want a single account - you want to ensure that each client gets the same results, right? Does each client want the same results? Certainly the tax situation for each is different, yes? Perhaps one has gains and wants to take losses in one year, and the other doesn't. If their accounts are managed separately, one can take losses while the other realizes gains to offset other losses. Financial advisors offer these kinds of accounts as Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs). The advisors on these kinds of accounts are mutual funds managers, and they try to match a target portfolio, but they can do things like realize gains or losses for clients if their tax situation would prefer it. You certainly can't let them put retirement accounts into your single account unless the IRS has you on their list of acceptable custodians. I suggest that you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the regulatory environment that you want to operate under. Then, after examining the pros and cons, you should decide which route you want to take. I think the most direct and feasible route is to pass the Series 65, register as an investment advisor, and find a custodian who will let you manage the assets as the advisor on the account. Real estate is another matter, you should talk to an attorney, not some random guy on the internet (even if he has an MBA and a BS in Real Estate, which I do). This is very much a state law thing.",
"The line you are referring to says 5 U.S. taxpayer identification number (SSN or ITIN), if required (see instructions) It does not appear to be required in your case.",
"If it makes your finances easier, why not? My wife and I had his/hers/our since before we were married. I also have an account to handle transactions for my rental property, and one extra for PayPal use. I was paranoid to give out a checking account number with authorization for a third party to debit it, so that account has a couple hundred dollars, maximum. All this is just to explain that your finances should be arranged to simplify your life and make you comfortable.",
"\"You can't individually have 100% ownership if the 50/50 LLC is the owner of the new business; however, you can be allocated 100% of the profits and losses from the new business with the 50/50 LLC as owner of said business. It requires a new LLC operating agreement that specially allocates profits and losses from the new business to you. There is one catch under the Treasury Regs, the special allocation to you must have \"\"substantial economic effect\"\". See Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) Section 1.704-1. http://www.medlawplus.com/library/legal/irsrulings/treareg1704-1.htm\"",
"Fellow dirty jerz resident here. I would highly recommend going the llc route. If, god forbid, anything ever happened and you were sued, the llc will contain all losses and your personal assets will not be at risk. I'm not sure about the timing of clients. Better to ask a lawyer - cheap to use online services like rocketlawyer (sp?)",
"\"You don't specify which country you are in, so my answers are more from a best practice view than a legal view.. I don't intend on using it for personal use, but I mean it's just as possible. This is a dangerous proposition.. You shouldn't co-mingle business expenses with personal expenses. If there is a chance this will happen, then stop, make it so that it won't happen. The big danger is in being able to have traceability between what you are doing for the business, and what you are doing for yourself. If you are using this as a \"\"staging\"\" account for investments, etc., are those investments for yourself? Or for the business? Is tax treatment on capital gains and/or dividends the same for personal and business in your jurisdiction? If you buy a widget, is the widget an expense against business income? Or is it an out of pocket expense for personal consumption? The former reduces your taxable income, the latter does not. I don't see the benefit of a real business account because those have features specific to maybe corporations, LLC, and etc. -- nothing beneficial to a sole proprietor who has no reports/employees. The real benefit is that there is a clear delineation between business income/expenses and personal income/expenses. This account can also accept money and hold it from business transactions/sales, and possibly transfer some to the personal account if there's no need for reinvesting said amount/percentage. What you are looking for is a commonly called a current account, because it is used for current expenses. If you are moving money out of the account to your personal account, that speaks to paying yourself, which has other implications as well. The safest/cleanest way to do this is to: While this may sound like overkill, it is the only way to guarantee that income/expenses are allocated to the correct entity (i.e. you, or your business). From a Canadian standpoint:\"",
"I suggest to start charging slightly more than needed to cover expenses. All you need is to show profit. It doesn't have to be significant - a couple of hundred of dollars of consistent yearly profit should suffice to show a profitable business. Then you can deduct on Schedule C all the related expenses. The caveat is that the profit (after the deduction of the expenses will be a bit smaller) will be subject to not only income tax but also the self-employment tax. But at least you'll pay tax on profit that is not entirely phantom. I remember suggesting you getting a professional consultation on this matter a while ago. You should really do that - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, it may be well worth the $100-200 fee they'll charge for the consultation (if at all...).",
"\"Here's a brief rundown: 1. You're not going to need a lot of capital or debt 2. You aren't in a high-liability or high (MM+) revenue industry unless you're making children's toys out of reclaimed dynamite or something 3. You are operating by yourself The first fact rules out S or C corp. The second fact dings LLC, and the third one rules out a LLP or GP by default, although you can always convert later if you get a partner. Benefits of sole proprietorship include very simple taxes! As a pass-through entity, the business's income is considered your own, and business expenses are tax deductible. You don't need separate tax returns for both. Additionally, if it's just your name, you might not even need a license depending on your state and municipality (figure this out). If you want a different name, you usually need to register \"\"doing business as [name]\"\" with your state or municipality. Lastly, you don't need to use business income in any special way, since you have no additional tax liability or general liability shield. With an LLC, there are a lot of rules and restrictions. Let me know if you have any specific questions.\""
] |
[
"You're confusing a lot of things here. Company B LLC will have it's sales run under Company A LLC, and cease operating as a separate entity These two are contradicting each other. If B LLC ceases to exist - it is not going to have it's sales run under A LLC, since there will be no sales to run for a non-existent company. What happens is that you merge B LLC into A LLC, and then convert A LLC into S Corp. So you're cancelling the EIN for B LLC, you're cancelling the EIN for A LLC - because both entities cease to exist. You then create a EIN for A Corp, which is the converted A LLC, and you create a DBA where A Corp DBA B Shop. You then go to the bank and open the account for A Corp DBA B Shop with the EIN you just created for A Corp. Get a better accountant. Before you convert to S-Corp."
] |
10674
|
How to sell a stock in a crashing market?
|
[
"99857",
"257241",
"543589",
"3095"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"3095",
"99857",
"250873",
"318185",
"114092",
"543589",
"47053",
"165917",
"482919",
"549422",
"361238",
"476224",
"536647",
"438974",
"538743",
"257241",
"219762",
"276883",
"485760",
"272091",
"296516",
"273565",
"551286",
"89460",
"211509",
"394454",
"503912",
"173680",
"221869",
"301757",
"115652",
"507097",
"84853",
"322284",
"382339",
"339419",
"368348",
"547553",
"152719",
"87771",
"339875",
"71873",
"480967",
"24563",
"138096",
"427808",
"127401",
"292338",
"66219",
"172338",
"41852",
"62706",
"434904",
"416007",
"437208",
"288448",
"303724",
"102757",
"432511",
"354767",
"251536",
"501372",
"333496",
"418937",
"507108",
"400614",
"215878",
"300587",
"407602",
"189920",
"582562",
"81353",
"171784",
"137073",
"162768",
"590902",
"393842",
"120082",
"450067",
"483394",
"378173",
"41271",
"443926",
"14543",
"596664",
"510268",
"99132",
"230666",
"540799",
"131127",
"303448",
"39503",
"310683",
"165548",
"16175",
"337736",
"431443",
"554674",
"39265",
"509819"
] |
[
"What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time.",
"\"Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the \"\"flash crash\"\") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question \"\"Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?\"\", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on.\"",
"The best thing to do to avoid this is not to sell as you've described. What purpose does it solve? If you're speculating, set a price at which you want to cash out and put a limit order. If you're a long term investor, then unless something fundamental has changed - why would you sell?",
"You have no guarantees. The stock may last have traded at $100 (so, the market price is $100), but is currently in free-fall and nobody else will be willing to buy it for any more than $80. Or heck, maybe nobody will be willing to buy it at all, at any price. Or maybe trading on this stock will be halted. Remember, the market price is just what the stock last traded at. If you put in a 'market order', you are ordering your broker to sell at the best available current price. Assuming someone's willing to buy your stock, that means you'll sell it. But if it last traded at $100, this doesn't guarantee you'll sell at anything close to that.",
"I would also be getting out of the stock market if I noticed prices starting to fall and a crash possibly on the way. There are some good and quite simple techniques I would use to time the markets over the medium to long term. I have described some of them in the answer to this question of mine: What are some simple techniques used for Timing the Stock Market over the long term? You could use similar techniques in your investing. And in regards to back-testing DCA to Timing The Markets, I have done that too in my answer to the following question: Investing in low cost index fund — does the timing matter? Timing the Markets wins hand down. In regards to back-testing and the concerns Kent Anderson has brought up, when I back-test a trading strategy, if that strategy is successful, I then forward test it over a year or two to confirm the results. As with back-testing you can sometimes curve fit your criteria too much. By forward testing you are confirming that the strategy is robust over different market conditions. One strategy you can take when the market does start to fall is short selling, as mentioned by some already. I am now short selling using CFDs over the short to medium term as one of my more aggressive strategies. I have a longer term strategy where I do not short, but tighten my stop losses when the market starts to tank. Sometimes my positions will keep going up even though the market as a whole is heading down, and I can make an extra 5% to 10% on these positions before I get taken out. The rare position even continues going up during the whole downturn and when the market starts to recover. So I let the market decide when I get out and when I stay in, I leave my emotions out of it. The best thing you can do is have a written trading plan with all your criteria for getting into the market, your criteria for getting out of the market and your position sizing and risk management incorporated in the plan.",
"\"Your question contains a faulty assumption: During crashes and corrections the amount of sellers is of course higher than the amount of buyers, making it difficult to sell stocks. This simply isn't true. Every trade has two sides; thus, by definition, for every seller there is buyer and vice versa. Even if we broaden the definition of \"\"buyers\"\" and \"\"sellers\"\" to mean \"\"people willing to buy (or sell) at some price\"\", the assumption still isn't true. When a stock is falling it is generally not because potential buyers are exiting the market; it is because they are revising the prices they are willing to buy at downward. For example, say there are a bunch of orders to buy Frobnitz Consolidated (DUMB) at $5. Suppose DUMB announces a downward revision to its earnings guidance. Those people might not be willing to buy at $50 anymore, so they'll probably cancel their $50 buy orders. However, just because DUMB isn't worth as much as they thought it was, that doesn't mean it's completely worthless. So, those prospective buyers will likely enter new orders at some lower value, say, $45. With that, the value of DUMB has just dropped by $5, a 10% correction. However, there are still plenty of buyers, and you can still sell your DUMB holdings, if you're willing to take $45 for them. In other words, the value of a security is not determined by the relative numbers of buyers and sellers. It is determined by the prices those buyers and sellers are willing to pay to buy or accept to sell. Except for cases of massive IT disruptions, such as we saw in the \"\"flash crash\"\", there is always somebody willing to buy or sell at some price.\"",
"\"If you really believe in the particular stocks, then don't worry about their daily price. Overall if the company is sound, and presumably paying a dividend, then you're in it for the long haul. Notwithstanding that, it is reasonable to look for a way out. The two you describe are quite different in their specifics. Selling sounds like the simpler of the two, but the trigger event, and if it is automatic or \"\"manual\"\" matters. If you are happy to put in a sell order at some time in the future, then just go ahead with that. Many brokers can place a STOP order, that will trigger on a certain price threshold being hit. Do note, however, that by default this would place a market order, and depending on the price that breaks through, in the event of a flash crash, depending on how fast the brokers systems were, you could find yourself selling quite cheaply. A STOP LIMIT order will place a limit order at a triggered price. This would limit your overall downside loss, but you might not sell at all if the market is really running away. Options are another reasonable way to deal with the situation, sort of like insurance. In this case you would likely buy a PUT, which would give you the right, but not the obligation to sell the stock at the price the that was specified in the option. In this case, no matter what, you are out the price of the option itself (hence my allusion to insurance), but if the event never happens then that was the price you paid to have that peace of mind. I cannot recommend a specific course of action, but hopefully that fleshed out the options you have.\"",
"You could always maintain a limit order to sell at a price you're comfortable with.",
"The strategy could conceivably work if you had sufficient quantity of shares to fill all of the outstanding buy orders and fill your lower buy orders. But in this case you are forcing the market down by selling and reinforcing the notion that there is a sell off by filling ever lower buy orders. There is the potential to trigger some stop loss orders if you can pressure it low enough. There is a lot of risk here that someone sees what you are doing and decides to jump in and buy forcing the price back up. Could this work sure. But it is very risky and if you fail to create the panic selling then you risk losing big. I also suspect that this would violate SEC Rules and several laws. And if the price drops too far then trading on the stock would be halted and is likely to return at the appropriate price. Bottom line I can not see a scenario where you do not trigger the stop, net a profit and end up with as many or more stock that you had in the first place.",
"\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\"",
"Yes You could write a covered call and the stock gets called away at the price + premium. You could convince someone to buy it regardless of the market price.",
"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.",
"None of your options or strategies are ideal. Have you considered looking at the stock chart and making a decision? Is the price currently up-trending, or is it down-trending, or is it going sideways? As Knuckle Dragger mentions, you could just set a limit price order and if it does not hit by Friday you can just sell at whatever price on Friday. However, this could be very damaging if the price is currently down-trending. It may fall considerably by Friday. I think a better strategy would be to place a trailing stop loss order, say 5% from the current price. If the stock starts heading south you will be stopped out approximately 5% below the current price. However, if the price goes up, your trailing stop order will move up as well, always trailing 5% below the highest price reached. If the trailing stop has not been hit by Friday afternoon, you can sell at the current price. This way you will be protected on the downside (only approx. 5% below current price) and can potentially benefit from any short term upside.",
"Yes you can, provided if buyers are available. Normally high liquidty stocks can be sold at market prices a little higher or lower.",
"\"There needs to be a buyer of the shares you are offering. There are a lot of feature rich options for buying and selling. I don't understand them all in depth, but for example on TD Ameritrade here are some of the order types \"\"Limit\"\", \"\"Market\"\", \"\"Stop Market\"\", \"\"Stop Limit\"\", \"\"Trailing Stop %\"\", \"\"Trailing Stop $\"\". This web page will explain the different order types https://invest.ameritrade.com/cgi-bin/apps/u/PLoad?pagename=tutorial/orderTypes/overview.html Stock with a higher volume will allow your trade to execute faster, since there are more frequent trades than stocks with lower volume. (UPDATE: More specifically, not more frequent trades, but more shares changing hands.) I'm a bit of a noob myself, but that's what I understand.\"",
"It is typically possible to sell during a crash, because there are enough people that understand the mechanics behind a crash. Generally, you need to understand that you don't lose money from the crash, but from selling. Every single crash in history more than recovered, and by staying invested, you wouldn't have lost anything (this assumes you have enough time to sit it out; it could take several years to recover). On the other side of those deals are people that understand that, and make money by buying during a crash. They simply sit the crash out, and some time later they made a killing from what you panic-sold, when it recovers its value.",
"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"Personally, I have been in that situation too often that now I am selling at the first tick down! (not exactly but you get the idea..) I have learned over the years to not fall in love with any stock, and this is a very hard thing to do. Limit your losses and take profit when you are satisfied with them. Nothing prevents you from buying back in this stock but why buying when it is going down? Just my 2 cents.",
"\"Do you want to do it pre or post correction? If you're bearish on the market the obvious thing to do is short an index. I would say this is kind of dumb. The main problem is that it may take months or years for the market to crash, and by then it will have gone up so much that even the crash doesn't bring you profit, and you're paying borrowing fees meanwhile as well. You need to watch the portfolio also, when you short sell you'll get a bunch of cash, which you most likely will want to invest, but once you invest it, the market can spike and pummel your short position, resulting in negative remaining cash (since you already spent it). At that point you get a margin call from your broker. If you check your account regularly, not a big deal, but bad things can happen if you treat it as a fire and forget strategy. These days they have inverse funds so you don't have to borrow anything. The fund manager borrows for you. I'd say those are much better. The less cumbersome choice is to simply sell call options on the index or buy puts. These are even cash options, so when you exercise you get/lose money, not shares. You can even arrange them so that your potential loss is capped. (but honestly, same goes for shorts - it's called a stop loss) You could also wait for the correction and buy the dip. Less worrying about shorts and such, but of course the issue is timing the crash. Usually the crashes are very quick, and there are several \"\"pre-crashes\"\" that look like it bottomed out but then it crashes more. So actually very difficult thing to tell. You have to know either exactly when the correction will be, or exactly what the price floor is (and set a limit buy). Hope your crystal ball works! Yet another choice is finding asset classes uncorrelated or even anticorrelated with the broader market. For instance some emerging markets (developing countries), some sectors, individual stocks that are not inflated, bonds, gold and so on can have these characteristics where if S&P goes down they go up. Buying those may be a safer approach since at least you are still holding a fundamentally valuable thing even if your thesis flops, meanwhile shorts and puts and the like are purely speculative.\"",
"If you know you have picked a bad stock, the sooner you sell the better. There is a tendency to hold a bad stock in the hope that it will pick up again. Most of us fall into this trap. The best way one needs to look at things are;",
"If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts. If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).",
"Try to find out (online) what 'the experts' think about your stock. Normally, there are some that advise you to sell, some to hold and some to buy. Hold on to your stock when most advise you to buy, otherwise, just sell it and get it over with. A stock's estimated value depends on a lot of things, the worst of these are human emotions... People buy with the crowd and sell on panic. Not something you should want to do. The 'real' value of a stock depends on assets, cash-flow, backlog, benefits, dividends, etc. Also, their competitors, the market position they have, etc. So, once you have an estimate of how much the stock is 'worth', then you can buy or sell according to the market value. Beware of putting all your eggs in one basket. Look at what happened to Arthur Andersen, Lehman Brothers, Parmalat, Worldcom, Enron, etc.",
"The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons.",
"You put in a market order when you want to sell to whomever raises their hand first. It results in the fastest possible liquidation of your stock. It's appropriate when you need to sell now, regardless of price. An example of when to use it: It's 3:55 PM, the market's going to close in 5 minutes and you need to sell some stocks to make some kind of urgent payment elsewhere. If instead you have a limit order in place, you might not reach the limit price before the market closes, and you'll still own the stock, which might not be what you want.",
"\"This is actually a very complicated question. The key reading in this area is a seminal paper by Almgren & Chriss, \"\"Optimal Execution of Portfolio Transactions\"\" (2000). They show that there's a tradeoff between liquidating your portfolio faster and knowing the value with more certainty, versus liquidating more slowly (and likely for a higher price) but with less certainty. So for example, if you sold your entire position right now, you would know almost certainly how much you would get for the position. Or, you could sell off your position more slowly, and likely get more money, but you would have less certainty about how much you would get. The paper is available online at http://www.courant.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/optliq.pdf\"",
"\"First a quick terminology correction: I believe you're proposing selling 10,000 shares of the stock of a company, not \"\"10,000 stocks\"\". When you sell, you need to decide whether you're selling for a specific minimum price or just selling for whatever price you can get. If you set a specific lower limit on asking price, then if people aren't interested at that price it doesn't sell. Which may mean you sell only a few shares, or none if your asking price isn't considered reasonable. If you want to sell independent of price, then as you begin to flood the market with your shares, the price you get per additional share may decline until it finds a buyer. What that lower limit is will depend on what people think the stock is currently worth. This is one of the many complications I don't want to deal with, which is why I stick with index funds.\"",
"If you place a market order, you are guaranteed to sell your stock unless the stock is in a trading halt. A market order does not guarantee the price you sell the stock at. If you place a market order, even if the stock is very illiquid a market maker will guarantee a market, but will not guarantee a price.",
"This is the exactly wrong thing to do especially in the age of algorithmic trading. Consider this event from 2010: Chart Source Another similar event occurred in 2015 and there was also a currency flash crash in that year. As you can see the S&P 500 (and basically the entire market) dropped nearly 7% in a matter of minutes. It regained most of that value within 15 minutes. If you are tempted to think that 7% isn't that big of a deal, you need to understand that specific securities will have a much bigger drop during such events. For example the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) was down 45% at one point on Aug 24, 2015 but closed less than 6% down. Consider what effect a stop loss order would have on your portfolio in that circumstance. You would not be able to react fast enough to buy at the bottom. The advantage of long-term investing is that you are immune to such aberrations. Additionally, as asked by others, what do you do once you've pulled out your money. Do you wait for a big jump in the market and hop back in? The risk here is that you are on the sidelines for the gains. By missing out on just a small number of big days, you can really hurt your long-term returns.",
"\"If the stock is below its purchase price, there is no way to exit the position immediately without taking losses. Since presumably you had Good Reasons for buying that stock that haven't changed overnight, what you should probably do is just hold it and wait for the stock to come back up. Otherwise you're putting yourself into an ongoing pattern of \"\"buy high, sell low\"\", which is precisely what you don't want to do. If you actually agree with the market that you made a mistake and believe that the stock will not recover any part of the loss quickly (and indeed will continue going down), you could sell immediately and take your losses rather than waiting and possibly taking more losses. Of course if the stock DOES recover you've made the wrong bet. There are conditions under which the pros will use futures to buffer a swing. But that's essentially a side bet, and what it saves you has to be balanced against what it costs you and how certain you are that you NOW can predict the stock's motion. This whole thing is one of many reasons individuals are encouraged to work with index funds, and to buy-and-hold, rather than playing with individual stocks. It is essentially impossible to reliably \"\"time the market\"\", so all you can do is research a stock to death before making a bet on it. Much easier, and safer, to have your money riding on the market as a whole so the behavior of any one stock doesn't throw you into a panic. If you can't deal with the fact that stocks go down as well as up, you probably shouldn't be in the market.\"",
"Simply if your stock is still rising in price keep it. If it is falling in price sell it and pay off your mortgage. To know when to do this is very easy. If it is currently rising you can put a trailing stop loss on it and sell it when it drops and hits your stop loss. A second easy method is to draw an uptrend line under the increasing price and then sell when the price drops down below the uptrend line, as per the chart below. This will enable you to capture the bulk of the price movement upward and sell before the price drops too far down. You can then use the profits (after tax) to pay down your mortgage. Of course if the price is currently in a downtrend sell it ASAP.",
"\"Of the two, an option is a more reliable but more expensive means to get rid of a stock. As sdg said, a put option is basically an insurance policy on the stock; you pay a certain price for the contract itself, which locks in a sale price up to a particular future date. If the stock depreciates significantly, you exercise the option and get the contract price; otherwise you let the contract expire and keep the stock. Long-term, these are bad bets as each expired contract will offset earnings, but if you foresee a near-term steep drop in the stock price but aren't quite sure, a put option is good peace of mind. A sell stop order is generally cheaper, but less reliable. You set a trigger price, say a loss of 10% of the stock's current value. If that threshold is reached, the stop order becomes a sell order and the broker will sell the stock on the market, take his commission (or a fixed price depending on your broker) and you get the rest. However, there has to be a buyer willing to buy at that price at the moment the trigger fires; if a stock has lost 10% rapidly, it's probably on the way down hard, and the order might not complete until you realize a 12% loss, or a 15%, or even 20%. A sell stop limit (a combination stop order and limit order) allows you to say that you want to sell if the stock drops to $X, but not sell if it drops below $X-Y. This allows you to limit realized losses by determining a band within which it should be sold, and not to sell above or below that price. These are cheaper because you only pay for the order if it is executed successfully; if you never need it, it's free (or very cheap; some brokers will charge a token service fee to maintain a stop or stop limit). However, if the price drops very quickly or you specify too narrow a band, the stock can drop through that band too quickly to execute the sell order and you end up with a severely depreciated stock and an unexercised order. This can happen if the company whose stock you own buys another company; VERY quickly, both stocks will adjust, the buying company will often plummet inside a few seconds after news of the merger is announced, based on the steep drop in working capital and/or the infusion of a large amount of new stock in the buying company to cover the equity of the purchased company. You end up with devalued stock and a worthless option (but one company buying another is not usually reason to sell; if the purchase is a good idea, their stock will recover). Another option which may be useful to you is a swaption; this basically amounts to buying a put option on one financial instrument and a call on another, rolled into one option contract specifying a swap. This allows you to pick something you think would rise if your stock fell and exchange your stock for it at your option. For example, say the stock on which you buy this swaption is an airline stock, and you contract the option to swap for oil. If oil surges, the airline's stock will tank sharply, and you win both ways (avoiding loss and realizing a gain). You'd also win if either half of this option realized a gain over the option price; oil could surge or the airline could tank and you could win. You could even do this \"\"naked\"\" since its your option; if the airline's stock tanks, you buy it at the crashed price to exercise the option and then do so. The downside is a higher option cost; the seller will be no fool, so if your position appears to be likely, anyone who'd bet against you by selling you this option will want a pretty high return.\"",
"You should know when to sell your shares before you buy them. This is most easily done by placing a stop loss conditional order at the same time you place your buy order. There are many ways to determine at what level to place your stop losses at. The easiest is to place a trailing stop loss at a percentage below the highest close price, so as the price reaches new highs the trailing stop will rise. If looking for short to medium term gains you might place your trailing stop at 10% below the highest close, whilst if you were looking for more longer term gains you should probably place a 20% trailing stop. Another way to place your stops for short to medium term gains is to keep moving your trailing stop up to just below the last trough in an existing uptrend.",
"You can buy out of the money put options that could minimize your losses (or even make you money) in the event of a huge crash. Put options are good in that you dont have to worry about not getting filled, or not knowing what price you might get filled with a stop-loss order, however, put options cost money and their value decays over time. It's just like buying insurance, you always have to pay up for it.",
"\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"",
"try to sell if today's google stock goes above 669$ This is Relative/Pegged-to-Primary Order with a Limit Price of $669 and an offset from National Best Offer of $0.00, but it is no different than an Market Order if the market price is $669 to begin with. do not sell if the stock keeps climbing beyond 669 unless there is a down tick of 20cents is seen This is a Trailing Stop Order with a Trailing Amount of $0.20. It sells if the market price dropped $0.20 from the peak. The two orders are contradictory. From your comments, I think the following is what you want: Submit Trailing Stop Order when market price is above $669. Cancel Trailing Stop Order before the end of the day and Submit Relative/Pegged-to-Primary Order to Sell.",
"Sounds like an illiquid option, if there are actually some bidders, market makers, then sell the option at market price (market sell order). If there are not market makers then place a really low limit sell order so that you can sit at the ask in the order book. A lot of time there is off-book liquidity, so there may be a party looking for buy liquidity. You can also exercise the option to book the loss (immediately selling the shares when they get delivered to you), if this is an American style option. But if the option is worthless then it is probably significantly underwater, and you'd end up losing a lot more as you'd buy the stock at the strike price but only be able to sell at its current market value. The loss could also be increased further if there are even MORE liquidity issues in the stock.",
"Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it.",
"\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"Buy it at the close. That way you won't lose money (even if marked to market) on the day.",
"\"I would normally take a cautious, \"\"it depends\"\" approach to answering a question like this, but instead I'm going to give you a blunt opinionated answer based solely on what I would do: Even the crap. Get rid of them and get into the boring low fee mutual funds. I was in a similar situation a few years ago, almost. My retirement accounts were already in funds but my brokerage account was all individual stocks. I decided I didn't really know what I was doing despite being up by 30+% (I recognize that it was mostly due to the market itself being up, I was lucky basically). The way I cashed out was not to sell all at once. I just set up trailing stops on all of them and waited until they hit the stops. The basic idea was that if the market kept going up, the point at which they got sold also went up (it was like a 10% trail I think), and once things started to turn for that stock, they would sell automatically. Sure I sold some at very temporary dips so I missed out on some gains but that's always a risk with a trailing stop and I really didn't care at that point. If I had to do it again, I might forget all that and just sell all at once. But I feel a lot better not being in individual stocks.\"",
"I would never use a market order. Some brokerages have an approval process your short-sale goes through before going to market. This can take some time. So the market prices may well be quite different later. Some brokerages use a separate account for short sales, so you must get their approval for the account before you can do the trade. I like the listing of shares available for shorting the Interactive Brokers has but I have experienced orders simply going into dead-air and sitting there on the screen, not being rejected, not going to market, not doing anything --- even though the shares are on the list.",
"You will lose out on your spread, you always pay a spread. Also, if you are looking at a strategy for using stop losses, try taking into account the support lines if you are going long. So, if the stock is on an upward trend but is dropping back from profit taking, your best best is to take a position closest to the next support line. You place your stop just below the support. this will give you the best chance of a winning position as most technical analysts will have looking towards the support as a buy back area. Obviously, in a bear market the opposite is true. If you have taken your position and the market move past the first resistance line, then bring your stop to just below that line as once resistance is broken, it then becomes support. You then have a profitable position with profit locked in. Leave the position to break the next resistance and repeat.",
"\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"",
"Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15.",
"\"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"",
"If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.",
"You are right about the stock and index funds, with dollar cost averaging over several years, the daily price of the security (especially a dividend paying security) will not matter* because your position will have accumulated larger over several entry points, some entries with cheaper shares and some entries with more expensive shares. In the future your position will be so large that any uptick will net you large gains on your original equity. *not matter being a reference to even extreme forms of volatility. But if you had all your equity in a poor company and tanked, never to rise again, then you would still be in a losing position even with dollar cost averaging. If your only other holdings are bonds, then you MAY want to sell those to free up capital.",
"If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.",
"If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.",
"The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online.",
"Stocks go down and go back up, that's their nature... Why would you sell on a low point? Stocks are a long term investment. If the company is still healthy, it's very likely you'll be able to sell them with a profit if you wait long enough.",
"\"You can do several things: After the fact: If you believe the stock will go up, you can buy more stock now, it's what's called \"\"averaging\"\". So, you bought 100 at $10, now it's at $7. To gain money from your original investment it needs to raise to over $10. But if you really think it'll go up, you can buy and average. So you buy, say, 100 more stock at $7, now you have 200 shares at $8.50 average so you gain money on your investment when the stock goes over $8.50 instead of $10. Of course, you risk losing even more money if the stock keeps going down. Before the fact: When you buy stock, set 'triggers'. In most trading houses you can set automatic triggers to fire on conditions you set. When you buy 100 shares at $10, you can set a trigger to automatically sell the 100 shares if it drops below $9, so you limit your losses to 10% (for example).\"",
"Unless other people believe you have a reason for selling at a lower price, your sale probably has no lasting effect at all on the market. Of course, if people see you dump a few million dollars' worth of shares at a discount, they may be inclined to believe you have a reason. But if you just sell a few, they will conclude the reason is just that you needed cash in a hurry.",
"A stop-loss order becomes a market order when a trade has occurred at or below the trigger price you set when creating the order. This means that you could possibly end up selling some or all of your position at a price lower than your trigger price. For relatively illiquid securities your order may be split into transactions with several buyers at different prices and you could see a significant drop in price between the first part of the order and the last few shares. To mitigate this, brokers also offer a stop-limit order, where you set not only a trigger price, but also a minimum price that you are will to accept for your shares. This reduces the risk of selling at rock bottom prices, especially if you are selling a very large position. However, in the case of a flash crash where other sellers are driving the price below your limit, that part of your order may never execute and you could end up being stuck with a whole lot of shares that are worth less than both your stop loss trigger and limit price. For securities that are liquid and not very volatile, either option is a pretty safe way to cut your losses. For securities that are illiquid and/or very volatile a stop-limit order will prevent you from cashing out at bottom dollar and giving away a bargain to lurkers hanging out at the bottom of the market, but you may end up stuck with shares you don't want for longer than originally planned. It's up to you to decide which kind of risk you prefer.",
"Adding on to all the fine answers, you can consider selling a covered call. You will have to own a minimum of 100 shares. It will offer a bit of protection, but limit your upside. If your confident long term, but expect a broader market pull back then a covered call might give you that small protection your looking for.",
"Typically this isn't a random order- having a small volume just means it's not showing on the chart, but it is a vlid price point. Same thing would've happened if it would've been a very large order that shows on the chart. Consider also that this could have been the first one of many transactions that go far below your stop point - would you not have wanted it to be executed then, at this time, as it did? Would you expect the system to look into future and decide that this is a one time dip, and not sell; versus it is a crash, and sell? Either way, the system cannot look in the future, so it has no way to know if a crash is coming, or if it was a short dip; therefore the instrcutions are executed as given - sell if any transfer happens below the limit. To avoid that (or at least reduce the chance for it), you can either leave more distance (and risk a higher loss when it crashes), or trade higher volumes, so the short small dip won't execute your order; also, very liquid stocks will not show such small transaction dips.",
"\"In my view, it's better to sell when there's a reason to sell, rather than to cap your gains at 8%. I'm assuming you have no such criteria on the other side - i.e. hold your losses down to 8%. That's because what matters is how much you make overall in your portfolio, not how much you make per trade. Example: if you own three stocks, equal amounts - and two go up 20% but one falls 20%. If you sell your gains at 8%, and hold the loser, you have net LOST money. So when do you actually sell? You might say a \"\"fall of 10%\"\" from the last high is good enough to sell. This is called a \"\"trailing\"\" stop, which means if a stock goes from 100 to 120, I'll still hold and sell if it retraces to 108. Needless to say if it had gone from 100 to 90, I would still be out. The idea is to ride the trend for as long as you can, because trends are strong. And keep your trailing stops wide enough for it to absorb natural jiggles, because you may get stopped out of a stock that falls 4% but eventually goes up 200%. Or sell under other conditions: if the earnings show a distinct drop, or the sector falls out of favor. Whenever you decide to sell, also consider what it would take for you to buy the stock back - increased earnings, strong prices, a product release, whatever. Because getting out might seem like a good thing, but it's just as important to not think of it as saying a stock is crappy - it might just be that you had enough of one ride. That doesn't mean you can't come back for another one.\"",
"You bought the stock at some point in the past. You must have had a reason for this purchase. Has the recent change in price changed the reason you bought the stock? You must assume your losses are sunk costs. No matter what action you take, you can not recover your losses. Do not attempt to hold the stock in the hopes of regaining value, or sell it to stop losses. Instead approach this event as if this very day, you were given shares of the company's stock at their current market value for free as a gift. In this hypothetical situation, would you hold the shares, or sell them? Use that to judge your options. Not everyone, myself included, can handle the mental stress of watching share prices change. You can always consider trading index funds instead, which are much less volatile but will provide consistent, albeit, boring returns. This may or may not be you, but it's an option. Finally, do not keep money in the market you are not prepared to lose. It seems obvious, but if you lost 40% today, you could lose 100% tomorrow.",
"The cost to you for selling is 3/8% of a years salary, this is what you won't get if you sell. Tough to calculate the what-if scenarios beyond this, since I can't quantify the risk of a price drop. Once the amount in he stock is say,10%, of a years salary, if you know a drop is coming, a sale is probably worth it, for a steep drop. My stronger focus would be on how much of your wealth is concentrated in that one stock, Enron, and all.",
"For the type of market neutrality you desire, free from crash risk, it's best to hedge the shares with covered calls when implied volatility is expensive and puts when implied volatility is cheap with the nearest at the money expirations. A put only strategy can be very expensive and should only be used with the longest term options available since they can cost many tens of % per year. Securities become almost perfectly correlated during a crash; therefore, market crash risk of one security is essentially equal to the market crash risk, so hedging the security itself makes a position market neutral for crash risk. This strategy will have intermittent opportunity cost risk in the form of slower returns during market expansion to pay for smaller losses during a crash; however, the expected long run return hedged this way should be greater than the underlying's expected long run return with less volatility.",
"You should constantly look at your investment portfolio and sell based on future outlook. Don't get emotional. Selling a portfolio of stocks at once without a real reason is foolish. If you have a stock that's up, and circumstances make you think it's going to go up further, hold it. If prospects are not so good, sell it. Also, you don't have to buy or sell everything at once. If you've made money on a stock and want to realize those gains, sell blocks as it goes up. Stay diversified, monitor your portfolio every week and keep a reserve of cash to use when opportunity strikes. If you have more stocks or funds than you can keep current on every week, you should consolidate your positions over time.",
"If you get selected for exercise, your broker will liquidate the whole position for you most likely Talk to your broker.",
"\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"",
"\"A market sell order will be filled at the highest current \"\"bid\"\" price. For a reasonably liquid stock, there will be several buy orders in line, and the highest bid must be filled first, so there should a very short time between when you place the order and when it is filled. What could happen is what's called front running. That's when the broker places their own order in front of yours to fulfill the current bid, selling their own stock at the slightly higher price, causing your sale to be filled at a lower price. This is not only unethical but illegal as well. It is not something you should be concerned about with a large broker. You should only place a market order when you don't care about minute differences between the current ask and your execution price, but want to guarantee order execution. If you absolutely have to sell at a minimum price, then a limit order is more appropriate, but you run the risk that your limit will not be reached and your order will not be filled. So the risk is a tradeoff between a guaranteed price and a guaranteed execution.\"",
"You are better off just placing a market order if you want to buy or sell straight away and avoid the queues. A market order will guarantee the purchase or sale of your shares, but it won't guarantee the price.",
"You have to look at stocks just like you would look at smaller and more illiquid markets. Stock trade in auction markets. These are analogous to ebay or craigslist, just with more transparency and liquidity. There is no guarantee that a market will form for a particular stock, or that it will sustain. When a stock sells off, and there are no bids left, that means all of the existing bidder's limit orders got filled because someone sold at those prices. There is nothing fishy about that. It is likely that someone else wants to sell even more, but couldn't find any more bidders. If you put a bid you would likely get filled by the shareholder with a massive position looking for liquidity. You could also buy at the ask.",
"The price doesn't have to drop 5% in one go to activate your order. The trailing aspect simply means your sell trigger price will increase if the current value increases (it will never decrease).",
"A stop-loss does not guarantee a sale at the given price; it just automatically triggers an unlimited sale as soon as the market reaches the limit. Depending on the development, your sale could be right at, slightly under, or deeply under the stop-loss limit you gave - it could even be it is never executed, if there are no further deals. The point is that each sell needs a partner that buys for that price, and if nobody is buying, no sale happens, no matter what you do (automated or manually) - your stop loss cannot 'force' a sale. Stop-loss works well for minor corrections in liquid shares; it becomes less useful the less liquid a share is, and it will not be helpfull for seldomly traded shares.",
"Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.",
"\"That amount of shares is too low to create \"\"ripples\"\" in the market. Usually you don't specify the price to sell the stock, unless you are personally on the floor trading the securities. And even then, with a volume of $50,000 it would just mean you threw away $45,000. For most people it would mean setting a $5 sell order, and the broker would understand that as \"\"sell this security so long the price is above $5\"\". When you get to the trading volume required to influence the price, usually you are also bound by some regulations banning some moves. One of them is the Pump and Dump, and even if you are suggesting the opposite, it might be in preparation of this scam. Also, the software used for High Frequency Trading (what all the cool kids[a] in Wall Street are using these days) employ advanced (and proprietary) heuristics to analyze the market and make thousands of trades in a short interval of time. On HTF's speed: Decisions happen in milliseconds, and this could result in big market moves without reason. So a human trader attempting to manipulate the market versus these HTF setups, would be like a kid in a tricile attempting to outrun the Flash (DC comics). [a] Cool Kid: not really kids, more like suited up sharks. Money-eating sharks.\"",
"Your broker should be able to answer this. Many brokers will buy it from you for the cost of a commission, if there's no legit buyer.",
"When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid",
"\"Depends on how far down the market is heading, how certain you are that it is going that way, when you think it will fall, and how risk-averse you are. By \"\"better\"\" I will assume you are trying to make the most money with this information that you can given your available capital. If you are very certain, the way that makes the most money for the least investment from the options you provided is a put. If you can borrow some money to buy even more puts, you will make even more. Use your knowledge of how far and when the market will fall to determine which put is optimal at today's prices. But remember that if the market stays flat or goes up you lose everything you put in and may owe extra to your creditor. A short position in a futures contract is also an easy way to get extreme leverage. The extremity of the leverage will depend on how much margin is required. Futures trade in large denominations, so think about how much you are able to put to risk. The inverse ETFs are less risky and offer less reward than the derivative contracts above. The levered one has twice the risk and something like twice the reward. You can buy those without a margin account in a regular cash brokerage, so they are easier in that respect and the transactions cost will likely be lower. Directly short selling an ETF or stock is another option that is reasonably accessible and only moderately risky. On par with the inverse ETFs.\"",
"Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up. Selling short allows for unlimited losses. Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game. If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense. For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign. Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live. Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up.",
"The strategy looks good on paper but in reality, the 150 call will have some time value particularly if it has got some time to mature. Let us say this time value is 0.50 , so the call costs 3.50. If the stock stays above 150 (actually above 149.50) , by the expiration of the call, you will lose this 0.50 . Then you need to keep buying calls over and over and hope one day a big down move will more than make up for all this lost premium. It is possible, but not entirely predictable. You may get lucky, but it may take many months to produce a significant move to make up for all the lost premium. If a big down move were to happen and the market had any indication of that in advance, that would be priced into the call already, so the 150 call may cost 4$ or 4.50$ if the market had wind of a big move. (a.k.a high implied volatility)",
"What you're describing is called timing the market. That is, if you correctly predict when the market will drop, you can sell before the drop, wait for the drop, then buy after the drop has occurred. Sell high, buy low. The fundamental problem with that, though, is: What ends up happening, on average, is you end up slightly behind. There's quite a lot of literature on this; see Betterment's explanation for example. Forbes (click through ad first) also has a detailed piece on the matter. Now, we're not really talking HFT issues here; and there are some structural things that some argue you can take advantage of (restrictions on some organizational investors, for example, similar to a blackjack dealer who has to hit on 16). However, everyone else knows about these too - so it's hard to gain much of an edge. Plenty of people say they can time the market right, and even yourself perhaps you timed a particular drop accurately. This tends to lead to false confidence though; how many drops that you timed badly do you remember? Ultimately, most investors end up slightly down when they attempt to time the market, because of the transaction costs (if you guess two drops, one 'right' and one 'wrong', and they have exactly opposite gains/losses before commissions, you will lose a bit on each due to commission), and because of the overall upward trend in the market (ie, if you picked at random one month a year to be out of the market, you'd lose around 10% annualized gains from doing that; same applies here). All of that aside, there is one major caveat: risk tolerance. If you are highly risk tolerant, say a 30 year old investing your 401(k), then you should stay in no matter what. If you're not - say you're 58 and retiring in a few years - then knowledge that there's a higher risk time period coming up might suggest moving to a less risky portfolio, even at the known cost of some gains.",
"I had a coworker whose stock picking skills were clearly in the 1% level. I had a few hundred shares of EMC, bought at $10. When my coworker bought at $80, I quietly sold as it spiked to $100. It then crashed, as did many high tech stocks, and my friend sold his shares close to the $4 bottom advising that the company would go under. So I backed up the truck at $5, which for me, at the time, meant 1000 shares. This was one of nearly 50 trades I made over a good 10 year period. He was loud enough to hear throughout the office, and his trades, whether buy or sell, were 100% wrong. Individual stocks are very tough, as other posters have offered. That, combined with taking advice from those who probably had no business giving it. For the record, I am semi-retired. Not from stock picks, but from budgeting 20% of income to savings, and being indexed (S&P) with 90% of the funds. If there are options on your stock, you might sell calls for a few years, but that's a long term prospect. I'd sell and take my losses. Lesson learned. I hope.",
"ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.",
"There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position. By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks.",
"What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)",
"\"If you are already invested in a particular stock, I like JoeTaxpayer's answer. Think about it as if you are re-buying the stocks you own every day you decide to keep them and don't set emotional anchor points about what you paid for them or what they might be worth tomorrow. These lead to two major logical fallacies that investor's commonly fall prey to, Loss Aversion and Sunk Cost, both of which can be bad for your portfolio in the long run. To avert these natural tendencies, I suggest having a game plan before you purchase a stock based on on your investment goals for that stock. For example a combination of one or more of the following: I'm investing for the long term and I expect this stock to appreciate and will hold it until (specific event/time) at which point I will (sell it all/sell it gradually over a fixed time period) right around the time I need the money. I'm going to bail on this stock if it falls more than X % from my purchase price. I'm going to cash out (all/half/some) of this investment if it gains more than x % from my purchase price to lock in my returns. The important thing is to arrive at a strategy before you are invested and are likely to be more emotional than rational. Otherwise, it can be very hard to sell a \"\"hot\"\" stock that has suddenly jumped in price 25% because \"\"it has momentum\"\" (gambler's fallacy). Conversely it can be hard to sell a stock when it drops by 25% because \"\"I know it will bounce back eventually\"\" (Sunk Cost/Loss Aversion Fallacy). Also, remember that there is opportunity cost from sticking with a losing investment because your brain is saying \"\"I really haven't lost money until I give up and sell it.\"\" When logically you should be thinking, \"\"If I move my money to a more promising investment I could get a better return than I am likely to on what I'm holding.\"\"\"",
"From mid 2007 to early 2009 the DJI went down about 50 %. This market setback won't happen on a single day or even a few weeks. Emergency funds should be in cash only. Markets could be closed for an unknown period of time. Markets where closed September 11 until September 17 in 2001.",
"If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand.",
"What you are suggesting would be the correct strategy, if you knew exactly when the market was going to go back up. This is called market timing. Since it has been shown that no one can do this consistently, the best strategy is to just keep your money where it is. The market tends to make large jumps, especially lately. Missing just a few of these in a year can greatly impact your returns. It doesn't really matter what the market does while you hold investments. The important part is how much you bought for and how much you sold for. This assumes that the reasons that you selected those particular investments are still valid. If this is not the case, by all means sell them and pick something that does meet your needs.",
"\"If you have someplace to put the money which you think will yield significantly better returns, by all means sell and buy that. On the other hand, if you think this stock is likely to recover its value, you might want to hold it, or even buy more as a \"\"contrarian\"\" investment. Buy low, sell high, as much as possible. And diversify. You need to make a judgement call about the odds. We can point out the implications, but in the end whether to sell, buy, hold or hedge is your decision. (This also suggests you need to sit down and draw up a strategy. Agonizing over every decision is not productive. If you have a plan, you make this sort of decision before you ever put money into the stock in the first place.)\"",
"The answer may be a compromise... if your goal is to make bonds a larger part of your portfolio, sell both stocks and bonds in a 4:1 ratio. or (3:1 or whatever works for you) Also, just as you dollar-cost-average purchases of securities, you can do the same thing on the way out. Plan your sales and spread them over a period of time, especially if you have mutual funds.",
"If the stock starts to go down DO NOT SELL!! My reasoning for this is because, when you talk about the stock market, you haven't actually lost any money until you sell the stock. So if you sell it lower than you bought it, you loose money. BUT if you wait for the stock to go back up again, you will have made money.",
"There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company. These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts. Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts. An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio. As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish. Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss). Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff. If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them. Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place. Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both:",
"When there are no buyers, you can't sell your shares, and you'll be stuck with them until there is some interest from other investors. In this link describes clearly: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/053003.asp",
"\"You asked for advice, so I'll offer it. Trying to time the market is not a great strategy unless you're sitting in front of a Bloomberg terminal all the time. Another person answering your question suggests the use of index funds; he's likely to be right. Look up \"\"asset allocation.\"\" What you want to do is decide that you want your portfolio to contain, for example: If one of your stock holdings goes up far enough that you're out of your target asset allocation ranges, sell some of it and buy something in another asset class,s so you're back in balance. That way you lock in some profit when things go up, without losing access to potential future profits. The same applies if something goes down; you buy more of that asset class by selling others. This has worked really well for me for 30+ years.\"",
"buy above the current price in the stock market You can do that, but what is the purpose to do so ? Brokers take the limit price of your order as the highest price you are going to pay. So if an order can be fulfilled below the limit they will do so. can I sell below the current price You can put in a order to do so. But what I have seen with my current broker is that the order never reached the market and wasn't executed at all. The broker might have some safeguards or process in place to stop me from doing so. Not sure how other brokers deal with it.",
"\"I think that pattern is impossible, since the attempt to apply the second half would seem to prevent executing the first. Could you rewrite that as \"\"After the stock rises to $X, start watching for a drop of $Y from peak price; if/when that happens, sell.\"\" Or does that not do what you want? (I'm not going to comment on whether the proposed programmed trading makes sense. Trying to manage things at this level of detail has always struck me as glorified guesswork.)\"",
"It depends on what your investment goals are. Are you investing for the short-term or the long-term? What was your reason for investing in these stocks in the first place? Timing short-term fluctuations in the market is very difficult, so if that's your goal, I wouldn't count on being able to sell and buy back in at exactly the right time. Rather, I think you should think about what your investment rationale was in the first place, and whether or not that rationale still holds. If it does, then hold on to the stocks. If it doesn't, then sell.",
"Although this is possible with many brokers, it's not advisable. In many cases you may end up with both trades executed at the same time. This is because during the opening, the stock might spike up or down heavily, bid/ask spread widens, and both of your orders would get picked up, resulting in an instant loss. Your best bet is to place the stop manually sometime after you get filled.",
"\"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to \"\"sell high buy low\"\" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run).\"",
"In general, how does a large open market stock sale affect prices? A very general answer, all other things being equal, the price will move down. However there is nothing general. It depends on total number of shares in market and total turn over for that specific shares. The order book for the day etc. What is the maximum percentage of a company you could sell per day before the trading freezes, and what factors matter? Every stock exchange has rules that would determine when a particular stock would be suspended from trading, generally a 10-20% swing [either ways]. Generally highly liquid stock or stock during initial listing are exempt from such limits as they are left to arrive the market price ... A large sell order may or may not swing the price for it to get suspended. At times even a small order may do ... again it is specific to a particular stock.",
"\"If the investments are in a non-retirement, taxable account, there's not much you can do to avoid short-term capital gains if you sell now. Ways to limit short-term capital gains taxes: Donate -- you can donate some of the stock to charity (before selling it). Transfer -- you can give some of the stock to, say, a family member in a lower tax bracket. But there are tons of rules, gift limits, and won't work for little kids or full time students. They would still pay taxes at their own rate. Protect your gains by buying puts. Wait it out until the long-term capital gains rate kicks in. This allows you to lock in your gains now (but you won't benefit from potential future appreciation.) Buying puts also costs $, so do the ROI calculation. (You could also sell a call and buy a put at the same time and lock in your gains for certain, but the IRS often looks at that as locking in the short-term capital gain, so be careful and talk to a tax professional if you are considering that method.) Die. There's a \"\"step-up\"\" basis on capital gains for estates. source: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/avoid-capital-gains-tax-anschutz-personal-finance-baldwin-tax-strategy.html\"",
"If you find a particular stock to be overvalued at $200 for example and a reasonable value at $175, you can place a limit order at the price you want to pay. If/when the stock price falls to your desired purchase price, the transaction takes place. Your broker can explain how long a limit order can stay open. This method allows you to take advantage of flash crashes when some savvy stock trader decides to game the market. This tactic works better with more volatile or low-volume stocks. If it works for an S&P500 tracking ETF, you have bigger problems. :) Another tactic is to put money into your brokerage cash account on a regular basis and buy those expensive stocks & funds when you have accumulated enough money to do so. This money won't earn you any interest while it sits in the cash account, but it's there, ready to be deployed at a moment's notice when you have enough to purchase those expensive assets.",
"In addition to the higher risk as pointed out by @JamesRoth, you also need to consider that there are regulations against 'naked shorting' so you generally need to either own the security, or have someone that is willing to 'loan' the security to you in order to sell short. If you own a stock you are shorting, the IRS could view the transaction as a Sell followed by a buy taking place in a less than 30 day period and you could be subject to wash-sale rules. This added complexity (most often the finding of someone to loan you the security you are shorting) is another reason such trades are considered more advanced. You should also be aware that there are currently a number of proposals to re-instate the 'uptick rule' or some circuit-breaker variant. Designed to prevent short-sellers from driving down the price of a stock (and conducting 'bear raids etc) the first requires that a stock trade at the same or higher price as prior trades before you can submit a short. In the latter shorting would be prohibited after a stock price had fallen a given percentage in a given amount of time. In either case, should such a rule be (re)established then you could face limitations attempting to execute a short which you would not need to worry about doing simple buys or sells. As to vehicles that would do this kind of thing (if you are convinced we are in a bear market and willing to take the risk) there are a number of ETF's classified as 'Inverse Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's) for a variety of markets that via various means seek to deliver a return similar to that of 'shorting the market' in question. One such example for a common broad market is ticker SH the ProShares Short S&P500 ETF, which seeks to deliver a return that is the inverse of the S&P500 (and as would be predicted based on the roughly +15% performance of the S&P500 over the last 12 months, SH is down roughly -15% over the same period). The Wikipedia article on inverse ETF's lists a number of other such funds covering various markets. I think it should be noted that using such a vehicle is a pretty 'aggressive bet' to take in reaction to the belief that a bear market is imminent. A more conservative approach would be to simply take money out of the market and place it in something like CD's or Treasury instruments. In that case, you preserve your capital, regardless of what happens in the market. Using an inverse ETF OTOH means that if the market went bull instead of bear, you would lose money instead of merely holding your position.",
"I am a believer in stocks for the long term, I sat on the S&P right though the last crash, and am 15% below the high before the crash. For individual stocks, you need to look more closely, and often ask yourself about its valuation. The trick is to buy right and not be afraid to sell when the stock appears to be too high for the underlying fundamentals. Before the dotcom bubble I bought Motorola at $40. Sold some at $80, $100, and out at $120. Coworkers who bought in were laughing as it went to $160. But soon after, the high tech bubble burst, and my sales at $100 looked good in hindsight. The stock you are looking at - would you buy more at today's price? If not, it may be time to sell at least some of that position."
] |
[
"\"Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the \"\"flash crash\"\") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question \"\"Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?\"\", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on.\"",
"It is typically possible to sell during a crash, because there are enough people that understand the mechanics behind a crash. Generally, you need to understand that you don't lose money from the crash, but from selling. Every single crash in history more than recovered, and by staying invested, you wouldn't have lost anything (this assumes you have enough time to sit it out; it could take several years to recover). On the other side of those deals are people that understand that, and make money by buying during a crash. They simply sit the crash out, and some time later they made a killing from what you panic-sold, when it recovers its value.",
"\"Your question contains a faulty assumption: During crashes and corrections the amount of sellers is of course higher than the amount of buyers, making it difficult to sell stocks. This simply isn't true. Every trade has two sides; thus, by definition, for every seller there is buyer and vice versa. Even if we broaden the definition of \"\"buyers\"\" and \"\"sellers\"\" to mean \"\"people willing to buy (or sell) at some price\"\", the assumption still isn't true. When a stock is falling it is generally not because potential buyers are exiting the market; it is because they are revising the prices they are willing to buy at downward. For example, say there are a bunch of orders to buy Frobnitz Consolidated (DUMB) at $5. Suppose DUMB announces a downward revision to its earnings guidance. Those people might not be willing to buy at $50 anymore, so they'll probably cancel their $50 buy orders. However, just because DUMB isn't worth as much as they thought it was, that doesn't mean it's completely worthless. So, those prospective buyers will likely enter new orders at some lower value, say, $45. With that, the value of DUMB has just dropped by $5, a 10% correction. However, there are still plenty of buyers, and you can still sell your DUMB holdings, if you're willing to take $45 for them. In other words, the value of a security is not determined by the relative numbers of buyers and sellers. It is determined by the prices those buyers and sellers are willing to pay to buy or accept to sell. Except for cases of massive IT disruptions, such as we saw in the \"\"flash crash\"\", there is always somebody willing to buy or sell at some price.\"",
"What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time."
] |
2676
|
Tax question about selling a car
|
[
"55666"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"55666",
"581380",
"97348",
"583245",
"31221",
"172652",
"244061",
"9353",
"252135",
"299211",
"582922",
"173133",
"385121",
"300855",
"398206",
"153281",
"355959",
"318741",
"549272",
"154774",
"127004",
"101557",
"202630",
"438666",
"382558",
"416787",
"7423",
"468047",
"454436",
"51420",
"249687",
"313391",
"123053",
"481537",
"30163",
"360193",
"123287",
"297652",
"71601",
"309923",
"256010",
"454068",
"435830",
"382255",
"229397",
"42521",
"34810",
"481283",
"414454",
"427469",
"453639",
"420634",
"475896",
"62764",
"443354",
"25172",
"389098",
"14732",
"460530",
"292065",
"86621",
"447651",
"526714",
"417866",
"342411",
"411825",
"18131",
"142201",
"581632",
"367742",
"272425",
"77618",
"401961",
"543898",
"33287",
"418951",
"385310",
"146277",
"458851",
"594529",
"553332",
"417800",
"300460",
"83947",
"293404",
"34139",
"537371",
"137251",
"227064",
"514970",
"75024",
"511528",
"59795",
"552255",
"564129",
"278082",
"599876",
"472053",
"423929",
"529565"
] |
[
"I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses. See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph. The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510. This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price. Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use. But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle. That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax. Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year. (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.) However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both. See Tax Topic 503. So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year. Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return. Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not.",
"You continue with this form. The fact that the trade in value is less than market value doesn't mean that you don't have taxable income from the sale. Since you depreciated the car before selling it, you need to compare the trade in value not to the market value, but to your cost basis, which may be lower.",
"\"While you'd need to pay tax if you realized a capital gain on the sale of your car, you generally can't deduct any loss arising from the sale of \"\"personal use property\"\". Cars are personal use property. Refer to Canada Revenue Agency – Personal-use property losses. Quote: [...] if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property. This is because if a property depreciates through personal use, the resulting loss on its disposition is a personal expense. There are some exceptions. Read up at the source links.\"",
"If the income is more than the value on the 1099-MISC - then yes. Depending on how long you've held the car, the difference would be short term/long term capital gain. You cannot deduct loss, though, since it is a personal property and not investment.",
"That's tricky, actually. First, as the section 1015 that you've referred to in your other question says - you take the lowest of the fair market value or the actual donor basis. Why is it important? Consider these examples: So, if the relative bought you a brand new car and you're the first title holder (i.e.: the relative paid, but the car was registered directly to you) - you can argue that the basis is the actual money paid. In essence you got a money gift that you used to purchase the car. If however the relative bought the car, took the title, and then drove it 5 miles to your house and signed the title over to you - the IRS can argue that the car basis is the FMV, which is lower because it is now a used car that you got. You're the second owner. That may be a significant difference, just by driving off the lot, the car can lose 10-15% of its value. If you got a car that's used, and the donor gives it to you - your basis is the fair market value (unless its higher than the donor's basis - in which case you get the donor's basis). You always get the lowest basis for losses (and depreciation is akin to a loss). Now consider the situation when your relative is a business owner and used the car for business. He didn't take the depreciation, but he was entitled to. IRS can argue that the fact that he didn't take is irrelevant and reduce the donor's basis by the allowable depreciation. That may bring your loss basis to below the FMV. I suggest you take it to a tax professional licensed in your state who will check all the facts and circumstances of your situation. Your relative might be slapped with a gift tax as well, if the car FMV is above certain amount (currently the exemption is $14000).",
"Sorry, no, any time you sell for a profit you owe tax.",
"The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at",
"How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).",
"You normally only pay taxes on the difference between the sale price and the cost basis of the asset. In your example, you would probably pay taxes on the $10 difference, not the full sale price of $110. If you paid a commission, however, you would be taxed on your gain minus the commission you paid. Since you held the asset for less than a year, you wouldn't pay the long-term capital gains rate of 20%; you'd be taxed on the capital gain as if it were ordinary income, which depends on your federal income tax bracket. Also, littleadv makes a good point about the implications of buying the asset with after-tax funds too, so that's another part of the equation to consider as well.",
"\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"",
"You receive a 1099-misc for the value of the car. You claim that as income (even though you received goods rather than cash). When you sell the car, it would be much like selling any posession, and would cause no tax consequence unless the sale price was much different than the value... When you sell the car, you may have received more or less than the value of the car (likely less). If you sold it for more, then you might need to claim the additional money as income (perhaps short term capital gains). If you sold it for less, but to a friend or relative, then you might think you could claim a loss, but the tax collector would just claim that you had given them a gift, and attempt to collect the tax from them. Contest winners often have the frustration that they are taxed at the full value of the item(s) won, even though they would not value the item at that amount. And contest prizes often do not sell for the full value stated on the 1099, and often for much less. Marginal tax rates were higher prior to Reagan, and when a contest winner would sell an item for 80% of the value, they often paid most of the proceeds to taxes.",
"Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.",
"\"Books would be considered Personal-Use Property according to Canada's income tax laws. The most detailed IT I was able to find is IT-332R, which says: GAINS AND LOSSES 3. A gain on the disposition of personal-use property is normally a capital gain within the meaning of paragraph 39(1)(a). Where the property is a principal residence, the gain > is computed under paragraph 40(2)(b) or (c). 4. Under subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii), a loss on a disposition of personal-use property, other than listed personal property, is deemed to be nil. [...] This part of the bulletin indicates that a gain might be considered a capital gain - not income. However, you don't get to book a loss as a capital loss. This is the first hint that your book sale - which is actually an exempt capital loss - shouldn't go on your tax return unless it's one of the \"\"listed\"\" items: LISTED PERSONAL PROPERTY 7. Listed personal property is defined in paragraph 54(e) to mean personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any (a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art, (b) jewellery, (c) rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book, (d) stamp, or (e) coin. So unless you're selling rare books, the disposition (sale) of them is essentially exempt as income, regardless of whether you sold it at a profit or at a loss. If it is rare, then you might be able to consider it a capital loss, which doesn't help you much unless you had other capital gains, but you can carry over capital losses to future years. There's also a newer IT related to hobbies and \"\"collecting\"\" items, IT-334R2. This one says: 11. In order for any activity or pursuit to be regarded as a source of income, there must be a reasonable expectation of profit. Where such an expectation does not exist (as is the case with most hobbies), neither amounts received nor expenses incurred are included in the income computation for tax purposes and any excess of expenses over receipts is a personal or living expense, the deduction of which is denied by paragraph 18(1)(h). On the other hand, if the hobby or pastime results in receipts of revenue in excess of expenses, that fact is a strong indication that the hobby is a venture with an expectation of profit; if so, the net income may be taxable as income from a business. The current version of IT-504, Visual Artists and Writers, discusses the concept of \"\"a reasonable expectation of profit\"\" in greater detail. Where a hobby consists of collecting personal-use property or listed personal property, dispositions should be accounted for as described in the current version of IT-332, Personal-Use Property. (emphasis mine) In other words, if it's not the type of thing where you'd make a tax deduction when you bought it in the first place, then you clearly don't need to report it as income when you sell it. Just to be absolutely clear here: The fact that you are selling them at a loss is not actually what's important here. What's important is that, if the books aren't collectibles, then you would have had no expectation of profit. If you did have that expectation then you could have made a tax deduction when you first purchased them. So in this case, it is probably not necessary for you to report the income; however, for the benefit of other readers, in some cases you might need to report it under \"\"other income\"\" or book it as a capital gain/loss, depending on what those personal items are and whether or not you made a net profit.\"",
"\"You can exclude up to $250000 ($500000 for married filing jointly) of capital gains on property which was your primary residence for at least 2 years within the 5 years preceding the sale. This is called \"\"Section 121 exclusion\"\". See the IRS publication 523 for more details. Gains is the difference between your cost basis (money you paid for the property) and the proceeds (money you got when you sold it). Note that the amounts you deducted for depreciation (or were allowed to deduct during the period the condo was a rental, even if you chose not to) will be taxed at a special rate of 25% - this is called \"\"depreciation recapture\"\", and is discussed in the IRS publication 544.\"",
"Your question is best asked of a tax expert, not random people on the internet. Such an expert will help you ask the right questions. For example you did not point out the country or state in which you live. That matters. First point is that you will not pay tax on 60K, its expensive to transact real estate, so your net proceeds will be closer to 40K. Also you can probably the deduct the costs of improvements. You implied that you really like this rental property. If that is the case, why would you sell...ever? This home could be a central part of your financial independence plan. So keep it until you die. IIRC when it passes to your heirs, a new cost basis is formed thereby not passing the tax burden onto them. (Assuming the property is located in the US.)",
"No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge).",
"If the items you sold are items you previously bought for a higher price, the money you get selling them is not income, as you are taking a loss. However, you cannot deduct such losses. If you sell anything for more than what you paid for, the difference is a gain and is taxable. See this IRS web site for the explanation: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/tax-tips-for-online-auction-sellers",
"\"Yes, you're correct and yes they will. Note that it will be considered as \"\"sale\"\" with gains being taxable income to you.\"",
"The money you will be bringing to the US will be classified as your own money, and will not be taxable. The proceeds from the sale are taxable to you, probably as capital gains. The fact that you kept the proceeds out of the US is irrelevant for that purpose (it is relevant for FBAR/FATCA etc). Since you had no basis in the property, all the proceeds are taxable to you at the time of the sale and should be reported on your tax return.",
"For case 1, there is no tax due as you sold the book for less than your cost basis. If you had sold for more than $100, then you would have had a profit. For case 2, that depends on the value of the gift card with respect to the value of your fare. Most likely that gift card is less than the cost of the fare. And in that case it would generally be treated as a reduction in the purchase price. The same way that rebates and cash back on credit card are treated. Note if for some reason a 1099 was generated that would change the situation and you would need to consult a tax professional. Since that would indicate that the other party to the transaction had a different view of the situation.",
"\"I doubt it. In the States you would only owe tax if you sold such an item at a profit. \"\"garage sales\"\" aren't taxable as they are nearly always common household items and sale is more about clearing out one's attic/garage than about profit. Keep in mind, if I pay for a book, and immediately sell it for the same price, there's no tax due, why would tax be due if I sell for a loss?\"",
"\"In general, insurance payouts you receive in compensation for damage to your vehicle are not taxable income (see for instance this Nolo page). However, I don't see how that is related to your three bullet points about how your sister should buy her car. You can transfer the money to her in any way that's convenient to both of you. Whether the dealership will accept cash is something you'll have to ask them about, but my impression is most dealers are eager to accept cash. As long as the car you are getting from her is not worth substantially more than the $8500 you're giving her, I don't see that you'll be in trouble income-tax-wise. As mentioned in the question you linked to, you can give each other up to $14k per year tax-free. So if you give her a $8500 and she gives you a car worth roughly the same amount, no problem. If you actually do it as a sale, even better, since then the only amount that will count as a gift to either of you is whatever one party gets above and beyond the fair value of the car. (That is, if the car is worth $10000 but she sells it to you for $8500, she effectively gave you a gift of $1500 in car value. If it's worth $7000 but she sells it to you for $8500, you gave her a gift of $1500 in cash.) As Rocky pointed out in a comment, if you do a sale it may be subject to sales tax depending on what state you're in. In practice it is very common for people to not deal with sales tax in informal transactions like this between family members, but you do owe it if your state's laws require it, and the state could theoretically come after you for it. Another edit: I see from your comment you are in Michigan. According to this page from the Michigan Secretary of State, \"\"no tax is due if you purchase a vehicle from an immediate family member\"\". So you would not owe sales tax if you do it as a sale.\"",
"You cannot do a like-kind (Sec. 1031) exchange for personal property, only for business/investment property. Since you said that you traded in your personal car - no like-kind exchange is possible. Also, since the new car doesn't belong to you - you didn't actually perform any exchange. You sold your old car, but you didn't buy a new one. If Turbo-Tax suggests you to fill the exchange form - you must have entered something wrong to make it think there was an exchange. Check your entries again, specifically - check if you entered that you purchased a new car instead of the old one, since you didn't. See an example of where to start looking here.",
"When you sell your primary residence, you are required to capitalize any loss or gain at that point; you do not carry over your loss or gain (as you might in an investment property). As such, the timing of the purchase of the next house is not relevant in this discussion: you gained however much you gained already. This changed from the other (rollover) method in 1997 (see this bankrate article for more details.) However, as discussed in IRS Tax Topic 701, you can exclude up to $250,000 (single or filing separately) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) of gain if it is your primary residence and meets a few requirements (mostly, that you owned it for at least 2 years in the past 5 years, and similarly used it as your main home for at least 2 years of the past 5 years). So given you reported 25% gain, as long as your house is under a million dollars or so, you're fine (and if it's over a million dollars, you probably should be paying a CPA for this stuff). For California state tax, it looks like it is the same (see this Turbotax forum answer for a good explanation and links to this California Franchise Tax Board guide which confirms it: For sale or exchanges after May 6, 1997, federal law allows an exclusion of gain on the sale of a personal residence in the amount of $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly). The taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence as a principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years before the sale. California conforms to this provision. However, California taxpayers who served in the Peace Corps during the 5 year period ending on the date of the sale may reduce the 2 year period by the period of service, not to exceed 18 months.",
"\"Short Answer: You're going to end up paying taxes on it. Despite the home being your primary residence, you don't meet the ownership test, and it isn't noted that you have had a change in employment, health, or other unforeseen circumstances that are \"\"forcing\"\" you to sell. Otherwise, you could qualify for a reduced maximum exclusion that might allow you to walk away without owing taxes, or with a reduced tax bill. You can't even do a 1031 exchange to re-invest into a new primary residence. You should check with a tax professional to see what adjustments you can make to the cost basis of the property to minimize your reported net profits. During the 5-year period prior to the sale, you must have: These periods do not necessarily have to coincide (You don't to live in it as your main house for 2 consecutive years, just 2 years worth of time of the last 5).\"",
"What you are looking for is a 1031 exchange. https://www.irs.gov/uac/like-kind-exchanges-under-irc-code-section-1031 Whenever you sell business or investment property and you have a gain, you generally have to pay tax on the gain at the time of sale. IRC Section 1031 provides an exception and allows you to postpone paying tax on the gain if you reinvest the proceeds in similar property as part of a qualifying like-kind exchange. Gain deferred in a like-kind exchange under IRC Section 1031 is tax-deferred, but it is not tax-free. You may also sell your house for bitcoin and record the sales price on the deed with an equal or lesser amount that you bought it for.",
"\"If you sell an asset for more than you paid for it, the excess amount realized is called a capital gain and is generally considered a form of income for tax purposes. Generally, one pays income tax on realized capital gains, unless the sale is exempt—such as the sale of one's principal residence. Capital gains tax can also be avoided or deferred by holding assets in a tax-advantaged investment account like a TFSA or RRSP. When taxable, the effective income tax rate on capital gains income is half the normal rate due to the capital gains inclusion rate. Capital gains income is generally not considered to be employment, \"\"earned\"\", or \"\"working\"\" income. However, individuals who, say, trade stocks frequently and earn a substantial portion of their income that way may have their gains considered employment income and subject to regular income tax instead of the better rate. I suggest you contact Service Canada and ask them about the impact of a one-time sale of personal property that would result in a realized capital gain. While you would owe income tax on the capital gain, it might not have any impact on your disability benefits, because it would not be earned or employment income. You should also check with your private insurer; they may also consider the sale a capital gain and not employment income, however, only they would be able to tell you for sure whether it would have any possible effect on your benefits.\"",
"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.",
"If you are in the United States, Real Estate gains are taxed as capital gains 15% currently but will go up in 2011. You may be able to exclude $250,000 filing single (500k married filing jointly) if you have lived in the condo 2 out of the last 5 years. See IRS Publication 523 for more information. You are only taxed on the profit from the sale. If you paid $100,000 and you sell it for $125,000 you would owe capital gains tax on $25,000 if you don't meet the conditions in IRS Publication 523.",
"Using US tax code, given that your profits are less than 250K, given that you lived in that home over two years, then yes the 150K is tax free. That is your money in the US. Note: I won't get into all of the specifics but basically you need to live somewhere 2 years. You get 250K per person, up to 500K. Most enhancements count as money towards the home. So most/all of your 12k should be discounted. However there is a lot of fine print in this and a lot of interpretation on what is normal upkeep and what is an enhancement.",
"You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.",
"Your capital gain is about $40K, which (assuming your total income is under $250K) is taxed at 15% long term capital gains rate. Additional depreciation recapture of approximately $5K is taxed at 25%. So this gives us rough estimate of $7250 tax. This is Federal tax, AZ rates are somewhere between 2% and 4%, so you'll be looking at some $1.6K additional tax to AZ. If you have accumulated rental losses or other expenses, it will lower the total amount of your gain (and, accordingly, the taxes). This is all very rough estimates, and you shouldn't rely on this but verify on your own or with a professional. I suggest using professional services because while being costly, they will probably save you more in taxes than you'll have to pay them because of the knowledge of what exactly of your expenses can be deducted and how to calculate the cost basis correctly. (edit from JoeT - the home exclusion requires occupancy for 2 of prior 5 years. For the OP, the prorated $125k exclusion 'might' cover the gain, it depends when the increase in value occurred, if the gain was during the time rented, it's taxable, I believe.)",
"How much Federal Capital Gains, NYS Income tax and local tax should I expect to pay? You're going to net about 2.4 millions of dollars. Federal long term capital gains tax is 20% (plus 3.8% medicare), NYS is 8.82%. Does it make sense to investigate the tax benefits of financing the sale for the buyer? Yes. Have your tax adviser check the options for you (financing, instalment, etc), especially if you have no other US-sourced income. Tax treaties are also something your tax adviser should be looking at. Be sure your tax adviser is properly licensed in New York as either EA, CPA or Attorney. Don't do anything without a proper tax advice.",
"It doesn't go on Schedule E at all, it goes on form 4797. The fridge should have been depreciated, over 5 years. If you sold it after 5 years, all the proceeds are taxable income taxed as depreciation recapture (25% rate) up to the allowable depreciation (your original cost basis), above which it is taxable capital gain. Whether you actually have depreciated it or not, it is really your problem, IRS doesn't care. So if 5 years of ownership passed - just write it all as taxable income on the form 4797. Otherwise, allowable depreciation prorated (and you can still amend forms 3 years back to get at least part of it). The new fridge should also be depreciated over the 5 years of its expected useful life. See form 4562. Talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for details.",
"You bought a rental property in 2001. Hopefully you paid fair value else other issues come into play. Say you paid $120K. You said you have been taking depreciation, which for residential real estate is taken over 27.5 years, so you are about halfway through. Since you don't depreciate land, you may have taken a total $50K so far. With no improvements, and no transaction costs, you have $50K in depreciation recapture, taxed at a maximum 25% (or your lower, marginal rate) and a cap gain of the 5-10K you mentioned. Either can be offset by losses you've been carrying forward if you suffered large stock losses at some point.",
"AS PER IRS PUBLICATION: Question: Is money received from the sale of inherited property considered taxable income? Answer: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: For information on the FMV of inherited property on the date of the decedent’s death, contact the executor of the decedent’s estate. Also, note that in 2015, Congress passed a new law that, under certain circumstances, requires an executor to provide a statement identifying the FMV of certain inherited property to the individual receiving that property. Check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040), Capital Gains and Losses, and on Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets: Under the new law passed by Congress in 2015, an accuracy-related penalty may apply if an individual reporting the sale of certain inherited property uses a basis in excess of that property’s final value for federal estate tax purposes. Again, check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. For estates of decedents who died in 2010, basis is generally determined as described above. However, the executor of a decedent who died in 2010 may elect out of the estate tax rules for 2010 and use the modified carryover of basis rules. Under this special election, the basis of property inherited from a decedent who died during 2010 is generally the lesser of: Under this special election for estates of decedents who died in 2010, the executor of the decedent’s estate may increase the basis of certain property that beneficiaries acquire from a decedent by up to $1.3 million (plus certain unused built-in losses and loss carryovers, if applicable), but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor may also increase the basis of certain property that the surviving spouse acquires from a decedent by up to an additional $3 million, but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor of the decedent’s estate is required to provide a statement to all heirs listing the decedent’s basis in the property, the FMV of the property on the date of the decedent’s death, and the additional basis allocated to the property. Contact the executor to determine what the basis of the asset is. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040) and on Form 8949, as described above. Additional Information:",
"This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.",
"Ditto Rocky. Also: Break the sale up over several tax years so that you don't have a spike in your income pushing you into a higher tax bracket. Don't sell it until you retire, when you're probably in a lower tax bracket. (If you're 20, this may be impractical.) Get some other deductions, like medical expenses, charity, etc. Failing that, maybe a couple of other ideas that neither of us thought of, I think the real answer is: suck it up and pay the taxes. If there was a way to reduce your taxes just by checking the right box on a tax form or some such, everybody would do it and the government wouldn't collect any taxes.",
"\"And my CPA is saying no way, it will cost me many thousands in taxes and doesn't make any sense. I'd think so too. It looks like it converts from capitol gains at 14% to something else at about 35% Can be, if your gain under the Sec.1231 rules is classified as depreciation recapture. But, perhaps the buyers will be saving this way? Not your problem even if they were, which they aren't. I would not do something my CPA says \"\"no-way\"\" about. I sometimes prefer not doing some things my CPA says \"\"it may fly\"\" because I'm defensive when it comes to taxes, but if your CPA is not willing to sign something off - don't do it. Ever.\"",
"Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.",
"Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. There is risk in exchanging this (known) property for another (unknown) property. That risk may be more than $9000 worth of risk. Tax considerations are important, but most important is that your investments make money. If you intend to continue as a landlord, you had better be sure you are finding a better deal elsewhere if you are going to trade this property up. I should also mention that you have a 5 year window in which you need to have lived in the home for 2 years. You have time and might be able to sell for a higher price if you wait a little longer.",
"This will be a complex issue and you will need to sit down with a professional to work through the issues: When the house was put up for rent the initial year tax forms should have required that the value of the house/property be calculated. This number was then used for depreciation of the house. This was made more complex based on any capital improvements. If the house wasn't the first he owned, then capital gains might have been rolled over from previous houses which adds a layer of complexity. Any capital improvements while the house was a rental will also have to be resolved because those were also depreciated since they were placed in service. The deprecation will be recaptured and will be a part of the calculation. You have nowhere near enough info to make a calculation at this time.",
"\"Please Note: Before taking any steps towards a transaction involving possible capital gains tax exclusions, please consult your CPA, attorney or tax advisor. I am not a CPA or Tax Advisor. Since you have only lived in it 11 months, you don't meet the \"\"use test\"\" for full exclusion. However, even if you haven't lived in it that long, you may be able to exclude some of the gains due to a \"\"unforeseen circumstance\"\", not just because you wanted to move. You say you are \"\"ready for a change\"\" and so that means it's an arbitrary decision, not a forced one. To calculate the partial exclusion, take the number of months you lived there before the sale and divide it by 24. (11/24 = 0.45). So for an unmarried person, you can exclude up to $250,000. Multiply that by .45 and you get $112,500. If your profit after everything is taken out is only $35,000 then you can exclude that from capital gains because it is less than $112,500. All that being said, you will need documentation in case you get audited. For more information, see IRS Publication 551, Basis of Assets, and look for the section on real property. See also this IRS Tax Topic on Sale of Your Home\"",
"First the good news: based on the time involved, and the amount of potential profits; you will not owe any tax on the sale of the house no matter which option you pick. Now the details. When determining if there are any capital gains the IRS cares about the difference between the sale price and the purchase price. The amount of the loan, the final balance of the loan, or the lack of loan don't factor into the calculation. To complicate matters the government does factor into the equation any improvements you have made to the house (like a new deck) and the cost of buying and selling the house (real estate agents). If a single person has less than 250K in capital gains and has used the house as their main residence for 2 of the the previous 5 years their tax is zero. For a couple the tax free gain is $500K. For your situation since the sale price is less than $250K, the capital gains will also be less than $250K. You do have one potential area of concern. If the house is worth significantly more than $150K, the government could claim that the difference between what you charged your parents and what you could have charged was a gift. Assuming that there are no other factors that you didn't include in the original question it would appear that you will not face any taxes. Regarding your two options, neither will impact the taxes. Though draining your savings or investments could make it difficult to meet an emergency during the time between the sending of the $95K to the mortgage company and the closing on the deal with your parents. If the money came from retirement account it could have an even greater impact on your taxes and retirement situation.",
"\"I would suggest reading through page 1 of the Arizona Nonresident form instructions at the web address below: https://www.azdor.gov/Portals/0/ADOR-forms/TY2015/10100/10177_inst.pdf To quote: \"\"You are subject to Arizona income tax on all income derived from Arizona sources. If you are in this state for a temporary or transitory purpose or did not live in Arizona but received income from sources within Arizona during 2015, you are subject to Arizona tax. Income from Arizona sources includes the following: ...the sale of Arizona real estate...\"\"\"",
"\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"\"I'm going to look just at purchase price. Essentially, you can't always claim the whole of the purchase price (or 95% your case) in the year (the accounting period) of purchase, but you get a percentage of the value of the car each year, called writing down allowance, which is a capital allowance. It is similar to depreciation, but based on HRMC's own formula. In fact, it seems you probably can claim 95% of the purchase price, because the value is less than £1000. The logic is a bit involved, but I hope you can understand it. You could also claim simplified expenses instead, which is just based on a rate per mile, but you can't claim both. Note, by year I mean whatever your account period is. This could be the normal financial year, but you would probably have a better idea about this. See The HMRC webpage on this for more details. The big idea is that you record the value of any assets you are claiming writing down allowance on in one of a number of pools, that attract the same rate of writing down allowance, so you don't need to record the value of each asset separately. They are similar to accounts in accounting, so they have an opening balance, and closing balance. If you use an asset for personal use, it needs a pool to itself. HRMC call that a single asset pool. So, to start with, look at the Business Cars section, and look at the Rates for Cars section, to determine the rate you can claim. Each one links to a further article, which gives more detail if you need it. Your car is almost certainly in the special rate category. Special rate is 8% a year, main rate is 18%, and First year allowance is essentially 100%. Then, you look at the Work out what you can claim article. That talks you through the steps. I'll go through your example. You would have a pool for your car, which would end the account period before you bought the vehicle at zero (step 1). You then add the value of the car in the period you bought it (Step 2). You would reduce the value of the pool if you dispose of it in the same year (Step 3). Because the car is worth less than £1,000 (see the section on \"\"If you have £1,000 or less in your pool\"\"), you would normally be able to claim the whole value of the pool (the value of the car) in the first accounting period, and reduce the value of the pool to zero. As you use the car for personal use, you only claim 95% of the value, but still reduce the pool to zero. See the section on \"\"Items you use outside your business\"\". This £1000 is adjusted if your accounting period lasts more or less than 12 months. Once the pool is down to zero that it you don't need to think about it any more for tax purposes, apart from if you are claiming other motoring expenses, or if you sell it. It gets more complicated if the car is more expensive. I'll go through an example for a car worth £2,000. Then, after Step 3, on the year of purchase, you would reduce the value of the pool by 8%, and claim 95% of the reduction. This would be a 160 reduction, and 95%*160 = 152 claim, leaving the value of 1860 in the pool. You then follow the same steps for the next year, start with 1840 in the pool, reduce the value by 8%, then claim 95% of the reduction. This continues until you sell or dispose of the car (Step 3), or the value of the pool is 1000 or less, then you claim all of it in that year. Selling the car, or disposing of the car is discussed in the Capital allowances when you sell an asset article. The basic idea is that if you have already reduced the value of the pool to zero, the price you sell the car for is added you your profits for that year (See \"\"If you originally claimed 100% of the item\"\"), if you still have anything in the pool, you reduce the value of the pool by the sale value, and if it reduces to below zero (to -£200, say), you add that amount (£200, in this case), to your profits. If the value is above zero, you keep applying writing down allowances. In your case, that seems to just means if you sell the car in the same year you buy it, you claim the difference (or 95% of it) as writing down allowance, and if you do it later, you claim the purchase price in the year of purchase, and add 95% of the sale price to your profits in the year you sell it. I'm a bit unclear about starting \"\"to use it outside your business\"\", which doesn't seem to apply if you use it outside the business to start with. You can claim simplified expenses for vehicles, if you are a sole trader or partner, but not if you claim capital allowances (such as writing down allowances) on them, or you include a separate expense in your accounts for motoring expenses. It's a flat rate of 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that, for cars, and 24p a mile for motorcycles. See the HRMC page on Simplifed Mileage expenses for details. For any vehicle you decide to either claim capital allowances claim running costs separately, or claim simplified mileage expenses, and \"\"Once you use the flat rates for a vehicle, you must continue to do so as long as you use that vehicle for your business.you have to stick with that decision for that vehicle\"\". In your case, it seems you can claim 95% of the purchase price in the accounting period you buy it, and if you sell it you add 95% of the sale price to your profits in that accounting period. It gets more complicated if you have a car worth more than £1000, adjusted for the length of the accounting period. Also, if you change how you use it, consult the page on selling selling an asset, as you may have disposed of it. You can also use simplified mileage expenses, but then you can't claim capital allowances, or claim running costs separately for that car. I hope that makes sense, please comment if not, and I'll try to adjust the explanation.\"",
"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.",
"\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"",
"If significant amounts are involved, that would be a good time to consult a tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state). Generally, sale of a business is an ordinary income and you can only deduct tangible expenses, as Joe said. That would be laptops, bills, expenses per receipt, of course they must all be directly attributable to the business. You will need to be able to show that the laptops has only been used in business, recapture depreciation, etc. Same with all the rest of the expenses. If you're incorporated (i.e.: you hold this software under an S-Corp), then you're selling stocks, not business, and the tax treatment may be different, but I'm guessing this is not the case for you.",
"(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!",
"Yes you need to pay Capital Gains tax in India. Further transfer of money out of India from Ordinary account requires some formalities / paperwork. A CA should be able to guide you.",
"You need a lawyer and a tax accountant for a sale like this. They will be able to tell you if the proceeds are taxed as income (most likely) or capital gains and will help you structure the deal. How you spend the proceeds will not make a difference, although if it's a large amount and you plan to donate some to charity, you may be able to save on your total tax liability by creating a donor advised fund. Keep in mind the broker is mostly interested in his commission and not about making the best deal for you. Get an attorney with experience in business sales.",
"Kentucky property tax is assessed as of the owner on January 1 of each calendar year. In April you should be notified of what KY considers you to owe them, and you have a two week period in May to appeal those decisions (though it appears that you can only appeal Real property tax assessments). The final tax bill is then sent to you in the fall, by October, and you have until the end of the year to pay the bill. See Kentucky Property Tax Calendar Overview for more details. Thus, if you owned the car on Jan 1 2016, then you should owe personal property tax on it for 2016 due in the fall. You may not have owed the tax paid in November, if it was indeed personal property tax, unless the seller was asking you to recompense them for the tax they paid in 2015. Note that property tax is separate and distinct from usage tax, the 6% tax for vehicles paid at purchase date (once and only once).",
"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.",
"The transaction will be taxable in India. You will have to pay Capital Gains tax. I am assuming that you purchased the house while you were Indian Resident for tax purposes. As such its needs more paper work to get the money back to US. Consult a CA in India who will help with the paperwork. You haven't mentioned your tax status in US, one you update it, someone will post a US tax aspects of the transaction.",
"I realize this is a dated question, but for anyone interested in this subject please be aware of the availability of IRC § 1235 and capital gain treatment for the sale of patents. When the holder of a patent transfers all substantial rights to an unrelated person, it can qualify for long-term capital gain treatment. That can be a meaningful tax savings relative to ordinary income treatment. There are a number of specific provisions and requirements to access § 1235. The holder must be the creator or someone unrelated (and not the creator's employer) who purchased the patent from the creator. The holder must transfer all substantial rights to the patent (not a licensing), or sell an undivided portion of all substantial rights (partial sale, again not a license). The benefit of § 1235 is that long-term treatment will apply even for patents with holding periods under 1 year. Other rules and permutations of course also apply. Those who fail § 1235 may still qualify their assets as capital under § 1221 or § 1231. A patent held by its creator will often qualify as a capital asset. It may not make any sense to sell your business as a whole, particularly if all a purchaser wants is a patent or group of patents. Of course, if the patent was held by its creator in a single-member LLC or other disregarded entity sold to a buyer, then the tax treatment is still treated as the sale of a long-term capital asset.",
"\"You uncle is liable to pay \"\"Capital-Gains\"\" tax. Essentially the sale price less of cost would be treated as gains. The gains are taxed at 10% without indexation and 20% with Indexation. The capital gains tax can be avoided if your uncle invests the gains into specified \"\"Infrastructure bonds\"\" or buys another property within a period of 3 years. The funds need to be kept in a separate \"\"Capital Gains\"\" account and not a regular savings account till you buy another property within 3 years.\"",
"To focus on your question.. pay it off then trade in. The reason is because say you just have 14k laying around and buy a car for 14k, you must pay 14k plus tax. If you are in one of the states that allows the tax break, then trading the 14k valued vehicle in for a 14k vehicle will nullify your sales tax. As per your question, if you traded the car in at 7k, you would then owe 7k plus tax. You only have 7k..so how would you pay for the tax and why would you want to? Pay off the car and you'll have 14k of tax free off any car.",
"The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.",
"Residents of Canada must pay Canadian income tax on their worldwide income (source: Wikipedia). However, there is a tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada; I haven't read it, but my guess is that it will allow you to claim a tax credit in Canada for the capital gains tax you have paid to the U.S.",
"Is the remaining amount tax free? As in, if the amount shown (which I can sell) on etrade is $5000 then if I sell the entire shares will my bank account be increased by $5000? The stocks they sell are withholding. So let's say you had $7000 of stock and they sold $2000 for taxes. That leaves you with $5000. But the actual taxes paid might be more or less than $2000. They go in the same bucket as the rest of your withholding. If too much is withheld, you get a refund. Too little and you owe them. Way too little and you have to pay penalties. At the end of the year, you will show $7000 as income and $2000 as withheld for taxes from that transaction. You may also have a capital gain if the stock increases in price. They do not generally withhold on stock sales, as they don't necessarily know what was your gain and what was your loss. You usually have to handle that yourself. The main point that I wanted to make is that the sale is not tax free. It's just that you already had tax withheld. It may or may not be enough.",
"An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.",
"\"Payment gateways such as Square do not normally withhold tax. It is up to you to pay the appropriate tax at tax time. That having been said, Square does report your payments to the IRS on a form 1099-K if your payments are large enough. According to Square, you'll get a 1099-K from them if your total payments for the year add up to $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. Whether or not they report on a 1099-K, you are required to pay the appropriate taxes on your income. So now the question becomes, \"\"Do I have to pay income tax on the proceeds from my garage sale?\"\" And the answer to that question is usually not. When you sell something that you previously purchased, if you sell it for more than you paid for it, you have a capital gain and need to pay tax on that. However, generally you sell things in a garage sale at a loss, meaning that there is no tax due. If you make more than $20,000 at your garage sale and the IRS gets a 1099-K, the IRS might be curious as to how you did that with no capital gain. So if you sell any big ticket items (a bulldozer, for example), you should keep a record of what you paid for it, so you can show the loss to the IRS in the event of an audit.\"",
"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.",
"\"In simple terms, it is a business operation when it becomes a profit-making enterprise. It is a grey area, but there is a difference between selling occasional personal items on eBay and selling for profit. I would imagine the sort of considerations HM Revenue & Customs would take into account are the size of your turnover, the extent to which you are both buying and selling, and whether you are clearly specialising in one particular commodity as opposed of disposing of unwanted presents or clearing the loft. http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/When-does-eBay-selling-become-taxable-/10000000004494855/g.html I don't believe that you selling your personal camera gear will be taxable, but as the link says, it is a grey area. They also recommend to do this It's far better than having to deal with an investigation a few years down the line. When it comes to completing your tax return, there is a section which is headed \"\"other income\"\", and it is here where you will enter the net earnings from the web business. \"\"Net\"\" here means your additional income, less all expenses associated with it. If you are still worried I would always encourage people to take a cautious approach and discuss their position with HMRC via its helpline on 08454 915 4515.\"",
"It will definitely be added to your AGI, but not necessarily bump your ordinary income tax bracket. You will have to use the Capital Gains Computation worksheet (that uses the general Tax Computation Worksheet) to figure out your tax liability. You might also be subject to the AMT. See the instructions to form 1040, line 44 (page 38) and line 45.",
"IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value. You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.",
"Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.",
"Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.",
"I'm assuming you're in the United States for this. I highly recommend getting a CPA to help you navigate the tax implications. Likely, you'll pay taxes as a sole proprietor, on top of any other income you made. Hopefully you kept good records because you'll be essentially paying for the profits, but you'll need to show the revenue and expenditures that you had. If you have any capital expenditures you may be able ton amortize them. But again, definitely hire a professional to help you, it will be well worth the cost.",
"\"Believe it or not, unless you directly contact an accountant with experience in this field or a lawyer, you may have a tough time getting a direct answer from a reputable source. The reason is two fold. First, legally defining in-game assets is exceptionally difficult from a legal/taxation stand point. Who really owns this data? You or the company that has built the MMO and manages the servers containing all of the data? You can buy-and-sell what is effectively \"\"data\"\" on their servers but the truth is, they own the code, the servers, the data, your access rights, etc. and at any point in time could terminate everything within their systems. This would render the value of your accounts worthless! As such, most countries have overwhelmingly avoided the taxation of in-game \"\"inventory\"\" because it's not really definable. Instead, in game goods are only taxed when they are exchanged for local currency. This is considered a general sale. There may be tax codes in your region for the sale of \"\"digital goods\"\". Otherwise, it should be taxed as sale a standard good with no special stipulations. The bottom line is that you shouldn't expect to find much reliable information on this topic, on the internet. Law's haven't been welled defined, regarding in-game content worth and taxing of sales and if you want to know how you should pay your taxes on these transactions, you need to talk to a good accountant, a lawyer or both.\"",
"\"Property sold at profit is taxed at capital gains rate (if you held it for more than a year, which you have based on your previous question). Thus deferring salary won't change the taxable amount or the tax rate on the property. It may save you the 3% difference on the salary, but I don't know how significant can that be. The 25% depreciation recapture rate (or whatever the current percentage is) is preset by your depreciation and cannot be changed, so you'll have to pay that first. Whatever is left above it is capital gains and will be taxed at discounted rates (20% IIRC). You need to make sure that you deduct everything, and capitalize everything else (all the non-deductible expenses and losses with regards to the property). For example, if you remodeled - its added to your basis (reduces the gains). If you did significant improvements and changes - the same. If you installed new appliances and carpets - they're depreciated faster (you can appropriate part of the sale proceeds to these and thus reduce the actual property related gain). Also, you need to see what gain you have on the land - the land cannot be depreciated, so all the gain on it is capital gain. Your CPA will help you investigating these, and maybe other ways to reduce your tax bill. Do make sure to have proper documentation and proofs for all your claims, don't make things up and don't allow your CPA \"\"cut corners\"\". It may cost you dearly on audit.\"",
"The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html",
"As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.",
"\"The $100,000 is taxed separately as \"\"ordinary income\"\". The $350,000 is taxed at long-term capital gains of 15%. Capital gains is not taxed at 20% until $415,050. Even though $100,000 + 350,000 = $450,000, only $350,000 can be taxed at capital gains. The total ordinary income tax burden will be $31,986 if single, in California. Caveat: By creating a holdings corporation (C-corp), you can section 351 that $100,000 into the C-corp for tax deferment, which won't be taxed until you take money from the corporation. Since you will hold 100% of the voting stock, all distributions will be considered pro rata. Additionally, you can issue yourself a dividend under the rules of 26 USC §§243-246 (a greather-than-80% shareholder who receives a dividend can write-off 100% of said dividend). As long as that dividend doesn't trigger §§1.243-246 of The Regulations by keeping the distribution just under 10% of E&P i.e. $10,000. Wages are deductible against basis so pay yourself $35,000 and keep $55,000 in the corporation and you can decrease the total liabilities down to $22,000 from $31,000, which includes the CA franchise tax. You don't have to pay yourself any money out a corporation to use the money.\"",
"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.",
"\"Is this legal? Why not? But you might have trouble deducting losses on your taxes, especially if you sell to someone related to you in some way (which is indeed what you're doing). See the added portion below regarding dealing with \"\"related person\"\" (which a sibling is). The state of Maryland has a transfer/recordation tax of 1.5% for each, the buyer and seller. Would this be computed on the appraised or sale value? You should check with the State. In California property taxes are assessed based on sale value, but if the sale value is bogus the assessors have the right to recalculate. Since you're selling to family, the assessors will likely to intervene and set a more close to \"\"fair market\"\" value on the transaction, but again - check the local law. Will this pose any problem if the buyer needs financing? Likely, banks will be suspicious.Since you're giving a discount to your sibling, it will likely not cause a problem for financing. If it was an unrelated person getting such a discount, it would likely to have raised some questions. Would I be able to deduct a capital loss on my tax return? As I said - it may be a problem. If the transaction is between related people - likely not. Otherwise - not sure. Check with a professional tax adviser (EA or CPA licensed in Maryland). You mentioned in the comment that the buyer is a sibling. IRS Publication 544 has a list of what is considered \"\"related person\"\", and that includes siblings. So the short answer is NO, you will not be able to deduct the loss. The tax treatment is not trivial in this case, and I suggest to have a professional tax adviser guide you on how to proceed. Here's the definition of \"\"related person\"\" from the IRS pub. 544: Members of a family, including only brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, spouse, ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.), and lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.). An individual and a corporation if the individual directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. Two corporations that are members of the same controlled group as defined in section 267(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. A trust fiduciary and a corporation if the trust or the grantor of the trust directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. A grantor and fiduciary, and the fiduciary and beneficiary, of any trust. Fiduciaries of two different trusts, and the fiduciary and beneficiary of two different trusts, if the same person is the grantor of both trusts. A tax-exempt educational or charitable organization and a person who directly or indirectly controls the organization, or a member of that person's family. A corporation and a partnership if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership. Two S corporations if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. Two corporations, one of which is an S corporation, if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. An executor and a beneficiary of an estate unless the sale or exchange is in satisfaction of a pecuniary bequest. Two partnerships if the same persons directly or indirectly own more than 50% of the capital interests or profits interests in both partnerships. A person and a partnership if the person directly or indirectly owns more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership.\"",
"It would be better for you to sell yourself and pay capital gains tax than to transfer to your parents and pay the gift tax. Also, sham transfer (you transfer to your mother only so that she could sell and transfer back to you without you paying taxes) will be probably categorized as tax evasion, which is a criminal offense that could lead to your deportation. What the US should or should not claim you can take to your congressman, but the fact is that the US does claim tax on capital gains even if you bought the asset before becoming US tax resident, and that's the current law.",
"1) You parents will have to pay tax on the gain as it wasn't their primary home. You don’t pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply: As I look at it, it is your parents are the ones who own the property and they will have to pay on £60000. But as you say you pay part of the mortgage, I would go to a tax advisor/accountant to confirm if they will only pay on the £15000. I couldn't find any guidance on that matter on gov.uk 2) Inheritance tax will not be levied on it as it is below £325000, but tax will be levied on £325000, less £3000 annual gift allowance. Two articles for further information - GOV.UK's Tax when you sell your home Money.co.UK's Gifting money to your children: FAQs",
"Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.",
"\"http://www.nadaguides.com/ and http://www.kbb.com/ and http://www.edmunds.com/ are the leading sites to check vehicle values. Also, great how to at: http://www.ehow.com/how_2003079_sell-used-car-california.html Where to sell? You could sell it in your local newspaper classified, small auto newsprint mags/publications, Craigslist, ebay, or just put a sign in the window. The advertising method is up to you. You could also trade the car in to a dealer if you purchase another vehicle from a dealer if they offer that option. (Trade-In's generally bring in less money than private sales as a general rule). Some car places will do consignment requests to help you sell your car. However, they will normally take a percentage of the sale as payment for this service. What paperwork? If you own your car, you should have the title in hand. There are instructions on title on how to sign it over to another person. If you have a loan through a bank, the bank would have this title and you would need to express your interest in selling the property to the bank and work out the details with them. You do not hand over a title to anyone until full payment is made and the property will become theirs. Beyond the title, you will need to fill out a release of liability or report of sale form for the state. Titles have a portion you can mail in or you can fill it out online. This is to report the sale to the state to release liability from your name. You will also need to create a \"\"bill of sale\"\" between you and the buyer. There are many examples online or you can just create your own. You really need just a statement saying I release all interest of the vehicle and no warranty implied to this person with the VIN of the car, model, make, year, the buyers name and signature, and the sellers name and signature. This is your contract with the seller and they use this when they go to register the car in their name. Maintenance Disclosure? This is completely up to the seller on what they want to disclose. You are selling a used car and the buyer should know that. Vehicles with detailed records sell for more money and buyers are more interested in cars that have history records. This is where buyers should be the most careful, so the more records and history you can show, the better they will feel about the purchase. I believe you should share everything you know and any information about the history of the car. The more positive information you can prove/share, the more money or chance of sale you could have. Most money? First, clean the car out. I am amazed at the amount of people that try to sell a car and don't even bother to clean it out. A detail job would be great to get. You are trying to sell it, so you want it to look the best. Next, I would fix anything minor and cheap to fix. The less things wrong can mean more money. Back to your maintenance question, you will want to show how you have maintained the car. People might also ask for a carfax report to prove its clean history. Irresponsible and deceiving people tend to leave out important details in a car history like accidents, flood damage, or having re-built titles. You want to give the most information you can. Do not lie about any detail. Though, this can be a little tough when you are a 2nd or 3rd owner of a car and do not know about the original owners.\"",
"\"I'm not 100% certain on boats, since they aren't typically sold for a gain, but the tax base of an asset is typically the cost of the asset plus the cost of any improvements, so your $15,000 gain looks right (check with a CPA to be certain, though, if you can). Your \"\"cost basis\"\" would be $50,000 + $25,000 = $75,000, and your net gain would be $90,000 - $75,000 = $15,000. The result is the same, but the arithmetic is organized a little differently. I am fairly confident you cannot include your time in the \"\"cost of improvements\"\". If you incorporated and \"\"paid yourself\"\" for the time, then the payment would be considered income (and taxed), if it was even allowed. Depending on your tax bracket that may be a WORSE option for you. You can look at it this way - you only pay the tax on the $15k gain versus paying someone else $15k to do the labor.\"",
"Gold is classified as a collectible so the gain rates are as follows: So you'd report a gain of $100 or $1,000 , depending on which coin you sold.",
"\"This is what this sounds like to me: https://www.thebalance.com/having-a-garage-sale-or-yard-sale-what-to-do-first-399030 also: http://blogs.hrblock.com/2012/07/25/garage-sale-money-does-the-irs-need-to-know/ Selling a personal item at a loss is generally not a taxable event. You cannot report it as a loss, and the IRS can't tax a transaction like that. If you really want to include these as sales as part of your LLC, you'll probably have to pay tax if you list it as income. I'm just confused as to why you'd want to do that, if you know that you're selling these particular items at a loss, and you also know that you have no documentation for them. I just wouldn't report anything you sold at a loss and treat it as \"\"garage sale items\"\" separate from your business.\"",
"Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.",
"No Tax would have been deducted at the time of purchase/sale of shares. You would yourself be required to compute your tax liability and then pay taxes to the govt. In case the shares sold were held for less than 1 year - 15% tax on capital gains would be levied. In case the shares sold were held for more than 1 year - No Tax would be levied and the income earned would be tax free. PS: No Tax is levied at the time of purchase of shares and Tax is only applicable at the time of sale of shares.",
"You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.",
"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.",
"You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.",
"Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.",
"You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).",
"As your is a very specific case, please get an advice of CA. It should not cost you much and make it easier. The sale of agriculture land is taxable in certain conditions and exempt from tax in other cases. Sale of agricultural land is subject to capital gains tax. But there are certain exemptions under Section 54B, subject to conditions, which are as follows: If deemed taxable, you can avail indexation, ie the price at which you grandfather got [the date when he inherited it as per indexation] and pay 10% on the difference. If the price is not known, you can take the govt prescribed rate. As there is a large deposit in your fathers account, there can be tax queries and need to be answered. Technically there is no tax liable even if your grandfather gifts the money to your father. More details at http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130401/jsp/business/story_16733007.jsp and http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/publications/4_compute_your_capital_gains/chapter2.asp",
"The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.",
"\"In short Yes, your father needs to pay tax. Please consult a CA so that he can advice you better. In your father's case at the time of purchase it was agricultural land. However at the time of sale, it seems it was Urban, N.A. Land. A C.A. would advice you the exact exemptions and gains. If it was agricultural land at the time of selling, the Section 54B: \"\"Exemption from Capital Gains on transfer of Agricultural Lands in certain cases\"\" would be applicable if your Dad was doing agricultural activity on this land, and after selling has purchased a similar land.\"",
"That seems to indicate that you can in fact depreciate a vehicle given to you? Section 1015 discusses the calculation of basis for gifted property, it says nothing about depreciation. Personal property cannot be depreciated for tax purposes unless it is used for business purposes. So unless you drive your car as part of your sole-proprietor business, you cannot depreciate it, be it a gift or a car you purchased yourself. If you can depreciate the car, then sec. 1015 is used to calculate the basis for the depreciation.",
"You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.",
"As someone who's currently shopping for some winter wheels and has the raised blood pressure to go with that, I've got a few suggestions as to what would make me pick up the phone and call your or email you if you're advertising a vehicle. Keep in mind that if you're willing to deal with the additional hassle, you'll normally get the most money for a used car if you sell it privately. If it is worth the additional effort though is both a matter of judgement and if you're willing to put up with strange people like me :). Depending on the value of the vehicle and its rarity/desirability, you're looking at newspaper ads (probably won't get you much of a response these days), craigslist, Autotrader and similar, and last but not least, ebay. If you're trying to sell something that's easy to find because there are five at every street corner (think beige minivan), skip ebay. If it's worth below 5k-6k, I wouldn't bother with places where you have to pay to advertise, which leaves CL for the cheap stuff - that said, I'd still stick it on CL if it's advertised in other places. Heck, it's free after all. The figure out what sort of money you're asking for. Check the resources like KBB.com and have a look at your local CL for similar vehicles. Out here, certain types of vehicles (for example, Jeeps) sell quickly and often above even KBB.com. A little market research will help you come up with a good price. Just don't do things like asking a massively inflated price for a vehicle because you paid $x five years ago. All this shows that you have no idea what your vehicle is worth. Oh, and I'd always work out what the minimum I'd take is - leave yourself some haggle room but don't undersell the vehicle. Once you know where you advertise and for how much, pull together the basic facts for your vehicles and the points that would make it stand out. Basic facts about the car should include engine size, type of transmission, if it's AWD (where applicable), mileage. Color I can see on the pictures, but it's nice to include that, too. If you have service records, recently replaced a big ticket item (think transmission or similar) or had a very recent service, especially a big one where you had a timing belt and waterpump changed, mention it. Don't say the vehicle has a new engine if that was put in 100k miles ago, that's nice to mention but it's not new. If nobody's ever smoked in it, mention it. If it's got other outstanding features (super low mileage, summer only use etc) make sure to mention it that, too. Next, if it's got any faults that you know of - especially obvious ones - disclose them. People like me will most likely find the leaking shock absorber and the rust holes in the floor anyway, and it makes a much better impression if you do tell us about them beforehand. Trying to tell someone that your banana-shaped car that looks like the Blue Man Group used it for practise is actually pristine and accident-free isn't going to go down very well. Next, pull together the paperwork - make sure you've got the title (if there is a lien on the title, check with the lienholder before advertising the car so you know their procedure for releasing the title), any maintenance records you have, manuals, receipts etc. If the vehicle has a salvage title, try to find out why and mention it in the ad. I've just had a comedian phone me while I was driving to see his vehicle and leave a message that he didn't have a title and didn't seem to be willing to bother to get one, either. Obviously that put me in the right frame of mind, given that it was a 200 mile round trip. So don't do it - if you can't get a title, the schmuck you sold it to will have even less of a chance of getting one. And given that you are in California, a lot of people (including myself) react really badly to three years' worth of back registration, missing smog, expired registrations on something I'd expect to test drive etc. Essentially anything that would stop a potential cash buyer to drive it away on the spot. Next, clean the car - you know, the five years' of accumulated McD wrappers and inch thick layer of dirt (I'm only partially kidding, I've seem some pretty horrible stuff recently). Spend the two hours it takes to clean it or pay to have it valeted or detailed. Clean, shiny cars sell a lot better than a rolling recycling container. Oh, and last - make the effort take some decent photos. The more the merrier, shot in daylight (no photographing a black car after sunset) and if there is any damage, an additional photo or two showing the damage would be nice. Stick the on photobucket or similar and put the links in your craigslist ad so you don't restrict yourself to the microscopic photos that you normally get on there. As to payment, I'd either take cash, meet the buyer at his bank where he draws out a cashiers check in front of your eyes, or, well, cash. No Kauri shells, deeds on bridges in Brooklyn or anything else. Be prepared to take a deposit - a lot of buyers aren't willing to wander around with ten large ones in the back pocket to go look at a car - and spell out exactly how long the deposit is good for. I also tend to make them non-refundable (buyer doesn't pick up the car within the negotiated timeframe, you keep the deposit as 'damages' for not being able to sell it to another cash buyer). Check your DMV's website as to what exactly you need to do once you sold the car. Here in Nevada it's the buyer's problem on how to move it as you keep the plates, but I know in California the regular plates (not personal ones IIRC) stay with the vehicle and I think you need to inform the DMV that you sold the vehicle. I'd also keep a record of who I sold a vehicle to (name, address from his drivers license, license number etc) just in case they run a few red lights and accumulate a few grands' worth of parking tickets.",
"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"Yes. This income would be reported on schedule SE. Normally, you will not owe any tax if the amount is less than $400. Practically, $100 in a garage sale is not why the IRS created the form SE. I wouldn't lose sleep over keeping track of small cash sales over the course of a year. However, if you have the information I'm not going to tell you not to report it."
] |
[
"I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses. See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph. The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510. This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price. Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use. But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle. That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax. Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year. (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.) However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both. See Tax Topic 503. So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year. Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return. Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not."
] |
1284
|
Tax consequences when foreign currency changes in value
|
[
"342411"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"342411",
"481601",
"11122",
"342903",
"385310",
"30654",
"221760",
"403948",
"8200",
"390252",
"424352",
"251385",
"442489",
"426960",
"465106",
"222694",
"30403",
"396323",
"475170",
"259602",
"211122",
"9353",
"207316",
"6543",
"549272",
"273209",
"169245",
"586455",
"185983",
"42942",
"465135",
"261101",
"557647",
"276408",
"152657",
"131382",
"125568",
"212312",
"17460",
"123287",
"322456",
"538843",
"192295",
"180581",
"526714",
"75410",
"43508",
"215437",
"42521",
"149305",
"44955",
"106024",
"367562",
"162467",
"292065",
"272944",
"5347",
"180500",
"496820",
"359405",
"83758",
"306800",
"407259",
"474512",
"183506",
"36341",
"382505",
"392313",
"454563",
"307477",
"459096",
"66039",
"522578",
"506368",
"173133",
"430868",
"98510",
"256261",
"540292",
"199785",
"239876",
"415309",
"568064",
"34139",
"589377",
"400631",
"128322",
"386941",
"303287",
"134794",
"437907",
"572523",
"154912",
"514970",
"451180",
"276334",
"163836",
"182374",
"443354",
"310326"
] |
[
"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.",
"In theory, when you obtained ownership of your USD cash as a Canadian resident [*resident for tax purposes, which is generally a quicker timeline than being resident for immigration purposes], it is considered to have been obtained by you for the CAD equivalent on that date. For example if you immigrated on Dec 31, 2016 and carried $10k USD with you, when the rate was ~1.35, then Canada deems you to have arrived with $13.5k CAD. If you converted that CAD to USD when the rate was 1.39, you would have received 13.9k CAD, [a gain of $400 to show as income on your tax return]. Receiving the foreign inheritances is a little more complex; those items when received may or may not have been taxable on that day. However whether or not they were taxable, you would calculate a further gain as above, if the fx rate gave you more CAD when you ultimately converted it. If the rate went the other way and you lost CAD-value, you may or may not be able to claim a loss. If it was a small loss, I wouldn't bother trying to claim it due to hassle. If it's a large loss, I would be very sure to research thoroughly before claiming, because something like that probably has a high chance of being audited.",
"\"Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred. The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first \"\"gain\"\" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain. This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year. Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it).\"",
"Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.",
"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.",
"Huh. It appears it's only currencies in sterling that are fully exempt. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg12602 Government manuals are more detailed than .gov but still not perfect as it's HMRCs interpretation of legislation and has been overturned in the past. There is also another (old) article here about foreign currency transactions. https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2010/10/27/21191/currency-gains I have never come across forex capital gains in practice but I've learnt something today! Something to look out for in the UK as well I guess.",
"If you are exchanging money for travel then you should not have to pay any capital gains on any exchange that is in your favour. Exchanging currency for travel is different from trading currencies for an attempt at making profits.",
"If you hold this money in USD and spend it in the US as USD, then there is no tax liability or reporting requirement at all. You are not subject to any tax on foreign exchange gains and losses because you have not performed any foreign exchange. CRA says a foreign exchange gain or loss happens when the fx transaction occurs—not as the currency’s value fluctuates while on deposit - and since you are never performing an fx transaction, no such issues will arise. The CRA is not interested in how you spend your money, only the money that you earn. The only possible tax liability that would arise in the circumstances that you describe would be the tax liability arising from interest earned while the cash in on deposit. If this interest exceeds the threshold of reportability, then your bank will issue you with a T-slip to be included in your tax return.",
"Capital is an Asset. Decreasing value of capital is the decreasing value of an asset. When you buy the forex asset * DR Forex Asset * CR Cash When you sell * DR Cash * CR Forex Asset The difference is now accounted for Here is how: Gains (and losses) are modifications to your financial position (Balance sheet). At the end of the period you take your financial performance (Profit and Loss) and put it into your balance sheet under equity. Meaning that afterwards your balance sheet is better or worse off (Because you made more money = more cash or lost it, whatever). You are wanting to make an income account to reflect the forex revaluation so at the end of the period it is reflected in profit then pushed into your balance sheet. Capital gains directly affect your balance sheet because they increase/decrease your cash and your asset in the journal entry itself (When you buy and sell it). If making money this way is actually how you make you make an income it is possible to make an account for it. If you do this you periodically revalue the asset and write off the changes to the revaluation account. You would do something like *DR Asset *CR Forex Revaluation account; depending on the method you take. Businesses mostly do this because if the capital gains are their line of business they will be taxed on it like it is income. For simplicity just account for it when you buy and sell the assets (Because you as an individual will only recognise a profit/loss when you enter and exit). Its easier to think about income and expenses are extensions of equity. Income increases your equity, expenses decrease it. This is how they relate to the accounting formula (Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity)",
"I'll break it down into steps. Total gain/ loss for the whole thing is 5 CAD. You only have to worry about these calculations if you keep some USD and convert it at your leisure. Or if you have a US dollar in your wallet from your last vacation. Don't forget to subtract commissions (converted to CAD of course). *Some people just use an average exchange rate for the whole year, which you can also get from the BoC. ^There's $200 of tax free gains allowed for pure currency transactions. This allows small gains to be ignored.",
"If you make money in currency speculation (as in your example), that is a capital gain. A more complicated example is if you were to buy and then sell stocks on the mexican stock exchange. Your capital gain (or loss) would be the difference in value in US dollars of your stocks accounting for varying exchange rates. It's possible for the stocks to go down and for you to still have a capital gain, and vice versa.",
"\"If your friend is loaning you KRW which you are then converting to USD, then there are tax implications. This would be a Section 988 transaction so \"\"gains\"\" or \"\"losses\"\" made during repayment (partial or complete) due to fluctuations in exchange rate would be treated as ordinary gains or losses. For example, imagine you borrow 100,000 KRW and, at the time you borrow it, this is worth exactly 100,000 USD. At some future point, you repay 20,000 KRW. If the exchange rate at that point is such that 20,000 KRW is worth 15,000 USD, then the IRS sees that you have \"\"gained\"\" 5,000 USD in ordinary income. This is a particular concern if the loan is a mortgage and you refinance the mortgage at a moment in time with a more \"\"favorable\"\" exchange rate than the exchange rate when you first got the mortgage. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-988.asp for some additional discussion.\"",
"Now, I have kept this money and after interval of 6 month or year whenever the USD price go up, I do exchange with Indian currency and deposit in my account. Now do I have to pay Tax on this money? No you are not required to pay any tax as the income was accrued when your were NRI for tax purposes. The Foreign currency upto USD 2000 can be held by an individual without any time limit. i.e. you can convert then whenever you want. There is nothing that needs to be declared in Tax Returns.",
"\"Since you did not treat the house as a QBU, you have to use USD as your functional currency. To calculate capital gains, you need to calculate the USD value at the time of purchase using the exchange rate at the time of purchase and the USD value at the time of sale using the exchange rate at the time of sale. The capital gain / loss is then the difference between the two. This link describes it in more detail and provides some references: http://www.maximadvisors.com/2013/06/foreign-residence/ That link also discusses additional potential complications if you have a mortgage on the house. This link gives more detail on the court case referenced in the above link: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93F3d26.html The court cases references Rev. Rul 54-105. This link from the IRS has some details from that (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0303021.pdf): Rev. Rul. 54-105, 1954-1 C.B. 12, states that for purposes of determining gain, the basis and selling price of property acquired by a U.S. citizen living in a foreign country should be expressed in United States dollars at the rates of exchange prevailing as of the dates of purchase and sale of the property, respectively. The text of this implies it is for U.S. citizen is living in a foreign country, but the court case makes it clear that it also applies in your scenario (house purchased while living abroad but now residing in the US): Appellants agree that the 453,374 pounds received for their residence should be translated into U.S. dollars at the $1.82 exchange rate prevailing at the date of sale. They argue, however, that the 343,147 pound adjusted cost basis of the residence, consisting of the 297,500 pound purchase price and the 45,647 pounds paid for capital improvements, likewise should be expressed in U.S. dollar terms as of the date of the sale. Appellants correctly state that, viewed “in the foreign currency in which it was transacted,” the purchase generated a 110,227 pound gain as of the date of the sale, which translates to approximately $200,000 at the $1.82 per pound exchange rate. ... However fair and reasonable their argument may be, it amounts to an untenable attempt to convert their “functional currency” from the U.S. dollar to the pound sterling. ... Under I.R.C. § 985(b)(1), use of a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar is restricted to qualified business units (\"\"QBU\"\"s). ... appellants correctly assert that their residence was purchased “for a pound-denominated value” while they were “living and working in a pound-denominated economy,” ... And since appellants concede that the purchase and sale of their residence was not carried out by a QBU, the district court properly rejected their plea to treat the pound as their functional currency.\"",
"Yes, you still need to pay income tax on your capital gain regardless of whether you converted your USD proceeds back into CAD. When you calculate your gains for tax purposes, you'll need to convert all of your gains to Canadian dollars. Generally speaking, CRA will expect you to use a historical USD to CAD exchange rate published by the Bank of Canada. At that page, notice the remark at right: Are the Exchange Rates Shown Here Accepted by Canada Revenue Agency? Yes. The Agency accepts Bank of Canada exchange rates as the basis for calculations involving income and expenses that are denominated in foreign currencies.",
"No it's not, not until a disposition. Keep track of the CAD value on the day you receive the inheritance and get an average cost. Then every time you go to the US and spend some money, record the CAD value on the day you spend it. The difference is your profit or loss. There is no capital gain as long as you don't spend it. Now this may seem ridiculous, especially since none of this is reported to the CRA. They realize this and say the first $200 profit or loss is not taxable.",
"According to the answers to this question, you generally aren't taxed on gains until you sell the asset in question. None of those answered specifically for the U.K., so perhaps someone else will be able to weigh in on that. To apply those ideas to your question, yes your gains and losses are taxable. If you originally traded something worth $100 for the bitcoins, then when you converted back to dollars you received $200, you would have a $100 gain, simply on the foreign exchange trade. That is, this $100 of income is in addition to any income you made from your business (selling goods).",
"Would I have to pay some kind of capital gains tax? And if so, when? Converting Tax paid USD into CAD is not a taxable event. A taxable even will occur if you convert back the CAD into USD. If you receive interest on the CAD then the interest is also a taxable event. Also, is there any reason this is a terrible idea? That will only be known in future. Its like predicting that in future this will turn out to be advantageous, however it may turn out the other way.",
"\"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as \"\"mark to market\"\", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation.\"",
"I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.",
"In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).",
"How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).",
"Just a thought because this is a really good question: Would the buying and selling of blockchain based digital currency, using other blockchain based digital currencies, be subject to like kind treatment and exempt from capital gains until exchanged for a non-blockchain based good or service (or national currency) Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin to buy 100 monero. Monero's price and bitcoin's price then change to where the 100 monero are 3 bitcoins. The person gets their bitcoin back and has 66.67 monero remaining. This scenario could be: Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin at $1000 to buy 100 monero at $10. Bitcoin crashes 80% to $200 while monero crashes to only $6 per monero. $6 times 100 is $600 and if the person gets their bitcoin back (at $200 per bitcoi), they still lost money when measured in US Dollars if they move that bitcoin back to US dollars. In reading the IRS on bitcoin, they only care about the US dollar value of bitcoin or monero and in this example, the US dollar value is less. The person may have more bitcoins, but they still lost money if they sell.",
"Simply transferring money you own from overseas to Canada will not mean you need to pay tax on it. However if you sell property at a profit - I.e. sell it for more than you paid for it - you may have to pay tax on any gains. This is true whether or not you transfer the money to Canada. Calculating the amount is quite complicated. You might consider getting a tax expert.",
"The money you will be bringing to the US will be classified as your own money, and will not be taxable. The proceeds from the sale are taxable to you, probably as capital gains. The fact that you kept the proceeds out of the US is irrelevant for that purpose (it is relevant for FBAR/FATCA etc). Since you had no basis in the property, all the proceeds are taxable to you at the time of the sale and should be reported on your tax return.",
"There is a fourth option - pay those taxes. Depending on the amounts, it might be the easiest way - if you make 34.49 in interest, and pay 6 $ in taxes on it, and be done, that might not be worth any other effort. If the expected taxable amount is significant, moving (most of it) to index funds or other simply switching existing investments to ‘reinvest’ instead of ‘pay out in cash’ would be the best approach. Again, some smaller amounts in savings or checkings accounts are probably not worth any effort. Transferring the money to the US doesn’t save you taxes, as any interest would still be taxable. You have a risk to lose on the conversion back and forth (and a potential to gain - the exchange rate could go either way!), so if you are sure you go back, it’s not a good idea to move the money.",
"This loss would be unrealized and, assuming you're a cash-basis tax-payer, you would not be able to take a loss on your 2014 tax return. This is similar to if you held a stock that lost 50% of its value. You wouldn't be able to claim this loss until you finally sold it. The link that User58220 posted may come into play if you converted your UAH back to USD.",
"I don't think so in your case. Unless the account generates so much interest income that it became reportable (I don't know the exact limit, but I think it's in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars, you might get a 1099 form if it generates over $10 of interest income, but you don't have to file taxes if your overall income is too low anyways). The US does not typically tax assets, only income. There are some states (Florida is the only one I can think of) that has odd tax treatment of intangible assets, but I doubt that would apply in your case. If this were a large enough amount, usually over $10,000, it might trigger some reporting requirements (possibly by your home country).",
"Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5.",
"\"What about the escudo balance in my checking account in Cabo Verde? Are the escudos that I held for months or years, before eventually deciding to change to dollars, considered an investment? Don't know. You tell us. Investment defined as an activity taken to produce income. Did you put the money in the checking account with a full expectation of profits to be made from that? Or you only decided that it is an investment in retrospective, after the result is known, because it provides you more tax benefit? To me it sounds like you have two operating currencies and you're converting between them. Doesn't sound like an investment. Generally, from my experience, bank accounts are not considered investments (even savings accounts aren't). Once you deposit into a CD or bond or money market - you get a cash-equivalent which can be treated as an investment. But that's my personal understanding, if there are large amounts involved, I'd suggest talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA specializing on expats in your area. Pub 54 is really a reference for only the most trivial of the questions an expat may have. It doesn't even begin to describe the complexity of the monstrosity that is called \"\"The US Tax Code for Expats and Foreigners\"\".\"",
"\"After more searching for how the US might treat such an attempt to \"\"rollover\"\" the funds, I found this: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/am2008009.pdf So, it seems it is impossible to do without US tax consequences.\"",
"It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value. Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates). You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd. If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd. Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.",
"Depending on what software you use. It has to be reported as a foreign income and you can claim foreign tax paid as a foreign tax credit.",
"Please consult a tax advisor. You may be voilating the FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act] and can land into trouble. Further what you are doing can land up into various other acts as illegal including AML. Further if there is income generated by Indian citizen in India, he is still liable to pay tax, irrespective of whether you get the funds back into India. Edit: AML is Anti Money Laundering. Your transaction is sure to raise AML triggers as it looks like converting Black Money to White in round about way. Once the triggers are raised, RBI division will investigate further to verify what you are doing. If you are able to prove that this is a valid transaction, you would be OK on AML front. How will Income Tax Know? - If they don't know does not mean you are not liable for tax. - Any suspicious transactions would get investigated and sooner or later Income Tax would know about it and can cause a serious problem. - It is irrelevant where you have kept the money, if you have earned something, its taxable. For it not to be taxable you need to conduct this business differently. Please consult a tax adviser who will advice you on the tax-ability of this type of transaction.",
"It depends on the asset and the magnitude of the exchange rate change relative to the inflation rate. If it is a production asset, the prices can be expected to change relative to the changes in exchange rate regardless of magnitude, ceteris paribus. If it is a consumption asset, the prices of those assets will change with the net of the exchange rate change and inflation rate, but it can be a slow process since all of the possessions of the country becoming relatively poorer cannot immediately be shipped out and the need to exchange wants for goods will be resisted as long as possible.",
"If you move money - you don't need to pay any taxes. If the money was not there before and magically appeared at some point and now you want to move it - you'll have to explain a thing or two to the IRS and FinCEN. Generally, if you're a green card holder - you pay taxes on your worldwide income. So if you have a foreign account that earns interest - that interest is taxable to you in the US. In the year you earned it, not in the year you moved the money to the US. There are also reporting requirements (FBAR notably, and others). If you haven't filed FBAR with regards to the accounts which you now want to move, and especially if that also includes unreported income (interest and other) - you may find yourself in a very deep s#!t. Sorry, very deep troubles. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). A proper consultation is warranted, if you haven't had one already. You might need a tax attorney.",
"\"No, there are neither advantages nor disadvantages. I'll take on this question from an accounting standpoint. Financial statements, the tools at which the market determines (amongst other things) the value of a stock, are converted at year end to the home currency (see 1.1.3).If Company A has revenue of 100,000 USD and the conversion to EUR is .89, revenue in the European market will be reported as 89,000 EUR. These valuations, along with ratios, analysis, and \"\"expert\"\" opinions determine if a person should own shares in Company A. Now, if we're talking about comparing markets this is a entirely different question. Example: Should I buy stock of Company A, who is in the American market (as an European)? Should I buy stock of Company B, who is in the European market (as an American)? I would recommend this as additional level of diversification of your portfolio to inlcude possible large inflation of either the currency. The possible gains of this foreign exchange may be greater if one or the other currency becomes weak.\"",
"Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.",
"The value of a foreign stock is subject to fluctuations in the foreign currency value; this is not the case for domestic stocks.",
"This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.",
"\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \"\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\"\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \"\"mark to market accounting\"\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\"",
"What you are doing is barter trade. Most countries [if not all] would tax this on assumed fair value. There are instances where countries may relax this norm in border areas for a small amount. Barter is not just for gold – one can virtually do this for any goods, i.e. sell garments in exchange for oil, sell electronic chips in exchange for consumer goods, etc. Quite a few business would flourish doing this and not exchange currency at all, hence the need for government to tax on the [assumed / calculated / arrived/ derived] fair value. A word of caution: at times this may not be fair at all and may actually cost more than had one done a transaction using currency.",
"\"Yes, you effectively need to \"\"double count\"\" when shifting balances between foreign accounts.\"",
"Essentially imported goods from the country (in this case the US) that is improving against your local currency will become more expensive. For the most part, that is the only practical effect on you on an individual financial level.",
"An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.",
"To your first question: YES. Capital gains and losses on real-estate are treated differently than income. Note here for exact IRS standards. The IRS will not care about percentage change but historical (recorded) amounts. To your second question: NO Are you taxed when buying a new stock? No. But be sure to record the price paid for the house. Note here for more questions. *Always consult a CPA for tax advice on federal tax returns.",
"\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"",
"This is taxable in India. You need to declare the income and pay taxes accordingly",
"\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"",
"Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.",
"As the funds are Gift received from your parents, and your tax residency is US, as per US gift tax, there is no tax due from you for these funds.",
"I can only answer about the U.S. For question 2, I believe the answer is no. If you are a non-resident alien for tax purposes, then only income connected to the U.S. is reported as income on the tax return. Unless there were any non-deductible contributions to your pre-tax IRAs, when you convert to Roth IRA, the entire amount of the conversion is added to your income. So the tax consequence is the same as if you had that much additional U.S. income. If you are a non-resident alien with no other income in the U.S., then the income you have to report on your U.S. tax return will basically consist of the conversion. Non-resident aliens do not have a standard deduction. However, all people have a personal exemption. If we take 2013 as an example, the exemption is $3900 per person. We will assume that you will file as single or married filing separately (non-resident aliens cannot file as married filing jointly). The first $3900 of income is covered by the exemption, and is not counted in taxable income. For single and MFS, the next $8925 of income is taxed at 10%, then next $27325 of income is taxed at 15%, and so on. So if you convert less than the personal exemption amount every year ($3900 in 2013), then in theory you do not pay any taxes. If you convert a little bit more, then some of the conversion will be taxed at 10%, etc.",
"Canadian departure tax is implemented as a deemed sale gains proceeds taxation. Check here for details. What it means is that you're taxed on the difference between your FMV on the date of terminating residency and your Canadian cost basis (FMV when you acquired residency, or regular cost basis if you acquired the assets while being resident of Canada). It doesn't matter if you actually withdraw the money or not, it has no significance. You'll have to pay the tax either way.",
"The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.",
"\"Although there are occasional cases where simply moving money between countries results in a tax liability - for example a \"\"non-domiciled\"\" UK resident using the \"\"remittance basis\"\" - this is not the case in your situation. In general it would be extremely rare for non-residents of a country to be taxed on bringing money into that country, as it would be bad for tourism which most countries want to encourage. The requirement to declare large sums of money on entry is primarily so that the authorities can detect money laundering, rather than tax. Note that you will have to pay US tax on any interest you earn on that US bank account.\"",
"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"Is this money taxable in US? From what you described you're likely to have been a US tax resident. As such, you're taxed on your worldwide income. Foreign tax deferral schemes are not considered qualified under the US law (unless a treaty says otherwise), so you're liable for taxes on them now. Get a new tax adviser.",
"When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.",
"> Hence all businesses in the US, no matter what currency they make money in, have to buy USD to pay their taxes. So that means that means other currencies are valueless since X government doesn't see Y currency as a means of payment? Also, you don't buy so much as trade but potatoes potatos.",
"If you are a US resident (not necessarily citizen) then yes, you do have to pay capital gains taxes on any capital gains, including interest from assets oversees (like interest from a savings account). Additionally you have to report all your foreign bank accounts according to FATCA (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca).",
"If you are a non resident Indian, the income you earn and transfer to India is tax free in India. You can hold the funds in USD or convert then into INR, there is no tax implication.",
"\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"",
"\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \"\"recognition\"\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\"",
"Generally it is a taxable transaction. Basic principle of taxation everywhere is that the mean of payment doesn't matter. If the income is taxable - it is taxable regardless of the unit of currency you used. It can be a strawberry, a bitcoin, a gold nugget, or a dollar, it doesn't change a thing about how it is taxed. If you look at the United States tax code definition of taxable income, for example, you will find no mention whatsoever of any currency. Similarly with other tax laws I'm familiar with. I'm sure there's no such limitation in Australia.",
"The purpose of the transfer determines the taxability. If this is happening to frequent, it is advisable to keep proper records of the transaction so that if there is an enquiry from Tax authorities you can explain. Unless you explain the why the transfer is being made, I have put out some broad categories.",
"You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean.",
"non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.",
"If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"Thanks for your reply! I presume then if I don't convert back (say I spend everything) then it's much the same. So my main consideration should be whether I think the currency will increase or decrease in my time away if I'm converting back",
"How can I correctly account for having money in different currencies, without currency transfers or currency fluctuations ending up as gains or losses? In my view, your spreadsheet should be in multiple currencies. i.e. if you have gained some in specific currency, make a note of it in that specific currency. If you have spent something in a specific currency, then make a note accordingly. You can use an additional column for reporting this in a neutral currency say GBP. If you are transferring the money from account of one currency to account of another; change the balances as appropriate with the actual conversion rate. If you need this record keeping for tax purposes, then get a proper advise from accountant.",
"The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.",
"Assuming your tax status in India is Non-Resident. The funds are deposited in an NRE account, there is nothing that needs to be done. If you have any income in India, then you would need to file a tax return.",
"I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.",
"Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.",
"If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.",
"There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.",
"And directly from IRS notice 2014-21 FAQ: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Q-6: Does a taxpayer have gain or loss upon an exchange of virtual currency for other property? A-6: Yes. If the fair market value of property received in exchange for virtual currency exceeds the taxpayer’s adjusted basis of the virtual currency, the taxpayer has taxable gain. The taxpayer has a loss if the fair market value of the property received is less than the adjusted basis of the virtual currency.… Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities? A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income.",
"Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.",
"Government's tax citizens and businesses in their currency. Earnings (even earnings in cryptocurrencies) are taxable income.",
"You are trying to predict the future currency fluctuations that can't be predicted. If you know for sure you are moving, convert it directly into Euros in near future rather than take a complicated route.",
"FBAR should be filed if total balance of all your foreign accounts is more than $10000 any time during the year (even if only for one day). My TurboTax handled that well last year, including filling the FBAR for me. Shouldn't be an issue, just don't forget to file it (not with your IRS package, it goes to a different place), if you need to. On the tax forms (1040 Schedule B, Part III) you should check a checkbox that you have a foreign bank account.",
"\"As long as the IRS treats bitcoin as property, then whenever you use bitcoin to buy anything you are supposed to consider the capital gain or capital loss. There is no \"\"until it's converted to fiat\"\". You are paying local sales tax and capital gains, or paying local sales tax and reporting capital loss. As long as you are consistent, you can use either the total cost basis, or individual lot purchases. The same as other property like stocks (except without stock specific regulations like wash-sale rules :D ). There are a lot of perks or unintentional loopholes for speculators, with the property designation. There are a lot of disadvantages for consumers trying to use it like a currency. Someone mixing investment and spending funds across addresses is going to have complicated tax issues, but fortunately the exchanges have records of purchase times and prices, which you can compare with the addresses you control. Do note, after that IRS guideline, another federal agency designated Bitcoin as a commodity, which is a subset of \"\"property\"\" with its own more favorable but different tax guidelines.\"",
"Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.",
"It would depend on whether it's considered capital gains or not. A brief Google search suggests that it is; this means you're only required to pay tax on it once it's traded for actual currency, goods, or services. It also means you get some nice tax advantages as long as you hold it for longer than a year.",
"\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \"\"shoot the jaywalker\"\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\"",
"Now i want to get this money in my new UK bank account, does this mean that gov will take taxes from this money as well. Yes that is income and you have to pay tax on that. But it might be a bit complicated than that, so I would ask you to call up HMRC or visit an accountant or maybe ask the finance people of your employer. Also one of my family members send us money every few months and will send to this bank from now on, does taxes also apply on this? See the HMRC page about capital gains tax on gifts: You won't have to pay Capital Gains Tax when you give a gift to your husband, wife or civil partner - as long as both of the following apply: It's useful to keep a note of what the asset cost you. Your spouse or civil partner may need this to work out their Capital Gains Tax when they dispose of the asset. Example: Mr B lives with his wife and gives her an antique table that he bought for £12,000 in 2003. Mrs B spends £500 restoring the table, eventually selling it for £20,000. Her total costs are £12,500 (£500 plus Mr B's original cost £12,000). Mrs B's gain is £7,500 (£20,000 less £12,500). When you make a gift to a family member or other person you're connected with, you'll need to work out the gain or loss. This doesn't apply to gifts you make to your spouse or civil partner. This also applies if you dispose of an asset to them in any other way - for example, you sell it to them for a low price. A 'connected person' in this context is someone such as your brother, sister, child, parent, grandparent, mother-in-law or business partner. Follow the link below for more information about connected people and Capital Gains Tax. You must get a valuation of the asset at the time you made the gift. Use this value in place of any amount you received for the asset to work out your gain or loss. If you gave the asset away, then of course the amount you received for it will be nothing. If you make a loss you can only deduct the loss from gains you make on gifts or other disposals to the same person.",
"To answer my own question, at least to the extent of my understanding. Here the IRS says that all income for a foreign person from a US-based company is taxable with 30%. Here the IRS says that this tax should be withhold at source by whomever pays you. In case there is a tax treaty with the country, the tax can even be waived in the US. Of course, if you don't declare it in your home country, the US bank could probably give information requested by the home country authorities. For the other two cases (when there's no US party involved) I can't find anything on the IRS website, which kind of make sense. If I am using an account in the US just to receive and send money shouldn't imply any tax. Thanks to @litteadv for pointing me into the right direction.",
"Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.",
"I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.",
"The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.",
"well, probably taxed a little. and taxed when they spend it, and taxed again when it is spent again. like fikirte said, this is foreign money. if the americans want access to it they have to make it easy. they've done it in the past http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/the-portfolio-interest-exemption-53348889 sorry there is a lack of sources in real english.",
"Depends on the countries and their rules about moving money across the border, but in this case that appears entirely reasonable. Of course it would be a gamble unless you can predict the future values of currency better than most folks; there is no guarantee that the exchange rate will move in any particular direction. I have no idea whether any tax is due on profit from currency arbitrage.",
"You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.",
"From India Tax point of view: Some one else may give the US tax treatment. Refer to this similar question what taxes I need to pay in India Capital Gains. My accountant never asked or reported the bought property in taxes- should he reported in taxes?Did he do wrong not reporting should I report the property in my next year taxes? If you mean in IT Returns, yes it should be declared. Can i bring the money back if needed? By Back if you mean repatriate to US, The capital portion would be Ease if the loan property was purchased or loan repaid from NRE. Else there is limit on the amount and paperwork. Consult a CA. If I rent the property instead of selling, do I have to report the income and what income? should I be filling taxes on the rental income in India or just in USA or both You are taxable for the rent and have to report it as income and pay taxes in India.",
"You only have to pay taxes when you convert to dollars. Most exchanges I think have to track their users and provide them with reports for tax purposes. Just holding bitcoin and watching it go up in value does not trigger a taxable event.",
"Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.",
"If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.",
"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.",
"\"The short answer is that the exchange of the stock in exchange for the elimination of a debt is a taxable exchange, and gains or losses are possible for the stock investor as well as the bank. The somewhat longer answer is best summarized as noting that banks don't usually accept stocks as collateral, mostly because stock values are volatile and most banks are not equipped to monitor the risk involved but it is very much part of the business of stock brokers. In the USA, as a practical matter I only know of stock brokerages offering loans against stock as part of the standard services of a \"\"margin account\"\". You can get a margin account at any US stock broker. The stockholder can deposit their shares in the margin account and then borrow around 50% of the value, though that is a bit much to borrow and a lower amount would be safer from sudden demands for repayment in the form of margin calls. In a brokerage account I can not imagine a need to repay a margin loan if the stocks dividends plus capital appreciation rises in value faster than the margin loan rate creates interest charges... Trouble begins as the stock value goes down. When the value of the loan exceeds a certain percentage of the stock value, which can depend on the stock and the broker's policy but is also subject to federal rules like Regulation T, the broker can call in the loan and/or take initiative to sell the stock to repay the loan. Notice that this may result in a capital gain or loss, depending on the investor's tax basis which is usually the original cost of the stock. Of course, this sale affects the taxes of the investor irregardless of who gets the money.\""
] |
[
"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial."
] |
6262
|
Help required on estimating SSA benefit amounts
|
[
"34538",
"26799",
"390877"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"390877",
"34538",
"498444",
"83338",
"451005",
"2648",
"511313",
"372847",
"298563",
"403514",
"5673",
"574386",
"136862",
"141464",
"143591",
"450765",
"450808",
"156499",
"260795",
"107520",
"26487",
"192585",
"3047",
"311442",
"532318",
"11274",
"491028",
"552303",
"506604",
"59843",
"578798",
"11192",
"480128",
"217222",
"107963",
"298427",
"435932",
"35188",
"341930",
"210130",
"230724",
"101180",
"391583",
"525053",
"430407",
"44448",
"295384",
"304479",
"357934",
"582864",
"127974",
"246453",
"42599",
"489376",
"332153",
"410395",
"12119",
"398078",
"370472",
"592680",
"241416",
"550642",
"20054",
"320362",
"28172",
"418871",
"463881",
"31019",
"502875",
"481475",
"95188",
"208989",
"302049",
"281495",
"358776",
"304153",
"16895",
"507917",
"495383",
"14111",
"194363",
"553480",
"84171",
"529927",
"131044",
"383102",
"81343",
"312405",
"543345",
"40821",
"214476",
"431504",
"538353",
"336950",
"554833",
"138487",
"125171",
"465283",
"186602",
"163946"
] |
[
"The social security administration has a webpage to get your Social Security estimate. It replaces the yearly estimate they used to mail everybody. It shows the amount you paid for social security and medicare and what they estimate you will receive at your retirement age. They also discuss disability benefits. Everybody should do this every year. Though it does take a few months to get the previous years numbers updated into the system. If you notice a problem with the money they think you paid into the system in a particular year, you can send them an old W-2 and get the numbers corrected.",
"\"Some details in case you are interested: Being a defined benefit kind of pension plan, the formula for your Social Security benefits isn't tied directly to FICA contributions, and I'm not aware of any calculator that performs an ROI based on FICA contributions. Rather, how much you'll get in retirement is based on your average indexed monthly earnings. Here's some information on the Social Security calculation from the Social Security Administration - Primary Insurance Amount (PIA): For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2013, or who dies in 2013 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of: (a) 90 percent of the first $791 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus (b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $791 and through $4,768, plus (c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,768. Here's an example. Of course, to calculate a benefit in the future, you'll need to calculate projected average indexed monthly earnings; more details here. You'll also need to make assumptions about what those bend points might be in the future. The average wage indexing values for calculating the AIME are available from the Social Security Administration's site, but future indexing values will also need to be projected based on an assumption about their inflation. You'll also need to project the Contribution and Benefit Base which limits the earnings used to calculate contributions and benefits. Also, the PIA calculation assumes benefits are taken at the normal retirement age. Calculating an early or late retirement factor is required to adjust benefits for another age. Then, whatever benefits you get will increase each year, because the benefit is increased based on annual changes in the cost of living. Performing the series of calculations by hand isn't my idea of fun, but implementing it as a spreadsheet (or a web page) and adding in some \"\"ROI based on FICA contributions\"\" calculations might be an interesting exercise if you are so inclined? For completeness sake, I'll mention that the SSA also provides source code for a Social Security Benefit Calculator.\"",
"There are two steps. First you take the age at retirement and annual benefit. Say it's $10,000/yr. You can easily look up the present value of a $10k/yr annuity starting at age X. (I used age 62, male, at Immediate Annuity. It calculates to be $147K. You then need to look at your current age and with a finance calculator calculate the annual deposits required to get to $147K by that age. What I can't tell you is what value to use as a cost of money until retiring. 4%? 6%? That's the larger unknown.",
"\"From the Social Security site, In the case of early retirement, a benefit is reduced 5/9 of one percent for each month before normal retirement age, up to 36 months. If the number of months exceeds 36, then the benefit is further reduced 5/12 of one percent per month. And for a delay past normal retirement age, there's an 8% per year increase in benefit for each year you delay. I believe the \"\"return it all\"\" option was discontinued. There's far too little information in your question for anyone to give a comprehensive answer. In general, one needs to look at a number of variables including their taxable income with and without the social security benefit as well as their health to determine the optimal SS start date.\"",
"The IRS has a calculator for this purpose.",
"I am in the process of writing an article about how to maximize one's Social Security benefits, or at least, how to start the analysis. This chart, from my friends at the Social Security office shows the advantage of waiting to take your benefit. In your case, you are getting $1525 at age 62. Now, if you wait 4 years, the benefit jumps to $2033 or $508/mo more. You would get no benefit for 4 years and draw down savings by $73,200, but would get $6,096/yr more from 64 on. Put it off until 70, and you'd have $2684/mo. At some point, your husband should apply for a spousal benefit (age 66 for him is what I suggest) and collect that for 4 years before moving to his own benefit if it's higher than that. Keep in mind, your generous pensions are likely to push you into having your social security benefit taxed, and my plan, above will give you time to draw down the 401(k) to help avoid or at least reduce this.",
"There are three numbers that matter in that calculation: 1) How much do you expect per month from in pension/social security/or other retirement programs? 2) At what age will each of you retire? 3) How long will each of you live? 4) What will your annual expenses be when you retire? Unfortunately #3 is the most important of the three and the hardest to know with any certainty.",
"For estimating your take home salary, I suggest using one of the many free salary calculators available over the Internet. I personally use PaycheckCity.com, but there are plenty of others available. To calculate your allowances for the US Federal tax, you can use the worksheet attached to the form W-4. Similar form (with a similar worksheet) is available for state taxes, on the Illinois Department of Revenue web site.",
"Answering this question is a great way to gauge how you're doing towards saving for retirement now. But of course what matters more than this snapshot in time is how much you contribute down the line. It may be wise to try to estimate how much you will want saved by the time you retire. Then try to calculate how much you would need to save in order to hit that mark.",
"\"How will contribution limits rise? Contribution limits are raised based on COLA. COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) is a number based on CPI (Consumer Price Index) which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The IRS publishes these limits annually and a simple search term to find them each year is \"\"415 limits\"\" because section 415 lists how much the various qualified plans can set aside each year. CPI is a heavily managed and very political number. It is the number that is cited when the media talks about \"\"inflation.\"\" Since it drives increases in salaries, deductions, Social Security and pension payments, there is very heavy pressure to keep the number smaller than it really is. My next step was to calculate how long that money will last One traditional rule-of-thumb is to withdraw 4% of your balance each year. Another alternative is to purchase annuities. While younger people think that annuities are horrible investments, they appeal to older people because they protect the annuitant from excessive risk of losing your capital. When you are 30, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have time to re-earn that money. When you are 60, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have very few years to recover that money. So an annuity pushes that risk onto insurance companies. If you think you will die in your 90s, then an annuity is going to be a good investment (the insurance company will be betting that you won't be living that long). I have a simple spreadsheet that I use to calculate estimated projected balances and compare them to actual performance. Don't forget that when you reach 50, the amount you can contribute goes up due to \"\"catch up contributions.\"\" There are 2 views of the same tab in this picture. There are 3 growth rates: pessimistic, nominal and optimistic. You can change the numbers to suit your own projections of future growth. Other tabs on this spreadsheet include measurements of actual performance by my 401k and IRA accounts. At the end of the year, I replace the numbers in columns F, G & H with the actual end-of-year dollar amounts. This way, future estimates do not get too far unhinged from reality. If you need more sophisticated planning, such as Monte Carlo analysis to attempt to cope with inflation, I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement. The book is aimed at younger engineers, so there is a bit more math than the average person would want.\"",
"\"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \"\"doobop\"\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\"",
"As Dilip commented, the Social Security web site is pretty comprehensive. Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI Income has the details you are looking for. It's a convoluted equation. You lose SSI at a pretty fast rate as earned income rises. The system is not kind to those who qualify for SSI but try to earn some money to cover their needs.",
"\"One common rule of thumb: you can probably get 4% or better returns on your investments ('\"\"typical market rate of return is 8%, derate to allow for inflation and off years). Figure out what kind of income you will want in retirement and divide by 0.04 to get the savings you need to accumulate to support that. This doesn't allow for the fact that your needs are also going to increase with inflation; you can make a guess at that and use an inflated needs estimate. Not sophisticated, not precise, but it's a quick and dirty ballpark estimate. And sometimes it's surprisingly close to what a proper model would say.\"",
"\"I'd encourage you to use rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope. Here are some ideas that could be useful: The problem with any kind of detailed calculations is the number of unknowns: There are some really complex calculators out there, for example see ESPlanner (http://www.esplanner.com/) (caution: horrible user interface, but seemed to work), that will include all kinds of factors and run monte carlo and the whole thing. But in my opinion, it's just as good or better to say save at least 15% of income until you have 25x what you spend, or some other such rule of thumb. Here's my little blog post on savings and investing fwiw: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Another note, there's sort of an \"\"ideology of how to live\"\" embedded in any retirement recommendation, and you might want to take the time to reflect on that and consciously choose. A book on this topic is Your Money or Your Life by Robin & Dominguez, http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766 which is a sort of radical \"\"you should save everything possible to achieve financial independence as early as possible\"\" argument. I didn't go for their plan, but I think it's thought-provoking. A newer book that may be more appealing is called The Number and it's about your question exactly. It's more designed to get you thinking, while Your Money or Your Life has a particular answer in mind. Both have some math and some rules of thumb, though they aren't focused on that. A kind of general takeaway from these books might be: first think about your expenses. What are you trying to accomplish in life, how would you like to spend your time? And then ask how much money you absolutely need to accomplish that, and focus on accomplishing your goals, spending your time (as much as you can) on what you'd like to spend it on. I'm contrasting this with a generic recommendation to save enough to spend 80% of your income in retirement, which embeds this idea that you should spend as much as possible every year, before and after you retire. Lots of people do like that idea, but it's not a law of the universe or something, it's just one popular approach.\"",
"There's a bit of working backwards that's required. This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)",
"...funds received for the month of death and later must be returned. If the estate is bankrupt, as near as I can tell, the SSA is out of luck. (This applies to payment apart from that covered above.) If you need advice on something other than retirement insurance, a comprehensive list of applicable statutes and rulings is here.",
"\"One way to do these sorts of calculations is to use the spreadsheet version of IRS form 1040 available here. This is provided by a private individual and is not an official IRS tool, but in practice it is usually accurate enough for these purposes. You may have to spend some time figuring out where to enter the info. However, if you enter your self-employment income on Schedule C, this spreadsheet will calculate the self-employment tax as well as the income tax. An advantage is that it is the full 1040, so you can also select the standard deduction and the number of exemptions you are entitled to, enter ordinary W-2 income, even capital gains, etc. Of course you can also make use of other tax software to do this, but in my experience the \"\"Excel 1040\"\" is more convenient, as most websites and tax-prep software tend to be structured in a linear fashion and are more cumbersome to update in an ad-hoc way for purposes like tax estimation. You can do whatever works for you, but I would recommend taking a look at the Excel 1040. It is a surprisingly useful tool.\"",
"There are a few methods you can use to estimate your taxes. On the results screen, the app will show you your estimated tax burden, your estimated withholding for the year, and your estimated overpayment/refund or shortfall/tax due. It may also have recommendations for you on how to adjust your W-4 (although, this late in the year, I think it only tells you to come back next year to reevaluate). Your state might also have income tax, and if you are curious about that, you can find the state tax form and estimate your state income tax as well. My guess is that you will be getting a refund this year, as you have only worked half of the year. But that is only a guess.",
"Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).",
"Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)",
"If you set a savings amount now and leave it totally fixed you're likely to massively undershoot or overshoot. What is more likely is that you will adjust either your savings or your retirement expectations as things go along. If it turns out you have $10M (2010 dollars) at age 50 perhaps you'll retire early, and if you have $10k perhaps you'll buckle down and work much longer or save much more. So I think what you are looking for is an assurance that if you budget to save x% of your salary over n years, and you get an after-inflation after-tax return of y% pa, you will eventually be able to retire on an income equivalent to z% of your working income. It's pretty easy to calculate that through a future-value formula. For instance, one set of values that works is saving 20% of income, 5% real return, 30 years = final income of 66% of working income. Or save half your income and within 14 years you can retire and keep spending the amount you were previously spending. Resist the temptation to crank up the assumed return until you get the value you want. I think it would be great hubris to try to make this very precise. Yes, probably you will get raises, of course there are taxes to take into account (probably higher while you're saving), inflation and returns will vary from year to year, et. You can guess at them. But they'll change, and there are bigger things that are unpredictable: your personal life, your health, the economic future of your career or industry. I reckon this simple formula is about as good as you will get.",
"\"By \"\"basic public pension\"\" I assume you mean Social Security, which is pretty much the only quasi-universal pension-like thing in the USA. If she has any other sort of pension (e.g., from a job) you'd need to get more specific info about that. As for Social Security, as described here: While you are working, your earnings will reduce your benefit amount only until you reach your full retirement age. According to the calculator on that site, if she is 65 now, her full retirement age would be 66, so if she retires after that age her SS benefit won't be reduced due to extra income. As described here, if she has considerable income apart from SS, she may have to pay taxes on her SS income. This would not reduce her income, but means the benefit of her extra blog income would be reduced. This page describes how to calculate your \"\"provisional income\"\" to determine whether SS benefits will be taxed. According to that page: If your provisional income is less than $25,000 for single or head-of-household returns, or $32,000 for joint returns, then your Social Security benefits will not be taxed. Based on the numbers you gave, this suggests she would not incur an SS tax. However, she should probably take a look at the Social Security retirement estimator and other tools on that site, if she hasn't already done so, to get a sense of what sort of income SS will be providing her. I'd suggest that she talk to a retirement planner and/or CPA to get a handle on what her finances would be like. At the least, she should find someone knowledgeable about Social Security policies and tax issues in the USA. As you say, you are unfamiliar with the way these matters work in the USA, so your ability to help her make financial decisions is limited.\"",
"I use paycheckcity.com and first punch in my paycheck and make sure it calculates within a few pennies the value of my actual paycheck. Then I fiddle with withholding values, etc. to see the effect of change. It has been very effective for me over the years.",
"The simplest way is just to compute how much money you'd have to have invested elsewhere to provide a comparable return. For example, if you assume a safe interest rate of 2.3% per year, you would need to have about $520,000 to get $1,000/month.",
"I read an amazing article on whenyou should take early and when you should wait. It really depends on your situation, but this article prodives information as well as examples. Hope it helps! http://customsites.yahoo.com/financiallyfit/finance/article-108227-3275-5-boost-your-social-security-benefits",
"\"I am in a similar situation and have recently found a planner who says a pension that pays $100/month is worth $18k in savings at retirement. I know that doesn't answer your question directly, but could could use a simple interest savings calculator (bank rate has one) to see how much of your income you would need to save over x period of time and deduct that from you the offer at your prospective employer to compare \"\"apples to apples\"\" However, I actually think the value of a pension at retirement is greater than listed above. To illustrate: So in this example my pension would seem to be valued at about $14,000 in salary for those 10 years.\"",
"\"One option is to look at the IRS Witholding Calculator - As George Marian notes, this is by no means a perfect way to \"\"estimate\"\" how much you'll owe. Other key questions for you to answer: There's no silver bullet here. The best you can do is to understand the key inputs into how your taxes are calculated, and then identify the most important tax deductions that you might take. Then pray that you haven't missed some nuance and use a tax program early in January to check your assumptions so you're not completely surprised when April rolls around. A final suggestion: do your own taxes using a website like TurboTax. Take the time to \"\"itemize\"\" your tax deductions just to learn what is tax deductible. You can figure out how the big parts of tax law works by just looking at what you could deduct in the future.\"",
"There's no magic. Usually these models set out to replace 60-65% of your gross income in retirement. For example, if you: You'll retire with about $850k. That will let you generate an income stream of around 55k for your expected lifespan. Is 15% the right answer for you? No idea -- it depends on what you want, how you invest, and what you can afford.",
"\"@duffbeer and @JoeTaxpayer give great answers, and you should probably accept one or the other, but I would like to recommend trying some of the online tools for Monte Carlo analysis. A Monte Carlo analysis is essentially plugging in a range of possible values (a probability function) for yearly values of pretty much anything involved in your financial life: salary growth, investment rate of return, expected life span, etc, etc, etc....and then running thousands of simulations on those values to give you the probability that your money will last until you die. It is basically a really souped up version of a \"\"what-if\"\" spreadsheet. A google search for \"\"monte carlo retirement planning\"\" may sound like a hilariously bad idea, but it lists some free tools that you might find interesting or useful. I myself have only used the product from Financial Engines quite a bit, but I believe that is only available through your employer. (If they offer it.)\"",
"If you have a relatively stable income and deductions you can get a fairly good estimate using last year's tax bill. Suppose you paid $12000 of actual taxes last year and you are paid once a month. If you plan to make a similar amount of money with similar deductions, you need each monthly paycheck to have $1000 of federal income taxes withheld. I go to a paycheck calculator and find the withholding required to make sure I have that amount withheld every paycheck.",
"All of your 401k income is taxable and no more than 85% of your SS income. You can use the worksheets in IRS: Publication 915 to determine what percentage of your SS is taxable. Just as with ordinary income, deductions/exemptions apply and not all that is taxable will be taxed. When you begin drawing SS you'll have the option to have taxes withheld at various rates, more convenient than quarterly estimated payments in my opinion.",
"Look at the left column. If you are disabled at age 62 or older and have worked for at least 10 years they you qualify for full disability benefits (which are generally less than retirement benefits). Outside of disability, one is only eligible for social security benefits at age 67 (unless you were born before 1960, in which case different rules apply), but you must have worked for at least 10 years to get full retirement benefits.",
"The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.",
"The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.aier.org/blog/social-security-cost-living-adjustment-likely-largest-2011) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > With inflation ticking upward in 2017, retirees are likely to see the largest cost-of-living adjustment in their Social Security benefits since 2011. > Our forecasted increase for the cost-of-living adjustment would add between $23 and $29 to the average Social Security beneficiary&#039;s monthly check, higher than any adjustment since 2011 but still below the average annual adjustment since 2011 of 2.3 percent. > The Social Security Administration calculates the cost-of-living adjustment using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/75k0hx/social_security_cost_of_living_adjustment_likely/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~225800 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **adjustment**^#1 **percent**^#2 **year**^#3 **CPI-W**^#4 **average**^#5\"",
"$3,679,163.80 I made these assumptions that you did not state: Then using Excel, we find that with a starting point of $3,679,163.80, we can achieve your goal. The formula for Yearly Budget is =G$1*((1.035)^(A3-2012)) and the formula for Money left at year end is =(D4/1.05)+C4 For 2067, enter $0 leftover, and for 2066, enter $397,988.47 leftover. G$1 is $60,000 G$2 is 0.05",
"\"I wrote Retirement Savings Ratio some time ago and 15% seemed the sweet spot. The 15% is 10% saved and 5% match, in my mind. The reason I link is to show a spreadsheet that shares my approach to the analysis. You list a huge number of things to think about, all great. I'm near Duff's view although I shoot for 20X final income so 4% of that is an 80% replacement. There's nothing magic about 80. If social security exists, it actually drops the required 80 from you to the 60 or so Duff lists, so we align. The 'problems' with my sheet - no one gets exact 3% raises for 43 years, so one can go in and change that, maybe higher early on, then slow it down. Returns are 8% every year, so one must go to the sheet or their own plan and reassess how they are doing each year. Disclosure - we are now at 14X our income with a goal of 25 to replace 100%. So we need a cumulative 80% growth (as in S&P at 2500) or the years of deposits to get there. I am nearing 50. Let me pick one of your questions - \"\"Your expenses go down at retirement, stay the same, or go up?\"\" - this is the $64K question. the 80% is an average guess. The general assumption is in this range. If we downsized right after the kid goes to college, we could retire on far less. So, to wrap up, online calculators and spreadsheets only go so far. Your questions are dead on. A planner should ask every one of these questions before assuming any ratio. Edit - on re-read I am blown away by the list of questions you have here. It's great. And it shows how there's risk no matter what.\"",
"There are online tax prep sites, H&R Block among them. You'll be able to enter your projected details, and do a 'what-if' type scenario by adding things that impact the return. You don't mention any Schedule A deductions. No mortgage? Planning to have money taken off the top to a 401(k)?",
"This is a present value calculation, which excel or any financial calculator can handle. N = 300 (months) %i = 5/12 or .05/12 depending on the program/calculator PMT = $5000 (the monthly payment) FV = 0 (you want to end at zero balance) This calculates a PV (present value of $855,300) Chad had it right, but used a calculator that didn't offer the PV function, so he guessed and changed numbers til the answer was clear. user379 makes a good point, but why start inflation calculations at 65, and not now? You look like you're in your 30's, so there's 30 years of inflation, and $60K/yr in today's value will need to be closer to $150K/yr, given about 30 years of 3% inflation.",
"The metric I prefer is net worth, minus the value of your home, then divide by your annual expenses. The house is subtracted because you need to live somewhere, so its worth isn't part of retirement savings. I divide by expenses to create result that really answers how close one is to being able to retire. The target is to have 25X your required spending gap. Note, as you close in on retirement, and social security is still in place, you can use it in your planning. If I were in my 20s or 30s today, I wouldn't use it in my numbers.",
"Probably the most accurate way is to just fill out your tax forms using numbers extrapolated from your current paycheck. If you don't typically itemize your deductions, you should be able to get pretty close.",
"Let's assume you have total year income I. The inflation rate is R and the growth rate is E every year. The contributed rate deducting 1.8% will be C = 0.982. So, for your account you'll have every year Let's assume you have annual income in 1000, then for years So, you'll deposit 40 000 and got at the end 129 023.60. But be careful, economic calculation for so long period could be very incaccurate because of the variation of the inflation rate, growth rate and various risks. The spreadsheet could be very useful. More accurate formula which assume that annual deposit grows only the half of the year. Thus, the result for 40 years will be 124 576.91.",
"Retirement calculation, in general, should be based on the amount of money needed per year/month and the expected life expectancy. Life expectancy, if calculated to 90 years (let's say) indicates that post retirement age (60 yrs.) your accumulated/invested money should generate adequate income to cover your expenses till 90 years. The problem in general is not how long you shall live but what would be your expected spending from retirement to end of life expectancy. The idea is at the minimum your investments should generate income that is inflation adjusted. One way to do this is to consider your monthly expense now i.e. the expense that is absolute minimum for carrying on (food, electricity, water, medicines, household consumables, car petrol, insurance, servicing, entertainment, newspaper etc.) this does not contain the amortizable liabilities (home loan, child's education, other debts). It is better to take this amount per family rather than per person and yearly rather than monthly (as we tend to miss a lot of yearly expenses). This amount that you need today will increase at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the average inflation. For example, if today you spend 100 per year in 7 years you will need to spend appx. 200 at 10% inflation. Now, your investments will not increase post your retirement, so your current investment needs to do two things (1) give you your yearly requirement (2) grow by a fixed amount so that next year it can give you CAGR adjusted returns. In general, this kind of investment grows by high net amounts initially and slowly the growth decrease. The above can be calculated by Net Present value (NPV) formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The key is to remember that the money that is invested when you retire should be able to give you inflation adjusted returns to cover your yearly expenses. How much money you need depends on your life style/expectation and how much return is received depends on the instruments that you invest on. As for your question above on the difference between the age of you and your spouse, it better to go with the consolidated family requirement and get an idea of how much investment is necessary and provision the same as soon as possible from your as well as your spouse's income. Hope this helps.- thanks",
"If you want to predict the, the easiest solution is to get hold of a copy of last year's tax forms and fill them in with estimated numbers. Odds are that none of the more complicated deductions will apply to you this first time around, so I'd suggest just using the federal 1040EZ, and your state's equivalent, for this purpose. If it turns out that you can claim anything more than the standard deduction, that would reduce your taxes, so this is leaning toward the safe side.",
"I am by no means an expert in this, but I did a little research and came across this page on the SSA site -- Can You Be Entitled To Benefits Retroactively? You may be entitled to monthly benefits retroactively for months before the month you filed an application for benefits. For example, full retirement age claims and survivor claims may be paid for up to six months retroactively. In certain cases, benefits involving disability up to 12 months may be paid retroactively. (This is not true of the special age 72 payments (see §§346-348), black lung benefits (see Chapter 22), medical insurance (see Chapter 24), or SSI (see Chapter 21).) SSA Handbook (emphasis mine) Based on this, it sounds like he may be mistaken. I recommend speaking to a SSA rep to get a solid answer on this though. Not everything on the internet is true.",
"http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm As a general rule of thumb on average you'll gain a similar amount of total money over time whether you start withdrawing early or not. Yes you get less money on each check, but you're also going to get more checks a whole since it's based on how long you live. I personally don't try and adjust how I manage my money based on what decisions the government MIGHT make, but I also am fairly young so don't quite have the heightened concerns regarding social security others might have. I've pretty much always lived and invested assuming it wasn't going to be there at all by the time I retire.",
"\"It depends on what kind of pension you get and your anticipated retirement income. If you have one of those nice defined benefit plans that pays 90% of your last 5 years' average salary annually, you might not want to bother with a separate RRSP and put your money into other use instead. While most Canadians should worry about not having enough to retire on, some might end up with too much and costing them in the form current purchases and entitlements to government retirement benefits. Figuring out how much you need for retirement is not trivial either. A lot of people talks about planning for needing 70% of what you made now as a way to preserve your lifestyle. Well, my opinion is that those type of generalization might work for the people in the middle of the income band and is too little for those in the low-income and possibly too much for those with high income. My own approach is estimate your retirement income requirement by listing out your anticipated expenses as if you were doing budget. I would agree that's not the best approach either (back to my comment about no one size fits all), but it's one that I feel most comfortable with. Once you have that figure, factor in what you think you will get from the government (OAS, CPP and etc) and you will have the amount of money you need for retirement. I will warn against using \"\"average life expectancy\"\" to forecast your retirement needs, 'cos 50% of the people will end up with extra money (not a bad problem) and the other 50% will run out of money (bad but very true problem) if you use that approach. Instead of going on and write an essay on this topic, I will simply say this - everyone's situation is different and, just like solving any other complex problems, you need to start with \"\"end\"\" in mind and work things backward, with a ton of different scenario to be able to cope with whatever curveballs life might throw at you. If you spend enough time in the library/bookstore looking through books on the topic of \"\"estate planning\"\" and \"\"retirement planning\"\", you will find people arguing back and fro on these topics - this is a sign that this is complex and no one has the one \"\"good\"\" answer for. Do a bit of reading by yourself and, if still unsure or just want to be sure, go spend the money and review your plan with a fee-only advisor. They will be able to provide another opinion on your situation after thoroughly studying your situation.\"",
"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf",
"I've found the systems that seem to work. Firstly, you need to find how much money is required to pay for the withdrawals after retirement, while still accruing interest. I couldn't seem to do this with an equation, but this bit of javascript worked: yearsToLast: Number of years of yearly withdrawals yearlyWithdrawal: Amount to withdraw each year interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest Now that we have how much is required at the beginning of the retirement, to figure out how much to add yearly to hit this mark, you'd use: amount: Previously found required amount to reach interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest yearsSaving: Number of years saving till amount needs to be hit I hope this helps some other poor soul, because I could find squat on how to do this. Max",
"\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \"\"D\"\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \"\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\"\" that walks you through these calculations.\"",
"There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.",
"\"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that \"\"4\"\" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means \"\"don't tax 4 x $4050\"\" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions.\"",
"\"Note that mutual funds' quarterly/annual reports usually have this number. I generally just let my home-accounting software project my future net worth; its numbers agree well enough with those I've gotten from more \"\"professional\"\" sources such as monte-carlo modelling. (They'd agree better if I fed in all the details of my paycheck, but I don't feel like doing the work to keep that up to date.) I'm using Quicken, but I assume MS Money and other competitors have the same capability if you buy the appropriate version.\"",
"Your contributions that you've already made are made and done, and will not disappear. What the Windfall Elimination Provision does is make sure that people do not collect the subsidized low-income payments while also collecting a full pension. People who did not pay anything into SS are able to collect money - less, but still something - from the system. Prior to this provision, people on full pensions who were exempt from SS contributions (such as teachers in many places) were able to still collect those amounts (which were never earned through contributions) even though they had quite significant pensions; that led to subsidies being given to people that didn't have as much need for them, as opposed to the indigent people who did need them. In your case, earning for 20+ years and then presumably only earning a small pension, you may be affected by this, but not necessarily severely. First of all, you are limited in how much your total reduction is to the lesser of a bit over $400 ($413 in 2015) or half your pension amount per month; so if you earn a $200 in pension monthly, your SS benefits are reduced by $100 monthly at most. Second, your percentage (and total cap) is reduced if you have over 20 years of credited work at 62 by 10% per credited year, and if you hit 30 years it's eliminated. So if you have 25 years right now, your total reduction is more like $200 at most. You also have an option to keep earning via credited work. Do some part-time work or summer work, for example. Sell things online. Whatever you need to do in order to get more years of credited work such that you end up with 30 years at 62. That will then increase your benefits back to the full amount. This article published on Nasdaq's website explains how this works in detail, including tables of benefit reductions. And, log in to ssa.gov to check how many years of creditable coverage you have and to see if you can get to 30 years and avoid any issues with this at all.",
"“For example,” says the report, “75-year solvency could be achieved by raising taxes or reducing benefits for new recipients by about one-fifth if we started today. However, if policy makers wait until 2034, payroll taxes would have to be increased by nearly one third and it would be impossible to achieve solvency solely from reducing benefits for new beneficiaries.” Social Security was enacted in 1935. Medicare was enacted in 1965. Life expectancy at those times was 61 and 70, respectively. Today, average life expectancy is 80. Pushing the receipt age for these benefits makes the most sense and results in a two-fold savings, 1) benefits put into the system through additional payroll deduction and, 2) benefits are not taken out of the system.",
"If I get a prepaid debit card for the money I make do I have to report my earnings? How do I go about doing this? Yes you must report this. It doesn't matter if they put it in your bank account, or on a debit card, or cash under the table. You have to report the income. You can count on your employer reporting the income to the IRS. What is the limit I can make when it comes to working while on social security? The Social Security Administration has all sort of info regarding working and receiving benefits. The exact answer depends on the type of benefit (retirement, disability, survivor) and your age (pre-full retirement age, the year you reach retirement age, post retirement age) I would look at their website: http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm for examples: You can work while you receive Social Security retirement (or survivors) benefits. When you do, it could mean a higher benefit for you in the future. Each year we review the records for all working Social Security recipients. If your earnings for the prior year are higher than one of the years we used to compute your retirement benefit, we will recalculate your benefit amount. We pay the increase retroactive to January the year after you earned the money",
"\"I think the math is wrong. Note that in Scenario #1, you are only out of pocket $1000, while in Scenario #2, you are out of pocket $1250; the contribution and the tax you paid with respect to it. A better concept than tax rate is \"\"Retention Rate\"\". This is the fraction of your money that the Feds let you keep. And Growth Factor is the how much the investment grows. So In Scenario #1, you multiply $1000 by the investment Growth Factor and then by the retirement Retention Rate. And in Scenario #2, you multiply the same $1000 by the current Retention Rate and then by the Growth Factor. Since in your approximation, the two GFs are the same, there is no saving...\"",
"This is what I'm planning on. Retirement would be difficult, if not impossible, without the expected SS payments. In terms of current retirement planning, it's the difference between putting 20% of my income aside for retirement, and 35% of my income aside. It's one thing to keep the wealthy happy and tax free, it's another to deny 80% of the population something that they will have to have at some point.",
"According to this site: You can apply for German benefits at any U.S. Social Security office by completing application form SSA-2490. So have a look at this form and collect everything you need. But this site also says that you need to have at least 5 years of pay. Worker-Male or female-Benefits payable at: age 65 with 5 years of coverage... I have found the info of 5 years minimum also elsewhere. So I guess you do not get any money from the Rentenversicherung (i.e. from the normal job) and I doubt that they will change that in the future. You may receive some money from your time as a Beamter and after 5 years as a Beamter it would be quite some money. But on some other site it has the 5 year figure also for the Pension: Die Pension wird für Beamte und Richter nur dann gezahlt, wenn diese mindestens fünf Jahre im Dienst aktiv tätig waren. They have also numbers to call on the first site, so you may ask them.",
"I'll offer another answer, using different figures. Let's assume 6% is the rate of return you can expect. You are age 25, and plan to retire at age 65. If you have $0 and want $1M at retirement, you will need to put away $524.20/month, or $6,290.40/year, which is 15% of $41,936. So $41,936 is what you'd need to make per year in order to get to your target. You can calculate your own figures with a financial calculator: 480 months as your term (or, adjust this to your time horizon in months), .486755% as your interest (or, take your assumed interest rate + 1 to the 1/12th power and subtract 1 to convert to a monthly interest rate), 0 as your PV, and $1M as your FV; then solve for PMT.",
"You might like https://planwise.com/index.htm",
"If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.",
"See the Mortgage Professor's calculators (#3). Go to bankrate and look up rates so you know what to punch in to those calculators.",
"\"You'd need to talk with an attorney familiar with Social Security, or an appropriately qualified SSA representative to be sure - but all signs point to the idea that unfortunately Social Security does not work the way your father was told it would. And if he doesn't file to receive benefits the reality is actually much worse than \"\"throwing away free money\"\"! However, this is not due to a complete misunderstanding of the system! Social Security does work the way he thinks in some instances, just that the rules don't apply to his exact situation! First of all, retroactive benefits come in a few forms: File and suspend to get a lump only if you really need it - BEFORE the age of 70 only! In this method you apply for retirement, but you tell the SSA to suspend/delay your benefits. You are entitled to full lump sum of the payments you deferred...but at a cost of getting lower monthly benefits permanently (and that also lowers spousal and dependent children's benefits, too - if those could apply to your dad). But note that at the age of 70, Social Security will stop deferring the payments and start paying you the full maximum retirement benefit monthly, with no lump sum. This is a kind of emergency insurance policy for those who want to try to defer retirement benefits, but who want the opportunity to cash out and get the money they would have been getting \"\"just in case\"\". You can get up to 6 months of retroactive benefits, such as if you wait past your exact retirement age to apply for benefits. But no more: \"\"we cannot pay retroactive benefits for any month before you reached full retirement age or more than 6 months in the past\"\". As for after-death benefits, an estate can only get benefits that were already due to be paid, which generally means a person died and did not get their benefits for that month, so SSA can re-issue a check to the estate following these rules. But as a person cannot be due a lump sum payment after age 70 (for more than 6 months at most), the estate will only be able to get at most 1-6 months of payments (and 6 months is doubtful - you'll need to ask a lawyer if that much would even be possible). If your father was below 70 and wanted to file-and-suspend, the question of lump on death would be more complex and I don't know that answer - but once you are past 70 this doesn't matter any more as you aren't due a lump anymore. Given the above, we've established pretty clearly that if you don't claim your benefits within 6 months after age 70, any months of payment you would have gotten are just forfeited to the system. But if you claim the benefits and stick them in the bank, can they be taken? Well, if a lawsuit is really a worry, then yes these accumulated funds can required to pay a debt - but this potential for loss can be protected against without forfeiting the benefits entirely! This is not very common, but if your father doesn't need the money now he may be able to deposit some of the money into a special partially-lawsuit protected format of the Roth IRA (which has no age limits) as detailed here. If he never gets sued, that's OK - it's still his money! If he passes away, the value goes to his estate and does not disappear. And he doesn't forfeit any of his earned retirement benefits. Finally, I would like to share one last thing with you and your father. These benefits aren't free - he has been paying a portion of his paycheck for decades into Social Security, and now he is eligible for the maximum amount of benefits per month that he will qualify for - and if he wants to keep working he loses no benefit and the amount could potentially even go up. That's up to him. But not filing for benefits now will mean that all this money he's been paying in for decades will just be lost - they'll basically just be a tax he's paid out to other retirees. His estate (which means you kids) won't get any of it, either. That'd just be a waste for everyone involved. If you have continued doubts or questions, I wouldn't hesitate to consult a specialist lawyer or talk with the SSA directly to make sure this is all correct. It's his money, and he has earned his benefits for many years. I very much hope he gets to enjoy as much of them as he can!\"",
"You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.",
"\"You can simply use the previous year's tax liability as your basis for payments. Take the amount of tax you owed the previous year, divide by four, and use that amount for your estimated payments. As long as you're paying 100% of what you owed last year, you won't have any penalty. Except if your AGI is above a certain limit ($150k for married filing jointly in 2011), then you have to pay 110%. See IRS Pub 505 for details (general rule, special rule, under \"\"Higher Income Taxpayers\"\"). (H/T to @Dilip Sarwate for pointing out the 110% exception in a comment below.)\"",
"\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \"\"federal\"\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\"",
"Fairly straightforward to match the result from the calculator soup link. There is a formula to calculate n from the future value s (using natural logs) In Excel This was derived as shown To calculate n from the inflation-adjusted future value si requires using a solver since an algebraic formula cannot be formulated. As demonstrated Calculations done using Mathematica 7.",
"Your calculations look correct in that they will be withholding taxes at the full year income rate even though you will only have 1/3 of that income which will put you in a lower tax bracket. There are online sites where you can fill out a return for free. You can estimate your return by filling out a return using the numbers on your paystub (you will have to add in your last paystub manually). In regards to when you will get your refund check? I believe it comes within a month or so of filing.",
"I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.",
"The Windfall Elimination Provision will possibly reduce your benefits from Social Security depending on how much money you receive as a pension from the TRS. Money that is earned toward your TRS pension will not have payroll taxes withheld, so it will certainly not count toward the calculation of your Social Security retirement numbers. Beyond that, this page from the Social Security Administration will help you calculate the impact on what you'll receive.",
"\"It's not possible to determine whether you can \"\"expect a refund\"\" or whether you are claiming the right number of exemptions from the information given. If your wife were not working and you did not do independent contracting, then the answer would be much simpler. However, in this case, we must also factor in how much your contracting brings in (since you must pay income tax on that, as well as Medicare and, probably, Social Security), whether you are filing jointly or separately, and your wife's income from her business. There are also other factors such as whether you'll be claiming certain child care expenses, and certain tax credits which may phase out depending on your income. If you can accurately estimate your total household income for the year, and separate that into income from wages, contracting, and your wife's business, as well as your expenses for things like state and local income and property taxes, then you can make a very reasonable estimate about your total tax burden (including the self-employment taxes on your non-wage income) and then determine whether you are having enough tax withheld from your paycheck. Some people may find that they should have additional tax withheld to compensate for these expenses (see IRS W-4 Line #6).\"",
"\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \"\"safe harbor\"\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\"",
"Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.",
"If you are just starting out, my tactic would be to go way high and then consider any different play money. So guess $90 and when it comes in at $60, buy a new shirt or go on a date.",
"I wrote one to check against the N3 to N6 bonds: http://capitalmind.in/2011/03/sbi-bond-yield-calculator/ Things to note:",
"\"The translation scheme is detailed in IRS Publication 15, \"\"Employer's Tax Guide\"\". For the 2010 version, the information is in Section 16 on Page 37. There are two ways that employers can calculate the withheld tax amount: wage bracket and percentage. Alternatively, they can also use one of the methods defined in IRS Publication 15-A. I'll assume the person making $60k/yr with 10 allowances is paid monthly ($5000/period) and married. Using the wage bracket method, the amount withheld for federal taxes would be $83 per pay period. Using the percentage method, it would be $81.23 per pay period. I don't recommend that you use this information to determine how to fill out your W-4. The IRS provides a special online calculator for that purpose, which I have always found quite accurate. Note: \"\"allowances\"\" are not the same as \"\"dependents\"\"; \"\"allowances\"\" are a more realistic estimation of your tax deductions, taking into consideration much more than just your dependents.\"",
"\"As best as I can understand, your payout is based on your AIME, which is also capped at that same $118,500, so Trump's payout should also be equivalently small, exactly proportional to this cap Not sure what you want from Bernie here, but that is correct. Is it accurate to say that Trump will be paid by social security as though his actual income was $118,500, rather than his full income? Assuming Trump does pay that much (depends on how much of his income is actually subject to the FICA/SE tax), yes, it is accurate. However I believe what confuses you is the point Bernie Sanders made about people getting the same benefit while being rich. Bernie's point was that Trump and the likes don't need the social security income, while they're still getting it. Social Security is designed (at least theoretically) to be the safety net for people of age who cannot provide for themselves, thus it is not supposed to be \"\"you get what you paid\"\" system. This is a political discussion though. Social Security system, by definition, is based on a major principle of any socialist society: we as a group should support those who cannot support themselves. Thus, Bernie's point is that we shouldn't support Trump (and the likes) at all since they don't need that money. But they should still pay the tax to allow supporting those who do need, but cannot pay in.\"",
"These are the steps I'd follow: $200 today times (1.04)^10 = Cost in year 10. The 6 deposits of $20 will be one time value calculation with a resulting year 7 final value. You then must apply 10% for 3 years (1.1)^3 to get the 10th year result. You now have the shortfall. Divide that by the same (1.1)^3 to shift the present value to start of year 7. (this step might confuse you?) You are left with a problem needing 3 same deposits, a known rate, and desired FV. Solve from there. (Also, welcome from quant.SE. This site doesn't support LATEX, so I edited the image above.)",
"If you've already used TurboTax on your 2015 taxes, you can use the numbers TurboTax gave you as your reasonable estimate. Line 4 is your estimate of total tax liability for 2015. This would be line 63 of form 1040. This is Federal income tax only, not Social Security tax. Line 5 is the total of tax payments you made last year. You should be able to read this off your W-2 forms, Box 2. It corresponds to line 74 on the 1040. Line 6 is the difference between lines 4 and 5. You can't claim a refund on the extension, so if line 5 is more than line 4, enter 0. Otherwise, subtract line 5 from line 4, and enter it in line 6. This is the amount you should send in with the form to minimize any penalty due with your taxes later. The TurboTax software can generate this extension form automatically, I believe. Also, don't forget to give a copy of this extension form to your tax preparer. He will need to know the amount you sent in.",
"You can't get there from here. This isn't the right data. Consider the following five-year history: 2%, 16%, 32%, 14%, 1%. That would give a 13% average annual return. Now compare to -37%, 26%, 15%, 2%, 16%. That would give a 4% average annual return. Notice anything about those numbers? Two of them are in both series. This isn't an accident. The first set of five numbers are actual stock market returns from the last five years while the latter five start three years earlier. The critical thing is that five years of returns aren't enough. You'd need to know not just how you can handle a bull market but how you do in a bear market as well. Because there will be bear markets. Also consider whether average annual returns are what you want. Consider what actually happens in the second set of numbers: But if you had had a steady 4% return, you would have had a total return of 21%, not the 8% that would have really happened. The point being that calculating from averages gives misleading results. This gets even worse if you remove money from your principal for living expenses every year. The usual way to compensate for that is to do a 70% stock/30% bond mix (or 75%/25%) with five years of expenses in cash-equivalent savings. With cash-equivalents, you won't even keep up with inflation. The stock/bond mix might give you a 7% return after inflation. So the five years of expenses are more and more problematic as your nest egg shrinks. It's better to live off the interest if you can. You don't know how long you'll live or how the market will do. From there, it's just about how much risk you want to take. A current nest egg of twenty times expenses might be enough, but thirty times would be better. Since the 1970s, the stock market hasn't had a long bad patch relative to inflation. Maybe you could squeak through with ten. But if the 2020s are like the 1970s, you'd be in trouble.",
"\"There's a loophole that could enable you to have it both ways. Start taking it out as soon as you are eligible. e.g. at age 62. If you decide you want more, starting at age 65, you can \"\"start fresh\"\" (at a higher level) by repaying what you took out between ages 62-64 at face value. Essentially, you can take out an interest-free loan for those years. Or so the experts at Agora Financial have told me.\"",
"If you can still work or have income to support yourself, I would wait. contrary to some media reports, Social Security has enough money to cover full benefits for a number of years to come, and there are solutions that don't involve cutting payouts. And as mentioned before it is likely you'll be grandfathered in if there are cuts.",
"\"Your SSA payments are not IRA contributions, but they're actually a tax that is earmarked to the Social Security Trust Fund. As such, no, you don't have any \"\"contributions\"\" that can be refunded: you paid a tax, and in exchange for having paid that tax you will possibly later have a benefit. However, some foreign nationals are able to convey that benefit into their national savings plan. The Social Security Administration has a FAQ page on this particular subject. Unfortunately for you, Pakistan does not have a bilateral agreement according to their list, so you may be out of luck.\"",
"I found one such tool here: Point-to-Point Returns tool",
"\"I am pretty sure you could find a number of financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number, but the rule of thumb I like best is Save a dime of every dollar. 10% (Savings means save for retirement, not vacations.) Here is a nice article from radio personality Clark Howard with some adjustments based on your age: Saving for retirement later in life? If you're getting started saving for retirement later in life, the dime out of every dollar rule won't cut it for you. So for you, The Baltimore Sun has crunched the following numbers: Jayraj has a particularly good and just as simple bit of math. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/30751/91 Your retirement and financial planning should not end with a flat percentage. In fact, the chances that any simple math formula is adequate are very low. My percentages (or Jayraj's simple math) are only starting places. If you are at the point where you are asking \"\"where do I start\"\", starting with this super easy no-brainer approach is great because the key is starting and doing it.\"",
"\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"",
"I also prefer to crunch the numbers myself. Here are some resources:",
"I thought it was such a useful suggestion that I went ahead and created them. I'm sure you're not the only one who could derive some benefit from them, I know I will. http://www.investy.com/tools When I have some additional time, I will add the option for grace-periods, but for now I wanted to get them up so you could use the calculations as-is from the article. Enjoy. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of the site they are hosted on and I wrote the code for the calculators)",
"\"I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest \"\"check cashing\"\", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear. Those who have not been within the system of poverty and desperation often do not see just how many people actively work to encourage bad decision making, with big budgets, charm, charisma, and talent. The voices of reason, trying to act as beacons to call people to take care of themselves and their future, are all too easily drowned out in the roar of a smooth and enticing operation. I personally think this is one of the greatest contributions of the movement to build personal financial health and awareness, as so many great people find ever more effective ways of pointing out the myriad ways people try to bleed your money out of you with no real concern for your welfare. Looking out for your own well-being and not being taking in by the wide array of cons and bad deals is all too often fighting against a strong societal current - as I'm sure most of our regular contributors are all too aware! With increasing desperation often comes illegal maneuvers, often quite petty in nature. Those with substance abuse issues often start reselling drugs to others to try to cover lost income or \"\"get ahead\"\", with often debilitating results on long-term earning potential if they get caught (which can include cost barriers to higher education, even if they do turn their life around). I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date). As noted above, if homelessness occurs and becomes longstanding before that, the result is generally shortened lifespan and premature death. The other major issue of health is that preventative care - from simple dentistry to basic self-care, adequate sleep and rest, a safe place to rejuvenate - is often sacrificed in the scrambling to survive and limited budget. Those who develop chronic conditions which need regular care are more severely affected. Diabetic and injury-related limb loss, as one example, are far more likely for those without regular support resources - homeless, destitute, or otherwise. Other posters have done a great job in pointing out a number of the lesser-known governmental programs, so I won't list them again. I only note the important proviso that this may be quite a bit less in total than you think. Social Security on average pays retired workers $1300 a month. It was designed to avoid an all-too-common occurrence of simple starvation, rampant homelessness, and abject poverty among a large number of elderly. No guarantee is made that you won't have to leave your home, move away from your friends and family if you live in an expensive part of the country, etc. Some people get a bit more, some people get quite a bit less. And the loss of family and friend networks - especially to such at-risk groups - can be incredibly damaging. Note also that those financially desperate will be generally pushed to take retirement at the minimum age, even though benefits would be larger and more livable if they delayed their retirement. This is an additional cost of not having other sources of savings, which is not considered by many. Well, yes, many cannot retire whether they want to or not. I cannot find statistics on this specifically, but many are indeed just unable to financially retire without considerable loss. Social Security and other government plans help avoid the most desperate scenarios, but so many aspects of aging is not covered by insurance or affordable on the limited income that aging can be a cruel and lonely process for those with no other financial means. Those with no savings are not likely to be able to afford to regularly visit children and grandchildren, give gifts on holidays, go on cruises, enjoy the best assistive care, or afford new technological devices to assist their aging (especially those too new and experimental to be covered by the insurance plans they have). What's worse - but most people do not plan for either - is that diminished mental and physical capacity can render many people unable to navigate the system successfully. As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others. Share your budgeting strategies, your plans for the future, your gentle concerns, and give of your time and resources as generously as you can - within your own set budgets and ensuring your own financial well-being. And most of all - do not so easily give up on your family and friends, and count them as life-long hopeless ne'er-do-wells. Let's all strive to be good, kind, honest, and offer non-judgmental support and advice to the best of our ability to the people we care about. It is ultimately their choice - restricted by their own experiences and abilities - but need not be fate. People regularly disappoint, but sometimes they surprise and delight. Take care of yourself, and give others the best chance you can, too.\"",
"\"Interesting question. How is social security funded? The social security system works by using current payroll taxes as funding to pay benefits to retirees. Historically there was always more money coming in then what was being paid out in benefits. This changed at the beginning of March, 2010 when social security started paying out more than it was taking in (this article estimates the exact date to be around March 3 or March 4 - the chart below has the approximate date highlighted with the red circle). Due to the baby boomer generation it is estimated that social security will now be perpetually in the red unless changes are made. The recent reduction in payroll taxes will not help social security solvency. What was done with all the extra money social security collected over the last three decades? The Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) was required to purchase special-issue US government bonds with the excess funds. The SSTF was essentially purchasing US government debt with the excess funds. This allowed congress to spend the excess funds. The special-issue funds are different then normal US treasuries in that the SSTF can redeem special-issue bonds at face value at any time (even before maturity). The SSTF is currently holding $2.5 Trillion of these special-issue bonds as assets. What next? Hell if I know. The SSTF was a major purchaser of US debt over the last few decades (to the tune of $2.5 trillion). That changed in 2010. The SSTF is no longer purchasing US debt at the same time the US government is issuing record amounts of debt. The SSTF could begin redeeming its bonds to meet payment obligations. When it redeems the bonds the US treasury must cough up the funds. Where is it the US government going to get the money especially when it is currently borrowing money at record levels? I read many articles that say that we don't have to count SSTF bond holdings as debt since we owe it to ourselves. That always makes me chuckle. The US government owes the SSTF $2.5 Trillion. I'm not the US government so don't count me in the \"\"we\"\" part of \"\"we owe it to ourselves\"\". I'm also fairly certain I will never see a dime of social security so don't count me in the \"\"ourselves\"\" portion either. Charts were obtained from here.\"",
"When you enter your expected gross income into the worksheet - just enter $360000 and leave everything else as is. That should give you the right numbers. Same for State (form DE-4).",
"How much debt do you have? Do you have a mortgage? Car loans? At the very least depending on your state 25k will be subtracted So you're left with 75k Let me know so we can make that money work for you",
"The usual, but controversial, answer to this question is a 4% withdrawal rate. This means a net worth of ($5000 * 12 months ) / 4%, i.e., $1,500,000 If you want to play with the numbers, based on historical data, you can use the FIRECalc simulator.",
"Pete, 25 years of inflation looks like 100% to me with back of napkin math. $220K will feel like $110K. In today's dollars, can you live on $110K? (Plus whatever Social Security you'll get)? My concern from what you wrote, if I'm reading it correctly, is that you have this great income, but relatively low savings until now. From the recent question Building financial independence I offered a guide to savings as it compares to income. Even shifted 5 years for a later start, and scaled for a 70-75% replacement ratio, you should be at 2X (or $440K) by now. That's not a criticism, but an observation that you've been spending at a nice clip so far. The result is less saving, of course, but also a need for a higher replacement ratio. Last, a 10% return for the next 25 years may be optimistic. I'm not forecasting doom or gloom, just a more reasonable rate of return, and wouldn't plan to see higher than 7-8% for purposes of planning. If I am wrong, (and if so, we can both laugh all the way to the bank) you can always scale back savings in 10-15 years. Or retire earlier. Note: Pete's question asks about a 40 year old working till 65, but the comment below has him 48 and planning to work until 62. 14 years of $45K deposits total less than $700K. Even at 10%, it wouldn't grow to much more than $2M, let alone $5M.",
"Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result",
"Until you find a job, I would recommend doing nothing more than a bank checking account or a checking and savings account. Some alternatives, such as savings bonds, would be okay if you were perfectly sure you did not need the money in the next six months. Consider working for a place such as McDonald's in the meantime. Once you have stable employment, there are two paths you could take. The first is a bond fund. It would provide fair market returns for the time between now and the collection of social security. The second would be a traditional annuity. You have to be careful with them. If it sounds much better than what others are offering, it is probably a scam. Your interest in an annuity is that it will pay you money for as long as you live. If you live to be 105 you will still be getting payments. A bond fund would have run out of money long ago by that time. The biggest thing for you right now is getting to when Medicare takes over from private health. Looking for any job is important right now to preserve cash. Although I do not normally recommend annuities, I do with smaller amounts of cash. It is unlikely you will ever recover this sum again and the time remaining to save is very short. The greatest challenge with an annuity is regret. You can't get the money back once you have turned it into an income stream. On the other hand, it will last as long as you live. The only important caveat is that if you are in poor health, then the bond fund would be better for you because you may not live to be very old.",
"After some thought, I follow Dave Ramsey's advice because it's simple and I can do the math in my head - no online calculator needed. :) You need Life Insurance if someone depends on your income. You can replace your income with a single lump sum of 8-10 times your current income where those who need your income, can get roughly your salary each year from the life insurance proceeds.",
"Via www.socialsecurity.gov: As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted. These estimates reflect the intermediate assumptions of the Social Security Board of Trustees in their 2009 Annual Trustees Report. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been making similar estimates for several years that tend to be somewhat more optimistic than the trustees' estimates principally because CBO assumes faster growth in labor productivity and real earnings levels for the future. Doesn't seem too optimistic from the program itself. Also, it is true that recessions end, but in our current state of being trillions of dollars in debt, does it look like things are on the upswing?",
"Good news! It will be enough if you make the most important decision after retirement; that is, the decision to live within your means. With $220,000 per year in 2015 resources, will you live in the same size home in the same location as you do now? Or will you downsize a bit and move to a town with more reasonably priced homes and lower taxes? Apply the same thinking to all of your expenses. In my opinion, making the decision to live within your means is the biggest decision you can make going into retirement."
] |
[
"\"Some details in case you are interested: Being a defined benefit kind of pension plan, the formula for your Social Security benefits isn't tied directly to FICA contributions, and I'm not aware of any calculator that performs an ROI based on FICA contributions. Rather, how much you'll get in retirement is based on your average indexed monthly earnings. Here's some information on the Social Security calculation from the Social Security Administration - Primary Insurance Amount (PIA): For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2013, or who dies in 2013 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of: (a) 90 percent of the first $791 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus (b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $791 and through $4,768, plus (c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,768. Here's an example. Of course, to calculate a benefit in the future, you'll need to calculate projected average indexed monthly earnings; more details here. You'll also need to make assumptions about what those bend points might be in the future. The average wage indexing values for calculating the AIME are available from the Social Security Administration's site, but future indexing values will also need to be projected based on an assumption about their inflation. You'll also need to project the Contribution and Benefit Base which limits the earnings used to calculate contributions and benefits. Also, the PIA calculation assumes benefits are taken at the normal retirement age. Calculating an early or late retirement factor is required to adjust benefits for another age. Then, whatever benefits you get will increase each year, because the benefit is increased based on annual changes in the cost of living. Performing the series of calculations by hand isn't my idea of fun, but implementing it as a spreadsheet (or a web page) and adding in some \"\"ROI based on FICA contributions\"\" calculations might be an interesting exercise if you are so inclined? For completeness sake, I'll mention that the SSA also provides source code for a Social Security Benefit Calculator.\"",
"There has been an abundance of articles in recent years which make it fairly clear that many participants in the Social Security system-- especially those who have started contributing recently, and going forward from that-- will experience negative rates of return. In other words, they will put in more than they will get out. Some examples of such articles: Time Magazine: But it is now official: Social Security is a lousy investment for the average worker. People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press. That AP piece, referenced by Time: People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. A piece which appeared in DailyFinance (includes a helpful graphic summary): 10 Myths About Social Security: Myth 4: Social Security Is a Good Deal for Today’s WorkersEven if there were no reduction in benefits or increase in taxes—an impossibility given Social Security’s looming financing shortfalls—Social Security is an extremely bad investment for most young workers. In fact, according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, most young workers will actually receive a negative return on their Social Security taxes— they will get less in benefits than they paid in taxes. Some studies indicate that a 30- year-old two-earner couple with average income will lose as much as $173,500. That actual loss does not even consider the opportunity cost, what workers might have earned if they had been able to invest their taxes in real assets that yield a positive return. In fact, a study by financial analyst William Shipman demonstrates that, if a 25-year-old worker were able to privately invest the money he or she currently pays in Social Security taxes, the worker would receive retirement benefits three to six times higher than under Social Security. Has that answered your question?",
"The social security administration has a webpage to get your Social Security estimate. It replaces the yearly estimate they used to mail everybody. It shows the amount you paid for social security and medicare and what they estimate you will receive at your retirement age. They also discuss disability benefits. Everybody should do this every year. Though it does take a few months to get the previous years numbers updated into the system. If you notice a problem with the money they think you paid into the system in a particular year, you can send them an old W-2 and get the numbers corrected."
] |
3254
|
Why do people buy US dollars on the black market?
|
[
"484891",
"443511",
"475756"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"443511",
"475756",
"484891",
"177264",
"190347",
"161727",
"171228",
"227300",
"525056",
"255769",
"68975",
"124862",
"359405",
"254876",
"491225",
"575359",
"136860",
"254405",
"526270",
"97059",
"506818",
"183149",
"148454",
"345725",
"351805",
"402006",
"417509",
"76909",
"44492",
"176975",
"3366",
"372374",
"235322",
"42951",
"373853",
"292714",
"273478",
"395246",
"247542",
"447447",
"240996",
"310250",
"572523",
"117010",
"300948",
"248817",
"160625",
"508766",
"215708",
"14875",
"241631",
"90845",
"201183",
"166870",
"19618",
"595642",
"399234",
"138892",
"110360",
"478065",
"409403",
"362974",
"549773",
"76907",
"486418",
"482590",
"592251",
"313706",
"180972",
"343913",
"116921",
"232870",
"146478",
"42463",
"37662",
"26479",
"386909",
"106421",
"490113",
"324546",
"317667",
"393249",
"540451",
"435230",
"575495",
"167589",
"564828",
"499875",
"505763",
"52643",
"549556",
"389005",
"182195",
"202570",
"557550",
"568730",
"322456",
"183331",
"443683",
"506780"
] |
[
"\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \"\"black\"\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\"",
"\"As a Venezuelan who used to buy USD, I believe there is not better explanation than the one given to someone who actually lives and works here in Venezuela. Back in 1998 when Hugo Chavez took the presidency, we had a good economy. Fast forward 10 years laters and you could see how poor management, corruption and communist measurements had wreaked havoc in our Economy. It was because most of the money (USD) coming in Venezuela were not invested here but instead, given away to \"\"pimp countries\"\" like Cuba. Remember, communism lasts while you have money. Back then we had an Oil Barrel going over 100$ and crazy amounts of money were coming in the country. However, little to no money was invested in the country itself. That is why some of the richest people with bank account in Swiss are Venezuelans who stole huge amounts of Oil Money. I know this is a lot to take in, but all of this led to Venezuelan economy being the worst in The American Continent and because there is not enough money inside the country to satisfy the inner market, people would pay overprice to have anything that is bought abroad. You have to consider that only a very small amount of people can actually buy USD here in Venezuela. Back in 2013 I was doing it, I could buy about 80 usd/month with my monthly income. However, nowdays that's nearly impossible for about 99% of Venezuelans. To Illustrate. Minimum wage = 10.000 bolivares / month Black market exchange rate (As of January 2016) = 900bs per 1usd 10.000/900 = 11,11 usd. <<< that is what about 50% of Venezuelans earn every month. That's why this happens: http://i.imgur.com/dPOC2e3.jpg The guy is holding a huge stack of money of the highest Venezuelan note, which he got from exchanging only 100 usd. I am a computer science engineer, the monthly income for someone like me is about 30.000 bolivares --- so that is about 34$ a month. oh dear! So finally, answering your question Q: Why do people buy USD even at this unfavorable rate? A: There are many reasons but being the main 2 the following 1.- Inflation in Venezuela is crazy high. The inflation from 2014-2015 was 241%. Which means that having The Venezuelan currency (Bolivares) in your bank account makes no sense... in two weeks you won't be able to buy half of the things you used to with the same amount of money. 2.- A huge amount of Venezuelans dream with living abroad (me included) why, you ask? well sir, it is certain that life in this country is not the best: I hope you can understand better why people in 3rd world countries and crappy economies buy USD even at an unfavorable rate. The last question was: Q: Why would Venezuela want to block the sale of dollars? A: Centralized currency management is an Economic Measure that should last 6 months tops. (This was Argentina's case in 2013) but at this point, reverting that would take quite a few years. However, Turukawa's wikipedia link explains that very well. Regards.\"",
"\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \"\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\"\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\"",
"\"I suspect that to \"\"make money\"\" it isn't enough to know the current value (\"\"high currency\"\"): to make money you'd need to know/guess/predict/bet on the future change in value: will the currency value go higher in the future? Or will it come down again? Or will it stay the same? Everybody knows the current value, so that by itself isn't enough knowledge to make money from. That said, if you know you're going to need American dollars in the future (if you have future expenses which need to be paid in American dollars), then now might be a good time to buy those dollars.\"",
"\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \"\"root value\"\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\"",
"Well, sure, why else would you buy them? Is it illegal now to accept money *from* PDVSA? Because I know my company does business with them, and if we are going to ship what we built for them, we need to see the money.",
"Weather events and aging infrastructure. Cash will buy gasoline, food and water when there is no power or telephone connectivity to process ATMs and credit cards.",
"Typically, the higher interest rates in local currency cover about the potential gain from the currency exchange rate change - if not, people would make money out of it. However, you only know this after the fact, so either way you are taking a risk. Depending on where the local economy goes, it is more secure to go with US$, or more risky. Your guess is as good as anyone. If you see a chance for a serious meltdown of the local economy, with 100+% inflation ratios and possibly new money, you are probably better off with US$. On the other hand, if the economy develops better than expected, you might have lost some percentage of gain. Generally, investing in a more stable currency gets you slightly less, but for less risk.",
"Devaluation is a relative term, so if you want to protect yourself against devaluation of your currency against dollars - just buy dollars. Inflation is something you cannot protect yourself against because it is something that describes the purchasing power of the money. You will still need to purchase, and usually with money. A side effect of inflation is usually devaluation against other currencies. So one of the ways to deal with inflation is not to keep the money in your currency over time, and only convert from a more stable currency when you need to make purchases. Another way is to invest in something tangible that can easily be sold (for example, jewelery and precious metals, but it has other risks). Re whats legal and illegal in your country - we don't really know because you didn't tell what country that is to begin with, but the usual channels like travelers' checks or bank transfer should work. Carrying large amounts of cash are usually either illegal or strictly regulated.",
"Transfer your savings to a dollar-based CD. Or even better, buy some gold on them.",
"Just because pricing isn't tracked, doesn't mean the dollar price is not backed up by oil (they are others factors involved, of course). But the very fact that OPEC, the worlds largest oil cartel, currently only trade in dollars, effectively means that everyone who wants oil needs dollars to buy it. Therefore, to function in modern global economy, dollars are always needed regardless of exchange rates or interest rates on bonds. In reality the amount debt the US has backed up against its currency wouldn't hold for any other country, apart from US, with its petrodollar status.",
"\"To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the \"\"real economy\"\" is to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to \"\"sit on\"\" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me.\"",
"> Hence all businesses in the US, no matter what currency they make money in, have to buy USD to pay their taxes. So that means that means other currencies are valueless since X government doesn't see Y currency as a means of payment? Also, you don't buy so much as trade but potatoes potatos.",
"It's already gone through a big correction, but another crash is a possibility. But if the US economy keeps eroding it's going to become more of a safe haven. Also Goldman Sachs sees it as an investment option, so that's a sign financial houses are interested (and not a good sign for the dollar).",
"You need wealth in order to have a sovereign wealth fund. The countries that do it are usually petro states such as Norway and Saudi Arabia. Since petrol is in dollars, they sell oil and get dollars. They need a way to then spend this money, hence the wealth fund.",
"First question: Any, probably all, of the above. Second question: The risk is that the currency will become worth less, or even worthless. Most will resort to the printing press (inflation) which will tank the currency's purchasing power. A different currency will have the same problem, but possibly less so than yours. Real estate is a good deal. So are eggs, if you were to ask a Weimar Germany farmer. People will always need food and shelter.",
"\"Generally speaking, so-called \"\"hard assets\"\" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a \"\"harder\"\" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors.\"",
"\"That oil is traded in USD makes for extra demand and thus a stronger dollar with more purchasing power. It's not really economics that are the issue though - many might argue a weakened dollar might help the US economy (cheaper exports). The real issue is power. These gold backed securities make it so that certain countries can get around US sanctions. Not to mention that controlling the currency that oil is traded in means the US can devalue their currency to gain an advantage in the event of a shortage. Also, because petroleum is traded in dollars, this means treasury bonds are a natural place to store wealth for oil producers. High demand for these bonds makes it cheap for the US government to borrow and easier to make interest payments thus making T-Bonds a \"\"safe\"\" asset.\"",
">And a lot of people that have communist party wealth are afraid that there will be an uprising against them so they are preparing escape plans. My guess would be more along these lines (albeit maybe a bit less dramatic). There were a lot of dubious things that Party members did over the past hundred years to stash away cash for themselves. Siphoning off public resources, investing with them, and as long as the investments made money, keeping the results, for example, played a significant role in some of the complaints that farmers had about local officials. If they keep money in China, and there's some sort of fallout or charges that go through, my guess is that it's a lot easier to seize a corrupt official's resources. On the other hand, if you just bought a bunch of land in the US...that's a lot less easily-seizable and harder to immediately get ahold of for Chinese officials. There's also the more legit possibility that China quite arguably has a real estate bubble in investable real estate, and the result is that if you want to invest in land and reduce your risk to a bubble deflating, you want to do so overseas.",
"The dollar is the reserve currency of choice because the full faith and credit of the US is big, liquid, and stable compared to any currently-available alternative. The Euro and Yuan are big enough to displace the dollar (and maybe the Yen), but any fears about the dollar being subject to fickle whims of politics and policy are significantly worse with those options.",
"\"You are violating the Uncovered Interest Rate Parity. If Country A has interest rate of 4% and Country B has interest rate of 1%, Country B's expected exchange rate must appreciate by 3% compared to spot. The \"\"persistent pressure to further depreciate\"\" doesn't magically occur by decree of the supreme leader. If there is room for risk free profit, the entire Country B would deposit their money at Country A, since Country A has higher interest rate and \"\"appreciates\"\" as you said. The entire Country A will also borrow their money at Country B. The exception is Capital Control. Certain people are given the opportunity to get the risk free profit, and the others are prohibited from making those transactions, making UIP to not hold.\"",
"> Trade with who? Intra asia trade. China is worlds largest trading partner. (why would anybody in asia pay middle man, american banks, just to trade with themselves? Using Yuan is instant 1.5% saving.) Dollar is mainly for financial and trade with US based countries. Even euro is less hassle than using dollar by now for asian country.",
"Venezuela is a command economy, and one that isn't doing terribly well right now, with rampant inflation in the several hundred percent range. As such, they've tried to limit or eliminate exchanges between their currency and foreign currencies. Currently, they allow a limited amount of exchange at fixed rates (according to a Bloomberg article, those vary between 6.3, 13.5, and 200) for certain purchases, and then otherwise disallow exchange between the currencies. However, there is a black market (illegal in Venezuela, but legal in the US) which allows the price to float, and is much higher - 800 or so according to that article from last year. A recent Valuewalk article lists the black market rate at closer to 900, and slightly different official rates. It's worth a read as it explains the different official rates in detail: Currently there are four exchange rates: First is the official one, called CENCOEX, and which charges 6.30 bolivars to the dollar. It is only intended for the importation of food and medicine. The next two exchange rates are SICAD I (12 bolivars per dollar) and SICAD 2 (50 bolivars per dollar); they assign dollars to enterprises that import all other types of goods. Because of the fact that US dollars are limited, coupons are auctioned only sporadically; usually weekly in the case of SICAD 1 and daily for SICAD 2. However, due to the economic crisis, no dollars have been allocated for these foreign exchange transactions and there hasn’t been an auction since August 18, 2015. As of November 2015, the Venezuelan government held only $16 billion in foreign exchange reserves, the lowest level in over ten years, and an amount that will dry up completely in four years time at the current rate of depletion. The last and newest exchange rate is the SIMADI, currently at 200 bolivars per dollar. This rate is reserved for the purchase and sale of foreign currency to individuals and businesses.",
"\"Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your \"\"rarer\"\" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible.\"",
"\"They acquired the debt from the VZ Central Bank. Providing the Central Bank with dollars will help them control inflation. The argument against the deal is colossally stupid, and basically rests on the idea that the world community just needs to let VZ get as shitty and miserable as possible so the people will overthrow the government. Anything that eases the pain, like injecting US Dollars into the central bank, is therefore seen as \"\"propping up the government\"\"\"",
"I can see that dollars are more useful than Yuan (after all, in my example, Russia may wish to buy from countries other than China). What proportion of, say, international trade by Japan with countries other than the US is conducted in dollars?",
"\"No. Suppose you have 100 Canadian dollars and the exchange rate is 2 CAD = 1 USD. You use your 100 CAD to purchase 50 USD (in your bank account that is in USD). Some time later the Canadian dollar grows stronger, so that now 1 CAD = 1 USD. If you now withdraw your 50 USD and get Canadian dollars, you will receive 50 CAD. You have lost half your money. If you want to make money on currency exchange rates (which is a risky plan), you should buy the currency that is cheap (i.e., \"\"weak\"\"). If, say, oil is very cheap, you don't make money by selling oil; you buy it and sell it later when the price goes up. Likewise, if the Canadian dollar isn't worth much and the US dollar is, you should buy Canadian dollars, not US dollars, hoping to sell them later when the exchange rate is more favorable. See also this similar question.\"",
"I don't get the big deal. Someone has to buy it. And with Europe scaring people there's not much choice out there. Unless Americans start buying more or they restrict sales to citizens, this is going to keep going. At least someone wants them",
"Bitcoins are very liquid. They can be sold or spent very easily. And you don't depend on the banks being solvent to keep your Bitcoin funds, since you can keep them yourself in an offline wallet. I'm not sure what's the legality of Bitcoin in Russia, though.",
"\"Large multinationals who do business in multiple locales hedge even \"\"stable\"\" currencies like the Euro, Yen and Pound - because a 5-10% adverse move in an exchange rate is highly consequential to the bottom line. I doubt any of them are going to be doing significant amounts of business accepting a currency with a 400% annual range. And why should they? It's nothing more than another unit of payment - one with its own problems.\"",
"The best would be to spend the money in US dollars. Order something from eBay/Amazon, even for resale, or pay someone in the US for services that you don't care where they're coming from, etc.",
"\"More to the point, once you've gone through the trouble to accumulate a hoard of dollar balances, what *else* are you going to do with it? If you're not going to buy goods and services for sale in dollars, you may as well shift some of those dollar balances into an interest-bearing account, which is what \"\"buying US debt\"\" is.\"",
"Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.",
"Currency speculation is a very risky investment strategy. But when you are looking for which currency to denote your savings in, looking at the unit value is quite pointless. What is important is how stable the currency is in the long term. You certainly don't want a currency which is prone to inflation, because it means any savings denoted in that currency constantly lose purchasing power. Rather look for a currency which has a very low inflation rate or is even deflating. Another important consideration is how easy it is to exchange between your local currency and the currency you want to own. A fortune in some exotic currency is worth nothing when no local bank will exchange it into your local currency. The big reserve currencies like US Dollar, Euro, Pound Sterling and Japanes yen are usually safe bets, but there are regional differences which can be easily converted and which can't. When the political relations between your country and the countries which manage these currencies is unstable, this might change over night. To avoid these problems, rather invest into a diverse portfolio of commodities and/or stocks. The value of these kinds of investments will automatically adjust to inflation rate, so you won't need to worry about currency fluctuation.",
"This is bullshit. The US government requires taxes to be paid in USD. There's your intrinsic value. If you want to be compliant with the federal law, your business and you as an individual are required to convert assets or labor into USD to pay them.",
"Yes, if all my savings were in Euro, I would absolutely be converting everything to US dollars, and possibly some gold. You probably don't want to sit around with lots of Euros while watching the shit hit fan. Talk to your bank, possibly they can open a US dollar bank account in your own country for you. Definitely any bank that has an international presence, like HSBC, should be able to do this for you. And if not US dollars, British Pounds would also be another option.",
"The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60",
"Basically, all the same reasons you might not want to keep piles of your own country's cash, plus or minus the exchange rate question. Banks exist for good reasons. You probably want to use them unless you are explicitly playing the exchange rate game -- And if that's what you want, there are probably better ways to do it. If you need help not touching the money, CDs or other term accounts might give you enough disincentive. Or might not.",
"This is exactly what they are doing. Examples would be the BRICS trading bloc and the ASEAN equivalent. Along with the trade agreements that many countries have made with Iran, all of which completely bypass the American Dollar. America needs to recognize that for many countries in the world, dumping their excess reserves in US Treasury Bonds is not in their best interest any longer. Especially considering the fiscal situation in the US, and the policies that are used to manipulate bond rates. (These policies are cross aisle, this is not a political statement) American Imperial might is finite. Americans ignore this at their own peril. Edit: I would also add the regulatory and legal uncertainty in the US is also a problem. By that I mean things like MF Global, Peregrine Financial, Knight Capital among others.",
"\">However, they must be willing to accept it. If you attempt to pay them in USD, however, they can't refuse. And this is precisely the problem. People should be allowed to contract in whatever money they want to. If someone changes his mind and says \"\"oh I want the dollar-equivalent instead of Francs\"\", that change shouldn't be honored. Forcing people to accept dollars creates an artificial demand for dollars. >So why not start attempting to pay for things in semiconducters? If people voluntarily choose to, what's the problem?\"",
"If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.",
"Legal tender laws and capital gains tax mean that other commodities are at an unfair legal disadvantage to local fiat currency. In other words, governments are using taxes and regulations to manipulate the market and create artificial demand for the currency their central bank has a monopoly on the creation of.",
"well, probably taxed a little. and taxed when they spend it, and taxed again when it is spent again. like fikirte said, this is foreign money. if the americans want access to it they have to make it easy. they've done it in the past http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/the-portfolio-interest-exemption-53348889 sorry there is a lack of sources in real english.",
"\">Because selling gold and buying dollars has an effect on the market: it reduces the value of gold, and increases the value of dollars. Ah, but with all the business you'd do in gold, you'd constantly be increasing the value of gold. Think of it! I'm pretty sure that most people want to be paid in dollars not simply because of the fact that their taxes have to be paid in it, but because of it's universality. Not everyone has a use for a sack of barley, or a fish, or some gold dust. But you can buy whatever you want with an amount of dollars. >As the value of gold increases over time, the government taxes the increased value as \"\"capital gains tax\"\". It's only taxed at a 15.5% rate, IIRC. You'd probably come out ahead.\"",
"A lot of Chinese are buying U.S. property for the sake of diversifying. A lot of Chinese still have a the grass is greener on the other side mentality when it comes to the U.S. They know very little about how many people on the U.S. are on food stamps. And a lot of people that have communist party wealth are afraid that there will be an uprising against them so they are preparing escape plans. edit: I think it's likely that the elite here in the U.S. also have escape plans.",
"$USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD. Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs. So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would). No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services.",
"I always find this funny. How can government bonds be in attractive and currency be attractive? With monetary policy America guarantees that it can't default on debt. The only thing that can happen which breaks this is if the government prints itself out of debt. In which case not only will you bonds be worthless but so will your cash. So to all the investors with boats of cash, you are trading one problem for the same problem. The only difference is you can hold the second problem in your hands. Fools.",
"You can, and people do. More a Japanese thing than a US thing but I guess they've had super low interest rates for longer. Its called 'the carry trade' and is the reason the NZD is artificially high (which as an NZ exporter I find kinda annoying). Particularly popular with the so called 'japanese housewife' investor. It also causes the NZD to plunge every time the US stock market dips - because the NZD is held mostly as a moderately risky investment, not for trade purposes. Presumably in a down market hedge funds need to cash in their carry trades to cover margins or something? As another person said the primary risk is currency fluctuations. Unfortunately such currencies are highly volatile and tied to stock market volatility. tl;dr It'd be nice if you all quit treating my national currency as an investment opportunity - then i could get on with my business as an New Zealand exporter ;-)",
"I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.",
"You should be able to convert this officially. As per RBI regulation an individual can hold upto USD 2000 eq for an unlimited period of time. See the point 14 on RBI FAQ's for Fx.",
"\"Lmao so the fact that the government \"\"could possibly switch currency\"\" negates the current demand they create? The government creates a demand for USD. That alone is enough to say dollars have intrinsic value. Add to that the fact that there are trillions of dollars in outstanding government bonds that are required to be paid out in USD when they mature. Changing the currency would be considered a form of default by many and could have massive negative consequence far outweighing the benefits of the rapid adoption of blockchain. Even if they stopped issuing bonds today they would still have ones maturing until 2047. It's like saying bananas don't have monetary value because people might decide to stop buying them. Yeah, it's true they would lose value if that happened but as of today it's just not true\"",
"I don't see countries switching to the USD, I see countries moving away from it. The US has the largest peace time debt ever, is not being even close to fiscally responsible (approving ~4 trillion budget!) and is faced with 100 trillion in future commitments (social security, medicare) with a workforce (tax base) that is decreasing as the baby boomers retire. When the US cannot meet those obligations (and most experts agree there is no hope of that anymore) they will have to print money and devalue the currency.",
"Yes. But the question is do you want to have gold? If you are going to buy gold anyway, and if you can get a good conversion rate between USD:gold, then why not? If you are looking to use your earnings on things that you cannot buy using gold, then I'd recommend you take USD instead. Have fun!",
"\"US currency, today, can be used for useful things like selling a car, but there's nothing stopping you for trading it for something else. On edit; I've been thinking about this, and I think that the problem is that currency exists as a. edium to pay taxes. The usefulness of it for non-governmental transactions is a secondary benefit. However, without them full faith and credit ofma government somewhere the currency would be worthless. For example, see Zimbbwean currency or any non-convertible currency. *extra edit--altogether too many \"\"m's.\"\"\"",
"It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.",
"It's called carry-trade. They can borrow from governments that have 0% int rates, exchange it for dollars, and then buy u.s. treasuries. Japan would never ever raise their interest rates as their economy runs on keynesian fumes.",
"The other obvious suggestion I guess is to buy cheap stocks and bonds (maybe in a dollar denominated fund). If the US dollar rises you'd then get both the fund's US gains plus currency gains. However, no guarantee the US dollar will rise or when. Perhaps a more prudent approach is to simply diversify. Buy both domestic and foreign stocks and bonds. Rebalance regularly.",
"Mainly because I have it and you don't, I can make you do stuff for it because more of us perceive its value than bother about the paper you are holding. Picture if you will a moment in time, when the paper you are holding, represented the amount of gold you had at home, as time went by you spent all your gold and the amount the paper represented, became less and less and the amount of lunch you could buy with it became less and less. Today the day has arrived, that you have no gold left and what your paper represents is an empty coffer . . Move along . .people who can pay for their lunch are waiting and look, the paper they hold represents gold they have.",
"Less than 2 1/2% of all US currency actually exists. The rest is digital entries. In a financial crisis you'll need lots of rare cash. Twenty dollar bills are the best choice. Stash as many as you can afford to. Best to stash in a anchored security safe. And for goodness sakes, don't tell anyone.",
"Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant",
"Moronic question I'm sure. Listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast and they mentioned that the vast majority of financial transactions in China and even North Korea are denominated in US dollars. They go on to say that this means they HAVE to go through US banks giving the US tremendous leverage. Can someone explain this whole idea to me. 1. Why do transactions done in US dollars have to go through US banks? 2. Does that leverage the US has just come from our ability to prevent transactions from occurring if they are run through our banks?",
"Arguably, the only reason the US can print dollar without massive repercussions on devaluing it is because of it is the world's reserve currency, backed by oil. This has allowed to US to build the world's biggest and most powerful army because they can easily borrow money to fund it. Everyone needs oil for their economy, therefore everyone needs dollars...",
"Would it be a reasonable idea to open a savings account in an overseas bank? For the risks you mention, this may not be a good idea for individual. Note HNI / Companies routinely keep funds in various overseas account. For individual the amount of paperwork [reporting in US etc] and fees etc would be high. Plus in adverse conditions, access to this funds would still be stringent and restricted. Some of the other options you can try are Generally for the risks you mention, there is very little an individual can do except to take it if & when it comes.",
"One option is buying physical gold. I don't know about Irish law -- but from an economic standpoint, putting funds in foreign currencies would also be an option. You could look into buying shares in an ETF tracking foreign currency as an alternative to direct money exchange.",
"\"I still don't understand this \"\"analysis.\"\" Even when the US became the world's largest economy in 1880, the British Pound remained the reserve currency of choice until the 1950s, some seventy years later! Investors prefer stability and property rights and the US has both, especially when considering the alternatives, i.e. Euro tax takings on bank deposits in Cyprus. What about the yuan? China may have recently surpassed US economic power, but it is very likely in the midst of a massive credit bubble. China has also been fudging some of their numbers and in many cases, chooses not to keep economic records at all. The fact that many Chinese elites themselves are buying property in Vancouver and the US as a safe harbor also does not bode well for their systemic problems IMO. I'm sticking with the dollar for now.\"",
"Currencies don't have intrinsic value. Just because you have to pay taxes in USD does not mean it has intrinsic value. The government could theoretically switch currency every second, not that that will ever happen. But yes the USD is supported by the US government and that's like a safety net for the value of the USD. Bitcoin doesn't have a government accepting bitcoin in taxes (except maybe liberland or something) so BTC doesn't have that safenet. But with such a liquid market and millions of buyorders bitcoin doesn't really need a safenet. There will always be demand. I prefer a scarce currency with growing demand than an inflationary currency backed by a corrupt government that loses value over time.",
"Use other currencies, if available. I'm not familiar with the banking system in South Africa; if they haven't placed any currency freezes or restrictions, you might want to do this sooner than later. In full crises, like Russian and Ukraine, once the crisis worsened, they started limiting purchases of foreign currencies. PayPal might allow currency swaps (it implies that it does at the bottom of this page); if not, I know Uphold does. Short the currency Brokerage in the US allow us to short the US Dollar. If banks allow you to short the ZAR, you can always use that for protection. I looked at the interest rates in the ZAR to see how the central bank is offsetting this currency crisis - WOW - I'd be running, not walking toward the nearest exit. A USA analogy during the late 70s/early 80s would be Paul Volcker holding interest rates at 2.5%, thinking that would contain 10% inflation. Bitcoin Comes with significant risks itself, but if you use it as a temporary medium of exchange for swaps - like Uphold or with some bitcoin exchanges like BTC-e - you can get other currencies by converting to bitcoin then swapping for other assets. Bitcoin's strength is remitting and swapping; holding on to it is high risk. Commodities I think these are higher risk right now as part of the ZAR's problem is that it's heavily reliant on commodities. I looked at your stock market to see how well it's done, and I also see that it's done poorly too and I think the commodity bloodbath has something to do with that. If you know of any commodity that can stay stable during uncertainty, like food that doesn't expire, you can at least buy without worrying about costs rising in the future. I always joke that if hyperinflation happened in the United States, everyone would wish they lived in Utah.",
"Currently many countries (and non-government bodies) hold dollars to facilitate trade. If the dollar is no longer used in their trade, then they no longer have a reason to hold those dollars. If every other country starts to dump their dollar holdings into the world currency markets, the number of dollars floating around in those market would shoot up. The massive supply increase of dollars (we're assuming these other countries are holding massive amounts of dollars) would lead to a large drop in value of the dollar - lots more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Every purchase will become much more expensive for anyone still buying with dollars, including the American government trying to buy expensive military equipment - unless the US government also switches to using something else to purchase military supplies.",
"Yeah, I heard about that! That's virtually the same thing (in a different form) as a new currency as it's backed solely by the state's ability to uphold its value, but yes, given that it's trading for pennies on the dollar it's no surprise the USD is the primary currency there. It will be very interesting to see the policies that Mugabe's successor (his ex-wife or #2) puts in place. Either way I bet they fail, but hope they don't and actually make the necessary reforms to help the country succeed.",
"It could be a a way to preserve the value of your money, but depends upon various factors. If a country defaults, and it leads to hyper-inflation, by definition that means that money loses its purchasing power. In even simpler terms, it cannot buy as much tomorrow as I could today. Therefore people can be incented to either hoard physical goods, or other non-perishable items. Real-estate may well be such an item. If you are resident in the country, you have to live somewhere. It is possible that a landlord might try to raise rent beyond what your job is willing to pay. Of course, in a house, you might have a similar situation with utilities like electricity... Assuming some kind of re-stabilization of the economy and currency, even with several more zeros on the end, it is conceivable that the house would subsequently sell for an appropriately inflation adjusted amount, as other in-demand physical goods may. Lots of variables. Good Luck.",
"Because we need energy in the form of oil. If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves. Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?",
"\"Iraq is a US vassal/puppet state. I'm not sure what 500 South Vietnamese Dong were worth in 1972, but today the paper currency is worth $10 in mint condition. I'd suggest blackjack or craps as an alternate \"\"investment\"\".\"",
"Quite a lot of reasons but mostly supply and demand. Some areas of Africa are extremely remote and just don't have things there that some of the population now want. I would guess it won't be like this for much longer but right now it is and i have met plenty of people taking advantage of that fact.",
"The idea being that if / when the CAD recovers I could see a gain of ~30%. That is the big if, maybe the USD and CAD will return to their previous exchange rates, maybe the CAD will fall further, you just don't know. You should try to keep a diversified pool of investments, that may include some cash in various currencies but unless you think you will need the money in the next few years it should probablly be mostly in other things. If you do think you will need the money in the next few years it should probablly be in a currency that is stable relative to the things you are likely to need it for.",
"Traveller's cheques. That's exactly what they were intended for. Their usage has dropped a lot since everyone can use ATMs in foreign countries, but they still exist.",
"Perhaps the world does not like a Global economy dominated by a Fucking Moron, Perhaps the world does not see a future in a Jew dominated Fed that can print whatever it thinks sounds like fun and then lend it to the US treasury in an insurmountable mountain of debt. Gosh . . .isn't the FED supposed to be pretending to unwind all that 0 market valuation crap from 2008 ? I wonder if there are even any houses after a decade",
"I'm in Argentina and they limit the daily withdrawals to 1000 pesos a day (about $220). The gov't just put limits on withdrawing dollars here, which is how Argentines have typically saved their money. The people are NOT happy.",
"Further evidence that the love of money is the root of all evil. Money is useless if not transformed into something material. Apparently Americans are duped by the wealth effect. If their portfolio has high numbers they feel rich and impoverish themselves by spending more of their income even though it is just ink and paper unless transformed into something tangible. Fools. The hoarders of money must be afraid they would run out, expose they have no usefull skills and have to do actual work for a living.",
"\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"",
"At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.",
"Sure thing - Treasuries Bonds/Bills are what the US Gov uses to borrow. However it's slightly different than taking out a loan. It's basically an agreement to give (repay) a set sum of money at a certain time in the future in exchange for a sum of funding that's determined by market forces (supply & demand). The difference between today's price and the payment in the future is the interest. For example (completely made up numbers): - Today is 08/05/2017 - The government issues a bond that say it will pay who ever owns this bond $105 on 08/05/**2018** - The market decides that $105 from the US government paid a year from now is worth $100 today. In other words the US Government is borrowing for one year at a rate of 5% (105 - 100) / 100 = .05 = 5% Now consider Saudi Arabia's petroleum company, Aramco. Because petroleum is traded in dollars, when Aramco makes a sale, its paid in USD. Some of that is going to be reinvested into the company, some paid out in dividends to share holders but inevitably some of that will be saved someplace where it can make interest. Because treasuries are traded/issued in dollars and because Aramco's businesses deals primarily in dollars, treasuries are the natural place to store that savings, especially because the market considers them extremely safe. If they exchange the USD into the Saudi currency to store the money in Saudi assets, Aramco is subject to *exchange rate risk*. If the riyal depreciates relative to the dollar, Aramco will lose wealth on the exchange back to dollars when they go to move those funds back into their business. It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this. So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%. (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9% And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful.",
"Considering the historical political instability of your nation, real property may have higher risk than normal. In times of political strife, real estate plummets, precisely when the money's needed. At worst, the property may be seized by the next government. Also, keeping the money within the country is even more risky because bank accounts are normally looted by either the entering gov't or exiting one. The safest long run strategy with the most potential for your family is to get the money out into various stable nations with good history of protecting foreign investors such as Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong. Once out, the highest expected return can be expected from internationally diversified equities; however, it should be known that the value will be very variant year to year.",
"\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \"\"believe it is money\"\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\"",
"Not really practical... The real problem is getting the money into a form where you *can* invest it in something. It's not like E\\*Trade will let you FedEx them a briefcase of sequentially numbered hundreds and just credit your account, no questions asked. That **is** the hard part.",
"Money, like anything else, is subject to the demands of people. There are times when money is in high demand. This drives up its value. People in Japan want cash because they have an immediate need to buy emergency supplies as well as rebuild and replace damaged items. This is why the yen strengthened. This is probably why the market plummeted as people liquidated some of their stocks to get cash. The Bank Of Japan (BOJ) will not stand for a rising yen, however. It is pulling a Bernanke and printing yen in an effort to keep it weak.",
"Public debt and risk of currency devaluation are two very, very different things. Until the BRICS are able to buy commodities on a significant scale using a market basket of their own currencies, the USD will remain one of the (if not the) safest currencies in the world.",
"Dollars are bits you don't control. The banking system has your bits and they can charge you more bits to move your bits around. At any point, they could freeze your accounts and suddenly you have no bits. It's all designed to make it so you can't function in society without them controlling your bits.",
"Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)",
"Because people trade currency in exchange for goods and services. They can easily prevent competition by violent means or by having control of the market through market share. Price can be controlled by the threat of super low prices in order to drive out competing businesses.",
"> it makes US investments even better because the rate of return gets boosted higher. Except it doesn't. Do they really teach this? Does anyone have a link to textbook thinking on this subject, because that's a blatant lie and might explain why so many people understand the dynamics at work here completely wrong.",
"Petrodollars are specifically dollars earned from oil revenue. They are not synonymous with the US dollar. It should be clear that the US dollar is not backed by oil since we just recently witnessed the priced in US dollars drop precipitously while the US dollar gained against a basket of currencies.",
"This crisis just shows why the dollar has no chance in my lifetime of loding it's dominance. Russia is a major world player, were taking what seemed right steps to move forward economically, socially, politically. Yet this crisis shows the truth. Media controlled by the kremlin. Taking actions in other countries. No fear of economic hardships due to political issues. Who else could supplant the US dollar? China is in the same boat as Russia. Still not a free society. SO what's left? The Euro. But it's got a long way to go to show it can remain stable. Give it 50 years and get back to me.",
"why should i have to make something with my cash? i'll fuking hold it and face losing a few percentage of purchasing power. i'd rather have liquity in these peril times. besides, people that held cash in 2008 had a once in a life time buying opportunity when all assets fell 60-90%.",
"I think you are asking quite a few questions here; If you have Rs 10000, its better you get it converted in India before you leave. Most Banks and Exchange houses like Western Union would take Rupees and Give you USD. What do they do with USD, there are other who give them USD and need Rupees. They make a spread in this process. If you are getting a salary in USD in US, whenever you want to transfer money to India, the Banks or Remittance services like Western Union would take USD from your US Account and Transfter equivalent Money into your Bank Account in India in Rupees. They will tell the exchange rate applicable. Depending on why visa type & the duration you are going, your company should be able to tell you your tax liabilities in the US. Read similar questions here to get a general idea.",
"First, currencies are not an investment; they are a medium of exchange; that is, you use currency to buy goods and services and/or investments. The goods and services you intend to buy in your retirement are presumably going to be bought in your country; to buy these you will need your country's currency. The investments you intend to buy now require the currency of whatever country they are located in. If you want to buy shares in Microsoft you need USD; if you want shares in BHP-Billiton you need AUD or GBP (It is traded on two exchanges), if you want property in Kuwait you need KWD and if you want bonds in your country you need IDR. When you sell these later to buy the goods and services you were saving for you need to convert from whatever currency you get for selling them into whatever currency you need to buy. When you invest you are taking on risk for which you expect to be compensated for - the higher the risk you take the better the returns had better be because there is always the chance that they will be negative, right down to losing it all if you are unlucky. There is no 100% safe investment; if you want to make sure you get full value for your money spend it all right now! If you invest overseas then, in addition to all the other investment risks, you are adding currency risk as well. That is, the risk that when you redeem your investments the overseas currency will have fallen relative you your currency. One of the best ways of mitigating risk is diversification; which allows the same return at a lower risk (or a higher return at the same risk). A pure equity portfolio is not diversified across asset classes (hopefully it is diversified across the equities). Equities are a high risk-high yield class; particularly in a developing economy like Indonesia. If you are very young with a decades long investment horizon this may be OK but even then, a diversified portfolio will probably offer better rewards at the same risk. Diversifying into local cash, bonds and property with a little foreign equities, bonds and property will serve you better than worrying about the strength of the IDR. Oh, and pay a professional for some real advice rather than listening to strangers on the internet.",
">We collectively agree that a dollar has a certain value. That's it. We believe in money. Welcome to the collective delusion of fiat currency. You mean 12 richest families in charge of FED make you think it has value? Once you realize this, you'll soon understand how is US's everlasting involvement in (provoking) wars across the globe financed, where from, and most importantly why. Once other nations exclude US dollar as a valid currency (India, Russia and China have already), US dollar is going to be less and less valuable until it's worth nothing (as it actually is all along as it has no leverage). Maybe we better rebel against an inevitable doom of US economy now when you can actually use it to buy other commodities than wait to use them as firestarters 10-20 years down the road.",
"\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \"\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\"\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \"\"mark to market accounting\"\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\"",
"\"Economics is not hard science. Economics is really just a study of what people do and why. The best book to read to understand why people protect their wealth when the government threatens it is \"\"[Human Action](http://mises.org/document/3250)\"\" by Ludwig von Mises. Check it out. It will answer all of your questions with a lot more logic than research. Economic research on macro subjects can prove any preconceived theorem, therefore it is worse than logic because it purports to \"\"prove\"\" what are, in the end, only opinions.\"",
"By the way, be nice to Mexicans. You might have to sneak into Mexico as illegal immigrant when dollar crashes and revolution follows an hyper inflation :) Don't be mad at me, be mad at your idiot and puppet politicians who are killing the American dream.",
"They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing. Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong. Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble."
] |
[
"\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \"\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\"\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\"",
"\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \"\"black\"\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\"",
"\"As a Venezuelan who used to buy USD, I believe there is not better explanation than the one given to someone who actually lives and works here in Venezuela. Back in 1998 when Hugo Chavez took the presidency, we had a good economy. Fast forward 10 years laters and you could see how poor management, corruption and communist measurements had wreaked havoc in our Economy. It was because most of the money (USD) coming in Venezuela were not invested here but instead, given away to \"\"pimp countries\"\" like Cuba. Remember, communism lasts while you have money. Back then we had an Oil Barrel going over 100$ and crazy amounts of money were coming in the country. However, little to no money was invested in the country itself. That is why some of the richest people with bank account in Swiss are Venezuelans who stole huge amounts of Oil Money. I know this is a lot to take in, but all of this led to Venezuelan economy being the worst in The American Continent and because there is not enough money inside the country to satisfy the inner market, people would pay overprice to have anything that is bought abroad. You have to consider that only a very small amount of people can actually buy USD here in Venezuela. Back in 2013 I was doing it, I could buy about 80 usd/month with my monthly income. However, nowdays that's nearly impossible for about 99% of Venezuelans. To Illustrate. Minimum wage = 10.000 bolivares / month Black market exchange rate (As of January 2016) = 900bs per 1usd 10.000/900 = 11,11 usd. <<< that is what about 50% of Venezuelans earn every month. That's why this happens: http://i.imgur.com/dPOC2e3.jpg The guy is holding a huge stack of money of the highest Venezuelan note, which he got from exchanging only 100 usd. I am a computer science engineer, the monthly income for someone like me is about 30.000 bolivares --- so that is about 34$ a month. oh dear! So finally, answering your question Q: Why do people buy USD even at this unfavorable rate? A: There are many reasons but being the main 2 the following 1.- Inflation in Venezuela is crazy high. The inflation from 2014-2015 was 241%. Which means that having The Venezuelan currency (Bolivares) in your bank account makes no sense... in two weeks you won't be able to buy half of the things you used to with the same amount of money. 2.- A huge amount of Venezuelans dream with living abroad (me included) why, you ask? well sir, it is certain that life in this country is not the best: I hope you can understand better why people in 3rd world countries and crappy economies buy USD even at an unfavorable rate. The last question was: Q: Why would Venezuela want to block the sale of dollars? A: Centralized currency management is an Economic Measure that should last 6 months tops. (This was Argentina's case in 2013) but at this point, reverting that would take quite a few years. However, Turukawa's wikipedia link explains that very well. Regards.\""
] |
7124
|
How come we can find stocks with a Price-to-Book ratio less than 1?
|
[
"74615",
"154725",
"558617",
"526110"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"526110",
"7170",
"558617",
"157597",
"154725",
"256818",
"56405",
"237344",
"477426",
"15650",
"210268",
"161323",
"94591",
"204209",
"271001",
"590980",
"288551",
"598184",
"73995",
"421248",
"504243",
"184303",
"414940",
"546969",
"325669",
"583708",
"522040",
"518860",
"553450",
"447509",
"261415",
"247021",
"503740",
"220772",
"527230",
"4290",
"6369",
"301547",
"194319",
"354236",
"476859",
"514375",
"400620",
"555915",
"304918",
"442324",
"139654",
"412584",
"270573",
"472500",
"435125",
"349567",
"35500",
"538750",
"368738",
"241175",
"74615",
"535043",
"324377",
"291220",
"421371",
"283421",
"212988",
"355554",
"433905",
"448428",
"543606",
"210581",
"427726",
"482464",
"65235",
"186849",
"20335",
"556688",
"400614",
"386225",
"390817",
"152097",
"266672",
"464769",
"60495",
"334162",
"532171",
"182057",
"582313",
"350095",
"580920",
"153212",
"280111",
"33357",
"446877",
"278582",
"311345",
"69506",
"499269",
"457485",
"231677",
"429196",
"416732",
"466430"
] |
[
"Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps",
"\"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"",
"Note that the formula for Price to Book ratio is: Stock Price / {[Total Assets - (Intangible Assets + Liabilities)] / Stock Outstanding} http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-to-bookratio.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/03/112603.asp There's a number of factors that could lead to a lower than 1. The primary reason, imho, could be the company is in a state of retiring stock with debt. The company is selling penny stocks (only to get people more interested in it's later development) which are inherently undervalued. There may be other reasons, but definitely check out both articles.",
"Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book Value–Sep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here.",
"A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;",
"To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings.",
"\"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary. They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life. If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million. However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future \"\"real\"\" earnings \"\"ie actual profit and loss on sales\"\" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely.\"",
"And the kind folk at Yahoo Finance came to the same conclusion. Keep in mind, book value for a company is like looking at my book value, all assets and liabilities, which is certainly important, but it ignores my earnings. BAC (Bank of America) has a book value of $20, but trades at $8. Some High Tech companies have negative book values, but are turning an ongoing profit, and trade for real money.",
"\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \"\"value\"\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \"\"book value\"\" is your compensation for a low \"\"interest\"\" rate.\"",
"The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.",
"A company's stock value is indicative of the market's collective belief of the future of the company. The relationship of between price and book value will vary according to the quality of the company, the category of stock, etc. In extreme cases, say Bank of America, the stock trades at a fraction of book, because BOA's books are a fantasy by most people's reckoning.",
"\"By definition, a downturn in the business cycle will push some companies into bankruptcy. What's worse, a downturn in the business cycle will trigger \"\"bankruptcy fears\"\" for a LOT of companies, far more than will suffer this fate. So the prices of MANY candidates go down to levels that reflect this fear. This aggregate impact produces the \"\"overreaction\"\" you're talking about. It's called \"\"fallacy of composition\"\"; some of these companies will go under, but not all. Then the prices of the survivors will bounce back strongly during the early stages of an upturn when it becomes clear which companies WON'T go bankrupt.\"",
"P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.",
"There are things that are clearly beyond me as well. Cash per share is $12.61 but the debt looks like $30 or so per share. I look at that, and the $22 negative book value and don't see where the shareholders are able to recoup anything.",
"Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.",
"\"When presenting negative P/E values, most brokers and equity analysts show them as \"\"n.m.\"\", which stands for not meaningful. I have never seen a P/E ratio of 0.\"",
"You are omitting how the company made 120 million in the previous year and may be facing a shrinking market and thus have poor future prospects. If the company is shrinking, what will the shares be worth down the road. Remember companies like AOL or Blackberry? There was a time they had big profits before things changed which is the part you aren't considering here. If the company has lost something big on its earnings, e.g. the oil wells it owned have run out of reserves or the patents on its key drugs have expired, then there could be the perception that the company won't be able to compete in the future to continue to deliver earnings. Some companies may well end up going broke as one could look at GM for a company that used to be one of the largest car companies in the world and yet it ended up going broke.",
"Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k. In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10. The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year. If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11. Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices. You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k. Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future. The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10. If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k). You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower. Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.",
"Well, yes it does, but just because the debt is trading at 80 cents on the dollar doesn't mean that the company can actually legally get away with paying only 80 cents on the dollar. They would have to come to an agreement with the debt holders first. And perhaps they could, but the more conservative approach is to use the book value of the debt. Or what about debt that's trading at a premium to its face value, because, say, interest rates have come down relative to the time the debt was issued? The amount that the conpany owes to the debt holders hasn't suddenly gone up.",
"Residential Construction at 362x, by the way. I'm going to hazard a guess here - Say XYZ corp trades at $100, and it's showing a normal earnings of $10 the last few years. Its industry falls on hard times, and while it makes enough to keep its doors open, profits fall to $1. The company itself is still sound, but the small earnings result in a high P/E. By the way, its book value is $110, and they have huge cash on the books along with real estate. I offer these details to show why the price doesn't drop like a rock. Now, biotech may be in a period of low reported earnings but with future results expected to justify the price. On one hand it may be an anomaly, with earnings due to rise, or it may be a bit of a bubble. An analyst for this sector should be able to comment if I'm on the right track.",
"There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.",
"Its not just Citi and BoFA, even Barclays, HSBC and other large Banks are trading below book value in markets they are listed. Are there particular assets that are causing these two banks to be valued lower relative to their book values than the other banks? There no particular assets. Given the current economic situation most Banks are not making good returns, i.e. expected returns of markets are around 10-12% and the returns getting generated are around 4-6%. The overall slow down in various segments as well as regulations in most countries mean that banks have to relook at the business model in short term and generate more revenue. The market believes that Banks may loose money faster and hence the negative outlook and the trading below the book value. Note Book Value is derived in ideal conditions, i.e. when the company is healthy. If any company were to sell the assets in distress, the actual funds raised would be quite a bit less than Book Value. Its also to be noted that typically Banks would not close out and hence Book Value to an extent is just an indicator. Or is it a residual loathing based on their being the biggest losers of 2008 that are still around today? The 2008 has gone past. This is more recent. If you look most of these banks were doing quite well till last year and had recovered substantially after 2008.",
"NAV is how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13. Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.",
"\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \"\"earnings\"\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \"\"free.\"\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\"\" meaning \"\"no future\"\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \"\"no past.\"\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\"",
"The company's value (which should be reflected in the share price) is not how much money it has in the bank, but something along the lines of 'how much money will it make between now and the end of times' (adjusted for time value of money and risk). So when you purchase a share of a company that has, say, little money in the bank, but expects to make 1M$ profit this year, 2M$ for the following 3 years, and say, nothing after, you are going to pay your fraction of 7M$ (minus some discount because of the risk involved). If now they announce that their profits were only 750k$, then people may think that the 2M$ are more likely to be 1.5M$, so the company's value would go to ~ 5M$. And with that, the market may perceive the company as more risky, because its profits deviated from what was expected, which in turn may reduce the company's value even further.",
"It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for? The only way to (on average) make good buy and sell decisions is to know about investing and trading (buy some books, I have 12), understand the businesses you propose to invest in and understand their market(s) (which may also mean understanding national and international economics somewhat).",
"\"The company was paying \"\"only\"\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \"\"too high,\"\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \"\"most\"\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \"\"stingy,\"\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\"",
"One reason that a bond can be significantly less than face value is because people are seeking better investments elsewhere, so for example if a bond doesn't mature for another 10 years, that 20% increase in face value isn't very attractive when compared to say leaving your money in the stock market for 10 years. Another reason could be that the credit-worthiness of the issuer has collapsed and people expect that there is a fairly good chance they are not going to make the payment. This could be what you would see if for example it was a one year time until maturity, but it has a value of 40% of the face value. There is a risk, because they can simply not pay. For example people who bought Greek bonds.",
"One problem is that P/E ratio only looks at the last announced earnings. Let's take your manufacturing plant with a P/E of 12.5. Then they announce a major problem that will hurt future earnings and the price drops in half. Now the P/E is 6.25. It looks great, but since there aren't any new earnings that reflect the problem, it's very misleading.",
"\"You are comparing \"\"market caps\"\" and \"\"enterprise value\"\". If the company has four billion dollars cash in the bank, then the value would be four billion plus whatever the business itself is worth as a business. If the business itself is only worth 400 million, then you would have 4.4bn market caps and 400 million enterprise value. The \"\"enterprise value\"\" is basically how much the business would be worth if it had no cash or no debt. These numbers would be a very unusual situation. It could happen for example if a big company has sold 90% of its business for cash. When you buy a share of the company, you get a tiny share of the business and you own a tiny share of the cash. This stock will very likely keep its value, but won't make much money. On the other hand, more common would be a company where the business is worth 4bn, but the company has also 4bn debt. So it is worth exactly zero. Market caps close to zero, but enterprise value $4bn, because you ignore the debt in the enterprise value. Edit: Sorry, got the \"\"enterprise value\"\" totally wrong, read millions instead of billions: Your numbers would mean that you have a huge, huge company with close to 440bn debt. Most likely someone made a mistake here. A \"\"normal\"\" situation would be say a company with a business that is worth $500 million, but they have $100 million debt, so market caps = $400 million but enterprise value = $500 million. PS. Yahoo has the same nonsense numbers on their UK site, and for other companies (I just checked Marks and Spencer's which apparently has an enterprise value of 800 billion pound with a totally ridiculous P/E ratio.\"",
"Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.",
"How is it possible that a publicly traded investment company's net asset value per share is higher than their share price? Wouldn't you (in theory) be able to buy the company and liquidate it to make a profit of (NAV/share - price/share)*number of shares, ignoring transaction costs and such? I realize that since part of their portfolio is in private equity, NAV is hard to calculate and hard to liquidate as well, but it doesn't really seem to make sense to me. Would love some input. The company I'm talking about in this instance is 180 Degree Capital Corp, but this isn't the first time I've seen this.",
"Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.",
"\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \"\"earnings smoothing\"\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \"\"interesting\"\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\"",
"Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel). If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy. The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.",
"P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.",
"Most penny stocks go to zero because most businesses fail. You stated in your original post that you were wondering specifically about companies with no assets. These are exactly the kind that fail and go to zero. There are many holes within the regulatory structure that allow for many accounting tricks in penny stock land. And even in areas that are adequately regulated, there will be few to no remedies for the optimistic penny stock shareholder speculator.",
"\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"",
"\"Yes, there are situations where a stock is a bad buy in spite of a low PE. PE ratio tells you the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. It does not consider: Imagine someone walked up to you and said, \"\"Do you want to buy a piece of my business? I'll sell you 1% of it for $1000. Last year the business earned $25000.\"\" A quick calculation shows a PE of 4 [$1000/($25000 *.01)]. Even though this PE is comparatively low, you wouldn't buy in without a lot more info. What kinds of things might you ask? PE is one tiny component of an informed investment decision.\"",
"\"> What's their performance been like in recent years? IIRC the last time they were able to pay a dividend was in 2000, so I'm gonna go with \"\"not great\"\". Thanks a lot for the effort, I didn't factor in tax at all, it makes more sense then. I still think it's an interesting concept that shares are worth less than what you \"\"get\"\" for them (according to their accountants, who knows what the value actually would be if you tried to sell whatever they own now), and I found basically nothing on google. The whole is usually more than the sum of its parts, not (significantly) less.\"",
"\"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? Such stock is typically considered \"\"distressed assets\"\". Technically, what drives it is what drives every stock - supply and demand. A more interesting question is of course, why would there be demand? First, who exerts the buying pressure on the stock? Typically, three types of entities: The largest ones are financial institutions specializing in distressed assets (frequently, alternatives specialists - hedge funds, private equity firms etc...). Usually, they invest in distressed debt or distressed preferred equity; but sometimes distressed equity as well. Why? We will discuss their motivations separately in this answer. Second one are existing equity holders. Why? Short answer, behavioral psychology and behavioral economics. Many investors - especially non-professionals - insist on holding distressed stocks due to variety of investment fallacies (sunk cost etc...); usually constructing elaborate theories of why and how the company and the stock will recover Sometimes, people who buy into penny stock scams, pump and dump schemes etc... Why? \"\"There's a sucker born every minute.\"\" - P.T. Barnum Let's find out why an investment professional would invest in distressed equity? First, the general process is always the same. Company's assets are used to pay off its liabilities; in accordance with applicable law. There are two ways this can be done - either through selling the company; OR through bankruptcy process. The liabilities are paid according to seniority. The seniority priorities rules are covered by 11 U.S. Code § 507 - Priorities A company in bankruptcy can have one of 2 outcomes: Buyout. Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity. For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future. The chances are, some buyer will buy it for a premium that includes those future profits; and that sale amount might possibly exceed the liabilities. Bankruptcy. The assets are sold and liabilities are covered according to priorities. In that case, the investors in distressed equity might be hoping that there are un-obvious assets whose value would also put the total assets above claimed liabilities. Additional possible beneficial factor is that unsecured debtors must file with the court in order to be paid; and the claim must be validated. Some might fail on either count; so total amount of liabilities might lessen once the bankruptcy process goes through. Assets Now, here's where things get interesting. Of course, companies have usual assets. Real estate, inventory, plants, cash, etc... These are all able to be sold to cover liabilities, and at first glance are possibly not enough to cover liabilities, leaving equity holders with nothing (and even that's not a certainty - bankruptcy is simply inability to service debt payments; and while it correlates to assetsliquid assets, not full asset valuation). But some assets are less sure, and are thus rarely included in such calculations. These may include: Chances of winning appeals if specific existing liabilities are results of litigation, e.g. tax appeals, court judgement appeals etc... Clawbacks and lawsuits against former executives, especially in cases where the company's financial distress resulted from executive malfeasance. I was personally involved in one such case as an equity holder, where the company assets were valued at $X; had liabilities of $X*2; but had a real possibility of winning about $X*3 in a lawsuit against former CEO accused of various malfeasance including fraud and insider trading. As such, the best case scenario was literally 100% profit on holding that distressed equity.\"",
"\"Yes, the price of a stock is what investors think the value of a stock is, which is not tied to profits or dividends by any rigid formula. But to say that therefore the price could be high even though the company is doing very poorly is hypothetically true, but unlikely in practice. Consider any other product. There is no fixed formula for the value of a used car, either. If everyone agreed that a rusting, 20-year old car that doesn't run is worth $100,000, then that's what it would sell for. But that's a pretty big \"\"if\"\" at the beginning of that sentence. If the car had been used in some hit TV show 20 years ago, or if it was owned by a celebrity, or some such special case, maybe a rusting old car really would sell for $100,000. Likewise, a stock might have a price higher than what one would predict from its dividends if some rich person wanted to buy that company because the brand name brings back nostalgic memories from his youth and so he drives the price up, etc. But the normal case is that, in the long term, the price of a stock tends to settle on a value proportional to the dividends that it pays. Or rather, and this is a big caveat, the dividends that investors expect it to pay in the future. And then adjusted for all sorts of other factors and special situations, like the value of the company if it was to be liquidated, etc.\"",
"\"Let's say you see a café. You're looking to buy a café so you walk into one and ask the manager how much profit he makes in a year. He says $N and you walk out and think to yourself, \"\"I'd be willing to pay $500,000 for this café.\"\" You arrange to meet again to discuss purchasing the business (and he's looking for someone to purchase it). You go into the store again the following day and the manager says, \"\"Sorry, I told you we make $N. I've checked the numbers and it's actually only $0.8N (20% lower than what you thought).\"\" Are you still willing to buy the café for $500,000 as well? No, of course you're not. I think that this is a sufficient analogy to public companies.\"",
"You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.",
"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? The company's potential residual assets. When a company goes bankrupt it is required to sell its assets to pay off its debts. The funds raised from selling assets go to the following entities: The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. Depending on the amount of debt and the value of a company's assets, the common shareholders may receive some left over from liquidated assets. This would drive the stock price of a bankrupt company.",
"The value of a company is, simplified, the sum of the value of the equity and the value of the debt. There are some other things to add/subtract to that, but just think about those for now. You could also say the value of a company is the value of its assets, or more precisely the value of the net cash flows those assets will generate in the future. So let's say you want to start a company, so you want to buy some assets. Maybe you want to buy a $200 asset. Well, you only have $100, so you take out a loan (debt) for $100 for the remainder. You buy the asset and start generating income. Let's say after a month you get bored and decide to sell the company. Let's assume the value of the assets hasn't changed. Your equity is worth $100, and you find a buyer who is willing to pay $100 for your company. Great! Right? Well there's still the $100 loan you owe, so you have to pay that back. And suddenly you now have $0. So in fact, you should have negotiated $200 with the buyer, because that's what the assets are actually worth. Then you can pay back the loan and still have the $100 in equity you deserve. (Alternatively, you could have negotiated the buyer to assume responsibility for the loan; same outcome for you.) Did that help?",
"Would make sense that the higher liquidation cost and Transaction costs are driving the share price down. Higher liq and transaction means higher investors would require higher return, driving down the share price. The other possibilities I can think of off the top of my head, based on looking at the firm for five minutes 1) In transaction costs, did you include tax? Disclaimer: math below done on the back of the envelope in between meetings; So, NAV says they are at ~$75M. Liquidating that entire portfolio means about 22% capital gains tax rate. Which means after tax value is about $60M. Add in any fees you'd incur from trying to sell this stuff, and it's not unreasonable to assume you'll only get about $55M once all is said and done, which is pretty close to the actual market cap. If you have accounted for the above, consider ; 2) Bulk of their investments seem to be in private assets. Which implies that they have some discretion in how they mark the value of those investments. And, there is the chance that the market doesn't have confidence in these guys. What's their performance been like in recent years? Especially with a private asset portfolio, I'd be weary. If I was to invest in them, I'd want a higher return for the opaque portfolio.",
"What is cheap? A stock may fall from $20 per share to $10 per share, but it may have gone from making a $100M profit last year to a $100M loss this year. So now at $10 per share it may still be considered expensive. You need to be very careful when to consider that a stock is cheap or not, you'll have to look at more than just the share price.",
"\"Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a \"\"feast or famine\"\" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that.\"",
"\"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely \"\"make out\"\" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become \"\"mature.\"\" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer.\"",
"for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)",
"In finance, short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling assets, usually securities, that have been borrowed from a third party (usually a broker) with the intention of buying identical assets back at a later date to return to the lender. Remember your broker has to borrow it from somewhere, other clients or if they hold those specific stocks themselves. So if it isn't possible for them to lend you those stocks, they wouldn't. High P/E stocks would find more sellers than buyers, and if the broker has to deliver them, it would be a nightmare for him to deliver all those stocks, which he had lent you(others) back to whom he had borrowed from, as well as to people who had gone long(buy) when you went short(sell). And if every body is selling there is going to be a dearth of stocks to be borrowed from as everybody around is selling instead of buying.",
"\"Many people assume that if the price of something is $10 and they have 1,000 of that thing, they should expect to be able to sell them for something around $10,000. Such an assumption may hold much of the time, but it doesn't always. Worse, the cases where it fails to hold are often those where it would be relied upon most heavily. Such an assumption should thus be considered dangerous. In a liquid market, the quantity of a something that people would be willing to buy at something close to the market price will be large relative to the quantity that people would seek to sell in the short term. If at some moment in time one person in the market was willing to immediately buy 500 shares at $9.98 and another was willing to immediately buy 750 at $9.97, someone seeking to sell 1,000 shares could immediately receive $997.50 for them (selling 500 to the first person and 500 to the second, who would then be ready to buy 250 more from the first person who was willing to sell for $9.97). Such behavior would be in line with what many people's assumptions. In an illiquid market, however, the quantity of something that people would be willing to buy near market price could be surprisingly low. This is more often a problem in the marketplace of things like collectibles than of stocks, but the same thing can happen in the stock market. If there's one potential buyer for a stock who thinks it's overpriced but has potential and would be worth $9.50, but that person only has $950 to spend, and nobody else thinks the stock would be worth more than $0.02/share, then until people sold a total of 100 shares the price would be $9.50, but after that the price would drop instantly to $0.02. There would be no \"\"cushioning\"\" of the fall. If the person with 1,000 shares was first in line, he'd get to sell 100 shares for $950 to the aforementioned seller, but would be unable to get more than $18 for the remaining 900. A major danger with markets is that markets which are perceived as liquid attract people to the buying side, while those which are seen as illiquid repel people. The danger in the latter is obvious (having people flee a seemingly-illiquid market will reduce its liquidity further) but the former is just as bad. Having people flock to a market because of its perceived liquidity will increase its liquidity, but can also create a \"\"false price floor\"\", causing demand to appear much stronger than it actually is. Unless real demand increases to match the false price floor, the people who buy at the higher price will never be able to recoup their investment.\"",
"\"It depends on the definition of earnings. A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce \"\"earnings\"\" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred). It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues).\"",
"Can a company not bargain with a dying company for example and buy a falling stock at lower than market value? Of course. If the shareholders agree to it. But why would they, if the market value is higher, agree to sell to someone who offers less? If there's a compelling reason - it can happen. It might happen during a hostile takeover, for example. In the case of buying the company for more than market value, are the stocks bought for significantly more, or slightly more than the current market value? Again, depends on how valuable the shareholders think the company is. If the shareholders think that the company has a potential which has not yet affected the stock price, they'll want a higher premium (and they'd think that, otherwise why would they hold the stock?). How much higher? Depends on the bargaining abilities of the sides.",
"\"The VDE fund is an energy fund so this is a function of recent price changes in oil (and gas, coal, &c). For example. Lets say last year when oil was $100 per barrel a bunch of companies saw a good return and put $ 100 million into a bunch of leases, boreholes, pumps, &c to return $10 million per year, and the market says yeah, they're all together worth 100M. Now oil is less, maybe $40 per the link. These exploration companies don't have a lot of labor or variable costs; they are operationally profitable, may have \"\"use it or lose it\"\" leases or minimum pumping requirements for contract or engineering reasons. Lets say the cash flow is 7M so the market values them at 70M. They still have about 100M book value so here we are at .7 and I believe the scenario in the question. Nobody would invest in new capacity at this oil price. The well equipment could be repurposed but not the borehole or lease, so the best use is to continue pumping and value it on cash flow. If an individual well runs negative long enough and goes bust, either a different pumper will pay the minimum price that gives profitable cash flow, or that borehole that cost millions to dig is shut off and rendered valueless. The CNBC article says some explorers are playing games with debt to maintain yield, so there is that too. In the ETF, your bet is that the market is wrong and oil will go up, increasing future cash flows (or you like the current yield, taking on the risk that some of these oil explorers could go bust).\"",
"A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out",
"\"Buyouts are usually for more than the ORIGINAL value of a stock. That's because the price \"\"premium\"\" represents an incentive for holders to \"\"tender\"\" their shares to the would-be buyer. Sometimes in these situations, the stock price rises above the proposed buyout price, in anticipation of a higher takeover bid from a SECOND party (that may or may not materialize). To answer the other part of the question, does a bidder have a chance of taking over a dying company for less than the market price? That is a strategy sometimes referred to as a \"\"take under,\"\" and it has not been a notably successful strategy. That's because it goes against \"\"human nature\"\" (of the seller). \"\"Where there is life, there is hope.\"\" They would seldom accept a lower price for \"\"sure\"\" survival, when the market is telling them that they are worth a higher price. Very few people realize that the market may disappear tomorrow. Think of all the homeowners who won't cut their price, but insist on bids that meet recent \"\"comps.\"\" And if the company is really dying, the prospective buyer may be best served by waiting until it does, and then pick up the individual pieces at auction.\"",
"\"With debts exceeding assets by a billion dollars, this activity likely comes from penny stock speculators and \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemers. There is no rational expectation that the stock is even worth multiple pennies when the company is that far upside-down on its debts. Even if the debts could be restructured in a chapter 11, the equity shares would likely lose all of their value in the bankruptcy proceedings. Shareholders are at the bottom of the totem-pole when debts are being adjusted by the courts.\"",
"\"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what \"\"the market\"\" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is \"\"earnings per share\"\", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the \"\"price-earnings ratio\"\" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected \"\"yield\"\" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets. Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a \"\"book value\"\" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers.\"",
">Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet. Yes, the book value of equity is not affected. However, when the market value experiences a steep decline, you find those that hold deposits begin moving them out of the bank. Investment fear and business fear tend to move together with financial institutions. That directly impacts the reserve requirements. >but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper Not when there is bankruptcy or solvency issues that become present. Obviously an investor wants to buy low and sell high, but if there is a substantial risk of bankruptcy, the common stockholder will demand a premium unattainable by most non-growth firms (i.e. biotech, tech, etc.). That is the issue with France. Liquidity issues stem from systemic risk, but those French banks also possess significant firm risk due to their exposure to sovereign debt. Once those banks mark all of their holdings to market, they will realize substantial losses. BNP recently recorded a nearly $1B write-down.",
"\"One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had \"\"priced in\"\" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!).\"",
"It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit. What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash.",
"\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \"\"Cap Rate\"\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\"",
"> Or are there multiple ways of buying a company? Yes, there are, and it would depend on your contextual definition of what it means to buy a business. If you were intending to acquire a company by being its majority shareholder (i.e. >50% equity stake), then you would have to buy over its shares from existing shareholders at a negotiated price (read: not necessarily book value) to attain the desired shareholding. However, buy a business could also refer to an asset purchase, where the target's fixed assets are bought by the acquirer, in which case the target equity might not necessarily be involved in the acquisition.",
"The satisfaction from gains packs less of an emotional impact than the fear of loss. It's very difficult for many people to overcome this fear, so when prices begin to fall, many investors sell to minimize their potential loss. This causes a further drop, which can lead to more selling as other investors reach their emotional threshold for loss. This emotion-based selling keeps the market inefficient in the short term. If there aren't enough value investors waiting to scoop up the stock at the new discount, it can stay undervalued for a long time.",
"The price of a shares reflects the expected future returns of that company. If it does not someone will notice and buy until it does. Look at this chart http://www.finanzen.net/chart/Arcandor (click on max), that's a former DAX company, so one of the largest german companys. Now it's bankrupt. Why do you think you are the only one who is going to notice? There are millions of people and even more computers, some a going to be smarter than you. Of course that does not happen to everyone but who knows. Is Volkswagen going to survive the current crisis? Probably. Is it coming back to former glory in the next half year? Who knows? Here comes the obvious solution: Don't buy single stocks, spread it out over many companies, some will shine, some will plument and you get the average. Oh that's an index, how convinent. Now if there were a way to save on all these transaction costs you're incurring...",
"While on the surface it may seem that the warrant you described is trading below intrinsic value, there are many reasons why that might not be the case. It's more likely that you are lacking information, than having identified a derivative instrument that the market has failed to reasonably price. For instance, might there be a conversion ratio on the warrants other than the 1:1 ratio that you seem to be assuming? Sometimes, warrant terms are such that multiple warrants are required to buy one share of stock. Consider: The conversion ratio is the number of warrants needed in order to buy (or sell) one investment unit. Therefore, if the conversion ratio to buy stock XYZ is 3:1, this means that the holder needs three warrants in order to purchase one share. Usually, if the conversion ratio is high, the price of the share will be low, and vice versa. (source) Conversion ratios are sometimes used so that warrants can be issued on a 1:1 basis to existing stockholders, but where the potential number of new shares to be issued is much less. Conversion ratio is just one such example that could lead to perceived mispricing, and there may be other restrictions on exercise. Warrants are not issued by an options exchange using standardized option contract terms, and so warrant terms vary considerably from issuer to issuer. Even series of warrants from the same issuer may have differing terms. Always look beyond any warrant quote to find a definitive source of the warrant's precise terms — and read those terms carefully before taking any position.",
"I'll give the credit to @Quid in the comments section of the question. You put out $10k, you got back $20k, that's a cash gain of $10k, how the asset was valued between your purchase and sale isn't relevant. From an accounting perspective, the company is the only party that is realizing the loss (as they have sold the asset for 40K less than par). You the buyer, only get to see the initial buy and sale of such capital asset. Example: A company purchases a car for $20,000 and after depreciation it is worth (book valued at) $2,000. It is then sold to a customer for $3,000. Does the customer realize a loss of $1,000? No. Does the company realize a gain of $1,000? Yes. Your bank analogy is flawed in two ways:",
"Stephen's answer is the 100% correct one made with the common Economics assumption, that people are rational. A company that never has paid dividends, is still worth something to people because of its potential to start paying dividends later and it is often better to grow now and payoff later. However, the actual answer is much more disapointing, because people are not rational and the stock market is no longer about investing in companies or earning dividends. Most of the value of a stock is for the same reason that gold, stamps, coins and bitcoins, and Australian houses are worth anything, that is, because enough people say it is worth something*. Even stocks that pay dividends, very few people buy it for dividends. They buy it because they believe someone else will be willing to buy it for slightly more, shortly after. Different traders have different timeframes, ranging from seconds to months. *Houses and stock are of course partially valuable due to the fundamentals, but the major reason they are purchased is just to resell at a profit.",
"Stock prices are set by the market - supply and demand. See Apple for example, which is exactly the company you described: tons of earnings, zero dividends. The stock price goes up and down depending on what happens with the company and how investors feel about it, and it can happen that the total value of the outstanding stock shares will be less than the value of the underlying assets of the company (including the cash resulted from the retained earnings). It can happen, also, that if the investors feel that the stock is not going to appreciate significantly, they will vote to distribute dividends. Its not the company's decision, its the board's. The board is appointed by the shareholders, which is exactly why the voting rights are important.",
"\"The textbook answer would be \"\"assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit\"\". A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing); or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more.\"",
"I didn't mean to imply that bankruptcy is a magical process. I was using that to clarify my use of conservative vs. aggressive. To be fair, I guess it can vary depending on your perspective. If you're taking the perspective of the debt-laden company, then yes, erring on the side of a higher value could be defined as aggressive. If you're taking the perspective of someone looking to acquire business, I would say erring on the side of a higher value is conservative. if the debt is trading at, say, $0.20 on the dollar, then yes, I can agree that the market value of the debt is likely more representative of the book value. I guess I wasn't thinking of that type of extreme example. A more common scenario I'd encounter would be a) the debt trading at maybe $0.95 on the dollar and b) taking the perspective of someone looking to invest in the equity, which is why I'd say that it's more conservative to use the higher value, which is the book value. So I'm persuaded that using market value of the debt can make sense in some cases, but I would still argue that the book value might make more sense in other cases.",
"You have to look at stocks just like you would look at smaller and more illiquid markets. Stock trade in auction markets. These are analogous to ebay or craigslist, just with more transparency and liquidity. There is no guarantee that a market will form for a particular stock, or that it will sustain. When a stock sells off, and there are no bids left, that means all of the existing bidder's limit orders got filled because someone sold at those prices. There is nothing fishy about that. It is likely that someone else wants to sell even more, but couldn't find any more bidders. If you put a bid you would likely get filled by the shareholder with a massive position looking for liquidity. You could also buy at the ask.",
"\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? It would fall to the lowest bid price, which could be $0.01 if someone had that bid in place. Here is an example which I happened to find online: Notice there are orders to buy at half the market price and lower... probably all the way down to pennies. If there were enough selling activity to fill all of those bids you see, then the market price would be the lowest bid on the screen. Alternatively, the bid orders could be pulled (cancelled), which would also let the price free-fall to the lowest bid even if there were few actual sellers. Bid-stuffing is what HFT (high frequency trading) algorithms sometimes do, which some say caused the Flash Crash of May 2010. The computers \"\"stuff\"\" bids into the order book, making it look like there is demand in order to trigger a market reaction, then they pull the bids to make the market fall. This sort of thing happens all the time and Nanex documents it http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrash/OngoingResearch.html Quote stuffing defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quote-stuffing.asp I remember the day of the Flash Crash very well. I found this video on youtube of CNBC at that time. Watch from the 5:00 min mark on the video as Jim Crammer talks about PG easily not being worth the price of the market at that time. He said \"\"Who cares?\"\", \"\"Its not a real price\"\", \"\"$49.25 bid for 50,000 shares if I were at my hedge fund.\"\" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86g4_w4j3jU You can value a stock how you want, but its only actually worth what someone will give you for it. More examples: Anadarko Petroleum, which as we noted in today's EOD post, lost $45 billion in market cap in 45 milliseconds (a collapse rate of $1 billion per millisecond), flash crashing from $90 all the way to an (allegedly illegal) stub quote of $0.01. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/how-last-second-flash-crash-pushed-sp-500-1667-1666 How 10,000 Contracts Crashed The Market: A Visual Deconstruction Of Last Night's E-Mini Flash Crash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-21/how-10000-contracts-crashed-market-visual-deconstruction-last-nights-e-mini-flash-cr Symantec Flash-Crash Destroys Over $1.5 Billion In Less Than A Second http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-30/symantec-flash-crash-destroys-over-15-billion-less-second This sort of thing happens so often, I don't pay much attention anymore.\"",
"The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.",
"How can they reduce the number of shares I hold? They may have purchased them. You don't say what stock it is, so we can only speculate. Let's say that the stock is called PENNY. So they may have taken your 1600 PENNY shares and renamed them to 1600 PENNYOLD shares. Then they created a new $5 PENNY share and gave you .2357 shares of that in exchange for your 1600 PENNYOLD shares. This suggests that your old shares were worth $1.1785 or less than a tenth of a cent each. As an example, MYLAN did this in 2015 as part of their tax inversion (moved official headquarters from the US to Europe). They did not change the number of shares at that time, but MYLAN is not a penny stock. This is the kind of thing that might happen in a bankruptcy. A reverse split (where they give you one share in exchange for more than one share) is also possible, although you received an odd amount for a reverse split. Usually those produce rounder numbers. A number like .2357 sounds more like a market price, as those can be bizarre.",
"Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.",
"No. The above calculation does not hold good. When financial statements are prepared they are prepared on a going concern basis, i.e. a business will run normally in the foreseeable future. Valuation of assets and liabilities is done according to this principle. When a bankruptcy takes places or a business closes down, immediately the valuation method will change. For assets, the realizable value will be more relevant. For example, if you hold 100 computers, in an normal situation, they will depreciated at the normal rate. Every year, some portion of the cost is written off as depreciation. When you actually go to sell these computers you are likely to realize much less than what is shown in the statement. Similarly, for a building, the actual realizable value may be more. For liabilities, they tend to increase in such situation. Hence just a plain computation can give you a very broad idea but the actual figure may be different.",
"Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.",
"Here is an example for you. We have a fictional company. It's called MoneyCorp. Its job is to own money, and that's all. Right now it owns $10,000. It doesn't do anything special with that $10,000 - it stores it in a bank account, and whenever it earns interest gives it to the shareholders as a dividend. Also, it doesn't have any expenses at all, and doesn't pay taxes, and is otherwise magic so that it doesn't have to worry about distractions from its mathematical perfection. There are 10,000 shares of MoneyCorp, each worth exactly $1. However, they may trade for more or less than $1 on the stock market, because it's a free market and people trading stock on the stock market can trade at whatever price two people agree on. Scenario 1. MoneyCorp wants to expand. They sell 90,000 shares for $1 each. The money goes in the same bank account at the same interest rate. Do the original shareholders see a change? No. 100,000 shares, $100,000, still $1/share. No problem. This is the ideal situation. Scenario 2: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for less than the current price, $0.50 each. Do the original shareholders lose out? YES. It now has something like $55,000 and 100,000 shares. Each share is now worth $0.55. The company has given away valuable equity to new shareholders. That's bad. Why didn't they get more money from those guys? Scenario 3: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for more than the current price, $2 each, because there's a lot of hype about its business. MoneyCorp now owns $190,000 in 100,000 shares and each share is worth $1.90. Existing shareholders win big! This is why a company would like to make its share offering at the highest price possible (think, Facebook IPO). Of course, the new shareholders may be disappointed. MoneyCorp is actually a lot like a real business! Actually, if you want to get down to it, MoneyCorp works very much like a money-market fund. The main difference between MoneyCorp and a random company on the stock market is that we know exactly how much money MoneyCorp is worth. You don't know that with a real business: sales may grow, sales may drop, input prices may rise and fall, and there's room for disagreement - that's why stock markets are as unpredictable as they are, so there's room for doubt when a company sells their stock at a price existing shareholders think is too cheap (or buys it at a price that is too expensive). Most companies raising capital will end up doing something close to scenario 1, the fair-prices-for-everyone scenario. Legally, if you own part of a company and they do something a Scenario-2 on you... you may be out of luck. Consider also: the other owners are probably hurt as much as you are. Only the new shareholders win. And unless the management approving the deal is somehow giving themselves a sweetheart deal, it'll be hard to demonstrate any malfeasance. As an individual, you probably won't file a lawsuit either, unless you own a very large stake in the company. Lawsuits are expensive. A big institutional investor or activist investor of some sort may file a suit if millions of dollars are at stake, but it'll be ugly at best. If there's nothing evil going on with the management, this is just one way that a company loses money from bad management. It's probably not the most important one to worry about.",
"\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"",
"\"> If the stock price goes down it wouldn't make sense that ABC had a higher dividend yield, so my argument was you have to make assume the stock price went down because it could have cost less for other reasons, but you don't have to assume the dividend yield which would make it a good investment. I'm not sure I understand your argument. The wording doesn't seem clear to me (\"\"you have to make assume\"\"? make assume? \"\"but you don't have to assume the dividend yield\"\" assume it what?) Dividend yield has a negative correlation with stock price. If price goes down, all else being equal, yield rises.\"",
"Imagine that I own 10% of a company, and yesterday my portion was valued at $1 Million, therefore the company is valued at $10 Million. Today the company accepts an offer to sell 1% of the company for $500 Thousand: now my portion is worth $5 Million, and company is worth $50 Million. The latest stock price sets the value of the company. If next week the news is all bad and the new investor sells their shares to somebody else for pennies on the dollar, the value of the company will drop accordingly.",
"\"What will happen if the stock price just continues to decline? Nothing. What would happen if folks just stop trading it? Nothing. What if the company goes private? Then they will have to buy you out based on some agreed upon price, as voted by the board and (potentially) approved by the shareholders. Depending on the corporation charter, the board may not be required to seek the shareholders' approval, but if the price the board agreed upon is unreasonable you can sue and prevent the transaction. How do they decide the fair value of the outstanding stocks? Through a process called \"\"valuation\"\", there are accounting firms which specialize in this area of public accounting.\"",
"Here are some significant factors affect the company stock price performance: Usually, profitability is known to the public through the financial statements; it won't be 100% accurate and people would also trade the stock with the price not matching to the true value of the firm. Still there are dozens of other various reasons exist. People are just not behaving as rational as what the textbook describes when they are trading and investing.",
"Why is the stock trading at only $5 per share? The share price is the perceived value of the company by people buying and selling the stock. Not the actual value of the company and all its assets. Generally if the company is not doing well, there is a perceived risk that it will burn out the money fast. There is a difference between its signed conditional sale and will get money and has got money. So in short, it's trading at $5 a share because the market doesn't feel like it's worth $12 per share. Quite a few believe there could be issues faced; i.e. it may not make the $12, or there will be additional obligations, i.e. employees may demand more layoff compensation, etc. or the distribution may take few years due to regulatory and legal hurdles. The only problem is the stock exchange states if the company has no core business, the stock will be suspended soon (hopefully they can release the $12 per share first). What will happen if I hold shares in the company, the stock gets suspended, and its sitting on $12 per share? Can it still distribute it out? Every country and stock markets have laid out procedures for de-listing a company and closing a company. The company can give $10 as say dividends and remaining later; or as part of the closure process, the company will distribute the balance among shareholders. This would be a long drawn process.",
"\"No. If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: \"\"During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.\"\" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company.\"",
"This can arise with very thinly traded stocks for large blocks of shares. If the market only has a few thousand dollars available at between 8.37 and 12.5 the price is largely meaningless for people who want to invest in hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars worth, as the quoted price can't get them anywhere near the number of shares they want. How liquid is the stock in question?",
"How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.",
"\"Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true. From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock. This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings. A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up. These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called \"\"growth\"\" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way.\"",
"Interestingly, the Staples doesn't own most of the land their stores operate on like its competitors. They opted for leases versus buying land during expansion to focus capex on other parts of the business. However, it leaves the company without a lot of land and therefore low relative book value. The value in Staples lies in their online B2B in a direct business model, though how much growth lies in physical paper and ink in a world of tablets and computers remains to be seen.",
"Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.",
"Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another",
"\"Check your math... \"\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\"\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\"",
"\"The only thing that makes a stock worthless is when the company goes out of business. Note that bankruptcy, by itself, does not mean the company is closing. It could successfully restructure its affairs and come out of bankruptcy with a better outlook. Being a small or unprofitable business may cause a company's to trade in the \"\"penny stock\"\" range, but there is still some value there. Since most dying companies will pass through the penny stock phase, you may be able to track down what you're looking for by finding companies who have been (or are about to be) delisted. Delisting is not death, it's just the point at which the company's shares no longer meet the qualifications to be traded on a particular exchange. If you find old stock certificates in your grandmother's sock drawer, they may be a treasure, or they may be worthless pieces of paper if the company changed its ownership and Grandma didn't know about it.\"",
"\"As @ApplePie pointed out in their answer, at any given time there is a finite amount of stock available in a company. One subtlety you may be missing is that there is always a price associated with an offer to buy shares. That is, you don't put in an order simply to buy 1 share of ABC, you put in an order to buy 1 share of ABC for $10. If no one is willing to sell a share of ABC for $10, then your order will go unfilled. This happens millions of times a day as traders try to figure the cheapest price they can get for a stock. Practically speaking, there is always a price at which people are willing to sell their shares. You can put in a market order for 1 share of ABC, which says essentially \"\"I want one share of ABC, and I will pay whatever the market deems to be the price\"\". Your broker will find you 1 share, but you may be very unhappy about the price you have to pay! While it's very rare for a market to have nobody willing to sell at any price, it occasionally happens that no one is willing to buy at any price. This causes a market crash, as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, when suddenly everyone became very suspicious of how much debt the major banks actually held, and for a few days, very few traders were willing to buy bank stocks at any price.\"",
"Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies. You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion.",
"This comment makes zero sense. No one values equities from the balance sheet, unless you're trying to justify why you'd invest in sears or something (i.e. b/s vastly understates market value of real estate holdings and you're hoping for a liquidity event). Certainly not a tech company or really anything as a going concern."
] |
[
"\"The VDE fund is an energy fund so this is a function of recent price changes in oil (and gas, coal, &c). For example. Lets say last year when oil was $100 per barrel a bunch of companies saw a good return and put $ 100 million into a bunch of leases, boreholes, pumps, &c to return $10 million per year, and the market says yeah, they're all together worth 100M. Now oil is less, maybe $40 per the link. These exploration companies don't have a lot of labor or variable costs; they are operationally profitable, may have \"\"use it or lose it\"\" leases or minimum pumping requirements for contract or engineering reasons. Lets say the cash flow is 7M so the market values them at 70M. They still have about 100M book value so here we are at .7 and I believe the scenario in the question. Nobody would invest in new capacity at this oil price. The well equipment could be repurposed but not the borehole or lease, so the best use is to continue pumping and value it on cash flow. If an individual well runs negative long enough and goes bust, either a different pumper will pay the minimum price that gives profitable cash flow, or that borehole that cost millions to dig is shut off and rendered valueless. The CNBC article says some explorers are playing games with debt to maintain yield, so there is that too. In the ETF, your bet is that the market is wrong and oil will go up, increasing future cash flows (or you like the current yield, taking on the risk that some of these oil explorers could go bust).\"",
"A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;",
"Note that the formula for Price to Book ratio is: Stock Price / {[Total Assets - (Intangible Assets + Liabilities)] / Stock Outstanding} http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-to-bookratio.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/03/112603.asp There's a number of factors that could lead to a lower than 1. The primary reason, imho, could be the company is in a state of retiring stock with debt. The company is selling penny stocks (only to get people more interested in it's later development) which are inherently undervalued. There may be other reasons, but definitely check out both articles.",
"Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps"
] |
8947
|
Can a Roth IRA be used as a savings account?
|
[
"455398",
"461592"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"241161",
"89624",
"457634",
"59899",
"136879",
"466308",
"122638",
"20485",
"25814",
"461592",
"180293",
"561636",
"290322",
"218304",
"237336",
"214174",
"270818",
"158730",
"305855",
"211525",
"159197",
"484149",
"387338",
"461084",
"479769",
"545184",
"135079",
"101578",
"214901",
"340113",
"416633",
"232930",
"147502",
"335436",
"33714",
"19402",
"402509",
"146735",
"312212",
"140330",
"252373",
"335357",
"484683",
"380615",
"155318",
"455398",
"553031",
"194862",
"517723",
"47614",
"580612",
"290228",
"437453",
"354075",
"587727",
"527939",
"127134",
"130118",
"469311",
"1219",
"195515",
"590523",
"179408",
"119700",
"403103",
"138505",
"27495",
"53028",
"452870",
"150878",
"79009",
"113881",
"469853",
"2128",
"192292",
"570292",
"422952",
"176104",
"205783",
"112182",
"265231",
"491700",
"579644",
"196946",
"508219",
"125168",
"279121",
"393693",
"175968",
"294676",
"5778",
"32811",
"299690",
"330689",
"164672",
"592679",
"569528",
"162592",
"89868",
"151544"
] |
[
"A Roth IRA is intended for retirement. Before age 59.5 (I think), you can only withdraw the amount you deposited without penalty. It's great you're saving in a Roth, but you shouldn't put savings in there that you will need before you reach sufficient age. And since it's long-term, you can invest in things you expect to grow over the long term, like equities. You should keep emergency funds either in federally insured, extremely liquid accounts (bank savings) or money market funds (which aren't insured, but are close enough to zero-risk). Yes, the interest rates are terrible right now. But anything else would potentially leave you with insufficient funds in the event of, you know, an emergency.",
"It's a little extra hassle come tax-time if you have a distribution to account for, as you'd be required to file Form 8606. If you pay for tax-preparation the extra fees could easily wipe out any interest earned. Roth IRA savings accounts don't seem to earn much interest, so while you could come out slightly ahead with this approach, I don't think it's worth it. I prefer to keep a portion of my emergency fund in an online savings account (0.75% interest), and another portion in CD's (2.10% interest) through the same bank.",
"Generally, you have 60 days to return funds. If you've been stowing away money in to a Roth IRA and an emergency strikes you pull out contributions sufficient to tackle the emergency while leaving at least the earnings in there. You've never paid taxes on these earnings and the earnings will continue to grow tax free. If you've been stowing away money in a vanilla taxable account and an emergency strikes you pull out whatever amount to tackle the emergency. You've been paying taxes on the earnings all along but there's no paperwork. You can't replace the money in the Roth IRA (outside the 60 day limit except for some specific same year rules that you should iron out with your custodian) but you also haven't lost anything. Either way in the event of an emergency the funds are removed from an account, but in one case you haven't been paying taxes on gains. IF you want to go the route of a Roth IRA wrapper for your emergency fund you shouldn't be touching the funds for small events, tires for your car and the like. If your goal is to juice the tax free nature of the Roth IRA wrapper for as long as you can then repurpose the money for retirement if you never experienced an emergency with the understanding that you may have to gut the account in an emergency, that's fine. If you expect money to routinely come in and out of the account a Roth IRA is a horrible vehicle.",
"Why are you saving your emergency fund in a Roth-IRA? That type of fund should be for retirement. I know you can pull out your principal but that would mean in a crisis you will be destroying your retirement fund. Remember there is an annual limit, it could take years to replenish it if you have to pay for a big repair, or period of unemployment. The emergency fund should be kept in a very safe account. I would just keep in a high yeild account at a Credit Union",
"\"Wow. It's clear I'm outnumbered. When I'm approached with the question (and keep in mind, it's usually a couple data points and little else) \"\"I am getting started, with no other money do I fund a retirement or emergency account?\"\" I often suggest they put the funds into a Roth, in a money market fund, and treat it like an emergency account. If there's in fact an emergency, there's no penalty to withdraw the deposit and we're talking peanuts for interest today. With no emergency, two things could happen: A) As the account grows beyond what's needed for emergencies, the excess can be invested long term. B) As the investor earns more money and saves up enough to have a true emergency account separate from the IRA, the Roth can be fully invested long term. The 'Bad idea' stems from the view that one is using their Roth as an emergency account, which of course is bad. The subtle difference is one has no retirement savings and puts their Emergency account into the otherwise unused Roth. As time passes, they've protected more funds to grow tax free. In the end, the most important thing is whether the person is saving and not tapping for simple non-emergency things. I'd rather see a guy with $25K in his Roth and no other funds than to have $5000 in his bank account because every time it gets larger he feels compelled to spend it. My answer to Matt is to treat it for now as you intended, low risk, CD or cash (money market).\"",
"Why not just roll over part of your IRA to a bank? I don't know about Capital One, but Bank of America seems to offer a bank-based IRA. In broker-based IRAs, the closest that I've seen to a savings account is a money market fund. They often set those as the default investment until money is allocated to more specific funds. It is conceivably possible that a money market could lose money, but it has never happened.",
"You can use a Roth IRA for retirement and you can still withdraw all of your contributions at any time. You can also withdraw $10,000 worth of the earnings in your Roth IRA for a first-time home purchase. You can also withdraw for unreimbursed medical expenses and qualified education expenses. Full details are available in IRS publication 590. There is a limit of $5,500 for contributions in 2016 ($6,500 if you're over 50) as long as your adjusted gross income is below a certain level. You can still make a contribution for the previous tax year until the filing deadline (usually April 15).",
"Deposits are contributions. You deposit say, $5000, and over time you have $6000. The $5000 can be withdrawn any time with no issue. It's tracked via form 8606. With this in mind, I wrote an article The Roth Emergency Fund, suggesting that since one can withdraw deposits with no issue, the Roth can be used to hold emergency money.",
"If you are absolutely sure you will need the money in the next year or so I wouldn't do it just because of the hassle. If you think you might not need to use the money then I would go ahead and fund a Roth IRA for the simple reason that you can get your contributions (NOT earnings on those contributions.) back without paying any penalties if you do end up needing them. A good summary of the rationale can be found at My Money Blog's Roth IRA Contribution vs. Emergency Fund Savings",
"(To be clear, IRA accounts are just wrappers, and can contain a large variety of investments. I'm restricting myself to the usual setup of investment in the stock market.) So, let's say you have $5000 in savings, as an emergency fund. Of the top of my head, putting some of it into a Roth IRA could backfire in the following ways: The basic principle here is that the stock market is not a good place for storing your emergency cash, which needs to be secured against loss and immediately accessible. Once you're happy with your level of emergency cash, however, tax-advantaged investment accounts are a reasonable next step.",
"Yes sir, been there did that. Now a Roth account is considered income if you it pull out. It is your money and you have to report if you pull it out. FYI, open a savings account, and put it in that so if you need it this will not happen.",
"You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.",
"It doesn't matter if you aren't maxing out your IRA contributions anyway. If you are maxing out IRA contribution and you still have extra money to deposit then yes you better have all the money inevested, but if you aren't maxing out your contribution then it doesn't really mattter where you stick your emergency savings. But if you fall into money later you will be glad you put your emergency in a roth.",
"You may withdraw your contributions to a Roth IRA at any time for any reason without penalty. Any gains you withdraw may be subject to tax or penalties though, but there is a $10,000 exclusion (from the 10% penalty, not the taxes) for a first time home purchase.",
"Whether or not you can deposit to a Roth IRA, you are able to convert those deposits to A Roth account. In effect, you pay the tax going in (as with the regular brokerage account) but no tax on growth when withdrawn. The non-deductible IRA, on its own, holds little appeal, in comparison.",
"\"A Roth IRA is simply a tax-sheltered account that you deposit funds into, and then invest however you choose (within the limits of the firm you deposit the funds with). For example, you could open a Roth IRA account with Vanguard. You could then invest the $3000 by purchasing shares of VOO, which tracks the S&P 500 index and has a very low expense ratio (0.04 as of last time I checked). Fidelity has a similar option, or Schwab, or whatever brokerage firm you prefer. IRAs are basically just normal investment accounts, except they don't owe taxes until you withdraw them (and Roth don't even owe them then, though you paid taxes on the funds you deposit). They have some limitations regarding options trading and such, but if you're a novice investor just looking to do basic investments, you'll not notice. Then, your IRA would go up or down in value as the market went up or down in value. You do have some restrictions on when you can withdraw the funds; Roth IRA has fewer than a normal IRA, as you can withdraw the capital (the amount you deposited) without penalty, but the profits cannot be withdrawn until you're retirement age (I won't put an actual year, as I suspect that actual year will change by the time you're that old; but think 60s). The reason not to invest in an IRA is if you plan on using the money in the near future - even as an \"\"emergency fund\"\". You should have some money that is not invested aggressively, that is in something very safe and very accessible, for your emergency fund; and if you plan to buy a house or whatever with the funds, don't start an IRA. But if this is truly money you want to save for retirement, that's the best place to start. **Note, this is not investment advice, and you should do your own homework prior to making any investment. You can lose some or all of the value of your account while investing.\"",
"\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\"",
"This is a great idea and I can't think of any downside. The best part about it is in the future when you have built up your emergency fund beyond the maximum contributions to the Roth IRA, you can then move your Roth funds into a higher yielding investment. I might take it a step further. In addition to this, try to get a line of credit from your bank (with no annual fee). In case of emergency, you can decide if you want to take the money from your Roth or borrow from the line and pay some interest temporarily. Depending on the situation it may actually make sense to pay a little bit of interest and leave the money in the Roth, since over the long run the future earnings of that money could easily make you more than the interest you'll pay for (let's hope) a short amount of time. To really hit home why your idea is fantastic:",
"I think you're missing several key issues here. First for the facts: IRA contributions are $5500 a year maximum (currently, it changes with inflation), i.e.: you cannot deposit $10K in an IRA account in a single year. IRA withdrawals can only be made if you have something liquid in the IRA. You cannot withdraw from Lending Club IRA unless you manage to sell the notes currently held by you there. Roth IRA is funded with after-tax money, and you can withdraw your deposits in Roth IRA any time for any reason. No 10K limit there, only limited by what you deposited. However the main thing you're missing is this: You can withdraw up to $10K from your IRA for first home purchase without penalty. Pay attention: not without tax but without penalty. So what is the point in depositing $10k into IRA just to withdraw it the next year?",
"First, a Roth is funded with post tax money. The Roth IRA deposit will not offset any tax obligation you might have. The IRA is not an investment, it's an account with a specific set of tax rules that apply to it. If you don't have a brokerage account, I'd suggest you consider a broker that has an office nearby. Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard are 3 that I happen to have relationships with. Once the funds are deposited, you need to choose how to invest for the long term. The fact that I'd choose the lowest cost S&P ETF or mutual fund doesn't mean that's the ideal investment for you. You need to continue to do research to find the exact investment that matches your risk profile. By way of example, up until a few years ago, my wife and I were nearly 100% invested in stocks, mostly the S&P 500. When we retired, four years ago, I shifted a bit to be more conservative, closer to 80% stock 20% cash.",
">I could be wrong but you will still get tax at 10% This isn't true for Roths. If I put 5k (post tax of course) money into a Roth 401k or a Roth IRA I can withdraw that 5k whenever I want penalty and tax free. Now lets say that 5k has grown to 7k and I take out all 7k the first 5k is penalty and tax free but the extra 2k is taxed (with the extra 10% penalty added on). So as long as you don't touch any growth in your roth accounts you can withdraw the principal amount with the same consequences you would experience if you were to take money out of your checking account at your bank. Also money in and IRA does not have to be invested it could be in a liquid position. Now a pre tax retirement account doesn't have the same luxury. If I stick 5k into a traditional IRA and it grows to 7k and I pull that money out the entire ammount gets taxed AND penalized (even the principal amount is subject the 10% penalty). Now if you do a Roth conversion (pre-tax to post-tax retirment account conversion) the principal ammount (the amount you paid taxes on) is still subject to the 10% penalty for 5 years. After the 5 years you can withdraw the converted ammount tax and penalty free (well you already paid the taxes) it would just be the growth that is subject to the penalty.",
"mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account. In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions. In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets. As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well. (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.)",
"With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.",
"Why shouldn't I just keep my money in the savings account and earn the same amount (both accounts have the same APY in this case)? I will assume that you are transferring money from your savings account into a Traditional IRA and deducting the contribution from your income. While you may think that the money that is being transferred is yours already -- it is sitting in your savings account, for Pete's sake! -- you are deducting that amount in getting to your taxable income, and so you are effectively contributing it from current income and not paying taxes on the amount contributed. So, consider the same amount of money sitting in your savings account versus the same amount of money sitting in your Traditional IRA account. While you will earn the same amount of interest in both accounts, you will have to pay taxes each year on the interest earned in the savings account. You might choose, as most people do, to not take money out of the savings account to pay theses taxes but just pay them from ready cash/checking account/current income etc., or these taxes might just reduce the refund that you will getting from the IRS and your State income tax authority, but in either case, you have paid taxes on the interest earned in your non-IRA savings account, and of course, long ago, you also paid taxes on the original amount in the non-IRA savings account. So, if you take any money out of the non-IRA savings account, you don't pay any taxes on the amount withdrawn except possibly for the interest earned from January 1 till the date of withdrawal (which you are paying from ready cash). On the other hand, consider the Traditional IRA. The original deposit was not taxed in the sense that you got a deduction (reduced tax or increased refund) when you made the contribution. The annual interest earned was not taxed each year either. So when you make a qualified withdrawal (after age 59.5 or by meeting one of the other exceptions allowing withdrawal before age 59.5), you are taking money on which you have not paid any taxes at all, and the IRS wants its cut. The money withdrawn is taxable income to you. Furthermore, the money withdrawn is not eligible for any kind of favorable treatment such as having it count as qualified dividends or as long-term capital gains even if your IRA was invested in stocks and the money in the account is all qualified dividends or long-term capital gains. If you make an unqualified withdrawal, you owe a penalty (technically named an excise tax) in addition to income tax on the amount withdrawn. If you are investing in a Roth IRA, you will not be getting a deduction when you make the contribution, and qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free, and so the answer is completely different from the above.",
"I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.",
"As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.",
"So you wouldn't really be using the IRA money for building the house, but for padding your savings? I would just leave the money in the IRA. Don't take it out just in the off-chance you need it, especially when you already have money in savings. If you want to replenish your savings do it by putting some of your income in there.",
"First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.",
"I would wait, and invest that money in a Roth IRA. Because taxes are paid on the contributions to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time, tax and penalty-free. In addition, you can withdraw contributions and earning to purchase your first home.",
"You can withdraw the contributions you made to Roth IRA tax free. Any withdrawals from Roth IRA count first towards the contributions, then conversions, and only then towards the gains which are taxable. You can also withdraw up to $10000 of the taxable portion penalty free (from either the Traditional IRA or the Roth IRA, or the combination of both) if it is applied towards the purchase of your first primary residence (i.e.: you don't own a place yet, and you're buying your first home, which will become your primary residence). That said, however, I cannot see how you can buy a $250K house. You didn't say anything about your income, but just the cash needed for the down-payment will essentially leave you naked and broke. Consider what happens if you have an emergency, out of a job for a couple of months, or something else of that kind. It is generally advised to have enough cash liquid savings to keep you afloat for at least half a year (including mortgage payments, necessities and whatever expenses you need to spend to get back on track - job searching, medical, moving, etc). It doesn't look like you're anywhere near that. Remember, many bankruptcies are happening because of the cash-flow problem, not the actual ability to repay debts on the long run.",
"\"You could put in in a Money Market Fund. These are designed to always be $1 per share, and not lose money. Of course, it still, very rarely, happens and is called \"\"breaking the buck\"\" when they do. Sounds like the high yield savings is the way to go. The rates will be the same as what you can get from a Money Market Fund, but you also have the added advantage that the account is FDIC insured. BTW, using a Roth as an emergency fund is a terrible idea. It is true that, since you already paid taxes on your contributions, you can withdraw those contributions without incurring penalties. However, you have to file paperwork to do it, and since it's not common, the IRA custodian is likely to screw it up. Plus, you have to keep track of what were contributions, and what was investment returns, to not run afoul of the penalties. And it will take time to do it, which you may not have in an emergency. Considering you're only looking at getting 1% interest anyway, there's no reason to use a Roth account as an emergency fund. You can set those same automatic deposits into a savings account.\"",
"Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.",
"I'll summarize here our discussion in the comments. First thing to remember is that you can only deposit up to $6K/year into the Roth IRA, you cannot seed it with some large amount (unless its a rollover). Second thing to remember is that you can only qualify 10K distribution for the home purchase. With that in mind, it seems that you'll have to have extremly high returns to make use of the maximum tax benefit (15-20% of the 10K). Non-qualified distributions will be taxed at ordinary income rates + 10% penalty, so if you can't qualify the distribution, instead of saving money on taxes, you'll end up paying twice as much as you would have without the IRA. Also, keep in mind that reporting of the distributions and justifying the qualifications might require assistance of a tax preparer, which will also reduce your savings. Bottom line, IMHO, you'll end up with a wash or very insignificant savings (compared to the magnitude of the home purchase costs) at best, which renders the whole thing kindof wastefull.",
"If I may echo the Roth comment - The Roth is a tax designation, not an end investment, so you still need to research and decide what's appropriate. I recommend the Roth for the long term investments, but keep in mind, even if you feel you may need to tap the Roth sooner than later, all deposits may be withdrawn at any time with no tax or penalty. Roth is great to store the emergency money for many if they aren't 100% sure they have enough cash to save for retirement. As you get further along, and see that you don't need it, change how it's invested to longer term, a mix of stocks (I prefer ETFs that mimic the S&P)",
"Putting money into a Roth IRA or 401(k) will save you money if your taxes this year will be lower than your taxes in retirement. See also the Wikipedia retirement-savings matrix.",
"There are no immediate tax-related benefits to putting money into a Roth IRA. You are investing after-tax money in the hope that the rules won't change and you'll be able to take out the money tax-free when you retire. Under current rules, you can take out your contributions at any time without penalties or taxes. You can't take out earnings without penalties until you retire. You said you don't have any debt (great!). So if you have cash that you don't have other uses for, and you don't mind possibly tying it up for a long time, you can put money into a Roth IRA. I'd argue that if you have, say, $25-50/month to put into long term savings, it's a good habit to start. When you move into a job that gives you more disposable income, you can increase this amount. The earlier you start, the lower the monthly amount you'll need to contribute towards a comfortable retirement. Once you get started putting a little bit away, you'll never miss it.",
"The Roth is the mirror image of the Pre-Tax (traditional) IRA. The latter gives you a tax break now, the deposits go in pre-tax, and are withdrawn at your rate in retirement. The former lets you squirrel that money away now, post-tax, but never pay tax again. For young folk the Roth is a great way to go. My 12 year old has a Roth account, and paid no tax since she has her own exemption. At your level, you are probably in the 10% bracket now. Imagine investing that money and at retirement finding it's grown 100X (very possible), if it were in a Roth, you'd have no tax due. As BST noted, you are always free to withdraw the deposit, so if you decide this wasn't money you could actually put away long term you still have an out.",
"Your question boils down to saving for a house or saving for retirement. Why not do both? If you invest in a Roth 401k or Roth IRA you can withdraw any contributions that are at least 5 years old without penalty (assuming you're willing to put off purchasing a little longer than your original 2-3 years). If you qualify as a first time home buyer (i.e. you haven't owned a home in at least 2 years) you can withdraw investment earnings as well if your distribution is earmarked towards the down payment and is no more than $10000. Although you won't be penalized for using investment earnings for a down payment you will still have to pay taxes on them. So this may be more appealing to someone that has enough contributions to avoid dipping into the investment earnings. The only other downside is that contributions to a Roth investment are not tax deductible like Traditional IRA and 401k contributions are. Instead, they grow tax free and distributions are tax free when you reach retirement age.",
"Both of the other posters have some really good points worth remembering about the stability/liquidity of a savings account and the often overlooked fact that you can withdraw any money you put in to a Roth IRA because it's already been taxed. I'm 28 and found myself in a similar situation as you about a year or so ago. I wanted a relatively liquid place that I could store and grow some money. CD's and Savings accounts just weren't getting a high enough rate to make a return work for me, especially with only a little money to start. I would highly suggest checking out a social lending platform like Prosper.com or Lendingclub.com. I use Prosper.com and this platform will give you some really nice benefits: Here's a good article that can explain more about it and get you started: http://www.financialsamurai.com/investing-in-peer-to-peer-lending-with-prosper-com/ just keep in mind that while there is some liquidity here (you can resell the notes you invest in) generally speaking expect to hold on to those notes for at least 3 years (your share of the paid principal gets paid out to you in addition to the interest each month.)",
"Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe.",
"\"Yes, it is possible to withdraw money from your Roth IRA before retirement (but I wouldn't necessarily advise you to do so.) Here's the good news, and the bad news: The good news: Unlike a traditional IRA, money contributed to a Roth IRA is done so on an after-tax basis, meaning you don't benefit from a tax deduction on contributions. So, the money you withdraw from your Roth IRA will not be taxed entirely as ordinary income. In fact, you are allowed to withdraw the amount of your original contributions (also known as basis) without any taxes or penalties. Let's imagine you originally deposited $9000 of that current $10K total value – then in such a case, $9000 could be withdrawn tax and penalty free. The bad news: When it comes to the investment earnings – the other $1000 in my example – it's a different story: Since you wouldn't be age 59 1/2 at the time of withdrawal, any money taken out beyond your original contributions would be considered a non-qualified withdrawal and subject to both ordinary income taxes plus a 10% early withdrawal penalty. Ouch! Perhaps you might want to restrict your withdrawal to your original contributions. I would imagine if you've had the account for such a short period of time that much or all of your account value is original contributions anyway. A good article about the rules for early IRA withdrawals is About.com's Tax Penalty for Early Distribution of Retirement Funds. Note: If your Roth IRA funds were the result of a rollover from another account type, other rules may apply. See Roth IRA (Wikipedia) for more detail; search for \"\"rollover\"\". Regarding the withdrawal process itself and the timing, you should check with your account custodian on how to proceed.\"",
"Your question indicates confusion regarding what an Individual Retirement Account (whether Roth or Traditional) is vs. the S&P 500, which is nothing but a list of stocks. IOW, it's perfectly reasonable to open a Roth IRA, put your $3000 in it, and then use that money to buy a mutual fund or ETF which tracks the S&P 500. In fact, it's ridiculously common... :)",
"You bring up a valid concern. IRAs are good retirement instruments as long as the rules don't change. History has shown that governments can change the rules regarding retirement accounts. As long as you have some of your retirement assets outside of an IRA I think IRAs are good ways to save for retirement. It's not possible to withdraw the money before retirement without penalty. Also, you will be penalized if you do not withdraw enough when you do retire.",
"401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not.",
"You are permitted to withdraw the deposits from the Roth with no tax or penalty any time. To Dilip's point, the Roth is a good place to keep the investment, and what you might consider is a 'self-directed' account. This type of IRA or Roth IRA permits a choice of investments that are not typically handled by banks or brokers, including Real Estate and the type of Angel investing you seem to be considering. Note - the rules are tough, you need to be very careful to not be self-dealing, or dealing with certain related parties.",
"Sounds like a bad idea. The IRA is built on the power of compounding. Removing contributions will hurt your retirement savings, and you will never be able to make that up. Instead, consider tax-free investments. State bonds, Federal bonds, municipal bonds, etc. For example, I invest in California muni bonds fund which gives me ~3-4% annual dividend income - completely tax free. In addition - there's capital appreciation of your fund holdings. There are risks, of course, for example rate changes will affect yields and capital appreciation, so consult with someone knowledgeable in this area (or ask another question here, for the basics). This will give you the same result as you're expecting from your Roth IRA trick, without damaging your retirement savings potential.",
"Your question seems like you don't understand what a Roth IRA is. A Roth IRA isn't an investment, per se. It is just a type of account that receives special tax treatment. Just like a checking and savings account are different at a bank, a ROTH IRA account is just flagged as such by a brokerage. It isn't an investment type, and there aren't really different ROTH IRA accounts. You can invest in just about anything inside that account so that is what you need to evaluate. One Roth IRA account is as good as any other.As to what to invest your money in inside a ROTH, that is a huge question and off-topic per the rules against specific investing advice.",
"the $5500 Roth IRA is not restricted to earned income, you can put whatever money you have tax free and gains free.",
"Roth IRAs divide your withdrawal into 3 categories: Contributions, Conversions, and Earnings. This is significant, because each have different tax consequences and the order of withdrawal is dictated by tax law. You can withdraw your contributions in less than 5 years for any reason (home buyer or not). You cannot withdraw your conversions or earnings without waiting 5 years unless you pay the 10% penalty. The home buyer exemption is only after the 5 years are met. Further detail found on the motley fool: home purchase exemption, distributions, early withdrawals.",
"If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.",
"\"1) Indeed, if referring to a Roth as the question is, you are right on. But - You can deposit to an Traditional IRA (TIRA). You just can't deduct it. You are then permitted to convert that to a Roth any time. Now, this would appear to negate income issues, right? Not so fast. When you convert, all TIRA accounts must be considered. In other words, when it comes to the TIRA, you only have One TIRA, the \"\"A\"\" actually standing for Arrangement, not account. That TIRA may then be spread over as many accounts as you have time to set up. So, if there is any pretax money and/or untaxed gain, it will be prorated and taxed based on your conversion amount. If any of this is not 110% clear, please comment and I will update the answer. No 401(k) at work? Note: I edited as my original wording misunderstood the response, and in turn, appeared a bit unkind. Not my intention.\"",
"\"Chris's answer is a great start. Keep in mind that when you withdraw from a Roth IRA, you \"\"shrink\"\" the size of the IRA (i.e. if the start up flourishes, you can't put the $10k you withdrew back, as you're limited to ~$5k in contributions per year). You may want to consider funding your startup with a credit card (ideally a balance transfer of $10k at 0% interest). If you need to, you can always pay your card off with your Roth balance, but if the startup takes off, your IRA is unharmed. (On a side note, I wouldn't feel comfortable quitting my job to do a startup with only $10k in savings, but to each his own!)\"",
"Being from the UK, I'd not heard of a Roth IRA, but it sounds very similar to our own ISA (Individual Savings Account). Having just looked it up, I couldn't believe the annual limit was so low: $5500! Still, you have to work within your jurisdiction's legal framework (or agitate for change?). I would definitely agree with Ben Miller's answer: you need different savings buckets for the different savings objectives you'll have throughout the different periods of your life. I, for instance, am now a parent of two young children. I am fortunate to be able to provide for them on multiple levels: I hope that's of some help.",
"Actually there has been lots of talk around using a TFSA (Tax Free Savings Account) in Canada for just that purpose. A TFSA allows you: This blog makes some good points about exactly that: The bestest thing about the TFSA is its flexibility. You can take money out of your TFSA at any time for any purpose, without losing the contribution room, which makes this account the number one choice for socking away an emergency fund. So even if you take money out in one year, you can put it back the next, without affecting that year’s $5,000 contribution limit.",
"\"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \"\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\"\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\"",
"\"The Roth vs not debate is irrelevant to the question. It doesn't matter where your emergency fund is kept, as long as it is liquid and safe. I said it before in an answer to another question: your emergency fund is not an investment -- it's your safety net This answer also says it well: an \"\"emergency fund\"\" is just that... for emergencies... NOT investment. While it \"\"hurts\"\" not to have your emergency money making more money... its MORE IMPORTANT to have quick access to it. So at TD Ameritrade, just park it in their FDIC deposit account. It will not earn any meaningful interest (at least until rates rise), but you'll be able to have access to it when you need it. Note that I would caution against putting it in a money market mutual fund. They're safer than many other investments, but they're not FDIC insured against loss and there is a potential for temporary loss of liquidity. In late 2008 when the credit markets collapsed, a lot of people suddenly became unemployed -- and needed access to their emergency funds. When Lehman Brothers went bust in September, the Reserve Primary Fund (with billions of dollars in their fund) \"\"broke the buck\"\" -- they lowered the price of shares below $1, meaning investors lost principal. The worst part is that investors were not as liquid as they wanted to be: the fund froze and it was hard to get money out. The lesson to take away from this is that one of the times you're likely to need access to your emergency fund is during a macroeconomic crisis. This is also the time when any investment that isn't guaranteed safe may potentially be (at least temporarily) unavailable or decline in value. Emergency funds should be 100% government insured. When you have your Roth funded to the point where there's extra money beyond the emergency fund, you can start investing in higher-yielding vehicles: stock or bond index ETFs would be a good start. But then that part of your Roth starts to look like a retirement account and not an emergency fund. If it were me, I'd open a Roth at a stable local bank and just keep it in their FDIC insured money market deposit account. Then if I wanted a slight boost, I might put the \"\"upper half\"\" of my emergency fund into short term CDs, but even CDs aren't worth much at the moment.\"",
"If the time horizon is 5 years, I don't think that playing games with Roth IRAs or investments is really productive. I'd look at an online savings account as a holding place for this money. EDIT: Another option is the US is Savings Bonds. The rates earned right now are poor (as of 04/2011 EE bonds earn 0.6% and I bonds yielded 0.37%), and there is an interest penalty if you redeem them in less than five years. But, they are not state taxable, and you can defer tax payments until you cash them.",
"I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments.",
"Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income.",
"You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.",
"Comparing retirement savings to ordinary investment is not an apples-to-apples comparison - retirement savings are savings for retirement - if you want to invest in things now and live off of (or reinvest) those earnings, then retirement accounts are not the right vehicle. That said, here are some benefits of the main types of retirement accounts: Benefits of a 401(k): Benefits of a tratitional IRA: Benefits of a ROTH 401(k): Benefits of a ROTH IRA: (the benefits above are not exhaustive, there are other benefits such as using a ROTH IRA for higher ed. expenses, etc. but those are the highlights) If you have a plan for how you hope to use the money now rather than later does it make sense to hold onto it? If your plan is meant to provide income at retirement, and earns returns higher than the returns plus matches and tax benefits you get from retirement accounts, then yes, it may make more sense, but those benefits are generally very hard to beat. Plus, having the money locked away in an account that is painful to tap can be a good thing - you're less tempted to use that money for foolish decisions (which everyone makes at some point).",
"Lets do the math (assuming a lot of stuff, like your interest rates and that you make the contribution at the beginning of the year, also your tax bracket at the withdrawal time frame.) 1.) Beginning of year 1 Roth Option $5k contribution Non Roth Option $5k contribution 2.) Beginning of year 2 Roth Option $5000 + $150 interest + 5K contribution = $10150 Non Roth Option $5000 + $75 interest + 5K contribution = $10075 3.) End of year 2 Buy a house! yay! Roth Option---before withdrawal account value = 10150+10150*.03=10454.5 after withdrawl (assuming 38% tax on earnings withdrawal (10%penalty + 28% income tax estimate.) = 10327.17 Non Roth Option = 10 226.125 So you are talking about a significant amount of paperwork to either 1.) Net yourself $100 toward the purchase 2.) Cost yourself $226 on the purchase but have $454.50 in your roth ira. I am not sure I would do that, but it might be worth it.",
"A Roth IRA is just an account wrapper. Inside a Roth IRA you can have a plain 0.1% savings account, or a brokerage account, or an annuity or whatever. There's no rate of return for a Roth IRA. That particular calculator seems to assume you'll be wrapping a brokerage account in a Roth IRA and investing in the stock market. Over a long period 6% is probably a reasonable rate of return considering the S&P 500 has returned about 7% over the last decade.",
"If you are going to be buying a house in 1-2 years, I would be putting my money into a short term holding area like a high interest (which isn't that high right now) or a CD (also low interest) because of your near-term need. I wouldn't use the Roth option for your down payment money. If you invest in something volatile (and stocks/mutual funds are very volatile in a 1-2 year term) I would consider it too risky for your need and time frame.",
"The primary advantage of an IRA or 401k is you get taxed effectively one time on the money (when you contribute for Roth, or when you withdraw for Traditional), whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account (on all the money when you contribute, plus on the earnings part when you withdraw). Of course, you have to be able to withdraw without penalty for it to be optimally advantageous. And you said you want to retire decades early, so that is probably not retirement age. However, withdrawing early does not necessarily mean you have a penalty. For example: you can withdraw contributions to a Roth IRA at any time without tax or penalty; Roth 401k can be rolled over into Roth IRA; other types of accounts can be converted to Roth IRA and the principal of the conversion can be withdrawn after 5 years without penalty.",
"Well, a couple things to keep in mind: Even if you have enough to meet the minimum initial amount, you need to have at least that much income in the year you make the contribution. You'll probably be best served saving up in a savings account so that by the time you have an income (and can thus make contributions), you have enough cash to meet the minimum initial contribution.",
"There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it.",
"\"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \"\"loophole\"\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\"",
"\"The IRA contribution limit is a limit on the total amount you can contribute to all of your Roth and traditional IRAs. It's not a per-account limit. (See here and here.) Once you've hit the contribution limit on one account, you've hit it on all of them. Even so, supposing you had a reason with try to take money out of one of the accounts, the answer to your question is \"\"sort of\"\". The limit is a limit on your gross contributions, not your net contributions. It is possible to withdraw Roth contributions if you do so before the tax filing deadline for that year, but you must also withdraw (and pay taxes on) any earnings accured during the time the money was in the Roth (see here). In addition, doing this may not be as simple as just taking the money out of your account; you should probably ask your bank about it and let them know you're \"\"undoing\"\" the contribution, since they may otherwise still record the amount as a real contribution and the withdrawal as unqualified early withdrawal (subject to penalties, etc.).\"",
"No, you cannot. If you withdraw everything from all your Roth IRA's and end up with less than the total basis - you can deduct the difference on your schedule A (at the time of the last withdrawal) as an itemized deduction (as misc. deductions with 2% AGI cap). Regular IRA's are pre-tax, you cannot deduct anything from them.",
"lol @ savings accounts. I don't use savings accounts. I just use checking for liquidity and invest everything else. Now if you have a job that prohibits trading on your own account that's understandable but if you have the knowledge might as well use it and make some $$$",
"Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids.",
"I would not suggest closing out your Roth IRA -- Couple of reasons for that - 1) Since you've been contributing to it for 15 years, your investments have probably grown, seen dividends, etc. If you close it out, you will owe taxes and be slapped with a 10% penalty on the growth (money you didn't contribute). That's quite a waste of hard earned money. 2) While your income may exceed the contribution limit of a Roth, you could do what's called a 'backdoor' Roth - which is really just converting your after tax contributions into an IRA into a Roth IRA. 3) Given the length of your contributions your Roth IRA is seasoned (5 years) This allows you to use up to 10k for your house if you chose. (Usually not an option people use) Other than that, consider paying off the student loans with the highest interest first.",
"If the IRA is costing you $100 a year, you should almost certainly transfer it to a cheaper provider, regardless of whether you're going to withdraw anything. You can transfer the IRA to another provider that doesn't charge you the fees. Or you can convert it to Roth and combine it with your existing Roth. Either way, you will keep all the money, and save $100 per year in the future. If you want to take money out of your retirement accounts, you should take it out of your Roth IRA, because you can withdraw contributions (i.e., up to the amount you contributed) from the Roth without tax or penalty. Whether you should withdraw anything from your retirement accounts is a different question. If you're already maxing out your Roth IRA, and you have sufficient retirement savings, you could just instead plow that $5500 into your student loans. (If you can afford it, of course, it'd be better to just pay the $7500 from your income and still contribute to the retirement accounts.) There's no reason to withdraw from retirement accounts to pay loans when you could just divert current income for that purpose instead.",
"The Roth IRA will provide no tax benefit to you if you are contributing after-tax money and then removing it immediately. Also there is more information on tax benefits for parents of disabled children (and a real phone number, I tried calling) at http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Benefits-for-Disabled-Taxpayers",
"One thing to keep in mind is that with Roth accounts, there are different withdrawal considerations based on your contributions. For example, you can withdraw Roth IRA contributions whenever you want in the future. However this really has nothing to do with your cost basis and purely to do with the contribution amount vs balance.",
"Five years is too short to be able to safely invest the money in any productive manner. You're saving, not investing. Part of the problem is that you don't have all the money right now, and you'll need to add to it over the next few years until you have enough for a down payment. See the notes under CDs and bonds below for why this is a problem. The universe of options: As for the Roth, as duffbeer703 said, I'm not sure it's worth the hassle and risk that you'll want the money sooner and be forced to wait. (E.g. you end up with enough money in 4.25 years for a house that you want but you have to wait 9 months to be able to tap the Roth.) As noted above, the yields are so low that the losses to taxes aren't really going to amount to much. On $10k you're looking at $150 max earnings, and losing maybe $40 of it to taxes (annually). So avoiding taxes won't shrink your time horizon by any meaningful amount. I'd just open a high yield savings account and start dumping money in. Keep an eye on shorter term (1yr) CD rates and if they go above the savings yield and the timing is right then take advantage of it.",
"Some banks and credit unions have IRA accounts. They pay interest like a savings account or a CD but they are an IRA. After the 15th you can roll them over into a IRA at one of the big investment companies so you can get invest in an index or Target Retirement Fund. But it is not too late. Opening an account at one of the big companies takes ten minutes (you need to know your social security number and your bank account info) they can pull it out of your bank account. I helped my kid do the same thing this week. We went on-line Tuesday night, and they pulled the money from his account on Thursday morning. Also know which type you want (Roth or regular) before you start. Also make sure you specify that the money is for 2013 not 2014.",
"\"Yes. I describe the Roth flavor as \"\"denser.\"\" For those with more money they wish to save this factor should be added to the mix. Of course you can save $16500 + 5000 (in an IRA) for $21500 total pretax if you wish (and are within the limits.)\"",
"\"Investopedia probably should change the wording to \"\"tax free\"\" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. \"\"Tax advantaged\"\" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases.\"",
"Yes, it's possible to withdraw money without penalty but you have to do it in a special way. For example you have to withdraw the same amount every year until you retire: Tapping Your IRA Penalty-Free as for unstable economy - you can trade many instruments in your IRA. you can do bonds, mutual funds, stocks, ETFs or just keep it in cash. Some do well in bad economy.",
"If by exempt, you're just referring to the fact that the income is less than your standard deduction and personal exemption, then yes, that money can be used to fund a Roth. Great time to do it. To be clear, in 2014 the limit for an under 50 year old, is $5500 ($6500 if 50 or older). Only earned income may be used for deposits. No interest, dividends, etc.",
"You can take out the contributions to your Roth tax and penalty free. That's the good thing. Anything above the amount you contributed that you withdraw early will cost you ordinary income tax (which is higher than capital gains tax) plus a 10 percent penalty on that amount. So if you have $15,000 in the account and $5,000 is gains and you withdraw $11,000, then you owe tax and penalty on $1,000. The penalty is 10% and your taxes (high taxes!) are added to that. Pretty bad deal. If you kept it in a normal account and paid capital gains tax, you just pay 15% (or whatever) on your gains and you get to offset income tax with your losses via tax loss harvesting. So back to your question: your idea works even better than you suggested if you only withdraw up to the amount that you contributed (you pay no tax!). Take out any of the gains and you will be penalized more than you would if you just paid capital gains on them. Leave those in until you are old enough to take them out penalty and tax free. To me, contributing to a Roth, making a bunch of gains on it, and withdrawing only the contribution part whenever you want seems to make good sense.",
"You do not have to wait 5 years from when a particular dollar was earned to withdraw it. To be a qualified distribution from a Roth IRA, A) the Roth IRA must have been opened for 5 years (which yours was), and B) you must be 59.5 years old, or meet one of the other exceptions (and $10,000 for a first-time home purchase is one of the exceptions). Since it is a qualified distribution, there is no tax or penalty.",
"\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\"",
"If you have the cash on hand to pay the tax on the amount you are transferring I recommend moving to a Roth IRA An IRA is tax-deferred. You put in pretax contributions in to an IRA, and you are taxed on that money (your contributions and interest earned) when you withdraw it at retirement, age 59 1/2. The idea being that you will be taking less out per year in your retirement years, putting you into a lower tax bracket. The major problem is most people draw out as much or more a year in their retirement years than when they were working. A Roth IRA grows tax free You put after tax contributions into a Roth IRA, you have paid taxes on the contributions, and you are never taxed on the growth. When you draw the money out at retirement you don't pay any income taxes on that money. Let me give you an example: For this example we will use the following information for both scenario: We will invest $400 per month for a total of $4800. The current maximum is $5000 if you are under 50 years old $400 dollars after taxes is $300 Invest $300 a month, at age 65 you have 3,529,432 You owe no taxes on this money, it doesn't matter how much you take out a year. $400 dollars a month is taken pretax out of your paycheck. Invest $400 per month, at age 65 you have $4,705,909 You owe taxes of 25% as you draw that out for at total tax of 1,176,477 4,705,909 - 1,176,477 = 3,529,432 cash in your pocket The problem is if you draw out more than $82,400 (current 2010 filing single) per year you will be pushed to a higher tax bracket and take more of your money away. If you decide to buy a vacation home and you take out $250,000 to pay for it, that's counted as income for that year any you will be in the 33% tax bracket. Even if you can keep yourself to a low income the government forces your hand and makes you draw out more money at age 70, based on their tables, forcing you into a higher tax bracket",
"From what these people are saying, it is impossible for you to put $5,500 in if it were a Roth though, because the money has to be taxed. You are correct that this is wrong. You can still put $5,500 in a Roth - the tax payment comes when you file, not when you make the investment. This is when the Roth is better than a Traditional IRA, when you can invest the max either way. Yes you get the tax break for the Traditional investment, and if you invest the tax savings you'll be in the same spot, all else being equal. If you only have a certain amount (after taxes) to invest, say $3,000 in a 25% marginal tax bracket, then it works out the same either way. You can either invest $3,000 in a Roth and let it grow tax free, or put $4,000 in a traditional IRA since you can deduct $1,000 (15%) from your taxes when you file. Then your tax-adjusted balance when you withdraw is the same, since you'll have a lot more (33% more in fact) in your traditional IRA but will have to pay tax on the withdrawals.",
"For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.",
"\"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \"\"save\"\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \"\"discretionary\"\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\"",
"If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.",
"IRA is an account. You can open as many as you want. What's limited is the contributions: you cannot deposit to the IRA (all of them combined) more than what you've earned during the year, or $5500 (for 2013), the lowest. There are also limits on how much you can deduct, depending on your income and availability of other retirement programs at your work. You can open as many IRAs as you want in your child's name, but if your child had only earned $500 this year - that's how much you can put in these accounts. Your wife and you share the earned income limit, so if your wife is not working, you can still contribute to the IRA in her name, based on your own earnings (i.e.: if you earned more than $11000 - you can contribute the maximum $5500 for each of you). The limits are for all the IRA combined, doesn't matter how many accounts you have, and how many of them are Roth.",
"\"No. A deposit to an IRA must be in cash. A conversion from traditional IRA to Roth can be \"\"in kind\"\" i.e. As a stock transfer. Last, any withdrawals can also be in stock or funds. IRS Publication 590, so important, it's now in 2 sections Part A and Part B, addresses IRA issues such as this as well as most others. By the way - now on page 7 - \"\"Contributions, except for rollover contributions, must be in cash.\"\"\"",
"\"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \"\"tax-free\"\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\"",
"The biggest problem is what happens when you make a withdrawal if an emergency occurs. If the money was a contribution from a past year, you will not be able to put those funds back into the fund until a later date. Assume the following scenario: The limits regarding maximum annual contribution and windows when you can contribute make this an inefficient way to operate the emergency fund/retirement fund. Retirement and emergency funds are both important. Don't co-mingle them, it leads to double counting the money when you guesstimate where you are regarding your financial goals.",
"You're young. Build a side business in your spare time. Invest in yourself. Fail a few times when you have some time to recover financially. Use the money that you would have let sit in some account and develop your skills, start up an LLC, and build up the capacity to get some real returns on your money. Be a rainmaker, not a Roth taker.",
"Yes. Savings accounts and CDs today pay almost nothing. They are not a way to grow your money for the future. They are a place to keep some spare cash for emergencies. I don't have such accounts any more. Personally, I generally keep about $2000 in my checking account for any sudden surprise expenses. Any other spare money I have I put into very safe mutual funds. They don't grow much either, but it's better than what I'd get on a savings account or CD.",
"Savings accounts with 8% APY? Unheard of these days. You're lucky if you find one at 1%. You should use checking and savings accounts only to hold an emergency fund (6 to 12 months of living expenses), or money that you will need in 2 years or so. The rest, invest in stocks and bonds.",
"Using the default values for age and retirement and only making the changes you specified in the question. assumed ROR: 6%, current tax rate: 25%, retirement tax rate: 15%, married, have an employer retirement plan. The results from the two calculators are: Traditional IRA: 631,341 IRA before taxes 536,640 IRA after taxes. Roth IRA: 631,341 Roth IRA 450,207 Taxable Savings where: Total taxable savings The total amount you would have accumulated by retirement in a taxable savings account. your question: The (Traditional) IRA After Taxes value is 6.3% higher than the (Roth) Taxable Savings amount. (Both had an equal gross amount.) Does that mean I should put my money in a tIRA instead of a Roth? My percentages don't match your percentages because you didn't specify the numbers you used. In any case the 450K number shows you what you would have if the money was not invested in an IRA or 401K. To decide between a Roth and a traditional IRA ignore the taxable savings number, that only shows what happens if you decide not not use a retirement account.",
"There are 3 account types your question discusses and each has its good/bad points. The above is a snapshot of these account types. IRAs have income restrictions that may disallow a deduction on the traditional, or any deposit to Roth, etc. If this does not address your question, please comment, and I'll edit for better clarity.",
"\"One problem with this plan is that the individual must have earned income to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you have an infant, unless she is the new Gerber baby or something like that, there is probably no legitimate way for her to earn income. If you own a business and have kids who are older, you can employ them to do work for you, but they must really do work and earn around the market rate for that work. Otherwise, it is unlikely that they will be able to earn enough to fund an IRA until they are teenagers. When they are old enough to work, you can \"\"match\"\" their earnings by contributing the same amount to a Roth IRA on their behalf, but this will not give you the amount of contributions and growth time that you were counting on.\""
] |
[
"Sounds like a bad idea. The IRA is built on the power of compounding. Removing contributions will hurt your retirement savings, and you will never be able to make that up. Instead, consider tax-free investments. State bonds, Federal bonds, municipal bonds, etc. For example, I invest in California muni bonds fund which gives me ~3-4% annual dividend income - completely tax free. In addition - there's capital appreciation of your fund holdings. There are risks, of course, for example rate changes will affect yields and capital appreciation, so consult with someone knowledgeable in this area (or ask another question here, for the basics). This will give you the same result as you're expecting from your Roth IRA trick, without damaging your retirement savings potential.",
"(To be clear, IRA accounts are just wrappers, and can contain a large variety of investments. I'm restricting myself to the usual setup of investment in the stock market.) So, let's say you have $5000 in savings, as an emergency fund. Of the top of my head, putting some of it into a Roth IRA could backfire in the following ways: The basic principle here is that the stock market is not a good place for storing your emergency cash, which needs to be secured against loss and immediately accessible. Once you're happy with your level of emergency cash, however, tax-advantaged investment accounts are a reasonable next step."
] |
6800
|
I don't live in America. How can I buy IPO stock of newly listed companies in the United States?
|
[
"35191"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"35191",
"99472",
"551809",
"478736",
"231814",
"47579",
"253024",
"113644",
"209493",
"460951",
"566028",
"540986",
"539418",
"117415",
"234851",
"288977",
"396985",
"177222",
"107215",
"409712",
"347560",
"406872",
"591436",
"15772",
"529402",
"94477",
"34318",
"51777",
"451729",
"253847",
"89351",
"322771",
"569257",
"239334",
"123030",
"522798",
"281423",
"553896",
"313919",
"48269",
"340210",
"319920",
"18349",
"480638",
"243115",
"447303",
"458635",
"57841",
"94336",
"433809",
"589625",
"433023",
"535340",
"480967",
"258563",
"144685",
"12027",
"526847",
"82283",
"68094",
"44461",
"404339",
"287019",
"411799",
"365465",
"77631",
"413672",
"311834",
"75762",
"410543",
"110608",
"531180",
"455168",
"564876",
"152286",
"464537",
"5347",
"229119",
"99943",
"468148",
"386173",
"508492",
"358154",
"361383",
"182658",
"102682",
"497344",
"241135",
"380241",
"27716",
"173562",
"461821",
"495417",
"410404",
"297421",
"581642",
"12268",
"28188",
"369266",
"149306"
] |
[
"First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.",
"\"Check your broker's IPO list. Adding a new stock to a stock exchange is called \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\" (IPO), and most brokers have a list of upcoming IPO's in which their clients can participate.\"",
"Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.",
"There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website",
"It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf",
"It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms.",
"Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)",
"OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.",
"\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"",
"I personally am from Canada and use my local bank to trade stocks. Contact your local bank and they will tell you how to do it, since rules depend on country of residency. If you are not close to a bank, e-mail the major bank in the country of your residence.",
"As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.",
"Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process.",
"I have done this last year. Just open an account with an online brocker and buy a couple of Apple shares (6 I think, for 190$ each or something like that :) ). If this is just to test how stock exchange works, I think this is a good idea. I am also in Europe (France), and you'r right the charge to buy on NasDaq are quite expensive but still reasonnable. Hope this helps.",
"Not going to happen for Facebook since there will be too much demand and the order will go to the top clients of the underwriting investment banks. In general though, if you wanted a piece of a smaller IPO you'd just have to get in touch with a broker whose investment banking department is on the underwriting syndicate (say Merrill Lynch or Smith Barney) since IPOs often have a percentage that they allocate to retail clients (i.e. you) as well as institutional (i.e. hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds etc.). The more in demand the IPO the harder it is to get a piece.",
"You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.",
"Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.",
"The Greek Piraeus Bank offers such services for trading stocks in Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) and in addition 26 other markets including NASDAQ, NYSE and largest European ones (full list, in Greek). Same goes for Eurobank with a list of 17 international markets and the ability to trade bonds. BETA Securities has also an online platform, but I think it's only for ASE. Some other banks (like National Bank of Greece) do have similar online services, but are usually restricted to ASE.",
"I used to trade on Nasdaq using a US broker from the UK, you need a way to convert your money into US $s and have the cost of international money transfers. I don’t know if there are any laws in Turkey that will stop you using a US broker. You are also on your own if anything goes wrong, as the Turkish police will not be interested, and the US police will be very hard to deal with from Turkey. This all depends on Turkey not unplugging the internet on the day you wish to trade on!!! (I used tdameritrade, but it was a VERY long timer ago, as UK brokers are now as cheap, you should also consider UK based brokers as they will also let you trade outside of the USA.)",
"According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.",
"You can easily go to somebody like icici ask for the demat section and enable overseas stock trading.",
"You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.",
"\"I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A \"\"broker\"\" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are \"\"mortgage broker\"\" (for arranging home loans) and \"\"stockbroker\"\". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later.\"",
"You can purchase stock immediately in the open market on the day of the IPO when market opens. Below link gives you more information. http://finance.zacks.com/buy-ipo-stock-3903.html",
"You will likely need to open an account in another EU country, like a broker operating out of France, Britain or Germany, to get the best options. If you are comfortable using an english language site and interface, I highly recommend Interactive Brokers as they let you trade in many markets simultaneously, have simple currency conversion, and great tools. But, they are geared toward active traders so you might be better with a more retail oriented broker if you are new to trading stocks. There are many options. Here is a list to start with:",
"It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.",
"Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).",
"Any retail equity brokerage will give you access to the NYSE, and thus Facebook shares as they become available. However, it is important to note that you nor any retail investor will be able to purchase FB at the IPO prices ($33-38 IIRC). The only people who will be able to buy in at that price are the underwriting investment banks and major investors who have subscribed to the IPO. You, and all the other retail investors will only be able to buy in as those major investors offer shares on the secondary market. This being Facebook, there will probably be a significant premium over the IPO price, both due to demand and systemic underpricing of IPOs to encourage the opening 'pop'. So, if you're intent on buying in at the IPO, pay close attention as the date approaches. Look at how the recent big IPOs have performed (GRPN, LNKD come to mind). Know how much you're willing to commit and what price you want. However, no one is going to know what the opening market price will be come Friday morning. Be watching your financial data source / analysis of choice and be prepared to make a judgement.",
"The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.",
"Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.",
"While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets.",
"Interactive Brokers offers many foreign markets (19 countries) for US based investors. You can trade all these local markets within one universal account which is very convenient in my view. IB offering",
"You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.",
"You can open an account with HSBC and use InvestDirect - their online share trading service - to trade LSE-traded shares. https://investments.hsbc.co.uk/product/9/sharedealing",
"\"I have an account with ETrade. Earlier this week I got an offer to participate in the IPO proper (at the IPO price). If Charles Schwab doesn't give you the opportunity, that's a shortcoming of them as a brokerage firm; there are definitely ways for retail investors to invest in it, wise investment or no. (Okay, technically it wasn't an offer to participate, it was a notice that participation was possibly available, various securities-law disclaimers etc withstanding. \"\"This Web site is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. The offer is by prospectus only. This Web site contains a preliminary prospectus for each offering.\"\" etc etc).\"",
"Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]",
"There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck.",
"\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora.",
"NASDAQ provides a very good IPO calendar as well for US listings.",
"\"Yes and no. There are two primary ways to do this. The first is known as \"\"cross listing\"\". Basically, this means that shares are listed in the home country are the primary shares, but are also traded on secondary markets using mechanisms like ADRs or Globally Registered Shares. Examples of this method include Vodafone and Research in Motion. The second is \"\"dual listing\"\". This is when two corporations that function as a single business are listed in multiple places. Examples of this include Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. Usually companies choose this method for tax purposes when they merge or acquire an international company. Generally speaking, you can safely buy shares in whichever market makes sense to you.\"",
"You might what to check out Interactive Brokers. If your India stock is NSE listed they might be able to do it since they support trading on that exchange. I would talk to a customer service rep there first. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=exchanges&p=asia",
"Two methods: 1: Become really close friend with Marky. Probably have to take a bullet for him or something. 2: Become a major client of the investment bank that will launch the IPO (most likely Goldman), and the bank will offer you some shares before the IPO. In order to become a major client you probably have to spend several millions per year in transaction fee.",
"\"(Note: out of my depth here, but in case this helps...) While not a direct answer to your question, I'll point out that in the inverse situation - a U.S. investor who wants to buy individual stocks of companies headquartered outside US - you would buy ADRs, which are $-denominated \"\"wrapper\"\" stocks. They can be listed with one or multiple brokerages. One alternative I'd offer the person in my example would be, \"\"Are you really sure you want to directly buy individual stocks?\"\" One less targeted approach available in the US is to buy ETFs targeted for a given country (or region). Maybe there's something similar there in Asia that would eliminate the (somewhat) higher fees associated with trading foreign stocks.\"",
"Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.",
"Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.",
"For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose).",
"\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"",
"I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.",
"\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \"\"Depository Receipts\"\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \"\"Depository Receipts\"\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\"",
"You probably bought the cross listed WestJet stock. If you wanted to buy shares on the TSE, I'd suspect you'd have to find a way to open a brokerage account within Canada and then you'd be able to buy the shares. However, this could get complicated to some extent as there could be requirements of Canadian tax stuff like a Social Insurance Number that may require some paperwork. In addition, you'd have to review tax law of both countries to determine how to appropriately report to each country your income as there are various rules around that. TD Waterhouse would be the Canadian subsidiary of TD Ameritrade though I haven't tried to create a Canadian brokerage account.",
"Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.",
"Saxo Bank offers direct access to Athens Stock Exchange. Interactive Brokers is your next best bet, and as you probably already noticed, they do not have a free platform. They are open to US and non-US citizens. Although they do not currently have direct exposure to individual companies on the Athens Stock Exchange, the various european exchanges they do provide direct market access for will give a lot of exposure. There are a few Greek companies that trade on non-Greek stock exchanges, if you want exposure. There are also Greek ETFs which bundle several companies together or try to replicate Greek company indices.",
"\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"",
"\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"",
"Should do it through a limit auction book. Management and shareholders pre ipo submit sealed limit sell orders. Buyers submit sealed limit buy orders, nobody can see where the price is going. At 9AM, the price is calculated and whomever fills get filled and ta da everyone is trading at 9:30 when the market is open.",
"One other issue you may face is when the company announces poor financial results and begins to tank, you will not be able to sell until the US market open and could incur a lot of pain.",
"You don't have to go through an exchange. That wasn't the problem. It was that the people trading on them wouldn't be willing to take your offer. An exchange can't just list a company. They need that company's consent and the company need's the exchange's consent. I don't know if you're aware of this but that was also an entirely new disaster during Facebook's IPO. Computer glitches didn't help. What you're talking about is a called a secondary market, kind of. Stock exchanges offer those too, especially for options. That's the typical stock footage you see of guys on wall street yelling and screaming while throwing paper up in the air.",
"I had this problem when I finished my job in Canada in Sept 2013. You'll likely have to open the account in person in Canada, at least if you don't already have a relationship with a broker there. DO NOT go to Virtual Brokers. They told me that my US citizenship was no problem, but right before I left Canada to double check. It wasn't until I asked specifically which US states they were licensed in that they realized they were licensed in NO US STATES. They told me that they'd freeze my account when I left. I then moved my (former) pension to a locked-in RRSP at BMO. As of September 2010 BMO could handle residents of most US states, but it took some tooth pulling to get the list out of them. However, after I flew to the USA, BMO called to demand more ID. My account was frozen until I flew back to Canada in person just to show ID. Annoyed, I closed the BMO account and moved it to TD Waterhouse. TD waterhouse can handle accounts for residents of all the US states EXCEPT Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. (I only got the complete list of exceptions when I made my first trade, since the guys at the trading desk are much more knowledgeable about such things than the guys in the branch.) TD was extremely friendly about my USA citizenship/residence. (Many Canadian brokers simply won't accept US residents, at least as of the end of 2013.) Whichever broker you choose, BRING LOTS MORE ID than they require. Insist that they zerox it all. Make sure to include your social security card. You don't want them to demand more ID after you've left the country, like BMO did. They may even make such a move simply to get rid of US customers, because the FATCA is a pain for foreign banks.",
"I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.",
"Depending on your perspective of it, I can see reasons for and against this idea. Only with the benefit of hindsight can one say how wise or unwise it is to do so. Earlier in my career, I invested and lost it all. Understand if you do buy when would you be able to sell, do you have to have an account with the underwriter, what fees may there be in having such an account, and would there be restrictions on when you could sell.",
"\"Yes, you could buy a stock on the day of its IPO. I'm a college student, and I wonder if I can buy stock from a company right after it finishes its IPO? Yes, you can. However, unless you are friends or family of an employee, chances are you'll be paying a higher price than you think as there is generally a fair bit of hype on most IPOs that allows some people to \"\"flip them\"\" which means someone is buying at a higher price. If I am not allowed to buy its stocks immediately after they go on sell, how long do I have to wait? Generally I'd wait until the hype dies down as if you look at most historical IPOs the stock could be bought cheaper later but that's just my perspective. And also who are allowed to buy the stocks at the first minute they are on sell? Anyone but keep in mind that while an IPO may be priced at $x, the initial trades may be a few times that value and the stock may come down over time. Facebook could be an example to consider of a company that had an IPO at one price and then came down for a little while on its chart over the past couple of years.\"",
"I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.",
"For $100 you better just hold it in Mexico. The cost of opening an account could eat 10% or more of your capital easily, and that won't be able to buy enough shares of an ETF or similar investment to make it worthwhile.",
"Selftrade does list them. Not sure if you'll be able to sign up from the US though, particularly given the FATCA issues.",
"\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"",
"\"Usually the big institution that \"\"floats\"\" the stock on the market is the one to offer it to you. The IPO company doesn't sell the stock itself, the big investment bank does it for them. IPO's shareholders/employees are generally not allowed to sell their shares at the IPO until some time passes. Then you usually see the sleuth of selling.\"",
"\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \"\"X\"\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\"",
"Some brokerages will let you withdraw/deposit in multiple jurisdictions. e.g. I used to use Interactive Brokers. I could deposit/withdraw to US and UK bank accounts, in the appropriate currencies. It helps to have a brokerage that provides good rates on forex exchange also, and they were very good on the bid/ask spread. It was possible to get interbank rates plus a very low commission.",
"\"The fact that your shares are of a Canadian-listed corporation (as indicated in your comment reply) and that you are located in the United States (as indicated in your bio) is highly relevant to answering the question. The restriction for needing to be a \"\"qualified institutional buyer\"\" (QIB) arises from the parent company not having registered the spin-off company rights [options] or shares (yet?) for sale in the United States. Shares sold in the U.S. must either be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption. See SEC Fast Answers - Securities Act Rule 144. Quoting: Selling restricted or control securities in the marketplace can be a complicated process. This is because the sales are so close to the interests of the issuing company that the law might require them to be registered. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, all offers and sales of securities must be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption from the registration requirements. [...] There are regulations to follow and costs involved in such registration. Perhaps the rights [options] themselves won't ever be registered (as they have a very limited lifetime), while the listed shares might be? You could contact investor relations at the parent company for more detail. (If I guessed the company correctly, there's detail in this press release. Search the text for \"\"United States\"\".)\"",
"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.",
"I don't know where your trade figures are from. ETrade, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, etc all have trading costs under 10 USD per share, so I'm not sure where your costs are coming from. I doubt currency conversion or anything like that will double the cost. As for your question, the answer is: It depends How much trading will you do? In what types of investments? For example, Schwab charges no commission on ETF purchases, but this is not an advantage if you wont buy ETFs. Consider minimums. Different brokers have different minimum cash balance/deposit requirements, so make sure you can meet those. It's true that you can get real time quotes anywhere, but consider the other services. For example, TD Ameritrade pools research reports for many publicly traded companies which are nice to read about what analysts have to say. Different brokers given different research tools, so read about offerings and see what's most useful to you. You can open different brokerage accounts, but it's much more convenient to have a one-stop place where you can do all you trading. Pick a broker which is low cost and offers a variety of investments as well as good customer support and a straightforward system.",
"You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.",
"\"Yes! What you are describing is an \"\"off-exchange\"\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\"",
"\"Yes, you can. You could either go through brokerages like Ameritrade or fund companies like Fidelity or Vanguard. Yes there are minimums depending on the fund where some retail funds may waive a minimum if you sign up for an \"\"Automatic Investment Plan\"\" and some of the lower cost funds may have higher initial investment as Vanguard's Admiral share class is different from Investor for example.\"",
"I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.",
"\"Short answer: No. Being connected is very helpful and there is no consequence by securities regulators against the investor by figuring out how to acquire pre-IPO stock. Long answer: Yes, you generally have to be an \"\"Accredited Investor\"\" which basically means you EARN over $200,000/yr yourself (or $300,000 joint) and have been doing so for several years and expect to continue doing so OR have at least 1 million dollars of net worth ( this is joint worth with you and spouse). The Securities Exchange Commission and FINRA have put a lot of effort into keeping most classes of people away from a long list of investments.\"",
"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"Market Watch has an IPO calender with details of upcoming IPOs that should provide most of the information you need.",
"I'd look into ShareBuilder. You can buy stocks for as low as $2 each, and there is no minimum funding level. You have to be carefull about selling though, as they will charge you $10 each time you want to sell a stock, regardless of how much of it you want to sell.",
"I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them.",
"It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.",
"Call the CBOE, the Chicago Board of Options Exchange I've requested options on several IPOs in the past. You mainly have to convince them that there is a market for them (or they won't be inclined to provide liquidity). The CBOE could talk to the company in question to help convince them, or the CBOE will just tell you when the options will begin trading. Oh yeah, sometimes they'll ask you who you work for, just try to avoid that question, they don't like to talk to individual/retail investors.",
"\"You can start investing with any amount. You can use the ShareBuilder account to purchase \"\"partial\"\" stocks through their automatic investment plan. Usually brokers don't sell parts of stock, and ShareBuilder is the only one allowing it IMHO using its own tricks. What they do basically is buy a stock and then divide it internally among several investors who bought it, while each of the investors doesn't really own it directly. That's perfect for investing small amounts and making first steps in investing.\"",
"Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.",
"First of all, you'll need a securities account. Nowadays, most large banks offer this as a standard product for all their customers, though it may require some extra paperwork. Then you need to buy shares in the ETF. This is indeed typically done through the stock market, but there are alternatives. Some banks will sell securities to you directly, but usually only those they create themselves (options and such). Some also offer ETF investment plans that allow you to buy shares for a fixed amount each month through the bank. In any case, the bank's online banking interface should support all these options. However, fees are an important consideration! With some banks, the securities account is free, others charge an annual fee. And the fees on stock market transactions and investment plans also vary considerably, so it could be worth it to consider some alternatives.",
"\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \"\"Dual\"\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\"",
"\"For equities, buy direct from the transfer agent. You have to buy one full share at a minimum but after that dividend reinvestment is free. There are others like share builder and foliofn that let you buy fractional shares. As the other poster said their roster is limited so you cannot buy every ETF out there. With your example of not wanting to spend $200 I agree with the others that you should invest in a mutual fund. Vanguard will have every index fund you need and can invest as little as $50, as long as you sign up for a systematic investment draft from your bank. Plus vanguard typically has the lowest fees in the industry. The most important thing is to start investing as soon as possible and as regular as possible. \"\"Pay yourself first\"\"\"",
"Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started.",
"You can do this via many online FOREX brokers. All you need to do is set up and fund an account with them and then trade via their online platform. Some examples of brokers that do this are:",
"If you want direct access trading that is very hard to get. However an active trading broker like interactive brokers, Trade station, or Light speed trading may be what you are looking for. If you have serious cash though value or income investing is better than trading which is pure speculation. I know that active trading can be exciting but it's also basically gambling when compared to research based long term investment. You can't fight the market makers, the guys on the dealer desks have way too many advantages over you. Just give this all some thought and see what you want to do.",
"One share costs the 202 $. You need to invest 3000 $ total at a minimum, meaning you have to buy some 14.9 shares at minimum. You should not worry about the exact number of shares, they are just to keep track, and you can buy every decimal part of them too. For example, if you invest now 5000 $, you will get 24.7525 shares. Next year, if they are for example worth 220 $ per share, you have a value of 24.7525 * 220 = 5445.55 $ It depends on the offering company, but that (a certain fixed amount per paycheck) is a typical way to invest (and a good way - you implictly take advantage of prices changing a bit - you buy more shares when the price is down and less when it's up). Probably you can make it an automated deduction from your checking account, or you send it every week/month/whenever. Good plan!",
"Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.",
"I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!",
"There are 2 primary ways to bet against a stock if you think it will decline. The first is to short sell shares of that stock the second is to buy put options (I would also add that selling naked call options would also be a bet against but I don't believe that is as common as the other 2 mentioned methods). The problem with short selling an IPO is that you first have to borrow the shares you are going to sell. Since the shares are privately held prior to the IPO that can be problematic. Even after the IPO you may have to wait a bit before shares become available to borrow. The problem with options (either buying puts or seeking naked calls) is similar. Options are traded on a different exchange than the stock and they have their own requirements that a stock must meet to have options traded. Both of these problems eventually correct themselves however, not in time for you to catch the initial fall you seem to be looking for.",
"If you have an account with a major bank they may trade an over the counter option with you. Just depends how much work you need to go through and how much you are planning on buying.",
"I am not sure what a Brazilian equivalent is but you could just do an ADR. Keep in mind that when you are investing in a foreign company there are certain currency risks that you may need to consider.",
"As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.",
"\"To trade stocks in India, you need a copy of your pan card, address proof(passport or driving license/electricity bill), income tax return (if you are trading futures & options and currencies), and a cancelled cheque from the bank. You will also need to sign across your recent photographs, and require various other forms from a brokerage house which need to be signed in the brokers presence. If your stock broker trusts you, and you have all these documents, then you CAN open a DEMAT account in India by signing and sending him all these documents. Otherwise you CANNOT, as every single form states that \"\"this particular document was signed in my presence\"\", and the stock broker needs to sign under that clause. Chances are, if you live abroad, no broker will ever trust you with any kind of margin, and therefore cannot make profits from you, so they will not agree to open your account.\"",
"A stock, bond or ETF is basically a commodity. Where you bought it does not really matter, and it has a value in USD only inasmuch as there is a current market price quoted at an American exchange. But nothing prevents you from turning around and selling it on a European exchange where it is also listed for an equivalent amount of EUR (arbitrage activities of investment banks ensure that the price will be equivalent in regard to the current exchange rate). In fact, this can be used as a cheap form of currency conversion. For blue chips at least this is trivial; exotic securities might not be listed in Europe. All you need is a broker who allows you to trade on European exchanges and hold an account denominated in EUR. If necessary, transfer your securities to a broker who does, which should not cost more than a nominal fee. Mutual funds are a different beast though; it might be possible to sell shares on an exchange anyway, or sell them back to the issuer for EUR. It depends. In any case, however, transferring 7 figure sums internationally can trigger all kinds of tax events and money laundering investigations. You really need to hire a financial advisor who has international investment experience for this kind of thing, not ask a web forum!",
"This is allowed somewhat infrequently. You can often purchase stocks through DRIPs which might have little or no commission. For example Duke Energy (DUK) runs their plan internally, so you are buying from them directly. There is no setup fee, or reinvestment fee. There is a fee to sell. Other companies might have someone else manage the DRIP but might subsidize some transaction costs giving you low cost to invest. Often DRIPs charge relatively large amounts to sell and they are not very nimble if trading is what you are after. You can also go to work for a company, and often they allow you to buy stock from them at a discount (around 15% discount is common). You can use a discount broker as well. TradeKing, which is not the lowest cost broker, allows buys and sells at 4.95 per trade. If trading 100 shares that is similar in cost to the DUK DRIP."
] |
[
"First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered."
] |
2383
|
Should I Purchase Health Insurance Through My S-Corp
|
[
"17215",
"232199"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"17215",
"232199",
"524134",
"532932",
"476085",
"41793",
"490223",
"209159",
"223712",
"306908",
"423074",
"54333",
"338582",
"327232",
"290056",
"214358",
"507408",
"154931",
"533825",
"110102",
"194955",
"457034",
"80866",
"458079",
"415745",
"98112",
"125696",
"396968",
"205341",
"121187",
"117065",
"150219",
"222665",
"133586",
"526158",
"19698",
"281377",
"422697",
"102995",
"207449",
"10103",
"56",
"473959",
"171576",
"64598",
"515233",
"521933",
"308255",
"405356",
"302560",
"93426",
"374722",
"370542",
"79129",
"260385",
"397262",
"346374",
"215920",
"534277",
"388704",
"70315",
"224406",
"508078",
"97033",
"423191",
"70452",
"443062",
"458431",
"349348",
"565614",
"505091",
"410226",
"527620",
"546634",
"18889",
"54400",
"240997",
"213185",
"338796",
"490865",
"177074",
"285493",
"214690",
"504317",
"197846",
"589398",
"132738",
"236334",
"67135",
"142645",
"443960",
"253492",
"474816",
"307397",
"397920",
"564344",
"506685",
"480472",
"34887",
"121145"
] |
[
"The answer seems to depend on where you live. Perhaps you already found this, but the summary from the IRS is: The insurance laws in some states do not allow a corporation to purchase group health insurance when the corporation only has one employee. Therefore, if the shareholder was the sole corporate employee, the shareholder had to purchase his health insurance in his own name. The IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which ruled that under certain situations the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction even if the health insurance policy was purchased in the name of the shareholder. Notice 2008-1 provided four examples, including three examples in which the shareholder purchased the health insurance and one in which the S corporation purchased the health insurance. Notice 2008-1 states that if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name and paid for it with his own funds, the shareholder would not be allowed an above-the-line deduction. On the other hand, if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name but the S corporation either directly paid for the health insurance or reimbursed the shareholder for the health insurance and also included the premium payment in the shareholder’s W-2, the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction. The bottom line is that in order for a shareholder to claim an above-the-line deduction, the health insurance premiums must ultimately be paid by the S corporation and must be reported as taxable compensation in the shareholder’s W-2. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/S-Corporation-Compensation-and-Medical-Insurance-Issues I understand this to mean that you can only get the deduction in your case (having purchased it in your own name) if your state does not allow your S-Corp to purchase a group health plan because you only have one employee. (I don't know specifically if Illinois fits that description or not.) In addition, there are rules about reporting health insurance premiums for taxes for S-Corp share members that you should also check. Personally, I think that it's complicated enough that advice from a CPA or other tax advisor specific to your situation would be worth the cost.",
"I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business.",
"\"No, not on schedule C, better. Its an \"\"above the line\"\" deduction (line 29 on your 1040). Here's the turbo tax article on it. The instructions for this line set certain limitations that you must take into the account, and yes - it is limited to the net profit from the business. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2. The insurance plan must be established under your business. Your personal services must have been a material income-producing factor in the business. If you are filing Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, the policy can be either in your name or in the name of the business.\"",
"Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).",
"The tax incentives for employer sponsored health insurance were designed to incentivize employers to provide the insurance and for employees to purchase the insurance. Since your situation does not meet the requirements to take advantage of this incentive, you can not. In the near future you should be able to take part in the government sponsored exchanges. This may spur changes in how this works.",
"\"You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you \"\"lose\"\" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near the bottom) though there are some exceptions. Nor can health care insurance premiums be paid from an FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too. You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter. Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars. I would doubt that you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does. As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan.\"",
"While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all.",
"I think that mbhunter hit the nail on the head regarding your question. I just want to add that having a policy that isn't sponsored by your employer is a good idea... employer policies are regulated by the federal government via ERISA. Independent policies are state regulated, and usually have better protections. Also, look for a policy that allows you to increase your coverage later without medical qualification so you don't need to overbuy insurance initially.",
"The answer likely depends a bit on which state you are in, but this should be true for most states. I don't know anything about Pennsylvania specifically unfortunately. The Affordable Care Act created the SHOP marketplace, which allows small businesses to effectively form larger groups for group coverage purposes. SHOP stands for Small Business Health Options Program, and requires only one common-law employee on payroll. This would effectively allow you to offer group coverage without having a group. Talk to your tax accountant for more details, as this is still very new and not necessarily well understood. There are some other options, all of which I would highly suggest talking to a tax accountant about as well. HRAs (health reimbursement accounts) allow the employer to set aside pre-tax funds for the employee to use for approved medical expenses; they're often managed by a benefits company (say, Wageworks, Conexis, etc.). That would allow your employee to potentially pick a higher deductible health plan which offers poorer coverage on the individual marketplace (with after-tax dollars) and then supplement with your HRA. There are also the concept of Employer Payment Plans, where the employer reimburses the employee for their insurance premiums, but those are not compatible with the ACA for the most part - although there seems to be a lot of disagreement as to whether it's possible to have something effectively the same work, see for example this page versus this for example.",
"As others have pointed out, post-tax dollars are what you'll use. Just as a quick note, as you'll be using post-tax dollars; in the past, I've refused to take contractor plans because they almost always are inferior to what I've been able to get off the private exchange ehealthinsurance. A few people have written excellent articles on Get Rich Slowly here and here about them in detail if you want more information. Generally, contractors (and sometimes employees) are offered a few plans (3-4), and this health exchange gives you a little more freedom to pick your plan, which in your situation may help. It isn't always cheaper, but depending on your needs, you may obtain a better deal. Forgot to add this: this option has also made switching jobs easy as well since I don't have to pay COBRA. While it depends on the situation, this can sometimes come out significantly cheaper. For instance, if I were to take the employer health plan next year, I would lose ~$450 a month, whereas the private exchange option is ~$300. But, if I were to switch jobs, decide to opt for self-employment, or a layoff, the COBRA would be even higher than ~$450.",
"There are many aspects to consider in deciding what sort of company you want to form. Instead of an S-corporation, you should determine whether it would be better to form a Limited Liability Company (LLC), Limited Partnership (LP) or even a professional company (PC). Littleadv is correct: There is minimal benefit in forming an S-corp with you and your wife as the shareholders, if you will be the only contributor-worker. There are costs associated with an S-corporation, or any corporation, that might outweigh benefits from more favorable tax treatment, or personal protection from liability: Filing fees and disclosure rules vary from state to state. For example, my father was a cardiologist who had no employees, other than my grandmother (she worked for free), in a state with income taxes (NM). He was advised that a PC was best in New Mexico, while an S-Corp was better in Florida (there are no personal income taxes in Florida). The only way to know what to do requires that you consult an accountant, a good one, for guidance.",
"\"The basic idea is that the average person can't deduct health care costs unless they're really onerous. But a business can, and as a self-employed person, you can deduct those costs from the businesses earnings... as long as the business is really generating enough profit to cover the health insurance costs. That's why most people get their health insurance from their employer, actually. The relevant IRS rules say: \"\"You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for you, your spouse, and your dependents if you are... A self-employed individual with a net profit reported on Schedule C (Form 1040).\"\" For 2010, thanks to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, you can even deduct the premium from your income before deducting the self-employment tax (Source). I'm sure that when you get your tax returns and instructions for 2010 this will all be spelled out.\"",
"Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.",
"I think you're misunderstanding how S-Corp works. Here are some pointers: I suggest you talk with a EA/CPA licensed in your state and get yourself educated on what you're getting yourself into.",
"While I can't say how it is in the Philippines, my wife the insurance broker leads me to believe that individual insurance is more expensive than group coverages in the US almost always. So much so that people will go to great extents to form any sort of business just to insure themselves. If however it is cheaper, can't you simply opt out of your employer's plan? If you can opt out, will your employer give you any of the money they aren't paying for your insurance? If you can't opt out, or if you paycheck doesn't grow, I can't see why you would want additional coverage especially at such a young age. Should you lose your job in the near future and you worry about, go get the insurance then. EDIT One big advantage is if you get personal insurance, you might need to get an exam to qualify, and it is likely the younger you are the better you will qualify. But again, you already have insurance that covers you so I would advise keeping the group policy is probably better.",
"Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29.",
"Basically a company who provides health insurance for their employees provides it as part of the employee's salary package. This is an expense by the company in its pursuit of making income. In general, tax deductions are available on any expense incurred in deriving income (the exception is when social policy allows deductions for other types of expenses). If you pay for your own health insurance individually, then this expense is not an expense for you to derive your income, and as such is not tax deductible.",
"The best way to do this is to pay for the entire car, including gas, insurance, and repairs, from S-corp funds, then meticulously track how many miles are used for personal and how many miles for business. If you pay with S-corp funds, you will claim the personal miles as a taxable benefit from the S-corp on your personal return. The S-corp can then claim all the expenses and depreciation on the vehicle, reducing the S-corp's tax liability.",
"\"Yes, you can. See the instructions for line 29 of form 1040. Self employed health insurance premiums are an \"\"above the line\"\" deduction.\"",
"http://www.ehow.com/about_4625753_cobra-as-selfemployed-health-insurance.html This link makes it clear... it has to be itemized, and is subject to the > than 7.5% AGI rule.",
"Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.",
"\"Yes, you should budget some amount of your emergency fund for healthcare expenses. How much you budget is really dependent on your particular anticipated costs. Be aware that health insurance likely costs significantly more than your employer charges you for access to its plan. Since healthcare reform mandated guaranteed issue individual coverage you will have the ability to buy individual coverage for you and, if applicable, your family. When buying individual coverage you have essentially two choices, your decision hinges on whether or not you'd qualify for a premium subsidy. If your AGI is below 400% of the poverty line you'll be able to receive subsidized coverage at a state or federal health insurance exchange. If the subsidy is not meaningful to you, or you wouldn't qualify, you can buy an \"\"off exchange\"\" plan offered either directly through a carrier or an insurance agent (some insurance agents are also licensed to sell exchange plans though it's somewhat rare). In order to receive subsidized coverage you must buy through a state or federal exchange, or an agent licensed to sell exchange products specifically. If your employer was large enough to be required to offer its plan via COBRA or you live in a state that extends the COBRA requirement to smaller businesses, you can choose that as well. Bear in mind this option is likely to be expensive relative to individual plans. It's becoming a less relevant solution with the advent of guaranteed issue individual coverage. COBRA is not a special type of insurance, it's a mandate that your employer allow you to remain on its plan but pay the full gross premium plus an up to 2% (10% for calCOBRA) administrative fee. Despide popular vernacular, there is no such thing as Obamacare or ACA coverage. Obamacare reshaped the insurance market. The ACA outlines certain minimum coverage requirements, generally referred to as \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage.\"\" While employers and plans are not \"\"required\"\" to meet all of these coverage requirements there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. The single exception to this is grandfathered plans which can still sidestep a few of the requirements. The penalty is harsh enough that it's not worth the cost of offering a non-compliant plan. Whether you buy coverage through a state or federal exchange, through an insurance agent, or via your employer's COBRA program you will have \"\"ACA\"\" coverage (unless on the off chance your employer's plan doesn't check the \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage\"\" box). So generally all plans available to you will have $0 preventive coverage, pregnancy benefits, cancer treatment benefits etc. Another thing to consider is your entire family doesn't need to be on the same plan. If your family is healthy with the exception of one child, you can purchase $0 deductible coverage for the one child and higher deductible more catastrophic plan for the remainder of your family. In fact you could choose COBRA for one child and purchase individual coverage for the remainder of the family. The things to consider when you face a lay-off: I tried to mitigate my use of \"\"all\"\" and \"\"always\"\" because there are some narrow exceptions to these requirements, such as the \"\"Hobby Lobby\"\" decision allowing closely held organizations with highly religious owners the ability to remove certain contraception benefits. Understand that these exceptions are rare and not available to individual plans.\"",
"I see a lot of people making the mistake or being given bad advise in structuring a new business. If you have more than one shareholder, then by all means an S Corporation is a better structure for lower taxes; avoid double taxation. If, however, this is a one shareholder S Corp, then you had better 1099 yourself as a consultant or look into sole proprietorship. The tax benefits are much better either way. Dr. Suraiya Shaik Ali",
"S-Corp income is passed through to owners and is taxed on their 1040 as ordinary income. If you take a wage (pay FICA) and then take additional distributions these are not subject to FICA. A lot of business owners will buy up supplies/ necessary expenses right before the end of the tax year to lower their tax liability.",
"\"Many answers here have given what look to be useful perspectives on your question. I want to point out an interesting technical issue. If an employer contracts with an insurer, it agrees to cover all employees (or all that fill some pre-specified definition and no one else), and to offer only a limited range of options. If you buy insurance directly, you obviously have a huge range of choices, including the (technically illegal) one of no insurance at all. Your first thought is probably, \"\"Hey, that's great! More options, more chances to pick the plan that's right for me.\"\" Sorry, no. Yes, you have more options, but so does everyone else. If you are working for some large company, you get insurance, period. If you suspect you have an expensive health condition, you cannot buy more insurance; if you believe yourself to be healthy as a horse, you cannot get skimpier insurance and pocket the difference. Healthy people and sick people are all in the same predictable pool. If you buy insurance freely, the insurer knows that the sicker you are, the more likely you are buy insurance, a phenomenon called adverse selection. As a result, the premiums (fees) a person buying his own insurance pays are much higher, because most of his fellow policy-holders are sickly -- even if he himself is just risk-averse. On the other hand, if you are risk-neutral, if you can survive a $10,000 bill if it happens to arise, you can save big by finding the skimpiest imaginable insurance, where all your fellow policy-holders will be hale and healthy people like yourself.\"",
"\"Like most forms of insurance, health insurance is regulated at the state level. So what is available to you will depend greatly upon which state you live in. You can probably find a list of insurance companies from your state's official website. Many states now provide \"\"insurance of last resort\"\" for individuals who can't get insurance through private insurance companies. You can try looking into professional and trade associations. Some offer group insurance plans comparable with COBRA coverage, meaning you'd get a group discount and benefits but without the benefit of an employer paying 30-80% of your premiums. As a software developer you may qualify for membership in the IEEE or ACM, which both offer several forms of insurance to members. The ASP also offers insurance, though they don't provide much information about it on the public portions of their website. These organization offer other benefits besides insurance so you may want to take that in to consideration. The National Federation of Independent Business also offers insurance to members. You may find other associations in your specific area. Credit Unions, Coops and the local chamber of commerce are all possible avenues of finding lower cost insurance options. If you are religious there are even some faith based non-insurance organizations that provide medical cost sharing services. They depend upon the generosity and sense of fairness and obligation of their members to share the burden of medical expenses so their definitely not for everyone.\"",
"FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.",
"Basically, no. You have retirement plan options and can either go with a Roth option, which won't change your current tax burden, or go with a traditional plan, which is tax deductible but won't change your business deductions or self-employment taxes. This article has an explanation of options for setting up SEP or Solo 401k plans. Key quote for all the pre-tax retirement plans: Because pre-tax employer and employee contributions are deducted in the same way, neither one is more tax-efficient than the other. The article goes on to say that if you were an S Corp or LLC that elected to be taxed as an S Corp, a Solo 401(k) plan would allow the business to make an employer contribution to your 401(k) and even then there's no tax advantage to the employer contribution. Conclusion for S-corps: [Employer contributions] would reduce the amount of income from the S-corporation that would be passed through to you as the owner, thereby reducing your income tax. But, because this income is not subject to payroll taxes in the first place, these contributions will not reduce your payroll taxes.",
"\"Am I on crack, or do the perceived tax savings via S-Corp distributions really not matter at a certain level of business income? You're not on crack. Generally, if all the income is generated by your own personal services - this is the outcome. The benefit of S-Corp is when you have employees who generate your income, and you distribute to yourself profits that come out of other's personal services. In this case your distributions are exempt from FICA since it is not in fact a self-employment income. You'd still have to pay yourself a reasonable salary for your position (as a manager/officer), but it wouldn't have to cover all of the available profits. So if the IRS takes a position against you it would be that your salary should be to include the whole profits, since it is the compensation to you for the personal services that produced the income to the corporation (you). In many cases they might agree that a salary at the SS maximum limit would be reasonable - but that's only a speculation of mine. In that case you might gain some portion of the medicare tax (with the recent law changes at the levels you're talking about you'll pay some medicare anyway). There are a lot of accountants who take more aggressive position saying that not all of the distributions are liable for SE taxes, even if you're the sole employee of the corporation. These cases often end up in the Tax Court, and whatever the outcome, your legal fees become higher than the FICA savings. What is probably missing in your picture is the SS limit of (currently $112K) above which you don't pay social security tax, so whether you get it as a salary or as a distribution - that limit is the same. That is why you don't see a significant difference. I know there are a lot of accountants who'd disagree, but I would argue that for a sole employee of your company, S-Corp doesn't provide significant benefits over the disregarded LLC taxation, but has some additional overhead that adds to your expenses. Here's a link to a lawyer's blog where he suggests (and says many accountants follow) 60/40 division between salary and distributions. I.e.: his take, similarly to mine, is that most of the earnings have to be treated as salary. In your case, when the total is about 300K - you indeed will not get any FICA savings with such a division other than some of the medicare. Unusually low wages when compared to distributions can draw unwanted IRS scrutiny and an audit. An unfavorable audit will likely result in some portion of the distributions being reclassified as earned income for federal income tax purposes, which results in a deficiency assessment (i.e., a tax bill), interest on those unpaid taxes, and IRS penalties. The article also talks about the Watson case (one of the Tax Court cases I referred to), which can be used as the guidelines for determining the \"\"reasonable\"\" compensation. Talk to your tax adviser. I'm neither a tax adviser nor a tax professional. For a tax advice contact a CPA/EA licensed in your state. This is not a tax advice, just my personal opinion.\"",
"An S-corp doesn't pay income tax -- taxation is pass-through. This being the case, there are no tax deductions it could take for charitable giving. The solution would be for you to make the contribution out of your own pocket and then personally claim the deduction on your own taxes.",
"It is illegal. Coverage has a lot of minimum requirements. What has really hurt Obamacare is that it groups those that were formerly uninsured, with those that don't have employer insurance. It turns out those that were previously uninsured (often very poor) are very expensive to insure. So that has forced up premiums on everyone else. The link of health insurance to employment in the US is to blame. The sooner everyone is forced to buy their own insurance, and then preferably the government offers medicare buy in for all, the sooner the system can be cleaned up.",
"\"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are \"\"we\"\"? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the policy of our company. For example: \"\"Every two months profits get divided 50/50\"\" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean. Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc.\"",
"Health insurance is tough, as you know, because the offerings vary dramatically by State, and there is the added complication of the Affordable Care Act, which depending on where and who you are has had either a good or bad impact on the available options. If you are a sole proprietor or other business person, I'd advise talking to someone at a local chamber of commerce. Also, professional organizations like the IEEE or ACM (for IT professionals) often offer catastrophic medical or other health plans. Some employer plans give you the option to continue coverage at a higher cost when COBRA lapses as well. If you can't afford a comprehensive plan, make sure to get something to protect you against pre-existing conditions or hospitalization.",
"I was in your situation a few years ago and I discovered something that worked perfectly for me - a local health insurance broker. I met with her, discussed my needs, reviewed the options with her, then acted. She received a commission from the insurer, so it cost me nothing. I would certainly follow a similar approach again.",
"For the first four months of the year, when you were an employee, the health insurance premiums were paid for with pre-tax money. When you receive your W-2 at the end of the year, the amount in Box 1 of the W-2 will be reduced by the amount you paid for health insurance. You can't deduct it on your tax return because it has already been deducted for you. Now that you are a 1099 independent contractor, you are self-employed and eligible for the self-employed health insurance deduction. However, as you noted, the COBRA premiums are likely not eligible for this deduction, because the policy is in your old employer's name. See this question for details, but keep in mind that there are conflicting answers on that question.",
"Why not personal responsibility? Get paid *then* provide the service. It's what small business owners do every day without the help of government or the protection of a large corporation. Individuals comply with safety regulations to protect themselves. If you need a corporation to do it for you, expect to make less. If you can do it yourself, expect to make more as an entrepreneur.",
"Pre tax insurance is not possible unless the emplyer provides hsa and do a payroll deduction. Obamacare is all post tax and you can do deduction if your expenses exceeds 10%of your income",
"\"I am very late to this forum and post - but will just respond that I am a sole proprietor, who was just audited by the IRS for 2009, and this is one of the items that they disallowed. My husband lost his job in 2008, I was unable to get health insurance on my own due to pre-existing ( not) conditions and so we had to stay on the Cobra system. None of the cost was funded by the employer and so I took it as a SE HI deduction on Line 29. It was disallowed and unfortunately, due to AGI limits, I get nothing by taking it on Sch. A. The auditor made it very clear that if the plan was not in my name, or the company's name, I could not take the deduction above the line. In his words, \"\"it's not fair, but it is the law!\"\"\"",
"I think I may have figured this out but if someone could double check my reasoning I'd appreciate it. So if my company makes $75000 and I decide to pay myself a $30000 salary, then the quarterly payment break down would be like this: 1040ES: Would pay income tax on non salary dividend ($45000) 941: Would pay income tax, SS, medicare on salary ($30000) (I'm the only person on payroll) So I think this answers my question in that after switching from filing as LLC to S-corp, I won't have to pay as much on 1040ES because some of it will now be covered on payroll.",
"\"The biggest problem with this that others seem to have missed is that a corporation must have a profit motive. Meaning at some point after a \"\"startup phase\"\" your company needs to turn a profit to not be considered a hobby. Will your employer be paying your corporation for your salary? Is that the company's business endeavor? If you run profits through the company and treat it like a true business, this may be technically possible, but as others have mentioned probably will cost more than any benefits you'd receive. And at every step you'll be throwing tons of audit flags. Rich Dad Poor Dad advocates a light version of this. Essentially running a business like Real Estate through an LLC, and then using that LLC for \"\"business trips\"\" (vacation with some justifiable business motive) or capital purchases (laptop, etc...) and the like, such that you're paying with \"\"Pre-tax\"\" money instead of \"\"Post tax\"\", but again the business needs a revenue source.\"",
"\"I don't know what the OP means when he says I want to invest in health insurance from now on so that I can use the policy after I retire. Generally, a health insurance policy covers costs incurred during the current calendar year (or specific period such as July 1 of one year through June 30 of the next year) and does not cover future periods. Indeed, many policies do not guarantee renewal when the current period ends (with exceptions for employer-provided coverage through COBRA in case employment ends). So investing in a health insurance policy meaning that you pay the premiums now, and the insurance company provides the policy in the distant future is something that is new to me. Besides, what will the policy include? If someone had bought such a policy many years ago, say, before CAT scans and MRI were developed, would the policy cover such new developments? Or the policy would cover only those procedures, tests, and medications that are available when the policy is written and the insurance premiums start to be paid? The long-term health of the insurance company is also of some concern. When something is offered to me with a lifetime guarantee, I skeptically ask, \"\"My lifetime or the device's life time or the company's lifetime?\"\"\"",
"You can never use a health FSA for individual health insurance premiums. Moreover, FSA plan sponsors can limit what they are will to reimburse. While you can't use a health FSA for premiums, you could previously use a 125 cafeteria plan to pay premiums, but it had to be a separate election from the health FSA. However, under N. 2013-54, even using a cafeteria plan to pay for indivdiual premiums is effectively prohibited.",
"I agree with you 100%! >they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. I think this is exactly what is happening today. > That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance. I believe up until Obamacare, people couldn't. Also, as a general rule a business can claim a tax deduction for the salary, wages, commissions, bonuses, and other compensation it pays to its employees.",
"\"It's a tough question, because there is society and individual to consider, and the society's effects on the individual. Currently, employers don't have to provide insurance, they do it to compete in the employee marketplace. Employers have an advantage over employees in that regard, because they can procure insurance at a lower cost that employees can, and they get tax breaks for doing so. Employers providing health insurance get a more stable relationship with their employees, because employees always hold great value in having an employee who provides good benefits. The company I work for provides good benefits, but suppose tomorrow they told me \"\"Hey Mutatron, we're not providing benefits anymore, but we'll bump your salary to what your benefits are worth, plus enough to compensate for the tax break we get.\"\" So now, everything is equal to what it was before, but I have to go out and find my own insurance, which is a hassle, but presumably because of the PPACA I can get a good value and carry this insurance with me wherever I go, and never have to mess with changing every time I change jobs. But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. This is the way it works now with the minimum wage. A recent report found that WalMart employees rely on welfare to the tune of [$2.66 billion a year](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net), while the company makes $15 billion in profit. So 18% of Walmart's profits are an indirect subsidy from the US taxpayer, which comes to about $48 per US citizen, or about $208 a year for the top 50% of wage earners. Even so, I think I'd prefer to get my whole compensation package in one shot, all else being equal. That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance.\"",
"When in doubt, you should always seek the advice of a professional tax preparer or your accountant. (Many agents/accountants will gladly review your tax preparations to ensure you haven't missed something. That's quicker and cheaper than paying them to do it all.) Having said that... This Illinois resource has detailed information about S-corps: Of relevance to your situation:",
"\"In the United States, with an S-Corp, you pay yourself a salary from company earnings. That portion is taxed at an individual rate. The rest of the company earnings are taxed as a corporation, which often have great tax benefits. If you are making over $80K/year, the difference can be substantial. A con is that there is more paperwork and you have to create a \"\"board\"\" of advisors.\"",
"These are all factually correct claims. S-Corporation is a pass-through entity, so whatever gain you have on the corporate level - is passed to the shareholders. If your S-Corp has capital gains - you'll get your pro-rata share of the capital gains. Interest? The same. Dividends? You get it on your K-1. Earned income? Taxed as such to you. I.e.: whether you earn income as a S-Corp or as a sole proprietor - matters not. That's the answer to your bottom line question. The big issue, however, is this: you cannot have more than 25% passive income in your S-Corp. You pass that limit (three consecutive years, one-off is ok) - your S-Corp automatically converts to C-Corp, and you're taxed at the corporate level at the corporate rates (you then lose the capital gains rates, personal brackets, etc). This means that an S-Corp cannot be an investment company. Most (75%+) of its income has to be earned, not passive. Another problem with S-Corp is that people who work as self-proprietors incorporated as S-Corp try to abuse it and claim that the income they earned by the virtue of their own personal performance shouldn't be taxed as self-employed income. IRS frowns upon such a position, and if considerable amounts are at stake will take you all the way up to the Tax Court to prove you wrong. This has happened before, numerously. You should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA/Attorney licensed in your state) to educate you about what S-Corp is and how it is taxed, and whether or not it is appropriate for you.",
"Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans. You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site: S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp. I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B. The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions: Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions. I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000. Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP. Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help.",
"You could slip and fall in the shower tonight. Or you might never need it. Insurance is a hedge against risk. If the event has already occurred, you're uninsurable. If you and others would suffer if you have a bad accident and can't work, get it now.",
"If the company pays for Group Term Life Insurance, some of that premium payment may be taxable. If memory serves, that's what's included in W-2 Box C. W-2 Box C has no bearing on Schedule C.",
"Because collective bargaining by the gov't and your employer is the only way that we've been able to combat some of the increases. An uninsured individual will be billed 4-10x what your insurance company would pay due to collective bargaining. The largest employers (Cisco, EMC, and others) are self-insured and pay health care providers to administer their plan. SMBs get the short end of the stick and pay much higher rates for less coverage because they don't have economies of scale. A public option would allow any uninsured individual to obtain health care at a reasonable, income-based cost.",
"On topic of Healthcare needs, I think it depend on individual. For example, my employer's dental plan offer PPO $34 per month and DMO $12 per month. I have my favor dentist that I have been going for years. He only accept PPO. I already had most of my dental works done so I only use him for teeth clean. He charge $100 without insurance and free with insurance. I can only use my insurance for teeth clean twice a year so $34x12 = $408 vs $200. If I go with DMO, I won't get to see my doctor and since I get my teeth once a year why not just save that money and go to my favor doctor instead the DMO doctors and if I need major dental works done which isn't immediate. I can go to Taiwan for dental works that is way cheaper than U.S. I think if you're a healthy young man/women. You should put more money toward your retirement and only keep insurance for emergency. You can do a medical tourism mentioned in 60 minutes that can be more cost effective and those doctors are U.S. trained. For older folks, a full Health care insurance is more needed than retirement. Just my two cents.",
"\"Be careful of the other answers here. Many are wrong or partially wrong. The question implies that you knew this, but for everyone else's benefit, you can keep you LLC organization and still elect to be treated as a S-Corp by the IRS just for tax purposes. You do this by filing Form 2553 with the IRS. (You can also, by the way, elect to be taxed as a \"\"regular\"\" C-Corp if you want, although that's probably not advantageous. See Form 8832.) The advantage of electing to be treated as an S-Corp is that income beyond what constitutes a \"\"reasonable salary\"\" are not subject to social security and medicare taxes as they would when paid was wages or counted as self-employment income on Schedule C. Depending on what you need to pay yourself to meet the \"\"reasonable salary\"\" test, your overall income, and other factors about your business, this could result in tax savings. Contrary to other answers here, making this election will not force you to create a board of directors. You are still an LLC for all purposes except taxes, so whatever requirements you had in organization and governance at the state level will not change. You will have to file a \"\"corporate\"\" tax return on Form 1120S (and likely some corresponding state tax form), so that is additional paperwork, but this \"\"corporate\"\" return does not mean the S-Corp pays taxes itself. With a couple of exceptions, the S-Corp pays no taxes directly (and therefore does not pay at the corporate tax rate). Instead the S-Corp apportions its income, expenses, and deductions to the owner(s) on Schedule K. The owners get their portion reported from the S-Corp on Schedule K1 and then include that on their personal Form 1040 to pay tax at their personal rate. In addition to filing Form 1120S, you will have to handle payroll taxes, which will create some additional administrative work and/or cost. Using a payroll service for this will likely be your best option and not terribly expensive. You've also got the issue of determining your reasonable salary within the rules, which is the subject of other questions on this site and other IRS guidance.\"",
"If you're creating an S-Corp for consulting services that you personally are going to provide, what would it give her to have 50% of the corporation when you're dead? Not to mention that you can just add it to your will that the corporation stock will go to her, and it will be much better (IMHO, talk to a professional) since she'll be getting stepped-up basis. Why aren't you talking to a professional before making decisions? It doesn't sound like a good way to conduct business.",
"We don't make enough to really consider it a salary, but I've heard using a draw without a salary is a bad idea. As any other illegal action, not paying yourself a reasonable salary when being a corporate officer is indeed a bad idea. I have no idea what I need to do to actually get some money in our pockets. The answer is simple. You need to earn more money. Since it is S-Corp, it doesn't matter if you keep the profits on the corporate account or distribute - the profits will be taxed to you. You are also, as I said above, required by law to pay yourself a reasonable salary. Reasonable meaning corresponding to market rates. Paying a CPA or a Software Engineer a minimum wage will not be reasonable. That is, of course, if you're profitable, you're not required to pay yourself more money than the corporation actually has. Just to be clear, my answer refers to the question asked, and the confusing answer above that made a claim that has no substantiation in the law. I do not intend to write a thesis about pros and cons of using S-Corp every time a question about reasonable salary is asked.",
"In addition to stoj's two good points I'll add a couple more reasons: 3) In some situations there are secondary factors involved that can make it a good deal. These normally amount to cases where you can buy the insurance with pre-tax dollars but would have to pay the bills with post-tax dollars. 4) Insurance companies know much better what things should cost and often have negotiated rates. A rich person would generally be well-served to have health insurance for this very reason.",
"Compared with a Sole Proprietorship, the main disadvantages of an S-Corporation or an LLC are that it adds a lot of management overhead (time, and possibly money if you don't do it all yourself), and there are fees you must pay to incorporate, as well as additional yearly maintenance fees which vary by state. You should be able to weigh the tax savings and liability protection against the extra costs and hassle, and see which way the scales tip. As a rule of thumb, the bigger your business gets or the more income you make, the more attractive incorporating becomes. Note there are some additional taxes that certain jurisdictions impose on business income. For example, IL and CA charge 1.5% tax, NY is less, but NYC is 8.85%! In NYC specifically, you could actually end up paying slightly more tax as an S-Corp than you would as a Sole Proprietorship. In most places though, the nominal local taxes will still be less than the FICA taxes you could potentially save.",
"An LLC or an S corp will result in the same tax obligations because both are pass-through tax entities. An LLC is more flexible for the situation you describe because the member and manager responsibilities can be detailed in the operating agreement. You really should get a business attorney to help you get your operating agreement in order. There's also a startups beta site on Stack Exchange that may be able to help you with questions about ways to handle your operating agreement.",
"\"A C-Corp is not a pass-through entity, any applicable taxes would be paid by the Corporation, which is a separate legal entity from yourself. If you use the points to purchase something for yourself, that would constitute \"\"income\"\" to you, and would be taxable on your personal income tax.\"",
"\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\"",
"Despite the ACA offering generous deductions, a lot of small businesses still cannot afford the initial capital involved in offering health insurance plan to their employees... Therefore we cannot take advantage of these deductions... Putting us at a disadvantage for finding low-to-mid skilled workers, to the larger corporations that are now mandated to offer the benefits..",
"It would depend on the health insurance that was being offered, and if it covers your family or just you. We pay around $500-600 for individual health insurance for our employees (families cost north of 1500 a month). It's extremely expensive. Provide more details on the stock purchase plan as well (it sounds to me like in that case you'd only be getting for free what it would cost to purchase the stock... but that's only $10-15, so negligible in this case.)",
"\"Yes, you can make the election to file your LLC as an S-Corp, and Turbo Tax Business can help you with the S-Corp business return. You need to make sure you're set up correctly and there are a lot of things to be aware of. For example, the whole \"\"reasonable salary\"\" thing is a can of worms. So while the answer to your question is \"\"yes, it's manageable, you can do it on your own,\"\" it might be worthwhile to have a professional help you the first year, make sure it's set up right, and then you can do it on your own in subsequent years.\"",
"As a 24 year old, single,your needs for insurance are minimal. Why you might consider it are for these reasons. You are young, so it will be cheaper than buying say at 34. Insurance is always on sale. Two, there is no guarantee that your health will always be good, you may have to pay additional premiums later or even be refused coverage. Ask me, I pay 70% more than others my age for the same coverage. Three, insurance ownership with equity values can grow tax free as you accumulate the monies. Consider it like a bond portfolio offering guaranteed returns on portions of the growth, and a long term return of 5.5% or slighly more. Four, stating sooner versus later means more cash buildup. Just like being in a pension will generate more cash for you by age 65, than if you had started at age 34. Insurance is only one tool in getting a good start. It is not a panacea.",
"\"These policies are usually called dread disease policies or critical illness insurance, and they normally aren't a good deal. Furthermore, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, such policies may become less common or disappear entirely. These policies aren't a great deal because of the effects of adverse selection and asymmetric information, two closely related concepts in the economics of insurance. When you purchase an insurance policy, the insurance company charges you a premium based on your average risk level or the average risk level of your risk pool, e.g. you and your fellow employees, if you get insurance through your employer. For health insurance, this average risk level is the average probability that you'll incur healthcare costs. The insurer's actuaries calculate this probability from numerous factors, like your age, sex, current health, socioeconomic status, etc. Asymmetric information exists when you know more about this probability than the insurance company does. For example, you may look like a relatively low-risk individual on paper, but little does the insurance company know, BASE jumping is one of your hobbies. Because you know about your hobby and the insurance company doesn't, you secretly know that your risk of incurring healthcare expenses is much higher than the insurance company expects. If the insurance company knew this, they would like to charge you a much higher premium, if they could. However, they can't, because a) they don't know about your hobby, and b) the premium may be decided for the entire group/risk pool, so they can't increase it simply because a few individuals in the group have higher risk levels. Adverse selection occurs when individuals with higher risk levels are more likely to buy insurance. You may decide that because of your dangerous hobby, you do want to take advantage of your employer's healthcare plan. Unfortunately for the insurance company, they can't adjust their price accordingly. Adverse selection is a major factor in insurance markets, so I didn't go into much detail here (too much detail is probably off-topic anyway). I can point you towards more resources on the topic if you're interested. However, the situation is different when you purchase a dread disease policy. By expressing interest in such a specific policy, e.g. a cancer insurance policy, you signal to the insurance company that you feel you have a higher risk of facing that disease. In your case, you're signaling to the insurance company that your family probably has a history of cancer or that you have habits that make you more susceptible to it, and your premiums will be higher to compensate the insurance company for bearing this additional risk. Since the insurance company already has a rough estimate of your chances of developing that illness, they may already know that you have a higher chance of facing it. However, when you express interest in a disease-specific policy, this signals the existence of asymmetric information (your family history or other habits), and the insurer assumes you know something they don't that elevates your risk level of that specific disease. Since these policies are optional policies often sold as riders to existing policies, the insurance company has more flexibility in pricing them. They can charge you a higher premium because you've signaled to the insurer that you have a significantly above-average risk of contracting a specific disease*. Also, the insurer can do a much better job of estimating the expected costs of insuring you since they need only focus on data surrounding one disease. The policy will be priced accordingly, i.e. in such a way that isn't necessarily beneficial to you. Furthermore, most dread disease policies aren't guaranteed renewable, which means that even if you are willing to keep paying the premiums, the insurance company doesn't have to keep insuring you. As your risk of developing the specific disease grows, e.g. with age, it may pass the point where insuring you is no longer an acceptable risk. The company expects you to develop the illness with the next few renewal cycles, so they decide not to renew your policy. The end result? The insurance company has the premiums you've paid previously, but you no longer have coverage for that illness, and ex post, you've suffered a net loss with no reduction of risk for the foreseeable future. Dread disease policies are changing under the Affordable Care Act. According to healthcare.gov Starting in 2014, ... all new health insurance plans sold to individuals and small businesses, and plans purchased in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, must include a range of essential health benefits. The essential health benefits include quite a few areas of coverage; since this applies to policies offered on the state insurance exchanges and those offered outside of it, dread disease policies wouldn't seem to qualify. For more information, you can read the linked page on healthcare.gov or see Section 1302, subsection b), titled \"\"Essential Health Benefits Requirements\"\" in the law itself (p87). I imagine more details will be available on a state-by-state basis through 2014 and into 2015. One legal source (see the discussion on p24) states that: whatever else the ACA does with excepted benefit policies, including specific disease and fixed dollar indemnity policies, it does explicitly provide that such policies do not count as minimum essential coverage for purposes of the ACA This seems pretty straightforward; a dread disease (or \"\"specific disease\"\" policy, as it's referred to in the article), won't count towards the minimum essential requirements. This may not be an issue for you, but for others, it's important to understand that you'll still need to pay the penalty if you only purchase one of these policies. The ACA spells this out in Section 5000(f) (see p316, which states that \"\"excepted benefit policies\"\" are excluded and defines them using the definition in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). **The PSHA specifically includes \"\"Coverage only for a specified disease or illness\"\" in their definition of \"\"excepted benefit policies\"\" (see section 2791(b), paragraph 3A on p82, so it's probably a safe bet that such policies won't count towards the minimum. Also, as Rick pointed out in the comments, the Affordable Care Act also forbids lifetime limits on most insurance plans, so assuming you find an insurance policy with adequate coverage for the specific disease you're worried about, such a plan should cover the related expenses without a lifetime limit. Deductibles, annual limits, and other factors may complicate this somewhat. In the section about lifetime limits (Sec. 2711, p2), the Affordable Care Act states that: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish ... lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary. However, the law states in the next paragraph that the preceding statement should not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits that are not essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law The section also contains similarly vague caveats about annual limits, so the actual details and limits may vary once individual states finalize their policies. The law is intentionally vague because the vast majority of the law's implementation is left up to individual states. Furthermore, certain parts of the law specify actions involving the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so these may require further codification in the future too. You should still read the fine print of any insurance policy you buy and evaluate it as you would any contract (see the next section). Since a dread disease policy probably isn't a good idea, you'll probably want to evaluate the healthcare plans offered by your employer or individual plans offered in your area (if your employer doesn't offer coverage). I've tried to include the basic points offered in these articles to give you or future visitors some idea of where to start. These points may change once the Affordable Care Act is implemented, so I'll try to keep them as general as possible. Services - Above and beyond the minimum essential requirements, what services does the plan offer? Are these services a good match for you and/or your family, or do they add unnecessary cost to the premium with little or no benefit? For example, my health insurance plan offers basic dental coverage with a small co-pay, so I don't need a separate dental plan, even though my employer offers one. Choice - What doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. are preferred providers under your plan? Do you need a referral from your primary care doctor to see a specialist, or can you find one on your own? Are the preferred providers convenient for you? In my first year of college (about five years ago), my student health insurance only covered a few hospitals that were in the suburbs and somewhat difficult for me to reach. This is something to keep in mind, depending on where you live. Costs - This is a major one, obviously. Deductibles, copays, maximum cost limits over a year or your lifetime, out-of-network costs, etc. are all variables to consider. There are other factors, but since I don't have a family, other members of the site can provide more detailed information about what to look for in family policies. In place of a dread disease policy, you're likely better off purchasing a comprehensive health insurance policy, perhaps a catastrophic coverage policy with a high deductible that will kick in once you've exhausted your standard insurance policy. However, this may be a moot point since the passage of the Affordable Care Act may significantly reduce the availability of such policies anyway.\"",
"\"You probably don't need S-Corp. There's no difference between what you can deduct on your Schedule C and what you can deduct on 1120S, it will just cost you more money. Since you're gambling yourself, you don't need to worry about liability - but if you do, you should probably go LLC route, much cheaper and simpler. The \"\"reasonable salary\"\" trick to avoid FICA won't work. Don't even try. Schedule C for professional gamblers is a very accepted thing, nothing extraordinary about it.\"",
"Each S-corp is bound by its own plan documents, which typically do not limit or dictate where the investments are held. Your brokerage account has no tie to the company from which the funds come, however, you are still subject to maximum SIMPLE contribution rules and cannot exceed the $12,500 (if under age 50) COMBINED contribution for any and all companies. Be careful about co-mingling from both companies as there are penalties for early withdrawals made within 2-years of participating in the plan. If you started them both at the same time it's not an issue.",
"\"There are no dividends from S-Corp. There are distributions. Big difference. S-Corps fill form 1120S and schedule K-1 per shareholder. In the schedule all the income of your S-Corp will be assigned to various categories that you will later copy to your personal tax return as your personal income. It is not dividend income. The reason people prefer to take distributions from their S-Corps instead of salary is because you don't pay SE taxes on the distributions. That is also the reason why the IRS forces you to pay yourself a reasonable salary. But the tax rate on the income, all of it, is your regular income tax rate, unless the S-Corp income is categorized in a preferred category. The fact that its an S-Corp income doesn't, by itself, allow any preferential treatment. If you're learning the stuff as you go - you should probably get in touch with a tax professional to advise you. All the S-Corp income must be distributed. Its not a matter of \"\"avoiding paying the tax\"\", its the matter of \"\"you must do it\"\". Not a choice. My answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer (circ 230 disclaimer).\"",
"\"I'm assuming that when you say \"\"convert to S-Corp tax treatment\"\" you're not talking about actually changing your LLC to a Corporation. There are two distinct pieces of the puzzle here. First, there's your organizational form. Your state, which is where the business is legally formed and recognized, creates the LLC or Corporation. \"\"S-Corp\"\" doesn't come into play here: your company is either an LLC or a Corporation. (There are a handful of other organizational types your state might have, e.g. PLLC, Limited Partnership, etc.; none of these are immediately relevant to this discussion). Second, there's the tax treatment you receive by the IRS. If your company was created by the state as an LLC, note that the IRS doesn't recognize LLCs as a distinct organizational type: you elect to be taxed as an individual (for single member LLCs), a partnership (for multiple member LLCs), or as a corporation. The former two elections are \"\"pass through\"\" -- there's no additional level of taxation on corporate profits, everything just passes through to the owners. The latter election introduces a tax on corporate profits. When you elect pass-through treatment, a single-member LLC files on Schedule C; a multiple-member LLC will prepare a form K-1 which you will include on your 1040. If your company was created by the state as a Corporation (not an LLC), you could still elect pass-through taxation if your company qualifies under the rules in Subchapter S (i.e. \"\"an S-Corp\"\"). States do not recognize \"\"S-Corp\"\" as part of the organizational process -- that's just a tax distinction used by the IRS (and possibly your state's tax authorities). In your case, if you are a single-member LLC (and assuming there are no other reasons to organize as a corporation), talking about \"\"S-Corp tax treatment\"\" doesn't make any sense. You'll just file your schedule C; in my experience it's fairly simple. (Note that this is based on my experience of single- and multiple-member LLCs in just two states. Your state may have different rules that affect state-level taxation; and the rules may change from year to year. I've found that hiring a good CPA to prepare the forms saves a good bit of stress and time that can be better applied to the business.)\"",
"In all probability, having lower coverage levels will result in higher premiums. As my insurance agent explained to me, the higher your coverages, the lower the insurance company believes your risk to be - because you think about insurance smartly, you're less likely to make spurious claims. I have my coverages run at various levels every 18-24 months, and it is almost always true that higher coverages result in lower premiums. Also, there is no guarantee you'll still be employed by the same company if an injury happens. Or that they'll continue to offer the same plans every year. Insurance is a calculated risk on the part of the insurer, and a means of sharing/deflecting risk (at a cost known as your premium) on the part of the insured. Even if your premiums are slightly higher (on the order of a couple dollars per month, for example), do you really want to save a couple dollars and then be surprised when your health insurance company doesn't want to cover something?",
"> I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets A large part of the discount an employer gets, is due to the number of policy holders they enroll. Most methods of duplicating that have other problems. So forcing everyone into an individual market will end up raising rates on everyone, by removing group discounts. Eventually to the point where no one gets any discount from insurance.",
"HSA rules are different in some regards than deductions allowable under Pub 502 which deals with medical expenses deductible in Schedule A of your tax return. Pub 969 governs HSA's and similar reimbursement plans, and the guidelines are as follows: Insurance premiums. You can’t treat insurance premiums as qualified medical expenses unless the premiums are for: -Long-term care insurance. -Health care continuation coverage (such as coverage under COBRA). -Health care coverage while receiving unemployment compensation under federal or state law. -Medicare and other health care coverage if you were 65 or older (other than premiums for a Medicare supplemental policy, such as Medigap). Since your wife is still being treated like an employee for health benefits, and you are not on COBRA, thus not eligible for a deduction. You may qualify under the unemployment provision depending on the cause of her disability.",
"you wouldn't have to pay income taxes on the portion for health insurance. think of high deductible health plans - the employer puts the deductible into a healthcare savings account which is tax free as long as it's for medical care. right now you can also deduct the portion of your overall expenses that are medical over a portion of your income. 2 issues with your idea, though - 1. right now, there are people who can't get health insurance except through an employer. send them out into the marketplace and they will get turned down. obamacare is supposed to fix this, but if Romney is elected, it will continue. 2. healthcare inflation rises much higher than regular inflation, so if your benefits were included as part of wages and you had to buy it on your own, you would face a continually decreasing amount of money over time to purchase healthcare - a spiral. this is the issue that many have with the voucher system the republicans are proposing for medicare - the voucher will rise at inflation, while healthcare rises much higher than inflation - right now I think it's a difference of 1% versus 8-9% off the top of my head. also, for many industries, it's in the best interest of the company to have a healthy workforce.",
"\"I was in the health insurance game for 10 years and never heard of this until the Affordable Care Act came about. To my knowledge, there is no rule or regulation prohibiting it, however trying to get an insurer underwrite that risk is extremely unlikely. It's the same reason why you don't see AAA offering health insurance. There isn't a contractual relationship between the church and their constituents, so no underwriter worth their salt would put a reasonable price on that risk. Members can easily come and go, and since insurance through your employer is still the dominant distribution channel for health insurance, it would be seen as an adverse risk, meaning that people who couldn't get it through \"\"normal\"\" channels must be getting it through the church, which it would then be assumed that this person applying for coverage is an \"\"adverse risk\"\" or someone who is abnormally unhealthy. There are faith-based healthcare reimbursement programs that are NOT health insurance and do not satisfy the ACA required minimum coverages. From what I've seen and read, it's basically members of the religion or faith that pay money into the system (like paying an insurance premium) and they elect a board that basically evaluates each claim and pays or doesn't pay it, either partially or in full. While this is a nice way to get your bills paid, odds are it won't cover your $300,000 cancer treatment or your $50,000 cesarean section birth.\"",
"Yes. The S-Corp can deduct up to the amount it actually incurred in expenses. If your actual expenses to build the carport were $1000, then the $1000 would be deductible, and your business should be able to show $1000 in receipts or inventory changes. Note you cannot deduct beyond your actual expenses even if you would normally charge more. For example, suppose you invoiced the non-profit $2000 for the carport, and once the bill was paid you turned around and donated the $2000 back to the non-profit. In that case you would be deducting $1000 for your cost + $2000 donation for a total of $3000. But, you also would have $2000 in income so in the end you would end up with a $1000 loss which is exactly what your expenses were to begin with. It would probably be a good idea to be able to explain why you did this for free. If somehow you personally benefit from it then it could possibly be considered income to you, similar to if you bought a TV for your home with company funds. It would probably be cleaner from an accounting perspective if you followed through as described above- invoice the non-profit and then donate the payment back to them. Though not necessary, it could lesson any doubt about your motives.",
"I understand that if I have multiple health insurance policies, I can only make claim from only one of them if ever I incur medical expenses (I'm from the Philippines). In the US, you cannot simultaneously submit a claim for payment of a medical bill, or request reimbursement for a bill already paid, to multiple insurance companies, but if you are covered by more than one policy, then any part of a claim not paid by one company can be submitted to another company that is also covering you. In fact, if you have employer-paid or employer-provided coverage, most insurance companies will want your employer-provided insurance company to be billed first, and will cover whatever is not paid by the employer coverage. For example, if the employer coverage pays 80% of your doctor's bill, the private insurance will pay the remaining 20%. But, the private insurance policies are also quite expensive. Some professional groups in the US offer major medical coverage to their US members, and might be offering this to non-US members as well (though I suspect not). These policies have large deductibles so that coverage kicks in only when the total medical expenses in that year (whether wholly or partially reimbursed, or not reimbursed at all) exceed the large deductible. These types of policies actually pay out to only a few people - if you have more than, say, $20,000 of medical expenses in a year, you have been quite ill, and thus the premiums are usually much smaller than full-fledged coverage insurance policies which pay out much more frequently because of much smaller deductibles.",
"There are several insurance products that I buy for legal reasons: Both of these protect me from lawsuits and fines. Many people buy similar products to protect their business operations. (e.g. medical malpractice insurance) There are some insurance products I buy for tax planning and financial planning purposes: I have a large amount of savings available, so I have several tricks to reduce my insurance costs, and I have several products that I avoid. Several of these reasons are mentioned in other answers, but I thought I would collect them into a single answer to demonstrate that there are reasons other than the rational calculation of what the payout will be for the insurance products vs. the premium paid. If I gain access to a tax advantaged Health savings account, that is a bigger benefit to me than avoiding the premium, especially when my employer is paying the majority of the premium. Perhaps it makes no sense to buy insurance given sufficient savings (like the products I listed that make no sense for me given my finances) but not everyone can self-insure; it does require a certain level of wealth.",
">Hey, sole proprietorships called A sole proprietorship could incorporate as a Single Member LLC and elect to be taxed as a corporation. But you would still be subject to both sides of the FICA/Medicare taxes. >and they're going to suck out five percent MORE of my GROSS How exactly does a LLC suck out 5% more of your gross? >your payroll costs go through the roof. Again, payroll expenses are generally tax deductible. I'm just trying to help you here.",
"\"Yes, it's normal. If you \"\"buy\"\" your own disability insurance with after tax money, any payout you get is non taxable. If your employer \"\"buys\"\" your disability insurance with their own money, any payout you get is taxable. Since the payout is not 100% of your pre-disability income, most folks strongly prefer that the payout be non taxable. To achieve this, I pay the premiums on behalf of my employees (including myself) and then add that premium to their salary as a taxable benefit. In effect I paid it to them, then took it from them and used it to buy the insurance. (It has no impact on my corporate taxes since I can either deduct premiums or salaries, same either way.) This ensures they won't pay tax if they should collect. And I have had people collect, and it was non-taxable to them.\"",
"\"I know this is a little late but here is my answer. No. You do not \"\"need\"\" to incorporate. In fact, incorporating in your situation will cost you in legal fees, administrative headaches, and a fair bit in taxes. The CRA would probably look at your corporation as a personal services corporation and it would not be allowed to claim a number of tax reductions. The tax rate would end up being over the top range (unless you are in Quebec where it would be just under the top marginal range).\"",
"\"If you use \"\"a room or other separately identifiable space\"\" within your apartment exclusively for your business, then you might be able to recoup a fraction of your rent for that. Check the rules for home office at the IRS and adopt a consistent and well-documented approach. (I would pay your full rent out of your personal account, and then do an \"\"expense report\"\" for the portion that's legitimately business related, but that's not a unique approach.) Other than that, I agree with the answer by litteadv - You cannot reduce your tax by the full amount of your rent just by having the S Corp pay, and trying to do so is probably playing with fire. Generally speaking, don't comingle business and personal expenses like that.\"",
"Well you've got to think about the process, but first make sure the thing you want to pay for is actually a qualified dependent care expense. Here is a list of eligible expenses from a national FSA administrator. This process will tie up your money for some amount of time. Your deduction will come out like clockwork. But there is a time-delay of potentially months between your deduction and receipt of a reimbursement. Dependent care plans are money-in money-out. You can only file a reimbursement on funds that have actually been contributed, which is different than a medical FSA. Additionally, you can only file a claim on expenses that have actually been incurred. Dependent care FSA elections can be changed through the year on an as needed basis. This would add an administrivia burden to the person running your payroll, and if there is a payroll vendor in place, likely an actual cost. The administrator in this situation would likely be the company. In the formalities of employee benefits there must always be a named administrator. If your employer currently offers no benefits you should press healthcare first. Paying healthcare premiums pretax would likely save you more money and be less administration than this. Additionally, if your employer is paying for or reimbursing you for your individual health insurance that's currently illegal under the ACA.",
"Gifts from your parents are not treated as income for tax purposes. You should not include that in your subsidy calculation. If you are here on a student-visa and have been in the US for less than 5 years, then you are considered a non-resident alien, and you are not required to buy a qualified plan through the insurance marketplace. You might be able to get a cheaper student plan through your school, but the subsidy might be enough that it's still worth it when calculated correctly. If you are a resident-alien or you are a citizen of the US, then you are required to get coverage, though you can choose not to purchase coverage and pay the tax for not having creditable coverage. That tax cannot be collected by the IRS unless you have already had federal tax withheld. They can only confiscate your tax return money to recoup that money. I don't have enough information to recommend one way or the other what you should do, but I would bet that if you recalculated your subsidy without including your parents income it would cover the majority of the cost. You should also consider applying for Medicaid if you meet the eligibility requirements in your state.",
"Having an EIN does not make the LLC a corporation -- your business can have an EIN even when treated like a sole proprietorship. An EIN is required to have a Individual 401(k), for example. But you can still be an LLC, taxed as a sole proprietor, and have a 401(k). You would need to file a Form 2553 with the IRS to elect S Corporation status. If you don't do that, you're still treated as a disregarded LLC. Whether or not you should make the election is another question.",
"\"I don't think so. There is a provision in ObamaCare called \"\"community rating\"\" that applies starting in 2014. Insurance companies must place individual and small group plans into a pool of people from the same geographical region. The same plan must cost the same for all small businesses from the same region. So having employees who have high costs will not significantly affect the company's cost; it will get factored into the cost for all people in the area; but the effect gets averaged out over all businesses and individuals who have plans.\"",
"I'll just re-post my comment as an answer as i disagree with Michael Pryor. According to this article (and few others) you may save money by incorporating. These factors don’t change the general payroll tax advantage of an S corporation, however: A S corporation can often save business owners substantial amounts of payroll tax if the business profit greatly exceeds what the business needs to pay owners for their work.",
"\"This is actually quite a complicated issue. I suggest you talk to a properly licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Legal advice (from an attorney licensed in your State) is also highly recommended. There are many issues at hand here. Income - both types of entities are pass-through, so \"\"earnings\"\" are taxed the same. However, for S-Corp there's a \"\"reasonable compensation\"\" requirement, so while B and C don't do any \"\"work\"\" they may be required to draw salary as executives/directors (if they act as such). Equity - for S-Corp you cannot have different classes of shares, all are the same. So you cannot have 2 partners contribute money and third to contribute nothing (work is compensated, you'll be getting salary) and all three have the same stake in the company. You can have that with an LLC. Expansion - S-Corp is limited to X shareholders, all of which have to be Americans. Once you get a foreign partner, or more than 100 partners - you automatically become C-Corp whether you want it or not. Investors - it would be very hard for you to find external investors if you're a LLC. There are many more things to consider. Do not make this decision lightly. Fixing things is usually much more expensive than doing them right at the first place.\"",
"\"I'm going to take a very crude view of this: Suppose that you have an event that would cost $100,000 if it occurred. If there's a 10% chance that it'll happen to you and the insurance costs less than $10,000, you'll make a profit \"\"on average.\"\" This is, of course, assuming that you could afford a $100,000 loss. If you can't, the actual loss could be much higher (or different). For example, if you couldn't afford surgery because you didn't have health insurance, it could be a lot more \"\"costly\"\" in a way that could be difficult to compare to the $100,000. Obviously, this is a very simplistic view of things. For example, making more than you paid on the premium typically isn't the only reason you'd buy insurance (even if you're high net worth). Just wanted to throw this out there for what it's worth though.\"",
"I like HSAs. My employer had one for one year, but then took it away. Money you put into an HSA is tax-advantaged, you can invest it however you want, it can be used for healthcare if you need it, and you can stop adding to it at any time. You're healthy now, but it's likely there will be a time when you're not, and then it would be nice to have money already available.",
"\"It is definitely legal, however none of such expenses will be allowed as a tax deduction for the corporation. Basically, you'll end up paying more to maintain the entity and pay taxes on its income (the rent you're paying to yourself as a corporation) at corporate rates, for no apparent benefit. Being the director/executive in the corporation will make you liable for whatever the corporation is liable, so liability isn't going away. The reason corporation is considered \"\"limited liability\"\" for owners is because shareholders are shielded from the corporate liability. Not directors or executives (which are explicitly not shielded).\"",
"\"Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase \"\"pass-through\"\" insurance from. What you're describing is a self-funded plan. In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc. In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant. Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime. The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people. These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues. A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year. Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated. Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums. Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement. The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums. Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement. Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance. In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained. The employer sets up a claims checking account. The TPA has draft authority on the account. The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member. Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity. This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend. I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture. Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year? And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person. I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month. So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit. Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot. A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women? Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years? Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years? A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year. Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired? A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims. They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything. I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on.\"",
"The idea is that the premiums (or costs) associated with the plan are a business expense, you know that already. The distinction here is that employees don't pay premiums, they elect to contribute. The company sponsors a plan, the employees then choose to accept less salary in order to participate in the employer's plan. The idea is that you're foregoing income. Why is the employee not taxed on this cost? One major reason is that the employee has no say in, and often no idea, what the gross costs are (some find out if they ever receive COBRA election paperwork). There are more benefits than strict healthcare that are Section 125 eligible. The government has a vested interest in keeping the population healthy, and when the ERISA laws and Section 125 were written it was (and still is) a pretty low friction way to get health insurance out to more people. At this point, taking away the tax break from the employees would be a huge government take away from most of the population. Try to get a politician to take something away from taxpayers. Why doesn't the deduction exist in kind to people buying individual coverage? Ask your legislators. There are thousands of preferential tax treatment oddities, where some industry will get some sort of benefit or break. I'm not sure what leads you to think there needs to be some supremely logical reason for this oddity to exit.",
"This probably is a question that belongs on History but here's the basic reason: the or Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 established that health benefits under approved plans were not taxable to the employee. If the employer were to pay for an employees non ERISA approved individual plan, it would be a taxable benefit. The longer story is that many polticians (esp. President Richard Nixon) were concerned that public pressure was going to lead public sentiment toward nationalized health care. This made health insurance more affordable to employees and effectively made it a cheaper way to compensate employees similar to how 401K contributions are worth more (in nominal terms) to the employee than an equivalent amount of cash. While the law was not signed by Richard Nixon due to some other stuff that was going on, it was something proposed and pushed by his administration.",
"I think you are overcomplicating the scenario by assuming a benefit that doesn't exist. Assume an employee earns 50k, before considering the MSP. The corporation wants to cover the MSP. They have two options: increase the salary to $50,900, or keep the salary the same and pay for the MSP directly. Both options increase the employee's taxable income by $900. Both options decrease the corporation's income by $900. Net tax for each is unchanged. *Note - I couldn't find any specific reference to the MSP in income tax documentation on either BC Finance's or CRA's website. I am assuming that it is treated as a regular cash benefit, though I am not 100% convinced this is the case. If I am wrong in this please provide a comment below.",
"I heard that a C-Corp being a one person shop (no other employees but the owner) can pay for the full amount 100% of personal rent if the residence is being used as a home office. Sure. Especially if you don't mind being audited. Technically, it doesn't matter how the money gets where it goes as long as the income tax filings accurately describe the tax situation. But the IRS hates it when you make personal expenses from a business account, even if you've paid the required personal income tax (because their computers simply aren't smart enough to keep up with that level of chaos). Also, on a non-tax level, commingling of business and personal funds can reduce the effectiveness of your company's liability protection and you could more easily become personally liable if the company goes bankrupt. From what I understand the 30% would be the expense, and the 70% profit distribution. I recommend you just pay yourself and pay the rent from your personal account and claim the allowed deductions properly like everyone else. Why & when it would make sense to do this? Are there any tax benefits? Never, because, no. You would still have to pay personal income tax on your 70% share of the rent (the 30% you may be able to get deductions for but the rules are quite complicated and you should never just estimate). The only way to get money out of a corporation without paying personal income tax is by having a qualified dividend. That's quite complicated - your accounting has to be clear that the money being issued as a qualified dividend came from an economic profit, not from a paper profit resulting from the fact that you worked hard without paying yourself market value.",
"Yeah, me too, as I said. Actually what I'd really prefer is single payer, but failing that, getting health insurance separated from employment would be a big step forward. If people really knew how much they are paying for health insurance, things would change. I've never worked for an employer that didn't renegotiate health insurance every year, often changing insurance providers every year. To the extent that HR departments are competent in finding the best value, the current environment is pretty dynamic and competitive. Are individuals going to be as competent and well informed as HR departments? I don't know, but I do know that simply making a market free doesn't guarantee lower prices if consumers are ill-informed and bad at making decisions. As for wages, currently companies are not required to carry health insurance, and many have dropped it already without increasing wages, so I don't see an upward pressure on wages from greater employee mobility. But it's true that if there were a single large pool for insurance to be based off of, large businesses would no longer get the pool advantage of health insurance over small businesses. Hence my preference for single-payer, or single-group/multi-payer.",
"Another source of insurance can be through the working spouses employment. Some companies do provide free or low cost coverage for spouses without a need for a physical exam. The risk is that it might not be available at the amount you want, and that if the main spouse switches companies it might not be available with the new employer. A plus is that if there is a cost it is only a one year commitment. Term insurance is the way to go. It is simple to purchase, and not complex to understand. Sizing is key. You may need to provide some level of coverage until the youngest child is in high school or college. Of course the youngest child might not have been born yet. The longer the term, the higher the cost to account for the inflation during the period of the insurance. If the term expires, but the need still exists, it is possible to get another policy but the cost of the new term policy will be higher because the insured is older. If there are special needs children involved the amount and length may need to be increased due to the increased costs and duration of need. Don't forget to periodically review the insurance situation to make sure your need haven't changed so much a new level of insurance would be needed.",
"Of course not. You had another job for which you earned money. What does the corporation have to do with it? Corporation is a separate entity from your person, and since it was in no way involved in the transaction - there's no justification to funnel money through it. Doing so may pierce the corporate veil and expose you to liability which you created the corporation to shield yourself from. Not to mention the tax evasion, which is the reason you are asking the question to begin with....",
"\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"",
"Here's a good rule of thumb. In any situation where you are required to purchase insurance (Auto Liability, Property Mortgage Insurance, etc.) you can safely assume that you aren't the primary beneficiary. You are being required to buy that insurance to protect someone else's investment."
] |
[
"The answer seems to depend on where you live. Perhaps you already found this, but the summary from the IRS is: The insurance laws in some states do not allow a corporation to purchase group health insurance when the corporation only has one employee. Therefore, if the shareholder was the sole corporate employee, the shareholder had to purchase his health insurance in his own name. The IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which ruled that under certain situations the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction even if the health insurance policy was purchased in the name of the shareholder. Notice 2008-1 provided four examples, including three examples in which the shareholder purchased the health insurance and one in which the S corporation purchased the health insurance. Notice 2008-1 states that if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name and paid for it with his own funds, the shareholder would not be allowed an above-the-line deduction. On the other hand, if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name but the S corporation either directly paid for the health insurance or reimbursed the shareholder for the health insurance and also included the premium payment in the shareholder’s W-2, the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction. The bottom line is that in order for a shareholder to claim an above-the-line deduction, the health insurance premiums must ultimately be paid by the S corporation and must be reported as taxable compensation in the shareholder’s W-2. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/S-Corporation-Compensation-and-Medical-Insurance-Issues I understand this to mean that you can only get the deduction in your case (having purchased it in your own name) if your state does not allow your S-Corp to purchase a group health plan because you only have one employee. (I don't know specifically if Illinois fits that description or not.) In addition, there are rules about reporting health insurance premiums for taxes for S-Corp share members that you should also check. Personally, I think that it's complicated enough that advice from a CPA or other tax advisor specific to your situation would be worth the cost.",
"I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business."
] |
10808
|
What are a few sites that make it easy to invest in high interest rate mutual funds?
|
[
"28291",
"487052",
"484599"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"487052",
"28291",
"427842",
"253614",
"586851",
"424131",
"484599",
"100341",
"183497",
"120133",
"40227",
"445322",
"99266",
"311690",
"135596",
"3279",
"274987",
"4666",
"556519",
"307082",
"449124",
"41577",
"346398",
"324012",
"592636",
"526346",
"117875",
"558042",
"112223",
"351088",
"153670",
"162873",
"215049",
"114520",
"210470",
"318873",
"483168",
"116614",
"135405",
"365675",
"331553",
"447552",
"312359",
"407663",
"35971",
"394748",
"532672",
"591909",
"376485",
"266239",
"122679",
"4153",
"557201",
"448890",
"376148",
"104724",
"52589",
"532179",
"400196",
"5323",
"567079",
"436120",
"206298",
"579292",
"436020",
"46986",
"106620",
"45970",
"281865",
"462612",
"74554",
"573239",
"550783",
"466472",
"324244",
"51331",
"346474",
"461948",
"322725",
"459596",
"387980",
"571218",
"65006",
"36679",
"311527",
"573213",
"487890",
"586029",
"83230",
"367014",
"576688",
"312591",
"345954",
"581712",
"482955",
"151394",
"276805",
"378427",
"44594",
"336218"
] |
[
"Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up.",
"\"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \"\"emerging markets\"\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\"",
"There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.",
"\"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\"",
"@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you.",
"You do not need to have 'high net value', and yes, you can invest in it. Typically, fund companies require a minimum investment, that could be 100, it could be a 1000. 5000 should be enough for 99.9 % of all funds for an initial investment. What you need is an investment company that manages the account for you. I cannot name those for your country, but they should be easy to find (companies like IMG, and Fidelity might serve your country). You then open an account with the company of your choice, transfer the money, and tell them which fund it shall go in; all this is possible online. You can also go to see an agent in person, and he will fill the forms for you, and handle all the action, but he might take a fee for it.",
"Are you looking for something like Morningstar.com? They provide information about lots of mutual funds so you can search based on many factors and find good candidate mutual funds. Use their fund screener to pick funds with long track records of beating the S&P500.",
"According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.",
"Buy only 'Direct' Plans, not regular. - Demat providers won't sell Direct plans, that you can do it through https://www.mfuindia.com Make sure expense ratio < 2.5% (With direct plans it will be much lesser) I hope these points will help you to take a better decision.",
"I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail.",
"Nothing beats statistics like that found on Morning Star, Yahoo or Google Finance. When you are starting out, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pick a couple of mutual funds with good track records and start there. Keep in mind the financial press, to some degree, has a vested interest in having their readership chase the next hot thing. So while sites like Seeking Alpha, Kiplingers, or Money do provide some good advice, there is also an element that placates their advertisers. The only peer-to-peer lending I would consider is Lending Club. However, you are probably better off in the long run investing in mutual funds. One way to get involved in individual stocks without getting burned is to participate in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs). Companies that have them tend to be very well established, and they are structured to discourage trading. Buying is easy, dividend reinvestment is easy, dividend payouts are easy; but, starting and selling is kind of a pain. That is a good thing.",
"I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds",
"LendingClub.com I am an investor, 3 years now, and am making ~12%. It takes a little savvy and some research, but I'm getting a far better return than any typical investment today. As always, investors beware. If you dump your money in and don't invest wisely, you'll get taken for a ride.",
"Most of these blogs/websites that you mention above promote banks that pay a commission and hence you never realize there are better banks out there that offer a higher rate. I went through the same exercise to find the bank that paid the best rate and realized the truth I mention above. I currently bank with Alliant Credit Union, which doesn't pay a commission or have affiliate fees. If you find a bank that pays a higher rate than ACU, let me know, I'd like to switch to that bank as well! To give an example, ACU's regular savings rate is equivalent to EverBank's 2 year CD! See what I mean when I say affiliate and commissions run the show? Disclosure: BTW, I'm a customer of this bank, not an employee. I do have a blog if you wish to read my experience with ACU.",
"This might be better suited to r/personalfinance but if you're looking to invest I'd say start with an index fund. The MER's (fees) for most other mutual funds take too heavy a chunk of returns to be worth it in a market where actively managed funds are either underperforming of performing at par with passive funds. Additionally if these are your first investments, make sure you're doing it with investment goals in mind. Is this money you're saving for short, medium, or long term? For medium and long term investing make sure you're doing it through a tax efficient instrument like an IRA or 401k.",
"Most mutual funds underperform the stock market. Of those that over-perform, much of the performance can be attributed to dumb luck. Most mutual funds exist to generate fees from you, rather than make you wealthy. In my opinion, if you want to invest in one, choose a no-load index fund, and you will outperform most other funds. Better still get some good financial education and learn to manage your funds/investments yourself.",
"I personally like Schwab. Great service, low fees, wide variety of fund are available at no fee. TD Ameritrade is good too.",
"@sharam - big question. I am going to answer part of it, but not as directly as you might like. You mention 4-6 cents per unit per month, but fail to give a unit price, so it is hard to tell how much return you are really looking for. Given the amount you have to invest, depending on your time horizon, you will do much better outside of mutual funds. Many funds in this category have fees in the 2% range. You actually have enough money to have a diversified portfolio on your own, without recourse to funds. If you want to use a fund-like product, I encourage you to look at well established ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). They are basically like mutual funds that trade on the open stock market. One good example in this category is iShares XDV Good Luck",
"Searching for Banks or Credit Unions based on their high interest accounts is likely to be a giant waste of your time. The highest you might find is 1.5% not clearing inflation. For anything less than 100k youre better off putting it in a money market fund until you know what you want to do with it, which you can find anywhere.",
"I'd have a look at Capital One's Online account too, they've got 1.35% interest rate with 10% bonus if you have over $15k deposited. It is still low like all interest rates, but at least it is on top (or at least close)!",
"In addition to all the good information that JoeTaxpayer has provided, be aware of this. When you sell mutual fund shares, you can, if you choose to do so, tell the mutual fund company which shares you want to sell (e.g. all shares purchased on xx/yy/2010 plus 10 shares out of 23.147 shares purchased on ss/tt/2011 plus...) and pay taxes on the gains/losses on those specific shares. If you do not specify which shares you want sold, the mutual fund company will tell you the gains/losses based on the average cost basis and you can use this information if you like. Note that some of your gains/losses will be short-term gains or losses if you use the average cost basis. Or, you can use the FIFO method (usually resulting in the largest gain) in which the shares are sold in the order in which they were purchased. This usually results in no short-term gains/losses. Just so that you know, most mutual fund companies will link your checking account in your bank to your account with them (a one-time paperwork deal is necessary in which your bank manager's signature is required on the authorization to be sent to the fund company). After that, the connection is nearly as seamless as with your current system. Tell the fund company you want to invest money in a certain mutual fund and to take the money from your linked checking account, and they will take care of it. Sell some shares and they will deposit the money into your linked bank account, and so on. The mutual fund company will not accept instructions from you (or someone purporting to be you) to sell shares and to send the money to Joe Blow (or to Joe Taxpayer for that matter): the proceeds of redemptions go to your checking account or are used to buy shares in other mutual funds offered by the company (called an exchange and not a redemption). Oh, and most fund companies offer automatic investments (as well as automatic redemptions) at fixed time intervals, just as with your bank.",
"This is a great forum, mostly focused around mutual funds though: http://www.bogleheads.org/",
"Do not do investing with a bank. Do investing with a low cost investment company like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Charles Schwab. The lower the expenses of the fund the better. The additional money your account earns because of lower overhead expenses is so dramatic over the course of your investing it is mind boggling to me. The lower the expenses, the more of your money you keep, which feeds the power of compound interest. http://www.fool.com/investing/mutual-funds/2008/09/03/this-fund-charges-what.aspx",
"Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.",
"Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)",
"One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.",
"If you are in an economy which has a decent liquid debt market (corporate bonds, etc.), then you may look into investing in AA or AA+ rated bonds. They can provide higher returns than bank deposits and are virtually risk-free. (Though in severe economic downturns, you can see defaults in even very high-rated bonds, leading to partial or complete loss of value however, this is statistically quite rare). You can make this investment through a debt mutual fund but please make sure that you read through the offer document carefully to understand the investment style of the mutual fund and their expense ratio (which directly affect your returns). In any case, it is always recommended to reach out to an investment adviser who is good with local tax laws to minimize taxes and maximize returns.",
"Yahoo's primary business isn't providing mutual fund performance data. They aim to be convenient, but often leave something to be desired in terms of completeness. Try Morningstar instead. Their mission is investment research. Here's a link to Morningstar's data for the fund you specified. If you scroll down, you'll see:",
"At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? I think you are mixing things. There is no concept of interest or compounding in Mutual Funds. When you buy a mutual fund, it either appreciates in value or depreciates in value; both can happen depending on the time period you compare. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. The way you need to look at this is Given you started with $10,000 and its now $10,500 the return is 5%. Now if you want to calculate simple return or compounded return, you would have to calculate accordingly. You may potentially want to find a compounded return for ease of comparison with say a Bank FD interest rate or some other reason. So if $10,000 become $10,500 after one year and $11,000 after 2 year. The absolute return is 10%, the simple yearly return is 5%. Or the Simple rate of return for first year is 5% and for second year is 4.9%. Or the Average Year on Year return is 4.775%.",
"You are not limited in these 3 choices. You can also invest in ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, but traded like stocks. Usually (at least in Canada), MERs for ETFs are smaller than for mutual funds.",
"\"I'll try to give you some clues on how to find an answer to your question, rather than answering directly the question asked. Why not answer it directly? Well, I can, but it won't help you (or anyone else) much in two months when the rates change again. Generally, you won't find such in brick-and-mortar banks. You can save some time and only look at online banks. Examples: ING Direct (CapitalOne), CapitalOne, Amex FSB, E*Trade, Ally, etc. There are plenty. Go to their web sites, look for promotions, and compare. Sometimes you can find coupons/promotions which will yield more than the actual savings rate. For example, ING frequently have a $50 promotion for opening a new account. You need to understand that rates change frequently, and the highest rate account today may become barely average in a week. There are plenty of sites that offer various levels of comparison information. One of the most comprehensive ones (IMHO) is Bankrate.com. Another place to look is MoneyRates.com. These sites provide various comparisons, and you can also find some promotions advertised there. There are more similar sites. Also, search the Internet and you can find various blog posts with additional promotions – frequently banks give \"\"referral bonuses\"\" to provide incentive for clients to promote the banks. Do some due diligence on the results that appear promising. Not much. You won't find any savings account that would keep the value (purchasing power) of your money over the long term. Keeping money in savings accounts is a sure way to lose value because the inflation rate is much higher than even high-yield savings accounts. But, savings accounts are safe (insured by FDIC/NCUA up to the limit), and very convenient to keep short term savings – such as an emergency fund – that you cannot afford to lose to investments. Sometimes you'll get slightly better rates by locking up your money in a Certificate of Deposit (CD), but not significantly higher when the CD is short-term.\"",
"\"In addition to the advice of @karancan, If you wish to stay strictly with GICs, there are better ways to find good GIC rates, than looking at advertising from institutions you are already dealing with. This site, http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/data/rates?order=d&pageType=gic_long&sort=IR1&page=1&tax_indicator=N (among others) display impartial GIC rates for many institutions and terms of investment, in sortable form. Many of these institutions allow on-line purchases and transfers, requiring only a \"\"regular\"\" bank account as a source/destination for on-line transfers...\"",
"Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings. (I have an account there.) Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.",
"\"First, you don't state where you are and this is a rather global site. There are people from Canada, US, and many other countries here so \"\"mutual funds\"\" that mean one thing to you may be a bit different for someone in a foreign country for one point. Thanks for stating that point in a tag. Second, mutual funds are merely a type of investment vehicle, there is something to be said for what is in the fund which could be an investment company, trust or a few other possibilities. Within North America there are money market mutual funds, bond mutual funds, stock mutual funds, mutual funds of other mutual funds and funds that are a combination of any and all of the former choices. Thus, something like a money market mutual fund would be low risk but quite likely low return as well. Short-term bond funds would bring up the risk a tick though this depends on how you handle the volatility of the fund's NAV changing. There is also something to be said for open-end, ETF and closed-end funds that are a few types to consider as well. Third, taxes are something not even mentioned here which could impact which kinds of funds make sense as some funds may invest in instruments with favorable tax-treatment. Aside from funds, I'd look at CDs and Treasuries would be my suggestion. With a rather short time frame, stocks could be quite dangerous to my mind. I'd only suggest stocks if you are investing for at least 5 years. In 2 years there is a lot that can happen with stocks where if you look at history there was a record of stocks going down about 1 in every 4 years on average. Something to consider is what kind of downside would you accept here? Are you OK if what you save gets cut in half? This is what can happen with some growth funds in the short-term which is what a 2 year time horizon looks like. If you do with a stock mutual fund, it would be a gamble to my mind. Don't forget that if the fund goes down 10% and then comes up 10%, you're still down 1% since the down will take more.\"",
"\"Yes, there is a very good Return vs Risk graph put out at riskgrades.com. Look at it soon, because it will be unavailable after 6-30-11. The RA (return analysis) graph is what I think you are looking for. The first graph shown is an \"\"Average Return\"\", which I was told was for a 3 year period. Three period returns of 3, 6 and 12 months, are also available. You can specify the ticker symbols of funds or stocks you want a display of. For funds, the return includes price and distributions (total return), but only price movement for stocks - per site webmaster. I've used the graphs for a few years, since Forbes identified it as a \"\"Best of the Web\"\" site. Initially, I found numerous problems with some of the data and was able to work with the webmaster to correct them. Lately though, they have NOT been correcting problems that I bring to their attention. For example, try the symbols MUTHX, EDITX, AWSHX and you'll see that the Risk Grades on the graphs are seriously in error, and compress the graph results and cause overwriting and poor readability. If anyone knows of a similar product, I'd like to know about it. Thanks, George\"",
"One of the things I would suggest looking into is peer-to-peer lending. I do lendingclub.com, but with a lot less money, and have only done it a short period of time. Still my return is about 13%. In your case you would probably have to commit to about 3.5 years to invest your money. Buy 3 year notes, and as they are paid off pull the money out and put into a CD or money market.. They sell notes that are 3 or 5 year and you may not want to tie your money up that long.",
"\"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \"\"mutual funds\"\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\"",
"\"Since this is your emergency fund, you generally want to avoid volatility while keeping pace with inflation. You really shouldn't be looking for aggressive growth (which means taking on some risk). That comes from money outside of the emergency fund. The simplest thing to do would be to shop around for a different savings account. There are some deals out there that are better than ING. Here is a good list. The \"\"traditional\"\" places to keep an emergency fund are Money Market Mutual Funds (not to be confused with Money Market Accounts). They are considered extremely safe investments. However, the returns on such a fund is pretty low these days, often lower than a high-yield online savings account. The next step up would be a bond fund (more volatility, slightly better return). Pick something that relies on Government bonds, not \"\"high-yield\"\" (junk) bonds or anything crazy like that. Fidelity Four in One comes pretty close to your \"\"index of indexes\"\" request, but it isn't the most stable thing. You'd probably do better with a safer investment.\"",
"In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund. Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc. Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them.",
"\"Mutual funds can be relatively low risk and a good starting point. Really it depends on you. What are your goals? This is a pretty open ended question. These can all be low risk and provide some return. Note \"\"Less Knowledge\"\" is never a good qualifier for an investment. Your money is your business and you are entitled to know what your business is up to.\"",
"Don't invest in regular mutual funds. They are a rip-off. And, most investment professionals will not do much to help your financial future. Here's the advice:",
"The Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index mutual fund (VBIRX) might fit your need. Apart from 2008, it has only had one single quarter of negative returns, and has always had positive annual returns. If you're looking for an ETF, you might consider iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Credit Bond (CSJ).",
"There are many considerations before deciding on the best place for your funds: How liquid do you need the funds to be? If this is for an emergency fund I would keep at least some in an account that you have instant access to, What is your risk (volatility) tolerance? Would you be OK with the value dropping by as much as 30% in a year knowing that over time you'll probably earn 8-12% on it? If not, then equity funds or other stock investments are probably not the best move for you. Do you need the funds now or are they for long-term (retirement) savings? Are you eligible to fund an IRA? That would defer your taxes until you withdraw the funds from the account, but there are age restrictions that you must heed to avoid penalties. Are CDs a good idea? They do pay decent interest, but in return for that you lock up your funds for a set period of time. All that to say that there are many facets to determining the best place for your funds. If you provide more specifics you can get a more specific answer.",
"Returns: Variable, as with all investments. Legitimate: Contact the usual major investment-fund houses.",
"Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.",
"The Telegraph had an interesting article recently going back 30 years for Mutual's in the UK that had beaten the market and trackers for both IT and UT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11489789/The-funds-that-have-returned-more-than-12pc-per-year-for-THIRTY-years.html",
"Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.",
"As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.",
"\"Congratulations on deciding to save money and choosing to invest it. One thing to know about mutual funds including index funds is that they typically require a minimum investment of a few thousand dollars, $3000 being a typical amount, unless the investment is in an IRA in which case $1000 might be a minimum. In some cases, automated monthly investments of $50 or $100 might need to be set up if you are beginning with a small balance. There is nothing wrong with your approach. You now should go and look at the various requirements for specific index funds. The Fidelity and Vanguard families are good choices and both offer very low-cost index funds to choose from, but different funds can have different requirements regarding minimum investments etc. You also have a choice of which index you want to follow, the S&P 500 Index, MidCap Indexes, Small-Cap Indexes, Total Stock Market Indexes etc., but your choice might be limited until you have more money to invest because of minimum investment rules etc. Most important, after you have made your choice, I urge you to not look every day, or even every month, to see how your investment is doing. You will save yourself a lot of anxiety and will save yourself from making wrong decisions. Far too many investors ignore the maxim \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" and pull money out of what should be long-term investments at the first flicker of a downturn and end up buying high and selling low. Finally, the time is approaching when most stock funds will be declaring dividends and capital gains distributions. If you invest now, you may end up with a paper profit on which you will have to pay taxes (in non-tax-advantaged accounts) on your 2012 tax return (this is called \"\"buying a dividend\"\"), and so you might want to spend some time investigating now, but actually make the investment in late December after your chosen fund has made its distributions (the date for this will be on the fund's web site) or in early 2013.\"",
"If you need the money in the short-term, you want to invest in something fairly safe. These include saving accounts, CDs, and money market funds from someplace like Vanguard. The last two might give you a slightly better return than the local branch of a national bank.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"Congratulations on being in such good financial state. You have a few investment choices. If you want very low risk, you are talking bonds or CDs. With the prime rate so low, nobody is paying anything useful for very low risk investments. However, my opinion is that given your finances, you should consider taking on a little more risk. A good step is a index fund, which is designed to mirror the performance of a stock index such as the S&P 500. That may be volatile in the short-term, but is likely to be a good investment in the longer term. I am not a fan of non-index mutual funds; in general the management charge makes them a less attractive investment. The next step up is investing in individual stocks, which can provide very big gains or very big losses. The Motley fool site (www.fool.com) has a lot of information about investing overall.",
"So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.",
"As always with investments, it depends on your risk adversity. I don't want to repeat the content of hundreds of recommendations here, so just the nutshell: (For qualified investments,) the more risk you are willing to take, the more returns you'll get. The upper end is the mutual funds and share market, where you have long-term expectations of 8 - 10 % (and corresponding risks of maybe +/- 50% per year), the lower end is a CD, where you can expect little to no interest, corresponding to little to no risk. Investing in shares/funds is not 'better' than investing in CDs, it is different. Not everybody likes financial roller-coasters, and some people mainly consider the high risk, which gives them sleepless nights; while others just consider the expected high long-term gains as all that counts. Find out what your personal risk adversity is, and then pick accordingly.",
"Bond aren't necessarily any safer than the stock market. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a low risk mutual fund. You want something that will allow you get at your money relatively quickly. In other words, CDs (since you you can pick a definite time period for your money to be tied up), money market account or just a plain old savings account. Basically, you want to match inflation and have easy access to the money. Any other returns on top of that are gravy, but don't fret too much about it. See also: Where can I park my rainy-day / emergency fund? Savings accounts don’t generate much interest. Where should I park my rainy-day / emergency fund?",
"\"Books such as \"\"The Pocket Idiot's Guide to Investing in Mutual Funds\"\" claim that money market funds and CDs are the most prudent things to invest in if you need the money within 5 years. More specifically:\"",
"See if any of the funds they offer are index funds, which will generally have MUCH lower fees and which seem to perform as well as any of the actively managed funds in the same categories.",
"A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.",
"Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.",
"Since returning of capital is the most important, I would go to bankrate.com and find either an online bank savings account or MMA account. By going to bankrate.com, you can find higher rates. Sometimes you can find rates that are higher than a CD and are still FDIC insured. I've found ally bank's raise your rate 2 year CD to always have the best rate. In addition, if rates go up, you are able to raise the rate to the current rate.",
"CDs pay less than the going rate so that the banks can earn money. Investing is risky right now due to the inaction of the Fed. Try your independent life insurance agent. You could get endowment life insurance. It would pay out at age 21. If you decide to invest it yourself try to buy a stable equity fund. My 'bedrock' fund is PGF. It pays dividends each month and is currently yealding 5.5% per year. Scottrade has a facility to automatically reinvest the dividend each month at no commission. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PGF?CountryCode=US",
"\"The \"\"Money 70\"\" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are \"\"bad,\"\" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck.\"",
"Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation. Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'.",
"These interest rates are very low. One of the reasons that I prefer E*Trade is because on their on-line savings account the interest rates are several times higher than on ScotTrade margin accounts (currently it's 0.7% on E*Trade, on any amount, IIRC). The transfers between the accounts on E*Trade are immediate, and they allow using the money for investing immediately even for transfers from outside source. If you can wait a couple of days for the money to arrive before your investment (unless ScotTrade, like E*Trade, allow investing external transfers immediately), you can look at AMEX, ING Direct or Capitol One on-line savings accounts for even higher rates. Oh, and needless to mention, on-line savings accounts are FDIC insured, I'm not sure if the uninvested deposits on Scottrade are.",
"\"TD e-series index funds are great for regular contributions every paycheck since there is no trading commission. The personal finance blog \"\"Canadian Couch Potato\"\" has great examples of what they call \"\"model portfolios\"\" and one consists of entirely TD e-series index funds. Check it out: http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/ The e-series portfolio that is described in the Model Portfolios (linked above) made returns of just over 10%. This is very similar to the ETF Model Portolio. One thing to remember is that these funds have a 30 day no sell time frame, otherwise a 2% fee is applied to the funds you withdraw.\"",
"I highly recommend passive investing through something like betterment (www.betterment.com) or vanguard's ETFs. FutureAdvisor.com can provide some good advice as to what funds to invest in. I'd recommend using that money to max out your Roth IRAs each year, too.",
"\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \"\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\"\".\"",
"\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \"\"actively managed\"\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \"\"time the market\"\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\"",
"On reading couple of articles & some research over internet, I got to know about diversified investment where one should invest 70% in equity related & rest 30% in debt related funds Yes that is about right. Although the recommendation keeps varying a bit. However your first investment should not aim for diversification. Putting small amounts in multiple mutual funds may create paper work and tracking issues. My suggestion would be to start with an Index EFT or Large cap. Then move to balanced funds and mid caps etc. On this site we don't advise on specific funds. You can refer to moneycontrol.com or economictimes or quite a few other personal finance advisory sites to understand the top funds in the segments and decide on funds accordingly. PS: Rather than buying paper, buy it electronic, better you can now buy it as Demat. If you already have an Demat account it would be best to buy through it.",
"You don't say what kinds of mutual funds, or what bonds. You don't say how old you are. You seem to have enough cushion to strike out on your own comfortably. This is good. Compared with Vanguard's management fees, the fees you're paying are pretty high. The bottom line of what to invest in rests with you. If you outsource it, it's still your money. The managers get paid whether you make money or not. You have lots of other options: real estate from a distressed seller, commodities, currencies, websites, or other things where you have a knowledge advantage. For the time being, though, if you're concerned about your main income stream, I wouldn't get terribly risky with your money. Cash is just peachy in that case.",
"http://www.moneysupermarket.com/shares/CompareSharesForm.asp lists many. I found the Interactive Investor website to be excruciatingly bad. I switched to TD Waterhouse and found the website good but the telephone service a bit abrupt. I often use the data presented on SelfTrade but don't have an account there.",
"The SEC 30-Day Yield you're seeing is a standardized yield calculation set out by the Securities & Exchange Commission. It can be useful for comparing bond funds, but it doesn't guarantee what you'll actually earn from a fund. IMPORTANT: The SEC 30-day yield represents a bond fund's returns from the previous 30 days expressed as an annual percentage of the current fund price — yes, an annual percentage. In other words, don't expect 1.81% return on your money every 30 days! Such a return is too-good-to-be-true return in today's low rate environment. 1.81% per year? More reasonable. Even then, the 1.81% you see is merely an estimate, one based on assumptions, of what you might expect to earn if you keep your money in place for the next year. The estimate is based on the assumptions that: These aren't reliable assumptions. BIV's price does fluctuate. You are not promised to get your principal back with a bond fund. Only an individual bond promises your principal back, and only at maturity. So, earning $181 on $10,000 invested for a full year while taking on interest-rate and other risks might not be worth the trouble of putting your money in a brokerage account. You'll need to transfer the money in and out, and there are potential trading fees to take into account. (How much to buy/sell units?) An FDIC-insured high interest savings account makes more sense.",
"I would stay away from the Actively Managed Funds. Index funds or the asset allocation funds are your best bet since they have the lowest fees. What is your risk tolerance? How old are you? I would suggest reading:",
"\"Most mutual funds are designed to make the investment banks that sell them money, not to make investers money. They do this by taking significant fees out. Because they make lots of money on these funds, they advertise them a lot, and give them important-sounding names, like \"\"Advanced technology global diversity long term appreciation\"\". Index funds are the exception; they attempt to mirror the performance of a specific index (such as the S&P 500 index). They generally have very low fees.\"",
"It depends on the exact level of risk that you want, but if you want to keep your risk close to zero you're pretty much stuck with the banks (and those rates don't look to be going up any time soon). If you're willing to accept a little more risk, you can invest in some index tracking ETFs instead, with the main providers in Australia being Vanguard, Street State and Betashares. A useful tool for for an overview of the Australian ETF market is offered by StockSpot. The index funds reduce your level of risk by investing in an index of the market, e.g. the S&P 200 tracked by STW. If the market as a whole rises, then your investment will too, even though within that index individual companies will rise and fall. This limits your potential rate of return as well, and is still significantly more risky than leaving your cash in an Aussie bank (after all, the whole market can fall), but it might strike the right balance for you. If you're getting started, HSBC, Nabtrade, Commsec and Westpac were all offering a couple of months of free trades up to a certain value. Once the free trades are done, you'll do better to move to another broker (you can migrate your shares to the others to take advantage of their free trades too) or to a cheaper broker like CMC Markets.",
"\"I used the term \"\"bond fund\"\" to mean a mutual fund which invests in bonds. Vanguard has a list. If you live in PA, OH, MA, FL, CA, NJ, or NY there are tax free funds you can invest in on that list.\"",
"I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.",
"\"Check out the \"\"rewards checking\"\" accounts listed on this thread at fatwallet finance forums. You could easily get 3.5% - 4% right now if you are willing to do the rewards checking dance. If not, you should look into the 1-2% accounts at the top. I use Alliant CU and their website is nice (and they give you your credit score every six months).\"",
"In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.",
"\"Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs. They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds. You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds. Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well. You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds. That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into \"\"established\"\" economies and a certain fraction into \"\"emerging\"\" ones. I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little.\"",
"\"If you want the answer from the horse's mouth, go to the website of the ETF or mutual find, and the expense ratio will be listed there, both on the \"\"Important Information\"\" part of the front page, as well as in the .pdf file that you click on to download the Prospectus. Oh wait, you don't want to go the fund's website at all, just to a query site where you type in something like VFINX. hit SEARCH, and out pops the expense ratio for the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund? Well, have you considered MorningStar?\"",
"Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.",
"There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.",
"\"There are raters of stock and bond funds of which Morningstar's is the best. Standard and Poor's and Value line offer reports that aren't quite as good. If you are able to read and understand these reports yourself, you don't need a professional. Such help is necessary for people who are \"\"rank beginners\"\" in investments.\"",
"Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.",
"Yes, it is. Got to start somewhere. Typically directly through a company itself. Check out this site that lists a bunch of them and their minimum requirements. Not many only accept $100 but there are a few. ie. ACTIVEnergy Income Fund, CIBC, COMPASS Income Fund, Suncor Energy Inc. and a few others.",
"\"An alternative to a savings account is a money market account. Not a bank \"\"Money Market\"\" account which pays effectively the same silly rate as a savings account, but an actual Money Market investment account. You can even write checks against some Money Market investment accounts. I have several accounts worth about 13,000 each. Originally, my \"\"emergency fund\"\" was in a CD ladder. I started experimenting with two different Money market investment accounts recently. Here's my latest results: August returns on various accounts worth about $13k: - Discover Bank CD: $13.22 - Discover Bank CD: $13.27 - Discover Bank CD: $13.20 - Discover Savings: $13.18 - Credit Union \"\"Money Market\"\" Savings account: $1.80 - Fidelity Money Market Account (SPAXX): $7.35 - Vanguard Money market Account (VMFXX): $10.86 The actual account values are approximate. The Fidelity Money Market Account holds the least value, and the Credit Union account by far the most. The result of the experiment is that as the CDs mature, I'll be moving out of Discover Bank into the Vanguard Money Market account. You can put your money into more traditional equities mutual fund. The danger with them is the stock market may drop big the day before you want to make your withdrawl... and then you don't have the down payment for your house anymore. But a well chosen mutual fund will yield better. There are 3 ways a mutual fund increase in value: Here's how three of my mutual funds did in the past month... adjusted as if the accounts had started off to be worth about $13,000: Those must vary wildly month-to-month. By the way, if you look up the ticker symbols, VASGX is a Vanguard \"\"Fund of Funds\"\" -- it invests not 100% in the stock market, but 80% in the stock market and 20% in bonds. VSMGX is a 60/40 split. Interesting that VASGX grew less than VSMGX...but that assumes my spreadsheet is correct. Most of my mutual funds pay dividends and capital gains once or twice a year. I don't think any pay in August.\"",
"I agree with others here that suggest that you should be taking higher risk since it is repaid with higher returns. You have 40 years or so to go before you might switch to safer but lower return funds. I suggest that you look at the Morningstar rating for the funds you are considering: http://www.morningstar.com/ A fund rated five stars means that the fund performs in the top 20% compared to all similar funds. I prefer five star funds. Next, check the management fees. Here is an example from one of the funds you mentioned; https://www.google.com/finance?cid=466533039917726 Next, I suggest you compare how each fund has performed compared to a benchmark. Here are some common indices: Compare an equity fund to, for example, the S&P 500. Has your fund beat or closely matched the S&P for 1, 5 and 10 years? If not, you may as well buy an index fund, such as SPY.",
"What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees.",
"Go with a Vanguard ETF. I had a lengthy discussion with a successful broker who runs a firm in Chicago. He boiled all of finance down to Vanguard ETF and start saving with a roth IRA. 20 years of psychology research shows that there's a .01 correlation (that's 1/100 of 1%) of stock/mutual fund performance to prediction. That's effectively zero. You can read more about it in the book Thinking Fast and Slow. Investors have ignored this research for years. The truth is you'd be just as successful if you picked your mutual funds out of a hat. But I'll recommend you go with a broker's advice.",
"As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"",
"Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more. If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around",
"I am going to assume that this is going to be a long term investment and you don't need this money before 5-6years at the very least. My advise would be to invest in one of the following funds : IDFC Premier equity fund growth plan (Direct) (Only SIP allowed right now) ICICI Discovery fund growth plan (Direct) DSP microcap fund growth plan (Direct) In case you do not want to be invested in small and mid cap and want a little less volatility then my first choice for that would be : Quantum long term equity fund dividend plan Whatever you go for make sure you go directly with the fund house and not through a broker as you end up getting charged an extra .63% extra as opposed to going direct and you will also be paying for a demat account which can be avoided if you invest directly with a fund house. Out of the above mentioned funds Quantum has the lowest expense ratio of 1.25% and it is a huge benefit if you are talking 10+ years because it makes a lot of difference. Source : My own research and experience as an investor.",
"\"There are mutual funds oriented toward kids or that are suitable in some way (e.g. they have low minimums). Here are two articles with mention of some of them: Of those only USAA First Start Growth is explicitly for kids: http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=UFSGX or https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/mutual_funds_reports Another fund aimed at kids is Monetta Young Investor http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=MYIFX or http://www.younginvestorfund.com/ The diversified funds (with fixed income) like USAA First Start Growth, Vanguard STAR, Pax World Balanced, etc. have the nice property that they won't be as volatile and may spend less time \"\"underwater,\"\" so that might better convey the value of investing (vs. an all-stock fund where it could be kind of depressing for years on end, if you get bad luck). Though, I feel the same principle applies for adults. Kids may appreciate intangible aspects of the funds, e.g. Pax World Balanced invests in sustainable companies, Ariel Appreciation also has some social parameters and I think the guy running it does charity work with kids, that type of thing. There should be quarterly and annual reports on mutual funds (or stocks) that would give kids something to read and think about related to the investment. Disclaimer: none of these funds are recommendations, I have not researched them in any detail, just giving you some leads.\"",
"Based on your question, I am going to assume your criterion are: Based on these, I believe you'd be interested in a different savings account, a CD, or money market account. Savings account can get you up to 1.3% and money market accounts can get up to 1.5%. CDs can get you a little more, but they're a little trickier. For example, a 5 year CD could get up to 2%. However, now you're money is locked away for the next few years, so this is not a good option if this money is your emergency fund or you want to use it soon. Also, if interest rates increase then your money market and savings accounts' interest rates will increase but your CD's interest rate misses out. Conversely, if interest rates drop, you're still locked into a higher rate.",
"\"From a quick look at sources on the web, it looks to me like Money Market Accounts and savings accounts are both paying about the same rate today: around 1%, give or take maybe 0.4%. I suppose that's better than nothing, but it's not a whole lot better than nothing. (I saw several savings accounts advertising 0.1% interest. If they mailed you a check, the postage could be more than the returns.) Personally, I keep a modest amount of emergency cash in my checking account, and I put my \"\"savings\"\" in a very safe mutual fund. That generally gets somewhere from making maybe 3% a year to losing a small amount. Certainly nothing to sing about, but better than savings or money markets. Whether you are willing to tolerate the modest risk or the sales charges is a matter for your personal situation and feelings.\"",
"\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"",
"\"First off, you generally want to park your emergency fund somewhere that is \"\"safe\"\", meaning something that is not subject to market fluctuations. Your emergency fund is something you need to be able to count on when times are tough! That rules out things like stock market investments. Secondly, you need to think about how quickly you will need access to the money. If you have an emergency, odds are you don't want to be waiting around for weeks/months/years for the money to become available. This rules out most fixed-term investments (Bonds, traditional CDs, etc). If you are concerned that you will need near-instant access to your emergency money, then you probably want to keep it in a Savings or Money Market Account at the same bank as your checking account. Most banks will let you transfer money between local accounts instantly. Unfortunately, your local bank probably has pitiful interest rates for the Savings/MMA, far below the inflation rate. This means your money will slowly lose value over time. Be prepared to keep contributing to it! For most people, being able to draw the cash from your fund within a few days (<1 week) is sufficient. Worst case, you charge something on your credit card, and then pay down the card when the emergency fund withdrawal arrives. If \"\"money within a few days\"\" is okay for you, there are a few options: Money Market (Mutual) Funds (not to be confused with a Money Market Account) - This is the traditional place to keep an emergency fund. These are investment funds you can buy with a brokerage account. An example of such a fund would be Fidelity Cash Reserves. MMFs are not FDIC insured, so they are not exactly zero risk. However, they are considered extremely safe. They almost never go down in value (only a few times in the past few decades), and when they have, the fund manager or the Federal Govt stepped in to restore the value. They usually offer slightly better return than a local savings account, and are available in taxable and non-taxable varieties. Online High-Yield Savings or Money Market Account - These are a relatively new invention. It's basically a the same thing as what your local bank offers, but it's online-only. No local branch means low overhead, so they offer higher interest rates (2.0% vs 0.5% for your local bank). Some of them used to be over 5% before the economy tanked. Like your local bank, it is FDIC insured. One bit of caution: Some of these accounts have become \"\"gimmicky\"\" lately. They have started to do things like promo rates for a few months, only offering the high interest rate on the first few $K deposited, limiting the amount that can be withdrawn, etc. Be sure to read the details before you open an account! No-Penalty CDs - Certificates of Deposit usually offer a better rate than a Savings Account, but your money is locked up until the CD term is up (e.g. 36 months). If you need to cash out before then, you pay a penalty. Some banks have begun to offer CDs that you can cash out with no penalty at all. These can offer better rates than the savings account. Make sure it really is no-penalty though. Also watch what your options are for slowly adding money over time. This can be an issue if you want to deposit $100 from every paycheck. Rewards Checking Accounts - These are checking accounts that will pay a relatively high interest rate (3% or more) provided you generate enough activity. Most of them will have requirements like you must have direct deposit setup with them, and you must do a minimum number of debit card transactions from the account per month. If you can stay on top of the requirements, these can be a great deal. If you don't stay on top of it, your interest rate usually drops back to something pitiful, though. Personally, we use the Online High-Yield Savings Account for our emergency fund. I'm not going to make a specific recommendation as to which bank to use. The best deal changes almost week to week. Instead, I will say to check out Bankrate.com for a list of savings accounts and CDs that you can sort. The Bank Deals blog is a good place to follow rate changes.\"",
"Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well."
] |
[
"\"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \"\"emerging markets\"\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\"",
"Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up.",
"Are you looking for something like Morningstar.com? They provide information about lots of mutual funds so you can search based on many factors and find good candidate mutual funds. Use their fund screener to pick funds with long track records of beating the S&P500."
] |
3791
|
"When people say 'Interest rates are at all time low!"" … Which interest rate are they actually referring to?"
|
[
"327432",
"577201",
"212222"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"327432",
"212222",
"594667",
"570466",
"483218",
"228211",
"531551",
"581257",
"96396",
"227653",
"577201",
"519470",
"346064",
"37484",
"466745",
"420484",
"578983",
"52735",
"332136",
"205163",
"2390",
"551234",
"491219",
"357103",
"285064",
"36602",
"417311",
"499112",
"350180",
"447237",
"363817",
"136325",
"118817",
"484884",
"346662",
"389264",
"35251",
"72168",
"361114",
"569691",
"491917",
"400646",
"596914",
"433340",
"177137",
"12378",
"42475",
"133486",
"144177",
"16626",
"435740",
"377035",
"521813",
"211026",
"257495",
"129676",
"2234",
"380071",
"59710",
"534886",
"185104",
"512573",
"72683",
"500985",
"46716",
"219335",
"517750",
"335951",
"60486",
"323932",
"257552",
"121716",
"525717",
"88774",
"209626",
"307082",
"131723",
"228668",
"118138",
"548971",
"252496",
"230948",
"379492",
"305539",
"493963",
"457865",
"443092",
"135352",
"282013",
"370086",
"216962",
"331758",
"523959",
"11356",
"216717",
"148627",
"37954",
"294152",
"144077",
"129742"
] |
[
"\"You are correct that it could refer to any of the types of interest rates that you've mentioned. In general, though, phrases such as \"\"rising interest rates\"\" and \"\"falling interest rates\"\" refer to the Federal Funds Rate or LIBOR. These are the interest rates at which banks in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, are lending money to each other.\"",
"\"I would say people are generally talking about the prime lending rate. I have heard the prime lending rate defined as \"\"The rate that banks charge each other when they borrow money overnight.\"\" But it often defined as the rate at which banks lend their most creditworthy customers. That definition comes with the caveat that it is not always held to strictly. Either definition has the same idea: it's the lowest rate at which anyone could currently borrow money. The rate for many types of lending is based upon the prime rate. A variable rate loan might have an interest rate of (Prime + x). The prime rate is in turn based upon the Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate that the Fed sets manually. When the news breaks that \"\"the Fed is raising interest rates by a quarter of a point\"\" (or similar) it is the Federal Funds Rate that they control. Lending institutions then \"\"fall in line\"\" and adjust the rates at which they lend money. So to summarize: When people refer to \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\" or \"\"rising\"\" interest rates they are conceptually referring to the prime lending rate. When people talk about the Fed raising/lowering interest rates (In the U.S.) they are referring specifically to the Federal Funds Rate (which ultimately sets other lending rates).\"",
"\"In the United States, if someone refers to the \"\"interest rate\"\", especially if heard on news or talk radio in particular, they are almost always referring to the federal funds rate, a rate set forth and maintained by the United States Federal Reserve (the \"\"fed\"\" for short). If the fed opts to raise or lower this rate, it subsequently effects all interest rates, whether by being directly connected in a chain of loans or by market demand through the efficiency of financial markets in the case of bond auctions. The FOMC meets eight times each year to determine the target for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate effects all interest rates because it is the originating rate of interest on all loans in the chain of loans. Because of this significance as a benchmark for all interest rates, it is the rate most commonly referred to as \"\"interest rate\"\" when used alone. That is why other rates are specified by what they actually are; e.g., mortgage rates; 10 year & 30 year (for 10 year treasury and 30 year treasury bond yields respectively); savings rate, auto rate, credit card rate, CD rate—all rates of interest effected by the originating loan that is the federal funds rate. This is true in the United States but will vary for other countries. In general though, it will almost always refer to the originating rate for all loans in a given country, institution, etc. Note that bonds have yields that are based on market demand that is, in turn, based on the federal funds rate. It is because of the efficiency of financial markets that the demand, and thus the yields, are correlated to the federal funds rate.\"",
"\"When \"\"people say\"\", each person is referring to whatever he/she is looking at. Interest rates tend to move roughly the same, but often there is a bias regarding long vs. short term. In the US right now, short term interest rates are very low but there is a lot of chatter saying they will rise in the future. The differential between long term rates and short term rates is high compared to historical norms, suggesting that the market believes this chatter. You can also look at the differences in rates between different quality levels. If the economy is improving, the difference in rate for lower rated debt vs. higher rated debt decreases as people think the chance of businesses failing is decreasing. Right now, any interest rate you look at is well below long term historical averages, so asserting that interest rates are low is quite safe.\"",
"The generic representative of interest rates is the 10 year treasury bond rate. (USA). As an approximation most other interest rates do tend to move up and down with the treasury rate, but with more or less sensitivity. Another prominently discussed interest rate is the short term loan rate established by the Federal Reserve for loans it makes to banks.",
"Because giving someone a loan and paying them to take it isn't a loan anymore. I'll grant you, some of the treasury bill auctions did slip below 0% -- people paid in slightly more than what the bill would pay out. In as much as this was done by actual investors (and not afore-mentioned helicopter Ben Bernanke keeping the printing presses running hot all night), it was major accounts fearful of the euro disintegrating and banks crashing, and so on, and needing a safe spot to stick their cash for a couple months. Where the Fed is concerned, that interest rate he's referring to is lending they do to banks. So, how much would you take if you ran a bank and the Fed offered to pay you to take their money? A billion? A trillion? As much as you could cram in your vaults, shove in your pockets, and stuff down your favorite teller's blouse? Yea, me too.",
"\"These rates are so low because the cost of money is so low. Specifically, two rates are near zero. The Federal Reserve discount rate, which is \"\"the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window.\"\" The effective federal funds rate, which is the rate banks pay when they trade balances with each other through the Federal Reserve. Banks want to profit on the loans they make, like mortgage loans. To do so, they try to maximize the difference between the rates they charge on mortgages and other loans (revenue), and the rates they pay savings account holders, the Federal Reserve or other banks to obtain funds (expenses). This means that the rates they offer to pay are as close to these rates as possible. As the charts shows, both rates have been cut significantly since the start of the recession, either through open market operations (the federal funds rate) or directly (the discount rate). The discount rate is set directly by the regional Federal Reserve banks every 14 days. In most cases, the federal funds rate is lower than the discount rate, in order to encourage banks to lend money to each other instead of borrowing it from the Fed. In the past, however, there have been rare instances where the federal funds rate has exceeded the discount rate, and it's been cheaper for banks to borrow money directly from the Fed than from each other.\"",
"Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.",
"It refers to the risk free rate of a particular country. Because all other rates are usually pegged to the risk free rate. In US,it is the 30 day treasury rate. In England, it is the LIBOR In Canada, it is the overnight rate at which banks lend money to each other. All of these come under the category of risk free rate.",
"It's really not. You have to realize that current rates are an outlier. The average on the 10yr since 1960 is 6.7%. Even on the 1yr it's still 5.7%. The average on the 30Yr from '77-present is 7.6%. You can use your own discretion about the length of time to consider for the average, but you don't just take the current rate as the risk free rate.",
"As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend.",
"Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds? Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall. Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss.",
"This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past.",
"> if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, You cannot really believe this. There is no sector more artificial than banking, and under the current regime there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans. Rates have been artificially depressed across the spectrum using every available manipulation, and we are experiencing a coordinated money-printing/government bailout operation on a global scale. To say that rates anywhere have any relation to the real cost and/or demand for capital is absurd.",
"but I can't help but feel that these low rates are somehow a gimmick to trick people into taking out loans Let me help you: it's not a feeling. That's exactly what it is. Since the economy is down, people don't want to jeopardize what they have, and keep the cash in their wallets. But, while keeping the money safe in the pocket, it makes the economy even worse. So in order to make people spend some money, the rates go down so that the cost of money is lower. It also means that the inflation will be on the rise, which is again a reason not to keep money uninvested. So yes, the rates are now very low, and the housing market is a buyers' market, so it does make sense to take out a loan at this time (provided of course that you can actually repay it over time, and don't take loans you can't handle). Of course, you shouldn't be taking loans just because the rates are low. But if you were already planning on purchasing a house - now would be a good time to go on with that.",
"I've wondered the same thing. And, after reading the above replies, I think there is a simpler explanation. It goes like this. When the bank goes to make a loan they need capital to do it. So, they can get it from the federal reserve, another bank, or us. Well, if the federal reserve will loan it to them for lets say 0.05%, what do you think they are going to be willing to pay us? Id say maybe 0.04%. Anyway, I could be wrong, but this makes sense to me.",
"The yield on treasury bond indicates the amount of money anyone at can make at virtually zero risk. So lets say banks have X [say 100] amount of money. They can either invest this in treasury bonds and get Y% [say 1%] interest that is very safe, or invest into mortgage loans [i.e. lend it to people] at Y+Z% [say at 3%]. The extra Z% is to cover the servicing cost and the associated risk. (Put another way, if you wanted only Y%, why not invest into treasury bonds, rather than take the risk and hassle of getting the same Y% by lending to individuals?) In short, treasury bond rates drive the rate at which banks can invest surplus money in the market or borrow from the market. This indirectly translates into the savings & lending rates to the banks' customers.",
"so this is a loan for a house? a loan on a house? a new mortgage? you shouldn't just get a loan for the hell of it any time. interests rates are low because the yields on US treasuries have been pushed closer to zero, and thats pretty much that. the risk is on the bank that approves the loan, and not you. (your ability to repay should be truthful, but your payments are smaller because the interest is so low)",
"You understand that the Fed is *supposed* to make overnight loans to banks, that one of its primary jobs is to be a lender of last resort? And yes, some were foreign banks; foreign subsidies of US banks or counter-parties to large US banks. Near-zero, yes for course we're talking about *overnight* loans. The current commercial rate for overnight euro LIBOR is 0.26179%, in other words, 0.0026, near zero OMG conspiracy!",
"\"In practice No, not at zero. Banks currently have the ability to borrow at very low interest rates but not quite at zero. Using the Fed Funds Range as a metric we can see that recently (Nov 2015) the lower bound of the fed funds range was 0.05%. Fed funds are overnight lend/borrow transactions between banks (often between the federal home loan banks and other institutions) 0.05% is also the FED's current Reverse Repo Program rate (RRP), which is the rate at which certain counterparties can deposit cash with the FED overnight in exchange for collateral. The collateral (US Treasuries) is insurance against the FED defaulting, a very low risk considering the FED has the ability to create more US Dollars out of thin air. In theory the RRP rate should be a lower bound for the fed funds rate however in practice it is possible to see lower rates trade in the street. What do you mean by \"\"Third party institutions\"\"? Only banks of the highest credit quality are able to borrow at the lower bound of the Fed Funds range. These are usually large domestic banks like JP Morgan, Bank of NY etc... As credit quality decreases the rate at which they borrow increases. Currently Skandinavien, German, French banks have relatively good credit and borrow overnight money towards the lower part of the fed funds range. Italian, Spanish and smaller regional US banks have lesser credit quality and borrow at the higher end of the Fed Funds range. Institutions with lower credit quality would borrow at still higher rates.\"",
"But Uncle Sam isn't just borrowing money from other people/countires. He's borrowing money from himself..... with printed money. The ostensible purpose of QE, Operation Twist, et al, is to force interest rates down largely through the monetization of government debt. So to reference interest rates as if they were some neutral barometer of America's financial strength is a bit spurious.",
"Surely some borrowers and lenders make decisions about making and taking loans based on the actual interest rates on the actual loans? In which case it doesn't matter so much if the rates are calculated based on a fictional assumption about something. At the end of the day every borrower or lender in the market makes their own decision about which lending contracts they take part in.",
"Mortgage or other interest rates are determined by the banks on cost of funds, risk and operating cost. The Fed raises money from the markets by issuing Tresury Bonds at a specified rate. This rate at which it raises money varies depening on the economy. Thus there are 2 rates: the rate at which banks can borrow money from the Fed, which is higher than the rate that the Fed would give banks for excess money deposited with them. So if the cost of borrowing is less, banks can borrow this money from the Fed and loan it to individuals at a slightly higher rate that would cover their costs plus a small profit. The risk associated with a mortgage is less, and hence these would be cheaper, then say a personal loan. If the cost of borrowing goes up, the mortgage rate will go up. If the cost of borrowing money goes down, the cost would come down. Banks may not always borrow money to lend. If they have existing money, they can either park it with the Fed for a lower interest rate, or loan it to individuals for a rate higher than what they would have received from the Fed.",
"\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"",
"Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.",
"1) Low-Interest Rate: Isn't the inflation rate currently (and over the last couple of years) also really low, around 2%? If you're saying the inflation rate is going to go back up, I'm curious as to your reasoning. I don't see any general decrease in the money supply in the near future, wages are stagnant, and GDP looks like it's trundling along at standard rates - however, with the Gini coefficient still rising, more and more of that production is finding its way into fewer and fewer hands that don't have a lot of incentive to re-invest it.",
"The prime rate is actually the rate at which banks lend to consumers/businesses with the highest credit ratings. The bank rate (more commonly known as the overnight rate) is the interest rate at which banks can borrow funds from the Bank of Canada or from each other.",
"Wait, if everyone isn't buying things and saving money instead, who is left to get loans to buy things at higher rates? Banks don't wag the consumer's tail. Banks will make loads more money on their variable rate loans which will hurt a lot of people. Until wages rise to incentivize buying things, loan interest rates need to be low. Only way to spur the economy is to get more money in the hands of the spenders. We keep giving it to the hoarders.",
"There's often a legal basis to answer this question. For instance, Austria (guessing from your profile) currently uses a 4% Statutory interest rate. You'll need to dig up not just the actual but also the historical rates. Note that you'll want the non-commercial interest rate - some countries differentiate between loans to businesses and loans to individuals.",
"Without commenting on whether or not it's needed I don't think we are going to see a QE3 and all the political pressure is for some reason to start raising rates. Regardless of how it plays out it's safe to say that the Fed Rate isn't going any lower. You should also watch closely what happens to Fannie and Freddie. If they are dismantled and government backed mortgages become a thing of the past then I think it'll become impossible for a consumer to find a 30 year fixed rate mortgage. Even if they are kept alive, they will be put on a short leash and that will serve to further depress the mortgage market. Long story short, I'd lock your rate in.",
"Interest rates can't remain this low. It's like having extremely low blood pressure. When you raise the rates, banks are incented to loan money and that movement of capital is good for the economy. It forces us to become savers instead of spenders, and our pensions, 401ks, social security are all getting killed by not being able to use debt to get safer stable returns. Interest rates have to come back up.",
"It just means that they think that in the long-term, interest rates should be around 3-4%, i.e. probably between 3% and 4%, but perhaps a bit lower or higher occasionally.",
"Federal Funds Rate The interest rate at which a depository institution lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another depository institution overnight. The federal funds rate is generally only applicable to the most creditworthy institutions when they borrow and lend overnight funds to each other. The federal funds rate is one of the most influential interest rates in the U.S. economy, since it affects monetary and financial conditions, which in turn have a bearing on key aspects of the broad economy including employment, growth and inflation. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/federalfundsrate.asp#ixzz3mB5kCtvT",
"Yes. In the US these are called certificates of deposit or savings accounts. Every run-of-the-mill bank offers them. You give the bank money and in return they pay you an interest rate that is some fraction of or (negative) offset from the returns they expect to make from your money. Since most investments that a bank makes (say, loaning money to a local business) are themselves based on some multiple of or (positive) offset from the prime rate, in return the interest rate that they offer you is also mathematically based on the prime rate. You can find lists of banks offering the best returns on CDs or savings accounts at sites like BankRate.",
"If you had a time machine and could go back and tell yourself in 2005 that there would be a stretch coming up where the FFR would be held a 0% for (at least) 6 solid years you would not have believed it. No one would have believed it. That would have been crazy loony toon talk.",
"And how is that even an argument? So...the fed needs to raise rates, is what you seem to be saying. I'm not sure that now is the time for that, considering the weak jobs numbers recently, but it's possibly a good idea for them to announce that a hike will come soon instead of actually raising the rate. Either way, to say that having a low interest rate for a decade is a bad thing sort of obscures a harsh reality. It's certainly not something that you *want*, but what's the alternative? Would the US have been better off without the Feds balance sheet expansion? Very few economists would say yes. In fact that exact line of thought likely turned a financial crash into the Great Depression of the 30's.",
"You can find the national average interest rates on commercial bank accounts from the FDIC or nicely aggregated [here from the St. Louis Fed.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/search?st=National+Rate+on+Non-Jumbo+Deposits+%28less+than+%24100%2C000%29%3A+Savings) [Here is the national average interest rate on savings accounts.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAVNRNJ) If you are looking for a general historical proxy for a savings account interest rate, then the effective federal funds rate or overnight LIBOR is a good estimate prior to the 2008 financial crisis.",
"The prime rate is the interest rate banks use amongst themselves to lend money to each other only. It is used as the basis (sometimes) for what interest rate banks charge you. The prime rate is based loosely on the Fed rate. There is a committee that meets regularly to set this and other industry interest rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_rate I am not 100% positive the following is totally accurate The banks keep our deposits and pay us interest for doing so. They are paying us interest because they take yours, mine and everybody elses deposits as a large lump sum and invest that money. Sometimes as business loans, sometimes as mortgages and sometimes as credit card. The banks have a book of business that will be EXACTLY how much credit they have extended to everybody. But they do not keep that amount of cash in the vaults, only some smaller percentage of that large amount. When I use my credit card and they need to transfer money to amazon.com, if they don't happen to have enough cash that day, they will just borrow from another bank that does, and the interest rate they pay to do so is the prime rate. Since they are paying interest on the money they borrow to pay the debt I charged because they told me my credit was worth so much (...???...) they charge me a little bit more than that. Hence your credit card or mortgage's APR being based on the prime rate. I THINK that is what they do If I am wrong leave a comment and I will update, or the mods can.",
"\"Not at these rates. The motto used to be 3/6/3: \"\"Borrow at 3%, Loan out at 6%, and then be at the golf course by 3pm\"\". So they get 3% on the spread, minus fixed costs. Now, they borrow at near 0% and loan out at slightly above 0%. Those fixed costs starts becoming an issue. It isn't cheap to have all these ATMs, bank branches, tellers, computer systems, etc. Also, a lot of the money cannot be loaned out at all because there are not enough creditworthy borrowers. You might have recalled a few months ago, several banks started charging for deposits. They don't want more money that will just lay there while they have to pay the costs of maintaining the accounts. Some bank CEOs have stated that they would be better off if the Fed raised rates up to 1%.\"",
"\"Interest rates are at a record low and the government is printing money. You can get a fixed rate loan at a rate equal to inflation in a healthy economy. Unless you know that you are moving in < 5 years, why would you expose yourself to interest rate risk when rates are about as close to zero as they can be? If your thought with respect to mitigating interest rate risk is: \"\"What's the big deal, I'll just refinance!\"\", think again, because in a market where rates are climbing, you may not be able to affordably refinance at the LTV that you'll have in 5-7 years. From 1974-1991, 30 year mortgages never fell below 9%, and were over 12% from 1979 to 1985. Think about what those kinds of rates -- which reduce a new homeowner's buying power by over 40%, would do to your homes value.\"",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-06/are-low-interest-rates-bad-for-growth) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > James Chessen, the chief economist of the American Bankers&#039; Association, said in a June 5 interview, &quot;Interest rates have been too low for too long. It has created a problem for banks.&quot; The Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents smaller U.S. banks, believes that &quot;Higher interest rates would be a net plus for the community banking sector that would help them extend more credit,&quot; according to spokesman Paul Merski. > Officials at the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are sensitive to the side effects of extremely low or even subzero interest rates. > In a May 24 speech in Madrid, ECB President Mario Draghi acknowledged that low policy rates &quot;May compress banks&#039; net interest margins and thus exert pressure on their profitability.&quot; But he said that ECB researchers found that taking into account offsetting beneficial effects, &quot;The overall impact of our measures on bank profitability was positive.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fodm5/is_the_world_overdoing_low_interest_rates/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~138044 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **rate**^#2 **interest**^#3 **Low**^#4 **Calomiris**^#5\"",
"\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\"",
"There's two competing forces at work, and they are at work worldwide. Banks can get money from several sources: Through inter-bank borrowing and from raising capital. Capital can come from from selling assets, stock offerings, deposits, etc. The money the banks get from depositors is capital. In the United States, the Federal Reserve regulates the amount of capital that banks must maintain. If there was no requirement for capital then there would be zero demand for capital at an interest rate above the inter-bank offering rate. As capital requirements have risen, banks are allowed to make less loans given a certain amount of capital. That has caused an increased demand for capital from depositors. As described in this Federal Reserve ruling, effective January 1st, 2014 the Federal Reserve is again raising capital requirements. As you can see here money can be borrowed, in the United States, at .0825% (100 - 99.9175). Currently interest rates paid to borrowers are quite high compared to prevailing inter-bank rates. They could see more upward pressure given the fact that banks will be forced to maintain an increased amount of capital for a given amount of loans.",
"There is a strange puzzle today where savings account interest rates are not rising in-line with the Federal Funds rate. Either customers are apathetic to their alternative uses of cash, or banks have some-how formed a cartel to keep their cost of funding low. I'm leaning towards the former since bank customers today likely value readily accessible cash more than the interest rate they could earn by investing in money market mutual funds.",
"I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost.",
"Firstly, the banks are far less risky than the people they lend to. Most of the interest banks charge borrowers covers defaults, but banks rarely default to the fed, especially those able to borrow from the Fed. Secondly, most banks borrowing is in the form of overnight loans to cover short term reserve fluctuations; they are not borrowing dollars to lend to you. Thirdly, if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, so are the true value of those loans. Since there are a significant number of banks that I can borrow from with a multitude of options in how to borrow, there is likely still decent competition for my business. Finally, the Fed funds rate is not currently 0%, so the banks are not getting interest free money.",
"\"The interest rate offered by a bond is called the nominal interest rate. The so-called real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. If inflation is equal to or greater than the nominal rate at any given time, the REAL interest rate is zero or negative. We're talking about a ten year bond. It's possible for the real interest rate to be negative for one or two years of the bond's life, and positive for eight or nine. On the other hand, if we have a period of rising inflation, as in the 1970s, the inflation rate will exceed the (original) interest rate in most years, meaning that the real interest rate on the ten year bond will be negative over its whole life. People lost \"\"serious\"\" money on bonds (and loans) in the 1970s. In such situations, the BORROWERS make out. That is, they borrow money at low rates, earn inflation (plus a little more) pay back inflated dollars, and pocket the difference. For them, the money is \"\"free.\"\"\"",
"\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\"",
"\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \"\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\"\" and \"\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\"\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \"\"stop the presses\"\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\"",
"\"Here's a number-crunching example of how the \"\"Zero interest rate\"\" offer is misleading. Suppose the offer is that a car \"\"costs $24,000.00 with zero percent financing over 24 months\"\" or as an alternative, \"\"$3,000.00 off for cash\"\". Ignore the hype: the quoted prices and the quoted interest rates. Look at what really happens to two people who take advantage of the two offers, One person hands over $21,000.00 cash, and leaves with the new car. The second promises to make 24 payments of $1000.00, one a month, starting in one month's time, and also leaves with the same make and model new car. The two people have received exactly the same benefit, so the two payment schemes must have the same value. A mortgage program will tell you that paying off a $21,000.00 loan by making 24 monthly payments of $1000.00 requires an interest rate of 1.10% a month, or an effective annual rate of 14.03%.\"",
"There is a significant tie between housing prices and mortgage rates. As such, don't assume low mortgage rates mean you will be financially better off if you buy now, since housing prices are inversely correlated with mortgage rates. This isn't a huge correlation - it's R-squared is a bit under 20%, at a 1.5-2 year lag - but there is a significant connection there. Particularly in that 10%+ era (see chart at end of post for details) in 1979-1982, there was a dramatic drop in housing price growth that corresponded with high interest rates. There is a second major factor here, though, one that is likely much more important: why the interest rates are at 10%. Interest rates are largely set to follow the Federal Funds rate (the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans to banks). That rate is set higher for essentially one purpose: to combat inflation. Higher interest rates means less borrowing, slower economic growth, and most importantly, a slower increase in the money supply - all of which come together to prevent inflation. Those 10% (and higher!) rates you heard about? Those were in the 70's and early 80's. Anyone remember the Jimmy Carter years? Inflation in the period from 1979 to 1981 averaged over 10%. Inflation in the 70s from 1973 to 1982 averaged nearly 9% annually. That meant your dollar this year was worth only $0.90 next year - which means inevitably a higher cost of borrowing. In addition to simply keeping pace with inflation, the Fed also uses the rate as a carrot/stick to control US inflation. They weren't as good at that in the 70s - they misread economic indicators in the late 1970s significantly, lowering rates dramatically in 1975-1977 (from ~12% to ~5%). This led to the dramatic double-digit inflation of the 1979-1981 period, requiring them to raise rates to astronomic levels - nearly 20% at one point. Yeah, I hope nobody bought a house on a fixed-rate mortgage from 1979-1981. The Fed has gotten a lot more careful over the years - Alan Greenspan largely was responsible for the shift in policy which seems to have been quite effective from the mid 1980s to the present (though he's long gone from his spot on the Fed board). Despite significant economic changes in both directions, inflation has been kept largely under control since then, and since 1991 have been keeping pretty steady around 6% or less. The current rate (around 0%) is unlikely to stay around forever - that would lead to massive inflation, eventually - but it's reasonable to say that prolonged periods over 10% are unlikely in the medium term. Further, if inflation did spike (and with it, your interest rates), salaries tend to spike also. Not quite as fast as inflation - in fact, that's a major reason a small positive inflation around 2-3% is important, to allow for wages to grow more slowly for poorer performers - but still, at 10% inflation the average wage will climb at a fairly similar pace. Thus, you'd be able to buy more house - or, perhaps a better idea, save more money for a house that you can then buy a few years down the road when rates drop. Ultimately, the advice here is to not worry too much about interest rates. Buy a house when you're ready, and buy the house you're ready for. Interest rates may rise, but if so it's likely due to an increase in inflation and thus wage growth; and it would take a major shift in the economy for rates to rise to the 10-11% level. If that did happen, housing prices (or at least growth in prices) would likely drop significantly. Some further references:",
"\"Okay, yes that's true. However, we don't know what inflation would have been during this period had the fed not been increasing their balance sheet. That's what I'm trying to get at it. So it's easy for them to say \"\"Low inflation , low interest rates\"\".\"",
"Holy shit that can't be USA unless you're talking about commercial lending, even then sky high rates. For the 97% LTV we sell at 3.58 last Saturday. We're a large bank too, so none of that credit unions selling themselves short nonsense. Mind you that's a special program through Fanny, but our normal rates are something like 4.4-4.55 depending on the day for 80/20 How can you be conservative but loan to credit score of over 500? We don't even look at under 640 and we're considered somewhat conservative.",
"It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates.",
"Banks in general will keep saving rates as low as possible especially if there is a surplus of funds or alternative access for funding as in the case of the Fed in the USA. Generally speaking, why would bank pay you a high interest rate when they cannot generate any income from your money? Usually we will expect to see a drop in the loan interest rate when their is a surplus of funds so as to encourage investment. But if the market is volatile then no banks will allow easy access to money through loans. The old traditional policy of lending money without proper security and no control from the central bank has created serious problems for savings account holders when some of these banks went into bankruptcy. It is for this reason most countries has modified their Financial Act to offer more protection to account holders. At the moment banks must follow rigid guidelines before a loan can be approved to a customer. In my country (Guyana) we have seen the collapse of a few banks which sent a shock wave across the county for those that have savings held at those bank. We have also seen unsecured loans having to be written off thus putting serious pressure of those banks. So government stepped in a few years ago and amended the act to make it mandatory to have commercial banks follow certain strict guidelines before approving a loan.",
"Most of the bankruptcy is due to taking [or building over a period of time] a loan that one cannot service, if the interest rates rise, then the amount of money to repay the loan increases, when one doesnt pay the revised amount and keeps paying less, the over all debt keeps shooting through the roof ... a lower interest rate means that one can continue to pay the same amount ... and few missed payments do not cause as much as damage as it does when the rates are high.",
"Usually that is the case that when fixed rates are lower than the variable rates, it is an indication that the banks feel the next movement in rates could be down. You also need to look at the fixed rates for different periods, for example 1 year fixed compared to 3 year fixed and 5 year fixed rates. If you find the 3 and 5 year fixed rates are higher than the 1 year fixed rates this could be an indication that the banks feel rates will fall in the short term but the falls won't last long and will continue to rise after a year or so. If the 3 year fixed rates are also low in comparison, then the banks may feel that the economy is heading for a longer term down trend. The banks won't want to lose out, so will change their fixed rates on their perception of where they feel the economy is headed. Since your post in May 2011, the standard variable rate has since dropped twice (in November and December) to be at 7.30%. You will also find that fixed rates have also been dropped further by the banks, indicating additional future cuts in the variable rates. Regards, Victor",
"\"Banks make less profit when \"\"long\"\" rates are low compared to \"\"short\"\" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) \"\"short term\"\" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money.\"",
"One will find that the fixed 30 year mortgage rate is tightly correlated to the 10 year treasury. An adder of 2-2.5% or so, changing slightly with the rest of the economy, as money can get tight or loose independent of the rate itself. In 2011 we are witnessing low rates yet tough loan standards, this is the phenomenon I am referencing.",
"\"So after you've learned about bonds, you might find yourself learning about interest rates. You might, in fact, discover that there's no such thing as a \"\"correct\"\" interest rate, or even a true \"\"market\"\" interest rate. PS We already had the housing bubble. It has come, and gone. What *new* bubble are you referring to?\"",
"The United States Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates should be low. (They think it may help the economy. The details matter little here though.) It will enforce this low rate by buying Treasury bonds at this very low interest rate. (Bonds are future money, so this means they pay a lot of money up front, for very little interest in the future. The Fed will pay more than anyone who offers less money up front, so they can set the price as long as they're willing to buy.) At the end of the day, Treasury bonds pay nearly no interest. Since there's little money to be made with Treasuries, people who want better-than-zero returns will bid up the current-price of any other bonds or similar loan-like instruments to get what whatever rate of return that they can. There's really no more than one price for money; you can think of the price of those bonds as basically (Treasury rate + some modifier based on the risk) percent. I realize thinking about bond prices is weird and different than other prices (you're measuring future-money using present-money and it's easy to be confused) and assure you it ultimately makes sense :) Anyway. Your savings account money has to compete with everyone else willing to lend money to banks. Everyone-else lends money for peanuts, so you get peanuts on your savings account too. Your banking is probably worth more to your bank on account of your check-card payment processing fees (collected from the merchant) than from the money they make lending out your savings (notice how many places have promotional rates if you make your direct deposits or use your check card to make a purchase N times a month). In Europe, it's similar, except you've got a different central bank. If Europe's bank operated radically differently for an extended period of time, you'd expect to see a difference in the exchange rates which would ultimately make the returns from investing in those currencies pretty similar as well. Such a change may show up domestically as inflation in the country with the loose-money policy, and internationally as weakness against other currencies. There's really only one price for money around the entire world. Any difference boils down to a difference in (perceived) risk.",
"You might be thinking of the Overnight market/Overnight Rate. This lending happens constantly.",
"Interesting thing is not all of this analysis is typically done by the person you are speaking with re: your mortgage. Likely there is an economic team (at some institution or another, as many many loans are sold/distributed in some fashion), finance team, and all of them are looking at various rates etc. Typically what is offered is matching an offsetting liability somewhere else. So there may be cases where the spread someone is looking to pick up might be tighter or looser within institutions or types of institutions vs others, even though the overall market is at one place. (e.g. banks vs. insurance companies). So you may have negotiating room at a certain term, but not another, or the reverse at another firm. One firm might have lots of 10 year money, while another might be limited, so will be picky in what they choose. Either more conservative loan terms/ltv, or a higher spread, for example. So many things go into the ultimate rate someone can get, but in theory the blog did a decent job.",
"All unsubstantiated opinions. >there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans Really. No relation whatsoever? And your background in finance letting you understand this is what? Are you telling me every bank of the [7,213](http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/) independent banks are in cahoots and none of them compete based on prices and services? Can you give me precise evidence that all those independent banks are not in competition? What should the price be for capital if the current prices are incorrect, and tell me why.",
"These are yields for the government bonds. EuroZone interest rates are much lower (10 times lower, in fact) than the UK (GBP zone) interest rates. The rates are set by the central banks.",
"If you throw up a 20 year chart on the 10 year you can see it isn't fluctuating around 2%. It happens to be at 2% now but it has been relentlessly driving lower for at least 20 years. My own personal biased opinion is that it is a market infested with ultra-wealthy people who aren't looking for returns. They just basically want to maintain what they already sucked out of the system.",
"As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate.",
"Probably means next to zero chance of having decent rates on savings accounts for the near future - who needs your money if banks can have government money for free? Probably no short-term effects on you besides that.",
"\"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens: It almost looks random. A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates. They steadily climbed and steadily fell: All that's left is inflation: First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not. Economists call this type of phenomenon \"\"sticky pricing\"\", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation. The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways. This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s. Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating. Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing. As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept \"\"low and stable\"\": But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise? Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible.\"",
"I will just explain the time value of money in general, descriptive terms and save the math for someone else. Imagine: You have half a million dollars. I'd like to borrow it all from you. I'll pay it all back, every penny, but no more. And I'll pay it back in about, oh, thirty years or so. (Imagine also that you can be 100% sure that I'll pay it back.) Does this sound like a good deal? Not really. Why not? Well, you could do something with that sort of money. With that sort of money, you could do a lot of things for 30 years. You could buy a nice house and live in it for 30 years and save yourself from spending a lot of money on rent during that time (or save money on interest by paying off a mortgage early) even if the price of the house goes nowhere. If you already had a house, you could do some home improvement, like insulate the place better (to save on heating bills) or even just on something that you're going to enjoy for part of those 30 years (a patio in the back yard). If you were feeling entrepreneurial, you could take that money and start a business. Or you could invest that money in the stock market, and get a lot more back.... and if that's too risky for you, just start a savings account and earn interest. And finally, in 30 years, the value of the dollar will be lower because of inflation, so it won't buy as much now as it will then. That's the time value of money. It's the opportunity cost of the best of the things that you could have done with that money during the time it was gone. When you take out a loan, your interest payments will depend in part on the time value of the money you're borrowing: the people making the loan could be investing that money somewhere else, like government bonds. (It will also depend on factors like the risk of default on the loan - this is why credit card debt is more expensive than debt like a mortgage that's backed by a big fat asset like a house which can be seized and sold if you happen to default.) This is how the Federal Reserve can affect interest rates across the economy by just buying or selling government bonds.",
"\"You are not \"\"the economy\"\". The economy is just the aggregate of what is going on with everyone else. You should make the decision based on your own situation now and projected into the future as best you can. Loan rates ARE at historical lows, so it is a great time to take a loan if you actually need one for some reason. However, I wouldn't go looking for a loan just because the rates are low for the same reason it doesn't make sense to buy maternity clothes if you are a single guy just because they are on sale.\"",
"\"No... that's just what I'm owed for letting them use my principal. If I wanted to enjoy the opportunity cost of 0% interest for 13 plus years, I'd just keep the money in my \"\"savings\"\" account (where the 8th wonder of world, miracle of compound interest no longer exists). The bigger question posited by my snark was if/when the bond market will stop trading them as legitimate paper.\"",
"\"The Bank of Canada does not \"\"set\"\" the interest rates. They auction government debt, and then report what the average yield/interest rate was (rounded to 25 basis points). [The average yield of yesterday's auction of 3-month Treasury bills was 0.76%](http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/interest-rates/t-bill-yields/). I don't know why the news tries to interpret what the BOC \"\"is trying to say\"\". BOC isn't saying anything - just reporting what happened, with some filler words.\"",
"Obviously you can't predict the future too much, but it's not too hard to figure out what is going to happen to mortgage rates in the short term. Mortgage rates are heavily influenced by 10 year treasury yields. You can find the daily 10 year rates here. It's easy to see the direction they've been moving recently. It usually takes a few days for mortgage rates to follow if the 10 year treasury yield is dropping (although if it's going up, mortgage rates will go up faster than they will fall). Here's a sample of all the 10 year treasury yields for the past 10 years. Looks like a good time to get a mortgage or refinance! You can also take a look at movements in mortgage backed securities. Here you can find a chart for Fannie Mae 3.0% mortgages. As the price goes up, mortgage rates go down. Think of it this way. Right now people are will to pay $103 for $100 worth of 3.0% mortgages. That doesn't really make sense because I could just loan you $100 at 3.0% and turn around and sell it for $103 immediately, pocketing the $3 profit. The reason is because right now, no one would willingly borrow money at 3.0%. Rates have fallen so much that if a bank has a customer paying them 3.0% on a mortgage, other people are willing to pay a premium on that mortgage. New mortgages are probably being written for 2.0%. (There is no current mortgage backed security for 2.0% fannie maes because rates have never been this low before).",
"\"Yes sir, I'm working on compiling your \"\"precise evidence,\"\" and I'll have it printed and bound for you on the double. In the meantime, you can look here as a starting point and try to find the part where the Fed has allowed interest rates to adjust freely, and maybe you can learn why rates are artificial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_responses_to_the_subprime_crisis As for \"\"cahoots\"\" and independent banks and whatever other off-topic nonsense you're babbling about, there was nothing said about cahoots or independent banks. The interest rates paid for and to US banks are affected by the monetary policy of the Fed. There is no collusion, or \"\"cahoots,\"\" required for them to follow a common policy of artificially-low interest rates, which was the point of the earlier post.\"",
"I'd have a look at Capital One's Online account too, they've got 1.35% interest rate with 10% bonus if you have over $15k deposited. It is still low like all interest rates, but at least it is on top (or at least close)!",
"Interest rates are always given annually, to make them comparable. If you prefer to calculate the rate or the total interest for the complete time, like 10 years or 15 years or 30 years, it is simple math, and it tells you the total you will pay, but it is not helpful for picking the better or even the right offer for your situation. Compare it to your car's gas mileage- what sense does it make to provide the information that a car will use 5000 gallons of gas over its lifetime? Is that better than a car that uses 6000 gallons (but may live 2 years longer?)",
"Yes those are really yields. A large portion of the world has negative yielding bonds in fact. This process has been in motion for the past 10 years for very specific reasons. So congratulations on discovering the bond market.",
"Right, so if a federal interest rate near 0 percent is not enough to stimulate the demand for those loans, then we have pretty much exhausted what we can do with monetary policy. So the only thing left is fiscal policy - raise spending or lower taxes",
"Mortgage rates generally consist of two factors: The risk premium is relatively constant for a particular individual / house combination, so most of the changes in your mortgage rate will be associated with changes in the price of money in the world economy at large. Interest rates in the overall economy are usually tied to an interest rate called the Federal Funds rate. The Federal Reserve manipulates the federal funds rate by buying and/or selling bonds until the rate is something they like. So you can usually expect your interest rate to rise or fall depending on the policies of the Federal Reserve. You can predict this in a couple of ways: The way they have described their plans recently indicates that will keep interest rates low for an extended period of time - probably through 2014 or so - and they hope to keep inflation around 2%. Unless inflation is significantly more than 2% between now and then, they are extremely unlikely to change that plan. As such, you should probably not expect mortgage interest rates in general to change more than infinitesimally small amounts until 2014ish. Worry more about your credit score.",
"This is of course using 'new math'. Namely, if I lend you $100 and you keep it for a month, I've lent you $100. In fact, if I loan you $100 for a year I've loaned you $100. But if I lend you $100 overnight, you pay me back in the morning, I lend you $100 overnight, you pay me back in the morning and we repeat that for a month, I've supposedly lent you $3,000. That's some interesting math for sure.",
"If the best they can do is 1/8th of a percent for a 15 year term, you are best served by taking the 30 year term. Pay it down sooner if you can, but it's nice to have the flexibility if you have a month where things are tight.",
"yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path. Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US.",
"\"When you say that the problem is \"\"high supply but no demand\"\" you are actually correct. Here's why: The phrase \"\"borrow/spend less, save more\"\" isn't an absolute law. It's more of a cautionary tale. Obviously, spending is an integral part of an economy: it accounts for at least 50% of every transaction! But the aphorism is getting at something other than admonishing people to not spend. The point of the saying is that interest rates should reflect savings rates. What it comes down to is the how the law of supply and demand applies to the relationship between savings and interest rates. Consider this thought experiment: in a world where everybody saves 50% of their income, what would happen to interest rates? Banks would have a glut of savings, relative to the population. Assuming demand remains constant, interest rates would go down: the price of borrowing goes down as the supply of money to be borrowed increases. Thus a corollary of the law of supply and demand is that as savings increase, interest rates tend to go down. So, as savings increase, the economic environment encourages capital improvements. Businesses can borrow at lower rates and increase long-term productive capacity. This is what the federal reserve has attempted to do by lowering the Fed Funds rate to near zero and by Operation Twist: increase economic activity through low borrowing costs. So, what's the problem? When interest rates are artificially low there are no savings to support the production later in time. A company that borrows at a 1% rate created by the feds can build a factory to make widgets, but it will have a hard time selling that widget to a population with a negative net worth. However, if the 1% rate is \"\"natural\"\", then the company should be fine: the savings of the population should support the production from his widget factory. For about 30 years we have experienced a credit boom in this country that was not created by excess savings. This trend couldn't continue forever. Look around you. At the end of the day, an economy is simply a group of people getting together to buy and sell stuff and services. Right now there is a lot of debt, and little cash. Who will be doing the buying?\"",
"Interest rates are market driven. They tend to be based on the prime rate set by the federal reserve bank because of the tremendous lending capacity of that institution and that other loan originators will often fund their own lending (at least in part) with fed loans. However, there is no mandatory link between the federal reserve rate and the market rate. No law stipulates that rates cannot rise or fall. They will rise and fall as lenders see necessary to use their capital. Though a lender asking 10% interest might make no loans when others are willing to lend for 9%. The only protection you have is that we are (mostly) economically free. As a borrower, you are protected by the fact that there are many lenders. Likewise, as a lender, because there are many borrowers. Stability is simply by virtue of the fact that one market participant with inordinate pricing will find fewer counterparties to transact.",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/business/dealbook/libor-fca-banks-andrew-bailey.html) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The one-year Libor, which represents the rate of interest on a loan between banks to be paid back within a year, is the most commonly used index for mortgages in the United States, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. > &quot;And while we have given our full support to encouraging panel banks to continue to contribute and maintaining Libor over recent years, we do not think markets can rely on Libor continuing to be available indefinitely.\"\" > Mr. Bailey said that the regulator had agreed with the panel banks to sustain Libor through 2021 to smooth a transition to new rates. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6r14fz/libor_brought_scandal_greatest_financial_scandal/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~180937 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Libor**^#1 **rate**^#2 **bank**^#3 **over**^#4 **Financial**^#5\"",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/taibbi-is-libor-crucial-financial-benchmark-a-lie-w497305) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > If you have any kind of consumer loan, it&#039;s a fair bet that it&#039;s based on LIBOR. A 2009 study by the Cleveland Fed found that 60 percent of all mortgages in the U.S. were based on LIBOR. Buried somewhere in your home, you probably have a piece of paper that outlines the terms of your credit card, student loan, or auto loan, and if you peek in the fine print, you have a good chance of seeing that the rate you pay every month is based on LIBOR. Years ago, we found out that the world&#039;s biggest banks were manipulating LIBOR. That sucked. > As a few Wall Street analysts have quietly noted in the weeks since those comments, an &quot;Absence of underlying markets&quot; is a fancy way of saying that LIBOR has not been based on real trading activity, which is a fancy way of saying that LIBOR is bullshit. > So as LIBOR reflected reality less and less, it became more and more ubiquitous, burying itself, tick-like, into the core of the financial system. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tasuo/years_ago_we_found_out_that_the_worlds_biggest/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~189474 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **LIBOR**^#1 **Bank**^#2 **market**^#3 **rate**^#4 **based**^#5\"",
"But it also can't be 1.46%, because that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. The rates are displayed as of Today. As the footnote suggests these are to be read with Maturities. A Treasury with 1 year Maturity is at 1.162% and a Treasury with 30Y Maturity is at 2.78%. Generally Bonds with longer maturity terms give better yields than bonds of shorter duration. This indicates the belief that in long term the outlook is positive.",
">“At some point,” he said, interest rates are going to go up again, “and I should have been able to get those low rates. It’s not fair.” It's perfectly fair. Why is a bank going to lend you more money than what the collateral's worth? That would be unfair.",
"FYI, I am assuming you are an individual investor.. The rates on the website may change, if the government decides so. Anyway it is a UK government website, so it would reflect the changes immediately.",
"Monetizing loan is akin to loan money the banks don't have so they can lend money to people/state that don't have money. The ECB and the FED are theorically independant from the political power, and in pratique they more often than naught proove it (at least for the ECB), after that being independent from the financial sector they lend to... that's another question. Rates are low not because they monetize but because they want to do so without inducing inflation.",
"It seems a bit late in the process, no? They moved in, you are elsewhere, etc. Today, the Prime Rate is 3.25%. I don't know enough to suggest whether this is fair to both parties. It's more than you'd earn in the bank, and less than they'd pay for a business loan. My own equity line is currently 2.5%, for what that's worth.",
"Things we should all understand: * The Federal Reserve will not engage in QE3 or QE4 or any kind of QE. - Inflation is too high and the economy would be harmed rather than helped. * The Federal Reserve will not raise rates until 2013-2014. - Ben has been pretty adamant and clear about this. What I'm concerned about is that they keep pushing back the date. Interest rates should have been raised last year.",
"Interest rates have been going down since 1980. At some point it has to rebound, but as the old adage goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. The only thing we know with certainty about the 10 year interest rates is that it will most likely cap out at 0%. Maybe....",
"Lowered rates = boom for equities, currently held bonds, and assets. Cheaper money means a (disproportionately) good time had by all. This all comes with malinvestment, potential for moral hazard, and savers losing in a big way. Why save for retirement when your risk free return on US Treasuries can barely keep up with inflation? As an aside, it is not really a risk free rate anymore, with $20 trillion in debt and no real hope of paying it off. This is why we see the rate increases and movement towards asset sales by the Fed to get the poop off their books. They are worried about all of the above and need more arrows in their quiver when the next recession hits. They won't have enough, however. They are trying to right a ship that is fully overturned. This is now the longest period of growth (however tepid) since the tech bubble of the 1990's. Are the fundamentals really better than then?",
"Thanks. It has taken me some time to understand how all this works, and there are still many gray areas I want to understand further. The Fed interest rate is the rate charged by banks to loan to each other to balance overnight reserves but only using the reserves they hold at the Fed. That adds no new money to the system, but increases the money multiplier a little since perhaps more loans can be made. Basically one bank with excess reserves can loan to another bank that needs reserves. The Fed injects no money here, only sets the rate for banks to do this with each other. When the Fed buys securities that effectively adds that many more dollars into circulation, which then gets hit by the money multiplier, adding a lot of new liquidity. I think historically the latter tracks increases in the money supply much better than the former. I think the St. Louis Fed has records online for all this dating back to the 1940's or so.",
"Different rates. What the BoE is conducting is known as Quantitative Easing, which is a form of monetary policy avalable to central banks whenever interest rates are already too close to zero or at zero (just like in the UK). In this case, the central banks hopes to influence longer-term rates, rather than just short-term rates. It is useful to remember that the rate central banks announce is a short-term rate used for interbank lending.",
"It depends solely on the risk your willing to take. For example, few years back one of the leading banks in my country was offering 25% interest rate for 5 year fixed deposits and the lending rate in the market was around 12%. So people borrowed money from other banks and invested in the high return fixed deposits. After 6 months the bank filed for bankruptcy and people lost their money. Later investigations revealed that abnormal high return was offered because the bank had a major liquidity problem. So all depends on the risk associated with return on your investment. Higher the risk, higher the return.",
"Banks cannot just borrow from the Federal Reserve and use that money to make loans. The first thing you need to understand is how fractional reserve banking works. The banks can make loans with money that their customers have deposited in their accounts. The interest and fees from those loans go to pay the salaries of those working at the banks with leftover profit to pay dividends (interest on your bank accounts). The only reason that the Federal Reserve allows overnight lending is so that banks don't immediately become insolvent if they have larger than usual withdrawals by their depositors. The Federal Reserve keeps an eye on the balance sheets of the banks that are doing the borrowing, and if they didn't have assets in the form of deposits, they would force the banks to sell the loans that were made from those deposits. What does this have to do with personal finance? I think this question is only marginally on-topic here. This amount of money in circulation is affected specifically by the fraction of the money that can be used for making other loans. But the bigger influence is the rate that the Federal Reserve charges for overnight lending. They raise and lower the rates which affects the rates that the banks can lend at while remaining profitable.",
"What the comments above say is true, but one more thing is there. FD rates are directly proportional to loan rates. However, banks make money because loan rates will always be higher than FD rates."
] |
[
"\"You are correct that it could refer to any of the types of interest rates that you've mentioned. In general, though, phrases such as \"\"rising interest rates\"\" and \"\"falling interest rates\"\" refer to the Federal Funds Rate or LIBOR. These are the interest rates at which banks in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, are lending money to each other.\"",
"As Sean pointed out they usually mean LIBOR or the FFR (or for other countries the equivalent risk free rate of interest). I will just like to add on to what everyone has said here and will like to explain how various interest rates you mentioned work out when the risk free rate moves: For brevity, let's denote the risk free rate by Rf, the savings account interest rate as Rs, a mortgage interest rate as Rmort, and a term deposit rate with the bank as Rterm. Savings account interest rate: When a central bank revises the overnight lending rate (or the prime rate, repo rate etc.), in some countries banks are not obliged to increase the savings account interest rate. Usually a downward revision will force them to lower it (because they net they will be paying out = Rf - Rs). On the other hand, if Rf goes up and if one of the banks increases the Rs then other banks may be forced to do so too under competitive pressure. In some countries the central bank has the authority to revise Rs without revising the overnight lending rate. Term deposits with the bank (or certificates of deposit): Usually movements in these rates are more in sync with Rf than Rs is. The chief difference is that savings account offer more liquidity than term deposits and hence banks can offer lower rates and still get deposits under them --consider the higher interest rate offered by the term deposit as a liquidity risk premium. Generally, interest rates paid by instruments of similar risk profile that offer similar liquidity will move in parallel (otherwise there can be arbitrage). Sometimes these rates can move to anticipate a future change in Rf. Mortgage loan rates or other interests that you pay to the bank: If the risk free rate goes up, banks will increase these rates to keep the net interest they earn over risk free (= Δr = Rmort - Rf) the same. If Rf drops and if banks are not obliged to decrease loan rates then they will only do so if one of the banks does it first. P.S:- Wherever I have said they will do so when one of the banks does it first, I am not referring to a recursion but merely to the competitive market theory. Under such a theory, the first one to cut down the profit margin usually has a strong business incentive to do so (e.g., gain market share, or eliminate competition by lowering profit margins etc.). Others are forced to follow the trend.",
"\"I would say people are generally talking about the prime lending rate. I have heard the prime lending rate defined as \"\"The rate that banks charge each other when they borrow money overnight.\"\" But it often defined as the rate at which banks lend their most creditworthy customers. That definition comes with the caveat that it is not always held to strictly. Either definition has the same idea: it's the lowest rate at which anyone could currently borrow money. The rate for many types of lending is based upon the prime rate. A variable rate loan might have an interest rate of (Prime + x). The prime rate is in turn based upon the Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate that the Fed sets manually. When the news breaks that \"\"the Fed is raising interest rates by a quarter of a point\"\" (or similar) it is the Federal Funds Rate that they control. Lending institutions then \"\"fall in line\"\" and adjust the rates at which they lend money. So to summarize: When people refer to \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\" or \"\"rising\"\" interest rates they are conceptually referring to the prime lending rate. When people talk about the Fed raising/lowering interest rates (In the U.S.) they are referring specifically to the Federal Funds Rate (which ultimately sets other lending rates).\""
] |
3369
|
Why should one only contribute up to the employer's match in a 401(k)?
|
[
"371886",
"163834",
"231012",
"145716",
"411910",
"395840"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"165305",
"330058",
"240259",
"24231",
"296405",
"97805",
"249063",
"591383",
"488673",
"115465",
"53544",
"371886",
"140330",
"1366",
"293531",
"443002",
"242529",
"555377",
"519750",
"191447",
"379911",
"273497",
"463892",
"534837",
"242556",
"18485",
"430931",
"322219",
"301616",
"427997",
"135724",
"281049",
"394549",
"92370",
"525426",
"56558",
"147889",
"404881",
"590711",
"38532",
"67220",
"585873",
"111843",
"514357",
"424841",
"477021",
"417257",
"4976",
"312369",
"464080",
"75766",
"389019",
"267297",
"181624",
"452592",
"187498",
"383472",
"39071",
"366307",
"202768",
"509772",
"163834",
"122560",
"439249",
"341493",
"79363",
"140917",
"189978",
"353625",
"290105",
"576391",
"159621",
"272223",
"160786",
"302512",
"293134",
"59965",
"69042",
"327509",
"220459",
"160780",
"309200",
"380615",
"19973",
"74041",
"529543",
"176110",
"587633",
"119628",
"458346",
"84967",
"528699",
"392924",
"337561",
"469138",
"423012",
"537792",
"42301",
"344698",
"436071"
] |
[
"In addition to the prior answer, talking from experience, you get into trouble if you surpass the contribution limit and your employer continues to deposit money above the IRS maximum allowed. When that happens, you have until April to take out the excess contribution and earned interest on that chunk of money and included in your tax return or else you get a steep tax penalty in addition to being double taxed ( for the current and next tax year). Also from experience, payroll departments will most likely get this wrong and it will end up in a compliance mess with you picking up the tab on your tax bill. Don't let it happen!!!",
"I would definitely be putting in enough to get the most out of the match. Only reasons I can think of not too would be: Other than that, not investing in the 401(k) is turning down free money. Edit based on feedback in comments. The only time I would advocate number 1 is if you are intensely committed to getting out of debt, were on a very tight budget and had eliminated all non-essential spending. In that situation only, I think the mental benefit of having that last debt paid off would be worth more than a few dollars in interest.",
"401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding. The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross. The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself. Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year. A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate. First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6650 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650. Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6300 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.",
"If one makes say, $10K/mo, and the company will match the first 5% dollar for dollar, a 10%/mo deposit of $1K/mo will see a $500/mo match. If the employee manages to request 90% get put into the 401(k), after 2 months, he's done. If the company wished, they could continue the $500/mo match, I agree. They typically don't and in fact, the 'true up' you mention isn't even required, one is fortunate to get it. Many companies that match are going the other way, matching only after the year is over. Why? Why does any company do anything? To save money. I used to make an attempt to divide my deposit over the year to max out the 401(k) in December and get the match real time, not a true up.",
"\"Many employees don't contribute enough to maximize the match, so the cost to the employer is not the same. Under the 50% of 6% strategy an employee contributing 5% would get a 2.5% match not a 3% and that saves the company 0.5%. @TTT provided an excellent link in the comments below to a study titled \"\"How much employer 401(k) matching contributions do employees leave on the table?\"\" performed by Financial Engines, an independent financial advisory service. The information meaningful to this answer is on Page 5 (Page 7 of the PDF): 4,378,445 eligible employees were included in the study 1,077,775 of the eligible employees did not contribute enough for the full match; of them, 285,386 Received zero match funds 792,389 Received some match funds, but not the full match available So 792,389 or 18% of the employees studied contributed in to employer 401(k) plans but not enough to maximize their available match.\"",
"If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well.",
"I'd take the match, but I wouldn't contribute beyond your match, for two reasons:",
"If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.",
"If your employer matches a percentage of your contributions, then you should try to max out your plan. Once you have completed maxing out your 401k, you may want to open up an IRA for several reasons: will your 401k be enough to sustain your lifestyle in retirement? Your IRA allows you to save even more for retirement. you can invest in all sorts of stuff through your IRA that might not be available in your plan. you can withdraw the principal from your IRA, usually after five years. This serves as another form of savings. IRAs have some asset protection in the event of bankruptcy. A normal savings or investment account usually does not offer such protection.",
"Another factor to consider is that it encourages employees to contribute more into to the plan so that they'll be able to comfortably retire. Getting the full match encourages people to put at least 6% in to avoid leaving money on the table; 100% of the 1st 3% would see a lot of people only putting 3% in instead. While 9% of your income is still a rather marginal amount to be saving; it will leave you in a much better place in your 60's than if you had only put in 6%/year.",
"A matching pension scheme is like free money. No wait, it actually IS free money. You are literally earning 100% interest rate on that money the instant you pay it in to the account. That money would have to sit in your credit card account for at least five years to earn that kind of return; five years in which the pension money would have earned an additional return over and above the 100%. Mathematically there is no contest that contributing to a matching pension scheme is one of the best investment there is. You should always do it. Well, almost always. When should you not do it?",
"The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.",
"Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe.",
"If you can afford to put money in your 401(k) account, I would say at least you should invest enough to get your employer's matching fund. It's free money, why not get it?",
"\"Agree with Randy, if debt and debt reduction was all about math, nobody would be in debt. It is an emotional game. If you've taken care of the reasons you're in debt, changed your behaviors, then start focusing on the math of getting it done faster. Otherwise, if you don't have a handle on the behaviors that got you there, you're just going to get more rope to hang yourself with. I.e., makes sense to take a low-interest home equity loan to pay off high-interest credit card debt, but more likely than not, you'll just re-rack up the debt on the cards because you never fixed the behavior that put you into debt. Same thing here, if you opt not to contribute to \"\"pay off the cards\"\" without fixing the debt-accumulating behaviors, what you're going to do is stay in debt AND not provide for retirement. Take the match until you're certain you have your debt accumulation habits in check.\"",
"\"I agree with the other answers that it is a benefit, but wanted to add another explanation for this: Also, why a company would prefer matching someone's contributions (and given him or her additional free money) instead of just offering a simple raise? In addition to a match being a benefit that is part of your total compensation, 401ks have special rules for Highly Compensated Employees. If the lower paid employees do not contribute, the \"\"Highly Compensated Employees\"\" do not get to take full advantage of the 401k. By offering a match, more lower paid employees will take advantage of a 401k program allowing more Highly Compensated Employees to also take advantage of the program.\"",
"\"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the \"\"riches\"\") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above).\"",
"An experienced individual wouldn't ask such questions. I don't say this to take a jab at you, but to provide context. The matter is much more complicated than a simple answer to your question could accomplish. The short answer is no, not necessarily; but it depends on the details. Generally, if the employer matches, it's suggested that you take advantage of the match. It's free money. That said, it comes with some strings attached, like a vesting schedule. It's not yours right away, necessarily. Choices are limited in a 401k, but we should still come out ahead with that free money. The investment choices available in a 401k are also a part of the details. If they meet your needs you should certainly consider the 401k even if the employer doesn't match. There is also the matter of one's particular tax situation, which is certainly an involved matter. A 401k can certainly be a part of judicious tax planning. It's a matter of working out the details. Continuing this theme of details and coming back to the employer match: if the employer doesn't mach, I would make sure that I'm maxing out an IRA before considering the 401k. If the employer matched, I would probably contribute to take advantage of that match. However, it quickly becomes complicated here. I'm accustomed to employer matching up to some percentage of pay, which typically works out to be less then the anual contribution limits for a 401k. So, I my plan for such a situation is to contribute up to the employer match in the 401k, then max out an IRA, and then return to the 401k to finish contributing up to its yearly maximum. There is plenty for you to consider in order to come up with a plan of action. While it's certainly complicated, it's accessible to most people. You don't have to be a genius. In fact, eggheads are regularly trounced by the markets.",
"If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!",
"Employer match doesn't incur FICA tax (social security, medicare) for you at all - either current year or when you withdraw. All you have to pay is income tax when you withdraw after retirement age. (Disclaimer - I'm not tax professional but has done my research)",
"\"The error in the example is here: \"\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\"\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\"",
"I think better advice would be always max out your 401K at least to the level that the company provides a match. For example, my company will match 50% up to 10% of your salary. Good luck finding another investment with a guaranteed immediate 50% return. Beyond the company match, it is probably good advice to put as much in the 401K as you can afford if you aren't disciplined enough to invest that money on your own. Otherwise it depends on a number of factors as to whether it is better to invest on your own or in the company plan.",
"Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.",
"One should fund a 401(k) or matched retirement account up to the match, even if you have other debt. Long term, you will come out ahead, but you must be disciplined in making the payments. If one wants to point out the risk in a 401(k), I'd suggest the money need not be invested in stocks, there's always a short term safe option.",
"\"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the \"\"buy low\"\" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)\"",
"This creates incentive for the employee to contribute more and increases the funds under management of the 401(k) plan. The size of the plan influences the fees that are charged in each of the funds offered. (The more assets under management, the better for those in the plan.) More importantly, 401(k) plans are not allowed to discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. That discrimination is determined by calculating the average deferrals by your lower compensated employees and comparing them to the average deferrals of your highly compensated employees. If highly compensated employees are saving too much compared to the rest of the pack, they will have some of their contributions returned the next year (with all the tax implications of that). Forcing everyone to contribute 6% to get the full match helps the plan to not fail the discrimination test and protects the highly compensated employees from losing some of their tax deferrals.",
"Specifically on the subject of maxing out your 401k, there are several downsides: The employer match usually only applies to the first 6%. Some employers offer no match at all. You listed the match as a pro, but I think it should be pointed out that you can usually get this benefit without maxing out your plan. The investment options are limited. Usually there is at least one fund available from all the common investment classes, but these may not be your preferred funds if you were able to choose for yourself. Fees can be very high. If you are working for a small to medium size company, the fees for each fund will often be higher than for the same funds in a plan offered by a large company. Fees are usually related to the dollar amount of assets under management. Each person has a different tax situation, so if you are single and making 6 figures, you might still be in the 25% bracket even after maxing out your 401k, but the same person filing jointly with a spouse that makes less could get down to the 15% bracket with a smaller contribution. I meet my retirement savings goals without maxing out the 401k. As long as the amount is above the employer match amount, my second priority is to funnel as much money as possible in to my IRA (because I get lower fees and better investment options from Vanguard).",
"Let me add another consideration to the company's side of the equation. Not only is a 401K a tool for the company to make them competitive when recruiting employees among other companies that offer that benefit, it is also a good retention tool. Most company's 401K plans include a vesting period of at least 3 years, sometimes more. An employee that leaves the company before they are vested in the plan will have to give up some % of the employer matched funds in the account. This gives employees incentive to stick around longer and the company reduces the risk of turnover which can be costly in terms of training and recruiting. This also factors into the reason why employers would rather give matching on the 401K than a simple pay raise. Some of those employees are going to leave during the vesting period anyway, and when that happens the employer got the benefit of motivating (extrinsically) the employee, but in the end got to keep some of the money.",
"The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.",
"\"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \"\"matching\"\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \"\"excess contributions\"\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \"\"adjust\"\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \"\"matching\"\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\", but that might be a harder change to get.\"",
"Yes. Not doing so would be like turning down a raise. The best advice in almost every situation is to at least contribute up to the amount that the company will match so you get the full benefit. One thing to clarify that you might not be understanding. The vesting period is only for the money the company matches, not your own investment. Even if you leave the company before the account is vested or fully vested, you can transfer to a 401k at your new employer, or roll over into an IRA, or take as taxable income (and pay a penalty if it is an early withdrawal), all your contributions together with any investment gains or losses that have occurred. Ditto whatever part of your employer match that has vested by the time you leave. Often, the employer matching contributions are invested in the same funds in the same proportions that you have chosen for your own contributions and thus will have incurred the same gains or losses as your own contributions, but what you are entitled to take with you is the part that has vested. Also, you mention that it is unlikely that you will stay the entire 5 years. However, if you plan to at least stay a couple of years it makes sense to get the 20%, 40%, etc. of the match that you vest during your stay. Again, it's free money.",
"The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.",
"\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"",
"\"The only way to know the specific explanation in your situation is to ask your employer. Different companies do it differently, and they will have their reasons for that difference. I've asked \"\"But why is it that way?\"\" enough times to feel confident in telling you it's rarely an arbitrary decision. In the case of your employer's policy, I can think of a number of reasons why they would limit match earnings per paycheck: Vesting, in a sense - Much as stock options have vesting requirements where you have to work for a certain amount of time to receive the options, this policy works as a sort of vesting mechanism for your employer matching funds. Without it, you could rapidly accumulate your full annual match amount in a few pay periods at the beginning of the year, and then immediately leave for employment elsewhere. You gain 100% of the annual match for only 1-2 months of work, while the employees who remain there all year work 12 months to gain the same 100%. Dollar Cost Averaging - By purchasing the same investment vehicle at different prices over time, you can reduce the impact of volatility on your earnings. For the same reason that 401k plans usually restrict you to a limited selection of mutual funds - namely, the implicit assumption is that you probably have little to no clue about investing - they also do other strategic things to encourage employees to invest (at least somewhat) wisely. By spacing their matching fund out over time, they encourage you to space your contributions over time, and they thereby indirectly force you to practice a sensible strategy of dollar cost averaging. Dollar Cost Averaging, seen from another angle - Mutual funds are the 18-wheeler trucks of the investment super-highway. They carry a lot of cargo, but they are difficult to start, stop, or steer quickly. For the same reasons that DCA is smart for you, it's also smart for a fund. The money is easier to manage and invest according to the goals of the fund if the investments trickle in over time and there are no sudden radical changes. Imagine if every employer that does matching allowed the full maximum match to be earned on the first paycheck of the year - the mutual funds in 401ks would get big balloons of money in January followed by a drastically lower investment for the rest of the year. And that would create volatility. Plan Administration Fees - Your employer has to pay the company managing the 401k for their services. It is likely that their agreement with the management company requires them to pay on a monthly basis, so it potentially makes things convenient for the accounting people on both ends if there's a steady monthly flow of money in and out. (Whether this point is at all relevant is very much dependent on how your company's agreement is structured, and how well the folks handling payroll and accounting understand it.) The Bottom Line - Your employer (let us hope) makes profits. And they pay expenses. And companies, for a variety of financial reasons, prefer to spread their profits and expenses as evenly over the year as they can. There are a lot of ways they achieve this - for example, a seasonal business might offer an annual payment plan to spread their seasonal revenue over the year. Likewise, the matching funds they are paying to you the employees are coming out of their bottom line. And the company would rather not have the majority of those funds being disbursed in a single quarter. They want a nice, even distribution. So once again it behooves them to create a 401k system that supports that objective. To Sum Up Ultimately, those 401k matching funds are a carrot. And that carrot manipulates you the employee into behaving in a way that is good for your employer, good for your investment management company, and good for your own investment success. Unless you are one of the rare birds who can outperform a dollar-cost-averaged investment in a low-cost index fund, there's very little to chafe at about this arrangement. If you are that rare bird, then your investment earning power likely outstrips the value of your annual matching monies significantly, in which case it isn't even worth thinking about.\"",
"Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.",
"\"Because 401k's are also used by self employed. A person who has a schedule C profitable income can open a 401k and \"\"match\"\" in whatever ratio he wants, up to 25% of the net profits or the limits you stated. This allows self-employed to defer more income taxes to the future. Why only self-employed? Good question. Ask your congressman. My explanation would be that since they're self-employed they're in much more danger of not having income, especially later in life, if their business go south. Thus they need a bigger cushion than an average W2 employee who can just find another job.\"",
"With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)",
"\"You'd need to test the assumptions here - in effect you're saying that in 15 years your account will have a balance 10x your income. But normally you'd expect your income to grow over the years (e.g. promotions) and so you'd hope that your income in 15 years would be significantly larger than what it is now. But, even in the case where your account eventually does grow to 10x your salary at that time, it may still be worth continuing to contribute. In effect, adding a further 1% to your account is boosting the \"\"compounding return\"\" on your account by 1% - after fees and risk free. This additional 1% \"\"return\"\" in effect makes your retirement plan safer - you either get a higher total return for the same investment mix, or you can get the same total return for a slightly safer investment mix. In effect, you're treating your salary as a \"\"safe\"\" annuity and each year putting 10% of the \"\"return\"\" from that into your more risky retirement account.\"",
"\"As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad. The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase. I am on the side of \"\"don't do it\"\" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more. Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA.\"",
"\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"",
"rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.",
"I'm not a big fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. The rules on tax-advantages accounts can change at any time. It's already painful to get money out before retirement (earnings or possibly contributions taxed as current income, plus 10% penalty). The rules could get worse. There's also the assumption that your taxes will be lower when you retire. I think this is a poor assumption. If you get free money from your employer for contribution to a 401(k), contribute up to what will get you all of the free money you can. Otherwise, pay your taxes and keep control of your assets. So short answer: Keep as much as you can out of tax-advantaged accounts unless you're turning down free money to do so.",
"It depends on the vesting schedule and the likelihood you'll be there long enough to get any vesting. A typical 6 year schedule gets you 20% after 2 years. You already know you'll be there 1 year, so now you need to decide if you'll last 2 years. Unless you know for sure you won't last 2 years, you should take the match on the 4%. Suppose your retirement plan earns 10%. If you leave before 2 years, compared with your 18% you're only behind by 8% return. But if you last 2 years, you'd be making a 32% return on that same amount. After 3 years you'd make 54%, and up it goes from there until you hit a 120% return after 6 years. I'd take the match simply because you have a lot more to gain than you have to lose if you leave early.",
"You cannot withdraw funds from a 401(k) while still employed with your company. To access your contributions, that would be treated as a loan against the 401(k), in which case you'd pay an upfront fee, and then have to repay the amount loaned, plus interest, over a set period of time. (In essence, you are paying back yourself.) Typically, there is also a minimum amount you must take out as a loan. Should you leave the job and still have an outstanding loan against your 401(k), it will be treated as a withdrawal after a certain date, at which point a 10% penalty plus taxes applies, unless you pay back the full amount of the loan remaining before that certain date. Your friends should seriously consider contributing the minimum amount necessary to get that full 50% matching amount. It's free money. As you said, it's like leaving money on the table.",
"If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances.",
"It's probably advantageous to stop depositing into a 401(k) when one is no longer receiving payroll deductions into them. Other than that, why would you want to give up the benefits? Remember, 401(k) is just the kind of account. Most offer a variety of investment options within them, and let you move money between those, so you can rebalance to suit your currently preferred risk/return tradeoffs without having to break them open. You might sometimes want to reduce your contribution for a while, if you have immediate cashflow needs elsewhere... but try to avoid doing that. Compound returns are a good thing, and the earlier the money goes in the more you get back from it.",
"You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.",
"Companies are required BY THE IRS to try to get everybody to contribute minimal amounts to the 401K's. In the past, there were abuses and only the execs could contribute and the low paid workers were starving while the execs contributed huge amounts. On a year-by-year basis, if the low-paid employees don't contribute, the IRS punishes the high paid employees. Therefore, most employers provide a matching program to incentivize low-paid employees to contribute. This 9% limitation could happen in any year and it could have happened even before you got your pay raise, what matters is what the low-paid employees were doing at your company LAST YEAR.",
"Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post.",
"\"Given that the 6 answers all advocate similar information, let me offer you the alternate scenario - You earn $60K and have an employer offering a 50% match on all deposits. All deposits. (Note, I recently read a Q&A here describing such an offer. If I see it again, I'll link). Let the thought of the above settle in. You think about the fact that $42K isn't a bad salary, and decide to deposit 30%, to gain the full match on your $18K deposit. Now, you budget to live your life, pay your bills, etc, but it's tight. When you accumulate $2000, and a strong want comes up (a toy, a trip, anything, no judgement) you have a tough decision. You think to yourself, \"\"after the match, I am literally saving 45% of my income. I'm on a pace to have the ability to retire in 20 years. Why do I need to save even more?\"\" Your budget has enough discretionary spending that if you have a $2000 'emergency', you charge it and pay it off over the next 6-8 months. Much larger, and you know that your super-funded 401(k) has the ability to tap a loan. Your choice to turn away from the common wisdom has the recommended $20K (about 6 months of your spending) sitting in your 401(k), pretax deposited as $26K, and matched to nearly $40K, growing long term. Note: This is a devil's advocate answer. Had I been the first to answer, it would reflect the above. In my own experience, when I got married, we built up the proper emergency fund. As interest rates fell, we looked at our mortgage balance, and agreed that paying down the loan would enable us to refinance and save enough in mortgage interest that the net effect was as if we were getting 8% on the money. At the same time as we got that new mortgage, the bank offered a HELOC, which I never needed to use. Did we somehow create high risk? Perhaps. Given that my wife and I were both still working, and had similar incomes, it seemed reasonable.\"",
"They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.",
"If there is no match and you are disciplined enough to contribute without it coming directly out of your paycheck, dump the 401K. The reason: Most 401K plans have huge hidden fees built into the investment prices. You won't see them directly, but 3% is not uncommon. 3% is a horrible drag on your investment performance. Get an IRA or Roth IRA and pick something with low fees. Bonus: You will have a lot more investment choices!",
"No, sorry. A change of 401(k) administrator is not an out, otherwise many would flee a bad plan. I'd suggest you only deposit up to the match, but use an IRA if you'd like to save more. A plan with high fees can easily negate the tax benefits and then some.",
"There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.",
"You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).",
"Most companies put the company match in your account each paycheck, but your are not generally vested for the match. If you leave before the specified time period then they pull back part of the matching funds. I knew somebody who did something similar back in the 1980's with their 401K. They put in 8% of their paycheck after taxes; a 100% match was deposited; then they pulled out the employees contribution every quarter. They did this for the 10 years I knew them. It avoided any tax implications, and they were still saving 8% of their pay for retirement.",
"With a 401k you will be taxed when you withdraw the money upon retirement (just like an IRA), but conventional wisdom had it that you're likely to be in a lower tax bracket at that time. That may not necessarily be the case though, in which case a Roth IRA would be a better option because you're paying for it with after tax dollars and distributions are untaxed. If you wanted to hedge your bets you could have both an IRA/401k and a Roth IRA. An IRA has income limits above which the contributions are no longer tax deductible, I don't believe a 401k has the same limitations (for completion's sake: a Roth IRA has income limits above which you can't contribute to one). And like you said, the employer match is free money.",
"If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.",
"If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month.",
"Nope, take the match. I cannot see not taking the match unless you don't have enough money to cover the bills. Every situation is different of course, and if the option is to missing minimum payments or other bills in order to get the match, make your payments. But in all other circumstances, take the match. My reasoning is, it is hard enough to earn money so take every chance you can. If you save for retirement in the process, all the better.",
"The reason your 401k match is always counted as pre-tax whether you are contributing to a traditional 401k or a Roth is that the money is contributed by the employer and is not counted as income, and that contribution is not taxed as income. Should you wish to pay taxes on it and convert it to a Roth, you can do that, though perhaps not until you change jobs.",
"In addition to George Marian's excellent advice, I'll add that if you're hitting the limits on IRA contributions, then you'd go back to your 401(k). So, put enough into your 401(k) to get the match, then max out IRA contributions to give you access to more and better investment options, then go back to your 401(k) until you top that out as well, assuming you have that much available to invest for retirement.",
"At the very least you should invest as much as you can that your employer will match, as they are basically giving you free money for saving. After that I would prioritize a Roth IRA as that offers similar tax benefits with more liquidity. Provided you have enough money available in your emergency fund and have plenty for everyday expenses I see no reason not to max out your 401k after that if you can afford it. However, if your emergency fund is lacking, be sure to put some there. Other investments like a 529 may come into play if you have kids you plan on sending to college, but it all depends on your situation.",
"\"With no match, the traditional 401(k) for someone otherwise in the 15% bracket makes little sense. I'd suggest contributing just enough if you were in the 25% bracket to be in the taxable 15% but no more. Use a Roth IRA if you are saving more than that. I'm adding this based on OP's statement that the fees on the 401(k) range .8-1.4%. I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed? in which I discuss how fees of this range negate the benefit of the mantra \"\"save at 25% to withdraw at 15%\"\" and if one were in the 15% bracket to start, this level off fee will cost you money in no time at all. The people advising you to max out the 401(k) first, given the rest of your situation and that of the account, are misguided. I'd given them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't have all the details. And with all due respect to the other posters here, everyone of them a bright, valued colleague, your answers should be addressed to the OP's exact situation. 15% bracket, no match, high fees. I suspect some of answers will change on reviewing this.\"",
"\"Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the \"\"regular\"\" 401(k) no matter which one you contribute to. The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k). So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account. Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side.\"",
"Mathwise, I absolutely agree with the other answers. No contest, you should keep getting the match. But, just for completeness, I'll give a contrarian opinion that is generally not very popular, but does have some merit. If you can focus on just one main financial goal at a time, and throw every extra dollar you have at that one focus (i.e., getting out of debt, in your case), you will make better progress than if you're trying to do too many things at once. Also, there something incredibly freeing about being out of debt that has other beneficial impacts on your life. So, if you can bring a lot of focus to the credit card debt and get it paid off quickly, it may be worth deferring the 401(k) investing long enough to do that, even though it doesn't make as much mathematical sense. (This is essentially what Dave Ramsey teaches, BTW.)",
"Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).",
"This will be difficult to achieve. It can be done, but it's very rare to have an agreement where your employer is willing to max out your contribution limit unless you are a partner in the business or a family relation. In this situation the extra employer money would probably come from a profit sharing contribution. If your employer increases your match, others are correct that your employer would have to increase the match for everyone. Not so with a profit sharing contribution. This is assuming 2 things though: Both of those are BIG if's, and I'd say 99% of the time it's not gonna happen for either of those two reasons. Your chances are better if you don't own >5% of the company, don't make over $120,000/year, and are related to you employer. Good luck!",
"\"For easy math, say you are in the 25% tax bracket. A thousand deposited dollars is $750 out of your pocket, but $2000 after the match. Now, you say you want to take the $750 and pay down the card. If you wait a year (at 20%) you'll owe $900, but have access to borrow a full $1000, at a low rate, 4% or so. The payment is less than $19/mo for 5 years. So long as one is comfortable juggling their debt a bit, the impact of a fully matched 401(k) cannot be beat. Keep in mind, this is a different story than those who just say \"\"don't take a 401(k) loan.\"\" Here, it's the loan that offers you the chance to fund the account. If you are let go, and withdraw the money, even at the 25% rate, you net $1500 less the $200 penalty, or $1300 compared to the $750 you are out of pocket. If you don't want to take the loan, you're still ahead so long as you are able to pay the cards over a reasonable time. I'll admit, a 20% card paid over 10+ years can still trash a 100% return. This is why I add the 401(k) loan to the mix. The question for you - jldugger - is how tight is the budget? And how much is the match? Is it dollar for dollar on first X%?\"",
"I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings.",
"You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!",
"\"It's simple. At 100% match, it would take a \"\"long\"\" time for bad fees to negate the benefit. Longer than the average person stays with one company. Even though $50/10 shares is crazy, if you wait till you have $500, it's 10%. Still crazy, but you are still getting 90% of the match. I'd avoid this, however, and just go with the closest thing they have to an S&P fund. Invest outside this account to save the right amount to fund your retirement. 2% total isn't enough, obviously.\"",
"\"The original question was aimed at early payment on a student loan at 6%. Let's look at some numbers. Note, the actual numbers were much lower, I've increased the debt to a level that's more typical, as well as more likely to keep the borrower worried, and \"\"up at night.\"\" On a $50K loan, we see 2 potential payoffs. A 6 year accelerated payoff which requires $273.54 extra per month, and the original payoff, with a payment of $555.10. Next, I show the 6 year balance on the original loan terms, $23,636.44 which we would need to exceed in the 401(k) to consider we made the right choice. The last section reflects the 401(k) balance with different rates of return. I purposely offer a wide range of returns. Even if we had another 'lost decade' averaging -1%/yr, the 401(k) balance is more than 50% higher than the current loan debt. At a more reasonable 6% average, it's double. (Note: The $273.54 deposit should really be adjusted, adding 33% if one is in the 25% bracket, or 17.6% if 15% bracket. That opens the can of worms at withdrawal. But let me add, I coerced my sister to deposit to the match, while married and a 25%er. Divorced, and disabled, her withdrawals are penalty free, and $10K is tax free due to STD deduction and exemption.) Note: The chart and text above have been edited at the request of a member comment. What about an 18% credit card? Glad you asked - The same $50K debt. It's tough to imagine a worse situation. You budgeted and can afford $901, because that's the number for a 10 year payoff. Your spouse says she can grab a extra shift and add $239/mo to the plan, because that' the number to get to a 6 year payoff. The balance after 6 years if we stick to the 10 year plan? $30,669.82. The 401(k) balances at varying rates of return again appear above. A bit less dramatic, as that 18% is tough, but even at a negative return the 401(k) is still ahead. You are welcome to run the numbers, adjust deposits for your tax rate and same for withdrawals. You'll see -1% is still about break-even. To be fair, there are a number of variables, debt owed, original time for loan to be paid, rate of loan, rate of return assumed on the 401(k), amount of potential extra payment, and the 2 tax rates, going in, coming out. Combine a horrific loan rate (the 18%) with a longer payback (15+ years) and you can contrive a scenario where, in fact, even the matched funds have trouble keeping up. I'm not judging, but I believe it's fair to say that if one can't find a budget that allows them to pay their 18% debt over a 10 year period, they need more help that we can offer here. I'm only offering the math that shows the power of the matched deposit. From a comment below, the one warning I'd offer is regarding vesting. The matched funds may not be yours immediately. Companies are allowed to have a vesting schedule which means your right to this money may be tiered, at say, 20%/year from year 2-6, for example. It's a good idea to check how your plan handles this. On further reflection, the comments of David Wallace need to be understood. At zero return, the matched money will lag the 18% payment after 4 years. The reason my chart doesn't reflect that is the match from the deposits younger than 4 years is still making up for that potential loss. I'd maintain my advice, to grab the match regardless, as there are other factors involved, the more likely return of ~8%, the tax differential should one lose their job, and the hope that one would get their act together and pay the debt off faster.\"",
"JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.",
"To be clear, a 401K is a vehicle, you make investments WITHIN it, if you choose poorly such as say putting all your money into company stock when working for the next Enron, you can still get hurt badly. So it is important to have diversity and an appropriate risk level based on your age, tolerance for risk, etc. That said, as vehicles go it is outstanding, and the 'always max your 401K' is very very common advice for a large number of investing professionals, CFA's, pundits, etc. That said there are a few priorities to consider here. First priority, if there is some level of company matching, grab that, it's hard to beat that kind of 'return' in almost any other case. Second, since you never want to tap into a 401K (if you can at all avoid it) before you are ready to retire, you should first be sure you have a good 'emergency fund' set aside in the event you lose your job, or some other major catastrophy happens. Many recommend setting aside at least 6 months of basic living expenses. Third, if you have any high interest debt (like credit card debt) pay that stuff down as fast as you can. You'll save a ton of interest (it's pretty much the same as investing the money you use to pay it down, and getting a return equal to the interest rate you are paying, with zero risk.. can't be beat. You'll also end up with a lot better cash flow, and the ability to start saving first and spending out of savings, so you earn interest instead of paying it. Once you have those things out of the way, then it is time to think about fully funding the 401K. and keep in mind, since you don't pay taxes on it, the 'felt effect' to you pocket is about 80% or even less, of what goes into the account, so it's not as painful as you might think, and the hit to your take home may be less than you'd expect. Contributing as much as you can, as early as you can also lets you benefit from the effect of compounding, and has a far larger affect on the balance than money put into the account closer to retirement. So if you can afford to max it out, I surely would advise you to do so.",
"Bad idea. If you lose your job and need to pay medical expenses, you can withdraw penalty-free. If you lose your job and just withdraw, you will have lower income and lower tax, though you will pay a penalty. If you don't lose your job today, consider your 401(k) an additional protection, just in case you do lose it tomorrow. Just pick the least risky investment option and relax. Besides, it will diversify your investment and protect you from your own investment decisions. If you are so ready to take a 10% loss, you are likely not so skilled in this area, so it's good to have a backup plan. But of course, do contribute 3% so you get a match.",
"The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.",
"From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision.",
"I think it comes down to whether you are happy with the investment choices in the 401k. If you are, there is no reason not to invest there. Additionally, it doesn't have to be an either-or choice. You can invest up to the maximum in both accounts. BTW, congratulations on thinking about retirement at your age. I wish I had been in a position to do that.",
"\"You might consider working on getting your new employer to sponsor a 401k, there may be options where you can invest and they aren't required to add anything as a match (which gives you higher limits). If they don't match, they may just be liable for some administration fees. If you have any side business that you do, you might also be eligible for other \"\"self-employed\"\" options that have higher limits (SEP, Simple - I think they may go up to $15k) although, I'm not sure the nitty gritties of them.\"",
"\"A fascinating view on this. The math of a 10% deposit and projected 10% return lead to an inevitable point when the account is worth 10X your income (nice) and the deposit, 10% of income only represents 1% of the account balance. The use of an IRA is neither here nor there, as your proposed deposit is still just 1% of your retirement account total. Pay off debt? For one with this level of savings, it should be assumed you aren't carrying any high interest debt. It really depends on your age and retirement budget. Our \"\"number\"\" was 12X our final income, so at 10X, we were still saving. For you, if you project hitting your number soon enough, I'd still deposit to the match, but maybe no more. It might be time to just enjoy the extra money. For others, their goal may be much higher and those extra years deposits are still needed. I'd play with a spreadsheet and see the impact of reduced retirement account deposits. Note - the question asks about funding the 401(k) vs paying down debt. I'd always advise to deposit to the match, but beyond that, one should focus on their high interest debt, especially by their 50's.\"",
"A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given: PROS: CONS: There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes. If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income. Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense.",
"401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not.",
"\"Will it be more money for me now if I don't take it out? Yes Will it be more money for for my retirement if I do? Yes The difference will be the existence of a match and tax-deferral. If there is a match then you will have an instant 100% gain on the amount that is matched. From a tax standpoint, putting some in your 401(k) now will reduce your taxes this year - you will instead pay tax when you withdraw the money at retirement (the withdrawal will be considered \"\"income\"\" at that time). Other decision points: If there is no match, but you still want to add to retirement savings, then you could alternatively put the money in an IRA, which will give you more control over your investments than a 401(k) (which could be good or bad, depending on how investment savvy you are).\"",
"Ben Miller's answer is very thorough, and I up voted it. I believe that the ability to rebalance without tax implications is very import, but there are two aspects of the question that were not covered: The 401K in many cases comes with a company match. Putting enough money into the fund each year to maximize the match, give you free money that is not available in the non-retirement accounts. The presence of that match is to encourage employees to contribute: even if they are tying up their funds until retirement age; and they are into a plan with only a handful of investment options; and they may have higher expenses in the 401K. The question also had a concern about the annual limits for the 401K (18,000) and the IRA (5,500). The use of a retirement account doesn't in any way limit your ability to invest in non-retirement accounts. You can choose to invest from 0 to 23,500 in the retirement accounts and from 0 to unlimited into the non-retirement accounts. Double those amounts if you are married.",
"\"I may be missing something here, but I don't think this is a disadvantage. The fact that the employer contribution will be taxed is the same as it would be if it were a match in a traditional account, so the amount you lose to taxes on it is a wash. The employer contribution is only smaller if you can't afford to contribute as much to the Roth because it's post-tax, and therefore your contribution is under the cap for the match. If you're contributing the maximum the employer will match or higher, then I don't think there's any disadvantage on the match portion. First, the 5% cap on employer contributions is calculated on the gross, even in a Roth account. Second, the taxing of the amount contributed to a Roth does not reduce the dollar amount that goes into the Roth account, it just reduces your net pay. So if your contribution is $100 to a Traditional account, your gross pay is reduced by $100 and your Traditional account gains $100. In the Roth, your gross pay is still taxed as though that $100 were included, but the $100 is put into the Roth. The tax portion of that \"\"after tax\"\" money does not reduce the amount of the contribution.\"",
"Since there is no match on the 401k, it seems to me that your first priority should be your IRA (Roth or otherwise). I don't know what your salary is, but most 22 year-olds won't be maxing out both an IRA and 401k on only 10% of their incomes, so the rest of the list may be irrelevant.",
"One situation where it would be prudent not to contribute would be if expenses are so tight that you cannot afford to contribute because you need that cashflow for expenses.",
"Congrats on saving aggressively when you're young. I'm not a huge fan of tax-advantaged accounts because the rules can change on them, and there's already a penalty for you to take out that money for most purposes until you've almost tripled your age. Free money (a match) overcomes this reservation for me, but I'm not contributing anything beyond that. I'm paying my taxes on the rest and am done with them. Watching your money grow tax-free for another 37 1/2 years only to see your (and everyone else's) marginal tax rate rise isn't much fun. I'm not saying that will happen, but it certainly could.",
"A 50% company match on your 401(k) is a huge amount of free money. You'd have to absolutely crush the professional money managers to justify turning it down. If you can do that, you should quit your job and do it full-time.",
"My employer matches 6% of my salary, dollar for dollar. So you have a great benefit. The self-directed side has no fees but $10 trades. No option trading. Yours basically allows you to invest your own funds, but not the match. It's a restriction, agreed, but a good plan.",
"There is Free employer money on both sides of the tax fence for some employees. On the pretax side, your employer may provide you a match. If so, invest the maximum to get 100% of the match. On the after tax side, many companies offers a 15% discount on ESPP plans and a one year hold. My wife has such an employer. The one year hold is fine because it allows us to be taxed at Long Term Capital gains if the stock goes up which is lower than our current income bracket. After creating a seasoned pool of stocks that we could sell after the one year hold, we are then able to sell the same number of stocks purchased each month. This provides a 17.6% guaranteed gain on a monthly basis. How much would you purchase if you had a guaranteed 17.6% return. Our answer is 15% (our maximum allowed). The other trick is that while the employer is collecting the money, you will purchase the stock at the lowest day of the period. You will usually sell for even more than the purchase price unless the day purchased was the lowest day of month. The trick is to reinvest the money in tax free investments to balance out the pretax investing. Never leave the money in the plan. That is too much risk.",
"\"First of all, you need to stop using the card completely. Yes, that means you lose out on cash back, double miles, whatever, but that's how you got to this mess in the first place. Switch to a cash budget until you can consistently spend less than you bring home. Keep better track of your expenses, build an emergency fund, and learn to save for expenses rather than borrow for them until you have your spending under control. If you can't cut your expenses any more, consider ways to increase your income (more hours at work, part-time jobs, sell stuff, etc.) Assuming that the employer match is 1-to-1 up to 4%, and you're saving an additional 7 percent to get to 15% total, I would definitely lower your contribution down to 4%, get the card paid off, and ONLY bump your contribution back up once you can safely pay off the card each month and know how much you can contribute. It is not wise to put 15% in retirement if that causes you to spend more than your net take-home pay. Your \"\"13%\"\" in your Roth is not guaranteed by any means, but the interest you pay on your credit card is. I would even be tempted to cut your retirement completely until the debt is paid, but more for motivational reasons that mathematical: I would be more concerned about living within your income at this point than getting a company match. I believe the benefits of spending wisely will outweigh a temporary loss in matched retirement funds in the long run.\"",
"\"The only time to stop saving money for retirement is when you have enough money to retire tomorrow. Not all of your \"\"retirement savings\"\" need to be in a 401k, it is just better if you can. Be sure to get as much as you can from the employer matching program. Unfortunately some employer matching programs discourage you from putting in too much. I've been able to max out the 401k contribution a number of times, which helps. Remember: you are likely to live to 100, so you better save enough to live that long. I don't trust social security to be there. I recommend saving so that you end up with \"\"enough to be comfortable\"\" -- this is usually about 25x your current income - PLUS inflation between now and when you plan to retire (age 62 is a good target). It is worth knowing your \"\"retirement savings number\"\". If you are making $100K per year now, you need to target $2.5M - PLUS allowance for inflation between now and when you plan to retire. This usually means you need to also arrange to make more money as well as save as much as you can and to use passive investing. Finance advisors are not worth it if you have less than $1M to invest.\"",
"The 401(k) has the advantage that you don't pay any tax until you take it out. That lets the gains multiple. Two examples: If any of your stocks pay dividends, these are directly taxable if you don't have a 401(k). In the 401(k), the full dividends accumulate and are reinvested. If you sell any stocks and get capital gains, they are also directly taxable in a normal account. Having said that, if you don't get any match, I would consider doing a 50/50; put half of your money in the 401(k), in something simple like an index fund, and invest the rest. That's assuming you have an index fund available in your 401(k).",
"Its easier than that: employer matching contributions are always pre-tax. While your contribution is split between the pre-tax and the Roth post-tax parts, matching contributions are always pre-tax. Quote from the regulations I linked to: For example, matching contributions are not permitted to be allocated to a designated Roth account. So the tax you pay is only on the Roth portion of your contribution. One of the reasons for that is the complexity you're talking about, but not only. Matching is not always vested, and it would be hard to determine what portion to tax and at what rate if matching would be allowed to go to Roth.",
"Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23. I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so. I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so. Another consideration: Is your companies program a good one? if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match. Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there. The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year. Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year. Otherwise you may miss out on your company match. It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not. It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future. On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth.",
"You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split).",
"It sounds like they are matching your IRA contribution dollar for dollar up to 1% of your salary. Think of that as an instant 100% yield on your investment. (Your money instantly doubles.) My 401(k) has been doing pretty well over the last year, but it will take several years before my money doubles. So you can let it sit in cash for a year, then take some pretty hefty fees and you will probably still come out ahead. (Of course it's hard to say without knowing all of the fees.)",
"One factor to consider is that some employers have a 401k contribution match policy that only allows a certain percentage of any given paycheck to be matched. So if the company is willing to match 4% of each paycheck, you could run into a problem here where you lose out on some of your company match. For example, suppose you get a $20,000 bonus. You can contribute $18,000 per year to your 401k and this bonus could be a nice way to knock most of that out and then take home your full paycheck the rest of the year. Sounds pretty nice, but there's a problem. The company will only match 4% of your $20,000 ($800) when they otherwise would have matched up to 4% of your annual salary ($4,000 if you're making $100,000 in this example). I'd say it's definitely worth it to make a big contribution to your 401k when you get a bonus as it's an easy way to get a lot of money in there without really feeling a loss (since it's extra money on top of your normal paycheck). But I'd definitely be careful about this situation. You don't want to throw away free money. To avoid this problem, make sure that you leave enough of your annual limit so you can contribute enough to get your 4% company match on every paycheck of the year."
] |
[
"The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.",
"In addition to George Marian's excellent advice, I'll add that if you're hitting the limits on IRA contributions, then you'd go back to your 401(k). So, put enough into your 401(k) to get the match, then max out IRA contributions to give you access to more and better investment options, then go back to your 401(k) until you top that out as well, assuming you have that much available to invest for retirement.",
"I'd hazard that Jim is mostly worried that people are getting ripped off by high employer 401(k) fund fees. A lot of employers offer funds with fees over 1% a year. This sounds low-ish if you don't realize that the real (inflation-adjusted) return for the fund will probably average out to about 4%, so it's really something like a quarter of your earnings gone. With an IRA, you don't have to do that. You can get an IRA provider which offers good, cheap index funds and the like (cough Vanguard cough). Fund fees will probably be closer to 0.1%-ish. HOWEVER. The maximum IRA contribution in 2013 will be $5,500. The maximum for a 401(k) contribution will be $17,500. That extra capacity is enough to recommend a 401(k) over an IRA for many people. These people may be best served by putting money into the 401(k) and then rolling it over into a rollover IRA when they change jobs. Also, certain people have retirement plans which offer them good cheap index funds. These people probably don't need to worry quite as much. Finally, having two accounts is more complicated. Please contact someone who knows more about taxes than I am to figure out what limitations apply for contributing to both IRAs and 401(k)s in the same year.",
"\"Early this year I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed? I described the data from a 401(k) expense survey and the punchline was that the average large retirement plan (over 1000 participants) expense was 1.08%, and for smaller plans it rose to 1.24%. As I commented below, if one's goal is to make deposits with income that avoid a tax of 25%, and hope to withdraw it at retirement at 15%, it doesn't take long for a 1% fee to completely negate the benefit of pretax savings. These numbers are averages, in the same article, I mention (ok, I brag) that my company plan has an S&P fund that costs .05%. That's 1% over 20 years. The sound bite of \"\"deposit to the match\"\" needs to be followed by \"\"depending on the choice of investments and their expenses\"\" within the 401(k). Every answer here has added excellent points, fennec's last sentence shouldn't be ignored, there's a phaseout for IRA deductibility, and another for Roth eligibility. For Married filing joint, IRA deduction starts to be lost at $92K, and Roth deposit disallowed at $173K. This adds a bit to the complexity of the decision, but doesn't change the implication of the 1%+ 401(k) fees.\"",
"\"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \"\"not most people\"\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\"",
"If you exceed the income limit for deducting a traditional IRA (which is very low if you are covered by a 401(k) ), then your IRA options are basically limited to a Roth IRA. The Cramer person probably meant to compare 401(k) and IRA from the same pre-/post-tax-ness, so i.e. Traditional 401(k) vs. Traditional IRA, or Roth 401(k) vs. Roth IRA. Comparing a Roth investment against a Traditional investment goes into a whole other topic that only confuses what is being discussed here. So if deducting a traditional IRA is ruled out, then I don't think Cramer's advice can be as simply applied regarding a Traditional 401(k). (However, by that logic, and since most people on 401(k) have Traditional 401(k), and if you are covered by a 401(k) then you cannot deduct a Traditional IRA unless you are super low income, that would mean Cramer's advice is not applicable in most situations. So I don't really know what to think here.)"
] |
2183
|
Why are there many small banks and more banks in the U.S.?
|
[
"132678",
"124427",
"571625",
"498146",
"24994",
"24344"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"132678",
"498146",
"24344",
"550924",
"248863",
"571625",
"124427",
"24994",
"553762",
"18749",
"10849",
"550303",
"476851",
"493676",
"149258",
"322168",
"486669",
"107519",
"9561",
"374078",
"129894",
"270866",
"462218",
"491523",
"582270",
"537057",
"511563",
"95440",
"536048",
"575241",
"175824",
"424503",
"580918",
"339518",
"98096",
"469731",
"63844",
"189303",
"387573",
"111240",
"37269",
"507000",
"587737",
"305179",
"378154",
"535566",
"26578",
"258121",
"595564",
"315363",
"340329",
"535817",
"171123",
"558701",
"252629",
"552713",
"145270",
"545153",
"209493",
"335774",
"263965",
"276906",
"381102",
"294212",
"311423",
"201863",
"17765",
"495697",
"517810",
"71276",
"261389",
"470549",
"458485",
"30090",
"473581",
"54019",
"564709",
"500985",
"326836",
"417460",
"104239",
"528363",
"596714",
"249839",
"258141",
"158",
"372294",
"88196",
"577251",
"206109",
"340435",
"117286",
"366753",
"373192",
"369677",
"461416",
"268914",
"361114",
"61026",
"398131"
] |
[
"\"As an addendum to PeterK's answer, once upon a time, there were many Savings and Loan Associations (S&Ls) that acted as small banks, accepting savings deposits from people and lending money for home mortgages to local residents. Some of these S&Ls were chartered Federally with deposits insured by the FSLIC (similar to the FDIC which still insures deposits in banks) while others had State charters and used the State equivalent of FSLIC as the insurer. To induce people to save with S&Ls instead of banks, S&Ls paid higher rates of interest on their savings accounts than banks were permitted to do on bank savings accounts. Until 1980, S&Ls were not permitted to make consumer or commercial loans, have checking accounts, issue credit cards, etc., but once the US Congress in its wisdom permitted this practice, this part of the business boomed. (Note for @RonJohn: Prior to 1980, S&Ls offered NOW accounts on which \"\"checks\"\" (technically, Negotiated Orders of Withdrawal) could be written but they were not checks in the legal sense, and many S&Ls did not return these paid \"\"checks\"\" with the monthly statement as all banks did; writing a \"\"check\"\" while pressing hard created a carbon copy that could be used as proof of payment). In just a few years' time, many S&Ls crashed because they were not geared to handle the complexities of the new things that they were permitted to do, and so ran into trouble with bad loans as well as outright fraud by S&L management and boards of directors etc. After the disappearance of most S&Ls, many small banks (often with State charters only) sprang up, and that's why there are so many banks in the US. Mortgage lending is a lucrative business (if done right), and everyone wants to get into the business. Note that 4 branches of Bank of America in a Florida town is not a sign of many banks; the many different banks that the OP noticed in Maine is.\"",
"Actually it seems you are not quite correct about the number of different banks in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_and_credit_unions_in_Canada According to this link there are 82-86 banks in Canada plus credit unions. This may still be lower than what would correspond to the number of banks in the US, scaled for canadian population. One further reason not mentioned before could be that the population density in Canada outside of the metropolitan areas could be lower than in the US, leaving to few small towns large enough (10,000+ (a guess corrected due to comment)) to support a bank.",
"\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \"\"good\"\" online service, \"\"great\"\" phone service, \"\"great\"\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \"\"walk in\"\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \"\"better\"\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \"\"big bank\"\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \"\"small bank\"\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \"\"brands\"\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\"",
"Ya small local banks effectively do not exist in Canada. We do however have a number of credit unions. I'm actually going to be defensive of the big five as they are actually well run (or rather well regulated). Our banking context is in many ways radically different up north.",
"Large businesses are, in every model, considered to be less likely to default, and Lehman brothers etc notwithstanding, this is historically correct. However, this is still stupid, since the diversification of lending money to many small businesses is way better. This, in turn, is not mapped properly by the regulations on reserve capital. Tl;dr: Banks get punished by regulations if they lend money to small institutions instead of large ones.",
"\"I can't find a citation, but from memory (EDIT: and reading the newspapers at the time it happened): up until around 1980, banks couldn't cross state borders. In my state, at least, they were also very local, only staying within one county. This was to enforce \"\"localness\"\", the thought being that local bankers would know local people and the local situation better than far away people who only see numbers and paperwork.\"",
"Wikipedia has a good summary: Historically, branch banking in the United States - especially interstate branch banking - was viewed unfavorably by regulatory authorities, and this was codified with the enactment of the McFadden Act of 1927, which specifically prohibited interstate banking. Over the next few decades, some banks attempted to circumvent McFadden's provisions by establishing bank holding companies that operated so-called independent banks in multiple states. To address this, The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from having branches in any other state. Most interstate banking prohibitions were repealed by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Research has also found that anticompetitive state provisions restricted out-of-state growth when those provisions were more restrictive than the provisions set by the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act or by neighboring states. Some states have also had restrictive bank branch laws; for example, Illinois outlawed branches (other than the main office) until 1967, and did not allow an unlimited number until 1993.",
"In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around.",
"Capital requirements for a de novo bank, as opposed to an established one, are a real bitch. Basically the government wont let you loan nearly as much of your money out. You can't skirt this by buying an existing bank. Regulators don't want upstarts making stupid loans and thus encouraging lower credit criteria systemwide. Also Incumbents don't want more competition and they have lobbyists so I don't see this changing soon.",
"I'd add that bigger banks tend to have experience doing more complicated things. As an example, my local credit union (~12 offices), simply didn't have the software to wire money to a Canadian bank, as where Chase did. The Canadian routing number wasn't in the format of a US institution, and their software user interface just didn't allow for that number to be entered. Also, most smaller banks don't have international toll free (in-country) numbers for foreign access. Smaller banks also tend to have less sophisticated business banking tools and experience. If you take a Treasury bond approval to a small bank, they'll generally look at you like you have three heads. So the international side of things is definitely in the favor of big banks; they have a lot more money to dump on services.",
"\"The most succinct answer is \"\"Banks are in the Money business\"\". Not construction, not real estate, not any of the other things they may find find themselves sometimes being dragged (foreclosure) or tempted (construction) into. \"\"Money\"\" is their core competence, and as good business people they recognize that straying outside that just dilutes their focus.\"",
"\"Small community banks are absolutely vital to our economy. Plenty of people these days talk about \"\"buying local,\"\" but you never hear them talking about banking local. My friends, for the most part, lean left of center politically, so they constantly complain about Wal-Mart and other large brick and mortar chains, but when I called them out on their banking by asking them to pull out their debit cards, they all banked with larger banks; Chase, PNC, Key; the only person (beside myself) who didn't bank with a large national/multi - national bank uses Huntington, which is still a very large regional bank with over $100 billion in assets. They said they didn't want to have to pay ATM fees, to which I responded that many community banks will reimburse the customer for those fees up to a certain amount (like my bank does.) They just shrugged and said they liked the convenience of it, so I asked them why do they think people shop at Wal-Mart? I didn't really get a good answer to that; they just said \"\"it's different.\"\" The best way to invest in your community is to bank with a local community bank. Those mom and pop shops you love so much; the plumber who lives down the street; the micro brewery that just opened up all do their banking with the local community bank.\"",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/06/american_bankin.html) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The importance of the unit banking laws is obvious when you consider than Canada had no bank failures during the Great Depression, despite a similar fall in NGDP. Today, that sort of decline in NGDP would wipe out virtually the entire US banking system. > The pattern is that the governments, on the one hand, protects banks in the forms of deposit insurance or government bailouts when a crisis happens, or give banks certain opportunities. > The way the governments get the banks to subsidize mortgage risk is by protecting the banks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fcfck/american_banking_socialism_or_laissezfaire/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~136658 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Bank**^#1 **government**^#2 **deposit**^#3 **lend**^#4 **more**^#5\"",
"\"They're over-regulated, but no sifi favors 0 regulation - that's fucking stupid and breaks the \"\"stable\"\" state of competitive universal banking. But consumers are suffering because the regulations are so fucking stupid and costly. It's a bunch of academia-branded lawyers imposing regulations on 30-50 year bankers. That wouldn't go well anywhere. Most bankers have different views - Kashkari is a Goldman guy who wants to break all the big banks up into regional competitors. If that happens, your deposits will have a higher return window, but then you actually have a daily risk to your deposits in the name of competition...I mean, fuck that.\"",
"I would have been tempted to dismiss your claim, but the data I found shows that you're correct. On the plus side, the growth rate in credit union market share is higher in New York than it is in California. While there is no question that bankers hate credit unions, I can't tell you why credit unions have a smaller market share in NY. Maybe the regulatory environment is part of it. Banks have a big lobby, and they pay a lot of taxes in NYC.",
"\"Nearly every country has its own exchange because so many countries have their own currency, and currency permeates every part of an exchange's business. Generally, an exchange will support transaction and settlement only in local currency. Securities (except those that explicitly enable FX trading) are denominated and will trade in a single currency-- you can only buy a share of IBM in U.S. dollars. Securities trading always seeks to be a clean, frictionless, scalable process, and adding cross-currency translation to the mix would just complicate things. So it's one exchange, one currency. In most countries, citizens and even businesses are largely restricted to having bank accounts in local currency. There are various political reasons for this, but there it is: it is difficult or impossible to open a domestic bank account in a foreign-denominated currency. A public company headquartered in a given country will be required to publish financial statements in local currency, will be more likely to do business with the local citizenry and businesses in that currency, and so will likely look for investors from that same pool-- which generally means listing in local currency, which means on an exchange in that country. There are exceptions, of course. Big multinationals do business all over the world, and many seek investors all over the world as well. Mechanisms have been created to permit this (American Depositary Receipts or ADRs, for example). But once again, cross-currency translation makes things more complicated, so ADRs and their like are only practical for very big international players. As to why there may be many exchanges in a single country, IMO Nick R has it right. Read \"\"Flash Boys\"\"; many market makers profit from trading between exchanges, and so have an interest in there being many of them. And in the U.S., regulators have expressed an interest in \"\"innovation\"\" in the exchange space, and so permit them. There is also an argument to be made against having a single \"\"Too Big To Fail\"\" exchange just like the argument for banks, but I wouldn't call that a \"\"reason\"\" for the current state of affairs.\"",
"In Scotland, each bank issues its own separate notes. It's not uncommon to see identical-valued £10 notes, for example, from three different banks in one's wallet.",
"There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!",
"How can banks be expected to make good decisions when they are not responsible for creating their own reserve? Do you think that the banking system could run without FDIC? And why? And what is your opinion on local banking vs. big corp banking?",
"Well, it seems you can't answer the question. Perhaps the difference in types of banks isn't so dry, is it, you dumb fuck. But go ahead an double down on being an ignorant idiot who thinks he knows it all. If you get into politics it will serve you well.",
"But what creates more business owners? They don't pop up out of the ground, and there are always lots of people that want to make their own business. Businesses need capital, they need startup funds. Angel investors, VCs and banks provide the capital.",
"http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:",
"No, what I'm saying is that the extant regulations have created such massive overheads to compliance that *only* big businesses can operate in that market because of the expenses required to be compliant. Eliminating that overhead would reduce expenses and make it possible for a greater diversity of firms to exist, reducing the *average size of any individual firm*, and increasing stability through diversity.",
"\"In the US, this was the case during the 19th century. There was a system of \"\"subscriptions\"\" between banks, where larger banks backed the smaller banks to some extent. In trade, notes from distant banks were not accepted or discounted relative to known local banks, or silver/gold coinage. There were a number of problems with this system which came to a head during the Panic of 1907. During this crisis, a cascading series of banking failures was only stopped by the personal intervention of JP Morgan. Even when Morgan intervened, it was very difficult to make capital available in a way that avoided the panic. The subsequent creation of the Federal Reserve was a response to that crisis.\"",
"When the market isn't allowed to favor one currency (provider) over another, there must be a central authority with the power to regulate, provide, and insure it. People don't learn the dangers of fractional reserve banking and the resulting expansions and contractions of the money supply when the providers of the currency aren't allowed to fall, taking the savings of depositors with them. Insuring people against the dangers of mismanaged money guarantees the mismanagement of money.",
"> Conglomerates have no interest in gaining control of tiny businesses through loan collateral. Yes they do, at least in China. China has very low farm labor productivity by developed nations status. Agribusiness would be very profitable in China. **The reason why it's in check is because it would make hundreds of millions of farmers redundant**, so the government prevents the industry from encroaching too much.",
"Yeah, and what blows my mind most is that there was a very easy out for regulatory relief that would have actually brought us closer to compliance with BCBS rules. In the US the threshold for Basel rules is $50B in assets, while under Basel III and in most of the world its €250B. Just adopting this standard would give small banks relief. As an aside, the new law would also make it harder for the Fed to adopt the Basel III finalization rules, which are incredibly advantageous to US banks and which we fought hard for.",
"The Livret A is a very specific product. It's tax-exempt and would historically not be available through regular banks. Commercial banks can now offer it but they only collect the money on behalf of the Caisse des dépôts (CDC). The CDC then pays interest to the savers and a commission for the bank. The commission is baked into the system, not charged to the customer directly but since the interest rate is set centrally, banks cannot compete on that. So this is risk-free money for them (but on the flip side it does not help them meet capital adequacy requirements). Other savings account or products have different rules. Another angle to consider is that a livret A was historically very attractive for consumers (and was certainly perceived as such) so that many people would have a checking account at a regular bank and another account at the Caisse d'épargne or the Banque postale just to open a livret A. For commercial banks, the alternative therefore isn't having your money on your checking account vs. your livret A or another savings account, it was having your money on a livret A they administer vs. seeing you run away to another institution. There is also a cap on the livret A and you're not allowed to save more money by opening several of them at different banks. At the same time banks have been complaining that the decrease of the interest rate (and consequently of their commission) makes the whole scheme a lot less interesting for them. For what it's worth, I recently (re)opened a bank account in France after living abroad for a long time and the customer advisor did not seem particularly interested in pushing a livret A.",
"It's not too difficult. Every state has a few local banks that don't do this shit and with new current technology most have apps and allow you to deposit money without going to the bank itself. Yeah you don't have an ATMs everywhere but the need for ATMs deacreses each year. My local bank will even refunds me ATM charges up to 100$ a year.",
"Part 1 Quite a few [or rather most] countries allow USD account. So there is no conversion. Just to illustrare; In India its allowed to have a USD account. The funds can be transfered as USD and withdrawn as USD, the interest is in USD. There no conversion at any point in time. Typically the rates for CD on USD account was Central Bank regulated rate of 5%, recently this was deregulated, and some banks offer around 7% interest. Why is the rate high on USD in India? - There is a trade deficit which means India gets less USD and has to pay More USD to buy stuff [Oil and other essential items]. - The balance is typically borrowed say from IMF or other countries etc. - Allowing Banks to offer high interest rate is one way to attract more USD into the country in short term. [because somepoint in time they may take back the USD out of India] So why isn't everyone jumping and making USD investiments in India? - The Non-Residents who eventually plan to come back have invested in USD in India. - There is a risk of regulation changes, ie if the Central Bank / Country comes up pressure for Forex Reserves, they may make it difficut to take back the USD. IE they may impose charges / taxes or force conversion on such accounts. - The KYC norms make it difficult for Indian Bank to attract US citizens [except Non Resident Indians] - Certain countries would have explicit regulations to prevent Other Nationals from investing in such products as they may lead to volatility [ie all of them suddenly pull out the funds] - There would be no insurance to foreign nationals. Part 2 The FDIC insurance is not the reason for lower rates. Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes. The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid. Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury. So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail]. Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well. Part 3 Check out the regulations",
"Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low. Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account. The bank must maintain branches with tellers. The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities). The bank has to pay salaries. The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change. And pay for insurance against robbery. All of that costs money. At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money. Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out. At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin. They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts. An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees. But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable. So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead. UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed.",
"Exactly what kind of regulations are you talking about here? Regulation in the form of licensing for doctors and lawyers is one thing, but what are you implying in regulation stopping competition for other types of business? As for the profit, I would say there are a lot of contributing factors, Globalization being a big one. Edit: No need to downvote, just asking for clarification...",
"Because people who work with practical skills work for their own means, and not for corporations. The banks are HEAVILY invested in Corporations. The banks are also HEAVILY invested in debt. Our entire system is orchestrated by the banks. They want a workforce that is highly specialized and in debt- this ensures that they are entirely dependent on Corporate jobs for money to pay debts and on big agro for their food.... It's all a trap. Any one want to blow off the Corporations and go live/work directly for our own needs on a homestead/commune farm?",
"\"The problem is \"\"what would have been\"\" without regulations. A good cause and effect is the Durbin amendment to DFA - they randomly regulated interchange debit card transactions (win for Walmart, loss for banks) so it no longer makes sense to offer free checking to poor people. WMT wins, banking loses, poor people lose. The other issue is maxing out regulations actually makes the system more frail as it promotes consolidation in the sector. Consultants love it - tons of free, easy, no thought work.\"",
"\"because bankers are crooks is a very close answer. Just accept the truth that financial industry is the only service industry that could turn into giant parasite chopping pieces from real economy. I am not anti-financial, because greed is not banker's fault, but just one significant part of human nature. Every human being has greed and fear built in it. But financial industry is the only one which is built on exploiting greed and fear. Governments are throwing gasoline canister into that fire in desperate extinguish attempts, trying to \"\"regulate\"\" but only making it worse. With all that \"\"counter-cybercrime\"\", \"\"counter-terrorism\"\" and \"\"counter-everything\"\" efforts, ordinary people will be hurt as always.\"",
"\"This is unfortunately the truth, and I spend a lot of time with my clients trying to help them through this process. One of the key metrics that banks judge themselves on is \"\"products per household.\"\" The more things you have attached to them, the less likely you are to leave, and they deliberately tie you in with more and more services, e.g. direct deposit, billpay, debit cards, credit cards, etc. If you want to switch but are held back by the daunting task of all the stuff you need to do, it's easier than most people think, and bankers at those smaller banks who are getting your accounts should be more than happy to do about 80% of the work for you. *The other 20% can only be done by you personally due to privacy laws, but your banker can guide you through that too. A prime example: A customer of mine wanted to switch, but he didn't want to go to the old bank to actually wait in line and go through with the nonsense of actually closing the account. I see that anxiety over confrontation a lot, by the way. So I have saved on my desktop a form letter is a simple request by the customer to close their account at 2B2F bank. They sign it, I notarize it, and send it off to the branch. The branch of receipt has to close the account per the request. Before we send that letter, we get everything set up with the new bank, draw the old one down to $10 or so, and give instructions to the old bank to remit a check payable to the customer and mail it to me. Then the old account is closed, and I just deposit that nominal amount into the customer's account. The customer literally never has to set foot in the old bank again. The unfortunate thing is that not everyone knows that these kinds of things are even possible: that your banker should help you with this stuff, or that you can do pretty much everything remotely. Plus, if you look at the smaller banks and CUs these days, they have eliminated the need or ubiquity (i.e. \"\"but their ATMs are everywhere!\"\") because a good bank or CU will never allow you to get charged to get your money, they will give you the direct line and email address of your branch manager, and a lot of places have mobile apps that allow you to deposit checks remotely.\"",
"There is absolutely no logical reason why each nation does not own and control banking and thus the supply of money. Any system including the financial system works exactly the same way, regardless of ownership. Banking depends solely on the confidence of the customers/investors. Therefore when a sovereign nation/state has ownership of the banks, the profits are kept in-house, within the nation, which is actually a bonus, and taxes can be off-set by profits, which is another benefit. Any improvement or benefit by the private ownership of banking is a total myth.",
"Another thing to factor in are deals provided by banks. In general, banks care about new customers more than their existing customers. Hence they explicitly restrict the best deals on credit cards, savings accounts, etc, to new customers only. (Of course, there are occasionally good deals for existing customers, and some banks choose not to discriminate.) If you have many different bank accounts, you are making yourself unavailable for switching bonuses and introductory rates.",
"Many of the Financial intermediaries in the business, have extraordinary high requirements for opening an account. For example to open an account in Credit Suisse one will need 1 million US dollars.",
"\"Traditional banks don't put their money onto the stock markets. In fact, the economic crisis was in part caused by the fact that banks were placing money into higher-risk portfolios and doing just that: in the UK there has been a debate for the last few years specifically around \"\"firewalling\"\" retail and investment bank operations entirely. What I was discussing was in the retail/consumer sector where the money comes in as mortgages & secured loans and - slightly riskier - unsecured credit, credit cards, etc. In that model, you do not need to be a genius. If I lend you $20k to buy a car and you don't repay me my money plus 8%, I get the car and therefore am unlikely to be seriously out of pocket. The only thing I have to do is make sure I lend to people likely to repay more often than I do to those who will not. And that, well, that's something we've got a few hundred years of experience with... If I walk onto the NYSE and start throwing around my cash at put option on exotic FX markets that are in turn responding to conditions almost impossible to truly understand, well, I'm sure we'd agree that it's hard to beat the market. That's why the investment banks who specialise in that market don't invest their own money: they make money from investing other people's cash. Clever guys. So we need to understand here there are two very different kinds of banks, with two very different business models, and it was the mixing of them that led to the disaster we've seen. Firewalling them makes sense to me! Communists who think banks are making money out of thin air don't seem to understand that, and so it's not surprising that they seem confused about what a bank is actually there for. Those who do get these two models must see that a retail bank is there to provide finance based on savings held and investment banks are there to help people invest in riskier markets. That does not mean they are \"\"magic\"\" or \"\"evil\"\". Now, they might argue that fractional reserve banking is a problem. I would imagine many of them would prefer the credit union model instead, but that's a different debate: that's the mechanics and detail, not the institutional need for existence.\"",
"Note that this is just looking at public firms, whose numbers have declined while the overall number of firms has increased. It would be interesting to compare their profits to GDP, that might be a better measure to find out whether profits are more concentrated than they used to be. Also note: > However, what could indeed be a deterrent—especially for smaller companies—is that the US Congress wields far more regulatory power over public companies than private ones, note the authors.",
"Although I do not know about US Institutions; In India Banks have adopted a mix of features that mitigate the risk. Some ways that are used are;",
"I'm always hesitant to use local credit unions because I love accessing all atms fee free, having services available 24/7, having robust, safe and audited online services, and having a big enough bank that all major third party tools interface with it. Joe Schmo Local Credit Union has a lot of good services, but audited and secure online banking? No fee nationwide ATMs? Native interfacing to major tools? I just don't see it often. I shudder to think of the security at small bank websites, frankly.",
"Since making loans isn't 'casino banking', I'm going to start a small, regional lending institution that just lends money to people to buy homes. I really want to open up home ownership to a larger group of people, maybe those who wouldn't qualify for traditional loans. I'm just not sure whether to call it Washington Federal or Countrywide Financial.",
"\"This is 100% accurate: \"\"Conversely, an industry with two or three firms can be more competitive than one with 50, such as supermarkets or online platforms like Uber where economies of scale can enhance competition between fewer but healthier players. The last 40-plus years of economic research is clear: Simply counting the number of firms in an industry tells you very little about competition.\"\"\"",
"For small amounts I wouldn't be too concerned. There are two factors I can think of: For relatively small amounts and when dealing with reputable banking institutions there should be little concern of banking with a single bank. It's what most people do.",
"Financial Aid - the government gives you better interest rates and is a better lender. Credit Cards - are for idiots. Mortgage and Loans - Credit Unions give a much better deal. They actually re-invest in the community. You can take you big banks and shove em' up your ass.",
"\"First off, I originally brought up Wells Fargo to show that big banks may not want to open the floodgates for lower level employees and management to have free reign to profit off customers in less than responsible ways. I didn't mean or want to get into a debate about past govt. oversight of Wells Fargo's practices. [But to your point:](https://www.housingwire.com/articles/39782-cordray-answers-charges-that-cfpb-didnt-take-lead-on-wells-fargo-scandal) >He explained that the bureau first received a whistleblower tip in July 2013. The exposé by the LA Times wasn’t published until December. > >Cordray did add that the LA Times coverage was a “splendid piece of investigative reporting” and that investigative reporting often aides government investigations. > >After that first whistleblower tip, Cordray explained that the Wells Fargo case over time grew into something bigger. > >As the CFPB watched Wells Fargo through 2014 and 2015 in supervisory activity, it became clear the situation was serious enough to migrate into an enforcement action, he said. I'm not sure what you're talking about here: >And what are you talking about freedom to \"\"compete\"\" against the big guys? What are you even talking about and how is that freedom threatened? I'm saying they *will* have freedom to compete in ways that may have negative impact on clients who have chosen to move their investments from bigger banks to smaller ones. As for the list of \"\"positives\"\" you gave surrounding this bill, [there are also negatives:](http://fortune.com/2017/06/07/financial-choice-act/) >Congress this week is considering the Choice Act, which would roll back regulations enacted after the 2007 financial crisis, particularly those designed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Yet, the legislation goes even further and limits consumer access to information that could help them make better choices. > >One of the hallmarks of conservative regulatory philosophy is that educated and empowered consumers are preferable to government bureaucrats, regulations, and prohibitions. Yet, the conservatives in the House of Representatives appears ready to pass the CHOICE Act this week and in the process legally prohibit publishing data the government collects on consumer complaints on financial services. This is a mistake and would cost consumers and businesses. It would also go against the universal values of fair markets and informed consumers. But [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/business/dealbook/house-financial-regulations-dodd-frank.html) is what I find most concerning: >The bill would also eliminate the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, which requires brokers to act in the best interest of their clients when providing investment advice about retirement. The first parts of the rule are scheduled to go into effect on Friday. The rule was completed last spring under Mr. Obama after years of development. My point, before you started arguing something different, was that larger banks often *need* the oversight conducted by their customers and the government in order to help them nip bad practices in the bud before it becomes a much larger issue. This may not be as much of an issue for smaller banks, but in the end, they all deal in the same industry and present the same danger to their customers if things go bad and employees don't take their intrinsic fiduciary responsibility seriously.\"",
"Good read. I do wish there were more stats on the issues associated with geographic concentration touched upon in the article. For example, how are the economic gains of being in an urbanized environment mitigated by the costs associated with traffic jams, urban poverty and crime? What would happen to the economy of the US if those inefficient small cities kept declining, how would it have to change?",
"How do credit unions work in the US? Why not just get rid of deposit insurance for commercial banks and keep it for credit unions. Restrict credit unions ability to filter money to the new 'investment bank' sector by keeping them out of repo and money markets (not sure if this is done currently) and bang - Corporates/institutions can still lend short and banks can still lend long in the professional world, while unsophisticated retail customer's checking accounts at least are protected from the inevitable crash.",
"\"In the United States, many banks aim to receive $ 100 per year per account in fees and interest markup. There are several ways that they can do this on a checking account. These examples assume that there is a 3 % difference between low-interest-rate deposit accounts and low-interest rate loans. Or some combination of these markups that adds up to $ 100 / year. For example: A two dollar monthly fee = $ 24 / year, plus a $ 2,000 average balance at 0.05% = $ 29 / year, plus $ 250 / month in rewards debit card usage = $ 24 / year, plus $ 2 / month in ATM fees = $ 24 / year. Before it was taken over by Chase Manhattan in 2008, Washington Mutual had a business strategy of offering \"\"free\"\" checking with no monthly fees, no annual fees, and no charges (by Washington Mutual) for using ATMs. The catch was that the overdraft fees were not free. If the customers averaged 3 overdraft fees per year at $ 34 each, Washington Mutual reached its markup target for the accounts.\"",
"Another reason is that the amount of unused credit you have is a positive factor on your credit score. It's generally easier to open several different accounts for $X dollars each with different banks than to get your current bank to raise your limit severalfold in a single go. Your current bank has to worry about why you suddenly are asking for a large additional amount of credit; while other banks will be willing to offer you smaller amounts of credit in the hope that you transfer your business from your current bank to them.",
">I would imagine that given any lack of compulsory regulation, that Americans are using whatever means of payment that suits them. I'd agree, it's almost entirely about competition and consumer protections in areas like banking outside of the US rather than compulsory regulation pushing people to use particular approaches. I run a company in the UK, processing cheques is expensive and awkward (its a manual process, it costs money at basically all points of the process and is more likely to result in a failed payment) for me compared to almost every other method of payment, so I prefer (and actively encourage) the use of electronic payments instead. I can do that because my bank doesn't charge extra for processing electronic payments, in fact it's now cheaper to process them than cheques. That also makes sense from the banks perspective given it costs more money for them to maintain, offer and process cheque payments (to the point that they are already essentially converting them into electronic payments by scanning..). It's not Americans being backward, it's US banks. I doubt that if you had safe, secure, cheap and reliable electronic payment facilities, with the same level of protection and control as with a cheque, most Americans would take the same approach as they do elsewhere (After all, its convenient..).",
"A typical manufacturer buys raw materials, produces a product using labor and energy at a specific cost with some waste, and then sells the product to produce income. A bank buys raw materials (deposits) by paying interest, then uses labor and energy to turn a portion of the raw materials into their product (loans), they then receive income (interest) on those loans. If the income exceeds the cost to buy and produce the loans taking into account losses due to delinquencies (waste) the bank company has made a profit. The growing profits can lead to an increase in stock prices or the paying of dividends. The search for more raw materials can lead to paying more for the raw materials, or by buying other factories (branches) or even other bank companies.",
"> accessing all atms fee free, having services available 24/7, having robust, safe and audited online services, and having a big enough bank that all major third party tools interface with it. You just described my single state credit union I've been with for 19 years now, and not the big bank I was with before (Wells Fargo).",
"Subsidies are anti-competitice practices. Its the government picking winners and losers over the market's preference. Just like onerous regulations. Smaller companies aren't able to hire the overhead required to keep up with them, and are therefore fined out of existences due to this countries staggering regulatory burden.",
"Yeah, seriously. Cheating your customers has always been part of the core business of the major banks. How would they maintain their high CEO compensation without that extra money? They need to be competitive in executive level compensation to attract the kind of candidates that will keep their bank pulling in the money needed to pay themselves.",
"Modern banking is operated under central banking which is critical for maintaing a stable keynsian economy. Without central banking the economy is prone to the boom and bust cycle typical of early twentieth industrialization. Our money is not backed by 'nothing' it is backed by the faith and credit of the governments issuing them. Private banks don't issue anything. What fractional reserve banking does is say that for ever X amount of dollars you have in your vaults you can make Y amount of loans. This ratio is set by the central bank in what is called the reserve ratio. If the Fed sets the reserve ratio at 10% and they know the US economy has $10 trillion in circulation than $100 trillion dollars is going to eventually emerge through fractional reserve banking. This explains inflation. Of course the central bank could also raise the reserve ratio forcing banks to call in existing loans. This is deflation. Now if you're a bank and have $1 million dollars in the bank, a reserve ratio of 10% means you can make up to $10 million in loans without getting in trouble with the Fed. If the bank makes $10 million in loans and only recuperate $9 million in loans than they fall below the 10% reserve rate ratio and become insolvent, prior to 2008 these banks would go bankrupt, but the Fed has evolved it's roll into either bailing a bank out for it to recover and learn from it's mistakes or to let it go bankrupt. All people's deposits at these banks however are safe up to $250,000 thanks to the FDIC to protect from bank runs typical of the early twentieth century that intensified boom and bust cycles. Please don't bring in the Federal Reserve into this unless you want me to prove how stupid you are even more. I'm poor broke college student with nothing better to do with my time than to win internet arguments right now, you can't win. **Too stupid, didn't read: banks need to make successful loans or they go out of business, they don't create anything out of thin air. They just listen to whatever the central bank tells them what to do.**",
"\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"",
"Pay attention to nickel-and-dime charges (atm fees, low balance fees, limit on atm transactions per month, charge for human teller transaction, charge for paper statements or tax records). Consider that a financial company will spend on the order of $100-500 to sign up a good customer. Are you getting this in a cash bonus, competitive high interest rate, reasonable other gift, or advertising directed at your eyeballs? A variation in rates less than 1% easily fits into a marketing cost and there doesn't have to be any other magic to it.",
"\"The real reason credit cards are so popular in the US is that Americans are lazy and broke, and the credit card companies know how to market to that. Have you ever heard of the $30k millionaires? These were individuals that purchased as if they were some of the wealthy elite, but had no real money to back it up. American society has pushed the idea of \"\"living on credit\"\" for quite some time now. An idea that is even furthered by watching the US government operate solely on credit. (Raise the debt ceiling much?) Live in America for more than six months and you will be bombarded with \"\"Pre-Approved Deals\"\" with low introductory rates that are designed to sucker the average consumer into opening multiple accounts that they don't need. Then, they try and get you to carry a balance by allowing low minimum payments that could take in the neighborhood of 20 years to pay off, depending on carried balance. This in turn pads the credit companies' pockets with all of the interest you now pay on the account. The few truly wealthy Americans do not purchase on credit.\"",
"How often do you need to actually go to a bank? atm's, debit and credit cards work where ever. you can even deposit checks by taking a picture of them. dealing with cash would be more troublesome though.",
"The one those investors said 'hey instead of pricing Tesla 10 years out, we will pool in and create jobs, by founding a $5b bank with locations nationwide'. I use them because they give great rates at places I shop. Such as if I buy a new tv from that new company founded by that hedge fund that pulled out of netflixes 10 year pricing and started an electronics firm I save 25%!!",
"Stop defending banks. At the time of the 08 melt down, they opened up multiple ways for large financial institutions to borrow money either for collateral (usually shit assets) or with interest rates akin to free or near free. Do you know what that means? Free money. Borrow money for free, buy treasuries and profit. Who didn't have access? Those that didn't have the inside track in the Fed and in the upper levels of the U.S. government. That's why Lehman went under and Goldman, JPM, even GE (due to finance division) didn't go under. Far far too many people upvote pro corporate comments when they aren't even remotely accurate just because their worldview is that the world is just. How silly.",
"Idk why Banks are so opposed to holding just a bit more capital. It helps them avoid becoming suddenly insolvent should something happen. It's like they only care about personal short term gain and care little about being in the game for the long term.",
"Quite the opposite, crony capitalism has caused all of these problems. Big cable? Subsidized. Big oil? Subsidized. Big banks? Bailed out. And the tax code changes they're putting through now, why do you suppose this is being done? The US has the highest statutory corporate rate in the developed world, on small and large businesses. This is anti-competitive because in order avoid steep rates you need to hire big teams of tax lawyers, accountants, and other overhead to handle the paperwork and manage liability for you. Not only that, but its to the point now where most business decisions are not undertaken with the heath of the company in mind, but with great consideration to how it will effect the company's tax liability.",
"They don't need to accept deposits from normal persons, but that's how they make lots of money. Banks make money off the fees they charge retailers when those folks swipe their debit cards at the retailer. It's their bread and butter. In order to facilitate you accruing swipe fees for them, they need to allow you to make deposits, on which they can charge the retailers swipe fees.",
"On your first point, banks (or any large company) is primarily concerned with maintaining profits. I'm very familiar with this dynamic in media with broadcast vs streaming. They will try hard to charge as much as possible to sustain the stock price, while competitors will be as aggressive as possible to capture market share. This always happens with every industry that gets disrupted. The new entrants will permanently eat away at bank profits, whether they adapt or not. No comment on your second point. Possibly true, but I don't personally assume that yet.",
"I mean, when the federal government can pull your bank charter and the FDIC can revoke your government insurance, it's not worth the benefit just to support some small town pot grower. It's likely to be this way until the federal government legalizes it or gives outright approval to the banks.",
"Banking is highly regulated, but you may want to have a look at Basel II which is kind of an international standard on how to create banking regulations. Your country/state may have considered this when creating its own local regulation; the United States do.",
"\"I agree -- personally, at the expense of some of the convenience you speak of, I use credit unions exclusively. However, my credit union more than makes up for that with 1) online check deposit (only thing you ever need to go to a bank for) 2) ATM fee reimbursement With those two amenities, I don't need a branch on every corner. I am pretty disappointed with BofA's practices (profiting off of those who are \"\"less responsible\"\" -- to me it's wrong to profit off of people's 'stupidity'), so I would never bank with them. It's just a personal preference because 1) I don't need them and 2) I wouldn't want to indirectly support their business. I can understand why people stick with them, and frankly don't really care, to be honest... I just think they're a fundamentally bad company through and through and would rather keep my money away from them.\"",
"> The vast majority of companies in the US are small businesses This is a fairly useless measure. Example: Imagine if there was one company that hired 1 billion people. And 99 companies that hired 1 person each. You can now say that 99% of companies are small businesses. Which is true, but 99.9999999% of people don't work for a small business, they work for a large business. The small businesses are inconsequential.",
"\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"",
"There are several reasons why credit cards are popular in the US: On the other hand, debit cards do not have any of these going for them. A debit card doesn't make much money for the bank unless you overdraw or something, so banks don't have incentive to push you to use them as much. As a result they don't offer rewards other benefits. Some people say the ability to spend more than you have is a downside of a credit card. But it's really an upside. The behavior of doing that when it isn't needed is bad, but that's not the card's fault, it's the users'. You can get a credit card with a very small limit if this is an issue for you. The question I find interesting is why debit cards are more popular in your home country. I can't think of any advantage they offer besides free cash back. But most people in the US don't use cash much either. I have to think in your home country the banks have a different revenue model or perhaps your country isn't as eager to offer tons of easy credit to everyone as the US is.",
"Go to bankrate dot com. They will have a lot of metrics there that might give you an idea and rate each category. Capitalization and profitability metrics. May not be as granular as what you are looking for though.",
"The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades. The risks would be large.",
"Politicians are for sale and regulations are useless when they are not enforced. Community banks and credit unions have to comply or get hammered by the state and federal governments. The mega banks soldier on under an utterly feckless and corrupt congress. People should never pay fees or credit card interest, pay off their loans, and get out from under banker's thumbs. They are giant impoverishing machines.",
"All unsubstantiated opinions. >there is no such thing as a relation between any interest rates and the cost to service the loans Really. No relation whatsoever? And your background in finance letting you understand this is what? Are you telling me every bank of the [7,213](http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/) independent banks are in cahoots and none of them compete based on prices and services? Can you give me precise evidence that all those independent banks are not in competition? What should the price be for capital if the current prices are incorrect, and tell me why.",
"The best answer is, I think, also the simplest: A bank is an entity which performs maturity transformation. (Conversely, any entity that performs maturity transformation is acting as a bank, regardless of whether it is called one or is regulated as one. And an entity which does not perform maturity transformation isn't really a bank.) Maturity transformation is the process by which a bank accepts short-term deposits, and makes long-term loans. The benefit to society is fairly obvious; we (collectively) like being able to take out mortgages, but we also like having our money in a checking account and available on demand. Banks allow this to happen, although property bubbles and similar make it clear that this isn't without cost. (Note: Central banks are a completely different kettle of fish.)",
"\"The bank provides a service that the customer voluntarily agreed to - the bank will provide funds to the customer now and the customer will pay back those funds plus interest in the future. The arragement wasn't forced onto the customer. The government, on the other hand, takes money (the exchange is not volutary) from people to provide a \"\"service\"\". This frustrates a lot of people - myself included - since people do not have a choice. They must pay the taxes or go to jail (or have their house confisicated, wages garnished, etc.). It gets even more frustrating when the government takes money from the people and gives it to the banks, auto companies, insurance companies, etc..\"",
"The big box retailers weren't really a monopoly. It was just a better business model. There were many of them and they were very competitive with each other (we'll match our competitor's price). Many of them even went out of business because the profits were driven down to such low levels.",
"The core competency of banks is to lend money from depositors and re-lend that money to borrowers. They do not have the expertise to develop real estate. They have trouble evening managing foreclosed real estate, such that they have to sell them at a discount.",
"Many reasons mentioned already. The reason why I have multiple is missing: I have a personal card for my private use and a company card for company use.",
"My favorite part about using a local credit union is, if I have an account issue, I can just call up and talk to someone who works five minutes from my house without *ever* punching numbers into an automated answering system. Good luck doing that with Bank of America.",
"It's the equivalent of you being required to keep some of your savings in a near-zero percent interest savings account vs. being able to invest and grow that capital. Even if the capital requirements were peeled back slightly, (most) banks still hold more than enough capital to absorb extreme losses. Net/net the economy is safer, but less robust than it could be.",
"In the US, I would say the risk is exactly the same. If your accounts are withing the FDIC amount (currently $250,000) your balance is 100% covered in case of a failure. You are giving up a larger network of ATMs in some cases. You are also perhaps giving up the number of branches you can visit, the hours the bank is open and maybe how well the website works. The features might be less, but the protection for your deposits is the same.",
">No, it's not. The bank can't just jack up prices when they've got competitors, after all. Yeah, you don't understand how this stuff works. The cost of changing banks is so high most people just grumble and eat it. It took a *massive* national campaign to switch to Credit Unions and *still* only 250K people did. >Again, if the bank has even one competitor who didn't suffer as much or any damage, customers aren't just going to suck it up. Again, wrong. >I'm not remotely an anarchist No wonder you seem to be somewhat more reasonable than most of them I've spoken to. >Brute force supports the existing regime. That's basically it. And the *image* that this is legitimate is what allows them to wield force without retribution.",
"\"In the US, usury is complicated and depends on the type of account, the bank charter and the where the bank makes credit decisions. Most major US credit cards are issued by entities in Utah, South Dakota and Delaware. None of these states have usury limits. Many states have usury limits. In New York, for example a loan may not exceed 16% interest, if the institution is supervised by the State. Credit card issuers are usually chartered as \"\"National Associations\"\" (ie Federally chartered banks regulated by the Comptroller of the Currency). There is no Federal usury statute, and Federally chartered banks are allowed to \"\"export\"\" many of the regulations of the state where credit decisions are made. Small states like South Dakota basically design their banking regulations to meet the needs of the banks, which are major employers.\"",
"And a large part of these kind of phenomenon that we see between the US and Europe just emerge from little initial differences which then carry out and compound themselves over time. For example, in the US, most people get their health insurance from the company they work for, because during WWII, the government obviously instituted a draft. But what is not as obvious, is that to keep wages low to keep the price of goods low, they insituted a wage freeze. The only way companies could compete and incentivize workers was through ancillary benefits. Health insurance being the most appealing.",
"maybe it would turn into an Oligopoly on it's own, but regulation as that pervasive is what I'm trying to avoid here. I advocate Worker Co-ops as the best examples for these firms because they actually allow a sense of welfare taken up by the workers who can self provide with actual trades (and because their co-ownership allows a voluntary loophole in minimum wage laws, you get a real chance to vindicate/prove Adam Smith's theory of flexible prices and wages based on economic activity.). With self-provided welfare, the Government can pull out of both transfer payments as well as financial regulations because these markets have become more differentiated to a diversity of opinions, so Government can step back and focus on its more important role of Researcher and Developer, which it tends to do better at than other roles. Firms can't do this if they are breaking even, like they would in perfect competition.",
"Here's a point in favor of central banks: With a central bank in the middle making sure payments clear, transactions can happen with near perfect trust. When a bank has a daylight overdraft, the Fed covers it. When a bank needs overnight funding, the Fed provides it. If a bank needs vault cash, a truck shows up from the Fed. Without this, no one could ever be entirely confident the other party was money-good. With a volume of transactions that can amount to annual GDP in as little as six days, this level of trust is critical to a smoothly functioning system of payments.",
"The principles behind creating and keeping those entities are reasonable, civilized, and economically sound. That being said, after seeing what the practical application became, I can't say I disagree with you. It might be a failed experiment at this point. The racial angle at the end cheapens your argument, though.",
"Suppose that the fixed overhead costs of delivering a service, not related to the actual volume of sales, are $50 million per year. Suppose the variable costs on top are $100 per customer per year. Suppose further that 1% of the population buys the service. In the US, 3.2 million people buy the service, and it costs $116 per person to deliver it ($100 plus $50 million divided by 3.2 million). In Australia, 230,000 people buy it, and it costs $317 per person per year to deliver it ($100 plus $50 million divided by 230,000). The larger your market, the cheaper everything is, and Australia is a very small market compared with the USA, the EU, China or India.",
"This is not a supply side issue (bank), but a demand side (small business) and there is simply no demand. Bank CEOs have been repeating that there is just no interest in borrowing right now, they would love to lend, but businesses are not taking the loans. Businesses are trying to firm up their balance sheets and with concerns of a recession looming most small business owners don't want to borrow and risk defaulting.",
"If a 08 crash and bailout happens again anytime soon I don't know if the banks will get to keep control this time around. Their power is directly related to the amount of capital they have and there are enough in Congress that see them as not being loyal enough to front the political capital required to refill the coffers if it is needed. I see the next bailout being the fed making a nationalization attempt.",
"Right. A banker provides a product/service, whether it be liquidity or something else, for a premium. The Rothschilds, for example (I'm only familiar with them because I like their wine), are typical examples of some of the first bankers of the modern era-- they provided the ability to exchange currencies at a market value, and it made them one of the wealthiest families of the modern world. If someone doesn't like banks, then let them walk onto the NYSE and make their own investment decisions. Which is a terrible idea because it's statistically almost impossible to beat the market. If you wanted to be able to prove that you are a successful investor you would have to have higher earnings than a market portfolio every day for around 180 years, in order to have a T-statistic of about 2.0.",
"> The racial angle at the end cheapens your argument, though. Thanks for pointing that out. Removed race and replaced with 'low income families' > The principles behind creating and keeping those entities are reasonable, civilized, and economically sound I disagree 100%. If banks did not have a big brother to bail them out of loans that went bust whenever they wanted, they would be a lot more careful in who they loaned money too. No one is promised a house and a lawn in this life. Some of us will be renters in apartments for life, and there is nothing wrong with that.",
"\"Not at these rates. The motto used to be 3/6/3: \"\"Borrow at 3%, Loan out at 6%, and then be at the golf course by 3pm\"\". So they get 3% on the spread, minus fixed costs. Now, they borrow at near 0% and loan out at slightly above 0%. Those fixed costs starts becoming an issue. It isn't cheap to have all these ATMs, bank branches, tellers, computer systems, etc. Also, a lot of the money cannot be loaned out at all because there are not enough creditworthy borrowers. You might have recalled a few months ago, several banks started charging for deposits. They don't want more money that will just lay there while they have to pay the costs of maintaining the accounts. Some bank CEOs have stated that they would be better off if the Fed raised rates up to 1%.\"",
"Your quote: There's about 10 trillion in gold and about 2.8 trillion of US cash in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world. So how was it commercial banks could lend like crazy for home mortgages?? M1 remaind constant throughout the decade and years , if frac multiplier effect was the cause for m2, why wasn't it until the 2000s that m2 became exponential? Commercial Banks able to create credit and lend out of thin air to customers thanks to deregulation that caused m2 to explode. They didn't need no FED. They didin't need no reserves. They were able to act regardless of the FED. The FED responded to them, instead of the other way around. Before deregulation banks didn't bother creating too much credit loans coz it was too dangerous, they were mostly utilty banks. After deregulation, creation of exotic derivatives, low interest rates, and high speed internet globalized digital trading, they went crazy creating credit out of thin air coz it wasn't dangerous because they could sell the home loans.",
"\"The Ponzi/Madoff schemes were closed loops, so the only source of the so-called \"\"interest\"\" on the money was the contributions of future investors. The economy is more like a living thing, and the availability of capital allows people to develop new ways to do things in a more productive way. Agriculture is a great example -- for most of human history the overwhelming majority of human labor was dedicated to producing food. Now that proportion is dramatically smaller -- the descendants of farmers 100 years ago are doctors and computer programmers... professions that could not exist. Fractional reserve banking makes the economy more efficient by putting capital that would otherwise be hoarded in circulation. Money is a medium of exchange, so the more it turns over, the better it is. Genoa and Britain pioneered this concept centuries ago, and were able to defeat larger rivals in large part because of the economic advantages that the practice brought to bear. That's not to say that banking doesn't come with its warts as well. I'd suggest reading \"\"A Free Nation Deep in Debt\"\", which does a good job of explaining how we got to where we are today.\""
] |
[
"\"As an addendum to PeterK's answer, once upon a time, there were many Savings and Loan Associations (S&Ls) that acted as small banks, accepting savings deposits from people and lending money for home mortgages to local residents. Some of these S&Ls were chartered Federally with deposits insured by the FSLIC (similar to the FDIC which still insures deposits in banks) while others had State charters and used the State equivalent of FSLIC as the insurer. To induce people to save with S&Ls instead of banks, S&Ls paid higher rates of interest on their savings accounts than banks were permitted to do on bank savings accounts. Until 1980, S&Ls were not permitted to make consumer or commercial loans, have checking accounts, issue credit cards, etc., but once the US Congress in its wisdom permitted this practice, this part of the business boomed. (Note for @RonJohn: Prior to 1980, S&Ls offered NOW accounts on which \"\"checks\"\" (technically, Negotiated Orders of Withdrawal) could be written but they were not checks in the legal sense, and many S&Ls did not return these paid \"\"checks\"\" with the monthly statement as all banks did; writing a \"\"check\"\" while pressing hard created a carbon copy that could be used as proof of payment). In just a few years' time, many S&Ls crashed because they were not geared to handle the complexities of the new things that they were permitted to do, and so ran into trouble with bad loans as well as outright fraud by S&L management and boards of directors etc. After the disappearance of most S&Ls, many small banks (often with State charters only) sprang up, and that's why there are so many banks in the US. Mortgage lending is a lucrative business (if done right), and everyone wants to get into the business. Note that 4 branches of Bank of America in a Florida town is not a sign of many banks; the many different banks that the OP noticed in Maine is.\"",
"Wikipedia has a good summary: Historically, branch banking in the United States - especially interstate branch banking - was viewed unfavorably by regulatory authorities, and this was codified with the enactment of the McFadden Act of 1927, which specifically prohibited interstate banking. Over the next few decades, some banks attempted to circumvent McFadden's provisions by establishing bank holding companies that operated so-called independent banks in multiple states. To address this, The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from having branches in any other state. Most interstate banking prohibitions were repealed by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Research has also found that anticompetitive state provisions restricted out-of-state growth when those provisions were more restrictive than the provisions set by the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act or by neighboring states. Some states have also had restrictive bank branch laws; for example, Illinois outlawed branches (other than the main office) until 1967, and did not allow an unlimited number until 1993.",
"\"I can't find a citation, but from memory (EDIT: and reading the newspapers at the time it happened): up until around 1980, banks couldn't cross state borders. In my state, at least, they were also very local, only staying within one county. This was to enforce \"\"localness\"\", the thought being that local bankers would know local people and the local situation better than far away people who only see numbers and paperwork.\"",
"Actually it seems you are not quite correct about the number of different banks in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_and_credit_unions_in_Canada According to this link there are 82-86 banks in Canada plus credit unions. This may still be lower than what would correspond to the number of banks in the US, scaled for canadian population. One further reason not mentioned before could be that the population density in Canada outside of the metropolitan areas could be lower than in the US, leaving to few small towns large enough (10,000+ (a guess corrected due to comment)) to support a bank.",
"In the US, paper checks are still the rule, and there is a large amount of the population that does not care to use online banking. As a result, those people need to go to the bank once a week or more often, to deposit checks they get from anywhere, to get cash, etc.; so all those little banks have traffic. This is slowly changing, and banks start to automatic the processes even in the brick-and-mortar location, but for now, they are around.",
"\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \"\"good\"\" online service, \"\"great\"\" phone service, \"\"great\"\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \"\"walk in\"\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \"\"better\"\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \"\"big bank\"\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \"\"small bank\"\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \"\"brands\"\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\""
] |
4335
|
What is the US Fair Tax?
|
[
"318583",
"357013",
"322246",
"484148"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"318583",
"484148",
"322246",
"357013",
"421656",
"188485",
"588454",
"429037",
"468123",
"235708",
"543161",
"184705",
"453956",
"419466",
"474832",
"65284",
"9819",
"267111",
"357079",
"362173",
"434835",
"110515",
"538490",
"342618",
"329246",
"177217",
"388250",
"384572",
"211196",
"589161",
"473567",
"470215",
"259810",
"364463",
"148490",
"489383",
"205547",
"487280",
"333955",
"599320",
"109838",
"62335",
"481555",
"599987",
"251411",
"423416",
"546299",
"228503",
"441497",
"219188",
"229454",
"84528",
"120521",
"158136",
"357577",
"418520",
"551831",
"56063",
"145353",
"358286",
"238294",
"374021",
"431182",
"480635",
"136497",
"97540",
"517626",
"317570",
"558836",
"215314",
"597909",
"478195",
"512429",
"82460",
"199173",
"175520",
"365370",
"297676",
"376850",
"515513",
"193667",
"428771",
"472052",
"92902",
"447271",
"488774",
"81457",
"448390",
"409338",
"137225",
"64868",
"323111",
"589044",
"85690",
"391657",
"470087",
"226549",
"430431",
"425795",
"131959"
] |
[
"\"The fair tax is a proposal to replace the US income tax with a sales tax. Pros of Fair Tax: It's a large change to the way the United States currently does things. The \"\"Fair Tax Act of 2011\"\" is H.R.25 in the US House and S.13 in the Senate. The full text of the bill is available at the links provided. There are some fairly large consequences of implementing a fair tax. For example, 401ks and Roth IRAs serve no benefit over non-retirement investments. Mortgages would no longer have a tax advantage. Luxury items would get far more expensive.\"",
"Its a new way of computing sales tax. Wikipedia has a nice article on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax",
"\"In a nutshell - Value Added Tax. America, as usual, discovers what others have known and used for years. The idea of not taxing income that's tied to it is ridiculous. If you're only taxing spending but not income, people will just take spending elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, further away), and the economy will go down the drain. That's similar to the way people avoid paying sales tax now, except that it will be in orders of magnitude. Why should a corporation by office supplies in the US, if it has a branch in China? Edit Also, Fair Tax doesn't take into account moving money overseas. I've mentioned living elsewhere down below, and that also got me thinking of how I personally would certainly gain from that ridiculous thing called \"\"Fair Tax\"\". Basically, that's exactly how the \"\"rich folks\"\", those who push for it, will gain from it. Being able to move money out of the US basically makes it a perfect tax shelter. You don't pay taxes on the income (that you have in the US), and you don't pay taxes on the spendings (that you have elsewhere, because in that country income is taxable so you only pay VAT or sales taxes). This means that all the wealthy people, while investing and gaining money from the American economy (stocks, property, etc), will actually not be spending it in the US. Thus, no taxes paid to the US, dollars flowing out. Perfect. Actually, I should be all for this stupid idea. Very fair to me, no need to pay any taxes at all, because food will probably be exempt anyway.\"",
"\"You asked about the challenges. The transition itself is the biggest one. For people to get used to the tax at the register vs at their paycheck. For a great number of people to find new work. I don't know the numbers, but anyone involved with personal income taxes would be out of work. Sales tax is already part of the process in most states, bumping it to a federal tax wont add too much in overhead. I make no moral judgment, but consider, most prostitutes and drug dealers are avoiding income tax, but they still are buying the same goods in stores you and I are. This proposed tax reduces the collection noncompliance, and brings more people into \"\"the system\"\". Another factor some may not like is the ability to affect behavior by picking and choosing what to promote, via deductions, such as home buying or charity.\"",
"Yeah, the VAT adds more fairness between who gets the taxes, but is only offset by it being more complicated and needing more bureaucracy. I think it's an interesting idea. If I were a policy analyst I'd like to see what costs are vs. benefit.",
"Meanwhile, income tax is still based on the premise that the government owns your income (property). The government owns all of it and decides how much you get to keep. This is theft based on force. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson wants to end all income taxes including business income taxes and replace it with a federal consumption tax. Doesn't anyone want freedom?",
"Amazon and other online retailers actually now support bipartisan legislation to level the playing field regarding online sales taxes. Value Added Taxes (not sales taxes in the typical sense) are the way to go, as they are much more difficult to evade and can't be sheltered via the Cayman Islands. They can easily be made progressive through the use of rebates to lower income individuals. There is a reason it is in place in over 130 countries.",
"What about changing the income tax to a national sales tax and putting different products and services on a tiered system. Basic necessities would be taxed at a lower rate (if at all), then you work up the tiers towards purely luxury items that are taxed at a much higher rate? That would give us the benefits of a sales tax while, at the same time, not placing an extra burden on the lower class (who would, presumably, need to spend a higher portion of their income on basic necessities).",
"\"No one thinks a flat tax is a good idea. As someone that has a good income, I would love to be paying 20%. But I doubt a poorer person paying 5% would agree. Flat tax is regressive and hurts poorer people the most. \"\"The flat tax falls flat for good reasons\"\" https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/26/the-flat-tax-falls-flat-for-good-reasons/\"",
"\"Yeah the biggest problem with this is that it far more heavily taxes the poor than the rich. Poor people spend *all of their income.* Month-to-month, living paycheck-to-paycheck, poor people have no choice but to spend their entire incomes on basic necessities, utilities, etc. Rich people on the other hand spend very little of their incomes. Most of it gets stashed in hedgefunds and overseas holdings and doesn't really \"\"change hands\"\" in a way that allows it to be taxed under this style of tax structure. So your tax continuously hits 100% of the wealth of the bottom 75%(ish) of households while largely bypassing the rich folks who have more money than they can *spend*. In short, this kind of tax structure is really bad for anyone who doesn't make $300k+ a year and store most of their wealth in stocks and so forth. If you want to help the general public (households making less than $300k/year), you need to generate more tax revenue from *investments* and *capital gains*. A 2% tax, say, on stock trades valued over $10,000 obviously wouldn't hurt poor people at all, and also wouldn't really hurt the rich. Cuz if you've got 10 grand (or a hundred, or thousand, or whatever) to stash in shares of Amazon or whatever, you're really not gonna miss the $200 that comes off the top of your trade. But this *would* generate huge tax revenue, as there are thousands of such transfers a day.\"",
"Well not over 50%. I would want a very very simple flat rate tax (say around 25-30%) with a high personal allowance (say around $25k) and no tax breaks etc. This seems to be the fairest. Low incomes pay the least and the rich are taxed fairly but not to the extent they feel the need to avoid it.",
"Say for example a trade totals $10,000. A flat tax of 0.2% would be $20. This is not much for the Buy & Holder b/c he only makes a few trades a year, say 10 transactions a year. So their tax is only about $200 per year. (heck we could even drop it to 0.1%). But DayTraders will routinely do 10 trades a day, or over 3000 trades a year. So using that same 10K trade above, that could hypothetically be 3000x20 = $60,000 per year in taxes. Computer Traders will do hundreds of trades per day. Say 30,000 trades per year. So that is $600,000. So you can see how iit hardly affects legitimate investors, while making the HF traders control themselves a bit. This is what we want. The exchanges charge the flat tax with the transaction like a Sales tax. It avoids excess regulation (the SEC already monitors trades, or is supposed to), and it hurts the gamblers (HFTs), while not hindering the good guys (investors).",
"Owing taxes to two or more levels of government isn't double taxation. It's a feature of the American union. I'm not for this bill in general, mostly for the timing and the loss of the highest bracket, but both the state and federal governments have to generate revenue, and basing rates on pure incomes with a few loopholes as possible is the most progressive way to do it. By owing taxes unadjusted for other taxes paid, there's more incentive for states to lower local taxes and to balance state programs with federal programs, and for state reps to more fairly redistribute federal transfers instead of targeting states with (usually artificially) low local taxes and fewer state programs (usually Republican).",
"The point is, they shouldn't be taxing it at all. The US's fair share of that revenue is 0%. It's wasn't produced via their infrastructure or anything. It's pure double dipping. It's not up to the US to determine it's fair share of someone else's pie. It's pure American arrogance: interfering in business in other countries.",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15680254/republicans-border-adjustment-tax) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Which would essentially add a 20 percent tax on imported goods while exempting US exports, was the key solution House Republicans had come up with to raise enough revenue to offset corporate tax cuts. > In the document, House Republicans outlined their communications strategy, which included three steps to selling the BAT. Step 1: Link the broken tax code to job losses in manufacturing. > The problem for the White House and congressional Republicans is that the administration hasn&#039;t offered a competing plan to pay for the trillions of dollars in tax cuts Trump wants. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejbtb/nobody_likes_the_border_adjustment_tax_except_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~133521 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **tax**^#1 **House**^#2 **Republican**^#3 **border**^#4 **provision**^#5\"",
"It sounds good on paper, the problem is licensing fees paid to foreign subsidiaries for IP and trademark use. That's how Apple makes 80% of it's revenue in the US and still makes 80% of it's profit in Ireland. If the US doesn't take foreign income into account, every multinational would offshore their profits the same way. Many do it now, and the loop hole isn't as big as people are advocating for.",
">a set fraction of the mean income, distributed to everyone whether or not they have other income. Seems fair to me. I would also re-tool tax brackets so instead of being based on income, they'd be based on money eared relative to the national mean. That way the brackets are naturally dynamic.",
"There's one huge difference. Generally speaking, the entire burden of paying VAT is intended to be placed upon end consumers, and not upon businesses themselves. So ditching corporation tax and increasing VAT would mean shifting a huge amount of the tax burden from corporations to every-day people. Such a policy could kill the party that attempted to push it.",
"But why can't two companies exchange goods directly without paying VAT? This would make the famous carousel fraud scam impossible and businesses won't have to deal with complicated refunds. Sales tax in the United States works as you describe. Sales tax is charged only to end customers, not to businesses that themselves charge sales tax. But this means that a criminal business can charge tax and just pocket it unless someone else reports it. They can also evade income tax the same way. Not to mention other issues like cross jurisdiction taxes (e.g. internet sales often evade sales tax). The whole point of a Value Added Tax (VAT) is that they charge at each level. This creates a system where each buyer reports the tax paid to the seller so as to be able to deduct it. So the seller has to pay the VAT that they charged. Or the tax authorities know and can revoke their VAT license. If only the end user is charged tax, then fraud is easier than under a VAT. So easy, I doubt they have a special name for it. The fraudulent business just collects tax from end users and disappears. Or simply fails to record those transactions. You could call it missing transaction record fraud, but why bother? It's just straight up tax fraud. The complexity of the carousel fraud arises from the difficulty of evading a VAT.",
"Well-defined definitions of a successful tax plan and its likely outcomes. Concrete, simple tax brackets. Hard numbers with real world value, not rhetorical promises washed through special interest groups and lobbyists. Well done. There's no way the current administration will do anything remotely this intelligent.",
"Corporate profits are currently taxed twice. Once at the corporate level, and a second time when the corporation's owners get paid via dividends or capital gains. The alternative is simply to eliminate the corporate-level taxation and raise the dividend and capital gains taxes back up to normal levels. Instead of (1-35%)*(1-15%) we'd just have (1-45%) or something",
"The way I see it, corporation tax is not fundamentally different from VAT. They are both a tax on revenue minus expenses, just what those expenses are is different. I think the main advantage of corporation tax is that it allows capital expenditure to be spread over several years, although as I said this makes it more complicated (and I believe that there are some capital allowances for VAT as well). One advantage of VAT is that sales in one country are taxed in that country before the money can be sent abroad. It seems simple and fair to split the tax burden between jurisdictions according to how many sales were made in each.",
"An equity tax does seem to make some sense. It would probably help to stave off deflation as well because it would encourage growth and investment where people would otherwise choose to sit on their money or worse. An equity tax on currency or liquid investments of even .5% APR would have a huge effect on the behavior of corporations. Sadly the largest of them would have the resources to avoid the tax by keeping all of their money out of the country.",
"This is something a redditor came up with. It provides a basic income to everyone, while still penalizing those who don't work (by minutely by surely lowering their stipend) and preventing a poverty trap (by never withdrawing the stipend).",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/case-consumption-tax.html) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > You often hear calls out there - mostly from Right economists but also from some on the Left - for a consumption tax in the U.S. As presented, it&#039;s a super-simple idea: tally your income, subtract your saving, and what&#039;s left is your consumption. > The tuition line raises a particularly vexing question, and brings us back to the second question: what economic effects would we see from a consumption tax, under various accounting and taxation rules? Clearly, if you tax tuition, you discourage education. > A consumption tax, compared to, say, a wealth tax or a land-value tax, is a direct assault on GDP and GDP growth. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6txd1l/the_case_against_a_consumption_tax/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~191594 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **consumption**^#1 **Save**^#2 **tax**^#3 **account**^#4 **family**^#5\"",
"Irrelevant to the question. Regardless what is used for the tax base, we would still have the same debate but with much larger anti-taxation sentiments. Supply side Jesus either works or doesn't and shifting the federal revenue sources to the income taxes does not change it.",
"What a shit idea lol. Like how about not spend so damn much on stupid shit America. How about creating a tax bracket on those that make the oodles of dough per year. Don't go after the working man's retirement savings as easy pickings for taxes. Wtf",
"It is double taxation. The same income is taxed twice. But as to the core of your argument, starting from a baseline of zero I agree. But we aren't starting over .. there is 100+ years of income tax history and almost 250 years of state/local governments creating the services required for local residents. It's been amazing how a lil bit of federal control has caused the conservative movement has forgotten they brought the 10th amendment to life with Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida.",
"Currently, the answer is no, you cannot get out of filing a tax return. As noted in the comments, if you want to pay more to get out of the drudgery of working on your return, you can pay an accountant to do it for you. You are not alone in thinking that the current income tax system in the U.S. is overly complicated. What you are essentially describing is a flat tax, a system where there would be a simple tax rate that is paid with no deductions, loopholes, etc., and minimal reporting requirements. Besides flat tax proposals, others have proposed eliminating the income tax altogether and switching to a national sales tax, such as the FairTax proposal. Each of these proposals has pros and cons over the current system, and if you have questions about them, feel free to ask a new question. But what they have in common is that they would drastically simplify the system of taxation in this country. If that sounds good to you, you can learn more about these proposals and support organizations and candidates that advocate these reforms.",
"What do you propose a fair share should be? They pay nearly $900 million per year in income taxes. Their effective rate is reduced due to them paying higher taxes in years prior, plus they lost money and can deduct that as well. Not to mention, they are double taxed as a corporation and payroll taxes are not part of that $900 million, so they're paying even more than that. Part of what makes the US awesome is an environment that helps business grow. What do you think will happen when a business pays let's say 20% on revenue generated in other countries and then another 20% tax on that revenue here? Either companies will move to a country with a lower tax rate or they pull back on global trade. Both are bad for the economy.",
"\"So you are back to saying that the price Walmart charges for each item depends on the income level of the purchaser. That's not fair, so neither are taxes based on the income levels of taxpayers. I don't think road sweepers should be subsidized so they can drive a Rolls Royce car. And I don't think they should be allowed to live in a Rolls Royce location unless they can afford to compensate those they exclude from it. The fact they currently are is outrageous as it causes a shrunken economy and excessive inequalities. Real estate bubbles are caused by not have a LVT. Obviously there could be no \"\"bubble\"\" as it would have already been taxed away.\"",
"> Its a no, there should be no taxes on anyone, only service providers and voluntary customers. Last time you made this claim I pointed you to [a video on the US's Articles of Confederation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6rHSiN0vKk) and you never responded. Perhaps you'll muster up the courage this time. The Articles of Confederation was set up very similar to what you are proposing. Why do you think that government failed?",
"Actually, yes, I do think it's fair. It's a corporation, not a family. I think *individuals* should pay 50% of every dollar above $5m. That means every dollar; personal income, capital gains, interest, whatever. My **only** problem with taxes is how poorly I think they're spent right now. Giving more money to worthless corporate whores (congress) who've already proven they don't have the people's interests at heart is not a concept I relish. One thing at a time though.",
"\"1) Yes in theory that is right - minus any state taxes as well. 2) They could since there is an unknown amount outside of the US - and probably it will be a percentage and not all. Most of these companies that make a difference are already international companies. 3) They would most likely still do it for any money kept offshore, and it doesn't prevent them from continuing to do it. Again, I didn't say this was a good solution. They are just hoping to ward off economic collapse a little longer by doing this, or perhaps hire more accountants to be able to look at their books to figure out how much they are hiding to punish them. There could be many \"\"motivations\"\" for doing this tax. But I doubt any of the motivations intend to stop it from continuing to happen after the tax. The problem is any company that takes advantage of it basically says \"\"yes, i broke the law - in this amount.\"\" Thus, it might be a good way to get a list of companies to audit more thoroughly.\"",
"Okays, so the prices we pay for goods and services aren't set by our income levels. Why should taxes be any different? Surely they should be set by the benefits we receive from the community as measured by the market? That's what LVT is and does.",
"We don't have all the details, but individuals and corporations can either deduct or elect to get a credit for foreign taxes paid. What if this stays and the state/local deduction is eliminated. The IRS directly states the intent is to avoid double taxation. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-tax-credit-choosing-to-take-credit-or-deduction And ya, the system you make reference to was tried in the Articles of Confederation and proved unworkable. The initial point is that it makes no sense to eliminate the state and local tax deduction unless the intent is to punish blue states and localities in order to offset a reduction in taxes for the wealthy.",
"Agreed which is why an income tax is a bad idea. Personally I'm in favor of property taxes as a way to fund government. It is a much more objective measure and easy for the government's to confiscate if taxes remain unpaid.",
"I disagree. First off the SEC is under-funded anyhow, and most economists agree that there needs to be better regulation of the exchanges; ya know since it can fucking crash our economy and send us into WW3. Secondly, it's a flat Transaction tax much like any other State Sales Tax. State Sales Tax is arguably the most successful form of taxation there is, b/c it's so damn easy to implement, and so damn easy to audit. You're blowing this thing way out of proportion. They require the markets to charge a Transaction tax, and then they do periodic audits to ensure each exchange is doing it. The rates go up or down based on the previous quarters number of HFTs. Outside of said formula, this transaction rate can be altered by a meeting of a few SEC heads, and approved when approved by the appropriate congressional body. Kills 2 birds with one stone: * more money to the underfunded SEC * lessens the impact of HFTs and turns the markets back into a market instead of a casino. It will have minimal effects on buy & hold traders since they typically research for a long time, then buy & hold stock for many months. It will mainly affect those who buy & unload several times per day. PS: If you think that letting a market die and having new ones pop up periodically is a good idea then holy shit. Financial markets need stability & regulation. Finance doesn't like uncertainty. Crash & burn marketplaces will help no one, and will raise uncertainty which we all know investors hate.",
"The GOP has a lazy Susan of bad ideas. The proposed tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by two and a half trillion dollars over the next ten years. The argument in favor is that cutting taxes will boost the economy enough to make up for the cuts. IT NEVER DOES. Ever. The proposal is loaded with tax cuts for wealthy folks. Some middle class folks will see an increase because there won't be a deduction for mortgage interest and property taxes. Thanks Obama.",
"Yes absurd. But those fat cat business owners need to pay their share! I mean my 70 year old Korean dry cleaner and his wife have been screwing the state out of their fair share of the till for a long time. But seriously, the tax is really horrible for the small business with small margins and large volume. Dry cleaners, restaurants and convenience stores are just a few examples.",
"Lol I'm not even talking about no government (although that's ideal) you're just retarded to think income tax is the ONLY way to fund a government. Like I said before a federal sales tax would more than suffice and in a lot of cases would work better but please by all means continue to live in ignorance. Just because things have been done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it's the best or most efficient way.",
"Okay. The goal should be to avoid taxing those at the lower bracket. So no taxes for those making 30,000 and under. A lower bracket for those making $31,000 to $80,000. Leave in deductions for taxes paid to states. These can be very high and many are taxed twice. Trump's plan removes many deductions used for double taxes. Leave in mortgage interest deduction. It benefits mostly small rental companies and home owner. Get rid of many business deductions. Lower corporate taxes, especially on new businesses. There is a start. You want to have a discussion regarding this.",
"It's a scam pushed through to benefit the banking system. Tax payments become income for the banks. Any alleged benefits for property holders are ultimately reduced by increased property prices, capital gains tax and estate taxes",
"Giving the government more control over the distribution of goods and services, even more than it has now, is the recipe for imbalance that has doomed communism and socialism. Even the most tax friendly of the euros are having problems with their systems. They simply aren't competitive. https://www.thelocal.dk/20170829/denmarks-government-announces-new-tax-plan",
"I believe you are confusing sales tax with income tax. The tax holidays in the US are only for sales tax. Consumers purchasing certain goods during the tax holiday do not have to pay sales tax like they normally would. Effectively the price is slightly lower during those days with the purpose of giving people an extra reason to shop at that time. During the tax holiday the stores make the exact same profit that they normally do, but they may experience a bump in sales simply because more people will shop during that time. Income tax for both consumers and the businesses is not affected by this. Although New York state was the first state to implement a tax holiday 20 years ago, they no longer have one today, though they do have certain goods which have a lower tax rate year round.",
"Saving Fortune 500 companies hundreds of millions to billions a year and a small company a few thousand. Who's paying for the shortfall to the IRS? The reality is a small business probably make $0 profit because the owner pays himself out, or has enough employees that the (company) makes a profit saving a few grand doesn't do anything. You know what would help? The 1 trillion profit the Fortune 500 make a year, take half. Give energy companies 0% interest loans to pay off their nuclear plants and reduce energy costs for 320 million Americans by a large amount. Take the remainder and the following 3 years and refinance mortgages at 0% interest starting from the smallest to largest loans. 4 years high taxes on large corporations I just bailed out the middle class and helped the poor with 100% retuned to the IRS.",
"Sales taxes are charged at the point of purchase, while a VAT is assessed during the production process of the item. In the end, the amount paid by the consumer is the same, but with the VAT, the tax was collected from the manufacturer, instead of the consumer. One of the big arguments for VAT is that it prevents lost revenue due to things like smuggling (if sales tax increases past 10% smuggling spikes, so the VAT is a good mechanism if you're looking to implement large taxes on goods). It also keeps the tax burden away from shippers and other tiers of the production process that don't change the intrinsic value of the item.",
"Much of this inequality would be reduced if we moved from income taxation to a wealth/asset tax. We could exempt a person's main residence and retirement savings (similar to the way we do now with the home mortgage deduction and capital gains exemption and with IRAs). This would also obviate the need for a separate capital gains tax.",
"\"> So raise taxes on individuals and eliminate business taxes? The government still has to pay for things eventually. The big thing the US pays for that other countries don't is our massive, most-expensive-in-the-world military, which can take up roughly half our budget, Yes we should decrease military spending and stop policing the world. The biggest future expenditure will be unfunded obligations which are between $20 to $60 trillion USD. Without reform the US will go bankrupt. The dollar could be hyper-inflated which destroys the value and people's savings. The dollar will lose world reserve currency status. > We defend other countries through alliances like NATO and bilateral agreements. For that, we need a higher tax rate. We can tax individuals or businesses. Let other countries defend themselves unless they absolutely need help. People and businesses can be taxed, but high taxes and regulations are counter-productive. It hurts small business, innovation, job growth and pushes companies to move abroad and outsource. There's alarming record high unemployment in the US: >**[One in Five Families Are on Food Stamps](http://reason.com/24-7/2013/04/25/one-in-five-families-are-on-food-stamps)** The latest available data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that **a record number 23 million households in the United States are now on food stamps.** > The most recent Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) statistics of **the number of households receiving food stamps shows that 23,087,886 households participated in January 2013 - an increase of 889,154 families from January 2012 when the number of households totaled 22,188,732.** As John F. Kennedy said:. >**“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”** >– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference >**\"\"'Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”*** >– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964 >“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”* >– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President” [Read more]( http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25640/#GRyFgRZYqUiKoud6.99)\"",
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate > Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people. >Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/18/156928675/episode-387-the-no-brainer-economic-platform",
"\"Ah, gotcha. That would be moving the country towards a more socialistic or communistic system where the government controls more of the means of production. I think there would be a problem. Successful companies need to be disruptive and the larger you are the harder it is to try a different approach. I think if the government did try to offer a competing product, the beauracracy would weigh down the offering. The only way the government could be assured a profitable business is to compete unfairly. Consider one of the big government companies, the Post Office. UPS has always been seen as the higher-quality delivery serive. Overnight shipping was considered impossible until FedEx did it. Even today the USPS is in serious financial trouble even though it is granted a monopoly on letter delivery (it is illegal for UPS and FedEx to deliver letters). The Post Office is too inefficient to make money on package delivery so they subsidize that side of their business selling stamps. > so we could abolish income tax and lower taxes over all IMO, the taxes will be paid one way or another. If you cut income tax then it will be replaced with a payroll tax, or sales tax, or property tax, or tariff, or passed to you in the form of higher prices. The only question is the definition of a person or group's \"\"fair share\"\".\"",
"\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\"",
"I am guessing that you don't understand that even a 100% tax bracket doesn't actually equal you paying 100% of your profits in taxes. This is why the use, while having a 35%messaging corporate tax rate, only sees less than 20% in an average effective corporate tax rate... In the same vein, if a company paid taxes on what profits were created within a countries borders, that would be a fairly accurate method of calculating every country's fair percent of revenue from that company and the amount of infrastructure that were utilized by that company within that country's borders. And it still wouldn't add up to anywhere near 100% of that company's net profits...",
"\"The current tax regime? Not sure if you are being serious or facetious, but: [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** In contrast, corporations don't pay taxes on profits earned abroad until repatriation [here](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/14/news/economy/corporate-taxes-inversion/index.html), [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html), [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-apple-profits/). So guess what they NEVER do? This is why literally every large US multi-national corporate \"\"person\"\" pays next to nothing in taxes. It is quite obvious that this is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of tax law. That simple fix would wipe out massive amounts of government debt and force multi-national corporations and their shareholders to become engaged stake holders in the efficiency of government. But if, unlike W-2 paid human counterparts, you can dodge all taxation, \"\"Who cares if the government is using funds efficiently?\"\" That is incentive to actually game the system to force the government into wasteful spending because the subsequent fallout of increased taxation and/or failure of the state can be dodged without consequence.\"",
"Why not talk about services? Why should I pay more for services. It's not like more income means I use the roads and bridges more. More income doesn't mean more kids that need public education. More income doesn't mean I use fire services more. If you ask me, I'd rather people just pay for the services they use. Have kids? Then you pay for their school. Drive 60 minutes to work, then you pay more than someone that drives 10 minutes. That's seems fair.",
"Does that strike you as a fair solution? All the people that have made sacrifices and not spent every dime they have earned deserve to have it taken away? And I am sure they do have it 'somewhere' like low yield bonds or savings accounts...",
"> if a company paid taxes on what profits were created within a countries borders, that would be a fairly accurate method of calculating every country's fair percent of revenue from that company That's exactly what I said in the post you originally replied to.",
"\"Why is this even on the table? It's effectively a **revenue neurtral** proposal! You still pay taxes on \"\"tax deferred\"\" retirement plans - In fact, I would dare say that in most cases, people end up paying **more** in taxes, because they pay it as regular income rather than LTCG. The poor will still eat cat food and live on SSI; the rich consider what $18k/year would get them as a laughable pittance (and I say that as someone who *doesn't* grudge them their wealth). This will *only* have the effect of fucking the middle class. There is absolutely no other possible interpretation.\"",
"One of the reasons is also general distrust to the government. Another one is that there exist special interest group which profits from the complicated scheme, keep adding special cases, and has stronger financial situation that the opponents of such complex scheme. People do not trust government, or companies, to act in their best interests. So they (we) waste huge amount of time and/or money to comply with byzantine income laws. In 2004 Democratic presidential primary, presidential candidate Wes Clark (who beyond being 4-star general has also master degree in economics from Oxford, and taught economics in West point) proposed similar scheme: for people with income under 50K, employer would do all the (simple) paperwork, if desired, and get return. In the noise of the campaign, idea how to simplify taxes for half of the population was lost. Funny how the only candidate in recent history who was both professor of economics (not MBA, which is about business and profits) and distinguished military hero, could not get any traction in Democratic party.",
"\">Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to. Most of the American public believes that the bulk of taxes are federal income taxes. That's what they fixate on when evaluating the \"\"fairness\"\" of taxation. The fact remains that the very wealthy and very large corporations are structured so that they don't pay that particular type of tax. That's why Mitt Romney's tax returns are being squinted at. Mitt pays capital gains tax, not income tax and tripling the tax rate on the upper-most tax bracket wouldn't really affect him. You know this. I know this. But most people don't and few people are interested in learning how it works. If you want to \"\"tax the rich\"\" just create a progressive scale for capital gains instead of a flat 15%.\"",
"Proportional is good, but we don't need redistribution. The market mechanism does that on its own when it's free. The bailouts of the banks and auto industry should have shown that the only thing stopping a major, but poorly run business from bankruptcy (and having its assets redistributed) is government intervention. Maybe the change will light a fire under complacent companies and they'll start earning their profits again, or maybe they'll fail. There's no way to know ahead of time, but with no legal barriers to entry, the playing field will be fair again.",
"\"The only reason taxes are \"\"needed\"\" is because the people are to ignorant to know there are better more moral systems out there. For instance instead of stealing hard earned money from people tax the money they spend ie federal sales tax. \"\"How is that any different?!\"\" Because a sales tax isn't theft it just raises the price of products you want to buy, this way there is no tax dodging and no imprisonment for keeping what you earned and what is rightfully yours\"",
"It destroyed Sweden's position as a major player in the global securities market. When the tax was rescinded in 1991, some of the trade returned over time but things were never the same. It was also a net revenue loser without even considering the long term market damage.",
">American politics is pretty utterly fucked isn't it? Haha, I think that's the one thing most sides can agree on. >That's interesting, and I've heard it before. Is something like this writer outlines what you are thinking? Essentially remove corporate taxes, and then tax dividends and capital gains as normal income? Yeah I like the idea for a few reasons. Incentivizes investments in America (capital is far more mobile than labor or even capital owners), gets rid of malinvestment of tax avoidance, sticks taxation exactly where we want it (in this case capital owners instead of random incidence among labor/capital/consumers), and cuts other deadweight losses inherent in a corporate income tax. It's really hard for me to understand why almost anyone would be against this. It's a progressive, pro-growth, anti-crony idea.",
"\"> Bernie sources: I would agree, it looks like the tax would cover all those that buy stock, bonds, and derivatives. However, this article didn't really cover the specifics. What would the tax be? Would it a flat dollar amount per transaction? That would make sense as it would focus more on those that do high volume traders. That wouldn't really impact me, as I already pay $9 per transaction. And I don't do many transactions. A couple dollars more, and I would be fine. > To answer your Enron example, no corporation would have enough power to actually do something like that if they didn't have at least partial backing by the government. Ah, but corporations [edit - wouldn't] have the power to do much of anything without someone to enforce their policies. Name one market that doesn't have an enforcement agency of some type. That is a mighty big assumption that the \"\"free market\"\" would make it work... especially since one doesn't really exist. And that would be the crux of my argument. All of the things you say about the perfection of the market to regulate itself is so far not proven. Take a market like Kansas - over the last 6 years, they just underwent one of the largest deregulation, de-taxation experiments of any state in the union. The results were less than stellar. Kansas is lagging the national average in growth. And they took a hundred million dollar surplus and turned into a couple billion dollar deficit almost overnight. And who suffers, of course the most poor. They shut down schools, fired teachers, and shelved many infrastructure jobs - jobs that would have been fielded by lower wage workers... And those infrastructure projects were undoubtedly in lower income areas. I would say, if you truly believe in what you preach then live it. Start a commune somewhere. Demonstrate how it is effective. That would have more power than preaching some amorphous unproveable policy over the internet.\"",
">All tax is income tax, as if you haven't got the income, you can't pay it. This is a pretty apt simplification. I find that most land value tax advocates are either trying to engineer the demographics of property ownership or spiteful against people who own more than they themselves do.",
"> Taxation is theft. No, and [we've already gone down this road](https://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/6leb2o/missouri_republicans_lower_st_louis_minimum_wage/dju1jjp/). Are you familiar with US history and the time they had the [Articles of Confederation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)? I would be curious to know why you think it failed.",
"I see a couple of ways of getting at this. One would be to switch to a VAT. That would capture a good amount of revenue on anything that's made here. Second, I want IP to be taxed. We pay property taxes, so I think that trademarks and copyrighted works should be taxed just like how real property is taxed. You want to register the Burger King logo in the US? Sure thing! You will pay a percentage of its value every year and you get to use it exclusively with the full protection of the US courts your taxes help fund. I also see this as a good way out of the IP cesspool we're currently in. Copyright has become unreasonably long mostly because Disney doesn't want to lose the rights to Mickey Mouse. Look, I *am* sympathetic to Disney's argument. Mickey genuinely is important to them. But Mickey is fucking things up for everyone else. So I think Disney should pay a percentage of Mickey's value every year. In exchange, they keep their copyright forever as long as they keep paying. Now, if the copyright tax isn't paid, then the property becomes public domain forever. This would let Disney have what they want while non-profitable copyrights become public domain, as they should. Anyhow, the one thing all the big tax-avoiding companies have in common is IP. If you tax their IP in exchange for protection in US courts, there's really no way around that. They will either have to pay or let their IP go public domain.",
"\"Let's imagine an economy where 100% of wealth creation comes from existing financial assets and 0% comes from new wealth creation. That would essentially be a dead economy. I don't think it matters what your philosophy on economics is--that's a bad outcome. If you don't agree with that point we'll stop here. Note, if you don't think it's bad for this to keep going higher, Japan is at about 80% and we know how they're doing. If you agree 100% would be bad then we're 70% of the way there in the US. Trump's tax plan, if enacted, would push us even further. The question we should be asking is what is a reasonable way to encourage NEW wealth creation rather than protect and preserve existing wealth. For starters, it makes little sense to have a preferential tax rate for capital gains/dividends/estates as compared to earned income. Even if you just hate taxes and want them all to be gone I think it's fairly easy to say IF we're going to have taxes they should not favor income/transfer from existing financial assets as compared to earned income. A much more reasonable way to approach this is to say, we have a lot of concentration of financial assets in the top decile of wealth spectrum. Let's just level the tax rate so that income from financial assets is taxes at a similar rate to income from work. That's not even an \"\"eat the rich\"\" proposal, it's just a \"\"eat everyone equally\"\" proposal. All it would do is tax the very substantial gains in stocks at the same rate as the very meagre (median) gains from working. The fact that taxing income from financial assets at the same rate as work is a controversial idea is, to me, emblematic of a government completely captured by wealthy interests.\"",
"Wanna make sure every company pays at least some taxes? Install a 'tax floor'. Basically, no matter how many losses you claim, no matter how much you offshore, no matter how many loopholes you find, you can not drop below a certain number. Let's say 15%. That is it, you have to pay at least 15%. As this takes effect, and only after revenues stream in for a few years to help balance things out, you can even slightly adjust the high rate down a tad to help the big companies that don't use the loopholes. Please spread this idea around.",
"So raise taxes on individuals and eliminate business taxes? The government still has to pay for things eventually. The big thing the US pays for that other countries don't is our massive, most-expensive-in-the-world military, which can take up roughly half our budget, sometimes even more depending on how active we are abroad. That includes paying for current wars, preparing for future wars, and serving the veterans of past wars. We defend other countries through alliances like NATO and bilateral agreements. For that, we need a higher tax rate. We can tax individuals or businesses.",
"My state (Oregon) doesn't give me credit for all the federal taxes I pay so I get taxed by the state for money I never received. Now both will, fun. With this policy it would be worth it to move my family to a red state and start turning it blue.",
"\"So some background here - when corporations, large ones have to deal with tax, they generally try to avoid as much tax as possible. Since there are places that are \"\"tax havens\"\" where there is less to even no tax on profit, a lot of money gets routed there to avoid taxes in other places (US or other unfavorable countries). The problem with this from an IRS/government view is that they keep losing millions/billions of dollars in money because of this. I think the corporate federal tax rate is around 35% and that is without state taxes. Unfortunately when you have less and less money at home - less investment at home happens. Corporations stop doing business at home because they have more money somewhere else - and it makes sense to move more of the company to where the money is or to more favorable tax locations. Even worse - the corporation might just \"\"save\"\" its money somewhere else and kill all reinvestment - thus the money is effectively dead to the rest of the economy. There is a lot of talk about a 'one-time' repatriation tax to allow companies that have dodged their tax burdens to have their money come back to the US (and thus can be used locally) at 10% instead of 35% since there is theroretically a vast amount of cash that would be injected into the US economy. The government is hoping this stimulation will help GDP grow, taxes grow, and help the economy as a whole. In reality, it will reward corporations that broke the law (even though everyone does it), and probably just go into savings accounts here in the US - and not be the \"\"silver bullet\"\" to the economy on verge of collapse again.\"",
">Corporate taxes as a percentage of federal revenue declined from 27.3 percent in 1955 to 8.9 percent in 2010 If the federal government adds a European-style VAT tax, that would also greatly decrease corporate taxes as a percentage of federal revenue, but it would be because there's more taxes coming in from other sources. Federal income taxes in the United States didn't even *exist* until 1913. Percentage of federal income goes down as income from other sources go up. The United States [currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/us-corporate-tax-rate_n_1392310.html).",
"Yet, if you are wealthy enough to have already accumulated the bulk of your savings, they're going to treat your capital gains much more favorably than the wage income of the poor shlub who's still trying to make these contributions. I can't wait to see how they attempt to sell this to the average taxpayer.",
"How about if we lower taxes on the bottom two brackets and increase taxes on the top two brackets? Right now it's 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. But wouldnt it be better if we change it to 8, 13, 25, 28, 35, 38 percent? The poor are the ones who spends most of their money on sale taxes than compared with any other brackets and the more money the poor have the more they will spend which will lead to more growth in the economy",
"> This constant belief that services should cost a percentage instead of a fixed rate that everyone pays is a joke. Your position makes good sense but if everyone paid a fixed rate in taxes then about %25 of the people would go broke. It doesn't seem fair that someone working within the system is bankrupted by the system. Seems to me we need to first fix unfairness in wages. Anyone who works full time for the system should at least be able to afford a modest life including health care, retirement, and taxes. Then I think it is right to demand they pay taxes to the system. Would you agree?",
"\"No, it is not true. That is one of the many \"\"conspiracy theorists'\"\" claims to not pay taxes, and is considered as frivolous (i.e.: punishable by very harsh penalties and criminal prosecution). Specifically to your question, the current Federal income tax framework was laid down in 1986, with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It is codified under the title 26 of the US Code. It is usually referred to as the \"\"Internal Revenue Code\"\", or IRC.\"",
"Your federal taxes in US include the tax which Indian government wants back from you under the treaty with US government. Some countries have treaty with US where all the money person earns in US can be reclaimed at the end of the financial year i.e no money goes to the country of citizenship. However, Indian citizens working in US are not liable for 100% reclaim on their federal tax.",
"Yeah because paying millions a year in taxes is somehow less than than paying the nothing the poor pay. This constant belief that services should cost a percentage instead of a fixed rate that everyone pays is a joke. There is nothing equal about going into a McDonalds lining everyone up based on income then making one guy pay for everyone else because he was more successful. Then calling it equal or fair, which it isn't.",
"\"C'mon, Bill - you're better than this. Aside from the fact that he accumulated his personal wealth through ruthless profiteering and tax shelters, it's just a flat out bad idea. It was an even worse idea when some neckbeard actor and commie guitarist started pushing it. All this tax will do is hamper the ability to do business (i.e., market liquidity), and end up being shouldered by small banks and in the end, the consumer. Big banks will find their ways around this, no problem, but the boutique capital firms will surely struggle. This isn't just a \"\"oh, we'll institute this micro-tax and everyone is happy!\"\" - they want to tax the underlying value of assets on each trade. This creates a direct impact to free-market trading which I don't believe they've accounted for (which is shocking, really). It's a tax on the top and bottomline, and a general tax on the actual execution point of an entire industry. It's a half-baked idea that shouldn't have gotten as far as it did.\"",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/07/can-an-lvt-save-us/) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** > They amended their LVT to add a tax on property improvements but should have done the opposite - increase the LVT and reduce other taxes. > By adopting an LVT, they guarantee themselves sufficient income to provide government and public services - without falling into the predatory clutches of international bankers and the IMF. In his 2011 book Re-Solving the Economic Puzzle, Walter Rybeck relates how the US contemplated LVT enabling legislation during the Carter administration. > Five other states have passed LVT enabling legislation - Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington - to make it easier for local communities to adopt an LVT. Other American communities that have already benefited from an LVT include California&#039;s Central Valley, Fairhope in Alabama, Arden in Delaware, and Pittsburgh and other cities in Pennsylvania. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6hxn1x/can_an_lvt_save_us_dissident_voice/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~146992 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **LVT**^#1 **Land**^#2 **economic**^#3 **Harrison**^#4 **Tax**^#5\"",
"There are fees on retail trades imposed by trading houses, but not on traders like MS and GS. That's why HFT is possible. Personally, I get 100 free trades per year and that's more than enough for me. Adding a tax to this is just stupid.",
"What is tax slavery? Most impacted by higher taxes can afford to put them in off shore accounts. This going to hurt the economy because businesses aren't going to higher more people. Trickle down economics consistently fails. You'll have a bunch of owners saving the profits instead of giving the jobs because most of them are already operating efficiently. Especially in a state where menial labor is the most common form. Tax Slavery is a bullshit term to justify the rich robbing the government of their due while being able to benefit from the clout that comes with being American.",
"\".. 99% of the people against this proposition are 100% likely never to earn above $5 million a year .. the American Dream is strong, so people will be strongly against this type of taxes, making the entire suggestion a provocation of \"\"the unwashed masses\"\".\"",
"Walmart is one of the biggest low wage employers. Let's say $1B of the $2.66B is spent on subsidizing Wal-Mart employees. That's >$3 per US citizen, that we all pay and cannot put back into the economy how we wish. I don't even shop at wal mart and I'm forced to subsidize their employees. IMO, that is not fair. This just incentivizes walmart to hire more cheap government-subsidized employees, rewarding walmart's on my back. So let's do this: For every government dollar spent on helping low-wage employees subsist, we tax the employer the same dollar. From this I bet we would see walmart building housing for their employees, maybe even cafeterias, to get them off section 8 / food stamps. That is more efficient than sending money to the IRS, it makes its way to HUD, then to some government employees who are overburdoned, then we pay out section 8 money to landlords. That's inefficient. I know of walmart employees who rely on $1400/month in section 8, so walmart's tax bill would increase substantially, costs would rise, but tax receipts that we all have to currently pay would decrease by the same amount. So overall costs stay them same, but the finances are more efficient and where they should be vs spread around.",
"[Eliminating breaks **would allow the government to simplify the tax code and broaden the base of income** against which taxes are levied] [The dilemma—which Republicans are colliding with right now—is that many of the biggest tax breaks, especially for individuals, are **popular and hard to dislodge.**]",
"Not optional, but I assumed the premise was that with out having to pay for health care corporations would pay more in wages. In the US that is never going to be true. In other words they would use the VAT and not having to pay for health care as an excuse to extract more profit. Employee wages wouldn't go up, corporate health care costs would go down, and the VAT would be passed on to the consumer through higher prices.",
"Your source doesn't support your point. I don't have a problem paying taxes for services we all use - you do. Charging fees for police & courts is a libertarian notion. As sourced in my previous post, no current tax rates need to be changed to pay for UH. We just need to remove corporate subsides. As a whole, America would save about 10% of GDP yearly by converting to a UH in this fashion. If you can't honestly debate the sources or ideas I've put out and insist on circling back around to these ideological positions regardless of how often they get blown up - then I think we've made all the progress we're going to.",
"I've had zero taxable income for the past 2 years and yet the calculations say I owe the government $250 for each year for the Self Employment tax. How can they charge a non-zero tax on my income when my taxable income is zero? That is theft. That demands reform.",
"Its one of the main points. Transfer pricing includes discretionary decisions and is part of BEPS. Its also completely unnecessary: Pay taxes on revenue in country earned/sold. Get tax credits/refunds in country were spending is made. The reason why already profitable companies consider BEPS/tax arbitrage for HQ locations is because they get discretionary power over accounting profit allocation. Tax policy should serve the society though, and this proposal encourages the spending that benefits society. Its the usual case that the right answer is different than that being lobbied for.",
"They should be (and are) taxed the corporate rate on the 10 cents. The company they purchased the coffee grounds from will pay taxes on the 90 cents. The other alternative you suggested would put an end to most commercial activity. Very few businesses could sustain a 35% (of revenue) penalty to their margins. Society would collapse.",
"> It makes sense for EVERYONE to pay their fair and equal share. Totally agree. Don't you agree that a fair an equal share for someone working full time for the system is at least a modest but complete life within the system?",
"\"> So the fact that i was born here against my own free will automatically gives the government the right to seize the fruits of my labor? Yes, in the same way that being born to parents living in a clean house means you are going to make your bed, pick up your clothes, and mow the lawn... > \"\"well just leave then!\"\" Well, yes. It is either that, or change the laws. > Which is fucking stupid and in pretty sure I already gave you 1 way but I'll say it again cuz it's clear you're incapable of following along For someone who is so sure that they have \"\"*THE* answer\"\" you sure are defensive. It is quite possible that I have had a discussion over the SAME topic over the last 5 days with a *bunch* of people because so many people got butt hurt that I enjoy paying my taxes, and feel it is a patriotic duty because of all the good it does. > federal sales tax So federal sales tax is your big secret? I would actually be fine with it, as long as it took into account those that are currently not paying income tax due to poverty or disability. > That's why you see countries like Sweden with insane tax rates seeing limited growth and in a lot of cases on the verge of an economic collapse. I have lived in Europe for a number of years. I was in Germany last year, I will be in Spain next week. If you think that strong tax policy makes a country economically weak, then you have not actually lived in any of these countries, have you? Sweden is currently ranked 11th in the world for [GDP per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita). Matter of fact, the only country in the top ten of that list that don't have a strong tax policy is Qatar - and that is only because of ridiculous oil money. Would like to see where they sit in two years. Sweden last year had an [economic growth rate of 4.1%](http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/11/14/111716Sweden-Great-Economic-Performance-but-Mind-the-Debt). More than 3 times what the growth rate in the US was, at [1.6% for 2016](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-economic-growth-slowed-in-2016-to-1-9/). It was ranked [#34 in the world for economic growth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate), just under your Bahamas with their no income tax, no estate or wealth tax, but well above the US at 47. The IMF matter of fact said their economy was \"\"in good health and growing robustly\"\"... So, not sure where you are getting your facts from, but may want to think again. I would recommend that you actually go visit a couple of these \"\"tax hellholes\"\" and see for yourself how \"\"crushed\"\" by their taxes these poor victims of government \"\"theft\"\" are...\"",
"> To be honest we are probably wrong in trying to tax foreign earnings. [We only tax foreign earnings when the money is repatriated to the US](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-current-system-international-taxation-work). You think businesses should be able to go to the Bahamas, sell vast property to another American, and return the profit to the US tax free? > The US should learn the get on with less. I'm all for discussing that idea. Cut the spending before you talk about cutting the taxes that fund it.",
"Except again you're wrong and retarded the comment I first made was in response to a ridiculous statement you mad to someone else who was referring to income tax because income tax is theft and I know this because I'm capable of critical thinking now even in my very first comment I mention income tax and nowhere in this entire conversation have I deviated from income taxes other than bringing up an alternative. I would like to ask you again, how hard is it going through life with 0 critical thinking and comprehension skills?",
"\"Similar, but actually quite different. A negative income tax on the first $20,000/year has a couple of problems this scheme doesn't: 1) Administration costs and legal complexity. Are we \"\"prebating\"\" or \"\"rebating\"\" the stipend? How is someone supposed to get along if they lose their job unexpectedly in a rebate-based system, can they get their income-tax withholdings back up to $20,000/year? How does the government register changes in income to know when to write someone a check? 2) With a negative tax up to a certain *fixed* level, there's effectively a changing level of subsidy depending how much of the per-capita income is the break-even tax level. If the per-capita income is $45,000/year (our current GDP per capita), then the subsidy level is almost 50%, and if it goes up to $60,000/year (our current mean household income), the subsidy level is then 33%. The system I described and steepk (IIRC) invented fixes the subsidy percentage in relation to the mean reported income (effectively fixing a *relative class level* as minimum) rather than a particular monetary amount (whose relative buying power versus inflation or other incomes can fluctuate wildly). We pick a subsidy level, say 1/3 (33.33333%). We then impose a flat income tax of that level plus a little bit more for administration costs (say, 35%). At the end of the year, everyone is taxed at that flat level, and the government scrapes its administration costs off the top and now has a big pot with 1/3 of everyone's income in it. This is divided into one portion for each taxpayer, and those portions into monthly or biweekly pieces. These pieces are sent out regularly as checks to the taxpayer, and *these checks are not taxed as income*. That last bit is what makes this so nice: it turns the tax progressive, in fact more progressive than our current system. After taxes and *after stipend*, only the rich will pay an *effective* tax rate asymptotically close to the real 35%. Most people without incomes many, many times the size of their stipends will be looking at an effective tax rate of less than 15%, including the tax-paying middle class and the professional upper-middle class who currently bitch so much about our tax rates being so confiscatory (which they *are*, for the abysmal level of social services we receive). Now, to get back to the big benefits of fixing the subsidy percentage. This means that the subsidy grows with mean income, effectively functioning as easy to run, fair, and direct wealth redistribution without the difficulty of trying to create efficient, productive WPA-style jobs or imposing market-distorting subsidies. It also means that we can allow things like automation to improve the productivity of our economy because *everyone* gets a share: if automating a certain job is truly more efficient than having a worker do it, the capitalist's income-gain from automation will push up the mean income, and therefore the basic income, further than the worker's lesser income and the capitalist's lesser profit would have.\"",
"> But sure, if you want companies to stay in the US and customers to pay higher prices to compensate for those higher taxes... But they don't. Across the board; prices in the US are much lower than they are in every other developed country. Partly because of economies of scale, partly because the posted tax rate != the effective tax rate.",
"\"I largely agree with you; but there's *no way* to make a true apples-to-apples comparison, because we've never had a \"\"flat\"\" across-the-board tax rate, and we never will. And obviously, in the degenerate cases of taxes at 0% and 100%, revenue drop to zero. Given that, the closest we can come to evaluating the potential effects of Trump's proposal is to look at what happens when major shifts in tax policy have occurred in the past; and since 1943 (when something approaching our modern tax structure first solidified)... The short answer to that is, \"\"nothing at all happens\"\". The *explanation* for that is a more interesting issue (though it boils down to \"\"if you tax X, people will Y instead\"\"), but the implications for fiscal policy are both fascinating and terrifying: Effectively, if the government spends more than 15-16% of GDP, *regardless* of how they structure taxes, they're spending against the deficit.\"",
"\"Alternative Minimum Tax is based not just on your income, but moreso on the deductions you use. In short, if you have above the minimum AMT threshold of income (54k per your link), and pay a tiny amount of tax, you will pay AMT. AMT is used as an overall protection for the government to say \"\"okay, you can use these deductions from your taxable income, but if you're making a lot of money, you should pay something, no matter what your deductions are\"\". This extra AMT can be used to reduce your tax payment in a future year, if you pay regular tax again. For example - if you have 60k in income, but have 60k in specific deductions from your income, you will pay zero regular tax [because your taxable income will be zero]. AMT would require you to pay some tax on your income above the minimum 54k threshold, which might work out to a few thousand bucks. Next year, if you have 60k in income, but only 15k in deductions, then you would pay some regular tax, and would be able to offset that regular tax by claiming a credit from your AMT already paid. AMT is really a pre-payment of tax paid in years when you have a lot of deductions. Unless you have a lot of deductions every single year, in which case you might not be able to get all of your AMT refunded in the end. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of AMT in the US, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax. If you think AMT is unfair (and maybe in some cases you might pay it when you think it's \"\"unfair\"\"), look at the root causes of paying AMT listed in that Wikipedia article: I am not trying to convince you that AMT is fair, just that it applies only when someone already has a very low tax rate due to deductions. If you have straight salary income, it would only apply in rare scenarios.\""
] |
[
"\"The fair tax is a proposal to replace the US income tax with a sales tax. Pros of Fair Tax: It's a large change to the way the United States currently does things. The \"\"Fair Tax Act of 2011\"\" is H.R.25 in the US House and S.13 in the Senate. The full text of the bill is available at the links provided. There are some fairly large consequences of implementing a fair tax. For example, 401ks and Roth IRAs serve no benefit over non-retirement investments. Mortgages would no longer have a tax advantage. Luxury items would get far more expensive.\"",
"\"You asked about the challenges. The transition itself is the biggest one. For people to get used to the tax at the register vs at their paycheck. For a great number of people to find new work. I don't know the numbers, but anyone involved with personal income taxes would be out of work. Sales tax is already part of the process in most states, bumping it to a federal tax wont add too much in overhead. I make no moral judgment, but consider, most prostitutes and drug dealers are avoiding income tax, but they still are buying the same goods in stores you and I are. This proposed tax reduces the collection noncompliance, and brings more people into \"\"the system\"\". Another factor some may not like is the ability to affect behavior by picking and choosing what to promote, via deductions, such as home buying or charity.\"",
"\"In a nutshell - Value Added Tax. America, as usual, discovers what others have known and used for years. The idea of not taxing income that's tied to it is ridiculous. If you're only taxing spending but not income, people will just take spending elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, further away), and the economy will go down the drain. That's similar to the way people avoid paying sales tax now, except that it will be in orders of magnitude. Why should a corporation by office supplies in the US, if it has a branch in China? Edit Also, Fair Tax doesn't take into account moving money overseas. I've mentioned living elsewhere down below, and that also got me thinking of how I personally would certainly gain from that ridiculous thing called \"\"Fair Tax\"\". Basically, that's exactly how the \"\"rich folks\"\", those who push for it, will gain from it. Being able to move money out of the US basically makes it a perfect tax shelter. You don't pay taxes on the income (that you have in the US), and you don't pay taxes on the spendings (that you have elsewhere, because in that country income is taxable so you only pay VAT or sales taxes). This means that all the wealthy people, while investing and gaining money from the American economy (stocks, property, etc), will actually not be spending it in the US. Thus, no taxes paid to the US, dollars flowing out. Perfect. Actually, I should be all for this stupid idea. Very fair to me, no need to pay any taxes at all, because food will probably be exempt anyway.\"",
"Its a new way of computing sales tax. Wikipedia has a nice article on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax"
] |
10152
|
What does a high operating margin but a small but positive ROE imply about a company?
|
[
"113585"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"113585",
"371515",
"549181",
"516797",
"37032",
"557607",
"557350",
"106155",
"406542",
"565598",
"426343",
"266672",
"559363",
"495715",
"336601",
"544451",
"384642",
"137746",
"521792",
"444747",
"522040",
"137307",
"131335",
"14488",
"393759",
"135109",
"295857",
"527230",
"477426",
"523303",
"97688",
"576865",
"558635",
"331530",
"562238",
"401753",
"154769",
"23489",
"278586",
"8679",
"453635",
"522072",
"355554",
"113506",
"330242",
"258306",
"307716",
"253246",
"421248",
"527519",
"465806",
"560757",
"377686",
"321432",
"552281",
"80285",
"288551",
"368738",
"251735",
"531095",
"500533",
"448872",
"76973",
"278582",
"280895",
"531395",
"253339",
"168675",
"28183",
"393580",
"512851",
"72666",
"384583",
"507012",
"336444",
"283938",
"335651",
"61193",
"502432",
"446877",
"63725",
"81527",
"40160",
"374510",
"509659",
"9478",
"517641",
"11124",
"294095",
"61798",
"154725",
"482892",
"113587",
"324867",
"176253",
"56405",
"107519",
"194641",
"583234",
"76661"
] |
[
"The operating margin deals with the ability for a company to make a profit above the costs of running the company and generating sales. While ROE is how much money the company makes relative to the shareholders equity. I'd be willing to bet that if a company has a small ROE then it also has a quite large P/E (price to earnings) ratio. This would be caused by the company's stock being bid up in relation to its earnings and may not necessarily be a bad thing. People expect the high operating margin to help drive increased revenues in the future, and are willing to pay a higher price now for when that day comes.",
"An operating margin will not compare with ROE. If a company has even a small margin on a large turnover and has a comparative lower shareholder equity, it ROE will be much higher. One ratio alone can not analyse a company. You need a full set of ratios and figures.",
"A company's Return on Equity (ROE) is its net income divided by its shareholder's equity. The shareholder's equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities, and is not dependent on the stock price. What it takes to have a ROE over 100% is to have the income be greater than the equity. This might happen for a variety of reasons, but one way a high ROE happens is if the shareholder's equity (the divisor) is small, which can occur if past losses have eroded the company's capital (the original invested cash and retained earnings). If the equity has become a small value, the income for some period might exceed it, and so the ROE would be over 100%. Operating margin is not closely related to ROE. Although operating income is related to net income, to calculate the margin you divide by sales, which is completely unrelated to shareholder's equity. So there is no relationship with ROE to be expected. Operating margin is primarily dependent on market conditions, and can be substantially different in different industries.",
"\"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success. I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product. Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is \"\"normal\"\" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside). Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.). More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires).\"",
"Small companies could have growth prospects. Large companies may not have that many. So look at ROE of companies by quatile to determine which companies have better growth.",
"Just to clarify things: The Net Working Capital is the funds, the capital that will finance the everyday, the short term, operations of a company like buying raw materials, paying wages erc. So, Net Working Capital doesn't have a negative impact. And you should not see the liabilities as beneficial per se. It's rather the fact that with smaller capital to finance the short term operations the company is able to make this EBIT. You can see it as the efficiency of the company, the smaller the net working capital the more efficient the company is (given the EBIT). I hope you find it helpful, it's my first amswer here. Edit: why do you say the net working capital has a negative impact?",
"Yes definitely Warren Buffet averaged returns of only around 21% throughout his 40 years in business. ROE of 23% is probably more than double the ROE of most companies , whats more as the saying goes its easier to grow sales from 1 million to 100 million than to grow sales from 100 million to 10 billion",
"Lets say the hurdle rate for this company is 10% and the current return on assets is 8%. A linear increase in revenue and earnings would actually destroy some value as projects that have a 9% return are accepted even though they destroy value for the shareholder. hope this helps!",
"On a company level ROCE over WACC would be more meaningful in my view but the end result should be be pretty much the same. This concept is closely related to value creation. Value can only be created when a company's ROCE is exceeding its cost of funding - WACC. This is also tightly related with the NPV concept. Value is only created when the NPV on a project is >0. And to directly answer OP. Study in detail WACC. (weighted average cost of capital). Focus on the Modigliani–Miller theorem with taxes and financial distress costs. Good luck.",
"Profit margins. The difference goes to shareholders as new equity every quarter. You don’t need growth to see a return on equity. The consumer staple sector is a great example of this. They’ve had negative to 0 revenue growth, yet have posted respectable returns since the recession.",
"Another way to look at this is if we separate the owner's account from the business's account. At the start of the year, the owner puts $9 into the business account to get the business started. At the end of the first day, the business account has $10, and at the end of the second day, the business account has $11. The owner doesn't need to add any more of his own money into the business account. At the end of the 365th day, the business will have $374, which is $365 profit + $9 investment. Assuming the business has no other expenses, the business will calculate profit for the year like this: The author is making a strange point. The two numbers he is talking about are two different quantities. The business owner's return on investment is $365 / $9 = 4056%. But the business's profit margin is $365 / $3650 = 10%. Both are useful numbers when running the business. I disagree with the author's insinuation that a business is doing something tricky when calculating profit margin. Remember that, in addition to the business owner's monetary investment, he worked every day for a year to earn that $365.",
"Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.",
"I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.",
"Means A has a much higher level of interest payments dye to either higher debt or higher cost of debt (or combination of both). MM theory suggests higher debt in a capital structure due to the tax shield but you need to consider if A's debt level is appropriate or too high and what that says about your company.",
"\"This isn't as rigorous as it should be, but may offer some useful insight into how big and small companies differ operationally. Putting Apple aside, larger companies tend to sell larger volumes of products (even if they're MRI devices, or turbines) relative to what smaller companies can sell (obviously, in absolute terms as well). They are also able to negotiate volume discounts as well as payment terms. This allows them to finance sales through their supply chain. However, their large direct competitors are able to do the same thing as well. Competitive forces then drive prices down. Smaller businesses, without these advantages of scale, tend to have to charge higher margins since they have to pay directly (and, if their clients are large businesses, finance the sale). Small businesses still have higher proportional costs of operation. Sadly, my reference here is a study I performed for the South African Revenue Service about ten years ago, and not available online. However, the time taken by a small business to manage admin, tax, HR is a greater proportion of revenue than for larger companies. If the small business is a start-up with big investment from venture finance, then they could subsidise their selling price, run at a loss and try and gain scale. Funnily enough, there is a fantastic article on this by Joel Spolsky (Ben and Jerry's vs. Amazon) For the average highly-competitive smaller company, the best choice is to chase design/quality/premium markets in order to justify the higher margins they have to charge. And that's what makes Apple interesting as a case study. They were a small company in the presence of giants (Intel, Microsoft, IBM). They were \"\"forced\"\" to concentrate on design and premium markets in order to justify their need for higher margins. It almost didn't work but then they broke through. Now they're in the unique position of having gained scale but are still small enough relative to other electronics manufacturers to continue charging that premium (by volume their sales are still relatively small but their margins make them a giant). This type of variation from market to market makes developing some sort of generalised solution very unlikely but the general requirement holds: that smaller companies must charge higher margins in order to create equivalent profits to larger companies which must gain scale through volume.\"",
"I'll give it a shot, though I know nearly nothing about airlines. 1% is a lot when your revenue is very high. Lets say a plane can have 200 people on it. Plane tickets are a lot, so each person is charged $700 in this example. That's 140K in gross revenue per trip. 1% of that is $1400. You have several trips a day per plane. Lets say 5 trips a day per plane. Each plane is netting $7000 a day. Or around $2.5 million in profit a year. Lets say a commercial plane that has a capacity of 200, costs around $50 million. That's a 20 year ROI. Up your margins to 2%, now you're at 10 year ROI. Plus depreciation. You get to depreciate that $50 million over the course of X years. Basically making all of the profits the airline gets, tax free due to their insane amount of depreciation. Pair this income with cheap oil, and a smart CEO that can cut costs, and you have a cash cow on your hands. And given the fact that a lot of airlines have a ton of planes already depreciated to $0 that aren't on their books any more, you may be able to buy the airline for a fraction of their net assets. Margins are important, but it's all relative. Edit: Changed numbers to prove my point, and because I am not a smart man",
">Jeremy Grantham, chief investment strategist of Boston-based Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co., said margins will send stock markets tumbling when they eventually revert to their mean. >“The implication for the stock market is ugly, because it means earnings are unsustainably high,” Grantham’s colleague Ben Inker, GMO’s director of asset allocation, said in a telephone interview.",
"Problem with deciding investments in a company is that you have multiple potential options, each with their projected returns, but each also has some hard-to-estimate risks. A further problem is that these opportunities arrive one-by-one, so you usually cannot compare project A vs. project B to decide which one is better. The internal rate of return is a rule-of-thumb like way to make these decisions. The company board may set an IRR target of e.g. 15%, and each executive will compare their projects against that target. They'll execute only the projects that are projected to give a good return, but some of these projects will end up failing. Thus the real average profit will not be equal to IRR. Important thing is that this target number gives ways to compare projects, and also for the board to control the investments. If the company has a good track record of being successful at projects, the board might set an IRR target of 10% and expect to get e.g. 8% return on their investment. However, if the company has a much larger risk of projects failing, they might demand a predicted IRR of 20% to account for the risk. Ultimately if the IRR target is set too high, the company will find no projects it considers profitable to invest in. In practice if this happens, the company owners are better off taking out the cash as dividends and investing it elsewhere.",
"When your profits are increased from mass layoffs and reduced expenses (like r&d) to appease investors, and not based on innovation, new market entry, or competitive advantage. It's a short term quick win but puts the long term in jeopardy.",
"Two of the main ways that investors benefit financially from a stock are dividends and increases in the price of the stock. In the example as described, the benefits came primarily from dividends, leaving less benefits to be realized in terms of an increase in the value of the company. Another way to put that is that the company paid its profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend, instead of accumulating that as an increase in the value of the company. The company could have chosen to take those profits and reinvest them in growing the business, which would lead to lower dividends but (hopefully) an increase in the valuation of the stock, but they chose to pay dividends instead. This still rewards the investors, but share prices stay low.",
"\"The company was paying \"\"only\"\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \"\"too high,\"\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \"\"most\"\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \"\"stingy,\"\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\"",
"> But so long as the incremental improvement to your bottom line is there, the investment is sound, with or without taxes. wat If E(ROA)>0 it's a sound investment? Not at all. > any investment the company makes that improves their net income automatically means more money for the company Where is this money coming from? If it's debt-financed it escapes corporate tax rate because interest payments are deductible. Is it coming from the company's retained earnings? We have less of that now because we hiked up the corporate tax rate. Your argument also neglects the impact corporate taxes have on equity financing and corporate leverage.",
"PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.",
"Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood. Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in. Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year. Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due. I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off. Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has. Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean. Does that make sense?",
"the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street",
"It sounds like you're drastically oversimplifying basic business economics, and implying that any company is just as well off breaking even (zero profit) as it is with turning a big profit. This is blatantly incorrect and naive. For one thing, it is certainly be easier to justify expansion or attract new investments if your company is profitable.",
"Honestly, I’m not sure I understand your point. The figures suggest to me that the business invests (higher capex and amortisation) and grows it’s revenues and cash flow. D&A can be higher than new capex for a number of reasons including accelerated amortisation for tax purposes. Why is D&A contribution (actually i prefer to separate the concepts of P&L and cash flow) to operating cash flow a problem or why does it evidence manipulation?",
"Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel). If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy. The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.",
"\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \"\"value\"\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \"\"book value\"\" is your compensation for a low \"\"interest\"\" rate.\"",
"\"Why there is this huge difference? I am not able to reconcile Yahoo's answer of 5.75%, even using their definition for ROA of: Return on Assets Formula: Earnings from Continuing Operations / Average Total Equity This ratio shows percentage of Returns to Total Assets of the company. This is a useful measure in analyzing how well a company uses its assets to produce earnings. I suspect the \"\"Average Total Equity\"\" in their formula is a typo, but using either measure I cannot come up with 5.75% for any 12-month period. I can, however, match MarketWatch's answer by looking at the 2016 fiscal year totals and using a \"\"traditional\"\" formula of Net Income / Average Total Assets: I'm NOT saying that MatketWatch is right and Yahoo is wrong - MW is using fiscal year totals while Yahoo is using trailing 12-month numbers, and Yahoo uses \"\"Earnings from Continuing Operations\"\", but even using that number (which Yahoo calculates) I am not able to reconcile the 5.75% they give.\"",
"It is true that operation profit comes from gross profit however it is possible for a company to have negative net profit yet have postive cash flow , it has to do with the accounting practice A possible example is that a company has extremely high depreciation expense of fixed asset hence net profit will be negative but cash flow will be positive. Assuming the fixed asset has been fully paid for in earlier years",
"It would be the sales revenue less everything else. When he says reinvest, that is to say they keep all of the post-tax earnings and place it in retained earnings. This means that it is still the companies money to invest and use to fulfill their goals. If they didn't have any worthy investing opportunities, they could issue dividends. So say your cost of capital is, eeeeeh, 15%. And the best investment you can make will earn you 12%. That's a loss of value. So the company, acting in the investors best interests, will give those funds back so that the investors can allocate that money to more efficient areas. Dividends are one mechanism a company has to control their rate of growth.",
"I don't think it makes sense to allow accounting numbers that you are not sure how to interpret as being a sell sign. If you know why the numbers are weird and you feel that the reason for it bodes ill about the future, and if you think there's a reason this has not been accounted for by the market, then you might think about selling. The stock's performance will depend on what happens in the future. Financials just document the past, and are subject to all kinds of lumpiness, seasonality, and manipulation. You might benefit from posting a link to where you got your financials. Whenever one computes something like a dividend payout ratio, one must select a time period over which to measure. If the company had a rough quarter in terms of earnings but chose not to reduce dividends because they don't expect the future to be rough, that would explain a crazy high dividend ratio. Or if they were changing their capital structure. Or one of many other potentially benign things. Accounting numbers summarize a ton of complex workings of the company and many ratios we look at could be defined in several different ways. I'm afraid that the answer to your question about how to interpret things is in the details, and we are not looking at the same details you are.",
"High ROI and high barriers to entry are rare to find existing together at the same time in the same market. More commonly, you have high margins/ROI in early markets, but high barriers to entry are more common in mature markets. The most common places to find high ROI and barriers to entry is when there is something *proprietary* involved. This is why the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields are so valuable. Industries related to these fields have an edge because they are the most likely fields to create something proprietary. When something proprietary is also in high demand, you have a barrier to entry and also a potential to create high margins (which in turn will be high ROI). Some people have mentioned medical devices, which are an excellent example. There are only a handful of companies that have went to the lengths of development to create the Swan Ganz catheter, for example (an essential tool used in cardiac surgeries). With little competition and high demand, companies that manufacture Swan Ganz catheters can put healthy margins on the product without worry. TL;DR: The best way to find something high ROI that also has barriers to entry is to specialize towards something proprietary that cannot be imitated or replaced, but is also in high demand.",
"The P/E ratio is a measure of historic (the previous financial year) earnings against the current share price. If the P/E is high, this means that the market perceives a big increase in future earnings per share. In other words, the perception is that this is a fast growing company. Higher earnings may also equate to big increases in dividends and rapid expansion. On the other hand, if the P/E is low, then there is a perception that either earnings per share are decreasing or that future growth in earnings is negligible. In other words, low P/E equates to a perception of low future growth and therefore low prospects for future payout increases - possibly even decreases. The market is (rightly) usually willing to pay a premium for fast growing companies.",
"Actually, share holder value is is better maximised by borrowing, and paying dividends is fairly irrelevant but a natural phase on a mature and stable company. Company finance is generally a balance between borrowing, and money raised from shares. It should be self evident with a little thought that if not now, then in the future, a company should be able to create earnings in excess of the cost of borrowing, or it's not a very valuable company to invest in! In fact what's the point of borrowing if the cost of the interest is greater than whatever wealth is being generated? The important thing about this is that money raised from shares is more expensive than borrowing. If a company doesn't pay dividends, and its share price goes up because of the increasing value of the business, and in your example the company is not borrowing more because of this, then the proportion of the value of the company that is based on the borrowing goes down. So, this means a higher and higher proportion of the finance of a company is provided by the more expensive share holders than the less expensive borrowing, and thus the company is actually providing LESS value to share holders than it might. Of course, if a company doesn't pay a dividend AND borrows more, this is not true, but that's not the scenario in your question, and generally mature companies with mature earnings may as well pay dividends as they aren't on a massive expansion drive in the same way. Now, this relative expense of share holders and borrowing is MORE true for a mature company with stable earnings, as they are less of a risk and can borrow at more favourable rates, AND such a company is LIKELY to be expanding less rapidly than a small new innovative company, so for both these reasons returning money to share holders and borrowing (or maintaining existing lending facilities) maintains a relatively more efficient financing ratio. Of course all this means that in theory, a company should be more efficient if it has no share holders at all and borrows ALL of the money it needs. Yes. In practise though, lenders aren't so keen on that scenario, they would rather have shareholders sharing the risk, and lending a less than 100% proportion of the total of a companies finance means they are much more likely to get their money back if things go horribly wrong. To take a small start up company by comparison, lenders will be leary of lending at all, and will certainly impose high rates if they do, or ask for guarantors, or demand security (and security is only available if there is other investment besides the loan). So this is why a small start up is likely to be much more heavily or exclusively funded by share holders. Also the start up is likely not to pay a dividend, because for a start it's probably not making any profit, but even if it is and could pay a dividend, in this situation borrowing is unavailable or very expensive and this is a rapidly growing business that wants to keep its hands on all the cash it can to accelerate itself. Once it starts making money of course a start up is on its way to making the transition, it becomes able to borrow money at sensible rates, it becomes bigger and more valuable on the back of the borrowing. Another important point is that dividend income is more stable, at least for the mature companies with stable earnings of your scenario, and investors like stability. If all the income from a portfolio has to be generated by sales, what happens when there is a market crash? Suddenly the investor has to pay, where as with dividends, the company pays, at least for a while. If a company's earnings are hit by market conditions of course it's likely the dividend will eventually be cut, but short term volatility should be largely eliminated.",
"I agree, the markets that Amazon competes in his extremely competitive with larger companies (such as Wal Mart) operating at smaller margins to increase volume. Since Amazon is continuously trying to increase its customer base and customer loyalty, they really need the low margins. The 1% increase could be harmful to the long-term growth of the company, which as the executives of Amazon explain, really matters more than higher profits this quarter. Furthermore, 5% decrease in SGA sounds like a company that's downsizing, particularly a company that operates as efficiently as Amazon, making that suggestion unreasonable and unrealistic.",
"Well like a lot of stuff on money.stackexchange there is not a simple answer, but generally it is not a good thing. Take a look at the wikipedia entry on Net Operating Loss. Basically the company is commenting that when they do make money they will receive preferential tax treatment on that income. So whether or not this is a positive or a negative depends on a couple of things: NOL doesn't directly impact book value other than how the actual assets of the company changed over the previous quarter. I believe there is a 1:1 correspondence to how the assets change and NOL, but I am sure someone could clarify that for me in another answer or as a comment.",
"Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains.",
"EBIT could be lower due to non-operating revenues such as investments in other companies, tax reliefs, adjustments to incorrect loss provisions and various other items that would not be part of the companies day to day operations. Be careful and read the footnotes and managements discussion for those items, they should be disclosed to some extent.",
"> You need to look at where the profits are coming from. Sure. If profits are coming from non-recurring revenue sources, then it isn't a great indication of ongoing profitability. If, on the other hand, profits are coming from lean staffing, low costs and a focus on the bottom line...then you're talking about how a well-run business is operated. It has been a long time since I worked on the floor of an IB so I can't speak to work happiness these days, but I do know that much of the exodus is in the form of people leaving for the buyside (as always), or for greener pastures working on FinTech out in SF.",
"Yeah that all can definitely be true as well, in fact we both 100% agree on symptoms of low growth. However personally I believe there are always ways to reinvest and build your business. I mean look at AAPL, they allocated $100~ billion into their own Nevada hedge fund buying up high quality debt like it's a fire sale. Some companies create their own VC firms combatting disruptive innovation. We can argue about this all we want but share buybacks can signify a lot of things at the end of the day haha. My main point with the comment above was that the buybacks inflating EPS makes it more difficult to identify true earnings growth of a company. So serious question, do you know of any ways to filter that out and identify real earnings growth?",
"It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit. What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash.",
"If it's a low margin business and you can get value for it that's higher than the leadership values it, and they have some opportunity in a better margin business but for some reason couldn't acquire debt funding or more investors to fund the new business; then it might be feasible, but unusual and probably not ideal.",
"This is the point of the article. Somehow a company which is so successful has, for tax purposes, such a razor thin margin. So their taxation clearly isn't in keeping with its actual ability to pay, passing along the burden to other businesses and individuals.",
"Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.",
"There are not always capital-efficient ways for a company to reinvest its own profits. This is why dividends exist. Imagine a company will reinvest 80% of its profits into a project with a huge projected return, but the other 20% of the company's profits cannot be reinvested efficiently because there are zero projects in which to reinvest the profits into that would return a better profit than what the company's shareholders could make by reinvesting those profits in their own way (ie: a benchmark market index like an S&P 500 index fund). Since the shareholders could make a better return with this than the company could with any company project, it would be irresponsible (technically maybe even illegal) for the company to reinvest that 20% of the profits. This reason for companies sometimes paying out profits to shareholders in the form of dividends is a market-efficient part of the economic system, and it really is great. If a CEO/CFO/anyone is paying out so much profit from a company that it is irresponsible to the company's investors, then that would also technically be illegal since the company is evading efficient project that would benefit its shareholders more than they could benefit themselves elsewhere in the market. (These legalities with shareholder laws are not explicitly put into action very often, but their effects are always there) It's also worth noting payout/plowback strategy is very important for the strategy and financing of a company, particularly for public investments.",
"\"No, having to borrow money does not necessarily mean a company will have a hard time paying the interest on it. Similarly, having to take out a mortgage on a house does not mean a person will not be able to make their mortgage payments. Borrowing money can be a way to spend future money instead of present money (at a cost, of course). A company might not have all that money at the moment, but that in no way implies they won't have it in the future. And as you allude to in your question where you talk about \"\"funding some … plans\"\", a company might be able to grow itself—possibly increasing future profits—by borrowing money.\"",
"Residential Construction at 362x, by the way. I'm going to hazard a guess here - Say XYZ corp trades at $100, and it's showing a normal earnings of $10 the last few years. Its industry falls on hard times, and while it makes enough to keep its doors open, profits fall to $1. The company itself is still sound, but the small earnings result in a high P/E. By the way, its book value is $110, and they have huge cash on the books along with real estate. I offer these details to show why the price doesn't drop like a rock. Now, biotech may be in a period of low reported earnings but with future results expected to justify the price. On one hand it may be an anomaly, with earnings due to rise, or it may be a bit of a bubble. An analyst for this sector should be able to comment if I'm on the right track.",
"First, the earnings are per year, not per quarter. Why would you expect to get a 100% per year return on your money? The earnings can go one of two ways. They can be retained, reinvested in the company, or they can be distributed as a dividend. So, the 'return' on this share is just over 5%, which is competitive with the rate you'd get on fixed investments. It's higher, in fact, as there's the risk that comes with holding the stock.",
"There's a distinction between profits and cash flow, attributed to the recognition of non-cash items. If you have a business where your customers pay you quickly, you manage your inventory well, and you’re able to take your time in paying your suppliers, your free cash flow can be consistently positive even when your net income is not.",
"This is basically saying that it's not possible to make more than some not-so-large amount without taking for yourself part of what several other people produce, yes? How does that fit with the very high profits per a employee numbers that some companies have?: http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-profitable-employees-companies",
"Their net income hangs around zero because they raise expenses as reinvestment in the company (line items like $16.09B in Research & Development expense last year). Retained earnings is a balance sheet item reflective of assets they're holding for projects in a later fiscal period; they aren't waiting for the next period to reinvest.",
"First read mhoran's answer, Then this - If the company sold nothing but refrigerators, and had 40% market share, that's $4M/yr in sales. If they have a 30% profit margin, $1.2M in profit each year. A P/E of 10 would give a stock value totaling $12M, more than the market size. The numbers are related, of course, but one isn't the maximum of the other.",
"\"P/E is a pretty poor way to value the company as it exists today. The company generates free cash flow yield of 2.5-3.3% which isn't remarkably high, but it's not nearly as bad as the earnings yield of 1.1%. But let's operate within the P/E ratio for right now. The company sells $40 billion of \"\"stuff\"\" each year with a net margin of 2%. If they increased prices on every product by 1% (which really wouldn't be _that_ noticeable) their profit would grow 50%. Thus, P/E drops from 90 to 60. SGA expenses equal ~20% of their operating costs. Cut 5% of SGA and you get the same 1% increase in net margin. This could come from cost-cutting today, or by greater economies of scale in the future while keeping prices the same. So, yes, it's priced as a growth firm, but it doesn't necessarily need customer growth in the traditional sense to be fairly-valued.\"",
"Profits go to the owners of the corporation for providing capitol. CAT is paying around 2% ... a little under $2/year/share in dividends. (note that dividends come out of profits, not before.) A 2% return on investment isn't a terrible thing. It's not great, but in current economic conditions, it's respectable. Looking at their financial statements, they don't have tons of cash on the books relative to what they spend in a quarter. They do have a fair chunk of their assets tied up in inventory. On the books, that goes down as a profit - kinda. It's mostly neutral accounting wise - money went out, inventory came in. You now have an asset worth exactly what you spent on it. The biggest growth in assets over the last couple of years has been in inventory. The amount in inventory is greater than assets minus liabilities. Then again, so is cash on hand, but the cash flow rate is also pretty high because the margins are low. So... yeah... they're making more money, but they're also investing most of that back into the capital costs of growing the business. New machinery, inventory that they can sell, business development in new markets, etc. Remember that capital costs are considered neutral - you receive an asset in return. This is distinct from operating costs which come straight to the bottom line.",
"You are omitting how the company made 120 million in the previous year and may be facing a shrinking market and thus have poor future prospects. If the company is shrinking, what will the shares be worth down the road. Remember companies like AOL or Blackberry? There was a time they had big profits before things changed which is the part you aren't considering here. If the company has lost something big on its earnings, e.g. the oil wells it owned have run out of reserves or the patents on its key drugs have expired, then there could be the perception that the company won't be able to compete in the future to continue to deliver earnings. Some companies may well end up going broke as one could look at GM for a company that used to be one of the largest car companies in the world and yet it ended up going broke.",
"\"It depends on the definition of earnings. A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce \"\"earnings\"\" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred). It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues).\"",
"\"If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt. If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt. The problem is, where is the inflection point between \"\"well\"\" and \"\"poorly\"\"? When does a company start to head into oblivion? Sometimes it is hard to know. But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit. If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely. A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario. Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price. And, this then has a \"\"meta\"\" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, \"\"all other investors think this way, too,\"\" and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence.\"",
"It means someone's getting paid too much. I'd check the sharpe ratio and compare that to similar funds along with their expense ratio. So in some scenarios it's not necessarily a bad thing but being informed is the important thing",
"> In other words, the company's operating assets function as a kind of piggy bank whose purpose is to extract profits that are then flushed out to shareholders. This is the sad fate of essentially all mature businesses under the conditions of American financial capitalism and, indeed, Whole Foods' executive team — led by its founder John Mackey — has been under intense pressure recently from an activist hedge fund that bought shares and has been agitating for cost cutting and more payouts. No shit. If an investor can't make a return from an increasing stock price (whole foods is flat or worse, trading at 50% of peak before Amazon closed) then then the stock must pay a dividend or nobody wants to hold it because it's a losing asset.",
"\"IMO, what it seems like you've done is nothing more than having screened out a company worth further investigation. The next step would be a thorough analysis of the company's past financials and current statements to arrive at your own opinion / forecast of the immediate and far future of the company's prospects. Typically, this is done by looking at the company's regulatory filings, and maybe some additional searching on comparison businesses. There are many sources of instruction for how one might \"\"value\"\" or \"\"analyze\"\" a company, or that provide help on \"\"reading a balance sheet\"\". (This is not an easy skill to learn, but it is one that will prove invaluable over a lifetime of investing.) It is possible that you'll uncover a deteriorating business where the latest selling, and subsequent drop in price that caused the high yield, is well-deserved. In which case, you know to stay away and move on to the next idea. On the other hand, you might end up confident that the company is not suffering from a drop in sales, rise in expenses, growing debt payments, loss of \"\"moat\"\", etc. In which case, you've found a great investment candidate. I say candidate because you still may decide this company isn't for you, even if the financials are right, because you might find better opportunities for an equal, or acceptable, return at lower risk while you're researching. As to the yield being high when there are no problems with the fundamentals of the business, this may simply be because of panic selling during this past few week's downturn, or some other sort of temporary and superficial scare. However, be warned that the masses can remain irrational, and thus the price stay suppressed or even drop further, for longer than you're willing to wait for your ROI. The good news is that in that case, you're being well compensated to wait at a 11+% yield!\"",
"Let me ask you something else: If you knew about a company that makes $1 million of profit per year and growing, with costs that are half that, would you not be interested to have a stake in this company? Of course you would. And because the shares can be publicly bought, you can. I don't think you'd care if it's an asset manager or some other company. An asset manager can do a lot with the capital it raises. It could get bigger and better offices, invest in a better computer system, maybe get faster access to exchange information, better information terminals, have more money for marketing and road shows. But the really big cash usually goes to acquire new talent. You might not need that much money for support staff, but a sales manager can be expensive, and a good fund manager can easily cost a high 7 to 8 figure number per year.",
"\"Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true. From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock. This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings. A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up. These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called \"\"growth\"\" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way.\"",
"no interest expense (no debt in the capital structure) and an income tax benefit is one possible scenario. you determine this through the financial statement by looking for the differences between the E and EBIT in those calculations (interest and taxes). of course, extraordinary items and discontinued operations could also be present, and result in the difference noted.",
"Mostly we invest in companies to make money. The money can be paid to as in the form of dividends that are a share of the profit. Or the company can convince enough people that it will make a lot higher profit next year, so its stock prices increases. Clearly a company that reinvests its 20% profit from one shop to open an 2nd shop is doing well and is a good investment. But, But, But... we only have the companies word for it! A dividend paying company finds it a lot harder to hide bad news for long, as it will not have the money in the bank to pay the dividends.",
"Aside from the market implications Victor and JB King mention, another possible reason is the dividends they pay. Usually, the dividends a company pays are dependent on the profit the company made. if a company makes less profit, the dividends turn out smaller. This might incite unrest among the shareholders, because this means that they get paid less dividends, which makes that share more likely to be sold, and thus for the price to fall.",
"While losing market share. That's the required context to understand why their model isn't working. Price hikes reduced their losses but people still jumped ship. Their top line growth is a result of market growth and not competitive growth as a company.",
"\"In some sense, I agree, but let's look at Apple who in 1997 when Steve came back as CEO and had to beg monies from Microsoft (which he received as a professional courtesy) to stay afloat swore he would never have to do again and literally deemed investors as a \"\"necessary evil\"\". He presided over one of the most profound rainy day funds (which eclipsed the US Government for a few days in its depth) because he never wanted to be in that position again. He died and Tim Cook initiated splits and buybacks. I think Cook went too far in one direction and Jobs in the other. Another stock to consider in a similar light is Starbucks. But these stocks are performing, I'm an investor, and I'm not going to complain about management decisions when ROI is at are above 20/30ish percent. Other companies like Thomson Reuters fail to achieve a cohesive diverse presence in multiple markets inexpensively sans their newsdesk operations. I'm not saying your wrong, it's just a formula of trust and strategy.\"",
">But when share repurchases replace a company’s research-and-development spending, that indicates its management is unable or unwilling to spend on innovation that could generate future earnings to shareholders. I disagree. If we look at buybacks and r&d purely as investments, a shorter term investment is lower in risk and return, while a longer term one is higher in risk. Of course, the same goes for respective returns. Knowing that research-to-market time for a drug is 5-12 years, and that buybacks are almost immediate returns, the 11% difference over ten years seems generous, not greedy. I've read the same being said about marketing budgets being more than r&d. Again, if the market doesn't have perfect flow of information, marketing become a need to survive. A smart CEO would never spend more on marketing than is necessary. It's the last cost a company bears on a product before booking a sale, and it's the last bite out of the profit.",
"Just looking at the numbers, something appears off. Cost of equity of ~4% seems very low and should not be below cost of debt. Also a risk free rate of 1.66% seems VERY low. Sometimes it's worth taking a step back and seeing if the numbers even make sense. If you're serious about using your own analysis for investing, the assumptions are extremely important and incorrect ones can throw everything off.",
"I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.",
"No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.",
"I took a look at their cash flow and they spent 3 billion buying back shares and another 3 billion just last year in capex. That is 6 billion right there. I'm not sure what that capex was supposed to buy but it appears they aren't getting much of a payoff.",
"According to pretty well accepted corporate finance principles. They're mature/maturing companies with large durable noncyclical cash flow streams. Increasing their debt load and distributing the proceeds to shareholders would lower their after tax cost of capital and increase the value of their equity. IMO operating with such under levered balance sheets is nonoptimal. It's subjective though.",
"Yes youre right it's far more complex than the M-M textbook theory. My view is that there's even more advantages to debt than M-M would say. Further you've nailed exactly why these companies don't follow corporate norms. As disruptors they fear disruption despite their pretty much impenetrable moats. But their CFOs are slowly turning them. MSFT now has a normal corporate structure, apple is getting there, and Google hired Morgan Stanley's CFO. I disagree on your last point: what an entrepreneur CEO (who built a disruptive business from the ground up) wants for his balance sheet is usually not the right thing for shareholders. They do it because they can get away with it due to share class structure and their phenomenal operating performance. That's just my opinion.",
"In finance you are taught that debt financing is cheaper than equity financing. Also to improve your credit rating, showing that you can carry debt responsibly and pay it off without a hitch sends dog whistle that the corporation is operating well.",
"Do not confuse the DIV (%) value and the dividend yield. As you can see from this page, the DIV (%) is, as you say, 165%. However, the dividend yield is 3.73% at the time of writing. As the Investopedia page referenced above says: The payout ratio is calculated as follows: Annual Dividends per Share / Earnings per Share. which means that the dividends being paid out are more than the earnings of the company: In extreme cases, dividend payout ratios exceed 100%, meaning more dividends were paid out than there were profits that year. Significantly high ratios are unsustainable.",
"\"There is no general theory to support the notion that larger companies will be more profitable than smaller companies. Economies of scale are not always positive, one can have diseconomies of scale too. It is more common to talk about an optimal firm size, even going back to Stigler's (1958) \"\"The Economies of Scale.\"\" Intuitively, if economies of scale extended indefinitely, then natural monopolies would dominate all industries in the long run. A profit ratio, unfortunately, wouldn't quite get at scale economies. Consider, for example, that the denominator of your metric would be profit+cost and that you are trying to get at the cost reduction that derives from scale. Then, you are measuring the size of a company by the exact metric that should be reduced if scale economies exist, so the calculation would be a bit confounded. It is my understanding that such assessments are usually conducted at the industry level by determining whether the industry is becoming increasingly concentrated among fewer firms over time. (Again see Stigler). If concentration is increasing, there is an implication that, at current firm sizes, there are economies of scale in the industry.\"",
"How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.",
"\">Good, that gives their competition time to take market share. Except TAM (total actual market) is decreasing, the pool of \"\"market share\"\" is going down. So what's happening is companies are slashing margins to even maintain market share, much less increase it. Look at what's happening in computers, DELL, HP, Acer, Asus, Lenovo. Apple's sales numbers dropped for notebooks as well, but because they didnt drop as much as HP or Lenovo their market share went up. This is the new normal. Less than stellar sales. >As long as there is money on the table, someone is going to reach for it. Markets aren't known for their patience. Problem is there is less and less money on the table. Big companies are squeezing little companies. Know what you just described? Wal-mart puts the little guy out of business--- they're efficent! >Bullshit, tax burdens cause tax avoidance, they don't touch production as long as profits are still available. Yes, some, but you can only avoid it if you are multi-national. Businesses with completely domestic operations cannot avoid liabilities in the same way. But as I said above the markets are shrinking, there is less money on the table and the players that are left are fighting over the last scraps. That is obviously a bit extreme, but I personally deal with a lot of retailers and OEMs and there is NOT the wiggle room you describe. I get beat up for a few dollars. I am not talking about banks, or energy companies, or healthcare companies. I am talking about the thousands of small and medium businesses that are already squeezed. These entities are the lifeblood of the larger economy. One or two go out of business and nobody notices, but hundreds and thousands of these companies have closed now. A healthy company is not made up of only Wal-mart, Exxon and Apple.\"",
"\"Right. Because there was no profits. The company managed to grow by keeping very tight control of costs with respect to revenue. It's not a loophole. The alternative is spending less or charging more. Either of these things probably has significantly worse outcomes to the company - slower growth due to lack of reinvestment in the business, or slower growth due to not attracting as many customers through competitive pricing. What they have done is become a very valuable company due to a strong revenue stream. (You can ask whether a strong revenue stream alone is enough to justify their valuation, but investors seem to think so, and it also seems to indicate that they expect the stock price to continue rising or they wouldn't spend that much.) When Amazon started, I remember people joking \"\"they lose money on every sale, but they make up for it in volume\"\". Seems to have worked out for them in the long run.\"",
"First, corporate profits can grow relative to GDP. If companies succeed in growing revenue without paying much more to workers, then corporate profits and stock prices will grow relative to GDP. That has been happening for the last couple decades. If you require that we keep corporate profits vs GDP constant, then borrowing/leverage is how you do it. Companies can expand their operations on a fixed amount of shareholder equity, and as long as they can grow their profits faster than the cost of the debt, then shareholders keep the upside. But this also means that share prices will quickly fall if profits decline even a small amount, because the debt must still be paid off.",
"Talk to almost any large cap CFO or read any corporate finance textbook. McKinsey's Valuation is a great one to own: though yes McKinsey consultants can take a good idea and turn it bad by overdoing it to an extreme. Why would universal corporate finance principles not apply to large cap tech? Why is having $XXb of unutilized cash for a company with durable cash flow a good thing for equity investors?",
"As JB hints, it is likely due to superior or improving, fundamentals. If the fundamentals of a company improve then its ability to repay loans improves. If its ability to repay improves then more sources of cash become willing to lend to the company. Also if fundamentals are improving then more sources are willing to buy and/or hold the stock.",
"Both of these terms do refer to your profit; they're just different ways of evaluating it. First, your definition of capitalization rate is flipped. As explained here, it should be: On the other hand, as explained here: So cap rate is like a reverse unit cost approach to comparing two investments. If house A costs $1M and you'll make $50K (profit) from it yearly, and house B costs $1.33M and you'll make $65K (profit) from it yearly, then you can compute cap rates to see that A is a more efficient investment from the point of view of income vs. amount-of-money-you-have-stuck-in-this-investment-and-unavailable-for-use-elsewhere. Profit margin, on the other hand, cares more about your ongoing expenses than about your total investment. If it costs less to maintain property B than it does to maintain property A, then you could have something like: So B is a more efficient investment from the point of view of the fraction of your revenue you actually get to keep each year. Certainly you could think of the property's value as an opportunity cost and factor that into the net profit margin equation to get a more robust estimate of exactly how efficient your investment is. You can keep piling more factors into the equation until you've accounted for every possible facet of your investment. This is what accountants and economists spend their days doing. :-)",
"It says Amazon has no profits (or very low profits) but the value of the company is very high and growing because of the high revenue. All of the returns to investors are in the form of increased share price which isn't realized or taxed until the shares are sold. This isn't a loophole. Anybody can run a business where they spend most of their revenue on operating costs and run on very slim margins with the goal of growing the revenue.",
"The ROI percentage becomes a meaningless figure at that point and would either be infinite or a very large number if you assume an equity investment of $1 or $0.01. At that point it's obviously a lucrative deal *as long as it works out* so the bigger question is what are the risks of it not working out and what's the ROIC.",
"With your numbers, look at it this way - You borrowed $50. When the stock is $100, you are at 50% margin. What's most important, is that there's margin interest charged, so the amount owed will increase regardless of the stock price. When calculating your return or loss, the interest has to be accounted for or your numbers will be wrong. For a small investor, margin rates can run high, and often, will offset much of your potential gain. What good is a $100 gain if you paid $125 in margin interest?",
"\"It's not abnormal for a company that is as young as yours seems to be. It seems (based on what little I know), that you have debts, or accounts payable that were formerly covered by the $200 cash, but now aren't, because you paid it to yourself. For now, you're \"\"entitled\"\" to pay yourself a draw or a salary. But if you continue to do so without earning money to cover it, your company will fail.\"",
"A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;",
"You can do a bunch of sales if you price your product too low to make any money. Lots of sales, not much revenue. Kind of like what Square is going through right now. Now if you do a lot of sales at a good price, leading to good revenue and cash flow, THEN you are winning. EDIT: Before people get pedantic over my Square analogy, yes, I know they are making a lot of revenue but their margins are incredibly thin and the bulk of their revenue goes immediately to Visa/MC etc so the analogy still works. Lots of sales, not much green.",
"\"My favorite line: \"\"Companies should generate enough profits to justify the price that shareholders are willing to pay for its shares. Once shareholders are no longer willing to pay up for those profits, they should invest that money elsewhere.\"\" This person loses all credibility right here.\"",
"The market cap always reflect the company's equity. Except that you cannot fix a stock price in a free market. A company with such profit pattern would have stock price behave like present value of a perpetuity (future income stream discounted by risk free rate) Since your assumption is unachievable, there is no point in determining the logic.",
"Small companies are generally able to adapt quickly to take advantage of changing conditions to enter new markets when the economy is growing. This gives them a lot of growth potential under those circumstances. However, in times of crisis, there may not be a lot of new markets to enter, and financing to expand any operations may be impossible to get. Under these conditions, small-caps will suffer relative to large-caps.",
"\"No, but it is certainly a possibility. the efficient market hypothesis would say that this means that the market perceives the present value of all future earning as negative. These earnings might take the form of a writedown of assets at some point. (Companies carry a goodwill asset that is generally imaginary. They book that asset when they buy companies for more than they are worth.) It would be as if PRUN was a stock tracking my life. If I bought my house in 2006 for $1 million cash. I might have a book value of $1 million. However, PRUN might trade at $500k because the market knows that my asset isn't really worth $1 million and at some point my earnings will take a hit to reflect that. It might also mean that future \"\"real\"\" earnings \"\"ie actual profit and loss on sales\"\" are going to be negative. This would mean bankruptcy is more likely.\"",
"There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!",
"\"Not sure I fully understand your question but my take on it is this: There a lot of people out there that admire companies and own the stock just because they like the company. For example, I know some kids who own Disney stock. They only have a share or two but they keep it because they want to say \"\"I own a part of Disney.\"\" Realistically speaking, if they hold or sell the stock it is so minuscule to have any realizable affect on the overall value of the stock which does not really make the company look better from an investor perspective. However, if a company has people that just want to own the stock just like your uncle are indeed \"\"better\"\" because they must have provided a product or service that is valued intrinsically.\"",
"It is. The outstanding value is the net cash flow, but it will always be higher than cash outflow due to a constant growth rate/expected return. I was slightly confused when my manager told me to find the IRR before and after cash inflows (the whole life of the investment). Especially as IRR after cash inflows is higher than the former.",
"\"> Or does it differ between every company what non-cash charges they have? This. Here's a hint: the FCFF *can* be calculated from Cash Flow from Operations (CFO). Think of FCFF this way: \"\"after the business has operated *and* made *all* investments needed to grow, both short and long-term, how much is left over for providers of capital?\"\" [Here's a good resource for you.](https://www.cfainstitute.org/learning/products/publications/inv/Documents/equity_chapter6.ppt)\""
] |
[
"The operating margin deals with the ability for a company to make a profit above the costs of running the company and generating sales. While ROE is how much money the company makes relative to the shareholders equity. I'd be willing to bet that if a company has a small ROE then it also has a quite large P/E (price to earnings) ratio. This would be caused by the company's stock being bid up in relation to its earnings and may not necessarily be a bad thing. People expect the high operating margin to help drive increased revenues in the future, and are willing to pay a higher price now for when that day comes."
] |
2747
|
What evidence do I need to declare tutoring income on my income tax?
|
[
"540571"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"540571",
"123693",
"184698",
"150271",
"527776",
"402686",
"65095",
"172457",
"174025",
"159709",
"111157",
"156444",
"11021",
"449816",
"189994",
"327826",
"294187",
"509617",
"392484",
"238622",
"281803",
"421924",
"128861",
"51761",
"349424",
"172745",
"576873",
"388078",
"374264",
"469601",
"223624",
"442142",
"304034",
"299258",
"399409",
"555732",
"199617",
"427849",
"15270",
"257249",
"298009",
"433766",
"118615",
"91325",
"114835",
"345603",
"416511",
"599336",
"232451",
"496947",
"157551",
"496064",
"401551",
"547941",
"24421",
"466718",
"454184",
"66492",
"283505",
"384187",
"19245",
"2718",
"378110",
"219156",
"393354",
"583945",
"125776",
"33287",
"316925",
"545780",
"218460",
"26979",
"527318",
"156063",
"60820",
"141111",
"521411",
"416117",
"334902",
"221014",
"322906",
"599876",
"541315",
"568324",
"101382",
"405777",
"284085",
"529565",
"215437",
"204703",
"312625",
"426947",
"433292",
"82344",
"445052",
"203155",
"93638",
"328853",
"484375",
"319158"
] |
[
"I have been a private tutor on and off for about 30 years, in three countries, so I understand your concerns! I always kept records as though it was a real business - even if I only had one student I kept records of dates/times/names, and also tracked where the money went (I never spent it straight up - it always got deposited to complete the paper trail; yes, this is paranoia on my part). I've never been asked to prove anything with regards this income (although I have no Canadian experience). It's always been a case of tell the tax folks and make sure my arse is covered if they come asking questions. Hope this helps.",
"There is a moral and legal obligation to file the earnings. Not doing so is tax fraud. You should keep a ledger or some record of your earnings, helpful guidelines here. Records are required by the CRA: According to the law, your responsibilities include: (source) You could get in trouble if one of your pupils report the expense at their tax filing, and the CRA finds no matching statement on your filing report. Tutoring are eligible for tax credit in case of disability: Tutoring services that are supplementary to the primary education of a person with a learning disability or an impairment in mental functions, and paid to a person in the business of providing these services to individuals who are not related to the person. A medical practitioner must certify in writing that these services are necessary. So if one of your pupils fall under that provision, you will get tax trouble sooner or later. Bottom line: start making records now, and report your earnings. Collect your tax as any lawful citizen is required to.",
"\"You can list it as other income reported on line 21 of form 1040. In TurboTax, enter at: - Federal Taxes tab (Personal in Home & Business) - Wages & Income -“I’ll choose what I work on” Button Scroll down to: -Less Common Income -Misc Income, 1099-A, 1099-C. -The next screen will give you several choices. Choose \"\"Other reportable Income\"\". You will reach a screen where you can type a description of the income and the amount. Type in the amount of income and categorize as Tutoring.\"",
"In the united states qualified institutions of higher education should give the student a 1098-t. This form breaks down all money received/billed and for tuition and scholarships. It would not include items such as books and room and board. The 1098 would constitute proof of attendance and proof of expenses. If a 529 plan was used to pay for part or all of the tuition it should also be sent to you or the student depending on where the funds were sent. If the student can't find the 1098-t it is likely that the college had an electronic copy sent to the students official email, or it can be downloaded from the student's account where tuition bills care paid. Note: a confusing part of the 1098-T is that many universities include the spring semester numbers in the form for the previous year. For Example: The 1098-T will tell you if they have done that.",
"For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.",
"You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence).",
"As an individual freelancer, you would need to maintain a book of accounts. This should show all the income you are getting, and should also list all the payments incurred. This can not only include the payments to other professionals, but also any hardware purchased, phone bills, any travel and entertainment bills directly related to the service you are offering. Once you arrive at a net profit figure, you would need to file this as your income. Consult a tax professional and he can help with how to keep the records of income and expenses. i.e. You would need to create invoices for payments, use checks or online transfers for most payments, segregate the accounts, one account used for this professional stuff, and another for your personal stuff, etc. In a normal course the Income Tax Department does not ask for these records, however whenever your tax returns get scrutinized on a random basis, they would ask for all the relevant documentations.",
"You would be required to report it as self-employment income and pay tax accordingly. It's up to you to keep proper records (like a receipt book, for example), especially when it comes to cash. If you can't prove exactly how much you earned and the government decides to guess the amount for you then you won't like the outcome!",
"You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer.",
"\"ITR1 or ITR2 needs to be filed. Declare the income through freelancing in the section \"\"income from other sources\"\"\"",
"Unfortunately this is something that should have been determined prior to the book tour. Your tax advisor or accountant could have assisted you in making sure you collected the documentation you needed. You are going to have to sit down with your advisor with the documentation you have and determine what you can prove.",
"\"It's pretty easy. In the Interview Setup for Ufile, check the box for \"\"Self-employment business income\"\". Then during the process of filling everything out, you'll get a Self-Employment screen. It'll ask for the name of your business, but just put your own name since you don't have one. For the 6-digit classification code, click the ? button and look through the list for the industry that best matches the one for whom you wrote the technical report. Or you can go with 711500: Independent artists, writers and performers. It doesn't really matter that much so don't worry if it's a poor match. It will also ask you for your income and expenses. I don't know exactly what costs you might have incurred to write your report, but you can likely claim a very tiny amount of \"\"home office\"\" expenses. Costs like rent (or mortgage interest + property tax), utilities, and home insurance can be claimed, but they have to be pro-rated for the time you were actually doing the work, and are based on the amount of space you used for the work. For example, if you paid $1000 rent and $200 utilities for the month in which the work was done, and it took you 20 of the 31 days in that month to actually do the work, and you used a room that makes up about 10% of the square footage of your home, then you can claim: $1200 * 20/31 * 0.1 = $77.42 for your home office expenses. If you also used that room for non-business purposes during that time, then you reduce it even further. Say, if the room was also used for playing video games 50% of the time, then you'd only claim $38.71\"",
"You need to register as self-employed with HMRC (it is perfectly fine to be self-employed and employed by an employer at the same time, in exactly your kind of situation). Then, when the income arrives you will need to declare it on your yearly tax return. HMRC information about registering for self-employment and declaring the income is here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview There's a few extra hoops if your clients are outside the UK; the detail depends on whether they are in the EU or not. More details about this are here: https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses/selling-overseas .",
"Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.",
"To be on the safe side - you'll want to get the full invoice. You don't need to actually print them, you can save it as a PDF and make sure to make your own backups once in a while. Only actually print them when the IRS asks you to kill some trees and send them a paper response, and even then you can talk to the agent in charge and check if you can email the digital file instead. The IRS won't ask for this when you file your taxes, they will only ask for this if you're under audit and they will want to actually validate the numbers on your return. You'll know when you're under audit, and who is the auditor (the agent in charge of your case). You'll also want to have some representation when that happens.",
"You only need to report INCOME to the IRS. Money which you are paying to a landlord on behalf of someone else is not income.",
"It should be reported as Miscellaneous Income. Congratulations for wanting to report this income.",
"Scanned or electronic copies of invoices should be sufficient as long as they are accurate and you can deliver them during an audit. Also, if you have an accountant prepare your taxes you would either need to provide them a copy of the invoices or a summary of them with the corresponding amounts to be claimed. Personally I prefer to print out a paper copy and file that away with that quarter's and year's other tax documents. I do my own taxes and find paper copies handy as I can go through each invoice/receipt and make sure I have entered its information by ticking it. I find that when handling a large number of documents that paper copies are more easy to handle than electronic ones. In the end you will need to use a system that you feel comfortable with and are able to use effectively.",
"You would report the overall income on your T1 general income tax return, and use form T2125 to report income and expenses for your business. Form T2125 is like a mini income-statement where you report your gross revenue and subtract off expenses. Being able to claim legitimate expenses as a deduction is an important tax benefit for businesses big and small. In terms of your second question, you generally need to register for a business number at least once you cross the threshold for GST / HST. If you earn $30,000/year (or spread over four consecutive quarters) then charging GST / HST is mandatory; see GST/HST Mandatory registration. There are other conditions as well, but the threshold is the principal one. You can also register voluntarily for GST / HST even if you're below that threshold; see GST/HST Voluntary registration. The advantage of registering voluntarily is that you can claim input tax credits (ITC) on any GST that your business pays, and remit only the difference. That saves your business money, especially if you have a lot of expenses early on. Finally, in terms of Ontario specifically (saw that on your profile), you might want to check out Ontario Sole Proprietorship. There are specific cases in which you need to register a business: e.g. specific types of businesses, or if you plan on doing business under a name other than your own. Finally, you may want to consider whether incorporating might be better for you. Here's an interesting article that compares Sole Proprietorship Versus Incorporation. Here's another article, Choosing a business structure, from the feds.",
"Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.",
"The amount earned is taxable. It needs to shown as income from other sources. Although the last date for paying Advance tax is over [15 March], there is still time to pay Self-Assessment tax till 15 June. If the tax amount due is less than 10,000/- there is no penalty. If the tax is more than Rs 10,000/- there is penalty at the rate of 1% per month from March, and if the amount of tax exceeds 40% of the total tax, there will be additional 1% interest from December. The tax can be paid online via your Banks website or using the Income Tax website at https://onlineservices.tin.egov-nsdl.com/etaxnew/tdsnontds.jsp The form to be used is 280. You can use the Income tax website to calculate and file your tax returns at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/ or use the services of a CA. Edit: If the income is less than expenses, you need not pay tax. Maintain proper records [receipts] of income and expenses, if possible use a different Bank account so that they remain different from your main account. The tax to be paid depending on your income slab. The additional income needs to added to you salary. The tax and slabs will be as per this. There is no distinction on this amount. Its treated as normal income. All Tax for the given year has to be paid in advance. i.e. for Tax year 2013-14, 30% of total tax by 15-Sept, Additional 30% [total 60%] by 15-Dec and Balance by 15-Mar. Read Page 3 and page 10 of http://incometaxindia.gov.in/Archive/Taxation_Of_Salaried_Employees_18062012.pdf",
"You can use the ITR 1 and declare the income from freelancing as income from other sources. As part of freelancing, certain expenses can be deducted provided they are directly related to work and have proper records. Please consult a CA who can advice you on how to do this. The Actual income shown should be less of the expenses.",
"Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.",
"You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you. If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer. As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you. How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference). You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf",
"\"As you are earning an income by working in India, you are required to pay tax in India. If you contract is of freelance, then the income earned by you has to be self declared and taxes paid accordingly. There are some expenses one can claim, a CA should be able to guide you. Not sure why the Swiss comapny is paying taxes?. Are they depositing this with Income Tax, India, do they have a TAN Number. If yes, then you don't need to pay tax. But you need to get a statement from your company showing the tax paid on behalf of you. You can also verify the tax paid on your behalf via \"\"http://incometaxindia.gov.in/26ASTaxCreditStatement.asp\"\" you cna register. Alternatively if you have a Bank Account in India with a PAN card on their records, most Banks provide a link to directly see\"",
"\"Re the business license - in California business licenses are given by the municipal/county governments, so you'll have to check that with your city hall or county office. Re taxes - yes, you'll have to pay taxes, as with any income. Services are considered \"\"imputed income\"\", and generally you'd recognize income to the extent they would be paying had they been paying the full price (or the actual cost of services provided, if more). Since this is a hobby and not a for-profit enterprise, your deductions may be limited by the actual income and the 2% AGI threshold. See more here.\"",
"You can receive money directly into your savings bank account. It is perfectly legal. FYI the Bank as part of regulation would report this to RBI. As the funds are received for the services you have rendered, You are liable to pay tax on the income. The income is taxed as professional income similar to the income of Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants etc. If you are paying your colleagues, it would be treated as expense. Not only this, you can also treat any phone calls you make, or equipment your purchase [laptop, desk etc] as expense. The difference become your actual income and you would be taxed as per the rate for individuals. It's advisable you contact an accountant who would advise you better for a nominal fee [few thousand rupees] and help you pay the tax and file the returns. With or without accountant It is very important for you to record all payments and expenses in a book of accounts.",
"\"Another factor you may want to consider is insurance, if your wife is at their house as a friend who happens to be teaching the kid to play and the kid falls off their chair and hurts them self that is rather different to your wife being brought in to the house as a contractor and an injury occurring during an activity that she was supervising. I am in a similar situation and I have a $5 million public liability policy, which costs about $300 per year. So if her income is likely to be less than that she may be better off \"\"helping a friend learn\"\" rather than \"\"providing tutoring services\"\". There may also be legal requirements, I am required to apply for government checks every few years in order to operate a business that involves working with children.\"",
"I am not an accountant, but I do run a business in the UK and my understanding is that it's a threshold thing, which I believe is £2,500. Assuming you don't currently have to submit self assessment, and your additional income from all sources other than employment (for which you already pay tax) is less than £2,500, you don't have to declare it. Above this level you have to submit self assessment. More information can be found here I also find that HMRC are quite helpful - give them a call and ask.",
"Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.",
"Yes, you need to include income from your freelance work on your tax return. In the eyes of the IRS, this is self-employment income from your sole-proprietorship business. The reason you don't see it mentioned in the 1040EZ instructions is that you can't use the 1040EZ form if you have self-employment income. You'll need to use the full 1040 form. Your business income and expenses will be reported on a Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ, and the result will end up on Line 12 of the 1040. Take a look at the requirements at the top of the C-EZ form; you probably meet them and can use it instead of the more complicated C form. If you have any deductible business expenses related to your freelance business, this would be done on Schedule C or C-EZ. If your freelance income was more than $400, you'll also need to pay self-employment tax. To do this, you file Schedule SE, and the tax from that schedule lands on form 1040 Line 57.",
"I suggest to start charging slightly more than needed to cover expenses. All you need is to show profit. It doesn't have to be significant - a couple of hundred of dollars of consistent yearly profit should suffice to show a profitable business. Then you can deduct on Schedule C all the related expenses. The caveat is that the profit (after the deduction of the expenses will be a bit smaller) will be subject to not only income tax but also the self-employment tax. But at least you'll pay tax on profit that is not entirely phantom. I remember suggesting you getting a professional consultation on this matter a while ago. You should really do that - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, it may be well worth the $100-200 fee they'll charge for the consultation (if at all...).",
"It's always beneficial to have detailed business records. There are any number of reasons where you'd need to prove both the types of services you've rendered and the payment history - you've already noted audits (for IRS taxes). Other possibilities: Whether these records need to be original or electronic might be the topic for another question.",
"From the IRS web site: So if your income was reported to the IRS (by the payer, not you) using one of the forms above, the IRS would have a record of it, regardless of whether you filed a tax return or not.",
"We run into this all the time with our EU clients. As far as I can tell, the only requirements when it comes to invoicing have to do with sales tax, which is determined at the state level, and only in the case that items are taxable. It seems that the service provided to you is not taxable and so there is no obligation under Californian law to provide you with the invoice you need. That said, it would be nice to provide this information to you as a courtesy. We don't provide the information typically required by EU tax authorities on our receipts either, but whenever one of our EU clients requests a more formal invoice we gladly send them one.",
"\"My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive. If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under \"\"Unreimbursed Employee business expenses,\"\" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional.\"",
"There is no document that I know of that stipulates otherwise. This can also be corroborated by the fact that RESP withdrawals are considered as income in the name of the student. Thus, so long as the student pays tuition and receives a T2202A slip from the educational institution, they should be able to claim tuition, education, and textbook amounts.",
"There is no strict need to do that, you can consider yourself to be consulting, a 10% of your payment will be withheld and paid as tax by the company, you can deduct up to 60% of your income as expenses and pay tax on the rest (factoring the tax deducted at source). In another approach, you could register for service tax and charge service tax on your invoice and pay to the service tax department, the tax calculations are similar to above. It will be good if you speak to a chartered accountant and get more clarity. As for business card, you could print it with your name and qualification, there are no restrictions on that.",
"Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.",
"It is definitely legal and will be accounted by the IRS as earned income.",
"\"VAT = Value Added Tax (as an Aussie think \"\"GST\"\") This is applicable in Britain. Basically, if you were in Britain, and if you could claim VAT as a deduction, that invoice is not sufficient proof to make the claim. But you're in Oz so it doesn't apply to you in any case. For work-related deductions like book purchases, see http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/00216829.htm&pc=001/002/068/001/002&mnu=&mfp=&st=&cy=1 Issues such as the books being second hand or purchased online are not cited in the instructions as relevant/limiting factors. In fact, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, you could claim the work-related proportion of your internet access fees as a deduction (question D5 instructions, above, cover that as well).\"",
"First, request that you complete a tax return. On this tax return, you will complete both the employed and self employed sections. This will give you a total income and tax liability. You will already have paid some tax via PAYE, but you will have to pay additional tax for any other income. For future years there is the option, depending on amount, to collect extra tax through PAYE to cover the other earnings. If it is likely to be the same for the next few years, this may be a better option than paying a lump sum. The tax return is now mostly online, and not too bad if your affairs are otherwise simple. The hardest part will be keeping a good record of your other earnings. Remember that you have to keep these records for seven years in case HMRC ever want to audit them, and it's a good idea to have a separate account for the income, or some other way of easily identifying it.",
"Every bill you write counts as income (if the bill doesn't get paid, you would count that as an expense). In cases where you don't write bills, I think the payment you receive would count as income, but you might check that on the HMRC website. So to record your income, you can basically record the payments that you receive. Anything you pay out for your business is an expense. You keep a receipt for every expense - if you don't have a receipt, you can't count it as an expense, so keeping all the receipts is very, very important. An exception are investments, for example buying a computer that should last multiple years; there you can count a percentage of the investment as expense every year. All income, minus all expenses, is your profit. You pay tax and National Insurance contributions according to your profit. You can do whatever you like with the profit. Notice that I didn't mention any salary. Self employed means you have no salary, you have profits and do with them whatever you like. On the other hand, you pay taxes on these profits almost exactly as if they were income. If you have this blog but are also employed, you'll add the profits to your normal income statement.",
"\"This is going to depend on the tax jurisdiction and I have no knowledge of the rules in Illinois. But I'd like to give you some direction about how to think about this. The biggest problem that you might hit is that if you collect a single check and then distribute to the tutors, you may be considered their employer. As an employer, you would be responsible for things like This is not meant as an exhaustive list. Even if not an employer, you are still paying them. You would be responsible for issuing 1099 forms to anyone who goes above $600 for the year (source). You would need to file for a taxpayer identification number for your organization, as it is acting as a business. You need to give this number to the school so that they can issue the correct form to you. You might have to register a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" name. It's conceivable that you could get away with having the school write the check to you as an individual. But if you do that, it will show up as income on your taxes and you will have to deduct payments to the other tutors. If the organization already has a separate tax identity, then you could use that. Note that the organization will be responsible for paying income tax. It should be able to deduct payments to the tutors as well as marketing expenses, etc. If the school will go for it, consider structuring things with a payment to your organization for your organization duties. Then you tell the school how much to pay each tutor. You would be responsible for giving the school the necessary information, like name, address, Social Security number, and cost (or possibly hours worked).\"",
"If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however.",
"I probably can, but I realized I also do have a commission sheet from the month of June which shows how much I made in just commissions, and then I could tell them I also get my 300 a week salary. Do you think that would suffice?",
"\"As a Canadian resident, the simple answer to your question is \"\"yes\"\" Having worked as a tax auditor and as a Certified Financial Planner, you are required to file an income tax return because you have taxable employment income. All the employer is doing is deducting it at source and remitting it on your behalf. That does not alleviate your need to file. In fact, if you don't file you will be subject to a no filing penalty. The one aspect you are missing is that taxpayers may be entitled to tax credits that may result in a refund to you depending on your personal situation (e.g spousal or minor dependents). I hope this helps.\"",
"Generally for tax questions you should talk to a tax adviser. Don't consider anything I write here as a tax advice, and the answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Does IRS like one payment method over other or they simply don't care as long as she can show the receipts? They don't care as long as she withholds the taxes (30%, unless specific arrangements are made for otherwise). She should withhold 30% of the payment and send it to the IRS. The recipient should claim refund, if the actual tax liability is lower. It's only consulting work at the moment, so most of the communication is done over phone. Should they start engaging in written communication to keep records of the work done? Yes, if she wants it to be a business expense. Is it okay to pay in one go to save money-transferring fees? Can she pay in advance? Again, she can do whatever she wants, but if she wants to account for it on her tax returns she should do it the same way she would pay any other vendor in her business. She cannot use different accounting methods for different vendors. Basically, she has not outsourced work in previous years, and she wants to avoid any red flags. Then she should start by calling on her tax adviser, and not an anonymous Internet forum.",
"You don't need to file or do anything. The bank will report all transfers over 10 000, but chances are slim that it will even be looked at, if you don't do this every week. Worst case, someone will ask you about the source, and you tell them exactly what you wrote above (I had multiple international transfers over 60k and nobody ever asked). You said you paid his tuition, and he is now paying you back, so in case someone asks, you should be able to produce the documentation on the tuition payment - a bill, or your bank statement showing you paid it; and the amount should be matching, so you have proof. Note that if he pays you interest, it is taxable income. You are obligated to list it on your next tax filing.",
"You send the proper form to the other person for the amount you gave him, and file it as your business expense on your Schedule C.",
"You need receipts only if you claim deductions in the itemized deductions section based on them. You itemize deductions only if your claims exceed the standard deduction (which for a single person was $5,800 last year). Even then, you need receipts for everything only if you claim sales tax as the deduction (you have to buy really a lot to pass $5K with sales tax...). I would expect people to pay more in state income taxes than sales taxes (you can claim either this or that, not both). For food - there are no taxes (at least here in California), so nothing to deduct anyway. In any case, you can always scan your receipts and keep them in the computer, for just in case, but IMHO it's waste of time, pixels and gigabytes. Here's a question which deals with the same issue, read the answers there as well.",
"If this will be your sole income for the year, going self-employed is the best way to do this: So, here's how to go at it: Total cash in: £2000 Total Tax paid: £0 Admin overhead: approx 3 hours. Legit: 100% :) Edit: Can you tell me that in my case what are the required fields on the invoice? If you're non-VAT registered, there are no legal requirements as to what information you need to put on the invoice -it literally can be a couple of numbers on a napkin, and still be legit. With that said, to make a professional appearance, my invoices are usually structured as follows: Left side: ( Sidenote: why client-specific incremental numbering? Why, so they can't make educated guesses to the number of clients I have at any given time :) ) Right side: Center table: And so far, none of my clients missed any fields, so this should have everything they need to :) Hope this helps, but keep in mind, all of the above is synthetic sugar on the top -ultimately, the relationship you share with your Clients is the thing you will (or will not) get paid for! Edit#2: The voices in my head just pointed out, that I've totally omitted National Insurance contributions in the above. However, and I quote HMRC: If your profits are expected to be less than £5,315 you may not have to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions. Hence, this won't change the numbers above, either -just make sure to point this out during your registration in the office.",
"If you want to be safe, only claim deductions for which you have a receipt. This explanation may help.",
"\"These kinds of questions can be rather tricky. I've struggled with this sort of thing in the past when I had income from a hobby, and I wanted to ensure that it was indeed \"\"hobby income\"\" and I didn't need to call it \"\"self-employment\"\". Here are a few resources from the IRS: There's a lot of overlap among these resources, of course. Here's the relevant portion of Publication 535, which I think is reasonable guidance on how the IRS looks at things: In determining whether you are carrying on an activity for profit, several factors are taken into account. No one factor alone is decisive. Among the factors to consider are whether: Most of the guidance looks to be centered around what one would need to do to convince the IRS that an activity actually is a business, because then one can deduct the \"\"business expenses\"\", even if that brings the total \"\"business income\"\" negative (and I'm guessing that's a fraud problem the IRS needs to deal with more often). There's not nearly as much about how to convince the IRS that an activity isn't a business and thus can be thrown into \"\"Other Income\"\" instead of needing to pay self-employment tax. Presumably the same principles should apply going either way, though. If after reading through the information they provide, you decide in good faith that your activity is really just \"\"Other income\"\" and not \"\"a business you're in on the side\"\", I would find it likely that the IRS would agree with you if they ever questioned you on it and you provided your reasoning, assuming your reasoning is reasonable. (Though it's always possible that reasonable people could end up disagreeing on some things even given the same set of facts.) Just keep good records about what you did and why, and don't get too panicked about it once you've done your due diligence. Just file based on all the information you know.\"",
"The Canada Revenue Agency describes in detail here what information businesses must generally include on their invoices so that GST/HST registrants can claim Input Tax Credits (ITCs) for the expenses. Quote: Sales invoices for GST/HST registrants You have to give customers who are GST/HST registrants specific information on the invoices, receipts, contracts, or other business papers that you use when you provide taxable goods and services. This information lets them support their claims for input tax credits (ITCs) or rebates for the GST/HST you charged. [...] The page quoted continues with a table describing what, specifically, needs to be on a sales invoice based on the total amount of the invoice; the requirements differ for: total sale under $30, total sale between $30 to $149.99, and total sale $150 or more. For the total sale under $30 category, the only things a sales invoice must contain to support an ITC claim are (1) the provider's business name, (2) the invoice date, and (3) the total amount paid/payable. i.e. When the total sale is under $30, there is no requirement for any GST/HST amount to be indicated separately, nor for a business number to be present on the invoice. Hence, IMHO (and I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer), if your Uber rides are for $30 or less, then you shouldn't expect a GST/HST number anyway, and a simple invoice as described should be enough for you to claim your ITCs. Whether or not the provider is registered in fact for GST/HST is beside the point. For amounts over $30, you need a bit more. While the page above specifies that the provider's business number should be included beginning with the next level of total sales, there are exceptions to those rules described at another page mentioned, Exceptions to invoice requirements, that specifically apply to the taxi/limousine case. Quote: Exceptions to invoice requirements GST/HST registrants are required to keep the necessary documentation to support their claim for ITCs and rebates. In certain circumstances the documentation requirements have been reduced. [...] For taxi or limousine fares your books and records must show: So at a minimum, for fare in excess of $30 total, you should ask the driver to note either (a) the amount of GST/HST charged, or (b) a statement that the fare includes GST/HST. The driver's business number need not be specified. Consequently, if your receipt for a ride in excess of $30 does not contain any such additional information with respect to GST/HST, then I would expect the receipt does not satisfy the CRA's requirements for supporting your ITC claim. i.e. Keep your individual rides under $30 each, or else get a better receipt from the driver when it is above that amount. p.s. It should go without saying, but your rides, of course, must be considered reasonable business expenses in order to qualify for GST/HST ITCs for your business. Receipts for rides of a personal nature are not eligible, so be sure to maintain proper records as to the business purpose and destination for each ride receipt so claimed.",
"\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \"\"hobby.\"\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\"",
"I'm not sure how this gets entered in TurboTax, but this income from the company should be included in the Schedule C (or C-EZ) Line 1 Gross Receipts total, along with all of your 1099-MISC income from your business and any other income that your business took in. You don't need a 1099 from them, and the IRS doesn't care (at least from your perspective) if you got a 1099 or not; in fact, they probably expect you to have some non-1099 income. We don't know why the company chose not to issue 1099 forms, but luckily it isn't your concern. You can fill out your tax return properly without it. Note: This answer assumes that you didn't have any tax withheld from your checks from this company. If you did have tax withheld, you'll need to insist on a 1099 to show that.",
"You're charging service fees as a conduit entity for these tickets. While the service fee is not a fixed rate, but a percentage, you would need to record each purchase at dollar amount. To illustrate, it would look like: Now, to your question: How do I report this on my taxes? You would first start out by filing your Schedule C from the eyes of the business (the money you earn at your job, and the money you earn as a business are different). Just keep a general journal with the above entry for each sale and close them down to a simple balance sheet and income statement and you should be fine. Of course, read the instructions for your Schedule C before you begin. As always, good luck.",
"If your net profit is $0, then no, you will not owe income tax as a result of providing this service. But there's a lot more to consider than just that... Before you begin you'll need to decide if this is a business or a hobby. Based on the fact that you don't intend to make a profit, you are probably going to be calling it a hobby for tax purposes. Regardless of whether it is a business or a hobby, since you will be accepting payments from people, you will need to report the income on your tax return. As both a business and a hobby you can deduct all of your expenses to bring your profit down to $0. (Assuming all the expenses are legitimate business/hobby expenses.) The main differences between business and hobby are: If you choose to run as a business you'll likely save quite a bit of money by avoiding the 2% rule, and also by being able to deduct any non-specific-customer expenses and take a loss. Be careful though that you don't go too many years with a business loss or the IRS may re-classify it as a hobby, which may include an audit. If you decide to run as a business you may need to charge a little more than just expenses to attempt to turn a profit, or at least break even.",
"Aside from the fact that probably nobody is ever going to come and ask for that proof unless your amounts get five digits (or you're unlucky), if you never before reimbursed yourself, your old tax declarations would clearly show that. You can't prove a negative, so the only potential is that you had reimbursements before, and an audit might ask you to prove that the new ones are not duplicates of those. In this case, if you have other receipts / proof for all those other reimbursements, they are obviously not duplicates.",
"You're not subject to the US tax laws, and since the income is not US-sourced, it is not subject to withholding. Your employer doesn't need any form, but if they insist - you can provide them a W8-BEN to certify your non-resident status. Keep in mind that if you do come to the US, the money you earn while in the US is US-sourced and subject to the US taxes and withholding, even if you're non-resident.",
"The Canada Revenue Agency does indeed put out just the guide you want. It's at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4070/rc4070-e.html - you should always take a good look at URLs to make sure they're really from the government and not from some for-profit firm that will charge you to fill out forms for free services. It covers ways to structure your business (probably a sole proprietor in your case), collecting and submitting GST or HST, sending in payroll remittances (if you pay yourself a T4 salary), and income tax including what you can deduct. It's a great place to start and you can use it as a source of keywords if you want to search for more details.",
"\"In general, scholarship income that you receive that is not used for tuition or books must be included in your gross income and reported as such on your tax return. Scholarship income you receive that is used for those kinds of expenses may be excludable from your gross income. See this IRS information and this related question. I believe that as represented on the 1098-T, this generally means that if Box 5 (Scholarships and Grants) is greater than Box 1 or 2 (only one of which will be used on your 1098-T), you received taxable scholarship income. If Box 5 is less than or equal to Box 1/2, you did not receive taxable scholarship income. This TaxSlayer page draws the same conclusion. However, you should realize that the 1098-T is not what makes you have to pay or not pay taxes. You incur the taxes by receiving scholarship money, and you may reduce your tax liability by paying tuition. The 1098-T is simply a record of payments that have already been made. For instance, if you received $10,000 in scholarship money --- that is, actually received checks for that amount or had that amount deposited into your bank account --- then your income went up by $10,000. If you yourself paid tuition, it is likely that you can exclude the amount of the tuition from your taxable income, reducing the tax you owe (see the IRS page linked above). However, if you received $10,000 in actual money and in addition your tuition was paid by the scholarship (with money you never actually had in your own bank account), then the entire $10,000 would be taxable. You do not give enough information in your question to be sure which of these situations is closer to your own. However, you should be able to decide by looking at your bank account: look at how much money you received and how much you spent on tuition. If you received more scholarship money than the tuition you paid out of pocket, you owe taxes on the remainder. (I emphasize that this is just a general rule of thumb and should not be taken as tax advice; you should review the IRS information and/or consult a tax professional to determine what part of your scholarship income is taxable.) In addition, as this (now rather old) article from the New York Society of CPAs notes, \"\"many colleges and universities prepare 1098-Ts incorrectly and report tuition and related expenses inconsistently\"\". This means you should be careful to reconcile the 1098-T with your own financial records of what money you actually received and paid. When I was in grad school there was a good deal of hand-wringing and hair-pulling each year among the students as we tried to determine what relationship (if any) the 1098-T bore to the financial facts.\"",
"\"If you want an \"\"account statement\"\" from the IRS listing the taxes due and paid and confirming a zero balance remaining, you want what they call a Tax Account Transcript. It sounds like you tried to submit this online, but yes, it would require the actual taxpayer to submit it. The other option would be to fill out Form 4506-T requesting the Form 1040 Tax Account Transcript, have the taxpayer sign it, and mail it in. Presumably whatever method you used to have her sign the Form 1040 you prepared for her you could also use to have her sign the 4506-T. Another option could be to try to request the transcript over the phone. I don't know what authentication they require, or if you would need to have been listed on the 1040 as an authorized Third Party Designee. According to the IRS Transcript FAQ Page: Q19. What if I’m unable to use Get Transcript by Mail? If you are unable to use Get Transcript by Mail, you may try our automated phone transcript service at 800-908-9946 and also receive your transcript by mail. Please allow 5 to 10 calendar days for delivery. But unless there's a reason to think that the tax account wasn't credited properly or the IRS is sending another bill or the like, I don't think there's a lot of point in doing so. In general, the fact that the check cleared the bank should be sufficient documentation that the amount was paid.\"",
"It's fine - if you are an employee, you will normally have all taxes deducted by the employer, and won't even need to complete a tax return. Even if you do, all the figures will be on the P60 you get at the end of the year. If that's your only income, it's pretty easy to do. Remember, your taxes and your girlfriends are totally separate. It also doesnt matter where the money goes - you could be paid in cash or into any account, it's the fact that you earn it makes it taxable.",
"Assuming that the jobs where you've earned money from have sent you W-2s, 1099s, etc. Then yes, you can request a Wage and Income Transcript: Shows data from information returns we receive such as Forms W-2, 1099, 1098 and Form 5498, IRA Contribution Information. Current tax year information may not be complete until July. This transcript is available for up to 10 prior years using Get Transcript Online or Form 4506-T.",
"You normally wouldn't pay income taxes on money that isn't income. Transferring money or withdrawing it from a bank isn't an income generating event. I think it is very doubtful that you would need to claim that on income tax forms.",
"As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.",
"HMRC may or may not find out about it; the risks and penalties involved if they do find out make it unwise not to just declare it and pay the tax on it. Based on the fact you asked the question, I am assuming that you currently pay all your tax through PAYE and don't do a tax return. You would need to register for Self Assessment and complete a return; this is not at all difficult if your tax situation is straightforward, which it sounds like yours is. Then you would owe the tax on the additional money, at whatever applicable rate (which depends on how much you earn in your main job, the rate tables are here: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances ). If it truly is a one off you could simply declare it on your return as other income, but if it is more than that then you would need to look at setting up as Self Employed - there is some good advice on the differences here: http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/tax-self-employment-still-employed/ : Broadly, you are likely to be running a business if you have a regular, organised activity with a profit motive, which continues for at least a few months. If the work is one-off, or very occasional (say, a few times per year), or not very organised, or of very low value (say, under £2,000 per year), then it might qualify as casual income. If you think it is beyond the definition of casual income then you would also need to pay National Insurance, as described in the previous link, but otherwise the tax treatment would be the same.",
"Adsense don't pay you daily. They pay you every month (as they have to calculate the final value). I'd say you only have to declare it when it hits your bank account. £60 actually isn't that much. It only took me a couple of months of just making a few quid, to making enough to get a monthly payment, and I only tot up what goes into my bank account. I've opened up a second account with my bank to send and receive payments relating to my online adventures. Then any in/out goes into a spreadsheet that I do at the end of the month keeping track of everything. If Mr. Taxman want to investigate at the end of the tax year, it's all logged in that account. It gets a bit murkier if you start doing US Amazon affiliates. The simplest method is to get the cheque delivered, and then log the amount that goes into your bank (after $->£ conversion). I have a Payoneer account, and transfer most of the money into my account (after it hits $500), and keep a little bit in for things I buy that are in USD. Hope that helps.",
"\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"",
"You'll need to show the whole paper trail: show that the $2000 are the same $2000 (i.e.: show that you didn't get any new income that was not yet reported on your Elance balance), and show that it was in fact transfer from Elance (matching transactions on both accounts). Obviously, add a letter describing the whole process and pointing to the specific pages and lines in the statements and prior year tax returns. Follow the instructions on the notice about where to send your response, and make sure you send it certified USPS mail. Consider having a tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) helping you with this. For the future - do not leave money on various private parties' accounts. It is uninsured, and if something happens to that company - you lose the money. That includes, in the US, also PayPal accounts.",
"Assuming you have registered your activities as partnership and receiving this money as Individual, you need to show this under Schedule OS, 1d [other income]. this will be under the ITR-2 [tab CG-OS] XLS tax preparation utility given by Tax Department. The XLS can be found at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/portal/individual_huf.do If the funds you are receiving are large [more than say Rs 500,000] then suggest you incorporate a partnership firm or company, there are quite a few exceptions you can claim lowering you tax outgo. The fact that you are transferring funds to your partners can be an issue incase you get audited. You would need to have sufficient evidence to show that the money paid was for services rendered directly and not your income. It would be easier if you create a partnership or have the client directly pay to them. Again if the sum is small its fine, as the sum becomes large, it would get noticed by the tax authorities.",
"If you are freelancing, the best form for you is ITR-4. With this form you can declare your salary income as well as your expenses related to your freelancing. And you should treat your freelancing income as business. That way you can get max deductions claimed.",
"You can invoice your advertisers and use the date of the invoice for tax purposes. Some advertisers may want to pay monthly, weekly etc so that would require multiple entries as income on the relevant dates.",
"\"The Dutch tax office is pretty decent, although slightly overburdened. Don't expect a lot of help, but they're not generally known for making a lot of problems. Digital copies are fine, for instance. They will send you your first VAT notice. You probably would have known if your company would have been incorporated, so I'll assume you're just trading as a natural person. That means you still have to file VAT returns, but the business income is just filed annually as \"\"other income\"\". For the VAT part, you'll need to invoice your customers. Keep a copy of those invoices for your own bookkeeping, and keep track of the matching customer payments. Together these form the chief evidence of your VAT obligation. You also have a VAT deduction from your purchases (it's a Value-Added Tax, after all). Again, keep receipts. The usual VAT period is 3 months, so you'd pay VAT 4 times a year. But if you would pay less than 1883 euro, you might not need to pay at all and just need to file annually The income part is easy with the receipts you had for VAT purposes anyway. Dutch Tax Office, VAT, in English\"",
"The problem with your profession is that it is hard to distinguish those activities as 'services rendered' or just a 'pastime hobby'. If you believe that both of those activities constitutes a 'service rendered in a professional capacity', then you should include it into the 'Goods and services for your own use' field. However, should you believe that those services rendered was not in a professional capacity and it was in a personal one (i.e. helping out), you need not include it in the field. In addition, should you feel that the pro-bono services rendered overlaps with your professional freelance work in any way, you might want to consider the service rendered to your dad and yourself as a 'professional service' and include it in Goods and services for your own use. Such examples include (but not limited to): It might be wise to call up the HMRC to clarify on your particular situation. But what I know is, this box was created to ensure that such services rendered should be considered a profit (i.e. an advantage, adds value) and not a loss (or no value).",
"You are confused about a couple of terms: For example you work for company A: As to the 1098-T: It is likely that you or your parents will use the 1098-T. You don't have to file a copy with the IRS. You and your parents need to determine who should be reporting the educational expenses: you or your parents.",
"There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.",
"I had a chat with a coworker whose spouse also teaches music lessons. One interesting insight was that after raising prices, the children were much more likely to come prepared because the parents felt more invested when it cost them more. They were also less likely to cancel the lessons at the last minute. This is an argument in favor of TTT's suggestion to charge something even if we donate the income to charity. Along those lines it might also make sense to give discounts if the child comes prepared having practiced daily. I agree that it's not a lot of paperwork for some additional pay, the problem is that I would also be tempted to buy a new piano and find other expenses to reduce the income. That's a discussion for another day. I think the break-even point is probably somewhere around $1000/year when I weigh record-keeping time verses the income. So as long as we exceed that, I will probably encourage her to charge for the lessons even if she charges below the market for them. I will consider setting up a charitable giving account that they can pay to instead of paying us directly.",
"Yes. You must register for GST as well, if you will be making over the threshold (currently $60,000). That's probably a bonus for you, as your home office expenses will mostly include GST, but your income will most likely be zero-rated. Check with an accountant or with the IRD directly. Just be certain to put aside enough money from each payment to cover income tax, GST and ACC. You will get a very large bill in your second year of business.",
"You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.",
"If you took advantage of options like a home buyers plan (HBP) you definitely need to file since you must designate how much of the plan to repay. Your employer does not know about what you do with your money so cannot take this into account for the withheld taxes. If you do not report repayment of the HBP it will be treated as a withdrawal from your RRSP i.e. additional income for that tax year.",
"Because the question puts moral obligations aside, I'll answer from the practical point of view. There are two reasons for declaring side income, even cash income. If you buy a house in a year or two, the additional income will help qualify you for a mortgage. The IRS has ways to discover that you earned the money. a. A client might be audited. If the client deducts the cost of your services from their income, they could be asked for proof that they paid you. Suppose they saved ATM receipts that show the withdrawals of cash used to pay you, and kept records that document the dates they paid you. The IRS might want to ask you if you were paid by the client on those dates, and how much. The asking might be in the form of an audit, and you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. b. A client might develop a grudge against you and report you to the IRS. Someone could do this even if they don't know for sure that you don't declare the income. If you were interviewed or audited, you'd have to lie to the IRS to avoid penalty. c. You could fall prey to an algorithm. There might be one that compares deductions and income. If you run a crazy-high ratio year after year, you could be flagged for audit. Once again, you'd have to lie to avoid penalty.",
"One piece of documentation that might help here is a confirmation of your benefit selections through your employer for each year since the expenses in question were incurred, assuming you have a job with eligibility for benefits. If you can prove which accounts you maintained through your/your spouse's (if applicable) employer(s), then it is relatively simple to go back through the records for those specific accounts and see if a specific expense was ever reimbursed. Obviously, you can't prove through documentation that you didn't have accounts that don't exist. This seems like it would be more important for the accounts elected by a significant other, since I believe reimbursements from an account in your name would typically be reported to the IRS on your behalf anyway. Also, keep in mind that the IRS won't care about each line item individually. Their focus will be on whether, for any given snapshot in time, your total reimbursed amount exceeded your total eligible expenses.",
"(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well.",
"You need to file IRS Form 1040-NR. The IRS's website provides instructions.",
"Yes. This income would be reported on schedule SE. Normally, you will not owe any tax if the amount is less than $400. Practically, $100 in a garage sale is not why the IRS created the form SE. I wouldn't lose sleep over keeping track of small cash sales over the course of a year. However, if you have the information I'm not going to tell you not to report it.",
"This is taxable in India. You need to declare the income and pay taxes accordingly",
"The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)",
"According to TurboTax: You report the income in the year you received it... Therefore, since you received payment in 2017, you will report it on your 2017 tax return.",
"You appear to just have admitted to tax evasion. You need a lawyer. There's a good chance you don't actually owe any money, but you need legal advice. To be clear, you may well not have been obligated to file tax returns, but you have stated you had some income you didn't report, so there's really nothing else we can say other than recommend you seek legal advice.",
"Nope pay the employer back the due does not involve any tax. Just keep a record of the transaction so that its available as reference.",
"Generally, report your $150,000. If/when the the tax collectors notice the anomaly, they'll attempt to contact you to remedy it. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, it's pretty orderly. The IRS requests additional information or proof and only open it up into a full blown audit if the suspect wrongdoing. In your case, you could show a business agreement detailing the revenue split proving you correctly reported. This is only for your consideration. I strongly recommending finding and keeping a professional tax advisor.",
"He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.",
"While IANAL (tax or otherwise), I have always found that keeping original receipts is the only way to go. While anything can, at some level, be forged or faked, a photo is one more step removed from the original. A mere listing on a web site isn't much proof of anything. Keep your originals for a suggested seven years; while the IRS is trying to audit much faster than that, and any inkling of fraud can be investigated at any time, you should be well and clear with originals kept that long.",
"You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"Its best you start this venture as a Business entity. Whatever the customer pays you is your income. Whatever you pay to the hotel will be your expenses. Apart from this there will be other expenses. So essentially difference between your income and expense will be the profit of the entity and tax will be on the profit. If you do not want to start an Business entity and pay as an individual then please add the country tag, depending on the country there may different ways to account for the funds.",
"\"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an \"\"allowable expense\"\", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 ).\"",
"Of course you're reportable to the IRS. Your income is someone's expense, they'll report it if required. What you're probably asking is whether you need to pay any taxes in the US. If you're neither US citizen nor a green card holder, and you don't step foot to the US - you will probably not need to pay taxes there."
] |
[
"I have been a private tutor on and off for about 30 years, in three countries, so I understand your concerns! I always kept records as though it was a real business - even if I only had one student I kept records of dates/times/names, and also tracked where the money went (I never spent it straight up - it always got deposited to complete the paper trail; yes, this is paranoia on my part). I've never been asked to prove anything with regards this income (although I have no Canadian experience). It's always been a case of tell the tax folks and make sure my arse is covered if they come asking questions. Hope this helps."
] |
5254
|
How do I calculate the quarterly returns of a stock index?
|
[
"392851",
"402466"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"402466",
"354857",
"138487",
"563169",
"573928",
"220025",
"409434",
"476260",
"392851",
"242849",
"574974",
"438547",
"531066",
"276860",
"143302",
"96697",
"238817",
"422904",
"105391",
"8003",
"591089",
"408610",
"175107",
"599651",
"72141",
"235592",
"2810",
"559168",
"169754",
"83987",
"583913",
"489706",
"470687",
"550642",
"48952",
"117049",
"251824",
"589234",
"144005",
"131044",
"428315",
"181013",
"369762",
"99708",
"386309",
"170652",
"393987",
"553377",
"112223",
"173052",
"394715",
"154927",
"332567",
"475426",
"459351",
"14368",
"240519",
"368848",
"532616",
"90570",
"223277",
"285238",
"187583",
"403870",
"435096",
"204761",
"336284",
"501153",
"135176",
"88575",
"198606",
"245648",
"1699",
"76139",
"443689",
"575237",
"580586",
"412657",
"18939",
"239137",
"554734",
"159336",
"456667",
"197480",
"42390",
"521590",
"517637",
"573899",
"469599",
"501032",
"345217",
"457873",
"249360",
"44617",
"223823",
"21103",
"241101",
"565487",
"556235",
"491647"
] |
[
"Here's a few demo steps, first calculating the year to date return, then calculating the Q4 quarterly return based on the cumulative returns for Q3 and Q4. It's fine to use closing price to closing price as return periods.",
"You could take these definitions from MSCI as an example of how to proceed. They calculate price indices (PR) and total return indices (including dividends). For performance benchmarks the net total return (NR) indices are usually the most relevant. In your example the gross total return (TR) is 25%. From the MSCI Index Defintions page :- The MSCI Price Indexes measure the price performance of markets without including dividends. On any given day, the price return of an index captures the sum of its constituents’ free float-weighted market capitalization returns. The MSCI Total Return Indexes measure the price performance of markets with the income from constituent dividend payments. The MSCI Daily Total Return (DTR) Methodology reinvests an index constituent’s dividends at the close of trading on the day the security is quoted ex-dividend (the ex-date). Two variants of MSCI Total Return Indices are calculated: With Gross Dividends: Gross total return indexes reinvest as much as possible of a company’s dividend distributions. The reinvested amount is equal to the total dividend amount distributed to persons residing in the country of the dividend-paying company. Gross total return indexes do not, however, include any tax credits. With Net Dividends: Net total return indexes reinvest dividends after the deduction of withholding taxes, using (for international indexes) a tax rate applicable to non-resident institutional investors who do not benefit from double taxation treaties.",
"Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result",
"If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.",
"( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago. Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2. That will give you total return over 12 months.",
"Since you have the balance at equal periods and the cash flows at the period ends, the best return calculation in this case is the true time-weighted return. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-weighted_return#Formulae So, notwithstanding some ambiguity about your figures, here is a calculation using the first three periods from your second table. Giving a total return over the three periods of -23.88% If the periods are months, multiply by four to annualise.",
"TWRR = (2012Q4 x 2013Q1 x 2013Q2) ^ (1/3) = ?? (1.1 * .809 * 1.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 or 4.7% return. No imaginary numbers needed. But. Your second line there is wrong $15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000 ? The $15K already contains the $4k, why did you subtract it again? This a homework problem?",
"\"This is the same answer as for your other question, but you can easily do this yourself: ( initial adjusted close / final adjusted close ) ^ ( 1 / ( # of years sampled) ) Note: \"\"# of years sampled\"\" can be a fraction, so the one week # of years sampled would be 1/52. Crazy to say, but yahoo finance is better at quick, easy, and free data. Just pick a security, go to historical prices, and use the \"\"adjusted close\"\". money.msn's best at presenting finances quick, easy, and cheap.\"",
"So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells.",
"Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.",
"Annualize quarterly returns: AR = (1+QR)^4 Where *QR* is a decimal return, e.g. 0.05. Standard deviations are similar: Annual SD = SD * sqrt(T) If you have quarterly deviations, *T=4*, if you have daily, *T=252*, etc. As an aside, for work with money riding on it, it is *not* okay to aggregate standard deviations if there's autocorrelation amongst observations at a smaller time scale. Volatility is often quoted this way and that's fine, but it is dangerous to do any sort of risk management with this and you'll require more due diligence. It's a good enough approximation for napkin math, though.",
"There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital.",
"\"This page from simplestockinvesting.com gives details of total returns for the S&P500 for each decade over the last 60 years, including total returns for the entire 60 year period. It is important to understand that, from an investors point of view, the total return includes both the change in index value (capital gain) plus dividends received. This total then needs to be adjusted for inflation to give the \"\"total real return\"\". As noted in the analysis provided, 44% of the total return from the S&P500 over the last 80 years comes from dividends. For the DowJones30, this site provides a calculator for total returns and inflation adjusted total returns for user selected periods. Finding comparable analysis for the NASDAQ market is more difficult. The NASDAQ market site provides gross values for total returns over fixed periods, but you will then need to do the arithmetic to calculate the equivalent average annual total returns. No inflation adjusted values for \"\"real\"\" returns are provided, so again you will need to combine inflation data from elsewhere and do the arithmetic.\"",
"However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%",
"\"Total Return is the percent change in value (including andy dividends) of an instrument. The \"\"trailing 12-month\"\" means that your starting point is the value 12 months ago. So the formula is: where V is the value of the instrument on the reference date, V0 is the value of the instrument 12 months prior to the reference date, and D is the amount of dividends paid between the two dates.\"",
"Technically you should take the quarterly dividend yield as a fraction, add one, take the cube root, and subtract one (and then multiple by the stock price, if you want a dollar amount per share rather than a rate). This is to account for the fact that you could have re-invested the monthly dividends and earned dividends on that reinvestment. However, the difference between this and just dividing by three is going to be negligible over the range of dividend rates that are realistically paid out by ordinary stocks.",
"Your example isn't consistent: Q1 end market value (EMV) is $15,750, then you take out $2,000 and say your Q2 BMV is $11,750? For the following demo calculations I'll assume you mean your Q2 BMV is $13,750, with quarterly returns as stated: 10%, 5%, 10%. The Q2 EMV is therefore $15,125. True time-weighted return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_time-weighted_rate_of_return The following methods have the advantage of not requiring interim valuations. Money-weighted return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return Logarithmic return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Logarithmic_or_continuously_compounded_return Modified Dietz return :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Dietz_method Backcalculating the final value (v3) using the calculated returns show the advantage of the money-weighted return over the true time-weighted return.",
"How S&P 500 returns are calculated is jotted down here. You should follow the same methodology i.e. base-weighted aggregate methodology to calculate your own returns. Anything different and it would be an incorrect comparison.",
"MoneyChimp is great for this. It only offers full year returns, but it compounds the results correctly, including dividends. For mid year results, just adjust a bit based on the data you can find from Google or Yahoo to add some return (or loss) for the months.",
"Knowing the log return is useful - the log return can help you to work out the annual return over the period it was estimated - and this should be comparable between stocks. One should just be careful with the calculation so that allowance for dividends is made sensibly.",
".INX (the S&P 500 index itself) does not include reinvested dividens. You can figure total return by going to Yahoo finance, historical data. Choose the start year, and end year. You should find that data for SPY (going back to 1993) will show an adjusted close, and takes dividends into account. This isn't perfect as SPY has a .09% expense ratio, but it's better than just the S&P index. One of the more popular Dow ETF is DIA, this will let you similarly track the Dow while accounting for dividends.",
"\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \"\"quarterly dividends,\"\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\"",
"If you just want to know total return, either as dollars or a percentage, just add up the total amount spent on buys and compare this to current value plus money received on sales. In this case, you spent (310 x $3.15 + $19.95) + (277 x $3.54 + $19.95). So your total investment is ... calculator please ... $1996.98. You received 200 x $4.75 on the sale minus the $19.95 = $930.05. The present value of your remaining shares is 387 x $6.06 = $2345.22. So you have realized plus unrealized value of $2345.22 + $930.05 = $3275.27. Assuming I didn't mix up numbers or make an arithmetic mistake, your dollar gain is $3275.27 - $1996.98 = $1278.29, which comes to 1278.29 / 1996.98 = 64%. If you want to know percentage gain as an annual rate, we'd have to know buy and sell dates, and with multiple buys and sells the calculation gets messier.",
"Points are index based. Simple take the total value of the stocks that compose the index, and set it equal to an arbitrary number. (Say 100 or 1000) This becomes your base. Each day, you recalculate the value of the index basket, and relate it to the base. So if our index on day 0 was 100, and the value of the basket went up 1%, the new index would be 101 points. For the example given, the percentage change would be (133.32 -133.68 ) / 133.68 * 100% = -0.27% Keep in mind that an index basket will change in composition over time. Assets are added and removed as the composition of the market changes. For example, the TSX index no longer includes Nortel, a stock that at one time made up a significant portion of the index. I'm not sure if a percentage drop in an index is really a meaningful statistic because of that. It is however, a good way of looking at an individual instrument.",
"> So: what do i do to have the monthly %change? I was thinking (last day of the mont CP - 1st day of the month OP)/ 1st day of the mont opening price. No, use the same day (usually month end) of each month (i.e. December 31 vs. January 31). Use closing prices only. Keep in mind, it may make more mathematical sense to use LN (natural logs) to determine %-change and standard deviation. The simplest way to compare the riskiness of each is just to compare St. Dev. You can, of course, go into more detail. If you want to impress your professor, look up the efficient frontier and make one for each portfolio.",
"R has really good package that lets you calculate the return of rebalanced portfolios. The package is called: PerformanceAnalytics (see: http://www.inside-r.org/packages/cran/PerformanceAnalytics/docs/Return.portfolio). I quickly wrote a small script for you that lets you do exactly what you want. Code: By default the portfolio is rebalanced to an equally weighted portfolio. It is also possible to rebalance your portfolio using custom weights. See the documentation on how to do this. In order for this code to work you need to have your data already in return terms. You can do this easily in Excel. Make sure your data in excel looks like this: Than export your data to a CSV file. Note: before you run the code make sure you have installed the package PerformanceAnalytics. You can do this as follows: Let me know if you have any questions regarding the above.",
"The author is using the simple Dietz method, (alternatively the modified Dietz), with the assumption that the net cash-flow occurs halfway through the time period. Let's say the time period is one year for illustration, so the cash-flow would be at the end of the second quarter. The money-weighted method gives a more accurate return, but has to be solved by trial-and-error or using a computer. The money-weighted return is 11.2718 % and the simple or modified Dietz return is 11.2676 %. When the sums are done backwards to check, the Dietz is half a dollar out with a final value of $11,999.50 while the money-weighted return recalculates exactly $12,000. It is worth pointing out that the return changes if the cash-flow is not in the middle of the time period. A case with the cash-flow at the end of Q3 is added to illustrate.",
"\"So, there is no truly \"\"correct\"\" way to calculate return. Professionals will often calculate many different rates of return depending on what they wish to understand about their portfolio. However, the two most common ways of calculating multi-period return though are time-weighted return and money-weighted return. I'll leave the details to this good Investopeadia article, but the big picture is time-weighted returns help you understand how the stock performed during the period in question independent of how you invested it it. Whereas money-weighted return helps you understand how you performed investing in the stock in question. From your question, it appears both methods would be useful in combination to help you evaluate your portfolio. Both methods should be fairly easy to calculate yourself in a spread sheet, but if you are interested there are plenty of examples of both in google docs on the web.\"",
"\"Good observation. In fact, the S&P index itself is guilty of not including dividends. So when you look at the index alone, the delta between any two points in time diverges, and the 20 return observed if one fails to include dividends is meaningless, in my my humble opinion. Yahoo finance will let you look at a stock ticker and offer you an \"\"adjusted close\"\" to include the dividend effect.\"",
"Thanks for showing me that. I can see it now. I have always used my formula, and even a senior at another company confirmed the way I calculated the returns. Luckily, I do not work with that manager, and he has his own model, and so do I. But he was pretty cool about it when I asked about his calculations.",
"\"Month to date For the month to date (MTD), the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 and the price on March 16th is $4.61 so the return is which can be written more simply as The position is 1000 shares valued at $4580 on Feb 28th, so the profit on the month to date is Calendar year to date For the calendar year to date (YTD), the price on Dec 31st is $4.60 and the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 so the return to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is 0.655022 % so the year to date return is or more directly So the 2011 YTD profit on 1000 shares valued at $4600 on Dec 31st is Year to date starting Dec 10th For the year to date starting Dec 10th, the starting value is and the value on Dec 31st is 1000 * $4.60 = $4600 so the return is $4600 / $4510 - 1 = 0.0199557 = 1.99557 % The year to date profit is therefore Note - YTD is often understood to mean calendar year to date. To cover all the bases state both, ie \"\"calendar YTD (2011)\"\" and \"\"YTD starting Dec 10th 2010\"\". Edit further to comment For the calendar year to date, with 200 shares sold on Jan 10th with the share price at $4.58, the return from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is The return from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is The profit on 1000 shares from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is $4600 * -0.00434783 = -$20 The profit on 800 shares from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is zero. The profit on 800 shares from Feb 28th to March 16th is So the year to date profit is $4.\"",
"The point of a total return index is that it already has accounted for the capital gains + coupon income. If you want to calculate it yourself you'll have to find the on-the-run 10y bond for each distinct period then string them together to calc your total return. Check XLTP if they have anything",
"There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.",
"If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.",
"Yes an index is by definition any arbitrary selection. In general, to measure performance there are 2 ways: By absolute return - meaning you want a positive return at all times ie. 10% is good. -1% is bad. By relative return - this means beating the benchmark. For example, if the benchmark returns -20% and your portfolio returns -10%, then it has delivered +10% relative returns as compared to the benchmark.",
"\"It's easy for me to look at an IRA, no deposits or withdrawal in a year, and compare the return to some index. Once you start adding transactions, not so easy. Here's a method that answers your goal as closely as I can offer: SPY goes back to 1993. It's the most quoted EFT that replicates the S&P 500, and you specifically asked to compare how the investment would have gone if you were in such a fund. This is an important distinction, as I don't have to adjust for its .09% expense, as you would have been subject to it in this fund. Simply go to Yahoo, and start with the historical prices. Easy to do this on a spreadsheet. I'll assume you can find all your purchases inc dates & dollars invested. Look these up and treat those dollars as purchases of SPY. Once the list is done, go back and look up the dividends, issues quarterly, and on the dividend date, add the shares it would purchase based on that day's price. Of course, any withdrawals get accounted for the same way, take out the number of SPY shares it would have bought. Remember to include the commission on SPY, whatever your broker charges. If I've missed something, I'm sure we'll see someone point that out, I'd be happy to edit that in, to make this wiki-worthy. Edit - due to the nature of comments and the inability to edit, I'm adding this here. Perhaps I'm reading the question too pedantically, perhaps not. I'm reading it as \"\"if instead of doing whatever I did, I invested in an S&P index fund, how would I have performed?\"\" To measure one's return against a benchmark, the mechanics of the benchmarks calculation are not needed. In a comment I offer an example - if there were an ETF based on some type of black-box investing for which the investments were not disclosed at all, only day's end pricing, my answer above still applies exactly. The validity of such comparisons is a different question, but the fact that the formulation of the EFT doesn't come into play remains. In my comment below which I removed I hypothesized an ETF name, not intending it to come off as sarcastic. For the record, if one wishes to start JoesETF, I'm ok with it.\"",
"To figure this out, you need to know the price per share then vs the price per share now. Google Finance will show you historical prices. For GOOG, the closing price on January 5, 2015 was $513.87. The price on December 31, 2015 was $758.88. Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated with this formula: ROI = (Proceeds from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment Using this formula, your return on investment would be 47.7%. Since the time period was one year, this number is already an annualized return. If the time period was different than one year, you would normally convert it to an annualized rate of return in order to compare it to other investments.",
"Treat each transaction as separate, with its own principal, its own gain, and its own number of days. Then the total annualized return is just a weighted average of each annualized return, with the weighting related to the number of shares in that transaction.",
"As I write this, the NASDAQ Composite is at 2790.00, down 6.14 points from yesterday. To calculate the percentage, you take 6.14 and divide by yesterday's close of 2796.14 to yield 0.22%. In your example, if SPY drops from 133.68 to 133.32, you use the difference of -0.36 and divide by the original, i.e. -0.36/133.68 = -0.27%. SPY is an ETF which you can invest in that tracks the S&P 500 index. Ideally, the index would have dropped the same percentage as SPY, but the points would be different (~10x higher). To answer your question about how one qualifies a point, it completely depends on the index being discussed. For example, the S&P 500 is a market-capitalization weighted index of the common stock of 500 large-cap US public companies. It is as if you owned every share of each of the 500 companies, then divide by some large constant to create a number that's easily understood mentally (i.e. 1330). The NASDAQ Composite used the same methodology but includes practically all stocks listed on the NASDAQ. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted index of 30 large-cap companies. It's final value is modified using a divisor known as the Dow Divisor, which accounts for stock splits and similar events that have occurred since a stock has joined the index. Thus, points when referring to an index do not typically represent dollars. Rather, they serve as a quantitative measure of how the market is doing based on the performance of the index constituents. ETFs like SPY add a layer of abstraction by creating an investible vehicle that ideally tracks the value of the underlying index directly. Finally, neither price nor index value is related to volume. Volume is a raw measurement of the total number of shares traded for a given stock or the aggregate for a given exchange. Hope this helps!",
"I found one such tool here: Point-to-Point Returns tool",
"Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all.",
"See the Moneychimp site. From 1934 to 2006, the S&P returned an 'average' 12.81%. But the CAGR was 11.26%. I wrote an article Average Return vs Compound Annual Growth to address this issue. Interesting that over time only a few funds have managed to get anywhere near this return, but the low cost indexer can get the long term CAGR minus .05% or so, if they wish.",
"\"There's no need for an index to have a currency as its purpose is not to act as an asset but rather to signal investors about the performance of a collection of stocks. An index can be price-weighted, meaning that its value equals the (arithmetic) average of the prices of each stock in the index. With no stock splits, the return on this index is the same as the return on a portfolio composed of one share of each stock. If there is a stock split, however instead of dividing by the number of stocks, as you normally would when taking the arithmetic average, you divide it by the number that will make the value of the index pre-stock-split (arithmetic average) equal to the value post stock split. Then use that dividing number for all periods until a new stock split occurs. An index can be value-weighted, meaning that its changes in value track the percentage changes in total market capitalization of the stocks in the index. Price weighted indexes ignore for \"\"firm size\"\" and percentage changes in price weighted indexes are not robust to stock-splits. Value weighted indexes take \"\"firm size\"\" into account and are robust to stock-splits. DJIA is price-weighted. S&P 500 is value-weighted.\"",
"This link does it ok: http://investexcel.net/1979/calculate-historical-volatility-excel/ Basically, you calculate percentage return by doing stock price now / stock price before. You're not calculating the rate of return hence no subtraction of 100%. The standard is to do this on a daily basis: stock price today / stock price yesterday. The most important and most misunderstood part is that you now have to analyze the data geometrically not arithmetically. To easily do this, convert all percentage returns with the natural log, ln(). Next, you take the standard deviation of all of those results, and apply exp(). This answers the title of your question. For convenience's sake, it's best to annualize since volatility (implied or statistical) is now almost always quoted annualized. There are ~240 trading days each year. You multiply your stdev() result by (240 / # of trading days per return) ^ 0.5, so if you're doing this for daily returns, multiply the stdev() result by 240^0.5; if you were doing it weekly, you'd want to multiply by (240 / ~5)^0.5; etc. This is your number for sigma. This answers the intent of your question. For black-scholes, you do not convert anything back with exp(); BS is already set up for geometric analysis, so you need to stay there. The reason why analysis is done geometrically is because the distribution of stock returns is assumed to be lognormal (even though it's really more like logLaplace).",
"This answer contains three assumptions: New Share Price: Old Share Price * 1.0125 Quarterly Dividend: (New Share Price*0.01) * # of Shares in Previous Quarter Number of Shares: Shares from Previous Quarter + Quarterly Dividend/New Share Price For example, starting from right after Quarter One: New share price: $20 * 1.0125 = 20.25 1000 shares @ $20.25 a share yields $20.25 * 0.01 * 1000 = $202.5 dividend New shares: $202.5/20.25 = 10 shares Quarter Two: New share price: $20.503 1010 shares @ 20.503 yields $20.503*0.01*1010 = $207.082 dividend New shares: $207.082/20.503 = 10.1 shares Repeat over many cycles: 8 Quarters (2 years): 1061.52 shares @ $21.548 a share 20 Quarters (5 years): 1196.15 shares @ $25.012 a share 40 Quarters (10 years): 1459.53 shares @ $32.066 a share Graphically this looks like this: It's late enough someone may want to check my math ;). But I'd also assert that a 5% growth rate and a 4% dividend rate is pretty optimistic.",
"\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"",
"I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return. The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time. TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!",
"\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"",
"At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? I think you are mixing things. There is no concept of interest or compounding in Mutual Funds. When you buy a mutual fund, it either appreciates in value or depreciates in value; both can happen depending on the time period you compare. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. The way you need to look at this is Given you started with $10,000 and its now $10,500 the return is 5%. Now if you want to calculate simple return or compounded return, you would have to calculate accordingly. You may potentially want to find a compounded return for ease of comparison with say a Bank FD interest rate or some other reason. So if $10,000 become $10,500 after one year and $11,000 after 2 year. The absolute return is 10%, the simple yearly return is 5%. Or the Simple rate of return for first year is 5% and for second year is 4.9%. Or the Average Year on Year return is 4.775%.",
"\"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \"\"average return\"\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \"\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\"\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\"",
"Do what's outlined here. The capital asset pricing model will reveal how an asset (a stock in this instance) performed relative to the market performance for that time period. This by itself will answer your assignment's question but allowing you to traverse much deeper in the intricate details of the field. You'll learn a few interesting things on the way! Good luck :)",
"While the S&P500 is not a total return index, there is an official total return S&P500 that includes reinvested dividends and which is typically used for benchmarking. For a long time it was not available for free, but it can currently be found on yahoo finance using the ticker ^SP500TR.",
"You simply add the dividend to the stock price when calculating its annual return. So for year one, instead of it would be",
"\"Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(\"\"symbol\"\", \"\"attribute\"\", \"\"start_date\"\", \"\"num_days|end_date\"\", \"\"interval\"\") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that.\"",
"A one year period of study - Stock A trades at $100, and doesn't increase in value, but has $10 in dividends over the period. Stock B starts at $100, no dividend, and ends at $105. However you account for this, it would be incorrect to ignore stock A's 10% return over the period. To flip to a real example, MoneyChimp shows the S&P return from Jan 1980 to Dec 2012 as +3264% yet, the index only rose from 107.94 to 1426.19 or +1221%. The error expands with greater time and larger dividends involved, a good analysis won't ignore any dividends or splits.",
"Have you actually read the Wikipedia article? To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Early on, the initial divisor was composed of the original number of component companies; which made the DJIA at first, a simple arithmetic average. The present divisor, after many adjustments, is less than one (meaning the index is larger than the sum of the prices of the components). That is: DJIA = sum(p) / d where p are the prices of the component stocks and d is the Dow Divisor. Events such as stock splits or changes in the list of the companies composing the index alter the sum of the component prices. In these cases, in order to avoid discontinuity in the index, the Dow Divisor is updated so that the quotations right before and after the event coincide: DJIA = sum(p_old) / d_old = sum(p_new) / d_new The Dow Divisor was 0.14602128057775 on December 24, 2015.[40] Presently, every $1 change in price in a particular stock within the average, equates to a 6.848 (or 1 ÷ 0.14602128057775) point movement. Knowing the old prices, new prices (e.g. following a split), and old divisor, you can easily compute the new divisor... Edit: Also, the detailed methodology is published by SP Indices (PDF). Edit #2: For simplicity's sake, assume the DJIA is an index that contains 4 stocks, with a price of $100.00 each. One of the stocks splits 2:1, meaning the new price/share is $50.00. Plugging the numbers into the above equation, we can determine the new Dow Divisor: 400 / 4 = 350 / d => d = 3.5",
"I have asked myself this exact same question many times. The analysis would be simple if you invested all your money in a single day, but I did not and therefore I would need to convert your cash transactions into Index fund buys/sells. I got tired of trying to do this using Yahoo's data and excel so I built a website in my spare time. I humbly suggest you try my website out in the hopes that it helps you perform this computation: http://www.amibeatingthemarket.com/",
"What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.",
"At this time, Google Finance doesn't support historical return or dividend data, only share prices. The attributes for mutual funds such as return52 are only available as real-time data, not historical. Yahoo also does not appear to offer market return data including dividends. For example, the S&P 500 index does not account for dividends--the S&P ^SPXTR index does, but is unavailable through Yahoo Finance.",
"The adjusted close price takes into account stock splits (and possibly dividends). You want to look at the adjusted close price. Calculating percentage changes gets computationally tricky because you need to account for splits and dividends.",
"The return from one day to the next is based on the Day's closing price. To be clear - opening prices can be quite different from the prior day close. In your example, they are pretty close, but this is not always the case. Just pull a larger data set to observe this. The above aside, dividends are not reflected in the index, so, after a dividend has occurred, you'd need to account for this if you are looking for true total return. In 2011, the S&P closed at 1257.60 vs a 2010 year end 1257.64. The return, however was 2.11%, not zero, after accounting for the dividends. To me, articles that suggest the yearly return was zero are inaccurate and misleading.",
"Yes, if your IRR is 5% per annum after three years then the total return (I prefer total rather than your use of actual) over those three years is 15.76%. Note that if you have other cashflows in and out, it gets a bit more complicated (e.g. using the XIRR function in Excel), but the idea is to find an effective annual percentage return that you're getting for your money.",
"\"Compounding is just the notion that the current period's growth (or loss) becomes the next period's principal. So, applied to stocks, your beginning value, plus growth (or loss) in value, plus any dividends, becomes the beginning value for the next period. Your value is compounded as you measure the performance of the investment over time. Dividends do not participate in the compounding unless you reinvest them. Compound interest is just the principle of compounding applied to an amount owed, either by you, or to you. You have a balance with which a certain percentage is calculated each period and is added to the balance. The new balance is used to calculate the next period's interest, which again adds to the balance, etc. Obviously, it's better to be on the receiving end of a compound interest calculation than on the paying end. Interest bearing investments, like bonds, pay simple interest. Like stock dividends, you would have to invest the interest in something else in order to get a compounding effect. When using a basic calculator tool for stocks, you would include the expected average annual growth rate plus the expected annual dividend rate as your \"\"interest\"\" rate. For bonds you would use the coupon rate plus the expected rate of return on whatever you put the interest into as the \"\"interest\"\" rate. Factoring in risk, you would just have to pick a different rate for a simple calculator, or use a more complex tool that allows for more variables over time. Believe it or not, this is where you would start seeing all that calculus homework pay off!\"",
"Fund performance at NAV (%) for latest quarter, YTD, and average annual total returns for 1, 3, 5, 10 years. P/E ratio (1 yr. forecast), P/B ratio, Beta, Sharpe ratio, Wtd. avg. market cap, fund assets. I guess I would want to calculate all these things based off of the data that I would be working with. I will assume I am working with daily fund values per share over 10+ years.",
"You are looking for the Internal Rate of Return. If you have a spreadsheet like Microsoft Excel you can simply put in a list of the transactions (every time money went in or out) and their dates, and the spreadsheet's XIRR function will calculate a percentage rate of return. Here's a simple example. Investment 1 was 100,000 which is now worth 104,930 so it's made about 5% per year. Investment 2 is much more complicated, money was going in and out, but the internal rate of return was 7% so money in that investment, on average, grew faster than money in the first investment.",
"\"You can calculate the \"\"return on investment\"\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\"",
"\"the \"\"how\"\" all depends on your level of computer savvy. Are you an Excel spreadsheet user or can you write in programming languages such as python? Either approach have math functions that make the calculation of ROI and Volatility trivial. If you're a python coder, then look up \"\"pandas\"\" (http://pandas.pydata.org/) - it handles a lot of the book-keeping and downloading of end of day equities data. With a dozen lines of code, you can compute ROI and volatility.\"",
"\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"",
"\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \"\"time weighted\"\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \"\"investor return\"\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \"\"beating the market\"\" (or \"\"matching the market\"\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \"\"the point\"\" - I feel \"\"the point\"\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\"",
"\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"",
"The number you are trying to calculate is called the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Google Spreadsheets (and excel) both have an XIRR function that can do this for you fairly simply. Setup a spreadsheet with 1 column for dates, 1 column for investment. Mark your investments as negative numbers (payment to invest). All investments will be negative. Mark your last row with today's date and today's valuation (positive). All withdrawals will be positive, so you are pretending to withdrawal your entire account for the purpose of calculation. Do not record dividends or other interim returns unless you are actually withdrawing money. The XIRR function will calculate your internal rate of return with irregularly timed investments. Links: Article explaining XIRR function (sample spreadsheet in google docs to modify)",
"It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.",
"\"The TWRR calculation will work even with negative values: TWRR = (1 + 0.10) x (1 + (-0.191) ) x (1 + 0.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 which is a 4.7% return. Your second question concerns the -19% return calculated for the second quarter. You seem to think this return is \"\"way-off\"\". Not really. The TWRR calculates a return by accounting for cash that was added or deducted to/from the account. So if I started with $100,000, added $10,000 to the account, and ended up with $110,000, what should be the return on my investment? My answer would be 0% since the only reason my account balance went up was due to me adding cash to it. Therefore, if I started with $100,000, added $10,000 in cash to the account, and ended up with $100,000 in my account, then my return would be a negative value since I lost the $10,000 that I deposited in the account. In the second quarter you started with $15,000, deposited $4,000, and ended with $15,750. You essentially lost almost all of the $4,000 you deposited. That is a significant loss.\"",
"It depends on what stocks you invest in or whether you invest in an index, as all stocks are not created equally. If you prefer to invest directly into individual stocks and you choose ones that are financially health and trending upwards, you should be able to easily outperform any indexes and get your 30% return much quicker. But you always need to make sure that you have a stop loss placed on all of your stocks, because even the best performing companies can go through bad patches. The stop loss prevents you from losing all your capital if the share price suddenly starts going south and turns into a downtrend.",
"\"The author is using an approximation to what you have exactly, which is called a \"\"true\"\" time-weighted rate of return. You have expressed the total time-weighted return for the period in question. In order to express this as an annual rate, you may annualize it by adding one, raising to the 1/y power, and subtracting one again, for a period of y years. The alternative to a time-weighted return is a money-weighted return, which is actually another name for the internal rate of return.\"",
"Indices such as SP500 are typically including dividends - the payment of dividends doesn't impact the value of the index. Where can I find data on these dividends? I found data on dividend yields, but these give me access only to the sum of dividends over the last year. This in turn can change either because there are new dividends being paid, or because you stop counting last year's dividends...",
"A couple ideas: Use excel - it has an IRR (internal rate of return) that can handle a table of inputs as you describe, along with dates deposited to give you a precise number. Go simple - track total deposits over the year, assume half of that was present in January. So, for example, your account started the year with $10k, ended with $15k, but you deposited $4k over the year. It should be clear the return (gain) is $1k, right? But it's not 10%, as you added during the year. I'd divide $1k/$12k for an 8.3% return. Not knowing how your deposits were structured, the true number lies between the 10% and 6.7% as extremes. You'll find as you get older and have a higher balance, this fast method gaining accuracy, as your deposits are a tinier fraction of your account and likely spread out pretty smoothly over the year anyway.",
"Prices are adjusted for return and not payout. So if you take the ratio of the close price and the adjusted close price, it should remain constant. The idea behind a total return (back-)adjustment is to give you a feeling how much money you would have needed back then to reach the price today under the premise that all distributions (dividends, spin-offs, etc.) are reinvested instantly and that reinvestment doesn't cost anything.",
"Average rates of return usually assume compounding, so your formula would be for annual compounding ,or for continuous compounding.",
"If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price.",
"A good way to measure the performance of your investments is over the long term. 25-30% returns are easy to get! It's not going to be 25-30% in a single year, though. You shouldn't expect more than about 4% real (inflation-adjusted) return per year, on average, over the long term, unless you have reason to believe that you're doing a better job of predicting the market than the intellectual and investment might of Wall Street - which is possible, but hard. (Pro tip: It's actually quite easy to outdo the market at large over the short term just by getting lucky or investing in risky askets in a good year. Earning this sort of return consistently over many years, though, is stupidly hard. Usually you'll wipe out your gains several years into the process, instead.) The stock market fluctuates like crazy, which is why they tell you not to invest any money you're likely to need sooner than about 5 years out and you switch your portfolio from stocks to bonds as you approach and enter retirement. The traditional benchmark for comparison, as others have mentioned, is the rate of return (including dividends) from the Standard and Poors 500 Index. These are large stable companies which make up the core of larger United States business. (Most people supplement these with some smaller companies and overseas companies as a part of the portfolio.)",
"\"To try and address your 'how' it goes a bit like this. You need to first assess how your stuff is invested, if for example half is in stocks, and the other half is in bonds, then you will need to calculate a 'blended' rate for what are reasonable 'average return' for both. That might mean looking at the S&P500 or Russell 3000 for the stock portion, and some bond index for that portion, then 'blend the rates', in this case using a formula like this then compare the blended rate with the return in your IRA. It is generally a lot more useful to compare the various components of your total return separately, especially if you investing with a particular style such as 'agressive growth' or you are buying actual bonds and not a bond fund since most of the bond oriented indexes are for bond funds, which you can't really compare well with buying and holding bonds to maturity. Lets say your stock side was two mutual funds with different styles, one 'large cap' the other 'aggressive growth'. In that case you might want to compare each one of those funds with an appropriate index such as those provided by Morningstar If you find one of them is consistently below the average, you might want to consider finding an alternative fund who's manager has a better track record (bearing in mind that \"\"past performance....\"\") For me (maybe someone has a good suggestion here) bonds are the hard thing to judge. The normal goal of actually owning bonds (as opposed to a fund) is to retain the entire principal value because there's no principal fluctuation if you hold the bond to maturity (as long as you choose well and the issuer doesn't default) The actual value 'right now' of a bond (as in selling before maturity) and bond funds, goes up and down in an inverse relationship with interest rates. That means the indexes for such things also go up and down a lot, so it's very hard to compare them to a bond you intend to hold to maturity. Also, for such a bond, there's not a lot of point to 'switch out' unless you are worried about the issuer defaulting. If rates are up from what you are getting on your bonds, then you'll have to sell your bond at a discount, and all that happens is you'll end up holding a different bond that is worth less, but has higher interest (basically the net return is likely to be pretty much the same). The better approach there is generally to 'ladder' your maturity dates so you get opportunities to reinvest at whatever the prevailing rates are, without having to sell at a discount.. anyway the point is that I'm not sure there's a lot of value to comparing return on the bond portion of an IRA unless it's invested in bond funds (which a lot of people wanting to preserve principal tend to avoid)\"",
"You've flipped the numerator and denominator around, and need to multiply by 100 to get percentage rather than 10: I like to use a simple example to assess reasonableness of an approach, if you had invested $100 and after 1 year had $150, your approach would yield: But since $50 is half of $100, we know the rate of return should be 50%, so we know that approach is off. But, flipping the numerator and denominator and multiplying by 100 gets us the 50% we expected: Edit: Good catch by @DJohnM you've called it 9 years, but it's actually 11, so you'd want to adjust accordingly.",
"\"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \"\"per share\"\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\"",
"The total number of shares on April 1st is 100 + 180 + 275 = 555. The price on April 1st is required. The current price is stated as $2, but $2 * 555 = $1110 and the current fund values is stated as $1500. Opting to take the current value as $1500, the price on April 1st can be calculated as $1500/555 = $2.7027. The amounts invested as number of shares x share price are: (Note these investment amounts do not match the example scenario's investment amounts, presumably because the example numbers are just made up.) The monthly returns can be calculated: The current values for each investor as invested amount x returns are: Checking the total:",
"You probably want the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return which is the compound interest rate that would produce your return. You can compute it in a spreadsheet with XIRR(), I made an example: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvuTW2HtDQfYdEsxVlM0RFdrRk1QS1hoNURxZkVFN3c&hl=en You can also use a financial calculator, or there are probably lots of web-based calculators such as the ones people have mentioned.",
"\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"",
"The formula you're looking for is Thus, from 3% p.a. you get ca. 0.247% per month. However, as you see 0.25% is a good approximation (generally, small rates give good approximation).",
"The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return.",
"From Wikipedia - To calculate the value of the S&P 500 Index, the sum of the adjusted market capitalization of all 500 stocks is divided by a factor, usually referred to as the Divisor. For example, if the total adjusted market cap of the 500 component stocks is US$13 trillion and the Divisor is set at 8.933 billion, then the S&P 500 Index value would be 1,455.28. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the divisor is not canceling out the units, and the S&P index is dollar denominated even though it's never quoted that way. A case in point is that the S&P is often said to have a P/E, and especially an E, the earnings attributed to one 'unit' of S&P. And if you buy a mutual fund sporting a low expense ratio, you can invest exactly that much money (the current S&P index value) and see the dividends accrue to your account, less the fee.",
"Right, that's my understanding of the problem too. I tried some of the indices last night (not necessarily the ones you are suggesting), but when pulling them into COMP it only provided the price return, not the total return including coupons. This latter part is still the challenge.",
"One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero. For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index. Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways. Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't. Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.",
"You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.",
"\"There are no guarantees in the stock market. The index fund can send you a prospectus which shows what their results have been over the past decade or so, or you can find that info on line, but \"\"past results are not a guarantee of future performance\"\". Returns and risk generally trade off against each other; trying for higher than average results requires accepting higher than usual risk, and you need to decide which types of investments, in what mix, balance those in a way you are comfortable with. Reinvested dividends are exactly the same concept as compounded interest in a bank account. That is, you get the chance to earn interest on the interest, and then interest on the interest on the interest; it's a (slow) exponential growth curve, not just linear. Note that this applies to any reinvestment of gains, not just automatic reinvestment back into the same fund -- but automatic reinvestment is very convenient as a default. This is separate from increase in value due to growth in value of the companies. Yes, you will get a yearly report with the results, including the numbers needed for your tax return. You will owe income tax on any dividends or sales of shares. Unless the fund is inside a 401k or IRA, it's just normal property and you can sell or buy shares at any time and in any amount. Of course the advantage of investing through those special retirement accounts is advantageous tax treatment, which is why they have penalties if you use the money before retirement. Re predicting results: Guesswork and rule of thumb and hope that past trends continue a bit longer. Really the right answer is not to try to predict precise numbers, but to make a moderately conservative guess, hope you do at least that well, and be delighted if you do better... And to understand that you can lose value, and that losses often correct themselves if you can avoid having to sell until prices have recovered. You can, of course, compute historical results exactly, since you know how much you put in when, how much you took out when, and how much is in the account now. You can either look at how rate of return varied over time, or just compute an average rate of return; both approaches can be useful when trying to compare one fund against another... I get an approximate version of this reported by my financial management software, but mostly ignore it except for amusement and to reassure myself that things are behaving approximately as expected. (As long as I'm outperforming what I need to hit my retirement goals, I'm happy enough and unwilling to spend much more time on it... and my plans were based on fairly conservative assumptions.) If you invest $3k, it grows at whatever rate it grows, and ten years later you have $3k+X. If you then invest another $10k, you now have $3k+X+10k, all of which grows at whatever rate the fund now grows. When you go to sell shares or fractional shares, your profit has to be calculated based on when those specific shares were purchased and how much you paid for them versus when they were sold and how much you sold them for; this is a more annoying bit of record keeping and accounting than just reporting bank account interest, but many/most brokerages and investment banks will now do that work for you and report it at the end of the year for your taxes, as I mentioned.\"",
"PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.",
"\"Instead of using the actual index, use a mutual fund as a proxy for the index. Mutual funds will include dividend income, and usually report data on the value of a \"\"hypothetical $10,000 investment\"\" over the life of the fund. If you take those dollar values and normalize them, you should get what you want. There are so many different factors that feed into general trends that it will be difficult to draw conclusions from this sort of data. Things like news flow, earnings reporting periods, business cycles, geopolitical activity, etc all affect the various sectors of the economy differently.\"",
"\"A good measurement would be to compare to index's. Basically a good way to measure your self would be to ask \"\"If I put my money somewhere else how much better or worse would I have done?\"\" Mutual funds and Hedge funds use the SP500 as a bench mark. Some funds actually wave their fee if they do not outperform the SP or only take a fee on the portion that has outperformed the SP500. in today's economy i dont know how to expect such a return The economy is not a good benchmark on what to expect from the stock market. For example in 2009 by certain standards the economy was worse then today but in 2009 the market rallied a great deal so your returns should have reflected that. You can use the SP500 as a quick reference to compare your returns (this is also considered the \"\"standard\"\" for a quick comparison). The way you compare your performance is also dependent on how you invest your money. If you are outperforming the SP500 you are doing well. Many mutual funds DO NOT outperform the SP500. Edit Additional Info: Here is an article with more comprehensive information on how to gauge your performance. In the article is a link to a free tool from morning star. Use the Right Benchmark to Accurately Measure Investment Performance\"",
"ROI and volatility should be calculated over a representative period of time, for example 3 or 5 years, depending on data availability. The ROI is simple, for example, over 5 years:- For the 5 year annualised volatility you can refer to the ESMA SRRI methodology. Box 1 (page 3) m is the annualisation factor. Stock volatility calculated from weekly data should not be compared with volatility calculated from monthly data. Also, for reference: How to Calculate your Portfolio's Rate of Return",
"\"Well depends but \"\"on average\"\" the stock market has historically returned somewhere around 10% per year. Note, this can vary wildly from year to year see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500#Market_statistics So it would be roughly 2.8 years to get your 30% if you happen to get the average market return for those 3 years, but the chances of that happening exactly are slim to none. You could end up with +50% or -30% over that ~3 year period of time - so the calculation doesn't do you that much good for that short period of time, but if you are talking a span of 30 years then you could plan using that as a very rough ballpark. Good rule of thumb is you shouldn't put any money in the stock market you think you will need anytime in the next 5 years. Formula to figure out total gain would be Principal x (1+ rate of return) ^ years\"",
"\"What you are looking for is an indicator called the \"\"Rate of Change (Price)\"\". It provides a rolling % change in the price over the period you have chosen. Below is an example showing a price chart over the last 6 months with a 100 day Rate of Change indicator below the price chart.\""
] |
[
"So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells.",
"Here's a few demo steps, first calculating the year to date return, then calculating the Q4 quarterly return based on the cumulative returns for Q3 and Q4. It's fine to use closing price to closing price as return periods."
] |
6629
|
Tax treatment of a boxed trade?
|
[
"444405"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"267067",
"247902",
"99448",
"249687",
"123287",
"578022",
"154774",
"42521",
"552255",
"390864",
"211122",
"557181",
"233248",
"478600",
"333425",
"251394",
"361482",
"204388",
"91466",
"222320",
"178059",
"481283",
"232207",
"278460",
"350080",
"295153",
"530410",
"302735",
"163836",
"487256",
"443354",
"385310",
"161041",
"16187",
"581380",
"314200",
"581632",
"514970",
"569455",
"562481",
"428318",
"36341",
"34139",
"207788",
"430570",
"396180",
"137251",
"292065",
"330848",
"14364",
"89546",
"456436",
"543898",
"342411",
"431610",
"591157",
"423929",
"263312",
"264820",
"195767",
"115333",
"417295",
"259072",
"580429",
"252176",
"218460",
"537371",
"212312",
"72677",
"444405",
"530146",
"152960",
"526661",
"553253",
"289120",
"173133",
"227064",
"383287",
"19144",
"562904",
"265159",
"146177",
"482768",
"244061",
"175563",
"179855",
"87283",
"193485",
"50250",
"548705",
"361507",
"350317",
"406042",
"345793",
"149305",
"202645",
"435798",
"414454",
"441718",
"526714"
] |
[
"In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.",
"If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.",
"\"Apparently box 39 does not receive half of box 38 if \"\"The price of the share or unit is less than its fair market value when the agreement was made.\"\" - the last point in paragraph 110(1)(d): *http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/fnncl/scrty/stckpt03-eng.html#dspst The employee can claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act if all of the following conditions are met:\"",
"You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.",
"This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.",
"\"You owe no tax on the option transaction in 2015 in this case. How you ultimately get taxed depends on how you dispose of the position. If it expires, then you will have a short-term capital gain on the option position at expiration. If it is exercised, then the option is \"\"gone\"\" for tax purposes and your basis in the underlying is adjusted. From IRS Publication 550: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. In your case, this will be a long-term capital gain. For completeness, if you buy to cover the option back from the market before expiration or exercise, then it is also a short-term capital gain. Also, keep in mind that this all assumes that this covered call is \"\"qualified\"\" so that it does not count as a straddle. You can find more about that in Pub 550. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010630 All of this is for US tax purposes.\"",
"For case 1, there is no tax due as you sold the book for less than your cost basis. If you had sold for more than $100, then you would have had a profit. For case 2, that depends on the value of the gift card with respect to the value of your fare. Most likely that gift card is less than the cost of the fare. And in that case it would generally be treated as a reduction in the purchase price. The same way that rebates and cash back on credit card are treated. Note if for some reason a 1099 was generated that would change the situation and you would need to consult a tax professional. Since that would indicate that the other party to the transaction had a different view of the situation.",
"\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.",
"I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.",
"In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).",
"No. Black Scholes includes a number of variables to calculate the value of the derivative but taxation isn't one of them. Whether you are trading options or futures, the dividend itelf may be part of the equation, but not the tax on said dividend.",
"(I'm assuming the tag of United-states is accurate) Yes, the remaining amount is tax free -- at the current price. If you sell at exactly the original price, there is no capital gain, no capital loss. So you've already payed the taxes. If you sell and there is a capital gain of $3000, then you will pay taxes on the $3000. If 33% is your marginal tax rate, and if you held the stock for less than a year, then you will keep $7000 and pay taxes of $1000. Somehow, I doubt your marginal tax rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year after eTrade sold some for you to pay taxes, then you will pay 15% on the gain -- or $450. eTrade sold the shares to pay the taxes generated by the income. Yes, those shares were considered income. If you sell and have a loss, well, life sucks. However, if you sell something else, you can use the loss to offset the other gain. So if you sell stock A for a loss of $3000, and sell stock B at a gain of $4000, then you pay taxes on the net of $1000.",
"\"The tax comes when you close the position. If the option expires worthless it's as if you bought it back for $0. There's a short-term capital gain for the difference between your short-sale price and your buyback price on the option. I believe the capital gain is always short-term because short sales are treated as short-term even if you hold them open more than one year. If the option is exercised (calling away your stock) then you add the premium to your sale price on the stock and then compute the capital gain. So in this case you can end up treating the premium as a long-term capital gain. See IRS pub 550 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010619 Search for \"\"Writers of puts and calls\"\"\"",
"As mentioned by Dilip, you need to provide more details. In general for transacting on stocks; Long Term: If you hold the stock for more than one year then its long term and not taxable. There is a STT [Securities Transaction Tax] that is already deducted/paid during buying and selling of a stock. Short Term: If you hold the stock for less than one year, it's short term gain. This can be adjusted against the short term loss for the financial year. The tax rate is 10%. Day Trading: Is same as short term from tax point of view. Unless you are doing it as a full time business. If you have purchased multiple quantities of same stock in different quantities and time, then when you selling you have to arrive at profit or loss on FIFO basis, ie First in First Out",
"The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable",
"Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss.",
"You likely received the shares as ordinary income for services of $10k, since they withheld taxes at granting. Separately, you likely had a short term capital loss on sale of $2k, since your holding period seems to have been under one year.",
"\"Gifts given and received between business partners or employers/employees are treated as income, if they are beyond minimal value. If your boss gives you a gift, s/he should include it as part of your taxable wages for payroll purposes - which means that some of your wages should be withheld to cover income, social security, and Medicare taxes on it. At the end of the year, the value of the gift should be included in Box 1 (wages) of your form W-2. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to do anything special. A 1099-MISC would not be appropriate because you are an employee of your boss - so the two of you need to address the full panoply of employment taxes, not just income tax, which would be the result if the payment were reported on 1099-MISC. If the employer wants to cover the cost to you of the taxes on the gift, they'll need to \"\"gross up\"\" your pay to cover it. Let's say your employer gives you a gift worth $100, and you're in a 25% tax bracket. Your employer has to give you $125 so that you end up with a gain of $100. But the extra $25 is taxable, too, so your employer will need to add on an extra $6.25 to cover the 25% tax on the $25. But, wait, now we've gotta pay 25% tax on the $6.25, so they add an extra $1.56 to cover that tax. And now they've gotta pay an extra $.39 . . . The formula to calculate the gross-up amount is: where [TAX RATE] is the tax rate expressed as a percentage. So, to get the grossed-up amount for a $100 gift in a 25% bracket, we'd calculate 1/(1-.25), or 1/.75, or 1.333, multiply that by the target gift amount of $100, and end up with $133.33. The equation is a little uglier if you have to pay state income taxes that are deductible on the federal return but it's a similar principle. The entire $133.33 would then be reported as income, but the net effect on the employee is that they're $100 richer after taxes. The \"\"gross-up\"\" idea can be quite complicated if you dig into the details - there are some circumstances where an additional few dollars of income can have an unexpected impact on a tax return, in a fashion not obvious from looking at the tax table. If the employer doesn't include the gift in Box 1 on the W-2 but you want to pay taxes on it anyway, include the amount in Line 7 on the 1040 as if it had been on a W-2, and fill out form 8919 to calculate the FICA taxes that should have been withheld.\"",
"\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \"\"adjust the basis\"\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \"\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\"\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\"",
"Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.",
"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.",
"does it still count as a capital gain or loss? Yes. Is it essentially treated like you sold the stock at the price of the buy-out? Yes. Do you still get a 1099-B from your broker? Yes.",
"Flipping usually refers to real-estate transaction: you buy a property, improve/renovate/rehabilitate it and resell it quickly. The distinction between flipper and investor is similar to the distinction between trader and investor, even though the tax code doesn't explicitly refer to house flipping. Gains on house flipping can be considered as active business gain or passive activity income, which are treated differently: passive income goes on Schedule E and Schedule D, active income goes on Schedule C. The distinction between passive and active is based on the characteristics of the activity (hours you spent on it, among other things). Trading income can similarly be considered as either passive (Schedule D/E treatment) or active (Schedule C treatment). Here's what the IRS has to say about traders: Special rules apply if you are a trader in securities, in the business of buying and selling securities for your own account. This is considered a business, even though you do not maintain an inventory and do not have customers. To be engaged in business as a trader in securities, you must meet all of the following conditions: The following facts and circumstances should be considered in determining if your activity is a securities trading business: If the nature of your trading activities does not qualify as a business, you are considered an investor... Investor, in this context, means passive income treatment (Schedule D/E). However, even if your income is considered active (Schedule C), stock sale proceeds are not subject to the self-employment tax. As you can see, there's no specific definition, but the facts and circumstances matter. You may be considered a trader by the IRS, or you may not. You may want to be considered a trader (for example to be able to make a mark-to-market election), or you may not. You should talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for more details and suggestions.",
"Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/",
"\"Keep in mind that all of the information below assumes: That being said, here are some examples of national tax laws relating to barter transactions. Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list, but based on my grossly non-representative sample, I think it's fairly safe to assume that barter transactions are more likely taxable than not. You're referring to a barter system; in the United States, the IRS is very specific about this (see the section titled Bartering). Bartering is an exchange of property or services. The fair market value of goods and services exchanged is fully taxable and must be included on Form 1040 in the income of both parties. The IRS also provides more details: Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide or may provide under the bartering arrangement. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF). Refer to Topic 308 for amended return information. So yes, the net value of bartered goods or services is most likely taxable. According to the Australian Tax Office: Barter transactions are assessable and deductible for income tax purposes to the same extent as other cash or credit transactions. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs states that: If you supply services or goods (new or second-hand) and receive other goods or services in payment, there are two separate supplies: You must account for VAT, and so must your customer if they're VAT-registered. The VAT treatment is the same as for part-exchanges. You must both account for VAT on the amounts you would each have paid for the goods or services if there had been no barter and they had been paid for with money. Searching the website of the Federal Tax Service for the Russian/Cryllic word for barter (бартер) doesn't yield any results, but that might be because even between Google Translate and the rest of the internet, I don't speak Russian. That being said, I did manage to find this (translated from the first full paragraph of the Russian, beginning with \"\"Налог на доходы...\"\": The tax on personal income is paid by citizens of the Russian Federation with all types of income received by them in the calendar year, either in cash or in kind. Since bartering would probably qualify as an in kind transaction, it would likely be taxable. The South African Revenue Service includes barter transactions in the supply of goods taxed under the VAT. The term “supply” is defined very broadly and includes all forms of supply and any derivative of the term, irrespective of where the supply is effected. The term includes performance in terms of a sale, rental agreement, instalment credit agreement or barter transaction. Look for section 3.6, Supply and Taxable Supply, found on p17 of the current version of the linked document.\"",
"For the employee, this is an identical tax situation to an at-the-money option purchase. They're buying an asset with a specific cost basis. For the company, you are just issuing shares from treasury as authorized... debit cash, credit additional paid-in-capital and equity. There is no tax consequence for this money received.",
"I'm assuming this was a cashless exercise because you had income show up on your w-2. When I had a similar situation, I did the following: If you made $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in stock options then your W-2 now says $60,000. You'll record that on your taxes just like it was regular income. You'll also get a form that talks about your stock sale. But remember, you bought and sold the stock within seconds. Your forms will probably look like this: Bought stock: $10,000 Sold stock: $10,000 + $50 commission Total profit (loss): ($50) From the Turbotax/IRS view point, you lost $50 on the sale of the stock because you paid the commission, but the buy and sell prices were identical or nearly identical.",
"Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.",
"Generally speaking, you realize options gains or losses for (US) tax purposes when you close out the option position, or when it expires so in your example, if you're discussing an equity option, you'd realize the gain or loss next year, assuming you don't close it out prior to year end. But options tax treatment can get messy fast: Still, if you have no other stock or option positions in the underlying during or within 30 days of the establishment of the naked put, and assuming the option isn't assigned, you won't realize any gains or losses until the year in which the option is closed or expires.",
"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.",
"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.",
"ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.",
"The business and investment would be shown on separate parts of the tax return. (An exception to this is where an investment is related and part of your business, such as futures trading on business products) On the business side of it, you would show the transfer to the stocks as a draw from the business, the amount transferred would then be the cost base of the investment. For taxes, you only have to report gains or losses on investments.",
"You continue with this form. The fact that the trade in value is less than market value doesn't mean that you don't have taxable income from the sale. Since you depreciated the car before selling it, you need to compare the trade in value not to the market value, but to your cost basis, which may be lower.",
"If you received shares as part of a bonus you needed to pay income tax on the dollar valuse of those shares at the time you received them. This income tax is based on the dollar value of the bonus and has nothing to do with the shares. If you have since sold these shares you will need to report any capital gain or loss you made from their dollar value when you received them. If you made a gain you would need to pay capital gains tax on the profits (if you held them for more than a year you would get a discount on the capital gains tax you have to pay). If you made a loss you can use that capital loss to reduce any other capital gains in that income year, reduce any other income up to $3000 per year, or carry any additional capital loss forward to future income years to reduce any gains or income (up to $3000 per year) you do have in the future.",
"Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.",
"You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.",
"Work on your own site is certainly not relevant here, that's just a part of your trade, not a service you provided to yourself. The business received the benefit of that work, not you. Suppose your business sold televisions. If you took a TV from stock for your own lounge, that would be included in this box because you have effectively paid yourself with a TV rather than cash. If you take a TV from stock to use as a demo model, that's part of your trade and not goods you have taken out of the business for your own use. For services provided to your dad it's less clear. As Skaty said, it depends whether it's your business providing the service, or you personally. If you gave your dad a free TV then it would be clear that you have effectively paid yourself with another TV and then given it to your dad as a gift. With services it's less clear whether you're receiving services from the business for free. You might consider how it would be treated by your employer if you weren't self-employed. If you were just applying your skills to help your dad in your free time, your employer wouldn't care. If you used your employer's equipment or facilities, or hosted his site on a server that your employer pays for, your employer would be more likely to discipline you for effectively stealing services from them, as they would if you took a TV from their warehouse for him.",
"No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain. Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do.",
"Interesting. How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate? It's hard to imagine they do that. I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?",
"The purpose of the transfer determines the taxability. If this is happening to frequent, it is advisable to keep proper records of the transaction so that if there is an enquiry from Tax authorities you can explain. Unless you explain the why the transfer is being made, I have put out some broad categories.",
"Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.",
"\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"",
"\"Of course. The rationale is exactly the same as always: profit is taxed. The fact that you use intermediate barter to make that profit is irrelevant. To clarify, as it seems that you think it makes a difference that no money \"\"changed hands\"\". Consider this situation: So far your cost is $10000. How will the tax authority address this? They will look at the fair market value of the barter. You got gold worth of $20000. So from their perspective, you got $20000, and immediately exchanged it into gold. What does it mean for you? That you're taxed on the $10000 gain you made on your product X (the $20000 worth of barter that you received minus the $10000 worth of work/material/expenses that you spend on producing the merchandise), and that you have $20000 basis in the gold that you now own. If in a year, when you plan to sell the gold, its price drops - you can deduct investment losses. If its price goes up - you'll have investment gain. But for the gain you're making on your product X you will pay taxes now, because that's when you realized it - sold the merchandize and received in return something else of a value.\"",
"\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"",
"You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.",
"The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.",
"\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \"\"substantially identical\"\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\"",
"Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free.",
"If you have made $33k from winning trades and lost $30k from loosing trades your net gain for the year would be $3k, so obviously you would pay taxes only on the net $3k gains.",
"The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End.",
"The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html",
"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.",
"You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant. So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.",
"Sale of a stock creates a capital gain. It can be offset with losses, up to $3000 more than the gains. It can be deferred when held within a retirement account. When you gift appreciated stock, the basis follows. So when I gifted my daughter's trust shares, there was still tax due upon sale. The kiddy tax helped reduce but not eliminate it. And there was no quotes around ownership. The money is gone, her account is for college. No 1031 exchange exists for stock.",
"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"\"The shares are \"\"imputed income\"\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \"\"US Person\"\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\"",
"\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"",
"@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.",
"With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.",
"If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).",
"What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.",
"It looks like what you're calling a name change was registered as a merger that resulted in an exchange of stock. If that's the case, then what you've been told is correct. You've got one long-term sale and one short-term sale. Based a quick read of the Form 8937 that was filed, it looks like there were multiple entities involved in this event, more than one of which existed prior to it. https://www.mylan.com/-/media/mylancom/files/form%208937%20for%20mylan%20n%20v.pdf",
"\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"",
"\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"",
"No Tax would have been deducted at the time of purchase/sale of shares. You would yourself be required to compute your tax liability and then pay taxes to the govt. In case the shares sold were held for less than 1 year - 15% tax on capital gains would be levied. In case the shares sold were held for more than 1 year - No Tax would be levied and the income earned would be tax free. PS: No Tax is levied at the time of purchase of shares and Tax is only applicable at the time of sale of shares.",
"Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.",
"\"if you buy back the now ITM calls, then you will have a short term loss. That pair of transactions is independent, from a tax perspective, of your long position (which was being used as \"\"collateral\"\" in the very case that occurred). I can see your tax situation and can see the logic of taking a short term loss to balance a short term gain. Referring to D Stanley's answer, #2 and #3 are not the same because you are paying intrinsic value in the options and the skew in #2, whereas #3 has no intrinsic value. Of course, because you can't know the future, the stock price could move higher or lower between #2 and #3. #1 presumes the stock continues to climb.\"",
"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.",
"Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.",
"\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"",
"\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"",
"E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.",
"\"I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced. This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11. The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. \"\"On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock.\"\" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock. Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits. However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016. According to the IRS website \"\"When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received.\"\" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete. Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement \"\"A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received\"\" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date. However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016. Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments. To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes. They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones.\"",
"Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.",
"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.",
"The original post's $16 has two errors: Here is the first scenario: . Tax Liability($) on Net . Cash # of Price Paper Realized Value Time: ($) Shares ($/sh) Profits Profits ($) 1. Start with: 100 - n/a - - 100 2. After buy 10@10$/sh: - 10 10 - - 100 3. Before selling: - 10 12 (5) - 115 4. After sell 10@12$/sh: 120 - n/a - (5) 115 5. After buy 12@10$/sh: - 12 10 - (5) 115 6. Before selling: - 12 12 (6) (5) 133 7. After sell 12@12$/sh: 144 - n/a - (11) 133 8. After buy 14@10$/sh: 4 14 10 - (11) 133 9. Before selling: 4 14 12 (7) (11) 154 10.After sell 14@12$/sh: 172 - n/a - (18) 154 At this point, assuming that all of the transactions occurred in the same fiscal year, and the realized profits were subject to a 25% short-term capital gains tax, you would owe $18 in taxes. Yes, this is 25% of $172 - $100.",
"The key point is from the penultimate sentence in your second paragraph: for which you have already paid taxes When you receive a dividend or realise a capital gain, you get taxed on that then, and you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it again in future. So the cost basis gets adjusted to reflect that.",
"From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.",
"The HMRC website says: Stock dividends are treated as income by virtue of CTA10/S1049, and taxable as savings income under Chapter 5 of Part 4 of ITTOIA05 (sections 409 to 414). ITTOIA05 is the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, and says: 409 Charge to tax on stock dividend income (1) Income tax is charged on stock dividend income. (2) In this Chapter “stock dividend income” means the income that is treated as arising under section 410. 411 Income charged (1) Tax is charged under this Chapter on the amount of stock dividend income treated for income tax purposes as arising in the tax year. (2) That amount is the cash equivalent of the share capital on the issue of which the stock dividend income arises (see section 412), grossed up by reference to the dividend ordinary rate for the tax year.",
"It looks like it has to deal with an expiration of rights as a taxable event. I found this link via google, which states that Not only does the PSEC shareholder have a TAXABLE EVENT, but he has TWO taxable events. The net effect of these two taxable events has DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES for DIFFERENT SHAREHOLDERS depending upon their peculiar TAX SITUATIONS. The CORRECT STATEMENT of the tax treatment of unexercised PYLDR rights is in the N-2 on page 32, which reads in relevant part as follows: “…, if you receive a Subscription Right from PSEC and do not sell or exercise that right before it expires, you should generally expect to have (1) taxable dividend income equal to the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC to the extent of PSEC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits and (2) a capital loss upon the expiration of such right in an amount equal to your adjusted tax basis (if any) in such right (which should generally equal the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC).” Please note, for quarterly “estimated taxes” purposes, that the DIVIDEND taxable events occur “ON THE DATE OF ITS DISTRIBUTION BY PSEC (my emphasis),” while the CAPITAL LOSS occurs “UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH RIGHT” (my emphasis). They do NOT occur on 31 December 2015 or some other date. However, to my knowledge, neither of the taxable events he mentions would be taxed by 4/15. If you are worried about it, I would recommend seeing a tax professional. Otherwise I'd wait to see the tax forms sent by your brokerage.",
"There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.",
"The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at",
"In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain! Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice.",
"\"While derivative pricing models are better modeling reality as academia invests more into the subject, none sufficiently do. If, for example, one assumes that stock returns are lognormal for the purposes of pricing options like Black Scholes does, the only true dependent variable becomes log-standard deviation otherwise known as \"\"volatility\"\", producing the infamous \"\"volatility smile\"\" which disappears in the cases of models with more factors accounting for other mathematical moments such as mean, skew, and kurtosis, etc. Still, these more advanced models are flawed, and suffer the same extreme time mispricing as Black Scholes. In other words, one can model anything however one wants, but the worse the model, the stranger the results since volatility for a given expiration should be constant across all strikes and is with better models. In the case of pricing dividends, these can be adjusted for the many complexities of taxation, but the model becomes ever more complex and extremely computationally expensive for each eventuality. Furthermore, with more complexity in any model, the likelihood of discovering a closed form in the short run is less. For equities in a low interest rate, not high dividend yield, not low volatility, low dividend tax environment, the standard swap pricing models will not provide results much different from one where a single low tax rate on dividends is assumed. If one is pricing a swap on equity outside of the bounds above, the dividend tax rate could have more of an effect, but for computational efficiency, applying a single assumed dividend tax rate would be optimal with D*(1-x), instead of D in a formula, where D is the dividend paid and x is the tax rate. In short, a closed form model is only as good as its assumptions, so if anomalies appear between the actual prices of swaps in the market and a swap model then that model is less correct than the one with smaller anomalies of the same type. In other words, if pricing equity swaps without a dividend tax rate factored more closely matches the actual prices than pricing with dividend taxes factored then it could be assumed that pricing without a dividend tax factored is superior. This all depends upon the data, and there doesn't seem to be much in academia to assist with a conclusion. If equity swaps do truly provide a tax advantage and both parties to a swap transaction are aware of this fact then it seems unlikely swap sellers wouldn't demand some of the tax advantage back in the form of a higher price. A model is no defense since volatility curves persist despite what Black Scholes says they should be.\"",
"You would not owe any taxes in the 2015 year, unless you got exercised and called away in 2015. The premium would be short term capital gains barring some other exception I'm not aware of, and if you retain a gain on the underlying shares then that would still be long term capital gains. If it gets called in say April 2016, is the premium+profit+dividends all long term capital gains for the year 2016? The profits are long term capital gains and the premium serves to lower your cost basis, dividends have their own conditions so you'll have to do separate research on that, fortunately they'll likely be negligible compared to the potential capital gains and options premium.",
"\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"",
"In addition to the adjustment type in NL7's answer, there are a host of others. If there are any adjustments, form 8949 is required, if not, the gains can be separated into short and long-term and added together to be entered on Schedule D. Anything requiring an adjustment code in column F of the 8949 requires an entry in column G. Some other example entries for column F include: (see the 8949 instructions for a complete list) **A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. (from Pub17)",
"This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.",
"The tax cost at election should be zero. The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income. §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it. If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes. That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade. The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election. The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income. This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable. It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election.",
"Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.",
"Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc.",
"\"Overall the question is one of a political nature. However, this component can have objective answers: \"\"What behavior is trying to be prevented?\"\" There are mechanisms by which capital gains can be deferred (1031 like-kind exchange, or simply holding a long position for years) or eliminated by the estate step up in basis. With these available, mechanisms that enable basis-reduction are ripe for abuse. On the other hand, if this truly bothers you then if you meet the IRS qualifications of a day trader, you may elect to use \"\"mark to market\"\" accounting, eliminating this entirely as a concern. Special rules for traders of securities\"",
"\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"",
"For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.",
"Well, you won't be double taxed based on what you described. Partners are taxed on income, typically distributions. Your gain in the partnership is not income. However, you were essentially given some money which you elected to invest in the partnership, so you need to pay tax on that money. The question becomes, are you being double taxed in another way? Your question doesn't explain how you invested, but pretty much the options are either a payroll deduction (some amount taken out of X paychecks or a bonus) or some other payment to you that was not treated as a payroll deduction. Given that you got a 1099, that suggests the latter. However, if the money was taken out as a payroll deduction - you've already paid taxes (via your W2)! So, I'd double check on that. Regarding why the numbers don't exactly match up - Your shares in the partnership likely transacted before the partnership valuation. Let's illustrate with an example. Say the partnership is currently worth $1000 with 100 outstanding shares. You put up $1000 and get 100 shares. Partnership is now worth $2000 with 200 outstanding shares. However, after a good year for the firm, it's valuation sets the firm's worth at $3000. Your gain is $1500 not $1000. You can also see if what happened was the firm's valuation went down, your gain would be less than your initial investment. If instead your shares transacted immediately after the valuation, then your gain and your cost to acquire the shares would be the same. So again, I'd suggest double checking on this - if your shares transacted after the valuation, there needs to be an explanation for the difference in your gain. For reference: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/incorporation-and-legal-structures/partnership-taxes.html And https://www.irs.gov/publications/p541/ar02.html Here you learn the purpose of the gain boxes on your K1 - tracking your capital basis should the partnership sell. Essentially, when the partnership is sold, you as a partner get some money. That money is then taxed. How much you pay will depend on what you received versus what the company was worth and whether your gain was long term or short term. This link doesn't go into that detail, but should give you a thread to pull. I'd also suggest reading more about partnerships and K1 and not just the IRS publications. Don't get me wrong, they're a good source of information, just also dense and sometimes tough to understand. Good luck and congrats.",
"\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"",
"This may be a good or a bad deal, depending on the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise. Let's assume the FMV is $6, which is the break even point. In general this would probably be treated as two transactions. So overall you would be cash neutral, but your regular tax income would be increased by $30,000 and your AMT income by $60,000.",
"An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive."
] |
[
"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it."
] |
6792
|
Where to find the full book of outstanding bids/asks for a stock?
|
[
"485973"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"557770",
"48493",
"283008",
"382067",
"251100",
"294867",
"485973",
"404604",
"212685",
"334383",
"571620",
"321028",
"118389",
"347315",
"580133",
"446904",
"177926",
"100188",
"526377",
"322798",
"137175",
"487074",
"501748",
"51063",
"384850",
"146125",
"315334",
"568043",
"577075",
"560245",
"442048",
"471643",
"425561",
"466255",
"421724",
"28604",
"284235",
"87065",
"63403",
"96467",
"402482",
"596106",
"124205",
"373620",
"306104",
"485054",
"516923",
"129745",
"274733",
"423841",
"218670",
"215260",
"481544",
"375544",
"317148",
"123649",
"575018",
"373862",
"112714",
"492262",
"413423",
"21376",
"560558",
"161411",
"32485",
"39185",
"95010",
"427747",
"38545",
"535343",
"558566",
"53263",
"524050",
"517161",
"159966",
"37959",
"517935",
"5018",
"86281",
"237653",
"123958",
"546493",
"65894",
"303649",
"14461",
"420587",
"189275",
"71330",
"365463",
"9683",
"577090",
"253135",
"146076",
"396844",
"15112",
"261858",
"503075",
"49111",
"510061",
"175831"
] |
[
"As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.",
"Buy Data products from NSE. You will get historical order book. The Live order book may not be available. https://www.nseindia.com/supra_global/content/dotex/data_products.htm This link has all the data products that NSE can provide",
"My broker collates the order book by price and marketplace, displaying the number of shares available at each level, sorted as in Victor's screencap. You can glean information from not just a snapshot of the order book but also by watching how it changes over time. Although it's not always a complete picture -- many brokers hold limit orders internally until the market is close, at which point they'll route to an exchange or trade internally. And of course skilled market participants know that there's people out there looking to glean information from the order book and will act to confuse the picture. The order book can show you: Combined with a list of trades (price & size, and whether it was a buy or sell), you can get a much more complete picture of what's going on with a stock than by looking at charts alone.",
"Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day.",
"In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.",
"For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second.",
"Yes apply for live and dynamic data (you may have to pay for this depending on your broker and your country) and look at the market depth.",
"At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)",
"Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API. EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST**** trades **but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system. I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.",
"The three sites mentioned in the second link are all professional trading workstations, not public web sites. There may not be free quotes available.",
"Depends on the exchange, and it's usually not going to be free. I use IB's API, and I've heard good things about IQFeed. You can get some free book data from Bats, but again you probably won't see your own transactions go by. http://batstrading.com/market_data/",
"One broker told me that I have to simply read the ask size and the bid size, seeing what the market makers are offering. This implies that my order would have to match that price exactly, which is unfortunate because options contract spreads can be WIDE. Also, if my planned position size is larger than the best bid/best ask, then I should break up the order, which is also unfortunate because most brokers charge a lot for options orders.",
"They're all in one place. The OCC provides: http://www.optionsclearing.com/webapps/flex-reports",
"I think Infochimps has what you are looking for: NYSE and NASDAQ.",
"Quite a few Banks/brokers offer direct terminals to NSE where you can see live prices.",
"In the stock market many participants enter orders that are not necessarily set at the current market price of the stock (i.e. they are not market orders, they are limit orders). They can be lower than the market price (if they want to buy) or they can be higher than the market price (if they want to sell). The set of orders at each point of time for a security is called the order book. The lowest selling price of the order book is the offer or ask, the higher buying price is the bid. The more liquid is a security, the more orders will be in the order book, and the narrower will be the bid-ask spread. The depth of the order book is the number of units that the order book can absorb in any direction (buy or sell). As an example: imagine I want to buy 100 units at the lowest offer, but the size of the lowest offer is only 50 units, and there is not any further order, that means the stock has little depth.",
"They could have different quotes as there are more than a few pieces here. Are you talking a Real Time Level II quote or just a delayed quote? Delayed quotes could vary as different companies would be using different time points in their data. You aren't specifying exactly what kind of quote from which system are you using here. The key to this question is how much of a pinpoint answer do you want and how prepared are you to pay for that kind of access to the automated trades happening? Remember that there could well be more than a few trades happening each millisecond and thus latency is something to be very careful here, regardless of the exchange as long as we are talking about first-world stock exchanges where there are various automated systems being used for trading. Different market makers is just a possible piece of the equation here. One could have the same market maker but if the timings are different,e.g. if one quote is at 2:30:30 and the other is at 2:30:29 there could be a difference given all the trades processed within that second, thus the question is how well can you get that split second total view of bids and asks for a stock. You want to get all the outstanding orders which could be a non-trivial task.",
"You can buy the data and process it on your own. http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/Daily-TAQ",
"\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"",
"If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.",
"Ya, that's a lot of data - especially considering your relative lack of experience and the likely fact that you have no idea what to do with what you're given. How do you even know you need minute or tick-based bid-ask data? You can get a lot more than OHLC/V/Split/Dividend. You can get: * Book Value; * Dividend information (Amount, yield, ex date, pay date); * EBITDA; * EPS (current AND estimates); * Price/sales ratio; * Price/book value; * Price/earnings ratio; * PEG ratio; * Short ratio; * Market cap. Among other things, all for free.",
"To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE: I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter. Many of these stocks are amusingly scary): http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices.",
"It's an over-the-counter stock quote system. Read all about it. Or visit it.",
"\"My Broker and probably many Brokers provide this information in a table format under \"\"Course of Sale\"\". It provides the time, price and volume of each trade on that day. You could also view this data on a chart in some charting programs. Just set the interval to \"\"Tick by Tick\"\" and look at the volume. \"\"Tick by Tick\"\" will basically place a mark for every trade that is taken and then the volume will tell you the size of that trade.\"",
"The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.",
"If you're willing to shell out some cash, vendors will be quite happy to sell you everything you need. Picking one out of thin air, and no idea if this is a good price or not, the CBOE will sell you EOD data for every option for $40 for one day, and at a discount for multiple days. Beyond the high/low/close for each contract, you get the volume. Or a month of TAQ data will run your $1550, for what that's worth, which probably isn't a lot for a retail strategy.",
"\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \"\"time and sales,\"\" or \"\"TNS,\"\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \"\"time and quotes,\"\" or \"\"TNQ\"\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\"",
"Bloomberg terminal is a pretty standard way nowadays to get this information (and a lot more) pretty much in real time.",
"The CBOE site, as well as some other sites and trading platforms, will show the bid/ask and statistics for that option at each individual options exchange, in addition to statistics and the best bid/offer across all exchanges. cboe.com: Delayed Quote Help lists what the single-letter codes mean. A is for the AMEX options exchange, B is for BOX, X is for PHLX, etc.",
"All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.",
"Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.",
"Agree with some of the posts above - Barchart is a good source for finding unusual options activity and also open interest -https://www.barchart.com/options/open-interest-change",
"You'd have to buy that information. Quoting from this page, Commercial Historical Data Higher resolution and more complete datasets are generally not available for free. Below is a list of vendors which have passed our quality screening (in total, we screened over a dozen vendors). To qualify, the vendor must aggregate data from all US national/regional exchanges as only complete datasets are suitable for research use. The last point is especially important as there are many vendors who just get data from a couple sources and is missing important information such as dark pool trades. They offer some alternatives for free data: Daily Resolution Data 1) Yahoo! Finance– Daily resolution data, with split/dividend adjustments can be downloaded from here. The download procedure can be automated using this tool. Note, Yahoo quite frequently has errors in its database and does not contain data for delisted symbols. 2) QuantQuote Free Data– QuantQuote offers free daily resolution data for the S&P500 at this web page under the Free Data tab. The data accounts for symbol changes, splits, and dividends, and is largely free of the errors found in the Yahoo data. Note, only 500 symbols are available unlike Yahoo which provides all listed symbols. And they list recommendations about who to buy the data from.",
"Many exchanges trade the same securities. An order may be posted to a secondary exchange, but if the National Best Bid and Offer data provider malfunctions, only those with data feeds from that exchange will see it. Only the data provider for the primary exchange where a stock is listed provides the NBBO. Missing orders are very common with the NBBO data providers. NASDAQ's order consolidator has had many failures over the past few years, and the data provider's top executive has recently resigned. Brokers have no control over this system. A broker may be alerted to a malfunction by an accountholder, but a broker may only inform the relevant exchange and the relevant data provider.",
"\"The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade. It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side. But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as \"\"tip of the iceberg\"\" prices. That is: The \"\"Bid: 13.20 x200\"\" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares. Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices. So the \"\"bid\"\" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The \"\"Ask: 13.27 x1,000\"\" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares. Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices. So the \"\"ask\"\" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges. The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned. In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock. For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow). For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction. Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27. If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called \"\"current\"\" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22. And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.) Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid.\"",
"\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"",
"The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.",
"\"People must simply be willing to match your orders if they know about it. You can sniff orders out if you can see them or predict them. For instance, you can look at an order book and decide who you want to get filled at, especially if you are looking at different quotes from different exchanges. So you can get a \"\"better\"\" fill just by looking at what someone is willing to pay to enter/exit their order as well as what exchange they placed their order through, and send an order to that specific exchange to match them. You (or a program) can just watch the level 2's and place an order as soon as you see one you like. The orders on the level2's do not reveal ALL interested market participants. Also many brokers have difficulty updating options quotes. Finally, options & market volatility can inflate or decrease the price of options by large percentages very quickly.\"",
"you can try CME DataSuite. Your broker gives you real time options quotes. If you do not have one you can open a scottrade account with just $500 deposit. When I moved my money from scottrade to ameritrade they did not close my account even till this day I can access my scottrade account and see real time quotes and the same research they offered me before. You can try withdrawing your deposit and see if it stays open like mine did.",
"You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer.",
"A number of places. First, fast and cheap, you can probably get this from EODData.com, as part of a historical index price download -- they have good customer service in my experience and will likely confirm it for you before you buy. Any number of other providers can get it for you too. Likely Capital IQ, Bloomberg, and other professional solutions. I checked a number of free sites, and Market Watch was the only that had a longer history than a few months.",
"Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No. For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.",
"I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year",
"Not that I am aware. There are times that an option is available, but none have traded yet, and it takes a request to get a bid/ask, or you can make an offer and see if it's accepted. But the option chain itself has to be open.",
"You can get this data from a variety of sources, but likely not all from 1 source. Yahoo is a good source, as is Google, but some stock markets also give away some of this data, and there's foreign websites which provide data for foreign exchanges. Some Googling is required, as is knowledge of web scraping (R, Python, Ruby or Perl are great tools for this...).",
"I'm answering in a perspective of an End-User within the United Kingdom. Most stockbrokers won't provide Real-time information without 'Level 2' access, however this comes free for most who trade over a certain threshold. If you're like me, who trade within their ISA Holding each year, you need to look elsewhere. I personally use IG.com. They've recently began a stockbroking service, whereas this comes with realtime information etc with a paid account without any 'threshold'. Additionally, you may want to look into CFDs/Spreadbets as these, won't include the heavy 'fees' and tax liabilities that trading with stocks may bring.",
"I don't see it in any of the exchange feeds I've gone through, including the SIPs. Not sure if there's something wrong with Nasdaq Last Sale (I don't have that feed) but it should be putting out the exact same data as ITCH.",
"The trick is real time. I like to wake up in the morning, turn on my computer and see at a glance the gain or loss data on each of my stock and bond at that moment. Companies like Ameritrde offer them, but you have to enroll and trade stock in them.",
"You can get this information through Bloomberg, but it's a paid service.",
"the data source is the same as the live market trading. pre and after market trading are active markets and there are actual buyers and sellers getting their orders matched.",
"\"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page. (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"lit\"\" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other. Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"non-lit\"\" exchanges. These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA. There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF. They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're \"\"located at\"\" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring. (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further. (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.) I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities. Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point.\"",
"\"You can see all the (millions) of trades per day for a US stock only if you purchase that data from the individual exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, ARCA, ...), from a commercial market data aggregator (Bloomberg, Axioma, ...), or from the Consolidated Tape Association. In none of that data will you ever find identifying information for the traders. What you are recalling regarding the names of \"\"people from the company\"\" trading company stock is related to SEC regulations stating that people with significant ownership of company stock and/or controlling positions on the company board of directors must publicize (most of) their trades in that stock. That information can usually be found on the company's investor relations website, or through the SEC website.\"",
"You probably will not find to many places if any that give you live quotes on options because for the general public there is not that high of a demand. Most people do not even know what stock options are. You can get update on some sites like CNBC, but you will have refresh constantly to get the latest option prices. You can also try an online broker, most of whom will let you have access to their tools and quotes if you sign up for an account. Some require a deposit before you can access those tools and some don't. Personally, I use TD Ameritrade and I do not believe they require a deposit to use their tools, but don't quote me on that.",
"So in your screenshot, someone or some group of someones is willing to buy 3,000 shares at $3.45, and someone or some group of someones is willing to sell 2,000 shares at 3.88. Without getting in to the specific mechanics, you can place a market buy order for 10 (or whatever number) shares and it will probably transact at $3.88 per share because that's the lowest price for which someone will currently sell their shares. As a small fish, you can generally ignore the volume notations in the bid/ask quotes.",
"It depends on the way you have directed the order and the execution agreement you have signed with your broker. In case of DMA (direct market access) you would direct your order to the specific exchange - and that exchange would post your offer, assuming you did not tag it as hidden. However, if you just gave your order to the broker (be it via telephone, email or even online), they may not have to display your order to the market or chose which exchange to sell it on. It will also depend where the stock is listed. For most US listed and OTC stocks, regulation NMS applies where your order should have been executed against if it went to the exchanges. Check your account opening docs and agreements, particulary the execution agreement. In there it will tell you how your order should be treated. In case where the broker stipulates that you have DMA or that they will direct your order to Lit markets (public exchanges and not market making firms and dark-pools) then you may have a case - you would need to request information to whcih exchange your broker sent the order to. In case that you gave them discretion on routing of your order - read the fine print. The answer lies there. Regarding NBBO missing you quote as quantycuenta suggested above is also a possibility, however Reg NMS should take care of this. Do you have stock and date & time of your order?",
"Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D",
"Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).",
"\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"",
"There are about 250 trading days in a year. There are also about 1,900 stocks listed on the NYSE. What you're asking for would require about 6.2M rows of data. Depending on the number of attributes you're likely looking at a couple GB of data. You're only getting that much information through an API or an FTP.",
"It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.",
"But what about the following scenario which is my paraphrasing of a Nanex article (I'm hoping you can help clarify this for me). 1. I observe a 1,000 lot @$10 advertised for Sell on a lit exchange. 2. I try to lift the 1,000 by placing a limit order @10. 3. My order goes through some kind of order routing process. First, 3 orders get executed on a dark pool. Let's say I got a 50 lot filled (so available offer reduces to 950). 4. My order hits a lit exchange. I get a partial fill for 100 (offer shrinks to 850); but the offered size shrinks instead to 500. Or 0. 5. Now, in order to execute my trade, I will have to take a higher price than the original advertised liquidity. My question (maybe you can answer this) is why did my original order size of 1,000 appear in smaller blocks? Is this because the order routing algorithm breaks up the size? Or is it that market makers only post offers in small block sizes (e.g. 100) So even if the order book looked like: 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 All the way to 1,000 total -- as soon as the first 100 shares were lifted, the MM can immediately cancel the remainder of the advertised liquidity -- in practical terms making it impossible to execute large orders at an advertised price.",
"As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price.",
"\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"",
"Volume @ 0 doesn't mean that there are no buyers and sellers, it just means that there hasn't been any trades done yet. What you need to look for are the bids and offers (for selling and buying, respectively). For further expiration and NTM or IT options there will almost always be a bid and an offer (but it may be very wide). Now, in case where there is 0 bid (no one is willing to buy), you may still have a chance if the option has some value in it. For that - you need your broker to try to shop it to market making firms. Now, depending on who your broker is, this may or may not be possible. Alternatively, if you have DMA (direct market access) to the options exchanges, you can try to put in an offer of your own and wait for someone to execute against you, however do not expect to be traded with unless your price is out of line with the cost. However, in wide markets, you can try Lampost options (they may give you price improvement) or try to offer very close to the bid. You may save yourself a penny or two and perhaps get a rebate if you are using BATSO or NASDAQO markets (if you have DMA and pass-through exchange fees).",
"The Level 2 data is simply showing the depth of the market. If I am trading shares with my broker I have the option of viewing only the top 10 bid/ask prices in the depth or all of the data (which sometimes can be a very long list). With another broker I get the top ten bid and ask prices and how many orders are available for each price level, or I have the option of listing each order separately for each price level (in order of when the order was placed). I get the same kind of data if trading options. I do not know about futures because I don't trade them. Simply this data may be important to a trader because it may give an indication of whether there are more buyers or sellers in the market, which in turn may (but not always) give an indication of which way the market may be moving. As an example the price depth below shows WBC before market open with sellers outweighing the buyers in both numbers and volume. This gives an indication that prices may drop when the market opens. Of course there could be some good news coming out prior to market open or just after, causing a flood of buyers into the market and sellers to cancel their orders. This would change everything around with more buyers than sellers and indicate that prices may now be going up. The market depth is an important aspect to look at before putting an order in, as it can give an indication of which way the market is moving, especially in a very liquid security or market.",
"There are usually so many different options around for the same stock that some are rarely traded. Especially if the price has moved since the option was issued, nobody might be interested in that particular option at that price anymore. So the asking price might be something that someone asked for ages ago and that is much higher than anyone would reasonably pay today. With a bid of $20 and an ask of $30, nobody is trading, but the value of that option is somewhere between $20 and $30. If the value is below $25, someone will notice your $25 bid and sell.",
"Market price simply depends on your order side. If you are placing a buy order the market price is the lowest ask, if you are placing a sell order the market price is the highest bid. If your order is larger than the volume then you'd need to also consider the next lowest ask or next highest bid until you've fulfilled your order volume.",
"\"Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though. The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of \"\"quants\"\" doing simple algorithms \"\"that execute within milliseconds\"\" for banks and funds. Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal.\"",
"Yahoo Finance's Historical Prices section allows you to look up daily historical quotes for any given stock symbol, you don't have to hit a library for this information. Your can choose a desired time frame for your query, and the dataset will include High/Low/Close/Volume numbers. You can then download a CSV version of this report and perform additional analysis in a spreadsheet of your choice. Below is Twitter report from IPO through yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=TWTR&a=10&b=7&c=2013&d=08&e=23&f=2014&g=d",
"Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc.",
"The information on GOOG or other sites is the average price of the stock and is indicative of the price at with the stock would be available. The actual trades happen at different values throught the day ... So the prices are good for most purposes and if you need the exact prices, you can thne decided to log into you trading terminal and get the actual quotes This is similar to FX quotes or any other such quotes and give you a general sense",
"Regulators? SEC, in the US. Its public records for public companies.",
"\"Considering the fact that you are so unaware of how to find such data, I find it very very hard to believe that you actually need it. \"\"All trade and finance data for as much tickers and markets as possible.\"\" Wtf does that even mean. You could be referencing thousands of different types of data for any given \"\"ticker\"\" with a statement so vague. What are you looking for?\"",
"Yes, past option prices are available for many options, but as far as I know not for free. You can get them from, for example, OptionMetrics. Probably there are other providers as well, which may be cheaper for an individual or small institution. OptionMetrics data comes from the National Best Bid and Offer. Probably there are some over-the-counter options that are not included here, but for someone asking this question, OptionMetrics will most likely have the option you are interested in.",
"FINRA lets you view recent trades, but as stated in the other answer bonds are illiquid and often do not trade frequently. Therefore recent trades prices are only a rough estimate of the current price that would be accepted. http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp",
"I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.",
"It could be that the contracts were bought at cheaper prices such as $.01 earlier in the day. What you see there with the bid and ask is the CURRENT bid and CURRENT ask. The high ask price means there is no current liquidity, as someone is quoting a very high ask price just in case someone really wants to trade that price. But as you said, no one would buy this with a better price on a closer strike price. The volume likely occurred at a different price than listed on the current ask.",
"You can use the Securities Exchange Commission's EDGAR search engine to search all available SEC related filings. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Top tip: use the fast search on the right to search for the company ticker rather than by company name.",
"Try Google Finance Screener ; you will be able to filter for NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges.",
"\"My answer isn't a full one, but that's because I think the answer depends on, at minimum, the country your broker is in, the type of order you place (limit, market, algo, etc.,) and the size of your order. For example, I can tell from watching live rates on regular lot limit orders I place with my UK-based broker that they hold limit orders internally until they see a crossing rate on the exchange my requested stock is trading on, then they submit a limit order to that exchange. I only get filled from that one exchange and this happens noticeably after I see my limit price print, and my fills are always better than my limit price. Whereas with my US-based broker, I can see my regular lotsize limit order in the order book (depth of book data) prior to any fills. I will routinely be notified of a fill before I see the limit price print. And my fills come from any number of US exchanges (NYSE, ARCA, BATS, etc.) even for the same stock. I should point out that the \"\"NBBO\"\" rule in the US, under SEC regulation NMS, probably causes more complications in handling of market and limit orders than you're likely to find in most countries.\"",
"\"You're confusing a specific visual representation of the top bid & ask orders selected from the order book with the actual \"\"top of the book\"\". \"\"Top\"\" in the sense of the \"\"top of the book\"\" is a ranking (by order of \"\"best\"\", different for bids vs. asks) and not meant to be strictly a visual positioning on a page or screen. The data in the visual representation comes from the top of the order book (the best bids, and the best asks), but that visual representation is choosing to present it in a specific way. Think of the \"\"book\"\" as the model, the abstract collection of outstanding bid and ask order data. When people talk about the \"\"top of the book\"\", they're talking about the best bids (higher being better), and the best asks (lower being better). The visual representation above is but one possible way to render a tip-of-the-iceberg view of the best orders in the \"\"book\"\". The advantage of that particular visual representation is that one can see the asks & bids converging towards the center. The spread is visible as the difference between the two middle elements – being the lowest row in the blue \"\"Asks\"\" area, and the highest row in the green \"\"Bids\"\" area. The up-arrow they had included in the \"\"Asks\"\" area was perhaps meant to provide a clue about how the data was sorted contrary to expectations of descending order of \"\"bestness\"\", and/or to imply there is further depth to the book data in the indicated direction. If the bids & asks had been oriented side-by-side instead, they might have chosen to represent it as below, re-arranging the rows in the \"\"Asks\"\" in the opposite order (i.e. in the order you had expected) so that the \"\"bests\"\" are both in the top row:\"",
"Since I've been doing this since late 03 I have colo machines in Chicago and NYC, and have direct exchange data feeds etc. I mentioned in a prior post though, for someone starting out on algorithmic trading, I'd recommend Nanex for tick data and Interactive Brokers for your brokerage account. IB has a robust and easy to use API. It won't let you do the most low latency stuff bc you can't colo at the exchange and have to clear through their order management systems but if you are looking at opportunities that exist in the market in excess of 50ms it's probably a good place to start. If not, go Lightspeed imo, but that'll cost you on the colo/data a lot more.",
"Log in to your Scottrade account, and goto Markets --> Analyst Views --> Click the PDF link for the company. Also, there is also the 'Views and News' part of the web page which has additional information beyond what exist in the reports.",
"For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date.",
"Moody's is now Mergent Online. It's no longer being printed, and must be accessed digitally. In order to browse the database, check with your local public library or university to see if you can get access. (A University will probably require you to visit for access). Another good tool is Value Line Reports. They are printed information sheets on public companies that are updated regularly, and are convenient for browsing and for comparing securities. Again, check your local libraries. A lot of the public information you may be looking for can be found on Yahoo Finance, for free, from home. Yahoo finance, will give financial information, ratios, news, filings, analysis, all in one place.",
"\"I'm familiar with and have traded U.S.-listed LEAPS and I've always used the CBOE quotes page you linked to. So, I too was surprised I couldn't find 3M (MMM) LEAPS quotes at that page, even after checking the \"\"List all options, LEAPS, Credit Options & Weeklys if avail.\"\" radio button. Used to work! Fortunately, I was able to get access to the full chain of option quotes from the CBOE's other quotes page: Go to the \"\"Quotes & Data\"\" menu, then select Delayed Quotes - NEW! Here's how: I think the new interface is terrible: it's too many steps to get to the information desired. I preferred the all-in-one table of the Delayed Quotes Classic page, the one you linked to. As to why that classic page isn't yielding the full chain, I can only suggest it is a recently introduced bug (software defect). I certainly was able to get LEAPS quotes from that page before. On Yahoo! Finance option quotes: I don't know why their chain is incomplete – I can't see the logic, for instance, as to why MMM Jan 2012 60 calls are missing. I thought at first it may be lack of volume or open interest, but nope. Anyway, I don't trust Yahoo! to provide accurate, reliable quotes anyway, having seen too many errors and missing data in particular in the feed of Canadian stocks, which I also trade. I rely on the exchange's quotes, and my broker's real-time quotes. I check Yahoo! only for convenience sake, and when it actually matters I go to the other more reliable sources. For what it's worth, though, you can also get full chain option quotes at NASDAQ. See here for the 3M (MMM) example then click on the \"\"Jan 12\"\" link near the top. However, I would consider CBOE's quotes more definitive, since they are the options exchange.\"",
"Well, kind of XD. I usually just look through Business Week for the ADRs that are on the OTC market. I don't do anything major, but why I love them is that they have a greater reach than just ADRs on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Like for instance, if I wanted to own Thai or European stocks, many of the larger, more reputable firms are listed on the OTC market. Having said that, most other sites don't have earnings reports laid out for you. Business Week does. The only fancy thing I am interested in are options and options on futures, and Bar Chart is good for the latter.",
"> we make a trade-off between time to execute and market impact. Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. > we will join the bid for some fraction of our size, and also hit the offer when it looks like the price might be moving away from us So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? > In some certain situations we will even sweep the book several levels deep to avoid tipping off market makers and having them adjust in anticipation of the rest of our order. Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... I have a few other questions I would appreciate your insight on. Just trying to ascertain how orders are filled when, as you put it, time is more important than market impact to the client - when they need to take a large amount of liquidity as quickly as possible and as orderly as possible. Let me know if you'd rather I pm you about this or the additional questions, I work in the industry as well so I know privacy is paramount.",
"[Brute Force](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack) Sending random hits to a server over and over again. Three order books. One happens earlier, the other two simultaneously. Bid ABT 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid APPL 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid AET 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid ACT 105.00x1000 **Filled** The aforementioned happens before all else. Act's current value is 100.01.* Ask Act 100.00x1000 **Limit order denied** Ask Act 109.00x1000 **Filled** The third order book is simply testing the waters to see what the guy making the ask is willing to pay. *As well as all the cancelled orders, for the illustration.",
"http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.",
"\"Where can I download all stock symbols of all companies \"\"currently listed\"\" and \"\"delisted\"\" as of today? That's incredibly similar . You can also do it with a Bloomberg terminal but there's no need to pay to do this because he data changes so slowly.\"",
"\"Publicly traded companies files 10-Ks with the SEC, searchable on the EDGAR system. If you want basic financial statement info then look for 10-Ks that are marked \"\"Interactive Data\"\", as for those the SEC has broken everything out by statement into standard formats. You could also use marketwatch which puts everything in financial statements into the same or as similar of categories as it can to make it easier to compare companies.\"",
"It depends on the sequence in which the order [bid and ask] were placed. Please read the below question to understand how the order are matched. How do exchanges match limit orders?",
"Neither site offers index futures or options pricing. Your best best is likely to get the quote from a broker who supports trading those vehicles. Free sites usually limit themselves to stocks and sometimes to options chains -- the exception is Reuters where just about any security for which you have the reuters formatted trading symbol can be quoted.",
"$500 per package, with a package representing 100 stocks, or $5k for the entire market from a single source (NYSE, for example). IIRC that was the neighborhood when I went looking. I actually only needed one index in great detail - I chose the S&P 500, and found a source for well under $100.",
"To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.",
"\"http://www.interactivedata.com -> reference data No, it's not free. Nor would I consider it \"\"high quality\"\". For free data, try the Yahoo Finance API. The data you want is there, though you may need to calculate some of the fields yourself. Once you have your application working with free data you will be in a good position to evaluate whether it's worth it to shift to more detailed non-free data.\"",
"\"My broker (thinkorswim) offers this from the platform's trade tab. I believe this feature isn't crippled in the PaperMoney version which is effectively a \"\"free online service.\"\"\"",
"yes you are right as per my understanding while doing trade you must consider fol (specially for starters like me) The volume of the stock you are trading in should be high enough to keep you secure for quick in and out Whenever the bid volume is more than the ask volume the prices will move up and vice versa. to give an example if a stock is at 100 points and there are fol bids: The transaction will occur when either the bidder agrees to pay the ask price (case 1. he pays 101 . his bid offer will disappear and the next best ask will be 102. and the current price will be 101 which was the last transaction.) or when the person giving ask price agrees to deal at best bid which was 99 in which case the share will go down."
] |
[
"For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second."
] |
10122
|
Why diversify stocks/investments?
|
[
"570787",
"139368",
"273718",
"259084"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"502495",
"153989",
"259084",
"279072",
"139368",
"110078",
"297100",
"508540",
"43683",
"331008",
"238702",
"477646",
"459970",
"296567",
"370777",
"365189",
"180855",
"310218",
"225239",
"419038",
"378137",
"144261",
"134542",
"218728",
"533576",
"570787",
"89084",
"102620",
"208977",
"384857",
"564069",
"463837",
"438582",
"257835",
"565181",
"36534",
"312942",
"593879",
"288144",
"474351",
"122581",
"229364",
"146637",
"216757",
"186575",
"525929",
"214723",
"470758",
"217035",
"323363",
"119392",
"344783",
"568443",
"391861",
"568624",
"322806",
"287846",
"222646",
"278607",
"297429",
"425452",
"420118",
"185123",
"599436",
"513818",
"179328",
"309157",
"314085",
"456761",
"418528",
"31581",
"90294",
"336722",
"526115",
"142188",
"28425",
"465774",
"216391",
"362579",
"526681",
"576008",
"199181",
"559027",
"260384",
"221795",
"347825",
"437875",
"499166",
"256349",
"30774",
"1103",
"98704",
"556913",
"433730",
"317354",
"577832",
"343977",
"466950",
"107751",
"549188"
] |
[
"Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.",
"\"Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to \"\"protect\"\" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, \"\"Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!\"\" But quite a few have also said, \"\"If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!\"\" I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose.\"",
"Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.",
"If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.",
"Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.",
"If you buy stock in established companies, it is vey unlikely that they will lose all their value. Spreading your money across multiple stocks -- diversifying -- reduces that risk because it is extremely unlikely that they all lose all their value at once. Spreading them across multiple industries and adding bonds to the mix increases diversification. Of course the trade-off is that if one of the stocks skyrockets you don't benefit as much as if you had been lucky enough to put all your money in that one stock. You need to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to tolerate in exchange for the chance of gains. Other answers on this site have dealt with this in more detail.",
"\"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \"\"cast our net\"\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\"",
"\"Diversification is extremely important and the one true \"\"Free Lunch\"\" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about \"\"true\"\" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated \"\"Return Drivers.\"\" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch\"",
"If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.",
"\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"",
"\"Years ago I wrote an article Risk, Reward, Coin Flipping which explains from a 'game theory' perspective how diversifying works to minimize standard deviation in one's returns. It's long and tedious, not easy to summarize, but it holds up well, I'm pleased with how the analogy does its job. Update - the above is too \"\"link-only\"\", written over 5 years ago. The article I wrote offers a mathematical approach via an understandable example of coin flipping. With just 2 options, a 'head' is a 10% loss, while a 'tail' is a 30% gain. This actually represents the market fairly well as it results in a 10% average gain and 28% standard deviation for just 2 flips. The article shows how by 'diversifying', choosing to make multiple smaller bets, the average 10% stays the same, but the standard deviation is brought down dramatically, 7.6% when we use a sample experiment with 7 coins.\"",
"\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"",
"I think to answer this question it is best for you to learn more about why people diversify through asset allocation. Look at related questions involving Asset Allocation here. I've asked a couple questions about asset allocation - I think you'll find the top rated answer on this post useful.",
"\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"",
"if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? No, because Modern Portfolio Theory would say that if there is another asset (B2) with the same (or higher) return but less risk (which you already have in asset A), you should invest in that. If those are the only two assets you can choose from, you would invest completely in Asset A. The point of diversification is that, so long as two assets aren't perfectly positively correlated (meaning that if one moves up the other always moves up), then losses in one asset will sometimes be offset by gains in another, reducing the overall risk.",
"At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2*s and m+2*s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2*SD(R) and E(R)+2*SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.",
"Diversifying your portfolio between asset A and asset B only reduces the portfolio risk if asset A and asset B are not correlated. If they have either a low correlation or a negative correlation to each other, then you benefit from combining them in a portfolio in terms of risk reduction. The standard deviation of returns will be lower in a portfolio of low or uncorrelated assets. If on the other hand you combine two correlated assets into a portfolio you are doubling down on the same assumption, which means you are not reducing your risk. You are also wasting capital because now you have allocated capital to 2 separate trades / investments yet they have shown a high tendency of moving together. Here is an article that discusses this further: Why Diversify your Stock Portfolio",
"\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"",
"Most investors should not be in individual stocks. The market, however you measure it, can rise, yet some stocks will fall for whatever reason. The diversification needed is to have a number of shares of different stocks, and that a bit higher than most investors are able to invest and certainly not one starting out. I suggest you look at either mutual funds or ETFs, and keep studying. (I'm told I should have offered the UK equivalent Investment Trusts , OEIC, or Unit Trusts)",
"\"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords. Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000. He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in \"\"genius moves\"\" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too. Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference. In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse.\"",
"Diversification is just one aspect in an investment portfolio. The other aspects in Investment are Risk Taking Ability, Liquidity, Local Regulations, Tax benefits, Ease & Convenience, Cost of carrying out transactions etc. Investing in other regions is prone FX risk and other risks depending on the region of investment. For example investing in Emerging markets there is a risk of Local Regulations being changed, additional tax being levied, or Political instability and host of such risks. Investing in local markets give you better understanding of such changes and the risk associated is less plus the Ease of carrying out transactions is great, less expensive compared to cost of transactions in other markets. Diversification in Investment should also be looked upon how much you invest in; Equities Debt Bullion Real Estate Once you have a sizeable amount of investment in Equities or Debt, it would then make more sense to diversify this portion more to include funds from other regions. Unless you are an Running your own business, it makes sense to invest in your line of business if that is performing well. The reason being that the benefit / returns from the equities is much greater than the salary rise / bonus. For example I am in Information Technology and yet invest in all leading IT companies because the returns from companies in these segments have been good.",
"\"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say \"\"diversify\"\" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked \"\"why diversify at all?\"\", and that is entirely a different question from your original \"\"what diversification is?\"\". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time.\"",
"\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \"\"risk apettite\"\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\"",
"The other example I'd offer is the case for diversification. If one buys 10 well chosen stocks, i.e. stocks spread across different industries so their correlation to one another is low, they will have lower risk than each of the 10 folk who own one of those stocks per person. Same stocks, but lower risk when combined.",
"\"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"",
"Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.",
"Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value.",
"You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion.",
"Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment. An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.",
"The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument.",
"\"The short answer: zero. dg99's answer gives some good reasons why. You will basically never be able to achieve diversification with individual stocks that is anywhere close to what you can get with mutual funds. Owning individual stocks exposes you to much greater risk in that random one-off events that happen to affect one of the companies you own can have a disproportionate effect on your assets. (For instance, some sort of scandal involving a particular company can cause its stock to tank.) There are only two reasons I can see to invest in individual stocks: a. You have some unique opportunity to acquire stock that other people might not be able to get (or get at that price). This can be the case if you work for a privately-held company that allows you to buy stock (or options), or allows you to participate in its IPO. Even then, you should not go too crazy, since having too much stock in the company you work for can double your pain if the company falls on hard times (you may lose your job and your investment). b. For fun. If you like tracking stocks and trying to beat the market, you may want to test your skills at this by using a small proportion of your investable cash (no more than 10%). In this case you're not so much hoping to increase your returns as to just enjoy investing more. This can also have a psychological benefit in that it allows you to \"\"blow off steam\"\" and indulge your desire to make decisions, while allowing your passive investments (index funds) to shoulder the load of actually gaining value.\"",
"\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"",
"I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.",
"The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold.",
"I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return. In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost.",
"\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"",
"Diversified is relative. Alfred has all his money in Apple. He's done very well over the last 10 years, but I think most investors would say that he's taking an incredible risk by putting everything on one stock. Betty has stock in Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Compared to Alfred, she is diversified. Charlie looks at Betty and realizes that she is only investing in one particular industry. All the companies in an individual industry can have a downturn together, so he invests everything in an S&P 500 index fund. David looks at Charlie and notes that he's got everything in large, high-capitalization companies. Small-cap stocks are often where the growth happens, so he invests in a total stock market fund. Evelyn realizes that David has all his money tied up in one country, the United States. What about the rest of the world? She invests in a global fund. Frank really likes Evelyn's broad approach to equities, but he knows that some portion of fixed-income assets (e.g. cash deposits, bonds) can reduce portfolio volatility—and may even enhance returns through periodic rebalancing. He does what Evelyn does, but also allocates some percentage of his portfolio to fixed income, and intends to maintain his target allocations. Being diversified enough depends on your individual goals and investing philosophy. There are some who would say that it is wrong to put all of your money in one fund, no matter what it is. Others would say that a sufficiently broad index fund is inherently diversified as-is.",
"\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"",
"Depends on the fund. If it's a Target Date fund, which is inherently diversified, this comes down to how much you trust the investment house to not go belly-up. If it's another kind of fund, you need to manage your own duversification and occasional rebalancing. Most of my money is in index funds (details elsewhere), but that's five or six very different indexes to cover the investment space with the mix of investment types I've selected. And most of it is in a single family of funds, which might be argued to be higher risk than desirable but which has been convenient.",
"\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"",
"Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.",
"Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.",
"\"Yes, a diversified portfolio can generate greater returns than the S&P 500 by going OUTSIDE it. For instance, small stocks (on average) generate higher returns than the \"\"large caps\"\" found in the S&P 500. So if you own a diversified portfolio of stocks, some of which are smaller (in market cap) than the typical S&P 500 stock, you have a chance to outperform. You might also outperform by owning other asset classes than stocks such as gold, real estate, and timber (among others) at appropriate times. (You may also be able to get the relevant exposure by owning gold and timber stocks and REITS.) This was a lesson that David Swensen of the Yale endowment taught us.\"",
"\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"",
"You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.",
"It all depends on the liquidity of your investments some examples: You can mitigate only the risk that you can control. It is always good to have:",
"While you would reduce risk by diversifying into other stock ETFs across the world, Developed Market returns (and Emerging Markets to a lesser extent) are generally highly correlated with another (correlation of ~0.85-0.90). This implies that they all go up in bull-markets and go down together in bear markets. You are better off diversifying into other asset-classes given your risk tolerance (such as government bonds, as you have mentioned). Alternatively, you can target a portfolio owning all of the assets in the universe (assuming you're trading in Frankfurt, a combination of something similar to H4ZJ and XBAG, but with higher volumes and/or lower fees)! A good starting resource would be the Bogleheads Wiki: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Asset_allocation",
"\"One approach is to invest in \"\"allocation\"\" mutual funds that use various methods to vary their asset allocation. Some examples (these are not recommendations; just to show you what I am talking about): A good way to identify a useful allocation fund is to look at the \"\"R-squared\"\" (correlation) with indexes on Morningstar. If the allocation fund has a 90-plus R-squared with any index, it probably isn't doing a lot. If it's relatively uncorrelated, then the manager is not index-hugging, but is making decisions to give you different risks from the index. If you put 10% of your portfolio in a fund that varies allocation to stocks from 25% to 75%, then your allocation to stocks created by that 10% would be between 2.5% to 7.5% depending on the views of the fund manager. You can use that type of calculation to invest enough in allocation funds to allow your overall allocation to vary within a desired range, and then you could put the rest of your money in index funds or whatever you normally use. You can think of this as diversifying across investment discipline in addition to across asset class. Another approach is to simply rely on your already balanced portfolio and enjoy any downturns in stocks as an opportunity to rebalance and buy some stocks at a lower price. Then enjoy any run-up as an opportunity to rebalance and sell some stocks at a high price. The difficulty of course is going through with the rebalance. This is one advantage of all-in-one funds (target date, \"\"lifecycle,\"\" balanced, they have many names), they will always go through with the rebalance for you - and you can't \"\"see\"\" each bucket in order to get stressed about it. i.e. it's important to think of your portfolio as a whole, not look at the loss in the stocks portion. An all-in-one fund keeps you from seeing the stocks-by-themselves loss number, which is a good way to trick yourself into behaving sensibly. If you want to rebalance \"\"more aggressively\"\" then look at value averaging (search for \"\"value averaging\"\" on this site for example). A questionable approach is flat-out market-timing, where you try to get out and back in at the right times; a variation on this would be to buy put options at certain times; the problem is that it's just too hard. I think it makes more sense to buy an allocation fund that does this for you. If you do market time, you want to go in and out gradually, and value averaging is one way to do that.\"",
"Research the company. Obtain and read their current and past financial statements. Find and read news stories about them. Look for patterns and draw conclusions. Or diversify to the point where one company failing doesn't hurt you significantly. Or both.",
"In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing. Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks). This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk. Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other. If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly. You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund. Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable. You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post. The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification. The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot.",
"Generally a diversified portfolio will give you a better overall return --a couple of factors that may address what you are looking at - 1) Correlation - The correlation between your two funds is still very high -- it's partially a function of how global economies are related and many companies are now multi-national. It may help if you diversified into other types of products. 2) Diversification - Following up from before, you may want to also look into diversifying into some bonds, commodities, reits, etc. They will have a much smaller correlation with a total domestic stock fund. 3) Returns - I'm not sure if by dominate you mean that it has better overall returns, but the point of diversification is to to get you the highest returns. It's really the ability to limit the risk for the returns - this really translates to limiting the volatility. This may mean that overall your max returns could be lower-- ie: maybe VTSAX gives potential average returns between 3%-11%. A diversified portfolio may give you potential average returns of 5%-9%. A similar article debating the merits of 'smart beta ETFs' if you are curious. Hope that helps.",
"\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \"\"over the period tracked\"\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\"",
"Because stock markets don't always go up, sometimes they go down. Sometimes they go way down. Between 2007 and 2009 the S&P 500 lost over half its value. So if in 2007 you thought you had just enough to retire on, in 2009 you'd suddenly find you had only half of what you needed! Of course over the next few years, many of the stocks recovered value, but if you had retired in 2008 and depended on a 401k that consisted entirely of stocks, you'd have been forced to sell a bunch of stocks near the bottom of the market to cover your retirement living expenses. Bonds go up and down too, but usually not to the same extent as stocks, and ideally you aren't selling the bonds for your living expenses, just collecting the interest that's due you for the year. Of course, some companies and cities went bankrupt in the 2008 crisis too, and they stopped making interest payments. Another risk is that you may be forced to retire before you were actually planning to. As you age you are at increasing risk for medical problems that may force an early retirement. Many businesses coped with the 2008 recession by laying off their older workers who were earning higher salaries. It wasn't an easy environment for older workers to find jobs in, so many folks were forced into early retirement. Nothing is risk free, so you need to make an effort to understand what the risks are, and decide which ones you are comfortable with.",
"Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.",
"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.",
"\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"",
"Not that I am aware. If you are trying to mitigate losses from stock purchases, you may want to consider stock mutual funds. This is why single stocks can be extremely risky.",
"thanks! hence the etf - I hoped to get an ETF of say 20-25 positions, out of which 12 will lose in value, 10 will stay flat or lose a bit, and 2-3 go AAPL, bringing the total ETF up by a solid 10% or so :) and then the divident game begins.",
"To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.",
"Chris Rea's comment captures it -- most people don't have working crystal balls. Unless you are a trader, you address risk with diversification. There are several questions on this site discussing strategies to diversify your portfolio. In many ways, the markets offer investors false choices. We have an emotional desire to react to stimuli -- but that often leads to lousy outcomes. For example, selling your NASDAQ 100 fund after its value falls is usually a bad idea.",
"\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \"\"truth\"\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\"",
"\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"",
"\"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that. Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion \"\"don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so\"\" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the \"\"don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all\"\" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds.\"",
"\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"",
"Stock portfolios have diversifiable risk and undiversifiable risk. The market rewards investors for taking undiversifiable risk (e.g. owning an index of oil producing companies) and does not reward investors for assuming diversifiable risk (e.g. owning a single oil producing company). The market will not provide investors with any extra return for owning a single oil company when they can buy an oil index fund at no additional cost. Similarly, the market will not reward you for owning a small-cap index fund when you can purchase a globally diversified / capitalization diversified index fund at no additional cost. This article provides a more detailed description. The Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund is a much better staring point for an equity portfolio. You will need to make sure that the asset allocation of your overall portfolio (e.g. stocks, bonds, P2P lending, cash) is consistent with your time horizon (5-10 years).",
"This depends completely on your investing goals. Typically when saving for retirement younger investors aim for a more volatile and aggressive portfolio but diversify their portfolio with more cautious stocks/bonds as they near retirement. In other words, the volatility that owning a single stock brings may be in line with your goals if you can shoulder the risk.",
"Rephrasing your question: Am I diversified if I have more than 50% US stocks? I would say that you can certainly be diversified and have more than 50% of your portfolio invested in US Stocks. I view the amount of international stocks (non-US) as a risk choice. My observations have been that my international stocks have higher risk which comes with a higher reward. I'm not comfortable with putting too much of my portfolio into a very high risk category. I personally invest 25% directly in mutual funds that invest in foreign stocks. When you couple that with the money I invest in US stocks via mutual funds that have foreign interests (Coke, GE, etc.), I'm somewhat over 25% international in my portfolio.",
"\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"",
"\"Historically, the market's average rate of return has been about 8%. (Serakfalcon's \"\"6% to 10%\"\" is essentially the same number.) You should be able to get into that range for long-term investments with minimal risk. \"\"5 or 6 companies\"\", unless you know a heck of a lot about those companies, is fairly high risk. If any one of those runs into trouble, a considerable amount of your net investment is riding on it. Of course if any of them invents the Next Big Thing you could hit it big; that's the tradeoff. Diversification isn't sexy, but it buffers you from single-company disasters, and if you diversify across kinds of investment that buffers you from single-sector disasters. Index funds aren't sexy, but they're a low-cost way to diversify, especially if you go with a mix of funds in different categories (large cap, small cap, bond, international, real estate) or a fund which has that mix built into it such as a target date fund.\"",
"\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \"\"buy low\"\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\"",
"When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"For what it's worth -- and I realize this isn't directly an answer to the question -- one of the advantages of sticking with mutual funds, beyond their being inherently diversified, is that it removes a lot of the temptation to try to time the market. When you need money, you sell shares in such a way that it maintains your preferred investment ratio, and simply don't worry about which stocks are actually involved. (I've gotten 15% APR this year across all my investments, for absolutely minimal effort. That's quite good enough for me.)",
"Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.",
"The mathematical answer is for you to have a diversified portfolio in your ISA. But that's easier said than done.",
"1. It doesn't have an almost perfect negative correlation - its value decays very fast because of time. In fact, something like 80% of options expire worthless. They typically have a lifespan of 30-90 days and unless you're using them as a way to earn excess return, you'll likely just throw away your premium. 2. You're also making some assumptions about correlation and risk/reward. You won't become wealthy by distributing risk, all you can hope for is less volatility - maybe that's what you're looking for - but you can also expect your return to be less than the market over almost any period of time. 3. Options aren't really for diversifying. Furthermore, why diversify? It's a myth that it adds any value. There's around a 90% correlation for all asset classes since around 2000, so you're being sold some blue sky if someone tells you otherwise. 4. Look up prices of put options. 1-2% of your portfolio might buy you a handful of options, but again, there's a high probability you'll lose that 1-2% entirely every 30-90 days.",
"A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually. Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms.",
"I think it depends entirely on your risk tolerance. Putting money in individual stocks obviously increases your risk and potentially increases your reward. Personally (as a fairly conservative investor) I'd only invest in individual stocks if I could afford to lose the entire investment (maybe I'd end up buying Enron or Nortel). If you enjoy envesting and feel 10% is an acceptable loss I think you have your answer",
"The problem is aggregating information from so many sources, countries, and economies. You are probably more aware of local laws, local tax changes, local economic performance, etc, so it makes sense that you'd be more in tune with your own country. If your intent is to be fully diversified, then buy a total world fund. A lot of hedge funds do what you are suggesting, but I think it requires either some serious math or some serious research. Note: I'm invested in emerging markets (EEM) for exactly the reason you suggest... diversification.",
"Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.",
"As mentioned, dividends are a way of returning value to shareholders. It is a conduit of profit as companies don't legitimately control upward appreciation in their share prices. If you can't wrap your head around the risk to the reward, then this simply means you partially fit the description for a greater investment risk profile, so you need to put down Warren Buffett's books and Rich Dad Poor Dad and get an investment book that fits your risk profile.",
"Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.",
"If you are a novice investor and want to diversify, I'd recommend looking into targeted mutual funds. They couldn't be easier. You just put your money in the fund with the year that you anticipating needing to take the money out and the fund manager handles diversification and adjusting the risk appropriately over the life of the fund based on the remaining time horizon. The only downside is that the annual expenses tend to be higher on these than if you just invested in the underlying securities/funds, but you are pretty much paying them to manage it for you.",
"Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:",
"\"Yes, you can insure against the fall in price of stock by purchasing a put option. You pay for a put and if the price of the share falls below the \"\"strike price\"\" of the put, then you can exercise the put. On exercise, the person who sold you the put contract agrees to buy the stock for the strike price, even though that strike price is higher than the market price. You can adjust the level of insurance by buying put options at higher or lower prices, or buying fewer put options than shares you own (leaving some shares uninsured). Alternatively, you can minimize your risk exposure by investing in an index or other fund, which gives you partial ownership in a large number of shares. That means on any given day, lots of shares do worse and lots of shares do better. You can reduce the need for insurance by purchasing a lower-risk, lower-growth financial product.\"",
"There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:",
"The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.",
"An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.",
"The stock market, as a whole, is extremely volatile. During any 3 year period, the market could go up or down. However, and this is the important point,the market as a whole has historically been a good long term investment. If you need the money in 5 years, then you want to put it in something less volatile (so there's less chance of losing it). If you need the money in 50 years, put it in the market; the massive growth over those 50 years will more than make up for any short term drops, and you will probably come out ahead. Once you get closer to retirement age, you want to take the money out of stocks and put it in something safer; essentially locking in your profit, and protecting yourself from the possibility of further loss. Something else to consider: everyone lost money in 2008. There were no safe investments (well, ok, there were a few... but not enough to talk about). Given that, why would you choose another investment over stocks? Taking a 50% loss after decades of 10% annual returns is still better than a 50% loss after decades of 5% growth (in fact, after 20 years of growth, it's still 250% better - and that ratio will only improve the longer you leave it in).",
"The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.",
"Investing only in one industry may be problematic as it is highly correlated. There are factor outside your (or anyones) knowledge which may affect all the industry: If you are familiar with the industry it may happen that you work in that (ignore rest of paragraph if this is not the case). In such case you are likely to have problems at work (frozen salary, no bonus, position terminated) and you need to liquidate the investments at that point (see many advice regarding ESPP). Depending on your field you may have some inside knowledge so even if you would took a position without it you may need to somehow prove it. On the other hand diversifying the investment might reduce the volatility of investment. Rise in oil will cause problems for air industry but will be a boom for oil industry etc. In this way you smooth the grow of the investments. Investing part of portfolio into specific industry may make more sense. It still possibly worth to avoid it at the beginning investor may have trouble to beat the market (for example according to behavioural economics you are exposed to various biases, or if markets are efficient then prices most likely already take into account any information you may have). (I'm still new to all this so it's mostly based on what I read rather then any personal experience. Also a standard disclaimer that this is not an investment, or any other, advice and I'm not licensed financial advisor in any jurisdiction)",
"\"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now. In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not \"\"pure stocks\"\": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done \"\"by hand,\"\" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard. (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice.\"",
"Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.",
"I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover. Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier. Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment.",
"You can simply stick with some index funds that tracks the S&P 500 and Ex-US world market. That should provide some good diversification. And of course, you should always have a portion of your money in short/mid term bond fund, rebalancing your stock/bond ratio all the way as deemed necessary. If you want to follow the The Über–Tuber portfolio, you'd better make sure that there's minimum overlapping among the underlying shares that they hold.",
"Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.",
"\"Ryan's suggestion to index for your main strategy is dead on. Your risk is highest with one given stock, and decreases as you diversify. Yet, picking the stocks one at a time is an effort, when done right, it's time consuming. For what one can say about Jim \"\"mad money\"\" Cramer, his advice to spend an hour a month studying each stock you own, is pretty decent advice. Penny stocks are sub one dollar priced, typically small companies which in theory can grow to be large companies, but the available information tends to be tougher to get hold of. Options are a discussion for a different thread, I discussed the covered call strategy elsewhere and show that options are not necessarily high risk, it depends how they are used.\"",
"\"Having savings only in your home currency is relatively 'low risk' compared with other types of 'low diversification'. This is because, in a simple case, your future cash outflows will be in your home currency, so if the GBP fluctuates in value, it will (theoretically) still buy you the same goods at home. In this way, keeping your savings in the same currency as your future expenditures creates a natural hedge against currency fluctuation. This gets complicated for goods imported from other countries, where base price fluctuates based on a foreign currency, or for situations where you expect to incur significant foreign currency expenditures (retirement elsewhere, etc.). In such cases, you no longer have certainty that your future expenditures will be based on the GBP, and saving money in other currencies may make more sense. In many circumstances, 'diversification' of the currency of your savings may actually increase your risk, not decrease it. Be sure you are doing this for a specific reason, with a specific strategy, and not just to generally 'spread your money around'. Even in case of a Brexit, consider: what would you do with a bank account full of USD? If the answer is \"\"Convert it back to GBP when needed (in 6 months, 5 years, 30, etc.), to buy British goods\"\", then I wouldn't call this a way to reduce your risk. Instead, I would call it a type of investment, with its own set of risks associated.\"",
"When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.",
"\"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\"\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \"\"as defined by theory.\"\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\""
] |
[
"Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.",
"Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.",
"Any investor can make a bad bet, even Buffett. Even if you have done every bit of research on an investment possible you are exposed to random external events.. acts of god, and outright fraud.",
"Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits."
] |
11054
|
Short Term Capital Gains tax vs. IRA Withdrawal Tax w/o Quarterly Est. Taxes
|
[
"155053",
"321015"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"155053",
"321015",
"101578",
"420529",
"267466",
"112231",
"60929",
"482768",
"94496",
"559324",
"561636",
"395686",
"575833",
"181294",
"290182",
"188890",
"276333",
"536390",
"66858",
"110202",
"56951",
"453639",
"557361",
"240651",
"176105",
"141939",
"76530",
"83769",
"116017",
"448589",
"558867",
"393693",
"530146",
"338170",
"358371",
"562957",
"109305",
"415815",
"197576",
"223042",
"581085",
"159462",
"518310",
"523521",
"304479",
"144313",
"84996",
"125168",
"513392",
"571142",
"561377",
"481283",
"318579",
"251394",
"208216",
"487975",
"271504",
"423171",
"461084",
"298685",
"159197",
"18059",
"477172",
"156832",
"199544",
"424427",
"144751",
"46621",
"419160",
"374676",
"187810",
"147656",
"578798",
"508219",
"80014",
"466720",
"481014",
"303193",
"12119",
"158907",
"152603",
"451314",
"448038",
"259150",
"207788",
"500175",
"127974",
"243855",
"84105",
"121832",
"162592",
"526661",
"112182",
"423929",
"272458",
"565410",
"445052",
"235470",
"549223",
"76480"
] |
[
"\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"",
"\"Bottom line is this: there's no \"\"short term capital gains tax\"\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\"",
"First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.",
"I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.",
"In general, you are expected to pay all the money you owe in taxes by the end of the tax year, or you may have to pay a penalty. But you don't have to pay a penalty if: The amount you owe (i.e. total tax due minus what you paid in withholding and estimated taxes) is less than $1000. You paid at least 90% of your total tax bill. You paid at least 100% of last year's tax bill. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html I think point #3 may work for you here. Suppose that last year your total tax liability was, say, $5,000. This year your tax on your regular income would be $5,500, but you have this additional capital gain that brings your total tax to $6,500. If your withholding was $5,000 -- the amount you owed last year -- than you'll owe the difference, $1,500, but you won't have to pay any penalties. If you normally get a refund every year, even a small one, then you should be fine. I'd check the numbers to be sure, of course. If you normally have to pay something every April 15, or if your income and therefore your withholding went down this year for whatever reason, then you should make an estimated payment. The IRS has a page explaining the rules in more detail: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc",
"It would be fairer to the average person if we paid our normal tax rate on the amount we contributed to the IRA and paid at the capital gains rate for the difference. The same as people that invest outside of the IRA. Most IRAs aren't that large and most people are going to have a rough time living on the reduced social security. It seems like we are taxing the average Joe at a higher rate than the rich.",
"\"In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about \"\"the fiscal cliff\"\" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year.\"",
"There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.",
"First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account.",
"\"First - Welcome to Money.SE. You gave a lot of detail, and it's tough to parse out the single question. Actually, you have multiple issues. $1300 is what you need to pay the tax? In the 25% bracket plus 10% penalty, you have a 65% net amount. $1300/.65 = Exactly $2000. You withdraw $2000, have them (the IRA holder) withhold $700 in federal tax, and you're done. All that said, don't do it. Nathan's answer - payment plan with IRS - is the way to go. You've shared with us a important issue. Your budget is running too tight. We have a post here, \"\"the correct order of investing\"\" which provides a great guideline that applies to most visitors. You are missing the part that requires a decent sized emergency fund. In your case, calling it that, may be a misnomer, as the tax bill isn't an unexpected emergency, but something that should have been foreseeable. We have had a number of posts here that advocate the paid in full house. And I always respond that the emergency fund comes first. With $70K of income, you should have $35K or so of liquidity, money readily available. Tax due in April shouldn't be causing you this grief. Please read that post I linked and others here to help you with the budgeting issue. Last - You are in an enviable position, A half million dollars, no mortgage, mid 40s. Easily doing better than most. So, please forgive the soapbox tone of the above, it was just my \"\"see, that's what I'm talking about\"\" moment from my tenure here.\"",
"You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.",
"I think you're misunderstanding how tax brackets work. If you make $1 more and that bumps you into a higher bracket, only THAT particular dollar will be taxed at the higher tax bracket rate... Not your entire income. Short term capital gains are treated as income. Long term capital gains have a special tax rate currently.",
"All money distributed from a Traditional IRA to which no nondeductible contributions have been made is taxed as ordinary income. It does not matter if you think of the money as the original contribution or gains; the taxation is the same. Money distributed from a Roth IRA is tax-free. In either case, penalties apply if the distribution is premature.",
"\"This is actually (to me) an interesting point to note. While the answer is \"\"that's what Congress wrote,\"\" there are implications to note. First, for many, the goal of tax deferral is to shift 25% or 28% income to 15% income at retirement. With long term gains at 15%, simply investing long term post tax can accomplish a similar goal, where all gain is taxed at 15%. Looking at this from another angle, an IRA (or 401(k) for that matter) effectively turns long term gains into ordinary income. It's a good observation, and shouldn't be ignored.\"",
"If you are inside of a ROTH IRA you are not getting taxed on any gain. Dividends, distributions, interest payment, or capital gains are never taxed. This, of course, assumes you wait until age 59.5 to do ROTH withdrawals on your gains.",
"As I commented, there's confusion on withholding. The 20% pertains to 401(k) accounts, not IRAs.",
"Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct.",
"No matter what, you owe taxes on the gains, known as capital gains. How much, depends on how long you invested it for. In your example, each month is treated separately - each month you contribute starts a new clock on that set of investments. If you hold it for longer than a year, the taxes are treated as long-term, and less than a year is short-term. Short term taxes are at your marginal rate, and long term taxes are different, usually 15%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400/tc409",
"\"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \"\"Net Investment Tax\"\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\"",
"There's no additional income tax burden created when you decide to make Roth IRA contributions, your Roth IRA contributions are taxed at the same time all your income is taxed. If you earned that $100 by working a job, then your employer likely withheld taxes when they paid you. If you earned it through self-employment, then you'll pay estimated taxes on that income quarterly, etc. In any case when you file your annual tax return the actual taxes owed vs taxes paid gets reconciled and you're left with a refund or owe an additional sum.",
"You can withdraw the principal of your Roth IRA account (i.e.: the amounts after tax deposited there) without a tax. However, in case of conversion - you have to wait for five years before you can do that. Otherwise, 10% penalty will apply. It is actually mentioned in the article you linked to. Taxable portion in that context is the portion you paid tax on when converting. In the case you described (converting your 401k) that would be the whole amount of the conversion.",
"(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!",
"Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)",
"First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.",
"Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"In addition to the other answers, which cover the risks of what is essentially leveraged investing, I'd like to point out that the 2.6% penalty is a flat rate. If you are responsible for withholding your own taxes then you are paying tax four times a year. So any underpayment on your first quarterly tax payment will have much more time to accrue in the stock market than your last payment, although each underpayment will be penalized by the 2.6%. It may make sense for someone to make full payments on later payments but underpay on earlier ones.",
"\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"",
"\"I think there are several issues here. First, there's the contribution. As littleadv said, there is no excess contribution. Excess contribution is only if you exceed the contribution limit. The contribution limit for Traditional IRAs does not depend on how high your income goes or whether you have a 401(k). It's the deduction limit that may depend on those things. Not deducting it is perfectly legitimate, and is completely different than an \"\"excess contribution\"\", which has a penalty. Second, the withdrawal. You are allowed to withdraw contributions made during a year, plus any earnings from those contributions, before the tax filing deadline for the taxes of that year (which is April 15 of the following year, or even up to October 15 of the following year), and it will be treated as if the contribution never happened. No penalties. The earnings will be taxed as regular income (as if you put it in a bank account). That sounds like what you did. So the withdrawal was not an \"\"early withdrawal\"\", and the 1099-R should reflect that (what distribution code did they put?). Third, even if (and it does not sound like the case, but if) it doesn't qualify as a return of contributions before the tax due date as described above (maybe you withdrew it after October 15 of the following year), as littleadv mentioned, your contribution was a non-deductible contribution, and when withdrawing it, only the earnings portion (which after such a short time should only be a very small part of the distribution) would be subject to tax and penalty.\"",
"In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.",
"The safe harbor provision is based on the tax you or the prior year. So in 2016 this helped you as your tax was substantially increased from 2015. However, by the same token in 2017 your safe harbor amount is going to be very high. Therefore if 2017 is similar you will owe penalties. The solution here is to make estimated tax payments in the quarters that you realize large gains. This is exactly what the estimated tax payments are for. Your estimate tax payments do not have to be the same. In fact if you have a sudden boost in earnings in quarter 3, then the IRS expects that quarter 3 estimated tax payment to be boosted.",
"I'm not sure where you are, but in the United States capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income. On the 1040, captial gains income is separated from earned income, and income tax is calculated just on earned income. Then capital gains tax is calculated on capital gains income, and then added to income tax afterward.",
"For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.",
"Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.",
"My understanding (I've never filed one myself) is that the 1040ES is intended to allow you to file quarterly and report unpredictable income, and to pay estimated taxes on that income. I was in the same sort of boat for 2016 -- I had a big unexpected income source in 2015, and this took away my Safe Harbor for 2016. I adjusted my w-2 to zero exemptions (eventually) and will be getting a refund of about 1% of our income. So lets say you make 10000 in STG in March, and another 15000 in STG in April. File a quarterly 1040-ES between March 31 and April 15. Report the income, and pay some tax. You should be able to calculate the STCG Tax for 10k pretty easily. Just assume that it comes off the top and doesn't add at all to your deductions. Then for April, do the same by June 15. Just like your W-2 is used to estimate how much your employer should withhold, the 1040ES is designed to estimate how much extra you need to pay to the IRS to avoid penalties. It'll all get resolved after you file your final 1040 for the 2017 calendar year.",
"\"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the \"\"save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%\"\" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars.\"",
"If you qualify for the safe harbor, you are not required to pay additional quarterly taxes. Of course, you're still welcome to do so if you're sure you'll owe them; however, you will not be penalized. If your income is over $150k (joint) or $75k (single), your safe harbor is: Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty. Generally, if you're under that level, the following reasons suggest you will not owe the tax (from the IRS publication 505): The total of your withholding and timely estimated tax payments was at least as much as your 2013 tax. (See Special rules for certain individuals for higher income taxpayers and farmers and fishermen.) The tax balance due on your 2014 return is no more than 10% of your total 2014 tax, and you paid all required estimated tax payments on time. Your total tax for 2014 (defined later) minus your withholding is less than $1,000. You did not have a tax liability for 2013. You did not have any withholding taxes and your current year tax (less any household employment taxes) is less than $1,000. If you paid one-fourth of your last year's taxes (or of 110% of your last-year's taxes) in estimated taxes for each quarter prior to this one, you should be fine as far as penalties go, and can simply add the excess you know you will owe to the next check.",
"\"IRA is a tax-deferred account. I.e.: you're not paying any taxes on the income within the account (as long as you don't withdraw it) and you can deduct the investment (with certain limitation on how much, depending on your total AGI). It is taxed when you withdraw it - at ordinary rates for the \"\"traditional\"\" IRA and with 0% rate for ROTH, as long as the withdrawal is qualified (if not qualified - you pay ordinary rate tax for ROTH and additional 10% tax for both on the taxable amounts). The details are a bit complicated (there's deductible IRA, non-deductible IRA, roll-overs, etc etc), but that's the basic. Regular investment accounts are taxed currently on any income, but you get the \"\"better\"\" capital gains rates on many things. So which one is better depends how long your investment is going to be, what is your tax situation now, and what you anticipate it to be later when you retire.\"",
"If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.",
"First of all depending on the type of IRA you may not have to pay taxes on withdrawals in the US at all. If you are withdrawing your principle from a Roth IRA then you don't owe taxes. Only when you withdraw the gains do you pay taxes on it. You have two options for withdrawals: Lump Sum Withdrawal: If you take a lump sum withdrawal you will owe taxes to the US (30% for non-resident aliens of the US), and according to DTAA; Article 23, you will file your taxes with India declaring your IRA or 401(k) withdrawal proceeds and claim credit on the taxes you paid to the US. Monthly Pension Withdrawal: You can also receive monthly pension payments and you will only be taxed in the country in which you are a resident of. This is according to DTAA, Article 20. You would then have to submit necessary documentation to your payer in the US so that they do not withhold any taxes in the US. Just as a side note it might be just better to keep the money where it is and let it grow or roll it over to a Roth IRA if you are currently in a lower tax bracket for maximum savings of your principle. Here is a link with more detailed information of what I provided you: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/news/30663129_1_taxable-income-nri-401k-plan",
"The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.",
"\"Since the deduction balances out the future tax (presumably), I am only paying tax on the gains, however over 20 years, those gains could be greater than the original $4000 itself. (Doubling would only take 3.6% annual return over 20 years ) If I put it into a Roth IRA, I don't get a tax deduction, but I get to withdraw the original $4000 and all the gains, tax free in about 20 years. It seems the Roth IRA is a better deal tax wise, but I would like to hear if I am missing something. You are missing the time value of money. $4000 now does not have the same value to you as $4000 years in the future. In fact, the $4000 now has the same value as the money it grows into (principal + earnings) in the future. So a certain percentage of tax on the $4000 now has the same effect to you as the same percentage of tax on the $4000 + earnings in the future, no matter how much \"\"earnings\"\" is. It's simple math. If you start with the same amount of pre-tax money, and have the same flat percentage tax rate, then both Traditional and Roth will leave you with the same amount of money, regardless of how many times the gains are. Try it for yourself.\"",
"You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed.",
"Long term gains are taxed at 15% maximum. Losses, up to the $3K/yr you cited, can offset ordinary income, so 25% or higher, depending on your income. Better to take the loss that way. With my usual disclaimer: Do not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.",
"\"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \"\"penalty\"\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \"\"need it\"\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \"\"hopeful\"\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \"\"tax\"\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\"",
"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf",
"Generally it is advisable to mention what country you're asking about, as tax laws differ. To the best of my knowledge, however, this particular issue is handled consistently in every tax jurisdiction I'm familiar with. You invested X, it appreciated and is now worth X + Y. In your example, X = $10,000 and Y = $40,000. Total X + Y = $50,000. When you withdraw an amount, say A (in your example A = $10,000), it is considered a withdrawal of both the earnings and the original capital, in proportion to the total of your account. Taxable portion of the withdrawal is proportional to the earnings. Lets mark it T. In your example, T = $10,000 - $10,000 * $10,000/$50,000 = $8,000. I.e.: 80% of the withdrawal will be attributed to earnings and would be taxable (short term in your case, if you're in the US), and 20% to the original capital. This will keep the proportion of the remained the same - 20% of the remaining amount will be attributed to the original capital (accidentally, it will be $8,000), and the remaining 80% will be attributed to the earnings. The withdrawn amount attributed to the capital ($2,000), and the remaining amount attributed to the capital ($8,000) will equal exactly to the invested amount.",
"You must pay your taxes at the quarterly intervals. For most people the withholding done by their employer satisfies this requirement. However, if your income does not have any withholding (or sufficient), then you must file quarterly estimated tax payments. Note that if you have a second job that does withhold, then you can adjust your W4 to request further withholding there and possibly reduce the need for estimated payments. Estimated tax payments also come into play with large investment earnings. The amount that you need to prepay the IRS is impacted by the safe harbor rule, which I am sure others will provide the exact details on.",
"If you have the cash on hand to pay the tax on the amount you are transferring I recommend moving to a Roth IRA An IRA is tax-deferred. You put in pretax contributions in to an IRA, and you are taxed on that money (your contributions and interest earned) when you withdraw it at retirement, age 59 1/2. The idea being that you will be taking less out per year in your retirement years, putting you into a lower tax bracket. The major problem is most people draw out as much or more a year in their retirement years than when they were working. A Roth IRA grows tax free You put after tax contributions into a Roth IRA, you have paid taxes on the contributions, and you are never taxed on the growth. When you draw the money out at retirement you don't pay any income taxes on that money. Let me give you an example: For this example we will use the following information for both scenario: We will invest $400 per month for a total of $4800. The current maximum is $5000 if you are under 50 years old $400 dollars after taxes is $300 Invest $300 a month, at age 65 you have 3,529,432 You owe no taxes on this money, it doesn't matter how much you take out a year. $400 dollars a month is taken pretax out of your paycheck. Invest $400 per month, at age 65 you have $4,705,909 You owe taxes of 25% as you draw that out for at total tax of 1,176,477 4,705,909 - 1,176,477 = 3,529,432 cash in your pocket The problem is if you draw out more than $82,400 (current 2010 filing single) per year you will be pushed to a higher tax bracket and take more of your money away. If you decide to buy a vacation home and you take out $250,000 to pay for it, that's counted as income for that year any you will be in the 33% tax bracket. Even if you can keep yourself to a low income the government forces your hand and makes you draw out more money at age 70, based on their tables, forcing you into a higher tax bracket",
"Yes, it really will hurt you to keep pulling your money from your IRA. Your best bet is to set up a payment plan with the IRS, and pay the taxes you owe now, as well as adjust your withholding (with a new W-4 to your payroll department) so that you don't have a large tax liability next year. These tax advantaged plans really are designed to penalize you if you pull the money out early to give you incentive to keep the money for retirement. Your best bet is to make a monthly budget that includes your tax payments for taxes owed this year, as well as higher deductions from your paycheck to properly withhold taxes for next year.",
"Post-tax (i.e. non-retirement account) investing is nothing to ignore. You don't mention a spouse, so for a start, you still have the $5500 to put in an IRA. The remaining investment funds will earn dividends, if any, at a tax preferred rate, and then the gain on sale will be taxed at 15% if the code doesn't change again. The gains accumulate tax deferred, and you control the timing of the sale. With a 401(k) all withdrawal are taxable as income. In your case, just the gain is taxed at a potential long term cap gain rate. Hopefully the new job pays more than the old one and the loss of 401(k) is compensated.",
"I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric.",
"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.",
"The principal of the contribution can definitely be withdrawn tax-free and penalty-free. However, there is a section that makes me think that the earnings part may be subject to penalty in addition to tax. In Publication 590-A, under Traditional IRAs -> When Can You Withdraw or Use Assets? -> Contributions Returned Before Due Date of Return -> Early Distributions Tax, it says: The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59½ does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59½ rule, it will be subject to this tax. This section is only specifically about the return of contributions before the due date of return, not a general withdrawal (as you can see from the first sentence that the penalty doesn't apply to contributions, which wouldn't be true of general withdrawals). Therefore, the second sentence must be about the earnings part of the withdrawal that you must make together with the contribution part as part of the return of contributions before the due date of the return. If the penalty it is talking about is only about other types of withdrawals and doesn't apply to the earnings part of the return of contribution before the due date of the return, then this sentence wouldn't make sense as it's in a part that's only about return of contribution before the due date of the return.",
"The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable",
"\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \"\"my friend told me.\"\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\"",
"She is very wrong. If the IRA is a traditional, i.e. A pretax IRA (not a Roth), all withdrawals are subject to tax at one's marginal rate. Read that to mean that a large sum can easily push her into higher brackets than normal. If it stayed with her, she'd take smaller withdrawals and be able to throttle her tax impact. Once she takes it all out, and gifts it to you, no gift tax is due, but there's form 709, where it's declared, and counts against her $5.5M lifetime estate exemption. There are a few things in the world of finance that offend me as much as lawyer malpractice, going into an area they are ignorant of.",
"In your entire question, the only time you mention that this is an investment inside an IRA is when you say Every quarter, six months, whatever Id have to rebalance my IRA while Vanguard would do this for the fund of funds without me needing to. Within an IRA, there are no tax implications to the rebalancing. But if this investment were not inside an IRA, then the rebalancing done by you will have tax implications. In particular, any gains realized when you sell shares in one fund and buy shares in another fund during the rebalancing process are subject to income tax. Similarly, losses also might be realized (and will affect your taxes). However, if you are invested in a fund of funds, there are no capital gains (or capital losses) when re-balancing is done; you have gains or losses only when you sell shares of the fund of funds for a price different than the price you paid for them.",
"I'm assuming your talking USA. There are two ways to look. If you know you should pay on the cap gains, the best way to handle that separately from your salary is to file a quarterly tax payment. That, I understand, is what the self-employed have to do. I'm in the situation where at some point, probably this year, the company that employs me will be bought out, and I will owe capital gains taxes on my shares gobbled up in the buy-out. It's a cash-for-stock transaction. So, in my case, I've just adjusted my W-4 to take advantage of the safe-harbor provision related to taxes I payed in 2016 and my salary. The details vary depending on your situation, but in my case, I've calculated what it will take in W-4 allowances to make sure I pay 110% of my 2016 tax payment (after refund). I'm not worrying about what the actual taxes on those shares of company stock will be, because I've met the rules for safe-harbor. Safe harbor just means that they can't penalize you for under-withholding or underpayment. It doesn't mean I won't have to write a check on april 15.",
"Why shouldn't I just keep my money in the savings account and earn the same amount (both accounts have the same APY in this case)? I will assume that you are transferring money from your savings account into a Traditional IRA and deducting the contribution from your income. While you may think that the money that is being transferred is yours already -- it is sitting in your savings account, for Pete's sake! -- you are deducting that amount in getting to your taxable income, and so you are effectively contributing it from current income and not paying taxes on the amount contributed. So, consider the same amount of money sitting in your savings account versus the same amount of money sitting in your Traditional IRA account. While you will earn the same amount of interest in both accounts, you will have to pay taxes each year on the interest earned in the savings account. You might choose, as most people do, to not take money out of the savings account to pay theses taxes but just pay them from ready cash/checking account/current income etc., or these taxes might just reduce the refund that you will getting from the IRS and your State income tax authority, but in either case, you have paid taxes on the interest earned in your non-IRA savings account, and of course, long ago, you also paid taxes on the original amount in the non-IRA savings account. So, if you take any money out of the non-IRA savings account, you don't pay any taxes on the amount withdrawn except possibly for the interest earned from January 1 till the date of withdrawal (which you are paying from ready cash). On the other hand, consider the Traditional IRA. The original deposit was not taxed in the sense that you got a deduction (reduced tax or increased refund) when you made the contribution. The annual interest earned was not taxed each year either. So when you make a qualified withdrawal (after age 59.5 or by meeting one of the other exceptions allowing withdrawal before age 59.5), you are taking money on which you have not paid any taxes at all, and the IRS wants its cut. The money withdrawn is taxable income to you. Furthermore, the money withdrawn is not eligible for any kind of favorable treatment such as having it count as qualified dividends or as long-term capital gains even if your IRA was invested in stocks and the money in the account is all qualified dividends or long-term capital gains. If you make an unqualified withdrawal, you owe a penalty (technically named an excise tax) in addition to income tax on the amount withdrawn. If you are investing in a Roth IRA, you will not be getting a deduction when you make the contribution, and qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free, and so the answer is completely different from the above.",
"\"The annualized method allows you to take a look at each quarter independently and pay the tax in the quarter that you earned it. -- According to Linda Durand, a certified public accountant with Drolet & Associates PLLC in Washington, D.C., from the Bankrate article \"\"Paying quarterly estimated taxes\"\" And after paying annualized quarterly estimates, you can still owe up to $1000 at tax time without penalty.\"",
">I could be wrong but you will still get tax at 10% This isn't true for Roths. If I put 5k (post tax of course) money into a Roth 401k or a Roth IRA I can withdraw that 5k whenever I want penalty and tax free. Now lets say that 5k has grown to 7k and I take out all 7k the first 5k is penalty and tax free but the extra 2k is taxed (with the extra 10% penalty added on). So as long as you don't touch any growth in your roth accounts you can withdraw the principal amount with the same consequences you would experience if you were to take money out of your checking account at your bank. Also money in and IRA does not have to be invested it could be in a liquid position. Now a pre tax retirement account doesn't have the same luxury. If I stick 5k into a traditional IRA and it grows to 7k and I pull that money out the entire ammount gets taxed AND penalized (even the principal amount is subject the 10% penalty). Now if you do a Roth conversion (pre-tax to post-tax retirment account conversion) the principal ammount (the amount you paid taxes on) is still subject to the 10% penalty for 5 years. After the 5 years you can withdraw the converted ammount tax and penalty free (well you already paid the taxes) it would just be the growth that is subject to the penalty.",
"The penalty is 10% regardless of the tax. If your marginal rate is so low, I'd consider converting some to Roth each year, and not touching it for tuition.",
"The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040. This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed. Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW. Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part. The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936. This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here.",
"\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"",
"Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends.",
"Edited in response to JoeTaxpayer's comment and OP Tim's additional question. To add to and clarify a little what littleadv has said, and to answer OP Tim's next question: As far as the IRS is concerned, you have at most one Individual Retirement Account of each type (Traditional, Roth) though the money in each IRA can be invested with as many different custodians (brokerages, banks, etc.) and different investments as you like. Thus, the maximum $5000 ($6000 for older folks) that you can contribute each year can be split up and invested any which way you like, and when in later years you take a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from a Traditional IRA, you can get the money by selling just one of the investments, or from several investments; all that the IRS cares is that the total amount that is distributed to you is at least as large as the RMD. An important corollary is that the balance in your IRA is the sum total of the value of all the investments that various custodians are holding for you in IRA accounts. There is no loss in an IRA until every penny has been withdrawn from every investment in your IRA and distributed to you, thus making your IRA balance zero. As long as you have a positive balance, there is no loss: everything has to come out. After the last distribution from your Roth IRA (the one that empties your entire Roth IRA, no matter where it is invested and reduces your Roth IRA balance (see definition above) to zero), total up all the amounts that you have received as distributions from your Roth IRA. If this is less than the total amount of money you contributed to your Roth IRA (this includes rollovers from a Traditional IRA or Roth 401k etc., but not the earnings within the Roth IRA that you re-invested inside the Roth IRA), you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI limit. This 2% is not a cap (in the sense that no more than 2% of your AGI can be deducted in this category) but rather a threshold: you can only deduct whatever part of your total Miscellaneous Deductions exceeds 2% of your AGI. Not many people have Miscellaneous Deductions whose total exceeds 2% of their AGI, and so they end up not being able to deduct anything in this category. If you ever made nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA because you were ineligible to make a deductible contribution (income too high, pension plan coverage at work etc), then the sum of all these contributions is your basis in your Traditional IRA. Note that your deductible contributions, if any, are not part of the basis. The above rules apply to your basis in your Traditional IRA as well. After the last distribution from your Traditional IRA (the one that empties all your Traditional IRA accounts and reduces your Traditional IRA balance to zero), total up all the distributions that you received (don't forget to include the nontaxable part of each distribution that represents a return of the basis). If the sum total is less than your basis, you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI threshold. You can only deposit cash into an IRA and take a distribution in cash from an IRA. Now, as JoeTaxpayer points out, if your IRA owns stock, you can take a distribution by having the shares transferred from your IRA account in your brokerage to your personal account in the brokerage. However, the amount of the distribution, as reported by the brokerage to the IRS, is the value of the shares transferred as of the time of the transfer, (more generally the fair market value of the property that is transferred out of the IRA) and this is the amount you report on your income tax return. Any capital gain or loss on those shares remains inside the IRA because your basis (in your personal account) in the shares that came out of the IRA is the amount of the distribution. If you sell these shares at a later date, you will have a (taxable) gain or loss depending on whether you sold the shares for more or less than your basis. In effect, the share transfer transaction is as if you sold the shares in the IRA, took the proceeds as a cash distribution and immediately bought the same shares in your personal account, but you saved the transaction fees for the sale and the purchase and avoided paying the difference between the buying and selling price of the shares as well as any changes in these in the microseconds that would have elapsed between the execution of the sell-shares-in-Tim's-IRA-account, distribute-cash-to-Tim, and buy-shares-in-Tim's-personal account transactions. Of course, your broker will likely charge a fee for transferring ownership of the shares from your IRA to you. But the important point is that any capital gain or loss within the IRA cannot be used to offset a gain or loss in your taxable accounts. What happens inside the IRA stays inside the IRA.",
"\"There's currently not much reason to keep around a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA in my opinion -- a Roth IRA is almost strictly better. Think about it: a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA of the same amount. In both cases, contributions are after-tax (so no tax deduction). But when you withdraw, for the Roth IRA you don't have to pay tax, and for the non-deductible Traditional IRA, you have to pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". A Roth IRA can be contributed to at pretty much any income level, thanks to the backdoor Roth IRA process (which uses a temporary non-deductible Traditional IRA in the process). So there is not much reason for a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA. As for your question, a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a taxable account. Well, a non-deductible Traditional IRA is contributed to with after-tax money, and taxed on the earnings only on withdrawal. So the taxation is almost identical to things like stocks and homes, where the gain is not realized until the thing is sold. However, compared to things like savings accounts and bonds, where you get taxed on the interest yearly, it is much better. Every time you get taxed on gains like this, it is taxing gains earned from after-tax money, so if you think of an amount of money as being equivalent to the amount of money it grows to over time (time value of money), then it is taxing money that is (or grown from money that is) already taxed. So it is better to have this only happen at the end at withdrawal than every year.\"",
"Excise tax on the excess contribution is 6% a year on the amount of the contribution. In addition, gains will be taxable to you. By adding 20K over the limit, you added $1200 to your tax bill. Withdraw it ASAP. Whatever investment you have in your IRA - you can probably buy it (or a comparable) outside of the IRA.",
"The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty.",
"\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"",
"Some of the expenses you describe may be eligible to be paid off by a 401(k) without incurring a penalty. As long as you do not mind paying tax on the extra income. If your tax bracket does not go up, then using your IRA may not be a bad idea. You should consult a tax expert and see which expenses can qualify for a withdrawal without penalty. I believe medical bills and medical insurance costs are eligible to be withdrawn without penalty in some instances.",
"You can't say I'm wrong and then go on to explain why exactly what I said is correct. :) You (and I) are in complete agreement that there's no LTCG on either Roth *or* Traditional 401ks, because you pay both as straight income - The former up front, the latter when you withdraw it. My point was that, for virtually everyone, their regular income tax rate is **higher** than their LTCG rate.",
"All of your 401k income is taxable and no more than 85% of your SS income. You can use the worksheets in IRS: Publication 915 to determine what percentage of your SS is taxable. Just as with ordinary income, deductions/exemptions apply and not all that is taxable will be taxed. When you begin drawing SS you'll have the option to have taxes withheld at various rates, more convenient than quarterly estimated payments in my opinion.",
"\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\"",
"The alternative isn't too bad. Invest in a regular account. The dividends and cap gains will see favorable tax treatment. In my opinion, much of the magic of the retirement account is with 401(k) matched deposits. The benefit you'll miss is the long term opportunity to skim income off the top, at say, 25%, have it grow, and then withdraw it at a much lower average tax rate. If that benefit doesn't outweigh the fear of the 10%, stick with my first thought above.",
"One additional note related to Roth vs regular: for a regular 401k or IRA, you pay the 10% penalty on any withdrawal. For a Roth, you can withdraw the contributions early (but not the earnings) without any penalty or tax. Of course, if this is a retirement account it's better to leave it that way. Personally it's one reason I avoid Roth - in addition to probably being in a higher bracket now, I also would prefer not to be able to touch my money. But for some there could be advantages in having that ability (such as in an emergency).",
"\"The answer to your first question is true. No tax on withdrawls. Under these circumstances, the withdrawl is \"\"qualified\"\". To your second question, as long as the withdrawl is qualified, it is not taxed, regardless of your additional income. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/03/030403.asp?lgl=rira-baseline-vertical has a very comprehensive, plain English, description of the IRS rules (as of today, anyway).\"",
"As littleadv suggested, you are mixing issues. If you have earned income and are able to deduct an IRA deposit, where those actual dollars came from is irrelevant. The fact that you are taking proceeds from one transaction to deposit to the IRA is a booking entry on your side, but the IRS doesn't care. By the way, when you get that $1000 gain, the broker doesn't withhold tax, so if you take the entire $1000 and put it in the IRA, you owe $150 on one line, but save $250 elsewhere, and are still $100 to the positive on your tax return.",
"\"I think the math is wrong. Note that in Scenario #1, you are only out of pocket $1000, while in Scenario #2, you are out of pocket $1250; the contribution and the tax you paid with respect to it. A better concept than tax rate is \"\"Retention Rate\"\". This is the fraction of your money that the Feds let you keep. And Growth Factor is the how much the investment grows. So In Scenario #1, you multiply $1000 by the investment Growth Factor and then by the retirement Retention Rate. And in Scenario #2, you multiply the same $1000 by the current Retention Rate and then by the Growth Factor. Since in your approximation, the two GFs are the same, there is no saving...\"",
"\"I wrote a brilliant guest post at Don't Mess With Taxes, titled Roth IRAs and Your Retirement Income. (Note - this article now reflects 2012 rates. Just updated) Simply put, it's an ongoing question of whether your taxes will be higher now than at any point in the future. If you are in the 25% bracket now, it would take quite of bit of money for your withdrawals to put you in that bracket at retirement. In the case of the IRA, you have the opportunity to convert in any year between now and retirement if your rate that year drops for whatever reason. The simplest case is if you are now in the 25% bracket. I say go pre-tax, and track, year by year what your withdrawal would be if you retired today. At 15%, but with a good chance for promotion to the 25% bracket, start with Roth flavor and then as you hit 25%, use a combination. This approach would smooth your marginal rate to stay at 15%. To give you a start to this puzzle, in 2012, a couple has a $11,900 standard deduction along with 2 exemptions of $3800 each. This means the first $19,500 in an IRA comes out tax free at retirement. If you believe in a 4% withdrawal rate, you need a retirement account containing $500K pretax to generate this much money. This tick up with inflation, 2 years ago, it was $18,700 and $467K respectively. This is why those who scream \"\"taxes will go up\"\" may be correct, but do you really believe the standard deduction and exemptions will go away? Edit - and as time passes, and I learn more, new info comes to my attention. The above thoughts not withstanding, there's an issue of taxation of Social Security benefits. This creates a The Phantom Tax Rate Zone which I recently wrote about. A single person with not really too high an income gets thrust into the 46% bracket. Not a typo, 46.25% to be exact.\"",
"Don't forget inflation. With a Roth 401k (or IRA), you don't pay any taxes on inflationary or real gains. You pay taxes at the beginning and then no more taxes (unless you invest money after you distributed from it). With a regular, taxable investment account (not a 401k or IRA), you pay taxes on the initial amount. And then you pay taxes on the gains, both inflationary and real. So you effectively pay taxes on the inflated principal twice. Once at initial earning and once when it shows up as inflationary gains. I'll give an example later. With a traditional 401k (or IRA), you pay no taxes on the initial amount. You pay taxes on the distributed amount. That includes taxes on gains, but it only taxes them once, not twice. All the taxes are paid at distribution time. Here's a semirealistic example. This is not a real example with real numbers, but the numbers shouldn't be ridiculously off. They could happen. I'm going to ignore variation and pretend that all the numbers will be the same each year so as to simplify the math. So you pay a 25% marginal tax rate and want to invest $12,000 plus any tax savings. Roth: $12,000 principal Traditional IRA (Trad): $16,000 principal with $4000 in tax savings Taxable Investment Account (TIA): $12,000 principal Let's assume that you make an 8% rate of return and inflation is 3%. Both numbers are possible, although higher and lower numbers have occurred in the past. That gives you returns of $960 for the Roth and TIA cases and a return of $1280 for the Trad case. Pay no annual taxes on the Roth or Trad cases. Pay 25% marginal tax on the TIA case, that's $240. Balances after one year: Roth: $12,960 Trad: $17,280 TIA: $12,720 Inflation decreases the value of the Roth and TIA cases by $360 in the Roth and TIA cases. And by $480 in the Trad case. Ten years of inflationary gains (cumulative): Roth: $5354 Trad: $7138 TIA: $4872 Net buildup (including inflationary gains): Roth: $25,907 Trad: $34,543 TIA: $23,168 Real value (minus inflation to maintain spending power): Roth: $20,554 Trad: $27,405 TIA: $18,109 Now take out $3000 per year, after taxes. That's $3000 in the the Roth and TIA cases, as you already paid the taxes. In the Trad case, that's $4000 because you have to pay 25% tax which will cost $1000. Do that for five years and the new balances are Roth: $9931 Trad: $13,241 TIA: $5973 The TIA will run out in the 8th year. The Roth and Trad will both run out in the 9th year. So to summarize. The Traditional IRA initially grows the most. The TIA grows the least. The TIA is tax-advantaged over the Traditional IRA at that point, but it still runs out first. The Roth IRA grows about the same as the Traditional after taxes are included. Note that I left out the matching contribution from a 401k. That would help both those options. I assumed that the marginal tax rate would be 25% on the Traditional IRA distributions. It might be only 15%, which would increase the advantage of the Traditional IRA. I assumed that the 15% rate on capital returns would still be true for the entire period. If that is increased, the TIA option gets a lot worse. Inflation could be higher or lower. As stated earlier, the TIA account is hit the worst by inflation.",
"Without more information about what tax bracket you are in, I cannot make a recommendation about what your best option is, but here are a few things to consider:",
"\"IRA contribution must be from your earned income in the sense that you cannot contribute to IRA more than you have in earned income. If all your income is capital gains - you cannot contribute anything to IRA. Once you're within the income limit restriction, it doesn't matter what other money you have, because as you said - once in your account, its all just money. But what you're describing is basically \"\"I deposit $850 from my salary into an IRA and then go pay for my gas with the $850 I have from the capital gains\"\", so you're not paying any less taxes here. If it makes you feel any better, you can describe it to yourself the way you did. It doesn't really matter.\"",
"The advantage of a Traditional IRA is: tax deduction today. The advantage of a Roth IRA: no tax on withdrawal. Both types are tax-deferred, and have no bearing on the question.",
"\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"",
"\"You ask about \"\"traditional IRA VS taxable (non-retirement) investment account.\"\" You already know about tax deductible IRAs, which are similar, mostly, to your 401(k). A Traditional IRA can have a non-deducted component. In a sense, it then functions similar to the fully pre-tax IRA as it grows tax free, but then withdrawals are made and taxes paid on the pro-rated not-yet-taxed money. It also offers the simple conversion to a Roth IRA. For those who have no current IRA with pre-tax money, a conversion will be tax free, for those with an existing pretax IRA, conversions are prorated for tax due, if the account had say $10,000, and $5,000 was post-tax, any conversion will have half taxed at your marginal rate.\"",
"There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.",
"You will not necessarily incur a penalty. You can potentially use the Annualized Income Installment method, which allows you to compute the tax due for each quarter based on income actually earned up to that point in the year. See Publication 505, in particular Worksheet 2-9. Form 2210 is also relevant as that is the form you will use when actually calculating whether you owe a penalty after the year is over. On my reading of Form 2210, if you had literally zero income during the first quarter, you won't be expected to make an estimated tax payment for that quarter (as long as you properly follow the Annualized Income Installment method for future quarters). However, you should go through the calculations yourself to see what the situation is with your actual numbers.",
"The earnings portion will be taxed at your marginal tax rate + 10% penalty. If the total is $100, then the earnings portion is probably not very significant for this to be a concern. But it's something you could put into a Roth IRA and let it compound with the rest of your retirement savings. Depending on your age, the compounding effect of $100 invested early enough tax free can be thousands of dollars at retirement. i.e. You have 60 days to deposit it into a Roth IRA. Don't let that pass you by.",
"\"IRA distributions are reported on line 15b on the standard form 1040. That is in the same Income section as most of your other income (including that 1099 income and W2 income, etc.). Its income is included in the Line 22 \"\"Total Income\"\", from which the Personal Exemption (calculated on 6d, subtracted from the total in line 42) and the Standard Deduction (line 40 - also Itemized Deduction total would be here) are later reduced to arrive at Line 43, \"\"Taxable Income\"\". As such, yes, he might owe only the 10% penalty (which is reported on line 59, and you do not reduce this by the deductions, as you surmised).\"",
"Using the default values for age and retirement and only making the changes you specified in the question. assumed ROR: 6%, current tax rate: 25%, retirement tax rate: 15%, married, have an employer retirement plan. The results from the two calculators are: Traditional IRA: 631,341 IRA before taxes 536,640 IRA after taxes. Roth IRA: 631,341 Roth IRA 450,207 Taxable Savings where: Total taxable savings The total amount you would have accumulated by retirement in a taxable savings account. your question: The (Traditional) IRA After Taxes value is 6.3% higher than the (Roth) Taxable Savings amount. (Both had an equal gross amount.) Does that mean I should put my money in a tIRA instead of a Roth? My percentages don't match your percentages because you didn't specify the numbers you used. In any case the 450K number shows you what you would have if the money was not invested in an IRA or 401K. To decide between a Roth and a traditional IRA ignore the taxable savings number, that only shows what happens if you decide not not use a retirement account.",
"\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"",
"\"Investopedia probably should change the wording to \"\"tax free\"\" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. \"\"Tax advantaged\"\" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases.\"",
"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"\"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"",
"Some more considerations: (1) Tax rates (both ordinary and capital gains) are likely to be different when you retire. (2) Your marginal tax rate may be different when you retire depending on how much income you have at the time. In retirement your income may be structured completely differently than when you are working. For example, you may also have a Roth IRA/401K to pull from.",
"He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.",
"how is it double taxation when you didn't start off with that extra $100? it's double taxation if they taxed you on the total amount you pulled out of the market, not the profit you made. explain the math on your last part, please.",
"Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.",
"Well, whats the source of income from? Social security? Dividends? At 40k that's the good thing about a progressive tax, you wouldn't be taxed heavily. Even 40k of capital gains, which lets be honest is mostly high income individuals, is barely taxed at a higher level than that 40,000k from a fixed income source. Again, that's the gain (aka profit) one is receiving from selling shares of a company."
] |
[
"\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"",
"\"Bottom line is this: there's no \"\"short term capital gains tax\"\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\""
] |
6525
|
Does it make sense to trade my GOOGL shares for GOOG and pocket the difference?
|
[
"181985",
"98150",
"106541"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"106541",
"98150",
"105542",
"550661",
"404224",
"147002",
"181985",
"156467",
"378906",
"290045",
"345404",
"127487",
"435407",
"502970",
"134892",
"531787",
"374867",
"251604",
"162804",
"268423",
"303001",
"204167",
"521133",
"304918",
"38287",
"186631",
"444405",
"481283",
"171025",
"468381",
"340264",
"492401",
"583080",
"55893",
"348922",
"474305",
"259904",
"414505",
"524940",
"263751",
"423929",
"135798",
"479824",
"373204",
"30070",
"492503",
"508286",
"483394",
"275297",
"501214",
"483191",
"267067",
"178614",
"30973",
"79410",
"137465",
"76330",
"295445",
"443354",
"287923",
"431610",
"291996",
"269129",
"30201",
"498561",
"363919",
"280611",
"580429",
"306688",
"581780",
"562481",
"221795",
"227064",
"469819",
"111568",
"528516",
"23217",
"550785",
"255097",
"39660",
"468047",
"71292",
"355089",
"212025",
"530146",
"539664",
"421992",
"546491",
"84045",
"204388",
"434252",
"12351",
"387035",
"343042",
"451314",
"546133",
"291548",
"481169",
"474981",
"498014"
] |
[
"Too much fiddling with your portfolio if the difference is 3-4% or less (as it's become in recent months). Hands off is the better advice. As for buying shares, go for whichever is the cheapest (i.e. Goog rather than Googl) because the voting right with the latter is merely symbolic. And who attends shareholders' meetings, for Pete's sake? On the other hand, if your holdings in the company are way up in the triple (maybe even quadruple) figures, then it might make sense to do the math and take the time to squeeze an extra percentage point or two out of your Googl purchases. The idle rich occupying the exclusive club that includes only the top 1% of the population needs to have somethinng to do with its time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling to make a living--leaving only enough time to visit our portfolios as often as Buffett advises (about twice a year).",
"It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial. We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0. Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations. So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D}) = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year. Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X. It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity. And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero. So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?",
"\"Note that these used to be a single \"\"common\"\" share that has \"\"split\"\" (actually a \"\"special dividend\"\" but effectively a split). If you owned one share of Google before the split, you had one share giving you X worth of equity in the company and 1 vote. After the split you have two shares giving you the same X worth of equity and 1 vote. In other words, zero change. Buy or sell either depending on how much you value the vote and how much you think others will pay (or not) for that vote in the future. As Google issues new shares, it'll likely issue more of the new non-voting shares meaning dilution of equity but not dilution of voting power. For most of us, our few votes count for nothing so evaluate this as you will. Google's founders believe they can do a better job running the company long-term when there are fewer pressures from outside holders who may have only short-term interests in mind. If you disagree, or if you are only interested in the short-term, you probably shouldn't be an owner of Google. As always, evaluate the facts for yourself, your situation, and your beliefs.\"",
"Google will be issuing Class C shares (under the ticker symbol GOOCV) to current GOOG holders in the beginning of April. The Class C shares and Class A shares will then change symbols, with the Class C shares trading under GOOG. This was announced on January 30th. Details are in this benzinga article: Projected Trading Timeline March 27 - April 2 Record Date - Payment Date Class C shares commence trading on March 27 as GOOCV on a when issued basis Class A shares continue to trade as GOOG, with entitlement to Class C shares Class A shares will also trade on an ex-distribution basis, without entitlement to the Class C shares, as GOOAV April 3 EX Date The ticker for the Class A shares will change from GOOG to GOOGL The ticker for the Class C shares will change from GOOCV to GOOG and commence regular way trading The ticker for the Class A shares that traded on an ex-distribution basis - GOOAV - will be suspended",
"Presumably you're talking about the different share class introduced in the recent stock split, which mean that there are now three Google share classes: Due to the voting rights, Class A shares should be worth more than class C, but how much only time will tell. Actually, one could very well argue that a non-voting share of a company that pays no dividends has no value at all. It's unlikely the markets will see it that way, though.",
"For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded.",
"\"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \"\"Class C Settlement Agreement\"\" in the S-3 filing\"",
"You are right: if the combined value of all outstanding GOOG shares was $495B, and the combined value of all GOOGL shares was $495B, then yes, Alphabet would have a market cap of at least $990B (where I say at least only because I myself don't know that there aren't other issues that should be in the count as well). The respective values of the total outstanding GOOG and GOOGL shares are significantly less than that at present though. Using numbers I just grabbed for those tickers from Google Finance (of course), they currently stand thus:",
"Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.",
"You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.",
"The stock split, it is similar to what happened to Apple a little while back. When Google split 2 to 1, it means that each share holder got 2 shares for each 1 share they had and each share was 1/2 the price.",
"There is no difference between more shares of a relatively cheaper stock and less shares of a relatively more expensive stock. When you invest in a stock, the percentage increase (or decrease) in the share price results in gains (or losses). This is a fundamental concept of investing. Your question suggests that you would benefit from further research before investing your money. Trading real dollars can be difficult without a strong understanding of the principles involved. Investing your money without a good knowledge base will likely be stressful and could have a discouraging effect if it doesn't go well. Before you open an investment account, read up on investing fundamentals, particularly mutual funds as those can be a great place to start as a new investor. There are many sources of information including books, websites such as http://investor.gov/investing-basics and this website. Don't skip the sections on taxes, as those matter just as much and sometimes more than the simple buying and selling. You might look at tax advantaged accounts, such as 401k's, IRA's, etc. It shouldn't take long but it will be one of the most important things you do as a beginning investor. Everyone has to start here. Understanding the vocabulary and concepts will likely save you time and money throughout your investing life.",
"It seems at most a cosmetic difference - nothing keeps you from adding the 9$ cash to the fund the same day the fees are deducted from the shares.",
"It was actually a reverse split meaning that every 10 shares you had became 1 share and the price should be 10x higher. - Citigroup in reverse split The chart just accounts for the split. The big dip is Googles way of showing from what price it split from. If you remember before the split the stock was trading around $4-$5 after the reverse split the stock became 10x higher. Just to clear it up a 1:2(1 for 2) split would mean you get 1 share for every 2 shares you have. This is known as a reverse split. A 2:1(2 for 1) split means you get 2 shares for every 1 share you have. The first number represents the amount of shares you will receive and the second number represents how many shares you will be giving up.",
"http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/ Are you counting both class A and other share classes?",
"\"There's an expression, \"\"stock prices have no memory.\"\" Apple trades at about $115. Why would I carry my shares at anything but $115 even though I paid say $75 a share, while you just bought it at $115? The only difference, perhaps, is that if I hold them in a non retirement account, I might track the net I'd have, post tax.\"",
"Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.",
"They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.",
"the difference would be taxes... Lets say you have two lots, one with a 10 dollar gain, and one with a 20 dollar gain. And lets say you decide to sell one lot this year, and the other lot in 10 years. AND, lets say that it turns out the stock price is exactly the same in ten years as it is when you sell the first lot. In all likelyhood, you'll have more income, and therefore you are likely to be in a different marginal tax rate. If you believe that you're more likely to pay more taxes in 10 years, then sell the lot with the higher gain now. If you believe you're more likely to pay more taxes now, then sell the lot with the lower gain now.",
"Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.",
"I agree that their tech incubator works great, but with so much extra cash, I can imagine how investors are frustrated with it just sitting there. If goog paid dividends the investore have the option to plough it back into the company to help fund r&d, or to invest it elsewhere. As it stands, the only options that the investors have are to stay for the ride, or do the wall street walk. Also, nice username. U wsb, bro?",
"If you aren't familiar with Norbert's Gambit, it's worth looking at. This is a mechanism using a Canadian brokerage account to simultaneously execute one stock trade in CAD and one in USD. The link I provided claims that it only starts potentially making sense somewhere in the 10,000+ range.",
"My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.",
"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.",
"Assuming you plan to buy a whole number of shares and have a maximum dollar value you intend to invest, it may be better to wait for the split if the figures don't quite work out nicely. For example, if you are going to invest $1,000 and the stock pre-split is $400 and the split is 2 for 1, then you'd buy 2 shares before the split unless you have an extra $200 to add. Meanwhile, after the split you could buy 5 shares at $200 so that you invest all that you intend. Aside from that case, it doesn't really make a difference since the split is similar to getting 2 nickels for a dime which in each case is still a total value of 10 cents.",
"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.",
"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.",
"Alphabet has about 40% on shore or 60%. I know it is 60/40 but forget which way. So way, way more than they really need. What Apple does is borrow against the offshore money when needed, Apple now has over $90b in debt and Google less than $4b. So Google would not have any problem.",
"I have not looked in details but apparently the company has (at least) a dual listing in Hong Kong (its main listing, ticker 700) and in the US (ticker TCTZF). It also has an ADR (TCEHY), the underlying of which is the HK line. The two US listings essentially trade at the same price and will provide very similar returns but a major difference is that TCTZF pays dividends in HKD whereas TCEHY pays its dividends in USD. The latter may be more convenient depending on the account you use to trade the stock. The ADR line is also more liquid.",
"That is a weird one. Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option. One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options. This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options. However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US. I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share. Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees",
"All corporate gains are taxed at the same rate as corporate income, for the corporate entity, so this actually can be WORSE than the individual capital gains tax rates. There are a lot of things you can do with trading certain asset classes, like opening you up to like-kind re-investment tax perks, but I can't think of anything that helps with stocks. Also, in the US there is now a law against doing things solely to avoid tax if they have no other economic purpose. So be conscious about that, you'll need to be able to rationalize at least a thin excuse for why you jumped through all the hoops.",
"As yet another explanation of why it does not really matter, you can look at this from the valuation point of view. Stock price is the present value of its future cash flows (be it free cash flow of the firm or dividends, depending on the model). Let's have a look at the dividends case. Imagine, the price of the stock is based on only three dividends streams $5 dollars each: dividend to be paid today, in year 1, and in year 2. Each should be discounted back to today (say, at 10%), except today's dividend, since today is now. Once that dividend is paid, it is no longer in the stream of cash flows. So if we just delete that first $5 from the formula, the price will adjust itself down by the amount of the dividend to $8.68. NOTE that this is a very simple example, since in reality cash flows streams are arguably infinite and because there are many other factors affecting stock price. But simply for your understanding, this example should provide you with the reason simply from the valuation perspective.",
"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.",
"There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.",
"No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments.",
"If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,",
"\"The key difference I've found between a stock split and a stock dividend – of the exact same stock and class, as opposed to a spin-off – seems to be from the company's own accounting perspective. There doesn't appear to be any actual transfer of value to the shareholder with either kind of transaction; i.e. in theory, each transaction would be immaterial to the value of your holdings. With respect to the company's accounting, a stock split affects the par value of the shares, whereas a stock dividend reduces the retained earnings account in order to increase paid-in or contributed capital. I found a good online source which explains the history behind this accounting difference: McGraw-Hill - Intermediate Accounting eBook, 6/e - Chapter 18 - Stock Dividends and Splits. Small quote: [...] Besides being based on fallacious reasoning, accounting for stock dividends by artificially reclassifying “earned” capital as “invested” capital conflicts with the reporting objective of reporting shareholders' equity by source. Despite these limitations, this outdated accounting standard still applies. Since neither the corporation nor its shareholders apparently benefits from stock dividends, why do companies declare them?23 Occasionally, a company tries to give shareholders the illusion that they are receiving a real dividend. Another reason is merely to enable the corporation to take advantage of the accepted accounting practice of capitalizing retained earnings. Specifically, a company might wish to reduce an existing balance in retained earnings—otherwise available for cash dividends—so it can reinvest the earned assets represented by that balance without carrying a large balance in retained earnings. [...] There's a lot more on that page, before and after, worth reading. From another book: Google Books - Comparative Income Taxation, a Structural Analysis - page 314 - Stock Dividends. Small quote: The distribution of dividends in the form of stock or \"\"bonus\"\" shares to existing shareholders typically involves a transfer for corporate law purposes of retained earnings into stated capital. It can been [sic] viewed as a deemed distribution of a cash dividend to the shareholders followed by a corresponding contribution to capital or as solely as an event at the corporate level which has no effect on the shareholders whose economic interest in the corporation is unchanged by the receipt of additional shares. The systems have taken varied approaches to the stock dividend problem. The treatment is in part a function of the rules dealing with distributions of stated capital. [emphases above are mine] [... continues w/descriptions of different countries' tax treatments of the kinds of stock dividends. Includes U.S., Sweden, Japan, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany. ...] As far as why a corporation might want to capitalize earnings and reduce the equity otherwise available for dividends, I can only imagine that, ignoring taxes for a moment, that it may have something to do with capital ratios that need to be maintained for financing or regulatory purposes? Yet, I remain curious. If I discover more on this then I'll update my answer. Additional resources:\"",
"One difference is the bid/ask spread will cost you more in a lower cost stock than a higher cost one. Say you have two highly liquid stocks with tiny spreads: If you wanted to buy say $2,000 of stock: Now imagine these are almost identical ETFs tracking the S&P 500 index and extrapolate this to a trade of $2,000,000 and you can see there's some cost savings in the higher priced stock. As a practical example, recently a popular S&P 500 ETF (Vanguard's VOO) did a reverse split to help investors minimize this oft-missed cost.",
"I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.",
"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \"\"options\"\" :)\"",
"I'm not too sure tbh, i'm just getting my series 7 first before anything. But thank you for such a well thought out response. I'd probably trade something that has a bit more volatility like BAC or something though.",
"Unless your brokerage will sell you fractional shares, the most obvious difference (without us knowing the actual identify of the companies) is that with the $260 one, you will have 3 shares plus you will have $220 minus commission left over that you wanted to invest but weren't able to simply because of the mechanics of long division. You could put that $220 into one of the cheaper stocks, but now the multiple commissions will start to eat your returns. My personal opinion is you should go for a low cost index mutual fund or ETF, and wait to pick individual stocks until you have more than $1000 to work with (and even then, probably still go with the low cost index fund)",
"I often sell covered calls, and if they are in the money, let the stock go. I am charged the same fee as if I sold online ($9, I use Schwab) which is better than buying back the option if I'm ok to sell the stock. In my case, If the option is slightly in the money, and I see the options are priced well, i.e. I'd do another covered call anyway, I sometimes buy the option and sell the one a year out. I prefer to do this in my IRA account as the trading creates no tax issue.",
"I will assume that you are not asking in the context of high frequency trading, as this is Personal Finance Stack Exchange. It is completely acceptable to trade odd lots for retail brokerage customers. The odd lot description that you provided in your link, from Interactive Brokers is correct. But even in that context, it says, regarding the acceptability of odd lots to stock exchanges: The exception is that odd lots can be routed to NYSE/ARCA/AMEX, but only as part of a basket order or as a market-on-close (MOC) order. Google GOOG is traded on the NASDAQ. Everything on the NASDAQ is electronic, and always has been. You will have no problem selling or buying less than 100 shares of Google. There is also an issue of higher commissions with odd lots: While trading commissions for odd lots may still be higher than for standard lots on a percentage basis, the popularity of online trading platforms and the consequent plunge in brokerage commissions means that it is no longer as difficult or expensive for investors to dispose of odd lots as it used to be in the past. Notice what it says about online trading making it easier, not more difficult, to trade odd lots.",
"\"While I'm sure there's some truth to the argument that unsophisticated retail investors index against the S&P 500 thinking that they're tracking \"\"the market,\"\" I don't think it makes sense to steer the S&P 500 in that direction to cater to that lowest common denominator. The *ad absurdum* conclusion of that course of action, of course, would be to abolish the S&P 500 entirely and move those assets into the S&P Total Market Index. But clearly there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps with single share classes, just as there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps in general. As for whether it will be a loss for passive investors...it will be interesting to see how that pans out. Maybe good corporate governance and direct accountability by managers really do contribute positively to returns in the long run and investors will benefit from this change as a result. Or maybe this will result in companies with multiple share classes being undervalued and create an opportunity to earn outsized returns by investing in them, and indexes that omit those companies will underperform. Only time will tell.\"",
"What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)",
"In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.",
"This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:",
"From their 10-K pulled directly from Edgar: As of October 22, 2015, there were 291,327,781 shares of Alphabet Inc.’s (the successor issuer pursuant to Rule 12g-3(a) under the Exchange Act as of October 2, 2015) (Alphabet) Class A common stock outstanding, 50,893,362 shares of Alphabet's Class B common stock outstanding, and 345,504,021 Alphabet's Class C capital stock outstanding. From here just do the math. The shares outstanding are listed on the first page of the 10-Q and 10-K reports. Edit: I believe Class B shares in this instance are not traded on the market and therefore would not be included.",
"In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.",
"The difference is ordinary income. If the price drops and you sell for exactly what you paid, you have an income of D and a capital loss of D which usually cancel each other, but not always. For example, if you already have over $3000 in losses, this loss won't help you, it will carry forward. The above changes a bit if you hold the stock for 2 years after the beginning of the purchase period. If sold between your purchase price and fair market the day you bought, the gain is only the difference, no gain to fair market + loss. Pretty convoluted. Your company should have provided you with a brief FAQ / Q&A to explain this. My friends at Fairmark have an article that explains the ESPP process clearly, Tax Reporting for Qualifying Dispositions of ESPP Shares.",
"Yes, the net effect is zero. If you own zero shares by Nov 30, for example, and don't buy any more shares by 12/31, the year is done, and nothing left to account for.",
"On NYSE it isn't the equity which is listed but is an ADR(American Depositary Receipt). Source A negotiable certificate issued by a U.S. bank representing a specified number of shares (or one share) in a foreign stock that is traded on a U.S. exchange. ADRs are denominated in U.S. dollars, with the underlying security held by a U.S. financial institution overseas. ADRs help to reduce administration and duty costs that would otherwise be levied on each transaction. Else people would make a killing on the arbitrage opportunity. Frankly speaking arbitrage opportunities are more or less non existent. They occur for maybe seconds or milliseconds and the HFT firms and banks trade on it to remove the arbitrage.",
"I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.",
"You bought 1 share of Google at $67.05 while it has a current trading price of $1204.11. Now, if you bought a widget for under $70 and it currently sells for over $1200 that is quite the increase, no? Be careful of what prices you enter into a portfolio tool as some people may be able to use options to have a strike price different than the current trading price by a sizable difference. Take the gain of $1122.06 on an initial cost of $82.05 for seeing where the 1367% is coming. User error on the portfolio will lead to misleading statistics I think as you meant to put in something else, right?",
"Also important to keep in mind is the difference in liquidity. The stock could be very liquid in 1 exchange but not in another. When times get bad, liquidity could dry up 1 one exchange, which results in a trading discount.",
"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.",
"\"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a \"\"realized loss\"\" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the \"\"cost basis\"\" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders.\"",
"You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant. So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.",
"\"Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it \"\"wasting money\"\" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701).\"",
"Unless you suffer from the illusion that you can time the market, it honestly doesn't matter much; the difference is lost in the noise. That may be true even if you do suffer from that illusion. Also, as discussed here previously, the drop in a stock's price right after the dividend has been paid just reflects the fact that you aren't about to get an immediate refund in the form of a dividend. If you look at the real cost per share, it's meaningless and can/should be ignored. Buying after the dividend is paid may save you a tiny fraction of a cent of short-term income tax, but that's meaningless in real terms.",
"You're talking about NQO - non-qualified stock options. Even assuming the whole scheme is going to work, the way NQO are taxed is that the difference between the fair market value and the strike price is considered income to you and is taxed as salary. You'll save nothing, and will add a huge headache and additional costs of IPO and SEC regulations.",
"While my margin is not nearly as good as yours, I sell out early. I generally think it's a bad idea to hold any single stock, as they can vary wildly in value. However, as you mention, it's advantageous to hold for one year. Read more about Capital Gains Taxes here and here.",
"I buy or sell a few shares whenever I have a small amount of money to transfer into out of my mutual funds. Since I'm not paying transaction fees, there is no reason not to, when that is what makes sense. If you are paying a fee for each transaction, of course it makes sense to try to wait until you have a larger amount to move so the overhead per share is lower.",
"Is this right? The example is slightly off. Google would be running a cafeteria that can be subsidized. Employees pay an amount to buy food. Not every one spends the same amount or eats the same amount of food. If someone doesn't use cafeteria; he doesn't get more money. For example, suppose John Doe makes $100,000 a year taxed at a rate of 20%, for a take home pay of $80,000. He spends $10,000 on food. His employer Corporation decides to give him all of his food and deduct it as a business expense - costing them $10,000. But now they can pay John Doe an amount so his take home pay will be reduced by $10,000 - $87,500 The company is now spending $97500 employing John Doe, for a savings of $2500$. If a scheme is devised specifically to evade taxes; then it is invalid. In this case Bill may buy groceries worth only $5000. So keep track of which employee buys how much groceries in added cost of Google. Plus one can't really call it a business expense.",
"It looks like what you're calling a name change was registered as a merger that resulted in an exchange of stock. If that's the case, then what you've been told is correct. You've got one long-term sale and one short-term sale. Based a quick read of the Form 8937 that was filed, it looks like there were multiple entities involved in this event, more than one of which existed prior to it. https://www.mylan.com/-/media/mylancom/files/form%208937%20for%20mylan%20n%20v.pdf",
"Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.",
"\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"",
"No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain. Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do.",
"There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:",
"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.",
"While theoretically it works it's not a realistic trade because of market efficiency. It's realistic for brokers to advertise trades like this so they can earn more customers and commission. These sorts of trades will be priced in to highly liquid big ticket names like KO and the vast majority of the market. The possibility exists with small names with less liquidity, less trading volume; however, the very execution of this trade will alter the behavior of impending traders thus minimizing any potential profits.",
"With Apple the money is offshore. That is why they borrow and at now about $100B of debt but have about $250B in the bank offshore. But you do have to be careful because the money offshore is NOT yet taxed and so it is not really a 1:1. With Google it is less than $4B so not really a big deal but can not answer why not just use the onshore cash to pay it off. Google has plenty of money onshore to do this. I believe Apple over the last year had 4% onshore low point and high point was 7%. Google it is 40% or 60%. I know it is 40/60 split but can never remember which way.",
"Some companies like Royal Dutch Shell have multiple share classes to suit the tax regimes in Holland and the UK the A shares have dutch withholding tax applied and the B shares dont. Also some split capital investment trusts have multiple share classes http://www.trustnet.com/Education/Split.aspx?ms=1",
"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).",
"Depends on your contract, cash or shares delivered? If shares, then you get 5 BIG shares. Theres no longer any options. If you sell instantly, theoretically you will net the $10 difference + profit above strike. If cash, same thing just that you get cash $50 less strike. Applies to cash and stock deals Options are binary, never pro-rated. if converted, basically you end up with BIG shares.",
"Liquidity on dual listed equities is rarely the same on both exchanges. More liquidity means you would typically get a better price assuming you execute the trades using the same order types. It's recommended to trade where the liquidity is greater unless your trading method benefits somehow from it being lower. It's important to remember that some ADRs (some European companies listed in US) have ADR fees which vary. USD/EUR transaction fees are low when using a decent broker but you're obviously participating in the currency risk.",
"Okay as long as you aren't dumb enough to actually think this would be worth pursuing. I don't want you to waste your money when it could go towards something nice, like your house budget. If you really do believe they are overvalued there are much better strategies.",
"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.",
"Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.",
"You might have to pay a premium for the stocks on the dividend tax–free exchanges. For example, HSBC on the NYSE yields 4.71% versus HSBC on the LSE which yields only 4.56%. Assuming the shares are truly identical, the only reason for this (aside from market fluctuations) is if the taxes are more favorable in the UK versus the US, thus increasing demand for HSBC on the LSE, raising the price, and reducing the yield. A difference of 0.15% in yield is pretty insignificant relative to a 30% versus 0% dividend tax. But a key question is, does your country have a foreign tax credit like the US does? If so you (usually) end up getting that 30% back, just delayed until you get your tax return, and the question of which exchange to buy on becomes not so clear cut. If your country doesn't have such a tax credit, then yes, you'll want to buy on an exchange where you won't get hit with the dividend tax. Note that I got this information from a great article I read several months back (site requires free registration to see it all unfortunately). They discuss the case of UN versus UL--both on the NYSE but ADRs for Unilever in the Netherlands and the UK, respectively. The logic is very similar to your situation.",
"The difference is whether your options qualify as incentive stock options (ISOs), or whether they are non-qualifying options. If your options meet all of the criteria for being ISOs (see here), then (a) you are not taxed when you exercise the options. You treat the sale of the underlying stock as a long term capital gain, with the basis being the exercise price (S). There is something about the alternative minimum tax (AMT) as they pertain to these kinds of options. Calculating your AMT basically means that your ISOs are treated as non-qualifying options. So if your exercise bumps you into AMT territory, too bad, so sad. If you exercise earlier, you do get a clock ticking, as you put it, because one of the caveats of having your options qualify as ISOs is that you hold the underlying stock (a) at least two years after you were granted the options and (b) at least one year after you exercise the options.",
"Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.",
"No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels. Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.",
"I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.",
"I'll take the $9bn, the specific cash balance problem will get smaller, and we'll have a really interesting shareholder letter to read next year. I'll even make an appearance at the annual meeting and talk about what I'm doing with the money.",
"Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.",
"You likely received the shares as ordinary income for services of $10k, since they withheld taxes at granting. Separately, you likely had a short term capital loss on sale of $2k, since your holding period seems to have been under one year.",
"You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.",
"I wrote a detailed article on Tax Loss Harvesting to show the impact on returns. For my example, I showed a person in the 15% bracket. In years with no loss, they trade to capture gains at 0% long term rate, thus bumping their basis up. In years with losses, they tax harvest for a 15% effective 'rebate' on that loss. I showed how for the lost decade 2000-2009, a buy and hold would have returned -1% CAGR, but the tax loss harvester would have gained 1% (just 1% for the decade, not CAGR), ending the decade with no loss. As one's portfolio grows, the math changes. You can only take $3000 capital loss against ordinary income, and my example relies on the difference between taking a gain for free but using a loss to offset income. Note, the higher earner would take gains at 15%, but losses at 25%, but only for the relatively small portfolio. The benefit for them is to use loss harvesting to offset gains, less so for ordinary income. As the other answer state, Wealthfront can aid you to do this with no math on your part.",
"Your gain is $1408. The difference between 32% of your gain and 15% of your gain is $236.36 or $1.60 per share. If you sell now, you have $3957.44 after taxes. Forget about the ESPP for a moment. Are you be willing to wager $4000 on the proposition that your company's stock price won't go down more than $1.60 or so over the next 18 months? I've never felt it was worth it. Also, I never thought it made much sense to own any of my employer's stock. If their business does poorly, I'd prefer not to have both my job and my money at risk. If you sell now: Now assuming you hold for 18 months, pay 15% capital gains tax, and the stock price drops by $1.60 to $23.40:",
"I work on a buy-side firm, so I know how these small data issues can drive us crazy. Hope my answer below can help you: Reason for price difference: 1. Vendor and data source Basically, data providers such as Google and Yahoo redistribute EOD data by aggregating data from their vendors. Although the raw data is taken from the same exchanges, different vendors tend to collect them through different trading platforms. For example, Yahoo, is getting stock data from Hemscott (which was acquired by Morningstar), which is not the most accurate source of EOD stocks. Google gets data from Deutsche Börse. To make the process more complicated, each vendor can choose to get EOD data from another EOD data provider or the exchange itself, or they can produce their own open, high, low, close and volume from the actual trade tick-data, and these data may come from any exchanges. 2. Price Adjustment For equities data, the re-distributor usually adjusts the raw data by applying certain customized procedures. This includes adjustment for corporate actions, such as dividends and splits. For futures data, rolling is required, and back-ward and for-warding rolling can be chosen. Different adjustment methods can lead to different price display. 3. Extended trading hours Along with the growth of electronic trading, many market tends to trade during extended hours, such as pre-open and post-close trading periods. Futures and FX markets even trade around the clock. This leads to another freedom in price reporting: whether to include the price movement during the extended trading hours. Conclusion To cross-verify the true price, we should always check the price from the Exchange where the asset is actually traded. Given the convenience of getting EOD data nowadays, this task should be easy to achieve. In fact, for professional traders and investors alike, they will never reply price on free providers such as Yahoo and Google, they will most likely choose Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. However, for personal use, Yahoo and Google should both be good choices, and the difference is small enough to ignore.",
"Without more information about what tax bracket you are in, I cannot make a recommendation about what your best option is, but here are a few things to consider:",
"Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.",
"Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000. If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares. The price in the market is unimportant. Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense. It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction. It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares. Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased. Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price. Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege. I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense. It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2. The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment.",
"Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units. So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares. The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash. An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend. However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares. The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend. (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers. It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.",
"\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"",
"It looks like GOOG did not have a pre-market trade until 7:14 am ET, so Google Finance was still reporting the last trade it had, which was in the after-hours session yesterday. FB, on the other hand, was trading like crazy after-hours yesterday and pre-market today as it had an earnings report yesterday."
] |
[
"\"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \"\"Class C Settlement Agreement\"\" in the S-3 filing\"",
"It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial. We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0. Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations. So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D}) = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year. Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X. It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity. And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero. So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?",
"Too much fiddling with your portfolio if the difference is 3-4% or less (as it's become in recent months). Hands off is the better advice. As for buying shares, go for whichever is the cheapest (i.e. Goog rather than Googl) because the voting right with the latter is merely symbolic. And who attends shareholders' meetings, for Pete's sake? On the other hand, if your holdings in the company are way up in the triple (maybe even quadruple) figures, then it might make sense to do the math and take the time to squeeze an extra percentage point or two out of your Googl purchases. The idle rich occupying the exclusive club that includes only the top 1% of the population needs to have somethinng to do with its time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling to make a living--leaving only enough time to visit our portfolios as often as Buffett advises (about twice a year)."
] |
7295
|
Selling non-dividend for dividend stocks
|
[
"244749"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"542667",
"244754",
"335606",
"348922",
"222921",
"594047",
"263751",
"519073",
"412965",
"268423",
"598295",
"217837",
"352484",
"342379",
"292559",
"407551",
"501214",
"521133",
"568166",
"467575",
"55893",
"478291",
"481999",
"507117",
"434252",
"71292",
"219762",
"151871",
"384120",
"313248",
"163433",
"497060",
"509879",
"548705",
"584090",
"110983",
"25671",
"257274",
"138835",
"587689",
"352415",
"71511",
"517577",
"490620",
"501931",
"33562",
"443926",
"95948",
"304918",
"443354",
"88428",
"23217",
"355089",
"199642",
"120297",
"425641",
"519461",
"355662",
"115553",
"527997",
"106104",
"550319",
"51602",
"248853",
"38510",
"39478",
"183910",
"163290",
"5347",
"301757",
"322284",
"259904",
"404949",
"468047",
"231295",
"312154",
"119976",
"189874",
"42521",
"540292",
"487616",
"553856",
"481283",
"295082",
"413174",
"206442",
"267067",
"257833",
"376800",
"360716",
"28211",
"513942",
"559671",
"431386",
"81353",
"38287",
"30774",
"196939",
"330303",
"551286"
] |
[
"There are strategies based on yields. Dogs of the Dow being a specific example while Miller Howard has a few studies around dividends that may be of use if you additional material. Selling off a portion of the holding can run into problems as how could one hold 10 shares, selling a non-zero whole number every year for over 20 years if the stock doesn't ever pay a dividend in additional shares or cash?",
"You can use long-term options called LEAPS to increase dividend yield. Here's how it works: Let's say you buy a dividend-yielding stock for $38 that pays an annual dividend of $2 for a 5.3% yield. Next, you SELL a deep-in-the-money LEAPS options. In this hypothetical we'll sell the $25 call option for $13. That now reduces our cost basis from $38 to $25. Since the dividend remains @ $2, our yield is now $2/$25 = 8%. Now there are issues that may need to be dealt with like early assignment of the option where rolling the option may be necessary. More details of this strategy can be found on my website.",
"Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:",
"There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.",
"You can buy dividend stocks, just buy and hold. you will get cash or extra stock every quarter. You can also sell covered calls on your dividend stocks, this will give you even more cash. you can also... actually this rabbit hole goes very deep. just stick with my first sentence.",
"Yes, one such strategy is dividend arbitrage using stock and in the money options. You have to find out which option is the most mispriced before the ex-dividend date.",
"I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.",
"Not a bad strategy. However: If you REALLY want tax efficiency you can buy stocks that don't pay a dividend, usually growth stocks like FB, GOOGL, and others. This way you will never have to pay any dividend tax - all your tax will be paid when you retire at a theoretically lower tax rate (<--- really a grey tax area here). *Also, check out Robin Hood. They offer commission free stock trading.",
"Although the market discussion by other answers is correct, the tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy. However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way. If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction.",
"Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.",
"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.",
"why sell? Because the stock no longer fits your strategy. Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else. Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes. That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.",
"\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"",
"Stocks aren't just paper -- they're ownership of a company. Getting cash from a stock that doesn't pay dividends basically means reducing your stake in the company. If the stock pays dividends, on the other hand, you still have the same shares, but now you have cash too. You can choose to buy more of the company...or, more importantly, to use it elsewhere if that's what you want to do.",
"The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell.",
"\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\"",
"This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:",
"My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.",
"You could hold a long position in some company XXXX and then short your own shares (assuming your broker will let you do that). The dividend that would have gone to you would then go to whoever is holding the shares you short sold. You just don't get a dividend. If you're going to short in a smart way... do it on a stock you otherwise believe in, but use it to minimize the pull-backs on the way up.",
"There are ETFs and mutual funds that pay dividends. Mutual funds and ETFs are quite similar. Your advisor is correct regarding future funds you invest. But you already had incurred the risk of buying an individual stock. That is a 'sunk cost'. If you were satisfied with the returns you could have retained the HD stock you already owned and just put future moneys into an ETF or mutual fund. BTW: does your advisor receive a commission from your purchase of a mutual fund? That may have been his motivation to give you the advice to sell your existing holdings.",
"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.",
"\"In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a \"\"loss harvesting\"\" strategy. So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax \"\"benefits\"\" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends. You have precise control of the realization of gains. However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch. One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses. Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly. While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule. If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?\"",
"I'd like to add that many companies offer Divident Re-Investment Plans or DRIPs, which is basically a regular automatic stock purchase program. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_reinvestment_plan. While your stock broker may offer dividend reinvestment, this is not the same as a DRIP. DRIPs are offered directly by the company, rather than the stock broker. They have the added benefits that the stock purchases are almost always commission-free, and in some cases, the company even offers a discount on the stock price. It can take a little more effort to get enrolled in a DRIP, but if you are interested in holding the stock long-term, this is a good option to consider.",
"with the semi-strong form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis expected dividends are priced into the options and security already. If you are able to locate such an arbitrage opportunity then you should take it, but I suspect it will be more more difficult than you think. Remember that many dividends require you to have been a shareholder by a certain date prior to the dividend occurring.",
"You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.",
"Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.",
"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"\"Their is no arbitrage opportunity with \"\"buying dividends.\"\" You're buying a taxable event. This is a largely misunderstood topic. The stock always drops by the amount if the dividend on the ex date. The stock opens that day trading \"\"ex\"\" (excluding) the dividend. It then pays out later based in the shareholders on record. There is a lot of talk about price movement and value here. That can happen but it's from trading not from the dividend per se. Yes sometimes you do see a stock pop the day prior to ex date because people are buying the stock for the dividend but the trading aspect of a stock is determined by supply and demand from people trading the stock. The dividends are paid out from the owners equity section of the balance sheet. This is a return of equity to shareholders. The idea is to give owners of the company some of their investment back (from when they bought the stock) without having the owners sell the shares of the company. After all if it's a good company you want to keep holding it so it will appreciate. Another similar way to think of it is like a bonds interest payment. People sometimes forget when trading that these are actual companies meant to be invested in. Your buying an ownership in the company with your cash. It really makes no difference to buy the dividend or not, all other things constant. Though market activity can add or lose value from trading as normal.\"",
"Yes you can do that and it it wise to do so. However, you should make sure that the general trend of the stock is upwards and you buy during a trought in the uptrend. So basically if the stock is making higher highs and higher lows on the daily or weekly charts, then you would want to buy around one of the higher lows before the ex-dividend date. If the stock is making lower lows and lower highs, then it is in a downtrend, so never buy in this instance. It is better to miss out on a dividend of $1 rather than to buy just for this $1 dividend and lose $5 or more when the price continues to drop further.",
"Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio.",
"There are many stategies with options that you have listed. The one I use frequently is buy in the money calls and sell at the money staddles. Do this ONLY on stocks you do not mind owning because that is the worse thing that can happen and if you like the company you stand less of a chance of being scared out of the trade. It works well with high quality resonable dividend paying stocks. Cat, GE, Mrk, PM etc. Good luck",
"One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.",
"You should never invest in a stock just for the dividend. Dividends are not guaranteed. I have seen some companies that are paying close to 10% dividends but are losing money and have to borrow funds just to maintain the dividends. How long can these companies continue paying dividends at this rate or at all. Would you keep investing in a stock paying 10% dividends per year where the share price is falling 20% per year? I know I wouldn't. Some high dividend paying stocks also tend to grow a lot slower than lower or non dividend paying stocks. You should look at the total return - both dividend yield and capital return combined to make a better decision. You should also never stay in a stock which is falling drastically just because it pays a dividend. I would never stay in a stock that falls 20%, 30%, 50% or more just because I am getting a 5% dividend. Regarding taxation, some countries may have special taxation rules when it comes to dividends just like they may have special taxation rules for longer term capital gains compared to shorter term capital gains. Again no one should use taxation as the main purpose to make an investment decision. You should factor taxation into your decision but it should never be the determining factor of your decisions. No one has ever become poor in making a gain and paying some tax, but many people have lost a great portion of their capital by not selling a stock when it has lost 50% or more of its value.",
"This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.",
"An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time.",
"In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK",
"The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.",
"\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"",
"If you expect to pay tax on dividends move dividend producing assets into your ISA. If have a lot of investments you can Look at Zeros (zero dividend preference share) issued by splits (split capital trusts), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_capital_investment_trust",
"Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend.",
"\"Not minutes, but hours. The \"\"ex-dividend\"\" date is the deadline for acquiring a stock to receive a dividend. If you hold a stock at the beginning of this day, you will receive the dividend. So you could buy a stock right at the end of the day on the day before the ex-dividend date, and sell it the next day (on the ex-dividend date), and you would get your dividend. See this page from the SEC for more information. The problem with this strategy, however, is that the value of the stock typically drops by the same amount as the dividend on that day. If you take a look at the historical price of the stock you are interested in, you'll see this. Of course, it makes sense why: a seller knows that selling before the date results in a loss of the dividend, so they want a higher price to compensate. Likewise, a buyer on or after the date knows that the dividend is already gone, so they want to pay a lower price.\"",
"\"You have to be the owner of record before the ex-dividend date, which is not the same day as the date the dividend is paid. This also implies that if you sell on or after the ex-dividend date, you'll still get the dividend, even if you no longer own the stock. Keep in mind, also, that the quoted price of the stock (and on any open orders that are not specifically marked as \"\"do not reduce\"\") on its ex-dividend date is dropped by the amount of the dividend, first thing in the morning before trading starts. If you happen to be the first order of the day, before market forces cause the price to move, you'll end up with zero gain, since the dividend is built into the price, and you got the same value out of it -- the dividend in cash, and the remaining value in stock. As pointed out in the comments (Thanks @Brick), you'll still get a market price for your trade, but the price reduction will have had some impact on the first trade of the day. Source: NYSE Rule 118.30 Also, remember that the dividend yield is expressed in annualized terms. So a 3% yield can only be fully realized by receiving all of the dividend payments made by the company for the year. You can, of course, forget about individual companies and just look for dividends to create your own effective yield over time. But, see the final point... Finally, if you keep buying and selling just to play games with the dividends, you're going to pay far more in transaction fees than you will earn in dividends. And, depending on your individual circumstances, you may end up paying more in capital gains taxes.\"",
"You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.",
"You sell any investment because you need to do something else with the money -- rebalance your investments, buy something, pay off a debt....",
"I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.",
"I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly",
"If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand.",
"If your criteria has changed but some of your existing holdings don't meet your new criteria you should eventually liquidate them, because they are not part of your new strategy. However, you don't want to just liquidate them right now if they are currently performing quite well (share price currently uptrending). One way you could handle this is to place a trailing stop loss on the stocks that don't meet your current criteria and let the market take you out when the stocks have stopped up trending.",
"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.",
"Buying individual/small basket of high dividend shares is exposing you to 50%+ and very fast potential downswings in capital/margin calls. There is no free lunch in returns in this respect: nothing that pays enough to help you pay your mortgage at a high rate won’t expose you to a lot of potential volatility. Main issue here looks like you have very poorly performing rental investments you should consider selling or switching up rental usage/how you rent them (moving to shorter term, higher yield lets, ditching any agents/handymen that are taking up capital/try and refinance to lower mortgage rates etc etc). Trying to use leveraged stock returns to pay for poorly performing housing investments is like spraying gasoline all over a fire. Fixing the actual issue in hand first is virtually always the best course of action in these scenarios.",
"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).",
"You might have to pay a premium for the stocks on the dividend tax–free exchanges. For example, HSBC on the NYSE yields 4.71% versus HSBC on the LSE which yields only 4.56%. Assuming the shares are truly identical, the only reason for this (aside from market fluctuations) is if the taxes are more favorable in the UK versus the US, thus increasing demand for HSBC on the LSE, raising the price, and reducing the yield. A difference of 0.15% in yield is pretty insignificant relative to a 30% versus 0% dividend tax. But a key question is, does your country have a foreign tax credit like the US does? If so you (usually) end up getting that 30% back, just delayed until you get your tax return, and the question of which exchange to buy on becomes not so clear cut. If your country doesn't have such a tax credit, then yes, you'll want to buy on an exchange where you won't get hit with the dividend tax. Note that I got this information from a great article I read several months back (site requires free registration to see it all unfortunately). They discuss the case of UN versus UL--both on the NYSE but ADRs for Unilever in the Netherlands and the UK, respectively. The logic is very similar to your situation.",
"By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call. For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price. The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.",
"How do you find good quality dividend stocks? That is an easy one. Past performance has always been my key to this answer. also remember why you are investing in the first place. Do you want cash flow, security or capital growth. Also let's not forget... how much time do you want to devote to this venture. There is going to be a balance in your investing and your returns. More time in... the higher returns you get. As for finding good dividend stocks, look to the Dividend Aristocrats or the Dividend Contenders. These companies have consistently increased their payouts to their investors for years. There is a trading strategy that could escalate your returns. Dividend Capturing, simply put... You buy the stock before the ex-date and sell after date of record. Thus collecting a dividend and moving on to the next one. Warning: though this is a profitable strategy, it only works with certain stocks so do your research or find a good source.",
"I would say the most important thing to consider is the quality of the company relative to the price you pay for it. No dividend also means that you will not pay taxes on dividends.",
"A specific strategy to make money on a potentially moderately decreasing stock price on a dividend paying stock is to write covered calls. There is a category on Money.SE about covered call writing, but in summary, a covered call is a contract to sell the shares at a set price within a defined time range; you gain a premium (called the time value) which, when I've done it, can be up to an additional 1%-3% return on the position. With this strategy you're collecting dividends and come out with the best return if the stock price stays in the middle: if the price does not shoot up high enough that your option is called, you still own the stock and made extra return; if the price drops moderately, you may still be positive.",
"There are many reasons for buying stock for dividends. You are right in the sense that in theory a stock's price will go down in value by the amount of the dividend. As the amount of dividend was adding to the value of the company, but now has been paid out to shareholder, so now the company is worth less by the value of the dividend. However, in real life this may or may not happen. Sometimes the price will drop by less than the value of the dividend. Sometimes the price will drop by more than the dividend. And other times the price will go up even though the stock has gone ex-dividend. We can say that if the price has dropped by exactly the amount of the dividend then there has been no change in the stockholders value, if the price has dropped by more than the value of the dividend then there has been a drop to the stockholder's value, and if the price has gone up or dropped by less than the value of the dividend then there has been a increase to the stockholder's value. Benefits of Buying Stocks with Good Dividends: What you shouldn't do however, is buy stocks solely due to the dividend. Be aware that if a company starts reducing its dividends, it could be an early warning sign that the company may be heading into financial troubles. That is why holding a stock that is dropping in price purely for its dividend can be a very dangerous practice.",
"No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.",
"There are indeed various strategies to make money from this. As Ben correctly said, the stock price drops correspondingly on the dividend date, so the straightforward way doesn't work. What does work are schemes that involve dividend taxation based on nationality, and schemes based on American Options where people can use market rules to their advantage if some options are not exercised.",
"\"If you sold the stock for a profit, you will owe tax on that profit. Whether it is taxed as short-term or long-term capital gains depends on how long you held the stock before selling it. Presumably you're going to invest this money into mutual funds or something of that sort. Those may pay dividends which can be reinvested, and will grow in value (you hope) just as the individual stock shares would (you hope). Assuming the advice you've been given is at all reasonable, there's no need for buyer's remorse here; you're just changing your investing style to a different point on the risk-versus-return curve. (If you have to ask this question, I tend to agree that you should do more homework before playing with shares in individual companieS ... unless you're getting thess shares at employee discount, in which case you should still seriously consider selling them fairly quickly and reinvesting the money in a more structured manner. In a very real sense your job is itself an \"\"investment\"\" in your employer; if they ever get into trouble you don't want that to hit both your income and investments.)\"",
"This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.",
"\"Dividends can also be automatically reinvested in your stock holding through a DRIP plan (see the wikipedia link for further details, wiki_DRIP). Rather than receiving the dividend money, you \"\"buy\"\" additional stock shares your with dividend money. The value in the DRIP strategy is twofold. 1) your number of shares increases without paying transaction fees, 2) you increase the value of your holding by increasing number of shares. In the end, the RIO can be quite substantial due to the law of compounding interest (though here in the form of dividends). Talk with your broker (brokerage service provider) to enroll your dividend receiving stocks in a DRIP.\"",
"The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.",
"1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.",
"A lot of people use dividend stocks as a regular income, which is why dividend stocks are often associated with retirement. If your goal is growth and you're reinvesting capital gains and dividends then investing growth stocks or dividend stocks should have the same effect. The only difference would be if you are manually reinvesting dividends, which could incur extra trading fees.",
"The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.",
"The dividend goes to he who owns the stock when it goes ex-div. A buyer (the call buyer who exercises) will not exercise unless the stock plus dividend are in the money. Otherwise they'd be buying the stock at a premium. I like the scenario your friend doesn't. If I can find a high dividend stock and sell the call for a decent price, I may get a great return on a stock that's gone down 5% over a year's time. If it goes up and called away, that's fine too, it means a profit.",
"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"Simply if your stock is still rising in price keep it. If it is falling in price sell it and pay off your mortgage. To know when to do this is very easy. If it is currently rising you can put a trailing stop loss on it and sell it when it drops and hits your stop loss. A second easy method is to draw an uptrend line under the increasing price and then sell when the price drops down below the uptrend line, as per the chart below. This will enable you to capture the bulk of the price movement upward and sell before the price drops too far down. You can then use the profits (after tax) to pay down your mortgage. Of course if the price is currently in a downtrend sell it ASAP.",
"\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"",
"If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,",
"First, what Daniel Carson said. Second, if you're getting started, just make sure you are well diversified. Lots of growth stocks turn into dividend stocks over time-- Microsoft and Apple are the classic examples in this era. Someday, Google will pay a dividend too. If you're investing for the long haul, diversify and watch your taxes, and you'll make out better than nearly everyone else.",
"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.",
"The stock tends to drop by the amount of the dividend -- or if you prefer to think of it this way, the stock price has been pushed up by the amount of the dividend before it was paid out. Really, all this shift does is factor out the impending dividend's effect on the real purchase cost of the stock. As such it's pretty much irrelevant except that, of course, the dividend is short-term gain that you have to pay taxes on almost immediately. Which also tends to get figured into the price folks are willing to pay for the stock. Conclusion: no, there's no real opportunity here. There's a slight tax reason to avoid buying right before dividends are paid, but that's about it. Basic principle: If it's simple and obvious,the market has already accounted for it.",
"One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.",
"\"One alternative strategy you may want to consider is writing covered calls on the stock you have \"\"just sitting there\"\". This will allow you to earn a return (the premium from the calls) without necessarily having to give up your holding. As a brief overview, \"\"options\"\" are derivatives that give the holder the right (or option) to buy or sell shares at a specified price. Holders of call options with a strike prike $x on a particular security have the right to purchase that security at the strike price $x. Conversely, holders of put options with a strike price of $x have the right to sell that security at the strike price $x. Always on the other side of a call or put option is a person that has sold the option, which is called \"\"writing\"\" the option. If this person writes a call option, then he will be obligated to sell a certain amount of stock (100 shares per contract) at the strike price if that option is exercised. A writer of a put option will be obligated to by 100 shares per contract at the strike price if that option is exercised. Covered calls involve writing call contracts on stock that you own. For example, say you own 100 shares of AAPL, and that AAPL is currently trading for $330. You decide to write a Jan 21, 2012 call on these shares at a strike price of $340, earning you a premium of say $300. Two things can now happen: if the price of AAPL is not at least $340 on January 21, then the options are \"\"out of the money\"\" and will expire unexercised (why exercise an option to buy at $340 when you can buy at the currently cheaper market price?). You keep your AAPL stock plus the $300 premium you earn. If, however, the price of AAPL is greater than $340, the option will be exercised and you will now be required to sell the shares you own at $340. You will earn a return of $10/share ($340-$330), plus the $300 premium from the call option. You still make out in the end, but have unfortunately incurred an opportunity cost, as had you not written the call option you would have been able to sell at the market price, which is higher than the $340 strike price. Covered calls are considered relatively safe and conservative, however the strategy is most effective for stocks that are expected to stay within a relatively narrow price range for the duration of the contract. They do provide one option of earning additional money on stocks you are currently holding, albeit at the risk of giving up some returns if the stock price rises above the strike price.\"",
"The market is not stupid. It realises that a company is worth less after paying out dividends than before paying them. (It's obvious, since that company has just given out part of its earnings.) So after a company pays out dividends, its stock price normally drops approximately by the amount paid. Therefore if you buy, get the dividend, and immediately sell, under normal conditions you won't make any profit.",
"\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.",
"Maximizing income could mean a lot of things. What you really want is to maximize wealth. Doesn't matter if it comes from your bond appreciating in value or as dividends. In order to maximize your wealth (that's today's wealth), you need to make decisions based on the net present value of these bonds. The market is fairly priced, especially for a tight market like government bonds. That means if your bond falls in price, it has fallen by precisely the amount necessary so that an investor would be indifferent between purchasing it now, at its current price, and purchasing a new bond with a higher dividend. The bonds with higher dividends will simply have a higher price, so more of the money comes as dividends than as price appreciation (at maturity it will sell for face value). In other words, the animals are out of the barn and you have lost (or made) money already. Changing from one bond to another will not change your wealth one way or the other. The only potential effect of changing bonds will be changing the risk of your portfolio. If you buy a bond that matures later or has a lower dividend than your current bond, you will be adding additional interest rate risk to your portfolio. That risk should be compensated, so you will have a higher expected return as well. But regardless of your choice you will not be made wealthier or less wealthy by changing from one bond to another. Should you buy bonds that will earn you the most possible? Sure, if you are below your risk tolerance. Even among default free bonds, the longer the maturity and the lower the dividend, the greater the effect of future changes in interest rates on your bond. That makes them riskier, but also makes them earn more money on average. TL;DR: In terms of your wealth, which is what matters, it doesn't matter whether you hold your bond or buy a new one.",
"Some investors (pension funds or insurance companies) need to pay out a certain amount of money to their clients. They need cash on a periodical basis, and thus prefer dividend paying stock more.",
"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.",
"Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).",
"Since you reference SS, I surmise you are in the US. Stock you inherit gets a stepped up basis when it's inherited. (so long as it was not contained within a tax deffered retirement account.) When you sell, the new basis is taken from that day you inherited it. It should be minimal compared to your desire to diversify.",
"\"It is important to remember that the stock price in principle reflects the value of the company, so the market cap should drop upon issuance of the the dividend. However, the above reasoning neglects to consider taxes, which make the question a bit more interesting. The key fact is that different investors are going to get taxed on the dividend to varying degrees, ranging from 20% for qualified dividends in the USA for a high-income individual in a taxable account (and even worse for non-qualified dividends) to 0% for tax-exempt nonprofits, retirement accounts, and low-income individuals. The high-tax investors are going to be a bit averse to paying tax on that dividend, whereas the tax-free investors are not. Hence in a tax-rational market the tax-free investors are going to be the ones buying right before a dividend and the tax-paying investors will be buying right afterwards. Tax-exempt investors could in principle make some amount of money buying dividends to keep them off the tax-paying investors' books. (Of course, the strategy could backfire if too many people did it all at once.) That said, the tax-payers have the tax disincentive to prevent them from fully exploiting the opposite strategy of selling just before a dividend. In particular, they are subject to capital gains tax when they sell at a profit (unless they have enough compensating capital losses), and it is to their after-tax profit to defer taxation by not trading. That said, the stock market has well-known irrationality when it comes to considering tax consequences, so logic based on assumed rationality of the market does not always apply to the extent one would expect. The foremost example of tax-irrationality is the so-called \"\"dividend paradox\"\", which basically states that corporations should favor stock buybacks (or perhaps loan repayment) to the complete exclusion of dividends because capital gains are taxed less harshly than dividends in a variety of ways, some of which are subtle: 1) Historically (although not currently in the USA for qualified dividends) the tax rate was higher for dividends. (In Canada, for example, dividends are taxed at twice the rate of capital gains.) 2) If you die holding appreciated stock then you (meaning your heirs) completely escape US the capital gains tax on the accrual during your lifetime. 3) Capital gains tax can be deferred by simply not selling. In comparison to dividends, this is roughly equivalent to getting a tax-free loan from the government which is invested for profit and paid at a later date after inflation has eaten away at the real value of the loan. For example, if all your stock investments increase by 10%/year but you sell every year, in a high-tax bracket situation you're total after-tax return will be only 8% per year. In contrast, if you hold the same investments for many many years and then sell, your total return will be nearly 10% per year, because you only pay 20% once (at the end). 4) A capital gain can often be neutralized by a capital loss in another stock, so that no tax results. If you loose money on a stock that is paying dividends, you're still going to have to pay tax on that dividend. There are companies that borrow money to pay out that taxable-dividend each quarter, which seems like gross tax malpractice on the part of the CFO. (If the dividend paradox doesn't make sense, first consider the case that you owned ALL the shares of a company. It wouldn't matter to you at all on a pre-tax basis whether you got a $1000 company buyback or a $1000 dividend, because after the buyback/dividend you'd still own the entire company and $1000. The number of shares would be reduced, but objecting that you owned fewer shares after the buyback would be like saying you have become shorter if your height is measured in inches rather than centimeters.) [Of course, in the case of many shareholders you can get burned by failing to sell into the buyback when the share price is too high, but that is another matter.]\"",
"In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.",
"For XOM if you were lucky enough to purchase on 20 Jan 16, at 73.18/share and sold on 15 July at 94.95 you would achieve a 29% return in six months. Awesome. You'd also get a dividend payment or two adding another percentage point per to your returns. The one year chart for FB shows it increasing from ~95/share to ~129. Yet no dividend was paid. However, the 35.7% YTD for 2016 should make anyone happy. Both of these require excellent timing, and those kind of returns are unsustainable over the long haul. Many people simply hold stocks. Having the dividend is a nice bonus to some growth. Why to people buy stocks? For profit. Sometimes dividend payers offer the best option, sometimes not.",
"The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.",
"\"What you seem to want is a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP). That's typically offered by the broker, not by the ETF itself. Essentially this is a discounted purchase of new shares when you're dividend comes out. As noted in the answer by JoeTaxpayer, you'll still need to pay tax on the dividend, but that probably won't be a big problem unless you've got a lot of dividends. You'll pay that out of some other funds when it's due. All DRIPs (not just for ETFs) have potential to complicate computation of your tax basis for eventual sale, so be aware of that. It doesn't have to be a show-stopper for you, but it's something to consider before you start. It's probably less of a problem now than it used to be since brokers now have to report your basis on the 1099-B in the year of sale, reducing your administrative burden (if you trust them to get it right). Here's a list of brokerages that were offering this from a top-of-the-search-list article that I found online: Some brokerages, including TD Ameritrade, Vanguard, Scottrade, Schwab and, to a lesser extent, Etrade, offer ETF DRIPs—no-cost dividend reinvestment programs. This is very helpful for busy clients. Other brokerages, such as Fidelity, leave ETF dividend reinvestment to their clients. Source: http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23595-your-etf-has-drip-drag.html?nopaging=1 Presumably the list is not constant. I almost didn't included but I thought the wide availability (at least as of the time of the article's posting) was more interesting than any specific broker on it. You'll want to do some research before you choose a broker to do this. Compare fees for sure, but also take into account other factors like how soon after the dividend they do the purchase (is it the ex-date, the pay date, or something else?). A quick search online should net you several decent articles with more information. I just searched on \"\"ETF DRIP\"\" to check it out.\"",
"\"The strategy is right. As pointed out by you, will the \"\" volatility cause the premium on the price of the options to be too high to make this worthwhile\"\" ... this is subjective and depends on how the markets feels about the volatility and the trend ... ie if the market believes that the stock will go up, the option at 45 would cost quite a bit less. However if the market believes the stock would go down, the option at 45 would be quite high [and may not even be available]. There is no generic right or wrong, the strategy is right [with out without putting dividend into equation] it depends what options are available at what prices.\"",
"\"The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called \"\"hard-to-borrow fee\"\". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends. This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker).\"",
"Your back of the envelope calculation shows an income of about 5.5% per year, which is much better than a bank. The risk of course is that in a few years when you want to sell the stock, the price may not be at the level you want. The question is what are you giving up with this plan. You have 80K in cash, will cutting it to 30K in cash make it harder for your business to survive? If your income from the business starts slowly, having that 50K in cash may be better. Selling the stock when the business is desperate for money may lock in losses.",
"\"TL;DR: If your currently held bond's bid yield is smaller than another bonds' ask yield. You can swap your bond for bigger returns. Let's imagine you buy a long bond for $12000 (face value of $10000) and it has 6% coupon. The cash flows will have an internal return rate of 4.37%, this is the published \"\"ask yield\"\" in 2014 of the bond. After six years, prices have fallen, inflation and yields went up. So you can sell it for only $10000. If you would do it, the IRR will be only 2.55%, so there will be less return, than if you keep it. But if you would \"\"undo\"\" the transaction, then the future cash flows would yield 6.38%. This is the \"\"bid yield\"\" in 2020 of the bond. If you can find an offer that yields more than 6.38%, you have better returns if you sell your bond and invest that $10000 in the other bond. But as other answers pointed it out, you rarely have this opportunity as the market is very effective. (Assuming everything else is equal.)\"",
"When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid",
"I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.",
"The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.",
"In an ideal world Say on 24th July the share price of Apple was $600. Everyone knows that they will get the $ 2.65 on 16th August. There is not other news that is affecting the price. You want to go in and buy the shares on 16th Morning at $600 and then sell it on 17th August at $600. Now in this process you have earned sure shot $2.65/- Or in an ideal world when the announcement is made on 24th July, why would I sell it at $600, when I know if I wait for few more days I will get $2.65/- so i will be more inclined to sell it at $602.65 /- ... so on 16th Aug after the dividend is paid out, the share price will be back to $600/- In a real world, dividend or no dividend the share price would be moving up or down ... Notice that the dividend amount is less than 1% of the stock price ... stock prices change more than this percentage ... so if you are trying to do what is described in paragraph one, then you may be disappointed as the share price may go down as well by more than $2.65 you have made",
"There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too.",
"The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons."
] |
[
"Is selling Vested RSU is the same as selling a regular stock? Yes. Your basis (to calculate the gain) is what you've been taxed on when the RSUs vested. Check your payslips/W2 for that period, and the employer should probably have sent you detailed information about that. I'm not a US citizen, my account is in ETrade and my stocks are of a US company, what pre arrangements I need to take to avoid tax issues? You will pay capital gains taxes on the sale in Israel. Depending on where you were when you earned the stocks and what taxes you paid then - it may open additional issues with the Israeli tax authority. Check with an Israeli tax adviser/accountant."
] |
4306
|
How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?
|
[
"450694",
"221435",
"233718",
"61819"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"450694",
"233718",
"499875",
"79777",
"87057",
"319996",
"61819",
"134239",
"19618",
"116921",
"104480",
"489509",
"221435",
"228787",
"293777",
"540451",
"215708",
"490113",
"363421",
"460755",
"582063",
"531953",
"429460",
"321842",
"310016",
"93518",
"248794",
"445943",
"576632",
"195506",
"124254",
"167717",
"157376",
"127434",
"452434",
"133440",
"215189",
"580757",
"487162",
"17906",
"301570",
"510363",
"157907",
"90589",
"273478",
"422989",
"378390",
"343489",
"10726",
"443511",
"536689",
"264067",
"99797",
"486159",
"405276",
"165767",
"357103",
"39696",
"375199",
"283473",
"67069",
"517345",
"124862",
"565568",
"336618",
"523864",
"68462",
"450922",
"114439",
"103536",
"177264",
"379547",
"305346",
"542098",
"126431",
"96211",
"367137",
"208907",
"205585",
"429704",
"137184",
"525231",
"351154",
"190347",
"316497",
"302699",
"10558",
"554996",
"416975",
"512564",
"401818",
"152910",
"245355",
"484891",
"115087",
"105343",
"16090",
"387194",
"285648",
"24881"
] |
[
"\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \"\"control\"\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\"",
"The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals. The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at. And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading. eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.",
"Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)",
"\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"",
"The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.",
"Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out.",
"\"According to Soros in \"\"The Alchemy of Finance\"\", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding).\"",
"\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \"\"buy\"\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \"\"basket\"\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \"\"shopping list\"\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\"",
"It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.",
"Because we need energy in the form of oil. If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves. Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?",
"The exchange rate between two currencies is simply the price that the most recent market participants were able to agree on, when trading. ie: if the USDCAD is 1.36, it's because the last trade that happened where someone bought 1 USD cost 1.36 CAD. There is no one person/organization which 'decides' the rate between two currencies. The rate moves you see is just the reality of money changing hands as people in various situations trade currencies for various reasons. Just like with stocks or any other market product, foreign exchange rates can fluctuate wildly based on many things. It is very difficult to forecast where rates will go, because the biggest changes in rates can often be unpredictable news events. For example, when Brexit happened, the value of the GBP plummeted relative to other currencies, because the market traders had less faith in the UK economy, and therefore weren't willing to pay as much to buy GBP. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232. There is a very high level of risk in the foreign exchange market; for your sake, don't get involved in any trading that you do not well understand, first.",
"currency's central bank or treasury/finance department speeches that can announce a significant change in policy. That includes: Particularly when it is a high level figure within the department such as the President or Prime Minister making the announcement. Macroeconomic stats: GeoPolitical considerations, such as: Economic calendars, such as ForexFactory and MyFxBook track planned economic news releases. Obviously, a coup d'etat or war declaration may not be well known in advance.",
"\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \"\"money\"\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\"",
"Brilliant fact-based objective reality explanation of the world currency markets. I'm into bitcoin and physical gold investments (yeah, I know, it's like being gay and straight at the same time without being bi), may I ask you a few things later?",
"The increase of currency value in relation to another is a critical determinant of the economic health. It plays an important part in the level of trade and affects the world’s free market economy. But, they also effect on smaller scale as they create an impact on the portfolio of investors. So, it is suggested that the investors should make their trades wisely keeping in mind the value of other currencies that might your trade. Also, you should check the news daily to get regular updates and be well-informed of any changes happening in the market",
"\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \"\"believe it is money\"\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\"",
"I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.",
"\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"",
"\"Feel free to educate man. Everything I can find says the same thing. [Investopedia](http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-are-key-factors-cause-market-go-and-down.asp) >If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. Conversely, a larger number of sellers bids down the price of stocks hoping to entice buyers to purchase. Yes, if a company is performing well, you might find that more people want to buy then sale. That would cause it to go up. But if no one wants to buy, it doesn't matter how well the company is doing. I mean really, how would that work? Someone in the company notices they had more sales today then yesterday, email someone on wallstreet and they just mouse wheel the stock price up to something higher? Say the stock is $1.00 right now. But the lowest buy order is $.90. and the highest sale order is $1.10. (I guess there is some math there making is $1.) As soon as someone says, yeah. I'll sale at 90 cents, it'll go down. If someone says yeah, I'll buy at $1.10 it'll go up. I'm sure there is more to it than that. But everything I can find. It 100% has to have people more people wanting to buy then sale for it to go up. If more want to sale then buy, it'll go down. But hey, if this is way off base. Go ahead and fill me in. I'm open to CMV. This was all found after a short amount of time researching [\"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\"](https://www.google.com/search?q=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&oq=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l4.43421.43421.0.43882.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.6Crfejzb3XY)\"",
"From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.",
"Look for unsustainable policies and actions by policy makers, both before and possibly during, when looking at the ForEx markets. Consider some examples: Each of those events could be seen in the growing unsustainability of local policies. ForEx markets and local policies can appear to stay on an unsustainable path for a long time, but equilibrium will force itself on everything in the long run. In two of the above cases, the initial response wasn't enough to offset the mess, and more and more intervention had to be done, only making matters worse. When you know how unsustainable policies are and how big the corrections need to be, you can quickly ascertain whether an action by policy makers will be enough.",
"Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get.",
"Many people trade the currency markets via brokers who have developed online apps with live forex prices and many currency pairs. You can trade on your phone, iPad or PC / Mac.",
"Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.",
"To make it simple, just use gold as the main benchmark. Gold price never moves, FIAT currencies move around the price of gold. So, when comparing US$ and Australian dollars to the gold, you know which currency is moving up and which down.",
"\"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are \"\"lending\"\" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the \"\"saver\"\" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. \"\"Savers\"\" therefore \"\"shop around\"\" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard \"\"invisible hand\"\" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!\"",
"Forex is really not that volatile compared to other major asset classes like stocks and commodities. But still markets are generally unencumbered in the major pairs and therefore spikes in volatility can happen. Take what happened with the Swiss Franc a few years ago for example, or GBPUSD recently with news of Brexit. This is less the case with highly regulated currencies like the Chinese Yuan (CNY) Volatility is caused by excessive buy or sell pressure in relation to the available liquidity at the current price. This is usually caused by large buy or sell orders placed with interbank desks by institutions (often including other banks) and central banks. News can also sometimes have a dramatic impact and cause traders to adjust their prices significantly and very quickly.",
"\"Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the \"\"rules of the game\"\" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior.\"",
"\"If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in \"\"betting on the outcome of an horse race\"\" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process.\"",
"\"Without going into minor details, an FX transaction works essentially like this. Let's assume you have SEK 100 on your account. If you buy 100 USD/RUB at 1.00, then that transaction creates a positive cash balance on your account of USD 100 and a negative cash balance (an overdraft) of RUB 100. So right after the transaction (assuming there is not transaction cost), the \"\"net equity\"\" of your account is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 100 = 100 SEK. Let's say that, the day after, the RUB has gone down by 10% and the RUB 100 is now worth SEK 90 only. Your new equity is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 90 = 110 SEK and you've made 10%(*): congrats! Had you instead bought 100 SEK/RUB, the result would have been the same (assuming the USD/SEK rate constant). In practice the USD/SEK rate would probably not be constant and you would need to also account for: (*) in your example, the USD/RUB has gone up 10% but the RUB has gone down 9.09%, hence the result you find. In my example, the RUB has gone down 10% (i.e. the USD has gone up 11%).\"",
"It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.",
"\"As you say, the currency carry trade shouldn't work. The deluge of new cash into a high-interest currency should result in falling exchange rates. A November 2009 paper by Òscar Jordà and Alan Taylor of the University of California, Davis, may be offer one approach which is more stable. According to The Economist: They find that a refined carry-trade strategy—one that incorporates a measure of long-term value—produces more consistent profits and is less prone to huge losses than one that targets the highest yield. However, exchange rates, central bank interest rates, as well as money supply are all political as well as economic constructs. An economic driver for arbitrage may be offset by political will (such as US quantative easing) or even social malaise (Japanese continual low inward investment). I wouldn't go so far as calling the carry trade \"\"free money\"\" - currencies have proven far too unstable for that - but state interference in markets tends to be clearly telegraphed and a trader with nerves of steel may take advantage of it.\"",
"Yes traders, living or algorithmic, are the only direct factors that can cause a change in the price of a marketable item. Traders can be affected by news, broken exchanges ;), emotional cycles, lunar cycles, time the trader goes to lunch (or a power cycle if you are an algo running on that unfortunate OS), anything.",
"You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are: 1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?) This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math. Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table: As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for. There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.",
"Sometimes the market has to be left alone. Too much interference of the policy makers to stabilize the falling market can actually result in a major crisis. Every change stabilises after sometime and it is also applicable in the Forex trading market. So, the eager investors should learn to have some patience and wait for the market to stabilise itself rather than make random predictions on the policies released by policy makers",
"\"At any moment, the price is where the supply (seller) and demand (buyer) intersect. This occurs fast enough you don't see it as anything other than bid/ask. What moves it? News of a new drug, device, sandwich, etc. Earning release, whether above or below expectations, or even dead-on, will often impact the price. Every night, the talking heads try to explain the day's price moves. When they can't, they often report \"\"profit taking\"\" for a market drop, or other similar nonsense. Some moves are simple random change.\"",
"\"All of the other answers here are accurate, but (I think) are missing the point as to the question, which rests on how Bonds work in the first place. The bond specifies a payback AMOUNT and DATE. Let's say it is $10,000 and one year from today. If you buy that today for $9900, your yield will be 1%. If you buy it today for $11,000, your yield will be less than 0% (please don't make me do the math - it's just under negative 1%). You might be willing to pay that 1% (rather than receive 1%) for the certainty that you will definitely get your money back. The combined actions of all the people who may be willing to pay a little more or a little less for the safety of a US Treasury Bond is what people call \"\"the Market.\"\" Market forces (generally, investor confidence) will drive the price up and down, which affects the yield. All the other stuff - coupons and inflation and whatnot - all of that only makes sense if you understand that you aren't buying a rate of return, you are buying a payback amount and date.\"",
"If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].",
"\"Switzerland is presumably where one moves the money in case of an apocalypse; although, they have lost some of that appeal now with the tax reporting to the EU and USA. Switzerland has a very old, stable banking industry, but this isn't the only appeal. Their reputation for safeguarding money, be it despot or Nazi, is most of the attraction. Low to no taxes is the second. Also, there isn't much financially illegal despite recent changes. Put that all together, and if a country is about to go to hell in handbasket because it borrowed too much or goes to war while Switzerland stays stable and very strict about paying depositors, those residents are going to try to move as much money to Switzerland as possible before its confiscated for one reason or another, sending the CHF up. Japan is a different duck. They have persistently ~0% inflation thus low nominal and real interest rates. With them, the so-called \"\"cash & carry trade\"\" or more ubiquitous \"\"carry trade\"\" dominates. Many investors choose to borrow in JPY to buy investments denominated in other currencies. If the countries of those other currencies are about to take their residents' money or go to war, putting money at jeopardy, the residents doing the carry trading will try to unwind their levered investments to reduce risk, sending the JPY up.\"",
"\"This is my two cents (pun intended). It was too long for a comment, so I tried to make it more of an answer. I am no expert with investments or Islam: Anything on a server exists 'physically'. It exists on a hard drive, tape drive, and/or a combination thereof. It is stored as data, which on a hard drive are small particles that are electrically charged, where each bit is represented by that electric charge. That data exists physically. It also depends on your definition of physically. This data is stored on a hard drive, which I deem physical, though is transferred via electric pulses often via fiber cable. Don't fall for marketing words like cloud. Data must be stored somewhere, and is often redundant and backed up. To me, money is just paper with an amount attached to it. It tells me nothing about its value in a market. A $1 bill was worth a lot more 3 decades ago (you could buy more goods because it had a higher value) than it is today. Money is simply an indication of the value of a good you traded at the time you traded. At a simplistic level, you could accomplish the same thing with a friend, saying \"\"If you buy lunch today, I'll buy lunch next time\"\". There was no exchange in money between me and you, but there was an exchange in the value of the lunch, if that makes sense. The same thing could have been accomplished by me and you exchanging half the lunch costs in physical money (or credit/debit card or check). Any type of investment can be considered gambling. Though you do get some sort of proof that the investment exists somewhere Investments may go up or down in value at any given time. Perhaps with enough research you can make educated investments, but that just makes it a smaller gamble. Nothing is guaranteed. Currency investment is akin to stock market investment, in that it may go up or down in value, in comparison to other currencies; though it doesn't make you an owner of the money's issuer, generally, it's similar. I find if you keep all your money in U.S. dollars without considering other nations, that's a sort of ignorant way of gambling, you're betting your money will lose value less slowly than if you had it elsewhere or in multiple places. Back on track to your question: [A]m I really buying that currency? You are trading a currency. You are giving one currency and exchanging it for another. I guess you could consider that buying, since you can consider trading currency for a piece of software as buying something. Or is the situation more like playing with the live rates? It depends on your perception of playing with the live rates. Investments to me are long-term commitments with reputable research attached to it that I intend to keep, through highs and lows, unless something triggers me to change my investment elsewhere. If by playing you mean risk, as described above, you will have a level of risk. If by playing you mean not taking it seriously, then do thorough research before investing and don't be trading every few seconds for minor returns, trying to make major returns out of minor returns (my opinion), or doing anything based on a whim. Was that money created out of thin air? I suggest you do more research before starting to trade currency into how markets and trading works. Simplistically, think of a market as a closed system with other markets, such as UK market, French market, etc. Each can interact with each other. The U.S. [or any market] has a set number of dollars in the pool. $100 for example's sake. Each $1 has a certain value associated with it. If for some reason, the country decides to create more paper that is green, says $1, and stamps presidents on them (money), and adds 15 $1 to the pool (making it $115), each one of these dollars' value goes down. This can also happen with goods. This, along with the trading of goods between markets, peoples' attachment of value to goods of the market, and peoples' perception of the market, is what fluctates currency trading, in simple terms. So essentially, no, money is not made out of thin air. Money is a medium for value though values are always changing and money is a static amount. You are attempting to trade values and own the medium that has the most value, if that makes sense. Values of goods are constantly changing. This is a learning process for me as well so I hope this helps answers your questions you seem to have. As stated above, I'm no expert; I'm actually quite new to this, so I probably missed a few things here and there.\"",
"No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low.",
"International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)",
"\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"",
"If the fact that currency is based on fiat, something that has been the case with currency somewhere on Earth since the Tang Dynasty of China discovered paper money a long, long time ago, leaves you up in arms, then I shudder to think what an explanation of how the price of money can be derived from plotting IS and LM together and extending it's meeting point into the money market to determine the price of currency would do to your notion of control by powerful offices in government. My good sir, have you ever considered that YOU might be the smug moron? That YOU might be the one who just found out what everyone in the room already learned years ago and lack the foundation the rest of us have to understand that information in context? That it might be YOU who are uninformed? I'll quote you right here: >people who have no clue what the fuck they are talking about go off and lecture other people, bringing up facts that have no thought behind them, and are merely definitions posing as an argument. Making a statement, then getting corrected, then coming back and simply lengthening the original answer is not an argument. >I'll say it again: our currency is fiat. It is backed by nothing You don't seem to understand just what it is backed by. It is backed by trust, steady demand, and the assurance of powerful national and international bodies. As is the price of everything, including gold and literally every other commodity on the planet. Your utter shock and outrage upon discovering this minute fact does not indicate a revolutionary zeitgeist or that you are some kind of free spirit, it indicates that you are uneducated on the context of basic and well understood facts that the rest of the educated world is already caught up on.",
"The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60",
"Having trouble understanding currency arbitrage for one example. Conditions: US 3% interest per 6 months Germany 3.6% interest per 6 months Spot rate is $1.09/euro 6-month Forward is $1.04/euro How do I make this into an arbitrage opportunity? There is supposed to be a profit but I keep getting negatives. Any help would be greatly appreciated.",
"Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;",
"\"The prices quoted are for currency pairs traded on the foreign exchange market. For currencies traded on these exchanges, the exchange rates of a given currency pair are determined by the market, so supply and demand, investor confidence, etc. all play a role. EBS and Reuters are the two primary trading platforms in the foreign exchange market, and much of the data on exchange rates comes from them. Websites will usually get their data either from these sources directly or from a data provider that in turn gets it from EBS, Reuters, or another data source like Bloomberg or Haver Analytics. These data sources aren't free, however. In the US, many contracts, transactions, etc. that involve exchange rates use the exchange rate data published by the Federal Reserve. You might see this in contracts that specify to use \"\"the exchange rate published by the Federal Reserve at 12 pm (noon) on date --some date--\"\". You can also look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data, which maintains data series of historical daily, weekly, and monthly exchange rates for major currency pairs. These data are free, although they aren't realtime. Data for each business day is mostly updated the next business day.\"",
"Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult. Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank.",
"\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \"\"black\"\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\"",
"I usually look at the high and low exchange rates for the last five years. If the current rate is fairly close to the high for a trade over the past five years, then I do the trade. If the current exchange rate is close to the low, then I wait.",
"well you had it a bit backwards. the more liquid a market is, the less important the idea of insider information becomes. this is the opposite in less liquid markets - such as low volatile stocks about to announce earnings. knowing the earnings would net you a much larger percentage than, say, knowing if the ECB will cut rates of not. the change will be a much larger % and as with currencies, it is more important to know what the major players are planning - as in, central banks and reserves, carry trades, etc.",
"\"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 \"\"dollars\"\", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency.\"",
"Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss.",
"One interpretation of the above is that Pound (alongside US Dollar, Euro and other major curriencies), which forms the Forex basket of countries has dropped to less than 10% weightage in case of China's Forex holding. Now the question is where did this money go, this money probably have gone into Forex market to buy Yuan against Pound/Dollar etc. to bolster or strengthen Yuan. The currency reserve management is the 'wealth' management part and the 'currency' management part is what is known as 'central bank intervention' to stabilize the currency.",
"\"You may as well ask why a piece of wood is 25 centimeters long but only 10 inches. Most units of measure are very arbitrary. Somebody decides that this amount of heat or distance or money is a convenient unit, and so that's what they use. Suppose that tomorrow the government issued a whole new currency that had 10 times the value of the old currency. So if you used to make 10,000 foobars a year, now you make 1,000 new foobars. And likewise the price of everything you buy is divided by 10. If a certain model car used to cost 2,000 foobars, now it costs 200 new foobars. Are you better or worse off? Clearly if ALL prices change by the same percentage, then it makes absolutely no difference. (Aside from the hassle of making the switch and getting used to the new numbers.) A currency where 1 unit of money buys more is not necessarily a \"\"stronger currency\"\". Any more than inches are \"\"better\"\" than centimeters because you get more wood for an inch than you get for a centimeter. A currency is said to be \"\"strong\"\" when it's value is stable or increasing relative to other currencies. If yesterday I could trade 10 foobars for 1 plugh, but today I only need 9 foobars to buy 1 plugh, then foobars are stronger than plughs. Even though I still need more foobars than plughs to buy the same item.\"",
"\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"",
"\"The market price of a stock is based on nothing at all more than what two parties were last willing to transact for it. The stock has a \"\"bid\"\" and an \"\"ask\"\" each is the value placed by a counterparty. For the sale to occur, one party must meet the other. The stock transacts and that is the price. For a stock to \"\"go up\"\" people must be willing to pay more for it. Likewise, for it to \"\"go down\"\" people must be willing to accept less for it.\"",
"Currencies are a zero-sum game. If you make money, someone else will lose it. Because bank notes sitting in a pile don't create anything useful. But shares in companies are different, because companies actually do useful things and make money, so it's possible for all investors to make money. The best way to benefit is generally to put your money into a low-cost index fund and then forget about it for at least five years.",
"The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)",
"If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.",
"\"This is actually a fairly hard question to answer well as much of the currency trading that is done in financial markets is actually done directly with banks and other financial institutions instead of on a centralized market and the banks are understandably not always excited to part with information on how exactly they do their business. Other methods of currency exchange have much, much less volume though so it is important to understand the trading through markets as best as possible. Some banks do give information on how much is traded so surveys can give a reasonable indication of relative volume by currency. Note the U.S. Dollar is by far the largest volume of currency traded partially because people often covert one currency to another in the markets by trading \"\"through\"\" the Dollar. Wikipedia has a good explanation and a nicely formatted table of information as well.\"",
"\"To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the \"\"real economy\"\" is to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to \"\"lock in\"\" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to \"\"sit on\"\" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me.\"",
"\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"",
"If I understand what you're asking, I think you're looking at the relationship wrong. Yes, when one currency has a higher interest rate relative to another, it's value should, theoretically, appreciate. For example, if the USD interest rate is 10% and the EUR is 5%, the USD should appreciate in value against the EUR. However, the parity relationship tells you the price at which an investor would be indifferent to the difference in interest rates. So using the formula for interest rate parity: (1+r(USD))/(1+r(EUR)) = F/S and plugging in the interest rates from above and a spot rate of $1.5/EUR: (1.1)/(1.05) = F/(1.5) The 1 year forward rate would have to be $1.5714/EUR in order for the investor to be INDIFFERENT between holding USD or EUR. All this assuming interest rate parity holds. I'm not big on Econ but this is how I understood it when studying for the CFA exam the past few months. So please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.",
"Ultimately no one really knows what causes the markets to rise and fall beyond supply and demand. If more people want to buy then sell, prices go up. And if more people want to sell, prices go down. The news channels will often try to attribute a specific reason to the price move, but that is largely just guess work to fill up the news pages so people have something to read. You may find it interesting to read up on the Elliot wave principle. The crash of 2008 was a perfect Elliot Wave fit. Elliot Wave theory states that social moods (which ultimately drive the stock market) generally occur in a relatively predictable pattern. The crash in September was a Wave 3 down. This is where the majority of people give up hope. However there are still a few people who are still holding on. The markets tend to meander about during wave 4. Finally the last few people give up hope and sell out. This causes the final crash of wave 5. Only when the last person has given up hope can the markets start to go up again..",
"\"As the European crisis worsened the Swiss Franc (CHF) was seen as a safe currency so Europeans attempted to exchange their Euros for Francs. This caused the Franc to appreciate in value, against the Euro, through the summer and fall of 2011. The Swiss government and Swiss Central Bank (SNB) believe mercantilism will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland. The Swiss central planners believe that having an abundance of export businesses in Switzerland will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland as the exporters sell their good and services abroad and pocket a bunch of cash. Thus, the central planners tend to favor exporters. From the article: At the start of the year, when exporters urged for government and SNB action, ... The Swiss Central bank continued to intervene in currency markets in 2011 to prevent the CHF from appreciating. This was done to prevent a decrease in export business. Finally after many failed attempts they announced the 1.20 peg in September. The central planners give little consideration to imports, however, since manufacturers in foreign countries don't vote or contribute to the campaign funds of the central planners in Switzerland. As the CHF strengthened many imported items became very cheap for Swiss citizens. This was of little concern to the central planners. Currencies are like other goods in a market in that they respond to supply and demand. Their value can change daily or even hourly based on the continually varying demands of people. This can cause the exchange rate to rise and fall against other currencies and goods. Central planners mistakenly believe that the price of certain market items (like currency) should not fluctuate. The believe there is some magical number that will cause the market to operate \"\"better\"\" or \"\"more correctly\"\". How does the SNB maintain the peg? They maintain the peg by printing Francs and purchasing euros.\"",
"I think you are asking a few questions here. Why is gold chosen as money? In a free market there are five characteristics of a good money: Gold and silver meet all five characteristics. Diamonds are not easily divisible which is why they are not normally used as money. Copper, Iron, and lead are not scarce enough - you would need a lot of these metals to make weekly or daily purchases. Paper is also way too plentiful to be used as money. By the way, historically silver has been used for money more than gold. How does international trade work with gold as money (is this what you are asking with your hypothetical example of 10 countries each with y amount of gold?) Typically a government will issue a currency that is backed by gold. This means you can redeem your currency for actual gold. Then when an American spends 5 US dollars (USD) to purchase a Chinese good the Chinese man now owns 5 USDs. The Chinese man can either redeem the 5 USD for gold or spend the 5 USD in the US. If a government issues more currency then they have gold for then the gold will start to flow from that country to other countries as the citizens of the other countries redeem the over-issued currency for gold. This outflow of gold restricts governments from over-issuing paper currency. Who creates the procedures and who supervises them in modern worldwide economy? The Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements all are involved in the current system where the US dollar (see Bretton Woods agreement) is the reserve currency used by central banks throughout the world. Some think this system is coming to an end. I tend to agree.",
"You may simply be asking why stocks 'gap up' or 'gap down' when the stock market opens. This is because the price adjusts to news that occurred while the exchanges were closed overnight. Perhaps Asian stocks crashed, or perhaps a news story was released in the New York Times about some major company. There are thousands of factors that affect market sentiment, and the big gaps that happen at the open of every trading day is the price of the stocks catching up to those factors.",
"\"Um no. Easy google. \"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\" >This is how it works with stocks; supply is the amount of shares that people want to sell, and demand is the amount of shares that people want to purchase. If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. So sure, if a company is performing well, people will want to buy the stock. Causing it to go up. But even if a company was performing well and no one wanted to buy the stock. There would be only sellers and the price would go down.\"",
"\"I suspect that to \"\"make money\"\" it isn't enough to know the current value (\"\"high currency\"\"): to make money you'd need to know/guess/predict/bet on the future change in value: will the currency value go higher in the future? Or will it come down again? Or will it stay the same? Everybody knows the current value, so that by itself isn't enough knowledge to make money from. That said, if you know you're going to need American dollars in the future (if you have future expenses which need to be paid in American dollars), then now might be a good time to buy those dollars.\"",
"Trading Speeches can be difficult, 1 comment can be bullish then next phrase bearish. However language algorithms can process the tone of the entire message before you can read the first word or have even finished downloading the text of the statement. The biggest news is the 1st Friday of the month, the non-farm payrolls out of the USA. You used to be able to get the news before the price moved, but high-frequency algos changed all that, essentially the exchanges get quote stuffed, so good luck unless you are using a bucketshop. Better to wait for a pull back from the initial reaction if the numbers are good, otherwise you will get a fill at the peak. If the numbers are a big deviation from expectations then you can just jump in. Back in 2006 the Bank of England raised interest rates when it wasn't expected and the GBPUSD flew 500 pips. This Forex calendar has charts of every news release, so you can see what to expected based on what has happened in the past with a certain bit of economic news. http://www.fasteconomicnews.com/fx_calendar.aspx",
"Since 2007 the world has seen a period of striking economic and financial volatility featuring the deepest recession since the 1930s despite this gold has performed strongly with its price roughly doubling since the global financial crisis began in mid-2007. 1. Gold and real interest rates: One of the factor that influences gold prices is real interest rate which is to some extent related to inflation. Since gold lacks a yield of its own, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases with a real interest rate increase and decreases with a fall in real interest rates. 2. Gold and the US dollar: The external value of the US dollar has been a significant influence on short-term gold price movements. The IMF estimated6 in 2008 that 40-50% of the moves in the gold price since 2002 were dollar-related, with a 1% change in the effective external value of the dollar leading to a more than 1% change in the gold price (Source). 3. Gold and financial stress: It is a significant and commonly observed influence on the short-term price of gold. In periods of financial stress gold demand may rise for a number of reasons: 4. Gold and political instability: It is another factor that can boost gold prices. Investor concerns about wars, civil conflicts and international tensions can boost demand for gold for similar reasons to those noted above for periods of financial stress. Gold‟s potential function as a „currency of last resort‟ in case of serious system collapse provides a particular incentive to hold it in case the political situation is especially severe. (Source) 5. Gold and official sector activity: The behaviour of central banks and other parts of the official sector can have an important impact on gold prices. One reason for this is that central banks are big holders of gold, possessing some 30,500 metric tons in 2010, which is approximately 15% of all above-ground gold stocks. As a result, central bank policies on gold sales and purchases can have significant effects, and these policies have been subject to considerable shifts over the decades. (Source) (Source of above graphs)",
"\"In addition to the information in the other answer, I would suggest looking at an economic calendar. These provide the dates and values of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, consumer confidence, etc. Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal all provide such calendars. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. You could also look at a global economic calendar; both xe.com and livecharts.co.uk provide these. If you're only interested in the US, the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and WSJ calendars may provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but foreign announcements also affect US markets, so it's important to get as much perspective as possible. I like the global economic calendars I linked to above because they rate announcements on \"\"priority\"\", which is a quick way to learn which announcements have the greatest effect. Economic calendars are especially important in the context of an interview because you may be asked a follow-up question. For example, the US markets jumped in early trading today (5/28/2013) because the consumer confidence numbers exceeded forecasts (from the WSJ calendar, 76.2 vs 2.3). As SRKX stated, it's important to know more than the numbers; being able to analyze the numbers in the context of the wider market and being aware of the fundamentals driving them is what's most important. An economic calendar is a good way to see this information quickly and succinctly. (I'm paraphrasing part of my answer to another question, so you may or may not find some of that information helpful as well; I'm certainly not suggesting you look at the website of every central bank in the morning. That's what an economic calendar is for!)\"",
"\"Other things equal is sometimes referred to as \"\"ceteris paribus\"\" - the scenario where you compare two currencies (or things) under the assumption that all other factors that could effect those currencies (earthquakes, revolutions, currency crises ect) are not ocurring. Its like using a control group in a lab. \"\"Real interest rates\"\" means the rate of that countries interest rate, accounting for inflation. \"\"Proportional to the strength of its home currency\"\" is referring to how countries with higher rates of interest tend to have stronger currencies (relative to other currencies) because foreign investment/capital will flood into the country seeking those higher rates of return - excess demand for the currency will cause it to appreciate. So this is also true in reverse, as capital will tend to leave a country will ultra-low interest rates.\"",
"\"the Yen is *the source* of **\"\"carry trades\"\"**. It means whichever savvy people with means who want to borrow money to invest on a leveraged basis anywhere in the world, come running to borrow in yen. Why? Because (1) Japan is an advanced economy whose currency is freely convertible to many many currencies/countries who are happy to convert yen back and forth. (2) Japanese interest rates are low, lower than in the west b/c of their earlier deflationary crises due to too much debt and due to west requiring Yen to be too strong after the Plaza accords; so it's cheap to borrow there. So a lot of investment around the world has, in origin, come from borrowing in japan. As long as that investment is \"\"on\"\", the loan to japan remains outstanding. But the investor earns the \"\"carry\"\": the rate of difference between the cost of borrowing in Yen, and earning the return from whatever investment it is. When scary things happen (like war, disaster, coups etc) the big money bags/investors pull their money out of their investments and put it in their banks. This means they sell their investments, wherever they are, convert some of that money back into yent ( BUY YEN ) to return their yen loans. yen goes up.\"",
"Imagine that the existing interest rate is 5%. So on a bond with face value of 100, you would be getting a $5 coupon implying a 5% yield. Now, if let's say the interest rates go up to 10%, then a new bond issued with a face value of 100 will give you a coupon of $10 implying a 10% yield. If someone in the bond market buys your bond after interest price adjustment, in order to make the 10% yield (which means that an investor typically targets at least the risk-free rate on his investments) he needs to buy your bond at $50 so that a $5 coupon can give a 10% yield. The reverse happens when interest rates go down. I hope this somewhat clears the picture. Yield = Coupon/Investment Amount Update: Since the interest rate of the bond does not change after its issuance, the arbitrage in the interest rate is reflected in the market price of the bond. This helps in bringing back the yields of old bonds in-line with the freshly issued bonds.",
"That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up.",
"\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\"",
"\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"",
"What you were told isn't an absolute truth, so trying to counter something fundamentally flawed won't get you anywhere. For example: chinese midcap equities are up 20% this year, even from their high of 100%. While the BSE Sensex in India is down several percentage points on the year. Your portfolio would have lost money this year taking advice from your peers. The fluctuation in the rupees and remnibi would not have changed this fact. What you are asking is a pretty common area of research, as in several people will write their dissertation on the exact same topic every year, and you should be able to find various analysis and theories on the subject. But the macroeconomic landscape changes, a lot.",
"\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,[email protected]), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"",
"\"You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem. \"\"In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.\"\" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars. Thus, the amount of money is not relevant- it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price. Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because \"\"that's how it's always been.\"\" Nobody \"\"creates/supervises\"\" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values.\"",
"\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \"\"root value\"\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\"",
"\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\"",
"\"Does some official tell the Foreign Exchange the the new exchange rate for the yuan is 0.98 * the current exchange rate? For China (and other countries with fixed/controlled exchange rates) - that's exactly how it happens. Does it just print more? This is the way to go for fully convertible currencies (like the USD, EUR, GBP, and handful of others, there're about 20 in the world). Flood the market and as with any commodity - flooding the market leads to a price drop. Obviously \"\"just print more\"\" is much harder to do than picking up the phone and saying \"\"Now you're buying/selling dollars at this price and if you don't I'll have you executed\"\".\"",
"\"At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, \"\"agents\"\") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility. All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future. Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth. Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets.\"",
"\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"",
"There are no flat fees but typically banks and money exchangers will use a the current market rate, up to the minute for some powerful exchangers. They then add a little on top depending on many variables. Those variables can be related to the quantity of currency that organization holds, the average amount they hold, the market trend for that currency, the stability of the currency, the location of that currency exchange, etc. As for the one stop shop for currency exchange providers, you can try moneysupermarket.com Hope that helps.",
"Have an upvote. I don't really understand the issue of money competition. There really isn't anything stopping me from putting my wealth in any other currency, or any other store of value for that matter (gold, stocks, bonds, lollipops, prison cigarettes). The value of a domestic currency is affected by the relative value of these others.",
"There are many things that can make a company's share price go up or down. Generally, over the long term, the more consistently profitable a company is the more its share price will go up. However, there are times when a company may not be making any profits yet but its share price still goes up. This can be due to forecasts that the company will start making profits in the near future. Sometimes a company may report increased profits from the previous year but makes less than what the market was expecting it to make. This can cause its share price to fall, as the market is disappointed in the results. In the shorter term greed, fear and speculation can make a company's share price move irrationally. When you think the share price should be going up it suddenly falls, and Vis-versa. When interest rates are low, companies with higher dividend yields (compared to bank account interest rates) become high in demand and their shares generally go up in price. As the share price goes up the dividend yield will be reduced unless the company continues to increase the dividend it distributes to shareholders. When interest rates start to rise these companies become less favourable as they are seen as higher risk comparable to similar returns from having one's money in the safety of the bank. This can cause the share prices to fall. These are just some of the reasons that make a company's share price move up or down. As humans are an irrational bunch often ruled by emotions, sometimes the reasons share prices move in a particular direction can be quite confusing, but that is the nature of the financial markets.",
"The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.",
"\"I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\"",
"\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \"\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\"\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\"",
"I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.",
"\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"",
"A currency that is strong right now is one that is expensive for you to buy. The perfect one would be a currency that is weak now but will get stronger; the worst currency is one that is strong today and gets weak. If a currency stays unchanged it doesn't matter whether it is weak or strong today as long as it doesn't get weaker / stronger. (While this advice is correct, it is useless for investing since you don't know which currencies will get weaker / stronger in the future). Investing in your own currency means less risk. Your local prices are usually not affected by currency change. If you safe for retirement and want to retire in a foreign country, you might consider in that country's currency.",
">IOW, everyone is perfectly free to instantaneously decide that a dollar is worth only 1/1,000,000,000th of an orange, and oranges would instantly cost a billion dollars. Oranges cost less than that not because the government sets the price of oranges, but purely because that's what the market agrees to. This shows a profound misunderstanding of how fiat currencies work. The demand for fiat currencies comes from the fact they are necessary to pay taxes and debts. Other currencies/commodities will not be recognized as settlement of debts in court disputes, so they would first need to be sold onto the market in exchange for the fiat currency. Individuals can't simply *decide* what the relative value of certain goods and services are. The market does that, collectively via voluntary trade. >I'm explaining internal combustion for a 5-year-old, and you're calling it inaccurate and misleading because it doesn't address the sociological implications of American car-culture. Hahah, you're confusing the oil for the gasoline!",
"Don't really know much about futures but I'll give you a couple of options: Assuming that you are just looking around right now about currency investing, are you sure (I mean, really sure) that you want to do it?",
"\"Relative changes in rates are significant. Why? Exchange rates encourage cross-border trade. For example, I live in an area that is now popular with Canadian tourists, mostly due to the favorable exchange rates. Changes in exchange rates between trading partners can affect trade balance as well. The US \"\"strong dollar\"\" policy made US exports expensive and imports cheaper, which encouraged more imports.\""
] |
[
"\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \"\"control\"\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\"",
"\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \"\"money\"\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\"",
"The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals. The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at. And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading. eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.",
"\"According to Soros in \"\"The Alchemy of Finance\"\", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding).\""
] |
10482
|
Rollover into bond fund to do dollar cost averaging [duplicate]
|
[
"549072"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"434466",
"330023",
"18436",
"397976",
"535732",
"175576",
"120266",
"291015",
"447567",
"374284",
"598478",
"153178",
"145458",
"537603",
"406192",
"505597",
"225536",
"135031",
"250530",
"109455",
"268772",
"530425",
"41905",
"354291",
"67220",
"439757",
"525089",
"464264",
"229364",
"333961",
"24846",
"293320",
"31581",
"237052",
"278607",
"224782",
"476517",
"51331",
"34925",
"240975",
"569948",
"466403",
"31139",
"134005",
"127401",
"384893",
"500815",
"553318",
"586851",
"186538",
"342485",
"265817",
"341102",
"349621",
"361010",
"34688",
"546133",
"505993",
"335294",
"436622",
"404261",
"280992",
"201495",
"481312",
"155242",
"193396",
"57457",
"83860",
"565517",
"346474",
"329497",
"5710",
"551122",
"71510",
"41130",
"179282",
"193648",
"83230",
"263784",
"296426",
"394814",
"187039",
"506298",
"327556",
"222485",
"24404",
"269550",
"400356",
"349668",
"473042",
"104254",
"215296",
"458843",
"549270",
"347823",
"381104",
"506302",
"100341",
"465439",
"304804"
] |
[
"\"I assume by that you mean gradually buying the same mix of funds over time. If that's the case, there is no rational reason to do this. Dollar-cost averaging is an artifact of the way most people fund their 401(k). I would not consider it a viable \"\"strategy\"\". (Neither does Wikipedia) Let's say you have $100,000 that you add $10,000 at a time. When you add money, one of three things can happen: Since you can't predict the future, there's no mathematical justification for buying in segments. There's just as much chance that your funds will be worth more or less, so on average it should make little to no difference. In fact, given the time value of money there is a slight advantage to investing it all now so you can capture any future returns. You can always rebalance later to capture gains on some funds and purchase funds that are down to (hopefully) catch them on a rebound.\"",
"\"Dollar cost averaging is a fancy name someone came up with to say \"\"Invest all of the time\"\". I would not bother with spreading out purchases. If the market is too expensive right now ...so what? The items you sell will bring top dollar. The fund you buy will cost top dollar. It all evens out. You could sell your assets and just sit on cash, but that would require knowing when the next market drop is coming..which no one knows. Also, it never really is cash; it goes into a money market fund which is not guaranteed. I would rather own companies(VSTAX) and collect the dividend.\"",
"Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.",
"You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.",
"There have been studies which show that Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) underperforms Lump Sum Investing (LSI). Vanguard, in particular, has published one such study. Of course, reading about advice in a study is one thing; acting on that advice can be something else entirely. We rolled over my wife's 401(k) to an IRA back in early 2007 and just did it as a lump sum. You know what happened after that. But our horizon was 25+ years at that time, so we didn't lose too much sleep over it (we haven't sold or gone to cash, either).",
"If you have a lump sum, you could put it into a low risk investment (which should also have low fluctuations) right away to avoid the risk of buying at a down point. Then move it into a higher risk investment over a period of time. That way you'll buy more units when the price is lower than when it's higher. Usually I hear dollar cost averaging applied to the practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of an investment every week or month right out of your salary. The effect is pretty minimal though, except on the highest growth portfolios, and is generally just used as a sales tool by investment councilors (in my opinion).",
"You shouldn't. The Dow has gained 7% annually on average since October 1915(inflation-adjusted). It has also lost 73% of its inflation-adjusted value from 1966 to 1982 meaning that it would have lost you 4.5% annually for 16 years. Furthermore, past performance is not indicative of future results. If stock markets keep performing like they have for the past 100 years, you can expect there will be a point within the next 60-or-so years your stocks will be higher in value than they were when you bought them. With funds you are paying the people managing them which means you are guaranteed to have pyramiding losses that your gains will have to offset. In your case, you are betting with no fundamental knowledge that S&P will be higher than now whenever you need the money which is not even supported by the above assumption. Dollar averaging just means you will be placing many bets which will reduce your expected losses(and your expected gains) when compared to just buying $100K worth of S&P right now. Whatever you invest in, and whatever your time-frame, don't gamble. If you can't say this company(ies) will be $X more valuable than now in X months with probability > Y, then you shouldn't be investing in it. Nobody ever made money by losing money. There are also safer investments than the stock market, like treasury bonds, even if the returns are lousy.",
"Dollar Cost Averaging isn't usually the best idea for lump sum investment unless your risk tolerance is very low or your time horizons are low (in which case is the stock market the right place for your money). Usually you will do better by investing immediately. There are lots of articles around on the web about why DCA doesn't work over the long term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging http://www.efmoody.com/planning/dollarcost.html",
"That doesn't sound like dollar cost averaging. That sounds like a form of day trading. Dollar cost averaging is how most people add money to their 401K, or how they add money to some IRA accounts. You are proposing a form of day trading.",
"Dollar cost averaging doesn't (or shouldn't) apply here. DCA is the natural way we invest in the market, buying in by a steady dollar amount each pay period, so over time we can buy more shares when the market is down, and fewer when it's higher. It's more psychological than financial. The fact is that given the market rises, on average, over time, if one has a lump sum to invest, it should be deployed based on other factors, not just DCA'd in. As I said, DCA is just how we all naturally invest from our income. The above has nothing to do with your situation. You are invested and wish to swap funds. If the funds are with the same broker, you should be able to execute this at the closing price. The sell and buy happen after hours and you wake up the next day with the newly invested portfolio. If funds are getting transferred from broker to broker, you do have a risk. The risk that they take time, say even 2 days when funds are not invested. A shame to lose a 2% market move as the cost of moving brokers. In this case, I'd do mine and my wife's at different times. To reduce that risk.",
"\"I up voted JoeTaxpayer but i would like add a couple of things. Dollar Cost averaging over a 5 day period is in no way practical. If you get a 1% swing in that time that would be quite a lot. Personally I think 5 years is way to long. When markets go down they go down fast. I would suggest 1 to 2 years investing quarterly. I would hate seeing you miss out on market gains for a 5 year period on the last of your money. The whole point of Dollar Cost averaging instead of market timing is the mantra \"\"Its about time in the market not timing the market\"\" So if you have money on the sidelines for years you are missing out on your time in the market.\"",
"Its best to dollar cost average adding say 5%-10% a quarter into the fund. That's what Clark Howard would suggest. Also make sure you do not need the money for 5 years, then you should be okay. Its tough to lose money if you keep your money there for a long period of time.",
"If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.",
"If I invest X each month, where does X go - an existing (low yield) bond, or a new bond (at the current interest rate)? This has to be viewed in a larger context. If the fund has outflows greater than or equal to inflows then chances are there isn't any buying being done with your money as that cash is going to those selling their shares in the fund. If though inflows are greater than outflows, there may be some new purchases or not. Don't forget that the new purchase could be an existing bond as the fund has to maintain the duration of being a short-term, intermediate-term or long-term bond fund though there are some exceptions like convertibles or high yield where duration isn't likely a factor. Does that just depend on what the fund manager is doing at the time (buying/selling)? No, it depends on the shares being created or redeemed as well as the manager's discretion. If I put Y into a fund, and leave it there for 50 years, where does Y go when all of the bonds at the time I made the purchase mature? You're missing that the fund may buy and sell bonds at various times as for example a long-term bond fund may not have issues nearing maturity because of what part of the yield curve it is to mimic. Does Y just get reinvested in new bonds at the interest rate at that time? Y gets mixed with the other money in the fund that may increase or decrease in value over time. This is part of the risk in a bond fund where NAV can fluctuate versus a money market mutual fund where the NAV is somewhat fixed at $1/share.",
"As mentioned by others, dollar cost averaging is just a fancy term for how many shares your individual purchases get when you are initially adding money to your investment accounts. Once the money is invested, annual or quarterly rebalancing serves the purpose of taking advantage of higher rates of growth in particular market sectors. You define the asset allocation based on your risk profile, time to retirement, etc., then you periodically sell the shares of the investments that have grown faster than the rest and buy more shares of the investments that are relatively cheaper.",
"\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"",
"You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.",
"Dollar cost averaging can be done in a retirement plan, and can be done for individual stock purchases, as this will increase your returns by reducing your risk, especially if you are buying a particular stock for the first time. How many time have I purchased a stock, bottom fishing, thinking I was buying at the low, only to find out there was a new low. Sitting with a thousand shares that are now down $3-$4K. I have a choice to sell at a loss, hold what I've got or double down. I usually add more shares if I'm thinking I'll recover, but at that time I'd wished I'd eased into my investment. That way I would have owned more shares at a smaller cost basis. Anything can happen in the market, not knowing whether the price will increase or decrease. In the example above a $3,000 loss is equal to the brokerage cost of about 300 trades, so trading cost should not be a factor. Now I'm not saying to slowly get into the market and miss the bull, like we're having today with Trump, but get into individual stocks slowly, being fully invested in the market. Also DCA means you do not buy equal number of shares per period, say monthly, but that you buy with the same amount of money a different number of shares, reducing your total costs. Let's say you spend $2000 on a stock trading at $10 (200 shares), if the stock rose to $20 you would spend $2000 and buy 100 shares, and if the stock dropped to $5 you would spend $2000 and buy 400 shares, by now having amassed 700 shares for $6,000. On the other hand and in contrast to DCA had you purchased 200 shares for $2000 at $10/share, then 200 shares for $4000 at $20/share, and finally 200 more shares for $1000 at $5/share, you would have amassed only 600 shares for $7000 investment.",
"Canadian Couch Potato has an article which is somewhat related. Ask the Spud: Can You Time the Markets? The argument roughly boils down to the following: That said, I didn't follow the advice. I inherited a sum of money, more than I had dealt with before, and I did not feel I was emotionally capable of immediately dumping it into my portfolio (Canadian stocks, US stocks, world stocks, Canadian bonds, all passive indexed mutual funds), and so I decided to add the money into my portfolio over the course of a year, twice a month. The money that I had not yet invested, I put into a money market account. That worked for me because I was purchasing mutual funds with no transaction costs. If you are buying ETFs, this strategy makes less sense. In hindsight, this was not financially prudent; I'd have been financially better off to buy all the mutual funds right at the beginning. But I was satisfied with the tradeoff, knowing that I did not have hindsight and I would have been emotionally hurt had the stock market crashed. There must be research that would prove, based on past performance, the statistically optimal time frame for dollar-cost averaging. However, I strongly suppose that the time frame is rather small, and so I would advise that you either invest the money immediately, or dollar-cost average your investment over the course of the year. This answer is not an ideal answer to your question because it is lacking such a citation.",
"\"You have heard the old adage \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\", right? That sounds so obvious that you'd have to wonder why they would ever bother coining such an expression. It should rank up there with \"\"Don't walk in front of a moving car\"\" on the Duh scale of advice. Well, your question demonstrates exactly why it isn't quite so obvious in the real world and that people need to be reminded of it. So, in your example, the stock prices are currently low (relative to what they have been). So per that adage, do you sell or buy when prices are low? Hint: It isn't sell. Yes. Your gut is going to tell you the exact opposite thanks to the fact that our brains are unfortunately wired to make us susceptible to the loss aversion fallacy. When the market has undergone a big drop is the WORST time to stop contributing (buying stocks). This example might help get your brain and gut to agree a little more easily: If you were talking about any other non-investment commodity, cars for instance. Your question equates to.. I really need a car, but the prices have been dropping like crazy lately. Maybe I should wait until the car dealers start raising their prices again before I buy one. Dollar Cost Averaging As littleadv suggested, if you have an automatic payroll deduction for your retirement account, you are getting the benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging. Because you are investing the same amount on a scheduled interval, you are buying more shares when they are cheap and fewer when they are expensive. It is like an automatic buy low strategy is built into the account. The alternative, which you are implying, is a market timing strategy. Under this strategy, instead of investing regularly you try to get in and out of investments right before they go up/drop. There are two MAJOR flaws with this approach: 1) Your brain will work against you (see above) and encourage you to do the exact opposite of what you should be doing. 2) Unless you are clairvoyant, this strategy isn't much better than gambling. If you are lucky it can work, but because of #1, the odds are stacked against you.\"",
"I'm staring at this chart and asking myself, How long a period is enough to have an average I'd be happy with regardless of the direction the market goes? 3 years? 4 years? Clearly, a lump sum investment risks a 2000 buy at 1500. Not good. Honestly, I love the question, and find it interesting, but there's likely no exact answer, just some back and forth analysis. You're investing about $40K/yr anyway. I'd suggest a 4 year timeframe is a good time to invest the new money as well. Other folk want to offer opinions? Edit - with the OP's additional info, he expects these bonuses to continue, my updated advice is to DCA quarterly if going into assets with a transaction fee or monthly if into a no-fee fund, over just a one year period.",
"\"You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: \"\"I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account.\"\" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline.\"",
"Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.",
"There is no reason to ever do DCA. You'll notice that no asset managers would ever dream of it. You should invest your money as soon as you get it. Throughout history, this is the utility maximizing choice. The market rises on average. Why would you keep money out of it?",
"rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.",
"Dollar cost averaging moderates risk. But you pay for this by giving up the chance for higher gains. If you took a hundred people and randomly had them fully buy into the market over a decade period, some of those people will do very well (relative to the rest) while others will do very poorly (relatively). If you dollar cost average, your performance would fall into the middle so you don't fall into the bottom (but you won't fall into the top either).",
"Sounds like you're doing fine, though somewhat fuzzy: how are you allocating the $500/month? Are you doing dollar cost averaging into funds, accumulating enough $$ to buy round lots of individual stocks, market timing, etc. The summary suggestion: max out the ROTH first, then with $$$ left over, do the after tax, low-cost fund, monthly dollar cost averaging approach.",
"Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go. No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way.",
"Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.",
"\"Trying to \"\"time the market\"\" is usually a bad idea. People who do this every day for a living have a hard time doing that, and I'm guessing you don't have that kind of time and knowledge. So that leaves you with your first and third options, commonly called lump-sum and dollar cost averaging respectively. Which one to use depends on where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. Dollar cost averaging (DCA) has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a trade-off. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up, which is especially true with an index fund! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?\"",
"\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"",
"The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity. Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option.",
"When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market. (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy.",
"To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.",
"The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.",
"Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?",
"\"I used the term \"\"bond fund\"\" to mean a mutual fund which invests in bonds. Vanguard has a list. If you live in PA, OH, MA, FL, CA, NJ, or NY there are tax free funds you can invest in on that list.\"",
"One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market.",
"First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.",
"A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund. Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund. The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.",
"It looks like an improvement to me, if for no other reason than lowering the expenses. But if you are around 35 years away from retirement you could consider eliminating all bond funds for now. They will pay better in a few years. And the stock market(s) will definitely go up more than bonds over the next 35 years.",
"Yes, you're absolutely right. For such small amounts and such large fees, almost any investment choice is pointless. Some brokers allow for commission free ETF trading. Seek them out. As you've noticed, bond interest rates are almost 0%. This is a far cry from the days of Benjamin Graham, where the USD acted more like gold, with much more frequent booms and busts. During Graham's heyday, one could sell one's bonds at super low interest rates and buy them back again when high. In his day, interest rates would be very high one year like in 2008 and next to nothing the next like in 2009, cycling back and forth, until the 1960s hit, and he didn't know what to do. Graham preferred to wait for the reversion to the mean, and act only when far from it. Those opportunities are few and far between now since fiat currencies are far better managed than they were then, the Fed-caused 2009 total destruction as an outlier to recent times. In your case, it's best to leave the bonds to the insurance companies and buy equities. If you want less volatility, buy a buy-write ETF. Bonds will surely disappoint unless one is lucky enough to hold bonds while interest rates fall from ~6% to ~3%, an eventuality that shouldn't be expected to occur again, as Bill Gross is painfully discovering.",
"\"Vanguard released an analysis paper in 2013 titled \"\"Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later.\"\" This paper explores the performance difference(s) between a dollar-cost averaging strategy and a lump sum strategy when you already possess the funds. This paper is an excellent read but the conclusion from the executive summary is: We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is satisfied with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets as soon as possible. The caveat to the conclusion is weighing your emotions. If you are primarily concerned with minimizing the possibility of a loss then you should use a dollar cost averaging strategy with the understanding that, on a purely mathematical basis, the dollar cost averaging strategy is likely to under-perform a lump sum investment of the funds. The paper explores a 10 year holding period with either: The analysis includes various portfolio blends and is backtested against the United States, United Kingdom and Australian markets. Based on this, as far as I'm concerned, the rule of thumb is invest the lump sum if you're going to invest at all.\"",
"You are right about the stock and index funds, with dollar cost averaging over several years, the daily price of the security (especially a dividend paying security) will not matter* because your position will have accumulated larger over several entry points, some entries with cheaper shares and some entries with more expensive shares. In the future your position will be so large that any uptick will net you large gains on your original equity. *not matter being a reference to even extreme forms of volatility. But if you had all your equity in a poor company and tanked, never to rise again, then you would still be in a losing position even with dollar cost averaging. If your only other holdings are bonds, then you MAY want to sell those to free up capital.",
"The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.",
"How much money do you have in your money market fund and what in your mind is the purpose of this money? If it is your six-months-of-living-expenses emergency fund, then you might want to consider bank CDs in addition to bond funds as an alternative to your money-market fund investment. Most (though not necessarily all, so be sure to check) bank CDs can be cashed in at any time with a penalty of three months of interest, and so unless you anticipate being laid off very soon, you might get a slightly better rate of interest, FDIC insurance (which mutual funds do not have), and with any luck you may never have to break a CD and lose the interest. Building a ladder of CDs with one maturing each month might be another way to reduce the risk of loss. On the other hand, bond mutual funds are a risky bet now because your investment will lose value if interest rate go up, and as JohnFx points out, interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Finally, the amount of the investment is something that you might want to consider before making changes. If you have $50K put away as your six-month fund, you are talking of $500 versus $350 per annum in changing to a riskier investment with a 1% yield from a safer investment with a 0.7% yield. Whether bragging rights at neighborhood parties are worth the trouble is something for you to decide.",
"Avoiding fees would not be the primary reason to buy bonds yourself. No, the reason to buy bonds yourself in a retirement account is that you can hold them to maturity. Bond funds can and do lose value if interest rates rise (and gain it if interest rates fall). Of course the same happens with the bond that you hold, but you can hang on to it until maturity and get the face value out of it. That said, it would take some effort to put together a decent bond portfolio, especially if you were going to buy anything rated lower than the absolute best. I think it'd be fun to do, but I'm weird that way.",
"@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you.",
"\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \"\"time the market\"\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \"\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\"\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\"\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\"\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \"\"good old days\"\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\"",
"just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way.",
"Dollar cost averaging works if the stuff you're buying goes up within your time horizon. It won't protect you from losing money if it doesn't. Also consider that the person (or company, or industry) that suggests dollar-cost averaging might want you to start up a regular investment program and put it on auto-pilot, which subsequently increases the chance that you won't give due attention to the fact that you're sending them money every paycheck to buy an investment that make them money regardless of whether you make money or not.",
"I believe that the Wikipedia article is attempting to draw a difference between dollar cost averaging as a result of investing when money becomes available (i.e. 401k contributions from your paycheck) and spreading out a lump sum investment. For the former you want to continuously invest as the money becomes available following your predetermined plan for allocation. For the later it may be reasonable to consider the market as you decide how and the timing for investing.",
"\"Option 1 is out. There are no \"\"safe returns\"\" that make much money. Besides, if a correction does come along how will you know when to invest? There is no signal that says when the bottom is reached, and you emotions could keep you from acting. Option 2 (dollar cost averaging) is prudent and comforting. There are always some bargains about. You could start with an energy ETF or a few \"\"big oil\"\" company stocks right now.\"",
"Dollar cost averaging is a method of regularly investing money as it is available. For example, $100 from each paycheck. It has been shown to bet better, on average, than collecting the money and investing it all at once. It is not intended to be used when you have the entire amount up front. See this link. Dollar cost averaging a lump sum would only be beneficial if the market was just as likely to go up as is to go down. Since, over time, the market (historically) has always gone up, your best bet is to invest all of your money right away. Anything else is just trying to time the market.",
"\"The bond funds should tell you their duration. My 401(k) has similar choices, and right now, I'm at the short maturity, i.e. under 1 year. The current return is awful, but better than the drop the longer term funds will experience as rates come back up. Not quite mathematically correct, but close enough, \"\"duration\"\" gives you the time-weighted average maturity in a way that tells you how the value responds to a rate change. If a fund has a 10 year duration, a .1% rate rise will cause the fund value to drop 1.0%.\"",
"Taxes Based on the numbers you quoted (-$360) it doesn't appear that you would have a taxable event if you sell all the shares in the account. If you only sell some of the shares, to fund the new account, you should specify which shares you want to sell. If you sell only the shares that you bought when share prices were high, then every share you sell could be considered a loss. This will increase your losses. These losses can be deducted from your taxes, though there are limits. Fees Make sure that you understand the fee structure. Some fund families look at the balance of all your accounts to determine your fee level, others treat each fund separately. Procedure If you were able to get the 10K into the new account in the next few months I would advise not selling the shares. Because it will be 6 to 18 months before you are able to contribute the new funds then rebalancing by selling shares makes more sense. It gets you to your goal quicker. All the funds you mentioned have low expense ratios, I wouldn't move funds just to chase a the lowest expense ratio. I would look at the steps necessary to get the mix you want in the next few weeks, and then what will be needed moving forward. If the 60/40 or 40/60 split makes you comfortable pick one of them. If you want to be able to control the balance via rebalancing or changing your contribution percentage, then go with two funds.",
"Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks). Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table.",
"\"Since you have emphasized that you don't mind about variability, and that you have other funds you could liquidate, then I think a solution is to do with this money the same thing that you are already doing with those other funds. Then when you need the money, if the market has gone up sell the lots that were part of your original \"\"other funds\"\", which presumably have aged enough to qualify for long term gains rates, and let the newly purchased shares take their place.\"",
"More often than not the market will rise year on year. Your best move is to put the $5000 in on Jan 2. Are you in the 15% bracket? If not, that is, if higher, I'd suggest the traditional, deductible, IRA.",
"The fee representing the expense ratio is charged as long as you hold the investment. It is deducted daily from the fund assets, and thus reduces the price per share (NAV per share) that is calculated each day after the markets close. The investment fee is charged only when you make an investment in the fund. So, invest in the fund in one swell foop (all $5500 or $6500 for older people, all invested in a single transaction) rather than make monthly investments into the fund (hold the money in a money-market within your Roth IRA if need be). But, do check if there are back-end loads or 12b1 fees associated with the fund. The former often disappear after a few years; the latter are another permanent drain on performance. Also, please check whether reinvestment of dividends and capital gains incur the $75 transaction fee.",
"Here is a deliberately simple example of Dollar Cost averaging: Day 1: Buy 100 shares at $10. Total value = $1,000. Average cost per share = $10.00/share (easy). Day 2: Buy 100 more shares at $9. Total value = $1,900. Average cost per share = $9.50/share (1,900/200). Notice how your average cost per share went from $10.00 to $9.50. Now instead of hoping the stock rises above $10.00 a share to make a profit, you only need it to go to $9.50 a share (assuming no commissions or transaction fees). It's easy to see how this could work to your advantage. The only catch is that you need buy more of a stock that is dropping (people might think you're crazy). This could easily backfire if the stock continues to drop.",
"You will maximize your expected wealth by investing all the money you intend to invest, as soon as you have it available. Don't let the mythos of dollar cost averaging induce you to allocate more much money to a savings account than is optimal. If you want the positive expected return of the market, don't put your money in a savings account. That's especially true now, when you are certainly earning a negative real interest rate on your savings account. Dollar cost averaging and putting all your money in at the beginning would have the same expected return except that if you put all your money in earlier, it spends more time in the market, so your expected return is higher. Your volatility is also higher (because your savings account would have very low volatility) but your preference for investment tells me that you view the expected return and volatility tradeoff of the stock market as acceptable. If you need something to help you feel less stress about investing right away, think of it as dollar cost averaging on a yearly basis instead of monthly. Further, you take take comfort in knowing that you have allocated your wealth as you can instead of letting it fizzle away in real terms in a bank account.",
"\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"",
"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.",
"I think you're not applying the right time scale here. ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) is usually vesting every 6 months. So every half a year you receive a chunk of stocks based on your salary deduction, with the 15% discount. Every half a year you have a chunk of money from the sale of these stocks that you're going to put into your long term investment portfolio. That is dollar cost averaging. You're investing periodically (every 6 months in this case), same (based on your salary deferral) amount of money, regardless of the stock market behavior. That is precisely what dollar cost averaging is.",
"Since you are paying taxes on the distributions from your mutual funds anyway, instead of reinvesting the distributions back into the mutual funds, you could receive them as cash, then contribute them to your Roth IRA once you are able to open one.",
"The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.",
"If it had immediate purchase power of $525, can I use that to buy more $500 bonds over and over again? Your idea is flawed. You can't just make money out of thin air, unless you are running a Ponzi scheme.",
"I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.",
"You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there.",
"\"As Michael Pryor answered, a bond fund is a mutual fund that invests in bonds. I'd also consider an ETF based on bonds to be a bond fund, but I'm not sure that all investors would consider these as \"\"bond funds\"\". Not all bond funds are the same -- just like stock funds. You can classify bond funds based on the issuer of the bonds: You can also classify funds based on the time to maturity: In general, bond funds have lower risk and lower expected return than stock funds. Sometimes bond funds have price movements that are not tightly correlated to the price movements in the equity markets. This can make them a decent hedge against declines in your equity investments. See Michal Pryor's answer for some info on how you can get tax free treatment for your bond fund investments.\"",
"If you have other savings, the diversification occurs across the accounts. e.g. my 401(k) has access to the insanely low .02% fee VIIIX (Vanguard S&P fund) You can bet it's 100% in. My IRAs are the other assets that make the full picture look better allocated. A new investor has the issue you suggest, although right now, you can deposit $5500 for 2013, and $5500 for 2014, so with $11K available, you can start with $6 or $9K and start with 2 or 3 funds. Or $9K now, but with $500 left over for the '14 deposit, you can deposit $6K in early '15. The disparity of $3K min/$5500 annual limit is annoying, I agree, but shouldn't be a detriment to your planning.",
"\"Value averaging has you shift the balance of your portfolio over time, not the amount of contributions. So you can only do it if you have a portfolio holding both risky assets (shares etc) and some cash. You start out by making a plan about how much you will contribute every month and at what rate you expect the share part of the portfolio to grow. Perhaps based on 20th century data you think an 8% growth rate is reasonable. Or alternatively if you know your desired final amount obviously you can work backwards to a desired rate from that. If in any month the share part is falling below its expected growth path, you would put more money into it: possibly your whole paycheck contribution plus some from the savings cash account. On the other hand if the share component is growing \"\"too fast\"\" you would put all your additional savings into cash. So if your investments are doing well, you're not supposed to spend the excess money, but rather to put it aside into a dedicated cash account to top up your share component when prices fall. In theory, this has the auto-levelling benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging, but even better: when prices are high, you'll automatically buy fewer shares, or even sell some; conversely when prices are low you'll buy extra shares from your reserve account. If it turns out your estimate was unreasonably optimistic, and over your lifetime shares only ever average 3%, you'll end up with an entirely share portfolio, and a bumpier ride than you might have liked. If you have horrible luck and over your entire investing life shares return less than cash (which has happened, though not yet in the USA), then this will be worse than a standard balanced portfolio. The original book Value Averaging by Edelson has a pretty good explanation of various cases, though I would say some of the examples are worked in excessive detail. I have not implemented this myself, one reason being that the amount I'm able to save from year to year varies, as it probably does for you, and so predicting a path is not quite so simple as he assumes. You could still do it I suppose. I think you could get a very crude approximation to this by simply directing your savings into cash when the share market's rate of growth over the last several years is above what you think is the long term average.\"",
"\"First, do you get charged a commission or other fee for reinvesting? Second, why would capital gains and dividends be grouped together? If the broker charges you for that run away. As Joe explained, it is done as a courtesy. Doesn't this mean if I sell the stock, the profit will be used to buy that stock right back? No, this is only the capital gains distributions of funds. Lastly, there are two additional checkbox options I was hoping somebody could explain: \"\"All equity positions currently held in this account\"\" and \"\"Future equity purchases, transfers, and deposits to this account\"\". \"\"All equity positions\"\" means your selection will be valid for all the positions you already have. \"\"Future positions\"\" means it will only affect future positions, not the ones you already have. For example: FOLLOW-UP: Looking around, some people suggest not doing this for taxable accounts because it complicates cost basis reporting. Is this a valid concern? Doesn't the brokerage handle that and send you the information when you sell the stock? Yes, because you end up with tons of positions and you need to track the cost basis for each. Brokers are required to report cost-basis on 1099-B now, so its less of a problem, but before 2011 you'd have 10's of positions each year (if you have a monthly dividend, for example) each with different cost basis, and you'd usually sell them all at once. Go figure the gain. So the new 1099-B reporting regulations help a little on this, but it only kicks in for everything starting of 2013 IIRC. Fortunately, for some investments (mutual funds, mainly) you may chose averaging, but it has drawbacks as well.\"",
"\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \"\"up\"\" day or selling on a \"\"down\"\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\"",
"It may be true for a bond fund. But it is not true for bond etf. Bond etf will drop by the same amount when it distribute dividend on ex-dividend date.",
"What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees.",
"I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.",
"It's important to remember that upward trending things spend the vast majority of their time at all time highs - intelligent, well meaning people have been regularly saying the Dow Jones has been too expensive since about 2010, often because it was now at 'all time highs': Sitting on the sidelines can end up just as expensive (if not more so) than avoiding big drops. If you are worried about a large down swing straight after investing just drip it in over a period you feel comfortable with - no one can really answer this better than that without more info on your risk tolerance and exactly what you want to invest in. Worth noting that buying anything other than transaction free funds when split into small transactions also adds a lot more fees (~£10 entry and exit in a UK ISA for example). Split these over 12 months say, and it will cost you £240 straight out of the gate (2 fund purchases per month for 12 months @£10 each) and another £240 to exit before any holding fees from the ISA platform: that's over 1% of your capital gone just to your stockbroker employing this strategy. Both the products you mention are also quite high cost in ongoing charges, so unless you have very high convictions about the management quality, will also probably lag cheaper investment types over the long run as well due to the dire performance of virtually all higher cost, active management over time.",
"well, you know the problem lies with bonds maturing. The issue is not the function COMP but the security itself. You have to use existing total return indices that reflect a constant 10yr maturity position. >perpetually rolled the principal once the bond matured until the present? That would mean your 10y becomes 7y, 5y, 3y, 1y, matured then you reinvest. Not the same. Use SECF to find something like MLT1US10 Index or go to the IND page to see Merrill Lynch's bond indices. They're some of the best.",
"\"The person who told you \"\"no-load funds\"\" had the right idea. Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a \"\"value\"\" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a \"\"growth\"\" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund \"\"usually\"\" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager. Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money. For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of \"\"short term\"\". Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days. Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse. You don't need this money. For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it. You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%. For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero. Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now? Any recreation or hobby or activity. Maybe your rent or your tuition. Why spend it for a vague sense of \"\"safety\"\", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?\"",
"This is just a pedestrian (my) opinion: Yes, It is wise to invest in bond funds even in a low interest environment. Check out the lazy man's portfolio on bogleheads. The reason is:",
"\"You are asking multiple questions here, pieces of which may have been addressed in other questions. A bond (I'm using US Government bonds in this example, and making the 'zero risk of default' assumption) will be priced based on today's interest rate. This is true whether it's a 10% bond with 10 years left (say rates were 10% on the 30 yr bond 20 years ago) a 2% bond with 10 years, or a new 3% 10 year bond. The rate I use above is the 'coupon' rate, i.e. the amount the bond will pay each year in interest. What's the same for each bond is called the \"\"Yield to Maturity.\"\" The price adjusts, by the market, so the return over the next ten years is the same. A bond fund simply contains a mix of bonds, but in aggregate, has a yield as well as a duration, the time-and-interest-weighted maturity. When rates rise, the bond fund will drop in value based on this factor (duration). Does this begin to answer your question?\"",
"You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters.",
"For the rollover, you should probably talk to the recipient manager. This would be your broker or whomever (your new employer if rolling into another 401k). They should be able to update you on progress and let you know if you need to do anything. In a comment, you say I could be putting in money but instead im lossing. There is no requirement that an IRA have 401k money in it. Just put the money in without the existing money. Eventually the rollover will complete and add that money to whatever you contribute to the IRA. The rollover should not affect your future contributions in any way.",
"Buy a fund of bonds, there are plenty and are registered on your stockbroker account as 'funds' rather than shares. Otherwise, to the individual investor, they can be considered as the same thing. Funds (of bonds, rather than funds that contain property or shares or other investments) are often high yield, low volatility. You buy the fund, and let the manager work it for you. He buys bonds in accordance to the specification of the fund (ie some funds will say 'European only', or 'global high yield' etc) and he will buy and sell the bonds regularly. You never hold to maturity as this is handled for you - in many cases, the manager will be buying and selling bonds all the time in order to give you a stable fund that returns you a dividend. Private investors can buy bonds directly, but its not common. Should you do it? Up to you. Bonds return, the company issuing a corporate bond will do so at a fixed price with a fixed yield. At the end of the term, they return the principal. So a 20-year bond with a 5% yield will return someone who invests £10k, £500 a year and at the end of the 20 years will return the £10k. The corporate doesn't care who holds the bond, so you can happily sell it to someone else, probably for £10km give or take. People say to invest in bonds because they do not move much in value. In financially difficult times, this means bonds are more attractive to investors as they are a safe place to hold money while stocks drop, but in good times the opposite applies, no-one wants a fund returning 5% when they think they can get 20% growth from a stock.",
"\"Your funds are in a retirement account. Withdrawals from your IRA will be penalized if you withdraw before you turn 59.5 years old, and you appear to be decades away from that age. The general advice I would give you is to pick a \"\"target year fund\"\" that targets the year you turn 59.5. The stock market is more volatile, but its average gains will protect you from inflation just eating your funds. Bonds are in counterpoint to your stocks - more stable, and protecting you from the chance that stocks dip right before you want to withdraw. Target year funds start with higher amounts of stock, and gradually rebalance towards bonds over time. Thus, you take your market risks earlier while you can benefit from the market's gains, and then have stability when you actually would want to retire and depend on the savings.\"",
"This is more than likely a thing about your financial institution and the exchanges where they trade shares. Some exchanges cannot/will not handle odd lot transactions. Most established brokerages have software and accounting systems that will deal in round lots with the exchanges, but can track your shares individually. Sometimes specific stocks cannot be purchased in odd lots due to circumstances specific to that stock (trading only on a specific exchange, for example). Most brokerages offer dollar-cost averaging programs, but may limit which stocks are eligible, due to odd lot and partial share purchases. Check with your brokerage to see if they can support odd lot and/or DCA purchases. You may find another similar ETF with similar holdings that has better trading conditions, or might consider an open-end mutual fund with similar objectives. Mutual funds allow partial share purchases (you have $100 to invest today, and they issue you 35.2 shares, for example).",
"There was a time that a rule of thumb stated your stock allocation should be 100-your age. That rule suggests that you are at 65%stock/35% bond/cash. If you are comfortable having this money 100% invested, the best advice would be dollar cost averaging, anything more specific would suggest market timing.",
"Many folks use bonds to diversify their portfolio since bonds rise and fall in value at different times and for different reasons than stocks. Bonds pay interest on a regular basis (usually monthly or quarterly) and so some people invest in bonds in order to match the interest payments to some regular expense they might have. The interest payment does not change (fixed income). For individual bonds, there is a maturity date at which you can expect to receive the face value of the bond (the issuer's creditworthiness is important here). You can make a little money on a bond by buying it when its value is lower than its face value and either selling later for a higher value, or waiting for it to mature. Often the minimum investment for a single bond is high, so if you don't have a large enough amount, you can still get the performance of bonds through a bond fund. These do not mature, so you don't have a guarantee of a return of your investment. However, they have access to more bonds than retail investors, so the funds can keep your money more fully invested. If you don't need the income, you can reinvest the dividends and have a little extra capital growth this way.",
"If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.",
"The following advice assumes that you have a significant amount already in the account in cash equivalents. If you are only talking a few hundred bucks or so, then just jump in at the next dip (like today's). If you have a larger amount to move into equities, the safest approach is to gradually move it into investments over some period of time at regular intervals regardless of what is going on in the market. This mitigates the risk of investing it all into an fund that is peaking at the exact moment you buy. So, for example, you might invest 20% of the total amount each month for 5 months to gradually get into the market. The larger the amount you are investing, the more you probably want to spread it out, but don't spread it out much further than a year or you are losing opportunity cost by leaving your money in cash-type investments with likely a very poor rate of return. This strategy is called dollar-cost averaging if you want to research it more.",
"For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds.",
"You report what you contributed (sum of monthly investments that you made) to the bond fund. Distributions are the earnings in the account that stay in the account and have no tax consequences (in particular, you don't report them as income on your tax returns) until you withdraw the money later.",
"Since you already have twice your target in that emergency fund, putting that overage to work is a good idea. The impression that I get is that you'd still like to stay on the safe side. What you're looking for is a Balanced Fund. In a balanced fund the managers invest in both stocks and bonds (and cash). Since you have that diversification between those two asset classes, their returns tend to be much less volatile than other funds. Also, because of their intended audience and the traditions from that class of funds' long history, they tend to invest somewhat more conservatively in both asset classes. There are two general types of balanced funds: Conservative Allocation funds and Moderate Allocation funds. Conservative allocation funds invest in more fixed income than equity (the classic mix is 60% bonds, 40% stocks). Moderate allocation funds invest in more equity than fixed income (classic mix: 40% bonds, 60% stocks). A good pair of funds that are similar but exemplify the difference between conservative allocation and moderate allocation are Vanguard's Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) for the former and Vanguard's Wellington Fund (VWELX) for the latter. (Disclaimer: though both funds are broadly considered excellent, this is not a recommendation.) Good luck sorting this out!",
"2%? I would put in just what it takes to share in the profit sharing, not a dime more. My S&P fund cost is .02% (edited, as it dropped to .02 since original post), 1/100 of the cost of most funds you list. Doesn't take too many years of this fee to negate the potential tax savings, and not many more to make this a real loser.",
"According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.",
"That would be my suggestion (and what I've personally done), but I can't tell you what's right for you. As an aside, you don't usually need to manually fund an IRA (traditional *or* Roth) to open it for a rollover - Just tell them you're doing a rollover, and they'll set you up and tell you where to have the 401k checks sent (and sometimes even arrange it all *for* you).",
"I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons:"
] |
[
"Many would recommend lump sum investing because of the interest gains, and general upward historical trend of the market. After introducing DCA in A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Malkiel says the following: But remember, because there is a long-term uptrend in common-stock prices, this technique is not necessarily appropriate if you need to invest a lump sum such as a bequest. If possible, keep a small reserve (in a money fund) to take advantage of market declines and buy a few extra shares if the market is down sharply. I’m not suggesting for a minute that you try to forecast the market. However, it’s usually a good time to buy after the market has fallen out of bed. Just as hope and greed can sometimes feed on themselves to produce speculative bubbles, so do pessimism and despair react to produce market panics. - A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Burton G. Malkiel He goes on from there to recommend a rebalancing strategy."
] |
1832
|
Warren Buffett and Charles Munger advice for small investors?
|
[
"590276"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"411084",
"133487",
"209843",
"590276",
"359229",
"323660",
"485092",
"3533",
"299284",
"14748",
"145140",
"474296",
"380612",
"556913",
"157038",
"331553",
"288073",
"70558",
"245728",
"404341",
"163590",
"195222",
"501395",
"245168",
"253374",
"404732",
"550252",
"565827",
"328477",
"278369",
"538086",
"136825",
"338962",
"63158",
"596537",
"312591",
"444261",
"509064",
"446948",
"42960",
"419038",
"559768",
"363719",
"134722",
"460643",
"329466",
"213435",
"323067",
"133935",
"35093",
"190264",
"191566",
"117801",
"24846",
"552707",
"302315",
"283733",
"384893",
"580313",
"276778",
"269384",
"320587",
"379914",
"182511",
"479697",
"98704",
"137852",
"458740",
"234640",
"41809",
"142320",
"38510",
"171189",
"276082",
"224816",
"396537",
"458244",
"551590",
"524030",
"236218",
"31139",
"339864",
"423745",
"217437",
"243457",
"153348",
"320320",
"160922",
"339332",
"144030",
"148348",
"229271",
"215296",
"231195",
"35971",
"371579",
"113099",
"334491",
"68270",
"262180"
] |
[
"\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"",
"\"You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund.\"\" Or as he said at a different time, \"\"Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees\"\". You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund. Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy.\"",
"\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"",
"\"Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10 percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: \"\"I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions or individuals.\"\"\"",
"As a corollary to this; the average investor will never know more than the market. Buffett can buy mispriced securities because he runs a multi-billion dollar company dedicated to finding these mispricings. My advice for the common man: 1. Invest in both Stocks (for growth) & Bonds (for wealth preservation) 2. Stocks should be almost exclusively Index Funds That's it. The stock market has a 'random walk with a positive drift' which means that in general, the market will increase in value. Index funds capture this value and will protect you against the inevitable BoA, AIG, Enron, etc. It's fine to invest in index funds with a strategy as well, for instance emerging market ETFs could capture the growth of a particular region. Bear ETFs are attractive if you think the market is going to hit a downturn in the future.",
"\"I don't know really is the best investment strategy. People think that they have to know everything to make money. But realistically, out of the hundreds of thousands of publicly traded securities, you really can only invest in a tiny number of them. Of the course of a week, you literally have more than a million \"\"buy\"\" or \"\"don't buy\"\" decisions, because the prices of those securities fluctuate every day. Simply due to the fact that there are so many securities, you cannot know what everything is going to do. You have to say \"\"I don't know\"\". Also, when you do understand something, it is usually fairly priced. So will you make money on it? \"\"I don't know\"\". Only very rarely will you find something that you actually understand well and it is significantly undervalued. You can be looking at a company a day for two years before you find it. But people get trigger happy. They bet on 51%/49% odds when they should only bet on 90%/10% odds or higher. If you are forced to bet on everything, it makes sense that you bet on everything you believe is greater than 50% chance of winning. But since you cannot bet on everything, you should only bet on the highest quality bets, those with greater than 90% chance of winning. To find such a bet, you may have to shuffle through 100 different companies and only make 2-3 bets. You are looking for something that is at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean. People are not good at doing a lot of work, most of which yields nothing, to find one big payoff. They are wired to only look at the present, so they take the best bet they can see at the moment, which is often barely above 50% (and with any misjudgment, it may actually be well below 50%). And people are not good at understanding compound/geometric growth. You can keep multipling 10% gains (1.10 * 1.10 * 1.10 ...), but that can all be wiped out by multiplying by one zero, which is why taking a 51%/49% bet is so dangerous (even though technically it is an advantageous one). They forget to adjust for the geometric aspect of compounding. A 99%/1% bet is one you should take, but if you are allowed to repeat it and you keep going all-in, you will eventually lose and have $0, which is the same as if you took a single all-in bet that has 0% chance of winning. As Buffett says, if you are only allowed to make 20 investments over a lifetime, you will most likely do better because it prevents you from making many of these mistakes.\"",
"A couple points, first you don't point out what investors you want to invest with, and second BRK.B does not track anything; it is just a very small slice of his entire holdings BRK.A minus the voting rights. One solid way to go would be to buy BRK.B and also a tech ETF like QQQ, or XLK, ..or both.",
"\"Warren Buffet isn't using any special sauce. He looks for value and ignores hype, greed, and fear. He buys what he knows and looks for companies that generate cash and/or are available for a discount of their true value. He explains what he looks for in a company and his reasons for buying it. He has said on numerous occasions, \"\"I look for intrinsic value.\"\" (So there's your formula.) Human nature is often irrational and investing seems to bring out the fear and greed. I've always been a bit surprised when people ascribe some sort of sixth sense to Warren Buffet's success. He just works hard and doesn't deviate from a sound strategy. \"\"Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.\"\" And of course, rule one: \"\"Don't lose money.\"\" It's not a joke. How many people buy high and sell low because of fear and greed? When the market tanks, buy more. Finally, anyone can invest with Buffet without all the work. Just buy a few shares of BRK.A or BRK.B.\"",
"The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.",
"\"That's great that you have saved up money. You are ahead of your peers. I would advise against investing in an index fund. The attraction of the idea is that you will get the same return as the base item. For example, an index fund of gold would supposedly give you the same return as if you bought gold. In reality this is not true. The return of an index fund is always significantly below the return of the underlying commodity. Your best strategy is to invest in something you know and understand. There are two books that can help you learn how to do this: \"\"One Up on Wall Street\"\" by Peter Lynch and \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. Buying, reading and following the guidance in these two books is your best investment of time and money.\"",
"That is absolute rubbish. Warren Buffet follows simple value and GARP tenants that literally anyone could follow if they had the discipline to do so. I have never once heard of an investment made by Warren Buffet that wasn't rooted in fundamentals and easy to understand. The concept is fairly simple as is the math, buying great companies trading at discounts to what they are worth due to market fluctuations, emotionality, or overreactions to key sectors etc. If I buy ABC corp at $10 knowing it is worth $20, it could go down or trade sideways for FIVE YEARS doing seemingly nothing and then one day catch up with its worth due to any number of factors. In that case, my 100% return which took five years to actualize accounts for an average 20% return per year. Also (and this should be obvious), but diversification is a double edged sword. Every year, hundreds of stocks individually beat the market return. Owning any one of these stocks as your only holding would mean that YOU beat the market. As you buy more stocks and diversify your return will get closer and closer to that of an index or mutual fund. My advice is to stick to fundamentals like value and GARP investing, learn to separate when the market is being silly from when it is responding to a genuine concern, do your own homework and analysis on the stocks you buy, BE PATIENT after buying stock that your analysis gives you confidence in, and don't over diversify. If you do these things, congrats. YOU ARE Warren Buffet.",
"\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \"\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\"\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \"\"The RRSP Secret\"\" by Greg Habstritt. \"\"Unshakeable\"\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\"",
"\"Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the \"\"outcome\"\" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M? Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word \"\"average\"\". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. \"\"Heavyweights\"\" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes. Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion.\"",
"Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.",
"It is only wise to invest in what you understand (ala Warren Buffet style). Depending on how much money you have, you might see fit to consult a good independent financial advisor instead of seeking advice from this website. A famous quote goes: “Those who say, do not know. Those who know, do not say”",
"Don't invest in regular mutual funds. They are a rip-off. And, most investment professionals will not do much to help your financial future. Here's the advice:",
"I think the list could have added: - Save in regular intervals using the same strategy. Just to make sure that good old dollar cost averaging is thrown in. That's probably where most people go way wrong. Save money all year, dump it on a stock they like because some family friend investment expert said that 'apple prices will go up' with out explaining that you need to take advantage of mean reversion to help spread the risk.",
"This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.",
"I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way. Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book. It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays. Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company. In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company. How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate. You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic. Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing. Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it. Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price. It is good to look at index funds as a diversification. Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars. Big deal. How much money could you earn during that time period? Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time. If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double. Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing. Start building funds that can compound. Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant. The key is to get money to compound!",
"Read Warren Buffett's letters to his shareholders - they are such an interesting read and I guarantee you'll learn more than financial modelling - you will learn how to think about these businesses. Must be what 700-800 pages in total?",
"\"So, I've read the article in question, \"\"Basically, It's Over\"\". Here's my opinion: I respect Charlie Munger but I think his parable misses the mark. If he's trying to convince the average person (or at least the average Slate-reading person) that America is overspending and headed for trouble, the parable could have been told better. I wasn't sure how to follow some of the analogies he was making, and didn't experience the clear \"\"aha\"\" I was hoping for. Nevertheless, I agree with his point of view, which I see as: In the long run, the United States is going to have serious difficulty in supporting its debt habit, energy consumption habit, and its currency. In terms of an investment strategy to protect oneself, here are some thoughts. These don't constitute a complete strategy, but are some points to consider as part of an overall strategy: If the U.S. is going to continue amassing debt fast, it would stand to reason it will become a worse credit risk, requiring it to pay higher interest rates on its debt. Long-term treasury bonds would decline as rates increase, and so wouldn't be a great place to be invested today. In order to pay the mounting debt and debt servicing costs, the U.S. will continue to run the printing presses, to inflate itself out of debt. This increase in the money supply will put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar relative to the currencies of better-run economies. U.S. cash and short-term treasuries might not be a great place to be invested today. Hedge with inflation-indexed bonds (e.g. TIPS) or the bonds of stronger major economies – but diversify; don't just pick one. If you agree that energy prices are headed higher, especially relative to U.S. dollars, then a good sector to invest a portion of one's portfolio would be world energy producing companies. (Send some of your money over to Canada, we have lots of oil and we're right next door :-) Anybody who has already been practicing broad, global diversification is already reasonably protected. Clearly, \"\"diversification\"\" across just U.S. stocks and bonds is not enough. Finally: I don't underestimate the ability of the U.S. to get out of this rut. U.S. history has impressed upon me (as a Canadian) two things in particular: it is highly capable of both innovating and of overcoming challenges. I'm keeping a small part of my portfolio invested in strong U.S. companies that are proven innovators – not of the \"\"financial\"\"-innovation variety – and with global reach.\"",
"\"As foundational material, read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy.\"",
"\"Those who say a person should invest in riskier assets when young are those who equate higher returns with higher risk. I would argue that any investment you do not understand is risky and allows you to lose money at a more rapid rate than someone who understands the investment. The way to reduce risk is to learn about what you want to invest in before you invest in it. Learning afterward can be a very expensive proposition, possibly costing you your retirement. Warren Buffet told the story on Bloomberg Radio in late 2013 of how he read everything in his local library on investing as a teenager and when his family moved to Washington he realized he had the entire Library of Congress at his disposal. One of Mr. Buffett's famous quotes when asked why he doesn't invest in the tech sector was: \"\"I don't invest in what I do not understand.\"\". There are several major asset classes: Paper (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, currency), Commodities (silver, gold, oil), Businesses (creation, purchase or partnership as opposed to common stock ownership) and Real Estate (rental properties, flips, land development). Pick one that interests you and learn everything about it that you can before investing. This will allow you to minimize and mitigate risks while increasing the rewards.\"",
"Warren Buffett answered this question very well at the 2009 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting. He said that it was important to read everything you can about investing. What you will find is that you will have a number of competing ideas in your head. You will need to think these through and find the best way to solve them that fits you. You will mostly learn how to invest through good examples. There are fewer good examples out there than you might think, given how many books there are and how many people get paid to give advice in this area. If you want to see how professional investors actually think about specific investments, over a thousand investment examples can be found at www.valueinvestorsclub.com, just login as a guest. The site is run by Joel Greenblatt (you would benefit from reading his books also), and it will give you a sense of the work that investors put into their research. Good luck.",
"\"Despite Buffett's nearly perfect consistent advice over the past few decades, they don't reflect his earliest days. His modern philosophy seemed to solidify in the 1970s. You can see that Buffett's earliest days grew faster, at 29.5 % for those partners willing to take on leverage with Buffett, than the last half century, at 19.7%. Not only is Buffett limited by size, as its quite difficult to squeeze one half trillion USD into sub-billion USD investments, but the economy thus market is far different than it was before the 1980s. He would have to acquire at least 500 billion USD companies outright, and there simply aren't that many available that satisfy all of his modern conditions. The market is much different now than it was when he first started at Graham-Newman because before the 1960s, the economy thus market would collapse and rebound about every few years. This sort of variance can actually help a value investor because a true value investor will abandon investments when valuations are high and go all in when valuations are low. The most extreme example was when he tried to as quietly as possible buy up an insurance company selling for something like a P/E of 1 during one of the collapses. These kinds of opportunities are seldom available anymore, not even during the 2009 collapse. As he became larger, those investments became off limits because it simply wasn't worth his time to find such a high returner if it's only a bare fraction of his wealth. Also, he started to deviate from Benjamin Graham's methods and started to incorporate Philip Fisher's. By the 1970s, his investment philosophy was more or less cemented. He tried to balance Graham's avarice for price with Fisher's for value. All of the commentary that special tax dodges or cheap financing are central to his returns are false. They contributed, but they are ancillary. As one can see by comparing the limited vs general partners, leverage helps enormously, but this is still a tangent. Buffett has undoubtedly built his wealth from the nature of his investments. The exact blueprint can be constructed by reading every word he has published and any quotes he has not disavowed. Simply, he buys the highest quality companies in terms of risk-adjusted growth at the best available prices. Quantitatively, it is a simple strategy to replicate. NFLX was selling very cheaply during the mid-2000s, WDC sells frequently at low valuations, up and coming retailers frequently sell at low valuations, etc. The key to Buffett's method is emotional control and removing the mental block that price equals value; price is cost, value is revenue, and that concept is the hardest for most to imbibe. Quoting from the first link: One sidelight here: it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately to people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of IQ or academic training. It's instant recognition, or it is nothing. and I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market. These Graham-and-Doddsville investors have successfully exploited gaps between price and value. When the price of a stock can be influenced by a \"\"herd\"\" on Wall Street with prices set at the margin by the most emotional person, or the greediest person, or the most depressed person, it is hard to argue that the market always prices rationally. In fact, market prices are frequently nonsensical. and finally Success in investing doesn’t correlate with I.Q. once you’re above the level of 25. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing. There is almost no information on any who has helped Buffett internally or even managed Berkshire's investments aside from Louis Simpson. It is unlikely that Buffett has allowed anyone to manage much of Berkshire's investments considering the consistent stream of commentary from him claiming that he nearly does nothing except read annual reports all day to the extent that he may have neglected his family to some degree and that listening to others will more likely hurt performance than help with the most striking example being his father's recommendation that he not open a hedge fund after retiring from Graham-Newman because he believed the market was topping, and he absolutely idolized his father.\"",
"As a young investor, you should know that the big secret is that profitable long term investing is boring. It is is not buying one day and selling the next and keeping very close tabs on your investments and jumping on the computer and going 'Buy!' , 'Sell'. That makes brokers rich, but not you. So look at investments but not everyday and find something else that's exciting, whether it's dirt biking or WOW or competitive python coding. As a 19 year old, you have a ton of time and you don't need to swing for the fences and make 50% or 30% or even 20% returns every year to do well. And you don't have to pick the best performing stocks, and if you do, you don;t have to buy them at their lowest or sell them at their highest. Go read A Random Walk's guide to Investing by Burton Malkiel and The only Investment Guide you'll ever need by Andrew Tobias. Buy them at used bookstores because it's cheaper that way. And if you want more excitement read You Can Be a Stock Market Genius by Joel GreenBlatt, One up On Wall Street By Peter Lynch, something by Warren Buffet and if you want to be really whacked, read Fooled By Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Talib, But never forget about Tobias and Malkiel, invest a regular amount of money every month from 19 to 65 according to what they write and you'll be a wealthy guy by 65.",
"\"Invest in productive assets and by that I mean companies. Edit: I'll elaborate on \"\"productive assets\"\": any asset that produces something; whether it produces cash or a commodity, you'll automatically accumulate more of its byproduct in the future. The rest is self explanatory\"",
"\"If you can afford the time and are looking for more deep, and fun, investment tips, check out http://gurufocus.com. Great for more fundamental analysis of \"\"Intelligent Investor\"\" type Benjamin Graham-style businesses. No use scatter-shooting the stock exchange hoping to find good value businesses. Even blue-chips have an increasingly uncertain future (except IMHO certain world dominators like KO, WMT, XO and MCD).\"",
"\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"",
"\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"",
"If you see something that looks like a sales pitch, be skeptical, even if they sound informed, say things which resonate with your concerns and promise to alleviate your problems. Watch out in particular for people who pontificate about matters which are tangentially related to the investment (e.g. populist anti-Wall-Street sentiment). Beware limited-time opportunities, offers, and discounts. I'm specifically talking about your email pitches, Motley Fool. They're shameful. Remember you're allowed to change your mind and go back on something that you've said a few minutes ago. If anyone tries to trick you into agreeing to go along with them by taking what something you've said and manipulating it, or uses logic to demonstrate that you must buy something based on things you've said, tell them you're not comfortable, head for the door and don't look back. Don't be afraid of embarrassment or anything like that. (You can investigate whether your position is in fact logically consistent later.) Run away from anyone who resents or deprecates the notion of a second opinion. Don't ever go along with anything that seems shady: it may be shadier than you know. Some people thought Bernie Maddoff was doing some front-running on the side; turns out it was a Ponzi scheme. (Likewise the Ponzi scheme that devastated Albania's economy was widely suspected of being dirty, but people suspected more of a black-market angle.) Beware of anyone who is promising stability and protection. Insurance companies can sell you products (especially annuities) which can deliver it, but they're very expensive for what you get. Don't buy it unless you seriously need it.",
"For the mechanices/terms of stock investing, I recommend Learn to Earn by Peter Lynch. I also like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. It explains why indexing is the best choice for most people. For stock picking, a good intro is The Little Book of Value Investing by Chris Brown. And then there is The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. IMO, this is the bible of investing.",
"Commonly recommended books: Intelligent Investor - Graham One Up On Wall Street - Lynch The Essays of Warren Buffett : Lessons for Corporate America - Cunningham Graham's book should be mandatory reading for this sub. Lynch's book talks about leveraging your personal expertise to make intelligent investment choices. Cunningham's is a compilation of Warren Buffett's letters to shareholders of BH with some commentary. It covers a wider range of material, but the lessons on corporate governance are very useful when doing valuation.",
"A guy I used to work with would buy some shares in certain companies on a regular basis. The guy in question chose Coke, Pepsi, GE, Disney and some other old stable stocks. He just kept buying a few shared ($50 or so at a time) year after year after year. He worked his entire life, but by the time he was ready to retire, he had a pretty sizable investment; he was worth a rather tidy sum. The moral of the story is, it is very much worth it to invest a bit at a time. Don't bother with the idea of buying low and selling high; not right now. Just go ahead and buy stable stocks (or shares of index funds) and wait them out. This strategy (mixed with other retirement tactics like a 401K from work, and IRA of your own, Social Security in the US) is a good way to build wealth. Don't spend money you don't have, be ready for a long term investment and I think it makes great sense, regardless of what country you live in.",
"I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.",
"\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"",
"The key to good investing is you need to understand what you are investing in. That is, if you are buying a company that makes product X, you need to understand that. It is a good idea to buy stock in good companies but that is not sufficient. You need to buy stock in good companies at good prices. That means you need to understand things like price to earnings, price to revenue and price to book. Bob",
"I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.",
"Powers makes a good point: trading costs may eat up a significant portion of your ROI. A fee as little as 2% can consume more than 50% of your long-term ROI! A rule of thumb is keep your fees to less than 1%. One way to do that is to buy stock in companies that have a DRIP with a Share Purchase Plan (SPP). Often the SPP allows investors to purchase shares for low fees or free. Once you have the ability to purchase shares for (virtually) free, you can use InvestMete. Roughly, you send more money to the companies whose share prices are near their 52-week low, and less money to those who are near their 52-week high. Getting back to your original question...",
"Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.",
"\"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords. Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000. He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in \"\"genius moves\"\" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too. Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference. In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse.\"",
"\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"",
"\"As ChrisInEdmonton describes, shorting has an asymmetric risk/reward ratio. And put options have a time cost, if you think the market is overvalued and buy lots of puts, but they expire before the market finally corrects, you can lose your entire investment. Betting on market timing of any kind is extremely difficult to do, some would argue it's impossible. \"\"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent\"\" is a favorite wall street trader saying. Instead of playing a game that's difficult to win, the better option is to play one you can win. That's to learn how to value individual investments well and accumulate cash until you can find investments that are under-valued to invest in. The best way to learn to value investments is to read Graham and Buffett. \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a good starting point, and you can read all of Buffett's investor letters for the last 30 years + for free on the Berkshire Hathaway web site. Finally the textbook on valuing stocks and other investments is \"\"Securities Analysis\"\" the 6th edition is only version to get, it was updated with Buffett and other leading value investors oversight. A basic overview of valuing investments is that every investment has an \"\"intrinsic value\"\" consisting of it's future cash flows, discounted for the time it takes to receive them. The skill is being able to estimate how likely those cash flows are to happen. a) Is it a good business? Does it have a moat, i.e. barriers that make it hard for competitors to duplicate it? b) Will management invest or distribute those cash flows wisely? Then your strategy is to not even worry about the market, spend your time looking at individual stocks and investments and wait until some come along that's well undervalued. That may be during a market correction, or it may be tomorrow. And it's not just good enough to intelligently value your investments, you also have to have psychological fortitude to not panic and to think for yourself. Buffett describes it best. Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his. Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you. But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game. Lastly learning to value investments isn't just useful in the stock market, they are applicable to investing in any investment such as bonds, real estate, and even buying your home or running a business.\"",
"Buffet is in a different league from other value investors. He looks for stable companies with no debt and good management. Then he looks to deeply understand the industries of candidate companies, and looks for companies that are not in commodity businesses or sell commodities that can be bought for 25% of the valuation that he believes reflects the true value of the company. Deeply understanding the market is really the key. Consider the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which Buffet purchased last year. Railroads benefit from higher oil prices, as they can transport cargo much cheaper than trucks. They also tend to have natural monopolies in the regions they operate in. Buffet bought the railroad just as production of oil and natural gas in North Dakota started picking up. Since pipeline capacity between North Dakota and refineries in Texas/Oklahoma is very limited, the railroad is making alot of money transporting crude.",
"This fortune article is referenced in his either 2003 or 2004 annual report in which he does say that the market will not likely return much in the future and generally talks numbers. I am also a value investor, such that I can be in this environment and believe there is a bit of value in knowing where you think the market is headed but the real value is in underwriting each deal. In long, I agree with you",
"If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.",
"\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"",
"As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.",
"\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \"\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\"\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\"",
"\"I'm a senior majoring in accounting and management information systems. Here is a question I answered a while back about financial statements and employee retention. In the answer that I provided at the bottom it was to assess a company's ability to pay by use of ratios. Likewise, similar accounting methods need to be understood and implemented when assessing stocks(which is where I believe Mr. Buffet was going with this). As we can see the severity of the questions decreases, but if you can not answer question 3 then you should study accounting principles. So how much is enough just to get started? You will never have enough knowledge to start, period. You will have to continuously be learning, so start sooner than later. However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. A comment on @Veronica's post. Understanding economics and accounting are fundamental. Analysis, seeing trends, and copying are instinctual human traits that helped us evolve (we are very good at pattern recognition). Taking an intro economic and accounting course at a local community college is an excellent place to start when breaking the mold of pattern-thinking. You have to be critical in understanding what elements move a company's A/R in the statement of cash flows. Read. Literally, don't stop reading. Latest edition of of Kesio's accounting principles? Read it. Cover to cover. Tax policies on Section 874, 222, 534? Read it. Take a class, read a book, ask questions! Good Luck, \"\"Welcome to [the] Science [of Business], you're gonna like it here\"\" - Phil Plait\"",
"Read the Security Analysis. I believe if you read it completely, you will have a real good chance of succeeding at making good money. If you find the book hard to read just go through it and underline under the text as you read it.",
"I would always recommend the intelligent investor by Benjamin Graham the mentor of warren buffet once you have a basic knowledge ie what is a share bond guilt etc In terms of pure investment the UK is fairly similar the major difference is the simpler tax structure, ISA allowance and the more generous CGT regime.",
"Adding to the very good advises above - Concentrate on costs related to investment activity. Note all expenses and costs that you pay. Keep it low.",
"\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"",
"\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"",
"Lots of good advice so far. Here's some meta-advice. Read through everything here twice, and distill out what the big picture ideas are. Learn about what you need to know about them. Pick a strategy and/or long term goals. Work toward them. Get advice from many many places and distill it. This is currently known as crowd-sourcing but I've been doing it all my life. It's very effective. No one will ever care as much about your money as you. Some specific things I haven't seen mentioned (or not mentioned much):",
"Value investing is an investment approach that relies on buying securities below their intrinsic values. There are two main concepts; one is the Intrinsic Value and the other is Margin of Safety. Intrinsic value is the value of the underlying business - if we are talking about stocks - that can be calculated through carefully analyzing the business looking at all aspects of it. If there is an intrinsic value exists for a company then there is a price tag we can put on its shares as well. Value investing is looking to buy shares well below its intrinsic value. It is important to know that there is no correct intrinsic value exists for a company and two people can come up with different figures, if they were presented the same data. Calculating the intrinsic value for a business is the hardest part of value investing. Margin of Safety is the difference between the buying price of a stock and its intrinsic value. Value investors are insisting on buying stocks well below their intrinsic value, where the margin of safety is 20%-30% or even more. This concepts is protecting them from poor decisions and market downturns. It is also providing a room for error, when calculating the intrinsic value. The approach was introduced by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd in a book called Security Analysis in 1934. Other famous investor using this approach is Warren Buffet Books to read: I would start to read the first two book first.",
"The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.",
"you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.",
"You have received much good advice, but based on 53 years investing and the first 25 getting my nose bloodied and breaking even I very strongly offer the following. Before doing so let me first offer this caveat: I am not questioning your broker or the advice, but it is only valuable to you if history proves correct. No one, not even Bernanke can predict how stock will perform in the future. Maybe if he sees a depression. My advice to someone new to stock investing is to purchase a index fund from a discount broker, e.g. Fidelity or Vanguard, and then study the market and economics. The Wall Street Journal and the web are my favorites. I started with a hell of a lot less than you have saved, I would not turn $200K over to anyone until you know exactly the risk and cost involved. Also, I wouldn't depend on one person or firm to advise or manage my money. I like to balance one against the other. I do not recall different firms recommending the same stocks. One must remember everyone in the business of recommending stock or any investment is selling something and must be compensated. That's how they earn a living.",
"\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \"\"financial planner,\"\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\"",
"\"I'm 39 and have been investing since my very early 20's, and the advice I'd like to go back and give myself is the following: 1) Time is your friend. Compounding interest is a powerful force and is probably the most important factor to how much money you are going to wind up with in the end. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can. You have to run twice as hard to catch up if you start late, and you will still probably wind up with less in the end for the extra effort. 2) Don't invest 100% of your investment money It always bugged me to let my cash sit idle in an investment account because the niggling notion of inflation eating up my money and I felt I was wasting opportunity cost by not being fully invested in something. However, not having enough investable cash around to buy into the fire-sale dips in the market made me miss out on opportunities. 3) Diversify The dot.com bubble taught me this in a big, hairy painful way. I had this idea that as a technologist I really understood the tech bubble and fearlessly over-invested in Tech stocks. I just knew that I was on top of things as an \"\"industry insider\"\" and would know when to jump. Yeah. That didn't work out so well. I lost more than 6 figures, at least on paper. Diversification will attenuate the ups and downs somewhat and make the market a lot less scary in the long run. 4) Mind your expenses It took me years of paying huge full-service broker fees to realize that those clowns don't seem to do any better than anyone else at picking stocks. Even when they do, the transaction costs are a lead weight on your returns. The same holds true for mutual funds/ETFs. Shop for low expense ratios aggressively. It is really hard for a fund manager to consistently beat the indexes especially when you burden the returns with expense ratios that skim an extra 1% or so off the top. The expense ratio/broker fees are among the very few things that you can predict reliably when it comes to investments, take advantage of this knowledge. 5) Have an exit strategy for every investment People are emotional creatures. It is hard to be logical when you have skin in the game and most people aren't disciplined enough to just admit when they have a loser and bail out while they are in the red or conversely admit when they have a winner and take profits before the party is over. It helps to counteract this instinct to have an exit strategy for each investment you buy. That is, you will get out if it drops by x% or grows by y%. In fact, it is probably a good idea to just enter those sell limit orders right after you buy the investment so you don't have to convince yourself to press the eject button in the heat of a big move in the price of that investment. Don't try to predict tops or bottoms. They are extremely hard to guess and things often turn so fast that you can't act on them in time anyway. Get out of an investment when it has met your goal or is going to far in the wrong direction. If you find yourself saying \"\"It has to come back eventually\"\", slap yourself. When you are trying to decide whether to stay in the investment or bail, the most important question is \"\"If I had the current cash value of the stock instead of shares, would I buy it today?\"\" because essentially that is what you are doing when you stick with an investment. 6) Don't invest in fads When you are investing you become acutely sensitive to everyone's opinions on what investment is hot and what is not. If everyone is talking about a particular investment, avoid it. The more enthusiastic people are about it (even experts) the MORE you should avoid it. When everyone starts forming investment clubs at work and the stock market seems to be the preferred topic of conversation at every party you go to. Get out! I'm a big fan of contrarian investing. Take profits when it feels like all the momentum is going into the market, and buy in when everyone seems to be running for the doors.\"",
"I am a bit at a loss as to how you can read the same book, that inspired Warren Buffet, and take away that trading 600 contracts per month is a way to prosperity. As a fellow engineer I can say with assurance this speculation scheme is doomed to failure. Crossing out the word gamble was a mistake. Instead you should focus on two things. The first is your core business, which is signal processing. Work and strive to be the best you can. Seek out opportunities to increase your income while keeping your costs low. As an engineer you have an opportunity to earn an above average salary with very low costs. Second would be to warehouse some of those earning and let others who are good at other things work for you. You may want to read the Jack Bogle books and seek an asset allocation model. I tend to be more aggressive then he would suggest, but that is a matter of preference. You don't really have the time, when you focus on your core business, to manage 6 trades a month let alone 600. Put your contributions on auto pilot and a surprisingly short time you will have a pile of cash.",
"\"Read \"\"The intelligent Investor\"\" book before you do anything. I started when I really didn't understand anything about stocks. I bought an internet stock for $150 per share which sold at 75cents a year later. I sold it for a profit but would've been a disaster.\"",
"Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)",
"\"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now. In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not \"\"pure stocks\"\": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done \"\"by hand,\"\" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard. (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice.\"",
"I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again.",
"Don't be too scared of investing in the market. It has ups and downs, but over the long haul you make money in it. You can't jump in and out, just consistently add money to investments that you 1) understand and 2) trust. When I say understand, what I mean is you can follow how the money is generated, either because a company sells products, a government promises to pay back the bond, or compounding interest makes sense. You don't need to worry about the day to day details, but if you don't understand how the money is made, it isn't transparent enough and a danger could be afoot. Here are some basic rules I try (!) to follow The biggest trick is to invest what you can, and do so consistently. You can build wealth by earning more and spending less. I personally find spending less a lot easier, but earning more is pretty easy with some simple investment tools.",
"I would say that the three most important skills are: Note that some costs are hidden. So, for example, a mutual fund investing in other countries than where you live in may mean the investment target country charges a certain percentage of dividends going to the mutual fund. The mutual fund company doesn't usually want to tell you this. There may be clever financial instruments (derivatives) that can be used to avoid this, but they are not without their problems. If you diversify into equities at low cost, you will have a very wealthy future. I would recommend you to compare two options: ...and pick from these options the cheaper one. If your time has a high value, and you wish to take this value into account, I would say it is almost always far better option to choose an index fund. Whatever you do, don't pay for active management! It is a mathematical truth that before costs, actively managed investments will yield the same return than indexed investments. However, the costs are higher in active management, so you will have less total return. Don't believe that good historical return would imply good future return. However, if for some reason you see an index fund that continuously loses to the index more than by the amount of stated costs, beware!",
"Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway took a 50% loss in each of the last two bear markets. His stock even lost 10% in 2015 when the S&P lost 8%. He doesn't have a track record to support the claim that his stock performs relatively better in a bear market, so perhaps it's best to take his letter with a grain of salt. Edit: As one commenter points out, Mr. Buffett is comparing the book performance of his fund to the market performance of an index. That is an apples to oranges comparison. It's deceptive at best.",
"\"Most articles on investing recommend that investors that are just starting out to invest in index stock or bonds funds. This is the easiest way to get rolling and limit risk by investing in bonds and stocks, and not either one of the asset classes alone. When you start to look deeper into investing there are so many options: Small Cap, Large Cap, technical analysis, fundamental analysis, option strategies, and on and on. This can end up being a full time job or chewing into a lot of personal time. It is a great challenge to learn various investment strategies frankly for the average person that works full time it is a huge effort. I would recommend also reading \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" to get a wider perspective on how asset allocation can help grow a portfolio and reduce risk. This book covers a simple process.\"",
"1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.",
"\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"",
"Patience is the key to success. If you hold strong without falling to temptations like seeing a small surge in the price. If it goes down it comes up after a period of time. Just invest on the share when it reaches low bottom and you could see you money multiplying year after year",
"Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.",
"In general, the better advice I've heard is to spend only on things that matter to you and scrimp on the rest. It's an easy way to budget without having to stick to a strict set of rules. Otherwise keep 3-6 months of living expenses in liquid accounts (money market, savings) and invest the rest.",
"\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"",
"\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"",
"John Bogle never said only buy the S&P 500 or any single index Q:Do you think the average person could safely invest for retirement and other goals without expert advice -- just by indexing? A: Yes, there is a rule of thumb I add to that. You should start out heavily invested in equities. Hold some bond index funds as well as stock index funds. By the time you get closer to retirement or into your retirement, you should have a significant position in bond index funds as well as stock index funds. As we get older, we have less time to recoup. We have more money to protect and our nervousness increases with age. We get a little bit worried about that nest egg when it's large and we have little time to recoup it, so we pay too much attention to the fluctuations in the market, which in the long run mean nothing. How much to pay Q: What's the highest expense ratio that one should pay for a domestic equity fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent maybe. Q: For an international fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent. Q: For a bond fund? A: One-half of 1 percent. But I'd shave that a little bit. For example, if you can buy a no-load bond fund or a no-load stock fund, you can afford a little more expense ratio, because you're not paying any commission. You've eliminated cost No. 2....",
"\"If you're not rich, investing money will produce very small return, and is a waste of your resources. If you want to save until you die, then go for it (that's what investment companies want you to do). I suggest invest your money in building a network of friends who will be future asset for you. A group of friends helping each other have a much higher prospect of success. It has been proven that approximately 70% of jobs have been obtained through networking. Either through family, or friends, this is the vast majority. I will reiterate, invest on friends and family, not on strangers who want to tie down your money so they can have fun for the moment, while you wait to have fun when you're almost dead. Added source for those who are questioning the most well known fact within organizations, I'm baffled by the level of ignorance. Linkedin Recruitment Blog ...companies want to hire from within first; only when there are no appropriate internal candidates will they rely on referrals from employees (who get a bonus for a successful hire) and people who will approach them through informational meetings. The latter category of jobseekers (you) have the benefit of getting known before the job is \"\"officially posted.\"\" For those who believe loaning money to friends and family is a way of losing money -> this is a risk well worth taking -> and the risk is much lower than loaning your money to strangers -> and the reward is much higher than loaning your money to strangers.\"",
"Yes, you're absolutely right. For such small amounts and such large fees, almost any investment choice is pointless. Some brokers allow for commission free ETF trading. Seek them out. As you've noticed, bond interest rates are almost 0%. This is a far cry from the days of Benjamin Graham, where the USD acted more like gold, with much more frequent booms and busts. During Graham's heyday, one could sell one's bonds at super low interest rates and buy them back again when high. In his day, interest rates would be very high one year like in 2008 and next to nothing the next like in 2009, cycling back and forth, until the 1960s hit, and he didn't know what to do. Graham preferred to wait for the reversion to the mean, and act only when far from it. Those opportunities are few and far between now since fiat currencies are far better managed than they were then, the Fed-caused 2009 total destruction as an outlier to recent times. In your case, it's best to leave the bonds to the insurance companies and buy equities. If you want less volatility, buy a buy-write ETF. Bonds will surely disappoint unless one is lucky enough to hold bonds while interest rates fall from ~6% to ~3%, an eventuality that shouldn't be expected to occur again, as Bill Gross is painfully discovering.",
"A note on the article: I thought this article by Buffet on market level was particularly appropriate now, given the seemingly daily new highs, current level of interest rates (hint: they are incredibly low), and corporate profits (hint: they are incredibly high). If you believe the market will eventually revert to the mean, that implies substandard results over an extended period of time into the future.",
"Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.",
"\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"",
"\"First: what's your risk tolerance? How long is your investment going to last? If it's a short-term investment (a few years) and you expect to break even (or better) then your risk tolerance is low. You should not invest much money in stocks, even index funds and \"\"defensive\"\" stocks. If, however, you're looking for a long-term investment which you will put money into continually over the next 30 years, the amount of stock you purchase at any given time is pretty small, so the money you might lose by timing the market wrong will also be rather small. Also, you probably do a remarkably poor job of knowing when to buy stocks. If you actually knew how to time the market to materially improve your risk-adjusted returns, you've missed your calling; you should be making six figures or more on Wall Street. :)\"",
"You can try paper trading to sharpen your investing skills(identifying stocks to invest, how much money to allocate and stuff) but nothing compares to getting beaten black and blue in the real world. When virtual money is involved you mayn't care, because you don't loose anything, but when your hard earned money disappears or grows, no paper trading can incite those feelings in you. So there is no guarantee that doing paper trading will make you a better investor, but can help you a lot in terms of learning. Secondly educate yourself on the ways of investing. It is hard work and realize that there is no substitute for hard work. India is a growing economy and your friends maybe safe in the short term but take it from any INVESTOR, not in the long run. And moreover as all economies are recovering from the recession there are ample opportunities to invest money in India both good and bad. Calculate your returns and compare it with your friends maybe a year or two down the lane to compare the returns generated from both sides. Maybe they would come trumps but remember selecting a good investment from a bad investment will surely pay out in the long run. Not sure what you do not understand what Buffet says. It cannot get more simpler than that. If you can drill those rules into your blood, you mayn't become a billionaire but surely you will make a killing, but in the long run. Read and read as much as you can. Buy books, browse the net. This might help. One more guy like you.",
"You can never depend ONLY on pension. You must get financial education and invest your money. I recommend you to read The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham...it's the bible of Warren Buffet. Besides, you don't need to be a Billionaire for retiring and be happy. I recommend you to get education in ETFs. I quote The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham p. 131. According to Ibboston Associates, the leading financial research firm, if you had invested $12,000 in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index at the beginning of september 1929, 10 years later you would have had only $7,223 left. But if you had started with a paltry $100 and simply invested another $100 every single month, then by August 1939, your money would have grown to $15,571! That's the power of disciplined buying-even in the face of the Great Depression and the worst bear market of all time. You are still young to make even bolder investments. But seriously you can never depend ONLY on pension. You won't regret learning how to invest your money, it doesn't matter if it's in the stock market, real state market, whatever market... Knowing what to do with your money is priceless. I hope this helps. Happy profits!",
"You might want to consider 'investing' a portion of that money into educating yourself. The payoff might not be as immediately obvious or gratifying but with appropriate determination, in the long term it will generate you a much greater return. If you would like to learn about investing, a great starting point would be to buy and read the book 'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham. This will be a great barometer for how ready you are to invest in the stock market. If you are able to understand the concepts discussed and comprehend why they are important, you will have gone far in ensuring that you will make adequate returns over your lifetime and will - more importantly - increase the odds of safeguarding your capital.",
"The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged. It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull.",
"\"There are many questions and good answers here regarding investment choices. The first decision you need to make is how involved do you intend to be in investment activity. If you plan to be actively investing by yourself, you should look for questions here about making investment choices. If you intend to be a more passive investor, look for posts by \"\"Bogleheads\"\", who focus on broad-focused, low cost investments. This is the optimal choice for many people. If you are not comfortable managing investments at all, you need to figure out how to find a competent and reasonably priced financial advisor to meet with and guide your investment strategy. This advice generally costs about 1-2% of your total managed assets annually.\"",
"Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.",
"\"There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said \"\"Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10\"\". A few days later he comes back to me and says \"\"There are none\"\". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods.\"",
"If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.",
"I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.",
"Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.",
"\"The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) has this bit to note: The returns of small growth stocks are ridiculously low—just 2.18 percent per year since 1927 (versus 17.47 percent for small value, 10.06 percent for large growth, and 13.99 percent for large value). Where the S & P 500 would be a blend of large-cap growth and value so does that meet your \"\"beat the market over the long term\"\" as 1927-1999 would be long for most people.\"",
"\"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following \"\"market conditions\"\" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about.\"",
"\"The most important thing is to start. Don't waste months and years trying to figure out the \"\"optimal\"\" strategy or trying to read all the best books before you start. Pick a solid, simple choice, like investing in your company sponsored 401(k), and do it today. This I Will Teach You To Be Rich post on barriers has some good insight on this.\"",
"I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping.",
"\"Put the whole lot into a couple of low-cost broad index funds with dividends reinvested (also known as accumulation funds) and then don't look at them. Invest through a low-cost broker. There are a number to choose from and once you start googling around the theme of \"\"index fund investing\"\" you'll find them. The S&P 500 is a popular index to start with.\""
] |
[
"\"Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10 percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: \"\"I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions or individuals.\"\"\""
] |
2423
|
At what age should I start or stop saving money?
|
[
"81106",
"396127",
"553288",
"551954",
"529444",
"305946",
"538023"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"396127",
"551954",
"104457",
"529444",
"337561",
"463043",
"102395",
"305946",
"59965",
"417787",
"468010",
"553288",
"295637",
"81106",
"489480",
"234846",
"421535",
"398731",
"35680",
"319760",
"247132",
"538023",
"431203",
"47614",
"519856",
"361623",
"504940",
"484819",
"272328",
"413266",
"434190",
"486095",
"415432",
"399543",
"213435",
"109061",
"142209",
"13602",
"223872",
"81343",
"85977",
"383102",
"423745",
"60093",
"99987",
"275223",
"300047",
"441518",
"599075",
"184243",
"524912",
"440628",
"328157",
"430014",
"287991",
"38269",
"335248",
"147745",
"55513",
"433371",
"462113",
"119165",
"308130",
"199970",
"416743",
"73811",
"421455",
"283635",
"231246",
"280967",
"85368",
"479697",
"488015",
"88095",
"47184",
"292615",
"81554",
"16388",
"32833",
"56924",
"326560",
"91215",
"511506",
"5673",
"131852",
"194080",
"328076",
"129509",
"516782",
"334491",
"70730",
"202208",
"478242",
"293179",
"118880",
"85837",
"294676",
"515440",
"86304",
"476078"
] |
[
"While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends.",
"There is no age-limit, in fact the sooner you start the better - the sooner the money starts to compound.",
"I would say start now, its never too early! It does add up over time and even if it is just a tiny amount, just getting in the habit of setting aside money is great. Looking back i wish i had started earlier instead of pushing it back. There will always be something to spend it on pushing it back whether its college or a car ect. Start now and thank yourself later.",
"As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!",
"\"The only time to stop saving money for retirement is when you have enough money to retire tomorrow. Not all of your \"\"retirement savings\"\" need to be in a 401k, it is just better if you can. Be sure to get as much as you can from the employer matching program. Unfortunately some employer matching programs discourage you from putting in too much. I've been able to max out the 401k contribution a number of times, which helps. Remember: you are likely to live to 100, so you better save enough to live that long. I don't trust social security to be there. I recommend saving so that you end up with \"\"enough to be comfortable\"\" -- this is usually about 25x your current income - PLUS inflation between now and when you plan to retire (age 62 is a good target). It is worth knowing your \"\"retirement savings number\"\". If you are making $100K per year now, you need to target $2.5M - PLUS allowance for inflation between now and when you plan to retire. This usually means you need to also arrange to make more money as well as save as much as you can and to use passive investing. Finance advisors are not worth it if you have less than $1M to invest.\"",
"Start now. It's a lot easier to save now than it is to start to save later.",
"You should be trying to save 10% of your income from an early age. You can live well now and enjoy life within your means now, instead of trying to keep up with the Jones. Do you need to live in a larger house (when you can't really afford it) because it is more comfortable or because you want to show it off in front of your family and friends? You can live and enjoy life and eat well now and still save enough to have a comfortable retirement, just spend your money now on the things you enjoy, not things you see others enjoying.",
"It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days. The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save. If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age. But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement. It's not always easy to find a balance. The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all!",
"The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.",
"Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50. Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010). I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire?",
"Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.",
"Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.",
"Saving some money for the future is a good idea. But how much to save is a tough question. I retired with a small fraction of what the experts said I would need. Three years later, I can confidently say I did not even need what I had saved.",
"As AskAboutGadgets notes, there's no lower age limit. You current age (24) is a pretty good one; you'll have four decades or so for your money to grow and compound, allowing it to become a veritable fortune when you're ready to retire if you invest it fairly aggressively.",
"You will find lots of rules of thumb but there is no universal truth to how much you should save. There are factors you DO need to consider though: you should start as early as possible to set money aside for retirement. You should then use a retirement calculator to at least get an understanding of the amount you need to set aside each month to achieve the desired retirement income; your default should be not to spend money and only spend money when you must. Leisure, travel and eating out should come last after you have saved up; you should have funds for different terms. For example, my wife and I have an emergency fund for unexpected expenses or losses in income. The rule of thumb here generally is to have 3-6 months of salary saved up. A longer term fund should be created for larger expenses like buying a car or preparing the cashdown on a property. Finally, the retirement fund which should cover your needs after you have retired.",
">But on the bright side, the most common decade for people to start saving is in their 20s. Twice as many 30 to 49 year olds said they started saving in their 20s instead of their 30s, while the 50 to 64 age group was “only slightly more likely” to have started saving in their 20s over their 30s, according to the report, which surveyed 1,003 adults living in the continental U.S. So they are basing their analysis of how early people start saving purely by studying people in their 30s and 40s with those in their 50s and 60s. They don't compare either of those age groups with those in their 20s and 30s to see how things have changed?",
"There is no absolute answer to this as it depends on your particular situation, but some tips: As to investing versus saving, you need to do some of both: Be careful about stockpiling too much in bank accounts. Inflation will eat that money up over time to the tune of 3-4%/year. You are young and have a longer investment horizon for retirement, take advantage of that and accept a little more risk while you can.",
"Saving for retirement is important. So is living within one's means. Also--wear your sunscreen every day, rain or shine, never stop going to the gym, stay the same weight you were in high school, and eat your vegetables if you want to pass for 30 when you are 50.",
"Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.",
"Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.",
"So don't retire. But plan like you will retire. I am sure that some billionaire put some money away into a pension, 401K, or IRA for their retirement when they were young. It turns out they never had to worry about outliving their money. The next few paragraphs use United States examples. What happens if you have to retire, but you never saved. All the matching funds you could have collected in a 401K are gone, they disappeared with every paycheck you didn't contribute. Every year you didn't contribute to an IRA can never be replayed. You gave up the magic of compounding, because you thought you would never want to retire. If you save but don't need it, you will have more money to play with as you cut back your hours to part time. If you skip all the plans that make it hard to spend the money until you are 59 1/2, you can still save, but it takes even more discipline to not spend it before you are old.",
"You've never saved money? Have you ever bought anything? There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something. In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day. Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places. Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank. Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed. Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it. The traditional concept of savings is gone. There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway. Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right.",
"James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement. If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%. I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company.",
"If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.",
"One opinion related to savings is to save 30% of your take home salary every month, split the amount into two parts depending on your age (29) one part would be 30% of 30% and another 70% of 30%. Take the 70% and buy blue chip stock and take the 30% and buy govt. bonds. Each 10 years adjust the percentages at 40, 40% on bonds and 60% on stock. Only cash out on the day you retire, otherwise ignore all market/economic movements. With this and the statutory savings (employment retirement) you should be ok.",
"\"The most important thing is not to tell yourself \"\"I'll save more later in my career when I have more disposable income,\"\" because of two factors. 1) You will get raises over your career, but unless you make it big, it will never really feel like you have extra money. You may double or triple your salary over a career, but it usually happens in small increments which your lifestyle tends to adjust upwards to meet even though it doesn't feel like it. 2) Later in your career you may have more money to save, but now the commodity you have is time. Your total savings at retirement are going to be influenced in a massive way by both of these factors. A good strategy is save SOMETHING early in your career even if it feels like an insignificant amount. Then save larger amounts later in your career when you are earning more, but have less time for your investments to grow and less tolerance for high risk/high growth investments.\"",
"Are you sure the question even makes sense? In the present-day world economy, it's unlikely that someone young who just started working has the means to put away any significant amount of money as savings, and attempting to do so might actually preclude making the financial choices that actually lead to stability - things like purchasing [the right types and amounts of] insurance, buying outright rather than using credit to compensate for the fact that you committed to keep some portion of your income as savings, spending money in ways that enrich your experience and expand your professional opportunities, etc. There's also the ethical question of how viable/sustainable saving is. The mechanism by which saving ensures financial stability is by everyone hoarding enough resources to deal with some level of worst-case scenario that might happen in their future. This worked for past generations in the US because we had massive amounts (relative to the population) of (stolen) natural resources, infrastructure built on enslaved labor, etc. It doesn't scale with modern changes the world is undergoing and it inherently only works for some people when it's not working for others. From my perspective, much more valuable financial skills for the next generation are:",
"Similarly, too much long term investment seems unproductive, but what would be too much? In 1900, the life expectancy of someone in the United States was less than 50. It is now in the 70s. My grandparents were born around that time and all lived into their 80s and 90s. Life expectancy in India is currently about 66. You should expect that to increase into the 70s if not the 80s in the next fifty years. You should plan on living until 120. Why? If you die earlier than that, you may have wasted some money that you could have used for a better living standard. However, if you do live that long and you spent all your savings by the time that you were 66, you'll have a hard retirement. You've already said that you won't have descendants to take care of you. You'll need your investments to do so. You need long term investments more than someone with a family, not less. You need to able to afford a house for retirement. You need to be able to maintain it, buy food, etc. on your savings. In order to be sure it lasts, you need to build your long term investments until they produce a steady income that comes close to matching your preretirement income. There are some costs that you won't have in retirement. You won't need to save for retirement. You won't need to commute to work. So your retirement income doesn't need to support that. If I were you, I'd save like everyone else until income from investments matched my current expenses minus commuting. At that time, you can readjust. Overall, you are far more likely not to save enough than too much. I wouldn't worry about oversaving in your twenties. No one actually does so.",
"It's never too early, but age 3 is when we started a piggy bank. Age 4 is when we opened a bank account. When you go shopping with your children, discuss what items cost (such as bread, milk, books, etc.) Start teaching them that everything has a value...then relate it to how much they have saved. Kids need to learn 3 basic things from their parents: how to save/invest, how to spend wisely, how to share/donate",
"For a more philosophical way to approach this, consider money saved as the opposite of money owed: This philosophy works for things which you may be able to borrow for (computer, car, house), but also for things you can't borrow for (retirement, giving to your kids, etc.). As others have mentioned, the 10% suggestion is for retirement, but the actual number depends on your lifestyle. As you can see in this chart, saving 10% of your income means you'll need to work for 51.4 years.",
"The compound interest argument is a good one. While you are young, it is important to save, since time is on your side for compounding of interest. I think the 401K is a good idea, but not for all of your savings. Think about saving a percentage of your income, but put it in a couple places. Your Roth is also a great thing, since you'll be able to remove money without paying tax again. The 401k (tax deferred) is a good idea if your company matches any of it (FREE MONEY!), and because it lowers your taxable income now, and it's taken out of your check before you see it, so you don't miss it. It's still important to save other money that you can have for ready cash (unexpected dead car, for example, or medical bills, or what have you.) I find that I don't want to be managing my investments from minute to minute, or doing my own trades (I'd rather do other things), so I have a mix (Roth, 401k, cash savings) of automated contributions for savings, and I think hard before buying new stuff. The point is to save, and if possible, try to save at least 10% of your income.",
"\"There is a basic difference between saving for voluntary retirement (i.e. choosing to do things other than work even though you could still work) and the need to save for later in life in general. Regardless of how much you like your job, a time will eventually come when you are no longer able to work, and you will need an alternate source of income to live from at that point. Unfortuately, this is also the time when most people generally have the highest medical bills as well, and may need other services such as long-term nursing home care. So even if you plan to work as long as possible, a retirement fund is an excellent way to plan for these needs as it is tax-advantaged and many companies offer matching contributions. I would simply recommend that you see \"\"retirement accounts\"\" as a good way to accomplish your goals - you don't have to use them to create a \"\"typical\"\" retirement. Once you've taken advantages of the match and tax subsidies, you may also wish to consider saving for an annuity. Fees can be high, so you will need to do your homework (generally, you want to wait and buy an immediate annuity), but this is another way to turn savings into guaranteed income once you need to stop working. Best of luck!\"",
"On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)",
"Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.",
"\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"",
"In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.",
"As a 20 year old who has just started earning enough to save, I suggest showing them the different types of lifestyles they could live in the future if they started saving now versus what their life would be like if they didn't save at all. Try showing them actual dollar values as well so it's not just an arbitrary idea.",
"Save what you can. Due to compounding of interest, saving early is much more advantageous than saving the same amount later. Obviously you need money to live on, and you're entitled to spend some money on entertainment -- but set a budget on that and stick to that budget. Buying toys now deprives you of better toys later. You aren't saving for an uncertain future; you are saving for a certain future!",
"Lets imagine two scenarios: 1) You make 10.4k (40% of total income) yearly contributions to a savings account that earns 1% interest for 10 years. In this scenario, you put in 104k and earned 5.89k in interest, for a total of 109.9k. 2) You make the same 10.4k yearly contribution to an index fund that earns 7% on average for 10 years. In this scenario you put in the same 104k, but earned 49.7k in interest*, for a total of 153.7k. The main advantage is option 1) has more liquidity -- you can get the money out faster. Option 2) requires time to divest any stocks / bonds. So you need enough savings to get you through that divestment period. Imagine another two scenarios where you stop earning income: 1-b) You stop working and have only your 109.9k principal amount in a 1% savings account. If you withdraw 15.6k yearly for your current cost of living, you will run through your savings in 7 years. 2-b) You stop working and have only 20k (2 years of savings) in savings that earns 1% with 153.7k in stocks that earns 7%. If you withdraw your cost of living currently at 15.6k, you will run through your investments in 15 years and your savings in 2 years, for a total of 17 years. The two years of income in savings is extremely generous for how long it starts the divestment process. In summary, invest your money. It wasn't specified what currency we are talking about, but you can easily find access to an investment company no matter where you are in the world. Keep a small amount for a rainy day.",
"\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"",
"Chances are since college is your next likely step I would recommend saving up for it. Start building an emergency fund. Recommended $1,000 minimum. To start building your credit rating (when 18) get a low interest low limit credit. Pay off the balance every month. Starting to build your credit rating now can save you hundreds of thousands when buying a house over the course of paying it off. ie. cheaper interest rate. As for investing, the sooner you can get started the better. Acquire preferred/stocks/bonds/REITs/ETFs/etc that pay you to own them (they pay you dividends monthly/quarterly/etc). Stick with solid stocks that have a history of consistently increasing their dividends over time and that are solid companies. I personally follow the work/advice of Derek Foster. He's not a professional but he retired at 34. His first book (Stop working - Here's how you can) is great and recommend it to anyone who is looking to get started. Also check out Ramit Sethi's blog I Will Teach You to be Rich. He focuses on big wins which save you a lot over the long term. He's also got some great advice for students as well. Best of luck!",
"\"I am pretty sure you could find a number of financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number, but the rule of thumb I like best is Save a dime of every dollar. 10% (Savings means save for retirement, not vacations.) Here is a nice article from radio personality Clark Howard with some adjustments based on your age: Saving for retirement later in life? If you're getting started saving for retirement later in life, the dime out of every dollar rule won't cut it for you. So for you, The Baltimore Sun has crunched the following numbers: Jayraj has a particularly good and just as simple bit of math. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/30751/91 Your retirement and financial planning should not end with a flat percentage. In fact, the chances that any simple math formula is adequate are very low. My percentages (or Jayraj's simple math) are only starting places. If you are at the point where you are asking \"\"where do I start\"\", starting with this super easy no-brainer approach is great because the key is starting and doing it.\"",
"Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.",
"What you put that money into is quite relevant. It depends on how soon you will need some, or all, of that money. It has been very useful to me to divide my savings into three areas... 1) very short term 'oops' funds. This is for when you forget to put something in your budget or when a monthly bill is very high this month. Put this money into passbook savings. 2) Emergency funds that are needed quite infrequently. Used for such things as when you go to the hospital or an appliance breaks down. Put this money in higher yeald savings, but where it can be accessed. 3) Retirement savings. Put this money into a 401-K. Never draw on it till you retire. Make no loans against it. When you change jobs roll over into a self-directed IRA and invest in an ETF that pays dividends. Reinvest the dividend each month. So, like I said, where you put that money depends on how soon you will need it.",
"\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \"\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\"\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \"\"fun\"\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\"",
"\"Ultimately, money derives its value from being spend on a good or service. Investing it is an act of denying your present-self a good or service so that your future-self can obtain (hopefully more) goods or services. Investing is a sensible and responsible default position, but you clearly have passed the point at which the opportunity cost of the dollar not spent today is greater than its benefit in the future. Not all dollars are the same. Remember that money is a temporary store of value but you have to spend it to realize that value. In your search, learn about the \"\"psychology of money.\"\" What are you saving it for? How much do you want left over when you die? If you die tomorrow, will you regret not having spend a little more? I'm sorry to get morbid on you, but saving for the future requires answering the question \"\"How long?\"\" and it's never forever. This may be tangential but it shaped my behaviour towards money nonetheless: Frank Zimbardo on The Psychology of Time. I would hazard a guess and say that you land in the future-oriented camp.\"",
"Start a Roth IRA. Keep it in low risk, short term money market or CDs. At this stage, stocks may be premature. As you build up the account, up to $5000/year, at some point, you should start buying an index mutual fund, say one following the S&P. When you are out of school and working for real money, save an emergency account outside the IRA and shift that Roth IRA to be fully invested. My 13 year old has her emergency account, and her Roth IRA to deposit her baby sitting money. It's never too soon to start.",
"\"A good question -- there are many good tactical points in other answers but I wanted to emphasize two strategic points to think about in your \"\"5-year plan\"\", both of which involve around diversification: Expense allocation: You have several potential expenses. Actually, expenses isn't the right word, it's more like \"\"applications\"\". Think of the money you have as a resource that you can \"\"pour\"\" (because money has liquidity!) into multiple \"\"buckets\"\" depending on time horizon and risk tolerance. An ultra-short-term cushion for extreme emergencies -- e.g. things go really wrong -- this should be something you can access at a moment's notice from a bank account. For example, your car has been towed and they need cash. A short-term cushion for emergencies -- something bad happens and you need the money in a few days or weeks. (A CD ladder is good for this -- it pays better interest and you can get the money out quick with a minimal penalty.) A long-term savings cushion -- you might want to make a down payment on a house or a car, but you know it's some years off. For this, an investment account is good; there are quite a few index funds out there which have very low expenses and will get you a better return than CDs / savings account, with some risk tolerance. Retirement savings -- $1 now can be worth a huge amount of money to you in 40 years if you invest it wisely. Here's where the IRA (or 401K if you get a job) comes in. You need to put these in this order of priority. Put enough money in your short-term cushions to be 99% confident you have enough. Then with the remainder, put most of it in an investment account but some of it in a retirement account. The thing to realize is that you need to make the retirement account off-limits, so you don't want to put too much money there, but the earlier you can get started in a retirement account, the better. I'm 38, and I started both an investment and a retirement account at age 24. They're now to the point where I save more income, on average, from the returns in my investments, than I can save from my salary. But I wish I had started a few years earlier. Income: You need to come up with some idea of what your range of net income (after living expenses) is likely to be over the next five years, so that you can make decisions about your savings allocation. Are you in good health or bad? Are you single or do you have a family? Are you working towards law school or medical school, and need to borrow money? Are you planning on getting a job with a dependable salary, or do you plan on being self-employed, where there is more uncertainty in your income? These are all factors that will help you decide how important short-term and long term savings are to your 5-year plan. In short, there is no one place you should put your money. But be smart about it and you'll give yourself a good head start in your personal finances. Good luck!\"",
"I don't have a reference, but I think it depends on when you entered the workforce: If you finished school at age 24, your primary goals are to pay down expensive debt and to save up enough for a down payment. So essentially not much. Maybe $5k to $10k at the most. On the other hand if you entered the workforce at age 20, with no debts and no significant expenses, it should have been easy to sock away 20% of your income for 6 years, so $40k to $50k would be reasonable. The difference is that the first person's income earning potential should be higher, so eventually they'd be able to make up the difference and pass them.",
"A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income.",
"\"What percent of my salary should I save? is tightly coupled with its companion, What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? Interestingly, Mr.Christer's answer, 10%, is the number that plugs into the equation that I reference. Jay's 25X rule is part of this. We start with the assumption that one's required income at retirement will be 80% of their pre-retirement income. That's high by some observations, low by others. A quick look at the expenses that go away in retirement - The above can total 35-40% It would be great if it ended there, but there are costs that go up. The above extra spending is tough to nail down, after all, you knew what you spent, and what's going away, but the new items? Crapshoot. (For non-native speakers - this refers to a game with dice, meaning a random event) Again, referencing Mr Christer's answer \"\"financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number,\"\" I'm going to disagree with that soundbyte. Consider, when retirement is 30 years away, you don't know much If I can offer an analogy. I once had the pleasure of hearing Jim Lovell (The astronaut played by Tom Hanks in Apollo 13) give a speech. He said that for the first 99% of the trip to the moon, they simply aimed ahead of their target, never directly at the moon. In this manner, I suggest that with so many variables, accuracy is impossible, it's a moving target. Start young, take the 10% MrC offered, and keep saving. Every few years, stop and see if you are on target, if not, bump the number a bit. Better to turn 50 and find that after a good decade you've reached your number and can drop your savings to a minimum, perhaps just to capture a 401(k) match, than to turn 50 and realize you've undersaved and need to bump to an unsustainable level. Imagine planning ahead in 1999. You've seen 2 great decades of returns, and even realizing that 18%/yr couldn't continue, you plan for a below average 7%, this would double your 1999 balance in 10 years. Instead you saw zero return. For a decade. In sum, when each variable has an accuracy of +/-50% you are not going to combine them all and get a number with even 10% accuracy (as if MrC were wrong, but the pro would tell you 11% is right for you?). This is as absurd as packaging up a bunch of C rated debt, and thinking that enough of this paper would yield a final product that was AAA.\"",
"To make this more general: should you save for retirement or for education? The answer is simple: save for your education first. A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on behalf Universities UK in 2006 and another by the Washington-based College Board in 2007 indicate that graduates of higher education can earn anywhere from $400,000 to $1 million more, after tax and education loans are paid, than do those who start work with only a high-school qualification. [From my blog...] Over your lifetime your higher education will earn you far more than any other income and investments you forego while attaining that education. Make those sacrifices now to reap greater rewards later.",
"Assume you will need to retire with a few million in the bank to maintain an average lifestyle. I had an analysis done for me (at 33) that shows my family, to keep it up lifestyle will need to have 3.4MM in the bank so in retirement I can draw down enough cash. This number reflects inflation. Now that you are 18, if you make consistent but small savings you will achieve that financial stability. Try to make it automatic so you aren't tempted to spend. There is more you can do but since you have such an early start, you can do less than most people and still have plenty. Even thought it is great you are thinking about it, don't forget to be young, move around lots and have fun. Just pay yourself first and have fun second. Also, thank whoever guided you to this point. If you did it all on your own, be proud.",
"\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \"\"real\"\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\"",
"I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year. The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund. So your savings should be around $5k. Build that first. Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income. Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses. Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much. And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact. If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up). Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures. Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase. So you need more savings. By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money. Doesn't really change the basic analysis though. Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings. If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year. That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard. So you probably shouldn't invest next year. With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year). That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app. You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock. If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app. You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system. If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds. The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term. Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system. As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same. At some point, users saturate the app. All the possible returns are realized. Then users are competing with each other for returns. The per user returns will shrink as usage grows. If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it. Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria. Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued. The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy.",
"\"It really depends a lot on you and how much time you are putting into it. Since you're saying you want your money to work for you I'm going to assume you want as little hassle as possible. A few general tips: Save a fixed percentage of your monthly income Don't try to save \"\"whenever you have money left over\"\", you will just end up spending it somehow. Invest long term - don't trade Don't try to beat the market - it will just take up too much time and statistically you will end up making less. Hedge If you invest in the company/industry you work in, you will be double screwed if the sector drops (lose job + savings at the same time). Optimally you should invest in something that will benefit when the company you work for is doing bad. Pay off high interest debt Usually debt will have a higher interest than any safe investment you can make. Spend money to save/make money Sometimes the best investment you can make is on stuff that will save you money in the long run. Like buy an apartment close to work (less transport costs) or get a more expensive car that will save you money on gas, insurance etc.\"",
"Take a certain percentage of your income (say, 10%, but more is better if you can) and put it aside with every paycheck. Some employers will even allow you to direct deposit your paycheck into two different accounts and you can specify a certain amount or percentage for the second account. Your savings will go directly into a separate account as if you never had it in the first place. Consider your savings untouchable as spending money. Watch it grow. There's no other secret, you just have to do it!",
"First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account. Step by step you'll save nice money ;)",
"Conventional wisdom says (100-age) percentage of your saving should go to Equity and (age) percentage should go to debt. My advice to you is to invest (100-age) into index fund through SIP and rest in FD. You can re-balance your investment once a year. Stock picking is very risky. And so is market timing. Of cource you can change the 100 into a other number according to your risk tolerance.",
"BrenBarn did a great job explaining your options so I won't rehash any of that. I know you said that you don't want to save for retirement yet, but I'm going to risk answering that you should anyway. Specifically, I think you should consider a Roth IRA. When it comes to tax advantaged retirement accounts, once the contribution period for a tax year ends, there's no way to make up for it. For example in 2015 you may contribute up to $5,500 to your IRA. You can make those contributions up until tax day of the following year (April 15th, 2016). After that, you cannot contribute money towards 2015 again. So each year that goes by, you're losing out on some potential to contribute. As for why I think a Roth IRA specifically could work well for you: I'm advocating this because I think it's a good balance. You put away some money in a retirement account now, when it will have the most impact on your future retirement assets, taking advantage of a time you will never have again. At a low cost custodian like Vanguard, you can open an IRA with as little as $1,000 to start and choose from excellent fund options that meet your risk requirements. If you end up deciding that you really want that money for a car or a house or beer money, you can withdraw any of the contributions without fear of penalty or additional tax. But if you decide you don't really need to take that money back out, you've contributed to your retirement for a tax year you likely wouldn't have otherwise, and wouldn't be able to make up for later when you have more than enough to max out an IRA each year. I also want to stress that you should have a liquid emergency fund (in a savings or checking account) to deal with unexpected emergencies before funding something like this. But after that, if you have no specific goal for your savings and you don't know for sure you'll actually need to spend it in the near future, funding a Roth IRA is worth considering in my opinion.",
"IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.",
"I don't like your strategy. Don't wait. Open an investment account today with a low cost providers and put those funds into a low cost investment that represents as much of the market as you can find. I am going to start by assuming you are a really smart person. With that assumption I am going to assume you can see details and trends and read into the lines. As a computer programmer I am going to assume you are pretty task oriented, and that you look for optimal solutions. Now I am going to ask you to step back. You are clearly very good at managing your money, but I believe you are over-thinking your opportunity. Reading your question, you need a starting place (and some managed expectations), so here is your plan: Now that you have a personal retirement account (IRA, Roth IRA, MyRA?) and perhaps a 401(k) (or equivalent) at work, you can start to select which investments go into that account. I know that was your question, but things you said in your question made me wonder if you had all of that clear in your head. The key point here is don't wait. You won't be able to time the market; certainly not consistently. Get in NOW and stay in. You adjust your investments based on your risk tolerance as you age, and you adjust your investments based on your wealth and needs. But get in NOW. Over the course of 40 years you are likely to be working, sometimes the market will be up, and sometimes the market will be down; but keep buying in. Because every day you are in, you money can grow; and over 40 years the chances that you will grow substantially is pretty high. No need to wait, start growing today. Things I didn't discuss but are important to you:",
"I recommend pulling up a retirement calculator and having an honest conversation about how long term savings works, and the power of compound interest. Just by playing around with the sliders on an online calculator, you can demonstrate how the early years are the most important. Depending on how much they make now and are considering saving, delaying 5-10 years can easily leave 6-7 figures on the table. If it's specifically a child or close family member, I recommend pulling up your retirement account. Talk with them about how you managed it, and how much you were putting in. Perhaps show them how much is the principal and how much is interest. If you did well, tell them how. If you didn't do as well as you liked, tell them what you would have done differently. Finally, discuss a bit of psychology. Even if they don't have a professional job and are making minimum wage, getting into the habit of saving makes it easier when they eventually make more. A couple of dollars a month isn't much, but getting into the habit makes it easier to save a couple hundred dollars a month later on.",
"Definitely not. You are too young. Let me explain: Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things. Let's say you want to buy a house. You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that. College Tuition? Limits. Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement. At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand. If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate. Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money. I'd say don't worry until you are 30. BTW: I'm 24 now. I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules. Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank. After a few years, I had enough to start my business :) the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity. Further Explanation: I am in the NYC area. Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ. One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often. Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train). Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects). Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K. As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with).",
"Everybody else has given great answers on what to do, but I just want to add some encouragement. Keep saving. Learn to live within your means while saving, and things like houses and cars and new electronics will come. You can always wait a year and save money up for that new TV, but when retirement hits you are out of time. (I sure wish I had). Keep that retirement money out of sight and (mostly) out of mind. Great job saving and keep up the good work.",
"Excellent responses so far. Because I am a math guy, I wanted to stress the power of compounding. It's great that you are thinking about saving and your future when you are so young. Definitely be displined about your saving and investing. You would be surprised how just a small amount can compound over the years. For example, if you were to start with $5000 and contribute $100 per month. Assuming that you can get 5% ROR (hard in today's world but shouldn't be down the road), your final principal after 28 years (when you are 50 years old) will be over $90,000, which of only $38,000 is what you contributed yourself. The rest is interest. You can play with the numbers here: http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm",
"\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"",
"By not saving some of your income you put yourself at risk of the following: If you are comfortable taking on those risks, then continue what you are doing (I'm not being sarcastic here...some people are perfectly comfortable taking on these risks). I plan on working until I die so I am not as concerned with saving for retirement but I do save some money for temporary job loss situations. Saving money presents its own set of issues (e.g. Where should I put the money?, Should I invest the money?, What type of investments?). If you have no interest in researching answers to these type of questions then I would suggest what others have already suggested: have part of your paycheck automatically siphoned into an account that can only be accessed by a trusted family member.",
"If I were you, I would save 200 euros for retirement each month and another 800 I would stash away with the hope to start investing soon. I think you have to invest a bigger lump sum, then 1000 euros. It makes sense to invest at least 30K to see any tangible results. My acquaintances started from 50K and now see pretty handsome returns. Investing is profitable, as long as you approach it smartly. Also, do not ever hire an overly expensive financial consultant - this expenses will never pay off. Of course, check their credentials and reputation... But never pay much to these guys. Not worth it.",
"Invest in kids, not pension - they never inflate. Without kids your retirement will be miserable anyway. And with them you'll be good. Personally, I do not believe that that our current savings will be worth it in 30 years in these times.",
"I'm assuming you're in Germany or Europe based on your question, but here's an American's perspective that should pertain you you as well: Once you have a steady income and an emergency fund large enough to keep you from going bankrupt, then start learning about retirement and investment options.",
"Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)",
"\"IMHO It is definitively not too early to start learning and thinking about personal finances and also about investing. If you like to try stock market games, make sure to use one that includes a realistic fee structure simulation as well - otherwise there'll be a very unpleasant awakening when switching to reality... I'd like to stress the need for low fees with the brokerage account! Sit down and calculate how much fees different brokers take for a \"\"portfolio\"\" of say, 1 ETF, 1 bond, 1 share of about $500 or $1000 each (e.g. order fee, annual fee, fee for paying out interest/dividend). In my experience, it is good if you can manage to make the first small investing steps before starting your career. Real jobs tend to need lots of time (particularly at the beginning), so time to learn investing is extremely scarce right at the time when you for the first time in your life earn money that could/should be invested. I'm talking of very slowly starting with a single purchase of say an ETF, a single bond next time you have saved up a suitable amount of toy money, then maybe a single share (and essentially not doing anything with them in order to avoid further fees). While such a \"\"portfolio\"\" is terrible with respect to diversification and relative fees*, this gives you the possibility to learn the procedures, to see how the fees cut in, what to do wrt taxes etc. This is why I speak about toy money and why I consider this money an investment in education. * An order fee of, say, $10 on a $500 position are terrible 4% (2 x $10) for buying + selling - depending on your local taxes, that would be several years of dividend yield for say some arbitrary Dow Jones ETF. Nevertheless, purchase + sale together are less than 3 cinema tickets.\"",
"\"The answer is, there are a lot of answers! It always seems so daunting to start saving when you're living paycheck to paycheck and anticipate more bills on the way (kids are expensive!!). Start small, and make it automatic if you can. If you can take $25 out of every paycheck and put it into a savings account, and do this automatically using your bank's Bill Pay system, that will go a long way. It's about setting up a new habit for yourself, and increasing as you can. One way I've heard it phrased is \"\"Pay yourself first\"\". Don't set unrealistic expectations for yourself, either. You need to start building a savings account to cover emergencies, not just future purchases. If something happens and you can't get a paycheck for a week, a month, 2 months, how will you pay your bills? Set up a savings account just for that purpose and don't touch it unless it's a true emergency. There are several banks out there that will let you set up multiple savings accounts and mark them for specific purposes, like CapitalOne's 360 accounts. Set one up for the emergency account that gets your automatic per-paycheck deposit, then set up another one for \"\"fun money\"\" or \"\"new home fund\"\" or whatever else you want to save up for. Starting the savings process is hard, no doubt about it. You need to learn how to budget with the money you have after \"\"paying yourself first\"\". But the important part is to stick with it. Consider your savings account as another \"\"mandatory\"\" utility. You have to pay it $25/mo or risk...I don't know...a smack on the back of the head. If you wait until the end of the month to see what you have left after everything else, you'll find you don't have anything left. If you can set it up through your bank so when you get your paycheck it automatically puts $25 into a savings account, then you'll never have that $25 burning a hole in your pocket. If your paychecks aren't direct deposit, and you're physically cashing them when you receive them, then tell the bank teller to put $25 into your savings account. You can do it! Make sure your wife is on board and you communicate the importance of setting up a savings account and work together to make it happen. Be patient, and realize that $25 may seem like a trivial amount to put away now, but after 24 paychecks (1 year depending on pay schedule), that's $600! (Plus interest but rates are too low now to worth noting that).\"",
"Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).",
"While it’s your personal choice on HOW you save for later its essential that you save. My sister works in a bank and recommended me not to put any money into retirement plans since the tax-advances seem fine but have to paid back when you take the money out of the accounts (in Switzerland, don't know about the united states). Many reasons exist that you suddenly need the money: Buying a house, needing a new car, health issues or just leaving the country forever (and the government trying to make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back). I recommend putting it on a savings account on a different bank that you normally use, without any cards and so on. In short: It can be dangerous to have money locked away – especially if you could easily have it at your hands and you know you're able to manage it.",
"Heck no, don't spend more! I saved a ton of money when I got my first real job. You won't always be able to do this. Save a bundle while you can.",
"I recommend saving for retirement first to leverage compound interest over a long time horizon. The historical real return on the stock market has been about 7%. Assuming returns stay at 7% in the future (big assumption, but don't have any better numbers to go off of), then $8,000 saved today will be worth $119,795 in 40 years (1.07^40*8000). Having a sizable retirement portfolio will give you peace of mind as you progress through life and make other expenditures. If you buy assets that pay you money and appreciate, you will be in a better financial position than if you buy assets that require significant cash outflows (i.e. property taxes, interest you pay to the bank, etc.) or assets that ultimately depreciate to zero (a car). As a young person, you are well positioned to pay yourself (not the bank or the car dealership) and leverage compound interest over a long time horizon.",
"In addition to the issues discussed in BrenBarn's answer, I think you need to consider your medium term saving needs and existing savings. In particular, do you have a sufficient rainy day fund, a fund you will spend if things go wrong? For example, if you are dependent on a vehicle that is not covered by a guarantee or service plan, you should have enough money saved for a couple of major repairs. Depending on how secure your job is, whether it carries sick leave and long term disability, and how easy or difficult it would be to find another job in the event e.g. of your employer going bankrupt due to a downturn in your industry, you should have months to years of minimal living expenses in your rainy day fund. If you don't have those things covered, you should urgently save as much as you can until they are covered. If you do, then the next savings priority is to put money by for retirement. Of course, if all goes well the rainy day fund will ultimately get folded into retirement, but it needs to exist now, in a form you can access quickly.",
"Your gut feeling is absolutely spot on - you shouldn't be worrying about pension now, not at the age of 25. Assuming that you're not a footballer in the middle of the most productive part of your career and already have a fat wad of crunchy banknotes under your pillow that you're looking to set aside for a rainy day when you won't be able to play at your prime any longer. That doesn't mean you shouldn't invest, nor that means that you mustn't save. There are several factors at play here. First of all as a young person you are likely to have a high tolerance for risk, there is still plenty of time to recover should expected returns not materialise. Even a pension fund with the most aggressive risk / return strategy might just not quite do it for you. You could invest into education instead, improve health, obtain a profitable skill, create social capital by building connections, pay for experience, buy a house, start a family or even a business. Next, as a young professional you're unlikely to have reached your full earning potential yet and due to the law of diminishing marginal utility a hundred pounds per month now have greater utility (i.e. positive impact on your lifestyle) than a seven hundred pounds will in 7-10 years time once your earnings plateaued. That is to say it's easier to save £700 month from £3000 and maintain a reasonable level of personal comfort than carve £100 from £1300 monthly income. And last, but not the least, lets face it from a human point of view - forty years is a very long investment horizon and many things might and will change. One of the downsides of UK pensions is that you have very little control over the money until you reach a certain age. Tactically I suggest saving up to build a cushion consisting of cash or near cash assets; the size of the stash should be such that it is enough to cover all of your expenses from a minimum of 2 months to a maximum of a year. The exact size will depend on your personal comfort level, whatever social net you have (parents, wife, partner) and how hard it will be to find a new source of income should the current cease to produce cash. On a strategic level you can start looking into investing any surplus cash into the foundation of what will bring joy and happiness into the next 40 years of your life. Your or your partners training and education is one of the most sensible choices whilst you're young. Starting a family is another one. Both might help you reach you full earning potential much quicker. Finding what you love to do and learning how to do it really well - cash can accelerate this process bringing you quicker there you want to be. If you were a start-up business in front of a huge uncaptured market would you rather use cash to pay dividends or finance growth?",
"Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?",
"That's up to you, but I wouldn't play around with my retirement money if I was in your situation. Your earning potential during your retirement years will likely be at its nadir. Do you really want to risk being forced to be a Wal-Mart greeter when you are 80? Also, considering your earning potential now is probably at or near the peak, your opportunity cost for each hour of your life is much higher now than it will be later. So ultimately you'd be working a little harder now or a lot harder later for less money.",
"\"Don't mind the percentages. They are highly misleading. First, \"\"saving\"\" is making available for future use. It might be \"\"hoarding\"\", \"\"investing\"\" or a combination thereof. It might be for a specific use (a car, a college education, retirement, etc.), or for a non-specific use (for an emergency, for when you decide to spend some of those savings, or just for lack of a compelling use as of the moment). In first case, whatever you save should be available by the date you intend to use it. In second case, it might be prudent to have savings (and investments, see below) of various liquidity (cash you have at hand, bank account you can draw next day, mutual fund account you can draw in a month, maybe something you can only cash in a year etc.). You will see that the actual percentages you \"\"save\"\" fluctuate enormously throughout your life, varying with the progress of your career, changes of marital status and family cmposition, etc., etc. What you should really do is to come up with a rough plan of how you expect, from right now and to the end of your life at whatever age, have enough money for whatever level of comfort you plan for each period of your life, allowing for some specified level of perturbations. Then you just execute that plan or change it as you go.\"",
"\"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \"\"doobop\"\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\"",
"There is no right answer here, one has to make the choice himself. Its best to have an emergency fund before you start to commit funds to other reasons. The plan looks good. Keep following it and revise the plan often.",
"I was asking myself the exact same thing. And i have come to the conclusion that most of your money should be invested, In index etfs and maybe some bond etfs too. If Inflation is about 2% and the interest you make in a savings account is less than 1%. Your actually loosing money in a savings account. Keep a few thousand bucks in your savings account and the majority invested and working for you.",
"The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be.",
"It's time she look into what employer provided retirement plan she can use. She's at the point where she should think about investing for the long term, with retirement in mind.",
"Not 100% related, but the #1 thing you need to avoid is CREDIT CARD DEBT. Trust me on this one. I'm 31, and finally got out of credit card debt about eight months ago. For just about my entire 20s, I racked up credit card debt and saved zero. Invested zero. It pains me to realize that I basically wasted ten years of possible interest, and instead bought a lot of dumb things and paid 25% interest on it. So yes, put money into your 401k and an IRA. Max them out.",
"\"The most important thing is to start. Don't waste months and years trying to figure out the \"\"optimal\"\" strategy or trying to read all the best books before you start. Pick a solid, simple choice, like investing in your company sponsored 401(k), and do it today. This I Will Teach You To Be Rich post on barriers has some good insight on this.\"",
"With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.",
"Does anyone have any good resources for starting up learning about savings, finances, etc? I'm 20 years old and want to begin really saving consistently and learning about 401Ks, IRAs, savings accounts, how to grow your money safely and slowly, etc. I'm mainly looking for a website or application that will help me budget and organize things. A phone app would be nice. And any subreddit where I could learn about these things would be extremely helpful too.",
"At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty.",
"For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.",
"You don't have to retire. But the US government and other national governments have programs that allow you to set aside money when you are young to be used when you are older. To encourage you to do this, they reduce your taxes either now or when your are older. They also allow your employer to match your funds. In the US they have IRAs, 401Ks, and Social Security. You are not required to stop working while tapping into these funds. Having a job and using these funds will impact your taxes, but your are not forbidden from doing both. Decades ago most retirement funds come from pensions and Social Security. Most people are going to reach their senior years without a pension, or with only a very small pension because they had one in one of their early jobs. So go ahead, gamble that you will not need to save for retirement. Then hope that decades later you were right about it, because you can't go back in time and fix your choice. Some never save for retirement, either because they can't or they think they can't. Many that don't save end up working longer than they imagined. Some work everyday until they die, or are physically unable to work. Sometimes it is because they love the job, but often it is because they cannot afford to quit.",
"You are asking all the right questions. I predict a bright future! In addition to the excellent advice from Phil, I would add that NOW is the time to think about investing. If you have not yet started a retirement account, open up a Roth IRA and max it out ($5.5k in 2014) every year. The time value of money is strong and you will be thanking yourself in 40 years for starting now. Yes, paying down debt is important, and you should do that, too. It's a balance. If you get converted to a full-time employee, take part in any retirement plan they offer, and max out any matching because it's free money.",
"If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.",
"\"My father imparted this advice to me when I was a teenager, and it hasn't failed me yet. > Pay yourself first What this means is that the first \"\"bill\"\" you pay should always be your savings. Preferably in a way that automatically comes out of your paycheck or account without requiring you to take an active step to make it happen. I save a ton of money, but I am no more disciplined than anyone else. I just realized that over the years of progressing in my career that I gradually got higher and higher salaries, yet never had a substantial increase in the money I had leftover in my bank at the end of the month despite the fact that I make about 8x the money I used to live reasonably comfortably on. Therein is the point, we spend whatever money we see, so you almost have to hide it from yourself. First, participate to the fullest in your company's 401k if they offer it. After a while you will adjust naturally to the net take home pay and won't miss the savings you are accumulating. Absent that, or in addition to that, set up a separate bank or investment account and arrange an automatic transfer from your checking account every month. Then set up automatic investing in CD's or some other less-liquid-than-cash investment so you it is just enough hassle to get at the money that you won't do it on a whim. It sounds too simple, but it works.\"",
"\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\"",
"I encourage using it as a buffer. After h.s. I had a thousand or so dollars saved up in my savings account. After college it was maybe 5 thousand and it's remained roughly like that ever since. I figure any modest emergency or spending splurge may cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. I'm talking about a new couch, a car accident, hospital bill, vacation to wherever, etc. It's nice to have an idea of a buffer. Financial advisors say to have a buffer of about 3 months of salary. This is in case of unemployment and such. It was smart for me. I wouldn't try to spend money to make money at this point. It's not enough money to try to see a significant gain unless you're lucky. I tried Sharebuilder a while ago with $200 to see what stocks were like. They gave you several free trades to see how you liked it. At first I was shuffling stuff a little too much and once the fees start kicking in it's 7 bucks here, 7 bucks there- eventually I realized you have to invest enough to offset the transfer fees and the fact that you have your money tied up in something going up and down all the time. But yeah. Start with a buffer and scale it up as your lifestyle changes. Anything beyond your buffer is spending money, investing money, fun money."
] |
[
"As AskAboutGadgets notes, there's no lower age limit. You current age (24) is a pretty good one; you'll have four decades or so for your money to grow and compound, allowing it to become a veritable fortune when you're ready to retire if you invest it fairly aggressively.",
"While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends.",
"Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.",
"There is no age-limit, in fact the sooner you start the better - the sooner the money starts to compound.",
"As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!",
"It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days. The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save. If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age. But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement. It's not always easy to find a balance. The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all!",
"You've never saved money? Have you ever bought anything? There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something. In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day. Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places. Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank. Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed. Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it. The traditional concept of savings is gone. There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway. Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right."
] |
7431
|
Pay off mortgage or invest in high value saving account
|
[
"372921"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"154449",
"2393",
"63883",
"251642",
"372921",
"493336",
"557734",
"468831",
"589256",
"220733",
"426215",
"81906",
"387722",
"115717",
"340209",
"393857",
"431811",
"109903",
"241073",
"494148",
"377814",
"441512",
"477907",
"529954",
"560915",
"157414",
"100136",
"400567",
"131365",
"364099",
"160105",
"74497",
"561056",
"473427",
"78361",
"361717",
"341837",
"440719",
"247449",
"476068",
"586626",
"463260",
"403314",
"552383",
"323475",
"286466",
"472200",
"39716",
"394474",
"435576",
"98294",
"368590",
"249054",
"449294",
"91504",
"78447",
"290631",
"373554",
"50964",
"311558",
"202527",
"595436",
"402950",
"106215",
"552792",
"310780",
"459705",
"411206",
"461937",
"278626",
"123971",
"452474",
"310361",
"63427",
"470716",
"326542",
"457945",
"423628",
"439995",
"263546",
"209963",
"304277",
"101589",
"395099",
"568784",
"198251",
"524018",
"200900",
"107068",
"284318",
"85745",
"141059",
"331093",
"422142",
"90927",
"556072",
"564638",
"30808",
"175305",
"488638"
] |
[
"In all likelihood, the best thing you can do, if these really are your only two options (ie no other debt at all), paying-down your mortgage will shorten the term of the mortgage, and mean you spend less on your house in the long run. Investing is should be a long-term activity - so yes, the likelihood is that, given a modest investment, it will gain at historical averages over the life of the investment vehicle. However, that is not a guarantee, and is an inherent risk. Whereas paying-down a mortgage lowers your financial obligations and risk, investing increases your risk. I want to know how you got a 2.1% interest rate on a mortgage, though - the lowest I've seen anywhere is 3.25%.",
"\"If you don't want to take any risk and you want your money to be liquid, then the best place to \"\"invest\"\" such money is in an insured bank deposit, such as a high interest savings account. However, you aren't likely to find a savings account interest rate that comes close to that charged by your mortgage, so the better decision from a numbers perspective is to pay down more on your mortgage or other debt. Paying down your debt has almost no risk, but has a better payoff than simply saving the money in a bank account. However, if you choose to pay down more debt, I suggest you still keep aside enough cash to have an adequate emergency fund. Since you want safety and liquidity, don't expect high returns from such money.\"",
"It's six of one a half dozen of another. Investing the cash is a little more risky. You know exactly what you'll get by paying down your mortgage. If you have a solid emergency fund it's probably most advisable to pay down your mortgage. If your mortgage is 3% and your investment makes 3.5% you're talking about a taxable gain of 0.5% on the additional cash. Is that worth it to you? Sure, the S&P has been on a tear but remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.",
"Paying down your mortgage saves lots of interest. With a long term mortgage you end up paying twice us much to the bank than the sales price of the house. Even low mortgage interests are higher than short term bonds. The saving of those interest are as much an investment as the interest you get from a bond. However, before paying off a mortgage other higher interest loans should be paid off. Also it should be considered if the mortgage interest create a tax reduction in the comparison with any other options.",
"\"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the \"\"what-ifs\"\". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the \"\"pay-off-early\"\" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%.\"",
"At the moment the interest rate... implies a variable rate mortgage. I believe rates are only going to go up from here. So, if I were in your position, I would pay off the mortgage first. If you don't have 3-6 months in savings for an emergency, I would invest that much money in low risk investments. Anything remaining I would invest in a balanced portfolio of mutual funds. The biggest benefit to this is the flexibility it gives you. Not being burdened by a monthly mortgage frees you up to invest. This may be in your stock portfolio each month or it may be in your community or charitable causes. You have financial margin.",
"Yes, you will come out ahead slightly by putting the money in the savings account, then paying off your mortgage later. However, we don't know what will happen to these interest rates after 1 year. If you put the £300 per month into the savings account for a year, then put the money into you mortgage, you will save about £78 for the year over just putting the money toward your mortgage in the first place. For me, I'm more concerned about longer term strategy. What happens to your mortgage rate after 2 years? What happens to your savings account rate after 1 year? The mortgage rate likely goes up and the savings account rate likely goes down, making the savings of this strategy even less after the first year. Instead, you may want to put this £300 per month toward retirement investments (assuming you have no other debt), which should, over the long term, earn more than the savings account.",
"First of all, you should absolutely put money into savings until you have at least a 6 month cushion, and preferably longer. It doesn't matter if you get 0% interest in your savings and have a high interest rate mortgage, the cushion is still more important. Once you have a nice emergency fund, you can then consider the question of whether to pay more towards the mortgage if the numbers make sense. However, in my opinion, it's not just a straight comparison of interest rates. In other words, if your savings account gives you 1% and your mortgage is 5%, that's still not an automatic win for the mortgage. The reason is that by putting the money into your mortgage, you're locking it up and can't access it. To me, money in the hand is worth a lot more than money that's yours on paper but not easily accessible. I don't know the math well enough, but you don't really need the math. Just keep in mind that you have to weight the present value of putting that money into savings vs the future value of putting it into your mortgage and paying less interest at some point in the future. Do the math and see how much you will save by paying the mortgage down faster, but also keep in mind that future money is worth less than present money. A LOT less if you suddenly have an emergency or decide on a major purchase and need the money, but then have to jump through hoops to get to it. To me, you need to save a considerable amount by paying down the mortgage, and also understand that your money is getting locked away, for it to make sense.",
"\"For some people, it should be a top priority. For others, there are higher priorities. What it should be for you depends on a number of things, including your overall financial situation (both your current finances and how stable you expect them to be over time), your level of financial \"\"education\"\", the costs of your mortgage, the alternative investments available to you, your investing goals, and your tolerance for risk. Your #1 priority should be to ensure that your basic needs (including making the required monthly payment on your mortgage) are met, both now and in the near future, which includes paying off high-interest (i.e. credit card) debt and building up an emergency fund in a savings or money-market account or some other low-risk and liquid account. If you haven't done those things, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and do not consider making advance payments on your mortgage. Mason Wheeler's statements that the bank can't take your house if you've paid it off are correct, but it's going to be a long time till you get there and they can take it if you're partway to paying it off early and then something bad happens to you and you start missing payments. (If you're not underwater, you should be able to get some of your money back by selling - possibly at a loss - before it gets to the point of foreclosure, but you'll still have to move, which can be costly and unappealing.) So make sure you've got what you need to handle your basic needs even if you hit a rough patch, and make sure you're not financing the paying off of your house by taking a loan from Visa at 27% annually. Once you've gotten through all of those more-important things, you finally get to decide what else to invest your extra money in. Different investments will provide different rewards, both financial and emotional (and Mason Wheeler has clearly demonstrated that he gets a strong emotional payoff from not having a mortgage, which may or may not be how you feel about it). On the financial side of any potential investment, you'll want to consider things like the expected rate of return, the risk it carries (both on its own and whether it balances out or unbalances the overall risk profile of all your investments in total), its expected costs (including its - and your - tax rate and any preferred tax treatment), and any other potential factors (such as an employer match on 401(k) contributions, which are basically free money to you). Then you weigh the pros and cons (financial and emotional) of each option against your imperfect forecast of what the future holds, take your best guess, and then keep adjusting as you go through life and things change. But I want to come back to one of the factors I mentioned in the first paragraph. Which options you should even be considering is in part influenced by the degree to which you understand your finances and the wide variety of options available to you as well as all the subtleties of how different things can make them more or less advantageous than one another. The fact that you're posting this question here indicates that you're still early in the process of learning those things, and although it's great that you're educating yourself on them (and keep doing it!), it means that you're probably not ready to worry about some of the things other posters have talked about, such as Cost of Capital and ROI. So keep reading blog posts and articles online (there's no shortage of them), and keep developing your understanding of the options available to you and their pros and cons, and wait to tackle the full suite of investment options till you fully understand them. However, there's still the question of what to do between now and then. Paying the mortgage down isn't an unreasonable thing for you to do for now, since it's a guaranteed rate of return that also provides some degree of emotional payoff. But I'd say the higher priority should be getting money into a tax-advantaged retirement account (a 401(k)/403(b)/IRA), because the tax-advantaged growth of those accounts makes their long-term return far greater than whatever you're paying on your mortgage, and they provide more benefit (tax-advantaged growth) the earlier you invest in them, so doing that now instead of paying off the house quicker is probably going to be better for you financially, even if it doesn't provide the emotional payoff. If your employer will match your contributions into that account, then it's a no-brainer, but it's probably still a better idea than the mortgage unless the emotional payoff is very very important to you or unless you're nearing retirement age (so the tax-free growth period is small). If you're not sure what to invest in, just choose something that's broad-market and low-cost (total-market index funds are a great choice), and you can diversify into other things as you gain more savvy as an investor; what matters more is that you start investing in something now, not exactly what it is. Disclaimer: I'm not a personal advisor, and this does not constitute investing advice. Understand your choices and make your own decisions.\"",
"I would not recommend using your own money to pay off something that is not a strong asset. Use the savings where it will have the maximum return. Why not put (some of) the savings into another investment mortgage? Thanks to the leverage your return would be much higher than 5.5%, plus you would have more income.",
"\"Understand your own risk tolerance and discipline. From Moneychimp we can see different market results - This is a 15 year span, containing what was arguably one of the most awful decades going. A full 10 year period with a negative return. Yet, the 15 year return was a 6.65% CAGR. You'd net 5.65% after long term cap gains. Your mortgage is likely costing ~4% or 3% after tax (This is not applicable to my Canadian friends, I understand you don't deduct interest). In my not so humble opinion, I'd pay off the highest rate debts first (unlike The David followers who are happy to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in 0% interest debt before the large 18% debt) and invest at the highest rate I'd get long term. The problem is knowing when to flip from one to the other. Here's food for thought - The David insists on his use of the 12% long term market return. The last 100 years have had an average 11.96% return, but you can't spend average, the CAGR, the real compound rate was 10.06%. Why would he recommend paying off a sub 3% loan while using 12% for his long term planning (All my David remarks are not applicable to Canadian members, you all probably know better than to listen to US entertainers)? I am retired, and put my money where my mouth is. The $200K I still owe on my mortgage is offset by over $400K in my 401(k). The money went in at 25%/28% pretax, has grown over these past 20 years, and comes out at 15% to pay my mortgage each month. No regrets. Anyone starting out now, and taking a 30 year mortgage, but putting the delta to a 15 year mortgage payment into their 401(k) is nearly certain to have far more in the retirement account 15 years hence than their remaining balance on the loan, even after taxes are considered. Even more if this money helps them to get the full matching, which too many miss. All that said, keep in mind, the market is likely to see a correction or two in the next 15 years, one of which may be painful. If that would keep you up at night, don't listen to me. If a fixed return of 4% seems more appealing than a 10% return with a 15% standard deviation, pay the mortgage first. Last - if you have a paid off house but no job, the town still wants its property tax, and the utilities still need to be paid. If you lose your job with $400K in your 401(k)/IRA but have a $200K mortgage, you have a lot of time to find a new job or sell the house with little pressure from the debt collectors. (To answer the question in advance - \"\"Joe, at what mortgage rate do you pay it off first?\"\" Good question. I'd deposit to my 401(k) to grab matching deposits first, and then if the mortgage was anywhere north of 6%, prioritize that. This would keep my chances at near 100% of coming out ahead.)\"",
"Aggressively paying of Mortgage is better. If you have more cash available [assuming you have covered all other aspects i.e. emergency funds, retirement etc], the only question you need to ask is where will you invest and what returns would you get. So if your mortgage is say at 5%, if the spare money can get you more than this, its beneficial, if its in Bank CD with say near zero interest, its not worth it. However if you are sure you can make 10% returns on the investments, then go ahead and don't pay the mortgage aggressively.",
"\"The mortgage has a higher interest rate, how can it make sense to pay off the HELOC first?? As for the mutual fund, it comes down to what returns you are expecting. If the after-tax return is higher than the mortgage rate then invest, otherwise \"\"invest\"\" in paying down the mortgage. Note that paying down debt is usually the best investment you have.\"",
"Simply, you should put your money into whatever has the higher interest rate, savings or repayment of debt. Let's say at the beginning of month A you put $1000 into each account. In the case of the savings, at the end of month A you will have $1001.6 ($1000 + 1000 x 2% annual interest / 12) In the case of a loan, at the end of month A you will have $1005.7. ($17000 plus 6.8 interest for one month is 17096.3. On $16000, the new value is 16090.6. The difference between these is $1005.7. 5.7 / 1.6 = 3.56 Therefore, using your money to repay your loan nets you a return about 3.5 times greater.",
"\"I think the basic question you're asking is whether you'd be better off putting the $20K into an IRA or similar investment, or if your best bet is to pay down your mortgage. The answer is...that depends. What you didn't share is what your mortgage balance is so that we can understand how using that money to pay down the mortgage would affect you. The lower your remaining balance on the mortgage, the more impact paying it down will affect your long-term finances. For example, if your remaining principal balance is more than $200k, paying down $20k in principal will not have as significant an effect as if you only have $100k principal balance and were paying down $20k of that. To me, one option is to put the $20k toward mortgage principal, then perhaps do a refinance on your remaining mortgage with the goal of getting a better interest rate. This would double the benefit to you. First, your mortgage payment would be lower by virtue of a lower principal balance (assuming you keep the same term period in your refinanced mortgage as you have now. In other words, if you have a 15-year now, your new mortgage should be 15 years also to see the best effect on your payment). Further, if you can obtain a lower interest rate on the new loan, now you have the dual benefit of a lower principal balance to pay down plus the reduced interest cost on that principal balance. This would put money into your pocket immediately, which I think is part of your goal, although the question does hinge on what you'd pay in points and fees for a refinance. You can invest, but with that comes risk, and right now may not be the ideal time to enter the markets given all of the uncertainties with the \"\"Brexit\"\" issue. By paying down your mortgage principal, even if you do nothing else, you can save yourself considerable interest in the long term which might be more beneficial than the return you'd get from the markets or an IRA at this point. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"The short answer is that it depends on the taxation laws in your country. The long answer is that there are usually tax avoidance mechanisms that you can use which may make it more economically feasible for you to go one way or the other. Consider the following: The long term average growth rate of the stock market in Australia is around 7%. The average interest on a mortgage is 4.75%. Assuming you have money left over from a 20% deposit, you have a few options. You could: 1) Put that money into an index fund for the long term, understanding that the market may not move for a decade, or even move downwards; 2) Dump that money straight into the mortgage; 3) Put that money in an offset account Option 1 will get you (over the course of 30-40 years) around 7% return. If and when that profit is realised it will be taxed at a minimum of half your marginal tax rate (probably around 20%, netting you around 5.25%) Option 2 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free Option 3 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free with the added bonus that the money is ready for you to draw upon on short notice. Of the three options, until you have a good 3+ months of living expenses covered, I'd go with the offset account every single time. Once you have a few months worth of living expenses covered, I would the adopt a policy of spreading your risk. In Australia, that would mean extra contributions to my Super (401k in the US) and possibly purchasing an investment property as well (once I had the capital to positively gear it). Of course, you should find out more about the tax laws in your country and do your own maths.",
"The mathematically correct answer is to invest, because you'll get a higher rate of return. I think that answer is bunk -- owning your home free and clear is a huge burden lifted off of your shoulders. You're at an age where you may find a new job, business, personal or other opportunities will be easier to take advantage of without that burden.",
"It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals.",
"I think there are a few facets to this, namely: Overall, I wouldn't concentrate on paying off the house if I didn't have any other money parked and invested, but I'd still try to get rid of the mortgage ASAP as it'll give you more money that you can invest, too. At the end of the day, if you save out paying $20k in interest, that's almost $20k you can invest. Yes, I realise there's a time component to this as well and you might well get a better return overall if you invested the $20k now that in 5 years' time. But I'd still rather pay off the house.",
"My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage. So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily. Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future. On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A. Let's say you lose your job a year from now. Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed. But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it. People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job.",
"pay off loans first, then invest. it's a guaranteed benefit. you could invest it and make great returns, or you could watch the market crash the next day and there goes your savings. no guarantee exists there. take the sure thing. that's my two cents.",
"\"There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum. So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said \"\"ignoring tax implications\"\". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation.\"",
"In general, saving money should be prioritized over extra debt payments. Every dollar that you spend paying down a debt will decrease the amount of principal owed; this will directly decrease the future interest payments you will make. However, as time goes on, you are dealing with a smaller and smaller set of principal; additionally, it is assumed that your income will grow (or at least keep pace with inflation), making the debt more bearable. On the other hand, every dollar you save (or invest) now will increase your future income - also making the future debt more bearable. Not only that, but the longer you save, the more value to you get from having saved, meaning you should save as early as possible. Finally, the benefits of paying down the mortgage early end when the mortgage is completely paid off, while the benefits of saving will continue (and even grow) after the house is owned free and clear. That is, if you have an extra $100,000 to put into the mortgage during the life of the loan, you could sink that into the mortgage and see it disappear, or you could invest it, and reap the dividends for the rest of your life. Caveat emptor: behavior trumps numbers. This only works if you will actually be disciplined about saving the extra money rather than paying off debt. If you're the kind of person for whom money burns a hole in your pocket until you spend it, then use it on debt. But if you are able to save and invest that money, you will be better off in the long run.",
"The answer can depend greatly on whether the interest on a mortgage for the house you live in is tax deductible in the country you are in (I assume the mortgage is on the house you live in and not an investment property). It will also depend on the difference between the mortgage interest rate and the return of the unit trust, your income and your tax rates. In essence you would need to do a cost-benefit analysis to figure out which option would provide the bigest financial benefit, considering the different rates, your income and your tax rates. Basically, if you can get a better return from the unit trust than the mortgage interest rate and you can claim a tax deduction for the mortgage interest payments, then you may be better off investing in the unit trust rather than putting extra repayments into the mortgage.",
"\"I'm assuming when you say \"\"…put it towards our mortgage payment?\"\", you mean make additional payments on top of your scheduled payment. Strictly speaking, if the interest on your mortgage is higher than the return you can expect by saving, then yes, your excess savings should be put toward your mortgage. This assumes that there are no pre-payment penalties, that you really won't miss that money in the short term (i.e. you say you have enough savings for emergencies, so that's good), and that both choices would use after-tax dollars (i.e. mortgage payment vs RRSP contribution in Canada is a huge discussion).\"",
"Let's look at some of your options: In a savings account, your $40,000 might be earning maybe 0.5%, if you are lucky. In a year, you'll have earned $200. On the plus side, you'll have your $40,000 easily accessible to you to pay for moving, closing costs on your new house, etc. If you apply it to your mortgage, you are effectively saving the interest on the amount for the life of the loan. Let's say that the interest rate on your mortgage is 4%. If you were staying in the house long-term, this interest would be compounded, but since you are only going to be there for 1 year, this move will save you $1600 in interest this year, which means that when you sell the house and pay off this mortgage, you'll have $1600 extra in your pocket. You said that you don't like to dabble in stocks. I wouldn't recommend investing in individual stocks anyway. A stock mutual fund, however, is a great option for investing, but only as a long-term investment. You should be able to beat your 4% mortgage, but only over the long term. If you want to have the $40,000 available to you in a year, don't invest in a mutual fund now. I would lean toward option #2, applying the money to the mortgage. However, there are some other considerations: Do you have any other debts, maybe a car loan, student loan, or a credit card balance? If so, I would forget everything else and put everything toward one or more of these loans first. Do you have an emergency fund in place, or is this $40,000 all of the cash that you have available to you? One rule of thumb is that you have 3 to 6 months of expenses set aside in a safe, easily accessible account ready to go if something comes up. Are you saving for retirement? If you don't already have retirement savings in place and are adding to it regularly, some of this cash would be a great start to a Roth IRA or something like that, invested in a stock mutual fund. If you are already debt free except for this mortgage, you might want to do some of each: Keep $10,000 in a savings account for an emergency fund (if you don't already have an emergency fund), put $5,000 in a Roth IRA (if you aren't already contributing a satisfactory amount to a retirement account), and apply the rest toward your mortgage.",
"\"From what I've read, paying down your mortgage -- above and beyond what you'd normally pay -- is indeed an investment but a very poor form of investment. In other words, you could take that extra money you'd apply towards your mortgage and put it in something that has a much higher rate of return than a house. As an extreme example, consider: if I took $6k extra I would have paid toward my mortgage in a single year, and bought a nice performing stock, I could see returns of 2x or 3x. Now, that implies I know which stock to pick, etcetera.. I found a \"\"mortgage or investment\"\" calculator which could be of use as well: http://www.planningtips.com/cgi-bin/prepay_v_invest.pl (scroll to bottom to see the summary and whether or not prepay or invest wins for the numbers you plugged in)\"",
"If it's either/or, I'd pay down the mortgage, no question. I know I'm in the minority, but I'm not a fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. There are too many things that can change between now and the next 30 years (the time frame that you'll be able to withdraw from your IRA account without penalty). The rules governing these accounts can change at any time, and I don't think they'll be changes for the better. Putting the money toward your mortgage will relieve you of that monthly payment faster. The benefits of IRAs come retirement age are too uncertain for my taste.",
"but then they make suggestions such as paying extra each month on your mortgage. How else does one pay off his mortgage early other than by paying extra each month? The principal and interest are fixed, no matter how much money you throw at them. The interest rate is fixed. The total interest paid varies depending on how much extra you pay towards the principal. You'll pay the same amount every month regardless. That's factually incorrect. just put the extra money into savings At 1.2%, if you're smart enough to put it in an on-line savings account. until you have enough to pay off the mortgage Which costs you 3.5%. This way, the money is locked up in your home. Who says that all of your money must be locked up in your home? (I'm sure that there are financial advisors who recommend that you throw every single spare dime into extra mortgage payments, but they're rare.) Am I missing something? Yes: the mathematical sense to see that a 3.5% loan costs more than than 1.2% savings earns you",
"Certainly, paying off the mortgage is better than doing nothing with the money. But it gets interesting when you consider keeping the mortgage and investing the money. If the mortgage rate is 5% and you expect >5% returns from stocks or some other investment, then it might make sense to seek those higher returns. If you expect the same 5% return from stocks, keeping the mortgage and investing the money can still be more tax-efficient. Assuming a marginal tax rate of 30%, the real cost of mortgage interest (in terms of post-tax money) is 3.5%*. If your investment results in long-term capital gains taxed at 15%, the real rate of growth of your post-tax money would be 4.25%. So in post-tax terms, your rate of gain is greater than your rate of loss. On the other hand, paying off the mortgage is safer than investing borrowed money, so doing so might be more appropriate for the risk-averse. * I'm oversimplifying a bit by assuming the deduction doesn't change your marginal tax rate.",
"\"I was going to ask, \"\"Do you feel lucky, punk?\"\" but then it occurred to me that the film this quote came from, Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood, is 43 years old. And yet, the question remains. The stock market, as measured by the S&P has returned 9.67% compounded over the last 100 years. But with a standard deviation just under 20%, there are years when you'll do better and years you'll lose. And I'd not ignore the last decade which was pretty bad, a loss for the decade. There are clearly two schools of thought. One says that no one ever lost sleep over not having a mortgage payment. The other school states that at the very beginning, you have a long investing horizon, and the chances are very good that the 30 years to come will bring a return north of 6%. The two decades prior to the last were so good that these past 30 years were still pretty good, 11.39% compounded. There is no right or wrong here. My gut says fund your retirement accounts to the maximum. Build your emergency fund. You see, if you pay down your mortgage, but lose your job, you'll still need to make those payments. Once you build your security, think of the mortgage as the cash side of your investing, i.e. focus less on the relatively low rate of return (4.3%) and more on the eventual result, once paid, your cash flow goes up nicely. Edit - in light of the extra information you provided, your profile reads that you have a high risk tolerance. Low overhead, no dependents, and secure employment combine to lead me to this conclusion. At 23, I'd not be investing at 4.3%. I'd learn how to invest in a way I was comfortable with, and take it from there. Disclosure (Updated) - I am older, and am semi-retired. I still have some time left on the mortgage, but it doesn't bother me, not at 3.5%. I also have a 16 year old to put through college but her college account i fully funded.\"",
"Yes, one is certainly better than the other. Which one depends on your priorities and the interest and tax rates on your student loan, your savings, and your (future) mortgage plus how much you can afford to save and still enjoy the lifestyle you want as well as how soon you want to move out. Basically, you havn't given enough information.",
"you should always invest if your investment rate of return is higher than your interest rate Your next line, about standard deviation is dead on. There are too many variables to give an exact answer here, in my opinion. The main reason is that one variable isn't easy to quantify - One's risk tolerance. Clearly, there's one extreme, the 18% credit card. Unless you are funding loanshark type rates of 2%/week, it's safe to say that 18% debt should take priority over any investments, except for the matched 401(k) deposits. What I think you're talking about is something we've addressed here in multiple threads. Do I prepay my sub 4% mortgage or invest? In this case, (and to Noah's comment) the question is whether you can expect a post-tax return of over 3% during your time horizon. I look at the return for 15 years from 1998-2013 and see a 6% CAGR for the S&P. I chose 15 years, as the choice is often one of paying a 30 year mortgage faster, as fast as 15. The last 15 years offer a pretty bad scenario, 2 crashes and a mortgage crisis. 6% after long term gains would get you 5.1% net. You can pull the data back to 1871 and run CAGR numbers for the timeframe of your choosing. I haven't done it yet, but I imagine there's no 15 year span that lags the 3% target I cite. What makes it more complex is that the investment isn't lump sum. It may not be obvious, but CAGR is a dollar invested at T=0, and returns calculated to T=final year. It would take a bit of spreadsheeting to invest the extra funds every month/year over your period of analysis. In the end, there are still those who will choose to pay off their 4% mortgage regardless of what the numbers show. Even if the 15 year result showed worst case 3.5% (almost no profit) and an average 10%, the feeling of risk is more than many will want.",
"I read your question that you have a comfortable amount toward retirement. If not, pad your retirement accounts if possible. If your loan rate is locked at 2.67%, invest that money in the market and pay the loan as agreed. So long as you feel comfortable in your employment and income status for the next few years, I would bet you will get a lot more out of your cash investing in diversified, low cost funds or ETFs that you will save in interest on that loan. Finally, if you decide to lower your debt instead of increasing investments (based on your tolerance for risk) why not pay more on the mortgage? If you owe most of your mortgage and it is typically long term, you might cut many years off of the mortgage with a large payment.",
"The chances are good that the interest you are going to pay on the debt is going to be higher than the interest you are going to receive on any type of short term investments. That would make the paying off of the debt worth more to you in the long run than saving your money. Note that without the particulars of your situation this is all just theory crafting so consult the details of you loan agreements. I cannot imagine that a credit provider did not discuss this with you before you put pen on paper.",
"First off, this is a post for /r/personalfinance. Second off, if you want to think of this like an accountant/financier, those are the bank's 10233 dollars, not your's, and you are paying them 6% to keep that money. If you are confident that you are going to make more than 6% interest on any investments you make with that money, it makes sense to do so, although your return will be 6% less in reality. You also assume the risk of losing money on the investment and not having enough money to repay your loans. tl;dr Pay off the loan.",
"It is important to consider your overall financial goals (especially in the 3-5 year range). If you have another financial goal which cannot be met without that additional money then meeting that financial goal might take priority over what I am about to say. Your mortgage rate is another important factor to consider when answering this question. Extra mortgage payments are equivalent to investing that money in a VERY low risk investment with an equivalent yield of the mortgage rate because you will be paying that much less per year in interest. (Actually, when you consider that mortgage interest is often tax-deductible the equivalent yield should be reduced by your income tax rate.) Typically it is not possible to find such a low risk investment with a yield as high as your mortgage rate. For example current mortgage rates are over twice as high as the yield of a one year CD. Also keep in mind that additional mortgage payments help you build equity. This equity will most likely be applied to your next home purchase. If so their effect will be in place throughout the life of your next mortgage too.",
"There are a lot of open questions about if this is your only accessible money or if you have other emergency funds, and if you have any retirements savings and when do you plan to retire, but leaving this all aside: You currently pay 2.65% on the mortgage, and you make less on savings (maybe 1 or 1.5%). So putting the savings into the mortgage makes you the difference, which is a good deal. However, you need to reflect this with your risk-averisty, and your long term goals, and look at potential even better deals. For example, you could put the savings into higher risk/higher gain investments (let’s assume index funds), and make 6 - 10% per year in average. That obviously is a lot more. Why would you not want to do that? Investing like this is a long term plan. If this is your only savings/emergency fund, or if you need the money within the next five years, you should not do it; it could catch you in a bad market situation, and then it might be a severe loss. If you are sure you don’t need it for at least five if not ten years, invest it and keep the mortgage, you will easily beat its interest rate. If you are risk-averse, and can’t sleep with your savings doing loopings while you watch, that is also not a plan for you. There are many things to consider, and your personal situation is relevant for the decision. Consider all options, and be sure to always have a emergency fund remaining. It is also not black and white - there are options in between of your two propositions - pay some in, and keep some for emergencies.",
"\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"",
"\"I doubt you will get an answer equal to \"\"You can't save when you have debt\"\". Because most mortgages are for decades, very few people would be able to save for retirement if they had to wait to be mortgage free. The difficulty in saving occurs when the interest rate is very high (18% or more) and the interest is not deductible. Such as with credit cards. The minimum payment for your mortgage is 30% of your income. If that doesn't include taxes and homeowners insurance in the 30%, then for the United States that would be considered too large. While the general plan to pay down the mortgage is a good idea, make sure that you are able to handle the minimum payments before starting to increase the payments. Try the minimum for a year or two before getting aggressive The calculation is based on the interest rate of the mortgage, the interest rate of the savings account, and the potential tax deduction of the mortgage and the tax rate on the earned interest. Putting extra money into a mortgage, but missing out on matching retirement money would also have to be figured into the calculation. Make sure you do save for retirement , kids education, and emergencies. Unless your country has a complex system where the money can flow in and out of the mortgage, then once you put extra money into the mortgage you can't get it back when the car dies. The nice thing about putting extra money into a mortgage is that you can do it either in an organized way, or only when you feel comfortable. So it is not urgent for you to commit to a plan immediately. One thing to avoid is a plan that charges you a fee to add extra money, or charges a fee to switch to a bi-weekly mortgage. While your ideas is good, these plans should never cost any money to start, and may be a scam if a 3rd party gets between you and the lender.\"",
"You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses). Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive. You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses. Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment. Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach. Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach. Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both. You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K. Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy.",
"The answer will vary person to person and situation to situation. But the basic concept to always consider is this: What interest rate am I paying on my debt? 10%? 18%? And what interest rate am I making on my savings/investment, etc? 3%? 7%? It won't give you a hard and fast answer, but will definitely let you know if you should take a closer look at it. I'd suggest talking to a financial planner about it. Find a fee-based planner that you can turn to intermittently to make sure you are on the right track...not a commission-based planner, a fee-based one. (with respectful apologies to any commission-based planners who may read this.) My instinct is usually to pay off the debt, try to clean everything up so you don't have anything outstanding that is charging you interest. Debt is clutter, it's stressful, it can be a reminder of money you wish you hadn't spent. As long as you have access to money in case of emergency, job loss, etc, get your debt paid off and keep it paid off. You'll sleep much better.",
"I want to start investing money, as low risk as possible, but with a percentage growth of at least 4% over 10 - 15 years. ...I do have a mortgage, Then there's your answer. You get a risk-free return of the interest rate on your mortgage (I'm assuming it's more than 4%). Every bit you put toward your mortgage reduces the amount of interest you pay by the interest rate, helping you to pay it off faster. Then, once your mortgage is paid off, you can look at other investments that fit your risk tolerance and return requirements. That said, make sure you have enough emergency savings to reduce cash flow interruptions, and make sure you don't have any other debts to pay. I'm not saying that everyone with a mortgage should pay it off before other investments. You asked for a low-risk 4% investment, which paying your mortgage would accomplish. If you want more return (and more risk) then other investments would be appropriate. Other factors that might change your decision might be:",
"\"Aside from employer 401(k) matches (which may double your money immediately), paying off debts is almost always the best place to start. Paying off a debt early is a zero-risk operation and will earn you N% (where N is your interest rate). Is that a good deal for a zero-risk return? The closest equivalent today (Aug 24, 2012) is that you can earn about 2.68% on 10-year Treasury bonds. Unless you have a really, really good interest rate (or the interest is tax-deductible), paying off your loan will offer an excellent risk-adjusted return, so you should do that. The \"\"really good\"\" interest rate is typically a mortgage or student loans. (Mortgage interest is also tax-deductible, at least for now.) In those cases, you're not going to gain nearly as much by paying the loan early, and the loan is large - larger than the amount you want to have in risk-free investments. You want to invest for returns, as well! So you can save for retirement instead (in a 401(k) or similar account) and take on a little risk.\"",
"First off, putting extra cash toward a mortgage early on, when most of the payments are going to interest, is the BEST time. If you pay an extra $1 on your mortgage today, you will save 30 years worth of interest (assuming a 30 year mortgage). If in 29 years you pay an extra dollar, you will only save 1 year worth of interest. That said, there are lots of things that go into a decision like this. Do you have other debts? How stable is your income? What is the interest rate on your mortgage compared to any other debts you may have or potential investments you might make? How much risk are you willing to take? Etc. Mortgages tend to be very low interest, and, at least in the U.S., the interest on them is tax-deductible, making the effective interest rate even lower. If you have some other loan, you are almost always better to pay the other loan off first. If you don't mind a little risk, you are usually better off to invest your money rather than pay off the mortgage. Suppose your mortgage is 5%. The average return on the stock market is something like 7% (according to my buddy who works for Wells Fargo). So if you put $1000 toward your mortgage, you'd save $50 the first year. (Ignoring compounding for simplicity, changes the exact numbers but not the basic idea.) If you put that same $1000 in the stock market, than if it's a typical year you'd make $70. You could put $50 of that toward paying the interest on your mortgage and you'd have $20 left to go on a wild spending spree. The catch is that the interest on a mortgage is fixed, while the return on an investment is highly variable. In an AVERAGE year the stock market might return 7%, but this year it might return 20% or it might lose 10% or a wide range of other possible numbers. (Well, you might have a variable rate mortgage, but there are still usually some defined limits on how much it can vary.)",
"Gosh don't do either! Unless you are fully funding you ROTH accounts and even then I wouldn't do it. Those interest rates are free money. You are giving away the best bargain in the history of home mortgages. Don't you think you can make more than 4% on your money invested? Don't you think in 5 years you will be able to make 4% on bond/cd's/ and other low risk investments? Don't forget money you pay in the 2020's on beyond to your mortgage are inflationary dollars. Do you think that money will be more valuable in the 20's and beyond? I don't. Roths are free money too. Think if you put 11k in there a year how much would you have at the end of it tax free. There is a reason you can only put $5,500 in them, they are too good a deal tax wise to let people put too much in there. Think about this my parents bought their home in 1967 their mortgage was $170 a month. Inflation hits and the interest they are paying at 8%! mind you, it was still a laughable amount of money each month for mortgage payment from 1977 and on. Also I bought a $450,000 house 38 months ago. Instead of putting down 180 I put down 80 I let the other 100k in my investment account and moved 5.5k over to Roth every year. I now have a roth worth $38k and an investment account worth $105k. I made 40k on my money those three years and the 38k is tax free! If you don't believe me call the help line at clarkhoward.com Get over the emotional need to be debt free and make a logical finical choice. I am begging you to think about this. This post could save you tens of thousands of dollars. Let me put it one more way. 100k in debt with 100k in investments is debt free living. Especially when you debt is under 4% and a tax write off.",
"Without knowing actual numbers it's tough to say. Personally, I would pay off the car then, going forward, use the money that would have been paid on your car note toward your mortgage. I always think of things in the worst possible scenario. It's easier, and faster, to repossess a car than to foreclose on real estate. Also, in an emergency situation, depleting your fund for your car loan and your mortgage would be significantly more detrimental than only paying a mortgage with a car owned outright. Fewer obligations means fewer things to draw down your funds in an emergency. Whether the tax deductability of the mortgage interest outweighs the lower rate on your car loan will depend on a lot of factors that haven't been shared. I think it's safe to assume with only 1% of separation the real difference isn't significant. I think when determining which credit cards to pay off, choosing the one with the highest rate is smart. But that's not the situation you're in. If you don't have foreclosure concerns I'd still pay off the car then start investing.",
"As weird as it seems, 5 years is not a long term investment. Furthermore investing is about accepting risk. Based on your criteria for the alternative to a down payment, I think your only choice is to make the larger down payment. If however, you were willing to invest that money for the long term (in a retirement account or an educational account for example) then I would definitely encourage you to invest. I think the chance that a long term investment in a diversified investment account will exceed 3.25% is pretty high. However, that is only my opinion, and I am not clairvoyant, so your let your personal tolerance to risk be your guide. But again, based on the way you asked it, down payment all the way. Your time frame means you are not an investor. Therefore your only option for risk free storage of money is an FDIC insured account, which might pay a little less than 1% for the next 5 years. A bigger down payment will have a 3.25% return in this case. In that order. #4 and #5 could be swapped if the interest rate on the loans is really low.",
"Others have suggested paying off the student loan, mostly for the satisfaction of one less payment, but I suggest you do the math on how much interest you would save by paying early on each of the loans: When you do the calculations I think you'll see why paying toward the debt with the highest interest rate is almost always the best advice. Whether you can refinance the mortgage to a lower rate is a separate question, but the above calculation would still apply, just with different amortization schedules.",
"\"You seem to really have your financial act together. Your combination of assets, and ongoing savings makes you the ideal candidate for paying it off. One way to look at it is that your mortgage offers you a place to 'invest' at a fixed 2-7/8% rate. \"\"I'd really like to not have a house payment\"\" is all I need to hear. The flip side is the lecture that talks about long term market returns, the fact that the combination of your deductible mortgage, but 15% cap gain rate means you need 2.5% return to break even, and odds are pretty high that will occur over the next 15 years. \"\"pretty high\"\" does not equal \"\"guaranteed\"\". And I won't debate the value of sleeping soundly vs an excess 5-8% return on this money that you'd maybe achieve. You haven't missed anything. In fact, though I advocate saving first, you are already doing that. This is above and beyond. Good work.\"",
"Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:",
"what other pieces of info should I consider If you don't have liquid case available for unexpected repairs, then you probably don't want to use this money for either option. The 7% return on the stocks is absolutely not guaranteed. There is a good amount of risk involved with any stock investment. Paying down the mortgage, by contrast, has a much lower risk. In the case of the mortgage, you know you'll get a 2.1% annual return until it adjusts, and then you can put some constraints on the return you'll get after it adjusts. In the case of stocks, it's reasonable to guess that it will return more than 2.1% annually if you hold it long enough. But there will be huge swings from month to month and from year to year. The sooner you need it, the more guaranteed you will want the return to be. If you have few or no stock (or bond)-like assets, then (nearly) all of your wealth is in your house, and that is independent of the remaining balance on your mortgage. If you are going to sell the house soon, then you will want to diversify your assets to protect you against a drop in home value. If you are going to stay in the house forever, then you will eventually need non-house assets to consume. Ultimately, neither option is inherently better; it really depends on what you need.",
"\"You have 1998-2011 income-contingent student loans, where the interest rate is the lower of (1% + base rate) or RPI (retail price inflation). For the next few years the it's likely to be (1% + base rate) as interest rates stay low and inflation shoots up. These loans only need to be repaid in proportion to your salary, and if they aren't repaid for long enough (e.g. the holder takes a career break for children) they are written off. So all-in-all, they are pretty good debt to have: low interest rate, and you might not have to repay them ever. It's likely that your mortgage will have a significantly higher rate than the student loan, so you'd be better off reducing your mortgage. Also, the higher deposit might mean you can get a lower interest rate on the whole mortgage because the lender will see you as a lower risk, so the return from \"\"investing\"\" it in your mortgage would be even greater than the raw interest rate. Having the student loan outstanding might make some difference to the \"\"affordability\"\" check for your mortgage payments, but lenders will be very familiar with how they work. Reducing your mortgage payments with the higher deposit should easily counterbalance that. Your own suggestion is to invest the £30K in a \"\"reasonably safe portfolio\"\" making 5%. There'll inevitably be some risk in that - 5% is a relatively high return in today's climate - but if you're willing to take that risk, you can investigate the effect on your mortgage to see if it's worth it or not.\"",
"If you can get a rate of savings that is higher than your debt, you save. If you can't then you pay off your debt. That makes the most of the money you have. Also to think about: what are you goals? Do you want to own a home, start a family, further your education, move to a new town? All of these you would need to save up for. If you can do these large transactions in cash you will be better off. If it were me I would do what I think is a parroting of Dave Ramsay's advice Congratulations by the way. It isn't easy to do what you have accomplished and you will lead a simpler life if you don't have to worry about money everyday.",
"You are weighting a certain cost of the mortgage interest versus the possible gain of the value of the house. Take the interest you pay per month and divide it by the current value of the house. Say your interest is 3% of the value of the house (may be more or less depending on the balance owed and the interest rate of your mortgage). Say the average appreciation in your area is also 3%. But that means that there's only a 50% chance that the actual appreciation will be more than that (assuming the odds are equal either way), and there's a 50% change that you'll be worse off. Generally, trading a risk-free loss for a risky gain of equal size is not a good investment; you generally can find better average returns on risky investments, so your best bet is to sell now and pay of the mortgage.",
"This is opinion, no right or wrong. Two schools of thought, one saying you should aim to be debt free, ASAP, the other suggests that when your borrowing expense is so much lower than expected market return, just keep investing. With your mortgage, a variable, I trust the payment is recalculated so if you pay down half the loan, it will drop to half when the rate changes and new payment calculated, right? If not, you still have a high payment due until it's paid in full. Me, I like the flexibility of going with the full term, and saving the money as long as rates are low. Even moderate inflation will make that payment fell like less over time, and there are funds whose dividends are above the mortgage rate. If/when rates rise, you can always pay down aggressively. I'm concerned that you don't have a good sense of your saving goals. You have less than a years income saved for the long term. To replace 80% of your income you need about 20 times your current income, or $4M. Of course, you get to subtract pension income or whatever Canada's social security system is (forgive my ignorance on this).",
"Morpheus, I think you are approaching this question the wrong way. The interest rate is not the most important consideration; you also need to consider the other characteristics of the investment. Money in a bank account is very liquid; you can do anything you want with it. Equity in a house is very illiquid; it is hard and expensive to access. Let's say you have $25,000 to either go towards a bigger downpayment or to invest. What happens if you lose your job? If you have $25,000 in the bank, you have a lot of flexibility; you can pay a mortgage for a number of months, or you could use it to relocate. If you put the money in the house, you cannot access it at all; without a job you can't refi or get a home equity loan. Your only recourse would be to sell the house, which might not be possible if there are systemic issues (such as the ones in the real estate crash). Even if you can refi or get a home equity loan, you will have to pay fees. My advice is to put the money somewhere else. If your term is long (say, 10 years or so), I would put the money in an index fund.",
"If what you are paying in interest on the debt is a higher percentage than what your investments are returning, the best investment you can make is to pay off the debt. If you're lucky enough to be paying historically low rates (as I am on my mortgage) and getting good returns on the investments so the latter is the higher percentage, the balance goes the other way and you'd want to continue paying off the debt relatively slowly -- essentially treating it as a leveraged investment. If you aren't sure, paying off the debt should probably be the default prefrence.",
"Put yourself in this position - if you had no debts and no investments, would you borrow money at those rates to invest in the stock market? If no, then pay off the debts. If yes, then keep them.",
"If you have (other) high interest debt, say over 8%, pay it back first. Else, you are likely best off paying this loan back and getting the money working for you long term.",
"Look at my answer here, and then calculate again. If you keep on saving and keep on paying off your highest interest rate loan, you'll be 'making' money. Also look at this answer here for saving or paying back. Basically, you should always calculate whether the money you have is better 'spend' in a savings account or as a return payment to your loan. Always tackle the highest interest loan first. My 0,02€",
"I like this option, rather than exposing all 600k to market risk, I'd think of paying off the mortgage as a way to diversify my portfolio. Expose 400k to market risk, and get a guaranteed 3.75% return on that 200k (in essence). Then you can invest the money you were putting towards your mortgage each month. The potential disadvantage, is that the extra 200k investment could earn significantly more than 3.75%, and you'd lose out on some money. Historically, the market beats 3.75%, and you'd come out ahead investing everything. There's no guarantee. You also don't have to keep your money invested, you can change your position down the road and pay off the house. I feel best about a paid off house, but I know that my sense of security carries opportunity cost. Up to you to decide how much risk you're willing to accept. Also, if you don't have an emergency fund, I'd set up that first and then go from there with investing/paying off house.",
"\"Math says invest in the Market (But paying off your mortgage early is a valid option if you are very risk averse.) You are going to get a better return by investing in the stock market. In the US in 2015/2016, mortgages are 3%-4%, and give you a tax break. The rate of return on the stock market is ~10%, (closer to 6% after you subtract out inflation, taxes, fees, etc.) Since 10 > 3, (or 6% > 4%, to use the pessimistic numbers) investing in the market is the better deal. But... The market has risk, and your mortgage does not. If you are very risk averse paying off the mortgage may make sense. As an example: Family A has a single \"\"breadwinner\"\", who works a low skilled job. Family B has 2 working spouses, both in high skill white collar positions. These two families are going to have wildly different risk tolerances. It may make sense for family A to \"\"invest\"\" its extra money in paying off the mortgage, after they have tackled high interest debt, built an emergency fund, maxed the 401k, etc. Personally I would not: in the US you cannot recoup pre-payments if you lose your job. If I was very risk averse, I would keep my extra money as cash, so I could pay my mortgage after I lost my job. It is never going to make sense for family B to pay the mortgage early. At that point, any decision to pre-pay is going to be based on emotion and not logic.\"",
"See my recent answer to a similar question on prepaying a mortgage versus investing in IRA. The issue here is similar: you want to compare the relative rates of funding your retirement account versus paying down your debt. If you can invest at a better rate than you are paying on your debt, with similar risk, then you should invest. Otherwise, pay down your debt. The big difference with your situation is that you have a variable rate loan, so there's a significant risk that the rate on it will go up. If I was in your shoes, I would do the following: But that's me. If you're more debt-averse, you may decide to prepay that fixed rate loan too.",
"\"Aside from the calculations of \"\"how much you save through reducing interest\"\", you have two different types of loan here. The house that is mortgaged is not a wasting asset. You can reasonably expect that in 2045 it will have retained its worth measured in \"\"houses\"\", against the other houses in the same neighbourhood. In money terms, it is likely to be worth more than its current value, if only because of inflation. To judge the real cost or benefit of the mortgage, you need to consider those factors. You didn't say whether the 3.625% is a fixed or variable rate, but you also need to consider how the rate might compare with inflation in the long term. If you have a fixed rate mortgage and inflation rises above 3.625% in future, you are making money from the loan in the long term, not losing what you pay in interest. On the other hand, your car is a wasting asset, and your car loans are just a way of \"\"paying by installments\"\" over the life of the car. If there are no penalties for early repayment, the obvious choice there is to pay off the highest interest rates first. You might also want to consider what happens if you need to \"\"get the $11,000 back\"\" to use for some other (unplanned, or emergency) purpose. If you pay it into your mortgage now, there is no easy way to get it back before 2045. On the other hand, if you pay down your car loans, most likely you now have a car that is worth more than the loans on it. In an emergency, you could sell the car and recover at least some of the $11,000. Of course you should keep enough cash available to cover \"\"normal emergencies\"\" without having to take this sort of action, but \"\"abnormal emergencies\"\" do sometimes happen!\"",
"\"I'm an American so I don't claim to know anything about Scottish tax law. But just based on what you say above: First, think about how it would work if there were no taxes. If you make a payment against the mortgage, you save 5% in interest. If you put money into a retirement account, you make whatever the profits are on the investment. If that amount comes to more than 5%, then you are better of investing in the retirement account. If it's less than 5%, you are better off paying off the mortgage. As most investments pay significantly better than 5%, this is the superior strategy. On the other hand, apparently you are paying a variable-rate mortgage, but still, mortgage rates are relatively stable. Investment returns vary all over the place and can be negative. So if you are very cautious, that's a reason to pay off the mortgage rather than invest. The younger you are, the less of a concern this should be, as in the long term, investments pretty much always recover lost ground. If you were planning to retire next year I'd have very different advice than if you are planning to retire in 30 years. But sadly, you do have to pay taxes, and that needs to be factored in. So you say that you would have to pay 25% dividend tax on any money you used to pay the mortgage. But the effective tax rate on the retirement money is 15%. So in effect money put against the mortgage pays a 25% tax, and so effectively generates only 5% * .75 = 3.75%. But money invested in the retirement plan pays only 15% tax, and so if the investment returns 3.75% / .85 = 4.4% it would give the same effective return. So if you can invest in something that gives returns of at least 4.4% per year, you're better off putting into the retirement plan than paying off the mortgage. There may be other Scottish tax implications I don't know about. As to \"\"Substantially less paperwork\"\", I have no idea how much paperwork is involved in putting money into a retirement account in Scotland. Here in the U.S., you basically call a financial management company of one sort or another and say \"\"hey, I want to open a retirement account with your company\"\", and they'll prepare most of the forms for you and you just sign them. It could be done with half an hour of your time. Of course the more you research different investment options, etc, the more time it will take. \"\"More flexible e.g. if I want to retire early\"\" If there are restrictions on when you can withdraw money from a retirement account and receive that 25% freebie you mentioned, yes, this could be a factor. Again, I don't know Scottish tax law, there may be other considerations. Here in the U.S., there's a 10% tax penalty if you withdraw money from a retirement account before the legal retirement age. Realistically that's a minor issue, if you have money in there for several years the tax benefits will be more than 10%. But yeah, it would be stupid to put money in in December and then take it out the following January and have to pay the 10% penalty. \"\"Doesn't incur the risk that the government will change the pension rules between now and when I retire\"\" Maybe. But then laws might change in your favor, too. And as you indicated that your mortgage interest rate could change, there could be risk on that side too. That all comes down to what you think the risks are all around.\"",
"Pay it off....I've only ever paid interest on mortgages to buy the houses I've lived in (I paid both mortgages of years ahead of schedule) & as a result my credit rating's way above average, I use credit cards for everything, pay 'em off in full every month unless I'm paid not to (currently have around 8,000 sitting interest free while the cash earns 6% elsewhere). Life's sweet if you understand the system. Hell if you don't. Keep saving...",
"Can you wait until you retire before needing the money? Will you buy your first house sometime in the future? If yes, then favour an RRSP. Remember that you are rewarded by paying less tax for having the foresight and commitment to defer income taxes until your retirement, when you are presumably earning less income. Are your household expenses higher than 28% of your gross income? 35% of your net income? Does making your mortgage payments stress you? Are interest rates lower than their historical norm and an increase would cause you difficulty? If yes, then favour your mortgage. Do you need this money before your retire? Does your TFSA earn more interest than your mortgage costs your? If yes, then favour a TFSA. Does an alternative investment earn more than your TFSA? Can you handle an uptick in your mortgage interest rate? If yes, then favour the alternative investment and not your RRSP, mortgage or TFSA.",
"If it were me, I'd pour my entire savings into paying down the mortgage. I'd also get a HELOC and a personal LOC to use as my emergency fund if I didn't have one already. I personally don't like paying interest on loans when I have cash in the bank to cover it.",
"At the area where I live (Finland), banks typically charge a lot more for additional mortgage credit taken after purchasing the house. So, if you are planning to purchase a house, and pay it with a mortgage, you get a very good rate, but if you pay back the mortgage and then realize you need additional credit, you get a much worse rate. So, if this is applicable to your area as well, I would simply buy stocks after you have paid enough of the mortgage that it is only 50% of the house price or so. This is especially good advice if you are young. Also, if your mortgage is a fixed rate and not an adjustable rate mortgage, you probably have a very low permanent interest rate on it as interest rates are low currently (adjustable rate mortgages will also have a low rate but it will surely go up). Some people say there's a bubble currently in the stock market, but actually the bubble is in the bond market. Stocks are expensive because the other alternatives (bonds) are expensive as well. Paying back your mortgage is equivalent to investing money in bonds. I don't invest in bonds at the current ridiculously low interest rates; I merely invest in stocks and have a small cash reserve that will become even smaller as I discover new investment opportunities. I could pay back a significant percentage (about 50%) of the loans I have by selling my stocks and using my cash reserves. I don't do that; I invest in stocks instead, and am planning to increase my exposure to the stock market at a healthy pace. Also, consider the fact that mortgage is cheap credit. If you need additional credit for consumption due to e.g. becoming suddenly unemployed, you will get it only at very expensive rates, if at all. If you're very near the retirement age (I'm not), this advice may not be applicable to you. Edit: and oh, if your mortgage is fixed rate, and interest rates have come down, the bank will require you to pay the opportunity cost of the unpaid interests. So, you may need to pay more than you owe the bank. Edit2: let's assume the bank offered you a 4% fixed rate for a 10-year loan, which you agreed to. Now let's also assume interest rates of new agreements have come down to 2%. It would be a loss to the bank to pay back the amount of the loan (because the bank cannot get 4% by offering somebody else a new loan, only 2%), unless you paid also 10 years * (4% - 2%) * amount = 20% * amount of lost interest income. At least where I live, in fixed rate loans, one needs to pay back the bank this opportunity cost of unpaid interests.",
"You're in the same situation I'm in (bought new house, didn't sell old house, now renting out old house). Assuming that everything is stable, right now I'd do something besides pay down your new mortgage. If you pay down the mortgage at your old house, that mortgage payment will go away faster than if you paid down the one on the new house. Then, things start to get fun. You then have a lot more free cash flow available to do whatever you like. I'd tend to do that before searching for other investments. Then, once you have the free cash flow, you can look for other investments (probably a wise risk) or retire the mortgage on your residence earlier.",
"Personally, I would split the difference, putting about half into each. Simply because it balances out the problem and I don't have to fret about whether one or the other will provide a significant difference. As bstpierre points out, the one which will make you more in the end is the one which you can grow the fastest. The mortgage payment is locked at 5% growth, which, while modest, is also essentially guaranteed at this point. The CD in your IRA is likely less than that amount, even after tax consideration. A couple additional points to consider:",
"It has to do with return. I don't know if Canada has a matching feature on retirement accounts, but in the US many companies will match the first X% you put in. So for me, my first $5000 or so is matched 100%. I'll take that match over paying down any debt. Beyond that, of course it's a simple matter of rate of return. Why save in the bank at 2% when you owe at 10-18%? One can make this as simple or convoluted as they like. My mortgage is a tax deduction so my 5% mortgage costs me 3.6%. I've continued to invest rather than pay the mortgage too early, as my retirement account is with pre-tax dollars. So $72 will put $100 in that account. Even in this last decade, bad as it was, I got more than 3.6% return.",
"You have to have 9% ROI for your investment to break even. That's pretty steep. I'd pay the loan, where you have 9% promised return. Just make sure that there are no pre-payment penalties, and that you're comfortable enough with not having that money available.",
"If the savings rate is the same as the loan rate, mathematically it doesn't make any difference whether you pay down the loan more and save less or vice versa. However, if the loan rate is higher than the savings rate it's better to pay it down as fast as possible. The chart below compares paying down the loan and saving equally (the gradual scenario), versus paying down the loan quickly at 2 x $193 and then saving 2 x $193. The savings rate, for illustration, is 2%. Paying quickly pays down the loan completely by month 51. On the other hand, in the gradual scheme the loan can't be paid down (with the savings) until month 54, which then leaves 3 months less for saving. In conclusion, it's better to pay down the higher rate loan first. Practically speaking, it may be useful to have some savings available.",
"The main factors you have to consider are: Could you get a better return on that money by investing it somewhere? The investment rate should basically be more than the mortgage rate. If you find yourself suddenly in need of money (eg, loss of job) do you have enough savings to ride that out? If not, investing the extra money in an instant access investment, even at a lower rate, may make sense as it gives you future flexibility. Do you have any other debts that are at a higher rate? If so, pay those off first as you will get more bang for your buck.",
"Depends upon the debt cost. Assuming it is consumer debt or credit card debt, it is better to pay that off first, it is the best investment you can make. Let's say it is credit card debt. If you pay 18% interst and have for example a $1,000 amount. If you pay it off you save $180 in interest ($1,000 times 18%). You would have to earn 18% on 1,000 to generate $180 if it was in aninvestment. Here is a link discussing ways of reducing debt Once you have debt paid off you have the cashflow to begin building wealth. The key is in the cashflow.",
"A: Rollover the cash from the previous account into the new one a low-cost IRA like Vanguard. This, and only this. Because your mortgage is, less than 4%, while your retirement plan will earn 7% over the long term. I have no 'retirement' plans because Because you're 28. and essentially will be happy working until I die Unless circumstances change. but as far as I see it this is not such a bad deal because it is like paying taxes on income. (Principal says I will lose up to 30%) You're ignoring the 10% early withdrawal penalty. I am wise with my money for the most part Then don't piss away $3,000 just for a temporary feel good. I earn a high salary in a tech job. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. So -- after building up an Emergency Fund -- throw as much as possible of your high salary against your mortgage to get rid of the PMI.",
"It depends on your tax rate. Multiply your marginal rate (including state, if applicable) by your 3.1% to figure out how much you are saving through the deduction, then subtract that from the 3.1% to get the effective rate on the mortgage. For example, if you are in the 28% bracket with no state tax impact from the mortgage, your effective rate on the mortgage is 2.232%. This also assumes you'd still itemize deductions without the mortgage, otherwise, the effective deduction is less. Others have pointed out more behavioral reasons for wanting to pay off the car first, but from a purely financial impact, this is the way to analyze it. This is also your risk-free rate to compare additional investing to (after taking into account taxes on investments).",
"According to Dave Ramsey you should pay off the house. What I've found is that I'm willing to work a lot harder at saving money to put toward the house when I have that specific goal in mind. If I were to put the money in the market instead then I would be less likely to make as many sacrifices and would inevitability end up putting less money away.",
"The short answer is to invest it since the rate of return is higher than your mortgage. (Assuming that you can withstand interest rate hikes, meet short term liquidity needs and don't need your $10K in the short or near term). The long answer is if you're comfortable leveraging your house and can put that $10K away for the long term you can reduce your taxes via the Smith Manoeuvre: Alternatively, if you have kids or grandkids and will help them through school, take the government's money by putting it away in an RESP.",
"You didn't mention how much is the interest rate of your debts. It is a very simple rule. If you think you can make more money by investing (the best way you can) in spite of having debts then go ahead and invest. Else, if you donno what you're doing and can't make sure you earn more than what you're paying off for interest then may be you should focus on clearing up the debts first. You can read more about similar topic discussion here Now, that you've presented the interest rate of your loans i.e. 11% which is your average, then I suggest you to clear up the high interest rate loans first i.e. which are above 11% because it is very difficult to make an investment and get returns more than 11% of what you invest. What ever be it, now that you won't be having big events in the coming 5 years, I suggest you to clear up all your loans and stay debt free i.e. tr to become stable and tension free. You know, because you can't run away anywhere with all those loans up on your shoulders, you HAVE to clear them today or tomorrow. So, now that you're free (in the next 5 yrs) and burden less, so why not clear them up today?",
"the math makes sense to invest instead of paying down, but... how much would you borrow at 3.5%, to invest the money into the stock market? It's the same question, just turned around.",
"\"I love the idea of #1, keep that going. I don't think #2 is very realistic. Given the short time frame putting money at risk for a higher yield may not work in your favor. If it was me, I'd stick to a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account (around 1%). I don't mind #3 either, however, I'd be socking whatever you could to mortgage principle so you can get out of PMI sooner rather than later. That would be my top priority. Given the status of interest rates, you may end up saving money in the long run. I doubt it, but you may. If you choose to go with #3, don't settle for a house that you really don't like. Get something that you want. Who knows it may take you a year or so to find something!\"",
"\"Can is fine, and other answered that. I'd suggest that you consider the \"\"should.\"\" Does your employer offer a matched retirement account, typically a 401(k)? Are you depositing up to the match? Do you have any higher interest short term debt, credit cards, car loan, student loan, etc? Do you have 6 months worth of living expenses in liquid funds? One point I like to beat a dead horse over is this - for most normal mortgages, the extra you pay goes to principal, but regardless of how much extra you pay, the next payment is still due next month. So it's possible that you are feeling pretty good that for 5 years you pay so much that you have just 10 left on the 30 year loan, but if you lose your job, you still risk losing the house to foreclosure. It's not like you can ask the bank for that money back. If you are as disciplined as you sound, put the extra money aside, and only when you have well over the recommended 6 months, then make those prepayments if you choose. To pull my comment to @MikeKale into my answer - I avoided this aspect of the discussion. But here I'll suggest that a 4% mortgage costs 3% after tax (in 25% bracket), and I'd bet cap gain rates will stay 15% for non-1%ers. So, with the break-even return of 3.5% (to return 3 after tax) and DVY yielding 3.33%, the questions becomes - do you think the DVY top yielders will be flat over the next 15 years? Any return over .17%/yr is profit. That said, the truly risk averse should heed the advise in original answer, then pre-pay. Update - when asked,in April 2012, the DVY I suggested as an example of an investment that beats the mortgage cost, traded at $56. It's now $83 and still yields 3.84%. To put numbers to this, a lump sum $100K would be worth $148K (this doesn't include dividends), and giving off $5700/yr in dividends for an after-tax $4800/yr. We happened to have a good 4 years, overall. The time horizon (15 years) makes the strategy low risk if one sticks to it.\"",
"Forgive me as I do not know much about your fine country, but I do know one thing. You can make 5% risk free guaranteed. How, from your link: If you make a voluntary repayment of $500 or more, you will receive a bonus of 5 per cent. This means your account will be credited with an additional 5 per cent of the value of your payment. I'd take 20.900 of that amount saved and pay off her loan tomorrow and increase my net worth by 22.000. I'd also do the same thing for your loan. In fact in someways it is more important to pay off your loan first. As I understand it, you will eventually have to pay your loan back once your income rises above a threshold. Psychologically you make attempt to retard your future income in order to avoid payback. Those decisions may not be made overtly but it is likely they will be made. So by the end of the day (or as soon as possible), I'd have a bank balance of 113,900 and no student loan debt. This amounts to a net increase in net worth of 1900. It is a great, safe, first investment.",
"\"First off, the \"\"mortgage interest is tax deductible\"\" argument is a red herring. What \"\"tax deductible\"\" sounds like it means is \"\"if I pay $100 on X, I can pay $100 less on my taxes\"\". If that were true, you're still not saving any money overall, so it doesn't help you any in the immediate term, and it's actually a bad idea long-term because that mortgage interest compounds, but you don't pay compound interest on taxes. But that's not what it actually means. What it actually means is that you can deduct some percentage of that $100, (usually not all of it,) from your gross income, (not from the final amount of tax you pay,) which reduces your top-line \"\"income subject to taxation.\"\" Unless you're just barely over the line of a tax bracket, spending money on something \"\"tax deductible\"\" is rarely a net gain. Having gotten that out of the way, pay down the mortgage first. It's a very simple matter of numbers: Anything you pay on a long-term debt is money you would have paid anyway, but it eliminates interest on that payment (and all compoundings thereof) from the equation for the entire duration of the loan. So--ignoring for the moment the possibility of extreme situations like default and bank failure--you can consider it to be essentially a guaranteed, risk-free investment that will pay you dividends equal to the rate of interest on the loan, for the entire duration of the loan. The mortgage is 3.9%, presumably for 30 years. The car loan is 1.9% for a lot less than that. Not sure how long; let's just pull a number out of a hat and say \"\"5 years.\"\" If you were given the option to invest at a guaranteed 3.9% for 30 years, or a guaranteed 1.9% for 5 years, which would you choose? It's a no-brainer when you look at it that way.\"",
"If its deductible, the IRA is a no-brainer. You're netting a positive return just from the tax deduction, and you'll have years of tax-free appreciation. You're already on track to pay off your mortgage in 5 years, the impact of $10,000 on the balance now is not very consequential. On the other hand, you won't have an opportunity to make additional IRA contributions.",
"I'm also a UK, Ltd company contractor that has pondered the same topic. I afraid, however, that I don't understand the maths in the original question. Mortgage interest is flat for the term of the mortgage rather than compounded, so, ignoring the tapering at the end of the lifespan of the mortgage, I get the amount of interest to something like £9,300 (7500 x 0.05 x 25). Does this make the decision any easier for you? As you point out, the total cost of this overpayment from your company account is £12,500. Using the above figure, it would take over 13 years to recoup the £5,000 difference (at £375 interest a year). I used to be of the same opinion that the mortgage should be paid off at all costs first. But now I'm coming round to the American way of thinking; £12,500 invested in a pension with a 5% yield will easily outstrip the interest saved by making the over payment - 12500 x 1.05 ^ 25 = £43,300 - over 250% better off (£43,300 / (£9,300 + £7,500)). I now make no mortgage overpayments at all and instead pay all the money into my pension. This (amongst other things) keeps me below the upper earnings tax threshold, so I'm only paying corporation tax for the money I'm drawing as dividends. There's a massive caveat to this though; I'm 49. I should be able to draw the tax free element of my pension pot in six years time and pay my mortgage off and it's quite unlikely that the government will be changing pensions policy in that time (but drawing 25% tax free has been a feature of pensions for quite some time). I can then chose to keep working or retire. If my pension is still doing well (9% ish pa at the moment), I could chose to not pay my mortgage off at all. In the next twenty or so years, however, all this could change. In your position I would do a bit of both. Make a regular overpayment to pay down your mortgage (even a small amount that you'll barely notice will make quite a difference to the end date of your mortgage - £100 a month will take years off). I didn't start paying properly into my pension until fairly recently and so If you're not already, I'd also make quite substantial, regular payments into one now, directly from your company, 15-17.5% of your gross drawings. Leaving it until later will only make it more painful. Then when you get to retirement age, no matter what, you'll have a decent pension pot. An actuary I worked with pointed out that if you pay something into a pension, when you retire you should have some sort of pot; if you pay nothing, you are absolutely guaranteed to have nothing. And finally, if you haven't already, fix your mortgage. We're three years into a five year fix. The variable rate we were going to be transferred to was 3.99%. We fixed, not because of wanting any sense of security, but because the fixed rate was 2.59% with no fee. There are much better rates than that about now. Rates are starting to rise, so it's a good time.",
"Excellent answers so far, so I will just add one additional consideration: liquidity. Money invested in a mutual fund (exclusive of retirement accounts with early withdrawal penalties) has a relatively high liquidity. Whereas excess equity in your home from paying down early has very low liquidity. To put it simply: If you get in a desperate situation (long term unemployment) it is better to have to cash in a mutual fund than try to sell your house on the quick and move in with your mother. Liquidity becomes less of an issue if you also manage to fund a decent sized rainy-day fund (6-9 months of living expenses).",
"There are two components to any non-trivial financial decision: Assuming that all things remain equal, borrowing money at a low rate while investing for a higher return is a no-brainer. The problem is, all things do not remain equal. For example: I think that you need to assess your position and preferences. I'd err on the side of being in less debt.",
"I would prioritize paying off the heloc first. Paying off the heloc has a guaranteed rate of return and will reduce the size of savings cushion you'll need in the future. However, you shouldn't assume your heloc funds will remain available indefinitely. If you read your fine print, you are not guaranteed access to your unused credit by the bank. If you lose your job or your home value significantly declines, the bank could refuse to let you take more money out on your heloc. Recently, I've seen people's available credit be reset to 0 on open helocs by banks trying to reduce their exposure. Planning on the future of available credit via a heloc is not a good safety net.",
"\"But in the debt-payoff-first scenario, I'd be wiping out my debt in two years. It would take several more years if I were to just pay the minimums and put the extra money toward investing instead. Right. The idea is that in 2 years, you are likely to have more in the savings/stock account than you owe on the loan. But. The range of returns for X years has a smaller standard deviation the greater X is. e.g. any year has about a 1 in 3 chance of being negative. A 10 year period had a negative return (-1% CAGR) in the '00s recently, but the 15 year return even around that decade would have been successful. Jan 1 '96 - Dec 31 2010 returned 6.76% CAGR, Jan 1 2001 - Dec 31 2015 returned 4.96% CAGR. This tells you that the time frame is as important as your sleep factor. Your 2 years? I'd just kill the loans. A 10-15 year horizon? I'd ask how you \"\"feel\"\" about that debt. The cost of going after a potential higher return may not be worth the risk to many. For some, it's fine. I retired, with a mortgage still in place, but the money in my 401(k) that could have paid off the mortgage is now about twice the remaining balance. So I sleep like a baby. In the end, I'm a fan of investing for the long term vs paying off low rate debt, but it's a choice based on the individual.\"",
"The long term growth is not 6.5%, it's 10% give or take. But, that return comes with risk. A standard deviation of 14%. Does the 401(k) have a match? And are you getting the full match? If no match, or you already top it off, the 6.5% is a rate that I'd be happy to get on my money. So, I would pay it off faster. My highest rate debt is my 3.5% mortgage, which is 2.5% after tax. At 2.5%, I prefer to be a borrower, as that gap 2.5%-10% is pretty appealing, long term.",
"Hard to give an answer without knowing more details (interest rates, remaining principle on loans, especially how soon the new roof is needed). Maintaining the value in your home (unless you are planning to walk away from it or short-sell or something) is of paramount importance, and the cost of a leak should it happen can be substantial. If the roof is a few years out, and you have loans with interest rates about oh I'd say around 6%or more then I would pay off those loans and take the money you were paying there and start putting it into a fund to pay for the roof. I am also a huge fan of doing whatever you can to max out your 401K contributions. Money put into a 401K early has a LOT more value than money put in later, and since you don't pay taxes on it, the cost out of your pocket is much lower (eg. at a 20% tax rate it costs you only $80 out of pocket to put $100 into your 401.. (look at that, you just made like 25% return on that $80) Paying off loans is pretty much equivalent to making a risk free return on the money equal to the interest rate on the loan. But to REALLY make that work, what you need to do is in a virtual sense, keep making the loan payment just now pay it to yourself, putting that money into a savings account, or towards your 401K or whatever. If you just torn around and start spending that money, then you are not really getting as much value to paying off the loan early.",
"It depends what rate mortgage you can get for any extra loans... If you remortgage you are likely to get a rate of 3.5-4%... depending who you go with. With deposit accounts in the UK maying around 1% (yes, you can get more by tying it up for longer but not a huge amount more) clearly you're better off not having a mortgage rather than money in the bank. Does your 8k income allow for tax? If it does, you are getting 6% return on the money tied up in the flat. If you are getting 6% after tax on the invested money, that's way better than you would get on any left over cash paid into an investment. Borrowing money on a mortgage would cost you less than 6%... so you are better off borrowing rather than selling the flat. If you are getting 6% before tax... depending on your tax rate... it probably makes very little difference. You'd need to work out how much an extra 80k mortgage would cost you, how much the 50k on deposit would earn you and how much you make after tax. There is a different route. Set up a mortgage on the rental flat. You can claim the interest payment off the flat's income... reduce your tax bill so the effective mortgage rate on the flat would be less than what you could get with a mortgage on the new house. Use the money from the flat's mortgage to finance the difference in house price. In fact from a tax view, you may be better off having a mortgage free house and maxing out the mortgage on the flat so you can write off as much as possible against your tax bill. All of the above assume ... that the flat is rented all the time. The odd dry spell on the flat could influence the sums a lot. All of the above assume that your cash flow works whichever route you choose. As no-one on stack exchange has all of the numbers for your specific circumstances it may be worth talking to a tax accountant. They could advise you properly, knowing the numbers, which makes the best sense for you in terms of overall cost, cash flow, risk and so on.",
"I would lean towards making a smaller down payment and hanging onto savings for flexibility. Questions to think about: If you have enough cash that you can make a huge down payment and still have all the other bases covered, then it comes down to your risk tolerance and personal style. You can almost definitely build a portfolio that will beat your mortgage rate on average over the long term, but with more risk and volatility. Heck, you could make a 20% down payment on another house and rent it out.",
"\"I think your analysis is very clear, it's a sensible approach, and the numbers sound about right to me. A few other things you might want to think about: Tax In some jurisdictions you can deduct mortgage interest against your income tax. I see from your profile that you're in Texas, but I don't know the exact situation there and I think it's better to keep this answer general anyway. If that's the case for you, then you should re-run your numbers taking that into account. You may also be able to make your investments tax-advantaged, for example if you save them in a retirement account. You'll need to apply the appropriate limits for your specific situation and take an educated guess as to how that might change over the next 30 years. Liquidity The money you're not spending on your mortgage is money that's available to you for other spending or emergencies - i.e. even though your default assumption is to invest it and that's a sensible way to compare with the mortgage, you might still place some extra value on having more free access to it. Overpayments Would you have the option to pay extra on the mortgage? That's another way of \"\"investing\"\" your money that gets you a guaranteed return of the mortgage rate. You might want to consider if you'd want to send some of your excess money that way.\"",
"Mortgage rates are at record lows. The 30 yr fixed is now below 4%, if you are in the 25% bracket and itemize (state income tax, property tax, donations, easy to pass the minimum) it costs you 3% post tax. This is the rate of long term inflation, effectively making this money free. You are likely to be able to average a far greater return than this mortgage is costing you. These rates may last another year or two, but long term, they are an anomaly. ETFs such as DVY (the Dow high dividend stocks) are yielding over 3.75%, 3.2% after the 15% cap gain tax. i.e. you get a small positive return, and the potential for capital gains. If this ETF rises just 3%/yr it's all profit above your cost of money. That said, there are those who sleep better with a paid in full house, regardless of the rate. To that extreme, I've read those who make paying their mortgage a priority ahead of funding their matched 401(k). While I can guess what the market will return, but can't know what will actual happen, it's foolish to skip one's match. They reason that the market can crash, I reply the 401(k) has to have a short term fund, money market or T-bill type returns, but a 100% match is a no-brainer. Using an estimated 4% for the 30 and 3.5% for the 15, the payment on the 15 yr mortgage will be 50% higher, $1430 (15yr) for $200K vs $955 for the 30. How does this play in your budget? Do you have an adequate emergency fund? Are you funding your retirement plan at a decent level? In the end, there is no right answer, just what's right for you. Understanding the rest of your financial picture will get you more detailed advice. Not knowing your situation limits the answers. Edit 6/30/2015 - When I wrote this answer, the DVY was trading at $48.24. $100,000 invested would have given off $3187/yr after a 15% dividend tax rate. At $75/share now, the $100,000 investment would be worth $155,472 and yielding $5597 for a net $4757 after tax. The choice to go DVY would have been profitable from the start, with room now for a 35% crash before losing any money.",
"\"Really this is no different from any kind of large lump sum and having a mortgage. There are probably many questions and answers on this subject. It really doesn't matter that the proceeds were the result of a sale, an inheritance would not change the answer. I think it is important to note that the proceeds will not eliminate the house 2 mortgage. A high level choice of investment one makes is between equity (such as stock) and debt investments (such as bonds and mortgages). You are in a unique case of being able to invest in your own mortgage with no investment fee. This may tip the scales in favor of paying down the mortgage. It is difficult to answer in your specific case as we don't know the rest of your finances. Do you have a sizable 401K that is heavily invested in stocks? Do you have the need for a college fund? Do you have an emergency fund? Do you have a desire to own several homes generating income property? If it was me I'd do the following in order, skipping steps I may have already completed: I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? I really kind of hate this attitude. Your goal is to get rid of the mortgage in a timely manner. Doing such makes paying for kids college a snap, reduces the income one might need in retirement, basically eliminates the need for life insurance, and gives one a whole lot of money to have fun with.\""
] |
[
"\"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the \"\"what-ifs\"\". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the \"\"pay-off-early\"\" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%.\""
] |
2334
|
How do you determine “excess cash” for Enterprise Value calculations from a balance sheet?
|
[
"228403",
"2304",
"150650"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"150650",
"228403",
"346760",
"2304",
"598908",
"72666",
"413566",
"342025",
"105949",
"507903",
"552343",
"298779",
"141221",
"482884",
"358686",
"591247",
"369816",
"563732",
"339524",
"220269",
"284843",
"192515",
"527230",
"280895",
"322459",
"333360",
"446652",
"98947",
"419479",
"587966",
"76661",
"241308",
"91576",
"189680",
"366249",
"257093",
"258306",
"371012",
"301998",
"110163",
"473963",
"204917",
"447509",
"407449",
"380851",
"393838",
"314919",
"466430",
"400738",
"274358",
"582537",
"514276",
"517083",
"551029",
"11263",
"490077",
"115294",
"559363",
"495066",
"355554",
"158063",
"486421",
"456222",
"374510",
"583234",
"227019",
"446877",
"387250",
"112821",
"167753",
"430120",
"240252",
"535300",
"296006",
"131957",
"379299",
"27797",
"135164",
"217904",
"209838",
"497699",
"82479",
"416297",
"188982",
"314110",
"306255",
"410450",
"587462",
"509939",
"555915",
"77963",
"477860",
"407372",
"599411",
"405166",
"220898",
"3315",
"276927",
"159012",
"113693"
] |
[
"\"Excess Cash = Cash & Equivalents + Long-Term Investments - Current Liabilities The problem this calculation of excess cash is that \"\"long-term investments\"\" can be illiquid things like real estate. Another flaw is that it gives no credit for Current Assets, like receivables, which can be used to offset Current Liabilities. The first thing I'd do is \"\"net out\"\" Current Assets and Current Liabilities, then add Cash back in. Excess Cash = Current Assets - Current Liabilities + Cash & Equivalents. It would be nice if GAAP would require Long-Term Investments to be broken out as a) liquid long-term investments (stocks, bonds) b) illiquid long-term investments (real estate, private equity, etc)\"",
"You're not missing anything. Excess cash is somewhat of a nebulous concept. To different people it means different things. The answer is that excess cash varies for each company depending on their business. For instance, some companies need very high amounts of working capital. A company may be increasing their inventories and therefore will require more cash on their balance sheet to fund growth. If a company always needs this extra cash, some investors prefer to leave that cash out of a valuation because the company cannot run profitably without it. Think about what happens to your calculation of Enterprise Value if you subtract excess cash as opposed to cash. Excess cash is always less than cash. Therefore by subtracting excess cash you increase EV. Since one common valuation metric is EV/EBITDA, a higher numerator will make the stock seem more expensive - that is the EV/EBITDA ratio will seem higher when using excess cash as opposed to cash. So using excess cash in your valuation methodology is basically a conservative concept. Depending on the business 20% of revenues seem way too high as a reserve for excess cash. 2% is a much better rule of thumb.",
"\"Read again what I said in my original post. \"\"Enterprise Value is the sort of \"\"bare bones\"\" total firm value. It doesn't include any cash because you'd basically be paying cash for cash. Also, this makes analysis of transaction multiples more streamlined, as some firms may have a ton of excess cash on their balance sheet, skewing multiples.\"\" I said that that is WHY we use enterprise value. Because if you didn't it would skew multiples.\"",
"20% is almost certainly too high. I agree with 2%, as a very rough rule. It will vary significantly depending on the industry. I generally calculate an average of the previous 2-3 years working capital, and deduct that from cash. Working capital is Current Assets less Current Liabilities. Current Assets is comprised of cash, prepaid expenses, and significantly, accounts receivable. This means that CA is likely to be much higher than just cash, which leaves more excess cash after liabilities are deducted. Which reduces EV, which makes the EV/EBITDA ratio look even more pricey, as Dimitri noted. But a balance sheet is just a snapshot of the final day of the quarter. As such, and because of seasonal effects, it's critical to smooth this by averaging several periods. After calculating this for a few companies, compare to revenue. Is it close to 2%?",
"cash isn't part of changes in working capital calculation - dont include it in current assets. *edit - Also to answer a question you didn't ask, subtracting cash doesn't skew the multiples. If cash really is that excess, the market cap will reflect a large cash position, thus adding it all back into EV. Think of apple as a good example. If they theoretically would dividend out all the cash, market cap would drop and so would EV.",
"I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the *operating assets* of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.",
"Generally you don't exclude cash that is needed to keep working capital going. A firm's need to cash will vary based upon it's AR and AP policies. Some companies that have beat up their vendors and extract harsh payment terms, like Dell and Walmart, often have negative working capital and can therefore be thought of as funding growth on their suppliers cash. Most companies require some amount of cash in their working capital to connect the dots from when they pay their suppliers and when their customers pay them. You need to leave that cash in your working capital calculation and on your DCF.",
"You can think of a free cash flow as dividends from operations. FCF = cash from operations - investment in operations. The present value of these cash flows into the future is the value of the firm (DCF is very much like the dividend discount model). Now why does a DCF produce enterprise value and not equity value? Because a DCF values the firm's operating assets. To find the equity value, you use the accounting relation: assets = liabilities + equity (or in financial terms net operating assets = net financial obligations + common stockholders equity). This means you take away net debt from the value produced by the DCF to find equity. Now all your excess cash is netted off against your financial obligations (debt) to find the net debt. Cash used for day to day operations is an operating asset and should be treated as such, operating cash should not deducted from value of assets when finding the value of equity. At least that's what they're teaching at university now (i'm a uni student who's just finished my business valuation subject).",
"\"Oh, I understand now -- we're having an absurd, meaningless conversation about an obscure theoretical point. When you can tell me how you can determine a \"\"minimum cash\"\" level from a public company's filings, we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, make a simplifying assumption and move on. I misunderstood -- I thought we were actually trying to understand the difference between enterprise value and equity value / understand the implication of an enterprise value multiple.\"",
"Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us: * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare?",
"This is a tough question SFun28. Let's try and debug the metric. First, let's expand upon the notion share price is determined in an efficient market where prospective buyers and sellers have access to info on an enterprises' cash balance and they may weigh that into their decision making. Therefore, a desirable/undesirable cash balance may raise or lower the share price, to what extent, we do not know. We must ask How significant is cash/debt balance in determining the market price of a stock? As you noted, we have limited info, which may decrease the weight of these account balances in our decision process. Using a materiality level of 5% of net income of operations, cash/debt may be immaterial or not considered by an investor. investors oftentimes interpret the same information differently (e.g. Microsoft's large cash balance may show they no longer have innovative ideas worth investing in, or they are well positioned to acquire innovative companies, or weather a contraction in the sector) My guess is a math mind would ignore the affect of account balances on the equity portion of the enterprise value calculation because it may not be a factor, or because the affect is subjective.",
"Ok - what's your starting point? Are you starting with equity value and then working your way back to an enterprise value? Then yes, you must subtract cash and add debt. If you're doing a DCF, you don't have to make any changes to the values at the end if you're looking for an enterprise value. If you're looking for an equity value, you would need to add cash and subtract debt. If you're simply applying a enterprise value multiple (such as EV / EBITDA) you don't need to make any changes. Just multiply the Company's EBITDA by the multiple in question. Enterprise values are supposed to be capital structure independent because they are only valuing the company on metrics that occur before the impact of the Company's capital structure.",
"Sure let's say we're starting with the equity value of a public company. Fully diluted shares times market price. We add debt and subtract all cash to give us enterprise value. Calculate a multiple on that. Look what we did up there, we subtracted out all cash. The DCF approach assumes we have an operating level of cash when it calculates a value. You're saying that the DCF spits out an enterprise value. It cannot be an enterprise value if the DCF approach assumes we hold cash. We would have to subtract out an operating level of cash from the DCF concluded value to compare it apples to apples to the cashless enterprise values we derived from the market approach multiples.",
"\"A DCF includes changes in working capital which is a source or use of cash. I also don't like your characterization of enterprise value as \"\"cashless\"\" because it's also \"\"debtless\"\". It's capital structure independent -- just like a DCF is. **That's the common theme.**\"",
"\"Look, as my final comment. You're overthinking this. Companies routinely have waaaay more cash on their books than they \"\"need\"\" because they keep a rainy day fund. Yes, there are extreme examples like Apple that has about 60 billion more than they need but practically all companies are going to maintain excess cash for emergencies, acquisitions, etc. As I said in another comment, the common theme between a DCF and an EV multiple is that they are both capital structure independent. Even here there are going to be differences, companies with a really shitty capital structure (read: too much debt) will trade publicly at a lower enterprise value multiple because of the risk that they go bankrupt. In an acquisition, this (probably) would not be the case. In the case of a DCF, you would probably raise your discount rate to account for the risk of bankruptcy.\"",
"I believe you are missing knowledge of how to conduct a ratio analysis. Understanding liquidity ratios, specifically the quick or acid-test ratio will be of interest and help your understanding. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acidtest.asp Help with conducting a ratio analysis. http://www.demonstratingvalue.org/resources/financial-ratio-analysis Finally, after working through the definitions, this website will be of use. https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Exxon-Mobil-Corp/Ratios/Liquidity",
"i cannot directly tell from the provided information if it is already included in Net A/R but if there is a balance sheet you can check yourself if the Total Cash Flow matches the difference between cash position year 0&1 and see if it is net or still to be included.",
"Take a look at apple. It has no debt. So the ev is basically mkt cap - cash. Also remember market cap is the float * share price nothing else. Obviously share price takes into account the assets of the firm into perpituituy but the way you phrased it, adding debt , didnt sound quite right to me. We remove cash since someone buying a company isn't going to pay for your cash. In the transaction cash is distributed to share holders then the company is sold.",
"You can get really nerdy with the EV calc, but I would just add that it's important to deduct any non-operating, non-consolidated assets in addition to the minority interest adjustment - e.g. unconsolidated subsidiaries, excess real estate, excess working capital, etc.",
"Makes sense. I typed the previous reply on an ipad and was too lazy to go into the fact that as you point out the cash exits the balance sheet so in a DCF it doesn't get any weight in the terminal value calculation which makes up a significant chunk of an EV normally.",
"You're buying the operations of firm A for $450, or 4.5x EBITDA. You're buying the operations of firm B for $500, or 5.0x EBITDA. You're paying a higher multiple for firm B. Of couse subtracting cash 'skews multiples' - but you need to pull it out. You're paying for a business' ability generate that EBITDA over time. Cash is a one-shot deal. You need to pull it out to get the value of what you're actually investing in.",
"Enterprise Value is supposed to be the price you would be willing to pay to acquire the company. Typically, companies are delivered debt-free and cash-free, so the cash on the balance sheet at the time of the transaction is distributed to the original owners. So, for instance, a company like Apple would have a lower EV than Market Value because the cash on the balance sheet is not going to be included in an acquisition. And you are right, there are plenty of instances where you see Enterprise Value lower than Market Value (Cap). If you are solely looking at equity valuation (equity investing), then use market cap. If you are looking at firm valuation for M&A, then EV is more important.",
"Agree with mjvcaj, it is rare. Larger cap examples include Nokia and NII Holdings (Nextel). If cash exceeds market cap, that means total debt is greater than EV, the value of the operating assets. If the debt is partially repaid / matures, the equity is ok. BUT if management is crap and the cash is spent at an ROIC below the interest rate on the debt, now you have a situation where the net debt exceeds the value of the operating assets, the credit quality suffers, debt trades down, you need to recapitalize in order to avoid bankruptcy. The above assumes debt is greater than cash. Situations where cash exceeds market cap and debt is less than cash (i.e. a negative EV) are exceedingly rare in larger companies and are either a) a wonderfully attractive mispricing or b) market views management as so awful that the cash will get burnt up by the business and the value of that cash will be destroyed.",
"no interest expense (no debt in the capital structure) and an income tax benefit is one possible scenario. you determine this through the financial statement by looking for the differences between the E and EBIT in those calculations (interest and taxes). of course, extraordinary items and discontinued operations could also be present, and result in the difference noted.",
"\"Finance is ALL about obscure theoretical points. This one actually isn't even that obscure, kind of like a big gaping whole that nobody addresses. So to address your \"\"minimum cash\"\" level point. That's what I'm working towards. Check this: So if you are selling your company, and all of the potential buyers are public companies, you would adjust your working capital balances in your model to match the public company market benchmark (ie: days payable outstanding, days receivable outstanding). This would be some sort of \"\"added value\"\" that a public company would bring to the mix. You should do the same for cash. You would benchmark what level of cash the comparable public companies hold (possibly as a % of revenue?), and apply that as the level of operating cash. You're counter argument would be that some firms may choose to hold on to excess levels of cash for a period of time (Apple), skewing \"\"minimum cash levels\"\" upward. That's true, but over a period of time, investors would either (1). demand the excess cash back or (2) investors would sell shares because the company is not earning a sufficient return on equity. My second point is half baked and not fully thought through but it goes along with the idea that a company will dividend out excess cash if it cannot reach the hurdle rate demanded by investors. Thank you for continuing the conversation with me, I think you're the only one that gets it.\"",
"\"A lot of financial software will calculate the value of operating leasess for you (bullet 2). E.g. Capital IQ, BB. What a lot of professionals do is \"\"reverse\"\" out EBITDA/EBIT etc. for: - non-recurring expenses (think big accounting changes, some impairments) - change operating expenses into capital leases to adjust the capital structure - occasionally change some operating expenses (e.g. options) because you are under the assumption if you take a company private that those expenses will not be relevant The whole point is simply to see the operating revenues/expenses of the firm\"",
"I think I understand what I am doing wrong. To provide some clarity, I am trying to determine what the value of a project is to a firm. To do this I am taking FCF, not including interest or principal payments, and discounting back to get an NPV enterprise value. I then back off net debt to get to equity value. I believe what I am doing wrong is that I show that initial $50M as a cash outflow in period 0 and then back it off again when I go from enterprise value to equity value. Does this make any sense? Thanks for your help.",
"\"Market cap is synonymous with equity value, which is one way of thinking of a company's \"\"worth.\"\" The alternative would be enterprise value, which is calculated as follows: Enterprise Value = Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt - Cash and Equivalents - Non-Operating Assets Enterprise value is essentially \"\"how much is the firm worth to ALL providers of capital.\"\" It can be viewed as \"\"if I wanted to buy the *entire* company, debt and all, what would I have to pay?\"\"\"",
"This is in the balance sheet, but the info is not usually that detailed. It is safe to assume that at least some portion of the cash/cash equivalents will be in liquid bonds. You may find more specific details in the company SEC filings (annual reports etc).",
"Here's the original academic backbone that it's based on and expanded upon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modigliani%E2%80%93Miller_theorem I think thats it's overly conservative in this case (I fully accept academic theories only go so far in the real world) as Damodaran (NYU professor) has made a pretty solid case that cash on balance sheet at large cap tech companies is valued by the markets at less than its after tax $ value.",
"\"> Or does it differ between every company what non-cash charges they have? This. Here's a hint: the FCFF *can* be calculated from Cash Flow from Operations (CFO). Think of FCFF this way: \"\"after the business has operated *and* made *all* investments needed to grow, both short and long-term, how much is left over for providers of capital?\"\" [Here's a good resource for you.](https://www.cfainstitute.org/learning/products/publications/inv/Documents/equity_chapter6.ppt)\"",
"The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach: Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash. Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600. If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple.",
"\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"",
"You wouldn't know it's value (Enterprise Value) without knowing its cash balance. The equation: EV = Market Cap + Minority Interest + Preferred Stock + Debt - Cash Enterprise Value is the value of the company to ALL shareholders (creditors, preferred stock holders, common stock holders). So, taking on debt could either increase or decrease the EV depending on the cash balance of the company. This will have no effect, directly, on the market cap. It will, however effect the present value of its future cash flows as the WACC will increase due to the new cost of debt (interest payments, higher risk of bankruptcy, less flexibility by management).",
"The primary drivers of cash flow in a software firm is the productivity and skill of your employees. How is that reflected in a balance sheet? Well, take a company like Adobe or Salesforce, or even Microsoft. What would you be able to tell about each from their balance sheets? You can look at their cash level, and what else would matter?",
"Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.",
"I was merely trying to be helpful - Conceptually, you have dump this idea that something is skewed. It isn't. Firm A sold for $500 (equity value aka purchase price to shareholders) + debt (zero) - cash (50) for 450. Enterprise value is the cash free, debt free sale price. The implied ev multiple is 4.5x on A - that is the answer. The other business sold for a higher multiple of 5x. If you would pile on more cash onto A, the purchase price would increase, but the EV wouldn't. The idea is to think hard about the difference between equity value and enterprise value when examining a transaction.",
"\"I heard today while listening to an accounting podcast that a balance sheet... can be used to determine if a company has enough money to pay its employees. The \"\"money\"\" that you're looking at is specifically cash on the balance sheet. The cash flows document mentioned is just a more-finance-related document that explains how we ended at cash on the balance sheet. ...even looking for a job This is critical, that i don't believe many people look at when searching for a job. Using the ratios listed below can (and many others), one can determine if the business they are applying for will be around in the next five years. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one good)? My favorite example of a high cash company is Nintendo. Rolling at 570 Billion USD IN CASH ALONE is astonishing. Using the ratios we can see how well they are doing. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one bad)? Tesla is a good example of the later on being cash poor. Walk me though how to understand such a document? *Note: This question is highly complex and will take months of reading to fully comprehend the components that make up the financial statements. I would recommend that this question be posted completely separate.\"",
"Your best bet is to just look at comparative balance sheets or contact the company itself. Otherwise, you will need access to a service like PrivCo to get data.",
"\"I was wondering how do we calculate the total capital of a company? Which items should I look for in the financial statements? Total capital usually refers to the sum of long-term debt and total shareholder equity; both of these items can be found on the company's balance sheet. This is one of the calculations that's traditionally used when determining a company's return on capital. I'll use the balance sheet from Gilead Sciences' (GILD) 2012 10-K form as an example. Net long-term debt was $7,054,555,000 and total stockholder equity was $9,550,869,000 which should give a grand total of $16,605,424,000 for total capital. (I know you can do the math, but I always find an example helpful if it uses realistic numbers). You may sometimes hear the term \"\"total capital\"\" referring to \"\"total capital stock\"\" or \"\"total capital assets,\"\" in which case it may be referring to physical capital, i.e. assets like inventory, PP&E, etc., instead of financial capital/leverage. And how do I calculate notes payable? Is the same as accounts payable? As the word \"\"payable\"\" suggests, both are liabilities. However, I've always been taught that accounts payable are debts a business owes to its suppliers, while notes payable are debts a business owes to banks and other institutions with which it has signed a formal agreement and which use formal debt instruments, e.g. a loan contract. This definition seems to match various articles I found online. On a balance sheet, you can usually determine notes payable by combining the short-term debt of the company with the current portion of the long-term debt. These pieces comprise the debt that is due within the fiscal year. In the balance sheet for Gilead Sciences, I would only include the $1,169,490,000 categorized as \"\"Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net\"\" term, since the other current liabilities don't look like they would involve formal debt contracts. Since the notes payable section of GILD's balance sheet doesn't seem that diverse and therefore might not make the best example, I'll include the most recent balance sheet Monsanto as well.1 Monsanto's balance sheet lists a term called \"\"Short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt\"\" with a value of $36 million. This looks like almost the exact definition of notes payable. 1. Note that this financial statement is called a Statement of Consolidated Financial Position on Monsanto's 10-K.\"",
"\"This formula is not calculating \"\"Earnings\"\". Instead, it is calculating \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\". As the original poster notes, the \"\"Earnings\"\" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization. The \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:\"",
"\"You are comparing \"\"market caps\"\" and \"\"enterprise value\"\". If the company has four billion dollars cash in the bank, then the value would be four billion plus whatever the business itself is worth as a business. If the business itself is only worth 400 million, then you would have 4.4bn market caps and 400 million enterprise value. The \"\"enterprise value\"\" is basically how much the business would be worth if it had no cash or no debt. These numbers would be a very unusual situation. It could happen for example if a big company has sold 90% of its business for cash. When you buy a share of the company, you get a tiny share of the business and you own a tiny share of the cash. This stock will very likely keep its value, but won't make much money. On the other hand, more common would be a company where the business is worth 4bn, but the company has also 4bn debt. So it is worth exactly zero. Market caps close to zero, but enterprise value $4bn, because you ignore the debt in the enterprise value. Edit: Sorry, got the \"\"enterprise value\"\" totally wrong, read millions instead of billions: Your numbers would mean that you have a huge, huge company with close to 440bn debt. Most likely someone made a mistake here. A \"\"normal\"\" situation would be say a company with a business that is worth $500 million, but they have $100 million debt, so market caps = $400 million but enterprise value = $500 million. PS. Yahoo has the same nonsense numbers on their UK site, and for other companies (I just checked Marks and Spencer's which apparently has an enterprise value of 800 billion pound with a totally ridiculous P/E ratio.\"",
"\"Umm, it depends on the transaction but a lot of transactions get done on a \"\"cash free / debt free\"\" basis. Meaning, I'll pay you 5x EBITDA (or $500) and you deliver the company without any cash or debt subject to a \"\"standard\"\" amount of working capital. Ultimately, you're confusing enterprise value and equity value. The two companies may have different purchase prices (equity values) but they should have very similar enterprise values (given the hypothetical scenario you put together).\"",
"\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"",
"\"tl;dr It's a difference between cash and cash equivalents and net cash and cash equivalents. Download the 2016 annual report from http://www.diageo.com/en-us/investor/Pages/financialreports.aspx On page 99 is the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows at the bottom is a section \"\"Net cash and cash equivalents consist of:\"\" Net cash and cash equivalents consist of: 2016-06-30 2015-06-30 Cash and cash equivalents 1,089 472 Bank overdrafts (280) (90) 809 382 The difference between net cash of 809 million and 382 million is 427 million, matching the \"\"Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents\"\" from Yahoo. I do not know that bank overdrafts mean in this situation, but appears to cause cash to show up on balance sheet without being reflected in the net cash portions of the cash flow statement. And the numbers seem like balances, not year of year changes like the rest of the statement of cash flows. 2015 net CCE 382 2016 cash flow + 427 ---- 2016 net CCE 809 Cash from overdrafts + 280 ---- 2015 balance sheet cash 1,089\"",
"\"Morningstar's definition of cash includes \"\"cash equivalents (fixed-income securities with a maturity of one year or less)\"\". So I'm guessing 81% of its holdings are short-term enough to fall into this category.\"",
"This comment makes zero sense. No one values equities from the balance sheet, unless you're trying to justify why you'd invest in sears or something (i.e. b/s vastly understates market value of real estate holdings and you're hoping for a liquidity event). Certainly not a tech company or really anything as a going concern.",
"Capital surplus is used to account for that amount which a firm raises in excess of the par value (nominal value) of the shares (common stock).. Investopedia has a much simpler answer. Somebody has tried to be smart on wikipedia and have done the calculations without much explanation. The portion of the surplus of a business arising from sources other than earnings : all surplus other than earned surplus usually including amounts received from sale or exchange of capital stock in excess of par or stated value, profits on resale of treasury stock, donations to capital by stockholders or others, or increment arising from revaluation of fixed or other assets The number of shares a company wants to issue is decided and agreed with the regulators. They decide the par value and then decide how much premium will be charged, extra money above the par value. Take out any RHP of an issue and you find all these details. Par Value = 1 Issue price(Price at which investors buy) = 10 Premium = 9 For a single share the capital surplus is 9, multiply it by the number of shares issued and you have the total capital surplus.",
"Yea good points and they definitely should not be overlooked. The whole point of the EV calculation is to get the analyst to look at what the true underlying business is and what one is really paying for when buying securities in a company. Market Cap can be misleading for many reasons and get real annoyed when people say things like, I own XYZ company because its cash account is greater than its market cap....",
"Just so everyone knows. A core model refers to a forecast of the Balance Sheet, income statement, and Statement of Cash Flows. From this you can solve for Free Cash Flow to Equity and solve for some more price values, like Sum of Parts.",
"It's hard to say for smaller cap firms because they are all so different. Take a look at SandP or other rating agencies at about the BB range. Then decide how much of a buffer you'd like. If all goes to hell, do you want to be able to cover all you salaries, debt etc for three months? Six? What kind of seasonal volatility does your industry face? Do you plan on any significant investment or FTE uplift any time soon? This will all play into how much retained earnings you will chose to have.",
"\"It does depend, but in the effort to be efficient we usually just add back Depreciation, Amortization, and Stock Based Comp. [Although adding back SBC is hotly debated](https://www.wallstreetprep.com/blog/stock-based-compensation-treatment-dcf-almost-always-wrong/), we usually still add it back at my firm. Keep in mind I'm in M&A, so we don't really concern ourselves with creating the \"\"purest\"\" valuation... * EBIAT * Add Depreciation * Add Amort * Add SBC * Subtract Capex * Add the decrease in NWC * Subtract the increase in NWC * = FCFF\"",
"It is difficult to reconcile historical balance sheets with historical cash flow statements because there are adjustments that are not always clearly disclosed. Practitioners consider activity on historical cash flow statements but generally don't invest time reconciling historical accounts, instead focusing on balancing projected balance sheets / cash flow statements. If you had non-public internal books, you could reconcile the figures (presuming they are accurate). In regards to Mike Haskel's comment, there's also a section pertaining to operating capital, not just effects on net income.",
"The actual financial statements should always be referenced first before opening or closing a position. For US companies, they are freely available on EDGAR. Annual reports are called 10-Ks, and quarterly reports are called 10-Qs. YHOO and GOOG do a great job of posting financials that are quickly available, but money.msn has the best. These should be starting point, quick references. As you can see, they may all have the same strange accounting. Sometimes, it's difficult to find the information one seeks in the consolidated financial statements as in this case, so searching through the filing is necessary. The notes can be helpful, but Ctrl-F seems to do everything I need when I want something in a report. In AAPL's case, the Interest expense can be found in Note 3.",
"Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners.",
"This is something I love about only investing in tech. Every company I'd want to invest in has a great balance sheet anyway, that's just how their economics work, so I don't have to worry about this. I actually work in reverse. Like with AAPL, I'm deducting their cash from their market cap to get an even more attractive valuation*. As opposed to trying to work out all the complex debt and liabilities of a bank or something. *AAPL actually does have some debt now but it's dead simple to deduct and only a workaround to their offshore cash.",
"I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.",
"\"Market Capitalization is the value the market attributes to the company shares calculated by multiplying the current trading price of these shares by the total amount of shares outstanding. So a company with 100 shares trading at $10 has a market cap of $1000. It is technically not the same as the value of a company (in the sense of how much someone would need to pay to acquire the company), Enterprise value is what you want to determine the net value of a company which is calculated as the market capitalization + company debt (as the acquirer has to take on this debt) - company cash (as the acquirer can pocket this for itself). The exact boundary for when a company belongs to a certain \"\"cap\"\" is up for debate. For a \"\"large cap\"\" a market capitalization of $10 billion+ is usually considered the cutoff (with $100+ billion behemoths being called \"\"mega caps\"\"). Anything between $10 billion and ~$1 billion is considered \"\"mid cap\"\", from ~$1billion to ~$200 million it's called a \"\"small cap\"\" and below $200 million is \"\"nano cap\"\". Worth noting that these boundaries change quite dramatically over time as the overall average market capitalization increases as companies grow, for example in the 80s a company with a market cap of $1 billion would be considered \"\"large cap\"\". The market \"\"determines\"\" what the market cap of company should be based (usually but certainly not always!) on the historical and expected profit a company makes, for a simple example let's say that our $1000 market cap company makes $100 a year, this means that this company's earnings per share is $1. If the company grows to make $200 a year you can reasonably expect the share price to rise from $10 to ~$20 with the corresponding increase in market cap. (this is all extremely simplified of course).\"",
"It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit. What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash.",
"\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"",
"\"I like this explanation the best. EV is trying to get at the value of the underlying business, excluding the capital structure you currently have on the company. If your lemonade stand is worth $100, but the business also comes with $50 in cash lying around (and no debt), then the EV is $100. But the price you'd pay the owner (the \"\"market cap\"\") is $150, because it's like you get an immediate cash rebate.\"",
"O boy you can take an entire on this. Here are the basics. Project future cash flows on a series of underlying assumptions such as growth rate and risk free rate. You then have to adjust top line items such as depreciation and come up with FCF. Then discount everything back with a terminal value.",
"Talk to almost any large cap CFO or read any corporate finance textbook. McKinsey's Valuation is a great one to own: though yes McKinsey consultants can take a good idea and turn it bad by overdoing it to an extreme. Why would universal corporate finance principles not apply to large cap tech? Why is having $XXb of unutilized cash for a company with durable cash flow a good thing for equity investors?",
"It is. The outstanding value is the net cash flow, but it will always be higher than cash outflow due to a constant growth rate/expected return. I was slightly confused when my manager told me to find the IRR before and after cash inflows (the whole life of the investment). Especially as IRR after cash inflows is higher than the former.",
"This is fine, but I'd probably spend a moment introducing WACC and it's estimation. It's also useful to link up the enterprise value to share price, so just also mentioning the debt subtraction to get equity value and division by shares for price. Keep in mind you're usually given like a minute to answer this, so you can afford to be a bit more detailed in some parts.",
"How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.",
"Theoretically there is always a time value of money. You'll need to keep your cash in a Money Market Fund to realize its potential (I'm not saying MMFs are the best investment strategy, they are the best kind of account for liquid cash). Choose an accounts that's flexible with regard to its minimum required so you can always keep this extra money in it and remove it when you need to make a payment.",
"You can add $262,500 worth of notes payable (assuming that you use the cash to buy inventory immediately). Any more and you would push the current ratio below 2. In case this ratio is the trouble, the formula for current ratio is current assets over current liabilities. Notes payable is a current liability and inventory is a current asset so you add the number to both of them. I used Excel to do this. With this addition the quick ratio is 1.19. The formula for this is (current assets - inventory)/Current liabilities. So you take ($1,312,500 + $262,500 - $262,500 - $375,000)/($525,000 + $262,500) = 1.19",
"Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation.",
"\"I don't know how much finance you know, but a fundamental idea is that something's value is the present value of all its future cash flows. Basically what those cash flows are worth today. So if we can predict the cash flows the equity holders will get in the future (not easy), and determine at what rate to discount the cash flows (not easy), we can value the equity. So a company will have cash flows coming in. But not all go to the equity holders. Some will go to debt holders, if any (interest payments). Some will go to preferred equity holders (dividends), if any. What's left over is what the equity holders will get. If there's no debt, preferred equity or other things like that, then the equity holders get all the cash flows. This doesn't mean the equity holders literally receive the cash - they'll get whatever is given out via dividends. But, they \"\"own\"\" the cash and it may be reinvested in the business to generate more cash in the future.\"",
"Thanks for this, great in depth answer. I had previously calculated a WACC and have used it for my discount rate. As part of your last point on revenue vs. cash, I've set a accounts receivable period of 30 days, and then applied a factor of 30/365 * revenue to understand what portion of my revenue is not cash in hand. Does that make sense?",
"Simply put, expansionary capex is seen as an investment and maintenance capex is seen as a cost. In terms of valuation, free cash flow will not include expansionary capex because you are valuing the company as its current business. It's important to note that this approach will usually undervalue companies with strong investment opportunities. Also, like /u/scarletham said, please edit out the identifying information to avoid any disclosure problems.",
"I'm a big believer in pulling the quarterly and or annual statements and deriving your own analysis. The automated parsing systems at Google, Yahoo, and others are a good starting point and they'll let you generally compare various metrics of different companies or market segments. With that in mind, there are any number of reasons Google's scripts could have broken out or combined a couple of cash flow line items. If you're digging this deep in the weeds on this company you should pull the SEC filings and build out your own data.",
"Are you trying to figure out if a project would increase the market value of equity? I think your issue is that the Market value of Equity will not be updated with the NPV of 40M (Assuming it is truly +, not sure if it's true with 50M of debt). EV = Market Value of Equity + Debt - Cash and CE Ev - Debt + Cash and CE = Market equity value. So I think you would have to update the market value of Equity up with 40M. This would then lead to EV = Equity Value + future income stream discounted + debt - Cash and Cash Equivalents.",
"You could create your own spreadsheet of Cash Flows and use the XIRR function in Excel: The formula is:",
"Hi all Started my MBA studies recently. We have a simulation project and I've taken the VP Finance Role as I didn't have much experience in this and wanted to learn more. Unfortunately I don't have accounting until next semester, so I'm trying to make up the cap with my career experience so far as an engineer + youtube tutorials. I built a discounted cashflow model. I'm trying to now determine the amount of loan to take in my first year of business. Basically the equity financing doesn't cover our first year capital expenditure, let alone any other costs. My question is how do I determine what an appropriate loan amount is to take. My first thoughts are enough to cover my capital expenses + 1st half of the year operating expenses before I start seeing a revenue. Right now my balance sheet would lead me to believe I have a 0.52 Debt Ratio and 1.23 Debt-to-Equity ratio. Is that ok?",
"Reports -> I&E -> Cash Flow Select the Mutual Fund account only.",
"Adding assets (equity) and liabilities (debt) never gives you anything useful. The value of a company is its assets (including equity) minus its liabilities (including debt). However this is a purely theoretical calculation. In the real world things are much more complicated, and this isn't going to give you a good idea of much a company's shares are worth in the real world",
"The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.",
"I'm not a finance guy by trade, I'm an accountant, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'm going to say no. EBITDA is your accounting profit before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. So it's already free of many non-cash items, and is closer to a cash-basis measure of profit, but still includes many non-cash revenues. As far as I know, the discounting is to take the time value of money into account so you can make a decision on whether the present value of the expected future cash flows are greater than the present value of the cash outflow being asked today. If it is, then you buy. If not, then you don't.",
"Too calculate these values, information contained in the company's financial statements (income, balance, or cashflow) will be needed along with the price. Google finance does not maintain this information for BME. You will need to find another source for this information or analyze another another symbol's financial section (BAC for example).",
"\"fair enough, but I wasn't sure if you actually get it or not because your question seemed to revolved around cash and transaction value. You are really just said \"\"skewing\"\" is if you didn't add net debt the multiple wouldn't be a valid muliptle. If you understand it, why start out with this mental exercise of saying \"\"we shouldn't calculate multiples wrong, because then they would be wrong\"\"?\"",
"If I understand you right, what you need is the minimum amount in the account until your next deposit. So for example, if today is the 10th and you get paid on the 15th, how much do I need to have in the account, so I know how much I can spend? That amount should be all of the bills that will be paid between today and the 15th. An alternative would just to keep a running balance and see what the minimum value is. My personal finance software does that for me, but it's possible, although a little more complicated, in Excel. You'd have to find the date of the next deposit, and do a SUMIF looking for dates between today and that date. That's about as far as I can get without getting off-topic.",
"\"Free Cash Flow (FCF) is not a metric/data point which represents any ACTUAL cash flow of a company. FCF is a data point which communicates how much cash a company has after Operating cash requirements and cash expenditures \"\"required\"\" to grow and maintain the existing business. FCF can be used to pay dividends, buy back stock, purchase companies, et cetera. None of which are REQUIRED to run the business.\"",
"Not quite the usual DCF or valuation question, but more FP&A: any ideas how to bridge cash forecast to financial forecast? To clarify, financial forecast is mostly done on an accrual basis whereas cash is outflows and inflows. Trying to figure out how to have better visibility into cash discrepancies",
"With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:",
"\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \"\"recent equity issuance or M&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\"",
"Shareholder's Equity consists of two main things: The initial capitalization of the company (when the shares were first sold, plus extra share issues) and retained earnings, which is the amount of money the company has made over and above capitalization, which has not been re-distributed back to shareholders. So yes, it is the firm's total equity financing-- the initial capitalization is the equity that was put into the company when it was founded plus subsequent increases in equity due to share issues, and retained earnings is the increase in equity that has occurred since then which has not yet been re-distributed to shareholders (though it belongs to them, as the residual claimants). Both accounts are credited when they increase, because they represent an increase in cash, that is debited, so in order to make credits = debits they must be credits. (It doesn't mean that the company has that much cash on hand, as the cash will likely be re-invested). Shareholder's Equity is neither an asset nor a liability: it is used to purchase assets and to reduce liabilities, and is simply a measure of assets minus liabilities that is necessary to make the accounting equation balance: Since the book value of stocks doesn't change that often (because it represents the price the company sold it for, not the current value on the stock market, and would therefore only change when there were new share issues), almost all changes in total assets or in total liabilities are reflected in Retained Earnings.",
"You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.",
"In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.",
"I understand it could be cash converts. I was an accounting major. I'm just pointing out some possible reasons for why they might borrow instead of using cash on hand. They might not have enough cash on hand because of the fact that they might be holding cash equivalents.",
"\"QUICK ANSWER What @Mike Haskel wrote is generally correct that the indirect method for cash flow statement reporting, which most US companies use, can sometimes produce different results that don't clearly reconcile with balance sheet shifts. With regards to accounts receivables, this is especially so when there is a major increase or decrease in the company's allowances for doubtful accounts. In this case, there is more to the company's balance sheet and cash flow statements differences per its accounts receivables than its allowances for doubtful accounts seems responsible for. As explained below, the difference, $1.25bn, is likely owing more to currency shifts and how they are accounted for than to other factors. = = = = = = = = = = DIRTY DETAILS Microsoft Corp. generally sells to high-quality / high-credit buyers; mostly PC, server and other devices manufacturers and licensees. It hence made doubtful accounts provisions of $16mn for its $86,833mn (0.018%) of 2014 sales and wrote off $51mn of its carrying balance during the year. Its accounting for \"\"Other comprehensive income\"\" captures the primary differences of many accounts; specifically in this case, the \"\"foreign currency translation\"\" figure that comprises many balance sheet accounts and net out against shareholders' equity (i.e. those assets and liabilities bypass the income statement). The footnotes include this explanation: Assets and liabilities recorded in foreign currencies are translated at the exchange rate on the balance sheet date. Revenue and expenses are translated at average rates of exchange prevailing during the year. Translation adjustments resulting from this process are recorded to other comprehensive income (“OCI”) What all this means is that those two balance sheet figures are computed by translating all the accounts with foreign currency balances (in this case, accounts receivables) into the reporting currency, US dollars (USD), at the date of the balance sheets, June 30 of the years 2013 and 2014. The change in accounts receivables cash flow figure is computed by first determining the average exchange rates for all the currencies it uses to conduct business and applying them respectively to the changes in each non-USD accounts receivables during the periods. For this reason, almost all multinational companies that report using indirect cash flow statements will have discrepancies between the changes in their reported working capital changes during a period and the dates of their balance sheet and it's usually because of currency shifts during the period.\"",
"Assuming there are no other liabilities... The enterprise value is $5mm. $1mm loan + $4mm equity. The proforma enterprise value will be the same, but the equity will now represent all of it at $5mm. Your 4% will now be 3.2%, but equal the same value; $160,000.",
"\"Total Capital This is a very old fashioned term that really is mostly only used in the finance industry today, like when everyone was obsessed with \"\"bank capital\"\". Total Capital = Preferred Equity + Common Equity + Liabilities True blue preferred shares are almost only used by financial companies, banks specifically. The more modern ones that convert to common are used by all other companies. Notes Payable This is another old fashioned term that now carries a different meaning in Generally Accepted Account Principles (GAAP). The oldest definition of a note or a promissory note is a promise to pay a fixed amount of money on a specific date. This has been modified to resemble more a bond and evolved into the zero coupon bond, a bond that makes no cash interest payments but makes one final payment that includes principal & interest. A bank note, like a One Dollar bill, is a note that pays something, in this case One Dollar, never (technically, the repayment date is simply not specified in the contract). While it pays One Dollar, it never pays it back, so it has a constant value of One Dollar. The constant nature, inflation notwithstanding, is what makes bank notes the preferred medium of exchange. GAAP has taken its' own definition to mean any debt payable within 12 months, as it is a current (<12 months) liability.\"",
"Opening capital = opening assests-opening liabilities",
"I'll have to think it through, but at the very least unless your debt is a pure discount instrument and you are using cash flows, some if that money IS getting paid during those 5 years. As in if you are using earnings, they pay p&i. Or if earnings and pure discount instruments, then amortized interest (I think, been a while). You see the actual numbers and know what you are trying to do, but I'm a little lost. Are you building a discount model with a multiple terminal and using ev as the multiple? Are you using free cash flow to firm for the discounting? I'm guessing that's the case.",
"\"First, don't use Yahoo's mangling of the XBRL data to do financial analysis. Get it from the horse's mouth: http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Search for Facebook, select the latest 10-Q, and look at the income statement on pg. 6 (helpfully linked in the table of contents). This is what humans do. When you do this, you see that Yahoo omitted FB's (admittedly trivial) interest expense. I've seen much worse errors. If you're trying to scrape Yahoo... well do what you must. You'll do better getting the XBRL data straight from EDGAR and mangling it yourself, but there's a learning curve, and if you're trying to compare lots of companies there's a problem of mapping everybody to a common chart of accounts. Second, assuming you're not using FCF as a valuation metric (which has got some problems)... you don't want to exclude interest expense from the calculation of free cash flow. This becomes significant for heavily indebted firms. You might as well just start from net income and adjust from there... which, as it happens, is exactly the approach taken by the normal \"\"indirect\"\" form of the statement of cash flows. That's what this statement is for. Essentially you want to take cash flow from operations and subtract capital expenditures (from the cash flow from investments section). It's not an encouraging sign that Yahoo's lines on the cash flow statement don't sum to the totals. As far as definitions go... working capital is not assets - liabilities, it is current assets - current liabilities. Furthermore, you want to calculate changes in working capital, i.e. the difference in net current assets from the previous quarter. What you're doing here is subtracting the company's accumulated equity capital from a single quarter's operating results, which is why you're getting an insane result that in no way resembles what appears in the statement of cash flows. Also you seem to be using the numbers for the wrong quarter - 2014q4 instead of 2015q3. I can't figure out where you're getting your depreciation number from, but the statement of cash flows shows they booked $486M in depreciation for 2015q3; your number is high. FB doesn't have negative FCF.\"",
"Corporate debt isn't an iou. Large corporations sell bonds and make annual or semiannual payments in those bonds. Cash is often held in a country with favorable tax condition, like Ireland.. Depending on the industry, this cash is invested in money market funds, fixed income securities, and maybe stocks or other funds. Because of the low interest rates that have prevailed since the recession, it's most economical to invest most cash and borrow for larger investments. However, the cash that ends up overseas is net of expenses. Internet is paid from operating income. I'm by no means an expert though, so take this with a grain of salt.",
"Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's. Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple?"
] |
[
"You're not missing anything. Excess cash is somewhat of a nebulous concept. To different people it means different things. The answer is that excess cash varies for each company depending on their business. For instance, some companies need very high amounts of working capital. A company may be increasing their inventories and therefore will require more cash on their balance sheet to fund growth. If a company always needs this extra cash, some investors prefer to leave that cash out of a valuation because the company cannot run profitably without it. Think about what happens to your calculation of Enterprise Value if you subtract excess cash as opposed to cash. Excess cash is always less than cash. Therefore by subtracting excess cash you increase EV. Since one common valuation metric is EV/EBITDA, a higher numerator will make the stock seem more expensive - that is the EV/EBITDA ratio will seem higher when using excess cash as opposed to cash. So using excess cash in your valuation methodology is basically a conservative concept. Depending on the business 20% of revenues seem way too high as a reserve for excess cash. 2% is a much better rule of thumb.",
"20% is almost certainly too high. I agree with 2%, as a very rough rule. It will vary significantly depending on the industry. I generally calculate an average of the previous 2-3 years working capital, and deduct that from cash. Working capital is Current Assets less Current Liabilities. Current Assets is comprised of cash, prepaid expenses, and significantly, accounts receivable. This means that CA is likely to be much higher than just cash, which leaves more excess cash after liabilities are deducted. Which reduces EV, which makes the EV/EBITDA ratio look even more pricey, as Dimitri noted. But a balance sheet is just a snapshot of the final day of the quarter. As such, and because of seasonal effects, it's critical to smooth this by averaging several periods. After calculating this for a few companies, compare to revenue. Is it close to 2%?",
"\"Excess Cash = Cash & Equivalents + Long-Term Investments - Current Liabilities The problem this calculation of excess cash is that \"\"long-term investments\"\" can be illiquid things like real estate. Another flaw is that it gives no credit for Current Assets, like receivables, which can be used to offset Current Liabilities. The first thing I'd do is \"\"net out\"\" Current Assets and Current Liabilities, then add Cash back in. Excess Cash = Current Assets - Current Liabilities + Cash & Equivalents. It would be nice if GAAP would require Long-Term Investments to be broken out as a) liquid long-term investments (stocks, bonds) b) illiquid long-term investments (real estate, private equity, etc)\""
] |
3995
|
I have more than $250,000 in a US Bank account… mistake?
|
[
"427032",
"278734",
"297900",
"506909",
"230208"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"427032",
"404954",
"479918",
"62019",
"463608",
"304411",
"14349",
"270866",
"297900",
"230208",
"312358",
"186332",
"190539",
"527597",
"278734",
"480827",
"320969",
"537394",
"171720",
"21420",
"556519",
"535566",
"506909",
"550339",
"508895",
"394276",
"460008",
"411143",
"599563",
"214755",
"493158",
"345091",
"238833",
"76515",
"399590",
"241035",
"203201",
"410450",
"171345",
"489278",
"549773",
"98344",
"430216",
"351109",
"254937",
"423883",
"558628",
"301745",
"320652",
"485507",
"534670",
"12781",
"282663",
"53244",
"136212",
"486675",
"325218",
"422477",
"400631",
"494666",
"583803",
"499354",
"267627",
"401807",
"490831",
"488366",
"345741",
"323154",
"310112",
"589103",
"336965",
"314850",
"472094",
"505611",
"294614",
"29399",
"293179",
"507000",
"395246",
"352883",
"82482",
"433817",
"498719",
"575794",
"535931",
"577134",
"323228",
"570960",
"249558",
"165378",
"248243",
"385344",
"355792",
"477630",
"560622",
"373697",
"238786",
"496857",
"505461",
"457989"
] |
[
"First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.",
"Most people who have over $250,000 in liquid cash savings would not want to start putting their money into regular savings accounts in different banks, especially with interest rates as ridiculously low as they are now in 2014-15. People with money will want to diversify their investments in ways that will potentially earn them more money, and they can also afford to seek the advice of financial planners who can help them do this wisely. Even if you decide to put $250,000 into various accounts at different banks, I wouldn't necessarily trust that the FDIC will be able to help you recover your money in the event that your banks go under. The amount of money available to the FDIC to cover such losses pales in comparison to the actual amount of money that Americans have in their bank accounts.",
"\"For personal accounts, I can't imagine that this is too much of a problem. The only concern that I can think of (for American banks) is that FDIC only insures you up to $100,000 if the bank were to go belly-up. If you're getting over that amount of money, you may want to \"\"diversify\"\" a little more.\"",
"A better answer is to put the money in a Dodd-Frank qualified non interest bearing checking account. FDIC covers the entire balance, there is no upper limit on the insurance. This will only be good till the end of 2012 but for short term landing spot this works well. Forget the interest you will earn and go for the safety of the principal.",
"\"You can store millions of dollars in deposit accounts, you just lose the explicit FDIC guarantee. So you look for rock-solid banks. Bankrate.com has \"\"Safe and Sound Ratings\"\" that show the relative strength of various banks. You put your excess deposits in those banks, and you are pretty safe. Note that in addition to the explicit FDIC guarantee, there is now an implicit guarantee that certain institutions have been deemed too \"\"big to fail\"\", and will be backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, without regard to the capitalization of the bank. Bank of America, for example, is not well capitalized and is carrying billions of dollars of \"\"assets\"\" that have little or no value. Yet government policy keeps the bank afloat and your deposits secure. Another strategy is to use municipal money market accounts, which provide secure (but not guaranteed) deposit-like accounts as well as a tax benefit. If you have > $1M in liquid assets, you probably need a financial professional and attorney advising you to make sure that you are aware of and are controlling for risk in a way consistent with your longer-term goals.\"",
"Even assuming hypothetically that you are able to split money in different bank accounts to get full coverage and all your accounts are in top ranking financial institutions in USA, you can not rely on FDIC if all or most of those banks go broke. Because FDIC just has a meagre 25 billion dollars to cover all bank accounts in the USA. And you know the amount of bank deposits in USA run in at least a trillion of dollars. US Deposits & FDIC Insurance figures",
"If you want to store that much money, find a good hiding place. (E-mail me the location. I'll keep it a secret. I promise!) But I think instead you want to invest that much money, in a cash-like liquid form. You can do $250,000 in a bank (beyond 2012) and then spread the rest over some big-name brokerages with money market accounts. But, as JohnFx pointed out, with that much cash you can do amazing things with it. Think bigger.",
"http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:",
"If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts. With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct.",
"Build a trust. I have a trust account under my name and 3 dependents, FDIC confirmed we're good to 1m. Then I have personal accounts for the 4 of us and a corp account, all at the same bank, each also insured.",
"\"But it's also true that the FDIC (or equivalent) insurance account doesn't have enough to cover all deposits. The FDIC may come in handy if your local FDIC member bank goes belly up and a few hundred depositors need to be made whole. However, in a national crisis, where the government is \"\"legally\"\" stealing funds, that FDIC insurance is a joke. I do agree though, if you have more than the insured amount in a single account, split it up.\"",
"Exactly. And I'm diversified in other ways. I have a money collection that includes lots of silver and some gold, a rental property. In terms of actual cash accounts it's closer to 750K. Protip: I always keep actual cash dollars in a safe in the house as well. I learned that trick from my neighbor who said she needed it twice in her life. Even a safe deposit box isn't good enough as the government can get in there, too. She and her husband owned a gas station and unbeknownst to them the Sunoco gas trucks were leaking when filling their tanks so they had a big ecological problem. The government took every bit of liquid assets they had... that they could find. Then when he died a few years ago something similar thing happened and she needed to dip into it.",
"The FDIC guarantee is up to $250,000 per depositor per insured bank. If your goal is primarily to protect your money, you may want to consider depositing your money in multiple insured banks. I'll leave it to someone else to accurately define money market accounts and how they function, and the (very low) risks you take with them. Don't forget that inflation will eat into your money. It's unlikely you'll make enough interest either in a savings account or in a money market account to cover the inflation. You should factor this in to your overall investment plan.",
"You don't mention how much money you are talking about but one option is to use reward checking accounts that are FDIC/NCUA insured. They pay 3-4% interest but generally have a few requirements such as 10-12 debit card transactions and sometimes require direct deposit as well as a limit of 10-50k deposits earning the top rate.",
"Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)",
"So basically, if you have a large savings account and are not investing... (because banks are actually a very poor way to get returns on capital), they will invest it for you... The take home I'm getting is... invest your money, and leave it out of the banks.",
"It depends on your situation. For families with small amounts over the FDIC limit, there's account structures that let you get multiple coverages. Things like holding 100k in an account in joint with your wife, each of you holding 100k in individual accounts etc. For larger sums and institutions, there's CDARS. This system spreads your money out to multiple institutions with an eye to FDIC insurance limits. Some people feel this system is abusing FDIC, so I suppose it's possible it gets outlawed / shut down some day. Alternatively, you can just invest it yourself. Treasury Direct allows small buyers to buy US govt bonds at finished auction rates, or submit a qualified bid at auction. You won't get great rates, but Treasuries are about as good as dollars.",
"If you are concerned about FDIC coverage, then yes, you can spread your money across multiple banks. The limit is $250k, so after you invest in property, 4 banks should do it. That having been said, in my opinion, it would be a waste to keep all this money in a bank's savings account. You will slowly lose value over time due to inflation. I suggest you spend a little money on an independent fee-based investment advisor. Choose someone who will teach you about investing in mutual funds, so you can feel comfortable with it. He or she should take into account your tolerance for risk, look at your goals, and help you come up with a low cost plan for investing your money. It's certainly okay to keep the money in a bank short-term, but don't wait too long; take steps toward putting that money to work for you.",
"There's no limit, from the legal perspective (with regards to the US law, that is), to how much you can keep on your bank accounts anywhere in the world. FBAR requirements are reporting requirements, they don't limit how much you can keep in the accounts, they only make you report the accounts to the government. There's no such requirement with regards to the US domestic accounts. That is for the US government, your own government (of the country of which you're a citizen of) may have limitations on what accounts you may have outside of that country, or have reporting requirements of their own. That said, keep in mind that FDIC only insures up to $250K per person (i.e.: on all your accounts) in each institution. So if you have more than $250K in a FDIC insured account - you better spread it across different banks.",
"There is no accounting reason that it should be different, there are likely psychological reasons that it should be, however. Assuming that you live in a western country with good banking regulation, you likely have deposit insurance or a similar scheme. Here in Canada we are covered up to $100,000 in a single account with various limitations. At least my rainy-day account plus savings is nowhere near that, so I'm good to go. That said, however, having a large lump of money in an account you regularly use may tempt you more than you can stand. That iPad, car, home improvement, etc., might be too easy to buy knowing you have relatively easy access to that money. So it really becomes a self-discipline question. Good Luck",
"Searching for Banks or Credit Unions based on their high interest accounts is likely to be a giant waste of your time. The highest you might find is 1.5% not clearing inflation. For anything less than 100k youre better off putting it in a money market fund until you know what you want to do with it, which you can find anywhere.",
"For small amounts I wouldn't be too concerned. There are two factors I can think of: For relatively small amounts and when dealing with reputable banking institutions there should be little concern of banking with a single bank. It's what most people do.",
"Many brokerage accounts for trading stocks are covered under SIPC insurance, which is up to $500,000 You can also have multiple checking and savings accounts with the $250,000 balance split up. You can also check your bank's capital ratio on the FDIC website, somewhere. The FDIC won't move on them unless it falls under 3% and even then FDIC will force them into receivership and sell them to a bigger bank before they go bust and experience losses of customer deposits. This is what mostly happened when hundreds of banks failed during the crisis from 2008-2010. There were very isolated events where customers actually lost their cash balances, and that was mostly because those customers had completely uninsured accounts. As that was the most extreme moment in US and global financial history, you should be able to judge risk with the aforementioned information in mind. You can stay in a cash balance easily and be fully insured.",
"\"Yes you should worry and take care not to violate the law or provide any appearance of impropriety. Every bank in the USA is required under the Bank Secrecy Act to report cash transactions over $10,000 the same day to the IRS -- and here's the fun secret part -- without notification to the depositor. But splitting the deposits up into smaller amounts is also a crime, called \"\"structuring\"\". On occasion there is a news story where a retail business that naturally must deposit cash from customers will be (falsely?) accused of structuring, e.g.: Feds seize grocery store's entire bank account -- Institute for Justice defends grocer Under the legal doctrine of civil asset forfeiture, your money can be accused of a crime, seized, and tried separately from its owner. The actual cases indicate the money as defendant, i.e. \"\"US v $124,700\"\" In this somewhat bizarre system of \"\"justice\"\", the owner need not be charged with a crime, and is not in immediate peril of going to prison (about the only upside in this, but might be temporary because the authorities haven't charged the owner yet). When only the money is charged with a crime, there is no requirement for the government to supply a public defender for the owners who can not afford a lawyer.... can not afford a lawyer, because the government took all their money....\"",
"U.S. citizens are allowed to own foreign bank and investment accounts. However, there are various financial and tax reporting requirements for owners of such accounts. Even when there is no foreign income involved. For example famous FBAR (Fincen Report Form 114), Form 8938, and even more forms if your assets/activities abroad become more complicated. Penalties, even for unintentional non-compliance can be Draconian. So just keep in mind, that once you start having foreign accounts, you will start having additional obligations and might spend more money and time on tax preparation. If you are ok with that, then its cool. But... assuming your gloomy predictions on Trump presidency come true. They might be accompanied by more strict capital control, reporting requirements, and may become even greater pain in the neck for people with foreign assets. Regarding recommendations, I am not sure about banks, but there are some foreign precious metal investing companies that are completely online based such as https://www.bullionvault.com/ and https://www.goldmoney.com/. These might also guard you from potential problems with US dollar.",
"I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account. This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage. The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything. From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution.",
"They might not have to open accounts at 12 bank because the coverage does allow multiple accounts at one institution if the accounts are joint accounts. It also treats retirement accounts a separate account. The bigger issue is that most millionaires don't have all their money siting in the bank. They invest in stocks, bonds, government bonds, international funds, and their own companies. Most of these carry risk, but they are diversified. They also can afford advisers to help them manage and protect their assets.",
"In October 2011 in the United States, you just don't have any options. Save your money in a savings account and that is the best you can do. Your desire to buy a house means you are a saver not an investor, and you risk tolerance on this pile of money is 0. Save it in a bank account; I highly doubt chasing an interest rate will pay off with any significance. (being highly dependent on your opinion of significant)",
"The FDIC has been pretty good at recovery lost money from failed banks. The problem is the temporary loss from immediate needs. The best thing for anyone to do is diversify in investments and banks with adequate covered insurance for all accounts. Immediate access to available cash is always a priority that should be governed by the money manager in this case yourself.",
"Anything over a $10,000 deposit is reported to the IRS. I'm not sure if you need to fill out a form or if the bank does it automatically. As long as it's legit I don't see that there would be any issues. The worst that would happen is somebody would have to talk to the IRS and explain that it was their money and not a gift of some sort. Edit it is reported to the FinCEN not the IRS https://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/OLM_017.htm",
"This: I was told by my broker that the amount of money I invest would be spread across multiple banks (which are FDIC insured) so that at each bank the amount would not exceed $250K. Has nothing to do with this: Is this how CDs offered by brokerage houses (that are not themselves FDIC insured) offer protection? If you want a CD, get the CD from a bank itself.",
"You should ensure that your broker is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). SIPC protects the cash and securities in your brokerage account much like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects bank deposits. Securities are protected with a limit of $500,000 USD. Cash is protected with a limit of $250,000 USD. It should be noted that SIPC does not protect investors against loss of value or bad advice. As far as having multiple brokerage accounts for security, I personally don’t think it’s necessary to have multiple accounts for that reason. Depending on account or transaction fees, it might not hurt to have multiple accounts. It can actually be beneficial to have multiple accounts so long as each account serves a purpose in your overall financial plan. For example, I have three brokerage accounts, each of which serves a specific purpose. One provides low cost stock and bond transactions, another provides superior market data, and the third provides low cost mutual fund transactions. If you’re worried about asset security, there are a few things you can do to protect yourself. I would recommend you begin by consulting a qualified financial advisor about your risk profile. You stated that a considerable portion of your total assets are in securities. Depending on your risk profile and the amount of your net worth held in securities, you might be better served by moving your money into lower risk asset classes. I’m not an attorney or a financial advisor. This is not legal advice or financial advice. You can and should consult your own attorney and financial advisor.",
"I would suggest a high interest checking account if you qualify, or if you don't, an Investor's Deposit Account (IDA).",
"Don't worry. The Cyprus situation could only occur because those banks were paying interest rates well above EU market rates, and the government did not tax them at all. Even the one-time 6.75% tax discussed is comparable to e.g. Germany and the Netherlands, if you average over the last 5 years. The simple solution is to just spread your money over multiple banks, with assets at each bank staying below EUR 100.000. There are more than 100 banks large enough that they'll come under ECB supervision this year; you'd be able to squirrel away over 10 million there. (Each branch of the Dutch Rabobank is insured individually, so you could even save 14 million there alone, and they're collectively AAA-rated.) Additionally, those savings will then be backed by more than 10 governments, many of which are still AAA-rated. Once you have to worry about those limits, you should really talk to an independent advisor. Investing in AAA government bonds is also pretty safe. The examples given by littleadv all involve known risky bonds. E.g. Argentina was on a credit watch, and paying 16% interest rates.",
"IMO, QE2 will likely have no perceptible impact in the near term. Keeping all of your savings in a bank guarantees that you will lose money to inflation & taxes. I'd suggest consulting a financial advisor -- preferably someone who understands issues facing someone with assets in the US and Canada. In terms of what portion of your savings should be in USD vs. CAD, that's going to depend on your situation. I'd probably want more assets in the place that I'm living in for the next several years.",
"They've already taken your money, and your purchasing power. The Fed's balance sheets is filled with $4 trillion worth of toxic mortgage derivatives and US treasuries that were purchased at all time highs. Move your money to a credit union.",
"I spent some time comparing banks' interest rates until I realized that it didn't actually matter (to me). The only money I keep in checking and savings accounts is money that I'm going to spend shortly or is part of an emergency fund, and in both those cases convenience of liquidity is far more important than small differences in interest (I want to be able to go to a nearby branch, even if traveling, and pull out large sums of money). The majority of our money goes into investment accounts, where it's earning much more than even the best savings account. Most of your 100k would be much better served in a stock/bonds mix. Are standard taxable investment accounts one of those things you can't open? What about if you opened one in your home country?",
"With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:",
"You would need to look at all aspects: - Current Rate of Interest in US compare to China - Current Exchange rate and the rate in Future when you want the money back - Any tax / Regulatory implications of keeping the money in US - Any furture regulations that may hamper your access to these funds If you are planning to stay in China and at some point in time want to get the money back, In my opinion it would make more sense to do it today like you are doing, rather than take the risk of exchange rate and regulations. Further the current low risk returns in US are near zero. The inflation in US is of no concern to you. On the other hand you have a decent return in China. If you know that at some point in future you would need USD [either moving to US, or large purchase in USD], then it would make sense to keep the funds in USD.",
"The deposit insurance isn't provided by the bank; it's provided by the Singapore Deposit Insurance Corporation (SDIC). In the event that the bank fails or is declared insolvent, the SDIC will pay deposit holders their total balance in all accounts with that bank, up to S$50,000. If you hold S$60,000 in all of your insured accounts, you'll only receive S$50,000 if the bank fails. The SDIC provides an example page with sample calculations, and this is exactly what they show. If you deposit an amount greater than $S50,000, it's only insured up to S$50,000. So does it mean one should open multiple accounts under different banks to spread the money around and maintain only S$50,000 in one deposit account? This is one option. The calculations page I linked to above gives this reminder: Deposits are not insured separately in each branch office of a DI Scheme member i.e. all your eligible accounts maintained with different branches of a DI Scheme member are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. This seems like common sense, but it's important to remember that if you open an account with two branch offices of Bank A, your deposits are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. The SDIC insurance is per institution (called a Deposit Insurance Member), not per branch. If you hold S$45,000 in each branch office, for a total of S$90,000, you're still only insured up to S$50,000 for that bank. If you want to spread out your accounts between multiple banks, make sure they're different banks, not just different branches. Another option, if it applies to you, is to open a joint account with your spouse. In the FAQ page, the SDIC gives this example under point 14: if you and your husband have a joint account with S$70,000, and you have a separate account of S$20,000, your total deposits of S$55,000 will be covered to the maximum of S$50,000. The deposit of $S70,000 is split evenly between the spouses, so in the eyes of the SDIC, each are holding S$35,000. Then, the husband's additional S$20,000 is added to S$35,000 for a total of S$50,000. This is then insured up to S$50,000 as usual. I'm sure there are other options specific to Singapore that I'm not aware of; if you're well above the limit, i.e. holding millions of dollars, I'm sure a professional accountant in Singapore could guide you further.",
"Would it be a reasonable idea to open a savings account in an overseas bank? For the risks you mention, this may not be a good idea for individual. Note HNI / Companies routinely keep funds in various overseas account. For individual the amount of paperwork [reporting in US etc] and fees etc would be high. Plus in adverse conditions, access to this funds would still be stringent and restricted. Some of the other options you can try are Generally for the risks you mention, there is very little an individual can do except to take it if & when it comes.",
"Do you have a good reason for keeping a US bank account? If not, I would close it and transfer to your Canadian bank account just to simplify your life. Unless you are investing on the scale of George Soros you shouldn't be worrying too much about exchange rates.",
"Houses burn down a lot more frequently than banks fail. Also, I'll bet the odds that FDIC will insure the loss of money in a bank is much higher than the odds of a homeowner's policy believing a huge pile of cash burned up in your house AND even then your policy probably wouldn't have coverage limits high enough to reimburse you for substantial cash losses. Oh yeah, then there is theft, floods,etc. The biggest danger is that routine inflation will eat up that money faster than the rats in the basement. Now, having some cash for a small emergency on hand isn't a terrible idea, but using your closet as a personal bank doesn't seem very smart.",
"Lets make some assumptions. You are not close to retirement. You have no other debts. You have a job. You have no big need for the money. You should invest that. Do not invest with a bank, they are not as competitive on fees as a brokerage account. You can get specific answers that are different from every person, (so you should dig in and research a lot more if you care (and you should). Personally, I would suggest you open an account with one of the low cost providers. Then, with that new investment account, put your money into a target retirement account. File your statements away and tend to it once a year. (Make sure it is there, that you can access it, that nothing alarming is going on). You certainly have enough to start an investment account. If you want to get more into it, ask a phone adviser what you should open. Finally, before you start investing, make sure you follow the advice of radix07 and have no debt, saving the most you can for retirement. A rule of thumb is your money will double every 72 months. Congratulations, you are a saver. Investing isn't for you as the risk of investing is in conflict with your desire to preserver you money. Open a savings account or high interest checking account with a credit union, online only or local community bank. Shop around no the web for the highest interest. Don't get your hopes up though, the highest rate you see (that doesn't have strings attached) won't be much here late summer of 2012.",
"> Too much work for me. Agreed. That's why I just make sure I keep the daily minimum in there at all times and I don't have to worry about it. I think our fee is $45/mo, so I'm not willing to waste $540/yr. I contemplate moving to a credit union, but I don't like the idea of having to update dozens of accounts, bill pay, direct deposits, etc.",
"No. And just a caution about that super low risk: suppose that you lived during the late 70s and early 80s, when savers in the United States could get interest rates over 10% for savings. You put your money into an account in 1980, knowing that in five years, you'll have made a solid amount of interest. Except that you might have been smarter to convert your money to AUD and save in that currency because it would have moved from 0.88 in value to 1.43 in value (in principal only, not interest - when I look at the RBA's bank interest, it appears they were also paying double digit interest to savers). Now, I get that this may not be the answer that you want to see because it means that if the interest rates were higher in the US, for savers, they might be higher elsewhere too, and it also means that what may appear to be a super low risk could actually be a high risk.",
"There are lots of credit unions that are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) instead of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Both cover individual accounts up to $250,000. If you are looking for non-trivial returns on your money, you should consider a brokerage account which is insured by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC). In the case of SPIC insured accounts, what you are insured against is the failure of the broker (not against loss on your investments if you choose to invest poorly). SPIC insurance covers up to $500,000 in losses from an insolvent broker. You have already indicated your lack of interest in using other investments, but I am not aware of any non-insured accounts that offer higher interest than insured accounts. You have also indicated your lack of interest in investment advice, but it sounds like what you are looking for is offered by a stable value fund.",
"Currently the FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per person per bank. The following products are covered if your bank is FDIC insured. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation#FDIC-insured_products",
"To store $1 milion in a bank with full FDIC insurance currently requires 4 separate bank accounts, each at 250k. It's not that difficult, particularly if you are married and your spouse can have 2 in his/her name. (This is dependent on the FDIC limit; they raised it to 250k after the 2008 crash).",
"Banks in the US have to report deposits of more than $10,000, so they'll contact you to complete form 8300 or something. It should not be a problem, though, if you specify that it's someone else's money, not your income.",
"There is no such animal. If you are looking to give up FDIC protection, investing in a short-term, high quality bond fund or a tax-free bond fund with short durations is a good way to balance safety vs. return. Make sure you buy funds -- buying individual bonds isn't appropriate for folks without a high net worth. Another option is savings bonds, but the yields on these is awful today.",
"\"The most important thing to look at is the FDIC insurance. Savings accounts are covered. Money markets - not necessarily. Online savings accounts provide rates of ~1%. Look at American Express, Ally, Capitol One, ING Direct, E*Trade, etc. The \"\"pledge\"\" basically brings EverBank into the same list, as they all have similar rates. Being top 5% of competitive accounts is not that hard, because there are thousands of banks around, you know. 0.76 is not the highest rate available. American Express currently give 1% on their savings account. Re moving the money a lot - depends on the amounts, but when the rates were higher, I moved around a lot. Now, it just doesn't worth the trouble, although I would move for 0.25%.\"",
"Make sure the financial adviser is fee only. This means the person gets paid a set fee instead of a commission. The commission based adviser will put you in a financial instrument that can charge upwards of 5%, so he would get $900k for hooking you as a client. You can go to finra.org to find a good one. Read books a variety of books so you know about finanical matters. Credit is not advisable if you have as much money as you do. You have already won the race, no need to take risks.",
"The one thing we know for certain is that holding large amounts of cash isn't ideal - inflation will eat away at your wealth. It's understandable that you're hesitant to put all your wealth in common stock. The S&P 500's price/earnings is 18.7 right now - a little high by historical standards. But consider that the S&P 500 has given a CAGR of approximately 10% (not inflation-adjusted) since 1970. If you don't time the market correctly, you could miss out on considerable gains. So it's probably best to invest at least a portion of your wealth in common stocks, and just accept the risk of short-term losses. You'll likely come out ahead in the long run, compared to an investor who tries to time the market and ends up holding cash positions for too long. If you really think US stocks are overpriced, you could look at other markets, but you'll find similar P/Es in Europe and Japan. You could try an emerging market fund like VEMAX if you have the risk tolerance. Let's say you're not convinced, and don't want to invest heavily in stocks right now. In the current market, safe cash alternatives like Treasury bills offer very low yields - not enough to offset inflation tax. So I would invest in a diversified portfolio of long-term bonds, real estate, maybe precious metals, and whatever amount of stock you're comfortable with.",
"In the United States, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation protects the first $500,000 you have at a brokerage including up to $250,000 in cash. This means that if the firm holding your securities fails financially, you have some coverage. That insurance does not prevent your investment itself from losing money. Even traditionally save money market funds can potentially lose value in a situation called Breaking the buck. This means that the Net Asset Value of the fund falls below $1/share. Alas, during periods of market calamity, even traditionally safe stores of value are subject to increased risk.",
"The article you link scares me; but I still have faith that the FDIC will keep me protected. Personally, if the FDIC goes broke, there is something more fundamentally wrong with the government as a whole and dollars won't worry me much. There are lots of issues with the FDIC, and I think the answers lie outside of simply printing more money and funding the FDIC further. There is likely more bad before this storm is over, and I might be ignorant, but I still want to operate normally. My money would stay where it is with things being how I see them in today",
"\"is it worth it? That is for you to judge. The risks are having it blowup in your face, and you having to pay a penalty, or go to jail. The issue is how you keep it secret, and who you keep it secret from. If you have money in a secret account and keep it hidden even though you: You are taking a big risk. If the knowledge of the contents of the secret stash would cause a judge or government agency to make a different decision, you could face penalties ranging from monetary to jail time. The government could also decide that they need to determine the source of the funds. They may want to know if the money was \"\"earned\"\" through illegal means. They will want to determine if the funds should haven taxed not just on the interest but if the original income tax was ever collected. If the amounts are large enough the taxing authority and police will have a lot of fun pulling apart your entire financial history. Oh and the lawyers you pay to keep you out of jail will also have their fun. why do some people do it? They are greedy; or paranoid; or they don't trust others; or they are criminals.\"",
"\"As you've observed, when you're dealing with that amount of money, you're going to have to give up FDIC guarantees. That means that keeping the money in a bank account carries some risk with it: if that particular bank goes bust, you could lose most of your money. There are a few options to stretch the FDIC limit such as CDARS, but likely can't handle your hypothetical $800 million. So, what's a lucky winner to do? There are a few options, including treasury securities, money market funds, and more general capital investments such as stocks and bonds. Which one(s) are best depend on what your goals are, and what kind of risks you find acceptable. Money in the bank has two defining characteristics: its value is very stable, and it is liquid (meaning you can spend it very easily, whenever you want, without incurring costs). Treasury securities and money market funds each focus on one of these characteristics. A treasury security is a piece of paper (or really, an electronic record) saying that the US Federal Government owes you money and when they will pay it back. They are very secure in that the government has never missed a payment, and will move heaven and earth to make sure they won't miss one in the future (even taking into account recent political history). You can buy and sell them on an open market, either through a broker or directly on the Treasury's website. The major downside of these compared to a bank account is that they're not as liquid as cash: you own specific amounts of specific kinds of securities, not just some number of dollars in an account. The government will pay you guaranteed cash on specified dates; if you need cash on different dates, you will need to sell the securities in the open market and the price will be subject to market fluctuations. The other \"\"cash-like\"\" option is money market funds. These are a type of mutual fund offered by financial companies. These funds take your money and spread it out over a wide variety of very low risk, very short term investments, with the goal of ensuring that the full value will never go down and is available at any time. They are very liquid: you can typically transfer cash quickly and easily to a normal bank account, write checks directly, and sometimes even use \"\"online bill pay\"\"-like features. They have a very good track record for stability, too, but no one is guaranteeing them against something going terribly wrong. They are lower risk than a (non-FDIC-insured) bank account, since the investments are spread out across many institutions. Beyond those two somewhat \"\"cash-like\"\" options, there are of course other, more general investments such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. These other options trade away some degree of stability, liquidity, or both, in exchange for better expected returns.\"",
"\"Be mindful of your reporting requirements. Besides checking the box on Schedule B of your 1040 that you have a foreign bank account, you also need to file a TD F 90-22.1 FBAR report for any year that the total of all foreign bank accounts reaches a value of $10,000 at any time during the year. This is filed separately from your 1040 by June 30 of the following year. Penalties for violating this reporting requirement are draconian, in some cases exceeding the amount of money in the foreign bank account. This penalty has been levied on people who have been reporting and paying tax on the interest on their foreign bank accounts, and merely neglected this separate report filing. Article on the \"\"shoot the jaywalker\"\" punitive enforcement policy. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006866.php Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law. EDITED TO ADD\"",
"Your main concern seems to be to be accused of something called 'smurfing' or structuring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring Depositing money amounts (cash or checks) under the 10k limit to circumvent the reporting requirement. People have been investigated for depositing under the limit, e.g. small business owners. If you're always above 10k you should be fine, as your deposits are reported and shouldn't raise IRS or FBI suspicions.",
"In the US bank or credit union checking, savings, CD's are insured through FDIC or NCUA. The coverage is for $250,000. This limit can be increased by having multiple accounts. You, your spouse, and a Joint account with your spouse, are considered 3 different accounts, so you could have $750K coverage. IRA funds are considered a separate pot of money for insurance coverage. Here is an explanation from NCUA and FDIC. There is no safety difference between savings and checking. There are differences regarding minimum balances, maximum number of transactions per month, and fees. But they are equally safe.",
"I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.",
"Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).",
"Yes, you can put assets in Canadian banks. Will it protect your wealth to a greater extent than the FDIC protection provided by the US Government? Probably not. If you do business or spend significant time in Canada, then having at least some money in Canada makes sense. Otherwise, you're trying to protect yourself against some outlying risk of a US banking collapse, while subjecting yourself to a very real currency exchange risk.",
"Do not try to deposit piece wise. Either use the system in complete transparence, or do not use it at all. The fear of having your bank account frozen, even if you are in your rights, is justified. In any case, I don't advise you to put in bank before reaching IRS. Also keep all the proof that you indeed contacted them. (Recommended letter and copy of any form you submit to them) Be ready to also give those same documents to your bank to proove your good faith. If they are wrong, you'll be considered in bad faith until you can proove otherwise, without your bank account. Do not trust their good faith, they are not bad people, but very badly organized with too much power, so they put the burden of proof on you just because they can. If it is too burdensome for you then keep cash or go bitcoin. (but the learning curve to keep so much money in bitcoin secure against theft is high) You should declare it in this case anyway, but at least you don't have to fear having your money blocked arbitrarily.",
"If you're the type of moron that keeps several thousand dollars sitting in their checking account then you're either a 1st generation immigrant or just insanely bad with money. And still think going around insulting people is smart. Literally the worst.",
"If thats how you feel (its how I feel ) then the last thing you want bankers doing is accepting deposits from people who think their money is not being risked, then making loans with it (fractional reserve banking). And fdic is not an answer to that fundamental problem.",
"My brokerage account (E-Trade) automatically spreads cash balances that exceed the FDIC insured amount into several partner banks, so just about any amount gets insured.",
"\"The first consideration for the banking part of your portfolio is safety. In the United States that is FDIC protection, or the equivalent for a Credit Union. The second consideration is does it have the level of service you need. For this I mean the location of branches, ATMs, or its online services meet your needs for speed, accuracy, and ability to access or move the money as you need. The rest are then balanced on the extras. For your situation those extras include the ability to make free trades. For other it might be a discount on their mortgage. For others it is free checking. In your current situation if the first two things are met, and you are using those extra benefits then don't change. For me the free trades wouldn't be a benefit, so any major degradation in the safety and service would cause me to leave. Keep in mind that free services exist to entice you to make a deposit: which they can then make money by lending it out; or they offer a free service to entice you to use a service they can charge you to use. All Free services come with a cost. I earned a completely paltry $3.33 YTD over the last 9 months on my savings at my bank presumably in exchange for these \"\"free\"\" trades. Without knowing how much you had deposited in your savings account there is no way to know how much you could have made at the bank across the street. But with the low rates of the last decade there is not big money to be made off the emergency savings of a typical american family.\"",
"\"Your objectives are contradictory and/or not possible. Eliminating the non-taxable objective: You could divide the $100K in 5 increments, making a \"\"CD ladder\"\" $25K in 3mo CD (or savings a/c) $25K in 6 mo CD $25K in 9mo CD $25K in 1 yr CD or similar structure (6mo also works well) Every maturing CD you are able to access cash and/or invest in another longest maturity CD, and earn a higher rate of interest. This plan also works well to plan for future interest rates hikes. If you are forced to access (sell CD's) ALL the $$$ at any time, you will only lose accrued interest, none of the principal. All FDIC guaranteed. If non-taxable is the highest priority, \"\"invest\"\" in a tax-free money market fund....see Vanguard Funds. You will not have FDIC guarantee.\"",
"Not OP, but let's see: My money-market account is showing 0.25% interest rate. My savings account, 0.20%. And checking, 0.22%. It doesn't matter where I keep my emergency fund and what I keep my checking balance. It's making fuck-all for interest. And I need to keep a couple thousand in there because my mortgage hits for about $1600. And my monthly CC spend averages ~$3500 monthly. I simply can't keep a couple hundred in there.",
"In the UK I believe the first £50,000 in each bank are secured by the government, so are very safe but one has to check what 'each bank' means as some are members of the same 'group'. See the FSCS",
"The US requires its (tax) residents to report foreign accounts if the balances (on all the accounts together) are $10K or more at any given day during the year. This is done through the FBAR system. In addition, you obviously need to report this income on your US tax return and pay taxes. If the balances on your foreign accounts exceed specific threshold, your tax return should also include form 8938. If you report everything and pay the taxes due - you can keep the money wherever you want and transfer it between your accounts as you may see fit. If you don't - the US government may come after you with huge penalties, and the Dubai bank may freeze your account. Its easy to become US tax resident. Stay in the US for more than half a year in a row - and here you are. Subject to the US taxation. Even if you're not a US citizen or green card holder, or at all illegal. Some immigration statuses may grant you an exemption, but none that allows you working for your Dubai employer, so I'm assuming you're a US tax resident.",
"This will probably require some explanation from you on the source of the money and the reasons for the transaction. Cash transactions over $10k will be reported by the bank (in this case) on a CTR report to FinCEN. Keep in mind, mere breaking the transaction into multiple smaller ones in order to avoid the CTR is on its own a criminal offense. Just deposit what you want to deposit, and report what's needed to be reported. Note that if you're a US tax resident - these foreign bank accounts must have been reported already to FinCEN via FBAR, if not - you should expect a very nasty audit with the IRS.",
"Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, like reducing interest charges, IMO you shouldn't do this. The fact that the bank teller or a computer files a CTR doesn't imply that you are doing something improper -- it is simply a regulation that banks are required to adhere to. Millions of CTRs are probably filled out over the course of the year. It doesn't add more time to your transaction, nor does it impact your tax or other liability. Learning about this stuff can instill a sense of paranoia. Don't fall victim to that -- these are measures in place to make it more difficult to dodge taxation and launder money.",
"Re #2, consider an account at a credit union rather than a bank or brokerage firm. Whether you choose a savings account or a money market account, you're likely to get an account with lower fees (so it doesn't cost you money), and rates that are typically similar.",
"For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.",
"Although I do not know about US Institutions; In India Banks have adopted a mix of features that mitigate the risk. Some ways that are used are;",
"Basically, all the same reasons you might not want to keep piles of your own country's cash, plus or minus the exchange rate question. Banks exist for good reasons. You probably want to use them unless you are explicitly playing the exchange rate game -- And if that's what you want, there are probably better ways to do it. If you need help not touching the money, CDs or other term accounts might give you enough disincentive. Or might not.",
"The FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per bank, for each ownership category. The ownership categories are: You and a spouse could collectively have $750,000 of insured deposits at a single bank if you each had a single account, and a joint account together.",
"You should talk to a financial fiduciary (make sure they are a fiduciary, not all planners are) about investing your money. Even ultra safe investments such as treasury bonds will beat the 1% interest rate offered by your savings account (the yield on the 5 year treasury is currently around 2%).",
"\"If all of the money needs to be liquid, T-Bills from a broker are the way to go. Treasury Direct is a little onerous -- I'm not sure that you could actually get money out of there in a week. If you can sacrifice some liquidity, I'd recommend a mix of treasury, brokered CDs, agency and municipal securities. The government has implicitly guaranteed that \"\"too big to fail\"\" entities are going to be backed by the faith & credit of the United States, so investments in general obligation bonds from big states like New York, California and Florida and cities like New York City will yield you better returns, come with significant tax benefits, and represent only marginal additional short-term risk.\"",
"\"I would keep some money in the U.S. and some money in India. That way, in case \"\"something bad\"\" happens in one country, you will still have money in the other.\"",
"\"You can move most or all of those financial products into a single account at one institution, but I wouldn't go with a \"\"mutual fund account\"\" like Vanguard. The big online brokerages should offer: Consolidating everything into one statement can vastly simplify your record keeping. With a balance of $250k, you should be able to get a paper statement without a fee. Depending on where the accounts are currently held (e.g. if the stocks are at a full-service broker), you may also be able to save on fees.\"",
"If this is truly your emergency fund, then you should keep the money safe. Unfortunately interest rates are very low right now and there is not much you can do about that. However, ask your investment advisor for a CDIC insured high interest account, such as these:",
"Your goals are mutually exclusive. You cannot both earn a return that will outpace inflation while simultaneously having zero-risk of losing money, at least not in the 2011 market. In 2008, a 5+% CD would have been a good choice. Here's a potential compromise... sacrifice some immediate liquidity for more earnings. Say you had $10,000 saved: In this scheme, you've diversified a little bit, have access to 50% of your money immediately (either through online transfer or bringing your bonds to a teller), have an implicit US government guarantee for 50% of your money and low risk for the rest, and get inflation protection for 75% of your money.",
"In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)",
"That's a sensible plan. No there's no reason for the IRS to see this arrangement as suspicious, particularly because the deposits will be from paychecks; you have a record of where all the money came from. Conversely, multiple cash deposits might be considered suspicious. It can only affect your credit if you have credit lines associated with the account (like an overdraft line of credit). Interest earned could increase your tax liability by a tiny amount, but in the current interest rate environment, that's not much of a worry.",
"I'm pretty sure you are don't actually plan to put £120,000 into a zero interest account, because when you take inflation into account, in 20 years, then £120,000 won't be worth anywhere near that amount. For its value to grow you need the interest rate to exceed the rate of inflation and so paying 20% (or even 40%) tax on the interest can make the difference between whether being richer and getting poorer.",
"You spread money/investment across different accounts for different reasons: All this is in addition to diversification reasons. Investing all your money into one stock, bond, Mutual fund, ETF is risky if that one segment of the economy/market suffers. There is a drawback to diversification of accounts. Some have minimum amounts and fee structures. In the original question you asked about 1,000 per account. That may mean that some accounts may be closed to you. In other cases they will charge a higher percentage for fees for small accounts. Those issues would disappear long before you hit the 1,000,000 per account you mentioned in your comment. One problem can occur with having too much diversification. Having dozens of funds could mean that the overlap between the funds might result in over investing in a segment because you didn't realize that one stock segment appeared in 1/3 of the funds.",
"It is FDIC insured, there is no catch .. a few banks offer above 1% APY. Alliant and Ally come to my mind. Terms & Conditions",
"Chase has a limit of $500,000 per day. A banker should be able to help you determine any immediate tax liabilities that will arise as a direct result of the transaction. You may wish to consult with a tax professional about any indirect implications the transfer may have. This transaction will be reported to the government but assuming that you are not involved in any illegitimate activities the likelihood of the US government taking any action on the notice is incredibly low. I have heard of 7 and 14 day holds being placed on out of character transfers but if you are buying property you should work with your bank to help facilitate. Bankers understand the business and can help you avoid any appearances of impropriety that the government flags. Should your account be flagged, I would retain a lawyer immediately. If you feel you have a reason to be concerned, then I would contact a lawyer in the US and Thailand before initiating the transfer. As they say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.",
"I wanted to know how safe is such investment with online banks vis-a-vis regular banks? As far as I know, neither money market accounts nor savings accounts have any investment risk (within reason) since both are insured by the FDIC. Note that this is not necessarily the case with money market funds. is their any downside to such investments? Yes, there are a few. I believe the two biggest ones are:",
"To me, it depends. How much are their total assets? Having 10% of your money in something like that isn't crazy. having it all in? That IS crazy. Can they reduce their exposure to this account without paying a penalty (say pull out 10%?) The Manager should be taking direction from them. If they aren't able to get the manager to re-allocate to something more suitable, under your friends direction, they should then pursue whether or not the manager is operating lawfully.",
"\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \"\"lawsuit\"\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\"",
"\"Are there still people who keep significant amounts of money in a bank savings account? You could get ~1% by just choosing the right bank. ING Direct, for example, gives 0.8%, 4 times more than your credit union, with the same FDIC insurance! If you do want to invest in something slightly more long-term, you can get a CD. At the same ING Direct, you can get a 5-year CD with 1% APR. Comes with the same FDIC insurance. Note that I mention ING Direct just because I accidentally had their site open right in front of me, their rates are definitely not the highest right now. If you want to give up the FDIC insurance and take some more risks, you can invest your money in municipal bonds or various kinds of \"\"low risk\"\" mutual funds, which may yield 3-5% a year. If you want to take even more risks - there's a whole stock market available for you, with ETF's, mutual funds and individual stocks. Whether you should - that only you can tell. But you can have a NO-RISK investment yielding 4-5 times more than what you have right now, just saying.\"",
"\"Your #1 problem is the Government both in it's form as a taxation outfit and as a 'law and order' outfit. You'd be very surprised at how fast a bank seizes your bank account in response to a court order. Purchase 100 Mexican 50 Peso Gold (1.2 oz/ea). These coins are cheap (lowest cost to get into) and will not be reportable on sale to taxing authorities. That money is out of the banking system and legal system(s). Do not store them in a bank! You need to find a tax strategist, probably a former IRS agent / CPA type. With the rest remaining money... There's an old saying, Don't fight the Fed. As well as \"\"The trend is your friend\"\". So, the Fed wants all savers fully invested right now (near 0 interest rates). When investing, I find that if you do exactly opposite what you think is the smart thing, that's the best thing. Therefore, it follows: 1) Don't fight the Fed 2) Do opposite of smart 3) Do: Fight the Fed (and stay 100% out of the market and in cash) We're looking like Japan so could remain deflationary for decades to come. Cash is king...\"",
"\"HSBC, Hang Seng, and other HK banks had a series of special savings account offers when I lived in HK a few years ago. Some could be linked to the performance of your favorite stock or country's stock index. Interest rates were higher back then, around 6% one year. What they were effectively doing is taking the interest you would have earned and used it to place a bet on the stock or index in question. Technically, one way this can be done, for instance, is with call options and zero coupon bonds or notes. But there was nothing to strategize with once the account was set up, so the investor did not need to know how it worked behind the scenes... Looking at the deposit plus offering in particular, this one looks a little more dangerous than what I describe. See, now we are in an economy of low almost zero interest rates. So to boost the offered rate the bank is offering you an account where you guarantee the AUD/HKD rate for the bank in exchange for some extra interest. Effectively they sell AUD options (or want to cover their own AUD exposures) and you get some of that as extra interest. Problem is, if the AUD declines, then you lose money because the savings and interest will be converted to AUD at a contractual rate that you are agreeing to now when you take the deposit plus account. This risk of loss is also mentioned in the fine print. I wouldn't recommend this especially if the risks are not clear. If you read the fine print, you may determine you are better off with a multicurrency account, where you can change your HK$ into any currency you like and earn interest in that currency. None of these were \"\"leveraged\"\" forex accounts where you can bet on tiny fluctuations in currencies. Tiny being like 1% or 2% moves. Generally you should beware anything offering 50:1 or more leverage as a way to possibly lose all of your money quickly. Since you mentioned being a US citizen, you should learn about IRS form TD F 90-22.1 (which must be filed yearly if you have over $10,000 in foreign accounts) and google a little about the \"\"foreign account tax compliance act\"\", which shows a shift of the government towards more strict oversight of foreign accounts.\"",
"\"You state \"\"Any info will be appreciated\"\", so here's some background information on my answer (you can skip to my answer): When I worked for banks, I was required to submit suspicious activity to the people above me by filling out a form with a customer's name, SSN, account number(s) and ID. You may hear in media that it is $10K or sometimes $5K. The truth is that it could be lower than that, depending on what the institution defines as suspicious. Every year we were required to take a \"\"course\"\" which implied that terrorists and criminals use cash regularly - whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant - this is what the course implied. It's important to understand that many people use cash-only budgets because it's easier than relying on the banking system which charges overdraft fees for going over, or in some cases, you pay more at merchants because of card usage (some merchants give discounts for cash). If someone has a budget of $10K a month and they choose to use cash, that's perfectly fine. Also, why is it anyone's business what someone does with their private property? This created an interesting contrast among differently aged Americans - older Americans saw the banking system as tyrannical busybodies whereas young Americans didn't care. This is part of why I eventually left the banking system; I felt sick that I had to report this information, but it's amazing how quick everyone is to accept the new rules. Notice how one of the comments asks you what you intend to do with the money, as if it's any of their business. Welcome to the New America©! My answer: If you withdraw $100,000, here is what will more than likely happen: Now, watch the anger at this answer because I'm telling you the truth. This article will explain why. Your very question had a negative 1, as if asking what you're asking is wrong (see the absurdity)! If Joseph Stalin ran for president in the United States, the majority of Americans would welcome him. You have good reason to be concerned; others at this site have noticed this as well.\"",
"\"In answering your question as it's written: I don't think you're really \"\"missing\"\" something. Different banks offer different rates. Online banks, or eBanking solutions, such as CapitalOne, Ally, Barclays, etc., typically offer higher interest rates on basic savings accounts. There are differences between Money Market accounts and Standard Savings accounts, but primarily it comes down to how you can access your cash. This may vary based on bank, but Ally has a decent blurb about it: Regular savings accounts are easy to open and, when you choose an online bank like Ally Bank, you tend to get interest rates that are more competitive than brick-and-mortar counterparts, according to Bankrate.com. Additionally, as a member of the FDIC, Ally Bank gives you peace of mind knowing that the money in your Ally Bank Online Savings Account is insured to the maximum allowed by the law. Money market accounts are easy to open, too. And again, online banks may offer better rates than traditional banks. Generally, you have a bit more flexibility of access with a money market account than you do with a savings account. You can access funds in your Ally Bank Money Market Account through electronic fund transfers, checks, debit cards and ATM withdrawals. With savings accounts, your access is limited to electronic funds transfers or telephone withdrawals (and in-person withdrawals at traditional banks). Both types of accounts are subject to federal transaction limits. Here's a bit more information about a Money Market Account and why the rate might be a little bit higher (from thesimpledollar.com): A money market deposit account is a bit different. The restrictions on what a bank can do with that money are somewhat looser – they can often invest that money in things such as treasury notes, certificates of deposit, municipal bonds, and so on in addition to the tight restrictions of a normal savings accounts. In other words, the bank can take your money and invest it in other investments that are very safe. Now outside of your question, if you have $100K that you want to earn interest on, I'd suggest looking at options with higher rates of return rather than a basic savings account which will top out around 1% or so. What you do with that money is dependent on how quickly you need access to it, and there are a lot of Q&A's on this site that cover suggestions.\""
] |
[
"First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.",
"Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)",
"If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts. With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct.",
"Many brokerage accounts for trading stocks are covered under SIPC insurance, which is up to $500,000 You can also have multiple checking and savings accounts with the $250,000 balance split up. You can also check your bank's capital ratio on the FDIC website, somewhere. The FDIC won't move on them unless it falls under 3% and even then FDIC will force them into receivership and sell them to a bigger bank before they go bust and experience losses of customer deposits. This is what mostly happened when hundreds of banks failed during the crisis from 2008-2010. There were very isolated events where customers actually lost their cash balances, and that was mostly because those customers had completely uninsured accounts. As that was the most extreme moment in US and global financial history, you should be able to judge risk with the aforementioned information in mind. You can stay in a cash balance easily and be fully insured.",
"Build a trust. I have a trust account under my name and 3 dependents, FDIC confirmed we're good to 1m. Then I have personal accounts for the 4 of us and a corp account, all at the same bank, each also insured."
] |
6890
|
Where does the money go when I buy stocks?
|
[
"558703",
"240196"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"558703",
"240196",
"154976",
"471964",
"327941",
"32589",
"245834",
"393483",
"167322",
"260006",
"160028",
"128571",
"239064",
"381665",
"26203",
"524949",
"593455",
"211730",
"369998",
"332323",
"516561",
"241135",
"413256",
"413672",
"511760",
"317365",
"390817",
"537783",
"386278",
"258419",
"528095",
"525527",
"259072",
"226197",
"584295",
"365465",
"482739",
"427067",
"286494",
"537603",
"395409",
"313437",
"148435",
"186184",
"137478",
"592891",
"552586",
"155677",
"231221",
"568200",
"461018",
"540462",
"564870",
"173088",
"406872",
"306782",
"286296",
"116738",
"180362",
"564396",
"493438",
"192600",
"196173",
"93231",
"109246",
"339327",
"451301",
"152286",
"429927",
"25605",
"158923",
"130303",
"455168",
"210743",
"481999",
"370212",
"65147",
"313570",
"525231",
"407505",
"350110",
"99943",
"598295",
"466143",
"563405",
"522798",
"94900",
"591436",
"442830",
"217042",
"1198",
"517323",
"580364",
"449352",
"434596",
"454222",
"34882",
"347348",
"131788",
"320698"
] |
[
"\"When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the \"\"market maker\"\" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for \"\"retail\"\" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know.\"",
"The money goes to the seller. There are a lot of behind the scenes things that happen, and some transactions are very complicated with many parties involved (evidenced by all the comments on @keshlam's perfectly reasonable high-level answer), but ultimately the money goes to the seller. Sometimes the seller is the company. The billions of shares that change hands each day are moving between other individuals like you and investment funds; these transactions have no direct impact on the company's financials, in general.",
"Cash changes hands when you buy or sell the stock. While you own the stock, you own it, not cash, so there is no cash to go anywhere. You spent your money when you bought. The seller got that money. It's gone. You hope that when you sell the stock, someone will give you more money for it than you spent. But they may give you less. Money doesn't magically appear either way, it comes from the buyer. After selling, you have the money -- however much you sold for -- and no longer have the stock. NOTE that this means the current value of a share of stock is interesting, but not really very relevant, unless you are actively buying or selling. What your portfolio is worth on paper is nothing more than an approximate snapshot at the moment you retrieve the data. It is not a promise of what will actually happen when you do sell.",
"A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.",
"You or the broker place an order to buy the share with the stock exchange. There has to be a matching sell order by someone. Once a match is made, you pay the money and get the share.",
"First: the question is irrelevant for purchases on exchange, mostly. Majority of sales on stock exchanges is between shareholders. If however you buy directly from the company (in a IPO, or direct share purchase program of some kind, like ESPP), then it does end up showing in the company account ledgers one way or another. It then become part of company's total assets, and the newly sold shares add to the equity.",
"In short, thanks to the answers and comments posted so far. No actual money is magically disappeared when the stock price goes down but the value is lost. The value changes of a stock is similar to the value changes of a house. The following is the long answer I came up with based on the previous answers and comments alone with my own understandings. Any experts who find any of the following is 200% out of place and wrong, feel free to edit it or make comments. Everything below only applies if the following are true: The stock price is only decreasing since the IPO because the company has been spending the money but not making profits after the IPO. The devaluation of the stock is not the result of any bad news related to the company but a direct translation of the money the company has lost by spending on whatever the company is doing. The actual money don’t just disappear into the thin air when the stock price goes down. All the money involved in trading this stock has already distributed to the sellers of this stock before the price went down. There is no actual money that is literally disappeared, it was shifted from one hand to another, but again this already happened before the price went down. For example, I bought some stocks for $100, then the price went down to $80. The $100 has already shifted from my hand to the seller before the price went down. I got the stock with less value, but the actual money $100 did not just go down to $80, it’s in the hand of the seller who sold the stock to me. Now if I sell the stock to the same seller who sold the stock to me, then I lost $20, where did the $20 go? it went to the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back at a lower price. The seller ended up with the same amount of the stocks and the $20 from me. Did the seller made $20? Yes, but did the seller’s total assets increased? No, it’s still $100, $80 from the stocks, and $20 in cash. Did anyone made an extra $20? No. Although I did lost $20, but the total cash involved is still there, I have the $80 , the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back has the $20. The total cash value is still $100. Directly, I did lost $20 to the guy who sold me the stock when the stock has higher value and then bought it back at a lower price. But that guy did not increased his total assets by $20. The value of the stock is decreased, the total money $100 did not disappear, it ended up from one person holding it to 2 people holding it. I lost $20 and nobody gained $20, how is that possible? Assume the company of the stock never made any profit since it’s IPO, the company just keeps spending the money, to really track down where the $20 I lost is going, it is the company has indirectly spent that money. So who got that $20 I lost? It could be the company spent $20 for a birthday cake, the $20 went to the cake maker. The company never did anything to make that $20 back, so that $20 is lost. Again, assume the stock price only goes down after its IPO, then buying this stock is similar to the buying a sport car example from JoeTaxpayer (in one of the answers), and buying an apple example from BrenBarn(in one of the comments from JoeTaxpayer’s answer). Go back to the question, does the money disappears into the thin air when the value of the stock goes down? No, the money did not disappear, it switched hands. It went from the buyer of the stock to the company, and the company has spent that money. Then what happens when the stock price goes down because bad news about the company? I believe the actual money still did not just disappear. If the bad news turn out to be true that the company had indeed lost this much money, the money did not disappear, it’s been spent/lost by the company. If the bad news turn out to be false, the stock price will eventually go up again, the money is still in the hand of the company. As a summary, the money itself did not disappear no matter what happens, it just went from one wallet to another wallet in many different ways through the things people created that has a value.",
"Because the stock still has the same value as the money paid for it - you are just exchanging one asset for another (of course the stock value starts to change immediately, but for the accounting the fictional value is the buying price). For the accounting, it is similar to changing a 100$ bill in five 20$ bills - same value, still assets.",
"\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"",
"Now a days, your stocks can be seen virtually through a brokerage account. Back in the days, a stock certificate was the only way to authenticate stock ownership. You can still request them though from the corporation you have shares in or your brokerage. It will have your name, corporation name and number of shares you have. You have to buy shares of a stock either through a brokerage or the corporation itself. Most stock brokerages are legit and are FDIC or SIPC insured. But your risks are your own loses. The $10 you are referring to is the trade commission fee the brokerage charges. When you place an order to buy or sell a stock the brokerage will charge you $10. So for example if you bought 1 share of a $20 stock. The total transaction cost will be $30. Depending on the state you live in, you can basically starting trading stocks at either 18 or 21. You can donate/gift your shares to virtually anyone. When you sell a stock and experience a profit, you will be charged a capital gains tax. If you buy a stock and sell it for a gain within 1 year, you will taxed up to 35% or your tax bracket but if you hold it for more than a year, you will taxed only 15% or your tax bracket.",
"\"Ditto to MD-Tech, but from a more \"\"philosophical\"\" point of view: When you buy stock, you own it, just like you own a cell phone or a toaster or a pair of socks that you bought. The difference is that a share of stock means that you own a piece of a corporation. You can't physically take possession of it and put it in your garage, because if all the stock-holders did that, then all the company's assets would be scattered around all the stock-holder's garages and the company couldn't function. Like if you bought a 1/11 share in a football team, you couldn't take one of the football players home and keep him in your closet, because then the team wouldn't be able to function. (I might want to take one of the cheerleaders home, but that's another subject ...) In pre-electronic times, you could get a piece of paper that said, \"\"XYZ Corporation - 1 share\"\". You could take physical possession of this piece of paper and put it in your filing cabinet. I'm not sure if you can even get such certificates any more; I haven't seen one in decades. These days it's just recorded electronically. That doesn't mean that you don't own it. It just means that someone else is keeping the records for you. It's like leaving your car in a parking lot. It's still your car. The people who run the parking lot doesn't own it. They are keeping it for you, but just because they have physical possession doesn't make it theirs.\"",
"Don't sit on it, because the money does not work for you. Add more money to it and buy a stock or stocks of the company.",
"When I invest in a business valued at $50,000, I pay $25,000 and receive 50% equity. Does that $25,000 go to the current owner of the business, or into the capital of the business itself? Who receives the money depends on who is selling you the equity. There are a couple of different scenarios that can fit your question. You could buy existing shares from the current owner(s) of the company. In this case, the current owner(s) would be receiving the funds from you, and in return giving you their stake in the company. So if you all agree that the value of the business is $50,000, and you give $25,000 to the current owner(s), they give you half of their shares. The value of the company has not changed. The company could be issuing new shares. This is called stock dilution, or an increase in authorized share capital. Let's say that everyone agrees that the value of the business is $50,000. The company could create new shares and sell them to you for $25,000. In this case, the value of the company has jumped to $75,000; you now control one-third of the company, and the existing owner(s), who previously owned 100% of the company, now only own two-thirds. In order for you to end up with 50% of the company in this case, you would have to invest $50,000 instead, which would result in the company being valued at $100,000. If you are wondering why the current owners would agree to this second scenario, there are two questions that address this:",
"\"It's not a ponzi scheme, and it does create value. I think you are confusing \"\"creating value\"\" and \"\"producing something\"\". The stock market does create value, but not in the same way as Toyota creates value by making a car. The stock market does not produce anything. The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public. & The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. Earnings are the in-flow that you are missing here. Business profits DO flow back into the stock market through earnings and dividends. Think about a private company: if it has $100,000 in profits for the year then the company keeps $100,000, but if that same company is publicly traded with 100,000 shares outstanding then, all else being equal, each of those shares went up by $1. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. You can't go to an Apple store and try to pay with a stock certificate, but that doesn't mean the certificate doesn't have value. Using your agriculture example, you wouldn't be able to pay with a basket of tomatoes either. You wouldn't even be able to pay with a lump of gold! We used to do that. It was called the barter system. Companies also do buy shares back from the market using company cash. Although they usually do it through clearing-houses that are capable of moving blocks of 1,000 shares at a time.\"",
"First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.",
"If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.",
"You buy stocks for dividends over the long term. If a share of stock pays $1.00 in dividends every quarter, that's four dollars a year. If you bought it for $40, it pays out $4 in a year, and it's still worth roughly $40 at the end of the year, you're $4 richer. People will often invest large amounts of money in stable stocks not planning to sell it, but only collect the dividends which are either re-invested or pulled out as income.",
"When you buy a stock, you become a partial owner of the company that the stock is for. As the company is valued at a higher or lower amount, the stock will reflect that by gaining or losing value. You still own that stock. For example, if you bought a stock for $10 per share and next week it is worth $8 dollars per share, the only loss incurred is on paper. You do not have to pay the difference (which I think is what you are asking?) and will only physically lose that money if you sell at that point. Similarly if that stock becomes worth $12, you have only gained money on paper and can only physically see it if you sell at that point.",
"It depends. If the investor bought newly-issued shares or treasury shares, the company gets the money. If the investor bought shares already held by the owner, the owner gets the money. A 100% owner can decide how to structure the sale. Yet, the investor may only be willing to buy shares if the funds increase the company's working capital.",
"Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.",
"The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet.",
"Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started.",
"\"There is a legal document called a \"\"Stock Purchase Agreement\"\" and it depends on who is the other party to the buyer in the Agreement. In almost all startups the sale goes through the company, so the company keeps the money. In your example, the company would be worth $10,000 \"\"Post-Money\"\" because the $1k got 10% of the Company.\"",
"\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \"\"X\"\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\"",
"Anytime you invest in stocks, you do that inside an investment account - such as the type you might open at ETrade, Vanguard, Fidelity or Charles Schwab. Once you have the account and fund it, you can tell the system to invest some/all of your money in When you open your investment account, their first question will be whether this is a cash account, traditional IRA, or Roth IRA. The broker must report this to the IRS because the tax treatment is very different.",
"\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.",
"This is a very good question! The biggest difference is that when you put money in a savings bank you are a lender that is protected by the government, and when you buy stocks you become an owner. As a lender, whether the bank makes or loses money on the loans it makes, they still maintain your balance and pay you interest, and your principal balance is guaranteed by the government (in the USA). The bank is the party that is primarily at risk if their business does not perform well. As an owner, you participate fully in the company's gains and losses, but you also put your money at risk, since if the company loses money, you do too. Because of this, many people prefer to buy funds made up of many stocks, so they are not at risk of one company performing very poorly or going bankrupt. When you buy stock you become a part owner and share in the profitability of the company, often through a dividend. You should also be aware that stocks often have years where they do very poorly as well as years when they do very well. However, over a long period of time (10 years or more), they have historically done better in outpacing inflation than any other type of investment. For this reason, I would recommend that you only invest in the stock market if you expect to be able to leave the money there for 10 years or more, ideally, and for 5 years at the very least. Otherwise, you may need to take the money out at a bad time. I would also recommend that you only invest in stocks if you already have an emergency fund, and don't have consumer debt. There isn't much point in putting your money at risk to get a return if you can get a risk-free return by paying off debt, or if you would have to pull your money back out if your car broke down or you lost your job.",
"how do they turn shares into cash that they can then use to grow their business? Once a Company issues an IPO or Follow-On Public Offer, the company gets the Money. Going over the list of question tagged IPO would help you with basics. Specifically the below questions; How does a company get money by going public in an IPO? Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market? Why would a stock opening price differ from the offering price? From what I've read so far, it seems that pre-IPO an investment bank essentially buys the companies public shares, and that bank then sells them on the open market. Is the investment bank buying 100% of the newly issued public shares? And then depositing the cash equivalent into the companies bank account? Additionally, as the stock price rises and falls over the lifetime of the company how does that actually impact the companies bank balance? Quite a bit on above is incorrect. Please read the answers to the question tagged IPO. Once an IPO is over, the company does not gain anything directly from the change in shareprice. There is indirect gain / loss.",
"For some very small private companies I know of (and am part of), paper stocks do exist. You can sit at the table with the damn things in your hand and wave them in people's faces. They tell everyone how much of the company you own as a result of the money you ponied up. On the other hand, most stocks are now electronic. Nothing to hold. Just electronic records to review. They still represent how much you own of the company because of some amount of money you have put at risk, but they aren't anywhere near as much fun as the old-fasioned paper proofs. (As MrChrister notes, you can pay a small fee to get paper if you like, even for some big companies. Some of these paper stocks are remarkably elaborate and fine looking, but hardly necessary.) (You can see more info about what stocks are and what sort of stocks exist here: http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/What_is_a_stock%3F)",
"For point two.. The norm for buying stock is to just register online with a major broker: Fidelity, Schwab,TD Ameritrade...etc, send them money to fund your purchase, make the stock purchase in your account, and then have a little faith. You could probably get them to physically transfer the stock certificates from them to you, but it is not the norm at all. I would plan on a fee being involved also. The 10$ is for one trade... regardless of if you buy one share or many. So you wouldn't buy 1 share of a five dollar stock as your cost would be absurd. You might buy a hundred shares.",
"\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \"\"holding\"\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\"",
"What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.",
"\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"",
"There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.",
"\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"",
"\"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \"\"market makers\"\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\"",
"A purchase of a stock is not a taxable event. No 1099 to worry about. Welcome to Money.SE",
"People buy stocks with the intention of making money. They either expect the price to continue to rise or that they will get dividends and the price will not drop (enough) to wipe out their dividend earnings.",
"If I invest X each month, where does X go - an existing (low yield) bond, or a new bond (at the current interest rate)? This has to be viewed in a larger context. If the fund has outflows greater than or equal to inflows then chances are there isn't any buying being done with your money as that cash is going to those selling their shares in the fund. If though inflows are greater than outflows, there may be some new purchases or not. Don't forget that the new purchase could be an existing bond as the fund has to maintain the duration of being a short-term, intermediate-term or long-term bond fund though there are some exceptions like convertibles or high yield where duration isn't likely a factor. Does that just depend on what the fund manager is doing at the time (buying/selling)? No, it depends on the shares being created or redeemed as well as the manager's discretion. If I put Y into a fund, and leave it there for 50 years, where does Y go when all of the bonds at the time I made the purchase mature? You're missing that the fund may buy and sell bonds at various times as for example a long-term bond fund may not have issues nearing maturity because of what part of the yield curve it is to mimic. Does Y just get reinvested in new bonds at the interest rate at that time? Y gets mixed with the other money in the fund that may increase or decrease in value over time. This is part of the risk in a bond fund where NAV can fluctuate versus a money market mutual fund where the NAV is somewhat fixed at $1/share.",
"This depends on what your definition of the word is is. Strictly speaking, you are only investing in a company when you buy stock from them somehow. This is usually done during an IPO or a secondary offering. Or, if you are someone like Warren Buffet or an institutional investor, you strike a deal with the company to buy shares directly from them. Otherwise, your money goes to someone else. Merriam-Webster defines speculate as 1b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively However, it also defines it as: 2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations The typical use of the term stock speculation vs stock investing involves definition 1b. This alludes to the idea that little to no research was done about the stock. This may be due to a lack of time, interest, knowledge, etc., or it may be due to a lack of information. The former usually has a negative connotation. The latter may have a negative connotation, though usually the connotation is one of greater risk. Strictly speaking, definition 2 includes investing as you define it along with investing in securities/commodities.",
"I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc.. 1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently.",
"I see a false assumption that you are making. (Almost always) When you buy stock the cash you spend does not go to the company. Instead it goes to someone else who is selling their shares. The exception to this is when you buy shares in an IPO. Those of us who have saved all our lives for retirement want income producing investments once we retire. (Hopefully) We have saved up quite a bit of money. To have us purchase their stock companies have to offer us dividends.",
"\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \"\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\"\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\"",
"No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.",
"Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Sometimes. If the market goes down, and someone sells -- on a panic, perhaps, or nervousness -- at a loss, if you have extra cash then you can buy that stock on the hope/expectation that its value will rise.",
"As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm. My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later.",
"That is a loaded question but I'll give it a shot. First things first you need to determine if you are ready to invest in stocks. If you have a lot of high interest debt you would be much better served paying that off before investing in stocks. Stocks return around 8%-10% in the long run, so you'd be better off paying off any debt you have that is higher than 8%-10%. Most people get their start investing in stocks through mutual funds in their 401k or a Roth IRA. If you want to invest in individual stocks instead of mutual funds then you will need to do a lot of reading and learning. You will need a brokerage account or if you have a stock in mind they might have a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP) that you could invest in directly with the company. You will have to compare the different brokerage firms to determine which is best for you. Since you seem to be internet savvy, I suggest you use a discount brokerage that let's you buy stocks online with cheaper commissions. A good rule of thumb is to keep commissions below 1% of the amount invested. Once you have your online brokerage account open with money in there the process of actually buying the stock is fairly straightforward. Just place an order for the amount of shares you want. That order can be a market order which means the purchase will occur at the current market price. Or you can use a limit order where you control at what price your purchase will occur. There are lots of good books out there for beginners. Personally I learned from the Motley Fool. And last but not least is to have fun with it. Learn as much as you can and welcome to the club.",
"In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker. This is called a margin account. The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan. If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information.",
"New to investing... when I buy/sell a stock can I buy/sell at the exact market price whenever I'd like or is there more to it? Does there need to be a demand for when I'm trying to sell or am I just forcing the company to buy back my shares? Sorry if confusing/rookie question",
"stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.",
"You can make money via stocks in two primary ways: Note that there's no guarantee of either. So it may very well not make you money.",
"\"The answer to your question is \"\"no\"\". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account. If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days. Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker. Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership. Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house.\"",
"\"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \"\"cost basis\"\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\"",
"\"I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A \"\"broker\"\" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are \"\"mortgage broker\"\" (for arranging home loans) and \"\"stockbroker\"\". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later.\"",
"\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"",
"A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.",
"\"Not a bond holder, but when we get dividends we usually just buy up a benchmark index tracking ETF unless/until we're ready to rebalance our portfolio. Most of the trades in the day are earmarked with the reason \"\"spending cash\"\". I'd assume it's similar for bond holders and coupons.\"",
"When you own stock in a company, you do literally own part of the business, even if it's a small portion. Anyone amassing over 50% of shares really does have a controlling interest. No, you can't trade a handful of AAPL shares back to Apple for an iPod, but you can sell the shares and then go buy an iPod with the proceeds. Stock prices change over time because the underlying companies are worth more or less and people are willing to pay more or less for those shares. There is no Ponzi scheme because each share you own can be bought or sold on the open market. Dividends come from the company profits, not from other investors. On the other hand, money only has value because everyone believes it has value. There's the real conspiracy.",
"Day traders see a dip, buy stocks, then sell them 4 mins later when the value climbed to a small peak. What value is created? Is the company better off from that trade? The stocks were already outside of company hands, so the trade doesn't affect them at all. You've just received money from others for no contribution to society. A common scenario is a younger business having a great idea but not enough capital funds to actually get the business going. So, investors buy shares which they can sell later on at a higher value. The investor gets value from the shares increasing over time, but the business also gets value of receiving money to build the business.",
"A Company start with say $100. Lets say the max it can borrow from bank is $100 @ $10 a year as Interest. After a years say, On the $200 the company made a profit of $110. So it now has total $310 Option 1: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It further gave away the $100 back to shareholders as dividends. The Balance with company $100. It can again start the second year, borrow from Bank $100 @ 10 interest and restart. Option 2: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It now has $200. It can now borrow $200 from Bank @ $20. After a year it makes a profit of $250. [Economics of scale result $30 more] Quite a few companies in growth phase use Option 2 as they can grow faster, achieve economies of scale, keep competition at bay, etc Now if I had a share of this company say 1 @ $1, by end of first year its value would be $2, at the end of year 2 it would be $3.3. Now there is someone else who wants to buy this share at end of year 1. I would say this share gives me 100% returns every year, so I will not sell at $2. Give me $3 at the end of first year. The buyer would think well, if I buy this at $3, first year I would notionally get $.3 and from then on $1 every year. Not bad. This is still better than other stocks and better than Bank CD etc ... So as long as the company is doing well and expected to do well in future its price keeps on increasing as there is someone who want to buy. Why would someone want to sell and not hold one: 1. Needs cash for buying house or other purposes, close to retirement etc 2. Is balancing the portfolio to make is less risk based 3. Quite a few similar reasons Why would someone feel its right to buy: 1. Has cash and is young is open to small risk 2. Believes the value will still go up further 3. Quite a few similar reasons",
"Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).",
"Suppose I purchase $10,000 worth of a particular share today. If the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $9,000 for those shares, then I replacing their $9,000 investment with my $10,000 investment. This is a net inflow of $1,000 into the market. Similarly, if the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $11,000 for those shares, then their $11,000 investment is being replace by my $10,000 investment. This is a net outflow of $1,000 out of the market. The aggregate of all such inflows and outflows in the net inflow/outflow into the market over a given period of time. (Here we are ignoring the effects of new share issues.)",
"quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.",
"\"Seems like no one in this thread has heard of \"\"treasury stocks\"\", which indeed allow a company to own and sell its own stock. Think about it. When there is a stock buy-back funded by excess profits, where does that stock go?\"",
"Would you mind adding where that additional value comes from, if not from the losses of other investors? You asked this in a comment, but it seems to be the key to the confusion. Corporations generate money (profits, paid as dividends) from sales. Sales trade products for money. The creation of the product creates value. A car is worth more than General Motors pays for its components and inputs, even including labor and overhead as inputs. That's what profit is: added value. The dividend is the return that the stock owner gets for owning the stock. This can be a bit confusing in the sense that some stocks don't pay dividends. The theory is that the stock price is still based on the future dividends (or the liquidation price, which you could also consider a type of dividend). But the current price is mostly based on the likelihood that the stock price will increase rather than any expected dividends during ownership of the stock. A comment calls out the example of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway is a weird case. It operates more like a mutual fund than a company. As such, investors prefer that it reinvest its money rather than pay a dividend. If investors want money from it, they sell shares to other investors. But that still isn't really a zero sum game, as the stock increases in value over time. There are other stocks that don't pay dividends. For example, Digital Equipment Corporation went through its entire existence without ever paying a dividend. It merged with Compaq, paying investors for owning the stock. Overall, you can see this in that the stock market goes up on average. It might have a few losing years, but pick a long enough time frame, and the market will increase during it. If you sell a stock today, it's because you value the money more than the stock. If it goes up tomorrow, that's the buyer's good luck. If it goes down, the buyer's bad luck. But it shouldn't matter to you. You wanted money for something. You received the money. The increase in the stock market overall is an increase in value. It is completely unrelated to trading losses. Over time, trading gains outweigh trading losses for investors as a group. Individual investors may depart from that, but the overall gain is added value. If the only way to make gains in the stock market was for someone else to take a loss, then the stock market wouldn't be able to go up. To view it as a zero sum game, we have to ignore the stocks themselves. Then each transaction is a payment (loss) for one party and a receipt (gain) for the other. But the stocks themselves do have value other than what we pay for them. The net present value of of future payments (dividends, buyouts, etc.) has an intrinsic worth. It's a risky worth. Some stocks will turn out to be worthless, but on average the gains outweigh the losses.",
"\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\"",
"I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.",
"Where can publicly traded profits go but to shareholders via dividends? They can be retained by the company.",
"A company CAN hold on to money. This is called retained earnings. Not all money is due back to the owners (i.e. stockholders), but only the amount that the board of directors chooses to pay back in the form of dividends. There is a lot more detail around this, but this is the simple answer to your question.",
"In theory you can buy shares directly from someone else who owns them. In practise, if the stock is listed on an exchange, they are unlikely to own them directly, they are likely to own them through an intermediary. You will have to pay fees to that intermediary to transfer the shares to your name. There are thousands of small companies owned by the guy who started it and a few other investors. You can buy stock in that kind of company directly from the existing owners, as long as they are willing to sell you some. It's a super-high risk investment strategy, though. This is the kind of deal that happens on Dragons Den.",
"The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.",
"\"Yes! What you are describing is an \"\"off-exchange\"\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\"",
"There are two ways that an asset can generate value. One is that the asset generates some revenue (e.g. you buy a house for $100,000 and rent it out for $1,000 per month) and the second way is that the asset appreciates (e.g you buy a house for $100,000, you don't rent it out and 5 years later you sell it for $200,000). Stocks are the same.",
"I'd like to add that many companies offer Divident Re-Investment Plans or DRIPs, which is basically a regular automatic stock purchase program. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_reinvestment_plan. While your stock broker may offer dividend reinvestment, this is not the same as a DRIP. DRIPs are offered directly by the company, rather than the stock broker. They have the added benefits that the stock purchases are almost always commission-free, and in some cases, the company even offers a discount on the stock price. It can take a little more effort to get enrolled in a DRIP, but if you are interested in holding the stock long-term, this is a good option to consider.",
"Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.",
"At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders. Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread. As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00. If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation. A number of buyers cancel their orders. Now the highest buy order is $7. There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7. That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000. Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share). Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock. Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1. Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money. Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE.",
"\"The way to invest money in a company is to buy its shares, or derivatives of its shares. However, it seems you're way in over your head. Don't buy what you don't understand. There is plenty of material to teach you about stock investing on the internet. However, a book may be the fastest way to learn what you need to know. And yes, there is a \"\"for dummies\"\" book about that: Stock Investing ForDummies. I just found it by Googling, I'm sure you can find even more interesting books out there. (Note, the link is to the \"\"cheat sheet\"\" in the back of the book. The full book is worth reading.)\"",
"\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,[email protected]), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"",
"\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"",
"\"Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting. The \"\"worth\"\" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers.\"",
"I'd look into ShareBuilder. You can buy stocks for as low as $2 each, and there is no minimum funding level. You have to be carefull about selling though, as they will charge you $10 each time you want to sell a stock, regardless of how much of it you want to sell.",
"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.",
"Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction.",
"Your autograph analogy seems relevant to me. But it is not just speculation. In the long run, investing in stocks is like investing in the economy. In the long run, the economy is expected to grow , hence stock prices are expected to go up. Now in theory: the price of any financial instrument is equal to the net present value today of all the future cash flows from the instrument. So if company's earnings improve, shareholders hope that the earnings will trickle down to them either in form of dividends or in form of capital gain. So they buy the stock, creating demand for it. I can try to explain more if this did not make any sense. :)",
"There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck.",
"Buy a share - not a penny stock; rather a well known company like Coca-Cola, Kelloggs, Exxon, etc. Follow the company. Understand their business model. See the share price fall and rise. You will learn a lot having your own money at risk.",
"You can purchase stock immediately in the open market on the day of the IPO when market opens. Below link gives you more information. http://finance.zacks.com/buy-ipo-stock-3903.html",
"Unless you are buying millions of dollars worth of a stock at a time, your transaction is a drop in the bucket, unlikely to have any noticable effect on the stock price. As Ian says, it's more likely that you are just remembering the times when the price dropped after you bought. If you keep careful track, I suspect you will find that the price goes up more often than it goes down, or at least, that the stocks you buy go up as often as the average stock on the market goes up. If you actually kept records and found that's not true, the most likely explanation is bad luck. Or that someone has placed a voodoo curse on you. I suppose one could imagine other scenarios. Like, if you regularly buy stock based on recommendations by well-known market pundits, you could expect to see a temporary increase in price as thousands or millions of people who hear this recommendation rush to buy, and then a few days or weeks later people move on to the next recommendation, the market setttles down, and the price reverts to a more normal level. In that case, if you're on the tail end of the buying rush, you could end up paying a premium. I'm just speculating here, I haven't done a study to find if this actually happens, but it sounds plausible to me.",
"\"Look at the link to the SIPC. I don't know exactly what you mean by \"\"runs out of funds,\"\" but the SIPC will replace shares of stock stolen from your account, and up to $100,000 in cash. The real risk is when a shady brokers sells you shares in a stock that becomes worthless, that's when \"\"buyer beware\"\" kicks in. No help there.\"",
"Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments.",
"The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares.",
"\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"",
"Where does the money go Who wins the billions Ever heard of The Wolf of Wall Street , theres where the money goes . In short ,bankers, traders who are paid millions to take make leverage bets using the banks money regardless of whether they do well . If they screw up and lose millions , they get paid to leave ( compensation package ) . If they do well , they get bonus.",
"In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.",
"\"You are correct that, barring an equity capital raise, your money doesn't actually end up in the company. However, interest in their stock can help a company in other ways; Management/board members hopefully own shares or options themselves, thus knowing that \"\"green\"\" policies are favorable for the stock price (as your fund might buy shares) can be quite an incentive for them to go green(er). Companies with above average company share performance are also often viewed as financially healthy and so creditors tend to charge lower interest for companies with good share performance. Lastly, a high share price makes a company difficult to take over (as all those shares have to be acquired) and at the same time makes it easier for the company to perform takeovers themselves as they can finance such acquisitions by issuing more of their own shares. There is also the implication that money flowing towards such green companies is money flowing out of/away from polluting companies, for these \"\"dirty\"\" companies the inverse of the previous points can hold true. Of course on the other hand there is quite an argument to be made that large enough \"\"green\"\" funds should actually buy substantial positions in companies with poor environmental records and steer the company towards greener policies but that might be a hard sell to investors.\"",
"Open Google finance and divide the Market Capitalization by the total price. That will give you the total number of shares outstanding. Now see the number of shares you could buy for $1000(40 shares of $25 each or 10 shares of 100 shares each). Now divide the number of shares you own, by the number of shares outstanding in the company and multiply it by 100(i.e (Shares you own/shares Outstanding) * 100). That will give you the percentage or stake of the company you own(With $1000, don't expect it to be a very large number). Now ask your self the question, Is it worth it if I can buy x % of this company for $1000? If the answer is yes, go ahead and buy it. To answer your question in short, NO! it does not matter whether you buy 10 shares for $100 or 40 shares for $25. Cheers",
"You realize that most of the money raised through the IPO process doesn't go into the company's bank account? Those shares were shares that were held by the investors and original owners and it's those prior pre-IPO shareholders that got their money back along with a tidy profit. The cash on its books was there before the IPO, and after. The IPO process was more about a change in stock owners ship than anything else. Edit - as the SEC disclosure mentioned in comments below states, the Facebook IPO raised $6.7B for facebook's use, the rest of the transaction was from the investors selling their shares. Mark Zuckerberg still owns more than 55% of shares outstanding. The $6.7B is still about 10% of the company value. Nothing to ignore, but clearly, 'most' of the money from the IPO didn't go to the company.",
"Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.",
"When stocks have a change in price it is because of a TRADE. To have a trade you have to have both a buyer and a seller. When the price of a security is going up there are an equal amount of shares being sold as being bought. When the price of a security is going down there are an equal amount of shares being bought as being sold. There almost always is an unequal amount of shares waiting to be sold compared to the amount waiting to be bought. But waiting shares do not move the price, only when the purchase price and the sale price agree, and a trade occurs, does the price move. So the price does not go down because more shares are being sold. Neither does the price go up because more shares are being bought."
] |
[
"\"When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the \"\"market maker\"\" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for \"\"retail\"\" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know.\"",
"The money goes to the seller. There are a lot of behind the scenes things that happen, and some transactions are very complicated with many parties involved (evidenced by all the comments on @keshlam's perfectly reasonable high-level answer), but ultimately the money goes to the seller. Sometimes the seller is the company. The billions of shares that change hands each day are moving between other individuals like you and investment funds; these transactions have no direct impact on the company's financials, in general."
] |
3103
|
AVS Address Verification System of BOTH Credit and Debit Cards - WHERE, HOW?
|
[
"176596"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"176596",
"229937",
"246989",
"26996",
"13800",
"278667",
"280699",
"446255",
"283889",
"428689",
"409822",
"422225",
"219990",
"277964",
"5607",
"350237",
"492578",
"147637",
"196233",
"50347",
"138645",
"95257",
"332422",
"507428",
"264809",
"329028",
"521688",
"158008",
"241866",
"589773",
"325904",
"294128",
"301361",
"149032",
"18832",
"298729",
"308307",
"3243",
"488379",
"86532",
"294899",
"63366",
"86752",
"498140",
"158965",
"513477",
"159460",
"456679",
"442435",
"167202",
"7766",
"361917",
"349554",
"448639",
"213370",
"325713",
"323310",
"144580",
"456887",
"72854",
"168283",
"532077",
"448769",
"210855",
"165995",
"115890",
"20670",
"362643",
"204825",
"481648",
"123601",
"597933",
"367730",
"78086",
"39720",
"379732",
"558611",
"203475",
"152039",
"208169",
"259194",
"153220",
"494689",
"428973",
"139518",
"434320",
"160535",
"162870",
"491793",
"399382",
"233781",
"141579",
"283698",
"262524",
"39772",
"542783",
"414932",
"444104",
"448086",
"304100"
] |
[
"\"Parts of what you want are possible, but taken as a whole, you're out of luck. First of all, there is no master database of every cardholder in the country. The only way to check if information is correct is to ask the issuing bank. The AVS system is a way to automate doing so, but it's possible to call the bank directly and verbally verify the address. That means you're subject to the whims of what the issuing bank chooses to support. Banks that are part of the Visa and MasterCard networks generally only verify the numeric parts (address, apartment number, zipcode). AmEx can also verify the cardholder name. But if the bank doesn't have support for validating something, you can't validate it. Separately, there is a \"\"verify-only\"\" transaction which some processors support, which will do exactly what you want: Return AVS values without ever charging the card. However, processors require you to have the \"\"approved merchant account\"\" you don't want to have to have. Without being a merchant, you shouldn't have access to other people's credit cards anyway. Would you really want anyone in the country to be able to verify anyone else's address whenever they want? In short, whatever purpose you have for wanting this probably falls into one of three categories:\"",
"\"Zip code, as well as billing address, is used in conjunction with the Address Verification Service (AVS). AVS is a web (or phone) service that actually verifies the address with the billing address on file with the issuing bank. It does not use the credit card stripe. You can see more information from various sources such as bank merchant help pages like Bank of America's. As far as what is stored on the stripe, it varies some by bank (as there are some \"\"optional\"\" areas). The standards are discussed here. Fields include your account number, name, the expiration date, some card-specific stuff, and then the discretionary section. I would not expect much in terms of address type information there. So - the answer to your question is that they can't really take much more than your name and CC #, unless you give it to them. If you give a false zip code, you may have your purchase rejected. They certainly do keep track of the credit card number, and I would suppose that is the most valuable piece to them; they can see you make purchases across time and know for a fact that it's the same exact person (since it's the same card). Additionally, zip codes for AVS from pay-at-the-pump are supposedly not generally used for marketing (see this article for example). That is probably not true at at-the-register (in-person) collections, most of those aren't for AVS anyway. Even California permits the pay-at-the-pump zip verification as long as it's only used for that (same article). I would assume any information given, though, is collected for marketing purposes.\"",
"\"As others have stated, credit (signature required) is processed through their respective networks (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, or American Express). A \"\"debit\"\" card tied to your checking account, still go through the same credit network even though the funds are guaranteed from your checking rather than a free loan 30-60 days which has the potential to be unpaid. This type of debit card purchase may be eligible for a lower processing rate for less risk. Debit cards can also be processed through the debit network (PIN required, no signature). This is typically a straight fee such as $0.35. Fees vary, but let me give you a simple comparison: Say you are at the supermarket and buy $50 worth of groceries with a debit card with Visa logo. You are asked \"\"credit\"\" or \"\"debit\"\": At my supermarket, this is why I am given the option to enter my PIN first. If I want to pay by credit, I have to tap Cancel to process via credit signature.\"",
"Security in the merchant services system is mainly handled in two ways: 1) Before transactions are done, the business itself must go through an application process similar (but not identical) to getting a loan. Some high risk businesses must pay higher fees due to the increased likelihood of customer complaints. 2) When a customer disputes a transaction, that's a mark against the business. Get too many of these disputes, and your priviledge of accepting credit cards will be revoked, meaning you won't be able to again. It's in the merchant's best interest to verify customer's identity, because disputes cost them money directly. It's in the servicer's best interest to verify the businesses integrity, because fraud drives up the cost for everyone else. As a whole, it's quite a reactionary system, yet in practice it works remarkably well.",
"POS stands for Point of Sale (like a specific store location) which indicates that the purchase occurred by using your debit card, but it can also be the on-line transaction done via 3-D Secure. Checking with bank, they said that Kirchstrasse transaction could be related to direct marketing subscription service ordered on-line. Investigating further what I've found these kind of transactions are performed by 2BuySafe company registered at Kirchstrasse in Liechtenstein with went through the MultiCards on-line cashier which can be used for paying different variety of services (e.g. in this case it was polish on-line storage service called Chomikuj). These kind of transactions can be tracked by checking the e-mail (e.g. in gmail by the following query: after:2014/09/02 before:2014/09/02 Order). Remember, that if you still don't recognise your transaction, you should call your bank. I have found also some other people concerns about that kind of transactions who ask: Is 2BuySafe.com and www.multicards.com some sort of Scam? Provided answer says: MultiCards Internet Billing is a provider of online credit card and debit card processing and payment solutions to many retailers worldwide. MultiCards was one of the pioneer companies offering this type of service since 1995 and is a PCI / DSS certified Internet Payment Service Provider (IPSP) providing service to hundreds of retail websites worldwide MultiCards is a registered Internet Payment Service Provider and has implemented various fraud protection tools including, but not limited to, MultiCards Fraud Score Tool and 'Verified by Visa' and 'MasterCard SecureCode' to protect card holder's card details. 2BuySafe.com Is also Secured and Verified By GeoTrust The certificate should be trusted by all major web browsers (all the correct intermediate certificates are installed). The certificate was issued by GeoTrust. Entering Incorrect information can lead to a card being rejected as @ TOS 2BuySafe.com is hosted on the Multicards Server site",
"There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.",
"They represent two distict payment processing mechanisms that just happen to be available on one product. Rather like having dvi and hdmi on you laptop. Your account number and sort code relates to the bank account. Your long number, expiry and ccv relate to the card. It is perfectly possible and not uncommon to have two different cards on the same account, which would have their own card numbers etc. The BACS, CHAPS, DirectDebit and FasterPayments systems use the account numbers. These transactions are practically irreversible and work through the interbank transfer system and should be considered 'direct money transfers' - electronic cash. The long digits are used by Mastercard, Visa, AmEx etc and go through their own payment systems. These payments are 'indirect' and may or may not be reversible as the private payment network (visa etc) has some accountability. They work like electronic cheques. This is why debit card transactions can cause you to go overdrawn - you are writing a promise to pay from an account. It is up to the bank to block the card if you have no money, vs a CHAPS payment that checks the money is there before moving it. It is easier (but still hard) to recover money lost through Visa fraud than BACS. Credit cards have only the long number etc. While savings accounts (non-checking accounts) have only account numbers. Depending on where you are different laws will likely cover debit card vs money transfer payments. In the UK Direct debit guarantee is the most common protection on the BACS system, while standing orders and faster payments give you little legal power. Debit cards will give you some protection because the payment system stands between you and the bank account, so if you didn't make the transaction you should be able to reclaim the money ('card not present fraud'). If you did make the transaction but the vendor failed to supply or goods were faulty then a Chargeback system exists where you may also be able to reclaim. A bank transfer you make is irrecoverable and refund can only be claimed through court for faulty goods.",
"\"Yes and No. There's always a \"\"fee\"\". The difference in credit vs debit usually determines how much that fee is and how it's paid. Each vendor who accepts the major credit card is under contract to pay for equipment and meet certain standards. The same is true for debt card transactions. How much the \"\"fee\"\" is can vary based on the contract the vendor has with MasterCard/Visa/AMEX. But in general most debt transactions go back to the bank who distributed the card.\"",
"\"From my days in e-commerce they break down like this? The company doesn't know a debit from a credit card. Got the Visa logo, then it is a Visa through the company's payment gateway. The gateway talks to the bank and that is where the particulars for money is figured out. When I programmed gateway interfaces, I had the option to \"\"authorize\"\" or check for funds (which didn't reserve anything, just verified funds existed), run for batch (which put a hold on the funds and collected them at the end of the night) or just take the money. Most places did a verify during the early checkout stages and then did a batch at the end of the night. The nightly batch allows a merchant to cancel a transaction without getting charged a fee. The \"\"authorize\"\" doesn't mean the money is tied up, although that might be your banks policy. Furthermore, an authorize can only last for so many days. This also explains why most of your banks don't report your transactions to you the day of. There is a bunch more activity on your card than the transactions that complete.\"",
"Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.",
"If you call them, you can make sure they'll use the new address, but if you want to do it online, there is some risk that the update is delayed. Note also that an address change with an immediate request for a replacement debit card smells very fishy - this what a hacker / thief would do to get your money. Calling seems to be the better approach, as you can verify your identity further. Otherwise, you might well run into an automated block.",
"\"Actually in Finland on some bank + debit/credit card + online retailer combinations you type in your card details as you normally do, but after clicking \"\"Buy\"\" you get directed to your own bank's website which asks you to authenticate yourself with online banking credentials. It also displays the amount of money and to which account it is being paid to. After authentication you get directed back to the retailer's website. Cannot say why banks in US haven't implemented this.\"",
"CC always (applies only if you pay your balance in full). First you rack up points on your card, second if there is an unauthorized pull a Cc will help you a bank may or may not. As a general advice don't hand out your banking information like a credit card number. Now paying bills through the bank is a different matter. This advice applies to companies that would like to pull money from bank accounts. Never do that if Cc is an alternative.",
"Like email and spam, fighting creditcard fraud is a cat and mouse game, with technology and processes constantly being developed to reduce fraud. The CVV on the back of the card is just one more layer of security. Requiring the CVV generally requires you to physically have access to the card. CVV should not be stored by any merchant. This frustrates card skimming fraud as the CVV is not present in the track data and fraud caused by database compromises. You should never use your PIN online. MC/VISA both have implementations of 3D-Secure (SecureCode for MC and Verified by VISA) which require a password / code to confirm card ownership. Depends on both Issuer and Merchant implementing the standard. Regarding not needing a PIN at the airport, some low value transactions no longer need PINs, depending on the Issuer and Scheme (VISA/MC). MasterCard PayPass or VISA PayWave enable low value contactless transactions without PIN. In Australia, the maximum value for a contactless transactions is $100 AUD. At some merchants (McDonalds for example) a PIN is not required for for meals purchased with VISA (at least, for the cheeseburger I bought there as a test). This makes sense - if you don't need a PIN for a contactless purchase, why do you need it for a chip based purchase? So - why allow PIN free transactions? On average customers report stolen credit cards / wallet very quickly and the losses are correspondingly small. As card issuers are always online, cards can be cancelled very quickly after being reported lost / stolen. Finally, by performing transactions for just a few cents or pennies, the merchant (Spotify) can likely validate you are the owner of the card as you'd need access to your online bank to confirm the transactions. PayPal do this with bank account to confirm ownership. (Unless I've misunderstood your statement).",
"\"Here is how the Visa network works: A Visa transaction is a carefully orchestrated process. When a Visa account holder uses a Visa card to buy a pair of shoes, it’s actually the acquirer — the merchant’s bank — that reimburses the merchant for the shoes. Then, the issuer — the account holder’s bank — reimburses the acquirer, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Lastly, the issuer collects from the account holder by withdrawing funds from the account holder’s bank account if a debit account is used, or through billing if a credit account is used. I read this to mean the Merchant's Bank (the Acquirer Bank) gives the merchant the money within 2 days via the Card Issuer's Bank. The issuing bank is the one that provides the \"\"credit\"\" feature since that bank won't get reimbursed until the shopper's bill is paid (or perhaps even longer if the shopper carries a balance). You'll notice the Credit Card company (Visa/MC/etc) is only involved in the process as a way of passing messages. Of course they take a fee for this service so seller ultimately get's less than the buyer bought the shoes for.\"",
"Some businesses verify the shipping address with the credit card company, and refuse to ship to an alternate address without additional, offline verification. Of course, this is only useful for physical goods.",
"So, my questions: Are payment cards provide sufficient security now? Yes. If so, how is that achieved? Depending on your country's laws, of course. In most places (The US and EU, notably), there's a statutory limit on liability for fraudulent charges. For transactions when the card is not present, proving that the charge is not fraudulent is merchants' task. Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? Is it? Try to copy someones credit card info next time you're in the line at the local grocery store. BTW, some of my friends tend to rub off the CVV code from the cards they get immediately after receiving; nevertheless, it could have already been written down by some unfair bank employee. Rubbish.",
"> Verify the signature against what? How old are you I wonder? I am guessing that you're so young you don't know how it used to be done. Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID if the signature on your card is not valid (blank, or says 'SEE I.D.'). This worked for a long time, until retailers started hiring incompetent children who were too lazy to do their jobs properly. I once worked for a retailer who would fire you if they caught you not verifying signatures.",
"The truth is that Visa does not require a merchant to enter the cvv number before authorizing a transaction. The only information that is really needed is the credit card number and expiration date.",
"\"Yes, there is a slight reason to worry as the debit card contains 1) Account Number 2) of course a the Debit Card number 3) CSV code at the back of every debit card and mostly these three parameters are being followed to verify the authenticity of the cardholder, but there are some other parameters like \"\"password of your debit card\"\" and even address in some cases. So stay chill the manager will not be able to make any online payment using the credential of your debit card without password and other details...\"",
"\"These are two different ways of processing payments. They go through different systems many times, and are treated differently by the banks, credit card issuers and the stores. Merchants pay different fees on transactions paid by debit cards and by credit cards. Debit transactions require PIN, and are deducted from your bank account directly. In order to achieve that, the transaction has to reach the bank in real time, otherwise it will be declined. This means, that the merchant has to have a line of communications open to the relevant processor, that in turn has to be able to connect to the bank and get the authorization - all that while on-line. The bank verifies the PIN, authorizes the transaction, and deducts the amount from your account, while you're still at the counter. Many times these transactions cannot be reversed, and the fraud protections and warranties are different from credit transactions. Credit transactions don't have to go to your card issuer at all. The merchant can accept credit payment without calling anyone, and without getting prior authorizations. Even if the merchant sends the transaction for authorization with its processor, if the processor cannot reach the issuing bank - they can still approve the transaction under certain conditions. This is, however, never true with debit cards (even if used as \"\"credit\"\"). They're not deducted from your bank account, but accumulated on your credit card account. They're posted there when the actual transaction reaches the card issuer, which may be many days (and even many months) after the transaction took place. Credit transactions can be reversed (in some cases very easily), and enjoy from a higher level of fraud protection. In some countries (and most, if not all, of the EU) fraudulent credit transactions are never the consumer's problem, always the bank's. Not so with debit transactions. Banks may be encouraging you to use debit for several reasons: Merchants will probably prefer credit because: Consumers will probably be better off with credit because:\"",
"ATM and Debit are not the same thing. ATM is a card that can only be used to withdraw money from the ATMs that belong to that bank (or participate in the same network). In some countries, ATM cards can be used for shopping if the merchant is equipped with an appropriate reader and is participating in an appropriate network. Debit card can be used for purchases in any store showing the appropriate (Visa/MC) logo, and withdraw money at any ATM showing the appropriate (Visa/MC or the ATM network that appears on the card) logo.",
"This doesn't directly pertain to international transactions but may be relevant. I got an American Express gift card over the holidays, and I tried to use it at an online merchant. The card was declined because it failed address verification. I called American Express gift card services (number was on the gift card), and they knew immediately what the problem was and fixed it. They simply took my address and added it as a billing address on the card. I retried the payment and it went through right away. It may be worth calling the gift card company and asking them to simply add your billing address.",
"Merchants are only supposed to verify the presence of a signature, which signifies that the card owner has accepted the terms and conditions of the card / account. It was never really intended to be used to authenticate the card holder, nor is it used as such in practice.",
"It depends on the business. Some ask for ID and check against the signature (rare); some ask for ID but barely glance at it; some check just that it's signed (also rare); some ask for me to input my ZIP code on the card reader (KMart); and some don't do anything (most common). What they do doesn't seem connected to whether I put the card in the reader myself, or hand it to the cashier for them to scan. It does seem silly to check IDs, etc., as there are places such as gas stations where I never even see an employee, and can spend just as much there as at WalMart, KMart, or the grocery store, all places that tend to do more checking.",
"One bank is more willing to risk losses and customer hassle in exchange for lower processing costs than the other bank is. It's strictly a business decision. Regarding how they detect suspicious transactions: Patten detection based on your past usage history. I've gotten calls asking me to confirm that I just placed a large order with a company I'd never bought from before, or in a country that I haven't previously visited, or...",
"In most cases, the brand on the card, eg Visa or MasterCard, is a middleman. The company processes the transaction, transferring $xx from the bank to the seller, and telling the bank to debit the buyer's account. The bank is at risk, not the company transacting the purchase. What's interesting is that American Express started as both. My first Amex card, issued in 1979 (long expired, but in my box of memorabilia) had no bank. American Express offered a card that offered no extended credit, it was pay in full each month. Since then, Amex started offering extended credit, i.e. with annual interest, and minimum payments, and more recently, offering transaction processing for banks which take on the credit risk, essentially becoming very similar to MasterCard and Visa.",
"There generally isn't much in the way of real identity verification, at least in the US and online. The protection you get is that with most credit cards you can report your card stolen (within some amount of time) and the fraudulent charges dropped. The merchant is the one that usually ends up paying for it if it gets charged back so it's usually in the merchant's best interest to do verification. However the cost of doing so (inconvenience to the customer, or if it's an impulse buy, giving them more time to change their mind, etc) is often greater than the occasional fraudulent charge so they usually don't do too much about it unless they're in a business where it's a frequent problem.",
"With change in technology and regulations, quite a few clearing systems provide an ability to directly credit a credit card. In Europe Sepa transactions allow one to credit a credit card. The service would be offered by Local bank rather than Visa or Master Card",
"Verify the signature against what? You are going to have a pad of paper and ask the customer to sign and compare it for every charge? Also, FYI, per the credit card companies, you need just to check if the signature is on the card. They do NOT(!) ask you to compare signatures.",
"In addition to what has been said, gift cards with a credit card logo (which is what I am assuming you mean here) do not have an address associated with them. That means that if you try to use one at a merchant that users address verification (common in online purchases), the transaction will fail. In my experience with an American Express branded gift card, I was able to call the number on the back and they added an address to the card so that it would work. It seemed like this was a common and well known issue. Because the gift card is not associated with any person, no verification is needed to add that address, you can give them any address you want. Also I believe that the card numbers in use for gift cards are specific, that is you could tell that a card is a gift card based on the number alone. That means it is likely possible for a merchant to reject those gift cards while still accepting other cards from that network. This is likely for certain transactions. For example, a hotel or car rental agency requires a credit card for incidentals, and it's likely that the system itself will outright reject a gift card even if it has enough on it for the initial hold. As for debit cards, I think there are far fewer issues with acceptance, other than the aforementioned hold issues described in another answer.",
"\"> Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID ... This worked for a long time, until retailers ... For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. Impractical and not even worth it as anyone can copy a signature on a card. Neither do banks bother to check for signature. They don't even have a \"\"signature on-file\"\" anymore. Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. I guarantee you that! **Please try it! Let me know if it did not work!** I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. The only sure thing is to ask for a PIN. But, alas, credit cards use a chip, so if I steall your card, I can buy with it with no problems. But not if I still your ATM card - I don't know your PIN. The PIN is in your head and I can't get it. The credit card companies don't really care.\"",
"While Rocky's answer is correct in the big picture there is another factor here to keep in mind: The disruption while you're waiting to resolve it. If a fraudster gets your card and drains your account you'll get your money back--but there will be a period while they are investigating that it won't be available. For this reason I avoid debit card transactions and only use credit cards. If the fraudster gets your credit card you might lose access while they investigate but you don't lose access to your bank account.",
"It depends on your bank and your terms of service, but using the card one way or the other may affect things such as how long it takes to process, what buyer protections you have, etc. It also affects the store as I believe they are charged differently for debit vs credit transactions.",
"\"Just to add about using debit card as \"\"credit\"\" vs \"\"debit\"\" way: In addition to the difference of having to enter the PIN when using \"\"debit\"\" mode (vs having to sign in \"\"credit\"\" mode), for stores that offer cash back (i.e. get cash out of your account at the same time as paying), you can only get cash back when using \"\"debit\"\" mode.\"",
"\"I completely agree with @littleadv in favor of using the credit card and dispute resolution process, but I believe there are more important details here related to consumer protection. Since 1968, US citizens are protected from credit card fraud, limiting the out-of-pocket loss to $50 if your card is lost, stolen, or otherwise used without your permission. That means the bank can't make you pay more than $50 if you report unauthorized activity--and, nicely, many credit cards these days go ahead and waive the $50 too, so you might not have to pay anything (other than the necessary time and phone calls). Of course, many banks offer a $50 cap or no fees at all for fraudulent charges--my bank once happily resolved some bad charges for me at no loss to me--but banks are under no obligation to shield debit card customers from fraud. If you read the fine print on your debit card account agreement you may find some vague promises to resolve your dispute, but probably nothing saying you cannot be held liable (the bank is not going to lose money on you if they are unable to reverse the charges!). Now a personal story: I once had my credit card used to buy $3,000 in stereo equipment, at a store I had never heard of in a state I have never visited. The bank notified me of the surprising charges, and I was immediately able to begin the fraud report--but it took months of calls before the case was accepted and the charges reversed. So, yes, there was no money out of my pocket, but I was completely unable to use the credit card, and every month they kept on piling on more finance fees and late-payment charges and such, and I would have to call them again and explain again that the charges were disputed... Finally, after about 8 months in total, they accepted the fraud report and reversed all the charges. Lastly, I want to mention one more important tool for preventing or limiting loss from online purchases: \"\"disposable\"\", one-time-use credit card numbers. At least a few credit card providers (Citibank, Bank of America, Discover) offer you the option, on their websites, to generate a credit card number that charges your account, but under the limits you specify, including a maximum amount and expiration date. With one of these disposable numbers, you can pay for a single purchase and be confident that, even if the number were stolen in-transit or the merchant a fraud, they don't have your actual credit card number, and they can never charge you again. I have not yet seen this option for debit card customers, but there must be some banks that offer it, since it saves them a lot of time and trouble in pursuing defrauders. So, in short: If you pay with a credit card number you will not ever have to pay more than $50 for fraudulent charges. Even better, you may be able to use a disposable/one-time-use credit card number to further limit the chances that your credit is misused. Here's to happy--and safe--consumering!\"",
"Debit is them taking the money, in your case electronically. Credit is somebody vouching for you and saying you will pay later. They are alternate ways to pay for a product. As a merchant, if you take a credit card you are agreeing that a the issuer of the credit card is going to pay you right away. The issuer of the credit will worry about collecting the money from me. There are a ton of details with regards to why you would use one over another, where the costs in each method are and who pays what for each. The main different is the source of the funds.",
"I would presume this goes entirely through the credit card network rather than the banking network. I am guessing that it's essentially the same operation as if you had returned something purchased on a card to the store for credit, but I'm not sure whether it really looks like a vendor credit to the network or if it is marked as a different type of transaction.",
"The thing is that we never asked for these services. The banks and the merchants did. These companies build profiles **against** you to provide your credit info to any creditor who asks. Then they bill you so that they will not hand out your identity to criminals for a period of time. Great fucking system.",
"If the debit card is associated with the account, there is nowhere else it could go. The chance is nil that there is another account with that 16-digit number. So either it goes there, or the transfer fails and it is right back where it came from, though this could take some days. If you don't want to risk a wait, talk to your bank now.",
"Credit cards and debit cards make up the bulk of the transactions in the US. Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of each credit card transaction. For the most part, this fee it built into the price of what you buy. That is, you don't generally pay extra at the grocery store if you use a credit card (gasoline purchases are a notable exception here.) If you were getting something like 2% of a third of all the retail transactions in the US, you'd probably not want to rock the boat too much either. Since there is little fraud relative to the amount of money they are taking in, and it can often be detected using statistical analysis, they don't really stand to gain that much by reducing it through these methods. Sure they can reduce the losses on the insurance they provide to the credit card consumer but they risk slowing down the money machine. These companies want avoid doing something like reducing fraud by 0.5% revenues but causing purchases with the cards drop by 1%. More security will be implemented as we can see with the (slow) introduction of chip cards in the US but only at a pace that will prevent disruption of the money machine. EMV will likely cause a large drop in CC fraud at brick-and-mortar stores but won't stop it online. You will likely see some sort of system like you describe rolled out for that eventually.",
"It depends on what provider they are using to process your charge and if it's through a website, a phone application or a desktop application. For example, if they build a desktop application with Authorize.net, the desktop application will take your information in, and then make a webservice call with it to a secure authorize.net processing platform. Something similar is true for FirstData. However, if they are using PayPal to process your request, you are routed to a paypal site to make the charge, then the funds are sent to the merchant. As for what is returned that also depends on the provider and the application. If you are using a website it's likely an XML response with all the information they provide upon a transaction attempt. If it's a desktop application they may just hand the cc info off to a library which processes the charge and then returns specific confirmed or denied flags. So to be totally honest without knowing the exact situation in which you are charging your card, it's impossible to know. For all you know they are putting your credit card information in a database unencrypted and then charging them all at the end of the week in one giant batch. If you are able to find out whom they are using as a credit card processing provider then you can look for that companies developer documentation. It will provide you with all the information you are looking for including examples.",
"Skimmers are most likely at gas station pumps. If your debit card is compromised you are getting money taken out of your checking account which could cause a cascade of NSF fees. Never use debit card at pump. Clark Howard calls debit cards piece of trash fake visa/mc That is because of all the points mentioned above but the most important fact is back in the 60's when congress was protecting its constituents they made sure that the banks were responsible for fraud and maxed your liability at $50. Debit cards were introduced much later when congress was interested in protecting banks. So you have no protection on your debit card and if they find you negligent with your card they may not replace the stolen funds. I got rid of my debit card and only have an ATM card. So it cannot be used in stores which means you have to know the pin and then you can only get $200 a day.",
"\"The fee structures are different for PIN-based transactions versus \"\"credit\"\" style transactions. Usually there is a fixed fee (around $0.50) for PIN-based transactions and a varying fixed fee plus a percentage for credit transactions (something like $0.35 + 2.5%). There are also value limits for PIN-based transactions... I believe that you cannot exceed $400 in most places. The signature feature of credit transactions isn't there to protect you, it signifies your agreement to comply with the contract you and the credit card issuer, protecting the merchant from some types of chargeback. Some merchants waive the signature for low dollar value transactions to increase convenience and speed up the lines. All of your other questions are answered elsewhere on this site.\"",
"If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. I have my back account (i.e. chequing account) and VISA account at/from the same bank (which, in my case, is the Royal Bank of Canada). I asked my bank to set up an automatic transfer, so that they automatically pay off my whole VISA balance every month, on time, by taking the money from my bank account. In that way I am never late paying the VISA so I never pay interest charges. IOW I use the VISA like a debit card; the difference is that it's accepted at some places where a debit card isn't (e.g. online, and for car rentals), and that the money is deducted from my bank account at the end of the month instead of immediately.",
"Here's a simple answer: If your debit card has a visa or mc logo, it can be used as a 'credit card'. In order to do so, you shouldn't enter the pin, instead choose 'credit' and sign for it. Unlike a credit card, you can't spend money you don't have but like a credit card, your purchase is protected by the credit card company (visa/mc) and gives you privileges like zero fraud liability and purchase disputes. http://www.moneycone.com/should-you-sign-for-a-debit-card-purchase-or-use-your-pin/",
"As far as I'm aware, PINs are only used for in-person transactions, not 'remote' (over the Internet or phone).",
"Debit card purchases without PIN are treated as credit card purchases by merchants, and that includes ID verification. In addition to the ways you mentioned, you can get a debit card in any grocery store and load it with cash, and these debit cards don't have a name imprinted on them. But then if you lose them - you may have troubles proving you did in fact lose them when you try to recover your money, as anyone can use them. Technically you can register them online and call in and request refunds for fraud losses just as any other debit/credit card in the US (with $50 deductible), but in practice it may be difficult. These cards have very high fees, and may not be accepted for rentals etc.",
"From the business side of credit cards, Discover and American Express carry their own risk. AmEx has lent their logo to banks such as Bank of America (BofA) to use the AmEx transaction network, but the financial risk and customer service is provided by BofA. Visa and MasterCard let banks use their logo and process through their respective networks for a fee. The financial risk of fraud, non-payment from merchants, etc is the risk that the individual banks carry.",
"Credit in debit way - the card simply functions like a debit card for that transaction - pulling cash from your checking account. No difference. You've simply discovered the fact that some banks are using the same piece of plastic for two functions, debit which draws funds directly from your checking, and credit which offers you time to pay a bill the comes in some time later. It's a personal choice.",
"Who cares? If your card gets stolen, most cards provide you with 100% liability protection. Just sign the thing!",
"As it is international debits, this will take a while. BofA is right, You have to dispute this with Card Issuer, i.e. HDFC. The worst case for me was around 1 month. Keep chasing and sending out reminders every 3-4 days.",
"\"The address under a bank's name on a check, if there is one, is generally going to be the contact address of the bank. That will be true no matter where on the check the bank's name appears. The address of the person or business the account belongs to, if present, will appear under their name. This information block is typically near the top left corner the check, so it will be visible as the return address if the check is mailed in a \"\"window envelope\"\" designed for this purpose. The address the check is being mailed to, if it appears on the check, will generally appear low on the check and to the right, so it will be visible as the destination address when the check is mailed using a \"\"window envelope\"\" designed for this purpose. If that isn't the answer you were looking for, please clarify your question.\"",
"Given that the laws on consumer liability for unauthorized transactions mean no cost in most cases, the CVV is there to protect the merchant. Typically a merchant will receive a lower cost from their bank to process the transaction with the CVV code versus without. As far as the Netflix case goes, (or any other recurring billing for that matter) they wouldn't care as much about it because Visa/MC/Amex regulations prohibit storage of the CVV. So if they collect it then it's only used for the first transaction and renewals just use the rest of the card info (name, expiration date, address). Does the presence of CVV indicate the merchant has better security? Maybe, maybe not. It probably means they care about their costs and want to pay the bank as little as possible to process the transaction.",
"Debit cards with the Visa or Mastercard symbol on them work technically everywhere where credit cards work. There are some limitations where the respective business does not accept them, for example car rentals want a credit card for potential extra charges; but most of the time, for day-to-day shopping and dining, debit cards work fine. However, you should read up the potential risks. A credit card gives you some security by buffering incorrect/fraudulent charges from your account, and credit card companies also help you reverse incorrect charges, before you ever have to pay for it. If you use a debit card, it is your money on the line immediately - any incorrect charge, even accidential, takes your money from your account, and it is gone while you work on reversing the charge. Any theft, and your account can be cleaned out, and you will be without money while you go after the thief. Many people consider the debit card risk too high, and don't use them for this reason. However, many people do use them - it is up to you.",
"There are 2 parties when we say credit card companies: The bank that gives you a card & VISA/Mastercard For a Bank the revenues generally come from: For VISA/Mastercard the revenue is from: P.S. Have not covered American express here but in short it is a combination of the above 2 models",
"> Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. About that you are correct, however during any sort of forensic investigation they are going to ask to see a signature receipt if one is available. > For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. No that isn't true. Retailers are required by many card processing vendors to send in a signed receipt. This is changing, because employees are lazy, and retailers don't care about their customers at all so they don't bother enforcing any standards on their minimum wage register jockeys. However many of them are still required to send signed receipts in. When I was younger I worked at a store that would not get paid by the bank if it did not send in a signed receipt for every transaction. Go on, try walking away without signing your credit card receipt at stores where they present it for signature, and see what happens. > I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. You and everyone else. Big deal. Different credit card processors have different requirements for their customers (merchants). > The credit card companies don't really care. I think the real lesson here is **nobody cares**. Not the banks, not the credit card companies, and not the merchants. The only thing any of them give a fuck about is keeping the money flowing, especially into their own wallets, and if that means customers get ripped off sometimes because of inadequate protections, so what. My only point is, if I have one at all, **merchants _should_ care** about protecting the customer, and **customers _should_ care** about what protections are in place to prevent fraud. **PIN numbers are fine** as an authentication method, **but they should be completely shielded from view** by people standing in line or cameras overhead.",
"I'm pretty sure it's merchant-dependent. If a credit card transaction doesn't go through, PayPal will automatically charge your bank account. Some merchants may want that extra insurance.",
">> Hey! Do you mind giving your credit card to the waiter... > I'm not especially fond of that, but it's easy to report fraud to the bank and most of the time the bank will reverse the charges. No kidding! Of course, even I give credit cards to waiters. What do I care? **As you said, you are not liable to any fraud on your credit card.** None at all!!!! It's only Merchant, not the credit card company, that pay the price for fraud... **and you pay higher prices to cover for losses from fraud.** > The PIN situation is different because a mugging is life-threatening. Nonsense! Mugging at the ATM is so rare, each ATM has a camera. **In any case, I am not talking about using PIN to withdraw money!** I am talking about PIN to authorize charges on a credit card or ATM card. >> We already determined that nobody even care about signatures or check them. > You can't use a stolen card at an ATM with a signature. Huh? You totally got it wrong what I said, or, you argue for the sake of argument. **I am saying that cards that require you to enter a PIN cannot be used used when stolen or copied. Yes or no?** **On the other hand, cards that require signature can be used when stolen or copied because signature is a worthless method to validate the charge. Yes or no?** LASTLY, my Costco credit card has a picture of me on it. **Question for you, since for some reason you argue so much against PINs: Wouldn't a picture on the card better than a signature?** Yes or no? Do you see? There are so many ways to make this system so much more secure and fraud proof... but, ON PURPOSE, the credit card companies don't want that... because they are not liable for fraud. Simple as that.",
"\"To answer your question as clarified in a comment: All I wanted to know what will happen if I enter my debit card number in the sixteen digit account number they offer on the application for balance transfer. That's all. Almost certainly (subject to the particular terms and conditions of the offer), no money will move, the only question is exactly when and how they will say no. If you do it online, and their system is clever enough to look up the IIN (the first six digits) of the card number you enter, their system might learn straight away that you have entered a debit card number (eg a card starting 431940 is a Bank of Ireland debit card). Otherwise, you'll have to wait until the request goes to their back office system, which will eventually lead to the card issuer's system being contacted, at which point it will become clear that it's a debit card, and your transfer request will be refused at that point. That said, some credit card companies do offer a \"\"Money Transfer\"\" aka \"\"Super Balance Transfer\"\", which is an offer to transfer money directly into a bank account, putting the resulting debt on the credit card. I've never seen these offered without having to call a service centre and talk to a person, though, presumably so that they can check that the details they have for you (about income etc) are still correct.\"",
"a typical debit card is subject to several limits:",
"\"> Go on, try walking away without signing your credit card receipt at stores where they present it for signature, and see what happens. That's true... if the amount is over $25. Did you notice it? Actually, at Costco is over $50. And you know what else is true? That yes, they require you to squibble something, but you can write an obvious incorrect signature and nobody will care. You have no idea how many times the screen with the electronic pen did not work right, so I just put couple of lines... >> know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. > You and everyone else. Big deal. Different credit card processors have different requirements for their customers (merchants). Just because different processors have different requirements makes the whole process impossible to manage or comply with. Go figure out the requirement based on the card presented. >> The credit card companies don't really care. > I think the real lesson here is nobody cares. The merchant cares, because they are ultimately responsible for paying for fraud... which is the main reason why credit card companies don't care... and many merchants too because they have insurance... The bottom line is that everyone would not mind to enter a PIN to get the transaction through, but a stupid ego trip of the credit card companies who don't want to be \"\"like ATMs\"\". That's it. So they came up with chip in the card, which made the process slower and more expensive, and does not solve anything except fake credit cards (copied credit cards).\"",
"If you are looking at domestic transfers, all Banks hold accounts with the Central Bank [Reserve Bank] , in US the Central Bank is called Federal Reserve. The money from account of Bank of America held with Fed is debited and the account of Citi held with Fed is credited.",
"A large biller is registered and can initiate an ACH Debit to your account based on the Account Number and the Routing number. He assumes responsibility and completes the due diligence of obtaining a written mandate / permission / authorization from you. There are other legal process where by you get a Power of Attorney that would allow you to transact on behalf of someone. The key point you seem to be missing is that one can ONLY transact from ones account either by walking into the Bank / ATM, or by writing a check. There are other options as well to transact.",
"If it is one of those debit cards you use just like a credit card without a PIN, I'd cancel it regardless of whatever you are trying to do with your finances. They just seem too dangerous to me. Unlike a credit card, if someone makes fraudulent purchases on a debit card the money is gone from your bank account until you resolve the issue with the issue. With a credit card, the BANK is out the money until it gets worked out. My brother once had his credit card number (not the card) stolen and the criminals emptied his bank account. Eventually the bank put the money back after an investigation, but it had two really nasty side effects: 1) Dozens of checks bounced. The bank refunded the bounced check fees, but not all of the stores would. 2) He had no money in his account until it was resolved. Luckily in his case they resolved it in a few days, but he was already making preparations to borrow money to pay his rent/bills.",
"I don't believe there is such a process. My observation (i.e. my opinion) is that banks will have a level of security walls appropriate to the cost vs risk they experience. Since as Frazell says, your liability is limited for this type of fraud, you personally bear little if any risk. If this fraud were common enough that the cost of your proposal outweighed the expense, they would implement it. On a similar note. Credit card fraud can be reduced ten fold if a PIN were required for all purchases. The 3 digits on the back helps prove the card is there, and you just didn't steal the from 16 digits, but a 6-8 digit PIN required at point of sale would be tough for the thief to guess. How much software to do this would cost, I don't know, but the idea is brilliant, even if it's mine. 10 fold reduction, if not 100 fold. (Any bank guys reading?)",
"\"•Have you had any problems with bills not being paid? NO •If you had issues, were they addressed satisfactorily? Answer: A big issue that blindsided me: With my bank, the funds come out of my account right away, but the actual payment is done through a third-party service. On my bank's online site it appears that the payment has been made, but that does not necessarily mean that the intended recipient has cashed it. Looking online at my credit union's site is useless, because all I can tell is that the payment has been sent. The only way to verify payment is to contact the intended recipient. Or I may telephone the online bill pay representative at my bank/credit union, who has access to the third party service. If I do nothing, after 90 days, the check is void, at which time the third party service notifies the bank/credit union and the funds will eventually end up back in my account. I learned this today, after a third-party paper check to a health care provider was returned to me via mail by the recipient (because insurance had already paid and I did not owe them anything). The money was in the hands of the third-party service, not in my account, nor that of my credit union nor the recipient. At first my credit union told me that I would have to contact the third-party service myself and work it out. I said \"\"NO WAY\"\" and the credit union did get the money back into account the same day. This is a sweet deal for the third party, who has my money interest-free anywhere from a few days to three months. And risk-free as well, because the money goes directly from my account to the third party service.\"",
"In Finland, this happens all the time - it's all about having an official ID, they don't even ask your bank account number or the card. However, as no location was specified in the question, I guess it could be anything. The stronger the requirement for official personal id is in your country, the better odds you have with just using that. Where I live it is quite strong.",
"\"Much of what you're asking will not be disclosed for obvious security reasons, so don't be surprised when call center people say they \"\"don't know\"\". They may actually not know, but even if they did, they'd be fired if they were to say anything. Nothing could be a touchier subject than online security for the financial institutions. I don't know of reliable sources for the data you're asking about, and I don't know the banks or other firms would release it. For a bank to talk about its incidence rates of fraud would be unusual, because none of these institutions wants to appear \"\"less safe\"\" than their competitors. If there's any information out there then it's going to be pretty vague. None of these institutions wants the \"\"bad guys\"\" to know what their degree of success is against one bank versus any other. I hope that makes sense. The smaller banks usually piggyback their data on the networks of the larger financial institutions, so they are as secure (as a general rule) as the larger banks' networks they're running on. Also, your transactions on your credit cards are not generally handled directly by your bank anyway, unless it's one of the big heavyweights like Chase or Bank of America. All transactions run through merchant processors, who act as intermediaries between merchants and the banks, and those guys are pretty damned good at security. I've met some of the programmers, and they're impressive to me (I've been a programmer for 35 years and can't put a finger on these guys!). Most banks require that you must provide proof of identity when opening an account, and that ID must me the standards of the \"\"USA Real ID Act\"\". Here's an excerpt from the Department of Homeland Security website on what Real ID is: Passed by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. States have made considerable progress in meeting this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and every state has a more secure driver’s license today than before the passage of the Act. In order for banks to qualify for FDIC protection, they must comply with the Real ID standards when opening accounts. As with any business (especially online), the most effective way to minimize fraud is vigilant monitoring of data. Banks and other online financial entities have become very adept at pattern analysis and simply knowing where and what to look for when dealing with their customers. There are certainly sophisticated measures which are kept carefully out of the public eye for doing this, and obviously they're good at it. They have to be, right? There's no way to completely eliminate fraud -- too much incentive exists for the \"\"bad guys\"\" to not constantly search for new ways to run their schemes, and the good guys will always be at the disadvantage, because there's no way to anticipate everything anyone might come up with. Just look at online viruses and malware. Your antivirus software can only deal with what it knows about, and the bad guys are always coming up with some new variant that gets past the filters until the antivirus maker learns of it and comes up with a way to deal with it. Your question's a good one to ponder, and I wouldn't want to be the chief of internet security for a bank or online institution, because I'd lay awake at night pondering when the call's going to come that we finally ran out of luck! (grin) I hope this was helpful. Good luck!\"",
"For me, it is mostly for the fraud protection. If I have a debit card and someone makes a fraudulent charge the money is removed from my bank account. From my understanding, I can then file a fraud complaint with the bank to recover my money. However, for some period of time, the money is missing from my bank account. I've heard conflicting stories of money being returned quickly while the complaint is undergoing investigation as well as money being tied up for several days/weeks. It may depend on the bank. With a credit card, it is the banks money that is tied up.",
"The use of an old address would make me suspect that your data was stolen from some database you had registered to long ago with the old address. I would think that contacting your credit rating firm and the credit card company is urgent.",
"\"As for PC Mastercard like stated by @nullability, VISA Desjardins list the \"\"Pending Authorizations\"\" almost instantly (the time it's take to get back home) in AccesD (Their Web portal for managing accounts).\"",
"I think you'll find that a credit card does have an account number and sort code, I have had a Visa card previously and currently have a Mastercard. Both were paid by Direct Debit, and I could then transfer money to the account when I wanted to pay more than the minimum payment off. Check the introductory letter from the card provider, it should be on there, failing that, contact the provider and ask them for the details, how to pay, or a direct debit mandate for either the whole amount or the minimum amount.",
"Whether your card will work, I believe, depends on the institution that issued it. You'll just have to try. What I can tell you, is that the process of using a debit card or credit card in the US is fairly straight forward. If your card has a chip, you'll 'insert' your card, chip end first, into the bottom slot of the reader, assuming the reader has one. This technology is still being distributed / accepted, so you may encounter some areas where they don't have this, or they have an insert or sign that says something along the lines of 'No chip reader / swipe instead'. If your card doesn't have a chip, which looks like the bottom end of a cellular phone's SIM card, you just swipe your card in the reader. There will / may be on-screen prompts, which will explain any additional input necessary from you. Depending on how they 'process' your card - As a debit card or credit card (They can 'process' a debit card as if it's a standard credit card), you may or may not be asked to enter your debit card's PIN. If they process it as debit, you'll have to enter your PIN. If they process it as if it were a credit card, it will still go through but you'll be asked to sign the receipt. IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO NOTE: You need to find out whether your card issuer will charge you foreign transaction fees when you use your Indian debit card in the US. Is the card carrying a different currency than the US?",
"When the check is deposited, the bank verifies the signature in the check matches your signature in file.",
"\"I cannot answer the original question, but since there is a good deal of discussion about whether it's credible at all, here's an answer that I got from Bank of America. Note the fine difference between \"\"your account\"\" and \"\"our account\"\", which does not seem to be a typo: The payment method is determined automatically by our system. One of the main factors is the method by which pay to recipients prefer to receive payments. If a payment can be issued electronically, we attempt to do so because it is the most efficient method. Payment methods include: *Electronic: Payment is sent electronically prior to the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Corporate Check: This is a check drawn on our account and is mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds to cover the payment are deducted from your account on the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. *Laser Draft Check: This is a check drawn on your account and mailed to the pay to recipient a few days before the \"\"Deliver By\"\" date. The funds for the payment are deducted from your account when the pay to recipient cashes the check, just as if you wrote the check yourself. To determine how your payment was sent, click the \"\"Payments\"\" button in your Bill Pay service. Select the \"\"view payment\"\" link next to the payment. Payment information is then displayed. \"\"Transmitted electronically\"\" means the payment was sent electronically. \"\"Payment transaction number\"\" means the payment was sent via a check drawn from our account. \"\"Check number\"\" means the payment was sent as a laser draft check. Each payment request is evaluated individually and may change each time a payment processes. A payment may switch from one payment method to another for a number of reasons. The merchant may have temporarily switched the payment method to paper, while they update processing information. Recent changes or re-issuance of your payee account number could alter the payment method. In my case, the web site reads a little different: Payment check # 12345678 (8 digits) was sent to Company on 10/27/2015 and delivered on 10/30/2015. Funds were withdrawn from your (named) account on 10/30/2015. for one due on 10/30/2015; this must be the \"\"corporate check\"\". And for another, earlier one, due on 10/01/2015, this must be the laser draft check: Check # 1234 (4 digits) from your (named) account was mailed to Company on 09/28/2015. Funds for this payment are withdrawn from your account when the Pay To account cashes the check. Both payments were made based on the same recurring bill pay payment that I set up manually (knowing little more of the company than its address).\"",
"If your debit card/ATM card is stolen or lost, someone else might be able to withdraw money from the checking account that it is tied to, or buy things with the card and have the money taken out of the checking account to pay the merchant. Subject to daily withdrawal limits imposed by your bank, a considerable amount of money could be lost in this way. At least in the US, debit or ATM cards, although they are often branded Mastercard or Visa, do not provide the same level of protection as credit cards for which the liability is limited to $50 until the card is reported as lost or stolen and $0 thereafter. Note also that the money in your savings account is safe, unless you have chosen an automatic overdraft protection feature that automatically transfers money from your savings account into the checking account to cover overdrafts. So that is another reason to keep most of your money in the savings account and only enough for immediately foreseeable needs in the checking account (and to think carefully before accepting automatic overdraft protection offers). These days, with mobile banking available via smartphones and the like, transferring money yourself from savings to checking account as needed might be a preferred way of doing things on the go (until the smartphone is stolen!)",
"\"When using a debit card in a \"\"credit\"\" way, you don't need to enter your PIN, which protects you from skimmers and similar nastiness. Also, assuming it's a Visa or Mastercard debit card, you now have access to all of the fraud protection and other things that you would get with a credit card. The downside for the merchant is that credit card transaction fees are typically higher than debit card transaction fees. I'm less familiar with using a credit card in a \"\"debit\"\" way, so don't have anything to offer on that part of your question.\"",
"Lets say Debit is what you pay and Credit is what somebody else pays for you. A Debit card will charge your bank account directly. A Credit card will charge your bank account some time later. In both cases the shop owner has the money available directly. It's called Credit because somebody believes you will be able to pay your debt on time (or later with an interest). As for purchase and sales. A customer buys = makes a purchase. A shopkeeper sells = makes a sale. Note from a bar: I made an agreement with the bank. They don't sell beer, I don't give Credit.",
"It's not so much a credit card, but a financial institution's online platform that either provides this functionality or not. The following Canadian financial institutions show an itemized list of pre-authorized transactions (not an exhaustive list): The following institutions show a total value of pre-authorized transactions: Most other institutions show the available credit (e.g. Chase Financial used by Amazon Rewards), which give an indication of how much you have to spend. By subtracting the current balance and the available balance from the total credit limit, you can get an indication of the total amount of pre-authorized transactions. Example: $1000 - $500 - $400 = $100 is the amount of pre-authorized transactions. From TD's EasyWeb demo (http://tdeasywebdemo.com/v2/#/en/PFS/accounts/activity/chq), it appears that they don't include pre-authorized transactions in the Available Credit. You can verify for yourself by logging in to online banking after you make a purchase and comparing the Available Credit to [Credit Limit - Current Balance]. If it is equal, then they don't include, if it is different (most likely for the value of the transaction), then they do.",
"Call in to the bank using a publicly available number to verify the request.",
"Credit Cards when I can. The reason if there is fraud or disputed charges (like I very much disagree with the cell phone charge) a debit card is already gone and I have to get the money back, versus a credit card where I haven't paid anybody anything.",
"Credit card, without a doubt. The reason is dispute resolution. If you dispute a charge on debit card - the money has left your account already, and if the dispute was accepted - you'll get it back. If. Eventually. In the mean time your overdraft will be missing $$$. For credit cards, you can catch a fraud action before the money actually leaves your pocket and dispute it then. In this case the charge is set aside, and you will only be required to actually pay if the dispute is rejected. I.e.: The money stays in your pocket, until the business proves that the charge is legit. In both cases, if the dispute is justified (i.e.: there was indeed a fraud) neither you nor the bank will lose money at the bottom line, it's just who's got the money during the dispute resolution process (which may be lengthy) that matters.",
"\"Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? I'd guess that's to protect the card company, not you. The number of the card is guessable, but each other bit of information makes it much harder to guess (the CVV code makes it ~1000 times harder, the expiration date makes it about 50-100 times harder). Since you wouldn't be responsible for the payment anyway, adding security for online transactions provides the company with less liability. As for the security of your information online, that's trickier. It depends entirely on the site you're using whether they've implemented the appropriate security measures or not (and, given the SSL attacks we've seen, even that might not help). (source: I'm a web developer, and have worked on payments systems before that implemented the security mandated by the cards). At the very least never, ever type in your information on a non-https site (there's normally a little \"\"lock\"\" icon that will display if you're on HTTPS instead of HTTP).\"",
"Visa, Mastercard have very strong consumer protection. I have been wondering about this question for a while but never got around to asking it here: What happens if a retailer knowingly defrauds me? My guess is the first party to ask for help is Visa, Mastercard: a retailer knowingly defrauding you is unlikely to refund you any money. However, slip-ups do happen. If this is a retailer of good repute, they will not only refund you the money but send you a gift card too! Please do followup this post with what helped you in the end, but my guess is, your first (and last) line of defense would be Visa, Mastercard. Anything that would go through the bank would take such a lot of time and effort, that you would be better off writing it off.",
"The mode of payment mentioned by your bank is called the ACH(Automatic Clearing House) which means that anyone(Trusted payment gateway owners like banks themselves) can process payments. There can be a fraud declared against any payment that you have made and you can get every single penny back. This amount can not be withdrawn in cash at all. However for your situation I would suggest that you ask your bank to block any transactions above the amount of a specific sum, this way they will require your authorization to finalize the payment. You should feel safe after this. Also no one can access any other account apart from the one whose details you are giving out so do not worry about this guy(or anyone else for that matter) to be able to access your other accounts. Hope this helps. (I have experience in payment gateways so I do understand these procedures.) Cheers!!",
"So my wife was at work today and got yelled at by both a cop and her managers for simply LOOKING at the card. I don't understand I also work in retail and of course I must see the card to ensure it is a real card, it is a very strict policy that we must have a valid physical card to run any credit/debit transactions. People put skimmers everywhere you use your card and can pick up the info off the strip and put it onto another card and use it without you noticing right away. With the right equipment they can put their name on it or the name on their fake I.d. so the only red flag would be them trying to use several different cards",
"What you're referring to is Visa Easy Payment Services (VEPS). Other payment processors have similar programs. Basically, certain merchants (based on merchant category code - or MCC), are not required to obtain a signature under $50. This limit was raised to $50 from $25 last year. Here is the press release from Visa describing the increase, and the program in general.",
"Unlike MasterCard and Visa who only provide clearing service and tie up Banks to actually issue cards or POS terminals for merchants; Discover card operates more like American Express. It's a totally different network; cards and POS to merchants are directly offered by Discover Bank only. There is no other banks that issue this card.",
"A debit card takes the funds right from your account. There's no 'credit' issued along the way. The credit card facilitates a short term loan. If you are a pay-in-full customer, as I am, there's a cost to lend the money, but we're not paying it. It's part of the fee charged to the merchant. Thus the higher transaction cost.",
"\"That's accurate. Here is another risk with the current checking system, which many people are not aware of: Anyone who knows your checking account number can learn what your balance in that account is. (This is bank-specific, but it is possible at the major banks I've checked.) How does that work? Many banks have a phone line where you can dial up and interact with an automated voice response system, for various customer service tasks. One of the options is something like \"\"merchant check verification\"\". That option is intended to help a merchant who receives a check to verify whether the person writing the check has enough money in their account for the check to clear. If you select that option in the phone tree, it will prompt you to enter in the account number on the check and the amount of the check, and then it will respond by telling you either \"\"there are currently sufficient funds in the account to cash this check\"\" or \"\"there are not sufficient funds; this check would bounce\"\". Here's how you can abuse this system to learn how much someone has in their bank account, if you know their account number. You call up and check whether they've enough money to cash a $10,000 check (note that you don't actually have to have a check for $10,000 in your hands; you just need to know the account number). If the system says \"\"nope, it'd bounce\"\", then you call again and try $5,000. If the system says \"\"yup, sufficient funds for a $5,000 check\"\", then you try $7,500. If it says \"\"nope, not enough for that\"\", you try $6,250. Etcetera. At each step, you narrow the range of possible account balances by a factor of two. Consequently, after about a dozen or so steps, you will likely know their balance to within a few dollars. (Computer scientists know this procedure by the name \"\"binary search\"\". The rest of us may recognize it as akin to a game of \"\"20 questions\"\".) If this bothers you, you may be able to protect your self by calling up your bank and asking them how to prevent it. When I talked to my bank (Bank of America), they told me they could put a fraud alert flag on your account, which would disable the merchant check verification service for my account. It does mean that I have to provide a 3-digit PIN any time I phone up my bank, but that's fine with me. I realize many folks may terribly not be concerned about revealing their bank account balance, so in the grand scheme of things, this risk may be relatively minor. However, I thought I'd document it here for others to be aware of.\"",
"\"Circa 2002-2005, I was able to successfully \"\"transfer\"\" a balance from a debit card linked to a bank account to a Bank of America Visa credit card. As an example, I could say do a balance transfer from the card XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (which was a valid debit card number) to the credit card, and the funds would appear in the checking account within a few days, and also the balance on the credit card would go up the amount plus any balance transfer fee. I think they've sealed off that loophole years ago.\"",
"Typically there are several parties involved: (Sometimes one company plays multiple roles; for example AmEx is a network and an issuer.) When a merchant charges a card and the issuer approves it, money is transferred from the issuer to the acquirer to the merchant. This settlement process takes some time, but generally is completed within a day. Of course, most cardholders pay on a monthly basis. The issuer must use their own funds in the mean time. If the cardholder defaults, the issuer takes the loss.",
"Try to get a second card in your business' name, with a separate card number (like you would get one for a spouse). They may or may not allow that free (you wouldn't want to pay a second fee), and it might be only possible with the second card bearing the same number, which makes it useless. But it is worth a try.",
"I've called both BofA and Amex Customer Support, and they couldn't help. That's because you cannot. Debit card is tied to your checking account, so you can do a cash advance from your AMEX and deposit it to your BOA checking account. It will then be available to use with your debit card.",
"Your chief problem seems to be that you're mixing Visa (credit cards) and Step2 (a European Automated Clearing House). Credit cards are primarily an American concept, but do work worldwide especially in travel&tourism industry. The Credit Card companies are financial institutions themselves and operate similar to international banks They're typically acting as intermediaries between the customer's bank and the retailer's bank, so this works even if those two banks have no existing agreements. This is expensive, though. Step2 is a cheaper European system which eliminates the middle man. It allows the consumer's bank to directly pay the retailer's bank. VISA is not a member of Step2.",
"As other answers and comments suggest you are trying to do something... odd to say the least. No one wants to use a credit card to finance a checking/current account because you are creating a debt on that credit card (unless you are in the odd situation where the card is in credit) that will immediately start accruing interest at a rate probably in excess of 10% per annum. That is not a clever thing to do. What you really need to do is find an account that one of you owns that has a positive balance and use an internet banking service to transfer part of that positive balance onto the debit card. The other solution is not to use the debit card at all but use the credit card to complete the purchases you are trying to manage with the debit card. The reason that BofA and AmEx customer support can't help you is that no one would ever do what you want to do; they would either move existing money from another account or ask for a bank loan.",
"Or at least I saw it do so with Bank of America.",
"\"PC MasterCard recently added this as a new feature to their online system. It lets you see \"\"Pending Authorizations\"\" for your card when you log in. Their email said: Along with your purchases, you'll see a list of every transaction that's been approved, but not yet applied to your balance. You'll be able to identify these with the word “Pending” in the date column. Here's a link with more information: http://pcfinancial.ca/pendingauthorization/\"",
"> But I pretty much followed the procedure I was told to, its just I don't know why we wouldn't get the money back. First, you're in the wrong spot. Go to /r/personalfinance. Second, does it *really* make sense that you'd still get paid? If someone stole your wallet and bought something for $100, can you not go to the store and demand your $100? Or do you have to go and find the thief THEN get back *that* item and THEN return it to the store and THEN get your cash back? It's easier both logistically and logically to stop the payment going to the store, and have the store consider it a theft of their merchandise."
] |
[
"\"Parts of what you want are possible, but taken as a whole, you're out of luck. First of all, there is no master database of every cardholder in the country. The only way to check if information is correct is to ask the issuing bank. The AVS system is a way to automate doing so, but it's possible to call the bank directly and verbally verify the address. That means you're subject to the whims of what the issuing bank chooses to support. Banks that are part of the Visa and MasterCard networks generally only verify the numeric parts (address, apartment number, zipcode). AmEx can also verify the cardholder name. But if the bank doesn't have support for validating something, you can't validate it. Separately, there is a \"\"verify-only\"\" transaction which some processors support, which will do exactly what you want: Return AVS values without ever charging the card. However, processors require you to have the \"\"approved merchant account\"\" you don't want to have to have. Without being a merchant, you shouldn't have access to other people's credit cards anyway. Would you really want anyone in the country to be able to verify anyone else's address whenever they want? In short, whatever purpose you have for wanting this probably falls into one of three categories:\""
] |
4205
|
How and why does the exchange rate of a currency change almost everyday?
|
[
"79777",
"134239",
"540451"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"79777",
"499875",
"540451",
"104480",
"61819",
"293777",
"233718",
"134239",
"19618",
"221435",
"321842",
"490113",
"215708",
"450694",
"24881",
"489509",
"319996",
"460755",
"288330",
"531953",
"510363",
"445943",
"165767",
"93518",
"343489",
"70421",
"452434",
"105714",
"273478",
"248794",
"133440",
"536689",
"354559",
"535613",
"152910",
"329062",
"441163",
"324546",
"580757",
"534588",
"302699",
"283473",
"544506",
"157376",
"241000",
"582063",
"314508",
"157907",
"116921",
"472298",
"152657",
"351154",
"68462",
"517381",
"405276",
"443511",
"336618",
"109788",
"484891",
"87057",
"416975",
"293483",
"78648",
"42334",
"114439",
"356465",
"501461",
"48783",
"122487",
"115087",
"67069",
"16961",
"310016",
"482415",
"484190",
"429460",
"126431",
"283168",
"173986",
"441920",
"440270",
"506818",
"163303",
"124254",
"190347",
"291165",
"357103",
"303240",
"301570",
"228787",
"300213",
"285064",
"402314",
"167717",
"476891",
"205585",
"386745",
"177264",
"588877",
"253926"
] |
[
"\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"",
"Firstly currency prices, like any asset, depend on supply and demand. Meaning how many people want to exchange a currency to another one vs. wanting to buy that currency using another currency. Secondly, it really depends on which country and economy you are talking about. In emerging economies, currencies are very often influenced by the politics of that country. In cases like the US, there are a myriad reasons. The USD is mostly governed by psychology (flight to safety) and asset purchases/sales. In theory, currencies balance, given the inflation of a country and its trade with other countries. e.g. Germany, which was always exporting more than it was importing, had the problem of a rising currency. (Which would make its exports more expensive on foreign markets. This is the balancing act.)",
"\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \"\"believe it is money\"\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\"",
"The exchange rate between two currencies is simply the price that the most recent market participants were able to agree on, when trading. ie: if the USDCAD is 1.36, it's because the last trade that happened where someone bought 1 USD cost 1.36 CAD. There is no one person/organization which 'decides' the rate between two currencies. The rate moves you see is just the reality of money changing hands as people in various situations trade currencies for various reasons. Just like with stocks or any other market product, foreign exchange rates can fluctuate wildly based on many things. It is very difficult to forecast where rates will go, because the biggest changes in rates can often be unpredictable news events. For example, when Brexit happened, the value of the GBP plummeted relative to other currencies, because the market traders had less faith in the UK economy, and therefore weren't willing to pay as much to buy GBP. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232. There is a very high level of risk in the foreign exchange market; for your sake, don't get involved in any trading that you do not well understand, first.",
"\"According to Soros in \"\"The Alchemy of Finance\"\", exchange rates fluctuations are mostly influenced by: (sorry I do not have the quote here, and I am paraphrasing from the top of my head what I read about a week ago). I mention his point of view as he is one of the most successful hedge fund manager ever, proved his skills, and dealt a lot with currencies. This is not just theory as he actively used the above points when managing his fund (as explained in the book). What I find interesting is that, according to him, the fundamental reason (the balance of trade) is not the most influential. Speculation on future value of currencies is the most influential, and these can set trends that can last years. Also it is key to notice that Soros thought foreign exchange markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time, just like he thought stock markets are \"\"wrong\"\" most of the time (a point on which Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers also agree from my understanding).\"",
"The increase of currency value in relation to another is a critical determinant of the economic health. It plays an important part in the level of trade and affects the world’s free market economy. But, they also effect on smaller scale as they create an impact on the portfolio of investors. So, it is suggested that the investors should make their trades wisely keeping in mind the value of other currencies that might your trade. Also, you should check the news daily to get regular updates and be well-informed of any changes happening in the market",
"The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals. The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at. And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading. eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.",
"\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \"\"buy\"\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \"\"basket\"\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \"\"shopping list\"\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\"",
"It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.",
"\"From my limited experience with foreign exchange... Money is a commodity.. people buy it and sell it like other products.. if \"\"money\"\" is in demand the price goes up.. this is the case when a countries stocks are hot, and you need to purchase that countries currency to buy that stock... I've also seen the currency rise on news and speculation. Many years ago, I administered foreign receivables... My job was to settle letters of credit from Britain... I remember on one ocassion Margaret Thatcher said something to upset the markets.. her remark caused the price of the UK pound to fluctuate.\"",
"Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.",
"\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"",
"I don't think this can be explained in too simple a manner, but I'll try to keep it simple, organized, and concise. We need to start with a basic understanding of inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of currency (in this context) over time. It is used to explain that a $1 today is worth more than a $1 tomorrow. Inflation is explained by straight forward Supply = Demand economics. The value of currency is set at the point where supply (M1 in currency speak) = demand (actual spending). Increasing the supply of currency without increasing the demand will create a surplus of currency and in turn weaken the currency as there is more than is needed (inflation). Now that we understand what inflation is we can understand how it is created. The US Central Bank has set a target of around 2% for inflation annually. Meaning they aim to introduce 2% of M1 into the economy per year. This is where the answer gets complicated. M1 (currency) has a far reaching effect on secondary M2+ (credit) currency that can increase or decrease inflation just as much as M1 can... For example, if you were given $100 (M1) in new money from the Fed you would then deposit that $100 in the bank. The bank would then store 10% (the reserve ratio) in the Fed and lend out $90 (M2) to me on via a personal loan. I would then take that loan and buy a new car. The car dealer will deposit the $90 from my car loan into the bank who would then deposit 10% with The Fed and his bank would lend out $81... And the cycle will repeat... Any change to the amount of liquid currency (be it M1 or M2+) can cause inflation to increase or decrease. So if a nation decides to reduce its US Dollar Reserves that can inject new currency into the market (although the currency has already been printed it wasn't in the market). The currency markets aim to profit on currency imbalances and in reality momentary inflation/deflation between currencies.",
"\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \"\"control\"\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\"",
"\"Relative changes in rates are significant. Why? Exchange rates encourage cross-border trade. For example, I live in an area that is now popular with Canadian tourists, mostly due to the favorable exchange rates. Changes in exchange rates between trading partners can affect trade balance as well. The US \"\"strong dollar\"\" policy made US exports expensive and imports cheaper, which encouraged more imports.\"",
"currency's central bank or treasury/finance department speeches that can announce a significant change in policy. That includes: Particularly when it is a high level figure within the department such as the President or Prime Minister making the announcement. Macroeconomic stats: GeoPolitical considerations, such as: Economic calendars, such as ForexFactory and MyFxBook track planned economic news releases. Obviously, a coup d'etat or war declaration may not be well known in advance.",
"Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out.",
"From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.",
"No. An exchange rate tells you the exchange rate, that's all. Changes in exchange rates are a little more interesting because they suggest economic changes (or anticipation of such), but since the exchange rate is the composite of many economic forces, determining what changes may be in action from an exchange rate change is not really possible.",
"Rates are arrived at by the cumulative buying and selling on the foreign exchange market, much the same way that stock prices are arrived at. If there are more people wanting to buy dollars with euros, EUR/USD goes down. If more people want to buy euros with dollars, then EUR/USD goes up. The initial rate was about $1.18 per euro when it began trading on January 1st, 1999. It replaced the European Currency Unit at that time, which was a weighted basket of currencies of (more or less) the participating countries. You're correct about the printing press in the US and other countries. The exchange rates do reflect in part how much of a relative workout those printing presses get.",
"International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)",
"\"Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the \"\"rules of the game\"\" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior.\"",
"\"You may as well ask why a piece of wood is 25 centimeters long but only 10 inches. Most units of measure are very arbitrary. Somebody decides that this amount of heat or distance or money is a convenient unit, and so that's what they use. Suppose that tomorrow the government issued a whole new currency that had 10 times the value of the old currency. So if you used to make 10,000 foobars a year, now you make 1,000 new foobars. And likewise the price of everything you buy is divided by 10. If a certain model car used to cost 2,000 foobars, now it costs 200 new foobars. Are you better or worse off? Clearly if ALL prices change by the same percentage, then it makes absolutely no difference. (Aside from the hassle of making the switch and getting used to the new numbers.) A currency where 1 unit of money buys more is not necessarily a \"\"stronger currency\"\". Any more than inches are \"\"better\"\" than centimeters because you get more wood for an inch than you get for a centimeter. A currency is said to be \"\"strong\"\" when it's value is stable or increasing relative to other currencies. If yesterday I could trade 10 foobars for 1 plugh, but today I only need 9 foobars to buy 1 plugh, then foobars are stronger than plughs. Even though I still need more foobars than plughs to buy the same item.\"",
"\"It may seem weird but interest rates are set by a market. Risk is a very large component of the price that a saver will accept to deposit their money in a bank but not the only one. Essentially you are \"\"lending\"\" deposited cash to the bank that you put it in and they will lend it out at a certain risk to themselves and a certain risk to you. By diversifying who they lend to (corporations, home-buyers each other etc.) the banks mitigate a lot of the risk but lending to the bank is still a risky endeavour for the \"\"saver\"\" and the saver accepts a given interest rate for the amount of risk there is in having the money in that particular bank. The bank is also unable to diversify away all possible risk, but tries to do the best job it can. If a bank is seen to take bigger risks and therefore be in greater risk of failing (having a run on deposits) it must have a requisitely higher interest rates on deposits compared to a lower risk bank. \"\"Savers\"\" therefore \"\"shop around\"\" for the best interest rate for a given level of risk which sets the viable interest rate for that bank; any higher and the bank would not make a profit on the money that it lends out and so would not be viable as a business, any lower and savers would not deposit their money as the risk would be too high for the reward. Hence competition (or lack of it) will set the rate as a trade off between risk and return. Note that governments are also customers of the banking industry when they are issuing fixed income securities (bonds) and a good deal of the lending done by any bank is to various governments so the price that they borrow money at is a key determinant of what interest rate the bank can afford to give and are part of the competitive banking industry whether they want to be or not. Since governments in most (westernised) countries provide insurance for deposits the basic level of (perceived) risk for all of the banks in any given country is about the same. That these banks lend to each other on an incredibly regular basis (look into the overnight or repo money market if you want to see exactly how much, the rates that these banks pay to and receive from each other are governed by interbank lending rates called Libor and Euribor and are even more complicated than this answer) simply compounds this effect because it makes all of the banks reliant on each other and therefore they help each other to stay liquid (to some extent). Note that I haven't mentioned currency at all so far but this market in every country applies over a number of currencies. The way that this occurs is due to arbitrage; if I can put foreign money into a bank in a country at a rate that is higher than the rate in its native country after exchange costs and exchange rate risk I will convert all of my money to that currency and take the higher interest rate. For an ordinary individual's savings that is not really possible but remember that the large multinational banks can do exactly the same thing with billions of dollars of deposits and effectively get free money. This means that either the bank's interest rate will fall to a risk adjusted level or the exchange rate will move. Either of those moves will remove the potential for making money for nothing. In this case, therefore it is both the exchange rate risk (and costs) as well as the loan market in that country that set the interest rate in foreign currencies. Demand for loans in the foreign currency is not a major mover for the same reason. Companies importing from foreign entities need cash in foreign currencies to pay their bills and so will borrow money in other currencies to fulfil these operations which could come from deposits in the foreign currency if they were available at a lower interest rate than a loan in local currency plus the costs of exchange but the banks will be unwilling to loan to them for less than the highest return that they can get so will push up interest rates to their risk level in the same way that they did in the market before currencies were taken into account. Freedom of movement of foreign currencies, however, does move interest rates in foreign currencies as the banks want to be able to lend as much of currencies that are not freely deliverable as they can so will pay a premium for these currencies. Other political moves such as the government wanting to borrow large amounts of foreign currency etc. will also move the interest rate given for foreign currencies not just because loaning to the government is less risky but also because they sometimes pay a premium (in interest) for being able to borrow foreign currency which may balance this out. Speculation that a country may change its base interest rate will move short term rates, and can move long term rates if it is seen to be a part of a country's economic strategy. The theory behind this is deep and involved but the tl;dr answer would be the standard \"\"invisible hand\"\" response when anything market or arbitrage related is involved. references: I work in credit risk and got a colleague who is also a credit risk consultant and economist to look over it. Arbitrage theory and the repo markets are both fascinating so worth reading about!\"",
"\"The prices quoted are for currency pairs traded on the foreign exchange market. For currencies traded on these exchanges, the exchange rates of a given currency pair are determined by the market, so supply and demand, investor confidence, etc. all play a role. EBS and Reuters are the two primary trading platforms in the foreign exchange market, and much of the data on exchange rates comes from them. Websites will usually get their data either from these sources directly or from a data provider that in turn gets it from EBS, Reuters, or another data source like Bloomberg or Haver Analytics. These data sources aren't free, however. In the US, many contracts, transactions, etc. that involve exchange rates use the exchange rate data published by the Federal Reserve. You might see this in contracts that specify to use \"\"the exchange rate published by the Federal Reserve at 12 pm (noon) on date --some date--\"\". You can also look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data, which maintains data series of historical daily, weekly, and monthly exchange rates for major currency pairs. These data are free, although they aren't realtime. Data for each business day is mostly updated the next business day.\"",
"The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.",
"Sometimes the market has to be left alone. Too much interference of the policy makers to stabilize the falling market can actually result in a major crisis. Every change stabilises after sometime and it is also applicable in the Forex trading market. So, the eager investors should learn to have some patience and wait for the market to stabilise itself rather than make random predictions on the policies released by policy makers",
"A lot of questions, but all it boils down to is: . Banks usually perform T+1 net settlements, also called Global Netting, as opposed to real-time gross settlements. That means they promise the counterparty the money at some point in the future (within the next few business days, see delivery versus payment) and collect all transactions of that kind. For this example say, they will have a net outflow of 10M USD. The next day they will purchase 10M USD on the FX market and hand it over to the global netter. Note that this might be more than one transaction, especially because the sums are usually larger. Another Indian bank might have a 10M USD inflow, they too will use the FX market, selling 10M USD for INR, probably picking a different time to the first bank. So the rates will most likely differ (apart from the obvious bid/ask difference). The dollar rate they charge you is an average of their rate achieved when buying the USD, plus some commission for their forex brokerage, plus probably some fee for the service (accessing the global netting system isn't free). The fees should be clearly (and separately) stated on your bank statement, and so should be the FX rate. Back to the second example: Obviously since it's a different bank handing over INRs or USDs (or if it was your own bank, they would have internally netted the incoming USDs with the outgoing USDs) the rate will be different, but it's still a once a day transaction. From the INRs you get they will subtract the average FX achieved rate, the FX commissions and again the service fee for the global netting. The fees alone mean that the USD/INR sell rate is different from the buy rate.",
"The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60",
"Forex is really not that volatile compared to other major asset classes like stocks and commodities. But still markets are generally unencumbered in the major pairs and therefore spikes in volatility can happen. Take what happened with the Swiss Franc a few years ago for example, or GBPUSD recently with news of Brexit. This is less the case with highly regulated currencies like the Chinese Yuan (CNY) Volatility is caused by excessive buy or sell pressure in relation to the available liquidity at the current price. This is usually caused by large buy or sell orders placed with interbank desks by institutions (often including other banks) and central banks. News can also sometimes have a dramatic impact and cause traders to adjust their prices significantly and very quickly.",
"\"At any moment, the price is where the supply (seller) and demand (buyer) intersect. This occurs fast enough you don't see it as anything other than bid/ask. What moves it? News of a new drug, device, sandwich, etc. Earning release, whether above or below expectations, or even dead-on, will often impact the price. Every night, the talking heads try to explain the day's price moves. When they can't, they often report \"\"profit taking\"\" for a market drop, or other similar nonsense. Some moves are simple random change.\"",
"I usually look at the high and low exchange rates for the last five years. If the current rate is fairly close to the high for a trade over the past five years, then I do the trade. If the current exchange rate is close to the low, then I wait.",
"What you are asking about is called Interest Rate Parity. Or for a longer explanation the article Interest Rate Parity at Wikipedia. If the US has a rate of say zero, and the rate in Elbonia is 10%, one believes that in a year the exchange rate will be shifted by 10%, i.e. it will take 1.1 unit of their currency to get the dollars one unit did prior. Else, you'd always profit from such FOREX trades. (Disclaimer - I am not claiming this to be true or false, just offering one theory that explains the rate difference effect on future exchange rates.",
"Besides overnight news events and auction mechanisms there is a more fundamental reason the price of a stock is always moving. Theoretically the stock price will move slightly even in the unlikely scenario that absolutely nothing of interest happens during the entire night. Let me go into that in some more detail: Stock valuation using Discounted Cash FLow One of the fundamental reasons that stock value is constantly changing is because underneath every stock there is a company that expects to make some kind of profit or loss in the future. We have to go into the fundamentals of stock value to understand why this is important: One popular way to determine the value of a stock is by looking into the future and summing up all the earnings (or cashflows) it has yet to produce. You have to reduce each amount by a certain factor that gets larger for payments that are farther into the future. Think of it this way: a dollar in hand now is better than a dollar that you get tomorrow. This method of valuation is called Discounted Cash Flow (abbr. DCF; see the wikipedia article on DCF) Time's effect on stock value Now take the Close price C, and the open price O. Let's assume that since there has been no news, the expectations for future earnings are the same for C and O. Remember that the discounting factor for these earnings is dependent on the time until the cashflow occurs? For O, this time is slightly shorter than for C, and therefore the value will be slightly higher (or lower, when the company is expected to incur losses). So now you can see that even without all the external forces that continuously push and pull on the stock price, a stock still changes in value over time. Hope this helps.",
"The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect. Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are. Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be. As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average. As it goes up, we experience inflation. As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money. There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy. Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem. Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.",
"Are you trying to get someone to do your homework for you? This question has been answered repeatedly in the negative by everyone who actually studies the economy. Read Mundell-Flemming model, and learn this stuff. You can see why currency regimes like the Euro make sense from a theoretical stand point, but where flexible exchange rates are a welcome release valve for pressures. You obviously have never studied economics. Hyper inflation doesn't happen becuase of floating exhange rates. Hyperinflation happens when people lose faith in the governing body, regardless of who that is. You think political regimes won't change just because there is one currency? No, they will still spent 1.05 for every dollar they bring in taxes. Hyperinflation is not a problem of floating exchange rates, it doesn't follow from any causal relationship.",
"Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.",
"At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.",
"If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].",
"On Credit Cards [I am assuming you have a Visa or Master card], the RBI does not decide the rate. The rate is decided by Visa or Master. The standard Sheet rate for the day is used. Additionally SBI would mark it up by few paise [FX mark-up spread]. This is shown as mark-up fee. The rate of USD Vs INR changes frequently. On large value [say 1 million] trades even a paise off makes a huge difference and hence the rate is constantly changing [going up or down]. The rates offered to individuals are constant through out the day. They change from day to day and can go up for down. Recently in the past 6 months if you read the papers, Rupee has been going down and is at historic low. On a give day there are 2 rates; - Bank Buy Rate, ie the rate at which Bank will BUY USD from you. Say 61. So it will buy 100 USD and give you Rupees 6100. - Bank Sell rate, ie the rate at which Bank will SELL USD to you. Say 62. So if you want 100 USD, you need to give Bank 6200. The difference between this is the profit to bank.",
"\"Does some official tell the Foreign Exchange the the new exchange rate for the yuan is 0.98 * the current exchange rate? For China (and other countries with fixed/controlled exchange rates) - that's exactly how it happens. Does it just print more? This is the way to go for fully convertible currencies (like the USD, EUR, GBP, and handful of others, there're about 20 in the world). Flood the market and as with any commodity - flooding the market leads to a price drop. Obviously \"\"just print more\"\" is much harder to do than picking up the phone and saying \"\"Now you're buying/selling dollars at this price and if you don't I'll have you executed\"\".\"",
"The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)",
"according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.",
"Yes traders, living or algorithmic, are the only direct factors that can cause a change in the price of a marketable item. Traders can be affected by news, broken exchanges ;), emotional cycles, lunar cycles, time the trader goes to lunch (or a power cycle if you are an algo running on that unfortunate OS), anything.",
"The measure of change of value of a currency in relation to itself is inflation (or deflation).",
"Look for unsustainable policies and actions by policy makers, both before and possibly during, when looking at the ForEx markets. Consider some examples: Each of those events could be seen in the growing unsustainability of local policies. ForEx markets and local policies can appear to stay on an unsustainable path for a long time, but equilibrium will force itself on everything in the long run. In two of the above cases, the initial response wasn't enough to offset the mess, and more and more intervention had to be done, only making matters worse. When you know how unsustainable policies are and how big the corrections need to be, you can quickly ascertain whether an action by policy makers will be enough.",
"There's a concept called interest rate parity, which sort of says that you cannot profit on the difference in interest rates. This difference accounts for the predicted movement in exchange rates as well, along with the stability of the currencies.",
"\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"",
"Because we need energy in the form of oil. If more of our money is spent on oil, there is less money to spend on other items especially luxuries like dining out and new cars (ironically) Since there is less money available, the price of other things shift with it and the whole economy moves. Since less money is available, the value of a single dollar goes up. Basically, it is because we as a species (let alone nations) are unbelievably dependent on having oil at this point in our existence. How do currency markets work? What factors are behind why currencies go up or down?",
"Depending on what currency the price is quoted in and is originally sold, currency fluctuation can also carry over onto the price in your currency. An example for that would be bitcoin prices which sometimes show heavy ups and downs in one currency, but seem totally stable in another and can be tracked back to changed exchange rates between currencies. Also like others have said, prices on stocks are not actually fixed. You can offer to buy or sell at any price. Only if 2 people want to buy or sell for the same price there will actually be a transaction.",
"It depends on the asset and the magnitude of the exchange rate change relative to the inflation rate. If it is a production asset, the prices can be expected to change relative to the changes in exchange rate regardless of magnitude, ceteris paribus. If it is a consumption asset, the prices of those assets will change with the net of the exchange rate change and inflation rate, but it can be a slow process since all of the possessions of the country becoming relatively poorer cannot immediately be shipped out and the need to exchange wants for goods will be resisted as long as possible.",
"\"You might want to read about about the Coase Theorem. \"\"In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.\"\" This is similar to what you are asking. Each country has an endowment of gold, and they must create a set amount of money to represent their endowment of gold. This will establish an exchange rate. If I have 5 tons of gold and you have 5 tons, and I print 10 dollars and you print 20, then one of my dollars is worth two of your dollars. Thus, the amount of money is not relevant- it's the exchange rate between the countries. If all the nations know each other's gold endowment, then we will have a perfect exchange rate. If we don't, then currency printing will vary but arbitrage should drive it to an accurate price. Gold and diamonds are both valuable in part due to scarcity, but gold has been used as a measure of value because it's been historically used as a medium of exchange. People just realized that swapping paper was safer and cheaper than physically transporting gold, but the idea of gold as a measure of value is present because \"\"that's how it's always been.\"\" Nobody \"\"creates/supervises\"\" these procedures, but organizations like the IMF, ECB, Fed Reserve, etc implement monetary policy to regulate the money supply and arbitrage drives exchange rates to fair values.\"",
"\"As the European crisis worsened the Swiss Franc (CHF) was seen as a safe currency so Europeans attempted to exchange their Euros for Francs. This caused the Franc to appreciate in value, against the Euro, through the summer and fall of 2011. The Swiss government and Swiss Central Bank (SNB) believe mercantilism will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland. The Swiss central planners believe that having an abundance of export businesses in Switzerland will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland as the exporters sell their good and services abroad and pocket a bunch of cash. Thus, the central planners tend to favor exporters. From the article: At the start of the year, when exporters urged for government and SNB action, ... The Swiss Central bank continued to intervene in currency markets in 2011 to prevent the CHF from appreciating. This was done to prevent a decrease in export business. Finally after many failed attempts they announced the 1.20 peg in September. The central planners give little consideration to imports, however, since manufacturers in foreign countries don't vote or contribute to the campaign funds of the central planners in Switzerland. As the CHF strengthened many imported items became very cheap for Swiss citizens. This was of little concern to the central planners. Currencies are like other goods in a market in that they respond to supply and demand. Their value can change daily or even hourly based on the continually varying demands of people. This can cause the exchange rate to rise and fall against other currencies and goods. Central planners mistakenly believe that the price of certain market items (like currency) should not fluctuate. The believe there is some magical number that will cause the market to operate \"\"better\"\" or \"\"more correctly\"\". How does the SNB maintain the peg? They maintain the peg by printing Francs and purchasing euros.\"",
"\"Wikipedia talks about the Chinese currency: Scholarly studies suggest that the yuan is undervalued on the basis of purchasing power parity analysis. so despite it appearing cheaper due to the official exchange rate, the price in China might actually be fair. There are also restrictions on foreign exchange (purportedly \"\"to prevent inflows of hot money\"\"), which, in concert with any other legal obstacles to owning or trading on the Chinese exchange, may also explain why the high-frequency traders aren't tripping over each other to arbitrage away the difference.\"",
"One interpretation of the above is that Pound (alongside US Dollar, Euro and other major curriencies), which forms the Forex basket of countries has dropped to less than 10% weightage in case of China's Forex holding. Now the question is where did this money go, this money probably have gone into Forex market to buy Yuan against Pound/Dollar etc. to bolster or strengthen Yuan. The currency reserve management is the 'wealth' management part and the 'currency' management part is what is known as 'central bank intervention' to stabilize the currency.",
"\"The main reason people buy dollars (or other currency) on the black market is because they are prevented from exchanging currency on the official government market. Venezuela for example restricts citizens to a maximum number of dollars the citizen can buy or sell per year, depending on various factors such as whether or not the person is studying at a foreign university. If the citizen wants to exchange more dollars than legally allowed, that person must buy or sell at the \"\"black\"\" market rate, rather than through the official/government market.\"",
"If I understand what you're asking, I think you're looking at the relationship wrong. Yes, when one currency has a higher interest rate relative to another, it's value should, theoretically, appreciate. For example, if the USD interest rate is 10% and the EUR is 5%, the USD should appreciate in value against the EUR. However, the parity relationship tells you the price at which an investor would be indifferent to the difference in interest rates. So using the formula for interest rate parity: (1+r(USD))/(1+r(EUR)) = F/S and plugging in the interest rates from above and a spot rate of $1.5/EUR: (1.1)/(1.05) = F/(1.5) The 1 year forward rate would have to be $1.5714/EUR in order for the investor to be INDIFFERENT between holding USD or EUR. All this assuming interest rate parity holds. I'm not big on Econ but this is how I understood it when studying for the CFA exam the past few months. So please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.",
"There is nothing called actual, unless you convert currency. There are real offer rates that are slightly different from Bank to Bank. Search Engines give a generic average value based on the sites they are trust / have tie-up with. Banks don't use google or search engines to get the basis, they have quite a bit more info and there is a specific Treasury function that would look at the trend and give out a huge spread between buy and sell.",
"\"A falling exchange rate is an indication of falling confidence in a currency. Countries like Iran or Venezuela, with a managed exchange rate, set their exchange rates at a higher value than the market accepts. Such market expectations may be influenced by poor government management, interventions into markets (such as nationalising businesses) or general instability / scarcity. The governments act to manage that uncertainty by limiting the availability of foreign exchange and pegging the exchange rate. Since there is an inadequate supply of trusted foreign currency people turn to informal exchanges in order to hedge their currency risk. This creates a negative feedback loop. People in government who have access to foreign exchange start to trade on informal markets, pocketing the difference in the official and unofficial rates. The increasing gap between the two rates drives increasing informal market exchange and can result in speculative bubbles. Driving instability (or economic contradiction) is that the massive and increasing difference between the official and market exchange rates becomes a powerful form of rent for government officials. This drives further state-led rent-seeking behaviour and causes the economy to become even more unstable. If you're interested in a more formal academic study of how such parallel markets in currency arise, \"\"Zimbabwe’s Black Market for Foreign Exchange\"\" by Albert Makochekanwa at the University of Pretoria is a useful source.\"",
"The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.",
"There are no flat fees but typically banks and money exchangers will use a the current market rate, up to the minute for some powerful exchangers. They then add a little on top depending on many variables. Those variables can be related to the quantity of currency that organization holds, the average amount they hold, the market trend for that currency, the stability of the currency, the location of that currency exchange, etc. As for the one stop shop for currency exchange providers, you can try moneysupermarket.com Hope that helps.",
"I noticed the buy/sell board table. Where did you notice this. Generally for a pair of currencies, there is Unit associated along with direction. The Unit is generally constant. These are only revised when there is large devaluation of a particular currency. Buying Php for MYR 8.52, Selling MYR 8.98. So in this case the Unit of PHP is 100, so Bank is Buying 100 PHP from you [you are selling PHP] and will give you MYR 8.52. If you now want to buy 100 PHP [so the Bank is selling you], you have to pay MYR 8.98. So you loose MYR 0.46 Why are they selling it way beyond the exchange rate? Why is this? As explained above, they are not. Its still within the range. The quote on internet are average price. This means before going back to Philippines, I can buy a lot of peso that I can buy and exchange it for higher price right? Generally an individual cannot make money by buying in one currency and selling in other. There are specialist who try and find arbitrage between multiple pair of currencies and make money out of it. Its a continuous process, if they start making profit, the market will react and put pressure on a pair and the prices would move to remove the arbitrage.",
"It's the buying and selling of the stock that causes the fluctuation in prices, not the news. People buy and sell all the time, and not just for newsworthy reasons. They may have to send a child to college, or fix a roof, etc. Or they may be technical traders looking for signals. All kinds of reasons.",
"I wrote about the dynamic of why either of a lower or higher exchange rate would be good for economies in Would dropping the value of its currency be good for an economy? A strong currency allows consumers to import goods cheaply from the rest of the world. A weak currency allows producers to export goods cheaply to the rest of the world. People are both consumers and producers. Clearly, there have to be trade-offs. Strong or weak mean relative to Purchasing Power Parity (i.e. you can buy more or less of an equivalent good with the same money). Governments worrying about unemployment will try and push their currencies weaker relative to others, no matter the cost. There will be an inflationary impact (imported inputs cost more as a currency weakens) but a country running a major surplus (like China) can afford to subsidise these costs.",
"You may simply be asking why stocks 'gap up' or 'gap down' when the stock market opens. This is because the price adjusts to news that occurred while the exchanges were closed overnight. Perhaps Asian stocks crashed, or perhaps a news story was released in the New York Times about some major company. There are thousands of factors that affect market sentiment, and the big gaps that happen at the open of every trading day is the price of the stocks catching up to those factors.",
"As mentioned in several other answers, the main reason for high rates is to maximize profit. However, here is another, smaller effect: The typical flow of getting money from an ATM: Suppose you have a minute to consider the offer, then in that time the currency may drop or rise (which you can see from an external source of information). Therefore this opens a window for abuse. For real major currencies these huge switches are rare, but they do happen. And when 1 or 2 minor currencies are involved these switches are more common. Just looking at a random pair for today (Botswana Pula to Haitian Gourde) I immediately spotted a moment where the exchange rate jumped by more than 2 %. This may not be the best example, but it shows why a large margin is desirable. Note that this argument only holds for when the customer knows in advance what the exchange rate would be, for cases where it is calculated afterwards I have not found any valid excuse for such large margins (except that it allows them to offer other services at a lower price because these transaction).",
"An economy produces goods and services and people use money to pay for those goods and services. Money has value because people believe that they can buy and sell goods and services with it in that economy. How much the value of money is, is determined by how much money there is in comparison to goods and services (supply and demand). In most economies it is the job of the federal/national reserve bank to ensure that prices stay stable (ie the relationship of goods and services to how much money there is is stable); as this is necessary for a well running economy. The federal reserve bank does so by making more (printing, decreasing interest rates) or less (increasing interest rates) available to the economy. To determine how much money needs to be in the economy to keep prices stable is incredibly hard as many factors have an impact: If the reserve bank gets it wrong and there is more money compared to goods and services than previous, prices will rise to compensate; this is inflation If it's the other way round is deflation. Since it is commonly regarded that deflation is much more destabilizing to an economy than inflation the reserve banks tend to err on the side of inflation.",
"\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"",
"Originally dollars were exchangeable for specie at any time, provided you went to a govt exchange. under Bretton Woods this was a generally fixed rate, but regardless there existed a spread on gold. This ceased to be the case in 71 when the Nixon shock broke Bretton woods.",
"I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.",
"If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.",
"The Federal Reserve Bank publishes exchange rate data in their H.10 release. It is daily, not minute by minute. The Fed says this about their data: About the Release The H.10 weekly release contains daily rates of exchange of major currencies against the U.S. dollar. The data are noon buying rates in New York for cable transfers payable in the listed currencies. The rates have been certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for customs purposes as required by section 522 of the amended Tariff Act of 1930. The historical EURUSD rates for the value of 1 EURO in US$ are at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/hist/dat00_eu.htm If you need to know USDEUR the value of 1 US$ in EUROS use division 1.0/EURUSD.",
"To make it simple, just use gold as the main benchmark. Gold price never moves, FIAT currencies move around the price of gold. So, when comparing US$ and Australian dollars to the gold, you know which currency is moving up and which down.",
"Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates. This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates. If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year. Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount. The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during.",
"\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \"\"price\"\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \"\"market\"\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \"\"price\"\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \"\"amateur hour\"\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\"",
"Many people trade the currency markets via brokers who have developed online apps with live forex prices and many currency pairs. You can trade on your phone, iPad or PC / Mac.",
"\"Other things equal is sometimes referred to as \"\"ceteris paribus\"\" - the scenario where you compare two currencies (or things) under the assumption that all other factors that could effect those currencies (earthquakes, revolutions, currency crises ect) are not ocurring. Its like using a control group in a lab. \"\"Real interest rates\"\" means the rate of that countries interest rate, accounting for inflation. \"\"Proportional to the strength of its home currency\"\" is referring to how countries with higher rates of interest tend to have stronger currencies (relative to other currencies) because foreign investment/capital will flood into the country seeking those higher rates of return - excess demand for the currency will cause it to appreciate. So this is also true in reverse, as capital will tend to leave a country will ultra-low interest rates.\"",
"There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.",
"A day is a long time and the rate is not the same all day. Some sources will report a close price that averages the bid and ask. Some sources will report a volume-weighted average. Some will report the last transaction price. Some will report a time-weighted average. Some will average the highest and lowest prices for the interval. Different marketplaces will also have slightly different prices because different traders are present at each marketplace. Usually, the documentation will explain what method they use and you can choose the source whose method makes the most sense for your application.",
"While that sounds reasonable, it looks like most of the actual trading is done on the basis of changes rather than value. At a guess, this is because computing the balance sheet anew with every change inhibits the speed with which transactions can be processed.",
"The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low.",
"\"You are violating the Uncovered Interest Rate Parity. If Country A has interest rate of 4% and Country B has interest rate of 1%, Country B's expected exchange rate must appreciate by 3% compared to spot. The \"\"persistent pressure to further depreciate\"\" doesn't magically occur by decree of the supreme leader. If there is room for risk free profit, the entire Country B would deposit their money at Country A, since Country A has higher interest rate and \"\"appreciates\"\" as you said. The entire Country A will also borrow their money at Country B. The exception is Capital Control. Certain people are given the opportunity to get the risk free profit, and the others are prohibited from making those transactions, making UIP to not hold.\"",
"What you want is the average change in rate of the Australian Dollar against multiple other currencies, to even out the effect of moves in a single other currency. People often look at the trade-weighted exchange rate to get an idea of this, as it allows you to look at the currencies that are most relevant, rather than every tiny other currency having an equal weight.",
"It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.",
"\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \"\"root value\"\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\"",
"How high is high? In countries that suffered hyperinflation such as the Weimar Republic around 1923 and Zimbabwe around the late 1990s this certainly did happen on a daily basis. E.g. One boy, who was sent to buy two bread buns, stopped to play football and by the time he got to the shop, the price had gone up, so he could only afford to buy one. or One father set out for Berlin to buy a pair of shoes. When he got there, he could only afford a cup of coffee and the bus fare home. or At the height of the country's economic crisis that year, prices were rising at least twice day, with Zimbabweans forced to carry cash around in plastic bags just to buy basic items.",
"\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"",
"I've always understood inflation to be linked to individual currencies, although my only research into the subject was an intro economics course in undergrad and I don't recall seeing why that would be the case. I guess the basic principle is that currency traders are watching the printing presses and trading in exchange markets to the point that the exchange rates fall in relation to increases in money supply. There's probably something about the carry trade in there as well, but it's late and I took some medications, so someone else will have to carry that torch. I must admit I've not really paid attention to foreign currencies like HKD, but the proximity and political relationship with China probably greatly complicates your question, since part of the problem has been China's currency peg.",
"No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low.",
"Brilliant fact-based objective reality explanation of the world currency markets. I'm into bitcoin and physical gold investments (yeah, I know, it's like being gay and straight at the same time without being bi), may I ask you a few things later?",
"If I understand correctly, you're actually asking why there isn't a society whose members generally accept/use any currency for transactions, and just like, Google the exchange rate or something. The answer is because it's exceptionally inconvenient. Can you imagine having a wallet with 200 pouches for all the different currencies? Why would you want to deal with exchange rates all the time? What if the value of a currency changes? (A single currency at least has the illusion of being stable). Et cetera.",
"Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.",
"AU rates are higher than 3.75%. The market for deposits here in Australia is very competitive (banks have change increased deposits as a share of liabilities from ~50% to ~60% in just the last few years) and, as a result, demand deposits here pay far more than the central bank rate. My demand savings account, for example, pays 4.95%. That AU-US interest differentials are so staggeringly high means that, inmevitably, lots of investors are carrying. Depending of FX moves over the next year, a lot of investors will either gain heaps or lose more. If you can leverage, you can gain even more (or lose the house).",
"\"As you say, the currency carry trade shouldn't work. The deluge of new cash into a high-interest currency should result in falling exchange rates. A November 2009 paper by Òscar Jordà and Alan Taylor of the University of California, Davis, may be offer one approach which is more stable. According to The Economist: They find that a refined carry-trade strategy—one that incorporates a measure of long-term value—produces more consistent profits and is less prone to huge losses than one that targets the highest yield. However, exchange rates, central bank interest rates, as well as money supply are all political as well as economic constructs. An economic driver for arbitrage may be offset by political will (such as US quantative easing) or even social malaise (Japanese continual low inward investment). I wouldn't go so far as calling the carry trade \"\"free money\"\" - currencies have proven far too unstable for that - but state interference in markets tends to be clearly telegraphed and a trader with nerves of steel may take advantage of it.\"",
"\"I'm not an economist, but I understand the idea of value or \"\"price\"\" is purely \"\"what people agree it to be\"\". The quants and analysts I've worked with always talk about \"\"discovering the price\"\" - it's an unknown until someone says \"\"I will pay X\"\". Are my 2nd hand Nikes worth $20? Put em on ebay to find out. If someone buys them, then yes, 2nd hand Nikes are worth $20. If they don't sell then they're not worth $20. Obviously ebay is not the most efficient market out there. The exchanges attempt to be that with prices varying by fractions of cent in fractions of seconds (milliseconds). EDIT* Perhaps another way to look at it is \"\"What is the 'correct' value of a computer game, say 'Skyrim'?\"\" Your idea of the value of labour and production costs produces some figure. But in the real world, what actually happens? On release day the game is priced at, say, $60. And lots of people say \"\"I will pay $60\"\". Many people don't, but many people do. Months later, Steam has a sale and they suggest Skyrim is now worth $30. Lot's of people who didn't think it was worth $60 do think it is worth $30. The amount of labour that went into is hasn't changed. So what it the true or 'correct' value/price of the game? What is the correct value/price of *amything*? It is *what people will pay for it*.\"",
"\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\"",
"Why do these fees exist? From a Banks point of view, they are operating in Currency A; Currency B is a commodity [similar to Oil, Grains, Goods, etc]. So they will only buy if they can sell it at a margin. Currency Conversion have inherent risks, on small amount, the Bank generally does not hedge these risks as it is expensive; but balances the position end of day or if the exposure becomes large. The rate they may get then may be different and the margin covers it. Hence on highly traded currency pairs; the spread is less. Are there back-end processes and requirements that require financial institutions to pass off the loss to consumers as a fee? The processes are to ensure bank does not make loss. is it just to make money on the convenience of international transactions? Banks do make money on such transactions; however they also take some risks. The Forex market is not single market, but is a collective hybrid market place. There are costs a bank incurs to carry and square off positions and some of it is reflected in fees. If you see some of the remittance corridors, banks have optimized a remittance service; say USD to INR, there is a huge flow often in small amounts. The remittance service aggregates such amounts to make it a large amount to get a better deal for themselves and passes on the benefits to individuals. Such volume of scale is not available for other pairs / corridors.",
"\"I suspect that to \"\"make money\"\" it isn't enough to know the current value (\"\"high currency\"\"): to make money you'd need to know/guess/predict/bet on the future change in value: will the currency value go higher in the future? Or will it come down again? Or will it stay the same? Everybody knows the current value, so that by itself isn't enough knowledge to make money from. That said, if you know you're going to need American dollars in the future (if you have future expenses which need to be paid in American dollars), then now might be a good time to buy those dollars.\"",
"FX is often purchased with leverage by both retail and wholesale speculators on the assumption daily movements are typically more restrained than a number of other asset classes. When volatility picks up unexpectedly these leveraged accounts can absolutely be wiped out. While these events are relatively rare, one happened as recently as 2016 when the Swiss National Bank unleashed the Swiss Franc from its Euro mooring. You can read about it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-snb-brokers-idUSKBN0KP1EH20150116",
"\"The dow jones is an index of 30 stocks that's weighted based on the price per share of these stocks. To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Prices are the result of supply and demand. Demand is defined as simply as \"\"I want this badly enough to pay cash for it\"\", \"\"supply is \"\"I own this and don't want to own it, therefore I'll sell it\"\" When investors go about deciding they'd like to buy some stock from people who own it and are wanting to sell it, a market is generated and a price both are willing to sell/buy at is found. If the price is too high/low, you won't sell or buy. The price has to be \"\"right\"\" based on your own personal valuation. Since these trades are done through an exchange and are so common, literally millions of shares are traded per day, you get the best price available at that moment for your shares. If person A is only willing to give you 100 dollars and person B is willing to give you 100.01, screw person A. I'm selling shares to person B. When this done on a macro-level (millions of shares traded per day) the exchanges will track and make public the \"\"price movement\"\" of what the market is willing to give for each and every publicly traded stock. TLDR: SUPPLY AND DEMAND. DOW USES THEIR OWN METHODS.\""
] |
[
"\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"",
"\"The basic idea is that money's worth is dependent on what it can be used to buy. The principal driver of monetary exchange (using one type of currency to \"\"buy\"\" another) is that usually, transactions for goods or services in a particular country must be made using that country's official currency. So, if the U.S. has something very valuable (let's say iPhones) that people in other countries want to buy, they have to buy dollars and then use those dollars to buy the consumer electronics from sellers in the U.S. Each country has a \"\"basket\"\" of things they produce that another country will want, and a \"\"shopping list\"\" of things of value they want from that other country. The net difference in value between the basket and shopping list determines the relative demand for one currency over another; the dollar might gain value relative to the Euro (and thus a Euro will buy fewer dollars) because Europeans want iPhones more than Americans want BMWs, or conversely the Euro can gain strength against the dollar because Americans want BMWs more than Europeans want iPhones. The fact that iPhones are actually made in China kind of plays into it, kind of not; Apple pays the Chinese in Yuan to make them, then receives dollars from international buyers and ships the iPhones to them, making both the Yuan and the dollar more valuable than the Euro or other currencies. The total amount of a currency in circulation can also affect relative prices. Right now the American Fed is pumping billions of dollars a day into the U.S. economy. This means there's a lot of dollars floating around, so they're easy to get and thus demand for them decreases. It's more complex than that (for instance, the dollar is also used as the international standard for trade in oil; you want oil, you pay for it in dollars, increasing demand for dollars even when the United States doesn't actually put any oil on the market to sell), but basically think of different currencies as having value in and of themselves, and that value is affected by how much the market wants that currency.\"",
"\"Money is money because people believe it is money. By \"\"believe it is money\"\", I mean that they expect they will be able to turn it into useful goods or services (food, rent, houses, truckloads full of iron ore, mining equipment, massages at the spa, helicopter rides, iPads, greenhouses, income streams to support your future retirement, etc). Foreign exchange rates change because people's ideas about how much useful goods or services they can get with various currencies change. For example: if the Zimbabwe government suddenly printed 10 times as much money as used to exist, you probably couldn't use that money to buy as much food at the Zimbabwe-Mart, so you wouldn't be willing to give people as many US-dollars (which can buy food at the US-Mart) for a Zimbabwe-dollar as you used to be able to. (It's not exactly that easy, because - for instance - food in the US is more useful to me than food in Zimbabwe. But people still move around all sorts of things, like oil, or agricultural products, or minerals, or electronics components.) The two main things that affect the value of a currency are the size of the economy that it's tied to (how much stuff there is to get), and how much of the currency there is / how fast it's moving around the economy (which tells you how much money there is to get it with). So most exchange rate shifts reflect a change in people's expectations for a regional economy, or the size of a money supply. (Also, Zimbabwe is doing much better now that it's ditched their own currency - they kept printing trillions of dollars' worth - and just trade in US dollars. Their economy still needs some work, but... better.)\""
] |
8247
|
Tax on Stocks or ETF's
|
[
"42521",
"475170",
"321114",
"465313"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"333425",
"195767",
"423929",
"447651",
"581632",
"553253",
"526661",
"84238",
"530146",
"537916",
"586010",
"161041",
"149305",
"350317",
"507276",
"65702",
"474745",
"537371",
"42521",
"580802",
"437907",
"518735",
"169240",
"244061",
"161019",
"459953",
"264820",
"535822",
"326559",
"553332",
"29502",
"233248",
"563831",
"110343",
"350555",
"251394",
"583626",
"545267",
"518310",
"202645",
"67616",
"534391",
"481283",
"367742",
"183910",
"343708",
"453639",
"43508",
"456968",
"407185",
"252135",
"552138",
"261902",
"392313",
"558867",
"443354",
"427067",
"173133",
"447197",
"337993",
"153112",
"227064",
"512253",
"493160",
"474981",
"524612",
"311782",
"249687",
"374676",
"240651",
"543898",
"41509",
"321114",
"590010",
"314342",
"216827",
"244749",
"420529",
"45190",
"506448",
"257274",
"252176",
"448659",
"23217",
"309923",
"496820",
"430868",
"190687",
"343219",
"207788",
"89546",
"189028",
"155053",
"486974",
"34139",
"175563",
"158185",
"116017",
"550319",
"216404"
] |
[
"As mentioned by Dilip, you need to provide more details. In general for transacting on stocks; Long Term: If you hold the stock for more than one year then its long term and not taxable. There is a STT [Securities Transaction Tax] that is already deducted/paid during buying and selling of a stock. Short Term: If you hold the stock for less than one year, it's short term gain. This can be adjusted against the short term loss for the financial year. The tax rate is 10%. Day Trading: Is same as short term from tax point of view. Unless you are doing it as a full time business. If you have purchased multiple quantities of same stock in different quantities and time, then when you selling you have to arrive at profit or loss on FIFO basis, ie First in First Out",
"@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.",
"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"Is the remaining amount tax free? As in, if the amount shown (which I can sell) on etrade is $5000 then if I sell the entire shares will my bank account be increased by $5000? The stocks they sell are withholding. So let's say you had $7000 of stock and they sold $2000 for taxes. That leaves you with $5000. But the actual taxes paid might be more or less than $2000. They go in the same bucket as the rest of your withholding. If too much is withheld, you get a refund. Too little and you owe them. Way too little and you have to pay penalties. At the end of the year, you will show $7000 as income and $2000 as withheld for taxes from that transaction. You may also have a capital gain if the stock increases in price. They do not generally withhold on stock sales, as they don't necessarily know what was your gain and what was your loss. You usually have to handle that yourself. The main point that I wanted to make is that the sale is not tax free. It's just that you already had tax withheld. It may or may not be enough.",
"Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.",
"E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.",
"\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"",
"Gold ETFs are treated different than stock ETFs, as a collectable. This makes long-term investing in gold ETFs (for one year or longer) subject to a relatively large capital gains tax (maximum rate of 28%, rather than the 15% rate that is applicable to most other long-term capital gains). Read The Gold Showdown: ETFs Vs. Futures for more details.",
"Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.",
"\"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \"\"Wash Sale Rule\"\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\"",
"The money that you put into the ETF is not tax-exempt in the usual sense of the word. It is your money and you don't owe any taxes on it any more unless Congress (or the state that you reside in) imposes a wealth tax at some time in the future. What you will owe taxes on are any dividends or capital gains that the ETF distributes to you each year (even if you have opted to automatically re-invest those amounts into the ETF), and the capital gains when you sell shares of the ETF.",
"ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.",
"\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"",
"Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.",
"\"Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any \"\"Income tax\"\" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under \"\"Taxable money for FY Income tax\"\"? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain. Will the \"\"Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back\"\" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay \"\"Dividend Distribution Tax\"\"? Paid by the company. What is \"\"Capital Gains\"\"? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security.\"",
"\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"",
"Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx",
"No Tax would have been deducted at the time of purchase/sale of shares. You would yourself be required to compute your tax liability and then pay taxes to the govt. In case the shares sold were held for less than 1 year - 15% tax on capital gains would be levied. In case the shares sold were held for more than 1 year - No Tax would be levied and the income earned would be tax free. PS: No Tax is levied at the time of purchase of shares and Tax is only applicable at the time of sale of shares.",
"\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.",
"The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.",
"There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.",
"You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.",
"The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at",
"Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.",
"As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.",
"\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"",
"The Federal Central Tax Office says you may not have to pay taxes in germany for capital gains. You may have to apply for a tax relief to prevent the tax from being collected. You very likely will have to pay whatever taxes there are in Hong Kong on capital gains. Since you use an US broker withholding tax may apply to you but this is a different question that has nothing to do with Germany or german stocks. To be sure you should contact a local expert on this topic. EDIT: I missed some informations that I found on the english site of the german Federal Central Tax Office homepage.",
"The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).",
"Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.",
"You pay taxes on any gains you make after selling, so if you buy and hold you won't pay taxes (and you should hold for more than a year so that it gets taxed at the long-term rate, not the short-term rate). I like ETFs, there are some good ones Vanguard offers that are fairly broad, or you can use something like www.Betterment.com which invests in a diversified portfolio of ETFs (and includes things like automatic re-balancing and tax-loss harvesting).",
"(I'm assuming the tag of United-states is accurate) Yes, the remaining amount is tax free -- at the current price. If you sell at exactly the original price, there is no capital gain, no capital loss. So you've already payed the taxes. If you sell and there is a capital gain of $3000, then you will pay taxes on the $3000. If 33% is your marginal tax rate, and if you held the stock for less than a year, then you will keep $7000 and pay taxes of $1000. Somehow, I doubt your marginal tax rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year after eTrade sold some for you to pay taxes, then you will pay 15% on the gain -- or $450. eTrade sold the shares to pay the taxes generated by the income. Yes, those shares were considered income. If you sell and have a loss, well, life sucks. However, if you sell something else, you can use the loss to offset the other gain. So if you sell stock A for a loss of $3000, and sell stock B at a gain of $4000, then you pay taxes on the net of $1000.",
"The same as you would for an individual stock. A stock starts the year at $100, and has $4 in dividends over the year, why would the fact the the stock ends the year at say $90, confuse you? You pay tax on the dividend at the favored rate, if held in a taxable account, obviously, and that's about it.",
"A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).",
"Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.",
"The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable",
"I don't see a tag for United States, so I'm having to assume this is US taxes. It doesn't matter what app you use, IRS trades are all calculated the same. First, you have to report each trade on a 8949 and from that the totals go into a schedule D. Short term trades are stocks that you've kept exactly one year or less, long term trades are for 1 year + 1 day or more. Trades where you sold a stock for a loss, then bought that stock back again under 30 days don't get to count as a loss. This only affects realized capital gains and losses, you don't count fees. First, take all of your short term gains then offset them by all of your short term losses. Do the same for long term gains and losses. Short and long term gains are taxed at different rates. You can deduct losses from short term to your long term and vice versa. Then you can deduct the total losses up to $3000 (household, $1500 married, filing separately) per year on your regular income taxes or other dividend taxes. If you have over $3000 in losses, then you need to carry that over to subsequent years. Edited per Dave's comments: thanks Dave",
"\"Very interesting question. While searching i also found that some precious metal ETFs (including IAU) gains are taxed at 28% because IRS considers it \"\"collectible\"\", rather than the usual long term 15% for stocks and stock holding ETFs. As for capital gain tax you have to pay now my guess it's because of the following statement in the IAU prospectus (page 34): When the trust sells gold, for example to pay expenses, a Shareholder will recognize gain or loss ....\"",
"Long term gains are taxed at 15% maximum. Losses, up to the $3K/yr you cited, can offset ordinary income, so 25% or higher, depending on your income. Better to take the loss that way. With my usual disclaimer: Do not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.",
"For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.",
"This depends on the particular index, of course. Capital gains taxes occur when stock is sold (for a profit). This occurs less frequently in an index fund: Where an active manager frequently buys and sells stocks (after all, he wants to be active :-) ), the index fund only sells stocks when the particular stock leaves the index. For an index such as the S&P 500 this does not happen that often. The more specific the criteria of the index fund, the more often the selling of stock and thus the need to pay capital gains taxes occurs.",
"Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?",
"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.",
"Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.",
"The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.",
"\"The US withholding tax applies to stocks/ETFs purchased on the NYSE and other US-based exchanges. If you buy Cenovus on the TSE then you will not be charged this tax. Your last sentence seems like you might be misunderstanding this tax though. If the tax applied, it would not cost you 15% on all your profits, it only applies to dividend yields. So if it pays you a 5% dividend, the tax costs you 0.75%. However, if you buy at $21.19 and sell at $26, then your capital gain is not subject to withholding taxes. It is however, subject to Canadian income tax (at 50% of the gain amount) when it's not sheltered in a TFSA or other registered account. The tax on the gains could easily amount to 16% of your profits, which is a much more significant cost. Therefore, having to pay a 0.75% withholding cost certainly does not \"\"defeat the purpose of the TFSA\"\" which is to shelter from Canadian income tax!\"",
"(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!",
"\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"",
"However, you might have to pay taxes on capital gains if these stocks were acquired during your prior residency.",
"\"Mutual funds don't pay taxes themselves, they distribute any dividends or capital gains to the shareholders. Thus, if you hold a mutual fund in a tax-advantaged account like a 401k or IRA then the distribution isn't a taxable event while in a regular taxable account you would have to pay taxes on the distributions. From Forbes: There can be foreign companies on US stock exchanges that would still work the same way. Unilever for example is an Anglo-Dutch multinational listed on the NYSE as \"\"UN.\"\"\"",
"You normally only pay taxes on the difference between the sale price and the cost basis of the asset. In your example, you would probably pay taxes on the $10 difference, not the full sale price of $110. If you paid a commission, however, you would be taxed on your gain minus the commission you paid. Since you held the asset for less than a year, you wouldn't pay the long-term capital gains rate of 20%; you'd be taxed on the capital gain as if it were ordinary income, which depends on your federal income tax bracket. Also, littleadv makes a good point about the implications of buying the asset with after-tax funds too, so that's another part of the equation to consider as well.",
"\"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a \"\"limited\"\" agreement. You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\"",
"\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"",
"non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.",
"I'm not sure where you are, but in the United States capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income. On the 1040, captial gains income is separated from earned income, and income tax is calculated just on earned income. Then capital gains tax is calculated on capital gains income, and then added to income tax afterward.",
"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.",
"A purchase of a stock is not a taxable event. No 1099 to worry about. Welcome to Money.SE",
"Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.",
"See my answer here What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock The only tax from US stocks you'd need to worry about would be dividend withholding tax of 30%. If you contact your ISA provider they should be able to provide you with a W8-BEN form so that you can have this rate reduced to 15%. Just because there's a tax treaty does not mean you will automatically be charged 15% - you must provide a W8-BEN form and renew it when it expires. That last 15% is unfortunately unavoidable. If you were paying any UK taxes you could claim that 15% as a discount against your UK dividend tax liability, but as your US stock would be wrapped in an ISA there's no UK tax to pay which means no tax to reclaim from the tax treaty. Other than DWT though, you will pay absolutely no tax on US stocks held in an ISA to either the US or UK government.",
"\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"",
"The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.",
"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.",
"Capital gains taxes for a year are calculated on sales of assets that take place during that year. So if you sell some stock in 2016, you will report those gains/losses on your 2016 tax return.",
"\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"",
"\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"",
"ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.",
"If so, are there ways to reduce the amount of taxes owed? Given that it's currently December, I suppose I could sell half of what I want now, and the other half in January and it would split the tax burden over 2 years instead, but beyond that, are there any strategies for tax reduction in this scenario? One possibility is to also sell stocks that have gone down since you bought them. Of course, you would only do this if you have changed your mind about the stock's prospects since you bought it -- that is, it has gone down and you no longer think it will go up enough to be worth holding it. When you sell stocks, any losses you take can offset any gains, so if you sell one stock for a gain of $10,000 and another for a loss of $5,000, you will only be taxed on your net gain of $5,000. Even if you think your down stock could go back up, you could sell it to realize the loss, and then buy it back later at the lower price (as long as you're not worried it will go up in the meantime). However, you need to wait at least 30 days before rebuying the stock to avoid wash sale rules. This practice is known as tax loss harvesting.",
"You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.",
"\"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the \"\"income\"\" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due.\"",
"First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.",
"The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html",
"You need to report the income from any work as income, regardless of if you invest it, spend it, or put it in your mattress (ignoring tax advantaged accounts like 401ks). You then also need to report any realized gains or losses from non-tax advantaged accounts, as well as any dividends received. Gains and losses are realized when you actually sell, and is the difference between the price you bought for, and the price you sold for. Gains are taxed at the capital gains rate, either short-term or long-term depending on how long you owned the stock. The tax system is complex, and these are just the general rules. There are lots of complications and special situations, some things are different depending on how much you make, etc. The IRS has all of the forms and rules online. You might also consider having a professional do you taxes the first time, just to ensure that they are done correctly. You can then use that as an example in future years.",
"If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.",
"What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.",
"\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\"",
"You pay taxes on capital gains when you realize your gains by selling the investment property. Also, in the US, taxes on capital gains are computed at special rates depending on your current income level, and so when you realize your gains two years from now, you will pay taxes on the gains at the special rate then applicable to your income level for the year of sale. Remember also that the US Congress can change the tax laws at any time between now and the time you sell your stocks, and so the rates you are looking at now may have changed too.",
"Is selling Vested RSU is the same as selling a regular stock? Yes. Your basis (to calculate the gain) is what you've been taxed on when the RSUs vested. Check your payslips/W2 for that period, and the employer should probably have sent you detailed information about that. I'm not a US citizen, my account is in ETrade and my stocks are of a US company, what pre arrangements I need to take to avoid tax issues? You will pay capital gains taxes on the sale in Israel. Depending on where you were when you earned the stocks and what taxes you paid then - it may open additional issues with the Israeli tax authority. Check with an Israeli tax adviser/accountant.",
"I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.",
"\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\"",
"I believe the answer to your question boils down to a discussion of tax strategies and personal situation, both now and in the future. As a result, it's pretty hard to give a concrete example to the question as asked right now. For example, if your tax rate now is likely to be higher than your tax rate at retirement (it is for most people), than putting the higher growth ETF in a retirement fund makes some sense. But even then, there are other considerations. However, if the opposite is true (which could happen if your income is growing so fast that your retirement income looks like it will be higher than your current income), than you might want the flexibility of holding all your ETFs in your non-tax advantaged brokerage account so that IF you do incur capital gains they are paid at prevailing, presumably lower tax rates. (I assume you meant a brokerage account rather than a savings account since you usually can't hold ETFs in a savings account.) I also want to mention that a holding in a corp account isn't necessarily taxed twice. It depends on the corporation type and the type of distribution. For example, S corps pay no federal income tax themselves. Instead the owners pay taxes when money is distributed to them as personal income. Which means you could trickle out the earnings from an holdings there such that it keeps you under any given federal tax bracket (assuming it's your only personal income.) This might come in handy when retired for example. Also, distribution of the holdings as dividends would incur cap gains tax rates rather than personal income tax rates. One thing I would definitely say: any holdings in a Roth account (IRA, 401k) will have no future taxes on earnings or distributions (unless the gov't changes its mind.) Thus, putting your highest total return ETF there would always be the right move.",
"\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"",
"\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"",
"I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.",
"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).",
"Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.",
"When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.",
"If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.",
"\"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \"\"tax exempt\"\", but each time you sell, you \"\"reset the counter\"\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\"",
"You realise a capital gain as soon as you sell the stock. At that point, you will have to pay taxes on the profits when you fill in your tax return. The fact that you used the money to subsequently purchase other stocks is not relevant, unless you sell those stocks within the same tax year. For example, purchase $5000 of stock A in 2010. Sell for $6000 in 2010. Purchase $6000 of stock B in 2010. Sell stock B for $6500 in 2010. Purchase $6500 of stock C in 2010. Sell stock C for $7000 in 2011. You owe capital gains on ($6000 - $5000) + ($6500 - $6000) = $1500 for tax year 2010. You owe capital gains on ($7000 - $6500) = $500 for 2011.",
"\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"",
"If you have made $33k from winning trades and lost $30k from loosing trades your net gain for the year would be $3k, so obviously you would pay taxes only on the net $3k gains.",
"Purchasing stock doesn't affect your immediate taxes any more than purchasing anything else, unless you purchase it through a traditional 401k or some other pre-tax vehicle. Selling stock has tax effects; that's when you have a gain or loss to report.",
"\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"",
"Generally speaking, each year, mutual funds distribute to their shareholders the dividends that are earned by the stocks that they hold and also the net capital gains that they make when they sell stocks that they hold. If they did not do so, the money would be income to the fund and the fund would have to pay taxes on the amount not distributed. (On the other hand, net capital losses are held by the fund and carried forward to later years to offset future capital gains). You pay taxes on the amounts of the distributions declared by the fund. Whether the fund sold a particular stock for a loss or a gain (and if so, how much) is not the issue; what the fund declares as its distribution is. This is why it is not a good idea to buy a mutual fund just before it makes a distribution; your share price drops by the per-share amount of the distribution, and you have to pay taxes on the distribution.",
"Capital gains and losses offset each other first, then your net gain is taxed at the applicable rate. If you have a net loss, you can offset your other income by up to $3,000. In your example, you have no net-gain or loss, so no tax implications from your activity.",
"In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain! Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice.",
"The answer to your question doesn't depend on who you trade with but what country you live in. If you live outside of the US, you will have to pay tax on dividends... sometimes. This depends on the tax treaty that your country has with the US. Canada, Australia, UK and a few other countries have favorable tax treaties with the US that allow you to not be double taxed. You must look into the tax treaty that your home country has with the US to answer the question. Each country is different.",
"In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.",
"This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.",
"Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes."
] |
[
"\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"\"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as \"\"mark to market\"\", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation.\"",
"If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed.",
"I think the answer you are looking for is: You are not taxed on the original basis (purchase cost) of your investment. If you pay $30 a share, and sell at $35, the $5 per share gain is taxable at time of sale. But the $30 basis cost doesn't enter into tax calculations at all. (So it's important to keep good records on your investments and how much you paid for them at purchase.)"
] |
9108
|
Starting an investment portfolio with Rs 5,000/-
|
[
"272021",
"472585"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"290757",
"323067",
"581712",
"65006",
"281865",
"175139",
"272021",
"46967",
"531965",
"183497",
"240351",
"452760",
"171189",
"356552",
"208165",
"593475",
"551627",
"152286",
"307424",
"93073",
"224816",
"596537",
"312821",
"384893",
"298985",
"412785",
"537711",
"469141",
"78893",
"102119",
"45970",
"488651",
"231246",
"548467",
"172913",
"55513",
"591909",
"52941",
"215799",
"246531",
"576688",
"397383",
"51848",
"239459",
"474296",
"129255",
"425293",
"336218",
"465819",
"390972",
"436622",
"8861",
"571218",
"376485",
"398278",
"310935",
"436120",
"68270",
"161445",
"365675",
"122679",
"479697",
"231195",
"579901",
"400196",
"269384",
"413856",
"505993",
"460457",
"183722",
"97836",
"325808",
"424061",
"45174",
"451782",
"100341",
"176335",
"332064",
"580313",
"35971",
"125477",
"153231",
"415432",
"235917",
"241996",
"274833",
"525089",
"95282",
"585269",
"59394",
"272174",
"586632",
"158426",
"397976",
"358154",
"41357",
"531005",
"338707",
"497344",
"379546"
] |
[
"Rs 10,000 is a small but good amount to begin with. I would suggest you start by investing in some good mutual funds. Do some research, a balance mutual fund is less risky less returns compared to a equity mutual fund. The other option is directly investing in stock market, however this needs some experience and you would need to open demat and trading accounts that would cost money to open and maintain.",
"As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.",
"I am going to assume that this is going to be a long term investment and you don't need this money before 5-6years at the very least. My advise would be to invest in one of the following funds : IDFC Premier equity fund growth plan (Direct) (Only SIP allowed right now) ICICI Discovery fund growth plan (Direct) DSP microcap fund growth plan (Direct) In case you do not want to be invested in small and mid cap and want a little less volatility then my first choice for that would be : Quantum long term equity fund dividend plan Whatever you go for make sure you go directly with the fund house and not through a broker as you end up getting charged an extra .63% extra as opposed to going direct and you will also be paying for a demat account which can be avoided if you invest directly with a fund house. Out of the above mentioned funds Quantum has the lowest expense ratio of 1.25% and it is a huge benefit if you are talking 10+ years because it makes a lot of difference. Source : My own research and experience as an investor.",
"There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.",
"On reading couple of articles & some research over internet, I got to know about diversified investment where one should invest 70% in equity related & rest 30% in debt related funds Yes that is about right. Although the recommendation keeps varying a bit. However your first investment should not aim for diversification. Putting small amounts in multiple mutual funds may create paper work and tracking issues. My suggestion would be to start with an Index EFT or Large cap. Then move to balanced funds and mid caps etc. On this site we don't advise on specific funds. You can refer to moneycontrol.com or economictimes or quite a few other personal finance advisory sites to understand the top funds in the segments and decide on funds accordingly. PS: Rather than buying paper, buy it electronic, better you can now buy it as Demat. If you already have an Demat account it would be best to buy through it.",
"The best way to invest 50k Indian rupees is in a 5 Year NSC(National Saving Certificate which can be obtained at the Post Office) yielding interest 8.1% p.a. (at present), which is more than the effective FDR interest rate offered by any bank in India. Investment in an NSC also permits a deduction u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So, investing in an NSC will save tax and get a higher return/benefit for your investment.",
"Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months",
"I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely). For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: - 1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD = Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers!",
"First, as Dheer mentioned above, there is no right answer as investment avenues for a person is dicteted by many subjective considerations. Given that below a few of my thoughts (strictly thoughts): 1) Have a plan for how much money you would need in next 5-7 years, one hint is, do you plan you buy a house, car, get married ... Try to project this requirement 2) Related to the above, if you have some idea on point 1, then it would be possible for you to determine how much you need to save now to achieve the above (possibly with a loan thrown in). It will also give you some indication as to where and how much of your current cash holding that you should invest now 3) From an investment perspective there are many instruments, some more risky some less. The exact mix of instruments that you should consider is based on many things, one among them is your risk apetite and fund requirement projections 4) Usually (not as a rule of thumb) the % of savings corresponding to your age should go into low risk investments and 100-the % into higher risk investment 5) You could talk to some professional invetment planners, all banks offer the service Hope this helps, I reiterate as Dheer did, there is truely no right answer for your question all the answers would be rather contextual.",
"Buy only 'Direct' Plans, not regular. - Demat providers won't sell Direct plans, that you can do it through https://www.mfuindia.com Make sure expense ratio < 2.5% (With direct plans it will be much lesser) I hope these points will help you to take a better decision.",
"Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not.",
"\"Best way to invest around 50k Indian rupees and save Tax There is nothing \"\"Best\"\". There are multiple options that are available under 80C and you need to select one that suites you best. There are market linked options like ELSS, or assured returns like 6 years FD, or PPF or Term Insurance or other such options.\"",
"\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"",
"I have been on the same boat as you are right now. So basically, it depends on your goals, risk tolerance, upcoming life events! You want a plan not just for this particular 50K, but for your household assets and future earnings to come! My suggestion: Get a flat fee, online financial advisor to do the work for you. You don’t have to figure this out by yourself. Personally, I would invest in a portfolio that: Offers dynamic asset allocation plans that evolves over time based on changing market conditions. Offers a healthy mix of beta and alpha strategies along with the liquidity and ability to monitor activity online. Has structural risk management in place. Risk management is as much about increasing risk as it is about cutting risk. Therefore, you want a plan for de-allocating and re-allocating risk Hope this helps.",
"50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...",
"There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes: I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50 to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan. List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have? There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here.",
"I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.",
"I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.",
"There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia. First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this. Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns. Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features",
"You can invest more that 20,000 in Infrastructure bonds, however the tax benefit is only on 20,000. Further the interest earned is taxable. The best guaranteed post tax returns is on PPF. So invest a substantial sum in this. As your age group low you can afford to take risk and hence could also look at investing in ELSS [Mutual Fund]. A note on each of these investments: LIC: If you have taken any of the endowment / Money Back plan, remember the returns are very low around 5-6%. It would make more sense to buy a pure term plan at fraction of the cost and invest the remaining premium into even PPF or FD that would give you more return. NSC/Postal Savings: They are a good option, however the interest is taxable. There is a locking of 6 years. PPF: The locking is large 15 years although one can do partial withdrawals after 7 years. The interest is not taxable. ULIP: These are market linked plans with Insurance and balance invested into markets. The charges for initial few years is quite high, plus the returns are not comparable to the normal Mutual Funds. Invest in this only if one needs less paper and doesn't want to track things separately. ELSS/Mutual Fund: These offer good market returns, but there is a risk of market. As you are young you can afford to take the risk. Most of the ELSS have given average results that are still higher than FD or PPF. Pension Plan: This is a good way to accumulate for retirement. Invest some small amount in this and do not take any insurance on it. Go for pure equity as you can still take the risk. This ensures that you have a kit for retirement. Check out the terms and conditions as to how you need to purchase annuity at the term end etc.",
"Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.",
"I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.",
"\"Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track \"\"the market\"\" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up.\"",
"The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.",
"\"Is this amount an adequate starting amount to begin investing with? Yes. You can open an account at a brokerage with this amount. I'm not sure I would invest in individual stocks at this point. Which services should I use to start buying shares? (Currently my bank offers this service but I'm willing to use other sources) I can't make UK-specific recommendations, but I'd compare your bank's fees to those of a discount broker -- as well as the variety and level of service available. I would like to regularly increase the amount invested in shares. Is it worth doing this in say £200 increments? Take a look at the fees associated with each investment. Divide the fee by the increment to see what percent you'll lose to fees/commissions. Keep in mind that you have to gain more than that percentage to start earning a positive return on your investment. If you have access to fee-free automatic mutual fund investments, and you can commit to the £200 amount on a regular basis going forward, then this can be a completely free way of making these incremental investments. See also this answer on dollar cost averaging, and my comment on the other answer on that question for how fees impact returns. When buying shares should I focus on say two or three companies, or diversify more? I would diversify into two or three different index funds. Read up on asset allocation. For example, you might invest 1/3 of your balance into S&P 500 index fund, bond index fund, and MSCI EAFE index fund (but that's just a rough example, and not necessarily good for you). I highly recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein for excellent info on diversification and asset allocation.\"",
"One year is short term -- short enough that trying to predict returns is a crap shoot. Frankly, if you will need the money in one year I wouldn't touch anything riskier than a money market account. $5000 also isn't enough to give you much flexibility in achieving a balanced portfolio, since the minimal initial purchase for mutual funds is often around $2500. (I'm not sure whether ETFs would give you any more flexibility.) So on grounds of both size and time horizon, I have to recommend against this plan. The risk of losing money, with insufficient time for gains to balance that risk, is simply too high. Others may feel differently, of course. But that's the best advice I can offer.",
"\"Before going into specific investments, I think it would be a good idea to assess how \"\"free\"\" is that $5000. How much do you have to rely on it in emergency? You always want to buy low and sell high. However, if you need to make unplanned withdraw from an investment, you risk unfavorable market conditions at the time when you need the money, and lose money that way. One common suggestion is to keep 3-6 months living expense in checking/saving/very, very liquid/short term investments. After that, you can invest the rest in more profitable ventures. Assuming that you are all set in that regard, next consideration is whether you have any goal for the money besides generating the maximum return. Is this for retirement, buying a house/apartment a few year down the road, graduate school, emergency cash store for the time between graduation and getting a job, or traveling a year in Europe after graduation? There are myriad of other possible goals. Knowing that you get a better idea of the time frame involved in the investment, and what you need to do with your money. If this is for retirement, you just need to generate the highest possible return for 40-50 years, while minimize taxes when you have to withdraw that money (there are more nuanced concerns, but large idea-wise that's what you need to do). If you want it for a trip to an exotic location in 2 year, then your primary goal will be to preserve the value of your capital, while assessing whether you need to manage foreign-exchange risk. The time frame also rule in or rule out certain types of investments. If you are planning to use the money to purchase a house in 5 years, IRAs probably would not be what you are looking for. If you are planning to retirement, short term CD would not be the most effective way. After figuring out a bit of what you are trying to do with the money, I think how you want to invest it will be much more clear to you. In case of retirement, people seem to generally recommend no load index funds, and mid-cap growth funds. Nothing is really off the table, since your investment time frame is so long, and you can tolerate risk. You might also be interested to check out https://www.wealthfront.com/ (I have no relation with them). A friend recommended it to me, and I think their pitch make sense. In other cases, it really is case dependent, and there might have more than one solution to any case. There is just one more potential investment venture that people you might not immediately thinking of, and that might be of interest to you. That is to use the $5000 as your own budget to build/maintain connections with people and network. Use it to take professors out to a meal to pick their brain, travel to keep in touch with old friends, network with potential future employers and peers to improve job prospect, or get opportunities to meet interesting people. I hope this helps.\"",
"When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself.",
"Contrary to most other advise given here, I'd recommend (in your situation) not to invest in stock (yet). There are some 'hidden' cost to investing that will eat your profit and in the end, that's why you are investing. Banks will charge for buying, selling and maintaining stock as well as for cashing dividends. Depending on which bank or intermediary these costs will rise. So, my advise is to start playing with stock creating a virtual portfolio and track that. Just as duffbeer says, start saving. Also look at my answer here.",
"Compound interest is your friend. For such a low amount of cash, just pop it into savings accounts or deposits. When you reach about 1.500€ buy one very defensive stock that pays high dividends. With deposits, you don't risk anything, with one stock, you can lose 100% of the investment. That's why it's important to buy defensive stock (food, pharma, ...). Every time you hit 1.500€ after, buy another stock until you have about 10 different stock in different sectors, in different countries. Then buy more stock of the ones you have in portfolio. You're own strategy is pretty good also.",
"\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \"\"actively managed\"\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \"\"time the market\"\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\"",
"It varies. Depending on your brokerage, they may charge you per transaction, so the more transactions, the higher the cost. Though this (from what I've seen), is uncommon with many index funds. In terms of how aggressive you want to be with your investment varies on your comfort with risk, timeline of investment and many other factors beyond the scope of this question. The biggest issue you may need to be aware of is if you are looking at mutual funds, they may have minimum investments. Depending on what that minimum investment is set to, you may not be able to split your $5500 into more than one fund. A lot of this comes down to the specific funds in which your are anticipating investing, as well as the service you use to do so (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc). Ultimately, diversification can be a lot safer, but there are logistics to consider. Personally, I began with a target fund (a mutual fund with adjusted risk based on the estimated year of retirement) and add additional mutual funds, stocks and ETFs as time goes on.",
"If I were you, I would save 200 euros for retirement each month and another 800 I would stash away with the hope to start investing soon. I think you have to invest a bigger lump sum, then 1000 euros. It makes sense to invest at least 30K to see any tangible results. My acquaintances started from 50K and now see pretty handsome returns. Investing is profitable, as long as you approach it smartly. Also, do not ever hire an overly expensive financial consultant - this expenses will never pay off. Of course, check their credentials and reputation... But never pay much to these guys. Not worth it.",
"\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \"\"invest in knowledge\"\".\"",
"What is the best form of investment? It only depends on your goals... The perfect amount of money depends also on your particular situation. The first thing you should start getting familiar with is the notion of portfolio and diversification. Managing risk is also fundamental especially with the current market funkiness... Start looking at index based ETFs -Exchange Traded Funds- and Balanced Mutual Funds to begin with. Many discounted online brokerage companies in the USA offer good training and knowledge centers. Some of them will also let you practice with a demo account that let you invest virtual money to make you feel comfortable with the interface and also with investing in general.",
"Conventional wisdom says (100-age) percentage of your saving should go to Equity and (age) percentage should go to debt. My advice to you is to invest (100-age) into index fund through SIP and rest in FD. You can re-balance your investment once a year. Stock picking is very risky. And so is market timing. Of cource you can change the 100 into a other number according to your risk tolerance.",
"As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.",
"It is difficult to actually 'answer' your (or any other) investment question as investment outlook and objectives are different from one individual to another. I shall put down some of my thoughts and probably you shall be able to factor them in while you take your decision. As for your last paragraph, in general from investment perspective, the younger you are more kisk you can take and bond gives a stable base to a portfolio. One good way to estimate the proportionality of bond:stock is (your age):(100-your age). However for 2-3 years you could ignore the above and invest in good quality stocks for long term.",
"5 years is a reasonable time period to invest in a stock which will give you a decent return and will generally not lose too much value except in case of 2008 kinda downturn. I would advise you to invest in a large cap stock/s like BP, Royal Dutch or HSBC (Your parents of course can buy them for you).",
"As I recall, the Scottrade minimum is only $500. (By the way, Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends which the securities pay) Once you have an account, you can buy into an index fund. SPY tracks the S&P 500. It is also currently paying nearly 2% in dividends. You can shop for other alternatives here: http://seekingalpha.com/insight/etf_hub/etf_guide/selector/article/39431-core-building-blocks-large-mid-small-cap-us-etfs",
"As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings.",
"\"Before anything else, read up on the basics of economics. After that, there a few things you need to ask yourself before you even think about investing in anything: If you have an answer to those questions: Once you answered those questions I could make a simple first suggestion: Confident in handling it yourself and low maintenance with uncertain horizon: look up an online bank that offers ETFs such as IWDA (accumulation (dividend is not payed but reinvested) or income(dividend is payed out)) and maybe a few more specific ones then buy and hold for at least 5 years. Confident and high maintenance with long horizon: maybe stock picking but you'll probably never be able to beat the market unless you invest 10's of hours in research per week. However this will also cost a bit and given your initial amount not advisable to do. Be sure that you also have a VERY close look at the prospectus of an investment (especially if you go with a (retail) bank and they \"\"recommend\"\" you certain actively traded funds). They tend to charge you quite a bit (yearly management fees of 2-3% (which is A LOT if you are eying maybe 7%-8% yearly) aren't unheard of). ETF's such IWDA only have for example a yearly cost of 0.20%. Personally I have one portfolio (of many) only consisting of that ETF (so IWDA) and one global small cap. It's one of the best and most consistant ones to date. In the end, the amount you start with doesn't really matter so much as long as it's enough to buy at least a few shares of what you have in mind. If you can then increase your portfolio over time and keep the expenses in check, compounding interest should do the rest.\"",
"As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.",
"\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \"\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\"\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \"\"The RRSP Secret\"\" by Greg Habstritt. \"\"Unshakeable\"\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\"",
"Investing is really about learning your own comfort level. You will make money and lose money. You will make mistakes but you will also learn a great deal. First off, invest in your own financial knowledge, this doesn't require capital at all but a commitment. No one will watch or care for your own money better than yourself. Read books, and follow some companies in a Google Finance virtual portfolio. Track how they're doing over time - you can do this as a virtual portfolio without actually spending or losing money. Have you ever invested before? What is your knowledge level? Investing long term is about trying to balance risk while reducing losses and trying not to get screwed along the way (by people). My personal advice: Go to an independent financial planner, go to one that charges you per hour only. Financial planners that don't charge you hourly get paid in commissions. They will be biased to sell you what puts the most money in their pockets. Do not go to the banks investment people, they are employed by the banks who have sales and quota requirements to have you invest and push their own investment vehicles like mutual funds. Take $15k to the financial planner and see what they suggest. Keep the other $5K in something slow and boring and $1k under your mattress in actual cash as an emergency. While you're young, compound interest is the magic that will make that $25k increase hand over fist in time. But you need to have it consistently make money. I'm young too and more risk tolerant because I have time. While I get older I can start to scale back my risk because I'm nearing retirement and preserve instead of try to make returns.",
"\"I've never invested in penny stocks. My #1 investing rule, buy what you know and use. People get burned because they hear about the next big thing, go invest! to just end up losing everything because they have no clue in what they're investing in. From what I've found, until you have minimum of $5k to invest, put everything in a single investment. The reason for this, as others have mentioned, is that commissions eat up just about all your profits. My opinion, don't put it in a bond, returns are garbage right now - however they are \"\"safe\"\". Because this is $1000 we're talking about and not your life savings, put it in a equity like a stock to try and maximize your return. I aim for 15% returns on stocks and can generally achieve 10-15% consistently. The problem is when you get greedy and keep thinking it will go above once you're at 10-15%. Sell it. Sell it right away :) If it drops down -15% you have to be willing to accept that risk. The nice thing is that you can wait it out. I try to put a 3 month time frame on things I buy to make money. Once you start getting a more sizable chunk of money to play around with you should start to diversify. In Canada at least, once you have a trading account with a decent size investment the commissions get reduced to like $10 a trade. With your consistent 10% returns and additional savings you'll start to build up your portfolio. Keep at it and best of luck!\"",
"Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.",
"\"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \"\"how do I pick stocks?\"\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\"",
"\"Shares are for investors. Most of the rich are investors. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. But if you want to get rich, the first step is to become an investor. (The second is to become a SUCCESSFUL investor. 50 pounds might be too little. Try to start with at least 500 at a time. You can ADD amounts of 50 pounds. There are definitely fees involved. You will \"\"pay for lessons.\"\" But it will be worth it, if you become even a moderately successful investor. As for rules, they'll teach you the rules. Everyone wants your business. People have gotten (modestly) rich, buying shares here and there. One man told me of investing $600 in a company called Limited, and ending up with $12,000 some years later. BRIC is not a \"\"share.\"\" It is an acronym for four countries \"\"of the future.\"\" High risk, high reward here.\"",
"More often than not the market will rise year on year. Your best move is to put the $5000 in on Jan 2. Are you in the 15% bracket? If not, that is, if higher, I'd suggest the traditional, deductible, IRA.",
"\"Sure. For starters, you can put it in a savings account. Don't laugh, they used to pay noticeable interest. You know, back in the olden days. You could buy an I-bond from Treasury Direct. They're a government savings bond that pays a specified amount of interest (currently 0%, I believe), plus the amount of the inflation rate (something like 3.5% currently, I believe). You don't get paid the money -- the I-bond grows in value till you sell it. You can open a discount brokerage account, and buy 1 or more shares of stock in a company you like. Discount brokerages generally have a minimum of $500 or so, but will waive that if you set the account up as an IRA. Scot Trade, for instance. (An IRA, in case you didn't know, is a type of account that's tax free but you can't touch it till you turn 59 1/2. It's meant to help you save for retirement.) Incidentally, watch out of \"\"small account\"\" fees that some brokerages might charge you. Generally they're annual or monthly charges they'd charge you to cover their costs on your account -- since they're certainly not going to make it in commissions. That IRA at Scot Trade is no-fee. Speaking of commissions, those will be a big chunk of that $100. It'll be like $7-$10 to buy that stock -- a pretty big bite. However, many of these discount brokerages also offer some mutual funds for no commission. Those mutual funds, in turn, have minimums too, but once again if your account's an IRA many will waive the minimum or set it low -- like $100.\"",
"Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.",
"\"Congratulations on deciding to save money and choosing to invest it. One thing to know about mutual funds including index funds is that they typically require a minimum investment of a few thousand dollars, $3000 being a typical amount, unless the investment is in an IRA in which case $1000 might be a minimum. In some cases, automated monthly investments of $50 or $100 might need to be set up if you are beginning with a small balance. There is nothing wrong with your approach. You now should go and look at the various requirements for specific index funds. The Fidelity and Vanguard families are good choices and both offer very low-cost index funds to choose from, but different funds can have different requirements regarding minimum investments etc. You also have a choice of which index you want to follow, the S&P 500 Index, MidCap Indexes, Small-Cap Indexes, Total Stock Market Indexes etc., but your choice might be limited until you have more money to invest because of minimum investment rules etc. Most important, after you have made your choice, I urge you to not look every day, or even every month, to see how your investment is doing. You will save yourself a lot of anxiety and will save yourself from making wrong decisions. Far too many investors ignore the maxim \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" and pull money out of what should be long-term investments at the first flicker of a downturn and end up buying high and selling low. Finally, the time is approaching when most stock funds will be declaring dividends and capital gains distributions. If you invest now, you may end up with a paper profit on which you will have to pay taxes (in non-tax-advantaged accounts) on your 2012 tax return (this is called \"\"buying a dividend\"\"), and so you might want to spend some time investigating now, but actually make the investment in late December after your chosen fund has made its distributions (the date for this will be on the fund's web site) or in early 2013.\"",
"Before jumping into stock trading, do try Mutual Funds and Index funds, That should give you some good overview of the equity markets. Further, do read up on building a balanced portfolio to suit your need and risk apetite. This would help you decide on Govt. bonds and other debt instruments.",
"A safe investment would be to get a 5-year CD from Ally Bank. No minimum deposit and no monthly maintenance fees. 1.74% APY at the moment. I would choose a 5-year CD since the early withdrawal penalty is only 60 days interest, which will be negligible for a $100 investment and increasing the term significantly increases your interest rate. Regarding other suggestions: Even if you find a way purchase stock commission free, it will probably cost a $5-$10 commission to sell, wiping out probably a year or two of gains. Also, I-Bonds must be held for a year minimum, which is problematic. At the end of the day, it's probably not really worth your time to do any of these. $2 a year or $5 a year, it's still fairly insignificant and your time is surely worth more than that.",
"\"The \"\"Money 70\"\" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are \"\"bad,\"\" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck.\"",
"I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping.",
"The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index. These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds. Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity. The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk. It's not even low-risk, really. It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market. An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks. Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing. If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you.",
"\"Mutual funds can be relatively low risk and a good starting point. Really it depends on you. What are your goals? This is a pretty open ended question. These can all be low risk and provide some return. Note \"\"Less Knowledge\"\" is never a good qualifier for an investment. Your money is your business and you are entitled to know what your business is up to.\"",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)",
"I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.",
"\"Invest! Because you are young and have lots of time, I recommend opening an investment account and putting most (1000£?) or all in something like an S&P 500 index fund or ETF. Start building your savings now because compound growth over time will build significant wealth. You can still invest the other 500£/mo in something a bit less volatile if you think you'll need the money in < 5 years. If you expect your income to continue to grow and you expect to have extra cash every month for the foreseeable future, I'd just put it all in an index fund. You can weather any temporary market swings, and in the worst-case scenario you can always sell a few shares if you need the cash. The advantage of an index fund is that it has very low fees and it's an \"\"invest-and-forget\"\" approach. You don't have to watch the market every day because your money will simply match the market. And in the long term the market does much better than most managed funds or ETFs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fund\"",
"Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.",
"\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \"\"financial planner,\"\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\"",
"In terms of building the initial investment using some kind of mutual fund, I'd suggest you see my answer to this similar question https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9943/cheapest-or-free-online-broker-for-beginner For buying individual stocks later, you could look at sharebuilder, or a low cost broker, however most of them charge between $5-$7 per trade, and if you are doing small dollar value trades then that can really really eat into things if you try to trade a lot.",
"Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks). Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table.",
"In my mind, when looking at a five year period you have a number of options. You didn't specify where you are based, which admittedly makes it harder, to give you good advice. If you are looking for an investment that can achieve large gains, equities are impossible to ignore. By investing in an index fund or other diverse asset forms (such as mutual funds), your risk is relatively minimal. However there has historically been five year periods where you would lose/flatline your money. If this was to be the case you would likely be better off waiting more than five years to buy a house, which would be frustrating. When markets rebound, they often do it hard. If you are in a major economy, taking something like the top 100 of your stock market is a safe bet, although admittedly you would have made terrible returns if you invested in the Polish markets. While they often achieve lower returns than equity investments, they are generally considered safer - especially government issued bonds. If you were willing to sacrifice returns for safety, you must always consider them. This is an interesting new addition, and I can't comment on the state of it in the United States, however in Europe we have a number of platforms which do this. In the UK, for example you can achieve ~7.3% returns YoY using sites like Funding Circle. If you invest in a diverse range of businesses, you have minimal risk from and individual company not paying. Elsewhere in Europe (although not appropriate for me as everything I do is denominated in Sterling), you can secure 12% in places like Georgia, Poland, and Estonia. This is a very good rate and the platforms seem reputable, and 'guarantee' their loans. However unlike funding circle, they are for consumer loans. The risk profile in my mind is similar to that of equities, but it is hard to say. Whatever you do, you need to do your homework, and ensure that you can handle the level of risk offered by the investments you make. I haven't included things like Savings accounts in here, as the rates aren't worth bothering with.",
"You have a couple of options: Auto-investing in an open-end mutual fund. Some companies may waive a minimum if you sign up for an automatic investing, e.g. T. Rowe Price will waive its minimum if you agree to invest $100/month. There may be some lower ones out there as well. Some brokers like ShareBuilder have programs where someone could auto-invest getting fractional shares with each purchase. However, something to consider is what percentage is it costing you to buy each time as it may be quite a bit of friction if you are paying $4 a purchase and only buying $40, this is 10% of your investment being eaten up in costs that I'd highly advise taking the first option.",
"Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.",
"5 years is very short term, and since you are sure you'll need the money, investing it into the markets should probably not be done. You can toss it in Ally bank for 1% or consider a 5 yr raise your rate CD A decent write-up on time horizons: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110813/using-time-horizons-investing.asp If you want to go the stock/bond route you can assess the benefits of using something like a vanguard target date fund, or a roboadvisor such as wealthfront or betterment. You need to assess whether you think you may move up your time horizon, say you want to buy a house in 4 years, or, if it is 5 years, are you ok with it being 6.5-7 if there is a market downturn.",
"Put £50 away as often as possible, and once it's built up to £500, invest in a stockmarket ETF. Repeat until you retire.",
"Here's a good strategy: Open up a Roth IRA at a discount-broker, like TD Ameritrade, invest in no-fee ETF's, tracking an Index, with very low expense ratios (look for around .15%) This way, you won't pay brokers fees whenever you buy shares, and shares are cheap enough to buy casually. This is a good way to start. When you learn more about the market, you can check out individual stocks, exploring different market sectors, etc. But you won't regret starting with a good index fund. Also, it's easy to know how well you did. Just listen on the radio or online for how the Dow or S&P did that day/month/year. Your account will mirror these changes!",
"Investing in mutual funds, ETF, etc. won't build a large pool of money. Be an active investor if your nature aligns. For e.g. Invest in buying out a commercial space (on bank finance) like a office space and then rent it out. That would give you better return than a savings account. In few years time, you may be able to pay back your financing and then the total return is your net return. Look for options like this for a multiple growth in your worth.",
"According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.",
"\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \"\"core\"\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \"\"satellite\"\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\"",
"It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount. In either case, your calculation is far away from reality. Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice.",
"you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.",
"Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.",
"\"The $1K in funds are by default your emergency fund. If absolutely necessary, emergency funds may need to come from debt, a credit capacity, focus on building credit to leverage lower rates for living expenses eventually needed. Profitable organizations & proprietors, borrow at a lower cost of capital than their return. Join your local credit union, you're welcome to join mine online, the current rates for the first $500 in both your checking and savings is 4.07%, it's currently the fourth largest in the U.S. by assets. You may join as a \"\"family member\"\" to me (Karl Erdmann), not sure what their definition of \"\"family\"\" is, I'd be happy to trace our ancestry if need be or consider other options. Their current incentive program, like many institutions have often, will give you $100 for going through the hassle to join and establish a checking and savings. Some institutions, such as this credit union, have a lower threshold to risk, applicants may be turned down for an account if there is any negative history or a low credit score, shooting for a score of 600 before applying seems safest. The web services, as you mentioned, have significantly improved the layman's ability to cost effectively invest funds and provide liquidity. Robinhood currently seems to be providing the most affordable access to the market. It goes without saying, stay objective with your trust of any platform, as you may have noticed, there is a detailed explanation of how Robinhood makes their money on this stack exchange community, they are largely backed by venture funding, hopefully the organization is able to maintain a low enough overhead to keep the organization sustainable in the long run. The services that power this service such as Plaid, seem promising and underrated, but i digress. The platform gives access for users to learn how investing works, it seems safest to plan a diversified portfolio utilizing a mix of securities,such as low Beta stocks or \"\"blue chip\"\" companies with clear dividend policies. One intriguing feature, if you invest in equities is casting votes on decisions in shareholder meetings. Another popular investment asset class that is less liquid and perhaps something to work toward is real estate. Google the economist \"\"Matthew Rognlie\"\" for his work on income equality on this type of investment. There are many incentives for first time homeowners, saving up for a down payment is the first step. Consider adding to your portfolio a Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs) to gain a market position. Another noteworthy approach to this idea is an investment commercial property cooperative organization, currently the first and only one is called NorthEast Investment Cooperative, one stock of class A is $1K. If you are interested and plan to focus on equities, consider dropping into your college's Accounting Capstone course to learn more about the the details of fundamental and technical analysis of an organization. The complexities of investing involve cyclical risk, macro and micro economic factors, understanding financial statements and their notes, cash flow forecasting - discounting, market timing, and a host of other details Wikipedia is much more helpful at detailing. It's safe to assume initial investment decisions by unsophisticated investors are mostly whimsical, and likely will only add up to learning opportunities, however risk is inherit in all things, including sitting on cash that pays a price of inflation. A promising mindset in long term investments are in organizations that focus on conscious business practices. Another way to think of investing is that you are already somewhat of a \"\"sophisticated investor\"\" and could beat the market by what you know given your background, catching wind of certain information first, or acting on a new trends or technology quickly. Move carefully with any perhaps biased \"\"bullish\"\" or \"\"bearish\"\" mindset. Thinking independently is helpful, constantly becoming familiar with different ideas from professions in a diverse set of backgrounds, and simulating decisions in portfolio's. Here is an extremely limited set of authors and outlets that may have ideas worth digging more into, MIT Tech Reviews (Informative), Bloomberg TV (it's free, informative), John Mackey (businessman), Paul Mason (provocative journalist). Google finance is a simple and free go-to application, use the \"\"cost basis\"\" feature for \"\"paper\"\" or real trades, it's easy to import transactions from a .csv. This seems sufficient to start off with. Enjoy the journey, aim for real value with your resources.\"",
"The plan doesn't make sense. Don't invest your money. Just keep it in your bank account. $5000 is not a lot, especially since you don't have a steady income stream. You only have $1000 to your name, you can't afford to gamble $4000. You will need it for things like food, books, rent, student loans, traveling, etc. If you don't get a job right after you graduate, you will be very happy to have some money in the bank. Or what if you get a dream job, but you need a car? Or you get a job at a suit & tie business and need to get a new wardrobe? Or your computer dies and you need a new one? You find a great apartment but need $2500 first, last & security? That money can help you out much more NOW when you're starting out, then it will when you're ready to retire in your 60's.",
"On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)",
"This is slightly opinion based. Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? At your age and the time period, I would say NO. This is because although the index fund do return 6-7% on average, there are several times it blips and goes negative as well. Stock Markets in short periods like 6 months can be unpredictable. At times a downturn will remain stagnant for periods of 2-3 years before suddenly zoom ahead. If you are not to particular about the time when you need the changes done; i.e. the changes can in worst case wait for few years; then yes investing in Index fund would make sense. Else you are well off keeping this in savings. Try CD's if they can offer better rates for such durations.",
"A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.",
"Taking into account that you are in Cyprus, a Euro country, you should not invest in USD as the USA and China are starting a currency war that will benefit the Euro. Meaning, if you buy USD today, they will be worth less in a couple of months. As for the way of investing your money. Look at it like a boat race, starting on the 1st of January and ending on the 31st of December each year. There are a lot of boats in the water. Some are small, some are big, some are whole fleets. Your objective is to choose the fastest boat at any time. If you invest all of your money in one small boat, that might sink before the end of the year, you are putting yourself at risk. Say: Startup Capital. If you invest all of your money in a medium sized boat, you still run the risk of it sinking. Say: Stock market stock. If you invest all of your money in a supertanker, the risk of it sinking is smaller, and the probability of it ending first in the race is also smaller. Say: a stock of a multinational. A fleet is limited by it's slowest boat, but it will surely reach the shore. Say: a fund. Now investing money is time consuming, and you may not have the money to create your own portfolio (your own fleet). So a fund should be your choice. However, there are a lot of funds out there, and not all funds perform the same. Most funds are compared with their index. A 3 star Morningstar rated fund is performing on par with it's index for a time period. A 4 or 5 star rated fund is doing better than it's index. Most funds fluctuate between ratings. A 4 star rated fund can be mismanaged and in a number of months become a 2 star rated fund. Or the other way around. But it's not just luck. Depending on the money you have available, your best bet is to buy a number of star rated, managed funds. There are a lot of factors to keep into account. Currency is one. Geography, Sector... Don't buy for less than 1.000€ in one fund, and don't buy more than 10 funds. Stay away from Gold, unless you want to speculate (short term). Stay away from the USD (for now). And if you can prevent it, don't put all your eggs in one basket.",
"Sounds like you're doing fine, though somewhat fuzzy: how are you allocating the $500/month? Are you doing dollar cost averaging into funds, accumulating enough $$ to buy round lots of individual stocks, market timing, etc. The summary suggestion: max out the ROTH first, then with $$$ left over, do the after tax, low-cost fund, monthly dollar cost averaging approach.",
"\"Contribute as much as you can. When do you want to retire and how much income do you think you'll need? A $1M portfolio yielding 5% will yield $50,000/year. Do some research about how to build a portfolio... this site is a good start, but check out books on retirement planning and magazines like Money and Kiplinger. If you don't speak \"\"money\"\" or are intimidated by investing, look for a fee-based financial advisor whom you are comfortable with.\"",
"\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"",
"\"Invest in a high quality dividend paying group of stocks. Look up \"\"stock aristocrats\"\" to find longterm quality stocks that have regularly increased their dividends for over 20'years. 10'years is a safe period of time to invest in stocks. If you had bought stocks at their hight in 2007 and kept them through the 40% decline thru 2008 and 2009 and held on to them for 10 years until 2017, you would have earned a 40 % increase from when you purchased them. That is pretty much a worst case scenerio. If you had invested in dividend paying stocks and had earned an additional 2.5% per year, you would have exceeded your 5% goal. The lifetime yearly return of the stock market is 10%. Time is the only downside, but with ten years, you are almost certainly immune.\"",
"For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.",
"Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you.",
"ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.",
"You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.",
"\"You can start investing with any amount. You can use the ShareBuilder account to purchase \"\"partial\"\" stocks through their automatic investment plan. Usually brokers don't sell parts of stock, and ShareBuilder is the only one allowing it IMHO using its own tricks. What they do basically is buy a stock and then divide it internally among several investors who bought it, while each of the investors doesn't really own it directly. That's perfect for investing small amounts and making first steps in investing.\"",
"3-5 years is long enough of a timeframe that I'd certainly invest it, assuming you have enough (which $10k is). Even conservatively you can guess at 4-5% annual growth; if you invest reasonably conservatively (60/40 mix of stocks/bonds, with both in large ETFs or similar) you should have a good chance to gain along those lines and still be reasonably safe in case the market tanks. Of course, the market could tank at any time and wipe out 20-30% of that or even more, even if you invest conservatively - so you need to think about that risk, and decide if it's worth it or not. But, particularly if your 3-5 year time frame is reasonably flexible (i.e., if in 2019 the market tanks, you can wait the 2-3 years it may take to come back up) you should be investing. And - as usual, the normal warnings apply. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance, we are not your investment advisors, and you may lose 100% of your investment...",
"\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"",
"If you are not working, I believe you would be getting some money from your family to meet your expenses. In such a case, I would start with maintaining a Cash A/c which would list your monthly expenses and the money you received, which is what I used to do at your age. You can maintain it in a notebook with pen/pencil or using online tools such as Google Sheets. Enter each expense entries each day as debits and entries towards any money you receive as credits. At the end of the month, tally them and see how much you have left. Also, this gives you a clear picture of where your expenses are what is that you can avoid. On longer term, this can help you form an annual budget for your personal finances.",
"\"For equities, buy direct from the transfer agent. You have to buy one full share at a minimum but after that dividend reinvestment is free. There are others like share builder and foliofn that let you buy fractional shares. As the other poster said their roster is limited so you cannot buy every ETF out there. With your example of not wanting to spend $200 I agree with the others that you should invest in a mutual fund. Vanguard will have every index fund you need and can invest as little as $50, as long as you sign up for a systematic investment draft from your bank. Plus vanguard typically has the lowest fees in the industry. The most important thing is to start investing as soon as possible and as regular as possible. \"\"Pay yourself first\"\"\"",
"It sounds like you are interested in investing in the stock market but you don't want to take too much risk. Investing in an Index EFT will provide some diversification and can be less risky than investing in individual stocks, however with potentially lower returns. If you want to invest your money, the first thing you should do is learn about managing your risk. You are still young and you should spend your time now to increase your education and knowledge. There are plenty of good books to start with, and you should prepare an investment plan which incorporates a risk management strategy. $1000 is a little low to start investing in the stock market, so whilst you are building your education and preparing your plan, you can continue building up more funds for when you are ready to start investing. Place your funds in an high interest savings account for now, and whilst you are learning you can practice your strategies using virtual accounts. In fact the ASX has a share market game which is held 2 or 3 times per year. The ASX website also has some good learning materials for novices and they hold regular seminars. It is another good source for improving your education in the subject. Remember, first get educated, then plan and practice, and then invest."
] |
[
"Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months",
"I don't think it makes sense to invest in an FD since. 1.) A 30 day FD is not very likely to give you 8-9% 2.) Inflation is so high in India that your losing money even though you think that you are doing well enough. I would suggest you to expect a larger return and try hedging your portfolio correctly. For example you can buy a stock which is likely to go higher, and to limit your risks, you can buy a put option on the same stock, so even if the price falls drastically, you can exercise your option and not lose anything except for the premium you paid. Good luck:)"
] |
9617
|
What differentiates index funds and ETFs?
|
[
"408524",
"364735",
"314008"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"408524",
"370244",
"106863",
"159471",
"479420",
"473658",
"172374",
"270992",
"288679",
"358997",
"138383",
"96926",
"367960",
"364735",
"518735",
"454224",
"580802",
"195191",
"87722",
"107462",
"153660",
"298350",
"49168",
"153112",
"472663",
"312015",
"480315",
"539263",
"334919",
"268289",
"362579",
"148721",
"500486",
"357979",
"377429",
"590010",
"281841",
"332278",
"437875",
"454610",
"387277",
"161019",
"99568",
"143238",
"314008",
"230997",
"322826",
"392465",
"200212",
"119819",
"200360",
"87238",
"368124",
"220486",
"172703",
"94076",
"276983",
"560783",
"489103",
"204202",
"435746",
"101852",
"17208",
"403864",
"492212",
"130188",
"374204",
"27930",
"524612",
"253971",
"308071",
"324697",
"237133",
"473150",
"206744",
"147282",
"65587",
"554015",
"224765",
"410123",
"407571",
"474745",
"70898",
"451598",
"201714",
"271997",
"501153",
"254230",
"161041",
"138658",
"341544",
"585405",
"438582",
"173967",
"89205",
"97836",
"122679",
"286227",
"498597",
"144033"
] |
[
"Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.",
"Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.",
"The main difference between a mutual fund and an ETF are how they are bought and sold (from the investors perspective). An ETF is transacted on the open market. This means you normally can't buy partial shares with your initial investment. Having to transact on the open market also means you pay a market price. The market price is always a little bit different from the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund. During market hours, the ETF will trade at a premium/discount to the NAV calculated on the previous day. Morningstar's fund analysis will show a graph of the premium/discount to NAV for an ETF. With a mutual fund on the other hand, your investment goes to a fund company, which then grants you shares while under the hood buying the underlying investments. You pay the NAV price and are allowed to buy partial shares. Usually an ETF has a lower expense ratio, but if that's equal and any initial fees/commissions are equal, I would prefer the mutual fund in order to buy partial shares (so your initial investment will be fully invested) and so you don't have to worry about paying premium to NAV",
"Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.",
"Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.",
"ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading:",
"If you just want to track an index, then ETFs are, generally speaking, the better way.",
"The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.",
"ETFs are both liquid (benefits active traders) and a simple way for people to invest in funds even if they don't have the minimum balance needed to invest in a mutual fund (EDIT: in which purchases are resolved at the end of the trading day). One big difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you must buy ETFs in whole units, whereas you can add $100 to a mutual fund and the fund will determine -- usually to 4 decimal places -- how many shares you've purchased.",
"What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.",
"Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.",
"The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.",
"\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"",
"I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..",
"There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.",
"A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker.",
"You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.",
"Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.",
"In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue. The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds.",
"So, why or why should I not invest in the cheaper index fund? They are both same, one is not cheaper than other. You get something that is worth $1000. To give a simple illustration; There is an item for $100, Vanguard creates 10 Units out of this so price per unit is $10. Schwab creates 25 units out of this, so the per unit price is $4. Now if you are looking at investing $20; with Vanguard you would get 2 units, with Schwab you would get 5 units. This does not mean one is cheaper than other. Both are at the same value of $20. The Factors you need to consider are; Related question What differentiates index funds and ETFs?",
"\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \"\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\"\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \"\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\"\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\"",
"\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"",
"The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)",
"The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.",
"\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"",
"I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative.",
"\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"",
"There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.",
"Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious.",
"\"One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs. Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares. This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month. If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned. This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult. (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating \"\"leftover\"\" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small. It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a \"\"hands-off\"\" auto-investing plan. With ETFs, you generally must remember to \"\"manually\"\" buy the shares yourself every so often. For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio. The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up.\"",
"Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.",
"\"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices. From an investors point of view, this is not important. What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage. In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%. Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the \"\"compare\"\" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500. You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds. Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing.\"",
"First, it's not always the case that ETFs have lower expenses than the equivalent mutual funds. For example, in the Vanguard family of funds the expense ratio for the ETF version is the same as it is for the Admiral share class in the mutual fund version. With that in mind, the main advantages of a mutual fund over an equivalent ETF are: From a long-term investor's point of view, the main disadvantage of mutual funds relative to ETFs is the minimum account sizes. Especially if the fund has multiple share classes (i.e., where better classes get lower expense ratios), you might have to have quite a lot of money invested in the fund in order to get the same expense ratio as the ETF. There are some other differences that matter to more active investors (e.g., intraday trading, options, etc.), but for a passive investor the ones above are the major ones. Apart from those mutual funds and ETFs are pretty similar. Personally, I prefer mutual funds because I'm at a point where the fund minimums aren't really an issue, and I don't want to deal with the more fiddly aspects of ETFs. For investors just starting out the lower minimum investment for an ETF is a big win, as long as you can get commission-free trades (which is what I've assumed above.)",
"Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund",
"In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.",
"What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.",
"\"The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the \"\"basket\"\" of investments that a share in the fund represents. Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the \"\"DJI 30\"\" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index.\"",
"One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.",
"An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \"\"derivative\"\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\"",
"ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.",
"Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.",
"\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"",
"\"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%. The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement \"\"admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF\"\".\"",
"\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"",
"\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \"\"fee\"\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \"\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\"\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\"",
"As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index:",
"\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"",
"http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker.",
"\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"",
"\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"",
"what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition] This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?",
"\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \"\"market rate of return\"\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\"",
"\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \"\"index includes 500 leading companies\"\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\"",
"No, some of Vanguard's funds are index funds like their Total Stock Market Index and 500 Index. In contrast, there are funds like Vanguard PRIMECAP and Vanguard Wellington that are actively managed. There are index funds in both open-end and exchange-traded formats. VTI is the ticker for Vanguard's Total Stock Market ETF while VTSMX is an open-end mutual fund format. VOO would be the S & P 500 ETF ticker while VFINX is one of the open-end mutual fund tickers, where VIIIX has a really low expense ratio but a pretty stiff minimum to my mind. As a general note, open-end mutual funds will generally have a 5 letter ticker ending in X while an ETF will generally be shorter at 3 or 4 letters in length.",
"index ETF tracks indented index (if fund manager spend all money on Premium Pokemon Trading Cards someone must cover resulting losses) Most Index ETF are passively managed. ie a computer algorithm would do automatic trades. The role of fund manager is limited. There are controls adopted by the institution that generally do allow such wide deviations, it would quickly be flagged and reported. Most financial institutions have keyman fraud insurance. fees are not higher that specified in prospectus Most countries have regulation where fees need to be reported and cannot exceed the guideline specified. at least theoretically possible to end with ETF shares that for weeks cannot be sold Yes some ETF's can be illiquid at difficult to sell. Hence its important to invest in ETF that are very liquid.",
"You haven't looked very far if you didn't find index tracking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on the Toronto Stock Exchange. There are at least a half dozen major exchange-traded fund families that I'm aware of, including Canadian-listed offerings from some of the larger ETF providers from the U.S. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) maintains a list of ETF providers that have products listed on the TSX.",
"Mutual funds don't do what ETFs do because, according to how the fund was built in their contract, they can't. That is not how they are built and the people that invested in them expect them to act in a certain way. That is ok, though. Many people still invest in mutual funds partially because of their history but there are some advantages to mutual funds over etfs. Mainly mutual funds must mark-to-market at the end of day while etf values can drift from the asset value especially in crisis. As long enough people invest in mutual funds the funds make enough money on their fees they don't need to change. Maybe mutual funds will go extinct as etfs do have significant advantages, but it likely won't happen soon.",
"\"Ask your trading site for their definition of \"\"ETF\"\". The term itself is overloaded/ambiguous. Consider: If \"\"ETF\"\" is interpreted liberally, then any fund that trades on a [stock] exchange is an exchange-traded fund. i.e. the most literal meaning implied by the acronym itself. Whereas, if \"\"ETF\"\" is interpreted more narrowly and in the sense that most market participants might use it, then \"\"ETF\"\" refers to those exchange-traded funds that specifically have a mechanism in place to ensure the fund's current price remains close to its net asset value. This is not the case with closed-end funds (CEFs), which often trade at either a premium or a discount to their underlying net asset value.\"",
"They're exchange traded debt, basically, not funds. E.g. from the NYSE: An exchange-traded note (ETN) is a senior unsecured debt obligation designed to track the total return of an underlying market index or other benchmark, minus investor fees. Whereas an ETF, in some way or another, is an equity product - which doesn't mean that they can only expose you to equity, but that they themselves are a company that you buy shares in. FCOR for example is a bond ETF, basically a company whose sole purpose is to own a basket of bonds. Contrast that to DTYS, a bear Treasury ETN, which is described as The ETNs are unsecured debt obligations of the issuer, Barclays Bank PLC, and are not, either directly or indirectly, an obligation of or guaranteed by any third party. Also from Barclays site: Because the iPath ETNs are debt securities, they do not have any voting rights. FCOR on the other hand is some sort of company owned/managed by a Fidelity trust, though my EDGAR skills are rusty. AGREEMENT made this 18th day of September, 2014, by and between Fidelity Merrimack Street Trust, a Massachusetts business trust which may issue one or more series of shares of beneficial interest (hereinafter called the Trust), on behalf of Fidelity Corporate Bond ETF (hereinafter called the Fund), and Fidelity Investments Money Management, Inc., a New Hampshire corporation (hereinafter called the Adviser) as set forth in its entirety below.",
"The top ten holdings for these funds don't overlap by even one stock. It seems to me they are targeting an index for comparison, but making no attempt to replicate a list of holdings as would, say, a true S&P index.",
"No. Investors purchase ETFs' as they would any other stock, own it under the same circumstances as an equity investment, collecting distributions instead of dividends or interest. The ETF takes care of the internal operations (bond maturities and turnover, accrued interest, payment dates, etc.).",
"See my comment for some discussion of why one might choose an identical fund over an ETF. As to why someone would choose the higher cost fund in this instance ... The Admiral Shares version of the fund (VFIAX) has the same expense ratio as the ETF but has a minimum investment of $10K. Some investors may want to eventually own the Admiral Shares fund but do not yet have $10K. If they begin with the Investor Shares now and then convert to Admiral later, that conversion will be a non-taxable event. If, however, they start with ETF shares now and then sell them later to buy the fund, that sale will be a taxable event. Vanguard ETFs are only commission-free to Vanguard clients using Vanguard Brokerage Services. Some investors using other brokers may face all sorts of penalties for purchasing third-party ETFs. Some retirement plan participants (either at Vanguard or another broker) may not even be allowed to purchase ETFs.",
"Like an S&P 500 ETF? So you're getting in some cash inflow each day, cash outflows each day. And you have to buy and sell 500 different stocks, at the same time, in order for your total fund assets to match the S&P 500 index proportions, as much as possible. At any given time, the prices you get from the purchase/sale of stock is probably going to be somewhat different than the theoretical amounts you are supposed to get to match, so it's quite a tangle. This is my understanding of things. Some funds are simpler - a Dow 30 fund only has 30 stocks to balance out. Maybe that's easier, or maybe it's harder because one wonky trade makes a bigger difference? I'm not sure this is how it really operates. The closest I've gotten is a team that has submitted products for indexing, and attempted to develop funds from those indexes. Turns out finding the $25-50 million of initial investments isn't as easy as anyone would think.",
"The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work.",
"ETFs trade on specific exchanges. If your broker deals with those exchanges, you should have access to the ETF. If your broker does not deal with that exchange, then you will not have access through that broker. This is different than, say, mutual funds, which don't trade on the exchanges are proprietary to certain brokerages or financial institutions.",
"Close-end funds just means there's a fixed number of shares available, so if you want to buy some you must purchase from other existing owners, typically through an exchange. Open-end funds mean the company providing the shares is still selling them, so you can buy them directly from the company. Some can also be traded on exchanges as well.",
"Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.",
"ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.",
"The way it is handled with ETF's is that someone has to gather a block of units and redeem them with the fund. So, with the mutual fund you redeem your unit directly with the fund, always, you never sell to another player. With the ETF - its the opposite, you sell to another player. Once a player has a large chunk of units - he can go to the fund and redeem them. These are very specific players (investment banks), not individual investors.",
"Why not figure out the % composition of the index and invest in the participating securities directly? This isn't really practical. Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 Those two indices represent 2500 stocks. A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks. Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments. Index funds provide inexpensive diversity.",
"One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.",
"\"If your intention is to purchase ETFs on a regular basis (like $x per month), then ETFs may not make sense. You may have to pay a fixed transaction cost like you were buying a stock for each purchase. In a similar no load mutual fund, there are more likely to be no transaction costs (depending on how it is bought). The above paragraph is not very definitive, and is really dependent upon how you would purchase either ETFs or Mutual funds. For example if you have a Fidelity brokerage account, they may let you buy certain ETFs commission free. Okay then either ETFs make great sense. It would not make sense to buy ones that they charge $35 per transaction if you have regular transactions that are smallish. The last two questions seem to be asking if you should buy MF or buy stocks directly. For most people the later is a losing proposition. They do not have the time or ability to buy stocks directly, effectively. Even if they did they may not have the capital to make enough of a difference when one considers all the cost involved. However, if that kind of thing interests you, perhaps you should dabble. Start out small and look at the higher costs of doing so as part of the \"\"cost of doing business\"\".\"",
"Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything. The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares. Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple. Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion. Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion. It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units.",
"In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index.",
"Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror. The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings. Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index.",
"Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.",
"What account you put it in depends on why you have those different accounts. First, if you have them due to regulatory requirements, then you of course must follow said regulations. I doubt that's the case here. Otherwise, you might be splitting based on how they trade (ETFs trade as stocks) or you could be splitting based on how you build a portfolio out of them. When you build a non-speculative stock portfolio, you typically want to limit your holdings in a single stock to a fairly small portion of your portfolio (say, 3%) to limit your exposure to bad stuff happening to a single company. That doesn't apply nearly a much to mutual funds, especially index funds. ETFs are much more like mutual funds here. You can also, of course, create an ETF account and put them there. You also say you have a market index account, what is that used for?",
"\"An ETF does not track any one individual stock. It \"\"is a marketable security that tracks an index, a commodity, bonds, or a basket of assets like an index fund.\"\" Check out this link to learn more about ETFs. The easiest way see what ETF tracks a stock is to determine what sector and industry that company is in and find some ETF that trade it. The ETF will likely trade that stock, assuming that its market cap and exchange it trades on fits within the parameters of the ETF.\"",
"\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \"\"natural\"\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\"",
"\"Okay. An ETF is an \"\"Exchange Traded Fund\"\". It trades like a stock, on the stock market. Basically by buying one ETF, you can have ownership in the underlying companies that make up the ETF. So, if you buy QCLN, a green energy ETF, you own Tesla, First Solar Inc, SunPower Corporation, Vivint Solar, Advanced energy industries and a bunch of other companies that are involved in clean energy. It allows you to gain exposure to a sector without having to buy individual companies. There are ETFs for lots of different things. Technology ETFs, Healthcare ETFs, Consumer Staples ETFs, Utilities ETFs, etc. REITS are essentially the same thing, except they own real estate.\"",
"Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx",
"\"Regarding SPY: \"\"One SPDR unit is valued at approximately 1/10 of the value of the S&P 500. Dividends are distributed quarterly, and are based on the accumulated stock dividends held in trust, less any expenses of the trust.\"\" (source) These are depository receipts, not the actual stocks. Regarding IVV: \"\"The component stocks are weighted according to the total float-adjusted market value of their outstanding shares. The Fund invests in sectors, such as energy, information technology, industrials, financials, consumer staples, healthcare, telecom services, consumer discretionary and materials.\"\" (more here) VOO is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The tracking error seems pretty small to me. I went to Google Finance and plotted the percent change for all four on one chart. They lie pretty much on top of one another. The actual dollar value of each one doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that they move up and down almost in lock-step. There may be a larger difference going farther out, but for three separate financial products, the agreement is still remarkably good.\"",
"The simple answer is that whatever strategy is implemented with e-series, could be implemented at a lower cost with ETFs.",
"Ohhhh. Well thank you for that info. I know I could've Googled it all and while I'm a sticker for doing your own research, it's nice to hear it from someone in the know. Gotta pass on knowledge to those who don't know. Is it cheap to buy an ETF?",
"Mutual funds are funds composed of financial assets and the funds of investors, and are managed by a firm, usually a large wealth management firm. They are generally accessible to anyone. Hedge funds are private investment funds with limited access, and are subject to fewer regulations. They are usually legally set up as their own firm.",
"\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"",
"The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)",
"ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.",
"- ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally <1%. - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio. - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF.",
"Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.",
"Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.",
"I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.",
"The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself. The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index. This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment. SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund. There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere.",
"The market doesn't really need to adjust for fees on ETF funds that are often less than 1/10th of a percent. The loss of the return is more than made up for by the diversification. How does the market adjust for trading fees? It doesn't have to, it's just a cost of doing business. If one broker or platform offers better fee structures, people will naturally migrate toward the lower fees.",
"Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).",
"An index fund is just copying the definition of an index. The group that defines the index determines how to weight the different parts of the index. The index fund just makes sure they invest the same way the index creator wants. Think of a non-investment scenario. A teacher can grade tests, quizzes, homework, in-class assignments, research papers. They decide how much weight to give each category and how much weight to give each part of each category. when a student wants to see how they are doing they take the information in the syllabus, and generate a few formulas in a spreadsheet to calculate their current grade. They can also calculate what they need to get on the final exam to get the grade they want.",
"The Creation/Redemption mechanism is how shares of an ETF are created or redeemed as needed and thus is where there can be differences in what the value of the holdings can be versus the trading price. If the ETF is thinly traded, then the difference could be big as more volume would be where the mechanism could kick in as generally there are blocks required so the mechanism usually created or redeemed in lots of 50,000 shares I believe. From the link where AP=Authorized Participant: With ETFs, APs do most of the buying and selling. When APs sense demand for additional shares of an ETF—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a premium to its NAV—they go into the market and create new shares. When the APs sense demand from investors looking to redeem—which manifests itself when the ETF share price trades at a discount—they process redemptions. So, suppose the NAV of the ETF is $20/share and the trading price is $30/share. The AP can buy the underlying securities for $20/share in a bulk order that equates to 50,000 shares of the ETF and exchange the underlying shares for new shares in the ETF. Then the AP can turn around and sell those new ETF shares for $30/share and pocket the gain. If you switch the prices around, the AP would then take the ETF shares and exchange them for the underlying securities in the same way and make a profit on the difference. SEC also notes this same process."
] |
[
"Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.",
"I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..",
"\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\""
] |
6199
|
How can all these countries owe so much money? Why & where did they borrow it from?
|
[
"414693",
"584273",
"239214",
"169921"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"584273",
"414693",
"47163",
"520000",
"450041",
"298794",
"169921",
"209013",
"239214",
"10399",
"194335",
"14035",
"514697",
"477724",
"596959",
"69960",
"392806",
"370186",
"222693",
"151971",
"510305",
"329270",
"490042",
"24214",
"396145",
"286900",
"199253",
"463750",
"310456",
"49602",
"263563",
"124940",
"118191",
"92912",
"380714",
"203231",
"133511",
"295089",
"474318",
"72238",
"453919",
"446705",
"44708",
"177832",
"321842",
"127359",
"446402",
"311495",
"540516",
"276831",
"396360",
"99525",
"1917",
"153316",
"56481",
"294761",
"67406",
"428764",
"345823",
"206881",
"476812",
"475104",
"69518",
"176970",
"132519",
"152201",
"373346",
"303820",
"137602",
"383555",
"208637",
"242171",
"514952",
"99797",
"145238",
"322259",
"395929",
"430923",
"189592",
"351853",
"563268",
"58851",
"333966",
"119906",
"231306",
"217377",
"125966",
"65043",
"592859",
"267815",
"231310",
"583883",
"97075",
"481987",
"538457",
"344165",
"3559",
"169028",
"190427",
"38918"
] |
[
"By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.",
"\"They borrowed it from the people, and typically to finance wars and military spending. For example, Wikipedia suggests that the Bank of England \"\"was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy.\"\" It's a game that everyone has to play once started; if Napoleon buys an army on credit, you'll have to raise an equal amount or face quite a problem. As for why they've grown so large, it's because governments are quite skilled at owing large sums of money. Only a small portion of the debt comes due in full at a given moment, and they constantly reissue new debt via auction to keep it rolling. So as long as they can make coupon (interest) and the lump sum at maturity, it's not difficult to keep up. Imagine how much credit card debt you could rack up if you only ever had to pay interest. This game will continue for as long as people lend. And there are plenty of lenders. There's pensions, mutual funds and endowments, which find public debt typically safer than stocks. And money market funds, which target 1 dollar NAV and only invest in the \"\"safest\"\" AAA-rated bonds to protect it. There's central banks, which can buy and sell public debt to manipulate inflation and exchange rates. Absent some kind of UN resolution to ban lending, or perhaps a EU mandated balanced budget, these debts will likely continue to grow. You think they \"\"collectively owe more money than can exist\"\", but there's a lot of wealth in the world. Most nations owe less than a year's GDP. For example, the US's total wealth is in the neighborhood of 50 trillion.\"",
"\"Depends on the country, whether its a currency issuer with floating exchange rate, and what the debt is denominated in. For instance, the US has no real debt, b/c its all in US dollars and can be printed at any time. It has no need to borrow anything, it issues its own currency. It used to be different 4 decades ago, on the gold standard, so in general people still think currency issuers need to borrow (or earn) to spend. Just a relic in thinking. But when the country does not issue its own currency, then it does need to earn or borrow in order to spend. In this case, it could borrow from anywhere that will lend it money. In US, a state would fit this description. Or Greece, as it borrowed Euros, for which it is not an issuer of. EDIT: just came across this blog http://pragcap.com/where-does-the-money-come-from Its title, \"\"Where does the money come from\"\". Maybe he saw this question. Anyway, the US does not need to borrow money. Why would it borrow what it creates? From the video: \"\"Thinking is hard, that's why we don't do it a lot\"\". Great line.\"",
"I looked into the investopedia one (all their videos are mazing), but that detail just was not clear to me, it also makes be wonder, if a country issues bonds to finance itself, what happens at maturity when literally millions of them need to be paid? The income needs to have grown to that level or it defaults? Wouldn't all the countries default if that was the case, or are bonds being issued to being able to pay maturity of older bonds already? (I'm freaking myself out by realizing this)",
"The answers provided so far as good and informative, but I just thought I'd add one small point... There are super-national organisations that commonly lend to governments, in particular those in the developing the world. The World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) are the two primary ones. Also quite notably, the Greek economy was bailed out only this year by the EMF (European Monetary Fund) spearheaded by Germany - this is a rare occurrence however and was done mainly because Greece was a relatively developed country and others had an obligation to assist it as an EU member state.",
"It's more complicated than that. Governments raise money in a number of ways. First, they tax economic activity within their borders and for connected companies and individuals. Then, some governments have actual revenues from state-owned enterprises (licences, patents, courts, business revenues, and so on). Whatever shortage arises between state expenditure and this income is the deficit which is usually financed through debt. Government usually issues a bond (Wikipedia for a list of government bonds) of various types, some with extremely lengthy maturation dates. These bonds can be purchased both locally and by foreign investment funds. The nature of who buys is important. From the Wikipedia link you'll see that most government debt is very highly rated based on the ability of the state to simply raise taxes in order to fund redemption. Pension funds are legally bound to only invest in highly-rated investment classes and the bulk of bonds may be purchased to support local pensioners. A state that defaults on debt will first hit its own most vulnerable citizens. In addition, the fall-out will result in a savage cut in ratings. Countries like Argentina and Zimbabwe, which have both refused to repay their debts even to the IMF, are currently unable to raise investment at all. This has a tremendous impact on local economic development. So, default is out of the question without severe penalties. The second part of your question is about paying down the debt. As debts increase, more and more of the revenue that a country does earn is spent on servicing debt repayments. Sometimes bonds are issued merely to refinance old debt. A country that spends too much on refinancing debt is no different from an individual. Less and less money is available to do other things. In conclusion: governments can neither default nor binge-borrow unless they wish to severely limit economic opportunities for their citizens.",
"Here is an overview of who owns US Debt from Wikipedia, it indicates that approximately 1/3rd of US debt is held by foreigners (mainly the central banks of other countries), approximately 1/2 of US Debt is held by the federal reserve, and the rest is owned by various America organizations (mutual funds, pension funds, etc). The money is loaned via bonds, treasury bills, etc. When you put money in your pension fund, you very likely buying US debt. The US Treasury department all has a comprehensive page about how public debt works in the United States here: an overview of public debt from the treasury. I wasn't able to find a similar breakdown for other countries, but Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of how much debt is owed by other countries: a list of countries by public debt.",
"i disagree. if a country has sovereign currency, then there is no squandering. where does that money come from in the first place? govt creates it, and spends it into the economy through deficit spending. And govt gets a service or product in return from that spending. Govt deficit spending = private sector savings.",
"\"Others have pointed out that the entities loaning money to the government are typically people and institutions. Recently, however, the US federal government borrowings were largely funded by money printed by the Federal Reserve. The government had to borrow $1.1 trillion from October, 2010 through June, 2011. During this period the FED printed around $0.8 trillion new dollars to purchase US debt. Thus, the US government was not borrowing money from people, it was being funded by money printing. The central bankers call this \"\"quantitative easing\"\".\"",
"Where are they going to get money from? Their bonds are worthless because they have no viable way of ever paying back debt so why would anyone lend money to them. You, and Keynes think that you can fuel debt with more debt, but all this does is build a massive debt bubble that has to pop at some point. This is exactly what these nations did for years and now are beginning to realize that they can no longer issue debt.",
"To understand this fully one would need to understand quite a few things. Not in scope here. In short, whenever China sells goods to US, it gets USD as most of the trades are in USD. China uses this money to buy other things it needs like Oil etc. After this they still have quite a bit of USD left with them. The money is left with them because US is buying more things from China and selling less things to China. This creates a surplus USD with China. So if US were to borrow money from China or any other country, it would be this excess money. Ofcourse how money gets created in first place is a different topic altogether.",
"\"For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc. There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds. The \"\"National Debt\"\" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the \"\"Bonds\"\" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong. If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (\"\"Default\"\" on its payments). This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future. Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default. Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge.\"",
"\"Is it not that bad? Depends how bad is bad. The problems causes by a government having large debt are similar to those caused by an individual having large debt. The big issue is: More and more of your income goes to paying interest on the debt, and is thus not available for spending on goods and services. If it gets bad enough, you find you cannot make payments, you start defaulting on loans, and then you have to make serious sacrifices, like selling your property to pay the debt. Nations have an advantage over individuals in that they can sometimes repudiate debt, i.e. simply declare that they are not going to pay. Lenders can then refuse to give them more money, but that doesn't get their original loans paid back. In theory other nations could send in troops to seize property to pay the loan, but this is a very extreme solution. Totally aside from any moral considerations, modern warfare is very expensive, it's likely the war would cost you more than you'd recover on the debt. How much debt is too much? It's hard to give a number, any more than one could give a \"\"maximum acceptable debt\"\" for an individual. American banks have a rule of thumb that they won't normally loan you money if your total debt payments would be more than 1/3 of your income. I've never come close to that, that seems awfully high to me. But, say, a young person just starting out so he's not making a lot of money, and he lives someplace with high housing prices, might find this painful but acceptable. Etc.\"",
"\"That was indeed a typo. I would not go into details regarding Germany, Japan's economy is pretty much in stagnated state for the past two decades. US has a high deficit and this issue is a major topic if you follow the current election season. And yes, that is not a good thing. Britain (Still, is not that UK?) and Italy seem to come off as time wrap living in colonial era where they can just get free stuff off others. Note the high debt cost of Italy. It is not as if debtors are lining up to give money to these nations. More often than not, it is the leftover state of pre-world war mindset where some people/organizations try to hold on to the money and influence as long as possible. I think this topic itself is extremely complicated and has various facets to it but to even moot such ideas - essentially saying \"\"lets exchange goods and here take our currency\"\" and then saying \"\"our currency has no value btw\"\" is criminal. It just voids the legal contract written on a dollar note.\"",
"It isn't as simple as just borrowing money. This is more of an economics question but there are reasons to borrow money (simple example being when the economy is growing too slowly) and reasons to increase taxes (basic example being when the economy is growing too fast). Check out monetary and fiscal policy on investopedia or youtube, this should give you a good understanding. Now one more thing to consider is the 'risk' of governments defaulting on their loans. In a simple sense, the more debt a government has the more risk there is to default. This means people who lend the government money will want a higher interest rate, making it harder for the government to borrow money.",
"As long as we remember that debt is the only option when the government has to borrow their money at interest or take it from taxes. When taxes don't cut it, we borrow. Ever wondered why the government doesn't just spend money into the economy instead of borrowing at interest?",
"One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).",
"Has any country in their existence, paid their debt in full? To me it seems that every country is in debt and it will just keep growing. It's like they know that the debt is impossible to pay and they just play along so that they get their paycheck and pass the debt to the other guy/gal who wins the office. Do we just want to believe that one day everybody would receive so much money that everybody would pay off their debt?",
"“Why do governments borrow money instead of printing it? (When printing money, one doesn't need to pay interest).” Good question. Numerous leading economists, including a couple of economics Nobel Laureates have asked the same question and concluded that borrowing can be dispensed with. First, Milton Freidman set out a monetary system in a paper in the American Economic Review which involved no government borrowing, and govt just printed money (in a responsible fashion of course) as and when needed. See: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1810624 A second Nobel Laureate with similar views was William Vickrey. A third economist with similar views (of Keynes’ era) was Abba Lerner. Keynes said of Lerner, “Lerner's argument is impeccable, but heaven help anyone who tries to put it across to the plain man at this stage of the evolution of our ideas”.",
"\"Governments borrowing money doesn't create new money. When banks \"\"borrow\"\" money (i.e. take deposits), it does effectively create money because the depositor expects to be able to get the money back at any time, but the bank assumes that most won't actually do this and lends out most of the money to other people. If everyone did actually ask for their money back at once, the illusion of the extra money created by this process would collapse, and the bank would go bust. In contrast when governments borrow money, the loan isn't repayable on demand, it has a fixed maturity and the money is only repaid at the end of that period (plus interest at defined points during the period). So holders of government debt don't have money they can spend (they can turn it into money they can spend but only by finding someone else to buy it). So government debt doesn't create inflation in itself. If they printed money, then they'd be devaluing the money of everyone who had saved or invested, whereas if they borrow money and use taxes to repay it, the burden falls more evenly across the economy and doesn't disproportionately penalise certain sets of people.\"",
"The country isn't a business, of course you are correct. That doesn't mean one can run deficits year after year and expect success. I blame both GWB and Obama in this regard, neither showed a serious interest in balancing the budget. But you have to, the money has to come from somewhere to get what you want.",
"The Government doesn't borrow money. It in fact simply prints it. The bond market is used for an advanced way of controlling the demand for this printed money. Think about it logically. Take 2011 for example. The Govt spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in. This is real money that get's credited in to people's bank accounts to purchase real goods and services. Now who purchases the majority of treasuries? The Primary Dealers. What are the Primary Dealers? They are banks. Where do banks get their money? From us. So now put two and two together. When the Govt spends $1.7 trillion and credits our bank accounts, the banking system has $1.7 trillion more. Then that money flows in to pension funds, gets spent in to corporation who then send that money to China for cheap products... and eventually the money spent purchases up Govt securities for investments. We had to physically give China 1 trillion dollars for them to be able to purchase 1 trillion dollars in securities. So it makes sense if you think about how the math works in the real world.",
"\"Sovereign states borrow money explicitly in a two primary ways: A sovereign cannot be compelled to repay debt, and there isn't a judicial process like bankruptcy to erase debt. When sovereigns default, they negotiate new terms with creditors and pay back some fraction of the actual debt owed. They can also print money to repay debt, which has other nasty consequences. But, while a state cannot be compelled to repay a debt, creditors cannot be compelled to loan money to the state either! Any enterprise of sufficient size needs access to capital via loans to meet daily obligations in anticipation of revenue -- even when times are good. Defaulting makes borrowing impossible or expensive, and is avoided. Regarding using your military to avoid repaying debt... remember what Napoleon said: \"\"An army travels on its stomach\"\". Military campaigns are expensive... no borrowing ability means the soldiers don't get paid and the food, fuel and ammo don't get delivered. Smaller countries have other risks as well. Many nations are essentially forced to use US Dollars as a reserve currency, or are forced by the market to borrow money in a foreign currency. This creates a situation where any risk of non-payment results in a deep devaluation of the local currency. When your debt is denominated in dollars, these shifts can dramatically increase your debt obligations from a local currency point of view. You also run the risk that a larger or richer company will park warships in your harbor and seize assets as payment -- the US and Britain engaged in this several times during the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, not paying the bills has a cascading effect. Bad situations get worse, and they do so quickly.\"",
"> A significant proportion of recent economic growth has relied on borrowed money -- today standing at a dizzying 325 percent of global gross domestic product. Debt allows society to accelerate consumption, as borrowings are used to purchase something today against the promise of future repayment. Unfunded entitlements to social services, health care and pensions increase those liabilities. The bill for these commitments will soon become unsustainable, as demographic changes make it more difficult to meet.",
"hey look I can spout random countries too. Spain! Back it up, or shut up. The UK did NOT sell debt and simultaneously purchase its own debt in the past (until modern times). And who said the reason soviet union collapsed was because of its banking policies? Putting words in peoples mouths aren't we. I think you should move along before you get hurt. This is a grown up conversation little one.",
"\"To summarize, the money never existed. The best example I can give is the housing bubble. Houses were being bought on credit worthiness and this pushed the house prices and values up as if the houses had been bought with real money. When people couldn't make their payments, the house prices crashed. The boom and bust cycle is simply credit being overextended (boom) and when there is not enough money in the system for everyone to repay all their debts it crashes (bust). The real question that people should be asking is not \"\"Where did all the money go?\"\", but \"\"Why is money issued by private banks?\"\" Money is a social invention to facilitate trade. Should it not be like a public water utility? Counterfeiting is illegal except when a private bank does it. Money should not be variable in value and economics will never be a science if the measurement of value is not standardized. All natural sciences have standards of measurement like meters, joules, degrees, etc. Money must decrease in value constantly because all money is issued at interest. We essentially pay rent on all money that isssued and the interest can only be repaid if more money is created, once again at interest. This is why economists generally say some inflation is good. Finance has told them interest is a given on the issue of money when in reality, money is just an IOU that requires no such interest payment for it's issue. Interest should be made if a loan is issued against savings, but not for the simple issuance of money. There should be public banks that issue the money and private banks for investment. You can read more about this from reading about Arthur Kitson. In this way, the public controls the value of it's money, not private bankers that use the issue of money to transfer wealth to an idle financial class. If you want to get into the differences between wealth and debt, read the work of Frederick Soddy. It's off topic from this thread but really interesting to see how he relates real science to economics and how our current economic system is not scientific in the least. Wealth is subject to the laws of thermodynamics while debt is an invention of the human will. Debt never rots or degrades with time and can expand exponentially through compound interest - nothing in the natural world does this.\"",
">I would be really surprised if they didn't have more relatively short term debt as they were in the midst of a global freaking conflict, man. What its spent on is a political decision and isn't relevant, except that its even less useful than how it might be spent today. >I just don't want to open the unlimited money taps without carefully considering how long we can leave them open You are the only one saying that. Its a straw man. >If you're deciding whether or not to spend a crap ton of money you don't have, it helps if you haven't already spent a crap ton of money you don't have The government is the issuer of the currency. It doesn't have it or not have it. It creates it. They've issued an ~~crap ton of money~~ amount that hasn't been clawed back through taxation and they can add to it if it suits them.",
"\"This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment. If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as *looong* as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets. Heck, if you can take on even *more* debt at 3%, you should still do the same. Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, *but*, doing so is effectively a form of \"\"loan\"\" to yourself. We call the \"\"interest\"\" on that loan \"\"inflation\"\", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart). So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%. But someone has to *take* that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of. There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much. If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially \"\"invested\"\" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people.\"",
"You don't understand government financing at all. Gov'ts earn revenue, aka, taxes. They also spend money. The different between the money they spend and they money they earn is the deficit. If you run a deficit for a long period of time, you incur a very large national debt. Now, you can finance (aka, pay for) a deficit by borrowing money. This means you can sell bonds, and instead of pay off the debt each year, you just pay the interest. If your spending balloons out of control, your the likely hood of you paying your debt decreases. If you are very unlikely to payback your debt, people won't buy any more of your bonds, and you no longer have the income (from borrowing) to pay off your interest from other debt you owe, or what ever other obligations you own (think mortgage payments, or teachers salaries, etc). Here's were Europe and USA differ: European nations can't just print money. They can issue more debt, but they can't just create more euros. IF you can print money, you can pay off your debt with money you literally created out of thin air (at the expense of your people, this is called inflation). But this is a form of cheating, eventually people won't trust you, and won't buy your debt either. So where do the banks come in? if the government is SOUND and the banks are NOT, the government can backstop the banks. This is what the US and UK did. Greece, Spain, Ireland all had to back stop their banks also. However, Greece, Spain, and Irelany ( and Italy, and Portugal) also have 1) A lot of debt 2) Structurally high deficits 3) Extremely high borrowing costs (high interest rates...because people don't trust them...because...) 4) Weak underlying economies The fourth point gets you in real trouble. if you have high entitlements, lots of poeple out of work, who the hell is paying taxes and what are they going to? You have no revenue! Remember, a govt works just like a household. It is easy for a good household to support one member, but it is difficult for a member to support an irresponsible household.",
"\"It is measured in US dollars. The US cannot just print the money because that would cause inflation. Remember that money is really just a convenient placeholder for the barter system. Creating more money regardless of whether there is more value in the economy (work, resources, etc.) is a very bad idea, and doing so has collapsed the economies of many countries. Debt increasing means that the US owes other countries more money. So yes, they are receiving more money from other countries, but the US has to pay it all back with interest eventually. The US government spends more money than it receives in taxes. To decrease the debt, spending needs to decrease and/or taxes need to increase. Many countries lend to the US. One of the biggest is China. These countries do so because of interest -- the US pays back more money than it gets lent, so the lending countries make a profit. If China suddenly called in all its debt to the US, this would severely damage the world economy. China's biggest trading partner is the US, so it has no interest in harming the US this way; it would harm itself. Additionally, the US would probably refuse to pay it (not to mention that it can't), and then China would lose all the money it \"\"invested\"\" in the US. It would benefit no one.\"",
"Money as Debt and Money as Debt II (while low-quality in their production), give a great historical explanation of how the modern monetary system came into being, as well as touching on things you just said. You can find various versions online, but here are two links anyway: * Money as Debt: http://archive.org/details/MoneyAsDebt * Money as Debt II: http://archive.org/details/MoneyAsDebt2",
"The higher the debt, the higher inflation needs to be to wash the debt away. This is why the debt and US equities move upward hand in hand. The same goes for US housing. Just as homeowners borrow money through mortgages so that house prices rise, the banks borrow the money for mortgages through the central banks. Thus, the cycle circulates. The more debt, the higher the prices! Everybody makes money from debt. That is why the US has the highest external debt on the globe, yet they are considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world.",
"\"Hmm... Maybe I somewhat misunderstood your question then. Yes, trade deficits/surpluses are really the core of the country-level \"\"investment\"\". But yes, it maters what they *do* with it, which is **why** so many countries put any excesses into US treasuries. Going back to \"\"personal\"\" finance, if they pay down higher interest debt with their trade surplus, *great*; if they have no debt and can issue local currency (in PF land, \"\"take out a loan\"\") for under 2%, *great*; If not... **Not** so great. \"\"Saving\"\" money that costs over 2% isn't an investment, it's nothing but a loan disguised as one.\"",
">It is well known that the US entered an unprecedented depression after its unprecedented borrowing during World War 2. Yeah, just ignore ALL of the differences between the world *then* (devastated and destroyed factories & cities all over Europe and Asia) and the world *now*. Ignorance... it's what's for dinner!",
"\"> As I currently understand, we owe much of our national debt to ourselves. Debtors owe creditors. Creditors are, by and large, the banks. Forget about we/ourselves. One thing we are taught in school is that banks earn money on the spread between what a creditor pays, minus what a saver earns in interest on his deposit. In reality, such private savings pretty much do not exist. When someone borrows from the bank, they mostly aren't borrowing another person's savings. The bank is creating *new* currency through the issuance of debt. > The reason for this is that people are being charged interest that does not exist in the system. I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"does not exist in the system\"\". The way it works is you borrow a dollar, and now you owe a dollar plus the interest on the dollar. Since each new loan creates more debt than currency, the monetary system can never shrink or it implodes. If you mean that the currency is unbacked by any objective measure of value, that is correct. > Therefore, if we tried to pay the debt (like some conservative politicians are fighting for) it would be a massive transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%, since most of the debt is owed to the 1% (banks). There is no possibility of repaying it. Both the Red Team and the Blue Team are in on this. If you're worried about the 99% you should be advocating commodity money, because that is the only way to stop theft by inflation. If you're worried about yourself, get informed as to how these plans have played out in history and how you might protect yourself.\"",
"\"Global banks are without a doubt the new evil empires. They're buying debt for pennies on the dollar, because they know the risk of default/bankruptcy, yet they expect the IMF to do for international debt what W did for student loans. Wasn't Argentina also the country that had a vulture fund \"\"seize\"\" one of their naval vessels? Soon banks will have their own standing armies and naval fleets to exact asset forfeiture.\"",
"The reason they have this massive debt is largely (not entirely) because they have been employing Keynes' policies and spending more than they had for so many years as it is. Austerity is not the solution. However, reckless spending is not the solution either. A lot of people arguing for keynesian policies (not a bad idea in most recessions) don't grasp that investors have a limited amount of money to invest and aren't going to place it in a country that has as bad of a debt problem as you pointed out. So many people keep arguing these struggling countries need to spend more. While that would help expand their economies, it is not feasible. Where do you guys going to think the money is going to come from? If investors don't want to provide then they have to print more money, which creates the risk of hyperinflation. Spending could help a little maybe if it was a realistic thing to do. Right now any Keynesian solutions are a fairy tale. Countries like Greece need to do what they can with the resources available to them instead of spending like a bunch of millionaire playboys on crystal meth. Look at the U.S. We have spent trillions and our GDP is still growing at only slightly more than half the rate it has from 1947-2012. If people expect massive government spending to be a fix to these problems, then we are a clear case that it isn't. I acknowledge we could be a lot worse and possibly still be seeing a contraction without the spending, but it clearly isn't fixing our problems and sooner or later we won't be able to take on more debt to fix it. We need real solutions to generate real growth instead of dicking around like this. Other western countries need to do the same. edit:Also what we are doing right now would not be considered keynesian solutions. Keynes would advocate spending money to fix the problems, not just dumping money into the economy. That is something I would agree with. But since our politicians can't grasp that I don't want them in control of the purse strings anymore.",
"Some countries, like the United States, allow a mortgage interest tax deduction. This means the interest you pay on a mortgage, which is typically much more than half of the monthly payment at the beginning of a 25 year mortgage, is tax deductible, so you might get 33% or more of the interest back, and that effectively makes the interest rate significantly lower. Therefore you are borrowing the money really cheap. That makes MrChrister's answer even more appropriate.",
"\"If the government prints money recklessly and causes inflation, people will come to expect inflation, and the value of the currency will plummet, and you'll end up like Zimbabwe where a trillion dollars won't buy a loaf of bread. If the government actually pays people for the money they borrow, they don't have this problem - and as it turns out, the US government can get pretty good rates on borrowing in general, in part because they're extraordinarily good about paying them back. (Also, inflation expectations are low, so people will accept 1-2% interest rates. If you expected inflation of 10%, you'd see people demanding something more like 12% interest rates.) (The downside of too much of this sort of borrowing is that it \"\"crowds out\"\" other borrowing, which may harm the economy. Who would lend money to / invest in a small business, if the government is paying good money and there's almost no risk at all?) Now, inflation can come into play afterward, if the Fed decides it needs to maintain \"\"easy money\"\" policies to stimulate the economy (because taxes are too high because we're paying off the debt, or because we've crowded out smaller borrowers, or something). -- In general, you can count on the the principle that if you, as the government, try to play too many games with people's money... well, people aren't stupid; they will eventually catch on, and adjust their behavior to compensate, and then you're right back where you started, but with less trust.\"",
"230 government agencies by law have to buy treasury bonds with their excess cash. Those agencies hold 30% of the debt. The rest is by anyone else who purchased bonds on the open market when the treasury sold them. Are you fucking stupid? You think the government just printed 20 trillion dollars with nothing to back it? No hedge funds bought them. China, Japan, Britain, bought them.",
">This goes on until they simply drop dead. Substitute debt for alcohol and you have our situation exactly. *Exactly.* It is well known that the US entered an unprecedented depression after its unprecedented borrowing during World War 2. It is all very simple and easily predicted.",
"\"Actually the UK was doing that back in the 1600's to finance war with France. You might want to learn why the crown jewels were not actually owned by the state :) \"\"I think you should move along before you get hurt. This is a grown up conversation little one.\"\"\"",
"As do other states. The state and national debts are created by big government politicians. Such as bloated civil services, pension funds, more borrowing instead of fiscally responsible. The USA federal gov keeps trillions of shadow debt off its books and downplays the actual unemployment rate.",
"\"Why rent money? \"\"Ooh... new shiny. Must have!\"\" - lol Seriously, Governements that control the presses can harness an almost magical property of money \"\"trust\"\". You and I believe wages have a set value per hour worked. This isn't always so.\"",
"Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.",
"They didn't have more **going into** the war. I would be really surprised if they didn't have more relatively short term debt as they were **in the midst of a global freaking conflict**, man. Well I'll be damned, we both want the same thing. I just don't want to open the unlimited money taps without carefully considering how long we can leave them open Edit: If you're deciding whether or not to spend a crap ton of money you don't have, it helps if you haven't already spent a crap ton of money you don't have",
"\"Most of those countries had debt that was well beyond prudent levels (~70% of GDP) before the crisis, levels such that any crisis would put them over the safe limit and into trouble. The only exception was Spain whose debt levels were still marginally dangerous. Greece was off the charts, which is why they left off the graph for Greece. Second problem. On top of the high or marginal levels of government debt, the governments implicitly or explicitly guaranteed the banks, without limiting in any effective way their levels of leverage and risk (inb4 Basel II - a lot of paper that made no difference). Protip: if someone guarantees your debt, they should be able to oversee your level of risk, but the governments didn't. As a result these banks, and their CEOs in particular, have a bet that goes \"\"heads I win, tails I win (and you the taxpayer lose)\"\". If the loans are paid off the CEOs rake in millions. If the loans go bad the government bails them out and the CEOs and other top executives - you guessed it - rake in millions. Of course when faced with these incentives the banks will lend too much. This is not free market capitalism, it is crony capitalism. **Bailouts of private companies are not part of unfettered free market capitalism.** The third problem is that the same governments cannot print money like the US can because the Euro is not owned by the individual governments. The answer to excessive levels of government debt is for governments not to borrow too much and not to take on excessive unfunded liabilities such as pensions. This probably needs to be enforced by a constitutional amendment, so it can't be easily overruled. The answer to governments getting dragged into bailing out insolvent banks and then going under themselves, is to allow the banks to go under and to guarantee only small deposits. Let shareholders, bond holders and large (>$500k) lenders to the banks to lose their money. Second, hold bank executives and shareholders liable for the bank's debts. Eg executive salaries and other remuneration need to be clawed back up to a 5 year window. Shareholders should be liable (as they used to be) for debts up to an additional 100% of the par value of the shares. I can assure you this would concentrate minds wonderfully - as it did in the old days when Wall St investment banks were partnerships with each partner liable for all the debts of the firm. Another alternative would be for governments to enforce limits on financial risk, but unfortunately they do not have the courage to do this, nor the morality to resist \"\"campaign contributions\"\" / bribes to look the other way. If these steps were taken the issue of the Euro currency would not be a problem. However printing money (which requires having your own currency) is a solution if it comes to that although it comes at the expense of people who have saved and invested prudently. Printing money (keeping interest rates excessively low for years on end) subsidizes borrowers - the ones who created the problem - at the expense of savers. Clearly this creates terribly perverse incentives the next time around. Anyone who thinks this problem is a result of unfettered free market capitalism is not paying attention.\"",
">Not to mention that Japan has a very good savings rate. Remember they buy a lot of bonds with their savings, Japanese bonds. This shows up as debt on the ledger. People really need to learn about government debt in general.",
"For now we can pay off our debt in United States dollars. If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. If we continued printing money we would be debasing our currency against the new reserve currency, which would mean that after we took on too much debt we wouldn't really be able to pay our creditors back after exchanging our devalued currency for the new one on the international markets. We are lucky enough not to have to worry about this now. But I think OP was referring to all countries in these situations. Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. That is why I am saying that America has a very disillusioned view of reality when it comes to deficit spending. We wouldn't have that any more if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard (I don't think the second option is nearly as realistic but we never know).",
"\"Instead of getting into complex economic theories, here are the few places I can tell you where the cash has disappeared to: 1. Apple - holding over 100b cash in their vault more than any banks have in their reserves in the world and more than enough to pay off all of the debts of the U.S. 2. Real Estates.........in developing countries, that is :p. You may keep hearing how real estates are de-valuing in the U.S., but in developing countries like the BRICs, they are going higher. Think Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, etc. Yes, it's a proven bubble there. If you have access to their regional news, just listen to how many people in Asia have to borrow from loan sharks to keep their finances afloat. 3. Gold - go see for yourself on goldprice.org, that's where the wealthy individuals put their cash in the so-called \"\"safe haven\"\" next to shotguns. Yes, it's ridiculous and is totally out of anyone's league beyond basic things like air, water, and food. 4. Commodities (gas, food, basic materials) - enough said, check out your local gas pumps and grocery stores.\"",
"\"Many reasons, but let me pick my favourite: The incentive to save isn't there. Any government subject to elections has the incentive to spend as much as possible to remain in power. What is worse, it has a DISINCENTIVE to save. Because the money it saves - and which it pays for with bad will from the electorate, who should really be smarter - is going to be spent by the OTHER guy who will then look incredibly good and be reassured of re-election. \"\"But isn't it afraid of accumulating debt?\"\" you may ask, and its simple. Somebody else will be there when the debt is due. The problem of incentives is a fundamental one.\"",
"Lol TL:DR. your first point is completely wrong so I stopped at the wall of text. Get over it buddy, you lost the argument. No country simultaniously purchased and sold its own debt, like we have this past several years in the US. So, shut the fuck up already. loser.",
"Are you fucking stupid or just retarded? There isn't another country in the world remotely with the size of economy we have or that are starting wars like we are. Do you understand that wars are 10-15 year commitments with tens of trillions ~~wasted ~~ stolen ? I'm not going to argue with the flat earth society.. go troll someone else with your fantasy arguments.",
"> But to answer your question, the two factors you mention are positively correlated, not negatively as you postulate. I'm not sure if there's necessarily any correlation. I'm merely stating the fact that they have so much savings that they must export capital but at the same time, they've ramped up domestic debt to somewhere around 300% of GDP which, I don't know why you say it isn't a lot, but it's probably twice the level of the average developing country. Wealth is probably very overstated, but the mechanism for why this has happened is confusing to me.",
"But how can you have continued growth? Nothing is perpetual at least not in real life - maybe in theory :) I'm guessing you're talking about growth in the money supply right? Well how can you keep growing your money supply indefinitely if doing so requires the creation of a larger amount of debt than the amount that already exists? Think of it in rounds. If each round of debt requires that new debt to the amount of 105% of the old debt is created, how long can you keep that running for? You've essentially got the principle of compound interest working against you. I'm obviously missing something really big because this seems ridiculous to me...",
"\"Why would a bank buy government bonds? Why couldn't they just deposit their money in another bank instead? Generally, banks are limited by laws and regulations about how much they must set aside as reserves. Of the money they receive as deposits, they may loan a certain amount, but must keep some as a reserve (this is called \"\"fractional reserve banking\"\"). Different countries have a different amount that they must set aside in reserves. In countries where bank deposits are guaranteed, there is almost always some upper limit to how much is guaranteed. The amount of money that a bank would deposit in another bank would be far greater than the guarantee.\"",
"They are wrong. Agreed. The problem I have is that sooner or later you get in so much debt no one will lend money to you anymore. At that point austerity is forced on you. The increased spending comes from domestic and foreign investors. We all know how fickle the financial markets can be. If our debt gets too high and they cut off the tap, we are fucked. I don't think we are anywhere near that point now. However, things can change dramatically in the course of a few months. Political tensions, global uncertainty and social unrest could all cause enough of a panic that people start questioning the safety of U.S. treasuries. We could also see the day where everyone collectively demands the U.S. stop ripping them off with negative bond yields. Like I said, I see no indication of that now, but who knows how long it will take? I know this is a bit of a tangent, but it is clear. My solution: borrow money to improve the economy while you can but make sure that your dollars count to fixing the economy. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck with a stagnant economy AND at a serious risk of bankruptcy when the financial markets no longer see you as a wise investment. You can't save yourself from falling off of two cliffs at the same time so our politicians should stop dicking around and start looking for real solutions with the money they are borrowing instead of pissing it away on useless shit.",
"\"But their economy is based on -- built upon -- the very concept of debt, just like the U.S. and most other advanced economies on the planet. Debt itself isn't the problem -- having to borrow to get capital and then *service the debt* is where the problems appear because whilst one group in the economy continues this old pattern of issuing debt and expecting payback with interest, another prominent group has been undercutting the ability of debtors to service their debt by shifting how products and services develop and are used by the public. It's the old \"\"watch this hand\"\" trick with the other hand stabbing you when you're not looking. Simply put, you can't have an economy based upon the debt/return-on-interest model while -- at the very same time -- having an economy based on make-everything-in-China/India production/service model: If you make people have to borrow money to have money, then you *must* give them a way to service that debt; otherwise, you're just a daft bastard who refuses to acknowledge that adding two and two returns four; an imbecile who insists that he can indeed have his cake and eat it too; I could go on but the point is made.\"",
"\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \"\"printing their way out of it\"\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\"",
"> They'd literally have to invade and plunder other nations on a regular basis. Which is what they do. The plundering is done by the mining companies and oil companies and engineering firms that follow them in though. Not them directly.",
"I'll give you a stark example of China's debt-driven construction growth: Since '09 China has constructed enough physical office space buildings to give every Chinese man, woman, and child their own cubicle - 3 times over! Given that these buildings were largely financed by debt, its hard to see how those creditors get all their money back given that there simply are not enough Chinese people to occupy and pay/rent that space in order for break-even to occur.",
"The debt is a problem but IF (and the key word is if) other nations are lending to us at rates we dictate, then that is not a problem. But if our own banks, Central Bank, and the like are buying it then the problem is being kept on our shores. The issue is with fractional reserve lending, one will always have this issue but if other nations give us items/services for paper/pixels we send them why not continue.",
"Lots of countries *have* printed themselves away from debt. Not all inflation turns into a death spiral like Zimbabwe (or Weimar Germany) did, for that you need to have a really shitty economy that no-one believes in. The problem with Japan right now is that they are trying to print their debt away, but as they do so, their currency *appreciates*. Gold medal for the first one who manages to explain that one.",
"Surely there's more to the picture than this. Breaking the borrowing limit by going to 3.5% multiple times is surely no where near as bad as going to 18% once. On top of this there was a fundamental difference in the use of capital. Borrowing to invest (as Germany did) has been ridiculously beneficial for them.",
"Corrupt country leaders will probably rape it dry for their personal gains. Next thing you know, the secretary of state is getting $100000 loan with 1 percent interest when the country national bank lending money to its people at 25% percent interest.",
"No - we're having fun seeing how long you avoid providing a single example of something you claimed was so universal any single one should suffice. It seems you totally pulled that statement out of your ass and now are so stubborn that admitting it must impact your psyche in some amazing way. So stubborn that you both don't address your claim, admit it is wrong, and yet you call us names for asking you to back up your statement. This is fun. You still have not listed an empire that did not purchase it's own debt. Your entire argument fails.",
"The main driver behind countries not printing themselves out of debt is the fact that it will cripple the economy, destroy citizens savings, asset valuations and piss all the countries trade partners off so much that they may stop doing business with them. You will have a few different extremes, look at Zimbabwe as an example of a country that just prints money like no ones business. America is essentially devaluing its currency to compete with China. That annoys the Chinese because their holdings are devalued and as such you then see people moving away from US treasuries into more stable commodities and currencies.",
"The ECB has put up about 400BEuro from EU countries. They are borrowing the money at an interests from other EU countries and then lend it to Spain with an interest. Same way the FEd is borrowing money from tax payers for yet another stimulus, QE3.",
"Your preferred answer: It's not debt, it's magic. It never has to be paid back. Ok, go ahead tell us all you know about QE and how it isn't debt. Your half baked version of the socratic method isn't working too well.",
"\"Your question is expressed as a run-on sentence, which I'm having trouble parsing. Maybe you could restate. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the statist canard that [the debt is not a problem because] \"\"we owe it to ourselves\"\". Collectivists like to think we're all in this together, but that's not reality. Some people are taking from others by force of law. The debt is owed to BANKS, and they want to keep this system going. Wouldn't you like to have a legal monopoly on the supply of currency? Institutions which are funded by loose credit (government, academia, military contractors, crony corporations) likewise benefit from this system. Those who invest in US dollars, and those who are farthest from the central planning spigot are the losers in this scheme. But there is more debt than currency, so it can't ever be repaid. So that is a moot point - it can't even hypothetically be considered. There are however a number of other ways that this system could unwind, when it inevitably does. The banks could be left to fail, and their assets would be bid on by others through the bankruptcy process. Or the Fed could keep issuing currency to keep the banks solvent, eventually inflating the whole system into irrelevance.\"",
"\"Pretty much every american \"\"borrows\"\". Credit cards are essential in building credit history and story. Debit cards got popular in the past few years, but most still borrow at least a little bit on credit and pay it off right away.\"",
"\"It's helpful to remember that Charles Ponzi started with a legitimate arbitrage (international postal remittances). Once purveyors of arbitrage reach a certain scale, there's a natural tendency to become lazy and just forgo the arbitrage and just use new investor money to pay off previous investors. Banks wouldn't be any different if it weren't for central banks and government participation. Indeed, the primary reason that the FedResInk came into existence is **because** of ponzi-like bank failures (bankers call them \"\"a run on the bank\"\"). Neoclassical economics is about using the synthesis of state sovereignty and central bank monetary theory to keep the system they've developed intact. ...and, as fun as it might be to sit back and calculate just how much debt can be created from a life-time of labor proceeds (a couple million for the average person-- completely hypothetical back of the envelope inflation excluded, 4.5x10^14, which is still in middle of the trillions), it would be wise to keep in mind that the last banking crisis, while fundamentally caused by the inability to collect future labor proceeds, was precipitated, not by individuals, but by repurchase agreements propping up extremely leveraged positions made by and between massive investment banks. So, the thing to remember is that fractional reserve debt issuance banking is like a 10 to 1 transistor that has a fundamental tolerance requirement on the source signal, but that when the source signal fades, it can draw from the surplus signal created by the 10 to 1 amplification (up to a certain point and then the transistor goes up in a puff of smoke).\"",
"There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.",
"\"I think the important fact here is that all of our currencies are Fiat Currencies. So currency technically means nothing, because (as you mentioned) the country could print more any time it wants. Now what makes it useful is the combination of two big things: So I would say, we know they owe us 100 \"\"dollars\"\", and the dollar is just a word we use to represent value. It is not technically worth anything, beyond the fact that the government controls the amount of that currency in circulation and you trust that people still want more of that currency.\"",
"\"Judging from your comments, you seem to be confused about the way banking works. Banks can only lend out money that they actually have: whether from deposits or investors or loans taken from other banks/government entities. The rules on how this works varies from country to country, but the principle is always the same. There is no magic money. Let's imagine a closed system. There's only one town, and that town only has one bank. There are 100 people total in town, and each has $10,000. Everyone deposits all of their money in the bank. The bank now has $1,000,000 in total deposits. You take a loan for $100,000 and buy a house. The bank now has $900,000. You make your payments of $965 per month: $833 of interest and $132 toward principal. In this ideal world, the bank has no costs associated with doing business. After one month, the bank has $1,000,000 in deposits, $900,965 in cash on hand, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit (from interest). Now here's the confusing part. You bought a house from someone. That person also lives in town. He takes the $100,000 you gave him and... deposits it in the bank. The bank now has $1,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit. Assume 10 more people buy houses at $100,000 each, taking loans for that whole amount (for the same terms you did). Assume those sellers then deposit the money back in the bank. The bank now has $2,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $1,099,868 in loans, and $833 in profit. The bank is taking in $10,615 per month ($965 x 11) in loan payments, making profit of $9,163 ($833 x 11) per month from interest. This process of loans and deposits and payments can go on forever without any outside influence. This is the primary way money is created. It's like printing money without the paper. Of course, we're not in a closed system. Banks are limited in endlessly creating money, primarily by two things: Reserve Requirements are set by government agencies. They might say banks can lend until their cash on hand (or liquid equivalent) is, at minimum, 35% of total deposits. So a bank with $1,000,000 in deposits would have to keep $350,000 in cash at any given time. Capital Requirements work largely the same way. It's more the bank saying, \"\"What happens if a bunch of people want their deposits back?\"\" They plan a reasonable amount of cash to have on hand for that scenario.\"",
"When banks create a loan, it is said they write the debit account out of thin air (liability), balanced by the loan (asset). When the person who gets the loans spends the money, the bank has to pay it. If the bank only has 10% reserves of the money it loans, how does the bank pay out it's loans? Does it borrow the money from the Fed and then pay it back?",
"\"Here's some way of thinking about it, and I'm not really sure if it's completely correct, but sometimes we oversimplify when trying to tell a five year old :) Say there are two people in the world. You and me. We both have $100. A total of $200 in the world. Suddenly, a wild bank appears. I deposit my $100 in the bank. I still have $100 and you still have $100. Now you want to buy something from me that costs $150. You go to the bank to loan money. The bank has $100 available so gives you $50. You give me $150. Now I have $250 and you are $50 in debt. I deposit the $150 in the bank. We do this again and again, until I have $1000 on my bank account, and you are $900 in debt. I want to buy a house of $500 and go to my bank, demanding to take out $500. But there is only $200 in the whole world so the bank can only give me $200. \"\"Money\"\" has been created out of thin air, but it's actually you who are in debt. If you go bankrupt, the bank has a big debt it won't get back, and is in deep shit when I come around to demand my money back. At that point governments step in to loan the bank money for cheap, because if the bank fails, I will lose all my pension savings I put into that bank, as well as my companies and a lot of my employees. And other banks loaned this bank money, so if this bank fails, the other banks will be in the exact same position and will also fail, because then they will also have debts that won't be paid back. There are regulations minimizing this - i.e. a bank is required to keep a percentage of the amount of money on its accounts, so there's a maximum limit of \"\"money created\"\".\"",
"\"India's a very interesting case study. They're economy's exploded and grown by leaps and bounds in the last decade. It's a free market but the Reserve Bank of India's get's weird sometimes. For instance a lot of these crappy and defaulting loans are because the government (Reserve Bank of India) said to fuel growth you have to make sure a certain percentage of your loan book is made out industries we want to develop. So huge loans were made to construction firms, not because they fit the risk profile of the bank or were good investments, but cause the government mandated it. Ton's of horribly run companies got money they shouldn't have. Also, public banks pay a lot less than their private counterparts, so you don't have the best and brightest handing out these loans. India's a fucking mess of laws. Like there's no codified way to declare bankruptcy like there is in the West. So if a company goes belly up, they have to go through this maze of different government offices with contradictory rules so creditors (in many cases, the banks that lent them money) can get some of their money back, IMF said it takes 4.5 years on average for a company to go through bankruptcy proceedings. That's insane! And because it's India, there's a ton of shady shit going on behind the scenes. Up until 2-3 years ago, loans that the banking industry considers non performing (interest payments haven't been made in 90 days) were lumped in another category and hidden in the balance sheet, so the rest of the world looked at this said, \"\"well, their NPL ratio is only 3-4% which is fine for developing country\"\" and continued to rate them highly. It wasn't until recently that we figured out the ENTIRE banking sector wasn't reporting their bad loans properly.\"",
"\"You quite literally just answered why I never understood my own god damn currency says \"\"I promise to pay the bearer...\"\" What I don't get however, is that how wealth comes out of thin air.... why each continent cannot be eternally rich... We're all (at the very basic level) taking things from the ground and providing a service to someone. But if the whole world were to become bankers (only providing a service to which some people would emply never actually existed), we obviously can't all make money from it. So how does money \"\"come out of thin air\"\" so speak?\"",
"Yep, the wonderful thing about finance is the more you learn the more you start understanding the world around you. I think your question is more related to economics (deficits, surpluses and budgets) however countries can (and do) reissue new bonds to help pay off the old ones. Also keep in mind if a country has say $10trillion in debt, it isn't all due at once so maybe only $10 billion might be due per year",
">So where is all the money? I mean, labor has been produced to make things and wages paid to the laborers. The things are purchased by other laborers, who were paid for producing goods or services, etc. It's a closed loop, right? Almost right. The problem is that the wages paid to the laborers are not high enough to buy all the goods produced, so there is constant overproduction and at the same time there are people who would want to buy these goods, but can't afford them. Some people lose their jobs, which reduces demand for goods even further. It's a vicious circle and everbody loses in the long run.",
">u telling me there were that much savings and reserve in the system? Yes. You're telling me there wasn't? The loans were bundled and *sold to investors* to get more capital to loan. It was not magically created as you seem to think. [There were about $4trillion saved in the US at the time](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WSAVNS). The mortgages were sold all over the world, where there is easily more trillions of savings and reserve. You still have not addressed M2 being around 10x M1. You keep floundering but not addressing anything of substance.",
"I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks.",
"\"I meant \"\"we\"\" in terms of the US Treasury, which currently owes over 100% of GDP. And that's cooking the debt numbers down using cash accounting and cooking the GDP up by lying about inflation, among other things. Plenty of people are doing better than ever, particularly those who have their hands in the cheap money thrown around by the Fed.\"",
"What are those maximums, and do all countries have them? Usury, lending money for any interest at all, used to be anti-biblical: it wasn't a Christian thing to do, and so in Christian countries it was Jews who did it (Jews who were money-lenders). Asking for interest on loans is still anti-Koranic: so Islamic banks don't lend money for interest. Instead of your getting a mortgage from the bank to buy a house, the bank will buy the house, which you then buy from bank on a rent-to-own basis. Further details:",
"First Reddit comment! This may seem like a noob question, but why can't the government just borrow unlimited amount of money, to pay for welfare program instead of raising taxes? I would assume that would be the better thing to do, and just roll the debt forward. Thanks!",
"\"Still waiting, still not seeing any that have.. When you debate someone, in a forum or somewhere other than your armchair, I suggest you forget about trying to demand a opposite answer from someone as an answer to a question. Its not only childish, its really quite silly. You are, by all definitions, a troglodyte. If you think of those ignorant \"\"republican christians\"\", thats how you are acting now. No country in the past has ever sold and bought there own debt at the same time I can promise you I worked in finance, for a large highly rated company, then got rich building a business. I know this hurts, but honestly, when you are wrong, just admit it and move on. Ignorance is just so sad to display and probably keeps you held back in life anyways. Im off to bed though I am sure you'll declare yourself victor of not naming a single country that bought and sold its own debt in history. But, maybe its ANY victory in your head you need right now. Who knows. ------------------------------------------- Update 1 * lol I see you changed your answer, let me do the same. The fact that the \"\"bank of england\"\" in 1694 is the model of \"\"modern\"\" central banks STILL doesn't show that they BOUGHT THERE OWN DEBT. Do you still not understand this yet? Modern central banking has NOTHING TO DO with buying your own debt. You really are clueless as to how \"\"economics\"\" works aren't you? ------------------------------------------- Update 2 * I think you keep changing them, because for some reason you just won't admit you have no understanding of modern/classical banking. Once again: >In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank-notes.[12] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy. This statement still DOES NOT show that the government here simultaniously purchased its own bonds it issued. It issued debt, yes, no one is debating this. The bank, for all purposes, acted as the Treasury for England. But honestly, you are a fucking piece of work. I have watched you lie, change your answers, and pretty much do every childish thing in the book to try to win an arguement on Reddit. You are a little person, honestly. I know not of what world you live in, but it isn't this one. Seriously, get better, the world is alot more fun when you don't suck so bad at it.\"",
"I'm sorry, I know that it's not your fault but you really need to think about what you're saying and stop listening to the financial advisors on tv... If you think that all you need to do is give people money to spend then you need to read up on Zimbabwe. They tried that - at it's hight they *think* that Zim's inflation hit 6.5 x 10^108 % ([that's 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe)). I can't even begin to imagine how large that is - basically bread cost billions of zim dollars a loaf. I remember hearing the one day that they were dropping 3 zeros from their notes. I'm ashamed to say that I laughed. No one is buying right now because, instead of buying stuff, everyone is paying back loans - or they're too scared to buy in case they need the cash to survive in the future. Look at the liquidity crisis; the housing bubble; all the bank failing/needing to be bailed out lately - all because people couldn't pay back the loans they took out. The US government is already $15 trillion in debt (nearly 16 trillion now) - and that's only the public debt. The gov is already paying $454 billion every year *just to repay the **interest** on the debt!* Never mind actually paying back the principle amount. Last year it added another $1.2 trillion to the deficit (that's another 1,200,000,000 dollars that it owes on top of the 15,000,000,000 dollars it already owes). At the beginning of this year, public debt amounted to 102% of GDP - that means that if everyone in America didn't buy what ever it was that they bought last year and instead repaid the public debt (not private mind you, just the debts that the government owed) then they *still* wouldn't have been able to pay it all off. Now after reading all of that, please keep a straight face and tell me that all that the government needs to spend even more money to sort it all out.",
"It is also not helped that governments globally are pressing banks to improve capital ratios; i.e. hold more in reserve. While this will reduce the likelihood of a bailout in the near future, it severely reduces the access to money and damages the economy.",
"> The issue I have with your use of Japan is that Japan has very strong exports of superior quality and low cost, we do not. That has no bearing on their sovereign debt situation though. Japan's debt is yen-denominated. Does Japan rely on the rest of the world to supply it with yen via exports? No. Japan issues the yen. >And what about South and Central American Pesos? Where you saw actual debt crises, it was countries that owed US dollars. Peg your peso to the US dollar and/or borrow US dollars and you are on the hook for US dollars which you can run out of. Let's just apply this as a general rule: any example of actual sovereign debt crisis you want to offer, before you do... look for where they're on the hook for foreign currency. You'll find it. >What about Keynes, Minsky, and the trilemma? Their central banks were completely overridden by foreign speculators. We can only choose two out of three options, peg our currency, spend to help the economy, and/or maintain free trade, not all three What I'm describing is consistent with the trilemma [triangle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity#mediaviewer/File:Impossible_trinity_diagram.svg). I'm saying the sovereign monetary policy with a floating rate currency is the one which allows a country the most policy space for responding to crisis and funding its domestic economy in general up to its own real capacity limits. I want to emphasize here that the printing press isn't some magic fountain of real wealth. Your potential real wealth is limited by what you have the real resources to produce. The idea is to fund yourself to the point where you're producing up to your own real limits of output capacity at full employment. Maximize your own potential. As opposed to adopting voluntary financial constraints which force you to leave some of that potential idle, making you poorer in real terms.",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://bankunderground.co.uk/2017/08/08/your-country-needs-funds-the-extraordinary-story-of-britains-early-efforts-to-finance-the-first-world-war/) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Financing World War I required the UK government to borrow the equivalent of a full year&#039;s GDP. But its first effort to raise capital in the bond market was a spectacular failure. > As part of a project looking at the financing of World War I, the ledgers of investors who purchased the 3&frac12;% War Loan have been analysed for the first time. > These reveal the startling truth about the failure of the first bond issue of the Great War and the extraordinary role of the Bank of England in covering and then concealing the shortfall in funds. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tfsn0/hacker_news_the_extraordinary_story_of_britains/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~189875 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **War**^#1 **Bank**^#2 **Loan**^#3 **investors**^#4 **bond**^#5\"",
"\"And if you subtract that 30% (the 19% Social Security and 11% Fed holdings) which are entirely bogus and moot... Then that 32% (out of the remaining 70%) is pretty darned near half, and regardless of it being just shy of a majority, it is still the largest block. Even then, since the dollar itself is backed by nothing, it isn't technically a problem -- the US can pay it off at any time (the only inherent cost being the debasement of the currency). Where the problem with that comes in is that there are a LOT of US assets located on foreign soil (all of the \"\"joint-operation\"\" manufacturing plants in China, for instance); and foreign governments CAN hold them \"\"hostage\"\" (so to speak), or if they so choose, to literally confiscate (nationalize) them and yet legally \"\"compensate\"\" their US based paper-owners by paying them off with the debased dollars (and/or US treas bonds, same thing really)... basically just \"\"paying\"\" us with checks drawn on our own collective account.\"",
"Steve Keen says otherwise, he says Banks CAN create a Quadrillion dollars, as long as there are willing borrowers. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc_fpGfyqGE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sSfPkIUHPk&feature=share why does m2 seem like exponential? how can fractional reserve do something like that? unpossible. seems like only an explosive growth in either productivity or profits through slave labor globalization or speculative derivatives can do something like that.",
"So if a country forces their savings onto another country, say the U.S., the U.S. would have to absorb those savings somehow. If there were enough productive investments available, then this would be a good thing. But if there aren't enough productive investments available but the savings are still forced upon the U.S. it would seem that it would inevitably lead to some kind of a debt bubble for the U.S.",
"\"What you are looking for is the \"\"debt maturity profile\"\" (to make it easier to google. Most countries continuously roll over their debt, in effect just paying interest forever. So when your debt is due, you issue another loan for the same amount and use the new loan to pay off the old one.\"",
"\"Banks use the money for productive pursuits, earning returns in excess of what they will owe the fed in discount interest. If a bank could not yield a return greater than their interest due their lender (whether that lender is the fed or not) they probably wouldn't borrow in the first place. EDIT: I misunderstood the question. The federal reserve does not disseminate new money by making loans. They do so by issuing and trading in bonds. The US Treasury, for example, issues a bond. The Federal Reserve Bank buys this bond using money they \"\"printed\"\". So the same question applies.... where does the money come from to pay the interest on the bond? It comes from the perpetual issuance and trading in bonds at a growing rate. All the fed needs to do is to buy bonds at a rate faster than they collect interest.\"",
"\"(relix already hit on some of this) It's hard to explain this to a five-year-old, because there are some fairly abstract concepts involved, but here goes... All actual \"\"money\"\" is debt. All of it, including monetary gold, etc. (Don't argue with me yet, I'll get to that.) Imagine a pretend world with no money, some kind of primitive villiage or something. Now let's invent paper money. You can't just print a bunch of paper that says people have to give you stuff, because nobody would honor it. But you *could* print IOUs. Let's walk through this... - Let's say you're an apple-farmer and I'm a hunter. You want some meat but haven't harvested your crops yet. You say to me, \"\"hey, go hunt me some meat and I'll give you 1/10th of my apple harvest in the fall\"\". Fair enough, I give you meat, you owe me apples. There's probably a lot of this kind of stuff going on, in addition to normal barter. In time, standard \"\"prices\"\" start to emerge: a deer haunch is worth a bushel of apples, or whatever. - Now, let's say a week later, I realize that my kid needs a new pair of shoes more than I need a bushel of apples. I come back to you and say, \"\"Hey remember that bushel of apples you owe me? Could you write a marker, redeemable for one bushel of apples, that I can give to the shoemaker in trade for a pair of shoes?\"\" You say okay, and we have invented a *transferable note*, something a lot like money. - In time, our little villiage starts to figure out that a note redeemable for a bushel of apples can be swapped for all kinds of things. The fisherman who doesn't even like apples will accept apple-certificates in trade for fish, because he knows he can trade them to boat-builder who loves apples. In time, you can even start to hire farm-workers without giving them anything except a note promising a cut of the future harvest. Now, you are issuing *debt*: a promise to provide apples. The \"\"money\"\" is a transferable IOU-- your workers get a promise to provide value equal to a day of farm-work, or whatever, and it's transferrable, so they can use it to buy whatever they want. The worker gets fish from the fisherman, not in exchange for doing any work or giving him anything he can use, but in exchange for an IOU that the fisherman can redeem anywhere. So far so good. But there are a couple of forks in the road here, on the way to a realistic monetary system, that we'll address separately: - What happens if your apple orchard is destroyed in a wildfire? Suddenly all the notes that everyone has been trading are basically wiped out. It didn't \"\"go\"\" anywhere, it's just gone, it doesn't exist. Real value was genuinely destroyed. There is no thermodynamic law of the conservation of monetary value-- just as you and I created it by creating transferable debt, it can also be genuinely destroyed. (We'll get back to this in a minute, it gets interesting). - The second issue is that, in all probability, the whole town is not *just* trading apple-certificates. I could also issue promises to catch deer, the fisherman could issue promises of fish, and so on. This could get pretty messy, especially if you got the notion to issue more apple-certificates than you can grow: you could buy all kinds of stuff with self-issued debt that you could never repay, and the town wouldn't find out until harvest-time comes. Once again, value has been \"\"destroyed\"\" people worked and made stuff and gave you stuff in exchange for something that doesn't exist, and will never exist. All that stuff they made is gone, you consumed it, and there is nothing to show for it. The above two concerns are likely to become manifest in our village sooner or later, and probably sooner. This leads to the question of *credit*, which is, at its most basic, a measure of *credibility*. Every time you issue an apple-certificate, you are *borrowing*, with a promise to repay from future apple-harvests. After the first couple of town scandals, people will start taking a closer look at the credibility of the issuer. Let's say the town potato-farmer comes up with a scheme where his potato-certificates are actually issued by some credible third-party, say the town priest or whatever, who starts every growing season with a book of numbered certificates equal to the typical crop-yield and no more, and keeps half of the certificate on file, issuing the other half. Now there is an audit trail and a very credible system that is likely to earn the potato-grower a lot of credit, compared to other farmers in town. That means that the potato-grower can probably issue more notes at a better exchange rate than some murkier system. Similarly, the town drunk probably won't get much value for his certificates promising a ship of gold. Now we have something like a credit market emerging, and the potato-farmer is issuing something closer to what we might call a modern \"\"bond\"\"... (continued in a reply to this post...)\"",
"\"please explain, and use historic example if you would, how purchasing your own debt is a 1) Solid financial decision 2) Historically successful for another country. Oh right, you can't. Because its not. Maybe you don't have an \"\"understanding\"\" of economics, loser.\"",
"If you have an increasing population but a steady supply of wealth then there will be a perceived effect of decline. As the average person can afford less and less. If inflation is factored in this effect is accelerated as the value of money is reduced but the availability of that money is as well. In this model those who have tend to accumulate as they produce. And those who do not have tend to lose wealth as they consume to fill basic needs, at ever increasing prices, with a declining source of income, exacerbating the effect. If you control your population, prevent inflation and deflation, and maintain a constant production/consumption cycle that is perfectly in balance then you could have that utopian society. But in practice there is waste. That waste makes maintaining that balance impractical at best. People have different desires and motivations. So while that utopian society that you propose seems possible at the theoretical level when solely looking at the mechanics and economics, in practice it becomes more about managing the people. Which makes the task virtually impossible. As for the debt issue that is the strategy of many of the western nations. Most of them experienced growth over the last 50 years that was unprecedented in history. Many of them simply assumed it would continue indefinitely and failed to plan for a downturn. In addition they planned for the growth and borrowed based on the assumptions. When the growth slowed several continued to use the same projections for their budgeting, with the effect of spending money they would not take in. So in a way, yes the growth is needed to service the continued growth of debt, unless the government issuing that debt is willing to reduce its expenses.",
"Is there anywhere I can get further information? I ask because I'm thinking about an alternative theory of money where companies can issue bonds as currency, and we can have coexisting monetary policies. These relate to what i'm saying: http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/utf5u/where_has_all_the_money_in_the_world_gone/c4yfkhg http://www.radicalsocialentreps.org/2012/07/open-source-currencies-on-the-rise-in-greece/ http://www.businessinsider.com/why-are-central-banks-independent-2012-5 http://truth-out.org/news/item/11868-spain-and-greece-are-being-forced-to-suffer-to-save-germany-from-high-inflation"
] |
[
"\"They borrowed it from the people, and typically to finance wars and military spending. For example, Wikipedia suggests that the Bank of England \"\"was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy.\"\" It's a game that everyone has to play once started; if Napoleon buys an army on credit, you'll have to raise an equal amount or face quite a problem. As for why they've grown so large, it's because governments are quite skilled at owing large sums of money. Only a small portion of the debt comes due in full at a given moment, and they constantly reissue new debt via auction to keep it rolling. So as long as they can make coupon (interest) and the lump sum at maturity, it's not difficult to keep up. Imagine how much credit card debt you could rack up if you only ever had to pay interest. This game will continue for as long as people lend. And there are plenty of lenders. There's pensions, mutual funds and endowments, which find public debt typically safer than stocks. And money market funds, which target 1 dollar NAV and only invest in the \"\"safest\"\" AAA-rated bonds to protect it. There's central banks, which can buy and sell public debt to manipulate inflation and exchange rates. Absent some kind of UN resolution to ban lending, or perhaps a EU mandated balanced budget, these debts will likely continue to grow. You think they \"\"collectively owe more money than can exist\"\", but there's a lot of wealth in the world. Most nations owe less than a year's GDP. For example, the US's total wealth is in the neighborhood of 50 trillion.\"",
"By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.",
"\"Others have pointed out that the entities loaning money to the government are typically people and institutions. Recently, however, the US federal government borrowings were largely funded by money printed by the Federal Reserve. The government had to borrow $1.1 trillion from October, 2010 through June, 2011. During this period the FED printed around $0.8 trillion new dollars to purchase US debt. Thus, the US government was not borrowing money from people, it was being funded by money printing. The central bankers call this \"\"quantitative easing\"\".\"",
"Here is an overview of who owns US Debt from Wikipedia, it indicates that approximately 1/3rd of US debt is held by foreigners (mainly the central banks of other countries), approximately 1/2 of US Debt is held by the federal reserve, and the rest is owned by various America organizations (mutual funds, pension funds, etc). The money is loaned via bonds, treasury bills, etc. When you put money in your pension fund, you very likely buying US debt. The US Treasury department all has a comprehensive page about how public debt works in the United States here: an overview of public debt from the treasury. I wasn't able to find a similar breakdown for other countries, but Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of how much debt is owed by other countries: a list of countries by public debt."
] |
10137
|
F-1 student investing in foreign markets
|
[
"57168"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"78632",
"308048",
"57168",
"412226",
"255519",
"480638",
"123030",
"397340",
"528475",
"197478",
"143264",
"347560",
"231814",
"234851",
"540986",
"334495",
"514952",
"535340",
"89351",
"480749",
"102682",
"458635",
"410543",
"35191",
"506368",
"213833",
"411021",
"51777",
"565296",
"551809",
"426703",
"349417",
"253024",
"98461",
"389581",
"144685",
"431389",
"566028",
"113644",
"526847",
"224688",
"386173",
"504612",
"178691",
"534391",
"284805",
"526664",
"177222",
"400500",
"12268",
"378390",
"187155",
"152643",
"508895",
"461821",
"311834",
"213373",
"107215",
"588345",
"57841",
"5347",
"148208",
"427916",
"589625",
"397449",
"208916",
"66039",
"151412",
"407259",
"62966",
"551964",
"79009",
"43508",
"268022",
"47579",
"160899",
"598680",
"98510",
"552298",
"382505",
"219995",
"326559",
"334154",
"412109",
"276408",
"296528",
"23116",
"13657",
"430868",
"287019",
"478711",
"64168",
"269646",
"451671",
"471789",
"28188",
"241996",
"291229",
"120082",
"44574"
] |
[
"As an F1 student, I have been investing (and occasionally buying and selling within few weeks) for several years, and I have never had problems (of course I report to IRS gains/losses every year at tax time). On the other hand, the officer in charge of foreign students at my school advised me to not run ads on a website and make a profit. So, it seems to me that investing is perfectly legit for a F1 student, as it's not considered a business activity. That's obviously my personal understanding, you may want to speak with an immigration attorney to be on the safe side.",
"It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this.",
"You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country.",
"There are no legal reasons preventing you from trading as a F-1 visa holder, as noted in this Money.SE answer. Per this article, here are the things you need to set up an account: What do I need to have for doing Stock trading as F1 student ? Typically, most of the stock brokerage firms require Social Security Number (SSN) for stock trading. The reason is that, for your capital gains, it is required by IRS for tax purposes. If you work on campus, then you would already get SSN as part of the job application process…Typically, once you get the on-campus job or work authorization using CPT or OPT , you use that offer letter and take all your current documents like Passport, I-20, I-94 and apply for SSN at Social Security Administration(SSA) Office, check full details at SSA Website . SSN is typically used to report job wages by employer for tax purposes or check eligibility of benefits to IRS/Government. I do NOT have SSN, Can I still do stock trading as F1 student ? While many stock brokerage firms require SSN, you are not out of luck, if you do not have one…you will have to apply for an ITIN Number ( Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ) and can use the same when applying for stock brokerage account. While some of the firms accept ITIN number, it totally depends on the stock brokering firm and you need to check with the one that you are interested in. The key thing is that you'll need either a SSN or ITIN to open a US-based brokerage account.",
"There's no limitation on what you can invest in, including trading stocks (as long as trading is not a business activity, like day-trading or investing for others). You just need to make sure you have a tax ID (either ITIN or SSN) and pay taxes on all the gains and dividends. Also, consider your home country tax laws, since you're still tax resident in your home country (most likely).",
"Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.",
"Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]",
"So, my question is what is the limit below which I don't have to pay taxes while trading. I just invested $10. Do I have to pay taxes for this too? what are the slabs? Any income is subject to tax. That said, investing $10 will probably not generate much of income, even at the discount brokers most of it will be wasted on commissions... I am also having an assistantship. So is holding two sources of income legitimate? Thanks You can have as many sources of income as you want. Working is what is restricted when you're on a student visa. As long as you don't open a business as a day trader or start working for someone trading stocks - you're fine.",
"\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"",
"If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.",
"You don't need a visa to invest in US equity. You don't need a visa to profit from US equity. There may be other legal considerations, but they aren't visa related, hope that helps",
"You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.",
"It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf",
"You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.",
"Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process.",
"You have two problems, money exchange commissions and currency risk. Commissions are always exorbitant. First you must find the cheapest way to get your money converted to the foreign currency and into your brokerage account. The absolute cheapest way may involve some research and financial institution maneuvering. Also I'd forget about anything other than USD for the foreseeable future. Any other foreign currency will probably have higher commissions and a weaker market. Once you have that down, you must avoid needlessly exchanging currencies. Keep a balance in the foreign currency, keep all dividends and capital gains there, and only take local money out of your brokerage account right before using it. That means of course that you need to keep enough local currency to pay taxes on any gains, etc. As for currency risk, there are two solutions. One solution is to buy your risk away using forex. You sell an amount of USD/AED lots that is mostly equivalent to your current investments and then just make sure you don't get margin calls. I'm not sure just how cheap your rates would be in the UAE, but, on average, your investments should still have positive returns. The other solution is to just stop seeing exchange rate fluctuations as losses. If you had USD 100k and now you have USD 115k how are you losing money? Exchange rates can go the other way just fine, you know, and holding USD is a good way to hedge against your country going south.",
"There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.",
"\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"",
"Interactive Brokers offers many foreign markets (19 countries) for US based investors. You can trade all these local markets within one universal account which is very convenient in my view. IB offering",
"You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.",
"\"Are most big US based financial institutions and banks in such a close relationship with USCIS (United States Citizenship And Immigration Services) so they can easily request the information about market traders? Yes. They must be in order to enforce the laws required by the sanctions. What online broker would you suggest that probably won't focus on that dual citizenship matter? \"\"Dual\"\" citizenship isn't actually relevant here. Nearly anyone in the world can invest in US banks except for those few countries that the US has imposed sanctions against. Since you are a citizen of one of those countries, you are ineligible to participate. The fact that you are also a US citizen isn't relevant in this case. I believe the reasoning behind this is that the US doesn't encourage dual citizenship: The U.S. Government does not encourage dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality. If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking there is that if you (and enough other people that are citizens of that country) want to participate in something in the US that sanctions forbid, you (collectively) could try to persuade that country's government to change its actions so that the sanctions are lifted. Alternatively, you could renounce your citizenship in the other country. Either of those actions would help further the cause that the US perceives to be correct. What it basically boils down to is that even though you are a US citizen, your rights can be limited due to having another citizenship in a country that is not favorable in the current political climate. Thus there are pros and cons to having dual citizenship.\"",
"\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"",
"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.",
"First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.",
"I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.",
"I will split my answer in a few sections... Note: I will not address the legal aspect of the question. If you can or not use Federal money to invest. 1st - Investments with Student Loan 2nd - IRA as the Instrument I hope this helps!",
"With $7 Million at stake I guess it would be prudent to take legal advise as well as advise from qualified CA. Forex trading for select currency pair [with one leg in INR] is allowed. Ex USDINR, EURINR, JPYINR, GBPINR. Forex trading for pairs without INR or not in the above list is NOT allowed.",
"The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.",
"You have left out the most important piece of information: are you an American citizen? If you are, then PFIC rules mean you need to be very careful not to invest in any foreign index funds/ETFs. That means it will probably be easiest for you to just leave the money in the US and continue to invest it there. If you do not have US citizenship, and have never had a green card, then you will qualify for non-resident alien status after you've been gone for 3 years. Once that happens, you won't owe US capital gains tax (though you will owe it in AUS). You will owe 30% tax on dividends, though. Much more at Investopedia.",
"Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.",
"\"In addition to @MD-tech's answer: I'd distinguish between stock of a foreign company traded in local currency at a local exchange from the same stock traded in the foreign currency at a foreign exchange (and maybe with a foreign bank holding your accounts). The latter option will typically have higher variation because of exchange rate, and (usually) higher risks associated with possibility of recovery, (double) taxation and the possible legal difficulties @MD-tech mentions. Trading the foreign stock at a local exchange may mean that the transaction volume is far lower than at their \"\"home\"\" exchange. Holding stock of companies working in foreign markets OTOH can be seen as diversification and may lower your risk. If you only invest in the local market, your investments may be subject to the same economic fluctuations that your wage/employment/pension situation is subject to - it may be good to try de-correlating this a bit. Of course, depending on political circumstances in your home country, foreign investments may be less risky (though I'd suspect these home countries also come with a high risk of seizing foreign investments...)\"",
"Your definition of 'outside your country' might need some redefinition, as there are three different things going on here . . . Your financial adviser appears to be highlighting the currency risk associated with point three. However, consider these risk scenarios . . . A) Your country enters a period of severe financial difficulty, and money markets shut down. Your brokerage becomes insolvent, and your investments are lost. In this scenario the fact of whether your investments were in an overseas index such as the S&P, or were purchased from an account denominated in a different currency, would be irrelevant. The only thing that would have mitigated this scenario is an account with an overseas broker. B) Your country's stock market enters a sustained and deep bear market, decimating the value of shares in its companies. In this scenario the fact of whether your investments were made in from a brokerage overseas, or were purchased from an account denominated in a different currency, would be irrelevant. The only thing that would have mitigate this scenario is investment in shares and indices outside your home country. Your adviser has a good point; as long as you intend to enjoy your retirement in your home country then it might be advisable to remove currency risk by holding an account in Rupees. However, you might like to consider reducing the other forms of risk by holding non-Indian securities to create a globally diversified portfolio, and also placing some of your capital in an account with a broker outside your home country (this may be very difficult to do in practice).",
"Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)",
"There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.",
"I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).",
"One other issue you may face is when the company announces poor financial results and begins to tank, you will not be able to sell until the US market open and could incur a lot of pain.",
"Question One: Question Two: Your best reference for this would be a brokerage account with data privileges in the markets you wish to trade. Failing that, I would reference the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group (CME Group) website. Question Three: Considering future tuition costs and being Canadian, you are eligible to open a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP). While contributions to this plan are not tax deductible, any taxes on income earned through investments within the fund are deferred until the beneficiary withdraws the funds. Since the beneficiary will likely be in a lower tax bracket at such a time, the sum will likely be taxed at a lower rate, assuming that the beneficiary enrolls in a qualifying post secondary institution. The Canadian government also offers the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG) in which the federal government will match 20% of the first $2500 of your annual RESP contribution up to a maximum of $500.",
"As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.",
"OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.",
"I had this problem when I finished my job in Canada in Sept 2013. You'll likely have to open the account in person in Canada, at least if you don't already have a relationship with a broker there. DO NOT go to Virtual Brokers. They told me that my US citizenship was no problem, but right before I left Canada to double check. It wasn't until I asked specifically which US states they were licensed in that they realized they were licensed in NO US STATES. They told me that they'd freeze my account when I left. I then moved my (former) pension to a locked-in RRSP at BMO. As of September 2010 BMO could handle residents of most US states, but it took some tooth pulling to get the list out of them. However, after I flew to the USA, BMO called to demand more ID. My account was frozen until I flew back to Canada in person just to show ID. Annoyed, I closed the BMO account and moved it to TD Waterhouse. TD waterhouse can handle accounts for residents of all the US states EXCEPT Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. (I only got the complete list of exceptions when I made my first trade, since the guys at the trading desk are much more knowledgeable about such things than the guys in the branch.) TD was extremely friendly about my USA citizenship/residence. (Many Canadian brokers simply won't accept US residents, at least as of the end of 2013.) Whichever broker you choose, BRING LOTS MORE ID than they require. Insist that they zerox it all. Make sure to include your social security card. You don't want them to demand more ID after you've left the country, like BMO did. They may even make such a move simply to get rid of US customers, because the FATCA is a pain for foreign banks.",
"Every month I will get a return in from my share of the profit which would be used for repayment of capital and interest in India. Not to sure what the business plan is. Please factor all the modalities, Exchange rate fluctuations, etc. My concern is regarding RBI rules and regulations, FEMA guidelines, and Income tax. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme; Funds can be transferred outside India. Any profit you make will be taxable in India. You will have to declare this pay tax in as per schedule.",
"It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.",
"You can apply for Foreign currency accounts. But they aren't saving accounts by any means, but more like current accounts. Taking money out will involve charges. You have to visit the bank website to figure out what all operations can be performed on your account. Barclays and HSBC allow accounts in foreign currency. Other banks also will be providing the same services. Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person Depends on country by country. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Get yourself a trading account and invest in foreign markets i.e. equities, bonds etc. But all in all be ready for the foreign exchange risks involved in denominating assets in multiple currencies.",
"You should invest a trivial (<500$USD) amount of money in a stock portfolio. If you aren't able to make more on the market than the interest rates of your loans, you are losing money. This question has discussed this topic as well.",
"Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?",
"\"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \"\"foreign-controlled trust\"\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\"",
"\"For starting with zero knowledge you certainly did a great job on research as you hit on most of the important points with your question. It seems like you have already saved up around six months of expenses in savings so it is a great time to look into investing. The hardest part of your question is actually one of the most important details. Investing in a way that minimizes your taxes is generally more important, in the end, than what assets you actually invest in (as long as you invest even semi-reasonably). The problem is that the interaction between your home country's tax system and the U.S. tax system can be complex. It's probably (likely?) still worth maxing out your 401(k) (IRA, SEP, 529 accounts if you qualify) to avoid taxes, but like this question from an Indian investor it may be worth seeing an investment professional about this. If you do, see a fee-based professional preferably one familiar with your country. If tax-advantaged accounts are not a good deal for you or if you max them out, a discount broker is probably a good second option for someone willing to do a bit of research like you. With this money investing in broadly-diversified, low fee, index mutual funds or exchange traded funds is generally recommended. Among other benefits, diversified funds make sure that if any particular company fails you don't feel too much pain. The advantages of low fees are fairly obvious and one very good reason why so many people recommend Vanguard on this site. A common mix for someone your age is mostly stocks (local and international) and some bonds. Though with how you talk about risk you may prefer more bonds. Some people recommend spicing this up a bit with a small amount of real estate (REITs), sometimes even other assets. The right portfolio of the above can change a lot given the person. The above mentioned adviser and/or more research can help here. If, in the future, you start to believe you will go back to your home country soon that may throw much of this advice out the window and you should definitely reevaluate then. Also, if you are interested in the math/stats behind the above advice \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a light read and a good place to start. Investing makes for a very interesting and reasonably profitable math/stats problem.\"",
"I used to trade on Nasdaq using a US broker from the UK, you need a way to convert your money into US $s and have the cost of international money transfers. I don’t know if there are any laws in Turkey that will stop you using a US broker. You are also on your own if anything goes wrong, as the Turkish police will not be interested, and the US police will be very hard to deal with from Turkey. This all depends on Turkey not unplugging the internet on the day you wish to trade on!!! (I used tdameritrade, but it was a VERY long timer ago, as UK brokers are now as cheap, you should also consider UK based brokers as they will also let you trade outside of the USA.)",
"Where is the money coming from? If you already have the money (inheritance, gifts or similar) sitting in your account, you can just buy e.g. index funds from Vanguard, Robinhood or other low-cost brokerages. But first you should estimate how much money you need for your studies - it is a bit of a gamble to invest money that you'll need to withdraw in a few years time. Even though the average return may be quite high (12% sounds like an overestimate, more commonly quoted figure is 7%), over short timespans your stocks will go up and down randomly. Once you actually have a job and have income from it, then the 401k and IRA and similar retirement accounts start to make sense. There is no need to have all your savings in the same account, so you can start saving now already.",
"As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.",
"Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;",
"\"I'd check the terms of the student loan. It's been a long time since I had a student loan, but when I did it had restrictions that it could only be used for educational expenses, which they pretty clear spelled out meant tuition, books, lab fees, I think some provision for living expenses. If your student loan is subsidized by the government, they're not going to let you use it to start a business or go on vacation ... nor are they likely to let you invest it. Even if it is legal and within the terms of the contract, borrowing money to invest is very risky. What if you invest in the stock market, and then the stock market goes down? You may find you don't have the money to make the payments on the loan. People do this sort of thing all the time -- that's what \"\"buying on margin\"\" is all about. And some of them lose a bundle and get in real trouble.\"",
"I strongly recommend you to invest in either stocks or bonds. Both markets have very strict regulations, and usually follow international standards of governance. Plus, they are closely supervised by local governments, since they look to serve the interests of capital holders in order to attract foreign investment. Real estate investment is not all risky, but regulations tend to be very localized. There are federal, state/county laws and byelaws, the last usually being the most significant in terms of costs (city taxes) and zoning. So if they ever change, that could ruin your investment. Keeping up with them would be hard work, because of language, legal and distance issues (visiting notary's office to sign papers, for example). Another thing to consider is, specially on rural distant areas, the risk of forgers taking your land. In poorer countries you could also face the problem of land invasion, both urban and rural. Solution for that depends on a harsh (fast) or socially populist (slow) local government. Small businesses are out of question for you, frankly. The list of risks (cash stealing, accounting misleading, etc.) is such that you will lose money. Even if you ran the business in your hometown it would not be easy right?",
"U.S. citizens are allowed to own foreign bank and investment accounts. However, there are various financial and tax reporting requirements for owners of such accounts. Even when there is no foreign income involved. For example famous FBAR (Fincen Report Form 114), Form 8938, and even more forms if your assets/activities abroad become more complicated. Penalties, even for unintentional non-compliance can be Draconian. So just keep in mind, that once you start having foreign accounts, you will start having additional obligations and might spend more money and time on tax preparation. If you are ok with that, then its cool. But... assuming your gloomy predictions on Trump presidency come true. They might be accompanied by more strict capital control, reporting requirements, and may become even greater pain in the neck for people with foreign assets. Regarding recommendations, I am not sure about banks, but there are some foreign precious metal investing companies that are completely online based such as https://www.bullionvault.com/ and https://www.goldmoney.com/. These might also guard you from potential problems with US dollar.",
"Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.",
"Some brokerages will let you withdraw/deposit in multiple jurisdictions. e.g. I used to use Interactive Brokers. I could deposit/withdraw to US and UK bank accounts, in the appropriate currencies. It helps to have a brokerage that provides good rates on forex exchange also, and they were very good on the bid/ask spread. It was possible to get interbank rates plus a very low commission.",
"When you want to invest in an asset denominated by a foreign currency, your investment is going to have some currency risk to it. You need to worry not just about what happens to your own currency, but also the foreign currency. Lets say you want to invest $10000 in US Stocks as a Canadian. Today that will cost you $13252, since USDCAD just hit 1.3252. You now have two ways you can make money. One is if USDCAD goes up, two is if the stocks go up. The former may not be obvious, but remember, you are holding US denominated assets currently, with the intention of one day converting those assets back into CAD. Essentially, you are long USDCAD (long USD short CAD). Since you are short CAD, if CAD goes up it hurts you It may seem odd to think about this as a currency trade, but it opens up a possibility. If you want a foreign investment to be currency neutral, you just make the opposite currency trade, in addition to your original investment. So in this case, you would buy $10,000 in US stocks, and then short USDCAD (ie long CAD, short USD $10,000). This is kind of savvy and may not be something you would do. But its worth mentioning. And there are also some currency hedged ETFs out there that do this for you http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact However most are hedged relative to USD, and are meant to hedge the target countries currency, not your own.",
"According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.",
"\"This sounds like a FATCA issue. I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US. The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens. The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened. Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors. This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step. Such a step would require thought and planning. Note that there would be an expatriation tax (\"\"exit tax\"\") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access. A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons. But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible. Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA.\"",
"I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.",
"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"If you buy US stocks when the CAD is high and sell them when the CAD is lower you will make a currency gain on top of any profit or loss from the stock investments. If you buy US stocks when the CAD is low and sell when the CAD is higher any profits from gains from the stock investment will be reduced and any losses will be increased. If you are just starting out you may be better off investing in your own country to avoid any currency risk adding to your stock market risk.",
"You can buy and sell stocks, if you like. You'll have to pay taxes on any profits. And short-term is speculating, not investing, and has high risk",
"Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.",
"You can keep your Mutual Funds. You have to communicate your new status to fund house. The SIP can continue. Please note you have to convert the savings account to NRO account. Most banks would keep the account number same, else you have to revise SIP debit to new NRO account. From a tax point of view, it would be similar to resident status. Right now short term gains are taxed. There are quite a few other things you may need to do. Although dated, this is a good article. PS: Once you become resident alien in US for tax purposes, you are liable for taxes on global income.",
"\"I took a course in forex trading for 3 months. I also studied financial markets in the Uni. I have been saving in order to start investing but I face the same question. I have gathered some advantages and disadventages that I would like to know your opinion. Forex market is more liquid, its more easy to identify what makes the currency change and to \"\"predict\"\" it. For small investors its an intraday trading. The risk is huge but the return can be also huge. Stocks are for long term investements. Its difficult to have a bigger return unless you know something that others dont. Its more difficult to predict price change since its easier to anyone influence it. The risk is less.\"",
"The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.",
"I think there are two options: You invest for very close friends, who trust you completely. In this case, I don't see why you need legal formalities. Just take their money, invest, and return the profits (or losses) to them. They'll know that you invest it as well as you can (rather than spend it on your dream vacation), simply because they trust you. And in case they never get to see most of their money back - they'll know that you've tried your best, and won't be upset with you. You invest for people who trust you, but not 100%. In this case, don't take their money. If you lose (and in Forex, you most likely will) then you'll lose not only money, but also your friends. Even if the legal documents would prove that you were honset, and that they knew what they're getting into, they'll still be mad at you.",
"\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"",
"when investing in index funds Index fund as the name suggests invests in the same proportion of the stocks that make up the index. You can choose a Index Fund that tracks NYSE or S&P etc. You cannot select individual companies. Generally these are passively managed, i.e. just follow the index composition via automated algorithms resulting in lower Fund Manager costs. is it possible to establish an offshore company Yes it is possible and most large organization or High Net-worth individuals do this. Its expensive and complicated for ordinary individuals. One needs and army of International Tax Consultants / International Lawyers / etc but do I have to pay taxes from the capital gains at the end of the year? Yes Canada taxes on world wide income and you would have to pay taxes on gains in Canada. Note depending on your tax residency status in US, you may have to pay tax in US as well.",
"You do not need to set this up as a loan. Try finding an Indian student. He is eligible to get cash (using a travel card, may be) from India tax-free. As long as it doesn't exceed the i-20 amount, he will not have any problems. Since, $10,000 is very small amount, the student shouldn't be having any problem.",
"lol @ savings accounts. I don't use savings accounts. I just use checking for liquidity and invest everything else. Now if you have a job that prohibits trading on your own account that's understandable but if you have the knowledge might as well use it and make some $$$",
"\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"",
"One risk not mentioned is that foreign stock might be thinly traded on your local stock market, so you will find it harder to buy and sell, and you will be late to the game if there is some sudden change in the share price in the original country.",
"It is more easier if you select a Broker in India that would allow you these services. The reason being the broker in India will follow the required norms by India and allow you to invest without much hassel. Further as the institution would be in India, it would be more easy for resolving any disputes. ICICI Direct an Indian online broker allows one to trade in US stocks. For more details refer to ICIC Direct. Reliance Money also offers limited trading in US stocks. Selecting a Broker in US maybe more difficult as your would have to met their KYC norm's and also operate a Bank account in US. I am not aware of the requirements. For more details visit ICICI Direct website. Refer to http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/10/investing-in-us-stocks-and-options.html for a news article. TDAmeritrade or Charlesschwab are good online brokers, however from what I read they are more for US nationals holding Social Security. Further with the recent events and KYC norms becoming more stringent, it would be difficult for an individual [Indian Citizen] to open an account directly with these firms.",
"As far as the RRSP goes, see my answer in self directed RRSP for a non resident Don't forget to file your FBAR and form 8938, if applicable. -Jon",
"You can trade currency ETF options on IB. It is SIPC insured; the options are just like vanilla options in Saxo.",
"There's a possibility to lose money in exchange rate shifts, but just as much chance to gain money (Efficient Market Hypothesis and all that). If you're worried about it, you should buy a stock in Canada and short sell the US version at the same time. Then journal the Canadian stock over to the US stock exchange and use it to settle your short sell. Or you can use derivatives to accomplish the same thing.",
"\"I suggest that you're really asking questions surrounding three topics: (1) what allocation hedges your risks but also allows for upside? (2) How do you time your purchases so you're not getting hammered by exchange rates? (3) How do you know if you're doing ok? Allocations Your questions concerning allocation are really \"\"what if\"\" questions, as DoubleVu points out. Only you can really answer those. I would suggest building an excel sheet and thinking through the scenarios of at least 3 what-ifs. A) What if you keep your current allocations and anything in local currency gets cut in half in value? Could you live with that? B) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and your economy recovers... so stable items grow at 5% per year, but your local investments grow 50% for the next 3 years? Could you live with that missed opportunity? C) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and they grow at 5%... while SA continues a gradual slide? Remember that slow or flat growth in a stable currency is the same as higher returns in a declining currency. I would trust your own insights as a local, but I would recommend thinking more about how this plays out for your current investments. Timing You bring up concerns about \"\"timing\"\" of buying expensive foreign currencies... you can't time the market. If you knew how to do this with forex trading, you wouldn't be here :). Read up on dollar cost averaging. For most people, and most companies with international exposure, it may not beat the market in the short term, but it nets out positive in the long term. Rebalancing For you there will be two questions to ask regularly: is the allocation still correct as political and international issues play out? Have any returns or losses thrown your planned allocation out of alignment? Put your investment goals in writing, and revisit it at least once a year to evaluate whether any adjustments would be wise to make. And of course, I am not a registered financial professional, especially not in SA, so I obviously recommend taking what I say with a large dose of salt.\"",
"You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean.",
"Don't try individual stocks. If you have a job, any job, even one from mowing lawns, you can open a Roth IRA. If you are under 18 you will need your parents/guardian to setting up the account. You can put the an amount equal to your earned income into the Roth IRA, up to the annual maximum of $5500. There are advantages to a Roth IRA: What happens if you are using your income to pay for your car, insurance, etc? You can get the money from your parents, grandparents. The only rule is that you can't invest more than you have earned. Act before Tax day (April 15th). You know what you made last year. If you open the account and make the contribution before April 15th it can count for last year, as long as you are clear with the broker/bank when you make the deposit.",
"The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).",
"If you are using the money to invest in a property (even abroad) then you can claim tax exemption. while some people will tell you that the reinvestment should be in India only, it have been ruled that the property can be purchased abroad too..",
"It all depends on how much risk you take. The problem is you have no idea what the risks are, and so you will lose all your money. I would say zero. But if you want to have a go, try reading reminiscences of a stock operator, then try reading my own attempt to make sense of the same stuff Hey, as you're a student you could even try making sense of my FX and MM training on the same website. Good luck",
"Please consult a tax advisor. You may be voilating the FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act] and can land into trouble. Further what you are doing can land up into various other acts as illegal including AML. Further if there is income generated by Indian citizen in India, he is still liable to pay tax, irrespective of whether you get the funds back into India. Edit: AML is Anti Money Laundering. Your transaction is sure to raise AML triggers as it looks like converting Black Money to White in round about way. Once the triggers are raised, RBI division will investigate further to verify what you are doing. If you are able to prove that this is a valid transaction, you would be OK on AML front. How will Income Tax Know? - If they don't know does not mean you are not liable for tax. - Any suspicious transactions would get investigated and sooner or later Income Tax would know about it and can cause a serious problem. - It is irrelevant where you have kept the money, if you have earned something, its taxable. For it not to be taxable you need to conduct this business differently. Please consult a tax adviser who will advice you on the tax-ability of this type of transaction.",
"Yes it is legal, in fact according to statistics.gov.uk, foreign investors are the largest holders of UK shares (as of 2008). Investors from outside the UK owned 41.5 per cent of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2008, up from 40.0 per cent at end of 2006, according to the latest Office for National Statistics report on share ownership.",
"\"Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student. Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going. I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations. I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost. You are not misusing your money by \"\"not doing anything with it\"\". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino. Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you.\"",
"In short: yes, as long as you have Internet access. See, for example this question or this one about opening a brokerage account from outside the US. Your sister could even open an account here in the US and provide you with access. However, I'm guessing you're not a registered or even formally trained financial advisor and if you make bets with her money that don't work out well, she could get pretty upset with you. You might consider doing research from Bangladesh on good financial advisors and picking one (or a few) to recommend she go see in the US. EDIT: OP hopes to be a financial advisor in the future. Given that comment, I'd recommend looking into becoming a Certified Financial Planner (unless CFA suits your goals; you indicated that process is already underway), as a step towards that goal. Information about the certification in the US is here, in India here, and in some other countries here.",
"If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.",
"For $100 you better just hold it in Mexico. The cost of opening an account could eat 10% or more of your capital easily, and that won't be able to buy enough shares of an ETF or similar investment to make it worthwhile.",
"As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office.",
"Investing in the stock market early is a good thing. However, it does have a learning curve, and that curve can, and eventually will, cost you. One basic rule in investing is that risk and reward are proportional. The greater the reward, the higher the risk that you either (a) won't get the reward, or (b) lose your money instead. Given that, don't invest money you can't afford to lose (you mentioned you're on a student budget). If you want to start with short but sercure investments, try finding a high-interest savings account or CD. For example, the bank I use has an offer where the first $500 in your account gets ~6% interest - certainly not bad if you only put $500 in the account. Unfortunately, most banks are offering a pittance for savings rates or CDs. If you're willing to take more risk, you could certainly put money into the stock market. Before you do, I would recommend spending some time learning about how the stock market works, it's flows and ebbs, and how stock valuations work. Don't buy a stock because you hear about it a lot; understand why that stock is being valued as such. Also consider buying index funds (such as SPY) which is like a stock but tracks an entire index. That way if a specific company suddenly drops, you won't be nearly as affected. On the flip side, if only 1 company goes up, but the market goes down, you'll miss out. But consider the odds of having picked that 1 company.",
"I find that there are two violation of law , prima facie , if someone earns money by depositing in the online account and then not reporting it ( including in his total income for the year ) and not bringing in India. Income Tax Act violation 1. It is simply comcealment liable for penalty & prosecution under I.T.Act. 2. You should know that anyone who is resident of India as per income Tax Act and having taxable income ( gross total income exceeding exemption limit) will have to fill up the column in his/her income tax return whether Previously these column were not in the Income Tax Return. So , now anyone who is liable to file return of Income can be tried for false return if he has hiddne assets aborad. 2. FEMA violation RBI permits remittance under Liberalized Remittance Scheme. However this scheme can not be used for certain purpose . It is important to examine whether RBI prohibits use of remittance for any entity or business you have described. You can read following FAQ on RBI site Q. 30. What are the prohibited items under the Scheme? Ans. The remittance facility under the Scheme is not available for the following: i) Remittance for any purpose specifically prohibited under Schedule-I (like purchase of lottery tickets/sweep stakes, proscribed magazines, etc.) or any item restricted under Schedule II of Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000; ii) Remittance from India for margins or margin calls to overseas exchanges / overseas counter-party; iii) Remittances for purchase of FCCBs issued by Indian companies in the overseas secondary market; iv) Remittance for trading in foreign exchange abroad; v) Remittance by a resident individual for setting up a company abroad; vi) Remittances directly or indirectly to Bhutan, Nepal, Mauritius and Pakistan; vii) Remittances directly or indirectly to countries identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as “non co-operative countries and territories”, from time to time; and viii) Remittances directly or indirectly to those individuals and entities identified as posing significant risk of committing acts of terrorism as advised separately by the Reserve Bank to the banks. You will have to examine , if the remittance was NOT done for purpose not allowed by RBI under LRS . If you clear this , you can say there is no violation and your violation is restricted to I.T.Act only.",
"It's not really like im am going to lose my money unless I was doing penny stocks. And throwing away that much for a vacation when student debt will probally exist in my life later on appears not wise.",
"Banking vs. speculating isn't a relevant dichotomy here. If my broker-dealer goes belly-up, I'm covered for up to $500K to replace the cash and securities I had on deposit with them. If he was doing forex investing, he fell into one of the few areas which is not covered by SIPC deposit insurance.",
"\"To trade stocks in India, you need a copy of your pan card, address proof(passport or driving license/electricity bill), income tax return (if you are trading futures & options and currencies), and a cancelled cheque from the bank. You will also need to sign across your recent photographs, and require various other forms from a brokerage house which need to be signed in the brokers presence. If your stock broker trusts you, and you have all these documents, then you CAN open a DEMAT account in India by signing and sending him all these documents. Otherwise you CANNOT, as every single form states that \"\"this particular document was signed in my presence\"\", and the stock broker needs to sign under that clause. Chances are, if you live abroad, no broker will ever trust you with any kind of margin, and therefore cannot make profits from you, so they will not agree to open your account.\"",
"A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.",
"\"The other option apart from the above which I feel is quite good is \"\"Travel Card\"\" [also called Forex Card] issued in USD. These cards are like prepaid debit cards. They are available from almost quite a few Indian Banks like HDFC / ICICI / UTI. The limit for students is around 100 K USD per year. http://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/cards/prepaid_cards/forexplus_card/pre_forex_elg.htm The card can be reloaded by any amount [i think the minimum is USD 100] by visiting the Branch or certain Forex agents. There loading fee is INR 75. The Fx is typical Card Rate prevailing on the day. In US this card can be used as a credit card for almost everything [I have used this without any hassel]. Avoid using the card for blocking anything [at Hotel for room booking, or initial block at car rentals]. Although its mentioned that there is a withdrawl fees, i was never charged anything for withdrawls. The card comes with an internet based login to monitor account balance and transactions. Any unused funds can be withdrawn in India. The payment will be make in INR.\"",
"ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.",
"\"I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's answer, but there are a couple of ideas that are relevant to your particular situation: If I were you, I would invest at least half of the cash in growth ETFs because you're young enough that market variability doesn't affect you and long term growth is important. The rest should be invested in safer investments (value and dividend ETFs, bonds, cash) so that you have something to live off in the near term. You said you wanted to invest ethically. The keyword to search is \"\"socially responsible ETFs\"\". There are many, and if this is important to you, you'll have to read their prospectus to find one that matches your ethics. Since you're American, the way I understand it, you need to file taxes on income; selling stocks at a gain is income. You want to make sure that as your stocks appreciate, you sell some every year and immediately rebuy them so that you pay a small tax bill every year rather than one huge tax bill 20 years from now. Claiming about $20600 of capital gains every year would be tax free assuming you are not earning any other money. I would claim a bit more in years where you make a lot. You can mitigate your long term capital gains tax exposure by opening a Roth IRA and maxing that out. Capital gains in the Roth IRA are not taxable. Even if you don't have income from working, you can have some income if you invest in stocks that pay dividends, which would allow you to contribute to a Roth IRA. You should figure where you're going to be living because you will want to minimize the currency risk of having your money in USD while you're living abroad. If the exchange rate were to change by a lot, you might find yourself a lot poorer. There are various hedging strategies, but the easiest one is to invest some of your money in securities of the country you'll be living in. You should look into how you'll be converting money into the foreign currency. There are sometimes way of minimizing the spread when converting large amounts of money, e.g., Norbert's gambit. Shaving off 1.5% when exchanging $100k saves $1500.\""
] |
[
"You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country."
] |
3014
|
What investments are positively related to the housing market decline?
|
[
"341399",
"273282"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"341399",
"273282",
"484266",
"401264",
"150632",
"75650",
"190891",
"300703",
"387141",
"481874",
"584633",
"12782",
"350332",
"209125",
"337057",
"494928",
"66219",
"407145",
"149725",
"288167",
"494438",
"598764",
"217242",
"313913",
"208081",
"60175",
"412502",
"257716",
"174302",
"421285",
"48946",
"250028",
"549763",
"427808",
"158006",
"409859",
"297877",
"8135",
"55985",
"32936",
"186031",
"251843",
"509064",
"508055",
"268802",
"183934",
"21225",
"107697",
"375438",
"570855",
"190503",
"130388",
"144177",
"483648",
"181007",
"329930",
"375151",
"390061",
"73649",
"53601",
"422820",
"464078",
"457800",
"275768",
"464957",
"355620",
"386162",
"394326",
"25582",
"28039",
"465430",
"68269",
"166597",
"62027",
"532907",
"62669",
"34844",
"228997",
"354117",
"265218",
"440220",
"50744",
"376709",
"214798",
"189006",
"265267",
"482077",
"324587",
"387702",
"328556",
"419397",
"397290",
"501504",
"24822",
"113189",
"440696",
"427819",
"160623",
"442122",
"242040"
] |
[
"A possibility could be real estate brokerage firms such as Realogy or Prudential. Although a brokerage commission is linked to the sale prices it is more directly impacted by sales volume. If volume is maintained or goes up a real estate brokerage firm can actually profit rather handsomely in an up market or a down market. If sales volume does go up another option would be other service markets for real estate such as real estate information and marketing websites and sources i.e. http://www.trulia.com. Furthermore one can go and make a broad generalization such as since real estate no longer requires the same quantity of construction material other industries sensitive to the price of those commodities should technically have a lower cost of doing business. But be careful in the US much of the wealth an average american has is in their home. In this case this means that the economy as a whole takes a dive due to consumer uncertainty. In which case safe havens could benefit, may be things like Proctor & Gamble, gold, or treasuries. Side Note: You can always short builders or someone who loses if the housing market declines, this will make your investment higher as a result of the security going lower.",
"\"During the actual decline, there's very little money to be made and a lot to lose. When housing prices tank, everybody loses; the banks are exposed to higher risk of mortgage defaults, insurers start having to pay out more for \"\"gas leaks\"\" claiming over-leveraged homes, realtors starve because their commissions go down (even as foreclosures put more homes on the market) and people faced with financial uncertainty will stay put in their current homes instead of moving elsewhere. And homebuilders and contractors go broke because nobody wants to spend cash on a new home or major reno that looks like a losing investment. There can be some bright spots. Smaller hardware stores will make money as people do relatively small DIY projects to improve the condition of their current home. The larger stores get this business too, but it tends to be more than offset by the loss of contractor business (FAR more lucrative, and something the ACEs and True-Values don't really get in on). Of course the \"\"grave-robbers\"\" do well; gold buyers, auctioneers, pawn shops, repo firms; these guys eat well when other people are defaulting on loans or have to sell their stuff for fast cash. Most of these businesses are not publicly traded. One thing that was seen was increased revenues at discount retailers like Wal-Mart, Dollar General etc. When things are bad, people in the middle class who had avoided these stores for image or morality reasons learn to swallow their pride and buy discount store brands for half the price of national brand names. That lessens the blow felt by the discount retailers as overall consumer spending decreases; the pie shrinks, but the discount retailers get a bigger slice of the mandatory spending on food, clothing, etc (and the higher-level retailers get it in the shorts). When the pie starts to grow again as consumer spending picks back up, the discount retailers retain their percentage for a while, as the fickle middle class can afford to buy more from the discount retailer but can't yet afford to take their business back to the shopping mall stores. This produces a flatter, \"\"offset\"\" price graph for discount retailers through the business cycle; they don't lose as early or as much as everyone else in a major downturn, and they turn it around sooner while everyone else may still be on the way down, but as everything gets better for everyone on the upswing it's less great for the discount guys, as they start losing customers and their dollars to competitors with better stuff, even as the ones they keep spend more. This doesn't generally manifest as a true negative correlation, but it can be a good hedge. The number one money-making investment in a tanking economy is gold. When things go down the crapper, everyone wants gold, so if you see the train wreck coming far enough in advance, you can make a big move to gold and really make some money off that investment. For instance, when the first whispers about ARM adjustments and mass defaults reached the public consciousness in mid-2005, gold bullion jumped from about $400 to over $700 in a nine-month period. It cooled off again in 06-07 but only to about $600/oz, and then in late 07 it steadily climbed to peak at $1000/oz; even if you got in late, an investment of $1000 in July '07 in \"\"bulk\"\" gold would have netted you $650 in one year; that's a 65% APY. Then the economy hit bottom and a lot of investors ditched gold for investments they thought would pull back out of their holes quickly; For just a little while in '08 gold was down to $700 again. Then came all the government reports; unemployment not budging, home prices still declining, a lot of banks still hiding just how bad their position was. If you had seen that it was going to be bad, bad, bad, like a lot of now-billionaire hedge fund investors did, a $1000 investment in gold in July 05, and then cashing out at the tops of the peaks and buying back in at the major troughs, would be worth almost $4000 today. That's a 400% return over 7 years, or an annual average yield of 57%. There simply hasn't been anything like that in the last 7 years.\"",
"You could short home builders who do a lot of their business in Northern California. (Not just San Francisco, Silicon Valley, or even the Bay Area.) Home prices in Sacramento and the northern San Joaquin Valley are correlated with Bay Area home prices. Many of these builders went broke during the last bust, so you might have trouble finding a publicly traded home builder that is concentrated in just one market.",
"\"If you're trying to hedge the ups and downs of your local residential real estate market, a REIT fund holding commercial properties across the country is not the ideal match. Here's a comparison of an index tracking single-family home prices in one region (Los Angeles) and VNQ (another popular REIT fund). There's some correlation but there's clearly different magnitudes and sometimes different directions. With a national home price index, the correlation is only 68%, and it would be lower for individual cities. You could still use it for hedging, but there's significant \"\"tracker error\"\" risk to be considered. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with any investment that would be a better match for individual residential markets. So, if you decide to use this, I'd also adjust the level of exposure to get a closer result. E.g. using approx. 50% VNQ and 50% cash results in a closer result after 2 years (compared to national single-family home price changes) than either 0% VNQ and 100% cash, or 100% VNQ and 0% cash.\"",
"You can hedge your house price from losing value if you believe that the housing market is correlated with major stock indices. Speak with a commodities broker because they will be able to help you buy puts on stock indices which if correlated with housing prices will offer somewhat of a hedge. Example. House prices drop 30% because of weak economy, stocks will generally drop around that same amount 30%. If you have enough exposure to in the puts compared to your house value you will be protected. You can also buy calls in 30 year bonds for interest rate lock if you are not on a fixed interest rate. Many investors like warren buffet and carl icahn have been protecting them selves from a potential market downward turn. Speak to a local commodity broker to get some detailed advice, not etrade or any discount brokers they won't be able to help you specialize your trades. look for a full time commodity broker house.",
"As the value of a currency declines, commodities, priced in that currency, will rise. The two best commodities to see a change in would be oil and gold.",
"\"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average \"\"spread\"\" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either. Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right.\"",
"The most obvious route is to short the lenders, preferably subprime. Since there are no lenders that operate exclusively in San Francisco, you could look north at Canada. The Canadian real estate market (esp. Vancouver) is just as overheated as the San Francisco market. As a start, famous short seller Marc Cohodes recommends HCG (Home Capital Group) as an opportune short.",
"Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!",
"Frequently people saving money for a down payment, or for their emergency fund, feel that they need to find a way to speedup the process via methods that will generate more interest than a bank account or a CD. Once they have reached their goal they also feel that having the money sitting around not generating income is a missed opportunity. All investments that aren't 100% safe introduce risk. To entice you to invest they offer the opportunity make more money than a bank account or CD. But the downside is that the extra money isn't guaranteed. In fact the introduced risk also opens up the investment to the possibility of losses, including a total loss. You have identified risks with bank accounts and CDs. With the bank account you will generally lose money vs. inflation. With a CD the investment is less liquid if you sell early, or you want/need to sell 1/2 a CD, you will give up some of that extra income. Also if rates on a CD rise next month you are stilled locked into your current rate til the CD ends. Putting some or all of the money you are saving for the house into a risky investment means that you may shorten or extend the time period. Nobody knows. by investing in real estate we can offset the risk of real estate going up in the next couple years: if real estate goes up we will still be able to use our down payment for a comparable house as of now. Inversely, if real estate goes down we will lose on the down payment but be able to get a house cheaper. Unless the REIT matches the market of residential real estate in your city/metropolitan region there is no guarantee that home prices in your city will move the same way the REIT does. A recent listing of the 10 largest holdings of the index is: none of these tell me what home prices in my neighborhood will do next year.",
"It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.",
"Your question may have another clue. You are bullish regarding the real estate market. Is that for your city, your state, your nation or for the whole world? Unless you can identify particular properties or neighborhoods that are expected to be better than the average return for your expected bull market in real estate, you will be taking a huge risk. It would be the same as believing that stocks are about to enter a bull market, but then wanting to put 50% of your wealth on one stock. The YTD for the DOW is ~+7%, yet 13 of the 30 have not reached the average increase including 4 that are down more than 7%. Being bullish about the real estate segment still gives you plenty of opportunities to invest. You can invest directly in the REIT or you can invest in the companies that will grow because of the bullish conditions. If your opinion changes in a few years it is hard to short a single property.",
"\"If you do as you propose you are going to get burned. You need to sell, then start to rent. amongst other things. Since 2008, the economy never \"\"recovered,\"\" but was sort of stabilized temporarily like a fighter on the ropes. The economy is beginning to collapse again, and that collapse will accelerate around the Fall. The dollar too will also begin its delayed downward fall come Autumn. Just one example of what I speak: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART I would be happy to tell you more if you like, but I am already going to get pilloried for what I have already said. I do not sell anything, or push anything, but since you asked, and I follow this day in and day out, I thought that I would give you my very well informed answer. Take it for what it's worth. So let me know if you want more.\"",
"I see that you're invested in a couple bond funds. You do not want to be invested in bonds when the Fed raises rates. When rates climb, the value of bond investments decline, and vice-versa. So that means you should sell bonds before a rate hike, and buy them before a rate drop.",
"Well put and, honestly, seemingly unavoidable. It will be crazy if it truly does come to fruition if they (Fed/Treasury/Gummit) realize that they cannot inflate their way out of this by printing more money and all of the nay-sayers of massive deflation get proven wrong. So, the better question is this: we believe/know it's coming, so how do we prepare and strategically place ourselves to survive/profit/prosper from the coming collapse? As I see it, RE is a crap investment for the foreseeable future as oversupply and oversize are not absorbed. People have to live, so rentals will be key; but, they have already bloomed quite a bit. Stocks will likely trade sideways for awhile before likely tanking as the forced/willing withdrawals start happening from the Boomers. So, keeping it in stocks doesn't sound overly positive, unless a fairly aggressive put strategy is enforced. Bonds are paying crap and, after taxes, barely pacing inflation. For me personally and selfishly, I have 20 years minimum for retirement, so I'm fine qith the market trending sideways or down. It means that I'm getting more bang for my DCA buck and, 20+ years from now, I will be well positioned when the market eventually cycles back up. But, for now, where do we put our investments to protect and, hopefully, grow them as the mid term passes?",
"When credit locks up, junk bond prices fall rapidly, and you see more defaults. The opportunity to make money with junk is to buy a diversified collection of them when the market declines. Look at the charts from some of the mutual funds or ETFs like PIMCO High Yield Instl (PHIYX), or Northeast Investors (NTHEX). Very volatile stuff. Keep in mind that junk bonds are not representative of the economy as a whole -- they cluster in certain industries. Retail and financials are big industry segments for junk. Also keep in mind that the market for these things is not as liquid as the stock market. If your investment choice is really a sector investment, you might be better served by investing in sector funds with stocks that trade every day versus bonds whose market price may be difficult to determine.",
"If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.",
"\"In my experience, Shiller is always way before his time with his predictions and often it comes at too early a point for anyone actually making some money to care about. His view is very long term - and I trust his predictions, because he so accurately predicted so many of the homepocalypse, and the measures that would follow. He even predicted that there would be bailouts in his book \"\"Irrational Exuberance\"\". His opinons were poo-poo'd as doom and gloom and manipulative until every piece started falling apart in the specific order of events (give or take) that they did. I personally think people like Dr. Shiller make bold predictions that are hard to swallow. The derivatives market is a bit skittish about rolling into bull territory with any kind of housing index, but Warren Buffet's old adage to \"\"buy when everyone is selling and sell when everyone is buying.\"\" (paraphrase). I see this as a good long-term investment because I trust Shiller's judgement, he stuck to his guns when the doubts were lobbed at him incessantly (and Krugman, et. al. to some extent), and he turned out to be more than vindicated. To me, these kinds of sources are usually pretty sound. The man knows what he's talking about, and I wouldn't mind picking up a piece of that action, especially if the market just doesn't trust any real estate investments. It's pretty easy to realize that right now housing will be undervalued and now that mortgage applications are (supposedly) stricter, I think there's a good argument to be made that this economist should continue to exceed expectations.\"",
"Buy some pits for xiv in October if you want to piggy back. Options pretty cheap right now. Not sure if xiv has options, but if vix spikes, xiv will tank almost 1 for 1 negative relationship. Chart both of them over time to see the relationship.",
"There are two impacts: First, if the pound is dropping, then buying houses becomes cheaper for foreign investors, so they will tend to buy more houses as investments, which will drive house prices up. Second, in theory you might be able to get a mortgage in a foreign country, let's say in Euro, and you might hope that over the next few years the pound would go up again, and the Euros that you owe the foreign bank become worth less.",
"I want to know too. Outside of the stock market there could be a lot of assets that aren't being supported as well as stocks by the US government. If that's the case we could be seeing another signaller showing the poor shape of the economy.",
"I know that assets like bonds have prices that have an inverse relationship with interest rates, but what other assets do as well? I'm a bit new to finance and all that so I'm trying to learn. Would real estate prices be high as well? If so, why?",
"You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included.",
"\"VNQ only holds ~16% residential REITs. The rest are industrial, office, retail (e.g. shopping malls), specialized (hotels perhaps?) etc. Thus, VNQ isn't as correlated towards housing as you might have assumed just based on it being about \"\"real estate.\"\" Second of all, if by \"\"housing\"\" you mean that actual houses have gone up appreciably, then you ought to realize that residential REITs seldom hold actual houses. The residential units held tend primarily to be rental apartments. There is a relationship in prices, but not direct.\"",
"I would think a depressed housing market might be the BEST time to buy, is this not correct? There are foreclosures where banks are letting houses go for half of their standard value, and are offering some of the lowest interest rates ever. In a strong economy you could be looking at around 10% APR, I see this as a situation where it's a buy low sort of time.",
"If you've decided to ignore the sound advice re: oil company stocks, and you want something directly linked to the price of oil, do the following: Understand that oil producers would like avoid the risk of a price drop, and oil consumers (refiners, electric utilities, etc.) would like to avoid the risk of a price rise. Understand that you are about to assume their risk.",
"\"I was in a similar situation, and used FX trading to hedge against currency fluctuations. I bought the \"\"new\"\" currency when the PPP implied valuation of my \"\"old\"\" currency was high, and was able to protect quite a bit of purchasing power that I would have lost without the hedge. Unfortunately you get taxed for the \"\"gain\"\" you made, but still helpful. In terms of housing market, you could look into a Ireland REIT index, but it may not correlate well with the actual house prices you are looking for.\"",
"Basically, they all do. The relationship is much more dynamic with stocks but corporate financing costs increase, return requirements increase (risk free rate goes up). Same with real estate. Commodity demand is correlated with economic activity, which is correlated with interest rates, although not perfectly. The most important factor is, a higher risk free rate increases the discount rate, which reduces asset values",
"Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.",
"Invest in an etf called SPXS and hope for a market correction in the next month. Or if you know a lot about markets and trends, select from this list of leveraged etfs available from Direxion.",
"\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \"\"clumping\"\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\"",
"Generally speaking, you want to find goods and services that are inelastic and also require oil as a cost. Oil company stocks make record profits when oil is high, because direct demand for oil is relatively inelastic. Profit margins of oil competition should also go up, as this creates inflation in general, as people seek alternatives to the inelastic demand.",
"Invest in solid companies, not in esoteric products built on sand. The problem is with finance, not with real economy: oil companies make money, mobile phone companies make money, airlines make money...",
"If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.",
"There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged. For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500. (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well. For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility. As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises. One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX.",
"Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply.",
"Real estate. The value of the house where I live going up 15% per year! From 2004-2009. Sold for $92k in 1980 now valued at $524k. Twice the rate of inflation in that timeframe. None of it makes sense nor is it sustainable = asset bubble. In my zip code the median income is $162k and median house value $808k (Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012). That averages out 5x annual income. In LA and Las Vegas that ratio is even worse, where most of these HELs and HELOCs are going to blow up. This article is accurate. People use these loans to replace their stagnating or falling wages. And its a lot of people.",
"The charts suggest otherwise. Although most of the large gains were wiped out in 2008 and 2011, that doesn't include the substantial dividends you are likely to get with financials. They still returned a positive percentage and some outperformed benchmark indices over time. But hey, don't let your bias get in the way.",
"Generally, you need something that goes up over time during periods of index decline, but otherwise holds some value. Historically, people tend to use gold for that purpose. But with gold also set up for possible declines, that raises questions. Silver has dropped a bit more than gold in terms of percentages. If you think the downward motion will be in the form of sudden jumps, you can look at putting some of your money in puts away from the current price, but you can easily wind up paying too much for this protection. In the case of a deflation, most things lose value vs. money, and you want all cash. These things might already be obvious. I don't think there is a clear answer to your question. But if the future were clear, the present market could possibly anticipate and adjust... one reason the future of the market always seems a bit murky.",
"You always see articles of how financially distressed people are, but then other articles on how home prices are rising and people don't want to sell their homes for less (to meet the pent-up demand for starter homes). A nice, long, prolonged drop in real estate prices would solve so much. With the decline in retail I hope it comes.",
"It is almost a sure thing that the housing market will crash again hugely.For this reason I prefer to own several houses that way when it does no one can ask for their money back and leave me homeless. Current economics suggest a fall of between 40-60% from 2011 prices meaning that if you have bought a house in the last 12 years you can wave bye bye to any and all equity, and this will happen very soon. I recommend saving your money and buying a house outright (like I did 3 times) from someone who has spent 12 years or so paying a mortgage.",
"\"You're \"\"onto\"\" something. Investing in real estate was not a bad idea about 10-15 years ago, when stocks were high, and real estate was not. On the other hand, by about 2006, BOTH stocks and real estate were high, and should have been avoided. And around 1980, both were LOW, and should have been bought. I expand this construct to include gold and oil. Around 2005, these were relatively low, and should have been bought over stocks and real estate. On the other hand, ALL FOUR are high right now, and offer comparable dangers.\"",
"I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.",
"Credit products and securitized debt. Credit/debt is the flip side of equity but has less volatility. In today's investing environment people are not looking for a big return as much as less risk with a modest return. Another trend I think you will see is the disappearance of the wall between interest rate products/fixed income and credit products.",
"Without commenting on your view of the TV market: Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure: 1.Short the stocks Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet 2.Options a. Write Calls b. Buy puts Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta 3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts. Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain",
"not sure if serious, read on if you don't think the previous comment is sarcasm. No, they don't. The point of investing is to buy a stake in something that will become more valuable in the future. Other things don't have to devalue for your investment to gain value. This is possible because the net value of everything is increasing over time (compare the value of all the world's private property today to its value in 1900).",
"\"Real estate is not a good investment. In fact, it's easy to make a case for it being the worst possible investment imaginable: Imagine over a cup or coffee or a glass of wine we get to talking about investments. Then maybe one of us, let’s say you, says: “Hey I’ve got an idea. We’re always talking about good investments. What if we came up with the worst possible investment we can construct? What might that look like?” Well, let’s see now (pulling out our lined yellow pad), let’s make a list. To be really terrible: -- Why Your House Is A Terrible Investment There are plenty of good reasons to own a home, but the key word there is \"\"home\"\". Owning housing as an investment property is a horrible idea, and anyone who does it, especially right now with as bubbly as the market is looking again, (or, better put, still, since the last bubble never did fully pop and clear out the underlying systemic instability,) is an idiot. And even after the current housing market bubble pops, it's likely to remain a bad idea for decades. We're never getting the early 2000s back, for basic supply-and-demand reasons: with the Baby Boom generation retiring, aging and dying off, they're not likely to do much more home-buying, and no generation after them is as big as they are, which means a glut of oversupply and weak demand for the entirety of the foreseeable future.\"",
"The article John cites says no correlation, but this chart from the article says otherwise; One sees the rate drop from 14% to 4% and housing rise from an index of 50 to near 190. (reaching over to my TI BA-35 calculator) I see that at 14%, $1000/mo will buy $84,400 worth of mortgage, but at 4%, it will buy $209,500. 2-1/2 times the borrowing power for the same payment. But wait, my friends at West Egg tell me that inflation means I can't compare $1000 in 1980 to the same $1000 in 2010. The $1,000 inflates to $2611 (i.e. an income rising only with inflation, no more) and that can fund a mortgage for $546,900. This is 6.5 times the original borrowing power, yet the housing index 'only' rose 3.8X. See that crazy chart? Housing actually got cheaper from 1980 to the peak. Statistics can say whatever you wish. Interest rate change drove all the change in housing prices, but not quite as much as it should have. To answer your question - I expect that when rates rise (and they will) housing prices will take a hit. In today's dollars, a current $1000 borrows (at 4%) nearly $210K, but at 6%, just $167K. If rates took a jump from these record lows, that's the nature of the risk you'd take.",
"One way of looking at it is that your equity in your house is an investment in a particular class of asset, and investing further in that asset class may drive you away from, rather than towards, your preferred asset mix. It's pretty common here in New Zealand for people's only investments to be their homes and rental properties. I wish those people luck when our current property boom ends.",
"So wages for the working class are declining, young people can't find jobs and are over encumbered in school debt, unemployment is really high, yet these fools think they can find a sucker who can afford their overpriced assets? Good Luck.",
"Hits 3 I go in big. You think it'll still be at 3 in 5 or 10 years? Come on now. It ain't going under and the economy will rebound. When it does, all the bank stocks will come back. It's quite simple, really.",
"To avoid risk from rising interest rates, get a fixed rate mortgage. For the life of the mortgage your principal and interest payments will remain the same. Keep in mind that the taxes and insurance portion of your monthly payment may still go up. Because you own the property, the costs to maintain the property are your responsibility. If you rented this would be the responsibility of the owner of the property; if the cost to repair and maintain goes up so does the rent. Because you are the owner your annual costs to repair and maintain may go up over time. The way to eliminate risk of loss of value is to never move, until the mortgage is paid off. You will know exactly what principal and interest will cost you over the life of the loan. When you sell that will be essentially return on your payments. You don't know if the loss of value is due to world, national, regional, local or individual circumstances. so hedging is tough. If the fact that the mortgage is 95% is what makes you nervous, your biggest risk is risk of being upside down. That risk is greatly reduced by increasing the amount of the down payment. That decreases the risk that the value will be below the mortgage amount if due to unforeseen circumstances you have to sell immediately. The money will still be lost due to decrease in value, but you aren't forced to bring cash to the settlement table if you need to sell.",
"\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \"\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\"\" and \"\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\"\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \"\"stop the presses\"\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\"",
"Totally depends on the drivers of the downturn. Keep in mind that in ~2005, both real estate and short-term bonds would arguably have been reasonable answers to this question (without the benefit of hindsight, of course). e: After re-reading your post, it looks like you were asking about (I assume) equity investments by sector rather than asset classes more broadly. I'm not sure equity in any sector can be considered a safe haven in a downturn. Utilities are the typical answer, but they didn't do much better than equity markets in general in 2008-2009.",
"Goldman Sachs saw credit default swaps as an investment option too. You have to realize they aren't really in the buy and hold game. Them seeing an opportunity to make money off something doesn't mean it will necessarily go up in the future. Also the US economy is the strongest it's been in almost 20 years.. Eroding?",
"\"I would undoubtedly sell the investments if they are positive, maybe even a little negative. That's what non-retirement investments are for, building wealth to spend, give, etc. Flipping things may put it in perspective. Would you borrow money or liquidate your emergency fund in order to invest in mutual funds? If you can completely ignore risk then this MAY make sense. Let's say if you could borrow money at 3.75% and had a \"\"guaranteed\"\" investment return of 7.5% and a \"\"guaranteed\"\" source of income (job). But mutual funds (stocks, bonds) aren't even guaranteed to make money and they most definitely can lose and lose big. Also, I hope your job isn't in any way tied to the oil industry. On the other hand, if you take a loan and fall on hard times you can liquidate your mutual funds to get out of the bind, but you are at the mercy of the market and the worth of your investments at that point. So it may come down to whether you want to choose when to spend your investments, when they are up or at some future date when they may be worth much less (or much more).\"",
"If your planning on shorting the stocks be careful, while the value of the retail sector may be declining there will be a lot of back and forth over the next ten years, and as REITs discounts to nav increases, there is huge opportunities for buyouts from developers who have other use ideas for the real estate. The real estate will always have value, even if it's not as a shopping center.",
">I would much rather have my money in an up-trend. Damn right. Or at least have it liquid. We couldn't sell this house now, even though it's one of the best in the neighborhood. (The nice, but smaller, house across the street has been on the market for over a year.) A few other houses in the neighborhood didn't seem to have any problems being rented, though, so we could likely get rental income from this one if we wanted.",
"It's always a good move for risk-averse person, expecially in Europe. Because houses are not represented by number in an index. Therefor if you are risk-adverse, you will suffer less pain when house prices go down because you won't have a number to look at everyday like the S&P500 index. Because houses in Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain) are almost all made by concrete and really well done (string real marble cover, hard ceramic covers, copper pipes, ...) compared to the ones in US. The house will still be almost new after 30 years, it will just need a repaint and really few/cheap fixings. Because on the long run (20/30 years) hosues are guaranteed to rise in price, expecially in dense places like big city, NY, San Francisco, etc. The reason is simple: the number of people is ever growing in this world, but the quantity of land is always the same. Moreover there is inflation, do you really think that 30 years from now building a concrete house will be less expensive than today??? Do you think the concrete will cost less? Do you think the gasoline that moves the trucks that bring the concrete will be less expensive than now? Do you think the labour cost will be less expensice than now? So, 30 years from now building an house will be much more expensive than today, and therefor your house wil be more expensive too. On the lomng run stock market do not guarantee you to always increase. The US stock market have always been growing in the long run, but Japan stock market today is at the same level of 30 years ago. Guess what happened to you if you invested your money in the Japan stock market, 30 years ago, whilest your friend bought an hosue in Japan 30 years ago. He would now be rich, and you would now be poor.",
"\"There's an old saying: \"\"Never invest in anything that eats or needs maintenance.\"\" This doesn't mean that a house or a racehorse or private ownership of your own company is not an investment. It just points out that constant effort is needed on your part, or on the part of somebody you pay, just to keep it from losing value. Common stock, gold, and money in the bank are three things you can buy and leave alone. They may gain or lose market value, but not because of neglect on your part. Buying a house is a complex decision. There are many benefits and many risks. Other investments have benefits and risks too.\"",
"\"How can one offset exposure created by real-estate purchase? provides a similar discussion. Even if such a product were available in the precise increments you need, the pricing would make it a loser for you. \"\"There's no free lunch\"\" in this case, and the cost to insure against the downside would be disproportional to the true risk. Say you bought a $100K home. At today's valuations, the downside over a given year might be, say, 20%. It might cost you $5000 to 'insure' against that $20K risk. Let me offer an example - The SPY (S&P ETF) is now at $177. A $160 (Dec '14) put costs $7.50. So, if you fear a crash, you can pay 4%, but only get a return if the market falls by over 14%. If it falls 'just' 10%, you lose your premium. With only 5% down, you will get a far better risk-adjusted return by paying down the mortgage to <78% LTV, and requesting PMI, if any, be removed. Even if no PMI, in 5 years, you'll have 20% more equity than otherwise. Over the long term, 5 year's housing inflation would be ~ 15% or so. This process would help insure you are not underwater in that time. Not guarantee, but help.\"",
"\"1) link? 2) It doesn't matter if they can or do, what matters is if they are *investing* (not trading) in it *more* than banks are investing in businesses. If that is the case (it is) then businesses as a whole will see the inflation first, and commodities will be playing catchup the entire time, but mostly when the investments hit recession. I will invest in the market again after they lose their mal-invested value, In historical terms the best time was to invest in them was 1980, 1938 and 1900, and the best time to get out was 1929 1960's and 2000. But to bet against them right now, with the dollar, is meaningless because the FED is deflating the currency as they go down, so it's like running on a treadmill. By holding silver I am essentially short the market, only difference is instead of holding a devaluing currency (cash) I'm holding a real money which is increasing in value. There's nothing simpler than \"\"investing\"\" in commodities for the long-term, people lose when they are making monthly/daily trades in them. Anyone who bought and held on to gold in 2000 did it for $300, and they've made infinitely more than the majority of people investing in blue chips (because they've lost value) and much more than those who invested in bonds. And that trend isn't going to stop unless the government lets the dollar deflate in which case the dollar will come to gold instead of the other way around. Until they are in equilibrium again. Historically the dow has an average of being 2 ounces of gold, peaking at 50 and trophing at .5. If it hits .5 again like it has everytime this occurs in the past. Then either gold will be $20000 or the dow will be 4000. You pick.\"",
"That tends to be the case with a lot of things I am seeing. Any changes seem to create short term recession with projections of long-term growth. I would normally see that as a problem, because the reaction to the recession could effect the outcome post recession, but the LFPR trending downward is not a good sign for the economy as a whole. Eventually that portion would leave most markets, or welfare would have to increase, on the current trajectory. I think encouraging non-income producing assets for wealth generation is a flawed system, personally. Whether I am right or wrong, I do not know. I think the Government, and subsequently the fed, should encourage income-producing assets for the wealth affect, or in the very least, not something as crucial as housing to the health of the consumer base.",
"Put Options. They're less risky than shorting, and have similar upsides. The major difference is that if the price goes up, you're just out the underwriting price. You'll also need to know when the event will happen, or you risk being outwaited. More traditionally, an investor would pull their money out of the market and move into Treasury bonds. Recall that when the market tanked in 2008, the price of treasuries jumped. Problem is, you can only do that trade once, and it hasn't really unwound yet. And the effect is most pronounced on short term treasuries, so you have to babysit the investment. Because of this, I think some people have moved into commodities like gold, but there's a lot of risk there. Worst case scenario you have a lot of shiny metal you can't eat or use.",
"> Indeed, the most popular of the funds, the Barclays iPath fund, known broadly by its ticker symbol VXX, has since its inception averaged a yearly return of negative 58 percent, according to FactSet. > Or look at it this way: If an investor bought VXX when it came to market in 2009 and held onto it until now, that investor would have lost 99 percent of his investment. perfect for /r/wallstreetbets !",
"\"The Case-Schiller macro derivatives market has seen very minimal activity. For example, in the three regional markets of San Diego (SDG), Boston (BOS) and Los Angeles (LAX) on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume, no trades settled, no open interest. * Source: CME Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. Why haven't these real-estate futures caught on with investors? Keep in mind that the CME introduced these indices, with support from Professor Shiller and partner Standard & Poor's several years ago. The CME seems committed to wait this out, as they have shown no indication of dropping the Case-Shiller indices. There are alternative real-estate investment securities to the Case-Shiller indices. I don't think the market of investors is so small that Case-Shiller has been, in effect, \"\"crowded out\"\" by them. I think it is more likely a matter of known quantities. Also, I don't know how well these alternatives are doing! Additional reference: CME spec's for Case-Shiller index futures and options contracts.\"",
"I agree with @Turukawa that the x-axes need to be the same to make a direct comparison. However, the graphs you linked make me think of introductory calculus: If you time averaged plots, speculative investments (gold, housing) seem to have many large concave up time periods and the dow jones has many concave down sections. Using the concavity test: If the first derivative tells you about the rate of change, the second derivative tells you about the rate of change of rate of change. Remember back to Physics 101: 1st derivative is velocity & second derivative is acceleration. It would be interesting to have the same time scales for your plots & compare these accelerations between the two. I suspect the more volatile investments would have larger (in magnitude) accelerations during boom/bust cycles than less speculative investments.",
"\"For real. AAA treasury bonds are used a safe investment vehicle for the reason of \"\"its the US government, its safe\"\", which is pretty similar to the \"\"dude, who doesnt pay their mortgage?!\"\" line of thinking. You got people dumping money into these derivatives and suddenly someone goes \"\"oh yeah you just bought a bunch of bad debt that should be rated 'junk'. Oops.\"\"\"",
"Short the Pound and other English financial items. Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well. You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard. Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash.",
"\"I don't see how I'm biased in favor of the banks. Make no mistake, the banks are to blame for the collapse, more so than the government. However I'm acknowledging the timeline and all the major players in this game, and that includes the government. I addressed the role of banks selling risky mortgages susceptible to default, which includes predatory lending rates, highly leveraged individuals who buy investment properties, and subprime ARM loans. Thank you for providing more detail. I also addressed the securitization of risky mortgages into investment-grade debt, which could be sold to satisfy the \"\"Giant Pool of Money\"\". Plus, I addressed how the banks lowered their standards to continue the supply of mortgages. Feel free to directly cite [Paul Krugman](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/cre-ative-destruction/) as the source of your argument regarding the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial RE. Commercial RE was pulled along by residential RE and the broader market rally (commercial land is highly cyclical). Commercial RE prices rose as the market showed lower interest rates and higher land prices. So commercial RE slightly lagged the housing market.\"",
"I would strongly recommend investing in assets and commodities. I personally believe fiat money is losing its value because of a rising inflation and the price of oil. The collapse of the euro should considerably affect the US currency and shake up other regions of the world in forex markets. In my opinion, safest investment these days are hard assets and commodities. Real estate, land, gold, silver(my favorite) and food could provide some lucrative benefits. GL mate!",
"\"You're hearing alot of talk about housing (and by implication property) not being an investment today because on the downside of a market, the conventional wisdom is to be negative about buying things that have lost value. Just as it was dumb to listen to your coworker about hot .Com IPOs in 1999, it's dumb to listen to the real estate naysayers now. Here's another question along a similar vein: Were stocks a good investment in the spring of 2009? The conventional wisdom said: \"\"No, stocks are scary! Buy T-Bills or Gold Bullion!\"\". The people who made money said: \"\"Wait a second, Goldman Sachs is down like 75%? IBM is down like 30%, are they going anywhere? Time to buy.\"\" The wrong house is a poor investment in any economy. Buying a house in Detriot in 1970 was not a good move. Buying a house that needs $50k in work, not a good move. Buying a condo with a bankrupt HOA in Florida is not a good idea. But a good house that is well cared for is a great investment. I'm living in a house right now that is 80 years old, well maintained and affordable on a single income. A similar home a few blocks away sold in May for the same price as we paid in 2006. I'm paying about 20% less than I would for an apartment, and we'll think about moving in 2016 or 2017, by which time I'll probably have put $30-50k into the house. (Roof, kitchen, exterior painting, minor renovation)\"",
"Options are contractual instruments. Most options you'll run into are contracts which allow you to buy or sell stock at a given price at some time in the future, if you feel like it (it gives you the option). These are Call and Put options, respectively (for buying the stock and selling the stock). If you have a lot of money in an index fund ETF, you may be able to protect your portfolio against a market decline by (e.g.) buying Put options against the ETF for a substantially lower price than the index fund currently trades at. If the market crashes and your fund falls in value significantly, you can exercise the options, selling the fund at the price that your option has specified (to the counter-party of your contract). This is the risk that the option mitigates against. Even if you don't have one particular fund with your investments, you could still buy a put option on a similar fund, and resell it to another person in lieu of exercise (they would be capable of buying the stock and performing the exercise themselves for profit if necessary). In general, if you are buying an option for safety, it should be an option either on something you own, or something whose price behavior will mimic something you own. You will note that options are linked to the price of stocks. Futures are contracts whose values are linked to the price of other things, typically commodities such as oil, gold, or orange juice. Their behaviors may diverge. With an option you can have a contractual guarantee on the exact investment you're trying to protect. (Additionally, many commodities' value may fall at the same time that stock investments fall: during economic contractions which reduce industrial activity, resulting in lower profits for firms and less demand for commodities.) You may also note that there are other structures that options may have - PUT options on index funds or similar instruments are probably most specifically relevant to your interests. The downside of protecting yourself with options is that it costs money to buy this option, and the option eventually expires, so you may lose money. Essentially, you are buying safety and risk-tolerance from the option contract's counterparty, and safety is not free. I cannot inform you what level of safety is appropriate for your portfolio's needs, but more safety is more expensive.",
"I agree, again, for the most part. But I still see the trend of real-estate to be going down. I would much rather have my money in an up-trend. While many people should still buy homes for the same reasons they would if the bubble weren't there and still crashing.",
"PST, or any of the Ultra Short/Long funds aren't actually holding any traditional securities -- just swaps that are betting on the underlying asset. They also don't track the value of the underlying security over time -- just for one day. (And they're not even guaranteed to do that!) IEF is an actual treasury bond fund that holds real-life treasury securities, not swaps. Shorting a fund like IEF is one option, another is to buy options on a fund like IEF. Be very careful investing with ETFs, and don't buy any until you fully read and understand the prospectus. I got burned by an Ultra Long ETF because I didn't do my homework.",
"This is literally the thought process that caused the 2008 collapse, the only difference being the bonds consisted of sub-prime mortgages. Not saying its a bad idea, honestly you could make a lot of money, but macro-economically its a shit-storm brewing in the distance.",
"\"Yes, it's unreasonable to think the prices will drop 10-20% in that time frame. Housing prices are not an equation that can can be solved to \"\"home prices are X% overvalued.\"\" You have 3 answers so far, Quanty's \"\"prices are inversely proportional to rates,\"\" Rob's \"\"there's no strong correlation between interest rates and house prices,\"\" and MB's, \"\"rising interest rates create downward pressure on housing prices.\"\" Any research into price history had better take every other variable into account. Articles that look at rates vs price don't always address a key item, income. Say we agree that the data show your city to be 10% too high. But if sellers like their high price and have some 'dig my heels in' power, prices won't drop. The seller simply stays put, and the supply/demand curves result not in a lower price, but in less supply. And the effect is to change the demographic of that area, i.e. attracting higher income earners. Rob linked to an article with a nice set of charts. One chart showing the US30 yr fixed rate and 'Real House Prices'. What results is a chart that can refute the relationship between rates and prices. But that would ignore an historical point that's too important to forget. The tumble that started in Jan '06 had nothing to do with the 30 year rate. It was the result of a series of insane financial products including 'interest only option ARMs' which permitted buyers to get approved for a purchase based on a payment that wasn't fixed, and would change to a fully amortizing mortgage at a higher rate that was unaffordable. A product that was a financial time bomb. Canada Banks offered no such product, and when the US market got pneumonia, Canada experienced a mild cold. With respect to any answers that offer US centric data to prove any hypothesis, I don't feel such comparisons are appropriate. Correlations, and the data used to prove them are an interesting thing. I can suggest that you take the US 30 year rate, along with our median income, or rather 25% of monthly median income. Calculate the mortgage that results. This translates nicely to the home a median family can afford. And I claim that long term this is the equilibrium price of that median home. But supply/demand has another factor, 'stickyness' or the more technical term, 'inelasticity of demand.' This means that for example, a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes does not cause a 10% drop in consumption. Each and every good has its own elasticity, and in the case of housing, a rise in cost would certainly impact the marginal buyers, but others will simply adjust their budgets. Not all buyers were planning to hit the bank's limit on what they could afford, so the rise doesn't change their mind, just their budget. Last - I know that Canada does not have a 30 year mortgage, most common is a 5 year rate with 30 year amortization. (correction/clarification, anyone?) The effect of this is less volatility in the market, since I believe your rates are not poised for the 2.5% to 4% jump implied by another response. Small increases can be absorbed. In a beautiful coincidence, the Federal Reserve Board sent me a link to The Interest Rate Elasticity of Mortgage Demand: Evidence From Bunching at the Conforming Loan Limit. It's a bit long but a worthwhile look at how the correlation isn't as instant as some might think.\"",
"I just read this: Housing and inflation Adjusted for inflation the price of a house has increased a miniscule amount. A better investment would be an ETF that buys REIT stocks. You would be investing in real estate but can cash in and walk away at any time. Here is a list of mREITs: Stockchart of REITs",
"Yes, but only because the US had a huge crash. Other economies have, in the absence of any credible *real* growth strategy, continued pumping housing. I still think student debt will erode incomes further as it's simply pulling forward demand that will drag on incomes later. When nearly everyone has a degree then nearly everyone doesn't get paid much more for having one. By the same principle of supply and demand all the boomer downsizing vs impoverished 30-something lack of upsizing will mean prices will fall.",
"Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%). Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher. Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high. We're currently at a three-year low. Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up. Eventually. Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall. It hasn't happened yet though. In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008). The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening.",
"Uhm, this is my disclaimer that this is not financial advice. But. I would imagine a decent amount of high growth tech will go into the toilet. Also cyclicals that are heavily reliant on the low cost of short term capital. But really these are just some intuitive guesses. It would really depend on what the mechanism and impact of a future recession would be. Curious though, why do you personally think a recession is looming? I know there's been a lot of talk but per the VIX, investors' worries don't appear to be affecting their behavior too much (at least in equities). I think the big risk is the Fed not being able to control the yield curve, i.e if short term rates increase but the Fed can't or won't shrink the balance sheet enough to impact long term rates. Just an idea.",
"High risk foreign debt is great until the bottom falls out of the market when the government default on debt or revalues currency. If you do this, you should be able to sustain near total losses of principal and interest.",
"\"anything that produces steady income will produce a \"\"real return\"\" (return above inflation) in a zero-interest rate environment: Note, however, that all of these will decline in value if interest rates rise.\"",
"Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment. It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area. There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash. If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame. This is no guarantee of course. Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further. While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home. The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk. Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate. When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa). Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn.",
"\"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"",
"\"Perhaps buying some internationally exchanged stock of China real-estate companies? It's never too late to enter a bubble or profit from a bubble after it bursts. As a native Chinese, my observations suggest that the bubble may exist in a few of the most populated cities of China such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, the price doesn't seem to be much higher than expected in cities further within the mainland, such as Xi'an and Chengdu. I myself is living in Xi'an. I did a post about the urban housing cost of Xi'an at the end of last year: http://www.xianhotels.info/urban-housing-cost-of-xian-china~15 It may give you a rough idea of the pricing level. The average of 5,500 CNY per square meter (condo) hasn't fluctuated much since the posting of the entry. But you need to pay about 1,000 to 3,000 higher to get something desirable. For location, just search \"\"Xi'an, China\"\" in Google Maps. =========== I actually have no idea how you, a foreigner can safely and easily profit from this. I'll just share what I know. It's really hard to financially enter China. To prevent oversea speculative funds from freely entering and leaving China, the Admin of Forex (safe.gov.cn) has laid down a range of rigid policies regarding currency exchange. By law, any native individual, such as me, is imposed of a maximum of $50,000 that can be converted from USD to CNY or the other way around per year AND a maximum of $10,000 per day. Larger chunks of exchange must get the written consent of the Admin of Forex or it will simply not be cleared by any of the banks in China, even HSBC that's not owned by China. However, you can circumvent this limit by using the social ID of your immediate relatives when submitting exchange requests. It takes extra time and effort but viable. However, things may change drastically should China be in a forex crisis or simply war. You may not be able to withdraw USD at all from the banks in China, even with a positive balance that's your own money. My whole income stream are USD which is wired monthly from US to Bank of China. I purchased a property in the middle of last year that's worth 275,000 CNY using the funds I exchanged from USD I had earned. It's a 43.7% down payment on a mortgage loan of 20 years: http://www.mlcalc.com/#mortgage-275000-43.7-20-4.284-0-0-0.52-7-2009-year (in CNY, not USD) The current household loan rate is 6.12% across the entire China. However, because this is my first property, it is discounted by 30% to 4.284% to encourage the first house purchase. There will be no more discounts of loan rate for the 2nd property and so forth to discourage speculative stocking that drives the price high. The apartment I bought in July of 2009 can easily be sold at 300,000 now. Some of the earlier buyers have enjoyed much more appreciation than I do. To give you a rough idea, a house bought in 2006 is now evaluated 100% more, one bought in 2008 now 50% more and one bought in the beginning of 2009 now 25% more.\"",
"\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\"",
"if more people wanted to short mortgages, the price of insurance on them would have gone up, and investors would have stopped wanting to buy them, which would cause interest rates on homes to go up, reducing the number of people who can buy homes out of their price range- which was a fundamental cause of the crisis",
"No, there is no linkage to the value of real estate and inflation. In most of the United States if you bought at the peak of the market in 2006, you still haven't recovered 7+ years later. Also real estate has a strong local component to the price. Pick the wrong location or the wrong type of real estate and the value of your real estate will be dropping while everybody else sees their values rising. Three properties I have owned near Washington DC, have had three different price patterns since the late 80's. Each had a different starting and ending point for the peak price rise. You can get lucky and make a lot, but there is no way to guarantee that prices will rise at all during the period you will own it.",
"In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund.",
"\"TBF - Proshares short 20+ Year Treasury The TBF fund is designed to track (hopefully) 100 percent of the inverse daily returns of the Barclays Capital 20+ Year U.S. Treasury Index. there's some risk of tracking error, and also a compounding effect if it's down several days in a row. (invest with care) There's also a TBT fund, but the risks are even greater since it is leveraged, potentially you could make the right long term call, but lose a lot in the short term due to tracking error and effect of compounding) (that would tend to make this one more appropriate for short term 'bets' on interest rates, and less so for a long term investor) There are also quite a few floating rate closed-end funds (Click here, then click on \"\"loan participation funds\"\") that should do well in a rising rate environment. Just beware that these funds seem to incorporate a substantial amount of credit risk as well as floating interest rate exposure. Closed end funds trade a lot like securities, since the fund is closed, you have to buy shares from another owner that is selling (just like with stocks), that means the shares can sometimes trade above or below the underlying value of the actual assets held by the fund depending on buying/selling pressure and the relative liquidity of a given fund.\"",
"Typically in a developed / developing economy if there is high overall inflation, then it means everything will rise including property/real estate. The cost of funds is low [too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation] which means more companies borrow money cheaply and more business florish and hence the stock market should also go up. So if you are looking at a situation where industry is doing badly and the inflation is high, then it means there are larger issues. The best bet would be Gold and parking the funds into other currency.",
"What financial instruments are there that are profitable when an underlying assets falls? The instrument you are looking for is called an Option, specifically a Put Option. It allows you, within the validity date, to sell ('Put') the respective shares to the option giver, at the predefined Strike Price. For example, let's assume APPL trades currently at 100 $ per share, and you think they will go down a lot. You buy one Put Option for 100 shares (they always come for larger amounts like 100s) for a Strike Price of 90 $, and pay 5 $ for it (it would be cheap if nobody believes they will fall that much). Note the last sentence under 2. - it is rather easy and very common when trading options to make complete losses. You have been warned. Are they available for IPOs? They could be available for IPOs, even before the IPO. However, someone has to put them out (some large bank, typically), which is some effort, and they would only do that if they expect enough interest and volume in the trade. most of the time, there will be no such options on the market. Are they available for foreign stocks?Yes, but again only selectively - only if the stock is well known and interesting enough for a broad audience.",
"I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation. When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates.",
"Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs....",
"You seem to underestimate the risk of this deal for the inverstors. A person purchasing a residence is happy to pay $70K instead of $150K now, and the only risk they take is that the construction company fails to build the condo. Whatever happens on the estate market in two years, they still saved the price difference between the price of complete apartments and to-be-build apartments (which by the way may be less than $150K-$70K, since that $150K is the price on a hot market in two years). However, an investor aiming to earn money counts on that the property will actually cost $150K in two years, so he's additionally taking the risk that the estate market may drop. Should that happen, their return on investment will be considerably lower, and it's entirely possible they will make a loss instead of a profit. At this point, this becomes yet another high risk investment option, like financing a startup.",
"There is none, whatever sector you invest in will be subject to cyclical market difficulties, however alpha can be generated from two sources: Timing and selection. Its much easier to get the timing done over a long period of time.",
"\"I agree for the most part. I thought about them, I even thought about money supply and some others. But the point was mainly that businesses as a whole have been doing bad for not just this year or since 2008 but over a decade, not enough to account for inflation. This is grounds that the economy is in a recession, and will be. Bond's aren't really an investment in business as they are loaning money to the government on interest so they don't portray whether the economy is in recession or not. The premise was that a recession is/has occurred, not that money cannot be made in a good portfolio. Perhaps you didn't fully understand my last point, I don't believe gold and silver are the bubble. I believe the dollar is the bubble and it has been bursting since 2000. Commodity prices are merely a sign of the bursting bubble. Given that we're in recession, the only way to \"\"pull-out\"\" as it is apparent people have been doing for the past 10 years, is to buy real assets and that this creates a positive feedback loop into devaluing the dollar. Not everyone will pull out, but most will. For a long while the assets have had little exposure to the inflation of the dollar, and now it's catching up to the assets. Ergo assets are undervalued, they are not the bubble.\"",
"All of this makes perfect sense and I can definitely see the logic behind it. But I don't think Hedge Funds are the way to go. The real money lies in real estate, more specifically land-banking. The problem, though, is that a lot of land-banking investments are really just scams and it's really hard to tell which ones are real and which ones are fake.",
"Oh woohooo . . .and its all a great investment AAA . .you have to buy and when we do . .it goes straight down because we find the biggest seller was Morgan and Stanley Yah. . .we know that game really well now . .always buy the good news Build some fucking public toilets"
] |
[
"A possibility could be real estate brokerage firms such as Realogy or Prudential. Although a brokerage commission is linked to the sale prices it is more directly impacted by sales volume. If volume is maintained or goes up a real estate brokerage firm can actually profit rather handsomely in an up market or a down market. If sales volume does go up another option would be other service markets for real estate such as real estate information and marketing websites and sources i.e. http://www.trulia.com. Furthermore one can go and make a broad generalization such as since real estate no longer requires the same quantity of construction material other industries sensitive to the price of those commodities should technically have a lower cost of doing business. But be careful in the US much of the wealth an average american has is in their home. In this case this means that the economy as a whole takes a dive due to consumer uncertainty. In which case safe havens could benefit, may be things like Proctor & Gamble, gold, or treasuries. Side Note: You can always short builders or someone who loses if the housing market declines, this will make your investment higher as a result of the security going lower.",
"\"During the actual decline, there's very little money to be made and a lot to lose. When housing prices tank, everybody loses; the banks are exposed to higher risk of mortgage defaults, insurers start having to pay out more for \"\"gas leaks\"\" claiming over-leveraged homes, realtors starve because their commissions go down (even as foreclosures put more homes on the market) and people faced with financial uncertainty will stay put in their current homes instead of moving elsewhere. And homebuilders and contractors go broke because nobody wants to spend cash on a new home or major reno that looks like a losing investment. There can be some bright spots. Smaller hardware stores will make money as people do relatively small DIY projects to improve the condition of their current home. The larger stores get this business too, but it tends to be more than offset by the loss of contractor business (FAR more lucrative, and something the ACEs and True-Values don't really get in on). Of course the \"\"grave-robbers\"\" do well; gold buyers, auctioneers, pawn shops, repo firms; these guys eat well when other people are defaulting on loans or have to sell their stuff for fast cash. Most of these businesses are not publicly traded. One thing that was seen was increased revenues at discount retailers like Wal-Mart, Dollar General etc. When things are bad, people in the middle class who had avoided these stores for image or morality reasons learn to swallow their pride and buy discount store brands for half the price of national brand names. That lessens the blow felt by the discount retailers as overall consumer spending decreases; the pie shrinks, but the discount retailers get a bigger slice of the mandatory spending on food, clothing, etc (and the higher-level retailers get it in the shorts). When the pie starts to grow again as consumer spending picks back up, the discount retailers retain their percentage for a while, as the fickle middle class can afford to buy more from the discount retailer but can't yet afford to take their business back to the shopping mall stores. This produces a flatter, \"\"offset\"\" price graph for discount retailers through the business cycle; they don't lose as early or as much as everyone else in a major downturn, and they turn it around sooner while everyone else may still be on the way down, but as everything gets better for everyone on the upswing it's less great for the discount guys, as they start losing customers and their dollars to competitors with better stuff, even as the ones they keep spend more. This doesn't generally manifest as a true negative correlation, but it can be a good hedge. The number one money-making investment in a tanking economy is gold. When things go down the crapper, everyone wants gold, so if you see the train wreck coming far enough in advance, you can make a big move to gold and really make some money off that investment. For instance, when the first whispers about ARM adjustments and mass defaults reached the public consciousness in mid-2005, gold bullion jumped from about $400 to over $700 in a nine-month period. It cooled off again in 06-07 but only to about $600/oz, and then in late 07 it steadily climbed to peak at $1000/oz; even if you got in late, an investment of $1000 in July '07 in \"\"bulk\"\" gold would have netted you $650 in one year; that's a 65% APY. Then the economy hit bottom and a lot of investors ditched gold for investments they thought would pull back out of their holes quickly; For just a little while in '08 gold was down to $700 again. Then came all the government reports; unemployment not budging, home prices still declining, a lot of banks still hiding just how bad their position was. If you had seen that it was going to be bad, bad, bad, like a lot of now-billionaire hedge fund investors did, a $1000 investment in gold in July 05, and then cashing out at the tops of the peaks and buying back in at the major troughs, would be worth almost $4000 today. That's a 400% return over 7 years, or an annual average yield of 57%. There simply hasn't been anything like that in the last 7 years.\""
] |
6787
|
Would it make sense to sell a stock, then repurchase it for tax purposes?
|
[
"587120"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"38287",
"219762",
"540292",
"17184",
"23217",
"390864",
"304918",
"400730",
"376800",
"358602",
"396030",
"156092",
"161155",
"207929",
"407602",
"221715",
"571124",
"377944",
"261902",
"501214",
"522319",
"444405",
"268423",
"292762",
"514970",
"474981",
"55893",
"596518",
"113948",
"483394",
"438419",
"152960",
"132111",
"306460",
"416789",
"72677",
"581780",
"536610",
"132966",
"318321",
"399583",
"46625",
"178059",
"517577",
"550468",
"322284",
"14364",
"343219",
"443354",
"151037",
"102999",
"290317",
"177798",
"590010",
"456436",
"350080",
"312154",
"457059",
"187761",
"335375",
"584917",
"330848",
"275340",
"71601",
"311782",
"137251",
"548278",
"521133",
"345793",
"227064",
"257274",
"481283",
"140267",
"448659",
"81353",
"303193",
"477851",
"348922",
"338754",
"71292",
"221427",
"598460",
"256010",
"162804",
"323731",
"468047",
"543898",
"379786",
"539548",
"561999",
"150809",
"476224",
"492401",
"585764",
"537212",
"5347",
"4830",
"551286",
"557361",
"75024"
] |
[
"I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.",
"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.",
"\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \"\"for tax purposes\"\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\"",
"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).",
"I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.",
"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.",
"The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.",
"The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.",
"No, you can not cheat the IRS. This question is also based on the assumption that the stock will return to $1 which isn't always a safe assumption and that it will continue to cycle like that repeatedly which is also likely a false assumption.",
"I think what you're asking is, Can I buy 1000 shares of the stock at $1. For $1000. it goes up to $2, then sell 500 shares of the stock with proceeds of $1000, now having my original $1000 out of it, and still owning 500 shares. And that not create a taxable event. Since all I did was take my cost basis back out, and didn't collect any gains. And then I want to repeat that over and over. Nope, not in the USA anyway. Each sale is a separate taxable event. The first sale will have proceeds of $1000 and a cost basis of $500, with $500 of capital gains, and taxes owed at the time of that sale. The remaining stock will have a cost basis of $500 and proceeds of whatever you sell it for in the future. The next batch of stock will have a cost basis of whatever you pay for it. The only thing that works anything like the way you're thinking, is a Roth IRA... You can put your cost basis in, pull it back out, and put it back in again, all tax free. But every time your cost basis cycles in, that counts towed your contribution limits unless you do it fast enough to call it a rollover.",
"Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.",
"I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.",
"Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.",
"\"If you bought them, you can sell them. That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called \"\"wash sale\"\" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year. There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes.\"",
"\"According to Wikipedia this is still a wash sale: In the USA wash sale rules are codified in \"\"26 USC § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities.\"\" Under Section 1091, a wash sale occurs when a taxpayer sells or trades stock or securities at a loss, and within 30 days before or after the sale:\"",
"Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both. Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02",
"\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"",
"This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:",
"Firstly 795 is not even. Secondly - generally you would pay tax on the sale of the 122 shares, whether you buy them back or not, even one minute later, has nothing to do with it. The only reason this would not create a capital gains event is if your country (which you haven't specified) has some odd rules or laws about this that I, and most others, have never heard of before.",
"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.",
"Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.",
"Yes. On December 10, you have a wash sale. As long as you don't buy the stock back for 30 days after that, the wash is of no consequence. In other words, you don't have a wash issue if you don't own the stock for 30 days.",
"You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.",
"\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"",
"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.",
"I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.",
"Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase.",
"What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)",
"Looks like there are no specific rule in India to prevent Wash sales. See the link below. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/investors-can-rejig-portfolio-book-short-term-loss-to-save-tax/articleshow/7812788.cms?intenttarget=no",
"\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"",
"\"Yes- you do not realize gains or losses until you actually sell the stock. After you sell the initial stocks/bonds you have realized the gain. When you buy the new, different stocks you haven't realized anything until you then sell those. There is one exception to this, called the \"\"Wash-Sale Rule\"\". From Investopedia.com: With the wash-sale rule, the IRS disallows a loss deduction from the sale of a security if a ‘substantially identical security' was purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash-sale period is actually 61 days, consisting of the 30 days before and the 30 days after the date of the sale. For example, if you bought 100 shares of IBM on December 1 and then sold 100 shares of IBM on December 15 at a loss, the loss deduction would not be allowed. Similarly, selling IBM on December 15 and then buying it back on January 10 of the following year does not permit a deduction. The wash-sale rule is designed to prevent investors from making trades for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.\"",
"No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits.",
"Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -",
"\"if you buy back the now ITM calls, then you will have a short term loss. That pair of transactions is independent, from a tax perspective, of your long position (which was being used as \"\"collateral\"\" in the very case that occurred). I can see your tax situation and can see the logic of taking a short term loss to balance a short term gain. Referring to D Stanley's answer, #2 and #3 are not the same because you are paying intrinsic value in the options and the skew in #2, whereas #3 has no intrinsic value. Of course, because you can't know the future, the stock price could move higher or lower between #2 and #3. #1 presumes the stock continues to climb.\"",
"\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"",
"\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \"\"first\"\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \"\"usual\"\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \"\"gain\"\" or \"\"loss\"\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \"\"no,\"\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\"",
"From the IRS Section 1091. Loss from Wash Sales of Stock or Securities Section 1091(a) provides that in the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law),or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or 3 securities, then no deduction shall be allowed under § 165 The document is not long, 4 pages, and should be read to see the intent. It's tough to choose the one snippet, but the conclusion is this is the definitive response to that question. A purchase within an IRA or other retirement account can create a wash sale if such a purchase would be a wash sale otherwise, i.e. the fact that it's a retirement account doesn't avoid wash rules.",
"My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.",
"In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.",
"\"'Note that \"\"to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill\"\" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists.\"",
"Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.",
"You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.",
"No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.",
"\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"",
"Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free.",
"You realise a capital gain as soon as you sell the stock. At that point, you will have to pay taxes on the profits when you fill in your tax return. The fact that you used the money to subsequently purchase other stocks is not relevant, unless you sell those stocks within the same tax year. For example, purchase $5000 of stock A in 2010. Sell for $6000 in 2010. Purchase $6000 of stock B in 2010. Sell stock B for $6500 in 2010. Purchase $6500 of stock C in 2010. Sell stock C for $7000 in 2011. You owe capital gains on ($6000 - $5000) + ($6500 - $6000) = $1500 for tax year 2010. You owe capital gains on ($7000 - $6500) = $500 for 2011.",
"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.",
"Disallowed losses due to the wash sale rule are added to the basis of the repurchased shares. In your example, on day two you paid $0.70 per share. Then the disallowed $0.30 loss from the previous day gets added to the basis, making your total basis $1.00 per share. When you sell at the end of the day for $1.00 per share, your net gain/loss is zero. Furthermore, you can recapture disallowed losses by selling the last lot of ABC, completely divesting yourself of all holdings in ABC for at least 31 days. Even if that last lot was a loss, when taking into account the increased basis from previously disallowed wash sale losses, you can claim the loss fully on this last, non-wash sale.",
">suffering, say, a potential 20% loss for business reasons can be preferable to creating a guaranteed, irreversible 37% loss due to state and federal LTCG taxes. You don't pay taxes on capital losses... In fact, you can write them off against future gains.",
"As JoeTaxpayer illustrated, yes you can. However, one thing to remember is that unless you live in a state with no state income tax, there may be state tax to pay on those gains. Even so, it's likely a good idea if you expect either your income (or the federal capital gains tax rate) to rise in the future.",
"\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \"\"average price\"\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\"",
"What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.",
"The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End.",
"Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/",
"One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.",
"\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \"\"substantially identical\"\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \"\"substantially identical\"\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \"\"deep in the money\"\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\"\"A Primer on Wash Sales\"\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \"\"play it safe\"\" position: \"\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\"\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \"\"hell no\"\" to \"\"only if blatant.\"\" If you can get an \"\"official\"\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\"",
"Wash sale applies. If you purchase shares within 30 days of that Feb 3 sell date, the wash sale kicks in, preventing the loss on that sale, and deferring it into the new shares.",
"\"Once again I offer some sage advice - \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Michael offers an excellent method to decide what to do. Note, he doesn't base the decision on the tax implication. If you are truly indifferent to holding the stock, taxwise, you might consider selling just the profitable shares if that's enough cash. Then sell shares at a loss each year if you have no other gains. That will let you pay the long term gain rate on the shares sold this year, but offset regular income in years to come. But. I'm hard pressed to believe you are indifferent, and I'd use Michel's approach to decide. Updated - The New Law is simply a rule requiring brokers to track basis. Your situation doesn't change at all. When you sell the shares, you need to identify which shares you want to sell. For older shares, the tracking is your responsibility, that's all.\"",
"When you get into reading Revenue Rulings and Treasury Regulations - I'd suggest hiring a professional to do that for you. Especially since you also need to assure that the new stock does indeed qualify as QSBS. However, from the revenue ruling you quoted it doesn't sound like there's any other requirement other than reporting the subsequent purchase as a loss on your schedule D. I wouldn't know, however, if there are subsequent/superseding revenue rulings on the matter since 1998. Professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) would have the means and the ability to research this and give you a proper advice.",
"\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \"\"substantially identical\"\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\"",
"No, there's nothing special in mutual funds or ETFs. Wash sale rules apply to any asset.",
"\"And my CPA is saying no way, it will cost me many thousands in taxes and doesn't make any sense. I'd think so too. It looks like it converts from capitol gains at 14% to something else at about 35% Can be, if your gain under the Sec.1231 rules is classified as depreciation recapture. But, perhaps the buyers will be saving this way? Not your problem even if they were, which they aren't. I would not do something my CPA says \"\"no-way\"\" about. I sometimes prefer not doing some things my CPA says \"\"it may fly\"\" because I'm defensive when it comes to taxes, but if your CPA is not willing to sign something off - don't do it. Ever.\"",
"If so, are there ways to reduce the amount of taxes owed? Given that it's currently December, I suppose I could sell half of what I want now, and the other half in January and it would split the tax burden over 2 years instead, but beyond that, are there any strategies for tax reduction in this scenario? One possibility is to also sell stocks that have gone down since you bought them. Of course, you would only do this if you have changed your mind about the stock's prospects since you bought it -- that is, it has gone down and you no longer think it will go up enough to be worth holding it. When you sell stocks, any losses you take can offset any gains, so if you sell one stock for a gain of $10,000 and another for a loss of $5,000, you will only be taxed on your net gain of $5,000. Even if you think your down stock could go back up, you could sell it to realize the loss, and then buy it back later at the lower price (as long as you're not worried it will go up in the meantime). However, you need to wait at least 30 days before rebuying the stock to avoid wash sale rules. This practice is known as tax loss harvesting.",
"You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.",
"\"There are several reasons. First, if you sell your stock \"\"at any price\"\", you may be selling it for less than you originally bought it for. Thus you will take a loss right at the beginning of your scheme. If you \"\"rinse and repeat\"\", the problem only gets worse. Every time you sell your stock, you will have to sell it at an even lower price in order to lower the price even more. Then you buy it back and. . . just resell it an even lower price? It should be clear that you are not making any money this way. Second, even if you don't sell it at an absolute loss, you must sell it at a relative loss in order to lower the price. In other words, if someone will currently buy your shares for $X, and you want to lower the price, you must sell them for less than $X. But you could have made more money by selling them for $X, since someone was already willing to buy them at that price. In order to bring the price down significantly, you have to sell the stock for less than people currently believe it is worth, which means you're incurring a loss relative to just selling it at the market rate. Of course, you can still make money if it goes back up again, but selling it at an extra loss this way just makes it harder to break even. Third, if you sell the stock at $X, whoever you sold it to is not going to sell it right back to you at $X, because then they would not make any money. You could in theory buy it from someone else, but the same principle holds: if the stock price has just gone down, people who have it may be waiting for it to go back up. This is doubly true if anyone suspects you have been trying to manipulate the stock price, because they will then suspect that the price drop is artificial and it will soon go back up. Fourth, even if someone did sell it right back to you at the price you sold it for, then what? You now hold the stock at a lower price, but you don't gain unless it goes back up. If it wasn't going up before until you took action, there is no reason to suppose it will go back up now. In fact, if you had enough shares to significantly influence the price, other people may have been fooled into thinking the value is actually lower now. The basic problem is that, in order for you to buy it at a low price, someone else has to sell it at that low price. It is easy to sell someone a stock for less than it's worth, but it will be hard to get people to sell it back to you for less than it's worth. If you engage in deceptive practices to get people to do this, you may be guilty of securities fraud.\"",
"My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.",
"\"Overall the question is one of a political nature. However, this component can have objective answers: \"\"What behavior is trying to be prevented?\"\" There are mechanisms by which capital gains can be deferred (1031 like-kind exchange, or simply holding a long position for years) or eliminated by the estate step up in basis. With these available, mechanisms that enable basis-reduction are ripe for abuse. On the other hand, if this truly bothers you then if you meet the IRS qualifications of a day trader, you may elect to use \"\"mark to market\"\" accounting, eliminating this entirely as a concern. Special rules for traders of securities\"",
"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.",
"\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"",
"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.",
"\"Strangely enough, you have a wash sale, but, for the fact that you sold the shares and then more than 30 days passed, you can take the loss. I mistakenly used the phrase \"\"and ended the year with no shared of the stock\"\" elsewhere, and was corrected, as one can sell at a loss up to 12/31, and have until the end of January to create a wash condition. In your case, the facts in June combined with you ending the year with no shares removes any doubt, a wash sale, but one that's fully closed out. Note - while Vicky's answer is correct, it should go on to say that once the stock is not owned for 30 days, the wash sale loss is permitted.\"",
"I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.",
"When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid",
"As littleadv suggested, you are mixing issues. If you have earned income and are able to deduct an IRA deposit, where those actual dollars came from is irrelevant. The fact that you are taking proceeds from one transaction to deposit to the IRA is a booking entry on your side, but the IRS doesn't care. By the way, when you get that $1000 gain, the broker doesn't withhold tax, so if you take the entire $1000 and put it in the IRA, you owe $150 on one line, but save $250 elsewhere, and are still $100 to the positive on your tax return.",
"\"Just brainstorming here, but my gut feeling is it should be possible to sell your home to yourself with the sole purpose of resetting your basis. Taken at face value it feels illegal, but since I think we all would agree that you could sell your house to a third party and purchase the identical house next door for the same price (thus resetting your basis), why can't you purchase the same home right back? If one is legal, it seems odd for the other not to be. That being said, I have no idea how to legally do it. Perhaps you truly need a third party to step in which you sell it to, and then buy it back from them sometime in the future. Or perhaps you could start an LLC and have it purchase your home from you. Either way, I highly suggest finding an expert real estate attorney/accountant before attempting this, and don't be surprised if you get multiple opposite opinions. I suspect this is a gray area which will highly depend on how tax \"\"aggressive\"\" you are willing to be.\"",
"There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.",
"Yes. Wash rules are only for losses.",
"Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.",
"With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?",
"Did you read what I wrote? I sold some stock for a gain, that's a taxable event. Are you trying to say I just shouldn't have sold it? Do you understand investing at all? And the second point is moot, I still had to pay the tax, having write offs doesn't change the fact that my taxes were higher(more importantly that they would have been much higher if I couldn't take advantage of capital gains.)",
"Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. There is risk in exchanging this (known) property for another (unknown) property. That risk may be more than $9000 worth of risk. Tax considerations are important, but most important is that your investments make money. If you intend to continue as a landlord, you had better be sure you are finding a better deal elsewhere if you are going to trade this property up. I should also mention that you have a 5 year window in which you need to have lived in the home for 2 years. You have time and might be able to sell for a higher price if you wait a little longer.",
"the difference would be taxes... Lets say you have two lots, one with a 10 dollar gain, and one with a 20 dollar gain. And lets say you decide to sell one lot this year, and the other lot in 10 years. AND, lets say that it turns out the stock price is exactly the same in ten years as it is when you sell the first lot. In all likelyhood, you'll have more income, and therefore you are likely to be in a different marginal tax rate. If you believe that you're more likely to pay more taxes in 10 years, then sell the lot with the higher gain now. If you believe you're more likely to pay more taxes now, then sell the lot with the lower gain now.",
"If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.",
"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.",
"The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html",
"You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20*[number of shares]*([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.",
"\"Of course, but that's not relevant to my example. Let me clarify: say you hold a highly-appreciated $10M position in AAPL and you have good reason to believe the next iPhone is going to be a flop, causing the stock to decline 20%. You can sell now to avoid the (probable) decline, but by doing so you will be left with, let's say, $6.67M after paying $3.33M of state and federal LTCG taxes on the appreciation ($9M of the $10M, because you bought a long time ago). However, by simply doing nothing and \"\"eating\"\" the 20% decline, you'll end up with $8M instead of $6.67M. Many economists would criticize the tax in this example, as it has led to the investor rationally suffering a $2M loss, instead of reallocating all $10M of his/her capital to a more promising enterprise. Furthermore, if/when many investors act that way, they can create inefficiency in the equity markets (prices not declining by as much as they should to reflect a firm's reduced prospects).\"",
"\"You cannot get \"\"your investment\"\" out and \"\"leave only the capital gains\"\" until they become taxable at the long-term rate. When you sell some shares after holding them for less than a year, you have capital gains on which you will have to pay taxes at the short-term capital gains rate (that is, at the same rate as ordinary income). As an example, if you bought 100 shares at $70 for a net investment of $7000, and sell 70 of them at $100 after five months to get your \"\"initial investment back\"\", you will have short-term capital gains of $30 per share on the 70 shares that you sold and so you have to pay tax on that $30x70=$2100. The other $4900 = $7000-$2100 is \"\"tax-free\"\" since it is just your purchase price of the 70 shares being returned to you. So after paying the tax on your short-term capital gains, you really don't have your \"\"initial investment back\"\"; you have something less. The capital gains on the 30 shares that you continue to hold will become (long-term capital gains) income to you only when you sell the shares after having held them for a full year or more: the gains on the shares sold after five months are taxable income in the year of sale.\"",
"You are not allowed to pick and choose what years to take a loss once the stock/fund is sold. While I realize it might be too late for you to do anything now, in the future if members should read this, they might consider doing a Roth conversion during that year they will have $3000 in losses. This way they will show some income that can be offset by that loss, effectively getting a free conversion to the Roth.",
"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.",
"All corporate gains are taxed at the same rate as corporate income, for the corporate entity, so this actually can be WORSE than the individual capital gains tax rates. There are a lot of things you can do with trading certain asset classes, like opening you up to like-kind re-investment tax perks, but I can't think of anything that helps with stocks. Also, in the US there is now a law against doing things solely to avoid tax if they have no other economic purpose. So be conscious about that, you'll need to be able to rationalize at least a thin excuse for why you jumped through all the hoops.",
"I brought this up to my CPA. She said don't do it. People used to do it, but now they're cracking down. Is it unfair? Yes. But it's the government so don't mess with them.",
"Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.",
"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"Yes, you could avoid capital gains tax altogether, however, capital gains are used in determining your tax bracket even though they are not taxed at that rate. This would only work in situations where your total capital gains and ordinary income kept you in the 0% longterm capital gains bracket. You can't realize a million dollars in capital gains and have no tax burden due to lack of ordinary income. You can potentially save some money by realizing capital gains strategically. Giving up income in an attempt to save on taxes rarely makes sense.",
"The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons.",
"Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)",
"Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take."
] |
[
"\"What you're talking about is called \"\"tax gain harvesting,\"\" and it is considered good tax management. From The Oblivious Investor, investors in the 10% or 15% bracket pay 0% tax on long-term capital gains. For an interesting take on never paying income taxes again, check out Go Curry Cracker. You can claim up to $70,000 or so in capital gains before paying any taxes if you are the 10% or 15% tax bracket.\""
] |
89
|
How can I deposit a check made out to my business into my personal account?
|
[
"413229",
"590102",
"268026",
"248624",
"508754",
"64556"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"188893",
"536686",
"309023",
"521540",
"65404",
"508754",
"264075",
"197862",
"193830",
"556021",
"184697",
"316359",
"406109",
"213331",
"116030",
"261856",
"268026",
"564553",
"346537",
"466317",
"138934",
"91707",
"377521",
"590102",
"501230",
"42032",
"165397",
"596427",
"388147",
"192726",
"526817",
"389953",
"133833",
"480238",
"469738",
"494666",
"413229",
"15473",
"289844",
"308938",
"466162",
"354314",
"100764",
"278653",
"426076",
"94957",
"3336",
"461858",
"400230",
"248624",
"272807",
"507287",
"66991",
"468718",
"529879",
"591416",
"168667",
"86273",
"152027",
"40719",
"342212",
"266840",
"508960",
"473017",
"357738",
"270339",
"570960",
"451969",
"357037",
"561103",
"1066",
"460577",
"148589",
"590837",
"229157",
"181187",
"528661",
"331384",
"246049",
"439540",
"48840",
"489199",
"317569",
"500403",
"505611",
"187790",
"385484",
"485507",
"514425",
"221061",
"264934",
"36917",
"212713",
"80538",
"391420",
"301833",
"480472",
"45078",
"324717",
"71569"
] |
[
"Assuming it's your business, endorse the check as yourself and your DBA name, payable to your personal account",
"\"If your son endorses the check or better still, endorses it with \"\"for deposit only\"\" and places the account number in the endorsement, it's likely the bank will accept it for deposit. In this manner, you are not putting it in your account, you are putting it in his. I have a family member perform this action occasionally with zero complications and she does not have an account at the same bank.\"",
"\"Depending on how the check was made out, you may be able to file a DBA (\"\"doing business as\"\"), which would give you the business name locally. Then open an account under that name and deposit the check. Or simply go back to the customer and say \"\"hey, I don't have yhe company bak account open yet; could I exchange this check for one made out to me personally?\"\" That's how I've been handling hobby income under a company name. (I really do ned to file that DBA!)\"",
"If the check is made out to him, he will have to endorse it. Which means that at some point he will have to physically have the check in his hands. At which point, he could probably just deposit it himself. If there's some problem getting the check to him for him to sign it, you could call the bank and ask if they'll accept it for deposit to his account without a signature. I understand some banks will do this. I would be very surprised if they would let you deposit a check made out to your son to your account. They'd have no way of knowing if your son was agreeable to this or if you were stealing his money. Traditionally, the person the check was made out to could endorse it, give the check to someone else, and then the second person could endorse it and deposit it to their (the second person's) account. That is, the endorsement would have your son's signature, and below that, your signature. But I understand some banks won't accept this any more, so you'd be best to check before trying it.",
"Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it. It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank. In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID. You don't even technically have to be there. Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business.",
"\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"",
"How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.",
"Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.",
"You can sign over the check, of course. However, you'll probably need to deal with 1099 issued to you personally instead of the corporation later on. You'll have to add it to your tax return as income and negative income on the same line (line 21 of your 1040) and attach a statement explaining that the income was erroneously reported to you and will be reported on the corp form 1120. Another option is to return the check to the payer and ask them to reissue in the correct name. Next time, make sure to provide the properly filled W9 to your payers with the details of the corporation, not your own details.",
"Yes, you can do this. I do this for my own single-member LLC, but I usually do it online instead of writing a check. Your only legal obligation is to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to the IRS. I'm assuming you are not otherwise doing anything shady. For example, that you have funds in your business account to pay any expenses that will be due soon or that you are trying to somehow pull a fast one on someone else...",
"You can simply deposit the check into your joint account. You should be able do that even without his signature. Then you can transfer the money out of that account and into yours.",
"In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account. You do if you are exchanging the check for cash. Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them. Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account. Individuals can do the same. I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them. Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them. I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check.",
"\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"",
"\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \"\"prize check\"\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \"\"estimated payment\"\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\"",
"if the deposit earned interest, you could be liable for taxes on the interest earned. If it ended up in a checking account, then you will not be liable for any taxes since checking accounts do not earn interest anyway. Your bank may inquire about where these transfers are coming from and question the legality of it.",
"Banks has to complete KYC. In case you want to open a bank account, most will ask for proof of address. I also feel it is difficult for bank to encash a cheque payable to a business in your account. Opening a bank account in the name of your business or alternatively obtaining a cheque payable to your personal name seems the only alternatives to me.",
"\"If you sign the check \"\"For Deposit Only\"\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \"\"payable name\"\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \"\"Pay to the Order Of\"\" line on checks. Say the church's \"\"legal name\"\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \"\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\". You'll get offering checks made out to \"\"Saint Barnabas\"\", \"\"Saint B's\"\", \"\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\", \"\"Red Bluff Episcopal\"\", \"\"Youth Group Fund\"\", \"\"Pastor Frank\"\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \"\"earmarked\"\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \"\"discretionary fund\"\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\"",
"\"If the cheque is not crossed, then your friend can write \"\"payable to [your name]\"\" above his signature when he endorses it. If it is crossed, you'll have to deposit it into his account. Given that one can deposit cheques at ATMs, this shouldn't require his presence. Just make sure he endorses it before you leave! It also might take a few more days to clear.\"",
"Deposit check and send a personal check (resulting in tax and IRS reporting issues) That's a bad idea, unless maybe the check you're receiving is a certified bank draft. Suppose the insurance company are crooks and the check is fraudulent. It could take weeks or months for some investigation to catch up to that, long after your own personal check was cashed by the pharmacy. The bank will then put you on hook for the 20 grand by reversing the check, even though the funds had been deposited into your account. Do not put yourself into the position of a money handler; you don't have the cash base, insurance, government protection and whatever else that a bank has. And, of course, you're being a free money handler if you do that. (You're not even compensated for postage, time and whatnot). If you're handling money between two parties, you should collect a percentage, or else refuse. That percentage has to be in proportion to the risk, since cashing a check for someone carries a risk similar to (and is effectively a form of) making a loan.",
"buy a cashiers check with the cash (a CRT will be nec if over 10 K) and deposit the cashiers check",
"When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.",
"All banks in the US that I have ever worked with will allow you to deposit checks if: In your case, you have 3 options:",
"I'd consider this offer. Keep in mind, any time you write a check, there's the information he's asking for. If it makes you feel comfortable, use the small balance account, or set up a 4th one you'll use for these incoming deposits only.",
"When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.",
"How? Basically all banks nowadays allow online deposits from a smartphone - you take a picture from the front and back of the check, and submit it, and that's it. You still have the paper check, and it looks pristine, but it is deposited (and the paper is worthless).",
"\"There are at least a couple problems: Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account. Check bounces. They get charged a fee. You get charged a fee. You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid. The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee. Your \"\"friend\"\" may really be a crook. The check is no good. Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check. You cash it. They take the money and disappear. You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case). My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks. In general, I would view this the same as a loan. When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose. Note that an actual loan would be safer. If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50. If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal. You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police. If they don't believe you, they could charge you. A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail.\"",
"\"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write \"\"pay to the order of \"\" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write \"\"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY\"\" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!\"",
"I'll assume you are asking about a check for some kind of work or service that you provided them, that they hired your company to do. No large business will do that. In their records they have a contract with your company to provide services. If they write you a personal check it won't match with the contract, and when the auditors see that they will scream blue murder. Whoever wrote the check will have to prove that you are legitimately the same thing as the company (that doesn't mean taking your word for it). They may also have to show they weren't conspiring with you to commit tax fraud ( that wasn't your intention of course, was it?) .",
"\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \"\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\"\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\"",
"\"Basically, yes. Don't use your business account for personal spending because it may invalidate your limited liability protection. Transfer a chunk of money to your personal account, write it down in your books as \"\"distribution\"\" (or something similar), and use it in whatever way you want from your personal account. The IRS doesn't care per se, but mixing personal and business expenses will cause troubles if you're audited because you'll have problems distinguishing one from another. You should be using some accounting software to make sure you track your expenses and distributions correctly. It will make it easier for you to prepare reports for yourself and your tax preparer, and also track distributions and expenses. I suggest GnuCash, I find it highly effective for a small business with not so many transactions (if you have a lot of transactions, then maybe QuickBooks would be more appropriate).\"",
"You mentioned depositing the check and then sending a personal check. Be sure to account for time, since any deposit over $10,000 the money will be made available in increments, so it may take 10-14 days to get the full amount in your account before you could send a personal check. I would not recommend this option regardless, but if you do, just a heads up.",
"I have seen this happen with IRS checks, the bank told me that the IRS imposes the requirement. Otherwise, though, I have frequently deposited checks made out to my wife into a joint checking account without her signature, they have never cared one bit.",
"\"In absence of complete information, I can only speculate that your phrases We both endorsed the cheque, and especially since the name on the cheque doesn't seem to be the name of the person I spoke with. mean that the check was payable to Jane Doe but was endorsed by someone you know as Wade Roe using language such as \"\"Pay to the order of user6344\"\" and then you endorsed it as something like \"\"For deposit only to Acct# 1234567890\"\" and gave it to the bank teller with a deposit slip for Acct# 1234567890. Presumably Wade Roe did not accompany you to the bank and the bank teller did not notice that the check was not endorsed to you by Jane Doe, or she did go with you to the bank but the teller did not check her ID when she endorsed the check. In any case, you, as a customer of the bank, are definitely on the hook in the sense that you in effect guaranteed the validity of Wade Roe's endorsement of the check payable to Jane Doe. You presented the check to the bank as a legitimate check that you were legitimately entitled to deposit in your account. In effect, if fraud was committed, you committed the fraud by depositing a bum check. As all the other answers have said, you need to go down to the bank and talk to a bank officer, preferably the manager, right away. Don't go to a teller (even though in many banks, the tellers have job titles like assistant vice-president.\"",
"They can go to an ATM and deposit it in to their account. The ATM does not care to read the name, and the bank does not care to verify anything if the check goes through (meaning the bank it is drawn on pays). So if nobody complains, that's it, he has your money. You would need to go to the check-writer's bank and ask for help, or look at the check-writer's cancelled check copy if you get to it. That bank can find out where it was deposited to, and then you have to go after the guy and get your money back - if it is still recoverable! - if it is a poor sod and he already blew your 5 grand, you can sue his pants off, but there are no 5 grand in them anywhere. So bad luck for you. Technically, the bank is not supposed to accept the check if the name doesn't match. At the counter, that might get a question, but as said above, there are deposit ATMs, and he could also just endorse the check to himself and sign the endorsement with some illegible scrawling, and claim that this is your signature - how would Joe the teller know? Either way, he gets the check in his account, and then he can take it out and blow it. It is legally clearly theft or fraud, and probably a federal crime, but if the guy is bankrupt, that doesn't help you much. Depending on that bank's fine-print, they might or might not cover your loss, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Better don't lose a check.",
"I don't know if it's legal but your talking about arbitraging the rates between a personal savings account and a business account. I also don't know those rates but will venture to guess that they are not materially different, after taking into account the cost of setting up and registering an LLC, for it to be worth the time and effort.",
"Your main concern seems to be to be accused of something called 'smurfing' or structuring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring Depositing money amounts (cash or checks) under the 10k limit to circumvent the reporting requirement. People have been investigated for depositing under the limit, e.g. small business owners. If you're always above 10k you should be fine, as your deposits are reported and shouldn't raise IRS or FBI suspicions.",
"You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).",
"I don't see any reason to worry about a check being deposited via cell phone. There isn't anything you can write on a check to make it physical deposit only or similar. If you really want to keep your check from being read electronically you could always smudge the numbers but you run the risk of the bank not cashing it and possibly getting a return check fee.",
"\"A check is simply an order to the bank to pay money to someone. The payor's signature on the front of the check is all that's needed to make that order binding. If you read the check carefully, you'll see that it says \"\"Pay to the order of ...\"\"; that's the payor's instruction to the bank, and as payee you can make a further order, to pay the money to someone else, in which case you'd have to endorse the check to make your order binding. But nobody does that any more; instead, people always just deposit checks into their accounts. When you deposit a check, the payor's signature is all that's needed to tell the payor's bank that it should pay the money. If your bank insists on a signature as well, that's just to pretend that they're paying attention in case it turns out that you stole the check. In reality, banks don't pay attention to signatures, nor to the name of the payee. I once put the wrong check into an envelope, and the phone company got a check for something over $700 on a bill of less than $50, payable to some completely different company; they deposited it and gave me a credit for the balance; none of the banks in the transition chain questioned it.\"",
"\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \"\"write check\"\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \"\"make deposit\"\" in its QB file. (In QB you \"\"write check\"\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \"\"negative expense\"\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\"",
"Years ago, I had a tenant who bounced a check now and then. I started going to the bank where his account was. With my ID they were agreeable to cashing the check against his account. The teller first checked his balance and only cashed when there were enough funds. One time he was $10 short. I wrote a deposit slip and added the $10 it took to clear the check. As they say, your mileage may vary, I hear some banks won't even break a large bill for a non customer.",
"I am assuming this is USA. While it is a bit of a pain, you are best off to have separate accounts for your business and personal. This way, if it comes to audit, you hand the IRS statements for your business account(s) and they match your return. As a further precaution I would have the card(s) you use for business expenses look different then the ones you use for personal so you don't mess another one up.",
"\"You don't specify which country you are in, so my answers are more from a best practice view than a legal view.. I don't intend on using it for personal use, but I mean it's just as possible. This is a dangerous proposition.. You shouldn't co-mingle business expenses with personal expenses. If there is a chance this will happen, then stop, make it so that it won't happen. The big danger is in being able to have traceability between what you are doing for the business, and what you are doing for yourself. If you are using this as a \"\"staging\"\" account for investments, etc., are those investments for yourself? Or for the business? Is tax treatment on capital gains and/or dividends the same for personal and business in your jurisdiction? If you buy a widget, is the widget an expense against business income? Or is it an out of pocket expense for personal consumption? The former reduces your taxable income, the latter does not. I don't see the benefit of a real business account because those have features specific to maybe corporations, LLC, and etc. -- nothing beneficial to a sole proprietor who has no reports/employees. The real benefit is that there is a clear delineation between business income/expenses and personal income/expenses. This account can also accept money and hold it from business transactions/sales, and possibly transfer some to the personal account if there's no need for reinvesting said amount/percentage. What you are looking for is a commonly called a current account, because it is used for current expenses. If you are moving money out of the account to your personal account, that speaks to paying yourself, which has other implications as well. The safest/cleanest way to do this is to: While this may sound like overkill, it is the only way to guarantee that income/expenses are allocated to the correct entity (i.e. you, or your business). From a Canadian standpoint:\"",
"Quick get a Social Security Number for the child. You will need it before you file your taxes early next year. If you don't have a SSN for your child you will not be able to claim them as a dependent. If you applied for one already, many do so at the hospital, then wait for it to arrive. The next step is to open a savings account with the child's SSN. Then have your parent write the check in the child's name and deposit it into the account. If it is written in the child's name already then you don't need a new check from them. If the check is large, you may run into problems if you take a check in the name of a minor and try and deposit it into your account. The bank would have no idea that the person is related to you.",
"\"Let me do the math. .6% * (not large) = really tiny. Since \"\"not large\"\" = \"\"small\"\" , etc. I suggest that even a small chance that you need to explain this to anyone in the future is a sign to avoid the risk. Yes, there are times that it's illegal. A real estate office may not deposit escrow funds into anything but a segregated escrow account. In your case, even if legal, it messes up 'the books' and can cost you more in grief than the 'tiny amount' saves you in cash.\"",
"\"Its a classic sign of fraud. The fraud is on you. You cashed the check not given to you, and not endorsed by the person its given to, so even if the check is legit you're still in trouble. There are many variations of this scheme, but the common thing is that the \"\"innocent\"\" third party is given a check to cash, and gives its own check or cash in return. The check ends up being forged, stolen, or otherwise invalid, but the cash/check the third party gave is long gone. Usually its cash, because its untraceable. You should wait at least a couple of weeks to make sure the check doesn't bounce. You might want to contact the check owner to verify its legit, and suggest to return the money, if it is not. You might also want to consult with an attorney. Bear in mind, that it might be reported to the authorities as a money laundering scheme (which it very well might be), and you'll have some explaining to do in this case, even if the check is legit.\"",
"\"Yes, kinda. Talk to local banks about a business account, and tell them you want to enable certain employees to make deposits but not withdrawals. They don't need to know you're all the same person. For instance I have a PayPal account for business. These allow you to create \"\"sub accounts\"\" for your employees with a variety of access privileges. Of course I control the master account, but I also set up a \"\"sub account\"\" for myself. That is the account I use every day.\"",
"\"You can spend the money quite quickly. The problem is that if there is something wrong with the check, the bank will ask you for the money back. If the check is from a trusted source (a trusted friend, a business with good reputation etc.) that's fine. If the money is from an untrusted source, make sure that having to pay back the money doesn't get you into trouble. Since most people are honest, this is fine for a small amount, but if it's more than you can afford to pay back, don't spend it. A simple scam is that people send you checks, \"\"by mistake\"\" the check is for the wrong amount, say $910 instead of $190, and they ask you to send the difference back. So you put $910 into your account, send them $720, and six weeks later your bank asks for their $910 back. If someone pays you too much on a check and asks you to pay them the difference, you know it is a scam.\"",
"\"IANAL, but. As you note, when you open a new account, they give you temporary checks that are usually blank in the upper left. I've used such checks and the bank has honored them. Therefore, I conclude that there must not be any legal requirement for anything to appear there, nor does the bank require it. Businesses are often reluctant to accept such temporary checks, for the obvious reason that anyone could go to the bank, open an account with $10, write checks for thousands of dollars, and disappear. At least if they've waited long enough to get the permanent checks in, there's some reason to believe that they plan to stick around. In any case, it's not clear what you are trying to accomplish. You want to hand-write either your business name or your personal name depending on whether the check is for personal or business purposes? I don't see what that gains. You could always use a personal check for business purposes. If you're afraid someone will say, \"\"Hey, that doesn't look very professional, what kind of fly-by-night company is this that uses personal checks?\"\", surely a hand-written company name would look even less professional. Why not just open a business account and have your personal checks printed with your personal name and your business checks with your business name? I don't know where you live, but I have a business account on which I pay zero fees. The only cost is getting checks printed. There's the small hassle of having to make one trip to the bank to open the account. Well, the biggest hassle I have is that the bank won't let me transfer money between my personal and business accounts over the Internet, so I have to either go to the bank to move money back and forth, or I have to write a check from one account to the other and deposit through an ATM.\"",
"\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\"",
"While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.",
"I'm going to give the checkmark to Joe, but I wanted to convey my personal experience. I bank with TD in New Jersey and was informed by the teller that I simply needed to endorse the check myself and indicate Parent of Minor. I cannot attest if other banks will accept this, but it at least works for TD and my situation in particular.",
"Deposit it into your Brazilian bank account. They'll charge you collection fee (shouldn't be high, its a cashier's check equivalent), and the currency exchange rate may not be the best ever, but that's the price to pay for the service. Another option would be to cash the check at check cashing places, but that would most likely require you being in the US (I don't know if any check-cashing store in Brazil would cash a US check).",
"I actually had to go to the bank today and so I decided to ask. The answer I was given is that a check is a legal document (a promise to pay). In order to get your money from the bank, you need to sign the check over to them. By endorsing the check you are attesting to the fact that you have transferred said document to them and they can draw on that account.",
"It would be better to use a bank account and have the refund deposited directly to it. But you said you never had a bank account, so that may be a problem. Another option is to have the refund check mailed to you, and you deposit it in your local bank, converting to your home currency (or not, depending on local laws). Generally, for another person to cash a check made out to you - you need to endorse it first. Physically, on the back of the check. That means you have to see the check. Specifically with tax refund checks there's much more scrutiny since there's a lot of fraud going on with regards to tax refunds. Thus, I doubt a bank would allow a third party cash a check made out to you, without you actually being present there.",
"\"No functional difference. Only impression/convenience. \"\"Business checks\"\" are checks in larger format (8\"\" instead of the regular 5\"\" checks), they can be from your personal account just as well. I didn't have any problem using the small \"\"individual\"\"-standard checks for my company (I actually did get them for free from Wells Fargo, but that was a gesture, not by policy).\"",
"If you don't have a bank account then open one and use the check as your opening deposit. You'll need to obtain a Social Security card as well (you didn't indicate you have one or not, so I'll assume you don't), but they're free and quick to apply for. I assume you're from Washington state, so there should be no problem with you opening an account in Washington, no matter where the check is from. Because of the amount of the check, the bank will probably only let yo have a part of the amount for a few days until it clears, but federal banking rules require quick clearance of out-of-state checks (I think it's 48 hours now), so you'd have access to at least half of the money right away and the rest in a few days.",
"\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"",
"It seems that you're complicating things quite a bit. Why would you not create a business entity, open one or more bank accounts for it, and then have the money wired into those accounts? If you plan on being a company then set up the appropriate structure for it. In the U.S., you can form an S-corporation or an LLC and choose pass-through taxation so that all you pay is income tax on what you receive from the business as personal income. The business itself would not have tax liability in such a case. Co-mingling your personal banking with that of your business could create real tax headaches for you if you aren't careful, so it's not worth the trouble or risk.",
"What you are describing is perfectly legal, and is well under the threshold to attract the attention of the IRS ($10K+). The money is not income, because it is repayment for goods provided or a loan made to your friends. I do this myself oftentimes to take advantage of the rewards on my credit cards. With cash to cover expenses coming in immediately from friends/family, there is virtually no risk. If you are concerned and want to protect against questions in the future about the source of the money, you ought to start keeping records of dates, times, locations, amounts, and the names of people involved when the charges are made. Then track the dates when the cash is deposited into your bank account. That way you can demonstrate the cash flow (Charge -> Repayment -> Deposit) to anyone who needs to know.",
"I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.",
"The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.",
"\"I would contact the security/fraud departments at your bank and see if you can get in contact (via your bank) with the bank that the check is drawn on. By my reading of your question, it sounds like the person you are dealing with fraudulently endorsed a third party check, which you subsequently endorsed for deposit. Explain this situation to your bank. As far as the other person goes, tell her \"\"I'm in contact with the frauds department at my bank, as the validity of the check is in question, and I'm not giving you a cent until the matter is resolved.\"\" Depositing a bad check is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, so it's essential to bring this to the attention of the bank and authorities asap.\"",
"The person writing the check has already signed and endorsed it. The depositer's signature is not to confirm the check's validity, but to demonstrate that the check was depisited to the correct Fred Smith's account, and permit charges to be brought if, eg, Fred Bonzo Smith tries to steal Fred Gnorph Smith's check.",
"No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.",
"If it's always the same person, you could open a joint account. Then fees are avoided altogether. How fast the funds are available depends on what you deposit. Cash is immediate.",
"That's a sensible plan. No there's no reason for the IRS to see this arrangement as suspicious, particularly because the deposits will be from paychecks; you have a record of where all the money came from. Conversely, multiple cash deposits might be considered suspicious. It can only affect your credit if you have credit lines associated with the account (like an overdraft line of credit). Interest earned could increase your tax liability by a tiny amount, but in the current interest rate environment, that's not much of a worry.",
"As long as someone is willing to take it, you can write it! I personally wrote a check for a new car. The dealership didn't bat an eye.",
"You should be careful about mingling your personal money and that of the business, even if it is a sole prop right now. It is a good habit to keep separate business and personal bank/credit accounts just so that when you change to an LLC, it is simpler for you to separate what belongs to the company and what is yours personally. What you're doing makes it more difficult (although only marginally so) to itemize business deductions that were paid with an ostensibly personal credit account. The better habit to get into now is keeping that distinct separation between personal and business. That being said, there's nothing illegal in what you're doing, but it would make an accountant cringe, that's for sure. (chuckle) Hope this helps. Good luck!",
"The fee you were charged to get the money order is gone. You agreed to that fee when you purchased the Money order. It is now a check that you can use how ever you wish. If you have already added a name to the pay to line it can be changed but different agencies have different rules for what they will accept. Take the money order to your bank explain the situation and tell them you want to put the money in your account, or cash it.",
"\"There's nothing you can do. If he has indeed deposited the check, it would appear on your account fairly quickly - I've never seen it taking more than 2-3 business days. However, a check is a debt instrument, and you cannot close the account until it clears, or until the \"\"unclaimed property\"\" laws of your state kick in. If he claims that he deposited the check, ask it in writing and have your bank (or the bank where it was deposited) investigate why it takes so long to clear. If he's not willing to give it to you in writing - he's likely not deposited it. Whatever the reason may be, even just to cause you nuisance. Lesson learned. Next time - cashier's check with a signed receipt. Re closing the LLC: if you're the only two partners - you can just withdraw yourself from the LLC, take out your share, and drop it on him leaving him the only partner. Check with your local attorney for details.\"",
"Once you've made a good-faith effort to straighten the situation out you've done all you can do. Cash the check.",
"You can receive all the Money in your Bank. By Problem if you mean whether it will raise any alarms at the Bank. Most likely yes, such kind of activity would trigger AML. Bank would flag this off to regulators and questions would be asked. If you are doing a Legitimate business, its not an issue. Maintain a proper record of the transaction and pay your taxes. As funds are large 80 K a month, it makes sense to seek to advice of a Laywer and CA to help you keep thing in order.",
"\"It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just \"\"endorsed\"\", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.\"",
"\"No, you cannot do that. You can't just debit someone because \"\"he said so\"\". You'll need a document in writing, that would show the routing number, account number, the amount to withdraw and who is allowed to withdraw it. This document must be signed by the account owner and dated. Usually, these documents are called \"\"checks\"\". But legally speaking, in most countries you can write this on any piece of paper and it would be valid. But better use a standard check. Once you have a check - you can cash/deposit it in any bank, that part is true.\"",
"They sure can. They are two different legal entities, so why not? You can even write a check to yourself, and then deposit it back into your own account. (Not very useful, but you can). The tax implications are a very different question, as this might constitute taking money out of the company. Edit: In some countries, when the business hires someone to work for them, it is forbidden by law to do that, unless he/she is explicitly allowed to do it in his contract. The business owner himself however, can always 'allow' himself to do that.",
"The legal department at the Bank left me a message telling me that the bank check was paid & the recipient got the funds. Call up the bank and find out who the recipient was. Generally it can only be cashed by the person whose name is on it - the original business partner to whom it was intended. It is unlikely to be cashed by the attorney, unless he misrepresented the facts to the bank and got the funds. My question is how could he have cashed it without the original bank check? The other possibility is your mom lost this check, went to the bank and requested them to cancel this and reissue a fresh banker's check and give it to the business partner - in which case the check you had was worthless. You would need to work with the bank and ask them for details. However without the details of the original bank check that you found, it would be difficult for the bank to help you.",
"I agree with Joe, having the money deposited to the US bank account may land you in trouble. Technically, a US business paying a foreigner must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty says otherwise. The US business should do that based on your W8-BEN/W8-ECI form that you should have given to the business before being paid. I'm guessing, that by paying to your US bank account, you (and your American counterpart) are trying to avoid this withholding. That may cause trouble for both of you. I would suggest you talking to a professional (EA/CPA licensed in the State where the business is located) and having the situation resolved ASAP. You may not be liable for the US taxes at all, but because of incorrectly reporting the income/expense - you and the US business may end up paying way more than the $0 you otherwise would have, in penalties.",
"The simplest method is just to write a check from one account and deposit it in the other. If you are the owner of both accounts, you should be able to electronically deposit the check using their phone apps. Depending on the amount you are transfering, it may take a few days for the check to clear.",
"\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"",
"You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says. You will not without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements.",
"\"It's possible to cash cheques by post. When I did this, it involved filling out a \"\"paying-in slip\"\" (I had a book of these provided by the bank) and posting the cheque together with the slip to an address provided by the bank. You could also bring the paying-in slip and the cheque to a branch and deposit them there, and it wasn't necessary that you were the account holder, just that the details on the slip matched the account you were paying into. I Googled \"\"paying-in slip\"\" and found the instructions for HSBC as an example: Paying-In Slips. It explicitly mentions that you don't need to be the account holder to do this, and moreover there are even blank slips in the branch, which you just need to fill in with the correct account details. I think the procedure is much the same for other banks, but presumably you could check the relevant bank's website for specific guidance.\"",
"Why do they have to endorse every check every time they want to deposit it? They told you why. They said it was because it was made out to one person and there were others on the account that could withdraw money from the acct., so endorsing it acknowledged that the payee still wanted to deposit the money, knowing others could take the $ out The reason they insist on it may have something to do with their responsibility in case of elder abuse. They are worried that you may be using your parents' money without their knowledge, and if it ends up being true and they didn't enforce the requirement - they may also be liable. I have a joint account with my spouse, and they do not let us deposit checks written to both of us unless we both endorse. This is similar, and stems from the same concern. So here's the unusual situation In case of a death of a joint account holder - the whole account is frozen until the estate is executed. You cannot deposit a check of a deceased person to such an account.",
"Not illegal. With respect to littleadv response, the printing of a check isn't illegal. I can order checks from cheap check printers, and they have no relationship to any bank, so long as they have my routing number and checking account number, they print. Years ago (25+) I wrote my account details on a shirt in protest to owing the IRS money, and my bank cashed it. They charged a penalty of some nominal amount, $20 or so for 'non-standard check format' or something like that. But, in fact, stupid young person rants aside, you may write a check out by hand on a piece of paper and it should clear. The missing factor is the magnetic ink. But, I often see a regular check with a strip taped to the bottom when the mag strip fails, proving that bad ink will not prevent a check from clearing. So long as the person trying to send you the funds isn't going to dispute the transaction (and the check is made out to you, so I suppose they couldn't even do that) this process should be simple. I see little to no risk so long as the image isn't intercepted along the way.",
"This will probably require some explanation from you on the source of the money and the reasons for the transaction. Cash transactions over $10k will be reported by the bank (in this case) on a CTR report to FinCEN. Keep in mind, mere breaking the transaction into multiple smaller ones in order to avoid the CTR is on its own a criminal offense. Just deposit what you want to deposit, and report what's needed to be reported. Note that if you're a US tax resident - these foreign bank accounts must have been reported already to FinCEN via FBAR, if not - you should expect a very nasty audit with the IRS.",
"Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.",
"\"Open a personal account to link SQUARE with, open a savings account with same bank. Register as \"\"PERSONAL USE\"\", make as many transactions you want for whatever you want $5.00 to $1,000.00 or more, you get paid, square collects a fee. Money is in your \"\"personal account\"\" in 24 hrs, transfer it to your savings acct. 2 years now no issue. I've done the EIN, vendors license, registering business crap, if you work for yourself for private citizens it's none of anyone else's concern.\"",
"Banks in the US have to report deposits of more than $10,000, so they'll contact you to complete form 8300 or something. It should not be a problem, though, if you specify that it's someone else's money, not your income.",
"As long as your bank does not have any limits on the number of transactions per month you should be fine. The danger would be theft while you had the money before depositing into the new account. I would expect that your new credit union could do a wire transfer for you. It might cost you a few dollars but it would be safer and probably faster.",
"\"Generally, ACH transfers are not considered direct deposits. However, you can pay for this service to various providers, and they will do the transfer so that it would be marked as a direct deposit. For example, Wells Fargo allows doing it using their \"\"DirectPay\"\" system. I happen to have a WF business account (free with conditions) where this service is available, but there are plenty of providers. It does cost money (for WF - $10 monthly fee + $0.50 for a transfer to non-WF account), but it may be worth it for you if the benefit is large enough.\"",
"\"There is no \"\"reason why this cannot be done\"\", but you can tell your friend that these actions are officially shady in the eyes of the US government. Any bank transactions with a value of $10,000 or more are automatically reported to the government as a way to prevent money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal shenanigans. \"\"Structuring\"\" bank deposits to avoid this monetary limit is a crime in and of itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report\"",
"It all depends on the trust level you have in them handling it correctly. If they never deposit it, it doesn't matter what happens to the check, they could frame it and hang it on the wall. The risk is that someone someday deposits it (incorrectly double-charging you), and you need to do what think is appropriate to avoid this risk. If your trust in them is too small, only sending it back to you makes sure that you physically control the check.",
"This varies by jurisdiction somewhat but speaking as a Canadian, a small business owner, and accountant (unregistered but some courses and accounting for multiple businesses) this is the answer if you were in Canada. In Canada the cheque cashing limit is 6 months. Therefor any bank will refuse to cash this cheque. It would be totally morally and legally acceptable to ask for a replacement cheque from your employer. In Canada they would generally have no problem issuing a replacement; in other jurisdictions with differing time limits they might want to cancel the original cheque first.",
"\"If you forgot to put the name on the \"\"pay to the order of\"\" line then anybody who gets their hands on the check can add their name to the check and deposit it at their bank into their account. If it goes to the correct person they will have an easy time making sure that the check is made out correctly. They don't have to worry about that picky teller who doesn't know what to do with a check made out to Billy Smith and a drivers license for Xavier William Smith. On the other hand... a criminal will also be able to make sure it is processed exactly the way they want it. If I made it out to a small business or a person I would let them know. You might not have a choice but to wait and see what happens if it was sent to a large business, the payment processing center could be a long way from where you will be calling.\"",
"You friend would only be able to deposit this in NRO account. You may have to explain the source of money. If you declare it as gift, then you would need to pay gift tax. What you are doing is converting USD to INR outside the normal banking network and this maybe in volition of FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act].",
"\"If the cheque is crossed (as almost all are these days), it can only be paid into an account in the name of the person it was written out to: it cannot be paid into another's account, nor can it be \"\"cashed\"\"1 – see the rules on \"\"Crossed\"\" cheques. Note: that while the recipient of the cheque cannot (legally) alter this state of afairs, the writer of a cheque that was printed pre-crossed can – at least technically – cancel the crossing (see above link). Probably the best the OP can do is pay in the cheque on the friend's behalf (as described in Ben Millwood's answer) and then either lend the friend some money until they are mobile and can get some cash to repay the OP (or have the friend write one of their own cheques which the OP can pay into their bank account). 1 As mentioned in the last section of the rules on crossed cheques, the only exception is that designated \"\"Cheque cashing shops\"\" have special arrangements to deposit cheques which they have cashed (after deducting a fee). However, they would (should?) require proof of identity (of the original payee) and so are unlikely to be of any help (and probably not worth the cost for £35). Having said that, I've never used one, so have no idea how strict they are in practice.\"",
"Of course not. You had another job for which you earned money. What does the corporation have to do with it? Corporation is a separate entity from your person, and since it was in no way involved in the transaction - there's no justification to funnel money through it. Doing so may pierce the corporate veil and expose you to liability which you created the corporation to shield yourself from. Not to mention the tax evasion, which is the reason you are asking the question to begin with....",
"You probably can't deposit the check directly, but there are mechanisms in place to get your money through other means. In the US, all states and territories have an unclaimed property registry. Before you contact the company that wrote the check, you should check that registry in your state. You will have to provide proof that you are the intended recipient, having the original check in your possession should make that considerably easier.",
"As I replied to someone else who said that: I'm often having to send stuff with the check. Paperwork, a bill etc. While that would work to a person who knows me, it's usually not going to work with a business or government who needs to know why I'm sending this check.",
"You can move money in and out of the business at will, just keep track of every transaction. Ideally you'd use an accounting software like QuickBooks or similar. Create a Capital Contributions account and every time you put money into the business checking account record it as a Capital Contribution. Likewise, if you take money out of the business, it comes from your capital accounts. (You can create a separate Capital Distributions account in your accounting software, or just use a single account for contributions and distributions). Money coming in and out of those capital accounts is not taxable because you will pay taxes based on net earnings regardless of whether or not you have distributed any profits. So there's no need to make a loan to the company, which would have tax consequences. To reimburse yourself for purchases already made, submit an expense report to the company. If the company is unfunded right now, you can make a capital contribution to cover current expenses, submit the expense report, and wait until you have some profits before paying out the expense report or making any distributions. Welcome to entrepreneurship."
] |
[
"You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).",
"When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.",
"\"If you sign the check \"\"For Deposit Only\"\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \"\"payable name\"\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \"\"Pay to the Order Of\"\" line on checks. Say the church's \"\"legal name\"\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \"\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\". You'll get offering checks made out to \"\"Saint Barnabas\"\", \"\"Saint B's\"\", \"\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\", \"\"Red Bluff Episcopal\"\", \"\"Youth Group Fund\"\", \"\"Pastor Frank\"\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \"\"earmarked\"\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \"\"discretionary fund\"\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\"",
"\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\"",
"\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"",
"If you're a sole proprietor there's no reason to have a separate business account, as long as you keep adequate records, as you are one and the same for tax purposes. My husband and I already have 5 accounts and a mortgage with one bank. I don't see the need to open up yet another account. As a contracted accountant, I don't need to write business checks, and my expenses are minimal. As long as I have an present my assumed business name certificate and ID, there's no reason for a bank not to deposit into my personal account."
] |
4179
|
Why could the serious financial woes of some EU member states lead to the end of the Euro?
|
[
"278196"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"278196",
"518406",
"179822",
"319729",
"443828",
"148194",
"240848",
"133580",
"546589",
"514620",
"133966",
"110746",
"446402",
"540553",
"143823",
"475804",
"310456",
"468297",
"559885",
"535947",
"467825",
"371672",
"65899",
"449934",
"514058",
"398455",
"394585",
"125011",
"309358",
"285420",
"28976",
"22704",
"598030",
"10399",
"14687",
"9649",
"353780",
"63171",
"417170",
"536866",
"589950",
"124624",
"367809",
"122683",
"218045",
"393499",
"80943",
"538582",
"94448",
"304007",
"57923",
"5179",
"393994",
"273077",
"293945",
"283526",
"136073",
"144987",
"400046",
"146878",
"314240",
"538328",
"583903",
"392806",
"147799",
"354159",
"266447",
"515714",
"145299",
"231521",
"312045",
"110628",
"334071",
"189811",
"245308",
"133511",
"540516",
"163557",
"472879",
"497220",
"594157",
"329062",
"112309",
"59110",
"348995",
"156297",
"586865",
"209131",
"369035",
"384694",
"392887",
"345823",
"273387",
"530998",
"129133",
"172443",
"451734",
"14035",
"115848",
"74054"
] |
[
"The Euro is a common currency between various countries in Europe. This means that individual countries give up their traditional sovereign control of their own currency, and cede that control to the EU. Such a system has many advantages, but it also means that individual countries cannot deal with their unique situations as easily. For instance, if the US were a part of the EU, then the Fed couldn't issue $600B the way they are to bolster the economy. The danger to the Euro is that countries will withdraw their participation in order to micromanage their economies more effectively. If a major country withdraws its participation, it could start a domino effect where many countries withdraw so that they too can manage their economies more effectively. As more countries withdraw, a shared currency becomes less and less appealing.",
"Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU. It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal.",
"To be more technical the Eurozone. UK is in the EU, but it's currency is fine. I hope you're not getting downvoted for the technicality. Greece can't print money, it makes default more likely and that's a result of the Euro. That's the core of the problem. Europe wanted a shared currency without a shared budgetary process, this was going to happen eventually.",
"These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation. Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine.",
"US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects.",
"\"The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much \"\"connected\"\". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite.\"",
"\"Why will they find financing when they leave the Euro? Why would their currencies not simply hyperinflate due to excessive issuance in an attempt to devalue? Which is worse for unemployment, austerity or hyperinflation? >they'd be expelled by Germany This is a union correct? Why do you assume Germany holds all the cards? I've read that Gonzalo Lira essay and have read Mish about everyday since 2009, yet still do not think it is so obvious that the Euro will collapse. I gained quite a bit of skepticism from Barry Eichengreen's paper on the [Breakup of the Euro Area.](http://www.nber.org/papers/c11654.pdf?new_window=1) What I see right now is that so far the ECB has only acted in such a way as to prevent outright deflation and meet its 2% inflation target, but not to continuously outright fund the profligate governments. They let the bond markets force those governments into contraction or into default whereas the fed, with its dual mandate, will always buy the US bonds and eventually will inflate the currency as opposed to having a sovereign default. So I think we will see the ECB continue to print as much is needed to meet its mandate but at the same time there will be defaults, bank nationalizations and failures, and a continued lack of growth in the Euro area until eventually the austerity measures bring revenue and spending in line at which point the countries under heavy debt would be stupid not to default because they can self finance. Whereas in the US we are so dependent on deficit financing that as foreigners move further away from holding treasuries we become more susceptible to bond vigilantes taking the reigns which will force the feds hand into outright monetization. Then I think we will see our own government exacerbate inflation by bidding on the same goods that those dollars which no longer are going into treasuries are bidding on. Then I think we'll finally see bad inflation in the US. Of course as long as there is hoards of money fleeing Europe for the US \"\"safe haven,\"\" the lack of foreign treasury investment is pretty moot. *spelling\"",
"Is it possible that the result could be a reduced-size Eurozone, with Germany, France, Austria, BeNeLux and Finland remaining in, while others go back to their former currencies or form a Southern European (and Irish) common currency?",
"Icelandish and Irish Economies began to fail in 2008, Ireland was bailed out by the IMF and Britain, Iceland by the Germany and the IMF. Greek economy has essentially failed, and is at risk of being kicked out of the Euro currency by the Eurozone members. Spanish and Italian economies are faltering. Worst case scenario, everybody can't pay back money and keep accumulating debt, which would lead to a complete collapse of the European economy, resulting in a global economic meltdown. Germany currently are in control of al lot of countries debts (especially Ireland) which means that they will become the main players in decisions regarding the proliferation/faltering of the european economy in the future.",
"Yea, but that coin would be worth shit ( They'll inflate their way out of debt) and there won't be anyone wanting to buy their bonds for a long time so they'll probably print more money. Also, everybody's savings will be gone. Going out of the Euro will put them in a worse financial climate than staying in and do austerity.",
"If one of the EURO countries goes bankrupt, then it will destablise the entire financial industry. IE there would be many financial institutions [Banks, Credit Union, Pension Funds, Insurance Funds, Corporates] that are holding EURO Investments in that country will loose their money and this will have a cascading impact ... similar and much bigger than US Sub-prime crisis of 2008. So if your money is in EURO and you are staying in EURO countires, the inflation will mean your money is of less value ... If you are holding USD and staying in EURO and country goes bankrupt then chances are that it will loose value with USD and hence you can convert them to EURO and spend more EUROs to buy the same items ...",
"It depends on what actions the European Central Bank (ECB) takes. If it prints Euros to bail out the country then your Euros will decline in value. Same thing with a US state going bankrupt. If the FED prints dollars to bailout a state it will set a precedent that other states can spend carelessly and the FED will be there to bail them out by printing money. If you own bonds issued by the bankrupting state then you could lose some of your money if the country is not bailed out.",
"\"Most of those countries had debt that was well beyond prudent levels (~70% of GDP) before the crisis, levels such that any crisis would put them over the safe limit and into trouble. The only exception was Spain whose debt levels were still marginally dangerous. Greece was off the charts, which is why they left off the graph for Greece. Second problem. On top of the high or marginal levels of government debt, the governments implicitly or explicitly guaranteed the banks, without limiting in any effective way their levels of leverage and risk (inb4 Basel II - a lot of paper that made no difference). Protip: if someone guarantees your debt, they should be able to oversee your level of risk, but the governments didn't. As a result these banks, and their CEOs in particular, have a bet that goes \"\"heads I win, tails I win (and you the taxpayer lose)\"\". If the loans are paid off the CEOs rake in millions. If the loans go bad the government bails them out and the CEOs and other top executives - you guessed it - rake in millions. Of course when faced with these incentives the banks will lend too much. This is not free market capitalism, it is crony capitalism. **Bailouts of private companies are not part of unfettered free market capitalism.** The third problem is that the same governments cannot print money like the US can because the Euro is not owned by the individual governments. The answer to excessive levels of government debt is for governments not to borrow too much and not to take on excessive unfunded liabilities such as pensions. This probably needs to be enforced by a constitutional amendment, so it can't be easily overruled. The answer to governments getting dragged into bailing out insolvent banks and then going under themselves, is to allow the banks to go under and to guarantee only small deposits. Let shareholders, bond holders and large (>$500k) lenders to the banks to lose their money. Second, hold bank executives and shareholders liable for the bank's debts. Eg executive salaries and other remuneration need to be clawed back up to a 5 year window. Shareholders should be liable (as they used to be) for debts up to an additional 100% of the par value of the shares. I can assure you this would concentrate minds wonderfully - as it did in the old days when Wall St investment banks were partnerships with each partner liable for all the debts of the firm. Another alternative would be for governments to enforce limits on financial risk, but unfortunately they do not have the courage to do this, nor the morality to resist \"\"campaign contributions\"\" / bribes to look the other way. If these steps were taken the issue of the Euro currency would not be a problem. However printing money (which requires having your own currency) is a solution if it comes to that although it comes at the expense of people who have saved and invested prudently. Printing money (keeping interest rates excessively low for years on end) subsidizes borrowers - the ones who created the problem - at the expense of savers. Clearly this creates terribly perverse incentives the next time around. Anyone who thinks this problem is a result of unfettered free market capitalism is not paying attention.\"",
"\"This question is different because you are asking for actual advice vs. a more academic, \"\"what if\"\" scenario. The answer that I'll give will be different, and similar to another recent question on a similar vein. Basically, if you're living in a European country that's effectively in default and in need of a bailout, the range of things that can happen is difficult to predict... the fate of countries like Ireland and Greece, whatever the scenario, will be economic and social upheaval. But, this isn't the end of the world either... it's happened before and will happen again. As an individual, you need to start investing defensively in a manner appropriate for your level of wealth. Things to think about: I'd suggest reading \"\"A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy\"\"\"",
"So the Euro was doomed from the start because there was no provisions of kicking out and/or halting countries from excessive borrowing? I think the Euro is stronger in the long run because no single country can put inflationary pressure on the Euro due to irresponsible borrowing by that single state (e.g. United States). In the end of the day, they have to work their way out of debt with real economic growth thusly making it an attractive currency for the long term.",
"If they default and try to stay in the Euro, they will be shut out of any chance of financing but they will be obliged to conduct business in a currency that they cannot afford. Their businesses will close, unemployment rise until they have no option to stay in the Euro. Instead of that, they will reissue the Peseta, Lira, Drachma, etc. and then devalue. That will allow their real estate, tourism and manufacturing to be very competitive. If they could stay in the Euro after default they would starve, but I don't think they could stay, even if they wanted to because they'd be expelled by Germany. Here is [Gonzalo Lira's suggestion as to how Spain should have already left the Euro](http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2012/04/will-there-be-corralito-in-spain.html)",
"You don't understand government financing at all. Gov'ts earn revenue, aka, taxes. They also spend money. The different between the money they spend and they money they earn is the deficit. If you run a deficit for a long period of time, you incur a very large national debt. Now, you can finance (aka, pay for) a deficit by borrowing money. This means you can sell bonds, and instead of pay off the debt each year, you just pay the interest. If your spending balloons out of control, your the likely hood of you paying your debt decreases. If you are very unlikely to payback your debt, people won't buy any more of your bonds, and you no longer have the income (from borrowing) to pay off your interest from other debt you owe, or what ever other obligations you own (think mortgage payments, or teachers salaries, etc). Here's were Europe and USA differ: European nations can't just print money. They can issue more debt, but they can't just create more euros. IF you can print money, you can pay off your debt with money you literally created out of thin air (at the expense of your people, this is called inflation). But this is a form of cheating, eventually people won't trust you, and won't buy your debt either. So where do the banks come in? if the government is SOUND and the banks are NOT, the government can backstop the banks. This is what the US and UK did. Greece, Spain, Ireland all had to back stop their banks also. However, Greece, Spain, and Irelany ( and Italy, and Portugal) also have 1) A lot of debt 2) Structurally high deficits 3) Extremely high borrowing costs (high interest rates...because people don't trust them...because...) 4) Weak underlying economies The fourth point gets you in real trouble. if you have high entitlements, lots of poeple out of work, who the hell is paying taxes and what are they going to? You have no revenue! Remember, a govt works just like a household. It is easy for a good household to support one member, but it is difficult for a member to support an irresponsible household.",
"Maybe the EU really ISN'T really that important, and the financial problems that have resulted from European integration are evidence that state sovereignty and self-determination are what's important... But hey, what do I know, I'm not a rich banker/bureaucrat who profited off the whole imposed mess at the expense of the ordinary working people.",
"No. Empirically no. The issue at hand has little to do with market confidence. This loss of confidence is the effect of the problem. It's cause is the result of a wholly inadequate fiscal transfer mechanism that is incapable of addressing demand shocks. While there are relevant political and ideological parameters worthy of analysis, they render themselves moot because of the structural constraints of monetary union. My two cents.",
"Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/",
"\"These have the potential to become \"\"end-of-the-world\"\" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid. Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default. Take Zimbabwe, for example. Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies. Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece.\"",
"The Euro will collapse because Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece will have to default on their debt. In order to keep up with current payments they have to take emergency loans at the same time that their economies are in recession and demands on social programs are increasing. There is simply no way that they can cut enough spending and raise enough revenue to balance their budgets. That is not opinion, it is arithmetic. If they cannot pay their loans they will either voluntarily leave the Euro, or they will be forced out. Next comes France who also has a large and growing budget deficit and a large public debt. It is unsustainable. That which is unsustainable will end. The last reason that the Euro will fail and that it will be soon is Germany. Up to now, all the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have come predominantly from Germany. In order to float the Eurobonds that some idiots think might save Europe, the German people have to authorize their government to participate and thereby take on another mountain of debt. The German people will not vote for that authorization. Is that enough reasons? Because there are more. Lots more. Read [Mike Shedlock](http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com)",
"Its highly unlikely to 'collapse', perhaps there will be managed defaults, yes, but there is no way they will let it collapse as a global depression would follow. If the euro collapses it will also bring down most of the global economy including the likes of China and the US (not to mention the Germans) and they are not going to let that happen. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cf8ce18-2042-11e1-9878-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1y0lc0hy1 P.s. I am surprised we have not seen more suggestions of buying guns, land and building a commune.",
"the problem now is A LOT of people dont have confidence in the euro, and they are taking their money out of it , and confidence is the only thing that backs the euro, or any fiat money. It's gonna get worst before it gets better unfortunately...",
"\"There's an ideological/psychological aspect of this too apart from the practical problems. Eurozone leaders keep saying the mantra: conversion to the euro is \"\"irreversible\"\". There are analogies of this in recent history, it reminds me of the soviet leaders and their belief that communism is where history ends. They genuinely thought that once a communist system is built up in a country, it would stay forever. They believed in the superiority of their system, among other things this lead to the isolation of the Soviet Union from the West and the start of the Cold War. Then, in 1956 they were proven wrong with the Hungarian revolution and while they tried to \"\"clean up\"\" the situation as fast as they could and forget about it, their downhill inevitably started. Back to the present, you can easily see the importance of keeping Greece in the EZ. If Greece exits, the illusion of the irreversibility of the Euro is gone, and it would start to fall apart.\"",
"**OFC there is more to it than meets the eye!** Its a nice breakdown though. In my opinion, there are just 2 ways out: One is to merge the whole European Union into one Nation, much like the **United** States of America. (*United States of Europe*, ehehehe) But i guesss Germany, France and UK are not very interested in feeding everyone else even more. **OR** Split. The thing is, the ones with the most power are not interested in one of these solutions. And now to come to your question, YES Recession is coming (isnt it alrdy here?) Greetings from Austria!",
"\"There will not be enough money to fill the holes that are caused by banks' easy money policies combined with the trillions in derivative \"\"hedges\"\" that the banks have off-balance sheet. The idea is that the chain reaction collapse of the European banking system can be avoided by plugging the holes in the dam in Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. But it is a crazy idea. Next comes France, and then what? At some point there is not enough money to plug the holes and the entire facade collapses anyways. Adults would dismantle the Eurozone now and let each country see to itself. Let the banks collapse. Capital (in the form of dollars, gold, etc) will reappear and means will evolve rapidly to connect capital with people who need loans for business. Consumer loans are going the way of the dodo bird.\"",
"**Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union: Monetary policy inflexibility** Since membership of the eurozone establishes a single monetary policy for the respective states, they can no longer use an isolated monetary policy, e. g. to increase their competitiveness at the cost of other eurozone members by printing money and devalue, or to print money to finance excessive government deficits or pay interest on unsustainable high government debt levels. As a consequence, if member states do not manage their economy in a way that they can show a fiscal discipline (as they were obliged by the Maastricht treaty), they will sooner or later risk a sovereign debt crisis in their country without the possibility to print money as an easy way out. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.23",
"\"The biggest risk you have when a country defaults on its currency is a major devaluation of the currency. Since the EURO is a fiat currency, like almost all developed nations, its \"\"promise\"\" comes from the expectation that its union and system will endure. The EURO is a basket of countries and as such could probably handle bailing out countries or possibly letting some default on their sovereign debt without killing the EURO itself. A similar reality happens in the United States with some level of regularity with state and municipal debt being considered riskier than Federal debt (it isn't uncommon for cities to default). The biggest reason the EURO will probably lose a LOT of value initially is if any nation defaults there isn't a track record as to how the EU member body will respond. Will some countries attempt to break out of the EU? If the member countries fracture then the EURO collapses rendering any and all EURO notes useless. It is that political stability that underlies the value of the EURO. If you are seriously concerned about the risk of a falling EURO and its long term stability then you'd do best buying a hedge currency or devising a basket of hedge currencies to diversify risk. Many will recommend you buy Gold or other precious metals, but I think the idea is silly at best. It is not only hard to buy precious metals at a \"\"fair\"\" value it is even harder to sell them at a fair value. Whatever currency you hold needs to be able to be used in transactions with ease. Doesn't do you any good having $20K in gold coins and no one willing to buy them (as the seller at the store will usually want currency and not gold coins). If you want to go the easy route you can follow the same line of reasoning Central Banks do. Buy USD and hold it. It is probably the world's safest currency to hold over a long period of time. Current US policy is inflationary so that won't help you gain value, but that depends on how the EU responds to a sovereign debt crisis; if one matures.\"",
"But Greece is in the EU - therefore the one-armed drug addict has the means to get money from his relatives. Because most of the relatives have an alcohol problem (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France) they turn to their hard-working but slightly naive neighbours (Austria,Germany,Netherlands) for money. They believe that they´ll have to pay for just one last dose of crack cocaine and then the Greeks will kick the habit.",
">but is in no shape to do so due to their massive debt. Actually it's because they don't have their own printing press for the Euro. They need to drop out of the Euro, devalue their own currency and take control of their own monetary policy and economy.",
"> The European economy was not utterly doomed before the Euro, therefore the fall of the Euro does not doom their economy. I'm not sure how that's related at all. Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok again in the future after a jarring multi-national currency shift. There are tons of other factors in play. First of all, who's going to accept drachma again? What is it worth? What about pesata and lira? These currencies haven't been used in over a decade. Who is going to value them? Who is going to accept them? What happens when the Greeks default? When their pension checks start bouncing? This is what Germany is fearing. Who is going to buy their products when there is a major currency crisis going on?",
"In theory, anything can happen, and the world could end tomorrow. However, with a reasonably sane financial plan you should be able to ride this out. If the government cannot or won't immediately pay its debt in full, the most immediate consequence is that people are going to be unwilling to lend any more money in future, except at very high rates to reflect the high risk of future default. Presumably the government has got into this state by running a deficit (spending more than they collect in tax) and that is going to have to come to an abrupt end. That means: higher taxes, public service retrenchments and restrictions of service, perhaps cuts to social benefits, etc. Countries that get into this state typically also have banks that have lent too much money to risky customers. So you should also expect to see some banks get into trouble, which may mean customers who have money on deposit will have trouble getting it back. In many cases governments will guarantee deposits, but perhaps only up to a particular ceiling like $100k. It would be very possible to lose everything if you have speculative investments geared by substantial loans. If you have zero or moderate debt, your net wealth may decrease substantially (50%?) but there should be little prospect of it going to zero. It is possible governments will simply confiscate your property, but I think in a first-world EU country this is fairly unlikely to happen to bank accounts, houses, shares, etc. Typically, a default has led to a fall in the value of the country's currency. In the eurozone that is more complex because the same currency is used by countries that are doing fairly well, and because there is also turbulence in other major currency regions (JPY, USD and GBP). In some ways this makes the adjustment harder, because debts can't be inflated down. All of this obviously causes a lot of economic turbulence so you can expect house prices to fall, share prices to gyrate, unemployment to rise. If you can afford it and come stomach the risk, it may turn out to be a good time to buy assets for the long term. If you're reasonably young the largest impact on you won't be losing your current savings, but rather the impact on your future job prospects from this adjustment period. You never know, but I don't think the Weimar Republic wheelbarrows-of-banknotes situation is likely to recur; people are at least a bit smarter now and there is an inflation-targeting independent central bank. I think gold can have some room in a portfolio, but now is not the time to make a sudden drastic move into it. Most middle class people cannot afford to have enough gold to support them for the rest of their life, though they may have enough for a rainy day or to act as a balancing component. So what I would do to cope with this is: be well diversified, be sufficiently conservatively positioned that I would sleep at night, and beyond that just ride it out and try not to worry too much.",
"Where are they going to get money from? Their bonds are worthless because they have no viable way of ever paying back debt so why would anyone lend money to them. You, and Keynes think that you can fuel debt with more debt, but all this does is build a massive debt bubble that has to pop at some point. This is exactly what these nations did for years and now are beginning to realize that they can no longer issue debt.",
"\"But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? Ultimately, a US state could go into default. However, I doubt that such a scenario would be allowed to transpire. This seems to happen to California with some regularity. That is, risking default. What would happen is not quite well known: \"\"There is no provision for a state to go bankrupt,\"\" Kyser said. \"\"I don't think anyone really knows what will happen or even if the state will go into receivership if it does default. I can tell you this, officials are looking at all the (current) laws.\"\" (source) I believe that the answer to your question is that it could happen, but likely would not be allowed to occur. The nature of the EU and US are quite different. The individual states forming the US are not separate nations. For better or for worse, the US is a stronger federation than the EU. (Something that is lamented at times when the Feds mess with the purview of the locals.)\"",
"The Euro is currently at 1.24. It's been lower than that before. Why do you think there is still so much money behind it? I'm not trying to push back, but do you know something that the market doesn't in terms of a collapse? Also, if you are so positive, are you heavily shorting the euro? I by no means am convinced that the euro was a good idea. But I am convinced that they will do whatever they can to keep it alive.",
"The EU's situation is nothing like the United States. The core problem there is a monetary union without a fiscal union. All the member countries were bound to a currency they had no control over, despite the health and resources of their economies.",
"See the problem is it's very hard to see how they can leave or ask to leave. There's very little on this in the treaties. They can't be kicked out under any treaty to the best of my knowledge. The only way I can see them getting kicked out is that they are cut off from Target 2, forced to print money/introduce capital controls etc, that breaks the laws of loads of treaties and they then get kicked out of not just the Euro but also the EU. It's all so incredibly messy.",
"\"The risk is that greece defaults on it's debts and the rest of the eurozone chose to punish it by kicking it out of the Eurozone and cutting off it's banks from ECB funds. Since the greek government and banks are already in pretty dire straits this would leave greece with little choice but to forciblly convert deposits in those banks to a \"\"new drachma\"\". The exchange rate used for the forced conversions would almost certainly be unfavorable compared to market rates soon after the conversion. There would likely be capital controls to prevent people pulling their money out in the runup to the forced conversion. While I guess they could theoretically perform the forced conversion only on Euro deposits this seems politically unlikely to me.\"",
"of course the value will be non zero however it would be very small, as all the countries would not leave at once... if its a piig holding the bag it would fall precipitously, if its a AAA (non france) it would go to 1.5 Its very path dependent on whom leaves when",
"\"The Euro is not the reason for the debt crisis. It is only preventing those countries affected from using the easy way out. The fault is entirely that of those countries. They were given billions and billions in structural aid, to put the \"\"convergence criteria\"\" into reality. Instead they chose bubble economies. And no, this is not the same all around Europe. I don't see France or Germany having a giant property bubble.\"",
"It's a failed state. The belief that people are going to hunker down in austerity and pay off national debt was always silly. Sucks for the bond holders, but all these people who bet against sovereign debt defaults have bet wrong.",
"Assuming that's true, and giving you that EU countries are more interdependent than most, you're still massively overstating the effect of Greece's problems on the rest of the union. Yeah, it's a problem. Yeah, they'll all pay a bit for it. Still, the economy is nowhere near collapse because of it.",
"It seems possible if the Euro is partially/entirely unwound that policies could be enacted to prohibit exactly this behavior, otherwise what will stop outflow to the stronger countries on a massive scale? (Thus amplifying the resulting decade-long clusterfuck) We've never had this situation in Europe before, and already for Greece and Spain there are suggestions to instigate withdrawal controls. It doesn't seem far fetched to imagine retroactive controls placed on private deposits in newly-foreign-currency banks. If I were concerned about the Euro's collapse I'd be more inclined to move assets out of the eurozone entirely",
"\"What EU wanted to force Cyprus to do is to break the insurance contract the government has with the bank depositors. The parliament rightfully refused, and it didn't pass. In the EU, and Cyprus as part of it, all bank deposits are insured up to 100,000EUR by the government. This is similar to the US FDIC insurance. Thus, requiring the \"\"small\"\" (up to 100K) depositors to participate in the bank reorganization means that the government breaks its word to people, and effectively defaults. That is exactly what the Cyprus government wanted to avoid, the default, so I can't understand why the idea even came up. Depositors of more than 100k are not guaranteed against bank failures, and indeed - in Cyprus these depositors will get \"\"haircuts\"\". But before them, first come shareholders and bondholders who would be completely wiped out. Thus, first and foremost, those who failed (the bank owners) will be the first to pay the price. However, governments can default. This happened in many places, for example in Russia in the 90's, in Argentina in 2000's (and in fact numerous times during the last century), the US in the 1930's, and many other examples - you can see a list in Wikipedia. When government defaults on its debts, it will not pay some or all of them, and its currency may also be devaluated. For example, in Russia in 1998 the currency lost 70% of its value against the USD within months, and much of the cash at hands of the public became worthless overnight. In the US in 1933 the President issued an executive order forbidding private citizens keeping gold and silver bullions and coins, which resulted in dollar devaluation by about 30% and investors in precious metals losing large amounts of money. The executive order requiring surrender of the Treasury gold certificates is in fact the government's failure to pay on these obligations. While the US or Russia control their own currency, European countries don't and cannot devaluate the currency as they wish in order to ease their debts. Thus in Euro-zone the devaluation solutions taken by Russia and the US are not possible. Cyprus cannot devaluate its currency, and even if it could - its external debt would not likely to be denominated in it (actually, Russian debt isn't denominated in Rubles, that's why they forced restructuring of their own debt, but devaluating the currency helped raising the money from the citizens similarly to the US seizing the gold in 1930's). Thus, in case of Cyprus or other Euro-zone countries, direct taxes is the only way to raise money from the citizens. So if you're in a country that controls its own currency (such as the US, Russia, Argentina, etc) and especially if the debt is denominated in that currency (mainly the US) - you should be worried more of inflation than taxes. But if you're in the Euro-zone and your country is in troubles (which is almost any country in the zone) - you can expect taxes. How to avoid that? Deal with your elected officials and have them fix your economy, but know that you can't just \"\"erase\"\" the debt through inflation as the Americans can (and will), someone will have to pay.\"",
"Oh, you mean converting your money to that of a country whose public debt is [103% of GDP, instead of the 108% of your own?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt) That seems hardly an advancement, even more so considering that the public debt of the Eurozone as a whole is 82.5% of GDP. Greece is just 2% of the European economy, its default would not mean the collapse of the Euro.",
"\"> Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok I'm not claiming it will be \"\"definitely be ok\"\". definitely ok != utterly doomed. > What happens when the Greeks default? If they were paying in drachma, they wouldn't default. They'd print more drachma and inflation would occur. That's how currency imbalances adjust. Germany wants it both ways. They want a stable Europe-wide currency but they don't want a Europe-wide economy, they want their economy isolated from the problems in the rest of Europe. Germany should leave the Euro.\"",
"Andrew Lilico has a likely scenario for when Greece defaults on its sovereign debt: What happens when Greece defaults. Here are a few things: Every bank in Greece will instantly go insolvent. The Greek government will nationalise every bank in Greece. The Greek government will forbid withdrawals from Greek banks. To prevent Greek depositors from rioting on the streets, Argentina-2002-style (when the Argentinian president had to flee by helicopter from the roof of the presidential palace to evade a mob of such depositors), the Greek government will declare a curfew, perhaps even general martial law. Greece will redenominate all its debts into “New Drachmas” or whatever it calls the new currency (this is a classic ploy of countries defaulting) The New Drachma will devalue by some 30-70 per cent (probably around 50 per cent, though perhaps more), effectively defaulting 0n 50 per cent or more of all Greek euro-denominated debts. As Megan McArdle says, there's more at the link, all depressing. I think you're focusing too much on Greece leaving the euro and not enough on why Greece would leave the euro. Greece would leave the euro precisely so that it could pay back its debt in a new currency worth less than valuable euros. The new currency will devalue, since that's the point of leaving. Along the way the government forces its citizens to take the new currency. The money they have in Greek banks will be converted to the new currency: The citizens don't have a choice to keep their euros.",
"Banks cannot survive without the government. Once people lose faith in the governement, the banking system will fail. The banking system failing is a symptom of the issue, not a cause. Backstopping the banks protects the general populace, and prevents runs which will actually destroy the banking system. The burden shifts from the banks to the government. But a gaurantee is not an actual payment. The banks still operate as normal without any cash from the government, but with the knowledge that, if they ARE over extended, the government will take on their debt. the government gaurantee lowers the rates that the banks pay to raise debt to continue to operate. So let's say PIIGS fully bail out their banking system, paying off all debt, that's worse case. Where does the money come from? Revenues, aka taxes. If the gov't takes on the bank debt and has positve revenue, no problem, a little less hand outs, but the country as a whole benefits from having a functioning banking system. If revenues are poor or negative, however, it's just adding to the deficit. Gov't can print money, don't forget. But if revenues are poor and there's no hope to see them improve...Boom, all hell breaks loose, and you get Europe.",
"\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"",
"It's not that simple. The problem is that Greece is not in control if it's own finances. Neither are any of the other countries. The Eurozone doesn't have the power to do things like raise taxes or sell government bonds, and the individual governments don't have the power to float the currency. The Eurozone is going to unwind over the a decade. Greece will leave, but there are another 4-5 countries that should leave the Euro for the same reasons as Greece. Spain seems likely to be the next up, with Italy not far behind. The Euro was never designed to break apart. We really have no idea what the shockwaves of a country leaving the currency will look like.",
"I've been short the Euro for several months now against the USD (could be various others as well). I got in at 1.42, sold on a bounce up to 1.36, bought back at 1.38 and now will probably ride it out lower. Regardless of whether or not the Eurozone breaks up, I see it breaking through the 1.30 mark in the near-term. After that, I'm not sure how low it goes, but there is certainly potential for it to head towards 1/1. In order to reduce the burden, the ECB needs to devalue the currency. Although Germany really doesn't want this due to their anti-inflationary ideology, if Italy comes crashing down, so does France. When France goes, Germany goes into a deep recession if not a depression. They have to devalue some. As for a collapse, I have no idea. It probably depends on how many (if any) countries retain the currency and who they are.",
"It's slightly more complicated than that. Usually a country that was in Greece's situation would be able to use inflation to devalue their currency which would have the effect of lowering the value of the government's debts and also of making Greek prices more competitive in the international market. Or they could use quantitative easing to inject cheap cash into the economy to help stimulate it. Because Greece is on the Euro, however, they have no control over their own currency and their options are highly limited. Additionally, when you join the EU, especially the Eurozone, that's supposed to come with additional internal responsibilities, but it's also supposed to come with additional external ones as well. Greece has a responsibility to get its shit together, but the whole point is that more financially stable countries have a responsibility to help them. Right now that means Germany; they're the ones with the greatest control over the Euro and they're shying away from their duties. If the rest of Europe didn't want to risk ending up in this position they shouldn't have let Greece into the Eurozone.",
"I haven't been following this crisis at all, so I know nothing about this, but I understand why the value of the Euro would shoot up as a result of Greece/Italy/Portugal leaving. But why would the Germans not want this? Is it because Germany is a leading exporter and it would increase the costs of exports from the country? Or could you expand on that for me? thanks",
">The European economy was not utterly doomed before the Euro, therefore the fall of the Euro does not doom their economy. UTTERLY DOOMED and DOOMED are two entirely different things. The former is a quasi-permanent state of affairs (decades upon decades) the latter a temporary one (albeit possibly several years).",
"\">So far, politicians in Europe have held 19 high-level emergency meetings in an attempt to solve this crisis. >All of their efforts have failed. >Right now, this is the situation in Europe.... >-Most EU governments are drowning in toxic levels of debt This mess has been caused by the idea of allowing some people to live at the expense of others. All of it - from the millions of cushy, make-work government \"\"jobs\"\", to the rest of the welfare state, has been caused by the political left.\"",
"If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this website). Europe holds the record for most failed currencies. It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993. I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed. It depends on how it fails. If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros. Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place. Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation.",
"\"to answer the question in the title of your post... + convince your fellow Euro nations to accept austerity, + convince them to elect responsible governments, + demand transparency from your leaders, and... + make sure this never ever happens again. Alternatively, build a time machine and go back in time to either... + immigrate to another part of the world, + sabotage the corruption of the PIGS nations, + prevent the formation of a shared currency, or finally, + do something to ensure Germany didn't lose WWII, as letting them be in charge of everybody's money would appear to be a sound financial decision. That is how you negate the impact of the Euro collapsing. Now, on to the details of your question... I believe your initial assessment is correct. If one accountable nation were responsible for the solvency of its currency, it could be trusted indefinitely. As is the case with the Euro, as no one country is directly responsible for it, the less responsible governments are in a race to exploit it as much as possible. Remember, \"\"Spain no es Zimbabwe!\"\" I think Euro zone nations will be lucky if all that comes of this is the fall of the Euro. Wars between nations have been fought over less significant developments than what Greece, Italy and Spain have done to the financial stability of their Euro zone counterparts. Foreign gold trusts, possession of physical precious metals and precious metal ETFs (GLD is one stock ticker of such a fund, although I would look to a similar fund issued by a company with better physical gold audits) can hedge your currency risk. Check with local laws regarding physical possession of gold. In the USA when we left the gold standard for our currency, the government confiscated all privately owned precious metals and raided customer bank security boxes. Assess your own risk of that sort of thing happening.\"",
"You forgot the biggest thing: Japan still controls its own currency and Greece does not. If you don't control your currency, you have much more limited options when it comes to borrowing money. It is why US states can't borrow a lot of money, they all have to share the US dollar which no one state controls. So states are used to making cutbacks in hard times, but the Eurozone nations have not adopted this mindset. Greece isn't in trouble because it borrowed too much, it's in trouble because it borrowed so much *and has to share the Euro*. Greece can't inflate its currency, so if they can't make a payment they default, no one wants to lend to a place that might default. If Greece had its own currency still there would be no currency crisis in Europe, just some inflation.",
"[Monetary Policy Inflexibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union#Monetary_policy_inflexibility) >Since membership of the eurozone establishes a single monetary policy for the respective states... without the possibility to print money as an easy way out. Italy's options are privatization, austerity, and shifting the burden on to the taxpayer.",
"Rescuing the private banks has made very little difference. None of the countries in real trouble have large banking sectors. The majority of the problems has stemmed from the totally ridiculous public spending. Greece has a hilarious history of over spending. For example, their civil servants used to be paid for 14 months of the year. They also have comedy tax collection. According to there tax office there is only 324 swimming pools in the entire place..... a quick count on satellite reveals 1000s. Some data is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/world/europe/02evasion.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 In reality many nations werent ready for the euro in the first place. But to be clear, blaming the banks is like blaming a snowball for the sinking of the titanic. The numbers aren't even in the same league.",
"Weren't these fuckers just given 120 billion euros? At this point they should probably stop fueling this shit and just let them burn. European tax payers aren't the only ones dealing with this. The American Federal Reserve is lending money to the banks and the ECB to help with this. I don't want to pay for ailing banks in my own goddamn country, let alone those on the other side of the world in a country I may never visit.",
"\"On contrary of what Mike Scott suggested, I think in case of EURO DOOM it's a lot safer if your savings were changed into another currency in advance. Beware that bringing your money into an EURO CORE country (like Finland, Austria, Germany, Nethereland) it's useful if you think those banks are safer, but totally useless to avoid the conversion of your saving from Euro into your national currency. In case of EURO CRASH, only the Central Bank will decide what happens to ALL the Euro deposited wherever, single banks, even if they are Deutsche Bank or BNP or ING, can not decide what to do on their own. ECB (European Central Bank) might decide to convert EURO into local currencies based on the account's owner nationality. Therefor if you are Greek and you moved your saving in a German bank, the ECB might decide that your Euro are converted into New Dracma even if they sit in a German bank account. The funniest thing is that if you ask to a Finland bank: \"\"In case of Euro crash, would you convert my Euro into New Dracma?\"\", they sure would answer \"\"No, we can't!\"\", which is true, they can not because it's only the ECB (Europe Central Bank) the one that decides how an ordered Euro crash has to be manged, and the ECB might decide as I explained you above. Other Central Banks (Swiss, FED, etc.) would only follow the decisions of the ECB. Moreover in case of EURO DOOM, it's highly probable that the Euro currency looses a tremendous value compared to other currencies, the loss would be huge in case the Euro Crash happens in a disordered way (i.e. a strong country like Germany and their banks decides to get out and they start printing their own money w/o listening to the ECB anymore). So even if your saving are in Euro in Germany they would loose so much value (compared to other currencies) that you will regreat forever not to have converted them into another currency when you had the time to do it. Couple of advises: 1) If you want to change you savings into another currency you don't need to bring them into another bank/country (like US), you could simply buy US Shares/Bonds at your local bank. Shares/Bonds of a US company/US gov will always be worth their value in dollars no matter in what new pathetic currency your account will be converted. 2) But is there a drawback in converting my saving into another currency (i.e. buying dollars in the form of US treasury bonds)? Unfortunately yes, the drawback is that in case this Euro drama comes finally to an happy ending and Germans decide to open their wallets for the nth time to save the currency, the Euro might suddenly increase its value compared to other currencies, therefor if you changed your saving into another currency you might loose money (i.e. US dollars looses value against the Euro).\"",
"One important answer is still missing: governments may not be able to do print money because of international agreements. This is in fact a very important reason: it applies to the entire Eurozone. (I admit that many Eurozone countries also not allowed to borrow as much as they do now, but somehow that's considered a far lesser sin).",
"I'm worried that it's, as so many observers or commentators seem to be doing with these crises, pre-empting events. I do wish news reporters would stick to reporting the news, rather than panicking people by putting forward their view that something is going to happen, such as Greece exiting the euro and adopting a new currency. As with these things, expectations are key, and this is by no means helping.",
"If any Euro countries leave the Euro, they will have to impose capital flow restrictions - it's a given, to avoid a complete implosion of the entire system. The idea of retroactive controls is very interesting - this may be one of the first times in a currency collapse that such a system would be feasible (i.e., both the country being fled from and the countries being fled to are under common control). No doubt they would try such a thing if they thought they could get away with it.",
"I disagree. The question is leading, it presumes that backstopping the banks was a cause, not an effect, of poor government funding, which is absolutely insane. A country cannot be brought down by the financial sector, it's just not possible, not even where the country doesn't have monetary authority.",
"I vehemently disagree with this. Greek crisis is completely different form Spanish, Irish or Portuguese crisis. Greece has a balance of payments + fiscal crisis, due to a government which has not been balancing its budgets for decades (ever?). Greece cannot spend its way out of this crisis because this isn't a demand led crisis.",
"I was thinking down the road about what may happen as some countries pile on debt and others are more responsible. I've spent a lot of time oversea and talented people in the capital cities are really mobile these days. Right now there's a small brain drain to the benefit of Switzerland which has some really innovative people moving there. What if a large country like Germany were to do on a larger scale? Educated workforce, innovative and if you overlook a really ugly period, a great history of innovation. It seems they could bring in a lot of people from Japan and (increasingly) the US as they head slowly toward debt of 200% of GDP. Why would talented people who are highly mobile want to stay in a country where the debt will take 30 years to repay mostly on the back of the talented high earning people?",
"My 0,02€ - I probably live in the same country as you. Stop worrying. The Euro zone has a 100.000€ guaranty deposit. So if any bank should fail, that's the amount you'll receive back. This applies to all bank accounts and deposits. Not to any investments. You should not have more than 100.000€ in any bank. So, lucky you, if you have more than that money, divide between a number of banks. As for the Euro, there might be an inflation, but at this moment the USA and China are in a currency battle that 'benefits' the Euro. Meaning you should not invest in dollars or yuan at this time. Look for undervalued currency to invest in as they should rise against the Euro.",
"\">more foreign capital would flow in More capital flowing in to a country that defaults on its payments? Hah, that's a good one! Brazil defaulted in the 1980s, the result was a lost decade of high unemployment and hyperinflation reaching upwards of 80% **per month**. Same with Argentina, only their hyperinflation was above 200% per month. There's nothing positive coming from breaking up with the world's monetary system, any positive results that you get could be obtained with much less suffering by doing whatever austerity measures you need in order to honor your debts. I'm Brazilian and had to go through that situation just as I was starting to work. Ironically, the labour party is now in power here and Brazil is now a net creditor internationally. AFTER the \"\"evil capitalists\"\" took power and privatized the state corporations the situation started to improve, and the labour party finally managed to be elected and now are reaping the fruits of all that they fought so hard against. I remember their slogans in the 1989 election campaign: \"\"the external debt is immoral and unpayable\"\", \"\"no to privatization\"\".\"",
"> Europe is a temporary problem. Lol.. The better question for this thread is how is the European economy not utterly doomed? I see no way at all of the Euro surviving. Greece has already technically defaulted by saying it's not going to pay back all of it's debt. They will officially default when Germany stops bailing them out. Spain is in the exact same situation, just about a year behind. They haven't technically defaulted yet, but they will. They're receiving bailout after bailout and the Greece situation only makes their interest rates worse. Italy is just barely behind Spain, the Greek default followed by the Spanish defualt will send Italian interest rates through the roof dooming them to the same fate. This will eventually effect the US, but our borrowing rates are held artificially low due to the Fed just printing up more fake money and letting the US borrow as much as it wants. If you don't see this scheme crumbling and collapsing, I'm just curious what you actually think *will* happen?",
"The best scenario I've heard is by Tyler Cowen: Basically, the Greek Government runs out of Euros. So they print up IOUs to issue to their workers, pensioners, etc promising payment of Euros at some future date. The first day, some wag holds up the IOUs says 'hey, look at these drachmas'. By the seventh day, the IOUs are trading at a discount - there's an exchange rate between the IOUS and Euros, and you in essence have a Drachma currency. What that does in terms of converting external debts, bank accounts, and etc from Drachmas into Euros I'm not sure about. Obviously this isn't the best way to go about getting out of the Euro, but it's the best 'muddle through' option and given how Europe in general has been dealing with this problem it's highly probable this is the method they'll take.",
">The EU focus on fiscal deficit is completely mistaken. They are the result of the crisis, not the cause. The fiscal deficit was *increased* by the crisis, but there would not have been a crisis at all if nobody had been running up debts either. It's possible to shift private deficits to public (as happens if people borrow more money than they are taking in, default on loans, cause a bank to run out of money, and the government decides to transfer the bank's losses to its taxpaying public). However, it's still ultimately driven by running a deficit until an unsustainable amount of debt is public, via one mechanism or other.",
"Loans and bailouts to Spain is sending a distinct message to the sixteen other nations of the eurozone and one that could severely impact all of them. The survival of the euro is very much close to an exit. Register Today for all the exciting news and discussion groups we have to offer! @ http://www.igoldpost.com/register-today/",
"The reason they have this massive debt is largely (not entirely) because they have been employing Keynes' policies and spending more than they had for so many years as it is. Austerity is not the solution. However, reckless spending is not the solution either. A lot of people arguing for keynesian policies (not a bad idea in most recessions) don't grasp that investors have a limited amount of money to invest and aren't going to place it in a country that has as bad of a debt problem as you pointed out. So many people keep arguing these struggling countries need to spend more. While that would help expand their economies, it is not feasible. Where do you guys going to think the money is going to come from? If investors don't want to provide then they have to print more money, which creates the risk of hyperinflation. Spending could help a little maybe if it was a realistic thing to do. Right now any Keynesian solutions are a fairy tale. Countries like Greece need to do what they can with the resources available to them instead of spending like a bunch of millionaire playboys on crystal meth. Look at the U.S. We have spent trillions and our GDP is still growing at only slightly more than half the rate it has from 1947-2012. If people expect massive government spending to be a fix to these problems, then we are a clear case that it isn't. I acknowledge we could be a lot worse and possibly still be seeing a contraction without the spending, but it clearly isn't fixing our problems and sooner or later we won't be able to take on more debt to fix it. We need real solutions to generate real growth instead of dicking around like this. Other western countries need to do the same. edit:Also what we are doing right now would not be considered keynesian solutions. Keynes would advocate spending money to fix the problems, not just dumping money into the economy. That is something I would agree with. But since our politicians can't grasp that I don't want them in control of the purse strings anymore.",
"For now we can pay off our debt in United States dollars. If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. If we continued printing money we would be debasing our currency against the new reserve currency, which would mean that after we took on too much debt we wouldn't really be able to pay our creditors back after exchanging our devalued currency for the new one on the international markets. We are lucky enough not to have to worry about this now. But I think OP was referring to all countries in these situations. Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. That is why I am saying that America has a very disillusioned view of reality when it comes to deficit spending. We wouldn't have that any more if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard (I don't think the second option is nearly as realistic but we never know).",
"\"Yet another \"\"If X, then EUROFAIL!!\"\" It's really fucking tedious even without the screamingly, mind-numbingly wrong \"\"logic\"\" of this one. If you're lending money to Germany at 0% and still expect to make a profit, it's because the Euro *will be HIGHER* than your currency at the end of the loan period. This one doesn't look like stupidity so much as a really ham-fisted manipulation attempt to engineer a short-term euro drop for a nicer buy-in.\"",
"Most national banks are required by the regulations of their host countries to hold significant reserves in the form of government debt. A default would likely wipe out their capital and your common stock would become worthless. The common stock only has positive value today because of the option value based on the possibility the host country will evade a default.",
"\"The short answer is that you will not be able to go back to whichever discussion you were having and say \"\"the Euro crisis was caused by bailing out private banks,\"\" if that is indeed what you were ultimately searching for here.\"",
"There's no need to move it to a different currency, but if your bank is in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain or Greece, you might consider moving it to a different Eurozone country. Finland, Austria, Germany or the Netherlands seem safest at present. There's a small risk of a forcible Eurozone exit followed by redenomination of bank deposits into a new currency that will immediately collapse.",
"Are you trying to get someone to do your homework for you? This question has been answered repeatedly in the negative by everyone who actually studies the economy. Read Mundell-Flemming model, and learn this stuff. You can see why currency regimes like the Euro make sense from a theoretical stand point, but where flexible exchange rates are a welcome release valve for pressures. You obviously have never studied economics. Hyper inflation doesn't happen becuase of floating exhange rates. Hyperinflation happens when people lose faith in the governing body, regardless of who that is. You think political regimes won't change just because there is one currency? No, they will still spent 1.05 for every dollar they bring in taxes. Hyperinflation is not a problem of floating exchange rates, it doesn't follow from any causal relationship.",
"As others said, Greece cannot set.monetary policy because that is the job of the ECB. If you meant fiscal policy, then you are right: their high levels of debt plus their default this year make it so that they cannot unilaterally borrow more money to run a deficit as the private market will not lend to them. This makes them dependent on a bailout.",
"Those government workers in Greece were just mooching off a corrupt system that was enabled by the blind pursuit of yield and the moral hazard of bailout expectations. They were way overpaid to do nothing but collect bribes and drink coffee all day. Good riddance. Greece is a poor agricultural country with some tourism and some shipping, and needs to go back to living within its means. Nobody is going to starve, and high unemployment was always the norm there until a few years ago - I lived there before the Euro, and they managed just fine despite high interest rates and inflation. Japan has had lost decades because its banks, like those in the west now, are practicing extend and pretend, so there hasn't been a proper flush of the system. The PIIGS should just flat out default and get it over with, rather than slowly default while giving up sovereignty. Even Germany would be better off if the PIIGS defaulted, since it is German taxpayers and savers who are going to pay for these bailouts. Let the banks fail, meaning let their equityholders and bondholders take losses - the depositors will be fine. The resulting lower asset prices will tempt risk capital back into the system, and life will go on. Bailouts just throw good money after bad and prop up corrupt banks and politicians. EDIT: Let me clarify about depositors making out fine. The banks' equityholders and bondholders take losses before depositors, who are insured anyway. In most cases, in Europe as in the US, the write-downs are not large enough to eat through this cushion before threatening depositors. Creditors were rewarded with higher interest for lending to these irresponsible banks, so they should take the hit rather than get made whole at taxpayer and saver (inflation) expense.",
"do you really want another overblown economic crisis that lets billions starve? Throwing money at the problem to temper it is the only solution. What needs to happen while that is being done is aggressive reform and belt tightening - and that's not happening fast enough which may then lead us into a larger full blown crisis. i.e. you may just get your wish.",
"\"Do you have the felling this is going to get much much worse before it gets better? I mean, Greece is going through with austerity measures and will be cutting gov't spending and raising taxes again. They will be cutting over 150,000 gov't workers, pensions cut, etc. How are they ever going to grow? If Spain and Italy follow in this practice, I see another \"\"loss decade\"\" just like Japan went through. If not a total EU collapse.\"",
"\"I was being sarcastic. What I was trying to say was that this is a horseshit \"\"kick the can down the road\"\" maneuver that will only make things worse in the long run. Spain is fucked, Italy is next. Greece is leaving the Euro, and soon there will be capital controls all across Europe. It'll be hell.\"",
"The answer is far more simple. The purchasers of periphery debt have been banks in the periphery. Since these countries don't have a central bank, their private banks were swallowing the national debt since nobody else wanted to touch it. When the market value of that debt plummets, the banks have massive holes they need to fill on their balance sheets to fulfill capital requirements and solvency. Therefore, the banks themselves need to be injected with liquidity. Now you can see why its a reiterative problem.",
"The free market will determine exchange rates. But only sort of. If anyone leaves the euro expect and immediate mother-of-all-bank-runs. Then the new currency will begin to trade both officially and unofficially and eventually a market clearing price will be set. Whether that lands on an officially pegged rate or at a discount to that rate is a total crapshoot and not even worth trying to predict.",
"\"No one's worrying about \"\"GFC II.\"\" A Greek default/exit would hurt banks, but not that much more than is already priced into the market. The capital most big banks have raised would be sufficient to deal with Greece contingency. The real damage would be to GDP figures.\"",
"I suppose they still could risk hyperinflation? Anyways, if they got their own currency that would probably be positive for their exports. Still, what are they going to export? Buying any raw materials would be super expensive with their devalued currency. What is your thought about their exporting with devalued currency?",
"\"Debt can be denominated either in a currency the country controls or a currency the country doesn't control. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country controls then they have the option of \"\"printing their way out of it\"\". That option doesn't come for free, it will devalue their currency on the global market and hurt savers in their country but it is an option. If the debt is denominated in a currency the country does not control then they don't have that option. As I understand it the US debt is in the first category. It's denominated in US dollars so the US government could if they so wished print their way out of it. On the other hand greece's debt is denominated in euros putting them at the mercy of european bankers.\"",
"\">If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. No, a debt that comes into being as dollar-denominated remains dollar-denominated. Reserve currency status doesn't change this. The advantage of having the reserve currency is that other countries have a strong motive to accumulate dollars. Because of this we can pay for our imports in dollars. If we no longer had the reserve currency we would lose the ability to run a persistent trade deficit without borrowing foreign currency to do so. To some extent this would self-correct. If foreigners no longer desired to hoard dollars, the flow of dollars back in to the US would bring down the trade deficit. Going forward, we'd have to \"\"live within our means\"\" with respect to foreign trade, funding imports with exports. Domestically every country that has its own currency, not just the US, can use that currency to fully fund its own domestic productive capacity. Printing money doesn't make a poor country rich but it does allow any country to fully realize its own potential. >Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. This is only true when a country borrows in a currency it doesn't issue. When a country spends in its own currency its policy space is constrained by inflation. To the extent any country uses, pegs to or borrows in someone else's currency that policy space is narrowed by the need to first borrow or earn that currency. >if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard The euro shows us where that road leads. Countries that give up monetary authority give up sovereignty and when they find themselves in a situation where the monetary policy they no longer control is at odds with their needs, their economies get torn apart. That's why one country, one currency is good policy. Stability and maximum policy space is achieved when fiscal authority, political legitimacy and monetary authority are consolidated at the same level. It's a three-legged stool that becomes a fragile balancing act when one leg is taken away. Also, there's a whole side discussion to be had on what the alternatives are to the dollar as a reserve currency. The dollar is in that position for a reason.\"",
"''just how much of the troubled southern EU nations' debt is due to the rescuing of private banks? thanks'' My answer rambled onto related topics. In short, not much. While the actual sums involved in bank bailouts are considerable, relative to sovereign debts run up by having structural/trade deficits for ~10 years, they aren't the problem in Europe at the moment...but they ARE the tip of an Iceberg that could sink parts of the EU and leave the rest struggling to stay above water. An interesting question to ponder, with deceptively simple answers, is: If the % of sovereign debt resulting from bank bailouts is so small, why does the media and general public throw a fit every time a major EU bank gets into trouble? People are worried about losing their savings that they have with that bank. Its a visceral fear that is easy to personally relate to. But scratch below the surface and there is a whole buffet of terror for you to feast on. Assuming leverage of ~26* on assets held by banks and that true liabilities aren't completely opaque to average Joe retail investor, the collapse of the right bank could fire the starting gun on a vicious recession, trigger bailouts of other institutions exposed to the original and all sorts of nasty events. These bank assets include the mess created by rehypothecation, securitization of shitty credit/assets and CDS, commercial paper that relies on never having to be realized as a loss and interference in the money markets and currencys by states. Its damn hard to work out what assets and liabilities a bank has these days, let alone what any debt they have taken on is worth. Euro Crisis Best Crisis. *Pulled from memory, I'm not sure if this is accurate for Europe.",
"> there is no way they will let it collapse Do you think they would have let it get to the point of imminent collapse, if they could do anything about it? Why do you think they will have any more power over the next stage in this debacle?",
"\"Except the government in this case has decided to limit itself to Euros, a currency it does not control and therefore one it can \"\"run out of\"\", making deficit spending a risky proposal indeed. The correct approach is of course to never join such a regime in the first place, and then deficit spend as needed to keep your labor force highly employed.\"",
"\"i hate to say it, and i will probably be downvoted to oblivion, but i don't think you can do anything. i'm not an expert, so i might be wrong, but if greece (or any euro country, for that matters) decides to exit the euro, the currency will be dead within the week. that, from what i've read in various newspapers, will be an incredibly bad news for the european economy. which *will* collapse in a very short period of time. then the collapse would propagate (more or less slowly, more or less significantly) to other economies, especially china and US, possibly middle east, too. at that point, you (well, we) have a major economic cataclysm. would it really matter if you had a tiny bit more money than your neighbour, if production stops, goods don't move that much anymore, and your country is generally in such a deep shit that the potato famine will look like a day in eurodisney? i agree with what other people are saying: they will not allow the euro to fall. \"\"they\"\" sounds like hidden conspiracies, but even if european leaders have taught us that we can expect the worse from them (2 world wars in the last centuries are just the quicker reminder of their stupidity), there's the americans, the chineses, and so on. i think the worst thing you, or anyone else in europe, can do is panicking and moving their money around. if the exchange rate with the euro is not fixed (and nothing is) you still have a chance to lose a significant amount of money in the short-medium run, in a worst case scenario. chill. relax. if you're really desperate and think that things *will* go bad, try turning a hobby into another job, especially if you can do it online and can bring you a steady income eventually. **TL; DR: if the world economy collapse, you will still lose money. live happy. chill.**\"",
"\"For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc. There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds. The \"\"National Debt\"\" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the \"\"Bonds\"\" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong. If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (\"\"Default\"\" on its payments). This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future. Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default. Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge.\"",
">The interesting thing for me - In Ireland's case they need to have a refurendum. I wonder if they will accept this? It's not clear cut whether we need a referendum. It's a common misconception that all Treaty changes require a referendum in Ireland. Not so. In Crotty v An Taoiseach it was accepted by the Supreme Court that joining the EEC (as it then was) involved getting on board a moving train and that even the assignment of new competences to Europe would not necessarily necessitate a referendum. Any change in the fundamental scope of the Union would however require a referendum. In that case the introduction of a Common Foreign and Security Policy and qualified majority voting was a change in scope and referendum was necessary. In this case, it's hard to tell. The EU already has some competence in this area - its possible to levy fines etc for breaches of the stability and growth pact already. I couldn't predict how the Supreme Court would characterise giving the Court of Justice oversight in this area. They will feel presssure from many corners in this case as well - holding in favour of a referendum might be seen as threatening economic disaster, while holding against would undermine democratic legitimacy. If there is a referendum, I predict it will go down like a lead balloon. Forcing the Lisbon Treaty on the electorate twice gave rise to enough resentment - botching the recovery and being seen to enforce austerity on the country made it worse. I imagine support for the EU is at an all time low in this country.",
"ok fuck it then, you'd rather discuss how to pass the CFA five times a week? enjoy! by the way - if you're going to be so condescending with your information - at least be correct when doing so. Ireland and Greece have both taken on debt to support failing banks - whether or not they did before the crisis, and whether or not it is only a small % of total deficit, is irrelevant to his question. this is the entire reason direct recapitalizing has been implemented with ESF - to prevent further deterioration of country balance sheets"
] |
[
"The Euro is a common currency between various countries in Europe. This means that individual countries give up their traditional sovereign control of their own currency, and cede that control to the EU. Such a system has many advantages, but it also means that individual countries cannot deal with their unique situations as easily. For instance, if the US were a part of the EU, then the Fed couldn't issue $600B the way they are to bolster the economy. The danger to the Euro is that countries will withdraw their participation in order to micromanage their economies more effectively. If a major country withdraws its participation, it could start a domino effect where many countries withdraw so that they too can manage their economies more effectively. As more countries withdraw, a shared currency becomes less and less appealing."
] |
3888
|
Why I can't view my debit card pre-authorized amounts?
|
[
"307083",
"319213",
"239632"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"208169",
"448086",
"181757",
"283889",
"91804",
"307083",
"323213",
"9830",
"313441",
"75735",
"385237",
"597933",
"384892",
"598419",
"276733",
"316652",
"261161",
"519328",
"458374",
"209718",
"168283",
"240328",
"319213",
"486617",
"306684",
"443609",
"236289",
"380595",
"382347",
"109164",
"5334",
"514155",
"434320",
"444640",
"151639",
"50347",
"75538",
"186671",
"385746",
"122493",
"359039",
"13800",
"234632",
"294077",
"285638",
"593547",
"178290",
"152689",
"165995",
"456147",
"288657",
"490955",
"517006",
"585890",
"262524",
"185403",
"185434",
"481665",
"423505",
"405848",
"219990",
"266493",
"181697",
"450371",
"428689",
"282934",
"568636",
"303713",
"432077",
"146909",
"278667",
"207992",
"233040",
"181538",
"278666",
"132636",
"175448",
"440527",
"376353",
"64547",
"224801",
"281977",
"516608",
"372282",
"479105",
"86532",
"244133",
"366578",
"210855",
"159783",
"329957",
"595633",
"328253",
"273944",
"239632",
"265640",
"361917",
"39772",
"44113",
"264932"
] |
[
"It's not so much a credit card, but a financial institution's online platform that either provides this functionality or not. The following Canadian financial institutions show an itemized list of pre-authorized transactions (not an exhaustive list): The following institutions show a total value of pre-authorized transactions: Most other institutions show the available credit (e.g. Chase Financial used by Amazon Rewards), which give an indication of how much you have to spend. By subtracting the current balance and the available balance from the total credit limit, you can get an indication of the total amount of pre-authorized transactions. Example: $1000 - $500 - $400 = $100 is the amount of pre-authorized transactions. From TD's EasyWeb demo (http://tdeasywebdemo.com/v2/#/en/PFS/accounts/activity/chq), it appears that they don't include pre-authorized transactions in the Available Credit. You can verify for yourself by logging in to online banking after you make a purchase and comparing the Available Credit to [Credit Limit - Current Balance]. If it is equal, then they don't include, if it is different (most likely for the value of the transaction), then they do.",
"\"PC MasterCard recently added this as a new feature to their online system. It lets you see \"\"Pending Authorizations\"\" for your card when you log in. Their email said: Along with your purchases, you'll see a list of every transaction that's been approved, but not yet applied to your balance. You'll be able to identify these with the word “Pending” in the date column. Here's a link with more information: http://pcfinancial.ca/pendingauthorization/\"",
"The way that credit card transactions happen are: In your example, the card is authorized for the charge but the transaction never actually moves on to the next step. However, your available credit should drop by whatever the authorized amount is and this will not disappear until it naturally goes away when the transaction does not move onto the next step.",
"\"From my days in e-commerce they break down like this? The company doesn't know a debit from a credit card. Got the Visa logo, then it is a Visa through the company's payment gateway. The gateway talks to the bank and that is where the particulars for money is figured out. When I programmed gateway interfaces, I had the option to \"\"authorize\"\" or check for funds (which didn't reserve anything, just verified funds existed), run for batch (which put a hold on the funds and collected them at the end of the night) or just take the money. Most places did a verify during the early checkout stages and then did a batch at the end of the night. The nightly batch allows a merchant to cancel a transaction without getting charged a fee. The \"\"authorize\"\" doesn't mean the money is tied up, although that might be your banks policy. Furthermore, an authorize can only last for so many days. This also explains why most of your banks don't report your transactions to you the day of. There is a bunch more activity on your card than the transactions that complete.\"",
"Is there a debit card accessing this account? When you spend money on a debit card for certain item, including, but not limited to gas, restaurant, hotel, a bit extra is held in reserve. For example, a $100 restaurant charge might hold $125, to allow for a tip. (You're a generous tipper, right?) The actual sales slips my take days to reconcile. It's for this reason that I've remarked how credit cards have their place. Using debit cards requires that one have more in their account than they need to spend, especially when taking a trip including hotel costs.",
"\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\"",
"That's how my power company does it. You authorize them to direct debit recurring monthly. If they screw up and withdraw $1000, you're out until it gets fixed. But it varies from company to company. Not everyone's situation is like your online banking.",
"The answer to your question is very simple: The preauth and the shipment of the goods have no connection within the credit card system. It is possible to process a payment that does not cancel a preauthorization. This is needed for the case where you place two orders and the one you placed second ships first. A preauth can remain active for some time unless it is captured or cancelled. So in your case a preauth was placed and remained active. That you were shipped and billed for some goods had no effect on the preauth because one side or the other failed to attach them.",
"\"There are, in fact, two balances kept for your account by most banks that have to comply with common convenience banking laws. The first is your actual balance; it is simply the sum total of all deposits and withdrawals that have cleared the account; that is, both your bank and the bank from which the deposit came or to which the payment will go have exchanged necessary proof of authorization from the payor, and have confirmed with each other that the money has actually been debited from the account of the payor, transferred between the banks and credited to the account of the payee. The second balance is the \"\"available balance\"\". This is the actual balance, plus any amount that the bank is \"\"floating\"\" you while a deposit clears, minus any amount that the bank has received notice of that you may have just authorized, but for which either full proof of authorization or the definite amount (or both) have not been confirmed. This is what's happening here. Your bank received notice that you intended to pay the train company $X. They put an \"\"authorization hold\"\" on that $X, deducting it from your available balance but not your actual balance. The bank then, for whatever reason, declined to process the actual transaction (insufficient funds, suspicion of theft/fraud), but kept the hold in place in case the transaction was re-attempted. Holds for debit purchases usually expire between 1 and 5 days after being placed if the hold is not subsequently \"\"settled\"\" by the merchant providing definite proof of amount and authorization before that time. The expiration time mainly depends on the policy of the bank holding your account. Holds can remain in place as long as thirty days for certain accounts or types of payment, again depending on bank policy. In certain circumstances, the bank can remove a hold on request. But it is the bank, and not the merchant, that you must contact to remove a hold or even inquire about one.\"",
"I called Bank of America today about the same problem on my account. The service representative said that part of money is available to me and I can use the money.",
"It will depend on credit they are offering you during the period being covered. A gas station locks up what they expect is the maximum transaction for most people. When the prices of gas spikes some people have the pump turn off before the tank is filled, therefore they need to use a 2nd card to complete the purchase. Before you arrive at a hotel they lockup the cost of one night in the hotel, that way they still sell the room for one night if you never show. While you are there they lockup the cost of what you could owe them. This would include the cost of the room, and average room service or bar service. For a car rental, it would be based on the risk they perceive. They don't want to try and collect against a card you gave them when you reserved the car, or when you picked up the car, only to find that you have gone over the limit. Some online systems will let you see what is pending against your card. Others could provide that information to you over the phone.",
"\"As for PC Mastercard like stated by @nullability, VISA Desjardins list the \"\"Pending Authorizations\"\" almost instantly (the time it's take to get back home) in AccesD (Their Web portal for managing accounts).\"",
"\"The \"\"hold\"\" is just placeholder that prevents you from overspending until the transaction is settled. The merchant isn't \"\"holding\"\" your money, your bank or card provider is protecting itself from you overdrawing. In general, it takes 1-3 days for a credit transaction to settle. With a credit card, this usually isn't an issue, unless you have a very low credit line or other unusual things going on. With pre-paid and debit cards, it is an issue, since your spending power is contingent upon you having an available balance. I'm a contrarian on this topic, but I don't see any compelling reason to use debit or stored value cards, other than preventing yourself from overspending. I've answered a few other questions in detail in this area, if you're interested.\"",
"Context clues hun. I was talking about if you go to Chilis and swipe your card for $20 and leave a $5 tip the processing amount the bank takes into account when telling you your available balance is much more likely to be $23 than $25. So the bank knows I went to Chilis the second I swipe my card, but doesnt know the exact amount. I was saying a lot of people dont understand that. They see they spent X at Chilis (processing) and assume it to be fact. I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time with this concept. Also comparing swiping a debit card as credit to writing a check (in terms of when they show up on your account) is a terrible comparison. When a check goes through the accurate balance is taken out all at once a few days later, but when you swipe a debit card as credit a tentative balance is taken out immediately and adjusted to the actual balance when it settles. And calling me ignorant because I don't need the help writing down where my money is at or goes is pretty ironic.",
"I don't use pre-authorized automatic payment methods because there is no control, and it is impossible to get it back. Once you have authorized a firm to withdraw funds from your account, there is no realistic way to revoke that control, save closing down your bank account entirely and moving to another institution. I once had automatic payments set up for my apartment rent, and then one month they withdrew twice on one day, overdrawing my account; it was very difficult to dispute the charge and get it back. The bank was little help as I had authorized them to withdraw funds; it didn't make any difference that they had done it twice, because I had given them permission to withdraw that amount. The property management company was large and difficult to contact, and at first denied any wrongdoing. tl;dr version: it's more pain than it's worth, and I will never do it again.",
"I stopped using pre-authorized payments for things like telephone etc., because it made it more possible/likely for a fraudulent charge to sneak by. But if there is an occasion for choosing pre-authorized payments (like charities, and places of exact fixed price) I use my credit card because then I also get points. Furthermore, I reason (perhaps wrongly) that if there is intermediary step between actual money (bank account) and the source of the bill then it gives me better chance of catching irregularities and hence a little safer. I am sure other members here will laugh my naivety, but there you have it.",
"\"This question is likely to be closed as a product recommendation request. But if you are willing to change the question a bit, perhaps to \"\"How do I avoid having my debit card declined when I know I have good funds\"\" it becomes a reasonable general question. And my answer follows. I can tell you the same thing happens to those of us with credit cards. It can happen when your buying pattern changes. Suddenly buying a lot of merchandise, especially away from home. Nothing like having your card declined while with relatives you visit or while on vacation. I'd talk to the bank and ask for advice how to avoid this. I've called my card issuer to tell them I'll in X city for these dates, to expect charges from there. That seems to work well.\"",
"\"I don't think the reason is \"\"to verify that it is truly me\"\". It should be possible for someone else (friend, relative...) to make a payment on your behalf, using their own card. It is common that \"\"gift cards\"\" are not per-authorized for \"\"Card Not Present\"\" (CNP) use like on the internet, or over the phone. In many cases, you can register your card, online or by speaking to a representative over the phone. After that, you should be able to use it to pay your phone company. Also, depending on where you got the card, you may be able to go to a teller at the issuing bank, and withdraw cash (or get a check), possibly without a fee.\"",
"In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment. If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out. I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily.",
"Given you mention a check clearing, in addition to debit card holds as JoeTaxpayer notes, you may also have funds that are on hold for that reason. While the bank may have stated it would be a one day hold, some banks may mean business days (Monday-Friday), and so it will become available on Monday. This is because checks are not always instantly withdrawn from the other account (although this is becoming much more common post-electronic check reform), so the bank wants to make sure it actually is getting the money from the check; after all, if the check you deposited bounces, the bank doesn't want to end up footing the bill. The bank allows you some portion up front, largely as a customer service; the amount varies from bank to bank, but it's generally a small amount they don't mind risking. $200 is a pretty good amount, actually; back when I was just out of college and frequently spending the last $50 in my account, the pre-clearance amount was usually $50. If the bank does this to you regularly and you feel that it is unfair in how long it holds checks, you might consider shopping around; different banks have different hold policies, or might allow you a larger amount up front. In particular, online banks tend to have more favorable terms this way.",
"a typical debit card is subject to several limits:",
"The RDFI (Receiving Depository Institution) is the place where you keep your money and where the Debit is going to be made. Unfortunately the Debit did not go through for some kind of regulatory reason that I don't understand. You could ask them why people are not allowed to make ACH Debits there or you can try to pay through a different bank.",
"No money is stolen. They don't show you the hold for whatever reason (not so good a bank?), but the money is still yours. You just cannot use it, but it is still on your account. These holds usually go away after a week. In certain cases (like a security deposit) it may take up to 30 days. You can request from the merchant to cancel the hold if it is no longer necessary. They'll have to be proactive on that, and some merchants wouldn't want the hassle. It is however a known issue. When I was working in the banking industry, we would routinely receive these hold cancellation requests from merchants (hotels and car rentals).",
"There's the fear that one might forget the debit is coming and still bounce the payment. Personally, I agree with Dheer's list, I don't want to give someone unlimited access to my account. I make good use of electronic payments where I initiate the payment. For the credit card I use regularly, I have a $250 monthly payment set to go automatically. If I forget to make a payment or lose the bill, at least the minimum is covered. The monthly charges are enough that when I actually pay the bill in full upon receipt, it just goes in toward current charges. Bills like gas/electric/phone are different every month, so an auto-debit is actually more trouble than how I handle.",
"Hence why I pay bill by bill and don't authorize automatic withdrawals. Are you telling me your online banking and/or utility company don't allow you to make non automatic payments online? If so I guess thats the answer to OP's question...",
"\"In short you have to wait till the hold expires. If its one week, its great. Few years back it was one Month. It is advisable you use a Credit Card for these type of transactions. With Credit Cards you are not out of funds like in Debit Cards. Plus the reversals are as much as I know automatic. In case of Debit Cards, the Holds are not automatically released on cancelled transactions but released only after expiry. Where as in Credit Cards, the holds are released immediately on cancelled transactions. \"\"Does the hold reserve it for them or for the original transaction?\"\" Yes hold is for that specific transaction from that specific merchant. i.e. if you try and book the same item from the same merchant, you will not be able to as you have money blocked. Although the merchant sends an unblock message when cancelling, on Debit cards these messages are not supported in India\"",
"Without the details of a specific bank it's hard to give a definitive answer, but here are some potential valid reasons I can think of: And most importantly",
"Open a dispute for the preauth. It is effectively a double charge, since you have already paid for the item. You can provide evidence of the other transaction. This forces them to go through some hassle and waste some time on the issue.",
"\"Well, it took some effort to get an explanation from my bank. Turns out that some supermarkets use direct debit as a method of transferring money for purchases payed by so-called \"\"EC\"\" cards here. I was told that for some reason, a supermarket decided to reverse one of such transactions.\"",
"\"Step 1. Log onto chase.com Step 2. Click on the account in question Step 3. Add \"\"Outstanding balance\"\" to \"\"Pending charges\"\" Step 4. Pay said total amount With all the energy you spent trying to find out if they're doing something illegal, you could've resolved the original issue yourself and be done with it.\"",
"Sign up for alerts. Everytime you use your card, you'll get an alert. That way if there is an unauthorized transaction, you'll know right away. The alerts can also tell you what amount was charged - since this happens right away, the last last cc transaction is fresh in your memory and any overcharges can be easily detected. Has saved me more times than I can remember!",
"\"You should probably call the travel agency and complain. Not that they will care, but if by any chance they do - they can ask PayPal to remove the block. This is what is called \"\"authorization pending\"\". Usually, a credit card transaction has two stages: The merchant requests its payment processor to authorize the transaction. The processor will contact the card issuer with the transaction details and will get the authorization code which will be passed to the merchant. At that stage the transaction enters the \"\"pending\"\" stage on your account. The merchant submits the transaction and gets the money from its payment processor, who forwards the transaction to the card issuer and gets the money from there. The card issuer charges the card owner. The transaction should have the same authorization code received in step #1, and by matching it to the pending transaction, the card issuer removes the pending transaction, and posts the actual transaction. However, if the transaction in step #2 doesn't include the code from step #1, the match doesn't occur and you see the situation you have now: both the actual transaction and the pending are active. In this case the merchant should contact its merchant processor and request the revocation of the authorization code. The processor will then forward the request to the card issuer, who will then remove the pending transaction. As you can see - multiple parties have to actually care for that to happen, and many times they don't, because they don't have to. As to the period - it's up to the card issuer (PayPal in your case), but 1 month is a very long time. Usually it's about a week or two, unless it's a hotel/car rental. In any case - once it expires, it will go away on its own and if you don't mind for the amounts to be blocked until then - just let it expire. The fact that you used a debit card for this transaction is irrelevant. Unless it was a pin transaction, debit card transactions are processed as credit card transactions by processors. For pin transactions, there process is different and you shouldn't see doubles. If it was a pin transaction - contact PayPal and check with them what's going on. Generally, PayPal is not to be used as a \"\"bank account\"\", it is merely a payment processor, and it is advised to remove the money from there as soon as possible.\"",
"The mode of payment mentioned by your bank is called the ACH(Automatic Clearing House) which means that anyone(Trusted payment gateway owners like banks themselves) can process payments. There can be a fraud declared against any payment that you have made and you can get every single penny back. This amount can not be withdrawn in cash at all. However for your situation I would suggest that you ask your bank to block any transactions above the amount of a specific sum, this way they will require your authorization to finalize the payment. You should feel safe after this. Also no one can access any other account apart from the one whose details you are giving out so do not worry about this guy(or anyone else for that matter) to be able to access your other accounts. Hope this helps. (I have experience in payment gateways so I do understand these procedures.) Cheers!!",
"It is barely possible that this is Citi's fault, but it sounds more like it is on the Costco end. The way that this is supposed to work is that they preauthorize your card for the necessary amount. That reserves the payment, removing the money from your credit line. On delivery, they are supposed to capture the preauthorization. That causes the money to transfer to them. Until that point, they've reserved your payment but not actually received it. If you cancel, then they don't have to pay processing fees. The capture should allow for a larger sale so as to provide for tips, upsells, and unanticipated taxes and fees. In this case, instead of capturing the preauthorization, they seem to have simply generated a new transaction. Citi could be doing something wrong and processing the capture incorrectly. Or Costco could be doing a purchase when they should be doing a capture. From outside, we can't really say. The thirty days would seem to be how long Costco can schedule in advance. So the preauthorization can last that long for them. Costco should also have the ability to cancel a preauthorization. However, they may not know how to trigger that. With smaller merchants, they usually have an interface where they can view preauthorizations and capture or cancel them. Costco may have those messages sent automatically from their system. Note that a common use for this pattern is with things like gasoline or delivery purchases. If this has been Citi/Costco both times, I'd try ordering a pizza or some other delivery food and see if they do it correctly. If it was Citi both times and a different merchant the other time, then it's probably a Citi problem rather than a merchant problem.",
"\"AIUI this is not terribly abnormal. There are authorisations (sometimes reffered to as \"\"pending charges\"\" or \"\"holds\"\") and actual charges. An authorisation reserves money but doesn't actually take it. Normally what happens when you pay by card is that the merchant gets an authorisation immediately. Then some time later the authorisation is converted into an actual charge when the merchant takes the money. Sometimes merchants are slow in taking the actual charge, either deliberately (some merchants won't charge your card until they actually supply the goods to reduce the chance of having to process a refund) or because of administrative snarlups somewhere. When this happens the authorisation can time out before the actual charge is taken. So you get the pattern you see, first the authorisation appears then it times out and dissapears and finally the actual charge shows up.\"",
"\"Yes, there is a slight reason to worry as the debit card contains 1) Account Number 2) of course a the Debit Card number 3) CSV code at the back of every debit card and mostly these three parameters are being followed to verify the authenticity of the cardholder, but there are some other parameters like \"\"password of your debit card\"\" and even address in some cases. So stay chill the manager will not be able to make any online payment using the credential of your debit card without password and other details...\"",
"Yes, it is possible, and many companies do it for legitimate reasons. For example renewing subscriptions or one-click ordering. The only way to completely stop it would be to cancel the card. More realistically, check your bill whenever it arrives, and report any unauthorized transactions to the card issuer.",
"This depends on the practise and applications available with the Beneficiary Bank. For a corporate customer, the details are show. For Retail customers they are generally not shown.",
"That all makes sense, but all of those things are the responsibility of the cardholder. If you want to pay off your balance, anything quoted would obviously not include any transaction yet to post. The problem is a creditor refusing to give the balance AND refusing to take a payment for an amount over the previous statement balance. This is essentially forcing the customer to pay more interest after they declare their intent to pay the full amount. Good points, but I don't believe those were factors in this case.",
"Just use a credit card like AMEX Blue that categorizes your purchases, and reconcile at the end of the month. There is no good reason to use a debit card.",
"If your debit card has no fraud protection then you need to find a different bank, many debit cards include it. Even with fraud protection, I don't like to keep excess money in the checking account, so I have checking and savings accounts with an online bank. I can transfer money from savings to checking instantly, 6 times per month, which allows me to keep only what is needed in the checking account. Many online banks have a better overdraft policy as well, where you simply pay a small amount of interest on the over-drawn amount, rather than a set ~$35 overdraft fee, or a $20 fee for them to automatically transfer money from your savings account. I've heard of, but not made use of threshold-based fraud alerts or two-factor approval, which you can set up so that any purchase in excess of $N triggers the need for additional approval via your phone.",
"POS stands for Point of Sale (like a specific store location) which indicates that the purchase occurred by using your debit card, but it can also be the on-line transaction done via 3-D Secure. Checking with bank, they said that Kirchstrasse transaction could be related to direct marketing subscription service ordered on-line. Investigating further what I've found these kind of transactions are performed by 2BuySafe company registered at Kirchstrasse in Liechtenstein with went through the MultiCards on-line cashier which can be used for paying different variety of services (e.g. in this case it was polish on-line storage service called Chomikuj). These kind of transactions can be tracked by checking the e-mail (e.g. in gmail by the following query: after:2014/09/02 before:2014/09/02 Order). Remember, that if you still don't recognise your transaction, you should call your bank. I have found also some other people concerns about that kind of transactions who ask: Is 2BuySafe.com and www.multicards.com some sort of Scam? Provided answer says: MultiCards Internet Billing is a provider of online credit card and debit card processing and payment solutions to many retailers worldwide. MultiCards was one of the pioneer companies offering this type of service since 1995 and is a PCI / DSS certified Internet Payment Service Provider (IPSP) providing service to hundreds of retail websites worldwide MultiCards is a registered Internet Payment Service Provider and has implemented various fraud protection tools including, but not limited to, MultiCards Fraud Score Tool and 'Verified by Visa' and 'MasterCard SecureCode' to protect card holder's card details. 2BuySafe.com Is also Secured and Verified By GeoTrust The certificate should be trusted by all major web browsers (all the correct intermediate certificates are installed). The certificate was issued by GeoTrust. Entering Incorrect information can lead to a card being rejected as @ TOS 2BuySafe.com is hosted on the Multicards Server site",
"Short answer: No. Some of those 'automatic' payments you've agreed to (presumably by signing a PAD form) are initiated in batch by the company whom you're buying from (phone company, cable company etc). So no, the bank has no indication from one day to the next what is coming through. And the request goes from say, your cable company to THEIR merchant bank to YOUR bank. Typically you have a monthly bill date which is fixed, and they should have terms established when it is due. If a payment comes back NSF they can retry once - but only for the same amount and I believe it is 14 days from the initial payment attempt. It makes it predictable, and you'd figure banks would clue in and start to predict for you when things may come out - but strictly speaking your bank doesn't know when or how much.",
"\"This is not a normal occurrence, and you have every right to be annoyed, but the technical way it usually happens goes like this: What can happen is when the merchant incorrectly completes the transaction without referencing the pre-authorization transaction. The bank effectively doesn't \"\"know\"\" this is the same transaction, so they process it the same way they process any other purchase, and it has no effect on the pre-authorization and related held/pending transaction. As far as the bank knows, you purchased a second set of blinds in the store for $200 and are still waiting on the first order to come in, they have no idea the store screwed up. The reason this is possible is the purpose of the pre-auth in the first place is that it is a contractual agreement between the bank (credit card) and the merchant that the funds are available, will be available except under rare special circumstances, and thus they can go ahead and process the order. This lets the merchant be secure in the knowledge that they can collect their payment, but you aren't paying interest or monthly payments on something you haven't even gotten yet! This system works reasonably well for everyone - right up until someone screws up and fails to properly release a hold, makes a second transaction instead of properly referencing the first one, or the bank screws up their system and fails to correctly match referenced pre-authorization codes to purchases. The problem is that this should not be a normal occurrence, and the people you are speaking with to try to sort out the issue often do not have the authority or knowledge necessary to properly fix the issue, or its such a hassle for them that they hope you just go away and time fixes the issue on its own. The only sure-fire solution to this is: make sure you have so much extra credit line that this doesn't effect you and you can safely let it time out on its own, or stop doing business with this combination of merchant/payment that creates the problem. Back when my credit limits were being pushed, I would never pay at gas pumps because their hold polices were so weird and unpredictable, and I would only pre-pay inside or with cash to avoid the holds.\"",
"I doubt it's legal, but for next time, just go onto the website and your balance will be right there front-and-center... no need to deal with some ill-informed cranky lady in a call center half-way across the world.",
"The Bank have risk. In goods, thrre are two profiles, essentially it can be convenient and hence the usage, pay off monthly or spending future earnings today for luxury. The way cash advance is seen, emergency, ran out of cash in foreign/remote location... Debit cards not working etc. One generally needs small amount of cash. The other segment is loss of income. Essentially I have run out of cash and I need to borrow. This is additional risk and hence is limited or curtailed.",
"Sounds questionable to me. If there is no way around this I would suggest opening a new account with only the minimum balance necessary and sending them the debit card associated with that account. If anything goes wrong then the amount of damage they can do will be limited. I would definitely be looking for other options though. Maybe they can just mail you a check or something?",
"This is normal for credit cards. As long as you make the credit card company's cutoff time, they will make the funds available on your credit card rather than make you wait for them to actually get the funds from your bank. The amount of time this takes actually can vary significantly from bank to bank. You do want to make sure funds are available in your bank account for them to withdraw when they do take them though. If not, the payment would get returned and can set red flags on your credit card account that take a while to drop off.",
"If it is one of those debit cards you use just like a credit card without a PIN, I'd cancel it regardless of whatever you are trying to do with your finances. They just seem too dangerous to me. Unlike a credit card, if someone makes fraudulent purchases on a debit card the money is gone from your bank account until you resolve the issue with the issue. With a credit card, the BANK is out the money until it gets worked out. My brother once had his credit card number (not the card) stolen and the criminals emptied his bank account. Eventually the bank put the money back after an investigation, but it had two really nasty side effects: 1) Dozens of checks bounced. The bank refunded the bounced check fees, but not all of the stores would. 2) He had no money in his account until it was resolved. Luckily in his case they resolved it in a few days, but he was already making preparations to borrow money to pay his rent/bills.",
"It is the people who you bought the ticket from. Blocking is frequently done by hotels, gas stations, or rental car companies. Also, for anything where the credit card might be used to cover any damages or charges you might incur later as part of the transaction. In essence, they are reserving part of your credit limit, ostensibly to cover charges they reasonably expect you might incur. For example, when you start pumping gas using a credit card they may block out $100 to make sure you don't pump a full tank and your credit card is declined because you ran over your limit at $3. In general, the blocks clear fairly quickly after you settle up with the company on your final bill. You can also ask the company to clear the block, but I don't think they are required to by law in any specific time period. It may be up to their (and your) agreement with the credit card company. Normally it isn't an issue and you don't even notice this going on behind the scenes, but if you keep your credit card near its limit, or use a debit card it can lead to nasty surprises (e.g. they can make you overdraw your account). One more reason not to use debit cards. More information is available here on the Federal Trade Commission's website.",
"I paid with my Visa credit card. Generally on credit cards, the holds / authorizations are valid for a month on single transactions. So if you haven't been charged on your card, it seems that there was some technical error with the online market place. They were not able to trace this. Is there an expiration date on these kind of online purchases? Should I expect the money to be withdrawn at any time? There are 2 different aspects, one is do you still owe them money and can they ask you; It would be yes, I don't know the timelines. This would depend on establishing a contract etc. They can contact you for unpaid invoice. Can they again charge the credit card automatically ... generally No.",
"\"Executive summary: It sounds like the merchant just did an authorization then cancelled that authorization when you cancelled the order, so there was never an actual charge so you'll never see an actual refund and there's no money to \"\"claim\"\". More detail: From your second paragraph, it sounds like they just did an authorization but never posted the transaction. A credit card authorization is basically the merchant asking your credit card company \"\"Does sandi have enough credit to pay this amount and if so please reserve that amount for a bit.\"\" The authorization will decrease the total credit you have available on the card, but it's not actually a charge, so if your billing cycle ends, it won't show up on your statement. Depending on which company issued your credit card, you may be able to see the authorization online, usually labelled something like \"\"Pending transactions\"\". Even if your credit card company doesn't show pending transactions, you'll see a decrease in your available credit, however you shouldn't see an increase in your balance. The next step, and the only way the original merchant gets paid, is for the merchant to actually post a transaction to your card. Then it becomes a real charge that will show up on your next credit card statement and you'll be expected to pay it (unless you dispute the charge, but that's a different issue). If the charge is for the same amount as the authorization, the authorization will go away (it's now been converted to an actual charge). If the amounts are different, or the merchant never posts a transaction, the authorization will be removed by your credit card company automatically after a certain amount of time. So it sounds like you placed the order, the merchant did an authorization to make sure you could pay for it and to reserve the money, but then you cancelled the order before the merchant could post the transaction, so you were never really charged for it. The merchant then cancelled the authorization (going by the start of your third paragraph). So there was never an actual transaction posted, you were never charged, and you never really owed any money. Your available credit went down for a bit, but now should be restored to what it was before you placed the order. You'll never see an actual refund reflected on your credit card statement because there was no actual transaction.\"",
"I would guess that this is due to the card issuer, not Paypal. Credit card transactions are tagged with a code describing the type of purchase, and some issuers disallow certain types (such as gambling).",
"You are in luck, I have an ANZ credit card as well. I have just checked my paper statement with online, and was able to find a matching online statement in less than a minute. You simply click on your credit card account from the list of accounts. Under Date Range it will have the Current incomplete statement period. You simply click on the down arrow and select the last complete date range ending sometime in late April (depending on your credit card cycle). You then press on View next to the drop down box. This should provide you with a list of purchases and payment/credits for that period, followed by a line with your Credit Limit, Available Funds and Closing Balance. The line below that then shows your Due Date, and Overdue/Overlimit, the Minimum Payment and Amount Due Now If you are after paying only the minimum amount then you pay this amount by the due date (you will be charged interest if you only pay this amount). If, on the otherhand, you wish to avoid paying any interest then you need to pay the full Closing Balance before the due date. You should also be able to get electronic statements sent to your email address.",
"Try to get a second card in your business' name, with a separate card number (like you would get one for a spouse). They may or may not allow that free (you wouldn't want to pay a second fee), and it might be only possible with the second card bearing the same number, which makes it useless. But it is worth a try.",
"Believe it or not, this is done as a service to you. The reason for this has to do with a fundamental difference between a credit card account and a checking account. With a credit card account, there is no money in the account; every charge is borrowed money. When you get to your credit limit, your credit transactions will start getting declined, but if the bank does for some reason let one get approved, it's not a big deal for anyone; it just means that you owe a little more than your credit limit. Note that (almost) every credit card transaction today is an electronic transaction. A checking account, however, has real money in it. When it is gone, it is gone. When a balance inquiry is done, the bank has no way of knowing how many checks you've written that have not been cashed yet. It is a customer's responsibility to know exactly how much money is available to spend. If you write more checks than you have money for in your account, technically you have committed a crime. Unfortunately, there are too many people now that are not taking the responsibility of calculating their own checking account balance seriously, and bad checks are written all the time. When a bank allows these transactions to be paid even though you don't have enough money in your account, they are preventing a crime from being committed by you. The fee is a finance charge for loaning you the money, but it is also there to encourage you not to spend more than you have. Even if you use a debit card, it is still tied to a checking account, and the bank doesn't know if you have written enough checks to overdraw your account or not. It is still your responsibility to keep track of your own available balance. Every time this happens to you, thank the bank as you pay this fee, and then commit to keeping your own running balance and always knowing how much you have left in your account.",
"We have a pre-paid mastercard. This will only allow the spending up to the amount already paid into the card account. Visa Electron is a bank account linked debit card that will not allow the account to go overdrawn but this card type is getting quite rare.",
"Imagine the following scenario: You have a credit limit of $1000 and you want to by a tablet from a store. It costs $600. You then walk next door and buy a TV for $600. You would expect that you would go over your limit and the second transaction will be rejected. As long as that hold is in place, you don't have access to those blocked funds. That makes sure that you can't promise to pay more than you have funds on the card. Holds can get in the way if you are close to your credit limit. People run into this problem if they reserve a hotel room, rent a car, or purchase gasoline. The hold is set at a specific level to make sure you have enough funds for the typical transaction. This distance between vendors is not relevant. The bank is blocking funds based on a request from a vendor. They have to block the funds because you might use the multiple times in the same store. It is possible that the card company might release the hold based on the request by the vendor, but they generally don't. If this is a debit card linked to a bank account, the bank can have access to the overdraft system or a linked savings account. If is is a credit card they can decide to to increase your credit limit, and offer you what is essentially a loan. Plus they can hit you with fees. But if the card is a prepaid debit card or gift card they don't want to allow you to go beyond your limit. If this is a card that you plan on recharging, you could put extra funds on the card to allow both the old hold and the new hold to co-exist.",
"I'm sure it depends on the company, but I routinely run balances greater than 0 on my credit card. The reason is simple: I already budgeted to spend the money, I know I'm going to spend the money, and it's easier to put the extra money on the card at the beginning of my budget period rather than waiting until I spend the money and get a bill. There are 2 relevant numbers: First is the balance on your bill. It can show a positive or negative value, as people have talked about. The balance on my card tends to update fairly infrequently. The second is the available credit. When I overpay on my card, the available credit does not show more than the available debt. The latter value, however, updates for me immediately -- I can see within minutes any transaction on my credit card based on the credit available. One important caveat: Refunds don't always immediately process. You may have to wait days or weeks until that money shows up in your account. Spending the money before it appears in your account will cause your card to behave exactly as if you don't have the money.",
"I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.",
"CC always (applies only if you pay your balance in full). First you rack up points on your card, second if there is an unauthorized pull a Cc will help you a bank may or may not. As a general advice don't hand out your banking information like a credit card number. Now paying bills through the bank is a different matter. This advice applies to companies that would like to pull money from bank accounts. Never do that if Cc is an alternative.",
"As a merchant I can tell you that the only thing the bank gets from me. Is the total amount and a category for my business. No detail, not ever.",
"If this is a pre-authorized automatic billing, and if you have signed any contract with the merchant, cancelling may not block any future charges from the merchant. Happens with gyms, magazines, memberships quite often. There is a time period after the cancellation this will occur, then it'll be completely dead.",
"When you swipe your credit card, the terminal at the store makes a request of your bank, and your bank has only a few seconds to accept or reject the transaction. Once the transaction is accepted by your bank, it appears in the Pending transactions. At the end of the business day, the store submits all of the final transactions for the day to their bank in a batch, and the banks all trade transactions in a batch, and money is sent between banks. This is the process that takes a couple of days, and after this happens, you see the transaction move from your Pending transactions into the regular transactions area. Most of the time, the pending transaction and the final transaction are the same. However, there are cases where it is different. A couple of examples: With a credit account, the fact that the final amount is not known for a few days is no big deal: after all, you don't have any money in the account, and if you end up spending more than you have, the bank will happily let you take your time coming up with the money (at a steep cost, of course). With a debit card tied to your checking account, the transaction is handled the same way, as far is the store is concerned. However, your bank is not going to run the risk of you overdrawing your checking account. They also are not going to run the risk of you withdrawing money from your account that is needed to cover pending transactions. So they usually treat these pending transactions as final transactions, deducting the pending transaction from your account balance immediately. When the final transaction comes through, they adjust the transaction, and your balance goes up or down accordingly. This is one of the big drawbacks to using a debit card, in my opinion. If a bad pending transaction comes through, you are out this money until it gets straightened out.",
"Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.",
"\"As stated in the other answer, debit card payments even contactless ones, do not debit instantly or anywhere near instantly. They can take several days or even longer. However, the fact that the payment was approved would indicate that the contactless device used by the retailer managed to connect to your bank account and could see there were sufficient funds. At this time the payment should also have \"\"reserved\"\" the funds so it will be \"\"pending\"\" as such. Your online banking may not show all types of pending transactions, it may only show Direct Debits for example, if you ring the bank I expect they will be able to see this payment and advise accordingly, out of interest who do you bank with? If you can see your \"\"available\"\" funds you should find that includes this payment having been \"\"reserved\"\" ie you can't use that money, but if it's a small amount you may struggle to spot it. Again, this will vary by bank and how their internet banking system has been implemented. I would expect this payment to debit your account the working day after you made it, or at worst the day after that. In theory with \"\"faster payment\"\" technology it could happened within 2 hours but not all banks implemented that system in the same way so delays can and do occur. If the retailer/merchant banks with the same bank you do, in theory the transaction could be instantaneous, again depending on the bank. Short answer short, the transaction is fine, it won't be void, you just need to wait, probably a day or two. This link has more info, especially useful if you bank with NatWest (as I say the technology is likely to vary by bank to some extent). Your own bank should have their own version of this. http://personal.natwest.com/personal/current-accounts/your-visa-debit-card/contactless.html\"",
"As far as I can see, this is an issue of the bank's policy rather than some legal regulation. That means that you'll need to work it out with the bank. To give you a couple of ideas to work with when you talk with them, maybe something from this list will work: Good luck!",
"Three reasons I prefer not to use direct debit:",
"The post that you linked to saying that a pre-paid credit card is really a debit card is kind of right and kind of wrong. From your point of view, to get a $1000 pre-paid credit card, you need to hand over $1000. So nobody is giving any credit to you. You can only spend money that you actually own, like a debit card. For the merchant accepting your card, it is exactly like a credit card. He doesn't know what deals you had to make to get the card. The merchant just knows that up to some amount, he will receive money. So in that sense it is a credit card and will be accepted like a credit card.",
"I would expect so--the block from spending funds probably does not put a block in place for receiving funds. But ask your bank. Expect a 50% chance that they give you the wrong answer. (Some banks are better than others, but on average this is how often I have found bank employees to be incorrect about anything nonstandard). It may help to ask the bank how often it happens and who actually sorts out problems with blocked cards--and then talk to that person. Then you should only expect a 25% chance that they are wrong.",
"There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.",
"With a check, there are limits on cashing the stale check, but that is set by the banks involved. With a debit card transaction, it will be up the the debit card company and your bank. Imagine a situation where a person finds an old check and tries to cash it at their bank. If the bank considers the check stale, they might reject it, or put a longer hold on the check. When the check writers bank gets the transaction, they will also decide what to do. If they reject it, the first bank will reverse the transaction. You can't count on a 90 day, or 180 day limit; most banks will ask you to put a stop payment on an old check that you don't want cashed. This is especially important step if you write a replacement check. Because there is no check number to put a stop payment on, in fact the temporary hold will fall off after a few days. There doesn't appear to be a way to stop an old transaction. Be careful if you do contact the restaurant, you could end up double paying for the meal if they swipe your card again. Your best option may be just to keep the transaction as pending.",
"I just had this happen to me with Chase and speaking with my executive support contact, they will not return the funds unless you request them back. Which I find appalling and just one more reason that I don't like working with Chase!",
"You probably don't need to call the bank. Today is Sunday, so three days ago was probably Friday (or Thursday depending on how you count the days). Banks normally don't post transactions on weekends - and transactions that do happen on the weekend sometimes don't get posted until Tuesday. I would give it till Tuesday and then call them if you still don't see it show up on your account.",
"Whether or not you have money in your account will not necessarily stop them withdrawing the money, and it certainly won't stop them attempting to withdraw the money. There are two possible scenarios when they attempt to withdraw the money (as they surely will): I think you are just lucky they haven't attempted the withdrawal yet. Put the necessary money into your account now if you possibly can, and consider this a slightly expensive lesson learned about following the Ts and Cs when cancelling services.",
"Debit cards are the dumbest development ever. I now have a piece of plastic that allows any yahoo to cause me to bounce my mortgage. Great. Throw away the debit card. Use a credit card and exercise some self control. Take out a sufficient amount of cash to cover your weekly incidental expenses under $50. If you want something that costs more than $50, wait a week and use the credit card. You'll find that using cash at places like the convenience store or gas station will cause you to not spend $3 for a slim jim, lotto ticket, donut or other dumb and unnecessary item.",
"\"Why would you consider it null and void? It might be that something went wrong and the business \"\"lost\"\" the transaction one way or another. It might be something else. It might never appear. It might appear. In one of the questions a while ago someone posted a link of a story where an account was overdrawn because of a forgotten debit card charge that resurfaced months later. Can't find the link right now, but it can definitely happen.\"",
"When using a debit card there are two limits that may be imposed on the use: the current balance and the maximum daily limit. If the banking institution limits your daily usage that may mean that on a particular day you may not be able to make a large purchase, even though you have money in the bank. Otherwise as long as you have funds in the account linked to the debit card you can make the transaction. The catch is that as soon as the transaction is sent to the bank one of two things happens: the money is immediately deducted from the account; or a hold equal to the the amount of the transaction is placed on the account. A hold is generally used when the transaction is done in two parts: the pre-scan at a restaurant, or gas station. The hold reduces the amount of available funds in the account. A hold or an immediate deduction limits the size of future transactions. To be able to make larger transactions you need to transfer more money into the account. There is no debit card transaction that you can do to artificially allow a larger transaction, unless the bank is not placing a hold or doing an immediate deduction. Because a debit card is linked to a bank account, some accounts have overdraft protection. This protection comes in two forms: they either transfer your money from another account, or they make a loan. Either way there can be costs involved.",
"One possibility is to ask RBC to lend you some money (or more specifically, to lend you some more money): an overdraft, a personal loan, or whatever. To discuss this you should to talk to your personal banker (not a teller), probably by appointment: to explain why you want it, and how and when you expect repay it. You might (I don't know) say that you want the loan (or some of the loan) to pay off the Visa, and/or for the travel. If you've only just arrived in Canada, however, then I don't see why they should want to lend it to you (i.e. why they should think you're a good credit risk). Is there anyone else (e.g. an immigration sponsor or parent or employer) who might co-sign (a.k.a. guarantee) the loan? I have never had this issue before with any other credit cards but I got an RBC Visa in Canada In some countries (not Canada) a Visa behaves more like a debit card, i.e. you can only spend money you have in the account.",
"A federal or state regulator has ordered that the RDFI cannot participate in the ACH network, or the RDFI's participation has been limited in some capacity. You need to contact the RDFI for more details...ask for their ACH operations group. The RDFI is the institution receiving the ACH transaction. It could be either the debit side or credit side. It is not the institution originating the ACH transaction, which is the ODFI. The entire RDFI institution might be restricted for an extremely poor audit, or rampant suspect money laundering or terrorist funding. Specific accounts at the RDFI might be limited for a variety of reasons, including freezing the account for suspicious activity (money laundering or terrorist funding), court order for impending legal proceedings, IRS levies for nonpayment of taxes, or perhaps child support delinquency. I am making an educated guess on the reasons.",
"They hold most of time rental value for example if you rent car for 5 days and decline insurance offered at counter - they will ideally hold 5days x rental value per day + insurance x 5 days most of them round of this figure. if the card is issued from overseas like asia they hold extra $ 500 for collection issues. hope this helps you to plan - this is general thumb rule.",
"There are two separate cases here that people are not separating. Any card will allow you to pay an amount not exceeding the actually posted charges. Some cards will allow you to pay more than this, some will not. My parents have deliberately overpaid as a means of having a higher credit limit, I've been denied (different card) when trying to do the same thing and the website wouldn't even allow me to pay temporary charges that hadn't yet become real. (A human operator would allow paying those, though.)",
"This sounds more like a behavioral than a debit card issue to me TBH. Did you put the money you're putting away into a separate savings account that you (mentally) labelled 'for investment'? That's pretty much what I do (and I have a couple of savings accounts for exactly that reason) and even though I know I've got $x in the savings accounts, the debit card I carry only lets me spend money from my main bank account. By the time I've transferred the money, the urge to spend has usually gone away, even though it often only takes seconds to make the transfer.",
"\"> I was saying a lot of people dont understand that. They see they spent X at Chilis (processing) and assume it to be fact. I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time with this concept. And the solution -- keeping an ACCURATE and independent checkbook register (rather than relying on an \"\"online balance\"\") is still the same. >Also comparing swiping a debit card as credit to writing a check (in terms of when they show up on your account) is a terrible comparison. Nope. It's the same thing. You're still talking about a discrepancy between what has been processed, versus what you have ACTUALLY spent. >And calling me ignorant because I don't need the help writing down where my money is at or goes is pretty ironic. Well, if you're having problems with overdrafts (as you claimed you had) then rather obviously you DO need help (or at least you need to own up to where the problem lies -- your faulty \"\"memory\"\" of what you spent).\"",
"Something is missing from your scenario. If you don't know what it is, start by going to http://annualcreditreport.com and get your free credit report. Review it, and figure out if you have outstanding balances or judgements that you're unaware of. You should be using your card every month and pay it on time.",
"If the debit card is associated with the account, there is nowhere else it could go. The chance is nil that there is another account with that 16-digit number. So either it goes there, or the transfer fails and it is right back where it came from, though this could take some days. If you don't want to risk a wait, talk to your bank now.",
"I've used PayPal for my business for a long time. Sometimes PayPal doesn't trust credit cards. Debit or direct bank transfer are reliable. There is also a charge for using a credit card but I don't think that is the reason. You may be trying to purchase a high value item. That would be a possible reason why PayPal allowed you to use credit cards in the past, but will not allow you to do so now, for these particular transactions.",
"Of course not, this is confidential information in the same way that I cannot phone up your bank and ask to see a list of the transactions that you have made. Any bank has to be extremely careful about protecting the private transactions of it's customers and would be subject to heavy fines if it revealed this information without the customer's consent.",
"A large biller is registered and can initiate an ACH Debit to your account based on the Account Number and the Routing number. He assumes responsibility and completes the due diligence of obtaining a written mandate / permission / authorization from you. There are other legal process where by you get a Power of Attorney that would allow you to transact on behalf of someone. The key point you seem to be missing is that one can ONLY transact from ones account either by walking into the Bank / ATM, or by writing a check. There are other options as well to transact.",
"AIUI credit cards report three main things. The potential problem with your strategy is that by pre loading you never actually get a bill and so your provider may not report your payments. Better to wait until the bill comes and then pay it in full. That ensures that your use of the card is properly reported.",
"I did just what you suggest. The card company honored the charge, they told me the temporary number was solely for the purpose of assigning a number to one vendor/business. So even though I set a low limit, the number was still active and the card company paid the request. Small price to pay, but it didn't go as I wished. For this purpose, I've used Visa/Mastercard gift cards. They are often on sale for face value and no additional fees.",
"Typically, a direct debit is set up by the company who will be receiving the money, not by you or your bank. So you need to contact your credit card company, and ask them to set up the direct debit.",
"I think part of the reason people overdraft is because the online banking app/website doesn't show a true indication of your account balance. I've had mine (at Bank of America) adjust to $30 less than it told me I had when I checked due to processing payments being altered.",
"I found the answer to what you're looking for in the PayPal Help Center. Refer specifically to the question PayPal - How much do you charge to my card when confirming my debit or credit card?. Quote: We take the extra step to confirm your card so that we can verify that the card is valid and that you are the card owner. To confirm your card, we’ll charge $1.95 to it. After the card is confirmed, we’ll refund the amount to your PayPal balance. Here are amounts for cards in other countries: If we can’t determine or don’t support your card’s currency, we charge $1.95 USD to the card. (Refer directly to PayPal for potentially more up-to-date information.)",
"The hard hold is the bank holding your money for no reason but to make money of your. Like the hotel took deposit for my over night and they released the time checked out in there system but it never showed on my account . I had to call the bank why the numbers are not adding up to my current balance. It's illegal practice by banks to hold your money until your realize you didn't spent that much and that musing amount is not even showing on your account. When it happen they will release after 30 days or you can call the bank right away soon as you done your business so you can use the money right away not the bank",
"\"I can't speak for every credit card, but I know two of mine don't have overage fees. The transaction either goes through, or gets denied. Check your card agreement and look for the fee section. One other thing to consider, sometimes when you make an online payment to a credit card, you will notice that the \"\"Available Balance\"\" number on the account will increase right away even if the payment is not reflected on your \"\"Current Balance\"\". If this is the case, and you are positive that your payment will be successfully posted to the account, I say go for it.\"",
"As it is international debits, this will take a while. BofA is right, You have to dispute this with Card Issuer, i.e. HDFC. The worst case for me was around 1 month. Keep chasing and sending out reminders every 3-4 days.",
"I've called both BofA and Amex Customer Support, and they couldn't help. That's because you cannot. Debit card is tied to your checking account, so you can do a cash advance from your AMEX and deposit it to your BOA checking account. It will then be available to use with your debit card.",
"Are you sure the payment has actually posted and isn't sitting in a pre-auth status? If it is, it'll fall off in a few days and they're probably telling the truth. If not, and it has fully posted to your account, I agree with the others. It's very appropriate to initiate a chargeback. You can provide documentation showing they confirmed a cancellation, further, you can show proof that they had no intent of charging you. Good luck!",
"\"I linked my bank account (by making a transfer from bank account to Paypal) without linking a card. This should not give Paypal any rights to do anything with my bank account - transfer that I made to link it was exactly the same as any other outgoing transfer from my bank account. On attempting to pay more that resides in my Paypal balance I get To pay for this purchase right now, link a debit or credit card to your PayPal account. message. Paypal is not mentioning it but one may also transfer money to Paypal account form bank to solve this problem. Note, that one may give allow Paypal to access bank account - maybe linking a card will allow this? Paypal encourages linking card but without any description of consequences so I never checked this. It is also possible that Paypal gained access to your bank balance in other way - for example in Poland it just asked for logins and passwords to bank accounts (yes, using \"\"Add money instantly using Trustly\"\" in Poland really requires sharing full login credentials to bank account - what among other things breaks typical bank contract) source for \"\"Paypal attempts phishing\"\": https://niebezpiecznik.pl/post/uwaga-uzytkownicy-paypala-nie-korzystajcie-z-najnowszej-funkcji-tego-serwisu/\""
] |
[
"\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\"",
"No money is stolen. They don't show you the hold for whatever reason (not so good a bank?), but the money is still yours. You just cannot use it, but it is still on your account. These holds usually go away after a week. In certain cases (like a security deposit) it may take up to 30 days. You can request from the merchant to cancel the hold if it is no longer necessary. They'll have to be proactive on that, and some merchants wouldn't want the hassle. It is however a known issue. When I was working in the banking industry, we would routinely receive these hold cancellation requests from merchants (hotels and car rentals).",
"The hard hold is the bank holding your money for no reason but to make money of your. Like the hotel took deposit for my over night and they released the time checked out in there system but it never showed on my account . I had to call the bank why the numbers are not adding up to my current balance. It's illegal practice by banks to hold your money until your realize you didn't spent that much and that musing amount is not even showing on your account. When it happen they will release after 30 days or you can call the bank right away soon as you done your business so you can use the money right away not the bank"
] |
2395
|
Freelance site with lowest commission fees?
|
[
"179066"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"179066",
"280679",
"165503",
"545324",
"57320",
"148250",
"151758",
"253881",
"296725",
"294517",
"97094",
"103120",
"294645",
"569993",
"396792",
"593101",
"129607",
"242551",
"158091",
"115584",
"446622",
"246986",
"480984",
"192910",
"489285",
"313039",
"250038",
"234747",
"155699",
"14765",
"47044",
"139802",
"451207",
"286320",
"31936",
"374375",
"587711",
"301477",
"186621",
"195336",
"361383",
"277513",
"422476",
"38424",
"108671",
"460348",
"157548",
"501056",
"594182",
"265397",
"234983",
"186889",
"576384",
"30417",
"254635",
"535200",
"585050",
"30524",
"133788",
"539073",
"236931",
"256881",
"532672",
"71293",
"589692",
"296718",
"29009",
"311202",
"17071",
"165645",
"552747",
"512267",
"355930",
"210437",
"274987",
"407844",
"257311",
"475906",
"194090",
"469972",
"282811",
"452544",
"286935",
"201561",
"417769",
"262721",
"176489",
"421924",
"599336",
"362923",
"481091",
"517410",
"270038",
"59670",
"432417",
"117634",
"115815",
"49930",
"553540",
"278430"
] |
[
"\"Your own site/business. I’m in freelancing and internet business for 15 years, 20 years IT experience. Currently i use freelance websites for cheap Asian employees, very seldom for EU/USA employees, and if only if local competition is heavily out-pricing qualified staff. Till I went \"\"limited\"\" i.e., founded a limited corporation I was jobbing as freelancer and sole proprietor, both with limited success due to the strong Asian competition i myself currently hire. The point where freelancing got \"\"not sustainable\"\" as primary income was 2006 for me, don’t want to get into detail but every freelancer who was active back then knows what I mean, it was like whole India got internet. If you have absolutely no references, do it for the references a limited time and see the fee you pay as service for you to get references, then start your own web identity, either as freelancer or as corporation. Make sure you take your very satisfied customers with you. Every \"\"very satisfied\"\" customer in your contact list means 10 new customers which mean 2 new customers which mean 0.2 new customers and so on. Honestly, this info is solely based on experience of this niche fro ma European citizen perspective, if you’re based anywhere else the situation might be totally different.\"",
"\"Paypal has an account called \"\"micropayments\"\" for those who have a lot of transaction under $10 with \"\"better\"\" commission structure, 5%+5c per transaction (rather than 2.9% + 30c with regular merchant accounts)\"",
"Just keep in mind that on Upwork, you basically have to be the cheapest person to get most of the gigs. It's great to get your feet wet, but I would strongly encourage you to use it to build a portfolio up and then start reaching out to people in your network to see if anyone needs your services.",
"Been a freelance motion graphic artist for 18 years and I've never touched any of those sites. It's idiots and amateurs looking for cheap, shitty labor. I don't feel like competing against people in 3rd world countries so I get all my jobs the old fashioned way.",
"One company owns majority of popular freelancing websites (elance included) Aside from the race to the bottom pricing happening for projects; customer is always right. Lots of stories of even a pip from a client freezing accounts -- not even just a project, your whole account with any ongoing projects. Everything gone. Thousands lost. Not worth it. No recourse.",
"Elance, UpWork, Fivver Who would've thought taking skilled labor and watering down the price to mere pennies would be bad for everybody involved? That's why, even though I operate just like a freelancer, I incorporated. Legally, I'm a sole proprietor, not a freelancer...aside the few tax differences, it just saves me a ton of headaches.",
"\"PayPal offers a service called \"\"PayPal Business Payments\"\". Instead of charging a percentage, they charge a flat fee. For US-to-US payments, the fee is fifty cents per transaction. For Canada-to-Canada payments, the fee is five dollars per transaction. You need to use a third-party invoicing service and choose the \"\"PayPal Business Payments\"\" option. FreshBooks or Zoho Invoice might work.\"",
"you *can* get the guys in india for pennies on the dollar, but then you get what you pay for. I was told on upwork that I didn't get picked because I was too expensive, but then he went on to say that their proposals are usually garbage and wanted to pay me a little to look them over and make sure they weren't full of shit. Upwork should be called UpOffShoring. wtf?",
"That all depends on you. The cheaper places are certainly going to cost less, but when it comes to comparing value that is a subjective decision that only you can make. Maybe the more expensive one has an easier to user website, friendlier customer service, or something else you value enough to pay more for trades.",
"Have you looked at OptionsHouse? They charge $2.95 per trade and are one of the lowest when it comes to fees. Bare bones interface, but fast execution.",
"I'm a freelance programmer, reverse-engineer, and network engineer. I do quarterly 1099 filings using a cheap local accounting firm. I did them on my own at first; not that hard.. You deduct from sum the percentage for that earning-tier issued by the IRS.. $500.00 for writing algorithms on a timer? Yikes.. I did topcoder once but it didn't pay much then it was only good for portfolio.. No way I would race to do algorithms for third-world-rate capital..",
"Your best bet is to use a payment processor that charges ONLY a fixed monthly fee and not a fee per transaction.",
"That's exactly what happened to me except on Fiverr. I had months of activity and hundreds of 5-star reviews. I had real clients. Repeat buyers. Real business relationships. Then one day they deleted both of my accounts (I had one for buying and one for selling). Apparently, buried somewhere in their terms of service, users aren't allowed to have more than one account. I didn't even try to hide it- my usernames were nerdi and nerdi2. They even made me wait months and submit I.D. just to be able to log in and withdrawal my earnings. So much for that.",
"\"Are you in the US? One thing you can do is prepay taxes at a rate of a 1.8% fee. Much lower than paypal. I would do this on what is \"\"left over\"\". Here are somethings that I would tend to do in your case: Those are some of the things I would be looking at. Do you care to share the details of your offer?\"",
"\"Paypal linked with my bank account. 1.Can I use my Saving bank account to receive payments from my clients? Or is it necessary to open a current account? Yes you can get funds into your savings account. However it is advisable to keep a seperate account as it would help with your IT Returns. 2.I will be paying a certain % as commission on every sales to a couple of sales guys (who are not my employees but only working on commission). Can I show this as an expense in my IT returns? As you are earning as freelancer, you are eligible for certain deductions like Phone calls, Laptop, other hardware, payments to partners. It is important that you maintain a book of records. An accountant for a small fee of Rs 5 K should be able to help you. In the Returns you have to show Net income after all these deductions, there is no place to enter expenses. 3.Since I will be receiving all the payments in Euros so am I falling under a category of \"\"Exporter of services\"\"? The work you are doing can be Free Lancing. 4.Do I need an Import Export Code (IEC) for smoothly running this small business? You can run this without one as Free lancing. IEC would be when you grow big and are looking for various benefits under tax and pay different taxes and are incorporated as a company.\"",
"Several things to consider: I don't see why your friend should pay any tax. It's not his income at all. And I am not sure where your income should be taxed in this scenario. Is he declaring it as his income somehow? The bank won't do it for him, the transfer as such should be transparent. On the other hand, money transiting on his account could in principle look suspicious, although €300 is unlikely to raise alarm. What I do know is that if you do pay taxes, 20% is not particularly high as such. There are four brackets of income tax (and tax-like contributions to the pension system) in the Netherlands, between 36.55% and 52%. Rates for personal taxes in the Netherlands are simply way higher than what you might be used to in Eastern Europe or what has been mentioned in comments. In fact, if anything, 20% seems too low. I am at a loss guessing what it could correspond to, you could ask your friend how he came to that number. There various tax discounts (kortingen) and deductions (aftreken) that apply to freelance work (and some that apply to all incomes). €3000 yearly is quite low and would probably not be taxed at all if you were recently registered as freelance (zzp'er) in the Netherlands and had no other sources of income. But on the other hand, if your money is treated as being part of your friend's income, these wouldn't apply, as he is probably already benefiting from them. There are special rules for copyright fees. Not sure this is necessarily 100% kosher but I have met people who got paid that way for articles they wrote in trade publications.",
"In addition to paypal, Amazon also offers a payment processing service that has micropayment pricing: For Transactions < $10:",
"I think something you might want to look at is a service called Dwolla. They charge $0.25 per transaction, and are free for transactions under $10.",
"Since you are not starting with a lot of cash the commissions may eat into your account. So go with somebody that has no inactivity fee and low/free commission. I think there are number of sites and the ING sharebuilder.com comes to mind. Scottrade also one of the cheaper ones that i used.",
"\"Putting them on line 10 is best suited for your situation. According to Quickbooks: Commissions and Fees (Line 10) Commissions/fees paid to nonemployees to generate revenue (e.g. agent fees). It seems like this website you are using falls under the term \"\"nonemployees\"\".\"",
"The fees for the services are displayed on the PayPal website at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-fees-outside Is there anything else you were looking for.",
"My recollection is that most traditional reader systems charge like 5%. For squareup there were two different pricing schemes 1. 2.75% per swipe. 2. 0% per swipe but a $275 permonth charge. When I did the math the flat fee only made sense if you're doing over $2500ish per month in business. These fees seem pretty minimal to me.",
"Why wouldn't one of the existing crowdsourcing systems meet your needs? Yes, they charge a commission, but they have already addressed the issues you raise and specifically they provide the third-party accounting you want.",
"This very informative link gives a clear and comprehensive comparison (pros and cons) of various popular brokers: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/best-online-brokers-for-stock-trading/ (Best Online Brokers for Stock Trading 2016) There are indeed some significant cons for the super-low commission fee. Just for a quick example, the Interactive Broker requires a minimum of 10k account balance, as well as the frequent trading activity even on monthly basis (or the minimum $10 commission would be charged).",
"I think either one would allow for lower pricing tiers as a merchant. I am at 2.5 on my main account. $0 to $3,000 2.9% + $0.30 $3.20 fee on a $100 sale $3,000+ to $10,000 2.5% + $0.30 $2.80 fee on a $100 sale $10,000+ 2.2% + $0.30 $2.50 fee on a $100 sale $100,000+ Call 1-888-818-3928",
"Use some form of escrow agent: Some freelancer sites provide payment escrow services (e.g. E-Lance). In this system the client puts money in escrow for the project in advance and then when they accept the project it forwards the payment to the provider. Progress Payments Arrange a progress payment approach with the client where they pay at certain milestones rather than a single payment at the end of the project. Ideally you would have them pre-pay for each milestone before you start work on it. However, you could ask for payment after each milestone, which might be easier to sell to your client. It does leave some risk, but minimizes that risk somewhat.",
"My go-to response whenever anyone asks me this is the Monevator table of platform fees. It looks a little complicated at first, but scroll past the table for a couple of paragraphs of useful info to help narrow down your search. The general tone of the page is geared more towards investors in index funds, but the fees on share-dealing are right there in the table too. There are also special notes if there are discounts for frequent traders and that sort of thing, so not too much passive-investor elitism on show!",
"Lower fees are always better, everything else equal. A lower fee makes your transaction overall a better deal, all else equal. Other transactions costs (like the SEC fee on sales) are mostly the same across brokers and there is unlikely to be any difference in execution quality either. When comparing brokers be sure to consider the other issues: To me, most of these are minor issues. For that reason, I'd say let transaction cost be your guide. I hear a lot of talk about the quality of the interface. If you just want to buy or sell a stock, they are all pretty easy. Some brokers have better tools for monitoring the market or looking at technical indicators, if you are into that.",
"\"A hundred different Indian sweatshops low bidding everyone. I would be surprised if any of those projects are ever successful or under budget, but the amateur clients don't seem to care, they just want \"\"the next Facebook\"\" built for $100.\"",
"Transferwise is a new peer-to-peer service that's setup to lower fees for international money transfers: https://transferwise.com",
"In general the other party will expect you to keep your promises. If you promise to do something for a fixed amount of money, you take on a risk and it is no longer their problem if you work slower than you planned. In principle it could even be the case that you take on a project and fail, after which the company may not have to pay at all. So regardless of how things should be written in your books (For example a theoretical pay above minimum wage but a loss for your private company): An important thing to note is that if you are worried about ending up below minimum wage, you are definitely asking a fee that is too low. You should keep in mind that your fee should include a fair compensation for the expected work, and a fair compensation for the risk that you have taken on.",
"For people who frequently submit payments via PayPal, you may want to try and negotiate with them to use Paypal mass payments. Although the mass payment program is designed to send small amounts to many people, you can process payment batches of 1 transaction. In the CA mass payment fees (paid by sender) are 2% capped at 1.25 CAD To CA and US. International payments are 2% capped at 24.00 CAD. No fees for receiver. A business PayPal account is required to enable mass payments. When I mention this to customers, many are unaware Paypal's mass payment program exists! https://merchant.paypal.com/ca/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=merchant/mass_pay",
"What about web-hosting fees? Cost of Internet service? Cost of computer equipment to do the work? Amortized cost of development? Time for support calls/email? Phone service used for sales? Advertising/marketing expenses? Look hard--I bet there are some costs.",
"I have sold a few items on ebay. The biggest issue I have with ebay is all of the fees. I am not sure how much has changed recently, but when I was selling stuff it felt like ebay and paypal took a large chunk of the money. I could be wrong, but it seemed like they were getting around 35% or more of my 'profits'. Of course, you then have the shipping fees on top of that, which will run a few bucks on common items. For items that sell for around $20 on ebay, I felt like I was ending up with about $5 in my pocket. I have used Amazon to sell used books, though I haven't done that for about a year or so. They had no fees for listing items, and the item remains listed for about 90 days. If it sells, they process the payment and can deposit it into your bank account or provide an Amazon gift certificate. I forget Amazon's fees, but I remember that it didn't seem to be as frustrating as the ebay/paypal price structure.",
"If you want the cheapest online broker in Australia, you can't go past CMC Markets, they charge $9.90 upto a $10,000 trade and 0.1% above that. There is no ongoing fees unless you choose to have dynamic data (stock prices get updated automatically as they change). However, the dynamic data fee does get waived if you have about 10 or more trades per month. You don't really need the dynamic data unless you are a regular trader anyway. They also provide some good research tools and some basic charting. Your funds with them are kept segragated in a Bankwest Account, so are resonably safe. They don't provide the best interest on funds kept in the account, so it is best to just deposit the funds when you are looking to buy, and move your funds elswhere (earning higher interest) when selling. Hopes this helps, regards Victor. Update They have now increased their basic brokerage to a minimum of $11 per trade unless you are a frequent trader.",
"\"If you are not worried about timing the market and want to buy primarily \"\"blue chip\"\" stocks to hold for a while, consider using Loyal3. They don't charge any commission. The downside is that trades are executed at the end of the day and there's only about 60 companies currently available (but there are some really good ones currently available).\"",
"I've been using xetrade for quite awhile, also used nzforex (associated with ozforex / canadian forex, probably ukforex as well) -- xetrade has slightly better rates than I've gotten at nzforex, so I've been using them primarily. That said, I am in the process of opening an account at CurrencyFair, because it appears that I'll be able to exchange money at better rates there. (XETrade charges me 1.5% off the rate you see at xe.com -- which is the FX conversion fee I believe -- there are no fees other than the spread charged). I think the reason CurrencyFair may be able to do better is because the exchange is based on the peer-to-peer trade, so you could theoretically get a deal better than xe.com. I'll update my answer here after I've been using CurrencyFair for awhile, and let you know. They theoretically guarantee no worse than 0.5% though (+ $4.00 / withdrawal) -- so I think it'll save me quite a bit of money.",
"If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. Also, CMC Markets charges $11 commission up to $10,000 trade. This is actually quite a low fee - based on your $7,000, $22 for in and out of a position would be less than 0.32% (of course you might want to buy into more than one company - so your brokerage would be slightly higher). Still this is way lower than full service brokerage which could be $100 or more in and then again out again. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first.",
"\"I wouldn't trust \"\"about.com\"\"; they're based on grabbing content from other places and are entirely unreliable. You can use the money transfer on PayPal, or transfer through a bank. I wouldn't give my bank account details to complete strangers, though. But that's me, with my distrust of the human kind.\"",
"0.13% is a pretty low fee. PTTRX expenses are 0.45%, VINIX expenses are 0.04%. So based on your allocation, you end up with at least 0.08%. While lower than 0.13%, don't know if it is worth the trouble (and potentially fees) of monthly re-balancing.",
"Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.",
"A fully automated website that literally does the selling for you. Receive money daily paid directly to you PayPal account! 100% commissions from one incredible package... for just $6.99! No Web Hosting Or Domain Fees!! For all the details, visit website at: http://victor699.beep.com/",
"Every brokerage is different, on all of their websites they have an actual list of fees. There are tons of different charges you may encounter.",
"Depending on how tech savvy your client is you could potentially use bitcoin. There is some take of indian regulators stopping bitcoin exchanges, meaning it might be hard to get your money out in your local country but the lack of fees to transfer and not getting killed on the exchange rate every time has a huge impact, especially if your individual transaction sizes are not huge.",
"Fidelity, Charles Schwab, TDA, and just about every make online brokerage gives you massive amounts of free trades each year and when you sign up. Pretty much the same as 100+ free trades /yr over a 10 year period. Also, you get commission-free trade for the most popular ETFs, which is much more important. Lastly, if you care about free trades, you're probably investing poorly. Non-professionals shouldn't be making that many non-ETF trades in a year. Professional traders wouldn't blink over a tiny $5-10 commission fee.",
"The website likely has no differentiation. I am hoping, however, the service does. I'm not looking to break down a fledgling business plan, I am just looking for information on how and where to build or buy a website that performs thusly: Company creates account and posts the service they can provide, Consumer applies for said service, I deal with some required middle-man work which is at the cost of the consumer.",
"Dwolla looks to be a great option. But it requires users to have an account there (Free to sign up). And there rates are absolutely amazing. Free for transactions under $10 $0.25 to receive money on transactions over $10",
"Trading is NOT zero-sum game, it is negative sum actually. In fact all people's money is getting swept by commissions and fees. If you don't have The Plan (which includes minimizing commission losses), you win some (not a lot), then you get big positions, then market crashes, then all your money is gone. You will start noticing that commissions are real, only when you get market crash. Prey that you get heavy losses (-10% of portfolio) before some (giant) market crash. Getting good lesson by small price is better then high price (-30..50%). Piece of advice. There is small exchanges that do NOT charge you for operations, taking only market spread ($0.01) as commission. They do so because they do not have big population and they trade mostly by using automatic market-makers (which means there is no way to buy 10% of Apple there).",
"Have you considered doing some small freelance programming jobs? One site I like for this type of thing is eLance.com, but I am sure there are others. Heck, you are soon going to be up all night anyway, why not earn some cash during those hours the rest of us foolishly waste on sleep?",
"\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"",
"The lowest cost way to trade on an exchange is to trade directly on the exchange. I can't speak to the LSE, but in the US, there is a mandated firewall between the individual and the exchange, the broker; therefore, in the US, one would have to start a business and become a broker. If that process is too costly, the broker or trade platform that permits individuals to trade with the lowest commissions is the next lowest.",
"Fiverr and Mechanical Turk comes to my mind. You won't break the bank, but will give you a nice distraction and earn you some cash for your time. And you can do this at your own schedule.",
"I am a freelancer based in Europe and I want to tell you: - if you are a freelancer, then you INVOICE your Swizzerland based client The word salary is improper. - So your client will DEDUCE the invoice from its taxes, and NOT pay income tax on top of that invoice. Because invoice = expense. So, ONLY YOU pay income tax in India. Your client pays no tax at all, not in India, not in Swizzerland. As you are a freelancer and not employee, the company has no obligation to pay employer taxes for you. A company has financial benefits from working with a freelancer.",
"Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.",
"The website http://currencyfair.com/ provides a service which gives you both a decent exchange rate (about 1% off from mid-market rate) and a moderately low fee for the transfer: 4 USD for outgoing ACH in the US, 10 USD for same-day US wire. For the reverse (sending money from the US to EU) the fees are: 3 EUR for an ACH, 8 EUR for a same-day EUR wire. It has been online for quite a while, so I assume its legit, but I'd do a transfer for a smaller sum first, to see if there are any problems, and then a second transfer for the whole sum.",
"eBay is the worst of the worst. I used it way back when it was fair to buyers and sellers. These days, scammers can can get free stuff at your expense and then eBay will punish you on top of getting scammed.",
">keep the profit margin the most minimal as possible to gain customers over time That's not the right way to go. The running for the lowest price is endless and no one is going to win. What you have to do is establish your brand and charge a fair price for something that add value on people's life. If they think it's worth they will buy it. That's the best way to grow your ecommerce. Shopify + Dropshipping is the easiest way to go. First what you need to do is find what you want to sell. Then name your store and create a good logo for it. Remember, you need to focus on establish your brand. Going for the lowest price not going to take you anywhere. They will just buy from you because it's cheap and sometimes not even that. You are selling the service not only the product. You can't charge too much but charge the lowest price is not good either. 1- $300 I think it's too much. I would charge you half of that if you were my client. It's easy but time consuming to set up a Shopify store (depending on how many items you would be selling). You need to be aware to banners, logo and social media at very beginning too. So it's not only the store itself. 2- If you are going for Shopify you don't need servers, vps... The Shopify will be your hosting. What you need would be mostly pay designer (logo, banners), apps (Upsell, hurrify, shipping...), domain and maybe someone to write your product description. About how much would you get back it depends completely of what you are about to sell and how is the market for it. I work with digital marketing and wanted to test my entrepreneurship skills with e-commerce plus my marketing knowledge last week. Ended up making over $5,500 on the first 5 days selling in Brazil. Proof (http://imgur.com/a/zDmot) But if you don't have any knowledge about it don't expect too much at very beginning. You probably won't sell anything or almost nothing on your first month based on some friends experiences. 3- That's true. I spend around $500-$600 to get more than $5,500 in sales in 5 days. They are mostly from Facebook Ads. Never tried any independent website and I don't think that's worth for a new E-commerce in my opinion. But again, if you don't have marketing knowledge you will spend a lot of money to make it worth for you. Here, I highly recommend you to hire someone to do it for you or teach you. That's sometimes an expensive service but better than what you would spend trying to learn/doing by yourself Let me know if I can help you with your website or anything else. I have the knowledge but sometimes I don't know how to express myself. Hope I helped you.",
"Your cost of platform is built into your commission rates...SC is free if I sign up to a broker that charges more commissions. Right now I am with IB as my broker. With the cost of my charting, if I were to make 10 round turns per month, I would pay $4.50 per side commission on FOREX, $3.25 per side on EQUITIES. Still a better deal than ToS.",
"1: Low fees means: a Total Expense Ratio of less than 0,5%. One detail you may also want to pay attention to whether the fund reinvests returns (Thesaurierender Fonds) which is basically good for investing, but if it's also a foreign-based fund then taxes get complicated, see http://www.finanztip.de/indexfonds-etf/thesaurierende-fonds/",
"This is pretty shameless branded content by Forbes for UpWork. “Brand Voice” should be called what it is, paid advertising. I bet an agency has placed the post here too. Anyone else noticing this or am I just being cynical?",
"Discount brokers come and go. They tend to come with ridiculously cheap prices, and they go when they fail to gain traction, or raise their prices, at which point they can be undercut by a new player. Some brokers are nicer to people with more money, while others cater to small traders on simple low commissions. No matter which broker you choose, you aren't liable to make much money doing frequent trades with a small account. You either risk most of your money on every trade, or several small trades get sapped by commissions. It is understandable that you want to pay less given the disadvantages of a small account. Just2Trade, USAA, Sogotrade, etc. have each been reasonable options in the < $4 a trade range. Many websites will give you a list of the top discount brokers of the year. As with any heavy discounter/deal that is too good to be true, find reputable referrals from people who use the service, and complaints from customers who have been burned.",
"They're not negotiating trade rates for you, you set the trade rates in your order. What they might have is a slightly slower system, delivering your orders a second later than the competition would. If that's critical to you then you should look at that, otherwise look at their fees, customer support and research aids because that's where the broker value is.",
"Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.",
"Thanks, at the moment I don't plan to do alot of trading just need to sell a few shares at the moment and might sell some more more at another point, but other than that I don't plan on touching the stock and just plan on letting it re-invest itself. Since I don't plan on doing alot of selling I don't know how much I need to worry about fee's as long as they aren't too steep.",
"There is nothing called best; Depending on the amounts there are several options and each will cost some money. If your business is still small customers are individuals try PayPal it will be easy for everyone. The other options are accepting Credit Card, you would need to set-up card gateway on your website etc Simple wire transfer, it will cost more both for your customers and to you.",
"You mean sites like prosper.com? I see that they are growing but is this really substainable when the novely wears off? Also I find the low volatility claim interesting since I thought low vol portfolios would be a hard sell. How have you experienced this?",
"I'm just a sole trader who doesn't have much money which is why I'm looking at budget stuff. It's not like I'm a big business just being really tight. I need advice on this, not to get down-voted. I need one that is cheap or free but I would prefer that I can upload my own files and I would like to connect my own domain to it.",
"Indiabulls. Low brokerage (If you bargain) I'm user of it and I'm getting 25paisa for delivery and 5 paisa for intraday. All transactions can be done online. Also they provide an stand alone application PowerIndiabulls, which is too good and appraised by many users as best in the industry. Not sure about it, but I think Powerindiabulls application is the answer for this. Please have a look at their website for more details.",
"I have recently started using Transferwise to transfer money between the U.K. and The Netherlands. Transferwise has lower fees than other companies. They use a pseudo-peer-to-peer money transfer system. When person A transfers £ to €, and person B transfers € to £, they effectively cancel these two agains teach other, which significantly lowers exchange fees for both A and B. I am not affiliated with Transferwise other than as a customer.",
"Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.",
"Income Tax would only be levied on the 10% commission that you earn and not on the total amount kept in the Escrow Account.",
"It is best to take advise from / appoint a professional CA. Will I have to pay GST? No GST is applicable. Exports outside of India do not have GST. Do I have to collect TDS when I send money to the PUBLISHERS ? No But another guy said, I have to pay 18% tax when receiving and sending payments, apart from that I have to collect 30.9% TDS when sending payment to the PUBLISHERS(outside India). There is only income tax applicable on profits. So whatever you get from Advertisers less of payments to publishers less of your expenses is your profit. Since you are doing this as individual, you will have to declare this as income from other sources and pay income tax as appropriate. Note there are restrictions on sending payments outside of India plus there are exchange rate fluctuations. It is best you open an Foreign Currency Resident [or Domestic] Account. This will enable you payout someone without much issues. Else you will have to follow FEMA and LRS schemes of RBI.",
"To be fair, part of the $5 goes to Paypal whether you sign up with them or not. I bought the special and certainly have no regrets. But I do hope Louie uses a competitor of theirs like WePay next time.",
">Content Writer >Content writing is a quick job nowadays. There are some excellent marketplaces for writers. You can get a job as a writer there. I will give a short list here. >People always look for a writer, who has website or blog. I often look for writers for my niche sites. I love to change writer and deal with new peoples. I hire writers from Social Media and several marketplaces. >If you think, you’re right in English and you can write proper blog content then you can start writing right now. >First of all, make a blog for your own. Make 5-10 excellent blog content there as your sample writing. You don't need to be right in English. Many contributes do not have great English skills but can deliver great concepts.",
"I personally like Schwab. Great service, low fees, wide variety of fund are available at no fee. TD Ameritrade is good too.",
"I would prefer to see you register in your home state, and then focus on making money, rather than spending time looking to game the system to save a few bucks. People worry way too much about these trivial fees when they should be focused on making their business successful. Get registered, get insurance, and then pour it on and start making money. Make $650 your target for a week's income - you can do it! Next year's goal should be spending $50 a month on a payroll service because you're SO BUSY you can't take the extra time to pay your own social security taxes.",
"If you are using paypal to sell items online, you need a Premier (or better) account rather than personal. Paypal states: Our fees are the same for Personal, Premier, and Business accounts. [...] If you use your PayPal account to request money from someone, you'll be charged a fee when you receive the payment.",
"Surprised nobody has mentioned Freshbooks yet. It's lightweight, easy to use, and free for low-end use (scaling up price-wise as you scale up).",
"You can find a lot of information at the HRMC website at http://hmrc.gov.uk. If you don't want to work as an employee, you can register as self-employed (basically a one-man band), which is quite simple, you can start your own company, which is more work but can have tax advantages, or you can find umbrella companies which will officially employ you while in reality you are a freelancer and only do your billing through them. Umbrella companies can be anywhere from totally legal to extremely dodgy. If they promise you that you pay only five percent tax on your income through ingenious tricks, that's only until the tax office finds out and they will make you pay. Between self-employed and your own company, the big difference is whether you are actually working independently or not. If you work like an employee (take someone else's orders) and claim you are a company, the tax office doesn't like that. And if you pay very little taxes, they don't like that either. So self-employed is the safer choice but you will pay more taxes, close to what a normal employee would pay. Obviously you will have to pay tax on your income and NHS insurance. Obviously you are required to tell the government (actually HMRC) about your income. Not doing so would be tax evasion and get you into deep trouble when you are caught. I don't think you have to tell them the source of your income, but not telling them might look very suspicious and might get your accounts checked carefully. And unless you design a website for the mafia, why wouldn't you tell them? The bill payer will try to deduct your bill from their profits anyway, so it's no secret. Most important to remember: When you send out a bill and receive payment, you'll have to pay tax on it. When self employed, as a rule of thumb put one third away into a savings account for your tax bill. Don't spend it all or you will find yourself in deep trouble when your taxes need paying. Plus put some more away for times when you can't find work.",
"\"It's a tough thing to do. You should look for a salaried position. Your freelance skills will be much better received, if you've worked for a couple of companies doing programming full time. Nothing beats working at it all day long for a few years. If you're set on being freelance, write some utility that will be popular, and submit it to Freshmeat.net. Now that's asking a lot. Those on the Web looking for programmers will most likely want you to work for 'sweat equity'. That is, a share in the company for you labour. In other words \"\"FREE\"\". I've done my share of those, and if you're just getting into this, you should steer away from them. You may hit the jackpot, but you won't sleep for the next few years ;-)\"",
"With a paypal micropayment he pays 61k (6.1%) (5% of sale price + .05 cents per transaction) With a regular paypal he pays 95k (9.5%) (2.9% of sale price + .30 cents per transaction) In case anybody was wondering what the poster is talking about. Either way he got hosed by using PayPal. Note: I'm working off 220,000 units sold at 1 million dollars (which I know aren't the exact figures).",
"PayPal does charge a premium, both for sending and receiving. Here's how you find their rates:",
"If you’re concerned about transferring USD, I can’t really help you there. But if you’re looking to transfer wealth, I believe that’s where something like Bitcoin could help you. In fact a small or nonexistent processing fee is one of Bitcoin’s biggest strengths as a currency. Off the top of my head, I believe BitPay has services that would suit your needs. And if you’re worried about the volatility of Bitcoin, you can always convert it straight to USD just so you can avoid service fees!",
"You could use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is THE fee-killer. I haven't used US and China exchanges, but you can connect your US bank account to Coinbase, buy bitcoins, transfer to BTCChina, and sell for CNY. There are many other options to convert from and to Bitcoins, but Coinbase seems to be most practical and most widely used in the US and BTCChina is the largest and probably most trusted exchange in China. You can also use LocalBitocoins for both buying and selling, but people on LocalBitcoins typically charge larger fees than exchanges, though this may vary. Please read a bit about Bitcoin before using it, and be aware of the risks. It's still very new (but revolutionary and very easy and fast to move internationally). Try with a small amount first to check it out. Your electronic wallet can be stolen, and you're exposed to certain risks of exchanges shutting down or government/banks stepping over their boundaries. One nice thing is that you probably won't be affected by volatility as you won't be holding bitcoins for long. Also be aware that the Chinese don't like capital leaving China and there is a possibility that China government will introduce further regulations on exchanges (though they have stated that buying, selling and owning bitcoins is legal). You're doing the opposite, importing money into China, but you'll probably feel it in one way or the other. P.S. Approximate fast fee calculation: Coinbase has 1% transaction fee + $0.15 bank fee. Bitcoin transfer is free or in some cases with minimal 0.0001 BTC fee (a bit less than $0.01 currently). BTCChina has 0.3% trading fee and 0.5% CNY withdrawal fee. As you can see, the main fees are exchange fees, but still less than 3% and if you find a good exchange combination with low fees you're golden, or might even make money on transaction if BTC price rises. Also check this Reddit thread - there are alternative China exchanges with lower fees. P.P.S. Found this blog post, maybe a bit outdated, but probably with better calculation than mine as it takes into account exchange prices.",
"How do I directly get my Freelancing amount in my Axis bank account? Do I need to inform my Bank before receiving any such payment? Yes you can get it directly into your Axis Bank Account. You would need to inform your client your Bank Account Number, Bank Name and Address and Swift BIC or IFSC Code [Axis Bank website or Branch can tell you]. You can receive credits in Euro's. Upon receipt Axis Bank will automatically convert this into Rupees using standard rate. Your Bank [Axis] may also charge some Bank fees for the wire transfer. How do I pay tax for this extra income in India? You would need to treat this as income and add it to total income including salary and calculate tax accordingly. You can pay taxes online using Income Tax India website. You can also approach a CA who would do the tax computation, paying taxes and filing returns for as little as Rs 1000 - 2000/- Edit: IBAN is International Bank Account Number. Explain to you client that India does not subscribe to IBAN. Its right now only used by Europe and Australia. Give you normal Bank Account Number. Please call up your Bank / walk into your Branch to get the SWIFT BIC. It will be something like this http://www.theswiftcodes.com/india/page/3/",
"Square prices are hard to beat for a small operation. I've looked around when I was considering starting up a business, and they're definitely one of the cheapest. Paypal are the second best, but I do not trust Paypal in general. However, looking locally may provide you some more options. If you walk in to one of the local banks, you may be able to get offers for merchant accounts with better rate, depending on your relationships with that bank. You can also check out Costco merchant services, they seem to be quite competitive with the rates, but there may be other costs (they will probably charge more for equipment).",
"(For people looking at this question many years later...) Schwab and Fidelity offer a wide selection of commission-free ETFs. You need an initial purchase amount, though, of (when last I checked at Schwab) $1,000.",
"You can use the ITR 1 and declare the income from freelancing as income from other sources. As part of freelancing, certain expenses can be deducted provided they are directly related to work and have proper records. Please consult a CA who can advice you on how to do this. The Actual income shown should be less of the expenses.",
"Generally for tax questions you should talk to a tax adviser. Don't consider anything I write here as a tax advice, and the answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Does IRS like one payment method over other or they simply don't care as long as she can show the receipts? They don't care as long as she withholds the taxes (30%, unless specific arrangements are made for otherwise). She should withhold 30% of the payment and send it to the IRS. The recipient should claim refund, if the actual tax liability is lower. It's only consulting work at the moment, so most of the communication is done over phone. Should they start engaging in written communication to keep records of the work done? Yes, if she wants it to be a business expense. Is it okay to pay in one go to save money-transferring fees? Can she pay in advance? Again, she can do whatever she wants, but if she wants to account for it on her tax returns she should do it the same way she would pay any other vendor in her business. She cannot use different accounting methods for different vendors. Basically, she has not outsourced work in previous years, and she wants to avoid any red flags. Then she should start by calling on her tax adviser, and not an anonymous Internet forum.",
"PayPal charges a 2.5% currency conversion fee to exchange funds from one currency to another. That means, the receiver would receive $ 9.75. Read More",
"They're developing a way for homeowners to buy and sell their property online without the use of a realtor therefore saving themselves the user thousands of dollars on commission charges. They educate the user as well as provide the forms needed for free. If a service is needed, like an escrow company or appraisal, they suggest a few.",
"From PayPal's website: PayPal offers discounted transaction rates for 501(c)(3) charities for most products, and consistently low rates for all other nonprofits. No extra fees for setup, statements, withdrawals or cancellation. 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction and no monthly fee for charities. There is a reduced rate if the donations total more than $100,000 (which they would for Wikipedia), but PayPal doesn't publish those rates. You have to call and ask about them. One forum I read indicates the rate drops to 1.9% + $0.30 per transaction.",
"I would never, ever recommend that to a startup business like what's being discussed here. You're talking about a larger, regional business that's doing at least $200,000 a year in revenue, if not significantly more, for a $15,000 site to be effective. Or an e-commerce store. But, yeah. Your price is right for that sort of thing.",
"\"Lifecycle funds might be a suitable fit for you. Lifecycle funds (aka \"\"target date funds\"\") are a mutual fund that invests your money in other mutual funds based on how much time is left until you need the money-- they follow a \"\"glide-path\"\" of reducing stock holdings in favor of bonds over time to reduce volatility of your final return as you near retirement. The ones I've looked at don't charge a fee of their own for this, but they do direct your portfolio to actively managed funds. That said, the ones I've seen have an \"\"acquired\"\" expense ratio of less than what you're proposing you'd pay a professional. FWIW, my current plan is to invest in a binary portfolio of cheap mutual funds that track S&P500 and AGG and rebalance regularly. This is easy enough that I don't see the point of adding in a 1 percent commission.\"",
"Use buxfer.com. It's available in India and most of the features are free.",
"Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here. The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions. That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc. A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees.",
"\"Free, huh? From their Commission and Fee Schedule: So if you literally bought two shares, then the SEC added one penny in fees and FINRA added one penny as a \"\"Trading Activity Fee\"\" Note that there are several other fees on their schedule that may not apply to you. If you had bought 100 shares instead, your total fees would have still been only 2 cents, but you would have lost $4 on the trade. So the fees are minuscule when you start doing larger orders. However, That should not discourage you from experimenting and learning. I'd rather pay 2 cents in fees on a 4 cent loss than 2 cents in fees on a $400 loss. Just chalk it up to the cost of experience.\"",
"I'm going to assume that you want to be invested all the time and each trade consists in selling a security and buying another one (similar to your example). How much commissions you are willing to pay depends on several factors, but one way to think about it is as follows. You have a position in stock A and you want to switch to stock B because you think it will perform better. If you think there's a good chance (>50%) that B will outperform A by more than x% then you can happily pay up to x/2% commissions and still make money over a long time horizon. If you like formulae, one way to express it is: Where: Example: if you tend to be right 51% of the time (hit rate), and gain 110% more than you lose on average (win loss ratio), you can see that your expected profit is: 5.1% - commissions, so you could pay 2.5% commissions on entering and closing the position and still make money*. Unfortunately, common sense, statistics and numerous studies tell us a sad truth: on average, people have a hit rate of 50% and a win/loss ratio of 100%. Which means that their expected profit per trade is 0% - commission. Based on that crude observation - unless you can prove to yourself that you are better than average - you should aim at reducing commissions paid to your broker as much as possible through: * 51% and 110% are not random numbers, they correspond to the results of the top 15% (professional) managers in a research paper using a sample of 215 funds managing $150bn.",
"I work from home. However I am starting my own agency (http://localgrowthdigital.com) in United States. It's specialized in E-commerce and small business. The website is not ready yet though. I am moving to Arizona and will open my office there probably. Yes, I got over $5.500 IN SALES only working online. Net profit was around 35-40% of that.",
"I am the vendor and I pay the 2 to 3%, not the customer. And I will pay it with a smile on my face. It's either that or deal with cash or other payment methods that are a) difficult/expensive or b) not possible because I am an online merchant. I would *like* the fees to be lower but right now pretty much every other method is either difficult, expensive or both. They know what they are doing. EDIT: Merchants like debit cards. They have the cheapest interchange rate. Reward cards are the most expensive - where do you think your 1% cash back comes from? :)"
] |
[
"\"Your own site/business. I’m in freelancing and internet business for 15 years, 20 years IT experience. Currently i use freelance websites for cheap Asian employees, very seldom for EU/USA employees, and if only if local competition is heavily out-pricing qualified staff. Till I went \"\"limited\"\" i.e., founded a limited corporation I was jobbing as freelancer and sole proprietor, both with limited success due to the strong Asian competition i myself currently hire. The point where freelancing got \"\"not sustainable\"\" as primary income was 2006 for me, don’t want to get into detail but every freelancer who was active back then knows what I mean, it was like whole India got internet. If you have absolutely no references, do it for the references a limited time and see the fee you pay as service for you to get references, then start your own web identity, either as freelancer or as corporation. Make sure you take your very satisfied customers with you. Every \"\"very satisfied\"\" customer in your contact list means 10 new customers which mean 2 new customers which mean 0.2 new customers and so on. Honestly, this info is solely based on experience of this niche fro ma European citizen perspective, if you’re based anywhere else the situation might be totally different.\""
] |
9979
|
What is the best way to invest in gold as a hedge against inflation without having to hold physical gold?
|
[
"538237",
"35633",
"337243",
"35369"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"35369",
"13885",
"538237",
"165659",
"10578",
"89311",
"326858",
"556936",
"483734",
"516148",
"351362",
"337243",
"369563",
"327271",
"35633",
"97081",
"48691",
"466176",
"172814",
"274859",
"427890",
"259440",
"184557",
"443094",
"302869",
"174302",
"399751",
"96351",
"212157",
"570173",
"69395",
"399952",
"181574",
"174002",
"190772",
"551811",
"315286",
"339169",
"357493",
"234889",
"546027",
"239459",
"584633",
"282501",
"426771",
"475539",
"111451",
"372457",
"233635",
"272547",
"129352",
"51585",
"332924",
"156672",
"385702",
"135113",
"257881",
"182389",
"235322",
"480598",
"240628",
"487817",
"444946",
"470759",
"280356",
"265766",
"326599",
"163359",
"27037",
"367207",
"595349",
"477939",
"220795",
"84238",
"280204",
"573404",
"324697",
"346389",
"17652",
"253711",
"122679",
"306571",
"554213",
"565782",
"415616",
"559027",
"362102",
"403977",
"544092",
"534080",
"76907",
"525193",
"531005",
"281234",
"340815",
"421268",
"194279",
"388613",
"460839",
"371390"
] |
[
"\"Investing in gold without having physical gold is not really a hedge against inflation. GLD is really more for speculation, not protection against serious inflation. If there is any kind of inflation worth really protecting yourself against then one thing you will notice at its onset is a divergence in the price of physical and GLD; with GLD offering very little protection if any against inflation. Ultimately holders of GLD will demand physical metal and the physical price will rise and the paper price will fall. I would advise you to study physical gold before you purchase GLD for that reason. EDIT: Just adding this to my answer - I don't know why I didn't put it in before, and I hasten to add that I'm not an expert though a little investigation will show you that this is at least one option for owning gold. If you think of having the physical gold yourself at one end of the spectrum and buying GLD at the other; so that you don't need to take physical delivery, there is another scenario which I understand is in between (and sorry I don't actually know what it's referred to as) but it's where you buy the physical gold but instead of taking delivery the bars are stored for you in a vault - these bars are numbered and you actually own what you have paid for and theoretically you could go and visit your gold and actually remove it because it's your gold - as opposed to having paper GLD which in my understanding is a \"\"right to take physical delivery\"\" of gold - and this is slightly different - of course unlike GLD you actually have to pay a storage fee and of course unlike having the physical gold buried in your garden or something you are not entirely secure against say a robbery of the vault, and you are also depending on the company not to sell the same bar to more than one person - but that's the only think that their reputation is built on, and a company like that would live or die by the reputation - ( and of course you might lose the proverbial gold buried in the garden either, so nothing's 100% secure anyway really )\"",
"You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.",
"\"GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front. Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the \"\"regular person.\"\" Hope it helps!\"",
"ETF's are great products for investing in GOLD. Depending on where you are there are also leveraged products such as CFD's (Contracts For Difference) which may be more suitable for your budget. I would stick with the big CFD providers as they offer very liquid products with tight spreads. Some CFD providers are MarketMakers whilst others provide DMA products. Futures contracts are great leveraged products but can be very volatile and like any leveraged product (such as some ETF's and most CFD's), you must be aware of the risks involved in controlling such a large position for such a small outlay. There also ETN's (Exchange Traded Notes) which are debt products issued by banks (or an underwriter), but these are subject to fees when the note matures. You will also find pooled (unallocated to physical bullion) certificates sold through many gold institutions although you will often pay a small premium for their services (some are very attractive, others have a markup worse than the example of your gold coin). (Note from JoeT - CFDs are not authorized for trading in the US)",
"Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating.",
"You can buy real gold, or you can buy shares of a gold ETF, or invest in gold futures contracts. There's a number of ways, but the goal is to be exposed to the price fluctuations of gold. I actually have a bank account through www.goldmoney.com. It works just like PayPal or a bank account. You send money and buy gold and then they send you a debit card linked to that account. When you swipe it, you're spending your gold. They also cater to business customers as well..you can send invoices to get paid, do payroll, and everything in between.",
"\"There are gold index funds. I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"real gold\"\". If you mean you want to buy physical gold, you don't need to. The gold index funds will track the price of gold and will keep you from filling your basement up with gold bars. Gold index funds will buy gold and then issue shares for the gold they hold. You can then buy and sell these just like you would buy and sell any share. GLD and IAU are the ticker symbols of some of these funds. I think it is also worth pointing out that historically gold has a been a poor investment.\"",
"\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"",
"Gold since the ancient time ( at least when it was founded) has kept its value. for example the french franc currency was considered valuable in the years 1400~ but in 1641 lost its value. However who owned Gold back then still got value. The advantage of having gold is you can convert it to cash easily in the world. it hedges against inflation: it is value rise when inflation happend. Gold has no income,no earnings. its not like a stock or a bond. its an alternative way to store value the Disadvantages of investing in Gold Gold doesnt return income , needs physical storage and insurance, Capital gains tax rates are higher on most gold investments. the best way to invest gold when there is inflation is expected. source",
"\"I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold \"\"shares\"\" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs. This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount.\"",
"In 2008, 10 year treasuries were up 20.1%, to gold's 4.96%. Respectfully, if I were certain if a market drop, I'd just short the market, easily done by shorting SPY or other index ETFs. If you wish to buy gold, the easiest and least expensive way is to buy an ETF, GLD to be specific. It trades like a stock, for what that's worth. There are those who would suggest this is not like buying gold, it's just 'paper'. I believe otherwise. It's a non leveraged, fully backed ETF. I try not to question other's political or religious beliefs or as it pertains to this ETF, their conspiracy theories.",
"\"Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a \"\"bar of gold\"\". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold \"\"stock\"\" and a pure silver \"\"stock\"\", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm\"",
"If you want to speculate on gold price you should always buy an ETF/ETC (Exchange Traded Commodity). The reasons are simple: Easy to buy and sell (one mouse click) Cheap to buy and sell (small bank commission), compared to buy real gold (always 6 to 12% comission to the local shop when you buy and when you sell), see this one it's one cheap gold buy/sell shop I found on the internet But if you sometimes feel unsecure that you might one day loose everything due to a major economy collapse event (like an armageddon), or not to have enough money in bad periods or during retirment, and it makes you feel better to know you buried 999 Gold Sovereign in your house backyard (along with a rifle as suggested in comments), then just buy them and live an happy life (as long as you hide your gold in good ways and write a good treasury map).",
"\"I do not know anything about retail investing in India, since I am in the US. However, there are a couple of general things to keep in mind about gold that should be largely independent of country. First, gold is not an investment. Aside from a few industrial uses, it has no productive value. It is, at best, a hedge against inflation, since many people feel more comfortable with what they consider \"\"real\"\" money that is not subject to what seems to be arbitrary creation by central banks. Second, buying tiny amounts of gold as coin or bullion from a retail dealer will always involve a fairly significant spread from the commodity spot price. The spot price only applies to large transactions. Retail dealers have costs of doing business that necessitate these fees in order for them to make a profit. You must also consider the costs of storing your gold in a way that mitigates the risk of theft. (The comment by NL7 is on this point. It appeared while I was typing this answer.) You might find this Planet Money piece instructive on the process, costs, and risks of buying gold bullion (in the US). If you feel that you must own gold as an inflation hedge, and it is possible for residents of India, you would be best off with some kind of gold fund that tracks the price of bullion.\"",
"Since GLD is priced as 1/10 oz of gold, I'd call it the preferred way to buy if that's your desire. I believe gold is entering classic bubble territory. Caveat emptor. A comment brought me back to this question. My answer still applies, the ETF the best way to buy gold at the lowest transaction cost. The day I posted and expressed my 'bubble' concern, gold was $1746. Today, nearly 5 years later, it's $1350, a drop of 23%, plus an additional 2% of accumulated expenses. Note, GLD has a .4% annual expense. On the other hand, the S&P is up 80% from that time. In other words, $10K invested that day would be worth less than $7,700 had it been invested in gold, and $18,000 in stock. It would take a market crash, gold soaring or some combination of the two for gold to have been the right choice then. No one can predict short term movement of either the market or metals, my answer here wasn't prescient, just lucky.",
"Here's a start at a high level: I have a few friends who have made a killing on GLD, and write options to make money off of the investment without incurring the capital gains penalties for selling. That's a little out of my comfort zone though.",
"\"And you have hit the nail on the head of holding gold as an alternative to liquid currency. There is simply no way to reliably buy and sell physical gold at the spot price unless you have millions of dollars. Exhibit A) The stock symbol GLD is an ETF backed by gold. Its shares are redeemable for gold if you have more than 100,000 shares then you can be assisted by an \"\"Authorized Participant\"\". Read the fund's details. Less than 100,000 shares? no physical gold for you. With GLD's share price being $155.55 this would mean you need to have over 15 million dollars, and be financially solvent enough to be willing to exchange the liquidity of shares and dollars for illiquid gold, that you wouldn't be able to sell at a fair price in smaller denominations. The ETF trades at a different price than the gold spot market, so you technically are dealing with a spread here too. Exhibit B) The futures market. Accepting delivery of a gold futures contract also requires that you get 1000 units of the underlying asset. This means 1000 gold bars which are currently $1,610.70 each. This means you would need $1,610,700 that you would be comfortable with exchanging for gold bars, which: In contrast, securitized gold (gold in an ETF, for instance) can be hedged very easily, and one can sell covered calls to negate transaction fees, hedge, and collect dividends from the fund. quickly recuperating any \"\"spread tax\"\" that you encounter from opening the position. Also, leverage: no bank would grant you a loan to buy 4 to 20 times more gold than you can actually afford, but in the stock market 4 - 20 times your account value on margin is possible and in the futures market 20 times is pretty normal (\"\"initial margin and maintenance margin\"\"), effectively bringing your access to the spot market for physical gold more so within reach. caveat emptor.\"",
"I don't know answers that would be specific to Canada but one of the main ETF funds that tracks gold prices is GLD (SPDR Gold Trust) another is IAU (iShares Gold Trust). Also, there are several ETF's that combine different precious metals together and can be traded. You can find a fairly decent list here on the Stock Encylopedia site.",
"\"I'm really surprised more people didn't recommend UGA or USO specifically. These have been mentioned in the past on a myriad of sites as ways to hedge against rising prices. I'm sure they would work quite well as an investment opportunity. They are ETF's that invest in nearby futures and constantly roll the position to the next delivery date. This creates a higher than usual expense ratio, I believe, but it could still be a good investment. However, be forewarned that they make you a \"\"partner\"\" by buying the stock so it can mildly complicate your tax return.\"",
"Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:",
"\"The difficulty with investing in mining and gold company stocks is that they are subject to the same market forces as any other stocks, although they may whether those forces better in a crisis than other stocks do because they are related to gold, which has always been a \"\"flight to safety\"\" move for investors. Some investors buy physical gold, although you don't have to take actual delivery of the metal itself. You can leave it with the broker-dealer you buy it from, much the way you don't have your broker send you stock certificates. That way, if you leave the gold with the broker-dealer (someone reputable, of course, like APMEX or Monex) then you can sell it quickly if you choose, just like when you want to sell a stock. If you take delivery of a security (share certificate) or commodity (gold, oil, etc.) then before you can sell it, you have to return it to broker, which takes time. The decision has much to do with your investing objectives and willingness to absorb risk. The reason people choose mutual funds is because their money gets spread around a basket of stocks, so if one company in the fund takes a hit it doesn't wipe out their entire investment. If you buy gold, you run the risk (low, in my opinion) of seeing big losses if, for some reason, gold prices plummet. You're \"\"all in\"\" on one thing, which can be risky. It's a judgment call on your part, but that's my two cents' worth.\"",
"\"Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD. Hedging it doesn't mean \"\"less speculative\"\". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible).\"",
"Make a portfolio with gold and put options for gold. If the price rises again, sell a part of your gold and use it to buy new put options. If the price goes down, then use your put options to sell gold at a favorable price.",
"\"In addition to the possibility of buying gold ETFs or tradable certificates, there are also firms specializing in providing \"\"bank accounts\"\" of sorts which are denominated in units of weight of precious metal. While these usually charge some fees, they do meet your criteria of being able to buy and sell precious metals without needing to store them yourself; also, these fees are likely lower than similar storage arranged by yourself. Depending on the specifics, they may also make buying small amounts practical (buying small amounts of physical precious metals usually comes with a large mark-up over the spot price, sometimes to the tune of a 50% or so immediate loss if you buy and then immediately sell). Do note that, as pointed out by John Bensin, buying gold gets you an amount of metal, the local currency value of which will vary over time, sometimes wildly, so it is not the same thing as depositing the original amount of money in a bank account. Since 2006, the price of an ounce (about 31.1 grams) of gold has gone from under $500 US to over $1800 US to under $1100 US. Few other investment classes are anywhere near this volatile. If you are interested in this type of service, you might want to check out BitGold (not the same thing at all as Bitcoin) or GoldMoney. (I am not affiliated with either.) Make sure to do your research thoroughly as these may or may not be covered by the same regulations as regular banks, particularly if you choose a company based outside of or a storage location outside of your own country.\"",
"If you don't need 100% accuracy then GLD and SLV will work fine. Over the long-term these converge quite nicely with the price of the metal.",
"Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.",
"\"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \"\"modified\"\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\"",
"\"Over time, gold has mainly a hedge against inflation, based on its scarcity value. That is, unless finds some \"\"killer app\"\" for it that would also make it a good investment. The \"\"usual\"\" ones, metallurgical, electronic, medicine, dental, don't really do the trick. It should be noted that gold performs its inflation hedge function over a long period of time, say $50-$100 years. Over shorter periods of time, it will spike for other reasons. The latest classic example was in 1979-80, and the main reason, in my opinion, was the Iranian hostage crisis (inflation was secondary.) This was a POLITICAL risk situation, but one that was not unwarranted. An attack on 52 U.S. hostages (diplomats, no less), was potenially an attack on the U.S. dollar. But gold got so pricey that it lost its \"\"inflation hedge\"\" function for some two decades (until about 2000). Inflation has not been a notable factor in 2011. But Mideastern political risk has been. Witness Egypt, Libya, and potentially Syria and other countries. Put another way, gold is less of an investment that a \"\"hedge.\"\" And not just against inflation.\"",
"Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market.",
"If your broker lets you, you could just short GLD shares. The borrow cost is de minimis (it looks like it's basically zero at the moment), and there's no real upfront cost aside from the margin you'd have to post against the position. Don't forget to set a stop, though. You can also look at buying lower-strike puts (the lower the strike, the cheaper the cost). Don't go selling calls - that's probably outside your risk profile.",
"\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"",
"You'll still lose a little bit if you buy a put option at the current price. No such thing as free hedging. Let's say you have 100 shares of IAU that you bought for exactly $12.50 per share. This is $1,250. Now let's say you bought a put option with a strike price of $13 that expires in April 2011. The current price for this option is $1.10 per share, or $110. You can sell your IAU for $1,300 any time before the expiration date, but this leaves $60 in time value. The price of the options will always have a time component that is a premium on the difference between the current price and the strike price. (Oh, forgot to add in commissions to this.)",
"Depends what kind of expenses you intend to use this money for. If you plan to buy housing in the future (eg you're saving a deposit), then you need to ensure that the value doesn't deteriorate relative to the value of the housing you are likely to buy - so you could buy a Residential REIT, or buy some investment property. If you expect to use this money for food, then you should buy suitable assets (eg Wheat futures, etc). Link the current asset to the future expense, and you will be fine. If you buy Gold, then you are making a bet that Gold will retain its value compared to the thing you want to purchase in future. It doesn't matter what the price of Gold does in $US.",
"Gold is a commodity. It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such. In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted. A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it. There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities. Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high. A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out. Just like any other business. High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation. It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury. There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation. If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised. You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government. Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing. If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so. And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own.",
"I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)",
"gold is incredibly volatile, I tried spreadbetting on it. During the month of its highest gain, month beginning to month end, I was betting it would go up - and I still managed to lose money. It went down so much, that my stop loss margin would kick in. Don't do things with gold in the short term its a very small and liquid market. My advice with gold, actually buy some physical gold as insurance.",
"Advantages of Gold IRA (regardless of where you're holding it): Disadvantages of Gold IRA: Instead, you can invest in trust funds like SLV (The ETF for silver) or GLD in your regular brokerage IRA. These funds negotiate their prices of storage, are relatively liquid, and shield you from the dangers of owning physical metal while providing opportunity to invest in it at market prices.",
"It depends on what your goals are, your age, how much debt you have, etc. Assuming -- and we all know what happens when you assume -- that your financial life is otherwise in order, the 5% to 10% range you're talking about isn't overinvesting. You won't have a lot of company; most people don't own any. One comment on this part: I have some gold (GLD), but not much ... Gold and GLD are not the same thing at all. Owning shares of the SPDR Gold Trust is not the same thing as owning gold coins or bars. You're achieving different ends by owning GLD shares as opposed to the physical yellow metal. GLD will follow the spot price of gold pretty closely, but it isn't the same thing as physical ownership.",
"\"This article fails to explain that paper gold doesn't \"\"necessarily\"\" guarantee the owner to physical gold. An index fund tracking the price of gold per ounce guarantees the owner the market value of gold at the termination of the contract. This keeps markets liquid, and allows investors to diversify into precious metals without the inconvenience of storage and delivery fees. As long as we are using currency that can be exchanged for gold this shouldn't pose a problem. If we move to a post currency world of barter and trade, you're better invested in weapons and ammunition.\"",
"if you bought gold in late '79, it would have taken 30 years to break even. Of all this time it was two brief periods the returns were great, but long term, not so much. Look at the ETF GLD if you wish to buy gold, and avoid most of the buy/sell spread issues. Edit - I suggest looking at Compound Annual Growth Rate and decide whether long term gold actually makes sense for you as an investor. It's sold with the same enthusiasm as snake oil was in the 1800's, and the suggestion that it's a storehouse of value seems nonsensical to me.",
"With gold at US$1300 or so, a gram is about $40. For your purposes, you have the choice between the GLD ETF, which represents a bit less than 1/10oz gold equivalent per share, or the physical metal itself. Either choice has a cost: the commission on the buy plus, eventually, the sale of the gold. There may be ongoing fees as well (fund fees, storage, etc.) GLD trades like a stock and you can enter limit orders or any other type of order the broker accepts.",
"As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.",
"It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.",
"I assume you've looked into gold as an asset class (which is considered to be a good diversifier in your portfolio at about 5% of investments) because there are a lot of opinions around about that. But in terms of physical vs paper gold investment, my experience has been that they'll absolutely kill you on fees if you're not careful. I had a broker try and charge me $80/oz. They do it in the margins though, so they'll just sell at say $1,350 but buy at $1,200. Just make sure you either know the market price when you walk in and stick to your guns or lock in a price ahead of time.",
"The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.",
"\"Nobody can give you a definitive answer. To those who suggest it's expensive at these prices, [I'd point to this chart](http://treo.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6002285970c014e8c39f2c3970d-850wi) showing the price of gold versus the global money supply over the past decade or so. It's not conclusive, but it's evidence that gold tracks the money supply relatively well. There might be a bit of risk premium baked in that it would shed in a stable economy, but that premium is unknowable. It's also (imo) probably worth the protection it provides. In an inflationary scenario (Euro devaluation) gold will hold its buying power very well. It also fares well in a deflationary environment, just not quite as well as holding physical currency. Note that in such an environment, bank defaults are a big danger: that 50k might only be safe under your mattress (rather than in a fractionally reserved bank account). If you're buying gold, certificates aren't exactly a bad option, although there still exists the counterparty risk of the agent storing your gold, as well as political risk of the nation where it's being held. Buying physical bullion ameliorates these risks, but then you face the problem of protecting it. Safe deposit boxes, a home safe, or burying it in your backyard are all possible options. The merits of each, I'll leave as an exerice to the reader. Foreign currency might be a little bit better than the Euro, but as we've seen in the past year or so, the Swiss Franc has been devalued to match the Euro in the proverbial \"\"race to the bottom\"\". It's probably not much better than another fiat currency. I don't know anything about Norway. Edit: Depending on your time horizon, my personal opinion would be to put no less than 5-10% of your savings in a hard store of value (e.g. gold, silver, platinum). Depending on your risk appetite, you could probably stand to put a lot more into it, especially given the Eurozone turmoil. Of course, as with anything else, your mileage may vary, past performance does not guarantee future results, this is not investment advice, seek professional medical help if you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours.\"",
"Currency hedge means that you are somewhat protected from movements in currency as your investment is in gold not currency. So this then becomes less speculative and concentrates more on your intended investment. EDIT The purpose of the GBSE ETF is aimed for investors living in Europe wanting to invest in USD Gold and not be effected by movements in the EUR/USD. The GBSE ETF aims to hedge against the effects of the currency movements in the EUR/USD and more closely track the USD Gold price. The 3 charts below demonstrate this over the past 5 years. So as is demonstrated the performance of the GBSE ETF closely matches the performance of the USD Gold price rather than the EUR Gold price, meaning someone in Europe can invest in the fund and get the appropriate similar performance as investing directly into the USD Gold without being affected by currency exchange when changing back to EUR. This is by no way speculative as the OP suggests but is in fact serving the purpose as per the ETF details.",
"Just buy a FTSE-100 tracker. It's cheap and easy, and will hedge you pretty well, as the FTSE-100 is dominated by big mining and oil companies who do most of their business in currencies other than sterling.",
"\"As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com \"\"Real\"\" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings. That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year. Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit. This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%. If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money. If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400. If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate. Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed. Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal. Also there is often noisy jitter in the price. The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery. Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold. To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere.\"",
"\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \"\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\"\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \"\"Don't do this\"\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\"",
"Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.",
"I agree with buying gold, as this is truly the worldwide currency and will only increase in value if the Euro fails. The only issue will be if your country confiscates all citizen's gold ( it has happened many times throughout history. As for ETFs, be careful because unless you purchase these in terms of other currencies (I am assuming you aren't), than the ETF you own is still in terms of Euros, making the whole investment worthless if you are trying to avoid Euro currency risk.",
"\"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \"\"ETF Securities\"\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \"\"ETF Securities\"\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\"",
"From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.",
"The reason that you are advised to take more risk while you are young is because the risk is often correlated to a short investment horizon. Young people have 40-50 years to let their savings grow if they get started early enough. If you need the money in 5-15 years (near the end of your earning years), there is much more risk of a dip that will not correct itself before you need the money than if you don't need the money for 25-40 years (someone whose career is on the rise). The main focus for the young should be growth. Hedging your investments with gold might be a good strategy for someone who is worried about the volatility of other investments, but I would imagine that gold will only reduce your returns compared to small-cap stocks, for example. If you are looking for more risk, you can leverage some of your money and buy call options to increase the gains with upward market moves.",
"\"If the \"\"crash\"\" you worry about is a dissolution of the euro, then the main thing you should concern yourself with is liquidity. For that, purchase the most highly liquid gold ETF or futures contract, whichever is more appropriate for the total amount of money involved. Any other way and you will lose a significant chunk of your assets to transaction costs. If, on the other hand, the \"\"crash\"\" you were concerned about were the total collapse of the world economy, and people around the world abandon all paper currencies and resort to barter as a method of trade, then I can see buying several small pieces being a rational strategy, although then I would also question whether you were a sane individual.\"",
"\"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (\"\"In 2010 GBP\"\" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation\"",
"Start with putting money in gold coin bullion: If you are a beginner, make certain you start things with putting money in gold coin bullion . They are very simple to go with including have very minimum quantity of risk involved . After you buy gold bullion or gold coins you will get the same from any delivery company.",
"Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.",
"Bad question. Even people choosing a 401k strategy have to choose risk over reward. But looking at this simply, if you take a 10 year chart of Gold, you will not find any other stock or commodity that could have been invested in that would have provided you with the same results with as little volatility over this time period. http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au3650nys.gif",
"Reddit doesn't have a ton of resources to offer you as you learn about where to invest, you want to start reading up on actual investing sites. You might start with Motley Fool, StockTwits, Seeking Alpha, Marketwatch, etc. I agree with hipster's take, if all countries are going to keep printing money and expanding their debts and craziness, gold has a bright future. Land, petroleum, commodities, and precious metals have an intrinsic worth that will still be there regardless of what currencies are doing, versus bonds which are merely promises to pay, which will be paid off in devalued money, or stocks which are just promises of future earnings. Think about spreading your risk in a few different places, one chunk here, one chunk there. Some people in the US now are big on dividend paying stocks in lieu of bonds which only pay a percent, which is negative return after inflation. Some people buy 'royalty trust' units, which throw off income from oil leases as dividends. You might want to park a portion in a different currency, but dollar funds aren't going to pay interest and Switzerland plans to keep devaluing its currency as people keep bidding the price up. I don't know if you are allowed to buy CEF, a bullion-backed fund out of Canada in your country, but that's one way to own gold & silver. But with the instability out there, you might prefer a bit of the real thing stashed in a safe place. Or if you have a bit of family land, maybe just be sure you can pay the taxes to keep it; or pursue any other way to own 'real stuff' that will still be worth something after all hell breaks loose.",
"Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.",
"\"I think you have a really good idea, kudos to it. It will be difficult to break eve, and while you stressed the fact that you are ready to part with this money, it would be interesting for you not to part with this money just for the sake of trading. You will be frustrated because you are \"\"winning\"\" and breaking even or even losing money in the process. Think about that. For somebody with limited experience the derivatives market carries a very high risk also as everything in this matters carries high or very high yield. Trading futures on margin can actually work but I think you will need a bit more money. Check the mini contracts of infinity futures and calculate the commissions. You will be paying more for a contract, yes. you will need more money for your maintenance margin, yes, but if you day-trade and you have a cheapo broker this will be substantially lower. Gold contracts pay about 10 to 1 so a mini contract of 33 ounces will pay you 33 dollars per 1 dollar move. Your commissions will be about 4/5 usd in a discount broker and you will need to pay some exchange house fees, maybe about 15% of your trade will be fees. Check the contract specs and costs. As somebody said before, they wouldn't recommend trading on margin but with an account of that side I wouldn't know anything else. Trading physical gold on margin could also be an option. Just my 2 cents.\"",
"A lot of people probably don't agree with him, but Warren Buffett has some great quotes on why he doesn't invest in gold: I will say this about gold. If you took all the gold in the world, it would roughly make a cube 67 feet on a side…Now for that same cube of gold, it would be worth at today’s market prices about $7 trillion dollars – that’s probably about a third of the value of all the stocks in the United States…For $7 trillion dollars…you could have all the farmland in the United States, you could have about seven Exxon Mobils, and you could have a trillion dollars of walking-around money…And if you offered me the choice of looking at some 67 foot cube of gold and looking at it all day, and you know me touching it and fondling it occasionally…Call me crazy, but I’ll take the farmland and the Exxon Mobils. And his classic quote: [Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.",
"\"This type of account will sell you just enough rope to hang yourself. Gold is at $1400 or so. Were you around when it first hit $800 in '79/'80? I was. No one was saying \"\"sell\"\" only forecasts of $2000. If you bought and held, you've still not broken even to inflation let alone simple market returns.\"",
"\"You don't need to use a real stock like GLD. You can just create a \"\"stock\"\" called something like \"\"1 oz Gold\"\" and buy and sell them as if they were shares. It won't auto-update the price like GLD, but that's not a big deal to update manually once a month or so. I prefer to have accurate data that is correct at a particular point in time to having data that is 2-3% off, or that requires entering the ounces as 10x reality. YMMV. This is very similar to how you track US Savings Bonds in Quicken (and might be described in the help under that topic.)\"",
"Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.",
"I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.",
"Series I Savings Bonds would be another option that have part of their return indexed to inflation though currently they are yielding 1.64% through April 30, 2016 though some may question how well is that 3% you quote as an inflation rate. From the first link: Series I savings bonds are a low-risk savings product. While you own them they earn interest and protect you from inflation. You may purchase electronic I bonds via TreasuryDirect or paper I bonds with your IRS tax refund. As a TreasuryDirect account holder, you can purchase, manage, and redeem I bonds directly from your web browser. TIPS vs I Bonds if you want to compare these products that are rather safe in terms of avoiding a nominal loss. This would be where a portion of the funds could go, not all of them at once.",
"This. Why not convert the 50k euro to dollars and AUD, and invest in a basket of companies that trade on American/Australian exchanges instead. You could hold a bit of gold, but I would definitely not put everything into gold.",
"Diversify, diversify, diversify. Gold, USD, Swiss Franc and one thing that hasn't really been mentioned yet: equities. Yes, they may go down if the recession gets worse but at the end of the day you have a claim to a company. That's a physical asset. It's also a hedge against inflation/devaluation just like foreign currencies and precious metals. Make sure that you invest in companies that actually produce something that will always be needed though. I.e. Siemens, Novartis, Caterpillar etc. NOT the Zyngas and Facebooks of the world!",
"\"Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't assume that you know more than the market does. The probability of gold prices rising again in the near future is already \"\"priced in\"\" as it were. Unless you are privy to some reliable information that no one else knows (given that you are asking here, I'm guessing not), stay away. Invest in a globally diversified low cost portfolio of primarily stocks and bonds and don't try to predict the future. Also I would kill for a 4.5% interest rate on my savings. In the USA, 1% is on the high side of what you can get right now. What is inflation like over there?\"",
"For long periods of time a short ETF's performance will not match the negative of the long ETF, e.g. funding costs and the fact that they 'only' match daily returns will result in a suboptimal performance. If possible use other derivatives like a put on a long gold etf (fgriglesnickerseven)",
"Gold ETFs are treated different than stock ETFs, as a collectable. This makes long-term investing in gold ETFs (for one year or longer) subject to a relatively large capital gains tax (maximum rate of 28%, rather than the 15% rate that is applicable to most other long-term capital gains). Read The Gold Showdown: ETFs Vs. Futures for more details.",
"Putting the money in a bank savings account is a reasonably safe investment. Anything other than that will come with additional risk of various kinds. (That's right; not even a bank account is completely free of risk. Neither is withdrawing cash and storing it somewhere yourself.) And I don't know which country you are from, but you will certainly have access to your country's government bonds and the likes. You may also have access to mutual funds which invest in other countries' government bonds (bond or money-market funds). The question you need to ask yourself really is twofold. One, for how long do you intend to keep the money invested? (Shorter term investing should involve lower risk.) Two, what amount of risk (specifically, price volatility) are you willing to accept? The answers to those questions will determine which asset class(es) are appropriate in your particular case. Beyond that, you need to make a personal call: which asset class(es) do you believe are likely to do better or less bad than others? Low risk usually comes at the price of a lower return. Higher return usually involves taking more risk (specifically price volatility in the investment vehicle) but more risk does not necessarily guarantee a higher return - you may also lose a large fraction of or even the entire capital amount. In extreme cases (leveraged investments) you might even lose more than the capital amount. Gold may be a component of a well-diversified portfolio but I certainly would not recommend putting all of one's money in it. (The same goes for any asset class; a portfolio composed exclusively of stocks is no more well-diversified than a portfolio composed exclusively of precious metals, or government bonds.) For some specifics about investing in precious metals, you may want to see Pros & cons of investing in gold vs. platinum?.",
"\"No, investing in gold is a bad idea. Gold at these prices is completely useless. There are many other precious metals that are far more useful. It seems highly unlikely you will make a large return and the downside is huge. If the world economy is stabilised gold will halve very quickly, perhaps more. A great piece of advice I have had while investing is \"\"if the shoe shine boy tells you to buy; sell\"\", i.e. when the general public think it is a good idea to invest in a certain product you have already missed the boat. You have missed the gold boat. Unfortunately most safe heavens are exhausted: chf, jpy, gold, etc. At the moment there aren't any safe places. NOK is probably your best bet but beware of intervention (see EURCHF around sep last year).\"",
"One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.",
"The only way to hedge a position is to take on a countervailing position with a higher multiplier as any counter position such as a 1:1 inverse ETF will merely cancel out the ETF it is meant to hedge yielding a negative return roughly in the amount of fees & slippage. For true risk-aversion, continually selling the shortest term available covered calls is the only free lunch. A suboptimal version, the CBOE BuyWrite Index, has outperformed its underlying with lower volatility. The second best way is to continually hedge positions with long puts, but this can become very tax-complicated since the hedged positions need to be rebalanced continually and expensive depending on option liquidity. The ideal, assuming no taxes and infinite liquidity, is to sell covered calls when implied volatility is high and buy puts when implied volatility is low.",
"How would gold have protected you during the 2007/8 crisis? In no way, shape or form. The ways to protect yourself at any time are: Boring, huh?",
"Depending on the Price of the ETF and the hedging you may well simply be guaranteed to make a small loss.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"Gold is not really an investment at all, because it doesn't generate an income. It's only worth money because people think it's worth money (it has some industrial uses, but most gold is used as a store of value and not for industrial purposes), not because of its income stream.",
"See the following information: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Treasury_Inflation_Protected_Security You can buy individual bonds or you can purchase many of them together as a mutual fund or ETF. These bonds are designed to keep pace with inflation. Buying individual inflation-protected US government bonds is about as safe as you can get in the investment world. The mutual fund or ETF approach exposes you to interest rate risk - the fund's value can (and sometimes does) drop. Its value can also increase if interest rates fall.",
"Another answer to this question occurred to me as I started learning more about historical uses for gold etc. Perhaps it's a crackpot idea, but I'm going to float it anyway to see what you folks think. Investing in Gold is an indirect investment in the Economy and GDP of the nation of India. To that extent is it only a hedge against inflation, so long as the indian economy grows at a more rapid rate than your local inflation rate. Fact, India currently consumes more than 1/3 of gold production, predominantly in the form of Jewelry. And their demand has been growing rapidly, up 69% just between 2009 and 2010 alone. I can't find too many historial consumption numbers for India, but when you look at past articles on this subject, you see phrases like 'one forth' and '20%' being used only a few years go to describe India's consumption levels. Fact, India has virtually no domestic sources of gold. India’s handful of gold mines produce about 2.5 tonnes of the metal each year, a fraction of the country’s annual consumption of about 800 tonnes. Fact. Indian Culture places high value on gold as a visible demonstration of wealth. Particularly in situations such In Indian weddings where the bride brings in gold to show her family's status and wealth and it forms part of the dowry given to bride. It is believed that a bride wearing 24k gold on their wedding to bring luck and happiness throughout the married life. Fact, the recent trends in outsourcing, Indian citizens working abroad sending money home, etc have all lead to a influx of foreign cash to the Indian economy and explosive GDP growth. See the following chart and compare the period of 2000-current with a chart showing the price of gold in other answer here. Notice how the curves parallel each other to a large degree Potentially unfounded conclusion drawn from above numbers. The rapid growth of the Indian economy, coupled with a rich cultural tradition that values gold as a symbol of wealth, along with a sudden rise in 'wealthy' people due to the economy and influx of foreign cash, has resulted in skyrocketing demand for gold from India, and this large 'consumption' demand is the most likely explanation for the sudden rise in the price of gold over the last several years. Investors then jump on the 'rising price bandwagon' as especially does anyone that can make a profit from selling gold to those seeking to get on said bandwagon. As such, as long as indian cultural tradition remains unchanged, and their economy remains strong, the resulting increasing demand for gold will sustain current and perhaps increased prices. Should there be any sudden collapse in the Indian GDP, gold will likely tumble in parallel. disclaimer: not an expert, just observations based off the data I've seen, there may be other parts to the picture of 'gold demand' that I've not considered.",
"Regarding investing in gold vs. stocks, I don't think I could say it better than Warren Buffett: You could take all the gold that's ever been mined, and it would fill a cube 67 feet in each direction. For what that's worth at current gold prices, you could buy all -- not some -- all of the farmland in the United States. Plus, you could buy 10 Exxon Mobils, plus have $1 trillion of walking-around money. Or you could have a big cube of metal. Which would you take? Which is going to produce more value?",
"Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:",
"First is storage which is a big and a detrimental headache. Security is another big headache. Investing in precious metal has always been an investment opportunity in the countries in the east i.e. India and China because of cultural reason and due to absence of investment opportunities for the less fortunate ones. It isn't the case so in the West. Secondly what is the right an opportune moment is open to question. When the worlwide economy is up and running, that is probably the time to buy i.e. people would like to put money in use rather than store. The saying goes the other way when the economy is stagnating. Then there is also the case of waiting out the bad periods to sell your gold and silver. If you do want to buy precious metals then use a service like BullionVault, rather than doing those yourself. It takes care of the 2 big headaches, I mentioned earlier.",
"I'd say neither. Index Funds mimic whatever index. Some stocks that are in the index are good investment opportunities, others not so much. I'm guessing the Bond Index Funds do the same. As for Gold... did you notice how much gold has risen lately? Do you think it will keep on rising like that? For which period? (Hint: if your timespan is less than 10 years, you really shouldn't invest). Investing is about buying low, and selling high. Gold is high, don't touch it. If you want to invest in funds, look at 4 or 5 star Morningstar rated funds. My advisors suggest Threadneedle (Lux) US Equities DU - LU0096364046 with a 4 star rating as the best American fund at this time. However, they are not favoring American stocks at this moment... so maybe you should stay away from the US for now. Have you looked at the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries?",
"There are two basic ways you can separate your investments from the dollar (or any other currency).",
"I think your question is very difficult to answer because it involves speculation. I think the best article describing why or why not to invest in gold in a recent Motley Fool Article.",
"One option is buying physical gold. I don't know about Irish law -- but from an economic standpoint, putting funds in foreign currencies would also be an option. You could look into buying shares in an ETF tracking foreign currency as an alternative to direct money exchange.",
"\"Article summation: You may have enjoyed that 30% last year and 6% first half this year, but inflation is almost at 2% and we expect inflationary hedges and non-US-dollar investments to outperform. My response: Hahaha, what? Is he even looking at his own numbers? Since when did 2% inflation \"\"trump\"\" 6, 12, or 30% growth? He can't seriously be implying that people should run to gold...\"",
"\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"",
"\"Look at a broader diversification. Something like: For physical gold, I'd look at a mix of gold coins and bullion. Study the pricing model for coins -- you'll probably find that the spreads on small coins make them too expensive. There are a few levels of risk with storing in a vault -- the practical risk is that your government will close banks in the event of a panic, and your money will be inaccessible. You need to balance that risk with the risk to your personal security that comes with having lots of gold or cash in your home. My recommendation is to avoid wasting time on the \"\"Mad Max\"\" scenarios. If the world economy collapses into utter ruin, we're all screwed. A few gold coins won't do much for you.\"",
"When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.",
"The best advice I can give you is to ignore gold right now. You really don't and can't have all the information you would need to support an argument for shorting gold. How much fiat cash have the central banks injected into the word economy? Billions? Trillions? Tens of Trillions? Maybe not much at all as the banks repay overnight? Anyway.. Without going on a full on rant why would you touch gold on a short? I can understand speculating on long position based on all the news out there but I'd hesitate to be a contraian in this market. Just find a nice little company that makes money, has a good product and a pretty little balance sheet. It will take longer to research but fuck if I'm betting on a huge drop in gold any time soon. What reasons do you have to believe gold is headed for any significant slide?",
"\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"",
"If you were certain you would probably do best by short selling an ETF that tracked the index for the market you think was about to tank. You'd certainly make a lot more money on that strategy than precious metals. If you were feeling super confident and want to make your money earn even more, you could also buy a bunch of put options on those same ETF funds. Obligatory Warning: Short selling and options can be extremely risky. While most investments cap your potential losses to your total investment, a short sale has no theoretical limit to the amount of money you can lose.",
"\"Google \"\"forex broker\"\" and find one of the thousands that allows you to trade on Gold futures. Then use one of them to short Gold... just watch your leverage. I would certainly wait before you're shorting gold. Why tie up capital in a bubble that you think will burst in the next few years. Wait for the price to increase and monitor for actual signs of the bubble bursting. Right now with the Euro possibly collapsing shorting gold probably isn't your best bet.\"",
"My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)"
] |
[
"\"GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front. Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the \"\"regular person.\"\" Hope it helps!\"",
"Since GLD is priced as 1/10 oz of gold, I'd call it the preferred way to buy if that's your desire. I believe gold is entering classic bubble territory. Caveat emptor. A comment brought me back to this question. My answer still applies, the ETF the best way to buy gold at the lowest transaction cost. The day I posted and expressed my 'bubble' concern, gold was $1746. Today, nearly 5 years later, it's $1350, a drop of 23%, plus an additional 2% of accumulated expenses. Note, GLD has a .4% annual expense. On the other hand, the S&P is up 80% from that time. In other words, $10K invested that day would be worth less than $7,700 had it been invested in gold, and $18,000 in stock. It would take a market crash, gold soaring or some combination of the two for gold to have been the right choice then. No one can predict short term movement of either the market or metals, my answer here wasn't prescient, just lucky.",
"\"Definitely look at CEF. They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company. They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a \"\"bar of gold\"\". Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold \"\"stock\"\" and a pure silver \"\"stock\"\", but these often trade at higher premiums. CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%. I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount. Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately. You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page: http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm\"",
"\"Investing in gold without having physical gold is not really a hedge against inflation. GLD is really more for speculation, not protection against serious inflation. If there is any kind of inflation worth really protecting yourself against then one thing you will notice at its onset is a divergence in the price of physical and GLD; with GLD offering very little protection if any against inflation. Ultimately holders of GLD will demand physical metal and the physical price will rise and the paper price will fall. I would advise you to study physical gold before you purchase GLD for that reason. EDIT: Just adding this to my answer - I don't know why I didn't put it in before, and I hasten to add that I'm not an expert though a little investigation will show you that this is at least one option for owning gold. If you think of having the physical gold yourself at one end of the spectrum and buying GLD at the other; so that you don't need to take physical delivery, there is another scenario which I understand is in between (and sorry I don't actually know what it's referred to as) but it's where you buy the physical gold but instead of taking delivery the bars are stored for you in a vault - these bars are numbered and you actually own what you have paid for and theoretically you could go and visit your gold and actually remove it because it's your gold - as opposed to having paper GLD which in my understanding is a \"\"right to take physical delivery\"\" of gold - and this is slightly different - of course unlike GLD you actually have to pay a storage fee and of course unlike having the physical gold buried in your garden or something you are not entirely secure against say a robbery of the vault, and you are also depending on the company not to sell the same bar to more than one person - but that's the only think that their reputation is built on, and a company like that would live or die by the reputation - ( and of course you might lose the proverbial gold buried in the garden either, so nothing's 100% secure anyway really )\""
] |
8013
|
Frequency of investments to maximise returns (and minimise fees)
|
[
"496159",
"224231"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"304398",
"48678",
"144349",
"254910",
"278607",
"176335",
"402633",
"24846",
"53100",
"537626",
"268772",
"446948",
"549364",
"496159",
"186538",
"49930",
"234039",
"397976",
"138954",
"384983",
"384893",
"215296",
"117634",
"582697",
"376967",
"103622",
"263784",
"363919",
"123880",
"244524",
"296426",
"404261",
"224231",
"543223",
"598478",
"81652",
"412965",
"536841",
"568978",
"34241",
"250530",
"323067",
"488651",
"548467",
"325426",
"41905",
"583549",
"233717",
"464381",
"444008",
"272021",
"255252",
"504032",
"377659",
"234979",
"410461",
"277",
"57033",
"201495",
"447567",
"58186",
"493010",
"100341",
"61593",
"122679",
"36284",
"253028",
"590218",
"153178",
"83807",
"242556",
"331492",
"341699",
"354291",
"82194",
"577832",
"596537",
"533549",
"469519",
"329466",
"48566",
"264820",
"272486",
"341481",
"377186",
"535737",
"25671",
"301477",
"224782",
"16175",
"124230",
"155242",
"568624",
"120266",
"227542",
"18532",
"307424",
"332064",
"575929",
"560497"
] |
[
"Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.",
"By not timing the market and being a passive investor, the best time to invest is the moment you have extra money (usually when wages are received). The market trends up. $10 fee on $2000 represents 0.5% transaction cost, which is borderline prohibitive. I would suggest running simulations, but I suspect that 1 month is the best because average historical monthly total return is more than 0.5%.",
"Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.",
"Note, the main trade off here is the costs of holding cash rather than being invested for a few months vs trading costs from trading every month. Let's start by understanding investing every month vs every three months. First compare holding cash for two months (at ~0% for most Canadians right now) and then investing on the third month vs being invested in a single stock etf (~5% annually?). At those rates she is forgoing equity returns of around These costs and the $10 for one big trade give total costs of $16+$8+$10=$34 dollars. If you were to trade every month instead there would be no cost for not being invested and the trading costs over three months would just be 3*$10=$30. So in this case it would be better to trade monthly instead of every three months. However, I'm guessing you don't trade all $2000 into a single etf. The more etfs you trade the more trading more infrequently would be an advantage. You can redo the above calculations spliting the amount across more etfs and including the added trading costs to get a feel for what is best. You can also rotate as @Jason suggests but that can leave you unbalanced temporarily if not done carefully. A second option would be to find a discount broker that allows you to trade the etfs you are interested in for free. This is not always possible but often will be for those investing in index funds. For instance I trade every month and have no brokerage costs. Dollar cost averaging and value averaging are for people investing a single large amount instead of regular monthly amounts. Unless the initial amount is much much larger than the monthly amounts this is probably not worth considering. Edit: Hopefully the above edits will clarify that I was comparing the costs (including the forgone returns) of trading every 3 months vs trading every month.",
"To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.",
"\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \"\"core\"\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \"\"satellite\"\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\"",
"Securities (things you can buy on the stock market) that pay dividends usually pay every quarter (every three months), but some pay every month. (For example: PGF pays dividends each month.) IF you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you will be compounding your return. I use the feature at Scottrade to automatically reinvest the dividend each month. Using this feature at Scottrade incurs no commission for the purchases of the stock from the dividend. (saving on commissions and fees is, likely, the most important aspect of investing). US Treasuries (usually) pay interest twice a year. There is no commission when using Treasury Direct.",
"\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"",
"\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \"\"want\"\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\"",
"If markets are efficient (which they aren't, but anyways...), the frequency of DCA investments shouldn't yield any meaningful difference in return. The one possible item to note is that if you're able to invest more frequently, you'll have more money exposed to the effects of compounding for longer, which *may* increase return. However, there are also transaction costs to consider, which may render something like *continuous* DCA-ing ineffective. That same compounding effect also negates the potential benefits of DCA altogether, making it more logical to lump sum your investments. You may be conflating DCA with simply making additional cash every week that's available for investment. If that's the case, again, lump sum as early as possible should yield the best results... (this isn't financial advice, read the sidebar disclaimers)",
"I'm staring at this chart and asking myself, How long a period is enough to have an average I'd be happy with regardless of the direction the market goes? 3 years? 4 years? Clearly, a lump sum investment risks a 2000 buy at 1500. Not good. Honestly, I love the question, and find it interesting, but there's likely no exact answer, just some back and forth analysis. You're investing about $40K/yr anyway. I'd suggest a 4 year timeframe is a good time to invest the new money as well. Other folk want to offer opinions? Edit - with the OP's additional info, he expects these bonuses to continue, my updated advice is to DCA quarterly if going into assets with a transaction fee or monthly if into a no-fee fund, over just a one year period.",
"Powers makes a good point: trading costs may eat up a significant portion of your ROI. A fee as little as 2% can consume more than 50% of your long-term ROI! A rule of thumb is keep your fees to less than 1%. One way to do that is to buy stock in companies that have a DRIP with a Share Purchase Plan (SPP). Often the SPP allows investors to purchase shares for low fees or free. Once you have the ability to purchase shares for (virtually) free, you can use InvestMete. Roughly, you send more money to the companies whose share prices are near their 52-week low, and less money to those who are near their 52-week high. Getting back to your original question...",
"\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\"",
"Okay, I think I managed to find the precise answer to this problem! It involves solving a non-linear exponential equation, but I also found a good approximate solution using the truncated Taylor series. See below for a spreadsheet you can use. Let's start by defining the growth factors per period, for money in the bank and money invested: Now, let S be the amount ready to be invested after n+1 periods; so the first of that money has earned interest for n periods. That is, The key step to solve the problem was to fix the total number of periods considered. So let's introduce a new variable: t = the total number of time periods elapsed So if money is ready to invest every n+1 periods, there will be t/(n+1) separate investments, and the future value of the investments will be: This formula is exact in the case of integer t and n, and a good approximation when t and n are not integers. Substituting S, we get the version of the formula which explicitly depends on n: Fortunately, only a couple of terms in FV depend on n, so we can find the derivative after some effort: Equating the derivative to zero, we can remove the denominator, and assuming t is greater than zero, we can divide by the constant ( 1-G t ): To simplify the equation, we can define some extra constants: Then, we can define a function f(n) and write the equation as: Note that α, β, γ, G, and R are all constant. From here there are two options: Use Newton's method or another numerical method for finding the positive root of f(n). This can be done in a number of software packages like MATLAB, Octave, etc, or by using a graphics calculator. Solve approximately using a truncated Taylor series polynomial. I will use this method here. The Taylor series of f(n), centred around n=0, is: Truncating the series to the first three terms, we get a quadratic polynomial (with constant coefficients): Using R, G, α, β and γ defined above, let c0, c1 and c2 be the coefficients of the truncated Taylor series for f(n): Then, n should be rounded to the nearest whole number. To be certain, check the values above and below n using the formula for FV. Using the example from the question: For example, I might put aside $100 every week to invest into a stock with an expected growth of 9% p.a., but brokerage fees are $10/trade. For how many weeks should I accumulate the $100 before investing, if I can put it in my high-interest bank account at 4% p.a. until then? Using Newton's method to find roots of f(n) above, we get n = 14.004. Using the closed-form approximate solution, we get n = 14.082. Checking this against the FV with t = 1680 (evenly divisible by each n + 1 tested): Therefore, you should wait for n = 14 periods, keeping that money in the bank, investing it together with the money in the next period (so you will make an investment every 14 + 1 = 15 weeks.) Here's one way to implement the above solution with a spreadsheet. StackExchange doesn't allow tables in their syntax at this time, so I'll show a screenshot of the formulae and columns you can copy and paste: Formulae: Copy and paste column A: Copy and paste column B: Results: Remember, n is the number of periods to accumulate money in the bank. So you will want to invest every n+1 weeks; in this case, every 15 weeks.",
"\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \"\"time the market\"\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \"\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\"\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\"\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\"\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \"\"good old days\"\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\"",
"I'm going to assume that you want to be invested all the time and each trade consists in selling a security and buying another one (similar to your example). How much commissions you are willing to pay depends on several factors, but one way to think about it is as follows. You have a position in stock A and you want to switch to stock B because you think it will perform better. If you think there's a good chance (>50%) that B will outperform A by more than x% then you can happily pay up to x/2% commissions and still make money over a long time horizon. If you like formulae, one way to express it is: Where: Example: if you tend to be right 51% of the time (hit rate), and gain 110% more than you lose on average (win loss ratio), you can see that your expected profit is: 5.1% - commissions, so you could pay 2.5% commissions on entering and closing the position and still make money*. Unfortunately, common sense, statistics and numerous studies tell us a sad truth: on average, people have a hit rate of 50% and a win/loss ratio of 100%. Which means that their expected profit per trade is 0% - commission. Based on that crude observation - unless you can prove to yourself that you are better than average - you should aim at reducing commissions paid to your broker as much as possible through: * 51% and 110% are not random numbers, they correspond to the results of the top 15% (professional) managers in a research paper using a sample of 215 funds managing $150bn.",
"Assuming you have no new cash to add to your account as gyurisc has suggested, I wouldn't sweat the small amounts – it doesn't hurt to have a little cash sit idle, even if you want to theoretically be fully invested (the wisdom of doing that, or not, perhaps worthy of another question :-) If you try too hard to invest the small amounts frequently, you're likely to get killed on fees. My strategy (if you could call it that) is to simply let small amounts accumulate until there's enough to buy more shares without paying too much commission. For instance, I don't like fees to be more than 1% of the shares purchased, so with a $10 commission per trade, I prefer to make minimum $1000 purchases. I used to roll small amounts of cash into a no-load money market fund I could buy without commission, and then purchase shares when I hit the threshold, but even putting the cash in a money market fund isn't worth the hassle today with rates of return from money market funds being close to zero.",
"You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.",
"\"Plenty! Following are just a few: For things like RESP and RRSP which have an \"\"end\"\" date; as you or your children age, you should be migrating to less speculative investments and more secure ones. When children are young, for example, you might be in a \"\"growth\"\" type fund. Later on, you would likely want to switch that to an \"\"income\"\" fund, which is also more conservative and less likely to lose principal. Are you getting the best benefit from your credit cards? Is there another card with benefits that you would get more \"\"back\"\" from using? Is that fee-based Air miles card worth it? Is cash-back better for you? If you have regular investment withdrawals, can you increase them? Do you like the plan they are going in to? Similarly look over any other long-term debt repayment. Student loans, car loans, mortgage. What is coming up this year, what is \"\"ending\"\". If, for example, car payment will end, how will you earmark that money, so it just does not disappear into general funds. While you could go over things like these more often, once a year should be plenty often to keep tabs and not obsess. Good Luck!\"",
"\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"",
"The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.",
"If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.",
"Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here. The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions. That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc. A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees.",
"This depends on the terms and conditions of your IRA account, and those of the investments you have chosen. In general, you are better off investing as quickly as is feasible given those terms. Money in your cash account doesn't earn much of a return, so the quicker you get money into something earning a return, the better. However, pay attention to the fees and costs associated with investing. If there is a per-transaction fee, you may want to consolidate, as it may be more efficient to do so - after all, if you contribute $500 at a shot, and it costs you $5 to make a trade, you're paying 1% off the top to make that trade if you make 11 of them, versus 0.1% to make 1, so the question is do you earn that 1% back over the course of the six months? That will depend on what you are investing in. More than likely you're going to earn more than 1% over the course of the six months, so it's probably worth investing it in pieces still in that situation, but if the transaction cost is higher, or the time differential lower, you may have a less clear-cut answer. I invest at Vanguard in their funds and have no transaction fees, so I have a more obvious answer (invest as soon as possible). You also need to consider whether you have minimums to pay attention to - maybe your investment is something you can only buy whole shares of, for example, or you might have a much higher fee if you make small transactions. In that case, you should wait until you have the minimum to make that transaction if the fee is more than the return you'll get. So the answer is - make the transactions as early as you can, subject to considering the fees you will pay for making them.",
"That depends whether you're betting on the market going up, or down, during the year. If you don't like to bet (and I don't), you can take advantage of dollar cost averaging by splitting it up into smaller contributions throughout the year.",
"If you know with 100% certainty what the market will do, then invest it all at the best time. If not, spread it out over time to avoid investing it all at the worst possible time.",
"I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds.",
"I buy or sell a few shares whenever I have a small amount of money to transfer into out of my mutual funds. Since I'm not paying transaction fees, there is no reason not to, when that is what makes sense. If you are paying a fee for each transaction, of course it makes sense to try to wait until you have a larger amount to move so the overhead per share is lower.",
"The two biggest issues that impact your question I would say are diversification and fees. If you have $10,000 to invest and only invest it in two securities, then a 20% drop in one security can have you lose 10% of your initial investment which I would consider a very high risk scenario. If you have $10,000 to invest and invest it in 20 securities, then a 20% drop in one security would only cause you to lose 1% of your initial investment. So far this is looking better from a diversification point of view. But then the issue of fees comes in. If you paid $10 per trade to buy those 20 securities you already spent 2% of your initial investment in fees! Not to mention you will pay at least another $200 to get out of all those positions. No right answer - but those are the two factors I always try to balance.",
"Daily > Weekly > Monthly. This statement says that if you use daily returns you will get more noise than if you used weekly or monthly returns. Much of the research performed uses monthly returns, although weekly returns have been used as well. For HFT you would need to detrend the data in order to spot true turning points.",
"It's important to remember that upward trending things spend the vast majority of their time at all time highs - intelligent, well meaning people have been regularly saying the Dow Jones has been too expensive since about 2010, often because it was now at 'all time highs': Sitting on the sidelines can end up just as expensive (if not more so) than avoiding big drops. If you are worried about a large down swing straight after investing just drip it in over a period you feel comfortable with - no one can really answer this better than that without more info on your risk tolerance and exactly what you want to invest in. Worth noting that buying anything other than transaction free funds when split into small transactions also adds a lot more fees (~£10 entry and exit in a UK ISA for example). Split these over 12 months say, and it will cost you £240 straight out of the gate (2 fund purchases per month for 12 months @£10 each) and another £240 to exit before any holding fees from the ISA platform: that's over 1% of your capital gone just to your stockbroker employing this strategy. Both the products you mention are also quite high cost in ongoing charges, so unless you have very high convictions about the management quality, will also probably lag cheaper investment types over the long run as well due to the dire performance of virtually all higher cost, active management over time.",
"The fee representing the expense ratio is charged as long as you hold the investment. It is deducted daily from the fund assets, and thus reduces the price per share (NAV per share) that is calculated each day after the markets close. The investment fee is charged only when you make an investment in the fund. So, invest in the fund in one swell foop (all $5500 or $6500 for older people, all invested in a single transaction) rather than make monthly investments into the fund (hold the money in a money-market within your Roth IRA if need be). But, do check if there are back-end loads or 12b1 fees associated with the fund. The former often disappear after a few years; the latter are another permanent drain on performance. Also, please check whether reinvestment of dividends and capital gains incur the $75 transaction fee.",
"\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"",
"Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.",
"\"I up voted JoeTaxpayer but i would like add a couple of things. Dollar Cost averaging over a 5 day period is in no way practical. If you get a 1% swing in that time that would be quite a lot. Personally I think 5 years is way to long. When markets go down they go down fast. I would suggest 1 to 2 years investing quarterly. I would hate seeing you miss out on market gains for a 5 year period on the last of your money. The whole point of Dollar Cost averaging instead of market timing is the mantra \"\"Its about time in the market not timing the market\"\" So if you have money on the sidelines for years you are missing out on your time in the market.\"",
"In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.",
"Although the market discussion by other answers is correct, the tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy. However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way. If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction.",
"The goal of the kelly criterion strategy is to find a balance between preservation of starting capital and returns. One of extreme you could bet the entirety of your account on one trade, which would maximize your returns if you win, but leave you unable to further invest if you lose. On the other extreme, you could bet the smallest amount of capital possible over the course of several trades to increase the probability that you'll even out to 70% accuracy over time. But this method would be extremely slow. So for your case, investing 40% each time is one way to find an optimal balance between these two extremes. Use this as a rule of thumb though, because your own situation and investing goals may differ from the goal of optimal growth.",
"First off, I think you are on the right path not paying 3% to a broker; that sort of fee reduces the money you earn significantly in the long term. For your fund investing approach, 10 funds seems like a lot; one of the point of funds is that they are diversified, so I would expect that the 10th fund would give relatively little diversification over the other 9. I would think about targeting only 5 funds. To invest in the funds, rather than trying to invest in all funds every month, put all of the money into a single fund, and rotate the fund month to month. That reduces your transaction costs significantly.",
"\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \"\"quiesced\"\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \"\"wash sales\"\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\"",
"Canadian Couch Potato has an article which is somewhat related. Ask the Spud: Can You Time the Markets? The argument roughly boils down to the following: That said, I didn't follow the advice. I inherited a sum of money, more than I had dealt with before, and I did not feel I was emotionally capable of immediately dumping it into my portfolio (Canadian stocks, US stocks, world stocks, Canadian bonds, all passive indexed mutual funds), and so I decided to add the money into my portfolio over the course of a year, twice a month. The money that I had not yet invested, I put into a money market account. That worked for me because I was purchasing mutual funds with no transaction costs. If you are buying ETFs, this strategy makes less sense. In hindsight, this was not financially prudent; I'd have been financially better off to buy all the mutual funds right at the beginning. But I was satisfied with the tradeoff, knowing that I did not have hindsight and I would have been emotionally hurt had the stock market crashed. There must be research that would prove, based on past performance, the statistically optimal time frame for dollar-cost averaging. However, I strongly suppose that the time frame is rather small, and so I would advise that you either invest the money immediately, or dollar-cost average your investment over the course of the year. This answer is not an ideal answer to your question because it is lacking such a citation.",
"As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.",
"It varies. Depending on your brokerage, they may charge you per transaction, so the more transactions, the higher the cost. Though this (from what I've seen), is uncommon with many index funds. In terms of how aggressive you want to be with your investment varies on your comfort with risk, timeline of investment and many other factors beyond the scope of this question. The biggest issue you may need to be aware of is if you are looking at mutual funds, they may have minimum investments. Depending on what that minimum investment is set to, you may not be able to split your $5500 into more than one fund. A lot of this comes down to the specific funds in which your are anticipating investing, as well as the service you use to do so (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc). Ultimately, diversification can be a lot safer, but there are logistics to consider. Personally, I began with a target fund (a mutual fund with adjusted risk based on the estimated year of retirement) and add additional mutual funds, stocks and ETFs as time goes on.",
"\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \"\"invest in knowledge\"\".\"",
"\"Previously (prior to Capital One acquisition -- it's kind of like K-Mart buying Sears) Sharebuilder offered 12 automatic (i.e. pre-scheduled) stock purchases per month if you subscribed to their $12/mo \"\"Advantage\"\" plan. So, 12 trades for $1 a trade. Great deal. Except then they flattened their pricing to everyone's acclaim (that is, everyone except for the non-millionaire casual investors) and jacked it up to $4 per automatic investment. As far as I know, Sharebuilder's 12 no-fee investments for $12/mo was rather unique in the online trading world -- and now it's very sadly extinct. They do have no-fee mutual fund investing, however, for what it's worth.\"",
"Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.",
"Katherine from Betterment here. I wanted to address your inquiry and another comment regarding our services. I agree with JAGAnalyst - it's detrimental to your returns and potential for growth if you try to time the market. That's why Betterment offers customized asset allocation for each portfolio based on the nature of your goal, time horizon, and how much you are able to put towards your investments. We do this so regardless of what's happening in the markets, you can feel comfortable that your asset allocation plus other determining factors will get you where you need to go, without having to time your investing. We also put out quite a bit of content regarding market timing and why we think it's an unwise practice. We believe continuously depositing to your goal, especially through auto-deposits, compounding returns, tax-efficient auto-rebalancing, and reinvesting dividends are the best ways to grow your assets. Let me know if you would like additional information regarding Betterment accounts and our best practices. I am available at [email protected] and am always happy to speak about Betterment's services. Katherine Buck, Betterment Community Manager",
"I do the same thing with my 401k (100% S&P 500). My strategy is to check it weekly. If the S&P falls by 10%-20% (based on risk tolerance, currently mine is 19%). I'll move all of it out into cash until I see 3-consecutive months of gains, then I'll get back in. I don't have a lot of time to manage my investments, and this was the simplest strategy I've come up with so far. It served me very well in the 2008 crash. I got out around 120 and returned to the S&P on 2009-06-29 around 90.",
"\"In many cases the expenses are not pulled out on a specific day, so this wouldn't work. On the other hand some funds do charge an annual or quarterly fee if your investment in the fund is larger than the minimum but lower than a \"\"small balance\"\" value. Many funds will reduce or eliminate this fee if you signup for electronic forms or other electronic services. Some will also eliminate the fee if the total investment in all your funds is above a certain level. For retirement funds what you suggest could be made more complex because of annual limits. Though if you were below the limits you could decide to add the extra funds to cover those expenses as the end of the year approached.\"",
"which is a better way to structure a SIP, This is no one way better than other. SIP as you already know offers advantages in terms of averaging costs. Given that transaction costs are same, averaging daily would be better from law of averages point of view. The only flip side to doing it daily is tracking, i.e. your Bank Statement is going to look horrible, recon as to what and how much got purchased will be horrendous. Further tracking liquidity could be an issue unless you use segregated accounts. i.e. you don't know how done you are with your investments. On monthly this is more easy, once you get salary and get investments and other mandatory payments out of way, you know what you have in the account for rest of the month. In the end I would put this more of convenience than anything else.",
"Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months",
"Here are my re-run figures. Not counting capital gains taxes, I calculate you need to be making 1.875% per annum or 0.155% per month on your $8,000 investment to break-even on the loan. It's interesting that the return you need to gain to break-even is less than the interest you're paying, even with commission. It happens because the investment is gaining a return on an increasing amount while the load is accruing interest on a decreasing amount. Ref. r, logarithmic return",
"You're completely missing the most important thing you can do: minimize fees.",
"It would depend on a) Ones view on Markets and b) Ones nature. If one believes that the market would be going up in the near future then it would be best to buy all at once. If one believes the market is uncertain, it would make sense to invest over a period of time. If one is a disciplined investor and can stick to plan, it would make sense to invest over a period of time as the risk is generally less. How much less is again subjective. If one is not a disciplined investor then buying now and getting done with is a good idea. As to exactly quantifying this is absolute number for future would not be possible. One can take the data from past, however it would work advantages if the prices moves up and disadvantages if the price moves down.",
"There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation).",
"\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"",
"My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.",
"\"The high frequency trading you reference has no adverse impact on individual investors - at least not in the \"\"going to take advantage of you\"\" way that many articles imply. If anything, high-frequency trading is generally more helpful than harmful, adding liquidity to the system, although it can cause some volatility and \"\"noise\"\" in volume and other data, and the sudden entrance or exit of this type of trading can drive some abnormal market movements. As to research and time needed for trading, most data suggests that the less you try to \"\"beat the market\"\", the better you'll do. Trade activity tends to be inversely related to returns, particularly for individuals. Your best bet is likely to learn enough about investment risks to ensure you're comfortable with them, and invest in broadly diversified asset classes, regions, and sectors, and then mostly leave them alone, or rebalance annually. You'll almost surely do a lot better that way than you will if you spend countless hours researching the \"\"right\"\" stocks to buy.\"",
"You will maximize your expected wealth by investing all the money you intend to invest, as soon as you have it available. Don't let the mythos of dollar cost averaging induce you to allocate more much money to a savings account than is optimal. If you want the positive expected return of the market, don't put your money in a savings account. That's especially true now, when you are certainly earning a negative real interest rate on your savings account. Dollar cost averaging and putting all your money in at the beginning would have the same expected return except that if you put all your money in earlier, it spends more time in the market, so your expected return is higher. Your volatility is also higher (because your savings account would have very low volatility) but your preference for investment tells me that you view the expected return and volatility tradeoff of the stock market as acceptable. If you need something to help you feel less stress about investing right away, think of it as dollar cost averaging on a yearly basis instead of monthly. Further, you take take comfort in knowing that you have allocated your wealth as you can instead of letting it fizzle away in real terms in a bank account.",
"That doesn't sound like dollar cost averaging. That sounds like a form of day trading. Dollar cost averaging is how most people add money to their 401K, or how they add money to some IRA accounts. You are proposing a form of day trading.",
"Your edit indicates that you may not yet be ready to get heavily involved in investing. I say this because it seems you are not very familiar with foundational finance/investing concepts. The returns that you are seeing as 'yearly' are just the reported earnings every 12 months, which all public companies must publish. Those 'returns' are not the same as the earnings of individual investors (which will be on the basis of dividends paid by the company [which are often annual, sometimes semi-annual, and sometimes quarterly], and by selling shares purchased previously. Note that over 3 months time, investing in interest-earning investments [like bank deposits] will earn you something like 0.5%. Investing in the stock market will earn you something like 2% (but with generally higher risk than investing in something earning interest). If you expect to earn significant amounts of money in only 3 months, you will not be able to without taking on extreme levels of risk [risk as high as going to a casino]. Safe investing takes time - years. In the short term, the best thing you can do to earn money is by earning more [through a better job, or a second part-time job], or spending less [budget, pay down high interest debt, and spend less than you earn]. I highly recommend you look through this site for more budgeting questions on how to get control of your finances. If you feel that doesn't apply to you, I encourage you to do a lot more research on investing before you send your money somewhere - you could be taking on more risk than you realize, if you are not properly informed.",
"DCA is not 10%/day over 10 days. If I read the objective correctly, I'd suggest about a 5 year plan. It's difficult to avoid the issue of market timing. And any observation I'd make about the relative valuation of the market would be opinion. By this I mean, some are saying that PE/10 which Nobel prize winner Robert Schiller made well known, if not popular, shows we are pretty high. Others are suggesting the current PE is appropriate given the near zero rate of borrowing. Your income puts long term gains at zero under current tax code. Short term are at your marginal rate. I would caution not to let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The fellow that makes too many buy/sell decisions based on his taxes is likely to lag he who followed his overall allocation goals.",
"According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.",
"Sad part is that you aren't going to make meaningful gains with small account like that unless you are putting everything into one stock and trying to squeeze out 10% gains each trade. At this point, your main focus contributing money into the account regularly. You will be able to trade more frequently as you get more money into the account.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:",
"The investment return for a given strategy is directly proportional to the amount invested. Invest twice as much, profit (or lose) twice as much. It's a straight multiplier. However, there are some strategies which are less risky with a larger investment, and some investments which have a minimum unit of purchase that puts them out of reach of smaller investors.",
"Theoretically, it could be daily, but depending upon the number of companies in the index, it could be anywhere between daily or once a month or so. Apart from that, there is a periodic index review that happens once every quarter. The methodology for each index is also different, and you need to be aware of it (we had positions on literally hundreds of indices, and I knew the methodology of almost each of them). If you have say, 2 billion dollars tracking a certain index, even a miniscule change in the composition would be substantial for you. But for certain others, you may just need to buy and sell $10k worth of stocks, and we would not even bother.",
"Its best to dollar cost average adding say 5%-10% a quarter into the fund. That's what Clark Howard would suggest. Also make sure you do not need the money for 5 years, then you should be okay. Its tough to lose money if you keep your money there for a long period of time.",
"\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"",
"\"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the \"\"buy low\"\" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)\"",
"I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)",
"If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction.",
"There is no reason to ever do DCA. You'll notice that no asset managers would ever dream of it. You should invest your money as soon as you get it. Throughout history, this is the utility maximizing choice. The market rises on average. Why would you keep money out of it?",
"\"Random deposits are a bit like playing the lotery - especially if one is frequently chasing \"\"hot tips\"\". You might make it big, but the odds are vastly against you. \"\"Random\"\" deposits into various investments won't be optimal, because such \"\"random\"\" decisions will not be properly diversified and balanced. Various investments have different rates of risk and return. \"\"Random\"\" deposits will not take this into account for an individual's personal situation. In addition to needing to research individual investments as they are made, investments also need to be considered as part of a whole financial picture. A few considerations for example: Simply put, random isn't a financial strategy.\"",
"Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.",
"I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.",
"There is a basis for that if you consider the power of compounding. So, the sooner you re-invest the dividends the sooner the time will give you results (through compounding). There is also the case of the commissions, if they are paid with a percentage of the amount invested they automatically gain more from you. Just my 2cents, though the other answers are probably more complete.",
"Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively.",
"If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.",
"One implication is the added fees if you are investing in something with a trading cost or commission, such as your stock purchase. If you pay low costs to trade (e.g. with a discount broker) and don't switch your investments often, then costs overall should remain reasonable .. but always be aware of your costs and seek to minimize them.",
"\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"",
"\"Essentially, your question is \"\"lump sum vs DCA\"\" and your tags reflect that. In the long run, lump sum, say a Jan 2 deposit each year, will beat DCA by about 1/2 the average annual market return. $12,000 will see a 10% return, vs, $1,000/month over the year seeing 6%. What hurts is when the market tanks in the first half of the year and you think DCA would have helped. This is a 'feeling' issue, not a math problem. But. By the time you have $100K invested, the difference of DCA vs lump sum with new money fades, as new deposits are small compared to the funds invested. By then, you need to know your target allocation and deposit to keep that allocation with new money.\"",
"True, but the number of investors who are successful with this strategy is negligible. You are basically just trading return for volatility. A well built portfolio will be better than trying to time the market, at least historically.",
"If you want to invest in the stock market, whether over a shorter period of 1 to 2 years or over a longer period of 10 or 20 years or longer you need to take some precautions and have a written investment plan with a risk management strategy incorporated in your plan. Others have said that 1 to 2 years is too short to invest in the stock market as the stock market can have a correction and fall by 50%. But it doesn't matter if you invest for 1 year or if you invest for 50 years, the stock market can still fall by 50% just before you plan to withdraw your funds. What you need to figure out is a way to get out before the market falls by 40% to 50%. A simple way to do this is to use technical indicators to warn you when a market trend is starting to change and that it is time to get out of the market. Two simple indicators you can use on a market index are the Rate of Change (ROC) indicator and the 100 week Moving Average (MA). Below is a 10 year weekly chart of the S&P500 with these two indicators charted. They show good times to get into the market and good times to get out. If you are using the 100 week MA you would buy in when the price crosses above the MA line and sell when the price crosses below the MA line. If you are using the ROC indicator you would buy in when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. So your investment plan could be to buy an Index ETF representing the S&P500 when the ROC moves above zero and sell when it crosses below zero. You can also place a trailing stop loss of 10% to protect you in case of a sudden fall over a couple of days. You can manage your investments in as little as 10 minutes per week by checking the chart once per week and adjusting your stop loss order. If you want to progressively add to your investment each month you could check the charts and only add any new funds if both the ROC is above zero and sloping upwards. Another option for adding new funds could be if the price is above the MA and moving further away from the MA. All these rules should be incorporated into your investment plan so that you are not basing your decisions based on emotions. There are many other Technical Analysis Indicators you could also learn about to make better educated decisions about your stock market investments. However, what I have provided here is enough for anyone to test over different indexes and time frames and do their own paper trading on to gain some confidence before placing any real money on the table.",
"If your investment returns are the main variable you use to determine if your advisor is doing a good job you are using his or her services incorrectly Also, if you are using a good advisor, he or she needs to know how your investments are doing, not you. However, my thoughts are based on the idea that you can't go it alone. If you are not among the people concerned about the market, waiting for the market to go down 'so you can find a better buying opportunity', or making one of many other novice mistakes, I'm not speaking directly to you with my comments.",
"The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.",
"If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. Also, CMC Markets charges $11 commission up to $10,000 trade. This is actually quite a low fee - based on your $7,000, $22 for in and out of a position would be less than 0.32% (of course you might want to buy into more than one company - so your brokerage would be slightly higher). Still this is way lower than full service brokerage which could be $100 or more in and then again out again. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first.",
"The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.",
"\"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to \"\"sell high buy low\"\" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run).\"",
"A general rule of thumb is to avoid having more than 5% of your investments in any single stock, to avoid excessive risk; it's usually even more risky if you're talking company stock because an adverse event could result in an inferior stock price and you getting laid off. Under other circumstances, the ideal amount of company stock is probably 0%. But there are tax benefits to waiting, as you've noted, and if you're reasonably confident that the stock isn't likely to jerk around too much, and you have a high risk tolerance (i.e. lots of extra savings besides this), and you're comfortable shouldering the risk of losing some money, it might make sense to hold onto the stock for a year - but never any longer. The real risk to holding a lot of company stock doesn't depend on how often you buy it and sell it per se, but having period purchases every month should make it easier for you to ladder the funds, and regularly sell your old shares as you purchase new shares. You might also consider a stop-loss order on the stock at or near the price you purchased it at. If the stock is at $100, then you buy at $85, and then the stock drops to $85, there are no more outstanding tax benefits and it makes no sense to have it as part of your portfolio instead of any other speculative instrument - you probably get better diversification benefits with any other speculative instrument, so your risk-adjusted returns would be higher.",
"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.",
"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.",
"You shouldn't. The Dow has gained 7% annually on average since October 1915(inflation-adjusted). It has also lost 73% of its inflation-adjusted value from 1966 to 1982 meaning that it would have lost you 4.5% annually for 16 years. Furthermore, past performance is not indicative of future results. If stock markets keep performing like they have for the past 100 years, you can expect there will be a point within the next 60-or-so years your stocks will be higher in value than they were when you bought them. With funds you are paying the people managing them which means you are guaranteed to have pyramiding losses that your gains will have to offset. In your case, you are betting with no fundamental knowledge that S&P will be higher than now whenever you need the money which is not even supported by the above assumption. Dollar averaging just means you will be placing many bets which will reduce your expected losses(and your expected gains) when compared to just buying $100K worth of S&P right now. Whatever you invest in, and whatever your time-frame, don't gamble. If you can't say this company(ies) will be $X more valuable than now in X months with probability > Y, then you shouldn't be investing in it. Nobody ever made money by losing money. There are also safer investments than the stock market, like treasury bonds, even if the returns are lousy.",
"You will be hit every time, once every buy order and once every sell order. Commissions to the broker are paid every time they do something for you. This is true regardless if it is a security in which you are already invested. It is true regardless if you make or lose money. It is just as sure as death and taxes.",
"Every time you buy or sell a share for some price, somebody must have thought that that was exactly the right moment to sell or buy that share at that price (and to trade with you). Every time a trade is made, both sides think they are doing the smart thing. Most of the time, one will turn out to be wrong, the other right. Nothing in your proposed method of trading explains why you would be the side that was right more often. So they'll probably even out. Or maybe there are people in the market who actually do have a slightly better than average method, and you'll be wrong somewhat more often than right. Each trade has transaction costs. If you simply hang on to your shares, that's more or less the same as evening out good trades and bad trades, but without the transaction costs.",
"There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia. First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this. Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns. Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features",
"It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount. In either case, your calculation is far away from reality. Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice.",
"Deposit $3,500 each month in a brokerage account and invest that money across a handful of diversified index funds. Rebalance those investments every quarter. The hard part is coming up with $3,500 each month; this is where your budget comes in.",
"You're contributing 98.2% of your contributed amount (deducting 1.8%) each month and at the end of the year, deducting a flat 15 pounds. The easiest way to do this is to use a spreadsheet. But you're missing some key information. What is your expected growth rate and what is your expected inflation rate? Is this a taxable account where you deduct (for example, 35%) of the growth annually for taxes or is this a non-taxable account?"
] |
[
"Okay, I think I managed to find the precise answer to this problem! It involves solving a non-linear exponential equation, but I also found a good approximate solution using the truncated Taylor series. See below for a spreadsheet you can use. Let's start by defining the growth factors per period, for money in the bank and money invested: Now, let S be the amount ready to be invested after n+1 periods; so the first of that money has earned interest for n periods. That is, The key step to solve the problem was to fix the total number of periods considered. So let's introduce a new variable: t = the total number of time periods elapsed So if money is ready to invest every n+1 periods, there will be t/(n+1) separate investments, and the future value of the investments will be: This formula is exact in the case of integer t and n, and a good approximation when t and n are not integers. Substituting S, we get the version of the formula which explicitly depends on n: Fortunately, only a couple of terms in FV depend on n, so we can find the derivative after some effort: Equating the derivative to zero, we can remove the denominator, and assuming t is greater than zero, we can divide by the constant ( 1-G t ): To simplify the equation, we can define some extra constants: Then, we can define a function f(n) and write the equation as: Note that α, β, γ, G, and R are all constant. From here there are two options: Use Newton's method or another numerical method for finding the positive root of f(n). This can be done in a number of software packages like MATLAB, Octave, etc, or by using a graphics calculator. Solve approximately using a truncated Taylor series polynomial. I will use this method here. The Taylor series of f(n), centred around n=0, is: Truncating the series to the first three terms, we get a quadratic polynomial (with constant coefficients): Using R, G, α, β and γ defined above, let c0, c1 and c2 be the coefficients of the truncated Taylor series for f(n): Then, n should be rounded to the nearest whole number. To be certain, check the values above and below n using the formula for FV. Using the example from the question: For example, I might put aside $100 every week to invest into a stock with an expected growth of 9% p.a., but brokerage fees are $10/trade. For how many weeks should I accumulate the $100 before investing, if I can put it in my high-interest bank account at 4% p.a. until then? Using Newton's method to find roots of f(n) above, we get n = 14.004. Using the closed-form approximate solution, we get n = 14.082. Checking this against the FV with t = 1680 (evenly divisible by each n + 1 tested): Therefore, you should wait for n = 14 periods, keeping that money in the bank, investing it together with the money in the next period (so you will make an investment every 14 + 1 = 15 weeks.) Here's one way to implement the above solution with a spreadsheet. StackExchange doesn't allow tables in their syntax at this time, so I'll show a screenshot of the formulae and columns you can copy and paste: Formulae: Copy and paste column A: Copy and paste column B: Results: Remember, n is the number of periods to accumulate money in the bank. So you will want to invest every n+1 weeks; in this case, every 15 weeks.",
"\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\""
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.